Genesis as ideology

329

COMMUNICATION

GENESIS AS IDEOLOGY

Daryl White

GENESIS AS IDEOLOGY

Several mythical episodes which chronologi- cally describe significant events in the ethno- history of the Hebrew occupation of their "Promised Land" wiU be shown to have vir- tually identical plot structures which, if considered as a whole, represent an integrated ideology of Hebrew social relations. The domi- nant themes are: ( 1 ) the legitimation of the "ownership" of the Land of Canaan by the Hebrew people, and (2) the specification of appropriate social relations with their many neighbors. I should note that this interpreta- tion can also be read, therefore, as a response to two essays by Edmund Leach [ 1 ], "Genesis as Myth" and "The Legitimacy of Solomon". Using a structural methodology Leach "reveals only a patterning of arguments about endogamy and exogamy, legitimacy and illegitimacy operative in the thought processes of Palestin- ian Jews of the third century B.C." [2]. In describing this congitive system, Leach relates Hebrew thought to important social forces; it is this social nexus which will be the focus of my analysis. By elaborating Israelite history, I suggest that the narrative can only be explained in relation to its social and historical under- pinnings. Moreover, my basic assumption is

Daryl White teaches Anthropology at Georgia State University, Atlanta.

that the texts are not just concerned (in thought) with social forces and contradictory historical tendencies (as structuralists Leach and L6vi-Strauss would admit), but that the texts are preoccupied with resolving them (in both thought and social action). Specifically, the texts aim at a resolution which celebrates Israelite political hegemony. In other words, the ideological function of the narrative is here made the pivotal aspect of a structural analysis.

By integrating a structural analysis of the narrative with a materialist view of society, it is shown that the narrative - aspects of both its form and its content - are closely related to the structure of the society in which the narrative is created and repeated. Intellectual traditions are always ideological traditions as well, constituting an integral part of the con- tinued existence of a community. The ideological function of the narrative constraints and directs its development, for the myth functions in a fundamentally conservative way - to reinforce and strengthen society's weak but necessary social relationships. I am not, of course, assuming that intellectual activity is mechanically caused, only that its ideological function is always socially present and can never be ignored in a serious analysis. Ideology

330

does not simply reflect and reinforce social formations in any mechanically deterministic fashion. It is a creative activity whose deter- mination constitutes a nexus of social relations within which people produce and reproduce the conditions of their social existence. Creative intellectual activity is itself an essential element of those conditions. Simply stated, ideology helps maintain social relationships by concen- trating on their contradictions and structural weaknesses. Myths often function to obscure objective social conditions by falsely locating a social problem outside of the basic relations of a society - or, at least, outside of the critical ones - and by situating it within the very nature of things (and people). That is, social contradictions are resolved in the mythical narrative which cannot be resolved in social reality without transforming the society itself - an alternative the myth functions to negate. In the following analysis certain episodes in the narrative of Genesis are placed in their historical and social context in order to illustrate the possibility of reorienting the structuralist study of myth by focusing on its ideological function.

TEXTS

Although Hebrew society developed from an initial nomadism to semi-settlement hig~a- land "agriculture" (vineyards) and finally to village agriculture, two basic, interrelated themes persist throughout the narrative con- cerning these changes. The first theme is the importance of close kin endogamy which the myths sanction to the point of permitting incest. Endogamy itself is closely related to questions of inheritance and political authority. The second theme, as Leach [3] puts it, concerns the establishment of "a rank order... which places the tribal neighbors of the Is- raelites in varying degrees of inferior status depending upon the nature of the defect in their original ancestry and compared with the pure descent of Jacob (Israel)." The two

themes are complementary and their development constitutes the major thrust of this analysis. The repeated message is simply that it is good to marry close kinsmen and bad to marry foreigners. Endogamy was necessary for the maintenance of whatever political and economic autonomy the Israelites had managed to achieve. Correlatively, an ideology of cultural and racial purity is developed in which foreigners are seen as bad (but in various degrees). Foreigners are mythically explained as having originated from antisocial behavior. In each episode describing the origin of Israel's neighbors, the foreign group is seen as once having been closely related to the Hebrew people but thereafter, because of a foul deed, as falling into some sort of cultural apostacy. The following paraphrased texts are illustra- tive (but the reader is encouraged to read the biblical narratives).

CAIN-ABEL (Genesis 4): Cain and Abel are the first sons of Adam and Eve. Cain is the firstborn. They bring the products of their labors to be ritually offered. Abel offers the firstlings of his flocks; Cain offers wheat. Cain's offering is rejected. He kills Abel and is cursed. Of his descendants, Enoch builds the first city, Jabal becomes the father of cattle-herding tent dwellers, Jubal is the father of lyre and pipe players, and Tubal-cain is the forger of all in- struments of bronze and iron. Meanwhile Abel's righteous brother Seth becomes ancestor of the Hebrew people.

NOAH-CANAAN (Genesis 9: 18-27): After the flood, Noah, the first tiller of the soil, plants a vineyard, makes wine, gets drunk, and lays naked in his tent. Ham, the firstborn, sees his father's nakedness (which Leach claims is a euphemism for sexual intercourse). Noah's other sons, Shem and Japeth, cover him. When Noah awakes and realizes what his sons have done (some versions claim that the boy Canaan, Ham's son, had playfully castrated his grandfather), he becomes angry and curses Canaan. He and his descendants are to be slaves and servants of Shem and Japeth. Japeth

331

dwells in the tents of his brother Shem. Noah blesses them both, but Shem is blessed to become the ancestor of the Israelites.

ABRAHAM-LOT (Genesis 11: 24-31; 12; 13; 19): Abraham has journeyed into the Land of Canaan from Mesopotamia with some of his close patrikinsmen and their flocks. Abraham has married his half-sister, Sarah. He and his nephew, Lot, divide the already inhabited Land of Canaan among themselves in order to avoid strife between their herdsmen. Lot and his family eventually go to dwell in a city and are miraculously saved before it is destroyed. Lot's wife is struck dead. Without a wife and with no male descendants, Lot commits incest with his two daughters in order to have prog- eny. His descendants become the Moabites and the Ammonites. On the other hand, Abra- ham is blessed by God to become the father of nations - among them Israel.

ISHMA E L-ISA A C (Genesis 16; 1 7; 25): Sarah is barren. Abraham has offspring by an Egyptian maid of Sarah producing Ishmael, Abraham's firstborn son. Later Sarah miraculously gives birth. Her son Isaac becomes heir through Abraham's blessing. The Lord is to establish a covenant among Isaac's descendants. Ishmael is given a lesser blessing. Abraham sends a servant back to his patrikinsmen in Mesopotamia to get a bride (Rebekah) for Isaac. Meanwhile, Ishmael and his Egyptian mother (Hagar) are exiled into the wilderness of Beersheba. Hagar arranges a marriage between Ishmael and an Egyptian. His descendants become the Ishmaelites.

JA COB-ESA U (Genesis 25-28): Isaac's twin sons, Jacob and Esau, vie for their father's favor (blessing and inheritance). Esau, the firstborn, is most liked. One day on returning from an exhausting hunt , Esau sells his birthright in return for Jacob's pottage. Esau thus demon- strates his disrespect for his birthright. Then he marries two Hittite women. Old Isaac, who still loves Esau, is tricked by Jacob with the help of Rebekah into giving Jacob the blessing. Esau, of course, hates Jacob. Isaac sends Jacob

back to Mesopotamia to find a bride among his mother 's brother's daughters (who are also patrilineal paraUel cousins). Jacob marries Rachel and Leah and they return to Canaan. On Jacob's return he is welcomed back by Esau who becomes father of the Edomites. Jacob's name is divinely changed to Israel. He is father of the twelve tribes of Israel. All of his descendants are Israelites.

SOCIAL CONTRADICTIONS AND MYTHIC PLOT STRUCTURE

The ancient Hebrews were not an autono- mous, free moving people and any at tempt to analyze their ideology without considering their relations with other peoples is bound to be misleading. Originating in the Tigris and Euphrates Valley during the 18th century B.C., semi-nomadic bands (among them, Abraham's people) migrated into the Land of Canaan, and settled in the mountains. The movement was part of the general expansion of the Semitic speaking Amorite nomads out of Mesopotamia, surely a reflex of urban state developments in that area [4]. In Canaan the Hebrews were always a part of the greater socio-economic system. While the Hebrews of Abraham's time were semi-nomadic stock breeders, cities were already established in the area. A city patriciate existed and the social relations of the city were affecting not just agricultural peoples but the semi-nomads as well. Max Weber describes the position of such semi-nomads in the larger society:

Midway between the settled population of the city patriciate and the peasantry, on the one hand, and the free Bedouins on the other, stood the semi-nomadic stuck breeder. The peasants were partially free, partly subject to forced labor, to tax oz tenancy payment. They cultivated corn, fruit, and wine and had cattle o~ the side. The Bedouin was a camel breeder, the semi-nomadic shepherd was a breeder of sheep and goats and repre- sented a stratum which until recent times has been chax- actexisti¢ for the entke Meditenanean area... The way of life of this stratum depends on the requirements of small stock, in contrast to cattle, for easy practicability of change of pastures over great distances.... Formal

332

agreements must define the rights to pasturage on fallowland, stubble field as well as the migration routes if violent relations, which often occur anyway, are not to result in permanent feuds. For these shepherds axe always inclined to transgress traverse and meadow rights, to allow thek herds prematurely to invade fields and devastate cultivated lands along the migratioa routes 15].

The Cain-Abel episode expresses the initial situation of the Hebrews in Canaan and their relationship to their neighbors. The structure of the myth both in terms of plot and symbols in clear. Cain, who is the firstborn with natural inheritance rights, is a tiller of the soil. He offers agricultural products to God who rejects them. In reaction Cain then kills his brother and is consequently cursed, destined to become a wanderer and a fugitive. But, curiously, his descendants also become city dwellers, culti- vators, cattle breeders who live in tents, bronze and iron workers; in short, his descendants become everything but sheep and goat herding semi-nomads - everything but Hebrews. Thus, all non-Hebrew cultures are here classified to- gether and ascribed a common basic illegitimacy. From the Hebrew point of view all of them are to be kept separate from themselves. Abel, on the other hand, is a shepherd who is accepted by God but unjustly killed by his farmer brother. Seth who (structurally) takes Abel's place, is faithful to his righteous brother's vocation and is consequently rewarded by being an ancestor of the Israelites and materially prosperous. Conversely, Cain is associated with everything evil; his decen- dants are to be avoided, while Abel, Seth and his descendants are morally sanctioned. Cain, of course, is the firstborn, who should, under normal circumstances, inherit the greater part of his father's wealth as well as his father's patriarchal position. But by his own lack of righteousness Cain disqualifies himself and his descendants of their birthright. Since Abra- ham's people are intruders in the Land of Canaan, their territorial claim must be justified on other than prior occupancy and traditional inheritance rights.

Ideologically, a contradiction between nomadism and settled agriculture is here being expressed and resolved. As agriculture and city dwelling increase, nomads must eventually assimilate or retreat further into the hinter- land. The historical tendency is to enter into more and more binding relationships with the more powerful and economically productive village agriculturalist and city patricians [6]. The Cain Abel myth functions to bolster the weaker of these two contradictory social sys- tems thereby favoring the maintenance of the relative autonomy of Hebrew nomadism. While sheep and goat herding nomadism is being affirmed, other pursuits are condemned. And, if the Hebrew semi-nomads are to remain po- litically viable as a group, assimilation must be checked.

Another version of the Cain-Abel myth (paraphrased in Graves and Patai [7] ) lends support to the argument:

Some say that the quarrel arose at Earth's division between the brothers, in which all land fell to Cain, but all hirds, beasts and creeping things to Abel. They agreed that neither should have any claims on the other's pos- sessions. As soon as this pact had been concluded Cain, who was tilling a field, told Abel to move his flock away. When Abel replied that they would not harm the tillage, Cain caught up a weapon and ran in vengeful pursuit across mountain and valley until he overtook and killed him.

Graves and Patai comment:

The historical events underlying this myth may be recon- structed as follows. Starving herdsmen break into a settled farming area during a d~ought, and are accepted as tribute-paying guests. Later, they demand a share of the government. Simultaneous ~acrifices to the state deity are then offered by both parties. The chief herdsmen's offering is preferred; whereupon the chief farmer, aided by his m~ternal kinsmen, murders him. As a result, the farmers are expelled and eventually found a city-state elsewhere. This political situation has been common- place in East Africa for centuries: intruding herdsmen, who f, rst appear as starving suppliants, gain political as- cendancy, after having aIoused bitter antagoni~n by let- ring their animals trample crops [8].

333

And Weber writes:

... Abel is the good peaceable shepherd. Abel's murderer, Cain, on the other hand, is a settled and violent husband- man, w h o ~ fleshless sacrifice has been scorned by God; on the other hand, he is a cursed roving Bedouin and, finally, the city dweller. These are the three opponents who oppress the now puwefless smaU-stock-bteeders caught in their midsl [9].

During times of crisis, the nomad must go down into the cities and enter into restrictive relationships with the more stable, agricultur- ally based city patriciate, it is under such circumstances that the social and cultural autonomy of the semi-nomads is most in danger of being destroyed. Strict close-kin endogamy among such peoples is a necessary mechanism for maintaining socio-cultural independence as they define it. Marrying out ties the group to others; it allows for inheritance to be lost; it fosters greater dependence of the nomads on the more stable city dwellers and land culti- vators. Thus, the pressure toward assimilation is checked by a rigid system of close-kin endogamy, in turn ideologically buttressed in the myth.

The four remaining episodes have essential- ly the same structure and the same basic message although the symbols used to communicate that message successively change. That is, the social and historical content of the myths change, but the inherent message remains. For example, the Noah-Canaan episode replicates the basic elements of Cain Abel, Canaan does something bad and is cursed; his descendants are to be slaves. Noah and his righteous sons are to remain tent dwellers but a somewhat sedentary way of life is suggested by the vineyard and wine. But most importantly, the Canaanites, whose land the Hebrews have in- vaded, are cursed and thereafter are fit only for slavery.

The Abraham-Lot episode returns us to the problematic relationship between semi- nomads and city dwellers. Abraham and Lot are patrikinsmen, Lot being Abraham's

brother's son. Both have married close patti- kinsmen as well. They peacefully divide the Land of Canaan between themselves and remain peaceful towards each other. But eventually Lot and his family go and live in a city. Later, with Abraham's help, Lot manages to escape from the city before God destroys it. But Lot's wife is lost. In order to have prog- eny Lot commits incest with his daughters. His experience of city life has led to his even- tual depravity; the family's experiences are an example of how not to relate to city dwellers. In sharp contrast Abraham engages in trans- actions with city people. He even pays tribute to King Melchizek of Salem. But he always maintains his cultural integrity and consequently, after many trials, he is blessed with rich herds and general prosperity. Thus the basic plot structure remains intact. The importance of in-marrying is again emphasized: Abraham marries his half-sister and Lot's sister marries her father's brother. Abraham's son Isaac marries his father's brother's son's daughter - the ideal patrilineal parallel cousin marriage - and Isaac's son Jacob also marries patrilineal kin.

Contrast all this with Lot: he has only daughters who never marry but instead are forced by circumstance to commit incest with their heirless father. The precarious perpetuation of Lot's lineage is contrasted with Abra- ham's blessing that his seed shaU be as numer- ous as the stars of heaven. Compensatiog for the absence of a literal curse on Lot, Abraham is blessed exceedingly; he is to be the Father of Nations, among them Israel. To separate Abraham's people and Lot's even further, cir- cumcision is introduced as a Hebrew custom; Abraham is, then, the father of all circumcised peoples. Lot's sin may be better seen as un- righteousness. And even though his descendants, the Moabites and the Ammonites, often relate peacefully to the Israelites, they basic- ally remain city dwellers and uncircumcised aliens.

The Ishmael-Isaac episode emphasizes the

334

overriding importance of blood-relations in maintaining the Hebrew way of life. Ishmael is Abraham's firstborn and rightful heir to his father's wealth - by default. Sarah is barren, so Abraham begets Ishmael through an Egypt- ian handmaiden of Sarah. Ishmael is circumcised and fully accepting of his father's way of life and authority; and his father loves him. But when Sarah finally conceives, things change. Isaac is everything Ishmael was and more; he is a full-blooded descendant of Abraham's father Terah. He is a Hebrew by birth. Ishmael's faithfulness is no match for Isaac's congenital virtue. Finally, Ishmael and his mother are banished to the desert so that there will be no dispute over Isaac's inheritance right. Ishmael is not literally cursed, but again, Isaac is blessed. The ambiguity of the episode is paralleled by the historical relations between the Hebrews and the Ishmaelites, friendly at times, but at a distance.

The final episode, the Jacob-Esau story, is particularly interesting since the symbols represent a complete reversal of the Cain Abel story. We are back at the beginning with one important difference: Esau, the hunter, is the villain and Jacob is the farmer hero. Rebekah in her 22nd year of barrenness gives birth to twins. Esau, the firstborn, is red and hairy; but Jacob is born clutching Esau's heel. Esau becomes a skillful hunter who is loved dearly by his father, Isaac. Jacob is a quiet man, a tiller of the soil. But Esau disqualifies himself for his rightful inheritance. He is greedy and in an impulsive moment of hunger sells his birthright for red lentil pottage. But contrac- tual agreement is not enough; Isaac's authority is final. So Jacob tricks blind and dying Isaac into giving him Esau's intended blessing. Jacob's dual acquisition of the birthright reflects objective conditions: occupation of Palestine once physically accomplished must be ideologically justified. Esau's unrighteous- ness leads him into marriage with foreign Hit- tite women, while Jacob married his patrilineal parallel cousin. God rewards Jacob with a new

name, Israel, and he is divinely blessed to be the father of the twelve tribes of Israel. Esau's people become known as the Edomites, they remain (culturally) closely related to the Is- raelites.

To summarize, the narrative of Genesis under consideration thus far, it represents a sequenti- ally ordered set of structurally identical episodes. The plot structure can be paraphrased as follows: There are two close patrikinsmen. The firstborn, the usual inheritor of the bulk of the family's wealth, does something socially disruptive thus forfeiting his birthright. He is further punished by ostracism and becomes the ancestor of a foreign people. On the other hand, the younger, righteous brother is divinely rewarded by receiving the inheritance and by becoming an ancestor of the tribes of Israel. The message: Socially approved behavior is that which strengthens the patrician - i.e., marrying close kinsmen and adhering to the appropriate way of life. It is rewarded by prosperity, fecundity, and the maintenance of racial and cultural purity. Conversely, behavior which does not strengthen the Hebrew patrician is punished by banishment, servitude, racial mis- cegenation and cultural apostasy.

TIMELESS STRUCTURALISM AND HISTORICAL MATERIALISM

Why the repetitious presentation of the same plot? Leach [ 10] finds an answer in communication theory. Viewing the narrative as a whole, it is evident that as the content of each particular episode differs from the previous ones, the central message is made clear. The repetition or redundancy of the message assures the believer of the central message. The same story, but with different content is repeated and with each repetition the number of possible alternative readings is reduced. Ldvi-Strauss seems to agree but would go further:

The function of repetition is to tender the structure of the myth apparent. Fo~ we have seen that the synchronic-

335

diachronic structure of the myth permits us to organize it into diaehronic sequences.., which should be read synchron- ically.... Thus, a myth exhibits a "slated" structure, which comes to the surface, so to speak, through the process of repetition. However, the slates are not absolutely identical. And since the purpose of myth is to provide a logical model capable of overcoming a contradiction [an impossible achievement if, as it happens, the contradiction is real. D.W.]. A theo- retically infinite number of slates will be generated, each one slightly different from the others. Thus, myth spirals on uaatil the intellectual impulse which has ploduced it is exhausted. Its growth is a continuous process, whereas its structure remains discontinuous [ 11 ].

Both Leach and L~vi-Strauss retail slightly different analyses, which are now more than generalizations about universal aspects of human intellectual activity. Lrvi-Strauss, who assumes a thoroughly idealist position, is not content until he has managed to factor out historical and cultural content of myth, and we are left with abstract relations of the human mind [ 12]. Ideological functions of m y t h are discussed by IAvi-Strauss, but they are relegated to a "'surface" position a kind of historical noise with an underlying, universal logic. Like some mod- ern Curie o f the Social Sciences, Lrvi-Strauss begins with an encyclopaedic pitchblend of my th and laboriously emcompasses, compares and eliminates its elements until all content seems to vanish, leaving an essence - the logic of myth - radiating like a precious discovery. His methodology and conclusions pivot upon his insistence that synchrony takes primacy over diachrony; human thought is basic to and analytically prior to its social functions. Leach, on the other hand, applies structural analysis to diachronic sequences. His study o f Genesis is, in fact, an at tempt to demonstrate its usefulness within the confines of function- alist British social anthropology which assumes the primacy of a (historically particular) social system. His analysis at tempts no more than to point out the structural elements of Palestinian thought in the third century. Consequently, the contradictions he uncovers are inherently social (endogamy/exogamy; legitimacy/illegitimacy). But he does not locate the structure

of Old Testament narratives in the ideological function itself, and regresses to a form of (at least social) reductionism when he uses communication theory as an explanatory principle. His conclusions rest upon generalization about the nature of communication and thought. While Lrvi-Strauss reduces the structure of myth to the expression of human mental impulse (repetitions are easy to think with! ); Leach generates structure from its communi- cative function (repetitions are more easily understood).

To analyze intellectual activity in isolation from its social function(s) is to be content with descriptive generalities which are, ulti- mately, metaphysical assertions about human nature. While it is obvious that myths (or any intellectual product) must be able to communicate, psychological requirements are necessary, but never sufficient, aspects of an adequate analysis of mythic structure. Myths are preoccupied with social actions; they are not simply attempts to understand and intellectual- ly resolve, but to influence. Put abstractly, the structure of a myth may communicate no more than that bad actions have bad results and good actions good results. If we assume that the missing part of any myth is the social action it fosters through the force of its moral and intellectual argument, then we are justified in viewing myths as generated in the midst of contradictory social forces. Consequently, narrative repetition emphasizes the message's specific relation to a limited range of social relationships. And the social motivation for the content as well as the form is affirmed.

HEBREW GENEALOGY AND SEGMENTARY LINEAGE ORGANIZATION

The redundant character of the episodes in a narrative is only one aspect o f its structure. It is evident that the repeated theme helps in locating the social problem around which the my th is constructed; but we should not be stopped there - as both Leach and IAvi-

336

Strauss would demand. There is a more reveal- ing, overall configuration which can be found in the narrative only in its fully diachronic form. Accordingly, I shall now turn to the en- tire complex of episodes, and analyze them, as functionally derivative of Hebrew social structure and history. Genesis, as other my th complexes, is , lot just a rondo of variations on a theme; it has a completely developed ideological message when taken as a whole. The repetitions themselves create a pattern which reflects the segmentary lineage prin- ciples on which early Hebrew society was based. The sequential ordering of episodes can be taken as a distorted reflection of the social evolution of Hebrew society from a sheep and goat herding nomadism to a fully settled agricultural system. But there are serious problems with looking for objective history in folk tradi- tion, subject as it is to continuous re-editing. The apparent historical contradictions in the narrative give it a collage appearance. Noah

tills the soil and plants a vineyard, but Abra- ham, later on, is a nomad again. These anomalies appear only at the level of cultural symbols. Structurally a unity has been preserved. The final arrangement of episodes presents a world view of the early Israelite tribes which maps their social relationships with their many neighbors.

If we arrange a genealogy of the Israelites as developed in Genesis (see Fig. 1), we find that not only do we have a list of Hebrew an- cestors, but we also discover that each major patriarch represents a bifurcation of the lineage. One descendant lineage is that of the Israelites and the other is a lineage of apostate foreigners. Generally, each of the episodes discussed above describes how a bifurcation of the lineage oc- curred. The resultant structure is one typical of nomadic pastoralists, namely, segmentary opposition. The genealogical distance from the Israelites to each patriarch is paralleled by the social distance between the Israelites and the

Adorn

COln Abel Seth

Norn Shem ConoCan Jel:~th

J ~ e t h em

Lot Abr,~r~rn

I ~nrn~l / / ~

Esclu Jocob

I I Ker~ltes Co~]o~lqlt O.~ ~n t l l e$ Nlo~r tes Ishrnoellte~ EdQmttes I~rt3ellt eg ( Betlouln s ) A rnrnonltes

,1 , DEGREES OF SOCIAL ANTACTONISM t

Fig. I. Hebrew genealogy and segmentary lineage urganization.

337

people whom the myth assigns as their common, but more or less estranged ancestor. Moreover, objective social and historical relationships of the Israelites and their neighbors are thus ordered in the Hebrew world view. It is worth noting at this point that a structural analysis of a single episode, no matter how sophisticated, would miss this important generalization, since the manner in which the en- tire text is integrated and forms an ideologically consistent whole is critical. It is in its entirety that the narrative most fully reflects and, of course, justifies Hebrew society.

Beginning at the highest node of the genealogical tree is Adam, the first man, and the division between his sons explains the origin of the Israelite-Kenite (Bedouin) feud. Genealog- ically it is the most profound division possible. Significantly, it is the result of murder - the ultimate antisocial crime. Socially, this was the Israelites" relationship of greatest social distance - one of complete avoidance. The Be- douins were fierce camel herding nomads who relentlessly practiced blood revenge. Through- out much of the history of the middle east, camel herding nomads would sweep out the desert, their wilderness province, and plunder the less powerful semi-nomads and villagers. Cain was a murderer and his descendants were to be strictly avoided.

Descending the Israelites' genealogical tree, the next bifurcation involves Noah's son Ham and his grandson Canaan. Noah curses Canaan, "a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers (Genesis 9: 25)." The Hebrews in their migra- tions and conquests had fought against, dis- placed and enslaved the Canaanites. Later, when the Israelite Kingdom was established, Canaanite slaves were used in the empire's monumental construction projects. Each of Noah's three sons was an important ancestor. Of all the episodes this is the only one which deviates from the general pattern of two kinsmen (usually brothers) who start a feud. But the anomalies can be explained, and, in fact, the ambiguous treatment of lapeth is appropri-

ate: First, the opposition of Ham to both Shem and Japeth is clear. Noah curses Canaan to be a slave of them both. Moreover, he blesses Japeth "let him dwell in the tents of Shem." Ham's lineage is clearly being opposed to the lineages of Shem and Japeth. There is no myth to explain the subsequent splitting of Shem and Japeth and the origin of the Gentiles whom Japeth fathers. Gentiles are the result of neither a curse nor a blessing; they occupy an ambiguous category in the middle. But the anomaly seems appropriate given the fact that Gentiles form a social and historical category of foreigners towards whom the Israelites were variously friendly, hostile and indifferent. Gen t i l e s - the Hittites, the Philistines, etc. - are all people who at times dominated the Israelites, but who at other times were their allies. They enter and leave Hebrew history disjunctively in contrast to Israel's other more permanent co-habitants of Palestine. Ambi- guity in objective social reality finds ambiguous reflection in the mythology.

The right-hand side of the Israelite genealogy is composed of peoples in varying degrees of closeness to the Israelites. It is not only appro- pilate to enter into economic and political relationships with them, but marriage is even permissible under special circumstances. In fact, King Solomon's political legitimacy is justified by tracing his genealogy back to mixed marriages between the Hebrews and their various neighbors [ 131. He is shown to be a living representative of more than a single lineage. The Moabites and Ammonites were two city- based nations on the east banks of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea with whom the Israel- ites had many alliances. Ruth, Naomi's daughter-in-law in the biblical story is a Mo- abitess who is eventually accepted into Israel- ite genealogy. Solomon is a descendant of Ruth and J,ence both an Israelite and a Moab- ite. The Ishmaelites were nomadic people of the Sinai wilderness who were also allies of the Israelites. Moses stayed with them in the desert while in exile from Egypt. Later, the fleeing

338

Hebrews stayed in Ishmaelite territory on their journey to the Promised Land. Moses married an Ishmaelite woman. And finally, the Edom- ites, children of Esau, were long-time allies of the Israelites. It was not until after the Exile that they became rivals. The Edomites were tributaries of the Israelite Kingdom and were considered a tribe of Israel.

In summary, Hebrew genealogy gives order to Hebrew history. The intensity and the character of the social and historical relationships between Israel and her neighbors are reflected in the symbols used in the particular episodes which explain their respective origins. The most socially distant peoples are the result of the most antisocial act - murder; while the closest neighbors, the Edomites, are scarcely the result of an antisocial act at all. The people on the left-hand side of the genealogical tree are the result of divine condemna- tion and are to be avoided to various degrees; while the people on the right-hand side are not so much the result of curses but of lesser blessings. They are to be accepted to various extents.

Segmentary lineage organizations have the unique quality of allowing for the formation of alliances and the perpetuation of feuds through the complementary processes of fis- sion and fusion. We have seen that the ideology of such societies can be structured in analogous ways, allowing for separation and coalition as the social need dictates. In studying the origin myths of the Tikopia lineages, Raymond Firth

concludes, "traditional tales may be not so much a reflection of the social structure itself as of the organizational pressures within the social structure" [ 14]. In this light, Genesis as the ideology of the Israelites can be analyzed as a product of Hebrew social history.

NOTES

1 Edmund Leach, Genesis as Myth and Other Essays (Lon- don: Jonathan Cape, Ltd., 1969).

2 Ibid., p. 26. 3/bin, p. 21. 4 G. McEvedy, The Penguin Atlas of Ancient History

(Baltimore: Penguin Books, I967); Robelt McC. Adams, The Evolution of Urban Society: Early Meso- potamia and Prehistoric Mexico (New York: Aldine- Atherton, 1966); W.F. Albdght, "The Biblical Period," in L. Finkelstein (ed.), The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion (New York: Harper and Bros., 1949); W.F. Albrigtlt, Yahweh and the God~ of Canaan: A Historical Analysi~ of Two Contrasting Faiths (New York: Double- day and Co., 1968).

5 Max Weber, Ancient Judaism (Glencoe, IlL: The Free Press, 1952), pp. 37-38.

6 Adams, op. cit.; F. Barth, Nomads o f South Persia (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1961) for a contemporazy example.

7 R. Graves and R. Patai, Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), p. 91. /bid., p. 95. Weber, op. cir., p. 52. Leach, op. cit., pp. 8-9. Ibid., p. 226. See Claude I_~vi-Strauss, Tristes Tropiques (New York: Criterion Books, 1961); StructuraI Anthropology (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1967); and The Raw and the Cooked (New York: Harper and Row, 1969). Leach, op cir. Raymond Firth, History and Traditions of 7t'kopia (Wel- lington, N.Z.: l'he Polynesian Society, 1961), p. 179.

8 9

10 11 12

13 14

DiMecticaiAnthropology 4 (1979) 329-338 © Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

Documents

Genesis as ideology