The economic environment, the vulnerability and the young people

attempts have been made to understand how and why these two traditions might be connected.³⁰

One way this question has been answered is with a linear reading of the biblical text that takes the biblical history at face value. This was the pre-modern reading which held precedent before the rise of critical biblical studies (and one which, presumably, many readers of the Bible hold today): Jacob and Esau, the sons of Isaac, were the

28 O'Brien, Challenging Prophetic Metaphor, 164-165.

29 O'Brien, Challenging Prophetic Metaphor, 166. Italics in original.

30 Most reference material separates Esau and Edom into separate entries (e.g., ABD, EncJud). One entry that does deal with the two issues together is Knauth, “Esau, Edomites,” DOTP, 219-224.

However, because the focus is on the pentateuchal traditions, little connection is made with the prophetic hostility or the possible reasons for it.

eponymous ancestors of neighboring nations, Israel and Edom. These nations would have a tenuous relationship, with Edom deserving any eventual punishment it might receive. The conflict between the brothers foreshadows the conflict of the nations.³¹

The strength of this approach is that it takes the canonical shape of the Esau and Edom material seriously, and this needs to be recognized. This type of reading is also encouraged by the Bible itself, particularly in texts such as Gen 36, where the

connection between Esau and Edom is made explicit. However, there are several shortcomings to this approach. To begin with, modern scholarship has shown that historical claims regarding the patriarchal period are difficult to substantiate.³²

Moreover, the connection of the patriarchs with the nations that bear their names, and how this came to be, has been called into question.³³ Even from the standpoint of sources, a reading which assumes that the prophetic traditions drew from the Genesis material, and not the other way around, can no longer be taken for granted. Taken in sum, these various complexities have problematized a straightforward historical and linear reading of the biblical account of Esau and Edom. While the present study will try to make sense of the canonical portrayal of Esau and Edom, these are issues which cannot simply be ignored, and the gains which have been made in contemporary scholarship need to be taken into account.

A second approach to the relationship of Esau and Edom is to recognize that the HB has various independent traditions which have been fused together.³⁴ This approach became commonplace with the rise of critical biblical studies. In this view, the Jacob and Esau stories existed independent of their connection to the nation-states, but were made to fit together with national ideas at a later time. (Indeed, critics would observe that there were more than likely disparate Jacob and Esau materials which were joined together as well.)³⁵ Esau’s description as “red” and “hairy,” on top of phonetic

similarities, matches the physical description of Edom and Seir. Moreover, the

31 For an example of this, see Calvin, especially at Gen 36.

32 See, e.g., Thomas L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1974). Though note the careful questioning of some of these assumptions in R.W.L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism (OBT;

Minneapolis, Fortress: 1992), 191-202.

33 J.R. Bartlett, “The Brotherhood of Edom,” JSOT 4 (1977):2-27.

34 Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, 175-180.

35 Gunkel, Genesis, 285-287.

congruences in the stories of Jacob/Esau and Israel/Edom (exile and return, sibling hostility, etc.) suggest that the narratives have been edited together to reflect these similarities.

Again, this approach has both strengths and weaknesses. On the one hand, the editorial hand of those who brought the stories to the form we have them is

recognized, as is the problematic nature of a linear, historical reading of the biblical account. On the other hand, this approach does not always take seriously enough the texts as they have been passed down to us. Esau in this reading often becomes a flat character, a simple stand-in for Edom. Any theological substance in the Esau stories or the prophecies concerning Edom (or, for that matter, differences between the two) is disregarded, and is replaced with the search for what lies behind the sources and traditions from which they came. What is often under-developed in these readings is the question of why the texts were finally shaped the way they were and incorporated as we have them into Israel’s Scriptures, and what significance these traditions have for Israel’s understanding of herself and the world.

A third approach to the issue of the Esau and Edom traditions is offered by Dicou, whose work is perhaps the most thorough attempt to answer this question.³⁶ Providing readings of both the Genesis texts concerning Esau and the prophetic texts about Edom, Dicou concludes that “The Jacob-Esau stories and the oracles against Edom originated mostly in the second half of the sixth century BCE, in a mutually

influencing development.”³⁷ In both cases, Esau and Edom serve a typological function as representative of the nations. However, Genesis and the prophetic books paint a different picture regarding the outcome: while the prophetic books see no solution other than the destruction of Edom, the Genesis stories can be seen to show that it is indeed possible for Israel and her neighbors to coexist in relative peace.³⁸

Dicou’s research has been an important addition to studies on Esau and Edom, offering both thorough readings and thoughtful reflection. His use of both synchronic and diachronic methods allows the texts to speak on their own, while being

36 Dicou’s dissertation (“Jakob en Esau”) focuses on the synchronic elements of the relevant texts, while the diachronic elements are dealt with in his subsequent work, Edom, Israel's Brother.

37 Dicou, Edom, Israel's Brother, 198.

38 Dicou, Edom, Israel's Brother, 202-204.

understood in light of historical-critical issues. While I agree with Dicou’s

conclusions at many points, there are two main areas where I dissent (and they happen to be two rather large conclusions in his work). To begin with, I am not convinced by Dicou’s designation of both Esau and Edom as typological representatives of the nations. To be sure, some of the prophetic texts do start to include universal elements when speaking of Edom; however, this seems in the end a somewhat reductive reading of both the Genesis texts and the prophetic corpus. Indeed, one could say that it is the particularity of Esau and Edom that sets them apart for special treatment in both traditions. Secondly, Dicou argues that the Esau and Edom traditions originated around the same time, under “mutually influencing” forces, and offer two differing pictures as to how Israel can relate to her neighbors in post-exilic Yehud. In this view, the two traditions are cast as opposing ideologies, competing in a post-exilic context.

This is, without doubt, one way to understand this material. However, it seems to me that Dicou’s argument too closely associates historical events and the development of sources or traditions. In the ever-changing landscape of source- and redaction-critical studies, assertions of this nature seem tenuous. I hope to show that, for a canonical reading, intertextuality might point a way forward in this respect, allowing for a fuller appreciation of theological resonances in the traditions.

Another instructive and important reading of the Esau and Edom traditions has been put forward by Stiebert, who highlights the ideological nature of these traditions.³⁹ She argues that the portrayal of Esau in Genesis is, for the most part, positive, where Esau is a character who is mistreated. The negative “bad press” which Esau receives in the prophets “belongs to a larger pattern of prophetic inversion and anti-foreign Second Temple ideology. The radical reinterpretation was possibly the upshot of making sense of a world where everything appears to have been turned upside down.”⁴⁰ Speaking of the prophetic references, she writes:

It becomes clear that we are dealing with a strong anti-Esau/Edom polemic. Something dreadful appears to have been perpetrated by the Edomites when persons identified as the people of Judah, or descendants of Jacob, were under threat. Some prophetic passages are more detailed than others. The strands taken together indicate that the Edomites collaborated with the aggressor when Judah was being invaded. They also gloated and took advantage

39 Johanna Stiebert, “The Maligned Patriarch: Prophetic Ideology and the ‘Bad Press’ of Esau,” in Sense and Sensitivity: Essays on Reading the Bible in Memory of Robert Carroll (ed. Alastair G.

Hunter & Phillip R. Davies; JSOTSup 348; London: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 33-48.

40 Stiebert, “The Maligned Patriarch,” 33.

when Judah was vulnerable. This behaviour is particularly appalling, because the Edomites are descended from the Judaeans’ ancestor Jacob’s brother. (Atrocities committed against Edom by Israel/Judah, are, however, conveniently ignored. And so is the fact that the opportunistic action of the Edomites is not completely dissimilar to Jacob’s exploitation of circumstances to acquire Esau’s birthright and blessing.)⁴¹

She concludes:

Esau, the patriarch who according to the story of Genesis was maligned by his own brother, is wronged yet more in the prophetic literature where he receives very bad press indeed. He epitomizes all that is within the parameters of Second Temple ideology detestable:

foreignness, defilement and shamefulness. His fraternal feeling (evident in the Genesis account) is here utterly corrupted; his kinship with Judah/Israel has become so diminished that he is numbered among the abhorred foreigners; even his masculinity is undermined. What has Esau done to deserve this? It could be that his exogamy became the target of ideologues, seeking to find explanations (and scapegoats) for the violent turbulence of the relatively recent past. On the basis of Esau’s depiction in the Hexateuch, the reinterpretation of him in

Jeremiah, Obadiah and Malachi is not “fair” and consequently draws forceful attention to damaging ideological subtexts.⁴²

Stiebert’s reading has much to be commended. Her positive reading of Esau in the Hexateuch has much in common with my own, and her ideological critique of the prophets is a helpful reminder that these are difficult texts indeed that need to be read and understood with care. However, Stiebert’s reading also has some drawbacks. To begin with, she offers the standard fare regarding why Israel might have been upset with Edom (sacking of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, along with intermarriage and issues of identity for the post-exilic community), and this is taken as insufficient reasoning for the hostile prophetic response. Stiebert does not, however, probe any further as to why Israel would be so troubled with the actions of their neighbors, and thus several key elements—particularly the theological issues of land and inheritance—are missing from her construal. Secondly, her parenthetical statement chiding Israel for double standards when it comes to criticizing Esau/Edom is problematic when reading these critiques in a canonical context. Levenson, amongst others, has shown that the prophets do indeed refer to Jacob’s deceptive actions, and connect this with

Israel/Judah’s own shortcomings.⁴³ While Israel’s actions toward Edom specifically might not be mentioned, the prophets are in no way shy when it comes to calling out Israel’s own inconsistencies. This might lead us to pay closer attention to the

particularity of Edom; what might it mean that Edom is chided in ways similar to

41 Stiebert, “The Maligned Patriarch,” 41.

42 Stiebert, “The Maligned Patriarch,” 47.

43 See Levenson, Death, 62-64, commenting on Mal 2:10, Mal 3:6-9 and Jer 9:3-5.

Israel? This is not to deny the ideological dimensions which may be present in the biblical text, nor to downplay the difficulty of these texts. Indeed, the prophetic references to Esau and Edom can be extremely troubling. However, we have to allow for the possibility that probing these texts in new ways and from various angles might reveal nuances that have been heretofore under-appreciated (which I understand to be one of the tenets of ideological criticism itself).

Finally, two readings which highlight theological dimensions of these traditions need to be mentioned. One of these is offered by Assis, who argues that the hostility Israel feels toward Edom is related to the issue of election. He writes,

Israel’s attitude to Edom in the sixth century BCE is related to the people’s feelings of despair, deriving from the view that the destruction meant that God had abandoned His people. Since Edom was seen as an alternative to Israel, being identified with Esau, Jacob’s brother, it was thought possible that God had now chosen Edom as his people in place of Israel.

Two facts supported these thoughts. The first was the Edomite participation in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and the exiling of Judah from their country. Since the exile of Judah and the destruction of the temple were interpreted by the people as severing of the relationship with God, Edom’s participation in the act of rejection of Israel by God could have been interpreted easily as an expression of God’s wish to choose Edom in their place. Because Israel saw Esau and Edom as being identical, the Edomite participation in the destruction of Judah was not interpreted in a regular political context between two rival neighbouring peoples. Edom’s participation received a theological significance in light of the conflict of Jacob and Esau over the election in the Book of Genesis. … A second fact that supported the view that Edom was now chosen instead of Israel is the colonization of the land of Judah by the Edomites. … The Edomites invaded Judah’s part of God’s inheritance and settled there. … It was not the fact that Edom participated in the destruction or even the fact that they

colonized Judah that led to the exceptional attitude towards Edom in the Biblical sources. Acts of this type were also carried out by other peoples. The ideological and theological

significance that Judah assigned to Edom’s acts is what led the prophets to focus on Edom.⁴⁴

Assis’s study helpfully highlights the theological dimension of the relationship between the Esau and Edom traditions. He notes the particularity of the Esau/Edom story, over against the generalized typological views outlined above. Moreover, the importance of the land, and its relation to the issue of election is also rightly noted.

Indeed, several of my conclusions are not greatly dissimilar from Assis’s. However, where I differ from Assis, and where I believe his argument falls short, is the theological dimensions of Esau and Edom’s own story. The biblical text, it would seem to me, does not imply that Israel was concerned with Edom replacing them as

44 Elie Assis, “Why Edom? On the Hostility Towards Jacob's Brother in Prophetic Sources,” VT 56:1 (2006):1-20, here at 14-15.

the elect; rather, I would suggest that it is Esau/Edom’s own inheritance that is the key regarding the land motif and Israel’s hostility. Esau’s brotherly behavior, as well as the gift of land from YHWH, needs to be given further attention, as it highlights the issue of Israel’s expectations of their brother.

One study that has recognized this brotherhood motif is that of Spina. After focusing primarily on the Esau texts in Genesis, and finding a remarkably positive portrayal there, Spina notes:

Quite simply, the nation of Edom, as depicted in the biblical stories, did not follow in the footsteps of Esau the man. The later prophetic condemnations of Edom, therefore, are a function of an appalling (from Israel’s point of view) transition from a most gracious brotherhood to a most malignant sibling rivalry expressed at the national level.⁴⁵

Again, Spina’s careful readings are instructive, and his focus on theological elements of the texts is helpful. In many ways, Spina offers a traditional understanding of the relationship between Esau and Edom, but with a much more positive construal of Esau than is often given. And yet, it should be noted that his reading does not negate the difficulty of election, but instead holds in tension this complex theological idea with the often unrecognized role that the unchosen play in the biblical story.

Moreover, Spina’s understanding of the importance of the brotherhood theme for both the Esau and Edom traditions is vital. Again, my understanding of the Esau story, particularly in Genesis, has much resonance with the work of Spina. Yet, an important aspect is underdeveloped (and this is most likely because Spina’s study is concerned primarily with the Genesis material): Esau’s own inheritance and the importance of

“land” for both nations greatly affect the portrayal of Esau’s descendants in the prophetic books. It is on this specific point that the Deuteronomic portrayal of the sons of Esau and Edom offers an important canonical voice, and why it has been included in this study.

In summary, there are several approaches that can be taken with regard to the Esau and Edom traditions, all of which have strengths and weaknesses: 1) traditional, linear readings which see continuity from Esau, down through the people of Edom (Calvin);

2) religio- and source-critical approaches, which argue that the HB has incorporated

45 Spina, Faith, 32.

different traditions, and these traditions have been fused together so as to connect Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom (Gunkel, Bartlett); 3) the argument that the Esau and Edom traditions both offer typological portrayals of Esau and Edom, that both developed under similar circumstances, but in the end they offer possible alternatives for post-exilic Yehud (Dicou); 4) ideological readings, which note that Esau was mistreated by Jacob, and that Edom is similarly mistreated by Judah as a scapegoat, highlighting the ideological nature of Israel’s Scriptures (Stiebert); and 5) readings which are more theological in nature, focusing on the issue of land and election (Assis) or on the brotherhood motif (Spina). All of these are helpful in their own ways for understanding the relationship of the Esau and Edom traditions in the Bible.

In this work I hope to utilize elements of all of these approaches where appropriate, in order to offer a more coherent reading of the complex of materials concerning Esau and Edom in their present canonical shape.

Having visited (however briefly and selectively) the various ways in which the Esau and Edom traditions have been received, I turn now to the texts themselves, offering readings of the relevant passages, beginning with the narratives concerning Esau in Genesis.

3. Beginnings: oracle, birth and birthright (Genesis