Author Archives: Kevin P. Edgecomb

Probably the most foundational item of the hypothetical Priestly (“P”) source in Wellhausenesque source criticism of the Hebrew Bible, effectively the traditional scholarly standard, is that P is responsible for the genealogies in the OT, and various genealogy-like elements (lists, passages like Genesis 1 displaying a particularly repetitive structure, etc, considered so on the analogy of “things vaguely genealogy-like”). The source of this rather non-intuitive connection of genealogies in particular with priests is found in one of the stories of the return in Ezra 2, where certain of the returning priests were not able to be found listed in the (seemingly official) genealogies, and so were excluded by the governor (2.63) from eating the priestly portion of the sacrifices. The intervention of the governor, rather than the high priest, may also be taken to indicate that the genealogical information was under the governor’s control, not the priests’. Yet there is further indication that the genealogies are not particularly “priestly.” Firstly, in this particular instance in Ezra 2, we find the priests interested in their own genealogies, not particularly everyone else’s, with a particular focus on who is eligible to receive portions of the sacrifices. The importance of this ritual aspect of the interest in the families of the returned priests doesn’t, however, apply to all the various genealogies found in the Pentateuch and Former Prophets, where such ritual matters are completely unmentioned in connection with the genealogies. It’s a bit of special pleading to stretch the Ezra 2 evidence so far. Secondly, there is a trend to be found in the genealogies as they are found in the Pentateuch and Former Prophets, and this tendency or direction is an important one. It indicates that David, and thereafter the Son of David, is not only rightful king of Israel as seen through this genealogy, but he is essentially the firstborn son of God, and the firstborn or the entire human race.

Notice the “drilling down” of the genealogies and related stories, preserving the line of Adam’s firstborn in Genesis 5 and 11, leading to Abraham, then of course the unusual birth of Isaac in Genesis 21, then the birth of Jacob and Esau, and Esau selling his birthright to Jacob in Genesis 25 and Jacob tricking Isaac to receive the blessing in Genesis 27, and then the birth of all of Jacob’s sons, the eponymous heads of the tribes of Israel. Things then get tricky! Since Jacob has two wives and two concubines, and has had 12 sons and one daughter through them, which one is depicted as his firstborn? We find that this position of favored son moves around quite a bit. First, Reuben is Jacob’s true firstborn son (as explicitly stated in Genesis 35.23, 46.8, and 49.3), born to his wife Leah, followed by Simeon, Levi, and Judah, before any other children are born to any of the other ladies (Gen 29.31-35). Reuben, however, does the unthinkable and sleeps with his father’s concubine (Gen 35.22). This apparently bumps the favored son status in two different directions, however. Firstly, Simeon and Levi lose out because of their violence in killing all the incapacitated men of Shechem (Gen 34; cf Gen 49.5-7), and this leaves the role of head of the sons with Judah, as seen in Genesis 49.9-10. Secondly, some part of the birthright blessing is indicated as having moved from the sons born to Jacob’s first wife Leah, to those born of his second, more loved wife Rachel (cf the blessing of Joseph’s sons in Gen 48, and the explicit statement in this regard in 1 Chronicles 5.1). So, we see a split blessing, of rulership in Judah as the firstborn, and the “birthright” (of “firstborn’s blessing” likely referring to the “double portion” to be inherited by the firstborn, as in Deuteronomy 21.17) in Ephraim and Manasseh. It’s unclear whether the “double portion” for Ephraim and Manasseh is considered to be the two separate tribes themselves (Ephraim and Manasseh, rather than a single tribe of Joseph), or the large, Jordan-straddling territory of Manasseh in combination with the fertility of that land and that of Ephraim, or perhaps all of the above. And, of course, David was depicted as descended in a direct line from Judah through Perez (who possesses an unusual birth tale of his own in Genesis 38), and so on, down through Boaz and Ruth, to Obed, then Jesse, David’s father (see Ruth 4 and 1 Chronicles 2). While this part of the genealogy is fully preserved only in those two places, it would likely have been well-publicized in the days of David.

I suggest that part of that publicizing is precisely the Pentateuch and Former Prophets (Joshua through Samuel, with 1 Kings up through, likely, only chapter 10 initially) with the inclusion of Ruth. The original framework of the structure of Genesis, the genealogies upon which the stories are hung like charms on a bracelet, in connection particularly with the book of Ruth, lead in the direction of legitimizing David’s rule as not only as ruler of Israel through his birthright, but as ruler of the entire world as in the line of the firstborn son of Adam, and also thereby, the line of the firstborn son of God (see especially the high view of the newborn Son of David in Isaiah 7, and Psalms 2 and 110). This group of books, I suggest, was first put together in the days of Solomon to provide this legitimation, and to enhance the standing of the Son of David in his particular role religiously as Son of God, as well. In contrast to the Wellhausenian approach of removing the genealogies as a particular source, this suggestion views them as an important clue as to the original intent of the work in which they appear. The various gymnastics that are described in the transfer of the birthright blessings are typically not understood as leading in any particular direction, their being usually understood separate sources. However, they do tell an important story in the books as they stand, one of legitimation just as necessary to every new dynast as in any other ancient nation, where we find iterations of lists of prior kings to which the newcomer is always somehow related (see the Assyrian King Lists, especially relevant, which preserve the fiction [?] of only a single dynasty of rulers throughout Assyrian history). For this reason, the genealogies must be seen not as intrusive sections of a fictive Priestly source, but rather as a part of the original author’s work of providing a history that legitimizes David and his dynasty in the eyes of other Israelites as not only the heir to the Patriarchs, but indeed also as Son of God.

One of the supposed indicators in the Hebrew Bible for a Deuteronomistic passage is that of a threat of exile as punishment for disobeying the will of God, seeing this as specifically relating to the Babylonian exile of Judahites after 586 B.C.E. But such a consideration of exile as punishment is not something that need necessarily only have appeared in so late a period among the Judahites as King Josiah’s time or later. In fact, for more than a thousand of years before, exile, as part and the process of a city’s falling to an enemy, had been viewed among Israel’s neighbors as a result of punishment for having displeased the divine, as we’ll see in some examples below. Yet, even within the Hebrew Bible itself, cutting across the boundaries of centuries and/or hypothetical source-critical strands, are earlier descriptions of exile as a result of displeasing God (Adam and Eve, Cain, the people of Babel), often, one way or another, attributed to Deuteronomistic influence. However, the wider motif of threat/promise of the divine in response to dis/obedience on the part of the worshipper(s) is, in fact, an integral part of prophecy itself, even outside of Israel, as we’ll also see below, and can even be said to be at the heart of any religious system utilizing divination of any kind (either inductive, like haruspicy and astrology, or non-inductive, like dreams and ecstatic utterance) to determine the divine will. In this regard, the similarity of the Israelite prophetic approach to that of other foreign prophets, some much earlier, is important to the Prophetic Perspective I mentioned in an earlier post, proposing particularly the Israelite prophetic guild and its supporters as the origin for the Old Testament writings as a whole. This essentially eliminates the need for attributing such passages reflecting threats of disasters (inter alia, exile) for disobedience or promises of blessings for obedience to either Deuteronomistic influence or directly to the Deuteronomist.

Continue reading “Disobedience and Exile”

For some time now, I’ve been approaching the Hebrew Bible in a particular way as a kind of experimental framework. I thought it might be interesting to share a short description of this framework, and elicit comments. This is by no means a complete description, but more of a series of notes.

Essentially, I see the entirety of the Old Testament as an expression and work of the ancient Israelite prophets and their supporters, a group that can reasonably be understood as the true Yahwists, in contrast to the more syncretistic wider population and official institutions, particularly the monarchies and priesthoods. Their evaluation of historical figures and events are presented in the texts of the Old Testament as we have them, not those of the priests or the monarchy. It is when those latter were in conflict with the prophets that the evaluations for these instutions are negative, particularly in the historical books.

In such a situation, I would prefer to speak of a Prophetic History, rather than what most describe as the Deuteronomistic History. In this is a return of the emphasis back to the wider, more general category of the prophets. After all, it is entirely and only their evaluations and their first-person voices that we are priveleged to read in the Old Testament, which I don’t think anyone disagrees with, except perhaps among the Psalms, and then Proverbs, which are a different kettle of fish altogether. What we have in the Hebrew Bible, then, is a group of writings of an ancient pre-exilic religious minority, which, in the post-exilic period, are at long last taken as foundational by the priestly and secular leadership of Yehud.

A few items of support: How is creation accomplished in Genesis 1? Through speech, the medium of the prophet, not through ritual, the medium of the priest. Of Aaron and Moses, who gets the better press? Moses the faithful prophet rather than Aaron the syncretistic priest. What institution is consistently exclusively Yahwistic throughout the periods for which there is reliable evidence? Only the prophets. What is the framework given for all the legal texts? Prophetic delivery to Moses, and Moses to the people. Who decided which kings were good and which bad, and according to what criteria? The criteria were those of the prophets moreso than those of the priests.

Keeping this prophetc perspective in mind while reading the Hebrew Bible texts is often more enlightening than various other approaches. Give it a try, O reader, and let me know what you think.