La Escuela

6.2.1 The nature of genealogies

At the most basic level, genealogies are “written or oral expression[s] of the descent of a person or persons from an ancestor or ancestors.”² Because kinship was a major organizing structure for society in the ancient world, genealogies were useful and important in establishing familial relationships. However, genealogies also helped to delineate social, political, and religious connections. “Genealogies, whether from Israel, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, or Greece, are not simply compilations of traditional material, but are assertions about identity, territory, and relationships.”³ Indeed, while Gen 36 is generally referred to as Esau’s genealogy, the chapter also exhibits many of these broader characteristics, which are vital to our understanding of it.

2 Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (YNER 7; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 9. Wilson’s book offers the fullest account of genealogies, and is supplemented by his other publications: “Genealogy, Genealogies,” ABD 2:929-932; “The Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research,” JBL 94:2 (1975):169-189; and “Between ‘Azel’ and

‘Azel’: Interpreting the Biblical Genealogies,” BA 42:1 (1979):11-22. Another important work in this area, focused on the NT genealogies, but touching on those found in the HB, is Marshall D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies, With Special Reference to the setting of the Genealogies of Jesus (SNTSMS 8; Cambridge: CUP, 1969). In relation to ANE genealogies, see Abraham Malamat,

“King lists of the old Babylonian period and biblical genealogies,” in Essays in memory of E.A.

Speiser (ed. William W. Hallo; New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1968), 163-173. Further works on genealogies in Genesis and the HB include Otto Eissfeldt, “Biblos Genese4s,” in Kleine Schriften (vol. 3; ed. Rudolf Sellheim and Fritz Maass; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1966), 458-470; David Carr,

“53"&') 678797:) Revisited: A Synchronic Analysis of Patterns in Genesis as Part of the Torah (Part One),” ZAW 110:2 (1998):159-172; Andrew E. Hill, “Genealogy,” DTIB, 242-246.

3 Gary N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1-9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 12;

New York: Doubleday, 2003), 18.

6.2.2 Gen 36: structure and unity

Gen 36 is most often broken down into a series of lists, such as the following:⁴

1. Wives and sons of Esau, vv. 1-5 2. Narrative interlude, vv. 6-8

3. Second genealogy of Esau, vv. 9-14 4. The “chiefs” of Esau, vv. 15-19 5. The sons of Seir, the Horite, vv. 20-28 6. The “chiefs” of the Horites, vv. 29-30 7. A list of Edomite kings, vv. 31-39

8. Second list of the “chiefs” of Edom, vv. 40-43

The breadth and variety of these lists points to this chapter being a collection of various records.⁵ Even the traditional ascription of the chapter to P, assigned because of the genealogical nature of the chapter and the use of the term twdlwt, has been called into question.⁶ This has led some, such as Vawter, to comment that “The editing of the compilation…has been neither thorough nor serious.”⁷

And yet, a case for redactional unity in the chapter can be made.⁸ As Wilson comments, “Although Gen 36 gives the immediate impression of disunity, there is nevertheless a definite formal structure to the arrangement of the genealogies in the chapter.”⁹ This can be seen in the introductions that begin the various units of the chapter, and which provide a rhythym of sorts to the genealogy: twdlt hl)w (v. 1), twdlt hl)w (v. 9), ypwl) hl) (v. 15), ry(#-ynb hl) (v. 20), ypwl) hl) (v.

29), Myklmh hl)w (v. 31), ypwl) twm# hl)w (v. 40).

4 Wilson, Genealogy and History, 167; The NRSV offers a similar breakdown.

5 Coats gives a variety of genres used here, including what he calls organizational lists and king lists.

Coats, Genesis, 246.

6 This is because of the double use of twdlwt in vv. 1 and 9, as well as the various discrepancies with other P material, include the names of Esau’s wives as given in Gen 25 and 28. Carr, Reading the Fractures, 96. Wilson (Genealogy and History, 168) has dealt with the complexities of isolating sources in this chapter. Blum (Die Komposition, 449-451) has argued for possible divergences within the P school.

7 Vawter, On Genesis, 366.

8 Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 336.

9 Wilson, Genealogy and History, 173; Carr, “53"&') 678797:),” 171.

Another issue which points to the purposeful shaping of Gen 36 is the fact that equations of “Esau as Edom” and “Esau as the father of the Edomites” bookend the chapter, forming an inclusio of sorts for the genealogy. Thus, while it is highly probable that Gen 36 is a compilation of various lists and sources, one could argue that it has been shaped in the end to reflect an extensive account of Esau’s lineage, from the patriarch to his people. Whether or not this list is historically accurate by contemporary standards is another question; nonetheless, the narrator wants the list to be seen as Esau’s extended genealogy.

Taking this into account, a helpful framework for understanding the chapter as a whole may come via a suggestion made by Westermann, who notes that Gen 36 in many ways mirrors the broader history of Israel:

The importance of ch. 36 is that it attests to those same three stages in society, reduced to genealogies and lists, which also determine the course of history of Israel in the historical books of the Old Testament: from the family…through tribal society…to monarchy. … Herein lies the historical importance of ch. 36.¹⁰

While Westermann says this framework is of historical importance, it might also serve as a heuristic framework hermeneutically: one way to make sense of Gen 36 as a whole is to understand it as the history of Esau and Edom in condensed form, mirroring Israel’s story. The same stages in Israel’s history will be outlined from the next chapter, Gen 37, down through the books of 1 and 2 Samuel: from ancestor, to family, to tribes, to monarchy.

This is not to eschew the question of historical veracity, which, in relation to

genealogies, is a difficult one. However, several issues which are relevant to our study should be noted. To begin with, as Wilson notes, historical questions need to be understood in light of the forms and functions of genealogies.¹¹ For instance, one of the key characteristics of genealogies is an element of fluidity:

Where two or more versions of the same genealogy exist, it is usually possible to detect changes in the relationship of names within the genealogy or to note the deletion or addition of names. This sort of fluidity may occur because the names involved are unimportant and thus liable to be forgotten or at least to be poorly remembered. On the other hand, fluidity may

10 Westermann, Genesis 12-36, 568. Fretheim (“Genesis,” 590) makes a similar statement.

11 Wilson, “Between ‘Azel,’” 11-12.

be crucial for understanding the genealogies and may indicate significant shifts in social relationships.¹²

For Wilson, this comes back to the question of form and function, and his work in anthropological material shows that “a number of apparently contradictory

genealogies may exist at the same time and function in different spheres. The genealogies would not have been considered contradictory by the people who used them, for they would have recognized that each genealogy was accurate when it was functioning in its own particular sphere.”¹³

This leads to a related issue, the fact that the genealogies are in some sense “true” in the eyes of those who pass them down:

[I]n many cases the question of genealogical accuracy may not be a fruitful one because the genealogies involved express a perceived reality which is not open to outside observation. The genealogies express the way in which the writer viewed domestic, political, or religious relationships. Therefore, the genealogies are accurate expressions of the perceptions of the authors but may not correspond with what a Western historian would regard as “objective data.”¹⁴

In sum, Gen 36 may indeed be a collection of various lists which contain historical difficulties by contemporary standards. However, there is reason to believe the chapter has been shaped for a specific purpose: to reflect the extended lineage of Esau, Jacob’s brother. One way of reading this chapter as a whole, then, is to see it as functioning as the story of Esau/Edom in miniature, a concise portrayal of the history of Esau’s descendants, mirroring the history of Israel. Several key elements in the text itself may add to this hypothesis.

12 Wilson, Genealogy and History, 930-931.

13 Wilson, Genealogy and History, 181. Wilson gives an extended example of this using the case of Eliphaz. See Wilson, “Between ‘Azel,’” 20-21.

14 Wilson, “Between ‘Azel,’” 21. Though note Rendsburg, who argues that the biblical genealogies—

particularly in Exodus through Joshua—are more consistent, and perhaps reliable, than often noted.

Gary A. Rendsburg, “The Internal Consistency and Historical Reliability of the Biblical Genealogies,”

VT 40:2 (1990):185-206.