This essay focuses on the presentation of Ishmael as an ‘onager man’ in Gen 16:12α and shows that conventional readings of Ishmael’s profile are wrong about the direction in which aggression is channelled in his material—he is not the aggressor, he is on the receiving end of aggression. It argues that the first statement in the oracle in Gen 16:12α receives its resolution in the act of Abraham’s banishment of Ishmael in Gen 21. This reading is predicated on the fact that animalisation was a widely-used cultural tool of mediating violence (political, economic, and social) with onagers representing a lowest register of the abused and disadvantaged segments of ancient societies (cf. Job 24, 30; Sir 13). In addition, it shows that animals, equids in particular, are featured in contexts of socially unacceptable types of interments, and Ishmael’s designation as an onager points to his disinheritance and ‘non-burial’ in Gen 21.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Gunkel, Genesis, p. 188; see also Amar, ‘The Onager and the Donkey’, p. 266.
Ibid., p. 11.
Mobely, ‘The Wild Man’, p. 221. Cf., however, kjv translates פרא אדם as ‘wild man’, which becomes important for Bartra’s argument. Bartra, Wild Men, p. 45. His chapter on the wild men tradition in the Bible is, however, a very general treatment of Biblical materials.
Ibid., p. 304. The lxx’s ἄγροικος ἄνθρωπος may also echo Esau’s representation as איש שדה in the mt of Gen 25:27, which contrasts Jacob who ‘dwelt in tents.’ I am thankful to the anonymous reviewer for this observation.
Ibid., p. 304.
Ibid., p. 90. For the identification of equids in Sumerian and Akkadian sources see J. N. Postgate, ‘The Equids of Sumer, Again’, in Meadow, Uerpmann (eds), Equids in The Ancient World, pp. 194-196.
Richardson, ‘Death and Dismemberment’, pp. 193-195. For the connection between animals and non-burial cf. also Ningal’s lament over the destruction of Ur, where in her address to the personified ‘City-Fate’ and ‘House-Fate’ she threatens them that she will lie down in the debris, and like a fallen ox, will rise no more. S. Kramer, ‘The Weeping Goddess: Sumerian Prototypes of the Mater Dolorosa’, ba 46 (1983), p. 72.
Moore, Brown in VanGemeren (ed.), New International Dictionary, p. 672.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 267 | 48 | 11 |
Full Text Views | 47 | 7 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 80 | 13 | 1 |
This essay focuses on the presentation of Ishmael as an ‘onager man’ in Gen 16:12α and shows that conventional readings of Ishmael’s profile are wrong about the direction in which aggression is channelled in his material—he is not the aggressor, he is on the receiving end of aggression. It argues that the first statement in the oracle in Gen 16:12α receives its resolution in the act of Abraham’s banishment of Ishmael in Gen 21. This reading is predicated on the fact that animalisation was a widely-used cultural tool of mediating violence (political, economic, and social) with onagers representing a lowest register of the abused and disadvantaged segments of ancient societies (cf. Job 24, 30; Sir 13). In addition, it shows that animals, equids in particular, are featured in contexts of socially unacceptable types of interments, and Ishmael’s designation as an onager points to his disinheritance and ‘non-burial’ in Gen 21.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 267 | 48 | 11 |
Full Text Views | 47 | 7 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 80 | 13 | 1 |