In Genesis 32, 11 Jacob affirms that he “had only his staff when he crossed the Jordan” to get to Haran. This means that he possessed nothing and that all his wealth was accumulated in Mesopotamia. The fact that he was destitute is proven not only by the foregoing quotation but also by the fact that he had to pay for his wives, working for his father-in-law without pay. This happened only to penniless people, who could offer nothing else.
So what about the highly praised birthright and the nomination to universal heir? To whom was Isaac's immense wealth and property left? Genesis is careful to avoid this subject, but in view of the circumstances, it is not difficult to understand how things turned out. Let us turn back to the moment of Jacob’s blessing. Esau was the firstborn and considered himself the legal heir; he was also a very proud man. It may be that the loss of material goods was less important for him than the intolerable situation of having to serve his younger brother. Bursting into tears, he implored, “Do you have only one blessing, father? Bless me too, my father!” (Gen 27, 36). Clearly he was not calling for words of comfort, but more down-to-earth things such as a heritage--a piece of land however small, where he could live as his own master without the humiliation of having to bow to his brother's will.
Isaac's reply is reported in two verses (Gen 27,39-40), which, when translated literally, sound like this: “You will live in a fertile land, washed by the dew from heaven above; you will live by the sword, and you will serve your brother; when you grow restless you will throw his yoke from off your neck.” Most modern translators change the original text, reporting a sentence of the opposite sense: “Your dwelling will be away from the earth's richness, away from the dew of heaven above. You will earn your living with the sword and will serve your brother. But when you grow restless you will throw his yoke from off your neck.”
Neither of the two versions, taken literally, are very clear; this is probably because the original too was changed by some unknown copywriter or translator, with the intention of favoring his own interpretation, just as modern translators do. But perhaps it is possible to find the true meaning of those words, taking into account the situation at the moment they were spoken. Esau burst into tears and shouted in desperation. That harrowing scene must have profoundly disturbed Isaac, who had never hidden his preference for his “Red” son. The poor dying old man must have replied, “I can do nothing more! I have already established that Jacob will be your master. All his brothers will have to serve him [evidently Isaac, like his father Abraham, had had sons by other wives of secondary rank]. You too will serve him, but I have already arranged for you to live in a fertile territory washed by the rain and that you have the command of the army [you will live by the sword].”
Isaac's words probably ended at this point and the subsequent ones were put into his mouth by posterity as a sort of prophecy. It cannot be excluded, however, that Isaac himself, realizing that he had been misled by his wife and younger son, continued, “But if serving your brother is quite unacceptable to you, I release you in advance from the obligation of obedience to him: take the yoke off your neck then and throw it away.” These are serious words coming from the chief of a population and a father, but they are justified if one takes into account his emotional state at the moment.
Isaac must have died soon after, perhaps the same day, overcome by grief and anguish because of the situation he had created by nominating Jacob to succeed him. But in any case Esau continued to consider himself the legal heir and had no intention of honoring his late father's dispositions, which he considered had been extorted by deceit. In fact he made no secret of his intention to get rid of his scheming brother. Jacob had right on his side by virtue of the “blessing,” but evidently Esau could count on the support of the army. As well we know, being in the right cannot stand up to force. Acting on his mother's advice Jacob fled in a great hurry, abandoning everything.
Jacob having run off, Esau obviously took over his father's dominion and made himself lord over all. Therefore, at least for a time, he must have continued to live between Hebron and Beersheba. But twenty years later, when Jacob returned to Palestine, we find Esau lord of Seir, a semi-desert region southwest of the Dead Sea, which up till then had been the domain of the Horites of Abraham's son Seir. How did this change?
Genesis seeks to justify it by saying that “Esau took his wives, his sons and daughters and all the members of his household, as well as his livestock and all his other animals and all the goods he had acquired in Canaan and moved to a land some distance from his brother Jacob. Their possessions were too great for them to remain together; the land where they were staying could not support them both because of their livestock. So Esau - that is, Edom - settled in the hill country of Seir.” (Gen 36, 6-8).
This account contains substantial inaccuracies, easily noticed by even a superficial examination. The most evident is the reason given for Edom's departure, which presumes an idyllic agreement between the two brothers, who supposedly separated peacefully and without bitterness as did Abraham and Lot (Gen 13 ,5-12). But we know that Jacob fled from Canaan to avoid being killed by his brother and that when he returned twenty years later Edom was already installed in the country of Seir. There remains the question of when and why Esau abandoned Hebron in favor of Seir, but it is impossible to ascertain this from the meager information in Genesis.
The mystery deepens still more if one considers the circumstances of Jacob's return to Palestine. When he left, his mother had told him, “You will stay with Laban until your brother's fury subsides. When your brother is no longer angry with you and forgets what you did to him I'll send word for you to come back from there.” (Gen 27, 44-45). From that moment on, however, there is no further news of Rebekah. The only fact we have is that she died before her favorite son came back; Jacob never saw his mother again. But we don’t know where and when she died. But if not Rebekah, who recalled Jacob and what was it that induced him to leave Mesopotamia?
Another fact we must contend with, the reason for which remains a mystery, is that Jacob, once back in Palestine, did not settle in those lands which his father had assigned to him, that is, the feudal territory between Hebron and Beersheba. At least he did not do so at once as would be logical to expect. At first he settled in Succoth (Gen 33, 17), then in Shechem, where he bought a piece of land on which to pitch his tents (Gen 33, 18-20); then at Bethel (Gen 35, 6), where Deborah, Rebekah's nurse, died; then at Ephrath (Gen 35, 16), where Rachel died giving birth to Benjamin; then at Migdal Eder (Gen 35, 21). These places are all located in Central Palestine, where neither Abraham nor Isaac had ever possessed land. We find Jacob at Beersheba only at the time the Pharaoh sent for him to be brought to Egypt (Gen 46, 1-5). It would seem from the text, however, that he was only there passing through on his way to Egypt.
On the other hand, there is no indication that Jacob possessed any territory, except the piece of land bought at Shechem; he grazed his livestock on land belonging to others. This too is very surprising and difficult to explain on the basis of references in Genesis. Jacob owned herds of cattle, which needed rich pastures, not just flocks of goats that could graze on marginal terrain unused by standing populations. Therefore, he must have obtained special authorization to graze on such pastures obviously owned by someone else. But why? And who conceded them to him?
Finally, there is a particular detail not to be overlooked, but of which Genesis makes no mention: Abraham, as we have seen, had hundreds of servants, so Isaac surely had just as many, with all their relatives, both close and distant. When Jacob fled to Mesopotamia he was practically alone; which means that all those people, beginning with his mother, Rebekah, were left in Palestine. What happened to such a multitude? Did they all follow Esau to Seir? If so, why should they have had to leave a fertile area to end up in a desert?
Among other indications, there is certain proof that at least part of this mass of people rejoined Jacob after his return to Palestine. Genesis 35, 8, in fact, states that “now Deborah, Rebekah's nurse, died and was buried near Bethel.”
Deborah obviously remained in Palestine together with Rebekah; if when she died she was there together with Jacob, it means that she joined him there after his return. But when? Where? Why? And how many other people were together with her? These are all questions to which Genesis gives no answers whatsoever.
There is clearly a huge gap in the Genesis narrative; it remains mute concerning the events that happened in Palestine during Jacob's twenty years of exile. Perhaps the facts were so terrible or humiliating that tradition, or the compiler, decided not to hand them down to posterity. However, if we are to reconstruct Jacob's history, it is essential to discover what happened in Palestine during the twenty years he was absent. Since Genesis sheds no light on this, we must turn to historical sources. Fortunately, first-hand accounts of the events that occurred during this period in the Middle East are available.
Jacob, we have seen, was born in the twelfth or thirteenth year of Amenhophis the Third's reign and left Palestine in the period from the thirtieth to the thirty-third year. The subsequent twenty years include almost the whole of the reign of Akenhaton, the “heretic” Pharaoh. Akenhaton had transferred the Court from Thebes to Amarna, where he had hurriedly reconstructed the Royal Palace, dedicating himself to the new Cult of the Sun. Upon his death the new Royal Palace was abandoned and the Court returned to Thebes. In the underground passages of the palace, copies of the letters that Akenhaton had received during his reign, engraved on tablets of clay, were abandoned. Three thousand years later, discovered and deciphered, these letters give us a realistic picture of the political situation in Asia and particularly in Palestine during that period.
The Hittite Empire was then in a phase of great expansion, extending itself at the expense of the Mithani Empire. From the Mithani’s it took its Syrian possessions, even managing at that time to sack the capital, Wassukanni. Suppiluliumas extended his conquests even at the expense of the Egyptian Empire, reducing the princes of Syria to tributaries. He avoided outright war against the Pharaoh, but helped to foment disorder within the Egyptian Empire, encouraging those princes who were loyal to him to seize neighboring territories.
The latter turned to the Pharaoh, pleading for help, but in vain. Akenhaton, obsessed by religious folly and perhaps also by precise political reasoning had no intention of going to war against Suppiluliumas, with whom he, by correspondence, maintained good relations; he made no move and left the Hittites a free hand. The Egyptian Empire’s internal situation must have been the same externally: the Apiru of Hittite origin--whom, as we ascertained in Part II, had their own principality in Palestine bordering on Abraham’s in Hebron--took advantage if not of the Pharaoh’s open support, then at least of his indifference, and attempted to take over the feudal territories belonging to the Apiru of Mithani origin.
Genesis confirms that relations between the Hittite Apiru and those of Mithani origin had deteriorated over time. When Sarah died, Abraham bought the family tomb at Macpelah from the Hittite Efron, and judging by the compliments and courtesies they exchanged on that occasion, it is clear that there was total accord between them. A little more than forty years later, Rebekah uttered strong words denoting a profound disgust of Hittites: “Because of these Hittite wives of Esau I'm disgusted with living. If Jacob takes a wife from Hittite women, my life will not be worth living!” Rebekah was born in Nahor and presumably was very close to her Mesopotamian family. Her attitude towards the local Hittites was probably due to the pressure the Hittite sovereign Suppiluliumas was putting on Mithani. In any case, it was a clear indication that the relations with the Hittite neighbors were no longer as idyllic as in times past.
After Jacob left, these relations must have deteriorated even further to the point of open war. An indication supporting this is found in a letter written towards the end of Akenhaton’s reign by a certain Suwardata, who says:
“To the king (the Pharaoh), my Lord, my Sun. Thus speaks Suwardata, your servant, the king’s servant, the dust beneath his feet, the ground you walk upon. At the feet of my king, my Lord, Sun in the sky, seven times, seven times I threw myself on the ground, both on my belly as on my back (...).
May the king, my Lord, know that the Apiru attack me in the lands given to me by the king my God, and that I have fought and may the king my Lord know that all my brothers have forsaken me and that I and Abdi-Khepah are those who fight against the Apiru chief. Also that Zurata prince of Acco and Indurata, prince of Acsaf, were those who hurried to my aid with 50 chariots, of which now I am deprived. But see, they fought against me, and may it please the king, my Lord, to send Janhamu, so that we may bring the war to an end in a serious manner and re-establish the territory of the king, my Lord, to its original borders...”
The names Suwardata, Surata and Indurata are clearly of Aryan origin. Indurata is also found in the Veda and in other earlier Sanskrit writings. The name Abdi-Kepah, prince of Salem, on the other hand, is of Horite origin. Most likely these were feudal vassals of Mithani origin allied among themselves in a war against a common enemy, the Apiru.
It is a short step to conclude that the Apiru which the Amarna letters refer to, were Hittite. It is also a clear demonstration that the Hittites were carrying out the same policy within the Egyptian Empire as they were pursuing outside: occupying Mithani territory thanks to the connivance, or indifference, of the Pharaoh. Historians apparently attribute the Pharaoh’s attitude toward these events either to ineptitude or total indifference to State problems. What is more likely, however, is that this was an intentional political choice. At that time there was a strong political group in the Egyptian Court, which looked with favor on the Hittites and which strongly influenced Akenhaton’s internal and foreign policy, and that of his successor, Tutankhamen. After the latter’s death this group even made an attempt to put a Hittite prince on the Egyptian throne.
The first feudal vassals of Mithani origin to settle in Palestine were Lot and Abraham. So, these Palestinian princes with Aryan names, who make their appearance in historical chronicles less than fifty years later, must have had blood ties with the former. Of those princes, the one who draws the greatest interest is exactly the writer of the previously-cited letter, Suwardata, who calls himself “Prince of Hebron”. This is astonishing news. Isaac, lord of Hebron, had died a few years previously. Jacob, his appointed heir, was exiled in Haran. In the meantime, this Suwardata declares himself to be prince of Hebron and is under attack from his Hittite neighbors.
Who then was Suwardata? As far as ascertainable on the basis of Genesis indications, this lord of Hebron could have been none other than Esau, who, after having forced his brother into exile, assumed Isaac’s heritage. Suwardata, therefore, is to be identified with Esau.
Any remaining doubts disappear if one considers that even his name is exactly the same. In Hebrew writing, vowels are not written; the name “Esau” is written with three consonants only: Ayin, Sin and Waw, that is ‘Sw (ayin is indicated with the sign ‘ and is not sounded). Neither in cuneiform writing nor in hieroglyphics were vowels written, so the pronunciation Suwardata is purely hypothetical, since the name, in reality, is written: ‘Sw-rdt. For friends and relations simply ‘Sw. There is no doubt: ‘Sw-rdt, Prince of Hebron, is really Esau “the Red”.
Esau’s signed letters, combined with the information furnished by Genesis, make it possible for us to reliably reconstruct the events in which he was involved. Upon the death of Isaac, Esau, who had been named head of the army, took over his father’s feudal state and forced his brother into exile. Esau was a very able and far-sighted politician; he had married two Hittite princesses (Gen.26,34), who were evidently daughters of chiefs of the bordering feudal state. He hoped in this way to protect himself from the aggressive policy that the Hittite Apiru were pursuing against those of Mithani origins.
However, it seems that Esau’s matrimonial policy did not have the desired effect; the Hittites attacked him in his own territory. From his desperate call to the Pharaoh for help, we learn that at that moment Esau was in dire straits, having been forced to cede part of his own territory to the attackers. The Pharaoh’s reply, if there was one, is not known; but as a few years later we find Esau at Seir, it must be concluded that he was defeated and had to abandon Hebron and Beersheba to his enemies.
He retreated south into the desert, in the territories assigned as feudal states to Abraham’s secondary sons, but which remained subject to the Prince of Hebron. Presumably Esau retreated with the remnants of his army, his family and relatives and a great number of servants, plus all the goods and livestock that could be saved from the invaders. It also cannot be excluded that his withdrawal from Hebron was due, not so much to an irreparable military defeat, as to a political agreement imposed on him from above. In that case, there should not have been a massacre and the inhabitants of the area would have had the chance and the time to opt for either the new or the old masters, and to save their goods.
Esau lost the best part of his territories, but he had his life and a large part of his personal property and furnishings. According to a report in Deuteronomy 2,12, “Horites used to live in Seir, but the descendants of Esau drove them out. They destroyed the Horites from before them and settled in their place...” Thus, it would seem that Seir was conquered by an armed force and that the Horite inhabitants were exterminated. But this is not the Genesis version, which contains not the slightest mention of bloodshed, and for which, in any case, there seems to have been no necessity. At that time the lord of Seir was Anah (Gen.36, 25-29), Esau’s father-in-law, whose daughter, Oholibamah, he had married. Ubi maior minor cessat: when the Prince of Hebron arrived, Anah relinquished his position in favor of the former, the Horites intermixed with the new arrivals, and from that moment on they called themselves Edomites--all this, probably, without bloodshed.