For this paper, please focus on a small (roughly 6 -10 verse) section of Genesis 30-31 and work it through in as much detail as you can. You should, at a minimum: Extra important Details: -Engage the Hebrew text by showing the nuances of meaning, wordplay or translation issues. -Pay close attention to the structure (e.g., chiasm or other shaping device) -Note literary features (e.g., movement of plot, characterization, scene setup or change, suspense, humor) -Engage more than one scholarly resource (you can use the one you brought to the group and one other), both by summarizing the relevant points made and offering your own thoughts on how convincing the argument(s) was/were. -This paper should be 4-5 pages, double spaced -The link below takes you to online bible (Gen 30-31) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+30-31&version=NIV Use ALL TEN READING TOOLS, including: 1. *Compare translations. What words are so different across translations that it is essential to know the original Hebrew and/or Greek word? 2. Cultural context . What elements in the story (e.g., scene, characterization, what people say or do) seem unclear to you, where knowing cultural context would shed light? Be aware of two different, but often overlapping cultural contexts: a) that within the story world(sometime in the early 2nd millennium BCE) and that of the author(s)’ time (during the Babylonian Exile). 3. *Narrative context . .Where does this particular piece of narrative fit within a) the immediate section of Genesis (i.e., Primeval History, Abraham/Sarah cycle, Jacob cycle, Joseph story) and b) within the larger context of Genesis? 4. Structure of the section. Does the passage have a particular internal structure that helps to reveal its meaning (e.g., chiasm, inclusion, other forms of repetition)? 5. Intratextual echoing and foreshadowing : Does this passage either recall or anticipate other passages a) in how it is structured (e.g., the three “wife-sister” stories); b) what is assumes or anticipates as knowledge about characters, including God, places or situations; c) that reveal how plot conveys meaning? 6. *Details within the passage. What do you notice about how 1) the characters are portrayed; 2) characters engage with each other, including with God; 3) setting (including place, time of day, season of year) shapes the story; surprise, twists or other plot elementsgenerate a response in either the characters or you as a reader? 7. Anything else. What else do you notice and have questions about that might not fall into one of the categories above? 8. Effect on your own presuppositions. How does the unfolding meaning challenge you to reconsider your own presuppositions about God, God’s purposes and/or the meaning of human life? What about who you are as a reader (i.e., the elements within the “circle” of you as a reader) are you challenged to rethink? 9. *Insights from the general readings. What do the interpreters whose writing is assigned for this passage have to say that shapes your understanding? 10. *Insights from your chosen, additional reading . This one I have attached a couple of articles you can choose from as an additional reading. But please use two articles only. Articles attached ( Jacob and wives stories, Transformation of Jacob’s flocks, Article 2 Jacob, Article (Jacob). NOTE : Please mark each paragraph or section of your paper with the name of the tool you are using in that paragraph. For the narrative context please do Not summarize the passage instead situating it in the previous narrative) Let me know if you have any questions! GENESIS 31: JACOB'S PECULIAR DREAM SHIMON BAKON One day, after tarrying 21 years in Haran, Jacob summons his wives Leah and Rachel to his field for a secret communication. He tells them that the time has come to return to the land of his fathers. He offers two reasons: Laban's sons have accused him of building up his wealth by taking it from their father. Furthermore, Laban's attitude toward him has now changed. Jacob then tells his wives about a dream that he has had: Once, at the mating time of the flocks, I had a dream in which I saw that the he-goats, as they mated, were streaked, speckled, and mottled. And in the dream an angel of God said to me. "Jacob!" "Here I am, " / answered. And he said, "Note well that all the he-goats in the flock which are mating are streaked, speckled, and mottled; for I have noted all that Laban has been doing to you. I am the God of Beth-el, where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to Me. Up, then, leave this land and return to the land of your birth " (Gen. 31:10-13). Why does the Torah go out of its way to tell us of this peculiar and rather unsavory dream? The purpose becomes clear when we compare this dream to another one that Jacob had 21 years earlier. While fieeing from Esau, Jacob had a dream at Beth-el of a ladder on which angels were ascending and descending. In that dream God offered him promises and reassurance. Now what is he dreaming about? - he-goats mating, and streaked, speckled, and mottled fiocks! Jacob, a man destined to be the father of a great nation, had under Laban's tutelage tumed into a successñil breeder of sheep and goats. The fact that the Lord introduced Himself in the dream as the God of Beth-el was a powerful reminder of the distressing change that had taken place in Jacob. The potential spiritual giant had become a master of animal husbandry. This adds another layer of meaning to the statement/or / have noted all that Laban has been doing to you. What, in fact, had Laban succeeded in doing to Shimon Bakon, Ph.D., is the Editor Emeritus of The Jewish Bible Quarterly. 260 SHIMON BAKON Jacob? Jacob had married his two daughters and was blessed with 11 sons. Laban tried to cheat Jacob, but never really succeeded. He had repeatedly changed the conditions of Jacob's service and the choice of sheep and goats as a reward for his labor; yet Jacob, by an uncanny genetic manipulation, had managed to outsmart Laban and become a wealthy man. So the dream itself showed what Laban had done to Jacob. It was time for Jacob to retum to his birthplace. NOTES 1. See also Pinchas H. Peli, Torah Today (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005) pp. 30-32. THE TRIENNIAL BIBLE READING CALENDAR DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF CHAIM ABRAMOWITZ October Ezekiel 9-36 November Ezekiel Hosea Joel 37-48 1-14 1- 2 December Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk 3- 4 - 9 January Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Psalms - 3 - 2 -14 - 3 - 5 February Psalms - 3 7 3 3 6-33 JEWISH BIBLE QUARTERLY Copyright of Jewish Bible Quarterly is the property of Jewish Bible Quarterly and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. JACOB AND THE WIFE-SISTER STORIES MARIAN KELSEY The phrase ‘What is this you have done? ’ and the similar ‘What have you done? ’ appear in the Bible only around a dozen times. About half of these are in Genesis. Either variation is a declaration of dismay and confrontation. This is apparent in the first two uses: the first in Genesis 3:13, when God speaks to Eve after she and Adam have eaten of the tree, and the second in Genesis 4:10, when God addresses Cain after his brother’s murder. There are five other appearances of the phrase in Genesis, and it is quickly apparent that three of them have simi­ lar contexts. The phrases appear in Genesis 12:18, 20:9 and 26:10 - in other words, in the three wife-sister stories. In each case the question is addressed to a patriarch by a foreign king. The king asks the question on discovering that the patriarch has presented his wife as his sister. Moreover, a fourth appearance of the phrase in Genesis is in the mouth of Jacob when he finds out that he has been given the wrong sister as his wife (Gen. 29:25). That story involves a simi­ lar duplicity between sister and wife. The appearance of the same question in this story leads one to wonder whether there are other similarities between Ja­ cob’s tale and the wife-sister stories of his forebears Isaac and Abraham. There are indeed parallels between the stories, and they are extensive enough to sug­ gest that Jacob’s experience with his two wives is a deliberate inversion of the wife-sister pattern. The wife-sister stories all begin with the patriarch travelling to a foreign land. Abraham went down to Egypt to sojourn there (Gen. 12:10), Abraham later journeyed... to the region o f the Negeb (Gen. 20:1), and Isaac went to Abimelech, king o f the Philistines, in Gerar (Gen. 26:1). Jacob too travels away from home and family, although he travels north and east to Paddan-aram, quite the opposite direction from that taken by his fathers (Gen. 28:5). Movements to and from the promised land are a common theme in the patriarchal stories, and it Marian Kelsey has degrees in biblical studies from the University o f St Andrews. Scotland and from Durham University in England. She is currently researching the book o f Jonah at the University o f St Andrews. JEWISH BIBLE QUARTERLY JACOB AND THE WIFE-SISTER STORIES 227 is not surprising to find Jacob also fitting the mold. Even so, in addition to trav­ elling in the opposite direction from normal, there are other indications that Ja­ cob’s story has inverted the usual pattern from wife turned sister to sister turned wife. Abraham and Isaac are both sojourners in their new locations, and fear for their safety there (Gen. 12:10, 20:1, 26:3). Jacob, however, is among kinsmen, and has been sent there because it is a place of safety, away from the anger of his brother (Gen. 29:13-14). Abraham and Isaac claim that their wives are in fact their sisters because they fear for their own safety. In each case the deception, directly or indirectly, leads to the security and enrichment of the patriarch. In Genesis 12, Pharaoh takes Abraham’s so-called sister into his palace and Abraham is rewarded with sheep and cattle and slaves. Genesis 20 is a little different; when Sarah is returned to Abraham he is compensated with sheep, cattle, slaves, silver and the choice of settling wherever he pleases in Abimeiech’s land. In Genesis 26 there is no such direct link between the patriarch’s deception and his acquirement of wealth and safety. Nonetheless, after discovering the lie, Abimelech orders his people to leave Isaac alone and Isaac subsequently prospers, until he becomes so wealthy that Abimelech orders him away from the land. In contrast to this, Jacob is the victim of dishonesty. He wishes to take Rachel for a wife, but by deception is wedded to her sister (Gen. 29:25). The trickery perpetrated by his fathers results in their security and enrichment, but the decep­ tion practised on Jacob results in his being bound in service for fourteen years. During that time, he finds himself enriching the host who deceived him: the little you [Laban] had before I [Jacob] came has grown to much (Gen. 30:29). Fortunately for Jacob, he is able to strike a new deal with Laban that allows Ja­ cob to amass great wealth (Gen. 30:31-43). However, he never finds security. Laban is always changing the terms. Even in gaining wealth, Jacob only creates rivalry between him and his father-in-law (Gen. 31:1-2, 7). Eventually Jacob must flee unbeknownst to Laban, unlike Abraham and Isaac who are set on their way (or given land to settle) by the king concerned. One final element that binds Jacob’s story to those of Abraham in Genesis 20 (though not in Genesis 12) and Isaac in Genesis 26 is the subsequent forging of a covenant, a berit, between the two parties. It is exceedingly rare in the Torah for a covenant to be formed with anyone but God. In fact, the only other excepVol. 46, No. 4,2018 228 MARIAN KELSEY tion to this rule is in Genesis 14:13 when Abraham allies with other tribal lead­ ers. Nonetheless, in two of the wife-sister stories, a covenant is necessary to resolve the remaining tensions between the patriarch and his host. Abraham and Isaac initially find security after the deception that they each practised on Abimelech. Abimelech says to Abraham ‘Here my land is before you; settle wherever you please' and of Isaac ‘Anyone who molests this man or his wife shall be put to death’ (Gen. 20:15 and 26:11). However, in each case Abimelech is aware that God is with the patriarch, and thus wary of the patriarch’s potential threat. Therefore Abimelech subsequently insists on a covenant with the patri­ arch to ensure continued peace between them (Gen. 21:22-34 and 26:26-31). As far as Jacob and Laban are concerned, Jacob might feel he had more to tear from Laban than vice versa. Even so, the (rather more significant) remaining tensions between Jacob and Laban are finally resolved with a covenant, alter Laban is warned by God not to do Jacob any harm (Gen. 31:29, 43-54). What is the purpose in inverting the wife-sister stories like this? One possibil­ ity may lie in the discomfiting nature of the wife-sister stories themselves. In these stories, the patriarchs of the nation behave dishonestly and in doing so endanger the people’s matriarchs. Zakovitch suggests that there are tendencies in biblical narrative to punish transgression and to mitigate guilt when it is an ancestor who has transgressed.1 He argues that these tendencies are evident in the wife-sister stories themselves. For example, the (re-)telling of the story in Genesis 20 lightens Abraham’s guilt by allowing him to explain his actions to Abimelech and by specifying that nothing untoward happened to Sarah. In terms of punishment, Zakovitch describes the multiple connections between Genesis 12 and Israel’s enslavement in Egypt and suggests that the time in Egypt is im­ plicitly presented as punishment for Abraham’s behavior. With this framework in mind, the inversion of the wife-sister stories in the Jacob narrative could serve similar purposes. It serves as a kind of 'ancestral poetic justice,’ as the wife presented as a sister becomes a sister presented as wife.2 When Jacob ex­ claims, as did the foreign kings, ‘What have you done?' the author perhaps re­ veals to the reader that here, in Jacob’s story, his fathers’ transgressions have been repaid. Why, though, would Jacob be made to pay the price for his fathers’ dishones­ ty? A better explanation for the inversion of the wife-sister stories concerns JaJEWISIl BIBLE QUARTERLY JACOB AND THE WIFE-SISTER STORIES 229 cob’s own acts of deception. In Genesis 27, Jacob presented himself as his elder brother to gain his father’s blessing, though the blessing properly belonged to Esau. It is often suggested that the swapping of Rachel and Leah is payback for the swapping of Jacob and Esau. The question ‘What have you done? ’ ensures that the readers make the connection. By skilfully inserting into Jacob’s mouth the cry of dismay his forefathers once provoked, the author draws attention to patriarchal acts of deception, in the very moment when our sympathies are with Jacob as the victim of deception. We are reminded that the patriarchs did not always act with the utmost probity, and this has included Jacob. Furthermore, there is a contrast between Jacob’s deception in Genesis 27, which was practised against his own brother for personal gain, and Abraham’s and Isaac’s deceptions, which were done from fear for their safety in a foreign land. That being the case, Abraham and Isaac were not explicitly reproved for their actions. In fact, God acted to defend the patriarchs from the potential con­ sequences of their actions (Gen. 12:17, 20:3, and implied in 26:28-29). Jacob, however, receives no such protection. God is silent when Laban deceives Jacob. Thus, Jacob is punished for his usurpation of his brother by Laban’s swapping of Leah and Rachel. One sibling-switch is repaid by another. In a final twist of irony, Jacob’s punishment is also the mirror image of his fathers’ actions, in that sister is swapped for wife, as well as sibling for sibling. Jacob the trickster is made the victim of the thrice-attempted trick of his ancestors. The consummate trickster has himself been tricked. Nonetheless, even this literary requital has limits. Jacob does in the end make his fortune, and he returns in prosperity to his own land. God’s protection was withheld in one moment so that Jacob’s lie may be repaid, but it is subsequently extended again to Jacob, including in his further dealings with Laban (Gen. 31:24). Ultimately, the inversion of the wife-sister stories continues the ties be­ tween Jacob’s life and the lives of Abraham and Isaac. Each patriarch discovers that, even when he stumbles, God’s favour persists. Moreover, although Laban provides the narrative comeuppance to Jacob’s actions, the readers are not en­ couraged to feel sympathy for him. Laban is not the righteous Abimelech of Genesis 26, who is horrified that one of his people might have slept with a mar­ ried woman. Nor is he even the intimidated Abimelech of Genesis 20, who is prevented by God from sinning in such a way. Laban is himself a trickster who Vol. 46, No. 4, 2018 230 MARIAN KELSEY behaves deceitfully again and again toward Jacob. He too finds his dishonesty repaid, at his own daughter’s hand. And when Laban later catches up with Ja­ cob, his exclamation of indignation is, of course, 'What have you done?' NOTES 1. Yair Zakovitch, “Disgrace: The Lies of the Patriarch,” Social Research 75 (2008) pp. 1035-1058. 2. Gad Dishi, Jacob's Family Dynamics: Climbing the Rungs o f the Ladder (Jerusalem: Devora, 2010) p. 64. it ii il ii it it it it it it it it it H it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it sap -|nnn iron THE TRIENNIAL BIBLE READING CALENDAR DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF CHAIM ABRAMOWITZ October Psalms 5 7 - 85 November Psalms 8 6 - 113 December Psalms 114 —141 January Psalms Proverbs 142- 150 1 - 19 February Proverbs Job 2 0 - 31 1 - 16 it it il it it it it il it ii it ii it ii it it it fi il it it it it ii it it JEWISH BIBLE QUARTERLY Copyright of Jewish Bible Quarterly is the property of Jewish Bible Quarterly and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. JACOB AND THE WIFE-SISTER STORIES MARIAN KELSEY The phrase ‘What is this you have done? ’ and the similar ‘What have you done? ’ appear in the Bible only around a dozen times. About half of these are in Genesis. Either variation is a declaration of dismay and confrontation. This is apparent in the first two uses: the first in Genesis 3:13, when God speaks to Eve after she and Adam have eaten of the tree, and the second in Genesis 4:10, when God addresses Cain after his brother’s murder. There are five other appearances of the phrase in Genesis, and it is quickly apparent that three of them have simi­ lar contexts. The phrases appear in Genesis 12:18, 20:9 and 26:10 - in other words, in the three wife-sister stories. In each case the question is addressed to a patriarch by a foreign king. The king asks the question on discovering that the patriarch has presented his wife as his sister. Moreover, a fourth appearance of the phrase in Genesis is in the mouth of Jacob when he finds out that he has been given the wrong sister as his wife (Gen. 29:25). That story involves a simi­ lar duplicity between sister and wife. The appearance of the same question in this story leads one to wonder whether there are other similarities between Ja­ cob’s tale and the wife-sister stories of his forebears Isaac and Abraham. There are indeed parallels between the stories, and they are extensive enough to sug­ gest that Jacob’s experience with his two wives is a deliberate inversion of the wife-sister pattern. The wife-sister stories all begin with the patriarch travelling to a foreign land. Abraham went down to Egypt to sojourn there (Gen. 12:10), Abraham later journeyed... to the region o f the Negeb (Gen. 20:1), and Isaac went to Abimelech, king o f the Philistines, in Gerar (Gen. 26:1). Jacob too travels away from home and family, although he travels north and east to Paddan-aram, quite the opposite direction from that taken by his fathers (Gen. 28:5). Movements to and from the promised land are a common theme in the patriarchal stories, and it Marian Kelsey has degrees in biblical studies from the University o f St Andrews. Scotland and from Durham University in England. She is currently researching the book o f Jonah at the University o f St Andrews. JEWISH BIBLE QUARTERLY JACOB AND THE WIFE-SISTER STORIES 227 is not surprising to find Jacob also fitting the mold. Even so, in addition to trav­ elling in the opposite direction from normal, there are other indications that Ja­ cob’s story has inverted the usual pattern from wife turned sister to sister turned wife. Abraham and Isaac are both sojourners in their new locations, and fear for their safety there (Gen. 12:10, 20:1, 26:3). Jacob, however, is among kinsmen, and has been sent there because it is a place of safety, away from the anger of his brother (Gen. 29:13-14). Abraham and Isaac claim that their wives are in fact their sisters because they fear for their own safety. In each case the deception, directly or indirectly, leads to the security and enrichment of the patriarch. In Genesis 12, Pharaoh takes Abraham’s so-called sister into his palace and Abraham is rewarded with sheep and cattle and slaves. Genesis 20 is a little different; when Sarah is returned to Abraham he is compensated with sheep, cattle, slaves, silver and the choice of settling wherever he pleases in Abimeiech’s land. In Genesis 26 there is no such direct link between the patriarch’s deception and his acquirement of wealth and safety. Nonetheless, after discovering the lie, Abimelech orders his people to leave Isaac alone and Isaac subsequently prospers, until he becomes so wealthy that Abimelech orders him away from the land. In contrast to this, Jacob is the victim of dishonesty. He wishes to take Rachel for a wife, but by deception is wedded to her sister (Gen. 29:25). The trickery perpetrated by his fathers results in their security and enrichment, but the decep­ tion practised on Jacob results in his being bound in service for fourteen years. During that time, he finds himself enriching the host who deceived him: the little you [Laban] had before I [Jacob] came has grown to much (Gen. 30:29). Fortunately for Jacob, he is able to strike a new deal with Laban that allows Ja­ cob to amass great wealth (Gen. 30:31-43). However, he never finds security. Laban is always changing the terms. Even in gaining wealth, Jacob only creates rivalry between him and his father-in-law (Gen. 31:1-2, 7). Eventually Jacob must flee unbeknownst to Laban, unlike Abraham and Isaac who are set on their way (or given land to settle) by the king concerned. One final element that binds Jacob’s story to those of Abraham in Genesis 20 (though not in Genesis 12) and Isaac in Genesis 26 is the subsequent forging of a covenant, a berit, between the two parties. It is exceedingly rare in the Torah for a covenant to be formed with anyone but God. In fact, the only other excepVol. 46, No. 4,2018 228 MARIAN KELSEY tion to this rule is in Genesis 14:13 when Abraham allies with other tribal lead­ ers. Nonetheless, in two of the wife-sister stories, a covenant is necessary to resolve the remaining tensions between the patriarch and his host. Abraham and Isaac initially find security after the deception that they each practised on Abimelech. Abimelech says to Abraham ‘Here my land is before you; settle wherever you please' and of Isaac ‘Anyone who molests this man or his wife shall be put to death’ (Gen. 20:15 and 26:11). However, in each case Abimelech is aware that God is with the patriarch, and thus wary of the patriarch’s potential threat. Therefore Abimelech subsequently insists on a covenant with the patri­ arch to ensure continued peace between them (Gen. 21:22-34 and 26:26-31). As far as Jacob and Laban are concerned, Jacob might feel he had more to tear from Laban than vice versa. Even so, the (rather more significant) remaining tensions between Jacob and Laban are finally resolved with a covenant, alter Laban is warned by God not to do Jacob any harm (Gen. 31:29, 43-54). What is the purpose in inverting the wife-sister stories like this? One possibil­ ity may lie in the discomfiting nature of the wife-sister stories themselves. In these stories, the patriarchs of the nation behave dishonestly and in doing so endanger the people’s matriarchs. Zakovitch suggests that there are tendencies in biblical narrative to punish transgression and to mitigate guilt when it is an ancestor who has transgressed.1 He argues that these tendencies are evident in the wife-sister stories themselves. For example, the (re-)telling of the story in Genesis 20 lightens Abraham’s guilt by allowing him to explain his actions to Abimelech and by specifying that nothing untoward happened to Sarah. In terms of punishment, Zakovitch describes the multiple connections between Genesis 12 and Israel’s enslavement in Egypt and suggests that the time in Egypt is im­ plicitly presented as punishment for Abraham’s behavior. With this framework in mind, the inversion of the wife-sister stories in the Jacob narrative could serve similar purposes. It serves as a kind of 'ancestral poetic justice,’ as the wife presented as a sister becomes a sister presented as wife.2 When Jacob ex­ claims, as did the foreign kings, ‘What have you done?' the author perhaps re­ veals to the reader that here, in Jacob’s story, his fathers’ transgressions have been repaid. Why, though, would Jacob be made to pay the price for his fathers’ dishones­ ty? A better explanation for the inversion of the wife-sister stories concerns JaJEWISIl BIBLE QUARTERLY JACOB AND THE WIFE-SISTER STORIES 229 cob’s own acts of deception. In Genesis 27, Jacob presented himself as his elder brother to gain his father’s blessing, though the blessing properly belonged to Esau. It is often suggested that the swapping of Rachel and Leah is payback for the swapping of Jacob and Esau. The question ‘What have you done? ’ ensures that the readers make the connection. By skilfully inserting into Jacob’s mouth the cry of dismay his forefathers once provoked, the author draws attention to patriarchal acts of deception, in the very moment when our sympathies are with Jacob as the victim of deception. We are reminded that the patriarchs did not always act with the utmost probity, and this has included Jacob. Furthermore, there is a contrast between Jacob’s deception in Genesis 27, which was practised against his own brother for personal gain, and Abraham’s and Isaac’s deceptions, which were done from fear for their safety in a foreign land. That being the case, Abraham and Isaac were not explicitly reproved for their actions. In fact, God acted to defend the patriarchs from the potential con­ sequences of their actions (Gen. 12:17, 20:3, and implied in 26:28-29). Jacob, however, receives no such protection. God is silent when Laban deceives Jacob. Thus, Jacob is punished for his usurpation of his brother by Laban’s swapping of Leah and Rachel. One sibling-switch is repaid by another. In a final twist of irony, Jacob’s punishment is also the mirror image of his fathers’ actions, in that sister is swapped for wife, as well as sibling for sibling. Jacob the trickster is made the victim of the thrice-attempted trick of his ancestors. The consummate trickster has himself been tricked. Nonetheless, even this literary requital has limits. Jacob does in the end make his fortune, and he returns in prosperity to his own land. God’s protection was withheld in one moment so that Jacob’s lie may be repaid, but it is subsequently extended again to Jacob, including in his further dealings with Laban (Gen. 31:24). Ultimately, the inversion of the wife-sister stories continues the ties be­ tween Jacob’s life and the lives of Abraham and Isaac. Each patriarch discovers that, even when he stumbles, God’s favour persists. Moreover, although Laban provides the narrative comeuppance to Jacob’s actions, the readers are not en­ couraged to feel sympathy for him. Laban is not the righteous Abimelech of Genesis 26, who is horrified that one of his people might have slept with a mar­ ried woman. Nor is he even the intimidated Abimelech of Genesis 20, who is prevented by God from sinning in such a way. Laban is himself a trickster who Vol. 46, No. 4, 2018 230 MARIAN KELSEY behaves deceitfully again and again toward Jacob. He too finds his dishonesty repaid, at his own daughter’s hand. And when Laban later catches up with Ja­ cob, his exclamation of indignation is, of course, 'What have you done?' NOTES 1. Yair Zakovitch, “Disgrace: The Lies of the Patriarch,” Social Research 75 (2008) pp. 1035-1058. 2. Gad Dishi, Jacob's Family Dynamics: Climbing the Rungs o f the Ladder (Jerusalem: Devora, 2010) p. 64. it ii il ii it it it it it it it it it H it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it sap -|nnn iron THE TRIENNIAL BIBLE READING CALENDAR DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF CHAIM ABRAMOWITZ October Psalms 5 7 - 85 November Psalms 8 6 - 113 December Psalms 114 —141 January Psalms Proverbs 142- 150 1 - 19 February Proverbs Job 2 0 - 31 1 - 16 it it il it it it it il it ii it ii it ii it it it fi il it it it it ii it it JEWISH BIBLE QUARTERLY Copyright of Jewish Bible Quarterly is the property of Jewish Bible Quarterly and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Laban and his daughters: an allegory of the monarchy GENESIS MONARCHY Laban, the foreign father of Rachel and Leah Monarchy itself as “foreign” Leah the elder, mother of Judah Judah, the “elder” Rachel the younger, mother of Benjamin and Joseph, grandmother of Ephraim/Manesseh Israel, the “younger,” called “Ephraim,” 1 Kg 12.25 Jacob served seven years for Leah before Rachel, Gen 29.20 David reigned seven years over Judah before Israel, 2 Sam 2.11; 5.5; 1 Kg 2.11 Jacob “slaves” (Heb, `avod) for Laban, Gen 29.20, 30; 30.26, 29; 31.6, 41 Israel “slaved” (Heb, `avodah, only use in monarchy narrative) for the Solomonic monarchy Rachel, the barren wife, demands “sons,” envying her rival sister-wife, Gen 30.1 Hannah, the barren wife, prays for a “son”, envying her rival wife, 1 Sam 1 (as itself an allegory of the monarchy) Jacob is inspired to “return” to land of his ancestry, Israel returns to land of its ancestry, 1 Kg 12.16 Gen 31.3 Then Rachel and Leah answered him, "Is there any portion or inheritance left to us in our father's house?” Gen 31.14 When all Israel saw that the king would not listen to them, the people answered the king, "What share do we have in David? We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse.” 1 Kg 12.16 Jacob “takes away” Laban’s livestock and daughters, Gen 31.9 David “takes away” Bathsheba and Saul’s daughters, 2 Sam 12 Teraphim as expression of idolatry, Gen 31.19 (on- Teraphim as expression of idolatry, 1 Sam 19.13; 2 ly mention of teraphim in torah) Kg 23.24 (only mention of teraphim in monarchy) Transformation and Demarcation of Jacob’s “Flocks” in Genesis 30:25-43: Identity, Election, and the Role of the Divine SONG-MI SUZIE PARK Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138 THE RATHER STRANGE STORY of Jacob and the speckled flocks in Gen 30:2543, a tale usually dismissed as simply reflecting “primitive” notions of maternal impression, communicates a message that, at heart, concerns the very nature of Israelite identity. In this essay I examine the ways in which the formal elements of the story, most notably the numerous wordplays and puns, generate semantic correspondences and oppositions. These ultimately convey and then attempt to diffuse the tensions involved in the definition of Israel. I will try to show that this ostensibly simple story about Jacob’s magical transformation of his flock, when closely examined, involves deeper issues about election and the role of the divine in Israel’s formation and identity. I. Brief Overview of Previous Scholarship Commentators have put forth various explanations concerning the nature of Jacob’s trick. Gerhard von Rad thinks that these verses reflect an “ancient and widespread belief in the magical effect of certain impressions which in the case of human and animal mothers were transferred to their offspring and can decisively This paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in November 2007 in San Diego, California. 667 668 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 72, 2010 influence them.”1 Hermann Gunkel also believes that this tale mirrors an actual method of animal husbandry and states that such breeding techniques were known in antiquity.2 Commentators such as Nahum Sarna and Victor P. Hamilton, noting the phenotypes and genotypes of the animals, give scientific reasons for the success of this magical trick.3 Indeed, Claus Westermann sees in Jacob’s ruse a transition from a magical to a scientific way of thinking.4 As is evident, most commentators, when approaching this text, attempt to uncover the actual animal husbandry technique that they believe is reflected in Gen 30:25-43; the significance of animal breeding in small farming communities such as Israel would have accounted for the telling and transmission of this story. While all the above explanations seem reasonable, I believe that such commentators have wrongly emphasized the “scientific” and historical nature of Jacob’s ruse. Regardless of whether this story refers to some actual belief or technique, the key to the story’s decipherment does not lie simply in understanding how Jacob’s ruse was successful or how it was that monochrome animals actually bore speckled and colored ones. Rather, one needs to shift attention away from questions concerning the historicity reflected in the tale and toward deciphering why the narrative is told the way that it is. As Michael Fishbane explains, “Such a view considers a tale or narrative less from a linear perspective, whereby the separate parts are isolated and their development ‘explained,’ and more from the integrative consideration of a narrative as a seamless web of interanimating components.”5 II. Wordplays and the Nature of Jacob’s Trick Although scholars such as E. A. Speiser, von Rad, Sarna, Gunkel, and Wellhausen have briefly noted the puns on the word lābān (“white”) with the name Laban, none has expounded on the pervasiveness of other wordplays in this story or drawn out the significance of the use of these linguistic devices.6 Hamilton gives 1 Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (trans. John H. Marks; rev. ed.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972) 302. 2 Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (1901; trans. Mark E. Biddle; Mercer Library of Biblical Studies; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997) 329. 3 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 284; Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis: ‫ בראשית‬. The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989) 212. 4 Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36: A Continental Commentary (trans. John J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985) 483. 5 Michael Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken, 1979) 58. 6 Gunkel, Genesis, 329; Sarna, Genesis, 212; E. A. Speiser, Genesis: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 1; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964) 239; von Rad, Genesis, JACOB’S “FLOCKS” IN GENESIS 30:25-43 669 one of the more extended commentaries on the wordplays, noting the prominence of the word “white” in Genesis 30: Jacob peels “white stripes” to expose the white of the shoots of the poplar (‫ )לבנה‬in v. 37, and Laban, “the white one,” removes from Jacob those animals that are not totally lābān (v. 35).7 Despite noting the frequency, Hamilton fails to delineate the implications of this repetition. Von Rad correctly observes in his commentary that such a tale of trickery seems “like a burlesque farce and could be . . . considered by itself, as a humorous story.”8 The wordplays, then, are puns used to add comedy to the narrative. Similarly, Marc Zvi Brettler has explained the presence of puns and wordplays in the story of Ehud (Judg 3:15-30) as evidence that the tale is a political satire.9 Humor, of course, is very difficult to decipher, especially in cross-cultural writings. Therefore, while I am not completely convinced that Gen 30:25-43 is a farce sensu stricto, Brettler and von Rad do correctly point to the connection between the form of writing, the linguistic devices that are used, and the meaning of the story. How a tale is written can often help to elucidate or draw out the meaning of the text. With these ideas in mind, it is important to remember that the wordplays in Gen 30:25-43 are not haphazard or without significance. Indeed, they shed considerable light on the nature of Jacob’s trickery. Setting aside the debates concerning the details of Laban and Jacob’s pact, and how it is that Laban changes this deal “ten times” (31:7), the agreement between the two men, at least in 30:32-43, seems simple. Jacob will remove from Laban’s flock all the dark-colored (‫)חום‬ sheep and all the spotted, speckled, and streaked (‫טלוא‬, ‫נקד‬, ‫ )עקד‬goats as his wage. The deal fits the names of the characters: Jacob (‫ )יעקב‬will receive all the goats that are ‫ נקד‬and ‫עקד‬. Gunkel, noting the Arabic word vuqâb (striped and speckled clothing), states that an earlier version of this tale probably contained a more evident wordplay on the name Jacob.10 Laban (‫)לבן‬, on the other hand, seemingly will keep all the animals that are ‫—לבן‬all the goats that are not spotted (‫ )נקד‬or streaked (‫ )עקד‬with white (‫ )לבן‬spots, and all the sheep that are not dark (or not lābān). In other words, those that are purely lābān are Laban’s; those that are not are Jacob’s. The sheep and the goats, therefore, belong to the man whose name phonetically and semantically matches the animal’s appearance. In this story, then, appearance, sound, and meaning are interrelated. One can now understand Laban’s ready acceptance of this agreement with Jacob. As Gunkel and others have noted, since Laban is greedy, he would willingly 302; Westermann, Genesis, 483. Fishbane, however, has eloquently located the pervasiveness of other key words and double entendres such as the term ‫ ברך‬in the Jacob cycle. 7 Hamilton, Book of Genesis, 283. 8 Von Rad, Genesis, 301. 9 Marc Zvi Brettler, “Never the Twain Shall Meet? The Ehud Story as History and Literature,” HUCA 62 (1991) 285-304. 10 Gunkel, Genesis, 329. 670 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 72, 2010 assent to these terms because few animals would be speckled in the first place, and “monochrome animals surely would not produce multicolored young.”11 Apart from Laban’s inner motivations, however, the division of the flocks appears to be textually understandable as well. The flock will go to the owner with whom it visually, semantically, and phonetically corresponds; like will match up with like.12 It is this simplicity that lends drama to Jacob’s trick, for, as we all know, with a trickster what you see is not what you get. Although it is unclear why Laban removes the speckled and dark-colored flocks into the hands of his sons (it could be that Laban is suspicious of Jacob and therefore desires to sequester the animals, or perhaps Laban is trying to prevent the flock from mating with his monochrome animals by removing them), the removal of these animals sets the stage for Jacob’s magical ruse. Jacob takes fresh stakes of white poplar (‫)לבנה‬, almond, and plane trees, and peels white peelings (‫ )פצלות לבנות‬off them to expose the white of the shoots. He then sticks the stakes into the drinking vessels of Laban’s flocks because he believes that when the flocks come to drink, they will also mate. The goats will look at the spotted shoots of the trees while they drink and mate, and, hence, will produce spotted offspring (30:37-39). As for the sheep, Jacob simply has them face the streaked or dark-colored animals (v. 39). Reflected is the belief that the animals will reproduce according to what they see. Now the amazing results of this ruse follow. The flocks that mate are Laban’s, in terms of both ownership and appearance; the flocks produced, however, are Jacob’s, again in terms of both ownership and appearance. Another wordplay that highlights this ruse concerns the term ‫חום‬, which sounds similar to the verb ‫יחם‬ (vv. 38 and 39). Likewise, the semantic and phonetic connections among ‫חום‬ (“dark-colored,” “sun-burned”), ‫“( חמם‬to become warm or hot”) and ‫“( יחם‬to be in heat, conceive”) are quite evident. When Laban’s white flocks come to drink, they are not only conceiving (‫ )יחם‬but, semantically and phonetically speaking, 11 Ibid. Sarna writes, “In the Near East, sheep are generally white and goats are dark brown or black. A minority of sheep may have dark patches, and goats white markings. It is these uncommon types to be born in the future that Jacob demands as wages for his unpaid service. Laban readily agrees, believing that he is getting a bargain on account of their rarity” (Genesis, 212). 12 As noted above, my emphasis is on a literary analysis of the tale, not on the story’s historicity or scientific logicality. If one applies too literal a reading to this pericope, some ambiguities do emerge. One can argue, for example, since it is never explicitly stated that all the animals Laban receives are “white,” that Laban might have gotten dark goats or spotted sheep. But this is an overly literal reading of the story. Rather, as I have argued, what is important are the multiple instances of punning on “white,” “dark,” “spotted,” and “streaked” in a tale that centrally concerns an interfamily battle between someone named Laban, or “the white one,” with someone named Jacob, a name that sounds similar to the words for “streaked” or “speckled” in Hebrew. It is evident that “Laban,” or “white,” is placed in contradistinction to “Jacob,” or “streaked,” “speckled,” or “dark (not-white).” As I will argue later in this article, the key to the narrative centers on this very contradistinction of the characters as exemplified in the contradistinction of the colors of the flocks. JACOB’S “FLOCKS” IN GENESIS 30:25-43 671 are blackened or “made” not white (‫)חום‬. In other words, a deliberate correspondence is set up between ‫ יחם‬and ‫ חום‬by the choice of this verb. Jacob uses Laban’s lābān flocks and the lābān shavings of the twigs to produce a flock that is not lābān and not Laban’s, but nāqōd and Jacob’s. The flock is transformed from white (‫ )לבן‬to black (‫)חום‬, from white (‫ )לבן‬to speckled (‫ נקד‬and ‫)עקד‬, and from Laban’s (‫ )לבן‬to Jacob’s (‫)יעקב‬. The message conveyed with these puns is that Jacob is not stealing Laban’s flocks but that Laban’s flocks are being transformed into Jacob’s. III. Correspondences, Relationship, and National Identity The significance of these formal elements becomes evident when we further examine the relationship between the form and the content. As I have stated above, regarding both the form (wordplays) and the plot of Genesis 30, Jacob is neither stealing Laban’s flocks nor taking what is rightfully his (Jacob’s), but is using what is Laban’s to produce what is his (Jacob’s). This transformation—the use of one thing to make another—reflects the uncertainty that exists between that which belongs to Jacob and that which belongs to Laban. These wordplays, with their shifting meanings, correspondences, and transformations, convey the ambiguous relationship between Laban and Jacob. This is especially true in this particular case because Jacob is Laban’s nephew, son-in-law, and employee. In this complex web of relationships, not only is the identity of the flocks in flux, so to speak, but it is unclear whether Jacob’s wives and children really belong to him or to Laban.13 Robert A. Oden writes about the tension implicit in the avuncular relationship. Indeed, anthropologists such as Robin Fox have noted the importance and particularity of both the avuncular relationship and cross-cousin marriages in a variety of cultures.14 Oden states that cross-cousin marriage is the “logical alliance if one wished to avoid the extremes of too much endogamy on the one hand and too much exogamy on the other hand.” Hence, the avuncular relationship is the “comprehensive ‘atom’ of kinship” because it contains a “relationship of consanguinity, affinity and descent.” Thus, it is only when Jacob marries his mother’s brother’s daughters that “a complete kinship system is described, and thus Israel properly speaking is born.”15 The comprehensive and vital nature of the avuncular relationship, however, makes it especially problematic with reference to Israel. The theological notion of 13 Genesis 31:43 seems to imply that Laban thinks that Jacob’s children and wives are his and not Jacob’s. 14 Robert A. Oden, “Jacob as Father, Husband, and Nephew: Kinship Studies and the Patriarchal Narratives,” JBL 102 (1984) 189-205; Robin Fox, Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective (Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 50; Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1967). 15 Oden, “Jacob as Father,” 199, 202. 672 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 72, 2010 Israel walks a fine line between endogamy and exogamy, universality and particularity. Israel is a kinship group that is descended from and related to other groups of people, yet at the same time it is a group separated by God whose very existence depends on its contradistinction from other peoples. It is both like other nations and also separated and unique. It is both part of humanity and also marked off from humanity as distinct or elected. Therefore, on the one hand, the avuncular relationship is necessary to complete the kinship system and, consequently, is indispensable to Israel’s becoming Israel. On the other hand, because of the complicated nature of such a bond and because of the numerous ties involved in such a relationship, the lines between uncle and nephew and their respective families cannot be cleanly distinguished. In this manner, the relationship and ties between Laban and Jacob, especially if we view these figures as eponymous ancestors, endanger the realization, the coming-into-being, of Israel itself. The question is: Are they different peoples, families, and groups (the Israelites and the Arameans), or are they the same, since they are related by blood and by marriage? Therefore, the issue of the demarcation of the animal flocks in Gen 30:25-43 undergirds the problem of the ambiguous nature of Jacob and Laban’s familial “flocks.” While the terms “speckled” and “dark” are set up as opposites of the word “white,” the “creation” of one from the other connotes the existence of certain relationships between the two objects. Just as Jacob uses Laban’s flocks to produce his own flock, it can be seen that Jacob “uses” his wives, Laban’s children, to produce his (Jacob’s) own family; note that the animals that belong to Jacob have white streaks and spots—in other words, they contain little bits of Laban. This raises the question, To whom do Jacob’s wives and family really belong? As Susan Niditch asks, “Are the women his wives or still Laban’s children?”16 As I have stated above, a division between Jacob and Laban’s “flocks” is absolutely necessary for the existence and identity of the Israelite people. This underlying question of kinship and identity thus elucidates the reason for the particular placement (and inclusion) of Gen 30:25-43 within the larger Jacob narrative. Immediately preceding the story of the flocks is a narrative that also concerns the “birth” of Israel: the story about the birthing contest between Leah and Rachel, the sister-wives of Jacob, and the births of Jacob’s sons, who will later constitute the tribes of Israel (30:1-25). Just as the birth of Isaac endangered Ishmael’s status, so the births of Jacob’s sons make crucial a clarification of their status. In both cases the births raise a question concerning identity: Who and what will constitute the nation of Israel? To answer this question, an elucidation of the position of Jacob’s family in relation to Laban’s family—a demarcation within the family group—is necessary. It is at this point, when such identity issues 16 Susan Niditch, Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore (New Voices in Biblical Studies; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987) 109. JACOB’S “FLOCKS” IN GENESIS 30:25-43 673 are raised by the births of Jacob’s sons, that one encounters the tale of Jacob and the speckled flock. The separation of the flock in 30:25-42, therefore, serves as an important symbol for the separation and demarcation of Jacob (Israel) as a separate entity from Laban (Aram)—a demarcation that, we will see, must happen in order for Jacob to get on his way to the land promised to his forebears and thus truly to become the nation of Israel. Now we can understand why this story of Jacob and the speckled flocks begins with Jacob’s request to leave so that he can go back to his own land. The births of his sons necessitate that Jacob’s period of exile come to an end as soon as possible. Fishbane writes as follows: “As soon as Rachel gives birth, Jacob plans his return home. The continuity of the line of Abraham and Isaac is therewith assured through Jacob’s favorite wife; and a reversal in spatial and interpersonal action now follows.”17 Genesis 30:25-43 follows Fishbane’s rubric of the three primary issues in the Jacob cycle—birth, blessing, and land. It is only after the births of Jacob’s sons that Jacob is blessed via his trick. These actions all set the stage for Jacob’s desperate return to his patrimonial land.18 IV. Divine Demarcation and Election In Gen 31:6-9 Jacob informs the reader that it was God who actually “altered” these flocks; Jacob states that God was the one who took what was Laban’s and changed it into what was Jacob’s. Speaking to his wives, Jacob even declares, “God has taken away your father’s livestock and given it to me” (v. 9).19 This acknowledgment draws attention to earlier contrasting statements of relational blessedness. Previously, Laban stated, rather surprisingly, that he has learned through divination that it is on account of Jacob that he has been blessed by God (30:27). Von Rad writes that “this is one of the strangest confessions of Yahweh and his blessing in the Old Testament.”20 This idea is seconded and repeated by Jacob in 30:30: “For the little you [Laban] had before I [Jacob] came has grown to much, since the LORD has blessed you wherever I turned.” The idea that a person is blessed because of a connection to one of the ancestors is not a new theme. What is important, however, is that this concept is asserted twice in this story through these beginning statements. Both Jacob and Laban state that they understand that Laban is being blessed because he, in some way, is connected to Jacob. In other words, at the beginning of this story, both characters note that God is blessing both of them together or one via the other and that therefore, in divine eyes, at least initially, Jacob and 17 Fishbane, Text and Texture, 58. Ibid., 60. 19 All quotations from the Bible are from the NJPSV translation. 20 Von Rad, Genesis, 300. 18 674 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 72, 2010 Laban are correlated somehow. In other words, even in the eyes of God an ambiguous line exists between Jacob and Laban, and their respective families. I have already observed how this story phonetically and contextually concerns the transformation of Laban’s flock into Jacob’s and how this transformation centers not only on animal property but also on human “property.” What is so powerful is the role of God in this transformation. Although in the beginning of the story God blessed Jacob and Laban together, Gen 30:25-43 is about God making a distinction between Laban and Jacob, blessing Jacob over against and at the expense of Laban. It appears that God plays a crucial role here. At the point when the identity of Israel is threatened with murkiness and ambiguity, God steps in to draw the lines firmly around the chosen group. God does so by “contrasting” and distinguishing Jacob and his family from another group: Laban or white (‫ )לבן‬is contrasted and distinguished from that which is Jacob, ‫נקד‬, ‫עקד‬, or dark (‫)חום‬. Not only will God make such a distinction; the proof that this is already being done is shown by the fact that Jacob is now being blessed to the detriment of Laban. Even Laban’s sons recognize this shift: “Jacob has taken all that was our father’s, and from that which was our father’s he has built up all this wealth” (Gen 31:1). As Jacob used the ‫ לבנה‬and the white peelings to turn what is Laban’s into his, the reader is told initially in chap. 30 and more conclusively in 31:10-12 that it was really God who made those things that were ‫ לבן‬and Laban’s into those that are ‫נקד‬, ‫עקד‬, and Jacob’s. The demarcation of Jacob’s family is shown in God’s demarcation and transformation of the flocks in Gen 30:25-43. V. The Role of the Unseen God God’s invisible yet significant role in this tale might reflect another theme— the theme of vision or sight—that seems to echo throughout the ancestral narratives. Niditch has rightly noted the parallels among the trickery tales of the speckled flock, the wife switching (Genesis 29), and the stealing of the birthright (Genesis 27): “The pattern of trickery/trickster-duped/reverse-trickery and plays on older-younger rivalry are ways in which the author ties together the Jacob narrative into a beautifully balanced whole.”21 The theme of seeing ties the whole trickery and reverse-trickery business together. In chap. 29 the trick played on Jacob is that he thought he was working seven years for Rachel, the girl whom Jacob saw (‫[ ראה‬v. 10]) as beautiful, and not Leah, whose eyes were weak (‫רכות‬ [v. 17]). On the night of the wedding, Jacob was probably too drunk or too blinded by darkness to see the person with whom he was cohabiting until the following morning. Similarly, in chap. 27, Isaac, who cannot see, is duped into blessing Jacob, the younger son, over Esau. The triumphant son is not the one who appears as the natural inheritor and superior. 21 Niditch, Underdogs, 107. JACOB’S “FLOCKS” IN GENESIS 30:25-43 675 I tentatively suggest that the motif of “trickery-involving-sight” is subtly at play in the flock tale as well. As I argued earlier, the initial agreement between Laban and Jacob consisted of simple semantic, phonetic, and visual correspondences. The animal’s appearance, its visible color, testified to its ownership. Hence, what one saw is what one got. This idea of seeing is reflected also in the nature of Jacob’s trick—what the animals were looking at while drinking and mating was reflected onto the visage of their offspring. Again, what one saw was what one got/begot. This simple correspondence, however, is turned upside down by the fact that the vision of the animals is used to transform, to reverse, these initial natural correspondences of Laban and ‫“( לבן‬white”), and Jacob and ‫נקד‬/‫“( עקד‬streaked and striped”). Unfortunately for Laban, what one saw was not what one got. Seeing, therefore, is not believing, and in the context of the Jacob cycle, where like is suppose to match up with like, Jacob’s transformation of the flock shows that correspondences and expectations are not direct but complicated and capable of metamorphosis—there is always more at work than what is directly seen.22 The repetition and use of homonyms highlight this theme; the phonetic, semantic, and visual correspondences are only superficially unequivocal. It is through this second theme of vision or sight that we can truly understand the role of the divine in this tale. God, who is unseen, is said to have seen the unfair treatment of Jacob by Laban and is said to be the true actor behind the ruse (31:10-13).23 As is evident in Exod 3:7, this is a deity who sees the oppression of the divinely chosen one. The actor whom the reader sees on the scene is not God, however, but Jacob. The message to the reader is, again, what one sees is not what is really happening; there is more at work than meets the eye. The question then is, Who is the entity truly responsible for this trick? Is it the unseen God or the seen human being? The trick was that the flocks would produce according to what they saw; however, behind this trick was an unseen magic that somehow transformed the prenatal flock according to the visage of the parents. Therefore, on the one hand, Jacob is the one who goes through the necessary procedures and, thus, is the author of this ruse; on the other hand, in chap. 31, Jacob states that it is God who is ultimately responsible for Jacob’s increasing wealth. 22 Although the idea of seeing appears to be a theme of the entire ancestral narrative, as people of limited vision interact with an all-seeing God (Genesis 16; 21:18; 22:13), it must be conceded that the word “to see” does not occur in the flock story. Hence, as I have tried to argue, this theme is present only subtly in this narrative. Likewise, though words for sight are not explicitly used in the flock story, the theme of vision is an important leitmotif of the entire Jacob cycle, of which the flock tale is a part. 23 Jacob, being a trickster, could of course be lying about the fact that, in his dream, God claimed responsibility for the increase in Jacob’s wealth and transformation of the flock. Indeed, it is difficult to know how much to believe Jacob’s statements, since he is such a dubious trickster. What is important, however, is not the ethical characterization of the characters but the effect of this claim, whether dubious or not, on the reading of this tale. 676 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 72, 2010 The question again is, Who or what is really responsible for the success of the trick? The answer seems to be ambivalent. Although seeing is contrasted to notseeing (the unseen God who sees all using unseen magic versus the seen character Jacob using a trick involving sight), the two categories are interrelated, for the seen has to work with the unseen to make the ruse successful. Here again the notion of contradistinction/interrelatedness reflected in the theme of seeing/not seeing is tied to questions of national identity: What is the role of humans and what is the role of God in Israel’s election? Who, in other words, is truly responsible for the demarcation of the animal and the human “flocks” and, hence, the identity of Israel? Fishbane correctly notes these tensions when he writes about the “ambilateral givenness and hiddenness of divine grace”: The final irony, not lost on the narrator, albeit handled with circumspect silence, is that all the interpersonal machinations of the protagonists and antagonists are but the actualization of a predetermined fate, of a forecasted divine determination . . . those whom God has chosen succeed. But in the thickness of historical time, and because of limited divine interventions, realization of the divine promises appears to rest with human action.24 What one sees are human actions as work: Jacob, the trickster, is the one who works to get the birthright and blessing and follows the necessary procedures to turn Laban’s flock into his. Hence, initially it appears that Jacob is the primary actor who takes for himself the blessings promised to his forebears. What is truly at work, however, is something unseen, for in the moments when the ancestors and their progeny are threatened, the unseen God who has ordained the victory of the chosen ones steps in and intervenes to ensure their success (chaps. 12; 20; 26; 31). God is the power, the force, behind Jacob’s trick (chap. 31). While Jacob works via his limited vision for his own good, behind him at work is an all-seeing God who has already predetermined Jacob’s success.25 Fishbane is correct to point out that what is in contention is the idea of predetermination and volition. Somehow in the formation and identity of Israel, both of these elements are present and needed. The existence of Israel is both chosen by God and thus assured of success and yet also dependent on the visible actions and choices of human beings. Both humanity and God played and continue to play a part in the formation and identity of Israel. It was Jacob who duped Laban, and Jacob who finally fled after he became wealthy in Genesis 31. It was God, however, who made Jacob’s trick successful and God who appeared in a dream to Laban after Jacob fled to command Laban to leave Jacob alone. Hence, the visible and the invisible, the limited and the all-knowing, and the human and the divine 24 Fishbane, Text and Texture, 62. For a recent work on election, especially as it relates to the Jacob cycle, see Joel S. Kaminsky, Yet I Loved Jacob: Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election (Nashville: Abingdon, 2007). 25 JACOB’S “FLOCKS” IN GENESIS 30:25-43 677 are contrasted. Yet they are also coworkers in ensuring a fate that is both predetermined and also volitionally made. VI. Conclusion The theme that what you see is not what you get subtly undergirds the manner in which the narrative espouses both predetermination and volition, as well as the way in which God chooses. Even God is a type of trickster who favors the underdogs.26 In other words, God does not pick the readily apparent, the character who appears to be the likely hero. As is evident in the choice of Jacob, Saul, and David, the characters who are unseen and unlikely are the ones chosen by God. Reflected in God’s choices, again, is that what you see is not what you will get. The older, stronger, and more apparent hero is not the one who will be selected by God and, ultimately, is not the victor. In other words, the Israelite God is not one who abides by natural or easy correspondences. God chooses the unlikely heroes precisely because their weaknesses so emphatically contrast and emphasize the strength of the deity. Hence, only with such unlikely heroes is it possible for both humanity and God to work together without lessening God’s power.27 It is no surprise, then, that underdogs are often tricksters, for tricksters change and fulfill their destinies not through strength but through subversion. Only with tricksters can both God and humanity be given a role in such grand theological narratives as those found in the Bible without the sacrifice of either volition or predestination. Therefore, there is always more at work than what can be directly seen. The repetition and use of wordplays in Gen 30:25-43 highlight the fact that the phonetic, semantic, and visual correspondences are related in complex ways when one looks deeper into this simple tale of Jacob and the speckled flock. What one sees, phonetically speaking, is not what one gets, semantically speaking. In this story, then, form and content work together to elucidate and to resolve, at least temporarily, the deeper tensions implicit in Israel’s national identity. After all, at the end of this story Jacob and his clan are on their way back to the land promised to Abraham, their forefather, to continue on in their transformation into Israel, the people chosen by God. 26 For a detailed explanation of this theme, see Niditch, Underdogs. I address only superficially here the topic of underdogs. Reflected in this motif are important concepts of worldview and self-perception that require further research. 27 Copyright of Catholic Biblical Quarterly is the property of Catholic Biblical Association of America and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Purchase answer to see full attachment