CUESTIONARIO DE AUTO-EVALUACIÓN DE HABILIDADES DE ESTUDIO.

The common feature of the above approaches that hinge around Gunkel’s unity of character theory is that they are set on interconnected patterns of promoting, by implication the aetiological literary genre visible in the editorial or redactive choice of presentation of patriarchal cycle via the Jacobean narrative of Genesis 32. The theory basically emphasizes origin by direct explanation to name of a person or place before and after, the reason behind such, as well as the meaning with reoccurring cycle of narrations, will help us to explain why the Jacobean story should be seen as a deliberate editorial intention to explain Israel’s past in an aetiological narrative form. All through the narrative, the same formula or pattern is consistently adopted resulting to a cycle. Coats (1983) said, “The centre of the tale is the somewhat symmetrical conversation, the conversation forms a pattern of concealing and revealing centred around the renaming of Jacob as Israel” (p.50). It is however most probable that such pattern of presentation was the one available to the editors at the time and they could hardly disguise it.

approach which also follows a particular formula but in another dimension.

Toledoth simply means descent or ancestry. It is a theory based on a canonical point of view, so that in the patriarchal cycle, Jacob and Esau represent the toledoth of their father which began with the toledoth formula for Isaac in Gen.25:19 and ends with Isaac’s death and burial by his two sons at Mamre in Gen.35:27. They are followed immediately by the toledoth of Esau (36:1), and then by the toledoth of Jacob (cf.37:2and 50:12-13) which comprises the story of Joseph and his brothers. This theory is similar to the practise of descent among Igbo people where people identity and integrity are determined by their genealogy and ancestry. This form of literary presentation is common with Old Testament writers.

Scholars like David and Pat Alexander (1992) see it as containing “a wide variety of literary materials, narratives, laws, ritual instructions, sermons, genealogies and poetry, which has been drawn together from different sources”

(p.1).The chief proponent of toledoth theory Ernhard Blum summarises his proposition by classifying the Jacobean narratives into a tripartite structure, hence;

i) A sudden encounter by the chief protagonist (Jacob) with God Gen.

28:13&32:24; which marks major turning points in the story.

ii) Jacob and Esau in Canaan (Gen.25:19-27:1-46) Jacob’s encounter with God at Bethel (28:10-22).

iii) Jacob and Leban in Aram (Gen.28:33) Jacob’s encounter with God (gods, angels) at (Mahanaim Gen.32:2) and Peniel (Gen.32:24-31).

Blum backed his toledoth approach on the patriarchal narratives cum Jacobean story in Genesis 32 with an outstanding commentary thus:

The story has a dimension which is fundamental to all the outlined aspects of meaning when read in the perspective of the narrator and his addresses: it is part of their own collective biography from the beginning; readers know that the child described at his birth as represents Edom, and that Jacob is Israel. It is the story about the origin of peoples (ם ׅיוֹג) and their environment. According to the genealogical conception of all groups in which social structures are based primarily on relations of kingship, history of tribes or nations begins with individual families. Thus stories of origins tell family stories which the hearers/readers see themselves in a continuity of descent. In addition, the narrated world and the addresses’ world are aetiologically correlated (p.186).

Thus, the Jacobean narrative in Genesis 32 becomes an extension and continuation of the patriarchal family tree descending from Abraham in Genesis 12 as carefully arranged by willing crafts of editorial pen. The stamp of aetiology in Genesis 32 does not by any means erode its historical essence; it is

a part of Jewish toledoth background with Jacob as the chief actor. Vawter (2013) added that:

The book of Genesis is naturally divided by the toledoth formula which occurs 11 times throughout the book. Each of the major toledoth is described as the account of the father, while the son is the primary focus of the account. The life of Jacob is described throughout the account of Isaac from Gen. 25: 11-35:29, while the account of Jacob beginning in 37:2 relates the Joseph narrative to the greater Jacob narrative. These toledoths relate the promise of God being passed through the younger son rather than the elder, and the Jacob account shows further that God’s plan will not be frustrated even by the weakness of the one through whom God has chosen to work (p.4).

God is seen in the picture as the independent author, sustainer and finisher of the history of man. When God is carrying out his divine purpose he deploys every available human agent despite tradition, but he has to start with somebody; this is what the OT editors did using aetiology from the point of view of the toledoth approach. This approach is relevant in this study because both Jews and Igbo people of Abia state do not joke with their ancestral history.

Maduabum (2012) said, “Igbo names also reflect joy, sorrow, death, prospects and potentials” (p.11). This is why it is a worrisome situation when names of persons and communities are arbitrarily changed. Both in the OT Hebrew toledoth and Igbo cultures, a person’s name serves as an authentication of his

membership of a family. Ezekwu (2014) said, “With the names, the child is initiated into the culture of his or her people. He or she is now recognised and affirmed as a member of the family and community; this also confirms him or her as a member of the entire clan” (p.22). The Jews of Jacob’s time and up till date and Igbo people use names as forms of identity like every other people, but beyond that a name serves as source of history, discernment of destiny and assessment of character. Ezekwu even added that Igbo world values and understanding of life itself is reflected in the names they bear which represents their historical past, hence; “The Igbo name is highly informative such that one could easily see through the names, a reflection of one’s belief or opinion on life and reality. The Igbo names actually serve both as windows or mirrors through which one could look into the Igbo world values as well as their way of dealing without understanding life” (p.3). In the aetiological narrative of Genesis 32 however, the name ‘Jacob’ is the major character whose toledot is traced to Abraham and of course to Adam who were known for their strength and failures in their journey with Yahweh. Precisely Cotterell (1989) said,

The Jacob discourse, which occupies some twenty-five chapters of Genesis, provides an indicative model to illustrate the point. It is itself set the larger of Genesis and the larger pentateuchal text. It is preceded by the creation discourse which acts as stage, as that part of the text that states the issue addressed by the text as a whole, and

then by the Abraham narrative. Genesis 25:19 economically concludes the Abraham discourse and opens the new Jacob discourse. These first twenty-five chapters are given coherence through the formulaic toledot. These formulae may be anaphoric, but may also be cataphoric, with the distinction determined by the co-text. The Jacob discourse itself is introduced by the generations’

statement at Genesis 25:19, and is punctuated by the Esau genealogy of chapter 36, itself introduced by the toledot formula at 36:1. (p. 151).

There is a visible literary coherent discourse from Genesis 25-50, there is then the need for form-critical interpretation and analytical illustration of texts through the Jacob discourse.