Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Scholar Gerhard von Rad uses the term “community” in explaining TM at 
Genesis 25: 27:  “The adjective (‘tam’) means actually belonging to the 
solidarity of community life with its moral regulations, a solidarity that 
the 
hunter does not know because he is much more dependent on himself.”  
“Genesis” 
(1972), at p. 266.
 
In my opinion, however, university scholars have been unable to understand 
the characterization of Esau at Genesis 25: 27.  For example, von Rad says 
the following at pp. 265-266:  “As they grew up, the boys lived completely 
separated from each other, for they personified two ways of life typical for 
Palestine, which at that time was more wooded:  that of the hunter and that 
of the shepherd.”  But that is clearly not true, because (a) the boys grow up 
together in the same household, and (b) even more importantly, after they 
do indeed separate, Esau is a shepherd of sheep and goats!  “6Then Esau took 
his wives, his sons, his daughters, and all the members of his household, 
his livestock [MQNH, which can mean “sheep and goats”, especially when viewed 
from an economic perspective], all his beasts [BHMH, which can mean “
livestock”, and in context here cannot possibly mean “wild animals, beasts”], 
and 
all his property that he had acquired in the land of Canaan.  He went into 
a land away from his brother Jacob. 7For their possessions were too great 
for them to dwell together.”  Genesis 36: 6-7.  Just as Abraham and Lot each 
has a large flock of sheep and goats and they separate (Genesis 13: 5-6), so 
also do both Esau and Jacob have large flocks of sheep and goats.
 
In a long chapter on Esau’s pluses and minuses, scholar R. Christopher 
Heard incredibly only has the following single sentence regarding Genesis 25: 
27:  “Some readers may suppose that the (presumably Israelite) narrator is 
already trying to slight Esau in the first sentence [Genesis 25: 27], with an 
implicit valorization of Jacob’s settled, pastoral-agricultural lifestyle 
over against an implicit denigration of Esau’s hunting lifestyle (so, e.g., 
Dillmann: 197;  Gunkel: 291;  Kunin: 107, 113-14;  von Rad: 266;  Skinner: 
360-61;  Speiser: 195), though readers who perceive an implicit criticism 
here 
are by no means bound to agree with it.”  “Dynamics of Diselection” (2001), 
at p. 103.
 
But as noted above, Jacob and Esau will soon enough live the same 
lifestyle.  Scholars cannot figure out on what precise basis Esau is being 
compared 
unfavorably to Jacob here.
 
E.A. Speiser, “Genesis” (1962) at p. 195 is no better:  “The over-all 
contrast, then, is between the aggressive hunter and the reflective 
semi-nomad.” 
 But who is “aggressive” in the very next lines of text?  “31Jacob said, ‘
Sell me your birthright now.’  32Esau said, ‘I am about to die; of what 
use is a birthright to me?’  33Jacob said, ‘Swear to me now.’”  Genesis 25: 
31-33.  And do Jacob’s actions out at Naharim in eastern Syria lack 
aggressiveness?  “31He [Laban] said, ‘What shall I give you?’  Jacob said, 
‘You 
shall not give me anything.  If you will do this for me, I will again pasture 
your flock and keep it: 32let me pass through all your flock today, removing 
from it every speckled and spotted sheep and every black lamb, and the 
spotted and speckled among the goats, and they shall be my wages.’  …  42but 
for the feebler of the flock he [Jacob] would not lay them there.  So the 
feebler would be Laban’s, and the stronger Jacob’s.”  Genesis 30: 31-32, 42.  
Jacob does not lack for aggressiveness!  Scholars cannot figure out the 
meaning of Genesis 25: 27.
 
Robert Alter, “Genesis” (1996) at p. 128 is similarly at a loss to explain 
what is going on here:  “The Hebrew adjective ‘tam’ suggests integrity or 
even innocence.  …There may well be a complicating irony in the use of this 
epithet for Jacob, since his behavior is very far from simple or innocent in 
the scene that is about to unfold.”  Jacob ain’t no innocent, that’s for 
sure!  This unconvincing explanation immediately precedes the following 
unbelievable attempt at explaining the next line of Biblical text:  “It is 
unclear whether the idiom suggests Esau as a kind of lion bringing home game 
in 
its mouth or rather bringing home game to put in his father’s mouth.”
 
Finally, here’s Gordon Wenham, perhaps the #1 Genesis scholar in the world, 
at p. 177.  “Jacob, unlike his activist outgoing brother, is a 
self-contained, detached personality complete in himself, hence ‘quiet’.”  
No, Jacob is 
not “quiet”.  See above.  “‘Who lived in tents’ contrasts him with his 
wild hunting brother and may well suggest he would become a herdsman (cf. 
4:20) like his father and grandfather (cf. 13.5).”  But Esau as well becomes 
a 
herdsman just like Jacob, per Genesis 36: 6-7 quoted above.
 
None of these various scholarly explanations works, in light of the 
following two key facts:
 
(1)  Jacob is every bit as aggressive as his older twin brother Esau.
 
(2)  Esau ends up being a herdsman just like Jacob.
 
Isn’t it clear that the scholarly community is clueless as to what is going 
on at Genesis 25: 27?  What precise aspect of Esau’s behavior in hunting 
with a bow is the Hebrew author castigating, and why?  That’s the key issue 
here.  As I have been saying, if we can understand Genesis 25: 27, we can 
understand the bulk of the Patriarchal narratives.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois