What did the other kids get?

[Tanakh Keeper]

G e n 25: 5. And Abraham gave all that he possessed to Isaac. 6. And to the sons of Abraham's concubines, Abraham gave gifts, and he sent them away from his son Isaac while he [Abraham] was still alive, eastward to the land of the East.

If Isaac was given everything, what gifts were given to the children of Abraham’s concubines?

[guacamole]

Presumably, "all that he possesssed" is a not literal statement that all of Abraham's possessions became all of Isaac's possessions. It it is possible that Abraham's concubines' sons had good relationships with Abraham. He might have given them an "inheritance" or sorts before he died. I interpret this passage (an explain the animosity to Joseph by his brothers and the potential usurpation thereof by Jacob) in that "all he possessed" was a ritual referent to clan leadership.

fwiw
guaca.

edited to add:

Presumably Isaac would have been responsible for handing out gifts and favors in the act of consolidating his leadership.

[RBerman]

Right. Other translations make this clearer:

Abraham left everything he owned to Isaac. But while he was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and sent them away from his son Isaac to the land of the east.

Now Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac; but to the sons of his concubines, Abraham gave gifts while he was still living, and sent them away from his son Isaac eastward, to the land of the east.

So Abraham announced that Isaac would inherit Abraham's estate when Abraham died. But before Abraham died, he gave some of his possessions away, thereby slightly dimishing the pile which Isaac inherited upon Abraham's death.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I think guac has it spot on, it was more a passing of the mantle type of thing, much moreso than simple material possessions. Plus superlative expressions such as that are typical OT hyperbole.

[Tanakh Keeper]

Presumably, "all that he possesssed" is a not literal statement that all of Abraham's possessions became all of Isaac's possessions. It it is possible that Abraham's concubines' sons had good relationships with Abraham. He might have given them an "inheritance" or sorts before he died. I interpret this passage (an explain the animosity to Joseph by his brothers and the potential usurpation thereof by Jacob) in that "all he possessed" was a ritual referent to clan leadership.

How do you know that G e n 25:5 isn't a literal statement?

[RBerman]

How do you know that G e n 25:5 isn't a literal statement?

If you search for instances of "all" and similarly absolute words in the Bible, you'll find that it's usually limited in some way by its context. Thus, for instance, in Genesis 7:4, God says, "I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made." But he clearly doesn't include Noah's family in that threat, nor the fish of the sea for that matter. In this case, the context limits "all" to clarify that Abraham also gave gifts to other people, but that Isaac was the inheritor of Abraham's estate.

[Dee Dee Warren]

How do you know that G e n 25:5 isn't a literal statement?

Define literal.

How do you know that it isn't?

And what rberman said.

[Tanakh Keeper]

Define literal.

You'll have to ask guacamole. I was quoting guacomole's post.

How do you know that it isn't?

And what rberman said.

I didn't say one way or another. I wanted to know his/her reasons.

[Nature]

Define literal.

How do you know that it isn't?

That makes it a question whether it's literal or not, 2 'if...then...'s.

Right. Other translations make this clearer:

Originally posted by NIV
Abraham left everything he owned to Isaac. But while he was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and sent them away from his son Isaac to the land of the east.
Originally posted by NAS
Now Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac; but to the sons of his concubines, Abraham gave gifts while he was still living, and sent them away from his son Isaac eastward, to the land of the east.

So Abraham announced that Isaac would inherit Abraham's estate when Abraham died. But before Abraham died, he gave some of his possessions away, thereby slightly dimishing the pile which Isaac inherited upon Abraham's death.

Taking in aspect the time-scale makes sense to me.

G e n 25: 5. And Abraham gave all that he possessed to Isaac. 6. And to the sons of Abraham's concubines, Abraham gave gifts, and he sent them away from his son Isaac while he [Abraham] was still alive, eastward to the land of the East.

If Isaac was given everything, what gifts were given to the children of Abraham’s concubines?

If Abraham gave everything he possessed to Isaac and gifts to the children of concubines, then Abraham might have not been in direct possesion of those gifts but possessed them indirectly as the people's leader with the power to issue for something to be given to the children of concubines.

[Tanakh Keeper]

If Abraham gave everything he possessed to Isaac and gifts to the children of concubines, then Abraham might have not been in direct possesion of those gifts but possessed them indirectly as the people's leader with the power to issue for something to be given to the children of concubines.

Just for clarification, are you saying he gave other people's possessions to his other kids?

[barnasha]

This scripture was written by descendants of Isaac, right?

[Moksha]

G e n 25: 5. And Abraham gave all that he possessed to Isaac. 6. And to the sons of Abraham's concubines, Abraham gave gifts, and he sent them away from his son Isaac while he [Abraham] was still alive, eastward to the land of the East.

If Isaac was given everything, what gifts were given to the children of Abraham’s concubines?

Well perhaps money isn't considered a possession. So he gave Isaac all of his material possessions like land and baseball cards but with his liquid assets,ie money,he bought gifts as consolation prizes for the other kids.

[Nature]

Just for clarification, are you saying he gave other people's possessions to his other kids?

No. The idea about "indirect possession" was a presumption rather than a statement, it was written in conditional "might have". Furthermore, the idea was not meant to indicate that Abraham gave away other people's possessions as his indirect possession.

Abraham might have given something in the form of gifts what he had the power to issue as "the patriarch of the Jewish people", like to give to someone a certain status in the society, or to issue for someone to be given a land in the East, and such possibilities.

Midian was the son of Abraham, the land of Midian had no borders on east. An encyclopedia writes: "Keturah is referred to as "Abraham's concubine" in the Christian Bible, probably to indicate that she was not considered to be of the same dignity as Sarah, the mother of the "chosen son", Isaac. It is probably also for this reason that the sons of Abraham's concubines were separated from Isaac. There is no indication when that happened, other than during his lifetime."

Could this be leading toward the answer?

Well perhaps money isn't considered a possession. So he gave Isaac all of his material possessions like land and baseball cards but with his liquid assets,ie money,he bought gifts as consolation prizes for the other kids.

I agree. There seem to be plenty of space for speculation about the meaning of the words "possession" and "gifts". A spiritual person (person devoted to God) can consider his possessions to be the spirit, morality, etc, not material things like money, house, land.

In that way, Abraham might have given all of his possessions to Isaac, like to be his successor as "the patriarch of the Jewish people", while gifts like material things ahead of the movement to the land in the East he might have given to the children of concubines (in order to separate the children of concubines from Isaac (Sarah's son) as the above encyclopedia quotation may suggest).