Royal Sons and Their Maternal Uncles

 

Nilotic populations with similar kingship stories and patterns.

Alice C. Linsley

In Genesis, Rebekah's favorite son is Jacob, and she pushes him to steal the right to rule from his (half-brother?) Esau. She arranges for Jacob to receive from Isaac the blessing due to Isaac's proper heir. This attempt fails, and Jacob is sent away to live with his maternal uncle Laban (avunculocal residence). 

Jacob's time with Laban is a mixed tale of hardship, efforts at advancement, and affirmation of kinship. He becomes an indentured servant until he is able to achieve sufficient wealth in livestock to become established in another location. This stirs the jealousy of Laban's sons who say, “Jacob has taken away all that was our father’s, and from what was our father’s he has acquired all this wealth.” (Gen. 31)

Jacob sees that Laban's attitude toward him is no longer favorable, and secretly he flees with his two wives and their households. When Laban discovers that Jacob has left with his daughters and his ancestor figurines (teraphim), he goes after him.

When Laban catches up to Jacob, he asserts his avuncular authority, saying: "It is in my power to do some evil to you, but last night the God of your father told me, 'Be careful what you say to Jacob whether good or evil." (Gen. 31:29)

Then Laban asks Jacob, "What did you do? You deceived me, carried off my daughters like you would war captives, ran away from me secretly, and stole from me by not keeping me informed. Otherwise, I could have sent you off with a party and singing, accompanied by a band playing tambourines and harps. As it is, you didn’t even allow me to kiss my grandchildren and daughters goodbye! You’ve acted foolishly." (Gen. 31:26-29)

Clearly, Jacob and his maternal uncle Laban have a paradoxical relationship characterized by hostility and hospitality, or competition and communion. This has parallels in the narratives of the Shilluk, the Anyuak, the Alur, and the Rwanda. In the social structure of these Nilotic peoples there is a centrally important royal clan, and each population has kingship narratives similar to the story of Jacob and Laban. 

In his paper "Nilotic Kings and Their Mothers’ Kin", Godfrey Lienhardt explains that "the approved pattern for the relations between a man and his maternal kin, especially his mother's brother, is based upon a theory that greater kindness and indulgence prevail between kin of these categories than between paternal kin." How then are we to explain royal narratives about hostility between the early kings and their maternal kin? 

The story of Jacob and Laban is instructive. As a sent-away son, Jacob poses a threat because sent-away sons seek territories of their own. Laban finally accepts Jacob's departure, assuming that Jacob is returning to his "father's house" (Gen. 31:30). However, Jacob does not remain for long in Esau's territory in ancient Edom. He eventually settles in Shechem where he buys land (Gen. 33:19).

Among Jacob's Hebrew people, royal wives resided in separate settlements. This is evident with Abraham's two wives. Sarah, the half-sister bride, resided in Hebron, and Keturah, the cousin bride, resided in Beersheba. When they came of age, the first-born sons of the cousin brides were sent-away to live among their maternal relatives. The pattern is evident with Rebekah, Isaac's cousin bride, and Jacob, who was sent-away to his maternal uncle.

Godfrey Lienhardt notes the pattern of sent-away sons in the paper cited above. These royal sons are described as "planted out" and "When they are grown, the princes are rivals for the kingship." (p. 30)

Among the Shilluk, the founder of the royal lineage is Dak. Like Esau, he is presented as strong and aggressive, and a mighty hunter of crocodiles. Like Jacob, Dak's half-brother Cal prefers the company of women in the settlement and is less interested in the kingship (op. cit, p. 32).

It appears that the marriage and ascendancy pattern of the biblical Hebrew resembles patterns found among Nilotic royal lineages, and yet it is also distinctive and unique.

Related reading: Sent-Away Sons; Nilotic Kings and Their Mothers' Kin on JSTOR; Jacob's Journeys; Sons Who Stayed Home; The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew; The Marriage and Ascendancy Pattern of Abraham's People

Why Rachel Didn't Trust Laban

Alice C. Linsley

Rachel had the misfortune of having a father who few people trusted. Even Leah, Laban's other daughter, didn't trust him.  When Jacob proposed a plan to escape from servitude to Laban, his two wives were quick to support him, saying: "Are we still likely to inherit anything form our father's estate?  Does he not think of us as outsiders now? For not only has he sold us, but he has completely swallowed up the money he got for us." (Gen. 31:14,15, NJB)

Rachel and Leah had seen how Laban treated Jacob. As Jacob explained, "You yourselves know that I have worked for your father with all my might, and that your father has tricked me, changing my wages ten times over..." (31:6, NJB)

As Rachel and Leah were Jacob's cousin brides, one of them should have named their first born son after Laban.  The fact that neither did this suggests the possibility that neither son was in line to inherit Laban's territory. It is also possible that they declined their prerogative of naming their first-born sons after their father because by doing so they designated the sons as Laban's possession.[1]

Jacob and his wives were aware that Laban didn't plan to honor any agreements that might strengthen Jacob's position as a ruler.  Laban had other sons and they were jealous of Jacob's successes. These sons were saying, "Jacob has taken everything that belonging to our father; it is at our father's expense that he has acquired all this wealth." (31:1, NJB)  Rachel and Leah's brothers were watching for the right moment to deal with Jacob, for Jacob had to make plans with his wives out in the fields where he kept his flocks (31:4).  That way they wouldn't be overheard.

The plan involved leaving Paddan-Aram while Laban was away shearing sheep. Laban formed a war party with his brothers and went after Jacob.  When he located him, Laban pitched his tents on Mount Gilead from which he has a view of Jacob's tents on the hills below.  Laban was extremely angry because he felt that Jacob had stolen his daughters and the ancestor figurines which he had inherited from Terah, called Teraphim.  His thoughts were murderous, but the Lord cautioned Laban in a dream not to cause trouble with Jacob (31:24). For all his faults, Laban apparently feared God enough to seek a non-violent resolution.

According to Hurrian records, ancestor figurines [2] were passed to the son who would be heir to the father's territory. Laban intended that the Teraphim would go to one of his first-born sons. [3]  Jacob would never rule over Laban's territory, but there was still the threat of Leah's first-born who was named for the great Afro-Asiatic ruler Reu, son of Peleg in whose time the tribes became geographically separated.  At some point after Peleg, the Arameans became jealous of their control in the north while their brother Horites controlled the southern territories. The time of division began about 5 generations before Abraham, and involved a geographical separation, not a change in the marriage pattern of these ruling houses.

By taking the ancestor figurines, Rachel hoped to gain legal leverage for her first-born son in the southern territories. Rachel's first-born son was Joseph. Might this have given Joseph's brothers greater motivation to get rid of him?

This explains why Jacob named Rachel's second son Ben-Jamin, which means "son of the south." It was in the south, in Judah, that the promise of Genesis 3:15 would be fulfilled [4]. See diagram below.

This also explains why, according to Judges 1:21, the men of Benjamin did not force out the Jebusites who lived in Jerusalem.  The Jebusites and the Dedanites were southern kin to Benjamin.

NOTES

1. The famed Cultural Anthropologist Claude Levi-Stauss observed in 1949 that mother and son do not belong to the same clan in a patrilineal system of descent. The bride belongs to the house of her husband, but the first-born son of the couin or niece bride belongs to the house of the bride's father.  Example from the Genesis 4 and 5 King Lists: While Lamech's daughter belonged to the house of her husband, Methuselah, her first-born son belonged to her father's house. That was indicated by naming the son Lamech after his maternal grandfather.

2. The ancient Sao culture of Chad and Cameroon produced elaborate human figure sculptures, representing deified ancestors. Carbon-14 dates for the Sao figurines range from the 5th century BC to the 18th century AD. The Sao are the ancestors of the Sara who make up to 30% of Chad's population. About a sixth of them are Christians.  The Sara (meaning to laugh) have a 3-tribe confederation like that of Abraham's African ancestors.

3.  Afro-Asiatic chiefs had two wives and therefore almost always had two first-born sons.

4. Gen. 3:15 is the first divine promise made in the Bible. It involves the promise made to "the Woman' that she would bring forth a Son who would crush the head of the Serpent.