Biblica_2:Layout 1 21-11-2011 13:02 Pagina 437 437 THE DECEPTIVE PEN OF SCRIBES of this foundational northern tradition. In order to make this significance evident, it is necessary to locate the function of this insertion of the promise in 28,13*-14 within the broader exilic redaction (Vg) to which it belongs. Therefore, I will first briefly review this broader reworking in Vg, particularly in relation to the Jacob tradition to the Abraham tradition and then return to revisit the significance of the inserted promise to the Bethel account. In many ways, Judean scribes’ reworking of the northern Jacob tradition resembles the Assyrian scribes’ redirection of the earlier Babylonian tradition. After Sennacherib’s conquest of Babylonia, Assyrian scribes reworked Enūma Eliš, the foundational Babylonian epic of creation 38. One of the decisive changes made by this Assyrian reworking is that the Babylonian god Marduk was replaced by Assyrian Ashur. Furthermore, Ashur is spelled AN.ŠAR, the name of a god who preceded Marduk in the Babylonian theogony 39. The ramifications of this literary reworking are apparent: not only is Assyria’s position in the Mesopotamian mythical world secured, but also Assyria’s supremacy over Babylonia is legitimized. Against this analogy, then, the sheer fact that the Abraham tradition is placed ahead of the Jacob tradition — Jacob being Abraham’s grandson — must be taken seriously 40. Just as Assyrian scribes elevated the status of their god, Judean scribes placed Abraham at a higher position than Jacob in genealogy. To be sure, Judeans did not make a change in the realm of deities because they, unlike Assyrians, worshipped the same deity with the northern Israelites. Rather, they reworked the ancestral history, which, in fact, may have warranted a similar outcome. This subtle, but decisive, touch appears to have changed the way in which Israel’s past was remembered. Israel had always defined their iden- tity through Jacob. Judah may have been part of that Israel or at least may have longed for a placement within that Israel 41. So when the oppor- 38 For a more detailed bibliography on Sennacherib’s reform, see NA’AMAN, “Patrimony”, 11, n. 29. 39 NA’AMAN, “Patrimony”, 12. For a detailed discussion, see W.G. LAMBERT, “The Assyrian Recension of Enūma Eliš”, Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten (eds. H. WAETZOLDT – H. HAUPTMANN) (Heidelberg 1997) 77-79. 40 Here, I assume a genealogical relation in a biblical text not as something given but as socially constructed. See R.R. WILSON, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (Yale Near Eastern Researches 7; New Haven, CT 1977). 41 See CLEMENTS, Abraham and David, 44 esp. n. 34 for the citation of T.H. Robinson’s foundational study of arguments for Judah’s Canaanite origin. For an argument for Judah’s exclusion from the “all Israel” during the time of Saul’s reign, see also J.W. FLANAGAN, “Judah in All Israel”, No Famine in the Land. Studies in Honor of John L. McKenzie (eds. J.W. FLANAGAN – A.W. ROBINSON) (Missoula, MT 1975) 101-116.