[…]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Von Rad suggested a three-part structure for P. He differentiated between \u201cthree big concentric circles . . . which move from the outside inwards towards the salvific mystery of God\u2014the circle of the world, the circle of Noah, and the Abrahamic circle\u201d (\u201cdrei m\u00e4chtige konzentrische Kreise . . . die von au\u00dfen nach innen fortschreitend in das Heilsgeheimnis Gottes einf\u00fchren: der Weltkreis, der Noahkreis und der abrahamitische Kreis\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
[\u2026]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The circle of Abraham includes \u201cthe Abrahamic household,\u201d consisting of the Arabs (\u201cIshmael\u201d), Israel (that is, \u201cSamaria\u201d) and Judah (\u201cJacob\u201d), and Edom (\u201cEsau\u201d). Intermarriage within this circle is allowed: according to P, Esau marries\u2014illegitimately (Gen 26:34, 27:46)\u2014two \u201cHittite women\u201d (Gen 26:34). Subsequently, Jacob receives advice from his parents to marry a woman from among his kin in Paddan Aram (Gen 27:46, 28:1\u20135). In response, Esau marries another woman, one of the daughters of his uncle Ishmael (Gen 28:6\u20139). Therefore, it can be concluded with de Pury that \u201caccording to P Jews are permitted to intermarry with Ishmaelite and Edomite women, but not with \u2018Hittite\u2019 or \u2018Canaanite\u2019 women.\u2019\u201d P furthermore records the genealogy of Ishmael\u2019s descendants (Gen 25:12\u201318) as well as Esau\u2019s (Gen 36:4\u201314), who possess a qualified theological nearness to Israel through this ethnic proximity. This Abrahamic circle is defined by the Abrahamic covenant of Genesis 17, which promises the participating covenant partners fruitfulness, land inheritance (which seems to imply a right to use rather than to possess), and proximity to God.
The circle of Israel narrows the focus down to the nation of God alone. It is generally concerned with the establishment of the sanctuary, which enables the sacrificial cult of Israel. This sacrificial cult alone is what allows Israel to achieve atonement. The sanctuary and the implementation of the cult seem to function as the partial restoration of the initial creation, in the sense of a second \u201ccreation within creation.\u201d The circle of Israel is not established by its own covenant because the foundational promise of the presence of God (\u201cI will be your God\u201d) was already given in Gen 17:7 (cf. Exod 6:7, 29:45\u201346). Nevertheless, the establishment of the sanctuary concretizes the presence of God specifically for Israel by locating God\u2019s \u05c1 \u05e9\u05db\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 in the midst of his people (cf. Exod 29:45\u201346).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
[\u2026]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whether the Priestly writer\u2019s Abraham is aware of it or not, what he asks is that Ishmael become Yhwh\u2019s priest; and it is that request that is denied to Ishmael and offered instead to the yet to be born Isaac. In this whole exchange (vv. 18\u201321), the question therefore is not whether Ishmael will be allowed to live in the land of Canaan\u2014the right of Ishmael to live in Canaan has been settled once and for all in v. 8\u2014but the question is only whether there is a need for a further son, i.e. for a further category among Abraham\u2019s multi-nation descendants. And the answer to that question is yes. Sarah\u2019s son Isaac will beget those descendants of Abraham who are destined to become Yhwh\u2019s priestly nation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
[\u2026]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The promises of fertility given to Abraham as a \u201ccovenant\u201d and to Ishmael as a \u201cblessing\u201d, when considering their concrete arrangements, are drawn up quite similarly and seem nearly equivalent.
Therefore, it is much more likely that the function of vv. 19\u201321 is not the exclusion of Ishmael but rather in the inclusion of Isaac in the Abrahamic covenant. Ishmael\u2019s inclusion in the covenant is clearly stated in Gen 17:7\u20138. Additionally, this section highlights the fact that the covenant with Abraham and his descendants, to which Ishmael belongs without a doubt, is an \u201ceternal covenant.\u201d
The need for an explicit inclusion of Isaac in vv. 19, 21 can be explained its position in the narrative, namely, that at the time of Genesis 17 Isaac had not yet been born. This makes the double appearance of \u201ccovenant\u201d terminology in vv. 19, 21, with reference to Isaac, plausible: an extension of the covenant to a person who did not yet exist is a bold enterprise and therefore needs special terminological emphasis.
Nevertheless, the conclusion remains that Ishmael is not the same type of partner in the covenant of God as Isaac is. They are equal with re-gard to fertility and land holdings (in the sense of an ,\u05d0\u05d7\u05d5\u05d6\u05d4 Israel will then signify its land in Exod 6:8 as ) \u05de\u05d5\u05e8 \u05c1 \u05e9\u05d4 within the greater region of the \u201cwhole land of Canaan.\u201d But they are not equal with regard to the possibility of cultic proximity (\u201cliving before God,\u201d Gen 17:18b).
This proximity\u2014as the narrative of the Priestly Document goes on to show\u2014only belongs to Israel by means of the foundation of the sanctuary and is explicitly denied to Ishmael.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
[\u2026]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In Genesis 17, the Priestly Document apparently attempts to balance the theological prerogative of Israel with the political reality of Persian-period Judah: Judah lives in a modest province within \u201cecumenical\u201d proximity to its neighbors. Perhaps the specific outline of Genesis 17, the creation of an \u201cAbrahamic ecumenicity\u201d, as Albert de Pury has put it, has to do with the fact that Abraham\u2019s tomb of Hebron, which was in all likelihood venerated by Judeans, Arabs, and Edomites, was probably not part of Achaemenid Judah but part of Idumea as Ernst Axel Knauf and Detlef Jericke have convincingly argued. This means that P had to include Judeans, Arabs, and Edomites in a privileged position and therefore developed the notion of an \u201cAbrahamic\u201d covenant of the peoples living in the \u201cwhole land of Canaan.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
There are numerous texts in the Hebrew Bible that deal with the problem of Judean identity in the international context of the Persian period. However, one perspective stands out in terms of its degree of political and theological reflection\u2014the so-called Priestly Document, or P.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1025,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[90],"tags":[66,92,24,91],"class_list":["post-1024","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judeans-in-achemenid-period","tag-antiquity","tag-bible-studies","tag-judaism","tag-persia"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.audiopathik.net\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1024","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.audiopathik.net\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.audiopathik.net\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.audiopathik.net\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.audiopathik.net\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1024"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/wp.audiopathik.net\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1024\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1030,"href":"https:\/\/wp.audiopathik.net\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1024\/revisions\/1030"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.audiopathik.net\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1025"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.audiopathik.net\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1024"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.audiopathik.net\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1024"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.audiopathik.net\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1024"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}