פחז PAXAZ, Gen. 49:4

For discussions which focus upon specific words, their origin, meaning, relationship to other ANE languages.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

פחז PAXAZ, Gen. 49:4

Post by Isaac Fried »

KJV translates פחז כמים PAXAZ KA-MAYIM of Gen. 49:4 as "unstable as water." It seems to me that what is meant is 'devious, erratic, shifty', as water is, turning to flow the easy way.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
jacob
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:39 am
Location: Jamaica

Re: פחז PAXAZ, Gen. 49:4

Post by jacob »

Shalom Isaac,

I note and concur with yout observation. As well,Reuben's deliberate breaking of the Torah is being rebuked by his father Jacob (Deut 27:20) in this monologue. The account of Gen 35:22 does not reveal much especially as it relates to Jacob's response. A response can however be deduced from his rejection of Reuben as his heir. A strong case for rejection is instability. Water can be snow, cloud or rain (solid, gas, liquid) depending on the environment. As firstborn, Reuben was too often swayed by his brothers. This argument supports the KJV translation.
Lascelles James
Jamaica
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: פחז PAXAZ, Gen. 49:4

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Isaac Fried and Lascelles James:

For reasons that will be explored in this post, PXZ at Genesis 49: 4 must mean: “harmful flooding”. But first let’s consider your suggestions.

The best way to figure out the meaning of the colorful water metaphor at Genesis 49: 4 is to consider what Reuben’s unforgivable sin was. Reuben was neither “devious”, nor “erratic”, nor “shifty”, though Jacob himself was all those things in his dealings with Laban. That cannot be the meaning of PXZ. Nor is a technical violation of Moses’s later laws of incest a factor here [Reuben’s mother was Leah; Bilhah, who stayed in Reuben’s tent one night, was the servant of Leah’s sister Rachel, and in no way was a mother figure to Reuben]; by marrying Leah and Rachel, Jacob himself was blatantly guilty of a full-fledged (not merely a technical) violation of Moses’s prohibition against marrying two sisters (Leviticus 18: 18). Nor was Reuben “too often swayed by his brothers”; on the contrary, Reuben bravely forbade his brothers Simeon and Levi from murdering Jacob’s favourite son Joseph. [Jacob eventually decided not to hold any aspect of the bloody Shechem incident against any of his sons, as Jacob ultimately took pride in the result (Genesis 48: 22).]

Rather, Reuben’s unforgivable sin was, in the opinion of the early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives, that Reuben, like most firstborn sons naturally do, unilaterally considered himself to be his father’s proper successor, without regard to what wise decision Jacob might make as to which son of his should be his proper successor. Reuben made that assertion (via having his father’s minor wife who was his aunt Rachel’s servant stay in his tent one night) solely on the basis of his status as the firstborn son. But in the Patriarchal narratives, the firstborn son in fact a-l-w-a-y-s , on 7 out of 7 occasions, gets the shaft, and properly so: Haran, Lot, Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Er, Manasseh. Indeed, one of the main themes of the Patriarchal narratives is that a man’s proper successor is such younger son as the man may rightly choose to be his rightful successor, with the man’s firstborn son n-e-v-e-r turning out to be the man’s proper successor. Abraham, with Sarah’s guidance, properly chooses Abraham’s younger son Isaac as his rightful successor; Isaac, with Rebekah’s guidance, properly chooses younger son Jacob as his rightful successor; and in turn Jacob, with [it is implied] the guidance of Leah [Jacob’s original main wife #1 who, it is implied, gave Jacob such proper guidance on her deathbed], properly chooses Jacob’s younger son Judah as his rightful successor. Every Patriarchal successor is always, and rightly so, a younger son, never the Patriarch’s firstborn son.

At Genesis 49: 4, Jacob is using a water metaphor to assert that Reuben was acting like the “harmful flooding” of water. Flooding is always “natural”, and it was natural for Reuben to act like firstborn sons often naturally do, unilaterally asserting his right to be his father’s successor solely on the basis of his status as the firstborn son. Yet sometimes [though by no means always] flooding, though being “natural”, can be terribly “harmful”, on occasion wiping out a community almost instantaneously. Reuben’s actions as a firstborn son, though “natural” like flooding, were nevertheless “harmful” [like “harmful flooding”/PXZ]; Reuben should properly have deferred to his father’s choice as to which son should be Jacob’s proper successor, rather than Reuben unilaterally asserting his own claim based solely on his status as being the firstborn son.

The Bible frequently invokes this particular metaphor, where PXZ [or a slight variation thereof] in context must be referring to “harmful flooding”, that is, something that is both “natural” a-n-d “harmful”. Jeremiah 23: 32 [PXZWTM] rebukes the common practice of a man lying about his dreams in order to try to get people to follow that man’s Will. Zephaniah 3: 4 [PXZYM] may refer to this identical phenomenon, and at least is decrying the all-too-common problem of false prophets who don’t have a true vision but rather cynically try to mislead people. Judges 9: 4 [PXZYM] harshly judges the frequent occurrence of buying men’s services with silver, as such men are only in it for the money, and perhaps can even be bribed to commit murder, rather than being honourable men who do the right thing for the right reasons. Note the common theme in all four situations (including Reuben’s situation): men acting as men all-too-often do, acting “naturally”, in doing so often take actions that are “harmful” to the community, like the “harmful flooding”/PXZ of water.

Analysts have missed the main point of this water metaphor. Just as floods are “natural”, but sometimes can nevertheless be terribly “harmful” by causing huge damage to a community, it may be quite “natural” for firstborn sons to think that they have the right to be their father’s successor on the basis of their birthright alone, but nevertheless that is “harmful” [like “harmful flooding”/PXZ]. The family and the community would be better served if each son, including the firstborn son, deferred to their father’s considered decision as to which son should rightly be the father’s proper successor. Note that this colorful water metaphor involving “harmful flooding”/PXZ only works as to actions that are both “natural” and “harmful”.

Reuben had no unnatural lust for old Bilhah, for heaven’s sake, who was years past her prime and wouldn’t have inspired lust in any man. Rather than acting unnaturally, Reuben is being cursed by his father Jacob, rather, precisely for acting naturally, like flooding water is “natural”, but can be terribly “harmful”. Firstborn sons so often make the “natural” mistake of trying to assert themselves as their father’s rightful successor solely on the basis of their status as being the firstborn son, but that is “harmful”, like “harmful flooding”/PXZ, because in fact all sons, including firstborn sons, should do the right thing by deferring to their father’s considered judgment as to the choice of which son of his is rightly the father’s proper successor.

Reuben’s fateful act at Genesis 35: 22 in having old Bilhah stay in his tent for one night had nothing to do with lust, nor was it unnatural. Rather, Reuben did that as a symbolic act, thereby asserting Reuben’s claimed right as the firstborn son to be his father’s successor, without regard to whatever Jacob might think as to who his successor should properly be. Per Genesis 49: 4, Reuben acted like water when it harmfully floods: natural, but harmful, in that firstborn sons so often claim that their birth status gives them the right to be their father’s successor, regardless of their father’s own view of the situation.

[Historically, in Year 13 (see Genesis 14: 4 for the exact year) a firstborn son, Yapaxu, was the first Hebrews’ worst enemy. Hence the tremendous, and indeed unparalleled, animus throughout the Patriarchal narratives against firstborn sons, including Reuben, who as a firstborn son who acted “naturally”, and hence potentially “harmfully”, in unilaterally asserting his birthright could not possibly avoid getting a terrible final curse from his father Jacob/“Israel”.] Every winning son in the Patriarchal narratives is, without exception, a younger son.

Whenever PXZ or any variant thereof is used in the Bible, including at Genesis 49: 4, a meaning of “harmful flooding” works perfectly. PXZ refers to acts which are like the “harmful flooding” of water: though “natural” and all-too-common, such natural actions are nevertheless “harmful”.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
jacob
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:39 am
Location: Jamaica

Re: פחז PAXAZ, Gen. 49:4

Post by jacob »

Shalom Jim Stinehart,

Your views are reasonably well supported and carefully considered. You have provided much food for thought by highlighting some possible parallels to the school of thought you have presented.

Digesting this food will however require "adding some seasoning" or assigning new meaning to the phrase "harmful flooding" which in this context requires stretching its semantic boundary. The length of your post is an indication of good research or your familiarity with the topic but may also be indicative of a dissonance that requires much explanation.

Bihah's age only makes Reuben's act more irresponsible like the prophets of the parallels you mentioned in Zeph 3:4 and Jer 23;32 where "lightness" is used by the KJV for PXZ. This "lightness" supports Isaac Fried's view. Reuben could not be trusted with the weighty responsibility of preserving the heritage of Jacob. Like Esau, he was ruled by impulse and would have likely sold the heritage to the highest bidder.

If your argument that he was using tradition to usurp Jacob's authority (harmful flooding) is true, then it points to his recklessness comparable to the prophets and priests mentioned in the parallels. Thus we would have agreed on the use of PXZ here in Gen 49:4.
Lascelles James
Jamaica
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: פחז PAXAZ, Gen. 49:4

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Lascelles James:

1. You wrote: “Reuben could not be trusted with the weighty responsibility of preserving the heritage of Jacob. Like Esau, he was ruled by impulse and would have likely sold the heritage to the highest bidder.”

Each of Reuben and Esau shared the same unforgivable sin: each was a Patriarch’s firstborn son. Ditto for Ishmael. And each other man’s firstborn son in the Patriarchal narratives likewise gets the shaft and properly so: Haran, Lot, Er and Manasseh.

That’s the unremitting pattern in the Patriarchal narratives.

The colorful water metaphor at Genesis 49: 4 brilliantly captures the essence of Reuben’s unforgivable sin: it was both “natural”, but “harmful”, for Reuben as a firstborn son to try to assert his primacy among Jacob’s 12 sons on the basis of Reuben’s birthright. The early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives cleverly waits until almost the very end of the text to make that specific point. It is “natural”, but “harmful”, like “harmful flooding”/PXZ of water, for a firstborn son to think that by virtue of his birthright, he should unilaterally be able to declare himself to be his father’s successor, without regard to which son the father will rightly determine, at the proper time, is to be the father’s proper successor. By having old Bilhah stay in his tent for one night, Reuben was unilaterally asserting his right as the firstborn son to be his father’s successor. That was Reuben’s unforgivable sin [in my interpretation of this great text], with Reuben’s actions being actions that are commonplace for a firstborn son [but not for younger sons].

Reuben’s actions, as a firstborn son, were simultaneously “natural” and “harmful”, like the “harmful flooding”/PXZ of water. That’s the way it inevitably goes for firstborn sons in the Patriarchal narratives.

2. You wrote: “If your argument that he was using tradition to usurp Jacob's authority (harmful flooding) is true, then it points to his recklessness….”

The most reckless of Jacob’s 12 sons is Judah, who eventually turns out to be the winning son. Judah was a younger son, who was not initially his father’s favourite son, and whose birth mother [Leah] was the original main wife #1 of his father; so Judah has the three requisites needed in order to be a viable candidate to be named by his father the Patriarch as his father’s proper successor. Judah recklessly impregnates his own daughter-in-law, Tamar, who had disguised herself as a prostitute, and then without doing any proper investigation, Judah recklessly and imperiously orders that Tamar, who has now shown up pregnant, to be burned alive. That’s reckless! Leave it to Tamar to put reckless Judah in his place, as Judah is forced to confess to the community: “She is more righteous than I.” Genesis 38: 26

Being reckless does not disqualify a son from being his father’s proper successor. Judah is living proof of that. But being a man’s firstborn son [such as Reuben, and every other man’s firstborn son in the text as well] does indeed disqualify a son from being his father’s proper successor, in the Patriarchal narratives.

The text of the Patriarchal narratives is quite adamant about making that very point over and over and over again: 7 times over, in fact. Reuben’s unforgivable sin was being Jacob’s firstborn son.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
User avatar
George Athas
Moderator
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:31 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: פחז PAXAZ, Gen. 49:4

Post by George Athas »

Lascelles James,

You should know that there is very little of Jim Stinehart's theories that others find convincing. Personally, I find most of the reasoning used rather tortuous, selective, and self-fulfilling. If I were to grade papers with the same kind of reasoning, they would fail. You are, of course, entitled to weigh his arguments for yourself and reach your own conclusions about them. I encourage you to do so and I'm sure Jim welcomes the interaction.
GEORGE ATHAS
Co-Moderator, B-Hebrew
Dean of Research, Moore Theological College (http://moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: פחז PAXAZ, Gen. 49:4

Post by Jim Stinehart »

George Athas:

You wrote: “You should know that there is very little of Jim Stinehart's theories that others find convincing. Personally, I find most of the reasoning used rather tortuous, selective, and self-fulfilling. If I were to grade papers with the same kind of reasoning, they would fail. You are, of course, entitled to weigh his arguments for yourself and reach your own conclusions about them. I encourage you to do so and I'm sure Jim welcomes the interaction.”

You are right that “Jim welcomes the interaction” of Lascelles James and, for that matter, all other posters on this fine forum. But are you right that my reasoning, arguments and textual evidence on this thread are “rather tortuous, selective, and self-fulfilling”? Let’s check out the facts.

Jim Asserts that Judah, Not Reuben, Was Reckless; Jim Further Asserts that Reuben’s Unforgivable Sin Was that He Was Jacob’s Firstborn Son

(a) Judah Was Reckless in His Dealings With Tamar

Judah was reckless in having relations with an apparent prostitute without even looking at her face, so that he did not recognize that such apparent prostitute was his own daughter-in-law: “When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face.” Genesis 38: 15. Judah was also reckless in loudly ordering Tamar to be burned alive when she turned up pregnant, without having done any investigation whatsoever as to who was the biological father of the twin boys within her womb [with Judah himself in fact being the biological father of these twin sons/grandsons]: “And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.” Genesis 38: 24. Judah was reckless in his dealings with Tamar, and Judah himself eventually acknowledges the error of his ways: “And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son.” Genesis 38: 26. Yet nevertheless it will be Judah who eventually receives his father Jacob’s grandest blessing: “Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down before thee. … The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” Genesis 49: 8, 10.

Thus the text makes clear both that Judah was reckless, and that being reckless, though not particularly admirable, is by no means an unforgivable sin. Judah was reckless in his dealings with Tamar, yet Judah ends up being named by his father Jacob/“Israel” as the leader of the next generation of the early monotheists, and it is very strongly implied that the leader of the generation of the early Hebrews after Judah will be Judah’s “younger” twin son/grandson Perez. My analysis of that issue is n-o-t “rather tortuous, selective, and self-fulfilling”, but rather comes straight out of what the text clearly says.

(b) Reuben Was Not Reckless

The only act for which firstborn son Reuben is ever criticized is the fact that Reuben had his father Jacob’s old concubine, Bilhah, who was no blood relation to Reuben, stay in Reuben’s tent for one night. “And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard it.” Genesis 35: 22. On that basis, Jacob/“Israel” gives his firstborn son Reuben a terrible final curse [which is the subject of this thread]: “[Since you acted like the harmful flooding : PXZ : פחז : paxaz] of water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch.” Genesis 49: 4

At no point is Bilhah ever said to be physically attractive. [By contrast, each of Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel and Tamar is portrayed as being very physically attractive.] Plus by this point, Bilhah was old and had ceased bearing children. There is no way that old Bilhah was physically attractive to Reuben, who was in the generation younger than Bilhah; there’s no way that Reuben got recklessly carried away by insatiable lust at the sight of old Bilhah. Not. Rather, it’s clear what Reuben was doing in having old Bilhah stay in Reuben’s tent for one night, and Jacob in fact adjudged the situation correctly. By taking that action, Reuben was asserting that on the basis of his birthright, with Reuben being Jacob’s firstborn son, Reuben allegedly had the right to be Jacob’s successor as the leader of the next generation of the early Hebrews, without regard to how Jacob himself might evaluate the objective merits of his 12 sons. In acting in that way, firstborn son Reuben acted like the “harmful flooding” : PXZ : פחז : paxaz of water: (i) Reuben’s mindset as the firstborn son was “natural”, as flooding is natural, being all-too-common, as firstborn sons routinely arrogate to themselves an asserted right to be their father’s proper successor; but just as clearly, (ii) Reuben’s mindset as the firstborn son was “harmful”, just as the flooding of water can often be harmful to a community, because in the Patriarchal narratives the Patriarch should decide which of his sons is his rightful successor, and such rightful successor n-e-v-e-r turns out to be the Patriarch’s firstborn son.

(c) Reuben’s Unforgivable Sin Was Being a Firstborn Son

My contention that every winning son in the Patriarchal narratives is a younger son, never his father’s firstborn son, is not “rather tortuous, selective, and self-fulfilling”, but rather comes straight out of the text. Terah’s winning son is younger son Abraham, not firstborn son Haran, who does not even survive his own father [Genesis 11: 28]. Abraham’s winning son is younger son Isaac, not firstborn son Ishmael, who is exiled into the forest : P’RN : paran by Abraham [Genesis 21: 14-21]. Isaac’s winning son is his younger twin son Jacob, not firstborn twin son Esau, who is forced to leave Canaan proper and live in Udumu : “Edom” : ’DM, southeast of the Sea of Galilee and east of Canaan proper [Genesis 36: 7-8]. Jacob’s winning son is his younger son Judah, not his firstborn son Reuben, who as described above receives a terrible final curse from his father. Finally, Judah’s “younger” twin son/grandson Perez is Judah’s winning son [Genesis 38: 27-30; see Genesis 46: 12, whose last sentence uniquely sets forth the sons that Perez will have in the future, thereby effectively confirming that Perez, whose birth was semi-miraculous in that the “younger” twin son of Tamar came out of her womb before the “firstborn” twin son of Tamar did, is the winning line]; Judah’s firstborn son, Er, reprises the ignominious pattern of Terah’s firstborn son Haran in not even surviving his own father [Genesis 38: 7].

In pointing out that every winning son in the Patriarchal narratives is a younger son, never his father’s firstborn son, my reasoning is not “rather tortuous, selective, and self-fulfilling”, but rather comes straight out of what the text clearly says.

Reuben’s unforgivable sin had nothing to do with Reuben supposedly being reckless, but rather had everything to do with Reuben being Jacob’s firstborn son. In the Patriarchal narratives, 7 out of 7 firstborn sons -- Haran, Lot, Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Er, Manasseh -- get the shaft and properly so.

George Athas, maybe you don’t personally l-i-k-e what the received text says. But it says what it says. Moreover, it all makes perfect historical sense in the particular circumstances of the “Year 13” that is explicitly referenced in the second half of Genesis 14: 4, even if such unending animus against firstborn sons makes little if any sense in any other context. What I have pointed out on this thread is what the text says. My arguments, reasoning and textual evidence that every winning son in the Patriarchal narratives is a younger son, never his father’s firstborn son, and that being reckless is not a fatal flaw, are not “rather tortuous, selective, and self-fulfilling”. On the contrary, what I have said on this thread is coming straight out of what the received text clearly and unequivocally says. And in this post, I have backed it all up by citing chapter and verse.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Post Reply