Biblica_2:Layout 1 21-11-2011 13:02 Pagina 440 440 KOOG P. HONG Thus far, we have reviewed the significance of the Judean reworking of the Jacob tradition, focusing on Jacob’s relative position to Abraham. The insertion of 28,13*-14 in the Bethel account, then, must be understood in view of this broader Judean redirection in Vg, insofar as the inserted promise belongs to the same redactional stage. In fact, this seemingly minor insertion, viewed in light of the previous discussion, appears quite significant. By means of this insertion of Abraham’s promise, that which once served as a founding myth of the national shrine of the Northern Kingdom transforms into one of many episodes in which Abraham’s promise is transferred, first to Isaac (Gen 26,2-5; 24-25) and now to Jacob 48. The Bethel account is de- tached from its original geographic, religious, and cultural setting and now placed within the realm of the Patriarchal narrative. It is no longer the Sitz im Leben but the Sitz in der Literatur 49 that dictates the meaning of this account. The story no longer exists to support the glory of the northern Israelite na- tional sanctuary and its ancestor; it extends its life only within the new nar- rative that purports to honor Abraham as the founder of Israel. It is intriguing to compare this Judean reinterpretation with the earlier Is- raelite appropriation of the supposed Canaanite hieros logos tradition. It was not originally Israelite tradition; Israelites took over the existing Canaanite tradition around Bethel 50, as the divine epithet “El” indicates, and claimed ownership of the tradition, through which they defined their central religious identity in the name of Jacob. Yes, history repeats itself. Now it is the Judeans who take over this northern Israelite account and redirect it in the name of Abraham. Judeans may have been marginalized by their powerful northern neighbor in history; in literature, however, they rebel against the founding tra- dition of the hegemony that once was used to oppress them. Claiming own- ership of this tradition, then, is an important part of the program by which Judeans reconceptualize their role as the new Israel. As the victor writes his- tory, it was the story of the survived Judah that shaped the memory of the past for generations to come. * * * So why did Judeans call themselves “Israel”? To Na’aman’s proposal that Judeans actively took over the title “Israel” when it became suddenly available after the fall of Samaria, I have attempted to add literary evidence as an important piece of the puzzle that completes the supposed Judean program of taking over Israelite identity and heritage. 48 Cf. Gen 35,9-15, a Priestly reiteration of the same idea. 49 For the first use of the term, see W. RICHTER, Exegese als Literaturwis- senschaft. Entwurf einer alttestamentlichen Literaturtheorie und Methodolgie (Göttingen 1971) 117, 125, 148. 50 See, e.g., C. WESTERMANN, Genesis 12-36. A Commentary (Minneapolis, MN 1985) 453.