Laban and Jacob’s Covenant at Gal-ed

A Summary of the Story

After Jacob slips away from his father-in-law Laban, the latter chases Jacob down and they meet in a border area between Aram and the Transjordan (Gen 31). After a heated exchange, the two men come to an agreement that has a number of steps. The exact reason for each step is unclear—for example: What is the pillar for? What is the relationship between the oath and the mound? Moreover, the wordiness of Laban’s oath (vv. 48-53), which takes up a number of verses, makes the process difficult to follow. Here is a summary of the steps:

• Laban suggests they make a pact. (v. 44)
• Jacob sets up a pillar. (v. 45)
• Jacob has his brothers set up a mound of stones. (v. 46)
• They eat a meal near the mound. (v. 46)
• Laban and Jacob name the mound. (v. 47)
• Laban declares that the mound (and the pillar?) is a witness. (v. 48)
• The name of the mound is explained (and the pillar?). (vv. 48-49)
• Laban threatens Jacob if mistreats his daughters. (v. 50)
• Laban declares the oath that neither Jacob nor Laban will pass by the mound with hostile intent towards the other. (vv. 51-52)
• Laban makes the oath in the name of the gods of Abraham and Nahor. (v. 53)
• Jacob makes the oath in the name of his father’s God. (v. 53)

Part 1

The Septuagint versus the Masoretic Text

Looking at the way this account is told in the Septuagint (LXX) and in the Masoretic Text (MT), we can see that this account was already confusing to the ancient scribes.^[1] Below is a table comparing the verses; verses appearing in one text but not the other are marked in bold, while cases of variation are marked in italics.

What May We Learn from these Differences?

Ignoring the difference in verse 53—which will be dealt with in part 2—the differences between the LXX and the MT here don’t seem to represent any major theological issues or interpretive maneuvers. Instead, they seem to reflect different revisions by scribes who attempted to clarify an earlier form of the text. These scribes made insertions or deletions, thereby creating multiple editions of the same story. ^[13] Some of these may have originated in marginal notes and clarifications that found their way into the main text.^[14]

Part 2

The God or Gods of Abraham and Nahor

Other variants likely derive from theological considerations, as in v. 53. The main problem with the verse is that Laban seems to be invoking multiple gods, the gods of Abraham and Nahor, in an oath with the founding father of Israel.

The differences between the texts are as follows:

• The MT and the SP both have a gloss lacking in the LXX explaining the meaning of “the god(s) of Abraham” and “the god(s) of Nahor.”
  • The MT’s version of the gloss is, “the god(s) of their fathers (אלהי אביהם).”
  • The SP’s version of the gloss is, “the god of Abraham (אלהי אברהם).”
• In the LXX and the MT, the gods of Abraham and Nahor will judge—in the plural (ישפטו); the SP has the singular verb (ישפט), implying that it is the same god.

Stage One – The LXX

From a text critical perspective, the oldest extant version of the text appears to be that found in the LXX, since, in general, scribes add glosses to texts but they rarely subtract them. According to this text, Laban is invoking a god or set of gods on each side of the covenant—the god(s) of Abraham for Jacob and the god(s) of Nahor for Laban—to ensure that each side keeps his side of the bargain.

In this oldest form of the text, the Torah avoids the problem of Jacob swearing by multiple gods by having Jacob swear instead in the name of his father’s God and not the gods to whom Laban refers. Nevertheless, from the fact that the gloss was added, we can see that the later scribes of the MT and the SP felt this was insufficient.

Stage Two – The MT

The earliest form of the gloss would seem to be that found in the MT. This gloss clarifies that the gods to whom Laban refer are the ancestral gods of the family, the gods of Laban’s and Jacob’s family. It is unclear what the scribe who added this gloss was trying to accomplish, since it seems to state the obvious, though perhaps he wanted to emphasize that Laban was trying to find common ground with Jacob. In other words, Laban is not invoking one god for each—Abraham’s god for Jacob and Nahor’s god for Laban—but their common ancestral gods.

Although this would not remove the problem of Laban referring to multiple gods, it makes Laban’s reason for suggesting this formula more palatable. Nevertheless, Jacob has no choice but to “politely decline” Laban’s suggestion, and swear in the name of his father’s God.

Stage Three – The SP

As the MT’s gloss does little to solve the problem of Jacob’s participation in an oath where one side swears in the name of multiple gods, the editors of the SP further revised the text to ensure that any possible connection between Jacob and a polytheistic oath would be erased. Thus, they made two slight adjustments in the text.

• They changed the word “their fathers (אביהם)” to “Abraham (אברהם)”—a switch of one letter only in the Hebrew.^[16]
• They changed the word “judge” from plural (ישפטו) to singular (ישפט)—also a change of only one letter.

With these adjustments, the meaning of the verse becomes completely different. In the SP, Laban is stating that both Nahor and Abraham worshiped the same God—the one God—and that he (Laban) suggests that the two of them swear by this one God who will judge them if either break the treaty. Thus, Laban’s oath is monotheistic and poses no theological problem. Ironically, the difficulty with the SP text is that Laban’s suggestion is now so acceptable that it is hard to understand why Jacob rejects it!