[b-hebrew] Abraham's origin: MWLDT

JimStinehart at aol.com JimStinehart at aol.com
Wed May 27 10:18:13 EDT 2009


In connection with the discussion of the meaning of MWLDT in the 
Patriarchal narratives, I cited Genesis 27: 29, which JPS1917 translates as follows:
 
“Be lord over thy brethren [plural brothers of Esau], and let thy mother's 
sons [plural sons of Rebekah, excluding Esau himself] bow down to thee.”
 
In response, Karl wrote:  “Indications are that this was a formulaic 
blessing, but that the plural can denote the sons of Esau.  This in no way 
indicates that Rebecca had more than the twins.”
 
Kenneth Greifer made a somewhat similar point:  “Laban called Jacob his 
brother in Gen. 29:15 because a brother can be any kind of a relative and the 
sons of his mother could be sons or sons and grandsons, etc. You can't know 
if brothers are all kinds of relatives and if sons include grandchildren, so 
the quote might be too vague to prove that Rebeccah had other sons or if 
Isaac had other sons.”
 
I certainly agree that in certain contexts, the Hebrew word for “brother” 
can have a broader meaning than a literal full-brother or half-brother.  For 
example, at Genesis 14: 14 Abraham’s nephew Lot is referred to as being 
Abraham’s “brother”.  Likewise, in some contexts a man’s “sons” can 
certainly mean the man’s “sons and grandsons”, that is, the man’s “descendants”.  
(As discussed below, however, I’m not so sure that in the Hebrew Bible a 
woman’s “sons” could mean the woman’s “sons and grandsons”.)
 
But at Genesis 27: 29, Isaac is issuing the all-important grand blessing 
that will determine which one of Isaac’s sons will be lord over all of Isaac’
s other sons, and which son of Isaac by Rebekah will be the son of Rebekah 
to whom all of Rebekah’s other sons will bow down.  In that specific context, 
“brothers” and “sons” do not include Isaac’s grandsons.  No, the specific 
question is which one of Isaac’s sons, narrowly defined, will be the sole 
leader of the next generation of new monotheists.
 
The phrase “thy mother’s sons” is particularly important here.  In the 
Hebrew Bible (as opposed to modern thought), I believe that (i) a woman is 
normally viewed as having children, not descendants, whereas (ii) a man is often 
viewed as having descendants, including but not limited to the man’s own 
children.  The phrase “thy mother’s sons” does not readily lend itself to 
including the sons of either Esau or Jacob, whereas a phrase “Isaac’s sons” 
might well, in the right context, include all of Isaac’s male descendants, 
including Jacob’s 12 sons.  Note in this connection that there is no reference 
at Genesis 27: 29 to “Isaac’s sons”.  (By contrast, the otherwise similar 
blessing of Judah at Genesis 49: 8 refers to “thy father’s sons”, which 
emphasizes Judah’s half-brother Joseph for sure, and which might, arguably, be 
thought to include Jacob’s grandsons as well.)  At least in the Patriarchal 
narratives (excluding for the moment Genesis 27: 29 itself), of the huge 
number of uses of the Hebrew word “son”, many of which uses are very broad, 
never is an individual w-o-m-a-n  said to have “sons” where the actual meaning 
is “sons and/or grandsons”.  “Sons” of the Hittites in chapter 23 of 
Genesis include multiple generations of males as a matter of course, and the “
sons” of Israel at Genesis 46: 8 include multiple generations of Jacob’s 
descendants, but that is never the case for “sons” of an individual named woman.
 
In the specific context here, it is unlikely that “brothers” could refer 
to Esau’s sons.  Esau (actually a disguised Jacob) is being told that Esau 
shall be lord over Esau’s brothers (plural).  It would not make sense for 
Isaac to tell Esau that Esau shall be lord over Esau’s sons.  The blessing goes 
on to say that Rebekah’s sons (plural) shall bow down to Esau.  Once again, 
in context it would not make sense for this grand blessing to be saying that 
Esau’s sons shall bow down to Esau.  In this particular context, the only 
sensible reading of the text, as I see it, is that the Hebrew word here means 
actual “brothers”, and the Hebrew word “sons” means actual “sons”.  Note 
that in this particular context, the word “son” is used to mean “son”, 
not “son and/or grandson”, repeatedly in the verses preceding Genesis 27: 29. 
 The issue is which brother shall be the leader of all the other brothers.  
Which son of Isaac will be lord of all of that son’s brothers and 
half-brothers, and to which of Rebekah’s sons will all of Rebekah’s other sons bow 
down?  That’s the natural reading of this text.
 
Without naming Rebekah’s other sons, the clear implication of Genesis 27: 
29, given its natural reading, is that Rebekah had at least one more son, and 
perhaps several more sons, after giving birth to her oldest two sons, the 
twins Esau and Jacob.  Rebekah was young enough when she bore the twins (as 
opposed to Sarah’s advanced age when Sarah bore Isaac) so that Rebekah could 
relatively easily have borne several more children.
 
Karl also raises the question of whether this may be a “formulaic blessing”
.  In context, that is not possible.  Isaac is a Hebrew Patriarch, who 
knows if he has two or more sons.  A Hebrew Patriarch would not use a “formulaic 
blessing” here, in anointing one son to be the leader of the next 
generation of new monotheists.  Any such “formulaic blessing” used by Patriarch #2 
would have to be a pagan blessing, which is most inappropriate here.  Isaac 
could not borrow a formula for this blessing from his own father, because 
Abraham did not issue any explicit blessing remotely like that.  Indeed, Isaac 
is not really lord over his half-brothers, nor do Isaac’s half-brothers bow 
down to Isaac.  Although Isaac gets the coveted role of being the sole 
leader of the next generation of the new monotheists, Isaac actually has no power 
over his half-brothers, all of whom are sent far away by Abraham.  So there’
s nothing remotely like the Genesis 27: 29 blessing in Abraham’s dealing 
with Abraham’s sons.  Accordingly, it makes no sense to characterize Genesis 
27: 29 as being a “formulaic blessing”.  In context, that would have to be a 
pagan blessing, and a pagan blessing would be completely inappropriate in 
the context of Hebrew Patriarch Isaac deciding which one of his sons shall 
have the coveted role of being the sole leader of the next generation of new 
monotheists.  Rather, Hebrew Patriarch #2 Isaac is handing down an 
individually tailored grand blessing, which will determine which one of his sons will 
be the sole leader of the next generation of Hebrew monotheists.
 
As I see it, Genesis 27: 29 logically implies that Rebekah had at least 
three sons, possibly more, and that Isaac very likely had sons by lesser wives 
as well.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

**************Dinner Made Easy Newsletter - Simple Meal Ideas for Your 
Family. Sign Up Now! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221991367x1201443283/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215225819%3B37274678%3Bs%
3Fhttp:%2F%2Frecipes.dinnermadeeasy.com%2F%3FESRC%3D622)


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list