This article was downloaded by: [The University Of Melbourne Libraries]On: 14 May 2013, At: 21:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament: AnInternational Journal of Nordic TheologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sold20

Where did Jacob dream his dream?Nicolas Wyatt aa EdinburghPublished online: 04 Jul 2008.

To cite this article: Nicolas Wyatt (1990): Where did Jacob dream his dream?, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament: AnInternational Journal of Nordic Theology, 4:2, 44-57

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09018329008584945

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

WHERE DID JACOB DREAM HIS DREAM?

Nicolas WyattEdinburgh

Despite the variety of views entertained by scholars about the storyof Jacob's dream in Gen 28,1 it is fair to say that there is a consensusregarding the location and purpose of the episode. It takes place atBethel, and serves among other things to legitimate the sanctuarythere, which derives its importance from the ancient patriarchal con-nectioa In this discussion I wish to challenge both these propositions.It seems to me that the exegetical tradition has failed to take intoaccount factors which make the usual explanations implausible andindeed impossible. Matters of source criticism do not have much totell us in the context, and if anything invite stereotyped reactionsconcerning the antiquity of the tale which I think are misleading.Thus the common assumption of an oral tradition underlying a tenthcentury J source cannot be squared with the fact that the versesnormally allocated to J are manifestly later than the rest of the story,and are redactionaL Also the view that the main story belongs to theE source and therefore reflects northern tradition is at odds withJacob's literary role as eponym for Judah. Furthermore the wholepoint of the story seems to draw on a range of assumptions andsymbolic conventions which fit the exilic rather than an earlierperiod. Having made so many sweeping statements, let me now try tojustify them.

The matter of the aetiology is perhaps the best place to start ForC Westermann, the story reaches its climax in v 19.2 Yet. the verse issurely secondary, indeed transforming the story into an aetiology, butmissing the original point To begin with, Jacob does not in the bodyof the narrative name the place Bethel C?x-rr3), but calls it D^nVN-rra(v 17). Had his exclamation been the moment of naming the place, hewould surely have used the same name as occurs in v 19. To assume

1 For bibliographical and recent assessment see C Westermann, Genesis 12-36(London 1986), 450-460.

2 Westermann, 452.

Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 2/1990® Aarhus University Press

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:26

14

May

201

3

. Where Did Jacob Dream His Dream? 45

that the similarity of form, or the assonance involved, is a sufficientelement, begs the question. Besides, the story has the deity identifyhimself by name as Yahweh, which is consonant with Jacob's choiceof words in v 17, but is hard to accommodate to Bethel in v 19: weshould surely expect Beth-Yahweh if not Beth-Elohim. Again, sincev 19 cites the older name of the place (Luz), we would expect this tobe an aetiology for renaming it, yet the narrative of vv 10-18 has noolder name. Indeed, the anonymity of OTpon ( a certain place) of v 11is quite striking. There is also a discrepancy between the naming ofthe place (DTpD) in v 19, but the previous name of the city (TJ?). Inview of the events which take place at the location, we should surelyunderstand the term DpD to have the special sense of a sacred site,anticipated rather than explicit in v 11, to be sure, but with the fulltechnical sense in v 17. The usage in v 19 is a reversion to the moreneutral sense of »place«, and is inconsistent with the rest of the story.3

On these grounds, then, v 19 is to be seen as secondary. Since theconcluding verses 20-22 make a coherent addition to the story, as weshall see, but do not presuppose v 19, and would indeed be meaning-less were it already in position, I take v 19 to be a rather banaladdition from a later time, by a scribe who seems to have failed tograsp the literary or religious force of the story before him.

A further matter with regard to Bethel concerns the significance ithad in the pre-exilic period. This must have been conditioned by thepart it played in the religious reforms of Jeroboam in the tenthcentury. This has usually been explained in terms of a dissident,iconic form of Yahwism,4 though a number of other suggestions have

3 On the technical sense of see BDB 880a, though it is not recognised ofthis passage. See also EA. Speiser, Genesis (Garden City 1964), 218. Theequivalence of D15D and in Deut 21,19 does not invalidate my pointhere, which is that there is a stylistic development.

4 LB. Paton, »Did Amos Oppose the Calf-Worship of Bethel?«, JBL 13 (1894),80 f. W.F. Albright proposed that the calf was the vehicle of Yahweh, Fromthe Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore 19462), 229 f, followed by F.Dumermuth, »Zur deuteronomistischen Kulttheologie«, ZAW 70 (1958), 83; cfM. Weippert, »Gott und Stier«, ZDPV 77 (1961), 103 f. See discussion in M.Aberbach and L. Smolar, »Aaron, Jeroboam and the Golden Calves«, JBL 86(1967), 129-140, L. Bailey, »The Golden Calf«, HUCA 42 (1971), 97-115. andJ.M. Sasson, »the Worship of the Golden Calf«, in H.A. Hoffner (ed), Orientand Occident (FS C.H. Gordon, AOAT 22; Neukirchen 1973), 151-159.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:26

14

May

201

3

46 Nicolas Wyatt

been offered,* In my view the key to the religious question is to befound in Hosea's diatribe of 8,5-7, which attacks the calf cult ofIsrael. In v 6, the obscure VN-itra -2 was regrouped by H. Tur-Sinaito read *?x TB "D "3: »For who is Bull El?«.6 This is a perfect echo ofthe Ugaritic divine title tr il used of El, head of the Canaanite pan-theon, and makes sense in the biblical context too, since El is creditedwith the saving event of the exodus in such passages as Num 23,22(cf Num 243) and Ps 106,2i.7 Jeroboam revived the ancient Israelitecult of El by the rejection of the accretions superimposed on it by thecult of Yahweh fostered by the kings of the united monarchy. He wasafter all trying to be rid of precisely those religious and ideologicalfeatures which continued to provide a powerful attraction from southof the frontier. But regardless of the construction we put on hisreform, it is clear that it is held in opprobrium by Yahwists in northand south. Thus Hos 10,15 (MT) and Amos 3,14; 4,4; 5,6; 740-17 offeran eighth century critique, while 1 Kgs 12,26-1340 and 2 Kgs 23,15-20give us the deuteronomistic reflection on this (perhaps mediated inpart through the centralisation tradition of Deut 12) in the lateseventh century,» a view which in part conditioned exilic throught.Against this negative evidence we must in fairness set the positiveevidence of Hos 12,5 — though this is perhaps ambivalent' — and

5 Ba'at G. Ostborn, Yahweh and Baal (LUÅ 51.6; Lund 1955), 15, 23, 26;»polytheism« (unspecific) J.A Montgomery, The Books of Kings (Edinburgh1951), 255; Hathon W.O.E. Oesterley, in S.R.K. Glanville (ed), The Legacy ofEgypt (London 19421), 239, E. Danelius, »The Sins of Jeroboam Ben Nabat«,JQR 58 (1967), 109 f; Moses; J.M. Sasson, »Bovine Symbolism in the ExodusNarrative«, VT 18 (1968), 380-387; Sin: A.F. Key, »Traces of the Worship ofthe Moon-God Sin Among the Early Israelites«, JBL 84 (1965), 20-26, LI.Bailey, HUCA 42.114 f.

6 H. Tur-Sinai, Encyclopaedia Biblica (Hebrew, Jerusalem 1964), i, 31-33.7 Cf N. Wyatt, »The Development of the Tradition in Exodus 3«, ZAW 91

(1979), 437-442.8 Cf R.D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History

(Sheffield 1981), R.E. Friedman, The Exile and Biblical Narrative (Chico1981), 1-43.

9 For FJ. Anderson and D.N. Freedman, Hosea (Garden City 1980), 600, thesection 123-7 is morally neutral: »we cannot tell whether he is applauding ordeploring his subject«. The point at issue is however that the passageconnects Jacob with Bethel. On a negative assessment perhaps the connectionis made as a figure for apostasy. I am inclined to see the passage as a lateraddition (Israel=Jacob a post-721 stylistic feature: cf G.A. Danell, Studies inthe name Israel in the Old Testament [Uppsala 19461, 287 f). H.W. Wolffnotes that only in 12,5 does Hosea refer to angels (Hosea [London 1974],

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:26

14

May

201

3

. Where Did Jacob Dream His Dream? 47

Gen 354-15. The history of this passage is complex and difficult toelucidate with certainty. However, we need not digress into that inorder to make the observations which concern our present discussion.The important fact is its secondary nature with regard to 28,10 ff.This is clear from the fact that while 28,18.22 speak of a stone raisedup (rmo), it has become an altar (ruro) in 35, 1.3.7. A redactionaladdition in vv 14 f appears to seek to accommodate this to the PI3SOof 28, but the result is simply a duplication of stones. Even withoutthe incorporation of the story of the foreign gods in vv 2.4, thenatural setting which provides the departure point for Jacob's journeyto Bethel is Shechem, the locale of 33,18-20 and of 34. Thus thegeographical movement of his journey in 35, from north to south, isthe reverse of that in 28. Finally, 35 is in fact an amalgamation oftwo traditions: that of 2840-22 and that of 32,23-33 (especially v 29,to which cf 354O). It is therefore clear that Gen 35 is secondary forour purposes, and therefore cannot control the exegesis of 28,10-22. Itbelongs on the contrary to the later literary history of the tradition. Ifwe wish to see an intimate link between the stories, we may con-jecture that the redactor of 354-15 was the author of 2849.

Until Bethel is seemingly rehabilitated by Gen 354-15, then, themotives for which need not detain us, it is surely the dominantattitude to Bethel which we would expect to control any writersunderstanding of it In any case, with the recognition of the secondarynature of 2849, there is in fact no allusion to Bethel in the originalform of the story. This then brings us to the question: if Bethel is notthe location of Jacob's dream, can we surmise where it takes place?

As we have seen, the term Dpa used in the story has the technicalsense of a sacred site. If we consider which sacred sites in Palestinewere important in Genesis (omitting Bethel), we have Beersheba,discounted since it is the point of departure, Hebron, Shechem andJerusalem. Of these three the most important within later historicaltimes, that is from the time of its capture and adoption as capital,were Jerusalem and Shechem. These seem to be likely candidates. The

212). This could be construed as circumstantial evidence that the passage islate. On the Judahite context of Hos 12,1-7, see Wolff, xxxi and Andersonand Freedman, 603. On the allusion to Judah in v 1 cf U. Cassuto, TheGoddess Math (Jerusalem 1970), 57. The reference to Bethel in Gen 12,8;13,3.4 should perhaps be mentioned here, since Abraham's presence thereappears to legitimate it. But the author has him go to a point between Betheland Ai: he appears at pains not to locate him at Bethel.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:26

14

May

201

3

48 Nicolas Wyatt

fact that Shechem is itself the point of departure in 35 is not relevantin this context If we are to eliminate it we must find other reasons.Shechem is certainly important enough to be linked with Abra(ha)min 12,6. It may also be the location of the events in 15,1-21, if one isto be sought, on the ground that covenant traditions probably havetheir historical origins in Shechem, sanctuary of El (Bacal) Berit.10 Itappears to be the place envisaged in the cult-rcentralisation laws ofDeut 12, or was at any rate so understood by the author of Deut 11,29and 2841 ff. But in my view the original author(s) of Deut 12-26 hadnot Shechem but Jerusalem in mind. In their »exile« in the northernkingdom following the reforms of Jeroboam I, they looked to thecult of Yahweh in Jerusalem as the only true religion which necess-itated such extraordinary measures for secularisation in the body ofthe laws, since they were cutting themselves off from participation inthe cultic life of Israel. This is the earliest historical evidence of adissident sect. If Shechem were indeed the place of Deut 12, then theeffective reduction of sacrificial and festal worship to three times ayear (Deut 16) would be quite unnecessary. But with a long journeysouth and the crossing of a frontier a much reduced cultic life asenvisaged is understandable. Also, were Shechem the reference ofDipan in Deut 12,5 ff,11 there would be no obvious reason to be socoy about its identity. If the place is Jerusalem, however, we canreadily see that for a northern sectarian programme to name a foreignsanctuary as the only legitimate place of worship would be construedas treason by the authorities in Israel. And it boils down to politicalloyalties, as indicated by Jeroboam's words in 1 Kgs 12,27.

There are further reasons why Jerusalem should be considered theplace. It seems to me that Dpai of Gen 2841 means not simply »acertain place«,12 but is also a deliberate literary echo of the place ofDeut 12. At any rate, any percipient reader could scarcely avoidassociating the two texts. Again, we have noted Jacob's role aseponym not of Israel, but of Judah. The appropriation of the northerneponym (Gen 32,29; 3540) is part of the transformation of Judahite

10 See P.C Craigie, Ugarit and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids 1983), 82-84,109.

11 We may conjecture that the of v 3 is Bethel. Note that it is clearlymore specific than the v 1. In both cases the technical sense of

as a sanctuary is to be understood.12 RSV, NEB, JB, see Speiser, 217 f. See also B. Vawter, On Genesis (London

1977), 310.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:26

14

May

201

3

• Where Did Jacob Dream His Dream? 49

religion into Judaism, and the older reference of Israel is seen inAmos 746. It follows that we should expect a Jacob tradition to beattached to a southern sanctuary. In addition, the entire Priestly Workis remarkable for one very striking omission: there is in it no clearreference to Jerusalem — that is, the place name does not occur inany part of the narrative. It does occur twice in the land-allocation,in Josh 15,8 (perhaps as a gloss here) and 63. Even if this is acceptedas part of the composition,13 the overall reticence the author-redactorevidently feels needs some comment Gen 14 is perhaps an exception,but it is generally agreed to be extraneous to the work,14 and in anycase still avoids the form Jerusalem, using Salem instead. If thePriestly Work as a whole is to be construed as an exilic composi-tion, then there is a' ready explanation, similar to that concerning theanonymity of the place in Deuteronomy: the exiles were presumablysubject to at least a nominal surveillance by the authorities in theirsettlements in Mesopotamia, and any overt allusion to Jerusalem incontemporary religious propaganda might seem too dangerous. Be thatas it may, there is in fact no need to specify the place. Those witheyes and ears would undoubtedly discern its presence in a number ofkey passages in the work. Thus the location of the Garden of Eden,already clear enough on purely symbolic grounds,15 is made trans-parently so by the addition of Gen 240-14, which incorporates theworld of the exiles in the reference to the Tigris and the Euphrates,but that of Jerusalem in the allusion to the Gihon.16 The subsiding ofthe flood leaves Noah's ark apparently stranded far away on MountArarat (Gen 8,4) but later tradition identified the mountain with Zionand the first dry land of the original creation of which this was a

13 Cf P.R.. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration (London 1968), 63, 97. For the exilicnature of the Priestly Work as a whole, see 91-102; cf also F.V. Winnett,»Reexamining the Foundations«, JBL 84 (1965), 1-19, B. Mazar, »TheHistorical background of the Book of Genesis«, JNES 28 (1969), 73-83, J.Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New haven 1975) and A.G.Hunter, »Father Abraham: a Structural and Theological Study of theYahwist's Presentation of the Abraham Material«, JSOT 35 (1986). 3-27.

14 Westermann, 188.15 See N. Wyatt, »Interpreting the Creation and Fall Story in Genesis 2-3«,

ZAW 93 (1981), 10-21 and »When Adam Delved: The Meaning of Genesis iii23«. VT 38 (1988), 117-122.

16 The religious significance of the Gihon is evident from 1 Kgs 133 ff andperhaps Ps 110,7.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:26

14

May

201

3

50 Nicolas Wyatt

repetition.17 Even though such interpretations are only attested later,we should beware of simply dismissing them as late inventions.Moriah, place of Abraham's readiness to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22,2), isidentified with Jerusalem in 2 Chron 34, and again cannot simply betreated as a later amalgamation of traditions. In that passage it is thesite of Solomon's temple; in Gen 22 the reference to Dipa in w 3.4.9and 14 evokes the opn in 28. The place where Moses encountersYahweh in the Land of Midian is remote from Palestine, yet thevision of the bush and the language of theophany are intended toecho the language of the cult in Jerusalem.11 Finally, the story ofBabel, superficially located in Babylon, is a story of divine punish-ment and exile, and could not fail to seem a parable of their owndestiny to the exiles, so that Babylon is a figure for Jerusalem.19

Indeed, the double reference of the story, to Jerusalem and Babylon,bears a more than passing resemblance to features of the Jacob story.

Let us turn to the question of the stone which features in the story.Jacob uses it as a pillow, then raises it up in order to anoint it, andgives it the name OTfrN-iTJ (another point at which v 19 is incon-sistent, since it transfers the name to the place). The stone is evidentlyof paramount importance in the tradition (and its transformation intoan altar in Gen 35 simply reinforces the point). Jewish traditionspeaks of the omphalos which was situated on the temple mount, thervra p x , which was probably located in the Holy of Holies in thetemple. It appears to be identified as the stone under the Dome of theRock, the place from which Muhammad ascended to heaven, althoughA.S. Kaufmann has proposed that it lies, still within the temenos, alittle to the north.20 Again, the traditions are late, and yet point backto earlier traditions which are alluded to in passing by Ezekiel, whorefers to »those who dwell on the navel ("TUE: LXX tni xôv ôuocAôv)of the earth« (38,12). He is describing the inhabitants of Jerusalem.21

17 See R. Patai, Man and Temple (London 1947), 58.18 See N. Wyatt, »The Significance of the Burning Bush«, VT 36 (1986), 361-365.19 Similarly with Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18,16-1929), which should be

interpreted in the context of Is 1, 9 f. We cannot assume that Isaiah draws onthe Genesis tradition. It is as likely that the Genesis story is built on thesymbolism established in Isaiah.

20 See Patai, 55 ff, 85 ff, and O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World(London 1978), 113 ff. On the location see A.S. Kaufmann, »Where theAncient Temple of Jerusalem Stood«, BAR 9 (1983), 40-59.

21 Cf W. Eichrodt, Ezekiel (London 1970), 524. He connects the passage withEzek 5,5 ff.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:26

14

May

201

3

Where Did Jacob Dream His Dream? 51

Jacob's pillow is recumbent, and indeed was no doubt, as theomphalos, a protruding part of the bedrock. In raising it up weperhaps are to see the formal preparation of a temple as a literaryinnuendo. In the account of Jacob's dream — the locus classicus fortheophanies — we have then the perfect geographical setting for thepatriarchal ancestor of Judah. Where else but at the very centre ofthe earth is there a veritable stairway to heaven, whereby the divineand human realms meet and converse? Text KTU 1. 3 iii 20 ff fromUgarit expresses this poetically in these terms:

For I have a word that I would say to you,a message that I would repeat to you:a word of tree and a whisper of stone,the sighing of the heavens to the earth,of the deeps to the stars . . .Come, and I will reveal it in the midst of my divine mountain Sapan,in the sanctuary, the rock of my inheritance . . ?i

An echo of this language is found in the preamble to the sacredmarriage in Ps 19,4 f (EVV 3 f), which can refer only to the rites inthe Jerusalem sanctuary. The stairway motif introduces a furthertheme apparently extraneous to Jerusalem. There is no reference inthe description of Solomon's temple to a staircase to heaven, the zM?(winding stairs) of 1 Kgs 6JS referring probably to casemate stairsconnecting different levels. The term tiTO in v 12 (Akk. simmiltu) isperhaps derived from the architectural form of Mesopotamian zig-gurats.23 In these a large processional stair often led up from theground to the top leveL Such a construction is lampooned in theBabel story, undoubtedly that of Babylon itself. Here I think there isalso a deliberate echo of Babylon, as we shall see, but for themoment the point is the application of a Mesopotamian cultic motifto Jerusalem. That this was the place of the dream is furthersuggested by the reference in 2844 to the four cardinal points. Thesecan only have meaning when viewed from a central location. It fitsthe cosmological significance of Jerusalem perfectly, and we have an

22 Ba'al is addressing 'Anat. See also 3 iv 13 ff. In 1 iii 11 ff El uses much thesame formula in addressing Kotar. Here the tablet is broken, so the locationis uncertain.

23 A. Henderson, »On Jacobs Vision at Bethel«, ET 4 (1892-3), 151 f, Speiser,218, A.R. Millard, »The Celestial Ladder and the Gate of Heaven (Gen. xxviii12, 17)« ET 78 (1966-7), 86 f. Cf discussion in G Houtman, »What did JacobSee in his Dream at Bethel?« VT 27 (1977), 337-351.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:26

14

May

201

3

52 Nicolas Wyatt

exact mirror image of it in Isa 43,5 f, when envisages the recall ofthe exiles to the centre (sc. Jerusalem).24 It may also be comparedwith the cosmological note in Gen 240-14, mentioned above.

The story of Jacob's dream, then, draws on a number of traditionalmotifs. But it does not merely reiterate clichés, however importantthis may have been for the readership of the Priestly Work.25

Yahweh's words in v 15 indicate the real historical context of thestory. This is no bronze age folktale concerning a wanderingAramaean: it is a message delivered to an exile — albeit an archetypalone — with a divine promise to the effect that wherever he wanders,however far from this centre at which he now dreams, Yahweh willaccompany him. The Deuteronomist had at times regarded exile as afinal rejection by Yahweh of his people (2 Kgs 23,26 f; 24,20). Butthe experience of exile, as distinct from the theory, must have con-vinced devout Jews that even so far from home, so remote from thecentre, they were nevertheless still emphatically in the presence ofYahweh. And this is precisely the cast of the prediction in v 15.Whatever transpires, wherever Jacob goes, Yahweh is with him andwill fulfil every problem of land and progeny. These promises aresimply the theological idiom in which the desperate hopes of theexiles found expression.

All this has taken place, if my argument is sound, at the place thatis to become Jerusalem, and given at this spot, the promises are allthe more solemn. But Jacob's words on waking almost suggest that hewas only in Jerusalem in his dream, and that now he is back in theharsh world of exile, remote from God and from all manifestationsand emblems of his values. He utters several exclamations (vv 16 f) inwhat is at first glance a somewhat overloaded' text But each exclama-tion has a strict bearing on his predicament Firstly, he expressessurprise that Yahweh »is in this place«. While on one level this isobviously the place of v 11, on another it is its opposite, the place ofexile (an »anti-Dlpo«), far removed from the sanctity inherent in aDpa, and yet miraculously giving rise to a theophany. It is theundoing of the old territorially limited theology so quaintly expressedin Naaman's sacks of soil (2 Kgs 5,17) or in David's cry of despair(1 Sam 2649). Even in — dare one name it? — Babylon, Yahweh is

24 See discussion of this passage in N. Wyatt, »Sea and Desert: SymbolicGeography in West Semitic Religious Thought«, UF 19 (1987), 376 f.

25 Cf D.J.A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (Sheffield 1978), 31-43.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:26

14

May

201

3

- Where Did Jacob Dream His Dream? 53

present This is one more subtle reason for the silence about the iden-tity of the DTpO: to give it a name is precisely to limit it territorially,and thus to deprive it of universal significance. (This is perhaps alsothe reason why the the covenant of Gen 15 is not located, whateverthe background: its very generality is a figure for universalisra)Secondly, he states that this place is a OTfrN m . This states evenmore positively the theological significance of the DipD, for it containsnot merely a general sanctity, but the fulness of cosmic symbolismwhich is contained in a temple structure. While the stone is theprecise locus of the vision, and the term applies to it, it extends tothe whole place. This is clear from other features of the episode towhich we have drawn attention. M. Haran has argued that the expres-sion ÎTÏT 'lib can have the technical sense of being in the presence ofthe deity in a temple.26 As Jacob now sees Yahweh, and therefore is»before him«, he may be said to be in the temple, if only in theprospective sense that his pillow is destined to be the omphalos. In sofar as he is far away in exile, we have an intuition of the īf?2.p: everyexilic and diaspora Jew faces Zion in his prayer and thus is mysticallypresent, in solidarity with his fellow worshippers. It might becountered that we have no evidence from so early a date of suchbeliefs or practices. On the contrary, everything in the symbolism wehave noted in passing points to just this kind of thinking, if only inembryonic form, and it seems to me that the present narrative isarticulating, perhaps for the first time, the intuition which is later tobecome the norm. Thirdly, Jacob makes perhaps the most startlingclaim of all: the place where he has his dream-vision is the gate ofheaven (DT32TJ *W). It is hard to avoid seeing this as a deliberateallusion to Babylon, whose name Bab Hi, transcribed in Hebrew asV33, means »Gate of the god (sc MardukK27 It is the place where,by means of the stairway of his temple tower Esagila, Marduk entersthe world of men. This is surely the direct source of the staircaseimage in v 12, and the supposition is strengthened if we recognise in

26 M. Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (Oxford 1978), 26.Among many examples he cites 1 Sam 26,19; 2 Sam 6,5 ff; 1 Kgs 831. In thewilderness passages the formula is extended to the ark and the tabernacle(Exod 1633 f; Num 17,1922, etc). Cf also N. Rabban, »Before the Lord«,Tarbiz 23 (1952), 1-8 (Hebrew), and F. Nötscher, »Das Angesicht Gottesschauen« nach biblischer und babylonischer Auffassung (Würzburg 1924;repr. Darmstadt 1969), 88 ff.

27 At least on a folk-etymology. See H. Ringgren. TWAT i, 504.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:26

14

May

201

3

54 Nicolas Wyatt

»heaven« a likely periphrasis for God. A well-known example ofsuch a usage is Matthew's »kingdom of heaven«, which is theequivalent of »the kingdom of God«. This expression is not foundclearly in the Old Testament, but there are instances susceptible ofsuch an interpretation. Leaving aside examples which are really nomore than personification or apostrophising, we may consider suchpassages as Job 1545 ( isnpi D W ) , PS 19,2 (EVV 1); 50,6 (bothOW), and 89,6-8 (EVVS 5-7) ( o w i m n p 'mp, pnffiOTfrN 'ja,Dtnp mo i rTXr^n). In these cases »heavens« or perhaps »theheavens« is a metonymy for the gods who form Yahweh's council,who are gradually reduced in rank from gods to angels. It may beconsidered a metonymy for God in a few late passages: 2 Chron 28,9;32,20 and Dan 4,23 (Aramaic, MT, RSV 4,26). That Jerusalem was thegate of heaven, the place where Yahweh communicated with manthrough the king and the temple cultus, was self-evident But to callBabylon, hated symbol of oppression and the destruction of the state,the gate of heaven, was to a Jewish mind either a monstrous parody,or a theological breakthrough of astonishing courage and profundity.

Perhaps more needs to be said concerning the way in which theplace dreamt of and the place dreamt at in the story are related.There are two issues here: the historical one, concerning the circum-stances in which the story was composed, and the experience of theauthor as it found expression, and the literary one, concerned purelywith issues of the narrative as a literary construction. In bothinstances I believe that there is a double aspect. On the historicallevel, I have argued that the story is exilic. This is not the kind ofclaim that can be proved, and a survey of the literature would show awide range of opinions. On any given verse there are probably almostas many opinions as there are scholars! Academic fashions come andgo; one generation's heresy is another's orthodoxy. There has been atendency in recent years to discount the ancient historical referencethe Pentateuch purports to present — that is, accounts of the lives ofbronze age migrants in Palestine — in favour of ideological taleswhich deal with the concerns of the first millennium. In particular,the overall exilic significance of the Priestly Work seems increasinglyto be maintained. For my part, it seems useful to ask the simplequestion of any narrative, given such and such a period for itscomposition (sometimes allowing for successive expansions andmodifications), what might the story have meant in that context. Now

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:26

14

May

201

3

• Where Did Jacob Dream His Dream? 55

the present story is eloquent in its concern for exilic conditions, andshows how Jewish society was trying to cope with the neuroses andtraumas of the time. The themes of the story simply do not have abearing on an earlier age. In other words, the explication of the texthas a bearing on its dating. Since the latter cannot be known forcertain in advance, this seems a reasonable course of enquiry.Historically, then, we have the conditions of exile. I believe that thestory was composed in exile, and originally dealt exclusively with theexilic experience. In other words, the place was only symbolically »inPalestine«. In reality the whole narrative takes place in exile. It is thefitting of the story into a Palestinian setting — somewhere betweenBeersheba and Haran — that requires that the place be interpreted asJerusalem. This is the editorial intent. On the literary plane, thepicture seems at first confusing. But that is perhaps because we bringto it a spatial logic which tends to compartmentalise: either it is here,or it is there. But in the figurative terms of literature, both arepossible, and a slide from one to the other is perfectly feasible. Henceon a literary plane we may speak, as I did above, of the reaction ofJacob on waking. He is at Jerusalem when he dreams, and it is ofJerusalem that he dreams. But on waking he is brought back with ajolt to another less secure world of exile. Is he really at Jerusalem?No, he is far away in Babylon. Did he really dream of Jerusalem?No, he dreamt of Babylon, with its stairway to heaven, but for onewonderful moment confused the two locations, and in that apparentconfusion intuited the greatest hope he could offer his age: that evenin remote and accursed Babylon Yahweh revealed himself to thosewith receptive hearts.

If all this should seem rather indulgent and subjective, let us con-clude by trying to inject a little objectivity into it. The final verses ofthe story, Gen 28,20-22, are an addition to the tale which precedesthe final incorporation of v 19, I suggested above. While they areadditional, as has been argued on the ground that the unconditionalpromise of v 15 is here transformed into the vow which makes itconditional,28 they are closer to the story than v 19. While on thesurface the vow concerns the limited journey from Beersheba toHaran that Jacob is about to undertake, in reality it concerns thecommon experience of exile. This is the vow of every exiled Jew. Inthe centralisation law of Deut 12, v 11 refers to vows made »to

28 So Westermann, 458-460.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:26

14

May

201

3

56 Nicolas Wyatt

Yahweh« (run"? m n ) , while v 17 includes votive offeringsamong things whose performance is restricted to the central sanctuary.This implies that legislation which presupposes the centralisation lawtakes it that vows are generally to be made at the sanctuary. Thuswhile the rules in Num 30 are given no geographical setting, we maysuppose that they implicitly relate to Jerusalem (prospectively, ofcourse, in the fiction that they are delivered before the settlement).This is made the clearer in Lev 7,16, which deals with sacrifices inconjunction with vows. Lev 224&21 treat the discharge of vows witha sacrifice. In both instances the sanctuary (of Jerusalem) is implicitA narrative example of a vow (before the construction of the Jeru-salem temple) is Hannah's at Shiloh, in 1 Sam 141. A sacrifice isoffered in part fulfilment, v 21,29 and the vow is completed with thepresentation of the young Samuel, vv 24-28. These passages indicatethat Jacob's vow is to be construed as taking place at a sanctuary,which is obvious, but they further indicate that if the narrative islater than the centralisation law and its implication, the sanctuary canonly be Jerusalem. A further point of interest arises from v 21: »Andif I return in peace to my father's house, then Yahweh will be mygod«. At first glance, this is simply a reference to Jacob's safe returnto Isaac at Beersheba. But within the story, Isaac is not represented asJacob's father. It is Abraham (v 13, where the phrase »and the god ofIsaac« looks like an addition). And while the story itself says nothingon the matter, according to the Priestly Work as a whole, he is nowdead (25,7 f). »My father's house« l"2H TO) may indeed be anancestral home, or a place of family domicile, or even the householdas à community. But the reference a moment later (v 22) to the houseof God (DTiVN TO) suggests that the father of v 21 is actuallyYahweh himself, and the house is the sanctuary at which Jacob nowstands. Again, we read through Jacob's words the vow of the exile toworship God again in Jerusalem. The apodosis of the vow in v 22then becomes a promise to restore the temple. The second part of it,to pay a tithe on all he gains, seems to seal such an interpretation,since tithes, like vows, are paid at the sanctuary (Gen 14,20; Lev

29 MT reads ITU - »his vow« - which can only refer back to Elkanah, whooffers the sacrifice but did not make the vow. This may be a modernising ofthe older 3rd m. sg. suffix -öh, which at some time in transmission has beenerroneously read for -āh. 3rd. f. sg. Alternatively, -āh has been read asdefective -ēhu, subsequently written plene -ēhû, then abbreviated to - 5 . Onthe forms see GK § 91b.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:26

14

May

201

3

• Where Did Jacob Dream His Dream? 57

2732; Num 18328; Deut 12,6.11.17 f; 14, 23. The »local tithing« ofDeut 14,28 is validated at the DTpO - sc. Jerusalem - in 2642). Allthe cultic presuppositions of w 20-22, then, point to Jerusalem as thelocation of the story. This indicates that at an early stage in itsdevelopment the identification with Bethel required by v 19 was notunderstood. It is the secondary nature of vv 20-22 which demon-strates the independence of vv 10 (or 11M8 from v 19.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:26

14

May

201

3