WordBiblicalCommentaryVolume 1Genesis 115Gordon J. Wenham General EditorsDavid A. HubbardGlenn W. Barker** DeceasedOld Testament EditorJohn D. W. WattsNew Testament EditorRalph P. MartinWord Books, Publisher Dallas,Table of ContentsEditorial PrefaceAuthors PrefaceMain BibliographyIntroductionIn the Beginning (1:12:3)The Garden of Eden (2:43:24)The First Human Family (4:126)Adams Family Tree (5:132)Spirit-Human Marriages and Their Aftermath (6:18)The Story of Noah (6:99:29)Blessing on the New Humanity (9:117)Coda to the Noah Story (9:1829)From Flood to Babel (10:111:9)The Table of the Nations (10:132)The Tower of Babel (11:19)The Family History of Shem (11:1026)Patriarchal History (Gen 1250)The Story of Abraham (11:2725:11)The Call of Abram (11:2712:9)Abram in Egypt (12:1020)Abram and Lot Separate (13:118)Abram Rescues Lot (14:124)The Covenant Promise (15:121)Authors PrefaceCommenting on Genesis, I have found my mood oscillating between elation and despair. I have been elated at the privilege of writing a commentary on such a central biblical text. I have been driven to despair by the impossibility of doing it justice, let alone dealing adequately with all that others have written about it.Every commentator stands on the shoulders of his predecessors, and I am personally very indebted to the two modern and exhaustive commentaries of Westermann and Gispen, as well as the numerous monographs and articles on Genesis that have appeared recently. Despite all this help I realize the inadequacy of my work, limited as I am in time, energy, and wisdom. I simply hope that despite its shortcomings this commentary may help some to understand Genesis better.In writing I have tried to keep three different groups of readers in mind. First are the pastors and laymen whose chief preoccupation is understanding the present text of Genesis. Although the commentary is based on the Hebrew text, I have tried to write the Comment and Explanation sections so that those who do not know Hebrew may still follow the argument. The Comment section attempts to elucidate the basic meaning of the text in its present setting in the book. The Explanation gives a broader view of the text, relating it to wider theological discussion and sometimes suggesting its contemporary relevance.Second, this commentary has in mind the needs of the theological students for whom Genesis is often a set text. Those working on the Hebrew text may find the Notes of special interest, for they discuss not only textual criticism and points of Hebrew syntax, but they also parse the trickier verbal forms.Third, this commentary is intended for biblical scholars, particularly those interested in issues of pentateuchal criticism. In the Introduction and the Form/Structure/Setting sections I have surveyed and attempted to evaluate the various positions currently advocated. Though these debates about criticism are often recondite, I believe that their satisfactory resolution may contribute substantially to the accurate exegesis of the text, which should always be the commentators overriding purpose. The bibliographies are also primarily intended as a scholarly resource. Since Westermanns commentary includes exhaustive lists of material published on Genesis, my bibliographies should be viewed more as a supplement than as a complete listing. Only the most significant earlier publications are cited. Nevertheless, the pace of publication on Genesis has quickened so much recently (on many passages as much has been published since 1970 as in the previous seventy years!), that even with this limitation the bibliographies are lengthy.Finally, I should like to thank all those who have helped in various ways with the writing of this commentary: the Old Testament editor, John Watts, and the publishers, for entrusting me with the task and keeping me at it; the College of St Paul and St Mary, for allowing me a terms leave of absence spent at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; that school, for providing a congenial environment in which to work; W. G. Lambert, for his invaluable advice on the relationship of Genesis to ancient Near Eastern tradition and for allowing me to read his forthcoming VTSupVTSup Vetus Testamentum, Supplements (Leiden: Brill) article; D. Bryan, for allowing me to read his forthcoming ZAWZAW Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft article; T. D. Alexander, N. Kiuchi, and J. G. McGregor, for bibliographical help; G. Eriksson, A. R. Millard, J. Sailhammer, D. T. Tsumura, and my father, J. W. Wenham, whose acute comments on various drafts of the manuscript have greatly improved it; my colleague David Miall, for advice on word processing programs; Mrs Margaret Hardy, for typing it; Mrs Pat Wienandt of Word Publishing, for her careful editing; and last but not least, friends known and unknown, who have prayed for the completion of this commentary. My plan, D.V., is to complete it in one more volume, the introduction of which will discuss issues relating primarily to the patriarchal narratives.Gordon J. WenhamCheltenhamMarch 1987Editorial PrefaceThe launching of the Word Biblical Commentary brings to fulfillment an enterprise of several years planning. The publishers and the members of the editorial board met in 1977 to explore the possibility of a new commentary on the books of the Bible that would incorporate several distinctive features. Prospective readers of these volumes are entitled to know what such features were intended to be; whether the aims of the commentary have been fully achieved time alone will tell.First, we have tried to cast a wide net to include as contributors a number of scholars from around the world who not only share our aims, but are in the main engaged in the ministry of teaching in university, college, and seminary. They represent a rich diversity of denominational allegiance. The broad stance of our contributors can rightly he called evangelical, and this term is to be understood in its positive, historic sense of a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation, and to the truth and power of the Christian gospel.Then, the commentaries in our series are all commissioned and written for the purpose of inclusion in the Word Biblical Commentary. Unlike several of our distinguished counterparts in the field of commentary writing, there are no translated works, originally written in a non-English language. Also, our commentators were asked to prepare their own rendering of the original biblical text and to use those languages as the basis of their own comments and exegesis. What may be claimed as distinctive with this series is that it is based on the biblical languages, yet it seeks to make the technical and scholarly approach to a theological understanding of Scripture understandable byand useful tothe fledgling student, the working minister, and colleagues in the guild of professional scholars and teachers as well.Finally, a word must be said about the format of the series. The layout, in clearly defined sections, has been consciously devised to assist readers at different levels. Those wishing to learn about the textual witnesses on which the translation is offered are invited to consult the section headed Notes. If the readers concern is with the state of modern scholarship on any given portion of Scripture, they should turn to the sections on Bibliography and Form/Structure/Setting. For a clear exposition of the passages meaning and its relevance to the ongoing biblical revelation, the Comment and concluding Explanation are designed expressly to meet that need. There is therefore something for everyone who may pick up and use these volumes.If these aims come anywhere near realization, the intention of the editors will have been met, and the labor of our team of contributors rewarded.General Editors: David A. HubbardGlenn W. Barker** DeceasedOld Testament: John D. W. WattsNew Testament: Ralph P. MartinMain BibliographyCommentaries (quoted by authors name alone)Aalders, G. C. Genesis I, II. 5th ed. Korte verklaring der Heilige Schrift. Kampen: Kok, 1974.Brueggemann, W. Genesis. Interpretation Commentary. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982.Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis 111. Tr. I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961, 1964.Calvin, J. A Commentary on Genesis. Tr. J. King, 1847. Repr. London: Banner of Truth, 1965.Cook, F. C. Genesis-Exodus. Speakers Bible. London: Murray, 1871.Davidson, R. Genesis 111, 1250. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: CUP, 1973, 1979.Delitzsch, F. A New Commentary on Genesis. Vols. 1, 2. Tr. S. Taylor. Edinburgh: Clark, 1888; repr. Klock, 1978.Dillmann, A. Die Genesis. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch. 6th ed. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1892.Driver, S. R. The Book of Genesis. 3d ed. Westminster Commentary. London: Methuen, 1904.Ehrlich, A. B. Randglossen zur hebrischen Bibel, vol. 1. Hildesheim: Olms, 1968 (original edition 1908).Gibson, J. C. L. Genesis I, II. Edinburgh: St Andrew Press, 1981, 1982.Gispen, W. H. Genesis IIII. Commentar op het Oude Testament. Kampen: Kok, 197483.Gunkel, H. Genesis. 9th ed. (= 3d ed). Gttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1977 (1910).Jacob, B. Das erste Buch der Tora. New York: Ktav, 1974 (1934).Junker, H. Das Buch Genesis. Echter Bibel. 4th ed. Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1965.Keil, C. F. The Pentateuch I. Biblical Commentary. Tr. J. Martin. Repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.Kidner, D. Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale OTOT Old Testament Commentary. London: Tyndale, 1967.Knig, E. Die Genesis eingeleitet, bersetzt, erklrt. Gtersloh: Bertelsman, 1919.Leibowitz, N. Studies in Bereshit. 4th ed. Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, 1981.Procksch, O. Die Genesis bersetzt und erklrt. 2d ed. Leipzig: Deicherische Verlags-buchhandlung, 1924.Rad, G. von. Genesis. Tr. J. H. Marks and J. Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1972.Rashi. Pentateuch with Rashis Commentary. Tr. M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann. New York: Hebrew Publishing Company.Sarna, N. M. Understanding Genesis. New York: Schocken Books, 1970.Skinner, J. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. ICC. 2d ed. Edinburgh: Clark, 1930.Speiser, E. A. Genesis. abab Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday). New York: Doubleday, 1969.Spurrell, G. J. Notes on the Text of the Book of Genesis. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896.Vawter, B. On Genesis: A New Reading. Garden City: Doubleday, 1977.Weinfeld, M. Sefer Bereshit. Tel-Aviv: Gordon, 1975.Wearermann, C. Genesis. 111, 1236, 3750. Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 197482. Vols. I, II. Tr. J. J. Scullion. London: SPCK, 1984, 1986. (Quotations are usually from Scullions translation; my own translations are indicated by dual page numbering with German page number first, e.g., 296, ETET English translation 217).Other StudiesAndersen, F. I. The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch. Nashville: Abingdon, 1970.Dahood, M. Northwest Semitic Notes on Genesis. BibBib Biblica 55 (1974) 7682.Freedman, D. N. Notes on Genesis. ZAWZAW Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 64 (1952) 19094.Soggin, J. A. OTOT Old Testament and Oriental Studies. BibOrBibOr Biblica et Orientalia (Rome: PBI) 29. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975.Speiser, E. A. Oriental and Biblical Studies. Ed. J. J. Finkelstein and M. Greenberg. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1967.Strus, A. La potique sonore des rcits de la Gense. BibBib Biblica 60 (1979) 122.Stuart, D. K. Studies in Early Hebrew Meter. HSMHSM Harvard Semitic Museum or Harvard Semitic Monographs 13. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976.Genesis 111Bic, M. The Theology of the Biblical Creation Epic. SESE Studia Evangelica 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ( = TU 73 [1959], 87 [1964], 88 [1964], 102 [1968], 103 [1968], 112 [1973]; 28/29 (1963/64) 938.Clark, W. M. The Animal Series in the Primeval History. VTVT Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968) 43349.. The Flood and the Structure of the Pre-patriarchal History. ZAWZAW Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 83 (1971) 184211.Combs, E. The Political Teaching of Gen 111. Studia Biblica 1978, ed. E. A. Livingstone. JSOT SSJSOT SS Journal for the Study of the Old Testament [JSOT] Supplement Series 11. Sheffield: JSOTJSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Biblical Studies Press, 1979. 10510.Davies, P. R. Sons of Cain. In A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of W. McKane, ed. J. D. Martin and P. R. Davies. JSOT SSJSOT SS Journal for the Study of the Old Testament [JSOT] Supplement Series 42. Sheffield: JSOTJSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Biblical Studies Press, 1986. 3556.Drewermann, E. Strukturen des Bsen I: Die jahwistische Urgeschichte in exegetischer Sicht. 4 ed. Paderborn: Schningh, 1982.Fenton, T. L. Different Approaches of the Biblical Narrators to the Myth of Theomachy. (Heb.Heb. Hebrew) In Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East presented to S. E. Loewenstamm, ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau. Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1977. 33781.Fretheim, T. E. Creation, Fall and Flood. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1969.Gispen, W. H. Exegeten over Gen 111. GTTGTT Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift 71 (1971) 12936.Kaperlrud, A. S. Die Theologie der Schpfung im Alten Testament. ZAWZAW Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 91 (1979) 15970.Knight, G. A. F. Theology in Pictures: A Commentary on Gen 111. Edinburgh: Handsel Press, 1981.Loretz, O. Schpfung und Mythos: Mensch und Welt nach den Anfangskapiteln der Genesis. SBSSBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien (Stuttgart/Wurzburg: Echter/KBW) 32. Stuttgart: KBW Verlag, 1969.Miller, P. D. Genesis 111: Studies in Structure and Theme. JSOT SSJSOT SS Journal for the Study of the Old Testament [JSOT] Supplement Series 8. Sheffield: JSOTJSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Biblical Studies Press, 1978.Neveu, L. Avant Abraham (Gen 111). Angers: Universit Catholique de lOuest, 1984.Niditch, S. Chaos to Cosmos: Studies in Biblical Patterns of Creation. Chico: Scholars Press, 1985.Oberforcher, R. Die Flutprologe als Kompositionsschlssel der biblischen Urgeschichte. ITSITS Innsbrucker theologisches Studien [Indian Theological Studies] 8. Innsbruck: Tyrolia Verlag, 1981.Ruppert, L. Urgeschichte oder Urgeschehen? Zur Interpretation yon Gen 111. MTZMTZ Mnchener theologische Zeitschrift 30 (1979) 1932.Scullion, J. J. New Thinking on Creation and Sin in Gen 111. AusBRAusBR Australian Biblical Review 22 (1974) 110.Smith, G. V. Structure and Purpose in Gen 111. JETSJETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (1977) 30719.Stadelmann, L. I. J. The Hebrew Conception of the World: A Philological and Literary Study. AnBibAnBib Analecta biblica (Rome: PBI) 39. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970.IntroductionName and ContentsBibliographyChilds, B. S. Introduction to the OTOT Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. 13660. Clines, D. J. A. The Theme of the Pentateuch. JSOT SSJSOT SS Journal for the Study of the Old Testament [JSOT] Supplement Series 10. Sheffield: JSOTJSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Biblical Studies Press, 1979. Coats, G. W. Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Cohn, R. L. Narrative Structure and Canonical Perspective in Genesis. JSOTJSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Biblical Studies. 25 (1983) 316. Cross, F. M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard UPUP University Press, 1973. Dahlberg, B. On Recognizing the Unity of Genesis. TDTD Theology Digest 24 (1976) 36067. Davies, P. R., and D. M. Gunn. Pentateuchal Patterns: An Examination of C. J. Labuschagnes Theory. VTVT Vetus Testamentum 34 (1984) 390406. Labuschagne, C. J. The Pattern of the Divine Speech Formulas in the Pentateuch. VTVT Vetus Testamentum 32 (1982) 26896. . Additional Remarks on the Pattern of the Divine Speech Formulas in the Pentateuch. VTVT Vetus Testamentum 34 (1984) 9195. . Pentateuchal Patterns: A Reply to P. R. Davies and D. M. Gunn. VTVT Vetus Testamentum 34 (1984) 40713. . The Literary and Theological Function of Divine Speech in the Pentateuch. Congress Volume, 1983. VTSupVTSup Vetus Testamentum, Supplements (Leiden: Brill) 36. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985. 15473. Rendsburg, G. A. The Redaction of Genesis. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1986. Robinson, R. B. Literary Functions of the Genealogies of Genesis. CBQCBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (1986) 595608. Scharbert, J. Der Sinn der Toledot-Formel in der Priesterschrift. In Wort-Gebot-Glaube: FSFS Festschrift, volume written in honor of fr W. Eichrodt, ed. J. J. Stamm and E. Jenni. ATANTATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 59. Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1970. 4556. Tengstrm, S. Die Toledotformel und die literarische Struktur der priesterlichen Erweiterungsschicht im Pentateuch. ConBConB Coniectanea biblica (Lund: Gleerup) 17. Lund: Gleerup, 1981. Weimar, P. Die Toledot-Formel in der priesterlichen Geschichtsdarstellung. BZBZ Biblische Zeitschrift 18 (1974) 6593. White, H. C. Word Reception as the Matrix of the Structure of the Genesis Narrative. In The Biblical Mosaic: Changing Perspectives, ed. R. Polzin and E. Rothman. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982. 6183. Witt, D. S. de. The Generations of Genesis. EvQEvQ The Evangelical Quarterly 48 (1976) 196211. Woudstra, M. H. The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and Their Redemptive-Historical Significance. CTJCTJ Calvin Theological Journal 5 (1970) 18489.As with the other books of the Pentateuch, the Hebrew title is taken from its opening word tyvarb In the beginning, whereas the English title Genesis is a transliteration, via the Vulgate, of the Greek title. Both titles aptly describe the books contents: it is a book of origins. Greek gevnesi" means origin, source, race, creation. In fact the term is used in the LXXLXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT to translate twdlt generations, family history, a term used repeatedly in the title of each new section of the book, e.g., 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 11:27 etc. And the Book of Genesis describes in turn the origin of the universe, of mankind, and of the ancestors of the nation of Israel. Indeed, the focus narrows progressively throughout the book.Chapter1the origin of the world 211the origins of the nations 1250the origins of Israel

More precisely, the author or final reactor of Genesis has arranged the material so that each new development in the history is introduced by the phrase twdlt hla This is the (family) history of. There are ten sections with this heading (eleven if the reduplication of 36:1, 9 are counted separately), with 1:12:3 acting as an overture to the whole book. 1:12:3Prologue1)2:44:26History of heaven and earth2)5:16:8Family History of Adam3)6:99:29Family History of Noah4)10:111:9Family History of Noahs sons5)11:1026Family History of Shem6)11:2725:11Family History of Terah7)25:1218Family History of Ishmael8)25:1935:29Family History of Isaac9)36:137:1Family History of Esau10)37:250:26Family History of Jacob Although the same heading This is the family history of is used in nearly every case, the sections vary markedly in character. Sections 1, 3, 6, 8, 10 are full and derailed narratives, whereas the other sections are mostly genealogical with few narrative derails. Starting with chap. 11, genealogies and narrative sections alternate. Furthermore, despite this editorial leveling, it is obvious that the character of the material in chaps. 111 is markedly different from that in chaps. 12 onward. The opening chapters have a universal perspective dealing with all mankind and are obviously related in some way to other oriental traditions about creation, flood, and the origins of arts, crafts, and the nations. Chaps. 1250, on the other hand, deal almost exclusively with Israelite concerns. They recount the story of the nations forebears in some detail, mentioning only briefly the origin of some of Israels closest neighbors, e.g., Moab, Ammon, and Edom.Finally, in reflecting on the contents of Genesis, it must never be forgotten that it is the first of a five- (or six-) volume work, the Pentateuch (Hexateuch). It gives the background to the history of the exodus from Egypt and the lawgiving at Sinai which are dealt with in great detail in Exodus-Deuteronomy. Whereas according to Genesis own chronology the first book of the Pentateuch spans some two thousand years, the next four cover a mere one hundred and twenty. This helps to put Genesis into perspective. It does not stand on its own, but rather contains essential background for understanding those events which constituted the nation of Israel as the Lords covenant people. It would therefore not be surprising to find adumbrations of the later national history in the story of the patriarchs. In turn, too, the primeval history (chaps. 111) must be seen in this perspective. It is also essentially preparatory in function and puts the patriarchs into their cosmic context. The God who called Abraham was no local divinity but the creator of the whole universe. The succession of catastrophes that befell humanity prior to Abrahams call show just why the election of Abraham, and in him, Israel, wasText of GenesisBibliographyText and Versions of GenesisGood editions of the Hebrew text and most of the early translations of Genesis are now available.HebrewMasoretic Text (MTMT The Masoretic Text [of the Old Testament] (as published in BHS))Eissfeldt, O. Liber Genesis: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1969.Samaritan Pentateuch (SamPentSamPent Samaritan Pentateuch, Der Hebrische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, ed. A. F. von Gall. Giessen: Verlag von Alfred Topelmann, 1918.)Gall, A. F. von. Der hebrische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. Giessen: Topelmann, 191418.GreekSeptuagint (LXXLXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT or GG Greek translation: as published in Septuaginta, LXX ed. A. Rahlfs, 1935. In Daniel, G includes both OG and Th, as published in J. Zieglers ed., 1954.)Wevers, J. W. Genesis. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamenturn Graece Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum I. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974.LatinVulgate (VgVg Latin Vulgate (as published in Webers edition))Weber, R. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem I. Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969.SyriacPeshitta (SS Syriac)Boer, P. A. H. de. The OTOT Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version. I: Genesis (based on material collected and studied by T. Jansma). Leiden: Brill, 1977.AramaicTargum Onqelos (Tg. Onq.Tg. Onq. Targum Onqelos)Sperber, A. The Bible in Aramaic. I: The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos. Leiden: Brill, 1959.Targum Neofiti (Tg. Neof.Tg. Neof. Targum Neofiti I)Diez Macho, A. Neofyti I: Targum Palestineme MSMS Monograph Series or Manuscript de la Biblioteca Vaticana. I: Genesis. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas, 1968.Fragment-Targums (Frg. Tgs.Frg. Tgs. Fragment-Targums)Klein, M. L. The Fragment-Targums according to their Extant Sources. AnBibAnBib Analecta biblica (Rome: PBI) 76. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980.Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Tg. Ps.-J.Tg. Ps.-J. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan)Clarke, E. G. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance. Hoboken: Ktav, 1984. Ginsburger, M. Thargum Jonathan ben Usiel zum Pentateuch. Berlin: 1903. Rieder, D. Pseudo-Jonathan: Targum Jonathan ben Uziel on the Pentateuch Copied from the London MSMS Monograph Series or Manuscript. Jerusalem: Salomon, 1974.Genesis Apocryphon (Gen. Ap.)Avigad, N., and Y. Yadin. A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1956.Samaritan TargumTal, A. The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition. Pt. 1: Genesis, Exodus. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1980.Text-Critical StudiesAbetbach, M., and B. Grossreid. Targum Onkelos to Genesis. New York: Ktav, 1982. Albrektson, B. Reflections on the Emergence of a Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible. Congress Volume, 1977. VTSupVTSup Vetus Testamentum, Supplements (Leiden: Brill) 29. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978. 4965. Barthlemy, D. History of Hebrew Text. IDBSupIDBSup Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume, ed. K. Crim (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976) 87884. Bowker, J. W. The Targums and Rabbinic Literature. Cambridge: CUP, 1969. Cross, F. M. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies. 2d ed. New York: Doubleday, 1961. , and S. Talmon. Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Cambridge: Harvard UPUP University Press, 1975. Fitzmyer, J. A. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary. BibOrBibOr Biblica et Orientalia (Rome: PBI) 18A. 2d ed. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971. Skehan, P. W. Texts and Versions. JBCJBC R. E. Brown et al. (eds.), The Jerome Biblical Commentary (London: Geoffrey chapman, 1968) 2:36167. Waltke, B. K. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Text of the OTOT Old Testament. In New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Payne. Waco: Word, 1970. 21239. Wevers, J. W. Text History of the Greek Genesis. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unterneh-mens. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. Wrthwein, E. The Text of the Old Testament. Tr. E. F. Rhodes. London: SCMSCM Student Christian Movement Press, 1980.The text on which this commentary is based is the traditional Masoretic Text (MTMT The Masoretic Text [of the Old Testament] (as published in BHS)), preserved in the great majority of mediaeval biblical manuscripts. The particular edition used here, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHSBHS Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia, ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1977)) 1977, reproduces the Leningrad manuscript B19A which dates from the eleventh century a.d. Another Hebrew tradition, the Samaritan Pentateuch (SamPentSamPent Samaritan Pentateuch, Der Hebrische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, ed. A. F. von Gall. Giessen: Verlag von Alfred Topelmann, 1918.), is available in the critical edition of A. von Gall (191418). The most important non-Hebrew witness to the text of Genesis is the Septuagint (LXXLXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT), which in the case of the Pentateuch was a Greek translation made in the third century b.c. and preserved in many Christian manuscripts mostly from the fourth century a.d. onwards. It has complicated textual problems of its own, but J. Wevers has recently published a critical edition. Other less important translations of the Hebrew that need to be consulted include the Peshitta (SS Syriac) (the Syriac translation), the various Aramaic targums (Tg.Tg. Targum), and the Latin Vulgate (VgVg Latin Vulgate (as published in Webers edition)).Despite the relative lateness of the main MTMT The Masoretic Text [of the Old Testament] (as published in BHS) manuscripts, it is universally recognized that the MTMT The Masoretic Text [of the Old Testament] (as published in BHS) of Genesis has preserved one Hebrew text with remarkable fidelity from pre-Christian times. This conclusion, reached originally by comparing the MTMT The Masoretic Text [of the Old Testament] (as published in BHS) with other versions, was confirmed by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Fragments of fifteen manuscripts of Genesis have been found at Qumran dating from about the first century b.c. These show few variants from the traditional text. Readings agreeing with the LXXLXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT are rare, suggesting that the text of Genesis was already standardized in this era. Fragments of Genesis were also discovered at Masada (pre-a.d. 73), one at Murabaat (pre-a.d. 135) and another at Nahal Hever. The Qumran and Murabaat fragments are partially published in DJDDJD Discoveries in the Judean Desert (Oxford/New York: Clarendon/OUP) 15. For further details see P. W. Skehan, JBCJBC R. E. Brown et al. (eds.), The Jerome Biblical Commentary (London: Geoffrey chapman, 1968) 2:56466. Also among the Qumran manuscripts was found an Aramaic paraphrase of Gen 1214 called the Genesis Apocryphon (see Avigad [1956] and Fitzmyer, [1971]).These newer discoveries have led to renewed confidence in the relative antiquity and general superiority of the Masoretic Text. Waltke (1970) showed again that the Samaritan Pentateuch (SamPentSamPent Samaritan Pentateuch, Der Hebrische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, ed. A. F. von Gall. Giessen: Verlag von Alfred Topelmann, 1918.) represents a revision of the MTMT The Masoretic Text [of the Old Testament] (as published in BHS), in which Hebrew grammar is modernized and linguistic, historical, and theological problems are eased or brought into line with sectarian ideology. He argues that much of this revision dates from about the fifth century b.c. and that the MTMT The Masoretic Text [of the Old Testament] (as published in BHS) textual tradition must therefore be earlier. Similarly, the Septuagint, which sometimes has readings in common with SamPentSamPent Samaritan Pentateuch, Der Hebrische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, ed. A. F. von Gall. Giessen: Verlag von Alfred Topelmann, 1918., reflects a later variant Hebrew tradition at some points and is most useful as a witness to the understanding of Genesis current among Egyptian Jews in the third century b.c. (e.g., 3:15; chap. 5; 15:6).In general, then, the commentator must proceed to establish the text of Genesis eclectically, that is, by examining each particular case on its own merits. Usually the MTMT The Masoretic Text [of the Old Testament] (as published in BHS) offers the most trustworthy text, but the SamPentSamPent Samaritan Pentateuch, Der Hebrische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, ed. A. F. von Gall. Giessen: Verlag von Alfred Topelmann, 1918. and versions need to be consulted constantly just in case they offer superior readings, as perhaps at 4:8.Genesis in Recent ResearchBibliographyArmerding, C. E. The Old Testament and Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Clements, R. E. Pentateuchal Problems. In Tradition and Interpretation, ed. G. W. Anderson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. 96124. Eissfeldt, O. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Tr. P. R. Ackroyd. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965. Fohrer, G. Introduction to the Old Testament. Tr. D. Green. London: SPCK, 1970. Gmmeweg, A. H. J. Anmerkungen und Anfragen zur neueren Pentateuchforschung. TRuTRu Theologische Rundschau 48 (1983) 22753; 50 (1985) 10731. Rad, G. von. Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch literarisch untersucht und theologisch gewertet. BWANTBWANT Beitrge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament (Stuttgart:Kolhammer) 65. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1934. Rendtorff, R. The Future of Pentateuchal Criticism. HenHen Henoch 6 (1984) 114. . The Old Testament: An Introduction. Tr. J. Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1985. Robinson, A. Process Analysis Applied to the Early Traditions of Israel. ZAWZAW Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94 (1982) 54966. Ruppert, L. Die Aporie der gegenwrtigen Pentateuchdiskussion und die Joseferzhlung der Genesis. BZBZ Biblische Zeitschrift 29 (1985) 3148. Schmid, H. H. Auf der Suche nach neuen Perspektiven fr die Pentateuchforschung. Congress Volume, 1980. VTSupVTSup Vetus Testamentum, Supplements (Leiden: Brill) 32. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981. 37594. Schmitt, H.-C. Der Hintergrnde der neuesten Pentateuchkritik und der literarische Befund der Josefgeschichte Gen 3750. ZAWZAW Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 97 (1985) 16179. Seters, J. van. Recent Studies in the Pentateuch: A Crisis in Method. JAOSJAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society 99 (1979) 66372. Soggin, J. A. Introduction to the OTOT Old Testament. Tr. J. Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1976. Tengstrm, S. Die Hexateucherzhlung: Eine literaturgeschichtliche Studie. ConBConB Coniectanea biblica (Lund: Gleerup) 7. Lund: Gleerup, 1976. Thompson, R. J. Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism since Graf. VTSupVTSup Vetus Testamentum, Supplements (Leiden: Brill) 19. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Volz, P., and W. Rudolph. Der Elohist als Erzhler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? BZAWBZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [ZAW] 63. Giessen: Tpelmann, 1933. Westermann, C. Genesis 111/Genesis 1250. Ertrge der Forschung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972/1975.Genesis, as anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Old Testament scholarship knows, is central to every theory of pentateuchal criticism. These theories have been and continue to be the subject of an endless stream of monographs and articles, as well as being summarized in every introduction to the OTOT Old Testament and many a Genesis commentary. It is not my purpose here to tread the same ground yet again. (For surveys of these areas see, for example, the OTOT Old Testament Introductions listed in the bibliography, and also the works by Clements, Thompson, and Westermann. Westermanns commentary also contains numerous excursuses outlining changing critical approaches to different parts of Genesis.) Rather, my aim is to draw attention to some of the more significant recent critical work on Genesis, so that the reader has a clear general perspective on the issues raised. But I shall begin by putting the present discussions in context by sketching briefly the regnant critical view and its precursors, for some modern scholarship is reacting against the traditional consensus and in some cases resurrecting ideas last entertained seriously in the nineteenth century.For the best part of a century following the publication of J. Wellhausens works Die Komposition des Hexateuchs (187677; 4th ed., Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963) and Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin: Reimer, 1878), there has been a widespread critical consensus about the composition of the Pentateuch. According to this view, the Pentateuch is composed of four distinct sources: JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) (10/9th century), EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source) (9/8th century), DD Codex Bezae or Deuteronom(ist)ic (7th century), PP Pesher (commentary) (6/5th century). These sources were successively amalgamated, culminating in the composition of the existing Pentateuch in about the fifth century b.c. As far as Genesis is concerned, it was compiled from three main sources: JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) (comprising about half of the material), EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source) (about a third), and PP Pesher (commentary) (about a sixth). These sources were distinguished on five main criteria: different names of the deity (JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) speaks of Yahweh, the Lord, EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source) and PP Pesher (commentary) of Elohim, God); duplicate narratives (e.g., different accounts of creation, Gen 1 and 2; repetition within the flood story, Gen 69; doublets within the patriarchal narratives, cf. 12:1020 with chap. 20); different vocabulary (JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) cuts covenants, PP Pesher (commentary) establishes covenants); different style (JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) and EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source) contain vivid narrative, PP Pesher (commentary) is repetitious and fond of genealogies); and finally, different theologies (according to PP Pesher (commentary), God is remote and transcendent; in JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) and EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source), God is anthropomorphic, etc.).Though this view was very widely accepted from about 1878 to 1970, there have been significant dissenters at various points. For example, Gunkel postulated two Js, a view echoed later by O. Eissfeldt (1965) and G. Fohrer (1970), who distinguished LL Leningrad Codes of MT (as published in BHS) or Codex Leningradensis, B19a or N sources alongside J. G. von Rad (1934) subdivided PP Pesher (commentary) into two, while P. Volz and W. Rudolph denied the distinction of an EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source) source alongside JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) (1933). There have, of course, been those who have entirely rejected these sourcecritical analyses and the dates assigned by them. The valuable commentaries of Jacob (1934) and Cassuto (1944) dispense completely with the sources JEJE Yahwist [Jahwist] plus the ElohistPP Pesher (commentary) and attempt to understand Genesis as a coherent unity.Before the Wellhausenian consensus emerged in the late nineteenth century, there had been more than a hundred years of critical debate about Genesis and its sources. Though some of the more obvious differences within Genesis were quickly discerned and ascribed to different sources, there was much discussion about the relationship between the sources and their relative dating. Should one regard the sources as lengthy documents which have been successively combined by a series of editors who did little but weave the sources together? This type of view became dominant with Wellhausen and is known as a documentary hypothesis. Or should one hold that essentially the Pentateuch grew like a snowball from one main source that subsequent editors have expanded down the centuries, adding extra material either from other traditions or from the editors imagination to fill out the details in the original source? This type of approach is known as a supplementary hypothesis. Thirdly, fragmentary hypotheses were advocated. According to this type of theory, the Pentateuch was composed of a large number of relatively short sources. These short stories were strung together by an editor or editors to form the long narrative that constitutes our present Pentateuch. In recent years, fragmentary or supplementary hypotheses have increasingly been preferred to explain the composition of other biblical books, e.g., Judges, Samuel, Kings. A variety of discrete sources (fragments) is postulated to have been incorporated into the Book of Kings, ranging from extracts from the royal archives to prophetic legends. These have been put together by one or more editors with deuteronomic inclinations (deuteronomists). It is held that they have strung together the fragments, adding their own interpretative comments at the beginning and end of each fragment, sometimes putting their own theological reflection into the mouths of the leading actors in the story. It is this sort of approach to the composition of the Pentateuch that was widely supported in the pre-Wellhausenian era and is being resurrected by some modern pentateuchal critics.Finally it may be noted that before Wellhausen there was much more uncertainty about the dating of the sources. The earliest critics held that the sources of Genesis were pre-Mosaic and that Moses was the editor of Genesis. Subsequent writers tended to prefer a later date for the composition of Genesis, usually in the early monarchy period. But they mostly put the sources in an order different from that of Wellhausen: many of the most eminent nineteenth-century writers (e.g., Sthelin, Ewald, Tuch, Nldeke, Riehm, Hupfeld) held that the JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) material represented the latest material to be written: what is now known as PP Pesher (commentary) and EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source) antedated JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source). And even after the Wellhausenian revolution, A. Dillmann, still one of the most useful nineteenth-century commentators, persisted in dating JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) after PP Pesher (commentary).Having outlined the traditional critical view of Genesis and some of its forerunners, I now propose to outline some of the new hypotheses that have been advanced since 1970. To simplify the discussion I shall look at recent discussions as they affect each source in turnfirst JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source), then EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source), then PP Pesher (commentary)and finally I shall outline modern methods of literary criticism and their impact on the study of Genesis. Inevitably this approach will involve a certain amount of duplication as changing views of EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source), for example, affect understandings of JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source), but I hope this method will make for a clearer presentation of significant trends in scholarship than would a mere chronological account.J (The Yahwistic Source)BibliographyAlexander, T. D. A Literary Analysis of the Abraham Narrative in Genesis. Ph.D. Diss.: Queens University of Belfast, 1082. . Gen 22 and the Covenant of Circumcision. JSOTJSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Biblical Studies 25 (1083) 1722. Coats, G. W. From Canaan to Egypt: Structural and Theological Context for the Joseph Story. CBQMSCBQMS Catholic Bible QuarterlyMonograph Series 5. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1976. Lohfink, N. Die Landverheissung als Eid. SBSSBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien (Stuttgart/Wurzburg: Echter/KBW) 28. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967. Lubsczyk, H. Melchizedek: Versuch einer Einordnung der Melchisedek-Perikope (Gen 14) in den jahwistischen Erzhlzusammenhang. In Einheit in Vielfalt: Festgabe fr H. Aufderbeck, ed. W. Ernst and K. Feiereis. Leipzig: St. Benno Verlag, 1974. 92109. Radday, Y. T., and H. Shore. Genesis: An Authorship Study. AnBibAnBib Analecta biblica (Rome: PBI) 103. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1985. Rendtorff, R. Dos berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch. BZAWBZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [ZAW] 147. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976. Rose, M. Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berhrungspunkten beider Literaturwerke. ATANTATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 67. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981. Schmid, H. H. Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976. Schmidt, L. berlegungen zum Jahwisten. EvTEvT Evangelische Theologie 37 (1977) 23047. Schmidt, W. H. Ein Theologe in salomonischer Zeit? Pldoyer fr den Jahwisten. BZBZ Biblische Zeitschrift 25 (1981) 82102. Schmitt, H. C. Die nichtpriesterliche Josephsgeschichte: Ein Beitrag zur neuesten Pentateuchkritik. BZAWBZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [ZAW] 154. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980. . Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie. VTVT Vetus Testamentum 32 (1982) 17089. Seters, J. van. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven: Yale UPUP University Press, 1975. . In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven: Yale UPUP University Press, 1983. R. Smend. Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1979. Vorlnder, H. Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerk. EHSEHS Europischen Hochschulschriften 23:109. Frankfurt: Lang, 1978. Whybray, R. N. The Joseph Story and Pentateuchai Criticism. VTVT Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968) 52228. . The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. JSOT SSJSOT SS Journal for the Study of the Old Testament [JSOT] Supplement Series 53. Sheffield: JSOTJSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Biblical Studies Press, 1987.In the kaleidoscope of new pentateuchal hypotheses the existence of JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) remains one of the few points of agreement conceded by nearly everyone. R. Rendtorff, Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (1976), is the one significant dissenter. He doubts the existence of any source documents running all through the Pentateuch, preferring a traditio-historical approach. This is akin to the older fragmentary or supplementary hypothesis which held that the Pentateuch stories grew as they were retold and were linked by editors. But since the material ascribed to JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) is heterogeneous, Rendtorff does not think one hand can be credited with arranging it, so it is wiser to give up talking about JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) altogether.Most scholars, however, have been proceeding in the opposite direction to Rendtorff, at least as far as JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) is concerned. More of Genesis is being credited to JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) than under the Wellhausenian consensus. For example, Gen 15 was traditionally divided between JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) and EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source), but N. Lohfink (1967) was one of the first to argue that it was almost entirely JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source)s reworking of earlier tradition, a position followed by J. van Seters (1975) and Coats (1983). Gen 14 is usually considered a stray boulder within Genesis, but again Lohfink, Lubsczyk (1974), Vawter (1977), and Coats (1983) have argued that although it may have been independent once, it is now clearly part of JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source)s story of Abram and Lot (cf. Gen 13, 1819), so it should not be viewed as an insertion into Genesis long after JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source); rather the account antedates JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source). The similarity of the style of Gen 14 to other JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) narratives has been demonstrated by Radday (1985). J. van Seters (1975), while rejecting this last point, has argued for an even larger JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source). He has argued firmly for a supplementary hypothesis to explain the growth of the Abraham stories. A very brief account of Abrahams life was expanded further by adding parts of chaps. 2021 (traditionally EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source)). But the definitive redaction of Gen 1225 was the responsibility of JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source), who added much new material (usually ascribed to JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) and EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source)). Everything but the PP Pesher (commentary) material and chap. 14, according to van Seters, can be attributed to JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source). Following van Seters, Westermann denies the presence of a separate EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source) source in Gen 1225, while Coats (1983) thinks it likely that chaps. 2122, usually ascribed to EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source), more likely come from JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source). Alexander (1982) has gone even further, arguing that there is only one main editor of Gen 1225, namely, JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source). He argues that even the PP Pesher (commentary) sections, e.g., Gen 17 and 23, have been edited by JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source); for example, the sacrifice of Isaac (chap. 22) presupposes the account in Gen 17.In other parts of Genesis there is a similar tendency to maximize JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) at the expense of EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source). Whybray (1968) argued that the Joseph story is a substantial unity, which, says Coats (1976, 1983), is mostly the work of JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) (1983). Westermann, however, while admitting the basic unity of the Joseph story, holds that its author is not identical with JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source), though he worked in the same period, because the literary techniques used in Gen 3745 are different from other sections of Genesis ascribed to JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source). H. C. Schmitt (1980) favors a van Seterstype approach to the Joseph and Jacob stories, viz., an original Judah source, expanded by the Reuben material EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source), and then edited by JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source). More radical still, Rendsburg (1986) argues that one editorwhether JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) or PP Pesher (commentary) is a matter of indifferenceis responsible for compiling the whole of Genesis in the united monarchy period. Whybray (1987) has defended a similar view, though he dates the composition of Genesis much later.Alongside the strong tendency in recent writing to give JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) an even bigger role in the composition of Genesis than Wellhausen allowed, there is a somewhat weaker party arguing that JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) is much later than the tenth century b.c. H. H. Schmid (1976), M. Rose (1981), R. Smend (1984), for example, want to date JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) in the late monarchy period mainly on grounds of its affinities with deuteronomic literature. Similarly, van Seters (1975; cf. Whybray [1987]) posits the composition of JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) in about the sixth century on literary and archeological grounds. But his arguments on the dating of JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) have carried less conviction than his remarks about its extent.E (The Elohistic Source)BibliographyCragban, J. F. The Elohist in Recent Literature. BTBBTB Biblical Theology Bulletin 7 (1977) 2335. Jenks, A. W. The Elohist and North Israelite Traditions. SBLMSSBLMS Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Monograph Series 22. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. Klein, H. Ort und Zeit des Elohisten. EvTEvT Evangelische Theologie 37 (1977) 24760. Portnoy, S. L., and D. L. Petersen. Genesis, Wellhausen and the Computer: A Response. ZAWZAW Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 96 (1984) 42125. Radday, Y. T., H. Shore, M. A. Pollatschek, and D. Wickmann. Genesis, Wellhausen and the Computer. ZAWZAW Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94 (1982) 46781. Weimar, P. Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch. BZAWBZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [ZAW] 146. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977. Wenham, G. J. Genesis: An Authorship Study and Current Pentateuchal Criticism. JSOTJSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Biblical Studies (forthcoming). Zenger, E. Auf der Suche nach einem Weg aus der Pentateuchkrise. TRevTRev Theologische Revue 78 (1982) 35362.EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source) has become very much the Cinderella of the pentateuchal sources in recent criticism. JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source)s growth has been largely at the expense of EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source), as the above discussion indicates. (See especially the work of van Seters, Westermann, and Coats). For van Seters the EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source) material has become one of the sources utilized by JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) or JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source)s own material; at any rate no EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source) material is of later date than JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source). Westermann and Coats, on those occasions where they admit the existence of EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source) material independent of JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source), tend to view it as a later expansion of the existing JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) narrative. In other words, some of the EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source) material is seen by them not as constituting a separate source document but as a supplement to JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source). At these points they are advocating a supplementary theory.This tendency among leading source critics to merge the JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) and EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source) sources has received significant support from the computerized statistical linguistic studies of Radday (1982, 1985). Using a battery of linguistic criteria (word length, grammatical features, transition frequencies) and a variety of statistical analyses, Radday and his collaborators were able to distinguish differences of style within Genesis. They observed that human and divine speeches reported in Genesis differed in style from each other and from the narrators style. This was something overlooked by previous studies. And certain passages, e.g., Gen 5 and 11, stood out as quite distinctive. These stylistic distinctions clearly must be ascribed to differences in genre: speech, narrative, and genealogy inevitably utilize different styles.But appeal is also usually made to stylistic differences to distinguish the sources JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source), EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source), and PP Pesher (commentary) in Genesis. Here, however, no significant difference in style between JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) and EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source) was detected when Radday compared similar genres of material. A marked difference in style between JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) and PP Pesher (commentary) was noted, though Radday thinks this may be ascribed to differences in genre: PP Pesher (commentary)s lists are bound to differ stylistically from JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source)s or EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source)s narratives. He notes that in Gen 211 the narrative styles of JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) and PP Pesher (commentary) are often quite similar.Before embracing these results too quickly, however, one should be aware of the limitations of this approach (cf. Portnoy and Petersen, 1984). First, the stylistic identity of JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) and EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source) need not indicate identity of authorship: identity of authorship is the simplest, most economical hypothesis, but stylistic uniformity could indicate that all Hebrew prose writers adopted a very uniform stereotyped style of writing within a particular genre. Second, statistical analysis requires longish sections of text (at least 200 word samples) to make a judgment. Thus, distinguishing an editorial comment from a narrative or list used by the editor is beyond the power of this method. Statistical studies may provide a rough sketch map of the problem, not a detailed guide. So while Raddays work points to JJ Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) and EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source)s having a unified origin, it does not demonstrate this unequivocally. Whether such a view ultimately prevails depends on critics being persuaded that passages traditionally ascribed to different sources make good, coherent sense when read as a unity.Though EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source) seems to be making an exit from Genesis there are some recent studies which presuppose it. One may cite Jenks (1977), Weimar (1977), Klein (1977), and Zenger (1982) among recent studies, as well as many articles and most introductions to the OTOT Old Testament. So EE Elohist (supposed biblical literary source) could yet make a comeback.P (The Priestly Source)BibliographyHaran, M. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. . Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Source. JBLJBL Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (1981) 32133. Hildebrand, D. R. A Summary of Recent Findings in Support of an Early Date for the So-called Priestly Material in the Pentateuch. JETSJETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29 (1986) 12938. Hurvitz, A. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem. Paris: Gabalda, 1982. Kikawada, I. M., and A. Quinn. Before Abraham Was: The Unity of Genesis 111. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985. Klling, S. R. Zur Datierung der Genesis-P-Stcke, namentlich des Kapitels Genesis 17. Kampen: Kok, 1964. Milgrom, J. Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology. SJLASJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity (Leiden: Brill) 36. Leiden: Brill, 1983. Rendsburg, G. A. Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of &;P. JANESCUJANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 12 (1980) 6580. . A New Look at Pentateuchal HWUbal, a place between Hodeida and Sanaa, or a Yemenite tribe Ban>Ubal (KBKB L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1951-53), 750).Abimael, literally, my father, truly, is god. The infixed ma (truly) suggests that it could be a Sabaean formation although it is also found in west Semitic. Apart from 1 Chr 1:22, the name is otherwise unknown.Sheba. Cf. Comment on 10:7.29 Ophir. The source of the best gold in biblical times, evidently reached by ships sailing from the southern port of Ezion-geber (Eilat; 1 Kgs 9:2628; Ps 45.1019]). It has been located in various sites between South Africa and India. However, assuming that Ophir, the gold producer, is the same as the son of Yoqtan, it would seem most probable that, like the other names here, it is to be located in southwest Arabia (cf. D. J. Wiseman, NBDNBD The New Biblical Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (London: IVF, 1962), 911).Havilah. Cf. Comment on v 7. This is another region famed for its gold (2:11).Yobab (wilderness?; KBKB L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1951-53) 381). Four other Yobabs are mentioned in the OTOT Old Testament (36:33; Josh 11:1; 1 Chr 8:9, 18). Cassuto mentions a tribe called Yuhaybib in southern Arabia.30 Their settlement. Their refers to all the sons of Yoqtan discussed in the previous verses. As in v 19, this verse defines the territory of the peoples just discussed. Unfortunately, it is extremely obscure. Neither Mesha, Saphar, nor the eastern mountain can be positively identified. Sephar might be the coastal town of Saphar in southern Arabia, but the different initial sibilant makes this questionable. Most commentators guess that Mesha represents the western limit of the Yoqtanites and Sephar the eastern, and that the territory lies within southern Arabia, but certainty is impossible.31 This verse closes the discussion of the sons of Shem; cf. similar formulae in vv 5, 20.32 The table of nations is rounded off with neat inclusions with v 1. Note the echoing phraseologyThese, sons of Noah, descendants/family history (tdlwt), after the floodthat links vv 1 and 32. But whereas v 1 says children were born, v 32 states that the nations spread out, anticipating the great dispersal at Babel about to be discussed.The Tower of Babel (11:19)BibliographyAlster, B. An Aspect of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta. RARA Revue dassyriologie et darchologie orientale 67 (1973) 1019. Anderson, B. W. Unity and Diversity in Gods Creation: A Study of the Babel Story. CurTMCurTM Currents in Theology and Mission 5 (1978) 6981. Auffret, P. La sagesse a bti sa maison. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1982. 6990. Banon, D. Babel ou lidoltrie embusqu. BCPEBCPE Bulletin du Centre Protestant dEtudes 32 (1980) 530. Cohen, S. Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta. Ph.D. Dissertation: University of Pennsylvania, 1973.41929. Couffignal, R. La Tour de Babel: Approches nouvelles de Gen 11:19. RevThomRevThom Revue thomiste 83 (1983) 5970. Dahood, M. Northwest Semitic Notes on Genesis. BibBib Biblica 55 (1974) 7682. Fokkelmann, J. P. Narrative Art in Genesis. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975. Frentz, A. Der Turmbau. VTVT Vetus Testamentum 19 (1969) 18395. Gelb, I. J. The Name of Babylon. Journal of the Institute of Asian Studies 1 (1955) 14. Gurney, O. R., and S. N. Kramer. Sumerian Literary Texts in the Ashmolean Museum. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976. Kikawada, I. M. The Shape of Genesis 11:19. In Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor of J. Muilenburg, ed. J. J.Jackson and M. Kessler. Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1974. 1832. Kramer, S. N. The Babel of Tongues: A Sumerian Version. JAOSJAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society 88 (1968) 10811. . Enki and His Inferiority Complex. OrOr Orientalia (Rome) 39 (1970) 10310. Laurin, R. B. The Tower of Babel Revisited. In Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of W. L. Lasor, ed. G. A. Tuttle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. 14245. Margulis, B. A Weltbaum in Ugaritic Literature? JBLJBL Journal of Biblical Literature 90 (1971) 48182. Pury, A. de.La Tour de Babel et la vocation dAbraham. ETRETR Etudes theologiques et religieuses 53 (1978) 8097. Rllig, W. Der Turm zu Babel. Der babylonische Turin: Aufbruch ins Masslose, ed A. Rosenberg. Munich: Ksel Verlag, 1975. 3546. Ross, A. P. The Dispersion of the Nations in Gen 11:19. BSacBSac Bibliotheca Sacra 138 (1981) 11938. Sasson, J. M. The Tower of Babel as a Clue to the Redactional Structuring of the Primeval History. In The Bible World: Essays in Honor of C. H. Gordon, ed. G. Rendsburg, R. Adler, M. Arfa, and N. H. Winter. New York: Ktav, 1980. 21119. Seybold, K. Der Turmbau zu Babel Zur Entstehung von Gen 11:19. VTVT Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976) 45379. Soden, W. von. Etemenanki von Asarhaddon nach der Erzhlung vom Turmbau zu Babel und dem Erra-Mythos. UFUF UF Ugaritische Forschungen 3 (1971) 25363. . Zum hebrischen Wrterbuch. UFUF UF Ugaritische Forschungen 13 (1981) 15764. Speiser, E. A. Word Plays on the Creation Epics Version of the Founding of Babylon. OrOr Orientalia (Rome) 25 (1955/56) 31723. = Oriental and Biblical Studies, 5362. Strus, A. La potique sonore des rcits de la Gense. BibBib Biblica 60 (1979) 122. Van Dijk, J. La confusion des langues: Note sur le lexique et sur la morphologie dEnmerkar. OrOr Orientalia (Rome) 39 (1970) 30210. Wallis, G. Die Stadt in den berlieferungen der Genesis. ZAWZAW Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 78 (1966) 13348. Witt, D. S. de. The Historical Background of Gen 11:19: Babel or Ur? JETSJETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 (1979) 1526.Translation1The whole earth hadaa 1.a. The verb, 3 masc. sg impf. hyh, does not agree with the term earth. So Gispen suggests it agrees with lk whole; Westermann, that it anticipates yhyw at the beginning of v 2. one language and one kind of speech,bb 1.b. G adds pa`sin for all.2When they journeyedaa 2.a. b + inf constr [sn + 3 masc. pl. suff. inbb 2.b. G, Vg take dqm as from the East, but many modern commentators cite 13:11 in support of translating it eastward. The former translation is more natural, but clearly the issue depends on where the people are supposed to have come from before arriving in Babylon: in the East leaves the issue undecided. the East, they found a plain in the country of Shinar and they settled there.3They said to each other, Come,aa 3.a. hbh, probably impv from bhy to give, has become purely hortatory (SBH, 57). let us makebb 3.b. 1 pl. coh blrv bricks and bakebb 3.b. 1 pl. coh blrv themcc 3.c. Them understood from previous clause. Note how the two clauses complement each other (SBH, 98). thoroughly.dd 3.d-d. Note chiasmus was bricks // asphalt was, tying the two aspects of the event together (SBH, 20). So they had bricks for stone and asphalt for mortar,dd 3.d-d. Note chiasmus was bricks // asphalt was, tying the two aspects of the event together (SBH, 20). 4Then they said, Come,aa 4.a. hbh; cf. 11:3a.* let us build for ourselvesbb 4.b. WnL;: the doubled letter l is euphonic, daghe forte conjunctivum, and is found following eh on words whose first syllable is stressed (GKC, 20f; Lambdin, 208). For ourselves: so-called ethical dative, used to emphasize the significance of an action for a particular subject (GKC, 119s). a city and a towercc 4.c-c. Verbless circumstantial clause (SBH, 85). with its top in the skycc 4.c-c. Verbless circumstantial clause (SBH, 85). to make for ourselvesbb 4.b. WnL;: the doubled letter l is euphonic, daghe forte conjunctivum, and is found following eh on words whose first syllable is stressed (GKC, 20f; Lambdin, 208). For ourselves: so-called ethical dative, used to emphasize the significance of an action for a particular subject (GKC, 119s). a name, lest we are scattereddd 4.d. 1 pl. impf. qal, wp over the face of the whole earth.5Then the Lord came down toaa 5.a. l + inf, expressing purpose (GKC, 114g). see the city and the tower which mankind had built.6The Lord said, Sinceaa 6.a. Cf. use of hnh to introduce subordinate clause (Lambdin, 16971), and parallel construction in 3:22. they are one people and they allbb 6.b. lk + 3 masc. pl. suff. have one language and this is the beginningcc 6.c. Inf constr hiph llj + 3 masc. pl. suff. of their activity, now dd 6.d. On use of ht[w, cf. H. A. Brongers (VT 15 [1965] 28999). lest nothing they plotee 6.e. 3 masc. pl. impf. qal, mz (GKC, 67 dd). to do be beyondff 6.f. 3 masc. sg impf. niph, wp them, 7come,aa 7.a. Cf. use of hbh in vv 3, 4. let usbb 7.b. Let us, echoing v 4 and analogous usage to 1:26; cf. discussion there. go down and mixcc 7.c. 1 pl. coh, llb (GKC, 67 dd). up their language there so thatdd 7.d. Unusual for rva to introduce final clause, but cf. Exod 20:26 (Joon, 186f). they cannot understand each others language.8Then the Lord scatteredaa 8.a. Waw consec + 3 masc. sg impf. hiph wp them from there over the face of the whole earth and they stopped building the city.bb 8.b. SamPent, G add and the tower, assimilating to vv 45.9Therefore its name was calledaa 9.a. Lit., one called, 3 masc. sg he called being used for indefinite subj (GKC, 144d, Joon, 155e) cf. 16:14; 19:22. Babel, because there the Lord mixed up the language of the whole earth and from there the Lord scatteredbb 9.b. 3 masc. sg pf hiph yp + 3 masc. pl. suff. them over the face of the whole earth.Notes1.a. The verb, 3 masc.masc. masculine sgsg singular or under impf.impf. imperfect hyh, does not agree with the term earth. So Gispen suggests it agrees with lk whole; Westermann, that it anticipates yhyw at the beginning of v 2.1.b. GG Greek translation: as published in Septuaginta, LXX ed. A. Rahlfs, 1935. In Daniel, G includes both OG and Th, as published in J. Zieglers ed., 1954. adds pa`sin for all.2.a. b + infinf infinitive constrconstr construct [sn + 3 masc.masc. masculine pl.pl. plate or plural suffsuff suffix(es).2.b. GG Greek translation: as published in Septuaginta, LXX ed. A. Rahlfs, 1935. In Daniel, G includes both OG and Th, as published in J. Zieglers ed., 1954., VgVg Latin Vulgate (as published in Webers edition) take dqm as from the East, but many modern commentators cite 13:11 in support of translating it eastward. The former translation is more natural, but clearly the issue depends on where the people are supposed to have come from before arriving in Babylon: in the East leaves the issue undecided.3.a. hbh, probably impvimpv imperative(s) from bhy to give, has become purely hortatory (SBHSBH F. I. Anderson, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, 57).3.b. 1 pl.pl. plate or plural cohcoh cohortative blrv3.c. Them understood from previous clause. Note how the two clauses complement each other (SBHSBH F. I. Anderson, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, 98).3.d-d. Note chiasmus was bricks // asphalt was, tying the two aspects of the event together (SBHSBH F. I. Anderson, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, 20).4.a. hbh; cf. 11:3a.** 3.a. hbh, probably impv from bhy to give, has become purely hortatory (SBH, 57).4.b. WnL;: the doubled letter l is euphonic, daghe forte conjunctivum, and is found following eh on words whose first syllable is stressed (GKCGKC Gesenius Hebrew Grammar ed. E. Kautsch, trans. A. E. Cowley (London/New York: OUP, 1910; repr. 1966), 20f; Lambdin, 208). For ourselves: so-called ethical dative, used to emphasize the significance of an action for a particular subject (GKCGKC Gesenius Hebrew Grammar ed. E. Kautsch, trans. A. E. Cowley (London/New York: OUP, 1910; repr. 1966), 119s).4.c-c. Verbless circumstantial clause (SBHSBH F. I. Anderson, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, 85).4.d. 1 pl.pl. plate or plural impf.impf. imperfect qalqal the basic stem of Heb. verbs, wp5.a. l + infinf infinitive, expressing purpose (GKCGKC Gesenius Hebrew Grammar ed. E. Kautsch, trans. A. E. Cowley (London/New York: OUP, 1910; repr. 1966), 114g).6.a. Cf. use of hnh to introduce subordinate clause (Lambdin, 16971), and parallel construction in 3:22.6.b. lk + 3 masc.masc. masculine pl.pl. plate or plural suffsuff suffix(es).6.c. InfInf infinitive constrconstr construct hiphhiph Hiphil llj + 3 masc.masc. masculine pl.pl. plate or plural suffsuff suffix(es).6.d. On use of ht[w, cf. H. A. Brongers (VTVT Vetus Testamentum 15 [1965] 28999).6.e. 3 masc.masc. masculine pl.pl. plate or plural impf.impf. imperfect qalqal the basic stem of Heb. verbs, mz (GKCGKC Gesenius Hebrew Grammar ed. E. Kautsch, trans. A. E. Cowley (London/New York: OUP, 1910; repr. 1966), 67 dd).6.f. 3 masc.masc. masculine sgsg singular or under impf.impf. imperfect niphniph Niphal, wp7.a. Cf. use of hbh in vv 3, 4.7.b. Let us, echoing v 4 and analogous usage to 1:26; cf. discussion there.7.c. 1 pl.pl. plate or plural cohcoh cohortative, llb (GKCGKC Gesenius Hebrew Grammar ed. E. Kautsch, trans. A. E. Cowley (London/New York: OUP, 1910; repr. 1966), 67 dd).7.d. Unusual for rva to introduce final clause, but cf. Exod 20:26 (Joon, 186f).8.a. Waw consecconsec consecutive + 3 masc.masc. masculine sgsg singular or under impf.impf. imperfect hiphhiph Hiphil wp8.b. SamPentSamPent Samaritan Pentateuch, Der Hebrische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, ed. A. F. von Gall. Giessen: Verlag von Alfred Topelmann, 1918., GG Greek translation: as published in Septuaginta, LXX ed. A. Rahlfs, 1935. In Daniel, G includes both OG and Th, as published in J. Zieglers ed., 1954. add and the tower, assimilating to vv 45.9.a. Lit., one called, 3 masc.masc. masculine sgsg singular or under he called being used for indefinite subjsubj subject/subjective (GKCGKC Gesenius Hebrew Grammar ed. E. Kautsch, trans. A. E. Cowley (London/New York: OUP, 1910; repr. 1966), 144d, Joon, 155e) cf. 16:14; 19:22.9.b. 3 masc.masc. masculine sgsg singular or under pfpf perfect hiphhiph Hiphil yp + 3 masc.masc. masculine pl.pl. plate or plural suffsuff suffix(es).Form/Structure/SettingThe tower of Babel is a short but brilliant example of Hebrew story telling. The compositional techniques have been thoroughly explored by Cassuto, Fokkelmann, Kikawada, and Auffret. Word play, chiasmus, paronomasia, and alliteration are just some of the devices used to unify and accentuate the message of the tale.Its beginning and end are marked by an inclusionthe whole earth had one language (v 1) the language of the whole earth (v 9)and semantically a plain in the country of Shinar (v 2) corresponds to Babel (v 9). The overall arrangement of the story has parallels elsewhere in the primeval history. The double yhyw opening of vv 12 matches 4:2b3, while h since plus ht[w now plus a final clause (vv 67) parallels the similar conclusion in 3:22. The etiological therefore kAl[ (v 9) echoes the concluding comment of 2:24. These features of the narrative show that the tower of Babel narrative is very much at home in the primeval history and bears several of the hallmarks of the style of these chapters.Furthermore, the narrative builds towards the explanation of the name of Babylon, Babel. As elsewhere in Genesis (cf. Adam, Noah, Eve), a proper name is pre-echoed in the story long before the word itself is heard. As soon as the men of Babylon, start speaking they use words that contain the consonants b and l, or p and m, phonetically close to b, e.g., nilbenah lebnm let us make bricks, nibneh-llanu let us build for ourselves, and nabelah let us mix up. Some words just rhyme with babel, e.g., lahem,