Translating the Jacob Cycle: Gen 25:19-34

Posted on Updated on

Esau sells his birth-right for a pottage of lentiles.  Engraving.  1728.  Gerald Hoet and Gillem van der Gouwen.  The Hague.

 

As I continue to write and think through my dissertation, I thought it may be interesting to work through and translate the Jacob cycle (Gen 25-36) here, to provide others a sense of how I view the text and to engage others in dialogue on a topic I have thought very much about.  And while I don’t want to give every nuance of my interpretation away (who will buy it when it’s published then?!), I will offer after the translation some notes on key aspects of the text and my interpretation.

We will begin at the beginning, with the birth of Jacob and Esau and the extortion (note the word choice) of the right of the firstborn from Esau.  I read this section of text as two episodes that are still intimately related to one another.  In fact, I contend one cannot (indeed, should not) interpret any text in the Jacob cycle apart from this introductory section, especially the divine oracle in Gen 25:23.  So, I offer to you here my translation of Gen 25:19-34.

(A clarifier: I am a very literal translator–hyper-literal.  That may explain the nature of some of my translation.  I am also here foregoing any detailed or complex analysis of the Hebrew or the narrative itself.  As JW notes, such is for publications . . . . and I don’t want to give everything away).

 

(19) And these are the generations of Isaac, son of Abraham; Abraham begot Isaac. (20) And Isaac was forty when he took Rebekah, daughter of Bethuel the Aramean from Paddan-Aram, sister of Laban, to him as a wife. (21) And Isaac made supplication to YHWH on behalf of his wife for she was barren, and YHWH was supplicated to him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. (22) And the sons struggled with one another in her womb and she said, “If thus, why in the world [am] I?” And she went to seek YHWH. (23) And YHWH said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from your belly will be separated, and a people will be stronger than the other people, and the greater will serve the lesser.” (24) And her days for bearing were full and behold, twins in her womb! (25) And the first came out red, all of him like a cloak of hair; and they called his name “Esau.” (26) And afterwards his brother came out and his hand grasping the heel of Esau; and he called his name “Jacob.” And Isaac was sixty when she bore them. (27) And the young men grew up, and Esau was a man knowing game, a man of the field, and Jacob was a complete/sound man, dwelling in tents. (28) And Isaac loved Esau, for he had game in his mouth, but Rebekah was loving Jacob. (29) And Jacob was cooking a boiled thing and Esau came in from the field, and he was faint. (30) And Esau said to Jacob, “Let me gobble down, please, from the red–this red!–for I am faint.” Therefore his name was called Edom. (31) And Jacob said, “Sell today your right of the firstborn to me.” (32) And Esau said, “Behold, I am going to die, and what in the world to me is a right of the firstborn?” (33) And Jacob said, “Swear to me today.” And he swore to him and he sold his right of the firstborn to Jacob. (34) And Jacob gave to Esau bread and boiled lentils, and he ate and he drank and he rose and he went, and Esau despised the right of the firstborn.

Vv. 19-21: Commentators have regularly noted that the Isaac toledot contains very little about Isaac save for chapter 26, which seems to provide a ‘backward glance.’  I agree; Isaac is hardly the active figure (even in chapter 26 he is far less active than any other of the patriarchs or matriarchs).  In v. 19 he is wholly subordinated to his relation to Abraham . . . . note it is Abraham who begot Isaac, as well as the consecutive mention of Abraham’s name in the Hebrew of v. 19.  Some recent attempts to assign a more active role to Isaac are not wholly convincing to me, seeing him as knowing of Jacob and Rebekah’s deception yet choosing to play along with the deception, thus himself deceiving, to bring about his desire to bless Jacob (Mignon Jacobs) or as intentionally not passing on the full ancestral promise to Jacob in chapter 27 and thus attempting to thwart YHWH’s purposes.  I do think, however, in ch. 27 where Isaac calls only Esau while Rebekah does not appear to be a party to this discussion evinces the possibility that he sought to bless Esau without Jacob and Rebekah’s knowledge.

V. 22: I have rendered Rebekah’s words literally, finding meaning itself in the MT and thus seeing the obvious attempts cited in the BHS critical apparatus to tidy up her words as less original by text-critical standards.  Her near incomprehensible words also echo those of Esau, I believe, later.

V. 23: The oracle is central to the entire Jacob cycle, as myself, Brueggemann, and others argue.  You may not have caught it in reading through the translation, but how I render the final line of the oracle is unique; only Chris Heard notes the possibility of such a translation and Laurence Turner opts for this translation in one of his volumes and against it in another.  Turner’s exegesis also does not jibe with his rendering of this line as I have within the overall context of the Jacob cycle.  If you want to know more about how I arrive at this reading, and my argument for its impact on the rest of the Jacob cycle, you’ll have to come hear my paper at SBL in New Orleans!

Vv. 25-28: The descriptions of the two brothers are seminal for understanding not only the subsequent deceptions (note Esau’s hairiness and the deception of Isaac in Gen 27, Esau’s redness and the extortion of the right of the firstborn; Esau and Isaac’s love of food; and Jacob as ish tam, a saying that has provided fodder for much scholarly debate, yet which I think cannot be interpreted apart from Jacob’s deceptive activity) but also the narrator’s evaluation of the characters.  To be sure, there is ambiguity, but I think it is quite clear the narrative seeks to communicate that Esau is a verbose, overly dramatic, bumbling fool and Jacob is a shrewd and sagacious figure.

Vv. 29-30: This is the first scene that clearly characterizes Esau as I describe him above.  He comes in from a simple hunting expedition exhausted, claiming he is near death.  Esau is here overly dramatic, as is evident by the fact such a hunting endeavor should not exhaust him so, especially against the backdrop of v. 27, describing him as an adept hunter (which I have argued elsewhere).  His use of the hiphil form of laat, a hapax, belies the narrator’s intent; the word is used in postbiblical texts to describe the eating habits of animals (contra Chris Heard, who claims that this word is ambiguous and its postbiblical usage need not define its usage here; I disagree . . . . if the narrator wanted simply to communicate that Esau ate, he could [should?] have used the very common word achal).  In the hiphil, in fact, it may even carry the sense that Esau is requesting Jacob feed him!  The double calling of “red, red” also reveals Esau’s negative characterization.

Vv. 31-33: Jacob is shrewd and businesslike, as Alter describes him, saying only a few words.  The Hebrew is very intentional as well; Jacob holds out the li (to me) until the very end, which I have preserved in my translation. 

V. 34: A rapid influx of verbs with Esau as the subject.  Note that the right of the firstborn no longer carries a pronominal suffix showing Esau’s ownership; it is now simply the ‘other’ and definite “right of the firstborn.”

About these ads

16 thoughts on “Translating the Jacob Cycle: Gen 25:19-34

    Rob Kashow said:
    July 10, 2009 at 11:17 am

    John, now we’re talking. I need more time to read this over though. This will be fun to look at. Thanks!

    John Anderson responded:
    July 10, 2009 at 11:24 am

    Glad to hear it, Rob. And again, so everyone understands, a few reminders:

    1) Remember I’m leaving for South Dakota today [Friday-Saturday], so don’t get alarmed if I don’t reply quickly.

    2) This is intentionally very brief for a number of reasons. Primary among them is my desire to keep my ideas close to my chest. Sure, I have an article published on the topic and several regional and national SBL presentations, but until the dissertation is done, I don’t want to share too much. I trust you understand.

    3) What is presented here is in no way exhaustive of my thought (it’s actually entirely extemporaneous and off the top of my head, save for the translation). This is a topic I have thought very deeply and long about. My ideas are more or less set; now I just need to write the dissertation!

    Hope you enjoy!

    Shalom!

    Michael said:
    July 11, 2009 at 12:05 am

    Very interesting, John! I hope to be able to come to your paper in New Orleans. Either way, let’s meet up for sure.

    However, I don’t want to wait until your dissertation is published to find out all your “tricks” (pun intended), so quit messing around and share it all. Right here. Tonight. Or… or ELSE.

    That is all.

    John Anderson responded:
    July 12, 2009 at 11:02 am

    Michael:

    I do hope you will be able to attend my paper.

    If you want to know some of my “tricks” (clever pun), read my article. That will give you at least some sense of what I am doing with the cycle.

    Michael said:
    July 13, 2009 at 6:57 am

    Okay, then. I’m looking forward to reading the article soon (hopefully).

    Jason said:
    July 17, 2009 at 5:46 pm

    John,

    I was given your name by a fellow blogger for your suggestion on a few books on Genesis. If you have the time, I would appreciate your recommendations. The post is here. Thanks!

    John Anderson responded:
    July 17, 2009 at 8:08 pm

    Jason:

    I am glad to help. Some very fine volumes have already been named. Here are a few off the top of my head.

    First, I’m surprised no one has mentioned Claus Westermann’s Continental Commentary volume on Gen 1-11. While a bit dated (due to his use of traditional Pentateuchal source criticism; that said, I would not use Speiser or Skinner’s commentaries), it is still a very helpful volume in many respects. I would check it out, though not rely heavily on his arguments.

    Second, as many have mentioned in the comments to the post on your blog, Brueggemann’s Interpretation commentary is a very fine one for that series. With Brueggemann you will get a more narrative/theological approach, as well as one that will not skirt around the issues. I recommend it highly.

    Third, Hamilton’s NICOT should be good. And for perhaps the most recent work, look at Bill Arnold’s 2008 volume in the NCBC, Barry Bandstra’s Genesis 1-11: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text.

    Fourth, Brian has already mentioned Allen Ross’ Creation and Blessing: An Exposition on the Study of Genesis. I’m personally not enamored with this volume, but it does raise some good issues to look at and serves its purpose well.

    Fifth, Waltke’s recent commentary will give you a nice perspective that will complement Ross’ and likely balance Brueggemann’s.

    If I think of more I will let you know. I do hope this is helpful.

    Jason said:
    July 17, 2009 at 8:35 pm

    John,

    Thanks a million for the suggestions. What do you think of Sailhamer’s commentary?

      John Anderson responded:
      July 17, 2009 at 10:00 pm

      Jason:

      I have not read this particular volume of Sailhamer, however, personally, I’m not too keen on his stuff. For a variety of reasons.

      I forgot to mention, also, specifically on the issue of the imago Dei in Gen 1, see J. Richard Middleton’s The Liberating Image. A very fine, thorough, nuanced volume that deals with the ancient Near Eastern materials as well.

      Rob Kashow said:
      July 17, 2009 at 11:20 pm

      Jason,

      I’ve read through all of Sailhamer’s works and from a literary critical and narrative theological standpoint he works are excellent. At times, he gets a little carried away, but generally speaking he makes astute observations.

        John Anderson responded:
        July 17, 2009 at 11:59 pm

        Rob:

        I may be inclined to agree with you on this point. The getting carried away thing is pretty much spot on . . . . and I do think his exegesis is a bit ‘bent,’ intentionally, towards the more conservative. That is fine, but this is also where the stretching and getting carried away arises, at least in my view.

        All that said, he is worth checking out. But I wouldn’t rank him above Brueggemann or the others I list above.

        Rob Kashow said:
        July 18, 2009 at 8:29 am

        John, exactly.

        Though not on the level of Bruggeman and some others, I personally think Sailhamer is a must read. I tend to look at him at a good starting point or a good book to set the stage that other books can later nuance the conservative leanings.

    Laurence Turner said:
    August 2, 2009 at 5:15 am

    John
    You are gracious enough to mention some of the work I have done on the Jacob story. As far as the translation and understanding of Gen. 25:23 is concerned, I have more recently written an article for a non-specialist readership which incorporates some points from my previous work, but in a postscript briefly muses over the ambiguity of the verse. See ‘Disappointed Expectations: A Narrative-Critical Reading of the Jacob Story’, Scripture Bulletin 36 no. 2 (2006), pp. 54-63.

    I hope to be in New Orleans to hear and interact with your paper.

    Laurence Turner

    John Anderson responded:
    August 2, 2009 at 9:04 am

    Dr. Turner:

    Thank you very much for your comments! As a big fan of your work (see HERE) I am pleased to know you have found my blog. And thank you for the bibliography. I look forward to taking a peek at it, especially your comments on ambiguity given my dissertation and upcoming SBL presentation. I look forward to it also because you are the only one of whom I am aware that shares my view on the translation of Gen 25:23 (“the greater will serve the lesser”) (though if I remember correctly, don’t you go with the more traditional rendering ["the elder will serve the younger"] in your more recent Genesis Readings commentary?).

    I hope we can continue to dialogue here, via email, and at SBL.

    All the best!

    [...] other posts on my dissertation topic and progress, see HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and [...]

    Blogging SBL: Sunday, Nov 22, 2009 « Hesed we 'emet said:
    November 30, 2009 at 9:47 pm

    [...] with Turner’s work, I have noted my deep appreciation for it several times (see HERE and HERE, as well as the comments to this latter post w here Turner responds).  It was a very fine time [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s