The Names of God: Poetic Readings in Biblical Beginnings

T H E N A M E S of GOD This page intentionally left blank THE of NAMES GOD ‫־‬ Poetic Readings in Biblical Be...

Author: Herbert Chanan Brichto

121 downloads 889 Views 65MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

T H E N A M E S of

GOD

This page intentionally left blank

THE

of

NAMES

GOD

‫־‬

Poetic Readings in Biblical Beginnings

HERBERT C H A N A N

New York

Oxford

·

Oxford

BRICHTO

University

Press

1gg8

Oxford University Press Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Bomh:!y IWnos Ai‫·״‬, Calcutta Cape Town Dar es Salaam Delhi Florenee Hon‫׳‬: Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madras Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi Paris Singapore Taipei Tokyo 70ronr0 XVars.nv and associated companies in Berlin ibadan

Copyright © 1998 by Herschel D. Brichto Published by Oxford University Press, inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. N o part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Brichto, Herbert Chanan. The names of God : poetic readings in biblical beginnings p. cm. Companion vol, to the author's Toward a grammar of biblical poetics, 1992. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-19-510965-r j. Bible. O.T. C !enesis ( Criticism, interpretation, etc . ‫י‬. Bible. O.T. Cenesis Authorship. I. Title. BS r ·n ‫י־׳‬..!. By 1‫ך‬ ooS

12 2 106

‫ י‬.‫ו‬

‫ ז‬.3 5 7 9 8

J12 ο

6

4‫ג‬

Printed !11 the United States of America on acid-free paper

a0 s ο ^8 1

F O R

This page intentionally left blank

PREFACE

This book is a companion volume to Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics: Teiles of the Prophets, It is, in purpose and substance, by initial and continuing design, the goal and consummation of the first volume. T h e primary objective of both vol‫׳‬ urnes is not to contribute to the theoretical debate on the proper (or preferable) objectives and methodologies of literary criticism, but to enlist generally agreed‫״‬ upon poetic principles and foci of literary analysis in the interest of interpreting the text we call Scripture, or (as many would prefer) the texts that constitute Scripture. To put the matter differently: my interest is not in such differing schools as, for example, Aristotelian, the Old or New, Structuralist, Deconstructionist, or Postmodern criticism; it is, rather, to draw on the strengths of literary‫ ׳‬critical insights, whatever their derivation or provenance, to achieve such persuasive expositions of a text's meaning(s) as are designated in biblical circles by exegesis and in broader contexts by explication du texte. I suggested in Toward a Grammar that the literary analyses or explications of texts coming down to us from antiquity are of π different order in some respects than those practiced on more recent compositions. They differ, in the main, in the far greater role oi t wo factors in the criticism of ancient literature: assumptions as t o 1 he genre o i that literature (e.g., is it fiction or history, a h ;ml d i s j u n c t i o n ) or, a mcta-literary factor, judgments on the part of the criiic as to the differing capacities or inclinations oi the ancient as against the modern mind (e.g., in regard to naïveté and sophistication, literal or figurative intent). My concern with this J i b ference, which holds in respect to ancient literatures, be they the classics or those written, in cuneiform or hieroglyphic scripts, focuses primarily on Scripture. Here, as in the study of Homeric epic, inconsistencies and contradictions in a composition that has come down to us as a single work (e.g., the Iliad, the Book of Genesis) have led scholars to question long-held assumptions of single authorship; and, indeed, to raise such questions as to the existence in it of various strata owing to earlier writings or preliterate traditions, or as to whether the term author should not yield to editor or compiler for the individuals responsible for the literary corpus we have received. Further questions posed with respect to both Hebrew and Greek literary traditions are the degree of autonomy enjoyed by the ancient author or editor, and the extent to which the fetters of tradition are responsible for the literary hash that lies before us. If 1 may extend this culinary metaphor in a jocose observaHon: what is most remarkable about this hash is that for all the admitted incompatibilitv of its constituent ingredients, it continues to be trumpeted as a masterpiece by the very critics who can disentangle the egg noodles from the spaghetti in our

viii

PREFACE

pudding and even trace the motives of the chefs who introduced yoghurt into the marinara sauce, For all the similarity in the procedures of literary detectives, classicists, and bib‫־׳‬ licists in resorting to source analysis to ease if not solve the problems of repetition and inconsistency in the masterworks that afford them a living, it must be con•‫׳‬ (essed that the pretensions and accomplishments of the Homeric critics are modest, and slight in. comparison to those of their blood-brother sleuths, who ply the same or similar skills in the vineyard of the Lord called Scripture. For in this area hypotheses have become dogmas; the art of literary criticism has become a science, capable of fixing the parameters of the text's historic development; and the very notion of an overarching message or pattern of messages is undermined, if not logically precluded, in a text whose developmental history has become traceable only by virtue of the irreducible inconsistencies that are its constituents. T h e genetic or historic school of biblical criticism is, despite mounting dissatisfaction with its methods and conclusions, still the regnant one. My less than gener‫׳‬ ous characterization of this school will therefore be bitterly contested by many who began in this school as acolytes or, like myself, entered it as converts from dogmatic traditions that could not but view as subversive of faith its reading of Scripture as an evolutionary process: a process in which one may discern a march from the supers tit ions of animism and the crudities of pagan concepts, a decreasingly primitive groping via henotheism and monolatry toward a monotheism that emerges in clarity and purity only in the last stage of that process. It will be argued that the source-analytic schools do not preclude a consistent overarching view of Scripture's teaching; witness the many holistic studies of biblical ideas, values, and theology by scholars who belong to the historic-genetic school, many of whom also belong to mainstream confessions of biblical religion. While this last phenomenon is undeniable, it does not constitute a refutation oi my argument; that the logic of the developmental thrust of the genetic schools oi Scripture rules out an affirmation of Scriptures sovereign authority. T h e authority lies nor in Scripture itself, but in those critics who can separate out the true values and beliefs from the older outmoded ones that the latest Scriptural protagonists had outgrown. That iine minds and devout spirits can overlook this illogic, as well as the t m ‫ רן‬lie it substitut ion oi their own selective authority for Scriptures pervasive one, is understandable. Religionists who have themselves come to an understanding of their faiths as the ideational and theological precipitates of an evolutionary process are so conditioned as to be unperturbed by traces of such process in the texts, which they revere for being the vessels of these precipitates. A n d in abstracting these precious precipitates from the ore that they have processed, they have no problem with the slag that litters the excavated slope. N o t so, however, fundamentalist religionists. These, subscribing to any of several "literal" interpretations of the text (which is inerrant, revelation, word of God, etc.), often find it an insuperable difficulty to reject any part or element in a (or the) Scriptural text as a faithfault in the authoritative (if not authoritarian) monument built for us by the agents of G o d s revelatory will. While 1 belong to the hrst of the two religionist postures, my approach to Scriptu re is more akin to that ot the second, albeit for an altogether different, reason. My

PREFACEXill

difficulty stems from n o principle of faith, but rather from poetic considerations. I cannot conceive of any gifted author or competent editor so bound by slavishness to putative (sacred but outgrown) traditions such as would require him to remount pearls in the shells in which they were found. A n d even as I do not accept the no‫׳‬ tion that God addresses modern humans less often or less clearly t h a n in the days of my biblical forerunners, so do I not pride myself or my contemporaries on a logic or rationality, a humor or imagination, a wisdom or a talent for philosophy, that exceecls those capacities in Scriptures authors (or, for that matter, in any of antiquity's compositors). It was presumptions such as these that both contributed to and resulted from my disaffection with source-criticism as an explanation for the inconsistencies and contradictions so abundant in Scripture, and which ultimately impelled me to a poetical approach to the Bible. It was in the course of attempting to identify and classify those poetic elements c o m m o n to modern and ancient literary analysis that 1 became aware of the difference in address to which I allude at the beginning of this preface: the disproportionately greater role in respect to the interpretation of ancient literature of genre classification and assessment of conceptual capacities. As opposed to those legitimate elements of poetics that, in Toward a Grammar, I classified as foci, I found t h e purely literary element of genre and t h e meta-literary conventions as to ancient capacities or intentions to be factors in interpretation (misleading ones more often t h a n not), and of little use in textual explication. As concerns genre, the most frequent and perplexing question in regard to ancient narrative is whether it was intended to present a more or less faithful reconstruct ion of significant events, as these had occurred in real places and times past (hence, assignable to history), or a largely imaginative construction of events and personae for purposes primarily of delectation or edification (hence, assignable to /icnon). This problem, in a number of modalities, is treated in Toward a Grammar, in chapter 1 in respect to the historiographie constituents in the legendary Trojan War and the Histories of Herodotus; and in chapter 9 with regard to biblical "his‫־׳‬ tories," a discussion which, in sketchy form, anticipates the treatment in this present volume of the stories and structures in Genesis. It is of more than passing interest that b o t h dogmatic fundamentalists and genet istic scientific scholars share the presumpt ion that historiography is the intent and purpose of the biblical author(s) even in the earliest: chapters of Genesis; the former accept these accounts as revealed historic truths, while the latter find themselves in resonance with the theological truths (for example, in the parallel accounts of‫ ״‬creation) even while they are confident thai (as they come from two different authors and are highly inconsistent with one another) the texts cannot be accepted as history. A l t h o u g h the assumption of the ubiquitous historiographie intent of Scriptures authors is increasingly questioned in recent scholarship, it remains the assumption of the majority by far of scientific bihlicists, who e v e n — i n d e e d — e x t e n d this assumption to the editors who conflated the biblical text. In illustration of this 1 cite a passage that came before my eyes a few hours before I wrote these lines. It is from a review by John P. Meier, a biblicist specializing in New Testament, of Robin Lane Fox's The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible (New York Times Book Review, June 7, 1992, page 13). It is presented

XÎi PREFACE

here for its testimony as to the mind-set of biblicists at large, even when they are— like Father M e i e r — b o t h scientific academicians and devout divines: O n e may w o n d e r w h e t h e r Mr. L a n e Fox sufiieiently appreciates t h e great gulf b e t w e e n the a n c i e n t biblical mentality and our own. Especially w h e n e m p l o y i n g narrative as a vehicle for theology, many biblical writers do not seem to h a v e operated with our W e s t e r n sense oi what const it uies an intolerable c o n t r a d i c t i o n . To take but one exam‫׳‬

pie: as Mr. Lane box points oui, rhe editor of ( îenesis juxtaposed two Creation acc o u n t s in ( îenesis 1 and 2, despite what strike us as b l a t a n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n s .

While the reference to Genesis makes this quotation particularly apposite to my subject matter in this volume, the following extract from the next paragraph will provide a foil for my own poetical view and formulation, which is in opposition and contrast with the Rev. Meier's but not in adversarial rebuttal: Mr. L a n e Fox a p p a r e n t l y attributes to any o n e d e p i c t i o n of C r e a t i o n m o r e n o r m a t i v e ness and exclusivity t h a n did t h e biblical authors. I n d e e d in some cases t h e same aut h o r could compose c o n t r a d i c t o r y narratives of t h e same e v e n t back to back: Luke blithely juxtaposes a n A s c e n s i o n o n Easter e v e n i n g in Luke 24 w i t h a n A s c e n s i o n 4 0 days later in A c t s 1. In short, Mr. L a n e Fox, like some f u n d a m e n t a l i s t s , s o m e t i m e s e n gages in a n a n a c h r o n i s t i c imposition of a W e s t e r n n o t i o n of t r u t h o n a u t h o r s w h o s e t h o u g h t p a t t e r n s were markedly different f r o m ours.

Implicit in "a Western notion of truth" is that the biblical authors owned an Eastern and different notion of truth. Implicit in "anachronistic" is that the radically different notion of truth is not just a matter of East and West but of mentalities in the biblical past and our own present. This positing of a gap (apparently unbridgeable, for it is never bridged) between our mindset and that of antiquity's authors, ours in the West and theirs in the East, would—as I have argued elsewhere—preelude any attempt on our part to decipher the meanings and relate to the eommunications of the ancients. 1 If, on the other hand, we are not to ignore their writings, it is my contention that we must posit continuity rather than divergence in the mindsets of yesterday arid today and a sharing in a single notion of truth. It is just such η unity and continuity in the expressions of the human mind then and today that is affirmed and, 1 believe, convincingly demonstrated by the poetical approach. T h e poetical approach exposes the similarity in the imaginative patterns of narrative and structure deployed by artists in different times and places; it reveals how parallelism in narrative and parataxis in syntax, how narrative in the frame of the prescriptive and the prescriptive imbedded in narrative, enrich or deepen the author's message; so, also, how apparently pointless repetition, inconsistencies, and contradictions are actually significant elements in a single coherent design. Drawing on graphic and musical vocabulary we may adduce the juxtaposition of the symmetrical and the asymmetrical, the succession of assonance and dissonance, for serviceable analogies for the rhetorical craft that enlists the seemingly erratic in the interest of order, and inadvertency as a strategy to win ungrudging assent. It is a fact that the discernment of different documents or authorial hands or schools (and the subsequent chronological ordering of these strata) owes its rise to the perception ot the existence in Genesis of repetitious narratives that are in vari-

PREFACEXill

ous details inconsistent or contradictory. It is also a fact that one of the paramount inconsistencies, providing the chiet clue to the unraveling of these strands, was t h e assortment of terms or names for the Deity and his numen representatives. It is a matter oi autobiographical (and little other) interest that my dissatisfaction with the rationales offered for the alternation of Y H W H and Elohim antedates my quest for alternatives to the source-analytic explanations of the inconsistencies in the Genesis texts. Yet it was only subsequent‫ ״‬to the poetic analytic treatment of t h e narratives, and owing to that treatment, that I began to discern the literary and meta‫׳‬literary clues to the deployment of these two primary names for Deity. My original plan, therefore, was to present what is now the first, chapter, "The Names of God," at t h e end of the book. Colleagues urged me to change this plan, arguing that t h e change was almost dictated by the powerful grip of source-analytic methodology on the majority of todays biblicists, and particularly by the roots of that methodology in the names for Deity as deployed in the "documents" from Genesis 1 through Exodus 3 (or 6). Accepting this suggestion entailed a rearrangement of t h e material. Illustration of the poetic functions of one or another name had to be removed from the new introductory chapter and integrated with t h e exegetical discussions of t h e narratives in situ, and a separate recapitulation appended. W h a t I should like to impress upon my readers in regard to the argument for the "names," divided now over the introduction, the essays on the narrative, and the recapitulation, is this: By its very nature poetics is a deductive process, which is to say that it may be characterized as essentially post hoc. O n e may not (or cannot) therefore proceed from even a persuasively presented post hoc to a propter h o c conclusion; a conclusion such as would enable us to predict which of the divine name options are to be expected in a narrative featuring such-and-such a theme, or such-and-such nuances. T h e poetic argument for the names of Deity is just that, an attempt to account in a persuasive way for an authors having chosen certain options in given stories. (It does not dietäte t h e choice among options for anyone undertaking to rewrite these stories.) in short, it is not susceptible to proof any more than it constitutes a disproof of sourceanalytic explanations. Readers who find the poetic arguments for the deployment of YHWH('s angel) or Elohin1('s angel) overly subtle or simply unconvincing should feel free to reject this part of the poetic analysis, while remaining open to the general thrust of the poet ic explication. Returning now to the pervasive grip of source-analytic presumptions o n today's Bible scholarship, this p h e n o m e n o n can perhaps be best, exemplified in t h e work of a gifted young scholar whose research o n the literary structuring of Genesis leads h i m to conclude that the Documentary Hypothesis (in its sundry transmogrifications) is untenable. 'The title ot Gary A. Rendsburg^ slim but dense volu m e — f o r all t h a t not a single element in his argument is at all d e p e n d e n t on the assumption that Genesis is the final product of an editorial rather t h a n an authorial h a n d — is The Redaction of Genesis. W h a t t h e n prompts Rendsburg to follow up his verdict that "there is m u c h more uniformity and m u c h less fragmentation in t h e book of Genesis t h a n generally assumed" (page 105) with, "This does n o t mean that all of Genesis is the work ot o n e author" (page 106)? T h e answer is given in t h e continuation ot this last sentence:

XÎi

PREFACE

For there clearly remain different sources and variant traditions. The author ot 1:1-2:43 must clearly be someone different than the author of 2:413-3:24. The tradition which makes Cain a nomad in 4:12-16 is certainly at variance with the one which depicts him building a city in 4:17. In the case of the Shakespearean dramatic corpus, the recognition of the play‫׳‬ wright1? dependence on a variety of narrative, dramatic, and "historic" sources has not led critics to attribute that corpus in part or whole to the enterprise of a compiler rather than an author, (dearly the differing verdict in regard to the book of Genesis is due to the perception that the inconsistencies and contradictions within it are considerably less explicable than similar incongruities in such works as Ilarnlet, Julius Caesar, or Antorry and. Cicopa/ra. (The question as to why an editorial decision to compile inconsistent narratives should be more plausible to the critical mind than the attribution of such a vagary to an author may be more rhetorical than inquisitive.) It is therefore my expectation that Professor Rendsburg will be disposed to web c o m e — t o the extent he finds them persuasive—my poetic arguments that the larger couplet called the Creation Stories and such smaller ones as the seemingly opposed notices of Cain as nomad and city-builder are not only mutually compatible, but indeed are fit and fitted as mortise and tenon. A n d so too, I suspect, will many other researchers whose studies in Bible do not reveal too heavy an invest‫·׳‬ ment in source-critical methodology. T h e larger number of veteran biblicists, however, moored to the regnant consensus, will be less charitably disposed to a methodology that points to a judgment that the genetic approach to Scripture is a century-long detour, a detour ending in a cul-de-sac. To such colleagues and compan ion workers I would address a reminder that detours may offer finer scenic views than a direct route, that even the road that meanders into a blind alley may have contributed to a sharpening of the explorer's sight, t h a t — a s has certainly been the case in our enterprise—the search for a Northwest Passage has recruited doughty explorers who might otherwise have stayed closer to home and the safety of overgrazed pastures. I must confess for my own part that I should never have been drawn to the close study of biblical literature in its ancient literary ambience were it not for the excitement and romance of the pal‫־‬h-hlazing avenues opened for me by the historical source-critical school, h is highly unlikely that I should have committed myself to acquiring the philological tools requisite for the study of ancient Near Eastern cub lure and history but for the promise that these would provide the keys to a new and deeper understanding of the history of that ancient folk called Israel and Judah, the history that might help account for the production and preservation of that library called the Bible. I must also own my awareness of the irony that these very studies led to my dismissal of the source-critical method, and also to the conviction that "history" explains little in literature, that indeed there is hardly any other meaning to history than that which may be seen as encapsulated in literature. While I can afford to smile at myself, I may not permit the impression that I may be jeering at those colleagues whose position I have abandoned. A n d yet that impression may be almost ineluctable. The polemics of the humanistic enterprises (such as art and its criticism) arc remarkably similar to those of religion: yesterday s

PREFACE

X ill

radical, who has survived the charge of heresy to become the champion oi a new orthodoxy, will react to the new radical as a recrudescence of his old persecutor; while the new radical will be goaded into polemical formulations by the refusal of the establishment (as he sees it) to accord him a hearing. 11 is in part owing to my awareness of a polemical tone, which may be discerned in my own contesting of the source-critical approach, that wherever possible 1 cite E. A. Speiser for the standard position: my reverence for this beloved teacher and scholar of genius should preclude any imputation of disrespect. I had reference a few pages back to examples oi unbeauteous elements in three parallel fields of art: asymmetry in visual art, dissonance in music, and incongruity in literature. A n erroneous yet widely held assumption equates esthetics (the perception of beauty) with artistry (skillful achievement). O n e consequence of this equation is the attempt to distinguish between craft (rude or primitive art) on the one hand, and the fine arts on the other. T h e borrowed beauty of illuminations (as in medieval manuscripts) or printed illustrations will he separated out as excrescences to the proper poetic considerations of the literary craft. A n d it is likely that the diagrammed intricacies of a floor-plan in a detective story or the descriptions of high-technology engines in science fiction are in great measure responsible for the assignment of these genres to lower levels of literary art. Perhaps analogous to this last phenomenon is the habit of the modern mind to divide prose literature into separate and complementary sections, each section implicitly assignable to a higher or lower level of the artistic. Consider: fiction and history, the former almost nonexistent in the earliest centuries in prose form, the latter read generally for its informational content, and little attention given to such artistic considerations as the stylish elegance of Herodotus and the convoluted clumsiness of Thucydides, the flights of fancy in the former and the tediously umnsiructive details in the I at‫׳‬ ter. Consider: fiction and non-fiction, the former inclusive of short story and novel, drama and prose epic, the latter inclusive of essay, treatise, homily and tract, diaries, epistles, orations, legal opinions, chronicles and-—that most recent bestseller—the cookbook. In the case of Scripture generally, and particularly in regard to the Pentateuch, two factors have been the main contributors to its assignment to history rather than fiction and to the overlooking or slighting of its artistry. O n e is the modern and widespread notion that history has the property of truth, which fiction does not (a silly notion and one which, I believe, the authors of antiquity were too sophisticated to share). T h e other is the presence of concrete details, such as personal and geographic names, and the incorporation of such (along with notices of moral, legal, or cultic norms) into structures such as genealogies, hierarchies, and King Lists, tables of ethnic and national origins, chronologies detailing dates of birth and death for eponymous ancestors and family lines; ancestral figures being so unmemorable and for the most part so long dead as to suggest that their preservation can owe only to the historic element in that genre of mixed fiction and historiography that goes by the name legend. T h a t family trees and political rosters are not the stuff of esthetics is a proposition beyond question. A similar universal consent can probably be won for the proposition that while such lists may be de rigueur in the craft of historiography,

XÎi

PREFACE

they cannot but represent an artistic lapse on the part of a free-spirited author of fiction. A n d it is the confusion of the esthetics with the artistic that is responsible for this last, and mistaken, judgment. T h e artistry of the author of Genesis has to be judged in terms of how he deploys genealogical charts and chronologies, cultic and artifactual niceties, in the framework of narrative to achieve his overarching poetic ends. T h e problem lies not with the author of Genesis but with whoever under takes to interpret his work. If we assume that Adam and Eve were intended as historical personages, whose lives were continued in the begettings ot Seth and Cain (the line of Cain to die out before the tenth generation, the line of Seth to eventuate in every human alive today), and further, that the two lives are similarly significant as historical data, it is rather obvious that the assessment of artistic intent in the narrative will be nil. Even the finest writer on history cannot overcome the tediousness of history's dates or the sloppiness of its movements. If, on the other hand, the narratives in Genesis are essentially the product of an artistic imagination, how to account for the artistic lapse represented by these unedifying structures• My argument will be that the structures arc not artistic lapses at all, that for all their lack of beauty or grace they disclose the artistry of the author, an artistry that is easily discerned in his deployment of metaphor in narrative but which fails of appreciation when the kerygma of the narrative is supplemented, refined, or reinforced by the authors ingenious exploitation of .structures as metaphors. To treat every chapter in Genesis in the kind of detail that characterizes the exegetical essays in Toward a Grammar would require several volumes, an enterprise beyond my present ambition. T h e reader is entitled to some explanation as to the selection of some sections and the omission of others, as to why some narratives are examined with word-for-word attention and others are treated to overviews. In large part, the answer lies in an initial decision to begin at the beginning and end at a point where the biblical material itself comes to a logical rest. Thus the narratives given detailed treatment fall into two roughly even sections: chapters 1 - 1 1 , the Primeval History as it is termed by scholars; and chapters 12-22, the story of Israels early beginnings in its first ancestor Abraham, husband to Sarah and by her sire to Isaac. T h e brief compass of narrative chapters that I could thus afford to treat contains within it a correspondingly small amount of "structuring data" such as genealogies, eponyms, and chronologies. T h e interpretations that we offer for the poetical tunction of these data are more often than not quite novel, a novelty that might well be resisted the more for the lack oi mass ot the data interpreted. Hence it is that we have gone quite beyond these twenty-two chapters of Genesis, including even the hook of Exodus, to include structures w h i c h — i n their variety, ingenuity, and imaginative whimsy 1111 out the picture and strengthen our argument that these data are integral to the poetic design of the text, and are not, as geneticists would view them, historic data preserved over centuries and included by redactors to reinforce the historicity, authent icity, and literal truth of the narrative they had received. Cincinnati» Ohio ι go6

H.C.B.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ΟΝΚ /

Τ Η Η .Ν Λ Μ Κ S Ol·‫ ־‬G O D :

Till· PROBLEM:

A P R F I J M I N ARV R K V I K W

A Metaditerary Address to the Problem: Sourer-Analysis 6 An Essentially Literary Address

1 ‫ ל( ז‬he Problem: Cassuto 8

T h e Names of C o d in N o n n a r r a t i v e Texts and the "Evolution" of Biblical Monotheism

12

Excursus: O n the N a m e s ot G o d in t h e Psalter 12 O n the Evolution of Biblical M o n o t h e i s m 13 O n Terms for Divinity, C o m m o n and Proper 16 T h e names T l o h i m and Y H W H

17

Y H W H Introduces Himself by N a m e

19

T h e Patriarchs' Use of t h e N a m e Y H W H

25

T h e Solution to the Problem: A (Eiterary) Hypothesis 27

PART I S T O R I E S — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY" TWO

/

THE CREATION

STORY IN GENESIS,

CH.

1:1-2:4A

37

T h e Bearing of E7um1u elish on Genesis 1 37 T h e Genesis Creation Story: Translation

39

T h e Genesis Creation Story: C o m m e n t a r y on Days O n e to Six 41 Review of Diction in the Six Days of C r e a t i o n

47

Literalism and M e t a p h o r in Genesis 1 and Enuma elish 50 A Poetic Reading ot Enuma elish 53 Paganism and Biblical Religion Compared and Contrasted

57

Pagan and Biblical Anthropology: A Contrast 62 THREE

I

Η DK Ν A N D

E D E N Ν A ETE RM Α Τ Η

T h e Story oi Eden

72

Sexuality, Sapience, and Civilization Sexuality and Death: T h e i r Nexus W h y Musi Man D i e '

80

88

9!

T h e Eden M y t h o s Its Kerygma

94

A f t e r m a t h ot' Eden: Second G e n e r a t i o n , Second Banishment Poetical Review ot Eden vis-à-vis the C r e a t i o n Story Poetical Review el the N a m e s of G o d T h e Compound Name: YHWH‫׳‬Elohin1

103 105

100

97

3

xvi

CONTENTS

Excursus; T h e Ν on literary Approach to Cain and Abel 107 Poetical Review of Genesis 1 - 5 FOUR

/

109

T H E F L O O D S OF N O A H A N D U T N A P I S H T I M : T H E O L O G Y A N D THEOLOGY SATIRIC

O n Floods and Birds; O n Literalness and Source Analysis T h e Babylonian Flood Story

STRAIGHT

III

112

117

T h e Babylonian Flood Story as a Critique of Paganism T h e Biblical Flood Story: Text

125

126

O n the Sources or Strands in the Flood Story: A Preliminary Discussion 133 Poetical Review of the Flood Story A N o t e on the Strands

135

160

Noah's Deluge and Utnapishtim's: A Comparison FIVE

/

FROM N O A H TO A B R A M

T h e Drunkenness of N o a h

161

167

167

T h e Tower of Babel: Text and Preface r76 Mesopotamia η Connections

178

Babel in Its Biblical Setting

180

u

SIX

/

T h e Primeval 11 i s t ο r y " : An ( ‫ י‬ve r ν i e w \ 8 5

E V E N T S IN T H E L I F E O F A B R A H A M

186

A bra m the Noble Warrior 186 T h e C o v e n a n t (Concluded) between the (Animal) Parts 203 Episode A: Revelation, Promise (and Trust) 205 Episode B: How the C o v e n a n t Was Made 206 A b r a m s O t h e r Wife 212 T h e Names of God in Genesis, Chapters 16 and 21 223 T h e A n n u n c i a t i o n of Isaac's Birth — Two Versions 223 A n n u n c i a t i o n s A f t e r m a t h 236 Y H W H and A b r a h a m in a Dialogue on God's Justice 237 T h e Story of Lot 241 T h e Names of God in Genesis, Chapters 18 and 19 257 Three Domestic Triangles 259 Poetical Review of the Names of God 279 T h e Madness of Father Abraham: Genesis 22 279 Comparing the Akeda with A n o t h e r Binding 290 Isaac and Iphigenia, A b r a h a m and Agamemnon: A Comparison

P A R T II SEVEN

/

296

STRUCTURES

S T R U C T U R E S AS A B I B L I C A L L I T E R A R Y P H E N O M E N O N

Genealogies and Chronologies of Cain and Seth

301

303

Genealogies Continued: T h e Line oi Shem •518 T h e Chronologies of the Lines of Seth and Shem

321

( Ίιη >n< )14 >gy as Clue to Narrative: T h e Missing Years in Jacob's bite

527

CONTENTS

xvii

I low Four H u n d r e d Years C a n Equal Four G e n e r a t i o n s Playing t h e Bibles N u m b e r G a m e : A n o t h e r S o l u t i o n A b ram's R o o t s and U p r o o t i n g s

345

Abraham's Revelations and Altars Digging Wells in Philistia

329 337

359

362

A d d e n d u m : Two M o r e G e n e a l o g i e s a n d A n o t h e r N u m b e r s G a m e

SUPPLEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS, EIGHT

/

POETICAL ODDS A N D ADDENDS

373

ANTICIPATIONS

389

Apologia 3S9 I n re G e n e s i s 1: Scripture and t h e M y t h o p o e i e I m a g i n a t i o n

393

Paganism, A n c i e n t and M o d e r n : Metaphysics in M y t h a n d S c i e n c e T h e S a b b a t h : Its M e a n i n g

T h e S e p t e t s ot (Social) Morality

401

T h e S a b b a t h Day in t h e T w o Decalogues: A P o e t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Two M o r e A d d e n d s 41 2 NOTES

436

BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX

460

438

395

397 408

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION

This page intentionally left blank

C H A P T E R

O N E

T H E N A M E S OF GOD The Problem: A Preliminary

Review

T h e problem of the names of God in the Hebrew Scriptures is so complex that movements toward the solution may be impeded, distorted, or even blocked by its formulation in the singular. It would seem advisable then to begin this review of the problem by breaking it down into the separate and sometimes separable con‫׳־‬ stituents of which the problem is compounded. (And as I attempt to list these component elements in a logical order, 1 must warn the reader not to assign relative weightiness to these elements in respect to the order in which they are listed.) ι. There is the lexical problem of the meaning and function of the English word name and the Hebrew word that it most often translates, sem. Both words are nouns (names), and both may stand for both common and proper nouns. As common nouns, the words name and sem may be governed by the definite article (or, in Hebrew, be determined by construction); as such, the noun name will be governed by the indefinite article in English and the noun sem will appear without determination in the Hebrew language, which has no indefinite article. T h e connotations of both common nouns, English and Hebrew, are (a/the) name, label, epithet, title, designation, and so on. 2. A s e c o n d p r o b l e m is t h a t t h e r e is in H e b r e w a d e c l i n a b l e n o u n , '7,0/11771 ‫ י‬w i n c h a p p e a r s b o t h as c o m m o n n o u n ( c o n n o t i n g god, deity, d i v i n i t y , n u m e n ,

divine

figurine, a n a n c e s t r a l spirit or ghost‫״‬, a n d so o n ) , a n d as a p r o p e r n o u n , a n a l i e r n a t e n a m e for t h e o n e - a n d - o n l y - d e i t y w h o s e most f r e q u e n t l y o c c u r r i n g n a m e is t h e g r a p h e m e Y H W H . A s c o m m o n n o u n this n o u n is t r e a t e d like all o t h e r s u c h , a n d is

3

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

indefinite, or determined by article, possessive pronoun, or construction. As proper noun, without the definite article, it is rendered into English by God, which is to say that the common noun god is rendered in writing by capitalizing the first letter and in speech by the absence of any sign of determination. Thus the question of whether any occurrence of elöhlm refers to the common noun or the proper noun ("name") is determined in the Hebrew only by context, in English translation only by capitalization (or lack of it) in writing, ana in English speech only by the prèsence or absence of determination. In keeping with this is the usage in regard to (1 Kings 11:33) kemos Höhei mö'äb "Chemosh the god of M o a b " A n d by the same token yhwh Höhei yisrä'el should be rendered as "Yhwh the god of Israel." This is to say that whenever Höhim is definite or determined in the Hebrew, its rendering into English should feature lower-case g. Thus, for example, in Psalm 68:9, Höhim Höhei yisrä'el should be rendered "God, the god of Israel" and the psalmist's address in 43:4 to 'Höhim Höhäy by Ό God, my god." Yet universal usage is quite contrary. Whenever the common noun Hôhïm refers to the object of IsraePs worship, by whatever (proper) name, the g is capitalized. Hence: a D N , the god of A m m o n " but "DN, the God of Israel" or "DN, my God " 3. Closely related to this problem, the rendering of the common noun "god" by the proper noun "God," is the rendering of hcflohrm.—•the common noun with prefixed definite article — as a proper noun, as though this term, too, is indistinguishable in nuance from the proper name Elolum. Thus, for example, Deuteronomy 7:9, where YHWH blöhc(y)kd hühäceh)hlm "YHWH, your god, he [alone] is god" conveys an identificatory redundancy in the usual renderings, "(YHWH) the Lord your God is God." Here again it is a token of reverence for t he one and only true god of Israel that is expressed in the capitalization. Let us note that the deity in English usage applies to any of the gods in a pagan pantheon, while the Deity is another proper name for the only deity acknowledged as such in Scripture. While the capitalizing of a common noun governed by the definite article to form a proper noun in which the article is part of that proper noun is not in keeping with accepted grammatical usage, it is not, in English itself, critical for meaning. Thus, if we come across the words "It was an insult to the president," we immediately understand that the reference is to the chief magistrate of the United States and not to the executive presiding over any corporation. In the case of translation from biblical Hebrew, however, this practice may be misleading. T h e definite article in Elebrew functions in two quite different ways: to express abstraction (and distance) on the one hand, and individuation (and proximity) on the other. In respect to häHöhim, the former function might be rendered by Heaven, Providence, godhead, (The) Deity or Divinity; the latter, expressing some agent, representation, or vessel of the former, might refer to an angel, apparition, numen, or the like. 4. In contrast to elôhïm1 the common noun that also functions frequently as a or the proper name of the one and only god, is the proper name represented by the tour letters YHlVi Ï. This grapheme, bespeaking "The Divine Name" (hence the capiialuiat ion in (he Teîmgrammaton) was never, until recent times, pronounced by knowledgeable students of the Bible. Before the now widespread assumption that the etymology of the Tetragrammaton has hern retrieved and is correctly reflected

T H E N A M E S OF GOD

‫•־‬j

in Yahweh, this grapheme was generally rendered by the Lord, a c o n v e n t i o n owing to t h e vocable adönay "my lordship," w h i c h is t h e way the Tetragrammaton is usually rendered w h e n the text is read aloud according to t h e Masoretic tradition; t h e p h o n e t i c signal for this qerë being the vowels sewa (hatef patah), holem, and qam.es (lengthened patah), appearing under t h e first three letters of t h e Tetragrammaton to indicate t h e pointing of t h e vocable 'dny (*1dönäy). (To be noted is t h e lengthen‫׳׳‬ ing in the pointing of Y H W H of the final patah of adönäy to qames.)1 T h u s t h e tränscription of t h e pointed Tetragrammaton is YeHö\VäH. This textual p h e n o m e n o n is referred to as a qere perpetuum despite a well-known and regular exception: whenever the Tetragrammaton is immediately preceded by the vocable adönäy "my lord(s)" (plural of majesty), the preempting of the substitution by t h e appearance of t h e n o u n proper results in a secondary qerë perpetuum for the Tetragrammaton: the pointing is now that of Höhim, thus in transcription Y J H0W1H. Related to this conv e n t i o n of vocalization in respect to the lengthening of t h e patah to qames in Y H W H is t h e same lengthening in the consonantal
ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

we find ourselves recalling having been taught sometime, somewhere, by someone, that the substitution for Y H W H is due to its having at some remote time in antiq‫׳׳‬ uity come to be regarded as too holy to pronounce. Our teacher, too, seems not to have known whether that moment when the Tetragrammaton became ineffable was in the days of David or of Ν eh em iah. A n d when, in search of a clue, we seek for a written source about this tradition of holy ineffability, we find that there is none, none whatsoever. And in the absence of a tradition written or oral, we are driven to further conjecture: how it came about that an entire people accepted the notion that one of its names for Ο od had become too holy to pronounce. Was this by common assent, or was it imposed by authorities ecclesiastical wielding powers temporal? In either case, is it conceivable that a name that had been a commonplace should he wiped from universal memory, leaving no trace behind? (No, not quite, for the consonants were preserved in writing -only the vowels were erased from memory.) In the former case, the plausibility of memory suppression is, as one of my students suggested, akin to the attempt to go into a corner and think of anything hut of a white elephant. In the latter case, given the history of religious denominations' failure to achieve unanimity on even minor points of doctrine, can we conceive of the successful consummation of such a decree without trace of a struggle against it?

A M ETA-LITE RAR Y A D D R E S S TO T H E

PROBLEM:

SOURCE-ANALYSTS

In the preface to this volume I note that rebuttal of source criticism—while it may be seen as a consequence of my approach—is not one of my principal objectives. T h e deployment in Scripture of various names or terms for deity (or Deity) or its agents is everywhere a challenge to poetical analysis and synthesis. 2 How, in terms of the development ot a given text's kerygma, 3 does the choice of one or more of such names and terms operate? This is to say that the question of the use of these terms is a purely literary one. By contrast, however, the discernment of "sources" that were first identified according to their featuring of one or another term for Deity offers a meta-literary solution4 to a literary problem (and thereby implicitly forecloses the search for a purely literary or poetic solution). Whether a text features YHWH or Fïlôhïm as the name for the O n e Deity of Scripture has, for the source analytic approach, no significance whatsoever in terms ot meaning, nuance, emotional distance, or intimacy, !here was a source that assumed that the name YIIWH was always known to mankind, and which therefore freely uses it wherever ir wishes. This source i> labeled J. Two other sources existed whose authors were tied to a tradition thar the name Y H W H was not introduced to humankind until the time of Israels impending liberation from Egyptian bondage. These sources therefore never feature the name Y H W H until after the historic introduction of that name by Deity to Moses and, presumably, by Moses to Israel (Exodus 3 : 1 - 1 5 and Exodus 6:2—8). These sources are labeled Ε and P, respectively. Inasmuch as the source hypotheses (except perhaps for J) essentially foreclose a poetic approach to the names of God, and further, inasmuch as the source hypo theses still constitute the regnant position in modern biblical study, it is advisable to

T H E N A M E S OF GOD

‫•־‬j

clear the way for my poetical approach by first stating the principal difficulties that led me to turn away from source-criticism and to search for another approach. 1. Not infrequently, source-critics—who have developed many other criteria for distinguishing one document or source from another—will decide that the term Y H W H does not belong in a given place where it appears. It is a J contamination or an erroneously permitted editorial substitution for Elohun in a Ρ (or E) source/ 3 Once every exceptional occurrence is dismissed as error, or even seen as proof of the contradictory rule, the entire rule becomes suspect, if not indeed ludicrous. 6 Needless to say this is a literary objection. More important, however, it is one of logic, of rational methodology. 2. T h e assumption that a source—let us say Ρ believed and taught a tradition that the name Y H W H was not introduced until the time of Moses would not have excluded the use of the name Y H W H by the narrator of Ρ passages.7 This narrator, living and writing long after the time of Moses, does know the N a m e and is free to make use of it. He must only take care, however, that the name not appear in dialogue—be it on the part of human, God, or God's agent—before the time of Moses. This objection is, again, both literary and logical. Even if the literary aspect is overlooked, the failure of genetic theory to bridge the gap between Ρ s knowledge and a compulsion to enslave himself (pointlessly) to that knowledge disrupts its chain of reasoning. 3. If source-criticism would have us suppose that the preservation of the various names of God in various documents owes to the Redactors respect for the texts' sanctity, then the Redactor was not himself disturbed by the contradiction within the texts as to the time of the Tetragrammatons introduction to Israel (and to humanity). A n d strange though this may strike us in itself, as he was not disturbed by this, he would not have anticipated disturbance on the part of any reader. He would therefore have let the texts speak for themselves without either drawing attention to the contradiction or attempting to gloss or paper over it. In that case, however, how to explain the celebrated sentence that constitutes the second part of Genesis 4:26: "Then did they (mankind) first call upon the name oi YHWH." This sen‫״‬ tence, coming immediately after the notice of the birth of Eni is to Seth, has distracted scholarly attention from the real problem lav raising questions about the point of this Name's introduction in the lifetime of the otherwise unremarkable Enos. T h e factitiousness of these questions lies in limiting the connection between the Name by which Deity was invoked to the last mentioned human, Enos, a name t h a t — l i k e A d a m — h a s the sense of mankind/humankind. The point of the sentence is, however, that the Name came into use in the earliest generations of humankind, the generation of C a i n and Seth and, to be sure—see 4:1—their parents, Adam and Eve. But who penned this notice/ It could not have been J himself, for he never betrays any knowledge of a tradition that is in conflict with his own, and hence would have discerned no reason to make explicit what he assumed to be the universai fact (or tradition). But neither does it make sense to attribute the notice to the Redactor, who would thereby be underscoring, by making explicit, the contradiction between this J assumption and the conflicting assumptions implicit or explicit in chapters 3 and 6 of Exodus.

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

4. Perhaps the most telling objection to source criticism's use oi t h e names ot G o d will derive 1'roiu what we noted to be the implicit assumption of this ajv proach: that is, that t h e problem is properly defined as between the appearances of two terms, both assumed to he proper nouns or proper names: Y H W H and Elôhïm. This double assumption flies in the face of the following facts: a.

W h i l e Y H W H is, indeed, a proper n a m e , t h e same c a n n o t he said w i t h equal t r u t h for Höhim. S i n c e this last t e r m is n o r m a l l y r e n d e r e d in t r a n s l a t i o n s by God ( n o t e , w i t h a capitalized initial letter), such, renderings may i n d i c a t e t h e p r e s e n c e of a proper n o u n in places w h e r e n o proper n o u n is at all present in t h e H e b r e w ,

b. E v e n if we e l i m i n a t e f r o m c o n s i d e r a t i o n every usage of clôhïm w h e r e it m a y n o t be a proper n o u n , t h e r e is still a t h i r d a l t e r n a t i v e to Y H W H a n d Elöhlm, a n d t h a t is t h e latter t e r m w i t h t h e prefixed definite article M ^ ö / w n . D e s p i t e t h e n o r m a l l y im‫״‬ proper use of t h e definite article w i t h a proper n o u n , t h e n o r m a l a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e definite article betöre a t e r m will be followed by a n u n c a p i t a l ized n o u n (i.e., the god a n d n o t the God) / t h e r e can be n o q u e s t i o n t h a t in such instances as G e n e s i s 5:24 hâHôhïm is a proper n a m e (as g u a r a n t e e d by t h e singular verb) and c a n only be r e n d e r e d by God. H e n c e in a d d i t i o n t o Y H W H always a n d Höhim ( E l ö h l m ) frequently, we h a v e a third " n a m e " for G o d . c. I n a d d i t i o n to t h e s e t h r e e terms tor G o d , t h e r e are o t h e r proper n a m e s for Deity,

such as 'El Shaddai, El 'Ely on, El Ohm,

Shaddai, Ely on, Pahad Yi§haq, and ahJr

a

Ya kob, as well as o t h e r rubrics for Deity's m a n i t e s t a t i o n , such as angel, messenger of Y H W H , or E l ô h ï m , a n d t h e c o m m o n n o u n 'el, b o t h w i t h a n d w i t h o u t t h e clefin i t e article. d. It is a b l a t a n t and capricious disregard for t h e d a t a in t h e texts before us to assign G e n e s i s 2 : 4 b - 3 : 2 4 to a n a u t h o r w h o freely uses t h e T e t r a g r a m m a t o n as t h e n o r ‫׳‬ m a l t e r m for Deity. For in this p e r i c o p e n o t h i n g c a n be c l e a r e r t h a n t h a i t h e nar‫׳‬ralor is c o m m i t t e d , n o t tu Y H W H , b u t to t h e m r a n g e c o m p o u n d V I Ï W I I

Elöhlm

as t h e n a m e , t h e p r o p e r n a m e , of‫ ׳‬Deity, ί his regularity, in c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e use ol E l ö h l m in the preceding pericope and of \ H W K in t h e following one, is clearly marked as I ho i n l e n l i o n of t h e a u t h o r / n a r r a t o r by his equally regular use of Elôhïm a l o n e in t h e dialogue b e t w e e n Eve and t h e S e r p e n t in 5:1

‫ל‬.

In conclusion, t h e n , any theory that would a t t e m p t a classification of p h e n o m ena o n t h e basis of two different exemplars when eight or n i n e are present would appear as arbitrarily based as it is bound to be deemed shaky. T h e wealth of t h e database as concerns t h e terms and names ;or Deity in the first twenty-two chapters of Genesis, as well as hints as to possible approaches to these data, are presented for t h e readers' consideration in table i-j.

A N ESSENTIALLY LITERARY ADDRESS THE PROBLEM:

TO

CASSUTO

T h e o n e notable and essentially poetical address to this problem is t h a t of U m b e r t o Cassuto, w h o systematically criticized the documentary hypotheses in La Questione della Genesi and in The Documentary Hypothesis (English translation of an essay in Hebrew). R a t h e r t h a n extrapolate his views from these works I will let h i m speak for himself, in citations from his sketchy remarks in the Introduction to his Commentary on Genesis. Referring to his earlier work< h e writes:

TABLE

Text 1:1

ι - 1 N a m e s o f Deity i n C o n t e x t i n Genesis 1 - 2 2 .

Y vXAR.) Y (DIAL) Ε (ΝAR.) Ε (DIAL.) Ε (W. ART) YE 2:4a

Y W. ANGEL

34

2:4)3-3:24 4:1-24

4:25-26 5:1-32 6:1-8 6:9-22 7:1-8:22 9:1-17 0:18-29 10:1-32 11:1 9 12:1 - 2 0

3 3 5 6

2 2 2

τγ.ι 18‫־‬ 4!M-2d Ï5M-2I ί (x 1 - 2 1 2‫ך‬ 18:1

33 !9:1 38 20:1-18 20:1 — 2 I 21:21-34 22:1-2^ KL: Y: Y: Tetragrammaton; E: iohlm; YE: YHWH- eIoh!m; w: with; art.; definite article; Ν AR: Narrator's voice; DIAL: voice in dialogue; Numerals: number of occurrences

Ε W. ANGEL

Y W. SEM Y W. BeSEM 'EL SADDAI EL ELYON EL O L A M

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

I have already shown . . . that the variation in the employment of the two names, YHWH and Elöhlm in the book of Genesis is subject to certain rules which ί have been able to determine and formulate with precision. These rules are based on the dif ‫׳‬ tercnce in the nature of the two names, for they are not of the same type; the name YHWH is a proper noun that denotes specifically the God of Israel, whereas Elöhlm was originally a generic term and became a proper noun among the Israelites through the realization that there is only One God and that YHWH alone is 'Elöhlm ["God"].0 A study of this citation (which I shall resume in a moment), as well as of his running commentary on the text of Genesis, will convince many, I believe, that both in his address to the names and in his criticism of source hypotheses, Gassuto deserves a better fate than the impression that his work has made (or rather, not made) upon biblical scholarship. T h e reasons for this are worthy of research, if for no other reason than to attempt to isolate the factors that render a regnant hypothesis in a disciplined area of study impervious to powerful and reasoned attack. In regard to the citation that follows and to the execution of his schema in his commentary, I suspect that Gassuto has undermined his own potential to persuade by leading his readers to anticipate (see above, his "certain rules . . . formulate with precision 1 ') that a poetical problem is readily soluble on the basis, so to speak, of a precise formula. Literary artists work with metaphors, and precise as a given meta‫׳‬ phor may be, it may express a completely different idea in a second context (though it may be formally identical), while exactly the same idea may be expressed in a second place by an altogether different metaphor. Let us continue now with the Cassuto citation (the italics are Cassuto s): Following are some of the rules governing the use of the two Names in the book of Genesis that emerged from my investigations: (a) The Tetragrammaton occurs when Scripture reflects the concept ot God, especially in His ethical aspect, t h a t belongs specifically to the people of Israel;

Elöhlm

appears when the Bible refers to the abstract conception of God that was current in the international circles of the Sages, the idea of God conceived in a general, sense as the Creator of the material world, as the Ruler of nature, and as Source ot life. (b) T h e n a m e Y11 W H is used w h e n S c r i p t u r e wishes to express that direct and i n t u i t i v e n o t i o n of G o d that is characteristic of t h e u n s o p h i s t i c a t e d f a i t h of t h e m u l t i t u d e ; but Elohmi is employed w h e n it is i n t e n d e d t o c o n v e y t h e c o n c e p t of tile philosophically m i n d e d w h o study t h e abstruse problems c o n n e c t e d with t h e world and h u m a n i t y .

(c) YHWH appears when the Bible presents the lVity to us in His personal character and in direct relationships to human beings or to nature; whereas Elnhrm occurs when Holy Writ speaks of God as a Transcendental Being, who stands entirely outside nature, and above it. I believe that I understand the poetical distinctions that Cassuto is getting at in these three paragraphs, and furthermore I am in essential agreement with them. But there are ambiguities in the above formulations that render them vulnerable to quibble or to rebuttal. For example, in (a) "the concept: of God, especially in His e t!u eat aspect" may indeed be what the biblical author has in mind in 111 an ν a place

T H E N A M E S OF GOD

‫•־‬j

where he uses the Tetragrammaton (in preference to another name), but it is b o t h gratuitous and a meta-literary assumption of debatable value to narrow this usage to a "concept of G o d . . . that belongs specifically to the people of Israel" For exam‫־׳‬ pie, t h e Tetragrammaton is featured regularly and pointedly in God's relations with t h e non-Israelite Balaam (Numbers 22:8, 13, 18, 3 4 - 3 5,31-32,24,22,9‫)נ‬,and indeed with his non-Israelite ass ( 2 2 : 2 3 - 2 8 — n o t e especially this last instance!). 1 0 Unambiguous, on t h e other hand, but equally gratuitous is "the abstract conception of G o d " expressed in Elôhïm being assigned to "the international circles of t h e Sages," entities whose very existence in the world of the biblical authors is comparable to the sometime existence of the unicorn. Similarly, in (b) the n a m e Y H W H may indeed be "used when Scripture wishes to express . . . |a] direct and intuitive notion of God," but why should that notion be "characteristic of the unsophistb cated faith of the multitude".‫ ׳׳‬A final example, vis-à-vis (c): the Y H W H to whom the sphere of h e a v e n is reserved while that of earth is allotted to humankind in Psalm 115:16 is both "a Transcendental Being, who stands entirely outside nature, and above it" (cf. also Psalm 24η )-—the denotation of Elöhlm for Cassuto- -and "the Deity . . . in His personal character, and in direct relationship to h u m a n beings or to n a t u r e " T h e weaknesses I have pointed out in Cassuto s lormulations lie t h e n in an overprecise formulation of the "rules governing the use of the two Names in t h e book of Genesis" and the reading of these two names as dichotomous categories w h e n they may in many or most cases overlap in nuance, intention, and extension. 11 If we keep in mind that a similar distinction and overlap as well exist in English terms for the same n o u m e n o n , we s h a l l — h a v i n g freed ourselves of the source-critical i n c u b u s — b e open to the subtle nuances of the biblical a u t h o r s shift from Y H W H to Elôhïm or vice versa, or from either of these two names to "angel of" one or the other, or to häHöhim "the divine agent' 1 or "Heaven," and t h e like. I will n o t e also how these various terms figure differently in various voices: that of the narrator; those of humans in dialogue with humans, with God, or those of nonIsraelites according to their association with the people of Israel and this people's ancestral figures, or such humans as outsiders ot the Israelitic or proto-Israelitic continuum. W e shall recognize the various nuances that Cassuto picked up (but not as invariables in equations and formulas) in the name Y H W H as essentially personal, relating in particular intimacy with Israelite forebears or pre-Abrahamitic exemplars of His beloved, though oft erring, h u m a n creations; this in contrast with Elöhlm as often less than personal, sometimes almost an abstraction, the Cause ot all phenomena — nature and the animate denizens of earth -‫׳‬-and in dialogue with humans outside the Abrahamitic continuum or within that continuum, but to wives or children in roles foreshadowing lines ancillary to the chosen branch. We shall also be able to discern how these various aspects or modalities of the Divine in relation to creation and creatures can appear in a single narrat ive in shifts from Y H W H to Elöhlm and vice versa. These promises we hope to fulfill in t h e poetical treatments of t h e narratives which constitute the bulk of the chapters that follow.

12

ΙΟ I N T R O D U C T I O N

T H E N A M E S OF G O D IN N O N N A R R A T I V E T E X T S T H E ‫ ״‬E V O L U T I O N ‫ ״‬OF B I B L I C A L

AND

MONOTHEISM

It is historical fact that source criticism begins with the discernment of a dichotomous distribution or deployment of the names Elohim and YHWH in the early chapters of Genesis; that the discernment oi authors labeled blohist and Jehovist, later of sources labeled H and Ρ and J and I), derived primarily from narrative texts in the books constituting the Pentateuch or I Iexateuch; that legal, prescriptive, and chronological texts not identifiable by the criteria of divine names were assigned to one or another source based on derived criteria, these being stylistic or thematic; that source identification was at an early stage followed by a chrono log ical ordering of the sources. It is furthermore true that very little of source critical research or thinking is in evidence in respect to the narrative (prose) and poetic texts in the Writing Prophets or in the Book of Psalms. I have earlier suggested as a criticism of the source-analytical address to the problem of the names of God within Genesis that it. restricts itself to the two most common names when many other alternatives exist alongside them. I would now supplement that suggestion with this further one: any address to a single problem that limits itself to a small percentage of the text under study (i.e., the Hebrew Scriptures) risks the question as to whether it is not methodologically flawed. Inasmuch as my own investigation in these chapters is largely confined to the narratives in less than half of Genesis and a few in Exodus, it behooves me to acknowledge that my own address is vulnerable to the very same strictures. In mitigation of my own vulnerability I would plead the following: my own address claims to be no more than a beginning, and offers only a literary or poetical hypothesis that stands to be further tested, refined, and (possibly) rebutted as it is pursued in the great mass of untreated texts. This, in contrast to the source-analytical address that has been content to make of its hypotheses the sure base for methodological approach to ail (if Scripture, even while it ignores the problem in the psalter or prophetic writings. In my own address to the deployment of other names of God in the Genesis rvarratives I will perforce have to have reference to such names in the psalter. I will also have to deal (in less than exhaustive measure) with the question, of the stage of monotheistic religion reflected in the Genesis narratives. Psalm 82 is an exemplary psalm in which both these concerns are prominent. Yet this psalm falls into an aggregate (Psalms 4 2 - 8 3 ) that in modern critical research is often referred to as the Elohistic Psalter, or to cite a colleague who does not subscribe to source-criticism, "the elohistic group, which as an entity is characterized by a rather late change of most occurrences of YHWH to Elohim!'12 Before I go on to address Psalm 82 I have deemed it advisable to present an excursus on the distribution of the two names in Psalms.

E X C U R S U S : O N T H E N A M E S OF G O D IN T H E

PSALTER

As is well known, the biblical psalter is divided into five books according to rabbinic tradition, a tradition whose antiquity is attested by the LXX "version." 13 In

THE NAMES OF GOD TABLE ι - 2 Book

1.3

Distribution of YHWH and Elohim in the Psalter

Psalm*

YHWH

Elohim 14 times

I

I--41

272 times

If

2

4 -72

30 times

164 times

Ilia

73 -83

13 times

36 times

b

84.-89

31 times

7 times

exclusively

0 times

exclusively ( 1 08)

j lime

IV V

90 - reo 107 -150

table j -2, a chart of the distrihuti o n of t h e t e r m s Y11W11 a n d Elohim, the division of Book Three into t w o s e c t i o n s h e l p s sh< nv why Psalms 4 2 --83 have been designated as elohistic. T h e contrast between this elohistic aggregation of psalms and those preceding and following it is sharpened when we consider the following: Of the fourteen occurrences ot Elohim in Rook 1, only five or six can be considered as instances of the proper name, tor in all the other instances the term is featured in an attributive mode. Further, of the seven instances of Elohim in Illb., only two or three appear to be the proper noun. Hence the occurrences of the proper noun Y H W H are in overwhelming preponderance in Psalms, except for Psalms 4 2 - 8 3 , where the proper name Elohim occurs in similar preponderance as against the Tetragrammaton. Xow while there is no way to demonstrate that most of the appearances of Elohim in 4 2 - 8 3 represent "a . . . change of YHWH to Elohim " the plausibility of such a change—or rather, substitution—is enhanced by the appearance of the two proper names in two psalmic deuterographs: Psalm r4:2, 4, 7 fea‫־־‬ tures Y H W H , while Psalm 53:3. 5, 7 features Elohim. Psalm 40:14 features Y H W H twice and verse 17 does so once, while verse 18 features consonantal adönäy> In the parallel verses in Psalm 70, verse 2 features Elohim once and Y H W H once; verses 5 and 6 feature Elohim (although the end of verse 6 features Y H W H where the corresponding verse 40:18 features Höhay "my god"). T h a t Elohim as a proper noun, a name of the one god of Scripture, is preceded in time by the name Y H W H is beyond question. But the very question of when and how biblical Israel began to worship her god as the only god, and by what name (or names), is a thorny one to which I will devote ;‫ ו‬brief- -and admittedly partisan — sketch.

ON THE EVOLUTION

OF B i B L I C A L

MONOTHEISM

While not a necessary concomitant oi the source critical approach in terms of logic or the history of scholarship, the chronological and evolutionary thrust of the Graf-Wei Ihausen Document ary Hypothesis has provided a congenial framework for various theses about the development of the God-concept in the writings that constitute the Hebrew Scriptures trorn the periods of patriarchs and Judges to those of kings and prophets, and priests presiding theocratically in a shrunken judean state, For the first, few decades of our century the fashion of savants was to find animistic

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

concepts in the earliest stages of biblical history, and t h e n in chronological progression unadorned polytheism, t h e n henotheism and/or monolatry, and finally— not until such late writings as Second Isaiah™-a monotheism closely resembling our own. Thus Yehezkel Kaufmann was the cause of some stir when word reached scholarly circles (this in t h e 1940s, when tew scholars could read modern Hebrew) that in his History of Israelite Religion he was making bold to find t h e origin of biblical monotheism in t h e period ot the exodus some seven centuries or more before the exilic prophets. As a matter of fact, Kaufmann actually dated that phenomenon much earlier, for by the time of the exodus he finds monotheism as the general religious heritage ot the Israelite tribes that had left Egypt. And in 1964 in the An-‫׳‬ chor Bible volume on (îenesis, H.A.Speiser argued that our knowledge of Mesopotamian culture in the middle of the second millennium pointed to Abraham as t h e earliest pioneer of that monotheistic surge that he calls "the biblical process." 14 It is likely t h e n that some biblicists w i 11 find it fitting, and others amusing, t h a t I, a student: of Speiser, find precursors of biblical, monot heism in revolutionary critiques of polytheism in pagan Mesopotamia and Egvpt.^ However that may be, and persuasive or not in the judgment of my readers, I would underscore that I arrived at this conclusion on the basis of a poetical reading of the literature of Egypt and Mesopotamia and not, as is c o m m o n to all my predecessors, on the basis of an ascription of either historiographie intent or authentic "historical memory" to the biblical authors. In this connection, it may be permissible to quote Speiser, keeping in mind that I do him less t h a n justice by removing this brief citation from its well-reasoned context: As a drastic departure from existing norms, the concept of monotheism had to break new ground. There had to be a first time, and place, and person or group of persons. . . . Furthermore, the author of the narra rive ab ο Lit Abraham's call did not get his information from a researcher's files. And he could not have obtained it from cuneiform texts since, even if his scholarship matched his literary genius, the documents from the pertinent period had by J's time been covered up tor centuries, and were to remain buried for nearly three thousand years more. J could have gotten his material only from earlier Israelite traditions, which in turn reached back all the way to patriarchal times.16 True, "the biblical narrator could have gotten his material only from earlier Israelite traditions"—but only if his narrative were intended as historiography, that is, a literally true revelation by a true Deity revealing I lis True and Unique Divine N a t u r e — w h i c h is never (at least, explicitly) the content of any of these 1cvelations — to a literally true ancestor named Abrain, ot a yet-to-be mult it udinous seed that will be known not as Abraham it es but as Jacobites or Israelites. And, let us n o t e that by t h e cuneiform "documents from the pertinent period" that were n o longer available to J, Speiser has in mind theoretical historic documents about Abraham, not such literary works as Gilgamesh and Enuma elish, which for centuries were read regularly between the two rivers in one form or another. 1 7 My skepticism about t h e historiographie reading of biblical narrative is but a mild stricture (deriving from my poetic methodology) compared to my quarrel with the suppositions of progressive movements, from crude forerunners of true biblical

THE NAMES OF GOD

‫•־‬j

religion in chronologically early layers ot biblical tradition to realization of a noble monotheism in late layers of that tradition. For this kind of supposition asks us to believe the following: an editor who knew how1 true and sophisticated were the theological teachings of a Deuteronomist or a Deute rod sa iah, and who could not but know how fallacious and naïve were the concepts in earlier writings, which were hangovers from a pagan idolatrous past, yet so reverenced these fallacious traditions as holy that he preserved them out of a slavish filial piety, with the serendipitous result (not intent, of course) that scholars two and a half millennia later might retrace the evolution of Israelite monotheism from such beliefs as nuis! have been held by the hero-of-faith ancestor Israel who chased after numina, whom he worshiped after besting them in night-long struggle. 18 Perhaps it is not out of order to observe that the question of what const itutes pure or non-idolatrous monotheism has not been settled to universal satisfaction to this day: W h e n , within one biblical tradition, the adherents oi one denomination may regard the veneration of saints or trinitarian formulations of Godhead in a sister-denomination as essentially pagan; when within another biblical tradition the adherents of one denomination may regard the beliefs in angels and demons as pagan elements in the ritual-and-magic-obsessed practices of a mother-denomination, how can we come to a conclusion as to where on the polytheistic to monotheistic spectrum to place one or another layer of Scriptural text (assuming that such layers can be demonstrated to exist)? Since, therefore, all but the most abstract and philosophical of theologies include various instrumentalities of Deity as entities within the natural or supernatural realms or straddling the two, a meaningful definition of monotheism would be one that could serve for a system of belief that is roughly the same in Scripture at large as in the latest formulations of Scripture-derived religions. Such a definition would eschew the ontological question of Divinity's agencies and representations as human or superhuman, semi-divine or divine, natural, preternatural, or supernatural. It would recognize monotheism as a theology that admits of only one autonomous ultimate power and will upon whom all other powers and wills are dependent for their existence and exercise. Hardly a passage in Scripture can be read as necessarily contradictory to such a view, and the biblical expression of this view is essentially expressed in the metaphors of Psalm 82, which pointedly uses ci and ^ö/iän for the common noun gocl(s) and the proper noun God, despite the confusion that such ambiguity invites, and just as pointedly uses the name 'HlyCm ( u All High/Most High") rather than YHWH: (1 ) G o d ( 0 id/imi) stands forward in t h e Gouncil D i v i n e (ci), speaks i n d i c t m e n t (Îf)t) in

the body of the gods (feÎo/um): (2) " H o w long yet will you exercise nefarious j u d g m e n t is!)!), s h o w i n g favorable bias to malefactors? (3) [My c h a r g e t o you was,] Take u p t h e cause ( s p t ) of t h e weak and t h e o r p h a n e d , U p h o l d t h e right(s) of underprivileged and dispossessed! (4) E x o n e r a t e t h e weak a n d t h e needy, Deliver t h e m f r o m malefactors' c l u t c h ! " (5) [Turns His back o n t h e m ]

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

"They show no awareness, no understanding, They proceed ever in night-darkness— (So that) the very foundations of the world are disintegrating." (6) [Turns hack to them] "My decree it was, gods (clöhlm) you are, Verily, vassals of 'Elyon . . . (7) [Alack then] like mortal man shall you die, Yes, fall from grace like any official." (8) [The Psalmist:] "Proceed t h e n , Ü G o d Höfrnn), Yourself give j u d g m e n t tor the world. For You a l o n e a c k n o w l e d g e all n a t i o n s as your own." (Psalm 82)

O N T P RM S ΡΟΚ D I V I N I T Y , C O M M O N A N D

PROPER

Even it this psalm were not included in that body called the Elohist Psalter, lew‫׳‬ would argue my assumption that the first use of Höhim in verse 1 oi the psalm and then again in verse 8 represents a studied avoidance oi the name YHWH. And it is beyond the scope of our present study to take up here (as elsewhere in the Blohist Psalter) the poetic implications of deploying Elôhïm "God" in two instances where the name Y H W H would seem most in place (verses 1 and 8). But the implicit prèsence of the O n e Divine Creator persona identifiable by name is unarguable in verse 6 in the asseveration that the Höhim "gods" are the bcne Elyön "sons or vassals of Ely ön." Here we should not expect the Te tragram m at ο η, tor we never have "sons" in construct with Y H W H , as we do twice (Genesis 6:2, 4) with hâHôIiï7n "supernal beings," and so also twice in Job (1:6; 2:1), where they come to stand in attendance upon YHWH, and once in Job 38:7 with Höhim; and once with Elhay (Hosea 2:1), where the countless Israelites who had formerly been repudiated by Y H W H under the rubric "Not-My-People" will be spoken ot as "children of the Living God " T h e anomalous juxtaposition in Psalm 82 of Höhim in the senses ot both gods and God provides us, nevertheless, with a springboard into our discussion ot the terms c /ohrm and Y H W H ; for the linguistic phenomenon in English of god (and gods) and God is a function of its matrix phenomenon in biblical Hebrew7, T h a t is to say, god (in English) and elöhlm (in Hebrew) are both common nouns, that is, terms for a class of beings or for one or more members of' that class. Yet God (in English) is ah ways a proper noun and ^o/imi is also --more often than not - ••a proper noun, which is to say a designation for a particular divine person, one who is most often represented by a different proper noun or proper name, Y1 1WH. Now it is clear that there is only one Y H W H , although there may be (in human minds at least ), many gods. But it is equally clear that there is only one God (tor this name no more admits a plural than does YHWH), although there may be (in human minds, at least.) many gods. Y H W H , however, might be (in human minds, at least) one of many gods, whereas even in my English rendering of‫ ׳‬Psalm 82, we can speak oJ God speaking up in the midst of the assembly of gods but not in the assembly of (Jods. There is only one God, as there is only one YHWH. And this is because as Y I I W H in Scripture is the O n e and Only Transcendent member oi the logical class "god "

T H E N A M E S OF G O D

‫•־‬j

so is G o d another name, a proper name, for that same O n e and Only Transcendent member of the class of gods. T h e difference t h e n between God and god is that t h e former is a class that has but one member, while the latter is a class with many, T h e gods of the latter class are superhuman or supernatural in one sense or another, but n o n e of t h e m is in t h e class of (the Transcendent) God. As intricate or simple as the foregoing may be judged to be, it all adds up to something so obvious as to go unremarked and, because unremarked, lost to our consciousness. T h e proper noun God is ontologically (linguistically speaking) not so much a product as it is a witness of monotheistic thinking, as in Exodus 6:2- ^ Y H W H is declared by (that) God to be his (only, in some sense or other, proper) name. This brings me to reconsider and modify my earlier statement that a proper noun does not, properly speaking, admit ot qualification by the definite article, or---ior that matter- - b y an indefinite article. We do, as a matter of tact, apply grammatical articles to proper nouns; but let us note that in all such eases the proper noun is present not as an indication of the particular person, place, or thing, but. as a representation in time or thought or art of that proper noun. Thus, lor example, a Cleopatra who could bring a Caesar to his knees, an Earth that could become a lifeless waste, the Richard III of Shakespeare or of history. Analogous to this linguistic usage is the God of Scripture or the God of t h e Scholastics, where both proper nouns bespeak a Sole Deity, albeit differently represented, or the God of Aristotle, but never the God of paganism. A n d , similarly, we can imagine a modern hiblicist drawing distinctions between the YHWH of Noah's flood and Hoseas YHWH. T h e absence of capital letters in Hebrew makes it possible for Scripture to engage in fanciful and philosophical plays o n t h e term Höhim that must be lost in English renderings, where the translator has n o choice but to opt for upper or lower case g or for one or another of Höhim s many connotations. Thus, for example, in contrast to Höhim. (or 'Elôhïm, as 1 would transcribe it) as a proper name, God, is the use of Höhim with the affixed definite article. O n t h e one h a n d it may be a signal that t h e narrator, though speaking of the O n e and Only Deity, wants to deemphas1:e or distance himself from t h e personhood of that Deity, the definite article serving as the he of abstraction, and expressive of the nuance we achieve in English by such terms as Heaven, Providence, Deity, the Divinity. On the other hand, wirh the emphasis on "'löten as a c o m m o n noun, inclusive of non-mortal entities such as ghosts, numina, or angels, the article in haHohim can be the he of individuation and proximity -the (or this) entity representative of God (or Y1 1W11). Thus wherever we come across Iu1clölum we must realize that we are not faced with a stylistic variation on the name God as opposed to the n a m e YHWH, for all that the apparition truly represents the O n e and Only Deity.

THE NAMES

ELOHTM

AND

YHWH

As 1 suggested earlier, the explanation offered by t h e genetic or source approaches ot the deployment of Y H W H and Elohim is a met a-literary solution to a literary problem, and one that makes little sense in terms of simple logic or poetic operation. These approaches confuse literature and history, read all literature as if it is

I‫א‬

INTROnUCTlON

intended as historiography, and retroject into u n r e c o r d e d — h e n c e irretrievable— past traditions supposedly inherited by these separate sources, such as the m o m e n t in historic time when the n a m e Y H W H was introduced to Israel I will soon examine t h e pericopes in Exodus 3 and 6 that are cited as evidence for the supposition that two of three sources (E and P) had inherited these sacrosanct traditions, h e n c e themselves eschewed the use of the name Y H W H that was admittedly known to them, while the third source (J) had inherited a conflicting tradition that ascribed knowledge of t h e name Y H W H to the first generations of h u m a n k i n d . But if, for t h e sake of argument, we put aside our objections and ask why Scripture should have been concerned with the names of Deity at all, we shall realize a monstrous self-contradiction in source-hypothesis. Since Höh Im in Genesis 1:1 is not a comm o n noun, neither "a god" nor "(the) gods‫ ״‬but a proper name "God," which of the two n a m e s — E l o h i m or Y H W H — i s the older? If Ρ (the author of Genesis 1) avoids the name Y H W H until the time ot Moses, when it was first introduced, t h e n his non-avoidance of Elohim would indicate that for Ρ this name was already known before t h a t time. But this generic term as a proper name could only have come into being at t h e end of that evolving process of biblical monotheism that is posited by source hypothesis! H e n c e we have the ludicrous logic oi t h e youngest source, P, using the youngest name at the beginning of "the Primeval History" so that it may avoid the older name YHW1 h and this as if oblivious to the existence of an older source (J—older by quite a lew centuries) that has a conflicting tradition; an older source that must have been leading a subterranean existence until it emerged sometime after Ρ to be set alongside it by R (the redactor). And all this is utterly unnecessary, for the Ρ (note the definite article with a proper name! ) of Exodus 6 : 2 - 3 who has YHW11 declaring to Moses that he appeared to the patriarchs as ‫ י‬El Shaddai could have used (in place of E/ö/üm) that same proper n a m e for t h e Deity, or, for that matter, almost any of the other terms or names for h i m (e.g., El, hä'el, El Elyon, Elyon, Shaddai, Elöh 1 ) that were not first introduced to Moses. A poetical address to t h e names of Scripture s Deity, granting that t h e books of t h e Hebrew Bible are the result ot an editorial process that brought together t h e products of at least three centuries ( Amos-Malachi, c. 7 6 0 - 4 6 0 ) , would nevertheless assume an essentially stable and developed monotheism for that entire period. Hence, it would see in Y H W H and Elôhïm two proper names for Israels Deity; one, Israel s label for its national Deity, who is also the O n e Deity of Creation and History, nature and h u m a n k i n d (like Marduk and Assur in t h e creation theologies of Babylon and Assyria); the other, the transformation of a c o m m o n n o u n into a proper n a m e expressive of the idea that, the c o m m o n n o u n having but one member, that n o u n is more a particular t h a n a genus. But language is extremely conservative, and old usages would not be erased from speech or memory for all their having become otiose from a purely philosophical point of view. As such, the various names and combinations of names for Deity would be available to authors and editors, poets and historians, to express various aspects of the O n e Divinity. Even such a source critic ‫־‬as Speiser, who doe^ not look for an evolutionary process distinguishing the Yl 1WI 1 of J from the Elohim of Ε or Π can roach the iob lowing essentially poetical awareness: "the term [Eluhim| can also be used, by virtue oi its gênerai connola! ion, not only tor .!lien gods and idols but also in the

THE NAMES OF GOD

‫•־‬j

broader sense of our 4 Providence, H e a v e n , Fate,' a n d is actually so attested in t h e j source a m o n g others," 1 9 A poetical distinction, too, is t h e a n c i e n t rabbinic suggest i o n t h a t Y H W H is more expressive of G o d s attribute of mercy, while Elohim is p r e p o n d e r a n t l y expressive of Elis attribute of justice. T h e rabbis, of course, knew their Scripture at least as well as we do, and such egregious a p p e a r a n c e of Y H W H in quid pro quo retribution contexts (such as Exodus 32:35, D e u t e r o n o m y 2 8 : 2 0 - 6 8 ) could n o t h a v e escaped their notice. T h e distinction, therefore, is in t h e terse style characteristic of t h e rabbis, a h i n t as to h o w we should look for different n u a n c e s in t h e varying expressions for C Jod. Let us now a t t e m p t a poetic t r e a t m e n t of two critical texts t h a t feature t h e n a m e Y H W H and its i n t r o d u c t i o n into ancient Israels tradition,

YHWH I N T ROD UCK S Η ί M S ELF BY NAME

Two passages in Exodus feature a revelation of Deity to Moses, at t h e center of which is a declaration, implicit in o n e case, explicit in t h e other, t h a t the Tetrag r a m m a t o n is being introduced to Israel for t h e first time, i n a s m u c h as source crittcisrn h a d early discerned three sources in Genesis, o n e deploying and two eschewing the Tetragrammaton, it would seem inevitable t h a t these two passages in Exodus be assigned to o n e or t h e o t h e r of t h e latter two. A s we will see, in t h e first of these two passages (in Exodus 3), t h e n a m e Y H W H appears in t h e voice of t h e narrator before this n a m e is disclosed. Fortunately for t h e source-critical enterprise, it h a d already determined t h a t t h e Y H W H - e s c h e w i n g source labeled Ε (for Höhim. or Elohist, let us recall) h a d b e c o m e so inextricably intertwined w i t h ] t h a t it was futile to a t t e m p t to u n t a n g l e all t h e elements in a narrative t h a t originally owed to t h e one or t h e other. Therefore, in t h e JE narrative in Exodus 3 t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e n a m e Y H W H is E's, c o m p o u n d e d by snippets from J (i.e., where Y H W H appears but should not), and t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e n a m e Y H W H in Exodus 6 is — by default — Ps. ( T h e r e are f u r t h e r claims as to different stylistic pointers to Ε versus Ρ t h a t altogether defy this readers critical eye and ear.) 2 0 Aside f r o m t h e critical function of these two Exodus passages in t h e genetic approach, these two passages are worthy of poetical study in t h e interest of discerning t h e variety of reasons a biblical a u t h o r would opt to deploy mal'ak YHWH and /uC'/o/iYui for representatives of Deity, and to use Y H W I 1 or Elohim as names of Deity, all in a single context. j. At the (Non) Burning Bush: Ejusodc Λ ( ι ) Moses, now, was shepherding (he flocks of his father-in hiw Jeihro, priest of VIidian. He drove rhe flocks deep into the steppe, and reached Horch, the Mount of God. (2) YHWI l's angel appeared to him as a fiery flame from the depth of a certain bush. He caught sight, y e s — t h e hush, there ablaze with fire, yet the hush intact, unconsu med. (3) Thought Moses, "I must turn aside and inspect this wondrous phenornenon! How is it the bush is not burned away?" (4) W h e n Y H W H noted that he was turning aside tor a closer look, Divinity [Höhim] called to him from the hush's core, ''Moses' 11 u Yes-s‫׳‬s-sh\" said he. (5) "Approach 110 closer‫ ״‬He said, "Remove your shoes irom vour feet, for the spot upon which you are standing is holy ground." (6)[And in this address] He said, "I am the God of your father, yes the God of Ahraham, the God

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

of Isaac a n d t h e G o d of Jacob." T h e r e u p o n Moses cloaked his face, fearful of gazing u p o n t h e g o d h e a d [haHôhïm]. (7) Y H W H t h e n said, 4 'Long h a v e I viewed t h e affliction of My p e o p l e t h e r e in Egypt, a n d h e a r d their cry against their taskmasters. W e l l d o I k n o w his p a i n . (8) A n d it is t o deliver h i m f r o m Egypt t h a t I h a v e c o m e d o w n , and t o lead h i m up f r o m t h a t land t o a land fertile a n d spacious, a land oozing milk a n d honey, e v e n t h e place of [or, e v e n to replace] C a n a a n i t e , and H i t t i t e , a n d A m o n t e , Perizzite, H i v v i t e a n d Jebusite. (9) N o w t h e n , h e r e is t h e p l a i n t ot t h e Israelites c o m e for M y a u d i e n c e , a n d I, h a v i n g n o t e d t h e oppression w h i c h Egyptians are imposing u p o n t h e m . — ( i o ) N o w t h e n , bestir yourself t h a t I m a y d i s p a t c h you to P h a r a o h ; tree now My people, t h e Israelites, iron! Egypt." ( 1 1 ) Moses said to t h e D i v i n i t y \ha1:inh‫(־‬m\f

u

W h o a m I to go to t h e Pha-

7

rauh, and to free the Israelites from Egypt. " (12) H e said, "Just so! ί A M | a m | with you. A n d here's t h e sign tor you t h a t it is I W h o h a v e sent you: w h e n you h a v e b r o u g h t t h e

people free from Egypt, you will all worship the godhead \'ct‫׳‬luV'lühlm\ at 11 ‫ ו‬is very m o u n t a i n . " (Exodus 3 : 1 - 1 2 )

Light and heat are qualities or attributes of h re, not metaphors for it. But fire standing for love or for power is a metaphor. T h e burning candle as a metaphor for self-sacrificial love, burning up its own substance to give light to others, is a deep metaphor as, in a sense, it is almost obvious. T h e metaphor of the flame within the burning bush has long been recognized as one ot the most‫ ־‬imaginative and profound of Scriptures metaphors. Recognized, but without elucidation of its unique poetic function in this specific context. Fire as the most powerful of God-given tools is the climactic summation in Exodus 35:3 of the prohibition of work on YHWH's Sabbath: "You shall kindle/feed no fire in any of your settlements on the Sabbath Day." Here, the fire within the bush—for whatever else it may symbolize—bespeaks the awesome transcendent Power of Deity made Immanent yet unscathing in the lowly fragile bush. But this flame here is Y H W H s maiak, a numen that, despite Moses' fear to view it, speaks reassurance that the h u m a n mal'ak too can harbor YHWH's flame, and can (as such) lead the oppressed Israelites to freedom. And these Israelites are the descendants of the patriarchs to whom promise was made by Heaven. T h e Deity who cites himself as the ancestral god calls himself by no name. He characterizes himself first as u your father's god," as though Moses had only one "father." A n d this singleness of identity of all the patriarchs may operate to affirm the single identity of their god, even as the enumeration "God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God ot Jacob" affirms that singleness for all the variety ot each of the patriarch's experience of this O n e God. 1 he grandeur oi the imagery here, the terse power of the formulation of monotheistic theology in lean and simple words, were best left to speak for themselves. Our preoccupation here, however, is with philology, with the critical discipline of poetics, and with the vindication oi a poetical approach to the names of God as opposed to the non-poetical approach ot source criticism. So let us note that: the narrator begins in verse 2 by declaring that it was YHWH's angel who appeareel to Moses in the guise of, or from within, the tongue of flame. In verse 4 this narrator has the intimate God of Israel, YHWH, noting Moses' approach, but His response to this movement of the mortal is Elohim's address to him from within the

T H E N A M E S OF G O D

‫•־‬j

bush. Thus we have Y H W H Y H W H s angel/agent = Höhim ‫ ^־‬the numen within the bush=the apparition (to Moses) of a self-sustaining flame. This graphic equation, like all semiotic representations, is neither an argument in itself nor a proof of an antecedent argument. It is a graphic or semi-graphic outline of a sequence (if thought(s) enlisted to clarify an argument. In terms of the elemental units for divinity and their sequence as present in the text, we should have to rewrite our equation to distinguish between what is implicit in the argument and explicit in the text, dims, placing the implicit in brackets: [YHWH] ‫•־־‬ Y H W H 's angel/agent (verse 2) = Y H W H (verse 4) "noting" and God/Elohim (verse 4) "calling'' - 1, the dialogic first person pronoun (verse 6) - häHöhim/the n u m e n perceived by Moses in the guise of, or present within, the flaming bush. In terms of the deployment of the various terms for Deity, the omniscient narrator s ignais the favored and intimate status of Moses by identifying that Power/persona by the name Y H W H : so in the implicit commissioning of the angel/agent, and in the explicit subject of the verb ‫״‬note" in verses 4 and 7. T h e representation of this persona is to Moses, so the narrator informs us, in the marvel of the unconsumed bush, w h i c h — a s the narrator knows, but Moses does n o t — i s the agent of Y H W H , the numen häHöhim. It is only after hearing the voice from the bush that Moses recognizes the phenomenon tor what it is, and so it is that he fears to gaze upon häHöhim in verse 6, and thereafter in his dialogue with Deity addresses himself to that numinal presence, the /tü'iö/ilm in verse 11 and, as we shall yet see, in verse 13. Mediate between the caring Y H W H and his numinal representation is Hohimy without the article, that is, Divinity/God, who speaks from within the bush in verse 4 (and again, as we shall note, in verses 14 and 15). It is clear that in verse 4 the Y H W H who "notes' 1 and the Elohim who "calls" are one and the same entity. But note the narrator's subtlety in identifying that speaker as Elohim when he warns Moses of the dangerous ground he is treading and, in verse 7, as Y H W H when his message is his concern for "my people,'1 "thai‫ ״‬is in Egypt"—suffering its tyranny- and his plan for his people's redemption and entrance into a land of felicity. Moses' response to the call, together with Deity's response to the mortals in verse 12, is a masterpiece of rhetorical density. Moses apparently has glitten the point of YHWH's puissant Presence's capability to inhabit a material vessel without doing it harm. But his response to the call, while appealing to our sympathy for such seemly humility, may also be interpreted as a kick of faith in the Deity summoning him t.o his service. Instead of fearing the role of being G o d s vessel, his mal'ak to Pharaoh, it: is the power of that Pharaoh that he now seems to fear. "What am I that I might go to Pharaoh, [who am I] that I ο light liberate the Israelites from Egypt?" A n d the answer to this fear (if it is that) or self-doubt is given in a two-part statement that concludes this synoptic episode. First, let us note that the answer, introduced by the third singular masculine verb wayyö'mer "He said," is provided with no explicit subject—not YHWH, not Elöhim, not häHöhim—and it features an instance of paranomasta so delightful as to excite any rhetorician's envy. T h e answer features the verb "to be" in its denotative sense "I am," in which sense it is totally superfluous, tor biblical Hebrew regularly omits the verb "to be" in the present tense: "I (am") with you" would normally appear as 'änöki 'immäk (ct. verse 6). T h e verbal form, then — Ε live immäk—is "I A M (am/is) with you" And this name

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

I AM, which equally means / WAS and I SHALL BE, is the n a m e of God, which will in the resumptive episode he expounded in terms of itself. But, as we shall see in a moment, at this point Moses is unaware that Î AM is a name of God (as against the awareness oi the narrator or of the reader who is reading this not for the first time); therefore, from his point of view the answer to his question is "1 [the Deityl am with you." W h a t kind of answer is "I am with you'' to the question " W h o [—of what standing - -1 am I Γ Implicitly it says, "Your point is well taken. You are indeed a nonentity, in yourself. But you are not going for yourself, alone, on your own. I, God, am with you. A n d that changes everything. For you are no longer you, you now are my vessel." A n d if Deity's answer stopped here, that would be the bottom line of the kerygma: when God calls to service, modesty is as silly as fear. But t h e answer of Deity does n o t stop there. It goes o n to answer a question that Moses has not asked. Explicitly. But the question is there in the elliptical density of the second part of the answer: Deity's offering of a token by which the mortal may be reassured "that it is I W h o have sent you" reveals a very basic problem of faith and revelation. Doubt about a revelation, even as it is being experienced, may bespeak n o lack of faith in God as such, nor in his ability to call upon mortals in such direct and specific communication, but rather self-doubt: C a n I really believe that this is happening to me, that the transcendent Lord has picked this unlikely frame for his spirit? A n d the answer to this doubt, this reassurance by Deity that he is indeed speaking and commissioning Moses as his prophet, is as ironic—yet existentially t r u e — a s t h e irony of the prophetic ear doubting its capacity to recognize its Caller. For a divinely provided sign that will set doubt to rest, that will reassure the agent of the future success of his mission (hence validation of the fact of the commissioning), must take place in the present. Yet the sign offered by Deity to Moses lies in. the future, indeed in the tut lire when the present‫ ־‬doubt will have been cancelled by a reality that is yet to transpire. Just so. That, is the kerygma: when the receiver of the prophetic call would doubt the reality of the call, would tremble to undertake an enterprise ot such dubious chance of success (if the call is an illusion), there can be no reassurance. If prophetic call is questioned by prophetic self-doubt, well then, t h e proof of the pudding can only be in t h e eating. " W h e n you will have brought t h e people free from Egypt, your sign that it was indeed I W h o sent you will be that all of you will worship Me at this very mountain." This last quote is faithful to the Hebrew text except in one particular. T h e Hebrew has no Me. A l t h o u g h Deity is speaking, he docs not refer to Himself in t h e third person as God ( Elöhlm), nor as Y H W H , but as häHöhim, in this context the most distant abstraction for Deity. Why? Because the introduction of the name Y H W H for Elöhlm, for Elôhïm that is b o t h genus and proper name, Godhead, is yet to come, in t h e resumptive episode. 2. Episode B: The Tetragrammaton ( 1 3 ) Moses said to t h e g o d h e a d (häHöhim),

"Well and good, here I am c o m e ro t h e Is-

raelit es, a n d I say to t h e m , ' t h e god of your fathers has sent m e to you.' and they t h e n say t o me, ' W h a t is his n a m e ? ' - w h a t do I say to t h e m ? " (14) G o d said 1:0 Moses, "'Ehye Her 'Ehye? [ T h a t is,] h e said, "Say so to rhe Israelites, "'Ehye has sent m e to you:'

T H E N A M E S OF G O D

‫•־‬j

(15) Jn full said G o d to Moses, '1Say so to t h e Israelites, ' Y H W H , god of your lathers, god of A b r a h a m , god of Isaac and god of Jacob has sent me to y o u / T h a t is my N a m e for all time, and that is my Mark lor ongoing générations'' (Exodus 3:1 3‫)ל! •־‬

As we noted earlier, häHöhim can have two different connotations, according to what the context will, allow or demand. In the one connotation the definite art icle is the he of abstraction: "Heaven," the Godhead, Divinity (both with capitals). Only this sense is possible, as we have just seen, in verse 12, where the self ‫׳‬reference by that Power excludes the possibility of a lesser, derivative, representative power. In the alternative connotation, the definite article is the he of concreteness, specificity; hence the connotation of a particular manifestation of Divinity/God ( Elohim, without the article) is the divinity, the god, the numen, etc. In this episode B, the subject of wayyö'mer is Elohim/God in verses 14 and 15 (as in verse 4, the subject of "called"). In all these cases Elohim is that Power or Principal who speaks through the intermediary angel/agent (mal'ak) appearing to Moses in or as the tongue of flame. Moses, however, here in verse 13, as in verse 11, addresses himself to the intermediary numen, häHöhim, upon whom, in verse 6, he was afraid to gaze. Finally, let us note that the appearance of the definite article in English with a proper n a m e — a s in "the God of the Hebrew Bible"—to express not an ontological Being but a particular delineation of that Being, is here expressed with God, but the particularity is conveyed by the construct Hôhëy aböteykem. So much for the terms for God in this episode. T h e separate kerygma about the prophet's self-doubt having been achieved in Episode A, this episode resumes with Moses' response to the bidding to return to Egypt. Before he appears before Pharaoh he must, of course, win Israelite concurrence to his making representations to the throne on their behalf. T h e first obstacle to be overcome in gaining their confidence is that oi convincing them that he has been commissioned by Heaven. Passing strange, however, is the metaphor for that difficulty. As though Moses and his brethren of the various tribes of Israel do not have common knowledge of the name of the ancestral Deity! if the name were known to the Israelites but kept secret from outsiders, how convincing a sign of Moses' bona fides if he too knows the name? If the name is to be introduced now by Moses to the Israelites, it would seem that to convince them that this name is to replace an older one would add to his difficulty rather t h a n ease it. Yet God has no problem with this question of Moses' and gives him a name, which in the context car! only be a single name, yet the giving of which is narrated in three steps, each of which seems to present a variation o f t h a t name that must be one. Whatever the metaphor for credibility in the name, there can be no question that the name suecessfully serves its purpose, to remove all doubts. N o r can there be any question as to which of the three variations is the precise and correct one. T h e precise and correct one is Y H W H , for a number of reasons. It is the only one of the three that will appear again, and ever thereafter, as the name of Israel's God. It is the third of the three variations, and the only one that is explicitly characterized as "the name of the God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob." And finally, it h the name that in verse 16 (which opens Episode C) is the name that God assumes will without question be accepted by the elders of Israel. Moses, too, assumes this, tor in 4:1

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

(which opens EpisodeD) Moses' question reveals that all doubt about the credibib ity of Y H W H as truly the G o d of t h e Ancestors will be dissipated, T h e only room for doubt will be in the question as to whether Moses has indeed experienced a commanding revelation from Y/ JWi Î: Moses then spoke up. 1 le said, "And suppose they put no trust in me, will pay no heed to my bidding, saying Ύ Ι I W H did not appear to you'Γ (q: 1 ) Eet us note a feature c o m m o n to the third variation, G od said to Moses y "Say so ω die Israelites, 1YHWI: I G o d o f . . . sent me to y o u / " and to the second variation, He said, "So say to the Israelites, Ehyë sent me to you.'" Both Y H W H and Eh‫׳‬ye are answers to the question of Moses, " W h a t [name] shall I say unto them Γ N o t so the first variation, biete t h e text; reads, God said to Moses, "‫׳‬ehyë aser 'ehyë" This Hebrew sentence t h e n is an exposition of the n a m e to come—Έ/vye—and its meaning is, as we have previously pointed out, all of the following: "I am what I am, I am what 1 was, I am what I shall be, I was what I am, 1 was what I was, I was what 1 shall be, I shall be what I was, I shall be what I am, I shall be what I shall be" 2 i In other words, t h e n a m e Ehyë—appearing first in Episode A but not there recognized by Moses as a name, and now about to appear as the n a m e — h a s the connotations in t h e one-word n a m e of eternity, timelessness, without beginning or end, and in the exposition of changelessness, enduring dependability. A n d the difference between Ehyë and Y H W H is that the first stands for God speaking ot this unchanging timeless Being-ness in the first person, and when Moses retells this experience to the elders h e will have to translate this first-person p r o n o u n c e m e n t by God to a thirdperson pronouncement: Y H W H , standing for Yihyë "He was, He is, He shall be." ( W h i l e it is true that we never have medial waw in the imperfect of the verb "to be" in biblical Hebrew, its attestation in the participial and imperative forms is grounds enough for seeing a clear play, if n o t h i n g else, on t h e third person singular imperfeet; and ii the waw in place of yodh is a relic of the older pronunciation, why all the more reason to attach the patah vowel to the afformative yod/1, as m the older pronunciation, to yield the widely accepted Ya/m/e/1.) j , !,Vom El Shaddai ω ΥI IWl I (2) ( ind spoke to Moses, I le said t o h i m , "I a m YI IWl I " (

1(‫לי‬appeared to A b r a h a m ,

to Isaac, and to Jacob as El S h a d d a i . But M y n a m e Y H W H I m a d e no! nivselt k n o w n

to them. (Exodus 6:2- 3) This brief pericope is problematic on a number of counts: for one its setting; for another its featuring of terms or names for Deity; and for yet another its rcdundancy or pointlessness in t h e context of similar narratives. In terms of setting it comes after Moses' complaint t h a t G o d has failed to help Israel and to support Moses in his mission; on the contrary, matters have gone from bad to worse. A n d it comes after God's response that H e would soon take action to force Pharaoh not just to release the Israelites but to expel them. W h a t need t h e n to begin anew with a statement of address by Deity to Moses, in which he may introduce himself as though for the first time? As concerns the expressions for Deity, verse 2 begins with Elohim as the sub;cc.1. This appears altogether natural to us in light of our own conditioning (by t h e

THE NAMES OF GOD

‫•־‬j

Scriptural tradition) to relate to "god/God" as both common noun and proper noun. Let us note, however, that there is no capitalization in speech, and that in spoken context "god" as a common noun must always have some qualification in terms oi defmiteness or indefmiteness, while "God"—without such qualificationts itself a proper name. But this is, as we have noted, a peculiarity everywhere in Scripture, as in the languages into which Scripture has been translated. W h a t must be stressed here is that the use ot Hlöhlm in 1 he narrator's voice in verse 2 is not, as is often the case elsewhere, an indication of the Deity's lesser intimacy or friendliness. Inasmuch as the speaker is going to identify himself by the name Y H W H (i.e., in dialogue), the narrator must use a term for "Deity" that is not quite, ab though it is in a sense, a proper name. But again, in terms of setting, there is something bizarre about God's intn )ducing himself by the name Y H W H when such in·‫׳‬ traduction has taken place in chapter 3, and further, the name Y H W H has become the commonplace term for God in the intervening narrative (cf. e.g., 5:21, at a remove of only four verses). Problematic also is the stress on an alternative designation or proper name for Deity, in contrast to the name Y H W H , El Shaddai. N o t El Ely on (as in Genesis 14:18-20, 22) nor Elohmi, as though that is not a proper name at all, but as El Shaddai. This name of Deity (and its more frequent occurrence as simply Shaddai) deserves a poetical investigation in itself. As Shaddai it is Job s preferred name for God and as El Shaddai appears three times in dialogue, in the voice of Jacob (Genesis 28:3, 43:14, 48:3). Only twice does the self-identification "I am ΈΙ Shaddai" appear, once to Abraham (17:1) and once to Jacob (35:11). A n d these last two instances are clearly the back-references of Exodus 6:3, "I appeared to them as El Shaddai." And equally clear is the function of this usage, that is, as the counterpoise to the name YHWH, which was not disclosed to the patriarchs. A n d it is this additional element in this revelatory self-identification, making explicit what was only implicit in the analogous scene in Exodus 3, that poses the most challenging problent. W h a t point is there in fixing the appearance of the name YHWH to the time of Moses, what is the point ot such knowledge having been denied to the partiarehs/ This question would in itself pose a thorny question for exegesis. But there is a more daunting question for anyone who, like us, posits a poetical unity for Scripture in general and for Genesis and Exodus in particular. For the denial of knowledge of the name Y H W H to the patriarchs, a denial spoken by Y H W H Himself, is in explicit contradiction to the notice in Genesis 4 : 2 6 b — a notice the pointlessness of which we have previously discussed 2 2 —that in antediluvian days the name Y H W H was already invoked by humankind. And if we should try to resolve this contradiction by the supposition that somewhere between N o a h and Abraham the name Y H W H was lost, there would still be the poetic discrepancy of the single narrator permitting (not himself, for that is no problem, but) his characters to dispose in dialogue of the name Y H W H .

THE PATRIARCHS'

USE OF T H E N A M E

YHWH

T h e name Y H W H appears in dialogue in Genesis 4:1, where Eve's acknowledgment of God's role 111 her hearing a child is, "I have made a person with YI IWH-

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

|/s lie 1‫|רן‬.‫ יו‬In 5:29 Lamech expresses his knowledge that the soil's fertility was interdieted by Y1 IWl h In 9:26 Noah praises Y H W H , who in prophetic vision he reeogni ·es as Shem's god. T h e name YHWH appears in a patriarch's voice for the first time in Genesis 14:22, This chapter, regarded by source critics as unique in respect to plot, diction, and syntax, is assigned to an unnamed source other than J, E, or P. Our own analysis of this chapter concludes that it is an episode in the life of Abram that is wellintegrated into its narrative setting, and expressive of a kerygma in profound resonance with Scripture's theological doctrine. A sub-kerygma of this narrative is the affirmation that the Deity served by Melchizeclek, priest-king of Salem, named by him El Ely on and characterized as Greator of Heaven and Earth, is none other than the same Deity, identical with the YHW7H (Creator of Heaven and Earth) of the patriarch Abram and of both his immediate and far-off progeny. T h e appearance of the name Y H W H in the speech of patriarchal figures or personae in patriarchal times can be checked against the listings in table 1-1. For reasons of economy I will refer only briefly to the five narratives that I will later discuss in detail. In Genesis 15, the story of the covenant made between God and Abraham, featuring an apparition moving between the parts of several slaughtered animals, there are six explicit references to Deity, each one featuring the name Y H W H . Three times the name is used by the narrator and three times—in explicit contradiction of Exodus 6 : 2 - 3 — i n dialogue. Deity declares UI [am] Y H W H [he] that fetched you out of Ur Kasdim" or "I, YHW r H [am the one] that fetched you out of Ur Kasdim." A n d Abram twice addresses God as "my Lord ( a dönäy) YHWH." In Genesis 1.6, Sarai says that Y H W H has kept her from giving birth (verse 2) and later calls on Y H W H to judge Abrains responsibility in the matter of the disrespect shown to her by Hagar (verse 5). Four times, so the narrator tells us, the angel of YI I W H addresses 11 agar and tells her to name her son Yishma-el "El hears," in acknowledgement, he goes on to say, ' 1 that YHWH has heeded your suffering." (verse 11) In Chapter 18 Y H W H , speaking to Abraham, refers to himself in the third person: "Is anything beyond YHWI I's power to perform Γ T h e last instances I will cite are those in chapter 22. T h e perplexing call to Abraham to offer up his son features the term hcV'löhlm in the narrator's voice (three times) and ‫י‬Elöhlm (without the definite article) in Abraham's. But with verse 11, the turnabout from that command is introduced by YHWH's angel calling upon Abraham to stay his hand (verse 11). After sacrificing the providential ram, Abraham names the sacrificial site YHWH-yirë "YHWH-provides" A n d Y H W H s angel, in his second appearance, formulates God s promise to Abraham in a solemn oath taken by Deity,"'By mine own self have I sworn/ so the word of Y H W H , 'because you have done this thing.'" We thus have eleven instances in which the biblical narrator has various personae (God himself, God's angel, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Sarah), disposing of the name YHWH, T h e divine personae do this in dialogue with humans, and the humans themselves in all spontaneity, and all ot these instances, before the time of its first introduction to Moses, We could go on now to present our solution to this

T H E N A M E S OF GOD

‫•־‬j

glaring poetical difficulty. But in the interest oi preparing our readers for our suggestion, it will be helpful to make something of a detour: to examine the unique p h e n o m e n o n — u n i q u e to Scripture, unknown in (he world's literature or religious traditions—of a proper name that is never pronounced, indeed unpronounceable, because it is writ ten in. consonants with no vowels provided.

T H E S O L U T I O N TO T H E PROBLEM: A (LITERARY)

HYPOTHESIS

A recapitulation of my argument so far would include the following elements: ι* A rejection of the notion that the problem of the names of God may be confined to a primary dichotomy represented by the names Elohim (God) and YHWH (the Lord or Yahweh). This, because so many other names are featured in close association with these two names. 2. A rejection of the meta-literary solution offered by source-criticism to the Elohim/YHWH bifurcation, viz., a discernment of documents traceable to diiferent authorial hands or sources, this in large part according to whether the narrator employs or eschews the Tetragrammaton before the moment of its introduction to Israel in the person of Moses. This rejection is based on the poetic perception that a narrator's use of a name for Deity does not argue that his story's personae were privy to that name, nor does his own eschewing of that name imply that his personae were not privy to that name. 3. The conclusion that the proper noun Elohim (God) is not so much a product as it is a witness of monotheistic thinking. From this last conclusion the following may be inferred. T h e proper name Elohim must be a later development in the Israelit ish experience than the Tetragrammaton (however it was pronounced). A specific (proper) name for a peoples god (such as El, Shaddai, YHWIT), presupposing the (assumed) existence of many gods, must be chronologically prior 10 the common-noun-become-propcr-noun (Elohim/ Uod). If the foregoing is clear to us, it must have been equally clear to the authors and editors oi the texts from which we draw this conclusion. We must thereiore look for a literary explanation of the apparent contradictions, inconsistencies, superfluities, and non-sequiturs in the information provided by our texts as to these two names. In short, our argument has both sharpened and complicated the formulation of the questions centering on these two names. Let us recapitulate and elaborate these questions. W h y would a religious tradition possess and preserve several names for a single god? True, a single god might often be referred to by an epithet, an epithet that almost becomes an alternative "name" Such may be the case with such terms as Elyon ("Most High") and Shaddai ("Almighty"?), but except for such rare (and un‫־־‬ explained) exceptions as Jove/Jupiter, the head of a pantheon will have but one proper name (Zeus, Odin, Marduk, etc.). But why preserve such names other t h a n to indicate that a deity formerly, or in another tribe, known as El Elyon, is really the same entity known among us today as, say, YHWH? T h a t the specific proper name that became predominant among Israels tribes was Y H W H would seem to be unquestionable. W h y then should the Scriptural tradition inform us in one place that that name was already known to humankind tens of generations betöre Israel

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

emerged on history's stage, while in another place it should take pains to deny the knowledge of that name to the ancestors of Moses, and this last in close proximity to a chapter devoted to a perplexing midrashic exposition of that names etymology to the Moses, who has just asked hy what name he is to identify his ancestral god tc‫י‬ his tribal contemporaries? And why, further, docs this Scriptural tradition preserve this name in consonantal writing, defy it a pronunciation by withholding of vowel indicators, and provide substitute, terms such as adönäy? And why, finally, having denied knowledge of this name Y H W H to the patriarchs, does Scripture again and again feature this name in the direct discourse between these patriarchal figures and the Deity who identifies himself by this name? Our solution to this problem will involve a radical suggestion: that there never existed a pronunciation proper to the name transcribed by the letters Y-H-W-H. This suggestion would seem to fly in the face of two rabbinic texts that seem to be in simple attestation that the name represented by the Tetragrammaton was still uttered in public in Second Temple times. O n e ot these is, indeed, the one written statement on which one might base speculation that the Name was regarded as too sacred for evocation, except on rare occasion by the most sanctified of human lips. T h e following translation is from Danbys The Mishnah: And when the priests and the people which stood in the Temple Court heard the Ex‫״‬ pressed Name come forth from the mouth of the High Priest, they used to kneel and bow themselves and fall down on their taces and say, 1Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever!1 (Yoma 6:2) T h e specific context of the High Priest's pronouncing of "the Expressed Name" is his cit ation of Leviticus !6:10, which concludes, "ye shall be clean before the Lord (i.e., YIIWI I)." O n this last citation in Mishna Yoma 3:8, Danby—drawing on rabbinic commentaries, needless to say—has the following footnote: T h e final word , Lord* was p r o n o u n c e d hy t h e 1 ïigh Priest as it was written a n d n o t , as usually, by a reverential p s e u d o n y m or a l t e r n a t i v e d i v i n e n a m e sueh as A d o n a i .

O n e might quarrel with Danhy's formulation on a number of counts. For one thing, what does he have in mind by "a reverential pseudonym" other than "an alternative divine name," and is not: Adimai a substitute for rather than an alternative divine name ? But these are quibbles. W h a t is not a qui bble, however, is the objection to his having the High Priest pronounce the Name "as it was written." Inasmuch as the written name Y H W H is without vowels, it could not be pronounced as it was written. These last four words (in italics) are an interpretation of the Hebrew, which in Yoma 6:2 is translated by him as "the Expressed Name." T h e Hebrew thus rendered is hassem hammeföräs,23 a reference to the Tetragrammaton (known in later rabbinic Hebrew as sem haivwäyä, i.e., the name containing the Hebrew verb hwh "to be"). A n d while it is true that later rabbinic tradition understood this phrase as the consonantal Y H W H pronounced according to the original vocalization, it is equally true that this understanding is eisegetical, n o t exegetical. For Hebrew hassem hammeföräs means simply the Name Expounded or the Name Explicated and not the Name Expressed or the Name Pronounced or the Name Enunciated.2^ Elad the N a m e indeed been enunciated by the High Priest on every Day of

I'll H NAM I: S Ο Γ c o n

A t o n e m e n t in the hearing oi the throng in the temple courtyard, we should t h e n have to seek for the date of the forgetfulness of the vowels in the decades after the Temples destruction by Rome. And the M ish η a s intent, that the Name Explicated was indeed heard at large, admits of no question. For in our second citation, Mishna Tamid 3:8, a fanciful catalogue of sounds from the Temple that could be heard as far away as Jericho, we read "and there are those who say that even the voice of the High Priest [could be heard] when he uttered (fckir) the N a m e on the Day of A t o n e m e n t " And if that Name was the sem hammrföräs25 "the Explicated N a m e " the name expressive of G o d s eternality and enduring sovereignty as ex‫׳‬ pounded in the Ehye or Ehyê £iser Ehyë of Exodus 3 (or the attributes of Exodus 3 4 : 6 - 7 ) , we should have no difficulty understanding why the tannaitic rabbis would have wanted the Name to resound so far and wide. And we would be in a better position to understand the response of the people to the expounding of this name. For a more meaningful translation of the people's response to the expounding of this Name—bärük sem bvöd malkütö le 'öläm wä'ed— is "Praised be this name for His Sovereign Presence for all time" W h e r e does all this leave us? If the name were indeed enunciated in Second Temple times, if only once a year by the High Priest, what authoritative rabbinic body decreed its suppression, and how did it effectuate in Roman times, on the banks of the Ebro and the Rhine, the Tiber and the Euphrates, a draught of Lethelike waters, as potent in its universality as remarkable in its specificity? If the Name were not enunciated by the High Priest in Second Temple times, then its suppressum must have taken place some centuries or even a millennium earlier, without trace in Scripture of a struggle - this on the part of a people who could wrangle for centuries over whether their God wanted sacrifices brought to him in many shrines or in one alone. In either case, the fact of or the reason for such suppression is nowhere given, and the process itself so improbable as to be well-nigh inconceivable. But the process—for all its inconceivability—must have taken place. For we have the consonantal name, we have Scripture's witness to God's having pronounced it for Moses, Moses tor the elders, and into some later generation when the vocalization was somehow forgotten. N o t quite. Scripture—consider its literal meaning—is a literary witness, a witness in writing. As such it may express an eloquence unsurpassed. But as a literally (sic!) linguistic phenomenon, speech (loquens), it is mute. T h e vocalization for YHWH need never have been forgotten if, for example, it was never known; and never known for never having existed. 26 Let us consider this possibility But first let us review the general assumptions and conclusions about the Tetragrammaton in regard to its ontology and etymology. T h a t the name existed as a vocable in the sense of utterable sounds is, as we have just suggested, a meta-literary assumption; 27 the name as we have it is a purely literary datum, a datum in writing. T h e narrative 111 Exodus 3 on the revelation of this name clearly entails the verb "to be" hyh (possibly, in earlier times, hivh). T h e third radical of this form is not a consonant as such but a vocalic consonant, which is to say, a consonantal sign indicat ing a long vowel; in this case a vowel for the medial consonant y (or hj) in compensation for the loss of an original third radical that was either the semi‫׳‬ consonant y (reducible to vowel i) or the semi-consonant‫ ׳‬u: (reducible to vowel u).

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

Thus the first person imperfect ehyêh is constituted of three consonants: afformative aleph (')‫ י‬and two consonants of the stem (he and yodh, h and y); the last /1c is a vocalic indication of the length oi the second radical: ehyë. T h e third person imperfect in hihlical Hebrew is, analogously, yihye, afformativc yodh and stem consonants hë and yodh. T h e question before us is, supposing that the word-play in Exodus 3 proceeds from God in the first person speaking of Himself as Ehyë to the third person form for a speaker other than God, that third person form should be Yihyë. Why would the narrator opt for a Yilvive form, and why have scholars assumed further that the vowel of the afformativc yodh is patah and not hireql N o answer is offered in scholarship to the first question, because the question is never asked. T h e text has a waw as the third consonant of Tetragrammaton and that is a fact. Furthermore, this presents no great problem, for we have indications that the medial consonant of the verb "to be" may well have been waw at an earlier stage of the Hebrew language. A n d if that earlier stage is represented in yhwh, then so may we posit a patah vowel for the afformative yodh as attested in cognate languages representing and preserving a vocalization older than that registered by the Masoretes for biblical Hebrew. A n d oh yes, there is another support for Yahwë rather than Yihwë: the existence of two apparently shortened versions of Yahxvë, viz. Yähü and Yah. Now it is true that Y H W H is a biblical fact. But what kind of fact is it? W e have stipulated that it is a literary fact, a written datum, but not necessarily a linguis tic fact, a datum of speech. But ot whose speech is it not necessarily a datum? Source critics would say, among others, of the speakers labeled J or P. W h e t h e r J was correct or Ρ was on when the Te tr agram m ato η became the possession of the Israelitish stock as the name par excellence ot their ethnic or national Deity, by the time of the Exodus, YHWH—-·give it whatever vowels you will—was a staple of their speech. And they (the source critics) thus make this Name not only a literary fact, and a linguistic fact — a datum of an ancient: speech- - but a meta-literary fact as well: Y1 IWl I existed in the speech of ancient Israel, as an ontological or historic fact. Now let us consider the other possibility, which we raised before this review, that Y H W H never existed in speech, a conclusion we reached on the basis of the inconceivability of some version of its sound not having survived if it had existed. A conclusion strengthened by the logic ot proceeding in writing from ëhyë, through hypothetical yihyë, to Y H W H standing for hypothetical Yihwë; a logic making sense in writing but not in a synchronic pronunciation. This logic does not begin with Y H W H but ends with it. it begins with a name, no, the name for Israel's tutelary deity, as broadly attested in names of people. (Names are a conservative vessel in speech, preserving elements that have long ago become semantically meaningless, including theophoric elements that may never have had a semantic content.) T h a t name is Yähü, preserved at the end of such sentence names as HizqpYähü, Yisä-Yähü, Sema^Yähü. W h e n beginning sentence names, vowel reduction resulted in its being pronounced Yehö or even Yö, as in Yd!ö-nätan/Yö-nätan, Yehö~räm, Yöräm. (The first syllable in the name of Moses' mother, Yö-keved, may be the only instance of this theophoric element in a name antedating Moses.) And in the boundform of the call to praise (halMüyäh), as in a tew other poetic instances, the final vowel was dropped, resulting in Yäh.

T H E NAMES OF GOD

‫•־‬j

T h e narrarive in Exodus 3 reflects, therefore, an expansion oi a two-consonantal name into a three-consonantal name, the vocalic consonant tor the second const)‫־׳‬ nant being transformed into fully consonantal 1vcavy and the fourth letter, /1c, added as a vocalic consonant to indicate the length of the vowel attached to that newly emerged waw. All in a play on the verb a t o he," to give new meaning to an old name (which may have had no meaning at all), a name (the new one) un pronounceable and unpronounced. (Yä-hü-xvä would be a pointless lengthening of Yähü without the appearance at: all of the verb "to be.") This n a m e — o r rather spelling—henceforward appears everywhere where the name Yähü would have appeared. If the text were read aloud, how would the reader have rendered the spelling into speech: In all likelihood, either by a substitute vocable adönäy} or by the old Yähü. 28 T h e question that would remain is, why? W h y this artificial play on the verb "to be"? W h y the creation of a name spelled one way and pronounced another? W h a t would have been the point of the displacement of Yähül A n d the answer becomes obvious, once we rid ourselves of magical thinking and cease to ascribe such think•‫׳‬ ing to the Scriptural authors, on ce we rid ourselves of the notion that the formulators of monotheism were intellectually primitive, less capable than we are to work out the implications of a theology that replaces many gods with one. 29 Simply put, monotheism has no need, possibly no room, for a n a m e — a proper n a m e — f o r Deity. Proper names are labels by which individual or particular members of a class are differentiated one from another. If Deity is a class with but one member, then the common name or noun for that class is sufficient. Or perhaps we might say that in such case the common noun is also a — n o , the—proper noun. And that is a problem that has been plaguing me in writing this chapter, this very paragraph. For were we strict in our own monotheistic awareness we should never capitalize deity, we should never speak of the Deity, and never capitalize god. I ; or our case is the case of the biblical texts where in speaking of the one and only (true and) existing god, rat lier than the (false and) nonexisting gods of paganism, 1löflfm without an article is clearly a proper as well as a common noun. Our capitalization of God or Deity owes then to the respect for the concept of singleness of deity, and to an inherited convention for the differentiation of the O n e and Only God of Scripture from the many gods that exist (ed) only in the minds of pagans. T h e name Höhim (as in Genesis 1) is a singular (the plural form being the plural of majesty), a common noun doing service as a proper noun also, and its disposition as such is witness to the monotheistic faith of the writer or speaker who so disposes of it. A n d as such we render c7öhim in transcription as Elôhïm and in translation as God, in both cases a proper name. But the monotheistic biblical authors could no more ignore the polytheistic ambience of Israel's neighbors, nor the backslidings of faithful Israelites into polytheistic patterns of belief, t h a n we can deny t h a t the popular religion of monotheistic confessions today discloses a good many elements of the polytheism out of which and in opposition to which monotheism emerged. And, for those of us who profess to be the teachers and preachers of monotheism, let us not lay unction to our souls in this regard. In our passionate devotion to the narrower formulas of our denominational faith and praxis, do we not often in effect deny that our rival sister-

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

denominations arc worshiping the one and only god? If, as a wise pagan observed, when the gods are threatened it is the priests who tremble, is this any less true of the clergy who minister to the one and only god? In the case of ancient Israel, a people and a nation having emerged iron! polytheism, hailing their ancestral god Yähü as Creator and god o! all nature and nations, how did their conduct among themselves or their stance in regard to neighboring peoples and polities differ essentially from the conduct and stance of the Assyrians who hailed Assur, or of the Babylonians who hailed Marduk as Creator and god of all nature and nations? How did Joram ben Ahah, who declared that " Y H W H had called forth" himself and his allies to make war against Moab, 30 differ from Sennacherib, who declared that his campaigns were undertaken ina tukulti beliya Assur "trusting in (the help of) my lord Assur?" Surely there can be no argument that such was the problem of the prophets, from the Amos of 3 : 1 - 2 , 4 : 4 - 5 , 9 : 5 - 7 , to the Malachi who declares what is ontologically true (given monotheism) for all the failure of the surrounding peoples to realize to whom they are addressing their worship: Verily,

From the place of sun's rising to the place of its setting, Great is My name among the nations, Everywhere is incense presented to My name, and offerings pure — So great [the reverence for] My name among the nations! (Malachi 1:11)3i T h e basic insights of Scripture into a O n e and Only g o d — w h o is Person, who is Friend to humankind, who is by essence moral and would show his friendliness to humans if they would but make that possible by their own morality—these are often obscured from our view by the idolatry of logography, by the literal reading of breathtaking metaphor. A n d when one examines the range of metaphor expressed in the varied appearances of ' 1 name" (.sen!) in connection with God, it will come as no wonder that in instance after instance "the name" Y l i W I I means anything but "the name YHWH," and that Y H W H u the name" should appear just where one would expect cluhnn, that is, the O n e and Only god. Two instances of the latter phenomenon, their significance overlooked anil usually masked by mistranslation, are Genesis 12:7 and 16:13. T h e proper name Y H W H appears in both, modified by a participial phrase. In 12:7 we are told that Abraham (in the neighborhood of Shechem) "erected there an altar to Y H W H hannirê , eläw? Every translation I have checked renders the participle by a past, or past per‫•׳‬ feet verb, "who (had) appeared to him." T h e Hebrew for this would have been aser nir'ä 'êlâw. T h e torce of the participle is incompleted action, hence "to Y H W H who [was] appearing to him." But such a modification of a particular person, as rep resented by his proper name, makes little sense. For John (for example) is John whether he appears or not. T h e participial phrase then is elliptical, standing for "to Y H W H , [the god] who was appearing." In 16:13, which we shall examine in detail later, Hagar, addressing a god whom she does not know by name, gives him a name of her own invention. Literally wattiqrä‫ י‬sem YHWH haddöber Jëlëhâ is "she called the name o t \ H W H the [one/godl speaking to her." More correctly in terms of English idiom: 41 YHWH, the [god] addressing her, she named." This second instance brings up for examination the question of the appearance

T H E N A M E S OF G O D

‫•־‬j

of the name Y H W H in construct with scm (e.g., Genesis 4:26, 12:8, 13:4). T h e translation "to call upon/invoke the name of YHWH/the Lord" is unacceptable. For o n e does not invoke "the name of" a proper name. Speiser, sensitive to this linguistic aberration» therefore renders the Hebrew, "invoked YI1WI I by n a m e " I bis translation is acceptable as English but it is not faithful to the Hebrew (at least as vocalized by the‫ ־‬Masoretes). Speisers rendering would reflect the I lehr luv "(to invoke) hassem VI JWJ I," that is, "by the n a m e YHWH." W h a t then lies behind the construct sem YHWH! T h e cot!struct‫־‬, if rendered literally, reflects bad Elebrew and is bad English, and even in Speisers good English would appear to be a clear c o n ‫׳‬ tradiction of the statement in Exodus 6:3 that the patriarchal ancestors were not privy to this name. O n e answer is to treat t h e term sem not as "name" literally, but in a metaphoric sense, as for example in the psalmists plea: "Act, Ο God, hnaan smekä" is reduced to gibberish by t h e English "for t h e sake of T h y n a m e " T h e Hebrew !is/1mäh, literally "for its name," in rabbinic and modern Hebrew means "for its own sake"—not for ulterior motives. Thus the Psalmist asks God to act n o t for the sake of the supplicant, who has n o merit, n o claim on God's favor, but to act u because You are benevolent, out of Your attribute of grace." O n this line of metaphotic usage, the erection of an altar to Y H W H and calling (on God) fcsem YHWH need not involve knowledge of t h e n a m e o n the part of t h e mortal engaging in such activities. It is rather the narrator's way of indicating that t h e patriarch, by whatever name h e addressed God, truly understood him in his uniqueness, his sovereignty, his eternality, his consistency in justice and benevolence. Thus, for example, in Genesis 21:33 A b r a h a m at Beersheba calls besem YHWH 'el "öläm, W h i l e the Hebrew could be rendered "in the [other] n a m e of Y H W H , God Eternal," or "in Y H W H , that is, by the name Eternal God," it could also c o n n o t e in "the name [of god whom we know as| Y H W H , eternal deity." Similarly tot), we may understand that the narrator, when he has patriarchal personages address Yl IWl I in do red. discourse, does so as a matter of free direct discourse, in the full knowledge of the apparent contradiction of the statement in Exodus 6:3. But even this explanation is not one of last recourse. Especially if we reflect that even grim sobriety or halakhic rigidity may in Scripture mask the broad understanding and patient tolerance of authors emulating those very attributes of a long-suffering deity, who but for a sense of humor would long ago have given up on both His beloved humankind and His chosen Israel. We need not characterize as a failure the enterprise of Scriptures authors to convey to us the fundamental insight that in monotheism a proper n a m e for Deity is in a sense blasphemous, allowing as it may for t h e existence of other deities by other names. T h a t insight is conveyed by t h e very attempt to eliminate the name, even as the implicit use ofelöhim in a context that, admits of n o more t h a n one such is already a witness to t h e triumph of monotheism. But beyond this, the fact is that even in a narrow7 sense t h e biblical authors were successful. For they did virtually eliminate the n a m e of Israel's (parochial) god. Except for appearances in the proper names of people, the n a m e Yähü all but disappeared from Israelite consciousness; replaced by a never-pronounced Y H W H , a visual reminder of the one and only god's essence: el öläm, enduring god = vihyë aser yihyë. As for the patriarchs who are portrayed as invoking Y H W H , a name not made known to them, the statement

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

in Exodus 6:3 applies not only to them hut to all t h o s e — i n c l u d i n g ourselves— who came after Moses. For in the sense of a n a m e as a p h e n o m e n o n of speech, an oral or auditory p h e n o m e n o n , the name reflected in the written characters Y H W H was never made known to anyone. Hebrew sem means "name" and, as often i n d b cated by close association with qärä "to call out, to utter" is essentially a sonic or auricular p h e n o m e n o n . T h e Hebrew word zeker, which may indeed be a synonym for " n a m e " has a denotation which is essentially visual, "mark, sign, trace," Only a pedant, himself a stranger to a sense of humor, would with assurance deny t h e possibility of any humorous intent in the narration of Exodus 3. After going through t h e near rigmarole of the first episode in which Moses* question, " W h o am I that (ici) I (presume to) go to Pharaoh" receives the elliptical answer, "Verily (kï) Ehyë (I am)(is) with you;" this followed by the granting of an unasked for sign (St) that is no sign at all, we reach the second episode: Moses asks a rather bizarre question what n a m e shall he give as the name of the ancestral god — and receives t h e answer Ehyë aser Ehyë, which is immediately reduced to t h e Ehyë of episode A, and t h e n summarized or glossed as " Y H W H god of the ancestors . . . sent me to you." A n d this culminates in t h e final p r o n o u n c e m e n t , which can refer only to t h e (unpronounceable) n a m e Y H W H and not to the predicate "sent me," zë semï leoläm. 1vczë zikrï ledör dör "That is my n a m e for all time and that is my S I G N a t u r e for all generations."

P A R T .‫ן‬.™‫״‬,‫״‬,

I ‫י‬

‫ן‬--

STORIES — THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY

This page intentionally left blank

τ

w

ο

T H E C R E A T I O N STORY IN GENESIS, CH. 1:12:4‫־־‬A

T H E BEARING OF ENUMA ELI
The appreciation in modern scholarship of the biblical creation story is dependent:, to a degree that can hardly be exaggerated, on our possession ol the Mesopotamia!! ere‫׳־‬ ation traditions, particularly the Babylonia Creation Epic. To pick a single striking example: How does the Genesis creation pericope begin, and how and where does it end? T h e how of the beginning is, of course, whether the 1 lebrew words constitute an independent clause ("111 the hegt tin ing God created‫ )״‬or a dependent clause ("When God began to create' 1 ). The second option, now the greatly preferred one, was still regarded as a radical transi at ion some fifty years ago; this despite Rashis having anticb pated it almost a millennium ago. T h e ending of the pericope is now universally recognizeci in the division of 2:4 into (a) a recapitulation of the preceding narrative, and (b) a dependent clause beginning a new narrative. As to the unanimity on this division, one can only wonder that it was only so recently arrived at when one contrasts the present translations with the gobbledygook into which this verse was previously rendered, for example: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." T h e case for the division oi 2:4, providing for a second narrative beginning with a dependent clause, parallel to the rendering of Genesis 1:1 as a dependent clause, could only be strengthened by the parallel syntax of the Babylonian Epic, named (as in the Jewish tradition) according to its opening words Enurrui elish, "When up above." 37

S T O R I E S ‫ " ־־‬Τ Η Ε PK I Μ Η ΥΛ Ί. i i l S T O R V "

For all the lore going, it is a matter of interest that of the many questions that long troubled readets of t h e biblical creation story, very few owe their resolution to the many parallel features discovered in the bnmna elish. A review of these problems and their plausible solutions will show that at best the adducing of parallels from the Babylonia Epic merely reinforces answers suggested before the recovery of this epic. Preparatory to presenting my own translation of the biblical text and my discussion of its problems and their proposed solutions, I think it important to cite (and criticize) E. A. Speisers argument for viewing the biblical creation narrative as a "take-over" of the Babylonian prototypes: M e s o p o t a m i a ' s c a n o n i c a l version ot cosmic origins is found in t h e . . . Enüma elish. . . . T h e n u m e r o u s p o i n t s of c o n t a c t b e t w e e n it and t h e o p e n i n g section of G e n e s i s h a v e long b e e n n o t e d . T h e r e is n o t only a striking c o r r e s p o n d e n c e in various details, but•— w h a t is e v e n m o r e s i g n i f i c a n t — t h e order of t h e e v e n t s is t h e same, w h i c h is e n o u g h to preclude any likelihood of c o i n c i d e n c e . T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p is duly recognized by all i n f o r m e d students, n o m a t t e r h o w o r t h o d o x their personal beliefs may be. I cite as a n e x a m p l e t h e t a b u l a t i o n given by H e i d e l , The B a c o n i a n Genesis, p. 129. Enuma

Genesis

elish

[‫ ]ן‬D i v i n e spirit a n d cosmic m a t t e r are c o e x i s t e n t a n d c o e i e r n a l 121 Primeval chaos; T i a m a l e n ‫׳‬ veloped in darkness

D i v i n e spirit creates m a t t e r and exists i n d e p e n d e n t l y of it T h e earth a desolate waste, with I ill ness covering t h e deep ( t e h o m )

I d Light e m a n a t i n g Iron! t h e gods

Liebt civ at cd

[41 T h e creation oi the f i r m a m e n t

i h e c r e a t i o n oi t h e l i r m a m e n t

[5] T h e creation of dry land

1 he c r e a t i o n of dry land

[6] T h e c r e a t i o n o f l u m i n a r i e s

T h e c r e a t i o n of luminaries

[7] T h e c r e a t i o n of m a n

T h e c r e a t i o n of m a n

[8] T h e gods rest a n d celebrate

G o d rests a n d sanctifies t h e s e v e n t h day

Except for i n c i d e n t a l differences of o p i n i o n in regard t o t h e e x a c t m e a n i n g of t h e first entry in e a c h c o l u m n . . . t h e validity of t h e listing is n o t o p e n t o question. 1

W h a t I find remarkable, contrary to Speiser's judgments, is the extent to which, in regard to b o t h the substance and the order of the items, H e i d e l s listing is open to rebuttal. Speiser himself concedes that Item [ 1 ] is questionable, if only on account of H e i d e l s assumption that creation in the Bible, contrary to the Enuma elish version, is ex nihilo. To correct Heidel on this point is only to make t h e two ere‫׳‬ ations more similar. But HeidePs speaking of "divine spirit" in Enuma elish is utterly gratuitous. T h e word "spirit" appears not at all, in contrast to t h e specific presence of rüah Höhtm in Genesis (where, too, n1‫־‬uh is more likely "wind" t h a n "spirit"). Item [2]: Despite his listing of darkness as enveloping Tiamat, Heidel himself concedes that "in Enüma elish this expression is not expressly stated, but we can deduce it from the fact t h a t Ti'amat, according to Berossus . . . was shrouded in darkness." 2 To conflate the Babylonian Creation Epic with the account of a putative priest of Bel Marduk, published in. Greek about 275 1U:., is to commit a methodological "howler," one deserving oi Samuel Sandmel's stricture: parallclomania. h e m

THE CREATION STORY IN GENESIS

39

Heidel (p. 101) confesses that day and night, already existing at the time of Apsus revolt, are not part of Marduks acts of creation. As for the illumination required to have daytime, h e derives "the emanation of light from the gods" from "the radiance or dazzling aureole which surrounded Apsu ." This figuration of a warrior's halo blinding and terrifying his enemies is so frequent in cuneiform writings as to be a cliché. How seriously this item should be taken as analogous to the creation of light in Genesis 1 we may glean, for example, from Sennacherib s boast that his own halo caused his royal Babylonian adversary to urinate in his chariot. Item [4], the creation of the biblical firmament, would be the first correspondence to an act of creation by Marduk, wherein—presumably—both heaven and earth were ere‫•׳‬ ated by Marduks splitting of Tiamat like a shellfish, the former corresponding to the upper shell and the latter to the lower shell. In terms then of the order of cor responclent listings, only items |6| and I7J would seem to withstand rebuttal. Yet here too, as far as substance is concerned, the correspondence is quite discrepant. T h e failure of Enuma elish to provide for the emergence of vegetation and ot animals other that! man is in such contrast to the space given them in the biblical, account as to render to the correspondence of items [6] and [7] precisely what Speiser would deny them, "the likelihood" of coincidence. T h e final item (8] is forced, even in the formulation of Heidel's listing. God rests or desists from his labors of creation, but does not celebrate. In Enuma elish the gods do not create—except tor their brick-making for their shrine in Babylon—and Marduk and Ea, who share such creative acts as there are, do not mark the cessation of their creative labors. T h e foregoing criticism of the excesses to which the comparative approach is frequently carried is not to be taken as a depreciation or disparagement of this apρ roach, nor of its corollary, the contrastive. W h a t we would stress, however, is the need for every generation of commentators to review and reassess for itself a text's cognate literature, just as it submits the primary text to a review ot its translation, signification, and evaluation. This is particularly critical when the primary text has long been held as sacred and various interpretations of it have been accorded doctrinal or dogmatic status, and on that very account fiercely attacked and fiercely defended. Bible students will recall how the decipherment and publication of cuneiform texts were first greeted as a challenge to the originality and authority of biblical accounts, then reinterpreted and defended as helpful to a reinterpretation and enhanced understanding of the sacred text; and how the Babel and Bible debate continues to reverberate in various keys in both secular and confessional circles. Our own presentation of the biblical creation story (and it is our argument that there is but one such story, Genesis ! : ! - 2 : 4 a ) will thus he interlaced — not, we pray, interlarded- - w i t h considerations deriving from old and new interpretations oi the cuneiform epic.

THE GENESIS C R E A T I O N STORY: T R A N S L A T I O N

Day One ί Π A t t h e b e g i n n i n g of G o d ' s c r e a t i o n of h e a v e n and e a r t h 3 — ( 2 ) e a r t h , now, \\\‫ לו‬an amorphous blob,with darkness over T e h o m s surface, a n d s u p e r n a t u r a l wind sweeping

4ο

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

over w a t e r s s u r f a c e — ( 3 ) G o d said, "Let t h e r e be l i g h t " T h e r e was light. (4) G o d app r o v e d ot t h e light. 4 S o G o d m a d e t h e light distinct f r o m t h e darkness. (5) G o d d i e n n a m e d t h e light " d a y ( t i m e ) " while t h e darkness h e n a m e d " n i g h t ( t i m e ) , " T h u s was t h e r e e v e n i n g and m o r n i n g , Day O n e . ( G e n e s i s 1 : 1 - 5 )

Day Tivo (6) G o d said, "Let t h e r e be a

firmament

w i t h i n t h e water, to separate water (mass)

f r o m water (mass). (7) T h u s G o d m a d e t h e

firmament,

t h e r e b y separating t h e w a t e r

w h i c h is u n d e r t h e f i r m a m e n t f r o m d i e water w h i c h is a b o v e t h e f i r m a m e n t . It h a p p e n e d so. (8) G o d n a m e d t h e firmament Sky. T h u s was t h e r e e v e n i n g a n d m o r n i n g , Day Two,‫ ( י‬G e n e s i s 1 : 6 - 8 )

Day Three (9) G o d said, "Let t h e water u n d e r t h e sky be massed in o n e place, that dry land m a \ appear." It h a p p e n e d so. ( 1 0 ) G o d n a m e d t h e dry land e a r t h and t h e massed waters H e n a m e d seas. G o d a p p r o v e d . ( 1 1 ) G o d t h e n said, "Let t h e e a r t h p r o d u c e vegeta‫״‬ t ion: seed-hearing grasses, fruit-trees o n e a r t h , e a c h p r o d u c i n g its o w n kind of fruit w i t h its seed w i t h i n it. It h a p p e n e d so. (12) E a r t h p r o d u c e d v e g e t a t i o n : grasses bear‫־׳‬ ing e a c h its o w n species of seed; a n d trees, e a c h a c c o r d i n g to its species p r o d u c i n g its s e e d - c o n t a i n i n g fruit. G o d a p p r o v e d . ( 1 3 ) T h u s was t h e r e e v e n i n g a n d m o r n i n g , Day Three. (Genesis 1 : 9 - 1 3 )

Day Four (14) G o d said, "Let t h e r e be lamps o n h e a v e n s v a u l t t o distinguish day f r o m n i g h t . A n d let t h e m serve as t i m e - m a r k e r s for days a n d years. 0 (15) A n d let t h e m serve as lamps in h e a v e n ' s v a u l t t o s h i n e d o w n u p o n e a r t h " It h a p p e n e d so. (16) T h u s did G o d m a k e t h e two m a j o r lamps, t h e greater t o h o l d sway by day a n d t h e lesser to h o l d sway by n i g h t . A n d t h e stars as well. ( 1 7 ) G o d set t h e m i n t o h e a v e n s v a u l t to shine d o w n u p o n earth, (18) t h a t is to h o l d sway ( a l t e r n a t e l y ) by day a n d by n i g h t , to m a r k off light f r o m darkness. G o d approved. (19) T h u s was t h e r e e v e n i n g a n d m o r n i n g , Day Four. ( G e n e s i s 1 : 1 4 - 1 9 ) Day Five (20) G o d said, "Let t h e waters t e e m with living creatures, a n d let birds fly a b o u t over t h e earth across t h e spread of h e a v e n s d o m e " (2 1) T h u s did G o d c r e a t e t h e great water monsters, and every living, stirring c r e a t u r e of all (lie species with w h i c h t h e water teems, and every species of winged bird. G o d a p p r o v e d . ( 2 2 ) G o d d i e n addressed t h e m with this blessing, "IV a b u n d a n t l y fertile and p o p u l a t e t h e o c e a n waters, and let t h e birds increase o n earth." (23) T h u s t h e r e was e v e n i n g a n d m o r n i n g , Day Five. ( G e n e s i s 1:20 - 2 3 )

Day Six (24s! G o d v u d , "Let e a r t h p r o d u c e a n i m a l life in its species: cattle, crawlers, land hearts of every kind." It h a p p e n e d so. (25) T h u s did G o d m a k e t h e land beasts or every k i n d , t h e c a n le of every k i n d , and soil-crawlers of every sort. G o d a p p r o v e d . (26) G o d t h e n siid, "Let Us m a k e m a n k i n d in O u r own image, in O u r very like-

T H E C R E A T I O N STORY I N GENESIS

41

ness, t h a t t h e y may exercise rule over fish of t h e sea, a n d over birds ot h e a v e n , a n d over cattle, y e s — o v e r all e a r t h a n d every m o b i l e t h i n g t h a t stirs o n e a r t h 2 7 )

‫״‬

)

did G o d create m a n k i n d in his image: in t h e image of G o d did h e create it, male and te m a le did h e create t h e m . (28) G o d t h e n blessed t h e m , G o d said t o t h e m , "Be a b u n d a n t l y iertiie, p o p u l a t e t h e e a r t h a n d master it. Exercise rule over fish of sea, over birds of h e a v e n , over every a n i m a l t h a t stirs o n land." (29) G o d said, "Look now, I h a v e m a d e you a present of every seed-bearing grass w h i c h exists a n y w h e r e o n e a r t h s surface, and of every tree w h i c h has .seed-bearing fruit: yours they are for eating; (30) a n d for all land beasts, and for all t h e birds of h e a v e n , and for every t h i n g stirring o n e a r t h w h i c h has t h e life-stud' within it: every green cereal grass for food." It h a p p e n e d so. ( ) 1 ) G o d reviewed all that hu had d o n e , and lo, it had h is d e e p approval. T h u s was there e v e n i n g and m o r n i n g , Day Six. (Genesis 1 : 2 4 - 3 1 ) Day

Seven

( ï ) H e a v e n a n d e a r t h a n d all t h e i r p o p u l a t i o n s were n o w c o m p l e t e . (2) W h e n G o d on Day S e v e n b r o u g h t to a n e n d t h e work h e h a d d o n e , h e desisted utterly o n this Day S e v e n i r o n ! t h e enterprise h e h a d a c c o m p l i s h e d . ( 3 ) G o d blessed Day S e v e n , declared it holy, for o n it h e desisted f r o m his task, t h e c r e a t i o n w h i c h G o d h a d a c e o m plished. (4a) T h e s e are t h e e v e n t s , as c o n c e r n s t h e i r c r e a t i o n , of h e a v e n a n d e a r t h . ( G e n e s i s 2:1—4a)

T H E GENESIS CREATION STORY:

O N DAYS O N E TO

Day

COMMENTARY

SIX

One ( 1 ) A t the b e g i n n i n g of God's c r e a t i o n of h e a v e n a n d e a r t h — ( 2 ) e a r t h , now, was a n a m o r p h o u s b l o b , w i t h darkness over T e h o m ' s surface, a n d s u p e r n a t u r a l w i n d sweeping

o v e r waters s u r f a c e — ( 3 ) G o d said, "Let t h e r e be light." T h e r e was light. (4) G o d approved of t h e light. S o G o d m a d e t h e light distinct f r o m t h e darkness. (5) God t h e n n a m e d t h e light " d a y ( t i m e ) " while t h e darkness h e n a m e d " n i g h t ( t i m e ) " T h u s was t h e r e e v e n i n g and m o r n i n g , Day O n e . ( G e n e s i s 1:1 — 5) M y t r a n s l a t i o n of t h e o p e n i n g w o r d s o t t h e c h a p t e r as a d e p e n d e n t c l a u s e , a s y n t a x p a r a l l e l e d in t h e o p e n i n g of t h e E d e n n a r r a t i v e ( 2 : 4 b ) a n d b y t h e t w o w o r d s w h i c h , o p e n i n g t h e B a b y l o n i a n G r e a t i o n n a r r a t i v e , g i v e t h e e p i c its n a m e Ε m a m * c/i.s/1, is n o m o r e c o r r e c t t h a n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e : a n i n d e p e n d e n t : c l a u s e r e n d e r e d " I n t h e b e g i n n i n g G o d created h e a v e n a n d earth." T h e Masoretes w h o vocalized

the

H e b r e w t e x t c o u l d h a v e d e c i d e d t h e c a s e i n f a v o r of t h e i n d e p e n d e n t c l a u s e b y v o c a l i : i n g t h e o p e n i n g p r e p o s i t i o n w i t h a qämes, c a l i : i n g t h e v e r b as bcro.

o r i n f a v o r of t h e a l t e r n a t i v e by v o -

By d o i n g n e i t h e r t h e o n e n o r t h e o t h e r , t h e y a m b i g u a t e d

a n d t h u s e n r i c h e d t h e o p e n i n g five w o r d s of S c r i p t u r e , s u g g e s t i n g w h a t m a y h a v e b e e n a t r a d i t i o n a l s y n t a x f o r a n e p i c s b e g i n n i n g , a n d y e t p e r m i t t i n g us t o h e a r t h e f a r g r a n d e r a p o d i c t i c t o n e s of a n u n q u a l i f i e d a s s e r t i o n . 7 W h a t e v e r t h e c a s e i n r e g a r d t o t h i s o p e n i n g c l a u s e , t h e r e is n o q u e s t i o n

that

Thus

4ο

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

verse 2 — a nominal sentence in hypothetic construction 8 —is a parenthetic flashhack, in which the narrator describes how "the earth" would have appeared prior to creation to an observer looking down upon it from somewhere above if that ohservers vision could have penetrated the darkness between. What he would have seen was water, watery Depth called f e / i o m - a noun of feminine gender, never gov‫׳‬ erned by the definite article, and very often personified as in our capitalization of it here. The surface oi the far-stretching water was very likely roiled by the awesome!y powerful wind sweeping over it, T h e verb in its (few) 11ehrew and Ugaritic appearances attests to a context of lateral motion, never in the sense of "hovering" T h e alternative rendering of rüah Hôhïm, "the spirit of God," is unexceptionable except that no one seems to know what this means in this context. God himseli is supposedly spirit, and "the spirit of God" as a metaphor for his presence is restricted to contexts of divine inspiration or revelation. So much tor questions arising from ambiguities in the Hebrew and answered implicitly in our translation. Other questions, posed not by the Hebrew but by the general context, are: 1) If, according to verse 1, God created heaven and earth on the first day, how to account for the creation of heaven on the second day in verses 6 - 8 ? 2) If He created earth alone on the first day, why are we not so told? 3) And was earth then created before or after light? 4) In regard to that light did God not know before he created it that he would approve of it, or is there something subtle that we are missing in the Hebrew that more literally reads, "when he saw that it was good" or "saw how good it was"? 5) And if light is by its very nature distinct from darkness, what was the act of his making a distinction/separation between light and darkness ? 6) If sun, moon and stars—normally regarded as the sources of light—were not yet in existence, whence did that first light derive and why is that source no longer operative? 7) Since the sun (and the other light-sources) would not: he created until the fourth day, what were the demarcations of evening and morning of Days O n e to Three? 8) Finally, what is the meaning of God s giving "names" to light and darkness; are these nouns not as much "names" as daytime and nighttime? The poetic apprtmch. presuming a competent author and hence a purposive intent in every detail (and particularly in the problematic ones), must seek a reasonable answer to all of these questions. Needless to say, not every answer will be convi 11cing or even persuasive to every reader; but such occasional failures, while testifying perhaps to the limited perspicacity of the interpreter or to the over-subtle! ν of the author, need not militate against the poetic method. In respect to our passage here the answers to the first three questions are implicit in our translation. T h e only thing created on the first day was light. T h e biblical story, like the BabyIonian, begins at a point in time when something existed, something that was material in nature and was to become, but had not yet been transformed into the universe as mankind experiences it. Neither in Hebrew nor in its sister tongues is there a single word that has the unambiguous denotation of our word "universe." Like our word "earth"—which may connote soil, dry land, land and water, and Earth, the third planet from the sun, the world of h u m a n s — t h e Hebrew eres has any and all of these meanings and more. In order to express the sense of "universe" both the 11 ihlical and Babylonia compositions resort to that figure of speech called

T H E C R E A T I O N STORY I N GENESIS

43

a merism, the expression of a iota lit y by means oi two opposing and contrasting terms connected by the conjunction "and" T h e merism for universe in Emtma elish is "up above" (heaven) and "down below" (earth). So also in Genesis, "heaven and earth" T h a t which did exist is in finnrnu elish a mass of primordial water, which constituted not only the stuff and place oi the creation-to-be, but also the personified power ot creation, personified as the ultimate gods, male and female principles commingling and begetting. Begetting, let us note, not creation as we experience i t — t h a t creation is reserved for M a r d u k — b u t other divinities. This unity of the stuff of creation and the power of creation is divided in Genesis. T h e power of creation is God, the stuff of ereat ion is eres ("earth"), an amorphous blob or watery chaos (containing, as we shall see, ' 1 earth" or dry land in its womb), enveloped in darkness, swept on its surface by winds of supernatural force. T h e remaining questions, except for the seventh, will have to wait until we have dealt with related problems in the account of the following five days of erea tion. 9 We may address question 7 now, the creation of a light independent of sun, moon, and stars. A n d if we recall two of the poetic elements discussed in my poetic Grammar, we may conclude that there is n o question to begin with. Those two element s are first, the literal-figurative spectrum and second, the metadherary as sump‫״‬ rions that we often bring to bear to needlessly complicate a literary judgment. In reverse order, why attribute to the biblical author an assumption of heavenly bodies as sine qua non conditions for the existence of light? Surely there is only a negligible qualitative difference between his oil lamp and our incandescent bulb. And why assume the most literal sense of light, that is, the physical phenomenon, when light is, for the ancients as for us, a metaphor for knowledge and understanding, for that reassuring order of which the antithesis is the darkness of chaos: To be sure, the biblical author himself leads us on when he goes on to associate that primeval light and ils antecedeni darkness with the namings day‫(׳‬Urne) and Tug/ufürne). But perhaps we may thereby learn to plumb for the depths of his sophistication at just those moments when he seems most naïve.

Day Two (6) God said, "Let there be a firmament within the water, to separate water (mass) f r o m w a t e r (mass). (7) T h u s G o d m a d e t h e f i r m a m e n t , t h e r e b y separating t h e w a t e r

which is under the firmament from the water which is above the firmament. It hap‫־׳‬ pened so. (8) G o d n a m e d t h e f i r m a m e n t Sky. T h u s was t h e r e e v e n i n g and m o r n i n g , Day Two. ( G e n e s i s r : 6 - 8 )

T h e word firmament is a Latin invention translating the word which in the Greek renders the räqïa, that which God created 011 the second day. The Hebrew7 suggests a plate (something firm), pounded out of a malleable metal block. Since this partition is inserted into the water horizontally and will soon appear to tunction as that plane above earth that we call sky or heaven, its shape more resembles a bowl or a dome. Inasmuch as this sky is perceived by us as a depth of space reaching to the concave plane that limits our vision above us (when not itself obscured

4ο

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

by tog or cloud), it will help us to keep t h e different perception of it by our biblical ancestors if—now 7 that it has been named sky—we render häräqt1 as sky-dome or sky-sheet. Conforming our experience to theirs, we need n o t ask when this skysheet supporting its water-load was lifted on high: we may take it as an instance of gapping or ellipsis too obvious to require comment. Two questions, however, are pertinent here as on the first day: W h y must t h e sky-sheet be given a n a m e : Why, or how, evening and m o r n i n g — b e f o r e t h e creation of t h e sun? A n d a third question. It separation of waters above and below is not in itself a rather awkw7ard description of a horizontally placed sheet separating a visible watery mass from an invisible one, what is the point of the repetition of this s licet's purpose, in the fiat and in its effectuation?

Day Three {()) G o d ‫ ל‬a id, "Let t h e w a t e r u n d e r t h e sky be massed in o n e place, t h a t dry land may appear?' Ir h a p p e n e d so. ( 1 0 ) G o d n a m e d t h e dry l a n d e a r t h a n d t h e massed waters H e n a m e d seas. G o d a p p r o v e d . (11) G o d t h e n said, "Let t h e e a r t h p r o d u c e vegetation: seed-bearing grasses, fruit-trees o n e a r t h , e a c h p r o d u c i n g its o w n k i n d of fruit w i t h its seed w i t h i n it. It h a p p e n e d so. (12) E a r t h p r o d u c e d v e g e t a t i o n : grasses bearing e a c h its o w n species of seed; a n d trees, e a c h a c c o r d i n g t o its species p r o d u c i n g its s e e d - c o n t a i n i n g fruit. G o d a p p r o v e d . (13) T h u s was t h e r e e v e n i n g a n d m o r n i n g , Day Three. ( G e n e s i s 1 : 9 - 1 3 )

Dry land, according to the formulation in verse 9 — a n d water, for that matter, as well—seems not to have been, properly speaking, created. Earth, "dry land,1' or solid matter, seems to have existed under the water's surface until shifts of these masses formed deep pools in some areas and (perhaps in a see-saw r -like effect) raised continents elsewhere. O n c e again the assignment of names. Watery stretches are now called seas, dry land is now called earth. Earth now is called upon to produce growths of two kinds, grasses and trees. Is this to t h e exclusion of other growths of various sizes and characteristics, such as vines and bushes, or growths that propagate via spores rather t h a n seeds, for example, mosses, mushrooms, and ferns; 1 lardly. T h e inclusive term (‫׳‬or vegetation in Hebrew (cLs ) is explicated by a merism (grass and trees) expressive of growths low and high. Having created light on the first day and the sky-sheet on the second, both by the fiat "let there he," now on the third clay God produced dry land by separating out this préexistent solid matter from its préexistent ambience, the water. Two considerations remain: W h y the emphasis on this third day on the reproductive mechanism of the vegetation? A n d , as once again we have evening and morning with no sun in existence to set or to rise, we now also have the existence of vegetation without sunlight!

Day Four !14) G o d said, "Let t h e r e be lamps o n h e a v e n ' s vault to distinguish day f r o m n i a h t . A n d let t h e m serve as time-markers for days a n d years. (15) A n d let t h e m serve as lamps m h e a v e n ' s vault to shine d o w n u p o n earth." It h a p p e n e d so. (16) T h u s did G o d

ΤΙ IE CREATION STORY IN GENESIS

45

make the two major lamps, the greater to hold sway by day and the lesser to hold sway by night. And the stars as well. (17) God set them into heaven's vault to shine down upon earth, (18) that is to hold sway (alternately) by day and by night, to mark oft light from darkness. God approved. (19) Thus was there evening and morning, Day Four. (Genesis 1:14-19) T h e p h e n o m e n a t h a t G o d calls into being and fixes ( o n tracks?) in t h e c o n c a v e surface of heaven's vault are lamps to w h i c h , in t h e fiat, three f u n c t i o n s are assigned: (1) to mark off day f r o m night; (2) to serve as time-markers for certain periods, some short, some long; a n d (3) to shine d o w n u p o n — o r illumine — e a r t h below. In verses 1 6 - 1 8 , where t h e effect of t h e fiat is reported, t h e lamps are divided into two classes, m a j o r and minor; t h e m i n o r class is constituted by t h e stars, t h e major class divided into two separate entities, o n e greater t h a n t h e other, and it is to these two t h a t a l t e r n a t e sway by day or n i g h t is pointedly restricted. I n a s m u c h as it is our experience (as it must h a v e been t h e experience of t h e ancients) t h a t some nights are moonless, that clouds may for days and nights at a time veil sun, m o o n , and stars trom sight, our author's i n t e n t c a n n o t be t h a t it is t h e sight of t h e celestial lamps that literally (1) marks off day from night, or must m a k e an appearance to (2) illumine earth below. Similarly, b o t h classes of lamps, larger and smaller, mark off day from night (sun by day and moon and stars by n i g h t ) , and both classes illumine earth below‫ ׳‬in varying degrees. T h e holding sway, restricted to sun and m o o n in verses 1 6 - 1 8 , points up a kind of rivalry, as it were, between the two larger lamps, h e n c e a limitation rather t h a n an e n h a n c e m e n t oi their respective d o m i n i o n . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , however, it is only t h e stars a n d t h e consteliations t h a t served t h e a n c i e n t s in f u n c t i o n 2, to mark t h e close of o n e year and the beginning of another, to calculate t h e boundaries of t h e seasons and the fixed days of the seasonal festivals. A n d it is t h e reservation of this f u n c t i o n to t h e stars alone that is reflect ed in t h e absence of this e l e m e n t from t h e list of f u n c t i o n s in verses 1 7 - 1 8 : h e r e t h e three f u n c t i o n s , applicable to all t h e celestial bodies, are, in order: 1 ) to illumine earth, 2) to hold sway by day or night, and (3) to mark oft light from darkness. The. last listing, t h a t of m a r k i n g off light from d a r k n e s s — n o t , be it n o t e d , daytime from n i g h t t i m e — n o w provides a clue to t h e answer to question 5, raised in regard to t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of t h e first day's creating activity: "If light is by its very n a t u r e distinct trom darkness, w h a t was t h e act of his m a k i n g a distinction/separation between light and darkness!‫ '׳‬T h e answer is t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t of this activity in t h e last clause of verse 4 is proleptic: Light in its m e t a p h o r i c sense c a m e i n t o being o n t h e first day. In t h e physical sense (would it be appropriate to use t h e modifier literal!) the separation herween light and darkness, and their designation as daytime a n d n i g h t t i m e (verse 5), did not take place until Day Four, after t h e creation of s un, m 0011 and stars. 10 O n e e l e m e n t in o u r last, s e n t e n c e is c o n s p i c u o u s tor its a b s e n c e f r o m t h e acc o u n t of t h e f o u r t h day's ‫־‬activity: t h e n a m i n g activity. In c o n t r a s t t o t h e p r e v i o u s t h r e e days of c r e a t i o n , w h e r e ! h e r e is almost s o m e t h i n g s u p e r e r o g a t o r y or f a c t i t i o u s a b o u t n a m i n g light a n d d a r k n e s s dayfnne and n/g/iUnnc, sky-sheet‫ ״‬/um‫׳‬cu, w a t e r .seas, a n d dry l a n d curt/1, h e r e we h a v e celestial b o d i e s for w h i c h biblical 1 l e h r e w h a s sev-

46

STORIES — " T H E PRIM i: VAL 111S IC ‫ י‬Κ Y ‫״‬

eral names, and not only is the assignment of names pointedly absent, but t h e narr a t o r — w h o m we expect to hear intoning, "God named the greater light sun and t h e lesser light H e named moon"—leaves us with anonymity or, to sharpen our question, with the pointedly pointless circumlocutions greater light and lesser light.

Day Five (20) G o d said, "Let t h e waters t e e m w i t h living creatures, a n d let birds fly a b o u t over t h e e a r t h across t h e spread of h e a v e n ' s dome." (21) T h u s did G o d create t h e great water monsters, and every living, stirring creature of all t h e species w i t h w h i c h t h e water teems, a n d every species of winged bird. G o d approved. (22) G o d t h e n addressed t h e m w i t h this blessing, "Be a b u n d a n t l y fertile a n d p o p u l a t e t h e o c e a n waters, and let t h e birds increase o n e a r t h " (23) T h u s t h e r e was e v e n i n g a n d m o r n i n g , Day Five. (Genesis 1 : 2 0 - 2 3 )

T h e progression of the acts of creation is now clear. Day O n e : Light is created independent of any physical source. Day Two: T h e water is divided into upper and lower bodies by the sky-sheet partition. Day Three: Water masses, islands, and continents appear under the sky and are covered with vegetation of all kinds. Day Four: T h e celestial luminaries are brought: into existence and fixed (in courses) on the curving plane of the sky-sheet. A n d now on Day Five: T h e animals are created, but not all of them. T h e creatures of water and sky are called into being, but not t h e denizens of land. These are reserved for creation 011 a separate day. Why? This simple question masks a rather complex poetic crux. O n the one hand, the author might simply have had all living creatures created on one day, reducing the days of creation to six: five working days and one day of rest. If, on the other hand, t h e author (for reasons yet to be discussed) felt compelled to preserve a (or the) seven-day week, why not have all the land creatures except t h e h u m a n created on t h e fifth day? T h e sixth day, now featuring the creation of h u m a n k i n d alone, would thus underscore the transcendent dignity accorded to this species by t h e introduction of G o d s monologue (direct discourse) and the c o n t e n t of that monologue (verse 26), the repetition of man's being the mirror image of G o d in t h e narrator's voice (verse 27), and t h e n God's grant (again in direct discourse) of mastery to this species (verse 28). W h e n the question t h e n is seen in the light of these considérations, the lumping together of the creation of humanity and of n o n - h u m a n land creatures on one day must appear to be cither a gratuitous compositional blunder, or a deliberate feature whose poetic intent remains to be divined.

Day Six (24) G o d said, "Let e a r t h p r o d u c e a n i m a l life in its species: cattle, crawlers, l a n d beasts of every kind." It h a p p e n e d so. (25) T h u s did G o d m a k e t h e land beasts of every k i n d , t h e cattle of every k i n d , a n d soil-crawlers of every sort. G o d approved. (.16) G o d then s:!id, "I.et IJs make mankind 111 O u r own inwj'i‫׳‬, in Our very likeness, that they may exercise rule over itsh oi the sea, and over birds of heaven, and over cattle, yes-

over all earth and every mobile thim* that stir^ on earth: 1 (27) Thus

ΤΙ IE CREATION STORY IN GENESIS

47

did I.iod create mankind in Iiis image: in the itnage ot God did he create it, male and female did he create them. (28) God then blessed them, God said to them, "Be abundantly fertile, populate ι he earl la and masler it. Exercise rule over fish of sea, over birds oi‫ ־‬heaven, over every animal that stirs on land" (29) God said, "hook now, ί have made you a present ot every seed-bearing grass which exists anywhere on earth's surface, and of every iree which has seed-bearing fruit: yours they are tor eating; ( 30) and tor all land beasts, and for all the birds of heaven, and for every thing stirring on earth which has the life-stuff within it: every green cereal grass tor food." It happened so. ( 3 1 ) God reviewed all that he had done, and lo, it had his deep approval. Thus was there evening and morning, Day Six. (Genesis 1 : 2 4 - 31 )

T h e word 'ädäm for m a n or m a n k i n d is not i n d e p e n d e n t l y attested in t h a t sense in any o t h e r Semitic language. It may, therefore, be a biblical i n v e n t i o n , a wordplay o n adämä "earth, soil" expressive ot "earthling," and w i t h specific reference to t h e clod of clay from w h i c h this creature is formed in Genesis 2:yJ1 O n t h e sixth day, after all t h e o t h e r land creatures h a v e b e e n called i n t o being, this e n t i t y is erea ted in a separate act. A l o n e of all t h e acts of creation, this o n e is preceded by in‫״‬ ternal dialogue, direct discourse in w h i c h G o d proposes to n o a u d i e n c e — i m p l i c i t or e x p l i c i t — t o produce a creature which, made in t h e very image of G o d , will exereise a n undefined h e g e m o n y over n a t u r e and all her creatures. T h i s central and d o m i n a n t role of h u m a n k i n d , referred to in verse 27 as a gramma tic singular (collective) "him/it" and a distributive plural "them: male and female," is underscored by t h e repetition of this divine imagery a n d by the prior address to this creature in regard to the grant of food rations. T h e questions in regard to h u m a n k i n d s sharing of t h e divine form derive first from t h e question as to where on t h e literal-figunitive spectrum this expression is to be placed. Does G o d h a v e a body or form.' Perhaps his ministering courtiers, w h o m lie is possibly addressing m what we took to be an internal monologue, are endowed with w h a t Blake called "the h u m a n form divine." O r is t h e expression at t h e extreme figurative end oi t h e spectrum, representative of h u m a n k i n d ' s supreme status a m o n g created p h e n o m e n a , and given some définition in t h e grant of mastery over its e n v i r o n m e n t , i n a n i m a t e and a n i m a t e , f a u n a and flora? In regard to t h e vegetarian diet allowed b o t h m a n k i n d and all living creatures, has t h e narrator forgotten t h e existence of carnivores, t h a t is t o say, those creatures w h o c a n n o t live but by sarcophagy: O r does h e m e a n to tell us t h a t these too were originally created by G o d w i t h a capacity to survive as herbivores? 1 2

REVIEW OF DICTION IN THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION

T h e narratives of t h e six days of c r e a t i o n reveal, to greater or lesser degree, features of diction whose distribution may provide t h e close reader w i t h clues as to t h e author's design. T h e p l o t t i n g of this distribution on t h e graph (table 2-1) should facilitate our analysis and provide a focus to our discussion. I will assign a l p h a b e t i c labels to these features in t h e order of their appearance in t h e a c c o u n t of Day O n e . A : God's fiat (always introduced by t h e verb tca>‫\׳‬omcr "he said"); B: T h e response to or t h e e f f e c t u a t i o n of t h e fiat; G: G o d s approval Γk saw/con chicled t h a t it was

48

STORIES - - " Τ Η Η PRIMEVAL

HISTORY »

T A B 1 . 1 2 ;‫־‬-j 1 ‫ ר׳‬is trihut i o n tit D i c t i o n i n G e n e s i s I Day t ‫)־‬ne

-

I )ay Two

Dav Three

Day F o u r —

Day F i v e -

Day S i x — Creation of

Appearance of Dry !.and and C r e a t i o n of

Production oi

Creation of Celesf ial

Creation of

Creation of Light

the Firmament

Vegetation

Lamps

Creatures

Creatures

Sea and A i r Land

A . Fiat

X

X

X

X

X

X

B. Response

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Ο

X

X

X

X

D. Demarcation

X

X

0

X

0

0

E. Naming

X

X

X

0

0

0

Ε Fixity: " A n d

Ο

X

X

X

0?

XO?

to fiat C . God's Approval

it was so" KEY: Χ = presence in text, Ο = absence in text.

good"); D: notice of a demarcational activity or function (featuring t h e verb hahdû); E: God's naming of the phenomena brought into being; F: the expression twy'/iT-fcen "it. was (or it became) so/estahlished/f1x.ed" T h e cipher X indicates près‫•׳‬ ence and the cipher Ο absence of the feature. T h e ubiquity oi features A and β, determined by their indispensability in the logic oi the creation events, serves to point up the optional nature of the other four features. Optionality, however, is not to be equated with whimsicality or arbitrariness. H e n c e we must examine them to discern the reason (s) why the author may have chosen (and not always necessarily after conscious deliberation) to include or eschew these features in the varying contexts. Proceeding then to feature C, why is it absent from the account of Day Two and from this account alone/ T h e very uniqueness of this absence makes speculation difficult, for we have no other absence with which to compare it. Speculation must therefore focus on the nature of what was created on this day and how that compares with what was created on the other five days. Since t h e feature missing is God's approval, could it be that the p h e n o m e n o n created on this day is not as worthy of approbation as are the accomplishments of t h e other five days? A n d , indeed, there is a sense in which the creation of the firmament is t h e least substantial of t h e creational achievements. It certainly pales in comparison to the primordial light created on the first day; it is not significant for itself, as are the creations of animals on Days Five and Six; it is merely a step t h a t is a precondition for the ereat ion of dry land on Day Three and the celestial lamps o n L^ay Four. Indeed, if we compare the accomplishment ot Day Two with that of Day Three, w h e n b o t h dry land and vegetation are produced, we realize that t h e creation of t h e celestial bodies might well have been arranged on the same day as that of the firmament. W h y t h e author might have rejected this option has already been suggested at the end of our discussion of Day Five; it was vital for him to preserve the seven-day week. And

it is p e r h a p s t o d i s t r a c t o u r a t t e n t i o n i r o n ! t h e l o g i c of c o m b i n i n g t h e

activity

ΤΙ IE CREATION STORY IN GENESIS

67

of Day Four with that of Day Two, the placing of t h e celestial bodies in the vault that has just been made for them, that the accomplishment of dry land and vegetation is made to intervene between t h e creation of the sky-sheet and the creation of t h e lamps that traverse its inner surface. T h e foregoing considerations now point to the reason for D, the demarcations o n Days O n e , Two, and Four, and t h e absence of this feature on the other three days. T h e demarcations of Days O n e and Four constitute, as we have seen, a single demarcation, t h e first one being a proleptic anticipation of the second one. H a d there been n o demarcation on Day Two, that days account would have been even more striking in its hollowness t h a n we have already seen it to be. T h e feature of demarcation is inappropriate to the activities o n Days Three, Five, and Six. T h e feature of God's naming activity (E) on the first three clays and the absence of this feature on the next three days will yield some fascinating insights into t h e poetic construction of the six days of creation. But first let us consider (and dispose of) an oft-suggested function for the naming activity to begin with. T h e first two lines of Enuma elish seem to equate t h e absence of names for heaven and earth with their non-existence; h e n c e the notion that until a thing is given a name, ex prèssive of its essence, it does not truly exist. T h e power of the word, automatic and self-fulfilling, is a concept that seems to have existed in the minds of the ancients (or senne of them, at least) as attested in spells, charms, and incantations, perhaps also in oaths and curses. But this need not be the impact of those first two lines. T h e giving of a name may reflect the arrival at a new state or rank, of power or maturity on the part oi (he thing or person named. Or it may betoken or symbolize the power and authority of the name-giver. N o n e ot these significations would seem to fit the distribution of the naming activity on the six days. T h e first is an essentially magical concept, h e n c e out of place in t h e biblical Weltanschauung, which consistently eschews magic, magical practice, and magical thinking. 1 3 T h e other two significations would t h e n be ruled out (except perhaps for Day Two, see our discuss ion of C ) for this reason: the power of God would be relevant to all the acts of ereat ion, and the importance of t h e created entity would indicate a distribution like that for G. Or is it possible that our last sentence is simply wrong? Thus, for exampie, as the ubiquitous distribution of A and Β point to the significance of the differe n t distributions in C, D, E, and F, so may the distribution of the natilings on t h e first three days point to a significance or different significances tor the absence of these features on Days Four, Five, and Six. Such indeed wall be our argument: T h e question of the pointed absence of names for sun and moon on Day Four has already been raised and will soon be treated; the absence of names on Days Four and Five, related to the question previously raised about the divisions of the animalcreation activity over those two days, will appear in Chapter 3, in connection with t h e argument for the poetic organicity of chapters 1 - 3 : 1 5 . 1 4 In regard now to feature F, t h e expression vaychï‫׳‬ken "and it happened so,11 let us first n o t e t h e question mark in table 2-1 next to the Ο on the fifth da v. T h e expressi on is absent in the Masoretic Text ( M T ) but present in the Septua2int (LXX) immediately after the fiat in verse 20. T h e r e Speiser restores it in his translation. A n d considering its presence on every (‫זי‬her day except the first (particularly on Day Six alter the fiat calling forth the land animals, and again in confirmation of G o d s de-

68

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY‫יי‬

cree after the m a t t e r oi vegetarian diet), this is a reasonable restoration. We are left now with the absence of this expression on P a y O n e and o n Day Six for hum a n k i n d . T h e latter poses n o problem at all. l u v e n t h e exceptional details attend a n t on t h e creation of the h u m a n species (God's prior monologue, t h e feature ot this species' divine image, t h e repetition of this attribute in t h e effectuation of the fiat, the d o m i n i o n decreed tor this species in t h e fiat a n d repeated in its effectuation), o n e might judge t h a t t h e a u t h o r would h a v e d e e m e d vayehl‫״‬ken as supererog‫־׳‬ atory. As a m a t t e r of literary fact, however, t h e r e may be n o omission to explain (see in table 2-1 t h e question mark after t h e O ) , for t h e vayehï-ken of verse 30 may indeed refer to t h e entire section o n t h e c r e a t i o n of h u m a n k i n d . 1 5 W e are thus left with a single omission of this feature, o n Day O n e . H e r e too t h e stark response to t h e fiat (without any such additional purposive details in t h e fiat or its effectuation as characterize every o t h e r act of creation) could hardly be t h e flat w^/rt-ke?!: it is, rather, t h e dramatic vayehï ,ör. For a n y o n e unpersuaded by this stylistic e x p l a n a t i o n , there is always recourse to t h e double m e a n i n g in this created light, its m e t a p h o r i c and physical senses. W h i l e t h e former c a m e into being o n t h e first day, t h e latter did n o t until Day Four. W e may close this discussion o n diction w i t h a few observations t h a t most of our readers will h a v e drawn for themselves. In contrast w i t h source criticism, w h i c h consistently tries to tie single terms or c o m p o u n d expressions w i t h o n e or a n o t h e r putative d o c u m e n t or source or stratum, t h e p o e t i c a p p r o a c h presumes for t h e biblical a u t h o r an u n t r a m m e l e d f r e e d o m in regard to diction. M o r e important, however, is t h e matter of t h e author's f r e e d o m f r o m t h e constraints t h a t would h a v e b e e n put u p o n h i m by indebtedness t o a n inherited (and already c a n o n i c a l ) history of t h e events of creation. T h e events h e pictures, their sequence, and their articulation in stylistic idiosyncraeies, will serve his metaphoric message and e n h a n c e t h e power of his kerygma; his is t h e freedom of t h e creative artist and n o t of t h e reality-circumscribecl scholar, t h e freedom ot the writer of (telion, not of t h e faithful recorder w h o m we call historian.

L i T E R A LI S M A N D

M E T A P H O R IN GENESIS

I A N D E N U M A ELISH

T h e presumptions of t h e poetic a p p r o a c h in regard to t h e biblical a u t h o r s creative freedom a n d t h e essentially fictive n a t u r e of t h e narratives h e spins for his kerygmatic purposes would, I daresay, be u n e x c e p t i o n a b l e to most of t o d a y s readers if t h a t a u t h o r was a c o n t e m p o r a r y of ours, wielding his p e n , so to speak, before our very eyes in t h e m a n n e r of a G. S. Dewis, mixing fabulary prose epics for children, theological science fiction for t h e unwary adult, a n d — a n d , there's t h e rub — l i t e r ‫׳‬ ary criticism of Scriptural texts and unabashedly apologetic essays in defense of ort h o d o x Christianity. Interestingly enough, and for reasons I will explore, t h e same c a n n o t be said for t h e a u t h o r of t h e Enuma elish. Yet in regard t o t h e creation s tories produced by b o t h these authors, t h e ewer w h e l m i n g n u m b e r of scholars assume t h a t even t h e learned readership of these tales in antiquity would h a v e accepted t h e m on t h e literal end of t h e literal-figurative spectrum. It is a staple of scholarship t h a t b o t h narratives c o n t a i n a cosmology, that is, a graphic a c c o u n t of t h e structure of t h e physical universe, and a cosmogony, a de-

ΤΙ IE CREATION STORY IN GENESIS

1

scriptum oi how this structure came to he. To the extent that this characterization is true, it would he understandable if we classified the former as science and the bitter as theology, and therefore, by the nature of these two categories, placed the for‫״‬ mer at the literal end and the latter at the metaphoric end of the literal-figurative spectrum. In his discussion of the biblical account of creation, which he sees as unquestionably derived from the Babylonian, Speiser writes: In a n c i e n t times, h o w e v e r , science o f t e n b l e n d e d i n t o religion; a n d t h e t w o could n o t be separated 111 such issues as c o s m o g o n y a n d t h e origin of m a n . T o t h a t e x t e r n , therefore, ' 1 scientific" c o n c l u s i o n s were b o u n d t o be guided by u n d e r l y i n g religious beliefs. 1 6

Since Enuma elish is hardly a scientific tract, it must be a religious composition reflecting the scientific conclusions of the day; and if these conclusions were themselves guided by underlying religious beliefs (whatever these were) where in this epic does cosmology (the literal) and cosmogony (the metaphoric) begin or leave off? This question is not rhetorical, nor does it seek answer. It is raised rather to highlight an observation that holds for virtually all scholars committed to the study of ancient Mesopotamia: whether the literature studied is regarded as primatily historical, legendary, and mythical, or creative and fictive, the question as to the degrees of the literalness or the figurative is almost never raised. And the prevailing and ubiquitous assumption is that wherever possible the formulations are to be read on the most literal level. However silly a text may seem to us on a literal level, it was literally understood by its ancient audience and-—their mindset: being different than ours—did not seem silly to them. It is such assumptions, tacit for the most part, but a scholarly consensus all the same, that we shall make bold to ehallenge, not only in respect to the religious elements in the literature but in respect to the elements as well. Not only in regard to the Babylonian epic but to Genesis as well; not only in regard to Genesis but to the Babylonian epic as well. Let us consider a few of the observable natural phenomena which are or lie behind the constitutive elements in the cosmology of epic and creation story alike. Does the fact of rain require belief in a sky-sheet supporting a primordial reservoir of water: A sheet with holes in it capable of opening or closing to release or check a drizzle or a torrent? In the absence of knowledge of the cycle of evaporation and condensation on an order of magnitude that defies the imagination today, as it would have yesteryear, the ancients were yet aware that the mystery of the waters from above is related to the mystery of the waters below. In the words of Ecclesiastes 1:7: A l l t h e water-courses flow to t h e sea, But t h e sea is n o t f u l l To w h a t e v e r place t h e water-courses flow, T h i t h e r do they go in a r e t u r n flow.

The association of rain with clouds (the latter sometimes pictured as the vapors from the nostrils of the steeds pulling the storm god's chariot) is an alternate metaphor tor the sluice-gates of tchom/Tiamat. And the author of "The Hymn to the A ton" probably eschewed the metaphors in his neighbors' literature to coin yet another one for his people 111 a land where rain is a rarity:

52

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫יי‬

Ali distant foreign countries, thou makes( (hoir life (also), For thou hast ,‫י‬et a Nile in heaven, That it may descend lor them and make waves upon the mountains, Like the great green sea To water their fiekL in their towns. 17

To overlook the m e t a p h o r in this cosmology t h e n is tantamount: to making a travesty of' t h e Mesopotamia!‫»־‬, science f r o m which so m u c h of our own ultimately derives. A n analogy would he to credit to Aristotle t h e belief t h a t t h e world is sup‫׳׳‬ ported, on Atlas's shoulders; o r — a s schoolchildren are taught to this very d a y — t h a t mariners a scant five centuries ago, believing t h e e a r t h was flat, refused to en‫׳‬ list in Columbus's crews for fear of sailing over t h e edge. But such overlooking of metaphor, veiling f r o m us t h e conclusion t h a t there is n e i t h e r cosmology nor seience whatsoever in t h e c r e a t i o n narratives, accounts in great measure for t h e misjudging ot t h e m e t a p h o r i c e l e m e n t s in w h a t must n o w be seen as purely religious literature, and indeed t o m a k e a travesty of t h e religious beliefs of t h e poet w h o aut h o r e d Enuma elish. T h i s brings us back to t h e observation made at t h e b e g i n n i n g ot this section, t h a t t h e Genesis a c c o u n t , were it p e n n e d today, could he readily accepted as a fictive composition w r i t t e n to embody a religious p r e a c h m e n t , hut t h a t t h e same would n o t hold true for Enuma elish. Baldly put, t h e near absence of plot and characters in t h e Genesis account, m a k i n g for a structure rather t h a n a story, a largely logical structure progressing t h r o u g h six stages of a cosmogonie process c o n d u c t e d by a single Deity, would m a k e tor its credibility as a t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y product. T h e very richness of Enuma elisWs plot, its many characters, a n d t h e specification ot motivations, strategies, and series of alternate successes and failures, make for a c o n c o c t i o n of grotesque personae in a welter oi tortuous turns in plot, a c o n c o c t i o n so lacking in logic or c o h e r e n c e as to preclude its a c c e p t a n c e as a serious work by a contemporary artist, even il the c o n c o c t i o n was intended as a fairy tale, m u c h less as a religion ‫׳‬oriented myth. For t h e disinterested student of literature, t h e problem is: whatever can be t h e kerygma oi a tale seemingly so artlessly constructed, featuring so hapless or g totesque a cast• If t h e p r e a c h m e n t is t h e creative power and e n d u r i n g lordship of Marduk, is not that very p r o c l a m a t i o n undermined by t h e plethora of poetic flaws ‫י‬ A n d if, like t h e P e n t a t e u c h in t h e view of m o d e r n biblical scholarship, it represents a pastiche of a n c i e n t and v e n e r a t e d traditions, some reworked a n d updated, others left in their jejune primitivity, w h a t moral or spiritual message does it contain to a c c o u n t for t h e poetic t a l e n t lavished o n its final f o r m u l a t i o n a n d for its faithful preservation by long lines of priests a n d kings? For t h e s t u d e n t of t h e re 11gion of a n c i e n t Israel and t h e biblical literature t h a t embodies or expresses or was produced by t h a t religion, t h e question is h o w could t h e esthetics or ideology or 1 'science 1 ' of biblical Israel be derivative o f — o r , for t h a t matter, h a v e f o u n d its c o u n t e r b a l a n c e i n — a composition t h a t is so clearly by comparison infra di^iitatem: T h e poetic address to Scripture has thus forced u p o n us a poetic address to a significant unit of M e s o p o t a m i a n literature. A n d this n o t because t h e comparative and contrast.ive approaches h a v e historically juxtaposed Enuma elish and the G e n e sis creation story, but. because such a juxtaposition is ineluctable. Regardless ot the

ΤΙ IE CREATION STORY IN GENESIS

5 3

methodology employed in the study of Scripture—as it was more or less probably intended by its authors and interpreted (more or less) literally or figuratively by various levels of its ancient a u d i e n c e — a full picture oi the intellectual capacities, the cultural achievement, and the degree of (what we are pleased to call) sophistication of Scripture's authors cannot be drawn from Scripture alone. A n d m regard to the assessment of these foregoing elements, we must be aware that conclusions drawn for Israel in the West are as important for the Eastern sphere as those drawn from Mesopotamia are for ancient Israel.

A P O E T I C R E A D I N G O F ENUMA

EIJSH

It is a fact that there are literary compositions in which elegance oi style accompanies a vapidity of content; and another fact, that deep and subtle ideas may be expressed in a prose singularly devoid of grace, these disproportionate qualities occurring more often in prose, rarely in verse. W h e n the choice diction and seductive rhythms of a resourceful stylist appear in a narrative, in elevated prose, or in epic verse, a critical alarm should sound for the reader if all this talent seems put to the service of nonsensical plot and idiotic personae. Is that author, in a stance akin to the strategy of the unreliable narrator, sending two different signals in these discordant sets of canonical criteria? And it so, tor one audience, or two, or for one audience made up of both dull-witted naits and perspicacious sophisticates? In the last eventuality, the former would he reading the message as serious and straightforward (perhaps at times sober, if not tragic), the latter as tongue-in-cheek, perhaps bordoting on the comic; in short, the kind ol writing admitting both possibilities and which takes its name from the Latin term designating a dish containing a medley ot fruits: satire. It is just this intent, the satiric, that I will divine in my sketch of the Enuma elish. But first, a word of caution: to read a literary work as lying in the broad vein of the satiric is not the same as proposing a thorough and poetically satisfying interpretation. For—and in particular if the literature derives from an antiquity whose conventions are themselves a matter for speculation and debate— there is the vexing question of just who and what are the targets of the jeer, the butt of the jest. I will present, following the epic s narrative flow, the plot and the personae, and the employment of metaphor and the conceptual constructs that figure tmportantly. In respect to all three I will stress such poetic flaws as redundancy, mconsistency, and incongruity as they would appear to the average reader today. T h e first generation of gods, though not specifically characterized by that term, are Apsu and Tiamat, respectively male and female, to be progenitors of all created things, heaven, earth, and the gods. A l t h o u g h the plot as it develops leads us to infer that many gods were created by the aqueous commingling of the First Pair— and it is not at all clear whether the waters are the Pair themselves or only a part of them — only four are named, probably two pairs: Lahmu and Lahamu, and Anshar and Kishar. Anshar sires Anu, who in turn sires Nudimmud (hereinafter to be also known, as the translators inform us, by the name Ea). The latter has no rival among; his brothers, h e n c e 1 he inference that o t h e r gods were also generated. Since neither the form nor t h e environment of Apsu and Ί iamat are indicated, it is also

54

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫י י‬

not. clear what the ambience is, at least, of the gods whose rambunctiousness denies sleep to Apsu and disturbs the belly of Tiamat (respectively like the restiveness of a newborn at night, or the abouMo-bediorn kicking in the womb). Filicide is a rea‫׳־‬ sonable price in the judgment of papa and a suddenly introduced vizier of his named Mummu(!) for a nights untroubled sleep, but this course is vetoed by mama's maternal scruples. W h e n the gods receive word in stunned silence that Apsu is yet determined to destroy them, Ea overpowers Apsu by magic <11 mean tation, and upon this A p s u — w h o a few lines back had a lap in which Mununu might sit and a neck for him to embrace—establishes his dwelling, names that dwelling "Apsu," and assigns shrines in it. Within this holy Apsu, to Ea and his wife Damina is born the great god Marduk. A n u now for reasons unknown creates a fourfold wind to roil the currents of Tiamat and disturb the rest of another set of gods who live within her interior. U p o n their instigation she prepares for war, creating setpents, dragons, and a variety of monsters, among them the Great‫׳‬Lion, the Mad‫׳‬ Dog, the Scorpion-Man, the Dragon-Fly, and the Centaur. To the command of this army she appoints a chief named Kingu, entrusting to him the Tablets of Fate. (Tablet 1, c. 160 lines.) It is now Ea's turn to sit in stunned silence upon learning of Tiamat's doings. Betaking himself in fear to grandfather Anshar, he repeats in even greater detail Tiamat's creation of the monsters, her elevation of Kingu to command, and her entrusting to him the Tablets of Fate. W h e n Ea cannot respond to Anshars bidding to go forth and slay Kingu as he had slain Apsu, his father A n u is sent m his place. H e in turn recoils in terror from facing Tiamat, and reports back to his traumatized father. Anshar rouses himself from his funk to name Marduk as the new champion. Ea, who had previously been characterized as "mightier by far than his grandfather Anshar," now coaches Marduk as to how to stand up to his great-grandfather. Marduk reassures Anshar that he need not fear Tiamat , not a male-—no, a mere woman and agrees to face her in battle if Anshar will convoke an assembly of the gods (an opposition to the assembly of Tiamat's and Kingu's) to entrust to his sole keeping the determination of the fates, which power they have hitherto shared among themselves. (Mahlet 2, c. 130 lines.) Anshar sends his vizier to Lahmu and Lahamu (who, we shall soon learn, are A n s h a r s parents). To this vizier he entrusts (in what is the third detailed description) the account of Tiamat's hateful preparations for war against the gods, adding the details of A n u s and Ea's separate routs, and of Marduk's demand tor the convocation of the assembly. We then have this tale repeated (now for a fourth time) by the vizier to Lahmu and Lahamu. These two then, together with a all the great gods who decree the fates," make their way from their undesignated places to the undesignated place where the assembly meets. After a banquet of much food and more intoxicants, with bellies full and spirits raised, the gods raise Marduk to kingship over them. (Tablet 3, c. 140 lines.) T h e gods decree the fates for Marduk, give him scepter and throne and matchless weapons and, wishing him well, set him on the road to war. He arms himself with bow and arrow, the latter attached to the bowstring, as we.l as a mace, lightning, a blazing flame stored in his body, the four winds of the cardinal directions, a net to enfold Tiamat, and an additional seven winds (among them the Fourfold

ΤΙ IE C R E A T I O N STORY IN G E N E S I S

55

Wind previously created hy A n n ) ; he raises the flood ‫״‬storm, and mounts the storm chariot harnessed to a team of four, sharp-toothed and poison-fanged. in a confused (and confusing) confrontation, Kingu becomes befuddled, and Marduk and Tiamat taunt and challenge each other with bathetic charges, all the while reciting spells and incantations. Marduk prevails, slays Tiamat, captures Kingu, takes from htm "the Tablets of Fate, not rightly his," and fastens t h e m to his own breast. T h e dead and mutilated corpse of Tiamat he splits "like a shellfish into two parts: halt of her he set up and ceiled it as sky, pulled down the bar and posted the guards. He bade them not to allow her waters to escape." Marduk immediately "crossed the heavens . . . squared Apsu's quarter, the abode of N u d i m m u d , as the lord measured the dimensions of Apsu." (Tablets 4, c. 145 lines) In the twenty-two lines of Tablet 5 that have been preserved, Marduk constructs "stations for t h e great gods, fixing their astral likenesses as constellations. . . . In her (Tiamat's) belly h e established t h e zenith. T h e m o o n he caused to shine, the night (to him) entrusting." In Tablet 6 Marduk proposes the creation of " 1 m a n — h e shall be charged with t h e service of t h e gods that they might be at ease." At Has suggestion Kingu, found guilty of contriving the uprising and of making Tiamat rebel, is slain, and out of his blood mankind is fashioned. H e a v e n and earth are apportioned among two classes of gods, and a shrine modeled after Babylon is built. This takes up about seventy lines. T h e remaining ninety lines of this Tablet and the 160th line of Tablet 7 are devoted to the proclamation of the fifty names of Marduk. It t h e toregoing precis strikes the reader as less than edifying, perhaps oven tedtous, that judgment should be reconsidered for the original, which is at least thirtv times as long. As for the action, t h e creation of t h e gods is more like a spawning than a birthing, the war more like maddened vipers of various species hissing and spitting venom, the space given to pointless talk greater than that to action by a factor of twenty, and the few actions mindlessly duplicated. T h u s Apsu (here and elsewhere in cuneiform literature a synonym for heaven) is slain by an intrepid Ea, who makes the dead Apsu the place of his habitation. W h e n Marduk in turn kills Tiamat, he divides her in half and ceils the upper part of her as the Apsu, W h e r e the gods lived before t h e death of Apsu or of Tiamat is an enigma, as we saw in the conflicting images of the gods kicking within the womb of Tiamat and by their noise in t h e nursery, which keeps Apsu awake. As illogical as are the two separate battles against t h e two constituents of the watery chaos, personified as father and mother, and depersonified as reservoirs above and below, a poetic defense might argue that actions are often illogical. But t h e protean metaphors—of Tiamat as shapeless liquid mass, dragon-monster with two legs and gaping maw, human-like in maternal tenderness, black magician spewing incantations; of Apsu, also watery mass, cradling on his knees t h e childlike vizier Mummu, who embraces his neck, and ogre-father who would rather strangle his children t h a n diaper t h e m — a r e surely as meaningless as they are silly, an author's invention and not an inherited time-hallowed religious tradition, and if at all pointed, pointed to evoke scorn and ridicule. If the metaphoric intent of the imagery is still open to question, let us cite the description of t h e newly born Marduk. A literal interpretation oi the poet's intent

74

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY‫יי‬

here would be analogous to an art critic in a distant future deriving our twentieth century's standard ot human beauty from some of Picasso's more adventurous paint‫׳‬ ings. Even without the broad context of the achievements of Mesopotamian ci vi‫׳‬ lization, the abstract concepts in this passage alone are enough to guarantee that number and size of sense organs are symbolic of faculties of unrivaled power: W h e n Ea saw him, t h e father w h o begot h i m , H e e x u l t e d a n d glowed, his h e a r t filled w i t h gladness. H e r e n d e r e d h i m perfect a n d e n d o w e d h i m with a d o u b l e g o d h e a d . Greatly exalted was h e above t h e m , e x c e e d i n g t h r o u g h o u t . Perfect were his m e m b e r s hevond c o m p r e h e n s i o n , U n s u i t e d for u n d e r s t a n d i n g , difficult t o perceive. Four were his eyes, tour were his ears; W h e n h e moved his lips, lire blared forth. Large were all lour h e a r i n g organs. A m i t h e eyes in like number, scanned all things. ( A N F T p. 62 T A B . I, 8 9 - 9 8 )

Our analogy to Picasso's revamping, say, of human physiognomy is relevant in an‫׳‬ other sense. For just as we search for the esthetic consideration that led to Picasso's innovations, we might search for the reasons for our poet's decision to resort to four ears and four eyes (never features of Marduk in Babylonian iconography), and lips that create fire by their friction as fitting metaphors for this god's powers. Could it be a playful and less than reverential attitude toward the gods that is responsible for the grotesquerie? It is certain that the poet was not reaching for the most appro‫׳‬ priate or respectful of similes when he had Marduk divide dead Tiamat like a mollusk. To compare the first mother goddess to an oyster is certainly risible, and the upper half as image ot the firmament ceiling is as fitting as the lower half for earths plane is not. Ea's courage in facing Apsu is negated by his quailing before Tiamat; Marduk's male-chauvinist sneer at his adversary's femininity is as unworthy in itself for an immortal as is this deprecation of the great-grandmother of us all; the mechanical waxing and waning of the moon ordained by Marduk lends the epic a verisimilitude in regard to the heavenly scene that is offset by the absence from it of the sun; and is this last clue to the remainder of Tablet V's being broken away, or to the usurpation of Sham ash s orb by the god who was hailed at birth as "my son or the Sun"? T h e list of a b s u r d f e a t u r e s in r e g a r d t o p l o t , p e r s o n a e , d i a l o g u e , a n d c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n c o u l d b e e x t e n d e d , b u t it h a s p r o b a b l y b e c o m e w e a r i s o m e as it is. P e r h a p s as p e r p l e x i n g as a n y d e t a i l is t h e b u i l d i n g oi B a b y l o n ( a p p a r e n t l y o n e a r t h a n d n o t a h e a v e n l y c o u n t e r p a r t ) , a c i t y w h o s e i n h a b i t a n t s k n e w full w e l l t h a t it h a d m a d e its rise l a t e i n t h e h i s t o r y of l o w e r M e s o p o t a m i a , D e c r e e d by t h e g o d s as a s h r i n e t o h e

named, "Lo, a chamber tor our nightly rest," this sanctuary following upon the creation of mankind "for the service of the gods, that they might be at ease"—is reared by the gods themselves, who labor for an entire year molding its bricks. And this picture of gods in the hundreds slaving on earth to build a residence when all heaven is theirs is all the more perplexing when we consider that they are supreme in exercise of magical power and unrivaled in the decreeing of destinies. Sim tu, the word for fate or destiny, is often a synonym for that death which comes to all. Yet

ΤΙ IE C R E A T I O N STORY IN G E N E S I S

57

m Enuma elish, as in other myths, possession of the Tablets of Destiny no more in‫׳‬ sures dominion than magic guarantees victory. Indeed, like the stuff of magic and the elustveness of ineluctable fate, so characterless are the gods in their collectivity and their individuation. !Not until the catalogue of praise in the fifty names of Marduk. do such values as love, grace, sympathy, and justice make a fust appearance. And perhaps here we have arrived at a crux for interpreting the satiric mixture, in this epic, of the serious and the humorous, the contrast of implicit standards or norms 0: the good and beautiful and the explicit absence of these norms or their violation. T h e crux is the association, perhaps the wedding, in religion of power and morality, or the converse, the dissociation or divorce of the two. But as the kerygma of the six-day creation account in the context ot ancient Israels religion requires a recourse to Mesopotamia for comparison, so does the assertion nf the Babylonian creation account's kerygma require a comparison with the biblical account. It should prove helpful then to compare the metaphysics and anthropology of paganism with those of normative, biblical religion as they have been discerned in scholarship, and as these characterizations may be modified in keeping with the readings of both creation accounts at the metaphoric end of the literal-figurative spectrum.

PAGANISM A N D BIBLICAL RELIGION AND

COMPARED

CONTRASTED

Pagan religion is polytheistic, anthropomorphic, and mythological. This is to say that pagan religion acknowledges the existence of many gods (polytheism); that it views the gods in terms of human form, function, needs, and motives (anthropomorphism); that as a consequence of this it features the gods in various adventures (mythology). Biblical religion is monotheistic, indulges in anthropomorphism only as figures ot speech, and in general is scornful of mythology. God, having no divine rival, and subject to no needs, cannot have adventures. In pagan religion, gods are born and suckled, grow to maturity, contest for satisfaction of appetites and emotions, battle for prestige and power and mastery, indulge in sex, and are subject to failure, defeat, and death. Biblical religion not only removes the O n e God from the domain of mythology, but as often noted, it demythologizrs creation itself, and this even while it echoes with the constructs ot pagan mythology. Thus in Genesis, tchom and supernatural wind are (inly dimly resonant of Tiamat and the Roiling Winds of her boisterous brood. This last is true, however, in narrative or discursive prose (as in Genesis 1) and in a few passages of poetry, which I will consider in a moment. In other passages of verse the hypostasis of various aspects of nature into god-like personae (particularly participants in the clash attending creation) echoing, no — reduplicating—the gods of paganism presents a problem that has never, in my opinion, been persuasively resolved. This p h e n o m e n o n is especially challenging to a poetics of Scripture such as my own, which claims a single authorial voice for all of the Hebrew Scriptures, regardless of form or category. And I will attend to this problem, but in an excursus, so as not to impede the flow ot argument in regard to the creation accounts. In Psalm :104 the biblical author pictures entities or aspects of nature (which in

76

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫י י‬

paganism are hypostasized) as impersonal forces doing t h e bidding of God. This poem also features a cunning employment of tenses (perfects, imperfects/preterites, and participles functioning as gerunds) to refer to G o d ' s — n o , Y H W H ' s — a c t s of creation, while at the same time representing t h e m as taking place in an ongoing present. Verse 1 begins with a seit‫׳‬addressed invocation, "Give praise, Ο my being, to YHWH," and forthwith responds: YHWH, my God, how great You are! ( 2 ) Donning glo r !eus m aj e s ty, Draping light like a cloak, Stretching heaven like tent-walls. (3) In the [upper] waters laying his chambers' beams, His top story the clouds Which rides on winged winds. (4) He makes winds his agents [or angels], Flashing tire his servants. (5) He fixed earth upon her foundations, Never to slip her moorings. (6) W i t h Sea [ie/10?7î] like a H a n k e r h a d you covered it [lit., him], Waters overtopping the mountains.

(7) From your reprimand they tied. At your thunder's sound they panicked i n f l i g h t , (8) Up the hills, down the valleys. To the place you fixed for them, (9) A b o u n d a r y you set for t h e m , uncrossable.

Theirs never again to blanket the earth. (Psalm 104:2-9) T h e psalmist t h e n contrasts the life-enabling role of the now-tamed waters as fructifying rains and mountain freshets. Turning to the heavens, h e declares: (19) Moon he made for the regular seasons, Sun—he knows his setting. (Psalm 104:19) T h e problem of this last v e r s e — t h e striking discrepancies between t h e first stich and t h e s e c o n d — h a s drawn surprisingly little comment. O n e would expect that as a reason is given tor the moon's creation, so one would be given for the sun's creation. A review of our discussion of Genesis 1 : 1 4 - 1 8 will show, however, that the p o e t — h a v i n g reference, let us suppose, to this prose passage—had little choice o n this point. T h e tunc tion of marking off t h e seasons, shared in Genesis by moon and stars, the psalmist may ascribe to the m o o n alone, the sun having n o role in this regard at all. But what singular function does that leave to the sun? Illumining earth and holding sway are functions he (note the pronoun) shares with t h e moon. Still, the poet could — if a hit l a m e l y — h a v e concluded with the sun holding sway by clay. T h e choice he does make, however, seems not only not to be a balancing contrast, it is an utter non-sequitur. A n d non-sequitur it has to be judged unless we penetrate to the poet's intent, the same intent expresse(.! in the pointed failure in Genesis 1 to give names to either the greater or lesser lamp. T h e sun-god (except for a tew Mesopotamia!! urban centers where the moon-god Sit!

ΤΙ IE CREATION STORY IN GENESIS

5 9

figures prominently) is supreme in the celestial scene. In our psalm, the moon is permittecl the dignity of serving humankind in its calendrical role, but sun (Sol/Helios in classical antiquity; Shamash in Mesopotamia, perhaps d M A R U T U [ K ] in Enuma elish), even without the definite article—like yârëah "moon"—is no god, no autonomous willful creature. It - n o t he — is a lamp, no more, no less, rising on schedule and on schedule setting. 18 A continual and continuing problem lor the practitioner of the comparativecontrastive approach, whether in ascertaining the features of different religions in antiquity or interpreting the literature from which we get: our information on those religions, is the avoidance of construing parallels on flimsy grounds or overdrawing the significance of contrasting features. We have noted many of the unmistakable parallels that insightful scholars have drawn from the two creation stories, even as we have been stressing unmistakably divergent treatments of themes in the two stories, which are themselves parallels to one another. Yet given the small compass and economy of expression in the Genesis prose account, and the busy doings and talking of the far lengthier Babylonian epic, it is likely that any attempt to be exhaustive in treating the two would be more likely to fail in regard to contrast rather than to similarity With the foregoing in mind as a caveat (and admitting Psalm 104 to the biblical prose material for comparison) let us consider a feature that figures centrally in the one, and only incidentally in the other. Psalm 104 begins where Enuma eiish ends: the "heavenly" palace of creation. T h e psalm begins, however, where the Genesis story begins: with the creation of light. Light was to the ancients, as it is for us today, not only the opposite of physical darkness, but the antithesis of that darkness which is chaos; light is the precondition (and a metaphor) for perception, intellection, and reason, indeed for order itself. A n d order is what creation is all about. Our own word for the universe is the Greek cosmos, which means order. To marvel at the wonders of creation is to stand in awe of its order. And this is why the narrator of the Genesis creation story, who is so sparse with details, so thrifty with words, stresses the concept of species and their reproduction. Vegetation is divided into growths small and large, the cereal grasses representative of the first, trees of the second, each with its own mechanism for reproduction. In the case of grasses we eat the seeds themselves; in the case oi trees, we eat the fruit, which conrains the seeds within it. T h e focus on reproduction in the case of animals is explicit in God's blessing of fertility for the animals he creates on Pays Five and Six, in the rubric "according to its species" separately specified for the water créaturcs and for the birds on Day Five, and for the large animals and for the crawlers on Day Six, as it was on Day Three for the cereal grasses and for the fruit trees. Be the species flora or fauna, the narrator suggests, the marvel is that reproduction itself is so orderly that they do n o t — e x c e p t on rare occasions—produce biological sports. All the species breed true, like "the fruit trees each producing its own kind of fruit with its own seed within it" W h e t h e r we can come up with a persuasive conjecture for this emphasis on order generally and specifically in regard to biology may be a test ot our poetic insight. But, as we stressed earlier, neither Genesis nor Enuma elish purports to be a scientific lesson in cosmology (or biology). Both presume the popular science of their day Any perceptive creature can witness to the

60

STORIES — " T H E P R I M E V A L H I S T O R Y ‫י י‬

order about him, the order of which he is a parr. These compositions are concerned n o t so much with things as they are, not even with how they came to be, but rather with the power that brought t h e m into being and the nature of that power. W h a t is t h e nature of that power called Deity, and how does that power relate to mankind? Power. T h a t idea would seem to be indissociable trom the idea of divinity in any language, and seems in Hebrew to underlie the root el in many words betokening might or divinity. Yet in the distinction between pagan religion as polytheistic (power shared among many gods) and biblical monotheism (power reserved to the one and only God), between the many and the O n e , between a race of superhuman beings and a unique abstraction that transe ends h u m a n categories, a crucial difference is often overlooked. This difference has been worked out in laborious detail by Yehezkel Kaufmann, In the pagan scheme of Emima elish, as in every polytheistic religion, the seal of ultimate power is not in the gods. ]l? Ultimate power is a force beyond them, a force they may tap to achieve their ends, and which other c r e a t u r e s m a y t a p f o r e f f e c t i v e use a g a i n s t t h e gods t h e m s e l v e s . W e h a v e n o n a m e

for that power, nor, apparently, did the ancients. Anthropologists, borrowing a term from South Pacific islanders, call it mana. If we may take a conceptual term of our own that is usually thought of as technique (procedural and adjectival in sense) and treat it as a n o u n standing for an essence or entity, we might call it Magic. T h e gods themselves are identified with the stuff ot nature, or separated out from it as personified beings wielding t h e functions of natural p h e n o m e n a as tools or weapons. Thus the ambiguities of Tiamat and Apsu as the watery stuff of nature, commingling in mindless fashion and engendering within themselves t h e bolsterous turbulent powers which are their offspring. A n d this water-stuff, which is t h e very environment of the personified offspring itself, assumes differentiation as "person" in the struggle for mastery and, indeed, survival. A n d the weapons which these deities deploy against one another are the stuff of magic: spells and incantations and plants to put out poison. T h e break with paganism, t h e revolt—if you will—against it, is the revolutionary theology of biblical monotheism, expressed in the spare and austere style of Genesis 1. Whereas in paganism the ultimate power is an enveloping ocean of p o w e r — i n a n i m a t e , impersonal, mindless—Scripture has that ultimate power as t h e infinite source of all existence; in language borrowed from metaphysics, t h e Ground of Being. But this power is anything but inanimate. It has the attributes that the pagans reserved for the gods and denied to their environment: the attributes ot person. In Scripture this ultimate power and environment (a rabbinic name for God is I Limrruufom "The Place"), this God, is Person. Sexless, but not without gender — a category oi g r a m m a r — t h i s Person may not, out of respect, be referred to as "it," and so becomes a he. This Power is Person, W h o is conscious, W h o purposes, W h o wills, W h o acts. W h o is the source of nature, yet i n d e p e n d e n t of it. W h o by His will and purpose is present in nature and her creatures while remain ing essentially beyond, unlimited, uncontai.nable and — for the most part — unfathomable. T h e schematic sketch (figure 2-1) may be helpful in making graphic the cont rast s between the two conceptions:

ΤΙ IE CREATION STORY IN GENESIS

aimn

61

Biblical

... Magic ....

sphere ^ " S

P here ft

Sphere W Sphere 1ft F I G U R E1-‫ל‬

Sphere Φ Theological Spheres, Pagan and Biblical

L T h e i n n e r sphere is t h e saine in b o t h c o n c e p t i o n s . It is t h e material world, a n l · m a t e and i n a n i m a t e , mineral, vegetable, and a n i m a l , h u m a n and n o n h u m a i o It is pari of, and subject to, t h e workings oi: II. T h e sphere of natural powers and laws, in t h e pagan conception these powers are personified as t h e god,s t h e m s e l v e s part of t h e n a t u r a l order, and subject t o its powers or wielding t h e m a* t h e case may he. In the biblical conception these powers a n d laws are n e v e r ''person.' 1 In b o t h c o n c e p t i o n s this sphere derives from: III. T h e u l t i m a t e source of all power, w h i c h in t h e p a g a n c o n c e p t i o n is impersonal and capable of being m a n i p u l a t e d , whereas in t h e biblical c o n c e p t i o n it is t h e P e n son called G o d , sovereign in will and purpose.

In a manner of speaking, if we focus on the sphere of deity, pagan religion is natural, while biblical religion is supernatural. The revolutionary nature of biblical thought is that it transposes the attributes of spheres II and III. Deity, which in paganism is person, and subject to the impersonal sphere of III, becomes (in the Bible) person as sphere III, and the impersonal sphere of magical power becomes sphere II. One of the crucial consequences of this shift is in regard to the very existence of the cosmos, the ordered world. In paganism, the order of the universe— including the existence and power of the gods—may be dissolved by a reckless tapping of the mindless power ot sphere III. 111 biblical religion no such danger exists, for the cosmos is there by wall of God. Another consequence is in regard to the religious stance of humankind. The praxis of magic is the coercion of power, hence incantation, charm, and spell. In paganism it is conceivable for man (or other entities) to go over the heads ot the gods, so to speak, and to coerce even deity by magical technique. The practice of religion is appeal or prayer. Paganism allows, therefore,

62

STORIES — "‫׳‬ΓΗ Κ PRIMEVAL HISTORY‫״‬

for either religion or magic. Biblical religion does nor admit oi magic as an option over or against prayer.

PAGAN AND BIBLICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: A CONTRAST

Since theological speculation is an exclusively human activity, it would be surpris‫׳‬ ing if a basic theological composition were silent on the place of mankind in the scheme of things. Neither Enuma elish nor Genesis offers such a surprise. Essentially centered on the nature of the divine, neither of these narratives goes into great detail on this point. Enough is said, however, to provide an interesting contrast in viewpoints. T h e gods of paganism are children of nature and, as such, have natural needs. N o t least among them is food. It is this problem which must have been featured at the end of Tablet V of the Enuma elish, the greater part of which has been lost to us. But it is clear from what follows in Tablet VI that the options available to the victorious gods were to work for themselves or to impose servitude on their defeated rivals. Marduk proposes an alternative: Blood I will mass a n d cause b o n e s to he. I will establish a savage, m a n shall be his n a m e .

Verily, savage man I will create. H e shall be charged w i t h t h e service of t n e gods T h a t they m i g h t he at ease! ( A N H T Tab. VI

8•‫ל‬p. 6 8 )

And from the blood of the executed Kingu mankind is created, a race of serfs to till the fields and harvest the crops, to tend the flocks and the herds from among which sacrificial offerings are made, feasts for the gods. Throughout Mesopotamia!! mythology as well as polity, this is the consistent theme. T h e gods have a vested interest in order in h u m a n society, that their serfs may prosper, and that their offerings continue regularly and without interruption. To that end the gods even deign to mandate law and justice for their slaves, bestowing upon them the institutions of kingship and priesthood. Yet as the gods continue to vie with one another, so do various polities—or perhaps, vice versa. W h e n Assyria conquers Babylon, it appropriâtes for itself the anthem Enuma elish, and in the Assyrian version it is its own tutelary genius, the god Assur, who is hymned as victor over Tiamat, king of the gods and lord of creation. But victorious in war or defeated, mortals remain serfs charged with the service of the gods. N o t so in Genesis. In a few deft strokes an altogether different status is conferred on mankind. In Enuma elish, the prototypical god A n u begets Marduk's father, Ea, "in his own image." In Genesis, when the stage has been set for him, man appears, the culminating work of creation, made by God "in his very own image to conquer earth and hold rule over fish of the sea, birds of heaven, cattle and every crawling creature that stirs on earth.' 1 W h a t is Scripture's intent in assigning to humankind the image of God? Does it betray a notion that in some literal sense the O n e God assumes shape on occasion, and that shape is, to use William Blake's phrase, "the human form divine?" Perhaps. But Genesis 9:6 gives it no literal meaning. In the context of assigning a sanctity to human life the shedding of human

T H E C R E A T J O N STORY I N G E N E S I S

6 3

blood is forbidden, the reason being, "for in t h e image of God did he make mank i n d " Elsewhere in the ancient world (and also more recently) divine parentage has been claimed for individual heroes, even for a single strain of the h u m a n race. Nowhere else hut in Scripture has Deity so benevolent bestowed such royalty and sanctity on the entire h u m a n race. But to what end, for what purpose? T h e Genesis account does not say But a n ‫׳‬ other biblical author, the poet of Psalrn 8, does. Here is his h y m n to the God of Creation: Psalm 8 (2) Y H W H , our Lord, h o w majestic your n a m e over a l l earth, E v e n as y o u r g l o r y is rehearsed across t h e h e a v e n s ! ( 3 ) O u t o f t h e m o u t h o f s u c k l i n g babes y o u f o u n d e d p o w e r O n a c c o u n t o f y o u r adversaries, To b r i n g to naught the enemy ever-vengeful. ( 4 ) L o , as I ν ie w y o u r h ea v e n s, T h e w o r k of y o u r

fingers,

M o o n a n d stars y o u f i x e d i n p l a c e , [1 m u s e ; ] ( 5 ) W h a t is m e r e m a n , t h a t y o u t a k e n o t e of h i m , L a r t h l i n g , that y o u t a k e n o t i c e of h i m ? ( 6 ) T h a t y o u h a v e h i m f a l l i n g so little s h o r t of b e i n g a g o d - W r e a t h i n g b i n ! in d i g n i t y s p l e n d i d ? (7‫ )׳‬T h a i y o n ‫ ״‬r a n t h i m l o r d s h i p o v e r t h e w o r k of y o u r h a n d ? A l l t h i n g s ' n e a t h his feet h a v e y o u subjected: (8) S m a l l catt le a n d large, all of t h e m , A n d a n i m a l s of t h e w i l d , (9) (10)

Birds of h e a v e n , fish o f t h e s e a — t h a t traverse oceans' c u r r e n t s . Y H W H , our Lord, h o w majestic Your n a m e over all t h e earth!

Consideration of nature s g r a n d e u r — f o r all its vastness a trifling indication of its C r e a t o r s p o w e r — m o v e s the poet to reflect on t h e greatest of marvels: t h e role assigned to puny mankind, to be creations overlord. W h a t prompted G o d to endow this race, in itself as weak and helpless as an infant at the breast, with this status? T h e answer is in verse 3, t h e responsible role assigned to mankind, and n o t — a s assumed by many interpreters—Israel. This latter and clearly erroneous conclusion owes to a number of factors. For one there is t h e overlooking of t h e force of the participle normally rendered "avenger," a meaning which would inhere in the qal participle of ηφη; the form here, disguised as a regular hitpael, is the durative hitpael (recovered by Speiser) and so rendered by us as "ever-vengeful." 20 But when does (or did) that vengefulness begin, and for how long does (or will) it endure? T h e answer, again, is to be sought in the one identity of "your (God's) adversaries" with the ever-vengeful enemy to the end of whose elimination God has ereated h u m a n k i n d . This enemy is the one element in t h e Genesis creation story not explicitly present in the psalm, but there can he no question that it is r/iom, itself the metaphor for chaos, whu xväböhü, here personified as the enemy of ( uxl in rime of yore, of both God and humanity in the ongoing present. T h e role of humankind

64

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY‫יי‬

as c r e a t i o n s o v e r l o r d , e x p l i c i t : in G e n e s i s 1, is h e r e c o m p l e m e n t e d in a m e t a p h o r ( w h i c h m a y h e a c l i c h é d h o m i l y in t o d a y ' s s y n a g o g u e s a n d c h u r c h e s , h u t is in t h e o r i g i n a l f o r m u l a t i o n o n e ) of b r e a t h t a k i n g b o l d n e s s : h u m a n k i n d is G o d s ally, p a r t n e r - s o to speak

in t h e c o n t i n u i n g s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t t h e p o w e r s o i c h a o s w h i c h ,

subdued at the time of creation, ma ν nevertheless erupt at any time to challenge the stability ο I the cosmos. 1'Your adversaries" ‫ ־‬God s opponents—are the "evervengeful enemy" that puny mankind has been given the power to oppose, even to bring to naught. '1 he metaphor oi physical chaos is thus given a moral dimension. A moral dimension: the dimension that 1 find notably absent in the Enuma elish, either in Tiamat/chaos or Marduk/lord of creation. A dimension implicit in Genesis ι in the (moral) dignity assigned to humanity and perhaps implicitly withheld from humanity in Enuma elislù depiction of this species as a race of serfs created for the single purpose of serving the pleasure of the indolent gods. If we recall that we had initial recourse to Enuma elish for a comparative-contrastive foil for the interpretation of Genesis 1, ventured into a poetic reading of Enuma elish itself, then broke off that reading to contrast the religions of paganism and Scripture, we shall recognize that our discussion of both religious cultures as read from both religious literatures respectively remains incomplete. And we shall return to some of the questions which remain wholly or partly unresolved in an excursus devoted to Scripture s mythopoeic imagination, and the question as to whether the author of that great text on paganism, Eu π ma elish, was himself a pagan. For the present, however, the reader whose main concern is the text of Scripture may be feeling somewhat restive over my failure to return to the seventh and last day of creation. Before I go on to this, let me plead in mitigation the clear poetic division between the six days of rest (in rabbinic tradition, the seset ycme hamma a se) and the seventh or Sabbath day, which concludes that First Week (silr'ä y:'më sahhduι). And, as a distinct pericope, these six days have their own kerygma. That kerygma is, first, the statement of Scripture's metaphysical foundation, a kerygma that cannot be appreciated except in contradistinction to that of the pagan environment in which, and to combat which, Scripture came into being. That kerygma is embodied in figure 2-1 and its accompanying explication. Not separable from that metaphysical statement in filling out the kerygma is the role assigned to mankind in Genesis 1, not fully appreciable without the contrasting role assigned to it in the pagan conception, and again not fully appreciable without the climactic biossoming of that role in Psalm 8. Morality as a concept is unthinkable except in terms of a set of norms for creatures who are both free and fallible, the norms themselves deriving from a source that transcends those creatures and has them as a central concern. To recapitulate then the kerygma of the six days of creation: Creation—the order brought out of chaos—is the work of a transcendent unitary power perceived as person, called God. That chaos and disorder, which is called in another metaphor, a metaphor for evil—a moral category—the forces of darkness, is not eliminated by the creation of light, but merely held in check. Disorder, the forces of darkness, is/are dormant, yet ever-vengeful. The end, the culmination, perhaps the very purpose of creation, is the human race. Humanity's delegated sovereignty over nature (a hyperbole, if we think of storm, earthquake, volcano) is a pale dignity compared to the moral aspect of human grandeur,

ΤΙ IE CREATION STORY IN GENESIS

6 5

w h i c h — i m p l i c i t everywhere in Scripture—is made explicit in Psalm 8. Humankind is God's partner in the ongoing work of creation, of sustaining the world against God's adversaries, who are, necessarily, mankind's also. Day Seven (1) H e a v e n a n d e a r t h a n d all their p o p u l a t i o n s were n o w c o m p l e t e . (2) W h e n G o d o n Day S e v e n b r o u g h t to an e n d d i e work h e had d o n e , h e desisted utterly o n this Day S e v e n f r o m t h e enterprise h e h a d a c c o m p l i s h e d . (3) ( kxl blessed Day S e v e n , declared it holy, for o n it he desisted f r o m his task, t h e c r e a t i o n which G o d had accomplished, (4) T h e s e are t h e events, as c o n c e r n s their c r e a t i o n , of h e a v e n and earth, (Genesis

2:1 4a) T h e varied effects made possible by the parataetic deployment of waw-conversive in narrative prose are extensively discussed in Toward a Grammar.21 W e saw that succeeding clauses may express a simple sequence, temporal or logical; a synoptic event followed by a resumptive expansion; a relational clause bespeaking circumstance, purpose, result, and so on; and an ambiguating double entendre allow‫׳‬ ing for the possibilities of hard and soft disjunctional function. This last pericope, for all its small compass, could occupy many pages in exploratory discussion of these possibilities. Our translation above is therefore hut one of many possible translations. A t each of the five appearances of the waw-conversive we were compelled to settle for a single one of several options. Repetitions of the same verb, phrase, or event alternating with different words for the same action or concept, and sudden appearances of seemingly redundant information in hypotactic syntax, make for a literary maze of Daedalian intricacy. O n e semantic crux will serve to exemplify the riddle-like nature of this passage. T h e passage opens with a statement in the passive mood about t h e completion of the world ("heaven and earth‫ )״‬together with its contents, follows with the same action in t h e active mood with G o d as subject and referring to t h e world now as "his work," which he had done (how not?), and proceeds to tell us of God's desisting from "all his work" (agami) which he had done (again!); and, once more, in giving God's motive for blessing and sanctifying the seventh day it repeats t h e theme ot desisting, "from all his work" (yet again!) which, literally, "God created to do." T h u s the verb ‫׳‬s/1 "to do" a third time, but in conjunction with hr : "to create." Since the latter verb never appears in Scripture with other t h a n God as its subject, the sense of "create," that is, to bring into being ont of nothingness, may stand to the "doing" or "accomplishing, completing" sense oi sk as the alpha to the omega: from absolute beginning to perfect ending. T h e semantic crux, however, lies in another repetition: the first two (of the three) appearances of Day Seven. In verse 2 God first completes (klh) His work on Day Seven, and then desists from it on that very same Day Seven. Since tradition understood t h e verb sht more in t h e sense of "to rest" t h a n "to desist," and further understood that rest to be absolute in contrast to the work that was performed on the first six days (this last being the plain intent of verse 1), God's completion of his work on the seventh day smacked of a contradiction. No wonder t h e n that the Greek versions render the first part of verse 2 by God's completing his work "on the sixth day!"

66

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫י י‬

This implied emendat ion of the 1 Iehrew text may, however, he based on a misunderstanding of the text. Thus: the physical world and its constituencies were indeed completed on/by the sixth day (verse 1). O n the seventh day, however, God brought the work He had accomplished on those six days to a fitting close by a ereative act of non-action; in desisting he created the Sabbath (verse 2). l his act is not so much explicated as it is defined in the act of blessing and sanctification (verse 3). If such is the intent of the Hebrew, we have before us another example of the poetic craft of the biblical narrator. T h e more pointless the repetitions, the clumsier the prose, the more incumbent upon the critic to search out the reasons why the presumptions in favor of a gifted artist must yield to one in favor of a hapless editor bound to the inanities of an inherited and cult-centered text. To enhance our appreciation of the subtle ambiguities and complementary alternatives presented by the vocabulary and syntax of Hebrew, I offer a second translation—every bit as faithful as the first—and set the two in parallel columns for easier comparison, the contrasting alternatives appearing in boldface type: ι. Heaven and earth and all their populations were now complete. 2. When God on Day Seven brought to an end the work he had done, he desisted utterly on this Day Seven from the enterprise he had accomplished. 3. God blessed Day Seven, declared it holy for on it he des' te I ftom his task, the creation which God had accomplished*

Completed now were heaven and earth and all their populations. God now brought to a close on Day Seven the enterprise he had com·‫״‬ pieted by desisting utterly on this Day Seven from the work he had accomplished. God thus blessed this Day Seven, establishing its holiness, in that on it did he desist utterly from this enterprise of his, |this enterprise] which God had created ]from beginning] to perfection.

If we may presume, in regard to t his Sabbath pericope, a restored presumption in favor of its careful and meaningful design, the content oi this pericope and its placement at the conclusion of the creation story raises a different kind of literary question, a question that is rarely raised because we live in the penumbra of the biblical sabbath. A mandatory day of rest on tone day out of seven is a cultural fact of the Western world into which w?e and our children are born, and is an essential element of the time frame in which we are all reared. Mores and law, and social, political, and economic sanctions have been mustered to fix and preserve this peculiar Israelite institution for more than twenty-five hundred years. A n d even with the shift of "the Sabbath" for the majority of the Western world from the seventh day to the first, the seventh day has not become just another work day. Seventh day and first are merged for the most secular of us into the social and economic rhythm that is expressed in working weekdays and leisure-oriented weekends. Were this not so, were we not so culturally conditioned (not to speak of those of us who are religiously committed), many of us would be compelled to the poetical judgment that this biblical creation narrative culminates in an anticlimax. T h e problems we have reviewed about the sense of various details of the ereation process, their incompatibility with general surmise about the age or develop-

ΤΙ IE CREATION STORY IN GENESIS

67

ment of the world we inhabit, with what we know about the causal relationship between sun and daylight, between sun and plant life, have precluded for many in our generation an appreciative approach to this chapter of the Bible. But even for t h e s e - - if they can manage to bold in abeyance the arguments lor evolution, the findings of ecologists and paleontologists, astronomers and. physicists--There may yet be something grand in this story ot creation. For all the primitiveness ot its seience and the myopia (if it is that) of its anlhropocentricity, there is a sweep to the progression oi creation, from the wonder of a sourccless light through the emergence ot heaven with its sun, moon, and stars; from oceans teeming with schools ot minnows and monster leviathans, to continents with their multifarious plants and creatures of earth and sky, to the appearance of nature's king: humankind. But is all of this artful construction to arrive at one cultic dogma? A n omnipotent God who needs but speak to create a universe suddenly breaks off his "labors" so that mankind — n o , not humankind at targe, rather the tiny people of Israel—must come to a mandatory rest one day out of seven! Were the Sabbath, the seventh day, merely a cultic dogma, the culmination of the Creation story in the notice of this day's sanctification, in four verses of multilayered and richly ambiguous syntax, would constitute an anticlimax. But the key to the understanding of this peculiar biblical institution—and its place m Scriptures first chapter—was provided some twenty years ago by Matitiahu Tsevat in an essay entitled "The Basic Meaning of the Biblical Sabbath" 22 This interpretation has proved so seminal in my own understanding of many a biblical text that my use of it involves a double danger. O n the one hand, I may read into Tsevat s argument elements that he never intended and for which he should not want to be held responsible. O n the other hand, I may give the impression of claiming credit for germinal constituents of his argument. To avoid these risks 1 shall essay first a recap itulation of Tsevat s argument: Although there are ctiothetic rationales associated with the sabbat 11 in widely seattered Scriptural texts, such as the palliation of the haul lot of bondservant or beast of burden (social or humanitarian legislation) and establishment of celebratory occa‫׳‬ sions (cultic enactments of weekly or seasonal days and cycles), these are not‫ ׳‬central to the meaning of the sabbath. That central meaning is encapsulated in an oft recur‫·׳‬ ring phrase sahlmt IcY'l IWJ I "a sabbat h of the Lord?1 T h e cessation of labor once every seven days is an obligation on the Israelite householder and not a privilege, as is the ban on the cultivation of the soil on every seventh year of the scmitta cycle. In the latter case (e.g., Leviticus 25:3t.), " ' T h e land shall have a sabbath of complete ahstetv tion; it is a sabbath of the Lord.' Man in refraining at regular intervals from exploiting the land lor his own needs, thereby places it under the lordship of God. A n d with the land he places himself, its possessor and cultivator, under divine dominion." In the former case (e.g.. Decalogue and Leviticus 23:3), G o d s dominion over the land is para lie led and complemented by God's dominion over time. "The Israelite is duty-bound once every seven days to assert by word and deed that G o d is the master of time . . . [to] phrase it more simply: Every seventh day the Israelite renounces his autonomy and affirms God's dominion over him." The Bible elsewhere presents us with the proposition that time is indeed God s domam. Two psalm passages of identical structure speak of him, respectively, as the lord of space and the lord of time: "Yours is the heavens, the earth is yours also," and

68

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY‫יי‬

"Yours is the day, the night is yours also‫( ״‬Psalms 8g:12 and 74:16). . . . G o d s don 1 in‫•׳‬ ion over spaee and His dominion over rime are largely two aspects of the same rhing: His dominion over man and especially over Israel. There is, therefore, nothing incongruous nor hold in the conclusion lhal every seventh day rhe Israelite is to renounce dominion over time, thereby renounce autonomy, and recognize G o d s dominion over time and thus over himsell. Keeping the sabbath is acceptance ot the sovereignty oi God. "All regularly recurring events in ancient Israel were hound up with the cyclical changes of n a t u r e — t h e seasons or the revolutions ot rhe moon or the sun. . . . M a n who structured social a time in accordance with the natural divisions of time was likely to be in harmony with nature. . . . For the sabbath, however, there is n o room in this physico-human periodicity. Having no bond with nature other t h a n t h e change of day and night, t h e sabbatical cycle, is indifferent to the harmony of the universe. . . . Since the rhythm of the sabbath is the only exception to this prevailing natural rhythm, and since the exception in n o way derives from time as such nor is traceable to any aspect of time experienced in the ancient Near East, it is likely that the dichotomy between the sabbath on the one hand and nature on the other h a n d was not unintentional. T h e intention was, I suggest, to till time with a c o n t e n t that is uncontaminated by, and distinct from, anything related to natural time, i.e., time as agricub tural season or astronomical phase. . , . T h a t content, displacing the various ideas and phenomena associated with natural time, is the idea of the absolute sovereignty of God, a sovereignty unqualified even by an indirect cognizance of the rule of other powers." 23

In the years since the publication of Tsevat's essay, my appreciation of his insights into biblical texts seemingly unrelated to the sanctification of the seventh day in Genesis 2, and my admiration for the cogency of his argument, occasioned in me a sense of scandal that so seminal an interpretation of so central a biblical institution could so fail of remark — not to speak of appreciation — a m o n g biblical scholars. T h e sense of scandal gave way in time to a less self-indulgent reflex: an attempt to understand the cool reception of this contribution by so widely respected a student of a n c i e n t Israel and of her ancient neighbors and their cultures. Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardoner. T h e factor operating against acceptance of Tsevat's discovery was, 1 came to realize, a complex of meta literary conventions, specifically: the perception of the literal/metaphoric dichotomy as one of polarity rather than spectrum; of the naivete of the ancients as against the sophistication of us modems; and the habit of attributing to ourselves a capacity for the metaphoric and the abstract while limiting our early forerunners to the literal and the concrete. These deeply ingrained prejudices incline us to view matter and the space it occupies as concrete conceptions apprehensible by the most naïve, while time as a dimension and a potential is a concept of so high a level of abstraction as to be denied to the early or primitive mind. Thus the physical objects or phenomena—astral entities, mineral, vegetable, and animated matter—are explicitly listed in the Genesis catalogue of creation; and the sovereignty of the creator over his creations is so obvious as to require neither formulation of the axiom nor its explicit application in this narrative context. N o t so, however, as concerns the reaction of that abstraction that we call time. That word (in Hebrew, of course) is absent from the Creation cat alogue. Yet it is undent-

ΤΙ IE CREATION STORY IN GENESIS

6 9

ably there, mythopoeicaliy present in the succession of days; even the first day, t h e second day, and the third, before the creation of sun, moon, and stars on Day Four. The Genesis creation story is structured on the theological time-frame of the seven-day week. The authors of Scripture were well aware that the theology of paganism was chained to the natural rhythms of time, even to the celestial deities, personified as Sun, Moon. Stars, and Constellations, which lorded it over the cycles of days and nights, months and seasons and years: personified powers of nature which are demoted in Genesis to mere artifacts, lamps rising and setting on command of the One Creator. In its conclusion on the Sabbath theme, the biblical creation story is a parallel to the Enuma elish epic, which concludes with an anthem of praise to Marduk. The proclamation of his fifty names, ascribing to him the powers and attributes of the gods, comes across to us almost as a paradoxical paroxysm: polytheism straining for a monotheistic rebirth. In vesting all power and praise in Marduk, paganism comes close to abandoning polytheism altogether. Like a number of hymns from ancient Egypt, it all hut breaks through to a formulation of monotheism. But it was left to Israel to arrive at that formulation, to make deity not only one, but Ultimate and Person, the formulation already presupposed in the first words of Genesis: u In the beginning, God . . .'‫ י‬The Sabbath passage is the creation story's doxology: a hymn of praise that is not so much an assertion of the oneness of Deity as a call to Israel to acknowledge that oneness, to affirm the lordship of that One over ourselves, over our person and our property, over our time and activity—wbich is to say, the uses to which we put time. This biblical paean to the One Creator, proclaiming the seventh day as "the Lord's/YHWITs Day,‫ ״‬is ant icipated in the first day. This day, and the five that follow it, are merely rungs necessary to arrive at the seventh. Thus the very creat ion ot the seven-day week is a poet ic triumph of Israel's religious genius. The purely poetical consideration of the parallelism between the doxological conclusion of Enuma elish in the fifty names of Marduk and the doxological conclus ion of the creation story in the seventh day sabbath holds, of course, whether one accepts the former as the literal intention of a pagan poet, or (our own view) as the metaphorical message of a poet who has outgrown the polytheistic postulates of paganism. In content, however, the fifty names celebrating Marduk's sovereignty still reflect the nature-tied theology of paganism, while the new way of structuring time in Genesis—breaking with the time-and-nature-bound theology of paganism— creates, so to speak, a new concept of time, time which is meta-natural, metaphysical. And also, in contrast with that pagan sense, and with the sense soon to be introduced, the sense of historic time, that is, time as measure of events, the time of the first seven days is meta-historical. The seven-day week of creation, to be observed by mankind in historic t i m e — n o w that time itself has been created— is the culminating praise of the lord of matter and spirit and time itself. Were we to remove the days, the first six and the seventh, from the Genesis prose-poem, the tapestry of the creation composition would fall apart, for we would be removing its very warp and woof. From beginning to end, in material and structure, in content and form, the Genesis creation composition

is

l i k e its S a b b a t h c o n c l u s i o n

c e l e b r a t i o n of that‫ ־‬D e i t y w h o t r a n s c e n d s b o t h r i m e a n d n a t u r e

-a

70

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY‫יי‬

of issues of critical import for the understanding of biblical religion, and particularly in connection with the Creation, tbe Sabbath, and the mythopoeic imagination in and beyond Scripture whose treatment would have further convoluted this discussion. Hence I have deferred them to a concluding chapter. Their placement at the end of the volume rather than here is in the interest of moving more expeditiously to the narrative that is generally regarded as a second creation story, discordantly divergent from the one preceding it. THERE ARE A NUMBER

T H R E E

EDEN A N D EDEN'S AFTERMATH

T h e characterization of the story that begins with Genesis 2:4b as a second ereation narrative is almost never challenged, questioned, or even examined in modern scholarship; not even by scholars who, disenchanted with the Documentary Hypothesis(/es), do not keep company with those who ascribe authorship of the first narrative to Ρ and the second to J. That this second narrative involves ereational themes is undeniable; whether that warrants the genre-label "creation story" is not. That it contains elements parallel to features in the first narrative is true, but such parallelism does not in itself point to it as independent of its preccdent account; and such independence is both an assumption and a consequence of the genetic division. Nor is independence a necessary consequence of such dissimilarities as in the deployment of the names of God or indulgence in anthropomorphisms. T h e only persuasive basis t h e n for the independence of these pericopes and their separate origins would be in such discrepant or contradictory items as the fob lowing: the creation of humankind, male and female, in a single action in the first account as against the discrete steps of that creation in the second; the creation of the animals before man in the first account, and after his creation in the second, a n d — n o more; these two exhaust the list of discrepancies. That these two do, indeed, constitute discrepancies and not contradictions will emerge from our poetic analysis of this second story and from its comparison with the first narrative. In a word, we shall see that Scripture begins with that narrative technique, the synoptic-resumptive, the first story constituting the tonner and the 71

72

STORIES — " T H E P R I M E V A L HISTORY‫יי‬

second t h e latter. My procedure in t h e close reading of t h e E d e n story will be to present it in my o w n translation, to raise such m o o t questions of narrow philology as are vital for t h e story's poetical analysis, together with t h e answers I find c o g e n t a n d persuasive, and t h e n to proceed to larger questions of interpretation, w h i c h will entail a comparative study of t h e G11 gamesh Epic. O n l y t h e n will 1 present my understanding of Eden's kerygma, a kerygma whose dilemma begins w i t h i n t h e garden and finds its resolution outside it.

THE

STORY OF

EDEN

Man Is Placed in the Garden (4) When YHWH-God made earth and heaven - (‫ )ל‬no wild shrubs having yet appeared on earth nor wild grasses having yet sprouted, since YEIWH-God had made no rain to fall on earth and man there was none to till the soil; (6) yet a ground flow might well up and water an entire stretch ot ground—(7) YEIWH-God fashioned Man, [from] a clod of earth, and blew life-breath into his nostrils: Thus Man became a living being. (8) YHWH-God planted a garden in Eden in that time of yore,* placing there Man whom he had fashioned. (9) YHWH-God caused to sprout from the soil all trees, pleasing to the sight or valuable for food, including the tree of life within the garden, and the tree of knowledge —good and bad.2 (10)—Now a waterflow spills from Eden to water the garden, branching out into four headwaters. ( :1:1 ) The name of the first is Pishon; that is the one which winds through Havilaland, there where the gold is; (12) (That area's gold is high-grade, there too is bdellium and lapis lazuli.) (13) The name of the second river is Gihon, this is the one that winds all through Cush territory. (14) The name of the third river is Ticris, this is the one which flows east of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.—( 15) Taking up Man, YHWH-God set him down in the garden of Eden for the task of tending it. (16) YHWH-God laid this charge upon Man, "Of all the trees of the garden you may eat freely, (17) but of the tree of knowledge—good and bad — of it you are not to eat: tor when you eat of it you shall be doomed to die." (Genesis 2:4b-17) T h i s story begins, like t h e preceding creation narrative and t h e E m a n a elish, with a temporal clause, followed by a p a r e n t h e t i c a l flashback and t h e n the main clause, a stylistic feature that suggests the possibility o! a c o m m o n literary tradition r a t h e r t h a n mere coincidence. All three opening sentences feature the merism " h e a v e n a n d e a r t h " for the created universe. A n o t h e r merism c o m m o n to t h e two Genesis narratives is "shrubs and grass," standing for all vegetable growth, big and small. A third merism - in verse 5 — h a s escaped general notice: G o d and m a n . H e r e they are t h e two opposites, each of w h o m might h a v e — b u t h a d n o t y e t — m a d e vegetation possible by providing its quintessential requirement: water. G o d provides water in t h e form of rain, and man's role in watering t h e soil is expressed in t h e rubric "irrigation." A tiny point, this last, observation. But for t h e literary detective t h e most m i n u t e point may provide a critical clue. Chesterton's Father Brown solved his most celebrated mystery by observing that it is the all-too-obvious and c o m m o n -

EDEN A N D E D E N ,S A F T E R M A T H

ΙΟϊ

place that‫ ״‬becomes invisible to witnesses. In that‫ ־‬story it was the postman. In ours it is an ecological detail so obvious that we should never have missed it had it been omitted: of course plants grow as a consequence ot falling rail! or irrigated fields. Tins "of course" in our minds is culturally determined and far from ubiquitous or universal. In Egypt, where it almost never rains, agriculture is totally dependent on irrigation, the channeling of the Nile's water to the fields under cultivation, in Canaan (or Palestine) irrigation was not: the practice; the farmer prospered or went hungry in the measure that heaven's rains flowed or were withheld. This contrast between a land where man may rely o n his o w n efforts and a land where he is altogether dependent on Providence appears in Moses' exhortation of Israel to be obe‫׳־‬ dient to God: For the land which you are about to invade and occupy is not like the land of Egypt which you have left, where you sowed your seed and watered with your toot [on the pedal-pump] like a vegetable garden. The land you are about to cross into and occupy, however, is a land of hills and valleys, only from heaven's rains does it drink water. It is a land which has ever the attention of YHWH your God, from year's beginning to year's end. If then you obey the commandments . . . (Deuteronomy 11:10-1 3 ) The area where crops are dependent both o n rain and an extensive system of irrigation canals ("the waters of Babylon") lies between the Tigres and Euphrates. It is to this area of the world that the author of this verse and chapter (as indeed the pervasive authorial voice of Scripture) is primarily oriented. Himself situated o n the land-bridge between Mesopotamia to the north and east and Egypt to the south and west, h e - - a s Speiser once observed—sets his face to the former and his back to the latter. The location of Eden in the vicinity of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers is ex‫׳‬ plic.it. The very name "Eden" we now know was the Sumerian term cJin, "the plain" between the two rivers in the south. A n d the 1 lebrew word eel (appearing only once more in the Bible and formerly translated "mist") is a Sumerian or BabyIonian word for a river or for a stream that breaks through to the surface from underground. T h e function of this water-source spilling into Eden is to account for the luxuriance ot the garden, while outside it, in the absence of rain or cultivation, everything is barren. The realistic details of the garden of Eden's location 3 and the casual, matter-offact observations on the ore and minerals of the region, the setting of the stories to come, should not divert us from the focus of this narratives opening; Man. In contrast to Genesis 1, this is not a general creation account, proceeding from one act to another. Rather, assuming the world created in the preceding account, it begins with the making of mankind in one area of that world, a mankind embodied in a single "earthling" shaped out of a lump of clay (or, more literally, a shaped lump of clay), animated by the breath of life. Placed in the garden abundant in shade trees and fruit trees, his purposed role is defined by two infinitives in verse 15, normally and correctly translated, "to till (or work) it and tend it." This literal rendering has been noted by commentators as a contradiction of what follows; namely, that man did no work in Eden but began his career as tiller of the soil only after banishment from the fruitful garden. Our own translation of the two infinitives resolves the

74

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY‫יי‬

problem oi contradiction by treating the two verbs as a hendiadys. Mans role in the garden is to tend it, to be its keeper or steward. But why does the garden need a guardian ai all/ Who or what other creatures are there in the world : (dearly, this statement ot role is anticipatory. There will yet be other protagonists. But before these are introduced, the story presses on to the principal mechanism of its plot. Among the many trees of many kinds in the garden, trees presumably known to us, the readers, in our existential world, are two trees we have never experienced, fabulous trees, one a tree of lite, the other a tree of knowledge,—that knowledge characterized as "good and bad‫ ״‬or "good and evil" We might have expected a tree of life and a tree of death, or a tree of knowledge and a tree of ignorance. Just what are the potencies of a tree of lite and a tree of knowledge? And why does God implicitly permit man to eat of the tree of life when he explicitly excludes from mans diet the fruit of the tree of knowledge? What is the tree of knowledge, and why does God forbid its fruit to man? If, as the serpent will later suggest, man's eating of it will render him "like God"—a status that is contrary to God s will—why did God make this tree available in the first place? Apparently, as a test of man; clearly, as a test of his obedience. But a test of obedience could have involved any tree—why this one in particular? And the obedience test could have been arranged without allowing man to eat the plucked fruit. This points to the possibility that man was not so much forbidden to eat of this fruit as given a choice: Eat of this tree and die, or abstain from it and live. For how long? Forever? (How long, by the way, is forever?) Another line of questioning has to do with the potency of the fruits of the two trees. Assuming that such potency is unlimited, that is to say the power ot the fruits is literal, mechanical, and ineluctable, then if man had not given in to the temptation to eat of the tree of knowledge he would never have died. By virtue of his continued obedience? No, for what need then of the tree of life! By virtue then of his access to the life-guaranteeing fruit of the tree of life. But it that be so, why could man not have eaten ot the fruit of both trees, eating first of the tree of liic, whose fruit had never been forbidden to him, and then of the tree of knowledge? An answer to this is either that the author wants his readers to assume that the man had just not gotten around to eating of the tree of life before he succumbed to the temptation to disobey, or that he did not learn of the power of this tree s fruit until it was too late, that is, after having eaten of the tree of knowledge. A n alternative understanding, which would still assume the mechanical power of the fruit to guarantee life, would require periodic ingestion of the fruit. This would then allow for mans having indeed eaten of the tree of life, and the death-consequence of his partaking of the Tree of Knowledge constituted by the denial to him of further access to the tree of life. Another question is how‫ ׳‬to translate the words that qualify the kind of knowledge that the fruit ot this tree engenders in the eater: "good and bad," or, as the older translations render the Hebrew, "good and evil"? The difference in translation is critical for interpretation. "Good and evil" presupposes that the nature of the knowledge is moral; that is, knowledge of right and wrong, for "evil" is a moral category. To opt for this interpretation is to raise a conundrum. If man had no knowledge of right and wrong before he ate of the fruit, would he have known that disobedience was an evil? And it he did not know, how could he be blamed for an

EDEN AND EDEN ,S AFTERMATH

ΙΟϊ

action of whose wrongness he was unaware? To opt for the interpretation 1'good and had" that is, knowledge of a general rather than of a moral nature, is to raise another set of questions. Is "good and bad" a merism for all knowledge: If so, then man would have had no knowledge of any kind until he ate of the fruit, including—presumably—knowledge of Gods charge. Since this is manifestly absurd, "good and bad" would have to qualify a particular area—a particularly critical area—of knowledge, which was closed off to man except tor the key provided by this fruit. What area of knowledge might the author have intended:

Man luncls His Mate [ 18) YflWi 1-God ‫ ו‬bought, "It is not good, man's remaining alone. 1 shall make him a suitable h e l p " (19) W h e r e u p o n YI I W H - G o d f o r m e d out ol e a r t h all beasts a! large

and all the (owl of heaven, bringing each to man to see what‫ ־‬he would call it; and whaiever man would call it—each living creature—that would be its name. (20) So man .cave n a m e s t o all cattle, all fowl of h e a v e n and all beasts of t h e wild — yet for m a n n o suitable h e l p h a d b e e n a c h i e v e d . (21) Y H W H - G o d t h e n cast a stupor u p o n m a n . W h i l e h e slept h e took o u t o n e of his ribs a n d sealed t h e flesh at t h a t spot. (22) Y H W H ‫ ׳‬G o d t h e n built u p t h e rib w h i c h h e h a d t a k e n f r o m m a n i n t o a w o m a n , and he b r o u g h t h e r t o m a n . ( 2 3 ) M a n said, " T h i s t i m e n o w — b o n e of my b o n e s and flesh

of my flesh! This one will be called Female for from Male was she taken.24) ‫ ) י י‬Hence it is that man leaves his father and mother, sticks to his wife so that they become a single flesh. (Genesis 2:18-24) The contrasts, even contradictions, in the accounts of mankinds creation here and in Genesis 1 could hardly be more striking. In Genesis 1, each act ot creation proceeds by the fiat of God, the style is spare, and anthropomorphic attributes are notably absent. God "creates"—the verb bara' in Hebrew never appears with other than God as subject—mankind in his own image. The notion that God has a form, which would be anthropomorphism indeed, is not clearly present, and we concluded that this is a poetic metaphor for the supreme dignity and worth with which God endows humankind, an endowment underlined in Gods granting mankind dominion over earth and all her creatures. Another argument against the image of God as a literal reference to form is that mankind is created in one act, both male and female ("God created man in his image, in the image of God ere‫־׳‬ ated he him, male and female created he them" [1:27].) To lake this literally would require the single divine form to possess both male and female sexual characteristics, a manifest absurdity. In Genesis 2, the author indulges freely in anthropomorphisms. God fashions man out ot clay (so too the animals in verse 19), the verb for "fashions" being the one that is used most characteristically of a potter, who works in the same medium. And the creation of mankind involves several stages: first the shaping of the male and his animation, then a surgical extraction of a part of his body, which is built up into a female. And whereas in Genesis 1 mankind is the culminating act of ere‫׳‬ anon, following God s production of the land creatures on the sixth day, here the fashioning of the creatures of earth and sky takes place after man has come into ex-

76

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫י י‬

istcncc. There surely is a contradiction here, but only if the intention in both accounts is a matter of chronological order. Priority and precedence are not necessarily a matter of timing. Both are also terms for ranking. Last is not least—it may even be most. Certainly that is the case in C h a p t e r 1, where the theatre is built, the stage set, the courtiers are assigned their places, and the last to appear— m a n — i s the cynosure, the king. In Chapter 2, the metaphor is different but the assignment of value and dignity is identical. T h e creation of t h e macrocosm having already taken place, the focus is on man and the habitation created for him. T h e creation of t h e beasts and birds is in itself only incidental to the enterprise of getting him a mate. In t h e course of that enterprise, his superiority over all other creatures is revealed in the recognition that none is his match. So, too, is his majesty expressed in that God delegates to his deputy t h e act of naming them; naming, which we saw in C h a p t e r 1 and in Enuma elish as a me tony m for the creation of something or the fixing of its ex istence, or for the authority of t h e name-giver. A n d in the event, it turns out that the enterprise of providing man with a mate is not so much a matter of matchmaking as it is a marter of completing the creature called earthling. Half a species is n o n e at all. Man as a species is only viable as both male and female. T h e creation of man as a "him" in 1:27, and then immediately thereafter as a "them," male and female, may be viewed as the synoptic version of which this section in Chapter 2 is the resumptive expansion, ! b u s it turns out that in both chapters even the chronological order is the same: man was not truly created until after the production of the beasts and birds. In this respect, the discrepancy (not to speak of contradiction) as between t h e two accounts in the order of creation is nonexistent. But it is noteworthy that another possible and likely discrepancy in the two accounts— had thev indeed been independent of one a n o t h e r — h a s been avoided. We noted in our discussion of the creation story t h a t the stress on the higher dignity of humankind would have been reinforced by having t h e beasts created on Day Five, leaving to Day Six t h e creation of man alone. But this, we can now appreciate, would have indeed been discrepant with the poetic necessity in the Eden story to have the other animals created o n t h e same day as man, inserted between the two stages of the creation of the h u m a n species. It is doubtful that the assumption of t h e priority of t h e male over the female— universal and ubiquitous until most recently in our own place and t i m e — i s to be equated with Scripture's prescription of such sexual inequality. But it is undeniable that the dominance of the male sex over the female has been so read, as pr esc ription, into the ancillary role projected for her by God: "a suitable help"—as we render i t — f o r man. In the older translation, "a help m e e t " — w h i c h yielded the stillheard corruption " h e l p m a t e " — t h e word "meet" is cognate with "mate, match, mitten," and has the sense of "fitting, following suit, corresponding to." T h e sense of this correspondence (the precise meaning of hneged) between man and his "help" is expressed in three ways. First, God s bringing each of the species to man f o r n a m i n g is e v o c a t i v e of a n i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t , a test t h a t m a n p a s s e s . U n l i k e t h e y o u n g Tarzan, w h o t h o u g h t of h i m s e l f as a p e c u l i a r l y h a i r l e s s a p e , m a n k n o w s t h a t n o n e of t h e c r e a t u r e s b r o u g h t

t o h i m is a m a t c h f o r h i m , of his o w n s u i t , so t o

speak. T h i s r e c o g o i t i o n o n h i s part is i m p l i c i t l y a s s u m e d i n t h e naines h e assigns t o

EDEN A N D EDEN ,S A F T E R M A T H

ΙΟϊ

them, and in die narrators note that "a help corresponding to him was not achieved." The second expression of this recognition is in the Hebrew idiom uttered by man when woman is brought to him. Without necessarily knowing that surgery had been performed upon him, that a rib of his with the attached flesh was used to produce this creature, he says of her that she is "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" Our corresponding idiom in English, normally in reference to ones natural offspring, is "my own flesh and blood." The Hebrew idiom is a metaphor for the abstract concept of "essence " The very tale, the myth of woman's origin, may therefore have arisen from a literal phenomenon (flesh and bone) that became a metaphor for essence, which in turn suggested the myth of woman's manufacture from man's literal bone and flesh. The third expression of correspondence is in the pun of woman's '1name," which balances the previous naming of the animal species, , The Hebrew words T. s and ts.su make for a passable pun, and pun it is, for the two words are etymologically unrelated. Translators of the Bible into English are grateful for the pairs male/female, man/woman. Rut what a headache for the translator into (heck who would attempt to render this pun into an idiom in which the terms are ancr/andr‫ ״‬for man and gyne for woman! The (literary) facts of pun and metaphor in this story of humanity's creat ion are clear. The question that must be addressed, however, is why they are here, and why did the author choose to indulge in such playfulness? Or, if it is silly to question a writers penchant for whimsy, why did the editors of Scripture choose to include so whimsical a tale? If there is a moral to the story, it would seem to be that male and female share the same essence. Why, however, go to such roundabout length to affirm a moral when there is no reason to believe that its principle was ever brought into question? The answer to these questions lies in verse 24, which concludes this episode, a verse whose meaning, purport, and function are all problematic. "Hence it is that man leaves his father and mother, sticks to his wife so that they become one flesh." This verse seems clearly to be a parenthetic remark; an afterthought, so to speak, thrown in by the author. Or, as most modern scholars are agreed, it is an editorial gloss, which is to say, an explanatory remark added by someone other than the author. The trouble is that this "explanation" seems to answer no problem, and itself raises a whole series of questions. Supposing the verse is a gloss, what does that mean: that the gloss explains the story, or that the story is an explanation ot the behavior described in the gloss? Did the man in ancient Israelite society leave his parents when he married to join the family of his wife? There is not one such case in the Bible, for the Israelite family was patriarchal: the woman left her parents to join the family of her husbands father. Might there have been a time in Israelite prehistory when its social organization was matriarchal? Of which this sentence might be a trace? I;or ail that such a theory has been advanced and accepted by many, there is not a shred of evidence for it. And even it there w7erc\ the puzzle would remain: why would the biblical editor seek to account for a practice no 1 ringer ‫ ווו‬force, and by use of the present tense‫ ־־‬-treat it as if it were, indeed, still in force somewhere? The entire assumption about this sentence is that it. addresses itself t o a s o c i o logical or anthropological phenomenon, a social organization in which the male

78

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY‫יי‬

leaves his family and joins the family of his wife. We have seen that from the point of view of ancient Israels society such a phenomenon is unattested, Indeed, there is precious little evidence tor the phenomenon of matriarchy in the ancient Near East. But there is another consideration that is more to the point, and which exposes the absurdity of the assumption. It is that even in societies that are organized along the matriarchal principle, it is not the case that the husband abandons his family to join that ot his wife. In such societies, marriage is an arrangement by which an outsider male has visiting rights in his wiles lodge. Ehe husband returns to his own mother's family where, as maternal uncle, he plays the father-role of provider and protector for his sisters' children. The absurdity ot our assumption lies then in the application to a literary text of an anthropological explanation that has 110 validity in anthropology. Ί he coup de grace to the initial assumption is, however, a common-sense observation of literary logic. The story of woman's having been originally extracted trom man would logically culminate in: "This is why woman leaves her father and mother." After all, it is she who is returning to her source, not he to his. That is to say, according to the logic of the story she is returning to her source. But she is not returning to her source according to the explicit statement in this sentence. O n the other hand, despite the seeming explicitness of this sentence, man cannot be returning to his source for, according to the logic of the story, she is not his source. We must conclude then that the purport of the sentence is not in either one of them returning to his or her source. (Note, for reference to our following argument, the possessive pronouns "his or hers" in this English sentence!) What alternative remains? Perhaps the forsaking of parents on the part of both, which woman clearly does in the act of marriage, in a literal sense, and which man also does in the act of marriage, in a figurative sense. The key to the solution ot our problem lies in a linguistic and literary phenomenon. If the reader will backtrack a few sentences, to the notice in parentheses, he (or she) will remark that despite the existence in English of a neuter gender, that gender is not a common gender, applicable to either a male or a female antecedent, hence the rather prosaic, it not laborious, "his or her" course. The problem of pronouns and the genders of their antecedents is somewhat more complicated in Hebrew than in English, tor here there exist only two genders, masculine and ferainine (there being 110 neuter), and gender—let us remember—is a grammatical phenomenon rather than a sexual one. All nouns, concrete or abstract, even if not persons, fall into the category oi a he-it or a she-it. Whereas in dealing wilh a reciprocal relationship in English, be the nouns animate or not, we can say "one another," in Hebrew, even in regard to inanimate (neuter) nouns, one must say something like "the |noun] his brot her" and "the [noun] her sister" W h e n nouns of hot h genders are involved, Hebrew normally opts for the masculine, functioning as a common gender, Applying this now to our verse 24 we will realize that the intent in both clauses is that both man and woman leave their (lit., his) parents and hold fast to one another. (No tmely developed sense, oi style is required to appreciate why the author would not resort to anything so pedantic as, "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and a woman leaves her father and mother") Our verse is not a gloss

h 1 ) Κ Ν AND EDElsPS AFTERMATH.

79

on the part of author or editor, It is the culmination and raison d'etre of the entire episode, an episode in which our author addresses in mythopoeic imagery a celehrated and ongoing phenomenon in the dynamics of the human family. O n the one hand, there exists no closer and more binding relationship than the genetic or biological one of parent and child. On the other, the universal incest taboo requires that bride and groom be at least minimally removed in terms of consanguinity, of biological closeness. And yet, what heartaches have been suffered, how many parents have felt betrayed, how7 many marriages have been destroyed because of the psychic strains involved in the demands of the marriage act: that parents allow and children give the biologically-unrelated mate a loyalty superseding that which is owed to one's own "flesh and blood!" W h o would argue with our author's verdict: To come down on the side of the family is to give highest priority to the tie between husband and wife. A n d yet, in terms of flesh and blood (or, in his terms, flesh and hone) and by virtue of years of nurture and devotion, are not parents closer, more deserving of solidarity? N o t really, our author replies, and tells his story. Man and woman were originally one. For reasons we have not yet gotten to in our story, it was crucial that man (he, she, they?) become two. Kvery marriage is a union; not a union ot two strangers, but rat her a reunion, a reconstitution, so to speak, of the primordial unity:1 Perhaps half a millennium alter this story was written, Plan ‫ ל‬in T/ic .Symf?osmm has Socrates at a banquet, engaged with friends in a discussion of love. Aristophanes (master of comic dram a, he it recalled) attempts to account, for the loveaffinity in its various heterosexual and homosexual permutations. Originally, he tells us, all humans were joined pairs: male-male, fem ale-female, and male-female (androgynous, from ancr/andro‫" ״‬man" and gync "woman"). The riotous and heavenward vaultings and somersaults of these eight-limbed creatures led to the sundering of these pairs by Zeus. Let the ribald Aristophanes speak for himself: T h i s m e e t i n g a n d m e l t i n g i n t o o n e a n o t h e r , this b e c o m i n g o n e stead of two, [is] t h e very expression of his [man's] a n c i e n t n e e d . A n d t h e reason is t h a t h u m a n n a t u r e was originally o n e a n d we were a whole, and t h e desire a n d pursuit of t h e w h o l e is called love. . . . E a c h of us w h e n separated, h a v i n g o n e side only, like a flat fish, is b u t t h e split-off of a m a n , a n d h e is always looking for his o t h e r half.

Perhaps we need not go back to Athens twenty-three hundred years ago to argue the naturalness of the Genesis imagery. A chivalrous way of presenting one's spouse in English is still "my better half."

Man Finds His Fate ( 2 5 ) T h e t w o ot t h e m , m a n a n d his wife, were n a k e d — yet t h e y were w i t h o u t sense of s h a m e . — ( 1 ) T h e s e r p e n t , now, was t h e most wily of all t h e beasts of t h e wild w h i c h Y M W H - G O D had m a d e — Me addressed t h e w o m a n , "Did G o d really say: 1

You are no! to eat of any tree in the garden?*" (2) T h e w o m a n teplied to t h e sea‫״‬

p e n t , "Of t h e fruit ot t h e garden's trees we may eat. (•3) O n l y of t h e fruit of that tree at ‫ ו‬h e garden's c e n t e r did God say, 'kai not oi it, t o u c h it n o t , lest you d i e . 4 ) "‫ )י‬T h e serpent said to the w o m a n , 1'You won't die a! all! ( s ) hull well does G o d k n o w t h a t

STORIES — " T H E P R I M E V A L HISTORY‫יי‬

98

when you eat. oi il your eyes will be opened wide, and that you will he like gods, k n o w i n g good and h a d " (6) T h e woman concluded that the limit oi the] tree was all right‫ ׳‬for food, indeed seductive t‫־‬o the eyes, and. the tree so appealing for its wisdomgiving property. So she took of its iruii and ale. Along with ht1!‫ ־‬she gave to her hashand too, and he ate. (7) T h e n were the eyes 0( hot h ot t h e m opened and they became aware that they were naked. So they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves loincloths. (8) W h e n , at t h e breezy time of day, they heard the sound ot Y H W H God moving through t h e garden, m a n and his wife hid from Y H W H - G o d a m o n g t h e trees of the garden. (9) Y H W H - G o d called out to man, the call to him: " W h e r e are you?" (10) H e replied, ‫ ״‬I heard t h e sound of you in t h e garden, and I was afraid over being naked, so 1 took cover." (11) T h e n h e said, ‫ ״‬W h o [could h a v e j informed you that you were naked? C a n it be t h a t you ate of t h a t tree of w h i c h 1 charged you n o t to eat?" (12) M a n said, " T h e w o m a n you p u t at my side, she it was gave me of the tree—so I ate." (13) Y H W H - G o d t h e n said to the w o m a n , "How could you do so?" T h e w o m a n answered, " T h e serpent beguiled me, and I a t e 1 4 ) to t h e serpent, "For having d o n e this, Banned are you from a m o n g all cattle and wild beasts: O n your belly shall you travel, A n d dirt shall you eat All the days of your life, (15) A n d enmity do I impose Between you and t h e woman, t h a t is, Between your oil spring and hers: 1 le shall strike at your head, A n d you shall strike at his heel." ( 10) T o t h e w o m a n , h e s a i d , "( » r i e v o u s will ί m a k e

] h e pangs of‫ ״‬your cbildhearing: In pain will you give birth to children For your husband ever your lust, So t h a t h e will lord it over you." ( !7) To t h e m a n he said, "For doing your wife's bidding, Eating of the tree about which I expressly charged you: 'You are n o t to eat of it,' Bewitched is earth 'gainst your interest, Anguish the price for your eating of it All t h e days of your life: (18) T h o r n and thistle she'll put forth for your tilling A n d you shall need eat the grasses that, grow wild. (19) By t h e sweat, of your brow Shall you get: to eat bread, U n t i l you return to earth: From earth were you taken™‫״״‬

‫״‬

)

Y^HWH-God said

EDEN A N D EDEN ,S A F T E R M A T H

ΙΟϊ

Yes, e a r t h - c l o d you are. A n d t o e a r t h - c l o d shall you r e v e r t " (20) M a n t h e n n a m e d his wife Eve [Hau>wa "life"], for she b e c a m e m o t h e r of every h u m a n to live. (21 ) Y H W I I - G o d t h e n m a d e g a r m e n t s of skins for m a n and his wife, and c l o t h e d t h e m . ( G e n e s i s 2 : 2 5 - 3 : 2 i)

The interpretations of this part of our story, its core, are marked by disturbing in‫״‬ consistencies, be the interpreters orthodox religionists on the one hand, or hard‫״‬ headed skeptics or liberal scholars on the other. Let us examine typical examples of each. The importance of this story lor doctrinal Ghristianity is difficult to overstate. Yet the doctrinal reading of it seems to ret] 11 ire that the tale be taken both as literal history and as philosophical allegory. The serpent is Satan, embodiment of evil and tempter of mankind to disobedience to God. Mans failure to resist the serpent is the first fall from grace, the "original sin" that infects all generations and cannot be purged without special aid from God. Verse 15, for example, has been called the protoevangelion—the adumbration of the gospel (i.e., the good spiel), the good news of salvation: The woman who is set in inveterate enmity with Satan is (not Eve but) Mary, she who will bear the Savior, who will be the one to crush the serpent s head. He will defeat Satan; by his self-sacrifice he will become the agency by which mankind will be able to efface the stain of original sin, to achieve restoration to a state of grace and attain the salvation of eternal life, the eternal life that was lost in Eden. The characters and events are symbolic, yet somehow they must also be taken as historic fact, for a symbolic "fall" could hardly involve future generations in the original sin, or in the need to be saved from its effects. The specifics of the sentences pronounced on woman, man, and the serpent, it need not be stressed, are not congruent with the large and grand theological scenario of choice and sin, fall and damnation, redemption and salvation. Among the modern critical scholars, a celebrated exemplar can characterize the talc as "an immortal classic . . . [hy| a supreme artist . . . touching upon the elemental and eternal mysteries of existence." Yet in the same breath 11c asserts that "the story is by no means entirely the product of Iiis [the artist's] own iertile imagination," lor he included "ancient folktales, the product of the childhood period ot IsraeTs cultural cvolution" Tints, lor example, the sentence oi back-breaking toil on sinning Man is not so much the verdict of a judging God as the view of early Israel, "the nomad of the Arabian desert . . . [who] looks down with undisguised contempt upon the farmer , . . compelled to bend his back in servile toil" This hypothetical Israelite nomad from the Arabian desert, for all that "his food supply is mono tonous and scanty . . . is more than compensated for by the perfect freedom of the desert which he enjoys."1 If dogmatists and scientific scholars may peddle such wares, how blame the skeptic who marvels that so childish a fairy tale should be spun at such length in what is purported to be the most profound and sacred tract of revealed truth. Whether as figurative treatment of the human condition, or literal intention, who today can take seriously a snake‫ ־‬talking, a woman balking, and a God stalking, all

82

STORIES — " T H E P R I M E V A L HISTORY‫יי‬

in the interest of explaining why the snake has no legs and the h u m a n a horror of a snake in the grass; why living is hard and childbirth painful; why woman is subject to man, and why man cannot enjoy eternal leisure for an eternal life? A n d is the concluding verse ot this episode an example of misplaced bathos, or of the artist s ineptitude for p l o t ' f l i c God who has so savagely sentenced the first human couple relents tor a moment. To provide them with a consoling compensation he becomes designer and tailor, replaces their improvised fig-leaf aprons with full-length costumes ot well-dressed leather! Let us address ourselves first to t h e art of our storyteller. H e begins with a p u n — two unrelated homonyms in Hebrew—characterizing the h u m a n couple as "naked ‫ י י‬and the serpent as "wily" T h e wiliness is immediately disclosed in the s erpent s opening ploy. H e pretends ignorance of God's true charge in respect to forbidden fruit, and asks incredulously whether all fruits have been denied to humans. T h e guileless woman falls for t h e gambit, and scornfully corrects the serpent as to the true charge. T h e serpent darts into this opening. T h e reason for God's inj unetion as given earlier is that eating of the forbidden fruit will result in the death of the eater. T h e Hebrew is ambiguous about the matter of the death; it may be 1mmediate, or in some distant future. T h e serpent denies, truthfully, that death will result immediately. H e t h e n goes on to extol the virtue of t h e fruit, the enhanced quality of life its eating will occasion, a godlike status that h u m a n s will enjoy if they do eat ot it, A n d in this too, as God himself will confirm in verse 22, the serpent speaks truth. T h e woman eats, she survives, t h e fruit takes effect. W h a t sense of heightened consciousness does she experience? W h a t e v e r it is, she does not hoard the fruit, but gives it to her husband to eat "along with herself? 1 and both are now enlightened. T h e enlightenment relates somehow to the implicit unconsciousmws of "nakedness" with which the episode begins, and culminates in a remedv for the hitherto unrecognized consequence of being naked. T h e storyteller might have proceeded directly to G o d s knowledge of the clisobcdience and to his sentence. But no, that would be rhetorically artless. O n e mode oi divination in ancient times was the interpretation of t h e wind soughing through the leaves of a tree. "At t h e breezy time of day" they discern the sound of stirring indicative of God's presence. M a n and woman hide from the Presence. This gives God the opportunity to open with a rhetorical question. T h e one-word Hebrew question ayyekka is not so much a question as to location as it is t h e query of a parent with mischief-prone children: " W h a t have you been up to?" T h e response of man, honest as it is, betrays his sense of guilt over his real transgression, even while it attempts a plausible, if feeble, defense for his attempt at concealment. To appear naked before God is sacrilegious, h e n c e he took cover. G o d overlooks the contradiction of this defense constituted by the fig-leaf loin clouts. Like a prosecuting attorney, he pounces on the indication of guilt, a consciousness that could derive from one source only, and that a forbidden one. God's response, " C a n it be that you have eaten from that very tree" could be characterized as coy, were it not that it sustains the tone of chiding parent to wayward child. Man, child that h e is, neither affirms nor denies the ironic question explicitly; he points to a scapegoat. "She. whom YOU put at my side," is responsible! T h e rabbis correctly note this as the first instance ot ingratitude: God, in his solicitude for man's well-being, is responsible

EDEN AND EDEN ,S AFTERMATH

ΙΟϊ

for presenting him with a temptress, as though man himself were not free to choose. And woman in turn passes the buck to the serpent who, having no defense, is subjected to n o interrogation. N o w to the crux of this episode, the linked concepts of nakedness and knowledge and sexuality. T h e episode begins with the voice of the omniscient author: "Now the two of them were naked, man and his wife, but they felt no sense of shame." That an author will assume the conventions of his society and culture is ohvious; yet it is a factor easily overlooked, and its significance can be totally missed by a reader who is not native to the writers culture. T h e issue of nakedness, not nu‫׳‬ dity, is the key to the mythos of the Eden story. While these two terms are synonyms, they cannot (in c o m m o n with all synonyms) do duty for one another in every instance. Both mean bare, without clothing. Yet "nude" conveys a neutral meaning, and is non judgmental, while "naked" conveys an assessment ot dcficieney, such as defenselessness or moral impropriety. Many a prude will view the lusty nudes of a Rubens with equanimity, but recoil in distaste from the (even partly) naked woman in a magazines centerfold. Clearly it is our author's intention that the first human couple were without shame, despite the "fact" that they were naked. W h i c h is to say that while the author and his readers share a sense of impropriety about the state of the couple, the personae themselves did not. God's rhetorical question, linking m a n s awareness of his nakedness to the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, underlines that the p h e n o m e n o n at issue is not lack of clothing but consciousness of "nakedness." The reader, of course, already knows this. T h e reader has been previously informed that the "opening of the eyes," the consequence of the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, was immediately expressed in their awareness of their nakedness and in their improvisation o f — w h a t ? T h e Hebrew word, rendered as "girdles" in the older translations, refers to any band that circles the waist; the newer translations recognize that this word is a metonym, a part standing for the whole, and that from the string there hung a covering patch. In front or in back.7 Clearly, in front. Why, clearly · Because the nakedness here refers not to exposure of face, torso, limbs, or buttocks but to the sexual organs proper—to the pudenda, a delightful word which in the original Latin means "those parts about which one should have a sense of shame" In ancient Israel, nakedness - the exposure of the genitalia — was a powerful taboo. The expression "reveal the nakedness of‫ ״‬is often equivalent to "have sexual intercourse with." A n d the word "nakedness" alone may stand for any sexual act that is illicit. The awareness of nakedness as a consequence of eating of the tree of knowledge is equivalent to an awareness of sexuality. A n o t h e r link between knowledge and sexuality is the Hebrew verb "to know," in the meaning oi "to have sexual relations with." Thus, for example, Chapter 4:1 begins, "Now Man knew his wife Eve, who conceived and gave birth." This verb appears again in Genesis :19:5, where the men of Sodom demand that Lot surrender his (male) guests to them, "so that we may know them;" h e n c e the term soJomv for carnal copulation in any of certain unnatural ways. What accounts for this particular kind of "knowledge" carnal knowledge, is an underlying meaning ot t h e He-

84

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫י י‬

brew verb: "to come to know, to have experience of" 6 T h e tree of knowledge, therefore, would seem to be more t h a n one whose fruit imparts sexual awareness; it is the tree of experience, the experience of sexuality, to be precise. A n d it is likely t h a t an intuitive grasp of this imagery in Genesis lies behind the English metonym for sexual experience: "forbidden fruit" Let us recall that "tree of knowledge" is an abbreviation of this trees name; it is the tree of knowing (or experiencing) of good and bad. W h a t is t h e intent of this merism? Knowledge of all things must be ruled out, for M a n knew many things before eating of t h e tree and remains ignorant of many things after the eating. T h e same is true for experience of all things. It is a tree whose fruit makes tor an experience of everything t h a t — i n some ultimate sense—counts. W i t h it one has illumination; the eyes are opened, one becomes "like God." Without it there is n o enlightenment, no being "like G o d " 111 what way is one like or unlike God? A n d what does this have to do with sexuality? T h e r e would appear to be something in the mindset of the biblical author so removed trom our own that it cannot but elude us. Eor the key to this mindset, and indeed to the puzzles of God's sentences on the various protagonists and on his venture into suede couture we shall have to ex ‫ ין‬I ore a Mesopotamian epic. Eor t h e m o m e n t let 11s go on to the next episode.

Expulsion from Eden (22) YHWH-God mused, "How now, man has become like one of us in awareness [knowledge] of good and bad, how prevent him from reaching out to take of the tree of life as well—to eat and to live forever! (23) So YHWH-God expelled him from the Garden of Eden, to till the soil from which he had been taken. (24) When he had driven man out he stationed on the approach7 to Eden the cherubim, equipped with ever-turning flashing sword blade, to guard the path to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:22-24)

This conclusion, with its sense of timelessness—a forbidden garden eternally existing, containing within it a tree of life, its approaches guarded by fantastic creatures wielding fabulous weapons—is artistically satisfying, for a fairy tale. Is this all we have here? Does God really fear an assault on his garden? Is he so jealous of humankind that he c a n n o t bear the thought of its achieving parity with the divine beings, sharing eternal life with t h e m and, as w e l l possessed of that enigmatic k n o w l e d g e of g o o d a n d b a d ? A n d if G o d is i n d e e d t o b e s o p i c t u r e d , w h y h a s h e n o

other recourse? W h y not destroy the tree, or the garden, or the human race? A n d if t h e source-critical dating is correct, it the abstract conceptions of (denesis τ reflect a relatively late, philosophically sophisticated theology, while the Gar-‫׳‬ den of Eden tale reveals in its anthropomorphisms a naivete that is centuries ()Ider, why did the editors include this second story in the sacred canon? W h a t does it add to our underst anding of G o d and his ways? We have reached a point in our discussion where we must draw on literary texts from Mesopotamia for metaphors and symbolism analogous to those that must surely be present in the Eden story; if, that is to say, we are to otter an explication of the text as an artistic product of a sophisticated thinker, as a composition worthy

EDEN A N D EDEN ,S A F T E R M A T H

ΙΟϊ

of placement at the beginning ot antiquity's most serious (and successful) venture into the questions that lie at the heart of the religious enterprise. The specific text to which we will have reference is the Gilgamesh Epic, itself the supreme literary creation of the cuneiform culture, and perhaps the only one of that provenance meriting a place alongside the literary achievements of Israel and Hellas. Before I proceed to this step, 1 think it will be of use to formulate or reformula(e questions on plot elements that have been raised explicitly or implicitly in my discussion hitherto. In contrast to such trees common to our own experience and that of Eden's tenants as the fig tree, which produces so luscious a fruit and leaves of a breadth suitable for the first apron-coverings, are the two fantasy trees. Why particularly these two, and what or wherein is the implied antithesis between a life-ensuring tree, whose fruit (although never explicitly brought to human attention) is licit, and of a knowledge-inducing tree whose fruit is explicitly forbidden? The creation of all animals other than the human is in both stories noted without reference to sexual differentiation. Why in the Creation story is the human species singled out for such differentiation, this new entity 'ädäm or hä'ädäm awkwardly (hence pointedly) characterized as a unit, single or collective—a him, and hard upon as male and female—a them! And why, in the Eden story, is this seemingly single act of creation divided into two phases, the creation of the male and then the extraction from him of the stuff from which the female is formed? And, let us note, the separation of these phases (as plot) is impressed upon the reader by the insertion (as a narrative strategy) between the two phases: first, of God's charge to hä'ädäm not to eat of the torbidden tree; and then—as if it were an afterthought—his rumination on the unsatisfactory condition of häädäm's being alone, and his consequent decision to rectify this situation. In our discussion of the giving of names in the creation story we noted that this activity may express two metaphors, the calling into existence or fixing into ex isfence of the thing named, and the subordination of that which is named to him who does the naming. It seems unlikely that the former is the intended metaphor i ι1/‫ ל‬a cidams assignment of names to the creatures of earth and sky. Can we be confident then that human dominance over the nonhuman is the implicit intent here, as it is explicitly formulated in the creation story? And what then is the point of the narrator's assurance to the reader that "and [indeed] whatever man would call it—each living creature — that would be its name?" In connection with this last question is it possible or likely that man's naming activity is here a metaphor for sagacity, informing us that man had intelligence even before he ate of the tree ot knowledge? And furthermore, is there any connection between the choice of the serpent (alone of all the creatures) for the role of tempter and man's happy facility for hitting upon an appropriate name for each creature? It is a fact that the term nhs m Hebrew is not only the generic name for reptile, but also in the piel conjugation a verb for divination. In the matter of the punishments peculiar respectively to snake, woman, and man, are these ad hoc improvisations by the author, or are they particularly appropriate to an overarching symbolism in keeping with a kcrygmatic proposition? In a similar vein we may ask, why the banishment from a garden that remains intact,

86

STORIES — " T H E P R I M E V A L H I S T O R Y ‫י י‬

when God's objective could have been realized bv his destruction of t h e tree of life or of the garden itself? Why, between the pronouncements against the three cub prits and the banishment from the garden, the notice of God's manufacture of leather breech-clouts and of his clothing his creat ures in t h e m in place of the fig leaf clouts they had made for themselves? And finally, what is the nexus ol sapience and sexuality and the withdrawal of immortality?

SEXUALITY, SAPIENCE, ANO

CIVILIZATION

T h e puzzling complex of knowledge, sexuality, and humanity's becoming in some m a n n e r godlike, which lies at t h e core of the Eden story, appears as a crux in the Gilgamesh Epic also. Gilgamesh, the demigod king of Uruk, is so endowed with unbridled appetites and t h e power to satisfy t h e m as to become a burdensome problern for the nobles of his city. To the end of distracting his attention from t h e m (or more properly, from their wives and sons and daughters) his goddess mother Aruru is entreated to create a countervailing force. This she does in the person of Enkidu. Conceived as a double of the god A n u , he is fashioned in fully-formed adulthood from a clod of earth. O n his native steppe this child of nature consorts with gazelles and, like Kipling's Mowgli or Tarzan of the Apes, rubs shoulders with wild beasts at t h e watering-place. T h e plot requires that Enkidu be brought to a confrontation with Gilgamesh; the stratagem to achieve this calls for his coupling with a harlot. Lest his audience overlook the critical significance of this device, the author repeats its essential features (three times in the space of seventy lines), twice in anticipation of t h e action and once in 1rs fulfillment. W e shall cite the last one, in E. A . Speiser's translation: T h e creeping creatures c a m e , their heart d e l i g h t i n g in water. Rut as for h i m , Enkidu, b o r n in t h e hills — W i t h t h e gazelles h e feeds o n grass, W i t h the wild beasis he drinks at t h e water-place, W i t h t h e c r e e p i n g creatures his heart delights in w a t e r - - T h e lass b e h e l d h i m , t h e savage m a n , T h e barbarous fellow f r o m t h e d e p t h s of t h e steppe: " T h e r e h e is, Ο lass! Free thy breasts, Bare thy b o s o m t h a t h e may possess t h y ripeness! Be n o t bashful! W e l c o m e his ardor! A s s o o n as h e sees t h e e , h e will draw n e a r to thee. Lay aside t h y c l o t h t h a t h e may rest u p o n t h e e . Treat h i m , t h e savage, to a w o m a n ' s task! R e j e c t h i m will his wild beasts t h a t grew up on his steppe, A s his love is d r a w n u n t o thee." T h e lass freed h e r breasts, bared her bosom, A n d h e possessed h e r ripeness. S h e was n o t b a s h f u l as she w e l c o m e d his ardor. S h e laid aside h e r c l o t h a n d h e rested u p o n her. S h e tr e a te d h im, t h e s av age, to a w ί ‫ י‬m a η ‫ י‬s t a s k‫־‬, A s his love was d r a w n u n t o her.

EDEN A N D EDEN ,S AFTERMATH

ΙΟϊ

For six days a n d s e v e n nights E n k i d u c o m e s f o r t h , M a t i n g w i t h t h e lass. A f t e r h e h a d h a d his fill of h e r c h a r m s , H e set his face t o w a r d his wild beasts. O n seeing h i m , E n k i d u , t h e gazelles r a n off, T h e wild beasts of t h e s t e p p e drew away f r o m his b o d y S t a r t l e d was E n k i d u , as his body b e c a m e t a u t , Elis k n e e s were m o t i o n l e s s — f o r his wild beasts h a d gone. E n k i d u h a d to slacken his p a c e — it was n o t as before; Rut h e n o w h a d wisdom, b r o a d e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g . R e t u r n i n g , h e sits at t h e feet of t h e h a r l o t . H e looks up at t h e face of t h e h a r l o t , His ears a t t e n t i v e , as t h e h a r l o t speaks; T h e h a r l o t says to h i m , t o E n k i d u : " T h o u art wise, E n k i d u , art b e c o m e like a god! W h y with the wild creatures dost t h o u roam over t h e steppe:' C o m e , let me lead d i c e to r a m p a r t e d U r u k , To t h e holy temple, a b o d e oi A n u a n d Ishtar, W h e r e lives G i l g a m e s h " ( A N E T p . 7 5 iv 1 - 3 8 ) E n k i d u is t h u s n e i t h e r b e a s t n o r q u i t e h u m a n . I l e is a t h r o w b a c k , as it w e r e , t o w h a t m a n w a s w h e n h e w a s first c r e a t e d — w i l d , u n c o u t h , u n c i v i l i z e d — a s p e c i e s o n l y s o m e w h a t h i g h e r t h a n t h e b e a s t s a n d f a r l o w e r t h a n t h e g o d s . Elis a f f i n i t y w i t h t h e b e a s t s is e x p r e s s e d i n t h e i r a c c e p t a n c e of h t m as o n e of t h e m s e l v e s . A n d

so

( u n l i k e m a n i n G e n e s i s ) d o e s E n k i d u r e g a r d h i m s e l f — a s o n e of t h e m . H o w

is

E n k i d u t o b e r a i s e d f r o m t h e s t a t u s of homo

fer us,

man-beast,

to the

human?

T h r o u g h t h e e x p e r i e n c e of sexual i n t e r c o u r s e . T h a t t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of E n k i d u is j u s t t h a t , a r a d i c a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , a n d n o t m e r e l y a r a i s i n g of h i s c o n s c i o u s n e s s of h i m s e l f as h u m a n , is a s s u r e d b y t h e r e a c t i o n of h i s e r s t w h i l e f e l l o w s . T h e g a z e l l e s a n d t h e w i l d b e a s t s n o w k n o w — a s E n k i d u d o e s n o t y e t — t h a t h e is n o

longer

w h a t h e w a s . " E n k i d u h a d t o s l a c k e n h i s p a c e — i t w a s n o t as b e f o r e . " T h i s m a y j u s t r e f l e c t E n k i d u ' s c o n s t e r n a t i o n a t h i s r e j e c t i o n b y h i s c o m p a n i o n s . O r it m a y b e t h a t t h e r e w a s a n o t i o n i n M e s o p o t a m i a — a s i t is a t t e s t e d e l s e w h e r e — t h a t i n t h e a c t of c o p u l a t i o n a c o n s i d e r a b l e a m o u n t of h i s s t r e n g t h a n d v i t a l i t y is d r a i n e d f r o m t h e m a l e . I n e i t h e r case, t h e narrator's v o i c e tells us w h a t E n k i d u will n o t k n o w u n t i l t h e h a r l o t i n f o r m s h i m . H e h a s b e e n c o m p e n s a t e d f o r h i s loss, " b u t h e n o w h a d wisdom, broader understanding." C o u l d w e ask for a c l e a r e r c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n our t w o stories? E d e n : t r e e of k n o w l e d g e / s e x u a l e x p e r i e n c e r e s u l t s i n e n l i g h t e n m e n t , t h e o p e n i n g o f t h e e y e s . G i l g a m e s h : sexual e x p e r i e n c e results in wisdom, broader u n d e r s t a n d i n g . Rut we h a v e m o r e t h a n t h i s p a r a l l e l , w e h a v e a n i d e n t i c a l e x p r e s s i o n in b o t h s t o r i e s , ! h e h a r l o t says t o E n k i d u , " T h o u a r t w i s e , E n k i d u , a r t b e c o m e l i k e a g o d . " T h e s e r p e n t says t o E v e , " G o d k n o w s full w e l l t h a t y o u will b e l i k e G o d [ot g o d s | ; " a j u d g m e n t c o n f i r m e d b y G o d h i m s e l f in ^

2

‫ " י‬M a n h a s b e c o m e l i k e o n e of us." W e s h a l l h a v e

to explore further this remarkable chain: k n o w l e d g e / e n l i g h t e n m e n t , sexual experio n c e , b e c o m i n g l i k e a g o d i n w i s d o m , o r i n k n o w i n g g o o d a n d b a d . Eor t h e p r e s e n t , let us n o t e w h e r e w e h a v e a r r i v e d . T h e G i l g a m e s h Epic a t t e s t s t o t h e n o t i o n t h a t

106

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY‫יי‬

seems present in the Eden story. T h e sexual experience is the crucial one that marks off civilized humanity from its not-quite-human or not-altogether-human primeval predecessors. T h e animals also meet in sexual congress, hut for t h e m sexuality has no critical significance. This, in all likelihood, also explains why in both the creation story and the Eden story the differentiation into sexes is noted tor humanity and humanity alone.

S E X U A L I T Y A N D D E A T H : Τ Η Η 1R N E X U S

God, in inquiring about the eating ot the forbidden fruit, addresses man first, the woman next, and in eloquent, silence ignores the third protagonist, the serpent. In a chiasmic reversal of that order, he pronounces sentence on each of the three in turn: serpent, woman, and man. It is generally assumed that these pronouncements reflect the naïveté of folkloristic traditions, accounting for such interesting phen o m e n a as the necessity for man to toil, for woman to suffer in childbirth, the fact of male supremacy, and the serpent s deprivation of limbs on which to move. T h e fallacy of genre-assignment as a tool tor literary analysis, particularly in regard to t h e etiological genre, discussed in Toward a Grammar, need n o t detain us here. 8 T h e data provided by the Gilgamesh Epic, among other literary creations from the ancient Near East, provide us with a better perspective on the elements that our biblical author inherited from the literary tradition of his time and place, and thereby leave us better equipped to appreciate the way he adapted them for his larger purpose and integrated them so fittingly into his composition that not a single detail will prove to be arbitrary or whimsical. Let us recall God's warning to man not to eat of the tree of knowledge. T h e Hebrew term that introduces a temporal clause, "when," is literally, "on (the) day of." Thus God said literally: "On the day of your eating of it you will die." T h e rabbis, who knew the ambiguity oi the conjunction and of the context, which make it possible for the serpent to deny truthfully that death in its literal sense will follow immediately upon the eating, playfully suggested that the warning may have been fui h lied even in a literal sense. Man was born on a Friday (the sixth day ot ereat ion) and it was on a Friday that he breathed his last breath. God's meaning, as the rabbis also tell us, is clear: eating of the fruit will set man o n a course for death. Was deathlessness otherwise automatic / T h e answer, which lies in verses 2 2 - 2 4 of C h a p t e r 3, is confirmed by the witness of the Gilgamesh Epic. Deathlessness would not have been automatic. Life would have been indefinitely sustained by repeated eating of t h e fruit of the tree ot life, the tree from which m a n and his mate arc barred in their expulsion from Eden. The nature of this, and n o other potency of the tree of life, may be adduced from the plant that Gilgamesh won and lost. It was not a once-and-for-all potion of an elixir of life, but rather an antidote to the debilit at ion that attends (‫ י‬Id age and heralds the coming of death. T h e plant named "Man Shall Become Young in Old Age" by Gilgamesh is a tonic of rejuvenation. T h e distance of almost four thousand years that separates us from Gilgamesh shrinks somewhat when we consider that only a t e n t h of that time lies between us and Ponce de Leon, who, we are told, sought the Fountain of Youth 111 Florida some four or five centuries ago. Is sophistication a property of intellect or culture

EDEN A N D EDEN ,S A F T E R M A T H

ΙΟϊ

that increases as a rule with the passage of time? Is it likely that only so tew cen‫•׳‬ turies ago that grandee of imperial Spain was as literal-minded in his quest for the Fountain of Youth as he was in his search for the fabulous hoard of El Dorado? While the authors of the Epic and of Genesis millennia earlier were exploiting the poetic imagery of the folk imagination to spin philosophical fables? The literal-mindedness of Ponce de Leon we may leave as moot. The free use of metaphor and of symbolism by the ancient authors is beyond debate. W h y of all creatures, is it a snake that deprives Gilgamesh of his life-renewing prize, a snake who—apparently out of motiveless malice—sets man on a course that will lead to his loss ot the tree of life? The answers lie in the ancient texts themselves. It lies in the symbolism of the snake as it functions in the ancient imagination, and not in a Ereudian-inspired paradigm that dogmatically posits a universal phallic-symbolism tor the snake, functioning as such in hypothetical fertility cults, which were hypo‫׳‬ thetically rampant in the ancient world. In the ancient near East, in biblical and extra-biblical texts, the serpent is a canny creature endowed with uncanny knowledge of powerful charms, particularly for the promotion of life and healing. Even the Greek tradition, which associates the serpent with divination, (e.g., Apollo's Python) may owe to this near-Eastern symbolism. So also the physician s symbol (conventionalized to this day in the barbershops pole): the eaduceus, which derives from the staff of Hermes—god of healing and messenger of the gods— consists of two serpents intertwined on a pole. The very symbolism of life-renewal inheres in the snake. Like the molting of birds, which gave rise to the myth of the phoenix arising reborn from the ashes of its pyre; like the bird invoked by the poet in Psalm 103—may God forgive your sins and heal you "so that you may renew your youthfulness like the eagle"—so the serpent's casting off of its slough. The serpent gained by theft from Gilgamesh, and apparently held on to the rejuvenating plant that Gilgamesh tasted but once. I he serpent in Eden is a reflex of the serpent in the Epic. The serpent is to man as Prometheus is to Zeus. And our author in Genesis, to God's punishment ot the thief of life, adds a decree that extends the symbolism of the Man-Serpent conflict to all future time: the contest between man striving for immortality and the dark and potent forces that deny it to him is never-ending. To this Eden text and to this one alone is traceable the equation of the serpent with evil or with humankind's inveterate adversary in general, and with Satan in particular. N o w to the woman who is twice named by her mate. The first time he does not give her a name proper or a proper name. The is-Ts.vI, the male-female couplet, expressing the correspondence of man and his mate, endows her with the generic label: woman. After the sentences have been pronounced, we are told, "Man named his woman |wife] Eve, for she was I to become 1 mother of all 1 human) life.1' At this pi !int in the story this proper name is appropriate—as it would have been inappropriate bei ore the eating of the tree of knowledge—because, like the prono uncement of sentence upon her, it anticipates a consequence of the eating. With rhe eating man-woman becomes sexually activated. And such activity results in propagation. It is on this vital function that God focuses in the sentence oi woman: childbearing. N o joy exceeds that attending the birth of a child. What then, other than

108

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY‫יי‬

p u n i s h m e n t , can account tor the painful price t h e m o t h e r must pay for such a blessing? A n d to become a mother, w o m a n needs a man. T h e sentencing of w o m a n continues, however, with a puzzling twist: woman's need for m a n is w h a t accounts for t h e existential fact of male d o m i n a t i o n : "For your h u s b a n d shall you ever lust, so t h a t he shall lord it over you." T h e incongruity for us in these last words is due to their constituting a reversal of our own psychology For us, in our still male-centered age, t h e male is t h e stronger by nature and by nature t h e more driven by sexual lust; w o m a n is by nature the weaker and far less victim of her sexual need. Indeed, it is by reason of a woman's allure and ability to capitalize o n man's desire t h a t t h e prototypical f e m m e fatale reverses t h e roles of master and subject. (Ironically enough, the d o m i n a n c e of the paramour over her lover is still reflected in t h e use of "mistress" for a kept woman.) Fît‫ ־‬all its incongruity with our own perceptions, it is possible that the ancients viewed woman as drawn to man by his allure, as was Ishtar by t h e virile beauty of Gilgamesh. More likely, however, t h e basic idea here is t h a t woman's desire, which renders her d e p e n d e n t , is traceable to h e r need to fulfill her maternal instinct. In either case, since allure can and does work b o t h ways, t h e author's deployment ot o n e vector of this desire is in keeping w i t h his m a n i p u l a t i o n of facets of the h u m a n condition. Male d o m i n a n c e is an existential fact, and this fact our author traces to an existential principle expressed by G o d in a metaphor. W e shall soon see how the m e t a p h o r h e r e prepares us for t h e deploym e n t of t h e identical m e t a p h o r in a more t r e n c h a n t c o n t e x t . For n o w let us recall w h a t sociologists h a v e called the principle of lesser or least interest: In a relationship involving two partners, the o n e with the greater n e e d of t h e other is t h e more vulnerable, while t h e o n e with t h e lesser interest in t h e relationship is in a position of dominance. Last comes t h e sentencing of man. T h e infinite leisure in an o p u l e n t garden is withdrawn. In its place is unremitting and frequently unproductive toil. M a n will plough t h e earth, sow it with edible grains, and all too o f t e n t h e soil will produce thorns and thistles, so that m a n will again b e c o m e a food-gatherer seeking out t h e cereal-grasses t h a t grow wild. U n t i l t h e day of his death, m a n must toil for bread, for himself, and now, for w7ife and children as well. T h i s is t h e poetic pronouncem e n t . But in t h e prose of verse 2 1, G o d replaces t h e loincloths of fig-leaves t h a t t h e couple had improvised for themselves with full dress made of animal hides. 9 Symbolic ot what? Of man's new status, perhaps. M a n , n o longer o n e of the animais, ousted from paradise where — like Enkidu — h e had fraternized with t h e m , is about to begin his civilized career, A n d animals now are no longer companions, but: commodities to he exploited, I )eath has entered the world: death of animals, and d e a t h of man. M a n , says G o d , has already become like the gods "in knowing good a n d bad." H e may n o t possess both this attribute and eternal life as well. T h e power of creativity, certainly a divine attribute, is n o w m a n s in sexual activity and procreation. T h e other attribute of divinity — immortality-- - is now denied to him. H e was permitted o n e or the other. Both he may not have. W h y ?

EDEN A N D EDEN ,S AFTERMATH

ΙΟϊ

WHY M U S T M A N DTK?

With the help of some striking parallels from the h pit: of Gilgamesh we have been able to answer a few of the puzzles raised by the story of the Garden of Helen. We have been able to come to an appreciation of the authors gifts of rhetoric and tab ent for metaphor. We have traced the consistency of the plot, the relevance of the parenthetical asides, and the depth oi insight into several aspects of the human condition. Yet our last paragraph ends with a question, a question that may be amplified and to which others may be added. Essentially the questions are: What is the central message of the story, and why was it placed alongside the theological statement of the creation narrative? As Enuma elish proved a productive foil for fixing the central concern of the Genesis creation narrative, so will Gilgamesh prove for the Eden story What is the central theme developed in the Epic of Gilgamesh? The answer is as clear as it is simple. The theme is a question: Why must man die? In raising this question for Gilgamesh—bravest, strongest, most heroic of m e n — i t is raised for all people. For Gilgamesh, at the height of his powers, with his newly won bosom companion at his side, ready to challenge the most formidable of foes, death holds no terrors. Perhaps because, like all the truly young, he does not really believe that he will ever die. W h e n even valiant Enkidu questions the wisdom of looking for trouble, of seeking to engage the fearsome Huwawa in 4'unequal struggle," Gilgamesh in his answer recalls to us the choice made by young Achilles between a long and uneventful life or a short but heroic career: W h o my friend can scale heaven? Only the gods live forever under the sun. As for mankind, numbered are their days; Whatever they achieve is but the wind! kven here thou art afraid of death. What ol thy heroic might: Let m e go t h e n before thee, Let t h y mouth call to me, ' A d v a n c e , tear not!" Should 1 fall, I shall have made me a name: " G i l g a m e s h " — t h e y will say—* 1 against fierce H u w a w a Has f a l l e n ! " [Long] after My offspring h a s been born in my house . . . . . . [several lines mutilated] My h a n d I will poise A n d will fell t h e cedars. A name that endures I will make for me! ( A N E T p. 79 Tab. Ill (iv) 5 - 2 5 )

N o t so Enkidu. Perhaps because unlike Gilgamesh, who was born fully human, Enkidu has known another state, another condition. The contrast of Enkidu before and after his sexual experience is sharpened in the following passage. He who was wont to suck the milk of wild creatures must learn to partake of human diet. After a banquet and the good cheer that comes out of a cup (seven cups, to be exact), "his heart exulted and his face glowed. He rubbed the shaggy growth, the hair of his body; anointed himself with oil, became human. He put on clothing, he is like a

92

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫י י‬

groom!" The former protector of the creatures of the wild now 11 took his weapon to chase the lions, that shepherds might rest at night. He caught wolves, he captured lions, the chief cattlemen could lie down; Enkidu is their watchman, the bold man, the unique hen‫)־‬." Perhaps, as in the animal state there is no conception oi the significance of sexuality, so in that state is there no real conception of death. Perhaps Enkidu, who has made the transition from one state to the other, lias a more realistic dread of death than brash Gilgamesh. Certain it is that when Enkidu lies on his deathbed he reviews the succession of events that led him to this pass. And as though he thinks that, left in his former state, he either would not have had to die or consciously face death, he bitterly curses the hunter and the harlot who had engineered his becoming human. The god Shamash calls down to Enkidti from heaven. I le points out the injustice of cursing the harlot who, after all, brought him to human state, a state of royalty, almost of divinity: companionship with the lordly Gilgamesh. And he consoles Enkidu with the prophecy of how Gilgamesh will mourn for him: H e will m a k e U r u k ' s p e o p l e w e e p over t h e e and l a m e n t , W i l l fill joyful p e o p l e w i t h w o e over t h e e . A n d w h e n t h o u art gone, h e will his body w i t h u n c u t h a i r invest, W i l l d o n a lion skin a n d r o a m over t h e steppe. 1 0 ( A N E T p. 8 6 Tab. VII ( iv) 4 5 - 4 9 )

A n d roam over the steppe Gilgamesh will, in his search for Utnapishtim and the secret of eternal life. Like Enkidu, whose career falls into two phases, so Gilgamesh. In his first phase, in defiance of all warnings, he will roam afar to risk his life in unequal battle that he may "cause the lands to hear, how strong is the offspring of Uruk: A name that endures will I make for me." That this is the phase of immaturity is to be gleaned trom the reply of Uruk's elders to the hero: T h o u art yet young, G i l g a m e s h , thy heart lias carried t h e e away. T h a t w h i c h t h o u would a c h i e v e t h o u knowesl n o t . ( A N E T p. 80 T A B . Hi (v) 10--11) T h e t u r n i n g p o i n t f o r G i l g a m e s h is t h e d e a t h of E n k i d u , of a w a s t i n g d i s e a s e , n o t the death he would h a v e preferred. Enkidu laments to Gilgamesh: Not like o n e fallen in b a t t l e shall I die, For I ί eared t h e battle [ . . . ] . My friend, h e w h o is slain in b a t t l e is blessed, Rut as for me, [ , . , ] . ( A N E T p. 87 T A B . VII (iv) 1 7 - 2 0 )

The second quest: of Gilgamesh is attended by warnings also, this time not ot the dangers—great though they are—but of the futility of his enterprise. Shamash warns him: G i l g a m e s h , w h i t h e r rovest t h o u ? T h e life t h o u pursuest t h o u shalt n o t find. ( A N E T p . 8 9 T A B X (i) 7 - 8 )

The same warning opens the speech of Siduri, the alewife: G i l g a m e s h , w h i t h e r rovest thou? T h e life t h o u pursuest t h o u shalt n o t find.

EDEN A N D EDEN ,S AFTERMATH

ΙΟϊ

When the gods created mankind, Death for mankind they set aside, Life in their own hands retaining. Thou, Gilgamesh, let full be thy belly, Make thou merry by day and by night. Of each day make thou a feast of rejoicing, Day and night dance thou and play! Let thy garments be sparkling fresh, They head be washed; bathe thou in water, Pay heed to the little one that holds onto thy hand, Let thy spouse delight in thy bosom! For this is the task of mankind! (ANET p. 90 TAB. X (iii) 1 - 1 4 Flere is the answer of the Epic of Gilgamesh to the question, "Why must man die?" Immortality is a boon the gods selfishly reserve for themselves. Mortal man has no alternative but to resign himself to his lot. The course of wisdom for man is to make the most of his brief days under the sun, to extract from them what plea‫־׳‬ sure he can. In common English idiom: You only live once. But the advice coneludes on a note of consolation, meager though it is. Man does have a kind of im‫־׳‬ mortality through his children. Lie in your wife's embrace and beget the only kind of immortality that lies in the enterprise of man. T h e pervasive and enduring influence of the Epic of Gilgamesh in the ancient world has previously been noted. Almost since the discovery and decipherment ol this epic, a passage in one of the Bibles latest hooks has been recognized as at least a paraphrase of the preceding advice: Come now, eat your bread in joy, And drink your wine in good cheer— So of yore did God will your enterprise. At all times, be your garments sparkling white And pomade on your head, let it not be skimpy. Find fulfillment in life with the wife of your choice All the days of your life so evanescent, Days allotted you under the sun, All your days so evanescent. That is your lot in life, In the career you pursue under the sun. Whatever you find in your power's scope, Pursue its accomplishment with all vigor. For there is no purposeful work Nor meaningful experience [lit., knowledge, consciousness] In [nether-world] Sheol Where you are destiny-bound. (Ecclesiastes 9:7-10) W h y must m a n die? T h a t is the central theme of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the central theme of the story of Eden. Because—answers the Epic — the gods have willed it so. Because echoes Ecclesiastes—divinity has willed it so. But not the author of the story oi Eden. Why does he not, why perhap> can he not, give the same answer? Because his enterprise is theology; a new rhcologv which breaks with

94

STORIES — " Π Π : PRIMEVAL

HISTORY"

that of paganism. We discussed in the preceding chapter the nature of t h e divine in pagan polytheism and in biblical monotheism. We discussed there t h e different role and dignity assigned to mankind in these rival systems. T h e gods of paganism create humankind to exploit it for their own indolent purpose; in their relations with mankind they are—variably—condescendingly paternalistic, hostile, or indifferent, capricious, and inconsistent. In the biblical scheme, God created man as the crown of creation; in His relations with mankind God is benign and benevolent. Death and dissolution are, however, unquestionably evil. How then to postulate death as God's will without attributing malevolence to him? Or is it possible that death is not God's responsibility: If so, whose is the responsibility for this ineluctable fact? Why must man die?

T H E E D E N M Y T H O S : ITS

KERYGMA

"Why must man die?" W h o is asking the question? You, and I, and the author of the Eden story. And to answer your question and mine, and to answer the question the author asks of himself, the author constructs a mythos. 11 The mythos is our story, set in Eden, envisaging two possible worlds, one with death and one without it. The world without death is pictured as a historical or prehistorical fact or age. 1 !!!mankind, in the persons of First Man and his Woman, live an idyllic and toilless existence. The climate is ideal, so neither clothing nor shelter is required. Fruit of every kind provides a nutritious and varied diet, obviating the need for cereal grains, which require processing and preparation before they can he eaten. And a tree of life, whose fruit is a specific against disease and debilitation, guarantees et ernal life. Eor humankind is supreme in the garden, where no enemy or rival exists. There is in the garden another tree whose fruit mankind never touches; this fruit imparts knowledge, experience, sexuality. Hence mankind is naïve rather than knowledgeable. Or, to use a word whose Latin origin means "harmless" and which is by association synonymous with "naïve," man is innocent, endowed with no cunning (from the same root as ‫ ״‬ken," awareness or knowledge). Innocent of experience, unconscious of sexuality. In the absence of sexuality there is, of course, no propagation. N o propagation, no children. A world in enduring stasis. Let us call this world of possibility the Age of Innocence. And the alternatively possible world we shall call—borrowing from William Blake, who juxtaposed the two terms—the Age of Experience. In this world nothing differs from that of Innocence except that man does eat of the tree of knowdedge, after which everything is different. For the eating entails a chain of consequences: First and directly, awareness and sexual experience, which will, of course, eventuate in procreation. Second and incidentally, banishment from Eden and barred access to the tree of life, which spells toil and death, the latter by natural causes or-—as suggested by the sentence on the serpent—hostile action. The Age of Experience is ushered in™‫״‬or rather, precipitated—by the eating of the forbidden fruit. Why, however, did our benevolent Deity deny the tree of life to those favorites of his who had eaten of the tree of knowledge? Why could he not have allowed them both? The answer is now fairly obvious: Because the nature of things does not allow for a world in which both deathlessness and procreation ob-

E D E N A N D E D E N ,S A F T E R M A T H

ΙΟϊ

tain. Such a world would quickly realize the Malthusian nightmare: overpopula‫׳׳‬ tion, starvation, and chaos. A n y doubts that the nineteenth-century parson could have been anticipated four millennia before his t i m e — a n d let us remember that the Rev. Malthus assumed that people were going to continue to die—are set to rest by Ishtar's threat to her father, Anu, when he is disinclined to support her designs against Gilgamesh: If thou does not make me the Bull of Heaven, I will smash the doors of the nether world . . . I will raise up the dead eating and alive, So that the dead shall outnumber the living. (ANHT p. 84 TAB. VI pp. 96-100) There is another crucial factor or dimension of the A g e of Experience that does not obtain in the A g e of Innocence: time. We asked the question: W h y had man not eaten of the tree of life, the fruit of which had not been forbidden? Our recognition of the tree of life as a means of renewing life periodically rather than of guaranteeing it forever by a single taste makes our quest ion academic. Our human coupie may indeed have eaten of it. But how often? The answer to this is another line of questions: What difference would it make? How much time lapsed between the creation of humanity and the eating of the forbidden fruit; How long did the Age of Innocence lasl ? Obviously it could have been a moment or an eternity, for time has no meaning in the static Age of Innocence. Time, as humans experience if, is a measure 01 events. Where there are no events there is no time. Events are the stuff of history, and the A g e of Innocence has no history. Our author has achieved a supreme philosophical mythos. Genesis 1 affirms the existence of one all-powerful, purposive God, which is good, from m a n s point of view, for God is benevolent to man, the center of creation and his chief concern. Life is the ultimate good, death the ultimate evil. In tackling the question of why man must die, our author has set himself no less a task than theodicy: to justify the ways of God to man. How, without denying him omnipotence, to affirm both his existence and the existence of evil? H o w to affirm his friendliness to man and, at the same time, affirm him as the author ot mans death? W e l l — t h e author proposes—let us consider two possible alternatives. O n e is a world in which there is no death, where man lives in the archetypes of the species — m a l e and female—suffering no pain or grief or need unfulfilled, ignorant of sex and procreation: T h e A g e of Innocence. A n d innocent it can afford to be, for what need of sex and procreation has a species which, living endlessly, needs take no precaution against the scythe of time? T h e alternative to this static, timeless world is the A g e of Experience, which contains knowledge, sex, procreation, and death. Here is the nexus of Sex and Death. Sex, the reproductive power, is the answer to death. The limitations of space and the endlessness of time render inconceivable the coexistence of procreat ion and deathlessness. We are faced with a hard disjunction, an either/or, but not both. T h e species can exist as the deathless universal in the realm of perfection — Plato's World of the Ideas—or it can live in the chain oi particulars: the generaLions which, succeeding each other it! time, make history: history which, for man, is the only measure of time.

06

114 STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫י י‬

And the choice is left up to man. H e is horn into the Age of Innocence. It is for him to choose whether there ever will be an Age of Experience. A precondition for the existence of this choice, however, is that all the potentials must exist . Hence from the moment of creation m a n — h e / s h e / t h e y — i s endowed with the organs of sex and reproduction. Was the choice to activate these capacities an act of disobedience to God? That depends on whether God's declaration concerning the tree of knowledge was a command or a warning. A n d the Hebrew is ambigu‫״‬ ous; it can be read either way, or both: "But of the Tree of Knowledge you are forbidden to eat" or "But of the Tree of Knowledge you dare not cat." Was the choice that man made evil? Perhaps the question itself is too restricting: Was there evil in the choice? Yes, there is evil in the choice. For until the choice is made—in favor of expen•‫׳‬ ence—there is no evil. But in the absence of evil, or of its possibility, there is noth‫״‬ ing for goodness to overcome, there is no possibility of moral choice. Without the possibility of evil, the problems, the hurdles—which are the stuff of history— there is no history. The choice is left to man, and the question of death and evil is shitted back trom God to man. And the choice was made by man. Indeed, the mythos suggests, man would not be man but for having made the choice he made. And if you ask, but man was not man until he had made the choice—well, that is why we must have a mythos. If categorical propositions were adequate to deliver the message there would be no need for a mythos. Nor, in putting forward our interpretation of the mythos, do we pretend to have exhausted its meaning. Let us, tor example, consider again the Christian interpretation of man's eating of the tree oi knowledge as his Fall, with the associated doctrine of original sin: "In Adams Fall we sinned all?' Our implication, in our first ancestors' sin suggests that we were all present in the original Adam and participated in the choice. Anyone who, accepting the mythos, would yet reject his share in the decision, would have to face the paradox implicit in the choice: Were you to choose the Age of Timeless Innocence, you would not be here to raise the question in the first place. Is this last bit of sophistry more than a little absurd? To be sure. One can reject the mythos and the purposive, benevolent God as well. One can deny freedom of will to man and all the dignity that goes with that attribute. One can deny absolute values and be prepared to die or to kill to maintain the values we hold—relative. And perhaps such positions are less absurd. But the author of the mythos accepts the theology we have described. And the question of death, of evil, of theodicy, is crucial for him. And so he builds his mythos, which points to one truth that no one would care to deny: The world we know, the kind of world we know, is not the best, nor is it the worst of all possible worlds. It is the only kind of world we can imagine. A world of life and death, of birth and dissolution and birth again. It is the world of time and events, the world of history. History is made possible by the expulsion from Eden. Let us see how our author sees the beginning of history.

EDEN AND EDEN ,S AFTERMATH

AFTERMATH SECOND

OF E D E N : S E C O N D

ΙΟϊ

GENERATION,

BANISHMENT

(1) Now M a n having had relations with [iif., knowledge, experience of] his wife, she conceived and gave birth to Cain, her thought [in naming him, being], "I have produced a person with Y H W H s help." (2) She gave birth again, to his brother, Abel. Abel was a shepherd, C a i n was a farmer. (3) In the course ot time, Cain brought an offering to Y H W H of the earth's produce; (4) while Abel, tor his part, also brought one, from among the firstlings of his flock, that is, oi their choice fat parts. Y H W H showed regard for Abel and his offering. (5) But for Cain and his offering he showed no regard. Quite upset by this, Cain was downcast, (61 Y H W H said to Cain, "Why are you upset, Why so downcast? (7) Surely, it you do right, Favor will be [yours]. Should you not do right— Sin at your door lurks demon-like: For you he lusts, Yet you can be his master" (8) Cain's thought, however, was [fixed] o n — h i s broiher, Abel, 1 2 And so when they were far afield, C a i n set upon his brother Abel and killed him. (9) Y H W H asked Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" "I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?" (10) " W h a t have you done!" H e said. "Listen . . . your brother's blood — crying out to me from the soil . . . (11) Now, therefore: Banned you are from the soil whose mouth gaped to receive from your h a n d your brother's blood. (12) If you till the soil, it will no longer yield its strength to you. A wanderer ever on the move shall you be on earth." (13) C a i n said to Y H W H , "My punishment is too great to bear. (14) Just now have you banished me from earth's expanse, and your presence am I denied. W h e n I am a wanderer over earth, ever on the go—why, anyone coming upon me will [feel free to] kill me," (15) "Therefore," said Y H W H , 11[I hereby decree:] W h o e v e r kills C a i n will suffer vengeance sevenfold." W h e r e u p o n Y H W H imposed a sign upon Cain, that no one coming upon h i m might kill him. ( 16) T h e n Cain withdrew from YHWH's presence. He settled in the land of Noel [i.e., Wandering], facing Eden. (Genesis 4 : 1 - 1 6 ) T h e first v e r b in verse 1 is a p l u p e r f e c t , 1 ‫ י‬a p o i n t missed by all t h e s t a n d a r d t r a n s l a t i o n s : M a n s first sexual e x p e r i e n c e of his wife t o o k p l a c e in E d e n , f o l l o w i n g t h e i r e a t i n g of t h e f r u i t of t h e t r e e of k n o w l e d g e . The b i r t h t o o k p l a c e o u t s i d e of E d e n . T h e p u n o n t h e n a m e t h a t Eve gives h e r firstborn i n v o l v e s t h e t w o c o n s o n a n t s Q h l in h i s n a m e , a n d in t h e v e r b , w h i c h m e a n s " t o a c q u i r e , to be or b e c o m e o w n e r of, t o create." T h e significant p o i n t in t h e t h o u g h t b e h i n d t h e n a m i n g is t h e c r e d i t she gives t o Yi I W I 1 . It is n o t t h a t s h e is u n a w a r e of h e r h u s b a n d s role 111 h e r c o n c e p t i o n ; b u t t h e b i r t h of a c h i l d , especially of a m a l e c h i l d -—who c a n c o n t i n u e t h e a n c e s t r a l l i n e a n d t h e r e b y assure its felicity in t h e a f t e r l i f e — i s a gift f r o m G o d , for m a t i n g d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y e v e n t u a t e in c o n c e p t i o n , n o r c o n c e p t i o n in suecessful b i r t h i n g . N o p u n is m a d e o n t h e n a m e of t h e s e c o n d s o n , f o r t h e n a m e itself

p8

STORIES — ‫ ״‬T H H P R I M E V A L

HISTORY"

is a metaphor. Abel, Hebrew he bei means "a putt of wind," a common figure of speech for the insubstantial, transitory, evanescent. This name, symbolic of the fate of its owner, is provided by the author; the mother, who could not know his fate, could not have so named him; so we have here the hrst clue that this entire episode is likely to be ot the nature οί an allegory. Not a single detail intervenes between the notice of the birth of the sons and the plot action, which begins with the sacrificial offerings that the two present to YHWH. The occupations of the brothers determine the nature of the offerings. Cain, the farmer, brings a grain offering as his tribute; Abel, the shepherd, brings an animal offering as his tribute. Inasmuch as meat Otterings are more costly than those of grain or fruit, the latter might represent the more generous gift. The biblical assessment of the value of an offering to God is, however, more in terms of what the worshiper can afford than in the objective value of what is presented. The farmers choicest offering is bikkürim "the first (choice) fruits or produce," as the choicest of animal stock is beköröt "(choice) firstlings." Gain's offering, uncharacterized as to its quality (no bikkürim), must be understood as a middling one; this in contrast to the generösity of Abel, who presented the choice fat parts of his choicest firstlings (beköröt). The word for the offering brought to God here, minhä "tribute," is used also for the tribute brought by a subject to his lord for the purpose of winning favor. The brothers are pictured then as courtiers seeking to ingratiate themselves with their divine sovereign. The two are not necessarily rivals: there is room at court for both of them. The details as to how the Sovereign indicated the acceptability of one gift and his rejection of the other are not given. W7hat. is crucial is that the chagrined and crestfallen courtier is immediately apprised that the verdict in his case is not final. The rejection owes to his own behavior; he is free to make amends and win restoration to favor. Gods address to Cain thus makes explicit man's freedom of will, even as this is implicit in man's choice to eat or refrain from the forbidden fruit. This address is formulated in two parts, the positive and negative alternatives. The formulation oi the negative alternative is richly dense with imagery and meaning: "It, however, you are not inclined to behave, sin is a demon lurking by your door." The Hebrew word for "demon" is a borrowing from Akkadian, Hebrews sistor-language in Babylonia and Assyria; in Mesopotamia demons abound, and physical images were placed at the entrance to homes to welcome benevolent demons and repulse wicked ones. 14 Then conies the notice, "1 lis lust is lor you, hence you may dominate him." Let us compare this with God's words to woman in Eden:

TO WOMAN

T O CAIN

Your desire will be for your hu 1 an 1 So that he will dominate you (Gene sis 3:16)

His [Demon Sin's] desire will be for you, Yet you may dominate him. (Genesis 4:7)

What is not crystal clear in either formulation alone becomes clear when they are set side by side. In both we have, as we suggested earlier, the principle of least interest: in a two-person relationship the one who has the least t.0 gain—or feels that

EDEN A N D EDEN ,S A F T E R M A T H

ΙΟϊ

he has less at stake—is in the dominant position. Hence, in God's words to Cain, temptation to wrong is personified in a demon, and —the metaphor continues-™he needs you, you do not need him; without you he can do nothing. Shades of Pandora! She opened the box and let evil out; Cain must open the door to let evil in. Pandora opens the box and releases the (external) misfortunes that afflict mankind.‫ יי‬Genesis says that it is man who opens the door, for the evil that he himself commits. Cain has been given a choice and a warning. Instead of accepting the clear word of God that his standing with his lord is a matter between himself and his master, he searches outside himself for the reason for his disgruntlement. It is Abel who is somehow responsible for his discomfiture, for he has shown him up. The world is not big enough for both of them: Abel must die. And the act of violence that takes place "in the field" is to make it explicit that the murder was premeditated. "In the field," equivalent to our "out in the wild" is a biblical expression for an unfrequented place, a place where intervention by a third party is ruled out, or at least unlikely. 16 In this clear assertion (by the narrator) of premeditation, the psychology of the murderer is simply and tellingly sketched. As it is in the murderer's assumption that, there being no witnesses he will get awav with it. And most profoundly in the paradigmatic retort of every killer, "Am I my brothers keeper?" N o one asked him to guard his brother; he was expected only to leave his brother alone! But the path to murder is prepared by the denial of responsibility. God's reply, that Cain himself can hear his brothers blood crying for justice, is a metaphor for "murder will out?' But with the additional element of biblical theol· ogy: murder will indeed out, because however helpless or indifferent society may be, God is the ultimate guarantor of justice. And God continues with his pro-‫׳‬ nouncement of sentence. To appreciate the sentence and Cain's response to it, wc must understand the conventions of Israelite society in the matter of crime and punishment, convenlions that remained in force in regard to crimes against the person long after the establishment of a strong central government. These conventions, in brief, are as fob lows: A crime against an individual was a crime against the kinship group to which that individual belonged. Punishment was exacted by the group to which the vietim belonged, normally by the agency of a member of that family or clan called "the redeemer of the blood," (analogous in some ways to "the hatchet man" of the Chinese tongs). If the offenders group refused to deliver him for punishment, all members of that group became "fair game" and the result might be vendetta or war. In other words, justice was vengeance, and the certainty that vengeance would be pursued was the chief, if not the only, deterrent to murder. A member of the group who committed a serious breach of the groups standards was normally punished not by execution but by being declared ümr, "banned, banished, anathema, outlaw, outcast."17 Shorn thus of the protection of deterrence, the outcast was often considered to be "as good as dead." This exactly is the meaning of Cains response to God s pronouncement of sentence. The sentence is banishment. No, says Cain, it might as well be death. He then employs a mer ism for being shorn ot any protection, human or divine. The first, "You have just banished me from earth's expanse" means "I have no place on earth to call home, no one to call kin." The second, literally "from Your presence I

100

S T O R I E S — ‫ ״‬T H 1: P R I M E V A L H I S ' I O R Y "

am h i d " means "I cannot count on you to protect me." A n y o n e coming across C a i n may kill h i m with impunity, undeterred by iear oi man or God* But G o d does not want C a i n s career ended. A n d so he puts a mark upon him, a mark clearly visible at all times—probably, therefore, on his forehead 1 8 —a mark that anyone will recognize as signifying that Cain is under God's protection, that G o d is C a i n s "redeemer of the blood." This raises a number of questions. First, why should God want to keep C a i n alive? Cain is, after all, a murderer. His victim had done him n o harm, t h e murder was premeditated, and everywhere in the Bible justice requires capital punishment for such a crime. W h y not here? A second quest i o n — a n d a prior one, at t h a t — i s , who was there in existence who might, but for God's intervention, have killed C a m ? T h e answer to the second question is: no one. Is that not absurd? N o . N o t any more t h a n the absence of women from the genealogical tables, n o more t h a n t h e absence of A d a m and Eve from the tale of Cain and Abel, n o more t h a n the retro-‫׳‬ jection to the second generation of mankind of t h e conventions of Israel's sacrificial cult or of its tribal system of criminal justice. T h e story is an allegory, like the preceding story of the Garden of Eden, of which this is the culmination. From t h e very first verse, which begins with the flashback to t h e hitherto inv p l i d t sexual congress that followed the eating from the tree of knowledge, the Cain and Abel tale continues that story. T h a t parenthetic pluperfect is not concerned with the historic question (extensively debated by scholars since the time of St. Augustine) whether the first copulation rook place before or after t h e expulsion, in Eden or outside ot it. Rather, it underlines that the eating of the fruit is a metaphor for the sexual experience itself. T h e experience in the garden culminated in ρ top agation. Cain was born, t h e n t he short-lived descendant less Abel who, himself inn o c e n t and victim, exists only to bring out the character of Cain. A n d Cain is egotistic, selfish, jealous, disobedient, obstinately and sinfully blind, and a murderer. Given freedom of will by God, inst ructed as to the consequences oi the way that he uses that freedom, C a i n exercises that freedom m defiance of his Creator. Sexuality and reproduction mark the beginning of time, the beginning of history; and history begins with atrocity. History begins with murder, history begins with fratricide; every murder is fratricide, because all men are brothers. A n d C a i n had to live, in this allegory, to father the h u m a n race. So that the moral be n o t lost: Cain, ancestor of all mankind, is your father and mine. 1 9

P O E T I C A L R E V I E W OF E D E N V I S - À - V I S T H E C R E A T I O N

STORY

T h e creation story (Genesis 1:1-2:4a) and the Eden story (Genesis 2:4b-4:16) are parallel and different: parallel in that both deal with the beginning of the world; different in that their themes, though complementary to one another, are separable and independent. T h e creation story as we discerned it is essentially God-centered, almost without plot, and owning only one persona, more a structure t h a n a story. T h e G a r d e n of Eden has four personae (six, if we count the serpent and God), and a plot as intricate as it is intriguing; and it is unquestionably man-centered. T h e two narratives converge in but one respect: the creation ot man by God. And it is only in respect to this one element that a difference between ihe two stories may

E D E N A N D EDEN ,S A F T E R M A T H

ΙΟϊ

actually be viewed as a contradiction: the apparently chronological ordering of ere‫׳‬ ation in Genesis 1, which has man created after the land animals, and the logic of narrative flow in Genesis 3, which has man created rirst, t h e n the animals. We raised t h e possibility that even chronological order might serve as a metaphor for rank, dignity, value. (Thus for example, in the U.S. military, officers enter a passenger vehicle in ascending order of rank and come out of it in the reverse order.) And fust in one context, last in another context, may both be emblematic of supreme dignity, as is surely the case with mankind among the animals in both creation and bel en stories. T h e r e is actually a clue to the poetical harmony of the two stories in an opt ion available and not elected in the creation story Creatures of sea and sky are created on Pay Five, creatures of land on l)ay Six. it would certainly have been more in keeping with the unique dignity explicitly assigned to humankind to have the other land animals created on Day Five, leaving Day Six for t h e creation of Man. W h y did the author reject this option. 7 Because in t h a t case, he would have created a narrative contradiction between the stories of creation and of Eden. For as it is, in both stories m a n and the animals are created on t h e same day! A n d according to our interpretation, there is n o contradiction as between t h e two accounts o n the order of creation of beasts and humans. In b o t h accounts m a n is the last of the creatures created. A s far as theology is concerned in the Creation story, the bottom line is the praise of the Creator in the Sabbath pericope. But as far as anthropology is concerned in this story, t h e bottorn l i n e — a f t e r the dignity of man's being patterned on the divine image—is t h e creation of man as a singular collective, a him, immediately reformulated as a ereation of m a n as a distributive plural, a them. Verse 27: a G o d t h e n created ha'adam 4 the man/mankind' in His image; in the image ot God did H e create 'ötö 'him'; male and female created H e Ötäm 'them'." This last verse t h e n is t h e bottom line of a synoptic episode. 20 A n d t h e resumptive episode begins with 4b. T h e Eden story tells how man was created, how man became man, which is to say, t h a t regal line among the created species in which so much depends o n its differentiation into two opposing and complementary sexes. If we go back to 1:20 fh we note that God created water and sky creatures by fiat: "God said: Let the water teem . . . let fowl fly about." God made the land creatures by fiat: "God said: Let earth produce living creatures." Only in the case of man is there no report of such a fiat. A n d this too is in poetical harmony with the resumptive episode in which Yi IWI 1-God creates mankind in two stages: first, by shaping clay and animat ing it - a male form -—and then, after fashioning Μ the creatures of earth, extracting from the male form a rib-cut and building it into a female form. Thus, as in the creation story, man is created after the animals, tor half a species is n o n e at all, and man (the them, male and female, of 1:27) is only created when both halves exist. But why, then, this seeming whimsy in this resumptive episode? T h e answer to this will emerge from a poetical review of t h e entire Eden narrative. It starts with verse 4b and continues with verse 7, with God fashioning man at the beginning of creation. Verses 5 and 6, like verse 2 of C h a p t e r 1, arc a parenthetic aside, and like it describe a barren world. But whereas 1:2 describes the total chaos before anything existed but Tehom's all-enveloping water, Chapter 2 assûmes creation of light, sky, dry land, and celestial bodies. It even assumes the ex is-

102

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫י י‬

t e n c e oi v e g e t a t i o n — h i g h growth and l o w — b u t indicates t h a t except for a n exceptional place watered by t h e spill of spring-fed stream(s), v e g e t a t i o n was n o t t h e general rule. T h i s barrenness makes for t h e contrast with the lush v e g e t a t i o n of t h e garden in Eden, where Y H W H - G o d provides His h u m a n creation w i t h shade and fruit trees, it is into t h a t barrenness t h a t man will soon be thrust to toil for his living, a b a n i s h m e n t repeated a generation later when C a i n too will have to scrounge cjidmat Eden "facing Eden," t h a t is, t h e lush paradise lost. Ehe location of t h e paradisiacal park serves a n u m b e r of purposes. For one thing, this is t h e first of m a n y identifications in Genesis 1~11 of M e s o p o t a m i a as t h e geographical place of origins; this p h e n o m e n o n itself owing to t h e biblical author's consciousness of indebtedness to t h e c u l t u r a l — p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e l i t e r a r y — traditions of w h a t we may metonymically t e r m t h e cuneiform world. For another, t h e four r i v e r s — t w o famous and historic, two fantasy-like and n e v e r heard of a g a i n — p r o v i d e a legendary setting for a story so magical as to call for a place in t h e n e a r and familiar e v e n as it is beyond reach or ken. 2 1 T h e creation of m a n in two stages is, like a n u m b e r of a t t e n d a n t particulars, proleptic of t h e sex-procreation-family-civilization-history t h e m e . T h u s the ereation first of t h e male c o n s t i t u e n t , t h e n of t h e female; t h e awareness of the former t h a t t h e latter is of his o w n substance and essence; t h e p u n o n m a n - w o m a n , malefemale; and t h e "cleaving" of t h e two sexes to o n e another, a d u m b r a t i n g t h e drive to copulative u n i o n of h u s b a n d and wife, w h i c h is f r o m their perspective a centripetal force (while f r o m t h e perspective of t h e parents of bride a n d groom it is a centrifugal o n e ) . Proleptic, because all this precedes any awareness of sexuality and its consequences on t h e part of t h e m a n a n d t h e w o m a n , t h e o n e a n d only "generation" that is and has been. T h e woman's dialogic exchange w i t h t h e serpent shows t h a t h e r consciousness of God's a d m o n i t i o n o n t h e eating of various fruits was hers directly, she having been there "in m a n " all along, e v e n before her extraction and upbuilding. So too, the gapping in regard to the sexual congress- - n u a n c e d as sexual a w a r e n e s s — a n d bridged by the pluperfect verb in 4:1, and the adumbrations of biological generation, the family as biological chain and t h e ongoing quest in history for the immortality which, lost way back t h e n , is never nor finally despaired ot. T h u s t h e p u n i s h m e n t of t h e serpent anticipates t h e posterity of t h e serpent and t h e posterity ot t h e w o m a n h e beguiled; so t o o t h e p u n i s h m e n t of t h e w o m a n features her c e n t r a l f u n c t i o n in history, t h e propagation of h e r race; and t h e p u n i s h m e n t of t h e m a n features h i m as b r e a d w i n n e r for t h e families t h a t he will sire and for w h o m he must provide. A n d , finally, t h e first expression o n t h e part of m a n of his awareness t h a t t h e sex act h e e x p e r i e n c e d was n o t m e r e indulgence either for h i m or for his mate. H e n o w n a m e s h e r properly, for t h e first time, Hawiva "Life‫יי‬ Giving,111" r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t [/a] she had [now] become ancestress of every one who 1 tcou/d ever live." H a v e we overlooked a n y t h i n g in this review, any discrepancy t h a t m i g h t constitute a weak link in our a r g u m e n t t h a t , as t h e separate stories of C r e a t i o n and Eden are in themselves poetically consistent a n d of c o n s u m m a t e artistry, so are t h e two poetically c o n g r u e n t and complementary? Yes, there is: t h e use of t h e term Elohim tor G o d in the C r e a t i o n story and t h e consistent use in t h e E d e n story of Y H W H E/omm. T h i s item, w h i c h has been t h e nodal factor in t h e rise of t h e source-critical school ot biblical scholarship, I will treat soon in a separate poetical review center-

Κ η Ii Ν AND EDEN'S AFTERMATH

103

ing on the names of God. For the present I draw the readers attention to the excutsus at this volumes end on the kinds of presuppositions with which modern scholarship has addressed the C a i n and Abel story, preparatory to our address to t h e structures, the lists and obiter dicta that intervene between the narrative of Eden's aftermath and the narrative of the flood. P O E T I C A L R E V I E W OF T H E N A M E S OF G O D

Source-‫׳‬critical scholarship ascribes Genesis 1:1-2:4a to P, a key clue to its authorship being the exclusive use of Elohim for Deity. T h e next large block of text (which we call the Eden story and its aftermath), 2:4b~4:26, is assigned to J, the key clue here being the use of Y H W H for t h e Deity. A n d C h a p t e r 5 resumes the use of Elohim, once again revealing the hand of P. T h e most glaring difficulty is that posed by the observation that, useful as this dichotomy in the divine-names usage may be elsewhere, it simply does not exist. For the contrast in usage is not as between Elohim and YF1WH, hut as betw‫ז‬een Elohim and an anomalous compound name: YHWF1-Elohim. N o satisfactory explanation of this anomaly has ever been presented, but the problem would appear to be particularly critical tor the sourcecritics who have so much riding on the dichotomous usage. Perhaps the poetical address may produce a solution more persuasive that any hitherto ofiered. Let us recapitulate the contextual contrasts for the biblical usages of Y11WH and Elohim that we adapted (and adopted) from Gassutos characterization: A . Y H W T I appears particularly in

A 1 T h e o n e and only G o d in t ho e o n t e x t of dealings with h u m a n s

ea )!meet ion with Israel or its tore‫׳‬ hears as against aliens a n d n o n -

o t h e r t h a n Israelii ish (and ρ rede-

Israelite offshoots of t h e stock of

cessors) will n o r m a l l y he rendered

S h e m and Israels patriarchs.

by E l o h i m ( n o t e , w i t h o u t t h e definite article).

B. T h e p r e c e d i n g ( A ) , reflecting a

B' N o n - I s r a e l i t e s will n o r m a l l y refer

t i m e w h e n Y H W H was seen ex-

to t h e i r revered gods by n a m e and

clusively as Israel's tutelary genius,

refer to Y H W H only in invidious

and — p o s s i b l y — b e f o r e t h e t r a n s -

c o n t r a s t . For t h e P o w e r t h a t rules

f o r m a t i o n of clôhïm i n t o a proper

all t h e world, non-Israelites a n d

n a m e , is to be e x p e c t e d in t h e

Israelites as well will normally use

speech of ordinary Israelites, b u t

Elohim, both with and without

n o t in t h e s p e e c h of o t h e r peoples

t h e d e f i n i t e article.

as a generic n a m e for G o d . C. In contexts where the distinction b e t w e e n Israelite and n o n Israelite is irrelevant (as, for ex-

Ο

I n c o n t e x t s w h e r e t h e dis t i n e t i o n b e t w e e n Israelite and n o n Israelite is irrelevant (as, for e x ‫׳‬

ample, tor t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e S h e m i t i c line destined t o e v e n t u are in Israel) Y H W H may be

ample, before t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e S h e m i t i c line defined, t o e v e n t u ‫׳‬ ate in Israel) h u m a n s may he as-

expressive ot t h e o n e Deity in a direct, personal, i n t i m a i e r e l a ‫׳‬

sociated or associate t h e m s e l v e s with i h e o n e G o d as F.lohmt, ex·

tionship w i t h people.

pressive 0( ‫״‬renter d i s t a n c e or oivaier impersoilain y in t h e h11‫׳‬m i n h e r i n g today in Mich expie*-sions ;is I leaven, [Yovidenee, etc.

122

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫י י‬

T h e one narrator (whom we posit) of all five chapters uses Elohim, in his own n a n tutorial voice throughout2:4-!:‫ן‬ a in consonance with A1 and O ; the context is expressive ot Deity, for all the dialogic activity ascribed to him, as impersonal, ab‫־׳‬ stract, creative iorce relating to nature as cosmos. In 2:413-4:24, where the focus is on Deity's personal and intimate relations with the first generations of humankind, he feels free to deploy the name Y H W H in his own voice. In the dialogue of the woman and serpent, the name Elohim alone appears, twice in speech by her, twice by him. T h e poetic distinction of "voice" is what renders this exception unexeeptionable. T h e distinctive nuances of the two names ( Y H W H and Elohim) are ever in the consciousness of the narrator, as is his consciousness of that consciousness. T h e narrator is conscious that he has not (yet) ascribed knowledge of the name Y H W H to these creatures; and has further determined that Elohim as the creative power that has permitted or forbidden (in a seemingly capricious way) fruits necessary and fruits desirable is more appropriate t h a n t h e personal, paternal, even 10ving Y H W H . So too "becoming like gods/God" in 3:5 (the serpent speaking) and "has become like one of us" in 3:22 ( Y H W H ‫ ׳‬G o d speaking) are unthinkable with Y H W H replacing Elohim (explicit or implicit). Beginning with 4:1, the story of t h e post-Edenic first couple, t h e narrator drops the compound name YHWH‫־׳‬Elohim and uses Y H W H alone, regularly in his own voice and once in the speech of the woman in 4:1, where her collaborator (so to speak) in the achieving oi her first (male-)ehild is (pointedly, not her husband, but) Y H W H himself. Now this first acknowledgement of Deitys part in h u m a n procreation is balanced by a second such acknowledgment, in 4:2^. But here the role of Deity is designated by the name expressive of greater distance: not Y1 IWl 1, but Elohim. A n d hard upon this parallel and contrasting notice comes the narraiorial not ice: "Back then it was that invocation first was made in YHWI bname." In discussing this last notice of this volume, chapter i, 2 2 1 observed that it could not in any reasonable way be attributed to the authorship of any of source critic isms candidates tor that role. It c a n n o t be Ρ (or E), for it contradicts the thesis imputed to him as fingerprint. It cannot be J because he, having n o knowledge of a tradition in conflict with his own, would see no reason to make explicit that which no one questioned. It cannot be t h e redactor, for his role is to harmonize his sources where possible, and to leave well enough alone when it is not; were h e the author of the notice he would he underscoring the flat statement o f ] , and the equally flat state•‫׳‬ merits of Ε and Ρ (Chapters 3 and 6) as to when the n a m e Y H W H was first disclosed. In this last sentence we have, however, another bit: of evidence for our poetic explanation of all three "sources" and their congruent stance in regard to the common noun that became a proper name ('elohim > Elohim) and to the proper name Y H W H , which is twice "disclosed" in Exodus. Properly speaking, the name Y H W H was never disclosed. In Genesis 4:26 there is n o m e n t i o n of disclosure at all, merely a notice as to how early in history recourse was had by humans to the Tetragrammaton. In Exodus 3 and 4, where the Tetragrammaton figures as if for the first time, there is the implicit denial (Chapter 3) and the explicit denial (Chapter 6) that Yi IWH had revealed himself to Israels patriarchs by that name. But, as wo argued in our discussion there and now reiterate, true though thai denial may be, it

EDEN Λ Ν Γ) Ε I ) Ε Κ ‫ י‬S Α ]‫׳־‬Γ Γ: RM AT Η

ΙΟ^

does not contradict (a passage in a document called J which makes) an affirmation that "the name YHWi Γ was ever "revealed" to anyone, hor Y H W H is a written sign, never pronounced, and in the absence of vowels quite unpronounceable; it is the true mark of the one God as properly conceived, no matter by what vocable identified. A n d so here in Genesis 4:26, the one authorial voice of Scripture, the single narratorial voice, self-consistent despite his many metamorphoses and obtrusions, transformations, and transmogrifications, having started the chapter with the first mother invoking Y H W H as she names a son, and having concluded the chapter with her invoking Elohim as she names another, informs us in this concluding notice t h a t — w h a t ? T h a t antediluvian mankind spoke Hebrew, pronounced the Tetragrammaton, had information never transmitted to Abraham, o r — f o r that m a t t e r — t o Shem and Eber: No. Rather that the conception of divinity, which we call monotheism, was already the common property of humankind's first generations, and that whatever their speech or utterance, whatever their names for that monism which holds a monopoly of power and evinces the personhood expressed in the delegation of power and the revelation of will, those first generations knew what the one God wanted of them, and m obedience or disobedience knew what their responses constituted. It is this last characterization of the stance of Genesis in regard to the origins of monotheism that is likely to be most troublesome to students of Scripture. Standard scholarship, oriented to trace history wie es eigentlich gewesen, war in the literary sources and to ascribe monotheism to a sophisticated mentality unthinkable in ι he ancients, must by its postulates be closed to this possibility. And these tenets oi a scholarly dogma will be supported and reinforced by a prejudice common to seientific researchers and loyal religionists alike: that biblical monotheism did not so much evolve from, but rather with! thunderclap suddenness broke with, the "paganism" of its neighbors; that monotheism was the invent ion oi our spiritual ancestors whom we are pleased to call, variously according to our narrower pieties, Jews, 'äböt "fathers" (patriarchs), ideal Israel; that to deny to these latter this distinction is to be disloyal to them and their unique spiritual genius. W h a t all this overlooks, however, is that to ascribe authorship, invention, or discovery of monotheism to any generation of humans, is to deny it to God; either this, or else another absurdity: to affirm that Deity capriciously withheld this revelation from earlier generations of humanity

THE C O M P O U N D NAME:

YHWH-ELOHIM

It remains now to address the feature of this compound name that is unique to the Eden Story, Genesis 2:4b-3:24. T h e uniqueness lies not in the collocation of the two names Y H W H and Elohim, for such collocation is frequent. W h a t is unique is the welding of the two into a single name. This is to say that Y H W H and Elohim frequently appear together with Elohim serving as adjective (attributive or predicative) for Y H W H ; what never appear- elsewhere is the use of YHWH-Elohim as the subject of a sentence. Correction: almost never! There is one (and only one) other instance where this compound name YHWH-Elohim appears as the subject (if a sentence. And it is this appearance which provides a clue as to the poetical lunc-

106

STOR1FS ‫ ״ ־‬THH P Kl Ml·: VA L I ί ( STOKY ‫״‬

t i o n of t h e c o m p o u n d n a m e in the Eden story. For this n a m e appears in t h e transitional passage i n t e r v e n i n g in a single episode b e t w e e n s e m e n c e s featuring t h e subject as Y H W H , Elohim, and a third alternative, luPelôhïm, T h i s appearance is in t h e Book of J o n a h . I reier the reader to my discussion oi this entire book in Toward a Grammar, w i t h special reference to t h e punctilious usage of Y H W H , e l, a n d e loh i m (either alone or w i t h definite article or possessive suffixes), and to t h e concord a n c e of these various occurrences w i t h our description of t h e poetical f u n c t i o n s of these terms. 2 3 H e r e we must limit ourselves to J o n a h 3:10 a n d C h a p t e r 4, w h e r e t h e c o m p o u n d n a m e appears. T h e last verse of C h a p t e r 4 is t h e synoptic conclus ion of a n episode relating t h e r e p e n t a n c e of N i n e v e h ' s i n h a b i t a n t s : The Deity [häHöhim] took note of their deeds: they had indeed turned away [/repented of] their evil course; so the Deity [hä'iöhnn] reversed himself on the matter of the evil [i.e., the punishment] he had proposed to execute upon them: He did not so execute [it]. (Jonah 3:10) C h a p t e r 4 begins a resumptive episode with Jonah's r e a c t i o n to t h e Deity's c h a n g e of heart: (1) This seemed to Jonah a great evil. He was quite upset. (2) He prayed to YHWH, "Now then, Ο YHWH, was this not my very word !/consideration| while 1 was yet on my native soil the reason i faced about to flee to Tarshish knowing as I did full well thai you are a God |‫־‬e/| gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in 11 we, and reversing yourself in the matter of the evil I/punishment, condemnation!? (3) Now then, Ο YHWHt Lake my life from me. 1 prefer dc.uh to lifo. {4) YHWH said, 11 Are you really all that upset?" (Jonah 4:1 4) My translation, for all its defensibility, fails to convey t h e ironic play of t h e Hebrew in using t h e simple term re "bad, be bad, badness" for a variety of c o n n o t a t i o n s . T h e evil course of w h i c h t h e N i n e v i t e s repent in 3 : 1 0 is literally "their bad way." In t h a t same verse and in 4:3 t h e c o n d e m n a t i o n or decree t h a t is reversed is literally "the badness." A n d in 4:1, for my "seemed a great evil" or t h e equally acceptable "was a source of great displeasure," t h e Hebrew literally reads "It wras bad to J o n a h a big badness." T h u s J o n a h judges as bad or disastrous the ( b e n e v o l e n t ) decision of H e a v e n to a n n u l t h e bad or c o n d e m n a t o r y s e n t e n c e as a c o n s e q u e n c e of t h e perpetrators of badness, h a v i n g achieved a c h a n g e of heart and c h a n g e in c o n d u c t f r o m bad to good. T h r o u g h o u t t h e second pericope (Jonah 4 : 1 - 4 ) t h e i n t i m a t e relationship bet w e e n J o n a h a n d his personal G o d , between G o d and his c h o s e n servitor, is expressed in t h e exclusive use of Y H W H , in the voice of b o t h n a r r a t o r a n d character; e v e n t h e reproof implicit in t h e gentle jeer at J o n a h comes f r o m Y H W H , a n d it is to this Y H W H t h a t t h e foolish p r o p h e t appeals tor d e a t h in preference to living in a world where p e n i t e n t s are spared. T h i s u>a‫״‬e is in clear contrast to t h a t in t h e preceding pericope ( 3 : 4 - 1 0 ) , where t h e rowil decree calls u p o n t h e populace (humans and cattle) to invoke Elohim (\ersc S) where we might h a v e expected Hö/luvnîf "our gods"; where the narrator iniortns 10 t h a t the N i n e v i t e s had iaith in

EDEN A N D EDEN , S AFTERMATH

ΙΟϊ

Hlohim (verse 5); where "in J o n a h " would have sidestepped the problem of a polythe!stic people invoking a single Deity. Y H W H in place of Floh im here is, of course, unthinkable. (Unlike the pagan sailors in C h a p t e r 1, these Ninevitcs have not had that Y H W H introduced to them.) Yet while this usage expresses, so to speak, the greater distance of G o d from these pagans, this deployment of blohnu as a/the n a m e for Deity suggests that these pagans have in their repentance come closer to an appreciation of Deity s oneness. Nevertheless, both Deity s greater distance from pagans ( t h a n from Israelites) and the distance separating pagan N i n e vites from Israel's monotheistic theology are expressed in the N i n e vîtes h o p e in verse 9 that halöhim "the powers that be, the Power Above" may yet change their/ its angry course; and in t h e narrator's assurance t h a t häHöhfm "the (one) Deity" did indeed reverse Himself. A s 4 : 1 - 4 resumes the thread of 3:10, giving us J o n a h s response to the acceptance of Nineveh's repentance, and Y H W H ' s response to Jonah's response, so 4:5 resumes an earlier thread of t h e narrative (ending with 3:4, Jonah's proclamation in N i n e v e h ) . J o n a h does not yet know of Nineveh's acceptance of his message, nor, a fortiori, of God's reversing the decree. Jonah, we are told, leaves the city to await outside its walls t h e outcome of his preaching. A n d it is to further insulate Jonah in t h e shade of t h e lean-to, which t h e prophet has improvised against the heat of the sun, t h a t Deity commissions a hushy growth t h a t sprouts from 5011 to ceiling in a matter of hours or minutes. But n o t e t h e designation here of this Deity: Y H W H ' E l o h i m c o m m i s s i o n e d a v i n e - c o v e r i n g , it c l i m b e d over J o n a h p s trellis] to provide h i m shade from above, to deliver h i m f r o m his suffering [lit., "his badness"(. (Jonah 4:6)

N o t the distant haelöh"1m of 3 : 9 - 1 0 , nor the transcendent author oi nature and the i m m a n e n t father of humanity, deploying n a t u r e s flora for the benefit of his favored fauna - h e r e , rather as in Genesis 2 - 3 , shades and echoes of Eden's garden --the O n e w h o is b o t h in one and one in both: YHWH‫ ׳‬Elohim. T h e narrative does n o t end here. For as we indicated, this verse is transitional, as is t h e f u n c t i o n of the compound name. It is again the distant and impersonal häHöhlm w h i c h / w h o / t h a t commissions t h e vicious worm-pest that will deprive t h e vine of its life and the prophet of his overhead cover. Oppressive, but far less destructive, is t h e n u m b i n g east wind, which in verse 8 is commissioned by Elohim. Now, overcome by t h e intolerable heat and atmospheric pressure, Jonah again expresses his preference for death, but does n o t — a s he did before — address Deity. (Like Elijah in 1 Kings 19:4, h e says to himself, "Die already!": lit.., "he asked his life-spark to die") This time it is t h e pointedly ignored Deity, Elohim, who repeats t h e jeer of t h e prececiing episode, "Are you really all that upset•" A n d , finally, after t h e obtuse response of Jonah, it is Y H W H who pronounces the kerygma of his patient and forebearing love for all his—alas, so bovinely insensitive—•creatures.

E X C U R S U S : T H E N O N LITERARY A P P R O A C H TO C A I N A XI ‫ י‬A B E L

A significant characteristic that distinguishes t h e poetical approach :0 a narrative

108

S TO RI F vS — 11Τ H Ε P R ï M E VA L H I S" Γ Ο R Y ‫״‬

text (or other than narrative text, for thar matter) from the source-critical approach (which has long held sway under the utterly inappropriate label "literarycritical") is the formers unconcern with the !actuality or historicity (or literalness) of character, event, and ancillary data in the text. This unconcern, though it need not serve so as a matter of logic, will probably be as disturbing to fundamentalists committed to the literal historicity of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel as to seientific scholars who assume, for the most part, that an essentially literal historic intent governed the mind and hand of the biblical writer. Neither fundamentalist nor scientific scholar, for all the differing reasons for their insistence on historicity and literal intent, will be prevented trom an appreciation of the symbolic meanings, the moral lessons, of these narratives. But for some reason or other—Î suspect that it is an unconscious assumption that historical research is more scientific than literary analysis—modern scholars seem driven, although they recognize the essentially metaphoric or allegorical nature of such stories, to extract or recover as much as is possible of the historic core or setting behind the story itself or of the literary and historic traditions to which it owes. 111 the case of our story of Cain and Abel, this leads to the assumption that at its heart lies a theme that is a subject for social anthropology: the age-old conflict between two ways of life, the pastoral and the agricultural. This assumption asks us to impute to the author of the story a set of assumptions that, to the literary analyst, appear unfounded, inconsistent with one another, and even patently absurd. Since Adam was fated to be a farmer - so scholars who assume a literal-historic intent read God's curse in 3 : 1 7 - 1 9 — C a i n toll( ‫ י‬wed has father's occupation, while Abel launched into a new way of life as shepherd and herdsman. G o d — f o r some capricious reason, perhaps a dietary preference for meat over vegetables—favors the pastoral way of life over that of the i arm er. The assumption by the author of this preference on the part of God reflects the early history of Israel, that is, the pastoral occupation of Israel's nomadic patriarchs. Never mind that one of these patriarchs, Isaac, is a farmer as well as a cattleman. Never mind that the promised destiny of Israel is to possess a land where it may tar m the soil and build villages and cities. Never mind that at the time the author was writing, Israel had already achieved this destiny and interpreted the fulfillment of the promise as a sign of God's satisfaction with His people. And never mind that while the first patriarch emigrated from his native land and both he and ni s children migrated within a restricted territory, they are never pictured as nomads! Furthermore, the author, who is trying to tell us something about an anthropological phenomenon with which he is acquainted, reverses the roles of aggressor and defender, attacker and victim. The halt-savage keeper of herds and flocks who raids the cultivated fields becomes the victim Abel, while the peaceful and prosperous farmer becomes the jealous aggressor, Goch for his part, permits his favorite— the shepherd—to be killed by the ill-regarded farmer, and then forces the farmer off his land to become a nomad. Result: both ways of life are destroyed. Yet mankind manages to survive, with the murderer Cain as ancestor of all future humans, be they pastoral or agricultural. Aside from ai t nbut ing such absurdities tu our defenseless author, this anthropological interpretation is based on very poor anthropology, d h e history of ancient

E D E N A N D E D E N ,S A F T E R M A T H

ΙΟϊ

N e a r Eastern warfare is overwhelmingly b e t w e e n c o m m u n i t i e s t h a t share t h e same e c o n o m i c base. To the extent t h a t clashes took place between groups resting o n different economic bases, they were n o t b e t w e e n pastoral and agricultural societies; they were between t h e sedentary, urbanized societies in the rich river valleys o n t h e o n e h a n d , and the less "civilized" hill people or steppe-nomads on t h e other. Every urban-agricultural society reckoned a good part of its wealth in t h e form of livestock, and even hill people and keepers of cattle engaged in cultivation of t h e soil.

P O E T I C A L R E V I E W OF G E N E S I S

1-5

T h e general c o n v e n t i o n in biblical scholarship t h a t Genesis 1 : 1 - 2 : 4 a and t h e Eden story t h a t follows it are both, "creation narratives" exemplifies the uselessness as a literary tool of classification as to genre. Indeed when, as so oilen happens, a t h e m e (such as "creation' 1 ) is used as a genre label, such resort to an arbitrary categorization may be treacherously misleading. T h e innocent-appearing genre label operates to create a presumption as to the narratives kerygma, w h i c h - - a s we a n gued in Toward a Grammar—must emerge from the analysis, and h e n c e can never precede it. In the case of our two adjoining narratives, t h e two separate kerygma s ( o n e centering o n Deity, t h e o t h e r on h u m a n i t y ) are achieved by means of t h e uniquely Scriptural narrative technique, t h e synoptic-resumptive. T h e s e are t h e two longest episodes exemplary of the technique, particularly illustrative of t h e thesis t h a t in Scripture "parallel and i n d e p e n d e n t " as narrative attributes do n o t bespeak repetition and inconsistency. T h e subtle nuances inhering in t h e original language of a text and the traduction of t h a t text's meaning in translation are exemplified in the correct rendering of t h e verb bd "to till" in 2:5 and 4:12 and its incorrect rendering as "till" in 2:15, where t h e force of the verb is significantly affected by its f u n c t i o n in a merism and as determined by its narrative context. It is interesting to note h o w few c o m m e n t a tors will recognize t h a t to render t h e term as "till" in this last c o n t e x t is to create a contradiction w i t h the sentence on t h e m a n in 3 : 1 7 - 1 9 . Scholars w h o are conditioned to inconsistency as a normal p h e n o m e n o n in a multi-authored, heavily edited, clums i ly -1 ran s m i t te d, sc issors-and-paste product will n o t draw the line at t h e unlikelihood of a single author (such as J) contradicting himself in t h e scope of a narrative where the contradictory notices are only twenty-six verses apart. As against such sloppiness attributed, to a poet, like H o m e r given to nodding, consider the artistry and precision in die! ion of t h e author of t h e h d e n story H e employs t h e term 'bd as "till" in 4:12 in respect, to Brother Cain, whom he has ident ified in 4:2 as "a tiller of the soil." In respect to t h e career of post-Edenic man, he eschews the term M—-although h e clearly alludes to husbandry — for this First M a n , who as type character, symbolic: of the race he will engender, will indeed suffer the unrcmitting t o i l o r d a i n e d f o r him. b u t as i n d i v i d n a l C i z e d ) c h a r a c t e r he is n o t ( a s C a i n was and Abel was not) a farmer. It is remarkable how much o! t h e C r e a t i o n S t o r y — w h i c h is, as we noted, almost more structure t h a n s t o r y - - c o n s i s t s of dialogue (which is to say, direct dis-

128

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

course), the fiats of the one persona, God. The narration of the fiat in the Deity's speech and then of the fiat's fulfillment m the voice of the narrator makes for a repetition that emphasizes the unqualified command of God in regard to the created things, which are inanimate; and the absence ot the narrator's voice in regard to the animate creatures suggests the qualification of the blessing, for the blessings' fulfillment is contingent on the response to come of these living entities. To be noted also is the feature of free direct discourse in the inclusion of purpose and function in the various instances of Gods creative fiat. I n t h e E d e n story, t h e d i a l o g i c f e a t u r e b r i n g s a r o u n d e d n e s s , t h e v i v i d n e s s of personhood to the Snake, the M a n , and the W o m a n , w h o would otherwise retain t h e i l a t n e s s of c h a r a c t e r t h a t is n o r m a l t o t h e t y p e . W e n e e d n o t d w e l l o n t h e d e t a i l s o t h o w t h e p r o v i s i o n oi d i a l o g u e t o G o d , t h e s n a k e , t h e w o m a n , a n d t h e m a n e n g a g e t h e r e a d e r ' s i n t e r e s t , a l l o w i n g for w h a t M e i r S t e r n b e r g c a l l s " t h e d r a m a of reading," e m p o w e r i n g — o r

rat h e r , c o m p e l l i n g — t h e r e a d e r t o c o m p a r e t h e

dis-

c o u r s e of t h e p e r s o n a e a n d m a k e j u d g m e n t s t o r h i m s e l f o n t h e a t t r i b u t e s of t h e p e r s o n a . B u t o n e aspect: of d i a l o g u e i n t h i s E d e n story, as i n s t o r i e s t o f o l l o w , is t h e t e l l i n g a p p e a r a n c e s of E l o h i m o r Y H W H i n t h e v o i c e s of n a r r a t o r a n d p e r s o n a e .

F O U R

T H E FLOODS OF N O A H AND UTNAPISHTIM Theology

Straight and Theology

Satiric

Archaeology and history, anthropology and sociology, mythology and folklore, and comparative literature and literary criticism are among the many academic disci‫׳‬ plines whose findings and methodologies have been mustered in modern times for the study of the Bible in general and in particular for Genesis 1 1 1, often referred to as the Primeval History. 1 he narrative centering on Noah, Genesis 6• 0‫ י‬will probably remain one of the last testing grounds for the relevance of these sundry approaches, For example, in respect to the genetic literary approach, many scholars who have abandoned the J and Ρ division of other pencopes in Genesis will remain confident that this narrative block is proof against a poetically-based assault on source-analytic method. Parallel episodes and notices expressive of either red undant or contradictory repetition; alternative introductions and conclusions; thematic discordance in identical or nearly identical contexts; the deployment of the names Y H W H and Elohim in conjunction with other separable and respectively assignable stylistic features; such criteria seem to abound, and with such cons istency as to persuade most biblicists that this bastion of genetic analysis will yet stand when and if all the others have fallen. T h e retrieval of the flood narrative in Tablet XI of the Gilgamesh Epic and the recovery of other cuneiform texts testifying to a long and developing tradition of flood stories that culminated in Tablet XI has added yrist to the biblicists' mill. These texts have provided literary critics of the genre-oriented and source-history schools with analogical arguments and inexhaustible lodes for the comparative III

112

S T O R I E S — 1 ' T H F P RI M Κ VAL H I S T O R Y "

studies ol the developmental modalities of mythology and religion. The aeademie impetus to study literary texts for their chronological development—which is to say, (or their /1/so ο ν (as over and against their meaning or as clues to their meaning)-—is reinforced many times when several versions oi a narrative text can he cited in support of conjecture, hi my introductory chapter ίο lowarc! a Grammar I raised serious questions relating to methodologies employed in. the study of ancient literary texts, among them: the classification of texts according to gcure.s, the parameters of which remain undefined; t lie division of narrative as between the historical/historiographic (and, therefore, true) and the fictive (and, therefore, untrue); and the predisposition to determine ancient authors' metaphoric or literal intent on the assumption that their conceptual faculties were considerably weaker than our own, be those ancients pilloried pagans or Scriptures sainted seers. These questions are of particular weight for the contesting analyses, assessments, and interprerations of the various flood narratives trom Mesopotamia in Genesis, both separately and vis-à-vis one another. Our address to other biblical narrative entails a challenge to the methodologies (and the assumptions lying behind them) that inform the modern studies of both cuneiform and biblical flood traditions. This, in turn, requires a presentation and a new interpretation of Tablet XI of Gilgamesh betöre we address the biblical narrative. The risk in this procedure is that we may seem to lose sight of our main focus, the biblical material. In the hope of mitigating this risk, I will first select one or two features common to both flood traditions to illustrate the difference between the two addresses to these narratives: the conventional one, which may be fairly characterized as diachronic, developmental, historical, evolutionary, and oriented to folklore and literary source analysis; and my own, which by contrast is synchronic, ahistorical, oriented to the modalities oi hction and metaphor, and founded on l he assumption that I he mental and artistic sets of Mesopotamia!! and biblical authors arc contrasted best with those sets ot our own modern Western traditions when predicated on intellectual capacities and philosophical concerns common to both.

O N F L O O D S A N D B I R D S ; O N L I T E R A L Ν ES S A N D SOURCE

ANALYSIS

The stories of a Great Deluge in Genesis and on Tablet XI of the Gilgamesh Epic feature so many and detailed parallels that no one would ever argue that the two narratives could be unrelated. O n the other hand, it is certainly hyperbolic to claim—as some do—that a great flood, from which one human pair escaped to propagate their race, is a universal motif in mythology. The myth of Deucalion bears little resemblance to the two tales we shall discuss, and its flood element, like so many Greek motifs, may well derive trom Mesopotamia; the tales reported from widely separated societies by anthropologists may be the fruit of earlier contacts between natives and missionaries. Ecology is certainly a limiting factor in the origin of myths; no one would credit an independent flood story to the inhabitants of the Arabian or Gobi deserts. The ecology ot lower Mesopotamia, to be sure, qualifies admirably as a setting for such a story. \ct one can only wonder at the naivete of a

THE FLOODS OF NOAH AND UTNAPISHTIM ! 9 ‫ף‬

Sir Léonard Wooley, who applied the tools of archaeology to ancient silt levels in the hope of finding traces of the specific inundation that inspired the first Sumerian version of the Deluged Such is the spell of hteral-mindedness. It is a phenomenon that deserves further exploration. It begins with an assumption that a literahmindedness of a nature we should judge absurd in a twelve‫ ׳‬year-ο Id of our own twentieth century was characteristic and pervasive in the poets and scientists who were the culminations of civu li: at ion's first blossoming some four or five thousand years ago. Then, some twentyfive hundred years ago, probably in Greece, some of mankind's finest minds suddenly ceased to be literal-minded. They then proceeded to give allegorical interpretations to earlier human expressions, which had originally been intended, and were still understood by the common herd, literally. N o w w h i l e t h e s e f o r e g o i n g a s s u m p t i o n s m a y b e c o n t e m p t u o u s of t h e a n c i e n t m i n d , a n d p e r h a p s e v e n w r o n g , o u r a p p r e c i a t i o n oi t h e c i v i l i z a t i o n of a n c i e n t G r e e c e , a n d of its literary h e r i t a g e in particular, h a s n o t t h e r e b y s u s t a i n e d serious injury. W e m a y delight

it) t h e e x q u i s i t e l y s c u l p t e d

l i n e a m e n t s of a n

Apollo,

w h e t h e r t h e s c u l p t o r w o r s h i p e d h i m literally or n o t . W e m a y be inspired by t h e m e t a p h o r s w e find in m y t h s e v e n if we c a n n o t p r o v e t h a t t h e y w e r e e v e r i n t e n d e d as s u c h . A n d , in a n y case, t h e a d v e n t u r e s of A c h i l l e s a n d Ulysses are at t h e least r o u s i n g g o o d stories. B u t t h e case is d i f f e r e n t in r e g a r d t o t h e Bible, or t o a n y 1 itérat u r c f a l l i n g w i t h i n its p e n u m b r a .

The Bible is understood literally by millions today. And by many millions it is accepted as literally true, this on the strength of its truths having been revealed by God, which guarantees as true what in another source would be judged as implausible. On the other side, anyone inclined to doubt the divinely revealed nature of the Bible 01* its truth-claims finds welcome reinforcement of his inclination in the discovery that some of the Bible's stories are borrowings from Babylonian fairy tales, which is to say, they are what we recognize as fairy tales, hut which were understood and accepted as literally true by the ancient Babylonians. Yet such is the reverence accorded to the Bible that the archaeologist will find it easier to attract funds for his project if he digs in that place where he may find evidence of the natural disaster that inspired the story of Utnapishtim, which in turn inspired the biblical story of Noah. The scholar who would sneer at the thought of searching tor Noah's ark atop Mount Ararat will dig for evidence of the flood, the biblical vers ion of which he does not accept. 2 T h a t is t o say, h e d o e s n o t a c c e p t t h e b i b l i c a l story as a n a c c o u n t of w h a t a c t u ally o c c u r r e d . N o r d o e s h e a c c e p t t h e B a b y l o n i a n story as s u c h an a c c o u n t . Yet h e a s s u m e s t h a t t h e a n c i e n t w r i t e r s in Israel a n d M e s o p o t a m i a t h e m s e l v e s e i t h e r literally b e l i e v e d t h e stories t h e y w e r e t e l l i n g , or at least i n t e n d e d t h a t t h e i r a u d i e n c e s st) r e c e i v e t h e m . A n d s i n c e we h a v e a trad it ion in (‫־‬unciform of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e flood story o v e r a period ot a t h o u s a n d years at t h e least, a n d e v i d e n c e b o t h int e r n a l a n d e x t e r n a l of t h e biblical story's i n d e b t e d n e s s t o M e s o p o t a m i a ! ! versions, it is not surprising t h a t s c h o l a r s i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e story in ( w n e s i s s h o u l d t r a c e elem e n t s oi it t o t h i s or t h a t k n o w n o r h y p o t h e s i z e d Mesopotamia!‫ !׳‬v e r s i o n , even, w h i l e t h e y p u r s u e t h e d i f f e r e n t a n d o f t e n c o n t r a d i c t o r y s t r a i n s of t h e i n d i g e n o u s Isr a e l i t e a c c o u n t . B u t w h e n literary c r i t i c i s m of t h e Bible is virtually s y n o n y m o u s

114

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

w i t h s o u r c e - c r i t i c i s m , a n d w h e n s o u r c e - c r i t i c i s m g o e s h a n d - i n - h a n d w i t h t h e ass u m p t i o n o r p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e s t o r i e s w e r e m e a n t t o b e t a k e n l i t e r a l l y (i.e., as h i s t o r y , a n d n o t as f i c t i o n o r m e t a p h o r ) , t h i s c o m b i n a t i o n of a p p r o a c h e s

induces

r a t h e r strange twists a n d turns in t h e scholarly m i n d . To illustrate such aberrations w e h a v e elected to e x a m i n e o n e i n c i d e n t in t h e B a b y l o n i a n a n d biblical flood stor i e s a n d its t r e a t m e n t b y t w o p i o n e e r i n g s t u d e n t s of G e n e s i s n a r r a t i v e . I n T a b l e t X I of t h e E p i c of G i l g a m e s h , U t n a p i s h t i m t e l l s h o w t h e w o r l d w a s r a v aged b y t h e flood waters, w b i c h h a d r a g e d f o r six days: W h e n t h e s e v e n t h day arrived, I s e n t f o r t h and set tree a dove. T h e d o v e w e n t forth, Hit c a m e hack; S i n c e n o resting place for it was visible, she t u r n e d r o u n d . T h e n I s e n t f o r t h a n d set free a swallow. T h e swallow went forth, hut c a m e hack; S i n c e n o resting plaee for it appeared, she t u r n e d round. T h e n I sent f o r t h and set free a raven. T h e raven went i o r t h and, seeing t h a t t h e waters h a d d i m i n i s h e d , H e eats, circles, c a w s and turns n o t round. ( A N E T p. 95 T A B . XI pp. 1 4 6 - 1 5 4 ) In G e n e s i s we read: (6) A f t e r forty clays, N o a h o p e n e d t h e h a t c h w h i c h h e h a d m a d e in t h e ark. (7) H e released a raven, w h i c h rook off, living t h i t h e r a n d b a c k u n t i l t h e water dried up f r o m t h e e a r t h . (8) H e t h e n dispatched a d o v e , t o ascertain w h e t h e r t h e water's weight h a d eased up o n e a r t h s Mir race. (9) But t h e d o v e could find n o p e r c h for its foot a n d ret u r n e d to h i m tu t h e ark — t h e water so far-reaching over all earth's surface. H e r e a c h e d o u t and fetched it back, i n t o t h e ark. ( 1 0 ) A f t e r a wait of yet a n o t h e r s e v e n days, h e again released t h e d o v e f r o m t h e ark. (11) Toward e v e n i n g t h e d o v e r e t u r n e d to h i m , in its m o u t h a :reshly p l u c k e d olive leaf. N o a h t h e n k n e w t h a t t h e water h a d eased f r o m earth. (12) Yet a n o t h e r s e v e n days' wait, a n d h e released t h e dove; it ret u r n e d to h i m n o more. (Genesis 8:6—12) H e r m a n n G u n k e l is t h e m o s t c e l e b r a t e d t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y p i o n e e r i n t h e s t u d y of b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y of t h e n a r r a t i v e s i n G e n e s i s . F o r h i m , D e l u g e s t o r y is o n e of t h e t a l e s , a k i n t o a m y t h , t h a t c o m e s " f r o m a p e r i o d of I s r a e l ' s h i s t o r y w h e n t h e c h i l d l i k e b e l i e f of t h e p e o p l e h a d n o t y e t f u l l y a r r i v e d a t t h e c o n c e p t i o n of a d i v i n i t y w h o s e o p e r a t i o n s a r e s h r o u d e d i n m y s t e r y . " H e E n d s , h o w e v e r , t h e s e tales suffer b e c a u s e

u

that

t h e a r t of s t o r y - t e l l i n g , w h i c h i n o l d e n t i m e s w a s i n s u c h

h i g h p e r f e c t i o n , d e g e n e r a t e d i n l a t e r t i m e s ‫ מ‬I n a n u m b e r of " i n s t a n c e s w e c a n s e e t h a t t h e s t o r i e s , o r p a r t i c u l a r p o r t i o n s of t h e m , h a v e lost t h e i r c o n n e x i o n a n d w e r e a c c o r d i n g l y n o l o n g e r r i g h t l y u n d e r s t o o d . " T h e first of a h a l f - d o z e n , e x a m p l e s of t h i s is t h a t , " T h e . n a r r a t o r s d o n o t k n o w w h y N o a h s d o v e b r o u g h t p r e c i s e l y an. o l i v e

leaf" 3 Is it p o s s i b l e t h a t ‫ ״‬t h e n a r r a i o r s ‫ ״‬n o t o n l y k n e w w h y , b u t a l s o a s s u m e d t h a t e v e n t h e s i m p l e s t in t h e i r a u d i e n c e w o u l d u n d e r s t a n d w h y , w i t h o u t h a v i n g t o h a v e it. s p e l l e d o u t : A c o m p a r i s o n oi t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t w i t h t h a t g i v e n b y U t n a p i s h t i m

THE FLOODS OF NOAH A N D UTNAPISHTIM ! 9 ‫ף‬

r e v e a l s t h a t t h e p l u c k e d o l i v e l e a f is t h e v e r y o p p o s i t e of a " l o s t c o n n e x i o n ; " it is a d e t a i l a b s e n t i n U t n a p i s h t i m s a c c o u n t , a n a d d i t i o n o r i n n o v a t i o n b y t h e h a n d of t h e biblical author. Julian M o r g e n s t e r n , celebrated biblicist himself, believes that h e u n d e r s t a n d s t h e " w h y " of t h e o l i v e l e a f : T h e freshly plucked ‫ ״‬l i v e leaf showed t h a t t h e waters h a d abated sufficiently for the olive trees, w h i c h d o not reach a great h e i g h t , and do no! flourish in high altitudes, to he a b o v e water, and to he fresh and green o n c e mon.1‫־‬.‫׳‬ N o w while o n e might quibble about

t h e height a t t a i n e d by olive trees or t h e

h e i g h t of t h e a l t i t u d e s i n w h i c h t h e y f l o u r i s h , M o r g e n s t e r n s c o n j e c t u r e s h o w s a p e r c e p t i v i t y t o t h e k i n d of g a p p i n g t h a t at! o r i g i n a l a u t h o r m i g h t a r r a n g e as a c h a l l e n g e t o h i s r e a d e r s i m a g i n a t i o n . N o w c o n t r a s t t h i s literary i n s i g h t w i t h his imme‫־׳‬ dlately preceding c o m m e n t : T h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e r a v e n was sent f o r t h a n d did n o t r e t u r n is probably n o t a n i n ‫׳‬ tegral p a r t of t h e story proper, h u t must h a v e c o m e f r o m some o t h e r version of t h e m y t h . For if t h e r a v e n did n o t r e t u r n , N o a h w o u l d presumably h a v e at o n c e inferred t h a t t h e waters had already abated, just as h e did later w h e n t h e d o v e did n o t return, T h e i m p l i c i t q u e s t i o n as t o t h e l o g i c of t h e r a v e n s r e l e a s e a n d its f a i l u r e t o r e t u r n is a fine e x a m p l e o t l i t e r a r y r e a s o n i n g . N o t so, h o w e v e r , is t h e a n s w e r ( w h i c h i n g o o d d o g m a t i c f a s h i o n h e gives b e f o r e h e poses t h e q u e s t i o n ) . W h e n h e p o s t u l a t e s " s o m e o t h e r v e r s i o n of t h e m y t h " f r o m w h i c h t h e b i b l i c a l " s t o r y p r o p e r " b o r r o w e d this detail, Professor M o r g e n s t e r n reveals his k n o w l e d g e of t h e v e r s i o n w e d o h a v e , i n w h i c h t h e r a v e n a p p e a r s , is d i s p a t c h e d b y U t n a p i s h t i m , a n d f a i l s , as h e r e i n t h e B i b l e story, t o r e t u r n . W h y , for o n e t h i n g , w o u l d t h e s t o r y t e l l e r i n G e n e s i s c o m m i t s u c h a p o i n t l e s s a c t of b o r r o w i n g ; F o r a n o t h e r , if t h e i n i t i a l r e l e a s e of a r a v e n t h a t d o e s n o t r e t u r n m a k e s n o sense h e r e , w h a t s e n s e w o u l d it h a v e m a d e in t h e h y p o thetical "other version"? Perhaps Morgenstern would have been better advised to h a v e a s k e d a d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n : W h y is it t h a t t h e r a v e n , w h i c h d o e s n o t r e t u r n i n c i t h e r story, is t h e first b i r d t o b e r e l e a s e d by N o a h a n d t h e last b i r d t o b e r e l e a s e d by U t n a p i s h t i m ? T h e r e a s o n I d w e l l o n t h i s s m a l l d e t a i l at s u c h l e n g t h is t h a t it s o t e l l i n g l y a n d t y p i c a l l y e x p o s e s w h a t is r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e v a g a r i e s of s u c h fine a c a d e m i c i a n s as P r o f e s s o r s G u n k e l a n d M o r g e n s t e r n a l i k e . W h a t is r e s p o n s i b l e is a m i n d s e t c o n s i s t i n g of f o u r a s s u m p t i o n s : t h a t t h e s t o r i e s u n d e r s t u d y p r o c e e d f r o m p r i m i t i v e , if not: i n f a n t i l e , a u t h o r s ; t h a t e x p r e s s i o n s w h i c h t o u s a r e a b s u r d if t a k e n l i t e r a l l y w e r e , n e v e r t h e l e s s , i n t e n d e d l i t e r a l l y by t h e a u t h o r s ; t h a t d e t a i l s i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e t o u s a r e i n d i c a t i o n s of i m p e r f e c t t r a n s m i s s i o n o r b o t c h e d a d d i t i o n s o n t h e p a r t of i n c o m p e t e n t r e d a c t o r s ; a n d t h a t o u r f a i l u r e t o u n d e r s t a n d a n y a s p e c t of t h e n a r r a t i v e m a y b e c o n f i d e n t l y a s c r i b e d t o t h e i g n o r a n c e o r i n e p t n e s s , t h e n a ï v e t é o r i l l o g i c of a n a u t h o r or editor, r a t h e r t h a n to a deficiency in our o w n critical a c u m e n . L e t u s s t a r t w i t h a d i f f e r e n t s e t of a s s u m p t i o n s . L e t us a s s u m e t h a t s t o r y t e l l i n g — as P r o f e s s o r G u n k e l p o i n t s o u t — is a n a r t , a n d t h a t a g r e a t s t o r y t e l l e r m u s t b e p r e SLimed a g r e a t a r t i s t ; t h a t a p p a r e n t f l a w s i n a n a r t i s t i c w o r k m a y n o t b e f l a w s a t all, n e i t h e r i n a n o r i g i n a l s o u r c e , n o r o c c a s i o n e d i n t h e w o r k b e f o r e us i n t h e p r o c e s s of t r a n s m i s s i o n ; t h a t u n l e s s w e s h a r e w i t h t h e a n c i e n t s a u n i v e r s e of d i s c o u r s e ( c a t e -

116

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

gories of logic and experience, humor, irony, metaphor, and other rhetorical devices, etc.) it is futile to study their works tor meaning; and, finally, that when we have two versions of one traditional narrative especially when we can set them in chronological order the study of their similarities and differences may reveal different and similar perspectives, without disparagement to the artistic integrity ot either or hoth. A n d now, so equipped, let us go on to the birds. Neither N o a h nor Utnapishtim wittingly released a first or a last bird. Neither knew, at the time of dispatch, that the first bird would not be the last, or that the last bird would be the last. 111 Utnapishtims case, there are three releases of a different bird each time, in the order of clove, swallow, and raven, in the case of N o a h there are four releases, but only two birds: first the raven, then, three times, the dove. In U t n a p i s h t i m s case, the first two birds return because t h e flood waters deny t h e m a perch. T h e last, the raven, does not return because the waters have receded. In Noah's case, the first b i r d — t h e r a v e n — s e e m s not to return, despite the prevalence of the flood waters. T h e clove returns twice, once empty-billed, t h e second time with the olive leaf; t h e third time it stays away. W h y does t h e poet-author of the Utnapishtim story arrange the birds in t h e order that he does? A likely answer may lie in the tlying range that he attributes to them. 5 T h e dove and the swallow (if we can be sure of this second bird's identity) travel long distances: the dove, kin of the carrier and homing pigeons, flies afar and is trusted to return; and t h e migratory swallow is one of the first species to return in the spring. T h e raven (like its kin, the crow) does not, for good reason, and reason apposite to our story, migrate or stray very far; it remains quite close to home. Utnapishtim knows that the waters must be receding; the question is how far away (or rather, how far down the mountain slope) have the waters retreated; for Utnapishtim is perched on a barren peak far above the timherline. Somewhere below t h e waters stretch: above or below the timberhne: A n d since cloves coo and swallows chirp or twitter, whose but the ravens croak could so fittingly supply the grimly raucous note ot this episodes closing line: "1 le cats, circles !looking for more food.'], caws, and turns not back!" In the Genesis story, t h e same basic elements are prcseni; the metaphor, however, is differently deployed. T h e range of the dove, as in the Utnapishtim tale, is wide. T h e height of the water level is here expressed, however, in this one bird's three responses to its release: returning empty-billed the first time, with the olive leaf t h e second, and not at all the third. Rut what of the raven, which was dispatched first? T h e standard translations render the verbs describing the raven's activity along the lines of "went to and fro." Only a rendering along the lines of our own is faithful to the Hebrew, which literally reads, "it left, leaving and returning," the normal Hebrew way for expressing the repetition or continuance of an action. T h e raven kept coming back to the ark and leaving it. W h y do all t h e translations misrepresent the Hebrew? Obviously b e c a u s e — i n an inversion of Morgensterns a r g u m e n t — t h e raven c a n n o t return according to the story's logic! If t h e raven returned, Noah could have dispatched the same bird a second time. Furthermore, it is not told ot the raven as it is of the dove that Noah reached out and pulled it back into the ark. T l u o do translators, missing the point, conceal the clue from the readers who depend on them for faithful rendering. In

T H E FLOODS OF N O A H A N D U T N A P I S H T I M ! 9 ‫ף‬

both narratives there is clearly dry ground; if not in the vicinity of the ark, atop the ark itself, for the birds to alight upon. T h e perching-place, the "resting-place for its foot Γ is therefore a metaphor for a condition making for survival: until edible vegetation is uncovered, the dove must return to the ark for food. But the raven? 11a! says t:11e Genesis storyteller: the raven proves an !independable harbinger indeed! Neither his return to perch atop the ark nor his ability to do without the food in the ark signifies anything about the retreat of the water. The raven (Iron! whom derives our adjective 11 ravenous" hungry to the point of omnivorousness) gluts on carrion. And so, in the aftermath of the deluge, the appearance of the world as the waters begin to subside is captured in the same image, in Utnapishtims last, and N o a h s first, bird dispatched: a watery waste, bloated corpses floating here and there, in invitation to nature's few surviving scavengers. Before we proceed to a poetical analysis of Tablet XI of the Gilgamesh Epic, let us examine one more example of scholarly literal-mindedness and the absurdity of the absurdity it imputes to the biblical text. T h e dimensions of the biblical ark are 300 cubits in length, 50 cubits in width, and 30 cubits in height. Professor Morgenstern correctly notes, "The Hebrew word tebah, generally translated ark, really means a kind of box. T h e same word is used for the little basket or box in which the babe Moses was placed." He then adds, "The use of the word here shows how altogether deficient was our ancestors' knowledge of seafaring. T h e ark is here represented as a rectangular shaped box, divided into three stories, which floated with exactly half its volume in the water and half above." 6 A fully loaded craft might well sit so low in the water, although propelling it might present its captain with a serious problem. T h e Israelites, whose King Solomon built a far-ranging maritime fleet, would have known that houseboats had not yet been invented, and —without question—that the word tebah means box or chest. A n d knowing all this, would they have missed the point? Noah's ark, a rectangular box without keel or rudder built, according to divinely revealed specifications, without bow, stern, or helm, was designed to go nowhere, except‫ ־‬where it would be carried by currents dictated by Providence. But such a metaphor can hardly account for the specifications dictated by divinitv for Utnapishtim s craft‫־‬. Except for its roof, which was curved ' , like the sky"-• to shed the rain, of course-—Utnapishtim s vessel, which is called a shifty measured 1 20 cubits in each direction, a perfect cube! Arid this addressed to a people w 11 ose marine technology has inspired numerous scholarly articles and at least one monograph!

THE

B A B Y L O N I A N FLOOD STORY

A ship in the shape of a cube: this absurdity of nautical design is the clue to the larger design, of our narrator. From beginning to end the tale of Utnapishtim is a concatenation of absurdities. A n d when the absurdities are seen as intentional, everyone will bear witness that in this section of the Gilgamesh Epic the poet s inspirarion is the muse of comedy. Our author is, as before, a master rhetorician, but here the tones of his rhetoric are those of sarcasm and irony, the subtlety oi‫ ־‬bathos and the ribaldry of lampoon.

136

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

T h e n o t e is s t r u c k i n t h e first l i n e of T a b l e t X I i n t h e a d d r e s s of G i l g a m e s h t o " U t n a p i s h t i m t h e F a r a w a y . " I n t h e c o l l o q u i a l i d i o m of A m e r i c a t o d a y , t h e s e n s e of U t n a p i s h t i m ' s e p i t h e t is — as w e s h a l l s e e — m o r e f e l i c i t o u s l y c o n v e y e d b y

"Ut-

n a p i s h t i m t h e bar-out." G i l g a m e s h s words: ( ï i l g a m e s h said to h i m , to U t n a p i s h t i m t h e Faraway: "As I look upon thee, U t n a p i s h t i m , T h y features are nor strange; e v e n as I art t h o u . Thou art not strange at all; even as I art t h o u . My heart had regarded t h e e as resolved to do hat tie, I Yet] t h o u liest indolent upon thy back! [Tell me,] h o w joindest thou t h e Assembly of t h e gods In thy quest for lite;‫ ( ״‬A N E T p. y ^ T A B . XI 1 - 8 ) " More recent research into the A k k a d i a n formulation seems to indicate a somewhat different translation: one that would have Gilgamesh himself charging into Utnapishtim's presence resolved to do battle, and suddenly

finding

his o w n sword-

a r m g o n e slack, his resolve d r a i n e d by t h e u n e x p e c t e d l y u n f o r m i d a b l e a p p e a r a n c e of t h i s m o r t a l w h o h a s j o i n e d t h e A s s e m b l y of t h e g o d s . G i l g a m e s h , w h o i n t i t a n i c s t r u g g l e h a d o v e r c o m e t h e m o n s t r o u s H u w a w a , g u a r d i a n of t h e C e d a r F o r e s t , h a d e x p e c t e d n o less a c o n t e s t b e f o r e h e m i g h t w r e s t f r o m a v a n q u i s h e d

Utnapishtim

t h e s e c r e t of i m m o r t a l i t y . 7 Y e t a l l t h e fight is d r a i n e d o u t of h i m n o w t h a t h e f a c e s t h i s i m m o r t a l , o h so h u m a n

a n d o h so m e e k . H i s q u e s t i o n t h e n r i n g s w i t h

in-

c r e d u l i t y : H o w c a m e y o u , of all p e o p l e , t o w i n s u c h a p r i z e ? U t n a p i s h t i m s r e p l y : I will reveal to thee, G i l g a m e s h , a h i d d e n m a t t e r A n d a secret ot t h e gods will I tell t h e e : S h u r i p p a k — a city w h i c h t h o u knowestg [And) w h i c h o n Euphrates' [banks] is situate — T h a t city was ancient:, t h e gods w i t h i n it, W h e n t h e i r heart: led the great gods t o p r o d u c e t h e flood. ( A N F T p. 0‫ י י‬Τ Α Κ XI. !ο

1 5)

T h e first: q u e s t i o n t h a t m u s t b e a s k e d is w h a t is t h e " h i d d e n m a t t e r , s e c r e t oi t h e g o d s " t h a t U t n a p i s h t i m is a b o u t t o d i s c l o s e 7 It. c a n n o t b e t h e s t o r y of t h e f l o o d itsell, lor t h e a u t h o r k n o w s t h a t v a r i o u s v e r s i o n s of t h e llood s t o r y a r c c u r r e n t . ( W e , w h o d o n o t h a v e a n y ot t h o e v e r s i o n s i n t a c t a n d c a n n o t c o m p a r e t h e m t o a s c e r t a i n w h a t n o v e l t y U t n a p i s h t i m is r e v e a l i n g f o r t h e first t i m e , w i l l o n l y b e a b l e t o g u e s s a t t h e a n s w e r . ) In g e n e r a l , h o w e v e r , a n u m b e r of t h i n g s a b o u t t h i s n a r r a t i v e c a l l f o r n o t i c e . O i all t h e m y t h s a n d t a l e s r e l a t i n g a c t i v i t i e s of t h e g o d s , t h i s o n e s t a n d s o u t in t h a t t h e t e l l e r of t h e m y t h is i n a p o s i t i o n t o k n o w , f o r h e w a s h i m s e l f a p a r t i c i p a n t . T h i s itself w o u l d s e e m t o l e n d t h e s p e a k e r ' s t a l e a m e a s u r e of c r e d i bility; y e t t h e b a r d will n o t h e s i t a t e t o let U t n a p i s h t i m s v o i c e m e r g e , at t i m e s , w i t h h i s o w n , t h e v o i c e of t h e o m n i s c i e n t n a r r a t o r , w h e n h e d e s c r i b e s e v e n t s t o w h i c h U t n a p i s h t i m c o u l d n o t p o s s i b l y h a v e b e e n a w i t n e s s ( t h e s c e n e of t h e g o d s o n t h e i r m o u n t a i n r e t r e a t , f o r e x a m p l e , a t a t i m e w h e n U t n a p i s h t i m is l o c k e d i n his box bobbing on the

flood

w a t e r s ) . By m a k i n g L J t n a p i s h t i m t h e

participant-

t e l l e r of t h e t a l e t o G i l g a m e s h , t h e a u t h o r m a n a g e s t o m a n i p u l a t e s e v e r a l l e v e l s of t i m e , t h u s : E e v e l I, t h e p r e s e n t t i m e of t h e a u t h o r a n d r e a d e r , t h a t is, w h e n t h e a u t h o r oi: t h e e n t i r e E p i c is u d o r c s s i n g h i s a u d i e n c e ; E e v e l II, t h e p r e s e n t t i m e of t h e

THE FLOODS OF NOAH A N D UTNAPISHTIM

!

9‫ף‬

narrative, when Utnapishtim is addressing Gilgamesh; Level ill, the past time of the narrator, that is, after Gilgamesh has heard the story; and Level IV, the remoter past, that is, the past time of Utnapishtim's narrative, the time of the Deluge. The site of ancient Shurippak, identified by archaeologists, lies today more than twenty miles distant from the Euphrates. The Euphrates has changed its course several times in the past: several millennia, and so we cannot know whether there is an incongruity in Utnapishtim's locating it on the river. If it did indeed lie on the river in the times of Levels I and II, there would appear to be something prolix in Utnapishtim's assured aside that Gilgamesh must know of this famous city, but at the same time locating it for him. as though there may have been another town by the same (improbable/) name, (Compare, for example, "Washington, D.C. on the Potomac" or "New York City on the Hudson") Rut there is a tongue-in-cheek qualit y that is unquestionable in the words "a city which thou knowest;" lor how could Gilgamesh possibly know Utnapishtim's city of yore, Shurippak-on-the-Euphrates, when the all ‫׳‬destroy ing flood had intervened between Levels 11 and IV:' Utnapishtim talks of Shurippak as though it were not the first but the only city on earth (what need then for a name?), itself the ancient home of the great gods Anu, Eni il, Ninurta, and Ea, until they determined to lay world and mankind w^aste. From fragments of other versions of the deluge story the motive for this decision appears as mankind's noisy rambunctiousness (in Enuma elish the motive for Apsu's hostility to the younger gods) or earth's overpopulation by humanity. Here, Utnapishtim mentions the decision without a word as to motive, as though a capricious decision on the part of the gods to doom humankind, together with the implicit doom of the rest of earth's fauna, is nothing to occasion surprise. Similarly, without any reason given, the god Ea determines to save Utnapishtim, and to that end reveals the danger to him. Ea conveys the decision of the gods in these words: Reed-hut, reed-hut! Wall, wail! Reed-hut, hearken! Wall reflect! Man of Shuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu, Tear down [:his] home, build a ship! Give up possessions, seek thou life. Forswear [worldly] goods and keep the soul alive! Aboard the ship take thou the seed of all living things. l i e r d i m e n s i o n s shall he to measure.

Equal shall he her width and bei length Like t h e Apsu t h o u shall ceil her. ( A N E T p. <>3 T A B . XI 2 [ - 3 1 )

The reed-hut‫ ־‬here evokes an association with the most ancient form of lower Mesopotamia!! temple architecture. The context of disclosure, therefore, can only be a widely attested divinatory phenomenon known as the "incubation dream." That is, a divine revelation which is granted a person who spends the night in a sanctuary, sometimes to one who has entered it in the hope of receiving such a message. (Biblical examples are the revelation to Samuel in I Samuel ‫ י‬and to Solomon in I Kings 3:3-15·) But why should Ea first address the wall of the reedhut and then Utnapishtim himself? The ship which is to be built, so we are compolled to infer, is to be made of the materials of the house which the man (i.e. lord)

I 2ο

ΝΤΟ Ri KS — " Τ Η Κ P R I M E V A L

HISTORY"

of S h u r i p p a k is to tear d o w n . But ships a r e m a d e ot w o o d w h i l e h o u s e s are m a d e of clay b r i c k ! U t n a p i s h t i m , obiivu>us t o s u c h n o n s e n s e , c o n t i n u e s : "I understood, and I said to Ha, my lord: '[Behold], my lord, what thou hast, ordered, I will be honored to carry out . [But what] shall I answer the city, the people and elders Τ " N o t a w o r d h a s b e e n said a b o u t an i m p e n d i n g c a t a s t r o p h e . B u t U t n a p i s h t i m , by a m a s t e r - s t r o k e of d e d u c t i o n d i v i n e s , so to s p e a k , t h a t a l e a d - e n c a s e d s u b t e r r a n e a n s h e l t e r c a n o n l y b e i n t e n d e d as a p r e c a u t i o n a g a i n s t a n assault by n u c l e a r b o m b s . H e also u n d e r s t a n d s t h e " h o n o r " Ea h a s b e s t o w e d u p o n h i m , a n d t h a t t h e real re as o n for t h e s h i p m u s t b e k e p t secret l r o m t h e s e n a t e a n d p o p u l u s of S h u r i p p a k w h o m i g h t d i v i n e t h e r e a s o n for t h e s h e l t e r a n d b e m i f f e d by t h e i r o w n e x c l u s i o n f r o m s u c h h o n o r , b l o w a c h i e v e this? Ea opened his mouth to speak, Saying to me, his servant: T h o u shalt then thus speak unto them: "I have learned that Enlil is hostile to me, So that I cannot reside in your city, N o r set my foot in Enlil's territory. T o t h e D e e p I will t h e r e f o r e go d o w n , T o d w e l l w i t h m y lord Ea. (But u p o n 1 you h e will s h o w e r a b u n d a n c e , I T h e choicest I birds, t h e rarest hshes. | Ί h e l a n d s h a l l h a v e its till! oi h a r v e s t

riches.

(l ie w h o a t d u s k o r d e r s ] t h e h u s k - g r e e n s , W i l l s h o w e r d o w n u p o n y o u :1 r a i n oi w h e a t . ‫י י‬

Ea s a d v i c e f e a t u r e s a m i x t u r e of sense a n d n o n s e n s e . Enlil is a c o s m i c g o d — n o t a local S h u r i p p a k i a n d e i t y — a n d Ea is n o t (like N e p t u n e ) a se a - g o d , so t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n of flight f r o m t h e security ot s h o r e t o t h e h a : a r d s of sea is n o t likely t o satisfy t h e a p p a r e n t l y s e n s i b l e q u e s t i o n e r s . T h e t e x t ot t h e last t w o lines, as o u r t r a n s l a t o r ( S p e i s e r ) i n f o r m s us, " f e a t u r e s w o r d - p l a y s in t h a t b o t h kukku

a n d kibati m a y des ig-

n a t e e i t h e r f o o d or m i s f o r t u n e . , . W i l y Ea ρ !ays o n t h i s a m b i g u i t y : T o t h e p o p u l a c e t h e s t a t e m e n t w o u l d b e a p r o m i s e of prosperity; t o U t n a p i s h t i m it w o u l d signalize t h e i m p e n d i n g deluge." S o m e f o r t y - o d d lines later, h e t r a n s l a t e s t h e s a m e words, w h e r e t h e y serve as t h e signal t o U t n a p i s h t i m t h a t t h e i m p e n d i n g d e l u g e is a b o u t t o b e g i n , in o n l y o n e s e n s e of t h e d o u b l e e n t e n d r e : He who orders unease at night, Will shower down a rain of blight. ( A N E T p. 04 TAR XI 8 6 - 8 7 ) T h e f u n at t h e e x p e n s e of u n s u s p e c t i n g m a n k i n d is close t o t h e h u m o r of t h e gallows variety. T h e r e is s o m e t h i n g m a c a b r e a b o u t t h e reversal of m e t a p h o r : "shower," a m e t a p h o r for t h e blessing of f r u c t i f y i n g r a m s , b e c o m e s a " s h o w e r of a b u n d a n c e , " in t h e sense of u n e x p e c t e d t o r r e n t s of rain. T h e s c e n e c o n j u r e d u p for us, of m a n k i n d b e i n g p e l t e d — l i t e r a l l y — b y a r a i n of birds a n d hsh, h a s a c o m i c - s t r i p vividness. It r e s o n a t e s also w i t h o u r o w n ( i n c o n g r u o u s ) m e t a p h o r : " r a i n i n g cats a n d dogs."

'Γ H Η FLOODS OF NOAH AND UTNAIMSHTI M

i2i

T h e r e follows a description of t h e building of the vessel and its provisioning: One [whole] acre was her floor space, Ten dozen cubits the height oi eacb of bar walls,

Ten dozen cubits each edge of the square deck. I laid out the contours (and) joined her together.

I provided her with six decks, Dividing her thus into seven parts . . . I saw to the punting-poles and laid in supplies, {AXET p. 93 T A B XI 5 6 - 6 2 , 64)

A cubit equals approximately a foot and a half. Thus, w h e n it comes to t h e launch‫•׳‬ ing of t h e vessel, 180 feet h i g h — r o u g h l y the height of a fifteen-story a p a r t m e n t b u i l d i n g — a n d of equal d i m e n s i o n in length and breadth, U t n a p i s h t i m ' s work is laid out for h i m . A n d as if this were n o t ludicrous enough, our h e r o sees "to t h e punting-poles" as t h o u g h t h e vessel to be propelled were a raft! W h e r e did h e get these poles, w h i c h would h a v e h a d to be at least one h u n d r e d fifty feet in l e n g t h if, as we are soon told, two-thirds of t h e superstructure w e n t into t h e water? W h o could h a v e plied such monstrous beams, and where did t h e punters stand? A n d w h i c h of t h e world's mighty rivers, let alone t h e Euphrates, could a c c o m m o d a t e a ship t h a t e x t e n d s 120 feet below t h e water line? W e shall skip t h e details of t h e s h i p s provisioning, its lading w i t h gold a n d s 11ver a n d some 16,000 gallons of oil ( t h e caulking consumed 4 8 , 0 0 0 gallons of bitum e n , 24,000 gallons of asphalt, a n d 24,000 to 32,000 gallons of oil); t h e embarkation of family, kin, retainers, craftsmen, beasts of t h e field, and creatures of t h e wild. S o also shall we skip the vivid description of the onset of t h e deluge. We resume with citation of o n e of the poem's most o f t - q u o t e d passages: T h e gods were frightened h y the delude, A n d shrinking back, they ascended to the heaven or Ann. T h e gods cowered like dt )gs Crouched against the outer walk Ishtar cried out like a woman in travail, T h e sweet-voicecl mistress of the gods moans aloud: "The olden days are alas turned to clay, Because I bespoke evil in the Assembly of the gods. How could 1 bespeak evil in the Assembly of the gods, Ordering battle for the destruction of my people, W h e n it is I myself who gave birth to my people! Like the spawn of t h e fishes they fill the sea!" ( A N ET p. 04 TAB. XI 1 1 3 - 1 2 3 )

T h e fortress-like castle of t h e gods is visualized as sited o n t h e top of a cosmic m o u n t a i n , its b a t t l e m e n t s reaching into t h e cloud-enshrouded " h e a v e n of Anu." T h e flood waters h a v e m o u n t e d t h a t high and are n o w beating against t h e outer walls. O n t h e o t h e r side of t h e wall t h e gods cower, fearful t h a t t h e wall will collapse or t h e water rise higher a n d c o m e spilling over the top. T h e y cower like dogs. T h i s less t h a n reverent stance toward t h e gods on t h e part of t h e E p i c s a u t h o r has long b e e n recognized, its implications, however, never worked out for t h e story as a whole. Similarly u n r e m a r k e d is t h e significance ot rhe picture t h e a u t h o r gives here of t h e "sweet:-voiced mistress of t h e gods" ( C o n t r a s t this epithet with h e r strident

122

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

threats against Enkidu, Gilgamesh, and Anu when Gilgamesh, according to Ishtar, "has recounted my stinking deeds, my stench and my foulness") Ishtar's heartlessness toward the human race, the children to whom she herself has given birth, is self-admitted. That she is brought to a sense of remorse only by the threat to her own survival is another giveaway of the poet's estimate of her character. The poet's genius for sardonic comedy is most fully realized in the bathetic climax of the last line, a simile expressive of Ishtar's grotesque psychology: "Like the spawn of fishes they fill the sea." For the teeming schools of fish, water is their natural element, their life-sustaining environment. But for gill-less mankind? It is as though a mother today, bereaved of her entire brood by a sinking at sea, were to bring her tale of grief to a climactic wail: Ό , in the briny broth they lie, like herring salted in a barrel!" Such a simile, in a modern short story, would be likely to evoke a smile if not a laugh. But in poetry, and coming from the mouth of the goddess of love and procreation, only its grotesqueness might preclude hilarity. The cuhc-shaped vessel is completed on the seventh day; the flood-storm subsides on the seventh day; the ship grounds on Mount Nlisir and is held last lor six days, and on the seventh day the birds arc released. If, as we suggested, the order in which Utnapishtim releases the birds reflects his perception of their ranges oi flight, then his reasoning is absurd. What connection can be inferred from the juxtaposition of the level of the waters as they progressively recede and the differing distances various birds might travel .;‫ א‬Whichever bird failed to come back would indicate that somewhere below vegetation had been uncovered. Except, of course, for the last bird, the raven whose failure to return at high tide or low would, given its omnivorous diet, prove (as Noah learned) nothing. Following the notice of the crow's release ("the raven went forth and, seeing that the waters had diminished, he eats, circles, caws, and turns not round") we read: T h e n I let o u t [all] to t h e four winds and offered a sacrifice. I p o u r e d o u t a l i b a t i o n o n t h e t o p of t h e m o u n t a i n . S e v e n a n d s e v e n cult-vessels I set up, U p o n t h e i r p o t - s t a n d s I h e a p e d c a n e , c e d a r w o o d and myrtle. T h e gods smelled t h e savor, T h e gods smelled t h e sweet savor, T h e gods crowded like flies a b o u t t h e sacrifie er. W h e n at l e n g t h as t h e great goddess arrived, S h e lifted up t h e great jewels w h i c h A n u h a d f a s h i o n e d to h e r liking: u Ye gods h e r e , as surely as this lapis u p o n my neck I shall n o t forget, 1 shall be m i n d f u l of these days, forgetting [them] never. Let t h e gods c o m e t o t h e öfter ing [But] let n o t Enlil c o m e to t h e ottering, For he, u n r e a s o n i n g , brought o n t h e deluge A n d my people c o n s i g n e d to destruction." ( A N E T p. 95 T A B . XI 155-06(.)) 11ère, t o o , it h a s l o n g b e e n r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e c o m p a r i s o n of t h e g o d s ( w h o h a v e g o n e u n f e d f o r t w o w e e k s o r m o r e ) t o flics s w a r m i n g g r e e d i l y o v e r h o n e y is a s i m i l e s c a r c e l y d e s i g n e d t o f l a u e r t h e m . Bui a g a i n it is I s h t a r w h o , m a k i n g a d r a m a t ic a p p e a r a n c e , is m a d e t o u t t e r a v o w t h a i is a m a s t e r p i e c e of b a t h o s . T o r e v e r t t o o u r a n a l o g y oi a m o t h e r t o d a y s u d d e n l y b e r e i t oi h e r e n t i r e b r o o d , s h e w o u l d as

THE FLOODS OF N O A H A N D U T N A P I S H T I M ! 9 ‫ף‬

soon forget the cataclysm that took them from her (in this case, a cataclysm to which she has confessed herself a consenting accomplice) as she is likely to lose or misplace her favorite necklace! Lapis was then, as it is today, a semiprecious stone. The necklace therefore is a trinket made for his child by Daddy Anu. And, as if this betrayal of her ludicrous scale of values—an entire race rendered comparable to a string of stones—were not comedy enough, she continues with a petulant ad‫׳‬ dit ion. It is she who is the hostess at the banquet spread by Utnapishtim; the lost children were, after all, hers. That rascal Enlil is not invited to the w a k e — n o share for him m the funeral meats! Utnapishtim continues his story; W h e n at length as Enlil arrived, A n d saw t h e ship. Knlil was w r o t h , H e was filled w i t h w r a t h over t h e igigi gods: "Has some living soul escaped? N o m a n was to survive the d e s t r u c t i o n ! " ( A N E T p. 95 T A B . XV J 7 0 - 1 7 3 )

Enlil's anger upon seeing the ship owes to the thwarting of the decree that he pushed through the assembly of the gods. Not: a single human was to survive. The presence of the ship, he reasons, is evidence that the divine will has been fir ustrated. Someone must have escaped. His reasoning is faultless, as far as it goes. But it never occurs to Enlil to ask why it was necessary, in order to harbor one human couple, to construct a craft with a volume of some six million cubic feet and almost a quarter-mi 11 ion square feet of deck space. One wonders what intuition led him to recognize a ship at all in a cube seven stories high, containing sixty-three compartments, into each of which could have fitted three temples the size of King Solomon's! In any case, Enlil was bemused in some other important business at the time that the seven-story floating hotel had opened its doors to disembark its passengers, that they might begin the business of repopulating the world. The god Ninurta suggests that only Ε a could have had the wit to thwart the decree of the gods. Ea speaks up: first, addressing Enid as "thou wisest of gods, thou hero," he upbraids Enlil for his unreasoning bringing on of the deluge, with its indiscriminate destruction of sinner and innocent alike, when other means would have provided punishment to fit the crime. (As noted earlier, there was no motive for the flood decree, hence no crime to speak of.) He then goes on to disclaim responsibility tor the disclosure of the secret: It was not I w h o disclosed t h e secret of t h e great, gods, ί let At rah as is ) U t n a p i s h t i m ] see a d r e a m t A n d h e p e r c e i v e d t h e secret of t he gods. ! : ‫י‬ N o w t h e n t a k e c o u n s e l in regard to him. ( A N E T \\ 95 T A B . XI, 186

188)

Is it only the obtuse Enlil wdio is being ridiculed, or does the author also target the slippery wiliness of Ea? Eor Ea first challenges Enlil on the score of a decision that he did not himself, apparently, challenge in the Assembly He then disavows responsibility for disclosing the secret of the gods, but not totally. He did let the cat out of the hag by letting Utnapishtim "see a dream Γ from which the mortal deduced everything. We now can understand why the incubation-dream is introduced by an address to the reed-hut and its walls, rather than to Utnapishtim. But

124

STORIES — " Γ H Ε P RIM E VA L HI ST( )HY"

the detailed instructions that Utnapishtim received about the building and stocking of the vessel, the answer with which to put oft the populace, the clever code announcing the flood's o n s e t — a l l these would lead us to conclude that Ea is, at the least, disingenuous. This polite word for liar is appropriate, however. Ea is not so much concerned with exculpating himself as he is with baiting Enlil, with exposing his imbecility. A fair analogy would be Aeschylus picturing Prometheus pleading—and Zeus swallowing the p l e a — t h a t he gave no knowledge to mankind; he was merely talking in his sleep, reviewing the logarithm and periodic tables, in the fortuitous presence of an overnight guest! Enlil does not disappoint. In response to Ea's closing c h a l l e n g e — i n effect, "Now what are you going to do about it Γ — w h a t does Enlil actually do? He sees to it that the will of the gods will not, after all, have been successfully defied. N o man was to survive the destruction? Utnapishtim, a mortal man, has survived? Well, that too can be fixed. Utnapishtim continues: Thereupon Enlil went aboard the ship. Holding me by the hand, h e took me aboard. Ile took my wife aboard and made [her] kneel hy my side. Standing between us, he touched our foreheads to bless us: 'Ί lit her I ο Utnapishtim has been but human. Henceforth Utnapishtim and his wife shall be like unto us gods. Utnapishtim shall reside far away, at the mouth oi the rivers.'" Thus they took me and made me resit le lar away,

At the mouth of the rivers. But now, who will for thy sake call the gods to Assembly That the life thou seekest thou ma vest find: ( A N E T p. 95 T A B . XI 1 8 9 - 1 9 8 )

Since humans have survived contrary to the will of the gods, Mr. Fixit Enlil will negate this frustration by eliminating the surviving humans. T h e comic scene here is a parody of solemnity. Enlil leads Utnapishtim and wife back on to the ship, which he will presumably waft through the air from Mount Nisir to the faraway "mouth of the rivers." The lines ot his benediction recall the joke of some decades ago w h e n Roman Catholics were expccred to abstain from meat on Fridays. A fresh convert to Catholicism, surprised by his priest on a Friday over a beefsteak dinner, is asked how he could so quickly forget his instruction and eat meat o n a fast day. H e replies, "Father, you sprinkled me with holy water and said, 'You were a Jew, you are now a Christian.' So I sprinkled the steak and said, 1You were a beefsteak, you are now a fish.'" It is the sophomoric humor in the joke that provides the analoguc with Enid's solution of his problem. But the joke can be read two ways: the sly convert teasing his new mentor, or the foolish convert w h o thinks reality can be changed by a pronouncement. In the case ot Enlil there can be n o question as to who is being lampooned. For Enlil s fatuousness is boundless. He does not really make Utnapishtim into a god, does not admit him to the pantheon as even a minor deity. 1 Ic merely removes him from time and history, to the never-never-land "at t h e m o u t h of t h e rivers"

t h e g a r d e n of‫ ׳‬E d e n e - w h e r e ho c a n live in m e a n i n g l e s s

eternity: a condition reflected at the very beginning of Tablet XI, where ( hlgamesh was struck by IJt napisht im's appearance: ungodlike, human oh, so human and, at that, a humanity l e a l u r e d by an eerily ! i n h u m a n impassive passivity.

THE FLOODS OF NOAH A N D UTNAPISHTIM ! 9 ‫ף‬

T H E B A B Y L O N I A N F L O O D S T O R Y AS A C R I T I Q U E O F

PAGANISM

Violence is the life of nature. Conflict is the stuff of history. This is as true tor us as it was tor our pagan ancestors, but with a difference. For us there is a discontinuity between the two realms. Nature's violence is, for us, either the eruption of impersonal forces in haphazard purposelessness, or abstract principles operating in iron necessity determined by the law of cause and effect. History's conflicts are events precipitated by human needs and passions. Nature's events are, for us, either random and inscrutable, or so rigidly patterned as to be ultimately reducible η ‫ י‬the mathematical formulae of science; whether random or regulated, they are infinitely repeatable. History's events are discrete and unique, for history is story: persons and their actions, character and plot. Needs and passions may be repeated and plot lines fall in congruent patterns, but characters are unique, so even "the same old story" is never quite the same. You cannot step into the same river twice, for even if the river is the same, you arc not the person you were. For the pagan, nature and history are much more a continuum. Natural forces are personified, their actions the result of purposing characters who create plots — story lines — as they work out their needs and passions. As the gods arc superhumans, humans are somewhat deficient gods. And so it is that in paganism history and science blend. Everything is story: myth, in which the adventures oi the gods predominate although human c haracters may appear; and legend, the historic adventures of human beings, in which the gods may act a role. 1 he line between, myth and legend is, therefore, not always easy 1 ο draw. 1 he Enuma dish is clearly a myth, as is the Story of Utnapishtim. The Epic of Cilgamesh, in which the gods play minor roles, is a mythopoeic legend incorporating within it such totally mythic elements as Ishtar and the Hull of Heaven, the ereation of Enkidu, and the independent Utnapishtim story, all of which are m tegrated by the author into his plot. The mythic Ishtar, who is the insatiable seductress of fabulous beasts and legendary humans, is quite different from the mentally incompetent mother of humanity in the flood story. The author made use of traditional material in drawing the various lineaments of the two ishtars, and there can be little question that the stamp of his own philosophic and comic genius has left its impress on both the essence and form of the goddess, which he received trom tradition. It is likely that a significant proportion of the audience accepted the story literally. But the widespread and enduring popularity of the epic, the intuitive sense of even the literalists that there was some important message in the deluge story, and the sophistication of the non-literalists in the audience, all combined, suggest this: As the story of Gilgamesh rang with existential truth for the ancient audience in terms of its experience of man's lusts for love and power, anxiety over illness, and dread of death, so did the mythic metaphors largely accord with the audiene e s theological heritage. A n d t h e p i c t u r e of t h e r u l i n g c l a s s of t h e w o r l d , t h e i n v i s i b l e g o d s w h o a r e m a n ifest in w h a t t h e y d o a n d h a v e d o n e , r a t h e r t h a n in t h e i r p e r s o n a l p r e s e n c e , is what.' A

close analogy

is p r o v i d e d

by a t h e m e f r e q u e n t l y e x p l o i t e d

in

science

i i c t t o n : A r a c e oi i n c r e d i b l y l o n g - l i v e d c r e a t u r e s w h o h a v e i n h e r i t e d I r o m t h e i r remo i e ancestors an unbelievably a d v a n c e d

technology

w h o s e scientific base

has

126

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫' י‬

long been lost to them. These surviving heirs of powers they never earned are a mixed bag in terms of intellect, maturity, and decency. And theirs are the lingers on the buttons! A difficult lot to love, these lords of creation, but impossible not to fear. One can be grateful for those of them who support the rational and life•‫׳‬ enhancing principles and institutions of mankind. One can only hope to enlist their aid through worship in warding off their baser, or more capricious, or moronic, cob leagues. And as for poking ridicule at them by portraying them as they are, perhaps being no brighter than so many in the human audience, they will follow the plot literally and, forgetting what gods should really be like, will take no offense. This last sentence is, of course, written with tongue in cheek. ït points, however, to a weighty conclusion that must be drawn from our poets satiric stance. One does not jeer at those one fears. And our poet's fearlessness bespeaks his disbelief in the gods whom he lampoons. In the section to follow, in our comparison of the two flood narratives, we shall see that the biblical author eliminated the jokes and mitigated the absurdities, for to him the attributes of divinity arc not a laughing matter. Rut neither were they a laughing matter tor the author of the Oilgamesh Epic. The mythic Utnapishtim can be and is lampooned. But Gilgamesh, in his rejection of deal h and in his quest for eternal life, is every one of us. l ie, like us, may be defeated. But can his creator accept the theology he has inherited; Can he make his peace with a theology that posits a race of capricious supermenby-chance, who mock the canons of reason and jeer at the demands of the human heart: Biblical monotheism, of which Abraham seems to be the first champion, seems to have sprouted from the inhospitable soil of paganism as if a spore waited to earth from outer space. The text of the Gilgamesh Epic that has conic down to us is a late Assyrian version. What we are suggesting is that perhaps a millennium earlier, in Babylon, a genius weaned himself from the outworn pagan creed in which he had been suckled. He provided the critique. A n alternative creed was perhaps beyond him. The alternative creed was formulated in Israel, and is present tor us in Genesis. 11

T H E B I B L I C A L FLOOD STORY: T H E T E X T

As I indicated at the very beginning of this chapter, no single narrative in Genesis can rival the Noah flood story for the number and clarity of those features that led to the discernment of two different authorial hands, or—as they are termed in gcnetic scholarship—sources or documents. As a matter of (literary) tact this is the one and only continuous narrative that is seen to consist of a conflation of pericopes or episodes from the two main sources, J and P. My own literary analysis, positing a single author and rebutting the evidence for conflation, is more likely to be granted a hearing (or, less metaphorically, a reading) if the text of the narrative is presented in a way that fully displays the source-critical divisions. To that end 1 will, in t h e t r a n s l a t i o n t h a t f o l l o w s , c r o w d t h e p a s s a g e s a s s i g n e d t o I : ! g a i n s t t h e p a g e s loll d ! a n d m a r g i n a n d t h o s e a s s i g n e d t o Ρ a g a i n s t t h e r i g h t - h a n d m a r g i n , p r o v i d i n g e a c h p a s s a g e w i t h a c a p t i o n t h a t will h i g h l i g h t r e p e t i t i o n a n d / o r c o n t r a c t as d i s c e r n e d in s o u r c e - a n a l y s i s . 1 will i d e n t i f y t h e c o l u m n s as ) a n d P, but in f a i r n e s s t o

T H E FLOODS OF NOAH A N D UTNAPISHTIM ! 9 ‫ף‬

m y o w n p o s i t i o n , r e f e r t o t h e n as .strancls r a t h e r t h a n s o u r c e s . D o c u m e n t a r y p o s i t s t h a t : t h e s o u r c e s h a v e o n o c c a s i o n b e e n c o n t a m i n a t e d so t h a t a n

theory element

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of J, f o r e x a m p l e , will a p p e a r in a p e r i c o p e t h a t is e s s e n t i a l l y P, o r v i c e v e r s a . W h e n a n e l e m e n t in t h e s e p a s s a g e s is s e e n as a n i n t r u s i o n ( t o r n t h e o t h e r s o u r c e I w i l l p l a c e t h a t e l e m e n t in i t a l i c s ; t h u s i t a l i c s i n j p o i n t t o i n t r u s i o n f r o m P, a n d i t a l i c s in Γ p o i n t u p i n t r u s i o n s f r o m J . STRAND] A. Introduction

STRAND Ρ (I)

(1) W i t h m a n k i n d s first increase o n e a r t h — and the b i r t h to t h e m of g i r l s — ( 2 ) divinities r e m a r k e d h o w b e a u t e o u s were these h u m a n m a i d e n s , a n d freely as t h e y chose took t h e m selves wives f r o m a m o n g t h e m . (3) Y H W H t h e n decided, " M y spirit shall n o t enduringly abide in m a n — f l e s h [ - c r e a t u r e ] t h a t h e i s — a h u n d r e d years a n d t w e n t y shall [the limit of] his lifetime b e " — ( 4 ) t h e N e p h i l i m were in existence on earth i n those days, (and also thereafter), following o n t h e divinities* m a t i n g w i t h h u m a n w o m e n f o l k w h o gave b i r t h by t h e m : these [offspring] those "heroes" of old, f a m e d afar. (5) Y H W H t o o k n o t e of man's wickedness o n e a r t h so great, t h a t t h e very h e n t of his imaginings was ever contrarily wicked.

(6)

Y H W H c a m e to regret that H e had ever m a d e mankind

o n e a r t h , H e was !rained to

the

quick. (7) Y H W H decided, "I must blot out troni e a r t h s surface this m a n k i n d 1 created-— b e g i n n i n g w i t h m a n , a n d inclusive oi beasts, of crawlers, a n d of birds of t h e s k y — s u c h is my regret t h a t ever I m a d e t h e m ! " (8) N o a h , however, h a d e a r n e d t h e favor of Y H W H . (Genesis 6 : 1 - 8 ) B, Introdiiciion

ill)

(9) T h i s , now, is t h e story of N o a h — N o a h a l o n e wholly righteous in his age; o b e d i e n t t o t h e Deity was N o a h e v e r — ( 1c) N o a h sired t h r e e sons: S h e m , H a m . and J a p h e t h . ( 1 1 ) T h e e a r t h , in t h e Deity's j u d g m e n t , was c o r r u p t , e a r t h h e i n g rife with lawlessness, (12) so t h a t w h e n G o d passed earth in review: lo, corrupt

indeed it was — every species of

128

S T O R I E S — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫יי‬ flesh h a d perverted its course on earth. ( G e n esis 6 : 9 1 2 ‫) ״‬ C. Noah Is informed

(I) 1

( r 3) G o d t h e n addressed X o a h :

'Finis t o all

f l e s h — i s t h e verdict 1 h a v e reached. S o rife is e a r t h w i t h lawlessness theirs. So must I lay t h e m waste t o g e t h e r w i t h earth, (1 4) M a k e yourself, t h e n , a n ark ot g o p h e r - w o od; of c o m p a r t m e n t s m a k e t h e ark; caulk it with p i l c h , inside and ouï. ( 1 ‫ ) ך‬A n d h e r e is how you are to construct it: 300 cubits, t h e length of rhe ark; <~>ο cubits, its width; and

50 cubits, ils

height. ( 1 0 ) Light-openings provide in i h e ark, bring t h e lintels to ;‫ ן‬cubit from [the d e e k | above; a n e n t r a n c e from t h e side oi t h e ark provide; w i t h a b o t t o m deck, a s e c o n d deck, a n d a third deck m a k e it. (17) h for my part, a m about to b r i n g o n the

Deluge—waters

upon

the

earth—to

waste f r o m u n d e r h e a v e n all flesh in w h i c h t h e r e is b r e a t h of life; e v e r y t n i n g o n e a r t h shall expire. ( 1 8 ) But 1 will establish

my

c o v e n a n t with you, t h a t you may e n t e r t h e ark—‫״‬you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives w i t h you. (19) A n d ot e v e r y t h i n g alive, of all flesh, a pair ot e a c h shall you bring i n t o t h e ark to survive along with vou — male and female shall t h e y be. (20) O t t h e birds of every species, of t h e beasts ot every species, of land crawlers of every species a pair of each will c o m e to you for survival. (21) You, for your part, f e t c h some of every permissible edih i e a n d store it away, to provide yourself and t h e m with f o o d " (22) N o a h did so•-•• just as ( !od had hidden t u m , just so did he J o . ( G e n es ‫ י?ו‬f>: ι $ - 2 2 ) / ) . Nnuh

Is Informed

(II)

(1) YJ I W l 1 said to N o a h , " G o i n t o t h e ark, you and all you]‫ ׳‬family. Yes, you a l o n e in this g e n e r a t i o n h a v e 1 in my j u d g m e n t f o u n d righteons. (2) Oi every clean a n i m a l a d m i t w i t h you seven pair, male a n d m a t e ; and of t h e animals w h i c h u n c l e a n are, o n e pair, male and m a t e . (3) O f t h e birds of t h e sky, s e v e n pair, male

THE FLOODS OF NOAH A N D UTNAPISHTIM ! 9 ‫ף‬ a n d f e m a l e ‫ י‬to p e r p e t u a t e live seed o n earth's surface. (4) For in h u t seven days f r o m n o w I shall m a k e rain fall u p o n e a r t h , for forty days a n d Lirty nights; and so will 1 blot out Iron! everywhere

on

earth

that

whieh

i

have

brought i n t o being. 1 ' (5) A n d N o a h did just as Y H W H had hidden him. (Genesis 7:1 ---‫)ל‬

jo b/nto‫׳‬/m> tin.‫ ׳‬Ark (6)

( N o a h , now, was six h u n d r e d y e a n old

when

t h e Deluge took

place,‫—־‬water-—-on

e a r t h . ) (7) Noah went into the ark, /us 50ns a n ‫״‬ his wife and his sons' wives with /um, for shelter from the water of the Deluge. (8) Of the animals clean and the animals unclean,

of the birds and

every species astir on the ground,

(g) pairs c a m e

to N o a h to t h e ark, male and female, as G o d h a d i n s t r u c t e d N o a h . (10) In seven days time the waters of the Deluge came upon earth.

(11)

In t h e year 6 0 0 of N o a h ' s litetime, in M o n t h 2, o n Day 17 of t h e m o n t h — ‫ ״‬o n this day p r e ‫׳‬ cisely—did

t h e wellsprings ot G r e a t

Deep

crack apart a n d t h e sluice gates of h e a v e n spring o p e n . ) (12) And

the rani continued on

earth forty clays and forty nights.)

(13) O n t h a t

very day did N o a h e n t e r — a n d

She m

and

H a m a n d J a p h e t h , a n d N o a h ' s wife and t h e t h r e e wives (if his sons wirb t h e m - - i n t o rhe ark; (14) drey and every life-form of every species, all t h e fowl oi every species, every bird, every winged tiling. ( 1 5 ) T h e y c a m e 10 N o a h , to t h e ark, pair by pair o! all llesh in w h i c h abides t h e breath of life. (1()) T h o s e arriving were male and female, of all flesh did t h e y arrive in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h G o d ' s instructions t o h i m . Ana

Yi iWH

battened him in. ( G e n e s i s 7:6--16) F. Deluge

and

Destruction

(17) T h e Deluge c o n t i n u e d on e a r t h for ‫ ן‬ort\ days. As the waters swelled they buoyed up the ark and it lifted free from

earth.

(ÏS) As the

water intensified, increasing in v o l u m e u p o n e a r t h , t h e ark floated a r o u n d o n t h e water's surface. (19) T h e waters ever increasing in intensity o n e a r t h , they b l a n k e t e d

even

the

130

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬ highest m o u n t a i n s e v e r y w h e r e u n d e r h e a v e n prevailed.) W i t h t h e b l a n k e t i n g 0( t h e m o untains, (21) all flesh, astir on e a r t h expired — fowl, cattle, beasts, all the s warms t h a t t e e m on earth, and all mankind, (22) Ever}‫ ׳‬last thing with nostrils

inhaling lifebreath

on

earth,

every last thing on shore died. (23) Thus did he blot out all existence

on earth's surface,

ranging

from man through animals, crawlers, and birds of the sky. With these blotted out from earth there remained only Noah,

and whatever was with him

in the ark, ( G e n e s i s 7 : 1 7 - 2 3 ) G. The Deluge

Is

(24) T h e waters prevailed

Checked in i n t e n s i t y

on

e a r t h for 150 days. (1) G o d was m i n d f u l of N o a h a n d all t h e beasts a n d c a t t l e t h a t were w i t h h i m in t h e ark. G o d t h e n swept a w i n d over e a r t h a n d t h e waves subsided. (2) T h e wel!springs of G r e a t D e e p a n d t h e sluice gates of h e a v e n b o l t e d closed, and the rain

from

heaven held in check, (3) the waters began to retreat from earth, a steady retreat; t h e waters beg i n n i n g to abate o n about Day 1 50. (4) So did t h e ark ‫ ״‬r o u n d in M o n t h 7, Day 17 of t h e m o n t h , o n t h e m o u n t a i n - r a n g e of Ararat.. G ) 1 he waters, now, c o n t i n u e d to abate steadily until M o n t h 10; i n M o n t h 10, o n t h e first of the

month,

the

mountain

through.) (Genesis 7:24-8:5) II. Ε J) is ode of rhe

Birds

(6) A f t e r forty days, N o a h o p e n e d t h e h a t c h w h i c h h e h a d m a d e m t h e ark. (7) H e released a r a v e n , w h i c h took off, living t h i t h e r a n d back u n t i l t h e water dried up trom t h e earth. (8) H e t h e n dispatched a dove, to ascertain w h e t h e r t h e waters h a d eased u p on earth's surface. (9) But t h e dove could find n o p e r c h for its f o o t — t h e water so tar-reaching over all earth's surface — and so r e t u r n e d t o h i m , t o t h e ark. H e reached out and 1 e t c h e d it hack into t h e ark. ( i c ) Ar ter a wait of yet a n o t h e r seven days, h e again released t h e d o v e trom t h e ark. (11) Towards e v e n i n g t h e dove re-

peaks

showed

T H E FLOODS OF NOAH A N D U T N A P I S H T I M ! 9 ‫ף‬ t u r n e d to h i m , in its bill a freshly p l u c k e d olive leaf! N o a h t h e n k n e w t h a t t h e water had eased f r o m e a r t h . (1:2) Yet a n o t h e r wait of s e v e n days more, and h e released t h e dove. It r e t u r n e d to h i m n o more. (Genesis 8:6

12)

I. The Disembarking (13) I n t h e year 601, in M o n t h 1, o n t h e first of t h e m o n t h , t h e waters had d r a i n e d oil f r o m e a r t h . When Noah raised the hatch-cover,

10 he

saw that the earth's surface

(14)

was drained

A n d in M o n t h 2, o n Day 17 of t h e m o n t h , t h e e a r t h h a d b e c o m e dry.) ( 1 5 ) G o d addressed N o a h ,

(16)

"Come

o u t of t h e ark, you, your wife, your sons, a n d your sons' wives w i t h you; (17) every living c r e a t u r e w h i c h is w i t h you, of all flesh — fowl, animals,

and

everything

that

era wis

on

e a r t h — b r i n g o u t w i t h you, t h a t they may teem

on

earth,

abundantly

reproduce

on

earth." ( 1 8 ) So N o a h c a m e out, his sons, his wife, a n d sons' wives w i t h h i m ; ( 1 9 ) every living creature, every crawler, every bird, e v e r y ‫׳‬ t h i n g w h i c h stirs o n e a r t h c a m e out of t h e ark, species by species. ( G e n e s i s 8 : 1 3 - 1 9 ) ]. Sacrifice

and

Promise

(20) N o a h t h e n built an altar to Y H W H . Taking f r o m a m o n g all t h e clean cattle and clean fowl, h e offered burnt Otterings on t h e altar. (2r)

YHWH

sniifed

Y H W H said to himself,

the 1

pleasing

odor.

'Never again will I

abuse t h e earth o n m a n ' s

account—[seeing

t h a t ] t h e b e n t of man's m i n d is evil f r o m his youth—nor

will I ever again strike

down

every living creature, as I h a v e d o n e . ( 2 2 ) S o long as e a r t h endures, seedtime a n d harvest, cold a n d h e a t , s u m m e r a n d winter, day and n i g h t will n o t cease. 1 ' ( G e n e s i s 8 : 2 0 - 2 2 ) K. Blessing

and Meat

for Man

s Table

(1) G o d blessed N o a h a n d his sons, saying to t h e m , "Increase a b u n d a n t l y a n d p o p u l a t e t h e e a r t h . (2) T h e dread fear of you shall d e s c e n d u p o n all living creatures of e a r t h and upon t h e fowl of t h e sky, u p o n every t h i n g with

132

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬ w h i c h t h e e a r t h is ast ir, and all tish of t h e sea: i n t o your p o w e r are t h e y delivered. ( 3 ) Every stirring t h i n g t h a t lives shall be yours tor t h e eating; like t h e grass greens do I give t h e m all to you. (4) O n l y flesh with its l i f e d d o o d in it you are n o t to eat. (5) A n d also — tor your o w n life-blood will 1 exact r e t r i b u t i o n :

of

every beast will 1 exact i: a n d of h u m a n k i n d ; of every m a n for his b r o t h e r will I exact r e t r i ‫׳‬ b u t i o n for a h u m a n life. (6) W h o e v e r sheds t h e blood of m a n , by m a n shall his blood be shed. T h i s is t h e m e a n i n g of: 4 In t h e image of G o d m a d e H e m a n / (7) You, t h e n , tor your part, increase a b u n d a n t l y , t e e m on e a r t h a n d be fertile u p o n it." ( G e n e s i s 9 : 1 - 7 ' ) L. The Promise

of the Rain how

(S) G o d t h e n said to N o a h and to his sons with him, ( g ) "i hereby m a k e this c o v e n a n t of m i n e with you and your offspring to c o m e , (10) and also with ( 1 very living creature that is with you

-oi birds, cattle, and beasts of

eart h along with you - all t h a t h a v e c o m e out of t h e ark, of every c r e a t u r e on earth,

(j!)

T h i s c o v e n a n t of m i n e 1 will f 1111111: n e v e r again shall all flesh be cut off by Deluge waters, n e v e r again shall t h e r e Deluge be t o waste t h e earth." ( 1 2 ) G o d said, ' T h i s , now, is t h e sign of t h e c o v e n a n t I grant as b e t w e e n me a n d you and every living c r e a t u r e t h a t is w i t h you, for all ages to c o m e : (13) My bow h a v e I set in t h e clouds, to serve as a sign of t h e c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n m e and earth, (14) S o shall it be, w h e n I mass clouds over e a r t h — a n d t h e h o w appears in t h e c l o u d s — (15) I shall be m i n d ful of this c o v e n a n t of m i n e w h i c h exists h e ‫׳‬ t w e e n m e a n d you a n d every living c r e a t u r e a m o n g all flesh. (16) T h e bow will he in t h e clouds, by my p r o v i d e n c e , to m a r k a n en d u r ‫׳‬ ing c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d and every living creature of nil flesh t h a t is o n earth." ( 1 7) G o d p o i n t e d out to N o a h ,

11

There now Ν t h e si‫״‬n

of t h e c o v e n a n t that 1 h a v e established he-

rween niyseli and all ilesh that is ,:!!1 c;uth:" (C iencMs t):S

j7)

T H E FLOODS OF N O A H A N D U T N A P I S H T I M ! 9 ‫ף‬

O N THE SOURCES OR S T R A N D S IN T H E F L O O D A PRELIMINARY

STORY:

DISCUSSION

Before we proceed to a synoptic review or the twelve pericopes (§$A b) thai make up the flood story, we shall first note and criticise the distinctive features of repeti‫׳‬ tion and contrast that source-criticism has found significant lor the identiiication and isolation of the j and Ρ documents. ι . Source-criticism: J regularly features YHWI I, win le Γ with equal regularity features G o d (Elohim) as the name for Deity. O n the basis of this feature alone we t h e n have a Ρ narrative of eight pericopes, complete from introduction through body to conclusion, and virtually if not altogether without gap. This complete narrative has been supplemented (from a presumably parallel narrative) with an alternative introduction (§A), conclusion (§J), a pericope (§D) without the addition of which the alternate conclusion (§J) is incongruous, and a fourth pericope (§H), the episode of t h e birds. Poetical comment: T h e regular appearance of Y H W H and God in t h e ] and Ρ strands is stipulated (with the exceptional contamination, so source-criticism, of Y H W H appearing in 7:16, [P] ). Noted, however, is the absence of Y H W H as an identifying mark in §H, an episode t h a t — b o r r o w e d from the U t n a p i s h t i m story— might just as well come from P's narrative. T h a t would leave only three pericopes from J. Of these the sacrifice theme in §j, and the seven pairs of clean animals required for §J in § D — l i k e the birds episode borrowed from the U t n a p i s h t i m story•— would have been available to Ρ as it clearly was to ]. W h y would Ρ have omitted it from his n a r r a t i v e I f , because it is discrepant with other elements in the Ρ narrative, why did the presumably perceptive editor restore what to Ρ had become excrescence? A n d , in respect now to the remaining interpolation from t h e original J narrative, is there any basis for viewing §A as a (repetitious) introduction alongside the original Ρ introduction in §B• T h e r e is not a single element in the two "introductions" that is repetitious, except for the notice of Noah's having earned Deity's favor in a world that had signally failed to do so. A n d finally, the atguments in this volumes chapter 1 for a poetical contextual reading of the names YHWH and Elohim, which — if borne out in our hin her discussion—renders all t h e previous poetic comments supererogatory. 2. Source-criticism: Additional hallmarks testifying to the authorial hands of Ρ or ] are to be discerned in proclivities in respect to numbers in general and chronology in particular: J is inordinately fond of round numbers, particularly seven and forty, and is otherwise totally uninterested in chronology. By contrast, Ρ evinces a preference for precision in numerical detail, and for exactitude in respect to chronology. Examples are the seven and forty days in §D and §H (both ]) and in t h e j contaminations of Ρ in §E and §F. Poetical comment: First of all, the numbers seven and forty in regard to days are totally unrelated to t h e numbers of 15c days or the day-of•‫ ׳‬the ‫־׳‬month in the calendrical tally. T h e two systems exist side by side, the first as matters of narrative detail, the second as independent calendrical markers whose poetical purposes must be searched for. But even the very contrast between J and Ρ as to round or precise numbers is one that will not bear up under scrutiny. W h i l e the 3:5:30 ratio of t h e

ι ]4

STOR1 HS — ‫ ״‬T Η Κ l'R1 M E VAL HISTORY"

a r k s height, width, and length compares favorably with t h e 1:1 :t ratio of Utnapishtim's cubic craft, t h e numbers m cubits (30, 50» 300) are suspiciously round, S o too N o a h s age, 600, m the year of the flood, and t h e 150 days of t h e rising w a ‫׳‬ ters to a level fifteen cubits above t h e highest m o u n t a i n top, 3. Source-criticism: T h e J source presupposes t h e legitimacy of a n i m a l sacrifice and of t h e eating of flesh in the offering brought by A b e l in Genesis 4:4. T h i s source could therefore borrow the post ‫׳‬deluge sacrifice t h e m e f r o m t h e U t n a p i s l v t i m story (§J) so long as it provided for more t h a n a single pair of these edible ani‫׳‬ mais e n t e r i n g t h e ark; otherw ise these sacrifices would h a v e spelled e x t i n c t i o n for t h e edible species. T h i s provision is supplied in §D, w h i c h — n e e d l e s s to s a y — i s discrepant w i t h t h e single pair ot all species in § Q P, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , w h i c h has G o d m a n d a t i n g a n exclusively vegetarian diet for all creatures in Genesis 1 : 2 9 - 3 0 , must therefore pass up on the sacrificial t h e m e . Ρ does, however, signal God's reconciliation w i t h h u m a n k i n d in §K, wherein t h e b a n o n h u m a n c o n s u m p t i o n of a n ‫׳‬ imal flesh (of Genesis 1 : 2 9 - 3 0 ) is formally withdrawn. Poetical comment: If pericopes SC and §E are n o t by definition assigned to o n e source while §D is assigned to another, t h e presence of seven pairs of clean animals as opposed to t h e single pairs of u n c l e a n ones in §D is merely a n expansion and clarification of t h e general heading of pairs in §C. T h u s , for example, in § E — a pericope assigned mostly to Ρ but with inexplicable intrusions from J -we are asked to believe that an intrusion from Ρ is present in t h e J intrusion. Let us duplicate this passage, V except for italicized J: (8) Of the animals clam and the animals unclean,

of the birds and every species astir on the

ground, (g) pairs c a m e to N o a h to t h e ark, male and female,

as G o d had instructed

Noah. (7:8-9)

It is clear t h a t t h e only reason for assigning this verse to j is t h e distinction bet w e e n clean a n d u n c l e a n supposedly k n o w n only to J. Ρ supposedly has a single pair of e a c h species, w h e t h e r clean or unclean. But t h e n t h e non‫׳‬italicized words at t h e beginning of verse 9, translated by Speiser (for example) as two of each is seen as expressive of this Ρ n o t i o n . My translation of senayJm senaylm "pairs of each" is equally in place in a supposed J, for t h e animals c a m e to N o a h in pairs of every species; single pairs in the case of the u n c l e a n , seven pairs in t h e case of t h e clean, Let us n o t e f u r t h e r t h a t the vocabulary of this supposedly J insertion is in every re‫׳‬ spect t h a t of t h e Ρ vocabulary in S e c t i o n C: b'hernä, cöf, römes, a n d male a n d fe‫־׳‬ male (zäkär uneqëbâ) rather t h a n male and m a t e (is we>istö). IN REGARD TO THIS preliminary discussion of t h e considerations t h a t might yet dis‫׳‬ pose us to distinguish b e t w e e n t h e text passages crowded against t h e left ‫־׳‬hand or r i g h t - h a n d margins, let us n o t e t h a t n e i t h e r singly n o r collectively d o these conskL erat ions compel a conclusion t h a t these columns represent separate sources, sources p a t c h e d together by a n i n c o m p e t e n t redactor, or o n e made to seem so by t h e imposition of a slavish compulsion to include discrepant details from two traditions, both ot which had (inexplicable) become .sacrosanct. Let us note that difiere11c.es are not necessarily discrepancies, t h a t inconsistencies arc not necessarily incon-

THE FLOODS OF NOAH A N D UTNAPISHTIM ! 9 ‫ף‬

gruittes, a n d t h a t n e i t h e r differences n o r inconsistences n o r discrepancies are neeessarily c o n t r a d i c t i o n s .

And,

further, that

even

seemingly

clear

contradictions

( s u c h as t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r oi t h e c r e a t i o n o i m a n a n d a n i m a l s in G e n e s i s 1 a n d 3, o r t h e l i n e of h u m a n i t y i n t h e G a i n i t e a n d S e t h i t e g e n e a l o g i e s ) m a y r e p r e s e n t s t r a t e g i e s of m e t a p h o r in a s i n g l e w o r k hy a s i n g l e a u t h o r .

POETICAL REVIEW OF T H E

Episode A. Prelude (Introduction

FLOOD

STORY

I)

( τ ) W i t h m a n k i n d ' s first increase o n e a r t h ‫ ״‬a n d t h e b i r t h t o t h e m of g i r l s — ( 2 ) divinities remarked h o w b e a u t e o u s were these h u m a n m a i d e n s , a n d freely as they chose took themselves wives f r o m a m o n g t h e m . (3) Y H W H t h e n decided, "my spirit shall n o t enduringly abide in man—-fleshf-creature] t h a t he i s ‫ ״‬a h u n d r e d ν ears and t w e n t y shall [the limit of] his lifetime b e " — ( 4 ) t h e N e p h i l i m were in existence on earth in those days, ( a n d also t h e r e a f t e r ) following on the di vinities' mating with human w o m e n f o l k w h o gave b i r t h by t h e m : t h e s e [offspring] those ' 1 heroes" of cold, famed afar. (5) Y H W H took n o t e of m a n ' s wickedness o n e a r t h so great, that the very bent of his imaginings was ever contrarily wicked. (6) Y H W H c a m e to regret that H e had ever made m a n k i n d o n e a r t h , H e was p a i n e d to t h e quick. (7) Y H W H decided, L'I must blot out f r o m earth's surface this m a n k i n d I c r e a t e d — b e g i n n i n g with man, and inclusive of beasts, of crawlers, and of birds of t h e s k y — s u c h is my regret t h a t ever I made t h e m ! " (8) N o a h , however, h a d e a r n e d t h e favor of Y H W H . (Genesis 6:1 T h e i n t e g r a l c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e first v e r s e of o u r t e x t h e r e a n d t h e b e g e t t i n g s i n t h e l i n e of S e t h t h a t p r e c e d e it i n G h a p l e r 5 c o u l d b e lost o n l y o n a d e v o t e e of s o u r c e - c r i t i c i s m , w h i c h a s s i g n s t h e p e r i c o p e h e r e t o J a n d t h e p r e c e d i n g gen e a l o g y t o P. T h a t g e n e a l o g y p r e s e n t s a s i n g l e f a m i l y l i n e , t r a c i n g a m a l e h e i r f r o m Adum/hä'ädäm

t o N o a h in t h e t e n t h g e n e r a t i o n , w i t h N o a h s s i r i n g of a n e l e v e n ! h

g e n e r a t i o n oi t h r e e s o n s . T h i s , w e k n o w , is t h e l i n e of h u m a n k i n d . B u t w h a t is c r u ‫׳‬ c i a l t o r o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h i s p e r i c o p e i n G h a p t e r 6 is t h e r e f r a i n - l i k e n o t i c e t h a t e a c h of N o a h ' s n i n e a n c e s t o r s s i r e d n o t o n l y t h e o n e s o n n a m e d b u t a d d i t i o n a l u n n a m e d s o n s a n d d a u g h t e r s . A n d , i n d e e d , w h y b o t h e r w i t h n a m e s , s i n c e all t h e s e l i n e s e n d e d w i t h t h e f l o o d ! B u t w h y t h e n t h e n o t i c e of d a u g h t e r s ( w h o s e d e s c e n d a n t s w o u l d also h a v e p e r i s h e d i n t h e flood), w h o s e lines are s u p e r e r o g a t o r y in a p a t r i l i n e a l t r a d i t i o n ( s u c h as S c r i p t u r e c o n s i s t e n t l y r e p r e s e n t s ) ? T h e a n s w e r t o t h i s l a s t q u e s t i o n is p r o v i d e d b y t h e first h a l f of cour p a s s a g e , v e r s e s 1 — 4, w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e a p e r i c o p e i n t h e m s e l v e s . T h e c o m e l y w o m e n oi h u m a n k i n d ' s first g e n e r a t i o n s a l s o m o t h e r e d a d e s c e n d e n t l i n e of h u m a n s , sireel u p o n t h e m b y a r a c e of d i v i n i t i e s . T h e s e d e s c e n d a n t s , t h e n a r r a t o r p e r m i t s us t o p r e s u m e , m i g h t w e l l h a v e s u c c e e d e d t o t h e i r p a t e r n a l h e r i t a g e of i m m o r t a l i t y ( o r a l o n g e v i t y of n e a r - e q u i v a l e n c e i n t h e e y e s o t m a y f l y m o r t a l s ) b u t f o r Y H W H s d e c r e e l i m i t i n g t h e m t o a m a x i m u m of 120 y e a r s . T h i s l i m i t a t i o n is s t r i k i n g o n a n u m b e r ot c o u n t s . If a p p l i e d t o t h e c e n t u r i e s b e f o r e t h e f l o o d , t h i s m i x e d b r e e d of s e m i - d i v i n e m o r t a l s lived e p h e m e r a l lives c o m p a r e d to t h e h u m a n s in t h e line ot A d a m t h r o u g h S e t h ,

154

S T O R I E S — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

Methuselah attaining the high water mark of 969 years, while his father Enoch is t h e shortest lived, fetched by God in michcareer at the age of 365. If applied to the centuries after the flood, the limitation could apply only to purebred mortals in t h e line of N o a h (the mixed breed having perished in the flood), but the shortest-lived in this register is Ν a hot at 148 years, and the first to w h o m this number 120 applies is Moses, O r is it possible that this limitation to a maximum of 120 years is to be understood as applying to a separate class of post-diluvian mortals, humans (bä'ädäm, verse 3) on their maternal side, and this despite their paternal genes (besaggäm hü' bäsär, "flesh creature nonetheless")? We should t h e n have to conclude that this line somehow managed to survive t h e flood! As unwarranted as such a conclusion would seem to be according to the biblical account, it is just such a presupposition that must he behind the midrashic story that t h e Og king of Β ash an, who was annihilated by the Israelites (Numbers 21), lived as a titanic hgure at the lime ol the flood, and managed to ride out (literallyÎ) that‫ ״‬cataclysm by hitching his mount to N o a h s ark. banciiul as is the free play of the rabbinic imagination, it is not without some basis in a close reading of a bihlk cal narrative that the rabbis will permit themselves an embroidery that seems starkly ίο contradict the hallowed text. And the pointer to the existence of a mottal breed existing both hctorc and after the flood is in verse 4, a hypotactic senlence, a concluding parenthetic notice that bridges the gap between verse 2 and verse 3; between the supernals* wiving of h u m a n women and YHWH's decree limit ing the lifetimes (‫" (כ‬the humanity which is also flesh," namely, the offspring of these unions. The hypotactic construction serves, among other effects, to highlight t h e temporal contrast between "in the days" and "as well as thereafter" A n d t h e hitherto u n m e n t to η ed -as ‫ ׳‬suc h offspring are associated w i t h — i f n o t explicitly identified w i t h — t h e Nephilim, with the progeny born by "the daughters of hä'ädam" as a conséquence ot their congress with "the sons of the elôhïm " These Nephilim, spawned (as we are now reminded) in antediluvian times, are present in their descendants—also known as titans (bcne anäq/häaanäq) or R e p h a i t e s — a s late as the time of David and as early as the time of Moses. Of all these populations, one individual alone is singled out for this mention: "Verily, only O g king ot Bash an, remained of the rest of the Rephaites" (Deuteronomy 3:11). But for these four verses in Genesis 6 we would have no idea of the provenience of these "mighty ones reputed of yore" O n the other hand, where but in t h e narrative immediately preceding the story of the flood should Scripture s authors have informed us of this miscegenate race, which somehow survived the flood and lived into the early centuries of Israelite history? Yes, these verses belong here in Genesis, and the rabbis correctly read t h e message of "in those d a y s — a n d also thereafter" T h e question we must ask, however, is what function do these titanic creatures serve in the ideational literature we call Scripture, and specifically for the introduction of the flood story? How much wiser arc we lor knowing that among the aborigines conquered by Moses and David were the titanic Og oi Bashan and Goliath oi O a t h : And h! >w does (his race figure in YHWH's motivation for bringing on the flood? T h e mating oi the male divinities with the h u m a n females does not in itself constitute mot i vat ion tor the flood. T h e h u m a n parties are victims of force majeure

ΤΗ H FLOODS OF NOAH A N D UTNAPISHTIM

137

and thus absolved of any responsibility; the aggressor males are p u n i s h e d — n o t to perish in the flood — b u t by the truncated bio-span. T h e punishment of the truly and fully human race is the burden of the second part of our pericope, the death ot this race in the flood, except for the line ot Noah. And the crime is a wickedness oi such magnitude that no details or specifics need be provided; suflice it I ο say that it can be gauged, not by any act, but rather by the human mental condition: a per‫׳‬verse and stubbornly wicked imagination. Given the context, that of the preceding four verses, one can see what led Speiser to read the "facts" of those four verses as the figment of the imagination that produced them: the mythological world of paganism in which rapacious and miscegenating gods (of both sexes) bed human partners to produce such mighty heroes of renown as Gilgamesh and Achilles, I he sinfulness of such fancies lies, of course, in the misrepresentation of the nonhuman nature of God and the non-godly nature of man. T h e failure ot Speisers suggestion to command attention is due, we would suegest, to a lack of a poetic framework or underpinning. Consider Speisers own opening comment on verses 1 - 4 , in keeping with his own essentially source-critical presuppositions (the italics are mine): T h e undisguised mythology

of this

isolated fragment makes it n o t only atypical

of

the

Bible

as a it'ho/e b u t also puzzling a n d controversial in t h e e x t r e m e . Its p r o b l e m s are legion: Is w h a t we h a v e h e r e a n excerpt f r o m a fuller a c c o u n t ? W h y was s u c h a stark piece ineluded a l t o g e t h e r ‫ י‬Does its p r e s e n t place in t h e b o o k imply a specific c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e Flood? 1 ‫־‬

My own discussion of the miscegenate race is in rebuttal of such characterizations as isolated and atypicality. And the predisposition to be shocked by undisguised myrh0J0£\ in the Bible is, as we discussed in chapter 2, hased on. a misunderstanding and misrepresentation oi how Scriptures authors freely allude to or cite and exploit mythological e 1 e 111 e η t s. W h a t is it in Speisers suggestion as to the relationship of versos v8-‫ ־‬to verses 1 - 4 that will cause most s c h o l a r s to judge that he is making a huge leap, and an unwarranted one at that., in bridging the narrational gap between the two pericopes? For one, the failure to recognize that gapping is an intriguing poetic s trat egy, frequently most effective when it demands that the reader search, for the bridge. For another, how can verses 1--4 possibly be intended as the. product of a pathologteal imagination when the formulation of these verses is unquestionably one of narrational fact? Specifically: how could a pagan imagination picture Y H W H himself decreeing the punishment of this semi-divine race? (This last question is obliv10us to its obverse: How‫ ׳׳‬could a Scriptural imagination picture YHWH tolerating a class of divinities mating with humans and producing a hybrid species?) In general these questions raised by philologians fail to distinguish between the narrational tactic ity of the historian and the narrational facticity of the writer of fiction. And a vital strategy in the latter is unthinkable in the former: the unreliable or the lessthan- re 11 ah 1 e η an: at or. In respect to this strategy of the art of fiction, we should note that for all its late recognition, identification or categorization in literary criticism, it is present•—and must have been intuited by at least part of the a u d i e n c e ‫ ״‬i n the earliest of literary

156

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

productions. ( And, let us note in passing, the more subtle, the more verisimilitudinous, that is, the more artistic a caricature or a lampoon, the more likely that many will interpret it as a realistically intended portrait, faithfully or falsely representing its subject.) W h e n e v e r a writer refuses to signal to the least perceptive of his audience that h e is engaging in satire or parody, in fanciful figuration of praise or criticism, in parable or allegory—rather t h a n in straightforward n a r r a t i o n — t h a t writer is, for that part of his audience, playing t h e role of the unreliable narrator A n d in the ideological or ideational fiction of Scripture, that is how we must view t h e narrator of story/history. W h e t h e r in Eden in respect to t h e historicity of an A d a m mated to an Eve built up from his rib, of a N o a h punching the tickets of every pair of every species that is to travel with him, of a David conquering Goliath or seducing his loyal colonels wife, the narrator who permits his reader to read him as reliable (and omniscient) historiographer is indeed an unreliable narrator. Writing as they did for audiences whose members differed greatly in their levels or capacities for understanding, Scriptures authors must have reconciled themselves to the likelihood of being misunderstood more often t h a n not by the larger number of their readers. But in the case of a passage such as the one before us, seemingly so raw in the acceptance oi the mythological staple that the two races, h u m a n and divine, could not only mate but produce fertile offspring, the biblical author/narrator could signal his exploitation of the unreliable narrator strategy by means of a number of exceptional deployments of diction, syntax, and literary style. In terms of diction: T h e use of t h e adjective "good" for h u m a n women as perceived by the divine beings is ambiguous: good looking, well-mannered, eugenic, or morally correct? T h e singular appearance of the verb yädön in Y H W H ' s soliloquy, the stem suggesting "judgment," but that sense altogether inappropriate in t h e context and the meaning of the term not terribly relevant since t h e context itself forces us to read cndmancc into it. T h e apparent contraction of the c o n j u n c t i o n a ser to se (rare in early biblical Hebrew) and its joining with the adverb gam "also" and followed by iifr bäsär "he (is) flesh;" yielding the sense "for h e also is flesh" (as compared to the fully h u m a n breed of hä'ädäm) rather t h a n — a s in our own rendering—‫"״‬in that he is also flesh." T h e use of the term häädäm "humankind" for t h e purebred h u m a n race in verses 1, 2, and 4, and, in verse 3 — w i t h the preposition bd—for the ha If-hum an and half-divine breed; a breed of whose existence we do not become aware until verse 4. In terms of style and syntax: T h e formal paratactic construction of verses 1, 2, and 3, in contrast with the hypotactic construction of verse 4. T h e recognition that this requires verse 4 to be read as a parenthesis, a parenthesis that anomalously ends the pericope, and forces t h e reader to search lor the place where it semantl· cully beltings. Only t h e n does the reader realize that the parenthesis must be read between verses 2 and 3, that only so can sense be made of the divine decree in verse 3. All this syntactic complication is in the interest of the gapping and bridging strategy. But why the recourse to such a strategy at all? W h y not formulate verse 4 hypotactically and place it between verses 2 and Part of the answer 1> of course, that by introducing the Nephilim‫ ״‬- w h o by the logic of the larger narrative could not have survived the flood, yet somehow managed to do >0- - a t the end oi the pericope it ties their existence, or rati 1er their; re‫׳־‬

T H E FLOODS OF NOAH A N D U T N A P I S H T I M ! 9 ‫ף‬

puted existence, into the judgment of Y H W H in the very next verse on the perse‫״‬ vering perversity of the human imagination. So, the deployment of anomalous die‫״‬ tion and tricky syntactical construction in verses 1 - 4 , which constitutes a pericope oi‫ ״‬sorts, presents the reader with a puzzle, a challenge η ‫ ו‬our poetic wit; a challenge we shall never meet unless we adduce the relevant allusions elsewhere in Scripture and then return to Genesis to icalize that the pericope of sorts, verses 1 - 4 , can only make sense when tied to the continuing pericope in verses 5••8‫״‬, the role 01‫׳‬ function ot a misguided sense of the world, natural and supernatural, in the disasters ensuing from the diseased imagination, or possibly from the kinds of conduct that will characterize a humanity which owns a distorted view of reality. These last two alternative understandings of Scripture's teaching (kerygma) in regard to the relationship between theory and practice, ideology and praxis are both present in verse 5. Questions of parataxis and hypotaxis in form and meaning leave moot the question of this verse's correct translation. Our translation, subordinating the conjunction waw to the preceding kl, renders the perverse human imagination as identical with "humankind's great wickedness." T h e sentence may be read, how‫•׳‬ ever, as pointing to two separate (though not necessarily unrelated) aspects of h u m a n deficiency: " Y H W H took note that great indeed was the wickedness of humankind on earth, and also that the shape of his deepest thoughts was ever and yet evil." TWO additional stylistic peculiarities must be noted in the second half of our pericope. O n e is the pleonastic appearance of hä'äres "the earth / the world" in verses 5 and 6, and of häadämä "the earth / the ground" in verse 7. Doubt that these are redundancies will be dispelled, even in the translation, by omitting of these words and asking if anything is lost thereby. T h e other peculiarity is in verse 7, where the mankind (häadäm) to be blotted out in Y H W H s soliloquy is glossed as an entity constituted of man (ädäm) plus the whole range of animals of land and sky. That this gloss is free direct discourse goes without saying. A definition of humankind is superfluous in itself, and particularly so in the mental processes of the Deity engaged in internal dialogue. But the perplexity of superfluity is compounded with that of incongruity. And together with the redundancies of the world, the earth, and the ground finds its solution in a metaphor rich with meaning. O n the one hand, the repetitions ot earth and world and soil emphasize the distance beUveen the !!!comparability of this realm of human beings and the realm of the ereator who‫ ׳‬observes them from on high. T h e image is reminiscent of an infinitely resou reef 111 scientist in his laboratory, creating and testing life forms in a microcosinic culture. O n e life form in particular he has provided with so rich an ecology and endo wed with such potentiality and freedom as to warrant from it the highest of expectations. Indeed, so central is this life form to its creator that all the other life forms were created only in conjunction with and subordination to it, even to such a degree that they can be viewed as constituents of, rather than entities separate from, that life form so replete with capacities and freedom. A n d such is the disappoint ment of the creator of this experiment that he cannot but choose to utterly destroy the disappointing creature and his so painstakingly fashioned environment. Utterly, except for one exceptional strain of that species, exceptional in a way yet to be made clear.

140

Episode B. Introduction

STORIKS-

"ΊΉΗ PRlMhVAL HISTORY"

(II)

(9) This, now, is the story ol Noah en 1 to the Deity was Noah ever

Noah alone wholly righteous in his age; obedh 10)‫)״‬

Noah sired three sons: Shem, Ham, and

Japheth. (11) T h e earth, in T h e Deity's judgment, was corrupt, earth being rife with lawlessness, (12) so that when God passed earth in review: lo, corrupt indeed it was — every species of flesh had perverted its course on earth. ( 6 : 9 - 1 2 )

The careful reader will have noted that the heading of § A of the pericope, 6 : 1 - 8 , has been changed from hrrroJuetion (I) to Prelude, a n d now section §B is headed Introduction. T h e change requires no justification. T h e intricately composed and many-faceted concatenation of metaphors that constitutes § A has but one item in c o m m o n with §B: Deity s recognition of the worlds evil. N o a h figures not at all in the Prelude until the last verse, and then only as the one exception to the ubiquitous malfeasance. T h e introduction proper to the story of N o a h ties in then with the mention of N o a h in verse S, and begins his ,story by stressing the reason for his having found favor. Keeping in mind that both Y H W H and Elohim are proper names for the Deity, it is readily apparent why the narrator would want to distance the Deity from the bene hcflohun who figure so importantly in §A. This he does by opting consistently for Y H W H in this pericope. Beginning now with Noah's righteousness and obedience, these qualities are defined not in relation to the Creator as person, hut as that impersonal abstraction of all-encompassing power and morality in both verses 9 and 1 1, hiClolüm. G o d as person, Elohim, appears first as the reviewing magistrate in verse 12, and will c o n t i n u e 10 be featured as such in pericope § C (verses 1 3 and 17). It affinity, rather t h a n discrepancy, is to he looked for in pericopes §A and what better evidence than the conspicuous predilection 111 §B for the term haärcs, which in its two appearances in §A seemed quite redundant. In §B now the term appears three times; t h e first occasion in the omniscient narrators voice featuring the corruption of the world by I leaven's standards, namely the breach of morality; the second confirming the narrator's statement by picturing God's personal confrontation of that corruption of the world and then underlining the extent of that corruption, h i t h e r t o expressed by the earth as subject of the passive (niphal) verb, by the same verb in the active (hiphil) conjunction with "all flesh" as its subject, and again 1 'on earth" Despite this repetitiveness, the nature of this perverse c o n d u c t , apposite apparently both to ratiocinative human and to dumb beast as well, remains unspecified. T h e possibility that this represents a gapping strategy will alert us to possible clues in episodes to come for the bridging of such a gap.

Episode C. Noah Is Informed (13) God then addressed Noah: "Finis to all tlesh —is the verdict I have reached. So rife is earth with lawlessness theirs. So must 1 lav them waste together with earth. (14) Make yourself, then, an ark of gopher-wood; oi compartments make the ark; caulk it with pitch, inside and out. (15) And here is how ‫ ץ‬ou are to construct it: 300 cubits, the length of the ark; 50 cubits, its width; and ‫ בך‬cuhii.s. its height. (16) Light ‫׳‬openings

THE FLOODS OF NOAH A N D UTNAPISHTIM ! 9 ‫ף‬ provide in rhe ark, bring rhe lintels to a cubit f r o m [the deck] above; a n e n t r a n c e f r o m t h e side of t h e ark provide; with a b o t t o m deck, a second deck, and a third deck m a k e it. ( ι 7) I, for my part, am about 1.0 bring o n t h e D e l u g e — w a t e r s u p o n t h e e a r t h — to waste f r o m u n d e r h e a v e n all flesh in w h i c h t h e r e is b r e a t h of life; e v e r y t h i n g o n e a r t h shall expire. ( 1 8 ) But 1 will establish my c o v e n a n t w i t h you, t h a t you may e n t e r t h e a r k — y o u , your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives w i t h you. (1:9) A n d of everyt h i n g alive, of all flesh, a pair ol each shall you bring i n t o t h e ark t o survive a l o n g w i t h y o u — m a l e a n d f e m a l e shall they be. (20) Of t h e birds of every species, of t h e beasts of every species, oi land crawlers of every species a pair of e a c h will c o m e 10 you for survival. (2 1 ) You, for your pari, i e t c h some of every permissible edible and store is away, to p r o v i d e yourself and t h e m w i t h food." (22) N o a h did so —-just as G o d had bidden h i m , just so did he do. ( G e n e s i s22-[1 :‫)א‬

The logic of our narrative requires, to be sure, that Noah be informed of the imp e n d i n g d e l u g e a n d a d v i s e d as t o G o d s p l a n f o r t h e s u r v i v a l of N o a h s l i n e . T w o e l e m e n t s i n G o d ' s a d d r e s s t o N o a h a r e w o r t h y of b r i e f n o t i c e h e r e f o r t h e i r c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e U t n a p i s h t i m s t o r y ( i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of a m o r e d e t a i l e d c o m p a r i s o n t h a t w i l l f o b l o w ) . O n e is t h e d i f f e r i n g s h a p e a n d d i m e n s i o n s of t h e v e s s e l s t h a t w i l l r i d e o u t t h e s t o r m ; t h e o t h e r is t h e i m p a r t i n g t o t h e m o r t a l of D e i t y ' s m o t i v e i n b r i n g i n g o n t h e c a t a c l y s m . T h i s l a t t e r m a y s t r i k e t h e r e a d e r as r e p e t i t i v e , i n t h a t it is t h e t h i r d t i m e t h a t it is e x p r e s s e d . T h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e r e p e t i t i o n , h o w e v e r , m u s t b e g a u g e d b y t h e t o t a l a b s e n c e of m o t i v a t i o n t o r t h e f l o o d u n l e a s h e d a g a i n s t m a n k i n d i n t h e U t n a p i s h t i m story. N o t e w o r t h y a l s o is t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n as t o t h e flood is g i v e n i n d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e of r e m a r k a b l e l e n g t h : a full n i n e v e r s e s . A n o t h e r f e a t u r e of t h e d i a l o g u e t h a t t h e n a r r a t o r p u t s i n t o t h e m o u t h of G o d d i s c l o s e s a n a r t i s t r y t h a t h a s e s c a p e d b o t h o b s e r v a t i o n a n d c o m m e n t . T h e d o o m i m p e n d i n g o v e r h u m a n i t y is n o t r e v e a l e d t o N o a h in a c o n t i n u o u s flow, b u t is d i v i d e d i n t o t w o p a r t s . First, t h e v e r d i c t of g u i l t a n d t h e s e n t e n c e of d o o m : "all f l e s h t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e e a r t h " w i l l b e l a i d w a s t e ; t h e m a n n e r ot t h e s e n t e n c e s e x e c u t i o n is n o t m e n t i o n e d . T h e n c o m e s t h e i n s t r u c t i o n t o b u i l d t h e t h r e e - s t o r i e d w o o d e n v e s s e l . T h e c a s u a l r e a d e r — a n d m o s t of us a r e s u c h m o s t of t h e t i m e — k n o w i n g t h e p l o t i n a d v a n c e , f o r g e t s t h a t N o a h h a s n o i d e a of w h a t is c o m i n g , a n d so m i s s e s t h e a s t o n i s h m e n t w i t h w h i c h N o a h m u s t have attended

t h e d e t a i l s of t h e h u g e b u i l d i n g p r o j e c t , a n d

misses as w e l l

the

s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e l a b e l for t h e ( a b j e c t - t o - b e c o n s t r u c t e d ; it is n o t c a l l e d a s h i p ( f o r which Hebrew has a word) but a ubox/chest/ark" O n l y after this comes t h e disclosure t h a t t h e d e v a s t a t i o n is t o b e w r e a k e d by w a t e r . T h i s d e p l o y m e n t of G o d s m o n o l o g u e m a k e s possible a f o u r t h d e c l a r a t i o n ot creature d o o m , t o b e i m m e d i a t e l y followed by t h e g r a c i o u s p r o m i s e (b'rlt " c o v e n a n t , " by s y n e c d o c h e of w h o l e f o r t h e p a r t ) t h a t t h e v e s s e l t o h e b u i l t will spell s a l v a t i o n f o r h u m a n i t y a n d all l i v i n g s p e c i e s as w e l l . T w o a d d i t i o n a l f e a t u r e s of d i c t i o n r e q u i r e c o m m e n t ( b o t h of w e i g h t f o r - - o r rather, against-

source-division). T h e n a m e for t h e destructive p h e n o m e n o n to b e

a c t i v a t e d b y G o d is mabbûL

g l o s s e d by G o d h i m s e l f as " w a t e r u p o n t h e e a r t h . " T h i s

term, w h i c h appears only here and o n c e again in Scripture, m e a n s n e i t h e r flood, f o r w h i c h b i b l i c a l H e b r e w h a s a w o r d , n o r s t o r m , f o r w h i c h it h a s a p l e t h o r a of t e r m s . T h e s e c o n d f e a t u r e is t h e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of t h e f o o d t h a t N o a h is t o s t o r e as — i n o u r t r a n s l a t i o n — p e r m i s s i b l e e d i b l e s . T h e H e b r e w mäaakäl

a

ser yë'âkel,

liter-

142

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

ally " e a t a b l e e d i b l e " p o i n t s to p e r m i s s i b l e r a t h e r t h a n t o p a l a t a b l e o r digestible. W h a t foods, t h e n , a r e n o t p e r m i s s i b l e : W h a t , f u r t h e r m o r e , i n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n is t h e p o i n t of t h e s e e m i n g l y r e d u n d a n t a d d i t i o n t h a t t h e f o o d s t o r e is to provide

your-

self and them with food!

Episode D. Noah Is Informed (I!), or Noah Alerted: The Rain Is Imminent (τ) Y H W H said to Noah, u G o inro the ark, you and all your family. Yes, you alone in this generation have I in my judgment found righteous. (2) Of every clean animal admit with you seven pair, male and mate; and of the animals which unclean are, one pair, male and mate, ( 5) Of the birds of the sky, seven pair, male and female, to perpetuate live seed on e a r t h s surface. (4) For in but seven days from now i shall make rain fall upon earth, for forty days and forty nights; and so will I blot out from everywhere on earth that which I have hroughi into being." (5) A n d N o a h did just as Yi 1W1 I had bidden him. (Genesis 7 : 1 - 5 ) O n c e again w e h a v e c h a n g e d t h e h e a d i n g s of o u r p e r i c o p e s , § C a n d §13, so as n o t t o c o n c e d e t h e p o i n t l e s s r e d u n d a n c y of t h e t w o passages t h a t , i n t h e v i e w of s o u r c e - c r i t i c i s m , u n d e r l i n e s t h e d i f f e r e n c e in s o u r c e - p r o v e n a n c e a l r e a d y b e t r a y e d by t h e use of G o d ( E l o h i m ) in §G a n d of Y H W H h e r e in § D . W e d o n o t c o n c e d e pointless

r e d u n d a n c y , b u t n e i t h e r d o we d e n y t h e appearance

of r e d u n d a n c y . O u r

( s e l f - i m p o s e d ) task ot p o e t i c analysis r e q u i r e s us t o c o m p a r e t h e t w o p e r i c o p e s in r e s p e c t t o similarities a n d d i f f e r e n c e s , w i t h a v i e w t o d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e p u r p o s e f u l i n t e n t of a single a u t h o r of b o t h p e r i c o p e s . T h e t w o p e r i c o p e s are c e r t a i n l y p a r a l l e l in m a n y ways. B o t h b e g i n w i t h D e i t y a d d r e s s i n g N o a h , anei b o t h c o n s i s t e n t i r e l y of m o n o l o g u e , e x c e p t for t h e c o n c l u d ing n o t i c e in b o t h t h a t N o a h did e x a c t l y as D e i t y h a d b i d d e n h i m . O n e c l e a r diff e r e n c e is t h e a p p e a r a n c e of t h e t w o n a m e s for Deity. A s w e h a v e r e p e a t e d l y stressed, m o s t r e c e n t l y in o u r discussion of §B, t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of b o t h Y H W H a n d E l o h i m as p r o p e r n a m e s for t h e D e i t y d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t h e c h o i c e of o n e o r t h e o t h e r b e justifiable i n every case in t e r m s of t h e s u b t l e t i e s of a passage's c o n t e n t a n d c o n t e x t . I n t h e case of our t w o passages we w o u l d b e h a r d - p r e s s e d t o argue t h a t t h e n u a n c e of g r e a t e r i n t i m a c y or p e r s o n h o o d or b e n e v o l e n c e is s u c h as t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c h o i c e of Y H W H in § D as a g a i n s t t h a t of E l o h i m in § C . I n t e r e s t i n g , for t h e source-critical, c l a i m t h a t j a n d Ρ passages ( m a r k e d as such by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e hallm a r k s Y H W H a n d E l o h i m ) are also d i s t i n g u i s h e d by parallel d i s t i n c t i o n s in diet i o n , arc t h e o p e n i n g verses of §B a n d §1). T h e f o r m e r (6:0) h a s N o a h a r i g h t e o u s m a n (saddk/) in his g e n e r a t i o n s ( d o n ' M i r ) o b e d i e n t t o Deity (/1JL7ö/üm h e r e , a n d also in verse ϊ ϊ , but E l o h i m

11

God" in verse 1 2); t h e l a t t e r (7:1 ) has Yl 1W11 d e c l a r -

ing t h a t h e h a s f o u n d N o a h a l o n e r i g h t e o u s (saddle{) i n his g e n e r a t i o n (dar). S i m i l a r i t i e s in § G a n d § D , read as r e d u n d a n c i e s a n d p o i n t i n g t o d i f f e r e n t sources, are: 1) t h e a n n o u n c e m e n t s of t h e flood t o N o a h ; 2) t h e i n t e n t t o b l o t o u t all living t h i n g s ; a n d ‫ )ך‬t h e d e s t r u c t i o n t raced t o t h e lawlessness of t h e s e c r e a t u r e s . In respect

to t h e s e similarities we would

point

to t h e following differences.

W h e r e a s t h e a n n o u n c e m e n t in SG is m a d e l o n g b e f o r e t h e flood, calls for N o a h t o

T H F FLOODS OF NOAH A N D U T N A P I S H T I M

143

build the ark, and gives no indication how long it will (or actually did) take to build, the announcement in §D follows the completion of the ark, and calls for boarding it due to the imminence of the rain. As for the righteousness of N o a h and the wickedness of all other men and species, §C specifies the latter and implies the former, while §D makes the former explicit and implies the later. A n d , indeed, in regard to the similarity in diction pointed out above in 6:9 and 7:1, a famous ambiguity expounded by the rabbis in 6:9 finds its resolution in 7:1. N o a h s "righteous‫·׳‬ ness in his generations" (note the plural, which prompted our translation "age") can mean that he was righteous compared to the pervasive wickedness of his age, or that his righteousness was even more remarkable for the example of his contemporaries. N o a h in 7:1 is judged by Y H W H as "alone righteous in his generation" (note the singular). There is only one standard of righteousness—God's—for all generations, and N o a h met that standard: no one else did. T h e chief difference between the two pericopes, the specification of a single pair of each species in §G and ot a single pair of unclean species as against seven pair of the clean, as has been discussed above, need not be read as discrepant. T h e ins truetion as to the animals in §G is synoptic - - ;1 pair of each species-—minimally, and refined in the resumptive § 0 into two orders oi pairing: single pairs for the unclean, seven pairs for the clean. We have thus argued that neither discrepancies nor pointless redundancy can be upheld as evidence for a conflation here of those different sources, bor all that, our poetic analysis requires us to seek for the purpose of the tricky deployment here of the synoptic-resumptive and as well for the unquestionable redundancies that are a feature of the entire narrative. Thus, we cannot overlook that this last pericope constitutes the fifth time that the living créatures are mentioned as slated for destruction (this time by "erasure, blotting out," which as Speiser pointed out evokes the imagery of the inscription on a clay tablet destroyed by immersion in water). T h e difference between §D and §C lies in the order of destruction and refuge. T h e latter begins with the doom in 6:13, resumes that motif in 6:17, and t h e n proceeds to the ark as refuge for N o a h and his company; in §D the entry into the ark for the righteous N o a h comes first (7:1) and the doom of all others constitute the Deity's closing words (7:4). A n d , yet again, as in the three pericopes that precede it, the earth (/lä'äres), the habitat created by God for humans, beasts, and birds is mentioned three times.

Episode E. E71teri71g the Ark (6) N o a h n o w was 6 c ο years old when the Deluge t o o k p l a c e — w a t e r s o n e a r t h . (7) N o a h e n t e r e d — and his sons and his wife and his son s wives w i t h h i m — into t h e ark, [for shelter] t r o m the waters ut t h e Deluge. (8) O f all t h e c l e a n beasts n o w , a n d of t h e beasts w h i c h u n c l e a n are, and of t h e fowl and e v e r y t h i n g w h i c h scurries on t h e ground, (9) pairs of e a c h canu‫ ־‬tn N o a h t o t h e ark, male and female, even, as G u d had charged N o a h . { ί ο ) It was in t h e seven-days time (earlier m e n t i o n e d ( thai t h e waters of t h e l \ ‫ ־‬l u g e occurred on e a n h . (11) N o w

in t h e fSooth veai o! N o a h V lili-iime, in M o n t h

m o n t h — o n t h i s day p r e c i s e l y

2 un Pay

17 ol t h e

l:d all t h e w e l l s p r i n g s ! >1 ( a v a l I V e p c r a c k o p e n a n d

t h e s l u i c e g a t e s oi h e a v e n -praiLi ί ‫ ׳‬p e n . ( 1 2 ) Î h e r a i n s e< ‫ וווי‬i n u e d ! >n earl 11 lor !011 y days

!44 and forty nighis.) (

S T O R I I - S ‫ ־‬- " I HI· 1>U1MI‫־‬VA1

IIISTORY"

|Yes,) on this very day did N o a h e n t e r — a n d S h e m , H a m and

Japheth (Noah's sons), a n d Noah's wite, and d i e trio o( his son's wives w i t h t h e m — i n t o the ark. ( 14) [Yes] they and all wild beasts according to t h e i r species, and all grazing beasts according to their species, and all beasties w h i c h scurry o n e a r t h according to their species, a n d all fowl according to t h e i r species: every bird, every winged t h i n g . (15) T h u s t h e y c a m e to N o a h to t h e ark, pairs of all flesh creatures in w h i c h abides t h e b r e a t h of life, (τ 6a) A n d those arriving n o w — m a l e and f e m a l e of every creature c a m e , even as G o d had charged h i m . ( 7 : 6 - 1 6 a )

T h e above translation differs in minor respects from my earlier translation, which was designed primarily to highlight the separate source elements read into this pericope. In my preliminary discussion of these elements I disposed of the criteria by which scholarship has assigned the contents of this pericope to Ρ and J, and so have been been able to dispense here with the italics. In the interest of a poetical analysis I have used paragraph indentations, parentheses, and rubrics in boldface type, so that the reader ma ν review‫ ׳‬this pericope with an eye to the disposition of paratactic or hypotactic syntax in the original Hebrew. Thus, for example, the rubrics now and Yes in boldface, signaling hypotactic syntax (verses 6, 8 - 9 , 11, 13-14, and 16), and the absence of these (verses 7, 10, 12, and 15) indicating paratactic syntax. Let us recall that the normal usage in narrative is paratactic syntax (verbal clauses, introduced by waw-conversive construction), while hypotactic syntax (nominal clauses with following verbs in the normal sense-functions ot perfect and imperfect) expresses [‫ ן‬subordination, often a parenthetical or flashback aside. Consider, then, how anomalous is this pericope. Ot a total oi eleven verses, seven arc hypotactic in structure, only four arc paratactic; the narrative brunt is earned by the former. Not only that, however: Of the four verses in paratactic syntax, two— verses 10 and 12—arc parenthetic in 1 unction, hence subordinate in this respect to the hypotactic verses, which are normally subordinate in function. T h a t leaves us with only two paratactic verses out ot eleven, and of these two, verse 15 is a kind of resumptive coda, supererogatory in respect to information and semantically as gratuitous as the final verse that is attached to it (in hypotactic construction). W h a t can be the point of these so consistent departures from standard style? Another problem: W h a t significance did our narrator attach to numerical tidbits as to twice inform us that the Deluge took place in the 6 ooth year of N o a h s lifetime? A n d this without, telling us whether it was possibly the day after his 600th birthday or the day before his 601st, W hich, of course, raises the question as to why precision matters in regard to the onset of the deluge on Day 17 of M o n t h 2, a precision that is twice commended to our attention by the formulation "on this day" for the onset of the waters (verse 11 ) and a on that very day" for the entry into the ark (verse 13). In respect to this last notice which, tied in with verse 14, states baldly that all the humans and all the animals filed over the one gangplank and through the one door in the arks side in a single day, is it idle to ask whether this does not run counter to the logic of 7:1-5? There, the seven days notice of the flood's advent, following upon the bidding to begin the boarding of the ark, seems to be in recognition of the many days it would require to settle the multitudinous s p e c i e s i n t o t h e a r k . In :‫־‬v s u r e , t h e i n t e n t b e h i n d v e r s e i 3 m a y h e t h a t t h e a n i m a l s

THE FLOODS OF NOAH A N D UTNAPISHTIM ! 9 ‫ף‬

t o o k s i x d a y s a n d p a r t of t h e s e v e n t h t o g o a b o a r d , a n d t h a t o n l y t h e l a s t of t h e s e , together w i t h t h e h u m a n s , boarded t h e ark m i n u t e s before t h e waters b e g a n

to

p o u r . B u t if t h i s w a s t h e i n t e n t , w h y so b l u r r e d , w h y i n s u c h c o n t r a s t t o t h e t i m e of t h e w a t e r s ' o n s e t , t h e t i m e of t h e b o a r d i n g , b o t h o f t h e s e o n t h a t f a t e f u l d a y i n t h e s e c o n d m o n t h of N o a h s 6 0 0 t h y e a r ? T h e p r o b l e m of n a r r a t i v e r e d u n d a n c y , n o t e d i n r e s p e c t t o p r e v i o u s p e r i c o p e s , is s o r e m a r k a b l e a f e a t u r e of t h i s p e r i c o p e t h a t it w a r r a n t s a r e p e t i t i o n oi t h e t e x t , a r r a n g e d s o as t o f a c i l i t a t e o u r g r a s p of it.s e x t e n t ; (6) N o a h n o w was 600 years ok! when

(11) N o w in t h e 6 0 0 t h year of N o a h ' s lilei tme, in M o n t h 2 o n Day 17 of t h e month.— o n this day precisely --

did all the wellsprings of Great t h e Deluge took place-

Deluge crack o p e n a n d t h e

waters o n e a r t h .

sluice gates of h e a v e n spring open. ( 1 2 ) T h e rains c o n t i n u e d o n e a r t h for forty days and forty nights.

(7) N o a h e n t e r e d — a n d his sons,

( 1 3 ) [Yes] o n this very day did N o a h e n t e r —

a n d his wife a n d his sons' wives

and Shem, H a m and Japheth

w i t h h i m — i n t o t h e ark,

N o a h s sons,

[for shelter] f r o m t h e water of

a n d N o a h ' s wife arid t h e trio of

t h e Deluge.

his sons wives w i t h t h e m ™ i n t o t h e ark. ( 1 4 ) [Yes] t h e y a n d all wild beasts a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r species,

(8) Of all t h e clean beasts n o w

a n d all [grazing] beasts a c c o r d ‫׳‬

and of t h e beasts w h i c h u n c l e a n

ing to t h e i r species, and all

are, a n d of t h e fowl a n d e v e r y

beasties w h i c h scurry o n e a r t h

t h i n g w h i c h scurries o n rhe

a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r species, a n d

ground

all fowl according t o t h e i r species: every bird, every winged thing.

(9) pairs of each c a m e t.o N o a h η t h e ark,

(15) T h u s they c a m e to N o a h to the ark, pairs oi all llesh creatures i n w h i c h abides t h e breath of life. A n d those arriving n o w

m a l e a n d female, e v e n as G o d had charged N o a h . (10) It was in t h e s e v e n days t i m e [earlier m e n t i o n e d ] t h a t t h e waters of t h e Deluge o c c u r r e d o n

male a n d f e m a l e of every flesh c r e a t u r e c a m e , e v e n as G o d h a d charged him.

earth.

It is a t e l l i n g c o m m e n t a r y o n s o u r c e - c r i t i c i s m t h a t t h e a b o v e a r r a n g e m e n t of p e r i c o p e §E yields w h a t j- and-P‫׳‬ba>ed analysis h a s n e v e r p r o d u c e d : t w o s e l f - s t a n d i n g

164

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

complete versions of a narrative episode, virtually identical in content, and arranged in consecution such that either the first sequence (verses 6 - 1 ο) or the second (verses 1 1 -1 ()) could he omitted without any loss whatever to the narrative flow. This episode is a marvel of poind ess ly redundant repel it ion: (1) Twice (in verses 6 and 11) is the onset of the waters dated to Noah's 600th year; (2); Twice (in verses ‫ ך‬and .13) do Noah, sons, wife, and sons' wives—in that identical malechauvinist order enter the ark; (3) Twice (in verses 8 - 9 and 14-16) do all the animals come to the ark, in pairs, male and female; (4) Twice (in verses 9 and 16) the arrival of the animals is characterized by a strange formulation (in almost identical diction): they come, these multitudinous species—•not in keeping with God's prediction or promise to Noah, but—according to what he had charged or commanded him. I will defer conjecture as to the poetic design behind such redundancy, for it will continue to characterize this narrative. (That it is indeed by design must be the premise and conclusion of a poetic address to a literature that is everywhere else noted for its economy and density.) I will, however, focus on the last redundancy, a redundancy not only pointless in itself (else it would not be a redundancy) but contextually nonsensical. A n d , the poetical purpose of the ubiquitous redunclancies will be foreshadowed in our argument for the poetical purposefulness of this contrived absurdity. As in this pericope we have two tellings of the coming of the animals to the ark, so do we have earlier in our narrative two anticipations (in the words of the Deity) of that event. In §C, in 6:19 the verb used is tâbï\ the imperfect tense. In my first translation (so my manuscript bears witness) 1 rendered this verb "take (into the ark)" In my revised translation the word is "bring" This revision followed a prior revision of the rendering of Deity s word in §D, 7:2. I lere the verb (again in the imperfect tense hut. imperative modality) is lufLiaiyleka, which 1 had first rendered "letch yourself," but which now reads, "admit with you" I h e reason tor this revisum was the realization that "fetch (for) yourself' implied that Deity was charging Noah with responsibility for rounding up the pairs ol every species. Since such a charge would have constituted an existential absurdity, the newer (and alte )get her legitimate) rendering suggested itself. I then backtracked to 6:19 and changed the innocent enough "take (into the ark)" to "bring" so as to conform the verbal usage with that in the following verse 20. Here the qal of the verb is featured in a seemingly redundant addition that "a pair of each will come (yäböü) to you for survi val" T h e redundancy is thus resolved by the need to clarify God's declaration as constituting a prediction and not a command. This should not obscure from our consciousness that the ambiguity in the sense of the verse is a function of our overlooking that one of the two senses is, in context, absurd. In any case this prediction by Deity in §C and in §D is fulfilled in the two notices in §E (7:9 and 15) that the pairs did indeed come to Noah. In both notices, however, the incongruous addition as God had charged him is a hack-reference to the silly ambiguity in 6: t9 and 7:2, Let us see now how the author (or should we speak rather of the unreliable narrat or) expands this initial bit of silliness in pericope §E. T h e first notice of the animais' arrival in verses 8 - 9 is in hypotactic construction, here in. unjustifiable departurc from the normal paratactic construction, as indeed in the preceding verse

Tf I If FLOODS OF Ν ΟΛΗ Λ Ν Π UTNAIMSH ΠΜ

1 \‫ך‬

7· This anomaly, however, is only parr oi‫ ׳‬a masterpiece of hefuddling redundance, for verse 13 tells us in (formally and justifiable) hypotactic construction that the humans entered the ark. (Note the utter gratuitousness of the identification of Shem, Ham, and Japheth as " N o a h s sons") Verse 14 adds: They (the humans) as well as the animals, and the latter are, in an excess of pleonastic ontology and taxonomy, glossed by four terms for four categories, each specified by according to their species and the last reiterated as every bird, every winged thing, as if to remind us that such ratites as the ostrich are for all their flightlessness fowl nonetheless. T h e n verse 15 tells us in normal paratactic construction that they—all flesh endowed with animating spirit—came in pairs "to Noah, to the ark." This is followed by verse 16 in hypotactic construction, a parenthetic assurance to the reader, that "now as for those c o m m g , male and female of all flesh came." A n d this with the addition, "as God had charged h i m " Pity the poor translator! Or rather, pity the good translator! Pity the poor reader, victim alike, alas, of good translator and wily author. A n d pity the scientific Bible scholar. It is with no thought of avenging himself on Scripture's authors or editors that he labors with dissecting scalped to sunder into historically meaningful snippets what they created and joined in tautological wedlock.

Episode

F, Deluge

and

Destruction

(16b) Y H W H b a t t e n e d h i m in. ( 17a) T h e Deluge c o n t i n u e d forty days o n t h e e a r t h . ( 1 7 h ) A s t h e waters increased greatly on e a r t h , they buoyed up t h e ark and it lifted free f r o m t h e e a r t h . (18) A s t h e water intensified a n d increased greatly (‫ ווי‬t h e e a r t h t h e ark m o v e d on t h e water's suri ace. ( 1 y) Now 7 t h e waters intensilying very greatly on e a r t h , they blanketed e v e n the highest m o u n t a i n s that are u n d e r t h e sky everywhere: (20a) 15 cubits a b o v e [them] did t h e waters prevail [lit., "intensify"]. (20b) W i t h rhe b l a n k e t i n g of t h e m o u n t a i n s , (21) all flesh creatures t h a t scurry o n eart h expired — in d i e category of fowl, of cattle, of wild beasts, of every swarm-breed t h a t t e e m s o n e a r t h — a n d all h u m a n k i n d as well. ( 2 2 ) Yes, e v e r y t h i n g t h a t [has] t h e b r e a t h of life-spirit in its nostrils, of every [category] t h a t is o n dry land, died. (23) T h u s did h e blot out all existing t h i n g s t h a t are o n t h e surface of t h e ground, inclusive of h u m a n k i n d [and e x t e n d i n g ] t o herbivores, t o beasties a n d to sky-birds. W i t h t h e m erased f r o m e a r t h , t h e r e r e m a i n e d only N o a h a n d t h a t w i t h h i m in t h e ark. (24) T h e waters intensified o n e a r t h for 150 days. ( 7 : 1 0 b - 2 4 )

Except for the number forty (days), supposedly a round number, in verse 16, and the number 150 days, supposedly not a round number, in verse 24, there is no good reason, even by the dubious criteria of source-criticism, to assign any part of this pericope to one source rather than another. (Speiser for example, makes no attempt to justify the division—which he accepts — according to sources.) T h e only pressure for division at all is the presumption that the many redundancies are explainable only as the sewing together of pieces from two original and parallel narratives. Why an editor should choose to piece together such repetitious snippets is a question altogether ignored. Interestingly em ugh ne example of striking red 1111-

166

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

daricy in two verses universally recognized as assignable to j and Ρ respectively n e e d n o t be r e d u n d a n c y at alb As our translation reveals, t h e increase or swelling of t h e waters in verse 17 explicitly accounts tor t h e arks lift-off f r o m t h e ground, while in verse 18 t h e intensification of t h e waters' swell results in t h e ark's movem e n t , h e a d e d for t h e m o u n t a i n top in respect to w h i c h t h e b l a n k e t i n g waters of verse 19 are a proleptic h i n t . But r e d u n d a n c y t h e r e is in this passage of seven verses, e n o u g h perhaps to justify three or four hypothetical sources. T h e intensification of t h e water's rise is m e n t i o n e d five times, featuring the verb gbr ‫ ״‬t o be strong" a n d t h e verb rb' "to be numerous, much." T h e expression ' 1 the earth" haäre§, ever so supererogatory (as we n o t e d ) in preceding pericopes, appears eight times, and twice more in t h e synonymous adämä "ground" or horäbä "dry ground." In t h e space of three verses ( 2 1 - 2 3 ) three verbs appear b e t o k e n i n g t h e e x t i n c t i o n of animal life (gu>\ mût, mhh). In respect: to these last verses, t h e careful reader of t h e H e b r e w text will note at least three anomalies in t h e expressions for the animal life extinguished: 1. In verse 3, the generic term for animal life is bäsär "flesh." This term appears six times earlier !11 our narrative, but never modified as it is here by an adjective. T h e adjective is the active participle of t h e verb nn.s, normally rendered into English by "creep, c r a w l " or t h e like; this participial adjective appears w i t h a n o u n form of t h e same stem: r ernes. Since this n o u n oit en appears 111 a c o n t e x t w i t h o t h e r terms in series b e t o k e n i n g wild and domestic animals a n d birds, we h a v e rendered t h e n o u n by "beasties" that is, small or tiny creatures and t h e participle by "scurrying." T h i s participle appears twice in Genesis 1. i n 1:21 it appears as adjective w i t h hol nef es häyä "every living animal" and rendered by us "that stirs." I n a s m u c h as these creatures derive from the water along w i t h o t h e r teeming life such as great a m p h i b i a n s and crocodiles and the like, we assume t h a t this reference is to such small land-and-water creatures as frogs and snakes a n d otters. In 1:30 t h e participle as n o u n , appearing in series with wild beasts (hay y at hääres) and birds of t h e sky, c a n only be a catchall term, and so hol härömes cal hääres c a n only be rendered along t h e lines of "and everything astir o n earth." (Interestingly, this phrase is furt h e r modified by t h e clause c\ser bö nef es hay y a " w h i c h has w i t h i n it t h e lifeessence") O n l y here, in 7:21, does t h e participial adjective appear w i t h t h e n o u n bäsär, to wit, "all flesh t h a t stirs upon the earth (expired)." S i n c e flesh in itself ( w i t h o u t a n i m a t i n g spirit) is b o t h m e t o n y m y (part for t h e whole) and metaphor, t h e addition of t h e adjective "stirring" makes for an e x t e n d e d — a n d i n c o n g r u o u s — metaphor. T h i s incongruity, in a text replete w i t h repetitive figurations, might h a v e gone unobserved but for the series of particulars t h a t is in apposition to t h e generic "stirring flesh," a n d which is given an anomalous and incongruous formulation. T h e series of fowl, herbivores, wild beasts, and teeming things is unexceptionable in itsell (except for the order). But it is rendered incongruous by the preposition bc "in, among," which governs each oi t h e s e — n o t e the gap-bridging interpolation in our translation four categories. T h e narrators subtlety is also expressed by the absence of this governing proposition in respect to "all humankind." T h u s there are two subj e c t s f o r t h e v e r b expire, o n e at I h e b e g i n n i n g oi t h e v e r s e , "all s t i r r i n g f l e s h " —

glossed as four categories of c real utvs — and one at t h e end, "all humankind," which is thus excluded from the generic subject at the beginning!

THE FLOODS OF NOAH A N D UTNAPISHTIM ! 9 ‫ף‬

2. In the foregoing instance, the application of the preposition to the roar subcategories, instead of to the generic category to winch it belongs, is already a case of hypallage. This trope (like /micro)! /)micron, for example) appears always in (often, slyly) humorous contexts, a fact that, is neglecied in the teaching of classical rhetoric. Witness our dictionary's definition of hypallage; Ά figure consisting oi an interchange in the syntactic relationship between two terms; as, , to apply the wound to water' in place o f ' t o apply water to the w o u n d / " Our second instance also features hypallage, this time featuring t h e preposition 77r" "of, from, among." T h e subject of verse 22 is, literally, "everything that (has) the breath of the spirit ot lite in its nostrils" This is a triply redundant expression, inasmuch as breath (n e ‫׳‬ sämä) and spirit (rüah) are synonyms, and b o t h are metaphoric expressions for life (hayylm). This redundant redundancy is t h e n compounded in another redundancy "m its nostrils" This last, if not redundant, is at least superfluous in that Genesis 2:7 tells us that God, to animate the h u m a n earth-child, "blew into his nostrils t h e breath of life (nismat hayyim)." But even a non-biblicist, oblivious to the intertextual allusion, might ask, where but in t h e nostrils would the life-breath be: And the humorless r h e t o r i c i a n — o r rather, t h e rhetorician who c a n n o t cede a sense of humor to a biblical a u t h o r — w o u l d snort in response, "Why, in the mourh, of course—or in the throat or lungs!" T h e humor that we, then, see or read into t h e quadruple redundancy is reinforced by the humor in the hypallage: the compounded subject of t h e sentence is t h e n glossed "0/ everything [mikfcoi] that [was] on dry l a n d " Thus instead of: Of everything existing on dry land, every animal life-form died, we have: "Every[thing] that [has] the breath of the spirit of life in its nostrils of everything that [was] on dry land died" W h a t else on dry land that could have died did not die?

3‫־‬. T h e third instance features two pr ril· . . . ‫׳‬ad "from . . . to." This verse (7:22) is anticipated by 6:4, almost identical in diction, with which it must be compared. GENESIS 6 : 7

UHNFSls 7 : 2 3

YHW11 said: I will blot o u t the humankind

H e blotted o u t e v e r y t h i n g exrant I created

[y'tjfwm, cf. 7:4]

from t he g r o u n d s surface,

w h i c h I is I o n t h e g r o u n d s surface,

f r o m m a n k i n d [adam, n o article]

f r o m m a n k i n d [ädäm, n o article|

to cattle

to c a t t l e

to beasties

to beasties

and to sky ‫׳‬fowl.

a n d to sky-fowl.

S o great fis] my regret at h a v i n g m a d e them.

A s we pointed out earlier, t h e formulation in 6:7, literally (i.e., with literary iiv t e n t ) identifies the h u m a n species with t h e totality of God's (created) creatures, by making the gamut of the humankind, that range of animals from human, through cattle large and small, to sky-fowl. But whereas the first underlines the dignity of the h u m a n race by rendering all other creatures as virt ual constituent s of human existence, having hardly any independent ontology, the second a c h i e v e s rhe oppo-‫׳‬ site effect. In specifying the gamut of everything extant in an apparently descending

150 rank

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

( c o g n a t e w i t h r u n g e ) f r o m h u m a n t o b i r d s , t h e c o n t e x t of ( J o d s m a l e f i c a r t e n -

t i o n m a k e s lor a b a t h o s ( f r o m t h e s u b l i m e t o t h e r i d i c u l o u s ) w h o s e h u m o r c a n o n l y b e at m a n k i n d ' s e x p e n s e : ( J o d e r a s e d all l i v i n g t h i n g s , f r o m h u m a n t o r o a c h ,

Oui‫ ־‬discussion of the humorous and human-deprecating effects of our narrators diction, in all its redundantly repetitious and perversely convoluted syntax, is not to assess the narrative as a joke, in glorification oi a divine monarch's capricious power to destroy a contemptibly sinful humanity together with its brutish and insect adjuncts. Even as our rhetorical analysis reveals the meanings of the subtext in the contrast between the power, morality, and dignity of Creator on the one hand, and his creatures on the other, so also is it not in denial of another kerygma. T h e repetitions of God's frustrated hopes, of his intent to erase what he cannot correct, of that teeming world of multifarious life, throbbing—from greatest to least and from least to greatest—with vitality, all these build to the emotional climax of death, death, death everywhere, except for those snug in the ark with Noah. T h e God of Creation, our narrator conveys to us, was fully aware of the atrociousness of the cataclysm he was about to perpetrate, and nevertheless he did what he had to do. From the standard translations of the last four words of 6:7, "for 1 regret that 1 made them," one would never guess the pain that YHWH's own confession expresses. A n d as there in the story's introduction, the final verse, 6:8, reads, "Noah, however, found favor in YHWH's eyes," so our pericope concludes that, for all the savage waste of a single generation, not a single one of the many species became extinct. Within the ark, every seed of every life-form was preserved to give the world another chance. Fjnsodes G and I. The Deluge Is Cheeked and The

Disembarking

(24) T h e waters intensified o n earth tor 150 days. ( 1) G o d b e t h o u g h t himself of N o a h and all rhe wild beasts and. all t h e c a t t l e that were with him in t h e ark. ( iod t h e n swept a wind over t h e earth and t h e waters were calmed. (2a) B o t h t h e wellsprings ol t h e 1 V e p and t h e du ice gares of h e a v e n were bolted closed. ( 2 b ) W i t h t h e rain from h e a v e n restrained, (3a) t h e waters began to recede f r o m e a r t h , a steady recession. (3h) 1 he waters began to a b a t e (‫| ומלת‬Le., b e g i n n i n g with] Day 150. (4) T h e ark thus grounded in M o n t h 7, Day 17 oi t h e m o n t h , o n t h e m o u n t a i n range of A r a r a t . (5) N o w t h e waters were [in a state of] c o n t i n u o u s recession u n t i l M o n t h 10, O n t h e t e n t h , o n t h e first day of t h e m o n t h , t h e m o u n t a i n peaks s h o w e d

through.

(7:24-8:5) [Here follows t h e Episode of t h e Birds, 0 : 6 - 1 2] (13) It c a m e to pass in t h e Year 601 [of N o a h ' s lifetime! o n t h e first [ m o n t h ] o n Day ι of t h e m o n t h — - d i d t h e waters dry up trom on t h e e a r t h — N o a h r e m o v e d t h e [hatch-] cover of t h e ark and b e h e l d , lo t h e ground's surface was dry. (14) [But n o w ] in M o n t h 2 o n Day 7 ot t h e m o n t h t h e e a r t h b e c a m e [bone] dry. (15) G o d addressed N o a h , (16) ‫ ״‬GOUK out ol the ark: you and your wife and your sons and your sons' wives w i t h you; (17) every living t h i n g t h a t is w i t h you, of all flesh, in [the categories of] fowl, of cattle, and ol‫ ־‬all t h e beasties t h a t scurry o n t h e e a r t h bring f o r t h w i t h you, so that, they !nay t e e m on t h e e a r t h and a b u n d a n t l y repro-

T H E FLOODS OF N O A H A N D U T N A P I S H T I M ! 9 ‫ף‬

duce on the earth. (18) So Noah came out, and his sons and his wife and Iris sons' wives with him. (19) All the beasts, now, all the beasties and all the fowl everything that stirs on the earth—according to their species [lit.; families) came forth fro:m the ark. (8:13—19)

A review of the passages in our first translation will reveal that both are assigned to P, with the exception of a few sentences (amounting to about three verses out of a total of thirteen). Aside from the matter of various numbers and dates, which 1 will discuss separately, the rationale for these source-assignments is redundancy. T h e extent ot the redundancy, however, is such that the source ‫׳‬division falls far short of accounting for it. How far short may be gauged from the following. As far as concerns the hare plot of the narrative, the content of these thirteen verses could be reduced to the length of a single average verse, to wit: After 150 days, the wellsprings of the Deep were closed and the water began a steady retreat. When earth dried up God called Noah to come forth from the ark. tie did so, with all that were with him. Such prolixity in a body of narrative noted lor its economy must he considered together with other anomalous stylistic features in the passages under consideration: features of plot, character, grammar, and syntax. God, we are (old in verse 1, remembered Noah. How the narrator came by this knowledge and why he chooses to pass it on to us are not frivolous poetic ques‫׳‬ tions. Gould this God, who is elsewhere characterized as a guardian who never sleeps or even dozes, have forgotten the one and only world (so our narrative per‫״‬ mits us to infer) that he created, the world that he is now engaged in destroying, except for the one vessel that he has ordained for the preservation of that world: And it the verb for memory zäkar has the connotation of care, concern, and cherish, rather than recovery from a mental lapse, is the dignity thus conferred on Noah—best representative of the human race—not compromised by the addition that that concern extended also to animals wild and tame? This notice, reeking of bathos (cf. the last verse of the Book of Jonah) is then followed not by his turning off of the destructive spates, by a calming of the waters. And this is expressed in another incongruous image. The wind, which normally whips the waves to lifethreatening heights, is used here to flatten—as a scythe the high and full-eared grains ta Iks—the crests of the presumptuous swells. Only then are we told that the waters rushing from below and above were suddenly dammed. Both sources, at the same time? Why, then, is the waters recession in verse 3a related only to the cessation of one of the flows, the rain, in 2h? (A question far more perplexing in view of the notice in 7:12 that the rain only endured forty days, hence ceasing n o days be-‫׳‬ fore the damming of the flow from Deep's fountains!) With the grounding of the ark and the recession of the waters, there follows §H, the episode of the birds, which we discussed earlier. In comparing that episode with its counterpart in the Utnapishtim story, we saw that Utnapishtim in his choice of birds is portrayed as something of an ass, while Noahs choice of the raven could be attributed to a momentary menial lapse. We also saw that Noahs raven did return to the arks vicinity, but not for food. Why then did he return at all? To be closer to his mate, still pent 111 the ark? The reason for our question is, oi course, that at the

152

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

m o m e n t t h e r a v e n w a s s e t f r e e t h e r e m u s t h a v e b e e n t h o u s a n d s of d r y a c r e s a r o u n d t h e ark. For N o a h w o u l d h a v e sent out n o a v i a n scouts unless h e c o u l d spy n o w a t e r f r o m t h e w i n d o w i n t h e s i d e of t h e a r k t h r o u g h w h i c h h e r e l e a s e d t h e b i r d s . W h a t t h e n c a n b e t h e m e a n i n g of t h e s e c o n d h a l f of 8 : 1 3 , t h a t N o a h , l i f t i n g t h e h a t c h c o v e r , s u d d e n l y b e h e l d t h e d r y s u r f a c e ot g r o u n d all a b o u t h i m ? T h e first h a l f of t h i s v e r s e , g i v i n g t h e d a t e f o r t h e w a t e r ' s d r a i n a g e , is u n q u e s t i o n a b l y a p a r e n t h e sis, i n t h e n a r r a t o r ' s v o i c e , f o r all its a n o m a l o u s f o r m a l l y p a r a t a c t i c s y n t a x . N o a h s r e a l i z a t i o n f o l l o w s t h e n t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e b i r d s e p i s o d e ; t h a t is, it c o m e s i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e f a i l u r e of t h e d o v e t o r e t u r n f r o m its t h i r d f l i g h t . T h i s s u g g e s t s s o m e f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s . If t h e r a v e n r e t u r n e d t o t h e a r k s v i c i n i t y t o b e n e a r its m a t e ( t h e o n l y m o t i v e w e c o u l d c o m e u p w i t h ) , w h y w o u l d n o t

the

d o v e h a v e r e t u r n e d t o r t h e s a m e r e a s o n ? F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e is t h e p e r p l e x i n g mat‫׳־‬ 1er of t h e a v e n u e s of i n g r e s s a n d e g r e s s t o a n d f r o m t h e a r k . I n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o t t h e ark, 6 : 1 4 - 1 6 , o n l y o n e s u c h a v e n u e is s p e c i f i e d , " t h e e n t r a n c e in t h e s i d e of t l i e ark?5 T h i s d e t a i l , w h i c h e v o k e s n o c o m m e n t h u m c r i t i c s , s h o w s w h a t c a r e f u l c o n s i d c r a t i o n h a s b e e n g i v e n to this m a t t e r . T h e largest ships in a n t i q u i t y w e r e o n boarded or off-boarded (note this d e n o m i n a t i v e verb from a term synonymous with plank)

v i a a g a n g p l a n k e x t e n d i n g f r o m l a n d t o t h e s h i p a t its l o w e s t d e c k .

The

t h i r t y - f o o t h e i g h t of t h e ark w o u l d h a v e r e q u i r e d a n u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y l o n g o r s t e e p r a m p t o its r o o f t o p , w h i c h w a s a l s o its o n l y e x t e r i o r d e c k . H e n c e t h e p r o v i s i o n of a s i d e e n t r a n c e ( p e r h a p s t h e first s u c h m a r i t i m e d e s i g n i n a n t i q u i t y ) i n t h e a r k . T h e s e c o n d m e n t i o n of a n o p e n i n g i n t h e a r k is t h e w i n d o w t h r o u g h w h i c h N o a h releases t h e birds; h e r e , too, t h e n a r r a t o r signals his a t t e n t i o n t o detail, for w i t h this first m e n t i o n h e c a s u a l l y a d d s , " t h a t h e h a d m a d e ; ' I n v i e w of t h i s , t h e t h i r d o p e n i n g ( i n o u r v e r s e 1 3 ) is b o t h u n n e c e s s a r y a n d c o m i c a l l y a b s u r d . N o a h r e m o v e s t h e miksë

" c o v e r , l i d " of t h e a r k . S i n c e h e c o u l d n o t h a v e r e m o v e d t h e e n t i r e r o o f w e

r e n d e r it " h a t c h - c o v e r , " p r e s u m i n g m e t o n y m y ot w h o l e t o r t h e p a r t . T h e c o m i c abs u r d i t y , h o w e v e r , lies i n t h i s . H a d N o a h s t u c k h i s h e a d o u t of t h e h a t c h h e w o u l d h a v e s e e n n o t h i n g b u t s k y i n all d i r e c t i o n s : h a d h e c l i m b e d o n t o t h e a r k s ( f l a t ) r o o f a n d w a l k e d t o its e d g e , h e s t i l l w o u l d h a v e s e e n n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n h e h a d w h e n h e h a d first l o o k e d o u t o f t h e w i n d o w b e f o r e r e l e a s i n g t h e r a v e n . N e e d l e s s t o say, t h e s e f e a t u r e s of n a r r a t i v e d e t a i l s b o t h r e a l i s t i c a n d i n c o n g r u o u s a t t h e s a m e t i m e are, a l o n g w i t h t h e r e m a r k a b l e r e d u n d a n c y , p o e t i c p r o b l e m s t h a t w e m u s t try to resolve. A third such riddle-element

is t h a t s e r i e s of n u m b e r s a n d d a t e s

that

c o n c l u d e s i n §1. Let us first d i s p o s e of t h o s e n u m b e r s t h a t , r e g a r d e d as c o n t r a d i c t i o n s , a r c a p p o r t i o n e d t o J o r P. T h e f o r t y d a y s a n d n i g h t s f o r t h e d u r a t i o n oi t h e r a i n a p p e a r s t h r e e t i m e s : i n 7 : 4 , in ( ïod's pi e d i c t i o n ; in 7:1 2, as a n a c c o m p l i s h e d f a c t ; a n d i n 7:1 7, w h e r e t h e f o r t y d a y s d u r a t i o n h a s as its s u b j e c t n o t t h e r a i n (^e.scm), but 1 h e w o r d w e r e n d e r e d d e l u g e , mabhul.

I b i s w o r d , first a p p e a r i n g i n 6:1 7 as t h e c a t a c l y s m t o

b e b r o u g h t o n b y G o d , is g l o s s e d t h e r e b y " w a t e r s u p o n e a r r h "

This n o t i c e c o n -

t r i b u t e s t o t h e s o u r c e - c r i t i c a l a s s u m p t i o n of c o n t r a d i c t i o n , f o r t h e g e n e r a l f a i l u r e t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h i s w o r d rnahbül

refers onlv to t h e c o m b i n a t i o n of flow f r o m t h e

s l u i c e g a t e s of h e a v e n a n d f r o m t h e well s p r i n g s ot t h e g r e a t d e e p . 1 3 T h e

mabbül

p r o p e r b e g i n s i n 7 : 1 1 , a n d e n d u r e s as l o n g as t h e f o r t y d a y s of r a i n i n 7 : 1 2 , b u t n o l o n g e r . T h e w a t e r s of t h e d e e p , h o w e v e r , c o n t i n u e t h e i r 11 ο w — t h o u g h u n p e r c e i v e d

THE FLOODS OF N O A H A N D U T N A P I S H T I M ! 9 ‫ף‬

by h u m a n e y e — a n d their volume on earth increases for another 110 days (thus equal to the 150 days explicitly in 7:24 and 8:3 and implicit in 7:20). O n the 150th day the water crests at fifteen cubits higher than the highest peak of Ararat (7:20); on this same day the waters begin to abate (8:3). Hence, the grounding of the ark—which, being thirty cubits high, floated half in and halt out of the water—by marvelous coincidence or providential whim on that peak occurred on that 1 50th clay. But the date of that grounding is given in 8:4 as the ! 7th day of Month 7 (8:4), and the onset of the waters is dated the 17th of Month 2 (7:11). T h e lunar month being 29 days plus a fraction, it must be clear that the 150 days corresponding to exactly five months must be a round number. The waters abate until Day 1 of M o n t h 10 (8:5)—seventy days l a t e r — o n which clay the mountain peaks(!) showed through (8:5), not, however, to the ken of Noah, who was sitting atop that peak in his shelter. Forty days later (8:6) the waters have re‫׳‬ ceded beyond Noah's sight, whereupon he sends out the dove, and twice more at seven-day intervals. This would bring us close to the beginning ot Month 12.14 Noah, however, remains in the ark another m o n t h until (probably on Month 1, Day 1), the waters having drained off from earth (8:13), h e receives G o d s call to come out. 15 In between the notice of the water-drainage and God's call to N o a h comes the parenthetic notice (8:14) in hypotactic construction that the water did not dry up until Day 27 of M o n t h 2, exactly one year and ten days from the flood's onset. There is no contradiction between the two notices. Our narrator has arranged the schedule so that Gochs call to N o a h and his animal company to come out and begin the rebirth of the world should fall appropriately on New Year's Day. ( According to an erroneous rendering of a rabbinic tradition, Rosh H a s h a n a — t h e first day of the seventh month, Tishri—is hailed as the birthday of the world. T h e tradition, however, hails it as yöm harat 'öläm "the day the world was conceived." Almost certainly, then, the tradition relates not to the creation of Genesis 1 but to Genesis 8:13, when the ancestor pairs of all species, issuing from the ark, could resume the cycle of gestation precluded by the confined quarters (if the ark.) The up‫־׳‬ propriateness of this symbolism is beyond debate. But our narrator does not stop there. He arranges for another coincidental date, one so bereft oi meaningful symholism as to be bathetic in comparison to this one. Day 1 ot M o n t h 1 marked the recession of the seas to the normal level ordained tor them by God. But everyone knows that after a flood of such proportion the recession of water to pre-flood level would still leave many low-lying areas awash in stagnant pool. It required, lie informs us, another two months for the last of these pools to dry up. This happens on Dav 27 of M o n t h 2, a full year and ten days after the mabbul had begun. Why not Day 1 7 of M o n t h 2, precisely a year from the onset of the waters? In connection with this last bit of intentional bathos, we must now confess that our translation of the verb härebü in 8:13 by "was drained," and ot the verb yäfa'sa in 8:14 by "had become dry," is wrong, and unforgivably so. It is typical of an ν number of instances where translator-critics who know better than the Scriptural author what he intended implicitly emend the Hebrew by departing trom literal meanings of the Hebrew in their translations. In our instance, the translation we present permits a logical progression from an earlier completion of drainage to a later complction of evaporation. T h e Hebrew diction, however, reverses the logic of meaning-

172

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

f u l s e q u e n c e , so as t o r e n d e r t h e t w o s t a t e m e n t s as n o t o n l y b a t h e t i c , b u t s e m a n t i ‫־ ׳‬ c a l l y a b s u r d . T h e v e r b ybs f o r t h e l a s t s t a g e m e a n s " t o b e ( r e l a t i v e l y ) d r y " w h i l e t h e t e r m hrb f o r t h e p r e c e d i n g s t a g e m e a n s " t o b e b o n e - d r y ! "

Episode J. Sacrifice and Promise (20) N o a h t h e n built an altar to Y H W H , Taking ot every clean c a t t l e [-species] a n d of every c l e a n fowlf-species] h e offered up holocausts at t h e altar. (2 1.) Y H W H sniffed t h e pleasing odor. Y H W H promised himself,

14

Never n e v e r again will I so abuse t h e

e a r t h o n a c c o u n t of m a n k i n d — [ s e e i n g that] t h e b e n t of man 1 ? m i n d is evil f r o m his y o u t h — n o r ever ever again will 1 strike d o w n every lite-form, as 1 h a v e d o n e . (22) S o long as e a r t h endures, seedtime and h a r v e s t a n d cold and h e a t a n d s u m m e r a n d w i n ter a n d day and n i g h t will n o t ever cease. (Genesis 8 : 2 0 - 2 2 ) O I t h e t h r e e p e r i c o p e s a s s i g n e d by s o u r c e - c r i t i c s t o J w e s a w t h a t

§H,

the

H p i s o d e ol t h e B i r d s , c o u l d h a v e as r e a d i l y a n d a r g u a b l y b e e t ) a s s i g n e d t o B. T h a t l e a v e s , h o w e v e r , § D a n d t h i s p e r i c o p e §] leir t o J. 1 h e a f f i n i t i e s b e t w e e n t h e t w o p a s s a g e s a r e : first, t h e a p p e a r a n c e of Y H W H i n b o t h ; a n d s e c o n d , t h e s e v e n p a i r s of c l e a n a n i m a l s s p e c i f i e d in §1) as a g a i n s t a s i n g l e p a i r of t h e u n c l e a n a n i m a l s . T h e a r g u m e n t — a n d it is a p e r s u a s i v e o n e

is t h a t h u t t o r t h i s g r e a t e r n u m b e r o f p a i r s

of t h e e d i b l e s p e c i e s , the. s a c r i f i c e in t h i s p a s s a g e w o u l d h a v e r e s u l t e d i n t h e i r e x t i n c t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e p e r m i s s i b i l i t y of f l e s h - e a t i n g g r a n t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g Episode § K — a Ρ passage — i n d i c a t e s why the same source in §C, consistent w i t h t h e divine m a n d a t e for vegetarian diets in Genesis 1 : 2 9 - 3 0 , n e e d e d to m a k e n o d i s t i n c t i o n as b e t w e e n c l e a n a n d u n c l e a n a n i m a l s . W e a c c e p t t h i s a r g u m e n t

in

p r i n c i p l e , a n d w i l l a d d r e i n f o r c i n g e l e m e n t s f o r it w i t h o u t , h o w e v e r , c o n c e d i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e of " s o u r c e s . " T h e r e a r e n a r r a t i v e s t r a n d s i n t h e s e e a r l y c h a p t e r s of G e n e sis a n d I w i l l d i s c u s s t h e m s h o r t l y i n t e r m s of t h e i r t h e m a t i c e l e m e n t s a n d t h e i r d i e t i o n as w e l l as t h e i r i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o a s i n g l e n a r r a t i v e b y a s i n g l e n a r r a t o r . F o r t h e p r e s e n t , l e t us n o t e t h a t a l t h o u g h i n S c r i p t u r e " c l e a n n e s s " i n a n i m a l s is c r i t e r i o n for edibility

and

sacrificeability

alike,

there

is n o

contradiction

between

our

e p i s o d e §J a n d t h e first g r a n t of l e g i t i m a c y t o a m e a t d i e t i n § K . F o r t h e s a c r i f i c e s o f f e r e d b y N o a h a r e all, a n d e x p l i c i t l y , h o l o c a u s t s ( öiöt), c o m p l e t e l y b u r n t o n t h e a l t a r ; t h i s t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f zebah

01‫( ־‬zibhe^sdevmm,

of w h i c h t h e h u m a n s

may

partake. I t is c l e a r t h a t Y H W H ' s p r o m i s e in t h i s p e r i c o p e c o n s t i t u t e s a c l i m a x o f t h e N o a h n a r r a t i v e (a c l i m a x , f o r t h e r e a r e o t h e r s ) . T h e p o w e r of t h e f o u r - f o l d m e r i s m in v e r s e 22 t e s t i l i e s t o t h a t . S o a l s o d o e s t h e r o l e p l a y e d in Y H W H ' s s e l f - c o n f e s s e d m o t i v a t i o n lor h i s r e s o l v e . H c h o i n g t h e d i c t i o n in § A in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e p r o clivity ot t h e h u m a n

imagination Y H W H

d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e yêser

"fashion(ing),

f o r m , s h a p e , t e n d e n c y " of t h e h u m a n m i n d is e v i l f r o m y o u t h , t h e last w o r d a m b i g u o u s as t o r e f e r e n c e ; is it t o e a c h i n d i v i d u a l o r t o t h e first g e n e r a t i o n s of t h e species? But this d e c l a r a t i o n , w h i c h might

a l m o s t b e t a k e n as a f o r m u l a t i o n

ot

" o r i g i n a l sin," is n o t t h e r e a s o n f o r Y I I W H s p r o m i s e ; it is d e s p i t e t h i s u n f o r t u n a t e trait, w h o s e eluctability h e seems

t o b e c o n c e d i n g , t h a t t h e p r o m i s e is m a d e .

1 I e n c e , a s t a t e m e n t as t o h u m a n , s i n f u l n e s s a n d V G d s g r a c e , b u t a l s o by i n f e r e n c e , a

T H E FLOODS OF NOAH A N D UTNAPISHTIM ! 9 ‫ף‬

judgment on the flood: given what God must have known before, the flood should never have taken place. There are further elements of rhetorical playfulness, of, if you will, tongue in cheek. Taken literally, verse 20 has N o a h offering at least one sacrificial victim of every clean species of beast and fowl. For all that cloven-hoofed ruminants and edible fowl are greatly outnumbered by unclean species, the number of those qualified for sacrifice would have required many days and many altars for cremation. T h e narrator may be signaling this awareness in the choice of preposition to govern the altar- Sacrificial meats are burned upon (', which can mean in, by, at, for, or agamst, but never upon, can only be intentional. So too the word describing how YHWH related to the aroma (or is it stench?) of the sizzling flesh. ï le does not show regard for it (s h as in respect to the offerings of Cain and Abel) nor is lus aceeptance expressed by the normal term r§h. He sniffs it. This expression for G o d s receipt of an offering appears only once again, and that one in a context of dénigration. in 1 Samuel 26:19, David remonstrates with the king, who is persecuting him. His argument to Saul is that he is being instigated by God (who, for one reason or another, must want David punished) or malevolent humans. He expresses his disdain at the likelihood of the first alternative in the words, "If it is Y H W H who is egging you on against me, let him sniff an offering," In a similar vein then, Y H W H s reaction to the holocausts of the victims he has ordained for preservation from extine tion may well be one more expression of the narrators awareness of the silliness of the story he is reshaping; it is silly in respect to plot and in respect to its h u m a n protagonists. In this particular episode, the amused tolerance of God evokes the image of a parent viewing the compensatory offering in the outstretched hand of a repentant child, a selection of candies from its treasured hoard.

Episode K. Blessing and Meat for M ans Table ( 1 ) G o d blessed N o a h a n d his sons, saying t o t h e m , "Increase a b u n d a n t l y and popu‫״‬ late t h e earth. (2) T h e dread fear of you shall d e s c e n d u p o n all living creatures of e a r t h a n d u p o n t h e fowl of t h e sky, u p o n every t h i n g w i t h w h i c h t h e e a r t h is astir, a n d all fish oi t h e sea: i n t o your power are they delivered. ( ‫ ) ן‬Every stirring t h i n ‫ ״‬t h a t lives shall he yours for t h e eating; like t h e grass greens d o 1 give t h e m all to you. (4) O n l y flesh with its life-blood in it you are not to eat. ( s ) A n d also— (or your o w n lifeblood will. I exact r e t r i b u t i o n : of every beast will I exact il and of h u m a n k i n d ; of every m a n for his b r o t h e r will 1 exact r e t r i b u t i o n for a human life. (6) W h o e v e r sheds t h e blood of m a n , by m a n shall his blood be shed. T h i s is the m e a n i n g of: "In !he image or G o d m a d e H e man." (7) You, t h e n , for your part, increase a b u n d a n t l y , t e e m on e a r t h and be fertile u p o n it. ( G e n e s i s 9 : 1 - 7 )

This pericope begins with G o d s blessing in terms of propagation. But. unlike that implied blessing in §1 and its explicit forerunner in 1:22, this one is confined to the human species alone, and with good reason. For the anticipation of m a n k i n d s increase in number is in contrast to a concomitant fear of man to befall

174

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

all living creatures of earth, sky, and water. W h y will they fear man? Because God has declared them fair game for mankind. This now is something; new. T h e word•‫׳‬ ing in Genesis 1:29-30, G o d s grant‫ ״‬to man and heast alike, a diet deriving from "all seed-hearing grasses, all trees hearing seed-hearing fruit . . . every green herbage,'" is evoked now by those same words, permitting animal ilesh to mankind "just like the green herbage‫ ״‬M eat-eat ing ρ res up ‫ ין‬oses taking the life of the animal to be eaten. Humans may now take animal life. H u m a n life, however, is sacred, in keeping with the explicit reierence to 1:26-28, m a n s dignity as symbolized in man's creation in God's image. Neither beast nor man may take human life with impunity. In the introduction to this J (or Ρ document) we noted that the offense was an indeterminate hämäs "lawlessness" perpetrated by both man and beast. In view of this strand s conclusion—permitting one vector of the previous prohibition ( m a n s taking animal life for food)—it. is a reasonable conjecture that the lawlessncss ot all the species, which precipitated the flood, was the taking of lite—for food — without the permission, contrary indeed to the prohibition, of the Creator of all life. 16

Episode L. The Promise of the Rainbow (8) G o d t h e n said t o N o a h a n d t o his sons w i t h h i m , (9) "I h e r e b y m a k e this c o v e n a n t of m i n e w i t h you a n d your offspring to c o m e , (10) and also w i t h every living creature t h a t is with y o u — o f birds, cattle, a n d all o t h e r beasts of e a r t h along w i t h y o u — a l l t h a t h a v e c o m e o u t of t h e ark, of every c r e a t u r e o n e a r t h . (11) T h i s c o v e n a n t ot m i n e with you I will fulfill: n e v e r again shall all flesh be c u t off by Deluge waters, never again shall t h e r e Deluge be to waste t h e e a r t h " (12) God said further, "This, now, is t h e sign of t h e c o v e n a n t 1 ‫ ״‬g r a n t as b e t w e e n m e and you a n d every living c r e a t u r e thai is w i t h you, for all ages to c o m e : (13) My how have I set in t h e clouds, t o serve as a sign oi the c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n me a n d earth. (14) Sc! shall it he, w h e n 1 mass clouds over e a r t h

and the how appears in t h e

cloikh - •• ( ι ‫ )ך‬ί shall he m i n d f u l of this c o v e n a n t of m i n e w h i c h exists b e t w e e n !.ne and you and every living c r e a t u r e a m o n g all flesh that t h e waters will not f u n c t i o n as Deluge to waste all flesh. ( 1 6 ) Ί h e how will be in t h e clouds, by my p r o v i d e n c e , to mark an e n d u r i n g c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d and every living c r e a t u r e of all flesh t h a t is on earth." (17) G o d p o i n t e d out to N o a h , " ! h e r e n o w is t h e sign of t h e c o v e n a n t t h a t • h a v e established b e t w e e n myself and all flesh t h a t is o n e a r t h ! " ( G e n e s i s 9:8 — 17)

Thematic ally, this pericope is parallel to and a variation of pericope §J. T h e theme, promise, is somewhat clouded here by the Hebrew term standing for that concept, be rît. This Hebrew term has the denotation of pact, compact, cot'enant, words that in English betoken formal or serious agreement, which is to say, agreements on grave matters; as reflected in another synonym treaty, for agreements between peoples and polities. T h e very word bcrit, as Martin N o t h has suggested, probably derives from the Akkadian preposition beri "between," and has the connoration of "between-ness" An agreement, by definition, requires a minimum ot two parties, but pact and its synonyms also imply assent by ail parties to it; thus even in

T H E FLOODS OF N O A H A N D UTNAIMSHTIM

‫לך נ‬

a vassal treary where a victorious suzerain may he dictating the terms to a reluctant: foe, treaty or covenant may still be appropriate renderings of b-'fit if t tie deieated party's alternatives are less attractive than the terms dictated. In the case of a will, however, or any unqualified gift, such as in the instance before us where the grant of favor is unconditional, the term hefît is more faithfully rendered by f>ro‫׳‬mtsc: as we earlier suggested, by synecdoche of the whole for the part. This lengthy dwelling on a single detail, a single word, in our pericope is dietated by its importance for the comparing and contrasting of this pericope §L with §]. In this episode, the idea of promise is certainly central, although no verb or noun with that specific denotation is present. The word Umar "say, think," with an enormous range of connotations, is nevertheless correctly rendered here by promise. Source-criticism has identified a number of elements that support the assignment of these pericopes to J and P, with which we concur, except for our substitution of (narrative) strands for sources. In respect to the J strand, both §J and §A feature the name YHWH; both feature the evil or perversity of the human imagination; and in both the responsibility for YHWH's decision is humankinds, a shortcoming on the part of humans that the animals do not share, implicit in YHWH's promise not to destroy the world on humankinds account. In respect to the Ρ strand, §L shares these features with features in nine of the other twelve pericopes: rhe name Elohim "God;" the responsibility for the cataclysm is shared by both humans and animals; the promise not to repeat the deluge is made to both humans and animals; and the featuring of the noun h'ra in. God s promises to humankind (here in §L and in §G, 6:1 9). do these I would add the feature of redundant diction, particularly with regard to the terms for all animals, in 9:10 and 15-17. 1 here arc, nevertheless, some perceptions of redundancy within pericope §L that I would disallow. Thus, for example, the making of the "covenant" twice, in verses 9 and 1 1, features the verb hëqïm "establish" That sense is appropriate in verse 9, where God "is establishing" (Heb. active participle rneqirn), but in the luturc time 111 verse i t , the promise (/covenant) thus made in verse 9 will he fulfilled, a frequently attested meaning for the same verb. Similarly, the standard translation of verse 16—"When the bow appears in the clouds I will see it and remember"—is identical in meaning to verses 14-15, In addition to making tor a pointless tau toiο g y, this rendering construes God's memory as dependent upon the rainbow: only when he sees it will he recall his promise not to repeat the flood. While the author of the Utnapishtim story might poke fun at Enlil by having him. tie a string around his finger to remind himself not to reach for his war-bow, God is never the object of ridicule in the biblical story. Such a mnemonic function is absurd in any case, for the rainbow appears after the rain, not before it; thus the rainbow would function as a signal to lock the barn door after the horse has left! No, the sign is for man, not for God. And, like the promises in both §] and §L addressed to Noah, the assurance in the rainbow sign is for the comfort of later generations. T h e reversion of the world to chaos, the reemergence of Tiamat to dominance, mingling her waters once more with Apsu's; this cataclysm called mabbül in Scripture, which occurred in N o a h s time, will never again be unleashed by God. For (uni — the God of Script ure- is benevolent.

158

STORIES—

"THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫יי‬

O u r novel (yet n o t bold) translation of verse 16 is n o t e w o r t h y for its e n h a n c e m e n t of our appreciation of t h e author's artistry. A more transparent translation: " T h e how will appear in t h e clouds—yes [the deictic waw], I shall provide it to mark [the d e n o t a t i o n of zkr] an enduring promise as b e t w e e n G o d [on the one h a n d j and [on t h e other] every living essence [abiding] in any flesh t h a t is on earth." An‫׳־‬ other seeming redundancy is seen in the words of verse 12 repeated in verse 14, "This is the sign of the promise." In its first appearance, t h e demonstrative p r o n o u n this refers to the description of t h e sign t h a t follows. In its second appearance, t h e p r o n o u n this—as Rashi takes pains to e x p l a i n — i s a finger pointing to that breathtaking arc across t h e sky: " T h i s — t h e r e n o w — i s t h e sign of t h e promise 1" Perhaps worthy of n o t e is t h e similarity a n d variations of a m e t a p h o r in three cultures: that o! Babylon, oi Scripture, and our own. T h e bow as t h e archers weapon and its retirement as sign of a pledged peace is a natural symbolism, updated perhaps in our own metaphors "hanging up the g u n b e h " or "burying the hatchet." In the i:‫־‬mmki elish, after Marduk conquers Tiamat, creates the cosmos, and builds the gods' palaces, the war-bow of Hnlil is hung in the sky by A n u in the form oi an astral constellation. O u r biblical author, who, we have seen, must have availed himselt oi both Enuma elish and t h e Gilgamesh Epic, may well have borrowed t h e image from the former and adapted it to t h e flood c o n t e x t from t h e latter, but with how m u c h more power and m e a n i n g for its appearance in the day-sky and t h e sunny promise for a h u m a n k i n d so o f t e n menaced by nature's awesome violence. W e began our discussion of this pericope by n o t i n g t h a t it is parallel to and a variation of §b W e also n o t e d t h a t §] falls into strand J, while §L falls into strand Ρ It is therefore instructive as to t h e h o w and why of our n a r r a t o r s d e p l o y m e n t of parallel episodes and integration of t h e m in his narrative, w h i c h remains b o t h consistent and u n r e d u n d a n t in respect to plot, t h a t §J and §L are n e i t h e r inconsistent with o n e a n o t h e r nor r e d u n d a n t l y repetitive. In §J t h e promise of Y H W H seems, at first blush, t o be in pleased a c c e p t a n c e of a n d reward for Ν ο ah s generous offerings. 17 T h e promise, f u r t h e r m o r e , is presented as i n t e r n a l dialogue, is addressed to Deity by himself a n d — a s far as this pericope is c o n c e r n e d — w a s n e v e r c o m m u n i cated to h u m a n k i n d for its i n f o r m a t i o n or comfort. H a v i n g thus exploited in §J t h e t h e m e of I n t r o d u c t i o n § A , t h e narrator c o n t i n u e s in §L w i t h t h e promise c o m m u ‫׳‬ nicated to N o a h and his s o n s — b u t addressed as well to t h e animals, pointedly and repeatedly; to t h e animals w h o h a v e n o imagination, but w h o are capable ot t h e violence t h a t is a p r e c o n d i t i o n for carnivorousness. A n d , for all t h a t animals presurnably d o n o t h a v e t h e imagination to understand the symbolism of t h e rainbow in the clouds, t h e upbeat c onclusion of the c o n c l u d i n g verse 17‫ — ־‬like the preceding verses Jo, 13, 15, and 16 -emphasizes again that the promise extends to "all flesh upon the earth"

O n e concluding n o t e o n t h e narrator's care w i t h diction: In verse 10 the preposit ions governing various classes or aspects of animal kind (b\ mi(n), l·) are as preeise and fitting as t h e corresponding prepositions in §F are incorrect, even inconpriions. It is almost as if t h e narrator were reassuring us with a wink that he can, when he wants to, write Hebrew. But t h e anomaly in this verse, is in respect to a specification of the animals whose species are to be preserved that appears onlv this o n e time in t h e entire narrative. T h e promise is made to h u m a n k i n d in verse 0 and

THE FLOODS OF NOAH AND UTNAPISHTIM

! 9

‫ף‬

extended in verse 10, "and w i t h every living creature t h a t is with you, in t h e category of fowl, of cattle, and of any of earth's f a u n a w i t h you—meiusu'e of all those corning out oj the ark—whatever of earth's f a u n a they belong t o " T h e words in it a b ics are an intrusion, whose deliberateness is d r a w n to our a t t e n t i o n by t h e repetition after it of t h e words preceding it. W h a t is t h e purpose oi this pleonnsm (as of t h e same seemingly pleonastic participle in 9:18, hayyöflm "those coming out of the ark‫ ?)״‬W e r e there any species w h i c h failed to c o m e out ot t h e ark and were therefore excluded f r o m t h e promise? It is unlikely. T h e alternative: a species t h a t survived t h e flood, b u t w h i c h n e v e r c a m e out from t h e ark, because it never entered it: a cross-source or cross-strand reference to t h e semi-divine, s e m i - h u m a n breed of I n t r o d u c t i o n §A. Taking t h e word mabbül in its m i n i m a l m e a n i n g "cataclysm," t h e promise in respect to t h e watery cataclysm we call t h e Deluge is a m e t a p h o r for a species-extinguishing disaster, A n d G o d s promise did n o t include the species of titans (nephilïm) w h o "were o n earth in those days and also afterwards" but h a d by t h e time of t h e narrator b e c o m e e x t i n c t .

A NOTE ON THE

STRANDS

In our pursuit of t h a t literary critical approach to Scripture we call poetics, I h a v e found it necessary (and will c o n t i n u e to do so) to c o n f r o n t in an adversarial way t h a t literary critical approach to Scripture t h a t we call source-criticism. T h e reasons for this, given in t h e preface to this volume and its predecessor, Toward a Grammar, need not detain us. I do feel it incumbent upon me, our of respect to my hi hl ic ist colleagues (of this generation and past ones) and honesty to my own ruethod ο logy, to clarify as far as I a m able my position o n t h e twro strands I discern in Genesis 1 - 9. H a v i n g b e e n myself trained i n — a n d for a good may years won over t o — s o u r c e - c r i t i c i s m , I c a n n o t judge t h e e x t e n t (certainly considerable) to w h i c h my p e r c e p t i o n of t h e strands owes to it. But t h a t p e r c e p t i o n as a poetical-critical p h e n o m e n o n is i n d e p e n d e n t of any m e t h o d to w h i c h it may stand in debt. My a p p r o a c h is based o n t h e hypothesis t h a t t h e t e x t before us represents a harmonious whole, regardless of w h a t borrowing from préexistent traditions or literary corpora may h a v e contributed to t h e form in w h i c h we h a v e it now, Source-analysis got its start to begin w i t h in t h e perception, in t h e P e n t a t e u c h and particularly in Genesis, of clauses a n d sentences repetitious to t h e p o i n t of redundancy, or inconsistent with, e v e n in c o n t r a d i c t i o n of, o n e another. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t I can show‫׳‬ how these clauses and sentences are n o t at all r e d u n d a n t , inconsistent, or contradie tory, I bolster t h e a r g u m e n t for poetical harmony, b u t at t h e same time cut t h e ground out f r o m u n d e r source-analysis. But to d o this is to risk leaving the irapress ion t h a t 1 am, by my opposition, positing a single author. S u c h a n impression is n o t my i n t e n t . I h a v e spoken of "the single authorial voice" in Scripture as a whole; and I would n o t look for more t h a n a single author's p e n in anv given peric o p e — b e it a c h a p t e r or several chapters in Genesis, or in t h e Book of Isaiah— unles> I h a v e good reason to posit several authors (or a u t h o r and editor) who are not mutually aware ol each o t h e r s contributions. Bur this is certainlv not to rule out t h e possibility, or even the likelihood, that some of Scripture's narratives may be the result of a collaborative effort. T h u s , for example, in regard to the narrative

160

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

of the flood. O n e can imagine an Israelite professor of theology (1 suspect we should identify him as a prophet) reviewing the Utnapishtim story, analyzing it— as I have done—as a satiric critique of polytheism, and assigning to two students an exercise: "Drawing as freely as you like upon this Babylonian satire, tell essentially the same story, not as a satire, to portray man and divinity so as to bring out the essential attributes of both—and vis-à-vis one another—in keeping with our Israelite view of the One God and His creatures" He might then have been so pleased with the inventions of both his pupils as to draw on the products of both his pupils to present a narrative, weaving elements of both together, but preserving a harmonious whole. This despite his incorporation of two different (but not contradictorv) introductions and two different (but not contradictory) conclusions. And in the process, in drawing upon the two narrative exercises, he might even have left us a clue as to the devolution of his narrative by incorporating the terms his students used for Deity, one having preferred YHWH and the other Elohim "God." As a matter of fact, however, such an imaginative feat ot literary detection would be open to serious criticism on at least one score: the elements in the flood story that may be assigned to one or another of twro original authors are not confined to the flood story. They go back to include chapters τ to 5, and, possibly, ahead to chapters 9:18 -1 1:32. To help the readers follow in a sketch ol the coinpatihility of my literary analysis with standard source-criticism, I have drawn up table 4-1, limited to the C !enesis text 1 have thus far treated. In respect tu the deployment of YblWI 1 or Hlohini as the name for Deity, 1 have stressed before that the most painstaking care with diction on an author's part dues not constitute writing-by-formula, nor is it a legitimate demand of a literary critic that he try to hold his author to such a near-scientific exactitude. (The poetic apρ roach need not: falsify the source-critical explanation; it need only provide an equally plausible reason for choice of diction.) The two first-person personal pronouns in biblical Hebrew may serve as analogy to the two proper names of God, YHWH and Elohim. As often as these synonyms a ni/(pausal) "am and änö/
( 5 ) , .shf ( t r a n s , ur i n t r a n s .

w i t h hsr). " S e x u a l i t y " ( V ) may p o i n t lo t h e t h e m e generally, or s m h d e p r e c a t e d ac-

T H E FLOODS OF NOAH A N D U T N A P I S H T I M ! 9 ‫ף‬

TABU4

‫ ׳‬- !

Strands i n Genesis 1 : 1 - 9 : 2 9 J Strand

Ρ Strand

1:1 —2:4a

I. Elohim 2. Terms for fauna

2:4b-4:1 I

3‫ ׳‬Dietary restriction

4. M a n k i n d as image ol G o d

I. Y H W H ΙΪ. 'ärür "ban" III. s b h b n "pain" IV. Sacrifice V. Sexuality

5:1-3

6:9-22

I. Elohim 4. M a n k i n d as image of G o d

5:29

J,

6:1-8

Elohim

2. Terms for fauna 3· Dietary restriction: VII. (v $. 6:2 Ί ) 5‫ ׳‬shl with bsr (waste/corrupt w. tied!)

7:13-8:5 8:15-19

I. Y H W H IL 'ärür l i b .sb/'$bn I. Y H W H V. Sexuality VI. y$Y lb VII. C l e a n and unclean

I, Elohim 2. Terms for fauna

7:1-5

T. Elohim 2. lernis i\ )Γ fauna

8:20-22

I. Y H W H VII. C l e a n a n d unclean h YHWII I V Sacrifice VI. vxr !h Vil. Clean and 1 1

9:1-17

Tenus (or la una

1. Y H W H Ib arm

1 }!clary restriction

V. Sexuality

I. Elohim, 2.

V 4. 5• V.

9:18 ~ 29

M a n k i n d as imaqe ηί ( :od s/it (with •rs) "those who left the ark"

tivities as cross-species miscegenation or violation of taboos. T h e distinction of animals clean (thr) and u n c l e a n (tm ) may be associated w i t h edibility of meat (3), or sacrifice (IV), or both; h e n c e our cross-strand listing of VII with (3) in 6:21. Similarly, t h e cross-strand listing ot the (miscegenated) survivors V in 9:10 must be c o n s i d e r e d — a s s u m i n g their separate authorship or p r o v e n a n c e — i n divining t h e editor's h a n d in t h e final composition.

NOAH's

D E L U G E A N D U Τ Ν Α ΡIS Η Τ Ι Μ ‫ י‬S : A

COMPARISON

Did the author of the biblical flood story recognize—as modern scholarship has not hitherto done — that Utnapishtim s story in Tablet XI is a satire on the gods of paganism? Our guess would be unquestionably yes. Fine artists in a given medium will usually understand, if not approve, the work of one another. Would our biblical author have approved the achievement of his Babylonian predecessor? Again, yes. For the Babylonians critique of polytheistic paganism is a major step toward Iiis own (biblical) monotheism. Would our biblical author have been disturbed by a pagan's anticipation, so to speak, of biblical theology / Not at alb And in this he would differ iron! most modern biblical .scholars, bor most ol us, Israels "contrihution" to religion is impressive in the degree that it is original, that il breaks utterly

162

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

with all that precedes it in "pagan‫ ״‬thinking. T h e Bible itself, however, is not in t h e least concerned with being original; it never lays claim to originality. To the contrary, the early chapters of Genesis picture the relationship between deity and antediluvian man in the framework oi a presumed monotheism. T h e name Y H W H was already known and G o d invoked by that name by some, at least, of pre-flood humanity (4:26, "Back t h e n the name Y H W H was first invoked"). It is t h e one God who addresses A d a m and Eve and their son C a m . It is he who is worshiped by both C a i n and Abel, and to whom both Enoch (5:24) and N o a h are faithful. Pa‫״‬ ganism, then, is for Scripture, not mankind's original estate; it represents, rather, as in 6:1—8, a falling away from true understanding of the divine. Let us reconsider a question discussed in chapter 1, the nature of biblical monotheism. It is not a matter of numbers. YblWI 1 is not the only member oi the class called 'c/f>/u?i1, which, while it is used for God, also connotes gods, angels, numens, ancestral spirits, the metaphor 1 leaven for the Power or Powers above, the supernatural, and so on. Biblical monotheisms theological dogma centers on Y H W H God as the one and only autonomous Creator oi all that is, including such supernal entities as the various numina worshiped by Israel's neighbors and the primordial forces personified in Great Deep, Sea, Leviathan, and the like. Psalm 82 begins with God (elohim) rising in the divine assembly, in the midst of the gods (elohim) to present his indictment of them. I lis indictment expresses the frustration of his command to t h e m that they execute justice, bring relief to the oppressed. Their failure to do so causes the very foundations ot the earth (which is established o n justice) to totter. G o d s address ends with his sentencing them, "Verily, then, like man shall you die and like one of those hero-chief ta ins will you fall!" Here t h e n is a link to t h e divinities, supernal ones, "sons of eiöhma" who in J s introduction mate with humanity to t h e moral degradation of both species. It is not the ontology of polytheism that Scripture condemns; it is its operation to the detriment of morality that is polytheisms most damning feature. Assuming t h e n the Genesis authors understanding and approval of t h e Utnapishtim story's critique of paganism, what motivated him to rework it as h e did in order to include it in Scripture: T h e ultimate answer must wait upon our conelusion of t h e literary unit, chapters 1-11, known to Bible scholars as t h e Primeval History. A partial answer, on t h e possibility of which we speculated earlier, is the challenge presented by the universal cataclysm t h e m e to an author whose theology predicates a single and benevolent God in place ot the many and capricious gods of paganism. But even for such an author, who considered his inventiveness equal to that: challenge, there is something about the flood story that makes it suitable for such a lampooning enterprise as the Utnapishtim tale, but would seem to rule it out in a "straight," didactic, non-satiric narrative. A n d that "something" is this: the plot depends on the silliest presumption in all of antiquity's fantasy literature, mythological or fairy tale; namely, the presumption that the entire biolic animal range might be preserved from a cosmic disaster by means of a human-built shelter capable of admitting a single adult pair of each and every species. As against this presumption, Jack's beanstalk or the goose that, laid golden eggs would seem like sports of nature, rare yet conceivable. Even if the ancients presumed the number of species of birds and insects to number but a tenth of what modern science esti-

THE FLOODS OF NOAH A N D UTNAPISHTIM ! 9 ‫ף‬

mates, the dimensions ot Utnapishtim $ cubic monstrosity would be more appropriate than those of Noah's craft, us square footage only an eighth that of the cube, and its cubic footage only one-sixteenth. Scriptures author, like his Babylonian predecessor, provides for sustenance for alb Here too the Babylonian tale would seem more realistic, in that its flood lasted a single week as against the full year of the biblical flood. And while we are on the subject of logistics, what about the sa 11itation problem: Presuming an adequacy of water (how not 0 and a system of drain spouts and even hoses, who manned the pumps? One could go on and on, but why labor the point. The remarkable fact is that scholars who indulge in the Augean stables as a prototypical metaphor and the Herculean solution of that task as a legendary hyperbole do not dream of raising such questions when assessing the literal intent of the authors of either flood story. Another fact, almost equally remarkable, is that many a denomination hewing to a slavishly literal intent for every narrative in Scripture will harbor in its midst humorous treatments of its stories. I recall, still with wonderment, the campfire occasion at a summer camp under such devout auspices, and the children who chanted: N o a h was a c a r p e n t e r ; h e walked in t h e dark. Tripped over a h a m m e r a n d built himself an ark. A l o n g c a m e t h e animals, two by two: t h e lion, tiger, e l e p h a n t a n d t h e key-kangaroo.

How does the biblical author meet this problem of silliness? in a number of ways. First, he ignores it overtly; second, he affirms and reinforces it covertly. The literalists will swallow anything, no matter how patent the ridicule; the sophisticates will chuckle at the humor even as they seek out the kerygmas. Where the pagan author—have we a right to label him so?—•in his lampooning enterprise heightens the ridiculous everywhere he can, the biblical author excludes it where it is inappropriate, mitigates it when it is too obtrusive, and gives it subtle twists where one least expects them. Thus, for example, the Babylonian author twits alike the gods (Enlil and Ishtar), the demi-gods (Gilgamesh and Enkidu), and the altoget her human hero (Utnapishtim). The biblical aut hor may show God to be humorous, but never treat him h timorously; while the human is always a legitimate target for humor, gentle, as in the case of Noah releasing the raven over a carcassfilled flood, or savage, as in rhe case of humanity in its mytholatrous propensities. The ark—not in itself the laughing matter that it is in Tablet X I — i s no longer a cube; it is provided with a high bank of transparent windows to let in light (to the upper and middle decks, the hold being completely submerged). One normally climbs aboard a ship from above, but with a roof (top-deck) at some twenty feet above the dock level, an entrance is provided in its side for the sake of the huge land creatures. So much for seacraft realism. But when N o a h releases the birds it is from a previously unmentioned window-opening (hallön); and when N o a h emerges to view the surrounding ground, it is via a previously unmentioned (hatch-)cover, from which vantage point on the world's highest peak he would have seen nothing but a hemisphere of sky. So also, when the Deity (in the name for his caring modality, YHWH) tucks Noah in tor the long night of rain, the verb is sgr "to lock (up), shut (in)" correctly rendered by us as "batten in," which is to say, from the outside.

164

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

Hence, we must understand that when God invites Noah (and all the arks living cargo) to leave the ark, it is in the cajoling tone addressed to a long pent-up pris(Hiet fearing to leave his cell, and only after the jailer has removed the bars. It was pointed out‫ ״‬earlier that Noah's dispatch of the birds, four dispatches and two birds, makes sense in every way, while Utnapishtim s makes sense in none. But then again, the failure of the dove to return from its third mission (itself something of a problem as we noted) should bave given Noah the in format ion he was seeking and made it unnecessary for God to coax him out of the ark. Another instance of seemingly realistic detail with overtones of historiography and undertones of humor is the matter of chronology. Table 7-1 in our Structures section will show that the Genesis author had worked out a calendar beginning with the year of creation, with the birth years and death years of first-born patriarchs serving as significant markers. W h a t a joy then for the historiographer, for whom dates constitute the most critical data, to know just how many years elapsed between the Deity s conquest of mabbûÎ-chaos, which marked history's first beginning, and the onset and cessation of the makbüi-chaos that marked history's second beginning! A n d to know not only the year but the very day of the month! Such data would have had to have been retrieved from an archival source that could not possibly have existed (like the apocryphal Roman coin, unearthed bearing the date 13 B.C.). C a n it be that our author, in his provision of that data, was not only signaling the fictive nature of his literary enterprise, but mocking the very priority of history over fiction, of physical data over moral norms, indeed, ot science over theology? T h e answer given to this speculation, a literary judgment, will depend on a meta-literary consideration. Was the biblical author privy to the knowledge that the calendar as a historical measuring tool was a human invention? T h a t the names h e knew for some of the months, which he normally called by the ordinals from 1 to 1 2, derived from Mesopotamia, and that virtually every city-state there had its own calendar/ Scripture again and again witnesses that such knowledge on his part is certain in some respects, likely in others. And in that case he knew also that in Noah's century (millennium) no calendar existed on which there could have been recorded the seventeenth day of the second month of any year whatsoever. So much for the matter ol silliness. Silliness that posed no problem for an author in Babylon as he crafted his satirical masterpiece, and which seems to have posed no problem for scholars who routinely assume that the satire was lost on the ancient: audience. Which must have posed a problem to the biblical author, compelled by his own theological enterprise to straighten out much of the satire in the model he was adapting. And, judging by the reception of the biblical flood story by generations of audiences—with the exceptions of a few village atheists and sourcecritical scholars—a problem that the biblical storyteller solved admirably. H e solved it by deploying for childlike literalists and sophisticated connoisseurs alike a remarkable array of seriocomic strategies, straight and ludicrous rhetoric, metaphors low and sublime, for each to read according as his wit might construe. In terms of the larger metaphors; The theme of Enuma elish is the taming by the gods of the awesome cosmic energies, eventuating in the creation of the world. T h e Deluge in the time of Utnapishtim is the sequel to that myth. By the capricious will of the gods, the world that Marduk created is to be destroyed. T h e means

THE FLOODS OF NOAH A N D U T N A P I S H T I M ! 9 ‫ף‬

to that end ate rhe very same water-storm powers that had been subdued by Marduk. But once unleashed, these powers are beyond t h e control of t h e gods, who arc terror-stricken w h e n the flood threatens to inundate the cosmic mountain atop which, they live. A n d even when the storm abates—by no action of the gods, be i! n o t e d — t h e dependency of this otiose breed of supermen upon their human peons is underlined in their ravenous descent upon U t n a p i s h t i m s sacrifice. Of course the human race must continue. For one thing, the gods will, not again risk their own survival by pushing those red buttons. For another, they must have mankind if they want to eat. But the ultimate reality of blind, deaf, and dumb oceanic power remains, and the less-than-ulrimate gods are 110 reliable assurance that its destructive potential will never again be activated to dissolve the fragile order of the cosmos. In like manner, the biblical author acknowledges that the awesome powers that were activated for creation can be deployed for dissolution. A n d the widespread tradition of a primordial time when history was interrupted, almost ended, by such a cataclysm is shaped by this author 111 keeping with the theology of Genesis 1. If such a dissolution is ever to take place, it will be by n o mindless eruption of soulless energy, nor by acts of a race of arrested superhumans playing with matches. It can only h a p p e n by the Will which is that Power. A n d that Will, called God, whose proper n a m e is Y H W H , has resolved never to will such dissolution. N o t because h e needs man, and not because man is deserving, but because he so graciously wills to give his favorite creature ever and ever another chance. In 8:21, YHWH's rumination is not put forward as a revelation to t h e author of what went on in G o d s mind. T h e decision not to repeat the Deluge is not because of, but despite, mankind's continuing evil bent. T h e decision t h e n constitutes a judgment on the part of the author. Mankind s endurance since the Deluge is testimony, not to m a n k i n d s moral improvement since that, generation, but rather to G o d s gracious tolerance. Similarly, just as the repeated and detailed description of t h e death of all creatures in t h e flood testifies to the power of God's anger, so the repeated details of all the species coming to the ark, entering it, and leaving it, along with Noah and his fainily, testifies to G o d s consistency and grace: not a single species of the original ere‫׳־‬ ation was permitted to become extinct: by reason of the flood. The concern of ibis ultimate Person lor man is an aspect or an attribute of his which is as dogmatically affirmed in biblical theology as it is characteristically ahsent in the gods of Utnapishtinvs tale: morality. As in the Gain and Abel episode, where morality is the very heart of t h e mythos, so in the Deluge story—but here as attribute of G o d — m o r a l i t y is everywhere present, in dramatic contrast to its pagan Babylonian counterpart. Utnapishtim, as we have seen, has n o idea why t h e gods have decided to destroy mankind. In the biblical account two different introductions each stress that evil was t h e reason for God's decision. U t n a p i s h t i m is not one to look a gift horse in t h e m o u t h (the reader will forgive this metaphor in disrespect of Ea), and never thinks to question why he alone has been chosen for survival. Noah's righteousness is twice underscored by the narrator (6:8,9), a n d in 8:τ Y H W H Himself informs N o a h that he alone has been vindicated in the judgment. For such a good and righteous man G o d is an ever present, ever doting parent. H e Himself tucks N o a h into his shelter for the long night. " Y H W H battened him in." (7:16) " Y H W H was

166

STORIES—

"THE

PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫יי‬

mindful of N o a h and of the heasts and cattle with him in the ark. God swept a wind over earth and the waves subsided' 1 (S:1) God tells N o a h when it is safe to leave the ark; and in conjunction with this he renews the blessing ot 1:22, decree‫׳‬ ing renewed fertility for the earth to be repopulated. (8:15-1 7). And, as we have seen, as man's transcendence over animal status in q:1 7 is a reaffirmation of his dignity, the image of God, a status unearned, so G o d s favor to future generations is explicitly not contingent upon the future righteousness of his creatures, Sinfulness there will be, and punishment too, hut no cataclysmic: end to the h u m a n experiment. God has hung up his \var-how. There it is, seven-hued, in the sky. A n d when it appears against the menacing mass of gathered clouds, our hearts leap up, not at its shimmering beauty alone, but over its Author, assurance and promise.

F I V E

FROM N O A H T O A B R A M

Two stories complete the narratives of chapters 1 - 1 1 , which in modern scholarship is often labeled the Primeval History. C h a p t e r 12, beginning t h e story of the patriarch Abrarn, first ancestor of t h e people of Israel, begins the History of Israel; and t h e setting for this history is thus provided by the Primeval History. This setting consists t h e n of the genealogies, which we treat under chapter 7, "Structures" and five narratives. T h e first three (Creation, Eden, Flood) have each required a separate chapter. T h e last two are treated in this one. T h e first, 9 : 1 8 - 2 7 , features N o a h , three sons, and one grandson in a story somehow portentous for later history, but strangely murky as to plot and character motivation, and ambiguous as to t h e very identities of t h e personae. T h e second, 11:1-9, tells how t h e unity of Noah's descendants came to be disrupted.

THE DRUNKENNESS

OF

NOAH

(18) T h e sons of N o a h , those who came out of the ark, were Shem, H a m , and Japheth, ( H a m being t h e father ot C a n a a n ) . ( 19) These three die Sons of N o a h , from these all earthps population] branched out. (20) N o a h , tiller oi the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. (21) Drinking of the wine, he fell drunk, and lav exposed in his m m . (22) 1 lam

Canaan's lather

beheld his father's nakedness, and told his two brothers out‫׳‬

side. (2‫ ) ל י‬Shem and japheth took a robe, held it extended from both their shoulders, and

walking in backward

they covered up their i.itheds nakedness; with llieii (aces 167

Τ 68

S ΤΟ RI H S — 1 'THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

t u r n e d away, they e a n g h t n o glimpse of their larher> n a k e d n e s s . (24) W h e n N o n h woke up f r o m his wine| -stupor|, and learned h o w his smallest‫ ־‬son had treated h i m , ( 2 s ) he declared: "1 )amned he C a n a a n . Most abject of slaves may h e he I d his brothers!" (26) [What] h e said, |in f‫״‬ll|; "Praised be Y H W H , - o d of S h e m ! A n d slave to t h e m may C a n a a n be! (27) Broad scope may C o d to J a p h e t h grant! M a y h e reside in t h e tents of S h e m ! A n d slave to t h e m may C a n a a n he!" (GeneMs g o S —27)

T h e tragedies that often attend an overlarge intake of alcoholic liquors have resuited, in some segments of society, in a stance that regards all such spirits as an ahsolute evil. Scripture, in c o m m o n with virtually all ancient societies, would have found such a stance comparable to prohibition of food as a remedy for the vice of overeating. T h e ancients generally appreciated the spirit-lifting beverages as a boon, and Israel was no exception. T h e preciousness of wine is reflected in the libations that accompanied sacrificial offerings. T h e biblical idiom for the good cheer induced by wine is, "the heart is good (i.e., cheerful) in (or through) the wine;" and t h e superiority of the glow that comes from within over that which is painted o n the outside is celebrated in Psalm 104. God is praised for t h e blessing of rain: W h i c h makes grass to sprout for cattle, C e r e a l grains |in response] to t h e tilling of m a n , To p r o d u c e f o o d f r o m t h e e a r t h , A n d wine to bring joy to t h e h e a r t oi man-— b x c e e d i n g cosmetics in bringing t h e iace to a glow. (Psalm 1 0 4 : 1 4 - 1 5)

"Gulture heroes" is the term used for the mythical or legendary innovators of skills, arts, trades, and professions. As in (îenesis 4 Juhal hamechson corresponds to Orpheus, and Tubal-Cain hamechson to rhe smiths f iephaest us or Vulcan, so is N o a h t h e father of viticulture. In the genealogical list in Ghapter <5, N o a h s father, Lantech, 1 makes a pun on his sons name, a pun on. the two consonants appearing in NoaH "ease, pleasant" and N T T m "to console or comfort." Lamech refers back to God's sentence of infertility upon the soil in 3:17-09, and looks ahead with prophetic sight to what this child will one day accomplish: "This one, now, will bring us relief from (or consolation for) the painful toil of our hands, out of t h e very soil which Y H W H has placed under a spell" (verse 29). Be it today's highpressure executive with his martini, hard-hat with his beer, or peasant with his vino—‫״‬all are in debt to Father N o a h . Unlike Dionysos or Bacchus, who apparently knew what they were doing, Noah's pioneering efforts in grape cultivation were carried out in ignorance of the natural process of fermentation. Depending on whether one regards alcoholic spirits as boon or curse, N o a h s discovery is serendipity or misfortune. For N o a h himself, his inexperience made for history's hr.st case of inebriation, one that engenclerecl a train of events with apparently di>ast1vu> consequences. T h e one thing clear in this story is that Noah's drunken loss ol self-control is responsible for the

FROM NOA'H T O AB RAM

169

exposure of his genitalia, which somehow renders h i m vulnerable to mistreatment, For the rest, the story presents us with a host of problems. T h e first problem is why the introduction, listing the three sons of Noah, characterizes t h e m as " t h o s e w h o c a m e o u t of t h e a r k " a s e e m i n g l y obvious and there-

fore unnecessary detail. This is the easiest question to answer, for it is not an unnecessary detail. If we turn back to Genesis 5, where the genealogy of A d a m is given ending in N o a h in t h e t e n t h generation, we will n o t e that in the case of every person we are told that in addition to t h e male son, through whom the line descends, each of these also sired additional sons, as well as daughters. 2 W h y are none of these named? T h e answer is obvious: all the descendants of Adam perished in the Deluge, and only that line which culminated in N o a h was preserved. Only in the case of N o a h are we told of more t h a n one son, t h e three who were already grown and married at the time of the Deluge, These three are identified in our verse 19 as the ancestors of the three branches of mankind. T h e implication is clear. N o a h , too, may have "sired additional sons and daughters" after the tlood; he did, after all, live for another 350 years. Such additional children as N o a h may have had were assimilated to one or another of the lines of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Just such a pattern is made explicit in Genesis 48. Jacob, by adopting Joseph's sons Ephraim and Manasseh as his own, in effect makes Joseph the ancestor of two of Israels tribes. As for any sons t h a t might be sired by Joseph in the future, Jacob in verse 6 says that they shall be assimilated into the two tribes he has created out of Joseph, and are to receive their family estates within the allotments made to these two tribes.) I bis latest reminder that t h e biblical storyteller wastes no words and i n c l u d e s no detail without a purpose, makes even more perplexing the point of the notice in verse 19 that Ham was the father of Canaan. For according to 10:6, he was also rhe father of Cush (Ethiopia and t h e Sudan), Egypt, and Put (Libya), C a n a a n being the youngest of the four. Again in verse 22, where H a m looks upon N o a h s nakedness and t ells his brothers, he is pointedly but unexplainedly identified as the father of C a n a a n . A n d finally in the curse of N o a h , it is this youngest son of Ham, and not H a m h i m s e l f — a s we would have e x p e c t e d — w h o is condemned. A n d Ham, listed between his brothers, would have had to be the middle son, whether Shem or Japheth w7as the firstborn. Yet w h e n N o a h learns of how he was treated (not nee‫״‬ essarily as t h e translations have it, what was done to him) the text has him identifying the person who committed the outrage as his smallest, o r — a s the adjective can also mean and is universally rendered h e r e — h i s youngest son. All the scholarly attempts to resolve these problems presuppose that there were several different traditions about Noah's family or about this incident, and that the text before us must be a garbled version of these traditions. Thus, one suggestion is that in another tradition it was indeed H a m who was t h e youngest of N o a h s sons. Why, then, was it not H a m who was cursed? A bolder hypothesis overcomes this problem: there was another tradition in which the three sons of N o a h were Shem, Japheth, and Canaan, and that it was indeed C a n a a n , t h e youngest son, who commitred the offense. Yet a third hypothesis would have a story in which not Noah, hut Ham, was the victim, and the perpetrator his youngest son Canaan.· We dwell on these solutions as typical oi t h e approach !hat solves the Gordian

188

S T O R I E S — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

k n o t by destroying it. Satisfying as this procedure may be for a soldier o n his way to conquest, for t h e critic it is analogous to shredding a canvas because h e c a n n o t see t h e p a t t e r n in its painted forms and colors. T h e text before us is explicit and clear in so m a n y respects: in the details of genealogy, t h e order of births, t h e person offended, t h e person offending, t h e person cursed. If there were several traditions, why was n o t one consistent o n e preserved? If a redactor h a d indeed inherited a garbled tradition, why would he not simply h a v e o m i t t e d details t h a t are as m i n o r as they are i n c o n s i s t e n t : For example, instead of referring to t h e deed of Noah's "youngest son,1' why did he n o t just say, t h e deed of H a m ? T h e s e p r o b l e m s — o t Ham's seemingly pointless (and repeated) identification as t h e f a t h e r ot C a n a a n , of t h e apparently mistaken curse of C a n a a n by N o a h , w h o m e a n t to curse his son H a m and n o t this son's youngest son, and t h e n of N o a h , w h o does not seem to k n o w t h a t this son is his middle o n e and not his y o u n g e s t — these problems must be considered in t h e light oi the problems with t h e utterance of N o a h . Let us look at this text in t he J PS translation: (24) When Ν; 1,1h woke i.p . . . (25) he said, "( Λirsed He ( 'anaan; The lowest‫ ־‬ot slaves Shall he he to his brothers" (26) And he said, '1Blessed he the Lord, The God ot Shem; Let Canaan be a slave to them. (27) M ay G ο ά c nlarge J aphe th, And let him dwell in the tents of Shem; And let Canaan be a slave to them." (Genesis 9:24-27) T h e first question is that of the repetition o n t h e part of t h e narrator in verses 25 and 26. Twice he tells us t h a t " N o a h said" something. T h e s o m e t h i n g t h a t "he said" is dialogue in two versions. A l t h o u g h t h e two versions are similar in c o n t e n t they are far from the same. T h e first o n e is shorter, is confined to a curse of C a n a a n , does n o t specify t h e n a m e of t h e Power w h o is to effectuate t h e curse, and makes n o m e n t i o n of S h e m and J a p h e t h , a l t h o u g h it does seem to refer to t h e m as t h e brothers of C a n a a n , to w h o m h e will be a lowly slave. In t h e second a n d considerably larger version, blessing is added and indeed precedes curse, b u t interestingly e n o u g h t h e first blessing is n o t of h u m a n s but of G o d , and n o t of G o d in general hut specifically by his proper n a m e Y H W H ("the L o a f ' in JPS), and with further specificity identified as ‫ ״‬t h e G o d of Shem." G o d is indeed invoked in this second version but not until verse 27, where his blessing is invoked on behalf of J a p h e t h ("May C κκΐ enlarge J a p h e t h " ) , and in addition to being invokcel as Uud and not as Y H W H , (here does not seem to be a corresponding blessing o n behalf of S h e m . T h a t S h e m is implicitly blessed would seem to be t h e sense of t h e curse of ( Canaan in t h e last clause of venw 27, for C a n a a n will presumably serve two lords, J a p h e t h and S h e m . Rut let 10 note that this tour-word curse (in the Hebrew), which makes sense here, is a n exact repetition of the curse in. t h e last clause of verse 26, where it

FROM NOA'H TO AB RAM

189

makes n o sense at all, since S h e m a n d J a p h e t h h a v e n o t b e e n m e n t i o n e d a n d cann o t therefore be t h e a n t e c e d e n t s to w h o m the " t h e m " of t h e curse refers. A n d t o add t o these perplexities, t h e r e is a f u r t h e r problem. T h e blessing of e n l a r g e m e n t for J a p h e t h — a p u n o n t h e t h r e e c o n s o n a n t s of bis n a m e Y-P-T a n d t h e imperfect h i p h i l of P - T - ( H ) , again Y - P - T — i s followed up by wishing h i m t h e b o o n of residing in his older brother's tents. N o w t h e roomiest of a b r o t h e r s tents may provide pleasant guest quarters for one w h o has just b e e n promised enlargement, but is it n o t a greater blessing to be host t h a n guest., and w h o woidd n o t normally prefer to be at h o m e in o n e s own small t e n t t h a n a guest in another's large one? T h e problem of t h e first and out-of-ρ lace curse of C a n a a n , t h e last clause of verse 26, scholars find easiest to solve. It is a readily understood scribal error called dittography. 111 copying the manuscript before him, t h e serihe's h a n d h a v i n g just w r i t t e n " ( G o d of) Shem," his eye skipped to t h e n e x t Shem in t h e following verse ("tents of) Shem" and so we h a v e a superfluous clause. Strike it out! 4 T h e "blessing of Y H W I I" in verse 26 is p r o b l e m a t i c on two scores. First, as Speiser says, " O n e expects this blessing to be aimed at S h e m r a t h e r t h a n Y H W H , " w h i c h is hardly arguable. 5 Secondly, t h e O n e G o d of Scripture, himself t h e source of all blessings, is by definition n o t capable of being blessed; for w h a t needs does h e h a v e a n d w h o could supply t h e m if h e had any? T h i s second p r o b l e m c a n be solved everywhere t h a t Deity appears as t h e object of bërek or t h e subject of t h e predicate bärük by r e n d e r i n g t h e H e b r e w as "praise" and "praised " But t o r e n d e r bärük as "praised" in verse 26 (as we h a v e d o n e ) is to raise t h e o b j e c t i o n t h a t t h e r e is n o c o n t e x t h e r e for praising G o d , a n d — f u r t h e r m o r e — n o ground for t h e ass u m p t i o n t h a t his proper n a m e Y H W H is acknowledged by S h e m alone of his brothers. T h i s p r o b l e m t o o has led scholars to suggest a n e m e n d a t i o n of t h e text. O n e such suggestion does n o t e v e n c o n s t i t u t e a textual e m e n d a t i o n for it merely c h a n g e s two of t h e masoretically supplied vowels. Read berük instead of bärük and Höhay instead of Hohey a n d you h a v e an altogether appropriate blessing of S h e m and a n i n v o c a t i o n by N o a h of t h e god to w h o m h e is faithful, Y H W H : "Blessed of my god Y H W H may S h e m be " Speiser alludes to such suggestions for c h a n g e b u t does n o t endorse t h e m , n o t i n g , "Nevertheless, t h e a n c i e n t versions support t h e received text, w h i c h does n o t lack c h a m p i o n s a m o n g m o d e r n critics" (cf. v o n Rad, p. 114). O n t h e perplexing prayer (or promise) t h a t J a p h e t h (will) dwell in t h e tents of S h e m , Speiser recognizes t h a t this prayer or promise is a m e t a p h o r and suggests a historic m o m e n t to which the m e t a p h o r is apposite. This must allude to some form oi co-operation between the two groups, with Canaan condemned to enslavement by both. What, then, is rhe historical background of the verse in question? The most likely period that would -,ecm to fit the conditions here reflected is the turn of the twelfth century B.C., when the Israelites were struggling against the entrenched Canaanites at the same time that the recently arrived Philistines were trying to consolidate their hold on the coastal strip . . . however, the Japhethites of the present account would differ considerably from their namesakes in the Table of Nations (X 2~5:P). For by then, rhe Philistines too had ceased to be a politically significant group; and they had been settled long enough to be classed with the Hamites. (Χ 14)6

188

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

This ingenious speculation, like all the other attempts to understand the meta‫׳‬ phor of Japheth, one of three brothers, dwelling in the tents of one of them, Shem, to the discomfiture of the other, Ham, runs afoul of the separate problem that H a m is not present here except as represented by his son C a n a a n . A n d for C a n a a n who in verse 25 is condemned to be "slave to his brothers" and again supposedly to these same siblings in verses 26 and 27 (the antecedents of "them" in these verses), Shem and Japheth are not brothers, they are uncles! Canaan's brothers, as we pointed out earlier, are (see 0:6‫ )ב‬Cush (Ethiopia or Sudan), Mizraim (Egypt), and Put (Libya)! Let us now attempt a poetical approach to our text, one which starts with the assumption that the text is a harmonious whole, faithfully transmitted to us, requiring no deletions nor corrections, possibly not even of t h e vocalization transmitted to us by the Masoret.es; tbat, indeed, if these rabbinic transmitters of the tradition chose a questionable reading over a clearly sensible one, their choice must be given an initial preference on the basis of lectio difficilior {)mesial.7 Here I reproduce my translation of verses 24 27: (24) When Noah woke up from his winebstupor], and learned how his smallest son had treated him, (25) he declared: u Pamned he Canaan. Most ahject ot slaves may he be to his brothers!" (26) !What] he said, [in fullj; ‫״‬Praised he YHWH, god of Shem! And slave to them may Canaan be! (27) Broad scope may God to Japheth grant! May he reside in the tents of Shem! And slave to them may Canaan bel" T h e problem of the narrators transmission of Noah's verbal reaction to his (learning of his) treatment at the hands of H a m in two separate sections of dialogue, each introduced by "he said" (wayyo‫ ׳‬mer . . . wayyo' mer in paratactic sequence) is resolved by recognition of the synoptic-resumptive narrative technique. T h e first section (verses 2 4 - 2 5 ) provides the bottom line, a dramatically apposite reaction (for the most part) to the outrage he has just learned of. N o t so apposite is his sub‫׳‬ stitution ot H a m s son, C a n a a n , as object of the wrath kindled by H a m . But this lack of appositeness is equally present in the second dialogic section, t h e resump‫׳‬ tive one. In the second section we have a fuller account of Noah's reaction, per‫׳‬ haps one reformulated some time after word of t h e outrage had been c o m m u n i ‫׳‬ cated to him; perhaps providing a clue as to the substitution of C a n a a n to suffer for his fathers sin. And as for the problem of the narrator's referring to Ham as in N o a h s consciousness—' 1 the youngest of his sons," the answer is simply: he does not. The Hebrew reads literally "his smallest son," which may also stand tor "youngest son" Big and small in I lehrew, however, (as in English) may also stand for high rank and low, moral worth and moral baseness. As in II Kings 2:2‫ *ך‬s)ncdl here is hase or meaîi-shimed. Ν ο,111, our narrator tells us, learned of the meanness oi spirit revealed by his son I lam when he found his father lying exposed. The recognition of this métonymie use of "small." points to t h e solution of a

I ROM Ν OA II Ί Ό ABRAM

I 73

problem in regard to rhe three brothers in the following chapter. In the genealogy of Noah's sons, S h e m in 10:21 is identified as t h e "bigger," that: is, 1 'elder" brother of J a p h e t h . But this seems to be a pointed exclusion of 1 lam, to w h o m he was also older brother. W h a t is t h e m e a n i n g of this? T h e answer lies o n c e again in the re cog‫׳‬n i t i o n oi a metaphor, this time in t h e word " b r o t h e r " T h e word "brother" here is n o t a reference to t h e genetic relationship, w h i c h Ham. also shared, but to similarity. A s shown by their respectful t r e a t m e n t of their father, S h e m a n d J a p h e t h were two of a kind. H a m , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , as our story makes equally clear, was odd m a n out. But to recognize this is merely to scratch t h e surface, so to speak, of the metaphot. A n o t h e r t e x t celebrated for its knottiness, featuring this metaphoric use of "brother," appears m Genesis 49. Jacob is addressing his last words to his twelve sons. H e speaks prophetically, as if his voice were t h e voice of G o d , and expresses or implies divine j u d g m e n t in characterizing t h e m : Simeon and Levi are brothers — Lawless weapons their m'kërôt (Genesis 49:5) i n a s m u c h as all his sons are brothers to o n e another, t h e first clause can only m e a n — a s Speiser i n d i c a t e s — " a pair, two of a kind." But with solution in h a n d , h e tails to see t h e related answer to t h e "old and stubborn puzzle" of m fern, normally and w i t h o u t support rendered as "weapons." H e notes t h a t "Syr. and m a n y m o d e r n s adduce t h e consonantally identical n o u n in Ezekiel xvi 3 and xxi 35, m e a n i n g 'orb g i n s / " Or/gins is a m e t o n y m for the n o u n in question, its verbal stem krh 1 'to dig, carve out, quarry" is c o m m o n enough, particularly in regard to cisterns or wells. T h u s t h e associations with earth, " m o t h e r l a n d " in the Lzekiel passages in c o n n e c tion with birth, or birthplace, share t h e imagery of Isaiah 51 (where hsh and nc/r are synonyms of krh): (1) . . . Look to the rock whence you were hewn, To the quarry whence you were chiseled. ( 2 ) Look back to Abraham, your father, And to Sarah, who gave you birth. (Isaiah 51:1-2) T h e m e t a p h o r is o n e of affinity (cf. Eng. "chip off t h e old block"), t h e kind of affinity o f t e n associated w i t h c o m m o n origin, an affinity we associate today with genetic heredity. In our metaphor, sharing a gene pool in c o m m o n , inheriting t h e same genetic traits f r o m a set of parents, we sense t h e force of t h e second clause, t h e specific trait t h a t makes S i m o n and Levi alike, two out of twelve brothers: it is their proclivity (apparently i n h e r i t e d ) for t h e unlawful use of weapons. We shall soon see how‫ ׳‬this m e t a p h o r bears u p o n our passage. O n e more m e t a p h o r remains before we may proceed w i t h our poetical review: t h e residence in t h e tents of S h e m . R a b b i n i c tradition holds that the Shekina, t h e I m m a n e n t Presence o n Earth, graced S o l o m o n s temple, but never returned to reside in its successor sanctuary, t h e t e m p l e "rebuilt" in Jerusalem by Y1 IWl Is Persian servant, Gyrus t h e G r e a t . Y H W H ' s residence in or occupancy of a sanctuary is a privilege granted to or w i t h h e l d f r o m its builders. 9 T h u s Rash! on t h e m e a n i n g of "he shall dwell in the tents of S h e m : " A l t h o u g h Y H W H was gracious to j a p h e t h

I 74

STORIES — " Τ Η Β PRIMEVAL Hi S T O R Y "

(i.e., Cyrus, allowing h i m to rebuild the temple), H e resided only in t h e " t e n t " built by S h e m (i.e., S o l o m o n s temple). T h u s , as Speiser c a n see in Japhetites a me tony m for o n e (supposed) b r a n c h of t h a t family, t h e Philistines; as Rash! c a n see S h e m as a me tony m for his descendants Israel or S o l o m o n , and J a p h e t h as nie t o n ν m for his descendants, M e d e a or Cyrus, so may we read t h e C a n a a n i t e s of verse 26 ("Cursed be C a n a a n , most abject of slaves may h e be to his brothers") as a m e t o n y m for o n e particular b r a n c h of this family. A n d t h e brothers of this C a n a a n i t e b r a n c h need n o t necessarily be limited to Semites or Aryans, or to H am it es, but cot! Id be members of any or all of these groupings. "Praised be Y H W H , t h e G o d of Shem." If S h e m , now, is a m e t o n y m for Israel, as recognized by Rashi, t h e n there is n o problem in hailing Y H W H as this people s G o d , n o r is there a p r o b l e m in the o p e n i n g praise, for N o a h is about to m a k e a petition, and praise o f t e n serves to invoke G o d in a n t i c i p a t i o n of t h e petition. " A n d may C a n a a n be a slave to t h e m " T h e a n t e c e d e n t s of " t h e m " c a n n o t be "his brothers" of verse 25, for t h a t s e n t e n c e belongs to t h e synoptic episode. T h e a n t e c e d e n t s can only be those in verse 26, namely Y H W H , G o d of S h e m (Israel) and His people, Israel. "May G o d " — n o t Y H W H , w h o is Israel's c o v e n a n t e d God—-"give broad scope to J a p h e t h " the various peoples on t h e peripheries oi t h e ancient world (from Israel's point of view). "But may h e ( G o d ) reside in t h e tents of Shem," namely, grace Israel with his presence a m o n g t h e m . " A n d " - again—• "may C a n a a n be a slave to t h e m " lo w h o m . 0 ! ‫׳‬ Y11WH and to Israel. But why 10 b o t h people and its G o d , and which C a n a a n i t e branch in w h a t historic c o n t e x t / O u r hill of particulars could not be better filled t h a n by t h e ( 1ibeonit.es, those C a n a a n i t e s (cf. Joshua 9:1) of Israels heart hind w h o saved themselves from exterm i n a t i o n by a ruse, inducing Israel η ‫ י‬accept t h e m as "slaves" and b e c a m e a caste w i t h i n t h e people of Israel, fated for all time to provide "hewers of wood and drawers of water for," in Joshua's words, " t h e house of my God." 1 0 Every textual problem in Noah's u t t e r a n c e ot blessing and curse has b e e n solved. N o t a word n o r a letter is superfluous, missing, or out of place. T h e poetic integrity of this narrative has b e e n vindicated, and so h a s — i n t h e p r o c e s s — t h e poetic unity of Genesis w i t h Ezekiel and Isaiah and Joshua a n d Exodus, at least as far as their sharing of m e t a p h o r s and psychology and historical overviews. T h e strongest elements in our analysis are those dealing with lexical, syntactic, and rhetorical questions. T h e weakest, perhaps, is the e l e m e n t of historic i n t e n t . T h a t is, t h e p i n p o i n t i n g of t h e G i b e o n i t e s ' service to Y H W H ' s temple as t h e fulfillment of N o a h ' s curse u p o n C a n a a n . A n d , c o n v i n c e d t h o u g h we are 011 this point, we would stress t h a t a rejection of this point in no way weakens t h e poetic understanding of this pericope. T h e question of h i s t o r y — w h a t really h a p p e n e d and h o w events came to be i n t e r p r e t e d — i s n o t a central c o n c e r n of poetics. W h e t h e r , for example, N o a h — a s f u n d a m e n t a l religionists would h a v e i t — f o r e s a w t h a t reality by p r o p h e t i c gift or invoked it by t h e power ot his prayer; or w h e t h e r t h e a u t h o r invented the curse to fit an event or situation in a later generation, t h e implication (‫ (י‬the curse-narrative is that b e f o r e - - a n d perhaps c o n t i n u i n g into- the a u t h o r s time, C a n a a n i t e s were subjected to menial servitude by neighbors ( 11 brothers"), be these traceable to S h e m , I lam, or J a p h e l h as eponymous ancestor. T h e specific sub‫־‬ jection t h a t the a u t h o r h a d in m i n d is not a crucial considérât ion. What is crucial

FROM NOA'H T O AB RAM

175

is t h e awareness on our part of t h e awareness o n t h e a u t h o r s part t h a t , as in genet‫״‬ ics, a trait is not passed o n to all descendants, so a character virtue or d e f e c t — o r reward or p u n i s h m e n t tor ancestral d e e d s — n e e d n o t be carried over or down t h r o u g h all the b r a n c h e s of a family tree. T h e flaw in Ham's character, w h i c h is expressed in or w h i c h brought h i m to c o m m i t his misdeed, was foreseen by N o a h to be c o n t i n u e d in the line ot Canaan—‫״‬so, at least, t h e a u t h o r asks us to b e l i e v e — a n d C a n a a n would in time c o m e to suffer for this s h o r t c o m i n g of his a n c e s t o r s and of his own. W e may now turn to o n e last remaining problem in this episode as a whole: t h e nature of i lam's offense against N o a h . T h e literal translat ion of verse 24, " N o a h . . . learned what, his unworthy son had d o n e to him," suggests some kind 01 physical m i s t r e a t m e n t ; and a m o n g the speculations as to what H a m did to his fat lier, two are of old rabbinic tradition: sodomy and castration, W e have seen thaï nakedness is, in ihe Hden story, a m e t a p h o r for sexuality. We have also e n c o u n t e r e d sexuality in t h e form of miscegenation between demigods and h u m a n s , or t h e idea of such couplings resulting in a hybrid race of heroes, w h i c h features in o n e introduction to the flood story. It is not surprising therefore t h a t scholars steeped in t h e biblical. text should read an act. of sexual outrage into H a m s abuse of N o a h . O n e rabbinic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e perversity of all living creatures t h a t brought o n t h e Deluge is interspecies copulation. A story m which H a m , after t h e Flood, c o m m i t t e d t h e kind of perverse act t h a t had occasioned it would provide a n ironic b a l a n c e of prologue and epilogue. Plus ca change, plus c'est la même chose. M a n remains m a n . Further support for the possibility t h a t t h e offense of H a m involved an illicit sexual act may be found in Leviticus 18. i n this chapter, sexual relations b e t w e e n people w h o are varioush related by blood or marriage are forbidden, to t h e Israelites. A m o n g the f o r b i d d e n sexual relations are those w i t h a w o m a n to w h o m one's f a t h e r had been married. To h a v e relations w i t h h e r is "to u n c o v e r his n a k e d n e s s " Suggestive as this expression may be in itself, t h e most telling c o n n e c t i o n may lie in s o m e t h i n g here which has n o t b e e n generally recognized. T h e sexual practices forbidden in this c h a p t e r are, for t h e most part, of a kind t h a t were almost certainly congenial to a n c i e n t Israel's mores, and explicitly so to those of their neighbors. In introducing t h e n o w - t o - b e interdicted practices, Y H W H says: The practices of the land oi Hgypt, where you have dwelt, you shall not practice. The practices oi the land ot Canaan, whither ] am hrin^in^ ymi, you :•‫־‬hall not practice, h is my norms you are to practice and my standards you are io follow will! can1. (Leva κ us 18:3-4)

T h e norms ·and standards of t h e sexual practices of Egypt and Canaan, b o t h of t h e m d e s c e n d a n t s of H a m ! Despite t h e forego i n 1 ,‫ ״‬stand by my translation: n o t "what his unworthy son had d o n e to him." but "how his u n w o r t h y son h a d treated him." 11 H a m n e e d n o t h a v e d o n e a n y t h i n g at. all to N o a h . T h a t is to say, n o t h i n g more t h a n we are told h e did. H e stumbled upon his father in his nakedness by accident. H e could h a v e acted with the respect the situation called for, but. he saw, and he told. His brothers refused to look, and managed to provide their f a t h e r with cover. G i v e n t h e power of t h e biblical taboo against the exposure of genitalia, of gazing u p o n t h e genitalia

188

S T O R I E S — " T H E P R I M E V A L H I S T O R Y ‫'י‬

of those w i t h w h o m one has close blood ties; given also t h e allegorical thrust of t h e story, t h e contrast in t h e behavior ot H a m and his brothers in a m a t t e r of filial piety, t h e offense of H a m requires n o turther sharpening or elaboration. T h e clock of history had b e e n turned back by the Deluge and its h a n d s stopped. It has hardly begun to tick again w h e n Ham's c o n d u c t reveals h o w barbarous a civilized son and a civilized sex ethos can be. H a m , the perpetrator of t h e act, is n o t punished in his person. His act is symbolic: a j u d g m e n t has been m a d e on t h e values of one of mankind's civilized branches, and t h e historic tact of o n e family reduced to subjection has b e e n traced back to a n ancestral transgression, to a n inherited character defect, and to a f a t h e r s ί 1

T H E T O W E R OF B A B E L : T E X T A N D

PREFACE

(1) The whole world shared a single language and common enterprise. (2) In the course of their migration in that time oi yon1 they came upon a valley in the land of Shinar, where they settled down. ($) T h e y said ro one anoiher, "Come now, let us make bricks and fire them hard" Bricks served then! for stone and bitumen for ce-

ment. (4) "Come," they said, "let us huild ourselves a city with a tower with its peak

in the sky. So shall we make ourselves a name, against the prospect that we become scattered all over the world." (5) YHWH came down to view the city and the tower that mankind was building. (6) YHWH thought, "Here now is one people, all with a single language, and this is only the first of their achievements; no bounds, henceforth, will confine their under‫׳‬ takings. (7) Come now, let us go down there and scramble their language so that they are no longer able to understand one anotherV speech." (8) And so YHWH did scatter them from there over all the world; and so thev broke off the building of their city. (9) Hence was it named Babel, for there did YHWH make a babble of the world's [one] tongue; and from there did YHWH sc arter them over the reaches of earth. (Genesis 11:1-9)

T h i s narrative could hardly be more straightforward and cohesive. Yet scholars h a v e f o u n d grounds to question the unity ot e v e n this tale; p o i n t i n g out, for e x a m ‫׳‬ pie, t h a t in verse 5 Y H W H has descended to earth to view t h e city, whereas in verse 7 h e proposes to go down to earth to destroy it. A n d defenders of this tale's unity h a v e shown themselves as literal-minded as its challengers; arguing thai YIIWI I first came down to gather t h e f a d s for himself and t h e n went back up to heaven, where he proceeded to pass judgment and sentence. Were t h e c o m m e n t a tors consistent in ignoring the a u t h o r s figurative use of language, they might raise a slew of additional quest ions, such as: W h y doe- the story 1 ell us that Y H W H did indeed "come d o w n " to scramble their language: 1 A n d il he did not really n e e d to "come d o w n " to do so, why did he propose to "come d o w n " to d o so in t h e first place? A n d why did h e have to "come d o w n " to e x a m i n e t h e city? C o u l d h e n o t see it just as well from his heavenly perch? For that matter, h o w did t h e a u t h o r k n o w w h a t was going on in the mind of God? Did he receive this i n f o r m a t i o n in a revelation? If so, why does h e not so reassure us? T h e story line is simple enough. All

mankind,

descendants of S h e m , H a m , and

F R O M NOA'H TO AB RAM

177

Japheth, were at the time when this story begins a single kinship unit, speaking one language and determined on maintaining their solidarity. T h e setting of the story, t h e genealogy that precedes it in C h a p t e r to, and the genealogy that follows it in C h a p t e r 1 1, makes this clear. (A comparison ot the two genealogies in Chapter 7 of this volume reveals the story s framework.) In C h a p t e r 10, the entire line ot descendants ot N o a h is given except for one branch, that branch ot Shem which continues through his middle son, Arpachshacl. This line stops at Pelcg ("Division"), for it was in his lifetime that the division ot mankind and its dispersion began (10:25). After t h e m a n n e r of the division and dispersion is told 111 the Tower of Babel story, C h a p t e r 11 resumes the line of Arpachshad and carries it down to t h e generation of Abram. All the translations have this homogeneous humanity moving "from the east;" my own translation is more in keeping with the flavor of the story. 12 Arrived at this valley in Shinar, humanity foresees t h e centrifugal force of future propagations. As their numbers grow in future generations, no one place will hold them. Against that contingency they propose the tower‫״‬topped city as an expedient to "make themselves a name," an expression t h a t — w h a t e v e r else it may m e a n — m u s t be related to preserving their unity, perhaps by marking for all future time this locus of their c o m m o n origin. For a reason that is not given (explicitly, at least), Y H W H is impressed enough by this h u m a n accomplishment to act now to prevent even greater accomplishments in the future. He therefore acts to disrupt their unity, which he achieves by making their one language into many. N o longer able to understand o n e another, n o longer able to pursue a c o m m o n purpose, they leave their building project uncompleted. They disperse far and wide, to make up t h e separate groupings of the h u m a n race that are thrice characterized in t h e genealogies of C h a p t e r ίο, "according to their linguistic families )11 their national territories" T h e r e is thus an ironic symmetry between the purpose of the builders and t h e re‫״‬ suit of their efforts. They bring about the dreaded eventuality that they had aimed to forestall. Their single language becomes many, their one purpose is divided, their m o n u m e n t is left unfinished, the "name" they wished to make for themselves eventuates in their many and different names, and the dispersion they feared is brought to pass. Not by accident do we arrive at this moral-in-a-metaphor: "Man proposes, God disposes" Man rears his city heavenward; G o d — b e f o r e He takes a h a n d in the m a t t e r — d e s c e n d s earthward. Twice, man s purpose is introduced in the cohortative of dialogue, "Come let us . . ." Only once does the same expression appear in t h e mouth of Y H W H : "Come let us . . .‫ מ‬For man, there's many a slip betwixt cup and lip; for God, to propose is to do, or, to make metaphor literal, "no sooner said t h a n done." T h e most commonly accepted interpretation of this story as a whole is that it constitutes an etiology. I have discussed GunkePs label in Toward a Grammar with particular reference to this story. 13 T h e r e I expressed my reasons for concluding that this particular example of literary explanation by means of a genre-label is inappropriate to the aims and competence of the biblical authors. If we knew nothing more of ancient Mesopotamia t h a n what can be gleaned from the biblical references to its cities and cultures, we might never come close to guessing what it. was that the author had in mind when h e pictured m Lin's ancient building enterprise as

17 •S

S ‫דך‬.‫ ו‬Κ ι US ‫ ״ —׳‬τ Η Ε P R I M E V A L

HISTORY‫״‬

a city w i t h a tower reaching h e a v e n w a r d , or why of all t h e possible cities t h a t might be candidates tor humanity's c e n t e r of origin h e picked Babylon. Fortunately, t h a n k s to scholarly research, we may today draw o n m u c h i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t was available to the Scriptural a u t h o r w h o crafted this narrative.

MHS O P O T A M1A Ν

CONNECTIONS

Except for the p l a c e m e n t ot t h e garden of Eden b e t w e e n t h e Tigris and t h e Euphrates, n o t h i n g in chapters 1 - 1 1 is so explicitly M c s o p o t a m i a n as t h e story of t h e Tower of Babel. N o single narrative is more closely tied to so i m p o r t a n t a historic locus there, and n o n e is so dense with a u t h e n t i c detail. First a review of t h e details. Shinar is the biblical Hebrew rendering of t h e n a m e t h a t t h e n o n - S e m i t i c forerunners ot t h e Babylonians gave to t h e lower part of t h e plain b e t w e e n t h e two great rivers. S/!mar is a closer approximation to that original n a m e , w h i c h t h e Babylonians called Shitmer, and w h i c h we p r o n o u n c e Surner. From t h e Sumerians the Semites oi Babylonia and Assyria received t h e art of writing, and with it. a con‫׳־‬ siderahle a m o u n t of Sumerian culture, including language, literature, and religious and political lore. T h e name of t h e city t h a t was built by Semites into a n imperial capital, Babil, is almost certainly not Semitic. (We do well to remember t h a t S e m i t i c is a linguistic category only, referring to a family oi languages or to people speaking o n e of these.) But hah in A k k a d i a n means 1 'gate' 1 and il means "god." T h i s happy c o i n c i d e n c e was made to order for t h e pndeiul inhabit ants of this ancient: metropolis. T h e i r city was indeed the c e n t e r of the world, it was Bab-ili " G a t e of t h e G o d s " a n d in their writ:ings they claimed t h e same m e a n i n g in t h e language of their S u m e r i a n predecessors: K A - D I N G I R ' R A . Perhaps to evoke associations with sacred antiquity, a c o n v e n t i o n developed to n a m e temple precincts and their lofty temple towers, t h e ziqqurats, in Sumerian; a c o n v e n t i o n t h a t c o n t i n u e d more t h a n a t h o u s a n d years after S u m e r i a n had ceased to be a living language. ( T h e S u m e r i a n n a m e for Marduk's sanctuary in Babylon was, for example, Ε Ν · Τ Ε Μ Ε Ν ‫ ־‬Α Ν ‫ ׳‬Κ ί "Lordly F o u n d a t i o n of H e a v e n and Earth," t h e meeting-place, so to speak, of t h e realm of t h e gods and t h e world of mortal m a n . ) O u r biblical author, addressing a n Israelite audience in its stone-rich land, must provide it with an explanatory aside (verse 3) w h e n h e faithfully reflects t h e fired-brick building materials of Mesopotamia's temples. T h i s item appears in Enuma elish, which, as its translator E. A . Speiser has p o i n t e d out, must h a v e b e e n part of t h e inspiration of the a u t h o r of t h e Tower of Bahel story, t h e idea we find in ΕτιΐϋΠϋ elish. For though, as a m a t t e r of recorded chronicle, t h e building of BabyIon's ziggurat was interrupted by an attack on t h e city, it is n o t t h e specific Ziggurat of Babylon, but rather the idea of it, t h a t is reflected in t h e biblical story. W h e n t h e gods propose to build a temple for Marduk in gratitude lor his triumph, Marduk in‫״‬ vokes as t h e model tor his heavenly abode the Babylon whose very existence is only in the p r o p o s a l stage; ‫ ד‬ike that of lofty Babylon, whose building yon have requested, bet its brie k work be fashioned. Yon shall name it 1The Sanctuary.‫י‬

‫״‬

FROM ΝΟΛΠ T O ABRAM

179

The Anunnakki applied the implement; Fur one whole year they molded !!ricks. When rhe second year arrived, T h e y raised high the head of Esagila equaling Apsu. ( A N E T p. 68 T A B . V 1 5 7 - 6 2 )

T h e Akkadian words, "they raised high t h e head of [the ziggurat] equaling Apsu Γ namely, "high up to the sky" is what yields the Sumerian n a m e E\SAGdL-A "the house with head raised high," and is behind t h e Hebrew in verse 4, "with a tower with its head in the sky." Implicit in this Babylonian creation story—creation by Marduk, t h e tutelary god 01‫ ־‬Babylon — is t h e mythopoeic claim that Babylon is t h e senior, the chiel if not the oldest of mankind s cities, its building already decreed by the gods at Creat ion s beginning. W e say "mythopoeic claim," for our sources inform us that the Babylonians knew t h a t theirs was n o t t h e most ancient of cities, as surely as the citizens of Rome knew t h a t their Eternal City was not even a village when Troy fell to the Greeks. Let us recall U t n a p i s h t i m s words to Gilgamesh about his native city: Shurippak—a an 1 ivhich thou knowest [italics mine]— T h a t city was ancient, the gods within it, When their hearts led rhe great gods to produce the flood. (ANET p. 93 TAB. XI u-14)

No, Babylon can. claim no such comparable antiquity. But Babylon was old when some of the cities that served as royal capitals of imperial Assyria were having their foundations laid. Heir to the legendary first Semitic conqueror, S argon of Akkad, Babylon was the cosmopolitan ^ ity of antiquity. Ruled in turn by Semitic Amurru (the great. I Iammurabi, for instance), non-Semitic Κ assîtes (for more than five centu ries), conquered by Semitic Assyria, reclaimed by a Chaldean dynasty, its fiercely independent priests still preserving the classic language and traditions of most ancient Shinar/Stimer, Babylon must indeed have been polyglot. W h a t a babble of tongues must have resounded in the bazaars of this world trade-center! This picture of Babylon—its name, Babil, lending itself to a pretentious claim to divine favor; its Hebrew name, Babel, lending itself to a pun featuring the Hebrew root B-L-L "to mix, confuse, scramble, confound"—seems to have been made to order for a storyteller in search of a center where m a n k i n d s one original language became many. A n d whereas Babels polyglot population owed historically to varied-tongued rulers, the author of our story seems to take at face value the claim that this city was indeed m a n k i n d s point of origin, its first a n d — f o r a t i m e — o n l y city. Yet a perplexity remains. T h e explicit judgment of God or! Babel and its builders is a denigration of this center; Babel is t h e target for scorn. But for the larger part of ancient Israel's history it was Assyria, n o t Babylon, that was Israel s most formidable enemy and tormentor. Babylon did not throw off Assyrian domination until the beginning of the sixth century. U n t i l t h e n (under the Chaldeans, or, as they arc called, the neo-Babylonians), Babylon never figured as rival, adversary, or threat to Israel. W h y would an Israelite author pick on Babylon several centuries (in all likelihood) before she replaced Assyria as imperialist conqueror; long, long centuries before she became the Great W h o r e of the Book of Revelation?

188

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

E, A . Speiser, the leading interpreter of Mesopotamia!!-Biblical connections, has suggested t h a t behind the Tower of Babel story there may lie a lost Assyrian original. 14 In support of this conjecture we may invoke a historical analogue. Like t h e R o m a n conc]uerors to the A t h e n i a n s and their b r e t h r e n of Hellas, so were t h e Assyrian conquerors to t h e Babylonians w h o m they subjected: u n c o u t h and uncultured, hillbilly Johnnies-come-lately, barbarian bullies presuming υ ο hold sway over their elders and betters. Virgil's A e n e i d betrays in its propaganda-plot the inferiority complex of a Rome w h i c h had taken its artistic and literary models from the Greece it had subjugated. R o m e — s o runs the argument of t h e Aeneid — w a s no upstart, its origins are ancient, its civilized heritage noble. Ae‫־׳‬ neas, ancestor of Rome and of its Augustus Caesar, was a refugee from Troy, a noble of ancient Ilium, whose topless towers were toppled by a horde of halfsavage Greeks . . . Talk oi cultural antiquity and poetic justice in history! Is there a clay tablet lying in the earth of northern Iraq, waiting t h e turn of archaeologist's spade, waiting deciphering to take its place in our consciousness alongside hnuma elish and Gilgamesh? A tablet in which an Assyrian poet tells a story: An Assyrian poet w h o k n o w s that more t h a n one Assyrian king was c o n d e m n e d

in

Assyria and was brought to grief by the gods of Assyria for becoming too cozy with the god of the Babylon he had conquered, and a story that ends in a pun and a sneer: Bah-ili a G a t e of the Gods," indeed! N o , not so, confounded by the gods: not Babel, but Babble!

B A B E L I N ITS B I B L I C A L S E T T I N G

Speisers hypothesis of a missing link is an example of imaginative scholarship that, while it must remain moot, does n o violence to the text on which it seeks to shed light. A n d even were it open to refutation (which it is not, for how can one prove that something never existed) it would still be of value for sharpening our consciousness of the social and political issues that may be reflected in literary compositions, which thereby have a bearing on the history of a composition without at·‫׳‬ feet ing t h e question of its esthetic integrity. For whether there was or was not a Mesopotamia!! composition closer in theme to the Babel story t h a n any oi the traditions that have been preserved, and whatever the theme or function of such a composition, one thing is clear: T h e biblical author used Mesopotamia!! literary traditions freely, always adapting and deploying them in consonance with his overview of "Primeval I I i story." There are two other items featuring biblical texts and conjoining the names Babylon and Assyria. O n e is the (apparent) intrusion into the genealogy of I lam in Genesis JO of quite a few names that belong with the Asshur, son of Shem, in verse 22. Although I will revert to the passage in connect ion with my discussion of the g e n e a l o g i e s in t h i s c h a p t e r , i t is w o r t h c i t i n g here:

;8) Now (dush begot Nimrod, the first man-ohiiiight on earth, (o) He w o migbtv jn die hum, by grace of YHWH, hence the saying, "Like Nmmxl, by grace ot I \\\ \ 1 a mighty hunter." (το) The chief cities of his realm were Babylon, Erech and Akkad, all of them in the land of Shi nur. (11) From that land sprang Assbur. He built Xine\ eh.

FROM NOA'H T O AB RAM

181

Rehoboth-ir, Calah and Resen, between Nineveh and Calah, the latter being the major capital (Genesis 10:8— 1 ‫) נ‬ As we n o t e d in regard to t h e C u s h of Genesis 2:13, Speiser distinguishes bet w e e n t h e H e b r e w h o m o n y m for t h e people of Ethiopia and the Kassite i c u n e i f o r m KaMhijKussü; classical G r e e k Kossaios) dynasty, w h i c h held sway in Babylon f r o m the s e v e n t e e n t h to t h e t w e l f t h century. Of immediate interest to 11s is the m e n t i o n oi Babylon in. t h e land of S h i n a r a n d t h e following observation, u fro in t h a t land sprang Asshur," Asshur being a person identified as t h e builder or the k n o w n Assyr‫׳‬ ian capitals of N i n e v e h and C a l a h . N o w the Babylon of the land of‫ ״‬S h i n a r is, with Erech and A k k a d , a chief city ol t h e mighty h u n t e r Nimrod. Briefly in his Genesis c o m m e n t a r y (p. 72) and at greater length in "In Search of Nimrod" 1 '' Speiser makes a case for identifying this Nimrod with Tukulti-Ninurta b 11 certainly the first conqueror ot Babylonia" and, like "the biblical N i m r o d [who| is said to have combined effective authority over b o t h Babylonia and Assyria . . . |i>| the first Mesopotamia!! ruler to d o so o n a solid basis" Of especial interest to us is that for all lus legendary conquests and "his celebrated building activities . . . !giving rise toi an epic extolling his exploits [which] is o n e of t h e literary legacies of Assyria," T u k u l t i - N i n u r t a I lost t h r o n e and life in a n Assyrian insurrection. A chief cause of t h a t uprising, or a principal factor cited by his kindred rebels, may well h a v e b e e n his over-favoring of t h e city h e h a d c o n q u e r e d and of its god Marduk, In a similar vein, t h e king w h o is t a u n t e d by t h e p r o p h e t Isaiah in C h a p t e r 14 and wdio is identified only as t h e King of Babylon is n o Babylonian at all, but t h e Assyrian master of Babylon, Sargon II. T h i s great king, taking a t h r o n e - n a m e t h a t evokes t h e first Semitic conqueror, Sargon of A k k a d , lost his life on a battlefield from which his troops were routed and his body never recovered. It is this disastrous fate, denial of burial and t h e dire consequences of such exposure tor t h e shade of the unhuricd, to w h i c h Isaiah refers in his m o c k i n g of t h e conqueror. 1 6 A n d we k n o w all this t h a n k s to a c u n e i f o r m tablet in w h i c h Sargon s son, S e n n a c h e r i b , inquires of Assyria's gods as to t h e n a t u r e of his f a t h e r s sin, w h i c h led t h e m to ahand o n h i m to such a fate. O n c e again, a n Assyrian m o n a r c h judged as deficient in respect to Assyria's gods because h e was overly a t t e n t i v e to t h e cosmopolitan‫ !־‬city of Marduk. For all t h e interest of the foregoing, with all its a u t h e n t i c a t e d and nearly authentic.ated historic detail, it does not bear significantly o n the interpretation of t h e bower of Babel story. W h a t is crucial (or interpretation is the m a n n e r m which t h e biblical a u t h o r deployed his material to achieve his m y t h o p o e i c expression of a crucial even! in his fict ive Primeval History. Χ!) Assyrians appear in the story, nor, for that matter, do any Babylonians. IVspite t h e tale's focus o n the city of Babylon and its ziggurat, its echoes of that city's pride or vainglory, t h e personae of t h e tale are not: Babylonians, not e v e n Semi(es. T h e y are, as we h a v e seen, m a n k i n d as a whole, all t h e d e s c e n d a n t s of Noah! in t h e t h r e e - b r a n c h line of his sons. T h e y are still a n e x t e n d e d family, at the nvo^r only five generations removed from Father N o a h , sharing one language and-—if our rendering in verse 1 of t h e Hebrew, w h i c h literally reads "single words, single tilings, single matter," is correct—•a c o m m o n purpose. T h a t purpose is to take précaution.

188

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

against the negative, divisive, disuniting consequences of humanity's spreading out as il‫ ־‬continues to propagate. That purpose is to he achieved by building a city with a sky-scraping tower, an achievement that will somehow "make ourselves a name." O n e meaning oi this phrase is, as in English, "to establish a reputation." A n o t h e r sense oi "name" is, by moi on y my, a stele or m o n u m e n t , which is raised to keep a name alive or in remembrance. And in a related and extended context, "to keep a name going" is an expression lor the continuing of a family line so that the an cestors may enjoy felicity in the afterlife, may t h e r e b y · - in a manner of speaking- gain immortality. T h e crucial question is, however, what‫ ־‬was the objection of Y H W H to mankind's ambition in building the tower-‫׳‬topped city? Is it to man's longing for continuity that God objects, or is it to the means by which he seeks to achieve that goal? Is it likely, for example, t h a t in mythopoeic fashion we have here another attack on pagan religion, symbolized in the temple-architecture of t h e ziggurat? Our answer is no: it is not very likely. For as the critique is of mankind and its ambition, rather t h a n of Babylonians and their ambition, so is the distinctive cultic element notably absent here. T h e function of the tower as a ziggurat, a temple for worship, is masked here to the point of unrecogniiability. H e n c e it is unlikely t h a t the critique is pointed at the cult system of Babylon in specific, or of Mesopotamia in general. ( A n d nothing in the formulation of the narrative bears out the traditional interpretation, that t h e tower's builders were intent on a stairway to heaven, a siege-tower from which they might launch an attack on G o d in his fortress.) Imagery, however, lends itself to many uses. And what serves in an original context as emblematic of reverence and piety may be distorted to express an opposite set of values. (Even as, by a reverse process, a name given in scornful derision— Protestant, Quaker‫ ״‬may come to be worn as a badge of honor.) T h e Mesopotamia!! ziggurat was no mote an expression, of human pride than the lemple of Solomon or the vaulting Gothic cathedrals of Christendom. Both of these latter were exprèssiotis of awe before divine majesty and ol a hope that Deity would grace such earthly palaces with his presence. Similarly did the ziggurat, based on earth and reaching heavenward, express the human aspiration to the gods and a prayer for the gods' condescension to humankind. But the ziggurat did reach lor the sky, and such a symbol of humility could easily lend tiself to interpretation as a sign of pride. Perhaps a h i n t as to what was in our authors mind may be gleaned from Gilgamesh's address to Enkidu, as he seeks to overcome Enkidus fear of confronting Huwawa, the god-appointed guardian of the mountain-peak Cedar Forest: Who, my friend, can scale heaven J Only the gods live forever under the .sun. As for mankind, numbered are their days; Whatever they achieve is but the wind! (ANET p. 79 TAB. Ill (iv) 5 - 8 ) In this affirmation that permanence is an attribute of t h e divine, while the greatest of man's achievements is as substantive and as stable as t h e wind; that since death is inevitable, it makes no sense not to risk life for a heroic triumph; and in the characterization of man's aspiration tor permanence and immortality as an a 111bition "to scale heaven," we have a clue 10 our ancient a u t h o r s vision of the ambi‫׳‬

F R O M NOA'H T O AB RAM

183

tion of t h e T o w e r s builders, and of why it was c o n d e m n e d a n d frustrated Κ (Jod. T h e a m b i t i o n to be o n e and n o t many, c o n c e n t r a t e d a n d n o t scattered, to secure some kind of p e r m a n e n c e for h u m a n achievement-- all this without recourse to G o d - is t h e biblical sin of Pride, what t h e Cheeks called /rvbm.

"Till•: PR I Ml·'VA.L H I S T O R Y " : A N

OVERVIEW

T h e biblical authors c a n be as specific and explicit as a n y o n e else. O f t e n they choose to be hyperbolic, especially in d e n o u n c i n g Israelite eultic practices they disapprove of in terms of apostasy and idolatry, or in characterizing moral lapses as willful rebellion against t h e G o d of Israel. In t h e eleven chapters of Genesis, in sketching t h e Primeval History of m a n k i n d , t h e shortcomings of h u m a n i t y are, and deliberately so, broadly allusive. T h e n a m e s of cities and countries b e c o m e arte estral figures in genealogical tables, t h e tables themselves b e c o m e t h e framework for story plots t h a t are as symbolic as t h e actors w h o figure in t h e m . T h e genealogies in c h a p t e r s 10 a n d 11 are totally c o n s o n a n t w i t h o n e a n o t h e r , a n d serve t h e m e a t of the Tower of Babel story as slices of bread d o in a sandwich. First comes the line ot m a n until, t h e time of t h e Tower. T h i s line details t h e branchings of t h e lines ot S h e m , H a m , a n d J a p h e t h e v e n in t h e generations after t h e G r e a t Dispersion svmbolized in t h e frustration of t h e Tower's builders. This, e x c e p t for t h e one line of S h e m t h a t ends in Pel eg, h e of t h e g e n e r a t i o n of t h e G r e a t Dispersion. Alter the Babel story t h e second genealogy picks up again this o n e line of S h e m , descending from o n e of Eber's two sons, Peleg, t h e line t h a t ends with A b r a m . W i t h A b r a m "the triend or lover of G o d " as h e is called (Isaiah 41:8), t h e Primeval History ends and Israels emergence i n t o history begins. A b r a m , t h e i n t i m a t e of Goci, will begin t h e religious family tradition of fidelity to t h e o n e G o d of Genesis 1 and to his will. A b r a m , as Genesis 12 shows G o d proclaiming, is lhe o n e through whom all m a n k i n d is to achieve blessing. Perhaps including the blessing of unity (under G o d ) , which was in the Primeval History disrupted by G o d because it was att e m p t e d w i t h o u t reference to (‫ ־וי‬reckoning with t h a t G o d . Fhe symbolic loroe of t h e Babel story- like the reasons for the Bible's inclusion of t h e flood story or of N o a h s nakedness -will stand out more clearly, and for all its aliusivcness richer in d i m e n s i o n , if we consider it in terms of t h e form i n t o which it. fits, the pattern and c o n t e x t of t h e material preceding it. T h e first eleven chapters of Genesis can be outlined in a three-unit synopsis; h F O U N D A T I O N S OF THEOLOGY

A. The Creation Story—Focus on God: The Nature of Deity and Ultimate Reality: ( C h . 1:1 - 2 : 4 a )

B. The Eden Story—Focus on Man: Death in a World Made for VIan (Ch. 2:4a4:16 History

‫) ״ ־‬

begins with Expulsion from Eden and the Atrocity of Fratricide

188

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

1L Ο ΟΠ INTERRUPTS HISTORY A. M;u1V ( îenealogy Culminâting in Noah (( de 4:1 7 IV Ί110 Delude

Its Causes ami Aftermath (Ch. 6:1 • c>:2y)

History resumes with C o d ' s f o l e r a u c e and t h e A t r o c i t y of Mam ill. PRIMEVAL HISTORY Κ Ν HS

A. Noah's Genealogy Culminating in lhe Oenerauon oi the Dispersion (Ch. 10:1-32) Β. The Tower of Babel and the Dispersion oi Man (Ch. 11:1 g) C. Noah's Genealogy through Shem Culminating in Abrain (Ch. 13:10-32) Israelite History begins with Gods Servant and His Promise T h e p a t t e r n in this outline is as linear as an arrow: chapters 1 - 1 1 constitute a n int r a d u c t i o n to C h a p t e r 12. T h e overall focus is o n universal m a n in three successive phases of relationship to t h e source of C r e a t i o n , t h e G o d of n a t u r e and history. Each of t h e phases begins o n a n o t e ot high promise for h u m a n k i n d and ends o n a n o t e of h u m a n k i n d ' s failure: I. Mankind as the crown of creation, with its potential for majesty under God, chooses to be historic man and begins history wirb murder. II. Mankinds second chance, in the line ot Cain or Seth, fails of morality and is doomed by the Deluge, save for a third chance in the person of Noah. III. Mankinds third chance, in the line of Noah, culminates in universal mans fail‫׳‬ ure, the failure adumbrated in the licentiousness of the Hamite line and symbolized in the building of the Tower and God's sentence of dispersion. A fourth chance is implicit in the narrow ing of the focus on the one line of Shem, through Eber, then Peleg, culminating in .Ahram, first of braeD patriarchs. It is as though G o d , having tried once, twice, and a third time w i t h h u m a n k i n d as a whole, concludes that his hopes were too ambitious. He will start again, this time with o n e m a n and Iiis family, one people, slowly emerging into history, perhaps t o succeed w h e r e m a n k i n d as a whole bus failed. A h r a m will h a v e many descendants, but his chosen role as ( Kids destined vessel, as the. o n e line a m o n g so many, w h i c h may be an exemplar for all m a n k i n d s branches, will go from Isaac to Jacob, w h o becomes Israel. Let all w h o will take this literally. T h e evidence is a b u n d a n t in Scripture t h a t t h e r e were m a n y in t h e generations oi Israel who took m u c h of this literally, especially t h e pride and t h e privilege to the exclusion of t h e humility w h i c h becomes t h e servant, and its c o n c o m i t a n t sense of noblesse oblige. A n d spokesmen of Script u r c — b e they f u l m i n a t i n g prophet, legislating moralist, masterful storyteller, or arc h i t e c t o n i c e d i t o r — a r e n o t h i n g loathe to give this p h e n o m e n o n its proper n a m e : failure before G o d . T h e n o t i o n of m a n s creation in the divine image, perhaps e v e n his descent f r o m a c o m m o n ancestor, can be traced to M e s o p o t a m i a n myth. 1 7 O n l y in Scripture do we h a v e this notion, so underlined as to c o n s t i t u t e o n e of its few universal dogmas. M a n k i n d is tone through Adam, S e t h a n d C a i n , and N o a h . T h r o u g h t h e seed of A b r a h a m in the line of Israel it can realize its oneness o n c e again. T h e H e b r e w Bible sees the past as a c h a i n of failures; it judges its c o n t i n u i n g

h'KOM N O A H Ί Ο ABRAM

!85

present in terms of the failures so ironic in the chosen line; and for all the many fail· ures and t h e paucity oi triumphs it does n o t — i n t h e last analysis—ever give up o n Israel, or t h e h u m a n i t y whose protagonist Israel can yet, and ought to, be. T h e Hebrew Bible is the expression of Israel's sell-consciousness of its place and role in t h e e c o n o m y of the universe. This is to say, if is t h e expression of t h a t self-consciousness o n t h e part of Israels best minds and best hearts. T h e heirs of t h a t self-consciousness are those w h o make it their own. If this last has t h e ring of p r e a c h m e n t , well, t h e Bible is a literature of p r e a c h m e n t . T h e only question is w h e t h e r t h e interpretation w h i c h rings of p r e a c h m e n t resonates recognizably w i t h t h e ring of Scripture's voice.

E V E N T S IN T H E OF

LIFE

ABRAHAM

A B R A M T H E Ν O B T.K W A R R Ï O R

Biblical discourse is discursive (and it is so to a remarkable degree). W h a t keeps the first clause of this sentence from constituting a tautology is t h e odd difference in the nuances oi the noun and adjective. W h e r e a s the rmmm^ ίο ond fro (of t h e original and literal Latin) conveys in the n o u n the >cnse of logical and consecutive speech or thought, in t h e adjective there h a strong sense of discontinuity or db gression. O n e exemplary aspect of the discursiveness of biblical discourse is reflected in t h e "stories and structures" in this v o l u m e s subtitle. T h e r e are m a n y o t h e r aspects of this (literary) p h e n o m e n o n in addition to a l t e r n a t i o n of forms and genres, such as perspectival shifts in consecutive narratives h i n g e ing o n changes in identities of implied author, more-or-lcss reliable or o m n i s c i e n t narrator, and variably sophisticated implied audience. Genesis 1 2 - 1 5 , t h e first four chapters c e n t e r e d o n t h e p a t r i a r c h A b r a m , present several examples of t h e m a t i c c o n t i n u i t y i n t e r r u p t e d by generally inapposite narratives, w h i c h could w i t h artistic benefit h a v e b e e n inserted elsewhere in t h e c h r o n i c l e of t h e patriarch's career. O n e can readily see, therefore, h o w inviting this would be to source criticism (or any ‫ ״‬e n c t i c a p p r o a c h to t h e text t h a t is undisturbed by t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n ot the i n c o m p e t e n t editor), a n d — a t t h e opposite pole—-how challenging to a poetic re ad um ( w h i c h c a n n o t by its n a t u r e c o n c e d e incapacity or i n a d v e r t e n c e on t h e part of cither editor or a u t h o r ) . The way of t h e

EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF A B R A H A M

187

critic is n o t , however, rhe way of t h e artist, nor that of t h e c o m m e n t a t o r . W e shall therefore in our t r e a t m e n t ol t h e material in these four chapters reserve t h e adventures of Sarah and A b r a m in Egypt lor t r e a t m e n t later in c o n n e c t i o n with o t h e r romances ol t h e triangular modality, defer t h e consideration of t h e o p e n i n g revelation in C h a p t e r 12 so as to treat it t o g e t h e r with t h e o t h e r narratives Icaturing divine revelations and promises, ‫׳‬and hegin A h r a i n s career in media res with t h e egregious C h a p t e r 14. T h e characterization of this c h a p t e r as egregious owes to t h e a n t on y m o us conn o t a t i o n s of t h e word, .standing out from the herd, in t h e sense of "distinguished" in t h e original Latin, and in English, 'dike a sore thumb." T h e following c i t a t i o n from Speiser is a fair s u m m a t i o n of t h e view ot critical scholarship: Genesis xiv stands alone among all the accounts in the Pentateuch, if not indeed in the Bible as a whole. The setting is international, the approach impersonal, and the narration notable for its unusual style and vocabulary. . . . On one point the critics are virtually unanimous; the tarai liar touches ot the established sources of Genesis are ahsent in this instance. For all these reasons the chapter has to be ascribed to an isolated source . . . it is [the sue cess tul] exploit by Abraham, in the otherwise unfamiliar role of a warrior, that evidently led to the inclusion of the chapter with the regular patriarchal material in Genesis. . . . The date of the narrative has been variously estimated. . . . A fresh reexamination of all the available scraps of evidence, both internal and external, favors an early date, scarcely later in fact than the middle of the second millennium. 1 Speiser s well-earned repute as philologian, linguist, Semitist, and cultural historian has n o t lost luster in t h e three decades since his demise. It is t h e more remarkable t h e n t h a t his fine-tuned ear and perceptive sight and insight could be so dulled by the b l a n d i s h m e n t s of* source-critical literary science. Except for a single syntactic and idiomatic anomaly in the o p e n i n g clause of this account (to use Speisers telltale word for narrative) there is not a single item of style or vocabulary t h a t is 1111usual; if anything, the stvle is classic biblical 1 lehrew. T h e inability ot doe untentarists to discern traces of J, Ε or Ρ 111 this passage entitles it to status as a u n i q u e " d o c u m e n t " (labeled X by Speiser); a d o c u m e n t in which we can read t h e translat i o n into H e b r e w (bad Hebrew, to be sure) oi an A k k a d i a n text t h a t was incorporated into Genesis because t he editor, presumably, was so thrilled to find attestation in a foreign source of t h e historicity ot an ancestor of whose career h e is himself t h e historian. A s for t h e d a t i n g of a literary text (rather, snippet of a literary t e x t ) to a h a l f - m i l l e n n i u m earlier t h a n t h e earliest of its d o c u m e n t a r y c o m p a n i o n s , why this is just f u r t h e r indication of that measurability t h a t is a critical hallmark of science! Let us proceed to t h e e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e text: (τ) In the time of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king ot Goiini2)—‫ )־‬they waged war with Bera king of Sodom, and Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shi nab king of Admah and Shemeber king of Zeboim and the king of Bela (that is Zoar). (3) All these gathered in alliance in the Vale of Siddim (that is the Salt Sea). (4) Twelve years had they been subject to Che‫׳‬ darlaomer, and i n the thirteenth year r o e in rebellion. (5) And in the fourteenth year Chedarlaomer arrived and the k1n^< his allies. They defeated the Rephaites in

188

Ν Τ Ο Γι ï 1‫ ׳‬S —1 1 T D K PRIMI:" VA I.

HISTORY"

Ashteroth-qarnaim, and die Zuzites in Ham, and the Hmim in Shaveh-Qirytaim (6) and the Horites in their hil !-country Seir- —as far as Ebparan which is at the steppe harder. (7) Turning about they came tu Enumdipar (that is, Qadesh) and battered the Amalekite steppe-land as well as the Arno ;·!res settled around Hazazon-tamar. (8) The k i n g of Sodom s a l l i e d f o r t h , a n d t h e king o f G o m o r r a h , and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboim, and t h e k i n e of Be la ( t h a t is, Zoar) and arranged for battle with them in the vale of S i d d i m , (y) n a m e l y , with Chedarlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, and A m r a p h e l k i n g of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar, four kings against the five. (10) (The Vale of Siddim now was pocked with bitumen pits.) They — the king of Sodom a n d G o m o r r a h — w e r e r o u t e d . There fell there [many] casualties, while the s u r v i v o r s f l e d to the hill c o u n t r y . ( 1 1 ) They [the invadersl took all the wealth of Sodom and G o m o r r a h , all their f o o d s t o r e , and departed. (12) They took Lot and his wealth, the s o n ot Ahram's b r o t h e r a n d departed, he now l i v ing in Sodom. ( 1 3 ) There came an escapee and t o l d Abrain the Hebrew—he then abiding at the Gaks of Mamre the Amorite, kinsman o f E s h k o l a n d kinsman of Aner, they being Ahrains confederates. ( 1 4 ) When Ahram heard t h a t his kinsman had been taken captive he unsheathed h i s shock t r o o p s , h i s home-born slaves eighteen and three hundred [in numbed, and made pursuit all the way to Dan. (15) Separating into two lorees against then! at night, he and his slaves, he attacked then! and pursued them all the way to 1 lobah which is north oi Damascus. (!6) J fe recovered all the properly a n d also h i s k i n s m a n L o t a n d his p r o p e r t y d i d h e recover and the women and the [rest o f t h e ] p e o p l e as w e l l (17)

The

king of Sodom

came

out to

meet

him,

upon

his

return from

defeat i n g

C h e d a r l a o m e r a n d h i s a l l i e d k i n g s , t o t h e V a l e of S b a v e h ( t h a t is, t h e K i n g ' s V a l e ) . (18)

Now Melchizeclek

priest t o E l E l y o n -

king

of Salem brought out bread and

wine—he,

that

is,

( 1 9 ) H e g r e e t e d h i m as f o l l o w s , " B l e s s e d he A h r a m b y E l E l y o n ,

creator of heaven and earth. (20) And praised he El Elyon [the god] that has delivered your enemies into your power." To him he gave a tenth-part of everything.) (21) The king of Sodom said to Ahram, 4'Let me have the humans, the material property keep for yourself." (22) Said Ahram to the king of Sodom, "My hand have I raised [in oath] to YHWH-E1 Elyon, creator o f h e a v e n a n d earth. ( 2 3 ) That not thread nor shoelace, nothing whatsoever 01‫ ־‬y o u r b e l o n g i n g s will I keep, lest you ever think, It is I that made Ahram rich: ( 2 4 ) Nothing f o r m e e x c e p t for my lads' expenses . . . and the shares owing to those who c a m p a i g n e d at m y side, Aner, Eshkol and Mamre-—they are to keep their shares." (Genesis 14:1 — 24) More t h a n any other f a c t o r — p e r h a p s more than all other factors c o m b i n e d — making for difficulty and perplexity to the modern Bible scholar is the presumption of historiographie intent on t h e part, ot the biblical author. O n c e we grant Scripaire's authors the same freedom we do to today s writers of historical romances, the freedom to blend documented persons and events with legendary motifs in a melange in which the predominating element is pure invention, it is wondrous how so many problems simply fall away.‫'־‬ More than a case in point, a parade example rat !1er, is this Chapter 14. hong hefore Speiser, scholars were impressed by the 11 it lient icit y of the1 names 0( kings and

E V E N T S IN THE LIFE

OF A B R A H A M

189

places f r o m M e s o p o t a m i a o n the o n e h a n d and, o n t h e other, t h e indicators t h a t t h e collocation of these n a m e s and their collaboration in an e x p e d i t i o n o n southern Palestine presents a historical absurdity. Speiser himself confessed to his students t h a t his speculation t h a t c opper was t h e tribute so n e e d e d in M e s o p o t a m i a was a desperate way to a c c o u n t tor whar looked like t h e resources of a mighty empire being mustered to reduce a tew barns in a harclscrabble f a r m l a n d . A s incongruous as t h e image invoked in this simile is, and fittingly so, its appositeness holds only for t h e Dead Sea landscape that meets our eyes today (and so m e t t h e eyes of t h e biblical a u t h o r s contemporaries). But this landscape was n o t t h e o n e seen and chosen for himself by Lot w h e n , as told in t h e preceding C h a p t e r 1.‫ל‬, be parted with U n c l e A b r a m , "Lifting his eves (to t h e horizons) Lot beheld t h e stretch of t h e Jordan s valley, so very richly w a t e r e d — ' t w a s (remember( before VI IWl Is dévastalion ot S o d o m and oi G o m o r r a h — l i k e Y1 I W l P s own garden, like the land ot Egypt, from Zoar onwards," A n d rhe cities of that lush legendary plain must have b e e n rich, populous and walled, like all those w h i c h , over some five centuries, fell to o n e or a n o t h e r imperial c o n q u e r o r trom M e s o p o t a m i a until t h a t tide swept over Egypt itself in t h e reign of t h e C h a l d e a n king of Babylon, A s h u r b a n i p a b A l l t h e five cities of t h e plain are legendary; two of t h e m , A d m a h a n d Zeboim, are proverbial elsewhere in Scripture for sharing t h e fate of S o d o m and G o m o r r a h . T h e fifth exists as a place n a m e in the time of m o n a r c h i c a l Israel, o n t h e fringe of t h e N e g e b steppe. A n d it is a n o t h e r aspect of t h e whimsy t h e biblical a u t h o r permits himself t h a t in C h a p t e r 14 he pictures Zoar under t h e n a m e Bela as o n e of t h e five cities facing up u n d e r its own ( u n n a m e d ) king to t h e Empire in t h e East; while in C h a p t e r 19, Lot, in escaping t h e fate of S o d o m , asks t h a t h e be permitted safe h a v e n in Zoar, p u n n i n g o n the stem ‫" ז י‬small, tiny." Presumably in asking t h a t a spot scheduled for o v e r t h r o w be s p a r e d — " a f t e r all, it is such a n insignificant p l a c e " — h e is referring to a settlement rather t h a n a spot w i t h i n a h y p o t h e t i c a l boundary. A n d this settlement, if s e t t l e m e n t it is, survives i n t o centuries later. Perhaps its p o p u l a t i o n t u r n e d over a n e w leaf some time after t h e sulfurous tide lapped almost to its borders, but not immediately, for Lot, "fearing to r e m a i n In Zoar," takes to a cave in t h e hill country w i t h his two daughters. T h e possibility t h a t Zoar h a d n o p o p u l a t i o n in L o t s time would seem to be supported by t h e rationalization of Lot's daughters for c o h a b i t i n g w i t h h i m , "there being nary a o n e o n e a r t h to come upon us in t h e normal way of t h e world" ( 19:31 ). But if there were no men to (ear in little Zoar t h e n why did Lot withdraw into the highlands? Hid h e tear that the P e t t y who had saved his family alone m i g h t vet relent oi his gracious resolve, might yet extend the rising waters oi the Salt Sea Γ That sea which in 1 4 : o u r narrator informs us, is identical wild! w h a t was, in t h o s e Edenic days, t h e Vale of Sicldim, t h a t is, "Vale of Pits." 11ère too we are treated to an a n a c h r o n i s t i c reversal t h a t could only be i n t e n t i o n a l . T h e Salt Sea area k n o w n today for its minerals m i g h t today lay claim to t h e n a m e Valley of Lime (‫•׳‬deposits), in Hebrew Emeq Hassiddim, w h i c h n a m e it bore in pre- fire-and-hrimstone clays. But in those days some part of t h a t plain was p o c k e d w i t h pits oi bit innen, a relative of t h e p e t r o l e u m so absent from t h e area, to t h e chagrin oi t h e polities t h a t are its newest owners, just w h a t role, if any, these pits played in c o n n e c t i o n with the battle is a question as yet unanswered. T h e n o t i o n , advanced by Speiser and accepted by t h e N e w Jewish

lyo

S Τ Ο RIES — '‫'־‬THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

Publication Society (NJPS), t h a t t h e defeated kings flung themselves into tar pits to hide from their pursuers, evokes an image so ludicrous as to warrant more support t h a n t h e text provides for the possibility t h a t this too is a result of t h e a u t h o r s whimsy, But wbimsy is clearly at play in the names oi the five kings. Most notably in. the absence oi‫ ־‬any n a m e whatsoever for the king oi‫( ־‬Zoar Insignificance ) Bcla "swallow up, destroy." But also in the long-recognized stems lor "evil" (r") and "wicked" (rs ) in the names of the kin‫״‬s of Sodom and ( fomorrah. T h e authenticity of t h e names in the Mesopotunuan coalition serving to reinforce t h e philologians c o n c e r n for historicity, it is (111‫ •\י‬to he expected t h a t such scholars would hardly allow t h a t a creative author's whimsy might account for t h e following anomalies in respect to these items: 1) the dat ing ot a historic event to the lifetime of four kings rather t h a n one; 2) t h e heading of t h a t list by A m r a p h e l of S h i n a r (= Babylonia) in verse 1, while in verses 4 - 5 it is twice asserted t h a t it is C h e d a r l a o m e r w h o is t h e liege-lord and t h e other kings his vassals; 3) t h e feature of t h e introductory biymë "in t h e days o t " or "when." which Speiser finds "unacceptable by normal Heb. [syntactic] standards." (His solution of this last problem by recourse to a hypothe tic a 1 translation ot an Akkadian c o n j u n c t i o n is linguistically unnecessary and improbable.) 3 In the supposed strangeness ot this C h a p t e r 14 which, untraceable to t h e canonical sources ], E, and P, must constitute a source in itself because, being historiographic or legendary, it c a n n o t be t h e work of t h e biblical author; in the unique status assigned to it bv source-biblical criticism, there are overlooked a n u m b e r of congruities and concordances with the P e n t a t e u c h a l picture of t h e patriarchal age, and with t h e c o n v e n t i o n s of warfare obtaining during t h e centuries of Scripture's composition, beginning with t h e Assyrian irruption into Aram-Syria, and continuing through t h e Neo-Babylonian conquest, of Egypt and t h e Persian succession to that imperialist tradition of Mesopotamia. Of the population stocks in the area over which Israel later claimed sovereignty or vital influence, t h e oldest stratum, superseded by the Israelites under Moses or even earlier by Israel's kinsmen, included the legendary Rephaites (sometimes associated with the Anak titans), a lew of their descent! ant s surviving in Philistin into David ic times. In this siratum too belonged A montes, who founded kingdoms such as those of Og in Bashan and Sihon of 1 leshbon in trans-Jordan; t h e Emim, ρ redecessons of t h e Moabites (related to t h e gigantic A n a k i t c s and Rephaites in Deuteronomy 2 : 1 0 - 1 1); the Za mi urn in im, a name given to their Rephaite predecessors by their A m m o n i t e conquerors (Deuteronomy 2 : 2 0 ) ; t h e A w im, displaced by t h e Philistines; and t h e Horites ("cave dw ellers") in t h e hill country of Seir before t h e arrival of t h e Edomites. All of these, except for t h e Avvim o n the Gaza coastland, are situated in t h e trans-Jordanian area from t h e n o r t h e r n highlands to the southern terminus, t h e Dead Sea and south-southwest o f t h a t terminus. All of these peopies (equating t h e ^rri wdth t h e ‫ )דמדללזוזלד‬are victims of t h e M e s o p o t a m i a n sweep, t h a t is, Emim, Zuzim, H o n , Rephaites, and Amorites. T h r e e o t h e r A m o r i t e kinsm e n are chieftains in the vicinity of Hebron, and allied with Abrarn (the Hebrew; what other gentilic might have been applied ‫ ז‬ο Ahram, given the gentilic company h e was keeping/)· Ehe kings ot the five Cities of the Plain are not identified as to

EVENTS IN T H E Li FE OF A B R A H A M

19 I

stock, as the Mesopotamian kings are not, and while we are welcome to speculate on this question it is of n o particular importai :e for the narrator. T h e campaign conducted by the invaders 1. in keeping with the imperial si rategy of the period of Israelite monarchy. T h e warfare carried on by Israel in the time of Joshua and the Shoietim (as also, implicitly, by her agnate tribesmen of Amnion, Moab, and Hdom) is pictured as one tor Lebensraum, requiring the supplanting ol an indigenous population. T h e imperial wars of the Mesopotamians, by contrast, was to expand dominion over territories which might be milked of yearly iributc as economically as possible. Thus in t h e first stages of invasion the farm and timber lands, mines and trade-routes, and unwalled settlements were ravaged and. pillaged with the aim ot persuading the ruler of t h e city-state to accept a vassalage that left his city's walls intact. Recalcitrant polities might resist such depredations for several years, until their cities were laid under siege. W h e n a polity had been so reducecl to vassalage, rebellion was constituted by t h e withholding of tribute. So in the case of the Cities of the Plain, which withheld tribute in the thirteenth year ot subjection and were forced to meet retaliation in t h e fourteenth. Our biblical narrator, unconcerned as ever with historiographie detail, leaves us to speculate on the decision of the five kings to hazard fie Id-warfare against their erstwhile overlord. (Here too whimsy may be in play in the choice of an Elamite king to head the Mesopotamian coalition, for Elam—for many centuries foe of Babylon— never figured as threat to any other hegemony, let alone the Syro-Palestinian tcrritories.) Perhaps it was the small size of the force from the east that emboldened the kings of the Plain. In any case they were trounced, the survivors fleeing to the hill country. A n d the victors would have been free to deal with the cities, their walls now so thinly defended. There is no mention of siege or parley, nor is Sodom taken by storm, Yet the ability of the victors to abscond with "all the wealth and food stores of Sodom and Gomorrah" would seem to indicate that the invaders were able to exact from the cities 1 defenders, if not a reinstitution of allegiance and the yearly tribute, at least a considerable prize of valuables, and enough rations to see them safely back to home base. Among the prizes yielded to the invaders were humans, for enslavement or ransom. And among the latter it is not surprising that the Sodomites would inelude the alien Lot and his family among those surrendered. 1 his first episode is, on lhe whole, syntactically and stylistically unexceptionable by the canons of biblical narrative even to t h e element of gapping; for exampie, t h e omission of military details of t h e war. In part this omission can be remedied by the imagination of any reader who is conversant with the nature of warfare in the biblical world. To that extent then, it is exemplary of the Bible's narrative economy or thrift J In part, however, it reflects the biblical author's mastery of perspectival leverage. Like ninety-nine percent of biblical narrative, related in that matter-of-fact m a n n e r that bespeaks the modality of history—real people caught up in real events in a real p a s t — t h e "account" in C h a p t e r 14 requires the realistic elements that will c o m m a n d t h e a t t e n t i o n of the serious reader. (Needless to say, serious readers in antiquity, as today, would not consider fictive art worthy of their study.) To that end therefore, t h e author of C h a p t e r 1:4 begins his narrative as an independent chronicle: "Now it happened in the [regnal] time o f . . ." This without an ν transition trom the history of its one hero Abram, who in the immédiat el ν pre-

I 92

S T O R I E S ‫ " —־‬T H E P R I M E V A L

HISTORY"

ceding verse was engaged in building yet another altar to the God named Y H W H , under whose protection he moves through a historic landscape as though it were an unpeopled continent. (Little wonder that geneticists find n o room for this chapter in their register ot sources, strata, or documents.) T h e concern for historicity or a facsimile thereof is. of course, present in the place names of t h e east-of-Jordan plain and the Negev-Sinai area to the south and west of the Dead Sea. So also in the vensimilitudinous names from Mesopotamia and the repetition of the royal names on both sides in verses 8 - 9 , "four kings against the five" (although proper syntax calls for the unartistic "five kings against the four"). Realism and historicity are at one end of the seesaw, while at t h e other end arc the countervailing element s of fantasy that we have noted: the whimsy in the names of t h e kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and of the anonymous king of a settlement, which in the narrator's time is called Insignificance but was t h e n k n o w n as Gulp; in the legendary autochthonous titans (the Rephaim) who are so surprisingly vulnerable to Lilliputian invaders; in assigning command of the imperial forces to the farthermost easte m power which, never itself an intrusive force in the west, was powerful and aggressive enough to periodically distract t h e rulers of Assyria and Babylonia from their imperial preoccupations with the1 western lands. T h e second episode, beginning with A bra m's learning of his nephew's capture by a marauding host of the Hrnpire in the East, also displays the badly balanced elemcnis of historiographie realism and historically incongruous plotting. T h e fugitive from the war on the Plain who tells the tale of the war to Abram arrived from where:7 T h e term tor him palit denotes a person escaped from a general disaster, hence the impression that he was one of the defeated army who escaped to the hillcountry in the north, making his way ultimately to Hebron. But were that the case he would have had no knowledge of the negotiations between the victorious gencrals and the defenders of Sodom's walks, a n d — c r u c i a l l y — t h e information that Lot, Abram s kinsman, had been handed over to the withdrawing army. N o r would he have known when that withdrawal began, nor the route of the retreating army. T h e important thing of course is that A b r a m learn of his kinsman's capture; the rest he can figure ο Lit for himself. It must be presumed that A b r a m knew of the twelve-year subjection of the plain cities to the Empire in t h e East; nor would it appear strange to him that that lush country and its opulent cities (chosen for himself by the ungenerous Lot) would draw the loot-hungry empire to the neglect of the much poorer hilL country west of the Jordan. So too would he have k n o w n that t h e invasion route would have been the King's Highway east of t h e Jordan, and so also the route of the withdrawal. H e himself would have made a forced march through the central highlands, cutting across at some point to head off t h e imperial force near the Jordan s headwaters in the northernmost of later Israel's tribal land, Dan. Here too the route of the invaders and the pursuit from Damascus to Hobah supposes that this area could be made into a no-man's-land without inviting the int e r v e n t i o n of its powerful city-states. T h e most factitious event in this second episode is the seemingly inapposite appearance of Melehiiedek, king of ||cru|salem. 1 low and whv would this king have climbed down to (he Ionian and crossed it at one of its lords to ; u v e t Ahram at Kings Vale (which every one knows, thouuh not by its fortner name, I A'VCI Valley)!

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF A B R A H A M

193

T h e stylistic normality of our narrative breaks d o w n at t h e transition point be‫׳‬ t w e e n the two episodes. Two verses tell of t h e t a k i n g of booty f r o m S o d o m a n d t h e taking of Lot as part of t h a t booty. Instead of o n e s e n t e n c e w i t h a h y p o t a c t i c clause following t h e m a i n o n e , we h a v e two remarkably and awkwardly similar par a tact i.e. sentences; VERSE ι ι

Lhey took all 11K‫ ־‬p r o p e r l y ot Sodom and Gomorrah a n d all t h e i r victuals a n d w e n t oil. (( îenesis 140 1 )

VERSE 1 2

They look Lui and his property the nephew of Abrain, and went off. (Me now was residing in Sodom) (Genesis 14:12)

T h e r e can be no doubt t h a t t h e repetitive parataxis is deliberate, designed in part at least to draw our a t t e n t i o n to two clumsy constructions in verse 1 2 , first t h e u n ‫׳‬ necessary interposition of "his property" b e t w e e n Lot and t h e appositional phrase "the n e p h e w of Abram," and t h e n t h e h y p o t a c t i c clause o n Lot's residence in Sodom c o m i n g after, rather t h a n where it belongs, before t h e verb whose subject is t h e invaders; "and they w e n t off." A comparison w i t h t h e n o r m a l and proper syntax of verse 16 will reveal t h a t verse 12 would normally h a v e read as follows: \vegam 'et ïôt ben‫״‬dhï abräm ur'küsö läkähü uWuf y ose/‫ ל‬bisdom "also Lot, A b r a m ' s nephew, a n d his property did they c a p t u r e — h e (at t h a t time) being resident in S o d o m " W h a t does the narrator achieve by his departure f r o m n o r m a t i v e style and syiv tax? For one thing h e suggests t h e avaricious c h a r a c t e r of Lot, and this by L o t s seitp e r c e p t i o n in w h a t Meir Steinberg terms implied free indirect discourse. Abram's n e p h e w is n o t Lot t h e m a n , nor Lot and his family, but Lot with his possessions; w i t h o u t his wealth h e is n o t h i n g . So too w i t h t h e p a r e n t h e t i c n o t e of his residence, placed where it will occasion remark. It is n o t t h a t w i t h o u t this explicit informat i o n we would be at a loss to bridge t h e gap for ourselves. But Lot, t h e wealthy catt l e m a n , his herd and flocks t e n d e d by servants o n t h e rich ranges of t h e Plain, himself w i t h family and coffers enjoys t h e security of t h e walls of Sodom, t h a t plutocratic city where even hospitality may be had for a price. All t h e more ironic, that his secure h a v e n b e c a m e t h e trap and that together with t h e wealth that won h i m guest-status he he a m o n g those surrendered by Iiis hosts to force majeure. Note, too, how artfully in verse 16 Lot and his property are sandwiched in b e t w e e n t h e booty belonging to S o d o m proper, and in a list t h a t reflects Sodom's values, beg i n n i n g with material wealth, c o n t i n u i n g w i t h wives a n d daughters, and e n d i n g with t h e male rabble destined for e n s l a v e m e n t : " H e recovered all t h e property •• • and also his kinsman, Lot and his property did h e recover—·and t h e women and t h e rest of t h e people as well." All these are fine touches. But t h e f u n c t i o n of the two paratactic sentences in verses 11 and 12 are revealing in respect to t h e author's artistic control. It was remarked earlier that C h a p t e r 14 begins with a n abrupt turning away from t h e story of Abram. A n d so the i n d e p e n d e n t , historic, a n d essentially neutral account of a campaign in which sympathy of n e i t h e r narrator nor reader is engaged continues until its end in verse 11. T h i s n o w is followed by a n alternative ending in verse 1.2, nor so

188

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

much an ending as a prolcpsis of t h e action in t h e n e x t verse 13; a sentence that says in effect, everything t h a t has b e e n told up to this point is of n o montent to us. W e should never have reproduced it here but for o n e tiny matter, trivial alike to kings ot the Plain and imperial earth-shakers: among t h e booty there was included a fateful victim, but for w h o m t h e withdrawing legions would h a v e returned h o m e unscathed. T h a t victim t h e n e p h e w of A b r a m , generous as his n e p h e w is greedy, loyal to kith and kin as his n e p h e w is opportunist and u n c o n c e r n e d deracinate. A n escapee came and told A b r a m . W h a t h e told A b r a m 1s n o t stated. T h e time factor is n o w h e r e present in t h e narrative: h o w long t h e sweep t h r o u g h t h e R e p h a i te plains took, h o w long t h e battle in t h e held, h o w long t h e haggling between the invaders t h r e a t e n i n g siege and Sodom's defenders weighing t h a t prospect and t h e cost of buying off t h e predators. A n army laden w i t h booty, textiles and precious metals, cattle and h u m a n s , w i t h n o reason to suspect t h e possibility of pursuit, will travel at a leisurely pace. Perhaps A b r a m learned f r o m runners dispatched to S o d o m t h a t t h e invaders h a d b r o k e n camp, departing with tribute wrested from : h e city; t h a t report included t h e o n e bit of i n f o r m a t i o n of interest to A b r a m . u W11en A b r a m heard t h a t his kinsman (ïïhlw "his brother"), not his ‫׳‬nephew (hen ähnv "his brother's son") h a d been t a k e n captive, h e u n s h e a t h e d t h e w e a p o n h e drew‫ ׳‬so rarely, his hanlkïm. T h e root of this n o u n , appearing only here, informs im its meaning. It is t h e root of t h e n a m e oi the exemplary a n t e d i l u v i a n Enoch, appears in Scripture with t h e sense of "dedicate, train, or educate," and far more irequentlv in later Hebrew with these meanings. T h e n u m b e r of these h o m e - b o r n slaves, drilled lor battle and passionate in their masters service, was <1 formidable force in tho^e days (compare ( udeon's 300). W e r e such a c o n t i n g e n t less t h a n credible, as against t h e host from Mesopotamia, t h e author-narra tor who might, as in so many o t h e r instances in Scripture, h a v e had recourse to G o d working on the patriarch s side, opts instead for a more "realistic" factor, t h e armed might ot A b r a i n s three allied A m o r i t e chieftains. T h e way in w h i c h t h e participation of these three allies is first anticipated, t h e n , omitted, and finally confessed, is ins truetive as an example of the gapping strategy, and particularly in relation to t h e play of perspective. T h e identification of Lot as "son of Abram's b r o t h e r " in verse 12 was earlier characterized as proleptic of t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h a t A b r a m in verse 13. A tew sentences back we stressed t h e reference in verse 13 to Lot as A b r a m s kinsman, rather t h a n his nephew. To this we n o w add t h e observation t h a t this rcfcrcncc is an allusion, n o t an identification; for t h e n a m e Lot is pointedly absent in this verse. W h a t makes this doubly interesting is t h a t t h e explicit featuring of t h e n a m e 111 this c o n t e x t would h a v e a caritative effect. Yet this o p p o r t u n i t y for stressing t h e sense of e n d e a r m e n t by t h e insertion of t h e three-letter n a m e is passed up, even as t h e allusion to Lot by means of t h e term brother !kinsman is more resonant ot end e a r m e n t t h a n t h e more specific yet one-degree-removed " b r o t h e r s son/kins man's s o n " Perspective is w h a t is at play here, as it was in "Lot and his property, t h e n e p h e w of A b r a m " in verse 12. T h e r e t h e perspective is t h a t ot t h e narrator, overlain, so to speak, or better perhaps read by t h e narrator o n t o the self-image of Lot by the device of free indirect discourse. I lere in verse 1 the n a r r a t o r s perspective is read onto A h r a i n s sell-consciousness in relerence to the u n n a m e d Lot. l ‫ ׳‬n ‫׳‬

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF A B R A H A M

195

named because A b r a m has n o particular reason to cherish or esteem this nephew, who could not or would not restrain his cattle-hands in their quarrels with Abram's hands, this despite the danger of divisiveness in the face of t h e far more numerous natives, t h e Canaanites and Perizzites (13:7). Yet A b r a m is ready to risk everything to rescue; n o t a nephew, deserving or not, but a kinsman for whom ethos and ethics preclude a denial of responsibility. T h e focus is on Abram and his readiness to act. We have been alerted in t h e previous verse that h e is allied to three Amorite chieftains. We have every right to assume that in his pursuit of and assault upon a superior force he would have called upon his allies. But to keep the focus on Abram, to suggest that had h e n o allies it would have made n o difference in his resolve, the allies are n o t even mentioned at a second opportunity in verse 15. A n d were he taxed with this omission, the narrator could point to t h e description for the pincers attack by night in verse 15. T h e separation of t h e attacking party into two forces we translated by he and his slaves. But the last word can also be servants, followers, vassals, and therefore apply even to the allied forces under his command. T h e enemy completely routed, the allied forces now returning at a pace slowed by the recovered goods and captives, word would have been sped to Hebron and Sodom about the success of the mission; else the king oi Sodom could not know that the returning host was retracing the invasion route, east of the Jordan. We shall hold in abeyance consideration of verses 1820-‫ ׳‬a parenthetic aside marked by the hypotactic construction signaled by the nominal clause that begins verse 18. U p o n meeting up with Abram at some point in Level Valley, later to be k n o w n as King's Vale, the King of Sodom -—presumably after congrat ulat ions have been exchanged (as in t h e intervening parenthesis)—makes Abram an offer. "Let me have the captives [lit., the living (entities)] and t h e [material] property keep for yourself." We do not know the ancient protocols governing war and peace, the sharing of loot, the restoration of spoil to the despoiled by 11 third party that had spoiled t h e despoilers. 5 Chances are that might determined policy t h e n as today and, given t h e forewarning of the character of Sodom's magistrates in 13:13 as reinforced in C h a p t e r 19, we have n o reason to assume that the offer was a generous one. T h e king of Sodom has been defeated in battle, his army scattered, his city pauperized, and he is in n o position to haggle with the victors, whose motives in t h e pursuit were anything but mercenary. T h a t being the case, it is likely that the victors might have claimed, if only as a debt for future repayment, the ransom value of t h e captives extorted from Sodom (and presumably, its sister cities). Just as the king of Sodom represents t h e other defeated kings who survived, so n o w — a s b e f o r e — A b r a m is pictured as the sole commander- i η - ch i e f, free to dispose as he wills of t h e prizes he has won. N o further m e n t i o n is made 01 Lot. G i v e n the character drawn of Abram, 110 charge was laid on Lot for his freedom and that, oi his family, nor for the property restored to him. But Lot is kinsman, and not, as we shall learn a few chapters later on, party to the depraved ethos oi his Sodomite hosts. T h e king of Sodom, however, is neither kin nor kith. Abram owes him nothing. A11 the more‫׳‬ interesting t h e n is Abram's statement that he has foresworn (literally) any profit ai the king of Sodom's expense. One question we diall soon consider is why Abram takes an oath when a simple "no, thank you" would» have sufficed. A second ques-

I 196

STORIES ‫" —־‬THE PRIMEVAL H I S T O R Y "

t ion is why the hyperbole as t o ‫ ו‬he degree of abnegation. T h e merism for any part of any garment (cloth or leather, i.e., "thread or lace") is utterly at. h o m e in biblical Hebrew, but why this "by so much as a hair" when t h e reason is so that he, king of S o d o m , may have no cause "to muse/say, it is 1 who have made t h a t A b r a m rich"/ T h i s bit of direct discourse attributed to Abram is liable to several, constructions on the part of the reader. O n e , and the least likely for its picturing of an. arrogant A b r a m jeering at a rival in his misfortune, is: "1 want n e i t h e r your riches nor your envy." A second construction would picture A b r a m as less confident, and e v e n fearful of a S o d o m that has recovered its former strength, ' T i l n o t give you occas ion to dream of recovering by force what was torn from you and ended, unfairly to your narrow mind, in my possession." T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is m u c h closer to t h e reassurance offered by Y H W H in t h e very next chapter, two verses later. T h e fear t h a t Y H W H is addressing in A b r a m is, as Rashi understood, retaliation o n t h e part of parties injured in t h e recently concluded hostilities. But e v e n this c o n s t r u c t i o n is less t h a n fully c o n g r u e n t w i t h A b r a m s c o n c l u d i n g words to Sodom's king. Starting with t h e word bilâàay " n o t h i n g for me Γ as correctly and for t h e first time translated by Speiser, A b r a m reiterates his abnegation, but in w h a t follows h e disabuses his hearers of any n o t i o n t h a t his own r e n u n c i a t i o n of profit means n o loss to S o d o m . W h i l e h e passes up his shares in the loot, he is n o t so silly as to reject reco m p e n s e for t h e expense t h e campaign has cost him. Literally, "save for w h a t my lads h a v e eaten," for t h e lads ( H e b r e w definite article often serving for t h e possessive p r o n o u n ) h e has in m i n d , being slaves, receive n o shares of their own. Finally h e concludes with t h e item t h a t incidentally hi Is in the gap n o t e d earlier ( o n t h e m a t t e r of his allies' participation in the campaign), that his allied chieftains-— n a m e d again, to h e i g h t e n their i m p o r t a n c e and thereby to suggest that these shares must be substantial - must receive the full bounty fairly owing to t h e m . T h e gapping thai we discussed does not seem particularly vital (in terms of narrative strategy); it could have been avoided by the insertion of two words uba'lalcyberUö "and his allies" in verse 14 after the n u m b e r of his own troops. But this detail having b e e n omitted, there does not seem to he any compelling poetic need to close t h e gap; as for example, there is 110 closing of t h e gap in regard to t h e treatm e n t or disposition of expenses or b o u n t y shares in respect to Lot and to his twicem e n t i o n e d property ( t a k e n in verse 12, recovered in verse 16). If, further, this spelling out in detail of w h a t A b r a m will or will n o t accept for himself, of w h a t h e in fact d e m a n d s for his allies (whose recompense it was certainly n o t in his prerogative and probably n o t in his power to forego), is in t h e interest of precluding hostile designs o n t h e part of Sodom, t h e n we should h a v e to judge t h e narrative's e n d i n g as a n anticlimax, a n d a very u n f u n n y o n e at that. T h i s leads us to consider a third way of construing Abram's o a t h to forego profit but n o t expenses for himself, and n e i t h e r t h e one or t h e o t h e r for his allies. That you cannot say, it is I who have made Abram rich is equivalent to rejecting w h a t in economics or games-theory is called zero-sum thinking; here: your gain is my loss. Every system is closed, every plus is balanced by a corresponding minus and vice versa. It is such a view of reality that Ahrain is rejecting, and n o t for its entertainm e n t by t h e king of Soclom, but tcor its e n t e r t a i n m e n t by any and every reader of this story. A n d to t h a t end our narrator re^ort^ 10 t h e gapping strategy at t h e begin-

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE

OF ABRAHAM

197

ning of t h e pursuit so that he can close t h e gap at the story's ending. T h e entire story is an example of what Meir Sternberg has demonstrated again and again lot ι he multi-part ied, frequently separated, o f t e n overlapping play of perspectives 111 relation both to literary artistry and the reality that the Scriptural artist explores in the postulations of his ideological narrative. O n e of t h e perspectives t h a t Sternberg frequently identifies !‫ י־‬God A l i e is totally absent from this narrative except for being invoked in the parenthesis we have yet to consider, o n c e in praise and o n c e in o a t h . We have the perspective ot t h e narrator, sometimes speaking for himself in o m n i s c i e n t and not to be quest toned j u d g m e n t , as for example, in t h e n a m e s h e gives t h e kings of S o d o m and G o m o r r a h ; sometimes in (implied) free indirect discourse, as in the s elf‫ ׳׳‬images of hot and A b r a m ; sometimes as uninvolved reporter who, in merely recording the direct discourse of a king of S o d o m or a n A b r a m , permits t h e reader a direct, u n m e d i a t e d perception of t h e perspective(s) of each of these personae. T h e r e are also o t h e r perspectives, t h a t of t h e implied reader whose perspectival sympathy may coincide in part or totally with any of t h e aforementioned ones, and who may possibly be won over to t h e moral view t h a t is t h e kerygma 01‫ ־‬p r e a c h m e n t ot t h e narrative. T h e moral economy ot t h e universe, in t h e minds of most people—‫״‬Lot, t h e king of Sodom, A b ram's Λ m ort te allies, and (most of t h e time) you a n d m e — i s zero-sum in nature. A review 01 t h e contrast b e t w e e n pagan and Scriptural theologv d r a w n in C h a p t e r ‫ ב‬will hear out, 1 believe, this additional distinction: In paganism, the i m m a n e n c e of t h e gods in the same sphere as h u m a n k i n d (and o t h e r life forms) renders them co-contestants with h u m a n i t y in the zero-sum game of life. In biblical religion, that sphere absent, a u t o n o m o u s divinit ies----- is the ereatioti of G o d , and the limits of its blessings are infinitely expandable or contract ihle by the. will and decree ot that G o d . !:arth can be o n e Ldeiuc garden, as w a s " t h e e n t ire J o r d a n p l a i n so t h o r o u g h l y w a t e r e d

b e f o r e Y 1 1 W I 1's l a y i n g w a s t e

(if Sodom and G o m o r r a h like Y l l W l Is own garden" (13:10), or it can be like the barrens around the Salt Sea alter that action. So n o w t h e affirmation of Abram t h a t he will not allow credit for his prosperity to t h e fickle fortunes of war. W h a t ever material ‫״‬oods he is possessed of are t h e dispensations of t h e G o d who uprooted h i m from M e s o p o t a m i a , promising h i m great blessing ( 1 2 : 1 - 3 ) , w h o by his i n t e r v e n t i o n o n behalf of this vulnerable alien in t h e land of Egypt arranged his escap mg w i t h his life, his wife, and. in addition, "herds and flocks and jackasses, male a η ci female Gave-, and jenny asses and camels" (12:16). O t h e r s may attribute their gains to their own wit 01‫ ־‬prowess or even to c h a n c e , t h e luck of t h e draw. N o t so A b r a m . A n d so it is that his affirmation to t h e contrary, in respect to his own cond i t i o n — h e will not speak for others — is expressed in a n oath, t h a t most somber of a s s e v e r a t i o n s , b i n d i n g himself at the hazard of punishment, b y t h e G o d in w h o m h e reposes such faith. A n d the n a m e of t h a t G o d is . . . what? It is this question t h a t brings us back to t h e most peculiar feature of t h e entire narrative, t h e parenthesis inserted b e t w e e n t h e king of Sodom's c o m i n g to greet A b r a m at K i n g s Vale and t h a t king's proposal, to A b r a m as to t h e disposition of t h e recovered property. In terms of plot, w h e t h e r in respect to t h e redistribution of t h e loot or any aspect ot the campaign t h a t was waged, this p a r e n t h e t i c e v e n t is totally without relevance. Melchizcdek himself is never again heard of except in Psalm

198

STORIES

‫ " ־״‬Τ Η Ε PRIME VA L H I S T O R Y "

110, where the n a m e is a reflex of this single appearance in Genesis 14. T h e bread and wine which Melchizedek produces is clearly a symbolic religious gesture, for a victorious host comes laden with the provisions taken from the defeated enemy. Lest we forget this commonplace at this critical interpretive juncture, t h e narrator has jogged our memory in advance when in verse 11 be explicitly includes "their victuals" in the tribute wrested from Sodom. T h e bread and wine are symbolic therefore of the divine source of all sustenance, necessities and luxuries alike. But how did this priest-king of ancient Salem, later to be known as Jerusalem the earthly seat of Israel's God, learn of‫ י‬Abram's triumphant return? W h y and how did he make that trek from his mountain fortress (presumably via the road to Jericho, then down to a ford oi the Jordan and across n) in time so precisely calculated to meet up with the returning hero? And the motivation behind this arduous journey by the priest king of a great city to congratulate upon a successful foray the landless, cityless cattle breeding chieftain called Ahn!m the Hebrew? Could h e have anticipated that for a blessing invoked of a hitherto unknown god named El Elyon, and for attributing t h e victory to this god, a grateful Abram would hand over a tithe of all the regained spoil? N o n e of these questions calls lor answers, tor they are rhetorical, pointing up t h e improbability that this incident is intended either as history, or even historical fiction. But even as expressive of ideological fiction, how are we to read this introduction of a presumably pagan priest, whose mediating status between the divine and h u m a n realms is not only acknowledged by Abram but accorded an enormous tribute? T h e answer to these questions must lie in the f u n c t i o n of this parenthetic episode in relation to the main plot line, into which it is so pointedly interjected. O n two scores it is proleptic of elements in the main plot t h a t follows. O n e is the divine n a m e El Elyon, two words appearing three times in staccato fashion within a space of fourteen words altogether, declared by Melchizedek to be creator of h e a v e n and earth. T h e other is the division of the spoil, in the tithe given to Melchizedek. Let us take up the latter first. T h e entire parenthesis takes place, so to speak, offstage, the only witnesses to it being the narrator, the reader, and t h e two principals, A b r a m and Melchizedek. T h e entire scene therefore is played out for the benefit of t h e reader and t h e reader alone. T h e king of Sodom, for example, knows not at all thai the proposal he is about to make can apply only to 90 percent of the spoils, 10 percent having already been allotted. dTiat allotment, we must understand, is not for Melchizedek in his private capacity, but like the canonical Levirical tithe, for services rendered to God. This then supplies the clement which we have hitherto in our discussion not located in the text: the God who grants victory and blessing in a reward and punishment economy that is not based on zero-sum assumptions. Hence when Abram reaffirms Melchizedek s declaration of faith, that reaffirmation is only recognized as such by the reader who recognizes in Abram's oath the same divine n a m e invoked by Melchizedek; the kerygmatie preachment is totally lost: o n the king of Sodom, to whom the direct discourse is formally addressed, So also must it he totally lost on any reader who can come to terms with a historiographie narrative that comes to a climax in Abram as an arrogant warlord gratuitously jeering at the petition of a king brought low; only to be succeeded by a concluding

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF A B R A H A M

217

a n t i c l i m a x in w h i c h t h e lordly generosity of his a b n e g a t i o n is nullified by a con‫״‬ c e r n for t h e recovery of his expenses and for t h e shares due to his allied chieftains, w h o c a n n o t speak for themselves. T h e r e is o n e more nicety of f o r m u l a t i o n in Abram's d e c l i n a t i o n of t h e king of Sodom's proposal. T h e n o r m a l way of expressing a n o a t h in direct discourse is t h e particle hey/häy, followed by t h e first person p r o n o u n or a divine n a m e followed by im "if." "By my life / t h e life of D N [Divine N a m e ] if . . T h e act of swearing t h e n is in t h e present tense, w h i c h is w h a t we would expect in Abram's address to Sodom's king. Instead we h a v e direct discourse as indicated by t h e im "if," and a h a n d gesture bespeaking t h e taking of an oath. T h i s taking ot t h e o a t h , however, is in t h e past tense. T h e o a t h t h e n is n o t A b r a m s spontaneous response to t h e king of S o d o m . H e anticipated t h e problem of t h e distribution of t h e loot long before this meeting, a n d made t h e decision in regard to his own profiting by t h e campaign. T h e past tense of t h e swearing points back t h e n to t h e parenthesis, to t h e h o n o r i n g of G o d t h r o u g h t h e t i t h e given to his priest, as t h e p a r e n t h e t i c e p i s o d e — introducing G o d into the narrative for t h e first time— points forward and informs o n t h e significance oi the dialogue between A b r a m and the king. ( N o t e how reasoned is t h e placement of the parenthesis b e t w e e n t h e k i n g s arrival at Abram's c a m p and his m a k i n g of the proposal.) T h a t t h e act of supererogation is to give h o n o r to G o d (and not to win h o n o r or security for himself) is, to he sure, t h e point of the o a t h (rather t h a n a simple asseveration) un A h r a i n s part. But there is f u r t h e r and subtle purpose to t h e idiom t h a t the narrator chooses (or invents) for t h e o a t h taking. Instead of t h e n o r m a l nisbail "1 h a v e .sworn," h e puts into Abram's m o u t h a c i r c u m l o c u t i o n for "swear" (never elsewhere attested) 6 t h a t compels A b r a m t o m a k e explicit w h a t is always implicit in an oath, t h e i n v o c a t i o n of a h i g h e r power to p u n i s h t h e o a t h - t a k e r if t h e s t a t e m e n t m a d e is false or if t h e promise made is broken. A n d this explication of the i n v o c a t i o n of this h i g h e r power involves Abram's use of t h e n a m e of or an expression for a deity, w h i c h outside this c h a p t e r appears only o n c e again in all Scripture. A n d w h i c h w i t h i n this c h a p t e r appears t h r e e times, in t h e parenthesis preceding Abram's use of it, in t h e m o u t h of t h e (presumably pagan) king of Salem. T h i s dictional link b e t w e e n t h e hypotactic parenthesis and t h e paratactically formulated m a i n narrative thus points to a secondary or sub-kerygma, or perhaps a n embroidery on t h e kerygma t h a t we h a v e already discerned. O n t h e n a m e El Elyon, Speiser, in a n o t e ad 10c., and leaning heavily o n M a r v i n Pope's El in the Ugaritic Texts,7 affirms t h a t t h e elements el and elyön, w h i c h "occur as names of specific deities," are c o m b i n e d in t h e A r a m a i c inscription from S u j i n into a c o m p o u n d n a m e . T h i s attestation would seem to be t h e basis for his conclus ion in his C o m m e n t t h a t Melchizedek "invokes an a u t h e n t i c C a n a a n i t e deity (see N o t e ) as a good C a n a a n i t e priest would be expected to do." T h e establishing of El Elyon as t h e a u t h e n t i c n a m e of an a u t h e n t i c pagan deity invoked by a n a u t h e n t i c C a n a a n i t e priest is, oi course, in the interest of support ing his view (and that of most bihlicists) as (o the historiographie n a t u r e oi C h a p t c i 14. His last s e n t e n c e reads, ' T h e narrative itself has all I he ingredients ul historicity" Aside Iron! the questionahihty of literary citations to bolster •arguments as to‫ ־‬historiography, this particular argument of Speiserls is questionable on the ground oi the judiciousness

188

S T O R I E S — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

oi a methodology whieh van affirm t h e existence of a god on the hasis οί a single instance, hi the case of the one instance here, in t h e inscription irom S u j i n , the n a m e El hlyon may not he present at all, lor as Speiser himself observes, these two words are b o t h appellatives, "god" and "supreme" respectively. I bus in extra-bihli cal cultures where hi is indeed t h e n a m e of ;.1 god, El elyon may be simply HI (is) ( t h e ) supreme one. In Scripture, where el is rarely a proper n o u n , El hi y on as applied to t h e O n e and O n l y Deity might exist, but only as a playful n a m e , for in itself it is a tautology = G o d Supreme. W e suggested earlier in c o n n e c t i o n with Exodus 6 : 2 - 3 t h a t t h e n a m e s ΈΙ Shad‫׳‬ dai and Shaddai deserved a poetical study in themselves. W e would n o w m a k e t h e same s t a t e m e n t for t h e names El Elyon and Elyon, w h i c h are so striking a parallel to t h e former pair. But b o t h of these s t a t e m e n t s are u n c o n s c i o n a b l y restrictive and, w h e n m a d e by me, o p e n 111c to t h e suspicion t h a t I regard my o w n c h a p t e r J and t h e foliowups in t h e succeeding exegetical essays as more t h a n t h e scratchy beginnings of t h e poetical study of the names, appellations, epithets, and attrihutives disposed of in Scripture with (and for) t h e o n e referent, t h e o n e and only a u t o n o m o u s c r e a t o r and lord of all t h a t is. In n o Book of S c r i p t u r e is this literary c h a l l e n g e so fascinatingly displayed as in t h e five books t h a t m a k e up t h e Psalter. To s k e t c h a few examples: the statistical distribution of t h e n a m e s Y H W H and 'Elohim in e a c h of these five, books; t h e psalmic dittograms featuring t h e o n e or t h e o t h e r n a m e respectively; the appearance of c o n s o n a n t a l adönäy where we would expect t h e T e t r a g r a m m a t o n ; t h e use of se m in construct w i t h o n e of t h e n a m e s for Deity. Perhaps most germane to my immediate preoccupation with Genesis 14 is Psalm 78, the taily text o t h e r t h a n Genesis 14 in which t h e n a m e El Hlyon appears (and only once, at that, in parallelism with Elohim |verse 35I). hi this psalm oi seventytwo verses, one or a n o t h e r term lot l Vil y appears twenty times. T h e s e terms arc, in the order ol their appearance, reading across the rows: YHWH

Elohim

Elyon

el

Elohim

Elohim

"el

cfdös y Israel

Elohim

E ioh i m Ely on

'el ruho

Elohim

el

YHWH

Elohim

El Elyon

Elohim

a

dönäy

Six of these terms appear in the table in italic type, as i n d i c a t i o n of a special feature i n h e r i n g in it.. Of t h e two biblical n a m e s (i.e., proper n o u n s ) of Deity, Y H W H appears twice and Elohim appears seven times. In addition, t h e t e r m 'el appears five times. Since, every one of these t w e n t y occurrences is to t h e same o n e and only D i v i n e referent, this term el—despite my earlier s t a t e m e n t t h a t , u n l i k e Ugarit El, it is rarely a name for G o d — certainly f u n c t i o n s as a proper n a m e , alongside Y H W H a n d Elohim. T h i s s t a t e m e n t holds equally true for t h e (conson a n t a l ) ildönäy of line 4; and of t h e appellative :el rühö " t h e god of his [i.e., Israel's] spirit" in line 1, where the ci e l e m e n t , being 111 t h e construct, c a n only be a c o m m o n n o u n . T h a t leave- us with the three o t h e r terms f u n c t i o n i n g (at least) as proper names: Eiyon, which is essentially a substantive adjective, "highest O n e " in line 1; El Elyon "highest. d/Divinity" of Genesis 14 fame in line 3; a n d in line 4

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF A B R A H A M

219

a m i m i c k i n g of EI Elyon in t h e o n e a n d only o c c u r r e n c e Hohim 'elyon "highest

g/God" T h e literary play oi t h e poet's imagination in the alternation ot proper n o u n ( Y H W H ) , c o m m o n n o u n b e c o m e proper n o u n G/ö/üm), c o m m o n n o u n in construct with a n o t h e r noun (el rühö, cfdos yisra'el), t h e vocable substituted (or t h e d c t r a g r a m m a t o n (Aiönrrv) in place of the original Y H W H , together with the subset of "names" featuring'c/yon a h m e or in c o m b i n a t i o n : this play is so ingenious that its poetical study promises to fill many pages, bor our present: purposes this creative play on the part of a Scriptural poet will serve to confirm w h a t 1 suggested earlier in respect to t h e equally imaginative a u t h o r of t h e narrative in Genesis 14. U n e oncerneel w i t h historiography, crafting plot and character in t h e interest of ideational kerygmas, h e has inserted a priest of the a n c i e n t city t h a t is destined centuries after his time to b e c o m e the earthly seat of Israel's G o d Y H W H . T h i s king bears t h e good and. well-omened H e b r e w n a m e , w h i c h as Speiser has p o i n t e d out means "the king is legitimate ,‫ יי‬and is one way in w h i c h our o m n i s c i e n t narrator c o m m e n d s h i m to our sympathetic reception. T h e n a m e of t h e god to w h o m h e is dedicated priest, ΈI Ely on, is n o more a d o c u m e n t e d " a u t h e n t i c " deity-persona in t h e world of Father A b r a h a m or any of his r e m o t e d e s c e n d a n t s t h a n is t h e king w h o invokes h i m . T h i s deity is invoked as t h e qônë (first m e a n i n g "possessor, o w n e r " second m e a n i n g by m e t o n y m y of result for cause "creator") of h e a v e n and e a r t h w i t h o u t any suggestion t h a t he has any associates or rivals. T h i s god, h e declares, is t h e o n e by w h o m t h e f o r t u n a t e A h r a m has b e e n blessed, perhaps also whose c o n t i n u e d blessing is invoked upon A b r a h a m , and w h o is t h e n credited w i t h t h e specific blessing, t h e victory of A b r a m over his enemies. T h e n a r r a t o r s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n (to t h e reader) of Melchizedek is thus seconded and reinforced by t h e A b r a m who, in granting h i m and his god a t i t h e of t h e spoil, is acknowledging this god as indeed t h e grantor oi his victory, t h e source of his material prosperity, this in contrast, as we h a v e seen, with the o n e - t i m e possessor of the goods A b r a m has recovered, namely the king of S o d o m , w h o generously offers A b r a m what is neither in his power nor bis prerogative to !;ive. Inasmuch as there is n o hint that the A b r a m of C h a p t e r 14 has undergone a m o m e n t a r y lapse from his presumed (and properly so) m o n o t h e i s m , there would appear to be a question as to w h e t h e r we had any right early on to presume that Melchizedek was a pagan, indeed to assume t h a t he worshiped nuire gods t h a n did A b r a m and, consequently, w h e t h e r there is any justification for spelling his Deity with a lower case "g." So m u c h for Melchizedek, legitimate king, legitimate priest of a legitimate Deity ( n o t e capital D, and w i t h indefinite article) n a m e d El Elyon. W h a t does this h a v e to do with Abram's i n v o c a t i o n of Deity 111 his dialogue w i t h t h e king of S o d o m , t h e dialogue 1x1 w h i c h h e seems to invoke Deity by t h e same name? In terms of plot, n o t h i n g . For Melchizedek J s use of t h a t n a m e is in a p a r e n t h e t i c episode in w h i c h t h e king of S o d o m is n o t present, and to w h i c h n e i t h e r h e nor a n y o n e o t h e r t h a n Melchizedek and A b r a m is witness. A s far as t h e plot line of t h e narrative is concerncd A b r a m has merely disposed of the same n a m e and e p i t h e t as had Melchizedek in an offstage episode. But this last s t a t e m e n t is n o t a l t o g e t h e r — a t least d e m o n s t r a b l y — t r u e . A h r a m does not invoke Deity by t h e same name, h e invokes h i m by t h e n a m e Y H W H , to w h i c h he adds two expressions, o n e of w h i c h in

202

188 STORIES" — T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

Melchizedeks speech is a name and the other an epithet, but both ot which in A b r a i n s speech are epithets. A b r a m t h e n invokes Y H W H , God Supreme, Owner of Heaven and Earth. T h e play then is on an expression for Deity, which from Melchizedeks per spective is a n a m e and from Abram's perspective is an epithet. From a third perspective, that of the authoritative narrator, these two points of view constitute an identification of Abram's God with Melchizedeks God, of Y H W H with El Elyon. A n d the reader, for whom narrative and parenthesis are played out, will recognize that this perspective of the narrator's is the point oi view or kerygma that he is asked to adopt as his own (as, indeed, it is so adopted by the author of Psalm 78, among many other Scriptural authors). T h e student ot the history of religions will immediately associate this kerygma with the term syncretism, an association which in this context mux be wron‫״‬, but is certainly misleading. This term bespeaks a union of two parties 01‫ ־‬principles (usually conflicting) into a single harmonious one. In t h e c o n t e x t of t h e religions of antiquity, however, this term refers to t h e fusion of two gods from two different and polytheistic systems. A n d there is n o t h i n g in Genesis that explicitly identifies any of the descendants of Shem, H a m , and J a p h e t h as polythcists. To t h e contrary, as we h a v e stressed earlier, t h e first couple and the serpent-tempter, Cain, and N o a h , all know only the one G o d . A n d n o n e of t h e malefactors — vietims of the Deluge, builders of Babel, sinners of S o d o m — i n any of the narratives h i t h e r t o treated is charged with idolatry or other cultic offense; every sin is a breach ot morality, n o t o n e t h e violation of a cultic taboo. For all that Joshua in C h a p t e r 24 declares in God's n a m e that Abram's father Te rah was among the ances tors who worshipped "other gods," n o t only is such a charge absent in Genesis in regard to the line of S h e m (or, for that matter, of his brothers), but also in regard to Abi me lech of Gerar, who is acknowledged by G o d as blameless in the matter of Sarah (ch. 20), and who recognizes Y H W H as Isaac's divine sponsor, hailing him as " Y H W H ' s blessed one" (ch. 26). G i v e n t h e continual tirades against Israel for its lapses into "idolatry" or apostasy in other books of Scripture, it is understandable t h a t these practices are read back into Genesis with the assumption that the pagan practices of their neighbors were challenge to Israel's ancestors of the patriarchal age. hut these assumptions, erroneous for the Rook of Genesis, make for almost insuperable difficulties as we seek to understand the keryumas of such stories as Jacob's traffic with sub-gods, vying with t h e m in night-long struggles, or paying them homage at the behest oi G o d himself. A more serious consequence of these assumptions is thai we are conditioned to miss the metaphors in which Scripture formulates loyalty to or apostasy from the one God of nature and humanity. A m o n g the literal understandings that are most seriously dastortive oi Scripture's perspective on true and false religion is the proliferat ion of names for gods and G o d , and for seeing supernal entities in rivalry with God everywhere we come across uncanonical names or priests of such uncanonical "gods," he they in Midian or Salem. T h e purpose of t h e kerygma in the play on divine names and divine attributes in Genesis 14 is to arm us against such misconceptions in our encounters with the righteous of t h e Gentiles and. the unrighteous of Israel.

EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF ABRAHAM

THE COVENANT (CONCLUDED)

203

BETWEEN

THE (ANIMAL) PARTS

Episode A (1) A t t e r these e v e n t s it: was thai Y H W H s word c a m e t o A b r a m in a vision: " H a v e n o fear, A b r a m . I am your shield. Very great, indeed, will your reward be." (2) A b r a m said, "My lord Y H W H , w h a t can γ LUI give m e as long as 1 c o n t i n u e d e s t i t u t e a n d t h e favoiite of my h o u s e h o l d is Damas( one Hiiezer." (3) | T h e m e a n i n g ol whatf A b r a m said: "Lo, to m e You h a v e granted n o issue, so lo, a h o m e b o r n slave succeeds to my estate." (4) A n d lo, just as quick Y1 IWi l's response to h i m , "Not that o n e will succeed you; n o n e hut o n e f r o m your leans sprung, only such a o n e will succeed y o u . 5 )

‫) ״‬

Ί hereupon

H e drew him out into t h e o p e n and said, u Look h e a v e n w a r d s and count the stars, if count t h e m you con.' 1 Thus did 1 le promise, "So ( n u m e r o u s ) will your progeny be." (6) A n d trust Y H W H he did

- s o t h a t H e r e c k o n e d it t o his credit.) ( G e n e s i s

15:1-6) Episode Β (7) [ T h e p r e c e d i n g took place as follows:] H e said t o h i m , "I a m Y H W H , w h o drew you f o r t h f r o m U r Kasdim to give you this l a n d as i n h e r i t a n c e . " (8) Said h e , "My lord Y H W H , by w h a t t o k e n may I k n o w t h a t i n h e r i t it I shall?" (9) Said h e to h i m , "Fetch m e a heifer in her third year, and a n a n n y - g o a t in h e r t h i r d year, a n d a r a m in his t h i r d year, a n d dove and squab." (TO) H e f e t c h e d H i m all these. H e split t h e m d o w n t h e middle, placed each animal-side opposite its o t h e r half; b u t t h e birds h e did n o t divide. ( 1 1 ) W h e n t h e vultures m a d e d e s c e n t u p o n t h e carrion, A b r a m s h o o e d t h e m away. ( 1 2 ) just as t h e sun had all b u t set, lo, a t r a n c e o v e r c a m e A b r a m a n d at t h a t m o m e n t a d e e p dark dread was o v e r w h e l m i n g h i m . ( 1 3 ) H e said to A b r a m , " K n o w of a c e r t a i n t y t h a t your issue will live as aliens in a land n o t t h e i r o w n , will be subject to t h e m a n d they [the hosts] will oppress t h e m , for 4 0 0 years. (.14) T h e n a t i o n w h i c h t h e y shall serve do I also h o l d 11 ‫ ן‬j u d g m e n t , so t h a t t h e r e a f t e r t h e y shall go free w i t h rich possessions. (15) You yourself n o w will peacefully j o i n your ancestors, receive burial in old and h a p p y age. (16) T h e f o u r t h g e n e r a t i o n n o w will r e t u r n h i t h e r — f o r till t h e n , i n c o m p l e t e t h e full tale of A m o r i t e d o o m - i n c u r r i n g i n i q u i t y " ( ‫ )ל ז‬T h e sun t h e n set, t h e r e was a darkness i m p e n e t r a b l e , and t h e n

;1 firepot spewing smoke and

fiery blaze which coursed bel wee si t h o s e c a d a v e r })arts. (Genesis 15:7• ι ‫)ל‬ Cock (18) At. that t i m e il was that Y H W I I m a d e c o v e n a n t w i t h A b r a m , promising: To your issue h a v e ί granted ibis land, irom t h e river ol bgypl t o t h e great river, R i v e r Euphrates, ( i g ) ]land t h e n of| t h e K e n i t e and Kenizzite a n d K a d m o n i t e , (20) a n d H i t rite and Perizzite and t h e R e p h a i t e s , (2 1) and A m o r i t e a n d C a n a a n i t c and G i r g a s h i t e a n d Jebusite. ( G e n e s i s 1 5: ! 8 - 2 1 )

It is in this c h a p t e r t h a t source-criticism divines for t h e first time t h e h a n d of t h a t a u t h o r labeled Ε (for his use of "iohun for G o d , let us remember). T h i s despite t h e consistent appearance of t h e n a m e Y H W H and t h e absence of any stylistic fingerprints t h a t could not possibly belong to J. T h e insinuation of Ε elements into

188

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

a p r e d o m i n a n t l y J narrative is t h e answer t h a t this school ot literary analysis offers to t h e m a n y problems in this text, w h i c h it seen as t h e work of a single a u t h o r would b r a n d t h a t author as singularly inept. A n d so the r e p u t a t i o n of t h a t a u t h o r (] in this case) is salvaged by these critics, w h o seem to be unaware t h a t this service to t h e a u t h o r is at t h e expense of t h e editor who is responsible for such unillumin a t i n g splicing. T h e problems identified in this chapter may be classified under the headings of inconsistencies, discrepancies, and excrescent repetitions. Thus, for example, under t h e first heading t h e revelation to A b r a m could, according to verse 5, only have taken place at night; yet according to verses r2 and 17 Y H W H ' s appearance occurred in the daytime. Under the second heading there is Y H W H s self-introduction in verse 7, w h e n it would have beer! most natural in verse 1; the "suspiciousness" of t h e Ur Kasdim in a J context;* the perplexing transition from verse 6 (which seems to conclude the question 0( Abram's doubts) to verse H (where A b r a m asks for YI IWI Is h e l p in dispelling t h e m ) ; t h e préoccupai !011 wit h t h e promise ot progeny in verses 1 - 5 a n d in verses 7 - 1 2 with t h e promise of land, and this shift without any indication of a transition; t h e collocation of four hundred years of servitude in verse 13 a n d t h e r e t u r n from exile in t h e fourth generation, implying a n e q u a t i o n (never attested elsewhere) of a g e n e r a t i o n and a century. U n d e r t h e third h e a d i n g at t h e beginning of verses 2 and 4, is t h e appearance of uu\vömtT "he said" w h e n b o t h verbs h a v e t h e same subject a n d n o t h i n g intervenes b e t w e e n t h e direct discourse of t h a t c h a r a c t e r in t h e two verses. H o w e v e r scornful we may be of t h e conflation of sources as a reasonable solut i o n to these problems in t h e text before us, such is not our stance in regard to t h e problems themselves. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t we hew to the most literal lines of translat i o n — f o r example, in rendering every waw-conversivc followed by an imperfect as paratactic in f u n c t i o n as well as in f o r m — t o t h a t e x t e n t we h a r d e n t h e problems and are driven to cast about for metaliteraty solutions. 0 T h u s , for example, compare t h e Authorized Version (AV) rendering of UYmO'mer Abräm at t h e b e g i n n i n g of verse 2 and verse 3 " A n d A b r a m said" (in b o t h instances) w i t h N J P S "But A b r a m said" (verse 2) and " A b r a m said f u r t h e r " (verse 3). As superior as is t h e rendering of N J P S to t h e m e c h a n i c a l o n e of AV, it falls short ot t h e narrator's i n t e n t as explicated in our o w n translation. For in the second s t a t e m e n t A b r a m is n o t cont i n u i n g to speak; rather t h e narrator is telling us what the t h o u g h t of A b r a m was in his o n e and only statement. 1 0 O u r own original translation, and closer to t h e Hebrew, read u Abram's thought was . . All t h e problems oi pointless repetition, inconsistency, and discrepancy tall away w h e n wc pay close a t t e n t i o n to t h e subtle resources ot biblical 11 eh row (in regard to diction and syntax) and the a u t h o r s masteiful deployment oi these resot neos in his poetic repertory of narrative and dialogue: direct and indirect discourse, actual and implied, strict and free; shifts in point of view and perspective; depiction of events in a seemingly direct: time flow, and t h e ambiguation of b o t h events and their chronological order in episodic techniques such as the synopticconclusive/resumptive-expansive. In t h e case of t h e chapter before us, a review of the problems as they emerge from so literal a translation as that of AV will reveal how few of these remain w h e n t h e text is rendered as in our translation. But let us

E V E N T S I N T H E L I F E OF A B R A H A M

205

review text and translation options with a view to analyzing t h e poetic operations of our artist and synthesizing t h e kerygma or kerygmas h e achieves by t h e maneuvers so intricate in t h e H e b r e w and so s imp lis tic ally flattened out by t h e mangle of literal translation.

E P I S O D E A: R E V E L A T I O N , PROMISE (AND TRI S 1 ‫י‬

The opening sentence of this story does ο or begin with a waw-con vers ive imperfeet tense verbal clause, the normal (or at least most frequent) narrative option (as for example in t h e first verse of these chapters in Genesis: 2, 6 - 9 , 1 1 - 1 4 , 1 7 - 2 0 , 22). N o r does it begin w i t h a n o m i n a l clause, a copulative waw a t t a c h e d to a n o u n , followed by a verb in t h e perfect tense, and expressive of a p a r e n t h e t i c n o t i c e prefatory to t h e narrative t h a t will ensue momentarily with a waw-conversive construction (as in t h e first verse of these chapters in Genesis: 3, 4, r6, 21). It begins w i t h o u t a waw. It begins w i t h a n adverbial phrase ahar haddîmrïm häelle "after these events," this followed by a verb in t h e perfect tense followed by its subject. T h i s adverbial phrase appears a n o t h e r seven times in Scripture. In five of these instances (Genesis 22:1, 39:7, 40: t, 1 Kings 17:17, 2 1:1) this phrase is preceded by u t h e waw-conversive c o n s t r u c t i o n of it was:' A n e x a m i n a t i o n of these contexts will disclose t h a t in e a c h case t h e duration of time b e t w e e n t h e previous events and t h e event(s) about to be related is indefinite or hazy, w h i c h is to say t h a t t h e force of this adverbial transition is "now it h a p p e n e d some ( i n d e t e r m b n a t e ) time after these events , . " In only two instances does this adverbial phrase appear as in our o p e n i n g verse (Genesis 15:1) without t h e preceding wayL'hï. A n d in these two instances (Esther 2:1, 3:1) it is quite clear from t h e c o n t e x t t h a t t h e force of t h e clause is, "Shortly after/hard upon these events [Proper N o u n J did s u c h ‫׳‬ a n d - s u c h " T h u s t h e adverbial usage here in 15:1 is to c o n n e c t the revelatory assura n c e of Y H W H to A b r a m with the hazards survived in t h e immediately preceding tale of war, rapine, loot, retaliation, restoration, and disposition of t h e profits. 11 T h e introduction (‫ (י‬this story oi divine revelation (now that its circumstances have been provided by rhe adverbial phrase) is unique o n a n u m b e r of scores. S i m i ‫׳‬ lar stories featuring A b r a m and o t h e r h u m a n recipients ot divine oracles begin w i t h t h e simple wayyömer [Divine Name] el "Deity (by o n e or a n o t h e r n a m e or rubric) said to . . ." (So, for example, Genesis 6:13, 7:1, 12:1.) In o t h e r instances which we shall e x a m i n e (Genesis 17:1, 18:1 ) " Y H W H appeared 1 ' (wayyerä' YHWH), and we are t h e n given to understand that this a p p e a r a n c c of God was in t h e guise of messenger(s) h u m a n or n u m e n . In t h e place of Grid said we h a v e many instances of t h e verb "to be" (häyä/way-hl) w i t h àbar YHWH ‫'־‬YHWH's word" (1 Samuel 15:10, 2 Samuel 7:4; 1 Kings 6:1 r, Isaiah 38:4, Jeremiah 25:3) as here, but n e v e r w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n as here of "in a v i s i o n " W e shall soon see t h e reasons for these unique features. T h e word of Y H W H in this instance is given in direct discourse, t h r e e terse statements. T h e first relates to t h e hazards of war (such as t h e o n e just waged, and hostilities likely to be e n c o u n t e r e d ) . A b r a m ha< no cause for fear. Y H W H will continue to p r o t e c t h i m from enemies. Better yet. great reward is yet in store for h i m . T h i s last promise gives A b r a m his opening. Reward is a m a t t e r of material posses-

206

STORIES — ‫ ״‬T H E PRIMEVAL

HISTORY‫״‬

s ions enjoyed in good h e a l t h over a long lifetime. W h a t good he asks are such "goods‫ ״‬to a m a n like himself w h o is barren. He t h e n makes oblique reference to t h e heir he does not have in a pun on t h e person and status of t h e person who is likely to dispose oi his estate after his death. 1 he ambiguities and nuances in this pun-centered identification are lost on us and may have been optique to much of t h e biblical audience that read or heard it. It may also bespeak timidity in its indi‫״‬ rection, and an (understandable) avoicance ot a challenge to the (Jod who promises h i m generalities when his need is so obviously specific as to not require specification, especially to an all-knowing (dod. I laving placed this opacity of expression in Abram's m o u t h , t h e narrator t h e n goes on to enlighten his readers with a pointed explication of what Abram t h o u g h t but feared to express. Everybody knows t h a t "a son of one's house" is not; a chattel-slave, with all t h e brute unfeelingness associated with such status. H e is as "slave" deracinated from t h e family of his biological origin, but an adopted member of t h e religion-family whose line is his line, and t h e line t h a t he may propagate as senior "son" and heir. Alas, it is a h u m a n weakness (and will be so admitted by any adoptive p a r e n t ) n o t to grant to such an adopted heir the full d e p t h ot sentiment one would repose in a genetic son. N o w t h e narrator glosses "the favorite ot my household" as Arty slave-son, D a m a scene Eliezer," as "the o n e w h o will inherit: my estate " p o i n t i n g in b o t h epithets to t h e c o m p l a i n t "to me h a v e you granted no seed (of my own body) " For all t h a t t h e narrator is thus glossing w h a t A b r a m has said, the glossing is presented as t h o u g h it were indeed Abram's speech, and the plaintiveness of his question (which is really a plea or a challenge) is brought out by t h e two a l o " clauses. A n d it is to these two ίο's, attributed to A b r a m , that t h e narrator now has Y H W H responding, a response that h e introduces with a countering 10, introducing Y H W H ' s response to t h e c o m p l a i n t i n t e n d e d t h o u g h never uttered. " A n d lo, t h e word of YHWJl to him," which is to say, "the word oi Y H W H , " which is the subject: of verse 1. That word, however, is twofold; lirst, that not that | a d o p t e d | one hut [seed) issue of your own body will constitute your heir(s) and second, the innumetafile multitude that will constitute those heirs. Bui thai "word oi Y H W H ' s " came to Abram "in a vision." W h a t was that \ i s i o n , that sign in which c o n t e x t the words were sounded/ Was if tlu 1 sight of the stars in their myriads to which Y H W H drew his a t t e n t i o n as he emerged from behind his tent's entrance-flap/ No, it was not t h a t literal sight, normally expressed by mar'c, but a rnaiv'z.c "a p r o p h e t i c vision/scenario." T h i s scénario will be presented to us in t h e resumptive-expansive episode t h a t begins with verse 7. ( W e shall deter our discussion of t h e seemingly p a r e n t h e t i c verse 6, formulated in the hypotactic construction of n o m i n a l clause with verb in t h e perfect tense.)

E P I S O D E B: H O W T H E C O V E N A N T W A S

MADE

T h e narrative strategy of t h e synoptic-resumptive t e c h n i q u e so unique to Scripture is the telling of one incident or event twice, in two successive episodes. T h e first episode, almost always the shorter of the two, provides t h e gist of the event and its conclusion. In the second episode, the narrator backs up in time, so to speak, resumes t h e event's beginning, and — e x p a n d i n g on the synoptic version of t h e

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF A B R A H A M

207

e v e n t — d e s c r i b e s h o w t h e conclusion (or b o t t o m line) was arrived at. A problem is raised in this c h a p t e r by t h e sudden switch from n o r m a l narrative p ara tac tic s y ηtax in verse 5 to t h e h y p o t a c t i c (normally p a r e n t h e t i c ) syntax in verse 6. Γ he question, w h e t h e r t h e b o t t o m line, toward t h e resolution of w h i c h Episode Β will move, is represented in verse 5, or verse 6 must await t h e analysis oi this second episode. T h e episode begins with a resumption of t h e direct discourse of Y H W H to A b r a m . In Episode A t h a t discourse begins directly w i t h t h e divine reassurance and with a gapping of t h e question as to w h e t h e r A b r a m was told explicitly t h e n a m e or epithet of t h e divine source w h e n c e t h e message was e m a n a t i n g . T h i s gap is quickly bridged, however, by Abram's direct discourse address to t h a t source as ddrmäy Y H W H , consonantally equal to "my Lordship, YHWH," but vocalized to be read aloud us ïidondy elôhïm "my Lordship, G o d " In Episode B, rhere is n e i t h e r gapping nor bridging. T h e divine speaker identifies himself as Y H W H (or uses t h e Tetra.·‫׳‬ gram mat on in apposition: UI, Y H W H , a m [the one] that drew you forth"). ‫־‬Abrains address (as in the h 1st episode) to 'adönäy YHWhl after his self-identification is the first expansion of Episode A , telling us h o w it was that A b r a m knew to address the source by n a m e . T h e poetical purpose of Y H W H ' s self-identification here is not, however, to disclose a n a m e to a mortal w h o has h i t h e r t o b e e n ignorant of it. It is to link the G o d w h o initiated the process of election by extracting h i m f r o m his n a t i v e land with t h e G o d w h o will c o m p l e t e t h e process by giving h i m possession of t h e land m w h i c h h e is now7 a sojourner. T h e fulfillment of t h e promise, however, will n o t be to A b r a m in his o w n person and lifetime, but in t h e person of his progeny centuries after his d e a t h . It is this time factor (and t h e identification of ancestral felicity with the felicity of t h e i r posterity) t h a t makes t h e promise of progeny and the promise of land a single promise, but o n e w i t h two aspects. T h e first aspect has been dealt with in Episode A , w h e r e Abram's (implied) insistence o n his posterity being biological, n o t just adoptive, has b e e n received favorably by G o d . T h e second aspect is n o w brought i n t o focus in Y H W H s self-identification as t h e G o d w h o h a d h i m t u r n his back o n his n a t i v e land in favor of this n e w territory. T h i s promise is seized u p o n by A b r a m : " W h a t assurance c a n I h a v e t h a t I [in my seed centuries hence] will indeed c o m e into possession of it?" A n d w h a t follows in t h e episode must be or c o n t a i n Y H W H ' s response to this question. A n d what follows is, as explicated in verse 18—• the recapitulative c o d a — t h e e n a c t m e n t of a h:'ru ''agreement, pact, c o v e n a n t , contract, treaty." Yes, t h e Hebrew word means all these but it also means s o m e t h i n g else. W h e r e a s all these terms presuppose a relationship b e t w e e n two parties, t h a t relationship may bespeak par-‫׳‬ itv or inequality as between t h e two parties. T h u s a treaty oi Iriendship or nonaggrcssjon may suggest a near equality in t h e m a t t e r of power, while a peace treaty or vassal-treaty will reflect t h e imposition of t h e will of t h e strong on t h e weaker, often recently defeated, party. W i t h i n a given polity, it is t h e state t h a t enforces contract^ by penalizing t h e party t h a t violates t h e terms oi t h e agreement. W h e r e t h e nature of t h e a g r e e m e n t is such t h a t t h e agreement is not a m e n a b l e to enforcem e n t h ν society (state or tribal authority), recourse will o f t e n be had to t h e oath, t h e i n v o c a t i o n of a higher power, to exact a penalty f r o m t h e possibly u n f a i t h f u l

188 STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

party. S o too in t h e case of i n t e r n a t i o n a l treaties, in t h e absence of a super-state (or imperium) w h i c h might play this role, G o d (or, in particular, t h e gods of t h e subjected party) will be invoked to punish t h e treaty violator; this in anticipation that, t h e balance of power h a v i n g shifted, t h e treaty partner on whom t h e promises or pledges have been imposed may feel that it may abrogate t h e m with impunity. T h e additional m e a n i n g ol the word b'riU a m e a n i n g t h a t in o n e sense is less and in a n o t h e r sense more t h a n t h a t of com/xict, is promise, an undertaking by o n e party to b e h a v e in a certain m a n n e r , usually in regard to a second party. T h i s sense of hent (even while in a given c o n t e x t the promise is implicitly c o n t i n g e n t ) is probably due to m e t o n y m y (of t h e whole for t h e part, in that every c o m p a c t c o n t a i n s o n e or more promise). But this promise may be p r o n o u n c e d w i t h o u t i n v o c a t i o n of sanetions, implicit or explicit; it may be completely voluntative, requiring n o assent from t h e party benefited, and m a d e by a stronger party to a weaker party w i t h o u t any e x p e c t a t i o n of reciprocity. W h e n , t h e n , in t h e Bible, G o d "makes a berit with," w h i c h is to say "a promise t o " — a s for example, in Genesis 6:18, 9 : 9 — N o a h , humanity, or all living creatures, t h e mechanical translation of bent as c o v e n a n t rather t h a n promise will occasion m a n y an otiose line ot exegesis. For all t h e foregoing, t h e answer of G o d to Abram's question in verse 8 is in every respect a promise, in n o respect a c o m p a c t , a n d yet in form and imagery altogether expressive of a c o v e n a n t , indeed of a treaty, a n d (tor all t h e presumed probity of t h e promisor) n o t at all of a mere promise. O n e of t h e more t h o r n y problems in our story is t h e feature of t h e animal carcasses and their division (or n o n - d i v i s i o n ) into halves. T h e m i n i m u m n u m b e r of a n i m a l parts seems to be eight, six halves of t h e domestic beasts and o n e e a c h of t h e two birds, which, for lack of better i n f o r m a t i o n , we h a v e translated as "dove and squab." S i n c e these two birds are undivided and, unlike t h e animal halves, n o t counterparts of o n e another, it is likely t h a t these two n o u n s are collectives standing ior an i n d e t e r m i n a t e number, and t h e two n o u n s are a merism or hendiadys standing for any species of barnyard fowl. If we had to guess at t h e total number, we would suggest six birds corresponding to t h e six animal halves for a total of two aisles, each consisting ot three animal halves and three birds, the total ot twelve, then, suggestive ot t h e twelve tribes that A b r a i n s chosen progeny will constitute. It is now fairly c o m m o n knowledge t h a t both t h e killing of an animal and the ident ification of t h e slaughtered victim with o n e of t h e h u m a n parties are features of treaty-making ceremonies in t h e a n c i e n t Near East. T h u s , for example, a m o n g t h e A m o r i t e s f r o m Mari o n t h e middle Euphrates, where t h e animal ritually slain was an ass, an idiom for "to enter a c o m p a c t " is "to slay an ass." In t h e text of o n e such treaty t e x t f r o m Syria t h e symbolism is explicit: " T h e (slain) goat," it reads in reference to t h e subjected party, "is you : ‫ י י‬: : T h e symbolism of t h e fate of treatyviolator as invoked in t h e treaty partner's walking b e t w e e n t h e parts of t h e a n i m a l victim is also attested in Israel. Jeremiah regards t h e p r o h i b i t i o n in Exodus 21 of o n e Israelite keeping a n o t h e r in indentured service for more t h a n six years as o n e of t h e terms of t h e c o v e n a n t m a d e between Israel and h e r G o d . In Jeremiah, in t h e c o n t e x t of p r o n o u n c i n g d o o m o n t h e Judean gentry, w h o h a v e kept their b r e t h r e n in indefinite subjection, G o d says:

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF A B R A H A M

209

I will, imike t h e gentry w h o are transgressing My c o v e n a n t , w h o h a v e not ialidled t h e c o v e n a n t t h e y m a d e in My p r e s e n c e , t h e b u l l o c k w h i c h t h e y cur i n t o two a n d p;^:>ed b e t w e e n its h a l v e s . ( J e r e m i a h 54:18)

Y H W H will make the transgressors, not like,1* but into, the slain bullock. Exactly as in the treaty Irom Syria ("this goat is you") the slain animal is a metaphor lor the täte of the covenant violator. In the two verses following, the Judean part ies to the covenant are identified, and their fate is evoked in t h e very imagery of the vultures that A b r a m frightened off from the exposed halves of the cadavers: The chieftains of Judah and the chieftains of Jerusalem, the chamberlains and the priests and the assemblymen—those who passed between the bullocks halves — them will I hand over to their enemies, to those who seek their deaths, so that their carcasses be food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth. (Jeremiah 34:19-20) In the Jeremiah passage there is a play o n t h e verb , br, w h i c h appears in the sense of "passing" between the halves and "transgressing" the covenant; the word for "halves" is precisely t h e o n e appearing in Genesis 15; and the very term for enact‫־׳‬ ing a covenant in biblical Hebrew is not "to make" a covenant but "to cut" it. T h e covenant symbolism in C h a p t e r 15 could hardly be more lucid. But what of the eb ement of the firepot flaming and smoking, which passes between the parts: T h e answer to this last question would long ago have been apparent it it were not for our reluctance to credit Scriptures authors with a capacity for metaphor of breathtaking boldness. During Israel's years of wandering in the wilderness, God led the way as "a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire at night." T h e firepot (or oven or brazier) that passes between the animals' parts is emblematic oi God. A h though God is t h e suzerain and Abram the vassal, in this episode it is the former who binds himself. Abram asked for a token by winch he in the present could he confident that his distant offspring would take possession of the promised land. G o d s response is merely a reaffirmation of the promise in the strongest terms avail· able. N o t just by an oath, in which God — as the Ultimate Power— must swear by himself, invoke sanctions upon himself, but: by the most solemn context of an oath, the "cutting" of a covenant. God binds himself by the covenant symbolism, invok‫׳‬ ing upon, himself—metaphorically speaking, how else?‫ ״‬the punishment invoked upon the violator of a treaty. Bold symbolism indeed! A n d , on the literal level, nonsense. Is God's word not enough? W h a t more is added to Abram's ability to believe, to have faith, by t h e granting of a vision in which God resorts to such symholism? T h e answer is that G o d did the most h e c o u l d — s h o r t of robbing Abram of his freedom to trust or n o t — t o reassure Abram. T h e rest was up to Abram himself. He remained free to doubt. A n d in the end, h e trusted . , , A n d for this merit the reward was reaped, t h e trust vindicated, by his descendants to whom the story is addressed. But despite the bottom line of Abram's faith and the vindication of that faith, the progression to the realization of the promise was to be neither easy nor ot short duration. For one thing, it will require several generations before Abrains progeny in the line of Isaac and Jacob can become numerous enough to constitute a people

2ΙΟ

STORIES — 1 'THE PRIMEVAL H I S T O R Y "

who can attain the status of a nation upon its own territory7. A n d Y H W H is a god of justice. T h e accumulating sins of the A m o r it es will require some centuries yet before they reach critical mass, warrant for the irruption into their midst of YHWH's agents, the people of Israel who will dispossess them. T h e birds of prey that descend upon the carcass parts—six animal halves, and perhaps, six undivided birds—are in themselves a grim omen. Abram protects the flesh from the scavengers until t h e sun is about to sink below the horizon. It is with the sudden chill and dark of that moment that Abram is gripped by the trance and a sense of deep dark dread. Although the premonition of God's presence about to make itself felt might give rise to a feeling of awe, dread is a different emotion. A n d the dread may well relate to the oppression of four hundred years duration that Abrains descendants will have to endure in an alien land before their re 1.urn (to ‫״‬ t h is" land where Abram's vision takes place) in the fourth generation. 11 ‫ ׳‬What cannot he ruled out, however, is that in the dread which he imputes to Abram, the narrator may be expressing his own sense of awe at the manifestation of a Heity whom he so often seems to conjure up at will; and particularly a C Jod so generous in benevo le nee, so forbearing with humanity, that he will forgive the hybris of a poet so daring as to portray God himself, evoking the image of his own death in self-invoked punishment should he fail to make good his word to a doubting mortal. If we review the contents of the episodes, recalling the problems of repetition and inconsistency discerned in and between the two episodes, we shall see how b o t h (seemingly gratuitous) repetition and (seemingly irreconcilable) discrepancy dovetail in Episode B's function as resumptive and expansive of Episode A. Thus t h e word of Y H W H in reassurance to Abram appears in verse 1 in A, and verse 7 in B. But neither of these assurances are given in or relate to t h e mahazë "vision" of verse 1. T h a t mahazë is the vision of God moving between the carrion parts. T h a t vision does not begin until Abram has slaughtered the victims and shooed away t h e vultures, this in compliance with Y H W H s bidding and in broad daylight. T h e vision begins only after t h e trance overtakes A b r a m (as t h e sun is sinking, verse 12) and t h e episode thus concludes at night (with sunset completed and t h e fall of impenetrable darkness, verse 17), this in concordance with the conclusion of Episode A , at night (verse 5). But as Episode A ends not with the promise in YHWH's direct discourse in verse 5, but with the omniscient narrator's observation in verse 6 (in hypotactic construction), so does Episode Β end not with t h e description of the vision in verse 17 but with the narrators recapitulation, in explication of that vision, in the first part of verse 18 (in hypotactic construction), "At that time it was that Y H W H made covenant with Abrain, to the effect, 1To your seed have I granted this land.'" This recapitulative explication - without it one would not even guess that the vision was in expression of a covenant — we have, perhaps misleadingly, assigned to the recapitulative Goda, bor it is the boundaries ot the land grant in verses 1 8 b - 2 0 in supplementation of the promise, presenting a new item of information, and presenting a far from minor problem, which requires that t h e recapitulation and supplementation be marked off as a separate compositional unit. (For the discussion of this unit see Structures, 111 chapter 7 ot this volume.) But let us return to the concluding verse in Episode A. T h e verse tells us that A b r a m trusted in Y H W H , which is to say, he trusted YE1WH to keep his promise.

EVENTS IN T H E LIFE OF A B R A H A M

211

T h e first q u e s t i o n is why we are told this at all. Were we n o t told this, would it occur to a n y o n e t h a t t h e reverse might be t h e case, t h a t A b r a m did n o t so trust in his G o d ? T h e answer to this question is, ot course, in t h e narrative strategy ot t h e storyteller. H e raises t h e question oi doubt obliquely in this synoptic conclusion by negating it, so that h e may resume this t h e m e of faith and doubt in the following episode, so t h a t he can describe just how it came about that A b r a m did repose such trust in G o d . T h e resumption of the question is in Abram's not so m u c h expressing lack of trust (something t h a t would be u n t h i n k a b l e even if h e were addressing a mortal king, let alone t h e almighty sovereign of t h e universe) as in his wheedling for some t o k e n of reassurance, a n e e d o n t h e part of a short dived h u m a n to catch a glimpse of t h e realization of his h o p e (this promise) over a span of centuries, which is but a m o m e n t in t h e scheme of t h e lord of infinity. A n d t h e response of Y H W H to this cajoling, for all t h e daring a n d dreadful imagery of G o d invoking his o w n d e m i s e — o f t h e vassal-treaty imagery in w h i c h t h e sovereign assumes t h e role of the v a s s a l — t h i s response is basically t h e h u m a n n a r r a t o r s self-mockery, mockery of t h e species to w h i c h be belongs and t o whose frailness h e is as subject as any. But a gentle mockery o n t h e part of a G o d w h o , were h e less t h a n b e n e v o l e n t and toier ant, m i g h t well express umbrage at t h e distrust masked as a childish whine. "So you w a n t to be sure? Sure t h a t I really m e a n w h a t I a m saying. Well, Γ11 tell you w h a t — I ' l l do w h a t you would do if you were in my place. I'll cross my h e a r t and h o p e to . . . die." T h i s t h e n is t h e kerygma, or o n e version of t h e kerygma, or part of t h e kerygma of this chapter. But there may well b e more to it t h a n this. A n d the pointer to t h e additional kerygma is signaled by b o t h c o n t e n t and form. T h e c o n t e n t is t h a t rare narratorial s t a t e m e n t t h a t a h u m a n h a d f a i t h in G o d . T h e f o r m — w h i c h jerks us to a t t e n t i o n to t h e strangeness of w h a t is c o m i n g — i s t h e sudden narratorial switch to hypotaxis. N o r m a l narrative practice, e v e n in the conclusionary s e n t e n c e of a synoptic episode, is t h e waw-conversive verbal clause. Instead of icayytfOnm b VI /\ν /1 (cf. Exodus 14:31) "he ( A b r a m ) had faith in Y H W H " we have, "he n o w ( A b r a m ) had faith in Y H W H , " and t h e n - —in normal paratactic syntax — t h e strange conelusion of t h e o m n i s c i e n t narrator that "he (YI I W H ) reckoned it to his (Abram's) credit." W h e t h e r our readers will agree that t h e purport ot this conclusion is strängt: may depend o n their willingness to read a philosophical issue into a narrative text. W h e t h e r they can e n t e r t a i n our suggestion as to t h e kerygma of this philosophical "aside" may d e p e n d o n t h e limits they are inclined to set on t h e scriptural a u t h o r s sophistication. R a t h e r t h a n argue our exegesis at length, we shall reproduce our discussion of this verse in an earlier essay: 15 H o w did G o d speak to A b r a h a m ? In C h a p t e r 15 of G e n e s i s we are told that the word ot G o d c a m e t o t h e childless A b r a h a m in a vision . . . d r a w i n g h i m out-of-doors and d i r e c t i n g his gaze t o t h e n u m b e r l e s s stars of h e a v e n , t h e Lord said, " S o n u m e r o u s will your issue be." W h e r e u p o n S c r i p t u r e notes, wühe emin b-YHWH wayyahshcveha Ic y-daqa " A n d h e believed/trusted in t h e Lord W h o a c c o u n t e d it t o his merit" T h e q u e s t i o n we must raise is, ‫ ״‬Pray, w h a t merit?" If it is meritorious in man m believe m G o d , t o trust H i m , t h e degree of merit should he in p r o p o r t i o n to t h e difficulties, to t h e obstacles in t h e way of faith. Bur in this n a r r a t i v e A b r a h a m ha s e x p e r i e n c e d n

212

2ΙΟ STORIES — 1 'THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

r e v e l a t i o n , Y H W H has a p p e a r e d to h i m in a vision a n d p r o m i s e d h i m his h e a r t ' s de‫׳‬sire. A n d yet S c r i p t u r e finds it necessary t o m a k e explicit w h a t o n e s h o u l d h a v e t h o u g h t to be obvious, t h a t a d i v i n e r e v e l a t i o n e n g e n d e r e d f a i t h in t h e first of t h e Pa‫־׳‬ triarchs; a n d i n d e e d d e e m s it i m p o r t a n t to u n d e r s c o r e this f a i t h as b e i n g particularly meritorious! Let us a t t e m p t a n o t h e r f o r m u l a t i o n . Vieri to riousness (or its o p p o s i t e , for t h a t m a t t e r ) c a n o n l y be a t t r i b u t e d t o a n act in t h e a b s e n c e of c o m p u l s i o n . F a i t h in G o d is a m e r i t o r i o u s act. Ergo, f a i t h i n G o d c a n n o t he c o m p e l l e d . But A b r a h a m h a d f a i t h in G o d i n t h e c o n t e x t of a d i v i n e r e v e l a t i o n . Ergo, d i v i n e r e v e l a t i o n d o e s n o t c o m pel f a i t h . D o e s this n o t c o n s t i t u t e a p a r a d o x — t h a t o n e m a y e x p e r i e n c e G o d a n d yet be f r e e t o d i s b e l i e v e in H i m ? O u r answer is n o , t h e r e is n o p a r a d o x . S c r i p t u r e is d r a w i n g o u r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e p h e n o m e n a ot r e v e l a t i o n a n d f a i t h a n d to t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e m : Every r e v e l a t i o n is a h u m a n e x p e r i e n c e ; w h a t e v e r its m a n n e r or f o r m , its d e g r e e or c o n t e n t , it is a discrete e v e n t ; it t a k e s p l a c e in t i m e — i t h a s a beg i n n i n g a n d a n e n d . A n d a f t e r t h e e v e n t m a n is tree — t o r e m e m b e r or t o forget; t o f o r m u l a t e in words t h e i m p a c t of t h e e v e n t or m e s s a g e — i t any; to a c c e p t it o r ™ y e s — t o q u e s t i o n its reality. W a s it a d r e a m , a riement, a c h i m e r a , an illusion, a d e l u sion, a h n l l u e i n a l ion ! T h e lesson S c r i p t u r e would t e a c h us would b e far m o r e accessible t o us were it n o t for our hahit of assigning our f a i t h - e x p e r i e n c e s t‫־‬o une r e a l m and t h o s e ol yesterday's spiritual giants to a n o t h e r ; to see the hihlieal p r o t a g o n i s t s as h a v i n g received c o m n u i n i c a t i o n from and h a v i n g e x p e r i e n c e d t h e presence of a l /od w h o has ceased to show himself and has left oil speaking to man; to cunfess our o w n iaith as d e r i v a t i v e and vacillating, flawed by periods of guilt y d o u h t s and a n x i o u s skepticism, w h i l e p i c t u r i n g t h e f a i t h of t h e a n c i e n t s as absolute a n d u n i n t e r r u p t e d , w h o l e a n d w i t h o u t b l e m i s h , r o o t e d i n a n e v e r - t o - b e - q u e s t i o n e d e x p e r i e n c e of the d i v i n e . ( " O n F a i t h a n d R e v e l a t i o n in t h e H e b r e w Bible." H U G A ;39 ( 1 9 6 8 ) : 3 5 - 5 3 .

A B R A M ' S O T H E R WIFE

T h e c h a p t e r immediately following that of the Covenant (Enacted) between the Parts tells of t h e first fulfillment of the promise that those descendants of A b r a m s w h o will o n e day possess t h a t great tract of territory stretching f r o m t h e N i l e to t h e Euphrates will spring from his o w n biological issue. T h a t issue is universally read as referring to a single line, t h a t of Jacob/Israel t h r o u g h Isaac. T h i s reading, as we show in our discussion of t h e C o d a ot C h a p t e r 5 ‫ ז‬G is mistaken. A b r a h a m ' s biological issue is begotten first of a n Egyptian lass n a m e d Hagar, t h e n of his First W i f e Sarah, and after Sarah's demise of a wife n a m e d Keturah (as well as, it would seem, u n n a m e d sons of u n n a m e d concubines, cf. Genesis 25:1—5 and 25:6). W e shall proceed to treat this C h a p t e r 6‫ז‬, and t h e n alongside it t h e c o n t i n u i n g story of Hagar and her progeny in C h a p t e r 2 1 : 1 - 2 1 . T h e s e two stories featuring t h e o n e h e r o i n e in desperate plight and vouchsafed a divine revelation are regardod as doublets, if not duplicates, hv source criticism. N o t only do the two accounts feature the. 1 )oity under the n a m e Y H W H in t h e former a c c o u n t and Elo him in the latter, betraying two different authorial hands, but there are o t h e r stylistic distinctions (to which we confess ourselves blind) that make it possible to assign the hitttu‫ ־‬story 10 h rather than P.

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF A B R A H A M

Hagars Flight from Home—and

Her

213

Revelation

(1) N o w S a r a i , A b r a m ' s wife, h a d b o r n e h i m n o c h i l d . S h e did, h o w e v e r , possess a slave ‫׳׳‬girl, a n E g y p t i a n , H a g a r by n a m e , (2) S o it was t h a t S a r a i said t o A b r a m , "Lo n o w — Y H W H h a s k e p t m e trom b e a r i n g — c o h a b i t w i t h m y slave-girl; p e r h a p s I m a y yet t h r o u g h h e r c o n t i n u e my line. A h r a m agreed t o Sarai's suggestion. (3) S o it was t h a t Sarai, A b r a m ' s wife, t o o k H a g a r t h e E g y p t i a n , h e r slave-girl, s o m e t e n years a f t e r A b r a m s s e t t l i n g i n t h e l a n d of C a n a a n , a n d g a v e h e r t o h e r h u s b a n d A b r a m t o be wife t o h i m . ( 4 ) H e c o h a b i t e d w i t h H a g a r a n d she c o n c e i v e d . W h e n s h e realized t h a t she was w i t h c h i l d , h e r mistress b e c o m e l o w e r e d in h e r e s t e e m . ( 5 ) Sarai t h e n said t o A b r a m , "Yours is t h e o n u s for t h e w r o n g ί stiff er, I, for m y part, b e s t o w e d m y m a i d t o your e m b r a c e . T h e m o m e n t she realized herself w i t h c h i l d I fell i n h e r e s t e e m . Y H W H j u d g e b e t w e e n m e a n d y o u ! " (6) Said A b r a m to Sarai, "Lo, your m a i d is at your d i s p o s i t i o n . D o w i t h h e r as you p l e a s e " S o Sarai d e g r a d e d h e r till s h e fled f r o m h e r p r e s e n c e . ( 7 ) A n a n g e l of Y H W H ' s c a m e u p o n h e r by a c e r t a i n spring i n t h e wilderness, t h e spring o n t h e road t o S h u r . ( 8 ) H e d e c l a r e d , " H a g a r , slave-girl of Sarai's, w h e n c e c o m e you h e r e , w h i t h e r are you headed. 7 " 1 'From Sarai my mistress," she replied, "1 h a v e t a k e n flight." (t>) Y H W H ' s a n g e l said t o her, " G o hack to your mistress, e n d u r e a b a s e m e n t at h e r h a n d s ' 1 ( 1 0 ) |Yes,] Y H W H ' s angel p r o m i s e d h e r [in Elis n a m e ] , " S o n u m e r o u s will I m a k e your offspring t h a t t h e y will be b e y o n d counting.' 1 ( 1 1 ) [The gist of] what Y H W H ' s a n g e l said, ‫ ״‬L o , w i t h child you are, a son w i l l you bear. You are t o n a m e h i m Lshmael [ m e a n i n g , G o d h a s h e a r d ( ; that is t o say, Y H W H h a s p a i d h e e d t o y o u r p l i g h t . ( 12) H e n o w will he a wild ass of a m a n , his h a n d a g a i n s t e v e r y o n e a n d e v e r y o n e ' s h a n d against h i m . G ver against all h i s k i n s m e n shall h e h i s d w e l l i n g secure." ( 1 3 ) S o s h e t h u s d e s i g n a t e d Y H W H , H e W h o was a d d r e s s i n g her, "Ehra!

is

W h o You a r e " — h e r t h o u g h t b e i n g "I lave I to s u c h p o i n t b e e n g i v e n sight, b e y o n d m y [gift of?] sight?" 1 7 ( 1 4 ) H e n c e is t h a t s p r i n g n a m e d B'erdahai-roi—

t h e r e y e t today,

b e t w e e n K a d e s h a n d Be red. ( 1 5 ) S o it was t h a t H a g a r bore A b r a m a s o n . T h i s s o n b o r n to h i m by H a g a r , A b r a m n a m e d l s h m a e l . ( 1 6 ) A b r a m n o w b e i n g 8 6 years old w h e n H a g a r b o r e Ishmael to Abram. (Genesis 16:1-16)

T h e h y p o t a c t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n of verse :1 ties this narrative b e g i n n i n g to t h e t h e m e of A b r a m s childlessness, so central to t h a t in t h e immediately preceding chapter, t h e promise of a n end to t h a t barrenness. T h e c o n t e n t of this narrative, its plot if you will, points to t h e realization of t h a t p r o m i s e — i t s first r e a l i z a t i o n — i n t h e heir w h o will spring from A b r a m s loins, b u t n o t from Sarai's. Y e t — f o r all t h a t t h e plot will focus o n t h a t h e i r s m o t h e r — t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n in verse 1 also serves to

foreground Sarai as t h e initiator of the step t h a t will end A b r a m s barrenness (and, in a sense, h e r o w n ) . In a d d i t i o n to f o r e g r o u n d i n g Sarai by n a m i n g h e r at t h e narr a t i v e s very b e g i n n i n g a n d i m m e d i a t e l y t h e r e a f t e r u n d e r l i n i n g that tire

Egyptian

slave-girl is hers, not Abram's, the narrator will c o n t i n u e to stress t h e distances (and proximities) of t h e characters trom (and to) o n e a n o t h e r as also from (and to) t h e ( !od w h o p e r s o n a l l y p r e s i d e s o v e r t h e d e s t i n y oi t h i s f a m i l y h e h a s c h o s e n t o r h i s p u r p o s e s . 1 le will d o t h i s b y d e p l o y i n g t h e n a m e Yl 1W1 1 t h r o u g h o u t t h e n a r r a tive in b o t h his o w n

voice and

in S a r a A d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e , by h a v i n g H a g a r

ad-

2 14

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

dressed nor by Y H W I I himself but by YHWI Γ s angel, and finally by making it clear in his own narratorial voice and in immediate c o n j u n c t i o n with H a g a r s direct discourse that, unlike Sarai, Hagar does n o t , perhaps may n o t , dispose of that name; perhaps because she lacks t h e requisite awareness of t h e significance inhering in t h a t n a m e . T h e status of t h e characters and their i m p o r t a n c e — i n varying de‫׳׳‬ g r e c s — t o Y H W H , to A b r a m , and to o n e another, is f u r t h e r u n d e r l i n e d by t h e nar‫״‬ rator's (sometimes repetitious) use of t h e personae's proper n a m e s and their epithets. frequently r e d u n d a n t in c o n t e x t a n d as information. T h u s in t h e n a r r a t i v e s first clause, t h e identification of Sarai as Abram's wife. T h e appearance of Y H W H everywhere in this c h a p t e r as in t h e preceding one. the Covenant (Enacted) Between the Parts, as well as t h e proximity and order ot t h e two chapters, should alert us to t h e problems in Scriptural composition that c a n n o t be resolved h ν recourse to t h e genetic theory of multiple authorship. T h e problem comes to the tore in Sarai s proposal to A b r a m . It is Y H W H , she says, w h o has kept her from giving birth. N o t a problem this, if (in keeping w i t h our suggestion) t h a t n a m e is a m e t a p h o r for t h e O n e and O n l y source of life and d e t e r m i n e r of all des‫׳‬ tinies. But is it conceivable t h a t A b r a m has n o t told her of t h e promise vouchsafed to h i m by Y H W H in yesterday's vision? O r is t h e story of t h e promise and the vision, itself a m e t a p h o r (and intended for t h e reader rather t h a n t h e personae of patriarch and matriarch) irrelevant for the consciousness or perspectives of these personae as they cast about for ways to achieve their longed-for heir, despite Heaven's seeming u n c o n c e r n with their barrenness/ O r may we indeed infer that Sarai has been informed of the promise, knows now that an heir will spring from A b r a i n s loins, if not from her own / But w h a t m a t t e r if she too may h a v e her line perpctua ted by a son w h o will be hers (ïhhanë) t h o u g h conceived in t h e foster w o m b of her slave-girl/ A b r a m accedes to Sara is proposal. But in t h e n e x t verse it is o n c e again Sarai Abram's teife w h o takes Hagar the Egyptian, her slave and makes h e r over to A b r a m her husband to be wife to him. T h u s t h e o n e and only wife transfers her c h a t t e l to her husband, but in t h e process t h a t lowly slave ceases to be h e r property, a mere proxy-womb for t h e p r o d u c t i o n of an heir to her husband and herself; hers n o w is the status 01 wife, secondary wife to be sure, but wife nonetheless to her lady's litisband. W e need n o t review here t h e legal background for t h e domestic web of s tatus-rclationships t h a t is provided by researchers 1 8 of t h e cuneiform literature. Sutrice it to sav t h a t e v e n if we could recover t h e store of legal expertise in t h e m i n d of the Scriptural author, we might still be at a loss to ascertain h o w m u c h of t h a t lore he would h a v e attributed to his c o n t e m p o r a r y readers. Yet there is e n o u g h in the narrative for us to judge t h e narrator's own judgment as to t h e rights and wrongs in the case. Hagar, u p o n conceiving, feels t h a t t h e social gap b e t w e e n herself as wife n u m b e r two and her former o w n e r has n o w narrowed significantly; it is likely t h a t the sense ot her laclvs b e c o m i n g "lower in h e r eyes" is a n expression for her o w n growing self-esteem. W h e t h e r her n e w sense of self was conveyed to Sarai by acts of commission or omission or only by indications of less t h e n w o n t e d subservience. t h e n a r r a t o r c h o o s e s n o t t o i n f o r m us. It is e n o u g h t h a t S a r a i r e g a r d s t h e s l i g h : t o

herself as totally illicit, bespeaking ingratitude (11 n o t h i n g eist1) on t h e part of the h a n d m , l i d p r o m o t e d t o c o n s o r t s h i p w i t h h e r l o r d , a o d ol t h e lord w h o h a s b e e n

E V E N T S I N T H E LIFE OF A B R A H A M

215

presented with, this odalisque by his wife of many decades. T h a t H e a v e n itself should be outraged by her husband's tolerance of such disrespect is e v i d e n t in h e r appeal to Y H W H ' s j u d g m e n t . A b r a m for his part either acknowledges Sarai to be in t h e right or assumes t h a t Sarai h a d all along t h e latitude to deal w i t h t h e ungrateful servant, w h i c h h e now makes explicit. Sarai acts in accordance w i t h t h e discretion allowed her, and w h e t h e r that entailed a d i m i n u t i o n in h e r wifely entit l e m e n t s (see Exodus 21:10) or r e d u c t i o n to c h a m b e r m a i d status, t h e newly abused (or disabused) Hagar opts to d e c a m p for N e g e b steppe. T h e perspective of t h e o m n i s c i e n t narrator, as Sternberg has disclosed, is sometimes separable from t h a t ot God s and sometimes virtually identical w i t h it. In this instance t h e direct discourse of Y H W H s angel is in accord w i t h t h e distinctly unj u d g m e n t a l voice of the narrator. N o t a o n e of t h e t h r e e protagonists is blamed, n o t a o n e is upheld. W h a t e v e r the ai feet ions and disaffections, hopes and piques, vanities a n d aspirations of t h e three flesh-and•-blood personae, those are of n o a c c o u n t as against t h e H e a v e n - d e s t i n e d histories of t h e posterities they foreshadow. H o w ever unrealistic: in existential terms, t h e Egyptian runaway expresses n o surprise at an address t h a t can only be divine in its recognition of her by name, t h e address that identifies her not as wife or c o n c u b i n e to A b r a m but as Sarai's slave girl. Knowing this about her, t h e interrogator surely needs n o f u r t h e r information from her. But the questions arc rhetorical: " W h e r e s o e v e r h a v e you c o m e from, whithersoever are you b o u n d : " To which she replies that d e s t i n a t i o n has she n o n e , her flight senseless, a n d fugitive she is from her legitimate rm.stress Sarai. My translation of the next three verses (for w h i c h I offer n o apology) conceals the fact: t h a t t h e 11ehrew opens .:ach verse w i t h t h e same four words wayy&mer läh mal'ak YHWH ‫ ״‬Y1 I W b f s angel said to h e r " T h e first s t a t e m e n t thus introduced picks up Hagar's confession of rebellion against legitimate authority. S h e is directed to return to h e r lady and accept subjugation. T h e second s t a t e m e n t provides h e r w i t h incentive to obey and consolation for t h e miseries yet in store: promise ( m a d e to n o n e of t h e matriarchs) of i n n u m e r a b l e posterity. T h e third s t a t e m e n t t h e n bridges t h e c o n t e n t and time-span b e t w e e n t h e instruction to submit to dégradat i o n n o w and t h e promise of glorious destiny in a far-off future. Drawing a t t e n t i o n to h e r pregnancy, t h e prediction is made t h a t t h e issue will be male, a n d she is instructcd to n a m e h i m Vts/1?71ac/ Έ 1 hears," a n a m e whose purport is immediately glossed as " Y H W H has heard ( t a k e n sympathetic n o t i c e of) your suffering," T h i s is t h e n followed by an aside, in hypotactic c o n s t r u c t i o n w h i c h n e e d n o t detain us here. 1 9 T h e r e c a n be little doubt t h a t for all t h e solicitude of G o d for Hagar and h e r issue, t h e distancing ot G o d from this wife of A b r a m s is expressed in h e r being addressed by an angel of Y H W H ' s rather t h a n by YE1WH himself. T h i s is t h e p o i n t of t h e three divine statements, each featuring this r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of Y H W H , of t h e t h e o p h o r i c a l e l e m e n t El "God5‫ ־‬in t h e n a m e H e a v e n - c h o s e n for h e r son, yet of t h a t t h e o p h o r i c element's being immediately glossed as YHWH. A n d all these n u a n c e d emphases on the names and terms for t h e One G o d of Scripture are brought to a head in t h e construction t h a t literally has Hagar " n a m i n g Yl 1W1 I," w h o , being Y1 IW1 h c a n n o t he n a m e d a n y t h i n g else. S u c h a literal translation is, of course, ruled out by good sense, as also by the sense of "she said of t h e o n e addressing h e r (through the angel )‫ י‬Ύο u are el W h e n one adds to these options t h e (lit-

216

S I OR I IiS--- " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

eral) unlikelihood of a well he ing n a m e d after a designation for a b e n e v o l e n t n u m e n / d e i t y / G o d in the m o u t h of a runaway slave-girl, t h e kerygmatic options in this word-play are almost inexhaustible. In addition to this there must be some significance to t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t this place n a m e d after t h e experience of Ishm a e l s m o t h e r is twice identified as the Negeb h a u n t of Isaac (Genesis 24:62, 25:11). T h e return of Hagar to her h o m e is gapped in characteristic biblical narrative economy. T h e coda brings A b r a m back to f r o n t and center, carrying out t h e n a m ing instruction, which could only h a v e b e e n retailed to h i m by Hagar in a full acc o u n t of h e r experience. To overlook this i n v i t a t i o n to t h e gap-recognizing and gap-filling capacity of rhe reader is to overlook t h e discrepancy b e t w e e n t h e instruction to t h e w o m a n and t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s fulfillment by t h e m a n . If t h e reader, identifying himself with t h e y e t - u n b o r n ancestor Isaac, has missed t h e p o i n t of Y H W H s c o n c e r n for Hagar, the Egyptian m o t h e r of U n c l e Ishmael, t h e narrator exploits t h e coda to stress t h e ties b e t w e e n G r a n d f a t h e r A b r a m and t h e young w o m a n w h o mothered his firstborn. T h r e e times in two verses it is Hagar w h o bears to Abram (four times) a son (twice) n a m e d Ishmael (twice), t h e n a m i n g — a n ack n o w l e d g m e n t of God's favor in t h e granting of this s o n — p e r f o r m e d by t h e patriarch himself.

Hu^ar's

Expulsion

— -•and Her

Revelation

( 1 ) Y H W H n o w look n o t e of Surah as l i e bad promised. Yi IWl 1 dealt with S a r a h according to his declaration, (2) Ihus it was that S a r a h c o n c e i v e d and bore A b r a h a m a sou in bis old age, at 1 he ‫ יי‬et‫ ׳‬l i m e that ( î o j had specified. (3) A b r a h a m n a m e d this son of his. just born to 11111), h e w h o m Sarai! had b o r n e t o h i m , Isaac. (4) A b r a h a m circumcised his son Isaac at t h e age of eight days as G o d h a d c h a r g e d h i m . (5) A b r a h a m n o w was 100 years old w h e n Isaac his son was b o r n to h i m . (6) S a r a h t h o u g h t , "Smiles has G o d p r o d u c e d for me, A n y o n e h e a r i n g [the news] will smile over/for m e . 7 )

‫) ״‬

[ T h e t h o u g h t b e h i n d w h a t ] S a r a h t h o u g h t : " W h o would h a v e pre-

dieted [such a m o m e n t | for A b r a h a m : Sarah has given suck to child, t h a t I should h a v e indeed b o r n h i m a son in his old ageT' (8) T h e lad grew older, r e a c h e d w e a n i n g age. A n d A b r a h a m h e l d a great feast at t h e t i m e ot Isaacs w e a n i n g . (9) Sarah spied t h e son of H a g a r t h e Egyptian, ( t h e o n e ) w h o m she had b o r n to A b r a h a m , m a k i n g merry. (10) Said she t o A b r a h a m , "Drive o u t t h a t slavegirl•—along w i t h t h a t son of hers." H e r t h o u g h t (hi): No son ofthat

slave-

girl shall he an heir alongside my son, not alongside (my) Isaac. (11) T h i s t u r n was m o s t u n w e l c o m e to A b r a h a m , troubled for his son. ( 1 2 ) But G o d said to A b r a h a m , "Be n o t distressed o n a c c o u n t of t h e youngster n o r of your m a i d s e r v a n t . Precisely as S a r a h proposes to you, e v e n so do h e r bidding. Verily it is t h r o u g h Isaac t h a t your line will c o n t i n u e . - 1 (13) For all t h a t , this maidservant's son will I also m a k e i n t o a n a t i o n , h e t o o b e i n g your issue." (14) F o r t h w i t h at m o r n A b r a h a m f e t c h e d f o o d and a skin of water. T h e s e h e h a n d e d to H a g a r — h e loaded [rhem] on h e r b a c k — a n d t h e lad as well, a n d sent h e r away. So she proceeded to wander in t h e wasteland beyond Rcersheba. (1 e ,) W h e n t h e water was d r a i n e d from t h e skin, she left t h e lad a l o n e u n d e r some hush or other, (16) herseli went on a MTelch and sat down a good bowshot's distance aw ay, her

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF A B R A H A M

217

t h o u g h t b e i n g , "i w o n ' t l o o k o n at t h e child's d e a t h throes." T h u s s e t t l e d at a d i s t a n c e s h e b r o k e i n t o loud s o b b i n g . ( 1 7 ) G o d t o o k h e e d of t h e youngster's call. A n a n g e l of G o d c a l l e d t o H a g a r f r o m h e a v e n , " W h a t t r o u b l e s you, H a g a r ? H a v e n o fear. Verily, G o d h a s t a k e n h e e d of t h e lad, yes of t h e p l i g h t t h a t h e is in. ( 1 8 ) U p n o w , r o u s e u p t h e lad, t a k e h i m firmly by t h e h a n d . O t a t r u t h , a great n a t i o n will I m a k e of h i m . " ( 1 9 ) G o d t h e n c l e a r e d h e r sight a n d s h e b e h e l d a spring of water. S h e p r o c e e d e d t o fill t h e s k i n w i t h w a t e r a n d g a v e d r i n k to t h e lad. ( 2 0 ) T h u s did G o d a t t e n d t h e y o u n g s t e r a n d h e grew t o m a t u r i t y . H e k e p t t o w i l d e r n e s s h a u n t s a n d b e c a m e a skillful archer. (2 1 ) H e settled in t h e wilderness of P a r a n . A n d his m o t h e r got a wife for h i m f r o m t h e land oi Egypt, (C !enesis 2 1:1 - 2 1 )

Source-criticism assigns verse 1 to J, h a v i n g n o odaer opt ion for t h e appearance twice of the T e t r a g r a m m a t o n . Verses 2-5-‫״‬, feat uring dohim twice, might well have b e e n assigned t o E, t o w h o m t h e rest of t h e s t o r y t h r o u g h v e r s e 20‫ ־‬is c r e d i t e d s i n c e

h e , like P, shuns t h e use of Y H W H in Genesis. But a c o n c e r n for n u m b e r s and dates, as for s u c h cultic matters as circumcision, being hallmarks of P's stationery, this source prevails over any possible claim for E. Speiser refuses to translate t h e second Y H W H in verse 1 (replacing it by t h e p r o n o u n a h e " noting: " T h e second half of t h e verse duplicates t h e first. It appears to stem from P, w i t h a secondary c h a n g e of E l o h i m to Yah weh, induced by t h e preceding clause" W e find it character is tic of source-critical m a n i p u l a t i o n s and typical ot its fast-and-loose c o n c e p t s of t h e editorial process to deny a h u m a n editor the leeway to iron o u t a discrepancy, e v e n while it permits t h e dead weight of u a preceding clause" to induce a pointless c h a n g e of P s elohim to j's YHWH. W e shall cite his f u r t h e r Comment t o serve as foil to our o w n reading: E x c e p t for t h e first five verses, t h e n a r r a t i v e is t h e w o r k of E. T h e proof goes d e e p e r t h e n t h e e x t e r n a l e v i d e n c e f r o m t h e c o n s i s t e n t use ot E l o h i m (6, 12, 17, 19, 2 0 ) . T h e p r e s e n t a c c o u n t d u p l i c a t e s c h . χ vi. M o r e significant, h o w e v e r is t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e a s o n for H a g a r s d e p a r t u r e is n o t a t all t h e s a m e as in t h e earlier story by J, n o r d o e s t h e p e r s o n a l i t y of H a g a r as h e r e d e p i c t e d b e a r a n y r e s e m b l a n c e t o t h a t of h e r n a m e s a k e i n t h e o t h e r story. S o c o m p l e t e a d i c h o t o m y w o u l d be i n c o n c e i v a b l e in t h e work of t h e s a m e a u t h o r , or in a fixed w r i t t e n t r a d i t i o n . ( G e n e s i s p. 1 56)

To say that 1 'the present a c c o u n t duplicates ch. xvi" is slovenly use of language, for t h e verb suggests exact correspondence. But this lapse is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e on t h e part of a c o m p a r a t i v e Semitist newly fallen under the spell of source-critical solu‫׳‬ tion of narrative doublets via assignment to different hands. W h a t is not so comprehensible is h o w t h e differences between t h e doublets are seen as ρtool of two authors rather t h a n of o n e a u t h o r telling similar yet diitèrent stories. T h e characters are identical except for their names. In t h e first story A b r a m , Sarai, Hagar a n d — w a i t i n g in t h e wings, so to speak — lshmael a n d Isaac; while Deity is always referred to as Y H W H , even His agent is not just a n angel b u t YHWH's angel In t h e second story A b r a h a m , Sarah, Hagar, lshmael and Isaac; while Deity appears first as Y H W H and t h e n as G o d , even to his a g e n t s being called God's angel. B o t h stories begin with a focus on t h e matriarch. 111 t h e first it is Sarai w h o gives her slave over to Abram's embrace, t h a t she — S a r a i — m a y obtain a child by proxy (as Speiser convincingly demonstrates). In t h e second, it is

188

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

t h e sight of t h a t child, in his s e v e n t e e n t h year at t h e least, t h a t arouses h e r jealous fears for the newly weaned child w h o issued from h e r o w n womb. In b o t h stories, Hagar, in a situation dangerous or desperare in a barren steppe, is vouchsafed a divine revelation in t h e vicinity of a spring or cistern of liie-giving water. In both revelations the providential care of Deity is assured t h e mother: her son shall bec o m e a great n a t i o n . T h e martial skills of t h a t n a t i o n - t o - b e , implicitly or explicitly dwelling in the steppe lands and at odds with his more civilized kinsmen and neighbors, is symbolized in the second story by his masterful archery; in t h e first story, t h e second part‫ ־‬oi t h e oracle, predicting t h e u n t a m e a b l e n a t u r e of t h e Ishmaelite race and its bellicose destiny, could hardly h a v e b e e n c o m f o r t i n g to his m o t h e r ; it is therefore, in all probability, a n o t h e r instance of free direct discourse, seemingly addressed to Hagar, actually i n t e n d e d for a n Israelite a u d i e n c e in a future centuries away (trom Hagar s time, t h a t is, n o t f r o m t h e n a r r a t o r s time). H a v i n g d o n e fair justice to the similarities we t u r n n o w to t h e differences, differences t h a t will reveal t h a t t h e two narratives are n e i t h e r duplicates of nor inconsistent with one another, that e a c h is m e a n i n g f u l in its o w n c o n t e x t and is c o m p l e m e n t a r y to t h e other. In t h e first story t h e child t h a t Hagar is carrying in h e r w o m b is the child or Sara i. Sarai would only be spiting herself if she drove from h o m e t h e bearer of her future hope. H e r c o m p l a i n t is t h a t a n incubator sees herself as agent rather t h a n instrument, full-wife or sultana to A b r a m rather t h a n odalisquc subject to her royal mistress (16:4 gabirtäh). T h e flight to t h e N e g e v (Does she h o p e to make it back to Egypt? A n d to w h a t status or fate there?) is all H a g a r s idea. A n d h a d not Deitv intervened t o t u r n h e r back w h e n she was but a few hours gone from A b r a m s t e n t i n g grounds, w h o could d o u b t but t h a t t h e resourceful A b r a m would h a v e retrieved her, even restored h e r to a c h a s t e n e d mistress w h o would n o t again risk bringing to despair t h e young w o m a n bearing h e r heir a n d h e r h u s b a n d s . W h a t need t h e n at all for Y H W H s i n t e r v e n t i o n ? O n e might as reasonably ask why (}od gave tongue to church-hell clappers and turned gongs into words in young man's ears, "Dick W h i t t i n g t o n , Dick W h i t t i n g t o n , thrice Lord Mayor of L o n d o n - t o w n ! " Y H W H has promised A b r a m a countless posterity. In C h a p t e r 15 t h e territory promised to Iiis descendants was to e x t e n d f r o m u t h c river of Egypt to t h e Great river, Euphrates." In neither direction, as we n o t e d , did historic Israel ever attain ----- perhaps even aspire to -such distant borders. But Y H W H n e v e r limit eel his promise to a single b r a n c h nor e v e n to two or three b r a n c h e s of A b r a m s line. In C h a p t e r 17, which we h a v e yet to discuss, t h e promise is explicitly formulated in t e r m s of s e v e r a l n a t i o n s and separate dynasties in separate kingdoms. Y H W H s c o n c e r n t h e n for Egyptian H a g a r — h e r origin twice stressed in c h a p t e r 16 (again in ch. 21, and again in t h e n o t i c e there of her o b t a i n i n g from t h e land of Egypt a wife for Lshmael) — is also a n expression of care and c o n c e r n for A b r a m in t h e m a t t e r of his posterity, n o t only t h r o u g h t h e child yet to issue from Sarai's w o m b but t h r o u g h t h a t of his wife Hagar. 2 2 So long as Sarai remains barren (and at age 75, cf. 16:5, her recourse to IT agar as her proxy is as realistic as t h e desperation it bespeaks) the child in H a g a r s w o m b is t h e o n e and only c o n d u i t to a future line sprung from A b r a h a m s l o i n s . L e t u s n o t e t h a t it is t h e s o u r c e - c r i t i c a l a s s i g n m e n t of 1 6 : 1 5 - 1 6 t o Ρ i n a n o t h e r w i s c J n a r r a t i v e , oi C h a p t e r 17 t o P, of C h a p t e r 18 t o J, a n d m o s t o f C h a p t e r 2 1

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF A B R A H A M

237

to Ε, which masks from our poetical appreciation the unity, harmony, indeed the suspenseful buildup to a climax of t h e progressively emerging promise and fulfillment o f t h a t promise to Abraham. It starts with the most broad and general formu•‫׳‬ iation in Chapter 12 of his becoming "a great nation," continues with offspring "like grains oi earth" in J 3:10, to the assurance in !<5:4 that his tine will continue through his own biological issue, that assurance beginning of realization in Hagars womb - the mother clc jure being Sarai - —and t h e n with the promise in Chapter ‫ך ו‬ that while IshmacPs branch will thrive, the main growth of Abram's line will be from yet another son, a biological son of Sarai as well as of Abram, all the forego‫•׳‬ ing culminating in the bearing of Isaac by a ninety-year old (renamed) Sarah to a (renamed) A b r a h a m aged 100, and now with that child's weaning marking his suecess lui passage through the risks of infancy. Now, her maternal drive satisfied, having come to accept that the miraculousness of her having given birth was n o t merely a stroke of luck, confident now that t h e God who wrought this for her will continue to preserve her newly weaned child, Sarah suddenly sees Ishmael through different eyes. T h e cheerful teenager enjoying the festivity of his younger brother's celebration is n o longer her own child, he is son to that Egyptian slave-girl; h e is indeed his fathers firstborn heir. But that is now a source of anxiety to her. Even if she could have been privy to the preachment of Deuteronomy 21:15™ 17, that would not have affected her or Isaac, for there could never be any question as to which child was t h e principal heir. No, her concern is lest Ishmael share at all, diminish by a fraction the totality of the inheritance that will fall to her one-and-only son Isaac. T h e judgment o n the ruthlessness of Sarah's maternal loyalties is present for us in t h e pain of A b r a h a m when confronted by the demand of wife number one that h e send away b o t h his firstb o m son and the mother who bore him. A n d which of u s — t h e readers—would not concur in that judgement, could not but identify with Abraham in his pain, and - •‫״‬forgetting that S a r a h s protective parental stance is peril a ps a slightly hyperbolic reflection of our own short-sighted normality---would not see her as the stock evil stepmother of fairy tales? Iwo elements in the plot, however, may strike us as less than credible. O n e , how can the (}od of Scripture, champion of justice, endorse S a r a h s decree, even seek to assuage the pain oi Abraham over the loss of his flesh and blood son by the promise that: his m a m line will he reckoned through Isaac? Two, assuming that Sarah must have her way -—disinheritance of Ishmael is after all her goal·—could that goal not have been achieved by finding a home for mother and child under some kins m a n s aegis (or since Lot has been removed from the scene, perhaps in t h e encampments of the allied Amorite brothers, Manure, Eshkol, and A n e r [14:13])? Both perplexities dissolve w h e n we remind ourselves that the biblical author constantly performs feats of literary legerdemain as he shades his personae from three dimensional h u m a n s in an historic and never repeatable past to symbolic foreshadowings of ethnic and political entities. A n d the bridge between these two narrative poles, perhaps better the fulcrum of the seesaw, is the role played by God. Thus it is no unfeeling Deity who seconds Sarah's bidding to A b r a h a m . God is here, to an extent, a fully realized character, a powerful and long-lived participant in the lives ot succeeding generations, who at this p o i n t — w i t h o u t approving of

188

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

Sarah's deplorable self-eenteredness nor condemnation of A b r a h a m for even vacih lating in t h e face of so cruel an ultimatum—relieves A h r a h a m of responsibility for a decision. I le himself will take over now, as guardian and guarantor of the future. Sarahs bidding is now God's command, and A b r a h a m cannot but obey. Iiis continning concern for Hagar and lshmael is symbolized in the quantity of food and water he "loads" her with. IVspite the troubles Speiser (among others) finds with verse 14, the text is not obscure, nor is the "middle of the sentence . . . no‫׳‬w distorted." The three Hebrew words "placed on her shoulder" are a normal asyndetic hypotactic construction expressing a parenthetic aside, drawing attention to the quantity of provisions he gave her and leaving her hands free to grasp her sons, as she will be bidden to do (again) in verse 18. 2 ‫ י‬Whereas the pregnant Hagar, who was a runaway from home, must have had some sense of the direction she should take (she did make it as far west and south as Beer-lahai-roh which must have been situated at a point very close to today's border between Israels Negev and Egypt's Sinai), the expelled Hagar wanders aimlessly in the steppe of Beersheba. Aside from the normal characteristic of economy in biblical narrative, it would certainly strike a false note to have A b r a h a m consoling Hagar upon her banishment by assur ing her that God would be watching over her. A n d so we have the heartwrenching scene of a despairing mother, giving no thought to her own thirst, sobbing as she waits for her only son to breathe his last. It is a scene that drives h o m e to us the heartlessness of good people, of parents fixed on the welfare of their biological issue to the unnecessary exclusion ot the loves and hopes, t h e aspirations for life and fulfillment of those who 111 the last analysis are, if not our own children in every sense, the children of our brothers and sisters. A n d it reminds us as well that a G o d who cares for us must also care for them. Ishmael's birth to a one-time slave girl is but one aspect of his ancillary role in the story of Abraham's family. A question that cannot but tease our curiosity, for all our knowledge that answer can there be none, is what if anything our biblical author owed to a received tradition in creating this character or representing his sketchy history / To be sure, that question can equally be asked of Abraham himself. But whatever fraction ol the Abraham presented to us owes to historic fact or family tradition or poetic fancy, his representation as the ideal ancestor of an ideal Israel, friend of God, and ancestor of many nations is clear. W h a t by comparison can we say of lshmael? He barely exists as a charact er, he barely draws a breath or two on the story's stage. Ele is born and he is circumcised. We catch sight of him laughing once (through Sarah's eyes), hear him gasping once (through Hagars ears), and have the narrator's weird for his skill at archery. As brother-rival to our own ancestor Isaac, we tend to see in him a foreshadowing of a sociopolitical entity, contesting with our own sociopolitical ancestral stock in a later generation, very much as we see Esau-Edom as a polity c erntest ing with Jacob-Israel. But is that the way that the biblical author intends us to view lshmael. 7 T h e question I am posing is a literary one: how the biblical author w h e n crafting his story, perhaps as late as the sixth or even the fifth century, related to the lshmael he was presenting or representing as person and as ethnic prefigure ment. For clues to the answer we can focus on two antipodes: one, an exclusively poetical focus on the story itself; and two, an essentially meta-literary or "historical" focus

E V E N T S IN I'HE LIFE OF A B R A H A M

221

o n t h e historic e n t i t y called Ishmael, from t h e first appearance of t h a t grouping to its latest datable one. In regard t o t h e poetical focus, we h a v e already said almost everything t h a t c a n be said in p o i n t i n g out t h e sketchiness, t h e nebulousness of Ishmael as a persona. T h e significance of this c a n be better appreciated if we c o m p a r e Ishmael and Esau as dramatis personae. "Esau t h e o u t d o o r s m a n skilled in t h e h u n t " of 25:27 may be a r o u g h n e c k compared to the Jacob w h o is "an unwily m a n keeping to home." But t h a t is a far cry f r o m t h e violent c u t t h r o a t h e is m a d e o u t to be in some rabbinic sources. In t h e deprivation by deceit of his f a t h e r s favored-son blessing h e is t h e i n n o c e n t a n d wronged party, d o n e in by a m o t h e r s treachery and a brother's moral spinclessness. 2 4 Yet is h e goaded by his loss into a murderous resolve, restrained for t h e m o m e n t by unwillingness to bring pain to his father, a resolve discerned by his mother. A n d as she reads this mood correctly so does she also read correctly t h e character 0( this elder son, w h i c h will with t h e passage of time bring him "to forget how you !Jacob! treated h im"( 2 7 : 4 5 ) . A n d for all the double e n t e n d r e s a n d a m bivalent emotions, t h e play nf tensions, of r e s e n t m e n t and forgiveness, guilt and c o n t r i t i o n i n t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n oi J a c o b a n d Esau o n t h e former's r e t u r n f r o m

A r a m , t h e b o t t o m line is t h a t t h e two are reconciled. Yet are they depicted as brothers destined f r o m t h e w o m b to struggle for mastery, and for all Esau's martial professionalism h e [in his progeny] is fated to be subjugated by his b r o t h e r until a time comes w h e n h e will t h r o w off t h a t yoke of servitude (25:23, 27:40). Ishmael, like Esau, is more sinned against t h a n sinning (a misleading u n d e r s t a t e m e n t , since h e does n o t h i n g at all), if he is destined to be (in his progeny) u n t a m e a b l e , and t o stand alone against all and to hold his o w n against all his k i n s m e n (16:12), this may b e as m u c h due to his kinsmen's debarring h i m f r o m fertile settlements as t o a n i n n a t e preference for steppe existence and t h e marauding it encourages. T h e texts t h a t enable us to focus o n Esau and Ishmael as meta-literary or historical entities, w h i c h is to say as ethnic, n a t i o n a l , or political entities w i t h w h i c h t h e m o n a r c h i e s of Israel in t h e n o r t h and J u d a h in t h e south related o n terms of amity or hostility, are e x a m i n e d in the section of this b o o k d e v o t e d to Structures (see c h a p t e r 7). N o t h i n g in t h a t e x a m i n a t i o n runs c o u n t e r t o these observations: U n like t h e e p o n y m o u s c h i l d r e n of Lot, Moah, and A m m o n , Ishmael is n e v e r a political eponym; and w h a t e v e r pastoral or b e d o u i n tribes may be identified as descend a n t s of this b r o t h e r of Isaac and son of A b r a h a m , these are never featured as hostile, m a k i n g incursions against t h e descendants of Jacob. ( T h e latter in contrast with Midian, A b r a h a m s son by Keturah, and Arnalek, grandson of Esau, n e i t h e r of w h o m become e p o n y m o u s of polities, but both of whom figure as steppe-raiders victimizing Jacob's descendants.) T h e case is somewhat more complicated with res p e d to Esau, lor strictly speaking he too, like Ishmael, is not a political eponym, a l t h o u g h h e is identified as legendary leader oi t h e proto-polity t h a t became the state (sometimes ruled by a king) of Edum. T h u s in respect to t h e descendants of these two d e s c e n d a n t s of Abraham's, o n e a son and t h e o t h e r a grandson of his, there are n o fb'nc Esau or B‫'׳‬ne Yishmael (comparable to Benë Yaakoh or Β e në Yisrä'el, although there are the gentilics Hdöm] and Yismaëlï.) It would seem, therefore, some basis for a s s i m i l a t i n g — a s literary prototypes — t h e totally unrealized persona of Ishmael with t h e more fully realized, a l t h o u g h

I 222

S T O R I E S ‫" —־‬THE PRIMEVAL H I S T O R Y "

sketchy nonetheless, persona of Esau. Or, to be more specific as to our i n t e n t , to see b o t h these (essentially fictional) protagonists as rival protagonists to t h e personae w i t h w h o m we identify as posterity to a n c e s t o r exploited by Scripture to t e a c h a lesson to us of t h e bet Yaaakob or B^iëYfsmc!. N o o n e reading t h e story of t h e two brothers, Esau and J a c o b — p a r t i c u l a r l y C h a p t e r 27, on t h e purloined blessing— would fail to realize, unless h e had already identified with Jacob, t h a t t h e narrator's sympathies are totally with t h e victimized Esau, with t h e flesh a n d blood person Esau, n o t with the historic abstraction Edom or Seir. W h a t e v e r our j u d g m e n t s on such questions as t h e good sense or fair-mindedness of M o t h e r Rebecca's favoring o n e son over the other, or of t h e good sense or ohtuseness ot Father Isaac, who is so easily fooled, any defect in t h e verisimilitude of either of these parents as personae is c o m p e n s a t e d for by their f u n c t i o n i n g as prophetic foreshadow!ngs. T h u s Rebecca's role serves both to shift m u c h oi the moral guilt from Jacob who, acting on his own, would h a v e b e e n a n altogether unforgivable scoundrel, and to make her a n u n w i t t i n g historic factor or signpost, to the d o m i n a n c e of Israel over Edom, So t o o is Father Isaac, more blind in wisdom t h a n in eyesight, in possession of all his o t h e r sense-faculties but as unperceptive as he is lacking in sensitivity, a historic factor or signpost. W h e n t h e storyteller has Isaac responding to Esau's arrival with t h e dish of venison, h e prefaces t h e response by a notice t h a t Isaac was gripped by spasms of trembling. H e tells Esau t h a t a n u n n a m e d other has brought h i m food a n d received a blessing. Ele is t h e n made to add w h a t is as u n n a t u r a l a conclusion as was his intrusion of peoples and nations to be subjugated to his son into t h a t blessing. "I blessed h i m " h e says, and t h e n adds, as t h o u g h h e has just b e e n given a glimpse of t h e portentousness of his blessing for future history, "and blessed will h e surely be!" T h e n o t i o n t h a t a blessing extracted trom a f a t h e r by fraud is irrevocable is, of course, n o n s e n s e . But n o t t h e n o t i o n t h a t a f a t h e r may, in invoking blessing u p o n a son, be t h e u n w i t t i n g harbinger of divine will. Esau expresses t h e n o n s e n s e of t h e former by asking his father, "Did you n o t reserve a blessing for me?" W h i c h is to say, since you have aiicnatcd t h e blessing owing to me, c a n you n o t give m e t h e blessing t h a t you must h a v e reserved for my brother? ( T h i s delicious bit of free direct discourse lies in t h e use of 'si "alienate," where "alienate" makes n o sense and must he rendered by w h a t t h e c o n t e x t d e m a n d s , i.e., "reserve, hold b a c k " ) Similarly, Esau's incredulous question and plea: " H a v e you but a single blessing, lather m i n e ' Bless me, me too, father mine," In these words t h e narrator expresses not‫ ־‬only t h e c o m m o n sense of Esau, and t h e anguish of a mortal son of a divine Father, whose beneitcent resources must he limitless, but also t h e ineluctablc vagaries of G o d ' s way in hist or v. For as surely as Esau did not h i n g to warrant his posterity's subjugation in time to come, so surely had Jacob d o n e n o t h i n g to w a r r a n t t h e success of his posterity, Israel, in time to come. A n d t h e r e is t h e moral i n t e n d e d for 11s, t h e seed of undeserving Jacob, himself t h r o u g h Isaac — t h e undeserving younger son by S a r a h - -the destiny-favored son of A b r a h a m . A n d t h a t t o o — t h e felicity t h a t we, t h e posterity of Isaac, enjoy in our sovereign state and territory, as over against t h e hard lot ot our steppe-dwelling cousins — is ours by grace a n d n o t desert. But for accident of birth, we m i g h t be r o a m i n g t h e wilderness while g r a n d f a t h e r A b r a h a m ^ merit carried clown to his g r a n d c h i l d r e n via a n o t h e r b r a n c h .

EVENTS IN T H E LIFE OF ABRAHAM

T H E N A M E S OF G O D IN G E N E S I S , C H A P T E R S

16 A N D

223

21

T h e regular appearance of Y H W H in the story of Hagars flight and of Elohim in the story of Hagars expulsion might he seen as an almost mechanical reflection of the disposition to deploy the former in context oi intimacy with the patriarch Abram/ Abraham and his chosen line through Isaac and Jacob, and of the latter in contexts of outsiders to/of that chosen lino. Thus in Chapter 16 the intimacy of Sarai's (free direct discourse)- invocation ol the Tetragrammaton, as against Hagars ( lrec mdirect discourse)26 naming of a IV it y known to narrator and reader as Yf IWl 1, but ab together (seemingly) unknown to her. Yet this Hagar, wife to Abram arid proxy‫״‬ womb of Sarai, bearing their future child, is very much within the chosen family's parameters, and so even when her greater distance (from the "Cod of Abram and Sarai") is marked by an angels appearance, it is nonetheless an angel of YHWH. In Chapter 21, by contrast, with Isaac now arrived as the bearer of the chosen line, Yishmael now dispensable—in Sarah's mind, at least, if not in A b r a h a m ' s — t h e Hagar in whose expulsion the Deity concurs (but whose flight in Chapter 16 is ve‫״‬ toed) is the concern not of YHWH but of Elohim, and the revelation to her is made by the mediating angel of Elohim. A n d whereas in 16:11 YHWH's angel (in free direct discourse) tells Hagar that YHWH had heeded her plight, in 21:17 Elohim's angel tells her that Elohim has heeded the plaint of her son. For all t h e cogency of t h e foregoing, we would stress that to see these correspondences as mechanical is to render more problematic those texts where t h e contexts do not conform so agreeably to our desire as critics to control the author by the im‫׳‬ position upon him of the formulas we have devised. Thus, for example, the double appearance of YHWH in 21:1 and the sudden switch to Elohim in t h e following verse. To this we shall return after examining a few more pertinent pericopes.

Τ Η Ε A N N U N C I A T I O N OF ISAAC'S B I R T H : T W O

VERSJONS

Midst ( .,mvmmt and. ( Arciimcisum Episode

A

( ϊ ) A b r a m was n i n e t y and n i n e years ο Η when Y1 I W l I appeared to A b r a m a n d said to h i m , "I a m El S h a d d a i . C o n d u c t yourself a c c o r d i n g to my will, sustain your integrity. (2) T h e n will I e n d o w you w i t h this c o v e n a n t - promise of m i n e — m a k i n g you o h so populous.'' (3) A b r a m fell lace d o w n . G o d addressed h i m as follows, "For my p a r t — h e r e is my c o m p a c t w i t h you: (4) You are t o b e c o m e f a t h e r to a mass of n a t i o n s . (5) N o longer will your n a m e be A b r a m , r a t h e r will A b r a h a m be your n a m e , b e t o k e n i n g : F a t h e r t o a mass of n a t i o n s h a v e I d e s t i n e d you t o be. (6) A s I m a k e you so very fruitful, a n d m a k e you i n t o n a tions, so will kings spring f r o m you. ( 7 ) 1 shall fulfill my p a c t w i t h you a n d w i t h your seed after your lifetime for o n g o i n g g e n e r a t i o n s , an ever c o n t i n u i n g pact, to be god t o you as also t o your seed, your succession. (S) [That‫ ״‬î s j I do grant to \ o u and your suecessor seed t h e land of your sojourning, e v e n all t h e land of G inaan, for a h o l d i n g in perpetuity. T h e i r god will I be." (9) G o d said f u r t h e r to A b r a h a m , "You for your part are to k e e p my pact, you and

188

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

your successor seed d o w n t h e g e n e r a t i o n s , ( i o ) T h i s n o w is t h e c o v e n a n t [rite] w h i c h you are to observe, b e t w e e n m e a n d all of you, t h a t is, your seed succeeding you: t h e circumcision of every o n e of your males. (11) W h e n you circumcise vour foreskins, t h a t will he t h e mark oi t h e c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n me and all of you. (12) A t t h e age ot eight days shall every o n e of your males in all your g e n e r a t i o n s he circumcised, lyes, e v e n ] h o m e b o r n slaves as also those w h o m you acquire by p u r c h a s e of any alien race, any not of your very own issue. (1

l a k e care to t h e circumcision of slave h o m e b o r n

or purchased that t h e c o v e n a n t [mark] be o n your flesh as |mark of| the c o v e n a n t - i n ‫׳‬ perpetuity. (14) As for any uncircutncised male, o n e w h o has failed to have his loreskin circumcised, that person shall be cut off from his kin: My c o v e n a n t has he breached." (Genesis 1 7 : 1 - 1 4 )

Episode Β (15) F u r t h e r said G o d to A b r a h a m , "Your wife S a r a i — n o longer are vou to call h e r Sarai; r a t h e r — S a r a h is h e r n a m e . ( 1 6 ) I will bless her, by h e r also will 1 grant vou a son, yes by my blessing of h e r will she b e c o m e n a t i o n s , yea kings of [different] peoples will f r o m h e r c o m e to be." ( 1 7 ) A b r a h a m [as told above] fell face d o w n . H e smiled as h e t h o u g h t to himself, "Will child be b o r n to a h u n d r e d - y e a r - o l d m a n ? A n d by S a r a h — w i l l a ninety-yearold woman bear child? (18) A n d so h e said t o t h e Divinity, "Pray, let l s h m a e l t h r i v e by your g r a c e " (19) G o d said, "But [attend,] it is indeed your wife S a r a h w h o is to bear you a s o n — I s a a c you are to n a m e h i m — w i t h w h o m 1 shall fulfill my c o v e n a n t promise, a c o v e n a n t - p r o m i s e e n d u r i n g to his issue in his a f t e r ! i m e . (20) A s for Ishmael, I h a v e h e e d e d you: lo, I h a v e decreed blessing for h i m , a fertility so rich, a posterity so n u m e r o u s — t w e l v e c h i e f t a i n s h i p s will h e s i r e — d e s t i n i n g him to be a great n a t i o n . (21) But my c o v e n a n t - p r o m i s e , I shall fulfill w i t h Isaac, h e whom S a r a h will bear t o you at this time in t h e c o m i n g year." (2 2) So, h a v i n g finished his address t o h i m , G o d took off f r o m A b r a h a m . (Genesis 17:1 5 - 2 2 ) l·'.‫) ן‬isode (.‫נ‬ 52‫))־‬

A b r a h a m t h e n took his son lshmael and all his h o

slaves, every male of the members of Abrahams family, a n d circumcised their foreskins — on that very same day, just as G o d had addressed h i m . (24) A b r a h a m , n o w was ninety-nine years old w h e n his f o r e s k i n was circumcised, ( 2 5 ) arid his son Ishmael was t h i r t e e n years old w h e n his foreskin was circumcised. (26) O n that very same day was A b r a h a m circumcised as well as his son lshmael. (27) A n d all t h e m e m bers of his family, h o m e b o r n a n d p u r c h a s e d of alien race, were circumcised along w i t h him. (Genesis 1 7 : 2 3 - 2 7 )

T h e very fact of two annunciations of o n e and t h e same birth to o n e and t h e same father i n two successive chapters would seem to add decisive weight to an argument that has already advanced other criteria for assigning t h e two parallel narratives t o two different authors or sources. Thus, for example, Speiser, who concurs with the assignment of t h e second narrative ( 1 8 : 1 - 1 5 ) to J c o m m e n t s on this first one: The entire c h a p t e r is f r o m t h e h a n d of P. A s a unit of considerable length, a n d richer in content t h a n t h e genealogical list s, this s e c t i o n offers a better picture of P s scope

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF A B R A H A M

225

a n d a p p r o a c h , Ac t h e same t i m e , t h e c o n t r a s t w i t h o t h e r sources s t a n d s o u t all t h e m o r e sharply i n view ot Ts parallel t r e a t m e n t of t h e c o v e n a n t t h e m e in xv. P s c o n c e r n a b o u t c h r o n o l o g i c a l d e t a i l is r e a f f i r m e d at t h e o u t s e t (vs. 1); a n d it is w o r t h stressing that all o t h e r statistics a b o u t A b r a h a m or S a r a h steal f r o m t h e s a m e source. . . . If j was f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e s e c o m p u t a t i o n s , h e did n o t c o n s i d e r t h e m germ a n e t o his story. T h e most s t r i k i n g d i f f e r e n c e , h o w e v e r , b e t w e e n Ρ a n d . / lies, h e r e a n d e l s e w h e r e , in ι h e i r c o n t r a s t i n g t r e a t m e n t s of t h e s a m e e v e n t a n d t h e i r dissimilar a p p r o a c h t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l . R o t h h e r e and in xv ! T h e ( Covenant between the Parts] the central t h e m e is t h e c o v e n a n t . J saw t h e c o v e n a n t as a f u t u r e factor in world history. It was set against a f e a r s o m e b a c k g r o u n d w h i c h h e l p e d t o b r i n g o u t the n u m i n o u s character of Y H W H ' s p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h A b r a h a m . Yet for all his b e w i l d e r m e n t , A b r a h a m was present eel as a s e n s i t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t in an i n t e n s e l y d r a m a t i c process. Just as in the Eden a c c o u n t , j s h a n d l i n g of t h e e p i s o d e was e a r t h - c e n t e r e d . I n t h e p r e s e n t a c c o u n t b y P, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e o v e r r i d i n g f e a t u r e of t h e c o v e n a n t is c i r c u m c i s i o n . A n d m u c h of t h e c h a p t e r is d e v o t e d t o a f o r m a l p r o n o u n c e m e n t by G o d . P's a p p r o a c h , i n s h o r t , is r i t u a l i s t i c a n d i m p e r s o n a l . 2 7

T h e above citation, typical of source-critical analysis, reveals u p o n closer exami n a t i o n t h a t t h e criteria for distinguishing b e t w e e n t h e two sources (] a n d P) are remarkably vague and hardly contrastive. T h u s "contrasting t r e a t m e n t s of t h e same event," assumes t h a t the central t h e m e in t h e two narratives is c o v e n a n t , whereas we would see the central t h e m e of this narrative as t h e a n n u n c i a t i o n of Isaacs birth and compare it to the following chapter, w h i c h features t h a t same t h e m e . T h e n , "their dissimilar approach to t h e individual." Speiser goes o n t o see J s A b r a h a m of C h a p t e r 15 as "for all his b e w i l d e r m e n t . . . a sensitive participant in a n intensely d r a m a t i c process," a n d " t h e haiadling of t h e episode . . . e a r t h centered," while in our narrative "by Ρ . . . t h e overriding feature is circumcision . . . m u c h of t h e c h a p t e r is d e v o t e d to a formal p r o n o u n c e m e n t by G o d . P's approach, in short, is ritualistic and i m p e r s o n a l " Questions: In. what way is A b r a h a m in C h a p t e r 13 more sensitive a participant t h a n t h e A b r a h a m in C h a p t e r 171 1 low is the revela‫־׳‬ tion in C h a p t e r 15 a more intense process t h a n t h e revelation in C h a p t e r \ ‫ ך‬I A n d what does dramatic intensity h a v e to do with source-assignment I In what way is t h e e p i s o d e of t h e c o v e n a n t - h e t w e c n - t h e - p a r t s m o r e e a r t h - c e n t e r e d t h a n t h e o r d i -

nation of circumcision in C h a p t e r 1 7 as h u m a n - c e n t e r e d t o k e n of a d h e r e n c e to t h e covenant• If P's approach in C h a p t e r 17 is ritualistic and impersonal, is the slaughtering of animals and t h e procession b e t w e e n t h e parts n o t ritualistic, and is t h e smoking firepot more personal t h a n t h e G o d w h o c o m m a n d s in C h a p t e r 17? A n d while Deity as subject appears in C h a p t e r 17 as elôhîm some half-dozen times, h o w did t h e meticulous editor w h o preserved P's compulsion to avoid t h e Tetrag r a m m a t o n slip up in the o p e n i n g verse 1? A n d , further, why should P, w h o pretends n o t to k n o w t h a t G o d has a n a m e u n t i l t h e disclosure in Exodus 6, feel a n e e d to h a v e t h a t G o d introduce Himself to A b r a h a m by t h e name—‫״‬if n a m e it i s — E l Shaddai? A n d why, w h e n A b r a h a m addresses G o d in verse 18, does P decide t h a t h e did not address Elohim [God: a proper n a m e ) but häHöhim "the divinity" (god: a c o m m o n n o u n ) ‫י‬ T h e most i m p o r t a n t difference b e t w e e n my o w n a p p r o a c h t o this C h a p t e r 17 and Speisers is in how I view its central t h e m e . Despite t h e o m n i p r e s e n c e of t h e

188

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

covenant themes in this chapter, and the unarguable stress on the importance of the circumcision rite ordained by God for A b r a h a m s descendants as mark of their loyalty to that covenant, I see all this as setting for the central theme. This t h e m e is not covenant as such, which has appeared in several revelatory episodes, but with whom in particular the covenant is to be continued, o n the parts ot both God and man. H e n c e my own view of the necessity to compare this episode with its par‫־׳‬ allel in C h a p t e r 18, a parallel strangely unnoticed by Speiser, who discerned "du·‫׳‬ plication" in t h e two stories of Hagar in the wilderness, A n d as a matter of poetical address, particularly because there is no quarrel as to C h a p t e r 17 s owing to one hand, we must address t h e really remarkable amount of repetition in the first fourteen verses. T h e term bent "promise, covenant-sign" appears ten limes. T h e reciprocal aspect oi covenant, the hctwcciraess, appears four times; the single-vector aspect of b'rit, as trom God to man or from man to God — often indicated by prepositional particles, sometimes direct and sometimes indirect, such as eu öt> /'‫—י‬appears almost a dozen times. Abraham, as the individual with whom God is establishing His pact, is featured seven times; five times the covenant is with both Abraham and his posterity. T h e emphasis on posterity appears eleven times: five4 times under the rubric 'aharey-‫׳‬, three times under hlöröf‫׳־‬, and three times under oldm. A n d , once again, an assumption of purposivctiess o n the part of the author, espec ί ally in the deployment of redundancy, will eventuate in an exegesis and a kerygma that will in turn vindicate that assumption. T h e narrative begins with a synoptic episode, verses ! - 3 a . Except for the specihe of t h e El Shaddai self-introductory rubric, and for the appearance of the specific term for covenant(-promise) berït, which is, however, implicit in every promise of God's to his servants, the urging of A b r a h a m to continue in his fidelity to God's ways and t h e promise of proliferation as reward is a broad formulation substantially the same as in the first revelation to A b r a m in 12:12‫״״‬. T h e bottom line, however, is clear. T h e resumptive episode begins with 3b, with t h e expansion of proliferation in terms of u a mass of nations," resuming also the nations of 12:2. T h e word for mass or multitude provides in a p un-like manner for an additional consonant to be inserted into the n a m e Abram. This new name, incorporating the nuance of agglomeration or conglomeration, is t h e n explicated not only in terms ot nations but of kings; hence the element of royal dynasties points n o t to changing dynastic lines in one nation but to many dynasties in many nat ions. Thus far the promise to Abraham in his own person, from God to him in verses 2, 4, and 6. Verse 7 begins with the assurance of the fulfillment of the promise as not just from God to Abraham, but to his seed after his lifetime tor long generations; the specificity of the promise is that this Deity (who has identified 1 limself as El Shaddai) will be god ( = protect or) to A b r a h a m and to them. 1 his promise to continue as god or protector, to Abraham first and then to his posterity, is t h e n expanded to include the grant oi the territory ot C a n a a n to Abraham (to whom in his person it will never he other than "the land ot his sojourning") and to his posterity, whose "holding in perpetuity" it will be, because he will continue to guard them as their '''löhmi. Inasmuch as posterity, ! or long generations, constituting national entities, must inevitably refer to descendants

EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF ABRAHAM 2 2 7 "after (your) lifetime," we have translated t h e second appearance of zar'ka ‫׳‬ah'rckä by "your seed, your succession." Let us n o t e t h a t in English, all those w h o c o m e after us are in o n e sense our successors, and so too in 1 Iebrew. O n the o t h e r h a n d , in b o t h languages, not all of our posterity will c o n t i n u e as our "successors," in t h e sense of preserving our traditions and being heir lo our dignities. Π we will t h e n recall our discussion oi Ishmael, he w h o is fuliillment oi the promise to A b r a m in 15:4 t h a t only o n e "sprung from his loins will heir to you be," and further, anticipate t h a t ishmael in his descendants will n o t be successors to this promise of land, we shall be alert to the ambiguity in t h e promise. For all its seeming specificity, t h e promise, w h i c h to A b r a h a m at this p o i n t could only h a v e b e e n i n t e n d e d for his successor Ishmael, does n o t in so m a n y words specify Ishmael as t h e heir. A n d there is t h e rub! It may prove helpful at this p o i n t to divide t h e resumptive episode of this revelation into separate phases. T h u s Phase 1, verses 4 - 6 , addressed to A b r a h a m as t h e immediate persona w h o has earned t h e c o v e n a n t - p r o m i s e , a n d verses 7 - 8 , the extension of t h e promise to his progeny and specification of t h e grant of territory now called t h e land of C a n a a n . Phase 2, introduced by vayyö'mer Höhim 'el Abraham in verse 9, "God said f u r t h e r to A b r a h a m , " has t h e dialogue b e g i n n i n g w i t h t t / a t t ä "you, for your part," balancing t h e b e g i n n i n g of God's dialogue in Phase 1, verse 4, ‫׳‬am "1, for My part." T h i s n o w combines with t h e obligation of A b r a h a m and his descendants to observe their part of t h e c o v e n a n t (in general) a n d specifically to mark their o b e d i e n c e by t h e circumcision rite. T h e c o n t i n u i t y with Phase 2 is thus the n o t i c e of verses 2 3 - 2 7 of A b r a h a m ' s punctilious carrying out of this comm a n d e d rite. But this n o t i c e is t h e result of and n o t part of t h e revelation. T h e last phase of t h e revelation t h e n , Phase r is verses 15- 22, which we mark off as a separate episode, with verse 23 constituting a rallier unusual dixit atque exit in conclu.‫י‬ sion of a biblical, revelation. Phase 3, verse 13—exactly like Phase 2, verse 9 - begins with "God said f u r t h e r to A b r a h a m " Rut t h e dialogue quickly signals that this is a continuation, of t h e first part, of Phase 2. It is exactly parallel to t h e promise to A b r a h a m as a persona‫׳‬ Sara is n a m e , like Abram's, undergoes a slight but significant symbolic alteration. Sarah too is to h a v e a son. N o , n o t quite. Sarah t o o — l i k e Hagar b e f o r e — i s instrument for G o d s beneficence to A b r a h a m . H e r blessing is twofold. First, "I shall bless her, granting to you a son by h e r also." S e c o n d , "I shall bless her, in t h a t she will b e c o m e nations, kings of [different] peoples will from her c o m e to b e " A b r a h a m ' s response to this a n n o u n c e m e n t is to fall to e a r t h face d o w n . S i n c e h e fell face clown in verse 3 and has n o t risen since, this n o t i c e woulci seem to call for c o m m e n t b o t h o n t h e grounds of repetitiveness and inconsistency. But it poses n o difficulty for us if we are alert to t h e subtle effects a c h i e v a b l e by t h e synopticresumptive narrative t e c h n i q u e . Indeed, in this present example of t h a t narrative strategy, t h e second n o t i c e of A b r a h a m ' s throwing himself u p o n his face is the narr a t o r s way of indicating just w h e n — a t w h a t p o i n t — i n t h e revelation, w h i c h is synoptically told in Episode A and extensively developed in Episode B, A b r a h a m did so, T h e assumption of this posture, o n e w h i c h expresses self-abasement before a higner pc!wer, may betoken, a range of differing attitudes. T h u s , for example, in 2 Samuel .1.4:4 bespeaks t h e humility of t h e petitioner; in R u t h 2:10 t h e acknowl-

188

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

e d g e m e n t of a b o o n graciously bestowed; and in N u m b e r s 14:5 a c k n o w l e d g m e n t of t h e c o m p l a i n t of t h e people they serve by leaders w h o do n o t deserve such répudiation. T h a t A b r a h a m ' s assumption of this posture is expressive of t h a n k s for t h e b o o n a n n o u n c e d is unquestionable. But this response would be equally fitting at t h e e n d of t h e promise in verse 8. T h e point of locating this act of grateful obeisance at this juncture is to signal a skepticism o n A b r a h a m s part, a skepticism explicitly t h o u g h t , yet a skepticism w h i c h might h a v e betrayed itself to a n observer by t h e merest twitch of a lip, had n o t such observation been precluded by Ahrab a m s kneeling or lying lace 10 the ground. But t h e narrator informs us that n u m i n o u s figure speaking for U o d (who has called himself HI S h a d d a i ) , that m a n l · testation relerred to in verse 18 as hcflnhim "the d/Divinity," is quick to read Abrah a m s m i n d and heart, to interpret correctly A b r a h a m s prayer on Ishmaels be hall, this in response to the promise 01 a son by Sarah, as equivalent to a mild demurrer: a bird in hand is worth two in the hush. It is to this almost-expressed skepticism that G o d replies, introducing his s t a t e m e n t with the adverbial c o n j u n c t i o n abäl "nevertheless, for all t h a t , contrary to the foregoing." W h i c h is to say, ‫״‬Despite your doubts and misgivings, it is S a r a h your wife w h o will hear you a son;" and n o t just a son, indeed, but the son, t h r o u g h w h o m t h e blessing of possession of C a n a a n and t h e special p r o t e c t i o n of G o d will be fulfilled.

Midst Feasting and Mission

Grim

(1) Y H W H appeared to h i m at M a m r e s O a k s — h e sitting i n t h e t e n t o p e n i n g as t h e day waxed h o t . (2) L o o k i n g up, h e saw a sight: t h r e e personages l o o m i n g over h i m . A t t h e sight h e r a n toward t h e m f r o m the t e n t e n t r a n c e , t h e n s t r e t c h e d t o t h e g r o u n d in obeisance. (3) H e said, "My Lord, if I h a v e won Your [smg.] favor, do n o t pass Your [5ingd s e r v a n t by. (4) Let some water be f e t c h e d , rinse your [j)L] feet, a n d t a k e your [pl.] ease u n d e r t h a t tree. (5) Let m e f e t c h a morsel ot bread, a n d t a k e you [pl.] some r e f r e s h m e n t . T h e n go o n your [pl.] way. Surely 'tis n o r by c h a n c e you [pi.] c o m e this way, by your servant." T h e y replied, " D o so, just as you h a v e proposed." (6) A b r a h a m d a s h e d to t h e tents, t o S a r a h , and said, " Q u i c k , t h r e e se'ä- measures of c h o i c e flour, k n e a d , m a k e l o a v e s " (7) T h e n to t h e h e r d A b r a h a m himself ran, picked a yearling, Lender and c h o i c e , h a n d e d it over to a h a n d w h o h a s t e n e d to dress it. (8) l le f e t c h e d curds and milk, and the yearling [meat] that h a d been readied and set these before t h e m

h e himself s t a n d i n g a t t e n d a n c e upon t h e m while they d i n e d .

(g) T h e y addressed h i m t h e n , ' 4 W h e r e n o w is Sarah, your w i i e T " T h e r e , in t h e tent," he replied, ( 1 0 ) T h e r e u p o n l i e declared, "1 shall he hack with you, he sure, at gestation's t e r m — a n d Sarah your wife shall h a v e a son!" (Sarah, n o w was listening f r o m t h e t e n t e n t r a n c e , it [the tent] to H i s hack, (τ τ) A b r a h a m a n d S a r a h were e h derly, well on in y e a r s — S a r a h s menses had c o m e 10 an e n d . ( 1 2 ) S a r a h smiled to

herself: So long dried up, should I again have /oiouai am/n^al delight—and my husband so old? ( 1 3 ) Said Y H W H to A b r a h a m , " W h a t m e a n s :his scoff of Sarah's: A m I really to bear child, being myself so old: ( 1 4 ) Is a n y r h i n e so w o n d r o u s as to he b e y o n d Y H W H ['s doing]? O n schedule will I c o m e back to- yuu, ar gestation's term, and S a r a h shall h a v e a son." ( 1 5 ) S a r a h dissembled — so intimidated was she—-I did not: scoff. But H e said, " N o , you scoffed indeed." ( G e n e s i s 1 8 : 1 - 1 5 )

E V E N T S IN T H E UV Ii OF AB RA H AM

229

This story of the annunciation of Isaac's birth is in so many ways repetitious of the annunciation in Chapter 1 ‫ ך‬as to contain n o feature of novelty for source-critics who assign the first account to Ρ and this second one to J. There are, on the other hand, enough dissimilarities to raise the interpretive possibility that Chapter 17, itself made up of synoptic and resumptive episodes, may in itself constitute a synoptic forerunner of a resumptive episode, that is, the text of 18:1-15. Militating against such a hypothesis is a feature of the synoptic-resumptive mechanism that is not easily discerned as between these two narratives. In every instance that we have studied, t h e resumptive episode provides a significant element of plot develo p m e n t or moral twist that is not present in the synoptic episode. Thus the addition in the resumptive episode is never trivial, idle, or even just whimsical. W h a t significant lesson is there in C h a p t e r 18 that is absent in Chapter 17? A clue to t h e answer to this question may lie in t h e setting, or ambience, or mood of the parallel narrations. This factor is suggested in my own captions for the two stories. In the case of C h a p t e r 18, t h e episode of the annunciation, the episode of Abraham's intercession in respect to Sodom, as well as the aftermath of that city s dest ruction do indeed, in Speisers words, "present a continuous and closely iuregrated narrative" And unless we can discern a light or humorous side to Abraham's pleading for the life oi an entire city, or to the grim story oi that city's overthrow and of the righteous escapee's besotted involvement m incest, there would seem to be a contrast between the first and the next two episodes. Three angels feast in the first episode, at an indolent pace, and almost incidentally announce a birth to come; in the second episode, one of the three tarries with Abraham in a life-ancldeath debate, while his two companions eonrinue their downhill journey to extract Lot from t h e city before they reduce it with fire and brimstone. In the case of C h a p t e r 17, the element of t h e covenant is not new. W h a t is new is the introduction of the circumcision-rite as a mark of the covenant to be observed by A b r a h a m and his descendants. True, the covenant element functions as t h e framework for t h e emerging realization that God intends the covenant line to continue through the yet unborn Isaac and not the thirteen-year-old Ishmael. But it is this Ishmael, along with A b r a h a m and the bound members of Abraham's family, who undergoes circumcision. W h a t , in terms of the steadily developing story of Abraham's many begettings, and the narrowing of his religion-line down to Isaac, is the point of t h e introduction of t h e circumcision‫״‬rite at this juncture? To answer this question we must raise a meta-literary consideration, the historical question of when circumcision became a sine qua n o n rite of Israel's religion. Or since this question will surely remain unanswerable, not when we today believe that rite or iginated in Israel but when t h e biblical author himself believed it to have originated. To the objection that we have just been told in C h a p t e r 17 what the biblical author's belief is, my reply is no; what we are asking, the meta-literary consideration we are raising, is whether the author is (as most of us, believing religionists and skeptical scholars alike, assume) intent on conveying historic information to us with a v i e w t o s a t i s f y i n g o u r a n t i q u a r i a n c u r i o s i t y , o r t o i m p r e s s i n g u p o n us t h e c r i t i c a l

importance of this surgical rite. This last motivation for a putative historic )graphical narrative intention is open to doubt on a number of scores. O n e , a normative prescription, apodictically or ca-

188

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

suistically formulated, legalistic or perceptive, for all that it is open to interprétation as to degree of literal is tic or metaphoric intent, 2 8 is nonetheless a less ambiguous form of instruction than a narrative. ( T h e C a i n and Abel story assumes that murder is an atrocity, it does not enact it as a crime.) A n d nowhere in the rich deposits of biblical halakha does the rite of circumcision appear as a self-standing command from God. 2 " Two, such narratives as the perplexing assault of Y H W H on Moses in Exodus 4 : 2 4 - 2 6 ; the treacherous exploitation by Simeon and Levi of the circumcision ot the newly‫ •׳‬covenanted Shechemites; the distinction in Joshua 5 between the circumcised Israelites, who left Egypt to die in t h e wilderness, and the uncircumcised Israelites who were born, in the wilderness and survived to cross the Jordan—suggest‫ ״‬another kerygma tic. intent in these narrations: that this critically important rite in the eyes of Israelites at large might be featured in prophetic narrative to contrast external obedience to rime-honored rites with unhlinkered perception oi and obédience to God's will. Such indeed is the force oi such metaphors as circumcision ot the heart (-‫־‬-‫ ־‬mine!) in Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6 and the jeer oi Jeremiah against the circumcised of foreskin but not of heart among Egyptians and judeans, Eclomites, Ammorites, Moabites, and sundry dwellers of the steppe (9:24- · 25). Third and particularly significant in light of this last passage from Jeremiah is the explicit testimony of Chapter 17 that the lshmael who underwent the rite at the age of thirteen years was born to an uncircumcised father, while Isaac, first to undergo circumcision at the legislated age of eight clays (21:4) was born to a father who had himself been circumcised. W h i l e the foregoing may strike some as facetious and perhaps n o t in the best of taste, the literary critic may not close his eyes t.0 the possibility of a bit of ribaldry in an otherwise essentially somber text. But the point I am driving at is that one of the background facts of this literary composition is that the author knew t h a t circumcision was not an exclusively Israelite rite, and that although it was practiced by non-Israelite descendants (at least by this author's construction) of A b r a h a m such as Ishmaelite and Keturah-ite steppe-dwellers, and by the Isaac-descended Edomites, it was also a critical practice tor unrelated Egyptians, and for two peoples, descended—as he will tell u s — f r o m Abraham's uncircumcised nephew Lot. In any case, we have come as far as we can in contrasting t h e plot settings of t h e two annunciations. Let us now more closely examine this second narrative. It begins, as did the previous one, with the narrator informing us that Y H W H appeared to Abraham. But whereas in C h a p t e r 17 the form ot this Divine appearance was thereafter characterized by an indeterminate "lohim, once (verse 17) called the £ 'tö/ü?71 (who presented himself as El Shaddai), in this C h a p t e r 18 the form of that. Divine appearance is specific, Y1 IWII this time has chosen to present himself in the guise of three personages, mortals to all appearances. Yet for all this, the narrator has skillfully and unambiguously indicated lor all but t h e literalism-blinded source critic that Abraham had from the m o m e n t he espied t h e m recognized that these "three men" were stand-ins for Y H W H . This recognition is expressed in his immediate run to greet them and his prostration before them. T h e most self-depreciating of hospitable etiquettes does not call for host to so abase himself, especially beiore unexpected callers who accept such homage as their duo. blow-—are we to understand—were they garbed? Rich dress, even

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

231

p r i n c e l y h e a d d r e s s , m i g h t h a v e s t a m p e d t h e m as n o b i l i t y , b u t n o t as r e p r e s e n t a ‫׳‬ t i o n s of D i v i n i t y . T h i s is i n d i c a t e d by t h e s u d d e n n e s s of t h e a p p a r i t i o n . T h e y d o n o t a p p e a r a t a d i s t a n c e , e v e n as hazy figures g r o w i n g larger a n d m o r e clear in o u t l i n e as t h e y e m e r g e f r o m t h e s h i m m e r i n g h e a t w a v e s . O n e m o m e n t t h e r e is n o t h i n g u n f a m i l i a r i n A b r a h a m s vista; t h e n e x t m o m e n t t h e y arc " l o o m i n g o v e r h i m , " figuratively

s p e a k i n g of c o u r s e , f o r t h e y a r e y e t at a d i s t a n c e , a n d it is t h e i r n u m b

n o u s dignity, n o t t h e i r p h y s i c a l size, t h a t m a k e s t h e m e x t r a o r d i n a r y . A n o t h e r c l u e to A b r a h a m s r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e n a t u r e of h i s visitors is t h e n a r r a t o r s r e p e t i t i o n of a d e t a i l . Verse 1 starts in n o r m a l w a w - c o n v e r s i v e n a r r a t i v e style w i t h t h e f a c t of Y H W H ' s s e l f - r e v e l a t i o n , a n d t h i s n o t i c e is i m m e d i a t e l y e x p l i c a t e d in t h e p a r a tactic clause, in t h a t s a m e n a r r a t i v e style, of w h a t m e t A b r a h a m s eyes w h e n

he

l o o k e d up. I n b e t w e e n t h e s e t w o clauses is t h e h y p o t a c t i c p a r e n t h e t i c c l a u s e — s u b j e c t f o l l o w e d by p a r t i c i p i a l v e r b — t e l l i n g us t h a t A b r a h a m a t t h e t i m e was s i t t i n g at t h i s t e n t o p e n i n g . N o w i n verse 2 t h e n a r r a t o r tells us t h a t it was f r o m t h e t e n t ' s o p e n i n g t h a t A b r a h a m r a n t o g r e e t t h e m . W h e n c e else I T h e p o i n t , of c o u r s e , is t h a t n o r m a l e t i q u e t t e would h a v e b e e n satisfied by A b r a h a m ' s rising, p e r h a p s , a n d w a i l i n g f o r t h e m at t h e e n t r a n c e t o his t e n t . M y e x p l i c a t i o n (in m y t r a n s l a t i o n ) ol s i n g u l a r a n d plural p r o n o u n s in A b r a h a m s address t o h i s v i s i t o r ( s ) is n e c e s s a r y lor t h e reader t o a p p r e c i a t e t h a t A b r a h a m recognizes all t h r e e t o be n u m i n a in Y H W H ' s service, e v e n w h i l e h e addresses t h e l e a d e r of t h e t h r e e as my Lord. My c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of t h i s w o r d , for H e b r e w 'adönäy, is t o i n d i c a t e t h a t A b r a h a m k n e w t h e n a t u r e of t h e P e r s o n a h e was a d d r e s s i n g . T h e M a s o r e t i c t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n , as I p o i n t e d o u t in c h a p t e r 1, s u p p l i e s t h e r e g u l a r H e b r e w c o n s o n a n t s for t h e c o m m o n n o u n " m y lords" (pi. of m a j e s t y ) , b u t in p r o v i d i n g t h e p o i n t e d v o c a l i z a t i o n for t h e t e r m , w h i c h t h e i r t r a d i t i o n d i c t a t e s as s u b s t i t u t e for t h e i n e f f a b l e T e t r a g r a m m a t o n , t h e y l e n g t h e n t h e final patah of adönay

t o qämes {,adönäy);

t h i s t o i n d i c a t e to t h e r e a d e r

t h a t s p e a k e r a n d a d d r e s s e e are c o g n i z a n t t h a t t h i s " m y L o r d s h i p " h a s Y H W H as referent. T h e c o n t e n t of A b r a h a m ' s address t o h i s visitors is also p r e g n a n t w i t h m e a n i n g s , w h i c h s e e m t o h a v e e l u d e d so a s t u t e a t r a n s l a t o r a n d c o m m e n t a t o r as Speiser. First, t h e f o r m u l a t i o n f o r please, "if I h a v e f o u n d f a v o r i n y o u r eyes." S p e i s e r d e p a r t s f r o m t h i s literal t r a n s l a t i o n t o r e n d e r t h e H e b r e w by "if 1 m a y b e g of you t h i s favor." W h i l e t h i s r e n d e r i n g c a n n o t b e c a l l e d w r o n g , it d o e s in its use of t h e p r e s e n t t e n s e c o n c e a l a n o t h e r c l u e as t o A b r a h a m ' s r e c o g n i t i o n of his visitor's d i v i n i t y ; t h e p a s t t e n s e in t h e l i t e r a l e x p r e s s i o n is yet a n o t h e r i n d i c a t i o n t h a t A b r a h a m k n o w s t h i s d e i t y / D e i t y as ( t h e ) o n e / O n e w i t h w h o m h e h a s h a d e x p e r i e n c e o n p r e v i o u s o c c a sions. T h e n , also, t h e r e q u e s t t h a t d i v i n i t y tarry a w h i l e . A b r a h a m s

knowledge

t h a t n o t e v e n e x t r a o r d i n a r y m o r t a l s c o u l d h a v e slipped by t h e m a n y h a n d s guarding his flocks o n a n o f t - c o n t e s t e d r a n g e a n d p e n e t r a t e d w i t h o u t w a r n i n g t o h i s h e a d q u a r t e r s s h o u l d a l e r t us t o t h e possibility of a r e s p o n s e t o d i v i n e a p p e a r a n c e alt o g e t h e r d i f f e r e n t f r o m A b r a h a m ' s . But A b r a h a m ' s w o r d s s h o w t h a t he. h a s n o t for a m o m e n t e n t e r t a i n e d a f e a r t h a t ( J o d c o u l d b e o t h e r than, f r i e n d l y t o h i m . O u r t r a n s l a t i o n of 'al ken '1hartem is closer to t h e I l e b r e w t h a n any of t h e r e n d e r i n g s w e h a v e c o m e across, a n d f u r t h e r , c a t c h e s t h e spirit of A b r a h a m s r e s p o n s e : "1 k n o w von :!re I n e n o l v to m e , y o u r c o m i n g by is an e x p r e s s i o n of lhal iriendline‫»־־‬, s h o w m e e v e n g r e a t e r h o n o r a n d f r i e n d s h i p by l e t t i n g m e play t h e bosv''

232

STORIES - - " Τ Η Ε Ρ RIΜ Ε VA Ι. Η IS TO RY"

T h e r e is surely a p l a y f u l o r e v e n h u m o r o u s w h i m s y in t h e n o t i o n of a m o r t a l s p l a y i n g h o s t t o H i m w h o s e guests all c r e a t u r e s are. A n d p e r h a p s t h a t n o t e of w h i m s y is s t r u c k in t h e a c c e p t a n c e of t h e i n v i t a t i o n , n o t by t h e o n e a d d r e s s e d , b u t by t h e e n t i r e c o m p a n y . T h e p i v o t a l c l u e to t h e w h i m s y lies, h o w e v e r — a n d o n e c a n o n l y m a r v e l t h a t it h a s for so l o n g b e e n o v e r l o o k e d — i n A b r a h a m s specification

t o S a r a h of t h e b r e a d s h e is t o p r e p a r e . T h e sea m e a s u r e s e e m s t o h a v e

e q u a l e d a b o u t e l e v e n of o u r dry q u a r t s . T h r e e of t h e s e m e a s u r e s t h e n — s o m e sixtyfive p o u n d s of flour, w h e n m i x e d w i t h w a t e r a n d b a k e d , w o u l d h a v e y i e l d e d d o u b l e o r t r i p l e t h a t w e i g h t in b r e a d — t o t e e d t h r e e m e n : A n d w h e r e a s i n a n o t h e r r e v e l a t i o n (Judges 13) a n a n g e l w h e n o f f e r e d f o o d p o i n t e d l y d o e s n o t eat, h e r e t h e m e n — s o o n t o b e c a l l e d a n g e l s (n7a!a/
in his heart, so h e r e in 18:12 S a r a h , s t a n d i n g a t

t e n t - e n t r a n c e b e h i n d t h e n u m e n smiled and thought within herself. T h e s m i l e in e a c h c a s e is a wry smile, t o be sure; a s k e p t i c a l smile, e x p r e s s i n g disbelief i n a p r o m i s e t h e m o r t a l so d e s p e r a t e l y w o u l d w a n t t o b e l i e v e , a n d t h e n e g a t i v e f o r c e of " j e e r " o r e v e n " s c o f f is p e r h a p s t o o s t r o n g t o c o n v e y t h e s k e p t i c i s m of a s m i l e o n t h e p a r t of o n e r e c e i v i n g tidings l o o g o o d t o be true. T h e r e is also a parallel in t h e s e n s i t i v i t y expressed in t h e skeptical t h o u g h t oi b o t h A b r a h a m arid S a r a h . A b r a h a m in 17:17 iirst r e a c t e d t o t h e u n l i k e l i h o o d ot ;‫ן‬ n i n e t y - i u n e - y e a r - o l d m a n b e i n g c a p a b . e ni firing, a n d t h e n went o n ( w i t h a n imρ lie it and were that difficulty

overcome)

w i t h t h e u n l i k e l i h o o d of an eighi ν -nine-

year-old w o m a n b e c o m i n g p r e g n a n t . S a r a h , too, begins w i t h h e r o w n i n a d e q u a c y ,

E V E N T S IN THE LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

233

a n d o n l y t h e n t h i n k s of h e r h u s b a n d ' s . B u t in b e t w e e n t h e t w o t h o u g h t s t h e n a r r a ‫״‬ t o r h a s r e c o u r s e t o t h e p e r f e c t t e n s e , w h i c h , s e e m i n g l y u n t r a n s l a t a b l e as a past t e n s e in t h e c o n t e x t , is regularly i g n o r e d by t r a n s l a t o r s , w h o b l i t h e l y t r e a t it as if it w e r e a s i m p l e f u t u r e t e n s e . H e r t h o u g h t is, essentially, I am dried up , , . land •were that not impediment

enough J my husband

is old. B u t t h e f o r m u l a t i o n ot t h i s i n t e r n a l

dialogue, starting with a prepositional phrase and c o n t i n u i n g w i t h a perfect tense — e x p r e s s i v e of c o m p l e t e d a c t i o n i n a f u t u r e time 3 0 —‫״‬is a m a s t e r f u l t o u c h by t h e n a r r a t o r . A l i t e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n is, " A f t e r m y b e i n g w o r n o u t s h a l l I h a v e h a d plea-‫׳‬ sure, a n d m y h u s b a n d old?" It is a m a s t e r f u l a n d d e l i c a t e t o u c h , for it p o i n t s t o a n a c t t h a t m u s t t a k e p l a c e p r e l i m i n a r y t o t h e f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e p r o p h e c y . W h y deli‫״‬ c a t e : S u r e l y it is n o t in t h e b e s t of t a s t e t o e v o k e o u r p a r e n t s i n t h e i n t i m a t e a c t t h a t led t o o u r b i r t h ; p e r h a p s e v e n less so t h e e v o c a t i o n of g r a n d p a r e n t s c o u p l i n g t o c o n c e i v e o u r p a r e n t s . A n d i n t h i s case! O u r g r e a t - g r e a t - g r a n d p a r e n t s d o i n g so at so a d v a n c e d a n age! B u t o u r s t o r y t e l l e r is n o p r u d e , a n d his smile is a k i n d l y o n e , tinged w i t h ancestral pride: T h e y were old, G r a n d p a A b r a h a m a n d

Grandma

S a r a h , b u t (by P r o v i d e n t i a l g r a c e ) t h e r e was still s o m e j u i c e i n t h e old folks w h e n P a p a Isaac w a s c o n c e i v e d , and— d o u b t l e s s — n o l i t t l e joy at his m a k i n g . A s A b r a h a m a n d S a r a h are a l t e r egos in t h e m a t t e r of t h e i r s k e p t i c i s m a b o u t t h e son p r o m i s e d t h e m , t h e son w h o s e n a m e will always recall t h e i r s u p p r e s s e d m m les of d o u b t , so are t h e y e q u a l l y v u l n e r a b l e o n t h e score of t h e i r lack of f a i t h in G o d ' s p r o m i s e . A b r a h a m is c h i d e d for b e i n g remiss i n C h a p t e r 17, w h e r e G o d i n d i c a t e s t o A b r a h a m t h a t H e has u n d e r s t o o d t h e t r u e m e a n i n g of his pica for I ski m a c k In t h i s c h a p t e r S a r a h , w h o was n o t privy t o t h e first r e v e l a t i o n a n d p r o m i s e ot a sc ‫ ו‬η t o c o m e f r o m h e r o w n w o m b , a n d w h o r e a c t s t o it e v e n as did A b r a h a m b e f o r e , is t h e t a r g e t of t h e r e p r o o f . But i n t e r e s t i n g l y , t h e r e p r o o f is n o t m a d e d i r e c t l y t o her. A s 111 t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r , t h e a d d r e s s — ‫ ־‬n o t by t h e n u m e n b u t by Y H W H — i s o n l y t o A b r a h a m . A n d just as H e k n o w s w h a t is g o i n g o n i n t h e m i n d of S a r a h , of w h o s e l o c a t i o n in t h e t e n t b e h i n d h i m t h e n u m e n h a s b e e n i n f o r m e d by A b r a h a m , so does h i s r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n t o A b r a h a m p a r t a k e of p o e t i c l i c e n s e i n t h e assurapt i o n t h a t A b r a h a m t o o c o u l d k n o w w h a t was g o i n g o n i n S a r a h ' s m i n d .

How—he

asks t h e h u s b a n d w h o h a d e a r l i e r h a r b o r e d t h e s a m e r e s e r v a t i o n — h o w c a n S a r a h b e s k e p t i c a l a b o u t a p r o m i s e of Y H W H ' s ? A n d t o d o u b t s u c h a p r o m i s e s f u l f i l l m e n t o n t h e s t r e n g t h of h u m a n i n c a p a c i t y ! ( A n d l e t us n o t e t h a t t h e rabbis are e n g a g e d in a close r e a d i n g of t h e t e x t , n o t o v e r i n t e r p r e t i n g , w h e n in t h e r e f o r m u l a t i o n of S a r a h ' s t h o u g h t i n his q u e s t i o n t o A b r a h a m , H e p i c t u r e s h e r as d o u b t i n g o n l y h e r o w n c a p a c i t y t o hear, w i t h n o s u g g e s t i o n at all of h e r aged h u s b a n d s i m p o t e n c e . ) D o e s S a r a h t h i n k t h a t t h e G o d w h o o p e n s or closes all w o m b s is n o t u p t o b e s t o w ing fertility u p o n a w o m a n w h o h a s so l o n g b e e n sterile? A n d at t h a t , a w o m a n w h o will b e fertilized by a h u s b a n d w h o s e single a c t of p r o c r e a t i o n was p e r f o r m e d f o u r t e e n years earlier, a n d e v e n t h e n a t t h e a d v a n c e d age of e i g h t y - f i v e ! A n d n o w t h e n a r r a t o r s h i f t s h i s a t t e n t i o n f r o m A b r a h a m to S a r a h . A b r a h a m was g i v e n n o o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e s p o n d t o G o d s g e n t l e c h i d i n g of h i m for his dishelief. H e r e , tot!, n o r e s p o n s e f r o m A b r a h a m , b u t a r e s p o n s e f r o m S a r a h . To the. n o t e oi‫ ״‬reprool in YI I W l Ps q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g a t h o u g h t she n e v e r u t t e r e d , s h e r e s p o n d s guiltily

s p e a k i n g as m u c h lor A b r a h a m as herself-

with a denial. A denial that

is n o t a 11c, lor n e i t h e r s h e n o r A b r a h a m a c t u a l l y expressed t h e doubt in word or

234

vS TOR !HS - "Tfl Π PRIME VAT HISTORY' 1

smile, hul which is not quite true either. A n d to this denial, n o more spoken aloud t h a n her first sad doubt, it is a benign and paternal YÏIW11 w h o responds. "I did not really doubt‫ ״־‬she says, and hears His gentle reproof, ‫ ״‬N o t sei, you really did." O n this n o t e our story ends. Further c o m m e n t a r y would seem bound to be superfluous and ant !climactic. But, this being a story told in Scripture, we must as always raise t h e question: Delightful as it is, why is it told at all? W h y e n t e r t a i n ourselves at t h e expense oi our first grandparents? A n d t h e answer would h a v e tea include t h e assumption implied in t h e question: t h a t any e n t e r t a i n m e n t or sheer esthetic pleasure derived from a Scriptural story is a bonus for t h e reader, a byproduct of t h e author's art. T h e essential object of t h a t artist is (was) to convey a message. In t h e case of t h e m a n y stories of patriarchs or matriarchs w h o were un‫״‬ able to sire or to conceive, and t h e n did so at an unbelievably advanced age, we h a v e m e t a p h o r i c variations o n t h e t h e m e of t h e vagaries t h a t a t t e n d n o t just procreation, or c o n t i n u a n c e of line to guarantee ancestral afterlife, but t h e continua n c e of o n e out of m a n y lines. O n e line t h a t , seeking to vindicate its e t h n o c e n t r i c place as God's favorite, is ever taught to see itself as called to be t h e worthy vessel of God's purpose in t h e unfolding story of times and history. O n e aspect of t h e t h e m e is a n o b l e or royal couple w h o c a n n o t conceive. A n other is t h e husband's capacity to sire, but by a c o m m o n e r in his harem, n o t by his equally royal consort; and t h e n , w h e n past childbearing time, t h e q u e e n miraculously becomes a mother. A n d w h e n this p a t t e r n is repeated in several succeeding generations, one c a n only marvel at t h e providential grace that, late but surely, provided t h e long prayed-for scion of b o t h royal parents. In t h e case of our patriard i a l great-grandparents, their o w n royal status is assured by their being t h e elect of G o d , but they themselves were sojourners in a land not their own. In their survival of perils as posed by haughty kings, x e n o p h o b i c natives, or i n t e r n a t i o n a l hostilities, we would have to be blind, to miss the guardian care of God. A n d so too—-witness t h e t h r e e tales of a matriarch barely escaping the embrace of a foreign pi ) t e n t a l e — must we realize that the purity of our descent, t h e p r e v e n t i o n oi interloping alien genes, is st )mething that could n o t h a v e been but: for t h e guarantee of an everwakeful G o d . O u r own t e n d e n c y to single out t h e distinguished ancestor from whom we reckon our d e s c e n t — b e h e a Mayflower passenger or she a d a u g h t e r of t h e A m e r i can R e v o l u t i o n — w i l l show h o w literally h u m a n s c a n construe t h e whole question of descent and pedigree. If e a c h offspring of a single line produces only two (male.) children who so reproduce in turn, there will be o n e t h o u s a n d male descendants in t h e t e n t h generation, and t h e multiple of t h a t by a t h o u s a n d every ten generations thereafter; so t h a t t h e resultant n u m b e r will be a billion in t h e fortieth and a trillion in t h e fiftieth generation. (Allowing twenty years for a generation, we n e e d only t e n centuries to achieve this fiftieth generation.) Reversing t h e direction of our gaze, consider t h e fatuity of t h e passion to pass o n our genes or our fortunes to our posterity w h e n a g r e a t - g r a n d c h i l d carries ( o n average) b u t o n e - e i g h t h of our genes, and o n e t w o g e n e r a t i o n s later less t h a n 2 p e r c e n t . H o w m a n y are t h e r e w h o d e η y a η y belief in any kind 0/ immor tality wh ο will yet d e v o t e all t h e i r t i m e and energy to t h e amassing of a fame, if n o t a f o r t u n e , t h a t may n o t endure even a few decades after their d e a t h ? Is it our o w n myopia, or inconsistency, or self-

EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

235

c o n t r a d i c t i o n s , t h a t — b l i n d i n g us t o our o w n b l i n d n e s s — l e a d us t o d e n y t o t h e b i b l i c a l a u t h o r s t h e r u d i m e n t a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s or s i m p l e a r i t h m e t i c c a l c u l a t i o n s t h a t w e h a v e j u s t b e e n e n t e r t a i n i n g ? A r e v i e w of P s a l m 105 will l e a v e n o d o u b t t h a t t h e p o e t w h o i d e n t i f i e s his e t h n i c a n d n a t i o n a l a n d p e r s o n a l i d e n t i t y w i t h p a t r i a r c h s f r o m A b r a h a m t o J o s e p h , a n d s e r v a n t s of Y H W H s u c h as M o s e s

and

A a r o n , saw t h e ( h i ) s t o r y of t h e f o r e f a t h e r s t h r o u g h t h e lenses of m e t a p h o r : 4. Seek Y H W H and his resources . , . 5. Recall the wonders he has performed . . . 8. He has kept his covenant in mind enduringly, the matter he ordained for a thousand generations 9. T h e one he made with Abraham, his oath to Isaac 10. Rearing it as a decree for Jacob, for Israel an enduring covenant, to wit: 11. " Ί ο you bnijEjd do ! grant Canaan land, the territorial borders of your heritage.‫״‬ 12. W h e n ihey were in number a handful, barely --and only sojourners (here, 13. They traveled from one nation to another, trom one kingdom ίο another people. 14. He permitted no ordinary man to rake advantage (if them, and kings he chastised on their account: 15. "Touch n o t mine anointed ones, to my prophets do no harm!" [YHWH redeems Israel from Hgypt, and mto the promised land] 44, He granted them the territories of nations, the store of many polities they took as theirs, 45. All to one end: T h a t they observe his decrees, that they preserve his teachings. L e t us r e t u r n n o w t o o u r t w o stories of t h e a n n u n c i a t i o n . I n b o t h of t h e m , f a i t h in t h e d e s t i n e d f u t u r e is a t t h e c o r e of t h e n a r r a t i v e a n d t h e d i a l o g u e . I n b o t h t h e a n c e s t r a l a v a t a r — i f 1 m a y b o r r o w a n a p p o s i t e m e t a p h o r — a p p e a r s less t h a n s t e a d fast i n f a i t h . I n t h e c o n t e x t of a d i v m e r e v e l a t i o n t h e p r o m i s e of a n e v e n t is g r e e t e d w i t h s k e p t i c i s m . N o t b e c a u s e it is u n w e l c o m e , b u t r a t h e r b e c a u s e it is so despera t e l y l o n g e d for. I n t h e case of C h a p t e r 17 t h e A b r a h a m w h o n o w h a s a t h i r t e e n y e a r - o l d h e i r by H a g a r , a n h e i r h e t o o k t o be t h e p r o m i s e d o n e of a n earlier r e v e l a t i o n , is p r o m p t e d by t h e p r o m i s e of a n h e i r by S a r a h t o t h i n k h o w t e n u o u s is a n y o n e ' s h o l d o n life, a n d t o e n t r e a t for t h e w e l f a r e of I s h m a e l . A m e r e f o u r t e e n years b e f o r e , w h e n A b r a h a m was eighty-five years old ( 1 6 : 1 6 ) , t e n years a f t e r h i s d e p a r t u r e f o r C a n a a n ( 1 2 : 4 ) , n e i t h e r S a r a h n o r h e t h o u g h t it u n l i k e l y t h a t h e s h o u l d sire a c h i l d by a y o u n g w o m a n . A n d n o w m C h a p t e r 18 it is S a r a h , w h o cites n o t her menopause alone but A b r a h a m ' s presumed impotence. T h a t Y H W H ' s reproof of S a r a h — as also t h e i m p l i e d reproof‫ ״‬of A b r a h a m in C h a p t e r

17-—was not

in

a n g e r s h o u l d b e clear f r o m t h e w h i m s i c a l t o n e of t h e story, f r o m t h e f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e p r o m i s e , a n d f r o m a n a d d i t i o n a l item in t h e n a r r a t i v e s e q u e n c e . B e t w e e n t h e p r o m i s e a n d t h e n o t i c e of t h e p r o m i s e s f u l f i l l m e n t in S a r a h ' s c o n c e p t i o n in 2 1:2, w e h a v e t w o stories i n t e r v e n i n g . In o n e we l e a r n h o w fares t h e line of n e p h e w Lot, h o w h e c a m e t o b e t h e f a t h e r of n a t i o n s , t w o ol t h e m t h r o u g h t h e less t h a n licit coh a b i t a t i o n w i t h his o w n d a u g h t e r s . In t h e o t h e r we h a v e t h e 8 9 - y e a r - o l d S a r a h , so r e s t o r e d in y o u t h f u l b e a u t y (or h a d s h e n e v e r s h o w n h e r age t o b e g i n w i t h ? ) t h a t G o d H i m s e l f m u s t k e e p h e r i n v i o l a t e , i n t e r v e n e t o t h r e a t e n t h e life of a k i n g a n d his r e a l m , t o k e e p t h a t k i n g f r o m s u c c u m b i n g t o t h e r a v i s h i n g s e d u c t i v e n e s s of t h i s ageless m a t r i a r c h .

2,36

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

G i v e n , t h e n , t h e genius of S c r i p t u r e s a u t h o r s for m e t a p h o r , m e t a p h o r s s t r u n g t o g e t h e r like gems o n single or parallel strands, t h e p o e t i c a l design r e m a i n i n g cons is t e n t for t h e c o m p l e m e n t a r i n e s s a n d h a r m o n i o u s n e s s of t h e various kerygmas, we h a v e again in b o t h t h e s e stories a t e a c h i n g o n t h e n a t u r e of f a i t h , of f a i t h in a G o d w h o s e b e n e f i c e n c e is w i t n e s s e d in a t h o u s a n d m a n i f e s t a t i o n s , a n d w h i c h is o f t e n shaky in p r o p o r t i o n to t h e s t r e n g t h of our desire t o b e l i e v e . T h e message of t h e s e stories is t h a t in r e l a t i o n t o G o d , A b r a h a m a n d S a r a h , old as they were a n d wise as t h e y m a y h a v e b e e n , were c h i l d r e n . A s we are, all of us, n o m a t t e r w h a t d e p t h of m a t u r i t y w e a t t a i n , in t h e m a t t e r of f a i t h . G o d , h o w e v e r , is p a t i e n t a n d gracious.

ANNUNCIATION'S

AFTERMATH

If w e r e e x a m i n e t h e n a r r a t i v e s in c h a p t e r s 17 a n d 18, f o c u s i n g o n t h e annunciator y e l e m e n t s i n e a c h , a n d specifically in t e r m s of t h e n a r r o w e r a n n o u n c e m e n t ot t h e f u t u r e b i r t h of a son by S a r a h t o A b r a h a m , we c a n n o t b u t be struck by t h e little space t h a t is actually a c c o r d e d t o t h a t a n n o u n c e m e n t . In b o t h narratives, m u c h m o r e a t t e n t i o n is paid to t h e r e a c t i o n of t h e h u m a n p r o t a g o n i s t s t o t h a t announce‫׳‬m e n t and t o t h e d i v i n e response to that r e a c t i o n ; in b o t h cases, t h e response is e h titer c o m p l a i s a n t or consolatory. In c h a p t e r 17, out of a total of t w e n t y - s e v e n verses, only t h r e e deal with Isaacs birth, (verses 16, 19, 2 1). T h e rest deal with t h e h'fii " c o v e n a n t " t h a t G o d is m a k i n g w i t h A b r a m a n d t h e c i r c u m c i s i o n a l sign 01 witness to t h a t c o v e n a n t . A n d a l t h o u g h t h e m a l e s c i r c u m c i s e d that day i e a t u r e l s h m a e l a n d A b r a h a m , it is " w i t h [the yet u n b o r n ] Isaac |as over against l s h m a e l | that I will fulfill my c o v e n a n t " says t h e D e i t y in verses 2 0 - 2 1 , I T us t h e c o n t e x t c o m p e l s t h e r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t t h e focus of this a n n o u n c e m e n t is o n Sarah's son's p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n of t h e c o v e n a n t - p e o p l e - t o - b e , a n d not: o n t h e p e r s o n a of t h a t s o n Isaac. Similarly in t h e

fifteen-verse

n a r r a t i o n of t h a t s a m e a n n u n c i a t i o n in C h a p t e r

18. H e r e o n l y half of a single verse deals w i t h t h e a n n o u n c e m e n t . T h e rest ot t h e n a r r a t i v e deals w i t h t h e t a b l e a u of t h e Deity's r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s for t h e a n n u n c i a t i o n (in s t r i k i n g parallelism t o t h e o p e n i n g t a b l e a u in C h a p t e r u ; ) , t h e response of S a r a h to t h e a n n o u n c e m e n t , a n d Y H W H ' s r e a c t i o n t o t h a t response. Y H W H ' s rea c t i o n — s o u n d i n g in A b r a h a m ' s m i n d or, possibly, s p o k e n by o n e ot t h e v i s i t o r s — is t h e last w o r d of t h e episode, for t h e n e x t verse begins w i t h t h e visitors' departure. T h e c o n t e x t t h e n , in t e r m s of Isaac, w h o will f a t h e r t h e c o v e n a n t - l i n e , is t h e l i n e of U n c l e Lot, w h o s e seed will c o n s t i t u t e t h e e a s t e r n n e i g h b o r s ot

the

c o v e n a n t - p e o p l e . A n d t h e c o v e n a n t i t s e l f — w h i c h is n o t m e n t i o n e d h e r e explicitly, e i t h e r in s u b s t a n c e or ritual t o k e n — w h a t of it? It is t h e r e implicitly in t h e verse t h a t e x p l a i n s t h e w h o l e p o i n t of t h a t c o v e n a n t , verse 19. T h i s verse defines t h e c h o i c e of A b r a h a m a n d his line t h r o u g h Isaac in t e r m s of t h e i r divinely dest i n e d role t o embody, e n a c t , a n d c h a m p i o n t h e cause of t h a t justice, t h e outrage of w h i c h is symbolized in S o d o m and G o m o r r a h , t h e cities--in w i n c h Lot had t a k e n up residence (

n o t e , b o t h of t h e m !

-

0:29‫)ז‬.

Let us t h e n p r o c e e d to t h a t dialogue t h a t is t h e bridge b e t w e e n a n n u n c i a t i o n a n d d o o m , b e t w e e n h o p e lor t h e future and t h e depravity ot t h e past, b e t w e e n haac'•‫ ·י‬line f!s i h e c o v e n a n t - p e o p l e and t h e n o n - c o v e n a n t • · p e o p l e w h o , lor all that

EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

237

t h e y d o not s h a r e dial‫ ־‬line's m o r a l dignity, h a v e s u r v i v e d , a n d w h o will c o n t i n u e t o s u r v i v e as t h e t u t o r i a l c h a r g e s of t h e seed, in w h o m t h e y t o o will find h I ess ing.

Y H W H A N D A Β R Α ί 1A M IN A DIALOGUE ON (H)D'S J U S T I C E (16) The personages picked up in!111 there |to an elevation whence] they looked down o n Sodom s expanse1 — Abraham going with them to see them off, (17) Y H W H , now, had thought, "Gan i keep hidden from Abraham what it is Ï am about to do? (18) in view of Abraham's sure destiny to become a great and populous nation in whom all earths nations are to achieve blessing: (19) in that I have singled him out for one purpose, to charge his children and his line in succession with the keeping of YHWH's way, the practice of justice — to the end that Y H W H may bring about for Abraham the promise he bespoke for him!" (20) Y H W H s thought was: the outcries against Sodom and G (‫ י‬m or rah are so many, the offenses charged to them so grave, ( 2 1 ) 1 must go down to conclude, to consider whether or not they have so ruthlessly behaved as is the shriek ot protest which has come to my attention. 3 1 (22) From there [the place oi overlook] the personages [two of them] turned to make their way down to S o d o m - - A b r a h a m remaining behind in YHWH's presence, (23) Abraham came forward; he said, "Will you really sweep away the innocent along with the guilty.7 (24) Suppose that there are fifty within the city who are inno‫״‬ cent, will you make a clean sweep rather than forbear in regard to the entire place for the sake of the innocent fifty wit‫ ־‬h m it; (25) Perish forbid that you do such a thing; putting the innocent to death along with the guilty, so that the innocent and the guilty fare alike. Perish forbid it to you! Shall the governor of all earth not exercise judgment?" (26) Y H W H replied, "if in Sodom, J find within the city fifty innocent, ί shall for•‫׳‬ bear in regard lo all that place on their account ." (27) Abraham spoke up, "ho, 1 have already presumed to address my Lord, ] who am but dust and ashes-• - - ( 2 8 ) Suppose that the ht f y innocent arc short by five, will y o u — o n aeeount of this five---destroy the entire eity ?" H e replied, "I will not destroy ii if 1 find there forty-five." (29) O n c e again he addressed him, "Suppose there are only forty?" He replied, "I will do nothing, on account oi the forty." (30) He said, "Let my bord not be vexed if I persist: W h a t if there are thirty there?" H e replied, "I will do nothing if 1 find thirty there " (31) H e said, "I have presumed to venture with my Lord [this far]—suppose there are twenty there ?" "I shall not act on account of the twenty" he said. (32) T h e n h e said, "Let it not vex my Lord that I speak this one time more: W h a t if there be only ten there ?" H e replied, "I will not destroy, for the sake of the ten." (33) Y H W H , bringing his audience with A b r a h a m to a close, departed; and A b r a ‫׳‬ ham went back, to his place, (Get tes is 1 8 : 1 6 - 3 3 ) A m o n g t h e m a n y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ot t h i s s e c o n d e p i s o d e in C h a p t e r 18 1 will c i t e t w o as c o n t r a s t s t o m y o w n r e a d i n g ot it. A n d , as I h a v e r e p e a t e d l y stressed, c o m -

2,36

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL H I S T O R Y "

per ing i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of a n artistic p r o d u c t n e e d n o t b e c o n t r a d i c t o r y or m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e . T h e d i f f e r e n c e s o f t e n i n h e r e n o t i n w h e t h e r c e r t a i n messages are at all p r e s e n t in t h e a r t w o r k b e f o r e us, but in. w h a t is t h e c e n t r a l message, t h e k e r y g m a t h a t h e s at its core. T h u s , S h e l d o n Blank implies a n e l o q u e n t case for t h i s d i a l o g u e a> a d a r i n g c h a m p i o n i n g of justice by a m o r t a l , in d e f i a n c e of a d e i t y w h o is n o t , or possibly m a y n o t be, g u i d e d by t h e strict c a n o n s ot justice; in s h o r t , a parallel t o P r o m e t h c u s ' s d e h a n c e of Z e u s d 2 S p e i s e r i n h i s c o m m e n t a r y sees t h e issue n o t so m u c h as b e t w e e n j u s t i c e a n d i n j u s t i c e , b u t as b e t w e e n j u s t i c e a n d grace:

u

The pa-

t n arc h . . . in his r e s o l u t e a n d i n s i s t e n t a p p e a l o n b e h a l f oi S o d o m , seeks to est ahlish tor t h e m e r i t o r i o u s i n d i v i d u a l t h e p r i v i l e g e of s a v i n g a n o t h e r w i s e w o r t h l e s s c o m m u n i t y . " ( A p p a r e n t l y t h e " m e r i t o r i o u s i n d i v i d u a l " in t h i s case w o u l d be L o t , not A b r a h a m himself.) T h e n citing t h e "correlation b e t w e e n merit and

fate‫״‬

t r e a t e d in M e s o p o t a m i a ! ! l i t e r a t u r e a n d in t h e B o o k of Job, S p e i s e r goes o n to d e ‫׳‬ clare t h a t UJ s o w n a n s w e r is a n e m p h a t i c a f f i r m a t i o n of t h e s a v i n g g r a c e of t h e just. A n d e v e n t h o u g h t h e d e s e r v i n g m i n o r i t y p r o v e s t o b e i n t h i s i n s t a n c e t o o small t o affect t h e f a t e of t h e s i n f u l m a j o r i t y , t h e i n n o c e n t — h e r e L o t a n d his d a u g h t e r s — are u l t i m a t e l y spared." 3 3 A c r u c i a l f a c t o r in d e t e r m i n i n g t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e n a r r a t i v e t h e m e in t h i s story (as i n so m a n y o t h e r s w e h a v e s t u d i e d ) is t h e t e m p o r a l logic of t h e n a r r a t i v e a n d t h e d e p l o y m e n t of t h e H e b r e w t e n s e s in p a r a t a c t i c a n d / o r h y p o t a c t i c s e q u e n c e . O u r t r a n s l a t i o n d i v i d e s t h e n a r r a t i v e i n t o t w o episodes, e a c h f o l l o w e d by a n o m t n a l s e n t e n c e in p a r e n t h e t i c a n d p a r a l l e l h y p o t a x i s . T h u s in t h e first e p i s o d e w e h a v e t h e t h r e e visitors p r o c e e d i n g f r o m A b r a h a m s t e n t i n g - g r o u n d t o a spot w h e n c e t h e y c a n look d o w n o n t h e p l a i n of S o d o m . Abra‫׳־‬ h a m s a c c o m p a n y i n g t h e m is e x p r e s s e d i n t h e h y p o t a c t i c p a r e n t h e s i s , as is also t h e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r Y H W H ' s p e r m i t t i n g A b r a h a m t o c o m e a l o n g : his i n t e n t i o n t o disclose t o A b r a h a m w h a t "i a m a b o u t t o d o " T h i s last p r o j e c t is t h e n e x p l i c a t e d in ( p a r a t a c t i c ) f o r m u l a t i o n in verses 20

2 1: that is, n o t a j u d g m e n t a l r e a d y arrived

at, hut‫ ־‬a d e c i s i o n t o "go d o w n " to i n v e s t i g a t e in o r d e r t o a r r i v e at a j u d g m e n t . In t h e s e c o n d e p i s o d e , t w o ot t h e visitors t u r n t o m a k e t h e i r w i n d i n g way d o w n t h e slope, this in p a r a t a c t i c f o r m u l a t i o n , w h i l e t h e f o l l o w i n g n o t i c e in h y p o t a c t i c f o r m u l a t i o n h a s t h e t h i r d visitor, Y H W I I

H i m s e l f , s t a n d i n g at cl il L e d g e

with

A b r a h a m . A n d A b r a h a m it is w h o i n i t i a t e s t h e d i s c u s s i o n , t h u s i n d i c a t i n g that t h e c o n t e n t of verses 1 9 - 2 0 h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n m a d e k n o w n t o A b r a h a m . T h e d i a l o g u e itself, in w h i c h t h e m o r t a l d o e s s e e m t o c h a l l e n g e t h e Oivinity, would indeed be in place in a p a g a n a m b i e n c e whose theology does not identify d e i t y a n d j u s t i c e . B u t is it in p l a c e in t h e S c r i p t u r a l t h e o l o g y t h a t

mdissoluhly

u n i t e s just ice ( o r e v e n g r a c e ) w i t h p o w e r as a t t r i b u t e s of God. 7 T h i s q u e s t i o n p o i n t s to a f e a t u r e of t h e d i a l o g u e t h a t is s h a r e d by t h e p r e c e d i n g n a r r a t i v e , n a m e l y its p l a y f u l n e s s . A t first r e a d i n g , if t h e p l a y f u l n e s s is n o t d i s c e r n e d , it d o e s s e e m as t h o u g h t h e q u e s t i o n a t issue is w h e t h e r j u s t i c e is b e t t e r s e r v e d hy t h e sparing ot a h o s t of c r i m i n a l s i n o r d e r t h a t a f e w i n n o c e n t s n o t b e p u n i s h e d , or c o n t r a r i w i s e , t o o v e r l o o k t h e u n m e r i t e d p u n i s h m e n t of a f e w i n n o c e n t s w h o are e i t h e r b l i n d t o t h e c o m p a n y t h e y are k e e p i n g or so c o n f i d e n t in t h e i r r i g h t e o u s n e s s t h a t t h e v c a n feel s e c u r e in t h e i r h e a l t h , d e s p i t e t h e i r r e s i d e n c e in a barrel of r o t t e n apples. But t h e play o n t h e n u m b e r s of t h e h y p o t h c t i c a l l y r i g h t e o u s i n h a b i t a n t s of S o d o m is just

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

239

t h a t . T h e n u m b e r is steadily r e d u c e d f r o m fifty t o t e n , a n d t e n serves us a m e t a p h o r for t h r e e , t w o , or o n e . bor in a n y e v e n t , it t u r n s out t h a t o n l y Lot is truly r i g h t e o u s , a n d that‫ ״‬by v i r t u e of h i s m e r i t e v e n his S o d o m i t e s o n s - i n - l a w w o u l d h a v e b e e n de‫־׳‬ l i v e r e d w i t h h i m h a d t h e y b e e n c o n s c i o u s e n o u g h of t h e i r f e l l o w - c i t i z e n s ' c r i m e s t o t a k e L o t seriously. A b r a h a m b e g i n s w i t h t h e possibility of fifty i n n o c e n t s i n a c i t y of p e r h a p s a h u n d r e d t i m e s t h a t n u m b e r . G o d ' s a n s w e r is s t r a i g h t f a c e d ( n o d i s r e s p e c t i n t e n d e d ) : h e will f o r b e a r f o r t h e sake of fifty· D o e s G o d s r e p e t i t i o n of t h i s n u m b e r m e a n t h a t h e w o u l d desist o n l y for a m i n i m u m of fifty? A b r a h a m h a s h i s o p e n i n g . W h a t if t h e r e are o n l y forty-five? But h e d o e s n o t ask w h e t h e r G o d will s p a r e S o d o m f o r t h e sake of forty-five: h e asks w h e t h e r G o d will destroy for t h e paltry five n o n - e x i s t e n t i n n o c e n t s . G o d a c c e p t s A b r a h a m ' s a r g u m e n t as t o w h a t w o u l d b e p r o p e r j u d g m e n t . H e d o e s n o t , h o w e v e r , let A b r a h a m s sly d e b a t i n g t a c t i c pass u n r e m a r k e d . H e will s p a r e f o r t h e s a k e of f o r t y - f i v e i n n o c e n t s . E v e n t u a l l y , A b r a h a m d i s p e n s e s w i t h tricks a n d , h a v i n g a p p a r e n t l y w o n h i s p o i n t , r e t u r n s h o m e . B u t o n l y a f t e r t w o of t h e p e r s o n a g e s r e p r e s e n t i n g Y H W H h a v e t u r n e d t o t a k e t h e trail t h a t w i n d s d o w n to Sodom, a n d the third personage—seemingly Y H W H in p e r s o n — h a s ended t h e a u d i e n c e a n d similarly d e p a r t e d . W h a t h a s e s c a p e d n o t i c e is t h a t t h e d e p a r t u r e of t h e t w o " m e n , " l e a v i n g t h e t h i r d w i t h A b r a h a m ( i n verse 2 2 ) , a n d t h e d e p a r t u r e of t h e t h i r d in v e r s e 33, are t h e b i a c k e t s for t h e r e v e l a t o r y d i a l o g u e h e r e a n d o n l y h e r e . O t h e r a c c o u n t s of r e v e l a t i o n m a y signal t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e a u d i e n c e or its e n d , b u t n o t b o t h . T h u s for e x a m p l e , t h e d e p a r t u r e of t h e n u m e n h e a v e n w a r d i n 17:22, b u t n o t h i s arrivai at t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e c h a p t e r . W h y is t h i s a c c o u n t u n i q u e i n t h i s respect? T h e c l u e lies in verse 22, w h e r e t w o of Y H W I I s a g e n t s d e p a r t w h i l e t h e t h i r d figure, r e p r e s e n t i n g Y H W H h i m s e l f , r e m a i n s b e h i n d w i t h A b r a h a m .

Abraham,

t h e n , d o e s n o t r e m a i n b e h i n d , for h e is g o i n g n o w h e r e . Yet t h e t e x t reads, " A b r a h a m remaining s t a n d i n g betöre Y H W H " R a b b i n i c tradition, however, records that t h i s w o r d i n g is o n e of t h e rL](.{1më söfermi

"scribal e m e n d a t i o n s , 1 ' a s u b s t i t u t i o n lor

t h e original " w h i l e Y H W I 1 r e m a i n e d s t a n d i n g bei ore A b r a h a m . " ( C f .

Midrash

R a b b a ) I n a s m u c h as it is t h e a r r a i g n e d or h i s a t t o r n e y w h o s t a n d s b e f o r e t h e j u d g e , n o t v i c e versa, t h e reversal ot p o s i t i o n s was s u b s t i t u t e d o u t of respect t o Deity. A n d w e m u s t b e g r a t e f u l t o t h e t r a n s m i t t e r s of t h e t e x t that: t h e i r r e v e r e n c e f o r its sanetity is s u c h t h a t t h e y r e c o r d t h e o c c a s i o n s w h e n t h e y h a v e f e l t i m p e l l e d t o t a m p e r w i t h it. For it is t h i s o r i g i n a l a n d b o l d a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m , w h i c h reverses t h e dign i t i e s of m o r t a l a n d d i v i n e , w h i c h m i l i t a t e s a g a i n s t a P r o m e t h e a n p u r p o r t as t h e dialogue's c e n t r a l k e r y g m a . Verses 17 — 19, p e r h a p s as e l o q u e n t a p a r e n t h e s i s as exists i n S c r i p t u r e , r e v e a l t h a t t h e e n t i r e d i a l o g u e t o o k p l a c e o n l y at G o d s i n v i t a t i o n . A n d t h a t i n v i t a t i o n calls for A b r a h a m , as f a t h e r of t h e j u s t i c e - d e d i c a t e d s e e d - t o b e , Israel, t o a c t t h e r o l e of p a r a c l e t e , h u m a n i t y ' s s u p p o r t e r , a d v o c a t e , a n d i n t e r cessor. T h e e n t i r e d i a l o g u e is t h u s a d i d a c t i c d e v i c e . Y H W H h a d n o t y e t p a s s e d s e n t e n c e . T h e r e is n o e f f r o n t e r y in A b r a h a m s s e e m i n g c h a l l e n g e , " W i l l t h e M a g i s t r a t e of all t h e w o r l d n o t e x e r c i s e j u d g m e n t ? " It is n o t c h a l l e n g e a t all, b u t a r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n , t h e s t r o n g e s t way t o m a k e a s t a t e m e n t , a s t a t e m e n t b o r n e o u t by t h e o u t c o m e t h a t everv single i n n o c e n t is g i v e n a c h a n c e t o e s c a p e t h e d o o m e d city. U n l i k e t h e d i v i n e m a g i s t r a r e s of p a g a n i s m , t h e c a p r i c i o u s gods w h o arc s e n -

2,36

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL

HISTORY"

t e n c e d by G o d i n P s a l m 82, t h e G o d of S c r i p t u r e c a n n o t e v e r h e a n y t h i n g b u t just. 3 * O u r story is d i d a c t i c , b u t n o t (like o u r c o m m e n t a r y , p e r h a p s ) p e d a n t i c . A n d t h i s is disclosed i n t h e s t o r y t e l l e r s b o l d imagery, a n i m a g e r y in k e e p i n g w i t h t h e rahb i n i c i n d u l g e n c e of chutzpah

"effrontery," e v e n t o w a r d H e a v e n , in t h e i n t e r e s t of

j u s t i c e . T h e imagery, of c o u r s e , is i n t h e p i c t u r e of Y H W H " s t a t i o n i n g H i m s e l f bef o r e A b r a h a m , " p u t t i n g h i m s e l f i n t h e clock, so to speak, so t h a t h i s a t t r i b u t e of justice m a y stand e x a m i n a t i o n . T h e stage is c l e a r e d . T h e c u r t a i n d r o p s . T h e n e x t act will t a k e p l a c e in S o d o m . A n d d e s p i t e t h e a w f u l n e s s of e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n s to b e w i p e d our, t h e d r a m a t h e r e is n o t tragedy, lor t h e i n n o c e n t will b e e x t r a c t e d , t h e guilty p u n i s h e d . A n d a s e n s i t i v e r e a d i n g of C h a p t e r κ ; will find t h e c o m i c n o t e s t r u c k m o r e t h a n o n c e . But o u r disetission ol C h a p t e r 18 is n o t c o m p l e t e . T h e c h a p t e r is a single n a r r a t i v e , i e a t u r i n g t h e s a m e c h a r a c t e r s ( e x c e p t for S a r a h ) in t w o episodes. H o w are t h e t w o r e l a t e d ? T h e o n e v e i n t h a t r u n s t h r o u g h b o t h e p i s o d e s is t h e p l a y f u l n e s s , t h e l i g h t t o u c h , t h e n o t e of h u m o r t h a t is e n c a p s u l a t e d in t h e n a m e of t h e son w h o is t o b e t h e p r o p a g a t o r of t h e c h o s e n seed. Ya^/uik m e a n s ‫ ״‬h e smiles, h e laughs." A n d t h e subj e c t of t h a t s e n t e n c e is G o d , T h i s is t h e G o d w h o r e v e a l s himself s i m u l t a n e o u s l y as O n e a n d t h r e e , t h r e e m e n - •never c a l l e d a n g e l s

- w h o p u t away a feast w o r t h y of

R a b e l a i s ' G a r g a n t u a or P a n t a g r u e l ; w h o splits himself i n t o t w o p a r t i e s : o n e a p a r t y of t w o h e a d i n g for S o d o m , t h e o t h e r a p a r t y of o n e r e m a i n i n g b e h i n d , t o b e e n gaged by A b r a h a m i n a d e b a t e o n j u s t i c e , a d e b a t e in w h i c h h e p e r m i t s h i m s e l f t o b e a r r a i g n e d b e f o r e t h e m o r t a l . Yes, t h i s is a G o d w h o is full of surprises. T h e first e p i s o d e e n d s o n a n o t e of m i l d reproof d i r e c t e d t o t h e f a i t h of S a r a h , w h o s e u n s e e n s m i l e (like t h a t of h e r h u s b a n d i n C h a p t e r t y ) b e s p e a k s s k e p t i c i s m t h a t Y H W H c a n r e s t o r e p o t e n c y t o a m a n n e a r i n g his h u n d r e d t h b i r t h d a y , o r f e r t i l i t y t o a w o m a n a p p r o a c h i n g h e r n i n e t i e t h . T h e H e b r e w t e r m pele\ a p p e a r i n g in t h e quest i o n of G o d ' s c a p a c i t y t o d o wonders

or miracles,

h a s t h e sense of "surprise," a n d

w h i l e it is t h e m o r t a l s w h o are m o c k e d tor t h e i r surprise, it is Y H W H w h o displays t h e h u m o r a n d is t h e a u t h o r of all t h e surprises. T h e very s i t u a t i o n or t h e d r a m a t h a t is s t r u n g o u t t h r o u g h a series of s y n o p t i c a n d r e s u m p t i v e e p i s o d e s — r e p e a t e d p r o m i s e s of blessing a n d posterity, p a r t l y b u t n e v e r q u i t e satisfactorily fulfilled for b o t h S a r a h a n d A b r a h a m — i s w h a t s h o u l d o c c a s i o n surprise in t h e a u d i e n c e . W h y t h e suspense? W h y t h e d r a g g i n g o u t of t h e process? W h y w o u l d (or s h o u l d , or d i d ) t h e A l m i g h t y Y1 IWI ί m a k e S a r a h a n d A b r a h a m wait so long, that t h e f u l f i l l m e n t w h e n it c o m e s a p p e a r s m i r a c u l o u s ? T h e answer, of course, is t h e e x t e n d e d m e t a p h o r ( e x t e n d e d also in t h e l o n g d u r a t i o n of b a r r e n n e s s for t h e m a t r i a r c h s R e h e k a h a n d R a c h e l ) ol t h e joy i n t h e a c h t e ν inn of t h e l o n g longed-for, of t h e p r o v i d e n t i a l care, w h i c h , m o v i n g so slowly, m o v e s i n e x o r a b l y n o n e t h e l e s s , a n d m o v e s in a p p a r e n t zigzags as f i r s t b o r n a f t e r f i r s t b o r n ( l s h m a e l , bsau, R e u b e n , t o n a m e but‫ ״‬a f e w ) p r o v e s n o t t o b e t h e vessel of destiny. A n d if faith in an u l t i m a t e l y b e n e v o l e n t . G o d c a n b e so sorely tried, what: c a n b e said about: t h e u l t i m a t e l y o v e r w h e l m i n g n a t u r e of t h e f a i t h t h a t o n e is i n d e e d t h e c h o s e n vessel of d e s t i n y ? U n l i k e his m o r e dogm a t i c followers, t h e r e f o r e , Y H W H m u s t e x e r c i s e f o r b e a r a n c e a n d h u m o r w h e n his c h o s e n o n e s e x p e r i e n c e lapses of f a i t h . A n d s h o c k i n g as it m a y s e e m t o t h e sen sibi Ii ties of t h e i n q u i s i t o r i a l believer, t h e u l t i m a t e sin m a y d e r i v e f r o m t h e b l a s p h c -

EVENTS IN THE

LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

241

m o u s n o t i o n t h a t w o u l d d e n y a s e n s e of h u m o r t o t h e G o d w h o c r e a t e d m a n w i t h

t h a t highly esteemed sense.

T H E STORY OF LOT Episode A : Sodom Shows Its True

Colors

(1 ) T h e two emissaries arrived at Sodom in the e v e n i n g — L o t t h e n sitting in Sodom s gateway—Lot at first sight [of them] rose to greet them. He made obeisance to them, face to the ground. (2) H e said, "I pray you, my lords, turn aside to your servant's house for lodging. Wash there the dust from your feet, and as early as you please resume your mission." They said, "Not so. Out-of-doors we'll spend the night." (3) But h e importuned t h e m so vigorously that they did turn aside and entered his home. H e prepared high tea for them, had cakes fresh-baked, and they dined. (4) Just about to retire, they, when the townsmen of the city—Sodom's townsmen—-besieged the house, minions and elders, all the citizenry of every degree. (5) Calling to Lot, they addressed him, "How now the men, those overnight guests of yours—bring them out to us that we may become intimate with them." (6) Lot went out to them in the entrance-way, having the door behind him barred shut. (7) Said he, "Niο my brothers, commit n o mischief. (8) I have at h a n d two daughters who have never had intimacy with man. Let me deliver them to you, and deal with them as you see iir. But those personages you are neu to touch. Verily, it is lor shelter they took haven under my root." (0) Some said, "Come closer—•move away!" Others said, " This lone alien came !0 sojourn and now plays the magistrate!" "Now then, well do you misehiel worse than I what‫ ־‬we had in mind] for then!" They pressed hard on this gentleman Lot. Some came close to break in the door. ( 10) The |two| dignitaries now took a hand |in the matter). They pulled Lot back inside with them

•‫־‬the door now they [red lucked.

( 1 1 ) A s f o r t h o s e [ S o d o m i t e ] w o r t h i e s a t t h e e n t r a n c e , t h e m t h e y h a d assailed sight-searing light, m i n i o n and e l d e r — t h e y were unable to obtain entry,

with

(Genesis

19:1-11 )

Episode B: Last Chance for Lot's hi-Laics (12) Now said the men to Lot, "Any kin or kith you have in this place, be they sonin-law, [grand]son or [grandjdaughter, anyone of your own in this city—get them out of this place! (13) Verily, we are about to devastate this area — s o great the charge against them in YHWH's judgment, Y H W H has dispatched us to lay it waste. (14) Lot went forth and spoke to his sons-in-law, those who had taken his daughters in wedlock. H e said, "Quick now, get out of this area. Verily, Y H W H is about to devastäte the city." But in the eyes of his sons-in-law he could 0111 ν have been joking. (Genesis 19:12-14) Episode C : The Escape from Sodom (15) N o w t h e n just as the morning-star had risen, the emissaries urged Lot on, to wit, "Quick now, take your wife and your two daughters that are here at hand, if you would not he swept away in the doom (if the city." (16) W h e n he yet dilh -dallied the men gripped him by band and his wiie by hand, as also the two- daughter.^ each by a

242 hand

STORIES — ‫ ״‬Τ Η Ε PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

•[this only] hy t h e grace of‫ ־‬Y H W H ' s pity un h i m

-they b r o u g h t h i m out and

deposited h i m outside t h e city. (17) A n d just as h e was bringing t h e m outside |it|, he said, "J‫׳‬lee o n lor your very life, cast n o glance b e h i n d you, c o m e to n o liait ·anywhere in t h e plain, to t h e hills m a k e good your flight if you would not he swept away! 1 ' (18) Said Lot to t h e m , ‫ ״‬I l e a s e , n o t so, my Lordship. ( 19) Look n o w - - y o u r servant has i n ‫׳‬ deed found favor i n your eyes, and greatly h a v e vou e x t e n d e d y< 1ur merciful dealings w i t h m e in t h e interest of p r o l o n g i n g my life. But‫ ־‬I, tor my part, just c a n n o t m a k e my escape all t h e way t o t h e hill country. Lest t h e cataclysm o v e r t a k e m e a n d I die, [I p r o p o s e ] — ( 2 0 ) Look now, t h a t t o w n y o n d e r is close e n o u g h for m e to m a k e good my flight t h e r e . A n d it is s u c h a wee place. Let me, pray, m a k e escape t h i t h e r — s u c h a wee place it is — a n d let m e survive." (2 1 ) H e said to h i m , ‫ ״‬N o w in this particular t o o I h a v e h e r e b y g r a n t e d you great face, n o t to destroy t h a t city as you h a v e proposed. (22) M a k e h a s t e n o w t o escape there, for till you reach t h a t spot I c a n u n d e r t a k e n o t h i n g . " ( T h i s n o w is why t h e city is n a m e Zoar ['Trifle"].) G e n e s i s ( 1 9 : 1 5 - 2 2 ) Episode D; The Doom of Sodom and the Fate of Lot's

Wife

(23) ( T h e sun n o w h a d fully risen over t h e horizon just as Lot r e a c h e d Zoar.) (24) ( Y H W H t h e n p r e c i p i t a t e d o n S o d o m and G o m o r r a h a rain of blazing sulfur, [a rain] f r o m h e a v e n , f r o m Y H W H himself.) (25) T h u s h e reduced t h o s e cities a n d t h a t e n ‫׳‬ tire plain, t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e p o p u l a t i o n s of t h e cities and every g r o w t h of t h e soil. (26) His wife, however, looked b a c k past h i m and b e c a m e a salt statue. ( G e n e s i s 19:23-26) Episode E: What Ahraham

Sau

(27) Early t h a t m o r n i n g A b r a h a m hied t o t h e spot where h e h a d stood in Y H W H s presence. (28) H e looked d o w n u p o n t h e vista of S o d o m and G o m o r r a h and oi all that area of t h e [!lain. A n d t h e r e before his gaze: a fog had arisen over that area like that rising iron! a furnace. (20) t h u s it was t h a i w h e n C o d laid waste t h e Caries oi t h e Plain, G o d was m i n d f u l of A b r a h a m and dispatched Lor from w i t h i n t h e area !doomed lo he| devastated w h e n he was reduciiui 1 he cities w h e r e i n Lot had taken up residence, (Genesis 1 9 : 2 7 - 2 9 ) Episode [ 1 ;‫'׳‬he Issue of Loi (30) Lot t h e n m o v e d u p l a n d f r o m Zoar and settled d o w n in t h e b i l L c o u n t r y , his two d a u g h t e r s w i t h h i m - — s o fearful h e of staying o n in Zoar. H e lived in a cave, h e and his two daughters. (31) T h e elder said to t h e younger, " O u r f a t h e r is old. A n d male t h e r e is n o n e to cover us in n a t u r e s universal way. (32) C o m e now, let 11s ply our fa‫׳׳‬ t h e r w i t h w i n e , bed w i t h h i m a n d of our f a t h e r keep posterity live." (33) S o t h e y plied t h e i r f a t h e r w i t h w i n e t h a t n i g h t . T h e elder girl m a d e hold t o lie w i t h h e r f a t h e r — h e n o w u n c o n s c i o u s of h e r c o m i n g a n d going. (34) U p o n t h e morrow t h e elder said t o t h e younger, "Lo, I did lie yestereve w i t h Father. Let us ply h i m w i t h w i n e t o n i g h t again, a n d you e n t e r a n d lie w i t h h i m ; thus may we [both] k e e p of our f a t h e r posterity live. (35) So t h a t n i g h t again they plied their f a t h e r w i t h wine. T h e younger t h e n p r o c e e d e d to lie w i t h h i m , h e u n c o n s c i o u s oi h e r comuvc or going. (36) S o did t h e two daughters of Lot c o n c e i v e hy their father. (37) T h e elder bore a son, n a m e d h i m Moab, h e t h e a n c e s t o r of t h e [people of] M o a b of our o w n day. (38) A n d t h e younger

EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

243

girl, she also now bore a son, named him Ben-ammi, he the ancestor of the A m ‫׳‬ monites of our own time. (Genesis 19:30-38) A review of t h e narratives treated in Toward a Grammar will bear out t h e f o b lowing: t h e full force of a s tory s kerygma is only realized at t h e very end of t h a t story. But "story" itself is a literary category w i t h meanings b o t h d e n o t a t i v e and c o n n o t a t i v e , s o m e t i m e s — i n keeping w i t h c o n t e x t — i n d e p e n d e n t of o n e another, sometimes overlapping, and sometimes antipodal, if n o t contradictory. In t h e case of t h e literature of our time, two opposed categories bear n a m e s in English m a k i n g for a kind of confusion, which c o o r d i n a t e n o m e n c l a t u r e in a n o t h e r language does not. T h u s , for example, French comte/histoire/nouvelle and roinun, as contrasted with English short story/novella and novel T h e category short story has very little to do with length; many such will c o n l a i n many more words t h a n constitute a work uni‫׳‬ versall y recognized as a novel, Indeed, in contemporary publishing practice a short story will o f t e n appear first in a journal, anthology, or a single author's collection, and t h e n (virtually) unaltered as a c h a p t e r in a novel; while a single c h a p t e r may be excerpted from a novel and be republished as a short story. T h u s a n o v e l may h a v e a ,story to tell in the very same sense as a short story does, e v e n while it ( t h e novel) c o n t a i n s stories in a sense unlikely t o appear in a short story. 35 If therefore, we view Genesis 19 as essentially a short story, essentially giving us t h e story of Lot, we should h a v e t o judge verses 2 7 - 2 9 as a n excrescence, w h i c h were well excised (from a literary p o i n t of view). A n d t h e kerygma of Lot's story would lie in t h e rise of two n e i g h b o r i n g peoples a n d polities in trans-Jordan, b o t h sharing a single male ancestor, b o t h b e g o t t e n by an incestuous coupling. But if this C h a p t e r 19 is a short story, featuring Lot as its h e r o a n d concluding in t h e b i r t h of his two sons, destined to b e c o m e n a t i o n a l entities, it is nonetheless a c h a p t e r in a novel: a n o v e l featuring A b r a h a m as its hero, utilizing t h e person and t h e character, t h e story and the progeny of Lot as foils to set off t h e person, t h e character, t h e story, and t h e progeny of his u n c l e A b r a h a m . For this c h a p t e r is n o t a freestanding narrative. T h e story of Lot begins with his role as tagalong to uncle A b r a m in C h a p t e r 12, w i t h his parting f r o m his uncle in C h a p t e r 13 for t h e green fields of Socio m and Gomorrah,•‫ יי‬and w i t h his rescue by A b r a m f r o m t h e clutches of Sodom's despoilcrs. T h i s concluding c h a p t e r of Lot's life, too, i s — l i k e t h e preceding notices about h i m — s u b o r d i n a t e and ancillary to t h e life of A b r a h a m . It is anticipated in the three divine emissaries representing Y H W H , t h e o n e w h o will represent Y H W H in t h e debate over t h e fate oi t h e morally depraved citizenry of t h e Cities of t h e Plain, and t h e two who extract t h e foursome of Lot, wile, and two daughters before calling down t h e rain oi searing sulfur. A n d , before t h e conclusion ol the short story centering on Lot and featuring him as that story s protagonist, the narrator will gap the e v e n t of t h e cities' destruction in the paralaelic narrative seque nee, that is, verses 2 3 - 2 5 , by casting this e v e n t in t h e p a r e n t h e t i c h y p o t a c t i c narrative sequence. N o translator before has a t t e n d e d to this abrupt departure from n o r m a l narrative style; thus the translations are n o t only u n f a i t h f u l to t h e H e b r e w original, but h a v e Lot's wife in verse 26 n o t only looking " b e h i n d " — n o t "her(self)" but " b e h i n d h i m " t h e masculine accusative p r o n o u n h a v i n g n o a n t e c e d e n t ! But we h a v e n o t yet d o n e full justice to t h e stylistic ingenuity of our narrator.

2,36

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

A f t e r t h e c o n c l u s i o n of verse 23, w h e r e t h e d e s t i n a t i o n of L o t s desire is b o t h ( i m plicitly) n a m e d a n d t h e n a m e "etiologically" explained, t h e r e appear ( n o t o n e but) t w o p a r e n t h e t i c s t a t e m e n t s , as i n d i c a t e d by t w o successive n o m i n a l clauses. T h e first gives t h e t i m e of day w h e n L o t arrives at t h e s e t t l e m e n t , w h i c h h a s b e e n s p a r e d for his sake. T h e s e c o n d , v e r s e 24, e m p h a s i z e s t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y d e s t r u c t i v e r a i n as s t e m m i n g f r o m t h e will of Y H W H , a n e m p h a s i s t h a t in itself w o u l d s e e m r a t h e r p o i n t l e s s . Yet it d o e s p r o v i d e t h e o n l y n a r r a t i v e a s s e r t i o n of t h e a c t u a l m a n n e r of t h e r e d u c t i o n of t h e C i t i e s of t h e P l a i n a n d t h e i r lush fields t o t h e s a l t - a n d a l k a l i n e w a s t e s t h a t g r e e t t h e r e a d e r s eye t o d a y as t h e y did t h e eye of t h e n a r r a t o r ' s a u d i e n c e i n t h e t i m e s of m o n a r c h i c a l Israel or J u d a h . T h i s s e c o n d h y p o t a c t i c a l l y f o r m u l a t e d n o t i c e is t h e n f o l l o w e d by t w o verses in p a r a t a c t i c f o r m u l a t i o n . T h e first of t h e s e , verse 2$, serves as a r e s u m p t i v e c o d a t o t h e p a r e n t h e t i c verse 24, or m e r e l y c o m p l e t e s t h e n a r r a t i v e i n t e r r u p t e d a f t e r verse 23, t o wit: " T h e n did h e ( Y H W H or his r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ) r e d u c e . .

l h e second paratactic formulation,

verse 26, t o g e t h e r w i t h verse 23, gives us a p i c t u r e of L o t h e r d i n g wife a n d da ughters f r o m b e h i n d t h e m , a n d his wife l o o k i n g h a c k past h i m at t h e h o m e a n d possess i o n s s h e will n e v e r see a g a i n . T h e story of L o t h i m s e l f r e s u m e s in v e r s e 30, to e n d w i t h h i s siring of M o a b a n d A m m o n . B u t b e t w e e n t h e n o t i c e of t h e d e m i s e of Mrs. L o t by

instantaneous

p e t r i f i c a t i o n in v e r s e 26 a n d t h e r e s u m p t i o n s of L o t s t r e k in v e r s e 30, w e h a v e a n e p i s o d e i n t e r p o l a t e d t h a t d o e s n o t c e n t e r o n Lot, w h i c h f e a t u r e s n o d i v i n e emissaries, a n d w h o s e f u n c t i o n in t h i s n a r r a t i v e is rarely raised. W h a t t h e n a r r a t o r a c h i e v e s i n t h i s e p i s o d e , h o w e v e r , is t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of a n e w p o i n t of view, f e a t u r i n g n e i t h e r t h e h u m a n p r o t a g o n i s t s n o r t h e d i v i n e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i n t h e p l o t . It is t h e p o i n t of v i e w of t h e n o v e l s p r o t a g o n i s t , A b r a h a m , a n d p r o v i d e s i n its suggest i v e n e s s a p o w e r f u l lesson f o r t h e reader, w h o shares t h e role of t h e p a t r i a r c h , t h e c o n c e r n e d b u t p e r s o n a l l y u n t o u c h e d observer. L e t us n o w p r o c e e d t o a close r e a d i n g of t h i s c h a p t e r :

Episode A: Sodom Shows Its True

Colors

(1) T h e two emissaries arrived at Sodom in the e v e n i n g — L o t then sitting in Sodom's gateway—Lot at first sight [ot them] rose to greet them. He made obeisance to them, face to the ground. (2) He said, 'Ί pray you, my lords, turn aside to your serv a n t s house for lodging. Wash there the dust trom your feet, and as early as you please resume your mission." I hey said, 1 'Not so. Out-of-doors we'll spend the n i g h t " ( ‫ל‬,) Bui he importuned them so vigorously that they did turn aside and entered his home. Lie prepared high tea for them, had cakes iresh-haked, and they dined. (4) Just a hour to retire, they, when the townsmen 0( the city •—-SodomV townsmen

besieged the

house, minions and elders, all the citizenry of every degree. (5) Calling to Lot, they addressed him, "How now the men, those overnight guests of yours

bring them out

to us that we may become intimate with them." (6) Lot went out to them in the entrance-way, having the door behind him barred shut. (7) Said he, "No my brothers, commit no mischief. ( 8 ) 1 have ai h and two daughters who have never had intimacy with man. Let me deliver them to you, and deal with them as you see fit. But those personages you are not lo touch. Verily, it is for shelter they took haven under my

EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

245

roof," (9) Some said, ‫ ״‬C u m e closer—move away!" Others said, "This lone alien came to sojourn and now plays the magistrate!" "Now then, we'll do you mischief worse t h a n [what we had in mind] foi t h e m " They pressed hard on dus gentleman Loi. Sonic came close to break 111 the door. ( 10) T h e [two] dignitaries now took a hand |in the matter]. They palled Lot hack inside with them

the (.loot‫ ־‬now they (red locked.

(] ‫ )ז‬As for those [Sodomite] worthies at the entrance, them I hey had assailed with sight-searing hght, minion and eitler - t h e y were unable to obtain entry. (Genesis 19:1-11)

A b r a h a m s t h r e e visitors of t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r are r e f e r r e d t o as 'anâsïm

(18:1,

16, 2 2 ) by t h e n a r r a t o r , a t e r m w h o s e e o n n o t â t ive r a n g e e x t e n d s f r o m t h e n e u t r a l " m e n , individuals," t h r o u g h t h e m o r e r e s p e c t f u l " a d u l t m a l e s , persons," t o t h e h o n orific " p e r s o n a g e s , b u r g h e r s , magistrates," A b r a h a m , as w e saw, r e c o g n i z e d

their

s t a n d i n g i m m e d i a t e l y , a n d as i n d i c a t e d by t h e p o i n t e d v o c a l i z a t i o n of dny in v e r s e 3 a n d h i s a c t of o b e i s a n c e in t h e p r e c e d i n g v e r s e (ujayyistahü

'är^sä), t h e n u m i n o u s

n a t u r e of t h e i r d i g n i t y as well. T h e t w o of t h e s e visitors w h o e n t e r S o d o m s g a t e way a r e for t h e first t i m e i d e n t i f i e d by t h e n a r r a t o r as malalam

"emissaries"—of

Y H W H , t o b e s u r e — b u t t h i s n u m i n o u s a s p e c t of t h e i r d i g n i t y is n o t i m m e d i a t e l y p e r c e i v e d by L o t . O n e i n d i c a t i o n of t h i s d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n his p e r c e p t i o n a n d A b r a h a m s is t h e d i f f e r e n t l y p o i n t e d v o c a l i z a t i o n of ,dny i n v e r s e 2. ( T h e l o n g qames u n d e r t h e η in 18:3 s i g n a l i n g t h e r e c o g n i t i o n of Y H W H ' s " p r e s e n c e , " versus t h e patah u n d e r t h a t c o n s o n a n t in 19:2 i n d i c a t i n g t h e n o r m a l p l u r a l " m y lords.) 3 7 A n y q u e s t i o n as t o t h e c o r r e c t n e s s of t h e M a s o r e t i c r e a d i n g of t h e u n v o c a l i z e d t e x t will b e d i s p e l l e d by a t t e n d i n g to t h e d i f f e r e n c e in n u m b e r in t h e c o n t i n u i n g addresses of A b r a h a m a n d L o t to t h e visitors. A b r a h a m ' s address is in t h e s i n g u l a r w h e n h e r e q u e s t s t h a t t h e v i s i t o r ( s ) tarry b e f o r e h e goes o n t o t r e a t t h e m as m o r t a l s t o w h o m h o s p i t a l i t y m a y b e o f f e r e d ; L o t , by c o n t r a s t , addresses b o t h of t h e "eniissaries" in a n i m m e d i a t e offer oi hospitality. S u c h close r e a d i n g of t h e t w o t e x t s is virtually d i c t a t e d by t h e a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l series in t h e o p e n i n g of t h e t w o n a r r a t i v e s : ABRAHAM

LOT

. . . he now sitting at ihe opening . . . he saw . . , he ran towards them . . . he did obeisanec to the ground . . . "do n o t pass hyM . . . . , . your [sing.] s e r v a n t . . . bathe your [pl.] feet . . . [have a bite to eat] . . . only then continue o n your way . . . they ate.

. . . [he] now sitting in the gateway . . . h e saw . . . h e rose towards them . . . h e did obeisance nose to the ground . . . "turn aside" . . . . . . your [pi.] servants . . . bathe your [j)L] feet . . . . . . resume your way . . . they ate.

S o m e of t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e t w o a c c o u n t s are a f u n c t i o n of t h e t i m e of d a y a n d ( u n b e k n o w n s t to t h e m o r t a l h o s t ) t h e m i s s i o n of t h e visitors. T h u s A b r a h a m ' s r e q u e s t t h a t t h e y t a k e a brief p a u s e f o r r e f r e s h m e n t al fresco, as a g a i n s t Lot's in vitat i o n t o c o m e i n d o o r s a n d s p e n d t h e n i g h t . S u c h is p r o b a b l y t h e p o i n t also of t h e leisurely p r e p a r a t i o n ot a m e a t d i n n e r in A b r a h a m s story as c o n t r a s t e d w i t h t h e p i t a a neb d r i n k s of Lot s supper. O t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s , h o w e v e r , serve t o c o n t r a s t t h e c h a r -

2,36

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

acters of A b r a h a m a n d L o t . A b r a h a m runs t o h i s d i v i n e visitors a n d does o h e i s a n c e , b o w i n g (by d e f i n i t i o n ) e a r t h w a r d , w h i l e Lot's rising t o g r e e t t h e visitors is slower, a n d p e r h a p s m o r e s t u d i e d . T a k i n g i n t h e i r r i c h c a p a r i s o n , p r e s u m i n g p e r ‫׳‬ h a p s o n a c o m p a r a b l e m u n i f i c e n c e , b u t t a k i n g t h e m n o n e t h e l e s s for m o r t a l s , h e yet p r o c e e d s t o o u t d o A b r a h a m in s u b s e r v i e n c e : his o b e i s a n c e is with

nose

to t h e

ground. H i r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n of t h e d i f f e r e n c e s in p e r c e p t i o n a n d s t a n c e o n t h e p a r t s of A b r a h a m a n d Lot m a y be g l e a n e d f r o m t h e d i f f e r e n t ways t h e t w o m e n assure t h e visitors t h a t t h e y m a y t e r m i n a t e t h e p r o f f e r e d h o s p i t a l i t y as s o o n as t h e y will, a n d t h e r e s p o n s e of t h e visitors t o t h e i n v i t a t i o n s . A b r a h a m s is i m m e d i a t e l y a c c e p t e d , a n d Loi s is as p r o m p t l y d e c l i n e d . T h e m a n n e r o f t h a t d e c l i n a t i o n is p o i n t e d l y puzzling. A n i n v i t a t i o n t o b o m e h o s p i t a l i t y may be d e c l i n e d o n d e l i c a t e g r o u n d s , s u c h as a r e l u c t a n c e t o impose. Bur it would b e c h u r l i s h , a n d g r a t u i t o u s l y so, t o e x p r e s s a p r e f e r e n c e for a park b e n c h , so t o speak. A n d if t a k e n at face v a l u e , s u c h a r e s p o n s e would h a v e p r e c l u d e d a r e n e w a l of t h e i n v i t a t i o n . 1 h e visitors' r e s p o n s e , t h e r e i o r c , is a m b i g u o u s , m u l t i v a l e n t , a n d r e a d a b l e o n several levels a n d e x p r e s s i v e 0( differetat p o i n t s of view. F r o m t h e p o i n t of v i e w of t h e n a r r a t o r , ( a m i , as St e r n b e r g w o u l d p o i n t o u t , iron! t h a t of t h e G o d w h o s e p o i n t of v i e w is f r e q u e n t l y i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h a t of t h e n a r r a t o r ) , 3 8 t h e r e s p o n s e reflects t h e f o l l o w i n g : a n a w a r e n e s s t h a t t h e r e a d e r will shortly, if h e d o e s n o t already, s h a r e , t h a t S o d o m ' s t h o r o u g h f a r e s are risky a f t e r d a r k ; a n d t h e i r o n y yet t o t r a n s p i r e of Y H W H ' s i n v u l n e r a b l e a g e n t s b e i n g a s k e d t o seek h a v e n i n t h e h o m e of t h e m a n t h e y h a v e c o m e t o p r o t e c t . F r o m t h e p o i n t of v i e w of L o t , t h e r e s p o n s e is at t h e m e t a p h o r i c e n d of t h e spect r u m : W e l l lodge i n t h e p u b l i c facilities. A n d , vying w i t h t h e i n n s or h o s t e l s for t h e c u s t o m of t h e s e o p u l e n t visitors, h e begs for t h e p r i v i l e g e of a c c o m m o d a t i n g t h e m . H e n c e his a s s u r a n c e t o t h e t w o h u m a n s , w h o h a v e b e e n c o m p e l l e d by a p p r o a c h i n g d a r k n e s s t o b r e a k t h e i r j o u r n e y , a n d t h i s in t h e c o u r s e of his first i n v i t a t i o n , t h a t t h e y m a y r e s u m e t h e i r j o u r n e y / m i s s i o n as early as t h e y like,

U

G 0 early o n y o u r

w a y / e n t e r p r i s e " By c o n t r a s t , t h e d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e of t h e A b r a h a m w h o d o e s k n o w that

a

t h e m e n " are Y H W H ' s a g e n t s f e a t u r e s t h e t e r m 'br t h r e e t i m e s , in s e e m i n g l y

p o i n t l e s s r e d u n d a n c e . T h e t e r m m e a n i n g "pass o n , pass by, pass over, pass w i t h o u t s t o p p i n g " t o m e n t i o n b u t a few, expresses h e r e t h e f o l l o w i n g , ' 1 Please d o n o t [smg.], m y Lord [‫'־‬demay - Y H W H ] pass y o u r s e r v a n t by." I beg the boon of your presence while.

14

Refresh yourselves—

your central or only concern.

a f t e r w a r d s y o u [ph] m a y pass o n " I do not pretend

a

to be

"Surely w i t h p u r p o s e h a v e you c o m e by y o u r s e r v a n t "

You must have some word for me, else you would not have come this way. W e m a y t h u s infer t h a t t h e r e m i g h t h a v e b e e n but o n e basis for t h e e v e n t u a l ion of t h e d e l e g a t i o n s passing h i m by: a n u n w o r t h i n c s s o n A b r a h a m s p a r t , symbolized in his failure t o recognize t h e d i v i n e p r e s e n c e . S u c h e v e n t u a l i t y is p r e c l u d e d by A b r a h a m s hrst use of t h e t e r m 'br. B u t t h e n , h i s request t h a t d i v i n i t y h o n o r h i m , in reward for his m e r i t in r e c o g n i z i n g d i v i n i t y s p r e s e n c e , m a y it self b e t a k e n as a n a c t of hybns:

n o t o n e a g e n t , n o r t w o , b u t t h r e e , o n a m i s s i o n t o a single m o r t a l / 9 ‫׳‬

1 I e n e e his d i s a v o w a l of s u c h c o n c e i t in t h e s e c o n d d e p l o y m e n t of b!\ a n d his a w a r e n e s s t h a t n o a c t i o n of D e i t y is c a p r i c i o u s in h i s t h i r d use of t h a t t e r m . By c o n rrast t h e n , L o t s i n v i t a t i o n , f e a t u r i n g t h e t e r m sûr " t o t u r n aside, m a k e a detour 1 ' e m p h a s i z i n g his lesser p e r c e p t i v i t y , h i n t i n g at a m e r c e n a r y m o t i v e in his offer, is

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

247

d e c l i n e d ; a n d o n l y a f t e r his i m p o r t u n a c y s t r e n g t h e n s t h e s u g g e s t i o n of v e n a l i t y ( w h a t o t h e r m o t i v e m i g h t h e h a v e : ) d o t h e emissaries agree t o " t u r n a s i d e " t o t h e h o m e of t h e u n p e r c e p t i v e m o r t a l w h o s e p e r s o n a n d w e l f a r e are a ( p e r h a p s

the)

p r i n c i p a l p o i n t of t h e i r m i s s i o n . T h e s e n s e of t h e t w o visitors c o n s t i t u t i n g a t r e a s u r e of sorts is b o r n e o u t by t h e q u e s t i o n , " W h e r e are your t w o guests," w h i c h c a n o n l y b e r h e t o r i c a l ; t h e n b y "prod u c e t h e m / h a n d t h e m o v e r t o us;" a n d last, by Lot's c o m i n g o u t s i d e t o t r e a t w i t h t h e e x t o r t i o n i s t s w h i l e h a v i n g t h e safe-door, so t o s p e a k , l o c k e d b e h i n d h i m . H i s fearlessness t o e x p o s e his o w n yierson t o d a n g e r m a y f u r t h e r t h e s e n s e of t h e far g r e a t e r v a l u e i n h e r i n g in t h e p e r s o n s of t h e visitors or, like t h e h y p e r b o l i c a n d a m b i g u o u s m e r i s m for t h e m e n of S o d o m , " y o u n g a n d o l d / m i n o r a n d a d u l t / c o m m o n e r a n d senator,‫ ״‬p o i n t t o o t h e r e x p r e s s i o n s as m e t a p h o r i c r a t h e r t h a n literal. T h u s r h e w o r d s " t h a t we m a y k n o w / b e i n t i m a t e w i t h t h e m " in its unquest i o n e d d e n o t a t i o n ol sexual c o n g r e s s , w h i c h h a s r e s u l t e d in t h e variously d e f i n e d sexual f e l o n i e s subs u m e d u n d e r sodomy.

T h i s s e x u a l d e n o t a t i o n is p o i n t e d u p by Lot's offer t o substi-

t u t e t h e p e r s o n s of his t w o v i r g i n d a u g h t e r s ( " w h o h a v e known 110 m a n " ) . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e a d d i t i o n of "deal w i t h t h e m as you see fit," as o p p o s e d t o h i s res p o n s e t o t h e S o d o m i t e s ' d e s i g n s o n t h e emissaries ( " N o , my

brothers,

do

no

w r o n g / m i s c h i e f ) w o u l d r e v e a l h i m as n o t o n l y a m o n s t r o u s l y u n f e e l i n g f a t h e r , b u t as a m a n w h o r e g a r d e d w o m a n k i n d in g e n e r a l as a less t h a n h u m a n species. A n d p e r h a p s t h a t is t h e very i n t e n t of t h e n a r r a t o r w h o p u t s t h e s e w o r d s i n t o h i s m o u t h . B u t , h o w e v e r e x t r e m e t h e m a l e c h a u v i n i s m t h a t is o f t e n a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e b i b l i c a l a u t h o r s i n t h e i r v a l u a t i o n of t h e f e m a l e sex, n o s u c h grossly a t r o c i o u s d c h u m a n i z a t i o n of h a l f of t h e h u m a n r a c e h a s e v e r b e e n d e m o n s t r a t e d t o h a v e b e e n h a r b o r e d by a n y p a g a n — l e t a l o n e t h e b i b l i c a l — n o r m a t i v e e t h o s . T h e e f f e c t of t h e n a r r a t i v e t h e n is t o i n d i c t L o t for his i n s e n s i t i v i t y t o h i s o w n c h i l d r e n ' s p a i n , dignity, life, e v e n as it s e e m s t o s h o w t h a t h i s c o n c e r n f o r t h e safety of h i s guests e x c e p t s h i m f r o m i n c l u s i o n in t h e e t h o s of h i s S o d o m i t e h o s t s , w h o m h e c a j o l e s as " m y brothers." T h e free direct discourse

in t h e S o d o m i t e s ' r e s p o n s e t o Lot's p r o p o s a l h a s n e v e r

b e e n g i v e n a t r a n s l a t i o n t a i t h f u l t o t h e H e b r e w o r i g i n a l . ( B u t c o n t e x t a l o n e indic a t e s it as a r e j e c t i o n of h i s p r o p o s a l , a n d h e n c e allows us t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e citizens of S o d o m w e r e m o r e h e l l - b e n t o n s o d o m i z i n g t w o v i s i t i n g m a l e s t h a n o n taki n g t h e i r p l e a s u r e w i t h t w o n u b i l e f e m a l e s . ) T h e t w o i n i t i a l w o r d s of s p e e c h , a v e r b ges " d r a w n e a r " a n d a n a d v e r b I1älcä " [ m o v e ] b a c k , away," are of c o u r s e o p p o s i t e in m e a n i n g . T h e i n t r o d u c t o r y l u n w o w - r u " s o m e said" i h u s i n d i c a t e s n o t a u n i v o c a l c h o r u s h u t a m i x t u r e of s h o u t s , s o m e c a l l i n g stand, hack a n d o t h e r s a m ‫ ׳‬closer you dare).

(-if

S o t o o , t h e s e c o n d tcayyö'nr'rn " o t h e r s said" i n t r o d u c e s t w o d i f f e r e n t

"voices." O n e m e r e l y e x p r e s s e d a s t o n i s h m e n t t h a t t h i s l o n e (häehäd)

o u t s i d e r ad-

m i l t e d o n s u f f e r a n c e dares t o pose as t h e a r b i t e r of morals; t h e o t h e r addresses h i s u r g i n g that: n o w r o n g b e d o n e . Whatever guests,

mischief

we might have had in mind for

we shall now exceed in abusing you [in a manner

far more serious] than [what

your we

fuid in mind forf dtcoi. N o t e care tu 11 y t h e ellipsis r e p r e s e n t e d by o u r w o r d s in b r a c k ets: f r e e d i r e c t discourse; t h e i n t e n t of t h e speakers, t h e gist of t h e i r r a u c o u s r i o t i n g is w h a t t h e n a r r a t o r shou‫׳‬s (as o p p o s e d t o tells) i n t h e d i a l o g u e , w h i c h is a t o n e a n d t h e s a m e t i m e b o t h f r e e a n d d i r e c t , f e a t u r i n g b o t h t h e d r a m a of s p e e c h a n d t h e

2,36

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL H I S T O R Y "

srvlistic thrift, of hihlical expression. 1 laving achieved this in dialogue, the narrator resumes t h e story in his own voice, employing two verbs whose force we may h a v e missed in their first appearances; T h e verb psr appears in its d e n o t a t i v e sense of 11 press hard," describing t h e action of t h e Sodomites in respect to hot- 1 his informs on the sense of almost physical exertion in Lots persistency with the visitors in verse 2, where our rendering " i m p o r t u n e d " for that same verb seems now almost a e u p h e m i s m . A n d the verb ngs for their "drawing near" or "closing in" to break down t h e door, w h i c h at t h e beginning of this verse was so incongruously a t t a c h e d to the adverb for "back, away." W h a t follows can serve as a textbook example of the biblical d e p l o y m e n t of parataxis and hypotaxis. Verse ί ο , in paratactic syntax, has t h e angels pulling t h e hapless Lot back into t h e safety of t h e house and barring again t h e door t h a t they had unbarred to retrieve h i m . T h u s we have the conclu‫׳‬sion of this episode with t h e rescue of t h e endangered h o s t by the supposedly helpless guests, w h o m h e sought to deliver from danger. T h i s verse is, however, f o h lowed hy a n o t h e r notice, w h i c h is regularly rendered as if it were also formulated paratactically in t h e Hebrew, t h a t is, by a rendering of t h e tenses as in n o r m a l tiarrative sequence. W e r e this t h e purport of t h e Hebrew, we should be at a loss to understand h o w t h e rioters could h a v e failed to reach their vulnerable target, t h e Lot who had foolishly locked himself out "in t h e cold," and how they could h a v e failed to pour t h r o u g h t h e doorway, w h i c h the angels h a d u n b l o c k e d to pull in their host. But no. T h e hypotactic verse 11, n o m i n a l clause with subject followed by a perfect verb, is a p a r e n t h e t i c flashback, t h e verb bespeaking action in t h e past perfect sense: t h e blinding of t h e Sodomites with t h e dazzling light h a d preceded the unbarring of t h e door. If t h e reader will review our translation it will be clear t h a t t h e hypotactic parenthesis begins with the last three words (in. Hebrew) oi verse ί ο , and ends before t h e last three words of verse 1 1. T h e s e last three words, resuming the paratactic sequence ol t h e lirst two clauses of verse ίο, thus are the real conclusion of this episode: a statement in narrative sequence t h a t t h e rioters were unable to find t h e dwellings e n t r a n c e , the reason for t h e futility having been provided in the p a r e n t h e t i c insertion b e t w e e n t h e paratactic formulation of t h e first two clauses in verse ί ο and t h e last clause of verse 11.

Episode B: Last Chance for Lot's

In-Laws

(.12) Now said the men to Lot, "Any kin or kith you have in this place, he they sonin-law, [grand]son or [gtandjdaughter, anyone of your own in this city—get them out of this place! (13) Verily, we are about to devastate this area—so great the charge against them in YHWH's judgment, YHWH has dispatched us to lay it waste. (14) Lot went forth and spoke to his sons-in-law, those who had taken his daughters in wedlock. Lie said, "Quick now, get out of this area. Verily, YHWLI is about to devastäte the city." But in the eyes of his sons-in-law he could only have been joking. (Genesis 19:12-14) T h e Sodomites h a v i n g now d e m o n s t r a t e d their moral depravity — to t h e Deity w h o h a d received complaints of their behavior, to t h e emissaries who represent him, and to t h e reader and all other interested p a r t i e s — t h e narrative may proceed

EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

249

t o t h e e x t r i c a t i o n of L o t a n d t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e P l a i n . G i v e n t h e e c o n o m y , t r u ‫׳‬ gal ity e v e n , of b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , w h a t w o u l d w e h a v e m i s s e d if in p l a c e of t h e s e t h r e e verses we h a d t h e n a r r a t o r s b a l d s t a t e m e n t t h a t L o t w a s t o l d by t h e a n g e l s t h e p u r p o s e of t h e i r m i s s i o n ? I n a passage of w h i c h d i a l o g u e c o n s t i t u t e s at least 75 p e r c e n t , w e are i n f o r m e d t h r e e t i m e s of t h e i m p e n d i n g d o o m , t h a t L o t h a d inter‫׳‬m a r r i e d w i t h t h e citizens of S o d o m so t h a t h e h a d s o n s - i n - l a w a n d p r o b a b l y g r a n d ‫״‬ c h i l d r e n as well, a n d t h a t t h e s e i n - l a w s j e e r e d a t t h e w a r n i n g t h a t w o u l d h a v e saved t h e i r lives. I h e d i a l o g u e in verse 13 s a n d w i c h e s t w o m e n t i o n s of t h e i m p e n d i n g doom. a r o u n d t h e r e a s o n for it. We ore about YHWH—that

YI I W H dispatched

to destroy

-so great the indictment

before

us to destroy. T h e r e f e r e n c e t o t h e i n d i c t m e n t res-

o n a t e s in s e n s e a n d d i c t i o n w i t h t h e d o u b l e a p p e a r a n c e of t h e t e r m for " c o m p l a i n t , p r o t e s t , c h a r g e ‫( ״‬z'q/s'q)

in verses 2 0 - 2 1 ol t h e p r e c e d i n g c h a p t e r . If we t u r n back

t o our t r a n s l a t i o n oi t h a t passage, we shall see t h a t it is p a r t of a c o n s i d e r a b l y l o n g e r h y p o t a c t i c p a r e n t h e s i s ( b e g i n n i n g w i t h verse 17) e x p l a i n i n g t h e h o w a n d t h e why oi t h e f o l l o w i n g d i a l o g u e b e t w e e n A b r a h a m a n d Y H W H . T h e i m p o r t of t h i s p a r e n t h e s i s is t h a t D e i t y h a d r e c e i v e d t h e c o m p l a i n t , h a d n o t yet i n v e s t i g a t e d it, a n d h e n c e h a d n o t y e t g i v e n v e r d i c t o r p r o n o u n c e d s e n t e n c e ; h a d h e d o n e any ot t h e last it w o u l d h a v e i m p a i r e d t h e d i g n i t y of A b r a h a m b y h a v i n g h i m p l e a d 111 a case w h e r e t h e c o n c l u s i o n h a s b e e n f o r e c l o s e d . N o w i n verse 13 of o u r c h a p t e r , w e h a v e t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t h a d n o t y e t b e e n r e a c h e d in t h e d i a l o g u e b e t w e e n A b r a h a m a n d Y H W H . T h e t e r m f o r " d e s t r o y / d o o m " (sht), a p p e a r i n g h e r e t w i c e , a p p e a r s f o u r t i m e s i n t h a t d i a l o g u e . T h e c o m p l a i n t (tq/s'q),

w h i c h in 18:21 is c h a r a c t e r i z e d

by Y H W H as habbä'ä ‫נ‬ëlay " t h e o n e r e a c h i n g me," t h e o n e w h i c h calls for m e t o go d o w n t o see for myself, is c h a r a c t e r i z e d in 19:13 as 1et-pney YHWH

"in Y H W H ' s

j u d g m e n t . " T h u s in t h i s v e r s e of d e n s e y e t s e e m i n g l y r e p e t i t i v e f r e e d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e w e are g i v e n t o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e c o m p l a i n t by Y H W H is r e p r e s e n t e d in t h e a n g e l i c r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ' e x p e r i e n c e of t h e S o d o m i t e s ' designs u p o n t h e m , t h e v e r d i c t n o w b e i n g u n q u e s t i o n a b l y guilty hakk:sadaqätä

on all counts

(18:21,

. . . äsü kälä), a n d t h e a n g e l s ' m i s s i o n h a s n o w b e c o m e t o lay t h e c i t y

waste. T h e v e r b sht in t h i s verse also r e s o n a t e s w i t h t h e f o u r a p p e a r a n c e s of t h i s s a m e t e r m in G e n e s i s 6: j !

1 2, w h e r e t h e e q u i v a l e n t t e r m for sa(iqa " c r i m i n a l c h a r g e " is

/lämäs " l a w l e s s n e s s " T h e s e i n t e r t e x t u a l c o n n e c t i o n s w i t h t h e flood story we shall s o o n t a k e u p a g a i n . B u t f o r t h e p r e s e n t , let us n o t e t h a t t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o save t h e m s e l v e s a n d t h e i r f a m i l i e s a f f o r d e d Lot s s o n s - i n - l a w is in i u l l d l m e n t of t h e p r o m i s e m a d e by Y H W H in his c o n c l u d i n g w o r d t o A b r a h a m 1‫ ״‬shall n o t d e s t r o y (5/1t) o n a c c o u n t oi ( a n y ) t e n ( i n n o c e n t s ) . " T h e r e b e i n g n o t e n such in S o d o m , t h e cirv is d o o m e d . But t h e s o n s - i n - l a w of L o t w o u l d h a v e b e e n e x t r i c a t e d a l o n g w i t h h i m f r o m t h e city h a d t h e y n o t s h a r e d t h e i m m o r a l e t h o s t h a t d o o m e d t h e i r fellow citizens. T h a t t h e y m i g h t h a v e i n d e e d b e e n of a d i f f e r e n t stripe is suggested by t h e p l e o n a s t i c e x p l i c a t i o n i n verse 14 t h a t L o t s s o n s - i n - l a w w e r e löqche bcnötcav\

they

h a d s e e n fit t o t a k e h i s d a u g h t e r s t o wife. T h a t t h e y w e r e c a s t i n t h e s a m e m o r a l m o l d as t h e i r n e i g h b o r s is, h o w e v e r , d e m o n s t r a t e d by t h e i r r e g a r d i n g as r i d i c u l o u s t h e w a r n i n g of a d e a t h - s e n t e n c e h a v i n g b e e n p r o n o u n c e d o n t h e i r city; a s e n t e n c e t h a t m u s t b e r i d i c u l o u s b e c a u s e t h e c r i m i n a l c h a r g e a g a i n s t t h e city is r i d i c u l o u s .

268

STORIES —‫״‬Τ Η Ε PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

A n d this t h e j u d g m e n t of m e n who, if the events c e n t e r i n g o n Lot's h o m e and guests had s o m e h o w escaped t h e m , would h a v e been informed of t h e m by their victimized father-in-law, himself a (resident-) alien in S od( ‫ מזי‬a n d — f o r all his greed, selfishness, and d e r a c i n a t i o n — a l i e n to t h e murderous ethos o f t h a t city. A final word about a dictional e l e m e n t : t h e perplexing designation of Deity as Y H W H in t h e speech of t h e angels to Lot and in t h e speech of Lot to his sons-inlaw. It would seem to be perplexing o n a n u m b e r of counts and (for different reasons) for b o t h our o w n poetical approach to t h e n a m e s of G o d as well as t h e app r o a c h of source criticism. For us, t h e presence of Y H W H bespeaking his special and i n t i m a t e relationship to his people Israel, or to t h e patriarchs w h o sired this people as against Elohim in c o n t e x t s of his dealings with outsiders of t h e lineage, would seem to face serious challenge here. For Lot is not an ancestor of Israel, and his S o d o m i t e sons-in-law would hardly h a v e k n o w n w h o this Y H W H was w h o m Lot specified by n a m e as t h e g o d — o n e of many, to be sure, if his S o d o m i t e son-inlaws were polytheistic p a g a n s — w h o was about to destroy their city. But this latter literary absurdity is equally such for t h e J a u t h o r posited by source criticism! A n d , let us remember, while P, according to t h e tenets of source criticism, must eschew t h e n a m e Y1IWH, there is n o t h i n g in its tenets to preclude J from identifying t h e Deity as Llohitn when that usage makes better sense in c o n t e x t . T h i s perplexity, and its resolution as well, will illustrate t h e point we made in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e various nuances t h a t can ircquently be characterized as in hering in or a c c o u n t i n g for t h e deployment hy the biblical author(s) ot either YI1WII or G o d (or, for t h a t matter, of any o t h e r n a m e ) : to wit, literary c o m p o s i t i o n is art, n o t science, nor technology; as a literary creator does n o t write according to forinula, so does literary criticism n o t perform its analyses according to formula(s); always and everywhere; and so also in respect to biblical literature and t h e specific lexical alternatives for Deity's proper n a m e , literary criticism is n e v e r inductive, never predictive, and t h o u g h it is in a sense empirical it is so ex post facto, t h e "fact" being t h e literary corpus u n d e r e x a m i n a t i o n . In t h e case of our pericope, t h e appearance of Y H W H in t h e dialogue of angels w i t h Lot and Lot w i t h his sons-in-law must be seen as a studied contrast to t h e n a m e E l o h i m as twice deployed in our c h a p t e r s verse 29: o n c e in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e negative and destructive devastation of t h e cities of t h e plain, and o n c e in t h e positive a n d salvific c o n n e c t i o n w i t h God's r e m e m b e r i n g A b r a h a m a n d rescuing Lot. T h a t verse, t h e resumptive conclusion of Episode E, as well as t h e episodes w h i c h precede it, will be discussed in place. We m e n t i o n it h e r e to highlight our c o n t e n t i o n t h a t this n a m e of G o d would h a v e occasioned n o n e of t h e problems raised by t h e use of Y H W H , and therefore points to t h e deliberateness of this deployment. First, we must recognize t h a t t h e speech of b o t h angels and Lot represent free direct discourse, w h i c h is to say direct discourse in form, but in substance either more or less t h a n what is said, betraying t h e inîrusht‫ ׳‬narrators signal to t h e reader to interpret t h e e l e m e n t t h a t is a departure Iron! (what would h a v e b e e n ) precise o r s t r i c t d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e , h i t h i s c a s e t h a t e l e m e n t is t h e n a m e of G o d , Y H W 1 L

W e suggested in our o p e n i n g c h a p t e r t h a t very often the expression scni-YHWH " t h e n a m e Yl 1WI Γ d o c s n o t m e a n t h e n a m e " Y I I W H " at all; t h a t it s e r v e s as a

EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

269

m e t a p h o r f o r a n o n - e x p l i c i t t e r m for t h e o n e a n d o n l y D e i t y ot S c r i p t u r e , t h e pur•‫׳‬ p o r t of t h e m e t a p h o r b e i n g t h a t by w h a t e v e r n a m e t h e D e i t y was i n v o k e d or referred t o , t h e c h a r a c t e r i n v o k i n g or r e f e r r i n g t o t h a t D e i t y c o r r e c t l y u n d e r s t o o d t h a t o n e u n d o n l y G o d , w h i c h is t o say, i m p u t e d t o "1 ‫״‬lim" t h e a t t r i b u t e s t h a t S c r i p t u r e does, i m p l i c i t l y or explicitly/ 1 0 A s we h a v e n o t e d in regard t o t h e t e r m s sht a n d sq oi verse 13 t h e i r r e s o n a n c e w i t h t h o s e t e r m s in 1 8 : 2 0 - 2 1, so t o o m u s t we n o t e t h a t t h e a t t r i b u t e of justice is t h e c h i e f a t t r i b u t e of t h e Y H W H , w h o in 18:1 c> d e s c r i b e s his s i n g l i n g o u t of A brah a m t o instill i n h i s p r o g e n y t h e " w a y of Y H W H , ‫ ״‬w h i c h is glossed as t h e d o i n g of j u s t i c e . S o it is t h a t h e r e i n 19:13 t h e c h a r g e t h a t h a s b e e n a c c e p t e d as t r u e o n high·—'et penë‫״‬YHWH—would

n o t h a v e b e e n so j u d g e d by t h e Holmru "gods" of

p a g a n S o d o m . A n d t h e w a r n i n g of L o t t o h i s s o n s - i n - l a w t h a t Y H W H it is w h o is a b o u t t o d e s t r o y t h e city h e i g h t e n s i n t h e i r eyes t h e a b s u r d i t y of a god t h e y c o u l d n o t r e c o g n i z e — b y t h i s n a m e or a n y o t h e r — w h o s e c h i e f e s t d e m a n d is j u s t i c e , a n d w h o e x a c t s r e t r i b u t i o n w h e n t h a t d e m a n d is o u t r a g e d .

Episode C : The Escape from

Sodom

(15) N o w t h e n just as the morning-star had risen, the emissaries urged Lot on, to wit, "Quick now, take your wife and your two daughters that are here at hand, if you would n o t be swept away in the doom of t h e city." (16) W h e n he yet dilly-dallied the m e n gripped h i m by h a n d and his wife by h a n d as also ihe two daughters each by a h a n d — [ t h i s only] by the grace of Y H W H ' s pity on h i m — t h e y brought him out and deposited him outside the city. (17) A n d just as he was bringing them outside [it], he said, "Flee on for your very life, cast no glance behind you, come to no halt anywhere in the plain, to the hills make good your flight if you would not be swept away!" (18) Said Lot to them, "Please, not so, my Lordship. ( ig) Look now —-your servant has indeed found favor in your eyes, and greatly have you extended your merciful dealings with me in the interest of prolonging my life. Hut 1, lor my part, just cannot make my escape all the way to the hill country. Lest the cataclysm overtake me and 1 die, !i propose[—(20) Look now, that town yonder is close enough for me to make good my flight there. And it is such a wee place. Let me, pray, make escape t h i t h e r - -such a wee place it i s — a n d let me survive." (21 ) H e said to him, "Now in this particular too I have hereby granted you great face, not to destroy that city as you have proposed. (22) Make haste now to escape there, for till you reach that ‫יף‬0‫ ז‬I can undertake nothing." (This now is why the city is named Zoar ["1 rifled-) (Genesis 1 9 : 1 5 - 2 2 ) T h e r e t u r n of L o t f r o m h i s s o n s - i n - l a w s h o m e is gapped m our n a r r a t i v e . T h e f u tility of his m i s s i o n h a s b e e n e n c a p s u l a t e d i n t h e last w o r d s of t h e p r e v i o u s e p i s o d e . B u t t h e rising of t h e m o r n i n g star, a n h o u r or so b e f o r e d a w n , is s i g n i f i c a n t , T h e r i o t a r o u n d Lot's h o m e h a v i n g b e g u n just as t h e f a m i l y was a b o u t t o r e t i r e for t h e n i g h t , w e c a n b r i d g e t h e gap b e t w e e n t h e s t r i k i n g of t h e rioter's b l i n d a n d t h e angel's p r o d d i n g of L o t t o get s t a r t e d w i t h e v o c a t i o n ot Lot's n i g h t - l o n g p l e a d i n g w i t h h i s i n - l a w s . T h e d i r e c t - d i s c o u r s e of t h a t p r o d d i n g , c h a r a c t e r i z i n g his t w o d a u g h t e r s as hannimsä'öt

" t h o s e p r e s e n t , " e v o k e s t h e p a i n ot t h e f a t h e r w h o n o w

m u s t p e r f o r c e l e a v e b e h i n d t h e m a r r i e d d a u g h t e r s , a p a i n t h a t w o u l d b e in n o way

2,36

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL H I S T O R Y "

cased even had he come ro acknowledge rhar he h a d really lost t h e m w h e n they were taken in marriage by men oi S o d o m . Still he hesitates. G a n it he t h a t he wondeis w h e t h e r a life without his treasures is worth saving/ if so, and left to his o w n devices, his vacillation would indeed have cost h i m his life, with only himself to blame. But t h e angels i n t e r v e n e with physical lorce, this by reason of VI IWI Is supererogatory compassion, and t h e f o u r — e a c h gripped by an angelic hand- - a r e literally dragged out of t h e city. From there on, they are told, it is all up to their own efforts. T h e y are n o t to cast a look backward, n o t to c o m e to an even m o m e n tan‫ ־‬halt anywhere o n t h e Plain. T h e y must make good their flight to the hills (which, given today's topography, as t h a t of t h e biblical w r i t e r s generation, can only be to t h e n o r t h or n o r t h e a s t ) . Lot, however, demurs, "No, please, my lordship." But this time this last word in H e b r e w is vocalized with a qämes, in recognition t h a t this t i m e — u n l i k e at his first e n c o u n t e r with t h e angels in verse 2 — h e knows a n d acknowledges t h e m as representativc of t h e O n e G o d , Y H W H . T h a t this Maso ret ic vocalization is intrinsic to the text is, as we saw t h e case was in 18:3, p r o v e n by t h e string of second personal p r o n o u n s in Lot's c o n t i n u e d address in verse 19. T h u s , in verse 8‫ב‬, "Lot said t o them, adönäy," and h e n o w c o n t i n u e s w i t h "your (s.) servant, yoto‫( ־‬s.) dealings, w h i c h you (s.) h a v e dealt w i t h me." T h i s entire section of dialogue, w h i c h could w i t h o u t loss h a v e b e e n omitted, may indeed h a v e b e e n primarily designed to impress upon t h e reader this switch from t h e address in t h e plural to t h e address in the singular. T h e direct discourse serves a n o t h e r purpose. Lot's initial speech features t h e immediacy of hinnë-na‫" ׳‬look now," and h e n o w repeats t h a t phrase in reference to t h e tiny settlement to w h i c h h e proposes to flee as against the hill-country recomm e n d e d by t h e angel. T h e point of this is to impress u p o n us that w h a t e v e r was t h e location of t h a t mythical Sodom (anywhere in t h e o n c e lush semi-circular Plain, which, now a wasteland, e x t e n d s to t h e east and south and west of t h e Salt Sett), Lot from his vantage point outside Sodom's walls is able to see and p o i n t to the sett l e m e n t , which is so much nearer t h a n are t h e hills. But let us recall t h a t this settlenient, so tiny t h a t Deity may exclude it; from his destructive program, this settlem e n t t o which Lot will give its n a m e in this "etiological" account, this Zoar has been twice brought: to our a t t e n t i o n , in 1 3 : 1 0 - 1 3 and in 14:1 -•9. In t h e former acc o u n t , Lot envisages t h e whole Jordan Plain, w h i c h , t h e narrator informs us, was so w e l l - w a t e r e d — t h i s , to be sure, before Y H W H laid waste to S o d o m and G o m o r rah — as to resemble t h e land of Egypt, this lushness t h e n visible from t h e v a n t a g e point of Zoar a n d beyond. W e come across t h e second instance of Zoar's appearance in G h a p t e r 14. T h e t m v s e t t l e m e n t referred to hy Lot and (implicitly) n a m e d bv h i m for its contemptible size is, however, in t h a t c h a p t e r o n e of t h e five great Gtties of t h e Plain that rebelled against their Mesopotamia!! overlords and sent troops to engage t h e m "in t h e Vale of Siddim, t h a t is [now] t h e Salt Sea" (14:4). T h i s discrepancy t h e n adds to t h e never-never-land aura of b o t h these chapters. O n t h e other h a n d , a n o u t - a n d - o u t c o n t r a d i c t i o n t h a t would trouble any 1 itéra list is avoided as between these two chapters by their author. T h e city, w h i c h received its n a m e onlv after Lot's pica to t h e angel in G h a p t e r 19, could hardly be t h e city rhar stood up to A m -

EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

253

r a p h e 1 s a r m i e s . O h yes it c a n , o u r a u t h o r h a s a n t i c i p a t e d w i t h a smile. It c a n , b u t u n d e r a n o t h e r n a m e . N o t e , of t h e five C i t i e s of t h e P l a i n t w i c e listed in C h a p t e r 14, o n l y o n e a p p e a r s w i t h o u t its k i n g b e i n g n a m e d : t h a t r u l e r is u t h e k i n g of Be la, t h a t is [today] Zoar 11 (verses 2, 8).

lipisode D: The Doom of Sodom und ί/ic Fate of Lot's

Wife

(2;3) T h e sun now had just risen over the horizon just as Lot reached Zoar.) (24) YI IWl I then precipitated on Sodom and Uomorrah a rain oi blazing suiiur, [a rain] from YHWI 1, trom the sky.) (25) Thus did h e reduce those‫ ׳‬cities and the entire plain, together with the populations ol the cities and every growth of the soil. (26) I lis wife, h o w e v e r , l o o k e d h a c k past h i m a n d b e c a m e a salt s t a t u e . ( G e n e s i s

19:23-26)

T h e e f f e c t ot t h e t w o h y p o t a c t i c s e n t e n c e s a t t h e b e g i n n i n g is t o give t h e r e a d e r a sense of t h e d r a m a t i c t i m i n g o c c a s i o n e d by t h e s c h e d u l e of t h e angels, t h e dallyi n g of Lot, a n d his e s c a p e by a hair's b r e a d t h , a r r i v i n g in t h e a g r e e d - u p o n , h a v e n just as t h e s u n arose like t h u n d e r in t h e east, t h e d i r e c t i o n w h e n c e L o t h a d fled. A g l a n c e a h e a d t o 3 2 : 2 4 - 3 3 will s u p p o r t o u r s u s p i c i o n t h a t a n a n c i e n t c o n v e n t i o n is i m p l i e d , a n d ( p e r h a p s ) s p o o f e d in t h e m o r n i n g star's rising, c o n s t i t u t i n g a w a r n i n g t o s u p e r n a t u r a l a g e n t s t h a t t h e y m u s t v a c a t e e a r t h ' s p r e m i s e s b e f o r e t h e s u n rises. Be t h a t as it may, t h e s e c o n d h y p o t a c t i c s e n t e n c e suggests t h a t t h e r a i n of b r i m s t o n e was brief, p e r h a p s l a s t i n g f r o m t h e first a p p e a r a n c e of t h e sun's u p p e r r i m u n t i l t h e a p p e a r a n c e of t h e l o w e r r i m " o n t h e e a r t h h o r i z o n . " T h e s h o r t story of Lot's e s c a p e f r o m t h e d o o m e d p l a i n is t h u s c o n c l u d e d i n v e r s e 25 w i t h t h e p a r a t a c t i c c o d a of t h e vast d e v a s t a t i o n , e x c e p t for o n e last n o t i c e , h a r k i n g b a c k t o t h e prec e d i n g e p i s o d e , t h e w a r n i n g of t h e a n g e l s t o L o t t o s t o p n o t a m o m e n t , t o cast n o w i s h f u l r e g r e t f u l g l a n c e b a c k w a r d . To l o o k b a c k w i t h r u e u p o n life in a n a m b i e n c e so s i n f u l t h a t it i n c u r r e d Y H W H ' s d a m n a t i o n , t o express a l o n g i n g tor a c o n detained p a s t — e v e n w h i l e e s c a p i n g t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s of t h a t p a s t by t h e grace ot a n e v e r so gracious a n d p a t i e n t G o d — is p e r h a p s t o f o r f e i t a s h a r e in t h e n e w life t h a t is o p e n i n g up. T h e r e m o v a l of Lot's wife f r o m t h e s c e n e is, of course, a n a r r a t i v e necessity tor t h e e n a c t m e n t of Kpisode F. But it is a s t o r y t e l l i n g g e n i u s t h a t exploits t h e m e t a p h o r of sterility in salt, t h e e e r i e salt a n d alkali rock f o u n d a t i o n s s c u l p t e d by t h e w i n d in t h e cliffs o v e r l o o k i n g t h e S a l t S e a , a n d t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t m a k e for regrets o v e r t h e past e n t a i l i n g f o r e c l o s i n g of t h e f u t u r e , all t h e s e to e n d t h i s part, of t h e story w i t h a n e n i g m a t i c "pillar of salt."

Episode E: What Ahraham

Saw

(27) Early that morning Abraham hied to the spot where h e had stood in YHWH's presence. (2S) He looked down upon the vista of Sodom and Gomorrah and that of all the plain area and beheld, 10 a fog had arisen over that area like that emanating trom 0 furnace. (29) Thus it was that at the time of God's laying waste the Cities OT the Plain. God was mindful of Abraham and dispatched Lot from within the c.ata‫׳‬ clvsm area, ves that upheaval of the cities among which Lot had dwelt. (Genesis 19:27-29)

2,36

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL H I S T O R Y "

W e h a v e earlier discussed this second c o n c l u d i n g episode, a resumptive w i n d i n g up of Lot's story from t h e p o i n t of view of t h e novel's hero, Lot's uncle A b r a h a m . A l t h o u g h Lot's n a m e n e v e r appeared in t h e dialogue b e t w e e n G o d and A b r a h a m a n e n t t h e fate of t h e guilty and t h e i n n o c e n t in t h e depraved cities, n o one would question t h a t h e was uppermost in t h e minds of b o t h parties to t h a t dialogue. For all t h a t , it is n o t at all clear w h e t h e r this consciousness of Lot or c o n c e r n for h i m in either or b o t h t h e minds of G o d a n d A b r a h a m relates to h i m o n a personal level as a flesh-and ‫־׳‬blood individual (a round character) or as a useful counterpoise to t h e character of A b r a h a m and to those moral attributes of his which made h i m t h e elect of G o d . For all his copious speech in this chapter, Lot remains t h e flattes of flat characters A1 A l t h o u g h I h a v e stressed t h e mercenary m o t i v e in Lot s invita .on t o t h e strangers in Sodom's gate, o n e c a n n o t be at all confident that the merit of hospitableness is to be denied to h i m . W e saw t h a t t h e contrast between Ahrah a m s hospitality to t h e three visitors and Lot's to t h e two does not hinge at all o n the generosity of t h e o n e against t h e other; but rather o n t h e recognition or failure to recognize t h e m as God's representatives. Similarly, Lot's coming f o r t h to confront his S o d o m i t e neighbors may bespeak an arrogant self-confidence, and his locking t h e door behind him a bit 0( foolishness, or a brave a t t e m p t to face d o w n the m o b and, come what may, keep his visitors secure b e h i n d t h e barred door. A n d even t h e offer of His daughters as subst itute v i c t i m s — e v e n as it impugns him as an unfeeling f a t h e r and his sensitivity to t h e p a i n and degradation of w o m a n as person rather t h a n c o m m o d i t y - may yet bespeak his d e t e r m i n a t i o n to h o n o r the ohligation of host to those to w h o m h e has e x t e n d e d " t h e shade of my root-beam." hinally, lhere is t h e ambiguity in Lot's plea t h a t Zoar be spared and G o d s (amused?) a c c e p t a n c e of t h e plea. O n a literal level there is his assumption t h a t t h e G o d w h o can paralyze a m o b and lay waste to a string of cities in a single brief upheaval could underestimate t h e stamina required to reach t h e hills. O n t h e moral level, the symbolism of e v e n a small s e t t l e m e n t of inveterate sinners being spared for the sake of an i n n o c e n t ( n o t e in verse 29 t h e m e t a p h o r i c purpose of all t h e Plain Cities as the residence of Lot) is a n alternative t h a t if ruled out for S o d o m is equally ruled out for Zoar. If t h e dialogue b e t w e e n G o d a n d A b r a h a m rules out a n y t h i n g it is q u a n t i t y (of t h e guilty or i n n o c e n t ) as a significant factor in arriving at a verdict or exercise of sentence. To be sure, Lot was n o t privy to t h a t dialogue, but G o d was. A n d t h a t raises t h e question of why G o d would spare t h e fewer sinners of Zoar for t h e sake of Lot, and n o t t h e greater n u m b e r of, but n o m o r e sinful, i n h a b i t a n t s of a larger city. T h i s blurring of t h e moral outlines of L o t s character is w h a t accounts for t h e debate t h a t will c o n t i n u e long after our discussion of t h e question: Was Lot spared for his merits? W h i c h is to say, t h a t for all his h u m a n weaknesses h e was as morally superior to t h e sinners of t h e Plain Cities as was, let us say, N o a h to his doomed contemporaries. (See 6:9, saddlq . . . bedörötäw " i n n o c e n t [despite, or given t h e standards] of those of his g e n e r a t i o n " ) O r was Lot sparet! on. t h e score of his uncle Abraham's merits? T h i s second alternative is the o n e that many point to as t h e purport of our episode's last sentence, the c o n n e c t i o n between God's mindfulness of A b r a h a m and extricating ol Lot being taken as a causal one. Possible, even likely, as this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is, it does not necessarily rule oui the. iirst alternative:

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

255

G o d s m i n d f u l n e s s of A b r a h a m m a y be a m é t o n y m i e m e t a p h o r f o r t h e k e r y g m a ot his d i a l o g u e w i t h A b r a h a m . M y o w n r e a d i n g of t h i s c h a p t e r is t h a t it d e l i b e r a t e l y a m b i g u a t e s t h e q u e s t i o n ot L o t s m o r a l m e r i t a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h (if a n y a t all) his r e s c u e is at‫׳־‬ t r i b u t a h l e t o A b r a h a m ' s m e r i t . T h e r e c e r t a i n l y is a n a t t r i b u t i o n ot s o m e s u c h m e r i t t o Lot, for n o m e r i t of A b r a h a m ' s w o u l d e x t e n d so far as t o o f f e r a n o p t i o n of esc a p e t o Lot's S o d o m i t e s o n s - i n - l a w , a n o p t i o n t o u c h i n g L o t b e c a u s e of t h e fate of h i s m a r r i e d d a u g h t e r s , t h i s s u b t l e t y suggested by t h e s e e m i n g p l e o n a s t i c gloss ( i n verse 13) of " h i s s o n s - i n - l a w " as " t h e t a k e r s - i n - m a r r i a g e of h i s d a u g h t e r s ‫ ״‬T h e r e is t h e f u r t h e r h i n t t h a t t h e Deity's s t o c k of g o o d will is fast b e i n g used u p as L o t pleads w i t h his in-laws into t h e wee hours, a n d t h e n c o n t i n u e s to respond with v a c i l l a t i o n t o t h e a n g e l s ' i m p o r t u n a c y . ( T h e v e r b 1its in verse :15 is a s y n o n y m for t h e v e r b psr a p p e a r i n g w i t h L o t as s u b j e c t a n d t h e a n g e l s as o b j e c t in verse 3, a n d , in verse 9, w i t h t h e S o d o m i t e s as s u b j e c t a n d the personage,

L o t as o b j e c t . ) T h u s t h e

p h y s i c a l d r a g g i n g of L o t a n d h i s r e m a i n i n g f a m i l y b y t h e a n g e l s is c h a r a c t e r i z e d as b e i n g d u e ( n o t t o d e s e r t b u t ) t o Y H W H ' s c o m p a s s i o n for h i m . A n d still L o t c o n t i n u e s t o t a x t h e elasticity of d i v i n e grace a n d pity, p l e a d i n g a n d w i n n i n g d i v i n e ass e n t for t h e s p a r i n g of t h e w i c k e d ( i n t h e s e t t l e m e n t in w h i c h h e w o u l d

take

h a v e n ) , a n assent: thai: is n o t p r e s e n t in t h e k e r y g m a of A b r a h a m ' s d i a l o g u e w i t h Y H W H . N o r for t h a t m a t t e r is t h e r e so fine or final a r e s o l u t i o n of t h e p r o b l e m of felicity a n d suffering, reward a n d p u n i s h m e n t , in a n y of t h e m a n y S c r i p t u r a l loci w h e r e t h e m e t a p h o r of G o d ' s p r e s e n c e in h i s t o r y c l a s h e s w i t h t h e u b i q u i t o u s Scriprural a s s u m p t i o n oi all h u m a n s ' free will. 4 2 A n d as t h i s e p i s o d e at its c l o s e l e a v e s us u n c e r t a i n as t o t h e r e a s o n s in t h e m i n d of G o d or of t h e n a r r a t o r for Lot's s u r v i v a l , so t h e e p i s o d e also closes for A b r a h a m t h e c h a p t e r of h i s i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h h i s n e p h e w , a n d c l o a k s t h e r e s o l u t i o n of t h e e q u a t i o n of h i s n e p h e w ' s m e r i t s as a g a i n s t t h e e n t r o p i e f a c t o r of S o d o m ' s s i n f u l n e s s . T h e pall of m i s t o r s m o k e , of f o g o r smog, t h i c k like t h e e m i s s i o n f r o m a f u r n a c e , b u t ( u n l i k e s u c h a c o l u m n ) rising e v e r y w h e r e o v e r t h e p l a i n t h a t h e o n l y y e s t e r d a y v i e w e d in all its g r e e n l u s h n e s s , gives h i m t h e a n s w e r as t o w h e t h e r or n o t t h e r e w e r e e n o u g h i n n o c e n t s t o c o m p e n s a t e for t h e w i c k e d n e s s of t h e m a n y . But h o w far t h e d e v a s t a t i o n e x t e n d s h e c a n n o t see. N o r c a n h e k n o w t h a t L o t h a s — b y r e a s o n of his m e r i t , or t h e m e r i t of h i s u n c l e , o r t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of f u r t h e r history—‫״‬surv i v e d s o m e w h e r e b e y o n d t h e l i m i t s of t h a t a w f u l c a t a c l y s m . T h e h o o k o n L o t h a s b e e n closed for h i m , b u t n o t f o r us, t h e r e a d e r s . A n o t h e r e p i s o d e awaits us b e f o r e t h e b o o k closes for us o n L o t t h e p e r s o n , t h e L o t w h o as a p e r s o n will b e lost also t o us a n d t o history, u n t i l h e r e e m e r g e s t o t h e gaze of h i s t o r i c Israel in h i s progeny, t w o of t h e t r i b a l p o l i t i e s w i t h w h o m t h e p o l i t i e s of A b r a h a m ' s p r o g e n y will h a v e t o deal.

Episode F: The Issue of Lot (30) hot then moved upland trom Zoar and settled down in ihe hill-country, his two daughters with him

so fearful he ot staying on in Zoar. l i e lived in a cave, he and

his two daughters. ($!) T h e elder said to the younger, "Gur lather is old. And male there is n o n e to cover 1rs in nai lire's universal way. ( ^2) t "ome now, let to ply our 1 \-

2,36

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

ther with wine, bed with him and of our father keep posterity live," (33) So they plied their father with wine that night. T h e elder girl made hold to lie with her f a t h e r — h e now unconscious ol her coming and going. (34) Upon the morrow the cider said to the younger, "ho, I did lie yesiereve with Hither. Let us ply him with wine tonight again, and you enter and lie with him; thus may we |hoth| keep of our father posterity live." (35) So that night again they plied their lather with wine. The younger then proceeded to lit‫ ׳‬with him, he unconscious ol her coming or going. (36) So did the two daughiers oi Lot conceive hy their father. ( $7) T h e elder hore a son, named him Moah, he the ancestor of the [people of| Moah of our own day. ( 3S) A n d the vonnger girl she also now hore a son, named him Ben-ammi, he the ancestor of the A m ‫׳‬ mon tres of our own time. (Genesis 19:30 — 38) H a v i n g p l e a d e d f o r a n e x e m p t i o n of Z o a r f r o m t h e s c h e d u l e d f a t e of its sister C i t i e s or t h e P l a i n , h a v i n g w o n D e i t y o v e r t o h i s plea, a n d h a v i n g m a d e good his e s c a p e t h e r e . L o t n o w d e c i d e s t h a t h i s p l a c e of r e f u g e is n o l o n g e r a safe h a v e n a n d leaves it for t h e h i l l - c o u n t r y , w h i c h t h e a n g e l s h a d initially suggested as a p r o p e r d e s t i n a t i o n w h e n h e h a d t o flee f r o m S o d o m . Zoar, as w e suggested earlier, c a n o n l y he t h e l o c a l e of t h a t n a m e , w h i c h is ( i n D e u t e r o n o m y 3 4 : 1 - 4 ) t h e s o u t h e r n m o s t b o r d e r of t h e a r e a c o n s t i t u t i n g I s r a e l s p r o m i s e d l a n d , t h e a r e a s c a n n e d for M o s e s by Y H W H as h e s t a n d s o n M o a b s M o u n t N e b o , t h i s s o u t h e r n area d e s c r i b e d as t h e N e g e v , t h e P l a i n , t h e valley of J e r i c h o . . . as far as Zoar. T h e tear of Lot for h i s safety t h e r e w o u l d h a v e t o b e t r a c e d t o o n e of t w o d a n g e r s . E i t h e r t h e s a v e d r e m n a n t of Zoarites, h a v i n g l e a r n e d n o t h i n g f r o m t h e c a t a c l y s m , are s h o w i n g S o d o m i t e t e n d e n c i e s , o r Lot fears t h a t t h e i m m u n i t y h e h a d w o n for Zoar was o n l y a r e p r i e v e , a n d t h a t h e h a d b e t t e r c o n t i n u e o n t o t h e d e s t i n a t i o n i n t h e hills to t h e n o r t h first p o i n t e d t o by t h e a n g e l s . T h i s s e c o n d a l t e r n a t i v e w o u l d s e e m t o be a likely i n f e r e n c e f r o m t h e w o r d s a n d a c t i o n s of Lot's d a u g h t e r s . T h e y s e e m to t h i n k t h a t n o m a l e o t h e r t h a n t h e i r f a t h e r h a s s u r v i v e d , t h e i n h a b i t a n t s of Zoar h a v i n g n o w s u c c u m b e d t o a n o t h e r of I l e a v e n s fireballs. T h e y a n d t h e i r f a t h e r a l o n e are, like N o a h -

b u t N o a h without‫ ־‬wife or sons — t h e last h o p e for t h e h u m a n race:

"Let us lie w i t h h i m , a n d beget life by o u r (athcr|'s s e m e n | . " ( M o r e literally, t h e H e b r e w reads, " k e e p seed alive of o u r l a t h e r " ) T h e stress o n L o t s not k n o w i n g of his d a u g h t e r s ' lying d o w n w i t h h i m n o r t h e i r arising m a y suggest t h a t h a d h e k n o w n of his d a u g h t e r s ' i n t e n t i o n s h e c o u l d h a v e d i s a b u s e d t h e m of t h e i r

assumptions.

A l o n g t h i s line t o o , his d a u g h t e r s ' r e s o r t i n g t o s t u p e f y i n g h i m w i t h t h e b e v e r a g e d i s c o v e r e d by N o a h w o u l d b e s p e a k t h e i r d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o k e e p t h e race alive des p i t e t h e i n h i b i t i o n s t o b e e x p e c t e d of a n o l d e r — m a y ί use t h e w o r d " e f f e t e " — g e n e r a t i o n . W h a t e v e r t h e s n e e r or j e e r of t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t o r in t h i s t a l e of c o n t a n i m a t e d c o u p l i n g t h a t p r o d u c e d Israel's Y H W H - p r o t e c t e d c o u s i n s in t h e i r tribal l a n d s t o t h e east (see D e u t e r o n o m y 2), t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n of Lot's lines w o u l d a p p e a r to h a v e h a d G o d ' s t a c i t a s s e n t . A s f o r t h e i n c e s t o n a literal level, it p r e s e n t s n o m o r e p e r p l e x i n g a p r o b l e m t h a n t h e c o n s a n g u i n i t y of t h e w i v e s of C a m a n d S e t h . W h a t is t h e k e r y g m a of t h i s s h o r t story of Lot? Or, if m o r e t h a n o n e , w h a t arc t h e k cry g m as, a n d w h i c h is t h e c e n t r a l o n e : S o m e of t h e possible a n s w e r s s u c h as, for e x a m p l e , t h e r e s o l u t i o n of t h e q u e s t i o n of h o w d i v i n e j u s t i c e o p e r a t e s w h e n it c o m e s to t h e s e p a r a t i o n of ( w h i t e ) s h e e p f r o m t h e ( b l a c k ) goats, are i m p l i c i t in o u r

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF A B R A F Ï A M

257

discussion of t h e story up to this point, and others h a v e b e e n and will c o n t i n u e to be put forward. O u r o w n enterprise in analysis and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n does n o t call u p o n us to a t t e m p t a n answer, and definitely n o t a definitive answer to such ques* tions. But it probably goes w i t h o u t saying t h a t a n i m p o r t a n t factor in reaching o n e or a n o t h e r conclusion o n these questions would be the j u d g m e n t as to w h e t h e r Episode F is t h e c u l m i n a t i o n or climax of this story, or w h e t h e r — t h e climax 11a ving been reached in Episode I) —this episode represents a kind of PostJude to the story of Lot, which serves a useful purpose in t h e embracing novel of Father Abraham and his descendants, t h e latter c u l m i n a t i n g in the people and polities of Israel andJudah. O u r readers, w h a t e v e r their o w n conclusions on these questions, will not be sun prised t h a t our o w n j u d g m e n t will be based o n our crediting to t h e biblical writer t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w h i c h is seen to be o n t h e highest level of abstraction. A n d t h a t level is certainly t h a t of t h e never-final ly-resol ved enigma of a G o d w h o is by definition absolutely just, by characterization eve !‫־‬-interfering in h u m a n history, and s o m e h o w w i t h o u t complicity in t h e manifest injustices represented by t h e disas trous rains of radioactive or v o l c a n i c ash yet the immediate cause of t h e precipitat ion, rational biped or i n a n i m a t e volcano. W h a t t h e n is t h e secondary kerygma, t h a t of Episode F? My o p i n i o n o n this appears in t h e section o n Structures (in c h a p t e r 7). I c a n n o t c o m p l e t e my discussion ot this story, however, w i t h o u t taking u p again t h e d e p l o y m e n t here of t h e n a m e s of God. T H E N A M E S OF G O D I N G E N E S I S , C H A P T E R S

18 AND

I 9

111 plot and structure (cf. t h e openings of t h e two chapters) t h e stories of t h e ann u n c i a t i o n to A b r a h a m a n d t h e extrication of Lot are inseparable. T h e Deity appears to A b r a h a m in t h e guise of three h u m a n visitors, in w h o m A b r a h a m recognizes t h e presence of t h e o n e a n d only G o d , identified by t h e n a r r a t o r (six times) as Y H W H , by Himself in dialogue (twice) as Y H W H , and o n c e by A b r a h a m as Adönäyy a plural of majesty bespeaking t h e singular lordship of t h e o n e and only Y H W H , yet a p o i n t e d (as we shall see) avoidance of Y H W H in A b r a h a m ' s speech. T h e three m e n are a c c o m p a n i e d by A b r a h a m to a vantage point overlooking t h e plain, of Sodom, two of t h e m c o n t i n u i n g on the way winding downward toward t h e doomed valley, t h e t h i r d — i d e n t i f i e d as Y H W H - r e m a i n i n g b e h i n d to engage A b r a h a m in a discussion o n t h e considerations that might m a k e for a sparing of a morally depraved city. T h i s c h a p t e r ends with t h e departure oi Y H W H at t h e inter view's close a n d A b r a h a m ' s r e t u r n h o m e (to M am re s Oaks, H e b r o n ) . T h e two m e n , now designated as malâkïm "agents, angels, emissaries," arrive in S o d o m and are recognized as persons of high standing by Lot, but n o t until they h a v e displayed their awesome power as agents of Deity. Now, for t h e first time in this chapter, t h e Deity is m e n t i o n e d by n a m e . T h r e e times t h e n a m e Y H W H appears, twice in t h e speech of "the m e n " and o n c e in t h a t of Lot. A n d e a c h t i m e t h a t appearance must strike us as strange; especially so for t h e incompatibility of this name's poetical f u n c t i o n as divined by Gassuto (and refined by us). T h e visitors in their dialogue w i t h A b r a h a m never refer to Dcitv as YTiWH, nor does A b r a h a m his intimate. Yet in their dialogue with Lot the visitors do so refer to

2,36

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

h i m , as d o e s L o t h i m s e l f , a n d — w e r e t h i s n o t s t r a n g e e n o u g h in i t s e l t — i n address 10 his S o d o m i t e s o n s - i n - l a w ! T h e d e libera t e n e s s of t h i s d e p l o y m e n t of t h e T e t r a g r a m m a t o n is u n d e r l i n e d by t h e p l e o n a s t i c s e c o n d a p p e a r a n c e of t h i s n a m e in t h e m o u t h of t h e a n g e l s (verse 13: "for we a r e a b o u t t o d e v a s t a t e t h i s p l a c e , so great t h e i n d i c t m e n t in Y H W H ' s j u d g m e n t t h a t h e , Y H W H , h a s d i s p a t c h e d us t o d e vast ä t e it"). T h e m e t i c u l o u s c a r e of t h e t e x t i n t h i s m a t t e r of t h e d e p l o y m e n t of t h e n a m e s for D e i t y e v i n c e s itself a g a i n in Lot's s e c o n d d i r e c t address to his d i v i n e visit o r ( s ) . In his first address (verse 2) h e said, " M y lords, | a clônay] please t u r n aside [pl.] to y o u r Ipld s e r v a n t s house.‫ ״‬In his s e c o n d address (verses 18 - 1 9 ) , like A b r a h a m b e f o r e h i m , h e says, " M y l o r d s h i p | i?
event"

H e r e a g a i n t h e c o n t e x t is, accorciing t o t h e C a s s u t o - B r i c h t o h y p o t h e s i s , a p p r o p r i a t e for t h e a p p e a r a n c e of Y H W H , n o t E l o h i m . If t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d h y p o t h e s i s w e r e a f o r m u l a , t h e d e p l o y m e n t of b o t h t h e n a m e s , Y H W H a n d E l o h i m , i n t h i s C h a p t e r 19 w o u l d c o n s t i t u t e a n i n v a l i d a t i o n of t h a t f o r m u l a . B u t , as I stressed earlier, it is n o t a f o r m u l a b u t a g u i d e t o a n u m b e r of n u a n c e s i n t h e c o n t e x t s i n w h i c h t h e s e n a m e s m a y v a r i o u s l y a p p e a r ; w h i c h is t o say, separately, in a s s o c i a t i o n a n d i n c o n t r a s t w i t h o n e a n o t h e r , or in a s s o c i a t i o n a n d in c o n t r a s t w i t h y e t o t h e r n a m e s or t e r m s f o r Deity, or e v e n n o t at all, t h i s last a zero i n s t a n c e t h a t is n o t t o b e i g n o r e d as i n s i g n i f i c a n t . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e n u a n c e s discussed in C h a p t e r 1; are o t h e r s ( s o m e t i m e s c o m p l e m e n t a r y , s o m e t i m e s s u p p l e m e n t a r y t o t h e m ) w h o s e f u n c t i o n s as p o e t i c ploys h a v e b e e n d e v i s e d by t h e writer, a n d w h i c h s t a n d as c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e r e a d e r i n w h a t S t e r n b e r g e x p l o r e s u n d e r t h e rubric the drama of reading. T h u s , for e x a m p l e , t h e s u b t l e shifts in p o i n t - o l - v i e w , w h i c h S t e r n b e r g c h a r t s u n d e r t h e r u b r i c free iridirect discourse the interpretation

(explicit a n d i m p l i e d ) , may b e m u s t e r e d for

ot m a n y a S c r i p t u r a l passage w i t h special r e f e r e n c e t o

the

t c r m ( s ) or n a m e ( s ) d e p l o y e d for Deity. 111 t h e case of o u r verse 13, t h e d o u b l e prèse n c e of Y H W I 1 w o u l d s e e m to us to be an i n s t a n c e of Jree direct: discourse,

the

T c t r a g r a m m a t o n c o n v e y i n g t h e s e n s e of t h e a n g e l s that: it is t h e G o d oi J u s t i c e w h o has judged t h e city a n d h a s s e n t t h e m t o e x e c u t e s e n t e n c e ; so t o o , p e r h a p s n o r alt o g e t h e r wittingly, t h e Te tr agr a m m a t o η in Lot's a d d r e s s t o his sons-in-law. T h e s e latter, w h o w o u l d h a v e b e e n i n f o r m e d by L o t of t h e i r fellow S o d o m i t e s ' d e s i g n s o n t h e visitors ( h a d t h e y n o t a l r e a d y k n o w n of t h e assault) s h o w t h e m s e l v e s as t r u e S o d o m i t e s by t h e i r i n c r e d u l i t y in t h e e x i s t e n c e of a D e i t y possessing Mich a n att r i b u t e a n d i n t e r v e n i n g i n t h e affairs of m o r t a l s . A n d in verse 29, t h e g e n e r i c t e r m for d e i t y t h a t h a s b e c o m e in S c r i p t u r e s m o n o t h e i s t i c t h e o l o g v t h e m o s t c o n ! p r e -

EVENTS ÎN THE LUT: OF ABRAHAM

259

h e n s i v e n a m e , G o d , is t h e n a r r a t o r ' s d e v i c e for r e d i r e c t i n g o u r a t t e n t i o n — s h o u l d w e h a v e missed it at: first r e a d i n g — t o t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e T e t r a g r a m m a t o n ' s app e a r a n c e s i n verses 13 a n d 14. M y r e a d e r s m u s t j u d g e for t h e m s e l v e s , h e r e as e v e r y w h e r e , t h e p e r s u a s i v e n e s s of m y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . B u t o n e t h i n g m u s t h e c l e a r : t h e g e n e t i c h y p o t h e s i s of t w o n a r ‫׳‬ r a t i v e t r a d i t i o n s , t h a t of J a n d t h a t of P, offers n o s o l u t i o n t o t h e p r o b l e m s I h a v e raised. For e v e n if verse 29 r e p r e s e n t s a s u d d e n i r r u p t i o n of Ρ i n t o o u r t e x t , t h e aut h o r n a m e d J is a d m i t t e d l y f r e e t o d i s p o s e of t h e n a m e E l o h i m as w e l l as t h e T e t r a g r a m m a t o n ; t h a t author would h a v e k n o w n h o w inappropriate would be t h e Tetrag r a m m a t o n i n t h e m o u t h s of Y H W H ' s e m i s s a r i e s a d d r e s s i n g L o t , o r i n Lot's m o u t h a d d r e s s i n g S o d o m i t e s ; a n d t h a t a u t h o r w o u l d t h e r e f o r e h a v e o p t e d for E l o h i m i n t h e d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e of angels a n d L o t , as i n d e e d h e did i n 3 : 1 - 5 , i n t h e d i r e c t disc o u r s e of t h e s e r p e n t a n d t h e w o m a n in t h e m a t t e r of t h e t r e e s i g n i f i c a n t f o r its c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e k n o w l e d g e of g o o d a n d b a d .

THREE DOMESTIC

TRIANGLES

The Triangle in Egypt (1‫׳‬o) A famine occurred in that area, so Abram went down to Egypt tor a short stay there

-so severe in the area was (he famine. (11) W h e n h e was close to reaching

Egypt he said to his wife Sarai,

11

Attend me: Well do I appreciate how beautiful a

woman you are. (12) h may well he then that when the Egyptians catch sight, of you and presume, 'that 's his wife, that one,' that they take my life that they may have you alive. (1Y) DO you then hruit, IT's my sister you are, to the end that it go well with me, thanks to you, that my neck is saved, by your grace." (14) A n d so it came about when Abram entered Egypt, the Egyptians on beholding this woman were struck — h o w exceedingly beautiful she is. (15) W h e n P h a r a o h s lieutenants beheld her, they praised her to Pharaoh and so this woman was taken into Pharaoh's household. (16) With Abram n o w it went very well indeed, thanks to her, so that there accrued to him flocks and herds, jackasses and male slaves and female slaves and jenny asses and camels.) (17) Y H W H t h e n afflicted Pharaoh with great afflictions and his household as well on account of Sarai, Abram's wife. (18) Pharaoh summoned Abram, He declared. "How could you do such a thing to me! W h y did you not tell me that it's your wife she is? (19) W h y did you declare, 'My sister—she?' So that 1 took her lor myself as wife! Now then, here's your wife, take [her] and get!" (20) Thus Pharaoh put him under official charge and deported him and his wife and everyone/thing his. (Genesis 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 ) W e r e t h i s e p i s o d e a c h a p t e r in a b i o g r a p h i c a l n o v e l c e n t e r i n g o n A b r a m w e , t h e m o d e r n reader, w o u l d find a n u m b e r of d e t a i l s i n p l o t a n d c h a r a c t e r so i n c o n g r u o u s w i t h o u r o w n life e x p e r i e n c e as t o lead us e i t h e r t o s t a m p t h e a u t h o r as i n e p t , o r t o b e p u l l i n g o u r leg, 01* t o b e i n d u l g i n g in f a n t a s y of a p a r t i c u l a r l y u n v c r i s i m i l i t u d i nous nature. T h e r e is, to b e g i n w i t h , t h e m a t t e r of c h r o n o l o g y . A g l a n c e at‫ ״‬T a b l e 7-1 in part 11 w111 s h o w that at t h e t i m e of t h i s d e s c e n t t o Egypt Sarai was sixty-five years old,

2,36

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL H I S T O R Y "

a t t h e least. T h i s of c o u r s e is n o t a p r o b l e m f o r s o u r c e - c r i t i c s , w h o find t h e s e c h r o n o l o g i c a l n o t i c e s as P's ( m i n d l e s s ) i r r u p t i o n i n t o t h e n a r r a t i v e s s p u n by t h e t a l e n t e d J. But t h e p o e t i c i a n m a y n o t so lightly d i s p o s e of it, a n d w e m a y h a v e t o a c c e p t t h e r a b b i n i c s u g g e s t i o n t h a t M o t h e r Sarai's b e a u t y did n o t age o r stale. A s e c o n d p r o b l e m c e n t e r s o n t h e d e s c e n t t o Egypt. W a s it a m a t t e r of life a n d d e a t h for A b r a m a n d his i m m e d i a t e family? O r , as i n m o s t cases of b i b l i c a l f a m i n e s , was it a m a t t e r of prosperity, of k e e p i n g his l i v e s t o c k i n f l o u r i s h i n g c o n d i t i o n ? It is n o r m a l l y a s s u m e d t h a t A b r a m was a l r e a d y a s t o c k m a n i n his n a t i v e l a n d . B u t t h i s is n o w h e r e s t a t e d . A n d it m a y well b e t h e i n t e n t of o u r n a r r a t o r in t h e p a r e n t h e t i c verse 16 of t h i s e p i s o d e t o t r a c e t h e b e g i n n i n g of A b r a m ' s f o r t u n e t o t h e s t o c k , steeds, a n d s e r v a n t s t h a t a c c r u e d t o h i m largely in c o n s e q u e n c e of his s t a n d i n g as P h a r a o h ' s b r o t h e r - i n - l a w . T h e n a r r a t o r m a y i n d e e d b e s i g n a l i n g s u c h i n t e n t in t h e w o r d s h e p u t s i n t o A b r a m ' s m o u t h i n v e r s e 13. H a v i n g e x p r e s s e d his f e a r t h a t h i s life will he in d a n g e r if h e is t a k e n as h e r h u s b a n d , b u t n o t if s h e d e c l a r e s h i m h e r b r o t h e r , t h e f o l l o w - u p t o his p e t i t i o n w o u l d simply b e s o m e t h i n g a l o n g t h e l i n e of umahi

et naps! " a n d t h u s save m y life?' I n s t e a d A b r a m expresses first a desire for

g e n e r a l good f o r t u n e , a n d t h e n a r e f e r e n c e t o his life by mi/vsl, a n o u n w h o s e d e n o t a l i o n is " t h r o a t , g u l l e t " ( h e n c e o u r t r a n s l a t i o n " n e c k " ) , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e v e r b hy/1, w h o s e c o n n o t a t i o n is " h e alive," but w h i c h also bears such, n u a n c e s as "be well, h e h e a l t h y , r e c o v e r , prosper, flourish.' 1 4 5 T h u s , a l t h o u g h o u r t r a n s l a t i o n " m y n e c k be s a v e d " = " t h a t I d o n o t d i e " (nepeS w i t h t h e p r o n o m i n a l e n d i n g s also serves for t h e p e r s o n a l p r o n o u n s ) t h e w o r d s m a y just as c o r r e c t l y b e r e n d e r e d , " t h a t my lite h e e n h a n c e d . " B o t h e x p r e s s i o n s for a h a p p y o u t c o m e a r e a t t a c h e d to e x p r e s s i o n s t h a t m e a n " o n y o u r a c c o u n t , " a n d n o t "by v i r t u e of y o u r a c t i o n ? ' A b r a m ' s w o r d s t h u s p r o p h e t i c a l l y , alt h o u g h u n c o n s c i o u s l y , f o r e s h a d o w t h e a c t u a l result of t h e lie w h o s e d e s i g n it is t o m i s l e a d t h e E g y p t i a n s . T h e r e a s o n i n g b e h i n d t h e lie is also puzzling. O n t h e f a c e of it, it s e e m s t o suggest t h a t t h e E g y p t i a n s w o u l d s h r i n k f r o m c o m m i t t i n g a d u l t e r y w i t h t h e wife of a n a l i e n , b u t n o t f r o m t h e a c t of m u r d e r i n g a n a l i e n i n o r d e r t o h a v e t h e i r way w i t h t h e v i c t i m ' s widow, s h e n o w e f f e c t i v e l y f r e e d f r o m c o n j u g a l t a b o o s . A n t h r o p o l o gists specializing in law a n d m o r e s agree t h a t t h e t w o a c t s c o n s i d e r e d c r i m i n a l in t h e m o s t p r i m i t i v e societies are m u r d e r a n d adultery. N o n e , as far as I k n o w , c i t e a c a s e w h e r e t h e g r e a t e r of t h e t w o c r i m e s is adultery. 4 4 B u t a s s u m i n g t h a t A b r a m did i n d e e d f e a r t h a t e i t h e r his life or w i f e w o u l d h e at risk i n Egypt, w h y w o u l d h e t a k e s u c h c h a n c e s t h e r e r a t h e r t h a n w i t h t h e s c a r c i t y in C a n a a n ? Or, if passing off his wife as sister w o u l d r e n d e r h e r c o u r t a b l e by h e r E g y p t i a n h o s t s , was h e ready to surr e n d e r h e r as p r i c e f o r e s c a p i n g t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s of f a m i n e ? A n d w h a t of Sarai's m i n d o n t h i s m a t t e r ? A b r a m ' s p e t i t i o n t o h e r m a k e s it e x p l i c i t t h a t h e r c o n s e n t a n d c o l l a b o r a t i o n , w e r e c r i t i c a l t o e n g a g i n g i n t h e ruse. T h i s last o b s e r v a t i o n , t h a t t h e n a r r a t i v e e x p l i c a t e s t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of b o t h A b r a m a n d S a r a i for t h e trigger m e c h a n i s m of t h e p l o t e n t a n g l e m e n t , d i r e c t s o u r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e t h i r d p a r t y in t h i s r o m a n t i c t r i a n g l e : P h a r a o h . A n u m b e r of gapp i n g f e a t u r e s in t h e n a r r a t i o n m a y serve to a m b i g u a t e t h e q u e s t i o n of P h a r a o h ' s re‫׳‬ s p o m i b i h r y , c o m p l i c i t y , or e v e n guilt. T h e p a r e n t h e t i c , d e t a i l of verse

16—which

b o t h in t h e m a t t e r of't i m o - s e t t i n g a n d plot d e v e l o p m e n t would seem to be clearly out c‫י‬t p l a c e

o c c u p i e s a gap w i t h o u t filling it. H o w m u c h r i m e elapsed bet w e e n

E V E N T S I N T H E LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

261

t h e r e m o v a l of Sarai t o P h a r a o h s lia re m a n d Y H W H ' s i n i t i a t i o n of t h e "great a f f l i c t i o n s Γ f l o w m a n y days or w e e k s i n t e r v e n e d b e t w e e n S a r a i s e n t r y i n t o t h e king's h o u s e h o l d and. h e r b e i n g f e t c h e d t o his bed? If i n d e e d f e t c h e d t o his b e d s h e e v e r was! A n d was t h i s f e t c h i n g w i t h o u t c e r e m o n y , w h e t h e r of c o u r t i n g c o n s e n t or h y m e n e a l c é l é b r a t i o n ? W o u l d e v e n a w o m a n w h o was o n l y t h e sister of A b r a m h a v e b e e n d e n i e d c o - w i f e status, t r e a t e d as merely a n a l l u r i n g o d a l i s q u e : A n d 11 so i n d e e d w o u l d Sarai a t t h e last m o m e n t n o t h a v e b l u r t e d out t h e t r u t h ? O r was it at the moment before that m o m e n t t h a t Y H W H ' s intervention rendered her confess i o n u n n e c e s s a r y ? O r is it c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t t h e r e was n o c o n f e s s i o n in d e s p e r a t i o n , a n d t h a t t h e a f f l i c t i o n s b e g a n o n l y a f t e r Sarai's v i r t u e was sullied? A n d h o w d i d P h a r a o h learn t h a t n o t only h e but his e n t i r e h o u s e h o l d h a d suffered affliction( s ) in c o m m o n ? A n d h o w did h e d i s c o v e r t h a t t h e a f f l i c t i n g p o w e r was n o n e o t h e r t h a n a n (or t h e ) a v e n g i n g d / D e i t y ? O r , if t h e p r o p e r a d j e c t i v e is minatory t h a n avenging,

rather

h o w did P h a r a o h l e a r n t h a t t h e w a r n i n g r e l a t e d t o " S a r a i wife of

A b r a m " (verse 17)? B u t l e a r n h e c e r t a i n l y d i d , a n d h i s r e s p o n s e t o h i s discovery, in t h e d i a l o g u e p l a c e d i n h i s m o u t h a n d i n t h e a b s e n c e of r e s p o n s e f r o m A b r a m , w o u l d i n d i c a t e t h a t w h a t e v e r h a p p e n e d or did n o t h a p p e n o r a l m o s t h a p p e n e d , t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was e n t i r e l y A b r a m ' s . P h a r a o h h i m s e l f is n o t o n l y b l a m e l e s s , h e is t h e v i c t i m of A b r a m s s c a n d a l o u s d e p o r t m e n t . H i s series of r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s begins w i t h t h e w r o n g d o n e t o h i m by A b r a m . T h e s e c o n d a n d t h i r d q u e s t i o n s w o u l d n o r m a l l y h a v e b e e n r e v e r s e d : first, w h y d i d y o u say s h e was y o u r sister, r e s u l t i n g in m y t a k i n g h e r t o wife? S e c o n d , w h y d i d y o u n o t tell m e t h a t s h e w a s y o u r wife, n o t y o u r sister? By o r d e r i n g t h e q u e s t i o n s as h e does, t h e n a r r a t o r i n f o r m s us t h a t e v e n after Sarai h a d b e e n t a k e n to t h e palace A b r a m k e p t his silence, a n d t h a t

the

m e a n i n g of t11‫־‬e v e r b Vïmar, literally "said," is a m e t a p h o r i c e x p r e s s i o n for "give t h e impression, 1 ' or in my t r a n s l a t i o n " b r u i t (it about)? 1 T h e a n s w e r s t o m o s t of t h e g a p p i n g q u e s t i o n s — t h e gaps t h e m s e l v e s u n b r i d g e a b l e on t h e basis of t h i s o n e n a r r a t i v e e p i s o d e — m a y p e r h a p s e m e r g e f r o m a study of t h e r e m a i n i n g t w o r o m a n t i c - t r i a n g l e stories. 4 s T h e a n s w e r t o o n e q u e s t i o n , h o w ever, e m e r g e s f r o m a n e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e v e r b laqah, w h i c h a p p e a r s t h r e e t i m e s in t h i s n a r r a t i v e . The d e n o t a t i o n of t h i s v e r b is " t a k e ; " its c o n n o t a t i o n s e x t e n d t o a r e m a r k a b l e r a n g e of n u a n c e s : s t a t i c or d y n a m i c , p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e , licit or illicit . T h u s for e x a m p l e : t a k e = a c c e p t , s h a r e , p a r t a k e ; t a k e p o s s e s s i o n of, p u r c h a s e , carry off; m a r r y ( t a k e in m a r r i a g e ) , t a k e as c o n c u b i n e , t a k e (a w o m a n by f o r c e ) , rape; f e t c h , t a k e b a c k , r e m o v e , seize, c a p t u r e , t a k e a b r i b e , e x t o r t ; r e c e i v e a n o r a c l e . T h e first a p p e a r a n c e of t h i s v e r b i n v e r s e 15 is a p a s s i v e qal; S a r a i was " b r o u g h t , i n t r o d u c e d into'‫ י‬w i t h n o i n d i c a t i o n of t h e a g e n t ( t h e i m p l i c a t i o n of Sarai's b e i n g p r a i s e d in his p r e s e n c e is of c o u r s e t h a t t h e a c t i o n h a d P h a r a o h ' s c o n s e n t ) . But w i t h t h e w o r d bay it " h o u s e , h o m e , p a l a c e , h o u s e h o l d , family," e x c e p t for t h e l i m i t a t i e n s i m p o s e d by P h a r a o h ' s d i a l o g u e , t h e e x p r e s s i o n c a n r u n t h e g a m u t f r o m "abd u c t e d i n t o t h e p a l a c e " t o "was t a k e n as a wife." T h e s e c o n d a p p e a r a n c e of t h i s v e r b is w i t h "to w i v e " or " t o wife," t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e t w o b e i n g t h e quest i o n of w h e t h e r t h e i n t e n t h a d y e t b e e n c o n s u m m a t e d . I n its t h i r d

appearance

UKÎ/1) i m p e r a t i v e ( w i t h o u t a n o b j e c t ) in P h a r a o h ' s c u r t c o m m a n d , a n d f o l l o w e d by a n o t h e r m o n o l i t h i c i m p e r a t i v e (lek) "git, scram," it is p r e c e d e d by, " h e r e , now, is this wife ot yours," e q u i v a l e n t t o " m i n e she n e v e r b e c a m e ! " T h e c o n c l u d i n g sen-

2,36

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

t e n c e , i n t h e n a r r a t o r s v o i c e b u t r e f l e c t i n g t h e p e r s p e c t i v e of P h a r a o h , a n d in t h e a b s e n c e of a c h a l l e n g e t o t h a t p e r s p e c t i v e , p a i n t s so sorry a p i c t u r e of A b r a m t h a t t h e r e a d e r — c o n d i t i o n e d t o a c c e p t h i m as h e r o - a n c e s t o r — f i n d s it a l m o s t impossihie t o c r e d i t . T h e d i v i n e p o w e r t h a t p r o t e c t e d Sarai's c h a s t i t y bars P h a r a o h f r o m a n y p u n i t i v e a c t i o n a g a i n s t his t r e a c h e r o u s guest, b u t it c a n n o t r e q u i r e a c o n t i n u ing h o s p i t a l i t y . P h a r a o h p l a c e s A b r a m u n d e r g u a r d ( " h o n o r guard," if you insist, b u t guard n o n e t h e l e s s )

a n d — t h e p i e l sl{1 " t o release, speed, d r i v e o u t , e x p e l

di-

v o r c e " — h a s h i m , h i s wife, a n d e v e r y t h i n g a t t a c h i n g t o h i m e s c o r t e d t o t h e border. G o o d riddance to bad garbage!

771 c Triangle in G c r a r (1 ) From ibere |Mn1nre's Oaks] A b r a h a m traveled toward the Negev area and settled down between Kadesh and Shut‫־‬. W h e n he took up temporary residence in Gerat; (2) Abraham sud oi his wile Sarah, "my sister—she." Ahimeiech, kin,g of Gerar, sent |a delegation I and look Sarah. (3) in a dream by night came G o d to Ahimeiech and said to him, " T i s a dead man you are, by reason of the woman/wife you have taken

she

being of a husband possessed. (4) (Ahimeiech now had made no physical advance to her.) H e declared, "My Lord, will you slay a nation innocent though it be: (5) Was u not he himself said to me, 'My sister—she,' and she, yes she herself said, 1 My brother — b e d W i t h intent all innocent and hands clean of wrong doing did I this thing." (6) T h e n the n u m e n in the dream said to him, ‫ ״‬I too know that in all innocent intent you did this. A n d I held you back, yes I [held] you [back] from offending me. For this reason I allowed you not to make contact with her. (7) N o w t h e n restore the man's wife. Verily, h e is a prophet, let him intercede for you and you, recover. But if you do not restore, know that you will of a certainty die, you and all your [people]." (8) Early that morning Abimelech summoned all his courtiers and made them privy to all these details. These personages were terribly frightened, (9) Ahimeiech then summoned Abraham and said to him, " W h a t have you brought upon us — and what the offense of mine against you — that you brought upon me and upon my realm such great punishment! Deeds unthinkable have you done in your dealings with m e ‫״‬ 10))

A n o t h e r question Abimelech posed to Ab

[among us] that brought you to commit such a deed?" (11) A b r a h a m declared, "[Nothing indeed] only that it was my supposition: There is surely n o reverence here for F)1vinity|s norms]: they might well kill me on account of my wife. (3 2) And indeed she is, o! a truth, my sister-

my fathers daughter she,

but: not‫ ׳‬my m o t h e r s daughter, and se» became wile to me. (13) It was when Provi‫״‬ de nee caused me to roam from my father's h o m e that I said to her, 1 This act of fidelity 1 would have you do for me: at any place where we arrive, say of me, thai one is my brother." 1 ( 14) Abimelech fetched flocks and herds, male slaves and female slaves and presented | them J to Abraham, and restored to h i m his wife Sarah. (15) Said Abimelech, "Viy territory lies at your disposal, settle wherever you please," (16) To Sarah he ?aid, "Go now, I have given a thousand-weight of silver to your brother. That now serves you as eye-veil for all in your company, that is, in every respect your position is set aright?' (17) Abraham then interceded with the Deity. God then provided remedy for

E V E N T S IN

ΓΗ Ε LIFE OF A B R A H A M

263

Ahimelech, thai is tu say tor his wile and all. his female subjects: they gave hiith. (18) Yes indeed, Y H W H had placed restraining bar across every womb in Abimelech's realm, on account oi Sarah, A h r a h a m s wife. (Genesis 20:1 - 1 8 ) The

s i m i l a r f e a t u r e s of this story a n d t h e o n e in Egypt are as follows. 1 h e deci-

sion ι (‫ י‬seek h o s p i t a l i t y in a f o r e i g n k i n g d o m is A b r a h a m ' s a n d h i s a l o n e . N o d i v i n e s o u r c e r e c o m m e n d s t h i s o p t i o n . T h e lie ( o r h a l f - t r u t h , w h i c h c o m e s t o t h e s a m e t h i n g ) a b o u t S a r a h s s t a t u s o r i g i n a t e s w i t h t h e p a t r i a r c h , o u t of f e a r for h i s life; it r e q u i r e s t h a t h e w i n c o n s e n t of h i s wife w h o d o e s n o t s h a r e t h e s a m e v u l n e r a b i l i t y as t o life, y e t m u s t b e r e a d y t o f o r g o t h e r e s p e c t d u e t o a m a r r i e d w o m a n a n d t o risk assault o n h e r s e x u a l h o n o r . T h e r e a s o n i n g b e h i n d t h e lie is t h e a s s u m p t i o n of t h e p a t r i a r c h as t o t h e i m m o r a l i t y of E g y p t i a n s a n d G e r a r i t e s , a n a s s u m p t i o n i m p l i c i t i n t h e first story a n d e x p l i c i t in t h e s e c o n d ; a n a s s u m p t i o n , f u r t h e r m o r e , n o t o n l y u n s u p p o r t e d i n t h e n a r r a t o r ' s v o i c e , b u t c o n t r a v e n e d by t h e d i a l o g u e in w h i c h t h e h o s t kings express t h e i r s h o c k o v e r t h e m i s c h i e f - m a k i n g lie. B o t h k i n g s a r e abs o l v e d of a n y serious w r o n g d o i n g i n t h e i r a r r o g a t i o n ( n o t , let us n o t e , u s u r p a t i o n ) of t h e b e a u t e o u s m a t r i a r c h , yet b o t h suffer g r i e v o u s p u n i s h m e n t a t t h e h a n d s of G o d a n d b o t h ( a p p a r e n t l y ) e x t e n d r e p a r a t i o n s in o n e f o r m o r a n o t h e r , w h e t h e r w i l l i n g l y or u n w i l l i n g l y , w h i c h e n r i c h t h e u n d e s e r v i n g p a t r i a r c h . Finally, i n b o t h cases t h e a f f l i c t i o n of t h e k i n g is n o t l i m i t e d t o h i s o w n p e r s o n , b u t e x t e n d s t o h i s h o u s e h o l d , c o u r t , or e v e n n a t i o n , T h e s e c o n d story, m o r e t h a n t w i c e as k i n g as t h e first, p r o v i d e s d e t a i l s t h a t , if e x t r a p o l a t e d for t h e first, will b r i d g e a n u m b e r of gaps w e h a v e n o t e d , a n d t h u s ext e n d t h e list of s i m i l a r i t i e s in t h e t w o n a r r a t i v e s . ( B u t e v e n as w e n o t e t h e s e addit i o n a l similarities, let us r e m e m b e r t h a t a full p o e t i c a l analysis w o u l d r e q u i r e a disc e r n i n g of why w h a t is g a p p e d in t h e o n e a c c o u n t is m a d e explicit in t h e o t h e r . ) T h e a p p e a r a n c e of G o d (Aj/iTm, verse 3) in t h e u n d e s c r i h e d f o r m of a n u m e n (/1ä ( / ö t a n , verse 6 ) t o a d v i s e A h i m e l e c h t h a t t h e d a n g e r i m p e n d i n g is o w i n g t o his laking of A b r a h a m s wife e n a b l e s us t o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t P h a r a o h t o o r e c e i v e d an oracle t o w a r n h i m t h a t t h e ' 1 great a f f l i c t i o n s " were o n a c c o u n t of t h e m a t r i a r c h , a n d for t h e s a m e r e a s o n . S o t o o A h i m e l e c h s c h a r a c t e r i z i n g h i m s e l f as i n n o c e n t b o t h i n i n t e n t a n d d e e d , c h a r a c t e r i z i n g himself ( a n d h i s n a t i o n ) as saddle] " u p r i g h t , m o r a l , r i g h t e o u s , i n n o c e n t , " t h i s d e f e n s e c o r r o b o r a t e d by t h e n a r r a t o r i n his o w n v o i c e t h a t n o p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t h a d o c c u r r e d ( v e r s e 4 ) , a n d a g a i n by t h e r m m e n ' s i n d i c a t ing t h a t s o m e d i v i n e a c t i o n was r e s p o n s i b l e for t h a t f a i l u r e t o a p p r o a c h S a r a h . A l l t h i s i n f o r m s us t h a t t h e p u n i s h m e n t , w h i c h is n o t m a d e e x p l i c i t u n t i l

verses

1 7 - 1 8 , h a d already b e g u n before t h e oracular dream, a n d thus points to t h e same c o n c l u s i o n i n t h e case of P h a r a o h . T h e w a r n i n g , w h i c h h e r e c e i v e d i n t h e f o r m of " g r e a t a f f l i c t i o n s " u p o n h i m s e l f a n d h i s h o u s e h o l d or c o u r t , c a m e b e f o r e h e h a d a c h a n c e t o sully S a r a h a n d b e f o r e t h e o r a c u l a r r e s p o n s e t r a c e d h i s t r o u b l e s t o h e r presence in his h a r e m . T h e n a t u r e of t h e s e g r e a t afflictions, u n s p e c i f i e d i n t h e first story, is suggested in t h e s e c o n d . A fitting affliction ( t h e i d i o m poetic justice c o m e s t o m i n d ) , a n d p a r t i e ularly e f f i c a c i o u s for t h e a c h i e v i n g of Deity's o b j e c t i v e w o u l d , of course, be i m p o t e n c e . A s u d d e n a n d c o n t i n u i n g loss of virility a f f l i c t i n g all t h e m a l e s i n t h e kingd o m w o u l d b e r e m e d y for t h e h ν bris ot t h e d o m i n a n t m a l e s w h o a s s u m e t h a t t h e

2,36

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

place for female beam i es is t h e noble's h a r e m . A n d it would also explain A b i m elech's implication t h a t the c o n t i n u a n c e of an entire n a t i o n is at stake (verse 4), as well as the p o i n t in verse 8 of Abimelech's involving all t h e lords of the court, as well as their great and collective fright. 1 he last two verses, which serve as an illum i n a t i n g epilogue, stress a n o t h e r side of t h e fertility e q u a t i o n and, in a c o n t e x t of h tt tit or, prepare us for the possibility t h a t t h e affliction was n o t only miraculous and bizarre, hut even fantastical, T h e h u m o r begins in verses 6 - 7 . T h e n u m e n re present ing G o J first acknowledges Abimelech's i n n o c e n c e in t h e m a t t e r of t h e ahduction into his seraglio, cil es this knowledge o n his part; from t h e very beginning, and takes t h e credit for p r e v e n t i n g A b i m e l e c h f r o m compromising t h e h o n o r of t h e strangely reticent wife of a n o t h e r m a n , w h i c h is to say, takes credit for Abimelech's affliction. T h i s is followed, as t h o u g h t h e i m p e n d i n g d e a t h s e n t e n c e o n a n entire n a t i o n were n o t enough, by an e x h o r t a t i o n to restore t h e w o m a n to her husband, and by a n o t h e r threat t h a t t h e failure to d o so would entail his d e a t h and that of all w h o appertain to h i m . T h e p o i n t of t h e seemingly otiose e x h o r t a t i o n and the equally superfluous t h r e a t is w h a t comes in between: t h e restoration to t h e h u s b a n d of his wife is necessary to achieve this husband's p r o p h e t i c intercession, w i t h o u t w h i c h intercession presumably Deity c a n n o t act. A n d it is this critical intercession (duly n o t e d in verse 17 as addressed to häHöhim "the n u m e n " ) by A b r a h a m t h a t resuits in G odds (Hôhïm) curing n o t only A b i m e l e c h but also his wife and all his female subjects. W e h a v e speculated o n Abimelech's malady, but w h a t ailed t h e w o m e n : All of t h e m ! N o speculation required: t h e text tells us explicitly. G o d himself, designated by t h e n a m e t h a t marks h i m as t h e tutelary a n d protective genius of A b r a h a m and his line to c o m e — Y H W H — h a d rendered t h e m barren. Incapable oi conceiving? No, not quite, T h e time factor, never explicitly referred to in t h e narrative, implicitly rules out this specific aspect of barrenness. For barrenness to be recognized as a p u n i s h m e n t or warning imposed by Deity to protect t h e h o n o r of a woman newly introduced to t h e roster ol royal wives, the !act of the barrenness would have to be as immediately recognizable as the conjectured impotence. A n d the expression for t h e barrenness is t h a t Yl IWI1 had imposed a restraint, a b a r — s o to speak—"across every w o m b in A b i m e l e c h s court." A n d the conclusion of verse 17's n o t i c e t h a t G o d cured t h e w o m e n is n o t t h a t they were able to conceive (wattäk'rü), but wayyeledü "and they gave birth." T h e o n e condition t h a t would seem to fit all t h e clinical and plot requirements here is false pregnancy, a swollen belly signaling a near-term pregnancy t h a t n e v e r results in a delivery. T h i s medical pathology has b e e n recognized elsewhere in Scripture, 4 6 but it does n o t qualify here. For false pregnancy is just t h a t : a n e x t e r n a l appearance ot gravidity, but n o fetus within. In t h e case of Abimelech's w o m e n , and perhaps by inference of Pharaoh's as well, w o m e n arrived at pregnancy's t e r m — a n d n o small n u m b e r ot s u c h — w e r e barred from giving birth. Similarities in two narratives sharing a n identical plot occasion n o surprise. Ditferences, standing out in greater relief by reason of t h e similarities, must provide t h e clues t o why two stories appear at all. In order of their appearance t h e n , the pam a r c h ' s fear for his life is given in t h e first story as e x p l a n a t i o n for t h e lie, but not in the second. T h i s may be due to t h e assumption of this detail in t h e second story. But it may also or alternatively be traced to t h e differing circumstances. In the first.

EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

265

A b r a m ' s d e s c e n t t o E g y p t t o e s c a p e t h e f a m i n e i n C a n a a n gives t h e i m p r e s s i o n of c o m p u l s i o n ; in t h e s e c o n d , t h e s o j o u r n i n G e r a r is c a s u a l a n d v o l u n t a r y , w h i c h w o u l d r e n d e r h i s f e a r r a t h e r silly. W h y t h e n r e s o r t t o t h e lie t o b e g i n w i t h ? S i m i larly, n e i t h e r S a r a h ' s b e a u t y n o r A b r a h a m ' s p e t i t i o n t h a t s h e c o r r o b o r a t e t h e h e a p ‫׳‬ p e a r at t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e s e c o n d story. W h e r e t h e s e d e t a i l s d o appear, in story o n e , t h e y are realized in t h e p r a i s e of t h e w o m a n t o P h a r a o h a n d i n h e r b e i n g f e t c h e d t o h i s p a l a c e , yet t h i s last a c t is f o r m u l a t e d i n t h e passive v o i c e , w i t h o u t a n a g e n t , as t h o u g h t h e n a r r a t o r , r e f l e c t i n g P h a r a o h ' s p e r s p e c t i v e , d e n i e s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for his p a n d e r i n g m i n i s t e r s ' c o n c e r n for his p l e a s u r e . By c o n t r a s t , A h i m e l e c h him‫־׳‬ self s e n d s a d e l e g a t i o n , a n d it is h e w h o f e t c h e s S a r a h t o c o u r t . P h a r a o h is a b r u p t l y s m i t t e n w i t h afflictions, t h e s o u r c e a n d c a u s e of w h i c h h e m u s t f e r r e t o u t tor him‫׳‬self, a s e a r c h n o t difficult for a k i n g w h o s e court

is f a b l e d for its d i v i n e r s a n d wiz-

ards. A n d , t h e r e b e i n g n o e x p l i c i t m e n t i o n of r e p a r a t i o n s , t h e p a y i n g of w h i c h is t a n t a m o u n t t o a n a c c e p t a n c e oi s o m e guilt, t h e t a c t of s u c h r e p a r a t i o n s is p e r h a p s b u r i e d in t h e p a r e n t h e t i c aside, v e r s e 16, e x p l i c a t i n g A b r a m ' s m a t e r i a l g a i n s by t h e P h a r a o h ' s a r r o g a t i o n of S a r a i . A h i m e l e c h is n o t l e f t t o w o n d e r a b o u t t h e c a u s e of his t r o u b l e s . E v e n b e f o r e t h e s e are m a d e e x p l i c i t , h e is d e c l a r e d i n n o c e n t of c i v c r o a c h m e n t by t h e n a r r a t o r , a n d is v o u c h s a f e d a d i v i n e r e v e l a t i o n c o n f i r m i n g his i n n o c e n c e and affirming divinity's favorable disposition. A s for A h i m e l e c h s o w n d i s p o s i t i o n in t h e m a t t e r of r e p a r a t i o n s , t h e story c o n c l u d e s w i t h his o w n v o l u n t a r y m a k i n g of a m e n d s . T o t h i s w e s h a l l r e t u r n . In c o n t r a s t t o P h a r a o h ' s u n a n s w e r e d m o n o l o g u e , a s s a u l t i v e in t o n e for all its j u s t i f i c a t i o n , a n d f o l l o w e d by t h e c o n t e m p t u o u s b a n i s h m e n t of t h e p a t r i a r c h a l f a n v ily f r o m h i s b o r d e r s , is t h e e x t e n d e d d i a l o g u e b e t w e e n A h i m e l e c h a n d A b r a h a m , s u b t l e yet e l o q u e n t i n its u n d e r t o n e s a n d o v e r t o n e s , t h e s e b o r n e o u t i n A b i m elech's t r e a t m e n t of h i s t r o u b l e s o m e guest. A b i m e l e c h ' s address t o A b r a h a m g i v e n m t w o sections, t h e first c o n s i s t i n g of t h r e e s e g m e n t s . 1) What have you

is

brought

upon us? N o t e t h e p l u r a l a c c u s a t i v e p r o n o u n , w h i c h c a n i n c l u d e A h r a h a m in his lie's v i c t i m i z a t i o n , as a g a i n s t P h a r a o h ' s me, a n d t h e a b s e n c e of t h e P h a r a o h ' s acc u s a t o r y ?crt " t h i s a w f u l t h i n g . " 2 ) What offense have I done to you? N o t e t h e t w o singular p r o n o u n s a n d t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e r e m u s t b e s o m e e x c u l p a t i n g r e a s o n for A b r a h a m s damaging behavior. T h i s r e a s o n — a n offense unknowingly and unint e n t i o n a l l y c o m m i t t e d o r likely 10 b e c o m m i t t e d by h o s t a g a i n s t his g u e s t — b o t h e x c u s e s a n d accuses A b r a h a m at o n c e . 1 lis d a m a g i n g c o n d u c t was n o t w i t h o u t reas o n ( e x c u s e ) . B u t in t h i s f o r m u l a i ion t h e r e is also t h e p e r v e r s e h y p e r b o l e oi

oblique-

ness: t h e i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t A b r a h a m , h a v i n g gond c a u s e tor r a n c o r , h a d p e r p e t r a t e d his d e e d w i t h i n t e n t a n d m a l i c e , i n aggression a n d noi s e l f - d e f e n s e . That you brought upon me and my kmgdo?n so great a punishmen

have

t. T h is last word (/icia a) h a s

t h e p r i m a r y d e n o t a t i o n of "offense," a n d by m é t o n y m i e e x t e n s i o n , ( c a u s e for e f f e c t ) " p u n i s h m e n t . " In A b i m e l e c h ' s m o u t h t h i s w o r d carries b o t h m e a n i n g s . T h u s : W h a t o f f e n s e h a v e I c o m m i t t e d a g a i n s t y o u t h a t you b r o u g h t us t o c o m m i t a n o f f e n s e ent a i l i n g s u c h p u n i s h m e n t ? T h e c o u r t e s y of t h i s o v e r s t a t e m e n t of his o w n possible f a u l t a n d u n d e r s t a t e m e n t of A b r a h a m ' s f a u l t t h e n c o n c l u d e s w i t h a c a j o l i n g a p p e a l t o A b r a h a m t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h e full e n o r m i t y of h i s lie, literally: 3) Deeds

undoable

have you done fin your dealings] with me. T h e s e c o n d s e c t i o n of A b i m e l e c h ' s address t o A b r a h a m gives a n o t h e r v e r s i o n of or n u a n c e t o h i s q u e s t i o n a b o u t t h e m o n va-

2,36

S T O R I E S — " T H E PRIMEVAL H I S T O R Y "

t i o n b e h i n d A b r a h a m s lie. A b a n d o n i n g false p r e s u m p t i o n a b o u t his o w n possible p r o v o c a t i o n of this assaultive behavior, h e n o w gets to t h e h e a r t of t h e m a t t e r ; h e recognizes t h a t A b r a h a m s fear of d a n g e r to himself, o c c a s i o n e d by his wife's beauty, t h a t is, t h e fear t h a t A b i m e l e c h ' s subjects will n o t be able t o resist t h e t e m p t a t i o n t o c o m m i t a morally barbarous act, is why A b r a h a m h a d recourse t o t h e lie. A n d so h e asks w h a t e v i d e n c e A b r a h a m h a d for judging t h e G e r a r i t e s so lacking in e l e m e n t a r y decency: Just what did you observe that you behaved as you didΊ A b r a h a m ' s response is to t h i s last q u e s t i o n . His suspicion as t o t h e lack of m o r a l s t a n d a r d s was only t h a t , a n u n s u p p o r t e d p r e s u m p t i o n ! H e t h e n offers a l a m e excuse: his s t a t e m e n t t h a t Sarah's is his sister is t e c h n i c a l l y true.47 T h i s , of course, is n o m i t i g a t i n g a r g u m e n t for his a c t i o n ( n o r S a r a h ' s ) , for t h e c r u x of t h e d e c e p t i o n lies in t h e denial, implicit if n o t explicit, t h a t she is his wife. N e v e r t h e less, this t e c h n i c a l t r u t h was w h a t m a d e it possible for h i m t o ask S a r a h t o i d e n t i f y h i m as h e r b r o t h e r . T h e p o i n t of his s t a t e m e n t , n o t in t h e n a r r a t o r ' s v o i c e at t h e story's b e g i n n i n g as in t h e first story, b u t at story's e n d a n d in A b r a h a m ' s voice, is t h a t this c o n f e s s i o n t o o — like t h e t e c h n i c a l t r u t h of t h e b r o t h e r - s i s t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p — i s apologetic in time. T h e suspicion a b o u t t h e lack of morality was n o t p o i n t e d l y d i r e c t e d to t h e citizens of G e r a r . It c a m e to A b r a h a m ' s m i n d w h e n first h e left, t h e safety ( a n d civilized morality?) of his f a t h e r ' s h o m e city, e x t e n d e d to every locale t h a t t h e p a t r i a r c h m i g h t hit u p o n , a n d alas - t h e i n f e r e n c e t h a t A b i m e l e c h and reader are asked to m a k e it was t h e m i s f o r t u n e of G e r a r to fall w i t h i n t h e p e n u m b r a of A b r a h a m ' s s o j o u r n i n g a n d x e n o p h o b i c , p e r h a p s p a r a n o i d , distrust. F r o m t h e s e differences in t h e two stories - m o n o l o g u e in o n e a n d dialogue in t h e o t h e r ; t h e favor of Deity expressed in revelatory oracle a n d assurance of remedy; g a p p i n g in t h e o n e a n d e x p l i c a t i o n in t h e o t h e r ; t h e o r d e r i n g a n d circums t a n c e of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n supplied t o t h e r e a d e r — f r o m all t h e s e emerges a vivid c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n P h a r a o h a n d A b i m e l e c h . T h e former is a r r o g a n t a n d brusque, self-righteous a n d u n s y m p a t h e t i c t o t h e vulnerabilities of a stranger. A b i m e l e c h is t h e opposite in every respect. A n d his closing a c t i o n a n d words are in c o n s i s t e n t c o n t r a s t w i t h P h a r a o h ' s p a r t i n g shots. W h e r e a s t h e latter may h a v e h a d a n i n d e m nity e x t o r t e d f r o m h i m (as witness h y p o t a c t i c verse 12:16), a n d drives his guests back to f a m i n e - r i d d e n C a n a a n , A b i m e l e c h volunteers a princely gift in herds, flocks, a n d slaves m a l e a n d f e m a l e . T h e s e same categories appear in 12:16 w i t h a differe n c e : h e r e t h e r e is t h e a d d i t i o n of m a l e asses to t h e flocks a n d h e r d s a n d , a n o m alously p l a c e d — a f t e r slaves m a l e a n d f e m a l e — s h e - a s s e s s a n d camels. T h e close reader will n o t miss t h e p o i n t : t h e beasts of b u r d e n wall be required t o carry t h e patriarchal f r e i g h t back across t h e Sinai's sands. A b i m e l e c h ' s gift is p o i n t e d l y associated (verse 14) w i t h t h e r e t u r n of S a r a h to A b r a h a m . T h i s is i m m e d i a t e l y followed by A b i m e l e c h ' s address to A b r a m as a c h e r i s h e d guest: t/ie freedom of all my realm is yours. A n d t h e n , sensitive to any fears she may h a v e about loss oi face in t h e eyes of her c o m p a n y , lie assures her t h a t t h e huge i n d e m n i t y paid over t o her brother will set: straight t h e m a t t e r ol h e r h o n o r in everyone's eycs. 1 s W i t h this assurance by t h e gracious A b i m e l e c h , and with t h e conclusionary curing oi t h e king and the1 afflicted w o m e n of his realm, t h e reader t o o is r e h e v e d of an\ anxiety as to w h e t h e r M o t h e r Sarah's person was or was not‫ ״‬t o u c h e d in t h e privacy of t h e h a r e m . W h e n

EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

267

G o d int e r v e n e s in b e h a l f of t h e !aire, it is a x i o m a t i c t h a t t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n will t a k e p l a c e b e f o r e that: p u r i t y c a n b e c o m p r o m i s e d . For all t h e e n l i g h t e n m e n t w e h a v e a c h i e v e d by our c o m p a r i s o n of t h e s e t w o n a r r a t i v e s , t h e r e r e m a i n s a n u m b e r of q u e s t i o n s raised earlier: t h e p r o b l e m of A b r a h a m ' s p r o j e c t i n g o n t o his n e w n e i g h b o r s a m o r a l i t y t h a t p r e c l u d e s a d u l t e r y b u t n o t m u r d e r , a n d t h e r e a d i n e s s of b o t h A b r a h a m a n d S a r a h t o h o l d silent w h e n S a r a h s c h a s t i t y is in m o m e n t a r y d a n g e r of v i o l a t i o n . T o t h e s e w e m u s t n o w add a t h i r d . Is it c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t t h e p a t r i a r c h a l c o u p l e , s o m e t w e n t y - t h r e e years a f t e r t h e adv e n t u r e in E g y p t — S a r a h n o w b e i n g a b o u t e i g h t y - n i n e years o l d , a n d h a v i n g dec l a r e d herself w i t h e r e d a n d p a s t t h e age of s e x u a l a c t i v i t y — w o u l d a g a i n f e e l c o m p e l l e d t o play o u t t h e t r i a n g l e - s c e n a r i o w i t h a f o r e i g n k i n g , h a v i n g l e a r n e d n o t h i n g f r o m t h e i r first e x p e r i e n c e ? T h e q u e s t i o n of t h e m a t r i a r c h s s u d d e n n e w lease o n y o u t h a n d b e a u t y such as t o c a p t i v a t e A b i m e l e c h p o s e s a p a r t i c u l a r l y v e x i n g p r o b lern for t h e p o e t i c a l c r i t i c w h o m a i n t a i n s a single a u t h o r i a l v o i c e f o r b o t h n a r r a tives. H o w m u s t h e e n v y t h e d o c u m e n t a r y a p p r o a c h , w h i c h so n e a t l y solves at least t h e s e last m e n t i o n e d p r o b l e m s . T h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l d a t a s t e m m i n g f r o m Ρ is irrelev a n t for o u r n a r r a t i v e s . T h e first a d v e n t u r e i n Egypt is f r o m t h e h a n d of j , as att e s t e d by t h e p r e s e n c e of Y H W H i n 12:17, a n d t h e s e c o n d , i n G e r a r , is t r o m t h e h a n d of E, h e r e a t t e s t e d by t h e c o n s i s t e n t use of e l o h i m . T o b e sure it w o u l d h a v e b e e n h e l p f u l if in t h e c o n c l u d i n g verse 2 0 : 1 8 t h a t c o n s i s t e n c y w e r e m a i n t a i n e d . B u t — n o t t o w o r r y — t h e a p p e a r a n c e of Y H W H n o w a n d t h e n is a n u n d e r s t a n d a b l e c o n t a m i n a t i o n in t h e Ε s o u r c e , w h i c h is so o f t e n w e d d e d t o J's e m b r a c e as t o be beyond disentanglement.

Another

Triangle in Gerar

(1) Now a tamine occurred in the area—apart from the earlier famine that occurred in the time ot Ahn ihr! m

so Isaac went to Abimelech, king of the Philistines, at

Gerar. (2) I This happened so:| Y H W H appeared to h i m and said, u P o not go down to Egypt. Abide in the area that I designate to you. (3) Sojourn in this land, that 1 he with you and h less you. For it is to you and your seed that I grant all these lands. Thus will I tuliil the oath that I swore to your father Abraham. (4) T h a t 1 will make your seed as numerous as the stars of heaven, and that ί will grant to your seed all these lands so that by [i.e., by example of] your seed will all the nations on earth invoke blessing upon themselves. (5) [This] o n account of t h e obedience that A b r a h a m gave to my bidding, in that he kept my charge, my commands, my decrees and my instruclions?' (6) So Isaac settled in Gerar. (7) W h e n the people of that place asked about his wife, h e said, "My sister, she!"—feartul of saying "My wife1' lest "the townsmen of this place kill me over R e ‫׳‬ becea,'' so great a beauty she. (8) As the number of his days there lengthened, it came to pass that Abimelech, king of the Philistines, looked down from a window and beheld, there was Isaac dallying with Rebecca his wife. (9) Abimelech summoned Isaac and declared. "Your wife and that alone is she. How could you t h e n say, 1my sister, die'!‫ ״‬Said Isaac to him, "My thought was: let m e not die because of her." (10) Abimelech said, "How could you treat us so! How close an escape! .Had one of ours bedded

2,36

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL H I S T O R Y "

your w i f e — t h e n would you have brought upon us retribution." (11) Abimelech thereupon laid a charge upon the citizenry, to wit, "Anyone who so much as touches this man or his wife pays with his life!" (12) Isaac sowed in that area and realized that year a hundredfold return. Thus did Y H W H bless him. (Genesis 2 6 : 1 - 1 2 ) I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e p r o b l e m s of p l o t , c e n t e r i n g o n t h e s is ter-wife ploy, w h i c h t h i s t h i r d story s h a r e s w i t h t h e first t w o stories, this story f e a t u r e s a n u m b e r of o d d form u t a t i o n s , so o d d i n d e e d as t o w a r r a n t o u r c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e m as g r a t u i t o u s l y a n d p e r v e r s e l y illogical, a l m o s t in d e f i a n c e of a n y p o s t u l a t i o n of a g r a m m a r of r h e t o r i c . Let us r e v i e w t h e s e f e a t u r e s in t h e o r d e r of t h e i r a p p e a r a n c e : t. There Abrahams

u‫׳‬its a famine

in the area apart fron 1 the former

famine

that occurred

in

time. T h e e a r l i e r f a m i n e t o o k p l a c e in A b r a m s early years in C a n a a n ;

t h e s e c o n d f a m i n e , e v e n if ( d e s p i t e t h e n a r r a t i v e o r d e r ) it o c c u r r e d p r i o r t o Rebecca's c o n c e p t i o n of t h e t w i n s , was s o m e e i g h t y years later. T h a t t h e n a r r a t o r m i g h t w a n t us t o a s s o c i a t e t h e l a t t e r w i t h t h e f o r m e r is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e . B u t w h y d o e s h e f o r m u l a t e t h e c o m p a r i s o n , n o t in an a s s i m i l a t o r v m o d e (like t h e f a m i n e , as severe as t h e f a m i n e ) , b u t in a d i s s o c i a t i v e m o d e , w h i c h is also absurdly g r a t u i t o u s by r e a s o n of t e m p o r a l a n d e x i s t e n t i a l logic. 2. So Isaac

went

to Abimelech,

king of the Philistines,

at Gerar.

Philistia and

C a n a a n s h a r e a d e p e n d e n c y o n r a i n , u n l i k e N i l e - s u f f i c i e n t Egypt. Isaac's g o i n g t o A b i m e l e c h for r e s p i t e f r o m a s h a r e d d r o u g h t - c a u s e d f a m i n e m a k e s n o s e n s e w h a t soever. S p e i s e r solves t h i s p r o b l e m i n his d e p a r t u r e f r o m t h e s t a n d a r d t r a n s l a t i o n s of t h e v e r b s i n t r o d u c i n g v e r s e 2, H e r e n d e r s t h e m as p l u p e r f e c t s , t h u s r e n d e r i n g verses 2 - 6 a n t e r i o r i n t i m e t o Isaac's d e c i s i o n t o "go to A b i m e l e c h at G e r a r " T h u s h e m a k e s sense of t h e passage a t t h e e x p e n s e of i g n o r i n g t h e p a r a t a c t i c t e n s e c o n s t r u c t i o n in verse 2. M y t r a n s l a t i o n , p o i n t i n g to t h e synoptic-resumptive

narrative

d e v i c e by t h e w o r d s s u p p l i e d i n b r a c k e t s , suggests also w h y t h e n a r r a t o r r e s o r t e d t o t h i s d e v i c e h e r e , r a t h e r t h a n t o t h e h y p o t a c t i c o p t i o n of a n o m i n a l c l a u s e w i t h v e r b i n t h e p e r f e c t t e n s e . T h e b o t t o m line was i n d e e d t h a t Isaac, a l t h o u g h h e h a d (like h i s f a t h e r b e f o r e h i m ) set o u t f o r t h e h o s p i t a l i t y ot Egypt, s o u g h t t h e h o s p i t a l ity of A b i m e l e c h . T h i s p a r e n t h e t i c r e s u m p t i v e episode, h o w e v e r , c o n s t i t u t i n g a full t h i r d of t h e n a r r a t i v e , r e q u i r e s e x p l a n a t i o n . W h y t h e d i v i n e v e t o of his ( b u t n o t h i s f a t h e r ' s ) d e s c e n t i n t o Egypt? A n d w h y t h e i n s e r t i o n h e r e (as a s u b o r d i n a t e t h e m e ) of t h e blessing of Isaac as t h e son, t h r o u g h w h o m t h e b l e s s i n g p r o m i s e d t o A b r a m will be t r a n s m i t t e d ? A n d why t h e stress h e r e , n o t o n Y 1 I W H s self-willed gracious‫׳‬ ness i n his d e a l i n g s w i t h A b r a h a m , but on A b r a h a m ' s deserts; t h e s e m e r i t s b e i n g o n e : o b e d i e n c e ; a n d t h i s o b e d i e n c e e x p l i c a t e d in t e r m s n o r m a l l y r e s e r v e d for pres c r i p t i v e a n d e x h o r t a t o r y c o n t e x t s : m/.srnc7‫׳‬LT il a d u t y c h a r g e d u p o n s o m e o n e , " mi.swä " c o m m a n d m e n t , " huqqä " d e c r e e , statute," κ m " ( o r a c u l a r ) i n s t r u c t i o n , t e a c h i n g . " 3. T h e r e p e a t e d a l t e r n a t i o n in n a r r a t o r ' s v o i c e a n d d i r e c t d i a l o g u e i n v e r s e 7: When saying,

the citizens of that place asked after his wife he said

"my sister, she " he fearful

"my w i f e f o r fear that "the citizens of this place ‫׳‬may yet kill me over

she being of such dazzling 4. Abimelech

summoned

of

Rebecca"—

appearance. Isaac and said, "But

of r e c o g n i t i o n , n e w a w a r e n e s s | So,

| ak, n o t äken " a h s o ! " — e x p r e s s i v e

it's your wife she is Γ

E V E N T S IN THE IT FE OF A B R A H A M

5, Abimelech

said, "How

could you treat us so! How

269

close an escape!

ours bedded your wife then would you have brought upon us retribution."

Had one of

Just h o w free

m y t r a n s l a t i o n is will e m e r g e f r o m c o m p a r i s o n w i t h a literal r e n d e r i n g : " W h a t a t h i n g t h i s t h a t you h a v e d o n e t o us! H a d o n e of o u r p e o p l e b a r e l y b e d d e d y o u r wife t h e n w o u l d you h a v e b r o u g h t u p o n us guilt," S i n c e n o t h i n g h a p p e n e d , Isaac d i d n o t h i n g " t o us." A m a n c a n n o m o r e b a r e l y / s c a r c e l y / h a r d l y (kirnat)

have inter‫׳‬

course w i t h a w o m a n t h a n a w o m a n c a n barely/scarcelv/hardly be p r e g n a n t . A n d w h a t A b i m e l e c h w o u l d h a v e f e a r e d ( i n r e t r o s p e c t i v e p r o s p e c t , or is it p r o s p e c t i v e r e t r o s p e c t ? ) is n o t guilt ( , âsâm) b u t t h e c o n s e q u e n c e oi guilt, p u n i s h m e n t in t h e f o r m of a r e q u i r e d i n d e m n i t y ( , äsäm). 6. O n e m o r e e x a m p l e of p e c u l i a r e x p r e s s i o n r e l a t e s t o t h e g e o g r a p h i c a l p l a c e n a m e s a n d t h e v e r b s for h u m a n p r e s e n c e t h e r e . W h e r e a s G e r a r is t h e city w h e r e Isaac r e c e i v e s h i s r e v e l a t i o n ( v e r s e 1), a n d Egypt is t h e l a n d w h e r e Y H W H f o r b i d s h i m t o go ( v e r s e 2), t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h i s d e s c e n t is n o t t h a t h e r e m a i n in G e r a r b u t t h a t h e " r e s i d e / t a k e u p r e s i d e n c e (skn) i n t h e l a n d w h i c h I shall d e s i g n a t e t o you." T h e c o m m a n d t h e n c o n t i n u e s in verse 3, " s o j o u r n / r e s i d e t e m p o r a r i l y (gur) i n t h i s land." In o b e d i e n c e t o t h i s b i d d i n g , w e a r e t o l d in v e r s e 6, " I s a a c setricd An!‫מי‬ (ysb) | i.e., i n s t e a d ol p u r s u i n g his o r i g i n a l i n t e n t i o n t o m o v e o n ] in Gerar Γ Yet in verse 7‫׳‬, w h e r e w e s h o u l d h a v e e x p e c t e d t h a t n a m e to r e a p p e a r , we h a v e i n s t e a d , o n c e in t h e n a r r a t o r ' s v o i c e a n d o n c e in I s a a c s , " t h e place." I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e p e c u l i a r f e a t u r e s of dict ion, we arc faced in t h i s n a r r a t i v e w i t h a n u m b e r of t h e q u e s t i o n s i n respect t o p l o t t h a t we h a v e faced in o n e or b o t h of t h e t w o earlier t r i a n g l e - n a r r a t i v e s : T h e q u e s t i o n oi a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e h o s t p o p u 1 at ions of t h e p e r i p a t e t i c p a t r i a r c h s w o u l d shrink, Irom e n g a g i n g in sex w i t h a m a r t i e d w o m a n , b u t n o t f r o m m u r d e r i n g a h u s b a n d to clear t h e way ior e n g a g i n g i n sex w i t h t h e n o w h u s b a n d l e s s w i d o w ; t h e n a t u r e oi t h e guilt ot t h e m o n a r c h , w h o t a k e s i n t o his h o u s e h o l d t h e u n m a r r i e d sister of a n h o n o r e d guest; t h e r a t i o n a l e for a n indemnification extorted from an i n n o c e n t victim payable to a prevaricating poltroon r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e n e a r o u t r a g e , o u t r a g e o n l y p r e v e n t e d by t h e n e a r i n t e r v e n t i o n of Deity; t h e resort of t h e p a t r i a r c h a l c o u p l e t o t h e t r e a c h e r o u s ruse w i t h A b i m e l e c h , after having experienced

its c o n s e q u e n c e s w h e n played o n P h a r a o h ; a n d

now

A b i m e l e c h , a p p a r e n t l y i g n o r a n t of Isaac's k i n s h i p w i t h A b r a h a m a n d S a r a h , n o t t h e least b i t suspicious of yet a n o t h e r t r a v e l i n g c o u p l e , c o n t e n t — b o t h of t h e m — t o coh a b i t as b r o t h e r a n d sister, e a c h w i t h o u t possessing a spouse: a n d now, l e a r n i n g by i n d i r e c t i o n t h a t t h e c o u p l e are i n d e e d m a n a n d wife, r e m o n s t r a t e s t o t h i s guest o n t h e s t r e n g t h of w h a t m i g h t h a v e h a p p e n e d , as t h o u g h in u t t e r f o r g e t f u l n e s s t h a t t h e s a m e s h a b b y g a m e h a d b e e n p l a y e d w i t h h i m s o m e sixty vears earlier. THE KEYS TO THE SOLUTION of e v e r y p r o b l e m in e v e r ν n a r r a t i v e so far t r e a t e d h a v e b e e n t h e f o l l o w i n g : r e c o g n i t i o n of m e t a p h o r i n single words a n d p h r a s e s as well as i n c h a r a c t e r a n d p l o t d e l i n e a t i o n ; a d i s c e r n i n g of t h e r a n g e of d i c t i o n in t e r m s of n o r m a l , m é t o n y m i e , a n d a b n o r m a l , t h e last o f t e n t o t h e point, of t h e absurd or grotesque; and the problem-solving t e c h n i q u e c o m m o n to riddle and detectivestory w h o d u n i t , t h i s last i t e m based o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n s ot a single a r t i s t - a u t h o r beh i n d every n a r r a t i v e , s p i n n i n g his story so as to allow ior various levels oj m e a n i n g a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p e r c e p t i v e c a p a c i t y oi d i f f e r e n t r e a d e r s h i p s , i b i s last r e a d e r - c h o i c e

2,36

S T O R I E S — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

o f t e n defined in terms of predilection for o n e e n d or t h e other, or t h e middle of t h e literal-figurative spectrum. Such predilections may e v e n t u a t e in t h e most abstract or philosophic of kerygmatic interpretations at t h e figurative end, o r — a t t h e most l i t e r a l — i n t h e total absence of kerygma: a historiographie tale told because it happened, or was believed to h a v e h a p p e n e d , and thus has n o true a u t h o r o t h e r t h a n t h e transmission p r o c e s s , o n e o f t e n going hack to a preliterate origin. 111 t h e case of our three triangle-narratives, e v e n t h e most literal interpretations would h a v e to read a moral into t h e plot, ranging f r o m an answer to why t h e e v e n t took place three times to why t h e story is told three times, or why three versions oi o n e e v e n t were preserved by tradition. T h e o n e answer on which all seem to agree is t h a t it is to drill into the minds of t h e patriarch's d e s c e n d a n t s that their forbears, despite their vulnerability as aliens in the lands of their wanderings, were oi noble standing, the purity of their line guaranteed hy the G o d w h o w a t c h e d over t h e m day and night. Resonances oi ibis kerygma in t h e words "prophet" (näht) and "touch/afflict" (ng‫)־‬, " n a t i o n " (gov), "sojourn" (gür), and "barely" (kim'at), are only to be expected in a h y m n that rehearses Y H W H ' s care: When they were feu‫ ־‬in number, barely able to sojourn therein, Moving from nation to nation, from [one] kingdom to another people, He allowed no one to oppress then!, on their behalf disciplined kings [saying,] Touch not my anointed ones, To my pro|)/k‫׳‬Ls do no harm. (Psalm 705:12-15) However, strongly as this kerygma may r e c o m m e n d itself to us, it does n o t answer such questions as the patriarch's failure to ask for oracular guidance, to p e t i t i o n for divine i n t e r v e n t i o n , and to resort twice to a ruse t h a t h a d failed o n a similar occasion. F u r t h e r m o r e it may be urged t h a t t h e kerygma simply does n o t appear, explicitly at least, in the third story. For (‫י‬ne thing, n o t h i n g h a p p e n s to either t h e matriarch or patriarch, and so there is n o occasion for G o d to i n t e r v e n e to protect t h e m . Y H W H does put m an appearance, but to Isaac, n o t A b i m e l e c h . A n d if Y H W H s c o m m a n d to Isaac t h a t he r e m a i n in G e r a r despite t h e famine, together w i t h t h e subsequent blessing, implies Y H W H ' s protection, as it surely does, t h a t p r o t e c t i o n is n o t in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Isaacs fear for wife or life, or rather fear for life o n account of wife. T h e absence of any concupiscent move o n Rebecca thus renders t h e suggested kerygma as at best peripheral to this narrative. Let: us t h e n review the problems warb dict ion in this third story with a view to what m e t a p h o r s may have eluded our appreciation. Then· ‫׳‬was a famine iv the area apart from the for) η er famine that occurred in Ahr ahands lime. It is most unlikely t h a t the point of this s e n t e n c e is to r e m i n d t h e reader of the story that he had read six chapters earlier. It is m u c h more likely t h a t t h e narrator, aware of the readers problems with t h e events of C h a p t e r 20, following t h e similar events in C h a p t e r 1 2, is anticipating t h e reader's initial sense of déjà vu at the story's o p e n i n g words, " T h e r e was a f a m i n e in t h e area." A n d therefore assuring the reader: yes, indeed, t h e r e were two famines. But t h a t would call for a simile, a comparison oi similarities employing a preposition like, similar to. Instead we have (as noted) a dissociative preposition introducing a simile of negation (if I may indulge in the pomposity oi e x p a n d i n g t h e register of rhetorical cate-

EVENTS (Ν ΓΗ Ε LIFE OF ABRAHAM

271

gories). A r i d t h i s a b j u r a t i o n ot s i m i l e is u n d e r l i n e d by a n o t h e r ( a n d a b s u r d ) figure, t h e p l e o n a s m ot a n earlier famine,

in the time of Abraham,

as if a f a m i n e in t h e fa‫•׳‬

t h e r s t i m e m i g h t h a v e o c c u r r e d l a t e r t h e n t h e o n e in t h e son's l i l e t i m e A ' T h e s o l u t i o n ot t h i s f i g u r a t i v e c o n u n d r u m i n v o l v e s s u c h n o v e l t y t h a t my r e a d e r m a y b e t e m p t e d t o dismiss it o u t of h a n d . I t h e r e f o r e t a k e t h e p r e c a u t i o n of r e ‫׳‬ m i n d i n g t h a t r e a d e r t h a t t h e n o v e l t y lies in ! h e p o e t i c c r e a t i v i t y of t h e biblical m a s t e r of m e t a p h o r , a n d not in a n a c a d e m i c critic s t r a i n i n g a t a g n a t , S i m p l y p u t , t h e d i s s o c i a t i v e p r e p o s i t i o n mille had " a p a r t f r o m , aside f r o m " m a y i n its n e g a t i o n of n o t d i k e n e s s , f a c i n g o n e a n t i p o d e , signify not-like

b e c a u s e d i f f e r e n t ; or f a c i n g t h e

o t h e r a n t i p o d e , signify n o t dike b e c a u s e i d e n t i c a l . Yes t h e f a m i n e is o n e a n d t h e s a m e , as A b i m e l e c h t h e k i n g of G e r a r is t h e s a m e , as t h e p a t r i a r c h s o n a n d f a t h e r a r e o n e a n d t h e s a m e , w h i c h is t o say, f o r all t h e s e e m i n g dissimilarities in a n d plot, t h e characters

personae

a n d t h e plots a r e k e r y g m a t i c a l l y i d e n t i c a l . T o resort t o a n

a n a l o g y f r o m a d i s c i p l i n e t h a t is as m u c h a r t as it is s c i e n c e , as i n d e p e n d e n t of reality as it is u s e f u l in s t r u c t u r i n g it, as c o n c r e t e i n its p a r t i c u l a r s as it is a b s t r a c t in its u n i v e r s a l s , as q u a n t i t a t i v e as a r i t h m e t i c a n d as a r g u m e n t a t i v e as r h e t o r i c , n a r r a tives 2 a n d 3 a r e as c o n g r u e n t as t r i a n g l e s h a v i n g i d e n t i c a l a n g l e s o p p o s i t e legs of equal length. W h e n superimposed on o n e another, or w h e t h e r facing o n e a n o t h e r i n s e e m i n g c o n f r o n t a t i o n or a l i g n e d i n t h e s a m e d i r e c t i o n , t h e i r s i m i l a r i t i e s a n d juxtapositions inform on one another.50 T h u s t h e i d e n t i t y of A b i m e l e c h of G e r a r in b o t h tales, n o t b e c a u s e p e r s o n a l n a m e a n d city n a m e are identical, b u t b e c a u s e as m o r a l l y sensitive a n d g e n e r o u s c h a r a c t e r in b o t h tales h e s t a n d s o u t in c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e P h a r a o h of t h e first story, Isaac in G e r a r in a year ot f a m i n e is t h e A b r a h a m in G e r a r in a year w h e n f a m i n e t h e r e is n o n e (as t h e r e was i n d e e d in t h e year h e w e n t d o w n t o Egypt). I n t h e blessing of Y H W H t o Isaac, reassuring t h e p a t r i a r c h t h a t n o t h i n g u n t o w a r d will h a p p e n if h e stays in G e r a r , t h e r e are e c h o e s oi earlier promises m a d e by G o d to A h r a i n / A b r a h a m : TO ABRAHAM

TO ISA A(.: I shall bless you (26:5)

in the land that I shall designate to you (26:2); verily to you and your seed t.0 I give all these territories (26:3); I will make your seed as numerous as the stars of heaven (26:4);

ictic waw] to your seed after you the land of your sojourning ( r 2 : ‫ ) ־‬, 6. by [example ot ] your seed wi.ll all the nations ot earth invoke blessing on themselves {12: ^ ‫·׳‬

I shall give to your seed all these lands (26:4); as consequence of your obedience to my bidding ( 2 6 : 5 - 6 ) .

2,36

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

M o s t s t r i k i n g i n r e s p e c t t o t h e s e e c h o e s of t h e blessings of t h e f a t h e r in t h e blessings of t h e son is t h a t t h e seed t h r o u g h w h o m A b r a m / A b r a h a m ' s b l e s s i n g is t o he fulfilled is n o t specified t o A b r a h a m u n t i l 19:2, b u t o n c e t h i s o n l y h e i r of t h e p r o m i s e is specified t h e r e as Isaac, t h e r e i t e r a t i o n of t h e p r o m i s e t o Isaac in C h a p ter 2 6 is s u p e r e r o g a t o r y if n o t p l e o n a s t i c , e x c e p t f o r t h e i m p l i e d e x h o r t a t i o n t o Isaac t o be o b e d i e n t as his f a t h e r was, as t h o u g h t h e p r o m i s e t o A b r a h a m c o n c e r n ing Isaac w e r e c o n d i t i o n a l o n h i s b e i n g i n d e e d t h e a v a t a r of h i s f a t h e r . T h e i d e n t i t y of f a t h e r a n d s o n is m o s t s t r o n g l y suggested in t h e p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s in i t e m 2 a b o v e , t h e c o m m a n d t o A h r a m t o go to, a n d t h e c o m r n a n d π ‫ ו‬Isaac t o dwell in, t h e land t h a t ( J o d will yet. i n d i c a t e . T h e r e a s o n for t h e i n d e t i n i t e n e s s of A h r a i n s d e s t i n a t i o n is t w o f o l d . S o m e of t h e areas t h r o u g h w h i c h h e will t r a v e l will c o n s t i t u t e t h e territory p r o m i s e d to his posterity; o t h e r areas fall o u t s i d e t h a t g r a n t . It is t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n that, lies b e h i n d t h e t h r e e v e r b s a n d t h e t e r m s tot t e r r i t o r y in verses 2 -6. T h e "reside i n t h e l a n d t h a t I. shall d e s i g n a t e t o y o u " (skn bars) is in c o n t r a s t t o Egypt, t o w h i c h h e is f o r b i d d e n t o d e s c e n d (verse 2). Hut t h e sense of p e r m a n e n c e i n t h e v e r b skn a n d t h e as yet u n d e f i n e d " l a n d " t h a t is, I s r a e l s f u t u r e territory, is in c o n t r a s t t o " s o j o u r n in t h i s l a n d " (gur hazzö'i)

baarcs

in verse 3, t h a t is, t h e t e r r i t o r y of P h i l i s t i a ( G e r a r ) , w h i c h n e v e r b e c a m e

n o r was c l a i m e d as Israelite t e r r i t o r y in b i b l i c a l t i m e s . T h u s P h i l i s t i a t o o is i n c o n trast w i t h b o t h E g y p t a n d ( p r o m i s e d ) Israelite territory. A n d t h u s it is t h a t in verse 6, "Isaac s e t t l i n g d o w n i n G e r a r " ( w y s b yshq bgrr) is h i s remaining

w h e r e h e is, a

guest in a l a n d n o t d e s t i n e d for h i s posterity, a n d t h i s — p e r h a p s — b e c a u s e of t h e g e n e r o s i t y of t h e h o s p i t a l i t y a n d m o r a l d e c e n c y t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e P h i l i s t i n e h o s t of A b r a m - I s a a c . But this p r a i s e w o r t h y a s p e c t of G e r a r - P h i l i s t i a is f r o m t h e p e r s p e c t i v e of t h e n a r r a t o r , a p e r s p e c t i v e h e h a s m a d e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e r e a d e r h e r e , a n d will yet s h a r e w i t h t h e r e a d e r a n d w i t h Isaac i n t h e d e n o u e m e n t of story t w o t h a t follows. 5 1 But u n t i l t h a t h a p p e n s , t h e p e r s p e c t i v e of Isaac in r e g a r d t o h i s h o s t city a n d its citizens, c o l o r e d by his s u s p i c i o n a n d fear, is t h e p u r p o r t of t h e d i s t a n c i n g e x p r e s s i o n s , " m e n o f t h a t p l a c e " t w i c e in verse 7 a n d " t h e r e " (säm) i n v e r s e 8. It is s u c h play o n p e r s p e c t i v e t h a t lies b e h i n d t h e a l t e r n a t i o n of n a r r a t o r s v o i c e a n d c h a r a c t e r ' s v o i c e ( d i a l o g u e ) in verse 7. W h e n t h e citizens of that place ask a f t e r his wife, t h i s reflects t h e p o i n t of view ot n a r r a t o r a n d r e a d e r w h o s h a r e this infor! n a t i o n a b o u t R e b e c c a ' s status, but it d o e s n o t reflect t h e p o i n t of view of t h e G e rarites, w h o k n o w h e r as t h e lady ot t h e h o u s e h o l d but not h e r status; a n d it is t h e k n o w l e d g e ol Isaac, w h i c h h e is i m m e d i a t e l y t o falsify in d i a l o g u e : "My sister, she." T h e n a r r a t n r p o i n t s t o t h i s f a l s e h o o d in a t t r i b u t i n g t h e lie t o Isaac's t e a r ( t w i c e , kt sdrc a n d pen) t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h e t r u t h "my wife ( s h e ) " a n d his c r a v e n s e l f - c o n c e r n " t h e y m a y yet kill m e " — n o t "for m y w i f e " b u t " o v e r R e b e c c a . " T h i s n a m e , e x p r è s sive of e n d e a r m e n t · in Isaac's d i a l o g u e , is t h e n brought, i n t o s a r d o n i c j u x t a p o s i t i o n w i t h t h e n a r r a t o r ' s a d d i t i o n t h a t t h e e n d e a r i n g f a c t o r of h e r b e a u t y h a s b e e n t ransf o r m e d in his m i n d f r o m b l e s s i n g t o curse. T i m e p u t s p r e v a r i c a t i o n t o t h e test. T h e l o n g e r its d u r a t i o n , t h e m o r e difficult t o m a i n t a i n t h e s t a n c e r e q u i r e d by a ruse. A n d so in a n u n g u a r d e d m o m e n t Isaac is c a u g h t our by A b i m e l e c h in a n u n b r o t h e r l y caress of Rebecca, w h o has t h u s been, b e t r a y e d as " h i s w i f e " T h i s a p p e r c e p t i o n o n A b i m e l e c h ' s part, is e x p r e s s e d in free

E V E N T S I N T H E LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

indirect discourse

( " a n d l o " e x p r e s s i n g A b i m e l e c h ' s internal

273

dialogue).

But again t h e

n a r r a t o r i n t e r j e c t s his o w n , if n o t q u i t e s a r d o n i c , at least j e e r i n g p u n o n Isaac [(root shq "smile, l a u g h , play, a m u s e , s p o r t , d i s p o r t , w a n t o n , dally, dilly-dally, d i d d l e " a n d his a c t i v i t y ] isaaking

Rebecca—his

wife. R e s p e c t for t h e sensibilities of o t h e r s w h o

s h a r e m y r e v e r e n c e for m y c o m m o n g r a n d p a r e n t s is b e h i n d m y t r a n s l a t i o n , "Isaac d a l l y i n g w i t h R e b e c c a " B u t r e s p e c t for a metaditerary

c o n v e n t i o n (our relationship

t o Isaac a n d R e b e c c a ) , p i o u s v i r t u e as t h a t is, m a y also c o n s t i t u t e t h e literary sin of bowdlerization, i f — a s in our c a s e — t h e narrator i n t e n d e d a n d wrote,

1

'Abimelech,

k i n g ( h e n c e a r b i t e r ) of P h i l i s t i n e s , l o o k e d d o w n f r o m h i s w i n d o w a n d c a u g h t sight, "There! D i d d l e r d i d d l i n g R e b e c c a — o h o ! h i s w i f e ! " T h e o n e - s e n t e n c e d i a l o g u e of A b i m e l e c h t o Isaac is d i v i d e d i n t o t w o parts, int r o d u c e d r e s p e c t i v e l y by ,ak " b u t " a n d (we)'eik

"how," T h e first, 'ak m u s t b e r e n d e r e d

t o reflect apos topes is, a r h e t o r i c a l n i c e t y t h a t expresses b o t h w h a t

Abimelech

t h o u g h t a n d w h a t h e said a n d d i d n o t say, " B u t [ — y o u ' v e b e e n l y i n g ] — i t s y o u r wife s h e is." H a v i n g b r o k e n off h i s s e n t e n c e i n m i d - t h o u g h t , h e t h e n m i t i g a t e s t h e a c c u s a t i o n , w h i c h is i m p l i c i t l y t h e r e b u t h a s n o t b e e n v o i c e d , in a q u e s t i o n t h a t m a y b e read as i n f o r m a t i o n a l or r h e t o r i c a l , " H o w is it y o u said, ' M y sister, s h c T " Isaac's r e s p o n s e , like A b r a h a m s in 20:1 1 ( n o t e "in t h i s p l a c e " ) is a c o n f e s s i o n of guilt a n d offers s u s p i c i o u s f e a r as e x c u s e for t h e lie, l e a v i n g moot, t h e q u e s t i o n of w h e t h e r h e h a d g r o u n d s for t h a t s u s p i c i o n . A b i m e l e c h ' s a n s w e r to this c o n f e s s i o n p u t s t h e b l a m e squarely o n Isaac i n t h e h y p e r b o l i c , " W h a t t h i n g is t h i s vmi did t o us," yet it is in b o t h d e n i a l a n d c o n f i r m a t i o n of g r o u n d s for t h e s u s p i c i o n of 1111‫׳‬ m o r a l i t y . 1 lis kimat

" a l m o s t " - "had but" anyone

bedded your wife acknow‫׳׳‬ledges t h a t

i m m o r a l riffraff are t o b e f o u n d i n e v e r y l a n d a n d i n e v e r y s t r a t u m of society, b u t h i s e n t i r e s t a n c e , a n d i n p a r t i c u l a r his a c k n o w l e d g m e n t that, t h e e n t i r e s o c i e t y w o u l d b e h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a single o f f e n s e , p r o v e t h e p r o b i t y of his n a t i o n , ind e e d , w h a t t h i s d e n o u e m e n t a d d s t o t h a t i n t h e s e c o n d story is f u r t h e r c o n f i r m a t i o n ot his o w n s u p e r e r o g a t o r y m o r a l sensitivity. H e is h o r r i f i e d by t h e m i g h t - h a v e ‫׳‬ b e e n c o n s e q u e n c e s of a f e a r - i n d u c e d lie. H e a c k n o w l e d g e s p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for t h e u p r i g h t n e s s of all h i s s u b j e c t s . S i n c e n o o f f e n s e w h a t s o e v e r a g a i n s t his guest was r e g i s t e r e d t h e r e c a n b e n o v o l u n t e e r i n g of i n d e m n i t y , b u t Y H W H m a k e s u p for t h i s by his b l e s s i n g of t h e p a t r i a r c h . Isaac r e m a i n s in P h i l i s t i a as a n h o n o r e d guest. W h e t h e r h e literally r e n t e d or p u r c h a s e d l a n d for sowing, or w h e t h e r this is a m e t a p h o r tor t h e g e n e r a l a n d s e n s a t i o n a l success of h i s e n t e r p r i s e s , w h a t e v e r t h e i r n a ture, m u s t r e m a i n m o o t . B u t blessed h e was, a t Y H W H ' s i n s t a n c e , in t h e t e r r i t o r y of P h i l i s t i a w h e r e Y H W H h a d b i d d e n h i m t o s o j o u r n ; t h e f a m i n e m u s t h a v e c o m e to an abrupt end. O n e final q u e s t i o n m u s t b e a d d r e s s e d i n t h i s n a r r a t i v e . W h a t is t h e m e a n i n g of v e r s e i t ‫ י‬Ahimelech

laid a charge on all his people: Anyone

who but lays hand on this

man or his wife pays with his life! T h a t n o G e r a r i t e m a d e a m o v e o n R e b e c c a , u i i m a r ried sister of Isaac as w a s t h o u g h t , rules o u t a f e a r o n t h e king's p a r t t h a t a n y t h i n g so u n t o w a r d m i g h t n o w b e a t t e m p t e d a g a i n s t her, n o w k n o w n t o b e w e d d e d wife, or — as Isaac, feared — against Isaac o n h e r a c c o u n t . T h e m o t i v a t i o n b e h i n d A G m d e c : h - c h a r g e must he his r e a d i n g of his subjects 1 m i n d . W h e n t h e y l e a r n e d oi t h e n e a r r e t r i b u t i o n t h e y m i g h t h a v e suffered for a single m o r a l l y i r r e s p o n s i b l e act t h a t m i g h t h a v e b e e n c o m m i t t e d by o n e of t h e i r n u m b e r , t h e y t o o would h a v e m a r v e l e d

2,36

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

at t h e lie w h i c h h a d a b e t t e d t h a t b e h a v i o r . A n d l e a r n i n g of t h e slur u p o n t h e i r e t h o s a n d t h e i r h o n o r i m p l i c i t in t h e g r a t u i t o u s suspicion of t h e guest t h e y h a d w e l c o m e d , t o w h a t acts of r e t a l i a t i o n m i g h t t h e i r i n d i g n a t i o n h a v e led? T h u s , o n c e a g a i n t h e n a r r a t o r m a k e s a case for A b i m e l e c h ' s r i g h t e o u s n e s s . E v e n r i g h t e o u s ind i g n a t i o n a g a i n s t a n o v e r w e e n i n g l y j u d g m e n t a l a l i e n will n o t m i t i g a t e t h e least of h o s t i l e acts. In all t h r e e n a r r a t i v e s , a n d c l i m a c t i c a l l y in this t h i r d o n e , o n e m o r a l h e r o emerges: A b i m e l e c h k i n g of G e r a r . It is this last c o n c l u s i o n t h a t p o i n t s us in t h e d i r e c t i o n w h e r e t h e kerygma of this t r i p a r t i t e n a r r a t i v e riddle must lie. T h e t h r e e stories are o n e a n d , if we e x c e p t Yl i W i I, t h e r e arc only t w o drmuafis personne in t h e cast. Y1 I W i I c a n h e left o u t hecause h e plays n o real role in t h e t h i r d story, a n d very little role in t h e first; he, so t o speak, s t a n d s outside t h e a c t i o n . T h e p a t r i a r c h a l c o u p l e are, for t h e purposes of rolei d e n t i f i c a t i o n , o n e . T h a t is to say, e a c h c o u p l e is a unity, hut since I s a a c ( - R e b e c c a ) a n d A b r a h a m ( - S a r a h ) are o n e , t h e r e is only one. pa tri a r c h ( - m a t r i a r c h ) role or pers o n a i n all t h r e e stories. Similarly, t h e t h r e e f o r e i g n k i n g s t o g e t h e r c o n s t i t u t e b u t a single p e r s o n a . For t h e t w o A h i m e l e c h s are o n e hy identity, a n d t h e P h a r a o h f u n e t i o n s o n l y as c o u n t e r f o i l t o e s t a b l i s h t h e d i f f e r i n g a n d d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r of A b ime l e c h ; t h i s c o m e s t h r o u g h clearly i n story t w o , a n d c l i m a c t i c a l l y in story t h r e e . If t h e n , A b i m e l e c h is t h e m o r a l h e r o of t h e r i d d l e - n a r r a t i v e , w h a t is t h e p a t r i a r c h m a t r i a r c h , t h e v i l l a i n ? T h i s is h a r d t o swallow! T h e n h o w a b o u t t h e a n t i h e r o ? Yes, h u t i n w h a t sense? W e l l , o n l y in t h e sense t h a t A b i m e l e c h is h e r o , i n t h e m o r a l sense. F i n e , h u t t h e n we m u s t c o m e u p w i t h t h e m o r a l of t h e n a r r a t i v e , a n d let us r e m e m b e r t h a t k e r y g m a is a n o t h e r t e r m for t h e mora/ of a fabulary n a r r a t i v e . O n e of t h e f a c t o r s t h a t m i l i t a t e s a g a i n s t v i e w i n g t h e p a t r i a r c h - m a t r i a r c h as vill a i n is t h a t Y F I W H is clearly o n t h e i r side, p r o t e c t o r of t h e m a t r i a r c h s v i r t u e in t h e first t w o stories, a n d t h e p o w e r b e h i n d t h e i r m a t e r i a l e n r i c h m e n t in all t h r e e . A n o t h e r f a c t o r is t h e m e t a - l i t e r a r y f a c t (a f a c t c r e a t e d by S c r i p t u r e s literary artistry) t h a t t h e r e a d e r relates t o Israel a n d Israel's f o r e b e a r s as d e s c e n d a n t t o a n c e s t o r s . It is i n c o n c e i v a b l e t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h e a n c e s t r a l story reflect s h a m e r a t h e r t h a n glory o n o u r v e n e r a b l e a n d v e n e r a t e d g r a n d p a r e n t s . A brief r e f l e c t i o n o n t h e n a r r a t i v e s w e e p of Israel's " h i s t o r y " will, h o w e v e r , c o m p e l us to r e c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e u n qualified n a t u r e of t h i s bias o n t h e part of t h e filial r e a d e r is justified. H a r d l y a single a n c e s t r a l h e r o or h e r o i n e , f r o m A b r a m a n d Sarai t h r o u g h J a c o b a n d R a c h e l , Moses and M i r i a m , G i d e o n a n d S a m s o n , D a v i d a n d S o l o m o n , a n d J o n a h a n d J erem i a h , is w i t h o u t serious or e v e n f a t a l flaw. I n d e e d , p r o t o t y p i c a l Israel is n o t t h e ideal saved a n d s a v i n g r e m n a n t , il is t h e w e a k - o f - f a i t h t o faithless g e n e r a t i o n s oi wilderness w a n d e r i n g s a n d t h e i n v a s i o n of C a n a a n , of t h e periods oi Judges, m o n a r c h i c a l dynasties, Exile a n d R e t u r n . A m i , η ‫ ר‬be sure, t h e a n c e s t r a l s h o r l c o m ings a n d b a c k s l i d i n g s are t h e t i m e - w a r p mirrors of o u r o w n d e f i c i e n c i e s in f a i t h a n d c o n d u c t , e v e n as t h e s h i n e of a n c e s t r a l v i r t u e s so d i m s t h e luster ot our o w n , a n d r e n d e r s us c r a v e n p e t i t i o n e r s f o r t h e grace of G o d in t h e n a m e of a n c e s t r a l m e r i t . H e r e , t h e n , lies o n e c l u e t o a n c e s t o r s , so o f t e n m o d e l s tor e m u l a t i o n , yet a g a i n a n d a g a i n cast i n a n t i h e r o roles for o u r s e l f - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d moral c o r r e c t i o n . A n o t h e r f a c t o r t h a t m a k e s it difficult for us to relate to Israel's a n c e s t o r s as a n t i h e r o e s is t h e m i n d - s e t we h a v e a b o u t S c r i p t u r e s a t t i t u d e t o t h e i r n o n - I s r a e l i t e c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . T h e a n c e s t o r s are m o n o t h e i s t s (or striving to be), all o t h e r s are p a g a n .

EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

275

T h e ancestors are moral, d e c e n t , peaceable, chaste. T h e i r opposite numbers are 1111‫׳‬ moral, bellicose, x e n o p h o b i c , and lewd. T h i s mind-set of ours, as 1 will show in a m o m e n t , is wrong, utterly wrong. A n d yet this mind-set does derive from Scripture, if n o t from t h e thrust of t h e stories of the family that b e c a m e t h e people and t h e n a t i o n of Israel. T h e history of Israel's polity in the m o n a r c h i c a l period is, visa-vis the non-Israelite world, largely a story of success, despite t h e disastrous end of t h e N o r t h e r n Kingdom almost three h u n d r e d years a n d of t h e j u d e a n kingdom a little more t h a n four h u n d r e d years, after t h e rise of monarchy. Yet it is t h e conquest of t h e t w o k i n g d o m s — b y t h e rapacious empires in t h e east — t h a t d o m i n a t e s our picture of Israel's history. A n d t h e villains are t h e godless pagans w h o sent t h e n o r t h e r n tribes i n t o t h e oblivion of exile and w h o razed t h e sacred shrine on Ζ ion s m o u n t , this despite p r o p h e t i c assurance in t h e historical narratives and t h e oracles of t h e writing p r o p h e t s t h a t t h e a u t h o r of t h e calamities was Israel's G o d , and t h e reason for t h e s e n t e n c e t h e disobedience a n d faithlessness of his people. T h e p r e m o n a r c h i c a l history is e v e n more surely a success story, a tribesmen mob breaking out of Sinai's desert to destroy a n c i e n t A m o r i t e kingdoms east of the Jordan, fording t h e river a n d dispossessing t h e a u t o c h t h o n o u s populations, in the words of D e u t e r o n o m y 9:1, "greatly more numerous t h a n you," and making their own "great cities fortified into t h e very skies" It is more surely a success story, in that this invasion culminates in t h e monarchy's rise. Yet these few centuries of history too are overhung by a lugubrious pall: Israel's newly settled tribesmen being ever subject to C a n a a n i t e attack from t h e n o r t h , Midianite camel-riding kings f r o m the east, Philistine exacters of tribute from t h e west; t h e very rise of t h e m o n a r c h y itself being the desperate recourse of fractious tribes to impose u p o n themselves a defensive unity, which had eluded t h e theoretical rule of a single G o d . A third factor is t h e rationale b e h i n d t h e atrocity t h a t still bewilders t h e moralists who in almost all o t h e r respects are t h e heirs of biblical morality; genocide, perpetrated by Israel in o b e d i e n c e to the d e m a n d of Y H W H , t h e benign God or is‫׳‬ rael, and of all h u m a n k i n d . W h a t is overlooked is that this clement of Israel's suecess story is, narratively and prescriptively speaking, altogether post facto. It is the proscription of inveterate, hopelessly and incorrigibly immoral defilers of Deity by a righteous Judge, w h o waited u n t i l "the A m o r i t e iniquity was full to t h e brim" and a possibly more p r o m i s i n g seed was available t o sow t h e territories a bout to be v a c a t e d . T h e p r o s c r i p t i o n a n d t h e e x e c u t i o n of s e n t e n c e b o t h t o o k p l a c e — f r o m t h e v a n t a g e p o i n t of t h e biblical " h i s t o r i o g r a p h e r " — i n a time at least centuries ago. T h e last herem-war s a n c t i o n e d by G o d was b o t c h e d by Israel's first king, Saul, against an A m a l e k i t e p o p u l a t i o n n o w e x t i n c t . T h e kindred peoples of Moab, A m n i o n , and E d o m are n o t to be goaded into war. T h e kindred peoples of A r a m e n t e r e d into non-aggression treaties w i t h Israel's ancestors. T h e H a m i t i c Egyptians w e r e — f o r all t h e oppressive n a t u r e of a polity t h a t reduced n a t u r a l subjects as well as guests t o s e r v i t u d e — t h e hosts of Israelites for many generations, and are n o t to be treated as a b h o r r e n t ( D e u t e r o n o m y 23:8). T h e H a m i t i c i n h a b i t a n t s of Philistia, hosts to David and t h e patriarchs long before him, allies of J u d a h against Assyria as late as t h e time of King Hezekiah, agreed to legitimate borders between their own u n violated territories and t h e a d j a c e n t s o u t h e r n territories of a yet u n b o r n and unconceived Judah, this in treaties with t h e patriarchs A b r a h a m and Isaac (Genesis

2,36 21:22-34;

2

‫ג‬6:‫ו‬

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY" ·

Let‫ ־‬us n o w c o n s i d e r t h e n o n - A b r a h a m i t i c p e r s o n a e in t h

first t w e n t y - s i x c h a p t e r s of G e n e s i s w i t h a view to d e t e r m i n i n g t h e e x t e n t to w h i c h t h e y are p i c t u r e d as p a g a n , i m m o r a l , bellicose, lewd, a n d x e n o p h o b i c . In respect to p a g a n i s m or p o l y t h e i s m , A d a m , Eve a n d t h e s e r p e n t , C a i n , N o a h a n d his t h r e e sons, Lot, M e l c h i z e d e k , P h a r a o h , a n d A b i m e l e c h — n o t a o n e ot all ί )f t h e s e relates to t h e d i v i n e realm as if it consists of m o r e t h a n o n e m e m b e r . N o r in t h e r e m a i n i n g thirty-six c h a p t e r s of this b o o k will w e c o m e across any s u g g e s t i o n as t o p r o s c r i b e d d i v i n i t i e s (or idols, m a t e r i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of t h e m ) e x c e p t in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e n u m e n s to w h o m J a c o b relates; namely, i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h G o d s a p p r o v i n g r e f e r e n c e in 35:1 t o o n e s u c h n u m i n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , a n d J a c o b ' s b i d d i n g t o his h o u s e h o l d t o t u r n in t h e " a l i e n g o d s " i n t h e i r m i d s t ; w h i c h g o d s ( t o g e t h e r w i t h h i s family m e m b e r s ' e a r r i n g s ) h e buries u n d e r a t e r e b i n t h i n t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d of S h e c h e m . T h e clearly i m m o r a l i n h a b i t a n t s of t h e w o r l d a r e t h e h u m a n i t y destroyed in t h e flood, t h e A m o r i t e s of 15:16 w h o s e i n i q u i t y h a s n o t y e t e a r n e d a sent e n c e of e x t e r m i n a t i o n , a n d t h e S o d o m i t e s a n d G o m o r r a n s w h o e n a c t t h e i r dep t a vit y in t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e m e s s e n g e r s G o d h a s s e n t t o d e s t r o y t h e m o n c e Lot h a s b e e n e x t r a c t e d f r o m t h e i r midst. L e w d n e s s c a n b e ascribed o n l y to t h e H a m i t i c b r a n c h of h u m a n i t y as p e r s o n i f i e d i n H a m - C a n a a n in 9 : 2 0 - 2 7 , h u t by t h e s a m e t o k e n t h e J a p h e t h i t e a n d S h e m i t e b r a n c h e s are free of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r m o r a l twist. A s for bellicosity a n d x e n o p h o b i a , t h e p a t r i a r c h s w a n d e r in a r e m a r k a b l y u n t h r e a t e n ing world, a n d if aggression is a necessary i n g r e d i e n t of illicit b e l l i g e r e n c e , e v e n t h e kings of t h e five cities of t h e P l a i n c a n n o t b e f a u l t e d o n t h i s score. If t h e r e is a single case of u n w a r r a n t e d w a r - m a k i n g , it is t h a t at least t w i c e - c o n d e m n e d a c t i o n of S i m o n a n d Levi against t h e i n v a l i d e d m a l e s of S h e c h e m . T h e s e d u c t i o n (or perh a p s s t a t u t o r y r a p e ) of t h e i r sister D i n a h , w h i c h leads to t h e S h c c h e m i t e slaughter, is p i c t u r e d as t h e loss of c o n t r o l o n t h e p a r t of a love-smit t e n y o u t h for w h i c h h e , f a t h e r , a n d s u b j e c t s are ready t o m a k e w h a t e v e r a m e n d s are d e m a n d e d . In t h e light of all this, o n e c a n only s t a n d in a w e before t h e a c h i e v e m e n t ‫ ־‬ot this literary work of i d e a t i o n a l a n d m o r a l i s t i c fiction, w h i c h p r o p a g a t e s d o c t r i n e witho u t ever b e c o m i n g d o c t r i n a i r e ; w h i c h p u r p o r t s t o b e t h e saga of a C n u l - c h o s e n peopie, yet n e v e r loses sight of t h e role d e s i g n e d for t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p e o p l e , t h a t it be m o d e l for t h e h u m a n i t y of w h i c h it is a p a r t a n d w h i c h , alas, if does n o t e x c e l in v i r t u e , yet exemplifies in vice. H e n c e it is t h a t e v e r y m o r a l h e r o , of t h e A b r a h a m i t i c line or o u t s i d e it, is a m o d e l for e m u l a t i o n ; t h a t every a n t i h e r o o f t h a t line o r o u t s i d e it e m b o d i e s traits t h a t are t o b e s h u n n e d ; a n d t h e m o s t m e a n i n g f u l ot lessons for us, t h e seed of A b r a h a m a n d S a r a h , are i n t h e d e f i c i e n c i e s in t h e best of our a n c e s t r a l h e r o e s of f a i t h . M o r e c o g e n t for us t h a n t h e p l a g u e - d e f y i n g P h a r a o h w h o k n o w s n o t Y H W H are t h e Israelite c o m p lainers in t h e w i l d e r n e s s w h o d o ack n o w l e d g e h i m ; m o r e c o g e n t f o r us t h e callous j u d g m e n t a l s t a n c e of a J o n a h tow a r d N i n e v i t e s t h a n t h e l o v i n g o n e of a J e r e m i a h l a m e n t i n g " t h e slain of t h e d a u g h t e r of m y people." A n d so finally t o t h e m o r a l of t h e t h r e e r o m a n t i c triangles. A m o r a l for a p e o p l e t h a t h a s l e a r n e d to see itself m o r e as v i c t i m of history t h a n f a s h i o n e r ot it; as outsi der to t h e congress of n a t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n , in J u d a h Halevi's p h r a s e , h e a r t ot t h e n a t i o n s ; a n d finally t h a t in a w o r l d of x e n o p h o b i c p a g a n s finds itself singled o u t for special e x h o r t a t i o n t o k n o w t h e h e a r t of t h e s t r a n g e r a n d to t r e a t h i m as o n e ^ o w n .

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

277

O n e of t h e a b s u r d i t i e s t h a t w e h a v e n o t h i t h e r t o raised in regard t o t h e t r i a n g l e p l o t is t h e p r e s e n c e of G o d i n all t h r e e , a c t i n g o n b e h a l f of his c h o s e n o n e s in all t h r e e , a n d in t h e t h i r d , i n a r e v e l a t i o n d i r e c t i n g t h e p a t r i a r c h t o stay w h e r e h e is, a n d a s s u r i n g h i m o n t h e p r o m i s e of t h e l a n d t o h i s n u m b e r l e s s d e s c e n d a n t s . T h i s r e v e l a t i o n a n d p r o m i s e p r e c e d e s t h e first j o u r n e y of A b r a m t o Egypt in G h a p t c r 12, R e v e l a t i o n a n d p r o m i s e p r e c e d e i n C h a p t e r 18 t h e j o u r n e y , i n C h a p t e r 19, f r o m M a rar e s O a k s t o G e r a r . T h a t s e c o n d story, c o m i n g a f t e r t h e p r o m i s e of Isaac's b i r t h a n d i m m e d i a t e l y b e f o r e t h e f u l f i l l m e n t of t h a t p r o m i s e in C h a p t e r 21, seems designed by p l a c e m e n t t o u n d e r l i n e G o d ' s g u a r a n t e e i n g of A b r a h a m s p a t e r n i t y . W h a t s e e m s absurd t h e n is t h e r e a d i n e s s in all t h r e e stories of t h e p a t r i a r c h - m a t r i a r c h to h e a d off d a n g e r by r e c o u r s e t o a lie, r a t h e r t h a n t o rely o n G o d t o k e e p his p r o m i s e . ( W e l l , let us r e m e m b e r t h a t e v e n in t h e s e days w h e n s u c h p e r s o n a l r e v e l a t i o n s are rare, t h o s e of us w h o are y e t s t r o n g i n f a i t h in G o d ' s s a v i n g p r o m i s e will resort t o wiles a n d s t r a t a g e m s a g a i n s t t h e designs of o u r f a i t h l e s s n e i g h b o r s ; a n d w h y n o t , s i n c e it is well k n o w n t h a t G o d h e l p s t h o s e w h o h e l p t h e m s e l v e s ! ) A n d t o b e sure t h e G o d w h o s e h e l p h a s n o t b e e n p e t i t i o n e d c o m e s t h r o u g h f o r h i s elect d e s p i t e this s e e m i n g slight. A n o t h e r p e r p l e x i t y t h a t 1 h a v e raised several t i m e s is t h e f e a r or s u s p i c i o n t h a t t h e x e n o p h o b i c n a t i v e s m a y c o m m i t m u r d e r t o a v o i d t h e sin of adultery. 11 a n i n n p o r t a n t e l e m e n t of t h e m o r a l is t h a t a s e n s e of o u r o w n r i g h t e o u s n e s s as against, t h e i n i q u i t y ot o u r n e i g h b o r s m a y lead us t o d i s s e m b l e , lie, d e n y o u r o w n m o s t sacred r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; a n d , f u r t h e r , t h a t s u c h resort t o s u b t e r f u g e a n d s c h e m i n g may, so t.o s p e a k , h o i s t us o n o w n p e t a r d a n d b r i n g a b o u t t h e very d a n g e r w e feared, t h e in vasion of o u r r i g h t s t o p r o p e r t y a n d p e r s o n ; if this, t h e r e m u s t b e s o m e v e r i s i m i l i t u d e t o t h e s u s p i c i o n a n d f e a r of t h e p a t r i a r c h , w h i c h s e e m s t o b e t h e s a m e in all t h r e e stories. T h i s is t o say t h a t t h e s u s p i c i o n of t h e p a t r i a r c h a b o u t t h e e t h o s of his h o s t p e o p l e s m u s t realistically c o r r e s p o n d t o o u r o w n e x p e r i e n c e of t h e e t h o s of t h e non-Bible-oriented c o m m u n i t i e s with w h o m we share this island-universe.

And

n o w h e r e is the. t a b o o of a d u l t e r y s t r o n g e r t h a n t h a t of m u r d e r . W e must, t h e r e f o r e seek in t h e t h r e e f o r m u l a t i o n s of t h e p a t r i a r c h ' s f e a r t h e m e t a p h o r i c s e n s e — b e it h y p e r b o l e , m e t o n y m y o r o t h e r t r o p e — t h a t h a s e s c a p e d us. A n d in r e e x a m i n i n g t h e d i c t i o n w h i c h e x p r e s s e s t h a t fear, w e s h a l l c o m e first t o realize t h a t w h i l e o u r t r a n s l a t i o n s are f a i t h f u l , o u r r e s t a t e m e n t s i n p a r a p h r a s e of t h e t e x t s h a v e b e e n misl e a d i n g l y i n c o r r e c t . First, t h e t e r m f o r " m u r d e r " (rsh) n e v e r a p p e a r s . S e c o n d , w e h a v e tailed t o d i s t i n g u i s h , in e a c h n a r r a t i v e , t h e n u a n c e w h i c h a t t a c h e s t o t h e exp r e s s i o n of t h e s u s p i c i o n by v i r t u e of its d i c t i o n , its t i m i n g , a n d its addressee. In story o n e , a n d in t h i s story a l o n e , it is t h e b e a u t y of t h e m a t r i a r c h t h a t is s t a t e d a n d stressed as t h e u l t i m a t e f a c t o r i n t h e p a t r i a r c h s fear. ( O n c e m a d e exp lie it h e r e , it will be i m p l i c i t i n t h e t w o stories t o follow.) T h e f a c t a n d s i g n i f i c a n c e ot h e r b e a u t y a p p e a r s at t h e very o p e n i n g of t h e n a r r a t i v e i n A b r a h a m s s t a t e m e n t t o h i s wife S a r a i of h i s a w a r e n e s s of h e r beauty, t h e t e r m f o r t h i s last, f e a t u r i n g t h e s t e m ‫ ז‬h "see" ( a c t i v e ) " b e s e e n , a p p e a r " ( p a s s i v e ) : vf)f-n1rh " c o m e l y t o t h e s i g h t " W h e n t h e E g y p t i a n s see you, h e goes o n ( l e a v i n g an easily idled g a p ) t h e \ will/mav kill m e a n d let you live. I his j u d g m e n l oi A b r a i n s as lo Sarai's a p p e a r a n c e is t h e n t w i c e c o n f i r m e d by t h e n a r r a t o r ; first, w h e n t h e E g y p t i a n s see the woman

it h to re-

alize h o w very beaut iiul s h e is; a n d t h e n w h e n P h a r a o h s minis! ers see her a n d

jmuse

2,36

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

her t o P h a r a o h , w h e r e u p o n s h e is taken i n t o P h a r a o h ' s h o u s e h o l d . T h e a s s o c i a t i o n 01 t h e p e r c e p t i o n rh, t h e a t t r a c t i v e (hmd)

or b e a u t i f u l (yph),

f r e q u e n t e l s e w h e r e in

S c r i p t u r e , is e x e m p l i f i e d in t h e e x p r e s s i o n " a t t r a c t i v e t o t h e sight." T h e H e b r e w for this, ne/imât! fanarë in G e n . 2:9, is t h e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of w h a t we call " s h a d e trees" (in c o n t r a s t t o " f r u i t t r e e s " w h i c h arc tob lemaakäl

" g o o d for e a t i n g " ) . T h e s e

t w o t e r m s t h e n n a t u r a l l y e v e n t u a t e in a t h i r d t e r m , Iqh " t o take," a n d t h i s last, as in t h e case of Sarai's b e i n g taken

i n t o P h a r a o h ' s h o u s e h o l d , w i t h a s e n s e of illegiti-

macy. A l l t h r e e t e r m s a p p e a r in J o s h u a 7:21, in t h e c o n f e s s i o n ot A c h a n t h a t il was h e w h o b r o u g h t d o w n G o d ' s w r a t h o n Israel by a p p r o p r i a t i n g for h i m s e l f t h e hcrcml o o t f r o m t h e city of J e r i c h o . " U p o n .seem‫ | ״‬t h e p r e c i o u s items], \ craved (hmd)

them

a n d took t h e m . " It is surely t h i s e x i s t e n t i a l process, f r o m seeing, t o desiring, t o ( i n i s ) a p p r o p r i a t i o n , that i n f o r m s t h e last c h a r g e in t h e D e c a l o g u e . ‫״‬You shall n o t c o v e t your tel low's e s t a t e (byt)y "You shall not c o v e t (hmd)

(hmd)

you s h a l l n o t c o v e t y o u r f e l l o w s wife" ( E x o d u s 2 0 : 1 7 ) . y o u r fellow's wife, n o r shall you go a d u s t i n g (U‫׳‬h ) a f t e r

your f e l l o w s e s t a t e s " ( D e u t e r o n o m y 5:21). T h i s last verb, a d u r a t i v e h i t t p a e l , in‫־׳‬ f o r m s o n t h e m e a n i n g h e r e of hmd. T h e address is n o t t o t h e p u r e l y e m o t i o n a l or passive aspect of desire, b u t t o t h e n u r s i n g of c u p i d i t y a n d its e v e n t u a t i o n in beh a v i o r a i m e d at a c h i e v i n g t h e d e s i r e d goal. H e n c e , t h e f o r c e of t h e last c o m m a n d m e n t , in a sense a r e c a p i t u l a t i o n of t h e p r e c e d i n g f o u r p r o h i b i t i o n s , is:

Make/harbor

no designs o n y o u r fellow's wife, h o u s e , e t c . W e r e t h e f e a r of t h e p a t r i a r c h A b r a m f o r his life p r e d i c a t e d o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t o u t s i d e U r or A r a m N e h a r a y i m n o m o r a l n o r m s e x i s t e d , it is d o u b t f u l t h a t h e s h o u l d h a v e left h o m e t o b e g i n w i t h . B u t t h e d a n g e r f r o m s t r a n g e r h o s t s in civih i e d lands is n o t f r o m t h e u n c h e c k e d p r a c t i c e of m u r d e r a n d r a p e ; it is f r o m t h e crafty designs of t h o s e w h o , s e c u r e i n t h e i r o w n h o m e s a n d g o v e r n m e n t s a n d courts, will f i n d ways t o r e m o v e hy o n e m e a n s or a n o t h e r t h e h e a d of t h e h o u s e h o l d w h o s t a n d s in t h e way of t h e i r a c h i e v i n g of t h e i r illicit desires. A g a i n s t s u c h c l a n d e s t i n e p l o t t i n g , t h e p a t r i a r c h t a k e s t h e p r e c a u t i o n e m b o d i e d i n t h e lie. A n d t o b e sure, t h e lie b o o m e r a n g s in t h a t it d o e s a w a y w i t h t h e very i n h i b i t i o n s t h a t w o u l d inf o r m t h e a c t i o n s of t h e m o s t m o r a l l y s e n s i t i v e of k i n g s a n d c o m m o n e r s . O n c e h o i s t o n his o w n p e t a r d , h i s wife in t h e l e g i t i m a t e c u s t o d y of h i s h o s t c o u n t r y ' s s u p r e m e m a g i s t r a t e , w h a t c a n t h e p a t r i a r c h d o b u t wait in s i l e n c e for a g r e a t e r m a g i s t r a t e to t a k e a ha tad in t h e g a m e ? Let us n o t e h o w t h e p a t r i a r c h i n f o r m s his h o s t of t h e reason lor h i s lie. In t h e first story, h e simply d o e s n o t . T h e P h a r a o h gives A b r a m n o c h a n c e t o a n s w e r his q u e s t i o n , w h i c h t h u s b e c o m e s r h e t o r i c a l . A n d well lor A b r a m t h a t h e does n o t . b o r h o w would his a n s w e r d o a n y t h i n g h u t e x a c e r b a t e t h e r i g h t e o u s i n d i g n a t i o n for t h i s m o n a r c h w h o d o e s n o t suffer liars gladly? I n t h e s e c o n d story, as w e saw, t h e possibility that a g e n e r a l lack of m o r a l i t y — f o r w h i c h lack A b r a h a m h a d n o evid e n c e — m i g h t lead t o his d e a t h " o v e r t h e m a t t e r of m y wife" is t h e p a t r i a r c h s l a m e h a l t - e x c u s e , h a l f - a p o l o g y , t h e s t i n g of t h e s u s p i c i o n of G e r a r i t e s m i t i g a t e d for its g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n t o p e o p l e " a n y w h e r e . " A n d in t h e t h i r d story, w h e r e t h e ahs e n c e ot a n y a d v a n c e m a d e t o t h e m a t r i a r c h u n d e r l i n e s t h e g r a t u i t o u s n e s s ot t h e suspicion v o i c e d in t h e o t h e r t w o stories, t h e p a t r i a r c h ' s r e s p o n s e is u n t r a n s l a t a b l e for t h e c o m p o u n d i n g of n a r r a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d t h e d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e t h a t fol-

E V E N T S IN THE LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

lows. O u r t r a n s l a t i o n ,

14

279

Said Isaac t o h i m , 1 My t h o u g h t was: let me not d i e b e c a u s e of

h e r ' ‫ ״‬s i m p l y d o e s n o t reflect t h e H e b r e w . T h e w o r d s in italics w o u l d b e c o r r e c t if t h e H e b r e w w o r d w e r e a i t h e n e g a t i v e p a r t i c l e g o v e r n i n g a n i m p e r f e c t in d i r e c t discourse. T h e H e b r e w p a r t i c l e pen "lest, t h a t n o t " i n t r o d u c e s i n d i r e c t discourse. T h e t r a n s l a t i o n s h o u l d t h e r e f o r e b e a l o n g t h i s l i n e : S a i d Isaac t o h i m "Truly, I t h o u g h t " [ t h i n k i n g to a v e r t t h e possibility] t h a t , "I m a y yet c o m e t o grief [lit., die, n o t be killed] o v e r her."

P O E T I C A L R E V I E W OF T H E N A M E S O F

GOD

I n story o n e t h e D e i t y a p p e a r s o n l y o n c e , i n v e r s e 17, w h e r e it is Y H W H , t h e pers o n a l a n d t u t e l a r y p r o t e c t o r of t h e p a t r i a r c h s , w h o afflicts t h e u n f o r t u n a t e P h a r a o h . A q u i c k g l a n c e at t h e e x c l u s i v e a p p e a r a n c e of Y H W H in t h e p r e c e d i n g n i n e verses i n C h a p t e r 12 a n d in t h e e i g h t e e n verses of t h e f o l l o w i n g C h a p t e r 13 will r e v e a l h o w well t h e e n t i r e story is i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e flow of t h e s u r r o u n d i n g n a r r a t i v e . I n story t w o , it is t h e ( u n i v e r s a l ) G o d ( E l o h i m ) w h o a p p e a r s t o A b i m e l e c h (verse 3). T h e l a t t e r addresses h i m as "my l o r d ( s ) " t h e plural b e i n g t h a t of m a j e s t y (verse 4 ) . Yet t h e n a r r a t o r signals that t h i s "my lord" is t h e Deity t o w h o m we of t h e israelite t r a d i t i o n refer in w r i t i n g as Y H W I I, h u t subst i t u t e for that u n p r o n o u n c e a b l e spelling t h e H e b r e w w o r d for "my lord" ( ‫ ״‬d o n a y ) except for t h e l e n g t h e n i n g of t h e final vowel (‫׳׳‬döriav). T h i s l e n g t h e n i n g , let us r e m e m b e r , c h a r a c t e r i z i n g adönay

"my

l o r d ( s ) " o n l y w h e n t h e r e f e r e n c e is t o Yl I W i I, is p u r e l y a l i t e r a r y — w h i c h is t o say, a written‫״־־‬sign, for t h e v o w e l , b e i n g a d i p h t h o n g , c a n n o t b e f u r t h e r l e n g t h e n e d in s p e e c h . T h e a p p e a r a n c e , t h e n , of t h i s ( m a s k e d ) A d o r u r y - Y H W H , first r e f e r r e d t o as Elohim " G o d , " is t h e r e u p o n r e v e a l e d t o b e a n u m e n r e p r e s e n t i n g t h a t G o d :

häHöhim

(verse 6 ) . A b r a h a m , in his discourse w i t h A b i m e l e c h , refers t o t h e s u p e r n a l p o w e r t h a t s e n t h i m a - w ä n d e ring as G o d ( E l o h i m ) i n verse 13. B u t i n t e r e s t i n g , t o b e sure, is t h e n a r r a t o r ' s v o i c e in verse 1 7, i n f o r m i n g us t h a t A b r a h a m did o n A b i m e l e c h ' s b e h a l f i n t e r c e d e w i t h häHöhim.

T h i s t e r m c a n s t a n d , as w e h a v e seen, for t h e ab-

stract sense of P r o v i d e n c e / H e a v e n or t h e particular r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of G o d in t h e f o r m of a n u m e n . E i t h e r sense is r e a s o n a b l e h e r e , b u t t h e s u b t l e n u a n c e s of t h e t e r m s for D e i t y c o m e s t h r o u g h i m m e d i a t e l y (if n o t w i t h f o r m u l a i c clarity) by t h e narrator's i n f o r m i n g us t h a t it was G o d ( E l o h i m ) — n o t t h e n u m e n — w h o c u r e d A b i m e l e c h a n d h i s f e m a l e subjects, a n d t h e n a t t a c h i n g i n h y p o t a c t i c f o r m u l a t i o n t h e gap-filling i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t it was Y H W H , w h o h a d a c t e d o n h i s protegé's b e h a l f in p l a c i n g a b a r o v e r e v e r y w o m b in A b i m e l e c h ' s r e a l m (verse 18). I n t h e t h i r d story, t h e r e are n o p r o b l e m s a n d n o surprises. It is Y H W H i n v e r s e 2 w h o r e v e a l s h i m s e l f t o Isaac in G e r a r , a n d at story's c o n c l u s i o n it is Y H W H w h o blesses Isaac w i t h a b u n d a n c e ( v e r s e 12).

THE MADNESS OF FATHER ABRAHAM:

GENESIS

22

T h e k n o t t y q u e s t i o n of t h i s n a r r a t i v e s k e r y g m a is in c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e s i m p l i c i t y of t h e p l o t a n d t h e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d n e s s of its t o l l i n g . T h e r e is very little r e p e t i t i o n , n o n e ! hat a p p e a r s r e d u n d a n t , a ,simple vocabulary, a n d o n l y o n e d e p a r t u r e f r o m p a r a t a c t ic s y n t a x . A f a t h e r r e c e i v e s a d i v i n e call t o sac rifice his son, is p r e v e n t e d by

2,36

S T O R I E S — " T H E PRIMEVAL H I S T O R Y "

d i v i n e i n t e r v e n t i o n at t h e last m o m e n t , a n d is praised for his readiness to oho v. The s t u m h l m g blocks to o u r d i s c e r n m e n t of t h e k e r y g m a may be n a r r o w e d to t h e m o t i v a t i o n or r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n b e h i n d t h e first call of Divinity, a n d to t h e mortal's failure to q u e s t i o n it. A n answer of sorts t o t h e first would seem to be p r e s e n t in t h e h y p o t a c t i c ally f o r m u l a t e d n o t i c e t h a t A b r a h a m was b e i n g p u t to a test. But w h a t n e e d does a n all-knowing G o d h a v e to subject a single p e r s o n to such a test? A s for t h e m o r t a l s response, it is particularly p e r p l e x i n g in t h e case of an A b r a h a m , w h o did n o t h e s i t a t e to haggle o n behalf of a tiny p e r c e n t a g e of possible i n n o c e n t s in Sodom's moral sinkhole.53 W e may defer to a n o t h e r place discussion of t h e meta-literary q u e s t i o n of t h e historic fact or f r e q u e n c y of child-sacrifice in antiquity, a n d t h e influence of this mterpretative factor o n t h e exegesis of this c h a p t e r . B u t in t h e interest of clearing t h e way for o u r t r a n s l a t i o n a n d impressionistic retelling of this story, it would be advisable to establish t h a t this bizarre episode is in place w i t h i n t h e o v e r a r c h i n g n a r r a t i v e of A b r a h a m s career; w h i c h is t o say, t h a t it is n o t a n intrustve fantasy awkwardly thrust i n t o a verisimilitudinous history by a n inept a u t h o r or injudicious redactor. T h e last verse oi our n a r r a t i v e in C h a p t e r 22 has A b r a h a m r e t u r n i n g lo Beersheba, which, must t h e r e f o r e be his location w h e n h e receives t h e call. 1 his is in k e e p i n g with t h e immediately preceding n a r r a t i v e ( 2 : 2 2 - 34), in w h i c h King A b i m e l e c h of G e r a r cedes to A b r a h a m t h e area a r o u n d the S h e b a S p r i n g G Beers h e b a ) , an area t h a t is pictured as b e i n g Philistine territory at that lime.‫ י י‬T h e f o b lowing C h a p t e r 23 begins w i t h Sarah's d e a t h at H e b r o n , w h i c h , as verse ‫ י‬point‫״‬ cd I y r e m i n d s us, was t h e n k n o w n as K i r i a t h A r b a , b u t m o r e i m p o r t a n t , was located in w h a t was t h e n C a n a a n i t e territory. 5 6 A grazing r a n g e f r o m Beersheba in t h e s o u t h t o H e b r o n some t w e n t y miles n o r t h would n o t be overly e x t e n s i v e for s o m e o n e of t h e patriarch's s u b s t a n c e and status. If t h e story of t h e mission to M o r i a h took place shortly before S a r a h s d e a t h , t h e m a t r i a r c h — a i l i n g , p e r h a p s — m i g h t well h a v e r e m a i n e d at t h e n o r t h e r n h e a d q u a r t e r s of t h e family's grazing g r o u n d s while h e r h u s b a n d and son a t t e n d e d to business at t h e s o u t h e r n end. T h u s t h e n e a t t r a n s i t i o n in terms of geography may serve as a n implicit a c c o u n t i n g for t h e a b s e n c e of S a r a h from t h e scene at Beersheba w h e n A b r a h a m , Isaac, a n d t h e t w o r a n c h h a n d s depart tor t h e i r fateful clestin a t i o n . S h e m i g h t well h a v e b e e n spared t h e k n o w l e d g e of w h a t almost h a p p e n e d t o h e r b e l o v e d son. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e c e l e b r a t i o n of Isaac s w e a n i n g and t h e s u b s e q u e n t e x p u l s i o n of H a g a r a n d Ishmael, as told in C h a p t e r 21, are m o r e likely in t h e setting of Beersheba t h a n H e b r o n . So it m i g h t h a v e b e e n in Isaac's early years t h a t t h e family m o v e d n o r t h to H e b r o n , a n d s u b s e q u e n t 1 ν left t h e m a t r i a r c h t h e r e w h i l e t h e flocks were h e r d e d t o t h e s o u t h . T h e a b s e n c e of any definitive clue to t h e t i m e - s e t t i n g of t h e near-sacrifice is c e r t a i n l y n o a c c i d e n t . W e h a v e b e e n told t h a t Sarah, n i n e t y years old w h e n she gave b i r t h t o Isaac, died t h i r t y - s e v e n years later. S o Isaac may, at t h e t i m e of t h e ordeal, h a v e b e e n a n y w h e r e f r o m seven t o thirty-seven. 5 7 T h i s h e i g h t e n s t h e author's message to us. W e h a v e b e e n given t h e viral facts about h i m : he was born, circumcised, weaned, and separated irum b r o t h e r Ishmael at t h e time of his weaning. S o m e t i m e b e t w e e n his w e a n i n g and his los* of m o t h e r took place I he test, w i n c h h a d lie n o t already arrived at ‫ ז‬hat sta~ tus— mus! h a v e jo!led him i n t o t h e e m o t i o n a l stage we call m a n h o o d .

EVENTS IN THE IT FE OF ABRAHAM The

281

Text (1) Ii was some time after these events

the Divinity now• put Abraham to the

test-- He said to him, "Abraham!" '1Yes sir," he answered. (2) l i e said, "Take now your son, your one‫׳‬and‫׳‬only, whom you cherish, Isaac; and betake yourself to the land oi Moriah ---there offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the heights that I shall i n d i c a t e t o vou."

(3) Promptly that morning Abraham strapped [pannier on) his ass. Then taking two

of h i s h a n d s w i t h h i m as w e l l as h i s s o n Isaac, h e split t h e w o o d for the burnt of‫׳‬

t e r i n g . T h e n h e set o u t f o r t h e p l a c e w h i c h t h e D i v i n i t y h a d t o l d h i m o f . ( 4 ) O n t h e t h i r d day, A b r a h a m l o o k e d u p , a n d s i g h t e d t h e p l a c e a t a d i s t a n c e . ( 5 ) A b r a h a m , said t o his h o y s , " S t a y y o u h e r e w i t h t h e ass. I a n d t h e l a d w i l l go u p y o n d e r , we .shall w o r ‫׳‬

ship, and we shall come back to you." (6) Abraham t h e n took the wood for t h e burnt offering, loaded it on his son Isaac. In his own hand he took the fire [‫׳‬pot] and the butcher-knife. T h e two of t h e m walked on together. (7) Isaac spoke up to his father Abraham, "Father!" "Yes, my son," he an‫׳‬ swered. "Here," h e said, "is the fire and the wood, but: where is the sheep tor the burnt offering?" (8) A b r a h a m replied, "God will see to the sheep for the burnt offering for Himself, my son." A n d the two of them walked on together. (9) They arrived at the place which the Divinity pointed out to him. There Ahr ah a m built up the altar. He laid out the wood. He bound his son Isaac. He laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. ( 1 o) H e put out his hand, took up the butcher ‫׳‬knife to slaughter his son. (11) A n angel of Y H W H called out: to him from heaven, "Ahraham, Abraham!" "Yes sir" he said. (12) He said, "Do not thrust your hand against the lad, d o h i m n o h a r m ! N o w d o I k n o w h o w great a G o d - f e a r e r y o u are•

i n that you

withheld not from Me your son, your one-and-only." ( 1 3) Abraham looked up and caught sight — there before his eyes a substitute ram, held fast in a thicket hy its horns. Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up a,- a burnt offering in his sons stead. (14) Abraham named that place YHWf

I‫׳‬yire

I ' Y H W H provides"!—in today's parlance, u O n YIIWI I's mount there is (pro)vision ( ‫ ) ל י‬YHWH's angel called again to Abraham !1:011 heaven, (16) "By Myself swears Y H W H — b e c a u s e you have so acted, withholding not your son, your one-andonly, O 7 ) I will richly bless your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven or the grains of sand on the seashore. Your offspring shall win the gateways of their enemies. (18) By your offspring will all nations of earth invoke blessing upon themselves — fall this] because you obeyed my command." OQ) Abraham t h e n went back to his servants, and together they proceeded hack to Beersheba. Abraham stayed on in Beersheba. (Genesis 2 2 : 1 - 1 9 ) ! d i e story b e g i n s i n t h e m o s t c a s u a l m a n n e r , a t r a n s i t i o n (as w e h a v e n o t e d ) f r o m t h e i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g n a r r a t i v e of t h e t r e a t y c o n c l u d e d b e t w e e n A b i m e l e c h a n d A b r a h a m : It was some time after these events. W h a t f o l l o w s t h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n g r a m m a t i c a l l y is t h e c o n t i n u i n g p a r a t a c t i c f o r m u l a t i o n " t h a t h e [an a n o n y m o u s s u b j e c t ] said, * A b r a h a m ? ' " T h i s

is w h a t

follows ^7‫־‬ammaticali\,

but

not

actually. T h e n a r r a t o r b r e a k s off a f t e r t h e t r a n s i t i o n a l t e m p o r a l clause. H e was g o i n g t o c o n t i n u e (as i n d e e d h e d o e s ) w i t h H e a v e n ' s call t o A b r a h a m . But h e h a s s u d d e n l y r e m e m b e r e d (so h e w o u l d h a v e us u n d e r s t a n d ) w h a t a s h o c k t h e c o n t e n t

2,36

S T O R I E S — " T H E PRIMEVAL H I S T O R Y "

of t h a t call will o c c a s i o n t h e reader. S o h e inserts a n a n t i c i p a t o r y w h i c h reassures us t h a t w h a t G o d asked of A b r a h a m was n o t -

parenthesis,

as we w o u l d tell a

child-—'"for r e a l ‫ ״‬I! was o n l y a test. A s t h e n a r r a t o r t h u s d i s t a n c e s h i m s e l f a n d t h e r e a d e r ( h u t not p o o r A b r a h a m ) Irom t h e d r e a d l u l b i d d i n g t hat is a b o u t to c o m e , so docs lie d i s t a n c e t h e subject‫ ־‬oi t h e call. T h a t s u b j e c t is n o t E l o h i m " G o d , " c e r t a i n l y n o t Y H W H , t h a t n a m e for A b r a h a m s ( a n d o u r ) t u t e l a r y G o d , b u t /uc'/ô/tïm, t h e d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e b e i n g t h e he of a b s t r a c t i o n , t h u s b e t o k e n i n g "1 l e a v e n , " or t h e hë of p a r t i c u l a r i t y , t h u s b e t o k e n i n g a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n u m e n . T h i s t e r m hcT'löhlm, will a p ‫׳‬ p e a r t w i c e m o r e in a n i d e n t i c a l s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e (verses 4, 9) as t h e s u b j e c t of t h e p e r f e c t v e r b ämar "said," w h i l e A b r a m will o n c e refer t o t h e D e i t y by E l o h i m . But it is n o t e w o r t h y t h a t t h e n a r r a t o r e x p l o i t s a t h i r d w a y of d i s t a n c i n g t h e d i v i n e c a l l ( e r ) . T h e v o i c e t h a t calls A b r a h a m by n a m e , t h e " H e " i m p l i c i t i n t h e i m p e r f e c t wayyomer,

is n o t i d e n t i f i e d . F o r t h e s u b j e c t r e f e r e n t t h e r e a d e r m u s t r e a c h b a c k , so

to speak, i n t o t h e p a r e n t h e t i c h y p o t a c t i c c l a u s e f o r t h e a m b i g u o u s h a l ö h l m ^ W h y , h o w e v e r , d i v i d e t h e call i n t o t w o d i a l o g i c p a r t s s e p a r a t e d by A b r a h a m ' s r e s p o n s e ? T h a t r e s p o n s e hinnënï,

literally " h e r e I be," signifies t h e speaker's f o c u s e d

a t t e n t i o n as, i n verse 7, in t h a t s a m e r e s p o n s e t o Isaac's call, " F a t h e r ? " B u t w h e r e a s t h a t r e s p o n s e o n t h e p a r t of a f a t h e r t o c h i l d (or m a s t e r t o s e r v a n t ) m a y b e t o k e n care, c o n c e r n , o r k i n d l y c o n d e s c e n s i o n , o n t h e p a r t of s e r v a n t to m a s t e r or m o r t a l t o divinity, as h e r e , it b e s p e a k s r e s p e c t f u l a t t e n t i o n , e v e n — " a t y o u r s e r v i c e " — a n a v o w a l of o b e d i e n c e . A l l of w h i c h serves t o h i g h l i g h t t h e a b s e n c e of a n y r e s p o n s e — v e r b a l r e s p o n s e , t h a t i s — a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e c o m m a n d f r o m o n h i g h . In t e r m s of d i a l o g i c r e s p o n s e , t h e r e is o n l y s i l e n c e . B u t in t e r m s of n a r r a t o r i a l c o n s e c u t i o n , h o w e l o q u e n t is t h a t s i l e n c e ! For t h a t first a v o w a l of o b e d i e n c e , b e f o r e t h e c o m m a n d , is r e a f f i r m e d by t h e c l o s e - l i p p e d o b e d i e n c e t h a t follows t h e c o m m a n d w i t h o u t delay. A l a c r i t y t o e m b a r k on t h e c o m m i s s i o n would o c c a s i o n p e r p l e x i t y o n t h e r e a d e r s p a r t if t h e c o m m a n d w e r e r e p o r t e d i n i n d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e or by a s i m p l e order, "Sacrifice your son o n my altar." But t h e c o m m a n d as il is spelled out c a n o n l y be read as free direct discourse

if w e arc n o t t o a c c e p t t h e s p e a k e r as d e m i u r g e , h o u r

times, w i t h a p a i n f u l m e a s u r e d b e a t , g r i m if n o t s a r d o n i c , t h e v o i c e - e v e n b e f o r e r e v e a l i n g w h a t , if a n y t h i n g , is at s t a k e — i d e n t i f i e s w h o is at s t a k e . T h e

voice

k n o w s w h a t it is asking. A n d a r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h fills in, t o a n e x t e n t at least, t h e b a f f l i n g v a c u u m of A b r a h a m ' s s i l e n c e . A t t h e words, " T a k e y o u r son," A b r a h a m w i t h p r e m o n i t i o n i n t e r r u p t s , " W h i c h son? I h a v e t w o ! " "Your one-ancl-only." " B u t each," h e a n s w e r s , "is t h e o n l y s o n of h i s m o t h e r . " " T h e o n e w h o m y o u l o v e ! " ' 1 But I l o v e t h e m b o t h . " "Isaac!" I will r e t u r n t o t h i s q u e s t i o n of A b r a h a m ' s b a f f l i n g s i l e n c e o n r e c e i p t of t h e h e a r t - s t o p p i n g c o m m a n d t o i n c i n e r a t e his s o n o n a n a l t a r t o Divinity, a n d of t h e p r o m p t i t u d e of h i s o b e d i e n c e . I will first a t t e n d t o a n u m b e r of o t h e r details in t h a t c o m m a n d t h a t I h a v e c h a r a c t e r i z e d as f r e e d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e . T h e r e is t h e n a m e M o riah, a p p e a r i n g h e r e as a n area, a n d o n l y o n c e a g a i n . I n 2 C h r o n i c l e s 3:1 it is a m o u n t ( i m p l i c i t l y i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h e hill of Ζ i o n ) , e x p l i c i t l y i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h e rocky mesa t h a t David purchased f r o m O m a n t h e Jebusite, u p o n w h i c h S o l o m o n m i g h t e r e c t , in his f a t h e r ' s stead, t h e J e r u s a l e m t e m p l e . 5 9 T h e r o o t ot this n a m e w o u l d a p p e a r t o b e yrh " a i m , d i r e c t , let fly (a missile)," w h e n c e also t h e n o u n törä

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

283

" i n s t r u c t i o n , o r a c l e " B u t t h e n a m e also r e s o n a t e s w i t h r ' h " t o see" in t h e qal a n d " t o a p p e a r , t o r e v e a l ( o n e s self)" in t h e niphai

Thus on both counts the n a m e may

c o n n o t e R e v e l a t i o n : l a n d / m o u n t . 6 0 T h e s e c o n d d e t a i l is t h e d i c t i o n of t h e d i v i n e d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e . I n all S c r i p t u r e t h e c o m m a n d lek "go!" is f o l l o w e d i m m e d i a t e l y (or, b e t t e r , a t t a c h e d t o ) t h e p r e p o s i t i o n a l p h r a s e lekä "for y o u r s e l f " o n l y t w i c e : h e r e , a n d i n Y H W H ' s first c o m m a n d t o A b r a h a m in 12:1. T h i s o d d a t t a c h m e n t of t h e ( o d d l y n a m e d ) ethical dative i n t w o closely p a r a l l e l c o n t e x t s , w h e r e t h e s e m a n t i c f u n c t i o n of t h e e t h i c a l d a t i v e " t o your i n t e r e s t , 011 your o w n b e h a l f is n o t o n l y inappropriate, but

-in t h e c o n t e x t s — p e r v e r s e l y so, is n o a c c i d e n t . For t h e t w o

c o m m a n d s h a v e a n o t h e r f e a t u r e 111 c o m m o n . In b o t h places, a l t h o u g h t h e d e s t i n a t i o n is k n o w n f r o m t h e i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t ( i n t h e first r e v e l a t i o n , 11:5 a n d 12:5 " t o go t o t h e l a n d of C a n a a n " a n d in t h e s e c o n d 1 2:2 "go for yourseli to M o r i a h l a n d " a n d t h e p a r a n o m a s i a in 12:14) t h i s d e s t i n a t i o n is k n o w n t o n a r r a t o r a n d t o r e a d e r b u t n o t , it w o u l d seem, t o A h r a m / A b r a h a m . For in b o t h i n s t a n c e s t h e destin a t i o n is e x p l i c i t l y w i t h h e l d f r o m t h e h e r o , i n 12:1 it is " t h e l a n d w h i c h I s h a l l disclose (hiph'il r'h) t o you," a n d in 22:2, a l t h o u g h Moriahdand

h a s b e e n specified, t h e

d e s t i n a t i o n is " o n t h a t o n e of t h e p e a k s w h i c h I shall d e s i g n a t e ( ‫ נ‬ömar) t o y o u " It w o u l d b e h a r d t o o v e r s t a t e t h e r i c h n e s s of t h e e x e g e t i c a l a n d h o m i l e c t i c a l o p t i o n s ( t h e t w o c a t e g o r i e s a r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y o r o p p o s i t i o n a l ) o p e n e d u p by t h i s f e a t u r e i n e a c h c a s e a n d in r e s p e c t t o o n e a n o t h e r . T w o of t h e m o s t o b v i o u s are: o n e , t h e m u t u a l l y r e i n f o r c i n g s o u n d i n g of t h e n o t e of f a t e f u l n e s s i n e a c h call; a n d t w o , t h e r e i n f o r c i n g of t h e n o t e of d o o m i n t h e s e c o n d call, t h e e x e c u t i o n of w h i c h c o u l d o n l y w r i t e finis t o t h e h o p e a n d p r o m i s e m a d e e x p l i c i t i n t h e first. W i t h t h e last w o r d s of d i v i n i t y still s o u n d i n g i n o u r ears ( a n d p e r h a p s in A b r a h a m ' s ) , " O f f e r h i m u p as a h o l o c a u s t u p o n o n e of t h e p e a k s w h i c h I s h a l l d e s i g n a t e t o you," t h e n a r r a t o r r e s u m e s : " P r o m p t o n t h e m o r n A b r a h a m s t r a p p e d h i s ass, f e t c h e d t w o of h i s h a n d s t o a c c o m p a n y h i m a n d Isaac h i s s o n , split t h e k i n d l i n g for t h e holocaust and went forthwith towards the place that the divinity h a d declared t o h i m . " H o w f a r f r o m B e e r s h e b a is t h a t territory,

n e v e r b e f o r e or a f t e r h e a r d of

a g a i n , w h i c h i n f r e e d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e was n a m e d — f o r t h e reader, n o t f o r A b r a h a m — M o r i a h ! D i d A b r a h a m k n o w tor h o w k i n g a j o u r n e y h e n e e d e d t o p a c k provisions? A n ass m i g h t easily b e l a d e n w i t h e n o u g h f o o d s t u f f t o k e e p f o u r m e n a n d himself f o r a w e e k or m o r e . W e m i g h t fill in t h i s g a p by p r e s u m i n g t h a t A b r a h a m played it safe in regard t o s u c h store. B u t t h e f o c u s is o n t h e k i n d l i n g , a pyre suffic i e n t t o c r e m a t e a h u m a n body, n o twigs, m i n d you, b u t split logs. But w h y carry coals t o N e w c a s t l e ? T h e a n s w e r c a n o n l y he t h a t f i r e w o o d , scarce e n o u g h in Beers h e b a r e g i o n as t o r e q u i r e t h e c o m b i n e d e f f o r t s of f a t h e r , s o n , a n d t w o s e r v a n t s , is a n t i c i p a t e d t o he e v e n m o r e scarce at t h e p o i n t of d e s t i n a t i o n : a b l e a k crag i n t h e arid wastes of t h e d e e p N e g c v . But w h o is t h e s u b j e c t of t h a t a n t i c i p a t i o n , if n o t A h r a h a m ? A n d so w e h a v e a n o t h e r c l u e t o a b s e n c e of t r a n s i t i o n f r o m t h e d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e of t h e d r e a d call t o t h e n a r r a t o r s t e l l i n g of A b r a h a m ' s r e s p o n s e . Early the morn—aha,

on

t h e revelation took place at n i g h t ! — A b r a h a m prepares for t h e

j o u r n e y . A n d h e asks n o q u e s t i o n s b e c a u s e e v e r y t h i n g h e does, h e d o e s a t t h e c o n t i n u i n g p r o m p t i n g of t h a t r e v e l a t o r y v o i c e : w h a t a n d h o w m u c h t o p a c k , h o w m a n y asses t o b e a r t h e load, h o w m a n y a t t e n d a n t s , in w h a t d i r e c t i o n t o h e a d toward the place divinity

had declared to him.

2,36

On

the third

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL H I S T O R Y "

day—some

f o r t y ‫׳־‬eight h o u r s or so later, a f t e r t w o

c a m p s — A b r a h a m , raising his eyes [to the horizon],

beheld the place from

overnight afar.

Not

q u i t e so. N o t , a t a n y r a t e , literally so. A h r a h a m h a d n o i d e a as t o d e s t i n a t i o n , r o u t e , or l a n d m a r k s . G o d h a d said h e w o u l d i n d i c a t e t h e p l a c e w h e n h e a r r i v e d i n t h e vicinity. S o G o d w o u l d h a v e h a d to p o i n t o u t t h e p e a k , e v e n as h e w o u l d h a v e had to guide him o n t h e route. O n c e again the narrator presupposes t h a t the reader m u s t h e a w a r e t h a t r e v e l a t i o n — p r o f o u n d a n d real e x p e r i e n c e t h o u g h it he

is

also a m e t a p h o r ; a n d t h a t t h e s o p h i s t i c a t e d r e a d e r m u s t h e a w a r e of t h e p r o b l e m s a t t e n d i n g r e v e l a t i o n s a n d t h e m a i n t e n a n c e oi f a i t h in t h e m . T h e specific p r o b l e m , for e x a m p l e , of m a i n t a i n i n g f a i t h in a r e v e l a t i o n t h a t was e x p e r i e n c e d in t h e past a n d is n o w o n l y a m e m o r y . ( A n d q u e s t i o n i n g m e m o r y is s e l f - d o u b t , n o t c a l l i n g G o d i n t o q u e s t i o n . ) A n d , particularly, t h e p r o b l e m of m a i n t a i n i n g f a i t h in a rem e i n h e r e d r e v e l a t i o n w h o s e c o n t e n t is i n h e r e n t l v i n c r e d i b l e , w h o s e d e m a n d r u n s c o u n t e r t o e v e r y t h i n g w e h a v e b e e n t a u g h t to b e l i e v e — · n a y , t o e v e r y t h i n g w e k n o w by f a i t h — a b o u t t h e b e n e v o l e n c e of G o d . T h e p r o b l e m , h e r e , of m a i n t a i n i n g f a i t h in a r e m e m b e r e d c o m m a n d t o b u t c h e r o n e s c h i l d . I n t h e e x t e n d e d t i m e of t h e journey, in t h e r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e d e s t i n e d p e a k , i n Abraham's unquestioning, unhesitant obedience — o b e d i e n c e to a d e m a n d o n the p a r t of G o d t h a t w o u l d h a v e t o b e u n b e l i e v a b l e e x c e p t in t h e r e v e l a t o r y m o m e n t s i n e l u c t a b l e k n o w l e d g e t h a t G o d is i n d e e d s p e a k i n g — i n all t h e s e , o u r a u t h o r is t e l l i n g us t h a t of all r e c o r d e d r e v e l a t i o n s , t h i s was surely t h e m o s t r e m a r k a b l e , a t least i n t h e m a t t e r of its specificity a n d its c o n t i n u i t y . F r o m t h e m o m e n t of t h e first c a l l i n g of h i s n a m e , A b r a h a m d i d n o t cease t o r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n . A t e v e r y f o r k i n t h e r o a d , G o d h a d t o say " l e f t " o r " r i g h t " A b r a h a m now 7 s t a n d s b e f o r e a r a n g e of hills, a n d as h i s eyes l i g h t u p o n o n e ot t h e m , t h e v o i c e w i t h i n says, " T h a t ' s t h e one." D o e s A b r a h a m ' s s t o m a c h t i g h t e n i n t o k n o t s as h e gazes u p o n t h a t o m i n o u s h e i g h t ? W e are n o t t o l d . H i s address to his s e r v a n t s w o u l d s e e m t o b e as c a s u a l as t h a t of a f o r e m a n i n s t r u c t i n g his r a n c h h a n d s . But w h e r e a r a n c h ‫ ׳‬b o s s m i g h t h a v e said a n y n u m b e r of t h i n g s — a l o n g t h e lines of "You set h e r e , I'll t a k e t h e b o y y o n d e r f o r a l o o k - s e e " — t h e a u t h o r c h o o s e s to give A b r a h a m a l i n e t h a t c a n n o t b u t give t h e r e a d e r a jolt. " W e will walk up y o n d e r , we will w o r s h i p , we will c o m e h a c k t o you." W h a t did t h e r a n c h h a n d s m a k e of this? W o r s h i p m e a n s sacrifice, ot c o u r s e . W e l l t h a t e x p l a i n s t h e w o o d , k n i f e , a n d f i r e p o t t h e y will h e t a k i n g w i t h t h e m . 771 is is to be ο ‫׳‬very private service: sacrifice/

Maybe

dotty ί Come

the old man has something

just the boss and his .son. No victim for the up his sleeve.

Or is he becoming

somewhat

to think of it, he has been acting a little st range on this trip. Best not ask . . .

W h a t a r e w e t h e r e a d e r s t o m a k e of this . - t ä t e m e n l ? W h a t d o e s t h e a u t h o r w a n t us t o b e l i e v e ? T h a t A b r a h a m is afraid t h a t bis s e r v a n t s m a y d i v i n e his i n t e n t i o n ? T h a t , if t h e y did so d i v i n e , t h e y m i g h t e v e n i n t e r f e r e t o p r e v e n t h i m ? T h a t A b r a h a m is justified i n m i s l e a d i n g t h e m w i t h w h a t h e k n o w s t o h e a lie: " W e will c o m e h a c k t o you"? O r , as r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n l o n g ago s p e c u l a t e d , d i d A b r a h a m ' s p r o p h e t i c p o w e r s a t t h a t m o m e n t e n a b l e h i m t o see t h a t Isaac would i n d e e d n o t b e sacrificed? B u t surely t h a t is absurd. P r o p h e c y is b u t a n o t h e r biblical t e r m for r e v e l a t i o n . If G o d is s e n d i n g a d o u b l e message, c o m m a n d i n g t h e sacrifice a n d at t h e s a m e t i m e assuring A b r a h a m t h a t Isaac will s u r v i v e this e x p e r i e n c e , t h e r e is n o real test at all; t h e

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

285

w h o l e t h i n g would seem to be a c h a r a d e ! P e r h a p s n o t . P e r h a p s it is n o t so absurd. Perhaps we b a v e here an insight i n t o t h a t h u m a n faith w h i c h is t h e e x p e r i e n c e of t h e martyr, o n e w h o bears witness t o his faith by his willingness to die for it. But such a witness t o biblical faith, faith in a G o d w h o is both all good and all-powerful, must know‫ ׳‬that his death•••‫־•־‬given thai goodness and power — makes n o sense, is s o m e t h i n g ot a s e l f - c o n t r a d i c t i o n . A n d so in a significant sense he does not really believe t h a t m a r t y r d o m will take place, until t h a t last m o m e n t w h e n it is t o o late. A n d t h e n what, sense is t h e r e in giving u p faith? H a v i n g c o m e this far w i t h G o d , e n d u r e t h e p a i n a n d t h e perplexity a little longer: it is t h e price for a m o r e glorious f u t u r e , v i n d i c a t i o n in t h e afterlife in t h e p r e s e n c e of Goch But, it may b e o b j e c t e d , A b r a h a m is n o t a martyr; o n t h e contrary, t h e martyr is Isaac, a n d A b r a h a m is t h e i n s t r u m e n t inflicting t h e m a r t y r d o m . N o t so. T h e anc i e n t c o n c e p t of i m m o r t a l i t y (in Scripture, as in p a g a n i s m ) , t h a t felicity in t h e afterlife d e p e n d s on leaving b e h i n d a son w h o will c o n t i n u e one's life o n one's ancestral l a n d , m a d e it clear to t h e a n c i e n t a u d i e n c e (as it should be t o us) t h a t t h e test is indeed, as t h e o p e n i n g verse a n n o u n c e s , a test of A b r a h a m . It is n o t a test of his readiness t o t a k e his son's life ( a l t h o u g h it is t h a t t o o ) ; it is a test of his readiness t o c o m m i t suicide, suicide n o t a l o n e in this world, in w h i c h his years are in any case n u m b e r e d , b u t for all eternity, should Deity p r o v e n o t t o b e e i t h e r all good or allpowerful. Isaac a n d Isaac's d e s c e n d a n t s t o c o m e are A b r a h a m ' s immortality. 6 1 A n d in t a k i n g t h e y o u n g Isaacs life o n t h e altar of G o d , A b r a h a m — i f his f a i t h is mist a k e n — w i l l be destroying his o w n h o p e for all f u t u r e t i m e . T h e seemingly p o i n t less detail of leaving t h e ass b e h i n d w i t h t h e h a n d s (or r a t h e r t h e r e v e r s e — " S t a y you h e r e w i t h t h e ass' 1 —is a device to e v o k e p a t h o s , t h e p a t h o s , in verse 6, of Isaac carrying t h e w o o d for his o w n f u n e r a l pyre. T h i s p a t h o s h a s o f t e n b e e n n o t e d ; t o t h e neglect, however, of t h e p a t h o s of A b r a h a m carrying t h e k n i f e t h a t will sever his immortality a n d t h e s m o l d e r i n g lire t h a t will light t h e pyre o n w h i c h his h o p e tor e t e r n i t y will be r e d u c e d to ashes. " T h e t w o of t h e m walked on. together," verse 6 c o n c l u d e s . Isaac t h e n asks t h e question t h a t t h e servants did n o t dare to raise: " W h e r e is t h e sacrificial victim?" A b r a h a m responds, using t h e H e b r e w word w h i c h m e a n s " t o see," but w h i c h a l s o — a s in A n g l o - S a x o n or L a t i n a t e E n g l i s h — i s m e t a p h o r i c a l l y e x t e n d e d to m e a n "see to, provide." Elôhïm yir'ë " G o d will see to" . . . what ? T h e H e b r e w word for t h e object of t h is verb, se, stands for "a h e a d " f r o m t h e flock of any age or sex. S t a n d i n g for t h e most c o m m o n item for sacrificial s la ught e r — l a m b , kid, ewe, ram, n a n n y or billy g o a t — i t lends itself t o m e t a p h o r i c e x t e n sion, t o i n c l u d e t h e h u m a n v i c t i m , Isaac. A b r a h a m ' s response t h e n is, " G o d will see t o t h e sacrificial v i c t i m tor Himself, my son." T h e c o m m a in t h i s s e n t e n c e — s t a n d i n g for a pause, a split-second of s i l e n c e — i s p e r h a p s t h e m o s t d r a m a t i c c o m m a in all literature. It is t h e c o m m a t h a t i n t r o d u c e s t h e v o c a t i v e — t h e p e r s o n a d d r e s s e d — a n d t h e appositional, t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e p r e c e d i n g n o u n . It m e a n s b o t h , " G o d , my son, will p r o v i d e Himself w i t h a victim," a n d " G o d is providing Himself w i t h a v i c t i m : my son." T h e reader m u s t p r o n o u n c e t h e s e n t e n c e aloud, trying out t h e t o n a l v a r i a t i o n s t h a t w o u l d m a k e u n m i s t a k a b l y for a v o c a t i v e or a n appositivc, or tor ambiguity. 6 2 A n d as h e weighs t h e ambiguity, h e m u s t c o n sider t h e m e a n i n g ot t h e s e n t e n c e t h a t follows: " T h e two of t h e m walked o n together." O n l y twenty-five words in t h e H e b r e w separate t h e first a p p e a r a n c e of this

2,36

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL H I S T O R Y "

s e n t e n c e i n verse 6 a n d its r e p e t i t i o n i n verse 8. W h y t h i s r e p e t i t i o n ? T h e a u t h o r , w e w o u l d suggest, w a n t s t h e r e a d e r t o ask t h e q u e s t i o n t h a t m u s t h a v e e x e r c i s e d h i m as h e s p u n his tale: A t w h a t p o i n t d i d Isaac realize t h e r o l e f o r w h i c h h e was i n t e n d e d ? W a s it n o t u n t i l h i s f a t h e r b e g a n t o tie h i m up? H e a p p a r e n t l y d i d n o t f l i n c h o r d e m u r at t h a t p o i n t ‫ ־‬C o u l d h e h a v e guessed earlier? W a s h e a b l e t o r e a d t h e p e r p l e x e d s o r r o w 111 his l a t h e r ' s eyes, t h e a g o n i z e d q u a v e r in h i s f a t h e r ' s u t t e r a n c e of t h e a m b i g u o u s "my son"? A n d h a v i n g w a l k e d , first, in t h e blessed a n d trusting i n n o c e n c e ot a c h i l d w i t h h i s f a t h e r , d i d h e , t h e s e c o n d t i m e , w a l k w i t h h i m — k n o w i n g , s u d d e n l y m a t u r e d , a c c e p t i n g — a t o n e w i t h his f a t h e r in r e s o l v e , f a i t h , and destiny? " T h u s t h e y arrived at t h e s p o t w h i c h t h e D i v i n i t y h a d p o i n t e d o u t t o h i m . T h e r e A b r a h a m b u i l t u p t h e altar. H e a r r a n g e d t h e w o o d . H e b o u n d h i s son, Isaac. H e p l a c e d h i m o n t h e altar. O n t o p of t h e wood." Every o n e of t h e five v e r b s in p a r a t a c t i c s e q u e n c e m u s t r e s o u n d t o a n i n v i s i b l e d r u m b e a t i n g a t a t t o o s u c h as, t h e c i n e m a t o g r a p h e r s w o u l d h a v e us b e l i e v e , p r e c e d e d e v e r y d r o p of g u i l l o t i n e b l a d e d u r i n g t h e R e i g n of Terror. But in t h i s biblical s c e n e t h e r e are n o g e n d a r m e s or d r u m m e r s , n o e x e c u t i o n e r s t o fit n e c k i n t o g r o o v e a n d collar, n o s p e c t a t o r s c h e e r ing or jeering. T h e r e are o n l y a f a t h e r a n d a s o n . A n d if we c h a l l e n g e o u r i m a g i n a t i o n t o i n t r o d u c e such 11 let ike t o u c h e s of p s e u d o r e a l i t y as m i g h t b e a t t e m p t e d i n a H o l l y w o o d s t u d i o , w e shall q u i c k l y realize t h a t o u r n a r r a t o r ' s d i c t i o n is d e s i g n e d t o c o n v e y t h e eeriness of fantasy, t h e u 11 ν e r i s i m i 1 i t u d i n o u s n e s s of c h a r a c t e r s in a t r a n c e I ike e v o c a t i o n of a c u l t i c c h a r a d e . First t h e r e is t h e altar. T h e H e b r e w w o r d is mizbcah,

its e t y m o l o g y s u g g e s t i n g " t h e p l a c e of s l a u g h t e r i n g . " T h e a l t a r as rock, or

table o n w h i c h t h e sacrificial vict im is killed a p p e a r s in a n u m b e r of t e x t s c r i t i c a l t o t h e b i b l i c a l c o n c e p t ot a n i m a l sacrifice. 6 3 B u t in all t h e c u l t i c p r e s c r i p t i o n s i n v o l v ing a mi7beah> t h e a l t a r is a t a b l e o n w h i c h ( i n c e n s e o r ) a n i m a l p a r t s a r e b u r n e d as a n o f f e r i n g p r e s u m a b l y p l e a s i n g t o Deity's o l f a c t o r y sense. N e v e r is a n a l t a r f e a t u r e d as b o t h s l a u g h t e r i n g - b l o c k a n d i n c e n d i a r y pyre. E x c e p t h e r e ! A n d n o t e t h e n a r r a tor's c a r e t o e m p h a s i z e t h a t t h e b o u n d Isaac was laid o n t o p ( n o t u n d e r or b e t w e e n ) t h e firewood. T h e firewood t h a t h a d b e e n h a u l e d o n d o n k e y - b a c k f r o m B e e r s h e b a b u t was s h i f t e d t o Isaac s b a c k for t h e last f e w m i l e s w a l k t o a n d u p t h e M o r i a h p e a k , w h i l e s e r v a n t s a n d ass e n j o y e d a w e l l - e a r n e d respite. A n d n o t e t h e c a r e of A b r a h a m t o lay o u t t h e w o o d ( p r e s u m a b l y i n l a t t i c e layers) t o i n s u r e a s a t i s f a c t o r y blaze o n c e t h e v i c t i m s t h r o a t is c u t a n d t o r c h a p p l i e d t o t h e k i n d l i n g . A n d t h e n t h e r e is t h e m a t t e r of t h e b i n d i n g of t h e v i c t i m , n a t u r a l e n o u g h if w e t h i n k of a m a v e r i c k b e i n g h o g - t i e d or a m a l e f a c t o r p r e p a r e d for gal l o w s - n o o s e or e x e c u t i o n b l o c k . B u t o n l y t h e H e b r a i s t will k n o w t h a t t h e v e r b for bind h e r e n e v e r o c c u r s a g a i n , so t h a t r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n c a n refer t o t h i s e n t i r e c h a p t e r as t h e Akedah}

the

( o n e a n d o n l y ) B i n d i n g . W h a t d o e s t h e rarity of t h i s usage suggest? If n o t h i n g else, t h a t t h e r e a d e r c o n s i d e r t h e r e a s o n for t h e b i n d i n g . W a s it d o n e w i t h Isaac's c o n s e n t or d e s p i t e his p r o t e s t ? E v e n if h e h a d a c c e p t e d t h e f a t e d e t e r m i n e d for h i m by his f a t h e r ' s r e v e l a t i o n , c a n we p i c t u r e h i m n o t h o r r o r - s t r i c k e n w h e n his f a t h e r begins to s t r a p h i m d o w n ? ( d m t h e r e be any d o u b l that t h e m i d r a s h is e n g a g e d in close r e a d i n g ol t h e n a r r a t i v e ( r a t h e r t h a n in pious a n d i n c r e d i b l e h o m i l y ) w h e n it p i c t u r e s Isaac: asking to be firmly h o u n d lest a n i n v o l u n t a r y s h u d d e r cause h i m to deflect t h e k n i f e a n d inllic! u p o n himselt a b l e m i s h that would disqualify h i m as

EVENTS IN THE LIFE ÜF A B R A H A M

287

c a n d i d a t e for immolation? O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , if Isaac h a d n o t b e e n o n e with his f a t h e r in response to t h e d i v i n e call, h o w could we envisage t h e effectuality of the b i n d i n g w i t h o u t c h a n g i n g t h e t e n o r of t h e story f r o m h i g h tragedy to ghoulish a n d — c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p e r s o n a e — l u d i c r o u s horror? W h e t h e r Isaac was closer to age seven or thirty-seven at t h e time makes little difference: Picture a father, revelation-gripped and r e v e l a t i o n - m a d d e n e d , chasing d o w n a terrified child or wrestling to t h e ground a slow-witted adult. A n d did this take place before or after t h e arranging of t h e kindling o n t h e grill t h a t is God's table? O u r n a r r a t o r s i n t e n t cann o t be mooted: In this text Isaac is A b r a h a m a n d A b r a h a m is Isaac. 64 As Abraham put out his hand, took up the butcher-knife to slaughter his son, an angel of YHWH

called out to him from heaven . . . N o t so fast! . . . and picked up the

butcher-

knife to slaughter his son—an angel of YHWI I . . . W h y consistently up to thus point is the voice h e hears t h a t of t h e Divinity (or t h e n u m e n ) and suddenly a change: not G o d , but an angel; n o t of God's but of YHWI Ts? bor o n e thing, 1 suggest, it is because t h e narrator is signaling that Abraham's activity was not: interrupted by the a n g e l s call. His activity stopped w h e n the voice w i t h i n stopped, Every step, every m o t i o n , had b e e n to t h e a c c o m p a n i m e n t of t h a t voice; else the trance would h a v e been b r o k e n , t h e normalcy of n o n r e v e l a t i o n restored, a n d time opened up lor a question: " W h a t a m I doing?" W h e n t h e receiver within fell silent, all m o t i o n stopped, t h e h a n d w i t h t h e k n i f e arrested in mid-swing. A n d t h e silence w i t h i n is succeeded by a voice f r o m without. N o longer t h e impersonal, inscrutable, overw h e l m i n g Will of t h e cosmos: f r o m h e a v e n a messenger calls w i t h the word trom his personal Deity, Y H W H his G o d and t h e G o d of Israel. T h e test is over, and A b r a h a m has passed. T h e t h r e a t to t h e future is lifted. T h e future is open again, w i t h a promise reiterated, renewed, reinforced, a promise told of before as act of gracious c h o i c e o n t h e part of G o d , a promise t h a t now has b e e n earned, earned at a price at w h i c h Y H W H himself seems to marvel: "Because you acted so, because you w i t h h e l d n o t your son, your one-and-only." T h e ram w h i c h A b r a h a m espies, its h o r n s entangled in a thicket, is modified by a word of t h r e e c o n s o n a n t s , w h i c h is strange in this c o n t e x t : fir. If the third conson a n t were a daleth rather t h a n a resh ( t h e two characters being very similar in b o t h t h e O l d H e b r e w a n d t h e later "square" alphabets), we should vocalize it chad and render it as " o n e " or "a" or "a certain." Or, adhering to t h e c o n s o n a n t a l text, we might vocalize it. ïiher, render it by "another," a n d see in it a syncopated m e t a p h o r ay il ( = se) aher "a ram [representing] a n o t h e r [i.e., substitute] victim." T h e image is clear enough. T h e pecus or head from t h e flock, whose absence was questioned by Isaac, whose place would (as c o n t e x t requires and A b r a h a m s response makes exρ licit), be filled by Isaac, has now indeed appeared: a sc literally, specifically a ram, and replacement victim ior Isaac. I low t h e n to a c c o u n t for t h e c o n s o n a n t a l text and the Masoretic pointing, which express a term t h a t is either adverb or preposit ion, n e i t h e r of t h e m appropriate t o t h e c o n t e x t ? S i n c e n e i t h e r t h e original a u t h o r nor the tradition t h a t t r a n s m i t t e d t h e story c a n be impugned o n t h e score of faulty knowledge of Hebrew, it is likely t h a t we h a v e h e r e a deliberately inserted interprelive crux. A weird t h a t t h e reader would first anticipate to be t h e indefinite article ( t h e need for it being a m a t t e r of t h e author's o p t i o n ) t h e n turns out ro be a n anomalously vocalized word for " a n o t h e r = substitute," designed to make us pull up

2,36

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL

HISTORY"

short, to invite us to dwell a m o m e n t o n this recognition: that t h e A b r a h a m w h o h a d prophesied, "We shall r e t u r n to you" e v e n as h e h a d prophesied, "God will provide a v i c t i m " has n o w b e e n vindicated (if n o t in t h e sense he had originally int e n d e d ) o n t h e score of b o t h prophecies. T h e G o d w h o had provided A b r a h a m w i t h his son Isaac, w h o asked t h a t Isaac be returned to h i m o n an altar, has n o w restored Isaac to his father, providing a vicarious offering for himself, thus rounding out t h e e x t e n d e d metaphor. A b r a h a m sacrifices this ram provided by G o d and gives t h e spot a sentencename: YHWH-yifë " Y H W H Sees, Y H W H Provides." T h e r e t h e n follows an expian a t i o n , as it were, by t h e narrator of A b r a h a m s i n t e n t in so n a m i n g it. T h e clause introducing this e x p l a n a t i o n is n o t t h e n o r m a l H e b r e w expression for "as it is said today" or " w h e n c e t h e present saying." T h e spot did n o t c o n t i n u e to be k n o w n in Israelite tradition, and so there was n o variation in t h e n a m e , nor was there "a prèsent saying" about a place whose location was u n k n o w n . O u r own translation ("in today s parlance") is closer to t h e Hebrew; a variation, perhaps closer to the original, is "as o n e might say today." T h e place n a m e YHWH Sees or YHWH Prorides is in t h e active voice. T h e " e x p l a n a t i o n " adds t h e reminder t h a t the place n a m e d is a m o u n t a i n height, a height special to Y\ 1W1 h and that f u r t h e r m o r e , the n a m e may also be understood in a passive and general sense: O n Y1 1W1 Is M o u n t a i n lie Ap‫״‬ pears, or There Is Revelation, or There is Vision, or T/icrc is Provision; perhaps even There is Providence, W h a t is this Vision or Provision? Perhaps the Providencewilled role of the people Israel. Perhaps t h e whole p o i n t ol this strange experience of Israel's forebears, A b r a h a m and Isaac.

The Point of the Story W h a t is t h e p o i n t of this story? T h e o n e t h i n g t h a t it certainly is not is t h e interp r e t a t i o n most c o m m o n l y proffered: a protest against t h e pagan practice of child sacrifice. For o n e thing, t h e evidence for t h e meta-literary c o n v e n t i o n of child sacrifice, certainly as a widespread practice, is flimsy. For another, there is n o n o t e of protest struck in t h e course of t h e narrative and, to q u o t e Speiser (who accepts t h e rite of child sacrifice as a practice k n o w n in Scripture and in M e s o p o t a m i a ) , "If t h e a u t h o r had i n t e n d e d to expose a barbaric custom, h e would surely h a v e gone a b o u t it in a n o t h e r way." Flow c a n o n e read such a repudiation ot child sacrifice i n t o a story in w h i c h t h e central t h e m e t h r o u g h o u t is A b r a h a m s readiness to make t h e sacrifice, a n d in t h e d e n o u e m e n t of w h i c h t h a t readiness of Abraham's is explicitly hailed as meritorious and certain to elicit reward? 65 W i t h w h a t t h e n are we left? W i t h t h e unequivocal s t a t e m e n t of t h e meritoriousness of A b r a h a m , of his f a i t h so strong as to override all other considerations w h e n called o n to slay his son and foreclose his future. But with whom is A b r a h a m , in his meritorious faith, to be compared? N o t w i t h his pagan contemporaries, w h o did n o t k n o w t h e b e n e v o l e n t God of Scripture in t h e first place; and w h o did n o t , in all probability, regularly sacrifice their children to their gods. 1 he an>wer, by a process of elimination, comes down to this: he is to be compared with the audience tor whom t h e story is intended, t h e seed of A b r a h a m and Isaac called Israel, ext e n d i n g trom the lime the story was first told to the present hei1\> of the biblical ((‫״וי‬

EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

289

Judeo-Christian) tradition, and to all who in the furure will lay claim to constitute ing rhe ideal Israel. T h e story is told to us, and it is told, lo us in a context. As little as we know oi the Isaac who walked first with his father in blissful ignorance, then perhaps in knowledge and acquiescence, we do know him to be our ancestor, the longawaited, repeatedly promised hearer-to-be of that line of Abraham that is to culminate in us. Let us now remind ourselves that this fixing ot the intended audience is a metaliterary consideration, and that another metaliterary prejudice, which we have had to repeatedly overcome, is the denial to the ancient author of an elementary intelligence or sophistication comparable to that which we credit to today's hoi polloi. A n d then, proceeding from the assumption that it is not for us to insult the intelligence of the author of the Binding of Isaac, we arrive at the corollary that neither is that author to be seen as insulting our intelligence, the intelligence of his intended audience. God's command to Abraham, which if carried out would have made of him a liar and treaty ‫׳‬breaker, is acted upon by Abraham in a faithcontradict ing-faith obedience. Are we expected to accept at face value such a seeming absurdity? Without question or demurrer? And also to remain supinely silent in the face of this challenge to the quality of our own faith? A challenge in which our meritoriousness is to be measured against that of a great-grandfather who would have slaughtered our grandfather, and thus have precluded our very existence? Are we being asked to measure our faith by the faith of one whom, in our heart of hearts and unclouded rationality, we can only judge to be a madman? This last is the only honest response that could be expected of any rational person, whether or not that person considers himself a paragon of faith. Let us conjure up a scene in which one observes a neighbor and his son packing their station wagon for what is clearly a hunting and fishing trip; and then being told in confidence that the boy is headed for a butcher block at God's behest. Be that observer simple or wise, atheist or ficleist, even priest, pastor or rabbi, is there any question that he might fail to call the police? Or that the father would he committed ι ο a secure hospital ward for observation? No, there can be no question that the normal, honest, and rational reaction of audience to Abraham's obedience is the judgment that, in the forty-eight to seventy-two hours from call to slay to command to desist, he was a madman. And it follows therefore that this is precisely the response thai the author is inviting. Inviting the response, and inviting consideration of the reason for the invitation. How long should it take before we try to change places with the author? T h e reader exclaims, "But he must have been mad, Father Abraham!" A n d we, the author, respond with a riposte that pins him on the point of our metaphor: "Mad, was he? Well, well. Mad, compared to whom? Shall we compare his sanity to the sanity of your neighbors, or to your own ? Yes, he was prepared to sacrifice his son, his future, his eternity. Are you never p r e p a r e d — e v e r — t o do so? He did not, in the final event, make the sacrifice. Have you, or your neighbors, perhaps your own parents, not actually committed such acts of sacrifice? Abrahams readiness was in response to the God who is Ultimate Reality, who calls us into being and gives meaning to our existence. W h e n and where, to the call ot what authority, in loyalty to what cause, in the name of what values, is it your wont to sacrifice your children—and

2,36

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

yourself?" A n d w e n e e d c o n t i n u e n o f u r t h e r . L e t h i m c o n t e m p l a t e t h o s e m o m e n t s w h e n s a n i t y s u c c u m b s t o Eros' f e v e r i n g of t h e flesh, w h e n M a m m o n wafts h i s fool's g o l d i n t o o u r eyes, w h e n t h e s t a t e r e c r u i t s f o r war, w h e n t h e lust for f a m e or a n o t h e r lure of " t h e b i t c h - g o d d e s s S u c c e s s " a n e s t h e t i z e s us t o p a i n 01‫ ־‬s e n s i b i l i t y a n d w e lay e v e r y t h i n g d o w n o n t h e a l t a r of p u b l i c o p i n i o n . T h e lesson, t h e k e r y g m a , of t h e B i n d i n g of Isaac is t h a t if y o u will n o t m a k e t h e u l t i m a t e sacrifice e x c e p t a t t h e call of S c r i p t u r e ' s god, y o u will n e v e r h e a r t h a t call. F o r h e is t h e G o d of life a n d blessing. B u t if you t h i n k t h a t t o r e s p o n d t o s u c h a call f r o m G o d — w e r e it e v e r t o c o m e — w o u l d b e m a d n e s s , you will find t h a t t h e call will c o m e i n d e e d . B u t it will c o m e f r o m t h e d o m a i n of t h e less t h a n u l t i m a t e . A n d it will c o m e w i t h a n i m p o r t u n a c y y o u will n o t w i t h s t a n d .

C O M P A R I N G T H E AKEDA

WITH ANOTHER

BINDING

M a r t y r d o m is a w o r d f r o m t h e v o c a b u l a r y of r e l i g i o n , n o t p a t r i o t i s m ; y e t for e v e r y J e w o r C h r i s t i a n w h o was g i v e n a c h o i c e of apostasy o r d e a t h a n d a c c e p t e d m a r t y r d o m , h o w m a n y l e n s oi t h o u s a n d s h a v e d i e d for t h e flag o n b a t t l e f i e l d s far r e m o v e d f r o m t h e i r c o u n t r y ' s borders? T h e biblical e t h o s is n o t pacifism. Its l i f e - a f f i n n i n g t h r u s t d o e s n o t p r e c l u d e its s a n c t i o n i n g of civil war in t h e cause of a n e x c l u s i v e Y H W H w o r s h i p , n o r does it c o n d e m n m a n y a n Jsraelitish i m p e r i a l i s t war, m u c h less a r m e d d e f e n s e oi ο η e s ter‫״‬ ri tory. But w a r f a r e is t h e p h e n o m e n o n t h a t , foi‫ ־‬ils f r e q u e n c y a n d fatality, best lends itself t o illustrate t h e m e t a p h o r of Isaac's B i n d i n g , t h e l e g i t i m a c y ot t h e s u r r e n d e r of o n e ' s c h i l d r e n ' s lives f o r t h e sake of a v a l u e w h o s e u l t i m a c y must s o m e h o w e n t a i l its b e i n g t h e p r e c o n d i t i o n for life. A n d it was a British war p o e t , W i l f r e d O w e n , killed i n a c t i o n i n 1 9 1 8 a t t h e age of t w e n t y - f i v e , w h o p e n e t r a t e d t h e m e t a p h o r a n d e x p l o i t e d it: The Parable of the Old Man and the Youn^ So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went A n d took the fire with him, and a knife. A n d as they sojourned both of them together, Isaac the first-born spake and said, My Father Behold the preparations, fire and iron, But where the lamb for this burnt-offering? T h e n Abram hound the youth with belts and straps, A n d huilded parapets and trenches there, A n d stretched forth the knife to slay his son. W h e n lo! an angel called him out of heaven, Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, Neither do anything to him. Behold, A ram, caught in a thicket by its horns; Offer the Ram of Pride instead of him. Bui the old 111:111 would not so, but slew his son, And half the seed of Europe, one by one. T h e A h r a m of W i l f r e d O w e n ' s p o e m is a m u r d e r o u s old m a n i n d e e d . But e x c e p t tor t h e initial u n d e r t a k i n g of t h e sacrifice, h e is n o t t h e A b r a h a m ot S c r i p t u r e , I le

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

309

is t h e very o p p o s i t e of Scripture's p a t r i a r c h . W h a t e v e r t h e cause or reason for his u n d e r t a k i n g to b e g i n w i t h — a n d t h e first t h r e e words of t h e p o e m require a n an‫׳׳‬ t e c e d e n t call f r o m w i t h o u t , w h e t h e r real or i m a g i n e d — t h i s A b r a m is u n d e r n o ext e r n a l c o m p u l s i o n , o n c e t h e angel calls to h i m "out of h e a v e n " But c o m p u l s i o n t h e r e m u s t b e for h i m to reject t h e call of h e a v e n , and t h e n a t u r e of t h a t c o m p u b sion is explicit: It is Pride, R a t h e r t h a n surrender t h a t R a m , h e will slay n o t only his o w n son, b u t "half t h e seed of Europe, o n e by o n e " So m u c h is clear. W h a t r e m a i n s less t h a n clear is t h e p o i n t of O w e n ' s p o e m , as t h e p o i n t of Scripture s story will r e m a i n subject for d e b a t e despite our c o n f i d e n t e x p o s i t i o n of its purport. A n d , indeed, 1 betrayed my o w n u n d e r s t a n d i n g oi O w e n ' s p o e m w h e n 1 wrote t h a t h e , in this p o e m , p e n e t r a t e d and e x p l o i t e d t h e m e t a p h o r of Scripture's story. T h a t is to say, O w e n u n d e r s t o o d t h a t t h e call from h e a v e n forbids t h e slaughter, a n d t h a t t h a t irrational i m p e t u s w i t h i n w h i c h h e calls Pride proves stronger (or at least, p r o v e d stronger in World W a r I) t h a n H e a v e n ' s call. T h u s t h e p o i n t of O w e n ' s p o e m , while n o t t h e p o i n t ot t h e A k e d a , is i n t o t a l c o n s o n a n c e w i t h t h e p o i n t of t h e A k e d a as we see it. The A b r a h a m of S c r i p t u r e did n o t n e e d t o sacrifice his son because t h e G o d in w h o m h e h a d s u c h f a i t h is o n e w h o by d e f i n i t i o n could n o t require such a d o o m . E v e n as d e e p in his b e i n g h e k n e w t h a t Isaac w o u l d survive t h e call, w h i c h h e h a d t o obey w h e n it p o i n t e d in o n e d i r e c t i o n , so was h e ready for t h e call w h i c h reversed t h a t d i r e c t i o n . B u t O w e n ' s A b r a m — w h o w o u l d certainly h a v e rejected a call to a celibate p r i e s t h o o d , for himself or his s o n — c o u l d n o t a t t e n d t h e call to preserve his son, c o m m i t t e d as h e is t o t h e r a m of his o w n pride. For such a c o n s o n a n c e t o o b t a i n , however, bet w e e n t h e t w o i n v e n t i o n s (if we may call t h e m t h a t w i t h o u t d e n y i n g t r u t h t o eit h e r ) , t h e A b r a h a m a n d Isaac w h o are o n e inseparable p e r s o n a (as we h a v e s e e n ) in Scripture's story, s h a r i n g o n e f a i t h a n d o n e destiny, m u s t also b e t h a t in O w e n ' s p o e m . A n d t h e A b r a h a m w h o b o u n d his son m t h e belts a n d straps of a soldier's u n i f o r m a n d p u t h i m o n t h e altar of Mars, " t h e parapets a n d trenches," in so d o i n g c o m m i t t e d self-slaughter as well. But n o t e v e r y o n e will acquiesce in this r e a d i n g of O w e n ' s p o e m . D u r i n g t h e uph e a v a l s in this c o u n t r y in t h e late 1960s a n d early 1970s, t h e years of t h e generation gap a n d protests against restrictions of civil rights a n d c o n s c r i p t i o n for service in t h e jungles ol V i e t n a m , this p o e m was presented for i n t e r p r e t a t i o n to several classes of s e m i n a r i a n s and g r a d u a t e students. A n d overwhelmingly, t h e c o n s e n s u s was that A b r a h a m was t h e slaughterer a n d his son t h e victim. N o solidarity het w e e n t h e two. N o sharing ol vision, of values or sense of i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e . A n d w h a t b e t t e r e v i d e n c e t h a t t h i s A b r a m r e p r e s e n t e d t h e p a r e n t a l g e n e r a t i o n , smug i n c o m f o r t a n d smugly c o m p l a c e n t , feed ing t h e defenseless y o u n g into t h e m a w of t h e w a r - m a c h i n e , t h a n t h e c o n c l u d i n g line. For this A h ram "slew his s o n " — y e s , but also —"And half t h e seed of Europe, o n e by one." Literary criticism, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , exegesis b e i n g w h a t it i s — a r t a n d n o t seie n c e — t h e r e c a n be n o final a d j u d i c a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t w o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of O w e n ' s p o e m t h a t will satisfy (or be true for) everybody. In trying to w i n a m a j o r i t y over t o my side, I m i g h t plead t h a t m\ i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is a d e e p e r r e a d i n g of t h e poet's i n t e n t i o n ; t h a t t h e message — a p p l y i n g to all peoples a n d all age groups, child r c n a n d p a r e n t s alike‫™־‬is m o r e universal, h c n c c more likely t h a n t h e c o m p e t i n g

2,36

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

interpretation. O n t h e poetical level, I might cite t h e larger literary corpus of Wil· fred O w e n , o n e w h i c h is characterized by a general horror at t h e blindnesses leading to and generated by warfare. 1 might also argue t h a t O w e n s insertion of " T h e Parable o f ' into his p o e m s title is not due to a p e d a n t s fear t h a t his reader could possibly miss t h e m e t a p h o r s of "belts and straps'" and "parapets and t r e n c h e s " for t h e binding of Isaac o n t h e altar. T h e "parable" reminder is against taking literally t h e victimization of o n e g e n e r a t i o n by the other. A n d , finally, militating against a n i n d i c t m e n t of t h e older g e n e r a t i o n s victimization of t h e young is a consideration of a d a t u m about the poet himself (which perhaps even t h e New Criticism would admit as relevant): he, like his friend and brother-poet in t h e lyrical war against war, Siegfried Sassoon, had enlisted for combat, served in t h e t r e n c h e s as a commissioned officer; returned to c o m b a t alter t h e publication-scandal of his pacifist protest; and met his d e a t h as a c o m p a n y c o m m a n d e r in t h e last week of a war which, as all knew, was w i n d i n g down to a n end. O u r introduction, for comparison, of O w e n s "Parable" patently ewes to a h o p e t h a t enlisting o n e poet as exegetical expert on the work of a n o t h e r poet m i g h t impress e v e n t h e disciplined, "objective" academician. A n d e v e n t h e awareness t h a t t h e poet-expert's testimony itself may be t a k e n as moot, as also t h e awareness t h a t contesting interpretations n e e d n o t be mutually exclusive does n o t deter me from proceeding w i t h this exercise in comparative study. For in t h e case of t h e kerygma of Genesis 22, ί a m driven n o t so m u c h by a desire to c o n v i n c e my readers as to t h e correctness of my reading, as by a desperate h o p e t h a t my colleagues c a n be o p e n e d up to c o n t e m p l a t e my reading of t h e kerygma as worthy of consideration as o n e of its possible meanings. A n d this because n o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a biblical narrative I h a v e put f o r t h has m e t w i t h such skepticism and quarrel as has this one, o n t h e part of students and colleagues alike. My collégial friends, in particular, h a v e tried to soften t h e skeptic's jeer by praising the homiletical brilliance of my reading. But such praise, characterizing as imaginative exegesis w h a t is put forward as sober exegesis, is cold comfort at best to t h e exegete. N o , I must insist t h a t b o t h brilliance and imaginative i n v e n t i o n lie in Scripture's m e t a p h o r and n o t in t h e homily of a derivative preacher. A n d so I must seek to a c c o u n t for t h e unwillingness of so many to e n t e r t a i n a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n for Scripture s A keda s ο close to t h e o n e t h a t is regarded as at least plausible for O w e n s version of The Hmding. A. n u m b e r of facto! s may be operative here. For one, there is the deeply implanted prejudice of literal-mindedness, ascribed to t h e ancient anthor but actually characteristic of our own thinking, and particularly in regard to t h e ready recourse of t h e a n c i e n t s to devote their children to bloody cults. For an‫־‬ other, t h e r e is t h e assumption ot the a n c i e n t storytellers primitiveness. (How, lor example, ascribe a philosophical parable to an a u t h o r who believes t h a t t h e world's a n i m a t e populations were saved from e x t i n c t i o n by means of a capacious w o o d e n ark!) For others there may be a deeply rooted reluctance to h a v e so marvelous a n u m i n o u s mystery cleared up so t h a t a child may understand it. S u c h simplification may even seem to be a depreciation oi a fable appreciable only in terms of Kierkegaard's profound analysis and its resolution in the kerygma of "the leap of faith." My o w n suspicion, however, is t h a t the most p o t e n t factor in our resistance to this interpretation is t h a t we c a n n o t but resent being trapped by t h e a n c i e n t au-

]‫׳‬:VENTS IN T H E LIFE OF A H R A H A M

2Q_\

t h o r s genius for parable; rbe profundity ot the mythos is, paradoxically, subverted by its simplicity, by rhe m o r a l s lying so close to t h e surface; for if e a c h of us is A b r a h a m , each of us is t o u c h e d m an excruciatingly sensitive nerve. It is n o t only t h e R o m a n m o t h e r who gives u l t i m a t u m to her son: Come back, bearing your shield or being carried upon iL It: is not only t h e p r e d o m i n a n c e in each of us of t h e s h a m e culture as over t h e moral code. It is‫ ״‬in every o n e of u s — t h a t particular area of shallow values where we play t h e hypocrite, those values we actually live by as against t h e values we profess. Life a n d literature are replete w i t h t h e king (or bustness m a n ) w h o will do a n y t h i n g to preserve his dynasty except to retire a year early in favor of son and heir apparent.; t h e f a t h e r w h o will give his life for his son, so long as this son does n o t c o m p e t e for t h e w o m a n they b o t h love; t h e salvationc e n t e r e d clergyman whose life's dearest a m b i t i o n is, as it turns out, to enable his daughter "to marry u p " Yes, every o n e of: us could go o n adding t o this list, a n d feel little or n o pain, until someone w h o m h e loves best a n d w h o knows h i m best suggests t h e area ol his o w n hypocritical vulnerability. If I am close to t h e truth in this last suspicion of mine, t h e n I would do well, in pleading for my interpretation, to a b a n d o n t h e ubiquitous a n d m u n d a n e applications or extensions of t h e m e t a p h o r of t h e Akeda, and return to t h e narrower, less frequently self-indicting lesson m regard to war a n d pacifism. Most of us are n o t implicated as a n everyday m a t t e r in t h e defense of our n a t i o n s territories, nor in t h e r e c r u i t m e n t of our children for its defense forces. A n d , from this perspective, we may find an instructive comparison in a pacifist i n v e n t i o n from antiquity, a drama from a n c i e n t G r e e c e — no, n o t t h e comedy Ly .ses traf a of Aristophanes, but o n e t h a t , remarkably enough, is listed a m o n g t h e tragedies: Euripides' Iphigenia in Aldis. Euripides wrote his ]/‫)־‬hiberna m Aldis within a feu‫ ׳‬centuries of t h e c o m p o s i t i o n of t h e Binditig of Isaac:. A n d the story he tells is, bizarrely enough, accepted as o n e of t h e attestations t h a t t h e ancients sacrificed their children to their gods. Let us review t h e plot. Before t h e play begins, t h e G r e e k armies h a v e gathered at Aulis for embark at i o n for t h e assault: on Troy. T h e fleet long becalmed and t h e soldiers growing restless, A g a m e m n o n , king ot Argos, t h e c o m m a n d e r - i n - c h i e f of t h e allied armies, h a s sent for his eldest daughter, Iphigenia. A n oracle has informed h i m t h a t favoring winds will n o t rise unless h e sacrifices this daughter to Artemis, she w h o is goddess of chastity, of t h e h u n t , and of t h e locality of Aulis. T h e pretext for bringing Iphigenta to Aulis is marriage to Achilles, t h e h e r o w h o has n o idea t h a t his n a m e is being thus used. T h e action begins with A g a m e m n o n s u m m o n i n g a servant to take a letter to Argos to his wife Clytemnestra. T h e message c o u n t e r m a n d s t h e earlier s u m m o n s of Iphigenia; h e r f a t h e r has t h o u g h t better of t h e d e m a n d e d sacrifice, and will instead dismiss t h e assembled host. T h e letter, however, is intercepted by Menelaus, b r o t h e r of A g a m e m n o n and h u s b a n d of H e l e n , whose a b d u c t i o n by Prince Paris of Troy has precipitated the gathering of t h e G r e e k armies. Menelaus, h a v i n g read t h e letter, a n d b e n t on compelling his b r o t h e r t o abide by his original i n t e n t i o n , accuses A g a m e m n o n of weakness unbefitting t h e m a n w h o aspired to lead t h e allied hosts of Hellas. A messenger arrives with t h e news t h a t C l y t e m n e s t r a and Iphige-

2,36

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL h i s t o r y "

n i a h a v e arrived. Menelaus relents, withdraws his woi ds 111 declares to A gam cmn o n , "I c a n n o t hid you slay your child for me." A g a m e m n o n n o w declares it is t o o late to save his child. In addition to t h e seer Calehas, who delivered the oracle, t h e c u n n i n g Odysseus has knowledge of it. Calehas' m o u t h can he stopped: u h e is hase, ambitious, like every prophet horn." Hut Odysseus c a n be c o u n t e d on to inform t h e armies that t h e aborting of t h e campaign is due to their leaders refusal to sacrifice his daughter for the cause; he wilt goad t h e men to kill their generals and sacrifice lphigenia, or if they ilee, to pursue t h e m to Argos, and raze its walls in revenge. Achilles arrives and is astounded to learn from C l y t e m n e s t r a that t h e bride h e never sued for is here. T h e puzzle is cleared up when t h e two of t h e m learn of t h e ruse t h a t brought lphigenia to Aulis for sacrifice. Achilles declares that h e has b e e n irrevocably implicated by t h e use of his n a m e to decoy l p h i g e n i a to her d e a t h , t h a t U I needs must bear t h e stain of murder if she perish thus," and vows to protect her e v e n against t h e entire army. Better, however, if C l y t e m n e s t r a can prevail u p o n h e r h u s b a n d to reconsider. S h e pleads w i t h h e r h u s b a n d , lphigenia pleads. A gam emn o n protests t h a t h e is n o m a d m a n , t h a t h e loves his children, but t h a t h e is bound. Achilles appears with news t h a t t h e army knows, and is howling for t h e sacrifice; his o w n m e n h a v e turned against h i m save for a few; he yet stands ready to s n a t c h lphigenia f r o m t h e altar steps. N o w lphigenia speaks. She rejects a sacrificial defense of herself by Achilles. Ten t h o u s a n d soldiers are o n fire to die for G r e e c e . S h e will n o t stand in t h e way. H e r victory will be her fame. By her d e a t h she will h a v e w o n f r e e d o m for Hellas. A t Iph igen la's bidding, C l y t e m n e s t r a remains b e h i n d in the t e n t while she, w i t h o n e a t t e n d a n t , makes for t h e altar, t h e chorus h a i l i n g h e r as t h e c o n q u e r o r of Troy. In t h e last scene a messenger appears to C l y t e m n e s t r a . H e informs her of a miracle t h a t has just token place in full view of t h e A c h a e a n army. T h e priestprophet C a l e h a s raised his knife and struck with it at t h e neck of lphigenia. But n o n e saw t h e blade reach its target. Instead, where lphigenia had lain on t h e altar, a doe now lay in the v i c t i m s place, dripping blood from t h e sacrificial wound. Artemis, so declares Calehas, has t a k e n t h e girl to herself and provided the p a n t ing hind as substitute. News of this w o n d e r has been sent to h e r by her lord, A g a m e m n o n , so that she may lay aside grief for h e r child and anger against her husband. T h e leader of t h e chorus expresses joy at t h e tidings, "Your daughter lives, h e tells us, w i t h t h e g o d s " N o t so C l y t e m n e s t r a . "Stolen, my child, by the gods? W h a t gods ! . . . A n idle story to c h e a t my sorrow." A g a m e m n o n comes o n stage to tell his u n b e l i e v i n g wife t h a t t h e y h a v e cause for joy in their daughter's being n o w w i t h t h e gods. H e sends h e r h o m e to Argos with t h e gift of a youngling steer, while h e himself faces t h e b e c k o n i n g sea. H e promises to send news from t h e b a t t l e f r o n t , "Farewell. From Troy 1 will send word. May all go well w i t h you.‫״‬ A n d t h e chorus sings h i m off: Rejoice, Ο king, go forth in joy. In joy return to us, bringing rich booty, Home again from captured Troy, (lines 1627-1629; tr. F. M. Stawcll)

E V E N T S IN I i i Ε El EE OF A H R A H A M

295

To label such a play a tragedy' A play wir h so happy a n e n d i n g ? T h e c h o r u s it-

sell‫ ־‬c o n c l u d i n g on so joyous a n o t e and in a n t i c i p a t i o n of g r e a t e r t r i u m p h s a n d richer rewards to a !:tend t h e h e r o s return!

In Toward a Grammer (pp. 25 1(26‫״‬a n i m a d v e r t e d u p o n t h e genres of d r a m a t i c tragedy and comedy with brief reference to t h e universal d e p l o y m e n t of these literary c o n v e n t i o n s , despite t h e absence of a g r e e m e n t as to critical aspects of their definitions. It was doubtless the incongruity of t h e h a p p y e n d i n g of this play t h a t led t h e translator whose verston 1 h a v e b e e n using to d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e original drama ended w i t h t h e chorus 1 praise of Iphigenia as she leaves t h e stage altarb o u n d . But if t h e last scene (which t h e translator labels " a n epilogue") is original, a n d if thereby t h e play is excluded from t h e category of tragedy, must we c o m m i t t h e absurdity of calling it a comedy? N o , w h a t e v e r t h e c o n v e n t i o n s of t h e a n c i e n t G r e e k theatre, we must make rot an for a dramatic genre in w h i c h t h e ludicrousness of h u m a n antics bring us close to laughter e v e n as t h e grimness of these antics' consequences renders tears and tearing of flesh a beggarly response. A n d t h e closest we c a n come to a literary i n v e n t i o n whose m a i n thrust is t o hold up h u m a n folly t o scorn is satire. T h e version of t h e Iphigenia tale w h i c h accepts as literal her being wafted away by A r t e m i s f r o m t h e altar in Aulis is treated by Euripides in a n o t h e r drama, Iphigenia in Tauris. In this barbarous locale we find Iphigenia, years after t h e fall of Troy, repaying her divine benefactress by presiding as priestess over t h e altar on w h i c h t h e r e is offered to A r t e m i s t h e life of every Greek w h o strays into this worshipful territory. So m u c h for a literal belief on t h e part ot the a n c i e n t Greeks in h u m a n sacrifice in general and child sacrifice in particular. Bui let us return to t h e iphigenia w h o was slaughtered in A u l i x T h a t maiden w h o goes (and so willingly!) to her death as "the conqueror ot iroy" before a single ship is launched is t h e symbol ot every warrior, ( }reek or Amazon, w h o fell be(ore t h e walls of Troy. A s A g a m e m n o n is every father who is "forced by circumstance" to sacrifice his offspring o n t h e altar of personal pride and national honor. T h e question t h e poet is raising is h o w m a n y battles would be fought if the c o m m a n d e r - i n - c h i e f had to sacrifice his own child before sounding t h e charge. A n d lie is n o t sanguine a b o u t t h e answer. Patriotism is love for t h e e x t e n d e d family. T h e family earns t h a t love by being t h e w o m b f r o m which o n e springs, t h e n u r t u r i n g bosom, t h e enfolding p r o t e c t i n g arms. To t u r n t h e family into a n abstraction of u l t i m a t e value, w h i c h breeds only to aggrandize itself, and aggrandizes by sacrificing its issue, is o n e of humanity's greatest absurdities. All war is madness. T h e best t h a t c a n be said for a defensive war is t h a t t h e madness originates with t h e aggressors. T h e defenders fight u n d e r compulsion, to protect life and liberty, w h i c h would be forfeited by surrender. But consider w h e n t h e poet introduces t h e t h e m e of defense of c o u n t r y and freedom. T h e entire play consists of some fifteen h u n d r e d lines, it is w i t h line 1255 t h a t A g a m e m n o n begins his richly ironic reply to wife a n d daughter: I know the touch of pity, know ii well: I love my children-- - I am no madman, wife. It is a fearful thing to do this deed, Yet: fearful nor to do it: I am round,

6,36 s t o r i e s — " t h e p r i m e v a l (He turns to

history"

lphigenia)

You see this host of ships and mai he lad m e n — T h e y cannot reach the towers of Ilium, T h e y cannot take the far-famed steep of Troy, Unless I sacrifice you as he bids, Calehas, the prophet. A n d our Greeks are hot To smite the foe, nor let t h e m steal our wives. If I refuse the Goddess, they will c o m e To Argos, kill your sisters, you and me! I am no slave of Menelaus, child; I do not bow to him, I bow to Hellas, A s bow I must, w h e t h e r I will or no. She is the greater. For her we live, my child, l o guard her freedom. Foreigners must not, rule O u r land, nor tear our w o m e n irom t h e i r homes, (lines

1277

‫ נ‬2 = ; ‫; ף‬

Could A r i s t o p h a n e s ( w h o composed Κi‫ יי‬own lampoon on war in Ly.s/.si rata) h a v e o u t d o n e t h e tragedian in painting the speaker as a buffoon? Twice t h e same p a t h e t i c n o t e is struck, in the middle and the final line: "nor let t h e m steal our wives" "nor tear our w o m e n from their homes. 1 ' T h e first q u o t e follows, " O u r Greeks are h o t to smite t h e f o e " That is to say, we are fighting a war of aggression; our justification, however, is to teach t h e e n e m y n o t to c o m e a t h o u s a n d kilometers to seduce our w o m e n . T h e second quote follows, "Foreigners must n o t rule our land." Is t h a t t h e threat to G r e e c e from Troy? A n d "tear our w o m e n from our homes‫ ?״‬Is t h a t w h a t Paris did? C l y t e m n e s t r a flung t h e reason for t h e Trojan campaign into A g a m e m n o n ' s t e e t h , "To win back H e l e n ! Your o w n child for a w a n t o n , your dearest for a foe!" H e l e n , wife to Menelaus, is Clytemnestra's sister-in-law. But, let us remember, she is also Clytemnestra's sister; they are b o t h Leda's daughters. W h o , better t h a n her sister, would k n o w Bielens whorish heart, or t h e disloyalty t h a t stamps h e r n o t just as frump, but foe: T h e irony does n o t stop here, however. W h e n A g a m e m n o n says t h a t h e is n o t bowing to Menelaus' d e t e r m i n a t i o n to win back his strumpet wife, h e speaks truth; for Euripides had pictured M e n e l a u s earlier as relenting of his purpose. A g a m e m n o n is indeed bowing to t h e will of Hellas, a Hellas t h a t does n o t exist except as cities warring against one another, but tor this one occasion w h e n they h a v e united to w i n t h e greater spoil of Troy. " S h e is t h e greater." To be sure; by reason of force, nor virtue. But to add, "For h e r we live, my child"? Fiel las is t h e threat! "To guard her freedom"? From whom? "Foreigners must not rule our land"? T h e land in dan get is n o t Greece, But A g a m e m n o n ' s Ar^os. A n d t h e foreigners arc not Trojans, but the very Greeks over w h o m he exercises so shaky a c o m m a n d .

ISAAC A N D ÏPHIGENIA, A B R A H A M A X I ‫י‬

AGAMEMNON:

A COMPARISON T h e B i n d i n g o f Isaac a n d Jpfii,[r<mi in Au lis‫ י‬d e r i v i n g i r o m t w o w i d e l y s e p a r a t e d c u l lures, e a c h w i t h its d i s t i n c t i v c e t h o s , m a k e tor i n s t r u c t i v e c o m p a r i s o n . T h e r e are m a r k e d s i m i l a r i t i e s a n d d i f f e r e n c e s , B o t h are s u p r e m e c r e a t i o n s . O n e , a s h o r t story

tr. KM. St

]‫׳‬:Vents

in t h e

life of

a H r a h a m 297Q_\

in the fahulary genre of Scripture; t h e o t h e r a play in t h e lofty tradition of G r e e k tragedy. Jerusalem a n d A t h e n s , t h e two m a j o r founts of W e s t e r n civilization, b o t h dealing with essentially t h e same p h e n o m e n o n in t h e h u m a n c o n d i t i o n : t h e absurdities of h u m a n response to a ubiquitous and ever-present dilemma. Life is t h e highest of values, for it is t h e bearer of all values. W i t h o u t life there is n e i t h e r goodness n o r evil, n e i t h e r beauty nor ugliness, n e i t h e r t r i u m p h nor defeat. Yet t h e defense of values highly cherished by m a n o f t e n requires t h e taking of life and its surrender. W h e n — f o r t h e defense of w h i c h values, and in t h e face ot how grave a danger to these v a l u e s — i s it justified t o sacrifice life itself, e v e n t h e life that represents our future, our immortality? Only, it would seem, for a value without which life itself becomes meaningless, and w h e n t h a t value is t h r e a t e n e d with e x t i n c t i o n . H o w o f t e n is such t h e case? In b o t h T h e Binding and Iphigenia, t h e call comes from t h e divine in a form of revelation. A b r a h a m receives t h e call directly, A g a m e m n o n t h r o u g h an in t er m eel iary. A b r a h a m c a n n o t d o u b t his inner ear. A g a m e m n o n , in desperate ambition, accepts t h e word of t h e prophet intermediary, w h o m h e himself describes as "base, ambitious, like every p r o p h e t b o r n " and c o n c e r n i n g whom. Menelaus agrees, " T h e y do n o good; they are never any use." T h e G o d w h o m A b r a h a m obeys is t h e source of all goodness and t h e guarantor of the future. T h e deity w h o s u m m o n s Aga memn o n is one of middling i m p o r t a n c e . T h e G o d w h o calls to A b r a h a m initiates t h e action; the h u m a n must respond. T h e r e is n o call to A g a m e m n o n : h e asks tor an oracle, and t h e divine response poses for h i m a d i l e m m a of his own making. Ί h e d e m a n d of t h e divine u p o n A b r a h a m is u n c o n d i t i o n a l . A b r a h a m m u s t obey or deny t h e ground of his f a i t h and hope. T h e r e is n o d e m a n d upon A g a m e m n o n , if h e wants s o m e t h i n g f r o m t h e g o d d e s s — a wind to speed h i m o n his a m b i t i o n of c o n q u e s t — h e must give h e r s o m e t h i n g in return; unfortunately for him, t h e goddess drives a hard bargain. But h e is u n d e r n o compulsion to do business at alb A b r a h a m ' s f a i t h results in t h e affirmation of life, t h e preclusion of sacrifice. Agam e m n o n ' s vacillation leads to a sacrifice, which opens t h e way to many more deaths. A b r a h a m s G o d is t h e o n e we w a n t to believe in, t h e O n e w h o m many of us claim to worship. A g a m e m n o n ' s gods are those we deny w i t h our lips and to w h o m we render ourselves slave. A b r a h a m is t h e protagonist we would w a n t to be. A g a m e m n o n is t h e o n e we are. A n d so we wallow in t h e welter of our absurdities. In action, in philosophy, in reading t h e texts from our a n t i q u e heritage, w e — i n t h e words of t h e p r o p h e t Isai a h — " c a l l evil good and good evil; present darkness as light and light as darkness, make t h e bitter sweet and t h e sweet bitter" (5:20). Every fiber of our being is w o v e n into t h e c l o t h of A b r a h a m ' s faith; we tear it and ourselves to tatters. T h e faith of A b r a h a m is t h e moral force of gravity t h a t anchors us to life; the leap we make is not. into faith b u t out. of it, a n d such is its ease and regularity t h a t we d o n o t discern it as a leap at all. This, at least, is what Scripture is telling us. Had Euripides Scripture before him, what c h a n c e t h a t he would disagree. 7

This page intentionally left blank

T A R T

I I

STRUCTURES

This page intentionally left blank

S E V E N

S T R U C T U R E S LIΤ Ε R A R Y

A S

A

B I B L I C A L

P H E N O M E N O N

T h e division of this hook into two sections, o n e o n srories and o n e o n structures, is b o t h o c c a s i o n e d by and reflective of the uniqueness of Scripture (in general, and of G e n e s i s or the Pentateuch in particular) in respect to the question of literary genre. G e n r e is a matter oi classification, and classification is a highly

subjective

h u m a n organization of its perceptions, !:very system of classification is assessable, not in terms of true or false or valid or invalid, hut rather in terms ol usefulness or idleness, wcightiness or frivolity. T h u s o n e broad literary distinction is that bet w e e n prose a n d poetry, a classification so obvious that ‫ ><ו‬refer to them as genres verges o n t h e pedantic, and makes for the ridicule of Mol 1ère‫'־‬s newly arrived gent l e m a n w h o is thrilled to discover that all his life h e h a s b e e n talking prose. A n other broad literary d i s t i n c t i o n n o t normally considered as genre ‫ ׳‬d i s t i n c t i o n is that b e t w e e n history and fiction; fiction itself almost p r e e m p t i n g title to c o n s t i t u t i n g literature,

and history being p r o m o t e d to a t r a n s c e n d e n t class of narrative; the former

creative and entertaining, the latter verisimilitudinous and edifying, t h e former a tolerable recreation, the latter the sober pursuit of s a v a n t s and scientists. Thus, whereas maps and charts and graphs and statistical t a b l e s are s e e n as indigenous to history writing, t h e appearance of such in the text of a creative narrative would be regarded as literary e x c r e s c e n c e , or indeed be read as a p u r p o r t of historiographie rather t h a n fictive authorial intent. S u c h indeed has b e e n t h e case in regard t o S c r i p t u r a l narrative. T h e interpolations of genealogies and c h r o n o l o g i e s in p a r t i c u l a r , i n c l u s i v e of t o p o n y m s and e t l v 301

3<2‫כ‬

STRUCTURES

n o n y m s k n o w n to us from o t h e r sources, c o n t r i b u t e greatly to t h e assumption alike of pious reader and scholarly investigator t h a t — c o r r e c t or accurate in outline or detail or n o t — t h e s e narratives are i n t e n d e d as history. 1 B o t h pietist a n d scholarly researcher will recognize here and t h e r e in t h e narrative t h e presence of metaphoric rather t h a n literal is tic i n t e n t i o n o n t h e a u t h o r s part. But it is in t h e structures (for t h e pietists, revealed by G o d ; for t h e scholar, collected f r o m oral and written tradition) t h a t b o t h will find t h e firmest basis for and c o n f i r m a t i o n of t h e literalistic or historiographie purport of t h e narrative. T h e poetic approach to literature is essentially confined to compositions at the imaginative and m e t a p h o r i c end oi t h e narrative spectrum.- T h i s being so, the material embodied in narrative a m b i a n c e that we call structures constitutes perhaps I he most formidable challenge ίο poetic analysis: the longer the list of items in these structures anil the more specific t h e details, t h e heavier t h e onus on the poet‫״‬ ician to d e m o n s t r a t e that the s t a i d t i r e contributes to, or e v e n supports a n d extends, the kerygma ot the framing narrative. T h e essential elements ot story are personae and plot (or action) arranged in a meaningful time-sequence, acting and being acted upon. Structures are properly patterns or designs, arranged data rather t h a n personae acting and being acted upon. Scripture s intricate ways ot weaving these structural elements into its narratives, or interpolating into these structures characterization or d i a l o g u e — h a l l m a r k s of narrative, especially fictive—may often make it difficult to decide w h e t h e r a given pericope should be treated under the heading of story or structure. 3 Ideally a structural e l e m e n t should be treated in close c o n j u n c t i o n with t h e narrative w h i c h it abuts and whose kerygma it furthers. U n f o r t u n a t e l y t h e details of these structures are so o f t e n related in pattern and f u n c t i o n to t h e structures w h i c h a t t e n d other narratives, that extended argumentation might overtax t h e p a t i e n c e of the reader, w h o is wrestling with t h e persuasiveness or cogency of a single narrative's exegesis and t h e kerygma proposed tor it. H e n c e , my extrapolation of structural pericopes and t r e a t m e n t of t h e m together under t h e separate h e a d i n g of Structures. A n o t h e r problem relating to structures is t h e vagueness of definition of this category as a literary p h e n o m e n o n . A code or a partial code of law or ethics, or of c u b tic prescriptions or proscriptions, w h e n incorporated in a narrative framework, is a far different p h e n o m e n o n t h a n when c o n f r o n t e d outside such a c o n t e x t . Such, torululations t h e n arc to be treated as constituent elements within a composition, susceptible to poetic t r e a t m e n t in terms of t h e kerygmatic f u n c t i o n in. t h e overarching narrative e o n t e x i . I have long argued that ' , biblical law" is not to be (niis)taken tor the legal code of a n c i e n t Israels society, and t h a t such legal formulations are to be interpreted in terms of their formulaic patterns as kerygmatic vectors, and not in comparison and contrast with similar formulations in neighboring c u n e i f o r m societies. 4 It is on the basis t h e n ο I such poetical t h i n k i n g and poetic analysis t h a t I h a v e felt free to include examples of poetic e x p r e s s i o n — n a r r a t i v e and lyrical— and of legal(istic) formulations to support t h e plausibility of a kerygmatic conception or line of t h o u g h t as it emerges f r o m my reading of narrative texts and related structures.

s t r u c t u r e s a s a BIBLICAL l i t e r a r y p h e n o m e n o n

GENEALOGIES

AND CHRONOLOGIES

OF C A I N A N D

303

SI ΓΙ I

Ο ί ‫' ן ח‬.s I .)c-sccruian t s, Ί lie ir C 1 c η iu s (17) Cain line! relations |k1uiwkd^e, experience] with his wife; she conceived and gave hirrh to Enoch. 1 ie |Cain| engaged in building ;1 settlement [to., city], named the settlement alter his son, Enoch. (18) do Enoch w;is horn Irad; Iraci begot Mehujael; Mehujael begot Melhusacl; Methusnel begot Lamech. (19) Lamech took two wives, one named Adah, die od 1er named /,il lab. (20) Adah gave birth to Jabal — he bec i m c ancestor of tent-dweller and livestock|‫׳‬keeper]; (21) while his brother, his name Juhal, became ancestor of all who ply string or wind instruments. (22) Now Zillah, she too, gave birth — to Tuhal-Cain, sharpd31ade‫״‬maker of smiths in copper or iron; TubabCams sister was Ν a a ma 11. (23) Lamech declared to his wives, "Adah and Zillah, hear my cry, Wives of Lamech, heed my word: Truly, A man have I slain ior a wound I suffered, A young brave—-for an injury I sustained. (24) Truly, if vengeance for Cain be sevenfold, Then for Lamech seventy-and sevenfold!" (Genesis 4 0 7 - 2 4 )

T h e foregoing eight verses constitute a pericope in t h a t its subject matter is clearly separable from what precedes it a n d w h a t follows. If we try to p u t a genrelabel o n this snippet of text we will quickly see t h e problems of form, substance, purpose, and purport, c o n f r o n t i n g t h e literary analyst, especially o n e w h o seeks to fix its poetical f u n c t i o n within the overarching narrative. T h u s as narrative, t h e notice of C a i n propagating is hardly an aesthetically satisfying conclusion to t h e story of hislory's first murderer, t h e story whose last scene had this murderer winning irom God a protection against infliction upon h i m of t h e sentence he so richly deserved. Further, there would seem to be a pointlessness in informing us that he named his son Enoch, which n a m e n o person in Scripture's story will ever again carry,‫ י‬and that he named after him a city of which we have never otherwise heard nor of which any trace has been leit. A n d t h h aside from t h e incongruity of a father building <1 "city," s e t t l e m e n t for a c o m m u n i t y that consists only of himself, his wife, this o n e son. Enoch, and — possible - the one son w h o m E n o c h will sire o n the wife whose p r o v e n a n c e is as mysterious as that oi his lather's wife. T h e n a m i n g of three cultureheroes as incidental detail or aside w i t h i n an apposite narrative c o n t e x t might he understandable, but such a narrative c o n t e x t we do n o t h a v e here. A n d w h a t is t h e point of t h e intrusive taunt-song with which this pericope concludes? If, o n t h e other h a n d , this pericope is n o t so m u c h narrative as snippets of tradition included here to preserve some legendary lore, why would t h e biblical a u t h o r be c o n c e r n e d to record for posterity the names of mythical personae (appearing elsewhere as Hephaestos or O r p h e u s ) who never figure in biblical narrative or lyric? A n d if further, t h e essential point of preserving this tradition reflects t h e preoccupation of a histo-‫׳‬ rian or antiquarian — that is to say, the recording of a historic family l i n e — w h y obtrude these anthropological notices into a genealogy? A n d , lastly, just w h a t is the significance of this tamilydinc in the history of t h e h u m a n race?

3<2‫כ‬

STRUCTURES

T h e a n s w e r r o t h i s Inst q u e s t i o n , p r o v i d e s , I b e l i e v e question-

in t h e r a i s i n g o f a n o t h e r

t h e c l u e t o t h e s o l u t i o n of t h i s l i t e r a r y puzzle. T h e a n s w e r t o t h i s last

q u e s t i o n is: n o s i g n i f i c a n c e w h a t s o e v e r ! d d i c l i n e of C a i n c a m e t o a n e n d i n t h e u n i v e r s a l b l o o d , as d i d t h e e n t i r e l i n e o t h i s b r o t h e r S e t h ( w h o s e b i r t h a n d l i n e fobl o w s h a r d u p o n t h i s p e r i c o p e ) e x c e p t f o r t h a t oi h i s o n e d e s c e n d a n t , N o a h . W e l l i n t h a t c a s e , w h a t n e e d of t h e e n t i r e story‫ ׳‬of C a i n or oi' h i s d o o m e d d e s c e n d a n t s ?

T h e answer to this question was given at the end of the section titled " A f t e r ‫׳‬ m a t h of Eden: S e c o n d G e n e r a t i o n , Second banishment‫־‬." And Cain had to live, in this allegory, to father the human race. So thai the moral he not lost—Cain, ancestor of ail mankind, is your father and mine. It we reira.ce t h e narrative of our text we will appreciate t h a t t h e choice made by A d a m and E v e — f o r sex, procreation, history (and d e a t h ) — c u l m i n a t e d in t h a t aspect of history t h a t is symbolized in t h e C a i n a n d A b e l story: t h e atrocity of (fratricidal) murder. T h u s there were two sons in t h e S e c o n d G e n e r a t i o n : one t h e killer, the other his victim. T h e power of t h e moral depends, however, o n our recognizing t h a t the m e a n i n g — t h e moral—is for us, n o t for some unrelated race of h u m a n o i d s on earth or o n Mars: t h a t we h a v e in us t h e gene, so to speak, for murder, our legacy trom Father C a i n . C a i n must, therefore, by t h e logic of t h e allegory, be our ancestor. But let us r e m e m b e r that, anomalously enough, we are in moral t e r m s — a l s o t h e victims of murder—-the descendants of descendant less Abel. T h a t anomaly, however, is n o t troublesome; for we focus as readers o n t h e crucial aspect of t h e allegory: De te fabula narratur. A n d t h e tc, t h e \on addressed by t h e narrator, t h e us of t h e audience, is clearly in this fable the descendants of C a i n . Fine! Except t h a t this resolution goes contrary to t h e d e m a n d s of justice, unless, at least, t h e murderer becomes a true r e p e n t a n t . W h a t was the case w i t h Cain? N o t a soupçon of remorse is attributed to him by t h e narrator. I le accepts G o d s stay of s e n t e n c e ·as if it were an unqualified and timeless guarantee. In his own person he goes to t h e land oi Nod "Transience" in. contrapoisc to the stability and p e r m a n e n c e ot Eden (qidmat Dden). As the second A d a m , so to speak, Cain sudors, for forcing mother-matrix earth ("earth-clod you are, to earth-clod will you revert") to drink his brother's blood, t h e same curse earned by t h e first A d a m lor h u disobedience: 1 he earth will prove recalcitrant to his cultivation of her. Is there t h e n n o t a c o n t r a d i c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e decreed fate of his b e c o m i n g "a wanderer ever o n the m o v e " (nä1 enäd) and a builder of a city in t h e Land of Transience Across from Eden? N o , for e v e n settlem e n t s , small or large (lr "city") are n o t g u a r a n t e e d regular a n d rich crops f r o m t h e fields about t h e m so laboriously tilled. A n d as for C a i n as City-Builder, t h e m e t a p h o r here for t h e g e n e r a t i o n inaugurating civilization will be more readily appreciable if we remind ourselves that, the word civilization in our o w n s p e e c h — a n t o n y m of t h e state of primitiv ism, savagery, barbarism, boorism, w h a t - h a v e you — i s virtually synonymous w i t h urbanization. ( T h e civis is citizen of a n urbs/ civitas.) A n d t h e c o n t i n u i t y of t h e civilizing process is expressed in t h e " n a m i n g " "of t h e city" after Cain's only son E n o c h . So m u c h for C a i n in his own career, m propria persona. But w h a t about remorse or r e p e n t a n c e for bis crime? Well, the last generation of t h e C a i n i t e line‫ ״־‬t h e three sons n a m e d Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal these are the ones w h o as eponymous ancestors epitomize t h e civilized h u m a n race: Jabal, those far-from-uncivilized pas-

STRUCTURES AS A BIBLICAL LITERARY PHENOMENON

305

tarai folk w h o , like Israel's patriarchs, dwell in tents and keep livestock; Jubal, those artistic folk w h o e n h a n c e life with c u l t u r e s refinements; and Tubal, his n a m e h y p h e n a t e d with t h a t of his murderous ancestor so that, he is now Tubal-Cain, represents the technologists of forge and smithy w h o arc featured for production not of such i n s t r u m e n t s of peace as p r i m i n g - h o o k s and ploughshares, but oi lifet a k i n g blades ol sword or ax. A n d as this last male descendant evokes the image of executioner's blade, so does t h e f a t h e r of this final generation oi t h e (.‫׳‬ainitc line, express again t h e murderous genetic heritage of G r a n d f a t h e r Gain: so Lamech, in boast of m a c h o v e n d e t t a and scorn of justice. In T u b a l - G a i n s technology of m e n ace, in his f a t h e r Lamech's joy in violence, we have the c u l m i n a t i o n of t h e Gairiite character t h a t d o o m e d t h e line of C a i n . But: metaphor, let us remember, is n o t m a t h e m a t i c s , for all its similarities to equations. A n d as L a m e c h fathers t h e peaceful ancestors, Jabal a n d Jubal, o n o n e wife, A d a , so does h e f a t h e r o n his second wife, Zillah, n o t only blade-making Tubal-Cain, but t h e o n e a n d only daughter of this primordial line, s h e — p e r h a p s symbolizing in her sex all h e r sisters—expressed in her n a m e Ήäamah "Pleasantness, Dulcea." W h a t a n a c h i e v e m e n t of rhetoric! Eight verses, disguised as a genealogy, w i t h four seemingly pointless asides, w i t h t h e final two verses a savage m o n o l o g u e so out-of-place in its c o n t e x t , all to build in a density of separate yet related m e t a p h o r to t h e c u l m i n a t i n g m e t a p h o r of t h e justice ‫׳‬serving end of a h u m a n line, a metap h o r for t h a t line as the h u m a n line, all to t h e end t h a t — h a v i n g served its metaphorical p u r p o s e — t h e entire m e t a p h o r be literally a b a n d o n e d in t h e n o t i c e t h a t follows. T h a t notice, n o w put before us, is that there were t h r e e s o n s — n o t two — in t h e S e c o n d G e n e r a t i o n . O n e died childless, victim of murder. O n e , perpetrator of t h e murder, was given t h e c h a n c e to breed better t h a n his p e r f o r m a n c e m i g h t augur; t h a t hope, in t h e e n d unfulfilled, t h a t line died out; h e n c e , provision by G o d (see 4:25 below) of a third son in. t h a t generation, Seth, of whose many b r a n c h e d lines only o n e will c u l m i n a t e in t h e race t h a t was given a third c h a n c e - s o to speak in the generation of N o a h . Let us now e x a m i n e t h e text.

Seth and His Descendants:

On Sel h Himself

(25) Adam had relations again with his wife. She hore a .011‫ ר‬whom she named Seth, her thought being, "God has allotted me another issue/ |Le.j in place of Abel . . . he whom Cain killed. (26) To Seth, in turn, a son was horn, whom he named Enosh.—Back then it was that YHWH was first invoked. (1) Now this is the register of Adams descendants — When God created Man, it was in the likeness of God that He made him. ( ‫ ) י‬Male and female did he create them. He blessed them, naming them Man at the time ot their creation — (3) Adam lived to the age of 130 years. He sired — in his very likeness and image—and named him Seth. (4) After siring Seth, Adam's years amounted to 800 in number. (He sired [other] sons and daughters.) (5) Thus the total of Adam's life•‫׳‬ time came to 930 years. Then he died. (6) Seth lived to the age of τ05 years. He sired Enosh. (7) After siring Enosh Seth lived 807 years. (He sired other sons and daughters.) (Ή) Thus the total of Seth's lifetime was y 12 years. Then he died.

3<6‫ר‬

S Ί Ή l ‫ י‬ί ' "Γ I •r R1‫ ׳‬S

(9) Enosh lived go years, ί le sired Kenan, i ίο) After siring Kenan Hnush lived 815 years. (He sired other sons and daughters.) (11) Tin is the loial of Lnosh's lifetime was 905 years. Then he died. ( 1 2 ) Kenan lived 70 years. He sired Mahalalel. (13) After siring M aha la lei he lived 840 years. (He sired other sons and daughters.) ( 14) Thus the total lifetime of Kenan was 910 years. Then he died. (15) Mahalalel lived 65 years. He sired Jared. (16) After the birth of Jared, Maha‫׳׳‬ lalel lived 830 years. (He sired other sons and daughters.) (17) Thus the total lifetime of Mahalalel was 895 years. Then he died. (18) Jared lived 162 years. He sired Enoch. (19) After siring Enoch, Jared lived 800 years. (He sired other sons and daughters. ) (20) Thus the total lifetime of Jared was 962 years. Then he died. (21) Enoch lived 65 years. He sired Methuselah. !2 2) Enoch was obedient to God, after he sired Methuselah, 300 years. (He sired other sons and daughters.) (23) Thus the total lifetime of Enoch was 365 years. (24) [Yes] Enoch was obedient to God. Yet he was gone, God having taken him. (25) Methuselah lived 187 years. He sired Lamech. (26) After siring Lantech, Methuselah lived 782 years. (He sired other sons and daughters.) (27) Thus the total lifetime of Methuselah was 969 years. Then he died. (28) Lamech lived 182 years. He sired a son. (29) He named him Noah, intend‫׳‬ ing, "This one will bring us consolation for the grievous toil of our hands out ol the soil which Y1 IWH has placed under a ban." ( 50) After siring Noah, Lamech lived years, ( l i e sired other sons and daughters.) G ! ) Thus the total lifetime ot Lamech was 777 years. T h e n h e died. (32) N o a h was 500 years of age. Noah M red Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Genesis 4:25-5:32)

It c o u l d n o t b e c l e a r e r t h a t verses 25 a n d 26, c o n c l u d i n g c h a p t e r 4, a r e t h e c o d a of t h e G a i n a n d A b e l p e r i c o p e , b r i d g i n g t h e way t o t h e l i n e of A d a m a n d Eve, w h i c h w o u l d survive t h r o u g h S e t h , as t h e i r line t h r o u g h G a i n w o u l d n o t . 6 A n exa m p l e of t h e p r e c i s i o n of t h e b i b l i c a l a u t h o r s d i c t i o n ( a n d t h e fidelity of t h e p r o c e s s t h a t t r a n s m i t t e d t h e t e x t t o us) is t h e f o r m u l a t i o n i n v e r s e 25 of t h e t h i n k ing b e h i n d E v e s n a m i n g of h e r t h i r d s o n . T h i s p r e c i s i o n i n t h e H e b r e w t e x t is lost o n t h e r e a d e r w h o — e v e n if t h e H e b r e w is accessible t o h i m — r e a d s t h e t e x t u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e of t h e c o m m e n t a r i e s i m p l i c i t in t r a n s l a t i o n s of t h e t e x t . L e t us e x a m i n e t h r e e s u c h t r a n s l a t i o n s : AV, N J P S , a n d Speiser: ι. . . . his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Gain slew. (AV) 2. . . . named him Seth, meaning, "God has provided me with another offspring in place of Abel ,"/or Cain had killed him. (NJPS) 3. . . . she called Seth, meaning, "God has granted me other issue, because Cain killed Abel" (Speiser) Let us ne»te first that the n a m e S e t h is f o l l o w e d in t h e H e b r e w by the particle ki} w h i c h is rendered as a kind of deictic by 2 and ‫ ר‬G m e a n i n g A and by its f u n c t i o n a l e q u i v a l e n t by 1. ; thus AV, faithful to the old tradition that renders id as causal ("for"), a c h i e v e s the deictic force by inserting •a phrase ("said she") which, though

S T R U C T U R E S AS A B I B L I C A L LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

307

it may indeed be implicit, does n o t appear in t h e Hebrew. T h e last clause in this verse is also introduced by t h e particle kL rendered by "tor" in 2 and "because" in 3. In t h e translations above I h a v e italicized t h e renderings of these two instances of ki in t h e t h r e e translations. Let it be n o t e d t h a t 1 does n o t r e n d e r this second ki at all; it sidesteps t h e particle, and n o t at all illegitimately, by telescoping it i n t o t h e suffix objective of killed, t h a t is, whom = ‫״‬that h e killed him O f f u r t h e r interest in this verse is its exemplification of our discussion of t h e f u n d a m e n t a l place of p u n c t u a t i o n in t h e poetical approach. 7 AV, like t h e H e b r e w original, supplies n o p u n c t u a t i o n marks. T h e r e f o r e , w h e t h e r t h e m o t i v a t i o n of Eve in n a m i n g S e t h is rendered as direct discourse (as in 1 ) or as internal dialogue (as in 2 a n d 3), AV leaves us in t h e dark as to where Eve's t h o u g h t begins and ends, w h i c h is also to say, where Eve ends and the narrator resumes. N J P S a n d Speiser, providing q u o t a t i o n marks, define t h e dialogic stretch. T h u s Speiser (3) assigns everything to Eve's t h o u g h t : Eve knows t h a t C a i n killed A b e l , and s o m e h o w inter‫׳‬prêts God's r e p l a c e m e n t of this son with S e t h as h a v i n g a causal c o n n e c t i o n with t h e lost s o n s h a v i n g b e e n killed by his brother. W h e t h e r Speiser i n t e n d e d this m e a n i n g or n o t , it is t h e m e a n i n g clearly conveyed by his d e p l o y m e n t of q u o t a t i o n marks. Let us n o t e f u r t h e r t h a t Speiser 111 his translation altogether omits t h e Hebrew words rendered in t h e o t h e r two versions by "instead/in place of Abel." 8 NJPS, which is not guilty of such omission, puts q u o t a t i o n marks after these words, indicating t h a t these words are t h e end of Eve s t h o u g h t ; h e n c e t h e reason, "for C a i n had killed h i m " is t h e editor's assumption of a causal c o n n e c t i o n , or else a red u n d a n c y of i n f o r m a t i o n on his part. Since we h a v e just read of t h e murder and t h e s e n t e n c e u p o n t h e murderer, why should we need t o be reminded of w h a t we h a v e had n o time to forget? I will now cite my own translation: "God has allotted me another issue," [i.e.] in place of Abel... he whom Cain killed. Eve s t h o u g h t , according to this rendering, is confined t o this third b i r t h as a n additional b o o n by God's grace. But instead of o n e of t h e n o r m a l H e b r e w terms for aclciitional (such as nösäf or öd) t h e a u t h o r has h e r using t h e t e r m Jaher " a n other/another," implying an a n t e c e d e n t referent. In this c o n t e x t t h a t "other" referent can be either C a i n or Abel. T h e narrator goes o n to explain h e r t h o u g h t : t h e referent is Abel, w h o has disappeared. N o o n e (save G o d and C a i n ) , certainly n o t Eve, k n o w s t h a t h e is dead. For w h o would h a v e told her? But gone (like E n o c h in 5:24) h e is, and t h e new child she sees as a compensat i o n provided to h e r by G o d . C o m p a r e her a c k n o w l e d g m e n t of God's grace in 4:1 in regard t o Cain's birth. C a i n is n o t t h e referent because, for o n e thing, h e is still around. But, for another, t h e narrator reminds us, C a m s s u r v i v a l — w h i c h would normally render a third son u n n e c e s s a r y — d o e s not so operate. For C a i n , t h e murderer of Abel, is himself u n d e r a d e a t h s e n t e n c e called for by justice, a d e a t h sent e n c e suspended for h i m in his o w n person, but foreshadowed t h o u g h undeterm i n e d yet for his line. T h a t is, as we h a v e seen, in the implicit end of t h a t line in N o a h s time, an end t h a t is merited by the d e a t h - d e a l i n g blades forged by his des c e n d a n t Tubal-Cain, by t h e self-confessed blood-lust‫ ׳‬of l u b a l - C a i n s father Lantech, both carrying the gene lor violence inherited from fratricidal ancestor, Cain, In Toward

a Grammar

(pp. s

7) 1 discussed t h e e c o n o m y oi biblical style, w h i c h

308

structures

has b e e n remarked upon by others. I suggested t h a t t h e e c o n o m y was such t h a t thrifty was a term more apposite to this style. W e c a n now see this adjective vindicated and more; biblical style is n o t only thrifty, it is dense, frugally dense. M e t a p h o r itself, generally speaking, is a thrifty figure, for it achieves its effect by o m i t t i n g t h e ‫״‬like" (the comparing e l e m e n t ) in simile, and makes bold to substitute a n identification where n o n e exists—literally, t h a t is. T h e density of biblical m e t a p h o r — a s we h a v e n o w repeatedly seen, in 4 : 1 7 - 2 4 and again in this verse 2 5 — c h a l l e n g e s compare in any o t h e r literature, f r o m antiquity to our o w n time.

Seth and His Descendants:

Se tlx s Une

A c h a p t e r heading, had such a device been available to t h e author of Genesis, could hardly h a v e served bet 1er to mark off C h a p t e r 5 f r o m C h a p t e r 4, as we divide t h e text today, t h a n vcr.se 1 oi this chapter, bor t h e biblical author, of course, his C h a p t e r 1 would correspond to our 1:1 — 2:4;!; bis C h a p t e r 2 to our 2 : 4 b - 4 : 2 6 . Iiis C h a p t e r 3 b e g i n n i n g with our 5 : 1 - 3 is signaled to us as a r e s u m p t i o n of t h e narralive in C h a p t e r 1 by 1) the use of t h e verb br' "create" (as in 1:27); 2) of demüt 1 ίο/1 mi "likeness of G o d " (as in 1:26); 3) of "male a n d female created H e t h e m " (as in 1:27); a n d 4) of "he blessed t h e m " as in 1:28. A fifth signal in verse 2 is, " H e n a m e d t h e m ‫׳‬ädäm—Man—at the time that he created them." A l t h o u g h n o such n a m i n g as a separate action appears in C h a p t e r 1, this n a m i n g — a t t h e time of their c r e a t i o n — i s a reference to 1:26, "God said, *Let us m a k e M a n . ' " T h e register of the begettmgs, t h e n , begins (after t h e n a r r a t o r s superscription in verses 1 - 2 ) in verse 3 with A d a m , at t h e age of 300, siring S e t h . But here in t h e register and never again, with t h e additional n o t i c e t h a t this siring of S e t h was "in his very own likeness and i m a g e " H o w subtle a t o u c h ! A n o t h e r example of Scripture's metaphorical density: T h i s begetting of S e t h — u n l i k e t h e begetting of C a i n — e v e n t u a t e s in the true and enduring line of t h e A d a m w h o m G o d blessed. T h e chronological features that distinguish this register of t h e S e t h i t e line of A d a m from the C a i n i t e line in Genesis 4 will be discussed in t h e c o n t e x t of a simibar register in C h a p t e r 11, below. I would like to c o n c l u d e this c h a p t e r w i t h some observations o n the t r e a t m e n t of t h e C a i n i t e and S e t h i t e genealogies in sourcecritical scholarship. My reference p o i n t to t h e latter will be t h e discussion by E. A . Speiser in his Genesis. 1 have chosen this typical c o m m e n t a r y for a n u m b e r of reasons: O n e , it is lucid and comparatively simple. I w o , Speiser had n o part in origin a t i n g (‫ ־וי‬developing the source-analytic approach. Himself ;1 c o m p a r a t i v e Semitist and cultural historian ot genius, he modestly and respectfully — in this venture i n f o biblical studies ---accepts the approach of what he would have labeled the conseilsus 0/ scientific study, arid which we would formulate as t h e t h e n a n d h i t h e r t o state 0/ the art of critical literary study of Scripture. T h r e e , in my argument in favor of a poetical approach, and this in opposition to and rebuttal of t h e source-critical one, my diction may sometimes seem acerbic. It. is my h o p e t h a t any suggestion or appearance of disrespect for t h e school 1 am criticizing will be discounted for my choosing as its c h a m p i o n my own revered teacher, for w h o m my appreciation m o u n t s even as I l e n g t h e n t h e distance traveled from t h a t fork in t h e road where we — so long ago and onlv yesterday•—parted.

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIBLICAL LITERARY PHENOMENON Line oi Cain (( A1u\si> 4)

309

Line t ‫ י‬ί Seilt (( K‫־‬m\sis 5) ADAM

Noah FIGURE 7-1 The Lines of Adam

Speiser assigns the biblical author's C h a p t e r 1. to Γ, his C h a p t e r 2 to J, ^nd his C h a p t e r 3 Ιο Ρ again. Verses 6 2,·‫י‬of our C h a p t e r 4 he assigns to J, despite his awareness that 4 'some critics would attribute verses 25 — 26 to Ρ in view of the fact that verse 25 speaks o f ' A d a m ' (instead ol "the man") as is P's custom (see verses 1 fh), aside Irom mentioning Elohim" Yet he assigns 5:20 to J, indicating in a note on that verse, "lie ?tinned /‫׳‬t/m Nodh. This clause must have been present‫ ׳‬in Ρ as well as in./, to whom the verse is attributed in view of t h e reference to Yah web." Let us now turn to figure 7-1, a graphic representation of the names in the two genealogies, which source-criticism finds irreconcilable with one another as t h e work of one author. T h e two lists have these features in common: 1. a b e g 1 nn in g w i th A dam 2. ten names 3. the names Enoch and Lamech 4. the singling out ot Enoch for special notice

T h e most notable difference between the two lists is that in Genesis 5 the ten names represent successive generations, while in Genesis 4 the ten names rep resent seven successive generations plus an eighth consisting of three siblings, As has often been noted, the number of similarities indeed are rather remarkable. Ot the eight descendants of Seth, only two names are altogether without correspondents in t h e line of Cain: N o a h , being the sole survivor of the flood, cannot have a correspondent in Cain's line, for the last of this line perished in that flood;

3<2‫כ‬

STRUCTURES

Enos (in Hebrew "mortal, h u m a n " ) is t h e only o n e w h o m i g h t h a v e a correspondent, yet does not. O n e n a m e , A d a m , is an identity; two n a m e s are b o r n e by differ‫׳‬ cut step-descendants in both lists; and e x a m i n a t i o n of c o n s o n a n t s and s e m a n t i c c b e m e n t s in t h e original I lebrew will reveal striking similarities in t h e remaining four pairs. From the similarities modern .scholarship concludes t h a t t h e two lists c a n n o t h a v e b e e n altogether unrelated, and that at least o n e of t h e m was n o t t h e i m a g i n a -

rive creation ol the author, f r o m the differences it concludes t h a t n e i t h e r list was copied from the other; h e n c e neither of t h e lists is a n i n d e p e n d e n t creation. It therefore seems to follow that we h a v e two versions of a single tradition. B o t h lists probably culminated, in their original versions, in N o a h . T h e editor w h o p a t c h e d these conflicting traditions together must h a v e t a m p e r e d w i t h t h e original list in Genesis 4 so that " N o a h " would derive f r o m only o n e father. For t h e traditionalist literalists w h o assume t h a t b o t h genealogies were dictated by G o d to Moses, the conclusions of m o d e r n scholarship are, of course, unacceptable. G o d can have only one version, and t h a t o n e beyond question as to correctness. Study the two genealogies, they say, and you will see t h a t t h e two are altogether compatible. Two lines issued f r o m A d a m , o n e t h r o u g h C a i n , t h e o t h e r t h r o u g h S e t h . T h e line of Seth, culminates in t h e t e n t h g e n e r a t i o n (from A d a m ) in N o a h , son of Lamech, t h r o u g h w h o m t h e race of m a n k i n d was preserved. T h e line of C a i n culminates in the e i g h t h g e n e r a t i o n (from A d a m ) in t h e three sons of another Lamech; these t h r e e — a n d their children, if a n y — d i e d before t h e flood or perished in it. As for the coincidence of t h e names E n o c h and Lamech appearing in b o t h l i s t s — h o w absurd to assume the coincidence to be improbable! T h e y belong, after all to one family; why is the reappearance of a n a m e or two cause for perplexity: A brief study of figure 7-1 will show t h a t t h e two Enochs are first cousins four times removed, while the two Lamechs are fifth cousins twice removed. N o t convincecl‫ ׳׳‬Let us try a n o t h e r formulât ion. T h e Lamech in. t h e line of Seth had a grandfather, Enoch, who had a fifth cousin (in the line oi C a i n ) by the n a m e of Lamech. T h e Enoch ot the line of Cain had a first cousin, Enos, whose great-greatgrandson was also named Enoch. N o improbability, n o basis ior skepticism. li this flawless reasoning ol die traditionalist literalist imposes a strain on credulity, what shall our judgment he on the ratiocinai ive acrobatics displayed in source-criticism? C h a p t e r 2:4h through C h a p t e r 4:24 is a unit ascribed to an a u t h o r n a m e d j. T h i s a u t h o r naively collected primitive legends in w h i c h snakes talked arid blood cried out and G o d jealously denied immortality to m a n , e v e n as h e showed arbitrary favor to the shepherd over t h e farmer. C e n t u r i e s later a n o t h e r author, called P, wrote 2:4-!:‫ן‬a and C h a p t e r 5. T h i s a u t h o r was far more sophisticated theologically, h e n c e , for example, his c o n c e n t r a t i o n o n t h e cultic institution of t h e Sabbath; and for a reason n o t at all clear, his advanced interest, in cultic matters w e n t h a n d in h a n d with a c o n c e r n for chronology, as exemplified in this one, t h e generations t h r o u g h S e t h from A d a m to N o a h . For all his sophistication this author, Mr, P, was an imaginative dullard and a n indifferent stylist, especially w h e n compared to the inventiveness and c h a r m i n g style of our rather primitive Mr. j. Some time later an. c^ 11 tor came along and combined these chapters from different hands. W h e n e v e r this editor (or R, for redactor) could, he harmonized the

S T R U C T U R E S AS A B I B L I C A L LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

311

contradictions. W h e n h e could n o t , for one reason or a n o t h e r ( b o t h u n f a t h omable) d o s o — w h i c h is most of t h e t i m e — h e let t h e stitches show (presumably with a prayer t h a t n o o n e would n o t i c e t h e m ) . A n d this is only t h e broad basic outline of w h a t this school of "literary critic ism" has posited; its a d h e r e n t s h a v e so refined their m e t h o d s t h a t they c l a i m — w i t h ever‫׳‬-mount ing success in t h e last h u n d r e d y e a r s — t o h a v e isolated t h e original narrative units and sub-units and to h a v e reconstructed t h e history of t h e Bibles composition and redaction, if n o t quite t h e history of t h e naive oral traditions t h a t lie b e h i n d t h e compositions. All ibis instead of trying an alternative set of assumptions: t h a t t h e authors of t h e compositions were neither naive nor literal-minded; that t h e redactors of these compositions were n e i t h e r naive nor literal-minded; and imally, that t h e redactors did not assume that t h e authors were naive nor literal-minded, nor did they assume t h a t future generations would t h i n k t h e m so. M a n y of the absurdities of m o d e r n Bible scholarship, as indeed t h e very d e v e l o p m e n t ot t h e source-critical school, can be traced in barge measure to o n e factor: t h e spell of ltteral-mindedness, which differs little in respect to grip from its hold o n those f u n d a m e n t a l i s t s w h o uphold t h e literal as a m a t t e r of dogmatic faith. 9 In t h e case of t h e two genealogies under discussion, n o religious issue or principie of logic or science hangs o n t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y of t h e names, o n w h e t h e r five generations i n t e r v e n e d b e t w e e n A d a m and a d e s c e n d a n t n a m e d L a m e c h (as in Genesis 4) or seven (as in Genesis 5). T h u s , we may h o p e t h a t n e i t h e r dogmatic religionist nor scientific biblicist will be barred from perceiving t h e t e n names in e a c h list as an interesting literary device, w h e t h e r they fall into eight generations or ten. O n c e t h e a u t h o r of t h e Eden and C a i n and Abel myths has g o t t e n his moral across to us t h a t we are (metaphorically) all descended from a murderer, C a i n , h e c a n dispense w i t h t h e C a i n i t e genealogy and let this murderous line of C a i n and boastful killer grandson L a m e c h c o m e to a n end in t h e great flood. A n d t h e h u m a n race c a n m a k e a fresh start w i t h N o a h , d e s c e n d a n t of Seth, "whom God granted me (Eve) in place of Abe Γ—whom Cain slew (4:25). A n d if f u r t h e r evidence be desired t h a t a single a u t h o r crafted b o t h genealogies, playing with n a m e s a n d narrative asides to provide the clues to t h e m e t a p h o r i c nature of b o t h lists, let us n o t e t h e following. In addition to t h e similarities t h a t I have noted above as between the two lists there is an additional one, t h a t t h e Lamech in each genealogy is the final progenitor ot that generation which came to a n end (except for N o a h ) in t h e flood. But there are other similarities as well. A s we h a v e seen in t h e case of the pun in the glossing of C a i n s n a m e (and this same p h e n o m e n o n will be repeated o f t e n in t h e narratives that fed low), two out of three shared c o n s o n a n t s is n o t considered too puny a p u n for the biblical a u t h o r s purpose. T h u s C a i n (qyn and qnh) is in assonance with Kenan (Qyn and Qyrm), h a d with Jared (rd and yrd), M e h u j a e l with Mahalalei (Aih\1 and M/1//7), M e t h u s h a e l w i t h M e t h u s e l a h (Mts'i and M t s l h ) . w Finally, let us n o t e t h e play o n ab "father, ancestor, principal, h e a d i n g or fount," in t h e a c c o u n t of t h e C a i n i t e line. C a i n himself, at t h e time t h e only d e s c e n d a n t of t h e first couple in t h e second generation, is already City-Builder, w h o n a m e s his first city after his s o n — n o w , b o t h city a n d son ( E n o c h ) lost — and t h e three sons of L a m e c h respectively are "ancestors" of t h e pastoral way of life, musicians of

3<2‫כ‬

structures

e v e r y sort, a n d s m i t h s of e v e r y k i n d . To a n y o n e w h o t a k e s t h e s e n o t i c e s literally, w e m i g h t address t h e q u e s t i o n : H o w c o u l d t h e ν he a n c e s t o r s of a n y b o d y if all t h e i r d e s c e n d a n t s d i e d o u t i n t h e flood. 7 A n d e v e n a literalist m i g h t a n s w e r : T h e w o r d ub n e e d n o t b e a n c e s t o r , it m a y m e a n t h e first t o live or p r a c t i c e in a c e r t a i n m a n n e r ; while trades a n d c r a f t s — o f shepherd, musician, and s m i t h — m a y indeed be passed o n by l a t h e r t o son, e v e n in t h e e v e n t of a lather's l i n e c o m i n g t o a n e n d , his skill a n d lore may yet be r e t r i e v e d by a n e p h e w or a c o u s i n several t i m e s r e m o v e d in a n a g n a t e line. A s ior t h e s c h o l a r w h o will smile t o l e r a n t l y in t h e a w a r e n e s s t h a t such a n c e s t r a l n a m e s as c u l t u r e ‫ ׳‬h e r o e s a r e t h a t w e l l - k n o w n p h e n o m e n o n of e p o n y m s , 1 w o u l d ask h i m t o r e m i n d h i m s e l f : T h a t biblical a u t h o r oi l o n g ago also k n e w w h a t a n e p o n y m is; h o w e v e r else it m a y serve, t h e e p o n y m is al.so a m e t a p h o r ; a n d in h i s figurative

d i s p o s i t i o n of s u c h e p o n y m s t h e biblical a u t h o r is s i g n a l i n g : A r t i s t at

W o r k — Look O u t for Flying M e t a p h o r s . The Line of Noah:

Through Japheth,

Han1., and

Shem

(1) These now are the issues of Noah's sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Sons were born to them after the Deluge: (2) T h e sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. (3) T h e sons of Gomer: Ashkena:, and Riphath, and Togarmah. (4) T h e sons (if Javan: Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanites. (5) From these branched out the coast lands of [sundry] national entities within their territories, each idiosyncratic as to its language, by their families within their nationalities. (6) A n d the sons of H a m (were): Gush, and Mizraim, and Put, and Canaan. (7) A n d the sons of Gush: Seha, and Havilah, and Raamah, and Sabteca. A n d Raamah s sons (were): Sheba and Declan. 1(8) Gush now bore Nimrod. H e was rhe first one to be the mightiest on earth. (9) He was, by YHWH 1 ? ‫״‬race, mighty in the hunt, hence is it said, "Like Nimrod, by Y11 NX/TPs grace, mighty in the hunt." (10) T h e mainspring of Iiis kingdom

hahel, and Erech and Akkad and

Ca Inch in Shinardand. (11) brom 1 h : 11 counfry .spuing Assbur, and he htiilded Nineveh, and Rehobolh h, and t ailah, (12) and Reseu between Nineveh and Calah- —1 hat one being ι he greatest city.] (13) A n d Mizraim bore Ludites, and Anamitcs, and hehabites, and Naph-‫׳‬ tuhites, (14) and Patrusites, and Kasluhaes, whence came forth Philistines and Caphtorites. (15) A n d Canaan bore Sidon, his eldest, and Heth, (16) and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, and the Girgashitcs, (17) and the Hivites and the Arkites and the Sinites; (18) and the Arvadites, and the Zemarites, and the Hamathites, and after [what or whom?] did the families ei the Ginaanites disperse: (19) Thus was the Canaan i te hon] er from S i d o n - •‫־‬on your way to G e r a r — a s far as Gaza; on your way to Sodom and Gomorrah and Ad mal ‫ י‬and Zeboim, as far as Lesha.

structures

as a biblical literary

phenomenon

313

(20) These [aforementioned] the Hamites, according to their families and their tongues within their lands, within their nationalities.) (21) And there was bom to Shem—yes, he too—[he] the ancestor ot all the Eberites, the elder brother of Japheth . . . (22) The sons of Shem: HI am, and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud, and Aram. (23) And the sons of Aram: Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash. (24) And Arpachshad bore Shelah and Shelah bore Eber, ( 2 5 ) a n d t o Kber was h o r n a t w o s o m e o i s o n s , t h e n a m e oi o n e l Y l e g - -to w i t : i n h i s l i f e t i m e was earth|'s p o p u l a t i o n ! splintered•••

a n d the n a m e oi his brother

was j o k tan. (2C))

And

Joktan

hole

Almodad,

and

Sheleph,

and

1 Ia‫״‬armaveth,

Jerah, (27) and hladoram, a n d Uzal, and O i k i a h , (28) and O h a l , and mael, a n d Sheha, ( 2 9 ) a n d O p h i r , a n d 1l a v i l a h , a n d j o h a h . A l l these

sons

and Ala‫׳‬ the

Their area o f s e t t l e m e n t w a s i r o m M e s h a - - o n y o u r way t o S e f a r — t h e Eastern Mountain. (31) These are the sons of Shem, according to their families and their tongues, in their territories according to their nationalities. (32) These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their hegettmus, in their nationalities. And from these [three] did the nations branch our on earth alter the Deluge. (Genesis 10:1-32) of Joktan. (30)

T h e scholarly approach to these early genealogies of t h e h u m a n race, reading l i t e r a l — w h i c h is to say, h i s t o r i o g r a p h i e — i n t e n t into t h e minds of the biblical writers responsible for t h e m , is fairly reflected in Speiser's C o m m e n t o n them. 1 1 T h e n o t i o n t h a t these w r i t e r s — i n respect to t h e genealogies we c a n n o t call t h e m authors—-collected a n c i e n t traditions, going hack to t h e earliest generations of t h e h u m a n species is, of course, subject to n e i t h e r c o n f i r m a t i o n nor rebuttal. My own approach, w h i c h views t h e biblical writers as t h e authors indeed ot t h e genealogical trees, as of t h e framing narratives, derives f r o m peculiarities of style and diction, of composition and c o n s t i t u e n t onomastic data, w h i c h are generally ignored in scholarly commentaries. Inasmuch as t h e poetic investigator assumes t h a t t h e liter•‫׳‬ ary material before him is t h e product of a c o m p e t e n t , n o t to say artistic, craftsman, he cannot allow t h a t such peculiarities are explainable as slips oi t h e pen in t h e h a n d s ot a n o d d i n g Homer. T h e s e peculiarities t h e n are i n t e n t i o n a l , designed to serve as flags for the close and careful reader, flags as to what the author really int e n d s — a s also, what he certainly c a n n o t iateud—-by t h e structures t h a t he is putting before us, O n e peculiar feature of diction in this c h a p t e r is t h e regular appearance oi the verb wld/yld in t h e qal w i t h a n apparently masculine subject. 1 2 T h e qal verb has t h e sense of "t‫־‬o bear a c h i l d " a biological activity confined to t h e female sex. T h e corresponding activity for t h e male sex is t h e same verb in t h e hiphil conjligation holkl "to sire, cause (a w o m a n ) to bear." It is perhaps due to this e x c e p t i o n a l use of t h e qal stern in this chapter, in clear contrast w i t h t h e hiphil stem in t h e genealogy of C h a p t e r 11, t h a t led t h e early translators of Scripture into English to opt tor the gender-neutral "begat" for b o t h these stems in t h e genealogies. T h e anomalous tea‫•׳‬

3<2‫כ‬

STRUCTURES

Curing of the qal s ici η in this genealogy is almost certainly due to t h e peculiar characteristic of t h e "begetters." In contrast to t h e begetters in chapters 5 a n d 11, w h o are individuals, male ancestors of t h e h u m a n race ( w h o therefore sire their progeny), the names of t h e begetters in this "genealogy" are eponyms, t h a t is, they represent hypothetical ancestors to w h o m or (o w h i c h are traced the n a m e ot a n existing family or tribe, city or nationality. T h u s these n a m e s represent n o t biological forebears but polit teal origins; t h e originators are m e t a p h o r i c . To deny to the biblical a u t h o r t h e consciousness of t h e difference b e t w e e n a personal name, a place name, an e t h n i c n a m e , and a political n a m e is in flagrant (if u n t h i n k i n g and u n i n t e n t i o n a l ) disrespect o f — e v e n insulting t o — h i s intelligence. A n d it is n o t out of disrespect for his readers intelligence, nor of his grasp of Hebrew, t h a t our a u t h o r challenges our a t t e n t i o n by scrambling t h e subject of t h e verb. T h e Hebrew word 1\\ m e a n i n g coastland, is of course a geographical term, and goy " n a t i o n " is a political term. Peoples a n d polities, like rivers and tributaries, may separate from one a n o t h e r or b r a n c h out; n o t so, islands or headlands. Yet instead of h a v i n g the goy(y)e häiyyim "the n a t i o n s of t h e coastlands" b r a n c h i n g out, h e has t h e iyye haggoyfm "the coastlands of t h e n a t i o n s " doing so. T h i s t h e n is ano t h e r signal that a table of n a t i o n s masquerading as a family tree c a n only be a metaphor. A n d , let us note, it is n o t these n a m e d entities t h a t are b r a n c h i n g out in a welter of ethnic, linguistic, geographic, and political groups; it is rather t h a t out of these n a m e d entities there b r a n c h out o t h e r such in such numbers as n o t to be nameable! T h e most glaring peculiarity in this Table of N a t i o n s projected as a genealogy is t h e insertion of a pericope, verses 8 - 1 2 , w h i c h in substance and m a n n e r identifies itself as b o t h extraneous and intrusive. For o n e thing, it begins w i t h t h e first appearance of a masculine subject governing t h e qal verb yälad. T h e subject is Gush, whose "sons" arc listed in the preceding verse, five oi t h e m , along with two "grands o n s " T h u s the. question arises, why was t h e son he "birthed" not included with the five in the preceding verse.5 1 h e answer, to be sure, lies in t h e n a m e ol this son., for this Nimrod is clearly an individual not an e p o n y m . I lis individuality and personhood is alhrmed by three notices in regard to him. !. I le was the first (ot an implied succession of conquerors, each like Nimrod) "mighty one on earth d 2. He was so great a hunter as to have his preeminence in this sport of kings attributed to a special ‫״‬race vouchsafed upon him by God; no, not by God, but by Y H W H ; the citation of this name attributable, so we are asked to believe, to the currency in ancient Israel, at the time of this pericopes writing, of a proverbial expression for hunting prowess, 'dike Nimrod a mighty hunter—by the (very) grace of YHWH." 3. The mainstays of this mighty ruler's dominion in the land of Shinar (lower Mesopotamia) were four in number. The first mentioned, Babel/Babylon, must have been known to the most rustic of the writer's Israelite or Judean contemporaries. The second, Erech/Uruk, once great but in the writers time a Mesopcv tamian backwater town, would have been known only to one versed in a cuneiform history. T h e third, Aecad/Akkad/Agade, its site today unknown, was already a legendary imperial capital in the time of Moses. The fourth, Calneh, is unat‫׳‬ tested elsewhere in the Bible or in cuneiform.

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIBLICAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

315

T h e author of our intrusive pericope c o n t i n u e s now with an ambiguity-laden n o t i c e t h a t "from that l a n d ' ' that is, t h e land oi Shinar, ' 1 there c a m e forth/ issued/sprung" an individual/a polity n a m e d Asslu.1t; t h e same n a m e which -along with other polities in or near Mesopotamia--‫״‬appears in verse 22 as (eponymous) descendants of S h e m , ! h i s Assluir, now, sprung Irtan southern Mesopotamia, built four cities, two of t h e m r e n o w n e d capitals of Assyria ( N i n e v e h and t /a!ah), and two (like t h e mysterious C a l a h in S h i n a r ) totally u n k n o w n to us. It is hardly c r e d b ble t h a t t h e r e existed three cities in Mesopotamia t h a t were k n o w n to t h e biblical a u t h o r but unattested in t h e huge trove of cuneiform writings available to us today. So too is it hard to believe t h a t a biblical writer w h o knew of U r u k and A k k a d did n o t k n o w t h a t Gush was a n a m e c o m m o n to two widely separated polities, t h e Cossaea of t h e Kassites ( w h o ruled Babylon for five and a half centuries) in t h e east, and t h e C u s h of t h e southwest, inclusive of Ethiopia, Sudan, and part of t h e Sinai. In view of this t h e entire pericope, serving as a flag as to t h e figurative f u n c t i o n of this entire Table of N a t i o n s , is c o m p o u n d e d of real place n a m e s and polities, as well as of o n o m a s t i c figments ingeniously formulated to c a u t i o n t h e close and k n o w i n g reader. If t h e r e were a C a l n e h in Shinar, its insignificance would deny it a place alongside of Babel, U r u k , and A k k a d . (But if there is a f o u r t h n a m e of historic fame t h a t m i g h t h a v e b e e n included, would it not be t h e mighty c e n t e r called Ur?) So too, if t h e r e were a n insignificant town b e t w e e n N i n e v e h and C a l a h . A n d as for Rehoboth-Ir, t h e n e verdie ard-of city placed b e t w e e n N i n e v e h and C a l a h ( t h e latter being "the great city‫ ״‬in t h e writers time), if its signification is (as Speiser suggests) city of broad streets, t h e Hebrew should be (cf. coastlands of t h e n a t i o n s in verse 5 above) 7r-Rei10fc>0th. I will n o t a t t e m p t t o exhaust all t h e peculiarities in this chapter. But let us n o t e , in sequential order, that following t h e niphal of wld ' , there were b o r n " in verse 1, we have the formula /.‫ ·׳‬ne T'N 1 'sons o f at t h e beginnings of verses 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. T h i s series is broken off with PN yälad "PN bore‫ ״‬at the b e g i n n i n g of t h e inirusive Cush pericope, verse 8. T h i s formula n o w c o n t i n u e s at t h e beginnings of verses 1 3 a n d 15. Verse 15 is peculiar for having Mizraim (Egypt) bearing six—-not eponymous individuals b u t — g e n t i l i e plurals, and t h e n treating these six (01‫ ־‬is it only t h e last of these six, t h e Kasluhites?) as a place. 11‫׳‬hence rather t h a n an ancestry from which "there sprung Philistines and C a p h tori tes (Cretans)." Surprising in verse 15 is t h e n o t i c e t h a t C a n a a n bore Sidon and H e t h . Sidon, a w e l l - k n o w n city, is design a t e d as C a n a a n ' s firstborn, m a k i n g p r o m i n e n t by absence (if we may be permitted a n o x y m o r o n ) t h e far more i m p o r t a n t Tyre; a n d H e t h is an e p o n y m for t h e e t h n i c group elsewhere termed Hitti or BLY1ë-Het "Hittites" or "Heth-ites." T h e r e t h e n follow n i n e (grammatical) gentilles, including two otherwise u n k n o w n C a n a a n i t e g r o u p s — t h e Arkites and Sinites, o m i t t i n g t h e well-known Perizzites, and including t h e i n h a b i t a n t s of two cities, A r v a d — a neighbor of S i d o n and t h e famous H a m a t h in n o r t h e r n Syria. Stranger yet, however, is t h e following sketch of "the C a n a a n i t e border" e x t e n d i n g f r o m S i d o n — h e n c e ignoring b o t h Tyre o n t h e coast to t h e n o r t h and H a m a t h to t h e n o r t h e a s t — southward to Gaza (inclusive of historically insignificant but patriarchally p r o m i n e n t G e r a r ) and s o m e h o w — a l t h o u g h obscurely—raising up t h e n a m e s of t h e tour Cities of t h e Plain, which, destroyed in t h e days of Father A b r a h a m , their sites h i d d e n from h u m a n eyes for at

3<2‫כ‬

STRUCTURES

least a m i l l e n n i u m at t h e time of this pericopes writing, c a n n o t possible serve as signposts to e t h n i c border markings. W h y t h e n include these l e g e n d a r y — o r should we say, m y t h i c — r e m i n d e r s of h u m a n depravity and divine sentence? A n d to add to these unlocateable four a h i t h e r t o unheard-of fifth city, Lesha, to m a k e for a pentapolis of perversion? Again, I would suggest, by tying in to t h e figurative s ig‫״‬ nificanee of üb tempore, to remind the reader that data of ethnicity and polity, geography and chronological priority are of n o significance whatever for t h e h u m a n condition. W h y t h e n this c h a r a d e of a historical structure? Again, we shall h a v e to wait until we review a few more peculiarities. T h e sons of N o a h , in the1 order oi their births, are S h e m , 1 lam, and J a p h e t h . T h e listing of their descendant genetic, ethnic, political, and geographically situated en‫״‬ tities in reverse order is to focus our a t t e n t i o n on the line, the climactic line-—so to s p e a k — o f t h e eldest. T h e S h e m it e branch oi the h u m a n race is introduced in verse 21, a sentence altogether unnecessary (cf. the beginning of verse 22 wilh that of verse 2 and verse 6) and featuring two peculiar epithets or characterizations of S h e m . T h e characterization of this patriarch as the elder brother of J a p h e t h , as if h e were n o t t h e elder brother of H a m , is discussed in this chapter. 1 he o t h e r character‫״‬ ization of h i m is as ancestor to t h e descendants ot his grandson Eber, as if h e were n o t t h e ancestor as well of his grandsons U : , H u h G ether, and Mash. A long-ago discovery t h a t has b e c o m e a staple of biblical scholarship is t h e intertextual c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n this C h a p t e r 10 of Genesis and D e u t e r o n o m y 32:8. T h i s last passage reads: When Elyon (the One on High) allotted [lands! to nations, When he caused humankind to branch out, He fixed the boundaries of peoples According to the number of the sons ot Israel. T h e n u m b e r of t h e "sons of I s r a e l ' — s e v e n t y — a p p e a r s in Exodus 1:5: "All t h e souls (nepes) springing f r o m J a c o b s loins m a d e for a sum of 70 souls." T h i s n u m b e r seventy is a c c o u n t e d for in Genesis 4 6 : 8 - 2 7 , w h i c h concludes, "All t h e souls of Jacob's household that came to Egypt were 70 (in number)." C o r r e s p o n d i n g to this n u m b e r are t h e descendants of S h e m , H a m , and J a p h e t h . T h e reader !nay easily check this out hy reference to figure 7-2. I h e d e s c e n d a n t s of J a p h e t h n u m b e r fourteen, of 1 lam thirty, and of S h e m twenty-six, for a total of seventy. 1 J T h a t this play ol n u m b e r as between t h e seventy d e s c e n d a n t s oi N o a h s three sons and t h e seventy descendants of Jacob, respectively t h e b'ne-Adam and the fa'ne Yisra'el of D e u t e r o n o m y 32:8, re (let: is accurately the intent of the biblical author(s) is hardly to be doubted. But: that these descendants of N o a h s sons r e p r e s e n t — a 11 of t h e m nations, or t h a t Deity set t h e borders tor these peoples, can be accepted only if we see in these juxtapositions a n o t h e r kind of play, a whimsical playfulness. For e v e n if we grant e t h n i c and national status to all t h e o t h e r names in figure 7-2, it is n o t easily granted t h a t t h e same may be said for the line of S h e m t h r o u g h A r p a c h s h a d , Shela, Eher, and Peleg. T h e r e are n o Arpachshadites, Shelaites, or Pelegites in Scripture. These are, as we shall soon see, incontrovertibly individual personae. T h e r e are, however, Ehe rites: t h e (rnë-Eher of verse 21, w h i c h we h a v e just discussed. T h e s e fiber!tes, however, are neither an e t h n i c nor a political entity.

NOAH

The Line of Shem (Genesis 11)

Japheth t Scyth

- Shem

! Medes Τ

Tiras

Tubal

Shem

ι

Elam

Lud

Arpachehad

arma

She la

Sheila - - •

Ripât

Eber Ma<:· ‫ל׳‬:

Ionian*

Cyprus

Mes] u'k

Pele<4 ---

Aegean

i u:;i!di

--

Eher Peieo

Yoktan

Rhodr.

Aimed ad

Hadramaut

î iadoram Dik'Lo Abimael C)phir Jobah ίj 1 S h J k i! Havila Yerah Czal Obal

1 Shelep Aram

Assyria

Re'u Serug 1 Nahor Te rah

Uz

G e cher

Hui

Abraham

Mash

Put

Seba j Sabta | Sabtake

Ha vila

Ra'ma Sheba

j

Dedan Egypt Lud

Canaan

LeHab

Anam

Pathros

Naptuh Philistines

Kasluh

Sidon ! Jehus j Girgash j Ark! Heth Amori

H a ran

Lor.

Ham Cush

Nahor

Hi vi

Arvadi. Sini

|

Cretans

FIGURE 7•2‫ ׳‬T h e Lines of N o a h (<

1e

Hamath

Zemari

3<2‫כ‬

STRUCTURES

These "sons oi Eber" are t h e descendants (if any n o n e mentioned in this chap‫״‬ ter) oi Pel eg, and the thirteen listed for Yoktan. Thus Eber cannot be counted among ' 1 the seventy nations," nor can Canaan, for that matter, ior it will not do to count him t w i c e — o n c e as a self-standing ethnological entity, and once as embod‫־׳‬ ied in his eleven descendant ethno-polities. A n d the same holds true tor other progenitors, such, as Japheth ,s son Gomer, and Egypt (particularly in regard to Philistines and Caphtorites) and Cush. T h e m e n t i o n of these last two brings up yet another peculiarity, which is that in a tree that is not so much a genealogy as a table of nations and their national offshoots, out of a total of seventy names, there are three pairs of identical names. Egypt produces a Lud and his uncle Shem does likewise. Cush produces a grandson Sheba, and his uncle Shem produces a Sheba in the fourth generation. A n d , furthermore, t h e Cushite Sheba has an uncle Havila, while the Shemite Sheba has a brother Havila. Or can it be that the framer of our table knows of a single Sheba and a single Havila in that neighborhood where H ami tes and Shemites abut one another, and that he is signaling that to sort out the true ancestry of these two is a task beyond his capability or, perhaps, desire? We will yet come across similar ancestral perplexities in succeeding genealogies. Before, we turn to our next structure, which is not only a genealogy but a chronology as well, let us note t h e last two verses in this chapter. Verse 31 is a coda summing up the beget tings of Shem, as verses 5 and 20 did respectively for the lines of Japheth and Ilam. Verse is the summational coda for the beget tings of all three. "These are the families of the sons ol Noah -in respect to their begettings, by their national entities- ----yes, irom these did the nations branch out on earth alter the I )elugc." Yes, from these, which is to say the sons oi Noah, he the second Adam, do all h u m a n societies—whatever their political configurations, however they trace their ethnicities -derive. A n d that moral (if not demonstrable biologic 01‫ ־‬historic) reality is, like the derivation of N o a h from the line oi Seth and Enosh (Humanity), t h e implicit kerygma of this structure. G E N E A L O G I E S C O N T I N U E D : T H E LINE OF

SHEM

(10) T h e s e are t h e issue of S h e m , S h e m [then] 100 years old. H e sired A r p a c h s h a d two years after t h e Deluge. (11) A f t e r siring A r p a c h s h a d h e lived ‫ף‬gc years. H e sired [additional] sons, and daughters. ( 1 2 ) N o w A r p a c h s h a d lived 35 years. H e sired S h e l a h . (13) A l t e r siring S h e l a h , A r p a c h s h a d lived 4 0 3 years. H e sired [additional] sons, a n d daughters. (14) N o w S h e l a h lived 3 0 years. Lie sired Eber. (15) A f t e r siring Eher, S h e l a h lived 4 0 3 years. H e sired [additional] sons, and d a u g h t e r s . (16) Eber lived 34 years. H e sired Peleg. ( 1 7 ) A f t e r siring Peleg Eher lived 4 3 0 years. H e sired [additional] sons, and daughters. (18) Peleg lived 3 0 years. H e sired Reu. (19) A f t e r siring Reu, Peleg lived 209 years. H e sired [additional] sons, and daughters. (20) R e u lived 32 years. H e sired Serug. (21) A f t e r siting Serug, R e u lived 207 years. H e sired [additional] sons, and daughters, (22) Serug lived 30 years. 1 le sired N a h o r , (2 j) A l l e r s i n n g Nuhor, Seniü lived 200 years, ί le sired |;1dd1l 10nal| .sous, and daughters.

STRUCTURES AS A BIBLICAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

319

(24) Nahor lived 29 years. He sired Terah. (25) After siring Terah, Naher lived 119 years. He sired [additional] sons, and daughters. (26) Terah lived 70 years. He sired Abram, Nahor and Haran — (27) Now these are the issue of 1er ah: Terah sired Ahram, Nahor and Haran; and Haran now sired Lot. (2S) Haran died in the lifetime of his father Terah, in the land of his birth, in Ur Kasdim. (29) Abram and Nahor took themselves wives, the name of Abram's wife Sarai, and the name of Nahor's wife Milcah daughter of Haran, [he] father of Milcah and [also] father of Iscah. (30) Sarai was barren, had no child whatsoever. . . . ( 32) Terah s lifetime was 205 years. Terah died in Haran. (Genesis 11:10-30, 32) T h e figurative nature of the seventy descendant names of t h e three lines of N o a h as detailed in C h a p t e r ί ο is underscored by t h e genealogy in Chapter 11. in C h a p t e r io, although the thirteen descendants of Yoktan are given, the line of his brother Peleg is not. Peleg, w hose name means Division or Split, was so n a m e d for it was ‫ ״‬i n his days that earth ['s population] was split apart:. T h e reference is, of course, to the event at Rahel that follows the genealogy in Ghapter ‫ ז‬ο — t h e disso‫׳‬ lution of h u m a n k i n d s u n i t y — a n d is followed by the resumption of S h e m s line through Arpachshad to Peleg, and continues with Peleg s line through the sons of Terah. T h u s metaphor is again signaled hy Peleg s name, for the Great: Di vision could hardly have been foreseen by the parents who named him. All this can he re‫״‬ ν i e w ed i 11 a glance at f 1 gi t re.2- ‫ך‬ 1 have at this point‫ ־‬inserted figure 7‫ ״‬a list of Terah s line, in order to facilitate a grasp of our authors inventiveness in forcing upon our attention the kerygmatic meanings (or at least one ot them) by his disposition of names. Thus the sibling an‫״‬ cestors of two peoples known to the biblical a u t h o r s world, Sheba and Dedan. A s ‫׳‬ signable to the H a m i te line of Gush or t h e Shemite line of Arpachshad-Yoktan, as we saw‫ ׳׳‬before, was Sheba. (figure 7-2) But now the siblings Sheba and Dedan are both seen as assigned to the Ha mite line in Figure 7-2, and in Figure 7-3 appear as grandchildren, descendants of our own Father Abraham! Such a duplication of a pair of ancestors, some t e n generations apart and in two different branches, can hardly be credibly explaineci as the product of an absentminded author (or one consciously yet slavishly tied to his "source") whose inat‫״‬ tention (or slavishness) is not caught hy his dull-sighted (or equally slavish) editor. But even if such explanation were not, as Lewis Carroll would have put it, too m u c h of a muchness, this duplication is n o t provided for its own sake. Dedan is not a p r o m i n e n t biblical ethnos (although Isaiah in 21:13 H s t s Dedanites among steppe ‫׳‬-travel ing caravaneers), and Sheba, better known—especially for her q u e e n s liaison with Solomon — impinges but slightly upon Israelite or Judean neighbors. But this duplicated pair in branches and generations so far apart is but a signal to a far more perplexing duplication of ethnic lines far more closely tied to Israel s patriarchs. Thus in Figure 72‫״‬, Arpachshad^ brother is Aram, and Aram is father to Uz (the land of Job, he great among the Keclemites). Yet in Figure 7-3, Uz is the first‫״‬ born oi Abram's brother Nahor. I his Uz has no children, hut he does have two brothers. O n e is Kescd, obviously eponymous ancestor of the Kasel im. T h e other is Ketnucl, who sires a HHI, .Aram. 1 bus the Aram, father of Uz in Figure 7-2 is the

TERAH

Abram m. Hagar

Abram m. Ketura Zimran

Ishmael Nebaioth

Adbiel | Misiima "j M as a

Kedar Mibsam

Tema j Napish

Duma Hadad Yetur

;

j

Medan

Yokshan

Yishbak

Midian

Sheba

Kedma

H ara!

j

I

Milca

Shauh

!

Epha I Enoch j Eldaa I I Epher Ab id a

Dedan

'

Yisca

Lot

! Moab

:

j

Amnion

Ashurim j Leumirn Letushim A b r a m m. Sara

Nahor m. Milca

Uz ! Remuel

Isaac m Rebecca

Hazo

Tidlap

!

Esau (Edom) m. Ada

leman

Zepho

Omar

Dan

Reue!

~Kenäz~

G a'ta m

Jacobdïï.Tïrach&L _ __ __

Es au m. Bosnian!

Eliphaz

Zerah

I bsau m Obolibama

j

Kotah

Naphiai

Benj am in

lacob m. Leah Lev

Reuben

Kehath

YaMnm

‫ ־‬m. A m ram Moses

Aaron

Simeon FIGURE 7 - 3 T h e Lines of T e r a h

I Pildasii

Bcthuel

"‫ ~־ ~ ~ ״‬Rebecca j

Menasseh

M1‫־‬:a |

Aram Kesed

Ephraim j

N a h a t h • Shama

Amalek

Yeush

Joseph

L aba i!

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIBLICAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

321

A r a m , n e p h e w of Uz in Figure 7-3. But t h a t is n o t all. Uz in Figure 7-3 has a b r o t h e r n a m e d Bethuel, t h e father of Rehecca and Laban, and this B e t h u e b like his son Laban, is identified by t h e gentilic "the Aramean," which would seem a p p r o p n ate only to t h e children of the A r a m who is their n e p h e w and cousin (Genesis 25:20, 28:5, 3 1:30, 3 ‫ נ‬:24).

Till·: C H R O N O L O G I E S O F T H E L I N E S O F S E T H A N D

SHEM

! d i e genealogy of A d a m in t h e line of C a i n in C h a p t e r 4 is assigned by modern scholarship to t h e a u t h o r or source labeled J. T h e o t h e r three genealogies are, except for a lew interpolations attributed to J, all assigned to t h e Priestly Source, or Ρ for short. T h e s e three are: 1) T h e line of A d a m t h r o u g h S e t h in C h a p t e r 5 : 2 ) T h e line of N o a h t h r o u g h his three sons in C h a p t e r 10; 3) T h a t line of S e t h w h i c h ends in A b r a m in C h a p t e r 11. Of these three, t h e first and t h e last provide details of chronology, t h e middle o n e does n o t . T h e reason for t h e absence of such detail in this second genealogy is, or o u g h t to be, obvious. As t h e r e is n o chronology for t h e line of C a i n , w h i c h comes to a n abrupt e n d in t h e all-destroying Deluge, so in t h e case of t h e line of all m a n k i n d — a s k n o w n to, or imaginatively c o n s t r u c t e d by, t h e biblical w r i t e r s — t h e r e is n o compelling reason for c h r o n o l o g y S c r i p t u r e s interest in chronology relates to t h e line of A d a m as it culminates in N o a h , as N o a h s culminates in A b r a m . T h i s is why t h e third genealogy resumes the line of S h e m and c o n t i n u e s it, w i t h chronological detail, t h r o u g h Ebers son, Peleg (but not Ebehs son, Yoktan), until t h e g e n e r a t i o n of A b r a m . It is also why these genealogies m a k e it explicit t h a t e a c h progenitor h a d o t h e r children, who are n o t n a m e d because our interest is n o t in ancillary lines. ( T h e existence of these o t h e r children, their progeny not explicitly included in t h e categories of t h e names making up t h e Table of N a t i o n s in C h a p t e r 10 fcf. Genesis 48:5—6] is, of course, yet ancither signal as to t h e metaphoric nature of that table/genealogy.) Rut why t h e need for chronology altogether? Source-critics h a v e assumed that priests — for a reason t h a t is as obvious 1.0 them as it is u n f a t h o m a b l e to us-—are hy nature interested in chronology, at least to a degree not shared by the laity. A n d so, by a process ot circular reasoning, they are satisfied that a priestly source, which is by definition c o n c e r n e d with chronology, should take1 pains to preserve and transmit chronological details. But chronology is either i n v e n t e d by h u m a n s , in which case t h e numbers may constitute a cipher, a message in c o d e — w r i t t e n hy h u m a n s for o t h e r h u m a n s to d e c i p h e r — o r it is d e t e r m i n e d by G o d , t h e A u t h o r of life and d e a t h ; and h u m a n s h a v e faithfully preserved t h e record in t h e h o p e t h a t God's motives in prolonging o n e life and s h o r t e n i n g a n o t h e r may o n e day be discerned. T h e numbers in these lists h a v e b e e n studied over t h e centuries w i t h less t h a n gratifying results. T h e most insightful conclusions appear in a n c i e n t rabbinic com m en-‫׳‬ taries called midrash, but since so m u c h of this literature is playful and frankly eisegeticah they h a v e b e e n largely overlooked by scholars. T h e least conclusive resuits h a v e b e e n yielded by studies employing computers. O n t h e assumption t h a t the chronology is as m u c h part of t h e biblical message as the narratives for which it provides the framework, we h a v e reduced the data to graphic form in table 7-1. T h e m e t h o d of t h e biblical genealogist is to give the age

. A:;LE 7‫ ! ׳‬Chronologies, Adam to Joseph Enosli

Kenan

Mahalalel

Jared

Enoch

Methusela

Lamech

I.OO 130

150 250

235

300 350

325

395

400

460

45c

500

55° (930) 600 622

ζ9Γ2)

650 700

(9Ö5)

(9Ï3)

750

Soo

(Jg)

850 900 950

874 930

IOOO 1050

987 1042

I IOO 1 I 50

I 140

1200 1250 1300

(9Ô9) 1235 1290

1350 1400 1450

1422

(777)

Noah

Shem

Arpachshad

Shelah

Eber

Peleg

Reu

Serug

Nahor

Terah

Abram

Isaac

Jacob

Joseph

<2B>

‫׳‬.«‫פ‬ ,_658

vm ‫־‬787

m

<4§‫ג‬ (®‫ג‬

CSD

—

2126 2187

<5‫פ‬

—

»83

cm> —

2123 <2E> 2228

m

3<2‫כ‬

STRUCTURES

of cach progenitor at t h e time he sired t h e one son who c o n t i n u e s this o n e line ot many. Starting with zero lor t h e day oi A d a m s birth, we have t h e n t h e descending step arrangement, which gives us t h e birth-year of each generation. But the g e n e a b ogist also tells us how many years the progenitor lived after siring this son. H e thereby makes it possible fur us to plot t h e year of each g e n e r a t i o n s death. In C h a p t e r 3, the text also provides t h e total lifetime ot each generation, thus e m p h a sizing a significance implicit in these data, while C h a p t e r 11, leaving to us t h e addit ion. necessary to arrive at t h e total lifetime, underlines the redundancy., h e n c e t h e significance, of these data. Just w h a t is t h a t significance: T h e circled numbers in t h e table represent t h e total lifetimes of t h e individuals listed. W h a t significance c a n t h e r e be to such data as, for example, t h a t t h e otherwise unremarkable M e t h uselah outlived t h e n e x t longest-lived, N o a h , by n i n e t e e n years, while N o a h lived t w e n t y years more t h a n did Adam. 7 T h e answer, 1 suggest, lies in the o n e feature t h a t would be impossible to retrieve unless b o t h birth-year and year of death were given: t h e overlap of lifetimes, a feature w i t h w h i c h t h e Rabbis play in midrash, and w h i c h modern scholarship has largely ignoted, it is this feature that yields a significant pattern. How many generations of descendants did a given ancestor live to see/ T h e numbers are given at the b o t t o m of t h e columns. Thus, for example, A d a m was still alive w h e n Lamech, the eighth generation after A d a m , was born; indeed it was only in the fi ity-sixth year of Lamech s lite t h a t A d a m died. Lamech, however, witnessed the smallest number of his descend ants ‫ י‬generations. H e lived to see his grandchild S h e m (and, of course, H a m and Japheth also). T h e Deluge took place in the year 1656, the six hundredth, year of Noah's life, and Lamech died five years before that. Since Noah's sons had n o children until after the flood, poor Lantech alone in the first ten generations was denied t h e joy oi great-grandchildren. Alone, that is, except for his own grandfather Enoch, who, shortest-lived by tar ol the first generations, died before a child was born to Lamech. T h e pattern is clear: earlier ancestors witnessed the larger number ol descendants. the later ones the fewest, with hut o n e exception, E n o c h - ‫ ־‬- t h e righteous! 1 lie next ten generations are f r o m S h e m to A b r a m . T h i s second scries 0( gen er‫•׳‬ at ions is distinguished from t h e first series in. t h e m a t t e r of longevity. S h e m , t h e longest-lived, has a lifetime only two-thirds of the average lifetime of his ρ rede cessors; and as his line continues, t h e lifetimes of his descendants show a pattern of decline so t h a t A b r a m , in t h e t e n t h generation, enjoys n o t e v e n a third of t h e span of years t h a t were granted to S h e m . T h e decline in lifetimes is fairly regular. T h e o n e e x c e p t i o n is Abram's grandfather N a h o r , whose lifetime is the shortest in these t e n generations. A n d N a h o r — l i k e E n o c h before h i m — i s also t h e one e x c e p t i o n in t h e p a t t e r n of t h e declining numbers of d e s c e n d a n t generations t h a t t h e ancestors live t o see. N o a h , t h e t e n t h g e n e r a t i o n from A d a m , lived to see t h e t e n t h gene r a t i o n of his descendants. S h e m saw eleven. A n d t h e n again t h e p a t t e r n is o n e of decline. Te rah and A b r a m and N a h o r only live to see grandchildren, while all their predecessors lived to see at least great-great-grandchildren. Long life and n u m e r o u s offspring are in Scripture t h e most desirable of blessings. Proverbs 16:31 says, "Hoary age is a glorious crown, to be achieved by righteous living," while Proverbs 17:6 affirms, " G r a n d c h i l d r e n are t h e crown ot the elderly."

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIBLICAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

325

In Psalm 127, such blessings are traced to t h e Source of all life: " C h i l d r e n are a legacy from Y H W H , t h e fruit of t h e w o m b is reward. Like arrows in a warriors h a n d , so are children of [ones] youth. F o r t u n a t e t h e o n e w h o has a quiver full of t h e m 1 4 ‫ ״‬T h e declining felicity, t h e n , in e a c h of t h e series of t e n generations, would seem to he an indication of declining merit or virtue. It is questionable w h e t h e r the biblical authors would h a v e w a n t e d us to draw as a necessary conclusion t h a t the individuals of t h e second set of t e n generations w e r e — a s judged by their so much shorter lifetimes so greatly inferior in virtue to those in the first set of ten. T h o u g h t h e lifetime of S h e m is considerably less t h a n that of his predecessors, Shem like his father Noah—•dived to see more generations of his descendants t h a n did A d a m . T h e pattern is there, t h e pattern is suggestive, but. it must not he read mechanically, literally, 01‫ ־‬as a o n e - t o - o n e correspondence between evidence of reward and assumption of comparable virtue. T h e Sumerian King List, preserved by S e m i t i c heirs of S u m e r i a n culture, attribut.es lifetimes averaging more t h a t thirty t h o u s a n d years to t h e kings w h o reigned before t h e flood. T h e long lifetimes of t h e biblical antediluvians is certainly reflet‫׳׳‬tive of that M e s o p o t a m i a n tradition. But w h a t e v e r those monstrous lifetimes s ν 111b o l u e d to t h e Mesopotamians, t h e biblical tradition has incorporated t h e feature of longevity, modified it to a more reasonable scale, and adapted it for its own metaphotic purpose. Enoch, w h o lived fewer years by far t h a n those before or after him, a n d w h o saw n o great grandchildren, is singled out for n o t i c e in 5:24: "Enoch was faithful to [literally, "walked with"] G o d — a n d disappeared, for G o d had t a k e n him." H e r e is a n explicit warning n o t to read t h e signs mechanically: E n o c h may h a v e been t h e most virtuous of t h e first t e n for all his brief career. Similarly, we h a v e n o reason to assume t h a t N a h o r , A b r a m s short-lived grandfather, died young for his sins. I h a v e added Isaac, Jacob, a n d Joseph to my graphic figure for a n u m b e r of teasons. For o n e , it was necessary to show t h a t A b r a m lived only to see grandchildren, in this respect like his f a t h e r before h i m , and Isaac and Jacob after him. Yet his son Isaac lived five years longer t h a n h e did, and his grandson Joseph lived to see greatgrandchildren. A n d it is by n o accident t h a t we c o m e by this last item of information. T h e p e n u l t i m a t e n o t i c e about Joseph in t h e last c h a p t e r of Genesis is t h a t he lived to see t h e grandchildren of b o t h his sons: "Joseph saw t h e third generation, of (his] descendants, !grandchildren] of Ephraim; and, as well, t h e children ot M a c h i r son of iVlanasseh were born on J o s e p h s knees" (30:23). A f t e r A b r a m , we must: reconstruct t h e overlap of the generations tiom widely scattered notices. But we must r e m e m b e r t h a t t h e notices arc provided in the text, and provided for us to use and to draw those conclusions that. our wits may const rue. T h u s , for example, in 21:5, A b r a h a m was o n e h u n d r e d years old w h e n Isaac was born; in 23:26, Isaac was sixty w h e n t h e twins Esau and Jacob were born. In t h e case of Jacob and Joseph, we are n o t informed of J a c o b s age at: t h e time t h a t Joseph was born. But we c a n arrive at t h e year by working backward from data that is supplied, and supplied in so apparently o f f - h a n d e d a m a n n e r as to conceal that its purpose is to make our calculation possible. T h u s , for example, the curious notice in 41:46 t h a t Joseph was thirty years old w h e n h e b e c a m e vicerov of Egypt. From the

3<2‫כ‬

STRUCTURES

ages of A b r a m w h e n Isaac was b o r n and t h e age of Isaac w h e n che twins were h o r n we get 2108 as t h e year of Jacob's birth. In 47:28 we are given the total lifetime of Jacob as 147, t h e last s e v e n t e e n years spent in Egypt. Jacob, t h e n , died in 2255, a n d c a m e t o Egypt in 2238. In 45:11 Joseph m e n t i o n s to his brothers t h a t there are yet five years of t h e f a m i n e to come. Since h e came to office at t h e age of thirty, and seven years of plenty and two years of famine h a v e passed, he is t h e n thirtyn i n e years old, and must h a v e b e e n b o r n in 2199. In t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n to t h e flood, w h i c h features t h e miscegenation of male diν inities and h u m a n w o m e n resulting in t h e births of the "mighty m e n ot r e n o w n in time of yore,'1 G o d determines to set a n upper limit of τ20 years to the h u m a n lifetime. T h i s notice can hardly be disassociated from t h e antediluvians' longevity, hut the limit does not take effect immediately. O n t h e contrary, t h e ten post-diluvians' lifetimes decline from t h e 600 years ot S h e m to the 17s years of A b r a m . Yet Isaac lives five nuire years than did his father A b r a m ; and Jacob, t h e last of the patriarchs— who, at the age of 1 50 years characterizes t h e m to Pharaoh as h a v i n g been "few and hard," and prophetically, "nor do they come up ft) the lifespans of my fathers" •‫־‬is already t e n years past t h e 120-year limit w h e n he comes d o w n to Egypt. Joseph is t h e first Israelite ancestor w h o falls w i t h i n t h e limit; h e dies at the age of 11 o. But t h a t there c a n be n o o n e - t o - o n e correspondence consistently drawn from longevity to virtue is indicated by t h e age reported in Exodus 6 for J o s e p h s b r o t h e r Levi (137). A m r a m is t h e f a t h e r of A a r o n , w h o lived to t h e age of 123 ( N u m b e r s 33:39), and of Moses w h o (according to D e u t e r o n o m y 34:7) died in t h e prime of life (at t h e divinely decreed limit), at t h e age of 120, "his eyes und im med, his vitality undiminished." A n u m b e r of o t h e r conclusions of p i q u a n t interest may be d r a w n from a study of our c h r o n i c l e r s chronology. M e t h u s e l a h , t h e longest-lived ot all, dies in 1656, t h e six h u n d r e d t h year of N o a h ' s life, w h i c h is t h e year of t h e Deluge. A r e we to understand t h a t h e died in t h a t cataclysm, or was saved from stich a fate by a n a t u r a l d e a t h at t h e age of 969? Perhaps more meaningful is t h e d e a t h of Isaac in 2 228, twelve years after Joseph was sold into slavery (at the age of seventeen; cf. 37:2) a n d t e n years before Jacob's r e u n i o n w i t h his son in Egypt. T h e last verses of C h a p ter 35, w h i c h tell u s — a t t h e end of t h e Jacob story, before t h e Joseph story beg i n s — o f Isaac s last breath, also tell us t h a t "Jacob came to his father Isaac . . at H e b r o n where Isaac "was gathered to his kin in ripe old age; and h e was buried by his sons Esau and J a c o b " But what about his wife and their mother, R e b e k a h / T h e biblical author who takes pains to tell us (in p^aS) of t h e d e a t h and burial of Deb()rah, Rehekah's nurse, does not see fit to tell us a n y t h i n g of R e h e k a h s own demise. A p p a r e n t l y the m o t h e r w h o took it upon herself to delude her husband Isaac, to instigate the younger twin to steal his elder b r o t h e r s blessing, died before Jacob returned from his exile in P a d d a n - A r a m . For h e r intrigue, she saw one son turn against the o t h e r in murderous rage, and h e r favorite son take flight from t h a t wrath, n e v e r for her to set: eyes o n h i m again; while I s a a c — w h o t h o u g h t himself clo>e to d e a t h w h e n h e undertook to bless his eldest son — lived on tor many years, lived to witness Jacob s loss of a son (blessed irony not to know t h a t this loss too owed t o brothers' w r a t h ) and died knowing that: b o t h his sons, now reconciled, would be there to close his eyes and lay h i m to rest.

S T R U C T U R E S AS A B I B L I C A L LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

327

So m u c h for the poetic unity of structural p a t t e r n s and narrative plotting across t h e chapters ot (as well as across "the d o c u m e n t s " or "sources" of) Genesis, a n d indeed of Exodus, as well as consistency of voice in diese books and in t h e Books of Psalms and Proverbs. The above examples, however, tar trom exhaust‫ ־‬t h e intricate play of numbers and narrative in Scripture's literary art. T h e following section will present two examples ot how chronological items, genealogical redundancy (and even narrative strategy in dialogic "shewing" and authorial "telling") can provide allusive plot elements jusi w h e n ‫ ׳‬a less t h a n respectful critic finds n o t h i n g or an egregiously pointless detail.

C H R O N O L O G Y AS C L U E T O N A R R A T I V E : T H E M I S S I N G IN JACOB'S

YEARS

LIFE

W h i l e working out the chronology of Jacob's life, I came up w i t h two questions I could n o t answer. O n e of these had to do w i t h a period of years during w h i c h 1 could n o t a c c o u n t tor t h e patriarch's whereabouts. Recalling a Talmudic tradition about Jacob having studied for a n u m b e r of years in t h e academy of Shem-Eber, 1 looked up t h a t tradition, and found t h a t t h e rabbis h a d c o m e up w i t h a solution to my problem t h a t at first glance seemed e v e n more fanciful t h a n 1 remembered, and w h i c h u p o n second t h o u g h t seemed worthy of serious consideration as to t h e intriguing i n t e n t ot S c r i p t u r e s chronology and généalogie formulations. 1 will present my o w n reasoning a n d t h e argument of t h e Talmud. To help t h e reader follow t h e two tracks ot similar but different steps, 1 h a v e prepared table 7-2. T h e items in t h e l e f t - h a n d c o l u m n show my own reconstruction, those in t h e r i g h t - h a n d colu m n t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e rabbis. T h e dates in t h e l e f t - h a n d c o l u m n are those 1 arrived at on my own; there is n o discrepancy b e t w e e n any of these dates and t h e rabbinic calculations. T h e dares in t h e r i g h t - h a n d c o l u m n are those arrived at by the rabbis; here, too, there is n o discrepancy with my calculai ions. Most of my date-items, as arrived at, are discussed in t h e preceding sections. Item 6 is based on 26:34, t h e n o t i c e that Esau was forty years old w h e n he took his first two wives. Assuming that a year intervened b e t w e e n t h e two marriages, 1 assuiucd further that he was iorty at the lime of his first marriage. N o serious effect o n my calculations would be occasioned by h a v i n g t h e second marriage take place at his age forty and in t h e year 2149 for t h e year. W h a t is n e w 111 my table 7-2 are items ι r - 2 5 , dates at w h i c h I arrived by working backward from item 25. T h e year 2206 for Jacob's flight irom Laban was arrived at o n t h e basis of 30:25: Jacob's address to Laban comes after t h e birth of Joseph, at t h e e n d of his f o u r t e e n years of service for his wives, and it results in six additional years of service for wages (in kind). T h i s total of fourteen plus six is explicit in 31:41, a n d t h e date, six years after J o s e p h s birth, is confirmed by t h e date of 2201 for Joseph's birth, at w h i c h I had arrived on the basis of o t h e r notices. 1 5 T h e birth of Jacob's twelve c h i l d r e n (eleven sons and one daughter (told in 2 9 : 3 1 - 3 0 : 2 4 ) was t h e n plotted backward, allowing for one birth a year, resulting in Reuben's b i r t h in 2x88, t h r e e years after Jacob's arrival at Paclan A r a m , and Levi's birth in 2190. H a d we begun with 2 185, and h a d Reuben been born in 2186, t h e n Levi would have b e e n b o r n in 2:1 T h e dates are a p p r o x i m a t e ( ± 2 ) and need n o t be any more exact. T h e crucial prob-

3<2‫כ‬

STRUCTURES TARLB 7 - 2

Date* Derived from Text 1. Abram born

Rabbinical Tradition

le 9 4 8

2. lshmael born 3. Isaac born 4. Jacob born (also Esau) 5. Abraham dies 6. Esau mamc> (first 2 wives)

2035 2048 2I08 (2a 23) 2149 ?

7. Isaac's Blessing 8. Esau's third marriage

2171 2171 2171

7

9. lshmael dies 10. Jacob leave,·, Eber 11. J aco b arri ν es e h e : L a b a η 12. Eber dies 13. Reuben is hern ί 1} (to Leah) 14. Simeon is born (2) (to Leah) 15. Levi is b o n i (3) (to Leah) 16. Judah is born (4) (to Leah)

2185 2185 (2187)

2 I()!

17. Dan is b o m (5) (to Bilhah) 18, Naphtah is born (6) (to Β11 h a h )

2 1 92 2 ‫ ץ‬93

19. Gad is born (7) (to Ziipard

21

20. Asher is born (8) (to Zilp-ah) 2 1. Issat bar is horn (0) it 1 ‫ ׳‬Leah) 22. Zebulon is born ( 10) (to Leah) 2 5. ί ‫)־‬mall is bora (11) (to Leah) 24. Joseph is born (12) (to Rachel) J v Jacob leaves Lahaa j(‫ו‬. Joseph is sold 27. 28. 29. 30.

Isaac dies Joseph becomes viceroi Jacob comes to Egypt Jacob dies

2187

2188 2189 2190

94 2H>S 2 J 96 2197 2 I q8 21

‫ל‬ 2 2 Ï (‫ו‬ (2228) 2229 2238 2255

lern is that, since t h e last n o t i c e before Isaacs blessing of his sons is t h a t of Esau's marriages at the age of forty (item 6), we h a v e a period of thirty-six years b e t w e e n t h a t date and t h e year of J a c o b s arrival at P a d a n A r a m . If t h e Blessing occurred in 2 1 4 9 — a n d Jacob's flight from h o m e a few days after it is a narrative n e c e s s i t y — where did Jacob spend those thirty-six years? T h e a l t e r n a t i v e — t h a t t h e Blessing occurred in 2185 -would seem an acceptable one, indeed t h e acceptable one, were it n o t for two notices t h a t I h a d ignored, but which t h e rabbis h a d not. O n e is t h a t Esau takes a third wife, the daughter of U n c l e lshmael, immediately after Jacob is sent packing n o r t h w a r d to U n c l e Lab an o n t h e pretext t h a t otherwise h e m i g h t follow brother Esau's example and take a H i t t i t e wife ( 2 7 : 4 6 - 2 8 : 9 ) . A second notice is t h e gratuitous detail of lshmael's d e a t h at t h e age of 137 (25:17), T h i s detail, coming at t h e end of Ishmael's d e s c e n d a n t clans, i s — f o r e x a m p l e — w i t h o u t corres p o n d e n c e for Esau m the listing of his tribal and clan d e s c e n d a n t s in C h a p t e r 36. A s e c o n d g r a t u i t o u s d e t a i l n o t e d hy t h e r a b b i s is t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Isluuael s d a u g h t e r , t a k e n it! marriage by Esau, as b e i n g t h e sister of h e r eldest b r o t h e r N e ‫׳‬ h a i o t h (2S:t;). Let us n o w i v v i e w t h e r a b b i n i c a c c o u n t

in Bab.

lab Mcgilluh

17a

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIBLICAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

329

( t h e Talmud speaks only in terms of age; I will provide t h e year from creation in parentheses, as well as c h a p t e r and verse in Genesis): W h y does Scripture give us the years of Ishmaels life ? We are told that Ishmael was 14 years older than Isaac, in that Ahr am was 86 w h e n Hagar bore Ishmael (16:16) and 100 w h e n Isaac was born (21:5). Since Isaac was 60 \ cars old w h e n the twins were born (25:26), Ishmael was t h e n 74. Inasmuch as he died, at the age of 137 (25:17), h e had 63 years to go. A tradition is t h e n cited that Jacob was 63 years old w h e n his fa‫׳‬ ther blessed him. (That year of the Blessing coincides then with the year of ishinael's death, 2171.) !Whence, now, the tradition of the year ol the Blessing.'J We are told that j i 11 the year of the Blessingl h va υ took Ishmi-icTs daughter Mahalath, she being the sister of Nebaioth (28:6- y). W h y this m e n t i o n of her lather's eklest son and the un‫׳‬ necessary reminder that he was her brother? The answer i.s that Esau proposed the marriage to Ishmael who agreed to afiiance her to his nephew. W h e n the time came to !oh low up t h e b e t r o t h a l with t h e consuumiat ing marriage, Ishmael had died and N e b a i o t h (now head, of the family) gave h e r in marriage. J a c o b was with Laban 14 years when Joseph was born ( 30:25). If we add 63 (Jacobs age in the year of Blessing) to this 14(th year of residence with Laban) we get 77. Joseph was 30 w h e n he became viceroy (41:46). 77 + 30 = 107, A d d 9 to this t o t a l — 7 years of plenty and 2 years of famine w h e n Jacob came to Egypt ( 4 5 : 6 ) — a n d you have 116 as Jacob's age w h e n h e came to Egypt. But his age that year is explicitly given as 130 (47:9). W e therefore have 14 years to account for, between the year of Blessing ( 2 1 7 1 ) , [which was the year of departure from home] and his arrival at U n c l e Laban's in Padan Aram. H e spent those years with grandfather (in the 8th generation) Eber. A s we have been taught: Two years after Jacob left for Aram Ν ah ara im, Eber died. [That y e a r — s e e the chart in Table 7 - 2 — w a s 2187. two years after Jacobs arrival, 2185.) 1 7 This jibes with another tradition—that Jacob (63 w h e n blessed) was 77 when he stood by the well near Haran (chapter 29).

So m u c h for t h e rabbinic tradition. It answers all t h e questions. It explains t h e reason for two seemingly pointless elates and one pointless kinship explication. If we do n o t , for all this, find it c o n v i n c i n g (or e v e n persuasive), it stands as a c h a b lenge for us to better. If we do find it plausible, we might wonder: Did t h e rabbis receive t h e sacred scripts together w i t h a c o m p l e m e n t i n g oral commentary? O r did they t o o make inferences after the closest of readings, readings t h a t — i f n o t informed by a consciously detailed poetical methodology-—were at t h e least: based on an assumption of t h e unity and thrift oi Scripture's formulations‫׳‬

HOW

F O U R H U N DRE Π YEARS C A N

EQUAL

F O U R (‫ ־‬E N E R A T I O N S

In t h e t r e a t m e n t of t h e C o v e n a n t between t h e Parts (Genesis 1 5), I deferred consideration of Y H W H ' s warning to A b r a m t h a t the fulfillment of t h e promise of felie ity entailed a dread period of suffering for his posterity, bor four h u n d r e d years they will be aliens "in a land n o t their own"•—will be subject for those long four centuries to degrading servitude. Y H W H will, however, pass j u d g m e n t o n t h e oppressing host population, and "the f o u r t h g e n e r a t i o n [of Abram's posterity! will ret u r n hither." T h e word dör "gene rat ion''' may be a referent for twenty years (from birth to mature nubility) or for t h e seventy years of a normal life-span; not, however, for o n e h u n d r e d years. H e n c e the problem of squaring four h u n d r e d years

3<2‫כ‬

STRUCTURES

with a return to C a n a a n in or by t h e fourth generation, a problem t h a t has n e v e r b e e n satisfactorily resolved. A n o t h e r o u t s t a n d i n g p r o b l e m in c o n n e c t i o n with this η umher, four hundred years, is that it is discrepant with Exodus 12 where, in a pointedly r e d u n d a n t repetition, the sojourn in Egypt: is given as 430 years: (40) The stay now ol‫ ־‬the Israelites which they stayed in Hgypt was 430 years.} (41) A1 ihe e η 11 of 4^0 years — yes it was at this exact time- -did all oi' YHWH's hosts ranke exit Irniu the land of Egypt. (Exodus 1 2 : 4 0 - 4 1 )

I will t e n d to this second problem, it being t h e easier of t h e two, first; but b o t h problems require me to reproduce a n u m b e r of significant dates from table 7-2, with t h e addition of a last item, t h e date for Joseph's death, the basis for w h i c h is provided in Genesis 50:22, t h e years of J o s e p h s lifetime: 2108 2199

Jacob is born. Joseph is born.

2216 2229 2238 2255 2309

Joseph is sold. Joseph becomes viceroy. Jacob and his sons come to Egypt. Jacob dies. Joseph dies.

T h e answer to t h e second question, t h e discrepancy b e t w e e n t h e four h u n d r e d years of Genesis 15 a n d t h e 430 years of Exodus 1 2 : 4 0 - 4 1 , is t h a t there is n o dis‫׳‬ crepancy at all. T h e n u m b e r four h u n d r e d refers explicitly to the period of servitude, t h e n u m b e r 4 3 0 refers t o t h e n u m b e r of years of the Egyptian sojourn. T h u s t h e date of t h e exodus, 430 years after J a c o b s arrival in Egypt, is 2 668. T h e figure of four h u n d r e d years for t h e period of servitude, however, makes it possible to date t h e beginning of t h a t oppression, thirty years after J a c o b s arrival in Egypt, to t h e year 2268, t h i r t e e n years after J a c o b s d e a t h . Joseph was t h e n sixty‫׳‬nine years old and would live a n o t h e r forty-one years, during which h e would witness the evil consequences of his brothers' having sold h i m into slavery; his brother Levi, w h o — a s we have seen-----was eleven years older t h a n Joseph and w h o died at t h e age of 137, would wdtness this retribution lor itltyseven years. '1 hat this is built i n t o t h e narrative plot is confirmed by two notices. 111 C h a p t e r 40 we are told of J a c o b s d e a t h b e d wish to be buried in t h e ancestral cave in M a e h p e l a h field. More t h a n half of t h e following c h a p t e r is devoted to t h e fulfillment ol that wish, with P h a r a o h himself giving Joseph a n d his b r e t h r e n leave to be part of t h e burial cortege. Joseph himself is denied similar honors, as surely as h e would h a v e welcomed t h e m . W h e n in 50:24 h e addresses his brothers, h e breaks off his words in mid-sentence, as i f — t o c o n f o r m to t h e classic definition of apos i o p e s i s — r e l u c t a n t to express his t h o u g h t : "I a m about to d i e — a n d may G o d take n o t e of you, and bring you up f r o m this land, to t h e land He swore to A b r a h a m , to Isaac, to Jacob." T h e n e x t verse continues: "Thus did Joseph [in effect] adjure t h e Israelites, 4 [When] G o d takes n o t e of you, t h e n you bring up m ν hones from this 3 T h e reluctance to n a m e t h e land o n c e hospitable, n o w hatetul; t h e reluel a n c e t o c o m p l e t e t h e t h o u g h t or to make explicit t h e adjuration — for the Israclit.es could hardly bring up t h e bones of all their ancestors who died in Egypt—-

S T R U C T U R E S AS A B I B L I C A L LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

331

all point to t h e m e a n i n g of Exod. t:8, normally rendered, ‫ ״‬A new king arose over Egypt w h o did not k n o w Joseph. 1 ' T h e verb yd ' 1 to h a v e experience of, to c o m e to k n o w " also c o n n o t e s "to acknowledge, k n o w o n e s worth, give preferment t o " A n d this new king h r ought Joseph s prefer nient to an end. T h e rabhts, h a v i n g worked out t h e biblical chronology as we h a v e done, were aware of this meaning, of the sons ol Jacob living to experience t h e c o n s e q u e n c e of their dreadful rivalry. W h a t , to the best: of my knowledge, has n o t b e e n p o i n t e d out is t h e significance of Joseph's petition to t h e Pharaoh, w h o m h e w i l l — a c c o r d i n g to our c a l c u l a t i o n s — p r o b a b l y serve for a n o t h e r t h i r t e e n years. In asking permission to bury his f a t h e r in C a n a a n , Joseph says, "Let me, pray, go up and bury my father, w h e r e a f t e r I shall return" T h e italics, needless to say, are ours. P h a r a o h gives h i m l e a v e — i n t h e s i n g u l a r — t o go up. But t h e n e x t verse informs us t h a t " W h e n Joseph w e n t up to bury his father, there went up w i t h h i m all of P h a r a o h s courtiers, t h e elders (senators, nobles) of his palace and all t h e elders of t h e land of Egypt." A f t e r a verse (8) in hypotactic f o r m u l a t i o n , t h e narrator continues, " A n d there w e n t up w i t h h i m e v e n horse-and-chariotry, so t h a t t h e army [lit., " e n c a m p m e n t " ] was enormous." T h e hypotactic verse 8 reads, "as well as t h e whole family of Joseph and his brothers, t h a t is his father's entire f a m i l y — o n l y their ;young children, flocks and herds did they leave b e h i n d in t h e G o s h e n territory." N o w these two classes of entities, h u m a n young (tap) and livestock, figure twice in Exodus i o in Pharaoh's vacillating bargaining with Moses as to w h a t hostages Israel is to leave b e h i n d in Egypt as surety for their r e t u r n from their wilderness worship-site. It would seem t h e n from all t h e above t h a t the new king w h o e n d e d Joseph's p r e f e r m e n t h a d already c o m e to t h e t h r o n e by t h e year 2255 w h e n Jacob died. Joseph may already h a v e yielded his v i c c - g e r e n t s sceptre some t h i r t e e n years before tins Pharaoh initiated t h e oppression. W h e t h e r he did or did not d o so is, however, not critical. W h a t is clear from t h e texts, narrative and structure, is that the young and cattle of J a c o b s children were held hostage for the return of t h e brothers to Egypt, a n d t h a t the Egyptian army, which accompanied t h e m to their father's burial-site, was m o r e warden t h a n h o n o r guard. 1 8 FOR T H E R E S O L U T I O N O F t h e problem of four generations equivalent to four h u n d r e d years, we shall h a v e to h a v e recourse to a genealogical passage, Exodus 6 : 1 4 - 2 6 , w h i c h is strange in itself, and strange for its apparently purposeless interruption of narrative flow. It begins with a n a n n o u n c e m e n t t h a t w h a t follows are t h e principal clan's (heit ahöt, resumptively referred to as mispähöt "families") a n d t h e n lists for t h e Reubenites t h e same four names as in Genesis 46:9; t h e n for t h e Simeonites t h e same six n a m e s as 111 Genesis 46:10; t h e n for t h e Levites, t h e same t h r e e n a m e s as in Genesis 46:11. But unlike t h e genealogy in Genesis 46, this list never goes o n to t h e lines of Judah and t h e o t h e r sons of Israel. W h a t follows is t h e lifetime of Levi (127 years), and t h e d e s c e n d a n t s for a few generations of Levis t h r e e sons. In respect to two of L e v i s descendants, their lifetimes are also given: K e h a t h , middle son of Levi, lived 133 years, and A m r a m , son of K e h a t h , lived 137 years.

T h e data of this register appear in figure 7-4. (For reasons that wall appear later, the line of Levi has been supplemented with a single b r a n c h of the line of Judah, one t h a t culminates in Elisheba who, according to Exodus 6:23, became wife to Aaron.)

I ΡVI (lives ! 37 years) Gers hon Lihni

Shimei

chebo

Keharh (lives 133 years)

- M Amram (lives 137 years) Aaron

judah ί Perez i Hezron ! Ram ί A rami nadab Nahshon

Nadab

I

A b ihn

Moses

Ko rab

Assir

Eieazar Ithamar

i le brou

Izhar Napheg

Zieht‫־‬

Abiasaph

Elkanah

EiishebaM FIGURE 7 4 ‫ ׳‬Levi's L i n e i n E x o d u s 6

Mishael

lizzie! 1— Elzaphan

! Mahlt Sithri

‫ך‬ M era ri ‫י‬ ‫ד־״‬ Mushi

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIBLICAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

333

It \v‫־‬c begin t h e count of t h e generations subject to servitude with t h a t of Levi's children, t h e n , t h e third generation that of his great-grandchildren -is t h e generation oi Moses and A a r o n , which died out in t h e wilderness. T h e following gen.eration, that ol Aaron's son and successor bleazar, is the fourth generation that did enter C a n a a n ! As for t h e lifetimes given for Levi, K o h a t h , and A m r a m — 1 3 7 , 133, and j 37, re‫׳‬s p e c t i v e l y — t h e s e add up to 407 years. A s we h a v e seen (table 7-2), Joseph — born in Jacob's f o u r t e e n t h year w i t h Laban—‫״‬is t h e t w e l f t h child born to Jacob. Levi, t h e third born, would h a v e b e e n eleven years older t h a n Joseph, w h i c h would h a v e h i m fifty years old w h e n h e brought his family to Egypt. In c o u n t i n g t h e years of Israelitic residence in Egypt, we should h a v e to subtract these fifty years f r o m the total of 407, as also a year or two from t h e lifetime of K e h a t h , i n a s m u c h as h e and his younger brother Merari were a m o n g those w h o c a m e to Egypt w i t h their father (Genesis 4 6 : 8 - 1 1 ) . T h i s would reduce our total to 356. A d d t h e eighty ν ears of Moses 1 age in t h e year of t h e exodus (Exodus 7:7), and our total is 436 years; t h a t is, t h e 4 3 0 years of residence in Egypt w i t h six years to spare. T h i s margin of six years is, to be sure, a very narrow one, for if K e h a t h s f o u r t h son Uzziel were b o r n posthumously, t h e eldest, A m r a m , could only h a v e b e e n sired three years earlier; t h a t would allow then, for A m r a m himself to sire Moses in his last year, and A a r o n some two years betöre his d e a t h . T h i s is close figuring to be sure, but it docs allow for t h e 430 years of residence in Egypt (along with t h e promised return of ' 1 the f ο ur tli ge n e t a tion"). Had t h e biblical a u t h o r n o t given us these chronological notices, wc should hardly h a v e missed t h e m . H a d h e foreseen t h e conclusions of source-criticism, he might have scattered these notices across Genesis and Exodus in order to fortify an argument (such as ours) tor poetic consistency and unity of authorship. Since such a m o t i v a t i o n is less t h a n likely, wc have to ask again: W h y t h e c h r o n o l o g y ' A n d , if chronology, why such close figuring.'The answer lies in the nature and char a tor of our author's purposes in narrative and the strategies he deploys to these ends. 1 lis purposes are to show, or intimate, the ways of G o d with t h e world of m e n , p a r t i a l larly 1 he ways of YI I W H with t h e c h i l d r e n of Israel, and t h e ways of men, part iculaid y the chosen seed of A b r a h a m , w i t h t h e G o d with w h o m they c o v e n a n t , Y H W H . W h a t e l e m e n t s h e drew for his historical fiction (or is it fictional history ‫)י‬ from a received tradition, w h a t e l e m e n t s were his figments alone, we shall for t h e most part n e v e r know. But where is t h e loss? T h e t r u t h s h e preaches t h r o u g h the n o r m s he teaches and t h e tales h e tells are t h e truths of m e t a p h o r and metaphysics, and n o t t h e facts of annals or arithmetic. A n d his wondrous imagination allows h i m to p o i n t to large generalizations and h i g h levels of abstraction, even as he can marshal numbers: adding and subtracting ages, plotting births and deaths in calendrical succession, sometimes m u n d a n e a n d otiose, sometimes of fantastic coincidence, and well-nigh incredible in terms of statistical probability. Such, I believe, is t h e key to t h e playfulness of m a t c h i n g four generations w i t h 430 years, when h e well could h a v e added generations or l e n g t h e n e d lifetimes so as n o t to require a fa‫׳‬ ther and son to produce their posterity each in t h e last three years of a lite time t h a t began more t h a n 130 years before. But, as we shall see, e v e n this drollery ο a cont i n u a n o n of a t h e m e t h a t begins much earlier: h o w t h e promised progeny arrive^

3<2‫כ‬

STRUCTURES

TABLE 7-3 From Entry to Exodus CoL

CoL·

Col. 3

Cel. 4

CoL

Coi.O

ι. j ι MS ] evi i.s horn. 2.21 ou Joseph is horn, ρ 22^; Josepli becomes viceroy. 4. 2235

Levi sires Gers lion.

5.2236

Levi sires Kehath.

6. 2237

Levi sires MerarL

7. 2238

Israelites come to Egypt. Anion« t h e m Levi. A new Pharaoh (I). )acoh dies. The oppression begins.

8.2255 9. 2 268 10. 2309 τ ι. 2325

Joseph dies, Levi dies.

12. 2365

Kehath sires A m r a m .

13. 2366 14.2367 15. 2368

Kehath s ires Izhar. Kehath s ires He h to η. Kehath sires Uzziel.

τ 6. 2369 17. 2498

Kehath dies. Amram sires Aaron.

18, 2501 19,2502

Amram s ires Mos es Amram dies.

20, 2581 21, 2668

Moses is 80.' Year of exodus? Year of Exodus ! ! ! !

Inset Kehath

87

1.31 L33 + 79 430 87 years 131 yrs. A m ram

133 yrs. Moses

just when despair seems justified, and how fruitful in old age is the line of those of Y H W H blessed. 19 L e t us n o t e t h e l o l l o w d n g a b o u t t h e d a t e s a n d t h e c o u n t in t a b l e 7-3Item ι: In table 7 12•‫׳‬listed 2190 as Levi's birth date, having worked backward a year at a time irom Joseph's birth in the Inurteenth year ol Jacobs ‫ יי‬fay with Lahan. It will he recalled that twelve children were si rod hv Jacob in Luinecn ye1;‫׳‬rs.A more r e a s o n a b l e distribution, however, beginning with Jacobs arrival in Padai w\1‫־‬am in 2185 and allowing an average interval id iourtcen months between the births, would have the third son, Levi, horn in 2 18.S. Items 6 and 7: Genesis 46:8 begins the list of the sixty-six children and grandchih dren w h o came to Egypt in 2238. A n i o n ‫ ״‬them are L e v i s three sons. Allowing for the birth of the youngest, Merari, in the previous year (2237), 1 assigned the birth of Kehath to the year before that. Columns 3 and 4: Since Levi was fifty in 2038 and lived to the age of 137, his residence in Egypt totaled eighty-seven years. Kehaih, arriving in Egypt at the age of two, and attaining 133 years, his residence in Egypt was 131 years. Items 1 2 - 1 6 : I assigned the year before Kehath's death as the birth year for his youngest son Uzziel, and worked hack one year at a rime to AmranVs birth in 2365, four years before his father s death. C o l u m n 5: S i n c e these four years of Amram's lire overlap the last lour years of Kehath's residence in Egypt, only 133 of his 1 7 ‫ ך‬w a r - are counted toward the total of generational years of Egyptian residence.

STRUCTURES AS A BIBLICAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

335

Column 6: A similar overlap oi one year of the lifetimes of Amram and Moses, ci. Items 18 and 1 g, reduces the residence count oi Moses in his eightieth year to sev• enty-nine years.

T h e total of these years of residence was, m t h e rough estimate I made earlier, seen to be 4 3 0 plus six years to spare, in keeping with t h e numbers of years oi that; residence in Genesis 15:13 ({our h u n d r e d years oi oppression, thirty y e a r s — i m p l i c i t — b e f o r e t h a t ) and in Exodus 12:40 41. T h e litter working out of t h e genealogical s c h e m e in figure 7-4, together war h t h e extrapolation of birth years from t h e chronological i n f o r m a t i o n in t h a t genealogical list in Table 7-3 n o w gives us exactly 430 years as s h o w n in t h a t figure's inset. T h e rub, however, comes in Item 20. For t h e b i r t h d a t e of Moses in t h e year 2501 makes h i m eighty years old in t h e year 2 5 8 t , whereas Exodus 7:7 explicitly makes h i m eighty years old in t h e year of t h e exodus. A n d t h a t year, 4 3 0 years after t h e entry into Egypt in 2238, must be 2668. T h e discrepancy in dates, t h e differe n c e b e t w e e n 2668 a n d 2581, is eighty-seven years, it we look d o w n t h e vertical c o l u m n s we find t h a t n u m b e r in c o l u m n 3, t h e n u m b e r of years of Levis residence in Egypt. A n d if we look right to c o l u m n 4, we see that these eighty-seven years overlap t h e 131 years of K e h a t h in Egypt, an overlap for which I did n o t allow. T h e total residence in Egypt, according to table 7-3, based o n t h e data in Exodus 6, is 430 minus eighty-seven, or 343. T h e question before us n o w is w h e t h e r the biblical a u t h o r made the same mistake t h a t I did in my initial calculations, a possibility made plausible by t h e observat ion t h a t — t o t h e best of my k n o w l e d g e — n o c o m m e n t a t o r has caught up with his error, or w h e t h e r his calculations arc i n t e n t i o n a l ; which is to say, t h a t h e delilv erately manipulated his persons and figures so as to leave us with t h e impression that t h e four generations and four h u n d r e d years oi oppression (plus thirty years ol privileged guest status) could be fitted together, w h e n he knew full well 111 at they could not. A n d if t h e latter, why would ho want to do such a thing• O n the side of t h e author's i n t e n t i o n a l deploy men 1 of a m a t h e m a t i c a l trap is t h e accumulated evidence, reflected in t h e various figures and our discussions c e n t e r i n g o n t h e m , t h a t t h e a u t h o r h a d a precise control of t h e a r i t h m e t i c processes of adclition and subtraction. I n o t e d in my earlier discussion of figure 7-3 t h a t t h e metaphoric message of t h e calculations b e h i n d this Figure 7-3 is embodied in t h e req u i r e m e n t t h a t K e h a t h a n d A m r a m b o t h sire sons beyond t h e age of 130, thus exceeding t h e wondrous grace of G o d in t h e instance ot A b r a h a m ' s siring Isaac at t h e age of o n e h u n d r e d . (But n o t exceeding A b r a h a m s c o n t i n u i n g virility, for whereas A m r a m sired Moses at t h e age of 136, A b r a h a m — w h o was 137 w h e n S a r a h dies !23:1]—took a n o t h e r wife after Sarah's d e a t h and sired u p o n her six additional sons [25:1-5].) A n additional pointer to t h e (hyperbolic) m e t a p h o r of fecundity in old age is t h e n o t i c e in t h e genealogy in Exodus 6 t h a t A m r a m took as wife J o c h e b e d dödätö "his aunt." N o w while it is possible to argue that dödä may he a m e t o n y m for a close relative, not. necessarily a n aunt, t h e con t e x t — w h i c h includes t h e detail, t h a t A a r o n married t h e sister of N a h s h o n b. A m i n a d a b ί tribal head of J u d a h ) — w o u l d seem to indicate t h a t if she were a cousin, we would be told w h e t h e r she was

3<2‫כ‬

STRUCTURES

daughter of G e r s h o n or M e ran. Moses 1 parents are first introduced, w i t h o u t names, in Exodus 2:1: "A certain m a n of Levi's family w e n t and took to wife t h e daughter of L e v i " S h o u l d we he mclined to see a m e t o n y m also in t h e word bat 4 'daughter" t h e third (and seemingly superfluous) notice of t h e parents of Miriam, A a r o n , and Moses in N u m b e r s 26:59 is doubly explicit: " N o w t h e n a m e of Amram's wife was Jochebed, t h e d a u g h t e r of Levi, who was b o r n to Levi in Egypt" A s s u m i n g t h e latest possible date (short of a p o s t h u m o u s o n e ) for Jochebed s birth, in t h e year 2325 w h e n Levi died, J o c h e o e d was forty years older t h a n her h u s b a n d . T h a t would make her 176 in the year that she bore Moses. ( A n d Sarai! t h o u g h t it past‫ ־‬belief to bear a child at ninety by a husband aged o n e h u n d r e d ! ) Further, and perhaps conclusive, argument in favor of our a u t h o r s i n t e n t i o n to m a k e 343 years look like 430·--at first blush, so to speak — is this considérai ion: H a v i n g determined to make 430 years c o n g r u e n t with four generat ions, and feeling free to h a v e lathers siring sons in advanced old age (and a m o t h e r bearing o n e at a n e v e n more advanced age), he could h a v e d o n e so w i t h o u t t h e erroneous overlap of eighty‫ ״‬se vc η years, ! h e r e is n o compelling reason for Levis sons to be born before t h e entry to Egypt. If K e h a t h , for example, were born two years before Levis death, along t h e p a t t e r n s of siring by K e h a t h and A m r a m , there would be only thirty-seven years to a c c o u n t tor, a n u m b e r easily achievable by l e n g t h e n i n g e a c h of these patriarch's lives by twelve or t h i r t e e n years. T h e question before us t h e n is why? W h y does t h e biblical a u t h o r play this n u m b e r game, almost a m a t c h i n g of wits with t h e reader, in w h i c h n e i t h e r gains hy w i n n i n g and n e i t h e r gains by losing.‫ ׳‬It t h e reader does n o t see t h r o u g h to t h e mistake, h e c a n still see the v i n d i c a t i o n of Genesis 15 and t h e m e t a p h o r for G o d s grace to t h e line of Levi; the a u t h o r has made his point, but has gained n o t h i n g except a superior smile at his readers ineptitude for arithmetic. If t h e reader does p e n e t r a t e to t h e error, Genesis 15 remains a puzzle, and h e marvels at t h e a u t h o r s lame a t t e m p t to solve it; in the process h e may lose sight of t h e m e t a p h o r as well, and so h e wins n o t h i n g hy his acuity, and t h e a u t h o r loses perhaps a little of t h e r e a d e r s respect for his ingenuity. T h e answer must lie in t h e a u t h o r s consciousness of t h e various levels of readership in his audience. T h e most literal-minded will accept t h e genealogy a n d t h e chronology, along with God's forewarning to A b r a h a m , as simply a narrative of what h a p p e n e d •that is, history---and will not trouble about t h e numbers o n e way or another. T h e Israelites were fated to spend lour hundred yea ι s in Egyptian subjugation for one 01‫ ־‬more good reasons (explicit or implied in various Scriptural contexts). A n d so they did spend t h e m until G o d redeemed his promise to t h e ancestors. T h e more carelul reader, trusting in t h e depths ot m e a n i n g with which all the inspired text is pregnant, or seeking to divine the purposes of a deeply serious preacher w h o works through artful narration, will seek h i n t s and clues in. seeming redundancies, or inconsistencies, or cont radierions, or otiose details. H e will follow t h e spoor of o n e plot line, into a tangle with a n o t h e r plot line, and track t h e sec‫׳׳‬ ond back until he comes upon, a crux where it intersects w i t h t h e early stages of t h e first. H e wall take every detail of genealogy and chronology seriously•—not as facts of history, but as facts oî a purposetul art — and, w h e n these details b e c o m e overwhelming, a t t e m p t to plot them on a graph to see how these literary facts con-

S T R U C T U R E S AS A B I B L I C A L LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

337

tribute to a literary p a t t e r n or structure, whose m e a n i n g is not in t h e verisimilitude of the details, n o r in t h e credibility of the structure as a p h o t o g r a p h of shapes and shadows of a once existent material m o n u m e n t ‫ ־‬A n d as h e grasps the metaphoric i n t e n t of each genealogy or collocation of genealogies, h e will find again and again a discrepancy or c o n t r a d i c t i o n or fantastic coincidence, unresolvable and clearly intentional, which c a n h a v e had only o n e purpose: to remind the reader that when presented with the kind of details t h a t most resemble t h e stuff of historiography, these d e t a i l s — l i k e t h e narrative in w h i c h they are i m b e d d e d — s e r v e t h e ends of theology, n o t of history. W e have seen this in c o n n e c t i o n with t h e line of C a i n , who is and is not the ancestor of the h u m a n race. W e h a v e seen this in t h e chronological plotting ot the lives of S h e m and Eber so that both of t h e m may be available to their descendant, Jacob, in t h e t e n t h or eighth generation, while t h e two intervening ancestors, A r p a c h s h a d and Shelah, had died scores of years before. T h e s e are but a few exam‫׳‬ pies oi what we have seen and of what remains to be discerned. T h e crucial thing to recognize is the poetical a w a r e n e s s — o n some level of consciousness or subconsciousness —of the author t h a t the more successful he is in his fictive or semifictive constructions, and therefore t h e less strain o n t h e reader's willingness to suspend disbelief, the more likely t h a t t h e reader will read literal i n t e n t on t he parr of the narrative s author, will indeed see h i m as historiographer rather t h a n theologian, as chronicler of man's story, history, and n o t God's story, theology. Is it n o t true t h a t t h e success of Tolstoi or Flaubert may be seen in t h e measure that we see t h e m as t h e historians of t h e lives of A n n a Karenina or E m m a Bovary: But such success on t h e part of t h e biblical author may frustrate the critical purport of his designs: this story is n o t about w h a t h a p p e n e d yesterday to them; it is about what is going on in your life and m i n e today. In the case of our immediate c o n t e x t , t h e years between t h e descent to Egypt and t h e ascent toward t h e promised land, let us n o t e t h a t t h e m e t a p h o r of longlived ancestors producing progeny in their last years is in existential contradiction with the notice t h a t t h e Israelites multiplied so rapidly as to terrify t h e Pharaoh. For rapid reproduction requires early mating, early and c o n t i n u i n g procreation. T h e force of this contradiction, however, is as n o t h i n g compared to a m e t a p h o r taken as history t h a t runs counter to a n y t h i n g in our experience, even perhaps defies our capacity to imagine: t h e providential deposit by Deity of a single family into t h e midst ot a mighty kingdom, where over a period of 430 years it might — despite oppression- ‫־‬multiply into a n a t i o n ol millions who might; erupt into history as the conquerors of t h e land scouted by a handful, of ancestors; 430 years dur• ing which a national or ethnic consciousness and loyalty would be preserved without a homeland, without a political constitution, without a distinctive religion or established clergy, and -all the while — m a i n t a i n i n g tribal and clan divisions i m m u n e to assimilation to o n e a n o t h e r or lo t h e native population.

PLAYING T H E BIBLE'S N U M B E R GAME: A N O T H E R

SOLUTION

In the discussion just concluded, the solution to t h e problem of four h u n d r e d years = four generations led to an arithmetic c o n t r a d i c t i o n as to t h e date of the exodus.

3<2‫כ‬

STRUCTURES

and to an arithmetic calculation of an incredible age for jochebed when she was delivered of her three famous children. That this last item did not escape the norice of the rabbis is attested by a disagreement between two commentators, Rashi and Ihn Ezra, on the credibility ol Jocheheds giving birth at double the age of Mother Sarah when she was delivered of Isaac. 111c issue of credibility hangs not so much on the length of the years of barrenness as on that oft.be upstaging, so to speak, oi the older matriarch by the younger. And the more sanguine oi our commentators explains away ι his seeming absurdity by denying any upstaging at all: once Mot her Sarah broke through the propagative time-barrier, the breaking of her record by Jochebed was no longer a matter of the miraculous, substantively speak1ng, to be sure. For those of us who yet incline to the side of incredulity, both as to the intrusion of an endogamous marriage in which bride and groom arc so hu: apart in age and the deliberate obtrusion of a calculation that is egregiously erroneous, there is another rabbinic interpretation and calculation as to the four hundred years of servitude. T h e four hundred years of servitude, prophesied by God to Abram in Genesis 15, begin (according to Genesis Rah. 44, 21), not with the dcscent of Jacob and his children to Egypt, but with the birth of Isaac. Given such an assumption, with Isaac born in 2048 (see table 7-2), the exodus—which is to say, the end of the oppression—must date to the year 2448. T h e period then between the Israelites' descent to Egypt in 2238 (see table 7-3) and the year of the exodus is only 210 years. 20 Subtracting the eighty years of Moses' age at the time of the exodus, we now have a mere 130 years over which to apportion the sirings of Amram by Kehath and of Moses by Amram. Thus, for example, if Levi sired Kehath at the age of forty-eight (2236), and Kehath sired Amram at the age ot torty-five (2281 ), Amram would have sired Moses in the year 2368 (eighty years before the exodus) at the age of eighty-three. And if his wife Jochebed were sired by Levi in the year of his death 2325, she would have been torty-four years her h ushand's senior and a mere 1 27 when she gave birth to Moses. Now, whereas it is easy 1:0 understand how rabbis concerned with the problem of Jochebed s breaking Sarahs record age at birthing a son might clutch at any straw to rewrite the chronology, ii is nol so easy to commend such desperate recourse to a modern pocticist . I low could the period of Egyptian servitude announced by ( !od to Father Abraham have been intended by him to start with the birth of Isaac, the Isaac who as may be seen in Chapter 26 never did himself enter Egypt, forbidden by God himself to do so? And, furthermore, how could the Israelite stay in Egypt, 430 years in duration according to Exodus 12:40, have started thirty years before the birth ot Isaac, a date which (since Abram was seventy-five when he left Haran and one hundred when Isaac was born) is five years earlier than Abram's arrival in Canaan? A reexamination of the relevant biblical passages will reveal, I believe, that however fanciful the implications of biblical chronology may be, however tanciful the rabbinic manipulations of that chronology, the rabbis did not cavalierly contravene the Scriptural texts and, indeed, that those texts were so formulated by their author(s) as to render the rabbinic constructions a creditable and credible option: (13) H e ( / s o m e o n e ) said to A h r a m : "You are hereby put o n n o t i c e t h a t a [?] stxanger/sojourner will your seed [sing. 1 he in a land not theirs, a n d they will h e sub-

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIBLICAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

339

ject to t h e m , a n d they will oppress t h e m for 4 0 0 years. ( 1 4 ) Also rhe n a t i o n 10 w h o m they are subject‫ ׳‬d o 1 hold in j u d g m e n t - ‫״‬so t h a t after this [period| they shall go free, with massive ‫׳‬acquisitions. ( ! 5 ) You, ior your pari, however, will go to your ancestors

safe and sound, receive burial in a happy old age. (16) And [as for them, your seed] t h e f o u r t h g e n e r a t i o n will return hither. (CJt‫׳‬nesis 15:1 ; - 1 6 )

T h e implicit subject in verse 13 is God or o n e of his agents. Yet t h e absence of a n explicit s u b j e c t — a n d we have to go back six verses for t h a t subject, " Y H W H [the god] t h a t brought you out from U r Kasdim"—distances t h e b e n e v o l e n t Providence of this chapter of promise from t h e god w h o must nevertheless inform A b r a m of the centuries of suffering that will precede t h e fulfillment of t h e promise. T h e use of t h e singular "seed" for posterity is regular, hut only here does t h e predicate appear as ger "sojourner." H e n c e the subject "seed" can be a true (rather t h a n a collective) singular and refer to a single descendant. T h i s singular (i.e., b o t h "seed" and sojourner) is therefore rather standingly followed by "a land n o t theirs" rather t h a n "a land n o t his," w h e r e t h e his/its could refer to either a n individual or t h e collective posterity. I n e e d n o t overemphasize t h e r e d u n d a n t nature of t h e phrase, namely, t h a t a soj ourner can only be t h a t in a land n o t his own, for t h e redundancy here is quite natural. Except for one thing: t h e r e d u n d a n c e is due to t h e pointed failure to specify t h e land of sojourning. A n d , indeed, there are two such different lands: C a n a a n and Egypt. A n d t h e signal t h a t the specific land intended is Egypt only comes in t h e f o b lowing two clauses, where the object of t h e first clauses verb and t h e subject of t h e second clause's verb are an indefinite them, they respectively. T h e only signal of specificity is contextual: it is only in Egypt t h a t Abram's posterity is subject and subjected to hard t r e a t m e n t . If, however, we tabe t h e three words wdahädüm. wcinnu f)tam as p a r e n t h e t i c "they will be subject to t h e m and they will oppress them," we have four h u n d r e d years of sojourning (in land or lands unspecified), and either the specific rigor of Egypt ian bondage or the general condition of being vulnerable guest rather t h a n master in one's own territory. Verse 14, on the other hand, is unamhiguotis in its p o i n t i n g to Egypt. T h a t G o d is also judging t h e oppressors p o i n t s — a s t h e rabbis were a w a r e — t o the oppression, as t h e price paid for t h e brothers' sale of Joseph (into Egyptian servitude). So also t h e extraction of wealth from Egypt in compensation for generations-long unpaid toil. A n d there is a sudden interpolation of a blessed fate for A b r a m in his own person, this before a reversion to t h e posterity t h a t will return to C a n a a n in the fourth generation. In Toward a Grammar we saw in a n u m b e r of instances h o w t h e biblical author, dwelling o n t h e role or f u n c t i o n or symbolic identity of two or m o r e personae, will (in a n t i c i p a t i o n almost of c i n e m a t i c p h o t o m o n t a g e ) overlay o n e persona over ano t h e r and e v e n t h a t of the second over a third persona. 2 1 In this v o l u m e we h a v e e v e n more striking examples in t h e overlay of t h e identities of Te rah and A b r a m a n d of A b r a h a m and Isaac, Sarah and R e b c k a h . A n d all these are apart from t h e e p o n y m o u s ancestor and collective e t h n o s or polity in such examples as Esau/Seir/ Edom, Jacob/Israelites, and Israel/Jacobites. So, in t h e passage u n d e r discussion, t h e association of A b r a m with the seed (implicit) of Israel and dissociation from t h e m in personal felicity, of Isaac the sojourner (like his f a t h e r before and his child after h i m ) associated as territorial alien but dissociated from his seed in respect to servi-

3<2‫כ‬

STRUCTURES

tu de and oppression. From t h e perspective of such m o n t a g e dike strategies we gain a deeper appreciation of such explicit narrative details as t h e burial of A b r a h a m by lshmael and Isaac, t h e burial of Isaac by Esau and Jacob, even t h e burial of Jacob by his twelve sons, t h e details of t h e deaths and burials of Sarah and Rachel, a n d t h e failure e v e n to m e n t i o n t h e d e a t h of R e b e k a h . O n e begins to wonder h o w m a n y details of plot a n d structure we h a v e altogether missed. But let υ s go o n to t h e form u l a t i o n in Exodus 12 of t h e period of 430 years of Egyptian "residence," a n d t h e relationship of t h a t n u m b e r to t h e years of servitude: (40) The stay !residence now of the Israelites that they stayed/resided in Egypt [was in duration] 430 years. (41) It was at the close of 430 years, [yes] it was on this very day [that] all the hosts of YHWH went out/went free from the land of Egypt. (42) A night of watchkeeping [was] that for YHWH. that he might bring t h e m out/deliver them from the land of Egypt. That [one/day]—this n i g h t — b e l o n g s to YHWH, a watchkeeping/obser vance [owed by] all Israelites tor all their generations. (Exodus 12:40-42)

T h e n u m b e r and variety of redundancies in these three verses would he remarkable even in a literature not unique for its economy of style. 111 e substance of (paratactic) verse 41 is in no way different from that ol (hypotactic) verse 40. W i t h i n verse 40 t h e verb with cognate accusative ("the residence they resided") is artificial. T h e 430 years of t h e stay in verse 40 guarantees that t h e g:oing forth in verse 41 was at t h e e n d of 430 years; the second icdv/Τί in 41 ( n o t e our rendering "[yes,] it was") is superfluous, and in order to find the a n t e c e d e n t for "this very day" we h a v e to go back in t h e c h a p t e r to t h e "this day" in verse 14, w h i c h itself has its a n t e c e d e n t in verse 6 ("the 14th day of this f first] m o n t h ‫ ) ״‬- A n d this backtracking will remind us of t h e iterations "on this n i g h t " (verses S and 12), "this day" (verses 12, 14, 17), " o n this very day" (verses 17 and 51), a n d the "drawing forth/delivery" (verses 17 and 51), together w i t h t h e characterization in b o t h these verses of t h e Israelites as sbt "hosts." To these I m i g h t add t h e 11 that (night) . . . t h a t (night) . . . this n i g h t " in verse 42, together w i t h t h e repetition of simmfmm, t h e first time w i t h t h e sense of t h e safekeeping activity o n God's part with Israel as object, t h e second time w i t h t h e a n n u a l memorial observance ot this day owed by Israel's descendants to their deliverer. A l l these redundancies in this C h a p t e r 12 ot Exodus relate directly to our t h r e e verses ( 4 0 - 4 2 ) . T h e exceptionally long chapter, unquestionably c o n s t i t u t i n g a pericope, c o n t a i n s many o t h e r repetitions, many of t h e m r e d u n d a n t . W h i l e a study of these is n o t appropriate here, t h e fact of this feature is relev ant to t h e most glaring r e d u n d a n c y in t h e entire chapter, t h e repetition in verses 4 1 - 4 2 of t h e 4 3 0 years of Israelite residence in Egypt. Do the many other repetitions in t h e surrounding text serve to c o n c e n t r a t e t h e reader's a t t e n t i o n on this particular redundancy or to distract h i m from it? T h e question, as to effect as also as to authorial design, is difficult to determine. W h a t is certain, however, is that t h e close reader of S c r i p t u r e — m i n d f u l ot t h e apparent contradiction between t h e four hundred years prophesied in Genesis 13:1} and t h e 430 years on this passage in Exodus would h a v e e x p e c t e d two d i l l c r e n t notice's in verses 41 a n d 42. O t i c would h a v e

reference to t h e four h u n d r e d years ol servitude, the other :0 t h e 4 μ‫ )־‬years of rest-

STRUCTURES AS A BIBLICAL LITERARY PU L Ν Ο M L Ν ο Ν

dence. And, indeed, the frustration of that expectation is doubly highlighted: once by the sense of emancipation in the term ys' "to go free" rather than mere dircotional movement "to go out;" the other is the specificity of "on this very day"—an adverbial clause without an a n t e c e d e n t — a n d provoking the question, to which "very day Γ To the very day of the entry to Egypt, or of subjection to servitude. And since no other notice is given of that day, is this to imply that it was on the fourteenth day of the first m o n t h (Nisan) that Jacob crossed the boundary into Egypt, or that the Pharaonic decree of subjection was issued on that day, or perhaps both? W h i c h is to say: such a triple coincidence of a single calendrical date for entry into Egyptian residence, entry into Egyptian servitude, and exodus trom both, could only have been by providential design, as, indeed, foreshadowed in God's word to Abram in Genesis 15:13-16. But, for all this, the textual fact remains that verses 4 0 - 4 1 both refer to the 430 years ot residence, and neither refers to the four hundred years of servitude. For the theory of the rabbis who calculate the first year of subjection as coinciding with the birth of Isaac (and for those of us willing to entertain that as a symbolic, if literally implausible, option), verses 4 0 - 4 1 would seem to administer the coup de grace. For, as we saw, that option would require the entry of Abram into Egypt, thirty years before Isaacs birth, as told in Chapter 12, to have taken place five years be‫׳‬ lore Abram left 11 ara η at the age of seventy ‫״‬five. Kot so! Not, that is, necessarily so. T h e reasoning is based on the assumption that the narrator of these histories and chronologies is both omniscient and altogether reliable. But, as Sternberg has pointed out, the narrators perspective !nay olien relied Gods, and therefore be impeccable, or his own, and therefore mis‫׳‬taken in one respect or another. We have seen how the juxtaposition of the data from the texts of Genesis 15 and Exodus 6 and 13 led to an arithmetic error of eighty-seven years, as well as a number of existential absurdities, a strategy whereby the auihor impeaches the reliability of the narrator, and thereby impels the rabbis to seek for an alternative way to number the years and centuries of servitude, the ab ternative we are in the process of examining. Is it possible that now again the narrator s reliability is undergoing impeachment? This time the discrepancy is merely a matter of five years. Simply put, how might the narrator have erred in making Abraham seventy-five years old, when all calculations require him to be only seventy years old in the year h e left Haran and entered Egypt? Let us suppose that the narrator's chronology was based 011 a graph, like ours in table 7-1, tracing the year dates from zero of A d a m s birth to 1879 for the year of Ter ah s birth. Extrapolating the figures from table 7-1, we have fixed dates as follows: 187 S

Te rah is h o r n

1948 Abram is horn. Terah is seventy. ? Year of departure from Ur Kasdim. ? Year of departure from Haran. 2048 Isaac is born, Abraham is one hundred. Xow let us suppose that the move of Terah's entire family from Ur to Haran occurred 111 the same year that Abram depart eel Irani Haran at the instance of God, leaving behind I crab (and brother Nahor). I here is nothing inherently implausi‫׳‬

3<2‫כ‬

STRUCTURES

ble in this, and t h e closing of t h e time-‫־‬gap b e t w e e n the departure f r o m U r and t h a t from H a r a n renders s o m e w h a t more explicable Y H W H ' s identifying himself as t h e god "who brought you [Abram] out of Ur Kasdim." Let us f u r t h e r assume t h a t t h a t year of fateful departures w a s — o n t h e timeline before t h e n a r r a t o r — s e v e n t y ‫׳‬five years after t h e b i r t h of Terah's eldest son, w h i c h is to say t h e year 2023. Entering this d a t e in lines 3 and 4, we h a v e t h e toi lowing timeline, totally consistent w i t h t h e data before us in chapters 1 τ and 12: 1878

Terah is born

1948

Abram is born, Terah is seventy.

2023 2023

Departure from Ur Kasdim. Departure from Haran. Abram is seventy-five,

2048

Isaac is born. Abraham is one hundred,

But, let us remember, our assumption is that not every line-event and year on our narrator's time line need have been given, as, for example, the reader is jιοί given the year-dates in lines 3 and 4, but only the underlined description in line 4. Suppose then that the narrators timeline did not include the underlined element in line 2, nor did it include the date or the underlined description in line 3. Line 5 the η wot 1 Id be a logical conclusion o n the part of the narrai ot; a fill-in- so to speak- •deriving from Abraham's age. But t h a t age, the underlined clement in line 4, is a consequence of t h e underlined element in line 2, an element that again may h a v e b e e n filled in o n a prior assumption, t h a t assumption being that A b r a h a m was Terah's firstborn; a teasonable assumption, to be sure, but nonetheless an as.snm/nion because it is n o t explicitly stated in the biblical text. T h i s assumption is shared hy a n u m b e r of the an‫׳׳‬ cient rabbis as expressed in two midrashitn. that I will cite; yet at least one of t h e two midrashim may be seen as expressing some dubiety about t h e assumption. O n t h e second clause in Genesis 23:2, " A b r a h a m came t o offer t h e funerary rites for Sarah," Midrash R a b b a asks, " W h e n c e did he come?" Rabbi Levi's answer is, " H e came to S a r a h f r o m t h e i n t e r m e n t of [his father] Terah?' Rabbi Jose raises this objection: "But is it n o t t h e case t h a t Terah's i n t e r m e n t preceded Sarah's by a full two years?" Inasmuch as A b r a h a m is ten years older t h a n Sarah, w h o died at t h e age of 127, A b r a m was 137 at t h e time. His father, w h o lived 205 years and sired A b r a h a m at t h e age of seventy, must h a v e b e e n buried w h e n A b r a m was 135, two years before t h e d e a t h of Sarah. 2 2 T h e o t h e r text in Midrash R a b b a is a c o m m e n t 011 Genesis 11:29, " A b r a h a m took, and N a h o r also, wives to themselves." " A b r a m was t h e elder of N a h o r by a year; and N a h o r was older t h a n H a r a n by a year; h e n c e A b r a h a m was two years older t h a n H a r a n . [Allow] a year for the gestation of Milcah and a year for t h e gestat ion of iscah and lo [one finds t hat] 1 laran sired [His first] child at t h e age of 6. Yet A b r a m does not sire at all !until the age of 86 or tool· W o n d r o u s indeed!"·•* T h u s this text too assumes A h r a m to be T e r a h s firstborn. T h e reasoning here is that Sarah, being ten years younger t h a n A b r a h a m , must have been conceived when A b r a h a m was nine years old and 1 d a r a n seven, t h e elder Milcah having been concetved w h e n H a r a n was six. (Lot therefore was j la ran s youngest child, at least eleven years younger t h a n his uncle A h r a h a m . T h e wonder of H a r a n s virility at so early a n age would be mitigated if I laran

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIBLICAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

343

were t h e firstborn, say five years older t h a n A b r a h a m . For S a r a h t h e n would h a v e been c o n c e i v e d w h e n H a r a n was f o u r t e e n years old a n d M i l c a h w h e n h e was thirteen. T h e basis for t h e possibility t h a t A b r a m was n o t t h e firstborn of Terah is 11:26: "Terah lived 70 years; h e t h e n sired A b r a m , and N a h o r , a n d Haran." T h e question t h e n is, in ascending or descending order? Was A b r a m necessarily t h e firstborn, t h e presumption as to his primogeniture being b o r n e out by t h e same order of n a m e s in the resumptive h y p o t a c t i c f o r m u l a t i o n of verse 27? S o m e may see a case for this interpretation m a d e by t h e o n e striking parallel to 11:26. In 5:32 we read, " N o a h lived 500 years old; h e sired S h e m , and H a m , and Japheth." In n e i t h e r case is the assumption made t h a t t h e individual sired triplets. A t a certain age h e sired a son, t h e n two more in years following. But t h e first ment i o n e d son need n o t h a v e b e e n t h e first born. His priority in t h e listing may be due to his i m p o r t a n c e rather t h a n age. A n d it is clear t h a t b o t h S h e m and A b r a m were t h e most i m p o r t a n t of the two sets of three siblings. In t h e genealogical listing of N o a h s sons in C h a p t e r 10, the iirst verse begins pointedly with the order of S h e m , H a m , and J a p h e t h , and immediately c o n t i n u e s with a reversal of that order, t h e posterity of J a p h e t h being given first, t h e n t h a t of H a m , and finally that of S h e m . Here, too, the order points to S h e m as cynosure, ior his p l a c e m e n t as t h e last progenii or brings his line into narrower, more intense locus. His line is n o t c o m p l e t e d in this chapter. It: ends with a single branch of his line, t h a t of Yoktan son of Eber, and breaks off a n o t h e r b r a n c h , Peleg son of Eber, to resume Peleg s line after t h e narrative of t h e tower of Babel. That S h e m is, indeed, t h e eldest, seems guaranteed by t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of his line in 10:21, a verse t h a t c o n t a i n s t h e s o m e w h a t puzzling characterization of S h e m as "the elder b r o t h e r of Japheth." T h i s n o t i c e we h a v e interpreted as stressing the affinity b e t w e e n S h e m and J a p h e t h to t h e exclusion of H a m . It would therefore establish t h e primogeniture of S h e m , but would n o t in itself be relevant for A b r a m , for w h o m n o such n o t i c e exists. A n additional c o u n t e r to this argument is t h e possibility t h a t S h e m too is t h e youngest of his siblings, for t h e syntax of t h e H e b r e w n o t i c e does not: rule out t h e translation of ahï Ye pet haggädöl by "the brother of J a p h e t h , t h e eldest." If I a m correct in this, I would h a v e to c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e parallel formulations as t o t h e sitings of N o a h and Terah, and t h e ambiguity as to t h e r e n d e r i n g of S h e m as t h e older brother of J a p h e t h , or as t h e b r o t h e r ot t h e older J a p h e t h p o i n t to these i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n s as deliberate ambigu at ions. A m b u l a t i o n s o n t h e part of a n a u t h o r w h o mocks t h e i m p o r t a n c e of chronological priority and t h e significance we all a t t a c h to genetic propinquity and distance, even as h e seems to define historic origins w i t h t h e added precision of m a t h e m a t i c s , t h a t a d j u n c t of b o t h t h e empirical and t h e social sciences so popularly treasured because its "figures never lie." 24 N o w let us e x a m i n e t h e a r i t h m e t i c implication ot t h e assumption that A b r a m , the most important oi T e r a h \ sons, was also t h e youngest. For o n e thing, it would, as I h a v e already n o t e d , ease the perplexity occasioned by the youngest son, I laran, siring a daughter at the age of six. For another, it requires an a d j u s t m e n t in our timeline so t h a t A b r a m is born in 1 03 3 ( w h e n Terah is seventy-five), and enters t "anaan (and Egypt) in 202 ^ at 1 he age of seventy. T h u s t h e beginning of t h e mösäb " t h e residing" in Egypt ot the Israelites coincides with A b r a h a m s entry there. A n d 430 years after t h a t residential or sojournal beginning, after four h u n d r e d years

344

3<2‫ כ‬S T R U C T U R E S

(after the birth of Isaac) of "Egyptian" subjection, the exodus takes place, in the year 2383. IF THE MODEST SAGE Agur of Proverbs 30 had assayed a foray into literary criticism, he might have added to the four ways (or operations) that excited him to awe a fifth: the way of an author with a metaphor. Of the structural metaphors we have been exploring—in Genesis 11, 12, and 15; in Exodus 6 and 12—we have recognized metaphor within metaphor and metaphor upon metaphor, particularly in relation to two temporal constructs, two durations: one of four hundred years, one of 430 years; one of residence, one of servitude. Two possible interpretations of this pair ot constructs have been explored, each with its own strengths and each with its own problematic features. A n overarching metaphor of the two pairs of constructs was seen to be the deliberate ambiguation on the author's part., involving impeachment of the narrator's reliabih ity, yet providing clues for the reader to correct for that unreliability. In respect to the construct which orients the two durations to the descent of Jacob and his sons into Egypt, the numbers are straightforward, present no need ft ‫ *וו‬metaphoric inter‫׳‬ pretatton, yet turn out to be ludicrously oil in respect to equal ing four generations with four hundred years. In respect to the (‫וי‬her construct, which orients the dura tions to Isaac's birth and to A b r a m s first descent into Egypt, only one number is problematic, that one susceptible to explanation and emendation, but these orieiv tation points seem so bizarre as to demand a metaphoric reading and, at that:, one that will strike many a reader as stretching metaphor to its breaking point. What was the "residence" of the Israelites in Egypt if it: began with a great-grandfather whose name never became their cponym unless we admit under that rubric "the seed of Abraham" in a few poetic passages (Isaiah 41:S, Psalm 105:6); whose stay was brief, and who was—-much like his Israelite descendants at the end—expelled from the land; and whose "residence" there by his seed was not resumed until 210 years after his own expulsion? W h a t was the servitude (and to whom?) that did not include the thirty years of Abraham's life before the birth of Isaac, a n d — t o jibe with the four hundred years of Genesis 5:13 and the 430 (minus thirty) years of Exodus 1 2 : 4 0 - 4 1 — h a d to begin when Isaac drew his first breath. Most of us who have, for the sake of a deeper understanding of the biblical experience, steeped ourselves in the history of Egypt and Mesopotamia as it reaches us through the independent writings in hieroglyphics and cuneiform, will find it hard to resist the temptation to ask how close to our own knowledge of that ancient world was the knowledge of the biblical authors. Did they know, as we do, or as we think we do, that for the greater part of that age we call "patriarchal" the greater part of the land we call Canaan (vague though its boundaries he) was for all practical purposes a hefdom of Pharaonic hegemony? 1 hat certainly subject to that hege‫׳‬ mony was the Philistine coastal strip, and perhaps of little interest to Egypt (as to the Mesopotamia!! imperialists of Genesis 14) were the highland settlements south of the Jebusite fortress (called Salem in Genesis 14)? And nu^hl the1 biblical an‫׳‬thor, therefore, have exploited Egyptian dominance over the larger area of‫ ״‬the patriarchal sojournings to stretch the boundaries of his metaphors ior durations of subjection and durations of residence?

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIBLICAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

345

Such speculation is not unreasonable, and may even prove to be instructive. Yet for my own part I must confess to a conviction that lew of the ancients (and the Israelites among them) shared my own passion for historiography or my own con vietion that a deeper understanding of the past may help us to avoid the pitfalls to which our unhistoriographic predecessors fell victim. As far as the biblical authors are concerned, it is the arithmetic of human experience, the rhythms of moral concern, indifference, or outrage, rather than the tides of empire or period iz at ion of polities' preeminence, which are the determinants of human misery or felicity, frustration or fulfillment. A n d so it is that in their treatment ot "history" these authors indulge in playfulness, whimsy, and even levity where the subject—according to our mentality‫—״‬demands earnestness, sobriety, and rigorous discipline. For us hislory writing is least suspect when it is dry and quantitative, and elegance of style and recourse to figuration make us wonder uneasily (and perhaps rightly) what, sins against unbiased research and academic objectivity are concealed by such cosineticians of historical practice as Edward Gibbon orThonvas Bahington Macaulay. But consider how the biblical historian manages to paint a picture ol an entire nation enslaved, groaning under cruel taskmasters at nigh-unbearable labor, and yet on the morrow of liberation ready to exchange freedom ior a re 1 urn to the spicier diet that is unobtainable in the wilderness. And what indeed was the nature of the subjection or servitude in Egypt? Chattel slavery ir was not, for not only were the Israelites never reduced to the status of property, thev managed to own flocks and herds, tights to the grazing grounds of the delta where they had settled, and, as in the case of sister Miriam spying on her brothers basket-boat among the bulrushes or the adult Aaron and Moses, had easy freedom of movement even near the palace precincts. T h e tally-masters who oversaw the corvee-labor they performed for the Pharaoh were themselves Israelites, and, until the interference of Moses and Aaron, were supplied with the material wherewithal for the construction projects assigned to them. Their good repute among their native Egyptian neighbors resulted in loans of precious raiment and gold and silver on the eve of their departure, and nothing in the parenthetic verse Exodus 12:36 suggests that the YHWH-prompted amity of Egyptian for Israelite represented an emancipationeve conversion. And, finally, the amity that God prescribes as Israel's stance towards Egyptians, in contrast to the distance recommended between them and kindred Ammonites and Moabites, is based on the hospitality extended there to their ancestors, "for alien you were in his land." Surely the nature and tendency, the bias and moral kerygma of such biblical literature as we are pleased to call "history" should not be considered as settled before we subject it to comparison and contrast with our own popular histories of the reception our ancestors received at the hands of the natives or the New World, and the melancholy tale of our reciprocation. A B R A M ' S ROOTS A N D

UPROOTINGS

A bram ,s Ante ce de η ts (26) Terah lived 70 years. He sired Abram, Nahor and Haran. [ 2 7 ‫ ו‬Thi> n o w is the story of Terah. Terah sired Abram, Nahor and Haran; Har‫׳‬-:n >ired Lot. (28) But

!,φ

STKUCT1 ; RKS

Haran died in the lifetime ot his lather ierah, in his native land, in Ur of t h e Chaldees. (29) Abram and Nahor took wives, the name ol Abrams wile Sarai, and the name of Nahor's wife Milcah, [she | daughter oi 1 iaian, father of M ilea h and father [also] of Iscah, (30) Sarai was barren, child had she none. ( 31) Ierah gathered his son Abram, and Lot son of Haran, his grandson, as well as his daughter-in-law Sarai, wife of his son Abram, and there went forth [others] with them trom Ur Kasdim bound for the land of Canaan. They came as far as Haran and settled there. (32) The days of Terah were 205 years when Terah died in Haran. (Genesis 1 τ : 2 6 - 3 2 )

Abram ''s Departure ( ι ) YHWH addressed Abram. "Betake yourself from your native land and from your father's house to the land that I shall reveal to you . . . (4) Abram went according to YHWH's address to him. Lot went with him. (Ahram then being 75 years old when he left Haran). (5) Abraham gathered his wite Sarai, and his nephew Lot and all the property which they had acquired and the living creatures which they had amassed in Haran. They went forth bound for Canaan 4 and. The ν arrived in Canaan land. (Gen‫׳‬ esis 12:1, 4, 5)

The Data and the Poetic Problems T h e "facts," or perhaps better, t h e data provided in this pericope are clear. Terah had three sons, all born to h i m in a city called Ur, further characterized as apperraining to a people called Kasdim in the Bible, k n o w n to us as t h e C h a l d e a n s . T h e youngest oi these sons, ldaran by name, dies prematurely, leaving three orphans, o n e a son named Lot, and two daughters. O n e ol these, Milcah ( " Q u e e n " ) , is t a k e n to wife by her paternal uncle Nahor, t h e second oi I era h ‫ ל‬sons. T h e o t h e r daugh•‫׳‬ ter, Iscah, is never heard of again, bor reasons u n k n o w n Terah leaves Ur bound for C a n a a n d a n d , but gets n o f u r t h e r t h a n t h e city ot H a r a n (where he dies). Leaving b e h i n d in U r his son Ν ah or and Milcah (his daughter-in-law, I leb. kalld), h e takes with h i m to H a r a n his (firstborn 0 A b r a m , t h e daugh ten in d a w (kallä) to w h o m A b r a m is married, Sarai ( H e b . "Princess")‫ ל‬a n d his o r p h a n e d grandson Lot. T h u s t h e great mystery in this familial constellation is, " W h a t e v e r h a p p e n e d to iscah?" If she died unmarried a n d childless, why is she m e n t i o n e d at all: If she was married off, by w h o m and to w h o m ? T h e indirection, t h e less t h a n logical order of t h e presentation of these data, t h e r e d u n d a n c y of details, t h e seemingly unnecessary artlessness o n t h e part of t h e narrator, c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e never-bridged gap of an insignificant granddaughter's nameless fate, all these cry aloud for a poetic explanation. W h y is U r Kasdim, where H a r a n dies, characterized as his native land (eres möledet), a d a t u m provided by t h e c o n t e x t ? W h y are we told in verse 29 first, t h a t A h r a m and N a h o r married; second, t h e n a m e of Abram's wife, giving her n o antecedents; and third, t h e n a m e of Nahor's wife together w i t h her ancestry, but in stich a way t h a t h e r f a t h e r is i n c h dentally revealed as t h e sire of a sister‫ ׳‬Why, since n o m e n t i o n is made of progeny b o r n to N a h o r and Milcah, is t h e barrenness ot Sarai m e n t i o n e d here, she identified by n a m e alone and w i t h o u t reference to her status as Abram's wife? T h e last question in contrast to verse 31, where Terah gathers A b r a m , w h o is explicated

STRUCTURES AS A BIBLICAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

347

as his son, hoi, w h o is explicated as b o t h his grandson and H a ran s son, and Sarai explicated as b o t h his daughter-in d a w and wife of his son, explicated as A b r a m Î Finally, h o w does t h e narrator k n o w t h a t Terah ,s destination u p o n hrst setting out was t h e land of C a n a a n ? A n d if this question is a silly o n e to ask of an o m n i s c i e n t narrator, why does h e n o t tell u s — s i n c e h e must k n o w this a l s o — w h y Terah settied in H a r a n instead of pressing o n to his original goal?

The Scholarly Problem as to Locale Needless t o say, n o n e of t h e problems raised above are treated seriously, if at all, by the m o d e r n critical approach, w h i c h assumes historiography as the minimal i n t e n t of the biblical author(s), and seeks to isolate/separate oral traditions, written sources, and the biblical heirs of such traditions w h o are responsible for t h e various "documents" t h a t constitute (if n o t most of Scripture at least) t h e P e n t a t e u c h , in the matter of locating t h e geographical origin of t h e patriarch's family, source-division is of n o help in resolving t h e textual problems, a n d t h e problem of t h e text's historicity becomes ever knottier in proportion to t h e increase in our knowledge of the ancient N e a r Hast. Thus, for example, in the early years of this century, scholarship generally identified t h e biblical IJr (of t h e patriarchs) w i t h a c e n t e r of great: renown, t h e city of Ur located on t h e right bank ot the Euphrates about 125 miles southeast oi Babylon; and the biblical city oi H a r a n with the great commercial center of Haran in northwest Mesopotamia, situated seventy miles n o r t h of t h e Euphrates alongside its tributary stream, the Bali. T h e removal ot Terah trom Ur to Haran would thus h a v e constituted quite a trek, and renders more perplexing t h e call oi Y H W H in 12:1 to A b r a m to leave his native land: Inasmuch as t h e context oi 1 1 : 2 6 - 32 places A b r a m in H a r a n at t h e time of t h e call, h o w could the. call specify t h e departure point as his n a t i v e land, w h e n t h a t native land was U r Kasdim, explicitly identified in 11:28 as the native land where his brother Haran died, belt ‫ י‬re the removal to Haran? From a poetic perspective t h e repetition of Jere\s moledet "native land" just five verses apart, explicitly referring to U r Kasdim in 11:28 and implicitly referring to H a r a n in 12:1, would seem to be a deliberately concocted c o n u n d r u m . A step in t h e direction of solving this puzzle is t h e recognition t h a t the biblical U r is not the renowned U r of southern Babylonia but a yet-to-be-located site in N o r t h western Mesopotamia, n o t far f r o m H a r a n , in t h e general area of t h a t city, an area t h a t is consistently referred to in t h e subsequent stories of t h e patriarchs as A r a m N a h a r a i m (once) or P a d d a n A r a m ( t e n times). T h e very qualification of U r as (being in t h e territory) "of t h e Kasdim" suggests (as was long ago recognized) t h a t the narrator is dissociating t h e native t o w n of H a r a n and A b r a m and N a h o r from the famous city of t h a t n a m e in southern Babylonia. T h u s there would be no contradiction b e t w e e n 12:1 and 11:31, for b o t h t h e b i r t h - t o w n of Ur-Kasdim and the nearby city of H a r a n where A b r a m is settled (according to 11:31) a r e included in t h e "native land," w h i c h A b r a m (in 12:1) is bidden to leave. T h a t native territory is "Aram Naharaim," wherein according to 24:10 is located the u eity of N a h o r " Far more often, however, t h a t native territory is called "Paddan A r a m " and N a h o r s city is, in those contexts, explicitly Haran. Were Ur-Kasdim and Haran separated hv hundreds of miles, this last datum would create a n o t h e r problem for, as is implicit in

34 (S

‫ א‬PR U CT IJ RI:, S

1 1 : 2 6 - 3 2 , N a h o r was left behind in Ur Kasdim w h e n his father derail and brother A b r a m removed to H a r a n . But if Ur-Kasdim is merely a suburb, so to speak, a n d part of G r e a t e r Haran, t h e n n o discrepancy exists in die subsequent location of N a h o r in (Greater) H a r a n . T h e poetic problem would, how‫־‬ever, remain, if U r (of t h e Kasdim) n e v e r appears in a cuneiform d o c u m e n t because it was historically assimilated to abutting H a r a n , why does our narrator take pains to perform t h e act of dissimilation? O r is it possible t h a t Ur-Kasdim is a figment dreamed up by our narrator in t h e interest of a m e t a p h o r whose presence has never been suspected by readers who, taking t h e narrative(s) as essentially historic, would laugh to scorn t h e n o t i o n t h a t a geographic datum, a place n a m e , could have been included for reasons o t h e r t h a n its historic existence (its existence, t h a t is, as b o t h place and place-name)?

The Mystery of the Missing Iscah Before we c o n t i n u e our search for such a metaphor, let us address t h e question of t h e mysterious Iscah, w h o exists only here and only as a n a m e . O n l y o n e possibility has b e e n a d v a n c e d t h a t makes any sense whatsoever, o n e t h a t so fine a scholar as J o h n S k i n n e r peremptorily dismisses: Of yiscd n o t h i n g is k n o w n . T h e Rabbinical fiction that she is Sarah under a n o t h e r name . . . is worthless. Hwald's conjecture that she was rhe wife of hot is plausible, hut baseless.‫ '׳‬s

Ewald s c o n j e c t u r e t h a t Yisca was the wife ol h o t is truly implausible, for Yiscä like M ileal is h o t s biological sister, apparently by t h e same unpedigreed wife of his fat h e r H a r a n . A n u m b e r of the peculiarities that 1 have noted may indicate t h a t more serious consideration should be given to the rabbinic identification of Iscah and Sarah. O n e is t h e repetition of the n a m e s of de rah s sons in verses 26 and 27. T h e genealogies and chronologies of t h e twenty generations a n t e c e d e n t and subseq u e n t to t h e flood are discussed above‫ ־‬Of direct relevance to our passage is t h a t verse 26 follows t h e p a t t e r n of t h e preceding verses, w h i c h (beginning with verse 16) exhibit this p a t t e r n : "PN lived [to t h e age ot] χ years, w h e r e u p o n h e sired P N . P N lived after siring P N [an additional] y years. H e sired [additional] sons and daughters [as well]?' But verse 26 conforms to t h a t p a t t e r n only in its first five words (in t h e H e b r e w ) , "Terah lived [to t h e age of] 7 0 y e a r s , w h e r e u p o n h e sired Abram." T h e n e x t words "and N a h o r a n d H a r a n [as well]‫ ״‬mark a departure f r o m t h e pattern (in w h i c h only o n e son is n a m e d ) and t h a t p a t t e r n is never resumed. H a v i n g thus b r o k e n w i t h t h e p a t t e r n , t h e n a r r a t o r signals t h e start of a n e w narrative w i t h a n o m i n a l clause in h y p o t a c t i c contrast to w h a t precedes. T h e H e b r e w word töMöt d e n o t i n g "births, sirings, generations" or c o n n o t i n g 1 1 entailments, results, events, history" is admirably suited to our n a r r a t o r s requirements at this juncture, to mark t h e b e g i n n i n g of Terah's story (in contrast to his predecessors, whose only story is t h e n a m e of t h e first b o r n son sired), and to encapsulate his story, so to speak, in his begetting of three sons and their issue. T h a t issue is disclosed in w h a t at first looks like a reverse order, t h e siring of a son, Lot, by the youngest son, H a r a n ; this last disclosure in a hypotactic nominal clause, parallel to the hypotactic nominal clause of f a t h e r 1 c r a b ' s b e g e t t i n g s .

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIBLICAL LITERARY PHENOMENON

34g

It quickly becomes apparent, however, t h a t there is n o reversal, t h a t is, the begettings of t h e youngest son preceding those of his older brothers, for his older brothers d o n o t (at this p o i n t in t h e narrative) do any begettings at all. T h i s is to say that n o progeny is produced by middle b r o t h e r N a h o r , while t h e wife of (elder?) brother A h r a m , Sarai, is explicitly a n d emphatically characterized as "barren, [yes] child h a d she n o n e " But this i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e (implicit) childlessness of N a h o r and t h e (explicit) childlessness of A b r a m does n o t immediately follow the notice ot H a r a n s siring of a son. First we are told of t h e death of Hdran - abï-Lôt ( H a r a n Lot s father), this d e a t h taking place during his father's lifetime ( w h i c h wc would h a v e understood f r o m t h e developing c o n t e x t w i t h o u t being told) and in L ! r Kasdim (which we should also h a v e k n o w n from c o n t e x t ) , t h a t t o w n being characterized as (in?) t h e land of his birth (which we m i g h t also h a v e guessed), an expl 1cation oi n o conceivable significance ior Haran, or for his father lerah, or for his son Lot. T h e p l a c e m e n t of this d e a t h notice becomes quickly understandable, for the itillowing s e n t e n c e - telling us of t h e marriages of A b r a m and N a h o r (two brothers who in the normal course of events would take wives before their younger brother did, a n d ) w h o apparently led lives ot bachelorhood until their hi o t h e r s d e a t h — tells us also that the wife whom o n e ot t h e m took was n o n e o t h e r t h i n 11 daughter of H a r a n , this I laran being f a t h e r of Lady M i l c a h (to be sure), but also of Lady Iscah, W h e n we are t h e n told that: Terah, o n d e p a r t i n g from Ur Kasdim, took with h i m his son A b r a m (but n o t his son N a h o r ) , his grandson Lot H a r a n s o n ( t h e only o n e he h a d ) , and his daughter-in-law Sarai, wife to his son Abram (but n o t his daughter-in-law Milcah, wife to his son N a h o r ) , we are n o t far f r o m divining t h a t u p o n his son H a r a n s death, Terah took his three o r p h a n e d g r a n d c h i l d r e n in ward, His youngest grandchild, Lot, h e therefore took w i t h h i m to H a r a n ; his granddaughter M i l c a h h e had married off to his son N a h o r . But w h a t did h e do with Iscah? O r better still, why did h e n o t marry her off to his o t h e r son, A b r a m , rather t h a n let h i m take to wife a n unpedigreed Sarai? O r if h e did do just that, and his granddaughter a n d daughter-in-law Iscah is masked u n d e r t h e n a m e Sarai, to what end is the n a r r a t o r playixag this game w i t h his readers? T h e answer I would suggest lies ahead in C h a p t e r 20. T h e r e A b r a h a m has gott e n A b i m e l e c h , king of Gerar, into trouble with G o d by p e r m i t t i n g t h a t king to take into his h a r e m A b r a h a m ' s wife Sarah, t h e king h a v i n g been led to believe t h a t Sarah is A b r a h a m s sister. W h e n A b i m e l e c h taxes A b r a h a m with his duplicity, A b r a h a m replies t h a t h e has n o t lied: " A n d of a t r u t h my sister she is, my f a t h e r s daughter but n o t my m o t h e r s daughter. A n d so she came to be my wife" (20:12), Now it would appear strange indeed if t h e narrator of 11:26, w h o risks r e d u n d a n c y to stress t h a t Sarai is T e n t h s daughter-in-law, this by virtue oi her being wife to A b r a m (which we have been told), w h o is Terah s son (which we have also been told), would h a v e omitted the d a t u m t h a t she was also his daughter by a second wife; especially strange in view of t h a t n a r r a t o r s providing t h e pointless d a t u m t h a t leralVs son H a r a n had, in addition to the daughter w h o became his ho η her N a b o b s wife, a n o t h e r daughter, never to he heard of again. Strange as such an omission would be (and, let us remember, gapping is an established narrative strategy in Scripture) it would be stranger yet if the narra η ‫ זי‬of

3<2‫כ‬

STRUCTURES

Genesis 1 1 : 2 6 - 3 2 h a d m a d e it explicit t h a t A b r a m had taken to wife a half-sister, in c o n t r a v e n t i o n of Leviticus 18:9, w h i c h forbids marriage to a half-sister of any parentage. But is it n o t equally strange t h a t A b r a h a m confesses to t h a t very contrav e n t i o n in 20:12? N o , stranger yet! For A b r a h a m seems to be confessing to incest (or w h a t will be regarded as such in t h e readers time) to escape t h e charge of prevarication! All t h e strangenesses disappear w h e n we realize t h a t A b r a h a m is telling t h e t r u t h in 20:12, yet t h a t t r u t h does n o t entail Sarah's being his half-sister. U p o n t h e d e a t h of his son H a r a n , as we n o t e d earlier, Terah rook his three o r p h a n e d grandc h i l d r e n as wards. In more t e c h n i c a l language h e "adopted" t h e m as his own. H e married off his two granddaughters (now his "daughters") to his two sons. T h u s A b r a m and N a h o r in taking their nieces to wife are also marrying their father's "daughters" w h o by t h a t technicality oi adoption are also their "sisters" Sisters only o n t h e strength of their h a v i n g b e e n adopted by paterfamilias Terah, but n o t by his wife, w h o h a d b o r n e h i m all t h r e e sons. A s tor t h e question of why t h e narrator concealed Sarai's/Sarah's parentage under the cover of t h e n a m e Iscah, h o w else might he have tucked away in ( j e n e s i s 1 1 the clue for solving t h e puzzle, which comes as such a jolt to us upon first hearing in Genesis 20 A b r a h a m s coniession that his wile is also his sister? But tbis is not all. O u r pericope in Genesis 1 1 provides LIS with a lew more clues to narratorial niceties in chapters to follow. O n e ol t h e m is t h e death of Terah in H a r a n at t h e age of 205 years. Let us cite from Skinner's c o m m e n t a r y o n Genesis t h e view t h a t is generally shared in m o d e r n scholarship: T h e migration from Ur-Kasdim to Canaan is accomplished in two stages. Terah, as patriarchal head of the family, conducts t he expedition as tar as Haran, where he dies. T h e obvious implication is that after his death the journey is resumed by Abram (12:5); although [the Samaritan text] alone gives a chronology consistent with this view (v. supra). Nähor, we are left to infer, remained behind in Ur-Kasdlm; and in the subsequent narrative Ρ (in opposition to ]) seems careful to avoid any suggestion of a connexion between N ä h or and the city of Ha rand r

W h a t S k i n n e r has in m i n d w h e n h e asserts that only t h e S a m a r i t a n version accords with t h e view t h a t A b r a m resumed the journey t o C a n a a n after his father's d e a t h is t h a t t h e S a m a r i t a n text gives Terah a lifetime of 145 years as against MT's 205 years. In dropping this m a t t e r w i t h o u t further consideration S k i n n e r misses t h e following: r. T h e discrepancy between M T and the Samaritan text is a prime example of t h e reasoning b e h i n d t h e text-critical rule lectio difpcilior praestat. Terah was seventy years old w h e n h e sired A b r a m ( 11:26), and A b r a m was seventy-five years old w h e n h e left H a r a n . T h u s Terah was 145 years old w h e n A b r a m left H a r a n . Thus, according to MT, Terah lived a n o t h e r sixty years after A b r a m s departure. T h i s is deemed unlikely for two reasons. First, the statement that lerah died (1 1:32) precedes the felling of A h r a i n s departure from I laran. Sectmd, why would lerah h a v e remained behind in I laran, having set out for ( ,anaan‫ •׳‬land in the first place? Ί berefore, teasons the Samaritan editor, M T is in error on the year ot detains death, and he cor‫״‬ reels it so that Abram will leave 1 laran in the year that lerah dies.

structures

as a biblical literary

PHENOMENON

351

2. T h e M T is n o t in error. T h e s t a t e m e n t as to Terah's lifetime concludes his story (tëledôty 11:27), and is of n o relevance for t h e chronology of w h a t follows. A s for t h e perplexity of Terah s pointless a b a n d o n i n g of his i n t e n t i o n to go to C a n a a n , in his lifetime's full vigor, this only serves to u n d e r l i n e the perplexity of his original i n t e n t i o n and t h a t of his a b a n d o n i n g t h a t i n t e n t i o n inspired at U r Kasdim, w h i c h (as we h a v e reasoned) is so close to H a r a n as to be virtually assimilated to it. To this we shall return in a m o m e n t . 3. W h e n A h r a m leaves 1 laran he takes with h i m — a n d , certainly, not without his g u a r d i a n s (father's) permission — t h e ward cot his father, Lou T h i s Lot, who must h a v e been close in years to his sisters Milcah and Iseah-Sarah, i s — a s we are now in a position to appreciate — not only Abram's n e p h e w but the ward he has taken over from his f a t h e r and, as well, t h e brother oi his wife Sarai. T h i s double or triple kinship b o n d (with his younger b r o t h e r s o r p h a n e d son, his f a t h e r s adopted son, and his wife's younger b r o t h e r ) will t h e n u n d e r l i n e Abram's generosity and Lot's ingratitude w h e n t h e two of t h e m c o m e to a parting of t h e ways. T h a t parting, in C h a p t e r 13, is ascribed to t h e wealth in livestock owned by b o t h parties, and to Lot's inability or refusal to restrain his shepherds out of deference to his protector, this despite t h e greater security they would h a v e enjoyed as a unit vis-à-vis t h e native C a n a a n i t e s and Perizzites, w h o "were t h e n t h e settled population in t h e land." ( T h e preceding considerations are n e i t h e r o v e r d u e r p r e t a t i o n nor idle conjecture. T h e narrator has signaled us to read b e t w e e n t h e lines hy referring to t h e C a n a a n i t e s a n d Perizzites in 13:7—as against t h e C a n a a n i t e s alone in 1 2 : 6 — a n d e m b r a c i n g t h e m in a singular participle yöseb; in contrast to this t h e brothers-inlaw's crowding of o n e a n o t h e r is why in 13:6 " t h e area would n o t bear their abiding together." T h e H e b r e w for t h e last two words sehet yahdäiv appears in t h e apparently pointless repetition in t h a t same verse, "so they could n o t [i.e., found t h e m selves u n a b l e to] abide together." A p p e a r i n g in D e u t e r o n o m y 25:5 and Psalm 133:1 w i t h tihim "brothers, k i n s m e n " as subject, this dwelling together of brothers was recognized by Speiser 2 7 as an idiom for a n e x t e n d e d family living in u n i o n , as a unit, in solidarity, o f t e n o n a father's (or a n c e s t o r s ) undivided estate.

771c Problem oflJr

Kasdimd

laran

Let us review n o w our argument for Ur Kasdim-Haran as twin cities, which, are virtually one, both of t h e m in what is implicitly the native land of f a t h e r Ter all. U r Kasdim is explicitly (in) 1/1c native land of Haran, where h e dies before his father leaves it and is implicitly (in) the land of Nahor, t h e brother w h o (implicitly) rem a m s there w h e n his father leaves it. H a r a n is implicitly (in) the native land of A b r a m , for it is in t h a t t o w n that A b r a m in 12:1 receives t h e divine call to leave his natwe land a n d explicitly t h a t in 12:4, where he leaves upon, receipt ot t h e revelation. A n d , as we saw from t h e chronology, "his father's house" at H a r a n , w h i c h h e is told to leave, would be perplexing if his f a t h e r h a d died before Abram's leaving for C a n a a n , for w i t h f a t h e r dead t h e r e would be n o f a t h e r s house to leave in H a r a n , inasmuch as t h e rest of Terah's family is in U r Kasdim. (Needless to say, e v e n if Terah h a d died before Abram's departure, there would still be "a father's house" in. H a r a n if it were virtually indistinguishable from brother Nahor's U r Kas-

3<2‫כ‬ dim.) A n d H a r a n -

STRUCTURES

in t h e f o l l o w i n g s t o r i e s o t I s a a c a n d J a c o b

- is t h r e e t i m e s ex•‫׳‬

plicitly and t h i r t e e n limes implicitly lire h o m e of Nahor, to whose family ( A h r a i n s bel ‫׳‬:!/;'/""fathers house" in 24:38, 40) repair is made for suitable brides. N o w ici us restate t h e poetic problem. In view ot the above, why is t h e in‫״‬ significant suburb, Ur Kasdim, introduced to begin with, (1) entailing ferah's and Abram's move, (2) characterized as the native land oi J laran Terah s son (1 1:28), (3) this last seeming to clash with t h e identification of A b r a i n s native land (12:1), and (4) with A b r a i n s characterization of H a r a n , t h e city of his brother Nahor, as his o w n native land (24:38, 40)? T h e solution, we propose, must lie in t h e only additional a p p e a r a n c e of U r Kasdim in t h e book of Genesis, in a chapter to w h i c h we give a very close reading, but o n e of whose problems may be profitably treated here. In 15:7, an episode of a rcvelation t o A b r a m begins, " H e said to him, 4I am Y H W H , [the one] w h o fetched you out from U r Kasdim, to grant to you this land, to take possession of it.'" It ever o n e biblical text appeared in clear c o n t r a d i c t i o n to a n o t h e r (or to others) it is these words put into t h e m o u t h of Y H W H himself. For if t h e s t a t e m e n t s in 1 1 : 2 7 - 1 2 : 5 make a n y t h i n g unambiguous, e v e n at t h e price of repeated redundancies, it is t h a t Y H W H did n o t f e t c h A b r a m out of U r Kasdim, but out of H a r a n . It was father Terah who initiated t h e m o v e from U r Kasdim in t h e direction of C a n a a n , taking A b r a m along with h i m , a n d breaking off his i n t e n d e d itinerary in Haran; in H a r a n where A b r a m receives t h e call to go o n to t h e land " w h i c h I shall reveal to you." A n d it is trom H a r a n t h a t A b r a m explicitly departs at t h e age of seventy-five, and it is in H a r a n t h a t A b r a m had amassed t h e treasure and t h e living creatures t h a t h e took with h i m as h e set out. It is not only the fact of 1 5:7s blatant c o n t r a d i c t i o n of 1 1:27 -12:5, but t h e gratuitousness of t h e contradicting element "from Ur Kasdim" t h a t points to its de‫׳‬ ployment here as an essential piece of t h e jigsaw-like puzzle of t h e U r Kasdim1 laran landscape, bor in the place of "Ur Kasdim" in VI IWl l's dialogue wc might have had 1 'your native land" or "your father's house" (‫ ־!יי‬less likely (looking lor‫״‬ ward to chapters 24-48) - " A r a m - n a h a r a i m " or "Paddan A r a m " d h u s wc must have here a Scriptural category of poetic design, which (with a bow to dentil b a n ) wc may label t h e quia absurdum est: T h e appearance of a n e l e m e n t pointless in it011‫יי‬, serving n o poetic purpose in regard to plot or setting, and in a c o n j u n c t i o n of texts where it can only be described as egregiously dysfunctional, h e n c e an e l e m e n t t h a t importunes us for a solution. 2 8 A father, taking part of his family w i t h h i m , moves from a location A ( n e v e r otherwise heard of), h e a d e d for a foreign territory Β for a n unguessable reason. H e interrupts his itinerary a few miles from his starting p o i n t and settles in a famed commercial c e n t e r C , w h i c h will subsequently so overcloud location A as to be referred to as t h e h o m e o f t h a t part of t h e family t h a t n e v e r left A. In this famous locale C , t h e son w h o has a c c o m p a n i e d his f a t h e r there, and w h o is to figure thereafter as t h e p a r a m o u n t h e r o i c protagonist of our story, receives a revelation f r o m rhe Deity himself, w h o instructs h i m to leave C and m a k e his way to territory R, which had b e e n his father's initial destination w h e n h e left A . O u r hero obeys, and c o n t i n u e s t h e trek i n t o territory Β and even beyond it. to t h e kingdom t h a t b e c a m e t h e famed and wealthy empire at t h e western end of t h e Fertile Crescent. A f t e r

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIBLICAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

353

hobnobbing with royalty and surviving a contretemps there by the grace of the Deity, he returns to territory B, where he had earlier become allied with a powerful native family. From the far north, an army from the Empire of the East descends upon the royal city-states to the south of our hero's ranging grounds, to punish them for violating the terms of their vassal treaties with that Empire. Laden with spoil from the defeated cities, the imperial army returns homeward, among their captives the nephew who had accompanied our hero in his departure from C. Our hen) and his native allies give pursuit to the withdrawing army, put it to rout in a night battle, and return home with all the loot and captives restored. This then is the context tor another divine revelation, one in which, the Deity reiterates the promise to grant the as yet unborn progeny ot our hero possession ol the territories of B, where he is a successful but nevertheless only recently arrived alien. But a puzzling feature of this revelational narrative is that the Deity, who had appeared to him in city C of bis native land, introduces himself as the Deity who had brought him out of town A in that native land. As we seek for some meaningful moral or lesson or kerygma in this conundrum, let us remind ourselves of the nature of this library called Scripture. It is an ideological, ideational, religious, theological, moralistic literature of preachment. A n d while precepts and laws and prophetic oracles and exhortations make up a significant portion of this literature, perhaps as much as two-thirds of it is in the form of story, that is, narratives, which—whatever else their content and interest—focus on aspects of the relationship between humans and God, how God reveals his will to humans, and how they respond to the revelations of that will. In short, the very question ot revelation and revelations, their nature and avenues, their certainties and dubieties, are again and again at the center of so many of these narratives that feature a God who speaks, the how of his speaking, and the people whom he rarely ceases to address. T h e features then that relate to the t h e m e of revelation and response are as follows: τ. A father w h o leaves h o m e A to μ ο to land B, taking o n e son with him; they get as far as C, where their trip ends. 2. T h e sun in C receives God's summons to go on to land B, where a great destiny awaits bun and his descendants. 3. T h e son obeys, departs irom Cd arrives at B, where G o d appears again and reiten ates the promise ot national glory, specifying this time that land Β will he the 11;1‫׳‬ tioual territory of the herns descendants. 4. After two risky adventure>, in which G o d explicitly or implicitly acts on behalf of the hero, another revelation is vouchsafed the hero, o n e in w h i c h G o d declares himself as the one w h o had brought the hero forth, not from C, but from A to give him possession oi land B.

T h e nexus of the matter lies then in some kind of identification or superimposition of son and father, in which the intention of the latter (uninspired by God) to go from A to land Β is transformed by God into a command to the former to fulfil the original intent of his father. W h e n God, in a subsequent revelation, has refer‫׳‬ ence to the first one, he talks as it the command to the son to go from C to Β had really been expressed in the departure (of father and son) from A with Β as the(ir. ? )

3<2‫כ‬

STRUCTURES

purposed destination. T h e assimilation of one persona to another, or t h e dissimilat i o n — s o to s p e a k — o f o n e character into two personae, or t h e identification of a person or place by two different names, are so frequent an occurrence, and f u n c t i o n so meaningfully in a variety of narrative strategies as n o t to require extended comm e n t at this point. 2 9 But w h a t would be the moral or kerygma of this intricate play of place names, departure points, intended or ordained destinations, and t h e assimilation of a f a t h e r s caprice and his s o n s divinely inspired compulsion? T h e only one that 1 can suggest is a lesson that h u m a n beings may, in t h e pursuit oi their private designs or hunches, initiate actions or m o v e m e n t s that are, unbeknownst- to t h e m , parts ot a much larger and purposive design, t h e author of which is God. T h u s Terah., in heading (or C a n a a n , is doing G o d s walk A n d , perhaps, because he fails to acknowledge God's interest in his initiatives, never manages to reach his own purposed destination while his son, w h o is on such intimate terms with I )city, resumes t h e journey at God's instance, and in reaching his dest ination earns t h e glorious destiny t h a t G o d has in mind for h i m in t he persons of his multitudinous progeny. If t h e reader find himself less t h a n impressed by this kerygmatic solution to a riddle t h a t has b e e n so painstakingly constructed and whose e l e m e n t s are spread over five (or thirty-five) chapters, h e is of t h e same m i n d as I am. It is such a sense of this kerygma's lameness t h a t sends us back to our text, to review t h e many peculiar problems of diction, grammar, gapping, c o n t e x t u a l redundancies, and superfluous explications, in search for clues t h a t we may h a v e missed. T h e following a l i g n m e n t of two remarkably parallel verses in t h e H e b r e w features t h e following, in order to facilitate comparison and contrast: 1 ) literal translation; 2) linear arrangement, wherever possible, to emphasize similar f o r m u l a t i o n or identical matter; 3) t h e rendering in italics of material t h a t is informationally red u n d a n t ; 4) t h e prefixing to 12:5 of t h e immediately preceding verse, w h i c h renders verse 5 e v e n more r e d u n d a n t :

‫}־‬ENESIS τ 2 : ( 4 <St) 5

GENESIS 1 1 : 3 1

(4. A b r a m w e n t as Y H W H h a d charged h i m . A n d Lot went with him.) Abram

Terah took

to< )k

Ahrain, his son, a n d Lot, son of Haran, his grandson, and Abram,

Sarai, his daughter-in-law, his son, a n d

wife

Sarai, his •wife, and

Lot, /u's hrother s son mid of

all the property they had amassed a n d t h e creatures they h a d m a d e in

Haran, and they/there w e n t f o r t h with them to go to t h e land of C a n a a n , ( T h e y arrived in C a n a a n l a n d . )

they w e n t f o r t h to go t o t h e land of C a n a a n . ( T h e y arrived in C a n a a n l a n d . )

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIB LI CAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

355

Inasmuch as wives are either too greatly cherished or too substantial a part of o n e s identity to be lightly a b a n d o n e d , n o o n e reading verse 12:4 would ever assume o t h e r t h a n t h a t Abram's going according to God's charge included his wife as we lb H e n c e , t h e first part of verse 5 would appear to be r e d u n d a n t , in t h a t L o t s accompany ing A b r a m has just b e e n told in verse 4. A n d so too t h e rather supererogatory notice t h a t t h e patriarchal figures did n o t make charitable disbursement of their wealth before their emigration, and t h e equally supererogatory notice t h a t as they took along their i n a n i m a t e property, so did they also take the a n i m a t e — t h e word ncpes "creature, animal" c o n n o t i n g either h u m a n s or beasts or b o t h — which they had made; this last verb reinforcing the incongruity of t h e entire c o n t e x t , tor h u m a n beings may acquire o t h e r creatures. T h e y do not, even when they purpose‫׳‬ fully cohabit for reproduction, "make a baby." I bis peculiar insertion in 12:3 is m a t c h e d hy an equally peculiar intrusive re‫׳‬ d u n d a n c y in t 1:31. T h e second clauses of b o t h verses are identical, except for t h e baffling addition of tm. T h i s prepositional phrase is vocalized in M T as ittam "with t h e m ; " a different vocalization would yield 'ötäm "(accusative) them." M o d e r n scholarship is agreed that this tm represents a textual error, and remedies it. by o n e or a n o t h e r implicit e m e n d a t i o n of t h e text. T h u s Speiser, for example, translated t h e clause "they all left" a n d provides this n o t e : MT literally '4and they left with them" which is obviously in error; either, "he brought them out" (with Sam., LXX, Old Latin, Vulg.) or "he went with them" (with Syr.) which is idiomatically the same as "he took them." 30 Interestingly, all these cited "versions" 3 1 testify to t h e presence in this H e b r e w text of tm, the former e m e n d i n g t h e verb to a singular (transitive) h i p h i l w i t h a n accusative ötärn, and t h e latter to a singular intransitive w i t h a prepositional dative ittam. (Both these changes, incidentally, are rendered dubious by t h e plural verb in t h e verses third [and informationally r e d u n d a n t ] clause, "and/so they arrived in C a n a a n land.") G i v e n t h e n t h e testimony t h a t t h e early translators h a d a Vorlage t h a t did not essentially differ from MT's c o n s o n a n t a l text, why did t h e original text include tm, which, however vocalized, is superfluous if t h e verb is singular, and silly if t h e verb is plural: O u r answer is presented in t h e alternative translation "and there w e n t forth with t h e m [others]" W h o t h e n could h a v e been these u n m e n t i o n e d "others" who left U r Kasdim together with lerah and A b r a m and Lot and S a r a h Why, n o n e o t h e r t h a n N a h o r (and his niece-wife, Milcah, sister of Lot and iscalvSarai, and like the latter, natural granddaughter and adopted daughter of Terah). Yes, Nahor, w h o will never again he associated with U r Kasdim. N a h o r who, with his descend a n t family, is located a dozen times in P a d d a n A r a m and t h r e e times at 1 laran; a n d o n c e has his n a m e cited in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h a t specific s e t t l e m e n t in A r a m N a h a r a i m , "the city ot Nahor." If t h a t he the case, h o w e v e r — w h i c h is to say, if t h e author-narrator of this snip‫׳‬ pet of Patriarchal history w a n t s us to divine t h a t N a h o r and his family also left Ur Kasdim with Father Terah and settled with h i m at H a r a n , there to raise t h e c h i b d r e n and grandchildren, a m o n g w h o m will h e t h e R e b e k a h w h o becomes wife to Isaac and the daughters of her b r o t h e r Laban, w h o b e c o m e wives to J a c o b — w h y is

356

structures

the information not put forward straightforwardly! W h y encode the information in a c i p h e r ? O n c e w e a s k t h e q u e s t i o n in t h i s way, w e c o û t e t o r e a l i z e t h a t a t t h e h e a r t of t h e c o d e lies t h e c i p h e r of t h e t w o p l a c e n a m e s , H a r a n a n d U r K a s d i m . H a r a n /

H a r r a n u m , w h i c h is t h e last great stronghold of Assyria to fall t o t h e armies t h a t wc d u b Ν eo-Babylonian, but are k n o w n to J e r e m i a h as Kasdim; to J e r e m i a h w h o heard of Haran's fall to t h e Kasdim a n d witnessed t h e fall to t h e m of Jerusalem only fiifteen years later. A n d U r of t h e Kasdim, n o t t h e great city of Ur, w h i c h flourished as imperial city in s o u t h e r n Babylonia more t h a n l a o o years before J e r e m i a h s time, already a legend before t h e rise or the (to us) legendary H a m m u r a b i of BabyIon, but a never-heard-of s e t t l e m e n t close enough to H a r a n t o be, like H a r a n , in t h e area called A r a m of t h e Two Rivers, these two streams being t h e Euphrates and t h e Balih. W h y t h e n this apparent i n v e n t i o n of a suburb of H a r a n proper, to be credited as t h e place of Abram's begetting, as t h e birth place a b a n d o n e d by his father, yet identified by G o d himself as t h e place from which h e drew h i m out rather t h a n from Haran, t h e place where he first revealed himself to Abram? Clearly, to m a k e A r a m Ν aharaim t h e indigenous h o m e l a n d of the patriarchs, yet deny to its capital, H a r a n , t h e h o n o r or prestige of being t h e first patriarch's birthplace. A n d this eclipsing of t h e historic record, so to speak, this ambiguation of n a m e s - o l places and people, personalities and p o l i t i c s - - i s in keeping with t h e scriptural a u t h o r s ( / a u t hots') attempt ever to keep his readership (or, at least, o n e level of that readership) irom reading bis story as historiography rather t h a n as metaphor. T h e examples oi this throughout t h e 1 lebrcw Scriptures are almost too numerous to be c o u n t e d . A m o n g t h e m , the actual m o u n t a i n peak of revelation called M o u n t of G o d , Horeb, Sinai; I he sacred plateau shrine identified as Jerusalem, Zion, Moriah; t h e ancestral lines of Mordecai and H am an; t h e original place names of Bethel and H e b r o n and S h e c h e m , and so on; t h e contradictory e t h n o n y m s and eponyms a n d t o p o n y m s in généalogie tables; t h e arcane m e t a t h e t i c identification of A a r o n a n d Moses, Moses a n d A a r o n — i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with w h o m or w h a t ? — a t t h e beginning a n d e n d of Exodus 6:26 and 6:27. S u c h ubiquitous reminders of t h e figurative, rather t h a n l i t e r a l — w h i c h is to say, h i s t o r i o g r a p h i e — p u r p o r t of biblical story are balanced by t h e symbolism, so frequently playful, in such n a m e s as C a i n (Qayin = Blacksmith), A b e l (Hebel = W i n d p u f f ) , Enos (Enosh = H u m a n ) , N o a h (iVo:/1 = Ease, Relief), A b r a m ( = H i g h Father), Isaac (Yishäq = O n e Smiles), and Jacob (Yailqob = Heel-dodger/Supplanter). But t h e deliberate repudiation of literalism in t h e n a m e s t h a t figure in w h a t appear so deceptively to be historical narratives is t h e more telling witness to t h e biblical authors' awareness t h a t t h e most c o m m o n expression of heresy or blasphemy is t h a t form of idolatry which we may call historic ism: t h e sanctification of past events, people, and p l a c e s — m e r e meaningless d a t a — a t t h e expense of theology, w h i c h reads moral m e a n i n g out of and into history. To day s sophisticate will smile condescendingly at t h e patriot w h o will search out t h e inn w h e r e G e o r g e Washington slept, or at t h e pietist at t h e peak where vet abides t h e keel of N o a h s ark, yet stand in rapt b e m u s e m e n t before the pot ter ν lamps and cruses t h a t served our biblical ancestors to light up their darkness and store their oil. T h e sophistication of t h e biblical authors was such that they were‫ ׳‬aware, and could warn us, oi the danger of k n o w i n g t h e spot where Moses was buried or received a revelation. 1 hey

STRUCTURES AS A BIB LI CAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

357

w h o k n e w w h a t p o w e r h u m a n s a t t r i b u t e t o t h e w o r d of m a n , c o u l d signal t o us t h e d a n g e r of p r e s u m i n g t h a t w e w e r e privy t o the n a m e of‫ ־‬G o d . A n d we, tor o u r p a r t , scorn s u c h e v i d e n c e hy a t t r i b u t i n g t o t h e m t h e m o s t absurdly c h i l d i s h of lit c r a b s tic c r e d u l i t i e s . C o n s i d e r t h e w o r d s p u t i n t o t h e m o u t h of M o s e s in D e u t e r o n o m y 3, a n d s e a r c h o u t t h e c o m m e n t a r i e s for a s u g g e s t i o n t h a t M o s e s (or t h e n a r r a t o r for w h o m h e speaks) is l a u g h i n g t o g e n t l e scorn t h e l i t e r a l ist a r g u m e n t a t i o n of s i m p l e a n d s o p h i s t i c a t e alike. M o s e s is bent‫ ״‬o n a w i n g his a u d i e n c e w i t h t h e s t u p e n d o u s ness of t h e i r v i c t o r i e s o v e r t h e l i t a n i e O g k i n g of B a s h a n , t h e last of t h e s u r v i v i n g R e p h a i t e s . M a k i n g m e n t i o n of ‫־‬one b o r d e r of h i s territory, M t . H e r m o n , h e b r e a k s off his i m p a s s i o n e d t a l e of v i a 0 1 y w i t h t h e aside t h a t t h e r e are o t h e r n a m e s for t h i s p e a k — t h e S i d o n i a n s c a l l i n g it Sir i o n a n d t h e A m o r i t e s c a l l i n g it S e n i r — a n d t h e n goes o n t o c i t e t h e e v i d e n t e (or is t h i s t h e n a r r a t o r b r e a k i n g in t o address his c o n t e m p o r a r y a u d i e n c e ? ) for his p h y s i c a l s t a t u r e , "Lo h i s b e d s t e a d , a b e d s t e a d ( m a d e ) of iron, is it n o t [ t h e r e t o b e s e e n yet] i n R a b b a h of t h e A m m o n i t e s , n i n e c u b i t s in l e n g t h a n d f o u r c u b i t s i n b r e a d t h , by [ m e a s u r e of] a h e r o s c u b i t " ( 3 : 1 1 ) . T a l k of a k i n g - s i : c hecl ! Let us r e t u r n n o w t o t h e t w o verses f r o m c h a p t e r s 11 a n d 12, w h i c h I a l i g n e d i n p a r a l l e l c o l u m n s a f e w pages b a c k . T h e y are p r e c e d e d i n t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t by t h e v a r i o u s n o t i c e s of t h e b e g e t t i n g s of T e r a h a n d h i s s o n H a r a n , f o r m u l a t e d in a way t o a m b i g u a t e t h e p e d i g r e e of t h e wife of A b r a m w h i l e s p e c i f y i n g t h a t of his b r o t h e r N a h o r , m a k i n g e x p l i c i t t h e c h i l d l e s s n e s s of S a r a i w h i l e l e a v i n g i m p l i c i t t h a t c o n d i t i o n of N a h o r s wife. A m b i g u a t e d also is t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r of t h e b i r t h s of T e r a h ' s t h r e e sons, w h i c h m a k e s for a c h r o n o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m t h a t 1 discussed e a r l i e r in t h i s c h a p t e r . P e r p l e x i n g also, as w e h a v e s e e n , is t h e l a c o n i c n o t i c e of Terah's rem o val f r o m U r K a s d i m , a m o t i v e l e s s m o v e , w i t h a s u g g e s t i o n t h a t t h e d e s t i n a t i o n for t h e m o v e w a s t h e l a n d of C a n a a n . W h a t is n o t e x p l i c i t is w h e t h e r t h e i n t e n t i o n a l i t y of t h a t d e s t i n a t i o n is in t h e m i n d of T e r a h , or — u n b e k n o w n s t t o h i m - — o n l y in t h e m i n d of G o d . T h a t t h e l a t t e r m i g h t i n d e e d b e t h e case in t h e m i n d of t h e a m b i g u a t i n g n a r r a t o r is in t h e n o t i c e of t h e r e v e l a i o r y c o m m a n d of Yl 1WI1 t o A h r a m to l e a v e patrim o n i a l h o m e in n a t i v e l a n d for a d e s t i n a t i o n clearly a m b i g u a t e d by u t o t h e land 1 shall reveal t o you" ( 1 2 : 1 ) . A b r a m ' s d e p a r t u r e for t h i s d e s t i n a t i o n in o b e d i e n c e t o t h e c o m m a n d is t h e n told t w i c e , t h e first t i m e i n 12:4, w h i c h gives his age at t h e t i m e of d e p a r t u r e f r o m 1 l a r a n , b u t n o t w i t h k n o w l e d g e as t o h i s d e s t i n a t i o n ( 1 2 : 4 ) ; a n d t h e n (in 12:5) w i t h t h e n o t i c e t h a t (as i n t h e case of T e r a h i n 11:31) t h e d e s t l · n a t i o n was t h e l a n d of C a n a a n , b u t w i t h t h e s a m e a b i g u a t i o n as t o w h e t h e r A b r a m k n e w his G o d - c h o s e n d e s t i n a t i o n a t t h e t i m e of his d e p a r t u r e . 3 2 T h a t N a h o r was left b e h i n d in U r K a s d i m h a s b e e n a l m o s t u n i v e r s a l l y i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e o m i s s i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t h e t o o a c c o m p a n i e d h i s f a t h e r t o H a r a n . But t h i s i n f e r e n c e , logical as it is, is n e i t h e r n e c e s s a r y n o r c o r r e c t . N o t c o r r e c t , as is t h e t e s t i m o n y of every s u b s e q u e n t r e f e r e n c e t o t h e l o c a t i o n of h i s r e s i d e n c e . A n d t h e o m i s s i o n of N a h o r s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e m o v e f r o m U r K a s d i m t o H a r a n m a y ind e e d b e t w i c e r e c t i f i e d , o n c e in .1 1:31 in " t h e r e w e n t f o r t h w i t h t h e m [ o t h e r s ] " a n d a g a i n in .12:5 in " t h e c r e a t u r e s t h e y h a d m a d e in H a r a n , " N o w w h i l e e v e r y o n e ass û m e s that, t h e s u b j e c t of 'äsü " t h e y h a d m a d e " m u s t b e t h e m e m b e r s of A b r a m s party, t h e fact is t h a t t h e o n l y g r a m m a t i c a l s u b j e c t is A b r a m ; t h e p l u r a l v e r b t h e n

358

STRUCTURES

constituting a h i n t t h a t the subject of äsü is t h e collective/plural family of Terah. T h e reference t h e n in the nc^cs "creature(s)" t h a t A b r a m took w i t h h i m is to ex‫״‬ elude t h e b r o t h e r and sister-indaw (and niece) w h o were produced n o t in H a r a n but in U r Kasdim. But again, why formulate the information so as to obscure w h a t could be so obvious, and t h e n e n c i p h e r t h e obvious in t h e murk of allusive formulation? A specific, a n d partial, answer is that the inclusion of Lot in b o t h 11:31 and 1 2 : 4 - 5 (twice), together w i t h the informationally r e d u n d a n t details as to his relationship w i t h Terah and A b r a m , is suggestively emphasized by t h e omission of N a h o r (and wife) from t h e list of those a c c o m p a n y i n g Terah. A n d t h e placing of Lot in t h e list of l e r a h s accompaniers between Abram and Sarai rather t h a n after Terah's (son and) s o n s wife Sarai (1 1:31 ), as his a c c o m p a n y i n g U n c l e A b r a m and sister Sarai to C a n a a n ( 12:4 -5), b o t h suggest t h e reason for the placing oi the i n f o r m a t i o n as to Sarai's childlessness in verse 1 in the lace of t h e complex web ot relationships occasioned by a father, "Terah, adopting as wards the t h r e e c h i l d r e n of his deceased son, I laran, marrying off one granddaughter ( M i l c a h ) to son N a h o r and. a second granddaughter Sarai to son A b r a m , and allowing that son A b r a m to take over t h e guardianship ot his grands( ‫ י‬η as he sets out for his H e a v e n - d e t e r m i n e d destiny, we h a v e apparently lost sight of t h e fact that Lot, t h e n e p h e w of A b r a m by his dead b r o t h e r H a r a n , and also t h e brother-in-law of A b r a m by virtue of being b r o t h e r to A b r a m ' s niece-wife Sarai, would, by law and s e n t i m e n t , be t h e heir-apparent of t h e childless couple. ( A n d , incidentally, this adds to t h e picture of L o t s churlishness, c o n t e n t as h e is to a b a n d o n his natural sister and uncle, guardian a n d foster or adoptive parent, to their childlessness as he sets out to aggrandize his material fort u n e in t h e lush and corrupt Edenic plain.) T h e larger a n d overarching answer addresses t h e sum total of ambiguations in regard to n a m e s and relationships of personae, of places, of m o t i v a t i o n s — s e l f originated or Providence p r o m p t e d — a n d h o w these f u r t h e r t h e purposes of t h e biblical narrator w h o invents, so to speak, t h e history of h u m a n k i n d , of o n e b r a n c h of h u m a n k i n d called Israel, relating t h a t b r a n c h to cognate b r a n c h e s in terms of genetics, geographical origins, stances of amity, sympathy, a n d antipathy, and at t h e same time sends his audience signals that these structures a n d patterns are to be read as figurative—emblematic of t h e h u m a n c o n d i t i o n and illustrative of t h e options o p e n to those who share in this c o n d i t i o n — a n d n o t as t h e stultifying raw data as to who came from where, produced what segment of humanity, and won or lost the favor of Providence, which is to say, of a moral G o v e r n a n c e of humanity and its destinies, universal and particular.‫ יי‬T h e assimilation in verses 11:31 and 12:5 oi Terah to Abram, as t h e assimilation oi A b r a h a m and Isaac in the narratives ol t h e romantic triangles and !he well of Beersheba, as the assimilation of f a t h e r and son in the Binding of Isaac, oi t h e personae of Moses, Elijah, and Elishad 4 t h e assimilation ot A d a m and S e t h and N o a h and (the latter's son) Enos, should by now have become a m e t a p h o r i c narrative pattern. W h o we are (as genetic or ethnie) identities is a considéra! ion oi nugatory value as against w h a t we are in terms of moral c o m m i t m e n t . As I pointed out earlier in this chapter, it is n o t at all clear w h e t h e r A b r a m is t h e oldest or youngest or middle son ot Terah, nor docs it make any difference. Nei-

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIB LI CAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

359

t h e r primogeniture nor a u t o c h t h o n y , nor—‫־‬tor t h a t m a t t e r — g e n e t i c p r o v e n a n c e , ancestral virtue or vice, are d e t e r m i n a n t for t h e ethos an individual or a people will choose to live by and, consequently, for their felicity or misfortune. T h i s kerygma, building slowly and surely in the narratives and structures of w h a t we are pleased to call t h e Primeval History of Genesis, c o n t i n u i n g in A b r a m and his seed, to Egyptian b o n d a g e and deliverance and wilderness wandering and divinely revealed structures of n o r m a t i v e b e h a v i o r in t h e following books of P e n t a t e u c h and Prophets, is all encapsulated in a single c h a p t e r (9) in t h e Book of N e h e m i a h , in w h i c h t h e faithful r e m n a n t returned to Jerusalem is urged to confess and affirm t h e destiny expressed in t h e c h o i c e — b y t h e sole C r e a t o r a n d Lord of t h e c o s m o s — o f a n ancestor A h r a m calling h i m forth from a place called Ur Kasdim and r e n a m i n g h i m A b r a h a m (9:7). 3 5

A B R A H A M ' S RKVLLATTONS A N D

ALTARS

N o figure in biblical narrative (except, perhaps Moses) is t h e subject of so many revelational events as is A b r a h a m . Most of these narrative events are in cotmec‫״‬ tion with t h e d e v e l o p m e n t oi the t h e m a t i c kerygma, or a critical plot e l e m e n t , for the purposes of which the appearance oi God to the patriarch is indispensable. 1 bus, for example, the narrative events treated in the Life of A b r a h a m : T h e Gove n a n t between t h e Parts ( C h . 13); C o v e n a n t and C i r c u m c i s i o n ( C h . 17); T h e A n n u n c i a t i o n of Isaac's Birth and the Dialogue o n G o d s Justice ( C h . 18); and T h e Binding of Isaac ( C h . 22). Similarly indispensable would appear to be t h e revelation to A b r a m in H a r a n , w h i c h launches t h e patriarch u p o n his career: (1) YHWH addressed Abram, Betake yourself from your native land and your father's hou‫י‬e To the land I shall reveal to you. (2) That I may make you into a great nation, that I may bless you and make great your name. [You,] Be a blessing— (3) So will I bless those who [lit. bless] are good to you, And whoever mistreats you will I damn— And by you[r felicity] will all earth's families h less themselves. (Genesis 12:1-3) For all its generality and its terseness ( t h e Hebrew is shorter bv 6 0 p e r c e n t ) , this promise includes all t h e elements of subsequent promises to A b r a h a m and Isaac, n u m e r o u s progeny constituting a flourishing polity within the. secure boundaries of ancestral territory. In perplexing contrast to these revelations, significant in. themselves and in t h e context of plot, are two revelations, heath of w h i c h feature—‫״‬although in different formulation -‫•־‬-essentially the same promise of progeny and land. T h e fact t h e n of these two revelations is informât ionally r e d u n d a n t . W h y should G o d make1 an a ‫ין‬pea! a nee, rather two appearances, to repeat himself ' I ο add to our perplexity, these two revelations are arranged in association with three historically important goographic sites, at e a c h of w h i c h A b r a h a m builds an altar to Yd I W l i . In addition to t h e lack of c o o r d i n a t i o n of revelation-sites (two) and altars built (three), our at-

378

STRUCTURES

t e m p t s t o a r r a n g e t h e s e p e r i c o p e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e o n e n u m b e r or t h e o t h e r a r e f u n t h e r c o m p l i c a t e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g t w o c o n s i d e r a t i o n s : ‫ ) נ‬o n e ol t h e s e sites is (eatureel twice; t h e first t i m e as t h e p l a c e w h e r e t h e a l t a r is b u i l t , but w i t h n o revel at i o n m e n t i o n e d ; t h e s e c o n d t i m e as t h e p l a c e w h e r e t h e a l t a r is revisited

(and

i n v o c a t i o n ot Y H W L L n a m e is m a d e for t h e s e c o n d t i m e ) , t h i s followed. by a r c v e l a l i o n ; 2) t h e t e l l i n g of t h i s last i n c i d e n t is n o r in n o r m a l p a r a t a c t i c f o r m u l a t i o n , but in a h y p o t a c t i c f o r m u l a t i o n t h a t s o m e h o w s e e m s to serve as bridge b e t w e e n what t a k e s p l a c e at. t h i s s e c o n d visit at this l o c a t i o n a n d t h e t h i r d n o t i c e of a n a l t a r built at a t h i r d site, t h i s last i t e m f o r m u l a t e d in p a r a t a c t i c s y n t a x . Let: us p r o c e e d w i t h o u r n o t a l t o g e t h e r successful a t t e m p t t o a r r a n g e t h e s e t e x t s in q u a s i - e p i s o d i c f a s h i o n : A . Ff'm Rt^e/anon (TV(muse) in Canaan.

First Altar

(5b) U p o n this arrival in the land ot Canaan, (6) Abram traversed the land until the vicinity of Shechem, to Elon Moreh. (The Canaan.it.es were, at that time [dominant] in the land.) (7) Y H W H appeared to Abram. H e said, "To your seed will I give this land." H e erected there an altar to Y H W H [the god] who was appearing to him. (Genesis 12:5b-7)

B. Jour η e \ S ou th. S eeond Altar (8) From there he moved on to the hilbcountry to t h e east of Bethel. H e pitched his tents with Bethel to the west and Ai to the east. There he erected an altar to Y H W H . A n d he made invocation in Y H W H - n a m e . (9) Abram then journeyed on, moving steadily toward the Negeb. (Genesis 1 2 : 8 - 9 ) [First Triangle Narrative, in Lgypt (Cîenesis 1 2:10 -20)1

( ο . bucrme^o;

Return to Bethel-Ai. },arting with Lot

{ ι ) Abram went up in ‫ וחי‬Hgypi, ht‫ ׳‬and his wife and everyone his — and Lot with h i m — t o the Negeh. (2) Abram now great‫ ־‬oi substance in livestock, in silver and gold.) (3) He then moved by stages from the Negeb to Bethel, to that very place where his tents were located earl ν on, between Bethel and Ai, (4) to the site of the altar he had made there at the outset, and where [or, there\ Abram made invocation by Y H W H - n a m e . (5) Lot now, accompanying Abram, was also possessed of flocks and herds and [many] tents, (6) so that the area did not allow rhem to abide as a unit, their posses‫׳‬ sions so great they could not live on together, [to wi.t:J (7) Quarrel arose between Abram's stockherders and Lot's stockherders (and [remember,] Canaanit.es and Penzzite? were then inhabiting that land). (8) Abram said to Lot, "Let there be no contest between me and you, between my herders and yours, close kinsmen that wo are. (g) Of ‫ ה‬surety the whole territory lies at your disposal. Do part: company with me‫־‬. If to the north, ΙΊ1 m the south. If to the south, I'll to the north." (10) Raising his eyes to the horizons, Lot envisioned the entire Jordan plain, so

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIB LI CAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

361

a b u n d a n t l y w a t e r e d — [ t h i s ] b e f o r e Y H W H s d e v a s t a t i o n of S o d o m a n d G o m o r r a h — l i k e Y H W H ' s o w n g a r d e n , lyes,] like t h e l a n d of Egypt —[the t h e n J o r d a n p l a i n ] f r o m Zoar o n w a r d s . ( 1 1 ) S o L o t c h o s e for himself t h e e n t i r e J o r d a n plain. T h u s did L o t in t h a t t i m e of y o r e s e t off o n h i s o w n j o u r n e y , t h e t w o k i n s m a n p a r t i n g c o m p a n y w i t h o n e a n o t h e r : (12) A b r a m t h e n took up residence in C a n a a n d a n d , while Lot

then

t o o k u p r e s i d e n c e i n t h e C i t i e s of P l a i n . H e p i t c h e d h i s t e n t s all t h e w a y t o S o d o m — ( 1 3 ) t h e t o w n s m e n of S o d o m n o w

b e i n g w i c k e d , yes i n v e t e r a t e s i n n e r s

against

Y H W H p s will].) ( G e n e s i s 1 3 : 1 - 1 3 )

C 2 . Second

Revelation.

Third

Altar

(14) Y H W H n o w said to A h r a m , after Lot's p a r t i n g c o m p a n y w i t h h i m , "Raise your eyes t o t h e h o r i z o n s a n d e n v i s i o n f r o m t h i s v a n t a g e p o i n t w h e r e y o u a r e , n o r t h w a r d s a n d s o u t h w a r d s , e a s t w a r d s a n d w e s t w a r d s . ( 1 5 ) Verily, all t h e l a n d t h a t y o u e n v i s i o n t o y o u I g r a n t , t h a t is, t o y o u i s e e d e n d u r i n g l y . ( 1 6 ) L i k e t h e p a r t i c l e s of e a r t h s h a l l I m a k e y o u r s e e d : if a n y o n e t h e r e b e c a p a b l e of c o u n t i n g e a r t h ' s p a r t i c l e s , so t o o will t h e r e b e t a k e n u p t h e s u m t o t a l of y o u r s e e d . ( 1 7 ) C o m e n o w , m a k e y o u r w a y t h r o u g h t h e l a n d , l e n g t h w i s e a n d b r e a d t h w i s e — lo, r o y o u I g r a n t it," ( 1 8 ) S o it w a s t h a t A h r a m p i t c h e d his t e n t s ( h e r e a n d t h e r e ) u n t i l h e a r r i v e d a n d s e t t l e d at M a m re's O a k s , w h i c h is in H e b r o n s t e r r i t o r y . T h e r e h e b u i l t a n a l t a r t o Y H W H . (Genesis

13:14-18)

S a c r i f i c e , t h e r i t u a l o f f e r i n g m a d e t o o n e ' s g o d , is t h e e s s e n t i a l a c t a n d of b i b l i c a l w o r s h i p . H e n c e

metaphor

t h e b u i l d i n g of a n a l t a r b e s p e a k s t h e w o r s h i p o f

d e i t y t o w h o m t h e a l t a r is d e d i c a t e d o r t o w h o m p r a y e r is a d d r e s s e d a t t h a t W o r s h i p is a c k n o w l e d g m e n t

the

altar.

of t h e d e i t y ' s p o w e r , a n d p r a y e r — o r a d d r e s s t o

the

p o w e r a c k n o w l e d g e d — m a y he subsumed u n d e r two categories: p e t i t i o n (for favor desired) a n d t h a n k s (for favor s h o w n ) . It w o u l d a p p e a r t h a t i n E p i s o d e A , t h e b u i l d i n g of t h e a l t a r t o Y H W H ,

follow-

ing t h e p r o m i s e m a d e in t h e revelation, bespeaks A b r a m ' s gratitude for t h a t favor. S o t o o w o u l d a p p e a r t o b e t h e s e n s e b e h i n d t h e b u i l d i n g of t h e t h i r d a l t a r a t H e bron, that dedication following the

(second)

revelation and promise

in

Episode

C 2 . T h a t leaves, for i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e b u i l d i n g of t h e s e c o n d a l t a r b e t w e e n

Bethel

a n d A i i n E p i s o d e B . S i n c e t h i s a l t a r ' s d e d i c a t i o n is n o t p r e c e d e d b y a r e v e l a t o r y p r o m i s e , w e m i g h t r e a s o n a b l y s u p p o s e t h a t t h i s altar's b u i l d i n g b e s p e a k s

Abram's

p e t i t i o n i n g G o d f o r t h e c o n t i n u a n c e of h i s f a v o r . A n d t h i s s u p p o s i t i o n w o u l d s u p p o r t e d b y t h e a p p e a r a n c e h e r e — for t h e first t i m e — of t h e n o t i c e " a n d h e i n v o c a t i o n i n Y H W H - n a m e d T h e p o i n t , t h e n , of A b r a m ' s r e t u r n t o t h e a l t a r s i t e is t h a t there/where

BetheLAi

( n o t e t h e a m b i g u i t y in our t r a n s l a t i o n of verse 3)

m e r e l y a r e m i n d e r of h i s first i n v o c a t i o n in p e t i t i o n (i.e., " w h e r e h e h a d YHWH-name")

or, i n d e p e n d e n t

of t h a t

first

invocation

notice,

"and

be

made

is

invoked there

he

[ a g a i n ] i n v o k e d i n Y H W H - n a m e . " N e e d l e s s t o say, t h i s s e c o n d i n v o c a t i o n o f h i s g o d , proceeded by t h e f a v o r s h o w n t o h i m by Y H W H

in Egypt, would t h e n bespeak

his gratitude for his d e l i v e r a n c e a n d prosperity, t h e n o t e o n w h i c h Episode L i

be-

g i n s . T h i s n o w w o u l d e x p l a i n the. t w o h y p o t a c t i c . ( s y n t a c t i c a l ) c o n s t r u c t i o n s in t h i s e p i s o d e s t w o p a r t s : first a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of v e r s e 5, s e c o n d , a t t h e b e g i n n i n g v e r s e 1 4 , b o t h id e n t i l l e d b y t h e n o w 111 b o l d f a c e .

oi

362

STRUCTURES

T h e successful return from Egypt to B e i h e h A i is, o t course, an occasion of good o m e n . But t h e very prosperity t h a t is part of t h a t good o m e n becomes t h e opposite w h e n friction arises b e t w e e n uncle and n e p h e w over t h e grazing and watering needs of their swollen livestock. T h e generosity oi t h e uncle in his self-abnegating proposal to his n e p h e w is m a t c h e d by the greed of t h e n e p h e w in his choice of t h e t h e n - l u s h plain. T h e good o m e n of this fertility is t h e n overshadowed for t h e reader by t h e n o t i c e of t h e sinfulness of t h e neighbors w h o m Lot has chosen, a sinfulness t h e reader knows as t h e reason for the aridity of t h a t plain in his o w n time. T h e good o m e n of t h e p l a i n s fertility will also be balanced by t h e t e m p t a t i o n of its riches to t h e imperial predators from the east in C h a p t e r 14. But for t h e present, A b r a m is settled in t h e less-favored but b e t t e r - o m e n e d hill country around Hebron, explicitly identified as C a n a a n - l a n d , w h i l e — w e are thereby given to unders t a n d — t h e o n c e lush, n o w sterile area around the Dead Sea n e v e r was envisioned as part of t h e land of promise reserved for A b r a m s Israeli tic descendants. W e should r e m i n d ourselves at this point, in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e various structures exploited by t h e biblical author, h o w artistically they c o m p l e m e n t t h e ongoing narrative. T h u s , for example, t h e insertion of the parting from Lot in hypotactic narrative s t y l e — l i k e his c e n t r a l yet secondary role in C h a p t e r 14—serves as foreground to t h e story of A b r a h a m in regard to land promised to his posterity, even while Lot, as persona and ancestor of two e t h n i c polities to t h e n o r t h and east of t h e Dead Sea, serves as contrasting foil in terms of character, moral merit, and historical dest iny. T h e meaningfulness of this design is all t h e more impressive in t h e c o n t e x t of a seemingly arbitrary jumble of peregrinations and revelations, altar erections, and invocations of Deity in C h a p t e r s ! ^ and 14, w h i c h — unedifying in t h e m s e l v e s — h a v e h i t h e r t o been explained as traditional accretions from a factin ally historic past. For all this, the meanings of these seemingly annalistic notices h a v e n o t yet b e e n exhausted. I will return to t h e m at t h e conclusion of t h e n e x t set of structures: o n t h e digging of wells, t h e making of treaties, and t h e "etiological" tracing of a topographical n a m e .

D I G G I N G WELLS IN

Abraham,

PHILISTIA

Philistines, and Beersheba Episode

A

(22) It was at that time that Abimelech — and Pikol his marshal — addressed Abraham as follows, "God is with you in everything that you undertake. (23) Now therefore [I ask]: Swear to me by God, herewith, that vou will not deal falsely with me, with my son and with any grandson of mine. As faithfully gracious as I have been in my dealings with you, so shall you deal with me and with the land in which you have sojourned" (24) Abraham said, "I do so s wear." (Genesis 21:22-24) Episode B A b r a h a m , h o w e v e r , d i d lirsi t a x A h i n u d e c h wirb: t h e r o b b e r y of a c e r t a i n well c o m m i t led hy A b i m e l e c h ' s m i n i o n v

ύ‫׳‬/>) A h i m e i e c h d e c l a r e d , "1 h a d n o inklini»'.

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIB LI CAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

363

Th:‫ו‬r anyone could have done such a thing! You, for your part, never told me; I, for mine, hear of it only now" (27) Abraham fetched cattle small and large, gave [themj over to Ahimelech, and the two of them concluded a pact. (Genesis 21:25 -27) Hjusode ( ; (28) [What happened was:] Abraham set apart seven ewes from the !lock. (29) Almaelech said to Abraham, "What portend these seven ewes that you have set apart?" (30) He said, "Just so—you now accept from my hand these seven ewes as tokentestimony that it was I who dug this well." (31 ) Hence is it that dial, site is called Beersheba (Seven-Well/Oath-Well), which is to say, there did the two take oath. (32) Thus it was that they concluded the pact at Beersheba. Ahimelech pro•‫׳‬ ceeded—and Pikol his marshal also — and they returned to Philistia; (33) while he [Ahraham] planted a tamarisk at Beersheba and made invocation there by YHWHname, Deity Eternal 'el 'öläm. (34) Abraham sojourned in Philistia many years. (Gene‫׳‬ sis 21:28-34) T h e o p e n i n g words of this story, a n abrupt address by A b i m e l e c h to A b r a h a m w i t h o u t specification of place a n d w i t h a vague temporal indicator C a t t h a t time"), requires us to backtrack in t h e narrative to fix these details as to t h e circumstance. T h e time is provided in t h e previous C h a p t e r 21. It takes place after t h e birth of Isaac to S a r a h and t h e expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, w h i c h follows hard u p o n t h e w e a n i n g of Isaac. A clue as to t h e story's location is also suggested in t h e n o t i c e t h a t t h e draining of Hagar's water-skin took place in the steppe of Beersheba (verses 1 4 - 1 5 ) . Prior to this is the sister-wife imbroglio in Gerar, c u l m i n a t i n g in A b i m e l e c h ' s i n v i t a t i o n t o A b r a h a m to settle anywhere in his land. T h u s A b i m elech s o p e n i n g to A b r a h a m is m a d e within t h e territorial d o m a i n of Gerar, at or near t h e site of Beersheba. A b i m e l e c h ' s proposal to A b r a h a m does n o t relate to his i m m e d i a t e present nor to his private personal c o n c e r n . T h e awareness t h a t A b r a h a m is G o d ' s favorite and t h a t this protege status is likely to he inherited by his heirs is w h a t lies b e h i n d his c o n c e r n for his own d e s c e n d a n t s . T h a t this c o n c e r n is, f u r t h e r m o r e , n o t just for individual lines oi posterity but for two future polities is t h e burden of a a n d w i t h t h e realm in w h i c h you h a v e b e e n sojourning' 1 (verse 23), and by t h e specification of t h e official a c c o m p a n y i n g h i m to the negotiations. T h i s official, normally r e n d e r e d "captain of his host/troops," may c o n n o t e a range of responsibility n o t restricted to t h e military, i n a s m u c h as φ ' has t h e general d e n o t a t i o n of multitude a n d is attested in t h e sense of throng, work-force, etc. T h e n a m e of this official, w h o is assimilated grammatically into t h e person of A b i m e l e c h ( n o t e t h e singular verbs in verses 22 and 32), may therefore symbolize t h e populus identified w i t h t h e person of t h e king, pi-köl signifying literally "everybody's m o u t h / t h e voice of a l l " Despite these pointers to r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of two political entities, w h i c h would call for m u t u a l o a t h s of nonaggression, this episode ends w i t h A b r a h a m ' s accession to t h e proposal: 'änökl issähed Η, for my part, do h e r e b y (or s t a n d ready to, or will so) swear." Since, as we shall soon see, an o a t h is also (implicitly) exacted of A b i m e l e c h , t h e force of this conclusion is to u n d e r l i n e t h e significance of A b i m e l e c h ' s proposal: for all t h a t he, representing Philistia, is t h e d o m i n a n t

364

STRUCTURES

p o w e r , it is t h e f u t u r e d o m i n a n t p o w e r — A b r a h a m ' s p o s t e r i t y — t h a t is s w o r n n o t t o c o m m i t aggression. T h i s c o n c l u s i o n , f o l l o w e d by a p a r e n t h e t i c clause in h y p o t a c t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n , reveals an interesting variation o n the synoptic ‫׳‬resumptive narrative technique, for E p i s o d e B, w h i c h is i n a s e n s e a r e s u m p t i v e ‫•׳‬conclus i o n of E p i s o d e A , e n d i n g i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n of a berlt " t r e a t y " (verse 2 7 ) , is as well a s y n o p t i c e p i s o d e , f o l l o w e d by its o w n r e s u m p t i v e , E p i s o d e C . I n t h e (res u m p t i ν e - s y η o p r i e ) E p i s o d e B A b i m e l e c h s h o w s t h e s a m e r i g h t e o u s n e s s a n d g e n e r o s i t y t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e h i m in t h e b r o t h e r - s i s t e r i m b r o g l i o in C h a p t e r 20. H i s r e s p o n s e t o A b r a h a m s c o m p l a i n t a b o u t !:He m i s a p p r o p r i a t e d well is a plea of guilty, mit igated by t h e f a c t of his i g n o r a n c e ol his m i n i o n s ' m a l f e a s a n c e . W h a t follows is a n a r r a t i o n a l g a p p i n g . For w e w o u l d expect‫ ״‬h e r e a r e s p o n s e o n A b r a h a m s p a r t as t o w h y h e h a d n o t c o m p l a i n e d earlier, a n d / o r p e r h a p s a n offer of a m e n d s o n t h e p a r t of A b i m e l e c h . I n s t e a d we h a v e a gift or p a y m e n t of s u b s t a n t i a l v a l u e o n t h e p a r t of t h e plaintiff A b r a h a m t o A b i m e l e c h t h e d e f e n d a n t : w h o is t h e p e t i t i o n e r , s u i n g A b r a h a m for a n o n aggression p a c t . T h e p a y m e n t is f o l l o w e d hy t h e b o t t o m l i n e of Episode Β (as also (it E p i s o d e C ) t h a t t h e t w o p a r t i e s c o n c l u d e d t h e p e t i t i o n e d p a c t . A l l t h i s p o i n t s to v e r s e 2 8 as t h e b e g i n n i n g of a r e s u m p t i v e e p i s o d e , in w h i c h t h e gap will h a v e t o be b r i d g e d . E p i s o d e C b e g i n s w i t h t h e n o t i c e of ( n o t a n i n d e f i n i t e b u t ) a d e t e r m i n e d " s e v e n e w e s " set a p a r t f r o m t h e flock hy A b r a h a m ; set a p a r t , t h a t is, f r o m t h e flock of s h e e p a n d goats as well as t h e h e r d t h a t ( i n verse 2 7 ) A b r a h a m m a d e o v e r t o A h i m e l e c h p r i o r t o t h e treaty's c o n c l u s i o n . T h e p o i n t of t h e p a y m e n t of s e v e n ewes is t h a t A b i m e l e c h , in a c c e p t i n g t h e m , is y i e l d i n g s o m e t h i n g in e x c h a n g e . T h a t s o m e t h i n g is c l a i m t o t h e well, w h i c h a c c o r d i n g t o A b r a h a m h a d b e e n "robbed," w h i c h is t o say, illicitly a p p r o p r i a t e d by A b i m e l e c h ' s m i m o n s ; a c h a r g e t h a t A b i m e l e c h h i m s e l f h a d c o n c e d e d t o b e just. W h y t h e n s h o u l d A b r a h a m pay for t h a t w h i c h b o t h sides agree b e l o n g s t o h i m by v i r t u e of h i s e n t e r p r i s e 7 It, f u r t h e r , s e n s e c a n b e m a d e of t h i s s e e m i n g l y s u p e r e r o g a t o r y p a y m e n t o n A b r a h a m ' s p a r t , w h a t is t h e p o i n t of t h e f a r larger p a y m e n t of h e r d a n d flock f r o m w h i c h t h e s e v e n ewes h a d b e e n set a p a r t ? P e r h a p s a c l u e t o t h e f u n c t i o n s of t h e d i v i d e d p a y m e n t lies in t h e o p p o s e d imp l i c a t i o n s of t w o n o t i c e s in verses 32 a n d 34. I n t h e f o r m e r verse A b i m e l e c h a n d P i k o l r e t u r n " t o t h e l a n d of t h e Philistines," i m p l y i n g t h a t t h e a r e a t h a t t h e y are l e a v i n g , t h e v i c i n i t y of B e e r s h e b a , is n o t p a r t of Philistia proper. In t h e l a t t e r verse, w h i c h c o m e s a f t e r A b r a h a m ' s p l a n t i n g of a t a m a r i s k at B e e r s h e b a a n d

invoking

t h e r e by Y H W I 1 - n a m e , t h e n a r r a t o r tells us t h a t " A b r a h a m so/mmied in t h e l a n d of t h e P h i l i s t i n e s for m a n y days," t r o m w h i c h we m a y infer t h a t B e e r s h e b a was i n d e e d p a r t of Philistia proper. T h e s o l u t i o n t o t h i s s e e m i n g o p p o s i t i o n , if n o t c o n t r a d i c t i o n , w o u l d t h e n lie in t h e t w o t e m p o r a l levels of t h e n a r r a t i v e , t h e p r e s e n t t i m e of A b i m e l e c h a n d A b r a h a m , a n d t h e f u t u r e t i m e of t h e i r p o l i t i c a l p o s t e r i t i e s , Israel a n d P h i l i s t i a , w h i c h is t h e p r e s e n t t i m e of t h e n a r r a t o r , T h u s t h e f r e e d o m of his r e a l m , w h i c h A b i m e l e c h g r a n t s t o A b r a h a m in 2 0 : 1 3 , secures t o t h e l a t t e r t h e b e n e f i t s of a n y e n t e r p r i s e , s u c h as t h e w a t e r - r i g h t s t o wells ot his digging, w i t h o u t c o n v e y i n g t o h i m a n y l a n d title. A b i m e l e c h s m i n i o n s w o u l d t h u s h a v e r o b b e d A b r a h a m of his r i g h t s if t h e y h a d d r i v e n t h e i r o w n s t o c k to t h e well, t h e r e b y d e n y ing t h e w a t e r t o A b r a h a m ' s s t o c k .

S T R U C T U R E S AS A B I B L I C A L CITERA R Y PII ENOKJ Ε Ν Ο Ν

365

T h e g a p t h a t w e n o t e d in Episode B, the1 f a i l u r e of A b r a h a m t o r e s p o n d t o A b i m e l e c h c o n c e d i n g t h e j u s t i c e of h i s c o m p l a i n t , is filled by A b i m e l e c h ' s a c c e p t a n c e of t h e s e v e n - e w e s p a y m e n t t h a t A b r a h a m i m p o s e s u p o n h i m , " s e r v i n g m e as t e s t i m o n y t h a t I d u g t h i s w e l l " T h u s t h e t e r r i t o r y ((‫׳‬res) of B e e r s h e b a was, f o r t h e l i f e t i m e of A b r a h a m a n d p e r h a p s of Isaac, e f f e c t i v e l y s u n d e r e d f r o m t h e l a n d ( 1 eres) of t h e P h i l i s t i n e s , t o w h i c h A b i m e l e c h a n d P i k o l r e t u r n u p o n t h e p a c t s c o n c l u s i o n . T h e a c t u a l title, h o w e v e r , was t o t h e w a t e r - r i g h t s of B e e r s h e b a , t h e a r e a itself r e m a i n i n g P h i l i s t i n e t e r r i t o r y in w h i c h t h e p a t r i a r c h s stayed o n as s o j o u r n e r s . T h e larger p a r t of A b r a h a m ' s p a y m e n t i n flock a n d h e r d was 111 p a y m e n t i n d e e d for t h e l a n d t i t l e in t h e f u t u r e , t h e t i m e of A b r a h a m s d e s c e n d a n t s of t h e s o u t h e r n k i n g d o m of J u d a h w h e n , i n t h e p r e s e n t t i m e of t h e n a r r a t o r , P h i l i s t i a is a c o n f e d e r a c y of five cities ( n o t i n c l u d i n g G e r a r ) o n a n a r r o w c o a s t a l strip t o t h e w e s t of J u d e a n B e e r s h e b a ; a c o n f e d e r a c y t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s n o t h r e a t t o its p o w e r f u l n e i g h b o r t o t h e east, a n d o n e u p o n w h o s e t e r r i t o r y n e i t h e r J u d a h n o r its s i s t e r - k i n g d o m t o t h e n o r t h ever encroaches. If t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s t h r e e - e p i s o c l e n a r r a t i v e b e at all p e r s u a s i v e , it still l e a v e s u n a n s w e r e d t h e q u e s t i o n of its k e r y g m a . A s a J u d e a n story in s u p p o r t of its c l a i m t o h i n t e r l a n d t e r r i t o r y o n c e b e l o n g i n g t o P h i l i s t i a , it w o u l d carry n o w e i g h t w i t h p u t a t i v e P h i l i s t i n e rivals. T h e s e p u t a t i v e rivals in any case i n h a b i t t h e c i t i e s of A s h d o d , A s k a l o n , G a z a , G a t h , a n d E k r o n , a n d m a y n e v e r h a v e h e a r d of a lege n d a r y P h i l i s t i n e c a p i t a l c a l l e d G e r a r (a p l a c e n a m e n e v e r a p p e a r i n g in. S c r i p t u r e o u t s i d e of t h e s e early c h a p t e r s oi G e n e s i s , e x c e p t for a l e g e n d a r y a r e a by t h a t n a m e , n o t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Philistia, in 2 C h r o n i c l e s 1 4 : 1 2 - 1 4 ) . A s for s e r v i n g t o w a r n off possible Israelite or J u d e a n e n c r o a c h m e n t , t h e story oi a n a n c e s t r a l pact‫״‬ m a d e w i t h a n a n c i e n t a n d g e n e r o u s royal host p a l e s as m o t i v a t i o n w h e n c o m p a r e d t o a d i r e c t d i v i n e c o m m a n d such as t h e o n e n o t t o t r o u b l e t h e k i n d r e d p e o p l e s of Ed ο m , M o a b , a n d A m n i o n , p e o p l e s w h o m Israel a n d J u d a h did n o n e t h e l e s s f o r c e into subjugation. T w o r e m a i n i n g p r o b l e m s w e s h a l l r e c o n s i d e r a f t e r o u r t r e a t m e n t of t h e Beers h e b a n a r r a t i v e f e a t u r i n g Isaac. O n e is t h e n a m i n g of t h e t o w n w h i c h in t h e t i m e of I s r a e l s m o n a r c h i e s was t h e last m a j o r s e t t l e m e n t in t h e s o u t h b e f o r e t h e t o p o g r a p h i c a l d e s c e n t t o t h e N e g e v w a s t e l a n d s . W e r e it n o t for t h e e t i o l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s (as m o d e r n b i b l i c a l s c h o l a r s h i p c h a r a c t e r i z e s s u c h n a m i n g s ) in o u r t w o n a r r a tives, w e w o u l d a s s u m e t h a t S h e b a ' , a c o m m o n biblical s u r n a m e , is t h e g e n i t i v e w i t h " w e l l " in t h e c o n s t r u c t case: t h u s , Sheba s Well a l o n g t h e lines of M a m r e s O a k s . O u r t r a n s l a t i o n of t h e v e r b qärä as a passive ( = " o n e c a l l e d it") is i n k e e p i n g w i t h m o s t m o d e r n t r a n s l a t i o n s , b u t it s h o u l d n o t rule o u t t h e o l d e r r e n d e r i n g s , " h e [ A b r a h a m ] n a m e d it." T h e p r o b l e m , h o w e v e r , lies n o t in t h e v e r b a l c o n s t r u c t i o n b u t in t h e n a m e itself, f o r sebd m e a n s sepen (as in verse 20 seha kebäsot " t h e s e v e n e w e s " ) , a n d n e v e r "oath," for w h i c h t h e H e b r e w is s4n1ä. Yet t h e p o i n t of t h e n a m ing is g i v e n as " t o w i t , (kl) t h e r e t h e t w o of t h e m t o o k oath." t h i s s e e m i n g t o i n t e n t i o n a l l y i g n o r e t h e s e v e n e w e s t h a t w e r e a f e a t u r e in r h e s w e a r i n g - n a r r a t i v e . T h e s e c o n d p r o b l e m is t h a t in t h r e e o t h e r p l a c e s (1.2:7, El o n M o r e h / S h e c h e m ; 12:8, b e t w e e n B e t h e l a n d A i ; a n d 13:18, M a m re's C a W H e b r o n ) A b r a h a m builds a n a l t a r d e d i c a t e d to (/‫ )'׳‬Yl IWl I; at 01.1c of t h e s e places, b e t w e e n B e t h e l a n d A i , h e t w i c e i n v o k e s in Yl I W l I - n a m e . Yet h e r e A b r a h a m " i n v o k e s in VI I W l ! ‫ ׳‬n a m e " hul

366

STRUCTURES

builds n o altar; i n s t e a d h e p l a n t s a t a m a r i s k . W h y t h e p l a n t i n g of a t r e e in a con-‫׳‬ t e x t w h e r e w e h a v e b e e n c o n d i t i o n e d t o a n t i c i p a t e t h e e r e c t i o n of a n altar?

Isaac, Philistines,

and

Beersheba Episode

A

(12b) Y H W H Messed bin! so that (1 }) that personage |Isaac] waxed great [in wealth]. I le continued waxing ever greater until he was magnate indeed. (14) l le owned stock oi flocks and stock of herds and a ,ureal work force so that Philist ines begrudged him. ( 1 s) N o w all the wells which his fathers minions had dug in the time of Abraham his lather had Philistine^ t o p p e d up, which is to say, they Idled them in with earth.) (16) Abimelech said to Isaac; "Betake yourself elsewhere—you have become much too numerous for us." ( 1 7) So Paac departed thence, made camp in Wadi Gerar. There he settled down. ( 1 S) Isaac iheu dug out again the water wells which they had diu‫ ״‬in the time ot Abraham his lather, and which Philistines had stopped up after A b r a h a m s death. He gave diem names like the names that his father had given them. (Genesis 26:12b- 8‫) ז‬ Episode Β (it)) As the minions ot Isaac dug in the wadi they struck there a flowing spring. (20) Gerarite shepherds quarreled with Isaacs shepherds, claiming, "The water belongs to us." He named the well Wrangle for they wrangled with him. (21) They dug another well and they quarreled over it also. H e named it Hostility. (22) He moved on from there, he dug yet another well, and they did not contest it, so h e named it Expanse, his thought. Now indeed has Y H W H given us broad expanse, that we may flourish in the land. (23) From there he moved up to Beersheba. (Genesis 2 6 : 1 9 - 2 3 ) Episode C (24) T h a t night Y H W H appeared to him. hie said, "I am the God of your father Abraham. Be not fear lui for I am with you, i shall bless you and make your posterity numerous for the sake of Abraham, my servant.' 1 (25) He built an altar there and invoked in Y H W l b n a m c , and pitched his tents there. There, Isaacs minions dug a we lb (Gen e s i s ‫ י‬f> : 2 4

2‫)ר‬ I tyre s si on

(26) Ahimeiech now went to him from ι ïerar

and [with him] Ahuzath his intimate

and Pikol ]!is marshal. (27) Isaac addressed them, "How comes it that you come to me a-visit ing seeing it was you who rejected me and dismissed me from your company!" (28) Said they, "We came to an inescapable conclusion, that it was Y H W H who was with you. Hence have we have come to propose, bet sanctions be invoked between our two parties, between us and y o u — t h a t is to say, we should like to conclude a pact with you-—{29) that vou will not deal injuriously with us, just as we have not touched you, indeed just

we have dealt most: amicably with you, sending you off safe and

sound—ye>, vou now [clearly] blessed favorite of YHWH." (30) l ie treated them to a feast. They ate and, drank, (31) Promptly on the morn they took oaths to one an-

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIBLICAL i CEE HARY !M ί EN UM E N< >N

other,

Isaac saw t h e m

off a n d

t h e y p a r ! er, l i m n

h un

sate n o d

sound.

‫׳)(>׳‬/

(Genesis

26:26-31) Episode D (32) It was at that time that Isaac's minions came and. told him ahout the well they had dug, announcing to him, "We have struck water!" Me η :mied it Stub'-a [Seven/ Swearing], hence the town's name to this very day: Beersheba [Seven Spring / Swear Spring]. (Genesis 26:32) T h i s story is a c o n t i n u a t i o n of I s a a c s story in G e r a r ,

Linder

t h e p r o t e c t i o n of its

p u n c t i l i o u s a n d h o s p i t a b l e k i n g A b i m e l e c h . T h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h a t first e p i s o d e is t h a t Isaac's e n t e r p r i s e in t h e G e r a r area n e t t e d h i m a h u n d r e d f o l d r e t u r n . T h e t w o last w o r d s of verse 2 wayyebärckehü

Y H W H introduce a new narrative. Due to

Y H W H ' s favor, t h e h e r o of o u r story b e c o m e s so rich! a n d p o w e r f u l as t o g i v e rise t o e n v y a n d e v e n m i s g i v i n g o n t h e p a r t of m a n y of his P h i l i s t i n e h o s t s . T h r e e or f o u r e l e m e n t s in t h e d i c t i o n of verses 1 3 - 1 4 c o n t r i b u t e to a n aura of n a i v e t é a n d f a n ‫׳‬ tasy, a k i n t o w h a t is a c h i e v e d i n E n g l i s h s t o r y - t e l l i n g by t h e " O n c e u p o n a t i m e " o p e n i n g . T h e h e r o ' s s u d d e n rise t o w e a l t h a n d p o w e r is expressed in an. e i g h t - w o r d verse w h o s e flavor is t o t a l l y m i s r e p r e s e n t e d by m y t r a n s l a t i o n . F e a t u r i n g t h r e e 0 0 c u r r e n c e s of t h e t e r m gdl "big," t w o o c c u r r e n c e s of t h e v e r b hlk " t o go," a o n e - w o r d s u b j e c t , o n e p r e p o s i t i o n , a n d o n e a d v e r b , t h e flavor of t h e H e b r e w is b e t t e r captu red by a literal r e n d e r i n g : 4 T h e m a n b e c a m e big, h e w e n t o n g o i n g bigger u n t i l so big h e b e c a m e indeed." T h e subject oi t h e s e n t e n c e h not !suae ( o u r v u l n e r a b l e a n c e s t o r s o j o u r n i n g in lands t h a t may s o m e d a y c e n t u r i e s late;‫ ־׳‬b e c o m e ours), b u t the Mon

a n d t h e word 'nbuddä

" h a c i e n d a , (hat is, works, e s t a b l i s h m e n t " a p p e a r s o n l y

o n c e m o r e i n S c r i p t u r e ( a n d in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h e n o r m o u s q u a m !ties oi l i v e s t o c k ) . T h e b o o k of j o b begins " A M a o t h e r e was, a n d 11 ‫ ר‬.‫ וו‬M a n was , . " A l o n g w i t h h e r d s a n d flocks, c a m e l s a n d asses, his e s t a t e c o n s t i t u t e s an ahnddei rahbä " a n ex t e n sive h a c i e n d a , " so t h a t t h a t M a n was bigger tlum (gadol mi!η I) a n y of his a n c i e n t c o n t e m p o r a r i e s (Job 1 : 1 3 ‫ ) ״‬. T h e final e l e m e n t of d i c t i o n is t h e c u r i o u s g r a m m a t i c a l f a c t t h a t , a l o n e a m o n g t h e m a n y e t h n i c g r o u p s in S c r i p t u r e , Philistine(s)

is regu-

larly d e f i n i t e , w i t h o u t t h e d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e ( p e r h a p s 07 p e r c e n t of all o c c u r r e n c e s ) . T h u s in t h e m a t t e r of t h e s e P h i l i s t i n e s , e n v i o u s of Isaac in verse 14 a n d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e s t o p p i n g u p of A b r a h a m ' s wells i n t h e par e n (he tic verse 15 ‫ י‬t h e a m b i g u i t y as t o d e f i n i t e n e s s serves t o a m h i g u a t e t h e p e r s o n a l s t a n c e of A h i m e l e c h a n d t h a t of his c o u r t i e r s i n r e s p e c t t o t h e i r i n o r d i n a t e l y p r o s p e r o u s guest. T h u s it is t h a t w h e n A b i m e l e c h in v e r s e 16 advises Isaac t h a t t h e t i m e h a s c o m e f o r h i m t o l e a v e t h e city of G e r a r , w e d o n o t k n o w w h e t h e r h e is a c t i n g u n d e r p o p ular pressure, or possibly e x p r e s s i n g his o w n lately d e v e l o p e d r a n c o r as well. I n verse 17 Isaac leaves G e r a r a n d e n c a m p s in W a d i Gera.]‫׳‬, in w h i c h valley h e redigs t h e wells first d u g by his f a t h e r A b r a h a m . T h i s last r e p e t i t i o n of t h e c o n t e n t of pare n t h e t i c verse 15 raises t w o q u e s t i o n s . First, w h y t h e r e p e t i t i o n t o b e g i n w i t h ? A n d s e c o n d , a s s u m i n g we c a n c o m e u p w i t h a r e a s o n for t h e r e p e t i t i o n , wdiy s h o u l d t h e p a r e n t h e t i c n o t i c e not p r e c e d e verse 17, w h e r e it w o u l d logically s e e m t o b e l o n g / T h e s e c o n d q u e s t i o n is easily a n s w e r e d . By placin 1 ‫״‬: r h e p a r e n t h e s i s b e t w e e n t h e e n d oi t h e ( v e r s e 14) P h i l i s t i n e h e g r u d g m c n i ol lsaa; < >IKCCSS, a n d ( v e r s e 16) t h e

368

STRUCTURES

c o n s e q u e n c e of t h a t e n v y i n A b i m e l e c h ' s r e q u e s t t o Isaac to l e a v e G e r a r . t h e n a r r a t o r suggests t o us t h a t for all t h e f r i e n d s h i p s h o w n hy A h i m e i e c h t o A b r a h a m a n d t h e n t o Isaac, t h e P h i l i s t i n e g r u d g e d a t e d hack t o A b r a h a m ' s t i m e . It f u n her p o i n t s up t h e n a t u r e of t h e P h i l i s t i n e aiiect: not (ear or anxiety, but r a t h e r d o g - i n - t h e • ‫׳‬ m a n g e r envy. For t h e s l o p p i n g u p of wells expresses spite a n d spite a l o n e . O t h e r wise o n e would exploit t h e wells for o n e s o w n b e n e f i t . W h e n t h i s item of i n f o r m a l i o n is r e p e a l e d in verse 1 y, it is w i t h t h e e x p l i c a t i o n of w h a t t h e reader may or may not h a v e sensed in t h e p a r e n t h e s i s , t h a t t h e filling in of t h e wells t o o k p l a c e " a f t e r t h e d e a t h of A b r a h a m " T h e r e a c t i o n of ( t h e ) P h i l i s t i n e s to I s a a c s r e d i g g i n g of t h e wells is o m i t t e d ( g a p p e d ) i n t h i s first episode; it will he p r o v i d e d in t h e res u m p t t v e E p i s o d e B. 1 ‫ י‬h e s y n o p t i c E p i s o d e A e n d s w i t h t h e e n i g m a t i c s t a t e m e n t t h a t , h a v i n g r e d u g t h e wells e x c a v a t e d by h i s f a t h e r , " h e g a v e t h e m n a m e s like t h e n a m e s w h i c h his f a t h e r h a d g i v e n t h e m " T h e w o r d w e italicized, like, m e a n s s mitfar, a n d n o t , as S p e i s e r r e n d e r s it, the same (names).

In w h a t ways w o u l d t h e n a m e s ,

r e p o r t e d i n E p i s o d e B, b e s i m i l a r t o yet n o t t h e s a m e as t h e u n r e p o r t e d

names

g i v e n t o t h e wells by A b r a h a m ? A n d , for t h a t m a t t e r , aside f r o m t h e r e p o r t e d d e t a i l so c h e r i s h e d by t h e a n t i q u a r i a n h i s t o r i a n , w h a t is t h e p u r p o r t of t h e s e names!' W h y h a v e t h e y b e e n p r e s e r v e d for us? A n d w h y in t h e ' 1 similar" v e r s i o n of Isaac s a n d n o t t h e o r i g i n a l o n e of A b r a h a m s ? E p i s o d e Β b e g i n s w i t h v e r s e 1 9 s r e s u m p t i o n s of t h e prior e p i s o d e s verse 18, t h e d i g g i n g of t h e wells — w e l l , n o t q u i t e — w i t h t h e digging of t h e first ot several wells w h e r e w a t e r was s t r u c k . O u r t r a n s l a t i o n struck

there a flowing spring is a close a n d

d e f e n s i b l e r e n d e r i n g of t h e H e b r e w , f a i t h f u l t o b o t h t h e English a n d H e b r e w id10ms. But w h i l e a n i d i o m a t i c r e n d e r i n g m a y b e f a i t h f u l t o a / t h e m e t a p h o r i n h e r e n t in t h e o r i g i n a l i d i o m , it m a y lead us astray f r o m a n o t h e r m e t a p h o r i c p u r p o r t in t h e original idiom, 1 hasten therefore to r e m i n d my readers that other

translations,

close t o t h e literal, m a y o p e n up t h e field of m e t a p h o r i c o p t i o n s . T i r e H e b r e w is ‫׳‬a ^winis

'u - säm Ir'er maynn

hayyuu.

A m e r i c a n S t a n d a r d V e r s i o n reads " a n d f o u n d

t h e r e a well oi s p r i n g i n g w a t e r ; ‫ ״‬N J P S " l o u n d t h e r e a well of s p r i n g w ater." d ' h u s old and. n e w t r a n s l a t i o n s agree o n " f i n d " as i r a n s l a t i o n of m.s, o n e w i t h w i n c h we c a n find n o f a u l t h e r e as l o n g as we r e m e m b e r t h a t t h e m e a n i n g of " f i n d " is to conic upun (hy c h a n c e , or a f t e r s e a r c h ) s o m e t h i n g w h i c h is t h e r e ( w h e r e it is) hv c h a n c e or by c h o i c e . 1 h e English word, "well" m a y d e n o t e a s p r i n g ( w e l l i n g u p f r o m a subt c r r a n e a n s o u r c e ) , or it m a y c o n n o t e a p i t or h o l e s u n k i n t o t h e e a r t h in s e a r c h for water, as in t h e case of a dry well. O n e c a n t h e r e f o r e dig d o w n u n t i l o n e r e a c h e s t h e w a t e r t a b l e , a n d o b t a i n w a t e r by l o w e r i n g a c o n t a i n e r by r o p e i n t o t h a t u n d e r g r o u n d flow. O r o n e m i g h t strike a flow w h e r e t h e i n t e r n a l pressure will b r i n g w a t e r s p u r t i n g t o w a r d t h e surface, as in t h e case of a n a r t e s i a n well. A n d s u c h a v i g o r o u s flow m a y h e all t h a t is i n t e n d e d hy t h e H e b r e w , " b r i m m i n g w a t e r " as o p p o s e d t o s t a g n a n t . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , mayïm

hayyïm,

literally " l i v i n g w a t e r " or " l i f e - g i v i n g

w a t e r " m a y h a v e s o m e special s i g n i f i c a t i o n in t h i s c o n t e x t . T h e c l a i m of t h e G e r a r i t e s h e p h e r d s is p o i n t e d l y in d i r e c t discourse; t h e well is n o t t h e i r s , for t h e y did n o digging. B u t t h e w a f e r is theirs, w h i c h is t o sav t h a t a n y waiter struck o n G e r a r i t e territory b e l o n g s t o t h e m . S u c h b l a t a n t d e n i a l of e a r n i n g s to t h e laborers r e v e r b e r a t e s w i t h t h e c h a r g e of A b r a h a m t o A b i m e l e c h in 21:25 t h a t his m i n i o n s h a d robbed

h i m (gzl)

of a water-well.

A s f o r t h e n a m i n g or t h i s w e l l , it

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIB LI CAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

569

points up t h e inanity of etiology as a n explanatory category. N o such place-name appears again, and t h e root of t h e verb from w h i c h t h e n a m e is derived never appears again in Scripture. All translations of it are pure c o n j e c t u r e based o n a sense of what might be contextually appropriate. T h e n a m e of t h e second well derives from a root more often attested, yet still only rarely, and such renderings as our own (or others, such as Opposition, C h a l l e n g e ) all derive from t h e general assumption that (the) Satan means Adversary. Needless to say, n o such place n a m e appears again in Scripturc. Oi clear relevance to our story is t h e omission of any information as to the resolution of these two contests for water-rights, as also t h e absence of contest for the third well. T h e n a m i n g of this third well, featuring a well-known root, is clearlv in expression of good o m e n , in contrast with t h e circumstances a t t e n d i n g the n a m i n g of t h e first two wells, but this place-name is also unique. W h a t t h e n is the point of these unedifying particulars in the life and travels of this patriarch, whose c a r e e r - as ha> so often been noted — is distinguished for the absence of event ? Episode Β ends with t h e purport o! Isaacs n a m e for t h e third well: it is a ·ayn of Y H W H ' s iavor and presage of a flourishing posterity. H e t h e n moves up from the Philistine littoral to t h e Beersheba plateau. Episode C begins with Yl IWl IV revel a‫׳‬ tion to him, apparently o n t h e fust night of his arrival there, t h a t the presentiment h e had experienced at R e h o b o t h was n o t a n idle one. For t h e sake of 1 'iny (îaithru!) servant A b r a h a m " h e would c o n t i n u e to favor Isaac, particularly in respect to 11 umerous progeny. Isaac t h e n proceeds to erect at Beersheba an altar (such as A brah a m had erected at S h e c h e m , Bethel and H e b r o n , b u t — p o i n t e d l y — n o t at Beersheba). H e invokes in Y H W H - n a m e , as did A b r a h a m before h i m at Beersheba (as well as at Bethel). T h e episode ends w i t h Isaac's servants digging a well o n c e again. But this t h e m e is b r o k e n off, to be resumed in verse 32 w i t h t h e a n n o u n c e m e n t of water being struck there, and Isaac's n a m i n g of t h e spring, a n a m e to w h i c h the settie m e n t there in t h e n a r r a t o r s time owes its n a m e . T h a t verses 2 6 - 3 1 represent a d i g r e s s i o n — w i t h t h e associated sense of oddity in respect to t h e composition w i t h i n w h i c h it appears, h e n c e to which it must somehow and significantly relate—is u n q u e s t i o n e d . T h e e v e n t told in this digression is preceded by t h e notice t h a t Isaac's m i n i o n s ' are digging a well, and it is toi‫׳‬ lowed by t h e same diggers report to Isaac t h a t they h a v e struck water. T h e oddity of this particular digression is reinforced by its c o n t e n t , plot, and characters almost duplicating those of t h e freestanding narrative, Genesis 2 1 : 2 2 - 3 4 , T h e king of Gerar, A b i m e l e c h , and Pikol his marshal would appear to be the same who, h a v i n g b r o a c h e d a nonaggression treaty to A b r a h a m , n o w broach t h e same proposal to A b r a h a m s son, Isaac, ί his, as if the treaty concluded with the f a t h e r - which explicitly referred to posterity oi t h e two p a r t i e s — d i d n o t already apply to or brad Isaac. I h e only addition, to A h i m e l e c h s party, is an intimate associate by t h e n a m e A/1w;7ai71. I be m e a n i n g of this word, with, an alternate f e m i n i n e ending (u/iu^oh sec Genesis 25:20) is laud-holding, real estate ou‫׳‬nerd1//>, and it, therefore, reinforces the Philistine collectivity represented in t h e !1rs!, narrative by the king and his marshal, Pikol u Voice oi Alb" In the freestanding narrative featuring A b r a h a m , Philistine hostility seems to he almost nugatory, confined perhaps to t h e greed of those who had infringed on A b r a h a m s well water u n b e k n o w n s t to A b i m e l e c h . Yet a consciousness oi ad versa!‫־‬-

388

STRUCTURES

ial interests may be read into Abimelech's very proposal of t h e nonaggression treaty. In t h e Isaac narrative, by contrast, t h e patriarch taxes t h e Philistines with t h e unfriendliness t h a t forced his departure from t h e city of Gerar. A n d t h e h o s t i h ity is o p e n and explicit in t h e claim ot the Gerarite shepherds to t h e water of two of t h e t h r e e springs dug or redug by Isaac's shepherds. A l t h o u g h Isaac does n o t bring up to A b i m e l e c h t h e actions of the Gerarite shepherds, h e n c e allows for n o disavowal by t h e king as to his sanctioning their behavior, there is n o reason to involve t h e sovereign in t h e fault of his subjects. Isaac, for his part, accepts A b i m e l e c h s c o m p l i m e n t t h a t h e is Heaven's favorite, and accedes to t h e p e t i t i o n for a nonaggression pact. H e treats his visitors to a feast. O n t h e morrow oaths are exchanged, and Isaac sees Iiis visitors oit. T h e r e may be s o m e t h i n g ironic in t h e coneluding n o t i o n that his visitors "parted from him safe and sound‫( ״‬/>\saimn), corresponding to the visitors' claim that they had "seen h i m oil sale and sound" (tmnnvsulc/r'ka /Ksäföm, verse :>0), when h e departed from Gerar, bor t h e Isaac with w h o m they are treating is hardly in a posit ion to oppose ‫ ו‬hem with physical force. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , Mlöm also has t h e sense of "amity," so the point‫ ״‬of the second bc$älöm may merely be t h a t t h e guests left in a spirit ol good feeling. T h e amicable conclusion of b o t h narratives would seem to point to t h e same kerygma: t h e descendants of Abraham-Isaac, in secure possession of Peershcba and t h e wad is leading f r o m it to t h e Philistine coastal plain, are by a n c i e n t treaty b o u n d n o t to commit aggression against those a n c i e n t neighbors. Militating against a c c e p t a n c e of this kerygmatic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these two patriarchal narratives is t h e mindset of t h e heirs of t h e biblical tradition (be these heirs t h e early rabbis or m o d e r n biblicists) on t h e o n e h a n d , and o n t h e other, t h e likely mindset of t h e I s r a e h j u d a h populations that t h e biblical a u t h o r (authors) was (were) addressing. T h e heirs of t h e tradition are c o n d i t i o n e d by the historical fate of t h e household of Israel, a history c u l m i n a t i n g in t h e destruction of t h e n o r t h e r n k i n g d o m (and t h e "lost" t e n tribes), in t h e destruction of the southern k i n g d o m less t h a n a century a n d a half later (and t h e "exile" of the Judean p o p u l a t i o n ) , b o t h disasters foh lowed by t h e renewal of a precariously m a i n t a i n e d priestly city-state c e n t e r e d o n a rebuilt shrine in Jerusalem. T h i s is to say t h a t trom t h e point of view of temporal hegemony, we c a n n o t but view the history of Israel's states as a tale of defeat and failure. Far, far different was t h e view of the audience addressed by the first of t h e writing prophets, A m o s . A close r e e x a m i n a t i o n of, for example, C h a p t e r s 6 and 11 ol this hook, will, show that his audience oi both, kingdoms were allush with a sense of power, victory, success; and with this sense, inclined to a confidence in a stable future as surely as t h e present is rooted in a promise-fulfilled past. It is to c o u n t e r such a rosy and smug mindset that A m o s stresses t h e transitory nature of all polities, this before h e goes o n to prophesy the end of the sinful state(s), but not of the Israelite people. Unterritoried Gushites ( ‫־־־‬: Midiamtc-like b e d o u i n ) h a v e in the mind of Y H W H , says Amos, equal status with Israel lies. A n d the act of bringing up Israel from Egypt (not, be it noted, from Ur Kasdim or 1 iaran) is not to be viewed as unique. For t h e o n e and t h e same and only god it was who !etched t h e (uncir cumcised) Philistines from (ancestral) C r e t e as lie did t h a t collectivity called A r a m from a far-distant: Kir.

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIB LI CAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

571

G i v e n such a sense o n the part of a polity and a populace, c o n f i d e n t in its prèset it well-merited success and c o n c o m i t a n t n o t i o n s such as national probity and manitest destiny, we can appreciate why a narrative warning o n e s own against encroaching o n an a n c i e n t rivals territory should be told twice, e a c h telling featuring t h e same ancestral a n t e c e d e n t s and their respective legitimate territories. So m u c h for t h e similarities and identities in t h e two narratives. W h a t of t h e differences? O n e is in t h e m a t t e r of t h e digging of wells. A b r a h a m digs only one, t h a t o n e at Beersheba. 3 6 T h i s spring, its water rights contested by A b i m e l e c h s subjects, is c e n t r a l to t h e narrative, a n d — f o r all t h e play o n t h e root sb = seven — is cited in its sense of "swearing" in t h e n a m i n g of it, (seemingly by A b r a h a m ) Beersheba. In t h e Isaac narrative t h e spring at Beersheba is n o t at all related in terras of plot ( t h o u g h it is so in terms of narrative structure) to t h e oaths exchanged between patriarch and Philistines. A s t h e site of t h e swearing b e t w e e n the two parties it later comes by t h e n a m e Beersheba. T h i s n a m e , however, is n o t here associated with the swearing sense of sh but w i t h t h e n a m e given to it by Isaac after the Philistines' departure, sibâ( "Seven." T h i s c a n n o t but point to t h e s e n n-Okvp paym e n t m a d e by A b r a h a m to A b i m e l e c h , a n i n f o r m a t i o n a l detail n o t to be credited to Isaac's consciousness, but provided by t h e n a r r a t o r to t h e reader w h o is privy to t h e first narrative, a n d in t h e recesses of whose mind there still lurks the quest ion as to t h e m e a n i n g of t h e n a m e s given by Isaac to t h e (redug) wells of his father, to which he "gives n a m e s like (but not identical with) those w h i c h his lather had given them." T h u s , whereas A b r a h a m had n a m e d it Sheba (as in Beersheba), m e a n ing (according lo t h e explication in 21:31 ) Swearing Well, yet with an allusion to the .seven-sheep payment, Isaac n a m e d it Shibä ( S e v e n ) — f o r reasons known to G o d alone—yet. in doing so came so close to t h e n a m e (apparently) given to it by his father! But what is t h e point: of this n a m i n g rigmarole? If t h e well had been n a m e d Beersheba by his father, t h e n t h a t would h a v e been, it for Isaac (and for t h e rest of us). But t h a t could n o t h a v e "been it" for Isaac, i n a s m u c h as n o such well existed in his time. H e merely (or inadvertently) hit u p o n a n a m e for a well that, unhek n o w n s t to him, h a d b e e n dug by his father, filled in by Philistines, and was thus "redug" by his own servants (inadvertently) and by Providential arrangement turned out to be t h e same site where b o t h h e and his f a t h e r pledged nonaggression to t h e Philistine d e s c e n d a n t s of their legendary lord, k n o w n to t h e patriarchs (if n o t to either d e s c e n d a n t s of either or b o t h ) as A b i m e l e c h , king of Gerar. T h e p o i n t of all this rigmarole is, of course, t h a t w h e n a narrative or a (nearly) twice-told narrative adds up to nonsense w h e n t a k e n as history, o n e must look for its m e a n i n g in terms of t h e fictive; ideological fiction, to be precise. A n d this brings us hack to Isaac's redigging of his father's wells. O n e c a n no more red ig hl led-in wells in a wadi t h a n o n e c a n retrace a n o c e a n i c voyage w i t h o u t a pilots router. A n d t h e n o t i c e t h a t t h e stopping-up of A b r a h a m ' s wells took place after his death certifies t h a t t h e father, a n t i c i p a t i n g n o such meanness, would n o t h a v e left a m a p tor his son's benefit. But why does t h e second narrative feature such a point‫״‬ l c ^ action on t h e part of Philisiine h e r d s m a n , who -apparently --had no use tor the water themselves? F he answer points to a n o t h e r item oi contradictory information: 111 this narrative doublei. Whereas, as wo saw, in the A b r a h a m narrative the

372

STRUCTURES

B e e r s h e b a a r e a lies i m p l i c i t l y i n P h i l i s t i n e t e r r i t o r y , n o s u c h t e r r i t o r i a l o w n e r s h i p is c r e d i t e d t o t h e P h i l i s t i n e s i n t h e Isaac n a r r a t i v e . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , for all t h a t Isaac t a k e s u p r e s i d e n c e in W a d i G e r a r , t h a t n a m e is n o m o r e a t t e s t a t i o n t o t h a t v a l l e y s o w n e r s h i p t h a n , say, f o r t h e O h i o R i v e r v a l l e y ' s b e i n g t h e t e r r i t o r y of t h e S t a t e of O h i o ‫ ־‬I n d e e d , t h e v e r y p o i n t of t h e f a i l u r e of t h e G e r a r i t e s t o c o n t e s t o w n e r s h i p of t h e t h i r d well m a y be t h a t Isaac has n o w m o v e d b e y o n d t h e a m b i t c l a i m e d by t h e Philistines. H e n c e , Isaacs n a m e for t h e third well ( R e h o b o t h =

Expansiveness,

B r o a d S c o p e ) . I s a a c is n o l o n g e r c r o w d i n g o r b e i n g c r o w d e d by r i v a l s , d h a l I s a a c is n o w in b i s o w n u n c o n t e s t e d t e r r i t o r y is a l s o b o r n e o u ! by h i s q u e s t i o n t o h i s P h i l i s t i n e v i s i t o r s ; ' 1 W h y h a v e y o u c o m e n o w to m e ( i n m y b a i l i w i c k ) w h e n y o u d r o v e m e o u t mëiit 1 ‫־‬kern " f r o m y o u r o w n j u r i s d i c t i o n ? " S o a l s o , by t h e a b s e n c e of a n y p a y m e n t o n h i s p a r t t o h i s P h i 1 i st i η e c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . A s s u m i n g t h e n ( a n d w e h a v e n o r e a s o n n o t t o ) a single narrai or tor b o t h stories, w e h a v e a n a r r a t o r w h o m a y b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d as reliably

unreliable.

H e is u n r e l i a b l e

as t o t h e h i s t o r i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n : in t h e m a t t e r of w h e t h e r B e e r s h e b a d i d o r d i d n o t in p a t r i a r c h a l t i m e s c o n s t i t u t e p a r t of P h i l i s t i n e t e r r i t o r y . S o t o o is h e u n r e l i a b l e in tracing the n a m e S h e b a to o n e root or another, to o n e patriarch or t h e other, i f — i n d e e d — t o e i t h e r . H e is, h o w e v e r , a l t o g e t h e r r e l i a b l e i n t h a t h e t a k e s s u c h p a i n s t o d e n y t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n . W h a t e v e r w a s t h e c a s e i n t h a t r e s p e c t , the double narrative leaves n o question in our (Israelitish) minds: W e are solemnly bound

by a n c e s t r a l

oath

to refrain f r o m aggression against our

uncircumcised

neighbors on t h e coast. W h y d o w e o b t r u d e t h e d e t a i l as t o c i r c u m c i s i o r r a l p r a c t i c e , a d e t a i l a p p a r e n t l y i ! r e l e v a n t f o r o u r n a r r a t o r h i m s e l f ? J u s t so: t o r e m i n d o u r s e l v e s t h a t t h i s d e t a i l , ot a s u r g i c a l l y u n i m p a c t e d m a l e o r g a n , a p p e a r s i n n a r r a t i v e s , n o t as a n e p i t h e t b e t o k e n ‫׳‬ i n g h a t r e d , b u t r a t h e r c o n t e m p t . I t b e s p e a k s t h e c o n d e s c e n s i o n of t h e i n s i d e r t o t h e o u t s i d e r . B u t s u c h a s t a n c e r e q u i r e s n o c o n c o m i t a n t s e n s e of fear, h a t r e d , h o s tility. Esau's first h o r n s o n E l i p h a z n u m b e r e d a m o n g h i s s o n s o n e b o r n e t o h i m by a c o n c u b i n e . T h i s g r e a t - g r a n d s o n of I s a a c , p r e s u m a b l y c i r c u m c i s e d i n i n f a n c y , be‫־׳‬ c o m e s - — t o r all h i s i n s i d e r , i n d e e d , k i n d r e d s t a t u s — i n v e t e r a t e f o e of I s r a e l . S o t o o t h e p r e s u m a b l y c i r c u m c i s e d d e s c e n d a n t s of M i d i a n , A b r a m ' s s o n b y K e t u r a h . S e e m ‫• ׳‬ i n g l y w i p e d o u t in a he r e m - w a r at t h e b e h e s t of Y H W H o r M o s e s ( s e e N u m b e r s 3 1 : 1 - 3 arid 31:441!,), a b r a n c h of t h e s e c o u s i n s s u r v i v e s as i m p l a c a b l e t o e s t o t h e t i m e of G i d e o n . 1 7 B u t t h e P h i l i s t i n e s

d e s p i t e o u r d i f f e r e n t p e r c e p t i o n of t h e m —

a r e n e v e r p o r t r a y e d as v i n d i c t i v e , a t r o c i t y c o m m i t t i n g e n e m y . A s e n e m y oi S a m sot! ( w h o

intermarried

with

t h e m ) , they arc m o r e victim than, perpetrator.

As

e n e m y of S a u l , l h e y d e f e a t h i m in f a i r b a t t l e . I n D a v i d s t i m e t h e y a r e s u b d u e d by 1 h e k i n g , w h o m t h e ν b e f r i e n d e d w h e n h e w a s o u t l a w a n d f u g i t i v e f r o m S a u l . Just w h e n i n h i s t o r i c t u n e t h e i r f e w c o a s t a l e n c l a v e s w e r e s o w e a k as t o t e m p t I s r a e l i t e o r J u d e a n a g g r e s s i o n is a m a t t e r f o r s p e c u l a t i o n . B u t t h a t s u c h t e m p t a t i o n w a s o n c e a h i s t o r i c fact, a n d v e t o e d by t h e n a r r a t i v e t r a d i t i o n s in G e n e s i s — i f n o t by t h e G o d of Israel h i m s e l f — i s t h e k e r y g m a t i c t e s t i m o n y of t h i s n a r r a t i v e d o u b l e t ,

1 HA\T: LEFT UXANSWI-RKU a n

implicit

problem

I raised

in c o n n e c t i o n

with

a

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e as b e t w e e n t h e A b r a h a m a n d I s a a c n a r r a t i v e s c e n t e r i n g on. B e e r s h e b a : Isaac b u i l d s o n e a l t a r only, t h e o n e at B e e r s h e b a , w h i l e A b r a h a m builds

S T R U C T U R E S AS A B1BLICAI

1. ITH RAR Y I' H Ε Ν ί ) VI 1;•‫\ן‬Ο Ν

t h r e e altars, n o n e of t h e m at B e e r s h e b a . In c o n n e c t ion w i t h t h e a l t a r b e t w e e n B e t h e l a n d A i , we h a v e t w i c e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a l I y r e d u n d a n t " a n d h e c a l l e d in Y H W H - n a m e . " A s if t o call o u r a t t e n t i o n t o A b r a h a m s p l a n t i n g a t a m a r i s k at B e e r s h e b a , r a t h e r t h a n e r e c t i n g a n a l t a r t h e r e , t h e n o t i c e of t h i s p l a n t i n g f e a t u r e s , for a t h i r d t i m e , t h e n o t i c e " a n d h e c a l l e d in Y H W H - n a n i e " T h e r e m u s t t h e r e f o r e b e a p o i n t e d m e a n i n g t o I s a a c s b u i l d i n g a n a l t a r at Beersheba.. t h e o n e site o u t of f o u r w h e r e A b r a m d i d n o t d o so. A n d t h a t m e a n i n g , a l t o g e t h e r in k e e p i n g w i t h t h e k e r y g m a of t h e t w o B e e r s h e b a n a r r a t i v e s , :cap-, t o m i n d if w e recall f r o m e l s e w h e r e in S c r i p t u r e a u n i q u e f e a t u r e of altars b u i l t l e g i t i m a t e l y for t h e w o r s h i p of Y H W H . S a c r i f i c e t o Y H W H , e v e n b e f o r e t h e a t t e m p t to restrict it t o t h e o n e c e n t r a l a l t a r 111 J e r u s a l e m ( t h i s a c c o r d i n g t o biblical " h i s t o r i o g r a p h y " ) , w a s r e s t r i c t e d t o t h a t p a r t of Israel's t e r r i t o r y t h a t — e n v i s a g e d as G o d ' s o r i g i n a l g r a n t t o t h e p a t r i a r c h s — w a s sacred or p u r e soil. O n l y o n s u c h tracts m i g h t altars t o Y H W H b e e r e c t e d , n o t o n l y t o a c h i e v e his f a v o r b u t to a v o i d i n c u r r i n g his w r a t h . T h u s , t o c i t e t h r e e e x a m p l e s a n t e d a t i n g J e r u s a l e m ' s c o n q u e - 1 by K i n g D a v i d : t h e a l t a r f o r s h o w b u t n o t for r i t u a l p r a c t i c e in t r a n s - J o r d a n ( J o s h u a 22); t h e c h a r g e of D a v i d t o Saul, t h a t his d r i v i n g h i s loyal vassal f r o m Y H W H ' s territory ( t o P h i l i s t i a , let us recall) is d e p r i v i n g Y H W H of a w o r s h i p e r (1 S a m u e l

20

‫אל‬: 1 8 ‫ ; ) ״‬a n d t h e p

N a a m a n , w h o fills t h e s a m e role ior t h e k i n g of A r a m as cud Pikol ior t h e k i n g of G e r a r (.sar y ' h d o ) , (or t w o m u l e loads of soil so t h a t h e m a y offer sacrifice t o Y H W H in A r a m e a n t e r r i t o r y (2 Kings

5:17‫)׳‬.^

T h u s , f o r t h e s t r u c t u r i n g s o r t h e p a t t e r n i n g s of a l t a r s b u i l t a n d

1lot h u i h

by

A b r a h a m , of i n v o c a t i o n s oi Y H W I I a n d t a m a r i s k - p l a n t i n g , ot wolfs d u g by A h r a h a m a n d Isaac, a n d a n a l t a r reared by Isaac, a t t h e o n e site w h e r e A b r a m e r e c t e d n o n e ; f r o m all t h i s e m e r g e s t h e m e a n i n g of t h e p a c t s c o n c l u d e d at B e e r s h e b a t h a t w e h a v e d i s c e r n e d h i t h e r t o . T h e title t o t h e t e r r i t o r y a r o u n d B e e r s h e b a , its water‫׳־‬ rights ceded to A b r a h a m ,

r e m a i n e d w i t h Philistia d u r i n g A b r a h a m ' s

lifetime.

H e n c e A b r a h a m c o u l d b u i l d n o a l t a r t h e r e t o Y H W H , t h o u g h lie m i g h t (as h e d i d ) i n v o k e t h e r e in Y H W H - n a m e , Yl I W H n a m e h e r e glossed as El öläm " G o d E t e r n a b " T h e p a y m e n t of flocks a n d h e r d s m a d e by A b r a h a m t o A b i m e l e c h ( i n addit i o n t o t h e s e v e n s h e e p in a t t e s t a t i o n t o h i s o w n r i g h t s t o t h e w a t e r ) was f o r t i t l e r i g h t t o a c c r u e t o his posterity. T h e s y m b o l i s m of t h a t accrual t o A b r a h a m ' s p r o g e n y is t h u s m e t a p h o r i c a l l y if n o t h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l l y p r e s e n t in B e e r s h e b a ' s n o l o n g e r c o n s t i t u t i n g G e r a r i t e t e r r i t o r y in t h e l i f e t i m e of A b r a h a m s son, Isaac, w h o " d i d b u i l d a n a l t a r t h e r e , i n v o k i n g in Y H W H - n a m c , p i t c h i n g t h e r e h i s t e n t " A l l this, let us b e c a r e f u l t o n o t e , in p a r a t a c t i c a l l y f o r m u l a t e d v e r s e 2 6 : 2 5 , b e f o r e t h e visit of t h e G e r a r i t e s , w h i c h b e g i n s i n h v p o t a c t i c a l l y f o r m u l a t e d verse

26:26,

w h i c h — h a d it b e e n f o r m u l a t e d p a r a t a c t i c a l l y (as, i n d e e d , t h e c o n t i n u i n g n a r r a t i v e i s ) — m i g h t h a v e b e e n read by us } m i s t a k e n l v to be sure, as a r e s u m p t i v e expansive episode.

A D D E N D U M : TWO MORE GENEALOGIES Α Ν Ο Τ HER N U M B E R S

AND

GAME

W e d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r ( s e e ‫ין‬. . j i o ) t h e s e v e r i t y n a n i r s in t h e l i n e s ol S h e m , I i a m , a n d J a p h e t h , i h e s a m e n u m b e r oi n a m e s a t t r i b u t e d

t o t h e d e s c e n d a n t s of J a c o b /

392

STRUCTURES

Israel in G e n e s i s 46, a n d d i e allusion to these n u m b e r s in D e u t e r o n o m y 32:8 in t h e S o n g of Moses‫ ־‬T h e p e r i c o p e t h a t c o n t a i n s t h e line of J a c o b s d e s c e n d a n t s , G e n e s i s 4 6 : 8 - 2 7 , is r e p l e t e w i t h f e a t u r e s of d i c t i o n , r e p e t i t i o n , v a r i a t i o n s o n f o r m u l a s , a n d lists of n a m e s w i t h i n c o n g r u e n t n u m b e r s a t t a c h e d t o t h e m , s u c h as t o p o s e a formi‫׳‬d a h l e c h a l l e n g e t o t h e p o e t i c a l c r i t i c . ( N e e d l e s s t o say, t h e p o i n t o f t h e

genealogy

a n d t h e n u m b e r s and t h e dictional and a r i t h m e t i c perplexities are largely

ignored

by source-critics.) I w i l l p r e s e n t a t r a n s l a t i o n of t h i s p e r i c o p e , a n d p r o v i d e a g r a p h o f t h e g e n e a l o g ical t r e e (figure 7 - 5 ) to h e l p t h e r e a d e r to r e t r a c e w i t h m e t h e f e a t u r e s of a craftily d e s i g n e d puzzle, a l t o g e t h e r in k e e p i n g w i t h t h e p l a y f u l n e s s t h a t , as w e h a v e

seen,

c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e n u m b e r play in t h r e e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s . T h e stylistic f e a t u r e s in t h e t e x t u p o n w h i c h I will f o c u s m y a t t e n t i o n in t h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n will app e a r i n i t a l i c s o r b o l d f a c e . A n d t h e l i n e - b y - l i n e a r r a n g e m e n t of t h e v e r s e s will b e s u c h as t o h i g h l i g h t t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s a n d d i f f e r e n c e s i n w h a t p u r p o r t s t o b e a genealogical table. Superscription ( 8 ) '1'here ί/icii are d i e n a m e s ci d i e c/iii'Jrcu of Israel, his children: ( G e n e s i s

those arrkmg

in b ‫ ״‬y p t : Jacoh

and

(6:8‫ן׳‬ 7 he Ij‫׳‬ne through

Leah

T h e f i r s t b o r n of‫ ׳‬Jueoh was R e u b e n . ( 9 ) N o w t h e c h i l d r e n of R e u b e n w e r e E n o c h , a n d Pallu, a n d I l e r r o n a n d C n n n i ( ! 0 ) A n d t h e c h i l d r e n ot S i m e o n w e r e Yetvtuel, a n d Yarn 111, a n d C h a d , a n d Y a e h i n , a n d Z o h a r , a n d S a u l s o n ot a C a n a a n i t e w o m a n . ( 1 1 ) A n d t h e c h i l d r e n of Levi w e r e Gershon, Kehath, and Merari. ( 1 2 ) A n d t h e c h i l d r e n of J u d a h w e r e Er, a n d O n a n , a n d S h e l a b , a n d P e r e z , a n d Z e r a h . Er a n d O n a n d i e d in t h e l a n d of C a n a a n . The

c h i l d r e n of P e r e : w e r e H e z r o n a n d Ida m u l .

( 1 3 ) A n d t h e c h i l d r e n of b s a c h a r w e r e Tola, and Puwah, and Y o k and S h i m r o n . ( 1 4 ) A n d t h e c h i l d r e n ot Z e b u I o n w e r e S e r e d , a n d E l o n , a n d Y a h 1 eel. ( 1 5 ) T h e s e the sons of Leah, t h a t s h e b o r e t o Jacob i n P a d d a n - A r a m , as w e l l as h i s d a u g h t e r D i n a h ; all souls, sons and daughters:

33. (Genesis 4 6 : 9 - 1 5 )

The Line through

Zilpah

( 1 6 ) A n d t h e c h i l d r e n of ( bid w e r e Z i p h i o n , a n d H a n g i , S h u ni. a n d E z h o n , E r g a n d A r o d b a n d A r e l i . ( 1 7 ) A n d t h e c h i l d r e n or A s h er w e n ‫׳‬ Y i i u n a h , a n d Yishwa, a n d Yishwi, anil B e r i a h , a n d fiteir ‫״‬si.sk‫־‬r S er ah. A n d t h e c h i l d r e n of t V r i a h w c t v 1 (cher a n d M a l c h i e l .

JACOB w. Leah

Enoch ι Hezron i i ί Fallu Carmi

issachar Toia

Gershon ! Merari 1 Kehath

> ‫ ן‬me on Yemuel i Ο h ad Yam in

w. R a c h e l

Levi

Reuben

Dinah

Yob

Puwa

j

Mariasse!!

Shimron

Judah

! Zohar

Yachin Saul h. C

Er

Ephraim

Zebulun

Shela

Onan

Joseph

Zerah

Sered

Benjamin

Yahleel

Bela

[ Ashhel N a a m a n ί Rosh Huprnm I i ; ! ! Becher Gera Ehi M u p p i m Ard

Elon

Perez i •iezron

i:\plieir Toia! = 14

ί iamul Expiicat I n t a l = 33

w. /ilp.ih

w, B i l h a h Dan

Gad Ziphion

[ ‫ ״‬S h u n i Γ Eri

Haggi

Ezbon

| Are

Hushim

Arodi Naplitali Yahzeel Yishvva

Benah Heber

FIGURE 7 - 5

Israe 1 ite E n try to Egypt

Guni

j Shillem

Explicit T o t a l = 7 Makhiel

Explicit Total = 16

j Yezer

376

STRUCTURES

( 1 8 ) T h e s e t h e c h i l d r e n of Z i l p a h , s h e w h o m L a h a n g a v e t o h i s d a u g h t e r L e a h . T h e s e s h e b o r e t o Jacob: ; 6 s o u k ( G e n e s i s 4 6 : 1 6 - 1 8 ) 'The Lme through

Rachel

( 1 9 ) T h e s o n s of R a e lie 1, Jacob's 1e!je w e r e Joseph and Benjamin. ( 2 0 ) C h i l d r e n w e r e b o r n t o J o s e p h i n t h e l a n d of E g y p t , [ t h o s e ] h o r n t o h i m b y A s e n a t h d a u g h t e r of P o t n p h e r a , p r i e s t of O n : namely, Manasseh and Ephraim. (2 1) A n d t h e c h i l d r e n of B e n j a m i n w e r e Bela, a n d B e c h e r , a n d A s h b e l , G e r n a n d K a a m a n , Ehi a n d R o s k M u p p i m and H u p p im and Ard. ( 2 2 ) T h e s e t h e c h i l d r e n of R a c h e l , t h a t w e r e b o r n t o Jacob,

all soids: 14. ( G e n e s i s

46:19-22) The Line th rough B il hah (2 ‫ ) י‬A n d t h e c h i l d r e n cd 1 lan - - 1 h i s h i m . ( 2 4 ) A n d t h e c h i l d r e n of N a p h t a l i w e r e Yahzcei, a n d t a m i , a n d Ye::cr, a n d S h i l l e n i . ( ‫ ) ף‬T h e s e i h e c h i l d r e n ot B i i h a h . d u ‫ ׳‬w h o m f . a h a n g a v e t o h i s d a u g h t e r R a c h e l . T h e s e s h e b o r e ι ο j a c k \ all s u n k 7. ( 2 6 ) A l l the: souls t h a t a r r i v e d ([that: is,] e x c l u d i n g t h e wive.-» ol

of Jacob's

Jacob's

it) Hgypt, s p r u n g of h i s o w n

loins

s o n s ) , all souls: 6 6 ; ( 2 7 ) p l u s t h e c h i l d r e n of

J o s e p h t h a t w e r e b o r n t o h i m in k ! y p t : ‫ י‬souls; all r h e souls of t h e l i n e (bet)

of Jacob

a r r i v i n g i n E g y p t : 70. ( G e n e s i s 4 6 : 2 3 - 2 7 ) L e t u s f i r s t n o t e t h e f o l l o w i n g f e a t u r e s of d i c t i o n i n r e s p e c t t o ( 1 ) t h e

appear-

a n c e of t h e t w o n a m e s , Israel a n d J a c o b , for t h e a n c e s t o r by w h o s e n a m e ( s ) c h o s e n p e o p l e a r e c a l l e d ; ( 2 ) t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e t e r m bänim, c o n s t r u c t (bene), t e r s ) ; issue

a t e r m t h a t m a y d e n o t e sons,

children

the

particularly in the

(i.e., b o t h s o n s a n d d a t i g l v

( e v e n if t h e r e is o n l y o n e s u c h ) ; descendants

(i.e., c h i l d r e n a n d

grand-

children); a n e t h n o s or polity traced to a n e p o n y m o u s ancestor a n d expressed E n g l i s h b y t h e a d d i t i o n t o t h a t a n c e s t r a l n a m e of t h e s u f f i x die

o r 4tes;

a n d (3)

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s o m e o r m o s t of t h e d e s c e n d a n t s of t h e p a t r i a r c h b y t h e m i n e d p a r t i c i p l e of bö

deter‫׳‬bcnë‫׳‬

"those arriving," e i t h e r in t h e plural m a s c u l i n e (with

P N ) o r i n t h e f e m i n i n e s i n g u l a r c o l l e c t i v e w i t h t h e f e m i n i n e n o u n nepes

in the

"person(s),

s o u l ( s ) . " N e e c d l e s s p e r h a p s t o s a w t h e i m p o r t a n c e of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f o n e o r an-‫׳‬ o t h e r d e n o t a t i o n t o t h e s e t e r m s i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h i s p e r i c o p e is d u e t o t h e per‫״׳‬ plexing counts

in t h r e e c o n t e x t s :

verse.

1:3

·the 33 descendants

of L e a h ;

verse

2 6 — t h e 6 6 d e s c e n d a n t s of J a c o b a r r i v i n g i n E g y p t ; v e r s e 2 7 — t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f persons, 70, arriving in hgypt. In t h e s u p e r s c r i p t i o n those

of

the

in v e r s e 8 t h e n a m e s t o c o m e

/?‫־׳‬ϊκ^-Υ/μυϊ cl, w h i c h

might

hear

a l m o s t , all

i n t h e f o l l o w i n g list the

connotations

a b o v e , a s t a t e m e n t t h a t m i g h t b e m a d e w i t h a l m o s t e q u a l t r u t h if t h e t e r m

Ycfqob

appeared

(see

1 above)

Almost

tun n o t q u i t e , b e c a u s e t h e s e

a r e i m m e d i a t e l y g l o s s e d by t h e m u t a t o r as

1

are in

2

hue-

hôicA'tsni el

' t h o s e w h o a r r i v e d i n E g y p t , Jacob

and

structures

a s a BIB LI CAL LITERARY p h e n o m e n o n

377

/!is o t t s p r i n g ‫ ״‬T h e p a t r i a r c h in h i s o w n p e r s o n m i g h t as Jacob ( p e r h a p s s t r e t c h i n g a l i t t l e ) he i n c l u d e d

in t h e g e n t i l i c for t h e n a t i o n - y e t ‫ ־ ! ׳‬ο he, t h e g e n t i l i c

boic-

Yisra ci, h u t t h e s a m e c a n n o t ho said in respect t o the 1 i n c l u s i o n oi Jacob a m o n g the issue oj Jacob,

T h e o v e r w h e l m i n g p r e p o n d e r a n c e uf t h e g e n t i l i c

Israel/Israeli!c

o v e r t h e g e n t i l i c J a c o b / J a c o b i t e is a n a d d i t i o n a l d a t u m t h a t s u p p o r t s t h e sense o i t h e p a t r i a r c h ' s p e r s o n h o o d in t h e n a m e J a c o b , a n d oi e p o n y m in t h e n a m e Israel. S u c h t h e n is t h e reason for t h e p r e s e n c e oi J a c o h as p e r s o n in o u r verges ‫ ( א‬t w i c e ) , r5, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26 ( t w i c e ) ; t h e i n f o r m a t i o n 111 t h e s e verses b e i n g so r e d u n d a n t as t o m a k e us q u e s t i o n t h e p o i n t of t h e s e r e p e t i t i o n s . If t h e p o i n t of t h e s e is t o u n d e r l i n e t h e i n c l u s i o n of J a c o b a m o n g t h e " I s r a e l i t e s " w h o c a m e t o L g y p t (in verse 8 ) , w e s h o u l d t h e n h a v e t o a d d r e s s t h e final a p p e a r a n c e of t h e n a m e J a c o b in verse 27. H e r e i n c o n t r a s t t o leYaaqob

"of J a c o b ' s " w e h a v e lebet-Yaaqoh

"ot t h e

h o u s e / f a m i l y / l i n e of J a c o b , " a n e x p r e s s i o n always r e f e r r i n g t o t h e p e o p l e or n a t i o n . it w o u l d s e e m t h e n t h a t i n t h i s v e r s e t h e n u m b e r 7 0 w o u l d b e i n c l u s i v e ot t h e p a t r i a r c h J ac o b h i m s e If. N o w to t h e n u m b e r s . T h e listed o f f s p r i n g of J a c o b — i n c l u s i v e ot sons, g r a n d c h i l d r e n , a n d g r e a t - g r a n d c h i l d r e n — a r e e x p l i c i t l y n u m b e r e d as follows: L e a h s desc e n d a n t s . 33; Z i l p a h s , 16; R a c h e l ' s , 14; a n d B i l h a h ' s , 7. T h e s e n u m b e r s add up t o 70, a n a d d i t i o n t h a t t h e n a r r a t o r d o e s n o t p e r f o r m h e r e (as h e d o e s e l s e w h e r e , see, e.g.. G e n e s i s 5). But t h e r e is, f u r t h e r , t h i s p e c u l i a r i t y : t h e 3 3 n a m e s of L e a h s c h i b dren and grandchildren do not include her daughter D i n a h . T h u s the récapitulan o n in v e r s e 3: 5 refers t o t h e benë‫״‬LëU

"sons [ n o t c h i l d r e n ] of L e a h . , . a n d in addi-

t i o n ( u |C t) his d a u g h t e r Leah." T h i s is i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w e d by "all souls, sons a n d d a u g h t e r s , 3 3." T h i s is m a n i f e s t l y w r o n g , for t h e n a m e s — i n c l u s i v e of D i n a h — w o u l d add u p t o 34. ( T h a t t h e n a r r a t o r is d e l i b e r a t e l y i n t r o d u c i n g a red h e r r i n g h e r e is a t t e s t e d t o by t h e n a m e s in A s h e r ' s l i n e . I n c l u d e d a m o n g t h e bcne Asher

is

his daughter S e r a h , a n a m e t h a t m u s t be i n c l u d e d in r h e t o t a l g i v e n for /;!paid‫ ־‬des c e n d a n t s : J6.) ! b u s t h e o n l y way t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e n a r r a t o r ' s a r i t h m e t i c at t h i s p o i n t is t o r e a d verse 15 as iollows. " T h e s e t h e sons of L e a h , w h o m s h e bore t o J a c o b in P a d d a n - A r a m — plus his d a u g h t e r D i n a h

- a l l souls, s o n s a n d d a u g h t e r s

! e x c e p t tor t h e b r a c k e t e d d a u g h t e r ] , 33." T h e p o e t i c a l q u e s t i o n , tb.cn, is w h y i h e n a r r a t o r p r o c e e d s in such c i r c u i t o u s f a s h i o n : t o list

m a l e n a m e s , t o add a 1.‫׳־‬th

n a m e — i b i s o n e a f e m a l e , t o a n n o u n c e t h a t t h e s u m a b o u t t o be g i v e n is inclusive ot b o t h m a l e a n d f e m a l e , a n d t h e n t o p r o v i d e t h a t n u m b e r — n o t 34, b u t 3

And

t h e n ‫ רגז‬t u n h e r p e r p l e x t h e close reader, t o a d d t h e n a m e s of t h e d e s c e n d a n t s ot o t h e r t h r e e wives, r e s p e c t i v e l y 16, 14, 7, w h i c h n u m b e r s h e e x p l i c i t l y p r o v i d e s w i t h o u t , h o w e v e r , m a k i n g e x p l i c i t t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n will s h o w a t o t a l of 70. Instead, c o n t i n u i n g in his seemingly pointless r o u n d a b o u t manner, he provides t w o parallel f o r m u l a t i o n s of s u m m a t i o n , o n e at t h e b e g i n n i n g of verse 2 6, t h e o t h e r a t t h e e n d of v e r s e 2 7 .

VERSE 2 6 A

VERSE 2 7 B

A l l t h e souls a r r i v i n g — o f J a c o b ' s

All the souls of Jacob's line arriving

in Egypt. . . all the souls: 66

in Egypt: 70

378

STRUCTURES

T h e j u x t a p o s i t i o n of t h e s e f o r m u l a t i o n s v i r t u a l l y g u a r a n t e e s t h a i t h e t w o n u m b e r s 66 a n d 70 m u s t b e c o n g r u e n t w i t h o n e a n o t h e r . T h e i n c o n g r u e n t factor, t h e differc n c e r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e n u m b e r 4, m u s t t h e r e f o r e b e r e s o l v e d by e l e m e n t s in t h e t e x t e x p l i c i t or i m p l i c i t . T h e e x p l i c i t e l e m e n t is t h a t t w o of Jacob's g r a n d s o n s — h a v i n g b e e n horn, t o J o s e p h i n E g y p t — c a n n o t h e said t o h a v e b e e n a m o n g " t h o s e a r r i v i n g in Egypt." ( S o v e r s e 2 7 a a n d v e r s e 2 0 . ) W h a t a b o u t t h e r e m a i n i n g discrepancy, n o w t h e n u m b e r 2? N o p r o b l e m . I m p l i c i t in verse 2 6 ("all a r r i v i n g in E g y p t " ) a n d explicit in verse 12 a r e t h e t w o of Jacob's g r a n d s o n s w h o , h a v i n g d i e d in t h e l a n d of C a n a a n (verse 12), c o u l d also n o t h a v e b e e n a m o n g ‫ ד‬h o s e a r r i v i n g in Egypt." T h u s , w e m i g h t c o n c l u d e , t h e c o n g r u e n c e b e t w e e n t h e 6 6 souls in v e r s e 26 a n d t h e 7 0 souls in verse 27 l1‫־‬as b e e n restored. S u c h a c o n c l u s i o n would b e w r o n g o n a n u m b e r of c o u n t s , bor o n e , t h e 70 souls " w h o a r r i v e in Egypt" in verse 27 c a n n o t possibly i n c l u d e Er a n d O n a n , t h e t w o sons of J u d a h w h o died in C a n a a n w i t h o u t issue. ( T h e t w o sons of J o s e p h , h o w ‫״‬ ever, d e s p i t e t h e i r b i r t h in Egypt, m i g h t h e i n c l u d e d in t h e 70; t h e w o r d " a r r i v e d " c a n h a v e a m e t a p h o r i c sense w i t h o u t

a g e o g r a p h i c t e r m i n u s . In t h i s

context

specifically t h e s e n s e of " a c c r u e " c a n c e r t a i n l y i n h e r e in t h e v e r b hö . ( dans id er, in verse 26, "all t h e souls accruing

t o J a c o b " a n d c o m p a r e t h e usage in E x o d u s 2 2 : 1 4 .

Thus, in verse 26, t h e d o u b l e e n t e n t e — a c c r u i n g to Jacob a n d arming

in

Egypt—

a c h i e v e d by t h e p l a c i n g of lcYaaqob a f t e r habbä'ä a n d b e f o r e MLsrairmt ( i n s t e a d of, as in verse 27, t h e n o r m a l o r d e r ) . T h u s we w o u l d h a v e t o find a n o t h e r t w o souls t o c o m p l e m e n t t h e n u m b e r 70 in verse 27. T h e clues t o c l e a r u p t h i s m y s t e r y will also r e s o l v e a f e w a d d i t i o n a l p e r p l e x i t i e s t h a t we h a v e n o t e d . T h e J a c o b i n verse 26 t o w h o m souls a c c r u e , all s p r u n g f r o m h i s loins, is t h e p a t r i a r c h in h i s o w n p e r s o n a , a n d t h e r e f o r e is n o t , a n d c a n n o t b e , c o u n t e d i n h i s 6 6 d e s c e n d a n t s . B u t in verse 27 t h e 70 souls of' hër-Ya a i.|0b— this last t e r m , like hët-Yisrâel,

or like t h e bcnë~Yisrâ'el

. . . i.e., Jacob and his

children—are

m e m b e r s of a family, o n e of w h i c h c a n b e a n d is t h e p a t r i a r c h h i m s e l f . T h u s w e n o w h a v e a n o t h e r p r o b l e m . T h e n a m e - l i s t s of t h e m a t r i a r c h s ‫ י‬d e s c e n d a n t s a d d e d up ( i m p l i c i t l y ) t o t h e n u m b e r 70, i n c l u s i v e of Er a n d O n a n a n d M a n a s s e h a n d E p h r a i m . N o n e of t h e s e f o u r g r a n d s o n s , h a v i n g i n d e e d b e e n d e s c e n d e d f r o m J a c o b , c a n b e s u b t r a c t e d f r o m t h e list of 70. If w e n o w add J a c o b h i m s e l f to t h e list ( i n k e e p i n g w i t h v e r s e 8) a n d h i s d a u g h t e r D i n a h ( i n k e e p i n g w i t h verse 15), w e h a v e arrived at a t o t a l of 72 souls! T w o souls m u s t b e s u b t r a c t e d f r o m t h i s t o t a l t o a c h i e v e t h e n u m b e r 70. W h o a r e t h e y ? T h e a n s w e r i s — a s h i n t e d a t by t h e ( r e d u n dant‫ )׳‬e x c l u s i o n ot the wives of the sons oj (/children jrom his loins y in verse 26

o f ) Jacob f r o m those who

sprung

-the t w o w o m e n ( w o m e n n e v e r c o u n t i n g as c o n t i n u e r s

of t h e p a t r i l i n e a l l i n e s ) , P i n a h a n d S e r a h ; t h e f o r m e r n e v e r i n c l u d e d in t h e n a m e s that t o t a l 70; !lie l a t t e r i n c l u d e d in t h e n a m e s that t o t a l 70. But n o w w e k n o w why t h e n a r r a t o r n e v e r p r o v i d e d t h e e x p l i c i t a d d i t i o n of t h e n a m e s of t h e m a t r i a r c h s 1 d e s c e n d a n t s : I lad h e d o n e so, h e w o u l d h a v e h a d t o s u b t r a c t S e r a h a n d c o m e up w i t h a t o t a l of 6 9 ! H a v e w ç t h e n resolved all t h e p r o b l e m s of t h e n a m e s listed, n u m b e r e d , o n c e unt o t a l e d , o n c e t o t a l e d to yield 66, o n c e t o t a l e d t o yield 7 0 / N o , we h a v e n o t . F o r t h e total of 6 6 in verse 26 ( n o t i n c l u s i v e of M a n a s s e h a n d E p h r a i m , Er a n d O n a n ) is i m p l i c i t l y b a s e d o n t h e list of n a m e s of c h i l d r e n (sons) a n d g r a n d c h i l d r e n of J a c o b

S T R U C T U R E S AS A B I B LI C A L L I T E R A R Y P H E N O M E N O N

379

i n verses 2 - 2 5 , a list t h a t adds a p t o 70 n a m e s i n c l u s i v e of g r a n d d a u g h t e r S e r a h . T h u s by i n c l u d i n g t h i s o n e g r a n d c h i l d in t h e list a n d by e x c l u d i n g d a u g h t e r D i n a h f r o m it o u r n a r r a t o r g u a r a n t e e s t h a t , h o w e v e r w e process t h e i n f o r m a t i o n h e so ing e n i o u s l y f o r m u l a t e s , w e s h a l l fall s h o r t by o n e , o r find t h a t w e h a v e o n e t o o m a n y , i n r e s p e c t t o t h e t a r g e t e d n u m b e r 70. W h a t is t h e p o i n t of t h i s baffling d e s i g n ? B e f o r e w e go o n t o address t h i s q u e s t i o n , I will ask t h e r e a d e r t o b e a r w i t h m e as I present, t w o r i d d l e s f r o m m y o w n p e r i o d s r e c r e a t i o n a l a r i t h m e t i c : A n A r n h w h o s e e s t a t e c o n s i s t s of π h e r d of 17 c a m e l s dies, l e a v i n g a will specifies t h a t r h e e k l e s t s o n is t o i n h e r i t youngest

which

V! t h e h e r d , t h e m i d d l e s o n '/·> a n d

the

S i m p l e division reveals that this a m o u n i s to 8 / camels for t h e eldest, s o

c a m e l s for t h e m i d d l e s o n , a n d 1% c a m e l s for t h e y o u n g e s t . S i n c e a u m i c l c a n n o t he d i v i d e d i n i o h a c t i o n . s w i t h o u t s e r i o u s i m p a i r m e n t ot !is m o n e t a r y v a l u e , t h e hears h a v e r e c o u r s e t o t h e t r i b a l s h e i k h . I b i s g e n t l e m a n , aft er m i d i m g o v e r t h e p r o b l e m tor s e v e r a l m i n u t e s , v o l u n t e e r s t o e n r i c h t h e d e c e a s e d ' s e s i a f e w i t h a c a m e l f r o m Iiis o w n h e r d . H e t h e n a l l o t s 9 c a m e l s t o t h e e l d e s t , 6 t o t h e m i d d l e son a n d

2 to

the

y o u n g e s t — e a c h t h u s r e c e i v i n g m o r e t h a n t h e a l l o t m e n t of h i s l a t h e r ' s will. T h e a h l o t t e d c a m e l s , 9 + 6 + 2 a d d i n g u p t o 17, t h e s h e i k h t h e n ‫ ו‬ides oft o n t h e c a m e l w h i c h h e h a s r e p o s s e s s e d . . . T h e s h e i k h s t r i c k : N o n e a t all. T h e e n i g m a is c l e a r e d u p w h e n a f t e r l a b o r i o u s c a l c u l a t i o n w e a r r i v e at t h e a w a r e n e s s w h i c h t h e

sheikh

r e a c h e d so q u i c k l y . T h e c o m m o n d e n o m i n a t o r o t /-, !‫'׳‬, a n d ,‫׳‬s is 18, a n d t h e t r a c t i o n s add up to

+ Yin +

f o r a t o t a l of

T h e deceased father had not distributed the

s u m t o t a l of h i s e s t a t e . F r o m t h i s u n d i s t r i b u t e d p o r t i o n , : ‫׳‬,s t h e s h e i k h w a s a b l e t o sat•‫׳‬ isfy all p a r t i e s . A n i g h t - c l e r k r e n t s o u t h i s h o t e l ' s last u n o c c u p i e d r o o m t e t h r e e s a l e s m a n t o r $ 1 0 p e r p e r s o n . A f e w m i n u t e s later, r e a l i z i n g t h a t h e 11,1s o v e r c h a r g e d t h e m f o r a $ 2 5 r o o m , h e s u m m o n s t h e b e l l h o p , e x p l a i n s his m i s t a k e , a n d h a n d s h i m five singles to be r e t u r n e d t o t h e t h r e e s a l e s m e n i n R o o m 8 1 9 . O n h i s way u p t o t h e e i g h t h floor, t h e b e l l h o p — a n t i c i p a t i n g t h e d i f f i c u l t l y of t h r e e m e n d i v i d i n g 5 s i n g l e s — d e c i d e s t o e a s e t h e i r p e r p l e x i t y . H e p o c k e t s t w o d o l l a r s , a n d r e t u r n s t h e r e m a i n i n g t h r e e t o t h e salesm e n . E a c h of t h e s e guests, h a v i n g p a i d t e n d o l l a r s a n d g o t t e n o n e d o l l a r b a c k , t h e t h r e e t o g e t h e r h a v e n o w p a i d 27 d o l l a r s ( 3 X 9 = 27) f o r a r o o m w h i c h s h o u l d h a v e cost t h e m

2 5 . B u t it d i d c o s t t h e m

27 d o l l a r s a n d t h e b e l l h o p k e p t

2

dollars

(27 + 2 - 2 9 ) . W h a t , t h e n , h a p p e n e d to t h e 3 0 t h dollar? . . . A n s w e r : N o t h i n u . T h e q u e s t i o n is m i s l e a d i n g . T h e 27 d o l l a r s p a i d by t h e s a l e s m e n i n c l u d e d t h e 2 p o c k e t e d by t h e b e l l h o p ( t h e y p a i d , in e f f e c t , 23 d o l l a r s f o r t h e r o o m and! 2 ior t h e b e l l h o p ' s dis• h o n e s t y ) . H e n c e t h e 2 d o l l a r s p o c k e t e d m u s t be s u b t r a c t e d f r o m t h e 27 p a i d , t o m a k e f o r t h e $ 2 3 r o o m c h a r g e , a n d c a n n o t b e a d d e d t o t h e 27 as was d o n e t o c r e a t e t h e problem.

W h y h a v e 1 c i t e d t h e s e t w o riddles? Because this, b e i n g a p o e t i c a l e n t e r p r i s e , must d e p e n d o n c o m p a r a t i v e literary study ior its a r g u m e n t a t i o n . A n d s u c h structurcs as t h e s e g e n e a l o g i c a l lists a n d t h e n u m b e r - p l a y associated w i t h t h e m simply d o n o t figure largely, if at all, in t h e sparse l i t e r a t u r e f r o m a n t i q u i t y or in t h e s p a t e of it in m o d e r n times. C o m p a r i n g t h e n t h e n u m b e r - p l a y in t h e B i b l e — s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t in G e n e s i s 4 6 — a n d i n t h e c i t e d e x a m p l e s , 1 w o u l d h a v e to c o n c e d e t h a t t h e aut h o r s or " n a r r a t o r s " are in b o t h cases in c o m p l e t e c o n t r o l of t h e i r m a t e r i a l a n d t h e i r c r a f t . I w o u l d f u r t h e r h a v e to agree t h a t t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of t h e two cited riddles, like t h a t in G e n e s i s 46, is a p o e t i c a l factor. W h i c h is to say t h a t t h e wav in w h i c h t h e

398

STRUCTURES

riddle is formulated has a great deal to do with the challenge posed for t h e reader or hearer. Consider, for example, t h e following formulation of t h e first riddle: T h r e e brothers inheriting respectively one-half, one-third and o n e - n i n t h of a flock of ‫ך ך‬ sheep worked oui die [raclions due to t h e m as HC ·y and 1%. "Phey d i e n rounded off each share to the nearest highest integer, and so divided t h e flock into shares consisting oi 9, i>, and 2, for a total of 1 7. 1 low was this operation possible.' d i r e difference between the biblical and the modern riddles is striking. T h e inf o r m a t i o n given in t h e m o d e r n riddles is minimal, and the necessary arithmetic operations are simple, linear, and compel a single answer. Only the p r e s e n t a t i o n of' t h e plot or t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of the question may be charact erized, to some e x t e n t , as misleading. In t h e biblical ricldle(s) the data may appear in o n e or more parallel c o n t e x t s or sets, t h e items sometimes identical, sometimes variant, sometimes strangely inconsistent w i t h (if n o t contradictory to) one another. T h e data may or may n o t include n u m e r a t i o n , explicit process ot addition, implicit process of subtraction; and t h e totals given in two different sets of such a r i t h m e t i c processes are o f t e n such t h a t t h e conclusion t h a t will satisfy one sot of data will be contraindicated by t h e data in t h e second set, and vice versa. W e h a v e seen t h e above in t h e seven preceding sections dealing w i t h structures of o n e kind or another. In t h e case of Genesis 46, we h a v e a single genealogy, w i t h a c u n n i n g conflation of personal n a m e s p o i n t i n g either to a single individual or to a n e t h n i c polity. All t h e data c u l m i n a t e in the bewilderingly clashing implications of t h e two different a r i t h m e t i c s u m m a t i o n s in two successive verses, o n e yielding a c o u n t of 66, t h e o t h e r a c o u n t of 70. But a n o t h e r clue to t h e overarching design of t h e biblical a u t h o r would be overlooked it we c o n t i n u e d , as we h a v e d o n e so far, to be preoccupied only w i t h t h e numbers and arithmetic operations in c o n n e c t i o n with this genealogy in Genesis 46, this line of Jacob. For another, swollen version of this genealogy appears in N u m b e r s 26. In characterizing this last genealogy as swollen we have two things in mind. O n e is the sleep-inducing or, if you will, mesmeri:;ing d r o n e of t h e census-taker as he names lirst each c l a n s eponymous ancestor from whom derives t h e clan that is named--- how else !‫ י‬- - a f t e r him. T h u s : "(belonging) to Neuntel, the family/clan of t h e Nemuel-ites; (belonging) In Van un, the clan of the Yainm-ites; belonging to Yachin, t h e clan of Yachin-ites, ‫ יי‬and so o n and so on for perhaps halt a hundred clans. T h a t such a litany-like recital of (putative) ancestral clan n a m e s is testim o n y to t h e piety of t h e recorder, or to his sacerdotal status (P, being a priest, is naturally dedicated to preserving and t r a n s m i t t i n g archival data), is as reasonable as t h e conclusion t h a t an arranger w h o set t h e names of St. Peter's successors to t h e strains of a Gregorian c h a n t must have been a pious a d h e r e n t of t h e R o m a n c h u r c h , possibly himself ordained a priest, and drawing his material f r o m Vatican archives. T h e o t h e r e l e m e n t of swollenness is t h e differences in n a m e s in t h e census of N u m b e r s 26. T h e s e are for t h e most part additions in t h e N u m b e r s list of grandchildren and great-grandchildren of J a c o b s sons. T h e two lists being 90 p e r c e n t identical, I will n o t reproduce t h e second list here. Instead 1 wall n o t e t h e differences. In the N u m b e r s list:

S T R U C T U R E S AS A IHUEICA !.. I ITEKAKV Ρ I Ι Ε Ν Ο Vi EN ί ) Ν

3'S ‫י‬

ι . R e u h e r A st ‫ י ו וי‬P a l l u , sires h l i a b , w h o ill t u r n sires Ν e m ne 1, D a i h a n , a n d

Abirain.

L ‫ י‬: u b a n a n d A h i r a m a r e p o i n t e d l y i d e n t i f i e d as t h e t w o R e u b e n i 1rs w h o j o i n e d t h e ! a n i o n of K o r a h , a n d p a i d lor 11 w i t h t h e i r lives. T h u s w e c a n u n d e r s t a n d

then

l e a v i n g n o c l a n - d e s c e n d a n t s b e h i n d . B u t t h i s o n l y d r a w s (01‫ ׳‬s h o u l d d r a w ) o u r a i t e n d o n t o r h e d a r u m t h a t n e i t h e r t h e i r b r o t h e r N e m u e l n o r t h e i r h i t h e r E l i a h leit b e h i n d c l a n s n a m e d a f t e r t h e m s e l v e s . W h y t h e n a r e t h e y i n c l u d e d in t h i s c e n s u s list t o h e ^ i n w i t h .7 2. S i m e o n ' s e l d e s t is n o t Y e m u e l b u t N e m u e l

(like his Re ub e n i te great‫ ׳‬nephew,

Eliab's s u r v i v i n g s o n ) . T h e t h i r d s o n . O h a d , is m i s s i n g . I n p l a c e of Z o h a r (shr)

the

n e x t t o y o u n g e s t s o n is Z e r a h ( z r / 1 ) — l i k e J u d a h ' s last m e n t i o n e d s o n — a n d so w e h a v e t h e i m p r o b a b l e p h e n o m e n o n of t w o Z a r h i c l a n s in Israel, o n e S in! e o n ire, r h e o t h e r J u d a h i t e . F i n a l l y , t h e last s o n S a u l , a n c e s t o r of t h e S a u l i t e c l a n , is n o t .sin‫׳‬ gled o u t h e r e for h a v i n g h a d a C a n a a n i t e m o t h e r . 3. G a d ' s s e v e n s o n s are d i e s a m e e x c e p t f o r Z i p h i o n , w h o a p p e a r s as Z a p h o n , a n d E z b o n , w h o a p p e a r s as O z n i . 4. i s s a c h a r ' s t h i r d s o n is n o t Yob ()‫׳‬/‫ )ל‬b u t Y a s h u b

(ysb).

5. J o s e p h ' s •‫׳‬wo s o n s a r e e a c h p r o v i d e d w i t h t h r e e or t w o g e n e r a t i o n s of s o n s , e a c h of w h o m constitutes an eponymous clan ancestor. Thus: Mmasseh

Ephraim

Machiriite.-o

Shutelah(ites)

Gilead(ites)

Eran(ites)

!ezer(ires) j Helck(iles)

Becher( ites)

Tahan( ites'!

1 Hcpher(ites) Slurinidntiles)

Asliriel(itcs) ‫ ־־‬Shechein( li es) 6. In p l a c e oi‫ ׳‬B e n j a m i n s let! s o n s t h e r e a r e o n l y h v e . T w o of d i e s e are., as in the• ί κ*ηes is list (but also c o n s t i t u t i n g c l a n a n c e s t o r s ) ; B e l a ( i t e s ) , A s h h e l ( i i e s ) . t h e m h e a r n a m e s s u g g e s t i v e of s o n s i n t h e G e n e s i s list: S h e p h u p h a m ;!mites), el. ( î e n e s i s Mw/>/)m1, a n d H u p h a m ( i t e s ) , cf. G e n e s i s Huhjyim.

f w n ot (Shuph-

A iilrh s o n ,

a b s e n t in G e n e s i s , is Abir;1m(1t:es). B u t t w o s o n s of B e n j a m i n in t h e G e n e s i s list, N a a m a n a n d A r d , a p p e a r as e p o n y m o u s c l a n a n c e s t o r s , ( h e y t h e s o n s of Ben‫־־‬ j a m i n > f i r s t b o r n s o n , Beda. 7. 111 p l a c e oi t h e o n e s o n of D a n i n G e n e s i s , H u s h i m (/ism), t h e r e a p p e a r s a s i n g l e s o n by t h e n a m e S h u h a m ( s h m ) . 8. T h e five s o n s of A s h e r a r e r e d u c e d t o f o u r ( Y i s h w a g o t lost, p r o b a b l y t o t h e relief of h i s b r o t h e r Y i s h w i ) . B u t t h e y o u n g e s t s o n B e r i a h ( h i m s e l f h e r e t h e c l a n a n c e s t o r of t h e B e r i a i t e s ) is a l s o f a t h e r (as i n G e n e s i s ) of t h e c l a n a n c e s t o r s H e b e r a n d M a l c h i e l (of t h e H e b e r i t e s a n d M a l c h i e l i t e s , t o b e s u r e ) . B u t p e r h a p s t h e m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g i t e m i n a c o m p a r i s o n of t h e t w o lists is t h a t A s h e r ( t h e e i g h t h scan in o r d e r o f a p p e a r a n c e i n G e n e s i s , i.e., t h e s e c o n d s o n of L e a h ' s m a i d Ζ il p a h , f a l l o w i n g t h e six s o n s of L e a h h e r s e l f ) is t h e n e x t - t o d a s t of t h e t r i b a l a n c e s t o r s in t h e elandist. A n d , interesting e n o u g h , despite this being a (patrilineal) elan-list, the last n o t i c e i n r e s p e c t t o t h i s A s h e r is t h a t " t h e n a m e of h i s d a u g h t e r w a s S e r a h A It w i l l b e o f i n t e r e s t t o n o t e t h e c o m m e n t s o n t h e s e t w o l i s t s o f t w o

source-

c r i t i c s , b o t h o f t h e m a s s u m i n g ( i n v a r y i n g d e g r e e s of r i g i d i t y ) t h a t s u c h g e n e a l o g i e s r e p r e s e n t h i s t o r i o g r a p h i e o r h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l l y i n t e n d e d r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s of I s r a e l s a n c e s t r y . T h u s S p e i s e r in f o o t n o t e s a d . l o c . a n d i n h i s n o t e s t o C h a p t e r 4 6 doe1‫ ׳‬t h e f o l l o w i n g : l i e c o n f i d e n t l y a s s u m e s t h a t t h e yob

( j o b ) of b s s a c h a r s l i n e is a t e x t u a l

‫ראן‬ e r r o r f o r t h e yswh

STKtK , TU R|-‫־‬S

( Y a s h u b ) οί Ν ‫ והו ו‬h e r s 2 6 : 2 4 , a n d s o e m e n d s t h e n a m e i n h i s

translation. H e prefers the N u m b e r s 26:15 " Z c p h o n " to Gad's firstborn "Ziphion" in G e n e s i s 46:16‫ ־‬T h e

names

"Ehi, Rosh,

Mupppim,

and

Eluppim" ought,

he

t h i n k s , t o b e c o r r e c t e d t o t h e " A hi r u m , S h e p h u p h a m , H u p p i m " of N u m b e r s 2 6 : 3 9 h H e a l s o r e f e r s us t o τ C h r o n i c l e s 8 : 4 h w h i c h , h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t c o m p o r t w i t h e h t h e r of t h e t w o

lists w e a r e e x a m i n i n g .

Now

his a r g u m e n t a t i o n : Jemuel

(our

Y c m u e l ) , e l d e s t sot! of S i m e o n in G e n e s i s 4 6 : 1 0 , is i n f e r i o r t o t h e N e m u e l of Ν urn‫־׳‬ hers 26:12 a n d 1 C h r o n i c l e s 4:24, "because ( t ) N u m b e r s 26 h a d "proved d e p e n d a b l e o n m a n y c o u n t s " ( W h a t , w e w o u l d a s k , a r e t h e c r i t e r i a f o r d e p e n d a b i l i t y of N u m b e r s , o r of t h e u n d e p e n d a b i l i t y of G e n e s i s I), " a n d ( 2 ) H e b η w i l l b e m i s t a k e n f o r y m o r e r e a d i l y t h a n t h e o t h e r w a y a b o u t " ( W h i c h is t o say, g i v e n t h e s h a p e s of t h e H e b r e w l e t t e r s , t h a t t h e c l o s i n g s q u a r e b r a c k e t ] is m o r e r e a d i l y m i s t a k e n f o r h a l f t h a t b r a c k e t ‫ יי־‬t h a n t h e o t h e r w a y a b o u t . O n t h i s p o i n t w e s h o u l d l i k e t o h e a r o u r r e a d e r s ' o p i n i o n s . ) S i m i l a r t o t h e p r e c e d i n g is h i s a p o d i c t i c , r a t h e r t h a n re as o n e d , j u d g m e n t t h a t t h e "list ot B e n j a m i n s s o n s h a s b e e n m a n g l e d i n t h e p r e s e n t version. . . . Aside from mechanical textual corruptions w h i c h can be corrected o n t h e b a s i s of p a r a l l e l p a s s a g e s . . . . A l l of w h i c h s e r v e s t o p o i n t u p t h e

secondary

c h a r a c t e r o t t h e list b e f o r e us." F r o m G e r h a r d v o n R a d s d i s c u s s i o n of t h e G e n e s i s 46 genealogy I will cite only his c o n c l u s i o n : 111 d i s t i n c t i o n ‫־‬irom the list m N u m b e r s 26:31b, ior example, which must he c o n s i d ‫׳‬ ered a historically a c c u r a t e Maternent oi t h e g e n e r a t i o n s trom t h e period before t h e formation oi t h e slate, our Ibi has 10 he thought oi as the work of very late and t h e o ‫׳‬ relieal erudition. 11 is t h e product of erudite o c c u p a i i o n w i t h ancient iraditions and belongs, therefore, to a thcolo^ical Priestly literature of w h i c h t h e r e is m u c h in t h e Old d est, 111 lent (ci. Χ1 ! a 1,, ch. 7) but the actual fife and real purpose of w h i c h is only recognizable with difficulty b e h i n d t h e hard, dry shell w i t h w h i c h it is c o v e r e d . 9 ‫י‬ It w o u l d s e r v e n o p u r p o s e t o e n t e r i n t o d e t a i l e d d e b a t e w i t h t h e s e t w o n o t a b l e s c h o l a r s . ( T h e f a u l t may, i n a n y c a s e , lie w i t h m y o w n p e r v e r s e m e n t a l i t y : I u n d e r s t a n d h a r d l y a s i n g l e w o r d in t h i s last c i t a t i o n f r o m v o n R a d . ) M y c i t a t i o n of t h e s e h is t o r i o g r a p h ic a 11 y o r i e n t e d a p p r o a c h e s t o b i b l i c a l g e n e a l o g i e s is i n t h e i n t e r e s t of c o n t r a s t i n g t h e m w i t h m y o w n p o e t i c a l a p p r o a c h . F o r all t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e t w o lists, t h e u n i f o r m i t i e s a n d s i m i l a r i t i e s i n t h e m a r e e v e n m o r e s t r i k i n g (as, f o r e x a m p i e , w e h a v e s e e n i n t h e c a s e of t h e g e n e a l o g i e s p r o v i d e d f o r t w o d i f f e r e n t a n c e s t o r s , C a i n a n d S e t h ) , A n d m a n y of t h e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e , g i v e n t h e d i f f e r e n t p u r p o r t s of t h e t w o lists, n o t a t all p r o b l e m a t i c .

T h u s , f o r e x a m p l e , t h e list i n G e n e s i s 4 6 , a l b e i t i n

t h e g u i s e of a g e n e a l o g y , is a list of h u m a n b e i n g s i n a s i n g l e f a m i l y w h o a r r i v e d i n E g y p t , a list a d d i n g u p t o 7 0 ( 0 1 6 6

‫ ׳‬,

d e p e n d i n g o n w h e t h e r o n e includes o n e arrival

or more, a n d paterfamilias, and o n e female but n o t a n o t h e r ) . O n e could not, therefore, i n c l u d e g r a n d c h i l d r e n or g r e a t - g r a n d c h i l d r e n w h o w e r e n o t yet b o r n at t h e t i m e of J a c o b ' s d e s c e n t t o E g y p t , o r w h o w o u l d h a v e d i s t u r b e d t h e c o u n t c u l m i n â t i n g i n t h e n u m b e r 7 0 . N o t so, h o w e v e r , t h e list i n N u m b e r s 2 6 , w h i c h , a l b e i t i n t h e g u i s e of a g e n e a l o g y , is a list of c l a n s ( a n d s u b - c l a n s ? ) c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e t r i b e s of Isr a e l . N u m b e r is not: r e l e v a n t h e r e , h e n c e t h e t r a c i n g of c l a n a n c e s t r y t o a n e p o n y m in t h e s e c o n d o r t h i r d ( o r tilth, for t h a i m a t t e r ) g e n e r a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s n o p r o b l e m . But t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s in t h e c o n t e x t or t h e d i f f e r e n c e s a r c r e s o l v a b l e o n l y o n p o e t i c a l

S T R U C T U R E AS Λ U I HL Κ Ά L LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

3^3

grounds. T h u s , for example, e v e n it we could figure out why two "Priestly" lists would h a v e b e e n piously preserved despite their differences, which would seem to impeach t h e historical authenticity of o n e or t h e other, or both, we should h a v e to explain t h e following: the appearance in either list of two descendants of Jacob (Er and O n a n ) who, having died young, were precluded from either arriving in Egypt or from b e c o m i n g clan ancestors. A n d this is of course even more strikingly t h e case in respect to t h e inclusion of the female grandchild Serah in b o t h lists, she w h o by virtue of patrilineal descent c a n n o t be c o u n t e d in t h e 70 of Genesis 46 and, n o t constituting a clan ancestor, h a ;‫ י‬n o place in N u m b e r s 26. T h e telling consideration, in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h questions of historicity or invention, a u t h e n t i c i t y or fabrication, is t h e significant n u m b e r of compositional absurdities in b o t h t h e lists, given t h e explicit and different purport of each. Let us review some of these in each list. In N u m b e r s 26, verse 8 — c o m i n g after t h e c o u n t of 4 3 , 7 3 0 males of military age in t h e R e u b e n i t e clans of E n o c h ites, Palluites, Hezronites, and C a r m i t e s — p r o vides these totally irrelevant data: Fallu h a d a son n a m e d Eliah (who n e v e r b e c a m e an e p o n y m ) , a n d he in turn had three sons, n o n e of w h o m b e c a m e eponyms. D a t h a n and Ahiram might h a \ e b e c o m e eponyms if they bad not c o m m i t t e d the fatal error of joining K o r a h s c ompany. Eliahs third son, the surviving N e m u e l , would bave caused a problem had he sired a (dan, for t h e n there would h a v e been two Nemuel i te clans, o n e Reubenite, t h e o t h e r Sirneonite, Of course this problem could not have arisen if the firstborn ot S i m e o n were n a m e d Yemuel, as in Genesis 46. O n the o t h e r h a n d , one might retort t h a t such c o n j e c t u r a l t h i n k i n g is utterly absurd, in t h a t Simeon's son Zerah (rr/1)—and n o t , as in Genesis 46, Zohar (?/!τ)— is t h e f a t h e r of t h e Sirneonite Zarbites, despite t h e existence of t h e Zarhites, descended f r o m J u d a h t h r o u g h hi: son Zerah. A more incongruous e l e m e n t in a list of tribes a n d their c o n s t i t u e n t clans is t h e listing of two clans deri ving from sons of Zerah s brother ( t h e Judaite Zerah) Perez. T h e s e two sons, Flezron and Ha mul, h a v e given rise to t h e clans of t h e Hezroni and t h e H a m u l i , but their father Perez gave rise to a separate clan, t h e Parzi. Could t h e "families" of t h e Hezroni and Flamuli represent sub-clans of t h e Parzi clan? If they can, however, be so regarded, who would be those members of t h e Parzi ( m a i n ) clan w h o are n o t also either Flezroni or Hamuli? T h e same problem presents itself with E p h r a i m s son S h u t e l a h and S h u t e l a h s son Eran, w h o s o m e h o w c o n s t i t u t e two separate clan groupings who must s o m e h o w be identical; for if t h e Eran i tes are only "sub-clan" derived from Stiutela, t h e n t h e only S h u t e l a h - i t e s w h o exist must be Eran ites as well. Similarly for t h e A r d i t e and N a a m a n i t e clans deriving from t h e Belaite clan of B e n j a m i n . But on. a m u c h more ludicrous scale for t h e Menasseh-ite clans, w h i c h are descended f r o m G dead ( w h o also constitutes a clan), h e t h e son of M a c h i r ( w h o also constitutes a clan), h e t h e son of Manasseh, w h o like his b r o t h e r E p h r a i m enjoys full tribal statu‫·׳‬. T h a t t h e above problems could n o t h a v e escaped t h e notice of t h e biblical a u t h o r is guaranteed by t h e notice in (sen es is 4 8 : 6 - 7 . W h e n Jacob adopts these two oi Josephs sons as his o w n , raising t h e m 10 tribal status on a par with R e u b e n and him eon, he specifies that any other line's of children "that you have !better, i/uu you will /1atv| sired after t h e m jsicl will be yours, |but| under t he names oi t heir b r e t h r e n will they he call cd/su η 111 ioned/1 is ted in respect

384

STRUCTURES

to their [tribal] h e r i t a n c e of real e s t a t e " T h u s there are n o Joseph it es, only M a n a a sites and Ephraimites, and just h o w t h e descendants of sons of Joseph other t h a n these two came to or into their patrimonies is left to our imagination. i lie clan-line oi Manasseh through. Maehir, his son Gilead, and the six sons of Gilead must he t h e locus of our a t t e n t i o n for yet a n o t h e r reason. Gilead is almost always elsewhere in Scripture a place name, not a personal name, a t o p o n y m und not an eponym. So this n a m e seems to lcprcsent an area oi territory t h e n a m e oi whieh has been c o n v e r t e d - - a n d ever so openly-----by t h e a u t h o r ol this clan list into a social grouping and its ancestor. A n d so t o o in the case of S h e c h e m , 1 he n a m e of a city in Genesis 33:18, which 1s also the name oi that city's prince; this young man s sire being I bmior, who is in this chapter and t h e next lihT Aiccm, b o t h "father ol (Prince) S h e c h e m " and "lord of S h e c h e m (the city).' 1 T h u s the names of well-known cities and tracts of land o n b o t h sides of t h e J o r d a n — w e l l k n o w n to us from narratives of t h e patriarchy, exodus, judges and m o n a r c h y — h a v e hccome, in this wilderness period, full-fledged clans tracing their ancestry to g r a n d c h i l d r e n or great-grandchildren of Jacob, w h o must (presumably) h a v e been born some time during t h e centuries-long stay in Egypt. In s u m m a t i o n , t h e n , whatever else may be said of t h e N u m b e r s l i s t — a n d we h a v e n o t e v e n raised t h e m a t t e r of 601,730 m e n of fighting age in these clans, plus t h e 23,000 additional c l a n s m e n of Levi — there would seem little in it to support Speisers j u d g m e n t as to its "reliability" or v o n R a d s assessment of it as "a histoidcally accurate s t a t e m e n t of t h e generations from t h e period before the f o r m a t i o n of t h e state." Let us t u r n n o w to t h e incongruities in t h e Genesis 46 list. We have already dealt at length with t h e incongruities of m u c h of t h e diction, w i t h the difficulty of making two sets of addition square w i t h o n e another, w i t h the inclusion (in t h e c o u n t ) of a granddaughter Serah, and t h e exclusion (from the c o u n t ) of a daughter, D i n a h . Additional elements for w h i c h there are good poetical r a t i o n a l e s — y e t which are, nevertheless, out of place in a list merely purporting to a c c o u n t 1 or 70 Jacohitic family members arriving in Egypt - a r e such caritative narrative touches as the identification oi Leah and Rachel as Laban s "daughters" and Rachel (but not Leah) as Jacob's "wife" Also extraneous in such a lisl arc t h e two grandsons who died before t h e descent, to Egypt, w h o are nevertheless included in the line of Leah's descendants and in t h e sum of t h e m as 33, which explicit total along with t h e explicit totals of t h e o t h e r wives' descendants adds u p — i m p l i c i t l y — t o 70, To these we may n o w add t h e consideration (raised by Speiser) about t h e chronologically unlikely possibility that; Perez could already have had two sons at a time oi J a c o b s migration to Egypt. A n d , finally, v o n Rad's apperception: "For B e n j a m i n already to be t h e f a t h e r of t e n sons h e r e does n o t fit into t h e narrative at all A if we review our o w n discussion of t h e chronology of Exodus 6 (see p. 33 τ ) these improbabilities caught by Speiser and v o n Raci will b e c o m e e v e n more glaring. For we have seen t h e improbabilities arising from a n assumption t h a t Levis son K e h a t h coidd h a v e b e e n at most two years of age at t h e time of t h e descent, and here a son who might: well h a v e b e e n a grandson of J u d a h is already possessed of two sons, b o t h of w h o m arc part of t h e Israeli tic c o m p l e m e n t of 70, along with the sons of B e n j a m i n , t h e youngest of whose sons must h a v e been about the age of his Ju-

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIB LI CAL L I T E R A R Y P H E N O M E N O N

385

d a h i t e cousin H a m u l . Even more to t h e point, a comparison of our discussions o n previous chronologies and genealogies will confirm a conclusion t h a t we h a v e previously drawn: All t h e improbabilities and incongruities (in Genesis 46 and Ν urn-‫־‬ bers 26) were as clear to t h e biblical narrator as they are to us, his readers. A review of t h e kerygmas t h a t we h a v e discerned in t h e m e t a p h o r s of t h e scriptural structures we h a v e studied, kerygmas altogether in accord w i t h those of their interlocking narratives, will disclose t h a t the overarching lesson is this: Literalness, in respect to t h e events of t h e past, to t h e individual personalities w h o figured in t h e these events, to t h e time a n d place of these p e r s o n a e — i n a word, historiograp h y — i s t h e least of Scripture's concerns. T h e c o n c e r n of Scripture, being t h e nature of G o d and t h e c o n d u c t this G o d requires oi humanity, is w i t h t h e n a t u r e of h u m a n s as they have shown themselves in t h e prist, in contrast with t h e moral potcnualilies ol that nature. A m o n g t h e constituent metaphors of this overarching o n e are: t h e supreme dignity of t h e h u m a n race, endowed with t h e knowledge of morality a n d t h e freedom to act in its despite; the oneness ol humanity, a single race for all its differentiations, and kindred in t h e 1 lesh arid in t h e spirit for all t h e sins against kinship's moral imperatives; every h u m a n s descent from a murderer, a n d vulnerability to t h e role of vict im or t h e t e m p t a t i o n to perpetrate crime; t h e repeated failures of h u m a n i t y to m e e t t h e challenges of divinely set morality, t h e grace of G o d in sparing a r e m n a n t so that t h e h u m a n species have a n o t h e r c h a n c e ; t h e c h o i c e of a single ancestor, to sire a single family to serve as moral model for its kindred families and polities; t h e i n d e t e r m i n a c y ot genetic i n h e r i t a n c e for moral or immoral or amoral careers; t h e vagaries of cherished ancestors as they c o n f r o n t t h e moral ambiguities and dilemmas in coping with siblings and strangers in t h e neverending existential struggles for necessities and luxuries, for d o m i n a n c e or indep e n d e n c e or redemption; and their struggles to achieve t h a t charity w h i c h must begin at h o m e while eschewing t h e x e n o p h o b i c bias t h a t is so o f t e n t h e o t h e r face of blood-tie loyalties. A t first blush it would s e e m — a n d perhaps correctly s o — t h a t we could hardly educe these kerygmas f r o m structures unless we had t h e m already before us in t h e form of narratives. O n t h e other h a n d , is the kerygma of a narrative n o t o f t e n misread for t h e very reason t h a t , ignorant ot those structures t h a t we call poetical principles or procedures or options, we ignore t h e i m p o r t a n c e of structure in t h e framing of t h e narrative? W e are c o n d i t i o n e d by experience to t h i n k of narrative as t h e core edifice, and external structures as t h e scaffolding built to expedite t h e rearing of the edifice. Rut the scaffolding is normally removed o n c e the edifice is completed. In t h e case oi Scripture, the ubiquity ot structures (prescriptive, legalistic, cultic, poetic, along with the kinds on which we have focused) must be seen as ( o f t e n ) ingenious formal creations to direct t h e readers a t t e n t i o n to t h e blueprints that: tell so m u c h of t h e f u n c t i o n ( s ) for which the edifice and us c o n s t i t u e n t parts were designed. T h u s , fitting into t h e kerygma that h u m a n pedigree m e a n s n o t h i n g in itself 4 0 is t h e identification in Genesis 46:10 of S i m e o n s son Saul as "son oi that C a n a a n itess" T h i s might h a v e been read by manv a loyalist Israelite as a slur on this grandson of Jacob's, perhaps an implication that he should not be included in t h e list of J a c o b s true descendants (which woidd therefore turther complicate t h e problem of

386

STRUCTURES

couni:). Such a reading would, to he sure, imply t h e improbable assumption that r h e o t h e r grandchildren were born to other t h a n C a n a a n i t e mothers, improbable in itself, and clearly contradicted in t h e case oi j u d a h s progeny by Tamar, expireit'ly identified as the daughter of a C a n a a n i t e . Jt would further lly in the face oi‫־‬ S c r i p t u r e s exclusion of t h e males but not t h e females ol coil ai η groups with whom intermarriage is interdicted. Yet this da!um loo did not -deter Miriam and A a r o n from prejudice against Moses 1 C u s h i t e wife ( Κ umbers 12:1), nor did it rule out for t h e a u t h o r of t h e Book of R u t h t h e i m p o r t a n c e of stressing dial King David himself derived f r o m a M o a b i t e great-grandmother. Perhaps t h e n , the c o u n t e r i n g of such a x e n o p h o b i c or racist m e n t a l i t y is t h e whole point ot making Saul S i m e o n s o n t h e issue of a C a n a a n i t e m o t h e r in Genesis 46, and listing h i m in N u m b e r s 26 w i t h o u t his m a t e r n a l origin as a constitutively legitimate clan ancestor in Israel. T h e key to t h e overarching kerygma of t h e Table of 70 N a t i o n s in Genesis 10, t h e List of 70 members of B e t h Jacob descending to Egypt (and its comparative and contrastive counterpart, t h e C l a n s of Israel in N u m b e r s 26) could lie only in t h e explication of t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e two lists of 70 in t h e S o n g of Moses: (7) Take note of the days of the primordial past Consider the years of generations long, long aone; Ask your father, let him tell you, Your elders, let them confirm to you: (8) When Elyon allotted nations their heritance, In defining the lineages of humankind, He fixed the territories of peoples In the number of the descendants of Israel (Deuteronomy 32:7—8) Verse 7, the first imperative verb ί 0kor), translated " r e m e m b e r " is widely understood us an expression of the importance of the past (history) and an urging of t h e wilderness generation to repair to their parents and grandparents lor their witness to the events of t h a t past (historiography). Sued! a literalistic interprétai ion ol !fus verse is incongruous w i t h w h a t it is l hat Israel is "to re mem bei," or to retrieve in )111 t h e memory-store of past generations. Lor witnesses oi the Jacobite descent to Egypt there exist n o more. A n d t h e r e never were witnesses to the " e v e n t " of m a n k i n d s separation into e t h n i c and n a t i o n a l entities defined by !heir differing tongues and geographical boundaries. T h e appeal to Israel is to refer to parents and grandparents, n o t for their historical memories of Israels ethno-political origins, n o r to those of t h e far more r e m o t e beginnings of m a n k i n d s national origins, but for t h e core-article of Israel's faith, t h e central position of Israel in God's program for t h e world, its unique role in t h e e c o n o m y of t h e universe. But this t e n e t too, as expressed in t h e m e t a p h o r i c application of D e u t e r o n o m y 32:8 to t h e m e t a p h o r i c structures of Genesis 10 a n d 46, is subject to a range of n u a n c e d , even opposed, interpretations. T h e most chauvinistic oi Israelites will he confident t h a t t h e meaning is t h e commensurability of Israel o n t h e one side and, o n t h e other, of all t h e rest of h u m a n k i n d . A t t h e o t h e r end of t h e interpretive ranee is t h e role of Israel to exemplify G o d s will for all humanity, to unity in God's n a m e and as A b r a h a m ' s seed a prideful h u m a n unity expressed and disrupted in the primordial division at Babe Ids baked - br i ck ed ifi ce.

SUPPLEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS, ANTICIPATIONS

This page intentionally left blank

E I G H T

POETICAL AND

ODDS

ADDENDS

APOLOGIA !he

poetic

address

to

Scripture,

departing

in so m a n y

ways

irom

the

regnant

schools oi biblical literary criticism, necessarily entails t h e a r g u m e n t a t i v e a n d dis‫׳‬ p u t a t i o u s n a t u r e oi o u r d i s c u s s i o n of t e x t s , n a r r a t i v e a n d s t r u c t u r a l . 1 e m p l o y

the

h r s l t w o a d j e c t i v e s in t h e o h l e ! s e n s e of r e a s o n i n g , d e d u c i n g , a r r i v i n g a t c o n c l u s i o n s , w i t h o u t t h e n e w e r o v e r t o n e s of q u a r r e l o r a l t e r c a t i o n . N e v e r t h e l e s s

putting

l o r l h a n a l t e r n a t i v e a p p r o a c h t o o n e t h a t h a s t a k e n t h e s t a n c e o f a n o r t h o d o x y is w h a t o c c a s i o n s t h e u b i q u i t o u s e x p o s i t i o n of t h e a s s u m p t i o n s a n d

presuppositions

( a n d t h e i r j u s t i f i c a t i o n ) of a m e t h o d which., b y r e a s o n of its r e l a t i v e n o v e l t y , w i l l a p p e a r as a c h a l l e n g e a t be
deter-

m i n e d m y d e c i s i o n t o t r e a t t h e n a r r a t i v e s a n d s t r u c t u r e s separately. For all mutually complementary

design and f u n c t i o n in p o i n t i n g to a n d reinforcing

their the

c o m p o n e n t a n d o v e r a r c h i n g k e r y g m a s , t h e d i f f e r i n g c o d e s a n d strategies of story a n d structure w o u l d h a v e m a d e tor tedious e n s n a r l m e n t h a d t h e y b e e n pursued tog e t h e r . A s i t is, t h e p o e t i c a s s u m p t i o n of c o n s i s t e n t c o m p o s i t i o n a l m o d a l i t i e s a c r o s s t h e b o o k s a n d g e n r e s o t S c r i p t u r e w i l l b e w r i t t e n o f f ab initio the genetic approaches,

with

by those c o m m i t t e d to

t h e i r a x i o m s of s o u r c e - p r o v e n a n c e

and

diachronic

d e v e l o p m e n t . A n d m y m a r s h a l i n g of t e s t i m o n y f r o m P s a l m s , f o r e x a m p l e , a s r e l e v a n t t o t h e m e n t a l i t y oi t h e a u t h o r of t h e p r o s e a c c o u n t o f c r e a t i o n t h a t o p e n s t h e

389

390

S U P P L E M E N T S , ί :()Ni : LU S 11 ) Ν Ν , A NT) U I PATIONS

B o o k of G e n e s i s , will b e r e g a r d e d

as m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y

t o d a y s b i b l i c i s t s ( p a r t i c u l a r l y s o b y t h o s e of‫ ״‬m y o w n

inadmissible by m a n y

of

generation).

Y e t m y r e c o u r s e t o b i b l i c a l m a t e r i a l a c r o s s t h e l i n e s of t h e p r o s e - v e r s e d e m a r c a t i o n h a s b e e n slight, i n d e e d , m i n i m a l , w h e n o n e c o n s i d e r s h o w r i c h t h e lode of available a n d r e l e v a n t text. So too h a v e 1 held m a n y considerations in a b e y a n c e of (biblical) associations, n o t

to

s p e a k of p o e t i c f a c t o r s t h a t are cross-cultural or c r o s s - t e m p o r a l ( / g e n e r a t i o n a l )

intertextual

(biblical) c o n n e c t i o n s and cross-genre

in

n a t u r e . T h u s , f o r e x a m p l e , t h e v e r y q u e s t i o n s ot t h e l e g i t i m a c y of

genre-division

a n d t h e o p e r a t i o n o f m e t a - l i t e r a r y c o n v e n t i o n s of u n p r o v e d v a l u e i n t h e " l i t e r a r y " a p p r o a c h e s t o S c r i p t u r e of t h e past h u n d r e d years or sod H e n c e 1 h a v e r e s e r v e d for t h i s s e c t i o n s u c h o d d s a n d ( a d d ) e n d s as 1 f e e l a r c l e g i t i m a t e l y a d d u c i b l c f o r s o m e o f t h e t e x t s w c h a v e b e e n s t u d y i n g . L e g i t i m a t e by t h e criteria of s u c h p o e t i c a s s u m p t i o n s as t h a t h u m a n t a l e n t s , c o n c e r n s , p e r p l e x i t i e s , a n d t h e e x p r e s s i o n of t h e s e i n v a r i o u s k i n d s o f w r i t i n g m a y n o t h a v e d i f f e r e d s o s i g n i f i c a n t l y in. t h e p a s t f e w m i l l e n n i a of " c i v i l i z a t i o n " as t o p r e c l u d e t h e i r e n l i s t m e n t f o r c o m p a r a t i v e a n d

con-

t r a s t i v c p u r p o s e s i n o u r q u e s t t o d e c i p h e r t h e c o d e s a n d m e s s a g e s of S c r i p t u r e . O n e m o r e o b s e r v a t i o n is i n o r d e r b e f o r e w e g o o n t o a d d r e s s s p e c i f i c p r o b l e m s i n biblical study a n d t o a d d u c e c o n c e p t s a n d m i n d s e t s f r o m across t h e H e b r e w scriptures (from G e n e s i s to C h r o n i c l e s ) , f r o m across t h e a n c i e n t world (from t h e Fertile Crescent

t o t h e l a n d s of c l a s s i c a l a n t i q u i t y ) , I r o m a c r o s s t h e t i m e e x t e n d i n g

the development

of w r i t i n g t o t h e e n t r u s t m c n t

t h e bytes a n d digits of today's c o m p u t e r s : M o d e r n the natural sciences,

from

of s u c h g r a p h e m e s a n d g l y p h s F a b l e s t u d y , m o d e l i n g itsell

h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y f r i e d f o r t h e p r e c i s i o n of f o r m u l a t i o n

to on

that

these sciences achieve by dint oi measuremciu and! mathematics. T h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s ( r a t h e r , i n a p p r o p r i a t e n e ^ s ) of s u c h e m u l a t i o n by

investiga‫״‬

t o r s o f p h e n o m e n a t h a t d o n o t ( o r a t l e a s t , d o n o t yet ) l e n d t h e m s e l v e s t o q u a n t i f i c a t i o n is h a r d l y m o o t . Y e t t h e s e a n d ! f o r s u c h p r e c i s i o n i n d i s c i p l i n e s

properly

labeled t h e h u m a n i t i e s or liberal arts has b e e n a b e t t e d by t h e increasingly

deduc-

t i v e p r o p o r t i o n of r e a s o n i n g (or c o n c e r n ) in t h o s e s c i e n c e s i n r e s p e c t t o w h i c h e m pirical

a n d inductive

w e r e o n c e r e g a r d e d as v i r t u a l l y s y n o n y m o u s . T h u s i n t h e r e a l m

of p h y s i c s , i n d u c t i o n a n d e x p e r i m e n t are r h e h a l l m a r k s of its i n q u i r y i n t o t h e c r o c o s m , b u t i n t h e m a c r o c o s m i t s i n q u i r y is a m a t t e r o f d e d u c t i o n . T h e

mi‫׳‬

heavens

a r e " r e a d , " t h e r e c o r d o f t h e p a s t is o b s e r v e d i n t e r m s of e v e n t s m e a s u r e d i n t h e d u r a t i o n s of d i s t a n c e s c a l l e d l i g h t - y e a r s . In t h e p r e s e n t r e a d i n g of t h e d y n a m i c s of t h e p a s t , c l u e s a r e s e a r c h e d f o r as t o t h e s h a p e oi t h e f u t u r e . A l t o g e t h e r d e d u c t i v e b y c o n t r a s t is b i o l o g y , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h a t b r a n c h of it l a b e l e d p a l e o n t o l o g y : h e r e t o o , t h e r e c o r d o f t h e p a s t is r e a d i n t e r m s o t s k e l e t o n r e m a i n s a n d f o s s i l i m p r i n t s , a n d i n f o r m e d g u e s s e s o n s t r u c t u r a l f u n c t i o n s a r e e x t r a p o l a t e d t o r e a d t h e h o w , if n o t

the

w h y , of b o t a n i c o r z o o l o g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t ; t h e p r e d i c t i v e e l e m e n t , as t o t h e p r o g n o s i s o f t h e f u t u r e o f t h i s o r t h a t l i f e - f o r m , is — e x c e p t f o r p l a y f u l s p e c u l a t i o n — a l t o g e t h e r a b s e n t . Y e t h e r e t o o , t h e size o t b o n e s i n l i m b s o r c r a n i a a n d t h e i r r e l a tive p r o p o r t i o n to o n e a n o t h e r a n d to e x t a n t life-forms n o w requires t h e d e p l o y m e n t of m a t h e m a t i c a l m e a s u r e m e n t s t o a s i g n i f i c a n t d e c r e e . I l o w d i f f e r e n t is t h e p r a c t i c e oi t h e a r t s a n d h u m a n i t i e s a n d , i n d e e d , t h e c r i t i c a l a n a l y s e s a n d s y n t h e s e s a t t e m p t e d b y r e s e a r c h e s w h o s t u d y t h e c u l t u r a l d e p o s i t s ol m a n k i n d ' s p a s t • G u a m ιίκ ai ! o n is i r r e l e v a n t , p e r h a p s a l m o s t a b s o l u t e l y s o .

Cause

P O E T I C A L ODDS A N D A DDENTDA

401)

and aiicct as a relationship b e t w e e n two events may be tentatively proposed, 1111‫׳‬ anced bin never asserted. T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of such pairs of qualitatively, but n o t dichotomously, antonymous categories a b o u n d . To name but a few: discursive versus pa t e n e t ic or homiletical; sequential versus analogic; explicitly referential versus allusive; dogmatic versus suggestive; formal versus substantive; sacred versus pro‫״‬ fane or secular; legal versus normative; universalistic versus particularistic; and m 111 ν d a n e and political versus metaphysical a n d theological. It has b e e n my experience t h a t minds indisposed to e n t e r t a i n arguments view ed as methodologically i m p u d e n t ( w h e n they are merely novel or challenging) will often c o u n t e r these arguments by deploying rigorously construed dichotomies to discredit t h e m . T h u s , for example: ι. There is a general t e n d e n c y in m o d e r n biblical study to equate legally-iormula ted texts with positive law, hypo t h e tically existent in t h e a n c i e n t Israelite polity; t o treat precepts as laws, norms as decrees, theological prescriptions as "cultic legis‫׳־‬ la tion," and r e c o m m e n d e d paradigms as constitutionally fixed strait) ackers, which, like the laws of t h e Med es and t h e Persians (according to t h e Scroll of Esther and to this book alone) c a n n o t be a m e n d e d or repealed. Against this reductive usage, and searching for an adjective t h a t could subsume t h e whole range of law, prescript tives, norms, moral directives, and regulations of social, and domestic etiquette, 1 found no alternative to halakhic, a rabbinic expression that subsumes all the foregoing items without being restricted to any of t h e m . Some of t h e reactions to this categorical importation into biblical study h a v e ranged irom sneers at this "apologetically" motivated innovation to a rejection of a posrhihlieal c o n c e p t that, presumably by definition, is intrinsically inapposite to the biblical text. 2. A n o t h e r category-label t h a t 1 borrowed (this time oi Greek derivation, and deployed variously by exegetical schools of N e w Testament i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) has brought me hoots of derision or opprobrium f r o m biblicist colleagues of my own den o m i n a t i o n . It would seem t h a t there is s o m e t h i n g confessionally inappropriate (‫־‬and philologie ally illicit) in a Jewish Bible student's adoption of t h e term tarxçma "proclamation, preachment." W h y such a borrowing at all? Well, for o n e thing, because /m^e/iment, like homily and sermonic, carries o b j e c t i o n a b l e o v e r t o n e - of tediousness, didacticism, e v e n (alas!) of religious c o m m i t m e n t , to t h e ears of Scriptural savants dedicated to t h e value-free objectivity of t h e scientific researcher. More important, however, is t h a t I could find n o o n e term to represent what is the moral in a fable: t h e proposition in a discourse disguised as a narrative; t h e lesson in a homily; t h e moral vectors in attributes assigned to t h e one god of Scripture; the hierarchy of values t h a t are implicitly endorsed, depreciated, or scorned in t h e various codes t h a t I h a v e designated as structures, 3. Perhaps t h e most pernicious b e n t of t h e biblicist mind is t h a t w h i c h assumes a h a r d disjunction as b e t w e e n t h e exegetical (i.e., my) or t h e eise get tad (i.e., y o u r ) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n (s) of any given passage. A n o t h e r expression ot this p h e n o m e n o n is the assumption t h a t agreement c a n be reached as to w h a t constitutes :he jdain meaning ot a text as opposed to o t h e r meanings, meanings t h a t are less immediate, more adorned, less obvious, so more imaginative, and t bereit »re less probable. In ihn connection

it wall h e h e l p f u l t o r e c a l l t h a t a d i c h o t o m y c a n o n l y c v o

a^ K‫־‬-

tween two terms; yet we know thai the alternative top/urn mcur‫׳‬m!; i.s nor m c t v h

392

SI •PPL. Η.Μ Η. Ν TS, C O N C L U S I O N S ,

ANTICIPATIONS

non-plain meaning, Four categories of interpretation, discerned by t b e rabbis and comprised in t h e acronym PaRDeS, are pemt "plain meaning," remez "hint, implicat i o n " deräs " h o m i l e t i c a l allegorical" a n d sod "cipher, esoteric m e a n i n g " My translations of these tour Hebrew terms are suggestive rather t h a n precise, t h e terms being parametric a 1 vis-à-vis one a n o t h e r and n o t definitional or definitive. T h u s pesät "(most) literal meaning 1 1 may stand n o t for "plain or m i n i m a l m e a n i n g " but for " m e a n i n g closest to t h e surface," and may actually be ruled out in a metaphorical c o n t e x t by c o m m o n sense; remez may be 41 allusive" as ^‫־‬rn.s may be also, and d.‫־‬Täs "inference" would only diifer from rcmc; 1 1 ‫ ׳‬i m p l i c a t i o n " by virtue (if directional orientation; söd, finally, may in its sense of "code" differ not at all from that same sense in remez.‫ ׳‬It is thus the absence (and perhaps the impossibility) oi definitional demarcations in t h e rabbinic tradition thai points to these interpretive categories as not merely overlapping in sense, hut lo 1 heir teleology as well, to wit, to e x p a n d as far as possible the opt ions ot legil imal e and c o n c o m i t a n t interpretations. A review of some of the interpretations ot narrative and (particularly of) structure, arrived at by ourselves, the rabbis, or both, m i g h t yield b o t h e n t e r t a i n m e n t and édification if we try to sort t h e m out in terms of t h e PaRDeS categories. In view of t h e foregoing, the reader w h o has a t t e n d e d thus far will n o t be surprised to find t h a t in this final section I may unabashedly invoke homiletical values from my o w n time as having a. bearing on t h e values of w h a t is, after all, a literature of p r e a c h m e n t ; t h a t 1 may compare, for h e r m e n e u t i c purposes, n o t only t h e mythopoeic expressions ot the metaphysics implied in pagan and biblical literature, b u t implied (or even explicit") in t h e mythopoeics and metaphysics of our o w n cent u r y s philosophers; that I add Lice trom my o w n practices of authorial or editorial revision motivations for such revisions in biblical texts t h a t are alike e n o u g h to be viewed almost as clittographs, and different e n o u g h to be ascribed to c o m p e t i n g tabents of a Scripture t h a t is far from m o n o l i t h i c . Finally, I would avow m ν belief t h a t for all t h e truths t h a t may inhere in t h e generous or invidious comparisons of times and polities (such as East a n d West, A g e of Faith and Age of Reason, Rome and Jerusalem, Hellenism and Hebraism), t h e h u m a n ethos, like the h u m a n condition, is more alike in contrasted antipodes, and more variegated within each of them. To cite but one case in point: the d e m a n d t h a t justice triumph, however dire the cost to world or cosmos: T h e biblical expression oi this is in t h e Bible a postulate in narrative .aid verse: not only human thrones but the ι h rone of 1 leaven itself arc iounded on and contingent upon the practice id‫ ־‬jus‫״‬ lice;- the rabbinic dictum is ‫׳‬sujcjoh hoddrn et hdhar 11may justice pierce/bore through the m o u n t a i n " (i.e., a d a m a n t i n e matter); the R o m a n version is jiat iustitia pereat mimdns ruant codi "may just κ c be d o n e oven if this entail the perishing of t h e world, the crashing down of the very heavens!" A n d t h e like s e n t i m e n t is to be found today in the poetry of a hundred vict imized peoples, in t h e idealistic passion of political anarchist and nihilist, 111 the readiness of nations great and small to risk universai nuclear d o o m rather t h a n surrender their weapon of ultimate deterrence. A n d yet A r m a g e d d o n has been staved off, h u m a n imitation of the suicidal lemming is homiletical hyperbole, and Scripture itself affirms t h a t no atrocity of unfeeling Nature or demoniac polity in the recorded past or conceivable future can or must preclude t h e prophetic, faith m a G o d who is both just and benevolent. 3

P O E T I C A L O D O S Λ KM ‫ ו‬Λ Ρ Π L Ν ! )Α

I N RE G E N E S I S MYTHOPOEIC

I: SCRIPTURE AND

393

THE

IMAGINATION

T h e g e n e t i c a p p r o a c h e s of m o d e r n biblical s c h o l a r s h i p — s o u r c e ‫׳‬analysis, redaction·‫׳‬ history, a n d t h e l i k e — j u s t i f y t h e i r c l a i m t o t h e a d j e c t i v e critical i n t h a t t h e y all b e g i n w i t h analysis of t h e t e x t . T h e y d i v i d e it i n t o p e r i c o p e s , s e c t i o n s , a n d d o c u m e n t s , w h i c h — o f t e n p a r a l l e l t o o n e a n o t h e r - - are in t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o o n e a n o t h e r r e d u n d a n t l y r e p e t i t i o u s , i n c o n s i s t e n t , or c o n t r a d i c t o r y in p l o t or a c t i o n . T h e o n e t h i n g t h a t t h e s e a p p r o a c h e s d o n o t d o is synthesize. T h e s y n t h e s i s is a l r e a d y p r è s ‫׳‬ e n t for t h e m i n t h e e d i t o r i a l a m a l g a m ot t e x t s b e f o r e t h e m ; t h e i r — t h e c r i t i c s ' — f u n c t i o n is t o u n c o v e r h o w t h e e d i t o r i a l process p r o c e e d e d t o p r o d u c e t h e p r o d u c t b e f o r e us. It is in r e s p e c t t o t h i s ( m i s s i n g ) s e c o n d h a l t of t h e e n t e r p r i s e of literary i n v e s t i g a t i o n ( l i t e r a r y criticism, t h e l a t t e r t e r m a s y n o n y m for a n a l m s , is t h u s a label b e s p e a k i n g o n l y h a l f t h e p r o c e s s ) t h a t t h e p o e t i c a l a p p r o a c h differs in a s s u m p t i o n s , procedure, and conclusions. Assuming that repetitions, inconsistencies, even c o n ‫׳‬ t r a d i c t i o n s , are a m o n g t h e d e v i c e s e m p l o y e d by poets (literary artists) i n t h e G r e e k s e n s e — t o gap, t o bridge, t o a b r i d g e , t o inflate, to a m b i g u a t e , t o e n r i c h — t h e p o e t i ‫׳‬ cal a p p r o a c h is to p r o c e e d f r o m critical analysis to a n a t t e m p t at critical s y n t h e s i s . H o w d o s e p a r a t e s e c t i o n s , episodes, a n d d o c u m e n t s i n t e r r e l a t e t o m a k e up a u n i t y tliat is g r e a t e r t h a n t h e sum of its parts? T h i s a p p r o a c h ol m o d e r n s c h o l a r s h i p to n a r r a t i v e passages in S c r i p t u r e ( t o isolate t h e m from, o n e a n o t h e r ) is e v e n m o r e p r o n o u n c e d in respect to its a p p r o a c h to t h e n a r r a t i v e a n d lyric, or prose a n d p o e t i c c o m p o n e n t s of S c r i p t u r e vis-à-vis o n e a n o t h e r . ( A p a r a d e e x a m p l e is t h e prose n a r r a t i v e ot S i s e r a s d o w n f a l l in J u d g e s 4 a n d t h e p o e t i c r e n d i t i o n of it in J u d g e s 5.) A g a i n s t t h i s a p p r o a c h is m y resort i n c h a p t e r 2 t o verse f r o m P s a l m s or Ecclcsiast.es t o clarity a n d a m p l i f y t h e c r e a t i o n n a r r a t i v e in G e n e s i s 1. B e h i n d t h e r e a d i n e s s t o h a v e s u c h resort is t h e a s s u m p t i o n (always, let us r e m e m b e r , as a h y p o t h e s i s t o b e v i n d i c a t e d by t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g a c h i e v e d ) of t h e p o e t i c u n i t y of S c r i p t u r e as a w h o l e , h e n c e a p o e t i c u n i t y n o t j u s t w i t h i n n a r r a t i v e or lyric, h u t across t h e b o u n d a r i e s b e t w e e n t h e t w o as well. A n ‫׳‬ o t h e r a s s u m p t i o n , w h i c h w e n o w m u s t m a k e e x p l i c i t , is t h a t t h e m e t a p h o r i c , t h e f i g u r a t i v e , a n d t h e c r e a t i v e l y i m a g i n a t i v e m a y ( i n S c r i p t u r e a t least) b e as m u c h t h e h a l l m a r k of p r o s e as of poetry. A n d as we h a v e b e e n a r g u i n g for t h e m e t a p h o r i c e l e m e n t s in t h e b i b l i c a l c r e a t i o n s t o r y — a n d will c o n t i n u e t o so argue t h e m — s o shall w e , as w e h a v e a l r e a d y s t a r t e d to, a t t e m p t t o d o e q u a l justice t o t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l a c h i e v e m e n t s as well as t h e artistic g e n i u s ot t h e a u t h o r s of t h e p a g a n classics. T h i s is t o say t h a t t h e a u t h o r s of t h e great p a g a n classics k n e w w h a t t h e y w e r e d o i n g w h e n t h e y p o r t r a y e d t h e i r d i v i n e p r o t a g o n i s t s as i n c o n s i s t e n t , silly, f o o l i s h , sly, r a p a c i o u s , c a p r i c i o u s , d e s t r u c t i v e , e v e n evil. A n d as t h e s e p a g a n a u t h o r s w e r e n o t c o n s t r a i n e d by a n i n h e r i t e d i m p i e t y t o so r e n d e r t h e s u p e r n a l h e r o e s of b o t h sexes, so t h e b i b l i c a l a u t h o r s w e r e u n d e r n o c o n s t r a i n t of p i e t y w h e n t h e y de‫״‬ m y t h o l o g i z e d c r e a t i o n in t h e n a r r a t i v e of G e n e s i s 1, n o r w e r e t h e y in b r e a c h of piety's c a n o n s or in r e b e l l i o n against t h e m w h e n t h e y m a d e f r e e use of m y t h i c t h e m e s in a n t h e m s p r a i s i n g t h e o n e a n d o n l y G o d of C r e a t i o n a n d History. S i m p l y p u t , t h e biblical writers w e r e not i g n o r a n t o; t h e i r p a ‫ ״‬a n n e i g h b o r s ' m y t h s , n o r did t h e y regard t h e m as a t a b o o s u b j e c t ; n o m o r e , lor e x a m p l e , t h a n t h e l a h n u d i c sages

394

S U P P L E M E N T S , CON C LI' S I G N S ,

ANTICIPATIONS

who bore the names oi pagan deities, or Renaissance artists w h o could populate Christian palaces and churches with scenes featuring M a d o n n a s and the godchild alongside n u d e goddesses and lecherous gods. W i t h this as foreword 1 may amplify my discussion on hihlical anthropology, as evinced m narrative arid lyric celebrations of t h e creation t h e m e , with a n o t h e r p o e t i c pericope illustrative ot the freedom of a biblical spokesman to deploy the imagery of polytheistic m y t h in a diatribe against a pagan king; this king's attack o n t h e J u d e a n n a t i o n is read as deriving from disregard of t h e O n e C o d w h o is c h a m p i o n e d by and is t h e c h a m p i o n of t h e people. T h e appositeness of this passage to my t h e m e in specific is its c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e forces of chaos, w h i c h in Psalm 8 were seen as t h e personified adversary ( " t h e e v e r - v e n g e f u l enemy 51 ) of h u m a n k i n d and of G o d CYour enemies"), S u c h a s u p e r h u m a n e m b o d i m e n t of evil, personified in a role of u n r e m i t t i n g opposition to G o d a n d his godly créatures, is epitomized for us in t h e figure ot S a t a n . For all t h a t this word is a biblical H e b r e w t e r m (verb and n o u n ) bespeaking a n adversarial or inimical stance, t h e personification of S a t a n is c o m m o n l y supposed to be a postbiblical creation. A n d this supposition is s t r e n g t h e n e d by t h e paucity of reference to such a figure in t h e H e b r e w Bible, except for an a p p e a r a n c e in a vision of Z a c h a r i a h , 4 t h e H e b r e w n o u n sätän w i t h t h e definite article — t h e A d v e r s a r y — a p p e a r s only o n c e as a n o n h u m a n person. In the prologue of t h e Book of Job, h e plays t h e role of a m e m ber of God's celestial c o u r t ™ the o t h e r side of G o d , so to s p e a k — w h o s e cynical jeers at t h e possibility of h u m a n goodness and fidelity to G o d , save o u t of selfinterest, p r o m p t G o d to pur Job to t h e test. But this figure is far r e m o v e d f r o m t h e fallen archangel w h o rebelled against G o d , t h e brilliant Lucifer (lit., light bearer) w h ο b e c a m e the satanic Prince of Darkness, as in Milton's portrayal of h i m in Paradise Lost:. Yet it is clear t h a t we h a v e but a fract ion of t h e mythological lore of the ancients, and little of that fraction derives from Scriptural sources. A fragment of such lore is preserved for us in an oracle of t h e p r o p h e t Isaiah. A n d lo, we have before us here t h e brilliant fallen Celestial in all his rebellious a m b i t i o n and downfall. In C h a p t e r 14, Isaiah ta.un.ts a fallen "King of Babylon" his rhetorical device an envisaging of t h e reception this m o n a r c h receives on his arrival at netherworld Sheol: (9)

Sheol below bestirred herself for you, anticipating your arrival, W a k i n g for you t h e shades — Yes, all of e a r t h l s t i t a n s — Rousing up from their thrones A l l t h e k i n g s of n a t i o n s .

( 1 0 ) A l l of t h e m speak, u p . a d d r e s s y o u : ' , W h a t ! H a v e y o u t o o , like us b e e n s t r i c k e n ? A r t b e c o m e j u s t like 115Γ ( 1 1 ) Your l o f t y s t a t e l o w e r e d t o S h e o l ? A n d t h e t h r u m m i n g oi y o u r lutes? W o r m s a pallet beneath! you, Maggots o n top your blanket.'

P O E T I C A L O D D S A N D A D D ENTDA

401)

(12) What a fall you've taken from heaven, Ο D a z z l i n g O n e , S o n of M o r n i n g s t a r ! C h o p p e d d o w n to earth, are you, Ο P r e d a t o r of n a t i o n s ? " ( 1 3 ) Yes y o u w h o n u r s e d t h e t h o u g h t , "To h e a v e n I will m o u n t . H i g h e r t h a n t h e stars of G o d [Elf I will rear my t h r o n e , T a k e m y s e a t o n t h e M o u n t of [ D i v i n e ] A s s e m b l y , O n t h e u p p e r r e a c h e s of Z a p h o n [ t h e O l y m p u s of t h e L e v a n t ] . ( 1 4 ) 1 w i l l m o u n t t h e b i l l o w of a c l o u d , I s h a l l b e t h e p e e r of t h e M o s t H i g h . " ( I s a i a h 1 4 : 9 - 1 4 )

PAGANISM, ANCIENT A N D MODERN: METAPHYSICS MYTH A N D

IN

SCIENCE

T h e g o d s a r e p o w e r f u l i n p a g a n i s m . A n d i n B a b y l o n , M a r d u k is t h e m o s t p o w e r f u l : t h e v i c t o r o v e r c h a o s , t h e c r e a t o r o f t h e c o s m o s , k i n g of t h e g o d s . W h e n t h e A s s y r i a n s c o n q u e r e d B a b y l o n a n d b u i l t a n e w s e a t of t h e e m p i r e in M e s o p o t a m i a , appropriated

the hymn

linunui

dish

for themselves, replacing M a r d u k

with

they their

o w n t u t e l a r y d e i t y A s s u r , b u t w h e t h e r in B a b y l o n o r A s s y r i a , G r e e c e o r H o m e ,

the

g o d s a r c p a r t ol t h e n a t u r a l c o n t i n u u m , i m m o r t a l s t h e y m a y b e c a l l e d , b u t t i n s is only to distinguish t h e m f r o m h u m a n k i n d . T h e y are h o r n , t h e y m a y die, they

may

b e b r o u g h t : b a c k t o l i f e . T h e y m a y b e p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s o r w i e l d e r s of t h e p o w e r s o f stich, n a t u r a l p h e n o m e n a a s s u n , m o o n a n d s t a r s , o c e a n , l a n d a n d sky, w i n d , tliunder and lightning. But their power derives from a source outside that

all-embracing,

rain,

themselves,

ail-permeating power-essence t h a t w e m a y call m a n a

or

the

m a g i c a l , i t w a s b y t a p p i n g i n t o t h i s d u m b , m i n d l e s s p o w e r — o r e n e r g y , if y o u w i l l — t h a t t h e c o s m o s w a s c r e a t e d . A s r e f l e c t e d i n m a n y a m y t h , it is b y a m a l i c i o u s o r i r r e s p o n s i b l e d e p l o y m e n t of t h a t p o w e r t h a t t h e o r d e r e d w o r l d ot n a t u r e m a y at a n y m o m e n t revert to chaos. In G r e e k m y t h o l o g y Z e u s s u c c e e d e d t o t h e t h r o n e of O l y m p u s by

overcoming

his f a t h e r K r o n o s . B u t F a t e (a n a m e for a p e n u l t i m a t e p o w e r b e y o n d t h e gods) h a s set a l i m i t t o t h e r e i g n of Z e u s as w e l l . A n d

i t is i n t h e h o p e t o w r e s t f r o m

Pro-

m e t h e u s t h e t i m e a n d i d e n t i t y of his successor t h a t Z e u s p u t s t h e T i t a n to t o r t u r e . I t is i n t r i g u i n g t h a t t h i s s e c r e t is k n o w n t o o n l y o n e i n d i v i d u a l , a n d h e t h e e h a m ‫׳ ׳‬ ρ t o n a n d b e n e f a c t o r o f m a n k i n d , w h o s t o l e k n o w l e d g e — t h e fire f r o m h e a v e n — t o nam.‫)־‬w t h e g a p b e t w e e n m o r t a l s a n d t h e i r O l y m p i a n o v e r l o r d s . D i d t h e t r a m e r s o f t h a t m y t h , f o r e s e e t h a t b y d i n t o f t h a t fire f r o m h e a v e n m a n k i n d w o u l d i n a f e w millennia topple Zeus from his t h r o n e a n d displace or replace his entire

Olym-

p i a n c o m p a n y ? O r , m i g h t o n e a r g u e , d o e s t h e s t o r y i t s e l f , its i n v e n t i o n a n d i t s r e h e a r s a l — t h e s t o r y of a d i v i n e k i n g s o f a t u o u s t h a t h e b e l i e v e s i n a n

ineluctable

b a t e t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t h e c a n c o n t r a d i c t i t s i n e l u c t a b i l i t y il o n l y h e c a r , l e a r n h f a t e d t o b e its a g e n t

suggest t h a t the divine king has already been toppled

h i s i h r o n e a n d h i s s u c c e s s o r is a l r e a d y at h a n d

in ! h e s t o r y t e l l e r a n d

who Irom

in h i s a u d i -

e n c e ? b e t u s p e r m i t o u r s e l v e s a s p e c u l a t i o n . I f , i n i t s e x p l o r a t i o n of s p a c e ,

mankind

3Q6

SUPPLEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS,

ANTICIPATIONS

c o m e s u p o n a p l a n e t i n h a b i t e d b y h u m a n o i d s w h o s e s c i e n c e is a t t h e l e v e l a c h i e v e d by m a n k i n d in t h e f i f t e e n t h c e n t u r y (A.n.), b o w will o u r race a p p e a r t o t h o s e

hu-

m a n o i d s : A r a c e t h a t m a k e s l i g h t a w e a p o n a n i l a t o o l t h a t in s e c o n d s t r a n s m i t

its

v o i c e a n d f o r m t h r o u g h t h e t r a c k l e s s w a s t e s oi s p a c e ; that‫ ״‬c a n d e s t r o y a p l a n e t s l i f e w i t h o n e b o m b ; t h a t h a s m a s t e r e d t h e n u c l e u s ol t h e a t o m a n d is r e a c h i n g o u t Lo

the far-flung skirts ol the galaxy! O n one !hing one might safely waget: this new race o f g o d s w ill f e e l n o m o r e s e c u r e t h a n d i d t h e i r O l y m p i a n p r e d e c e s s o r s . F o r w h a t l i e s beyond? I n s p e c u l a t i n g o n t h e n a t u r e of. u l t i m a t e r e a l i t y , o u r u l t i m a t e c o n c e r n is w i t h h o w t h a t r e a l i t y r e l a t e s t o m a n k i n d , t o its h o p e s a n d a s p i r a t i o n s , t o its f e a r

and

dreads. T h e possibilities are limited: hostility, b e n e v o l e n c e , indifference. In p a g a n i s m m a n c o u l d find s o m e l u k e w a r m c o m f o r t 111 t h e n o t i o n t h a t h e w a s u s e f u l t o t h e gods; p e r h a p s a w a r m e r h o p e t h a t h e m i g h t o n e day succeed to their e m i n e n c e .

But

b e y o n d e v e n t h a t t h e r e w a s o n l y t h e m i n d l e s s , p u r p o s e l e s s p l a y of C h a n c e . I n w h a t c r i t i c a l w a y d o e s t h e p a g a n v i e w ot u l t i m a t e r e a l i t y d i f f e r f r o m t h e m e t a p h y s i c s of s c i e n t i s m , t h a t r e l i g i o n o t q u e s t i o n a b l e l e g i t i m a c y t h a t is o n e s p a w n o f o u r entific a d v a n c e ! T h e

most

eloquent

e x p r e s s i o n of this n e w

sei-

o l d f a i t h is t h a t

B e r t r a n d R u s s e l l , w h o s o m e fifty y e a r s a g o h a d t h i s t o s a y i n A Free

M ans

of

Worship:

T h a t m a n is t h e p r o d u c t of c a u s e s w h i c h h a d n o p r e v i s i o n of t h e e n d t h e y w e r e a c h i e v ‫׳‬ ing; t h a t h i s o r i g i n , his g r o w t h , his h o p e s a n d fears, h i s l o v e s a n d b e l i e f s , a r e but: t h e o u t c o m e of a c c i d e n t a l c o l l o c a t i o n M a t o m s ; t h a t n o fire, n o h e r o i s m , n o i n t e n s i t y of t h o u g h t a n d f e e l i n g c a n p r e s e r v e a n i n d i v i d u a l life b e y o n d t h e g r a v e ; t h a t all t h e l a b o r of t h e ages, all t h e d e v o t i o n , all t h e i n s p i r a t i o n , all t h e n o o n d a y b r i g h t n e s s of h u m a n g e n i u s , is d e s t i n e d t o e x t i n c t i o n i n t h e v a s t d e a t h of t h e solar s y s t e m , a n d t h a t t h e w h o l e t e m p i e oi M a n s a c h i e v e m e n t must i n e v i t a b l y be b u r i e d b e n e a t h t h e d e b r i s of a u n i v e r s e in r u i n s — a l l t h e s e t h i n g s , it n o t q u h e b e y o n d d i s p u t e , a r e yet so n e a r l y e e r ‫׳‬ t a i n , that n o p h i l o s o p h y w h i c h r e j e c t s t h e m c a n h o p e t o stand." 1

Against

p a g a n i s m , old a n d

new, G e n e s i s affirms that

t h e u n i v e r s e a n d all its

l a w s , m a t t e r a n d e n e r g y , u r e n o t t h e e t e r n a l a n d i n f i n i t e sell - s u f f i c i e n t s t u f f o f r e a l ity. B e y o n d t h e m a i e a C a u s e a n d a n A u t h o r , a P e r s o n — f o r o n l y p e r s o n c a n a purpose

have

a n d t h e P e r s o n is f r i e n d l y t o m a n k i n d . G o d , i n G e n e s i s , is n o t ; p a r t o f

t h e n a t u r a l c o n t i n u u m b u t b e y o n d it, a s i t s C h o u n d o f B e i n g . B i b l i c a l r e l i g i o n is i n d e e d " s u p e r n a t u r a l ' ' B u t it d e n i e s n o t h i n g n a t u r a l , o p p o s e s n o e m p i r i c a l

sciencc,

w h e n i t a f f i r m s t h a t t h e G o d of n a t u r e t r a n s c e n d s n a t u r e . I t m a y b e t h a t R u s s e l l is c o r r e c t . T h e r e m a y e v e n b e s o m e t h i n g a d m i r a b l e i n t h e h e r o i c q u e s t t o s e a r c h o u t — i n w h a t t i m e r e m a i n s t o u s — a l l t h e s e c r e t s of a uni‫־׳‬ v e r s e w h i c h , h a v i n g n o c o n s c i o u s n e s s , d o e s n o t k n o w it h a s a n y s e c r e t s . A n d when

t h e l a s t g l i m m e r of c o n s c i o u s n e s s — a n d

c o n s c i o u s n e s s of

if,

consciousness—

flickers o u t , t h e r e still r e m a i n s o m e u n f a t h o m e d s e c r e t s . It m a y b e a c o m f o r t t o us n o w t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e is n o o n e l a u g h i n g a t t h e p r e t e n s i o n s a n d f r u s t r a t i o n of m a n k i n d , t h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l D o n Q u i x o t e . B u t t h e p a r a d o x e s o p e n e d u p b y e v e r y seie n t i f i c d i s c o v e r y s h o u l d m a k e us p a u s e b e f o r e w e label Russell's f a i t h as r a t i o n a l a n d b i b l i c a l f a i t h as m y s t i c . R i g - b a n g c o s m o l o g y a n d a n e x p a n d i n g u n i v e r s e , q u a r k s a n d b l a c k holes, n u c l e a r particles bavin‫׳‬.: e n o r m o u s e n e r g y a n d zero mass, a n t i m a t t e r a n d p a r a l l e l u n i v e r s e s i n t i m e , t h e r e l a t i v i t y o f t i m e i t s e l f a n d t h e c u r v a t u r e of

P O E T I C A L ODDS A N D A DDENTDA

401)

space: all these point to t h e possibility of an o p e n - e n d e d universe. T h i s is t h e possibility t h a t Genesis affirms as theology: t h e G o d of C r e a t i o n is t h e guarantee of Order, t h e repudiation of A c c i d e n t or C h a n c e . T h a t it is a c o m f o r t i n g theology is u n d e n i a b l e . Perhaps that is wh\ it managed to sweep away a pagan t h e o l o g y — a h most. But a comforting view of reality is n o t ipso facto a n irrationality, n o r a n ahsurdity. A n d as truths or falsities are i n d e p e n d e n t of w h e t h e r they lead to h o p e or despair, so are t h e t r u t h or falsities of t h e creation story in Genesis n o t c o n t i n g e n t upon, its assignability to t h e literary realm we call fiction. For a philosophical fiction is as respectable as the vision it holds f o r t h as a possible o p t i o n as to ultim a t e reality. My first t h o u g h t was to label this section " A n Exegetical Sermon." It was n o t t h e n , nor is it in my mind now, to persuade t h e reader t h a t Scripture's G o d of Creation is t h e theology that he or she should accept. It is a sermon only to t h e e x t e n t that it a t t e m p t s to update, so to speak, t h e Genesis message tor our own time. Since our cultural a m b i e n c e is not polytheistic paganism, its address must he to that in our W e l t a n s c h a u u n g a m b i e n c e that corresponds to ancient‫ ״‬paganism, namely, t h e role of impersonal C h a n c e in modern scient ism; scientism, which is n e i t h e r prerequisite for nor a necessary o u t c o m e of t h e scientific spirit or scientific m e t h o d . T h e propriety of this section here is in its claim to be an acceptable exegesis, t h a t is, t h e kerygma of the creation story in its affirmation of t h e n a t u r e of t h e natural and of t h e Source who transcends it.

T H E S A B B A T H : ÏTS

MEANING

The Sabbath in Relation to Cosmic Creation and Israel's

Liberation

T h e Sabbath is a day. A n d a day is a unit of time. A n d time is w h a t t h e sabbath is all about. T h e sabbath is a particular kind of time, sacred time. In t h e words of G e n esis 2:3, ‫ ״‬G o d t h e n blessed t h e s e v e n t h day, H e declared it holy" W h i c h means t h a t there is also non-sac red time, profane time, or secular time. W h a t is t h e difference b e t w e e n t h e two kinds of time? T h e sabbath is a unit of time called a day. But it is n o t just any day, it is a partieular day: t h e s e v e n t h day, to be precise. But t h e s e v e n t h day of what? Well, for Genesis, obviously it is the .seventh day of creation, t h e s e v e n t h day since the heg i n n i n g of time. But. t h a t was t h e first s e v e n t h day. W h a t of all t h e o t h e r s e v e n t h days that h a v e been and will yet he? W h a t are they t h e seventh day (if? Why, t h e s e v e n t h day ol the. week, ot course. Of course? What is "the week?" Why, t h e week is a unit of time too, a septet‫ ־‬of days to he precise. A n d where did this unit c o m e from? Well, was ii not alw;.1\s there? As a matter of tact it was not always (here, wherever ' 1 there" is. Somewhere, sometime, someone in vented it. W h i c h is not to say t h a t t h e i n v e n t o r of t h e week i n v e n t e d time. N o , it was a way ot measuring time, of marking time oft that was invented, unlike natural units of time, which were discovered but not invented. S u c h as t h e clay, f r o m sunrise to sunrise or sunset to sunset ; or the m o n t h , from new m o o n to new m o o n or full m o o n to full moon; or the vcar, trom any position of the sun in t h e heavens until t h e sun returns to that position, . days. U n l i k e these natural units of time, de-

3 98

S U Ρ Ρ LE M EN ‫׳‬ES, C Ο Ν C L i : S IΟ Ν S , A Ν Τ ϊ ÜI P A T I O N S

termined and measured by t h e m o v e m e n t in space of physical b o d i e s — e a r t h , m o o n , sun, and s t a r s - are such arbitrary division‫ !־‬oi lime as those called seconds, minutes, and hours. A n d we know who i n v e n t e d this system oi division, and w h o inspired t h e division of a circle or a clock lace i n t o degrees. T h e y are the same people who gave rise to t h e tradition (‫ ־!י‬the /ni/rmu dish: the Babylonians, or, perhaps, their S u m e r i a n predecessors, whose m a t h e m a t 1eal reckoning proceeded according to a sexagesimal syst tan, a system named !or the Latin word lor sixty; ;1011· ally based o n the number six and its multiples by itself or by ten: h e n c e 6, 36, 60, 360, and so on. N o w it is all well and g o o d — a n d , to be sure, eminently fair—to give credit where credit is due. O n e might even consider the fact that the septet of days we call a week is also based o n the unit six, being six weekdays plus o n e sabbath, and go o n to presume a Mesopotamia!! origin for this week. But this will n o t do. For n o w h e r e in Mesopotamia, nor in Canaan (nor, tor t h a t matter, in G r e e c e or R o m e before c o n t a c t was m a d e with biblical concepts) is there to be f o u n d a shred of eviclence for t h e seven-day week. T h e seven-day week, like t h e s a b b a t h day itself, is a biblical i n v e n t i o n . Indeed, it is likely t h a t it was rhe c o n c e p t of t h e sabbath day t h a t e v e n t u a t e d in t h e week: after every six clays of secular time, o n e day of sacred time. For if every s e v e n t h day is not set apcrrt (and this is one of t h e senses basic to t h e m e a n i n g of t h e H e b r e w word cjädös "holyA for some special observance, w h a t earthly f u n c t i o n does the week serve: Neither lunar months nor solar years lend themselves to division by seven-day units. If we knew n o more about t h e s e v e n t h clay t h a n what is given in Genesis, t h e likelihood is t h a t we should n e v e r come to any satisfactory conclusion as to why this cultic institution of a n c i e n t Israel was a t t a c h e d η ‫ י‬or associated with t h e story of creation. From the point of view of t h e sabbath as a cult institution, there is n o intrinsic necessity for the association, bor in one ot t h e key biblical lormulations e n j o i n i n g t h e sabbath upon Israel as an obligation to its G o d , the rationale for this c o m m a n d is associated not with (he creation story but with Israels liberation from Fgypiian bondage. Were there no alternative associalion of the sabbath with erea t i o n wc should, therefore, never miss it. Indeed, if wo were informed only oi the contexts that prescribe this institution, and asked to guess which of the two ration a l e s — c o s m i c creation or Israelite liberation—·was the more appropriate, there is little question that we would opt for the latter, T h e Sabbath, after all, is an obligat i o n e n j o i n e d o n Israel and Israel alone; why associate it math the universal t h e m e of creation w h e n t h e rest of m a n k i n d Is free of this obligation? O r is it possible t h a t 1 am misreading t h e evidence, and that while t h e Sabbath is obligatory u p o n Israel explicitly, the biblical i n t e n t is t h a t it is implicitly a n obligation of all m a n k i n d as well? T h e charge of t h e S a b b a t h s observance appears in almost identical f o r m u l a t i o n in t h e two versions of t h e decalogue in Exodus 20 and D e u t e r o n o m y 5: Six. days you m a y work, in p u r s u i t of y o u r c v e r v e n t e r p r i s e . T h e s e v e n t h day, h o w e v e r , is a S a b b a t h b e l o n g i n g |or o w i n g ] t o Y H W H , y o u r G o d : (On. it‫־‬.] y o u arc (.0 p e r f o r m n o w o r k - - - • n e i t h e r you, y o u r s o n n o r d a u g h t e r , y o u r m a n s e r v a n t or m a i d s e r v a n t . . . y o u r c at t le, t h e a lu‫ ׳‬η ί η y ο u r j u ri sd i c t i ο η.

P O E T I C A L O D D S A N D A D D ENTDA

401)

T h e Exodus version goes o n to cite t h e creation motif, while D e u t e r o n o m y

con-

t i n u e s w i t h t h e m o t i f of t h e l i b é r a t i o n f r o m Egypt. M a n y s c h o l a r s h a v e

assumed

t h a t t h e D e u t e r o n o m y v e r s i o n , b e i n g a l a t e r o n e , is a n i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e

Dcutero‫׳‬

n o m i c e d i t o r ' s d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e S a b b a t h as o f f e r e d in G e n e sis a n d i n E x o d u s . T h e S a b b a t h i n s t i t u t i o n r e p r e s e n t s s o c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n , a n t o secure relief f r o m ceaseless labor for p e o p l e s u b o r d i n a t e t o masters.

attempt

The libera-

t i o n t h e m e is c o n g r u e n t w i t h s u c h a t h r u s t , w h e r e a s t h e m e t a p h y s i c a l o r

cosmic

t h e m e is n o t a t a l l s o , o r o n l y t o a l e s s e r d e g r e e . I n t h e e x c u r s u s t h a t f o l l o w s 1 w i l l e x a m i n e t h i s a r g u m e n t m o r e closely. F o r t h e p r e s e n t I w o u l d c i t e t h a t p a r t ot M a t t i t i a h u T s e v a t s a r g u m e n t t h a t is a c o n c l u s i v e r e b u t t a l o f t h e n o t i o n t h a t s o c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n is w h a t l i e s a t t h e h e a r t o f t h e S a b b a t h d e c r e e . 6 F i r s t , t h e r e is t h e

emphasis

t h a t t h e s e v e n t h d a y is " a S a b b a t h t o Y H W H , " t h a t is, i t b e l o n g s t o o r is t h e d u e o f G o d . S e c o n d , social l e g i s l a t i o n a p p l i e s t o p e o p l e in n e e d of p r o t e c t i o n f r o m a b u s e , i n t h i s c a s e , t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f c e a s e l e s s l a b o r . B u t t h e m a s t e r of a n e n t e r p r i s e r e q u i r e s n o p r o t e c t i o n f r o m h i m s e l f . C o n s i d e r t h e c a s e of a s h o p k e e p e r f o r b i d d e n by b l u e l a w s t o h e o p e n f o r b u s i n e s s . T h i s is t o g u a r a n t e e t h a t h i s e m p l o y e e s h a v e a d a y off. B u t h e himself m a y s p e n d t h e day t a k i n g i n v e n t o r y , a r r a n g i n g his uoods, or e v e n r n a n u i a c t u r i n g goods lor sale o n t h e m o r r o w .

The d e c a l o g u e c h a r g e p u t s re-

p e a t e d e m p h a s i s o n the. a d d r e s s ι ο t h e Israelite f r e e m a n a n d p a t e r f a m i l i a s . I fc h i m ‫׳‬ self is f o r b i d d e n t o w o r k o n t h e d a y o w i n g t o G o d , e v e n a s h e is f r e e t o w o r k t o h i s b e a r d s c o n t e n t o n t h e ot h e r s i x d a y s . d i m e is w h a t t h e S a b b a t h is a l l a b o u t . T i m e , w h i c h is a n a b s t r a c t i o n , a c o n c e p t , a d i m e n s i o n ol e x i s t e n c e . Y e t t h i s a b s t r a c t i o n c a n b e v i e w e d a s p r o p e r t y , t o b e d i s p o s e d of f r e e l y o r t o h a v e r e s t r i c t i o n s p l a c e d u p o n i t s d i s p o s a l .

something The psalm-

ist p r o c l a i m s t i m e a s G o d ' s p r o p e r t y : " D a y t i m e b e l o n g s t o Y o u , n i g h t t i m e a l s o is Y o u r s " A n d — i n t e r e s t i n g l y e n o u g h — t h i s a p p e a r s i n t h e c o n t e x t of a r e m i n i s c e n c e of ci e a t t o n , m a k i n g f r e e u s e of t h e m y t h o l o g i c a l p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n of t h e f o r c e s o f chaos. ( 1 2 ) Yes, G o d , m y k i n g , [ H e ] of y o r e P e r f o r m i n g f e a t s of v i c t o r y i n E a r t h s i n n a r d s ! ( 1 3 ) You ['twas] c l e a v e d b y Your p o w e r S e a , Smashed water-monsters' heads o n the Waters, ( 1 4 ) You ['twas] c r u s h e d L e v i a t h a n ' s h e a d s .

( 1 5 ) You ['twas] split o p e n s p r i n g a n d w e l l h e a d , You ['twas] d r i e d u p w e l l s p r m g s p r i m o r d i a l . ( 1 6 ) Yours t h e d a y t i m e , Yours t h e n i g h t , You [ W h o ] e m p l a c e d l a m p ( s ) , e v e n s u n . ( 1 7 ) You ['twas] h e w e d o u t all t h e b o u n d a r i e s of e a r t h ; S u m m e r a n d w i n t e r , You ['twas] f a s h i o n e d t h e m . ( P s a l m 7 4 : 1 2 -

7

‫) ז‬

T i m e is G o d s p r o p e r l y , d i m e is G o d ' s g i f t t o m a n k i n d , b u t n o t i n ils e n t i r e t y . F o r s i x d a y s m a n is f r e e , f r e e

1.mr o b l i g e d

t o d i s p o s e oi t i m e i n p u r s u i t o t h i s

own

n e e d s a n d l u x u r i e s . T h e . s e v e n t h d a y G o d r e s e r v e s f o r H i m s e l f ; 11 is ‫ ״‬a S a h h a t h l o n g i n g t o Y1 Ï W 1 1," a n d it is in! u m b e n t

upon humankind

he-

i n a b s t a i n I r o m its o w n

p u r s u i t s o n t h a t day. b o r in t h u s m a r k i n g t h e s e v e n t h day, m a n

declaring

God's

40ο

lordship

S U P P L E M E N T S , ί ‫ י‬Ο Ν C L W S î ( ) Χ S, AN Τ ί CI P A T I O N S

over Time—proclaims

hh

acceptance

ot G o d s

lordship

over

himself.

W h o c a n say w h e t h e r t h e E x o d u s r a t i o n a l e ot t h e S a b b a t h e c h o e s t h e t h e m e i n t h e G e n e s i s c r e a t i o n s t o r y , o r w h e t h e r t h e r e v e r s e is t h e e a s e ? T h e c o m m o n t h e m e o f b o t h p a s s a g e s is t h e c o s m i c s i g n i f i c a n c e o f G o d s s o v e r e i g n t y . H e is s o v e r e i g n

over

a l l p h e n o m e n a , f o r h e is C r e a t o r o t a l l t h a t is. T h e o t i c c l e m e n t t h a t is n o t e x p l i c i t l y o r s p e c i f i c a l l y l i s t e d i n t h e G e n e s i s c a t a l o g u e of c r e a t i o n is t h a t T i m e . Y e t it is t h e r e , m y t h o p o e i c a l l y

present

abstraction,

in t h e s u c c e s s i o n of days; e v e n

the

f i r s t d a y , t h e s e c o n d d a y , t h e t h i r d d a y , b e f o r e t h e c r e a t i o n of s u n , m o o n , a n d s t a r s o n t h e f o u r t h d a y . T h e G e n e s i s c r e a t i o n s t o r y is s t r u c t u r e d o n t h e t h e o l o g i c a l t i m e f r a m e o f t h e s e v e n - d a y w e e k . T h e a u t h o r s of S c r i p t u r e w e r e w e l l a w a r e t h a t

the

t h e o l o g y o f p a g a n i s m w a s c h a i n e d t o t h e n a t u r a l r h y t h m s of t i m e , e v e n t o t h e c e lestial d e i t i e s , p e r s o n i f i e d as S u n , M o o n , Stars, a n d C o n s t e l l a t i o n s , w h i c h l o r d e d it o v e r t h e c y c l e s of d a y s a n d n i g h t s , m o n t h s a n d s e a s o n s a n d y e a r s : p e r s o n i f i e d p o w ers of n a t u r e t h a t are d e m o t e d i n G e n e s i s to m e r e artifacts, l a m p s rising a n d s e t t i n g o n c o m m a n d of t h e O n e

Creator.

i n i t s c o n c l u s i o n o n t h e S a b b a t h t h e m e , t h e b i b l i c a l c r e a t i o n s t o r y is a p a r a l l e l t o t h e Fmtma

elish e p i c , w h i c h c o n c l u d e s w i t h a n a n t h e m of p r a i s e t o M a r d u k .

The

p r o c l a m a t i o n o t h i s f i f t y n a m e s , a s c r i b i n g t o h i m t h e p o w e r s a n d a t t r i b u t e s oi

the

g o d s , c o m e s a c r o s s t o us a l m o s t as a p a r a d o x i c a l p a r o x y s m : p o l y t h e i s m s t r a i n i n g t o r a m o n o t h e i s t i c r e b i r t h . In v e s t i n g all p o w e r a n d p r a i s e in M a r d u k , p a g a n i s m close to a b a n d o n i n g p o l y l h c i s m a l t o g e t h e r ; like a n u m b e r ot h y m n s f r o m

comes ancient

E g y p t , i t a l l b u t b r e a k s t h r o u g h t o a f o r m u l a ! i o n of m o n o t h e i s m . B u i it w a s l e f t t o Israel to arrive at t h a t formulât ion, ίο m a k e t h e deity not only o n e , but

Ultimate

a n d P e r s o n , t h e f o r m u l a t i o n a l r e a d y p r e s u p p o s e d in t h e first w o r d s o t G e n e s i s : " I n t h e b e g i n n i n g , G o d , . .‫ יי‬T h e S a b b a t h p a s s a g e is t h e c r e a t i o n s t o r y ' s d o x o l o g y :

a

h y m n o f p r a i s e t h a t is n o t s o m u c h a n a s s e r t i o n of t h e o n e n e s s o f D e i t y a s a c a l l t o Israel to a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t o n e n e s s , to affirm t h e l o r d s h i p of t h a t O n e o v e r

our-

s e l v e s , o v e r o u r p e r s o n a n d o u r p r o p e r t y , o v e r o u r t i m e a n d a c t i v ity, w h i c h is t o say, t h e uses to w h i c h w e p u t t i m e . T h i s biblical p a e a n t o t h e O n e C r e a t o r , p r o c l a i m i n g t h e S e v e n t h D a y a s " t h e L o r d ' s / Y H W H s D a y ' 1 is a n t i c i p a t e d i n t h e first clay. T h i s d a y , a n d t h e five t h a t f o l l o w it, a r c m e r e l y r u n g s n e c e s s a r y t o a r r i v e a t t h e s e v e n t h . T h u s , t h e v e r y c r e a t i o n o f t h e s e v e n - d a y w e e k is a p o e t i c t r i u m p h o f I s r a e l s r e l i gious genius. W h y s e v e n ? W h y n o t ? I t is a p r i m e n u m b e r , o t c o n v e n i e n t s i z e i n t h a t i t is l a r g e r t h a n five a n d s m a l l e r t h a n e l e v e n . It is a l s o s i x p l u s o n e . Y e s , t h e r e is s o m e t h i n g a r bitrary in t h e c h o i c e of t h e n u m b e r s e v e n . But t h e v e r y arbitrariness, t h e of a n u m b e r

that

is u n r e l a t e d

to such natural

phenomena

choosing

as, f o r e x a m p l e ,

p h a s e s o f t h e m o o n , c r e a t e s a n e w w a v of s t r u c t u r i n g t i m e . M a r k i n g a b r e a k

the with

t h e t i m e - h o u n d , n a t u r e - t i e d t h e o l o g y o f p a g a n i s m , t h i s n e w t i m e is m e t a - n a t u r a l , m e t a p h y s i c a l . I n t h e s e n s e of h i s t o r i c t i m e ‫ ־ ™ ״‬t i m e a s t h e m e a s u r e of

events—this

n e w t i m e is m e t a h i s t o r i c a l . T h e s e v e n - c l a y w e e k of C r e a t i o n , t o h e o b s e r v e d m a n k i n d in h i s t o r i c t i m e

n o w t h a t t i m e itself h a s b e e n c r e a t e d

by

t h i s is t h e c u b

m i n u t i n g p r a i s e nl i h e L o r d oi m u t t e r arid spirit a n d t i m e . W e r e w e t o r e n n w e

the

d a y s , t h e first s i x a n d t h e s e v e n t h , i r o n ! t h e G e n o t h p r o s e - p o e m , t h e t a p e s t r y of t h e C r e a t i o n c o m p o s i t i o n w o u l d fall a p a r i ; Ida‫ ״‬w e w o u l d h e r e m o v i n g i t s v e r y w a r p a n d w o o ( , b r o m b e g i n n i n g t o e n d , in m a t e r i a l a n d s t r u c t u r e , in c o n t e n t

and form, the

poetical odds and

a d d enTd a

401)

G e n e s i s C r e a t i o n c o m p o s i t i o n i s — l i k e its S a b b a t h c o n c l u s ion-—a c e l e b r a t i o n of that Deity who transcends both Time and Nature.

The Sabbath in Connection with Freedom and Servitude In 1‫ ־‬p r e c e d i n g p a r a g r a p h we characterized t h e S a b b a t h - c o n c l u s i o n ot t h e c r e a t i o n n a r r a t i v e as u a h y m n of praise t h a t is n o t so m u c h a n assertion of t h e o n e n e s s ot Deitv as a call to Israel to a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t o n e n e s s , 10 affirm t h e lordship of thai O n e o v e r ourselves, over our persons a n d our property, over our t i m e a n d act ivity." T h i s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of t h e c o n c l u s i o n bears o u t t h e c o n s o n a n c e of t h e compostt i o n s c o n c l u s i o n w i t h w h a t p r e c e d e s it; t h e e n t i r e t y is essentially a t h e o l o g i c a l d o c u m e n t , its message t h e n a t u r e of Deity. T h e S o u r c e a n d G r o u n d of all b e i n g a G o d w h o is P e r s o n , t h e p u r p o s i v e A u t h o r of cosmos, n a t u r e a n d living creatures, e v e n t h e h y m n is a h y m n in terms of f u n c t i o n , n o t of f o r m ; for i t — l i k e t h e rest of t h e c o m p o s i t i o n — i s n o t a n address to G o d , b u t a n address to m a n by m a n . T h e a u t h o r of t h e c o m p o s i t i o n i n f o r m s us t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of this G o d to m a n k i n d is b e n e v o l e n t , a b e n e v o l e n c e in stark c o n t r a s t to t h e m a s t e r - p e o n r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t o b t a i n s b e t w e e n t h e gods a n d m a n k i n d in p a g a n i s m . But w h e r e a s this G e n e s i s aut h o r seems t o c h a r a c t e r i z e this d i v i n e b e n e v o l e n c e as d i s i n t e r e s t e d o n t h e p a r t of G o d — t h e r e is n o t h i n g h e w a n t s in r e t u r n f r o m his proteges — t h e implicit call t o a c k n o w l e d g e his l o r d s h i p c o n s t i t u t e s a n a s s e v e r a t i o n t h a t m a n k i n d does owe somet h i n g t o his C r e a t o r . T h a t s o m e t h i n g — b e it praise in song, in ritual symbolism, in literal sacrifice of a n i m a l s o n his altar, in o b e d i e n c e t o his w i l l — i s expressed in t h e l a n g u a g e of B a b y l o n , in t h e l a n g u a g e of Israel, a n d in our o w n t o n g u e , by t e r m s t h a t add up to t h e c o n c e p t of service. I n Enuma elish, m a n ' s service to t h e gods seems c o n f i n e d t o p r o v i d i n g t h e gods w i t h t h e i r f o o d , b u t this t o o m a v h a v e b e c o m e — • b y t h e t i m e of t h e Epic's c o m p o s i t i o n

a m e t a p h o r . C e r t a i n π is that

t h e cult: activities in Israel's shrines are called ub0dä or 'abödai haqqödes " t h e sacred service." N o t to recognize t h a t s u c h worship is essentially a m e t a p h o r is to fail to apprecia t e t h a t t h e q u i n t e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f a b i b l i c a l t h e o l o g y is its i n d i s s o l u b l e t i e

to morality. W h a t e v e r t h e w e i g h t g i v e n t o cultic o b l i g a t i o n s

- that which man

owes to G o d in terms of r i t u a l — t h e h e a v y p r e p o n d e r a n c e of o b l i g a t i o n is in terms of morality, t h a t w h i c h m a n owes to G o d in terms of o b e d i e n c e t o C u x G will in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h his b e h a v i o r to his fellow m a n . T h i s moral d i m e n s i o n of h u m a n s e n d e e to G o d , in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e S a b b a t h c o n c e p t , is t h e subject of t h e f o b lowing excursus o n a d d i t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s m o d e l e d o n t h e 6 + 1 ~ 7 e q u a t i o n .

T H E SEPTETS OF (SOCIAL)

MORALITY

T h e special r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e G o d of t h e C o s m o s a n d t h e p e o p l e of Israel is expressed in t h e imagery of a c o n t r a c t , a s o l e m n p a c t or c o v e n a n t i n t o w h i c h t h e t w o p a r t i e s e n t e r . O n G o d ' s part t h e r e is t h e p r o m i s e of a special p r o v i d e n t i a l care of his c o v e n a n t p e o p l e . O n t h e part of t h e l a t t e r t h e r e is t h e pledge to w o r s h i p this G o d a l o n e a n d to be f a i t h f u l to his will. T h i s will of G o d is, in a sense, epitomized in t h e d e c a l o g u e , t h e T e n W o r d s or T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s , bui 1111s will is e x p a n d e d

402

SUPPLEMENTS, CON CLI'SIGNS,

ANTICIPATIONS

u p o n in t h e P e n t a t e u c h in a body oi cultic a n d social regulations of considerable volume. O u r address is to a n u m b e r oi these regulations, e a c h oi w h i c h features a septet of t i m e units.

7 71c Ne 1 ‫־‬c η ί h - Year R e lease of Land ( ί ο ) Six years you may sow your land and harvest its crop. (11) But the seventh you must not work it or exercise ownership—so that the needy m m u ^ your people may eat of it, and the wild animals eat what they leave. So also are you to treat voar vineyard and your olive grove. (12) Six days you may do your own work, but on the seventh day you must abstain from it, to the end that your ox and your ass may rest and your bondman and the alien achieve refreshment. (Exodus 23: ί ο - 1 2 ) T h i s passage, by so closely associating t h e seven-year cycle w i t h t h e seven-day S a b b a t h cycle, seems to suggest t h a t o n e basic c o n c e p t lies b e h i n d b o t h , t h e Sabh a t h r e g u l a t i o n t h a t has b e e n t r e a t e d previously in t h e biblical t e x t several times (see E x o d u s 16 in particular), a n d t h e seven-year cycle t h a t is first i n t r o d u c e d here. In b o t h cases t h e Israelite is free to d e v o t e his resources (of property or t i m e ) for h i s o w n g a i n for six units of time, a n d p r o h i b i t e d f r o m so d o i n g o n t h e s e v e n t h . In t h e case of t h e s e v e n t h day, t h e a b s t e n t i o n f r o m n o r m a l business activity focuses o n t h e o b l i g a t i o n of t h e h o u s e h o l d e r to allow his d r a f t a n i m a l s and b o n d s e r v a n t s a p e r i o d of rest a n d r e f r e s h m e n t . In t h e case of t h e s e v e n t h year, t h e focus seems t o b e o n p e r m i t t i n g t h e land t o lay fallow, t o g r a n t t h e s o i l — a s it w a s — a year of rest, a respite f r o m c u l t i v a t i o n . T h i s last, however, is not t h e rationale for t h e s e v e n t h - y e a r regulation, t h o u g h it may c o m m e n d itself to our o w n sensibilities. Λ c o n c e r n for i n a n i m a t e n a t u r e and a sense of t h e rights of animals — such as, here, to a respite from t h e yoke-- •strikes a responsive chord in a g e n e r a t i o n long sensitized to t h e i n h u m a n e t r e a t m e n t oi a n i m a l s and, more recently, to t h e horrors of industrial m a n s assault o n t h e e c o b ogy, fauna and flora. It is a n a n a c h r o n i s m t o a t t r i b u t e such c o n c e r n s to t h e biblical authors, e v e n as it may be t o a t t r i b u t e to t h e m t he k n o w l e d g e t h a t c o n t i n u o u s c u b tivati.on of a soil may d e p l e t e it of ingredients necessary for fertility. A r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t all farms in a single c o u n t r y lie fallow every s e v e n t h year, t h e same s e v e n t h year for all, c a n n o t s t e m f r o m t h e same k n o w l e d g e a n d c o n c e r n t h a t led to t h e m o d e r n practice of crop r o t a t i o n . T h e clue to t h e c e n t r a l c o n c e r n of t h e biblical legislator lies in t h e second part of t h e d o u b l e p r o h i b i t i o n in regard t o t h e s e v e n t h agricultural year. T h e words in verse 11, w h i c h I r e n d e r e d "you m u s t n o t work it 01‫ ־‬exercise ownership," would m o s t literally he r e n d e r e d a l o n g t h e lines of "you shall release it a n d a b a n d o n it." T h e p o i n t of t h e passage is t h a t a p e r s o n w h o invests labor in a crop is e n t i t l e d t o reap t h e benefits; t h e i n j u n c t i o n against r e a p i n g t h e h a r v e s t precludes t h e Israelite f r o m c u l t i v a t i n g t h e soil, for in t h e s e v e n t h year t h e l a n d is n o t his to work or t o h a r v e s t . Every seventh, year t h e l a n d reverts to its u l t i m a t e owner, God., and w h a t ever grows o n it by his grace is for h i m to distribute. T h e emphasis o n t h e n e g a t i v e — t h a t t h e after g r o w t h crop is n o t t h e h o u s e h o l d e r ' s - — c o m e s t h r o u g h in

P O E T I C A L O D D S A N D A DDENTDA

401)

t h e b e n e f i c i a r i e s of t h e soil's yield: n e e d y h u m a n s , yes, b u t also t h e b e a s t s of t h e wild! A n d as t h e s e v e n - y e a r c y c l e of v e r s e s 1 0 - 1 1 b e s p e a k s G o d ' s l o r d s h i p o v e r

mat-

ter, lands, real p r o p e r t y — w i t h o u t a n explicit w o r d a b o u t o w n e r s h i p — s o d o e s t h e following passage (verse 12) about t h e seven-day week bespeak God's lordship over t i m e , s p e c i f i c a l l y o v e r m a n ' s a c t i v i t i e s i n t i m e . W h a t m u s t b e s t r e s s e d is t h a t

the

S a b b a t h is t h e p r i o r i n s t i t u t i o n , a n d i t s p r e s e n c e h e r e is t o s u g g e s t t h e s y m b o l i s m o f t h e S a b b a t h as t h e s y m b o l i s m of t h e s e v e n t h - y e a r r e l e a s e . T h e a u t h o r a s s u m e s t h a t t h e S a b b a t h s y m b o l i s m is p a t e n t t o a l b A n d s o it is n o t o u t o f p e d a n t r y o r r e p e t i t i o u s d i d a c t i c i s m b u t i n t h e e a s y f l o w of p u r s u i n g h i s t h e m e t h a t h e c o n t i n u e s v e r s e 13: " T a k e c a r e f u l h e e d of all t h a t 1 h a v e said t o y o u . T h e n a m e of a n y

in

other

g o d y o u a r e n o t t o u t t e r , it s h a l l n o t b e h e a r d f r o m y o u r m o u t h . " T h e r e f e r e n c e h e r e is t o t h e h o m a g e i m p l i c i t i n o a t h a n d a d j u r a t i o n , f o r t h e P o w e r c a l l e d o n t o e f f e c t u a t e t h e i m p r e c a t i o n is t h e P o w e r t h a t is a c k n o w l e d g e d a s s o v e r e i g n . then

continues

with

the

three

pilgrim

festivals w h e n

homage

Flic passage

is t o b e p a i d

to

Y H W H at His shrine(s).

The

Seventh-Year

Release

of

Servants

T h e m o s t c o m m o n f o r m of s e r v i t u d e in a n c i e n t Israel w a s n o t c h a t t e l s l a v e r y b u t d e b t s l a v e r y . I n t h e c a s e o f t h e f o r m e r t h e s l a v e is o w n e d b y h i s m a s t e r ; h e is p r o p e r t y . I n t h e c a s e o f t h e l a t t e r , t h e " s l a v e " is n o s l a v e a t a l l , t h e r e is n o o w n e r s h i p o f o n e p e r s o n b y a n o t h e r ; t h e b o n d s e r v a n t is r a t h e r a s e r v a n t i n d e n t u r e d t o h i s m a s t e r u n t i l t h e o u t s t a n d i n g d e b t is p a i d o f f . I n o r d e r t o p r e c l u d e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f l i f e t i m e peonage, Scripture

(in Exodus 2 1 : 2 - 6

arid D e u t e r o n o m y

15:12-18)

limits

such

s e r v i c e t o a m a x i m u m of six y e a r s . F o r all p r a c t i c a l p u r p o s e s t h e r e f o r e , t h e six y e a r s of s e r v i c e a r e r e g a r d e d as p a y m e n t , n o t o n l y of i n t e r e s t a c c r u e d b u t of t h e

capital

a m o u n t o f t h e d e b t . U n l i k e t h e S a b b a t h d a y or, p o s s i b l y , t h e s e v e n t h y e a r o f n o n c u l t i v a t i o n o f t h e s o i l , t h i s s e v e n t h y e a r d o e s n o t a p p e a r o n t h e c a l e n d a r . I t is a c a l c u l a t i o n m a d e f o r e a c h b o n d s e r v a n t , s i x f u l l y e a r s f r o m t h e clay h e e n t e r s i n t o s e r v i c e (or, t o use t h e legal t e r m , d i s t r a i n t ) .

The A

Seventh-Year

Remission

of

Debt

s e v e n - y e a r c y c l e , n o t e x p l i c i t l y i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h e a n a l o g o u s c y c l e in

t i o n w i t h t h e l a n d r e l e a s e o f f a l l o w n e s s , is p r o p o s e d i n D e u t e r o n o m y s e v e n t h year every creditor must

remit

the debts owed to him

connec-

1 3 : τ - ·ρ E v e r y

by a n y f e l l o w

Is‫׳‬

r a e l i t e . T h e I r a m e r of t h i s p i e c e of " s o c i a l , l e g i s l a t i o n " is a w a r e t h a t t h e r e is s o m e t h i n g Utopian a b o u t this r e q u i r e m e n t , for h e goes o n to urge t h a t well-to-do raelii.es not

Is-

r e f u s e I ο m a k e a n y l o a n w h a t s o e v e r , e s p e c i a l l y a s t h i s s e v e n t h y e a r of

d e b t r e m i s s i o n d r a w s n e a r e r . B u t t h e r e i n f o r c e m e n t of t h i s r e g u l a t i o n b y t h e g r a t u ‫׳‬ i t o u s f o r m u l a t i o n in v e r s e 2, " N o o n e s h a l l d u n his f e l l o w k i n s m a n p r o c l a m a t i o n b e i n g Y H W I Ps," r e v e a l s t h e b a s i c r a t i o n a l e : real estate, belongs ultimately to Israels Sovereign

(rod.

this remission

All property, n o t

just

404

s υ ?1‫ י‬ι km î:n‫׳‬i‫׳‬s, î o n c l d s i u n s , a n n c n w n o N s

The Jubilee Year: 7 x 7 + ι

50

‫־=־‬

C h a p t e r 25 of L e v i t i c u s b e g i n s w i t h w h a t is essentially a r e s t a t e m e n t of t h e p r o vis i o n i n E x o d u s 2 3 : 1 0 - 12, t h e release of t h e l a n d f r o m c u l t i v a t i o n e v e r y s e v e n t h year, a n d t h e p r o h i b i t i o n of t h e h o u s e h o l d e r ' s h a r v e s t i n g oi t h e a f t e r - g r o w t h . H e r e , h o w e v e r , t h i s s e v e n t h year is c h a r a c t e r i z e d as "a S a b b a t h of c o m p l e t e rest, a S a b b a t h o w i n g t o Y H W H " W i t h verse 8 t h e t e x t goes o n t o p r o v i d e for y e t a n o t h e r e x t e n s i o n of t h e s e p t e t cycle, "You s h a l l c o u n t ott s e v e n s a b b a t i c a l y e a r s — s e v e n t i m e s s e v e n y e a r s — s o t h a t y o u h a v e a ft! 11 s e p t e t of s a b b a t i c a l years, [a t o t a l of] f o r t y - n i n e y e a r s " T h e f i f t i e t h year is t h e j u b i l e e year. B e h i n d t h i s i n s t i t u t i o n is t h e u b i q u i t o u s v i e w of S c r i p t u r e t h a t G o d is t h e u l t i m a t e o w n e r of t h e l a n d . H e it was w h o g r a n t e d Israel t i t l e t o t h a t l a n d a n d supervised its a p p o r t i o n m e n t by lot t o t h e v a r i o u s k i n s h i p u n i t s : tribes, c l a n s , a n d families. L a n d t h u s a l l o t t e d c a n n o t b e sold i n p e r p e t u i t y ( o u r legal t e r m for sale in p e r p e t u i t v is freehold or fee simple); a n y sale of l a n d is for a t e r m o n l y ( i n o u r t e r m i n o l o g y , leasehold or fee tail). T i t l e r e m a i n s v e s t e d in t h e family, i n t h e c a r e f u l l y d e f i n e d c h a i n ot heirs. N o heirs are f r e e in a n y g e n e r a t i o n t o s u r r e n d e r t h e r i g h t s of f u t u r e h e i r s to r e d e e m t h e p r o p e r t y f r o m its "purc h a s e r " t e n a n t s . T h e g e n e r a t i o n s , h o w e v e r , are long, a n d m e m o r y is s h o r t . G i v e n a large e n o u g h lapse of t i m e , t h e p u r c h a s e r - t e n a n t s will pass o n t h e l a n d t o t h e i r o w n h e i r s a n d it will b e a l i e n a t e d f r o m t h e family line t h a t a l o n e h o l d s t r u e t i t l e to it. H e n c e t h e J u b i l e e year, w h e n all l a n d r e t u r n s •••without p a y m e n t of a n y red e m p t i o n - p i ice — to t h e o r i g i n a l family oi o w n e r s , a n d , in a d d i t i o n , a n y Israelite in i n d e n t u r e d s e r v i c e ( n o m a t t e r h o w l o n g h e h a s b e e n in d i s t r a i n t ) goes tree t o r e j o i n his o w n f a m i l y o n t h e f a m i l y p r o p e r t y . Lest a n y Israelite regard t h i s r é g u l a t i o n of r e a l e s t a t e o w n e r s h i p as a r b i t r a r y or u n j u s t , lie is r e m i n d e d by G o d in verse 23, " t h e l a n d m a y n o t b e sold in p e r p e t u i t y , for t h e land is M i n e ; you arc hut a l i e n r e s i d e n t s w i t h Me." S i m i l a r l y i n regard t o a n Israelite i n d e n t u r e d t o a n o n - I s r a e l i t e o n Israel's soil, if n o k i n s m a n of his r e d e e m s h i m -

as is his m o r a l o b l i g a t i o n —

f r o m s e r v i t u d e , h e is f o r c i b l y r e l e a s e d in t h e J u b i l e e year. Verse 55 gives t h e r a t i o n a l e : "For t h e Israelites a r e M y s u b j e c t s (or s e r v a n t s / s l a v e s ) , M y s u b j e c t s t h e y a r e i n t h a t I l i b e r a t e d t h e m f r o m t h e l a n d of E g y p t " T h u s Y H W H is S o v e r e i g n , L o r d of l a n d a n d p e r s o n s . A n d as i n t h e case of t h e G e n e s i s f o r m u l a t i o n of t h e w e e k l y S a b b a t h , t h e a t t r i b u t e of h o l i n e s s applies to t h e J u b i l e e year: "You s h a l l h a l l o w t h e f i f t i e t h year, p r o c l a i m i n g l i b e r t y ( o r r e l e a s e ) t h r o u g h o u t t h e l a n d for all its i n h a b i t a n t s " ( v e r s e 10). A g r a p h i c a r r a n g e m e n t of t h e five s e p t e t s ( t a b l e 8.1 ) m a y be c o n d u c i v e t o a n u m b e r of c o n c l u s i o n s i n regard t o t h e purely literary q u e s t i o n of a u t h o r i a l / e d i t o r i a l p r o v e n i e n c e of t h e f e a t u r e d t e x t s , a n d t o t h e largely m e t a - l i t e r a r y q u e s t i o n as t o w h e t h e r t h e s e p t e t s w e r e e v e r i n t e n d e d as c o n t r o l l i n g e l e m e n t s in a n c i e n t Israel's economy. T h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e f o r m u l a t i o n s ot t h e five s e p t e t s — s o m e t i m e s separately, s o m e t i m e s c o n j o i n t l y , s o m e t i m e s isolated ( i n w h o l e or i n p a r t ) , s o m e t i m e s s t r o n g l y allusive, s o m e t i m e s u n a r g u a b l y c r o s s - r e f e r e n t i a l — i s in itself e x p l a n a t i o n e n o u g h for t h e failure of t h e m o s t a m b i t i o u s s o u r c e critics to ‫ י‬l i n e t h e m u p w i t h n a r r a t i v e sources such as J, E, JE, Γ, Η, HP, IX or legal c o r p o r a such as C o v e n a n t , H o l i n e s s , Priestly, a n d I V u t e r o n o a u c . A b s e n ! clear substant ive or stylistic criteria for d e m a r -

ί Λ ΠI I ‫ י‬Ν 1‫ ׳‬S e p î e ts of R e ν 1‫ ׳‬Γ Η Ν ) η

The!‫»׳‬logical Symbolism

Ί he 7 as iixeJ < >r variable

ι. Sabbath Day Exodus 23:12; Deuteronomy 5:12—15 6 days work permitted. 7th day work forbidden.

Homage is paid lo ( ïod, die Creator of Ί ime in Genesis 1 and !he author of Israel's live · do m in Deuten ) no m y > 1 2 - ι 5, by human dedication ol tho 7th day to God's work.

Clearly ‫ ז‬he Sabhath day has to ht‫ ו ׳‬he same Jay for the entire n;1üon. It thus introduces the \\vek‫ ־‬into Israels cultic calendar.

2. Seventh Agricultural Year Exodus 2 3 : 1 0 - 1 2 6 years fields may be worked and reaped.

Ho mage p a i d to G1 ‫ י‬d h y withholding cultivation as symbol of ear 111's reversion to G ο d 's owner si lip. The lordship of G o d is reinforced by two elements: f ) the homage paid to Y H W H alone in oath-‫ י‬and imprecarions; and 2) the association w i t h the 7 th d a y of t he S abbath.

The association of this 7th year vor h the 7 th day sah hath would seem to point to a national 7th year return of the land to God. On the other hand, this is not explicit iv -;peeked; and one might argue that to leave the soil untended hy an entire nation ί 01‫ ׳‬the world for that mat‫׳‬ 1er ‫ ·י נ‬an absurdity; that the intent is that every farmer leave !‫ ייול‬fields uiUended one year out ot every ‫ יי‬even,

3. Sövent/1 Year Release of Persons hxodus;<) 1:2‫׳‬ 6 years, indenture pemiiued. 71h year, indem ure 11 )!‫׳‬hidden

As ihe first expansion ot the Decalogue in the ‫״‬Covenanr Gode," the limitation ot s e n ! lüde by one Israelite to another to six years, this provision etîectua S ly does away with chatte: slav ery. Israelites who have been redeemed from Egyptian bondage can be a chattel only to the God who bad redeemed them "for himself. ‫יי‬

La !ambiguously variable: 6 full years from the day of entry into -*‫׳‬jvitude.

4. Seventh Year Remission of Debt

The individual .Israelite is nor free‫ ׳‬to ignore the 71b year re‫׳‬ m iss 3 on, for it i s YHWH > •‫׳‬v / ‫ י ׳‬is sum, i.e., decreed by the God who is the source ‫ (י׳‬all prosperity. Obedience to the decree is homage to G o d s lordship.

T h e somewhat, extraneous p r e a c h m e n t that remission not. be forestalled by a refusal to lend to begin with compels this 7th year as fixed. If the 7th year release of land is also fixed, we should have the improbability of two fixed years in every 7. O n the other band, every year of t h e six served in distraint is in payment of a debt; hence any debt chargeable to the distrainee should be expunged in t h e 7th year erf debt-remission.

7 th year, work •and reaping forbidden

Deuteronomy 15:1-3, 9-10 6 years, a creditor may exact, payments from a debtor. 7th year, debt is erased (?)

400

S U Ρ Ρ LE Μ Ε N T S , C O N C L Γ S I Ο ‫ א‬S , Λ Ν T I C ] P A T I O N S

FABLE 8 - 1

(cmitmueci )

A 5. Jubilee Year: 7 χ ‫ ך‬-1‫ ־‬1 ‫^ ״‬ο

l htambi^iif !nsly fixed. S o t h e

Leviticus 2 5 : 8 - 2 6 : 2

sinus as expressive oi h o m a g e l o

49 years, real e s t a t e m a y b e

( jod's lordslup ot people and

a l i e n a t e d in f e e tail.

p r o s p e r i t y is e x p l i c i t

5 0 t h year, real e s t a t e reverts to

2

t h e line of h e i r s 111 fee simple.

la.ted in t h e coda Leviticus

inverses

38, 42, 55, and rec.api.tu‫׳‬

26: ι

I u Im I e r , I ‫ ו‬t ‫ ׳‬π ί ί ‫ ׳‬t h e s e v e n 7 t h 1rs .‫ י!־״‬also lixcd. T o wit, d i e 711 ‫ ׳‬agricultural year of E x o d u s

2 3:10 1 2 .

2.

cations of legal or h a l a k h i c corpora (or membra disiecta ol such corpora) it is of little w o n d e r t h a t there are few attempts to date such, regulations according to historical progression. T h e substantive c o n t e n t of t h e regulations in the five items of (vertical c o l u m n ) A constitutes more t h a n a similarity; they are a n identity. So, too, t h e theological symbolism in t h e five items t h a t constitute !v ertical c o l u m n ) B. N o reader coming across these texts for t h e first time without, any idea as t o their p r o v e n i e n c e in respect to time, place, and language would credit a suggestion t h a t they did n o t derive from a single source. By way of contrast consider vertical column. C. T h e sketchy discussion in t h e graph builds up to an impression—one that will upon f u r t h e r study exfoliate into a c o n v i c t i o n — t h a t the author is d e t e r m i n e d to frustrate t h e readers search for logical congrulty or suggestive patterning. T h u s , for example, t h e f o r m u l a t i o n in item C1 derives its compelling necessity not f r o m t h e formulation here but from, other texts, which rule out a choice of Sabbath-days for every Israelite. So the sense oi the formulation in item C 2 is also moot. Item C 3 is not moot due ι ο the nature oi the1 regulation, hut it sets up t h e question of mootness in respect to item ( 4 . A n d in !1)‫׳‬spect to this last item, t h e identity ol t h e year in item 4 could be without logical bar that same year in item .1, but the p a t t e r n i n g oi these two years-in-one (in Exodus and! Deuteronomy respect i vcly ) in. two widely scattered formulations becomes editorially (or authorially) incomprehensible. A n d there remains as well, t h e considérât ion raised in ( 4 , t h a t a fixed seventh-year remission of debt might effectively m e a n a maximal three-year term oi service for any distrainee. W h y t h e n h a v e t h e six-year limit at all? W h y would a n y o n e lend a n a m o u n t c o m m e n s u r a b l e w i t h more t h a n three years of i n d e n t u r e d service? All these perplexities c o m e to a head (at least one, perhaps more) in Leviticus 25, of w h i c h our item C 5 is only a snippet, V erse 20 raises a question t h a t should h a v e appeared after Exodus 2 3 : 1 0 - 1 2 (item A2 ), namely, h o w to make up t h e shortfall of t h e s e v e n t h year w h e n b o t h cultivation and harvesting are forbidden. T h e answer in verses 21 — 22 is G o d s providential care for t h e cultivated crop of every year six. Somehow, t h e harvest of one year to suffice for two years is made to appear e v e n more miraculous by h a v i n g its crop suffice, for three years (i.e., t h e sixth year, t h e s e v e n t h year of fallowness, and t h e eighth, year, w h i c h is t h e first year of t h e new seven-year cycle). If is nonsense to attribute t h e seed crop to the eighth year to this n u m e r a t i o n , d 1‫ר‬c seed crop ?s part and parcel of t h e crop for any given year. N o t to reserve a seed crop for t h e eighth year f r o m t h e mpïah of the sev-

p o e t i c a l o d d s a n d a d d enTd a

401)

e n t h y e a r w o u l d c o n s t i t u t e a g r o n o m i c a l suicide, for a seed c r o p h e l d o v e r for t w o years w o u l d result i n a g e r m i n a t i o n r a t e of less t h a n half of seed p l a n t e d f r o m t h e c r o p of t h e i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g year. For all t h a t , 2 5 : 2 2 e x p l i c a t e s " t h e t h r e e years" of verse 2 1 as i n c l u s i v e of " t h e n i n t h year u n t i l its c r o p m a y b e r e a p e d . ' ( T h e r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n t a k e s t h i s n i n t h year as r e f e r r i n g t o t h e f i f t i e t h y e a r of t h e J u b i l e e cycle, a d e s p e r a t e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , i n a s m u c h as t h e q u e s t i o n of s u f f i c i e n c y is raised o n l y in r e s p e c t t o t h e s e v e n t h year; t h u s t h e f o r m u l a t i o n m a k e s a l l u s i o n e v e n w h i l e it e v a d e s t h e q u e s t i o n of h o w t w o c o n s e c u t i v e years of f a l l o w n e s s c o u l d h e surv i v e d . ) A n a d d i t i o n a l hit of n o n s e n s e is t h e f o r m u l a t i o n in verses 1:4-17 t h a t f o r ‫׳‬ bids f r a u d or u n f a i r n e s s in t h e sale a n d p u r c h a s e ot l a n d t h a t is r e n d e r e d i n t o a l e a s e h o l d for a m a x i m u m of f o r t y - n i n e years, a n d so is n o l o n g e r a ( f r e e h o l d ) purc h a s e at all. In t h e case of t h e p r i c e asked for t h e p u r c h a s e of a plot a n y e x c e s s i v e d e m a n d w o u l d b e unfair, w h e t h e r t h e p u r c h a s e is l r c e h o l d or l e a s e h o l d . A n d furt her m o r e , s u c h u n f a i r n e s s c o u l d o n l y apply t o a p u r c h a s e r w h o is d e a l i n g w i t h a seller so r e d u c e d as to sell his i n h e r i t a n c e for a song. 1 h e seller c a n n o t h e a c c u s e d of u n f a i r n e s s , b e t h e sale f r e e h o l d or l e a s e h o l d , b e c a u s e n o o n e is e v e r f o r c e d t o b u y l a n d . T h i s last c o n s i d e r a t i o n must b r i n g us t o t h e r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t o n e c a n n o t , as t h e " b i b l i c a l legislator" d o e s i n d e e d again a n d a g a i n , t u r n a m o r a l d e m a n d

into

civil l e g i s l a t i o n by a p p e a l t o p i e t y a n d b r i n g o n a m e s s i a n i c age by a c o m m u n i s t i c a b o l i t i o n of all p r o p e r t y rights. T h i s e n t i r e d i s c u s s i o n m i g h t v e r y welt h a v e b e e n c o n s i d e r e d in o u r c h a p t e r o n s t r u c t u r e s , for laws a n d c o d e s c o n s t i t u t e by t h e i r n a t u r e a s t r u c t u r i n g of society a n d society's v a l u e s . T h e b i b l i c a l g e n i u s , f r o m a l i t e r a r y p o i n t of view, is t o e n l i s t a p l e t h o r a of t h e m e s a n d g e n r e s so t h a t a s t r u c t u r e m a y b e t h e e m b o d i m e n t of a nar‫•׳‬ ratives kerygma, a narrative may be transformed into a constitutive kerygma, and b o t h s t r u c t u r e a n d story b e s p u n i n driest prose or lyric v e r s e . P e r h a p s w e c a n c o n c l u d e in n o b e t t e r way t h a n w i t h t h e c i t a t i o n of t w o peri‫״‬ c o p e s t h a t i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w t h e c o n c l u s i o n ot t h e j u b i l e e y e a r passage. C h a p t e r 2 6 : 1 - 2 i n t r o d u c e s a p r o h i b i t i o n of idolatry, a n i n j u n c t i o n t o o b s e r v e t h e s a b b a t h s a n d r e v e r e t h e s a n c t u a r y of Y H W H . T h e t e x t c o n t i n u e s : It you follow my decrees and observe my commands, obeying them, I will provide your rains at their due time so that earth produces its bounty and your scattered trees yield their fruit: threshing will follow hard upon harvest, and harvest follow hard upon sowing, so thai you consume your food to satiety and seule in comfort on your land. Peace shall 1 dower on your land, you will loll at ease upon your land with none to cause you fright. You will put your enemies to flight and they shall fall from before you by the sword. Five of you will rout a hundred and a hundred of you will rout ten thousand; by the sword shall they tall before you. 1 shall ihen turn about to you making you fruitful and many and shall fulfill my covenant with you. hong stored -,tores will you consume and ancient stores withdraw to make way ior a new ^tore. 1 shall fix my sanctuary in your midst and fmd you never distasteful. 1 shall m o w freely among you serving you as G o d and you shall be my own people. I Y H W H , your C!od, in that 1 liberated you fron! Egypt-land that you serve them not as slaves, and hn >ke apart t he span of your yoke and led you forth head high and chin up. (Leviticus 26;y-13)

408

S U P P L E M E N T S , C O N C LI' S I G N S ,

T H E S A B B A T H DAY I N T H E T W O A POETICAL

ANTICIPATIONS

DECALOGUES:

COMPARISON

T h i s discussion of t h e poetic h a r m o n y of t h e various sabbath day a n d sabbath year texts would be notably i n c o m p l e t e if 1 did n o t address t h e problem ot t h e two versions of t h e decalogue, w h i c h centers o n t h e two different formulations of t h e sabh a t h day prescriptions in the two decalogues. If we e x a m i n e t h e two verses t h a t immediately precede the Ten C o m m a n d m e n t s in Exodus, we must be struck by this: t h e text carefully, indeed, awkwardly, avoids any explicit s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e words of G o d were directly received by Israel, gathered at t h e foot of M o u n t Sinai and forbidden to ascend it. In Deuteronomy, w h i c h is explicitly cast as t h e last address of Moses to the people he has led to t h e threshold of t h e Promised Land, Moses recapitulates the e v e n t at H o r e b - S m a i w h e n Y H W H m a d e His c o v e n a n t with Israel. In G h a p t e r 5:4 he says, 14Face to face did t h e Lord speak w i t h you at t h e m o u n t a i n from amidst the tire."' N o w n o one will insist t h a t these words are to be t a k e n l i t e r a l l y — n o t even t h e most literalist of t r a d i t i o n a l i s t s — f o r G o d has n o face. But e v e n t h e metaphoric sense of "face to f a c e " — i n a direct c o n f r o n t a t i o n — i s applicable here at only a second remove: For Moses c o n t i n u e s in verse 5, ‫ ״‬I was stationed b e t w e e n Y H W H and you at that time to tell you t h e word ot Y1 I W H , because you were so afraid of the fire that you did not ascend t h e mountain. 1 ' T h i s statement‫־‬, which is repeated and expanded immediately following t h e words of the Decalogue, leaves us to c o n c l u d e t h a t Israel witnessed a fire blazing through an otherwise impenetrable cloud and recognized il LIS emblematic of the presence of G o d . T h e y heard a sound from the Sire and acknowlcdged 11 as the "voice" ol G o d . But the words they heard were t h e words t h a t issued from t h e m o u t h of Moses. T h e substance ot t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s is of G o d . T h e formulations and t h e expansions of t h e c o m m a n d s — are those of Moses. A n d Moses, t h e mediator of the c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d and Israel, is free t o give o n e emphasis to t h e sabbath institution in Exodus, and to stress a n o t h e r o n e w h e n h e recapitulates t h e decalogue in Deuteronomy. T h e r e is n o inconsistency nor i n c o n g r u e n c e in t h e two rationales for t h e S a b b a t h . O n t h e contrary, t h e clue to Scripture's c o n c e p t of time and freedom, h e n c e to t h e sabbath celebration of G o d as t h e C r e a t o r of nature and t i m e and as t h e A u t h o r ot history and freedom, will appear in t h e following excursus o n a h a l a k h i c passage.

Of Time and Freedom: A Poetical Reading of Halakha T h e passage appears in Exodus in a body of laws, precepts, and a d m o n i t i o n s that immediately follows t h e revelation of t h e decalogue. T h i s body (chapters 2 1 - 2 2 a n d 23 in part, called "the C o v e n a n t C o d e " by m o d e r n scholars) begins with t h e previously discussed regulation, w h i c h limits t h e servitude of one Israelite to a n ‫׳‬ o t h e r to a m a x i m u m of six years; at t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e s e v e n t h year t h e b o n d m a n must go free. T h e r e follow regulations c o n c e r n i n g a woman subordinated to a master, homicide oi a ireeman, abuse of parents, and violent injury to a freeman. O u r interesi lies in t ho three 1Vf.‫׳‬ulal ions that follow.

401)

POETICAL O D D S A N D A DDE NT DA

C a s e A . Fatal and Nonfatal

Beating

< >f a

Bondservant

S h o u l d a m a n heat his b o n d s e r v a n t , m a l e or female, w i t h a rod so r h a t h e d i e s r h e n a n d t h e r e !literally, " u n d e r his h a n d " | , v e n g e a n c e ο to he e x a c t e d . But it l1‫׳‬e s u r v i v e s a day or t w o , n o v e n g e a n c e is t o h e e x a c t e d m a s t e r ' s ] m o n e y - i n v e s t m e n t . ( h x o d u s 220-21:‫ז‬ C a s e B , Violent Injury

ioi\ t o be sure, h e ( i s / r e p r e s e n t s ] his | t h e ) to a Pregnant

Woman

I n a c a s e of m e n e n g a g e d in a b r a w l w h e r e a p r e g n a n t [ p a s s e r b y ] is s t r u c k a b l o w r e ‫׳‬ s u i t i n g i n a m i s c a r r i a g e , n o o t h e r d a m a g e e n s u i n g [to t h e w o m a n ) , t h e p e n a l t y m u s t h e in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h a judicial assessment t a k i n g u u o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e value c l a i m e d b y t h e w o m a n ' s h u s b a n d . If, h o w e v e r , d a m a g e [to t h e w e m i a n j e n s u e s , p a y m e n t m u s t h e m a d e [ a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r i n c i p l e ] : life f o r life, e y e tor e y e , t o o t h f o r t o o t h , h a n d f o r h a n d , f o o t f o r f o o t , b u r n f o r b u m , w o u n d f o r w o u n d , b r u i s e tor b r u i s e . ( E x o d u s 21:22-25) C a s e C . The Maiming

of a

Bondservant

S h o u l d a m a n s t r i k e a b l o w t o r h e e y e o t h i s m a n s e r v a n t or t h e e y e of h i s m a i d s e r v a n t w h i c h d e s t r o y s it, h e m u s t g r a n t h i m h i s f r e e d o m in r e p a y m e n t f o r t h e e y e . A n d if it is a t o o t h of h i s m a n s e r v a n t 01‫ ־‬a t o o t h ot h i s m a i d s e r v a n t t h a t h e k n o c k s o u t , h e m u s t grant h i m his f r e e d o m in r e p a y m e n t for t h e t o o t h , ( Exodus 2 j : 2 6 - 2 7 ) C a s e A l e a v e s n o r o o m f o r d o u b t t h a t t h e t e r m ebed

h e r e refers to a debt-slave

o r i n d e n t u r e d s e r v a n t . T h e m a s t e r , w h o h a s a n i n v e s t m e n t in. h i m , m a y r e s o r t force to compel h i m to work. Should the bondservant, however, d i e — h i s

to

death

unmistakably caused by such a b e a t i n g — t h e master incurs the same penalty

pre-

s c r i b e d for t h e k i l l i n g of a f r e e citizen, i n C a s e Β t h e i n j u r y — i f a n y — i s t o a f r e e p e r s o n . T h e i c t u s is c l e a r l y n o t r e g a r d e d a s a l i f e , b u t r a t h e r a s a p r o p e r t y of t h e f a t h e r , w h o m u s t h e c o m p e n s a t e d f o r h i s l o s s . It i n j u r y t o a p e r s o n o c c u r s , it is o n l y t o t h e Israelite Iree w o m a n , in w h i c h c a s e t h e p e n a l t y p r i n c i p l e of t h e lex talionis,

is d e t e r m i n e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e

t h e s o - c a l l e d " r u l e of r e t a l i a t i o n : " a l i t e f o r a l i f e , a n e y e

f o r a n e y e , a t o o t h f o r a t o o t h , a n d s o tan.

I his principle h a v i n g b e e n stated,

the

t e x t reverts t o i n j u r i e s i n f l i c t e d u p o n s l a v e by m a s t e r in t h e c o u r s e of a d i s c i p l i n a r y beating. C a s e C p r o v i d e s first t h a t f o r m a y h e m t o a b o n d s e r v a n t s eye, t h e m a s t e r

loses

t h e s e r v i c e s of t h a t s e r v a n t . It t h e n g o e s o n t o s t a t e in a s e p a r a t e s e n t e n c e t h a t t h e p e n a l t y is t h e s a m e i n t h e c a s e o f m a y h e m t o a t o o t h . T h e i m m e d i a t e q u e s t i o n is, w h y t h e necessity for two sentences? W h y does the text n o t state that for striking o u t eye or t o o t h of a slave t h e o w n e r m u s t release his s e r v a n t ? T h i s q u e s t i o n

of

f o r m is o v e r s h a d o w e d b y o n e o f s u b s t a n c e : B y w h a t l o g i c o f a r i t h m e t i c o r r e t a l i a t i o n d o e s t h e t e x t p r e s c r i b e t h e s a m e p e n a l t y or c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r a l o s t t o o t h a s f o r a l o s t e y e ? S u r e l y , t h e l o s s o f a t o o t h is t r i v i a l c o m p a r e d t o t h e l o s s o f a n e y e !

A

t h i r d q u e s t i o n is w h y C a s e B , d e a t h o r i n j u r y t o a f r e e p e r s o n , is p e r m i t t e d t o i n t e r vene between A

a n d C , cases dealing respectively w i t h d e a t h or injury dealt

to

bondservants. T h e s e questions p o i n t to a single answer, an answer that discloses o n c e t h a t b i b l i c a l v e r s e s d i d n o t just g e t m i s p l a c e d b y c h a n c e , n o r w e r e t h e y

again

permitted

428

S U P P L E M E N T S , CON C LI' SIGNS, A N T I C I P A T I O N S

t o r e m a i n i n disarray by later editors. T h e a n s w e r will also r e v e a l h o w artfully t h e b i b l i c a l a u t h o r c a n e x p r e s s a p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o n c e p t b y s i m p l e j u x t a p o s i t i o n of s e v eral legal cases. C a s e Β d i f f e r s f r o m t h o s e s u r r o u n d i n g it n o t o n l y in t h e s t a t u s of t h e p e r s o n in‫״‬ j u r e d , f r e e r a t h e r t h a n " s l a v e " b u t a l s o i n t h e a c c i d e n t a l n a t u r e of t h e i n j u r y t o t h e f r e e p e r s o n . T h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n a l o n e s h o u l d c a u s e us t o r e a l i z e t h a t t h e r a b b i s c o r r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d t h e l i f e f o r life, e y e f o r e y e f o r m u l a as a p r i n c i p l e of c o m p e n s a t i o n , n o t of m i n d l e s s , m e c h a n i c a l r e t a l i a t i o n . W h a t p u r p o s e w o u l d b e s e r v e d e i t h e r as a p r e v e n t i v e or p u n i t i v e m e a s u r e by i m p o s i n g exactly t h e s a m e injury u p o n t h e pers o n w h o c a u s e d t h e i n j u r y b y accident!

A n d w h a t c o m f o r t to t h e victim t h a t t h e per-

s o n a c c i d e n t a l l y c a u s i n g h i s i n j u r y w a s s i m i l a r l y m a i m e d ? 1 h e " l a w of t a l i o n " is n o t to be read literally ( n e i t h e r h e r e n o r in Mesopotamia!:! c o n t e x t s ! ) , n o t to be unders t o o d as a p r i n c i p l e of ret a l i a t i o n at all. It is a p r e s c r i p t i o n f o r p a y m e n t f o r d a m a g e s : T h e p a y m e n t is t o c o r res ρ ο ι κ ί t o t b e g r a v i t y ot t h e i n j u r y i n f l i c t e d , t h e g r e a t e s t p a y m e n t : f o r t h e loss of life, t h e s m a l l e s t p a y m e n t f o r a b r u i s e ( a n d in C a s e B, p a y m e n t f o r t h e e m b r y o l o s t o n t h e b a s i s ol t h e v a l u e of t h e c h i l d - t o - b e , g i v e n t h e sex of t h e f e t u s , its c l o s e n e s s t o t e r m , p o s s i b l y t h e h u s b a n d s h a v i n g o t h e r c h i l d r e n o r n o t ) . T h e i n s e r t i o n of t h i s p r i n c i p l e a t t h e p o i n t of its a p p e a r a n c e is t o s e r v e u s as a r e d flag, t o a l e r t us t o t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of w h a t f o l l o w s ( C a s e C ) : I n t h e c a s e of a b e a t i n g a d m i n i s t e r e d t o a b o n d s e r v a n t , w h e r e t h e b e a t i n g is b o t h i n t e n t i o n a l a n d l e g i t i m a t e b u t t h e m a i m i n g is u n i n t e n t i o n a l , t h e p r i n c i p l e o f " t a l i o n " f e a t u r e d i n C a s e B, d o e s n o t a p p l y . T h e p e n a l t y d o e s n o t v a r y w i t h t h e g r a v i t y of t h e i n j u r y . W h e t h e r t h e l o s s t o t h e s l a v e is so m u c h as a n e y e o r s o l i t t l e as a t o o t h , t h e s l a v e w i n s h i s f r e e d o m a n d t h e m a s t e r loses h i s s e r v i c e s . W h y ? B e c a u s e t h e s l a v e is n o s l a v e a t a l l . H e is n o t t h e p r o p e r t y of h i s m a s t e r . H e b e l o n g s t o h i m s e l f . T h e o n l y c l a i m t h e m a s t e r h a s u p o n h i m is n o t o n h i s p e r s o n b u t o n h i s time. A n d t h e s l i g h t e s t i m p a i r m e n t of h i s p e r s o n , t h e s l i g h t e s t i n v a s i o n — s o t o s p e a k — o f h i s c a p i t a l , m u s t e v e n t u a t e in t h e e n d of his servitude.

Poetic Congruence

of the Sabbath Texts in the Decalogue

T i m e . T i m e is w h a t t h e s a b b a t h is all a b o u t : G o d s t i m e a n d m a n ' s t i m e . S o v e r e i g n t y o v e r t i m e , w h i c h is f r e e d o m , a n d s u r r e n d e r of t i m e , w h i c h is s e r v i c e . L e t u s t u r n n o w to t h e two D e c a l o g u e S a b b a t h texts: L X O L H J S

2 0 : 8

1 ί

ι. Mark the Sabbat h Day by sanctifying it.

P H U T H R O N O M y

1

3

2-1‫־‬

ί )hs^rve t h e S a b b a t h Day hy sanctifying it, as ΥΗ\ΧΊ I your Ci od. has bidden you.

2. Six days you may work in pursuit of your every enterprise. The seventh day, however, is a Sabbath owing to YHWH, your God: (On it:) you are to perioral no work neither you, your son nor daughter, your manservant or maidservant

Six days yon r!u1\ work in pursuit of your ei e! y enterprise.

I he seventh day, however is a Sabhath owing to YHWH, your God: (Cn it) you arc to periorm no work— neither you, your son 1101‫ ־‬daughter, vour manservant: or maidservant:

p o e t i c a l o d d s a n d a d d enTd a

401)

Y o u r o x o r a s s — r h a r is, a n y of

your cattle, the alien in your jurisdiction.

y o u r c a t t l e , t h e a l i e n in y o u r j u r i s ‫׳‬ diction. — T h a t your manservant and maid-

servant may rest as you do. Thus you will mark that you were subjugated in the land of Egypt, whence Y H W H delivered you by unremitting lor ce, ν The reason: In six days Y H W H made heaven and earth, the seas and. everything in them, and rested on the seventh day. 6. That is the reason Y H W H blessed ι he Sahhaih Day, sanctifying it.

Thar is the reason ‫ ו‬bat Yl IWH \om‫־‬ CM‫()׳‬/ /!us charged sou to enact the Sabbath Pay.

In t h e first p r o c l a m a t i o n of t h e D e c a l o g u e , t h e e m p h a s i s is o n t h e universal c l a i m of t h e Lord of C r e a t i o n o n t h e t i m e (or service, or w o r s h i p ) of all his c r e a t u r e s . In his r e v i e w of t h e D e c a l o g u e in D e u t e r o n o m y , M o s e s stresses t h e p a r t i c u l a r c l a i m of G o d o n t h e t i m e of h i s p a r t i c u l a r p e o p l e , t h e p e o p l e h e h a s r e d e e m e d f r o m s e r v i t u d e t o h u m a n m a s t e r s in Egypt, t h a t t h e y m a y c o v e n a n t t o b e s e r v a n t s to Eli ‫ דת‬a n d t o H i m a l o n e . T h e p a r a l l e l c o l u m n s of t h e t w o s a b b a t h t e x t s will h e l p us n o t e t h e t e l l ‫׳‬ tale d i f f e r e n c e s . I n 1, M o s e s in his r e c a p i t u l a t i o n uses t h e w o r d observe in t h e p l a c e of mark, a n d adds "as Y H W H y o u r G o d h a s b i d d e n y o u " — a n u n n e c e s s a r y r e f e r e n c e t o t h i s c o m m a n d in t h e E x o d u s d e c a l o g u e e x c e p t by way of r e m i n d i n g t h e r e a d e r t h a t M o s e s is s p e a k i n g — q u o t i n g his o w n r e t a i l i n g of Y H W H s c o m m a n d . In 3. i n p l a c e of "your cattle," h e says, "your o x o r ass, t h a t is a n y of y o u r cattle," t h u s s p e c i f y ‫׳‬ ing t h a t t h e release f r o m l a b o r applies t o d r a f t a n i m a l s ; s h e e p a n d cows d o n o t l a b o r In 4, h e a d d s t o t h e E x o d u s c h a r g e t h e words, " t h a t y o u r m a n s e r v a n t a n d m a id sex‫׳‬ v a r a ma)! rest as you do." By t h u s p u t t i n g t h e e m p h a s i s o n t h e c h a r g e to t h e Isiaelite h o u s e h o l d e r t o a b s t a i n f r o m w o r k , h e m a k e s it clear t h a t t h e call o n tire m a s t e r of his o w n t i m e t o observe

G o d ' s t i m e by n o t w o r k i n g is n o t social legislation, b u t

r a t h e r a n o b l i g a t i o n t o G o d . T h i s o b l i g a t i o n , t o s h o w oneself as G o d ' s s u b j e c t , is also a privilege, t h u s a privilege ‫׳־‬obligation t h a t t h e m a s t e r m u s t allow his b o n d s e r v a n i s t o s h a r e w i t h h i m . O n l y t h e n d o e s Moses rakes up t h e word "mark," w h i c h b e ‫׳‬ gins t h e E x o d u s version a n d c o n t i n u e s w i t h t h e t h e m e t h a t t h e Israelite master, by s h a i i n g t h e cessat ion of work w i t h his servants, mar/es‫ ־‬his a c k n o w l e d g m e n t t h a t his a w n f r e e d o m as a n Israelite is a gift f r o m t h e G o d w h o liberated h i m f r o m Egyptian servitude, this liberal ion u n d e r l i n e d as a f e a t p e r f o r m e d o n his b e h a l f "warb, unr e m i t t i n g h a v e " Finally, in 6, in p l a c e of E x o d u s ' r e f e r e n c e t o G e n e s i s , " t h e r e a s o n thai Y H W I I blessed a n d s a n c t i f i e d t h e S a b b a t h Day," h e n o w states t h a t this is t h e reason why Y H W H , w h o h a d at t h e t i m e of C r e a t i o n blessed a n d s a n c t i f i e d t h e S a h b a t h , t h e l i b e r a t i n g G o d w h o c o v e n a n t e d a t S i n a i t h a t h e be 1 'your G o d " did then charge you (Israel) as His people to enact the Sabbath

Day.

I n brief, t h e a u t h o r s of S c r i p t u r e h a d o n e t e r m (,bd) w h i c h as v e r b m e a n s b o t h to labor a n d to serve; a n d w h i c h as n o u n (,ebed)

m e a n s b o t h s e r r a n t a n d slave.

They

4Γ2

SUPPLEMENTS, CO NI CLL S ÎO.NS, ANTICIPATIONS

h a d several w o r d s a n d a d d i t i o n a l m e t a p h o r s tor t h e c o n c e p t s of s o v e r e i g n t y a n d i r e e d o m , w h i c h m e a n respectively t h e f a c u l t y t o dispose of p o w e r a n d t h e !acuity to dispose of t i m e . T h e sovereign, c r e a t o r ot t i m e a n d m a t t e r h a d d e p u t e d of his sovere i g n t y to t h e race of m a n k i n d . T h e r e t u r n h e asks (or t h i s h o o n is s u b j e c t i o n to his will, t h i s r e t u r n b e asks f r o m Israel in particular., t h e p e o p l e lor w h o m h e h a s w r o u g h t a n o t h e r leal: a r e - c r e a t i o n , a r e b i r t h i n t o f r e e d o m , T h i s r e t u r n t h a t h e asks, p a r t i c u l a r l y of Israel, symbolized in a w e e k l y s u r r e n d e r oi t i m e t o h i m , is n o t a h e a v y b o n d a g e . T h e o l o g y a b o u n d s in p a r a d o x e s t h a t m a k e a p e c u l i a r sense: T h e p u r e s t f r e e d o m lies i n b e i n g s e r v a n t - s l a v e to t h e A u t h o r of all t h a t is, t o t h e G o d w h o is t h e p r i n c i p l e of f r e e d o m .

TWO MORE A D D E N D S T h e s e o d d s a n d a d d e n d s h a v e r e l a t e d mostly to t h e discussions in c h a p t e r 2 c e n t e r ing o n t h e s a b b a t h e l e m e n t in t h e biblical c r e a t i o n n a r r a t i v e . I will c o n f i n e myself t o t w o m o r e a d d e n d s , t h e o n e i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g , e n t i t l e d E x c u r s u s of P s a l m 19, a n d a c o n c l u d i n g a d d e n d t h a t c o m p l e m e n t s t h e D r u n k e n n e s s of N o a h i n c h a p t e r 5. T h e excursus o n P s a l m 19 c o u l d well a p p e a r e l s e w h e r e : m y d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o ine l u d e it h e r e is in t h e i n t e r e s t s of several aspects of biblical p o e t i c s t h a t w e h a v e b e e n discussing. Specifically it is p l a c e d h e r e in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e ways in w h i c h t h e solar o r b figures a n d d o e s n o t figure in t h e G e n e s i s c r e a t i o n a c c o u n t . M o r e generally, it is i n s t r u c t i v e as t o h o w a t h e o l o g i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t is o n l y i m p l i e d i n t h e c r e a t i o n n a r r a t i v e is a l m o s t k e r y g m a t i c a l l y p r o n o u n c e d in t h e p s a l m , a n d how, further, t h e b o r d e r s of t h e c o s m o s m a y a p p e a r figuratively in b o t h n a r r a t i v e p r o s e a n d lyric verse as p r i m e v a l wafers or t h e gauze ‫׳־‬thin c o s m i c t e n t - w a l l s . Finally, t o b e sure, is t h e m y t h o p o e i c n a t u r e of t h e n a r r a t i v e c r e a t i o n a c c o u n t , a n d t h e sly h u m o r in t h e p o e t i c p a e a n to ( t h e G o d b e h i n d ) t h e c r e a t e d world, as well as t h e j u x t a p o s i t i o n in t h e psalm ol power, e s t h e t i c s , a n d morality, a n d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e s e t o o n e a n o t h e r and t o t h e revclation,11 c a p a c i t i e s of m u t e n a t u r e a n d p r o p h e t i c u t t e r a n c e .

Excursus

on Psalm

19

(2) T h e heavens do tell the glory of (dnd, T h e works of His hands the skv·‫׳‬sheet, recounts. (3) Day by day it [Creation] wells forth utterance, A n d night by night creates awareness j T h o d (4) There is no utterance, there are no w o r d s — [ T h o ] N o sound from them is heard. (5) Through all the earth their cable-lines have stretched, Even to world's end their guy-ropes. For the Sun has he designated a tent within them [the heavens]. (6) A n d he, like a bridegroom coming fort h trom his pavilion, Rejoices, like an athlete, to run his race, ( 7 ) [Ye s ] fro m one of heavens' limits his c ο 1111 ng forth and to their [other] limits his arc from his heat there is no hiding.

POETICAL ODDS A N D ADDENDA

4ί3

(S) Y H W H ' s g u i d a n c e ( t o r n ) Ls of a p i e c e — l i f e - r e s t o r i n g ; Y H W H ' s rules are reliable

e n l i g h t e n i n g t h e most s i m p l e .

( 9 ) Yl I W l I s r e g u l a t i o n s are s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d — i l l u m i n a t i n g t h e m i n d ; \ 1 I W l i s b i d d i n g is t r a n s p a r e n t — b r i n g i n g lustre t o o u r eyes.

{ 10) Revere! ice for YHWI h when pure, stands us ever in good stead; VI I W l V< n o r m s are t r u e , c o r r e c t — e a c h a n d all. ( 1 1 ) M o r e d e s i r a b l e t h a n gold o r r i c h e s g r e a t , Sweeter t h a n fruit-honey and dripping nectar. ( 1 2 ) I l o w a l e r t t o t h e m is y o u r ! o b e d i e n t ] s e r v a n t — t h a i great is r h e o u t c o m e of t h e i r o b s e r v a n c e , (.13) C a n a n y o n e b e c o n s c i o u s of all e r r o r ? C l e a r m e t h e n of u n c o n s c i o u s [ w r o n g d o i n g ] . (14) So, indeed, f r o m w r o n g i n t e n t i o n h o l d h a c k your servant, L e t t h e m h a v e n o sway o ' e r m e . O n l y t h e n s h a l l I b e w h o l e A n d so c l e a r e d of g r a v e t r a n s g r e s s i o n . ( 1 5 ) M a y t h e s e w o n ! s of m y m o u t h find f a v o r , M y i n a r t i c u l a t e m e d i t a t i o n — a c c e p t a n c e by y o u , Y H W H , m y R o c k a n d m y R e d e e m e r . ( P s a l m 1 9 : 2 - 15)

H i e affinity of t h e first six verses ( 2 - 7 ) to Psalm 8 has n o t escaped the notice of scholars. T h e "work of His h a n d s " recorded o n t h e sky-she et of h e a v e n reters, ot course, to t h e celestial p h e n o m e n a as they appear to h u m a n sight. T h i s visual perceprion is translated into a n auditory o n e — a story "told," a feat proclaimed — despite "no sound from them," t h a t is, t h e h e a v e n s , being literally heard. A n d as the "message" of what transpires up there regularly by day and by n i g h t is one that even a blind m a n may see or a deaf o n e hears, so is t h e u t t e r a n c e of t h a t message assigned to time-divisions-—abstract, mute, u n c o n s c i o u s — d a y and night expressing, like a n t i p h o n a l choristers, t h e m e a n i n g oi their being in respect to the Power that created t h e m . A n d even while t h e poet engages in personificatory imagery he makes double use of the preposition /‫" '׳‬to," which also governs temporal periods, so t h a t "day utters ίο day" e v e n as it does so "day by day." Several interpret ive difficulties in verse 5, owing to a slavish fixation on words rather t h a n imagery, interfere with a n easy grasp of t h e psalmist s t h o u g h t . W h a t is t h e 1 dine" (qaw) which has "gone out" t h r o u g h t h e earth and to w h o m or what does t h e possessive suffix reter? T h e general assumption is t h a t t h e antecedent is day and night, and t h a t parallel to t h e lines of day and night, is "their •words" (miileyhem); since "their lines" referring to day and night makes dubious sense, a n d "their words" has a parallel in rhe words (debanm) of verse 4, many scholars accept t h e e m e n d aticin of qawwam "their line" to qowlam "their voice;" this latter despite the fact that verse 4 explicitly denies utterance ('ömer), words (debanm), or voice/sound (40/) alto‫״‬ gether. T h e only antecedent‫ ־‬t h a t makes sense h o w e v e r is t h e sky-sheet of the h e a v e n s , in w h i c h h e ( t h e only possible subject here is t h e C r e a t o r ) has provided a tent for the sun. A n d t h e presence h e r e of imagery for two different tents has t h r o w n exegetes otf t h e track: t h e bowl of h e a v e n u n d e r w h i c h we live, this concave sky-sheet is one "tent," and at its eastern extremity, ' n e a t h its stretched skins, there is a n o t h e r tent t h a t t h e C r e a t o r has p i t c h e d for the sun.

414

S 11 Ρ Ρ ί .KM F N T S , c e )Ν C ί. I 1 S J C ) Ν S , A N T 11:1 PAT I O N S

T h e biblical tent (o/u·/) is in its n a r r o w e s t d e n o t a t i o n a s h e l t e r i n g e n c l o s u r e of c l o t h or s k i n s t r e t c h e d o v e r s u p p o r t i n g b e a m s , a n d in its broadest c o n n o t a t i o n a t e r m for home; H e b r e w nus km! " r e s i d e n c e " is a c e r t a i n k i n d ot t e n t , o n e in w h i c h t h e t e n t "walls" are f u r t h e r s u p p o r t e d by h o a r d - p a n e l s , T h e a r e a c o v e r e d hy t h e t e n t is its mäqom

"site" o r hevei " b o u n d a r y " d h e "walls" of t h e t e n t are

yertöt

" d r a p e - c l o t h , " salmä "sheet," Or "skin, in t e g u m e n t , " a n d doq " t h i n c u r t a i n . " T h e s e walls e x t e n d i n g f r o m u p r i g h t posts are a t t a c h e d to ropes (qawwlm "cords," meytänm

"anchor-ropes")

"lines,"

habâlïm

at p o i n t s o n t h e i r v e r t i c a l axis, t h e s e r o p e s

s t r e t c h i n g t o p o i n t s o n a p e r i m e t e r w h e r e t h e i r pegs (ytd) a r e h a m m e r e d i n t o t h e g r o u n d . T h e t e r m s for p i t c h i n g a t e n t are t h u s tq' "fix in p l a c e " (i.e., t h e pegs), nth " s t r e t c h " (i.e., t h e w a l l - c u r t a i n s ) , mi.(! "pull taut." T h u s , for e x a m p l e , w h e n t h e p r o p h e t addresses Israel as a w o m a n w h o h a s p r o d u c e d n o t a single c h i l d b u t is dest i n e d t o m o t h e r a h u g e b r o o d , h e calls o n h e r t o p r e p a r e a t e n t large e n o u g h t o acc o m m o d a t e h e r m a n y c h i l d r e n , a t e n t o c c u p y i n g a large a r e a r e q u i r i n g l o n g e r r o p e s a n d reinforced pegging: E n l a r g e t h e area of y o u r tent L e t t h e w a l l p a n e l s of y o u r p a v i l i o n s t r e t c h l o n g —-do n o t stint — M a k e long your anchor-ropes A n d fix m o r e f i r m y o u r t e n t - p e g s . ( I s a i a h 5 4 : 2 )

S i m i l a r l y all of J e r u s a l e m , s y n o n y m o u s n o w w i t h t h e p i l g r i m s h r i n e c a l l e d Z i o n , is p i c t u r e d in a f e l i c i t o u s f u t u r e as

- by t h e grace of VI IW11 - - - o n e fixed a n d u n but-

feted t e n t : A tranquil r e s i d e n c e , A t e n t n o t to he relocated, Its p e g s n e v e r t o s h i f t , N o r a n y of its r o p e s s e v e i e d . ( I s a i a h

5:20

5‫)־‬

T h i s t e n t i m a g e r y w e h a v e c o m e across in Psalms, w h e r e t h e C r e a t o r : Draped light like a sheet-cloth, S t r e t c h e d t h e h e a v e n s o u t like a d r a p e . ( P s a l m 104:2)

T h i s imagery for t h e celestial e x p a n s e a p p e a r s a g a i n in Isaiah, w h e r e G o d is pictu red as: H e w h o s t r e t c h e s o u t t h e h e a v e n s like gauze, A n d p u l l s t h e m t a u t like a t e n t [ m a d e ) tor d w e l l i n g . ( I s a i a h 4 0 : 2 2 )

R e t u r n i n g t o verse 5 of our p s a l m , we see n o w t h a t t h e qawwlm

are t h e m e t a -

p h o r i c c a b l e s a n c h o r i n g t h e f i g u r a t i v e t e n t - w alls of h e a v e n , a n d t h e i r miïiïm a r e a n e l s e w h e r e - u n a t t e s t e d t e r m for s o m e a s p e c t of t h e t e n t - a p p u r t e n a n c e s

(perhaps

t h e i r skirts), s t r e t c h i n g t o ( / b e y o n d ) t h e limits of t h e world ( , eres). T h e s h e e r m a g n i t u d e of t h a t s t r e t c h a n d t h e sights it p r e s e n t s to t h e senses by d a y a n d by n i g h t , m u t e b u t e l o q u e n t w i t n e s s e s t o t h e p o w e r ot its G r e a t or, is m u l t i p l i e d in i m a g i n a t i o n w h e n o n e c o n s i d e r s t h a t for its C r e a t o r all this is, as it was, a child's p l a y h o u s e ( " t h e w o r k of his fingers"). A n d t u c k e d aw ay at o n e edge ο ί t h i s ci r e u s - t o p t e n t -

P O E T I C A L ODDS A N D A DDENTDA

401)

bubble is a smaller tent: t h e abode of t h e sun. A n d here this mighty object ot t h e p a g a n s awe, personified as t h e god Samas (or Sol or Helios) resides, ' , He trom whose heat there is n o h i d i n g " Except of course w h e n he regularly and on schedule "sets." But it is at t h e point of his c o m i n g forth from his pavilion in the cast t h a t our psalmist chooses to make f u n of this personified paragon of polytheistic paganism. For this epiphany is not t h e ordinary awakening of any s u p e r h u m a n male: ibis is of a bridegroom making his first emergence from under his nuptial canopy. T h e heroic virility of a long-abstinent groom in t h e c h a m b e r where h e has first been treated "to a woman's task" is probably a staple of every h u m a n culture. Perhaps our earliest record of it is in Tablet I, iv of t h e G i l g a m e s h Epic, where the courtesan introduces t h e virgin Enkidu to a woman's task, welcoming his ardor: As his love was drawn unto her, For six days and seven nights Enkidu comes forth, M a t i n g w i t h t h e lass.

After he had had (his) fill of her charms, He set his face toward his wild beasts. On seeing him, Enkidu, the gazelles ran off . . . Enkidu had to slacken his pace . . . (ANET p. 75 TAB. 1 iv. 2 0 - 2 ‫י‬

M

So too our psalmist parodies t h e emergence of Sol, filled w i t h a sense of his n i g h t ‫׳‬ long profusion of puissant potency, ready n o w to exert his leg muscles in a n o t h e r of the competitive sports. T h e appositeness of these six verses to t h e general t h e m e ot t h e grandeur ot ere‫׳‬ at ion, and to t h e particular o n e of p u t t i n g paganism in its place by p u t t i n g one of its gods in his, is clear. But to stop h e r e is to miss a golden opportunity to o p e n our‫׳‬ selves up to t h e full range of poetical resources a n d strategies available to S c r i p ‫׳‬ ture's authors, w h e t h e r in a figurative n a r r a t i o n ol c r e a t i o n s c h r o n i c l e s , or a c c h ehratory resume of creational results as record and teaching of the theological s i g η i h e a η c e ο f c tea 11 ο 11 d 1 ‫ ו‬st υ try. ! h e r e can he n o question t h a t b e t w e e n t h e last three words ( Fl eh re w) oi verse 7 •—from his heat there is no hiding, a seemingly pointless praise of heaven s overheated a t h l e t e - and t h e three words o p e n i n g verse 8 — Y H W H ' s tora is of a piece, begin‫״‬ η ing a catalogue in praise of YHWH's t e a c h i n g s — t h e r e seems to he a semantic gap of huge proportion. S o great indeed is t h e felt absence of a transitional phrase or two, t h a t most scholars opt for t h e conclusion t h a t t w o unrelated poems have been patched together. Even more impressive, however, is t h e n u m b e r of readers w h o are n o t driven to this poetical conclusion. W h i c h is perhaps to say t h a t t h e very abrupt switch 111 t h e m e s as in r h y t h m b e t w e e n verse 2 - 7 and verse 8™το has been p e r ‫׳‬ ceived by m a n y as a dramatic device to compel t h e reader to e x a m i n e w h a t implie it t h o u g h t ‫ ׳‬l i n k bridges t h e two pericopes. A n d a f o r m u l a t i o n of t h a t t h o u g h t , o f t e n cited, and as philosophically impressive as it is lucidly simple, is this s e n t e n c e of I m m a n u e l Kant's: " T h e r e are two things t h a t fill my soul with holy reverence and ever-growing w o n d e r — t h e spectacle of t h e starry sky t h a t virtually a n n i h i l a t e s us as physical beings, and t h e moral law t h a t raises us to infinite dignity as i 11 telligent agents." It may be argued that the cosmic awe felt by m o d e r n m a n under t h e -tarry sky

416

SUPPLEMENTS, CON CLI'SIGNS, ANTICIPATIONS

a n d t h e s e e m i n g l y s a m e e m o t i o n s e x p e r i e n c e d by o u r p r e d e c e s s o r s in a n t i q u i t y are e s s e n t i a l l y i n c o m m e n s u r a b l e , t h a t a firework display, h o w e v e r b r e a t h t a k i n g , c a n n o t c o m p a r e t o t h e i m p a c t of s u c h a display w h e n t h e o b s e r v e r is also a w a r e t h a t e a c h s p a r k l i n g light is o n e oi m a n y b i l l i o n s ot‫ ־‬suns, m o s t of t h e m d w a r f i n g o u r o w n sun. A n d , lurther, t h a t t h e r e d u c t i o n of t h e solar p h e n o m e n o n t o a jeer at t h e m a c h o m a l e p r e t e n s i o n w o u l d s e e m t o w e a k e n t h e e q u i p o i s e of t h e m a n - r e d u c i n g effect oi c o s m i c vast ness o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d o n t h e ο the1!‫ ־‬t h e m a n - e l e v a t i n g el· f e e t of m o r a l d i g n i t y as, i n d e e d , t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l g r a n d e u r of t h e c o n s c i o u s n e s s of t h a t dignity. T o t h e first of t h e s e c h a l l e n g e s t h e f o l l o w i n g verses f r o m Isaiah 4 0 w o u l d s e e m a d e q u a t e t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e h u m a n a p p r e c i a t i o n of i n f i n i t y is n o t e n h a n c e d or l e s s e n e d w h e n it is e x p a n d e d or r e d u c e d hy t h e p o w e r of n; (12) W h o has measured [creation's] waters h ν handful [s], Or fixed heaven's distance by his handspan, Or collected earth's soil in a scales pod Or taken the weight of the mountains in a [hand-held] scale, Or the heights in a balance! (13) W h o has fixed [the magnitude of] Y H W H s spirit, Is there anyone who can make known his blueprint! (14) W h o m has he taken into his counsel, Given him all-embracing consciousness, Trained him in the way of judgment, Trained him in awareness, Made known to him the path of comprehension! (Isaiah 4 0 : 1 2 - 1 4 ) T h e t h e m e of G o d as C r e a t o r is r e s u m e d in verse 21: (21) Will you not acknowledge, Will you not pay h e e d ' 1 lave you not been told of the Beginning, I hive you not been made aware of eanh's Foundations? (22) bnthroncd (ysb)/Uc is o'er earth's sphere, Whose populations (‫־‬ys/n/i) are ‫״‬rasshupper-like: 1 le W h o si ret eh es out the heavens like gau:e, Pulls them taut like a rent-habitation (hhc). (26) hook upwards

-high u p — a n d consider

W h o 'twas created all these . . . (Isaiah 40:21, 2 2 6

,‫)י‬

A s for t h e s e c o n d of o u r q u e s t i o n s , t h e i n c o n g r u o u s l e a p i n P s a l m 19 f r o m m a c h o S u n t o a w a r e n e s s of Y H W H ' s torn, let us n o t e t h e p a r a l l e l p h e n o m e n o n in t h i s p e r i c o p e f r o m Isaiah 40: T h e t r a n s i t i o n b e t w e e n verse 14 ( t h e p u n i n e s s of h u m a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of c r e a t i o n s v a s t ness) a n d t h e call t o r e c o g n i z e t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t d i m e n s i o n s of c r e a t i o n ' s C r e a t o r (verse 2 1) is a j e e r at p a g a n i s m ' s a t t e m p t t o portray divinity: (18) To whom will you liken God, And what likeness will you impute to him?

P O E T I C A L O D D S A N D A D D ENTDA

401)

(19) The idol cast by the smelter Plated o'er by the smith in gold. Fastened together by the smith with silver? (Isaiah 40:18-19) In t h e m e and structure, Psalm 19 and Is. 4 0 share so much as to suggest a single composer or, perhaps, t h e variations of a Beethoven o n a t h e m e of Mozarts. It is not t h e sun as such, one of n a t u r e s many and great artifacts ("from whose heat there is n o hiding"), which is laughed to scorn in t h e psalm, as t h e b r e a t h t a k i n g sweep of h e a v e n is nor deprecated in itself by likening it to a mere tent's canopy. T h e mockery is directed not at nature but at t h e a t t e m p t s of pagan imagination to personify aspects of nature, a t t e m p t s t h a t trivialize n a t u r e even, as they deify its constituencies and veil from h u m a n appreciation t h e truly awesome t r a n s c e n d e n c e of t h e Power and Intelligence for w h o m all nature is but a plaything. T h e attack o n a pagan t h e o l o g y — w h e t h e r in Isaiah 4 0 : 1 8 - 1 9 , where a m a n - m a d e idol is p u t forward as p a g a n i s m s best effort to imageize t h e divine, or in taking t h e s u n s daily trek across t h e sky as t h e literal race of a divine a t h l e t e — i s jocular and c o n d e scending in mood, for how could so silly a n ideology stir t h e perceptive m i n d to anger? A n d ultimately, of course, it is n e i t h e r paganism n o r its representation t h a t is t h e object of derision for psalmist or prophet. T h e derision is reserved for t h e humans, and for Israelite h u m a n s at t h a t , w h o fail to receive t h e thunderously m u t e message presented to their organs of sight and h e a r i n g for processing by t h e intelligence t h a t these !acuities are supposed to feed. A n d w h o , asks the psalmist in 19:11, is t h e loser by this but t h e h u m a n s w h o so regularly forego the sweet-beyond•‫ ׳‬compare fruit of revelation. N o t so t h e psalmist himself. Fie is alert and grateful for t h e revelation, h e knows t h a t t h e ultimate revelation of G o d s creative power is made to p r o m o t e t h e revelation of God's moral purpose for t h e race h e has created and placed at creation's c e n t e r stage. But this consciousness and self-consciuusness of t h e psalmist does n o t lead h i m to t h e hubris of self-preening in moral pride. For all his awareness ol what G o d wants of him, he is aware of t h e moral myopia ol t h e most clear-sighted ot moralists. W h e t h e r irom. unconscious error or conscious actions performed in sell-delusive wrongheadedness, he needs a deterrence t h a t only G o d can supply. Only if G o d keeps him alert to t h e never-interrupted message (‫׳‬,‫ ווו‬he aspire to moral i n n o c e n c e and integrity. A n d in the humility that alone is proof against e v e n the pride ol probity, t h e psalmist in t h e poem s last verse reviews t h e c o m p o s i t i o n h e has so truly ordered in praise of G o d , and recognizes t h a t at its best it is but a weak articulation of the praise warb which he would, if he could, do justice to t h e majesty of his G o d .

The Drunkenness

of Noah

T h e Odds and A d d e n d s treated h i t h e r t o relate primarily to c h a p t e r 2, t h e c o n t e n t and f u n c t i o n of the biblical creation account, and to poetical problems raised in c o n n e c t i o n with the cluster ot sextets and septets akin to t h e seventh-day construction imposed on Israels 11 mar-solar calendar. M u c h of the material might well h a v e been considered in chapter 7 ("Structures") w i t h emphasis on t h e f u n c t i o n of scriptural structures that lend thenwelves to a poetic consideration of t h e similar (yet n o t

418

SUPPLEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS, Α Ν ΤIΓ ί PAT 10 ‫ א‬S

s a m e ) f o r m u l a t i o n s vis-à-vis t h e m y t h o p o e i c aspects in prose a n d in verse, a n d of d i e c o n c e p t u a l c o m p l e m e n t a r i t y b e t w e e n w o r k a n d rest, b e t w e e n work a n d r e c o m p e n s e , a n d of t h e associative c o n c e p t i o n s of d o m i n i o n a n d s u b s e r v i e n c e , of liberty a n d t h e p r e r o g a t i v e t o dispose of t i m e . H e n c e I h a v e r e s e r v e d t h i s d i s c u s s i o n for t h i s s u p p l e m e n t a r y c h a p t e r . So, t o o , w i t h respect t o P s a l m 19, T h e role of t h e s u n (as we h a v e d i s c e r n e d ) as d i v i n e g y m n a s t in t h i s spoof of p a g a n i s m s e g u e i n g i n t o t h e priority of m o r a l i t y in Scripture's m o n o t h e i s t i c t h e o l o g y is in p o l a r c o n t r a s t t o t h e s o u r c e - c r i t i c a l s c h o o l of "literary criticism," w h i c h c a n d i s c e r n s u b s t a n t i v e c o n c e p t u a l c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n aspects of t h e c r e a t e d w o r l d as p i c t u r e d in verse versus prose; b e t w e e n p a g a n p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n of n a t u r a l forces i n f i l t r a t i n g biblical p o e t r y a n d t h e d e m y t h o l o g i z a t i o n of c o s m o g o n y in t h e c a t e c h i s t i c prose of G e n e s i s 1. I will c o n c l u d e t h i s c h a p t e r w i t h a n a d d e n d u m o n t h e D r u n k e n n e s s of N o a h (see c h a p t e r 5), r e s u m i n g p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h a c o n j e c t u r e as t o t h e c o n n e c t i o n of t h e C a n a a n in N o a h ' s curse w i t h t h e G i b e o n i t e s of J o s h u a 9, w h o w e r e d e s t i n e d in J o s h u a s words t o b e h e a v e r s of w o o d a n d d r a w e r s of w a t e r for his p e o p l e Israel a n d tor t h e h o u s e of his G o d . A r e v i e w ot o u r d i s c u s s i o n in c h a p t e r 5 will s h o w t h a t in v e r s e 27

u

h e " of t h e

s e n t e n c e " m a y h e reside in t h e t e n t s of S h e m " is g e n e r a l l y t a k e n t o be t h e J a p h e t h of t h e i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g i n v o c a t i o n " B r o a d s c o p e m a y G o d t o J a p h e t h g r a n t " 1 b o w e v e r , l e a n i n g u p o n Rash i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , t a k e t h e subject as t h e " G o d " w h o h a s b e e n i n v o k e d to bless J a p h e t h . It is a mat 1er of h a p p e n s t a n c e t h a t 1 a r r i v e d 111d e p e n d e n t l y at t h e i d e n t i t i e s of t h e p e r s o n a e in t h e i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g verse. (26) IWhat'l he said, |in full]; "Praised he Y1 1WH, god of Shem! And slave 10 them may Canaan be! (Genesis 9:26) T h e s e p e r s o n a e arc Y H W H , god of S h e m , S h e m , b e i n g a m e t o n y m for Israel, a n d t h e " t h e m " t o w h o m C a n a a n is t o b e slave are Y H W H a n d his p e o p l e , w h i l e t h e slave C a n a a n is a f o r e - r e f e r e n c e t o t h e G i b e o n i t e s of J o s h u a 9. It was q u i t e s o m e t i m e l a t e r t h a t I d i s c o v e r e d t h a t I h a d f o r g o t t e n or a l t o g e t h e r missed t h a t t h e s e s a m e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s w e r e m a d e ad loc. by O b a d i a h S t o r n o . T h i s r e c o v e r y of S f o r n o s h a v i n g p r e e m p t e d m e in t h e G i b e o n i t e s / C a n a a n i t e identification bolsters m e as I p r o c e e d t o m y less t h a n p i o u s or o r t h o d o x r e a d i n g o : J o s h u a , C h a p t e r 9. A. Prelude (1) W h e n all the kings across the Jordan in the hill country and the Shephela, on the entire coast of the Great Sea as far [north as] facing Mt. Lebanon — t h e Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivvites and the J cousîtes — sot word, (2) they mobilized for war with Joshua and with Israel in single accord. B. The Plot (3) The citizens of Gibeon now got word of what Joshua had done to Jericho and Ai.) (4) 1 hew for their part also, behaved with guile. They went and constituted themseh es an embassy. They fetched worn sacks for their asses, wineskins worn, ^plit and re sown, (‫ )ך‬footgear worn and patched and attired in worn oui uarb and, all their edible ριο\ is ion stale and mold tierkcd.

p o e t κ: a l o d d s a n d a d d e n d a

419

ί >. bo't'CMtiim oj the Plot (6) They went to Joshua, to the encampment at Gilgal, To him and the fighting men of Israel they said, "From a distant land have we come. N o w then, conclude a pact with us." (7) T h e fighting men or Israel responded to the Hivvites, "Perhaps it is within my ambit you dwell. In which c;!se, how can I make a pact with you?" (8) So they said to Joshua, "It is your liege-men we are." Whereupon he said to them, "Just who is it you are and just where do you come f r o m ; 9 )

‫) ״‬

To him they said, "From a far distant land

have your liege-men come, for the sake of your god Y H W H . Truly we have heard re-‫׳‬ port of him, yes of all his doings in Egypt, (10) And the whole of his execution of the two Amorite kings in trans-Jordan, to Sihon king of Heshhon and to Og king of Bashan, he that was of Ashtaroth. ( 1 1 ) 1 hen it was that our elders and all our land's citizens said, 'Take food provision for your trek and go ι ο encounter them. Say to them: Your liege-men are we. Make a paec with us.12)

‫י‬

)

This food of ours—warm we provi-

sioned ourselves with it from home that day we set out to journey toward y o u — a n d [look] now: dry and mold-flecked. (.13) A n d these wineskins that new were when we filled them, [look] now: split open. A n d this garb ot ours and our footwear, worn out hy reason of our trek, so long, so long." (14) The |lsraehte| leaders rook samples of their provisions

hut of Y H W l l f s ] oracle they made no inquiry. (15) Thus did Joshua

make ;»nily with them. He made a pact assuring them survival. And the confederacy's chieftain's took oaths to them. D, i )isanvry, ;Yknv/i, and Ahseiu Assault (16) It was a threesome of days after they had made this pact with them that they got word: how near their distance to him, yes well within his ambit dwelling, they . . . (17) T h e Israelites moved out and on the day after the morrow arrived at their cities— these cities being Gibeon, Kephirah, Beerot and KirHth-jearim. (18) Yet did the Israelites not attack them, for the confederacy's chieftains had taken oath to them hy Y H W H , god of Israel. E. (chagrin and Reprisal Decree T h e confederacy's rank-and-file grumbled against the chieftains. (19) T h e chieftains all addressed the confederate ranks, "We did take oath to them hy Y H W H , god of Israel. Hence, we may do them no harm. (20) This we must do to t h e m — ( y o u ) guarantee their lives—only thus avert trom ourselves [God's] wrath [in keeping] with the oath we took to them." (21) Thus did the chieftains decree to them: They are to live. A n d thus did they become hewers of wood and drawers of water for all the confederacy, in keeping with the declaration to them ol the eh ie ft a ins. F. Resumption of Reprisal, Recapitulation of Decree (22) Joshua summoned them and dressed them down, to wit: "Why did you deceive us, saying 'We are at a tar far distance from you,' when you live well within our ambit s center. (2$) Now, then: Under I van you are [decreed! to be. Never will there fail to he from among you slave, lu‫־‬wcrs of wood and d r a w e e of water for tin‫ ׳‬house ol my god!" (24) [‫ וו‬response to Joshua they -aid, 1'Verily it was liild in detail to your servants that which your god YFIWH ordained lo his servant ΜΠΗ‫ \־‬ι Ο grant you all 1 h i*> land and

42ο

SUPPLEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS, Λ NTH Τ PAT ΙΟ Ν S

exterminate on your account all the inhabitants oi the land, in ereal tear tor our lives were we on your account, hence we did what we did. (2s.) And, now, we are in vour power. However it seem,s proper and upright in your opinion to treat us, do so!1' (.26) Thus did he do to them, as told, delivering them from the Israelites power, so that they did not kill them. (27) Thus it was that Joshua dedicated them at that time as hewers of wood and drawers of water to the confederacy, and [or, that is] to the altar of YHWH—continuing to this very day—in the place that he chooses [for it]. (Joshua 9:1-27) T h e e c o n o m y of S c r i p t u r e s narrative style would seem to be notably absent in this long c h a p t e r devoted to a single e v e n t in t h e c o n t e x t of Israel's invasion of t h e promised, land. A single e v e n t t h a t may be m o m e n t o u s for t h e hapless Hivvttes of G i b e o n , but of trivial significance to t h e Israelite conquerors or their descendants. A simple a n d straightforward telling of t h e story would omit the pericopes A and Β altogether. It. would start with C, t h e arrival of t h e G i b e o n i t e embassy, present t h e reason for its mission, and omit, t h e ambassadors' wearisome citation of the instructions delivered to t h e m at h o m e . T h e substance of pericopes D, E, and F could be given in a single pericope w i t h o u t a n o t h e r supererogatory e x p l a n a t i o n ot t h e tea•‫׳‬ son for t h e G i b e o n i t e ruse, and w i t h a single s t a t e m e n t of the decree t h a t appears three times, and wdth seeming inconsistency and r e d u n d a n t repeiitivencss: once, seemingly, in t h e mouth of the chieftains, o n c e in t h a t of Joshua, and o n c e in the voice of t h e narrator, assuring us that the decree was Joshua s.. Let us t h e n proceed to a (dose rereading oi our c h a p t e r it) search lor the poetic purposes oi the narrational convolutions.

Episode A . Prelude (1) When all the kings across the Jordan in the hill country and the Shephcla. on the entire coast of the Great Sea as far [north as] facing Mt. Lebanon. — the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivvites and the Jehusites— k:ot word, (2) they mobilized for war with Joshua and with Israel in single accord. T h e prelude is, at first glance, totally irrelevant to t h e narrative t h a t follows. It tells us of t h e u n a n i m o u s reaction of t h e kings of C a n a a n to the Israelite threat, their mustering their armies into a single force to do battle with the invaders. A n d n o t a n o t h e r word to follow up this i n t r o d u c t i o n appears until the G i b e o n i t e narrative is concluded. T h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n is resumed w i t h t h e first verses of chapters 10 and 11, which begin w i t h t h e identical o p e n i n g words of 9:1, toax/iT kismcf1 " W h e n [so a n d so] got word . . In 10:1 it is Adoni-zedek, king ot Jerusalem, w h o gets word of Joshua's conquest of A i and Jericho a n d his putting their populations and kings t o t h e herem ban; and word as well of t h e G i b e o n i t e s preclusion of 3 similar fate for themselves by d i n t of their peace treaty w i t h Israel. His rallying ot a η umher of kings against t h e G i b e o n i t e s results in disaster for these royal city-states to t h e south and west of G i b e o n . In 11:1 it is Jabin, king of Hazor, w h o gets word — presumably of t h e debacle of t h e Adoni-zedek coalition and ‫׳׳‬allies the kings of n o r t h e r n C a n a a n , who meet a like fate at Joshua's hands. I he list ol defeated kings 1> resumed and enlarged in C 'hapter 12. 11 is important to note that the conquered

p o e t i c a l o d d s a n d a d d enTd a

401)

populations subsumed in 12:8 are exactly those six nations, and in t h e identical order to their appearance, in our g:1, " T h e Hittites, t h e A n i o n i c s , the C a n a a n i t e s , the Perizzites, t h e blivvites and the Jehusites' 1

/:>‫*־‬uic P. The Pit Λ {‫ ) ן‬The citizens of Gibeon now got word of what Joshua had done to Jericho and Αι.) (4) They, for their part also, behaved with guile. They went and constituted them-‫׳‬ selves an embassy. They fetched worn sacks for their asses, wineskins worn, split and resown, (5) footgear worn and patched and attired in worn out garb and all their edible provision stale and mo Id‫׳‬-flecked, In c o n t r a s t t o 9:1, where t h e word reaching t h e cis-Jordanian kings is left u n ‫׳‬ specified, is t h e p a r e n t h e t i c h y p o t a c t i c verse 3, w h i c h I h a v e placed at the begin‫׳‬ n i n g of pericope B. T h i s verse, serving as t h e transition b e t w e e n the prelude and t h e m a i n narrative, specifies t h a t the word received by t h e G i b e o n i t e s was of J o s h u a s t r e a t m e n t of Jericho and A i . W e shall see t h a t this contrast in specification serves a significant poetic purpose in t h e narrative t h a t tollows. For our inv m e d i a t e focus, t h e significance of t h e p r e l u d e — w h o s e train of t h o u g h t is n o t picked up again until 10:1—is to contrast t h e a c t i o n of t h e G i b e o n i t e s in verse 4 with t h e stance of their fellow a u t o c h t h o n e s . T h e first verse proper of pericope B, verse 4, rendered by t h e Revised Version (RV) as 'They also did work wilily and w e n t and m a d e as if they h a d been amhassadors," for all its fidelity to t h e Hebrew may be misleading o n at least two counts. O n e , inasmuch as t h e comparison (contrast) in c o n t e x t is as between "all the kings" and t h e Gibeonites, one would think that the wiliness of t h e Gibeonites is in comparison with t h e wiliness oi "all the kings.1' But these latter are not wily in the least. T h e i r hostility and bellicosity is open and straightforward. H e n c e the comparison can. only he with the third party, the [sraelitcs. A n d the guile oi the Gibeonites is in counterploy to the guile of Joshua at Ai. As h e lured these iocs from their torn ess into a c u n n i n g ambuscade, so did t h e G i b e o n i t e s lure Israel into a cunningly conrrived compact. T h e poetic question would t h e n remain: Is the ruse (‫ '(י‬the Cube-on‫״‬ it:es. which guarantees their survival, being justified by comparison wit11 the ruse of Joshua, which led to t h e e x t e r m i n a t i o n of Ai? O r is it likely that J (isla 11a's own wilb ness serves to highlight his folly in falling for t h e G i b e o n i t e ruse: T h e second misperception t h a t may arise f r o m RV's rendering is the implication that the G i b e o n i t e s p r e t e n d e d to be a n embassy w h e n they were n o t t h a t in reality. This, of course, is nonsense. T h e y did indeed c o n s t i t u t e themselves an embassy— n o t e my t r a n s l a t i o n — t h e ruse was in h o w they dressed themselves up for t h a t mission. T h e stem syr appears a half-dozen times in t h e n o u n form w i t h t h e c o n t e x t u ally attested sense of "agent, representative, legate," but t h e hitpael verb form "set o n e s self up as legate" appears only here, and seems to be a deliberate approximat i o n of the h i t p a e l of t h e stem syd "game, food, provisions" t h a t appears in verse 12, "to provide oneself with food." T h i s occurrence is similarly the only verbal occurre nee of this stem. (It. is perhaps recognition of this a p p r o x i m a t i o n ot s\r/s\d that led L X X to render this verb in verse 4 exactly as it does t h e verb in verse 1.2.) The

422

SUPPLEMENTS, CON C LI' SIGNS,

anticipations

play o n t h e two stems thus would suggest a p o r t m a n t e a u signification: they proceeded to provision themselves for an embassy role, as detailed in t h e description t h a t follows of worn pack-hags and wineskins, footgear and body-wraps and food stale and moldy.‫׳‬

Episode C, Execution of the Plot (6) They went to Joshua, lo the encampment ai i algal. Ίο him and the fighting men of Israel they said, "From a distant land have we come. Now then, conclude a pact with us" (7) The fighting ‫ ז‬neu of Israel responded to die Idivvites, ‫״‬Perhaps it is within my ambit you dwell. In which case, how can 1 make a pact with you Γ (8) So they said to Joshua, "It is your liege-men we are" Whereupon he said to them, "Just who is it you are and just where do you come from Γ ‫( י‬y) To him they said, "From a far distant land have your liege-men come, for the sake of your god YHWH. Truly we have heard report of him, yes of all his doings in Egypt, (10) And the whole of his execution of the two Amorite kings in trans-Jordan, to Sihon king of Heshbon and to Og king of Bashan, he that was of Ashtaroth. (11) Then it was that our elders and all our land's citizen's said, 'Take food provision for your trek and go to encounter them. Say to them: Your liege ‫״‬men are we. Make a pact •with us!* ( 12) This food of ours—warm we provisioned ourselves with it from home that day we set out to journey toward you— and [look] now: dry and mold-flecked. (13) And these wineskins that new were when we filled them, [look] now: split open. And this garb ot ours and our footwear, worn out by reason of our trek, so long, so long.1' (14) The [Israelite] leaders took samples of their provisions—but of YHWH ['s] oracle they made no inquiry. (15) Thus did Joshua make amity with them. He made a pact assuring them survival. And the confederacy's chieftain's took oaths to them. T h e address of t h e embassy upon reaching the e n c a m p m e n t at Gilgal is so terse that it can only be instance of free direct discourse. The: far distance they have c o m e suffices to identify themselves; their purpose in coming is to propos( 1 a treaty; t h e n a t u r e of t h e treaty is unspecified. 1 he Israelite 1 dent ity is constituted of at least four elements or entities, two of which appear in this pericope. There is Joshua (the c o m m a n d e r - i n - c h i e f ) , t h e n the ïs yisräel. T h e rendering of the hfty or so appearances of this phrase h y "the men of Israel" leaves this singular collective construct altogether undifferentiated from t h e construct (bearing this m e a n i n g ) featuring t h e plural form ansei. T h i s latter can have a n u m b e r of c o n n o t a t i o n s : simple distributive or plural w i t h reference to t h e individuals, members, citizens, magistrates, freemen, soldiers of a given people, polity, or political group. T h e expression Ts yisräel (/or a specified tribe of Israel) is always in c o n s t r u c t i o n or c o n t e x t t h a t guarantees t h a t t h e term refers to warriors or a warrior class, whereas a similar sense for 'ansei is achieved only by t h e addition of stich terms as milhämä "war," säbä' "army." T h e sense t o o of a status or role, rather t h a n a n exemplary execution of t h a t role, is suggested in a n u m b e r of contexts where these braves of Israel are cowering from conflict, or routed by t h e e nemv. T h i s collectivity t h e n , t h e " m a n h o o d ot Israel," may be expressing a macho bravado w h e n , in contrast to t h e plural a d d r e s s oi t h e Giheonites, it speaks of itself

P O E T I C A L ODDS A N D A DDENTDA

401)

in t h e singular and addresses t h e embassy in t h e singular. ( N o t e also Joshua's use ot plurals for t h e Israelites a n d t h e G i b e o n i t e s in verse 20.) T h e narrator too prepares us for this switch in person n u m b e r w h e n h e has " t h e m a n h o o d of Israel 1 ' speaking to "the Hivvite" (singular collective). Aside f r o m t h e arrogation of self-importance in t h e first person singular address to t h e H i v v i t e embassy, there is certainly an overwhelming arrogance in speaking of t h e a u t o c h t h o n o u s p o p u l a t i o n as living "in my midst," w h e n t h a t "midst" is confined to "the c a m p at Gilgal" (verse 6). A n d for all t h e presage of t h e victories at Jericho and Ai, t h e first of these fell to Y H W H s miraculous i n t e r v e n t i o n , and t h e second to a divinely inspired ruse. To this macho address t h e G i b e o n i t e s m a k e n o answer. H a v i n g declared their origin in a distant land, t h e question is t a n t a m o u n t to a charge t h a t they are lying. R a t h e r t h a n a t t e m p t a rebuttal, they t u r n to t h e c o m m a n d e r Joshua and submit themselves to his mercy. A n d Joshua asks again for specifics as to their identity and land of origins, to which questions n o answer is f o r t h c o m i n g . Instead we h a v e a response implying t h a t their land is too distant and their polity too insignificant to be meaningful to Israel. By contrast to this is w h a t inspired t h e m to c o m e so far, t h e report t h a t has resounded worldwide, t h e mighty acts of Y H W H in Egypt, the destruction of t h e kings ot H e s h h o n and Bashan, told as if it were ancient history, citation almost from t h e book, of Deuteronomy. N o m e n t i o n , of course, of Ai and Jericho, for these are only events of yesterday, and the embassy entrusted to ‫ ו‬hem. by u n a n i m o u s vote oi eiders and citizens alike took place o h so many m o o n s ago; To t h e implicit charge of the Ts yisrä'el t h a t they are telling less t h a n the t ruth, they stress first t h e unqualified legitimacy of their legation. T h e i r mission had the u n a n i m o u s authority of their h o m e l a n d s oligarchy and c o m m o n s . T h e y t h e n p o i n t to t h e sad stare of their dress, gear, and provisions as proof of t h e long trek t h a t has e v e n t u a t e d in their arrival at t h e Gilgal e n c a m p m e n t . T h i s a r g u m e n t supportive of their veracity, an argument t h a t they did n o t raise in pericope B, where t h a t veracity is questioned hy Israel's m a c h o braves, leads to a n e x a m i n a t i o n of their dry and moldy provisions. T h i s e x a m i n a t i o n apparently accepted as attestation to t h e bona fides of t h e embassy leads to a conclusion t h a t is formulated in verse 15 in three paratactically formulated clauses. In clause 1, Joshua concludes an amicable agreem e n t with t h e m . Despite t h e formal parataxis, t h e following clause 2 may be hypotactical in relation to it as far as m e a n i n g is concerned: t h e amity that Joshua had enacted was embodied in t h e treaty t h a t h e made w i t h t h e m , a treaty w h i c h specifically and explicitly guaranteed t h e m — w a s it only, or a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s : — their survival. Clause 3 adds t h a t t h e (Joshua-sponsored) treaty was confirmed by an o a t h taken by t h e ne si ë häedä "the confederacy's chieftains." T h e s e η T r i m are t h e third c o n s t i t u e n t of t h e Israelite identity (after Joshua a n d t h e Ts yisraei), arid will be shortly differentiated from t h e rank-and-file of t h e confederacy (kol-ha edä) over w h i c h they preside (verses 18, 19, 21). T h e s e last t h e n are t h e f o u r t h of t h e Israelite constituency. A filth term, however, /u771‫״‬äsim "the men." ("leaders" in our translation) is t h e μ ι hi eel of the verb "took (samples) o f ' 111 verse 14, and it is unclear w h e t h e r this term includes Joshua, t h e chieh ains, or hot h. But t he second clause of this verse, in hypotactic const ruction, is a pointed cont rast ivc no! ice, an aside on t he pan o: t lie narrai 01‫ ׳‬a ‫ י־‬to what t h esc leaders might well h a v e d o n e but did not do: consult t he

424

S U P P L E M E N T S , c o n c lI' s i G n s ,

o r a c l e ol Y H W H . H a d ihey d o u e so

anticipations

- t h e i n f e r e n c e is i n e l u c t a b l e

the outcome

of t h e ruse a n d t h e f a t e of its i n i t i a t o r s would h a v e b e e n a l t o g e t h e r d i f f e r e n t . But was t h i s f a i l u r e t o c o n s u l t Yl I W H a m o r a l lapse or a singular d e f i c i e n c y of judgm e n t • From w h a t follows, t h e s u s t a i n e d d e c i s i o n t o a b i d e hy t h e c o n s é q u e n c e of t h e o a t h t a k e n in YT1WI h-naine, it w o u l d a p p e a r t h a t r h e lapse, d any, was a trivial o n e c o m p a r e d t o t h e far g r e a t e r o n e t h a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n c o n s t i t u t e d h γ a violat i o n of t h e o a l h , for all t h a t t h e o a t h h a d b e e n e x t o r t e d by a ruse. If t h a t t h e n b e t h e case, J o s h u a s d e c i s i o n a n d its e n d o r s e m e n t by t h e e o n f e d e r acy's elders r e p r e s e n t s a lapse, n o t f r o m o b e d i e n c e t o G od's will, hut f r o m o r d i n a r y c o m m o n sense. A n d t h e a b s u r d i t y of t h i s f o o l i s h n e s s o n t h e p a r t of Israel s c o n s t it u ted a u t h o r i t i e s is o n l y h e i g h t e n e d by t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t I s r a e l s m a c h o r a n k a n d - f i l e w e r e n o t t a k e n i n by t h e ruse, as i n d i c a t e d n o t o n l y by t h e initial skeptic i s m of t h e Ίs yisrä'el, b u t by t h e s u b s e q u e n t c r i t i c i s m of t h e d e c i s i o n lodged by t h e r a n k - a n d - f i l e of t h e c o n f e d e r a c y (häëdâ/koî-/1â l ëda) a g a i n s t t h e elders

(hamvsim/

nesïë hâ'ëda). W h a t a r e w e t o m a k e of t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n of p e r s p i c a c i t y t o t h e h o i polloi a n d of gullibility t o t h e m a g i s t r a t e s ? I will d e f e r t h i s q u e s t i o n for a w h i l e . But let us n o t e t h a t t h e c o m m o n sense of t h e r e a d e r s h o u l d lead h i m , as critic, to q u e s t i o n n o t o n l y t h e i m p l a u s i b i l i t y in t h e p l o t of t h e ruse's success, b u t o l its h a v i n g b e e n a t t e m p t e d t o b e g i n w i t h . W o r n s h o e s a n d stale b r e a d are a t e s t i m o n y to t h e age of t h e s e c o m m o d i t i e s , a n d n o t t o t h e t i m e w h e n t h e y w e r e first laced o n or b a k e d . s B u t t h e o b v i o u s silliness of t h e ruse is m e r e l y t h e icing o n t h e e n t i r e c o n f e c t i o n of t h e G i b e o n i t e c l a i m t o b e f r o m so d i s t a n t a l a n d . C a n o n e i m a g i n e a n a r r a t i v e in w h i c h M a y a n I n d i a n s f r o m c e n t r a l A m e r i c a , p r e t e n d i n g t o b e E s q u i m o s , arrive at Piz-2aros h e a d q u a r t e r s in t h e P e r u v i a n h i g h l a n d s , c i t i n g t h e i r k n o w l e d g e of t h e S p a n i a r d s ' r a v a g i n g of M o n t e z u m a ' s H a l l s a n d asking for a t r e a t y w h i c h

would

spare t h e m a like fate in t h e i r A r c t i c ranges?

Episode!).

Discovery,

March,

and Absent

Assault

( 1 6 ) 11 was a t h r e e s o m e of days ,11 Km‫ ־‬they had m a d e s His pact w i t h t h e m that ‫ ו‬h e y g o t word; h o w near their d i s t a n c e t o him, 1 ; yes w e l l w i t h i n ins ambit d w e l l i n g , they . . .

(17) T h e Israelites moved out and on the day after the morrow arrived at their cit ies

-

these cities being Gibeon, Kephirah, Beerot and Kiriathqeanai. (rS) Yet did !he Israelites not. attack them, for the confederacy's chieftains had taken oath to them hy Y H W H , god of Israel. O n l y t w o days a f t e r t h e d e p a r t u r e of t h e G i b e o n i t e embassy, t h e t r e a t y - g r a n t o r s l e a r n of t h e p r o x i m i t y of t h o s e t o w h o m t h e y h a v e s w o r n i m m u n i t y . A n d a m e r e t w o clays l a t e r t h e Israeli h o s t s a r r i v e a t t h e G i b e o n i t e h o m e l a n d — n o , n o t t h e city of G i b e o n i t s e l f — b u t at G i b e o n , a n d t h r e e o t h e r G i b e o n i t e cities as well. 1 0 A r r i v e ior w h a t p u r p o s e ? T h e v e r b at t h e b e g i n n i n g of verse 17 b e s p e a k s t h e b r e a k i n g of a c a m p a n d t h e p u r p o s e f u l s e t t i n g o u t of a m i g r a t i n g h o r d e . But t h i s p e r i c o p e c o n t i n ties a n d e n d s , n o t w i t h a s t a t e m e n t of t h e p u r p o s e of t h i s b r e a k i n g ot c a m p , but. w i t h a h y p o t a c t ic d e n i a l of w h a t we m i g h t h a v e e x p e c t e d LIS t h e p u r p o s e a n d e v e n m a t ion of this m o v e , a n a t t a c k o n t h e G i b e o n i t e s . T h e reason tor this n o n - e v e n t is t h e n g i v e n in t h e b o t t o m l i n e of t h i s s y n o p t i c episode: it !‫ יי‬r h e o a t h t a k e n by t h e

POETICAL O D D S A N D A DDENTDA

401)

c o n f e d e r a c y ' s c h i e f t a i n s by Y H W H , I s r a e l s god. I n a s m u c h as t h e n a r r a t o r n e e d n o t i n f o r m us as t o w h a t r o l e Y H W H fills for Israel, t h e a d d i t i o n of t h e n a m e ( m i s s i n g i n verse 15), t h e first n o t i c e of t h i s o a t h , a l o n g w i t h t h e a t t r i b u t i o n , m a y b e c o n f i d e n t l y r e a d as t h e n a r r a t o r s signal t h a t t h i s d e c i s i o n t o h o n o r t h e o a t h was i n k e e p i n g w i t h w h a t t h e y o w e d t o t h e god by w h o m t h e y s w o r e . T h e r e s u m p t i v e e p i s o d e Ε b e g i n s w i t h t h e last clause of verse 18, w h i c h i n f o r m s us t h a t t h e a r r i v a l a t t h e b o t t o m l i n e was n o t a f o r e g o n e c o n c l u s i o n .

Episode E.

OJtagWn und Reprisal

Decree

T h e c o n f e d e r a c y ' s r a n k ‫ ׳‬a n d d . d e grumbled a g a i n s t i h e r b i e i t a i n s . ( κ ; ) T h e c h i e h a m s all a d d r e s s e d t h e c o n f e d e r a t e r a n k s , " W e d i d take o a t h t o t h e m by Y H W H , g o d of Israel. H e n c e , w e m a y d o t h e m n o h a r m . ( 2 0 ) T h i s we m u s t d o t o t h e m — ( y o u ) g u a r a n t e e t h e i r lives — o n l y t h u s averl from ourselves [God'sj wral h |in k e e p i n g with (lie o a t h w e took t o t h e m . " ( 2 1 ) T h u s did the ehielt a ins dccrce 10 diem: Ί 'hey are to live. A n d t h u s d i d t h e y b e c o m e h e w e r s of w o o d a n d d r a w e r s ot w a t e r f o r all t h e c o n f e d e r ‫״‬ acy, i n k e e p i n g w i t h t h e d e c l a r a t i o n t o t h e m of t h e c h i e f t a i n s .

T h e g r u m b l i n g of t h e r a n k - a n d - f i l e c a n o n l y be a g a i n s t t h e c h i e f t a i n s ' d e c i s i o n , w h i c h p r e c l u d e s a n a t t a c k o n t h e wily G i b e o n i t e s . Yet t h e s e c h i e f t a i n s h o l d fast t o t h e o a t h s w o r n by t h e m i n Y H W H - n a m e , t o d o t h e G i b e o n i t e s n o h a r m , t h e exp r e s s i o n for t h e l a t t e r b e i n g literally " t o t o u c h / l a y h a n d " u p o n t h e m . T h i s u n i t of d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e is u n a m b i g u o u s , a n d w o u l d a p p e a r s u f f i c i e n t r e s p o n s e t o t h e disg r u n t l e d r a n k s of Israel. B u t t h e i r d i s c o u r s e d o e s n o t s t o p h e r e . I n s t e a d w e h a v e a c o n t i n u a t i o n of it i n v e r s e 20, w h i c h w o u l d a p p e a r n o t o n l y r e p e t i t i v e l y r e d u n d a n t , b u t s y n t a c t i c a l l y p e r v e r s e l y a w k w a r d . S u c h t r a n s l a t i o n s as t h a t of AV, ( " T h i s w e will d o t o t h e m a n d let t h e m l i v e " ) , w h i l e n o t u n f a i t h f u l t o t h e H e b r e w o r i g i n a l , c o n c e a l f r o m t h e r e a d e r t h a t t h e r e is a jerky s u c c e s s i o n of verbs, a first p e r s o n p l u r a l i m p e r f e c t e x p r e s s i v e of a c o h o r t a t i v e or o b l i g a t o r y m o d a l i t y (This let us/must

we do)

f o l l o w e d by a s i n g u l a r i m p e r a t i v e , i m p l i c i t l y s e c o n d p e r s o n , c o l l e c t i v e (you, allow them to live). H e n c e m y o w n t r a n s l a t i o n , w h i c h b e g i n s w i t h a n e l l i p t i c a l s t a t e m e n t i n f r e e d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e of h o w w e ( c o r p o r a t e Israel) m a y deal w i t h t h e m , t h i s foll o w e d by t h e d e i c t i c w a w a n d t h e i m p e r a t i v e " t h a t is, you [for y o u r p a r t | m u s t agree t o t h e i r safety f r o m p h y s i c a l h a r m . " T h i s is t h e n f o l l o w e d by t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t o n l y t h u s , t h a t is, by your a g r e e m e n t to t h e i r sur\ ival a n d t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of o u r ( g a p p e d ) p r o p o s a l , c a n we a c h i e v e a goal m u t u a l l y s a t i s f a c t o r y t o us, yet n o t inc u t t i n g H e a v e n s w r a t h . By t h i s t w o - p r o n g e d p r o p o s a l , r e p o r t s verse 21, did t h e c h i e f t a i n s s u c c e e d in d e c r e e i n g t h e survival of t h e G i b e o n i t e s in Israel's m i d s t . A n d t h e g a p p e d p r o p o s a l " t h i s w e m u s t d o " is n o w b r i d g e d or filled in by t h e c o n c l u s i o n , of t h e verse, t h e b o t t o m l i n e of t h i s r e s u m p t i v e e p i s o d e b: t h e u p s h o t of t h e m a t t e r was t h a t t h e G i b e o n i t e s " b e c a m e h e w e r s of w o o d a n d d r a w e r s of w a t e r for all the confederacy—this

in keeping with the declaration

to them [to G i b e o n i t e s , t o Israelites,

or t o b o t h ? ] of the chieftains " Just h o w t h e r a n k - a n d - f i l e d e m a n d t h a t t h e G i b e o n i t e s h e e l i m i n a t e d f r o m Isr a e l s m i d s t is r e c o n c i l e d w i t h t h e i r survival as m e n i a l s for all t h e tribes of t h e c o n f e d e r a c y is far f r o m clear. A t t h e least it w o u l d s e e m t o r e q u i r e a r e d u c t i o n of sen-

426

S U P P L E M E N T S , CON C LI' SIGNS, A N T I C I P A T I O N S

t e n c e from extirpation to slavery and a distribution of t h e G i b e o n i t e slaves a m o n g t h e tribes of Israel, these at t h e m o m e n t constituting a migratory horde, o n e not destined ior decades or centuries to come into settled possessions ‫״‬from Dan to Beersheba" T h e resolution ot this problem will appear w h e n we recognize t h a t this last verse of Kpisode h is the b o t t o m litte of an episode t h a t , while it f u n c t i o n s as t h e resumptive of synoptic Episode D, !‫־‬unctions also as the synoptic for the re-‫־‬ sumptive hp ist )de F.

Episode F, Resumption of Reprisal, Recapitulation

of Decree

(22) Joshua summoned them and dressed them down, to wit: "Why did you deceive us, saying 4We are at a far far distance from you,' when you live well within our ambits center? (23) Now, then: Under ban you are [decreed] to be. Never will there tail to be from among you slave, hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my god!" (24) In response to Joshua they said, "Verily it was told in detail to your servants that which your god YHWH ordained to his servant Moses, to grant you all this land and exterminate on your account all the inhabitants of the land. In great tear tor our lives were we on your account, hence we did what: we did. (25) And, now, we are in your power. However it seems proper and upright in your opinion to treat us, do so!" (26) Thus did he do to them, as told, delivering them from the Israelite s power, so that they did not kill them. (27) Thus it was that Joshua dedicated them at that time as hewers of wood and drawers of water to the confederacy, and [or, that is] to the altar of YHWH ™continuing to this very day—in the place that He chooses [feu‫ ־‬it]. T h e narrative logic ol our story requires t h a t the address oi Joshua to t h e G i b e o n i t e s in verse 22 take place b e t w e e n verses 17 and 18; while the altercation b e t w e e n t h e chieftains and t h e rank-and-file of t h e confederacy and its resolution needs to h a v e taken place before the action related in verse 17, t h e advance of t h e warriors of Israel from the camp at Gilgal to the territory of t h e Gibeonites. Further to he noted in this concluding episode is that t h e personae of Joshua and t h e confederacys chieftains are assimilated to o n e a n o t h e r as a single protagonist as in verse 15 (pericope G), verse 18 (pericope F)), and verses 1 Sb :21 (pericope H); while similarly assimilated to o n e a n o t h e r as a single protagonist arc t h e ‫ ״‬h a r d liners,‫ ״‬t h e Ts yisrä'el of verses 6 and 7 (pericope B) and the cda of verses 18b and ι y (pericope E). T h e proposal of the chieftains, gapped in verse 20 and expressed in verse 21, is t h e n t h e verdict or decree p r o n o u n c e d by Joshua to t h e G i b e o n i t e s in verse 23. T h e f o r m u l a t i o n in t h e m o u t h of Joshua differs, however, b o i h from the n a r r a t o r s explication of t h e decree " T h e y are to live" in verse 2 1 — b u t only as "hewers of wood and drawers of water for all the c o n f e d e r a c y " — a n d from the n a r r a t o r s explication of Joshua's decree as well in t h e c o n c l u d i n g verse 27. T h e two di if er ing formu I at ions in Episode F, of Joshua's in verse 23 and of t h e n a r r a t o r s in verse 21, thus together resolve t h e questions we raised about t h e gap-filling formulation of t h e chieftains in Episode Ε (verse 21). T h e menial service to which :he G i b e o n i t e s are doomed forever does not. require the geographic dispersal of the Gibeonites throughout Israel. T h e i r service "to t h e confederacy" in verse 27 is explicated by

P O E T I C A L ODDS A N D A DDENTDA

401)

t h e deictic waw u t h a t is"—"to t h e altar of Y H W H . " By fulfilling this f u n c t i o n they will thus he "stand-ins" tor t h e Israelite confederacy at large, w h o bear t h e b u r d e n of t h e c e n t r a l sanctuary's support. T h a t Israel at large is to be relieved of this obligation for ongoing generations (verse 27, " c o n t i n u i n g to this very day") is implicit in t h e formulation ot the decree to t h e Gibeonites. T h e word J urfir(nn), as I long ago argued, bespeaks a metaphorical wall or enclosure that separates o n e entity trom another. 1 1 In this case, the simple sparing of the Gibeonites' lives would eventuate in their intermarriage with and assimilation i n t o t h e Israelite folk. T h i s eventriality is ruled out hy the proposal of the chieftains and t h e decree of Joshua: t h e G i b e o n i t e s are not to b e c o m e chattel slaves as individuals or in tof.o. Incorporated t h o u g h they may be in t h e Israelite entity, t h e y will constitute a separate entity that will n o t be p e r m i t t e d to iniermarry and assimilate w i t h Israel. T h e y will thus c o n s t i t u t e a caste w i t h i n I s r a e l — c o n d u c t i n g their lives in n o r m a l f a s h i o n — b u t fated to m a i n t a i n their separate identity so t h a t in every g e n e r a t i o n they may supply t h e hierodules to w h o m will he assigned t h e necessary but less dignified service to "the altar of Y H W H " t h a n those acts performed by t h e a u t h o c h t o n o u s Israelite castes, t h e priests, and (other) Levites of t h e "sons of Levi" N o essentially contradictory exegesis to t h e foregoing can be (or at least, has b e e n ) proposed for t h e p r e g n a n t f o r m u l a t i o n t h a t might equally well be rendered, "now t h e n , outside t h e pale you are, in t h a t t h e r e must n e v e r he cut off (i.e., cease to exist) f r o m a m o n g you some one(s) in thrall, splitters of kindling and haulers of water for my god's t e m p l e " But t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of Joshua's direct discourse is notable for o t h e r significant features, w h i c h will n o t be lost o n t h e ear trained to c a t c h n u a n c e s in narrative style generally a n d biblical idiom in particular. As I h a v e rendered t h e Hebrew, Joshua first asks a question, t h e response to w h i c h is so obvious to the s t u d e n t ot t h e Bible as to p r o m p t t h e question why it is raised at all. Joshua does not wait for t h e answer and proceeds immediately to t h e decree, which says in effect, No aimcer will du, herewith I declare your punishment, and only t h e n are t h e G i b e o n i t e s allowed to answer t h e question t h a t was asked of them. If this were t h e purport‫ ־‬or t h e only purport of J o s h u a s discourse, the "why" of the question " W h y did you deceive us:" would be expressive oi a rhetorical ques‫״‬ tion rather t h a n one for information. W h e r e v e r a question of why in biblical 1 lebrew is unquestionably and unequivocally rhetorical that word is ntuddîT' "how does it t h e n t r a n s p i r e " expressive ot surprise, a s t o n i s h m e n t , incredulity, c o n s t e r n a t i o n and e v e n — protest. "The expression oi why in a purely i n f o r m a t i o n a l c o n t e x t , or tinged with some expression oi surprise is lama appearing—·as we should expect‫—־‬ almost four times as o f t e n as the more restrictive maddua. H e n c e , if in Joshua's expression to t h e Gibeonites, the why were followed by t h e c o n d e m n a t o r y decree and n o t h i n g else, it would h a v e been expressed by maddïia. But t h e q u e s t i o n — a f t e r t h e dialogue follow-up of c o n d e m n a t o r y decree, w h i c h allows only for a strong rhetorical e l e m e n t in it — is followed by t h e response of t h e Gibeonites, treating t h e lämä "why" as a request for e x p l a n a t i o n and providing t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n . T h e explanation is t h a t t h e G i b e o n i t e s wert‫ ־‬afraid of being e x t e r m i n a t e d in a herem-war. T h i s explains their lying as to their origin, and their immediately following words ac> c e p t m g any decision of Joshua'- is ambiguous in this respect: while in narrative order it follows the decree of Joshua, in chronological order it may h a v e preceded

428

S U P P L E M E N T S , C O N CLI'SIGNS, A N T I C I P A T I O N S

it. In t h a t ease, verse 26 is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e as a w e l c o m i n g of t h e decree of Joshua, t h e negative aspect of imposition of caste and servitude being a nugatory consideration as against t h e a l t e r n a t i v e ot' a n n i h i l a t i o n : T h u s h e dealt (ken "as told"), delivering t h e m from t h e power of the Israelites, so that they could n o t kill t h e m . As we suggested earlier, however, the question of why the G i h e o n i t e s resorted to lie and ruse to win a peace treaty would never have been asked by a student of t h e P e n t a t e u c h , w h o knows h o w o f t e n the e x t e r m i n a t i o n of the promised l a n d s η atives is ordained. A n d in t h a t case, n e i t h e r would it h a v e been asked by Joshua, w h o was at least as well informed as we are. A n d the answer of t h e Gibeonites, "verily it was told to u s " — t h a t is, we h a d it on t h e best a u t h o r i t y — r e q u i r e s examin a t i o n o n two counts, t h e o n e substantive: h o w did t h e y get this reliable inform a t ion; a n d t h e o t h e r stylistic: t h e strange formulation ot the i n f o r m a t i o n they received. In respect to t h e latter, a more literal rendering of the H e b r e w is, " t h a t Y H W H , your [Joshua] god charged his servant Moses :o give you [the Israelites] all t h e land a n d to destroy all t h e land's inhabitants from your f r o n t " N o w t h e Lord could promise Moses to give Israel t h e land, promise repeatedly expressed by 'ämar "averred" or nisbä "swore." But Moses was n o more commanded (shvä) to give you (pi.) t h e land t h a n h e was to exterminate {hismJd) its i n h a b i t a n t s from your advance. Both t h e granting of t h e land and t h e clearing of its i n h a b i t a n t s ( m e t a p h o r ically speaking to be sure) are t h e activities of Y H W H , promises to Moses, b u t n o t delegated to h i m for performance. A n d this requires us to e x a m i n e those texts in the P e n t a t e u c h t h a t we so confidently assumed (or presumed) constitute the c o m m a n d s of Y H W H t h a t Israel c o m m i t genocide against t h e i n h a b i t a n t s of C a n a a n . N o c o m m a n d to sue 11 el I cet exists in Genesis. The o n e intimation of t h e necessit.y of C a n a a n ' s being vacated to make room for Israel's settlement is in 1 5:16: t h e accumulation of A m o r i t e offenses will not add up to a sentence of extirpation for several generations yet to come. Against the n o t i o n that a n n i h i l a t i o n of a populace is a light m a t t e r for t h e god of Israel is t he debate preceding the doom of S o d o m in Genesis 18 and t h e rise of two nations from t h e loins oi hot, despite their incestuous origin in C h a p t e r 19. N o c o m m a n d to such effect exists in Exodus. The A m a l e k w h o attack Israel in C h a p t e r 17, a clan deriving f r o m Esau, n e i t h e r settled in. territory promised to Israel nor constitutes o n e of t h e supposedly proscribed nations t h a t must be cleared f r o m Israel's p a t h . T h e notice at this c h a p t e r s end, twice phrased and full of ambiguity, to be recorded in writing and d i n n e d into Joshua s ears, is that it is Y H W H w h o intends at some future time to blot out any trace 01 this e t h n i c group. A n d t h e reason, supplied in D e u t e r o n o m y 2 5 : 1 7 - 1 9 , is t h a t this treacherous attack by a kindred people was directed at t h e w o m e n and children and s u p e r a n n u a t e d w h o brought up t h e rear of Israel's migrating multitude. T h e one pericope in this book t h a t focuses o n Israels c o m i n g arrival at t h e territory of A m o r i t e , Hittite, Perizzite, C a n a a n i t e , Hivvite, and Jebusite ( 2 3 : 2 0 - 3 3 ) features Y H W H " s clearing t h e way for Israel, by means of sir a (variously rende reel as /torn er or pestilence), which will drive out (grs) these natives. A t t h a t this process is to be a gradual one. T h e one prescription to Israel is n o t to make a treaty iü/iern t r i e lôhëhem "with t h e m along

P O E T I C A L ODDS A N D A DDENTDA

401)

with their gods." T h e reason "they may n o t dwell in your land" is t h a t they m i g h t lure you i n t o worshipping their gods. But suppose they abjure their gods in favor of Y H W H ? T h i s question is unanswered, for it is n o t raised. N o c o m m a n d to such effect exists in N u m b e r s . In 1 0 : 2 9 - 3 3 Moses invites his M i d i a n i t e brother-in-law H o b ah, son of his f a t h e r - i n d a w R e u e b to scout tor Israel in their wilderness travels, promising to share with h i m t h e felicitous destiny in t h a t place t h a t Y H W H has promised to grant t h e m . I n a s m u c h as the invitation is first declined a n d t h e n renewed w i t h o u t a second response from H o b a k it is n o t clear w h e t h e r h e relented or n o t . T h a t this e x c h a n g e is immediately followed hy the notice, t h a t Y H W H ' s cloud hovered above t h e Israelites during their daytime m o v e m e n t s and by Moses' i n v o c a t i o n to Y H W H at every start to clear the way of their a d v a n c e need n o t mean that‫ ־‬I lobab was n o t moved from his i n t e n t to return ‫״‬ t ο my own n a t i v e land." '!"his because a separate m e t a p h o r may be intended here.1•'· But what the text does make clear is that t h e native land of t h e Midianitcs is outside the C a n a a n i t e pale of settlement, and that Midianitcs are welcome in t h a t territory destined for Israel's possession. d he story of t h e attack o n Israel by t h e Canaan it e king 0( Arad (in the Nogcb) is witness either to (his later Judaean territory n o t h a v i n g been considered p a n oi t h e promised land (an easily dismissable possibility) or t h a t n o destruction of t h e C a n a a n i t e s there had been dictated by G o d . For Israel makes a vow to Y H W H that It will put t o t h e h e re m ‫־׳‬ban " t h e m and their cities" if h e delivers t h e m to Israel! (Numbers 2 1 : 1 - 3 ) S i n c e a vow is essentially a bribe offered to G o d if he will er tectu ate a h u m a n desire, t h e n o t i o n of a vow uttered to achieve God's help in carrying o u t a n express m a n d a t e of G o d s is t h e h e i g h t of absurdity. I n a s m u c h as the archaeological spade has uncovered n o level a n t e d a t i n g settlement at Arad prior 10 t h e t i m e of the J u d a e a n monarchy, this entire fictive n o t i c e would seem designed to c o n t r a d i c t the n o t i o n of a divine c o m m a n d to e x t e r m i n a t e t h e C a n a a n i t e s . W h e r e a genociclal war seems to be indicated (as h a v i n g t a k e n place) in t h e Book of N u m b e r s is in ( t h e intriguingly separated) chapters 2 5 and 31, C h a p t e r 25 begins with t h e 'am (of Israel ) ‫ ״‬- a t e r m ambiguous in t h a t it can stand for a populace or for t h e empowered council or p a r l i a m e n t of t h a t p o p u l a c e — c o m m i t t i n g harlotry w i t h M o a b i t e w o m a n . W h a t e v e r acts, literally sexual or metaphorically 11 straying from fidelity," in t h e t e r m for "harlotry" (?n/1), this activity involves participation in sacrificial feasts celebrated in tribute to t h e gods or ancestral spirits of t h e Moabites. T h i s interfaith intercourse, characterized as Israels "coupling with Baal Peor" ires Y H W H to inflict u p o n Israel a pestilence t h a t takes a toll of twenty-four t h o u s a n d lives before it is abruptly haired by the enterprise ot Phineas, grandson of‫ ׳‬A a r o n , the priest. Ί his enterprise is his spontaneous spearing of an Isracine noble together with t h e foreign woman in his embrace; a d e n o u e m e n t not altogether c o n g r u e n t with the preceding notice of Y1 IWI1 to Moses t h a t t h e rem‫׳‬ cd y lor the harlotry-inspired pestilence is the public i m p a l e m e n t oi all the chieftains ot the ‫׳‬am. I he oddest feature of this account, however, is t h a t t h e w o m a n who is transfixed together w i t h her Israelite lover is not a Moabite, but a M i d i a n i t e p n n c c s v Moses is t h e n instructed by Y H W H to open hostilities against the Midiunites in return for their hostile wiles which lured Israel into t h e embrace of Baal Peor

448

SUPPLEMENTS, CON C LI' SIGNS, A N T I C I P A T I O N S

N u m b e r s 3 1 o p e n s w i t h a r e p e t i t i o n of Y H W H ' s c o m m a n d t o i n i t i a t e h o s t i l i t i e s against

the

Midianites,

this

time

the

bidding

formulated

as t h e

exaction

of

Y H W H ' s v e n g e a n c e , a n d as t h e last m i s s i o n t o b e e x e c u t e d b y M o s e s b e f o r e h e d i e s . M o s t of t h i s c h a p t e r , v e r s e s 1 3 - 5 4 » i‫׳‬s d e v o t e d t o t h e a f t e r m a t h of t h e M i d i a n i t e d e f e a t , t h e d i v i s i o n ot t h e s p o i l a n d — o f r e l e v a n c e t o o u r t h e m e — t h e s l a u g h t e r of e v e r y m a l e i n f a n t a n d of e v e r y f e m a l e c a p t i v e w h o h a d h a d i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h a m a n . A m o n g t h e indications t h a t this constitutes herem-war are t h e following: 1. T h e casual b l e n d i n g or overlay of M o a b and M i d i a n as t h e enemy. T h i s narrative strategy will h a v e b e c o m e familiar 10 t h o s e w h o h a v e a t t e n d e d to t h e plays o n personae and protagonists, individual and corporate, that 1 h a v e h i t h e r t o n o t e d in both narratives and structures.‫י ־‬ 2.

[ h e recourse lo two adversarial groups that are o n e , or to o n e w h i c h hi lutea tes i n t o two‫ ׳‬begins in 22: ί with the LraeliteV. e n c a m p m e n t at ihe Rifts of M o a b o n t h e east side oi t h e Jordan across iron! j e r i e h o . d he.se n i t s or wad is are n o m o r e t h e legitim a t e territory of M o a b t h a n the W a d i G e r a r was t h a t of Philistia. 1 4 For Israel has been forbidden to e n c r o a c h upon M o a b i t e sovereignty, a n d M o a b makes n o effort t‫׳‬o repel a n invasion of its voil. Rather, Ralak. t h e k i n g of M o a b , in his fear of w h a t t h e Israelite borders may do to t h e ecology, sends for t h e warlock e x t r a o r d i n a i r e Balaam f r o m his n a t i v e territory Pethor, w h i c h is located o n t h e Euphrates, But this only after h e has addressed his tear of Israel, n o t to his o w n council, b u t to t h e ebders of M i d i a n . N o w since t h e plot as it develops will require a war of e x t i r p a t i o n , t h e e n e m y c a n n o t be M o a b , w h i c h has been granted i m m u n i t y by Y H W H (this el· e m e n t is, of course, gapped and only bridged in D e u t e r o n o m y ) , h e n c e t h e M i d i a n ite compile ity in t h e seduction ot Israels f a i t h f u l to t h e Baal Peor horror.

3. T h e sexual liaisons a e n v e e n Israelites and M o a b i t e w o m e n , w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e t h e Peor sin against Y H W H , segue into liaisons w i t h M i d i a n i t e w o m e n , thus p r o v o k i n g t h e h e r c m - w a r against this people, w h i c h — u n l i k e M o a b — h a s received n o grant of immunity from Y H W H . 4. T h i s s u d d e n iransformatieni of M i d i a n i t e s f r o m t h e friendly family i n t o w h i c h Moses has married into virulent enemies, a n d their presence in h u g e n u m b e r s east of t h e J o r d a n River on terrirory occupied hy M o a b (whereas Moses' flight f r o m Egypt to M i d i a n i t e terrirory would place this people in t h e S i n a i to t h e east of Egypt, or e v e n to the southeast oi t h a i p e n i n s u l a where Moses acquired his " C u s h ite" wife), is a t t e n d e d by o t h e r marvels of incongruity. 5. T h e loot t a k e n by Israel includes 6 7 5 , 0 0 0 head of t h e flocks, 7-2,000 head (‫ (י‬t h e herds, 61,000 asses, and the sole surviving h u m a n s : μ , ο ο ο virginal w o m e n . Of ibis spoil, t h e participating warriors ( o n e t h o u s a n d from each ot t h e twelve tribes) reeeive hall minus 0.02 percent, which goes to {lie priests; !he rank and file ol t h e confederacy receive halt n u n i h 0.2 p e r c e n t , which goes to t h e Levites, Aside from such staggering wealth ot the Midianites, t h e assignment of ι p e r c e n t to t h e Levites and o n e - t e n t h of a p e r c e n t ic‫ ׳‬t h e priests c o n f o r m s to t h e legislation for later times a p p o r t i o n i n g to t h e Levites a l i t h e from all Israel a n d a t e n t h of t h a t t i t h e to t h e priests from the Levites. But this assignment would appear to be o u t of all propor‫״‬ tion to t h e ratio of 23,000 bevites (see N u m b e r s 26:52) to t h e A a r o n i d e priests Eleazar and his overlooked b r o t h e r Ithamar. 6. Finally t h e r e is t h e >ee1va1w d o c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n t h e n o t i c e of t h e p a r t i n g of Balaam and Balak in 24:30 and t h e presence of Balaam a m o n g those w h o fell to Israelite sword in

1 ‫ ן‬:S. l h e !ormer verse reads "Balaam proceeded to go off, r e t u r n i n g

to his place; Balak now also w e n t his own way." A p p a r e n t l y then. Balaam's "place" in

POETICAL ODDS A N D ADDENDA

43 I

this verse is n o t t h e Pe thor-on - the 4 Euphrates - ] River, and of his ethnic kindred of 22:5, but a m o n g t h e M i d i a n i t e elders addressed by Balak in 22:4. T h e r e h e apparently 1‫־‬em a i n e d a f o r c e for evil c o u n s e l in t h a t 31:15 h a s Moses laying t o his door the tarai luring of Israels males to t h e Peor apostasy represented by their intercourse with t h e w o m e n of Mid?an. 7. T h e final discrepancy is n o t w i t h i n this story itself b u t w i t h c h a p t e r s 6 - 8 in t h e Book of Judges. W h e r e a s t h e war in N u m b e r s e v e n t u a t e s in t h e total destruction of t h e tive kings of M i d i a n a n d all their followers, a few g e n e r a t i o n s later t h e c a m e l ‫׳‬ riders of M i d i a n , organized u n d e r four kings, t o g e t h e r w i t h A m a l e k i r e s ( w h o are normally situated s o m e w h e r e in Sinai) a n d o t h e r " c h i l d r e n of t h e e a s t " cross t h e Jordan f r o m t h e east and c o m m i t t h e i r d e p r e d a t i o n s as far west and south as Gaza. T h e i r fighting m e n n u m b e r at least 135,000. A n d f r o m t h e i r ill-defined (or rather, totally u n d e f i n e d ) p r e c i n c t s , w h i c h c a n he n e i t h e r t h e C u l e a d of Israel's transJ o r d a n i a n tribesman, nor t h e steppes of M o a h and A m n i o n ( a n d what othei t e r n tory is there:') t h e y c o m e not as raiding parties but as a migrating locust-like horde, t o g e t h e r with their livestock and tenls. In D e u t e r o n o m y a l o n e d o w e find a n y t e x t s — a n d a t t h a t , o n l y t w o - — t h a t m a y b e f a i r l y r e a d as a c o m m a n d ( d e r i v i n g f r o m D e i t y ) t o e x t e r m i n a t e t h e n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n s of t h e p r o m i s e d l a n d . A n d h e r e , t o o , t h e v o i c e is t h a t of Meases, a n d t h e foru l u l a t i o n as w e l l as t h e c o n t e x t of h o w t h e s e p o p u l a t i o n s a r e t o h e t r e a t e d n e e d n o t a t all a d d u p t o a s e n t e n c e of e x t i r p a t i o n : ( 1 ) W h e n Y H W H your god brings you to t h e land i n t o t h e possession of w h i c h you are about to enter, and casts o f f 1 5 f r o m your a d v a n c e great n a t i o n s the H i t t i t e , and t h e Girgashite, and t h e A m o r i t e , and t h e C a n a a n i t e , a n d t h e Perizzite, a n d t h e Hivvite, and the J e h u s ! r c — s e v e n n a t i o n s greater a n d mightier t h a n y o u — ( 2 ) a n d Y H W H your god disposes t h e m before you so t h a t you defeat t h e m : you shall p u t t h e m t o the /icrem-han. G r a n t t h e m n o treaty a n d s h o w t h e m n o grace. (3) N o r may you intermarry with them; do n o t give your d a u g h t e r to his son, and take n o t his d a u g h t e r for your son. (4) For he w i l l t u r n your son away f r o m o b e d i e n c e to me, a n d w h e n t h e y (thus) serve other gods Y H W H ' s anger will blaze against you and h e will m a k e quick dispatch 1 you. (5) Thus a n d t h u s a l o n e are you to treat t h e m : t h e i r altars you are to break up, their pillars you are to smash, t h e i r A s h e r a posts you are t o t r u n c a t e and their carved images you are to p u t to t h e torch. ( D e u t e r o n o m y 7 : 1 - 5 ) T h e r e a d i n g o t M o s e s ' i n s t r u c t i o n s as a n i m p e r a t i v e t o c o m m i t g e n o c i d e is b a s e d o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e v e r b hah^ïm

e n t a i l s t h e t o t a l d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e o p p o s -

i n g p o p u l a c e , l i v e s t o c k , a n d a r t i i a c t u a l s p o i l s . But c o n t r a r y t o t h i s , w e h a v e i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t e v e n i n t h e c o n t e x t ‫ ׳‬of a p r e s c r i b e d / i c r c ï n - w a r v i r g i n a l w o m e n m a y b e t a k e n a n d r e s e r v e d for Israelite m a r r i a g e s , l i v e s t o c k m y be h e r d e d to swell t h e store of Y f f W h P s s h r i n e , a n d u t e n s i l s p u r i f i e d f o r u s e s o l o n g as t h e i r f u n c t i o n is n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e f o r i d o l a t r o u s p r a c t i c e . W h e r e a s t h e i o l l o w i n g c o m m a n d in v e r s e 2 — t o m a k e n o t r e a t y w i t h t h e d e f e a t e d e n e m y a n d o f f e r hum n o r e p n e v e ‫״‬ m a y b e r e a d as a r h e t o r i c a l l y r e d u n d a n t b u t e m p h a t i c r e a f f i r m a t i o n , of t h e a b s o l u t e ness of t h e h e r o n - b a n , t h e s a m e c a n n o t b e s a i d f o r v e r s e 3. If m a l e s a n d females a l i k e are t o be s l a u g h t e r e d , i n c l u d i n g e v e n f e m a l e i n f a n t s , t h e r e c a n be n o q u e s t i o n oi i n t e r m a r r i a g e . But d e f e a t of a n e n e m y i n t h e field d o e s n o t m e a n t h e r e d u c t i o n o f h i s cities, a n d t h e r e p e a t e d a s s e r t i o n s o n Y H W H ' s p a r t t h a t t h e i n d i g e n o u s p o p -

4.2 ‫ר‬

S U ΓΙ' 1l·!Μ ΗΝ TS, CON CM..I CS 1 ON S, A N T I C I P A T I O N S

illations will not he conquered in a genera!ion, or perhaps two or three, confirms t h e picture of a contested land, much oi it m t h e h a n d s oi the proscribed enemy, and t h e consequent t e m p t a t i o n s to come to ternis with, t h e m or to c o n t r a c t m a r ‫׳‬ riage alliances in the periods ol stalemate. Most telling, however, is t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of verse 5. Instead of specifying t h e proper herein-war procedure of p u t t i n g m e n , w o m e n , and children, old and young, to t h e sword, t h e contrary prescribed behavior is t h e destruction of pagan cult-practices, those cult-practices t h a t are t h e reason for t h e herem-ban of peace treaty 01‫ ־‬intermarriage: t h e fear t h a t Israel might be seduced into imitating t h e m . T h e second passage in D e u t e r o n o m y having reference to herem-war is verse 2 0 : 1 0 - 1 8 . Its primary c o n c e r n is c o n d u c t ot war against an e n e m y outside t h e borders promised to Israel. If such a city accepts an otter of peace and surrenders, you may subject it to feudal obligations. If it rejects such an offer and, as a result of Y H W H ' s h e l p succumbs to a siege, t h e n — a c c o r d i n g t o most translations—;you are to put all its males to the sword. S i n c e such a prescription of e x e c u t i o n for all t h e fighting males of a stubborn e n e m y serves the interests of n e i t h e r Y H W H nor his people, our suggestion is t h a t t h e modality ot the verb is permissive rather t h a n imperative: you are free to execute them as you please. W h a t follows, however, seems to give Israel permission to d o w h a t all would take tor granted, namely, to e n j o y t h e spoils of war. T h e p o i n t of this permission, however, as of t h e ambiguous modality of t h e verbal formula "to put to t h e sword," is to foreshadow t h e contrast w i t h herem-wdr: ( 1 4 ) I l o w e v e r , t h e w o m e n , i n f a n t s , c a t t l e a n d w h a t e v e r t h e r e h e w i t h i n t h e city, all its b o o t y , you m a y a p p r o p r i a t e as .spoil, c o n s u m i n g w h a t e v e r b o o t y t h a t y o u r g o d Y H W H h a s g r a n t e d you. ( 1 5 ) S o m a y you t reat all c i t i e s o u t s i d e y o u r p a l e , t h o s e n o t ol t h e s e n a t i o n s | w i t h i n y o u r p a l e f ( 1 6 ) I l o w e v e r , ol t h e c i t i e s ol t h e s e p e o p l e s , t h e e s t a t e |oi w h o m ] Y H W H y o u r god is g r a n t i n g to y o u , vou .dial I n o r s p a r e a n y a n i m a l e . (17)‫־׳‬ R a t h e r , l o t h e /1ercm‫׳‬ban must you put t n e m - • — t h e H i t t i t e , t h e A m o r i t e , t h e C a n a a n ite a n d t h e Perizzite, t h e H i v v i t e a n d t h e J e h u s i t c - - - j u s t as y o u r g o d Y H W H h a s c o m ‫״‬ m a n d e d you, ( 1 8 ) f o r t h i s r e a s o n , t h a t t h e y m a y not t e a c h y o u t o p r a c t i c e i n k e e p i n g w i t h all t h e a b o m i n a t i o n s t h e y p r a c t i c e w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r g o d s a n d t h u s [cause] y o u to c o m m i t offense against your god Y H W H , ( D e u t e r o n o m y .20:14-18)

Again, t h e reason for t h e ruthless removal of t h e land's indigenous inhabitants, ( w h e t h e r projected or performed) by Y H W H n s act or instance or t h a t of his peopie, i n t e r m i t t e n t l y or programmatic ally over generations or centuries, t h a t reason is to immunize Israel from their a b o m i n a b l e ways. But again, t h e q u e s t i o n — u n a n swercd, because it is n e v e r r a i s e d — t h a t we posed 111 c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Exodus 2 3 : 2 0 - 3 3 : Suppose any of these populations abjure their gods and/or their h e i n o u s practices in favor of Y H W H and his ordinances. W e would submit t h a t it is this question t h a t is implicit b e h i n d t h e c o n v o l u t e d narrative of Joshua 9. T h e i n h e r e n t absurdities of a f r i g h t e n e d p o p u l a t i o n trying to persuade a n invading h o r d e that they should abstain f r o m attacking a people whose h o m e is beyond t h e farthest horizon; of a leadership being t a k e n in by a ruse as transparent as it is hoary while t h e hoi polloi insightfully resist it; of t h e failure to consult a god whose oracles and miraculous i n t e r v e n t i o n s are responsible for the

PO ET ÎC Aï. ODDS A N D A D D E N D A

433

success of t h e i n v a s i o n u p t o t h i s p o i n t ; of t h e b i n d i n g f o r c e of a t r i c k - i n d u c e d o a t h or t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e D e i t y will h e m o r e w r a t h f u l o v e r a ( b r o k e n ) p r o m i s e m a d e i n his n a m e t h a n in a d i r e c t c o n t r a v e n t i o n of h i s r e p e a t e d a n d e x p l i c i t a n d unqualified c o m m a n d to e x t e r m i n a t e a p o p u l a t i o n ( w h i c h h e has himself predicted will o n l y d i e o u t o v e r a l o n g p e r i o d of t i m e ) ; of t h e G i b e o n i t e s b e i n g p r i v y t o a m a n d a t e of g e n o c i d e g i v e n by a n u n h e a r d - o f god c a l l e d Y H W H t o a w i l d e r n e s s w a n d e r i n g r a b b l e leader c a l l e d M o s e s , a n d t r u s t i n g in t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y of s u c h a r e v e l a t i o n , as well as in t h e p o w e r t o g u a r a n t e e its success a g a i n s t a far m o r e n u m e r o u s p o p u l a t i o n e n s c o n c e d 111 cities f o r t i f i e d " t o t h e skies;" t h e r e a d i n e s s of t h i s as yet u n c o n q u e r e d p e o p l e t o a c c e p t w h a t e v e r f a t e is o r d a i n e d f o r it by t h e i n v a d e r s w h o h a v e a l r e a d y s w o r n n o t t o h a r m t h e m ; all t h e s e p l o t - a b s u r d i t i e s p o i n t t o t h e key e l e m e n t of t h e G i b e o n i t e s 1 p o s t u r e , w h i c h is at t h e c r u x of t h e n a r r a t i v e . In t h e last r e s p o n s e of t h e s e 1 I n v i t e p a g a n s of C a n a a n t o J o s h u a in verse 24, t h e rcsum/?iii'c r e s p o n s e , w h i c h in n a r r a t i v e t i m e c o m e s b e f o r e t h e synoptic-conclusive J o s h u a , t h e y c o n f e s s t h e i r iear

h e n c e , their faith

d e c r e e of

i n t h e p o w e r of Y H W I I; a

la it h t h e r e f o r e that: does not p r e c l u d e his r e l e n t i n g in r e s p e c t t o t h o s e a b o r i g i n a l C a n a a n i t e s , w h o a b a n d o n t h e i r l o a t h s o m e cults a n d a d o p t t h e god a n d t h e ways of J o s h u a a n d Israel. T h i s r e s p o n s e , let us n o t e , w a s a d u m b r a t e d i n t h e G i b e o n i t e s ' first r e s p o n s e t o J o s h u a . In verse 9, in r e s p o n s e t o t h e q u e s t i o n s "Just w h o is it y o u a r e a n d just w h e r e d o you c o m e f r o m ? " t h e y s e e m t o be s a y i n g t h a t t h e s e q u e s t i o n s a r e i r r e l e v a n t , i n a s m u c h as it is, "for t h e sake of (Mem "for t h e n a m e o f ) y o u r g o d Y H W H we h a v e come." S o m u c h for a n u n q u a l i f i e d d i v i n e d e c r e e t o c o m m i t g e n o c i d e , t h i s in t h e n a m e of t h e " a n g r y G o d of t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t " A r e v i e w of t h e p r o n o u n c e m e n t s a n d n a r r a t i v e s p r e c e d i n g J o s h u a 9 0 6 as well as t h o s e n a r r a t i v e s ( p a r t i c u l a r l y in J o s h u a b u t also i n Judges a n d S a m u e l ) t h a t d i s c l o s e t h e a c t u a l f a t e s of t h e p o p u l a t i o n s of t h e cities w h o s e kings o p p o s e d J o s h u a , will disclose h o w c u n n i n g l y t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t o r s c o n t r i v e d t o c o n v e y o n e i m p r e s s i o n as t o t h e d i s a p p e a r a n c e in m o n a r c h i c a l t i m e s of t h e a b o r i g i n a l races then no longer in the land a n d p r o v i d e q u i t e a n o t h e r r e a d i n g i n J o s h u a 9; a r e a d i n g t h a t m u s t b e t r a c e d b a c k t o p r i m o r d i a l t i m e s in t h e p r o p h e t i c n a r r a t i v e of N o a h s d r u n k e n n e s s , a n d p u r s u e d f u r t h e r i n t h e f a t e of t h e G i b e o n i t e s u n d e r S a u l a n d D a v i d , t h e h i e r o d u l e class of N e t h i n i m in t h e t i m e of Ezra a n d N e h e m i a h a n d t h e d o m i c i l i n g of t h e w i l d e r n e s s t a b e r n a c l e in t h e city of G i b e o n . Yet we s h a l l h a v e missed a s i g n i f i c a n t l i n k in t h e saga of t h e G i b e o n i t e s , or r a t h e r a critical e l e m e n t in t h e i r saga's k e r y g m a , if we fail to a t t e n d t o t h e last baffling clause that‫ ״‬c o n c l u d e s t h e Rook of Z e c h a r i a h . A f t e r Y H W H ' s i n f l i c t i o n of a c r u s h i n g d e f e a t 011 t h e p e o p l e s g a t h e r e d to assail J e r u s a l e m (14:1 2 - 15), t h e t r m m p h of t h e o n e a n d o n l y god expressed in t h e e s c h a tologica! p e r i c o p e , 1 4 : 6 - 1 1 ( ‫ ״‬A t t h a t t i m e will Y H W H b e c o m e k i n g ol all t h e e a r t h , at t h a t t i m e it will he Y H W H a l o n e a n d his n a m e a l o n e " ) , is f o l l o w e d by t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s of t h i s t r i u m p h tor t h e cult c e n t e r in J e r u s a l e m ( 1 4 : 1 6 - 2 3 ) . 1 7 I will p a r a p h r a s e t h i s passage, i n t e r p o l a t i n g in b r a c k e t s m y o w n c o m m e n t s : 111 e survivors, [pamcularlyl Ireit! among those nations who had come [in hostility] against Jerusalem will ascend veai in, year out, to do obeisance to King YHWH-hosts, [particularly] in celebration oi the [Harvest] Feast of Tabernacles. A n d surely, if any of these families of Earth do not come up to Jerusalem to do obeisance to King Y H W H -

434

S U PIM ,Κ M H Ν TS, CONC I. U S I ONS, Λ Ν TIC IP AT ΙΟ Ν S

hosts, no rain will fall [on their sown fields]. And if the Egyptian family [which, Nile‫׳‬ led, needs no rain] tails to come up in pilgrimage, verily upon them will tall the affliction with which Yl I W H will assail those nations lahove mentioned] who |ram-depen‫׳‬ dent] yet do not come up to celebrate the Feast ot Tabernacles. [Probably famine, such as afflicted Egypt in Joseph's time.] Such will be the punishment ot Egypt or the punishment of any ot the nations that do not make pilgrimage for the célébration of the Feast of Tabernacles. A t that time upon the head ‫׳‬-ornaments of [even] the horses will be writ [the legend] "Holy to YHWH." A n d the wash-basins in YHWH's temple will he even as the sprinkling-bowls [used] at the altar. A n d [indeed] every cauldron [anywhere] in Jerusalem or Judah will b e — h o l y to YHWH-hosts. A n d [any and] all making sacrifice will come and, taking freely from among them, boil [their meat from the seïem-offerings] in them. Nor will there be any longer in the temple of YHWH-hosts — at that t i m e — a n y Canaanite. I n t h i s v i s i o n of Z e c h a r i a h , m o r e i n k e e p i n g w i t h o u r sense of messianic r a t h e r t h a n eschatalogical,

t h e r e will t a k e p l a c e a u n i v e r s a l i z a t i o n of Y H W H w o r s h i p , a de-

m o c r a t i z a t i o n — s o t o s p e a k — o f s t a t u s i n r e s p e c t t o a l i e n s a n d Israelites, h u m a n s a n d beasts, laity a n d p r i e s t h o o d : t h i s e x p r e s s e d i n i m a g e r y d e r i v i n g f r o m t h e c u l t a n d its a p p u r t e n a n c e s . T h e c a p a r i s o n e d r i d i n g m o u n t s s h a l l b e a r u p o n t h e i r foreh e a d s t h e l e g e n d r e s e r v e d ( i n E x o d u s 2 8 : 3 6 , 3 9 : 3 0 ) f o r t h e f o r e h e a d ot t h e H i g h Priest. T h e large vessels w i t h i n t h e t e m p l e p r e c i n c t s , like t h e brass laver ( E x o d u s 3 0 : 1 8 ) or c o o k i n g p o t s of e v e n h e a v i e r base m e t a l , will b e e q u a l ( i n v a l u e , s a n c t i t y ) t o t h e small vessels of p r e c i o u s m e t a l like t h e s p r i n k l i n g bowls i n t o w h i c h is p o u r e d t h e b l o o d for s p r i n k l i n g t h e altar. I n d e e d t h e p o t s a n d k e t t l e s a n d c a u l d r o n f r o m a n y w h e r e in J e r u s a l e m a n d J u d a h will be as sacred ( p u r e , f i t t i n g for c o n t a i n i n g sacral m e a t ) as t h o s e w i t h i n t h e t e m p l e s p r e c i n c t s , a n d any a n d e v e r y c e l e b r a n t of t h e sheiamim-offerings will be w e l c o m e t o m a k e use of t h e m . A n d , finally, w h e t h e r b e c a u s e t h e lowest c a s t e in t e m p l e - s e r v i c e will be a b o l i s h e d , or w h e t h e r i n v i d i o u s c a s t e d i s t i n c t i o n s will n o l o n g e r apply, n o l o n g e r will t h e r e he in t h e t e m p l e ol Yl I W H , a scion ot t h a t c a s t e o t C a n a a n i t e stock, t h e I l i v v i t e G i b e o n i t e s d e d i c a t e d as h i e r o d u l e s in t h e t i m e of J o s h u a .

AFTERWORD

N o w w e a r e c o m e ro a n e n d . T h e s e last p a r a g r a p h s w e r e d i c t a t e d s h o r t days b e f o r e d e a t h , h e n c e t h e l a c k of s u m m a r y o r c o n c l u s i o n s . Yet: t h e r e is n a u g h t n o r said o v e r a n d a g a i n in t h e p r e c e d i n g p a g e s t h a t w o u l d a d d to, o r clarify, m y f a t h e r s a p p r o a c h a n d m e t h o d o l o g y , a n d it was e v e r h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t o s u c c e e d , his work w o u l d he a c c e p t e d as a b e g i n n i n g r a t h e r t h a n a n e n d i n g . Herschel D.

Bric ht ο

January 1997

NOTES

P HI‫'! ;־‬Αι •H

ι. 11 erben Bricht ο, "On Faith and Revelation in the Bible," HUG A (Hebrew Union College Anr.uaΠ ^9 ( u)68): 37,

CHAPTER I

ι. It is highly unlikely that even the most meticulous of reciters would ever try to distinguish between a dipthong in which the "a" is short and the one in which the "a" is long. Hence the lengthening of the patah here, as in the case in other instances of Masoretic notation, is a signal for the eye and the mind and not the mouth or the ear, (Which is also to say that ketib and qere are not to be taken literally as representing respectively written and oral phenomena. ) The presumptions and underpinnings of this methodology are spelled out in chapters 1 and 2 ot H. C Brichto, Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics (hereinafter designated by TAG), (Oxford; Oxford University Press, 1992). The method is exemplified in the Exegetical Essays, chs. 3 — 7, on prophetic narratives. Chapter 9 of that volume adumbrates the extension of the poetical treatment to the early chapters in the Book of Genesis. See also p. viii of TAG's preface. 3. On the adoption ot this term, see TAG pp. 46, 5 7 - 9 , and listings in the General Index. See TAG, pp. 27ff. ‫ף‬. ^ee, for example, Genesis 20:18 and note e, ad loc. in E. A. Speiser, Genesis, vol. 1 ot The Ancncr Bihie (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964). See also Speiser, ibid., on Genesis 21:21‫ ׳‬and on Genese 22:1 r, 14, 1 5, 6 ‫ ז‬. See also R. N. Why bray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A MVr.UA;' \cical >tu‫׳‬h i Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament !'hereafter JSOT|. 1967). Cited

436

NOT HS TO PAGES 6 - 1 5

437

hereafter as MP. P. 63: "Even Eiskddi admitted that 1 sometimes an Elohim has intruded into a Yah‫׳‬ weh stratum and a Ya/neei! into an Eu •him s t r a t u m / " 6. It is interesting (some would say appalling) to note how many advanced students still think t h e phrase "the exception proves the rule" means that the exception validates the ride rather t h a n puts the rule to the test. 7. Whyhray ( M P , p. 64t.) on the avoidance, of the n a m e Y H W H by Ρ and E: "This theory is hardly convincing, Since both the author of Ε and Ρ and their readers would themselves have been familiar with the name Yah weh, there is no reason, why these writers should not from the very o u t ‫׳‬ set have used the proper name ot (Jod except when quoting the words of their characters." See also Whybray's citation of M. H. Segals "demonstration that a variety of biblical authors of texts where a plurality of documentary sources is out of the question use both Yahweh and Elohim interchangeably (p. 6 7 ) " 8. See below, "On fe r m s to r D1 ν 11 ‫ ו‬i ty, C 'omm ο η and Prop er," ρ. 16. 9. Commentary on Genesis /, transi, from Hebrew by Israel Abrams, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1e>61), pp. 8 7 - 6 8 . 10. T h e point or the ass seeing what even a true prophet will not see when a film of gold is laid over his prophetic eyeglasses would be lost it there were any doubt about Balaam being such a prophet. T h a t he is such is thus guaranteed by the consistent presence of the name YHWH. 11. O n t h e problem of dichotomous analysis, see T A G , pp. 3 0 - 3 4 . 12. This citation is trom Maiitiahu d s e v a C "Cod and the (Sods in Assembly: A n Interprétat ion of Psalm 82," Hl ‫'׳‬CA vols. 4 0 - 4 1 ( 1 9 6 9 - 7 0 ) , p. ]26. Whyhray (MP, p. 69h) is satisfied that the preponderance of bdohim 111 the Elohistic Psalter is U due to redactional or scribal activity" Questions never asked about t h o putative "psalter" is why it exists at all, what drove scribes or redactors to change Yl IWl 1 to H h ‫ י‬l ‫ ב‬i 111 where they did, why they did not: do so elsewhere, why they limited then‫ ־‬activities to these psalms, •and why ihey neglected other names of the Deity in their passion to displace the letragratnmaton. ι 3. do speak of any translation oi the 1‫ ־‬fehrew biblical text as a " v e r s i o n b e the translation old or recent, into a Semitic or Indo‫׳‬European tongue, is to render a status and authority to that trans‫׳‬ lation that has never-—in any instatu e whatsoever—been justified. Needless to say, the promotion of such translations to the status ot ersion" multiplies the quantity of biblical text many times, offers opportunities of specialization to bihlieists whose strengths may lie elsewhere t h a n within t h e parameters of Ο. T. linguistics, and encourages the activities of emenders and glossators whose stance toward the taxtus r^/HiiS can only be described as jaundiced. 14. Speiser, Genesis, pp. XLIII-EIL 15. See chs. 2 and 4 in this volume. 16. Speiser, Genesis, pp. XLl-XLii. 17. A n d indeed in C a n a a n as well, witness t h e fine fragment of the Gilgamesh Epic found at Megiddo in a layer dated a century or two before the Israelite monarchical era. 18. Thus, for example, the mysterious n u m e n with whom Jacob wrestles until the rising of the morning star by the tord of the Jabbok (Genesis 3 2 : 2 5 - 3 3 ) is not the only superhuman personage who serves as intermediary between this patriarch and t h e O n e G o d . In the scene at Bethel ( 2 8 : 1 0 - 2 2 ) there is a strong indication that it is through an angelic intermediary that this G o d identifies Himself to Jacob as YHVfH. Yet Jacob makes a conditional v o w — a s though one car! bar‫׳‬ gain with D e i t y — t o acknowledge Y H W H as h o god, to establish a shrine at that site and, address‫׳‬ ing the representative of Y H W H , apparently, otter h i m — i n the second p e r s o n — "a t e n t h of whatever you grant to me.‫ ״‬in Chapter 3 ‫ ו‬Jacoh tells of an angel of G o d appearing to him in a dream, identifying himself as ha'ei bei-e! (,the numen Betlvel), to whom vow had been made. In 35:1 — 7 it is God who bids Jacob to return to Bethel, to erect an altar there 1 'to the god/uumen (/laef) who was appearing to you when you were tiering from your brother Esau." In 48:15ft. Israel in hlesMng Joseph through his two sons M-em*‫ ־‬in his invocation to identify "the C o d with whom my iather walked" with "the C o d shepherding :ne" since early times, with "the angel who lias been ledeeming me from every trouble." I he prophet 1 losea then, in 12:4 7, idemifies 1 he numen with whom

438

Ν Ο ' Γ Ii S T Ο Γ A c; U S T Q 3

‫׳‬

Γ

Jacob wrestled at the Jabbok ford with the numen oi Bethel "where lie held converse with us"—all this despite the fact that YHWH is the mark/nami‫( ׳‬xikrC 0 or YHWH, God of Hosts. These alternating manifestations ot the One God YHWH through less than omnipotent inter‫׳‬ medianes and seemingly separate numina blending into one another, alternately acknowledged without adverse bias by the One God, yet mildly chided by an early writing prophet, can only be the stuff of metaphor, and humorously tolerant metaphor at that, of a prefiguring ancestor and the descendants' in his likeness, groping their inconsistent way from glimpse of the One True God to particularistic lapses in which He becomes a tame and turclary deity before He is recognized again as One, Unfathomable, Universal and Ineffable, (Ct., particularly in 35:2-4 the only mention of "alien gods" in the patriarchal period and their burial at Shechem.) 19. Speiser, Genesis, pp. xxii-xxiii. 20. See, for example, in S. R. Driver's An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909) pp. 27—28, the tortuous reasoning behind the source analysis of Exodus 7:14-11:10, the plague narratives. 21. See TAG, note 24 to chap. 4, p. 274. 22. Pointless, or illogical rather, as explained by source criticism. But not at all pointless if we consider its appearance from a poetical point ot view. Genesis 4:17-24 presents the line of Cain, concluding in verse 24 with the taunt song of Lamech. This line (see my discussion ad loc.) died out in the Deluge. Verses 25 and 26 then introduce the line that will survive the flood, the line of Seth, lather of Enos (i febrew 1 nüs "human, humanity'1"). The concluding notice in verse 26, the authorial aside that die letragrammaton was known to the iirst generationfs) ot humanity, draws our attention to Eve's deployment of the name ldohim/God when in ver,se 25 she cites 1 leaven's ‫״‬race in ‫״‬ranting her a third son, while in the first verse of t h !.‫ י־‬t haprer .she deploys the name Y1IWÏI in citing the supernal grace that enabled her to produce her firstborn, ( "ain. 2 3 . This is the popular and regularly used expression m ,spoken 1 lehrevv. The Mishna itself, however, knows this expression not at all. Yoma 6:2 as we shall note be-low, reads sem hammL'fôras as discussed below. 24. Rabbinic Hebrew would probably use the stem bt\ modern Hebrew the verb habhïa, for "pronounce, enunciate." 25. The Mishna text does not qualify the noun seem 11name" with the definite article (see note 23 above). The text thus features ,sent in the construct state and kararivforas is a genitive; thus: "the name of the expounded one,'1 01‫" ־‬the name expounded.'" In his commentary on the alteration of the priest's invocation of God by hassem and fravsem, Hanoch Alheck (Sissâ S/cira Mishnä, Israel: BialikDvir, 1958) indicates his understanding ο Γ die Expounded Name as a reference to God's own expo‫׳‬ sition of his name as betokening the middnt "attributes'1 in Exodus 34:5-7. I suspect that Albeck is correct in this reading of the Mishna's intent, for the expression of the exposition as a prolonged statement (and not one bisyllabic word) is indicated by the use of several durative verbs in the past tense. "The priests and the populace standing in the courtyard, as they were hearing the name of the Expounded One as it was issuing from the High Pne-Ts mouth, were bending knees, worshipping falling prone and scrying, 'Praised be . . ."' 26. That is to say, there never existed a set of vowels designed to accompany any of the pronounced consonants whose letters, vocalic or consonantal, were Y-H-W-H. See my following argument.‫׳‬ 27. For the importance of the distinction between literary and metal it er ary conventions and assumptions for exegesis, see TAG, pp. 22-37, 28. Without claiming any additional weight for my argument 1 would cite as of interest the fob lowing: In the Elephantine texts the name tor Israels God is regularly and without exception Yï ÏW. The inscriptions of the divine Name on die two /mlmi fiom Tel Ajrud are Y/ ÎW on (he one and on the second—-if is not at all clear from the drawings the leuer alict Yl iW does nor look like a he. In any case, the case tor a rebuttal ot my argument would depend not on the tact of VJ IW'd l appearing epigraphically, but on die earls d : 1 : 1 1 s : e! such an inscription. The sad history of (die stone bearing Mcshu's inscription rules out a collation u· confirm or cast doubt on ibc supposed

NO Π‫׳‬: S TO PA( Tis

3 1 - 4 7

439

appearance in il of rhe (lull) hn nigra mm a ton. My own feeling is that it is unlikely that t h e Y H W -> Y H W H transi tion would have already been so entrenched by t h e middle of the n i n t h century that a Moabite scribe would not know that Israel's god was named Yahu; h e n c e the clear appearance of the Tetragrammaton on an early inscription, especially one authored by a non-Israelite, would be a significant witness to the :.improbability of my suggestion. 29. See T A G , pp. 2 7--34 tor the latal (in my view) effect on exegesis of t h e assumption that the biblical authors, like their contemporaries in the Near East (but perhaps n o t those in Greece), were n o match in sophistication for ‫״‬modern m a n " 30. See 2 Kings 3 : 4 - 2 4 and my exegetical essay on this narrative in T A G , pp. 201 — 209. 31. W h a t could be clearer evidence that the "name Y H W H " can figure in Scripture as metaphor for G o d s sovereignty and not a vocable in everyday speech? See the following argument for the sense of the construct .sem YHWH.

CHAPTER

2

ι. E. A . Speiser, Genesis, vol. 1 01‫ ׳‬The Anchor Bible (New York: Double day, 1964), pp. 9 . 1 0 ‫״‬ 2. Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), p. 101. 3. Cf. Speiser, Genesis, p. 12, for the welbargued case for reading the first clause as a dependent one. I would, however, take iSMie with his statement that "Hebrew permits a finite verb in this position"—this in reference to hard following the construct‫ ־‬/r'rcsü. T h e support he adduces (as ah ready Rashi ad loc.,) is hlosea 1:2, where the construct‫״‬. I'hillal is followed by d/Wvr-YHWl I, where dibber is presumed to be the verb in the perfect tense. It is much more likely, however, thai dibix'r here is the singular n o u n as in Jeremiah 5 0 ‫( ן‬and plural in later 1 Iebrevv d/W^'roi). Since the Ma‫״‬ so ret es could have precluded the entire problem by vocalizing t h e opening preposition with a tja.1M.es, it is my suspicion that here (a^ m) o f t e n elsewhere) the Masoretes ))reserved a deliberate a m -

biguation in the text. Whereas the dependent clause here as in 2:4b and the opening of Enuma elish is appropriate in context, there is a different kind of grandeur in t h e reading of the opening words as an independent sentence. 4. Eor further support of rii, lit. "see," metonymically "conclude," see ch. 3, η. 6 in this volume. g. Day One, Day ocn, etc., are the only names in Hebrew for the days of t h e week. 6. My translation is based on taking the first pair as a hendiadys "for signs, i.e., of time-periods" and t h e second pair as a merism for longer and shorter periods, i.e. "of days, and years." 7. T h e Masoretes who vocalized the Hebrew text must be regarded as participants in the authorial process of Scripture. This will strike many as a bold claim for the role of the "editors" whom we call Masoretes, for whom rhe termmns a quo is usually regarded as the earliest datable systems of vocalization, be they Babylonian or Tibenan. My own view is that the Masoretic text, i.e., the consonantal text as vocalized in the Rabbinic Bible, is our textus receptus, for without these vocalization aids much of the Hebrew text would be undecipherable. Thus, the majority of cases where M T provides for alternative readings {ketih and qere) should be expounded in terms of possibilities of double entente rather t h a n adjudicated in terms of !1 correct versus an incorrect Vorlage. See, e.g., T A G , pp. 2 1 7 - 2 1 8 , for a classic example ot what I have in mind. Needless to say, the spellings k1, ln\ iü, lü\ löh are prime examples of such interpret i\ e lodes. Note also the comment in note 1 above. 8. See T A G , pp. 1 6 - 1 8 . 9. See "Pagan and Biblical Anthropology: A Contrast," pp. 68 ff. 10. See "Paganism and Biblical Religion Compared and C o n t r a s t e d " pp. 5 8 - 5 9 . 11. T h u s Speiser, ad loc., translating äpar correctly by clod rather than the traditional and incorrect (fust. In note 5 on this verse he comments on the play on words, a resort here to popular eryniology by the win er "who not interest ed in derivation as such." The notion that the etonyin aJaw might have been a coinage 1!r the biblical author's is one that he would have surely rejected. Such indeed was his reaction to• n:\ suggestion that the noun .sub/wi might have been coined with allusion to the Babylonia suppuUnr, \e! wilh '\leriv;1t i< >11" ironi the Hebrew verb sin u lο desist "

44ο

NOTES T O PAGES 4 7 — 7 3

12. This question of liternfness or figuration in respect to fauna that are by nature carnivorous must of course be raised in connection with Genesis 9 : 1 - 8 and Isaiah 1 1 : 6 - 7 . See ch. 4, "Poetical Review ot the Flood Story,‫ ״‬p. 1‫ ־‬s ‫ י‬ft13. See Yehe:kcd K a u f m a n n s discussion. 14. See ch. 3 in this volume. 15. Indeed, the at the end of verse 30, criming after the food-provision for the beasts created on t h e sixth day, but also for the birds created on t h e fifth, may thus apply to all three classes of animates, hence rendering supererogatory LXX's insertion of this phrase in verse 20. 16. Speiser, Gent‫׳‬.sis, p. t τ. 17. Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ed. J. B. Pritchard (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1955), p. 371, col. ι. Hereafter cited as ANET. 18. A n o t h e r more extended and humorous lampoon of the sun as an anthropomorphic god appears in the context ot a stately anthem in praise of the biblical God. See below, my interpretation of Psalm 19. 19. See Kaufmann, Religion of Israel, pp. 21 — 26. 20. For the durative hitpael, see E. A. Speiser, "The Durative Hitpael; A tan Form," from Ort‫׳׳‬ ental and B/Wtcai .Studies, ed. j. J. Finkelstein and M. Greenburg (Phildelphia: University of Permsy 1 νania Press, 196 7 ), ρ. ‫ ך‬ο6. 2 1. T A G , pp. 13-18. 22, Μ, 1 scvau "d he Basic Meaning of the Biblical Sabbath,' 1 Zei'fscliu/i: des deutschen l^alaestinaVereins (beipng) 84 ( 1972), pp. 4 4 7 - 5 9 . OilAPTliR 3 1. T h e term mi^c/edem as a directional preposit ion always connotes "from the east," never "in the cast.11 W h e n ibis sense is inappropriate in a given context, t h e sense of anteriority in time is usually the only meaningful option, d he sense here ol inserting "in that time of yore" is to indicate that the actions (of I iod) arc not related in their chronological order; for surely God would have prepared, the habitat lor /iT'ciam before he lashioned him. d i m s the focus of t h e story- o n this m a n - t h i n g — i s expressed in the initial telling of his creation, and the details of the habitat provided for him coming (in the telling but not in narrative-time) after he is fashioned. 2. Most grammarian^ would not hesitate to pronounce the definite article attached to daat as grammatically inadmissible in biblical Hebrew, o n the ground that a term followed by a genitive construct cannot be definite, i.e., by attachment of prepositive article or postpositive suffix. Yet among the exceptions to this rule is the locative usage mizreha hassem.es (Joshua r2:r, Judges 21:19), and the röb u‫׳‬am' may be in the accusative case governed hy the verb-noun as in Isaiah 11:9 (cf. also Malachi 2:13b Thus Ε. Λ. Speiser, Genesis, veil. 1 of The Anchor Bible (Garden City, N.Y.: Doiibledav, 1064), p. 2 6, notes that in 2:5 and 22, "the objective phrase 'knowing/to know good and bad 1 is faultless in terms ot Heb. syntax. Bat the longer possessive construction 'the tree of knowledge of good and bad' (n 9. ι 7) is otherwise without analogy in biblical Hebrew and may well be secondary." Or, we would argue, the "longer construction 1 ' may also be an "objective phrase." 3. See Speiser, Genesis, pp. 1 9 - 2 0 . "The traditions involved [i.e., edu "flow" and edinu "plain"] must go back, therefore, to the oldest cultural stratum of Mesopotamia. N e x t comes the evidence from the location of Eden which is furnished by the notices about the rivers of that region. Recent data on the subject demonstrate that the physical background of the tale is authentic (see the writer's T h e Rivers of Paradise,' Festschrift Johannes Friedrich, pp. 4 7 3 - 4 8 5 ) , " For all my admiration of the scholarship displayed in this article on Eden's rivers, my own evaluation of its relcvance has changed in the degree of mv growing commitment to the poetical as opposed to the historical or genetic approach to the biblical literature. We no hinger understand just‫ ־‬what Speiser could have had in mind by judging the "phvMcai background of the laie' 1 îo he "authentic." 1 le surely did no! himself believe in the Mtiuetinie cxisierue oi a Garden oi Eden. Did he mean to convey a confidence that 1 he biblical atuhor himselt believed in its existence, and took pains to locate it tor

NOTES TO PAGES us, so rhar we might, ploration of how the revealing or cloaking in the text, "Poetical

168-181

441

perhaps, go looking for it? T h e poetical approach would dictate a further exvensimilitudinous details in the setting contribute to the author's purpose in rhe meaning of the mythos of which this is a constitutive segment. See below Review of Eden."

4. T h e metaphoric intent of this verse and the story behind it is certainly apprehended and expressed in one ot the seven traditional benedictions of the Jewish wedding liturgy. God is invoked to provide joy to the newlvweds, just as he provided joy to his creature (singular) in Eden aforetime (miqqedem). 5, Julian Morganstern, The Book of Genesis (New York: Schocken, 1965), p. 45 ft. ό. See Speisers discussion of the verb ;yd' in t h e sense of "experience" generally and "sexual experience" in particular, Genesis, pp. 3 1 - 32. Speiser cites the use of the Akkadian cognate ot >‫׳‬a , as well as 1 'the analogous use ol the Akk. verb lanuitlum 1 to learn, experience,"' and cil es his own ear‫־׳‬ lier observation that, "The Hebrew stem )1d' signifies not only 'to know/ but more especially "to experience, to come to know." 11 is this last sense as the primary meaning of yd' (as of its close synonyiu /ma) which I would !ike to underline‫׳‬. It is to this sense, I believe, thai the phenomenon oi yd in the perfect tense l d know'* owes: "having experienced, f have come to know." Further support ior the primarily inchoative force oi yd' appears in the yct^r'h couplet, in 1 ‫ ז‬instances the order of the verbs testifies (lint r h ' 1 realize/come to the conclusion" follows in time the act oi yd', which must therefore h a \ e the sense of "consider, experience, explore" parallel to the sense of im in Psalm 34:9. ( T h e instances are 1 Samuel 12:17, 14:58, 2 p22, 24:15, 25:17; 1 Kings 20:7, 22; 2 Kings 5:7; Jeremiah 2 a y , 23. Only in one instance is the order reversed, in ί Samuel 23:23. In Jeremiah 5:1 the two verbs appear together but not as a couplet.) It is this sense of r'h "to conclude" which prompts me to render wayyar' ki toh as "approved," i.e., "concluded that it was good" in Genesis 1, and to render the same verb as "concluded" in Genesis 3:6. 7. Note this rendering for miqqedem here. T h e r e is no reason to suppose that there was only one entrance to the G a r d e n — a n d that one from the east. Hence, as the plural cherubim suggests. any and all approaches to the G a r d e n were guarded by these fantasy-creatures with ever-turning propellerdtke blades. 8. TAG, pp, 2 5 - 2 7 . 9. W h a t people will eat and wear in various narratives comports with the conditions determined by the extended metaphors 01‫ ־‬symbolism of the individual narrative. Thus, for example, in Genesis 1, in prescribing a diet for herbivores, God 111 verse 29 specifies cereal grasses (the mainstay of bread-eating man) as well as fruit of trees (verse 29). In the G a r d e n of Eden context, where the threshing, milling, and baking of civilized society would be inappropriate, trees are divided aito shade and fruit trees, and the fruit of the latter is the only specific edible (2:9, 16). Like baked goods, textiles are a product of civilization. Animal hides, therefore, are appropriate for people leading eremitic lives on the steppe. Thus, Elijah in II Kings 1:8, and Gilgamesh on his quest through the wilds tor the secret, of immortality. T h e state before t h e use of animal hides is represented in the h u m a n couples use of the broad fig-leaf t:o improvise loin-clouts; the state after the dress of hides in Enkidus sharing the harlot's garments ( A N E T p. 77, ii 28-- 30), "becoming h u m a n " in conjunct ion with "putting on clothes" (p. 77, iii .:3 26) and in Sainas's response to his anger at the harlot who in bringing hi)η to his civilized state also rendered his death inevitable; Samas savs that Enkidu should he grateful to her who brought him "to eat food fit for divinity . . . drink fit for royally" and clothed him in "noble garments" (p. 86, iii 56-• 38). jo. See preceding noie 9 lor the lines that immediately precede these. ι i. My use ot the term mythos n a h e r than myth is occasioned by the iollowing considérai ions: T h e noun epic is dehned is a narrative poem dealing with heroic action and written in an elevated style; it therefore involves !onn as well as substance and cannot be applied to a heroic legend unless it is composed in verse. Lcqend is a term for a story coining down from the past, ostensibly historic:!!, but whose historicity is unverihable. A myth, like a legend, comes down from a remote past, but the chief characters are divine or semi-divine beings, whereas in legends t h e principal characters are human. A myth, can usuady he interpreted as explaining the origin ot a natural p h e n o m e n o n or of a

442

NOTES TO PAGES 9 7 - Î I 4

religious institution, belief, or practice. Because myths feature adventures of the gods, and the God of Hebrew Bible has no adventures, I employ the term rnyt/itxs for a story which in symbolism, metaphor, or allegorical fashion attempts to convey a religious moral or vision of reality. τ2. T h e standard and universal translation of wayyö'mer Qayyin el Hebel ahïiv ‫״‬Gain said to his brother Abel" leaves us bereft of Cain's declaration. This lacuna is filled in the Greek and t h e Targum by, "Come, let us go out into the field." Speisers acceptance of this filling for the perceived lacuna is particularly interesting in view ot his awareness—and the importance of this awareness— that "The Hebrew stem ‫׳‬mr coincides by and large with the English verb 'to say.' But the Hebrew verb in question carries mar.y other nuances: to tell, promise, threaten, express fear, reflect (speak to oneseli ), and the like." (Genesis, p. LXYdl). My translation, based on the recognition that 'mr here is not .sit/fl but t/um^/ti., spoke to himself, does away with the problem of a lacuna by recognizing the clause el flehel ahnv as the object oi Jtir. My translation tails, however, to express the dramatic force ol the clause in presupposing die c.ausc as indirect discourse. I h e preposition el actually introduces Cain's thought, internal dialogue, viz. "ΓTis| to my [//(., hi.s| brother |l owe this rebuff hy God|." d'he thinness oi the line between free direct and free indirect discourse (particularly in biblical 1 lehrew) is suggested in T A G , pp. 1 0 — 5 ‫ נ‬. In this instance, in response 1.0 Yl IWf l's having just, told hmi that his fate is in his own hands, as it was before his niggardly offering—there is n o third party in addilion to himself and the temp! ation to s i n — C a i n nevertheless thinks that it was all a matter of (being shown up by) lus brother Abel |indirect discourse] = thinks, "I lay it to his my brother Abel's door." 13. As frequently in the parenthetic aside signaled by the nominal (or formally hypotactical) clause. See T A G , pp. 1 6 - 1 9 ^uid ch. 1, note 15. 14. See Speisers discussion of this passage, and for further instructive detail on t h e plethora of benevolent and malignant spirits/demons the article cited in ch. 8, note 1 of T A G . 15. T h e general interpretation, of the Pandora myth, that she, representing woman, opens the box because of her overweening curiosity, overlooks t h e vital significance of her name. She represents man, humankind, endowed with all the riches and blessings. T h e foible of curiosity is not her undoing, but avarice, fear that some precious blessing has been withheld. 16. See, e.g., Deuteronomy 2 2 - 2 7 f ot the significance of a forbidden act taking place in a frequented place (tr lit., "city") rather than "in the field" (basfade). !7· See my discussion of this verb s meaning in The Problem of "Curse" in the Hebrew Bible, SBL Monograph Series 13 {1962 ). 18. See T A G , ch. S, ' T h e Sign on the Forehead" pp. 235ff. 19. For the reason God spared Cain, see below the discussion of the lines of Cain and Seth. 20. For t h e synoptic-resumptive episodic technique in biblical narrative, see T A G , pp. 1 3 - 1 7 . 2 1. See preceding note 3, particularly t h e last sentence. 22. See Ch. 1 ot this volume. 23. See TAC! C h . 3, pp. 67 EN Λ P

‫ א‬y Note particularly η. 2

‫ן‬

t

IT: κ 4

ι. See Sir Leonard Wooley, Dr >\l die ( •hahlees, (London: Penguin, 1954), ch. 1, particularly pp. 2 2 - 2 3 : "There could be‫ ־‬no doubt ihat the flood of which we bail thus found the only possible evidence was the Flood of Sumerian historv and legend, the Hood or! which is based the story of Noah." 2. As implied in Wooley's statement ejted in preceding note 1. 3, These citations are from Hermann Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis (New York: Schocken, 1966), pp. 14, 100, and 101 respectively For an interesting example of how genre labels can be deployed to mystify rather than to enlighten (see T A G , pp. 26 -30), see W. F. Albright's introduction to this Schocken volume, particularly pp. viii, xi-xii. Gunkel's standing in biblical scholarship is reflected in the Albrights comment: ,, His mistakes were inevitable two-thirds ot a century ago, and do not detract from his epochal place in the history of scholarship" (op. cit., p. xi), and in Spenser's

NOTES TO PAGES

168-181

443

icieience to Gunkel's ( knesis (the introduction t<‫ ל‬which has lx*en translated and published in Scbocken's Tne I^gcmls) as 1 'marked by the author's keen appreciation oi literary quality" Jt would be race to observe rhe injunction De mortuis. Alas, the continued awe in which Gunkei is held, and as a literary critic in particular, compels me to warn the reader: k would he hard to find literary pontifications so poorly argued, and so consistent a chain of silliness, as is to be found on every page, nay almost in every paragraph, of this "survey" (as Albright calks it) of the "legends" in Genesis. 4. Julian .Morgenstern, The Book of Genesis (New York: Schocken, 1965), p. 83. 5. N o t e in this question and answer, as in t h e sentence that begins t h e immediately preceding paragraph, the subtle and often overlooked difference between the narrator and a character in the narration as separate centers of consciousness, possessed of different degrees of information and re‫׳‬ sponstbility for the judgments made by one or the other or possibly both. Thus the narrator knows, as Utnapishtim does not, which dispatch will be the first and which the last. O n the other hand, our sense of the correctness of the flying range of U t n a p i s h t i m s three birds, and of the appositeness of this judgment to the logic (or illogic) of t h e dispatch, will determine whether we regard the narrator as himself accepting responsibility for Utnapishtim's reasoning or loading the entire responsibility on his hapless protagonist's shoulders. 6. Morgenstern, Βook of Genesis, ρ. 81, note on 5:14. ‫ ך‬, ί make grateful acknowledgment to my cherished colleague and friend, Prof. Aaron Schaffet, for this reading ot t h e Akkadian text. 8. Thus, for example, if only two birds were released, the sender, who had hrst dispatched the far-ranging dove, which returned, may have suspected that the shoreline might have appeared — but beyond even the dove s range. For the second dispatch, enough time after the first so that the shoreline if any would be even further from his grounded ship, he therefore chose rhe swallow, whose range exceeds even that of the dove. But in that case, why the choice of the no-range raven lor the third dispatch ! Utnapishtim's muddled mental processes are also reflected in his attributing the r a v e n s failure to return, not to the plenteous carrion available to him, but to his ,, seeing that the waters had diminished." A n o t h e r instance of- Utnapishtim's obtuseness, not hitherto cited, begins with I. 200. Four lines are spoken by the narrator (not by Utnapishtim, as, for example, also implicitly in 11. 99 tub gamesh tails asleep, and remains so for six days and seven nights. Utnapishiim mockingly points to this hero who seeks eternal Hie and cannot resist |the half-death of] sleep. Mr. Utnapishtim refuses to awaken Gilgamesh, as Mrs. Utnapishtim urges, for seven days. In order to prevent Gilgamesh from exercising his human wiles on her (lit., "Mankind being wicked, he will seek to deceive thee"), he propose- that Mrs. Utnapishtim bake for seven days; the various stages of staleness, sogginess, and mold in the b r e a d — a l o n g with marks recording the number of days he sleeps — will make it impossible for Gilgamesh to "deceive" Mrs. Utnapishtim. But neither wickedness nor de‫•־‬ ceit is germane to the situation. W h a t Utnapishtim really means is—as it actually transpires — that Gilgamesh will not, upon awakening, believe that he has dozed more than a few moments; the baked goods and the marks will t h e n demonstrate that Mr. and Mrs. Utnapishtim are not lying. T h e fatuity of this lies further in that the device would prove n o t h i n g to a Gilgamesh who was bent on believing that the Utnapishtim's were trying to deceive him: Seven marks can be made in a moment, and bread—moldy or s t a l e — c a n be retrieved from the garbage heap. A closely parallel biblical account in Joshua 9 makes similar mockery of t h e Israelites, who are taken in by the moldy bread and worn-out clothes and sandals preferred by t h e Gibeonites as evidence of their having been long on the road from their distant homeland. Lacking the c o m m o n sense to see through the silly ruse themselves, or to question their own sagacity and to inquire of Y H W H , they take an oath to spare these C a n a a n it es who were slated for extinction. Cf. Brichto, The Problem of "'Curse''', SBL Monograph 13 (1963), pp. 88 ff. 9. As Speiser points out in bis preface to his translation of t h e A m dins is Epic in A N E T (p. 104), this name, its meaning " 'Exceeding Wise' is associated with more than one hen‫ !׳‬of the epic literature ot Mesopotamia." T h e one use of this epithet‫׳‬, by Fa, to designate a protagonist who is hardly the brightest ol mortals may be an antonyrmc euphemism (like Hebrew herek "bless" to;

444

NOTES TO PAGES

123-158

"curse" Aramaic sagi nahor "abundant of light" for a blind man), deployed here in t h e manner of the American lolk convention to nickname people who arc extremely talk ohese, or bald by the sobriquets, respectively: Shorty, Slim, and C u r b . 10. Can this 1'secret‫ ־‬ot the gods" he (he same as the one which Utnapishtim at t h e beginning ol his tale promise;! to divulge ίο Gilgamesh In the mouth oi ha-•- who can tool hniil that in talk‫׳‬ ing to the wall 01‫ ־‬the reed-hut he was not really addressing t h e "Man of Shuruppak, son of UbarTutu"· · -the secret can indeed be the resolve of the gods to annihilate humankind and to keep their plan a surprise so that this enterprising race will not take measures to survive the cataclysm. (Witness Mr. U.'s example! A n o t h e r twit of Enlil, who is the divine counterpart oi this h u m a n Atraba-‫׳‬ sis!) This is so because Ea is speaking in the dim past, immediately after the Flood. Idtnapishtims address to Gilgamesh, however, takes place cons later wit en all humanity k n o w s — a n d in ninny versions—of that cataclysm brought o n by the revered p a n t h e o n . Does he, fool that he is, think that thousands of years after his own translation to "the mouth ot the rivers," mankind at large is still in the dark as to who was responsible for that primordial flood‫ ־‬Or is it possible that in this twice-mentioned "secret of the gods" our cunning author is signadng to his readers the real point of the narrative: the absurd nature of that religion we call polytheism or paganism? See the next section, "The Babylonian Flood Story as a Critique of Paganism." 11. Cf. Speisers brief c o m m e n t (Genesis, pp. LV-LVI) on the "Babel and Bibel" controversy begun by Friedrich Delitzsch (which was continued by defenders ot Scnpiure s originality at the expense of Babel's level of urbanity) and Speisers own perception ot how 1 'subsequent leuneiformj discoveries" have served to refute "the theory [Delitzschs] itself by placing the whole subject in its true perspective." Compare then the difference between even Speisers perspective and the one we present in t h e section "Noah's Deluge and Utnapishtim s : A Comparison." 1 believe that my poetical a p p r o a c h — t h o u g h not designed with any such purpose in m i n d — e n h a n c e s our respect and appreciation for both Scripture and its pagan ambience. To enhance our respect for the accomplishments and wisdom of our pagan ancestors is co sharpen our appreciation ot the breakthrough represented by Scripture. To denigrate pagans and paganism is to create a straw-man foil for a platitudinous Scripture. O n e example: compare Speisers discussion ot the beginning of biblical monotheism (Genesis pp. ΧΕ1Π ΕΠ) with Ernst R o n a n s charaetcnr.ation of that monotheism as a reflection of the monotony of the desert. (Renan mav have been an expert on monotony, but, as my explorer son I lerschel asks, what did he know about deserts') 12. E. A. Speiser, Genesis, vol. 1 of The Anehnr lïihlc (Garden City, X.V.: Douhleday, 1964), pp. 45-40. 1 •5. This p h e n o m e n o n is thus a reversion to the condition of the primeval waters in Genesis before C o d separated them; and although never so termed explicitly is, rather than the phenomenon in Noah's time, the referent in Ps, 29:10, the man/nd "over winch YHWl 1 sat enthroned and remained enthroned as king for all time." 14. T h e narrator informs us that N o a h dispatched the raven 40 davs ait er Day 1 of M o n t h 10. T h e interval between the first and third dispatch oi the dove is 14 davs. We are nor told what the interval was between the dispatch of the raven and the Erst dispatch of the dove. If that interval were 4 days, t h e arithmetic would be 40 + 14 + 4 = 58 (i.e., two months ot 29 days, or exactly two months after the first appearance of the mountain peaks (!) o n Day 1 ot M !nth to. 15. Since the whole point: of dispatching the birds was to ascertain whether it was sage to disembark, there is something silly about Noah's waiting yet another m o n t h — f o r the call of God — after t h e dove's failure to return had provided the desired information. This, too, is in furtherance of the wry humor (see t h e immediately following discussion) of G od s invitation to N o a h , sons and wives, and living creatures 111 all categories, to proceed to the reproductive process on the earth (four times in verses 1 5 - 1 9 ) , which was forbidden t h e m at sea, which is to say, for the duration of their confinement to the ark. 16. Cf. for a more detailed discussion, Brichto, "On Slaughter and Secritice, Blood and Atonement," H U C A 47 (1976), pp. 1 9 - 2 8 . 17. Literalists, and scholars who insist on ascribing to the ancient ..mhor a naïveté that we

NOTES TO PAGES 1 6 8 - 1 8 1

445

modems have long outgrown, will insist that this is indeed the purport of the passage. This despite my own arguments to the contrary; despite the witness of Scripture to a polar ambivalence as to the value or efficacy of animal sacrifice; and despite—•ironically—the attribution of the offense that precipitated the flood to that perversely literal, naïve, and wrongheaded perception of reality in whose imaginative bent (yëser leb, yëser mahsL'böt leb) we moderns delight for its esthetic play and decry for die immorality of its values and for the polytheism we call paganism. CHAPTER 5 ι. Another indication that the genealogies of Seth and Cain are the work of one hand is that the Lamech in each line is the next to the last generation before the flood. 111 the Seth list he 15 the father of Noah, who experiences the flood, and in the Cain list he is the father of the three sons, who implicitly perish in it. These last three are culture heroes, as is Noah in the Seth list. 2. The sons of Noah did not sire children until after the flood. The wives they brought with them into the ark may well have been descendants of the Cain line, thus making him—despite all—an ancestor of the entire human race. 3. Cf. Ε. A. Speiser, Genesis, vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964 h p. 63. 4. The plausibility of dittography is reinforced by the additional coincidence :hat the G!‫׳‬d (,of Shem) lh\ and the teats (of Shem) 71/y are constituted of the identical four consonants, with only the order oi the two middle consonants being different in the two terms. 111•‫ר‬his note on verse 26. As we shall see, however, the author may achieve a power! ul et feet precisely bv taking a direction that is contrary to our expectations. The poetical approach seeks ‫ ז‬he reason for the author's decision to frustrate our expectations; whereas the prevailing scholarly ap‫׳‬ ρ roach is to find fault with the text. 6. Speiser, Genesis, p. 63. Let us note how productive of speculation is the assumption of source analytic methodology. If the genealogical note could not be assigned to Ρ and the text ι Τ the curse to J, this conjecture on Speisers part—for all its apparent conformation to what we assume is the history of Canaan—would never have made it to the printed page. 7, My interpretation, which will be in support of those championing the Masoretic pointing, makes this crux a parade example of lectio difficilior praestat, extending the principle from the con‫׳‬ sonantal text to the traditional vocalization as well. 8, See TAG, ch. 7, tale 2, pp. 196-98. 9. T h b is the plain meaning of Exodus 25:2—8 "from any individual freely prompted . . . [only on site h condition] will 1 take up residence among them." It is also the view everywhere 111 Scrip‫׳‬ ture (as indeed in pagan Mesopotamia), concealed from us by our own tendency to read obligation to God where our ancient predecessors intended—and with better theological sense — privilege. See below, my discussion of the Tower of Babel. Note further the weight ot our conception as a metaditerarv factor in the (mis)interpretation of numerous biblical texts and contexts, ic. See below, ch. 8. Once again the poetical integrity of the biblical text, an underground linking of Genesis and Joshua (and not, let us note, of J and D, or whatever authorship to whom/which source analysis sees fit to assign the sixth book of the "hexateuch." 11. It is the assumption of an act perpetuated upon Noah that inspires the kinds of speculation we have just discussed. "To deal with" is as much a meaning of Hebrew 'sh as ot the English verb '1to do," which may cover the "act" in our oxymoronic expression "act of omission.1' : 2. What point of origin could the narrator have possibly had in mind as the starting point tor humankind' It would thus seem that every appearance of miqqedem as an adverb is temporal in Psalm ;4:12. see below, ch. 8), not a one is directional. ι ν TACb pp. 28 • 30. ig. i‫׳‬:‫־‬et:‫׳‬: Israel V (Ma::ar Volume, 1938), pp. y2 36. : ‫־‬->. See preceding note 1 4. 16. See Brichto, "Kin, ( ailr, Land and Afterlife," H U C A XI.IV, 1973, p.7, note 9.

446

NOTES TO PAGES 1 8 4 - 2 0 4

17. 1 have in mind certain formulations in cuneiform epics, of which some biblical images or metaphors seem to be distorted yet recognizable echoes. Thus the creation of the human race from the body-stuff of Kingu (Enuma Elish, Tablet VI, 11. 5 - 3 3 , ANET 68 b), Anu s begetting Ea (Nudimmud) in his own image (Tablet I, L 16, ANET 60a), and man (Enkidu) as made of clay, vet in the divine image (of Anu) in Gilgamesh Epic (Tablet I ii, II. 32-35, ANET 74a.) These are examples ot the kind of imagistic conceptualizations that the biblical authors clearly inherited trom an earlier literary tradition, but which they shaped into expressions emblematic of a human dignity that does not obtain in the cuneiform sources. Thus, the mankind created from the sLuif ol Kingu is ot a lower order of beings created to serve the gods, and both Gilgamesh and Enkidu created by Arum as ,, double of Anu" are heroic mortal champions, but not specifically symbolic of humanity's sharing in general in the dignity of the divine.

CHAPTER 6

τ. Ε. Λ. Speiser, Genesis, vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1964), p. 106. 2. Thus, for example, the protagonist kings of the five cities of the Plain. In verse 2, where thev are first introduced, four of them are given names, the fifth is anonymous. The Eve eitv-states are named 111 that verse, but never again do all five appear in the text. Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in verses 10 and 1 1, but thereafter only Sodom appears. The kings of the Five Cities of the Plain appear in verse 8, none of them named, but the four kings of the Empire of the East are named in verse 9. The rout of the five kings is presumably indicated by the plural verb in verse 10- --ti-Ym‫׳‬ämlsM "they fled" but the subject ol‫ ־‬this verb is an explicit singular, r/u? km‫ ״‬rj/.Notlum, immediately a m b i g u a t e d by t h e a d d i t i o n ol und <1/ Gomorm/i, w h i c h of course has its o w n king. Of t h e a v e detear.ee. kings only t h e king oi S o d o m appears again (in verses 17, 2 1 22). Cdearlv, t h e n , 1 he o n e king ot‫ ־‬S o d o m represents t h e m o n a r c h y ol both S o d o m and G o m o r r a h , as well as of

Adniah and Zeboim, and of the filth city, which is variously Bela or Zoar, a great city-state 01‫ ־‬an in‫׳‬ significant lown in die s tor ν ol bods escape from the doomed Plain. All 1 his --unthinkable :‫ ונ‬a sober historians account is poetically of a piece with 19:28, where Abraham looks down upon the pall-covered "Sodom and Gomorrah and upon the entire surface of the Plain," and with 19:2g. where God overthrows "the cities in which Lot had taken up resident." 3. Improbable, because anyone capable of translating from Akkadian to BH would know that ina ûme > enuma is equal to Hebrew beyom "when" in a syntax that calls for a temporal conjunction. Unnecessary, because it is one of many ambiguations that cannot be laid at the door or an inept translator. See note 1‫ ־‬above. 4. See TAG, pp. 5 - 6 and p. 259, note 3. 5. Yochanan Muffs has gathered as much as is retrievable on this matter. See Love and Joy: Language and Religion in Ancient Israel (York, N.Y.: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), pp. ^7‫־‬95‫־‬

6. The expression "to raise (the/one's) hand" in the sense of "take an oath" appears only here with the verb hêrTm. The expression does appear, however, in that sense with the verb ns\ See Exodus 6:S, Numbers 14:30, Deuteronomy 32:40, Ezekiel 20:5 — 6, 15, 23, 28, and 42; Psalm 100:26, Nehemiah 9:15. Thus this singular departure from the idiomatic nf yd is to draw our attention to something unique in the context. That uniquely significant element in this context is then, as we see it, the past tense of the verb, the time of the oath-taking having been in the preceding bypotactically formulated episode, or even earlier. 7. Marvin H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts (Leiden: Brill, 1955). 8. See ch. 7, "Structures." 9. See TAG. pp. 13-14, with particular attention to n. 13 (p. 260). i c . T h e parallel and seemingly pointless r e p e t i t i o n s of it 1ayyö'mer are thus a t r e q u e n t signal to a synoptic and a:1 e x p a n s i v e sub-episode w i t h i n a larger episode (synoptic or r e s u m p t i v e ) c o n s t i m ! ing part ot an o\ e r a r c h m g n a r r a t i v e . In ternis ut poetic subtlety, c o m p a r e d i e baki s l a : e m e n ! in verse 2 with t he bolder reading of A b r a m ' s i n t e n t in verse 3, it is o n e t h i n g for A b r a m to h i n t Lhat

N O T E S T O PAGES

168-181

447

D a m a s c e n e Lliezer is nui an. a c c e p t a b l e beir, q u i t e a n o t h e r 10 c h a r g e G o d w i t h responsibility lor his sterility in t h e a f t e r m a t h of a gieat victory and in r h e c o n t e x t ol a revelatory p r o m i s e t h a t greater reward is yet i.n store. 11. S e e t h e r a b b i n i c commentators ad loc., particularly Radii, ior the close reading oi subtly s h a d e d m e a n i n g s in t h e p r e s e n c e ol the imperfect vayhl

it! a verbal clause or oi a perfect hayä in

w h a t m i g h t also be regarded as a verbal clause, tn that the verb precedes the subject. 12. S e e Fitzmyer, " T h e A r a m a i c i n s c r i p t i o n s of Seit re I a n d II," Journal of the American Society 81, n o . 3 ( S e p t . 1961), 1 7 8 - 2 2 2 , particularly F A C H A , 11. φ• 13. D e s p i t e t h e m a n y t r a n s l a t i o n s , w h i c h

Oriental

40.

k n o w i n g t h e biblical a u t h o r ' s i n t e n t b e t t e r t h a n

h e , or p e r h a p s t h a n t h e m i s t a k e n e d i t o r r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e re.vcus receptus—provide

a preposition

t o m a k e for a simile r a t h e r t h a n t h e m e t a p h o r . N e e d l e s s to day. t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n of t h e m e t a p h o r p o i n t s t o t h e m e a n i n g of t h e t e x t w h i l e its r e n d e r i n g t h e text, as a simile c o n t r i b u t e s t o t h e obfusc a t i o n of t h e m e a n i n g . 14. T h e discussion of 4 0 0 years a n d f o u r g e n e r a t i o n s appears in ch. 7,

,,

Structures"

u

15. O n F a i t h a n d R e v e l a t i o n in t h e H e b r e w Bible," H o C A 39 ( 1968), 4 4 - 4 5 . 16. S e e c h . 7, "Structures." 17. T h e n u m b e r of variables in t h e n a m i n g activity h e r e are s u c h as t o p r e c l u d e a single satis‫׳‬ factory r e s o l u t i o n of t h e p r o b l e m s in verses 1 3 - 1 4 . First it is H a g a r w h o gives a n a m e t o t h e d/Deity. T h i s n a m e , h o w e v e r , f e a t u r e s a n i n f i n i t i v e g e r u n d with a first p e r s o n a l suffix, w h i c h m a y refer t o t h e first p e r s o n as s u b j e c t or o b j e c t : rhe deity taking note of me/the deity whom Ï

experience.

T h e n a r r a t o r i n t r o d u c i n g this direct discourse says t h a t [rhe deity ichosej name [is] YHWH

she called

{you are} "ΈΙ R t u " T h e n a r r a t o r t h e n e x p a n d s u p o n h e r i n t e n t in t h i s a p p e l l a t i o n i n a f o u r - w o r d s e n t e n c e twice f e a t u r i n g t h e a m b i g u o u s verb r‫׳‬h, w i t h a n o t h e r i n s t a n c e of a first person p r o n o m i n a l suffix, w h i c h c a n be n o m i n a t i v e or accusative, a n ambiguous p r e p o s i t i o n , , a f t e r / b e h i n d / ' w h i c h m a y be t e m p o r a l or locative in sense, a n d a c o n t e x t u a l l y puzzling a d v e r b " t o this p o i n t ( i n p l a c e or time)." G i v e n all this, o n e must be p r e t e n t i o u s i n d e e d to s u c c u m b t o t h e t e m p t a t i o n to e m e n d t h e Moni " h i t h e r " to '//mi "God." T h e n a r r a t o r t h e n c o m p o u n d s his p r o b l e m a t i c "clarification" by traeing to H a g a r s u t t e r a n c e t h e n a m e by w h i c h t h e spring b e t w e e n K a d e s h ( - B a m e a . O a n d Bered is (laterO called; this spring subsequently identified as t h e h a u n t of Is aac, n o t of h e r son Ishmael. 18. See Speiser, Comment, pp. 1 19 — 20. 19. 1 b e wild ass metaphor for ishmael may bespeak a d m i r a t i o n for t h e u n t a m e a b l e spirit of t h e ^harp-hoofed onager, along with lions t h e favorite game of roval Assyrian h u n t s m e n . But w h a t n e e d to inform t h e m o t h e r of a f u t u r e r;ice of bedouin that violence will mark d i e m off from settled agrarians a n d c a m e l - r i d i n g k i n s m e n as well : T h i s is, thus, a p r i m e e x a m p l e of h o w tree biblical free direct discourse c a n be; this e n t i r e aside is for reader, n o t for M o t h e r Hagar. A n d t h e m u l t i v a l e n t assura n c e t h a t for all his " h o m e ‫ ׳ ״‬l e s s n e s s he will abide ab!me "to t h e east o f / t o t h e rue of/in defiance of* all his kinsmen

is t o be read as h a v i n g r e f e r e n c e to t h e d e s c e n d a n t s of F a t h e r A b r a h a m by o t h e r

wives, be t h e y t h e settled sons of S a r a h or t h e roving o n e s ot K e t u r a h . See ch. 7, "Structures." 20. T h e m e a n i n g of this d e s i g n a t i o n for a (or t h e ) d/T)e1rv, a n d t h e gloss o n it, are obscured by t h e following variables: (1) T h e c o n n o t a t i o n s of t h e v e r b r h " t o see, t a k e n o t e of, regard, h a v e regard for, e x p e r i e n c e , witness, p r o v i d e , etc."; (2) T h e differing p u n c t u a t i o n of roïjr!yî,

the former a

p a r t i c i p l e w i t h first p e r s o n p r o n o u n suffix a c c u s a t i v e , a n d t h e l a t t e r a n infinitive verbal n o u n w i t h t h e s a m e suffix, b u t w i t h t h e possibilities of s u b j e c t i v e 01‫ ־‬o b j e c t i v e genitive for t h e p r o n o u n ; 01‫־‬, t h e latter as a n o u n in w h i c h t h e final v o w e l is radical ( n o t a suffix at all); (3) T h e c o n n o t a t i o n s of gam (especially w i t h t h e he i n t e r r o g a t i v e ) : " i n d e e d ! also, really": a n d of abrë " b e h i n d , b e y o n d , a f t e r " in senses b o t h t e m p o r a l a n d positional; (4) T h e a d v e r b /Wain, c a p a b l e of expressing p l a c e n e a r b y or far away "hither, thither." 21. T h a t your line will continue,

lit. that seea will be called/attributed

to you. For t h e various n o u n s

a n d verbs a p p e a r i n g in t h e m e t a p h o r for " t h e c o n t i n u a n c e oi a person's l i n e " see "Kin, C u l t , L a n d a n d A f t e r l i f e : A Biblical C o m p l e x , " H U C A .14 ( 1 0 7 3 ) . p. 22. T h e m e t a p h o r — i n view of t h e C o d a , G e n e s i s 1 5 : 1 8 - 2 1 — m u s t be seen as just t h a t , n o t in denial of Ishinael's d e s c e n d a n t s b e i n g A b r a h a m ' s also. Isaac's line will be t h e elect.

448

NOTES TO PAGES 2 1 8 - 2 3 8

22. See preceding note. 23. Note the artist's lexical control in verse 18. The verb hzq means ‫״‬to be strong" in the qal; with y ad "hand" as subject it is an idiom for "to be heartened, encouraged." In the piel with λϊΐίί as object it means to encourage s.o. In the hiphil the verb alone means to grasp, and with .s.o.s hand as object u to grasp that person by his hand." ilete the instruction to Hagar to ‫״‬rasp (in the hiphil) Ishmads hand, takes 1*your (1 lagars) hand" as the object, with Lshmael as the indirect object (hö "in/on him"). The hiphil h:1j thus, intransitive though it is, takes on the dative force oi "grasp firmly," even while it becomes a transitive (like the piel) in thai your hand is objet ‫ ו‬of the verb. Why ibis lexical tour de jorce! do express the metaphor that is first implicit in verse 14 Abraham . . . took food and waterskin, ‫־<״‬11·‫[ !(׳‬these] to Hagar—-[that is,] he pul I these I on her shoulder- and die lad as well. lshmael, being in bis late teens, did not require his mother's handhold. But lshmael as her fin ture hope is abandoned by her in her despair. And the encouraging word ot God's angel is that she is to turn from despair and to renew her hold on the son who is her hope. 24. That such is or may well be the stance of the biblical narrator in respect to hi‫ *־‬own ancestors is the burden of my exegesis of the Three Domestic Triangles below. 25. Free direct discourse, in her disposition of the name YHWH, when tha: name, unpronounced and unpronounceable, was not uttered by her. See ch. ‫ ז‬ot this volume. 26. Note that in 16:13 (and cf. preceding η. 1‫ )ך‬the narrator tells of Hagars designation of the Deity, whom he knows as YHWH, in Hagars direct discourse, which is an address to that Deity: You are ΈΙ r°% as though he is being informed, rather than this free discourse constituting a metaphor for Hagars sudden, recognition that she is under the providential care of the one and. only God·—of Abraham and all humanity. 27. Speiser, Genesis, p. 126. 28. See., for example, my reading of the lex talionis, below. 29. I use the terms halakha and halakhic for the corpus of injunctions and regulations, legal or Ρreceptua 1, secular or cultic, which prescribe the behavioral norms tor biblical Israel. 111 regard to the prescription (rather than narratorial assumption) of circumcision as one ot these divinely institu ted norms, there is only one such instance: in Leviticus 12:3, where a male child's circumcision on the eighth day is a parenthetical aside in a pericope dealing with the period ot impuritv incurred by a woman after birthing. Another prescription, in Exodus 12:43 49, requires circumcision of a non-Israelite bondsman 01‫ ־‬freeman (ger) if that male is to partake ot the paschal xientice. 30. See TAG, p. 16 and p. 261, n. 15. 31. The content, the context, and the paratactic formulations of verse 16 and verse 2 2— -10‫׳‬ ‫״‬ether with the coulent‫ ־‬and hypotactic formulation ol verses 17-21 guarantee that verses 18-20 are a parenthetic flashback to bridge the gap between Abrahams presence on the elevation overlooking Sodom and lus coming forward to address the Deity, now represented hy the single remaining personage. This parenthesis is divided into two parts. The iirsl, vet ses 17 19. explains why YI IWI1 must make Abraham privy to the iatelui decision he is about to make: it is, it! a manη er of speaking, a test: to see if Abraham was properly chosen for the role ordained tor him and his line; Abrahams passing of this test is indicated by his stepping forward to challenge the Deity The second part, verses 2 0 - 2 1 , still part of the parenthesis, despite the verbal clause beginning verse 20, is to indicate that the dialogue to come is not a mere charade. YHWH has not yet reached his verdict; in responding to Abraham's arguments he is not playing cat-and-mouse with him. All this from the perspective of the narrator qua narrator. From the perspective of theology which binds the Magistrale oi all earth to strict justice, from the perspective of the narrators audience, which knows the verdict (even, so to speak, before YHWH does), because it hears or reads the narrative centuries after the overthrow, the verdict was inevitable. Hence that audience will understand— perhaps as the narrator, for all his reliability, did not, or did not even question—why the embassy of YHWH on this occasion consisted of three personages: one to stand before Abraham on the elevation, two to get down to the plain on the mission made necessary by the ine\ Halve verdict. 32. Midden Blank, Prophetic Thought, Essays and Addresses (Gincainati: Hebrew Union Gol1 e :.;c Press. 1977), pp. 91 — 99.

NOTES TO PAGES

168-181

449

33. See Speiser, Genesis, p. 135. 34. See chapter 1 in this volume. 35. A novella is, therefore, a long short story, in length more like a novel, but a ?hon‫ ־‬story nonetheless for containing only a single story. 36. See "Abram t h e Noble Warrior," p. 189. 37. See ch. 1, "The Problem: A Preliminary Review," p. 3 ff,, and ch. 6, "The A n n u n c i a t i o n of Isaacs Birth: Two Versions," pp. 2 3 0 - 3 1 . 38. See Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana L ni vers ity Press, 1987), 39. T h e rabbis pick up on this problem of three angels on a single mission m their midrashic ex‫׳‬ planar ion that Deity assigns only one task to any one angel, 1 lere in Genesis 18 19, one makes the announcement oi Isaac's birth, one rescues hot iron! Sodom, one destroys rhe Cities oi the Plain. 40. See ch. 1 in this volume pp. 3:2 3. 41. On flat and round characters see T A G , pp. 6 - 8 . 42. W h e t h e r thai locus is in Genesis or Job, in Psalms, or Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes. 4 3. bor this meaning, see T A G , p. 149. Closer to hand is Genesis 43:3. Whereas most render‫·׳‬ ings are a.ong the line of, "Is my hither yet alive?" Speiser's translation is, "is bather still m good health:'' T h e brothers have hitherto made it clear that Jacob is alive and well. T h e force then ot the Hebrew, immediately following t h e a n n o u n c e m e n t , "I am Joseph" is, note t/wt you know why I am so interested in your father, tell me—a loving son of a loving father—is my father really well ! N o t e the ambiguity that is opened up by the attachment of the first person pronominal suffix to "rather." T h e clearly cantative force of this pronoun is expressed in Speiser's capitalization of this word and omission of the pronoun. T h i s expression of commonality also betokens Josephs assumption that his reconciliation with his brothers has now been consummated. But an equally valid r e a d i n g — o n e that t h e brothers might well h a v e construed—is that Joseph is still preening himself on his place as Papa's favorite. 44. A n exception might be inferred from the Laws of Manu (see my "Kin, Cult. Land, and Atterlife, HUCA 44 [1973], p. 5) that an adulterer is worse t h a n a murderer, for the latter kills only once, whereas t h e adulterer destroys an entire line. To cite this in this context would be, in mv opinion, t o misapply a metaphor. 45. A s I will attempt to demonstrate in ch. 6. 46. See Brichto, "The Case of the Sö£ä" HUCA 46 (1975), p. 66 and note 11. 47. O n this perplexing "truth" see ch. 7, "Structures." 48. just how that payment of ι,οοο pieces of silver serves as Sarahs ukc-süt eynayïm in regard to all/everything pertaining to you, yes in all (respects) your (good name?) is altogether assured" is so ambiguously formulated as to defy a confident interpretation. A key however, may be the hypotactic formulation of this address to Sarah in verse 16. T h e intent may well be: To Sarah now he had said, {the τ,οοο silver pieces I gave to your brother (as bride-price) guarantees your honor and. digmtv. ( 1 hat is to say, you entered my household unbound to any man and in honorable circum‫׳‬ stances.) Now (that you are reunited with your husband, nothing having transpired between YOU and me) your status is beyond reproach. 49. h a a similar bit of seeming nonsense, see in ch. 7, "Structures," the naming by Isaac of wells, dug by his father and redug by himself, with liâmes like his father [never] gave them. 50. Ligure 6-1, the congruence < ‫׳‬f narratives two and three compared lo the disposition ‫ !< י‬three congruent, triangles.

51. See, on this matter of Phil ist ine verse Israelite territory, ch. 7, "Structures," 52. For more on genocide, supposedly ordered by God and committed bv Israel again.st the Canaanite population which preceded them, see ch. 8, "Two More Addends," pp. 428 ff.

45ο

NOTES TO PAGES 2 8 0 - 2 8 7

53. See ch. 6, "YHWH and Abraham in a Dialogue on God's Justice," pp. 237 ff. 54. For the present see TAG, pp. 34-35, particularly items 7 and 8; ch. 7, 1, pp. 194-96; ch. 7, 4, pp. 201-209; a n d 5, pp. 209-14. 55. See ch. 7, "Structures." 56. Although the territory was Ccmamme, and Abrams allies in the Hebron area (13:18) were Amorites (14:13), one of them giving his name to the locality of Mamre s Oaks (idem), itself indistinguishable from the Hebron which is KirycU Arba (23:2), it is from the Hethites that the cave con‫׳‬ mining the lield oi' Machpeiah "over ;!gainst/cast oiWltmnv" (^3:19-20) is purchased by Abraham. So much for gentilics and toponyms in Genesis. In. Joshua 1 5:1 3-14 die eponymous Arba, whose stronghold was superseded by 1 lehron, is the ancestor oi the Anakite titans, three of whom are dispossessed by ( Caleb ben. jephunneh. it is to 1 lehron that ' , Abraham came to perform for Sarah the rites ot mourning and lamentation." Game irom where' Glearly Irom Beersheba, where (it! 22:19) we are told he had settled. 57. For the purposes of a more realistic setting lor the near-sacrifice of Isaac, this near-event would have taken place early in Isaacs career, perhaps at the age oi 13 (the age of lshmael at the time of his circumcision), betokening his coming into age of responsibility. For the purposes of the continuing story, with Sarah buried at. Machpeiah in Ghapter 23, and in Ghapter 24 the mission of Abraham's steward to bring a bride for Isaac from Nahors citv in Aram Naharaim, Isaac should be 37 or 38 when that mission is successfully completed. Hence the significance of 24:62—67, the no‫׳‬tices which are the denouement of the steward's mission. Abraham is (not so) strangely missing from the scene. The focus is on Isaac, who travels to Beerdahai‫׳‬roi in the Negev (where in 25:11 he settles some 35 years later after Abraham's death) and back (presumably to the Hebron-Beersheba region) to be on hand for the arrival of Rebekah and the servant. Isaac's taking his bride to his mother's tent, and the love of this bride consoling him in a measure for the doting mother whose death some months (rather than years) before, are thus in keeping with 25:20, the notice that Isaac was forty "when he took Rebekah, daughter ot Betuel the Aratnean, from Paddan Aram, the sister of Laban the Aramean, to himself to wife" 58. Such a phenomenon, the absence ot the (implici:) subject in a paratactic (waw-conversive) verb, and the explicit appearance of that subject in a preceding hypotactic parenthesis, is quite regular. Perhaps the most celebrated instance is Leviticus ;r:.r, u He called to Moses, and YHWH spoke to him from the Tent of Encounter" 1 his verse is a continuation of Exodus 40:34a, "The cloud covered the Tent of Encounter." Between these two paratactic verses there intervenes the hypotactic explanation of the significance of the presence of the cloud and of its departure from the Tent of Encounter, this hypotactic explanation beginning with 40:34b, "The presence of YHWH now was occupying the tabernacle " So. The identification of Solomon's Temple site on the mount oi Moriah in 2 Chronicles 3:1 is a midrashic embroidery on the "territory of Moriah" :n Genesis 22:2. Similarly in the same verse's identification ol thai site with "the threshing floor of Oman the jebusite," the embroidery is an extetv sion of the altar, which 1 ,Vivid erected there according to 2 Samuel 24: to - 25. The ( Chronicles verse is usually mistranslated, along ihe lines of "at the place that David had appointed/had prepared." The Hebrew verb hëkïn has Solomon for its subject, and refers η ‫ י‬die Temple "which he (Solomon, acting) in (his father) David's stead, erected on the threshing‫׳‬tloor of Oman the Jebusite." 60. The vocalization of the preformat 1vc mem points to the root ν 171, while in the following verse 14 the play is on the qal and ηψ/uil conjugations or Wi; as also in 2 Chronicles 3:1 on the nipKal of r'h, a back-reference to 2 Samuel 24:16--17, where the revelation is in the person of the punishing angel. 61. See "Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife" H DCA 44 ( 1973), pp. 27-28. 62. CT. our discussion of dialogue in writing intended tor the eye, as contrasted with characters' lines in a drama intended for the ear, in TAG, pp. 1 . ‫ ז‬- 1 ‫ן‬ 63. See "Slaughter, Sacrifice, Blood, and Atonement," ÎILJCA 44 (1976), pp. 24-25. 64. Thus another instance of the pattern of the overlay or congruence of two characters into one.

NOTES TO PAGES

168-181

451

63. Indeed, to regard child sacrifice as a c o m m o n enough practice oi pagan antiquity is to raise additional perplexities. W h y would Scripture want to picture the first ot the patriarchs, rhe friend of God and champion of divine justice, so ready to emulate his pagan contemporaries: Further‫־׳‬ more, if Abraham's dedication to his God is no more singular t h a n that of the pagans re‫ ׳‬their deities, what special merit would attach to Abraham's readiness to perform for the true God what his contemporaries a r e — i n their lamentable benightedness—performing for their false gods:

chapter 7 j. See, e.g., Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), pp. 1 5 - 1 9 , 3 0 - 3 8 , and particularly p. 41, from which the following citation is extracted: ,'1The historiographie function surfaces in the frequent dating, in the commentary on names and places . . . in the genealogies and other items or even patterns, like chronology, that seem to res ist assimilation to any higher order of coherence. . . . All these . . . serve as nodes or notices ot larger configurations working below the surface to the same end: recording for its own sake." 2. Poetics may be relevant or applicable to such middle-of-the-spectrum genres as historical fiction or fictional history. It is unthinkable at t h e historiographie end of the narrative spectrum, which are called chronicles or annals. See T A G , pp. 3 0 - 3 7 . 3. T h u s for example, the many indications in ch. 2 in this volume that the Genesis ( 1 - 2:4a) creation "story" might more properly belong in t h e chapter on Structures. 4. See my study on Numbers 5:1 1 - 3 1 in H U C A (1975), pp, 35 - 7 0 , the adducing ot prescriptive texts for the interpretation ot Scriptural narratives in T A G , pp. 5 3 - 3 5 . 109, 1 1 9 - 2 1 , 2 0 7 - 2 0 9 ; and now Joe M. Sprinkle, "The Book of the Go venant": a Literary Ap^‫־‬uïc/1 ; Sheffield: J S Ü I Supplement Series 174, (1994), ν hxcept. (if course, for his namesake in the Sethite genealogy and the eponyms of clans in 1 he genealogies of Midian (Genesis 25:4, 1 Chronicles 1:33) and of Reuben (Genesis 46:9. bxodus 6 0 4 , Numbers 2 6 : 3 - 9 , 1 Chronicles 5:3). 6. Sonic ol my most perceptive students have found it difficult to accept the notion that a erea rive author would go to such lengths to create two genealogies, both representing rhe human race, in otder to convey to rhe reader that he is descended from a murderous forebear, !:specially so, when that first line of httman descent from a murderer turns out not to be the true line ot h u m a n ity, inasmuch as all of us (readers) are descended from Seth and not from the extinct line of Cain. I therefore take this recourse to expand my previous discussion and to supplement it with a discussion ot the partially repetitive contents of verses 4:25 and 5:1. (1 ) T h e entire line of Cain is presented ( 4 : 1 7 - 2 4 ) before the information in 4:25 that a third son was (or was yet to be) born to A d a m and his wife. (2) T h e register of descent in Chapter 5 offers the first notice that t h e first pair (as indeed their descendants also) gave birth to daughters as well as sons. But the birth of females is cunningly anticipated in t h e birth of fair Naama/Dulcea to Lamech, son of Cain, Yet the wives of Lamech and the wife of Cain must also have been born, and C a i n s wife could only have been his sister. T h e implication of the incestuousness or his marriage in the second generation should occasion n o distress to pious readers of these derails of :heir own mythopoeic origins, if they will recall that Cain and his wife were born to an originally androgynous entity who by a kind of mitosis separated into two in order to procreate in his/her/their image. This t h e n raises the possibility that the line of Cain did not die out altogether. Only his descendants became extinct. His granddaughters, like N a a m a h , may well have provided wives to rhe sons of Seth. (3) N o rival metaphorical function for the vocational specifications ot Urbani:er C a i n and his descendant practitioners of the arts and crafts has been put forward. (4) Unlike the two genealogical registers of Chapters ‫ ף‬and 10, each characterized as töPdöt "begettings," the line ot Cain is not‫ ״‬similarly introduced. And even while the lour culture-heroes suggest t h e line of a civilized humanity, the story of Killer Cain ends with the brutal boast of Killer Lamech. (3) There is no transition at all between this last boast and the not ice of another son born to Λ Jain and Lve. d here is no explicit notice that Lamech is the last oi ( "aiη s !me lo sire offspring, , lei the inference

45^

N O T E S T O PAGES 3 Ο 7 - 3 3 I

is ineluctable 111 the begetting of a son who will continue the human race as Cain and his sons will not. (6) T h a t this third son will beget the true—true in a double sense—line of humanity is be tokened by two notices in verse 26, S e t h s son is Enosh "Human/Humanity." A n d it is in connection with this true line, true in that it will endure, and endure because it is true to the one and only G o d as expressed in the h u m a n invocation ot that God properly understood, "in Y H W H name." (7) Lest we miss the significance of these pointers to Seths line as the true line, in contrast to Gain's, we have ibis driven home at least three more t i m e s 111 5 : 1 - 3 , the beginning of the Sethite genealogy: (a) "This is the register of‫ "־‬A d a m s (Man's) begcuings," i.e., through Seth; (h) an almost verbatim repetition oi 1:27- 28a oi Adam and Eves creation in God's image and accompanying blessing; (c) the unique passing on of this (true) image by Adam to Seth, and (d) ihe not ice—-lor the first t i m e — t h a t G o d named humankind Adam, which n a m e is thus passed on to this son in n a m i n g h i m Seth, i.e., "Fixed, Established, F o u n d a t i o n . "

7. TAG, p. 4. 8. H e does, however, in his n o t e o n this verse explain Iiis omission a n d provides an alternative

translation without such omission. 9. S e e T A G , pp. 3 2 - 34. 10. T h e long-ago noted possible meaning of Methuselah (mut-selah "man of the sword") and Speisers seeing in Methusael "components and formation . . . transparently Akkadian" (mutu-sa-ili "Man of God") embolden me to speculate on another possible word-play in these two names: M a n of the Sword and M a n of Death/Netherworld OHU-^LA. 11. E. A. Spiser, Genesis, vol. 1 of the Anchor Bible (Garden City, N.Y. Doubleday, 1964), pp. 3 5 - 3 8 , 4 1 - 4 3 , 71, 73· 12. N o t inconsistent with our following explanation ot the qal with masculine subjects are such instances of metaphoric expression as Numbers 11:12 ot Psalm 2:7, where the subject is, respectively, Moses or God. 13. This statement is not true: j a p h e t h plus 13 descendants, H a m plus 29 descendants, and S h e m plus 25 descendants make for a total of 70. For t h e metaphorical sense of the "seventy nations" implicit in Deuteronomy 32:8, corresponding to the (implicit 70) "sons of Israel" in Exodus 1:5, and the explicit (but problematic) 70 111 Genesis 4 6 : 8 - 2 7 , see ch. 7, "Addendum: Two More Genealogies and A n o t h e r Numbers Game," pp. 373 ft. 14. Grandchildren are, of course, a metonym tor the continuance of one's line that guarantees a felicitous Afterlife. See note 6. T h i s concept was not peculiar to ancient Israel, From among the many possible citations in cuneiform the following trom ANET ANET! (with supplements) "the mother of N " (tr. A. L. Oppenheim), Princeton University Press (1969), p. 561 is notable for its similarity to Genesis 50:23. Adad-guppi, mother of Nabonidus, is pictured as living to the age ot 104 in the ninth year of Nabonidus, the only son whom she bore. Yel she is quoted as follows: u ! saw my great-great :-grandchildren, up to the fourth, generation [how else!|, in good health and (thus) had my (ill of old age." 15. See "The Chronologies ot t h e Lines of Seth and Shem," pp. 325 ff» 16. As in table 7-1. ι 7. T h e coincidence of these dates (if the death of Eber constitute conclusive evidence that the rabbis must have prepared a chronological chart just as I did in table 7-1. Note also that in table 7-1 t h e s o n a n d grandson of S h e m arc out-lived by Shem: son Arpachshad by 5 9 years and

grandson Shelah by 29 years. Thus we can understand the rabbinic tradition of the yeshivaacademy founded by S h e m and its tradition, continued by Shem s great-grandson Eber. Jacob (born 2108) is 47. Jacob t h e n would have arrived at Shem's yeshiva some 16 years after its founder's demise. T h e place of that, yeshiva is implicitly in Mesopotamia, implicitly in the neighborhood of U r (of t h e Chaldees), I miles removed from Haran, home of Bethuel youngest son of Nahor, father of Laban and Rebekah, these last two also native to "the city ot Nahor." Sec below o n the quest ici η of how far Jacob would have had to travel trom the yeshiva at Ur to the h o m e of Laban in Idaran. 18. O n the question of the peculiar formulation of Pharaoh s concern in Exodus 1 : 9 - 1 0 — i s it

NOTES TO PAGES

168-181

453

to proven! Egypt from being overcome by too numerous a population oi Israelites, or is it to prevent a slave-labor force from leaving his domain? See TAG, p. 38. it). Thus tin· tribesmen descending from Abraham through Hagar and the concubines, iron! harte through Esau. Yet the House of Israel, numbering 70 at ihe time of Jacobs descent to Egypt‫׳‬, is of quesl ionahle size when the Pharaoh who initiates the oppression tries to counter the fertility rare oi Israel. On the one hand, the iailed attempt to limit Israel's population increase by the com‫׳‬ mand to the two midwives is followed by the command to expose all Israels male infants on the Nile; this latter command staving as background ior the exposure oi the infant Moses 80 ve as beft ‫ י‬re ihe bxodus, 350 years after Jacob's descent to Egypt. One can only commiserate with scholars who are set to rhe task of conjecturing on how several differing "historical." sources came to be edited into this chronology-defying pattern of Israelite barrenness, fertility, and desperate Pharoanic measures to limit the size of a labor-force he does nor want to do without. 20. The 430 years since the descent to (or residence in) Egypt of the "Israelites" would begin 30 years before Isaac's birth, with Abram's descent to Egypt as told in Genesis 12. This would be a tine touch therefore on the narrator's part in placing this descent in the same year of Abramis departure from Haran and arrival in Canaan. But on this reckoning Abram should have been 70 years old (since Isaac was born when Abram was too) instead of the 75 years ascribed to him in 12:4. This (arithmetical-poetic) problem is raised and resolved below, ch. 7, "Playing the Bibles Number Game: Another Solution," p. 337. 21. Thus, for example, the prophet as "embodiment" of YHWH (as Moses in Exodus 3; see ch. ι ), TAG, pp. 158-165; Elijah and Elisha, both of them "the horse and chariot of Israel·' = "YHWH, Israels myriads of thousands;" TAG, pp. 1 4 3 - 1 4 5 , the first featuring of the mantle of Eli‫׳‬ jah upon Elisha, and pp. 214-225, Elisha fulfilling the charge laid upon Elijah. 22. The differing assumptions (of R. Levi and R. Jose) are in regard to the intent of 11:26, "Terah lived 70 years. He sired Abram, Nahor and Haran." This difference does not (as does the following midrash, which we cite) directly attack the question of whether Abram or Haran was rhe firstborn: R. Levi assumes that the siring at 70 refers to EI a ran, the third of the three sons. Terah diec at age 205—133 years after Haran's birth (205 — 70 = 135). Hence Abraham, who was 137 (to vears older than Sarah, who died at the age of \2‫ )ך‬in the year when both Terah and Sarah died, must have been born when Terah was 68 (205- 137 =68). Thus Abram is rhe first born. R. Jose also accepts that Abram was 137 when Sarai» died at‫ ־‬the age of 1 27. But since he assumes that lerahs age 70 in J J:26 refers to the year ol Abrams birth, the death of Terah at the age of 203 must have been two years earlier than Sarah.s 1c/1cn Abruhua! teas 135 (205 -70 ~ 135). 'Thus Ahraham could si ill be the first son, two years oldet than 1 laran. 23. Midrash Kabbah, Genesis (Noach) jXXXVIIl, 1 4 .| 24. The ambiguation is clear in the construction, which can read "elder brother of JaphetlC or "brut her oi Japheth ol elder" But the question of which of the two is rhe firstborn is determined tor us by the seemingly pointless information in 11:10 that Shem at the age of too begat Arpachshad two years after the flood/'s on .set/. . . . Noah sired at the age of 500, 100 years before the flood's onset. That siring at age 500 can refer to Shem as the oldest, or—if Japheth was the oldest , to Japheth — in which case Shem would have been born when his father was 502. Since the flood began when Noah was 600 years old, the son who was 100 two years after the flood (after Noah was 602 ) has to be rhe one boni when his father was 502 years old. That son then is Shem, the yonnges:. By analogy then Abraham, the first mentioned of the three sons of Terah, is like Shem, the first mentioned of the sons of Noah, the youngest of three siblings. Note: the dates for Shears birth and death in table 7-1 and all the subsequent dates are off by 2 years. That the Arpachshad of 11:10 was the eldest of Shem's five sons is a consequence of his birth two years after the flood( s onset). Noah brought no grandchildren into the ark. There was no conception aboard the ark; conception could only begin with the issuance of the ark's population a year (minus approximately six weeks) after the flood began. Hence Arpachshad could not have been preceded by a sibling. Note, however in table 7-2 that Arpachshad in the genealogy in t jenes is 10 is the η 1a J die

454

NOTES TO PAGES 3 5 0 - 3 7 1

son, flanked on either side by two siblings. Only one of these, Aram, is here credited with descen‫׳‬dants. These descendants of Aran! are then listed first so that the line of Arpachshad can be listed last. 25. John Skinner, The l;‫;׳‬Îernaiionai Critical Commentary : Genesis (New York: Scribner's, 1910), p. 238. 26. Skinner, ICC, p. 238. 27. Recognized but, like so many other insights of his adopted by the present writer, never published. 28. In the quia absurdum esi poetical category are such apparently pointless items as t h e two mentions ot Canaanites present in (Canaan in A b r a m s time and, to be sure, the many chronologi‫׳‬ cal Hems-— stich as IslunaelV death age and Serb's siring "two yeais altet the flood — which 1 expound in this discussion of Structures. See above, part icularly n. 24. 29. See ch. 6, "Poetical Review of the Names ol God," pp. 208 274, and ch. 7, "Abrahams Revelations and Altars," pp. 11. 30. P. Α. Speiser, Gcne.sA‫־‬, p. 79. 51. T h e use old he teim 1 'versions" for both the i le brew masoretic text and translations of this text inio other languages (be they Aramaic, t ireek, Syraie, or Latin) creates a presumption for t h e authority of these translations' witness as to a hypo!bet ical Vorlage in Hebrew that differed from our [exr.iis receptus, the MT. Such a presumption has never been justified by the fruits of the comparative textual methodology which it has spawned. A n instance of t h e perniciousness of this methodology is the recourse to the differing numbers in genealogical chronologies in these socalled "versions." Thus ct., e.g., the age of Terah at his death in t h e Samaritan copy of a/the Hebrew text, and in the chronologies of Noah s descendants. 32. Or, for that matter, upon his arrival. W h i c h is to say that Canaan-land may be a convenient nickname tor a territory ot indeterminate borders that was populated by a mix of Canaanites, Hittites, etc., which was more idea than place. Consider, for analogy, the United States of America in 1776, in 1886. and after the incorporation of the state of Hawaii. 33. See T A G , pp. 2 5 5 - 2 5 6 . 34. Sec TAG, pp. 1 5 8 - 1 6 5 . 35. W h i c h is to say from a town whose significance is resonant of Nowheresville, and he is given a n a m e so slight in difference from his prior name as to suggest that the significance lies not in t h e literal meaning of the names but in the fact of the name-change itself, as in t h e substitution of a regnal name tor the one in use before t h e coronation. (So, too, the Sarai renamed Sarah w h o first comes to our attention as Iscah.) 36. N o t e how careful and consistent the biblical narrator (/author) is in regard to this placename. It never appears m a protagonist's voice before t h e notice of its naming in 21:31, where the notice is formulated m the ambiguous (parenthetic) aside featuring a verb without an explicit subjeer: ijärä "one called the place/the place was called." Earlier notices of events that must by reason of context take place near the oasis which became Beersheba are: (1) "the water-spot ('ay?] hammuyïm,), in the steppe-·land the well (Vym) on the way to Shur," where Yl 1VVI I's angel conies upon the iugitive 1 lagar ( 16:7), which then becomes the wellspring (/>lVr), which then in 16:14 ils name (ΠΑτ /a-hiiy-rfw), and is now located not as in 16:7 "on the way to Sluir" hut situate "be‫׳‬ t ween Qadesh and Re red." (2) From the site m Mamie's ( bks, where the three divine visit! 1rs enjoy Abraham's hospitality (18:11, Abraham moves to the Negeb territory, settling "between Oadesh and Shut‫־‬," hul sojourning on occasion in Gerar. ( $) After the invitation of Abimelech in 20:1 s to Abraham to settle anywhere in his land, I lagar and lshmael are expelled and wander "in the steppe of Beersheba" (clearly known as such only to t h e narrator and his audience). This steppe-land ( 2 1 : 1 4 - 1 9 ) is waterless to I lagar until G o d opens to her sight a water-spring (bcr mayïm). T h e notice of the ha un ν of the adult lshmael 111 21:21 is pointedly not Beersheba (nor Isaac's h a u n t at beer la-hay-mi) but the more distant steppe-land of PcTran. Only now comes the visit of Abimelech and Phicol to Abraham a: an unnamed site which will get its name Beersheba at some future time (21:34).(‫) ז‬ After the Binding oi Isaac Abraham returns to Beersheba 22:19, twice mentioned in one narrator's breath, whence presumably he travels north to perform the obsequies for Sarah, who

NOTES TO PAGES

168-181

455

died "in Qiryat Arba, that is Hebron, in the territory of Canaan {23:2). (5) Let us note that Abraham's dispatch of his major-domo to A r a m Naharaim must have been from Hebron 01‫ ־‬the not-yetnamed Beersheba, and that when t h e major-domo returns h o m e with Isaac's bride Lt is to find the groom in a landscape from which A b r a h a m is, narratively speaking, missing. As to the location of that particular steppe where Isaac is musing at even time just as the return m g caravan comes into view, it is provided in 24:62, a parenthetic double hypotaxis, "Isaac n o w had come trom coming [trom] hL'er la*hay*rö'Tt he now residing in Negeb territory." 37. Judges 6 - 8 . 38. See T A G , pp. 2 6 3 - 6 6 , notes 6 and 7. 39. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, tr. J. H. Marks, (Philadelphia: Westminster Ρ res 973! .‫)י־‬, p. 403. 40. See also my essay in !assays 011 I lurnan Rights, ed. David Sidorsky, JPS (1919), 111'hc 1 lebrew Bible on I luman Rights," particularly pp. 2 19- 221. C H Λ P I CK 8

ι. See I AC c pp. 1 9 - 3 6 . 2, See TAG, p. 39. 3. See TAG, Chapter 7, Table 6 (pp. 2 1 4 - 2 2 0 ) , with particular attention to the last paragraph o n page 20. . See Zeehariah 3:1. 5. Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic (Totowa, N.J.: Barnes and Noble Books, 1981), p. 41. 6. See ch. 2 in this volume. 7. N o t e the absurdity in my translation of verse 5, "footgear worn and patched and attired in worn out garb"—as though the subject of attired is t h e footgear and not the people shod in this way. A literal translation, beginning in verse 4b, is; They took worn socks for their asses, worn wine‫•׳‬ skins also split and resown, (5) and footgear worn and patched on their feet and worn out garb upon themselves, and all food of their provision—dry—was mold-flecked. The five expressions that I have italicized are all redundant for a) the sacks/sackcloths are not for the beasts ot burden but burdens to be laden upon them; b) footgear/shoes are by definition for the feet, c) garb (simlä) is a bodywrap; d) bread/food (lehem) is synonymous with provision (sayld) and e) since all these items are t h e objects of the opening "they took," the verb "to b e " normally omiued e \ e n when implicit, is b o t h syntactically and grammatically pleonastic. These egregious peculiarities m die storytelling. stylistically jarring and seemingly purposeless, along with the other peculiarities that I will show to be suggestively meaningful, thus provide further support of my contention (see TAG, pp. 5 7 - 4 4 on figures of speech and translation) that the more anomalous 01‫ ׳‬gauche an expression m rhe biblical text, rhe more it is incumbent upon us to search for its purpose. Such respect for the biblical aurhobs competence constitutes modesty on the reader's part, whereas the scholarly reson tu einen‫׳‬ dation bespeaks either disrespect for the texl or critical arrogance. S. '1 he ploy of bread -fresh baked, soggy, stale, and moldy-—as an attestation oi time's passage is exploited in Tablet XI of the* Gilgamesh lipic. Utnapishtim has lus wife bake bread and mark thus rhe six or seven days of Gilgamesh , s unbroken sleep. T h e marks and the regrt»ivelv dcteriorated loaves are to [!rove to Gilgamesh upon his awakening that he has indeed slept a week rarher than the moment he thinks he has. T h e humor in this episode extends beyond what I have just noted - · the proffering of stale and moldy bread as proof of when a historical event began in a h u m a n s experience, when all it attests is to the objective duration of time since its baking, bor one thing, n o t h i n g hinges on whether Gilgamesh will or will not accept Utnapishtim's account of the length of his sleep. For another, Gilgamesh's anticipated refusal to believe that he has slept so long is interpreted by Utnapishtim as an example of humanity's proclivity for deception — U. himself presumably no longer party to this human weakness by virtue of his accession to immortality/ divinity. It is against such human wiliness that Mrs. U . must protect herself by rhe dahv baking of : v‫־‬ead. The ta il are of scholarship to credit the ancient authors with a scn.se of humor, hence to

456

NOTES TO PAGES 4 2 4 - 4 3 3

overlook such clear examples of its presence in biblical and cuneiform writings, makes tor the greatest impediment to the appreciation of the literature of the ancients. See TAG, pp. 2 8 - 2 9 , 257-258, and in this volume ch. 4, "The Babylonian Flood Story," pp. 117-126. 9. Note this twice-deployed singular pronoun, whereas the referent subject is plural, the verbs having no explicit subject. That subject becomes explicit only after the implicit "thev" and the exρ 11cit "him." This subject is the benë‫׳‬yisrael "Israelites" of verses 17 and 18. What we must then rec‫״‬ ognize is that the collective pronoun (to) him/his reflects the viewpoint of the mach(,‫ ׳‬braves of verse 7 ("my ambit" . . . "how can I") which the Israelites of verses 17 and 1:8 are the en rue people (thus a firth term for this "identity") who move out against but — in the end—do not assault the Gibeonite confederacy. Yet: a sixth term for this ancestral collective identity ot ours is the "Israel" of verse 18 (Y1 ÏWI ί god oflsiacl). do review then the narrator's deployment ol terms for bis people in its totality or constituent elements, the broadest term is ( 1 ) Israel, the entire people through its history from its beginnings in the patriarch, who was given that secondary name through the ioreseeable future (.\erses2);(8!‫) י י‬ the Israeiiles, the present generation (hat is entering the promised land (verses 17 18, 2(!); ( the assembly or the entire assembly representing the whole people (verses 18, 19, 21, 27); (4) the ("11 iejtains, or chieftains j)residing over the assembly (verses 15, 18 |twice|, 19, 2 1 [twice]); (5) the tmrnor.s (verses 6. 7. 16 (implicit ly|); (6) die ambiguated "men/leaders" of verse 14. 10. The inclusion of three additional cities in the category of Gibeon must serve a poetic purpose. That purpose, as we shall see, in terms of this story's kerygma, is that the inhabitants of llivvitc Gibeon were not the sole survivors of the aboriginal stock. Cf. Joshua 15:63, where the narrator, supposedly engaged in outlining the borders which fall by lot 111 Joshua's time to Judah skips ahead (to the time of David's kingship in Jerusalem) ever so insoucienrly to report, ‫״‬so for the Jebusite inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Judahites (ketib: are not able) were not able [gere) to dispossess them. [Why ever not?] and so the Jebusite(s) dwell with the Judahites in Jerusalem down to this very day. 11. See Problem of "Curse" in the Hebrew Bible, JBL Monograph 13 (1963), pp. 77-1 17. 12. Namely, that the cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night ate not expressive ot YHWH's literally showing Israel its path in the wilderness so much as of the accompanying gracious and protective presence of YHWH among his people. So too, the purport of Moses' prayer to God at the beginning and end of each "day's" march is Numbers 10:35-36. But the availability of the metaphor of God's personal function as guide in the wilderness raises the question as to why a human guide is invited to serve in this capacity. The only answer 1 can suggest therefore is to stress the welcome to the Midianit.es to share Israel's felicity in the land destined to be wrest ed from the Canaanites. 13. As, for example, Abraham and Isaac, Pharaoh and Abimelech. But consider also the cat avaneers bound for Egypt in the Joseph story (Ishmaelites = Midianitcs = Medanites), or Pottphar, Josephs master in 39:1 and his father-in-law Poti-phcra (41:45), priest ot On. whose name ineludes the three oi the pharaoh (/.('‫־וי‬ 14. See ch. 7, "Digging Wells in Philistia," p. 54$. 15. Phis rare root (n.s/) appears only here and iu 7:22 in the qal with the sense oi removing an enemy; in the piel it appears in 2 Kings 16:0, with the Judeans as the population "removed" from Flat. Bui even here in 1 )euteronomy the usage is strange, for the iirst context (verse 2) requires the sense ol‫" ־‬sweep from your path," and in the second context (verse 22) such a sense is ruled out by the adverbial modifier meal meat "little by little." The strangeness of this usage here thus r e i n f o r c e s the strangeness of the diction here in other respects. 16. Among the many implausibilities 111 the preceding chapters in Joshua: In Chapter 1 YHWH's repeated urging Joshua to be of good heart and to rely not on the unqualified support of God just, promised, but on his obedience to the Tora of Moses; Joshua's charge to the people: limitcd to the preparation ot food in the next few days preparatory to the lording 01 ; he Jordan and a campaign projected to endure for years, ii not centuries; the picture of the entire Israelite horde n u ^ e d at one point for the river crossing in sharp contrast to the 2‫ ''••׳‬trans-Jordanian irAes hem:.;

NOTES TO PAGES 4 3 3 - 4 3 4

457

already set tied on their homesteads and ranges, where the fighting men will abandon wives and children as they cross over for t h e war of conquest that endures beyond their lifetimes. 111 C h a p t e r 2, the mission to scout out the weaknesses of a fortified city whose walls will collapse by divine tiar; the foreshadowing of the kerygma of Joshua 9 (as 1 discern it) in t h e exemption from the decree of extirpation of the family of a C a n a a n i t e a le-wife/mad am who earns this reprieve by her faith m Y H W H ; the dwelling of R a h a b set in the city wall, its window facing outward, from which window the faithful harlot is to signal with a red thread her h a b i t a t i o n — t h i s to the invaders who, having entered the city via the breaches in t h e wall, would need to see t h e red flag/thread trom a window overlooking the city street. In 7:24 the animate and inanimate items consigned to the heremAire and the contrast with 6:24, where metals precious and base are deposited in the treasury of YHWH's sanctuary (bayit). 17· Such a follow-up to the absoluteness of the universal recognition ot Y H W H would in itself constitute a bathetic descent, how much the more so the conclusion of this pericope and the book with the picture of Y H W H ' s house bereft n o w — a n d apparently for all future rime—of a single Canaanite. Yet generations of translators and commentators can soberly propose that rhe Canaanite here is a me tony m for "merchant." (Was it to fulfill this métonymie ally expressed messianic prophecy :hat Jesus is pictured driving the money-changers from the sacred precincts?)

SELECTED

Ahrains, Israel Aaron. The Fall ofjudea,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baltimore; Baltimore Talmud Tora h, 1913.

( A>mmentary on Genesis 1: Jerusalem: Magnes Press, I lebrevv University, 1961. Blank, Sheldon. Prophet Thought, Essays and Addresses. Cincinnati: I iebrew U n i o n College Press, 1977· Cassuto, Umberto. La Questione della Genesi. Florence: F. Le Monnier, 1934. Danby, Herbert. The Mi.shnah. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933. Driver, S. R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1909. Gunkel, H e r m a n n . The Stories of Genesis. Translated by J o h n J. Scullion; edited by Willtam R. Scott. Va lie jo, Calif.: BIBAL Press, 1994. Heidel, Alexander. The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation. Chicago: University ci Chicago Press, 1963. Kaufman. Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel Chicago: University of Chicago Press, i960. Lane Fox, Rubin. The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible. New York: Viking, τ991. Morgenstern, Julian. The Book of Genesis: A Jewish Interpretation. N e w York: Schocken Books, 1965. Muffs, Yochanan. Love and Joy: Law, Language, and Religion in Ancient Israel. York, X.Y.: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992. Owen, Wilfred. The Complete Poems and Fragments. Edited by Jon Sallworthy. London: C h a t t o & Wi η Jus/Hogarth Press, 198 3. Pope. Marvin EI. El in the Ugaritic Texts. Leiden: Brill, 1955‫־‬ Pritchard. )ames Bennett. Ancient Near Lastern Texts Relating to the GW TosgaTvnr. Princeton, N.J.: P r i η c e r ο η U η i vers i ty Press, 1950. Rad, Gerhard von. Genesis, A Commentary. Translated by John H. Marks. London: S C M , 1972. Rendsburg, Gary A. The Redaction of Genesis. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eiseabrains, 1986. 458

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

459

Russell, Bertrand. MysUaMn arid Logic. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday A n c h o r Books, 1957. Sidorsky, David. Essays on Hit man Rights: Contemporary Issues and Jewish Perspectives. Edited by David Sidorsky et al. Phildelphi a: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1979. Speiser, Ε. A . Genesis. G a r d e n City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964. Sprinkle, Joe M. The Book of the Covenant: A Literary Approach. Sheffield, Eng.: JSOT, 1992. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Tsevat, Matitiahu. 1 'Gods and the Gods in Assembly: A n Interpretation of Psalm 82" Hebrew Union College Annual vols. 4 0 - 4 1 ( 1 9 6 9 - 7 0 ) . Whybray, R. N . The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. Sheffield, Eng.: JSOT, 1967. Wooley, Sir Leonard. L'r of the Chaldees. London: Penguin, 1954.

D I C T I O N A R I E S A N D E N C Y C L O P E DJ A S

Mi lion Hada.s/1. Evan Shoshan, Avraham. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1958. The Interpreters' Bible. Nashville: Ahington, 1962. The Interpreters' Dtcu om‫־־‬o‫ \־‬of the Bible, Nashville: Abington, 1962. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language. Unabridged ed. N e w York: R a n d o m House, 1966 Webster's (Collegiate Dictionary. 51h ed. Springfield, Mass.: GS( - Merriam, n> 56.

INDEX Allegory, 81, 98, too, 108, 113, 138, 176, $04 Allusion, 183, r94, 3^8, 371,374 Anthropology, 108, i n , 112 Anthropomorphism, 57, 71, 75, 84, 160, 239 Aposiopesis, 273, 330, Apostasy, 183, 202, 290, 431 Apposition. 172, 207, 285, 415 Aristophanes, 79 Babylonian Creation Epic, 3 7 - 9 , 5 0 - 5 7 Bathos, 55, 117, 122, 150-51, 153 B c m, 207-8, 226, 364 Blake. William. 47, 62, 94 Blank, Sheldon, 238 Bowdlerization, 273 Cassuto, Umberto, 8 - 1 1 , 103, 2 5 7 - 8 Chaos, 64, 394, 395 Character. See Persona Chronology, 32:, 333, 338 Comedy, 1 17, 12 2, 240, 295 Cosmogony, 50 2‫ל‬ Comparative-contrasrive, 39, 52, 59, 64, 66 Cosmology, 50. 59 ,1‫ל‬ Covenant, 26. See also IirrTt Decalogue, 278, ^gS. 401, 408 -12 Dialogue internal, 47, 233 direct, 268 (.see iil.sw Direct discourse) Dichotomy, 11, 103 Didactic, 239-2,0 Discourse direct, 4 6 - 7 , 141, 196-7, 199, 204-5, 207> 210, 213, 215, 250-52, 259, 283, 368, 425,427 tree direct, τ το, 139, 204, 218, 222, 232, 247, - 4 0 ·

2

^ 2 - 3 ‫ י‬422> 425

free indirect. 194, 204, 258, 273 implied free direct, 193-4 2 ° 4 2 5 8

‫י‬

implied free indirect, 193, 197 indirect, 282 Documentary hypothesis, 8, 71, 267. •See also Source crit icism Doxology, 69 Enuma Elish, 37-62, 395, 398, 400 Eisegesis, 28, 391 Ellipsis, 247 Eponym, 174, 221, 304, 312, 319, 3 ; 344 356, 376, 380, 3 8 3 - 4 Ethonym, 301, 356 Etiology, 88, 244, 252, 362, 365, 369 Etymology, 2 8 - 2 9 , 77> 2 86 Euripedes, 293-6 Exegesis, 25, 28, 200, 226, 280, 291, 302, 391, 397, 427. See also Kerygma Faith, 284, 289 gap bridging, 148, 207, 251, 261, 263 3 ‫ן‬.6‫י‬ gap idling, 365, 426 (dapping, 115, 137-8, 140, 191 4, )96,216, 243, 251, 26ο, 28^, 368 Genetic

analysis, i n division, 71 hypothesis, 259 theory, 214 Genocide, 4 2 8 - 3 3 . See also Her em Genre, 112, 295, 301 assignment, 88, 109 distinction, 301 division, 390 fahulary, 297 label, τ77, 303 oriented, TTI Gentilic, 22 1, 32τ, 377 Glossing, 206 Graf-Wellhausen, 13

46ο

INDEX (draoheme, 3, 4. See also 1 etragiammaton Gunkeb Hermann, 114-13,177,4430.3

461 criticism, so, 111, 1 1 4.8

3 .250 ,159 ,137 ‫י>י‬

s c i e n c e , 187, 2 g 1

Ilalnkha, 230, 3l> 1, 406, 408, 4,18η.2g 1 leidel, 38 ‫;<־״‬ I lendiadys, 74, 208 Ilenotheism, 14 Herein, 273. 372, 420, 4 2 7 - 3 2 Historiography, 14, 18, 112, 138, 164, 188, 192, 198. 2 20; 270, 275, 301, 313, 337, 347‫ י‬35 ( ‫ יי‬373‫ י‬381, 3 8 5

Homily, 391 Homiletical, 283, 392 Humor, 164, 241, 264 Hybris, 183. 210. 246, 263 Hypa liage, 149 Hyperbole, 64, 163, 183, 196, 247, 265, 273, 2

77< 3 3 5

Hypotaxis, 42, 63, 136, 138-9, 146, 353, 193, 199, 207, 211, 213, 238, 243-4, 24$> 253, 268, 282, 340, 348, 360 Ihn E:ra, 338 Idiom, 77. 2 08, 368 Idolatry, 32, 183, 202,43! Interpretation, 238, 237, 291. See also Kerygma Ironv, 22, 106, 117, 175, 177, 185, 193, 246, 296 job, 16, 238, 367, 394 Jonah, 106· -7 Kant, Immanuel, 41 5 Kaufmann, Yehezkel, !4, 60 Kerygma, 6, 30, (14, 163, 198, 201, 270, 302,

Malthus, Rev. Thomas, 95 Masoretes (MT), 5, 30, 41, 40, 172, 2^1, 2 252, 287, 3 5 0 - 5 1 , 353, 4 3 6 n . j , 439η

454 Π ·3 Τ Melchizedek, 26, 192, 197-202, 276 Merism, 43, 72, 75, 99, 109, ! 3 4 2 0 8 ‫י‬ , Mesha, 43 8η, 28 Meta-literary, 6, 17, 164, 204 assumption, 43 consideration, 229, 289 conventions, 273, 288, 390 fact, 274 focus, 2 2of prejudice, 289 question, 280, 404 Metaphor, 10, 52, 55, 63, 90, 98-100, 1 20 1 35‫ ׳‬ιΦ~9·> 1 7 1 ‫ ׳‬1 73‫ י‬2 3°‫ י‬2.5*‫ י‬255‫י‬ 269, 2 ^4‫ ו‬3°^‫ י‬3 ‫ ז‬2 ‫ י‬344‫ י‬4 0 ΐ Metonym, 7 ^ 2 0 1,182

Milton, 394 Monolatry» 4‫ז‬ 1 ‫ז‬ Monotheism, 12-13, 3 ‫ י‬57‫ ו( י‬° 162, 400, 4 Ϊ 8 Moral, 2 7 4 3 ‫י‬ 3°4‫ · י ל י‬See aho Kerygma Morality, 163,401 Morgenstern, Julian, 1 ‫ ו‬y- 16 Moriali, 282-3, 3 4 5 ‫י^צ‬ou59‫־‬ Myth, 125, 184, 44m.11 Mythology, 57, 112, 1 3 7 - 8 Mythopoeia, 179, 393 Mythos, 83, 9 4 - 6 , 165, 44111.11

591 ‫ י‬4°7 Legend, 125,44111.11 Lewis, C, S, 50 Literal. See also Metaditerary intent, 163 minded, 176, 2 9 2 , 3 1 1 , 3 3 6 ,

Literal-figurative spectrum, 43, 47, 5 0 - 5 1 , 57, 270 Literal-historic, 108 Literal/metaphoric dichotomy, 68 Literal ist, traditional, 310, 408 Literary analysis, 1.60,303 art, 291 conventions, 295

Naivete, 88, 94, 311, 367 Narrative spectrum, 302 Narrator, 186, 194, 2x4, 246, 268, 272, authoritative, 202 intrusive, 250 omniscient, 21, 118, 140, 197, 201, 2 r o 215, 3413 347 reliable, 186, 341, 372 unreliable, 53, 137-8, 146, 344, 372 See also Point of view Nephilim, 135-6, 138, 139 Noth, Martin, 156 O a t h , 199, 2 0 7 , 2 0 g , 365, 3 7 0 - 7 1 , 4 2 4 •3 Obliqueness, 206, 265

462 Og, 136, 190, 357 Ontology, 2 9 - 3 0 , .162 Oracle, 263, 270, 275, 283, 424 Owen, Wilfred, 2 9 0 - 9 2

INDEX Simile, 271 Source analvsis, 112, 15 9, 2 2 5, 3 08 assignment, 151, 218, 225 criticism, 6 - 8 , 12, 50, : 0 2 - 4 , 107, 133-4,

Paganism, 57, 6 1 - 2 , 69, 105, 125-6, 161-2, 145 7, 159, 1 8 6 - 7 , 203, 308, 321, 404, 4.8 197, 274-6, 393, 395 — 7, 400 division, 141, 151, 3 4 7 Pandora, 99, 442η. τ 5 history, τ 11 Paranomasia, 2 r, 28 5 ] hypothesis, 6, 10, Parataxis, 65, 1 $ 8 5 4 0,248 ,238 ‫־־‬9‫י‬18‫י‬44‫י‬ 9 3 ‫ י‬, VI ‫לי‬- 4-‫י ׳‬

Pat !ms, 285 Persona (e), 2 10, 22 1 •>, 27 ‫ז‬, 274‫י? י‬°2 ‫יו״‬

provenance, 142,

86, ι $7, t 7 1 4‫י‬

Speiser, Η. Α., 1 8, 18ο - S i , 187

90, 190. -M 7

,

2

3

8,6—24‫י‬

268, 288, yj(> 91 3 5 5 3 ‫ ־‬Ö 1 » 3^4 4261^3

Perspective, 194» 197s 4‫״‬0‫ י•'׳‬2 °4‫ י‬2 ‫׳‬ Plato, 7 9 9 5 ‫־‬ Pleonasm, 14 7 1 Point of view, 2441 246, 2 5 4 2 5 ‫^ י‬ Polytheism, 14, 31 ‫ י‬57‫י‬ 94‫ י‬162, 202, 304‫י‬ 397 Pope, Marvin, 199 Preachment, 185. See also Kerygma Prolepsis, 45, 49, 102, 148, 194, 198 Prometheus, 124, 238-9, 395 Protoevangelon, 8 τ Pun, 77, 82, 97, 102, τ71, 179, 189, 226, 273, 311 play on numbers, 379 play on personae, 430 play on perspective, 197 play on words, 209, 2 16, 356, 371 Rashi, 37, τ58, 173-4, 3 41 ‫י‬8‫י‬S Redundancy, 146-7, 157-8, 2 2 6, 246, 324, 339-40, 355, 373, 377, 425 Rephaites, 136, 190, 357 Revelation, 119. See also Oracle Rhetoric, 117, 505 Rhetorical, 198, 215, 2 53, 2 38, 247, 261, 27 278,427 Russell, Pert rand, 396

S t e r n b e r g , Meir, 1 ίο, 193, 197, 215, 246, 258,

‫י‬4‫ז‬ 1

2

Syncretism,‫ י‬202 5 9 ‫ י‬49>

2

5 ‫ י ר‬-5·‫ ר‬8, 2 ‫ך‬

Synecdoche, 141, 157 Synthesis, 393 Talmud, 3 2 7 - 9 T c h o m , 42, 51, 5 7 - 8 , 63 Tetragrammaton,4-13, 2 2 - 3 , 2 7 - 3 4 , 104-5, 2 0 0 - 1 , 217, 231, 2 5 8 - 9 . See also Grapheme Theodicy, 9 5 - 6 Theology, 9 3 , 9 6 , 9 9 , 101, 126, 1 6 5 , 2 3 8 , 3 3 7 , 35b, 397, 4 1 2 T o p o n y m , 301, 356 Tragedy, 295

Tsevat, Matitiahu, 6 7 - 8 , 399 Vocable, 29, 105 Vocalization, 29, 41, 172, 207, 231, 245, 252, 287, 355 Voice, 27 3, 268-72. See also Narrator; Point of view Von Rad, Gerhard, 382, ^84 Vorlage« 355, 4 590.3 1 W a w - c o n v e r s i v e , 6 s , 144, 2 0 4 - 5 , 2 1 1 , 2 3 1 Waw-t opulative, 205

Waw deictic, 158 Welfaushauung, 49, $97 child as, 288—9, 2 9345111.65 ‫י‬ Woolev, Sir Leonard, 442,31 ‫ו‬ Samaritan, 350 Satan, 81, 369, 394 YHWH, See Tetragrammaton Satire, 53, 57, 126, 138, 1 6 0 2 9 5,164,61 ‫־‬ Scientism, 3 9 6 - 7 Zt-1 mi8—196‫וו‬ Scripture, 29, 353 / Li ‫ ו‬r 182,8^‫ג‬ Sem, 3, 2 8 - 9 , 3 2 - 4 v 1 / ) >52-6 Sfotno, Obadiah, 418

Sacrifice, 361

η

.

1