Uso de la lengua originaria y segunda lengua

Surely one of the most unexpected elements of the Israelites’ encounter with the nations of the Transjordan is Deuteronomy’s assertion that these other nations were given their lands by YHWH, as Canaan would be given to the Israelites. As Nelson notes, there is a vast difference between land not being given to Israel and that land being given exclusively to someone else by Israel’s God.²¹

Regarding the sons of Esau, we read in 2:5, “Do not provoke them (wrgtt-l)), for I will not give (Nt)-)l) to you from their land (Mcr)m) even a foot; for as a

possession for Esau (w#(l h#ry-yk) I gave (yttn) Mt Seir.” The Israelites are enjoined not to provoke the sons of Esau on their trek through the land of Seir. The reason for this is that the Israelites have no right to the land—it has been given to Esau by YHWH and is thus not rightfully attainable for the Israelites. This

endowment of land is not limited to the sons of Esau in Deut 2; the lands where the Moabites and the Ammonites reside have also been granted to these nations. Two elements of these gifts of land are notable: firstly, the land is given by YHWH as h#ry, a “possession” or “inheritance.” And secondly, part of the giving of the land was the driving out of its former inhabitants.

Deut 2:5 notes that the land (Cr)) is given (Ntn) by YHWH as a possession (#ry).

Plöger has noted that Cr) in this and similar contexts takes on the meaning of a sovereign territory.²² This seems the obvious understanding in light of the possessive plural ending given to the word in v. 5, as well as the fact that in v. 4 the people are told they will be passing through the “territory” (lwbgb) of their brothers the sons of Esau.

The use of yttn in this context, meanwhile, can be understood to possess theological nuance, as Ntn is often used in situations where an inheritance is given, including the

21 Nelson, Deuteronomy, 34-35.

22 Josef G. Plöger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium (BBB 26; Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlag, 1967), 116. Cf. BDB, 75-76.

inheritance of land.²³ Indeed, the word is used this way throughout Deuteronomy in reference to YHWH giving the land of promise to Israel.²⁴ The theological dimension of the term Ntn takes on further significance when we take into account its use in conjunction with h#ry. The verbal form #ry generally means “to take possession of, inherit, or dispossess,” while the nominal form used here is understood as

“possession” or “inheritance.”²⁵ Lohfink notes that although the noun does not always denote inheritance, the theological usage throughout Deut 2 (vv. 5, 9, 12, and 19) as well as elsewhere in the HB (2 Chr 20:11; Josh 12:6, 7) implies synonymous usage with hlxn.²⁶ The relationship between the two may be reinforced by the use of hlxn in Deut 32:8, which also speaks of the nations receiving an inheritance. Finally, Deuteronomy has various passages where the two terms are used in conjunction with one another, as in ht#rl hlxn, “as an inheritance to possess” (Deut 15:4; cf.

25:19, 26:1).

Lohfink describes at length the relationship between the terms Ntn and h#ry in the Deuteronomic context:

Theologically, the crucial point in this stratum is the association of Israel’s yr% with Yahweh’s ntn. … What do these passages mean by saying that Yahweh “gives” something? In JE, the promise to the fathers may have been based on the model of a donation; here, however, we can see another model at work. If Yahweh, the one God, “gives” various neighboring nations their territories, the “gift” must be interpreted after the analogy of royal allotment of land.

This may be conceived as reflecting a feudal privilege, much like enfeoffment (cf. 1 S. 8;14;

22:7; 27:6); or else it presupposes a system in which the entire land is considered the king’s property. In this case, a real estate transaction (although in fact representing a purchase agreement, say, between two private parties) must be construed juridically as (appropriation and) a new “gift” on the part of the king. … Our texts do not make clear which of the two possible analogies is intended. Possibly the matter was left deliberately vague so as to accommodate both early feudal notions of the relationship between Yahweh and Israel and parallels to notions of ancient Near Eastern property law that had taken hold in Judah. … With respect to their earthly territory, Yahweh’s relationship to the nations of the world is that of a king to his subjects with respect to productive land. Yahweh, as king, is lord of every territory.

Transfer of title becomes legally valid only through his juridical act, termed “giving.”²⁷

23 BDB, 678-682. Cf. Michael A. Grisanti, “Ntn,” NIDOTTE 3:205-211; Eg. Gen 17:8; Lev 14:34;

Num 16:14; 26:54. Jer 27:5-6 is a classic example of this idea, where the creator God gives the earth to anyone he pleases, in this case Nebuchadnezzar. For more on Ntn, see Norbert Lohfink, “Dtn 12,1 und Gen 15,18: das dem Samen Abrahams geschenkte Land als der Geltungsbereich der deuteronomischen Gesetze,” in Väter Israels (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989), 183-210.

24 There are too many examples to list, but in the first chapter alone we have occurrences of Ntn with reference to YHWH giving the land in 1:8, 20, 21, 25, 35, 36, and 39.

25 BDB, 439-440.

26 N. Lohfink, “#ry,” TDOT 6:376.

27 Lohfink, “#ry,” TDOT 6:384-385

The ramifications, according to Lohfink, are as follows: “The use of yr% in this group of texts set Israel’s occupation of the land, clearly described in terms of military conquest, in a comprehensive scheme of theological and juridical legitimation.”²⁸

Given the linguistic and thematic similarities, what Lohfink says of Israel should correspond to Seir/Edom as well, not to mention Moab and Ammon: there is a

“theological legitimation” to the possession of these lands. This gift of land to other nations is all the more striking when we take into account the subsequent encounters with the kings Sihon and Og in Deut 2:24-3:11. As the Israelites prepare to meet these leaders they are told that YHWH has “given” (yttn) the kings and their land into the hands of the Israelites, and that they should “begin to take possession” (#r) and engage them in battle (2:24, 3:2, 12). So while some lands are off limits to the Israelites by divine right, others seem to be allotted as part of the land of promise.

What makes this so? The issue, of course, is complicated. There are historical reconstructions, such as those that read these verses as explaining why Israel did not occupy Edom, or possess her at various points in its history.²⁹ Limiting oneself to the text itself, one could posit that the issue of kinship plays a role, as the sons of Esau and the descendants of Lot are to be left alone. However, one could also make the case that Sihon and Og are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, as they dwell in what will be part of the land of promise (3:12-16). For now it will have to suffice to say that the text wishes to highlight the fact that the sons of Esau, Ammonites, and Moabites have been chosen by YHWH to possess land in a way similar to Israel.

A second aspect of the acquisition of Seir that is mentioned in Deut 2 is the driving out of previous inhabitants. Just as YHWH promised to dispossess the people whom the Israelites would encounter on their journey into the land of promise (as with Sihon in 2:24 and Og in 3:2), so previous inhabitants were dispossessed so that the sons of

28 Lohfink, “#ry,” TDOT 6:385. On the similarities here with Hittite treaties, see Weinfeld,

Deuteronomic School, 72: “In the Hittite treaties, as in the book of Deuteronomy, the land is given to the vassal as a gift and he is urged to take possession of it. … The granting of the land in the Hittite treaties is very often mentioned together with the explicit warning not to trespass beyond the boundaries set by the overlord.” Cf. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 25.

29 Mayes, Deuteronomy, 135-136.

Esau, the Moabites and the Ammonites could possess their lands (2:10-12 and 2:20-22). We are told that the Moabites displaced the Emim in Ar, the sons of Esau dispossessed the Horites in Seir, and the Ammonites replaced the Rephaim in their land.³⁰

At first glance these appear to be mere “antiquarian notices.”³¹ However, these historical explanations as to the causation behind the current inhabitants of the lands reinforce some of the theological themes already present in the chapter. Again the language of #ry is present in these verses, this time denoting “dispossession,” and yet again YHWH is an active agent. Thus, not only has YHWH given lands as a possession to these peoples, but he has dispossessed those who have gone before them.³²

Furthermore, there is an explicit link made in these verses between the perception of the Horites, Emim, Rephaim and the Anakim (Deut 2:10-11, 20-21). The significance of this lies in the fact that the Anakim were the people who instilled the most fear in the Israelite spies during their survey of Canaan, as both Num 13:28, 33 and Deut 1:28 make clear. The Anakim were considered extremely large people, mythic in proportions.³³ It was this lack of faith in YHWH’s ability to provide for Israel’s conquest of the land which led to the forty years of wilderness wanderings. And yet here in Deut 2 we have several people groups who apparently did not fear the Anakim-like inhabitants of their future lands, but were able to dispossess them with the help of YHWH.

Lest we forget that this is Israel’s story, Deut 2:12 makes it clear that a comparison with Israel is indeed in mind: “And the Horites inhabited Seir before the sons of Esau,

30 On the identification and history of these various groups, see G. Ernest Wright, “Troglodytes and Giants in Palestine,” JBL 57:3 (1938):305-309. On the Horites, see Knauf, “Horites,” ABD 3:288. On the Rephaim, Conrad L'Heureux, “The Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim,” HTR 67:3 (1974):265-274. On the Anakim, see E.C.B. MacLaurin, “Anak/'ANA;,” VT 15:4 (1965): 468-474; Gerald L. Mattingly,

“Anak,” ABD 1:222.

31 Mayes, Deuteronomy, 137-139. Cf. Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy (OTL; trans. Dorothea Barton;

London: SCM, 1966), 42.

32 While Deut 2:12 states that the sons of Esau dispossessed the Horites, 2:21-22 clarify that YHWH was the acting agent in the destruction and displacement of the previous inhabitants. SamP adds YHWH in v. 12 to harmonize the two.

33 The Numbers account (13:33) even links the Anakim to the Nephilim of Gen 6:4.

but they dispossessed them (Mw#ryy) and destroyed them from before them. And they inhabited that place, just as Israel did to the land of its possession (wt#ry) which YHWH gave (Ntn) to them.” This points to the more subtle issue that YHWH was at work with other peoples and granting them their land while Israel was stuck in a cycle of disobedience and wandering (as depicted in Deut 1). The contrast with Israel’s story could not be clearer.³⁴

In summary, Deuteronomy’s account of the acquisition of Seir by the sons of Esau contains two important strands concerning YHWH’s involvement with other nations and peoples. First, YHWH is responsible for the giving (Ntn) of the land as a

possession (h#ry) to the sons of Esau (as well as Moab and Ammon), disqualifying it from Israel’s conquest. Secondly, YHWH was the acting agent in the dispossession of Seir and other lands, driving out imposing previous inhabitants, much like Israel had failed to do in the past. As Israel would be facing a similar situation again in the near future (Deut 9:1-3), these histories of other peoples may have been for the Israelites simultaneously a reprimand for a previous lack of faith, as well as an encouragement that if YHWH could do this for others, he can surely do it for Israel.