- Text of the passage in Nawat
The first episode is notably a repeat of what is essentially the same story we've already been told twice no less except that on those occasions the protagonist was his father, Abraham (see ch. 12 and 20); the first time was in Egypt, but the second in Gerar and involving king Abimelech, just as now. The most sensible way to deal with this is by assuming different traditions, which would have originated credibly from multiple local versions of a popular yarn wherein, around the same core idea, specific details vary, including the names of the actors and the locations of the action. There may even have been more versions, now lost; the ones that have been recorded in Genesis would obviously have been the ones that involved the biblical characters.
On this reading, there is nothing much here that should really be considered specific to the personality of Isaac. The joints and seams are all too obvious: not only are the repetitions of a virtually identical anecdote a giveaway, but there are also sequencing problems. Where were Isaac and Rebecca's children when this was going on?
The next part of the passage (vv. 12-22) is remarkable, among other reasons, because in it one of the patriarchs is portrayed as a sower rather than a mobile herdsman, which really implies a change of lifestyle and a departure from the usual way of life with which the patriarchs (both before and after Isaac) are associated (cf. for example 47:3, wayyómer par‛o el exaw ma ma‛asekhem wayyom'ru el par‛o
ro‛e tzon ‛avadékha gam anáxnu gam avoténu 'Pharaoh said to [Joseph's] brothers, "What is your occupation?" They answered Pharaoh, "We your servants are shepherds, as were also our fathers."'). Now if this scene is to be read as really following immediately after the preceding one, let us recall that that one began with the notice of a great famine in the land, which was the pretext for Isaac's move to this area in the first place. Since it says nothing about the famine being over, then, the scene that unfolds here is of Isaac, in exceptional conditions, taking what was for him the exceptional measure of adopting, albeit temporarily, the occupation of working the land to obtain food, at which he is apparently rather successful, indeed, enough so to rouse the envy of the local people, who resort to illegitimate actions to thwart him out of spite, since they themselves did not stand to benefit much, directly at least, from ruining Isaac's water supply. Let us not forget the significance of wells in those days: wells were water, water was life, both for human inhabitants and for any animals under their protection. This, then, was not just symbolic vandalism (like painting graffiti on someone's wall), it was an out-and-out assault on an essential life resource, an act of undisguised belligerance. The reason alluded to is envy: that is to say, Isaac was not responsible for having done any wrong to the Philistines of which we know, but they hated him for doing well for himself. It is a sentiment that is sadly all too familiar, and one that the descendants of Isaac would encounter, historically, so often that it has virtually become their trademark.
Another fact of human conduct highlighted in this passage is the many forms of persecution and discrimination that people can adopt. The last sentence prior to this scene stated that the Philistine king had ordered his subjects to afford Isaac's people protection (v. 11): waytzaw avimélekh et kol ha‛am lemor hannogéa‛ ba'ish hazze uv'ishto mot yumat 'Abimelech then charged all the people, saying, "Anyone who molests this man or his wife shall be put to death."' Since the stopping of the wells is reported straight after this, the text seems to show that for as long as there have been laws, there have been loopholes (hecha la ley, hecha la trampa): the king didn't say anything about the man's wells... The upshot of this is not the war of the wells, because Isaac opts for a different way to resolve it: he ups and leaves. Stopping at another place, the same story is repeated all over again, and Isaac deals with it the same way as before, by removing himself from the place of conflict, rather than engage in a fight. And this continues until at last he sets up in a place where he is left alone. Almost all the commentators seem to coincide in singling out Isaac as the patriarch with the "weakest character" in a literary sense: not that he was morally weak, but just doesn't have that much of a story to tell. He blends into the background in a way that Abraham and Jacob both don't, and what he gets for it is that he is the least remembered of the three "fathers". And admittedly it is harder to spin a good yarn around a central character who tends to mind his own business and stay out of trouble (well, most of the time at least). Perhaps this is Isaac's real allegorical role: neither an adventurer nor a trickster, he simply wants to establish himself and make his home in the land to which his father and mother came, aware of his own roots yet seeking to work things out with his neighbours; he is, much more than Abraham and Jacob, a paradigm of an ideal to which many aspire, and which fewer ultimately attain because, do what one will, somebody is not going to be happy about it. The best that can be hoped for by the Isaacs of the world is to reach a precarious balance, for the time being, an existence which has been described as being like a fiddler on the roof.
Then the story acquires another interesting twist. Eventually Isaac moves away from the Gerar district completely and settles in Beer-Sheba, an area outside the realm of the Philistine king Abimelech but not very far off. The appearance of God there to bless Isaac, whereupon Isaac builds an altar and invokes the name of YHWH (see also 12:8, wayyíven sham mizbéax lYHWH wayyiqra b'shem YHWH 'He built an altar there to YHWH and invoked YHWH by name'), seems to augur well, and Isaac starts to dig a well. Out of the blue, along comes Abimelech all the way from Gerar in the company of his highest officers (a diplomatic delegation) and proposes that he and Isaac should sign a pact. Isaac, as surprised as we are, asks him point-blank why, since Abimelech hates him and has expelled him (v. 17), to which Abimelech replies, like a good politician: because God is with you, which frankly can only mean either "because I need something from you" or "now that you're doing well, I'm interested in a share." In ch. 21 a pact between Abimelech and Abraham was described, and on the assumption that these might be variants of the same tradition, the reflections there might be applicable to this story. Be that as it may, the present scene portrays an example of a change of position, if not of heart, a tactical wind-change probably stemming from a realignment in the circumstances, and as a result, overtures to Isaac which seem to be of particular interest to the Philistine, to whom Isaac acquiesces granting them their non-aggression pact. In one last touch of irony, once the treaty has been signed (bayyom hahu 'that same day'), the diggers come to Isaac and inform him that no water has been found in the new well! Well, that's how things are sometimes.
That's the end of that, but appended to the story we find a short item on a different matter: Isaac's son Esau, now a grown man (so obviously this is much later), has married two Hittite women. Isaac and Rebecca did not approve. Because they were Hittites? Perhaps.
26:1 hara‛av harishon asher haya bime avraham
I.e. in ch. 12.
26:2-5
Isaac goes to Gerar because he is instructed to by God, who also takes this opportunity to renew the promises he had made to his father Abraham, whose merit in obeying God is given as the reason for bestowing these blessings on the son.
sh'khon... gur
Commentators point out the difference between these two verbs, the first of which means 'to live in a tent, to camp' and the second 'to reside (without full citizenship, as an alien).' Thus verse 2, al tered mitzráyma sh'khon ba'áretz asher omar elékha refers to where Isaac will stay, and verse 3, gur ba'áretz hazzot to his legal status there, that of a sojourner.
26:7
A repetition of the reasons given by Abraham in his similar exploits, already seen.
26:8-10 m'tzaxeq et rivqa... kim‛at shakhav...
These words give the lie to later puritanical notions rejecting the enjoyment of sex as a normal and legitimate activity. There is obvious word play in the conjunction of the name yitzxaq and the piel participle m'tzaxeq which essentially contains the notion of 'play' while clearly referring to "sexual dalliance"; this is neither sex aimed exclusively at reproduction, nor opening one's legs and thinking of England. And there is nothing in the text to suggest that either the character who is speaking or the author of the narrative regarded the possibility of axad ha‛am sleeping with Abraham's attractive "sister" as a symptom of depravity, either; that is an a posteriori projection of cultural values from another time and place. Also, the words w'heveta ‛alénu asham 'and you would have brought guilt upon us' says, unambiguously, that the only reason why such a thing would have resulted in guilt, i.e. have been sinful, was the fact that Rebecca, whether they knew it or not, was married. (But how could that happen? Wouldn't Rebecca have told them?) Of course, all this is a little bit undignified when we're talking about revered patriarchs and matriarchs. On the other hand, it is good stuff for late-night gossip around the fire after the kids have been put safely to bed in their tents. It is not a problem of indecorum, only of correct genre attribution.
26:11
Ostensibly this is the conclusion of the above episode, but I wonder, because logically it can also be read together with what follows. True, what happens next belies Abimelech's assurances to a considerable extent; but what if that were precisely the point?
26:12-16
See comments above, and also on the ensuing passage.
26:17 b'náxal g'rar
The term náxal, translated in EAS and JPS as 'wadi', is explained by Speiser as "either 'brook' or its dry bed, here obviously the latter."
26:24 anokhi elohe avraham avíkha
On the possible meaning of God's announcing himself to Isaac as the God of his father, see here.
26:34 y'hudit
Judith seems like an unlikely name for a Hittite woman. CB suggests it is a corruption of some other name. EH points out that this Judith is not mentioned again even though Esau's descendants are.
No comments:
Post a Comment