Constructing imaginative geographies in Genesis

be established. It defines the spaces of Ishmael, Esau/Edom, Lot (Ammon and Moab) and Laban. (3) ‘Foreignness’ is the way to define what is strange, odd or exotic considered as external to the own identity, in a space set beyond even the space of the ‘Other’. Egypt is in Genesis a land of ‘Foreignness’. (4) ‘Delendness’ encompasses whatever claims our same space and therefore threatens our survival and must be destroyed ( delendum ). As such, processes of annihilation and dominion of Israel on Canaanites and Sichemites are justified. Contribution: The article applies Said’s ‘imaginative geographies’ as an identity mechanism for the creation of biblical literary spaces. A quadripartite classification (‘Equal’/‘Other’/‘ Foreigner’/‘Delendum’) instead of the usual bipartite one (‘Equal’ vs. ‘Other’) is proposed and the consequences for the current coexistence between religious identities inherited from Abraham are shown.


Introduction
Many current questions and conflicts over cultural identities and borders have their roots in the founding texts of the great religions. The not always easy relationships between Christians, Muslims and Jews in the Mediterranean world and the Middle East are strongly conditioned by how national identities were constructed in the Hebrew Bible. In the last two decades, some studies have addressed the question of how one's own group identity is constructed in the Hebrew Bible in contrast to the 'Others' from a methodological plurality spanning sociology, anthropology, social psychology, postcolonial or ethnicist approaches and literary and historical research (eds. Achenbach, Albertz & Wöhrle 2011;eds. Albertz & Wöhrle 2013;eds. Ben Zvi & Edelman 2014;Brett 2000;ed. Cataldo 2016;Geyser-Fouche & Fourie 2017;eds. Harlow et al. 2011;eds. Hensel, Nocquet & Adamczewski 2020;eds. Ro & Edelman 2021;eds. Sergi, Oeming & De Hulster 2016a, 2016b. This study will focus on the relationship between group identity and imaginative geography in the patriarchal narratives in the book of Genesis . Firstly, my point of departure is a literary study of the text that analyses the peculiar relationship between the characters and their own space, following Wellek and Warren's intuition that 'setting is environment and environments, especially domestic interiors, may be viewed as metonymic or metaphoric, expressions of character' (Wellek & Warren 1949:210) and other literary theorists (Bobes Naves 1985:203;Chatman 1978:138-145;Garrido Domínguez 1996:216-218). Thus, kinship relations, marriages, alliances and ruptures between the heads of family clans are configuring different geographical spaces.
Secondly, I consider that literary studies of narrative space should also analyse the ideological circumstances that give rise to the conformation of geographical spaces. In this sense, Edward W. This article considers Edward W. Said's proposals on 'imaginative geographies' as suggested in his leading work Orientalism as a tool to analyse the ideological circumstances that shape geographical spaces in the Bible. My purpose is to discuss how these imaginative geographies are present in the patriarchal narratives of Genesis and how they have left their mark on the history of the interpretation of these texts and on the not always easy relations between members of the religious traditions inherited from the Bible (Hebrews, Muslims and Christians). I propose four types of 'imaginative geographies': (1) 'Equalness' is the way to represent what is considered as sharing the own identity. The geography of 'Equalness' defines the spaces of Isaac, Jacob and their families. (2) 'Otherness' is the way to represent the 'Other' as opposite or juxtaposed to one's own identity. A common border is shared, thus kinship relationships can be established. It defines the spaces of Ishmael, Esau/Edom, Lot (Ammon and Moab) and Laban. (3) 'Foreignness' is the way to define what is strange, odd or exotic considered as external to the own identity, in a space set beyond even the space of the 'Other'. Egypt is in Genesis a land of 'Foreignness'. (4) 'Delendness' encompasses whatever claims our same space and therefore threatens our survival and must be destroyed (delendum). As such, processes of annihilation and dominion of Israel on Canaanites and Sichemites are justified.
Said's proposals on imaginative geographies suggested in his seminal work Orientalism (1978) may be of interest. Said's goal is to unmask the cultural ideas at the basis of literature that justify imperialisms. Orientalism is the cultural creation of 'the East' by 'the West' as an inferior, savage, ungovernable, irrational and fanatical reality. Orientalism creates an idea of what 'they' are as opposed to what 'we' are, an essential 'Otherness' that, in reality, serves to reconstruct one's own identity. According to Said, one of the aspects of Orientalism are 'imaginative geographies', that is, the literary creation of spaces linked to the image of the Orient that distinguish 'our civilised land' from the barbarian 'other lands', those inhabited by 'them' (Said 1978:49-73). A group that inhabits a space will delimit mental rather than physical 'geographical boundaries' that serve to protect its own identity against identities considered barbaric and to separate the known space from the unknown space (Said 1978:54). The imaginative depiction of the Orient privileges certain places representative of its recreated and inferior identity, as the governor's house, the school or the prison (Said 1978:40-41). Based on Said's proposal, Anderson (1983), Bhabha (ed. 1990), Gregory (1994Gregory ( , 1995, Waldenfels (1997), Fludernik (2007 and others have explored the literary construction of national identity through the use of myths and stories and the construction of geographies and spaces. For Mohnike (2007:22-24), the construction of one's own identity involves a tripartite spatial representation: the 'Same' (das Gleich), the 'Other' (das Andere, 'what is not me') and the 'Foreigner' (das Fremde, 'what I do not know and is outside of what I know and can imagine').
Thirdly, every literary text aims to condition the reader's image of the Other, which is displayed in the history of the interpretation of the text according to Gadamer's (1989: 334-341) 'Wirkungsgeschichte' or history of the effects.
I propose a classification of those imaginative geographies in four categories: 1. 'Equalness' is the way of representing what is considered to be encompassed within one's own identity and one's imaginative geography. 2. 'Otherness' is the way of representing the Other as opposed to one's own identity. The 'Other' is located in a space juxtaposed or neighbouring our own. Thus, it is necessary to define the boundaries of Otherness to prevent crossing the limits and bursting into other people's spaces. 3. 'Foreignness' is the way of defining what is foreign, strange, weird or exotic and is considered as something external to one's own identity and 'beyond the Other'. There is no need to establish borders as it is not juxtaposed and there is no danger of overcoming limits. 4. 'Delendness' encompasses everything that claims to occupy the same geographical space as ourselves and therefore threatens our very existence and must be destroyed. Narrative identity justifies the conquest of territory and the destruction of the occupier. I have taken the term delendum from the expression 'Carthago delenda est' attributed to Cato the Elder (Clavadetscher-Thürlemann 1974 (Eph'al 1982;Knauf 1989Knauf , 1992Weippert 1974)  The metaphorical and metonymic relationship of Ishmael's character with his spatial environment is particularly evident in the stories of Hagar's two escapes (Gn 16; 21:9-21). Ishmael will be 'a wild donkey of a man' (Gn 16:12) accustomed to the harsh and lonely life of the wilderness (cf. Jr 2:24; 14:6; Hs 8:9; Ps 104:11; Job 11:12; 24:5), confronted with everything ('his hand against everyone and everyone's hand against him'), out of the land of Canaan but 'in front' (ˁal p e nê) of his brothers, keeping a special relationship with them (Hamilton 1995:160;Seebass 1999:261;Westermann 1981:482); initially a place of death threat for Ishmael, the wilderness is the place where 'God was with the boy' and where 'he grew up' (Gn 21:20). Therefore, Ishmael's imaginative geography is characterised by the desert as a place where life is lived in complete freedom but continually threatened, in a struggle for survival and with scarce water sources.
However, the border between the imaginative geographies of Isaac and Ishmael is not so hard. They are constructed with the in-between realms and cross-bordering mechanisms pointed out by Ben Zvi (2014) and they reflect zones of encounter and exchange (Hamilton 1995:169;Römer 1999;Wénin 2016:368;Wöhrle 2011). For instance, after Abraham's death, Isaac settles down precisely at the well of Lachai Roi (Gn 24:62; 25:11), a place linked to Ishmael (Gn 16:13).
The Ishmaelites' imaginative geography in the Hebrew Bible reflects no negative judgements. Thus, while the book of Jubilees still maintains the positive image of Ishmael (Francis 2012), in Targumic and Rabbinic literature (especially in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Pirqei deRabbi Eliezer), Ishmael's depiction is defiled by the controversy between Judaism and Islam in Medieval times (Bakhos 2006;Ohana 1975;Pérez Fernández 2000;Syrén 1994).

Esau and Edom
The imaginative geography of Esau/Edom is the complete antithesis of the imaginative geography of Jacob/Israel according to the curse his father casts on him -'away from the fatness of the earth shall your home be and away from the dew of heaven on high' (Gn 27:39) -, and in contrast to Jacob's blessing (Gn 27:27-29). In both formulas, the same terms ('the fatness of the earth' and 'the dew of heaven') are used to describe both the dryness of Esau's land and the fertility of Jacob's land. Furthermore, the preposition min is used in both oracles but with different meanings. In Jacob's blessing, as a partitive: '[of] heaven's dew and [of] earth's richness' (Waltke & O'Connor 1990:213-214). In Esau's curse, min introduces an argument of origin, which implies resistance/separation ('away from the fatness of the earth… and away from the dew of heaven') marking 'what is missing or unavailable' (Waltke & O'Connor 1990:214). This element seems to create in Esau an initial false expectation about his blessing that is later tragically refuted, 'a cruel joke, this verse!', as Fokkelman (1991:111) pointed out. However, its authentic meaning remains ambiguous and some authors admit a partitive use of min also in the Esau oracle, such as Jacob (1974:184) and, in rabbinic exegesis, Rashi, who even identifies this rich land as 'the Italian Greece', following Targum Onkelos and echoing the traditional Jewish identification of Edom with Rome (Hamilton 1995:227).
Esau's imaginative geography is also set 'on high' (mēˁāl, Gn 27:39), in accordance with the highlands of Mount Seir (cf. Jr 49:16). This may, however, point out to an additional meaning suggested by the paronomasia between elements containing the sound sequence ˁ-l: mēˁāl ('on high', v. 39) y ˁullô ('his yoke ', v. 40). This paronomasia continues in w e ˁal ḥarb e kā ('by your sword', v. 40) and mēˁal ṣawwārekā ('from your neck', v. 40), whereas Jacob's blessing lacks this sound sequence. Genesis Rabbah (BerR 67:7) notices this paronomasia reading w e ˁal ḥ arb e kā ('by your sword') as ˁôl ḥ arb e kā ('the yoke of your sword'). In this way, the imaginative geography of Edom as a highland may include an allusion to his condition as a captive man, subdued to Jacob-Israel as announced in the curse (Gn 27:40).

Lot: Ammon and Moab
Lot's narrative ends with the scene of a tiny group of five people shut down in a narrow cave beyond Zoar (Gn 16:36-38): Lot, his two daughters, and his two sons incestuously born, namely Moab (môˀāb) and Ben-Ammi (ben-ˁammî). The character of Lot has a peculiar relationship with his own living space becoming smaller and smaller as the narrative unfolds: from the irrigated wide plain (Gn 13:10-12), the prosperous city of Sodom (Gn 13:12; 19:1), the little town of Zoar (Gn 19:20-23), the far hill (Gn 19:30a) and the narrow cave (Gn 19:30b).
Lot has neither a genealogy nor a list of kings, tribes or cities and not even an assigned territory with defined borders. Actually, the Genesis narrative does not provide an imaginative geography of Moab and the Ammonites.
The biblical reader will have to read on to Numbers 21:11-13, 24, Deuteronomy 2:8-11, 18-21, 29, 37 and Judges 11:13-18 to know the extent of their territories in Transjordan: the land of Moab confining with the territory of Esau-Seir around the city of Ar (Dt 2, 8-9) and the land of the Ammonites on the hills surrounding the Jabbok river (Dt 2:18-19, 37).
The tiny kingdoms of Moab and of the Ammonites burst into the history of that region during the 9th-6th centuries BCE until they disappeared as independent political entities in the aftermath of the Babylonian invasion in 582-581 BCE (ed. Bienkowski 1992Bienkowski , 2009De Tarragon 1992;Hübner 1992;Lipiński 2006;Miller 1992

The imaginative geography of 'Delendness'
God has given to Abraham and his offspring the land of Canaan (Gn 13:14-17; 17:8). The problem is that, astonishingly, the land is already inhabited by another people, the Canaanites (Gn 12, 6; 13, 7). The land's boundaries of the Canaanites are set in the table of nations: The territory of the Canaanites extended from Sidon, in the direction of Gerar, as far as Gaza, and in the direction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, as far as Lash. (Gn 10:19) The debate on the ethnic identity of the Canaanites and their relationship with the Israelites has taken up an intense discussion amongst archaeologists and historians (Lemche 1991;Na'aman 1994;Rainey 1996). It seems that the Canaanites as an ethnically different group was a literary creation of postexilic Judaism for the sake of his historiographical project of 'narrating the nation' (Bhabha 1990:1-7): the Canaanites occupy the land of Canaan (Gn 12:6; 13:7), the same geographic space that God has given as an inheritance to Israel (Gn 13:14-17; 17:8), and therefore they must be exterminated, which justifies the practice of herem in the conquest narratives (Nm 21:1-3; Dt 20:10-18; Jos 6:17-21; 8:20-29; 1 Sm 15:1-23). In the Deuteronomic narrative, the Canaanites are a 'Delendum'.
In the Genesis narrative, the geography of 'Delendness' mainly affects the city of Shechem, which seems to represent the whole land of Canaan. Not by chance, Shechem is in the centre of the land of Canaan and was the first place mentioned when Abram and Jacob get into it (Gn 12, 6; 33:18). The story of Dinah (Gn 34) points to the clear and incompatible differentiated identity between the inhabitants of Shechem and the family of Jacob-Israel. Initially, both groups move in their own spaces: Jacob-Israel in the countryside (Gn 33:18-19; 34:7) and Hamor-Shechem in the city (Gn 33:18;34:20,24,25,(27)(28). However, difficulties arise when Dinah (Gn 34:1) and Hamor (Gn 34:20) get out (yṣˀ) of their own space and cross to the opposite space. The people of Shechem propose to break out the border and to become a unique people: 'Make marriages with us; give your daughters to us, and take our daughters for yourselves' (Gn 34:9). Jacob's sons impose circumcision as the only painful condition: (Gn 34:16). This unification proposal includes a clause of the geography of the 'Equalness', in which both groups share the same space (Gn 34:10, 21).
Nevertheless, the rapture of Dinah is taken as an outrage to the national identity of Israel. The reason for defiling (ṭmˀ Piel) Dinah (Gn 34:5) and committing infamy (nebālāh) 'in Israel' (Gn 34:7) and a disgrace (ḥerpāh, Gn 34:14) is not a woman's rape (Reuben does so without punishment in Gn 35:22), but giving one of our women to an uncircumcised man, as circumcision is the clear sign of Israel's identity (23)(24)(25)(26)(27)21:4). They pretend to be one people when they are not (Bechtel 1994;Garrone 2015). Simeon and Levi intentionally invade the opposite space, burning the city of Shechem to the ground (Gn 34:25-29). The Shichemite will never be an 'Equal' but a 'Delendum'. Jacob suspects the terrible consequences of this action, as then the Canaanites and Jacob's sons will struggle against each other for their survival.
Dinah's episode shows how a proposal for 'Equalness' can end up with a sentence of 'Delendness'. But it can also happen the other way around. Groups initially categorised as 'Delendum' may in the end be recognised as 'Other' and even as 'Equal', all of which is expressed in a narrative of their own, as in the episodes of the clan of Rahab (Jos 2:1-21; 6:22-25; Nm 31:22) or the Gibeonites (Jos 9). Likewise, there may also be conflictive processes in which a group labelled as 'Equal' becomes a 'Delendum', such as the Benjaminites after the episode of Gibeah's crime . This shows us that the narrative discourse by which groups recognise themselves as 'Equal', 'Other' or 'Delendum' can shift over the course of history.

The imaginative geography of 'Foreignness'
Egypt appears in the Genesis narratives as an ideal but strange land. The imaginative geography of Egypt depicts it as a fertile, watered country (Gn 13:10), a land of wheat where everyone can go down in times of famine (Gn 12:10; 42:1). However, Israel's sons and the Egyptians maintain a relationship between them different from that of the 'Other' (as Ishmael, Esau/Edom, Laban, Lot), that is, an entity for continuous reference to affirm their own identity. Egypt has got neither a genealogy nor a list of tribes. There is no need to set fixed boundaries with it. In return, Egypt is portrayed as the 'Foreigner', the exotic, the strange, the odd and the different.
The Egyptian and the Israelite look at each other as 'strangers', as the correlative use of the terms 'Hebrew' (ˁibrî) and 'abomination' (toˁēbāh) in Genesis seem to indicate. It is in Egypt where an Israelite may be called a 'Hebrew' (ˁibrî, Loretz 1984), both in Joseph's story (from the mouth of Potiphar's wife; Gn 39:14, 17, the chief cupbearer, Gn 41:12; or the narrator, Gn 43:32) and in Exodus 3:18,5:3,7:16;10:3). The difference between a Hebrew and an Egyptian is so stark that a simple contact between them is considered an 'abomination to Egypt' (tôˁēbat miṣraîm) under the form of a food taboo (Gn 43:32) or a refusal to live with shepherds (Gn 46:34) or a refusal of sacrifices to YHWH (Ex 8:22). The term toˁēbāh seems to be an Egyptian loan (bw.t, 'disgusting', Humbert 1960(bw.t, 'disgusting', Humbert , 1961 and suggests that Israel was aware that other nations and religions also had exclusivist customs and demands (Preuss 2004).
Egypt is the 'Foreigner', the strange country, but it is not unknown or distant. Connections to Egypt are frequent. Egypt is a traditional land of refuge (Galvin 2011

The imaginative geography of 'Equalness'
The analysis of the geography of the 'Equalness' should be analysed last because it responds better to the process of identity construction: the identity of the 'Equal' can be defined only after the 'Other', the 'Foreigner' and the 'Delendum' are established. When the Genesis account ends, each group that descended from Abraham has his genealogy, a list of names and an assigned geography in which they have been able to grow and become numerous people. In this way their identity is delimited for everyone… except for Jacob.

Conclusions
In this study I have dealt the relationship between the creation of the identity of the 'Other' (understood in a broad sense) and the creation of imaginative spaces and geographies (Said 1978) associated with the 'Other' in the book of Genesis and in the history of its interpretation. I have defined four types of imaginative geographies: 1. The 'Otherness' (properly speaking) reflects the 'Other' as opposed or juxtaposed to the 'Equal' in an imaginative geography in which clear boundaries are defined that cannot be crossed and privileged characteristics and places associated with that geography are observed. The 'Others' are Ishmael (confined to the vast desert region inhabited by the Arabs and updated by Jewish tradition in the followers of Islam), Lot (a refugee in the reduced highlands of Moab and Ammon in Transjordan, to end up disappearing), Esau (who is Edom/Seir, the eternal brother/enemy reincarnated in Idumea, Rome and Christianity) and Laban (in Padan Aram, in Aramaic territory, beyond Mizpah and Gilead, to which there is no return). 2. 'Delendness' defines the group that claims to occupy the same territory as us and which must therefore be destroyed ('delendum') as incompatible with our survival. These are the Canaanites in the Deuteronomic tradition and Shechem in Genesis 31. 3. 'Foreignness' that defines the group whose imaginative geography is not properly opposed or juxtaposed, but exotic, strange and odd or different. In Genesis, Egypt, the land of the Nile and Pharaoh, marks its differences with the Israelites by considering them 'Hebrews' and affected by the 'abomination'. 4. Finally, the 'Equalness' takes up the imagined geography of Abraham's descendants, the land of Canaan, which is defined precisely in contrast to the rest, and in whose territory it is not yet settled when Genesis ends. Equality, moreover, opens up to contacts with 'Otherness' and 'Delendness' that allow for mutual influences and kinship relations.
The main focus of this article is the discussion of imaginative geographies in the book of Genesis. But imaginative geographies can also help to understand other current and past identity processes and conflicts, to which I can only hint because of lack of space. For example, during the Middle Ages, Jews, Muslims and Christians acknowledge themselves as heirs of Abraham to varying degrees, according to the Genesis narrative and recognise mainly each other as an imaginative geography of 'Otherness' with representative spaces (neighbourhoods, worship and gathering places), and defined borders, despite some situations of intolerance (Costa López 2016;Elukin 2007). However, the recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict has given rise to some hermeneutics of Genesis and the Qur'an that replaces the imaginative geography of 'Otherness' with a geography of 'Delendness', preventing any negotiation and possibility of agreement. This is the case, for example, of Jewish ultra-nationalist sectors in Israel for whom Palestinian Arabs are identified not with Ishmael, but with Amalek and the Philistines (Jacobs 2017;Masahla 2013;Reiter 2010:235-236). Processes of civil wars and genocides -such as those in Bosnia (1992Bosnia ( -1995, Rwanda (1994) or in Burma against the Rohinya (2012-2018) -are often associated with national narratives in which group identities (Greenberg 2010;Moshman 2007) and their imaginative geographies are reconstructed in such a way that a group previously considered as 'Equal' or as 'Other' becomes a 'Delendum'. Thus, Edward Said's imaginative geographies may help to understand not only the effects that biblical and non-biblical narratives can have on historical identity processes but also to the identification and dissolution of current conflicts.