The ancestors’ masculinities in Genesis

Abstract

In Genesis, many of the male protagonists represent different peoples in the Levant and their relationships among each other. How those ancestors perform as ‘masculine’ men reflects the notion of the masculinity of the peoples descending from them, formulated from an Israelite/Judahite point of view. While the ancestors of Israel and Judah (Seth, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) perform a certain masculine style, which can be labelled as pious, peaceful, gentle, smart and cultivated, the ancestors of neighbouring peoples (Ham, Lot, Ishmael, Esau) are portrayed as wild or sexually perverted but also aggressive, dominant or hypermasculine. The authors perceive their own people in a historically realistic way; they are no super-men. However, their masculine performance is favoured throughout and even divinely approved.

1 Introduction

The Primeval Story (Gen. 1-11) and the Patriarchal Story (Gen. 12-36) organize the world depicted in Genesis in various ways. They present to the reader different peoples, their ancestors and their relationships from an Israelite/Judahite point of view. They disclose a fictional geographic as well as ethnic map when focusing on Israel’s/Judah’s ancestors and its neighbours’ ancestors. For example, Abraham and his descendants Isaac and Jacob stand for the people of Israel and Esau for Edom, and Lot is the ancestor of the Ammonites and Moabites, and so on. The deeds, the behaviour and the fate of these ancestors hint to the reader how the peoples who stem from them are perceived and evaluated. All these ancestors are male, and their masculinities and performances as ‘male’ men are also crucial for this evaluation. How those ancestors performed as ‘male’ men is relevant for the perception of their descendants as ‘male’ men.

But what does it mean to be a ‘male’ man besides the biological sex? To be regarded as a ‘male’ man, one has to act and perform according to specific ideas, norms, expectations and standards within a specific culture at a specific time. Masculinity – that is what we call this set of ideas, norms and so forth – is part of a culture and its agents who want to perform successfully within a specific social sector and role. ¹ It differs, develops and is performed in various ways by ‘masculine’ agents, so we might better speak of masculinities (plural!). It is a pluralistic and variable set of notions, norms, standards, and cultural practices. ² Furthermore, the ideal of masculinity cannot be actually performed. It is a regulative ideal that serves to relate and evaluate actual performances according to the norms, standards and expectations. ³ That means, one acts as ‘masculine’ man always in relation to other ‘masculine’ gender performers. ⁴ One can do it better or worse than others can; masculinities are always a public performance. The measuring standards for these masculine performances are not universal and unchangeably fixed but are formulated by a culture with its specific perception of itself and others. ⁵ Therefore, they can be used to differentiate groups, draw boundaries and establish hierarchies. Cynthia Chapman calls the use of language that differentiates groups by gender that way ‘gendered language’. ⁶ ‘[G]endered language serves as an ideological tool expressing, justifying, and maintaining asymmetrical relationships of power.’ ⁷ ‘Gendered language’ is also present in the Hebrew Bible. As Ulrich Hübner observes, to mock the neighbouring peoples and to cast them in a bad light is a widespread phenomenon in literature in the antiquity; this is also true for the Hebrew Bible. ⁸ Calum Carmichael highlights that accusations of sexual deviances and perverse sexual practices were and are commonplace in order to dislike and humiliate foreigners and other peoples. ⁹ Doing this via ‘gendered language’ is also common.

In the following sections, I want to analyse the masculine performance of the ‘male’ ancestors of Israel/Judah and their surrounding neighbours and consider them in relation to one another. Who performs his masculinity better or worse than others? Which peoples’ ancestors and, thereby, which peoples are regarded to be ‘masculine’ and in what way? Is Israel/Judah ‘more masculine’ than the Edomites or the Moabites? If so, in what way? My thesis is that Israel’s and Judah’s ancestors are not always depicted as the ‘most masculine men’ according to widespread notions of masculinity at their time. This is all the more interesting because Genesis is formulated from an Israelite/Judahite perspective on masculinity and masculine ideals. The authors of Genesis do not write a masculine counter narrative in which their own group is the most dominant and aggressive group of men. Instead, they modify widespread conceptions of masculinity in their days by upgrading other elements relevant to a masculine performance, for example, acting according to social norms and obeying the parents. Other peoples might be men in a way that follows dominance and aggression, but this is not the masculine way of life for Israel/Judah. Israel/Judah knows very well that it is not the largest fish in the pond and cannot compete when it comes to battle, aggression and domination. But they find another way to climb to the top of a masculine hierarchy. Thus, the authors of Genesis use language as an ideological tool by which to structure gender-related relationships between the in-group and the out-groups. Furthermore, the authors transfer their contemporary view of themselves and the other nations back to the normative beginnings of the nations on earth when they connect their contemporary neighbours to the Primeval Story and the Patriarchal Story. By doing so their view and perspective become universal and normative: The reader shall get the impression that the authors did not make it all up but that it is deeply rooted in the nations’ origins right from the beginning. This is another ideological technique used to justify the view, perspective and treatment of Israel’s/Judah’s neighbours.

2 Gen. 9: perverted Ham, decent Seth

In Gen. 10, we find the Table of Nations and toledot of Noah’s sons who are the ancestors of all the peoples on earth following the Great Flood. They are depicted especially (and as acting subjects only) in Gen. 9. The three sons are not regarded as individuals, but they represent different peoples as their ancestors. ¹⁰ This text helps us analyse how these three ancestors performed as ‘men’ and what this might mean for their descendants and their relationships to one another.

In Gen. 9.20-29, Noah is drunk, passes out and exposes himself (גלה‎ Ht-stem) naked or partially disrobed in his tent, ¹¹ his very private space (Gen. 9.21). ¹² His son, Ham, sees his father’s nakedness (וירא חם אבי כנען את ערות אביו‎) and tells (נגד‎ H-stem) it to his brothers, Shem and Japhet, who are outside the tent. The two brothers cover their father’s nakedness (ויכסו את ערות אביהם‎) and avoid looking at his nakedness (וערות אביהם לא ראו‎). When Noah awakes, he notices what Ham has done, curses him and blesses Shem and Japhet (Gen. 9.24-27).

It is not clear what Ham exactly did to his father when he ‘saw his nakedness’. Three suggestions are debated in scholarship:

1. He saw the actual naked Noah, especially his exposed genitals. He told his brothers, that means he mocked his father and shamed him in their eyes. ¹³

2. To see (ראה‎) one’s nakedness is a phrase parallel (Lev. 20.17) to the more often used phrase ‘to uncover’ (גלה‎) one’s nakedness in the incest prohibitions in Lev. 18.6-19; 20.11, 17, 19-21 and is a term denoting sexual intercourse. Maybe Ham slept with his father, that means penetrated him. ¹⁴ Maybe he even castrated him. ¹⁵

3. However, this phrase denotes heterosexual intercourse only (see Lev. 18.7, 8, 15, 16; 20.11, 20, 21). Maybe Ham slept with Noah’s wife, his mother, because the father had passed out. ¹⁶ One hint might be that Noah goes into ‘her tent’ (אהלה‎), that means his wife’s. ¹⁷

Option one is quite probable because Shem and Japhet avoid looking at their father and cover him. However, this does not rule out options two and three; ¹⁸ the chosen phrase ‘to see one’s nakedness’ is telling due to its prominence in the incest prohibitions. ¹⁹ Unfortunately, Noah’s reaction, which curses Canaan, Ham’s son, gives no clear hint as to the transgression either. I suppose there is a deliberate double-entendre between Noah’s actual and visual nakedness and a sexual transgression connoting an incestuous sexual intercourse, be it same-sex or heterosexual intercourse. At any rate, the contrast is clear: Ham did something to his father which his brothers deliberately avoided. Martin Arneth shows that Gen. 9.20-24 has a concentric structure that highlights the covering of Noah’s nakedness, the right act. Furthermore, Ham tells his brothers about seeing their father’s nakedness (whatever that means). He shames his father publicly. Ham sees and tells, but his brothers cover him up and do not see anything; ²⁰ they do not shame their father in public but rather restore his honour in his private space. ²¹ In addition, the double ‘backwards’ (אחרנית‎) in v.23 shows their timidity. ²² There is a clear contrast which extends also to the sphere of masculinity and masculine gender performance.

Ham challenges his father’s status as the family’s leading male. ²³ He transgresses a boundary in a sexual way (whatever that means exactly) and talks about it, shaming his father a second time. ²⁴ He trumps his father twice in this gender-related struggle for power.

‘In Genesis 9 (unlike in our own contexts) the implication is that sex with a close relative higher in the social hierarchy can be an effective way of asserting dominance and seizing authority. Ham is depicted as doing something sexually inappropriate to his father and telling his brothers because he is hoping to gain an advantage over his father and his brothers. The tactic backfires and Ham is cursed through his descendants. This is a story of inter-generational power struggle not of sexual longings on the part of either the son or the father.’ ²⁵

In the Ancient Near East, to be regarded as a ‘masculine’ man, one should be able to control one’s sexuality as well as the sexuality of the surrounding women. ²⁶ When Ham tells, he publicly shows that his father lacks that control; now Ham publicly claims the top position as leading male of the family. ²⁷ He did this when he took advantage of the helpless and desolate state of his father. In the Aqhat-Epos (KTU 1.17 I 27-34; I 45-49; II 1-8.16-23), it is a duty to support the drunken and staggering father. ²⁸ Ham neglects this expected behaviour. Shem and Japhet do not challenge their weakened and shamed father, but they try to restore his honour and do not contest his status as leading ‘masculine’ man. Shem seems to initiate their support of the drunken father; the verb ויקח‎ in Gen 9:23 is a singular form followed by the name Shem. Afterwards, Japhet is named, and the verbs are in plural form. ²⁹

What are the consequences? Ham is called Noah’s ‘youngest son’ (בנו הקטן‎) in Gen. 9.24. Before that, Ham is always placed between his brothers (e.g. Gen. 5.32; 6.10; 7.13; 9.18; 10.1), and Gen. 10.21; 11,10 relate indirectly to the sequence of Noah’s sons. Georg Fischer thinks that Ham might have been the firstborn. ³⁰ But as it is often in Genesis, the firstborn cannot live up to expectations. The designation of Ham as ‘his youngest son’ might foreshadow the curses to come and may refer to Ham’s low character. ³¹ In contrast to Ham, Shem is called ‘Japhet’s bigger/older brother’ (אחי יפת הגדול‎) in Gen. 10.21, which might refer to his initiative in Gen. 9.23 and praise his character. ³²

Was Ham’s coup d’état successful? In light of Noah’s curses and blessings, I would say he was. Noah curses Canaan, Ham’s son, but not Ham himself. Canaan shall be degraded to the lowest-ranking slave (עבד עבדים‎; עבד‎ is a leitwort in the curses and blessings ³³ ) but not his father, Ham. ³⁴ He might have gained the top position – but his descendants will face the exact opposite fate because being a slave is the opposite of being a ‘masculine’ men. The descendants of the ‘most masculine’ man in Gen. 9 will not be regarded as ‘masculine’ men anymore. In contrast, Shem and Japhet, who did not challenge their father’s male status and were subordinated to Ham, are blessed and elevated above Canaan, who shall be their slave, as is stated three times. They shall be men, whereas Canaan shall not. The use of the concept of blessing and curse to evaluate certain people and their behaviour and to change and perpetuate their status is also relevant. Blessings and curses have a powerful and persistent influence on life and reality, not just for a single individual. They work through time and space and are transpersonal. Furthermore, blessing is a kind of external evaluation because people cannot bless themselves but have to be blessed by someone else; YHWH is the perceived mediator of both, blessing and curse. ³⁵ The evaluation and status of the descendants of the three brothers is fixed by a blessing and, one could say, to a certain degree is also divinely approved.

Noah’s curses and blessings establish a hierarchy of masculinities in relation to certain peoples. ³⁶ Gen. 9.18-10.32 are at the crossroads of the ‘history’ of humanity in general and the ‘history’ of different peoples. ³⁷ On the one hand, the sons of Ham, foremost the Canaanites, might be regarded as dominant and (sexual) aggressive ‘masculine’ men, while on the other hand, the sons of Shem and Japhet might not. They are a different kind of ‘masculine’ men who gain their status by decent behaviour towards the elderly and helpless father, not a kind who takes (sexual) violent actions to heighten their own status in the struggle of competing masculinities. We see different kinds of masculinities in Gen. 9 which are evaluated: Ham might have reached the top position, but merely for the moment, not in perpetuity. By contrast, those who act according to the social norms and standards, Shem and Japhet, are elevated, not immediately, but for times to come.

Furthermore, this contrast can be observed in legal texts in Leviticus which refer to incestuous and abnormal sexual practices according to the OT’s point of view. Lev. 18.2-3; 20.22-23 (both chapters speak about incest taboos) refer to the perverted (sexual) practices as undertaken by the Canaanites and Egyptians, both peoples descended from Ham. The very similar phrase ‘to see/uncover the nakedness’ in Gen. 9.23 recurs throughout Lev. 18; 20. ³⁸ The Israelites, sons of Shem, shall refrain from them. ³⁹ ‘The cursing of Canaan is not primarily the cursing of an individual – not an individual’s condemnation to slavery – but is part of the larger struggle against what Canaan represents.’ ⁴⁰ They are not only not ‘masculine’, but also are furthermore sexually perverted unmanly men. ⁴¹ Furthermore, texts such as Josh. 9.21, 23 and 1 Kgs 9.16 show that – at least in the biblical narrative – the Israelites enslaved the Canaanite peoples in the land, respectively they regarded them as slaves.

However, Israel is a people of men, not slaves, decent and sexually ‘normal’; that is, the way the Israelites take part in the struggle of masculinities, they do not act according to a ‘domination – subjugation’ scheme. They are decent and are blessed for being so.

This view of the masculinities of Canaanites, Egyptians and Israelites/Judahites is not an absolute one. It is the Israelites’/Judahites’ view, perhaps knowing that they cannot compete with other peoples when it comes to domination, war, might and power. Regarding certain measuring standards (e.g. sexual domination), they are not at the top of the ranking of masculinities. But regarding others, they are, and in the Hebrew Bible, these other measuring standards are the more relevant ones, as we see in the blessings: The hierarchy is established via the contrast of blessing and curse and has, therefore, lasting effects.

3 Gen. 19: Moabites and Ammonites as incestuous bastards

Lot is the ancestor of the Moabites and the Ammonites. His daughters intoxicate him, have sex with their unconscious father and beget children from him, Moab and Ben-Ammi, the ancestors of the two peoples (Gen. 19.30-38). The delicate story about the daughter-father incest sheds light on the perception of the Moabites and Ammonites as ‘masculine men’ in the eyes of the Israelites/Judahites.

However, it is not just the short incest story in Gen. 19 that casts the Moabites and Ammonites in a bad ‘masculine’ light due to their ancestor and that labels them incapable and demasculinized men. There is a contrast between Abraham’s and Lot’s hospitality in Gen. 18-19. To care and protect guests and to act as a good host is also related to a masculine gender performance. ⁴² While Abraham is a good host who entertains and serves the three visitors (Gen. 18.2-8), Lot is incapable of doing this for even two. He successfully invites them – after some resistance from the visitors – and gives a party for them (Gen. 19.1-3), but he cannot protect them against the mob in the streets of Sodom. He tries to do so by offering his virgin daughters to the mob (Gen. 19.8), in other words, he is willing to give up control over their sexuality and virginity. This is something a ‘masculine’ man should cautiously avoid. ⁴³ In the end, he fails to protect his guests; instead, he must be saved by them.

Even after the destruction of Sodom, Lot does not act as a ‘masculine’ man would. He is a coward and flees to the mountain region (Gen. 19.30). This is a motive known from Assyrian texts in which the Assyrian king (the greatest of all men of course) states that the enemy king (who is anything but a ‘male’ man) cowardly fled to the mountains, in other words, far away so he could hide himself. ⁴⁴ Lot is also unable to care for his own family and to keep it running: His oldest daughter sees him incapable of organizing marital candidates so they might start a new family (Gen. 19.31). In the Hebrew Bible and in the Ancient Near East, to care and provide for one’s family is something a ‘masculine’ man should do. ⁴⁵ Lot cannot, but his daughters do – they act like men.

The daughters, especially the older one, take control of the desperate situation. One important expectation of a masculine gender performance in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East is the control of a man’s own sexuality. He does not get penetrated; he is sexually active and not passive. ⁴⁶ Lot is the exact opposite. The root שׁכב‎ ‘to lie (with), to lay down’ can denote ‘having sex’, and in this meaning, it is always construed with a masculine subject – except for Gen. 19.33, 35. ⁴⁷ His daughters treat him in bed as if he were not a man but a woman. They act like men and have the power. ⁴⁸ Jonathan Grossman observes a difference between שׁכב‎ + preposition עם‎ and שׁכב‎ + preposition את‎. The latter is more often used in violent sexual contexts and could connote rape and is used in Gen. 19.33 when the firstborn daughter sleeps with Lot. Does she rape him? The younger daughter also sleeps with Lot, but the former phrase is used; perhaps she does not rape him. ⁴⁹ However, maybe it is just a stylistic variation which creates an interesting double-entendre. Additionally, Lot has no control. Twice he does not know (ידע‎) what is happening (Gen. 19.33, 35). The root ידע‎ has also a sexual meaning ‘to have intercourse’. ⁵⁰ This double-entendre underlines Lot’s lack of sexual control and his lack of control in general. The offspring’s names maintain this incestuous sexual encounter and the disgraceful and demasculinizing event: Moab means ‘from the father’ ⁵¹ and Ben-Ammi ‘son of my kinship’ ⁵² or – very telling – ‘son of my grandfather’. ⁵³ In the view of the biblical authors, the names of the Moabites and Ammonites reveal their incestuous origin, whether historically accurate or not. ‘[T]hey [Moabites and Ammonites, MW] are, however, illegitimate, born from substitutionary mothers and a symbolically castrated father.’ ⁵⁴ In sum, the stories in Gen. 19 portray the ancestor of the Moabites and Ammonites, Lot, as somebody demasculinized, a person who has lost all control and is even raped by women. This portrait is quite harsh. Likewise, in some legal stipulations in Deuteronomy, we observe an attitude towards the Moabites and Ammonites that labels them a type of ‘failed’ men. Deut. 23.4-5 prohibits the integration of Moabites and Ammonites into the assembly of YHWH. Two reasons are mentioned for this, including: They did not welcome the Israelites with bread and water during their journey in the wilderness, and they hired Bileam to curse the people of Israel. The prohibition right before this stipulation in Deut. 23.3 prohibits the integration of a bastard (ממזר‎) into the assembly of YHWH. And Deut. 23.2 prohibits the integration of eunuchs and men with damaged testicles. The mention of the Moabites and Ammonites in this sequence of stipulations right after bastards and men whose sexual organs are damaged could indirectly shed light on their ‘damaged’ masculinity, which is not explicitly referred to. This reading is possible but not certain. Isa. 56.3-8 opts for the integration of eunuchs and strangers into YHWH’s assembly and obviously refers to the legal stipulations in Deut. 23. Isa. 56 mentions neither Moabites nor Ammonites, but its relationship to Deut. 23 is a silent hint that Isa. 56 seems to count them among the eunuchs, too. ⁵⁵ This means – read in reverse – that Israel is a people of men with ‘normal’, undamaged testicles and non-bastards; their masculinity is not ‘damaged’. ⁵⁶

Furthermore, the story about the fat king Eglon of Moab in Judg. 3.12-30 shows Israel’s ‘masculine’ superiority to Moab. Susan Niditch shows that the encounter of Ehud and Eglon is heavily laden with sexual language and connotations. Ehud hides his small sword on his thigh, the place of the male sexual organ. The sword can be read as an allusion to the penis. Furthermore, the fat of Eglon’s body encloses the sword like a vagina does a penis. The murder of Eglon is also a kind of male-male rape, in which the Moabite king is symbolically penetrated and is in the ‘feminine’ position. ⁵⁷

Randall C. Bailey suggests that this hostile attitude towards the Ammonites and Moabites is also present in other stories. The defeated Moabites in 2 Sam. 8.2 are treated anything but honourably when they are reduced by two-thirds with a kind of very strange and shocking ‘selection game’. The Ammonites are regarded by the Israelites as war waging and aggressive when they start various wars in Judg. 11; 1 Sam. 11; 2 Sam. 10; 12. The message is clear: What else would one expect from ‘bastards’ like them? ⁵⁸

We see that Israel/Judah perceived the Moabites and Ammonites as demasculinized men with an abnormal family tree. Their masculinity and even their physical sign of masculinity – the penis and the testicles – are damaged. Israel mocks these two peoples in an extremely rude and callous way. Israel’s relationship with these two peoples was very problematic (see, e.g. the oracles uttered against Moab in Amos 2.1-3; Isa. 15-16; 25.10; Jer. 48, cf. Jer. 9.24-25; 25.21; Zeph. 2.8-11; Ezek. 25.8-11). There were hostile encounters and wars which are not only mentioned in the Hebrew Bible but also are recorded in the Mesha-Stele. Although there is no uniform depiction of the two peoples, Moabites and Ammonites, in the Hebrew Bible, the tone taken towards them is mostly negative. ⁵⁹ Mocking and hostile language was, of course, reflective of these negative attitudes towards them. It seems that there is no special event or period in the history of Israel and Judah in which we could date that negative evaluation of the two neighbours. It appears to be a prejudice against the competing neighbours across the river, a mix of half-truth, mockery, rivalry and perhaps hatred, which expressed itself via language, too. That even Ben Sira in the 2^nd century BCE also had negative attitudes towards the Moabites shows this persistent prejudice against Israel’s neighbours (Sir. 36.12).

The above-mentioned texts show the gendered rhetoric and language Israel/Judah used against its neighbours to draw a masculine boundary between ‘themselves’ and ‘the others’. Of course, ‘the others’ are the effeminate and demasculinized ‘perverts’. Israel/Judah is not any of those things: The people of Israel/Judah are sexually ‘normal’, have a ‘normal’ origin and can perform like men do. In this instance, Israel/Judah does not so much portray itself as decent men but rather aims to draw a very distinct line. In this story, there is no representative of Israel/Judah present with whom Lot could be compared (although Abraham could lurk in the background). Gen. 19 relates the peoples to one another indirectly but does this in an extremely harsh way by labelling the present party – Lot and with him the Moabites and Ammonites – as ‘failed’ men. There is no further comparison to an Israelite/Judahite representative needed.

4 Gen. 16; 21: Ishmael – hypermasculine but a slave’s son

Ishmael is the ancestor of the peoples living between Egypt and Mesopotamia, namely in the desert (Gen. 25.12-18). When we focus on his presentation as a ‘masculine man’ and of his masculinity, we see that he might be regarded in some way as ‘more masculine’ than his more famous brother, Isaac.

Firstly, Ishmael is called a man comparable to an onager פרא אדם‎, a wild and untameable animal living in the desert. ⁶⁰ This character description follows a proverb that underlines his superiority in struggle, battle and war: ‘his hand will be against everybody and everybody’s hand against him. And he will sit in front of all his brothers’ faces’ (ידו בכל ויד כל בו ועל פני כל אחיו ישׁכן‎ Gen. 16.12). As Gen. 25.18 states in perfect tense, this characterization is true. However, in Hebrew, ‘hand’ (יד‎) also means ‘power’ and sometimes ‘penis’. ⁶¹ The proverb does not only connote the physical hand but also a struggle for power between men from which Ishmael will emerge successful. Therefore, Ishmael looks like a perfect example of a masculine man. Secondly, Ishmael’s job is telling. He is an archer (רבה קשׁת‎ Gen. 21.20). Hunting is a man’s sport and, furthermore, the bow is a masculine symbol. It stands for sexual potency and fertility and for strength, as that is required to stretch it. Therefore, in the iconography of the Ancient Near East, the bow is often the attribute accompanying the king, who is, of course, the most masculine man. ⁶² Thirdly, Ishmael dwells in the desert. The stories in Gen. 16; 21 are located in the desert, and Gen 21.20, 21 names it as his dwelling place. The open country, the steppe that men roam and where they hunt and fight in battles, is a masculine space in contrast to tents and cities. ⁶³ This perfectly matches the description of Ishmael as an archer in the desert.

It looks as though Ishmael can also trump his brother, Isaac. In Gen. 21.9, Sarah saw Ishmael ‘playing’ מצחק‎. This participle Pi’el m. Sg. derives from the same root as the name Isaac, namely, צחק‎. What did Ishmael do? ⁶⁴ Did he play with baby Isaac? ⁶⁵ Did he dance? ⁶⁶ Did he act like Isaac; was he ‘Isaacing’, imitating the rightful heir and thereby underlining his, Ishmael’s, status as firstborn? ⁶⁷ The root צחק‎ sometimes also has a sexual connotation (e.g. Gen. 26.8). Did the thirteen-year-old Ishmael do something sexual (to Isaac)? What he did is open to debate, but in Sarah’s eyes, Ishmael is a threat to Isaac as the preferred heir. They shall not inherit together. This shows that Ishmael might be more powerful and superior to Isaac and therefore needs to leave. Sarah and also Elohim (Gen. 21.12-13) draw a clear distinction that is not based on any reason or event but seems arbitrary. However, it is sanctioned by Elohim himself and perhaps therefore does not need to be all that reasonable to the reader. Furthermore, it is formulated from an Israelite/Judahite perspective that aligns to Isaac and therefore is anything but neutral.

Isaac, representing the people of Israel, sticks close to his parents, especially his mother. In Gen. 21, he is a baby and has to be protected by his mother. In Gen. 24.67, he comforts himself after his mother’s death with his new wife, Rebecca. Furthermore, in Gen. 27, his wife has the upper hand over her old and blind husband. Isaac is closely associated with the women around him. ⁶⁸ In the Ancient Near East and in the Hebrew Bible, there is a tendency towards male bonding as a sign of a masculine gender performance. A close relationship to women except for sexual relationships is deemed ‘effeminate’ behaviour. ⁶⁹ On the one hand, Isaac looks like an ‘effeminate’ man compared with Ishmael. On the other, Isaac is the rightful heir, born to Abraham and Sarah and not the son born as the son of a slave. Sarah underscores Ishmael’s status as the son of a slave woman in Gen. 21.10 when she refers to him as ‘this slave woman’s son’ (בן האמה הזאת‎). The masculine Ishmael, born by a slave, is driven out along with his Egyptian (!) mother Hagar and marries an Egyptian (!) woman (Gen. 21.21). Ishmael looks like the perfect masculine heir to Abraham and Sarah, and he does get his share, as he shall be fruitful and is blessed by YHWH (Gen. 17.20). But though he is ‘more masculine’, his ‘less masculine’ but free-born brother receives the full portion.

With these two depictions of the two brothers, Genesis narrates three things about Isaac’s and Ishmael’s descendants from Israel’s/Judah’s point of view. First, Israel/Judah describes itself as peaceful men. They are not equipped with the bow, they are not hunters and they do not roam the desert looking for trouble and fight. They know that they are not in first place when it comes to battles and violence; that is Ishmael’s descendants’ role: to ‘have their hands against everything and everybody and to take the first position among the brothers’ (cf. Gen. 16.12). Second, despite this ‘lack’ of a ‘perfect’ masculine gender performance, the peaceful people of Israel are the rightful heirs. They are not descendants of a slave and do not have to fight to gain their share, because they own it legally. Third, they also might be associated with the tent and women, but this shows their orientation towards a settled life and cultural techniques. They own and dwell in the land, not in the wild desert.

From a historical perspective, Thomas Naumann highlights that almost no contacts or conflicts occurred between the Israelites/Judahites and the Ishmaelites, because their territories were not neighbouring. ⁷⁰ This might be a reason the masculine portrayal of Ishmael is quite favourable. Whereas, the Moabites and Ammonites, for example, who are neighbours right across the Jordan River, are depicted in an extremely negative way.

5 Hypermasculine, wild Esau – ‘effeminate’, cultivated Jacob

The case of Esau is to some degree similar to that of Ishmael but also different. Esau is the ancestor of Edom, a people portrayed in the Hebrew Bible as a kind of arch-villain in the eyes of Israel/Judah. The twins Esau and Jacob are contrasted in various ways, and this extends, too, to their presentation and relation as more or less masculine men. We observe again that although Esau is portrayed in a very masculine way according to widespread notions of masculinity, it is Jacob whose masculinity is depicted as that of a cultivated, smart and peaceful man. As with Ishmael and Isaac, we find a kind of subversion in the stories about the twins.

Before the birth of the twins, Rebecca feels the struggle of both in her womb and asks for an oracle (Gen. 25.22-23). YHWH informs her that the older one (רב‎) will serve (עבד‎) the younger one (צעיר‎). The two Hebrew words ‘old’ and ‘young’ do not only refer to age; they also relate to social status. ⁷¹ The reader takes on the notion before the birth that social norms and hierarchies might be overturned. But this is not just an oracle about the two brothers but is also about two peoples (לאם‎); therefore, the broader perspective on the history of two peoples is present right from the very start. The outcome is clear from the beginning, and it is also divinely approved and sanctioned. But the outcome is yet to come. The oracle calls Esau, the firstborn, רב and Jacob צעיר‎. It distinguishes them by their social standing, too. The older, mightier and more honourable is Esau, not Jacob.

Esau is hairy when he exits the womb (Gen. 25.25). Full hair and beard are physical signs of a masculine man. ⁷² They symbolize strength, virility and honour. Iconographical evidence is widespread. One just has to turn to Assyrian reliefs with full-bearded und long-haired kings, covered over and over in artistic locks. Furthermore, Esau’s other name, Edom, derives from ‘adom’ (אדם‎) ‘red, reddish’ (Gen. 25.30), a colour also associated with strength, honour and power. ⁷³ Right from the start, Esau looks like a very masculine man and a potential candidate for a successful career. Jacob does not. His appearance is not mentioned except for one thing: ‘Look, my brother Esau is a hairy man but I am a smooth man’ (Gen. 27.11). When he and his mother try to fool Isaac, they need to wrap a goat’s fur around Jacob’s arms, neck and throat (Gen. 27.16). He has neither body hair nor facial hair. In Assyrian royal iconography, for example, the beardless men are always eunuchs. ⁷⁴ The use of Hebrew ‘smooth’ חלק‎ does not only mean that Jacob has no facial hair but also can also denote that he is a cunning and deceptive person who can fool and trick others ⁷⁵ – as he does in fact with his mother’s assistance. He might be hairless, but he is not stupid. Does this mean, though, that the hairy Esau is not the smartest? Jacob also has a distinct voice from that of his brother, which his blind father recognizes (Gen. 27.22) – is Esau’s voice deep like a man’s voice, whereas Jacob’s high voice is like a woman’s?

Besides their bodies and looks, there are more ‘masculine’ differences between Esau and Jacob concerning their respective professions. Esau is a hunter with a bow, ⁷⁶ similar to Ishmael. His profession and his tools are strongly associated with masculine strength, sexual potency and power. Jacob is a cook. While Esau goes on a hunt (ציד‎), Jacob cooks a meal (זיד‎/נזיד‎). The text in Gen. 25.27-34 uses this play on words and similar sounds to contrast the two brothers. Esau is out in the field (שׂדה‎), a space associated with masculinity (he even smells like it and therefore smells like a man, Gen. 27.27), whereas Jacob lives in the tents, a space associated with femininity. ⁷⁷ Esau is his father’s darling, Jacob his mother’s (Gen. 25.27-29). Esau clings to men, while Jacob stays with women. This short portrayal in Gen. 25 shows Jacob as closely associated with women and feminine spaces and techniques; he is the opposite of his brother.

Esau may act more like a masculine man according to widespread expectations, but he despises social norms and accepted cultivated behaviour. He is willing to sell his right and status as firstborn son to his younger brother for a meal (Gen. 25.29-34). This shows that Esau lacks self-control when he is hungry – something a man should exercise. ⁷⁸ The narrator states that Esau despised (בזה‎) the status as firstborn (Gen. 25.34). Furthermore, Esau marries Hittite women, in other words, Canaanite women (Gen. 26.34), making life bitter for his parents (Gen. 26.35). Rebecca is so frustrated that she could die (Gen. 27.46), and both parents regard those women as bad (רעות‎) (Gen. 28.8). Esau shows no respect for his parents’ values. Jacob is the opposite; he obeys his parents, and he holds their wishes and the institution of the firstborn in high esteem. We could say that Jacob is a cultivated man who acts according to social standards and socially expected behaviour. This again fits with another possible notion of Esau’s hairiness, which can also be associated with wild animality and a distancing from society and civilization. That he is covered all over in hair might show physically his uncivilized attitude. ⁷⁹

Despite this clear-cut contrast, Jacob has the upper hand twice: He uses his brother’s physical appetite to gain his status as firstborn son and tricks Isaac with his mother’s help (he needs a woman’s initiative, support and help!) to even procure the blessing normally reserved for the firstborn son. In both cases, it is the use of ‘feminine’ techniques, cooking and the ability to prepare clothing, which trumps the ‘masculine’ hunter qualities. The tent wins against the field and the cooking pot against the bow, the ‘effeminate’ man against the ‘hypermasculine’ man. This subversion is obvious in the blessing and the curse Isaac utters. The blessing for Jacob, disguised as firstborn, gives him everything a sedentary farmer and inhabitant of a cultivated landscape needs and additionally puts him in a superior position compared with everybody else (Gen. 27.28-29). Esau’s share is different: His blessing is clearly appropriate to a life far away from the cultivated landscape, and he has to earn his living with the sword (Gen. 27.39-40), also a very masculine symbol. On closer inspection, we see that Isaac wanted to give Esau a blessing that perfectly fit with Jacob’s way of life but not with Esau’s. The fraud enabled the blessing to go to the right person, Jacob, and the curse to go to the right person, Esau. The blessing was always meant to come upon the ‘effeminate’ man and not the ‘hypermasculine’. This means that it is not just the double fraud that puts Jacob in the first position ahead of his brother but also the blessing. The blessing could never work with a ‘hypermasculine’ person because it fits with the ‘less masculine’ – according to widespread notions of masculinity. The blessing, in other words, a lasting transformation of life and reality, subverts the position in the hierarchy of masculinities in an unexpected way but not by accident. In fact, it was already clear from the oracle in Gen. 25.23: The mighty one (רב‎) will serve (עבד‎) the inferior one (צעיר‎). The oracle predicted it, and the blessing actually makes it happen.

This subversion is not total and does not turn everything concerning masculine expectations, models and notions upside down. When Jacob returns to the Promised Land, he fears his brother, his power and brutality. He delivers a huge number of gifts (a kind of tribute?) to his brother, even before they meet, and prostrates seven times before him (Gen. 33.1-17). The ‘hypermasculine qualities’ have not transferred to Jacob but remain with Esau. ⁸⁰ The subversion is not a transformation of a formerly ‘less masculine’ man to a ‘hypermasculine’ one. It is a newly established relationship between two distinctive masculinities within a specific narrative.

The story of two brothers, Esau and Jacob, sheds light on the Israelites’/Judahites’ self-perception as ‘men’. On the one hand, they are anything but ‘classical’ masculine men who are at the top of a hierarchy of masculinities. The sharp contrast between Esau and Jacob shows that Edom, Esau’s descendants, are at first glance dominant and ‘more masculine’ men. However, they also are unsophisticated and wild men who do not perform well in a culturally sophisticated society. They despise its norms, have rough and uncouth manners and live outside the cultivated landscape. Furthermore, they are not as smart as the Israelites/Judahites are. Israel presents itself in the figure of Jacob not as hypermasculine but as a kind of cunning, well-behaved and distinguished man, skilled in cultural techniques which enable Israel /Judah to have the upper hand in the end.

The relationship to the Edomites living south of the Judean territory was not an easy one. The portrayal of an aggressive Esau in Genesis also fits with the notion of the Edomites in other texts as aggressive (e.g. Num. 20.14-21). ⁸¹ It seems the Edomites were engaged in copper mining in the southern Negev together with the Egyptians and under their control. This profitable enterprise could be one of the reasons for the rivalry between Israel/Judah and Edom. ⁸² Furthermore, trading routes lead through that area. It seems that in the 9^th and 8^th century BCE, Israel and Judah were very eager to control the southern Negev, namely the Edomite territory. Under Assyrian and Babylonian rule, Edom was a loyal vassal and could expand its territory to the east. In post-exilic texts, there are two accusations against Edom: They did not intervene when Jerusalem was destroyed, and they even felt joy about its destruction. This does not mean that Edom actively took part in the Babylonian attack on Jerusalem, but it shows Edom’s passivity. ⁸³ Did the Judahites regard the Edomites as cowards for that? Esau’s portrayal as a hunter and man living in the open field might be an echo of the Edomites’ nomadic lifestyle in desert areas. It seems that they established a more sedentary lifestyle and a state-like infrastructure with the Assyrian conquest in the second half of the 8^th century BCE when Israel had already been a well-organized state under the Omride and Nimshide dynasties for about one hundred years. In addition, the kingdom of Judah in the 9^th and 8^th century BCE could expand its territory and was more state-like and organized than the Proto-Arabian and Edomite tribes in the Negev and Aravah were. ⁸⁴ Maybe the portrayal of Esau as an uncivilized man who despises social norms and who is not skilled in cultural techniques underlines and reflects this cultural superiority of the Israelites/Judahites.

6 Some are perverts, some wild men. Masculinities tied to perspective

When we examine the four cases in Genesis, we observe some interesting patterns. Gen. 9 and Gen. 19 focus on sexual deviances which portray Canaanites (and the descendants of Canaan, like the Egyptians), Moabites and Ammonites as sexually perverted males – sometimes successful males (Gen. 9 for Ham, but not his descendants), sometimes failed males (as for Lot in Gen. 19), but always sexually perverted. These peoples are not as closely related to the Israelites/Judahites as the descendants of Ishmael and Esau are. Maybe they were labelled sexually perverted because they were perceived as only distantly related, so the accusations could not taint the Israelites/Judahites. Turning to the descendants of Ishmael and Esau, there is no indication that these peoples are depicted in any way as sexually perverted or de-masculinized. The closer kinship, it seems, is set in a contrast to ‘nature/wilderness’ vs. ‘culture’. The brothers, Ishmael and Esau, are depicted as ‘hypermasculine’ men but wild and to a certain degree uncivilized and not very well skilled in cultural techniques. They live in the open field and desert and not in the cultivated landscape. This difference might comport well with the living conditions of the two peoples in very arid desert areas well. Why were the Canaanites, Moabites and Ammonites not additionally labelled wild and uncultivated men? These peoples did not live in desert areas but in the same region as Israel and Judah or under very similar conditions. It could also be that their living conditions and cultural standards were at least as high as those of Israel and Judah and, therefore, it would have been implausible to depict them as uncultivated.

The four distinct cases have similarities as well as differences. All cases are different in terms of the ‘other’ (Ham/Canaan, Lot, Ishmael, Esau) as well as the ‘peer’ (Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob). There are no two identical masculinities. There is no clear-cut ‘Israelite/Judahite masculinity’ but at least four different masculinities, which have some aspects in common. There is no clear-cut ‘other masculinity’ either but at least four different masculinities, which have some aspects in common. There is a variety and a spectrum within the portrayed ‘Israelite/Judahite’ and ‘non-Israelite/Judahite’ masculinities.

Why is there no such thing as a clear-cut ‘Israelite/Judahite’ or ‘non-Israelite/Judahite’ masculinity? We have to consider that masculinity as gender notion and performance in general is intersectional. How one performs as a ‘masculine’ man in one way or another also depends on physical ability, age, social role and class within a social hierarchy, ethnicity, gender, sex and so on. ⁸⁵ There might be a very masculine example like Ishmael, but he is connected to the social class of a slave-born man and, therefore, ultimately not regarded as ‘very masculine’. There might be sexually perverted men (e.g. the Canaanites) but they are not labelled uncivilized and wild. On our tour through Genesis, we observe that there is no such thing as ‘masculinity’, but it is always something articulated that can result in different configurations. It is like a series of puzzles of individual masculine portrayals each consisting of different pieces. Considering intersectionality as crucial for the analysis of masculinities sharpens the realisation that there is also no such thing as a ‘masculine hierarchy’ comparable to soccer tables with one top position and gradual scaled differences until the bottom is reached. To continue the analogy, there are different soccer tables which intersect and produce not a linear hierarchy of ‘masculinities’ but a complex three-dimensional room of masculinities and their relations to each other. Therefore, there is no clear top-down orientation but a complex multidimensional space in which hierarchy is always related to a perspective, which in the case of Genesis is of course the Israelites’/Judahites’ perspective.

Considering the different masculinities of the ancestors in Genesis and their intersectional configuration helps distinguish Israel’s/Judah’s ‘masculinities’ and gender-performances in a more nuanced way. The four pairs of masculine performances and relations – each one different within itself as well as in relation to the other pairs – allows us to define a ‘room’ for Israelite/Judahite masculine performances (plural!) which could be labelled a ‘style’ of masculinities but not a distinct, clear-cut and well-defined masculinity.

7 What kind of men to choose?

The question arises as to why the aggressive, dominant and ‘more masculine’ (at least according to widespread standards in the Ancient Near East) men are disapproved of in Genesis and those men with subordinate or even sometimes quite ‘effeminate’ masculinities have the upper hand. One might think it would fit better if the Israelites’ ancestors were perfect masculine men.

Susan Haddox follows some scholars’ lead who think that the only perfect ‘man’ with a perfect masculinity in the Hebrew Bible is YHWH. YHWH is the most dominant and most aggressive ‘man’ in relation to any other mortal man. ‘Hypermasculine’ human men would challenge YHWH’s status because a hypermasculine man would never subordinate himself to another man and to YHWH. The patriarchs’ masculinity is imperfect, so the patriarchs can easily subordinate themselves to YHWH, the perfect ‘male man’. ⁸⁶ Haddox’s suggestion is interesting, and she has a point: It is never the most masculine man – according to widespread standards – with whom the people of Israel, YHWH’s people, identifies itself. But Haddox does not include Gen. 9 and Gen. 19 in her observations. There we have on the one hand the very masculine man Ham whose descendants shall not be men anymore and, on the other hand, Lot with his descendants, Moabites and Ammonites, whose masculine performances are mocked in a very extreme way. The Canaanites (and the descendants of Canaan like the Egyptians), Moabites and Ammonites are much less masculine men than the Israelites/Judahites are. This does not fit Haddox’s thesis. Furthermore, the case of the very masculine Ishmael who is put in a very positive light, even theologically (see Gen. 16.10-12; 17.18-20; 21.13, 17-20), ⁸⁷ challenges her position. Haddox also underestimates the intersectional constructions of masculinities.

Haddox’s approach is certainly correct, but I want to nuance. It is important to consider not merely the relationship of ‘human masculinity’ to the ‘divine masculinity’ (if there is such a thing), but the internal relationship between human masculinities and their hierarchy on the one hand and the relationship of these masculinities to the deity on the other hand. These two levels of relationship should be observed and differentiated if we want to avoid the a priori notion that YHWH approves human gender hierarchies in the first place, even if he does not choose according to those hierarchies. Following Haddox’s line of thought, YHWH would just pick a subordinate masculinity out of a human-made top-down hierarchy of masculinities. Furthermore, YHWH would simply choose just a ‘subordinate’ masculinity, even though several ‘subordinate’ masculinities also relate to one another. There is a differentiated rank within ‘subordinate masculinities’, which means that some masculinities are ‘more subordinated’ than others and can also be subordinated to other subordinated masculinities. Therefore, it is more nuanced than Haddox suggests. This can be shown by the above-mentioned model of a multidimensional ‘room’ of masculinities and their relationships, in which hierarchy is always tied to perspective.

At the human level, we observe that the Israelites/Judahites in Genesis portray themselves (through their ancestors) not as the most dominant and aggressive men but as decent, peaceful, civilized and cultivated men. This kind of masculinity is set among others. Sometimes they perform better (e.g. Moabites and Ammonites) or worse (e.g. Esau, Ishmael) by widespread standards, but they always perform as decent, peaceful and civilized men. They have their own masculine style, and this style is approved of in Genesis by YHWH (and according to the blessings, curses and oracles [Gen. 9; 25; 27]), and by themselves because Genesis is their literary creation. Therefore, we can say that it is not the human hegemonic masculinity that does not suit YHWH as the ‘most male man’ (if we could apply this to YHWH); it is the specific masculine style performed by the Israelites’/Judahites’ ancestors that does suit YHWH and that YHWH prefers. It is not about rank within a human-made hierarchy of masculinities; it centres on a certain type of masculinity and its style. One could say that in Genesis a specific kind of man is favoured: The decent and gentle man who is cultivated and skilled – the most ‘civilized’ man.

To be clear, this is not the subversion and destruction of masculine gender hierarchies; it is very clear that these are upheld in Gen. 19 wherein the Moabites and Ammonites get their share and are demasculinized in a very rude way but also in the other narratives which work with the widespread standards and expectations of a ‘masculine’ performance. And to be clear again: Genesis is a document of Israel’s and Judah’s self-perception and their self-demarcation from other groups nearby. The authors of Genesis find a way to present their own group in a very positive masculine light without losing sight of the reality that Israel is a small fish in the pond. ⁸⁸ They perceive themselves not as God’s chosen super-men but rather as God’s chosen gentle-men.