Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T06:53:13.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jacob's Marriages and Ancient Near East Customs: A Reexamination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

John Van Seters
John Van Seters
Affiliation:
Andover Newton Theological School, Newton Centre, Mass. 02159
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For many years now, it has become very common for Old Testament scholars to refer to the numerous parallels between the patriarchal customs reflected in the stories of Genesis and the Custom law of the cuneiform documents of the second millennium B.C. Particular attention has been given to the Nuzi texts and to custom law related to marriage. The present study is directed to a reexamination of the parallels to marriage customs as they have been applied to the story of Jacob's marriage to the daughters of Laban.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , October 1969 , pp. 377 - 395
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Nuzi texts referred to in this study are found in the following collections: Gadd, C. J., Tablets from Kirkuk, RA 23 (1926), 49–161Google Scholar( = G'add); Speiser, E. A., New Kirkuk Documents Relating to Family Laws, AASOR 10 (1930), 1–73Google Scholar; Chiera, E., Lacheman, E. R., Pfehter, R. H., and Meek, T. J., Harvard Semitic Series: Excavations at Nuzi, I-VIII (1929-1962 [ = HSS])Google Scholar.

2 Burrows, M., The Complaint of Laban's Daughters, JAOS 57 (1937), 259–76Google Scholar; idem, The Ancient Oriental Background of Hebrew Levirite Marriage, BASOR 77 (1940), 3ft.; Neufeld, E., Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws (London, 1944), 56ffGoogle Scholar.

3 Koschaker, P., Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zu den “altassyrischen Gesetzen,” Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft 16 (1921), 6offGoogle Scholar.

4 Assyrian Laws, (AL) # 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 36, 38.

5 Driver, and Miles, , Assyrian Laws (=DMAL), 138Google Scholar ft. See also Vaux, R. De, Ancient Israel, 28Google Scholar ft.; Praag, A. Van, Droit matrimonial Assyro-Babylonien, 182ftGoogle Scholar.

6 Neufeld, , Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws, 56Google Scholar.

7 Ibid., 61. But Neufeld on s6f. has already admitted that even in the mohar marriage the bride-payment could be discharged by service.

8 Goetze, A., Laws of Eshnunna, AASOR 31 (1951–1952), 75Google Scholarff. Cf. his translation in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 162.

9 Yaron, R., The Rejected Bridegroom (LE #25), Orientalia N. S. 34(1965), 23–29. Cf. alsoGoogle ScholarFinkelstein, J. J., RA 61/2 (1967), 127–36Google Scholar and Landsbeeger, B., Jungfraulichkeit: ein Beitrag zum Thema “Beilager und Eheschliessung,” in Symbolae iuridicae et historicae Martino David dedicatae, eds. Ankum, J. A., Feenstra, R., Leemans, W. F., 74fGoogle Scholar.

10 Yaron, , Aramaic Marriage Contracts from Elephantine, JSS 3(1958), 1–39Google Scholar; also idem, The Law of the Aramaic Papyri, 45ft.

11 So also Landsberger (op. cit.), who compares LE #25 with a text in Iraq 25, 178, 6–10 which contains the phrase ana bīt emišu issi, which he renders “die Braut herausverlangt.”

12 Objections to the reading of kašaṭum here would be that it never takes a personal object and is used with things entirely in the sense of “cut off.” If it is to be found here, therefore, it would have to be regarded as used in a metaphorical sense. Landsberger (loc. cit.), who also does not consider kašašum as a possibility, would emend the text to read ik-šu-šu(sic)-ma and then connect this verb with kašû, to which he gives the meaning “treat unjustly.” Whatever the exact rendering might be, the sense is fairly well agreed upon.

13 Cf. the translation by Yaron, , Orientalia 34Google Scholar, 29. His translation is quite similar, though it was arrived at by slightly different reasoning.

14 B. Landsberger, Die Serie ana ittišu, Materialien zum Sumerischen Lexicon, Bd. I, 48–50. I wish to thank Professor William L. Moran for reading over this manuscript and making many helpful suggestions, but especially for his assistance in understanding the text of Ana ittišu. However, the writer takes sole responsibility for any errors, and for the viewpoint which is herein expressed.

15 Landsberger renders the term ṭēḫû by “client.” This term is taken from Roman Law and has to do with foreigners who entered a Roman household in order to have protection under the law. As such, clients were mid-way between slaves and the actual members of the gens but they could never attain to the latter (see Mommsen, T., The History of Rome, Vol. I, 78Google Scholar ff.). This seems to resemble the ger in Israelite society. In our text, however, this condition imposed on a prodigal adoptive son was only temporary.

16 David, M., Die Adoption im Altbabylonischen Recht, 21Google Scholar. Cf. the word of caution about David's proposal by Koschaker, Fratriarchat … in Keilschriftrechten, ZA N.F. 7(1933), 87f., n. 4. David was followed by E. Cuq, Études sur le droit Babylonien, les lots Assyriennes et les his Hittites, 47, who derived errebufrom errebūtu.

17 In CAD, vol. 4, 304, errebu is cited with the meanings “newcomer, intruder, person accepted into the family.” The last meaning, however, is completely unsupported by any clear texts related to adoption. Furthermore, errebutū is cited with the meaning “status of one who enters a household,” but here the only text cited for support is the above-mentioned passage from Ana ittisu, and no other possible meanings are considered. However, the other meanings of “intruder, sojourner” for errebu and “immigrants” for errebutu have much firmer textual support. Furthermore CAD, loc. cit., distinguishes between errebu and nerrubu, the latter having the meaning of “run-away” and more directly parallel to arbu, just as in our text! Furthermore, with respect to the emendation of ni-ri-bu-tuby DAVID, Moran has written to me (April 16, 1969) as follows: “The Sumerian column's tu shows that the idea of entering is involved. Therefore it is possible that ni-ri-bu-tu goes back to an error in the textual tradition by which ir was miscopied as ni — obviously a very simple mistake given the close similarity of the signs. But even assuming such an error, we cannot conclude anything from context or from other uses of the word (including errebu) that it denotes a special status such as defended by David. The occasion of the error may have been the confusion that had arisen in the tradition between errebu with nerrubu(and arbu), especially since nerrubu occurs in line 12. But it is also possible, though less so, I admit, that the translation simply reflects the confusion and at no time in the tradition did we have er-re-bu-tu.

18 CAD, I, ii, 62 lists as one of the meanings of amelutu, “behavior of a gentleman,” and is often used with amdru in this sense, as in this text. The dictionary's own rendering, “he checked on his status of amelu,” does not bring out the meaning of the passage very well.

19 Praag, Van, Droit matrimonial, 182Google Scholar ff., defines errebu marriage entirely in terms of Ana ittišu and considers that it “en principe ne diffère pas du manage patrilocal; il en est seulement une application spèciale.” I have given reasons above for regarding the term errebu as a misnomer here, but his judgment of the situation in the Ana ittttu text is certainly correct.

20 Gadd, C. J., RA 23(1926), 1261., 155Google Scholar. Cf. also Gordon, C., The Story of Jacob and Laban in the Light of the Nuzi Tablets, Basor 66 (1937), 25–27Google Scholar; idem, BA 3 (1940), 5ff.; Burrows, M., JAOS 57(1937), 261; T. J. Meek, ANETGoogle Scholar

21 HSS, V:s8-60, 7. See E. M. Cassin, Vadoption a Nuzi, 288-93, and Speiser, AASOR 10, 7ff., 308. M. Schorr, Urkunden des altbabylonischen Zivil- und Processrechts, nos. 8–22.

22 On the giving of a daughter into daughter-adoption (ana martuti) for the sake of marriage see Dmal, 161–68; Burrows, The Basis of Israelite Marriage, 23f.; P. Koschaker, Neue keilschriftliche Rechtsurkunden aus der El-Amarna Zeit, Abkandlungen der Sachsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Bd. 39, Nr. 5, 92ft.; Van Praag, Droit matrimonial, 79ft.

23 Al # 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 36, 38, Hl # 27. For the texts see DMAL, 397ft.; ANET, i82f., 190; E. Neufeld, The Hittite Laws, 124.

24 See Burrows' remark, BASOR 77 (1940), 4, where he states: “The frequentative force of the form employed here, to be sure, does not suggest that the husband has become a member of his father-in-law's family.” The Biblical parallel for this law is more likely the Samson story, Judges 15:1.

26 AL # 23 and 36 deal with situations which apply whether the woman is living with her father or not and so shed no light on the problem at all. For further criticism see DMAL, 140ff.; and Van Praao, Droit matrimonial, 185.

26 Gardiner, , JEA 26 (1940), 24Google Scholar.

27 See especially Gordon, , BASOR 66, 25–27, and BA 3, 5BGoogle Scholar.

28 Feigin, S., Some Cases of Adoption in Israel, JBL 50 (1931), 186–200Google Scholar.

29 See especially Burrows, , The Complaint of Laban's Daughters, JAOS 57 (1937), 259–67Google Scholar

30 Burrows, , JAOS 57, 263Google Scholar. See also Gordon, , BASOR 66, 26Google Scholar.

31 Driver, G. R. and Miles, J. C., The Babylonian Laws ( = DMBL), vol. I, 335Google Scholar ff. Se also Gardiner, , JEA 26, 23–29Google Scholar.

32 DMBL, vol. I, 271ft.

33 Burrows, , JAOS 57, 263ffGoogle Scholar.

34 On the bride-payment in Near Eastern law see DMBL, I, 249ff.; DMAL, 142ff.; Burrows, The Basis of Israelite Marriage, 16ff.; Van Praag, Droit matrimonial, 130ff.

35 DMBL, I, 253ff.; Speiser, , AASOR 10, 22–24Google Scholar; Burrows, , JAOS 57, 271ftGoogle Scholar.

36 Yaron, , The Law of the Aramaic Papyri, 47Google Scholar ff; Vaux, De, Ancient Israel, 27Google Scholar; Praag, Cf. Van, Droit matrimonial, 152Google Scholar ff. See also Burrows, , JAOS 57, 270Google Scholar, and Basis of Israelite Marriage, 44.

37 This is the interpretation largely followed by Burrows, , JAOS 57, 271ffGoogle Scholar.

38 DMAL, 191ff.

39 DMBL, I, 265ff.

40 Kohier, J. and Ungnad, A., Assyrische Rechtsurkunden, no. 37Google Scholar, pp. 33f., 451.

41 On the significance of the phraseology: tupiš PN ina libbi X Hklu kaspi … talqi, which is used in this text, see CAD 4, 231. See Kohler, and Ungnad, , op.cit., no. 38–40, pp. 34Google Scholar ft., where the same terminology is used in the sale of slaves and in no. 36, pp. 321., for the sale of property.

42 Burrows, , JAOS 57, 270ffGoogle Scholar.

43 Another point of comparison often made between the Nuzi texts quoted and the Jacob story has to do with the theft of the household gods by Rachel. This issue is somewhat beyond the scope of the present paper. However, see the fine study by M. Greenberg, Another Look at Rachel's Theft of the Teraphim, JBL 81 (1962), 239-48. His conclusions are largely in harmony with this present evaluation of the Jacob story.

44 Speiser, , Genesis, 226fGoogle Scholar.

45 See Nicolo, M. San and Petschow, H., Babylonische Rechtsurkunden aus dem 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl. Abhandlungen N.F. 51 (1960), nos. 2Google Scholar, 3, 3ft., and Nicolo, San and Ungnad, A., Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden, no. 5, 11Google Scholar.

46 For references see Yaron, R., The Law of the Aramaic Papyri, 60Google Scholar. To these add the Neo-Babylonian period, Nicolo, San and Petschow, , op. cit., no. 1Google Scholar, and Nicolo, San and Ungnad, , op. cit., no. 2Google Scholar.