Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

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)