A version of this post will be found in the upcoming edition of the Commentator.
As the forbearer of the ten tribes, Jacob has had a profound
impact on the history of the Jewish people. However, a rudimentary glossing of
the Jacobean stories leads the reader in a very different direction. Jacob is
the figure who sells soup to his brother for an exorbitant fee and then fools
his father into giving him the birthright. While the Rabbis certainly see Jacob
in an unequivocally positive light, the reader of the Scripture itself is in
some ways left wondering why Jacob merited to be chosen by God. Yair Zakovitch
investigates into each of the stories of Jacob’s life by means of literary
archeology. As a method, literary archeology examines other literary expressions
of the stories in question to gain a greater understanding of the actual
happenings of the stories. Zakovitch looks at statements within the traditional
Jewish corpus, such as Isaiah and Midrash Rabbah, and analyzes the wording of
various passages. While his method was somewhat familiar, as it follows in the
footsteps of commentators like Ibn Ezra, it also relies upon certain
assumptions that are fairly troubling to the orthodox reader. One of his main
beliefs is that the story portrayed in Genesis, is a story that has itself been
modified to portray Jacob in an amenable light. One short example of this can
be seen from Zakovitch’s analysis of Jacob’s name. When dealing with Jacob’s
given name, Zakovitch quotes from Hosea where
Hosea rebukes the Jewish people for acting deceitfully (aqov ya’aqov). At the same time the biblical narrative of Jacob’s
birth discusses his being named for holding on to his brother’s heel (aqev). Zakovitch sees inconsistencies in
this story and others and posits that there were multiple traditions of the
Jacob narratives some of which were more favorable than others. The writers of
Genesis put together a series of tales that portrayed Jacob in the best light
possible, but other traditions still existed, one of which found its way into
Hosea. In general, I don’t see a
problem with reading and learning from biblical critics who do not share the
belief that the Bible is a divinely received singular work. Many times these
commentaries analyze brilliantly, displaying new patterns and ideas.
Specifically, Zakovitch’s explanation of the Bilhah and Reuven story as a
punishment for selling Esau the birthright at an inflated price is extremely
compelling. However, at other times his ideas are based on assumptions that
those that are more conservative do not hold. In the aforementioned examination
of Jacob’s name, Zakovitch assumes that the statement in Hosea is on equal footing with Genesis
itself, and without it the question never leaves the ground. The orthodox
reader sees the statement in Hosea and
sees a prophet using play on words to express his ideas in a poetic fashion. To
Zakovitch, Genesis, just like Hosea, was written by a man, or men, who by
definition has an agenda that compelled him to write. To the traditional
reader, the Pentateuch is unabashedly true. The Rabbis may have their agenda
when they are casting Jacob in a positive light, but the Bible itself cannot.
In my
five years here at Yeshiva University, I have experienced a place that is
willing to engage ideas that it does not believe in, but still learn from them
in a meaningful way. Apropos to the topic of this article, the Bible department
is a perfect example of this confrontation. Professors like Rabbi Koller, Rabbi
Bernstein, Rabbi Carmy and others, bring in exegetes, archeological findings, and
manuscripts that do not necessarily jive with traditional thought. In these
classes we strive to understand the Biblical text in a meaningful fashion,
while still holding to the idea of the divinely inspired word. The question for
each person becomes to how far are you willing to go?
