The first eleven chapters of Genesis are a prelude to God’s calling of, and making of covenants with, Abraham. There are clear marks of their having arisen in the area of Mesopotamia, the area from which Abraham came (Ur of the Chaldees).

Creation

While almost unique in its attribution of creation to the One Creator with no thought of the presence or existence of other Gods, the Creation narrative in chapter 1 follows the seven-day pattern found in parallel accounts (see Use of Numbers in the Ancient Near East & Genesis), and chapters 2 and 3 clearly centre in Mesopotamia, as is evident from the four rivers outside Eden. There is reference in the Ebla tablets to the work of creation of one great Creator, and certain tribes are known to have ascribed the work of creation to their own tribal god, but in neither case are they quite so exclusive of other gods as Genesis 1. The writer eschews the thought of other gods and makes clear that the sun, moon and stars are mere creations of God (to other nations they were gods).

The Garden of Eden

This is to some extent paralleled in other accounts where there is the thought of a Paradise e.g. the Sumerian Dilmun. It is clear that the racial memory did look back to an ideal land, such as that revealed in Genesis 2 - 3. The idea of the Food or Tree of Life also occurs in several contexts, sometimes connected with a serpent, however they are not exact parallels, rather indicating a general background of such ideas. (N.B. In the Biblical text there is NO mention of apples or of a Tree of Knowledge. The mention is of ‘fruit’ and a ‘tree of knowing good and evil’. The act of disobedience resulted in a knowledge of evil in contrast with good ).

The Offerings of Cain and Abel

Both men offered of their produce, and certainly later a cereal offering was as acceptable as an animal offering (see Leviticus 2.1-14; 5.11-13 and often). At this early stage both offerings signify gratitude to God. We are not told that Cain’s offering was rejected because of its content, but because Cain had not “done well”, so that ‘sin’ crouched at his door like a wild animal. It is probable that the acceptance of the offering was known from the consequences, that is, that Abel’s flocks prospered but that Cain’s cereals did not. Thus part of his sin might have been laziness.

Cain’s Wife

We are told that Adam ‘begat sons and daughters’ in his long life. If the race was to be perpetuated there would clearly have to be relationships between them. The account of Cain and Abel assumes this background, for Cain is to be a fugitive from the family, who will require blood vengeance. Cain thus took for wife either a sister or niece (quite possibly by force). He lived in ‘the land of wandering (nod)’, probably the desert areas, driven out from the inhabitable areas. This is why he could no longer produce cereals, which was part of his punishment. The mark that God ‘put upon Cain’ (which does not exclude the possibility that Cain actually applied it) was possibly the pattern for later tribal markings.

Descent into Evil

The idea of man’s descent into evil, highlighted in the demon possessions of Genesis 6, as being the cause of the Flood, is unique. Genesis is the only Flood account which has genuine moral overtones. (Mesopotamian gods were largely an unholy lot, and men were their playthings and slaves). In the Old Testament the phrase “the sons of god” refers to heavenly beings - see Job1.6; 2.1; 38.7 - and could include Satan among them. Thus the ‘affair’ with human women would appear to refer to some sort of demonic experience, explaining the necessity for a new beginning.

The Flood

Sumerian king lists portray long-lived kings who lived “before the Flood”, itself demonstrating the distant memory of long-lived ancestors and a great flood. There are also a number of connections between the Biblical account and for example, the story of Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh, including the idea of the sending out of birds to scout the land. We have the latter in its later Babylonian form but it undoubtedly looked back to much earlier sources. If such a flood had occurred finding traces in such myths is what we would expect.

The Genesis account parallels other accounts in its narrative form combined with statistical information, and rather than suggesting multiple authorship this confirms its firm place in the near Eastern genre. However its morality and description of God’s relationship with the flood, with Noah and with the ensuing sacrifice are outstanding. The flood is a judgment on evil. There is a one-to-one relationship between the one God and man, the One sovereign, the other obedient. The sacrifice is pleasant to God as a sign of man’s response to the covenant, in contrast with other accounts where the ‘gods’ gather like flies to eat the sacrifices because they are starving.

We also have remnants of much older accounts, the Sumerian account of Ziusudra and the Epic of Atrahasis. Indeed the idea of a gigantic flood is testified to worldwide. The Epic of Atrahasis is interesting in that it presented an account connecting Creation and the Flood in a primeval history, (but not in the pure form in Genesis), which demonstrates that such a composite work was not without parallel.

The Tower of Babel

This clearly looks back to a time of territorial expansion where Babel symbolises empire building. It was possibly a ziggurat, a tower built to represent a mountain, connected with worship and possible connection with, and manipulation of, the gods. Nimrod (see on 10.9-10) may well be in mind. But the empire, if it ever succeeded, fell into decay, and the people scattered and their languages began to differ. The account gives no real grounds for suggesting that the series of events occurred, as it were, overnight. That idea only comes from a superficial reading. There is no reason for denying that it happened over a period of time. The tower is NOT depicted as collapsing.

This is unlike a parallel account where Ur-Nammu (3rd milleniumBC) is commanded by the gods to build a ziggurat, but the gods are then offended and throw it down, confusing men’s languages and scattering them over the earth. The throwing down of the tower is clearly an addition to the story suggesting that the Ur Nammu version is later than the account on which Genesis is based..

What these parallels demonstrate is that these ideas lay in the ancient memory, passed down through the generations, a memory taken up by the Biblical writers under God’s inspiration. This is what we would expect if the Genesis accounts are ‘historical’.

The Table of Nations (Genesis 10)

As far as we know this was unique in the ancient world. It declared God’s interest in all peoples, and demonstrates a remarkable knowledge and awareness of the world around. Nimrod (10.8-10) was almost certainly a ‘hunter’ of men, an empire builder, and that he was so ‘before the Lord’ means that he was ‘so great that even God recognised his greatness’. He formed a great empire around Babel in the area which would later be Assyrian and Babylonian.

Genesis 12 Onwards

The Call of Abram.

God calls Abram to leave Ur of the Chaldees and he goes first to Haran and then to ‘Canaan’. His father and ancestors were polytheists (Joshua 24.2), possibly moon-worshippers. Ur and Haran were centres of moon-worship. The statement in Genesis 12.6 describing the situation when he arrived - “the Canaanite was then in the land” (i.e. had by this time arrived) - demonstrates accurate knowledge. We know of no references to “Canaanites” before 19th century BC. However, reference to the land as Ca-na-na-um is attested in 3rd millenium BC. Once the Canaanites had arrived a connection between the two words was inevitable.

Abram the ‘Prince’.

It becomes clear from the account that Abram is not a solitary nomad, but controller of a large “household” comprising wider family and many servants over which he is Patriarch. He can, for example, call on 318 fighting men (14.14), and as he would surely leave some behind to protect his wife and encampment, this suggests a ‘family’ group of well over two thousand. He is described as “a mighty prince”(23.8), although the latter expression must leave some room for flattery.

After leaving Ur, the group had been further enhanced in Haran (12.5), and he was ‘very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold’ (13.2 compare 13.6; 24.35 ). This must surely suggest that Abram had many trading interests, which might explain his later movements. In order to carry these forward he would need to have someone available who could read and write, and calculate numbers, probably Eliezer, his steward (15.2). His background in Ur would have made him aware of the importance of keeping records, especially of covenants. Thus it is quite to be expected that he would ensure the chronicling of his experiences with God.

The group would remain in one place for a time, e.g. near Bethel (12.8; 13.3), in the plain of Mamre, (‘the same is Hebron’ 23.19) where they had recognised ‘allies’(13.18; 14.13; 18.1), and at Gerar (20.1) where they encounted a Philistine trading settlement, and remained semi-permanently (21.34)). Eventually they would move on, returning back to places as suited them. When Sarah died she was at Kiriath Arba in Hebron and was buried at Mamre. It would appear that they had a fairly settled existence.

This is demonstrated by the fact that they dug wells which they regarded as their own (21.25) sufficiently to establish ownership by covenant (Beersheba 21.30-32; 22.19 compare also 26.18-23). They also planted trees (21.33), and Abraham bought a field as a permanent burial place (23.20). The documents often concentrate on Abraham alone (giving the impression of a solitary nomad) because he was father of the group and the one who received God’s revelation, but it is quite wrong to think of him as a solitary, quiet living, nomadic shepherd and cattle herder. Other instances are known where tribes are spoken of solely in terms of their leaders, so that the name of the leader denoted the whole tribe. (Thus ‘Israel’ and ‘Jacob’ can be used later to describe the Israelites). There would also be times when Abraham was in a different place from a large part of his possessions, which spread over a wide area seeking pasture.

The group would need to have an efficient fighting force, for they would regularly have to be prepared to defend themselves against opportunists, and their prosperity would require that they were well able to look after themselves. Wealth always brings its own problems and has to be constantly protected. This was one reason why they could not be ‘pushed about’ by, for example, Abimelech at Gerar (chapter 20). That may have been a not very large Philistine trading post, but Abimelech would not have paid such a large price otherwise.

(It should be noted that this clearly shows that the author was not mixing them up with the later Philistine occupation. No one could imagine them being willing to pay 1000 shekels to a petty prince).

Their use of tents is parallelled by the “seventeen kings who lived in tents” (Assyrian king list - c.1750BC), the Amorite tent dwellers of the earlier myth of Martu, and references in the Tale of Sinuhe (c.1950BC), while the possesion of camels as a comparative rarity (not mentioned in the general descriptions of wealth, but introduced as part of an important dowry) is in accordance with this period but not the first millenium. Camels are attested in a cuneiform tablet from Alalah (18th century BC), a kneeling camel figure from Byblos (19th century BC), a 19th century BC text from Ugarit and a Middle Bronze Age tomb at Nablus (1900 - 1550 BC), as well as other places.

Isaac.

Isaac and his group are also described as “possessing flocks and herds and many servants” and being envied for them by the Philistine traders (26.13-14), and as sowing crops and reaping the harvest at Gerar (26.12). They too were not endlessly wandering nomads. However, it would appear that all had not gone well on the death of Abraham. The Philistines had stopped up his wells (26.15), possibly because they no longer feared the tribal family under Isaac. His later expansion restored the situation, but it is noteworthy that there is no mention of silver and gold. Possibly Isaac had dropped the trading arrangements. He was not as powerful a force as Abraham who was clearly a man of great character and charisma.

Their Religion

We do not know a great deal about the group’s religious rites, although we know that they built altars, which suggests burnt offerings (compare 22.2-13), and prayed (12.8; 13.4; 13.18; 20.17 ), calling on the name of Jahweh, whom Abram is quite willing to identify with El Elyon, “God Most High” (14.22), El Shaddai, “Almighty God” (17.1) and El ‘Olam “the Everlasting God” (21.33). The offerings were probably seen as ‘giving to God’ in worship rather than as specifically sin offerings, but the latter should probably not be totally excluded. The simplicity of their religion confirms the accuracy of the narrative.

Their worship is exclusive to Jahweh, sometimes described as Elohim (intensive plural of El) or as Jahweh Elohim.The use of two names for one god in such circumstances is well attested elsewhere which is fatal for any theory which uses names of God to divide accounts. Jahweh is seen as Creator, and protector and provider (15.1), possessor of Heaven and Earth (14.22). It is clear therefore that the worship of other gods is excluded, while not decrying the worship of their allies. Indeed, as we have seen, Abram is willing to see a god worshipped by Melchizedech as simply another representation of Jahweh (14.22). In a very real sense they were monotheistic, although, with their life style, they were probably never faced with the question of explaining pantheons of gods with whom they had nothing to do.

The idea behind sacrifices at this early stage would appear to be that of an offering to God which is pleasant to Him as an act of worship and thanksgiving (8.20-21).

They began to practise the rite of circumcision, which was common to the nations round about, which was reinterpreted as a seal of their covenant with God (17.10-14, 23-27).

The Celebration of Feasts

They would undoubtedly have celebrated certain feasts such as New Year, (then around April?), the lambing season, and possibly different harvests. At these Feasts they would almost certainly have reminded themselves of their special relationship with their God, and it is probable that at one or another of these Feasts the Creation narrative, reminder of God’s favour and the sabbath, and the Flood narrative, guarantee of the seasons which were so important to them, and God’s covenants with Abraham, the guarantee of their future, would be read out in covenant renewing ceremonies.

God’s Covenants with Abram

We have a number of accounts where Abram (meaning ‘my Father is Ram’, suggestive of his father’s polytheism, later changed to Abraham ‘father of many’) has experiences of God, sometimes very vivid and awe-inspiring (15.12), resulting in the establishing of covenants. The accounts were recorded because of the covenants. We may read the accounts in order to use them as illustrations of godly behaviour, but they were not recorded for that purpose. The theophanies and the covenants were all important. They are interspersed with examples of Abram’s covenants made with men. This part of Genesis is a record of different covenants, a ‘covenant’ book.

Oral History and Written Covenants

The history of the family tribe would be remembered orally, and no doubt recounted by the family storyteller, but the covenants (and lines of descent which connected with the covenants?) were put in written form. Examples elsewhere have demonstrated that special words from a god would be recorded in writing, together with the background to the ‘revelation’. We even have traces of the colophons (titles) which would have been placed on the top or bottom of the tablets to make reference easy, “these are the generations of --”(or‘this is the history of’ see Genesis.11.10; 11.27; 25.12; 25.19; 36.1,9; 37.2), although some may have been edited out when they were put together as one account. Their preservation is significant as indicating the importance to the writer of the source.

Thus we do not have a continuous history of Abraham, but periodic incidents when he experienced manifestations of God. The writer has put these together in a continous form,but there are large gaps. This explains why we know so little of Isaac. He does not appear to have had pneumatic experiences to the same extent as Abraham, although he knew God as “the Fear of Isaac” (31.42), which does suggest the memory of at least one such experience (see also 26.2-5;26.24).

Content of the Covenants.

The promises of the covenants, which were God initiated, but dependent, as all God’s covenants are, on obedience(Genesis 12.1; 17.1; 22.16; 26.5) and faith (which is the father of obedience), (Genesis 15.6) were that:

• God would make of Abraham great nations (12.2; 17.6, 20 (note ‘nations’, Ishmael’s children are included, as v.20 stresses);21.13; 25.1-4 ; 25.23 (Isaac’s sons); 35.11).
• Through him all nations would be blessed (12.3; 17.4-5; 22.18; 28.14).
• Kings would descend from him (17.6; 35.11).
• The land as far as he could see in all directions would belong to his children for ever (13.15; 17.8; 26.3; 35.12).
• His descendants would be innumerable (13.16; 15.5; 16.10 of Ishmael; 17.2; 22.17; 26.4; 28.14).

As we note these promises were renewed to Isaac and Jacob, and, to a lesser extent, to Ishmael and Esau. They were clearly treasured in written form as of prime importance, together with their surrounding histories. Esau’s branch of the family even boasted that they had achieved ‘kingship’ first (36.31). (It is significant in this regard that the term ‘king over the children of Israel’ never occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament. There it is always ‘king over Israel’. This counts against a later scribal explanation, as they would then almost certainly have used the accepted terminology. The words are thus either a boast by Esau’s descendants saying ‘we have achieved the promise and they have not’ or written in the confidence that one day the children of Israel would have a king in accordance with God’s promise to Abraham). This recording of covenants with their surrounding histories is testified to elsewhere, as we have seen.

Background to the Narratives

Albright says “Apart from a few die-hard scholars, there is scarcely a single biblical historian who has not been impressed by the rapid accumulation of data supporting the substantial historicity of patriarchal tradition”, and even the definitely sceptical Thompson has to admit that “many of the customs in Genesis --- fit very well into the context of ancient near-eastern family law”.

Such evidence has to be handled carefully as ‘proving’ anything, as the customs tended to remain similar over hundreds, if not thousands, of years. What it does demonstrate is that Genesis naturally depicts actual customs similar to those in other nations, and that there is nothing inconsistent with a patriarchal date. We can almost certainly go so far as to say that the better parallels are in the period covered by the lives of the Patriarchs.

Near Eastern Customs

Examples of customs which can be parallelled with ancient texts (such as the Nuzi texts (15th century BC), the code of Hammurabi (18th century BC), the Mari texts (18th century BC), and others), are:

• Adoption of an heir to carry out filial responsibilities in old age (15.2-4).
• A son born subsequently receiving the major inheritance.
• A slave girl being asked to produce an heir when the wife is barren (16.2; 30.3-4)
• The giving of a slave girl as part of a dowry (29.24)
• The description of the eldest son as ‘rab’ (Nuzi - rabu) instead of ‘bekor’ (25.5-6)
• Examples of inheritance being exchanged by brothers (25.33)
• The importance of the family gods for inheritance purposes (31.30)
• Restriction of a man from taking other wives (31.50)
• The importance of the deathbed blessing (49.1-28)
• Disinheritance for family ‘disrespect’ (35.22 with 49.3-4)

Near Eastern Names.

Albright points out that “among Amorite personal names in these centuries we have a number characteristic also of Hebrew tradition, such as Abram, Jacob, Laban, Zebulun, Benjamin”, while of the four kings mentioned in Genesis 14 the name Arioch is parallelled by Ariwuku of Mari, and the Hurrian names Ariaku and Ari-ukku, Chedorlaomer, meaning ‘slave of Lagamer’, an Elamite deity, (von Rad comments, ‘there could well have been an Elamite king of that name), is genuine Elamite, and the name of Tidal can be parallelled with the Hittite Tudhalia.

None of these parallel names need be taken as identification as the specific persons, but they demonstrate that the names fit into the background of the times. Raids by petty kings were a feature of those days, and although Abram and his men tackled them when they were exhausted, they could clearly not have been four major kings with their armies.

It is interesting that the account of the kings is the only place where Abram is called ‘the Hebrew’. This account would appear to have been recorded by someone outside the tribe, possibly the recorder of King Melchizedek, and preserved by Abram as a record of the covenant relationship he had with Melchizedek, and possibly of his continual responsibility to pay ‘tithes’.

The use of the term ‘the Hebrew’ might well suggest that Abraham was linked in his neighbours’ minds with the ‘habiru’ who are testified to in many texts. They were wandering peoples, appearing as merchants, mercenaries and invading bands. (This might not have been so. Later Israel certainly referred the designation back to their ancestor Eber). Abraham was not a ‘habiru’ but he might well have appeared so to some of his neighbours, and the name may well have become more generalised to refer to any incoming strangers.

Summary

It is clear overall that the accounts are free from those anachronisms we would expect if they had been authored at a later date, and also from the expansion of the details of the life of Abraham that would have accrued in such circumstances. This is further confirmed by the primitive nature of the use of numbers in Genesis (see The Use of Numbers in the Ancient Near East & Genesis).

The compiler clearly took great care when putting the accounts together that he did not alter the main narrative.

Old Testament Introduction Part 2

Jacob and Esau

The remarkable relationship between these two men is worthy of notice. They were twins. Esau was the active one and loved hunting, while Jacob preferred a more sedentary life. Esau, as the eldest by a few minutes, had the right to be head of the family and to take over leadership after Isaac died. But, like many active men, he considered this position to be of no great importance. Rather than remain and learn how to administer and control the shepherding of the flocks and herds he went off to enjoy himself, and we learn that he so despised his birthright that he was willing to barter it for food one day when he came in hungry from hunting. The picture is of a rather likeable, carefree young man who liked to do his own thing rather than prepare himself for future responsibilities.

The incident of the selling of the birthright was not to Jacob’s credit, and God had to deal with him severely before He could confirm him in his position. But it does demonstrate that Jacob treasured leadership of the family tribe, while Esau despised it. (The incidents are recorded as facts, and as fulfilling the birth prophecy (25.23), not as showing approval). The phrase ‘Esau ate and drank, rose up and went away’ (25.34) brings out his callous attitude to what he had done. At the time he really could not care less.

Jacob’s unscrupulousness comes out again when, at the instigation of his mother, he pretends to be Esau and steals Esau’s ‘blessing’. The deathbed blessing was seen as conferring important rights. It should however be noted that Jacob could justly claim that this was his right now that he owned the birthright (27.37 shows the content of the blessing which parallelled the birthright) and that he was preventing himself from being cheated. It may be that Isaac was not aware of the earlier deal, but it is more probable that he chose to ignore it out of favouritism. Esau presumably had by this time dismissed the earlier situation, possibly at his father’s instigation. But a solemn covenant (notice Jacob’s insistence on an oath - 25.33) was looked on as binding in those days, however obtained, and he was equally decidedly in the wrong.

It is noteworthy that the blessing would not have suited Esau. He was not interested in ‘the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine’. He was a hunter. The later blessing which he received (27.39-40) was much more his style, as he seems to have recognised later on when he welcomes Jacob back home (33.4). The whole account is honest and puts everyone in a bad light, but it does suggest that Esau was too happy-go-lucky to make a good patriarch. He was too dismissive of what was important, and too taken up with relative trivialities. He was not of the stuff of ‘management’.

Jacob pays a price in that he has to flee the tribe to escape Esau’s vengeance. But his mother is careful to arrange that it is with Isaac’s approval, lest his position be affected. It should be noted that Isaac now acknowledges Jacob’s position as inheritor of Abraham’s blessing (28.4). But his mother too pays a price. She is never to see her favourite son again.

God also accepts the situation (28.13-15), founded as it is on the customs of the tribe. Indeed He had already foreseen it (‘the elder shall serve the younger’ 25.23). He is determined that if Jacob is to be leader he will be a good leader. This shows neither approval of what he has done, nor acknowledgement of his worthiness. It demonstrates rather the grace of God in the fulfilling of His promises to Abraham. He knows that Jacob has many lessons to learn, and will ensure that he learns them. God sees men not as they are but as they will be.

When Jacob arrives among his father’s relatives he soon discovers that he is not the only one capable of trickery, and finds himself saddled with an unwanted wife and a lengthy servitude. He too has to accept a fait accompli. Solemn covenants, however obtained, could not be broken. It is ironic that he who supplanted his elder brother contrary to custom now loses out because of a similar custom (that the elder must marry first). The working for a wife and the demand that he take no other wives is exemplified in texts elsewhere.

Jacob faithfully carries out his part of the covenant and works as a bondservant for Laban for fourteen years, and so impresses Laban with his success that Laban wants him to remain longer. The resulting manoeuvrings between the two as they constantly seek to outwit each other (with the utmost Eastern courtesy) are, at this distance of time, amusing, although deadly serious at the time, and in the end Laban discovers that he has met his match. After he has cheated Jacob, Jacob gets his own back by making an arrangement, based on specialist knowledge, that results in a large part of Laban’s possessions becoming his own. Not surprisingly Laban is no longer impressed with Jacob, and Jacob realises it is time to return home. It should be noted that Jacob now presides over a family tribe in his own right (30.43).

It is interesting that Jacob has to discuss with his wives whether they will go with him. He has been a bondservant to Laban and it was customary for a bondservant to leave his wives behind when he left service (compare Exodus 21.4). They belong to the tribe (compare 31.26). But Laban has even cheated his own daughters so that they are in no doubt. He has treated them as ‘strangers’ (without family rights) by utilising for himself his daughter’s possessions once he had passed his daughters over to Jacob (31.15). Thus he had severed any rights the ‘family’ had over them. But Laban might not see it this way so he sneaks away while Laban’s back is turned. He may also have feared that Laban would demand a high price for letting him go. Tribal loyalties were strong, and the tribe possibly now saw him as ‘one of them’. For him to leave was a diminution of the tribe, especially as he bore with him men, women and animals that were a part of the tribe.

His attempt is futile, and the whole wider tribe in combination (31.23 - ‘he took his brethren’) go after him ‘a seven days journey’ (a long journey, compared with a ‘three day journey’ which meant a comparatively short journey - see our Use of Numbers). It would actually take longer than seven days to reach Mount Gilead. This demonstrates how seriously the situation is viewed. It was not just a matter between Jacob and Laban. It was a matter for the whole tribe. He must not be allowed to break free from the confederation with his wives and cattle.

A divine encounter alters the situation. God warns Laban that the matter is out of his hands (he must ‘say’ neither good nor bad i.e. he has no say in what is to happen) and Jacob is under divine protection. It must have been an awe-inspiring experience which left Laban visibly shaken, for it proves more powerful than the concept of tribal loyalty, which was not a thing taken lightly, and he has to convince his ‘brethren’.

Thwarted, Laban tries to put the best light on the situation. He can hardly have brought the whole confederation with him just over an argument about a farewell party (31.27-28). (There is an interesting contrast here with Rebekah (24.60). She was seen off with a farewell party because the tribe had accepted ‘payment’ in return for her and they were committing her to the protection of a related tribe. Laban pretends he would have done the same. But why then the show of strength?).

He then accuses Jacob of stealing his ‘teraphim’ (gods). These were small cultic objects, and according to 1 Samuel 19.13ff must have had the shape of a man or of a human face. They were used in obtaining oracles (Ezekiel 21.21) and elsewhere (at Nuzi) conveyed rights of headship to the family tribe. The latter reason may well have been why Rachel has taken them, as she and Leah clearly felt bitter about the way their father had disinherited them.

Jacob’s reply demonstrates how serious a matter the taking of his wives from the tribe was. He acknowledges that he is thwarting custom, and declares that he knows nothing about the teraphim. Laban (having failed to find the teraphim) stresses in return how he and the tribe will no longer be able to protect his daughters due to Jacob’s defection (31.43). He clearly feels this deeply and insists on a covenant before the gods (the gods of Abraham’s father and the gods of Nahor were not the God of Abraham (Joshua 24.2)), who can watch over it (31.50). In return he guarantees that Jacob will not be molested in the future.

(That the taking of the wives was the prime issue is shown by the fact that the teraphim is only mentioned later, whereas it would have provided a good face-saver if it had been considered a central issue. Laban clearly did not see this as being included in the prohibition to ‘say good or bad’, whereas had it been a central issue he would have done).

The incident where Jacob meets God’s ‘messengers’ at Mahanaim (meaning ‘two camps’) (32.1-2), while briefly recorded, is charged with significance. While Jacob has served Laban he has received no divine visitations. His last vivid experience of God was at Bethel prior to leaving the ‘promised land’ (28.10-22). There he had received assurance that he was in the covenant line. Now this certainty is confirmed. He is welcomed back by spiritual agents, ‘angels (messengers) of God’, and declares ‘this is God’s camp’. Possibly he has in mind that they are there as a military camp, a heavenly guarantee of security from Laban. They are certainly a reminder of his future responsibilities. The idea in the name would appear to be that his camp and God’s camp are side by side in mutual association.

Jacob now has to contend with the fact that he must face Esau again. He sends messengers ahead to Edom to let ‘Lord Esau’ know that he is coming as a wealthy man. He clearly has in mind (as comes out later) that Esau will be flattered by this approach and recognise in it the promise of a bribe, or to put it more kindly, an assurance of some kind of restitution. To his horror he learns that Esau is not safe in Edom but is actually coming to meet him with ‘four hundred’ men (a rounded approximation for a large band). To his guilty conscience this can only mean one thing. He thus changes his tactics and prepares emergency plans and makes emergency prayers. Positive proof of his wealth, and his willingness to share it with Esau, is sent before him in sections, with the hope that each section will gradually assuage Esau’s anger (he judges Esau by his own standards). It is probable that we are also to see in these actions a genuine sorrow in Jacob at the way he had previously treated his brother. Twenty years can change a man’s perspective.

Then comes an experience that changes Jacob’s life. This is undoubtedly the significance of his being given a new name. Having organised the crossing of the River Jabbok he finds himself alone at night on one bank of the river. There a man approaches him and he finds himself in a long and arduous wrestling match. It is an even match until the man ‘touches the hollow of his (Jacob’s) thigh’ which instantly cripples Jacob. Jacob immediately recognises that this is a divine visitation and he clings to the man, demanding a blessing. The blessing is a new name, ‘Israel’ (meaning a prince of God), an assurance that he has been given power both to prevail with God and to rule over men. This is confirmation that his pre-eminence over the people of God (Isaac’s household and tribe) is now accepted. He is at last worthy of the position. He later celebrates the occasion by buying land on which to build a permanent altar to God, naming it ‘God, the God of Israel’ (El Elohe Israel) as a reminder of his change of circumstances (33.18-20).

The arrival of Esau is a revelation. He has come with love in his heart for this twin brother who had ‘cheated’ him. It would appear that he is leader of a raiding band of some kind, and is in his element. It is something far more suited to his character than directly presiding over sheep and cattle, and agriculture, and has made him wealthy. He bears no grudge Indeed he even wants to offer Jacob his protection (possibly against bands similar to Esau’s). But Jacob, while relieved, still judges Esau by his own nature as a schemer, and prefers to be on his own.

Jacob’s final restoration in God’s favour comes by his return to Bethel where he had first met God. He has finally woken up to his responsibilities as a leader of the people of God and purges his tribal household of idolatry (35.2-4). Now he is ready to take over tribal headship. There is also an interesting reference to the need to cleanse oneself before approaching God (v.2) but we are not told how. (Water is never a cleansing instrument in the Old Testament except when mingled with sacrificial ashes. The ritual washings were preparatory to cleansing but are always followed by the refrain - ‘and they shall not be clean until -’ showing that it is not specifically the water that cleanses).

Arriving at Bethel he erects an altar to ‘God of the house of God (Beth-el)’ looking back to God’s previous revelation of Himself to Jacob at this very place. 35.9-10 are a recap (‘when he came out of Padan-Aram’) of the fact that his name has been changed by God, referring back to Peniel. This is to connect the change of name with this renewal of the covenant by means of a theophany. The fact of God’s ‘physical’ presence is stressed (v.13). After all his misbehaviour and wanderings he is now back in the covenant line.

The death of Isaac means that Jacob now takes over headship of the whole family tribe, incorporating his own large ‘household’ into it. However he demonstrates his new sense of responsibility in sharing it with Esau, who now need no longer be a gang leader. He is able to return to Edom a wealthy patriarch in his own right. His new importance comes out in the descriptions of his descendants taken from ‘the history of Esau’. He too is re-established.

Joseph

When we consider the record of the lives of Jacob and Joseph we notice a remarkable change in the narrative. No longer do we have just ‘covenant’ records but a continual history. This can be explained by the fact that a history was written up (possibly using ‘covenant records’ - see the colophon in 37.2) after the arrival in Egypt when papyrus was freely available and they no longer had to depend on clay and stone tablets. As a distinguished personage, the record of Joseph’s background and life would be considered as of great importance.

The Joseph narrative is so sprinkled with remarkably accurate details of life in Egypt at that time that even sceptical critics have had to admit that the account has an ancient origin.

The presence of Semites in high positions is well attested throughout the 2nd millennium BC, so that Joseph’s rise to power, while exceptional, is not totally unique.

The price of Joseph as a slave at 20 shekels of silver is correct for that period (Genesis 37.28). According to Kenneth Kitchen the price of a slave was 10-15 shekels in the late 3rd millennium BC, and 20 shekels around 1800-1700 BC. In 15th century Nuzi and Ugarit it was 30 shekels (compare Exodus 21.32) and by the 8th century BC it was up to 50-60 shekels (2 Kings 15.20).

Concerning the caravan which purchased Joseph, Kitchen says, “This interchange of terms (Ishmaelites, Midianites and Medanites) is most plainly exhibited by Judges 8.24 which explicitly states that the Midianites beaten by Gideon had golden earrings because they were Ishmaelites.” He comments elsewhere, “The caravan was Ishmaelite, including under this term Midianites and Medanites; the terms overlap. This interchange of terms is most plainly exhibited by Judges 8.24. The spelling Medanites in the hebrew of Gen.37.6 may indicate an overlap of a third term: compare Gen. 25.2 (1 Chron. 1.32), where both Midian and Medan are sons of Abraham by Keturah. The use of multiple terms in a narrative is indicative not of disparate documents but of typical Near Eastern stylistic usage. For similar use of three terms within a few lines compare the Egyptian stele of Sebbekhu (c.1850 BC), who refers to the one general foe of his Pharaoh’s Palestinian campaign as Mntyw-Stt, “Asiatic bedouin”; as Rntw hst, “vile Syrians”; and as Mw, “Asiatics” --- such examples could be multiplied”.

The account of Joseph’s seduction by the wife of Potiphar bears some slight resemblance to the Egyptian ‘Tale of Two Brothers’ but the details are very different and suggestions that one is based on the other are considerably far-fetched. Seduction of other men by men’s wives is not a rare phenomenon, (especially when the man is in a position of servitude, which was not so in the case of the two brothers), and rejection would often have resulted in an attempt at revenge (there is no fury like a woman scorned), and that is the major similarity between them. The differences are legion. Had both been discovered by archaeologists separately no thought of a connection would have occurred.

The following are some of the evidences of familiarity with the Egyptian background and terminology of the time:

• Description of Potiphar as ‘captain of the bodyguard’ (39.1).
• Use of the term ‘overseer’ (39.4)
• The offices of ‘chief cup-bearer’ and ‘chief baker’ (40.2).
• The constant reference by the brothers to Joseph as ‘the man’. Pharaoh was known as ‘the god’ and his vizier as ‘the man’.
• The phrase ‘Father to Pharaoh’ (Egyptian usage - ‘father to the gods (i.e. Pharaoh) is here rid of its religious associations) (45.8).
• The phrase ‘lord of all his house’ (45.8) (compare Egyptian usage - ‘Lord of Pharaoh’s house’).
• The title ‘ruler over all the land of Egypt’ (45.8). Egypt was a land of two kingdoms, North and South (the hebrew for Egypt - mizraim - is plural).
• The distinctive use of ‘Pharaoh’ without a name, typical of this period, but not later.
• The name Zaphenath-paaneah (41.45), found on an inscription designating the priestly leader of the Sed Festival, variously translated as ‘head of the sacred college’, ‘revealer of secrets’ or ‘sustainer of life’. It was thus probably an important title. Joseph was married off by Pharaoh to the daughter of the priest of On, an important marriage as it connected him with the priests of Heliopolis, the ruling class of Egypt. (This would suggest that his elevation was not under the Hyksos, Semites who ruled lower Egypt for a century or so. They would not have favoured Heliopolis).
• The forty days of embalming and seventy days of mourning (50.3) ‘exactly according with the period customary for the embalming and mourning in the case of highly placed deceased persons’ (Yahuda).
• The term ‘physician’ for the embalmer (50.2).
• The phrase ‘days of mourning (or weeping)’ (50.4), only here in the Old Testament but reflecting the Egyptian ‘herwu-en-reny’ ‘days of weeping’. There would be an elaborate program of mourning processions and very complicated ceremonies in which various priests took part.
• “The servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house and all the elders of the land of Egypt” (50.7) represent Pharaoh’s court officials, the Shemesu-hayit (‘elders of the hall’), and the supreme councillors representing the different districts in Egypt. As Yahuda says, “all these details could only be familiar to a writer who lived among the Egyptians and knew the rules of court etiquette and the gradations of state officialdom”.
• Joseph’s indirect approach to Pharaoh when obtaining leave to bury his father in Canaan (50.14). Mourners could not approach Pharaoh until their dead had been buried.