GENESIS

Volume 1
The Anchor Bible is a fresh approach to the world’s greatest
classic. Its object is to make the Bible accessible to the modem
reader; its method is to arrive at the meaning of biblical literature
through exact translation and extended exposition, and to recon­
struct the ancient setting of the biblical story, as well as the circum­
stances of its transcription and the characteristics of its transcribers.
The Anchor Bible is a project of international and interfaith
scope: Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish scholars from many coun­
tries contribute individual volumes. The project is not sponsored
by any ecclesiastical organization and is not intended to reflect any
particular theological doctrine. Prepared under our joint supervision,
The Anchor Bible is an effort to make available all the significant
historical and linguistic knowledge which bears on the interpretation
of the biblical record.
The Anchor Bible is aimed at the general reader with no special
formal training in biblical studies; yet, it is written with the most
exacting standards of scholarship, reflecting the highest technical
accomplishment.
This project marks the beginning of a new era of co-operation among
scholars in biblical research, thus forming a common body of knowl­
edge to be shared by all.
William Foxwell Albright
David Noel Freedman
GENERAL EDITORS
 THE ANCHOR BIBLE

GENESIS
INTRODUCTION, TRANSLATION, AND NOTES
BY
E. A. SPEISER

The Anchor Bible

DOUBLEDAY
NEW YORK LONDON TORONTO SYDNEY AUCKLAND
 The Anchor Bible
Published by Doubleday, a division of
Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.,
666 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10103

The Anchor Bible, Doubleday, and the portrayal of an anchor

with the letters AB are trademarks of Doubleday, a division of
Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 64-21724

ISBN: 0-385-00854-6
Copyright © by Doubleday & Company, Inc.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

24 26 28 29 27 25 23
 PREFACE

As the foundation for a rising biblical structure, Genesis began

to be quoted and discussed even before the Old Testament as a
whole had been completed; and it remains to this day one of the
most intensively cultivated books of the Bible. Volumes have been
written about single chapters, and monographs about individual
verses and clauses. Any comprehensive treatment of Genesis must,
therefore, be highly selective, if it is to be at all suitable for the
layman while not ignoring the scholar’s needs. Accordingly, the
present work devotes only as much space to matters that have al­
ready been covered elsewhere as is necessary for clarity and con­
tinuity; a minimal bibliography of the excellent works that are
available is provided in the section on Genesis Exegesis (pp. lx f.).
By the same token, greater emphasis has been placed on questions
about which there is as yet no definite consensus, and on points
that remain to be adduced.
The introductory essay deals with critical approaches to the Bible,
the nature of the biblical process, the contents of Genesis, and the
general problem of Bible translations. The body of the work has
been divided into sections that follow the exact order of the original,
but do not necessarily coincide with the customary division into
chapters. Each section contains a translation of the text, some tex­
tual notes, more extensive annotations, and an appended com­
mentary. The Notes are addressed to specific verses, whereas the
Comment is directed to the given section as a whole and is con­
cerned with literary treatment, cultural and historical background,
and problems of authorship. The study follows in the main the mod­
erate school of documentary criticism, and the presumed sources
have been indicated at the head of each section. But the sequence
of the original remains undisturbed, so that any reader may ignore,
if he so chooses, both the markers and the reasons behind them.
The transliteration of Hebrew terms has had to be simplified for
typographic reasons. With personal and place names, the traditional
VI PREFACE

spelling has been retained in order to avoid confusion. Further de­

tails are given in the brief Note on Transliteration.
In the preparation of this book I enjoyed the privilege of thought­
ful editorial advice from Professor William F. Albright and Pro­
fessor David Noel Freedman, who contributed many comments
and suggestions, without ever interfering with the writer’s freedom
of decision.
It is a genuine pleasure to express thanks to the editorial and
technical staffs of Anchor Books for their understanding and res­
oluteness in facing many novel problems that this volume posed,
especially since some of the decisions could not but set precedents
for the rest of the Series. For this author the “front office” proved
to be a friendly refuge.
The full extent of my indebtedness to the ever expanding litera­
ture on Genesis could not possibly be acknowledged within the
space available to me; the general tenor of the present work was
an added bar to a detailed literary apparatus. The credits that
are explicitly indicated are but a small measure of what I owe to
uncounted predecessors.
There is, however, one acknowledgment that I have left for the
end in order to give it special prominence. The present translation
bears frequent and close resemblance to the version of Genesis
that is contained in the new rendition of the Torah brought out
by the Jewish Publication Society of America (1962). The resem­
blance is not coincidental. As a member of the small committee that
had been entrusted with the task, I had a share in that translation
from the start. And because of my preoccupation with Genesis, that
particular share was correspondingly larger. My own results were
available to the committee and were frequently utilized by it. In
turn, I had the benefit of my colleagues’ contributions. But I owe
more to my fellow members than the sundry words or phrases
which I elected to appropriate. The over-all gain from constant
written interchanges of views, and daylong sessions every other
week over a period of years, cannot be reduced to statistics. I take
this opportunity, therefore, to express my deep appreciation to my
six co-workers on the committee and to the Society which originated
the project.

E.A.S.
August 25, 1962
 CONTENTS

Preface v
Principal Abbreviations xi
Note on Transliteration xm

INTRODUCTION
The Biblical Process xvn
What’s in a Name? xvn
Biblical Criticism xx
The Documentary Sources ofGenesis xxu
(1) P, (2) 1, (5) E. (4) The Residue
The Tradition behind the Documents xxxvn
Genesis of the Biblical Process xlih

Introduction to the Book of Genesis un

Nature of the Contents un
(2) Primeval History, (2) The Story of the Patriarchs
Genesis Exegesis lx
On Translating Genesis LXin
Standard Versions lxxi

I. PRIMEVAL HISTORY
1. Opening Account of Creation (i 1-ii 4a) 3
2. The Story of Eden (ii 4b-24) 14
3. The Fall of Man (ii 25-iii 24) 21
4. Cain and Abel (iv 1-16) 29
5. The Line of Cain (iv 17-26) 34
6. The Patriarchs before the Flood (v 1-32) 39
7. Prelude to Disaster (vi 1—4) 44
8. The Flood (vi 5-viii 22) 47
9. Blessing and Covenant (ix 1-17) 57
10. Noah and His Sons (ix 18-29) 60
11. The Table of Nations (x 1-32) 64
vm CONTENTS

12. The Tower of Babel (xi 1-9) 74

13. Genealogies from Shem to Abraham (xi 10-32) 77

II. THE STORY OF THE PATRIARCHS

The Story of Abraham

14. Abraham’s Call and Migration (xii 1-9) 85
15. Abraham and Sarah in Egypt (xii 10-20) 89
16. Lot’s Separation from Abraham (xiii 1-18) 95
17. Invasion from the East. Abraham and Melchizedek
(xiv 1-24) 99
18. Promise and Covenant (xv 1-21) 110
19. The Birth of Ishmael (xvi 1-16) 116
20. Covenant and Circumcision (xvii 1-27) 122
21. Abraham and His Mysterious Visitors (xviii 1-15) 128
22. Abraham Intercedes for Sodom (xviii 16-33) 132
23. Destruction of Sodom. Lot’s Escape (xix 1-29) 136
24. Lot’s Daughters (xix 30-38) 144
25. Abraham and Sarah at Gerar (xx 1-18) 147
26. Birth of Isaac and Expulsion of Hagar (xxi 1-21) 153
27. Abraham and Abimelech at Beer-sheba (xxi 22-34) 158
28. The Ordeal of Isaac (xxii 1-19) 161
29. The Line of Nahor (xxii 20-24) 167
30. The Machpelah Purchase (xxiii 1-19) 168
31. Isaac and Rebekah (xxiv 1-67) 174
32. The Sons of Keturah. Death of Abraham. The Line of
Ishmael (xxv 1-18) 186

The Story of Jacob

33. Esau and Jacob: Their Birth and Youth (xxv 19-34) 193
34. Various Notices about Isaac (xxvi 1-35) 198
35. Isaac Deceived (xxvii 1-45) 205
36. Jacob Is Sent to Laban (xxvii 46-xxviii 9) 214
37. Jacob’s Dream at Bethel (xxviii 10-22) 217
38. Jacob’s Arrival in Haran (xxix l-14a) 221
39. Jacob’s Marriages with Leah and Rachel (xxix 14b-30) 224
40. The Birth of Jacob’s Children (xxix 31-xxx 24) 228
41. Jacob’s Bargain with Laban (xxx 25—43) 234
42. Jacob’s Flight from Haran (xxxi 1-54) 240
43. Encounters (xxxii 1-33) 252
44. Meeting between Jacob and Esau (xxxiii 1-20) 258
45. The Rape of Dinah (xxxiv 1-31) 262
46. Bethel Revisited (xxxv 1-15) 269
 CONTENTS IX

47. Brief Notices about Jacob’s Family (xxxv 16-29) 272

48. Edomite Lists (xxxvi 1-xxxvii 2a) 276

Joseph and His Brothers

49. Joseph Sold into Egypt (xxxvii 2b-36) 287
50. Judah and Tamar (xxxviii 1-30) 295
51. The Temptation of Joseph (xxxix 1-23) 301
52. Joseph Interprets the Dreams of Pharaoh’s Servants
(xl 1-23) 305
53. What Dreams Did for Joseph (xli 1-57) 309
54. The Brothers’ First Trip to Egypt (xlii 1-38) 318
55. Second Trip to Egypt (xliii 1-34) 325
56. The Ultimate Test (xliv 1-34) 331
57. The Disclosure (xlv 1-28) 336
58. Jacob’s Migration to Egypt (xlvi 1-34) 342
59. Jacob before Pharaoh. His Land Policy (xlvii 1-26) 348
60. The Blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh
(xlvii 27-xlviii 22) 354
61. The Testament of Jacob (xlix 1-27) 361
62. Death of Jacob and Joseph (xlix 28-1 26) 373

Key to the Text 379

 PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS

1. Publications

AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research

AfO Archiv für Orientforschung
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures
ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament,
ed. J. B. Pritchard, 2d ed., 1955
AOS American Oriental Society: Monograph Series
ARM Archives royales de Mari
BA The Biblical Archaeologist
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary, Oriental Institute of the Uni­
versity of Chicago
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CT Cuneiform Texts ... in the British Museum
Dr- S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis. 12th ed., 1926, re­
printed 1954
Ehrl. A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, Vol. I,
1908
Gen. Apocr. N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, Genesis Apocryphon, 1956
Gilg. The Epic of Gilgamesh
HSS Harvard Semitic Series
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies
JEN Joint Expedition ... at Nuzi
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
KB L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veieris Testa-
menti Libros, 1953
MSL Materialen zum sumerischen Lexikon
OTS Oudtestamentische Studien
xn PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS

SB R. de Vaux, La Genèse, in La Sainte Bible, 1953

Vergote J. Vergote, Joseph en Egypte, 1959
von Rad G. von Rad, Das erste Buch Mose, 1953
VT Vetus Test amentum
ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und ver wandte Gebiete

2. Versions

AT An American Translation: The Old Testament, 1931

JPS Jewish Publication Society of America: The Holy Scrip­
tures, 1917; new ed., The Torah, 1962
KJ The Authorized Version of 1611, or the King James Bible
LXX The Septuagint
MT Masoretic Text
RSV The Revised Standard Version, 1952
Sam. The Samaritan Pentateuch
Syr. Syriac version, the Peshitta
TJ Targum of (Pseudo-) Jonathan
TO Targum Onkelos
TP Palestinian Targum
Vulg. The Vulgate

3. Other Abbreviations

Akk. Akkadian.
At. Arabic.
Aram. Aramaic.
Eg. Egyptian.
Gr. Greek.
Heb. Hebrew.
OT. Old Testament.
Sem. Semitic.
Sum. Sumerian.
“T.” Predocumentary traditions,
cons. The unvocalized, consonantal form,
cun. Cuneiform,
hend. Hendiadys.
trad. Tradition (al).
 NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION

The reduced Hebrew vowel known as Shewa is represented by

an 6. No distinction is made between the Hebrew stops b, g, d,
k, p, t and their respective postvocalic variants, which are technically
spirants. While it would be simple enough to alternate b:v, p:j, and
t:th, there are no convenient counterparts for g, d, k. More im­
portant, the spirant forms are relatively late developments within
Hebrew itself, certainly later than the time of Moses; hence a more
precise transcription might do justice to the dialect of Ezra, but
would be an anachronism in the speech of Abraham.
The vowel sign Segol is transcribed as e and Sere appears as e.
Each carries the macron wherever the quantity is demonstrably long.
There is no satisfactory solution to the problem of adequate
transcription of personal and place names in the Old Testament.
Our Isaac is a far cry indeed from Heb. Yishaq. But as long as we
retain some of the traditional spellings, we might as well keep all
the others rather than cause still greater confusion. There is the
added complication of foreign names in the Bible. Traditional Haran
represents Heb. Haran, which in turn reflects cun. Harranu(m).
In such instances it seemed advisable to write Har(r)an, except
in actual translation. For analogous reasons, the name Asshur has
been retained in direct quotations from the text, but the simplified
Ashur has been substituted in the Notes and Comments.
INTRODUCTION
 THE BIBLICAL PROCESS

What’s in a Name?

Genesis is a book of beginnings in more ways than one. It starts

out with an account of the origin of the world, hence the name, in­
troduced in the third century B.C. by the Greek translators to
whom we owe the so-called Septuagint (or LXX) version. Then,
too, Genesis is the initial portion in the first of the three major sub­
divisions of the Old Testament, and hence the first book of the Bible.
But Genesis also marks a beginning from within as well as from
without. It is not only the starting point of a long series; beyond
and above that, Genesis is our main clue to the process which
ultimately produced the Bible, as a witness to one of the profoundest
experiences of mankind. The Book of Genesis is thus, among other
things, the key to the genesis of the Bible as a whole.
In the Hebrew, Genesis bears the (normalized) title of Bereshit.
By sheer coincidence, this name, too, applies to beginnings. The
first word in the original happens to be b'reilt; and it was standard
practice in the ancient Near East to call a literary work by its
initial word or phrase. For this reason, for example, the Hebrew name
for the third book of the Bible is Wayyiqra, although all it means is
“and he called”; the more pertinent term Leviticus has been adapted
from the Greek version. Similarly, the Babylonians called their own
Genesis, or Poem of Creation, Enuma elis “when on high,” and the
Epic of Gilgamesh Sa rtagba imuru “he who experienced all.” It
was mere chance that placed the word b'reilt “in the beginning
(of)” at the head of the Hebrew Bible. As it turned out, it is in­
deed an appropriate opening for the Scriptures as a unit.
When it comes, however, to the collective section which the Book
of Genesis heads, it is the secondary term Pentateuch, from the
Greek for “five-volume (work),” that deals with an external detail,
xvra INTRODUCTION

whereas the Hebrew title Torah addresses itself to the content.

Yet for ail its basic merit, the latter designation was to be, para­
doxically enough, a hindrance rather than a help. For one thing
this name (technically tdr&) is invariably translated “Law,” thus
giving the impression that the work is devoted in the main to legal
questions. And for another thing—and far more important—the title
Torah was to lead very early to a mistaken notion about the author­
ship of the first five books of the Bible. The matter is of sufficient
consequence to warrant a brief statement about some of the de­
tails involved.
It goes without saying that the Pentateuch does not confine it­
self to laws either in the secular or in the ritual sense of the term.
The outstanding feature of this part of the Bible is its narrative con­
tent, and it is surely to its narrative material that the Pentateuch
owes its universal appeal. The mechanical equation of Torah with
law does little justice to the work as a whole; nor is it an accurate
rendering of the name itself.
What is fundamental, however, is the fact that nowhere does
the Pentateuch speak of itself as the Torah. To be sure, the noun
is often used throughout the work; but it has numerous connota­
tions, none of which can be mistaken in the context for the title
of the work as a whole. The nominal form torn is based on a
verbal stem signifying “to teach, guide,” and the like; cf. Exod xxiv
12 “and the Torah and the Instruction which I have written for
their guidance.” The derived noun can carry a variety of meanings,
which range in the Pentateuch from specific rituals for so-called
leprosy (Lev xiii 59; xiv 2, 54, 57) to general precepts and say­
ings (as in the Exod passage just cited). In Deut xxxi 26 torS
refers to the long hortatory poem that follows. And when the same
term is applied to the Deity, its connotation is broadened to em­
brace a cherished way of life (Exod xiii 9). Thus the stereotyped
rendering “law” can be justified neither as an exclusive juridical
term nor as a distinctive literary title.
There are occasions when the Pentateuch speaks explicitly of a
written fora. Yet this usage does not of itself narrow down the mean­
ing of the word; each occurrence has to be judged from its own
context. In Exod xxiv 12, for example, the document in question
turns out to be the Covenant Code (xxi-xxiii), which was in­
scribed on two stone tablets (cf. Exod xxxiv 1) and was thus auto­
matically restricted in length. In Deut xxix 20, on the other hand,
 INTRODUCTION XIX

the writing concerned specified sanctions in an entirely different

covenant; and Deut xvii 18 and xxx 10 allude only to general in­
structions and provisions. The only Pentateuchal passage that refers
comprehensively to a written tora is Deut xxxi 9, where we are told
that “Moses wrote down this tora.” This particular statement points
either to the portions of Deuteronomy that precede, as most modems
assume, or to the poetic sections which follow, as some scholars be­
lieve. In neither event could the Pentateuch as a whole be at issue.
Yet it is this one ambiguous reference, more than anything else, that
eventually gave rise to the doctrine of the Mosaic authorship of the
entire Pentateuch.
It is not too hazardous to trace back the steps whereby such
a belief attained the status of an article of faith. The Pentateuch
was the first portion of the Old Testament to be accepted as sacred
and canonical. This meant that the work was ultimately attributed
to God and emerged thus as a body of teachings comprising the one
Torah above all others. Thus it was this particular connotation of
the term that would occur most readily to the reverent mind. In
these circumstances, there could be but one answer to the question
as to what it was that Deut xxxi 9 records as having been written
by Moses: the Torah proper, of course, that is, the Pentateuch.
The devout students of the Bible who first perpetrated this se­
mantic anachronism—in all innocence—could scarcely have antic­
ipated the ironic consequences of their interpretation. So far from
enhancing the status of the Torah, the axiom that Moses was the
author of the Pentateuch has often tended to lower the work in the
opinion of independent investigators. For objective inquiry must
soon turn up various flaws in a Pentateuch that is attributed to
a single author, whereas no such defects would be found in the
composite product of various writers. The five books as we now have
them contain many instances of duplication, inconsistencies, and
mutual contradictions, aside from manifest stylistic disparities. In a
collective work, however, all such irregularities become self-explana­
tory, once they are viewed as the natural result of various traditions
and different individual styles and approaches. Nor does uncom­
mitted analysis undermine the credibility of the Bible, as has often
been feared and alleged. The ensuing pages should make it abun­
dantly clear that in Genesis in particular, and in other biblical books
by extension, independent study helps to increase one’s respect
XX INTRODUCTION

for the received material beyond the fondest expectations of the

confirmed traditionalists.
To sum up, Torah is not strictly law, and there is no warrant
in the Pentateuch itself—as opposed to sundry echoes in later books
of the Bible—for ascribing the authorship of the work as a whole
to Moses. Modem biblical criticism has established this last point
on the strength of massive internal evidence. The grounds on which
that conclusion was arrived at will now be sketched in barest out­
line, before we probe further into the Book of Genesis for clues
to biblical origins.

Biblical Criticism

The first signs of a critical approach to the Old Testament reach

back as far as the second century of the present era.1 In the Middle
Ages, the distinguished Jewish commentator Abraham Ibn Ezra
(twelfth century) managed to suggest his acute awareness of the
problems implicit in the assumption of the Mosaic authorship of
the Torah. Although he couched his hints on the subject in guarded
language, Ibn Ezra was able, nevertheless, to intimate to his readers
that certain passages in the Pentateuch must be post-Mosaic, and
that the statement in Deut xxxi 9 cannot be construed in the tra­
ditional maimer.2
It required, however, the penetrating probing of Spinoza (seven­
teenth century) to launch “higher” biblical criticism—that is, in­
ternal analysis as opposed to textual or “lower” criticism—on a
truly productive course. Steady subsequent progress left little doubt
that instead of being the work of Moses in its entirety, the Pen­
tateuch was actually the product of a number of writers. In time,
the critics were able to draw a sharp line between Deuteronomy
( D ) , on the one hand, and the four preceding books—or the Tet-
rateuch—on the other. Within the Tetrateuch, a cleavage soon be­
came apparent between the so-called Priestly source (P) and the
outright narrative material; and the narratives, in turn, eventually
1 See R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1941, p. 43.
2Cf. I. Husik, JAOS 55 (1935), Suppl., 31 f.
 INTRODUCTION XXI

yielded two main strands which came to be designated as / (Yah-

wist) and E (Elohist).
To state the findings in this summary fashion is to give only
such end results as have won qualified acceptance from the great
majority of biblical scholars. Actually, the course of Pentateuchal
criticism has been exceedingly tortuous, and an immense amount
of effort and ingenuity has been invested in the process over a
period of some two hundred years. The fact is that the Pentateuch,
with a long history of growth, compilation, and transmission behind
it, cannot be dissected at this late date with the confident assurance
that all its original components have been duly isolated and iden­
tified. We are as yet a long way from being able to attribute every
passage to its ultimate source. The critics of the nineteenth cen­
tury may have felt that they had all the answers that really mat­
tered. But fresh discoveries and more refined tools of analysis
have made twentieth-century students at once more sophisticated
and less sanguine. This is perhaps one reason why some scholars
would today substitute for the “documentary” solution with its em­
phasis on individual authors, the so-called “form” hypothesis, which
lays stress on literary categories rooted in separate oral traditions.
Nor have attempts been lacking to experiment with still other modes
of approach.
The all-important point, at any rate, the conclusion which vir­
tually all modern scholars are willing to accept, is that the Pen­
tateuch was in reality a composite work, the product of many hands
and periods. This is the fundamental fact behind all recent prog­
ress in biblical study, as it has opened the way to a solution of
many difficulties that would otherwise remain unresolved. The re­
sult is a working hypothesis which should be judged solely by how
well it does its work. The documentary theory in its classic form
(/, E , P , and D , as well as R for redactors or compilers) has proved
to be a master key which has opened many doors; and with each
such success, the hypothesis has become that much less tentative.
The thing to bear in mind, however, is that, where so many un­
knowns are involved, a reasonable margin of error must be allowed.
While the vast majority of passages can now be ascribed to one
source or another with considerable confidence, there is still a residue
that leaves room for doubt. Some of these marginal portions may
have to be reallocated after further study; others are now so fused
that they may never be pried apart; and still others appear never to
 XXII INTRODUCTION

have had any connection with the relatively tangible sources be­
fore us, and may have been independent from the start.
The Book of Genesis provides clearer examples of each of the
types just mentioned than is the case with any other part of the
Pentateuch.

The Documentary Sources of Genesis

As the earliest book in the Pentateuch, Genesis is not affected

by the special problems that beset the Book of Deuteronomy: it
shows no trace whatever of source D . But precisely because it deals
with the earliest stage, Genesis also raises certain questions that do
not arise elsewhere in the Pentateuch. One such question concerns
the content of the first eleven chapters, which involve the prehistory
of the world as contrasted with the story of the patriarchs of Israel.
If the latter story was based on native traditions, what material did
the writers utilize for the former? Or how is one to account for the
unique character of a chapter like xiv? But before these and simi­
lar problems can be isolated and examined, it is necessary to in­
dicate what it is that makes a given passage fall under one of three
relatively well-defined rubrics, namely, J , E , and P. In other words,
the first task that faces a modem student of Genesis is literary anal­
ysis of the book. It is the one area in which documentary criticism
has scored truly impressive gains.
A significant milestone in the literary criticism of Genesis was
the observation published in 1753 by the French physician Jean
Astruc that, when referring to the Deity, some narratives in this
book use the personal name Yahweh (“Jehovah”), while other and
apparently parallel accounts employ Elohim, the generic Hebrew
term for “divine being.” It would thus seem to follow, Astruc ar­
gued, that Genesis was made up of two originally independent
sources.
As matters turned out, the criterion which Astruc introduced was
useful principally as a point of departure. There are many sections
in Genesis, and elsewhere in the Pentateuch, which do not mention
the Deity. Nor is the mere occurrence of Elohim decisive in itself,
since the term can also be used, by virtue of its general connotation,
not only for alien gods and idols but also in the broader sense of
our Providence, Heaven, Fate,” and is actually so attested in the
 INTRODUCTION xxm
/ source, among others. The evidence remains significant, but one­
sided: Elohim could well appear in any document, as is only
natural in the circumstances; on the other hand, Yahweh is in Gene­
sis the exclusive companion of / (barring occasional lapses in the
composite text under the influence of an adjacent passage from an­
other source). To be established, therefore, as homogeneous, a doc­
ument has to exhibit a combination of distinctive features harmo­
niously blended; it should stand out by reason of its style, content,
and concepts, not to mention the cumulative evidence of the vocab­
ulary. When enough such details have been found to configurate
time and again, they yield a pattern that is typical of a particular
source; at times they may even afford a glimpse of the person be­
hind the written record.
It was on just such collective evidence that the term Elohim,
when not paralleled by Yahweh, proved to signal not merely one
source, as had been originally assumed, but two otherwise unre­
lated documents. These came to be labeled respectively as E (from
the initial letter) and P (for Priestly document); the use of
Yahweh, on the other hand, remained the hallmark, as was just
indicated, of a single author, whose anonymity continues inviolate
under the code-letter J (from “Jehovah”). The Pentateuch itself
lends a measure of credibility to this argument from divine appel­
lations. For Exod vi 3 (P) states explicitly, and Exod iii 14 ( E )
indirectly, that the personal name Yahweh was not employed prior
to the time of Moses; what this adds up to is that the use of the
name Yahweh had been unfamiliar to these two sources until then.3
This lends circumstantial confirmation to the hypothesis of the com­
posite character of the Pentateuch, since the frequent occurrence
of the term Yahweh in Genesis would otherwise involve the two
passages in Exodus in outright contradiction of inescapable facts.
On various other counts, however, E sides with J , and the two
diverge jointly from P. All such divergencies are self-explanatory
in material that is related but has come down through more than
one channel; they could not be explained away in a composition
by a single author.
What are, then, the salient characteristics of the several com­
ponents of Genesis which modem scholarship has been able to iso­
late? The scope of the present work permits only a sketchy treat-
8 See Comment on Sec. 5.
 xxrv INTRODUCTION

ment, yet this should suffice to illustrate both the method and the
results. The comments that follow pertain primarily to P , J , and E
to adopt the order in which these sources first turn up in Genesis
The survey will conclude with a few remarks on passages that are
as yet difficult to classify, as well as on the process whereby the
separate strands were combined into the unit that now constitutes
the received Book of Genesis.

U)P
To begin with vocabulary, P employs for the Deity, in addition
to Elohim (Gen i Iff.), the term El Shaddai (cf. xvii 1), which
is usually translated “God Almighty.”'* The sole occurrence of
/ahweh in xvii 1 is apparently a scribal error induced by the
similar opening sentence in xviii 1 (/), which also records a the-
ophany.
The term that is most typical of this source—one might call it
P's signature—is tol'ddt, etymologically “begettings,” and hence also
genealogy, line, family tree (v 1, vi 9, x 1, etc.), and by extension
also story, history; in the latter sense we find this term used in
ii 4, and perhaps also in xxxvii 2. Another telltale expression is
“to be fertile and increase” (e.g., i 22, 28, viii 17, ix 1, 7). For
the homeland of the partriarchs, P uses Paddan-aram (cf. xxv 20,
xxviii 2, 5, 6, 7); / calls the same region Aram-naharaim (xxiv
10) .
For other words and phrases to which P is partial, cf. the long
list given by Dr. (pp. vii-ix). This vocabulary is not limited, of
course, to Genesis, but carries over to other books; it is absent,
however, from the parallel documents. Consistency and cumulative
impact enhance the total effect of this type of evidence.
P's frequent recourse to the term tol'dot (the traditional render­
ing generations” is now obsolete in the sense required) is a correct
reflection of the writer’s abiding interest in genealogical detail.
There must be no break in the chain of transmission through which
God’s dispensation has been handed down; hence it is essential to
trace the pertinent line all the way back to Creation. For related
reasons, P is forever concerned with such other statistics as the
total life span of the given individual, the age of a father at the
4 The exact meaning, however, remains uncertain.
 INTRODUCTION XXV

birth of his oldest son (e.g., ch. v), the names of other members
of the family, and the like.
P’s constant preoccupation with the purity of the line through
which God’s purpose has been implemented leads at times to moti­
vations that are not found in the parallel versions. For instance, ac­
cording to / (xxvii 41-45), Rebekah told Jacob to flee to her
relatives in Haran in order to escape the revenge of his brother
Esau. In P, however (xxvii 46-xxviii 7), the motive for Jacob’s
journey to Central Mesopotamia is no more than matrimonial,
the search for an acceptable wife: his mother had become disen­
chanted with Esau’s “Hittite” wives, and was determined that her
younger son marry within her own class and clan. More surprising
still, Rebekah’s scheme has the full approval of Isaac, who gives
Jacob his warm blessing, although a few verses earlier—this time,
however, from another source (xxvii 33-37: /)—Isaac was driven
to rage and despair by the discovery of Jacob’s hoax. P is either
unaware of, or unmoved by, the drama and pathos of that en­
counter. What matters to him solely is that Jacob’s line be main­
tained through a worthy wife.
The horizons of P are thus sharply circumscribed. His world is
not only directed from heaven but heaven-centered. To be sure, it
is natural enough that in the majestic account of Creation man’s
role should be a passive one. Yet elsewhere, too, mortals are con­
ceded little if any individuality. For one aberrant moment Abraham
lapses into incredulity when told by God that he is to have a son
by Sarah (xvii 17); but his record of absolute obedience is never
marred again. The eventful history of Joseph’s stay in Egypt is re­
duced in this source to an exchange of amenities between Jacob
and Pharaoh (xlvii 7—10) and the symbolic adoption by Jacob
of his grandsons Manasseh and Ephraim (xlviii 3-7). Where his­
tory is predetermined in every detail, personalities recede into the
background, while the formal relations between God and society
become the central theme. There are thus ample grounds—theo­
logical as well as ritualistic—for ascribing the P document to
priestly inspiration.
The question of P’s date is difficult to solve for several reasons.
Numerous sections, especially in the other books of the Tetrateuch,
have long been relegated by the critics to a relatively late age, after
the Babylonian Exile in many instances. Of late, however, there has
been a growing sentiment—backed by a substantial amount of in-
XXVI INTRODUCTION

temal evidence—in favor of dating various portions of P to pre-

Exilic times, and in some cases to the premonarchic period. This
evidence embraces even certain passages in the ritualistic Book of
Leviticus. A careful new look at the P material in Genesis is there­
fore definitely in order.
When we re-examine, for instance, the genealogies of the patri­
archs before the Flood (cf. v), the style and approach are unmis­
takably P’s, yet the material has to be derived from ancient data.
The same applies to the Edomite lists in ch. xxxvi. Just so—to stray
for a moment from the Book of Genesis—the census records in
Num xxvi, although again set down by P, deal with names and
situations (notably the distribution of land holdings by lot) that go
back of necessity to the early stages of the Israelite settlement in
Canaan. At the same time, there are other passages throughout the
Tetrateuch that are undoubtedly much later. All this testifies to a
wide coverage by P, ranging over many centuries. The conclusion
that is usually drawn from these facts is that we have before us a
series of separate P documents, as many as ten according to some
critics. But such solutions fail to account for the prevailing uniform­
ity in outlook and phraseology which typifies P as a whole.
The assumption that commends itself in these circumstances is
that P was not an individual, or even a group of like-minded
contemporaries, but a school with an unbroken history reaching back
to early Israelite times, and continuing until the Exile and beyond.
Such a hypothesis would readily account for the essential homo­
geneity of the underlying traditions, while not precluding such oc­
casional discrepancies as, for example, in the lists of Esau’s wives
(cf. xxvi 34, xxviii 9, xxxvi 2—3); such differences might easily
develop over a long period of time even among custodians of the
same type of traditions. The generally stilted language and the cir­
cumscribed range of interests would be similarly explained. The end
result would thus represent the carefully nurtured product of a stand­
ing scholastic committee, so to speak, in regular session since the in­
choate beginnings of ethnic consciousness in Israel.

(2)J
Aside from the exclusive use of the name Yahweh, there are in
Genesis few words or phrases that immediately betray the hand
of J ; and even such exceptions are all but confined to the Joseph
 INTRODUCTION XXVII

story. There we find the name Israel as against Jacob in the other
sources; the geographic term Goshen; and the noun ’amtahat
“bag” for the otherwise familiar $aq “sack.” On further analysis, the
relative scarcity of such shibboleths is not at all surprising. For
J is not given to stereotypes, in vocabulary or in other respects.
What is truly distinctive about this writer is his incisive style, his
economy and boldness of presentation, his insight into human nature,
and the recognition that a higher order and purpose may lie behind
seemingly incomprehensible human events. There is common agree­
ment that we have in /—or alternatively, in those portions of
Genesis that critical consensus attributes to J—not only the most
gifted biblical writer, but one of the greatest figures in world litera­
ture. If so much in the Book of Genesis remains vivid and mem­
orable to this day, the reason is not merely the content of the tales
but, in large measure as well, the matchless way in which J has told
them.
J’s style is clear and direct, but its simplicity is that of consum­
mate art. An unobtrusive word or phrase may become the means
for the unfolding of character, a single sentence can evoke a whole
picture. The leading actors on J’s stage are realized in depth. It
is their inner life that invariably attracts the author’s attention; yet
he manages to show it in action, not through description; and the
reader is thus made a participant in the unfolding drama. J’s world,
moreover, in diametric contrast to P’s, is emphatically earth-cen-
tered. And his earth is peopled with actors so natural and candid
that even their relations with Yahweh are reduced to human scale,
so that God himself becomes anthropomorphic.
In the Eden prelude, Adam is portrayed as a lost and confused
child, and is so treated by Yahweh (iii 9). Later, in the more
sophisticated context of the patriarchal age, human problems gain
in complexity. The acute domestic crisis that is brought on by
Sarah’s childlessness (xvi 1-6) leaves Abraham irresolute in the
clash between two headstrong women. Later on (xviii 12), Sarah
is impulsive enough to respond with derision to the promise of a
child in her waning years. Nor does J hesitate to betray his own
feelings concerning Jacob’s behavior toward Isaac and Esau. Every
detail in that intensely stirring account (xxvii 1-40) shows that,
although the outcome favored Jacob, the author’s personal sym­
pathies lay with the victims of the ruse.
J’s art rises perhaps to greatest heights in the handling of the
xxvm INTRODUCTION

real climax of the Joseph story (xliv) The author is not concerned
in the main with the poetic justice of Joseph’s triumph over His
brothers, or his magnanimity m forgiving his onetime tormentors. J's
interest reaches much deeper His protagonist himself had been
plagued by gnawing doubts which he could not banish from his
mind: Had his brothers been morally regenerated in the intervening
years? To find the answer, Joseph was forced to resort to an elabo­
rate test, using his full brother Benjamin to bait the trap When
Judah offered himself as substitute for the innocent boy, Joseph had
his answer at long last; the brothers had indeed reformed. After the
unbearable suspense of this episode, the actual self-disclosure could
be no more than an anticlimax
In J’s world view, then, man is not a mere marionette, as he is in
P’s scheme of things. Rather, the individual is allowed considerable
freedom of action, and it is this margin of independence that brings
out both his strengths and his weaknesses At the same time, how­
ever, no mortal should make the mistake of assuming that he is in
complete control of his destiny. Ultimately, man is but the unwary
and unwitting tool in the hands of the Supreme Power who charts the
course of the universe. On rare occasions, to be sure, an Abraham
may be favored with a fleeting glimpse of the divine purpose. But no
one may grasp the complete design, which remains reasonable and
just no matter who the chosen agent may be at any given point. This
would seem to be the meaning of the unintentional blessing of Jacob
by Isaac (xxvii), or the eerie encounter at Penuel (xxxii 23-33)
There are more things in heaven and on earth, J appears to be imply­
ing, than a mortal’s wisdom can encompass, In this regard man
remains irredeemably human.
It goes without saying that a work with such distinctive personal
traits could stem only from an individual author. When it comes,
however, to J’s date, the indications are not nearly so compelling
The prevailing tendency today is to put / in the tenth century B.C., or
about a hundred years earlier than was estimated a few decades ago.
If the current view is right, J may well have been a contemporary of
that other outstanding writer to whom we are indebted for the court
history of David and his immediate successors (especially II Sam
ix-xx). Did the two, then, know each other personally? And if so,
what were the relations between them? It would require a latter-day
J to do justice to a situation of this sort
It may be of interest to note, in passing, how J and P compare
 INTRODUCTION XXIX

in the few instances in which their accounts coincide. Their respec­

tive approaches to the story of Joseph have already been touched
upon. Otherwise, significant contacts between these two sources are
confined to Primeval History (i-xi), and there primarily to the sub­
jects of Creation and the Flood. In the former instance, each version
has come down to us as a unit, and basically intact: P's in i 1-ii 4a,
and J’s in ii 4b-25. The far-reaching differences between these paral­
lel accounts are immediately apparent (cf. the remarks on Secs. 1
and 2) and require no special comment at this time.
The account of the Flood, on the other hand, was fused in the
compilation to such a degree that it can no longer be reassembled
without surgery at a number of joints. Nevertheless, there is enough
internal evidence for a dependable analysis, aside from the external
factors of vocabulary and style. Thus the reason for the Flood is
cited twice, first by / in vi 5-8, and next by P in vi 13: in the one in­
stance, Yahweh “regrets” that man has not been able to master his
evil impulses, and there is “sorrow in his heart”; in the other formu­
lation, the world is lawless and hence it must be destroyed. In regard
to other details, the differences between the two versions are more
specific. J records that the ark accommodated seven pairs of each
kind of bird and clean animal, but only one pair of the unclean spe­
cies (vii 2-3), whereas P knows only of a single pair in each case
(vi 19-20, vii 15). There are differences also in connection with the
chronology of the Flood. According to / (vii 4, 12, viii 6, 10, 12),
the rains came down forty days and nights, and the waters disap­
peared after three times seven days, the whole deluge lasting thus
sixty-one days. But in P, whose calendar is typically detailed down to
the exact day of the given month, the waters held their crest for one
hundred and fifty days (vii 24), and they remained on the earth one
year and eleven days (vii 11, viii 14). Both the repetitions and the
contradictions are accounted for automatically, here as elsewhere, by
the presence of two independent sources, each consistent within itself
though at variance with the other.
One may ask why such obvious discrepancies were not eliminated
by the redactor or compiler to whom we owe the composite version.
The answer is significant, for it has a decisive bearing, as we shall see
later on, on the whole issue of editorial authority in piecing the perti­
nent documents together. It is, in sum, this: such authority was exer­
cised, if at all, only with utmost hesitancy and with the barest mini­
mum of substantive change.
 XXX INTRODUCTION

(3)E
In fonn and subject matter E is closely related to /. Together,
these two sources stand apart from P with its dominant genealogical
content. Hence, / and E are at times difficult, and in some instances
impossible, to distinguish from each other. Closer probing, however,
has by and large yielded ample evidence for isolating the two docu­
ments. The major question on which many critics are as yet unde­
cided concerns the extent of the interrelationship between J and E.
Did either of these sources actually utilize the other, and if so, which
had that advantage?6 Assuming that E came later—which is the pre­
vailing view among the critics—was it E’s purpose from the start
merely to supplement and correct J, or was the former’s work en­
tirely independent? It is the view of the present study that the ex­
tant material from E represents indeed a separate source. But before
this position can be defended, it will be necessary to summarize the
reasons for assuming the presence of an £ source in the first place.
When the terms Yahweh and Blohim occur in otherwise duplicate
narratives, and the presence of P is ruled out on other grounds,
there is the inherent probability that the passages with Elohim point
to a source that is neither J nor P. In ch. xxviii, for example, two
accounts about Jacob’s first stay at Bethel have been blended into a
single sequence. One of these components used Elohim (vss. 12, 17),
while the other spoke of Yahweh (13, 16). Taken as a unit, the
fused version is repetitious; but separately, each strand represents an
independent tradition. Similarly, in xxx 25-43, where Jacob’s wealth
is attributed to his own shrewdness, the patriarch himself refers to
Yahweh by name (30). In the next account, however, the success of
the scheme is credited to the advice of an angel who conveyed it to
Jacob in a dream; and there, significantly enough, the Deity is called
Elohim (xxxi 9, 11). The same pattern, in which Elohim or an angel
occurs together with dreams, is found in other passages where J must
be ruled out as the author (notably in xx).
In general, E lacks the directness of / where man’s relations with
God are concerned. This is precisely why E is led to interpose angels
or dreams, or both, the Deity being regarded, it would seem, as too
6 Although it is customary to date / about a century earlier than E, the
evidence is so ambiguous that the reverse is by no means ruled out; cf. M.
Noth, Vberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 2d ed„ 1948, p. 40, n. 143.
 INTRODUCTION XXXI

remote for direct personal intervention. The center of E’s world has
not shifted all the way to heaven, as it has with P; neither is it
earth-bound, on the other hand, as in the case of /.
E has a tendency, furthermore, to justify and explain rather than
let actions speak for themselves. This is true, for example, of the
account about Laban’s flocks, as has just been indicated; and the
same applies to the encounter between Abraham and Abimelech of
Gerar (xx). One thus misses in E the bold touches that make /'s
narratives so vivid and memorable. Yet it would be grossly unjust
to E to dismiss him as a wordy and pedestrian writer. Abraham’s
ordeal with Isaac (xxii), an account in which E certainly had a
prominent hand, is a masterpiece of poignant presentation. Basically,
however, E is interested in events, whereas J is concerned with peo­
ple. This alone would be enough to make a great deal of difference.
Yet all such departures from J might conceivably be found in an
annotator, and do not of themselves presuppose the existence of a
separate and independent E source. There are, however, other points
that cannot be explained away in like manner. Among the strongest
of these are two sets of parallel narratives which differ much too
sharply for direct mutual correlation. These examples merit a close
look.
The first illustration is based on three intimately related accounts,
each of which revolves about the wife-sister motif. The pertinent
passages are: (a) xii 10-20; (b) xx 1-18; and (c) xxvi 6-11. The
sociological significance of these narratives is discussed in Section 15;
it does not concern us here. The documentary bearing of the same
cycle is reviewed in Section 25; but since the results are germane to
the present context, they may be restated here in brief.
In each instance, a patriarch on a visit to a foreign land pretends
to his royal host that his wife is only a sister; he feels that his wife’s
beauty might be a danger to the husband but not to a brother. In
case (a) the encounter involves Abraham and Sarah with the ruler
of Egypt; in (b) the same couple confronts Abimelech of Gerar;
and in (c) Abimelech is similarly embarrassed by Isaac and Re-
bekah. In a work by a single author, these three cases taken together
would present serious contradictions: Abraham learned nothing from
his narrow escape in Egypt, and so tried the same ruse in Gerar;
and Abimelech, for his part, was so little sobered by his perilous
experience with the first couple as to fall into the identical trap with
the next pair. What immediately rules out any such construction is
xxxri INTRODUCTION

the fact that Abimelech is depicted as both upright and wise; and
after his first attempt misfired, Abraham would not be likely to
make the same mistake again. No competent writer would be guilty
of such glaring faults in characterization.
But we can dispense with idle conjectures. Incidents (a) and (c)
prove to stem from J, while (b) goes back to E—on independent
grounds in each case. And as soon as the two documents come into
view, the duplications and contradictions vanish. / knew only of
two wife-sister episodes (a and c), one featuring Abraham-Sarah-
Pharaoh-Egypt, and the other Isaac-Rebekah-Abimelech-Gerar.
Each case involves different principals, centers, and generations. In
E, however, these two episodes became telescoped, thus juxtaposing
Abraham and Sarah with Abimelech (b). But while each source re­
mains thus self-consistent, two original incidents branched out into
three.
What matters for the moment is whether such a result could have
been obtained if E was merely an annotator of J. Since E’s Abime­
lech was neither a fool nor a knave, but a man of whom the author
clearly approves (cf. xx), E could scarcely have depicted the king
as he does had he been familiar with J’s narrative in xxvi. The only
reasonable conclusion, therefore, that one can draw from the joint
evidence of all three narratives is that J and E worked independ­
ently. Each was acquainted with the wife-sister motif in patriarchal
times, but the respective details had come down through different
channels and developed some variations in the course of transmis­
sion.
Another compelling argument for viewing £ as a separate rather
than supplementary source is provided by the Joseph story. In spite
of its surface unity, this celebrated narrative yields, on closer
scrutiny, two parallel strands which are similar in general outline,
yet markedly different in detail. Since a comprehensive discussion is
included with the running commentary on the pertinent sections, a
schematic recapitulation should suffice at this point.
In the / version, which continues to employ the divine name
Yahweh, Judah persuades his brothers not to kill Joseph but sell him
instead to Ishmaelites, who dispose of him in Egypt to an unnamed
official. Joseph’s new master soon promotes him to the position of
chief retainer. But the lies of the master’s faithless wife land the boy
in jail. Still, Joseph’s fortunes again take a favorable turn. . . .
When the brothers are on their way home from their first mission to
 INTRODUCTION XXXIII

Egypt with a supply of precious grain, they open their bags at a

night stop and are shocked to find in them the full payment for
their purchases. ... In due time, Judah prevails on his father to
let Benjamin accompany them on a second journey to Egypt, in re­
luctant compliance with the Vizier’s demand. . . . Judah finally
convinces Joseph that the brothers have really reformed. Joseph in­
vites Israel—the name Jacob does not appear in this version—to
settle with his family in the district of Goshen.
E’s parallel account is marked on the surface by the consistent
use of Elohim and Jacob, as opposed to Yahweh and Israel. But
the differences from J reach much deeper. Joseph is saved from his
brothers by Reuben, not Judah; the boy is left in an empty cistern,
where he is picked up, unbeknown to the brothers, by Midianites; it
is they, and not the Ishmaelites, who sell the boy as a slave to an
Egyptian by the name of Potiphar. In that lowly position, Joseph
must serve, not supervise, the prisoners in his owner’s charge. . . .
The brothers open their sacks (not bags) upon their return home
(not at an encampment along the way). Reuben (not Judah) gives
Jacob (not Israel) his personal guarantee of Benjamin’s safe return.
. . . Pharaoh (not Joseph) invites Jacob and his family to settle in
Egypt (not just Goshen).
From all this, it must be obvious to the unbiased observer that
the Joseph story is composed of two once separate, though now in­
tertwined, accounts. One of these is manifestly /’s, not only because
of the divine name that it employs but also because of a full com­
plement of other characteristics that have elsewhere been established
for that source. On analogous grounds, the parallel version aligns it­
self with E. But E is here much more than a mere annotator or an
occasional dissenter; the dichotomy is much too sharp and sustained
for such an interpretation. E tells a complete and essentially inde­
pendent story of his own. If he knew /’s version at all, there was
very little in it with which he agreed. In all probability, however, he
was unaware of the other tradition, with its consistently different pat­
tern of details.
For reasons that are no longer apparent, E has no part in the
Primeval History (i—xi), unlike both J and P; his work may never
have reached back beyond Abraham. Actually, the first substantial
contribution by E is not in evidence until ch. xx, well past the middle
of the Abraham story. It is improbable that this is where it started
originally. An initial section could well have been lost in the early
xxxrv INTRODUCTION

stages of transmission. In any event, fragmentary preservation of a

work cannot be used as an argument about its original scope.
There are no reliable data for fixing the time of the composition
of the E source with any degree of accuracy. Most critics are in­
clined to place the date of £ in the ninth century or later, that is, at
least a century after the date assigned to /. It should be stressed
in passing, however, that E, no less than J, had access to authentic
ancient traditions, a fact that is particularly noticeable in the ac­
counts about Jacob (cf. Comment on xxxi) and Joseph (see xli).

(4) The Residue

After the three major sources of Genesis have thus reclaimed all
the material that could be plausibly assigned to them, there still re­
main some sections which have proved elusive for one reason or
another. Two of these (30 and 61) were actually considered by the
older critics as more or less safely identified, but recent students
have shown greater diffidence in the matter. A third passage (Sec.
17), however, has always been viewed as unique and without docu­
mentary mates anywhere in the Bible. A brief analysis of these pas­
sages will be followed by a few remarks about the work of R—the
redactor or redactors of Genesis.
Section 30: The Machpelah Purchase (xxiii). Certain portions of
this chapter appear to support the older view, which regards the
narrative as part of the P document. It is a fact, moreover, that P
refers to the Machpelah purchase more than once (xxv 9f., xlix
29f., 1 13). Nevertheless, the opposing argument would seem to
carry greater weight. The account is not only narrative in character,
but is marked by a mock solemnity that is totally out of keeping
with the sober manner of P. Besides, the repeated description of
members of the local council as “those who came in at the gate of
his city” (vss. 10, 18) has its idiomatic complement in the phrase
“those who went out by the gate of his city,” which occurs twice in
xxxiv (24), a narrative that stems from /.e What this adds up to is
that P appropriated and introduced the account in question because
legal title to the Machpelah burial ground was considered vital by
that source; but the secular overtones of the story did not suffer
8 On these two idioms, see BASOR 144 (1956), 20 ft.
 INTRODUCTION XXXV

in the process. The end result was an excerpt from / in a framework

by P, a unique blend in itself.
Section 61: The Testament of Jacob (xlix 1-27). On the mislead­
ing title “Blessing of Jacob,” see Comment ad loc. This poem has
long been recognized as a product of the premonarchic age in Israel.
The composition must, therefore, antedate all of the standard docu­
mentary sources. To be sure, verse 18 contains a reference to
Yahweh, but the brief sentence in which it occurs is evidently a mar­
ginal gloss. It is possible, however, that J incorporated this collection
of poetic sayings about the tribal eponyms as a fitting pronounce­
ment by Jacob on the eve of his death. In any event, the authorship
of the poem has to be designated by an “X,” at least for the time
being.
Section 17: Invasion from the East. Abraham and Melchizedek
(xiv). This unique account has always been a question mark to the
critics. The entire chapter departs from the rest of the book in sub­
ject matter, approach, emphasis, and phraseology. There are indica­
tions that the narrative may have been assimilated from a non-
Israelite source. Chief among these is the fact that Abraham is
referred to as “the Hebrew” (vs. 13); elsewhere, this description is
applied to Israelites only by outsiders or for the benefit of outsiders;
the Israelites did not use it among themselves in an ethnic sense. In­
cidentally, if the extra-Israelite origin of this chapter is bome out,
the above reference would go a long way toward establishing the
historicity of “Abram”—for an outside source would hardly be
likely to make a central figure of a foreign legendary hero. Signifi­
cantly enough, the Abram in question is depicted as a powerful
chieftain, a far cry from the patriarch whom we know from the
other traditions.
R. Lastly, a brief comment is appropriate about the joining of the
several sources under review into one integrated unit. For this par­
ticular process critics are generally inclined to posit two separate re-
dactional (R) stages: an earlier one, which combined J and E
(Rje); and a much later stage, which linked the work of P with the
already merged JE. The alternative would be to assume a single re-
dactorial effort, after P had taken definite shape.
We know that the original material from / and E was left sub­
stantially intact through the simple device of treating parallel ac­
counts as consecutive—most notably so in the Joseph story. This
holds true, to a considerable degree, even of shorter passages, for
XXXVI INTRODUCTION

example, xxviii 10-22, where separate verses, rather than paragraphs

or chapters, were excerpted and rearranged to yield a consecutive
text. No concerted attempt was made to harmonize the composite
version by ridding it of duplications and inconsistencies, although at
least some of these flaws (e.g., xxxvii 28) must have been apparent
at the outset. It follows that the person or persons responsible for the
compilation pursued a policy of minimal editorial interference. And
this, in turn, could only mean that the respective constituents had
already attained a measure of canonical status. Thus R’s approach
was one of utmost reverence for his—or their—sources. Indeed, if
it had not been so, modem recovery of the underlying documents
would have been seriously impeded, if not blocked altogether.
Because of such self-effacement, however, there is next to nothing
that can be gathered today about the personal traits of R. Even the
number of stages involved in the process remains in doubt, as was
indicated above. The only thing that may safely be assumed is that,
if i?JE was distinct from Rp, both had nevertheless the same con­
ception of their function and authority.
If the entire compilation, however, was accomplished in a single
stage, one further deduction should be permitted. It was suggested
earlier that P was, in all probability, not an individual writer but an
established school in continuous operation over a long period of time.
In that case, the activities of such an academy would not have come
to a halt after the document that we now attribute to P had as­
sumed definitive shape. The next logical step would be precisely the
kind of compilation that was ultimately to result in the present Book
of Genesis, and the rest of the Pentateuch; and in that case, R
would be a late product of the P school. It should be borne in mind
that, analogously, the eventual adoption of a formal Pentateuchal
canon, followed by the canons of the Prophets and the Writings, and
finally by the complete canon of the Hebrew Bible, was a work
based on prolonged study and deliberation of a continuous synod. To
be sure, there is no concrete evidence to support such a conjecture;
but neither are there any compelling arguments against it.
It should be emphasized, in passing, that the position advocated
in the foregoing survey is based throughout on the methods of docu­
mentary criticism, and that it reduces the latest results to bare fun­
damentals. Departures from older views are relatively few and slight.
Some readers might raise the valid objection that the whole presenta­
tion is oversimplified; the alternative, however, would have been a
 INTRODUCTION xxxvn
detailed technical analysis far beyond the scope of the present work.
On the other hand, failure to mention other conjectured sources and
sub-sources should be ascribed not to lack of space but to lack of
confidence in the reasoning behind such proposals. The fragmenta­
tion and proliferation of documents in which some authorities have
indulged appears to this writer to be a self-defeating procedure. The
suitability of a working hypothesis must be judged ultimately by how
well the scheme works.
If the preceding section has thus been a restatement by and large,
the two sections that follow venture into territory that has been little
explored so far. It is only fair to warn the reader in advance.

The Tradition behind the Documents

Disclosure of the documentary sources of the Pentateuch cannot

in itself be the end of the trail; it is but a means to further and
more productive ends. Literary criticism, for all its labors and ac­
complishments to date, cannot as yet rest on its laurels. And as it
pushes ahead, past its onetime objectives, it is bound to run into
other lines of inquiry which start out from extra-biblical records. The
chronological level at which these investigations converge is known
to biblical students as the patriarchal age. And the book that is most
intimately affected is Genesis.
The foregoing analysis of the sources of Genesis could not but
show that the three principal documents—J, E, and P—exhibit far-
reaching agreements as well as marked disagreements. The differ­
ences affect a large body of detail. The agreements, on the other
hand, pertain to the general content and the central theme of the
work. Thus both J and P follow similar outlines of Primeval His­
tory; and all three sources reflect the same basic data in regard to
the patriarchs: family tree, migration from Mesopotamia, settlement
in Canaan, beginning of the sojourn in Egypt. The common themes
continue in the subsequent books of the Pentateuch, and comprise
the oppression in Egypt, the Exodus, and the wanderings in the des­
ert. Now both these aspects of the biblical sources—their mutual
agreements as well as their disagreements—prove to be important
guides to further study.
Since it is evident on a number of counts that the documents be­
fore us are basically independent, in spite of the common subject
 xxxvm INTRODUCTION

matter, it follows that all three must have drawn on the same proto­
type. This point has already been made for / and E by several
scholars, notably Martin Noth, who designates the assumed prede­
cessor by the symbol G, abstracted from “gemeinsame Grundlage”
(common base) .7 But this symbol and the reasoning behind it run
into a serious methodological objection: the underlying term Grund­
lage implies a written source; but any such implication should be
scrupulously avoided, at least for the time being.
It is not improbable, to be sure, that some of the original data
were preserved and transmitted in written form. The very circum­
stance, however, that our sources exhibit so many mutual disa­
greements should be enough to suggest that the channels through
which much of the material has been handed down were fluid rather
than fixed. And this implies, in turn, a predominantly oral mode of
transmission; a written source would scarcely have given rise to so
large a number of deviations. It should be remembered, moreover,
that / and E were not the only recipients of traditional material. P,
too, was a prominent beneficiary; note, for example, his accounts of
Creation and the Flood. The one thing that can be safely inferred at
this stage is that none of the standard sources of Genesis—and the
same applies also to the rest of the Tetrateuch—improvised its sub­
ject matter as it went along. In these circumstances, the logical sym­
bol for our hypothetical antecedent would seem to be “T,”8 for Tra­
dition, a term that has the added advantage of enjoying international
currency.
As a bridge between the Pentateuchal sources and the past that
these documents record, “T” unblocks the path to further study. The
subject can now be viewed in truer perspective. One can under­
stand, for example, why none of the writers who drew on “T” was
free with his subject matter—a point that was by no means self-
evident to the early critics: each author was bound by the data that
had come down to him. It is all the more remarkable, therefore, that
/ and E were able to achieve literary masterpieces despite such
curbs.
What was it, then, that made the received material normative and
impelled gifted writers to hold their imagination in check? The an-
7 Cf. Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschichte . . . . pp. 40 ff
In quotation marks, so as to distinguish this assumed source from extant
documents designated by simple initials.
 INTRODUCTION XXXIX

swer is not far to seek. J, and E, and P as well, were writing, each in
his way, not stories, but history. The data were not to be tampered
with because tradition had stamped them as inviolable; and they had
acquired an aura of sanctity because the subject matter was not secu­
lar but spiritual history, history a writer might recount, but could not
color to his own liking. The retelling, in short, was the Bible in the
making.
That the unfolding story was selective rather than comprehensive
is attested in the Bible itself; not just in the Pentateuch but also in
other historical books. The writers remind us time and again that
theirs is a special theme. The reader who may be interested in other
aspects is told explicitly where he can find them: in The Book of the
Wars of Yahweh (Num xxi 14); the Chronicle of Solomon (I Kings
xi 41); The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (I Kings xiv 19, xv 31,
xvi 5); or The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (I Kings xiv 29, xv
7, xxii 46). The first of these references is especially instructive, for
it occurs in an archaic passage which antedates the monarchic age,
and hence also any of the standard documentary sources. Its date
falls, accordingly, within the period of “T.” In other words, criteria
for distinguishing between “biblical” and secular themes had already
been evolved by that time.9
At this point it may be advisable to pause and take stock. A selec­
tive medium like “T” presupposes the existence of some screening
canon. This is not to be confused, of course, with the final Old Tes­
tament canon, which was not brought to a close until the beginning
of the present era. Yet the basic concept and the guiding criteria
would have to be much the same in all such instances. Is it not haz­
ardous, then, to assume canonical standards for pre-Davidic times,
solely on the basis of the circumstantial evidence that has been cited
so far? The answer is that the whole story has not yet been told.
More evidence does in fact exist, but it is based on the combined
yield of biblical and extra-biblical sources. The pertinent material
must now be sampled.
Among the various patriarchal themes in Genesis, there are three
in particular that exhibit the same blend of uncommon features:
each theme appears to involve some form of deception; each has
proved to be an obstinate puzzle to countless generations of students,
ancient and modem; and at the same time, each was seemingly just
9 Cf. my paper on “Three Thousand Years of Bible Study,” Centennial
Review (Michigan State University) 4 (1960), 206-22.
XL INTRODUCTION

as much of an enigma to the biblical writers themselves. In all three

cases, unexpected help has recently come from the same outside
quarter.
(1) The first case in point is itself compounded of three closely
related passages (xii 10-20, xx 1-18, xxvi 6-11) which have already
been discussed in another connection. The joint theme here is the
wife-sister motif: a patriarch’s wife is introduced as his sister. The
subject was recorded by both J (xii, xxvi) and E (xx), which im­
plies prior, and presumably oral, handling by “T.” At all events,
there are enough differences in detail to presuppose a long period
of antecedent transmission; besides, E’s involved explanation of the
incident, and his endeavor to exonerate the persons concerned,
would seem to betray an element of uncertainty, not to say em­
barrassment, on the part of the author.
Today, however, there can be no longer any serious doubt as to
what was really at issue (see the detailed Comment on Sec. 1 5 ) .
In Human society a wife enjoyed special standing and protection
when the law recognized her simultaneously as her husband’s sister,
regardless of actual blood ties. Such cases are attested by two sepa­
rate legal documents, one dealing with the marriage and the other
with the woman’s adoption as sister. This dual role conferred on
the wife a superior position in society.
As a onetime inhabitant of Haran—an old Human center—Abra­
ham was necessarily familiar with Human social practices. Hence
when he and his son, on visits to foreign lands, spoke of their wives
as sisters, they were apparently intent not so much on improving
their own prospects as on extolling and protecting their wives. But
this is not the explanation that is given in the accounts of the inci­
dents; there the motive is definitely selfish. Of the two interpreta­
tions, one based on original and contemporary records of a society
that is closely involved, and the other found in much later literary
narratives, the first is obviously to be preferred. Egypt10 and
Gerar were hundreds of miles away from Haran. And by the time
of J and E there had developed the further gap of hundreds of
years. The import of so specialized a practice would scarcely be
retained over such distances. Another explanation would be substi-
10 The brother-sister marriages in Egypt are of an entirely different type;
nor would this superficial parallel apply to Gerar. For the subject as a whole
see the writer’s essay “The Wife-Sister Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives,”
Biblical and Other Studies, Harvard University Press, 1963, pp. 15-28.
 INTRODUCTION XLI

tuted in course of time, one more in keeping with local conditions

and universal human failings.
Our main concern for the present, however, is neither with the
sociological nor the moral aspects of the incidents under discussion.
What we are concerned with is, first, why tradition insisted on re­
cording these episodes; and second, why both / and E included them
in their histories even though they could not be altogether clear
about the meaning. The answer to the first question is tied up with
the established superior status of the wife-sister. Sarah and Rebekah
were vital links in the chain through which the biblical way of life
was being transmitted; and the purity of the line had a bearing on
the quality of the content. Thus any detail that pointed up the privi­
leged position of the patriarchs’ wives was bound to be cherished by
tradition.
The second question, namely, why J and E were obliged to re­
cord these episodes, whether or not they understood their signifi­
cance, goes to the heart of the matter. They had to do so, because
they were not free to choose. Nothing that tradition had nurtured
could be ignored by its eventual literary executors. And this is but
another way of saying that the transmitted material had already ac­
quired a measure of canonical status.
(2) The next illustration pertains to the transfer of birthright and
paternal blessing from Esau to Jacob (Sec. 35 [xxvii 1-45: /]). Once
again, the incident involves deception, this time of a singularly heart­
less sort. Biblical tradition itself accepted the whole episode at face
value, inasmuch as it went on to explain the name Jacob as symbolic
of trickery—contrary to correct etymology. And exegetes through
the ages have been shaking their heads in disapproval, or taxing
their ingenuity for redeeming features. The true explanation, how­
ever, lies elsewhere.
The clue is provided again by records about Human society.
There, birthright was not necessarily a matter of chronological pri­
ority; it could be established by the father’s personal decision.
Moreover, the most solemn of all testamentary dispositions were
those that a man made on his deathbed. And such dispositions were
introduced by the formula “I have now grown old.”
In the biblical episode, Isaac’s impending end is foreshadowed by
a comment about his advanced age (vs. 2). The patriarch then
transfers to his younger son the rights and privileges of the first­
born, which it was within his discretion to do, according to the law
XLII INTRODUCTION

of his father’s homeland. Tradition took note of the deed, and. even
preserved the exact introductory formula. But the pertinent social
background had become blurred in the meantime; in fact, the prac­
tice in question was eventually outlawed altogether (Deut xxi 15
ff.). In the nature of things, another motive was substituted; J did
not find it adequate, as the tenor of his narrative plainly shows. He
could not know that Jacob’s preferment did not have to depend on
falsehoods. Yet the author’s personal feelings on the subject gave
him no leave to alter the received data that tradition had shaped and
sanctioned long before.
(3) Our third and last case in point revolves about Rachel’s sur­
reptitious removal of Laban’s house gods (xxxi 19, 30; cf. the fuller
Comment ad loc.). The narrative stems from E, who ordinarily
takes pains to justify the actions of his principal characters. This
time, however, he makes no attempt to account for Rachel’s behav­
ior, evidently because he was unable to do so. Innumerable writers
since then have tried to find a solution, without coming close to the
mark. The correct interpretation calls for detailed knowledge of so­
cial conditions in the patriarchal age and center. That information,
however, was cut off subsequent to the migration from Mesopotamia;
and it was not restored until archaeology had brought to light the
necessary evidence from the pertinent sources themselves.
According to Human family law—which played a prominent role
in patriarchal society, as we have seen—property passed normally
to male descendants. If a daughter, however, was to share in the
inheritance for one reason or another, it was customary for the
father to hand over his house gods to the woman’s husband, as proof
that the disposition was legitimate, though exceptional. In this case,
Rachel had no illusions about her father’s honesty (see xxxi 15 f.).
By going off with Laban’s images—and thus taking the law, or what
she thought to be the law, into her own hands—she evidently hoped
to make sure that her husband would not be done out of his right­
ful dividends from a marriage for which he had labored so long.
Tradition remembered the deed, but not its motivation. And the
writer could neither ignore tradition nor presume to edit its content.
Taken together, these three old and familiar themes acquire new
significance by reason of their special bearing on the subject of
biblical origins. Each is an authentic reflection of the complex social
conditions to which it alludes. Since the biblical writers had no di­
rect access to the ultimate sources, they must have obtained this
 INTRODUCTION XLm

material through some such medium as “T.” But that intermediary

was no longer able to hand over the complete story; the motivation,
which could be taken for granted at the outset, had ceased to be
self-evident in the course of the intervening centuries. The necessary
background has to be retraced to Haran, where the patriarchal clan
had lived in intimate symbiosis with Human society. In other words,
it was there that “T” itself must have gotten its start. The uniform
evidence of the illustrations that have just been given, not to men­
tion others that could have been cited, surely rules out the remotest
possibility of coincidence.
One question still remains to be posed, a question that is basic
to this entire discussion. Granted that an authentic patriarchal tradi­
tion originated in Central Mesopotamia, some time before the middle
of the second millennium B.C.—what was it that gave that tradi­
tion the ability to remain virtually intact, and the appeal that was to
make it canonical in due time? The answer to this question is bound
up with the experience itself which gave biblical tradition its original
momentum.

Genesis of the Biblical Process

We have seen that various details of the patriarchal story in

Genesis are now confirmed and elucidated by outside sources. The
data have come from the very area to which the book refers, the
portion of Mesopotamia which the patriarchs called their home.
Since the background has thus emerged as authentic, one is
prompted to ask whether the foreground, too, may not be factual
on the whole. And the foreground in this instance is the dramatic
content of the story.
At the start of this analysis, it was logical to begin with the
biblical data and go on to outside sources. Now conditions are re­
versed, since the focal event, the migration that set the whole proc­
ess in motion, originated in Mesopotamia—precisely where both
biblical and outside testimony have led us. Accordingly, the patri­
archs will now be viewed against the pertinent Mesopotamian set­
ting; the results will then be compared with biblical statements on
the subject.
Although there is as yet no firm basis for dating the patriarchal
period—which must technically be put down as prehistoric until a
 XL IV INTRODUCTION

direct synchronism with the outside world can be established—con­

servative estimates would anchor that age in the second quarter of
the second millennium B.C. (approximately the eighteenth-six­
teenth centuries). In terms of equally conservative Mesopota­
mian chronology, such a span would take in much of the Old Baby­
lonian Dynasty, from Hammurabi11 down. Now the reign of
Hammurabi dovetails with that of another outstanding monarch,
Shamshi-Adad I of Assyria, and it parallels an illustrious stage at
Mari. All these phases are richly illuminated by a great variety of
sources. For the decades that immediately followed, we now have,
among other sources, the new material from the Syrian center of
Alalakh. And for the transition from Old to Middle Babylonian
times, there is the vivid evidence of the Nuzi records, which were
composed by Humans who had long been exposed to Babylonian
influence; and this source has recently been supplemented by texts
from later levels at Alalakh.
Thanks to this manifold and extensive testimony, we now have
a balanced picture of Mesopotamian conditions in the first half of
the second millennium, not just in Babylonia but also in the periph­
eral areas to the north and west, where Amorites and Humans
were entrenched. The over-all yield is that of a cosmopolitan, pro­
gressive, and sophisticated civilization: a common heritage of law
and government, a legacy stabilized by the use of the same script
and language, safeguarded social gains and facilitated international
relations. Writing was ubiquitous, not only as the medium of law,
administration, and business, but also as a vehicle for literary and
scientific endeavors. Aside from jurisprudence, outstanding advances
had been achieved in such disciplines as linguistics, mathematics,
and the study of history. Architecture and the arts flourished, agri­
culture and animal husbandry were highly developed, and far-flung
commercial enterprises added to the material prosperity. Indeed, on
most of these counts, the classical lands of a thousand years later
appear as yet primitive by comparison. In short, the Mesopotamia
of Hammurabi and his neighbors was the most advanced land in the
world—a vigorous force at home and a magnet to other countries
near and far.
Yet, if the record in Genesis is to be given credence, it was at
11 The coirect transliteration is Hammurapi; but the fonn with b has been
retained as the more familiar of the two.
 INTRODUCTION XLV

that juncture that Abraham turned his back on his homeland and
set out for a destination unfamiliar and unsung. What could have
prompted him to make such a move? According to Gen xii 1, it was
a call from the Deity. To be sure, tradition was bound to look
upon the remote past in reverent and idealized retrospect. This is
why Abraham emerges as a simple nomad devoted to pastoral ways,
although a product of the urban society of Mesopotamia. Yet the
same tradition, as we just saw, succeeded in preserving much of the
background detail with remarkable accuracy. Moreover, the fact of
migration from Mesopotamia is borne out by a mass of circumstan­
tial evidence too vast to itemize here. Since the setting was not in­
vented, and the migration is amply supported, the stated reason for
the journey should not be dismissed offhand. And that reason, re­
duced to basic terms, was a spiritual one.
So far, our inquiry into the remoter reaches of biblical history
has not been unduly hazardous. Every so often along the way there
have been markers by which we could check our bearings. The
common subject matter of the / and E narratives pointed to an
underlying predocumentary stage (“T”). The essential trustworthi­
ness of “T” was vouched for, in turn, by the evidence of cuneiform
records. Finally, the starting point of the biblical process—that
is, Central Mesopotamia in the age of Hammurabi—was found to
be brightly illuminated by various contemporary sources.
Now, however, we can no longer count on such tangible support.
The task before us is to re-enact in our minds the experience that
impelled Abraham to break with his past and set out on an epic
journey, thereby setting in motion a process that was to be sus­
tained throughout the entire course of biblical history. Does such
an assignment hold out much hope of worth-while results? There
is clearly a limit beyond which circumstantial evidence ceases to
afford reasonably safe conduct and lets one proceed only at ever-
increasing risk. That limit has now been reached.
Although there is no proof so far of Abraham’s historicity, many
biblical historians would probably agree that if some such figure
had not been recorded by the ancients, it would have to be con­
jectured by the modems. But it is one thing to concede Abraham’s
existence, and quite another thing to attempt to read his mind at
a critical juncture in his life. Nevertheless, the effort is worth mak­
ing, for two reasons: first, because a great deal is at stake, namely,
the genesis of the biblical process; and second, because there are
 XL VI INTRODUCTION

still some resources available for checking such an assumption. To

be sure, the controls in this case are general rather than specific.
Yet the same test must fit so many different conditions that a wrong
turn at any one point would show up soon enough. If the hypothesis,
however, stands up throughout, if it helps to account for much that
would be incomprehensible otherwise, its usefulness, if not its abso­
lute accuracy, will have been validated.
Since the first problem before us is to establish the motive for
Abraham’s break with his homeland, the clues that we require have
to be sought in Mesopotamia. And if the reason for the migration
was spiritual, as the Bible asserts, the cause should be traceable to
the society that Abraham abandoned. Or to state it differently, we
start with the assumption that Abraham found the spiritual solution
of Mesopotamia wanting, and that the biblical process began as a
protest against that failure.
The vibrant character of Mesopotamian civilization as a whole,
and particularly so during the period under discussion, has already
been stressed. By the time of Hammurabi, that civilization had es­
tablished itself as a dynamic force at home and abroad. Nor can
there be much doubt that social progress was the overriding factor in
that advance. The Mesopotamian concept of the cosmos, which
barred autocracy even in heaven, also made for a regime on earth
whereby the law was above the ruler and thus stood guard over the
rights of the individual. In various ways, this social system was re­
sponsible for the country’s balanced progress in governmental, intel­
lectual, and scientific matters.12 And it sustained the historic civili­
zation of Mesopotamia—as opposed to its several prehistoric
stages—throughout its long career, from its dawn at the turn of
the fourth millennium to the sudden collapse some twenty-five cen­
turies later. The age of Hammurabi was thus approximately the
halfway mark along that impressive span. It was also the high-water
mark in a cultural sense. Yet Abraham appears to have viewed it
as a failure.
To ascribe such disenchantment to the patriarch’s West Semitic
antecedents would not do justice to known facts. Hammurabi him­
self was a member of a West Semitic dynasty, although in his case
that foreign background was too remote to have made a difference.
12 E. A. Speiser, ' Some Sources of Intellectual and Social Progress in the
Ancient Near East,” W. G. Leland Volume, 1942, pp. 51-62.
 INTRODUCTION XLVII

But there were other Amorite rulers to the west and north of
Babylonia who had not had enough time to become assimilated; yet
most of them became ardent converts to the Babylonian way of life.
The celebrated Shamshi-Adad I, for example, could be described as
Babylon’s cultural missionary to Assyria. And correspondence from
outlying regions, including the district of Har(r)an itself, and even
distant and powerful states like Aleppo, testifies to the eager accept­
ance by Amorites of the civilization of Southern Mesopotamia.
Hence it would scarcely be normal for a native of Mesopotamia,
whatever his ethnic origins, to look for greener pastures elsewhere.
Now it is true that Genesis portrays Abraham as a nomad of
simple tastes, for whom the refinements of urban life held little
charm, unlike his nephew Lot (xiii 12). Would not this attitude
be reason enough for pulling up stakes and going off to a land
where kindred Amorites still maintained their ancient mode of
life? Perhaps so, provided that this particular image of Abraham
is in true focus. Actually, however, tradition’s views of the distant
past became at times oversimplified in nostalgic retrospect. A more
realistic picture of the patriarch is reflected in Gen xiv, precisely
because that chapter departs sharply from the traditional mold. In
that account, Abraham—or rather Abram, as he was then called—
appears as a prosperous settler who can mobilize on short notice a
sizable troop from among his own retainers and put an invading
horde to rout. Clearly, therefore, there must have been more to the
patriarch’s migration than a vague impulse to revert to the idyllic
ways of his distant ancestors. Moreover, the whole tenor of the
Abraham story reflects a concern about the future rather than the
past. Mesopotamia, it would seem, was not a suitable base for
planning ahead.
Yet the inferred shortcomings cannot be laid to prevailing social
conditions, as we have seen. The evolving Hebrew society had
enough in common, in this respect, with the historic society of Meso­
potamia to presuppose not only generic affiliation but also basic
accord. In both instances we find the same reverence for law imper­
sonally conceived, and the identical concept of non-autocratic gov­
ernment on earth. Such fundamental agreements would scarcely ar­
gue for a rejection of the Mesopotamian social system on the part
of the Hebrew patriarchs. But in the ancient world in general, and
the Near East in particular, the social aspect of a civilization was
intimately related to its religious aspect: the two interlocked. If it
 XLvm INTRODUCTION

was not, then, the social climate that drove Abraham from Meso­
potamia, could local religion provide a plausible motive?
The answer may not be far to seek. In Mesopotamia, the very
tenets that stimulated the social growth of the country proved to
be a source of weakness in its spiritual progress. The terrestrial
state was non-autocratic because man took his cue from the gods;
and in the celestial state no one god was a law unto himself, not
even the head of the pantheon. All major decisions in heaven re­
quired approval by the corporate body of the gods. And since
nothing was valid for all time, the upshot was chronic indecision in
heaven and consequent insecurity on earth. Man’s best hope to get
a favorable nod from the cosmic powers lay, it was felt, in ritualistic
appeasement. And as the ritual machinery grew more and more
cumbersome, the spiritual content receded ever farther, until it all
but disappeared from the official system. When social gain«; could
no longer balance the spiritual deficit, Mesopotamian civilization
as a whole ceased to be self-sustaining
To be sure, the golden age of Hammurabi, with which the early
patriarchal period has to be correlated, was more than a millennium
away from the collapse of Assyria and Babylonia; it would not
appear to be a ripe time for spiritual forebodings. Nevertheless,
there must have been occasional doubts even then about the reli­
gious solution which local society had evolved. As a matter of
fact, the earliest known composition on the subject of the Suffering
Just—or the Job theme—dates from Old Babylonian times. Thus
Abraham would not have been alone in his religious questioning.
However, if the biblical testimony is anywhere near the mark, he
was the first to follow up such thoughts with action.
Since the Mesopotamian system was vulnerable chiefly because
of its own type of polytheism, a possible remedy that an inquiring
mind might hit upon would lie in monotheism. But to conceive of
such an ideal initially, without any known precedent in the expe­
rience of mankind, called for greater resources than those of logic
alone. It meant a resolute rejection of common and long-cherished
beliefs, a determined challenge to the powers that were believed to
dominate every aspect of nature, and the substitution of a single
supreme being for that hostile coalition. The new belief, in short,
would call for unparalleled inspiration and conviction. Without
that kind of call, Abraham could not have become the father of the
biblical process.
 INTRODUCTION XI, IX

To summarize the reasoning thus far, the genesis of the biblical

way is bound up with the beginnings of the monotheistic concept;
both converge in the age, and presumably also the person, of Abra­
ham. To this extent, the present reconstruction is in broad accord
with the tenor of biblical tradition. Unlike traditional tenets, how­
ever, a historical hypothesis cannot be accepted on faith; it must
meet the test of independent controls. In the present instance, the
controls are implicit in the internal evidence of biblical history as
a whole. But before the test is attempted, one important point needs
to be clarified in passing.
In adducing monotheism and polytheism as contrasting factors in
the story of mankind, the student of history must steer clear of
subjective involvement with these theological systems in the ab­
stract. His sole business is to ascertain what the respective con­
cepts contributed pragmatically. The judgment must be based of
necessity on what the given system accomplished in the long run.
The question of independent validity cannot be at issue in this in­
stance.
The effects of Mesopotamian polytheism on the local civilization
have already been outlined. Because the cosmos was viewed as a
state in which ultimate authority was vested in the collective as­
sembly of the gods, mortals were, paradoxically enough, both gainers
and losers. Human society followed the lead of the gods in adopt­
ing an anti-authoritarian form of government. But since heaven it­
self was subject to instability, mankind too lacked the assurance of
absolute and universal principles.
Monotheism, on the other hand, is predicated on the concept of
a God who has no rivals, and is therefore omnipotent. As the un­
challenged master of all creation, he has an equal interest in all
of his creatures. Since every nation has the same claim to his care,
each can aspire to just and impartial treatment in conformance
with its conduct. The same holds true of individuals. It is thus
causality and not caprice that is the norm of the cosmos. Imper­
sonal justice, moreover, is conducive to objective standards of ethics
and morality.
The history of the biblical process is ultimately the story of the
monotheistic ideal in its gradual evolution. That ideal was first
glimpsed and pursued by a single society in resolute opposition to
prevailing beliefs. In the course of that quest, certain truths emerged
which proved to possess universal validity, hence their progressive
L INTRODUCTION

recognition and acceptance; hence, too, the abiding appeal of the

Bible as the comprehensive record of that quest. The inception of
the underlying process becomes thus a matter of unique interest and
significance. As has been emphasized repeatedly, all signs so far
have pointed to Abraham as the pioneer. To what extent is this
borne out by the internal evidence of biblical history?
Once Israel had been established as a political entity, any retrace­
ment of its spiritual history was bound to operate in the shadow of
the towering figure of Moses. This is in no way surprising. Even in
the sharper perspective of today, a perspective made possible by an
ever-quickening flow of discovery, Moses stands unchallenged as the
founder of the Israelite nation. By the same token, however, Mount
Sinai emerges as a vital stage on the road to nationhood, but not as
its starting point. The biblical concept of a nation stresses three fea­
tures above all others: (1) a body of religious beliefs; (2) an in­
tegral system of law; and (3) a specific territorial base. It was the
heroic achievement of Moses to have rallied an amorphous ag­
glomerate of serfs and nomads and imbued them with a will to
independent nationhood. To that end he proclaimed Yahweh as
the one and supreme God, put together a legal code, and led his
fractious followers to the borders of the Promised Land. Yet the
religious content is invariably characterized as ancestral, the faith of
the forefathers. The law, it is true, becomes a personal revelation
from the Deity, in a manner that is traditional with all ancient legisla­
tors; but most of the legal provisions involved have demonstrable
pre-Mosaic antecedents and can often be traced back paragraph by
paragraph, sometimes even word for word. And the theme of the
Promised Land is prominent with all the patriarchs, and central to
the mission of Abraham. Thus the earlier traditions themselves
ascribe the original program to Abraham and credit Moses primarily
with its execution. This may not do full justice to Moses’ over-all
achievement, the strength and the perseverance and the faith that
went into it, and the toll that it took. Nevertheless, the ultimate in­
spiration derived from an earlier vision, a vision that required a long
time to incubate, one that Moses set out to validate in all humility.
While it is thus true that Israel as a nation would be inconceivable
without Moses, the work of Moses would be equally unthinkable
without the prior labors of the patriarchs. The covenant of Mount
Sinai is a natural sequel to God’s covenant with Abraham. The
 INTRODUCTION LI

two together become the twin cornerstones of the spiritual history of

Israel, and are honored as such throughout the Bible.
When it comes, therefore, to the genesis of the biblical process, the
internal evidence of the Bible itself goes hand in hand with the results
of modem biblical study based in large measure on the testimony
of outside sources. Both sets of data point to the age of Abraham;
each in its own way enhances the probability of Abraham as a his­
torical figure. And if the term probability appears too sanguine in
this connection, in view of the tenuous and circumstantial nature of
the evidence, it should be remembered that the case for Moses is
analogous in kind, though not in degree. Furthermore, the argu­
ment for Abraham is not as yet exhausted. A significant final point
still remains to be cited.
Biblical history proper, as distinct from primeval history, begins
in Genesis with chapter xii. This beginning comes with startling
suddenness. The preceding chapter concluded with a notice about
Abraham’s family which betrays the hand of J, followed by a typical
statement from P about Abraham’s stopping in Haran, although he
had started out for Canaan. Even P fails to tell us that Abraham
“walked with God,” as had Enoch and Noah, or to suggest any rea­
son for the patriarch’s journey And when J commences his main
narrative, Abraham does not know what his destination is to be. We
are told only that he has been called, without prior preparation or
warning. The opening words are. “Go forth,” thus keynoting the
theme of migration from Mesopotamia in quest of spiritual values.
There could be no way more apt or direct to signal the commence­
ment of the biblical process.
Nor could there be much preparation or warning in the circum­
stances. As a drastic departure from existing norms, the concept of
monotheism had to break new ground. There had to be a first time,
and place, and person or group of persons; hence the abruptness of
the account in Gen xii. The time has been circumscribed for us by
the background data which the patriarchal narratives incorporate.
The place is indicated in three ways; the Mesopotamian source of
the material involved; the need for a new and different religious
solution, a need that could be discerned in Mesopotamia more clearly
than anywhere else, as we have seen; and the manifold ties that
link Israel to the homeland of the patriarchs. The human factor
cannot be reduced independently to a given individual or group of
individuals. But tradition has nominated Abraham specifically, and
LH INTRODUCTION

that choice is not contradicted by modem study. Furthermore, the

author of the narrative about Abraham’s call did not get his informa­
tion from a researcher’s files. And he could not have obtained it
from cuneiform texts since, even if his scholarship matched his liter­
ary genius, the documents from the pertinent period had by J’s time
been covered up for centuries, and were to remain buried for
nearly three thousand years more. / could have gotten his material
only from earlier Israelite traditions, which in turn reached back all
the way to patriarchal times. That is why the Genesis narrative about
the turning point in Abraham’s life, favored as it is by the internal
evidence from biblical history and the indirect testimony of extra-
biblical sources, deserves more than casual attention.
The end result of that religious experience of faraway and long
ago cannot be estimated even at this late date, for the end is not yet
in sight. From just such a start a society was fashioned, and its
continued quest for universal verities inspired three enduring reli­
gions, which profoundly affected all subsequent history. As the record
of that progressive quest, the Bible became and has remained a
factor in cultural life and an influence in world literature.
But if the full results cannot be calculated, an impression of their
magnitude may perhaps be suggested by means of indirect com­
parison. The question has often been posed whether the course of
recent history would have changed much if on August 15, 1769,
Letizia Bonaparte had given birth to a girl instead of a boy. The
answer is obvious when limited to decades. But would it still be
true a hundred years later, or a hundred and fifty? The chances are
that it would not, and that the deviation from the original course
which the advent of Napoleon brought about would have been
righted in due time.
Now let us ask the same kind of question about the biblical
process and its presumed originator. The answer can be ventured
with much greater confidence because the measuring span is twenty
times as long. That distant event altered history irrevocably. In the
case of Napoleon, the detour rejoined the main road. But in the case
of Abraham, the detour became itself the main road.
 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF GENESIS

Nature of the Contents

In terms of subject matter, the Book of Genesis breaks up into two

distinct and unequal parts. The first contains chapters i-xi; it is
restricted—if allowances are made for the Table of Nations—to
what has come to be known as Primeval History. The second part,
chapters xii-1, takes up the Story of the Patriarchs.
The following discussion will include some material that has al­
ready been cited, or will come up later in the comments on the
pertinent sections. Such data need to be brought together under
this heading because of their special relevance to the present con­
text.

(7) Primeval History

The break between Primeval History and the Story of the Patri­
archs (Parts I and II in this book) is sharper than is immediately
apparent. On the surface, the end of chapter xi appears to lead up to
the next chapter. Actually, however, the call that set Abraham’s
mission on its course, and with it the biblical process as a whole
(xii Iff.), is received without any prior warning, as was stressed
above. Everything that precedes is a broadly conceived preface, a
prelude to the particular story with which the rest of the Pentateuch
is concerned. The difference is underscored by the scope of the two
subdivisions of Genesis. The patriarchal narratives take up four-
fifths of the entire book, yet they cover only four generations of a
single family. Primeval History, on the other hand, has the whole
world as its stage, and its time span reaches back all the way to
Creation. In other words, Primeval History seeks to give a universal
setting for what is to be the early history of one particular people.
LIV INTRODUCTION

Although the content of the prefatory part is thus in effect pre­

historic, it could still have originated with Israelites, or been im­
ported from some outside quarter or quarters. In this instance, it can
be established that (1) the material was imported for the most
part, and (2) that the ultimate source of the borrowings or adapta­
tions can be traced to a single land. The originating center has left
its geographic stamp, so to speak, in some cases, and indirect but
just as decisive markers in others.
Let us first list the headings of the thirteen sections into which
the first eleven chapters of Genesis have been arranged in this work;
the respective documentary sources are given in parentheses:
1. Opening Account of Creation (P). 2. The Story of Eden (/).
3. The Fall of Man (/). 4. Cain and Abel (/). 5. The Line of
Cain (/). 6. The Patriarchs before the Flood (P). 7. Prelude
to Disaster (/). 8. The Flood (/, P). 9. Blessing and Covenant (P).
10. Noah and his Sons (/, P). 11. The Table of Nations (P, /).
12. The Tower of Babel (/). 13. Genealogies from Shem to Abra­
ham (P, /).
In Sections 2 (Tigris and Euphrates), 11 (Nimrod’s lands and
cities), 12 (Babylon), and 13 (Ur, Haran), Mesopotamia is desig­
nated explicitly. In Sections 6 (antediluvian lists) and 8 (Flood)
there is a demonstrable relationship with abundant cuneiform sources.
Section 7 echoes concepts of theogony which are ultimately trace­
able to Mesopotamia. And the remaining topics likewise fall into
line by reason of such marked details as Eden or the Flood. In other
words, Primeval History is clearly oriented toward Mesopotamia.
One of the significant aspects of this situation is that P incorpo­
rated outside material, in so far as Primeval History is concerned,
no less than J. It should be stressed, moreover, that P did not utilize
J’s material in these particular instances. P’s account of Creation is
fundamentally different from J’s, but it shows a far-reaching cor­
respondence in detail with the Babylonian account of Creation as
presented in Enuma elis (see Comment on Sec. 1). The same
holds true of P’s approach to antediluvian generations (cf. Com­
ment on Sec. 6). It follows, accordingly, that P had independent
access to traditions that ultimately originated in Mesopotamia. This
has a bearing, in turn, on the essential antiquity of at least some of
P’s data; and it should warn us against discounting P when pre­
documentary traditions are considered.
Another aspect of the derivative character of Primeval History
 INTRODUCTION LV

also deserves careful attention. Native traditions are homogeneous

by definition. The themes they feature are bound to reflect local
concepts and beliefs; and the language in which such themes have
been transmitted lends itself readily to restatement by the eventual
chroniclers. It is different, however, with outside motifs which have
been taken over for one reason or another. The background is
alien, the subject matter is fixed, and the form and expression are
inevitably influenced by the original medium. It should come as no
surprise, therefore, that a certain degree of dissonance can be de­
tected when Primeval History is compared with native material in
the Bible, as is the case, for example, with the mythological content
of Section 7, and such passages as iii 22 ff. and xi 6; or that the story
about Eden should contain, aside from the theme itself, such
Sumerian loanwords as the term Eden or the word for “flow” {’id,
see Sec. 2). In such cases, the writer was restricted by his source
material in more ways than one. Small wonder, therefore, that vari­
ous critics have found difficulty in recognizing J’s hand in these sec­
tions of Genesis. But their consequent recourse to other sources
(E, and even the more speculative L and S) has proved to be so
much tilting at windmills. It is still unmistakably J, but a J operating
under particularly rigid limitations.
Lastly, the fact that the account of Creation was secondary in
much of its detail has an important bearing on the “scientific” aspect
of the narrative. It means that the data embody Mesopotamian con­
clusions on the subject, conclusions that had been reached at a
remote age by a society which was a pioneer in the gradual ad­
vance of science. In this respect, biblical thought reflected the best
that was available in contemporary scientific thinking, yet raised
such data to its own theological standards. It is a case of authen­
ticity in the second degree, that is, an authentic reflex of an under­
lying source. And the basic question about any statement in a given
source is not whether that statement is true or false, but what it
means (cf. concluding Comment on Sec. 1).
How is one to evaluate such manifold dependence of Primeval
History on Mesopotamian prototypes? One attempted answer can
be found in the tenets of a school that sprang up at the beginning
of the century under the aegis of the distinguished German As-
syriologist Friedrich Delitzsch. In his lectures under the collective
title of “Babel and Bibel,” Delitzsch drew sharp attention to the
Babylonian ingredient in Genesis, and went on to conclude that the
LVI INTRODUCTION

Bible was therefore guilty of crass plagiarism. Ironically enough, the

accuser could not know at the time how much more fuel for his
theory subsequent discoveries might seem to provide, but that, par­
adoxically, the increment would refute the theory itself by placing
the whole subject in its true perspective.
The added material has demonstrated, among other things, that
the background of the patriarchal narratives in Genesis is indeed
authentic, so much so in fact that it could have been obtained only
in Mesopotamia itself. Accordingly, the traditions about the patri­
archs are right in naming that country as the homeland of Abra­
ham. In that case, however, Abraham and the people he led could
hardly have remained untouched by the rich culture of the land from
which they migrated. They were bound to be influenced by various
local customs and practices, and we know now that such was actu­
ally the case. In addition, they must have been familiar with the
themes that dominated the literature of Mesopotamia. Nor need all
such ties have been severed as a result of Abraham’s departure. We
are told that Jacob had the opportunity to renew them over a period
of twenty years. And similar contacts may have been maintained
by later generations. In other words, there is nothing surprising
about the fact that early Hebrew literature is replete with Mesopo­
tamian motifs, especially motifs relating to pre-Israelite times. It is
only lack of such themes that would be grounds for suspicion.
Delitzsch and his followers failed to take due notice of the fact
that the Bible never denied the close ties between the patriarchs
and Mesopotamia. And they overlooked the further significant fact
that there was a spiritual reason for the parting of the ways. The
migration, as we have seen, was in protest against the local religious
solution. And reflections of that protest can still be detected through­
out the account on Primeval History. P’s statement about Creation
differs from its Mesopotamian analogue by its overriding concept of
an omnipotent Creator. J’s version of the Flood receives a moral
motivation. Most revealing of all is the same writer’s narrative about
the Tower of Babel. The scene of the episode is Babylon itself, and
some passages in that story read as though the author had had the
Babylonian prototype before him. Yet the purpose of the tale is not a
direct though unacknowledged transcript, but a stem criticism of
the builders’ monumental presumption. To reverse a familiar saying,
the more things are alike in some ways, the greater the differences
between them on other counts.
 INTRODUCTION LVII

There is, finally, yet another question about Primeval History that
remains to be considered. Why was this sketchy introduction in­
cluded altogether? The career of a given nation is not traced back
automatically to Creation, especially when even that nation’s fore­
fathers are presented as relative newcomers on the stage of history.
The logical beginning in this instance would seem to be Gen xii, or
perhaps a few verses earlier. And in fact, the E source does not
reach back beyond Abraham, unless one ascribes this late start to
accidents of preservation rather than deliberate design.
The answer to this question may be sought in the fact that neither
J nor P was interested in national history as such. Rather, both were
concerned with the story of a society and, more particularly, a
society as the embodiment of an ideal, that is, a way of life. A
history of that kind transcends national boundaries and may con­
ceivably be retraced to the beginnings of the world. Such at least is
the manifest intent of P, whose system is designed to close any
possible genealogical gaps.
Nevertheless, one should not discount another potential reason for
the grand preface. Mesopotamian literature was fond of taking
many of its themes all the way back to Creation, sometimes even in
matters of no great consequence.13 Understandably enough, this
tendency was especially prominent in historical writings. Thus the
standard Sumerian king list starts with the dynasties before the
Flood,14 and proceeds from there to eras with which the compiler
was better acquainted. We know that the same approach was fol­
lowed elsewhere in the Near East.15 Moreover, P’s genealogies be­
fore the Flood parallel the antediluvian dynasties of the Sumerians
in endowing individuals with enormous life-spans; and the names
of some of the biblical patriarchs before the Flood display Akkadian
formation (see Sec. 6). It would have been no less natural for J,
who frequently incorporated Mesopotamian data in his own con­
tribution to Primeval History, to follow time-honored precedent in
prefacing his work with sketches about the early stages of mankind
13 Even a simple incantation against toothache is honored with such a
cosmic introduction; cf. ANET, p. 100.
14 See Thorkild Jacobsen, The Sumerian King List, 1939.
18 There is, for example, an Old Human text about world rulers starting

with primeval times; cf. J. Friedrich, Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmäler, 1932,

p. 35.
Lvra INTRODUCTION

as a whole. If the Mesopotamian models were not the sole reason for
such an arrangement, they could well have been a contributing fac­
tor.

(2) The Story of the Patriarchs

The patriarchal narratives in Genesis comprise three major sub­
divisions: A. The Story of Abraham (xii 1-xxv 18); B. The Story of
Jacob (xxv 19-xxxvii 2a); C. Joseph and His Brothers (xxxvii 2b-l
26). What happened to Isaac? Strange as it may seem, Abraham’s
son and successor does not appear to have inspired a separate cycle
of narratives about himself. The death of Abraham is recorded in
xxv 8-10. Verses 12-18 are devoted to Ishmael and his descendants.
Verse 19 proceeds immediately to Isaac’s descendants, and the birth
of Jacob and Esau is recorded in 21ff., thus introducing the story of
Jacob. Chapter xxvi, to be sure, gathers a number of scattered no­
tices about Isaac. Yet the very fact that these notices are discon­
nected and meager demonstrates how inconspicuous was the role
that Isaac played in the story of the patriarchs as a whole. It is fur­
ther evident from chapter xxiv that Isaac could not have been a
memorable personality.
The story of Abraham contains a secondary theme in the sporadic
references to Lot. A companion of the patriarch ever since the mi­
gration from Mesopotamia, Lot eventually parts from his uncle and
settles in the Jordan Plain where he becomes an eyewitness to the
upheavel that wiped out Sodom and the region about it. The Lot nar­
rative comes to a close with the births of the eponymous ancestors of
the Moabites and the Ammonites. A unique section within the cycle
of narratives about Abraham is chapter xiv, which stands out from
the rest by virtue of its distinctive orientation, and provides a picture
of the patriarch as viewed from the outside.
The Jacob story is more diversified in its pattern than that of
Abraham. Its protagonist lacks his grandfather’s stability, and that
lack, which heightens the dramatic impact of the story, is brought
out primarily through the medium of the continuous rivalry between
Jacob and his twin brother Esau. Jacob’s flight to Haran turns into
twenty years of penance in Mesopotamia, and terminates in an
equally hasty return to Canaan. The long stay in Mesopotamia is
portrayed against a background of authenticated local conditions,
 INTRODUCTION LK

Significantly, both / and E prove to have drawn on original data for

their respective accounts of this stage in Jacob’s life.
Two episodes are recounted in the latter half of Genesis which
are nearly as extraneous to their particular contexts as was Gen xiv
in the first half. Unlike Gen xiv, however, the authorship of the ac­
counts in question is not a serious problem; each betrays the hand
of J. One of these later narratives is chapter xxxiv, which centers
about Jacob’s daughter Dinah; it goes chronologically with the Jacob
cycle, and Jacob himself becomes personally involved. The other nar­
rative is chapter xxxviii, which deals with the incident of Judah and
Tamar; it happens to be technically a part of the Joseph story, which
is introduced in chapter xxxvii. Nevertheless, it has nothing whatever
to do with Joseph, and the Judah whom we meet here cannot be syn­
chronized with the Judah of the Joseph story (see Comment on
xxxvw). The two accounts will be considered here jointly because of
their common deviation from the main cycles into which they have
been inserted in the text.
The name Dinah occurs twice outside ch. xxxiv, namely, in xxx
21 and xlvi 15; but those passages are textually suspect; they ap­
pear to be afterthoughts, which is another term for glosses. This does
not mean, of course, that Dinah had no place in the older tradi­
tions; it does suggest, however, that notices about Dinah were not
part of the main themes with which biblical historians were con­
cerned. Now the story that Gen xxxiv tells about her relates to a
very early stage in Hebrew history, which culminated in a clash be­
tween the tribes of Simeon and Levi on the one hand, and the city
of Shechem on the other. Whatever the immediate results, the long­
term effect was ruinous for the two tribes, inasmuch as Simeon was
eventually reduced to an insignificant role, while Levi lost its tribal
status altogether. Israel looked back on the incident in stem reproof
(cf. xlix 5-7).
Gen xxxvui shows no awareness of Judah’s presence in Egypt,
while displaying a keen interest in the early history of the tribe of
Judah. In common, thus, with xxxiv, the narrative under discussion
affords an independent and different insight into early historical con­
ditions. J was apparently in no position to ignore either of these side
views, although he must have been aware of the resulting discrepan­
cies in chronology as regards Judah. One could only wish that both
J and E had had reason to incorporate other such notices, which
no doubt must have been current; we would then have had a
LX INTRODUCTION

broader basis for the reconstruction of a dimly illuminated age. But,

as stated above, the biblical narrators were interested primarily in
recording a progressive spiritual experience; and one can hardly
blame them for their preference.
The Joseph story calls for no special comment at this time. As has
just been pointed out, chapter xxxviii, although now placed within
the Joseph cycle, is not pertinent to it in content. The same is true of
the Testament of Jacob (xlix 1) (see Comment on Sec. 61). An­
other intrusive passage in the Joseph story is the list in xlvi 8-27
(P); cf. Comment ad loc. The last Hebrew word in the Book of
Genesis reads “in Egypt,” a fitting, though doubtless unintended,
catchword which points to the Book of Exodus.

Genesis Exegesis

Over the many centuries that have elapsed since its definitive com­
pilation, Genesis has proved to be by far the most popular book of
the Pentateuch, attracting the greatest amount of attention and giving
rise to the largest volume of comment. The variety and universal ap­
peal of its contents and the literary quality of its narratives are one
reason for this continuous interest. Another reason, of course, lies in
the manifold challenge that Genesis has always presented to philoso­
phers and theologians. As a result, references to Genesis began to
appear in the later books of the Bible itself, only to swell into an
ever-increasing flow of opinions and studies as time went by. The
modern age has provided a new stimulus through the dual medium
of biblical criticism and archaeology. By now the total extent of pub­
lications on the subject is probably beyond computation. The
chances are that a latter-day Ecclesiastes would repeat his prede­
cessor’s complaint that “of making many books there is no end,” but
would apply this saying exclusively to the extant material on Genesis.
The following is a sample listing of works, both ancient and mod­
em, that relate in varying degrees to the interpretation of the Book
of Genesis. In many instances, the given entry is but one of a number
that would have been included if space permitted. The immense peri­
odical literature had to be ignored altogether. Nor is this the place to
take up translations as such; that subject will be dealt with in the
next section.
Among the oldest works pertaining to Genesis, or at least in­
 INTRODUCTION LXI

spired by the canonical version, are two components of the Pseudepi-

grapha, both dating from the second century b.c. They are the Book
of Jubilees, originally written in Hebrew and purporting to be an
elaboration of the biblical book; and Testaments of the XII Patri­
archs, originally composed in Aramaic. Another Aramaic composi­
tion is the so-called Genesis Apocryphon (abbr. Gen. Apocr), one
of the recently recovered Dead Sea scrolls (published by N. Avigad
and Y. Yadin, 1956). More systematic in method and approach is a
work by the Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher Philo of Alexandria, who
was born toward the end of the pre-Christian era. In his compre­
hensive Greek study on the Pentateuch which bore the title “Ques­
tions and Solutions,” Philo paid a great deal of attention to Genesis,
inasmuch as the extant material points to at least six books on this
subject alone.
Rabbinic literature is replete with references and allusions to Gen­
esis themes. The haggadic (morally instructive) legends on the sub­
ject have been collected in L. Ginzberg’s The Legends of the Jews, 1
vols., 1913-38. A special midrashic (expository) collection on Gen­
esis is the subject of a large work entitled Bereshit Rabba Repre­
sentative of many early studies by the Church Fathers is the Com­
mentary on Genesis by the great third-century scholar Origen
Jewish scholars of the Middle Ages produced various biblical
studies—lexicographical, grammatical, and exegetical. The pioneer
in this effort was Sa'adia (882—942), who is still celebrated for his
translation of the Pentateuch into Arabic; but he was also the author
of an Arabic commentary on Gen i—xxviii 7, which unfortunately is
extant only in fragments. We do have, however, the complete Arabic
commentary by Sa'adia’s Karaite (literalist) opponent ‘Ali ben
Sulaiman (tenth/eleventh centuries) published by S. Skoss, 1928
Of the numerous mediaeval commentaries in Hebrew, the best
known, and still useful in many respects, are those of Rashi (elev­
enth century) and Abraham Ibn Ezra (twelfth century).
We have to skip the next few stages, with their groping for an ob­
jective approach to the Bible and the evolution of critical methods,
and turn to recent works. The classic formulation of the documen­
tary hypothesis, embracing the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets,
is still J. Wellhausen’s Die Composition des Hexateuchs . . , 1889
For subsequent statements see D. C. Simpson, Pentateuchal Criticism,
1924, and especially M. Noth, Vberlieferungsgeschichte des Penta-
teuchs, 2d ed., 1948. Representative of the large number of Introduc­
LXH INTRODUCTION

tions to the Old Testament are those by S. R. Driver, 10th ed., 1900,
R. H. Pfeiffer, 1941, and J. L. McKenzie, 1956. For a special, and
elaborate, application of the documentary method to the first book
of the Pentateuch, cf. O. Eissfeldt, Die Genesis der Genesis, 1958.
The views of Y. Kaufmann, as expressed in his monumental He­
brew study on The Religion of Israel, may now be gleaned from
the English abridgment by M. Greenberg, 1960.
Of the many distinguished commentaries on Genesis published
since the last quarter of the nineteenth century, I can only list those
that I had occasion to consult frequently. They include A. Dillmann’s
Die Genesis, 6th ed., 1892, which is notable for its sound philologi­
cal approach, H. Gunkel’s Genesis, 1902, marked by the author’s
keen appreciation of literary quality, and S. R. Driver’s (abbr. Dr.)
The Book of Genesis ( 12th ed., 1926, repr. 1954). The abiding popu­
larity of this last work is a well-deserved tribute to the author’s rare
combination of learning, lucidity, and plain common sense. But the
book was published originally in 1904, and effective revisions were
interrupted by Driver’s death in 1914. A convenient digest of the
textual apparatus is available in J. Skinner’s treatment of Genesis in
the International Critical Commentary, 1910, 2d ed., 1930. Within
the past decade there have appeared, among others, U. Cassuto’s
From Adam to Noah (Gen i-v) and From Noah to Abraham (Gen
vi-xi), both in Hebrew (1953); R. de Vaux’s La Genèse, as part
of La Sainte Bible (abbr. SB), 1953; and G. von Rad’s (abbr. von
Rad) Das erste Buch Mose, 1952-53; the recently published English
translation of this thoughtful study substitutes the RSV version of the
Hebrew text.
As examples of sectional commentaries on Genesis, I cite in addi­
tion to Cassuto’s, above (which was intended to cover the entire
book), only K. Budde’s Biblische Urgeschichte (Gen i-xii 5, 1883)
and W. Zimmerli’s Die Urgeschichte: 1. Mose 1-11 (2d ed., 1957).
J. H. Kroeze’s (Dutch) Genesis Veertien (“Genesis XIV”), 1937,
may serve as an illustration of still more restricted monographic
studies.
When it comes to insight into biblical usage, there is nothing that
can match A. B. Ehrlich’s (abbr. Ehrl.) Randglossen zur hebräischen
Bibel, Vol. I, 1908 (for Genesis, pp. 1-256). The text of the He­
brew Bible itself is by no means as firmly established as the com­
monly applied term “Masoretic” (traditional) would seem to imply.
The recorded variants, however, are of minor technical significance.
 INTRODUCTION LXm

For all general purposes, R. Kittel’s edition of Genesis in the same

editor’s Biblia Hebraica, 3d ed., 1937, is fully adequate.
Finally, Israel, as the nation that produced the Bible, was not an
island either in space or in time. Hence there is a virtually inexhausti­
ble commentary on the Bible that can be distilled from the literary
remains of Israel’s contemporaries. For Genesis, the material is
spread over a maze of cuneiform documents, echoed in a scattering
of West Semitic inscriptions, and implicit in some of the records
from Egypt. The fundamental importance of Assyriological sources
has been manifest ever since the publication of G. Smith’s The
Chaldean Account of Genesis, 1880; and it received more recent
recognition in A. Heidel’s The Babylonian Genesis, 1945, 2d ed.,
1951, and The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, 1946.
The West Semitic inscriptions, in so far as they may bear on Genesis
times, have yet to be excerpted in a separate book; on the inde­
pendent area of Ugaritic studies, cf. M. H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic
Texts, 1955. For the latest evaluation of the meager Egyptological
material we have J. Vergote’s (abbr. Vergote) Joseph en Egypte,
1959. A collection of outside sources pertaining to the Hebrew Bible
as a whole is presented in a large volume on Ancient Near Eastern
Texts Relating to the Old Testament (abbr. ANET), edited by J. B.
Pritchard, 2d ed., 1955. But fresh material keeps on turning up all
the time, and much more extensive screening will be required in the
future.

On Translating Genesis

The main task of a translator is to keep faith with two different

masters, one at the source and the other at the receiving end. The
terms and thoughts of the original, the impact of sound and phrase,
the nuances of meaning, and the shadings of emphasis should all be
transposed from one medium into another without leaving any out­
ward sign of the transfer. It is, of course, an ideal goal, one that can
never be attained with complete success. Yet the translator must
strive to approximate this ideal. If he is unduly swayed by the origi­
nal, and substitutes word for word rather than idiom for idiom, he is
traducing what he should be translating, to the detriment of both
source and target. And if he veers too far in the opposite direction,
by favoring the second medium at the expense of the first, the result
LXIV INTRODUCTION

is a paraphrase. The task is an exacting one even with contemporary

or relatively recent sources. With ancient sources, the difficulties are
compounded as problems of text, usage, and cultural setting increase
progressively with age.
The Old Testament shares many such problems with other literary
works of comparable antiquity; but it also presents to the modem
translator a number of obstacles that are not found elsewhere. Gen­
esis, for example, is itself a stratified book. It was compiled some­
time before the middle of the first millennium B.C., after a long
period of growth and composition. But the extant manuscripts of
Genesis as a whole are many centuries later, so that much could
have happened, and some things are actually known to have oc­
curred, after the definitive compilation. In marked contrast, the stele
of Hammurabi is still, except for one excised portion, the monument
that the legislator ordered.
Far more problematic than the integrity of the text is the ac­
curacy of the transmitted meaning. On this count, Genesis has been
vulnerable to a greater degree than any other book of the Bible,
since Genesis reaches back to the patriarchal period and contains a
substantial amount of authentic material from that age; hence there
was ample opportunity for meanings to be lost or mislaid even before
the time of compilation. Moreover, later Hebrew usage is by no
means identical with early biblical usage. Yet successive interpreters
would tend to make the secondary usage retroactive. And because
the Bible had become sacred Scripture, such anachronistic interpreta­
tions acquired a normative bearing of their own. Thus in course
of time the content of the Bible became enveloped in layer after
layer of superimposed interpretation; interpretations bequeathed by
scribes and Rabbis, ancient versions, the vocalizers of the standard
(Masoretic) text, and—not the least formidable of all—the first
standard version in the given Western tongue. Each of these accre­
tions has served as a safeguard in some ways, but as a barrier in
others, a barrier to the recovery of the original context. The transla­
tor of the Bible has to work his way through these successive in­
crustations, grateful for what each has safeguarded, but wary of
their heterogeneous matter. As one gentle critic put it, with tongue
in cheek, translations are so much more enjoyable than originals,
because they contain many things that the originals leave out. The
translator of the Bible must try to avoid such spurious improve­
ments, new or old.
 INTRODUCTION LXV

The starting point, naturally, is the received text. Sooner or later

the question is bound to arise whether a given passage has been cor­
rectly transmitted. On the whole, the textual condition of Genesis is
much better than that of a number of other books of the Old Testa­
ment. Nevertheless, Genesis has its complement of textual distor­
tions. Some are manifestly late and easily corrected with the help of
parallel passages elsewhere in the Bible, the ancient versions, or a
combination of both. Thus the received reading Dddanlm in x 4 can
be restored to Rddamrn thanks to I Chron i 7 as well as LXX; the
letters R and D are easily and often confused in the standard
Hebrew script. The mangled names in xlvi 21 can be reconstructed
with the assistance of Num xxvi 38f. and I Chron viii 4f. At
times, the solution is more roundabout, but not seriously in doubt;
this is true, for example, of Gen x 10 (“all of them” for “Calneh”),
or the whole of Gen xlix 26. In other instances, an obvious omission
can be safely restored from a primary ancient version, usually LXX;
cf. xlvii 5 f.
There remains, however, a handful of passages that are obviously
wrong as transmitted, yet cannot be righted by any of the means at
our disposal. Invariably, these are instances about which the earliest
versions and interpreters were already in doubt; the parade example
is the “Shiloh” passage in xlix 10c. In such cases—they are fewer
than is generally assumed—I deemed it best to adhere to the text, at
least in its consonantal form, while relegating possible remedies to
the footnotes. If an emendation is to be accorded preferential status,
sound methodology requires that it have the balance of the argument
in its favor; in other words, to be adopted, an emendation ought to
be immediately appealing (as is true of “Calneh” in x 10). Else­
where, the text is in a better position than the emender to bear the
onus of uncertainty; and indeed, incidental discoveries have more
than once vindicated a biblical text and refuted modem critics. In
stricdy technical studies, obstinate cruxes are often left untranslated.
Before we touch briefly on questions of meaning, a comment
should be made about the division of the biblical text into chapters
and verses; such breaks often affect the syntax of the given passage
one way or another. The Masoretic division into verses was slow to
solidify, and was not accomplished until the turn of the ninth cen­
tury of the present era. The division into chapters is still later and
non-Masoretic; it was introduced by Christian scholars in the thix-
LXVI INTRODUCTION

teenth century,18 that is, almost two millenniums after the Book of
Genesis had been compiled. In these circumstances, it is not sur­
prising that the now familiar breakdown into chapters and verses
does not always accord with the internal evidence of the content.
In Genesis, the first chapter should have continued through ii 4a,
ending in the middle of what is now marked as a verse; similarly, the
beginning of the Joseph story, which surely ought to have been
signalized by a new chapter, is now found inside xxxvii 2. Inap­
propriate verse breaks are naturally more common; note, for ex­
ample, i 1-3, vi 1/2, xxiii 5/6, 14/15, 17/18. Sometimes, the wrong
break occurs in the middle of a word, an echo of a distant period
when punctuation was sporadic or non-existent. An example of such
a mishap will be found at the juncture of xlix 20 and 21, where we
now have “heel: From Asher” instead of “their heel: Asher” (the
border letter M, depending on its position, can yield either “from”
or “their”). Fortunately, such misdivided words are rare in the text
of the Old Testament as a whole.
To go back to the recovery and transfer of meaning, the modem
translator of Genesis—and other books of the Old Testament—has
to mediate between two sovereign linguistic entities, each with its
distinctive equipment developed over a long period of time. The
differences are not only chronological but also structural and cul­
tural. In transposing an ancient source, the ultimate task is to trans­
late not just a text but a civilization. In the present instance, the
respective media are early biblical Hebrew and modem English.
Frequently, it is not a case of a one-to-one correlation; the desired
balance has to be achieved indirectly, whether the point at issue is
one of construction, semantic range, or idiomatic expression. It
should be useful, therefore, to give a few representative illustrations,
as proof that a faithful translation is by no means the same thing as
a literal rendering; similar lists could, of course, be adduced for any
two unrelated languages. Some of the examples cited below have
often been commented on before; others have not received adequate
recognition.
(1) The particle wa. The most common meaning of this ubiquitous
particle is “and.” But wa (usually reduced to wc) may also introduce
a subordinate clause (“while,” xx 1), and then mark the main clause
(xx 2; note also i 3: “God said,” or “then God said”). It can also be
Cf. Pfeiffer, Introduction . . . , pp. 101 ff., 200 f.
 INTRODUCTION LXVII

adversative (“but, however”), explicative (“namely, that is”), or a

connective in a hendiadys (see below). At the beginning of a sen­
tence, and particularly of a paragraph, section, or book, the transla­
tional equivalent of wa is zero. A good illustration of various uses of
wa is to be found in i 14b, where the particle occurs four times, but
each time with a different force: (a) introductory; (b) connective in
hendiadys; (c) explicative; (d) plain connective. The relatively lit­
eral Authorized Version (KJ) reads: “and let them be for signs and
for seasons, and for days and years” (italics added). The present
translation offers: “let them mark the fixed times, (namely) the days
and the years.” Aside from the four “and”s, the literal rendering ob­
scures the underlying meaning of two significant details; see the dis­
cussion ad loc.
(2) Differences in semantic capacity. Terms that correspond at the
core may differ widely in their later coverage. Hence a given verb or
noun in biblical Hebrew may require various English counterparts
and, conversely, more than one Hebrew term may best be rendered
by the same English word. The Hebrew stem ’mr coincides by and
large with the English verb “to say.” But the Hebrew verb in ques­
tion carries many other nuances: to tell, promise, threaten, express
fear, reflect (speak to oneself), and the like. A uniform translation
would result not only in monotony but also in under-representation.
Much the same applies to Heb. yd‘, basically “to know,” but second­
arily also “to recognize, learn, experience.” Mechanical transposition
has saddled English, as distinct from other Western languages, with
the far from self-explanatory euphemism “man knew woman” (cf. iv
1). Similar deficits result from our slavish “to hear, to sin, to
remember” for the given Hebrew verbs.
The same holds true of translations of Hebrew nouns. Thus, for
example, Heb. zera', primarily “seed,” lends itself to several deriva­
tive connotations. In xxxviii 8 f. this noun occurs three times with as
many distinct and significant shadings. KJ reproduces it each time as
“seed.” But the context calls for, and usage justifies, "line—seed—
offspring” respectively.
(3) Flexible idioms. The Hebrew phrase which means literally
“to find favor/grace in one’s eyes” often becomes meaningless in
rigid translations. An impression of its wealth of nuances may be
gathered from the following: “But Noah found favor with Yahweh”
(vi 8); “if I may beg of you this favor” (xviii 3); “in the hope of
gaining your favor" (xxxiii 8); “please, indulge me” (xxxiii 15);
Lxvra INTRODUCTION
"he took a fancy to" (xxxix 4); “we are thankful to my lord” (xlvii
25). A similar case in point is “to lift one’s head,” a phrase that is
used, deliberately and with telling effect, in three widely differing ap­
plications within the same narrative (ch. xl): “Pharaoh will par­
don you” (13); Pharaoh “will lift off your head” (19); “he
singled out” (20). Another good example of elusive idiomatic usage
is provided by the prepositional phrase liprie, normally “before,”
either in space or in time. But there is a residue of occurrences,
several of them in Genesis, in which “before” makes little if any
sense on closer examination; yet this is the translation that is in­
variably offered. What meaning could an objective reader wrest from
a phrase (in x 8) like “Nimrod was a mighty hunter before Yahweh
(the Lord)”? But when all the pertinent instances are viewed jointly,
a common pattern emerges. The term refers to something that hap­
pened with one’s approval (cf. our “countenanced by”; the literal
meaning of the Hebrew is “to the face of”), or at one’s behest. Thus
x 8b becomes “a mighty hunter by the will of Yahweh; xvii 18
yields “Let but Ishmael thrive if you so will it”; in xxvii 7 we find
“that I may . . . bless you with Yahweh’s approval before I die”
(not "before Yahweh before I die); and in xliii 33 we obtain the
meaningful “they took their seats at his direction” instead of "be­
fore him” (which does not suit the context in any case). Many
similar examples of demonstrable idiomatic usage are scattered
throughout Genesis.
(4) Rare verbal forms. There are two specialized verbal forms in
biblical Hebrew which the grammars underestimate or ignore al­
together. One is exactly like the Hebrew causative (or Hiphil) in
formation, but sharply different in meaning, inasmuch as it is in­
transitive and does not, therefore, take a direct object; it imparts to
the stem a durative or superlative connotation. Thus the forbidden
tree in Eden was not “to be desired to make one wise” (no object
is expressed in the text), but “attractive as a means to (lasting)
wisdom” (iii 6); in vi 19 we are told that the animals were to be
taken into the ark not “to keep them alive” (again no object is
indicated, hence KJ italicizes the pronoun), but to “stay alive”; in
the sense “to quicken,” biblical Hebrew would normally use here the
Piel conjugation. In describing the birth of Benjamin (xxxv 16 f.),
the narrative first tells us that Rachel “had hard labor” (Piel), and
then marks the climax by saying “when her labor was at its
hardest . . (Hiphil). The standard translations offer: “and she
 INTRODUCTION LXIX

had hard labor. And it came to pass when she was in hard
labor. . . Not only do such renderings ignore the difference in
conjugations but they miss the climax as well; and many commenta­
tors homogenize the verbs by repointing the second occurrence so as
to make it agree with the first, thereby compounding the offense.
Another case in point is “you shall excel no more” (xlix 4). This
time nobody could make tie Hiphil causative; but many conscien­
tious critics would repoint the alleged misfit to yield “you shall not
survive”!
The other specialized verbal form is outwardly the so-called
Hithpael, except that it is neither passive nor reflexive, as Hithpaels
should be. What we have in such cases is an old Semitic form, which
is durative or iterative in connotation, and has formally coalesced
with the Hithpael. One example of this type is a derivative of the
stem for “to go,” with the meaning of “walk about” (which is a
prolonged or iterative activity): it is used of Enoch (v 22, 24) and
Noah (vi 9), both of whom “walked with God”; cf. also xiii 17. An­
other common example is the stem meaning “to mourn,” which is
again something that lasts a long time. In xxiv 21 the same forma­
tion is used most appropriately to express “(the man) stood gaping
(at her),” as opposed to a fleeting glance.
(5) Differing modes of definition. Biblical Hebrew and modem
English have similar means of reference, but they do not always
distribute them in the same way. For instance, Hebrew may use the
definite article where English prefers the possessive pronoun: e.g.,
Heb. "the young men”: Eng. “my men” (xiv 24); Heb. “the flock”:
Eng. “my flock” (xxxviii 17); and conversely, Heb. “my covenant
between me and you”: Eng. “the covenant between you and me”
(xvii 7); similarly, Heb. “the men of her place”: Eng. “the men of
that place” (xxxviii 21). Just so, Hebrew will often employ the
personal pronoun, where English requires or prefers the personal
name (e.g., xxix 14), and vice versa.
(6) Replies to questions. Since biblical Hebrew lacks a term for
“yes,” it indicates an affirmative reply by repeating the question
without the interrogative particle. A good example is xxix 6. To
Jacob’s question “Is he well?” the shepherds’ reply is literally “Well”
(note that the text does not say “He is well”); to reflect the mood
of that occasion, we have to say “He is.”
(7) Inversion. Both Hebrew and English employ inversion of the
normal word order as a method of achieving some significant modifi­
 LXX INTRODUCTION

cation of meaning. But since the results are not parallel, it would not
do merely to transfer the device automatically; neither can the usage
be ignored with impunity. Hence the effect of inversion in Hebrew
must often be reflected in English by some indirect means. For in­
stance, xxx 40 is a parade example of separating the sheep from the
goats. The goats have just been dealt with in the preceding verse. Ac­
cordingly, the sequel must read, “The ewes, on the other hand,
. . the italicized phrase is not in the text in so many words, but
its semantic equivalent is plainly indicated just the same.
(8) Hendiadys. This is a method whereby two formally co-or­
dinate terms—verbs, nouns, or adjectives—joined by “and” express
a single concept in which one of the components defines the other.
The usage was especially common in Greek, hence the term for it
(“one by means of two”). Nor is it entirely a stranger to colloquial,
if not literary, English. The statement “I am good and mad” would
be a solecism on the face of it, since one is not apt to be both kind
and angry at one and the same time; what this phrase means is “I am
very angry.”
The point of this digression is to call attention to the fact that hen­
diadys was also well known to biblical Hebrew, far more so than is
generally recognized. Sometimes, the added nuance is a minor one,
so that failure to notice it is not necessarily damaging. In xii 1, for
example, we have “Go forth from your native land,” not “Get thee
out of thy country, and from thy kindred” (KJ); and the favorite
Hebrew expression hesed we’emet is not “mercy and truth” (KJ), or
“steadfast love and faithfulness” (RSV; cf. xxiv 27 and seq.), but
simply “steadfast (’emet) kindness (hesed)”; in these compounds,
or what amounts to compounds, the order of the constituents is im­
material.
There are times, however, when failure to heed a hendiadys re­
sults in an illogical or distorted rendition. In iii 16, Eve is told
literally, “I will multiply greatly your pain and your conception”
(cf. KJ), with the logical order seemingly reversed. The hendiadys,
however, yields “pangs in childbearing” (cf. RSV). In xlv 6 the
text appears to say, “there will be neither plowing nor harvest,” and
is so invariably rendered. Yet no farmer will abstain from plowing
because there has been a famine; on the contrary, he will try that
much harder. What the hendiadys conveys is “there shall be no yield
from tilling.”
 INTRODUCTION LXXI

Many other categories of this kind could be cited. But the fore­
going sampling should suffice to warn the reader and vindicate the
translator.

Standard Versions

This section, which brings the Introduction to a close, will be

limited to two widely separated sets of Old Testament translations,
namely, ancient versions, and translations into English. In both in­
stances the survey will have to be sketchy and selective.
The old versions to be reviewed are the ones that bear a direct
relationship to the Hebrew text. Secondary translations based on the
Septuagint need not detain us here. But no such survey can ignore
the Samaritan Pentateuch (abbr. Sam.), although strictly speaking
this is not a version but a recension.
The Samaritan Bible does not go beyond the Pentateuch, because
that was the only part of the Old Testament that had been actually
canonized by the time of the Samaritan schism (ca. 400 B.C.). Ac­
cordingly, Sam. did not participate in any subsequent Masoretic de­
velopments, and thus became a valuable witness of relatively early
textual conditions. There are some six thousand cases throughout
the Pentateuch in which Sam. differs from the received text. In
about one-third of these, Sam. has the support of LXX. This means
that both Sam. and LXX made independent use of common earlier
traditions. Far more significant, however, is the overwhelming agree­
ment with the central Masoretic body of material. While some of the
readings were as yet fluid, by far the bulk of the material had firmed
sufficiently, as early as the year 400, to leave scant room for de­
partures within the evolving branches. This is another way of saying
that the Torah had already become a book sacred to all concerned.
Aside from predictable sectarian interpretations and frequent or­
thographic variants, the residual differences between the Samaritan
and the Masoretic texts of Genesis are relatively few. Sam., in com­
mon with the Book of Jubilees, assigns shorter life-spans to some of
the patriarchs before the Flood (ch. v); but it increases the dis­
tance between the birth of Arpachshad and the birth of Abraham
(ch. xi) from 290 to 940 years. More significant, because of their
antiquity, are Sam.’s readings in certain narrative passages, espe­
cially where the Masoretic text is obviously defective. Thus Sam.
 LXXH INTRODUCTION

supplies (in agreement with LXX and other versions) the missing
clause “Let us go outside” in iv 8; in x 4, Sam. reads correctly
Dôdâritm for Rôdârûm; and in xxii 13 it offers “a (literally ‘one’)
ram” for “a ram behind” (reading ’hD for ’HR; the Masoretic text
reflects the same mechanical confusion of D for R as in the previous
example). The over-all crop (of which this is but a sampling) may
not be large; but the value of the Samaritan recension lies not so
much in what it corrects as in what it attests.
Because it bears not only on the text but, more especially, on its
meaning, the first extant translation of Genesis is bound to be of ex­
ceptional importance. That pioneering role belongs to the oldest
Greek version, which is known as the Septuagint (LXX) ; the Penta-
teuchal part of it goes back to the third century b.c. The subject as a
whole is much too rich and complex to be compressed into a brief
outline; for a comprehensive treatment, see H. B. Swete’s An Intro­
duction to the Old Testament in Greek, 2d ed., 1914. Several aspects
of the LXX, however, deserve to be stressed in the present context
For one thing, the translators were Alexandrian Jews who ap­
proached their task with reverence and were intent primarily on
making biblical tradition accessible to a community that was no
longer at home in Hebrew. The principal aim of LXX was thus to
conserve, and not to change or correct; hence the results reflect nei­
ther independent scholarship nor extensive editorializing, but tradi­
tion transposed into another linguistic medium. For another thing,
however, all disagreements between LXX and the Masoretic text, in
spite of the relative antiquity of the former, are not to be adjudged
automatically in favor of the Greek version. Such departures may be
due to any of a number of factors. For instance, the Samaritan
recension has demonstrated that on various points tradition was as
yet fluid; in some cases, the data behind the Masoretic text have
proved to be superior to those that LXX utilized, while in other
cases the translators were on firmer ground. It is worth noting in this
connection that not only the Samaritan text but also material from
the Dead Sea caves often supports the Septuagint. And for yet an­
other thing, many of the existing differences from the received text
are due to inner-Greek processes; the recovery of the original text of
LXX is still far from accomplished. In sum, each given instance must
be judged by itself and on its own merits.
The Septuagint version was to be but one of several early Greek
translations. At least three others appeared within the space of a
 INTRODUCTION Lxxm

few centuries, namely, the new and mutually contrasted translations

by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Of these efforts, Aquila’s
is the most curious and, indirectly, also the most valuable. As a rela­
tive of Emperor Hadrian, Aquila knew his Greek very well. But
subsequent to his conversion to Judaism, his fidelity to the Hebrew
text became extreme, so much so that Aquila came to be known as
“a slave to the letter.” In the third century, the great Christian
scholar Origen arranged all four Greek versions in parallel col­
umns, along with the Hebrew text and its transliteration into
Greek script. The entire work, called Hexapla because of its six-
column arrangement, was a product of precise scholarship as well
as immense industry. Unfortunately, only fragments of the Hexapla
have survived.
Jewish translations into Aramaic are extant in several versions.
The most extensive of these is Targum Onkelos (TO), which dates
from the second century of the present era. Although some sections
are paraphrased, and anthropomorphisms are shunned throughout,
TO is for the most part a literal rendering of the Hebrew embodying
not only long-established rabbinical traditions but also a great deal
of valuable philological lore. There are also fragments of other
Palestinian recensions in Aramaic (TP), and of an extensive peri­
phrastic rendition erroneously attributed to an otherwise unspecified
Jonathan (TJ). A Christian translation into Syriac (a subdivision
of Aramaic) bears the name of Peshitta. This version (Syr.) is based
in part on the Hebrew text and in part on LXX.
Finally, the standard Latin version or Vulgate (Vulg.) is a trib­
ute to the scholarship and devotion of Jerome (late fourth and early
fifth centuries). In his task, Jerome utilized, in varying degrees, the
translation of LXX, the so-called Old Latin version which was based
on LXX, the Hexapla of Origen, and the underlying Hebrew text
in the light of contemporary rabbinical exegesis. The Vulgate is thus
a rich mine of information; and it remains the official Bible of the
Roman Catholic Church.
Passing now to English versions of the Bible, is it proper to de­
scribe more than one such translation as standard? Should not this
term be reserved for the Authorized Version of 1611, more com­
monly known as the King James Bible (KJ)? The question is not
entirely academic. It is an inescapable fact, for instance, that all
subsequent English translations of the Bible, which go back to the
original and not. say, to the Vulgate, are loyal revisions of KJ or re­
LXX IV INTRODUCTION

spectful dissenters from it—a tribute either way to the pre-eminent

position of the Authorized Version. Here, however, the term
“standard” is not intended to carry a normative connotation; it is
used not comparatively but quantitatively, to designate certain ma­
jor efforts.
The King James Bible has been described as “the noblest monu­
ment of English prose.” If one amends this to read “the most in­
fluential work in the English language,” the statement would be
valid beyond the remotest shadow of doubt. The influence of the
King James Bible on life and letters in the English-speaking world
has been all-pervasive. The reported comment of one late discov­
erer, “It is such an interesting book: there are so many quotations
in it,” is an excellent—’though no doubt apocryphal—summary of
the situation.
But success on such an unprecedented scale can lead to loss of
perspective. When one distinguished literary critic recently described
KJ as “probably the greatest translation ever made,” he was laying
claim to broader literary and technical knowledge than any individ­
ual could possibly command. KJ is the product of a singularly happy
stage in the history of English. It was achieved, moreover, by men
who showed great sensitivity in their handling of the original media
—Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The translators had the further ad­
vantage of invaluable spadework by gifted predecessors, especially
the martyred William Tyndale. It was a matchless combination of
assets, and the result was a truly inspired version, destined for ex­
traordinary influence and acclaim.
All translations, however, are but arrested pursuits of the given
source. In each case the chase halts with the publication of the
version. But the target does not remain stationary, unless the sub­
ject itself is static so that no further progress is possible. With regard
to the Bible, the flow of information has never ceased. The King
James Version could not go beyond the knowledge and insights of its
own age. Yet we have learned more about a book like Genesis in the
subsequent 350 years than had been gleaned in the preceding twenty
centuries—more indeed in the last 50 years than in any comparable
period since the Pentateuch was canonized. In other words, the gap
between KJ and its target has been widening constantly and at a
steadily accelerating pace.
Relatively few lay readers of the Bible are able to make a first­
hand comparison between their favorite translation and the origi­
 INTRODUCTION LXXV

nal. With a version that possesses the outstanding appeal of the King
James Bible, it is not surprising that many of its users should dismiss
the original as an unwelcome intruder. Substantive departures from
KJ are apt to be resented as so many wanton desecrations. The fact,
say, that “the valley of the shadow of death” is an old distortion of
the actual text is immaterial to those who have come to cherish the
eerie image; and who wants to give up Joseph’s “coat of many
colors,” even though the chromatic effect is illusory? It is almost as
if the Psalmist, or Jacob, should have consulted the translators, in­
stead of the other way about. Nevertheless, beyond the interest in
any given Bible translation looms the attraction of the original
source. For it was the source that inspired the hundreds of versions,
ancient and recent, and enabled each of them to shine with re­
fracted glory—not just the King James Bible, but also Luther’s older
translation into German (1534), and the many similar achievements
in other European countries. The constant striving for improved
translations is not motivated by mere pedantry; it is stimulated, in
the final analysis, by the hope that each new insight may bring us
that much closer to the secret of the Bible’s universal and enduring
appeal. This alone would be reason enough for the growing number
of revisions and new translations, in various languages, with all the
toll in energy and treasure that such efforts entail.
Recent increase in these activities in English may be judged from
the following partial listing of Old Testament versions. Revisions of
the King James Bible include the English Revised Version (1885),
the American Revised Version (1901), the Holy Scriptures, issued
by the Jewish Publication Society (JPS, 1917), and the Revised
Standard Version (RSV, 1952). Less hampered by ties to the Au­
thorized Version of 1611 are James Moffatt’s The Old Testament
(1922); The Old Testament: An American Translation (AT,
1931); and the revised translation by the Jewish Publication Society,
The Torah, 1962. The same should be true of the forthcoming Old
Testament section of the New English Bible. And one should note
the Catholic Confraternity Version.
It is no accident that all but one of these versions fall within the
present century, and that several are either the product of the past
decade or are still in preparation. The stepped-up pace of transla­
tional effort is but an index of the swelling flow of discovery. Desire
to keep up with changing English usage has been a relatively minor
factor. It is not the language of this or that version of the Bible
LXXVI INTRODUCTION

that has needed revising, but the underlying image of the biblical
age, as reflected in the text, the grammar, the lexicon, and—above
all—in the enormous volume of new material on the ancient Near
East as a whole.
The translation which is offered in the present work was handi­
capped by fewer obstacles than “standard” versions normally face.
Concentration on a single book of the Bible automatically limits the
range of problems. An individual can venture solutions from which
a collective body might be expected to shrink. And the addition of
extensive notes and comments affords ample opportunity to justify
a seemingly far-fetched rendition.
But no biblical version nowadays can be anything else than stuff
for transforming. All that a modem translator can hope for is to have
progressed here and there beyond his innumerable predecessors,
each of whom has had some share in the search. As long as a single
pertinent tablet or ostracon remains underground, or has gone un­
heeded, there can be no definitive translation of a book of the
Bible.
I. PRIMEVAL HISTORY
 1. OPENING ACCOUNT OF CREATION
(i 1-ii 4a: P)

I 1When God set about to create heaven and earth—2 the

world being then a formless waste, with darkness over the seas
and only an awesome wind sweeping over the water—3 God
said, “Let there be light.” And there was light. 4 God was
pleased with the light that he saw, and he separated the light
from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and he called the
darkness Night. Thus evening came, and morning—first day.
6 God said, “Let there be an expanse in the middle of the

water to form a division between the waters.” “And it was so.0

7 God made the expanse, and it divided the water below it from

the water above it.6 8 God called the expanse Sky. Thus evening
came, and morning—second day.
9 God said, “Let the water beneath the sky be gathered into a

single area, that the dry land may be visible.” And it was so.
10 God called the dry land Earth, and he called the gathered

waters Seas. God was pleased with what he saw, 1 and he said,
“Let the earth burst forth with growth: plants that bear seed,
and0 every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its
seed in it.” And it was so. 12The earth produced growth: var­
ious kinds of seed-bearing plants, and trees of every kind bearing
fruit with seed in it. And God was pleased with what he saw.
13 Thus evening came, and morning—third day.
14 God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky, to
distinguish between day and night; let them mark the fixed
So LXX; transposed in MT to the end of vs. 7.
6Heb. “expanse” (twice).
«So several manuscripts and most ancient versions; omitted in MT.
4 GENESIS

times, the days and the years, 15 and serve as lights in the ex­
panse of the sky to shine upon the earth. And it was so. 16 God
made the great lights, the greater one to dominate the day and
the lesser one to dominate the night—and the stars. 17 God set
them in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, 18 to
dominate the day and the night, and to distinguish between
light and darkness. And God was pleased with what he saw.
19 Thus evening came, and morning—fourth day.
20 God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living crea­
tures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the
sky.” dAnd it was so.d 21 God created the great sea monsters, every
kind of crawling creature with which the waters teem, and all
kinds of winged birds. And God was pleased with what he saw.
22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fertile and increase; fill the

waters in the seas, and let the birds multiply on earth.” 23 Thus
evening came, and morning—fifth day.
24 God said, “Let the earth bring forth various kinds of living

creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of every

kind.” And it was so. 25 God made various kinds of wild animals,
cattle of every kind, and all the creeping things of the earth,
whatever their kind. And God was pleased with what he saw.
26 Then God said, “Ie will make man in my image, after my

likeness; let him subject the fish of the sea and the birds of the
sky, the cattle and all the wild [animals]/ and all the creatures
that creep on earth.”
27And God Created man in his image;
In the divine image created he him,
Male and female created he them.
28 God blessed them, saying to them, “Be fertile and increase,
fill the earth and subdue it; subject the fishes of the sea, the
birds of the sky, and all the living things that move on earth.”
29 God further said, “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant on

earth and every tree in which is the seed-bearing fruit of the tree;
<*-<* Restored from LXX.
• See Note.
t See Note.
i 1-ii 4a 5
30 And to all the animals on land, all the birds of the sky, and
all the living creatures that crawl on earth [I give] all the green
plants as their food.” And it was so. 31 God looked at everything
that he had made and found it very pleasing. Thus evening
came, and morning—sixth day.
II 1 Now the heaven and the earth were completed, and all
their company. 2 On the seventh" day God brought to a close
the work that he had been doing, and he ceased on the seventh
day from all the work that he had undertaken. 3 God blessed the
seventh day and declared it holy, for on it he ceased from all the
Work which he had undertaken.
4 Such is the story of heaven and earth as they were created.

Notes

i 1. On the introductory phrase see Comment.

2. The parenthetic character of this verse is confirmed by the syntax
of Heb. A normal consecutive statement would have begun with wattehi
hâ’âres, not wehâ’âre$ hâyetâ.
a formless waste. The Heb. pair tôhü wâ-bôhû is an excellent example
of hendiadys, that is, two terms connected by “and” and forming a unit
in which one member is used to qualify the other; cf., for example,
vs. 14, iii 16, xlv 6. Here “unformed-and-void” is used to describe
“a formless waste.”
an awesome wind. Heb. ruah means primarily “wind, breeze,” second­
arily “breath,” and thus ultimately “spirit.” But the last connotation
is more concrete than abstract; in the present context, moreover, it
appears to be out of place—see H. M. Orlinsky, JQR 47 (1957), 174-
82. The appended ’Hôhim can be either possessive (“of/from God”),
or adjectival (“divine, supernatural, awesome”; but not simply “mighty”);
cf. xxx 8.
sweeping. The same stem is used in Deut xxxii 11 of eagles in
relation to their young. The Ugaritic cognate describes a form of motion
as opposed to a state of suspension or rest.
4. was pleased with [what] he saw. This phrase, which serves as a
formal refrain, means literally “saw that it was good,” or rather “saw
how good it was” (cf. W. F. Albright, Mélanges Robert, 1956, pp. 22-
26); but Heb. “good” has a broader range than its English equivalent.
5. came. Literally “was, came to be”; Heb. repeats the verb with
“morning.” The evening marks the first half of the full day.
»See Note.
6 GENESIS

first day. In Semitic (notably in Akkadian, cf. Gilg., Tablet XI, lines
215 ff.) the normal ordinal series is “one, second, third,” etc., not "first,
second, third,” etc.; cf. also ii 11.
6. expanse. Traditionally “firmament,” one of the Bible’s indirect con­
tributions to Western lexicons. It goes back to the Vulg. firmamentum
“something made solid,” which is based in turn on the LXX rendering of
Heb. räqla‘ “beaten out, stamped” (as of metal), suggesting a thin sheet
stretched out to form the vault of the sky (cf. Dr.).
And it was so. This clause is correctly reproduced here by LXX but
misplaced in Heb. at the end of vs. 7. The present account employs it
normally after each of God’s statements; cf. vss. 9, 11, 15, 24, 30, and
textual note
9. area. Literally “place,” Heb. cons, mqwm, for which LXX reads
mqwh “gathering,” the same as in vs. 10, perhaps rightly (cf. D. N.
Freedman, Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 64 [1953],
190 f.).
14. let them mark the fixed times. Heb. literally “let them be for signs
and for seasons (and for days and for years),” which has been
reproduced mechanically in most translations (most recently RSV). Some
of the modems (e.g., von Rad, SB), realizing that signs do not belong in
this list, take the first connective particle as explicative: they shall serve
as signs, that is, for seasons, and days, and years; but the sun and the
moon cannot be said to determine the seasons proper; moreover, the
order would then be unbalanced (one would expect: days, seasons,
years). The problem solves itself once we take the first pair as a
hendiadys (cf. vs. 2): they shall serve a sign for the fixed time
periods, or in other words, they shall mark the fixed times, that is, the
days and the years. The use of the particle (Heb. we/ü) in each of
these functions (hendiadys, explicative, connective) is amply attested
elsewhere.
15. lights. Heb. me’öröt, differentiated from me’öröt in vs. 14, literally
“sources of light, luminaries.”
20. The creation of the fifth day was deemed to comprise creatures
(Heb. nepes) that might appear in swarms (Seres) in the water, on the
ground, or in the air. But their ultimate breeding place was traced to the
waters, since land creatures come under the sixth day. The process is
described indirectly: let the waters teem with . . . (stem Srs, with cognate
accusative).
21. The same Heb. stem (rms) is used for “crawl” (as in this
instance) and “creep” (as in 24 fT.). The underlying sense, however
(which is shared by the Akk. cognate namäiu), is “to have locomotion”;
cf. vs. 28, vii 21, ix 2. And just as Heb. remei is contrasted here with
i 1 — ii 4a 7
larger animals in 24 S., so, too, in Gilg. (Tablet I, column ii, lines
40 ff.) the small creatures of the steppe (Akk. namassu) are juxtaposed
to the larger beasts,
24. Heb. behema “cattle” covers here the domestic animals in general,
or animals due to be domesticated.
26. For the singulars “my image, my likeness” Heb. employs here
plural possessives, which most translations reproduce. Yet no other
divine being has been mentioned; and the very next verse uses the singular
throughout; cf. also ii 7. The point at issue, therefore, is one of grammar
alone, without a direct bearing on the meaning. It so happens that the
common Heb. term for “God,” namely, Elohim (’eldhlm) is plural in
form and is so construed at times (e.g., xx 13, xxxv 7, etc.). Here God
refers to himself, which may account for the more formal construction
in the plural.
wild [animals], Reading [/iy/] h'rf as in vs. 25.
28. move. Same Heb. verb as for “creep”; see Note on vs. 21.
30. [/ give]. In Heb. the predicate may carry over from 29; but the
translation has to repeat it for clarity.

ii 1. The relatively recent division into chapters, which dates from

medieval times, disturbs in this case the inner unity of the account. In
vs. 4, below, the much older division into verses proves to be equally
misleading.
company. Heb. saba’ generally stands for “army, host,” but this is by
no means the original meaning of the term; the basic sense of the stem
is “to be engaged in group service” (cf. Exod xxxviii 8; I Sam ii 22;
Isa xxix 7, 8). The cognate Akk. noun sabu denotes not only “soldier,”
but also “member of a work gang, laborer.” The Heb. term is collective;
in the present context it designates the total made up of the various
component parts in the planned design of creation; hence array, ranks,
company.
2. Since the task of creation was finished on the sixth day, the text
can hardly go on to say that God concluded it on the seventh day. It
follows therefore that (a) the numeral is an error for “sixth,” as assumed
by LXX, Sam., and other ancient versions; (b) the pertinent verb is
to be interpreted as a pluperfect: God had finished on the sixth day and
rested on the seventh; or (c) the verb carries some more particular
shade of meaning. The present translation inclines to the last choice.
Under circumstances that are similar in kind if not in degree, Akk.
employs the verb iutefbu in the sense of “inspect and approve”; this is
applied to the work of craftsmen (masons in the Code of Hammurabi
233) and even to the birth of Marduk (ANET, p. 62, line 91). In this
account, God inspects the results of each successive act and finds them
8 GENESIS

pleasing. The end result could well be described as work “brought to a

(gratifying) close.” A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, p. 127, pro­
poses “declared finished,” which appears to point in the same direction.
4. story. Heb. tdledot, traditionally “generations” in the etymological
sense of “begettings,” that is, “genealogy, line” in modem usage (cf.
Note on vs. 1); hence the derived meaning “history,” or more simply
“story,” as in the present context.

Comment

This opening statement about the creation of the world is as­

signed by nearly all critics to the P(riestly) source. There is a
marked difference between the present section and the accounts that
follow, accounts which most scholars regard as typical of the /
source. Although the subject matter is roughly parallel in both in­
stances, there is scarcely any similarity in general treatment or spe­
cific emphasis. No less noteworthy is the stylistic contrast between
the respective sections, which cannot be ignored even in transla­
tion, as the subsequent chapters will show. The version before us
displays, aside from P’s characteristic vocabulary, a style that is
impersonal, formulaic, and measured to the point of austerity. What
we have here is not primarily a description of events or a reflection
of a unique experience. Rather, we are given the barest statement
of a sequence of facts resulting from the fiat of the supreme and
absolute master of the universe. Yet the account has a grandeur and
a dramatic impact all its own.
The stark simplicity of this introductory section is thus by no
means a mark of meager writing ability. It is the result of special
cultivation, a process in which each detail was refined through end­
less probing and each word subjected to minutest scrutiny. By the
same token, the end product cannot have been the work of an in­
dividual, but must be attributed to a school with a continuous tradi­
tion behind it. The ultimate objective was to set forth, in a manner
that must not presume in any way to edit the achievement of the
Creator—by the slightest injection of sentiment or personality—not
a theory but a credo, a credo untinged by the least hint of specula­
tion.
In these circumstances, the question that immediately arises—
one that is necessarily more acute here than in nearly any other
i 1-ii 4a 9
context—is the basic question that has to be raised about any state­
ment in a given source; and this is not whether the statement is true
or false, but what it means (R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of His­
tory, 1946, p. 260). In other words, the point here is not whether
this account of creation conforms to the scientific data of today, but
what it meant to, and how it was arrived at by, the writer con­
cerned. It is on this score, among many others, that the results of
recent discovery and research afford us the means for an improved
perspective.
Genesis i-xi in general, and the first section in particular, are a
broad introduction to the history which commences with Abraham.
The practice of tracing history back to antediluvian times is at least
as old as the Sumerian king list (see above, p. lvii). Biblical
tradition had ample reason to be familiar with Mesopotamian cul­
tural norms. Indeed, the Primeval History is largely Mesopotamian
in substance, implicitly for the most part, but also explicitly in such
instances as the Garden of Eden or the Tower of Babel. Thus bib­
lical authors were indebted to Mesopotamian models for these early
chapters not only in matters of arrangement but also in some of the
subject matter.
Is the treatment of creation in Genesis a case of such indebted­
ness? We have two separate accounts of this theme, the present
section which stems from P, and the one following which goes back
to /, as was indicated above. Yet neither source could have bor­
rowed directly from the other, since each dwells on different details.
Accordingly, both must derive from a body of antecedent traditions.
It follows that the present version of P should have connections with
old Mesopotamian material. This premise is borne out of actual
facts.
Mesopotamia’s canonical version of cosmic origins is found in the
so-called Babylonian Creation Epic, or Enuma elis “When on High”
(ANET, pp. 60-72). The numerous points of contact between it
and the opening section of Genesis have long been noted. There is
not only a striking correspondence in various details, but—what is
even more significant—the order of events is the same, which is
enough to preclude any likelihood of coincidence. The relationship
is duly recognized by all informed students, no matter how orthodox
their personal beliefs may be. I cite as an example the tabulation
given by Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, p. 129:
10 GENESIS

Enuma elish Genesis

Divine spirit and cosmic mat- Divine spirit creates cosmic
ter are coexistent and coeter- matter and exists independ-
nal ently of it
Primeval chaos; Ti’amat envel- The earth a desolate waste,
oped in darkness with darkness covering the
deep (tehom)
Light emanating from the gods Light created
The creation of the firmament The creation of the firmament
The creation of dry land The creation of dry land
The creation of luminaries The creation of luminaries
The creation of man The creation of man
The gods rest and celebrate God rests and sanctifies the sev­
enth day

Except for incidental differences of opinion in regard to the exact

meaning of the first entry in each column (see below, and cf. Note
on vs. 2), the validity of this listing is not open to question. What,
then, are the conclusions that may be drawn from these and other
relevant data?
It is clear that the biblical approach to creation as reflected in
P is closely related to traditional Mesopotamian beliefs. It may be
safely posited, moreover, that the Babylonians did not take over
these views from the Hebrews, since the cuneiform accounts—among
which Enuma elis is but one, and a relatively stereotyped, formu­
lation—antedate in substance the biblical statements on the subject.
Nor is there the slightest basis in fact for assuming some unidentified
ultimate source from which both the Mesopotamians and the He­
brews could have derived their views about creation. It would thus
appear that P’s opening account goes back to Babylonian proto­
types, and it is immaterial whether the transmission was accom­
plished direcdy or through some intermediate channel; in any case,
/ cannot have served as a link in this particular instance.
The date of the take-over cannot be determined within any prac­
tical limits. Although much in P is demonstrably late, there is also
early material in that same source. The Primeval History in particu­
lar was bound to make use of old data. At the same time, however,
a distinction must be made between basic subject matter and its final
form in the collective version. The creation account could have en-
i 1 -ii 4a 11
tered the stream of biblical tradition sometime in the latter half of
the second millennium, without taking final shape until a number of
centuries later. In the present connection, however, the question of
date is a relatively minor one. Of far greater importance are (1)
the established borrowing of the general version of creation, and
(2) the ultimate setting into which biblical tradition incorporated the
received account.
Derivation from Mesopotamia in this instance means no more and
no less than that on the subject of creation biblical tradition aligned
itself with the traditional tenets of Babylonian “science.” The rea­
sons should not be far to seek. For one thing, Mesopotamia’s
achievements in that field were highly advanced, respected, and
influential. And for another, the patriarchs constituted a direct link
between early Hebrews and Mesopotamia, and the cultural effects
of that start persisted long thereafter.
In ancient times, however, science often blended into religion;
and the two could not be separated in such issues as cosmogony and
the origin of man. To that extent, therefore, “scientific” conclusions
were bound to be guided by underlying religious beliefs. And since
the religion of the Hebrews diverged sharply from Mesopotamian
norms, we should expect a corresponding departure in regard to be­
liefs about creation. This expectation is fully borne out. While we
have before us incontestable similarities in detail, the difference in
over-all approach is no less prominent. The Babylonian creation
story features a succession of various rival deities. The biblical ver­
sion, on the other hand, is dominated by the monotheistic concept
in the absolute sense of the term. Thus the two are both genetically
related and yet poles apart. In common with other portions of the
Primeval History, the biblical account of creation displays at one
and the same time a recognition of pertinent Babylonian sources as
well as a critical position toward them.
Such in brief is the present application of the precept that when
faced with a statement in a significant source—and especially a
statement about such matters as creation—we ask first what the
statement means, before we consider whether it is true or false from
the vantage point of another age.
It remains to discuss, in passing, the structure of the introductory
verses of this section, since their syntax determines the meaning,
and the precise meaning of this passage happens to be of far-reach-
12 GENESIS

mg significance. The problem could not be fully elucidated in the

Notes, which is why it is being considered here.
The first word of Genesis, and hence the first word in the Hebrew
Bible as a unit, is vocalized as b’re'Slt. Grammatically, this is evidently
in the construct state, that is, the first of two connected forms which
jointly yield a possessive compound. Thus the sense of this particular
initial term is, or should be, “At the beginning of . . . or “When,”
and not “In/At the beginning”; the absolute form with adverbial
connotation would be bare’Sit. As the text is now vocalized, there­
fore, the Hebrew Bible starts out with a dependent clause.
The second word in Hebrew, and hence the end-form of the in­
dicated possessive compound, appears as bora’, literally “he
created.” The normal way of saying “at the beginning of creation
(by God)” would be bereSlt berd’ (’eldfum), with the infinitive in the
second position; and this is indeed the precise construction (though
not the wording) of the corresponding phrase in ii 4b. Nevertheless,
Hebrew usage permits a finite verb in this position; cf. Hos i 2. It is
worth noting that the majority of medieval Hebrew commentators
and grammarians, not to mention many modems, could see no
objection to viewing Gen i 1 as a dependent clause.
Nevertheless, vocalization alone should not be the decisive factor
in this instance. For it could be (and has been) argued that the
vocalized text is relatively late and should not therefore be unduly
binding. A more valid argument, however, is furnished by the syntax
of the entire first paragraph. A closer examination reveals that vs. 2
is a parenthetic clause: “the earth being then a formless waste
. . . ,” with the main clause coming in vs. 3. The structure of the
whole sentence is thus schematically as follows: “(1)When . . .
(2)—at which time . . . —(3)then . . Significantly enough, the
analogous account (by /) in ii 4b-7 shows the identical con­
struction, with vss. 5-6 constituting a circumstantial description. Per­
haps more important still, the related, and probably normative, ar­
rangement at the beginning of Enuma eliS exhibits exactly the same
kind of structure: dependent temporal clause (lines 1-2); paren­
thetic clauses (3-8); main clause (9). Thus grammar, context, and
parallels point uniformly in one and the same direction.
There is more to this question, of course, than mere linguistic
niceties. If the first sentence states that “In the beginning God cre­
ated heaven and earth,” what ensued was chaos (vs. 2) which
needed immediate attention. In other words, the Creator would be
charged with an inadequate initial performance, unless one takes
the whole of vs. 1 as a general title, contrary to established biblical
practice. To be sure, the present interpretation precludes the view
that the creation accounts in Genesis say nothing about coexistent
matter. The question, however, is not the ultimate truth about cos­
mogony, but only the exact meaning of the Genesis passages which
deal with the subject. On this score, at least, the biblical writers re­
peat the Babylonian formulation, perhaps without full awareness of
the theological and philosophical implications. At all events, the text
should be allowed to speak for itself.
 2. THE STORY OF EDEN
(ii 4b-24: /)

II 4b At the time when God Yahweh made earth and heaven—

5 no shrub of the field being yet in the earth and no grains of the
field having sprouted, for God Yahweh had not sent rain upon
the earth and no man was there to till the soil; 6 instead, a flow
would well up from the ground and water the whole surface of
the soil—7 God Yahweh formed man1 from clods in the soil6
and blew into his nostrils the breath of life. Thus man became a
living being.
8 God Yahweh planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and
placed there the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the
ground God Yahweh caused to grow various trees that were a
delight to the eye and good for eating, with the tree of life in
the middle of the garden and the tree of knowledge of good and
bad.
10 A river rises in Eden to water the garden; outside, it forms
four separate branch streams. 11 The name of the first is Pishon;
it is the one that winds through the whole land of Havilah,
where there is gold. 12 The gold of that land is choice; there is
bdellium there, and lapis lazuli. 13 The name of the second
river is Gihon; it is the one that winds through all the land of
Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it is the one that
flows east of Asshur. The fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 God Yahweh took the man and settled him in the garden
of Eden, to till and tend it. 16 And God Yahweh commanded
the man, saying, “You are free to eat of any tree of the garden,
0 MT ’SdSm.
Heb. ’addma> in assonance with ’ad&m.
ii 4b-24 15
17 except only the tree of knowledge of good and bad, of which
you are not to eat. For the moment you eat of it, you shall be
doomed to death.”
18 God Yahweh said, “It is not right that man should be
alone. I will make him an aid fit for him.” 19 So God Yahweh
formed out of the soil various wild beasts and birds of the sky
and brought them to the man to see what he called them; what­
ever the man would call a living creature, that was to be its
name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle, all0 birds of the sky,
and all wild beasts; yet none proved to be the aid that would be
fit for man.4
21 Then God Yahweh cast a deep sleep upon the man and,
when he was asleep, he took one of his ribs and closed up the
flesh at that spot. 22 And God Yahweh fashioned into a woman
the rib that he had removed from the man, and he brought her
to the man. 23 Said the man,
This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.
She shall be called Woman,® for she was taken from Man/
24 Thus it is that man leaves his father and mother and clings to
his wife, and they become one flesh.
0 So several manuscripts and ancient versions; MT omits.
o MT “Adam.”
e Heb. ’iSSa.

f Heb. IS, in assonance with ’isSa.

Notes

ii 4b. At the time when. Literally “on the day when”; Heb. beyom, cog­
nate with Akk. enuma, the opening word of the Babylonian Genesis
(Enuma elis).
God Yahweh. Although this combination is the rule in ii 4b—iii 24, it
is found only once in the rest of the Pentateuch (Exod ix 30). Critical
opinion inclines to the assumption that the original version used
"Yahweh” throughout, in conformance with J’s normal practice, the
other component being added later under the influence of the opening
account (by P). One cannot, however, discount the possibility that these
16 GENESIS

personal name of a deity with a determinative for “god,” except that

such a qualifier would follow the name in Hebrew rather than precede it.
The personal name itself has come down in the consonantal text
(Kethib) as YHWH. The vocalized text (Qere) has equipped this form
with the vowels e-d-a, thus calling for the reading ’adonay “Lord” (the
difference between the initial vowels is secondary). The reluctance to
pronounce the personal name, which is not yet reflected in the consonan­
tal sources but is already attested in LXX, is directly traceable to the
Third Commandment (Exod xx 7; Deut v 11), which says actually,
“You shall not swear falsely by the name of Yahweh your God,” but
has been misinterpreted to mean “You shall not take the name of
Yahweh your God in vain.” Lev xxiv 16 deals with an entirely dif­
ferent issue (specifically, an insult to Yahweh)
5. In ’adam “man” and ’ttdama “soil, ground” there is an obvious play
on words, a practice which the Bible shares with other ancient literatures.
This should not, however, be mistaken for mere punning Names were
regarded not only as labels but also as symbols, magical keys as it
were to the nature and essence of the given being or thing (cf. vs. 19),
The writer or speaker who resorted to “popular etymologies” was not
interested in derivation as such. The closest approach in English to the
juxtaposition of the Hebrew nouns before us might be ‘earthling: earth.”
6. flow. Heb. ’ed, apparently Akk. edd (Sum loanword), cf. my note
in BASOR 140 (1955), 9ff.; for a slightly different view see W. F.
Albright, JBL 58 (1939), 102 f. The sense would be that of an under­
ground swell, a common motif in Akkadian literary compositions. The
only other occurrence of the term, Job xxxvi 27„ ‘‘mist’' or the like,
need signify no more than the eventual literary application of this rare
word.
7. clods. The traditional “dust” is hard to part with, yet it is inap­
propriate. Heb. 'apar stands for “lumps of earth, soil, dirt’' as well as
the resulting particles of “dust.” For the former, cf., for example, xxvi
15; note also vs. 19, where the animals are said to have been formed
“out of the soil.” On the other hand, “dust” is preferable in iii 19.
8. Eden. Heb. "eden, Akk, edinu, based on Sum. eden “plain, steppe.”
The term is used here clearly as a geographical designation, which came
to be associated, naturally enough, with the homonymous but unrelated
Heb. noun for “enjoyment.”
in the east. Not “from”; the preposition (Heb. min) is not only parti­
tive but also locative.
9. See iii 5.
10-14. On the general question of the Rivers of Eden see Comment.
10. rises in. Not the traditional “went out of’ (wrong tense), nor
ii 4b-24 17
even “comes out of, issues from,” since the garden itself is in Eden.
Hence, too,
outside. Heb. literally “from there,” in the sense of "beyond it,” for
which cf. I Sam x 3. What this means is that, before reaching Eden, the
river consists of four separate branches. Accordingly,
branch streams. In Heb. the mouth of the river is called “end” (Josh
xv 5, xviii 19); hence the plural of ro’S “head” must refer here to the
upper course (Ehrl.). This latter usage is well attested for the Akk.
cognate reiu.
11. winds through. The customary “compasses, encircles” yields a
needlessly artificial picture. The pertinent Heb. stem sbb means not
only “to circle” but also “to pursue a roundabout course, to twist and
turn” (cf. II Kings iii 9), and this is surely an apt description of a
meandering stream.
Havilah. There was evidently more than one place, as well as tribe,
by that name (Dr., pp. 119, 131).
12. lapis lazuli. For this tentative identification of Heb. "eben hassoham,
cf. my discussion “The Rivers of Paradise” in Festschrift Johannes
Friedrich, 1959, pp. 480 f.
14. Tigris. This modem form is based on the Greek approximation
to the native name, which appears as (I)digna in Sumerian, Idiqlat in
Akkadian, Hiddeqel in Hebrew, Deqlat in Aramaic, and Dijlat in
Arabic.
Asshur. Elsewhere in Heb., either the land of Assyria or its eponymous
capital. Here evidently the latter; the Tigris flows east of the city of
Ashur, but it never constituted the entire eastern border between Assyria
and Babylonia (Cush).
16. you are free to eat. Or “you may eat freely.” Heb. employs here
the so-called “infinitive absolute” construction, in which the pertinent
Heb. form is preceded by its infinitive. The resulting phrase is a
flexible utterance capable of conveying various shades of meaning; cf.
next vs.
17. the moment. Heb. literally “on the day”; cf. 4b.
you shall be doomed to death. Another infinitive absolute in Hebrew.
The phrase need not be translated “you shall surely die,” as it invariably
is. Death did not result in this instance. The point of the whole nar­
rative is apparently man’s ultimate punishment rather than instantaneous
death.
18. an aid fit for him. The traditional “help meet for him” is adequate,
but subject to confusion, as may be seen from our “helpmate,” which is
based on this very passage. The Heb. complement means literally
“alongside him,” i.e., “corresponding to him/’
18 GENESIS §2

19. a living creature. In this position this phrase does violence to Heb.
syntax, it could well be a later gloss.
20. proved to be. Traditionally “was found to be.” In this construction,
however, the Heb. stem ms" usually means “to suffice, reach, be
adequate” (Ehrl.), as is true also of its cognates in Akkadian and
ArsmsiCi
21. at that spot. Heb. literally “underneath it,” or "instead of it,” with
the idiomatic sense of “then and there.”
22. to the man. In Heb. the defined form hd’adam is “man,” the
undefined 'adam, “Adam,” since a personal name cannot take the definite
article. With prepositions like le- “to,” the article is elided and only the
vowel marks the difference between “to Adam” (le’adam) and to the
man” (la’adam), so that the consonantal text is bound to be ambiguous
(I’dm in either case). Since the form without preposition appears invari­
ably as hd’adam in ii-iii (the undefined form occurs first in iv 25), and
is not mentioned until the naming of Adam v 2, the vocalized “to Adam
(also vs. 20, iii 17) is an anachronism. In iii, LXX favors “Adam” even
in the presence of the consonantal article.
23. The assonance of Heb. ti and ’issd has no etymological basis. It is
another instance of symbolic play on words, except that the phonetic sim­
ilarity this time is closer than usual. By an interesting coincidence, Eng.
“woman” (derived from “wife of man”) would offer a better linguistic
foil than the Heb. noun.

Comment

The brief Eden interlude (ii 4b—iii 24) has been the subject of an
enormous literature so far, with no end in sight. One study alone
takes up over 600 pages (cf. the comment by J. L. McKenzie, “The
Literary Characteristics of Genesis 2—3,” Theological Studies 15
[1954], 541-72). Here there is room for only a few paragraphs.
The account before us deals with the origin of life on earth, as
contrasted with the preceding statement about the origin of the uni­
verse as a whole. The contrast is immediately apparent from the re­
spective initial sentences. The first account starts out with the crea­
tion of “heaven and earth” (i 1). The present narrative begins with
the making of “earth and heaven” (ii 4b). The difference is by no
means accidental. In the other instance the center of the stage was
heaven, and man was but an item in a cosmic sequence of majestic
acts. Here the earth is paramount and man the center of interest;
indeed, an earthy and vividly personal approach is one of the out­
ii 4b-24 19
standing characteristics of the whole account. This far-reaching di­
vergence in basic philosophy would alone be sufficient to warn the
reader that two separate sources appear to be involved, one heaven-
centered and the other earth-centered. The dichotomy is further
supported by differences in phraseology (e.g., “create” : “make”)
and in references to the Deity (“God” : “God Yahweh”); and the
contrast is sustained in further pertinent passages. In short, there
are ample grounds for recognizing the hand of P in the preceding
statement, as against that of / in the present narrative.
Yet despite the difference in approach, emphasis, and hence also
in authorship, the fact remains that the subject matter is ultimately
the same in both versions. We have seen that the P version, for its
part, derived much of its detail from Mesopotamian traditions about
the begmmngs of the world. The account by / points in the same
direction, as is immediately apparent from the following compari­
son of opening lines:
“At the time when God Yahweh made earth and heaven—”
(ii 4b)
“When God set about to create heaven and earth—” (i 1)
“When on high heaven had not been named,
Firm ground below had not been called by name—” (ANET,
pp. 61 f., I, lines If.).
In each case the temporal clause leads up to a parenthetic descrip­
tion, and is then resumed with the proper sequel. Thus, however much
J , P , and their Mesopotamian sources may differ ultimately from one
another, they are also tied to common traditions.
That / incorporated Mesopotamian data in his treatment of the
origin of man—most of which, incidentally, are missing in P—is
shown by much more compelling evidence than the mere agreement
of initial clauses. To begin with, the narrative before us features
two telltale loanwords. One is the word for “flow” (vs. 6), Akk.
edd, from Sum. a.di.a (see Note ad loc.). The other is the geo­
graphical term “Eden” (cf. Note on vs. 8), Akk. edinu, Sum. eden,
which is especially significant in that this word is rare in Akk. but
exceedingly common in Sum., thus certifying the ultimate source as
very ancient indeed. The traditions involved must go back, there­
fore, to the oldest cultural stratum of Mesopotamia.
Next comes the evidence from the location of Eden which is fur­
nished by the notices about the rivers of that region. Recent data on
the subject demonstrate that the physical background of the tale
20 GENESIS

is authentic (see the writer’s “The Rivers of Paradise,” Festschrift

Johannes Friedrich, pp. 473-85). All four streams once converged,
or were believed to have done so, near the head of the Persian
Gulf, to create a rich garden land to which local religion and litera­
ture alike looked back as the land of the blessed. And while the
Pishon and the Gihon stand for lesser streams, which have been
Hebraized into something like “the Gusher” and “the Bubbler” re­
spectively, the Tigris and the Euphrates leave no doubt in any case
as to the assumed locale of the Garden of Eden. The chaotic geog­
raphy of ancient and modem exponents of this biblical text can be
traced largely to two factors. One is the mistaken identification of
the land of Cush in vs. 13 (and in x 8) with the homonymous bibli­
cal term for Ethiopia, rather than with the country of the Kassites;
note the spelling KusM- in the Nuzi documents, and the classical
Gr. form Kossaios. The other adverse factor is linked with special­
ized Heb. usage. In vs. 10 (see Notes) the term “heads” can have
nothing to do with streams into which the river breaks up after it
leaves Eden, but designates instead four separate branches which
have merged within Eden. There is thus no basis for detouring the
Gihon to Ethiopia, not to mention the search for the Pishon in
various remote regions of the world.
There is, finally, the motif of the tree of knowledge which like­
wise betrays certain Mesopotamian links. The discussion, however,
may best be combined with the Comment on iii 5. For the present,
it need only be remarked in passing that the Heb. for “the tree of
life in the middle of the garden and the tree of knowledge of good
and bad” is extremely awkward syntactically, especially in a writer
who is otherwise a matchless stylist. Moreover, vs. 17 has nothing
to say about the tree of life, and speaks only of the tree of knowl­
edge. There is thus much in favor of the critical conjecture that
the original text had only “and in the midst of the garden the tree
of knowledge.”
Would so much dependence on Mesopotamian concepts be strange
in an author of J’s originality and caliber? Not at all. For it should
be borne in mind that the Primeval History is but a general preface
to a much larger work, a preface about a remote age which comes
to life in Mesopotamia and for which that land alone furnishes the
necessary historical and cultural records. In these early chapters, J
reflects, in common with P, distant traditions that had gained cur­
rency through the ages.
 3. THE FALL OF MAN
(ii 25-iii 24: /)

II 25 The two of them were naked, the man and his wife, yet
they felt no shame.
El 1 Now the serpent was the sliest of all the wild creatures
that God Yahweh had made. Said he to the woman, “Even
though God told you not to eat of any tree in the garden . . . ”
2 The woman interrupted the serpent, “But we may eat of the

trees in the garden! 3 It is only about the fruit of the tree in the
middle of the garden that God did say, ‘Do not eat of it or so
much as touch it, lest you die!’” 4But the serpent said to the
woman, “You are not going to die. 5 No, God well knows that
the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will
be the same as God in telling good from bad.”
6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for eating and
a delight to the eye, and that the tree was attractive as a means
to wisdom, she took of its fruit and ate; and she gave some to
her husband and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened
and they discovered that they were naked; so they sewed fig
leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
8 They heard the sound of God Yahweh as he was walking in

the garden at the breezy time of day; and the man and his wife
hid from God Yahweh among the trees of the garden.
9 God Yahweh called to the man and said to him, “Where

are you?” 10 He answered, “I heard the sound of you in the

garden; but I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” 11 He
asked, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you, then, taste
of the tree from which I had forbidden you to eat?” 12 The man
replied, “The woman whom you put by my side—it was she who
gave me of that tree, and I ate.” 13 God Yahweh said to the
22 GENESIS §3

woman, “How could you do such a thing?” The woman replied,

“The serpent tricked me, so I ate.”
14 God Yahweh said to the serpent:
“Because you did this,
Banned shall you be from all cattle
And all wild creatures!
On your belly shall you crawl
And on dirt shall you feed
All the days of your life.
151 will plant enmity between you and the woman,
And between your offspring and hers;
They shall strike at your head,
And you shall strike at their heel.”
16 To the woman he said:
“I will make intense
Your pangs in childbearing.
In pain shall you bear children;
Yet your urge shall be for your husband,
And he shall be your master.”
To the man“ he said: “Because you listened to your wife
17
and ate of the tree from which I had forbidden you to eat,
Condemned be the soil on your accountl
In anguish shall you eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 Thorns and thistles
Shall it bring forth for you,
As you feed on the grasses of the field.
19 By the sweat of your face
Shall you earn your bread,
Until you return to the ground,
For from it you were taken:
For dust you are
And to dust you shall return!”
»MT, LXX “Adam."
ii 25-iii 24 23
20 The man named his wife Eve,6 because she was the mother
of all the living.® 2i And God Yahweh made shirts of skins for
the man and his wife, and clothed them.
22 God Yahweh said, “Now that the man has become like one
of us in discerning good from bad, what if he should put out his
hand and taste also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever!”
23 So God Yahweh banished him from the garden of Eden, to

till the soil from which he was taken. 24 Having expelled the
man, he stationed east of the garden of Eden the cherubim and
the fiery revolving sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.
b Heb. hawwd.

°Heb. hay.

Notes

iii 1. Even though. The interrogative sense which is generally assumed

for Heb. ’ap ki in this single passage would be without parallel; some
critics emend accordingly to ha’ap ki. But the corresponding gam ki is
used for “although,” cf. Ps xxiii 4, and the meaning suits the context
admirably (Ehrl.). The serpent is not asking a question; he is delib­
erately distorting a fact.
not to eat. Heb. literally “you shall not eat,” since the language has no
simple way to express indirect discourse.
2. interrupted. Literally “said”; the Heb. stem ’mr is capable of describ­
ing varying types of utterance.
3. touch it. In her eagerness to make her point, the woman enlarges on
the actual injunction; cf. ii 17.
5. No. For this use of ki (as opposed to the normal conjunctive force),
cf. xxxi 16; Deut xiii 10; Job xxii 2; Ruth i 10 etc.; see KB, p. 431,
No. 7.
God. Since Heb. 'Hohim is grammatically a plural, and may be used
not only for “God,” but also for “gods, divine beings,” the context is
sometimes ambiguous; nor is a modifying plural form, such as the partici­
ple “who know” in the present instance, necessarily conclusive. In vs. 22
“one of us” would seem to imply a celestial retinue, but there the speaker
is God himself. The serpent might aim at a different effect. In these cir­
cumstances no clear-cut decision is possible; “celestials, immortals,” or
the like would be just as appropriate.
6. a means to wisdom. Literally “(to be coveted) in order to be­
come (not ‘to make’) wise.” The so-called causative conjugation of
24 GENESIS

Heb. is often intransitive (ee JCS 6 [1952], 81 If.); cf. vi 19 f., xxxv 17,
xlix 4.
8. walking. A good example of the special durative conjugation in
Heb.; cf. vs. 24, v 22, 24, and see JAOS 75 (1955), 117 ff.
at the breezy time of day. The Heb. preposition Ze- may be used of tune
(cf. viii 11), but not temperature; hence the memorable “in the cool of
the day” lacks linguistic support. The time involved is toward sundown,
when fresh breezes bring welcome relief from the heat.
9. Where are you? The question is obviously rhetorical.
11. then. Suggested by the inversion in Heb. for added emphasis.
13. How could you . . . ? Cf. xii 18.
14. Banned. The Heb. stem ’rr is regularly translated as “to curse,” but
this sense is seldom appropriate on closer examination. With the preposi­
tion mi(n), here and in vs. 17, such a meaning is altogether out of place:
“cursed from the ground” (ibid.) only serves to misdirect, and “cursed
above all cattle and all the beasts of the field” (present instance) would
imply that the animal world shared the serpent’s guilt. The basic meaning
of ’rr is “to restrain (by magic), bind (by a spell)”; see JAOS 80 (1960),
198ff. With mi(n) the sense is “to hold off, ban” (by similar means). In
vs. 17 the required nuance is “condemned.”
15. offspring. Heb. literally “seed,” used normally in the collective
sense of progeny. The passage does not justify eschatological connota­
tions. As Dr. put it, “We must not read into the words more than they
contain.”
16. pangs in childbearing. A parade example of hendiadys in Heb. (cf.
i 2 and see above, p. lxx) . The literal rendering would read “your pangs
and your childbearing,” but the idiomatic significance is “your pangs that
result from your pregnancy.”
17. man. Cf. Note on ii 20.
Condemned. See above, vs. 14.
on your account. LXX translates “as you till it,” reflecting b bDk,
whereas Heb. reads R/D; the two letters are easily confused.
19. earn your bread. Literally “eat your bread”; but the effort de­
scribed is in the producing of grain to be eaten (Ehrl.), not in the
eating of it.
22. Now that. Heb. hen . . . we‘atta introduce the protasis and the
apodosis, so that the two clauses cannot be interpreted as independent.
one of us. A reference to the heavenly company which remains ob­
scure.
24. cherubim. Cf. Akk. karibu and kuribu which designate figures of
minor interceding deities (cf. S. Langdon, Epic of Creation, 1923, p. 190,
n. 3).
fiery revolving sword. Although the description pertains to an act of
ii 25-iii 24 25
Yahweh, the detail appears to be derived from Mesopotamian traditions.
Most of the gods of that land had distinctive weapons of their own,
such as the dagger of Ashur or the toothed sword of Shamash. Another
illustration may be found in the concluding lines of Enuma eliS I
(ANET, pp. 63, 160 f.); there the rebel gods are said “to make the
fire subside” and “to humble the Power-Weapon.” The fire would
seem to characterize the weapon, a metaphorical description apparently
of the bolt-like or glinting blade. The magic weapon was all that stood
between the insurgent gods and their goal.—The Heb. for “revolving”
(or “constandy turning”) is another instance of the special durative
conjugation; cf. Note on vs. 8.

Comment

Now that the stage has been set, the author can hit his full stride.
There is action here and suspense, psychological insight and subtle
irony, light and shadow—all achieved in two dozen verses. The
characterization is swift and sure, and all the more effective for its
indirectness.
Everything is transposed into human terms. The serpent is en­
dowed with man’s faculties, and even God is pictured in subjective
and anthropomorphic fashion. When Adam has been caught in his
transparent attempt at evasion, Yahweh speaks to him as a father
would to his child: “Where are you?” In this context, it is the same
thing as, “And what have you been up to just now?” This simple
phrase—a single word in the original—does the work of volumes.
For what / has thus evoked is the childhood of mankind itself.
Yet the purpose of the author is much more than just to tell a
story. / built his work around a central theme, which is the record
of a great spiritual experience of a whole nation. But a nation is
made up of individuals, who in turn have their ancestors all the
way back in time. When such a composite experience is superbly
retraced and recorded, the result is also great literature.
Behind the present episode lay many traditions which provided
the author with his raw material. In the end product, however, the
component parts have been blended beyond much hope of success­
ful recovery. Speculation on the subject has been going on for thou­
sands of years and takes up many tomes. The following comment
will confine itself to one or two of the more prominent details.
26 GENESIS

The focal point of the narrative is the tree of knowledge. It is the

tree “in the middle of the garden” (vs. 3), and its fruit imparts to the
eater the faculty of “knowing good and bad” (vs. 5; cf. vs. 22). In
the last two passages, the objective phrase “knowing/to know good
and bad” is faultless in terms of Heb. syntax. But the longer posses­
sive construction “the tree of knowledge of good and bad” (ii 9, 17)
is otherwise without analogy in biblical Hebrew and may well be sec­
ondary.
More important, however, than those stylistic niceties is the prob­
lem of connotation. The Heb. stem yd! signifies not only “to know,”
but more expecially “to experience, to come to know” (cf. Com­
ment on Sec. 4); in other words, the verb describes both the process
and the result. In the present phrase the actual sense is “to distin­
guish between good and bad”; cf. II Sam xix 36, where “between” is
spelled out; see also I Kings iii 9. The traditional “good and evil”
would restrict the idiom to moral matters. But while such an empha­
sis is apparent in I Kings iii 9 and Isa vii 15, 16, and might suit Deut
i 39, it would be out of place in II Sam xix 36. In that context, the
subject (Barzilai) shows very plainly that he is a keen judge of right
and wrong. At the age of eighty, however, his capacity for physical
and aesthetic pleasures is no longer what it used to be: he has lost
the ability to appreciate “good and bad.” The same delicate refer­
ence to physical aspects of life is implied in our passage, which leads
up to the mystery of sex (cf. Ehrl., and see McKenzie, Theological
Studies 15 [1954], 562 f.). For so long as the man and his wife ab­
stain from the forbidden fruit, they are not conscious of their naked­
ness (ii 25); later they cover themselves with leaves (iii 7). The
broad sense, then, of the idiom under discussion is to be in full pos­
session of mental and physical powers. And it is this extended range
of meaning that the serpent shrewdly brings into play in iii 5.
Such motifs as sexual awareness, wisdom, and nature’s paradise
are of course familiar from various ancient sources. It is noteworthy,
however, that all of them are found jointly in a single passage of the
Gilgamesh Epic. There (Tablet I, column iv, lines 16 ff., ANET,
p. 75), Enkidu was effectively tempted by the courtesan, only to be
repudiated by the world of nature; “but he now had wisdom,
broader understanding” (20). Indeed, the temptress goes on to tell
him, “You are wise Enkidu, you are like a god” (34); and she
marks his new status by improvising some clothing for him (column
n 25-iii 24 27
ii, lines 27 f., ANET p. 77). It would be rash to dismiss so much
detailed correspondence as mere coincidence.
This is not to imply that J had direct access to the Gilgamesh
Epic, even though J’s account of the Flood reflects a still closer tie
with the same Akkadian work (Tablet XI, see comment ad loc.).
Such affinities, however, lend added support to the assumption that
in his treatment of Primeval History / made use of traditions that
had originated in Mesopotamia. Now derivative material of this kind
is sometimes taken more literally than the original sources intended
it to be; note, for example, the narrative about the Tower of Babel.
It is thus conceivable that the poetic “You are wise Enkidu, you are
like a god” (see above) might give rise to the belief that in analo­
gous circumstances man could become a threat to the celestials. And
if the concept reached ancient Hebrew tradition, in common with
patriarchal material, J would in such an instance be no more than a
dutiful reporter. He could only articulate the transmitted motifs.
The concluding verses of the present section appear to be a case
in point. On the evidence of vs. 22, the serpent was right in saying
that God meant to withhold from man the benefits of the tree of
knowledge (vs. 5); the same purpose is now attributed to Yahweh.
Yet all that this need mean is literal application of a motif that
Hebrew tradition took over from Mesopotamia centuries earlier. In
any event, the specific source and the precise channel of transmission
would remain uncertain; nor have we any way of knowing how the
author himself interpreted these notions.
We are on slightly firmer ground when it comes to the subject of
God’s resolve to keep the tree of life out of man’s reach. In later
narratives, starting with Abraham, the point is never brought up,
since man knows by then his place in the scheme of things, and
Yahweh’s omnipotence precludes any fear of competition from
whatever quarter. In other words, here is again a motif from the
Primeval Age based on foreign beliefs. And once again, the center
of dissemination is Mesopotamia, which provides us this time with at
least two suggestive analogues: the tale of Adapa (ANET, pp. 101
ff.) and, once more, the Epic of Gilgamesh with its central em­
phasis on man’s quest for immortality. Inevitably, both attempts end
in failure. To be sure, an exception was made in the case of
Utnapishtim, the local hero of the Flood, but that special dispensa­
tion was not to be repeated: “Now who will call the gods for you to
Assembly, / That you may find the life you are seeking?” (Gilg.,
 GENESIS §3

Tablet XI, lines 197 f.). In the end, Gilgamesh is favored with a
concession: he is permitted to take back with him a magic plant
which offers the sop of rejuvenation (Tablet XI, line 282), if not
the boon of immortality. But he is soon to be robbed of it—bv a
serpent. 3

As a whole, then, our narrative is synthetic and stratified. Thanks

however, to the genius of the author, it was to become an unforget­
table contribution to the literature of the world.
 4. CAIN AND ABEL
(iv 1-16: J)

IV irThe man had experience of his wife Eve, and she con­
ceived and bore Cain, as she said, “I have added“ a life6 with the
help of Yahweh.” 2 Next she bore his brother Abel. Abel became
a keeper of flocks, and Cain became a tiller of the soil. 3 In the
course of time, Cain brought an offering to Yahweh of fruit of
the soil. 4 For his part, Abel brought the finest of the firstlings of
his flock. Yahweh showed regard for Abel and his offering, 5 but
for Cain and his offering he showed no regard. Cain resented
this greatly and his countenance fell. 6 Yahweh said to Cain,
“Why are you resentful, and why has your countenance fallen?
7 Surely, if you act right, it should mean exaltation. But if you

do not, sin is the demon at the door, whose urge is toward you;
yet you can be his master.”
8 Cain said to his brother Abel, [“Let us go outside.”].® And
when they were outside, Cain set upon his brother Abel and
killed him. 9 Then Yahweh asked Cain, “Where is your brother
Abel?” He replied, “I don’t know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”
10 And he said, “What have you done! Listen! Your brother’s

blood cries out to me from the soil. 11 Hence you are banned
from the soil which forced open its mouth to take your broth­
er’s blood from your hand. 12 When you till the soil, it shall not
again give up its strength to you. A restless wanderer shall you
be on earth!”
13 Cain replied to Yahweh, “My punishment is too much to

bear. 14 Now that you have banished me this day from the soil,
°Heb. qariifi, literally “I acquired,” in assonance with “Cain.’*
b Literally “man, individual.”

«So with Sam., LXX, and other ancient versions; MT omits.

30 GENESIS §4

and I must hide from your presence and become a restless wan­
derer on earth, anyone might kill me on sight!” 15 “if so<*;” Yah-
weh said to him, “whoever kills Cain shall suffer vengeance
sevenfold.” And Yahweh put a mark on Cain, lest anyone
should kill him on sight.
is Thereupon Cain left Yahweh’s presence and settled in the
land of Nod, east of Eden.
d See Comment.

Notes

iv 1. had experience of. See Comment.

Cain. If the name is cognate with Ar. qayin “metalworker,” the
indicated derivation would be more in order in vs. 22. But this is
plainly yet another case of sound symbolism (cf. ii 5). The assonance
in Heb. qayin : qny(ty) may be reflected in English by “Cain :
gain(ed).”
a life. Heb. IS stands for “man” in the sense of an individual being,
whereas ’adam (see ii 5) is undifferentiated and generic. Ordinarily the
term is applied to adults. Yet there is no warrant for suspecting the text,
as is sometimes done. In the circumstances, Eve is fully justified in
hailing the arrival of another human being.
with the help of. Heb. ’et “with,” which has drawn considerable
suspicion and speculation. It is worth mentioning, therefore, that Akk.
personal names often employ the corresponding element itti, e.g.,
Itti-Bel-balatu “With Bel there is life.”
2. Abel. The Heb. common noun hebel means “puff, vanity.” If the
combination is pertinent, the name may be suggestive of the shepherd’s
losing struggle against the farmer. But speculations of this sort are
often more intriguing than convincing.
4. the finest. Heb. has literally "namely (‘and’), of their fattest parts,”
not “and their curds,” which the text iself does not preclude. The
manifest contrast, however, is between the unstinted offering on the
part of Abel and the minimal contribution of Cain.
showed regard for. The Akk. cognate seu signifies “to look closely
into.”
5. resented. Literally “his anger was kindled.”
7. See Comment.
8. said. The original must have contained Cain’s statement, but the
text was accidentally omitted in MT, owing, no doubt, to the repeated
 i v 1-16 31
outside” (literally “the field”); the ancient versions supply the missing
clause.
11. banned. See Note on iii 14.
12. strength. Used poetically for “produce,” cf. Job xxxi 39.
restless wanderer. Literally “totterer and wanderer." Another instance
of hendiadys (cf. i 2).
13. punishment. Literally “iniquity,” and its consequences.
14. Now that. See iii 22.
on sight. Literally “who reaches, finds me.”
_ If so. MT Ikn “therefore,” which LXX and most of the other ver­
sions understood as /’ kn “not so,” the basis of the above translation.
mark. For various types of protective signs, usually placed on the fore­
head, cf. Exod xiii 16; Deut vi 8, xi 18; Ezek ix 4, 6 ( t a w ) ; also Exod
xxviii 38; cf. JQR 48 (1957), 208ff.
16. Nod. Literally “wandering,” a symbolic place name for Cain’s re­
treat, beyond Eden. The retreat of the Mesopotamian Flood hero Ut-
napishtim is similarly located "faraway, at the mouth of the rivers”
(Gilg., Tablet XI, line 196), east of the head of the Persian Gulf.

Comment

The story of early man is now carried a step further, embracing

the conflict between the pastoral and the agricultural ways of life.
The conflict is depicted in terms of the impact on the given individ­
uals. The author’s ability to animate a large canvas with a few bold
strokes, and his ear for natural dialogue, are again put to highly
effective use.
Two problems of a linguistic nature require special discussion.
One concerns the translation of a single word, and the other affects
the understanding of an entire verse. In both instances the issues ex­
ceed the scope of the Notes.
The reference to connubial relations in vs. 1 is customarily echoed
in English by the translation “knew.” The rendering is unsatisfactory
on several counts. The underlying Heb. stem yd‘ is applied not only
to normal marital situations (cf. vss. 17, 25), but also to clandestine
conduct (e.g., xxxviii 26, where the traditional “and he knew her
again no more” is inept), and even homosexuality (xix 5). It is thus
not a matter of delicate usage, as is sometimes alleged. Nor is the
usage confined to Hebrew. Akkadian, for example, extends it to
dogs.
 32 GENESIS §4

There has never been any doubt as to the exact meaning of the
idiom. Its semantic basis, moreover, is independently attested by the
analogous use of the Akk. verb lamadum “to learn, experience” (e.g.,
Code of Hammurabi rev., column ix, lines 69, 75; column x, line 6),
which is identical with Heb. Imd. It was indicated earlier that Heb.
yd' itself has a broader range than our verb “to know” and shares
with Imd the connotation “to experience” (see Comment on iii 5).
The slavish English reproduction falls thus short of the Hebrew as
well. And unlike so many other English terms that are rooted in
biblical usage, this one has never become self-sufficient; for when
used in the sense here required, “to know” is still felt to be in need
of such props as “carnally, in the biblical sense,” or the like.
The problem, then, is strictly translational and peculiar by and
large to English. German can get by with its erkannte, and French
with connut; but our “knew” corresponds to wusste or savait, which
would be unthinkable in the present instance. The difficulty is ag­
gravated by the need for suitable equivalents for other related Heb.
expressions (see vi 4, xix 31, 32). Accordingly, we are restricted to
the concepts of experience and intimacy, depending on the particular
context; “had experience of” is right semantically, if not stylistically.
A problem of much greater complexity is posed by vs. 7, where
the reading and meaning of the original remain very much in doubt.
The oldest versions are no less perplexed than the most recent in­
terpreters. The consonantal text had come down apparently in rea­
sonably good shape, since LXX, for one, differs from MT only in
regard to a single letter: INth instead of IPth; but the Greek reflects
wide differences in word division and vocalization. There, the
troubling clauses read, “Is it not true that, when you sacrifice cor­
rectly but dissect incorrectly, you are a sinner? Subside then.” The
standard Aram, translation of Onkelos (TO) presupposes the re­
ceived Masoretic text, but furnishes a paraphrase rather than a
translation and is guilty of some violence to the grammar
In these circumstances, the best procedure is to adhere consist­
ently to the received text before any departures are attempted
Surprisingly enough, this has not been the standard traditional prac­
tice. The two adjacent words ht’t rbs (unvocalized) have generally
been taken to mean “sin couches,” although the first (vocalized as
hatta’t) is feminine and calls for a corresponding predicate
(robeset); assumed dittography ( h f ’ t [t]rbs) will not solve the dif­
ficulty, since in that case the two possessive suffixes in the sequel
iv 1-16 33

should likewise be feminine instead of masculine. The only way that

the present reading can be grammatically correct is in a predicative
phrase: sin is a rbs,” with the following possessives referring to
rbs, a masculine form.
Now the stem rbs in Hebrew signifies “to couch.” A pertinent
noun is otherwise unattested in this language, but is well known in
Akkadian as rabisum, a term for “demon.” These beings were de­
picted both as benevolent and malevolent, often lurking at the en­
hance of a building to protect or threaten the occupants. Phonolog-
ically, rabisum, both noun and participle, would be matched in
Hebrew by robes. The adjective is independently attested. The
noun is not; it would have to be regarded in the present instance as
an early loanword from Akkadian. There can be no inherent objec­
tion to suoh a derivation, especially in the narrative before us, the
locale of which is still in the vicinity of Eden, with the principal char­
acter settling eventually “east of Eden.” It would thus be the robes
whose “urge” is directed toward Cain, but whom Cain could still
thwart if he would control his jealous impulses—all expressed with
faultless syntax.
Once the basic difficulty has been removed, the rest falls readily
into place. The abstract infinitive P’et, from the stem ni’ “to lift up,”
is in purposeful (and long assumed) contrast to the “fallen” coun­
tenance in the preceding verse: good conduct should result in exalta­
tion, not dejection! The whole would then be a “wisdom” motif,
suitably applied to the case in question. The consonantal text, it is
worth repeating, is well attested, in spite of the far-reaching differ­
ences in its interpretation. The ultimate culprit was apparently the
above robes, a malevolent demon in more ways than one.
 5. THE LINE OF CAIN
(iv 17-26: J)

IV 17 Now Cain had experience of his wife, who conceived and

bore Enoch. He was the founder of a city, and he named the
city after the name of his son Enoch. 1» To Enoch was born Irad,
and Irad begot Mehujael; Mehujael“ begot Methusael, and
Methusael begot Lamech. 19 Lamech took two wives; the name
of one was Adah, and the name of the other was Zillah. 20 Adah
bore Jabal; he was the ancestor of those who keep tents and cat­
tle. 21 His brother’s name was Jubal, who was the ancestor of all
who handle lyre and pipe. 22 And Zillah, for her part, bore
Tubal-cain, who forged various implements of copper and iron;
Tubal-cain had a sister Naamah.
23 Lamech said to his wives,

“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice,

0 wives of Lamech, give ear to my speech:
1 have killed a man for wounding me,
A boy for injuring me.
24 If Cain be avenged sevenfold,

Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

25 As for Adam, he again had experience of his wife, and she
bore a son whom she called Seth, meaning, “God has granted6
me other issue, because Cain killed Abel.” 2<>To Seth, in turn, a
son was born, and he named him Enosh. It was then that the
name Yahweh was first invoked.
®MT (cons.) writes this time Mehijael.
bHeb. sät, in assonance with “Seth.”
i v 17-26 35

Notes

iv 17. Enoch. Cf. v 22.

18. Mehujael. The two variant spellings of MT reflected some textual
uncertainty. The traditional form with -/- is misleading. It should be -y-,
here and in all other instances where the same consonant is involved (cf.
“J” for “Yahwist,” and in “Jehovah”). But so many old spellings of bibli­
cal names have become part of our culture that their modernization at
this late date would only result in greater confusion.
Lamech. This form is particularly regrettable in that its -a- is “pausal,”
coming as it does here at the end of the sentence. The normal Heb. form
is “Lemech,” as in 19, 23 (bis).
20. keep. Heb. literally “dwell in,” the stem being applied to both tents
and cattle. The translation attempts a commonly acceptable bridge in
English. It is worth noting that the Mesopotamian king lists sometimes in­
terrupt their statistics with similar incidental comment about a given
entry; cf. the Khorsabad List (JNES 13 [1954], 210If.), which describes
the first seventeen rulers as “dwelling in tents,” using an analogous par­
ticipial form (line 10).
22. implements. MT vocalizes the form (hrs) as an agent noun
( craftsman ), evidently through oversight; the mention of iron, more­
over, is an anachronism.
23. speech: The colon reflects Heb. ki, for which cf. vs. 25.
25. The particle ki appears here in two of its several distinctive conno­
tations (cf. xxix 32). The first occurrence is explanatory; it explicates the
personal name in question, but is not itself part of the gloss; cf., for ex­
ample, xli 51 f. A similar use is found in vs. 23, above, where ki corre­
sponds to our colon; cf. also xxi 30. The other occurrence supplements
tahat with which it is co-ordinated to signify an emphatic “because”
(Ehrl.; cf. Prov i 29); alternatively, the whole may be rendered, “in place
of Abel, since Cain killed him.”

Comment

This short section poses many problems. It lists the progeny of

Cain (17-24) and appends the beginning of the parallel line of
Seth. Yet the next section takes up the Sethite genealogy afresh;
what is more, it duplicates some of the Cainite names (Enoch,
Lamech), and approximates others. Two separate streams of tradi­
 36 GENESIS § 5

tion would thus seem to be indicated, both ultimately derived from

e same distant source. The departures may be ascribed to a long
period of intervening oral transmission. The critics are agreed on
e whole that the next chapter has come down through P (except
VS‘-i VyherfasJhe notices before us go back to a parallel work,
evidently by /. The latter writer, in turn, has telescoped, perhaps
unconsciously, the separate lines of Cain and Seth.
At any event, there can be little doubt as to the background of
these genealogical data, or the reason for their inclusion. The lists of
antediluvian patriarchs, as recorded here and in the following chap­
ter, cannot be divorced from Mesopotamian traditions about the
rvf -rSf? ^!°re the 17100(1 (see Jacobsen> The Sumerian King
List, pp. 7°ff.). The very fact of the compilations, and the sharp
dduwan divide, are significant common features. And the name
Methusael is transparently Akk., at least in its components and for­
mation; it reflects mutu-sa-ili, apparently “Man of God”; comparable
Akk. names that are actually attested include Mutum-ilum, Muti-
tlum and Mutum-el “(My) god is the husband,” perhaps echoing
an affirmation by the child’s mother (see J. J. Stamm, Die akkadische
Namengebung, 1939, p. 298). Nevertheless, the names found in the
respective lists themselves have nothing in common. It would thus
appear that before they reached the Hebrews these entries had
gone through a secondary center of dissemination, where they were
transformed m accordance with local needs and conditions; see the
Comment on vi 13, and cf. W. F. Albright, JBL 58 (1939), 91 ff.
. ' then> Mowed both precedent and source material in in­
corporating antediluvian notices. The purpose of such data was also
much the same in all instances. Just as the Sumerian lists sought to
bridge the gap between Creation and the Flood, the biblical writers
were intent on tracing the generations between Adam and Noah.
The appended cultural details were incidental. While the Cainite line
is singled out here as the vehicle for mankind’s technological prog­
ress, it is evident that the account was not conceived as a summary
C!,!tUr"!.achievements- 11 is derivative in every respect, repeating
hat tradition managed to hand down. And since some of the sources
go back to the third millennium B.C., the scientific perspective is
often archaic. At other times the results are anachronistic, notably
in vs. 22, which records the use of iron. In a long and complex
process of transmission a certain amount of dislocation is bound to
take place.
 i v 17-26 37

The so-called Song of the Sword” (23 f.) stands out from the rest
in form as well as content. It is generally viewed as the cry of a
vengeful tribesman who has triumphed over his enemy. In any case,
the poem evidently owes its inclusion in the present context to the
mention of Cain in the last couplet. If the song is tribal in origin, its
ultimate source has to be sought outside historic Mesopotamia pos­
sibly even to the south of Palestine, where Kenite clans are known
to have been at home. It should be added, however, that the available
evidence is far from conclusive.
An acute problem is posed, lastly, by the laconic notice at the end
of the chapter. The clause reads, “It was then that the name Yahweh
began to be invoked”; not “the name of Yahweh,” since the em­
phasis is precisely on the personal name and not on its eventual
substitute “the Lord.” But this statement is directly at variance with
Exod lii 14 (E) and vi 3 (P), which indicate that the name Yahweh
had not come into use until the time of Moses. Yet 3 employs this
very name throughout Genesis; and the present passage ascribes the
usage to very ancient practice.
To be sure, some critics would attribute vss. 25-26 to P, in view
of the fact that vs. 25 speaks of “Adam” (instead of “the man”),
as is Ps custom (see v Iff.), aside from mentioning Elohim; cf.
Noth, Vberlieferungsgeschichte . . . , p. 12, n. 26. In that case,
however, the divergence from Exod vi 3 would be that much more
perplexing. (There is, of course, nothing new in J’s use of Elohim;
cf. ix 26 f.) Everywhere else, each documentary source is consistent
on this point; it is only their joint testimony that gives rise to difficul­
ties.
A plausible solution may be in sight, nevertheless. Even though
J traced back the name Yahweh to the dim past, while E and P
attributed the usage to Moses, both views may be justified depend­
ing on the point of vantage. The worship of Yahweh was in all likeli­
hood confined at first to a small body of searchers under the aegis of
the patriarchs; it was this movement that found a worthy recorder in
J. When Moses set out to fashion a nation out of an amorphous
conglomerate of sundry ethnic and tribal elements, he had to con­
centrate on three major features of nationhood: a territorial base, a
body of laws, and a distinctive religion. The last was normative in
more ways than one; it was necessarily the faith of the same fore­
fathers who had already tied it to the Promised Land, with Yahweh
as its fountainhead. To that extent, therefore, Yahweh revealed him­
38 GENESIS

self to Moses: and it is this personal revelation that both E and P

celebrate. To J, however, who chronicled the progress within the
inner circle of the patriarchal pioneers, the personal participation of
Yahweh had been the dominant fact from the start.
Little can be said in this connection about the etymology of Yah­
weh. The fact that attempts to solve the problem are still being made
all the time is proof that none of the preceding efforts has carried
sufficient appeal. All such ventures start out with the Bible’s own
explication in Exod iii 14. Yet that name gloss should not be ad­
duced as a technical etymology. It is manifestly a case of sound sym­
bolism no less than the instances in Gen ii 23, iv 1, xi 9, and many
other passages. On this score, at any rate, the name of Yahweh is
constantly taken in vain.
 6. THE PATRIARCHS BEFORE THE FLOOD
(v 1-28, 30-32; P; 29: ///)

V i This is the record of the line of Adam:

—When God created man, he made him in the likeness of
God; 2 he created them male and female. And when they were
created, he blessed them and named them Man.—
3 Adam was i 30 years old when he begot a son in his likeness,
after his image, and he named him Seth. 4 After the birth of
Seth, Adam lived 800 years and begot sons and daughters. 5 All
the days of Adam’s life came to 930 years; then he died.
6 Seth was 105 years old when he begot Enosh. 7 After the
birth of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and begot sons and daugh­
ters. 8 All the days of Seth came to 912 years; then he died.
9 Enosh was 90 years old when he begot Kenan. 10 After the
birth of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and begot sons and daugh­
ters. H All the days of Enosh came to 905 years; then he died.
12 When Kenan was 70 years old he begot Mahalalel. 13 After
the birth of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and begot sons and
daughters. 14 All the days of Kenan came to 910 years; then he
died.
15 Mahalalel was 65 years old when he begot Jared. 16 After
the birth of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and begot sons and
daughters. 17 All the days of Mahalalel came to 895 years; then
he died.
18 Jared was 162 years old when he begot Enoch. 19 After the
birth of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and begot sons and daugh­
ters. 20 All the days of Jared came to 962 years; then he died.
21 Enoch was 65 years old when he begot Methuselah.

22 Enoch walked with God. After the birth of Methuselah,

 w GENESIS §6

[Enoch lived]“ 300 years and begot sons and daughters. 23 All
the days of Enoch came to 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with
God, then was no more, because God took him.
25 Methuselah was 187 years old when he begot Lamech.
2® After the birth of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and
begot sons and daughters. 27 All the days of Methuselah came to
969 years; then he died.
28 Lamech was 182 years old when he begot a son. /29 He
named him Noah, which is to say, “This one will bring us relief*
from our work and the toil of our hands, out of the very soil
which Yahweh had placed under a ban.”/ 30 After the birth
of Noah, Lamech lived 595 years and begot sons and daugh­
ters. 31 All the days of Lamech came to 777 years; then he died.
32 Noah was 500 years old when he begot Shem, Ham, and
Japheth.
°So with LXX and some manuscripts; see Comment.
6 In assonance with “Noah.”

Notes

V 1. line. Heb. tol’dot means literally “begettings.” The traditional

“generations” is etymologically correct, but has come to be specialized
in an entirely different connotation. In Hebrew the emphasis rests on
genealogy, and extends to “story” (ii 4a), and later to history in
general. The actual “record” begins with vs. 3.
2. This passage tells at last of the naming of Adam. As a personal
name, the noun is common in P. For J’s usage, see Note on ii 20; cf.
also the Comment on iv 25, where the documentary source is not
clear cut.
and named them Man. The author’s way of saying, “This is how
mankind began.”
3 ff. was . . . years old. Literally “(had) lived . . . years.”
begot a son. Heb. normally uses the verbal form hotid (the basis of
t6leddt) with a direct object, which is the case in vss. 6 ff. Here the
usage is absolute, since an immediate object would have been stylistically
awkward; the implied object is yeled “child,” so that “a son” may be
supplied in translation without presupposing accidental omission of ben.
As for “begot,” there is no need for paraphrases in English. The
familiar reservation about “all the begats” is aimed not so much at the
verb as at the statistics that go with it.
v 1-32 41
15. Jared. This traditional spelling has exactly the same background as
“Lamech”; cf. Note on iv 18. The correct transliteration is “Yered.”
18. Enoch. The initial h in the Heb. form would seem to preclude any
etymological relationship with Sum. Enmeduranna, for which see Com­
ment.
22. walked. For the durative force of the corresponding Heb. form, cf.
JAOS 75 (1955), 117ff.
Enoch lived. This insert is supported not only by various manuscripts
but the formulaic evidence of the chapter as a whole. The omission in
MT is an obvious textual oversight.
29. He named him Noah. This clause must have been present in P, as
well as in J, to whom the verse is attributed in view of the reference to
Yahweh.
will bring us relief. The translation given by LXX may, but need not,
reflect Heb. nwh, rather than nhm, since the context would not differ
appreciably. The former stem is, of course, closer to the name “Noah.”
But biblical etymologies are not guided by linguistic considerations;
cf. iv 1.
has placed under a ban. See Note on iii 14.

Comment

This section is characteristic of P, a source which has been silent

since ii 4a. The heading “This is the line of X” is P’s normal
genealogical rubric; see also vi 9, x 1, xi 10, 27, xxv 12, 19, xxxvi 1,
9, xxxvii 2; and Num iii 1. In Gen ii 4a, on the other hand, the same
term is employed—by the same source—not in a heading but in a
colophon, with the derivative sense of “story, history.”
One need not look far for an explanation of this persistent interest
in genealogies. To dedicated guardians of cherished traditions, un­
broken lineage meant a secure link with the remotest past, and henc
also a firm basis from which to face the future. Thus to P these were
vital statistics in more ways than one.
As was pointed out in the comment on the preceding section, the
present Sethite line is related, in some of the names if not in general
treatment, to the Cainite line of iv 17-24, which was traced by a
different hand. The two lists point back, therefore, to the same ulti­
mate source. The original center of dissemination was manifesdy in
Mesopotamia. For it is there that we find a firmly embedded tradi­
tion about successive antediluvian rulers, a tradition which is atteste
 42 GENESIS §6

as early as the end of the third millennium (cf. Jacobsen, The

Sumerian King List), and as late as the third century B.C. (in
the Greek work on Babylonian history by the Babylonian priest
Berossus). The number of rulers (including the hero of the Flood)
vacillates between nine and ten (sometimes less), and their respec­
tive reigns run from 18,600 to nearly 65,000 years. For the same
interval, the Canute list, which gives no ages, records eight patri­
archs, and the Sethite genealogy knows of ten. The relatively high
figures in P s report turn out to be exceptionally moderate by com­
parison, since the entire lifetime of even a Methuselah fails to reach
a millennium. Of far greater consequence, however, is the fact that
the biblical names in either list bear no demonstrable relation to the
standard cuneiform series; the difference between patriarchs and
kings is likewise worth stressing. It is thus apparent that the under­
lying tradition had been subjected to considerable modification in
some intermediate center.
Where that center may have lain is far from certain. The hints on
this point are few and insubstantial. One personage in the very
fragmentary Human version of the Flood bears the name Na-afy-
ma-su-le-el (Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazkoi, Vol. VIII, No. 61,
rev., line 6); it is preceded by the determinative for “god,” but this
tells us nothing, since the name of Gilgamesh is treated there in
the same fashion. Comparison with Noah has been suggested; such a
possibility cannot be ruled out, but neither can it be relied upon. It is
suggestive, at any rate, that in the biblical account the ark landed on
a peak in the Ararat range, whereas the Akkadian version has it
grounded on Mount Nisir, in the vicinity of modem Sulaimaniya.
Armenia had various connections with the Humans, and the Hur-
rians had intimate contacts with the Hebrews. On this roundabout
reasoning, the Humans could have served as intermediaries in the
transmission of the antediluvian lists to biblical chroniclers. It may
be noted in passing, that the names in question are far from typical
in a Hebrew context; cf. the Comment on iv 18.
The P source, then, did not invent the abnormal life-spans of the
Sethite list; if anything, they have been drastically reduced. How
such figures were interpreted at the time is something that one may
only guess at today. If a specific principle ever underlay these num­
bers, it is no longer apparent. Moreover, in marked contrast to the
names, the numbers were not dependably transmitted or handled, for
both the LXX and the Samaritan readings depart from the Hebrew
v 1-32 43
text, as well as from each other: cf. the convenient tabulation in
Dr. Only rarely is there any hint as to how a given figure may
have emerged. Thus Enoch’s total of years corresponds to the 365
days in the solar year, and is surely related in some way to the no­
tice of his unprecedented treatment by God, with whom Enoch
walked”; hence, too, the prominence of Enoch in apocryphal and
apocalyptic writings. Lamech’s tally of 777 appears to be linked with
the numbers 7 and 77 and his namesake’s Song of the Sword (iv 24;
cf. also Matt xviii 22). And the number 500 which represents
Noah s age at the birth of all three of his sons is plainly a round
figure, as is also his age of 600 at the onset of the Flood.
A numerical puzzle of an entirely different sort helps to deepen
the already profound mystery of Enoch. As the seventh in the line
of antediluvian patriarchs, Enoch parallels the Mesopotamian En-
meduranna, who is the seventh king before the Flood according to
the best textual evidence (Jacobsen, op. cit., p. 75). What is more,
Enmeduranna’s capital city was the ancient center of the sun god of
Sippar, which could explain the solar number of 365 that is re­
corded for Enoch (cf. Dr., pp. 78f.). Yet the slight similarity in
names is apparently coincidental (see Note ad loc.).
Finally, prodigious as are the life-spans of the individual patri­
archs, they are dovetailed to such an extent that the total elapsed
time adds up to no more than 1656 years in the Heb. version. The
death of Adam has to be dated to the generation of Noah’s father
Lamech. In turn, Noah himself would have witnessed the sixtieth
birthday of Abraham. All such results have to be evaluated in terms
of the limited chronological horizons of the age that produced them.
 7. PRELUDE TO DISASTER
(vi 1-4: /)

VI 1 Now when men began to increase on earth and daughters

were bom to them, 2 the divine beings saw how beautiful were
the human daughters and took as their wives any of them they
liked. 3 Then Yahweh said, “My spirit shall not shield man for­
ever, since he is but flesh; let the time allowed him be one hun­
dred and twenty years.”
4 It was then that the Nephilim appeared on earth—as well as
later—after the divine beings had united with human daughters
to whom they bore children. Those were the heroes of old, men
of renown.

Notes

vi 2. divine beings. Literally “sons of God/gods.” The term ’Hohim is

here clearly differentiated from Yahweh (vs. 3). Elsewhere E employs
the former in the sense of “Fate, Providence,” and the like (see Note on
xx 13). Here, however, the main stress is on “immortals” as opposed to
“mortals.”
human daughters. Literally “the daughters of man,” in balanced con­
trast to the above.
3. shield. The traditional “abide in” is a guess lacking any linguistic
support. For this interpretation, based on Akk. dinanu “substitute, surro­
gate,” see JBL 75 (1956), 126 ff.
since he is but flesh. This clause stands for Heb. beSaggam, which is ob­
scure except for the preposition be-. A different analysis of the compo­
nents yields “by reason of their going astray [he is but flesh].” But the
first interpretation is superior, though still highly uncertain.
4. Nephilim. Named also as a giant race in Num xiii 33. There, how­
ever, the context implies that the people found by the spies were like the
very Nephilim of old.
united with. Literally “came to,” in the idiomatic sense of “cohabited
with.” This idiom appears to match the circumlocution used in iv 1.
vi 1-4 45
Actually, however, there is one outstanding difference. Whereas “to
have experience of” can be applied to either sex, “to come to” refers in
this connection only to the male who visits a woman’s quarters; cf. xxx
16, xxxviii 16.
men of renown. Literally “men with a name”; cf. Gilg., Yale Tablet,
column v, line 7: “a name that endures will I make for myself.”

Comment

The undisguised mythology of this isolated fragment makes it not

only atypical of the Bible as a whole but also puzzling and con­
troversial in the extreme. Its problems are legion: Is what we have
here an excerpt from a fuller account? Why was such a stark piece
included altogether? Does its present place in the book imply a spe­
cific connection with the Flood? Is the stated period of 120 years
meant as a deadline for mankind to mend its ways? On these and
many similar points arising from the all too laconic passage before
us there have been innumerable conflicting opinions, with few if any
concrete gains. Of late, however, thanks mainly to the discovery of
pertinent literary links, some of the scattered pieces of the puzzle
have begun to fall into place. To be sure, the nature of the fragment
is such as to discourage confident interpretation. But a semblance of
an intelligible pattern appears to be indicated at long last.
The passage is dated explicitly to the time of the initial ap­
pearance of the Nephilim, who are described as “the heroes of old”;
the LXX version translates the noun as “giants.” Now Greek my­
thology (Hesiod, Pseudo-Apollodorus) recalls an unsavory stage in
the history of the gods, which involves the leading triad of the
pantheon: Uranus (Sky) wars against his children, but is defeated
and emasculated by his son Cronus, who is vanquished in turn by
his own son Zeus. The latter, however, must then do battle with a
group of giants known as Titans, and subsequently with a partic­
ularly menacing monster named Typhon.
A closely related Phoenician .tradition is reported by Philo of
Byblos, in the name of a much older author, a certain Sanchunyathon.
This relationship is so prominent that ultimate derivation of the
Phoenician material from Greek sources has been suggested more
than once (cf. E. G. Kraeling, “The Significance and Origin of
Gen. 6:1—4,” JNES 6 [1947], 193 ff., especially 205). It was further
assumed that the biblical account under discussion may allude to a
46 GENESIS §7

similar commingling of primeval giants and celestial turpitude. Never­

theless, Sanchunyathon was regarded as an apocryphal figure, while
the other Phoenician and Greek sources were too late to have been
utilized by /; and so this hypothesis could not make headway.
The whole perspective, however, has recently changed with the
discovery of Hittite texts containing translations of Hurrian myths.
These myths parallel the Uranid cycle in such striking detail as to
preclude any possibility of coincidence. Here, too, the sky god (Anu)
is fought and emasculated by his son (Kumarbi), who in turn is
vanquished by the storm god (Teshub). But before his victory is
assured, Teshub must face a formidable stone monster (Ullikummi).
The decisive battle takes place near Mount Hazzi, the classical
Mount Casius, which is also the scene of Typhon’s battle with Zeus
(see H. G. Guterbock, “Oriental Forerunners of Hesiod,” AJA 52
[1948], 123ff.; cf. also JCS 5 [1951], 145). Since the Hurrian
original goes back to the middle of the second millennium B.C., it has
to be the source of the Phoenician and Greek versions as well as of
the Hittite adaptation. (For possible Ugaritic parallels, cf. M. H.
Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 1955, pp. 4f.) The Humans, for
their part, are known to have utilized in this group of epics a number
of Mesopotamian elements (e.g., the god Anu) The whole cycle,
then, with all its bloodthirsty detail, was by J’s time familiar to much
of the ancient world. It could hardly have been a stranger to J or
his own immediate sources.
It is evident, moreover, from the tenor of the Hebrew account
that its author was highly critical of the subject matter. It makes
little difference whether J took the contents at face value or, as is
more likely (cf. vs. 5), viewed the whole as the product of man’s
morbid imagination. The mere popularity of the story would have
been sufficient to fill him with horror at the depravity that it re­
flected. A world that could entertain such notions deserved to be
wiped out.
In these circumstances, the present position of the fragment im­
mediately before the account of the Flood can scarcely be inde­
pendent of that universal catastrophe. The story of the primeval
titans emerges as a moral indictment, and thereby as a compelling
motive for the forthcoming disaster. And the period of 120 years
becomes one of probation, in the face of every sign that the doom
cannot be averted. All of this accords with the separately established
fact that the Flood story in Genesis, unlike its Mesopotamian ana­
logues, was morally motivated.
 8. THE FLOOD
(vi 5-viii 22: /, / P / )

VI 5 When Yahweh saw how great was man’s wickedness on

earth, and how every scheme that his mind devised was nothing
but evil all the time, 6 Yahweh regretted that he had made man
on earth, and there was sorrow in his heart. 7 And Yahweh said,
e‘I will blot out from the earth the men that I created, man and

beast, the creeping things, and the birds of the sky; for I am
sorry that I made them.” 8 But Noah found favor with Yahweh.
/9 This is the line of Noah.—Noah was a righteous man; he
was without blame in that age; Noah walked with God.—
10 Noah begot three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
11 The earth was corrupt in the view of God, and it was full
of lawlessness. 12 And God saw how corrupt the earth was, for
all flesh had corrupted their ways on earth.
13 Then God said to Noah, “I have decided to put an end to
all flesh, for the earth is filled with lawlessness because of them.
So I am about to destroy both them and the earth 14 Make
yourself an ark of gopher wood; make it an ark with compart­
ments, and cover it inside and out with pitch. 15 This is how you
shall build it: the length of the ark shall be three hundred
cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 16 Make
a sky light for the ark, terminating it within a cubit of the top.
Put the entrance in the side of the ark, which is to be made
with lower, second, and third decks.
17 For my part, I am about to bring on the Flood—waters
upon the earth—to eliminate everywhere all flesh in which there
is the breath of life: everything on earth shall perish. 18 But with
you I will establish my covenant, and you shall enter the ark—
you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives. 19 And of all
48 GENESIS

else that is alive, of all flesh, you shall take two of each into the
ark to stay alive with you; they must be male and female. 20 Of
the birds of every kind, cattle of every kind, every kind of creep­
ing thing—two of each shall come inside to you to stay alive.
21 For your part, provide yourself with all the food that is to be

eaten, and store it away to serve as provisions for you and for
them.”
22 This Noah did. Just as God commanded him, so he did./

VII 1 Then Yahweh said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and
all your household, for you alone have I found to be truly right­
eous in this age. 2 Of every clean animal take seven pairs, a male
and its mate; and of the animals that are unclean, one pair, a
male and its mate; 3 but seven pairs again of the birds of the sky,
male and female, to preserve issue throughout the earth. 4 For in
seven days’ time I will cause it to rain upon the earth for forty
days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the surface of the
earth all existence that I created.”
5 Noah did just as Yahweh commanded him. /6 Noah was in
his six hundredth year when the Flood came—waters upon the
earth./
7 Then Noah, together with his sons, his wife, and his sons’
wives, went inside the ark because of the waters of the Flood.
8 Of the clean animals and the animals that are unclean, the
birds of the sky and everything that creeps on earth, 9 [two of
each]“, male and female, came inside the ark to Noah, as God
had commanded Noah. 10 As soon as the seven days were over,
the waters of the Flood were upon the earth.
/11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second
month, on the seventeenth day of the month—on that day—
All the fountains of the great deep burst forth
And the sluices in the sky broke open./
I2 Heavy rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
/13 On the aforesaid day, Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham, and
Japheth, Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons had en­
tered the ark—14 they as well as every kind of beast, every kind
0 Evidently a gloss, see Note.
vi 5—viii 22 49
of cattle, every kind of creature that creeps on earth, and every
kind of bird, every*’ winged thing. 15 They came inside the ark to
Noah, two each of all flesh in which there was the breath of life.
16 Those that entered comprised male and female of all flesh, as

God had commanded Noah./ Then Yahweh shut him in.

/17 The Flood came down upon the earth/forty days.® As
the waters increased, they bore the ark aloft, so that it rose above
the earth. /18 The waters swelled and increased greatly upon
the earth, and the ark drifted on the surface of the water. 19 The
waters continued to swell more and more above the earth, until
all the highest mountains everywhere were submerged, 20 the
crest reaching fifteen cubits above the submerged mountains.
21 And all flesh that had stirred on earth perished—birds, cattle,

beasts, and all the creatures that swarmed on earth—and all

mankind./ 22 All in whose nostrils was the faintest breath of
life, everything that had been on dry land, died out. 23 All exist­
ence on earth was blotted out—man, cattle, creeping things, and
birds of the sky; they were blotted out from the earth. Only
Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark.
/24 When the waters over the earth had maintained their
crest one hundred and fifty days, VIII 1 God remembered
Noah and all the beasts and cattle that were with him in the ark,
and God caused a wind to sweep across the earth. The waters
began to subside. 2 The fountains of the deep and the sluices in
the sky were stopped up,/ and the heavy rain from the sky was
held back. 3 Little by little the waters receded from the earth.
/By the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters had
diminished so that 4 in the seventh month, on the seventeenth
day of the month, the ark came to rest on the Ararat range.
5 The waters went on diminishing until the tenth month. In the

tenth month, on the first day of the month, the peaks of the
mountains became visible./
6 At the end of forty days Noah opened the hatch of the ark
that he had made, 7 and released a raven; it went back and forth
waiting for the water to dry off from the earth. 8 Then he sent
out a dove, to see if the waters had dwindled from the ground.
6 LXX, and others, read “and every winged bird.”
e See Note.
50 GENESIS

9 But the dove could not find a place for its foot to rest on, and
returned to him in the ark, for there was water all over the earth;
so putting out his hand, he picked it up, and drew it inside the
ark toward him. 10 He waited another seven days and again
released the dove from the ark. 11 The dove returned to him to­
ward evening, and there in its bill was a plucked olive leaf!
Noah knew then that the waters had dwindled from the ground.
12 He waited yet another seven days and released the dove; it did

not return to him again.

13 /In the six hundred and first year [of Noah’s life],** in the
first month, on the first day of the first month, the waters had
begun to dry from the earth./ Noah removed the covering of
the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was drying.
/!4 In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the
month, the earth was dry.
15 Then God spoke to Noah, saying, 16 “Come out of the ark,

together with your wife, your sons, and your sons’ wives.
17 Bring out with you every living being that is with you—all

flesh, be it bird or cattle or any creature that creeps on earth—

and let them swarm on earth, and breed and increase on it.”
18 So Noah came out, with his sons, his wife, and his sons’

wives. 19 And every animal, every creeping thing, and every bird
—everything that stirs on earth—left the ark, group by group./
20 Then Noah built an altar to Yahweh and, choosing from
every clean animal and every clean bird, offered burnt offerings
on the altar. 21 As Yahweh smelled the soothing odor, he said to
himself, “Never again will I doom the world because of man,
since the devisings of man’s heart are evil from the start;
neither will I ever again strike down every living being, as
I have done.
22 So long as the earth endures,
Seedtime and harvest,
Cold and heat,
Summer and winter,
And day and night
Shall not cease.”
■•LXX supplies the required text, cf. vii 11.
vi 5-viii 22 51

Notes

vi 5. Yahweh. A clear sign in this composite account that the passage

stems from J.
6. regretted. The Heb. stem nhm describes a change of mind or heart,
either in an intransitive sense (as here and in 7), or transitive “to com­
fort.”
8. found favor with. Literally “won favor (not ‘grace’) in the eyes of,”
cf. Akk. mam mafrarum “to receive the eye, attract, please.” The Heb.
idiom is highly flexible and varies in shading from context to context, as
will be apparent from later occurrences; cf. pp. Lxvn f.
9-12. A long consecutive passage from P. The typical introductory
tdledot refers to Noah’s sons (10). The intervening notice is parenthetic.
9. in that age. The traditional rendering “in his generations” is mechan­
ical and obviously unsuitable. It has been proposed to emend the texts
bdrTyw to bdrKyw “in his ways,” with allusion to such passages as Deut
xxxii 4; Ezek xxviii 15; and Ps cxix 1. The change of a single letter would
not be major. Nevertheless, the close parallel in vii 1 (/) argues in favor
of the received text. The difficulty is largely translational. Heb. dor, in
common with its Sem. cognates, signifies “duration, age span”; the mean­
ing “generation” (in the current sense) is secondary. And since the pos­
sessive pronoun of Hebrew often corresponds to our definite article or
demonstrative pronoun (and vice versa), the present form stands for “in
his times, in that age.”
10. Japheth. It may be of interest that the apparently identical Greek
name Iapetos is borne by one of the Titans in a context that could be in­
directly related to that of vi 1-4; see Comment ad loc.
11. in the view of. The Heb. prepositional term liprie means literally “to
the face of.” Its normal connotation is either spatial (“in front of”) or
temporal (“before”). There is, however, still another important meaning
which the customary translation “before” can only distort. What is in­
volved in such instances is the attitude of the party concerned, in terms of
judgment, will, approval, and the like; cf. vii 1, and see also x 9, xvii 18,
xxvii 7 (followed by a temporal liprie), xliii 33. Not infrequently, liprie
Yahweh is like our deo volente; cf., for example, the four co-ordinate in­
stances in Num xxxii 20 ff. In the present passage the indicated meaning
is: according to God’s (regretful) conclusion; in vii 1, the equally plain
sense is: in my approving view; cf. pp. Lxvnf.; cf. the Akk. idiom
panusuma “if he chooses.”
lawlessness. Heb. hamas is a technical legal term which should not be
automatically reproduced as “violence”; cf. xvi 5.
 GENESIS 5®
52
13. / have decided. Literally “it is in front of me.”
14. The Babylonian Flood hero Utnapishtim receives his instructions m
a dream. .„ .
gopher. The timber in question has not been identified. .
comDartments Literally “cells.” It is sometimes argued that Heb.
qinnim should be repointed as qanim to yield “reeds " on the
Lumption that “reed hut—wall” in the pertinent Gilg. passage (Tablet
XI, lines 21 f.) shows the material that was used in the construction«^
the ark. The sense of that passage, however, is altogether different The
reed hut is the venerated shrine in which the Flood hero received his
instructions from the friendly god Ea.
pitch. The same substance and the cognate term for it are found in th
corresponding cuneiform passage.
15 The stated dimensions (approximately 440x73x44 feet) su88e*V*

vessel of some 43,000 tons; cf. A. Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old
Testament Parallels, 1946, p. 236. . n
16. terminating. For similar technical use of the verb, see Deut xxvi 12.
The specific detail remains obscure.
17. everywhere. Literally “under the sky.”
18. covenant. A solemn agreement between two parties providing sanc­
tions in the event of non-compliance. , ,
19. all else that is alive. The definite article m Heb. (here in hahay)
often contrasts the defined thing with the preceding; cf. xiv 16.
two of each. This number is invariable with P. J specifies seven pairs of
aU »nimak that are ritually clean (cf. vii 2) and one pair of those that

” alive. Also in vs. 20; not “maintain life.” This is another instance
of the intransitive Hiphil (cf. iii 6); the causative sense is generally ex­
pressed by the Piel (cf. vii 3); cf. p. lxvui.
21. food that is to be eaten. Necessarily, not “food that is eaten, edi­
ble,” since the inedible kind would not be called food. The Heb. form is
capable of either nuance; cf. Lev xi 34. _
vii 1. / found to be truly righteous. On the force of Heb. hpne cf.
Note on vi 11. , . ___ „
2-3. Were the aquatic creatures left out because they were immu e
from the Flood? , . _
6. in his six hundredth year. Cf. vs. 11, from the same hand (P). The
Heb. construction with ben- “son of,” i.e., “participant in, can be either
cardinal or ordinal. .___
9 [two of each]. If this statement came from J, it would be at variance
with J’s figures elsewhere in this account; the words are attributed, there­
fore to a later redactor who sought to bring the passage into harmony
with P. The same would apply to the use of Elohim m this verse rather
than Yahweh; but the latter reading is given by Sam., Syr., and Vulg.
vi 5-viii 22 53
(manuscripts). Some of the critics regard all of vss. 8-9 as a later addi­
tion.
12. Heavy rain. Heb. geiem, unlike mdfdr, signifies abnormal rainfall;
cf. also viii 2. The period of forty days is a feature of J.
16. comprised. Literally “came as.” The final clause is from / (note
“Yahweh”); these words may have stood originally after vs. 10.
17. forty days. LXX adds “and forty nights”; the whole phrase,how­
ever, was probably carried over from vs. 12.
18. swelled. Literally “grew mighty/mightier”; a slightly different
nuance (“the crest reaching”) is found in vs. 20.
21. that had stirred. Here the Heb. verb refers to all life in general, and
not merely reptiles; see Note on i 28, and cf. viii 17.
'22. the faintest breath of life. Literally “the breath of thespirit of
life.”
23. was blotted out. The traditional vocalization takes the verb as ac­
tive. Taken literally, “he blotted out” would leave the pronoun without
antecedent. The passive form, however, would be made up of exactly the
same consonants (wymh). Moreover, Hebrew often employs actives in an
impersonal sense (cf. ix 6). Either way, therefore, the translation here
given may be safely adopted.
viii 1. subside. The pertinent Heb. verb is isolated in this account and
rare elsewhere.
4. the Ararat range. The terminology (“mountains of Ararat”) alludes
clearly to range as opposed to a particular peak. For the significance of
this location see the Comment on Sec. 6.
6. forty days. In the original narrative by J this was the full length
of the Flood; cf. vii 4. In the present sequence, however, the text ap­
pears to refer to an interval following the specific date just given in
vs. 5 (P).
9. its foot. Literally “flat part, sole of its foot.”
13. The Heb. stem for “to be dry” (hrb) denotes “to be or to become
free of moisture”; complete dryness is signified by ybS (14).
17. on it. MT repeats “on the earth.”
19. LXX has here the preferable reading: “All the beasts, all the cattle,
all the birds, and all the creeping things on earth” (cf. vii 21).
21. doom. Heb. uses the Piel form of the stem qll, which denotes not
so much “to curse” as “to belittle, slight, mistreat,” and the like.
from the start. Literally “from his (i.e., man’s) childhood/youth.”
This is ambiguous because we are not told whether what is involved is
the early age of mankind as a whole, or that of each individual. In xlvi
34 the same term is applied by Jacob’s sons both to themselves and to
their ancestors, which can best be reflected in English by “from the
beginning.” The same kind of neutral phraseology commends itself in
this instance.
54 GENESIS

Comment

The received biblical account of the Flood is beyond reasonable

doubt a composite narrative, reflecting more than one separate
source. One of the sources goes back to P, and is easy enough to
identify except for a clause or two. But the identity of the narrator
or narrators other than P has caused considerable trouble and de­
bate. Nevertheless, if one is prepared to overlook a few highly tech­
nical details—as one must in a comprehensive study—it should not
be too hazardous to accept J as the only other author involved.
More serious for our immediate purposes is the fact that the
respective versions of P and / have not been handed down in
connected form, as was the case, for example, with Sec. 1 (P) and
Sec. 2 (/). Here the two strands have become intertwined, the end
result being a skillful and intricate patchwork. Nevertheless—and
this is indicative of the great reverence with which the components
were handled—the underlying versions, though cut up and rear­
ranged, were not altered in themselves. The upshot is that we are
now faced not only with certain duplications (e.g., vi 13-22 : vii
1-5), but also with obvious internal contradictions, particularly in
regard to the numbers of the various animals taken into the ark (vi
19-20, vii 14-15 : vii 2-3), and the timetable of the Flood (viii
3-5, 13-14 : vii 4, 10, 12, 17, viii 6, 10, 12).
To show the diverging accounts at a glance is not a simple task.
A number of modem treatments resort to the expedient of reshuf­
fling the text, but this does violence, in turn, to a tradition that
antedates the LXX translation of twenty-two centuries ago. The ar­
rangement followed here reproduces the exact order of the received
(“Masoretic”) text. At the same time, however, everything that can
be traced to P has been placed between diagonals. This way the
two components can be distinguished at a glance, or they may be
followed consecutively if one wishes to do so. No attempt, however,
has been made to mark in J the possible ministrations of .Redac­
tor), in the few instances where such “joins” appear to be indicated;
minimal remarks on this subject have been included in the Notes.
That the biblical account as a whole goes back ultimately to
Mesopotamian sources is a fact that is freely acknowledged by most
modem scholars; see the detailed discussion in Heidel’s Gilgamesh
vi 5-viii 22 55

Epic . . . , pp. 224—89. But the actual ties are more complex than is
generally assumed.
The primeval Flood is echoed in a variety of cuneiform sources;
cf. S. N. Kramer, From the Tablets of Sumer, 1956, pp. 176 ff.
The most extensive prototype, and the best known by far, is found
in Tablet XI of the Gilgamesh Epic. It is with this celebrated narra­
tive that the biblical account has most in common.
In both instances there is a Flood hero who has been singled out
for deliverance from the impending universal catastrophe. Each is
told to construct an ark according to detailed specifications. There
follow related descriptions of the elemental cataclysm, the annihila­
tion of all life outside the ark, and the eventual grounding of the
strange vessel on top of a tall mountain. Both Noah and Utnapishtim,
his Babylonian counterpart, release a series of birds at appropriate
intervals to test the subsidence of the waters; each account mentions
a dove and a raven. Lastly, when dry land has reappeared in the
now desolate world, each principal gives expression to his boundless
relief through a sacrifice of humble thanksgiving
So much correspondence in over-all content is inescapable proof
of basic interrelationship. There are, however, also significant dif­
ferences in detail. The biblical Flood, as was noted earlier (see
Comment on Sec. 7) is given strong moral motivation, whereas the
cuneiform version—at least the one that is incorporated in the
Gilgamesh Epic—fails to suggest a plausible cause; one might as­
cribe the awesome interlude to mere whims of heaven. There are,
furthermore, dissimilarities with respect to the occupants of the two
arks (the Mesopotamian personnel includes “all the craftsmen”) and
the order of the test flights (raven-swallow-dove in Gilg.). Above
all, there is the immediately apparent difference in names: Noah as
against Utnapishtim; the mountains of Ararat as opposed to Mount
Nisir. It is thus clear that Hebrew tradition must have received its
material from some intermediate, and evidently northwesterly,
source, and that it proceeded to adjust the data to its own needs
and concepts.
The ultimate inspiration for the Mesopotamian cycle of Flood
narratives can only be a matter of guesswork at this time. Perhaps
the best chance of a likely solution lies in the recent disclosures con­
cerning the geological background of Lower Mesopotamia (cf. J. M.
Lees and N. L. Falcon, “The Geological History of the Mesopota­
mian Plains,” Geographical Journal 118 [1952], 24-39). It now ap­
56 GENESIS

pears that not very long ago, as geological ages are reckoned, waters
from the Persian Gulf submerged a large coastland area, owing prob­
ably to a sudden rise in the sea level. If that rise was precipitated
by extraordinary undersea eruptions, the same phenomenon could
also have brought on extremely heavy rains, the whole leaving an
indelible impression on the survivors. All this, however, must remain
in the realm of speculation.
 9. BLESSING AND COVENANT
(ix 1-17: P)

IX i God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be
fertile and increase and fill the earth. 2 Dread fear of you shall
possess all the animals of the earth and all the birds of the sky—
everything with which the ground is astir—and all the fishes of
the sea: they are placed in your hand. 3 Every creature that is
alive shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did with
the grasses of the field. 4 Only flesh with its lifeblood still in it
shall you not eat. 5 So, too, will I require an accounting for
your own lifeblood: I will ask it of every beast; and of man in
regard to his fellow man will I ask an accounting for human
life.
6 He who sheds the blood of man,
By man shall his blood be shed;
For in the image of God
Was man created.
7 Be fertile, then, and increase,

Abound on earth and subdue® it.”

8 God said to Noah, and to his sons also: 9 “Furthermore,6 I
now establish my covenant with you and with your offspring to
come, 10and with every living being that was with you: birds,
cattle, every wild animal that was with you, all that came out of
the ark—'every living thing on earth.” 11 And I will maintain my
covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by
the waters of a Flood; neither shall there be another Flood to
devastate the earth.
°So LXX (manuscripts), reading uredu, cf. i 28; Heb. urebu (dittography).
6 Literally “And I” (emphatic).

°-c LXX omits.

58 GENESIS

12 “And this,” God said, “is the sign of the covenant that I in­
stitute between me, and you and every living being along with
you, for all ages to come: 13 I have placed my bow in the clouds,
and it shall be the sign of the covenant between me and the
earth. 14 When I bring clouds over the earth, and the bow ap­
pears in the clouds,15 I will recall the covenant which is in force
between me, and you and all living beings comprising all flesh,
so that waters shall not again become a Flood to destroy all
flesh. 16 As the bow appears in the clouds, I will see it and
remember the eternal covenant between me1 and every living
being, comprising all flesh that is on earth. 17 That,” God told
Noah, “shall be the sign of the covenant which I have es­
tablished between me and all flesh that is on earth.”
So LXX; MT has “God.”

Notes

ix 1. The statement begins with one of P's favorite phrases; cf. i 28.
2. Dread fear. Literally “the fear and the dread,” another example of
hendiadys.
is astir. The verbs rmS (cf. i 21) is used here in its broader sense of “to
move, have motion.” In the next verse, the corresponding noun remek is
employed for animal life in general, as a new source of food for man who
will now be carnivorous. The Akk. cognate stem namaSu shares the same
range of meaning.
4. flesh. P's term for “mortals.”
with its lifeblood. Literally “whose blood is in the/its being.”
5. in regard to his fellow man. Literally “from the hand of man his
brother,” i.e., one another. Significantly, the principle that animals are
held accountable for homicide is found also in the Covenant Code, Exod
xxi 28.
7. Abound. The normal sense of Heb. Srs is “to swarm, teem with.”
subdue. Heb. repeats “increase” from the first half of the verse.
9. covenant. On the institution in general see G. E. Mendenhall, BA 17
(1954), 50-76; for the Heb. term see Note on xv 18.
10. The absence of the concluding phrase in LXX may imply a mar­
ginal gloss in MT. Yet such a recapitulation is entirely in order and
should not be automatically ruled out.
11. maintain. Heb. uses here the same stem as in vss. 9 and 17, where
the translation employs “to establish.” The original carries both
ix 1-17 59
meanings; the translation, however, has to distinguish between the
initial act and the subsequent renewals.
15. the covenant which is in force. Literally “my covenant which
is.”
comprising. Literally “in,” i.e., entering into the totality of mortal life
on earth.

Comment

The Flood’s aftermath in this biblical episode is much the same

as in the cuneiform sources. The survivors are treated with solici­
tude and favored with divine blessing (cf. Gilg., Tablet XI, lines
192 ff.). There are also differences, to be sure, but these axe in
keeping with the ways and beliefs of the societies involved. Utna-
pishtim is granted immortality and settles in the region of Dilmun—
or approximately the same general locality that the Bible describes as
“east of Eden” (iv 16). Noah, on the other hand, must remain mor­
tal. The sanctity of all future life is given forceful emphasis, but it is
terrestrial and limited. Man’s food supply, however, may now be
supplemented from the animal kingdom. Finally, the rainbow is in­
troduced as a bright and comforting reminder that the race shall en­
dure, however transient the individual.
 10. NOAH AND HIS SONS
(ix 18-27: /; 28-29: /P/)

DC 18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem,
Ham, and Japheth—Ham being the father of Canaan. 19 These
three were the sons of Noah, and from them the whole world
branched out.
20 Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard.

21He drank of the wine, became drunk, and lay uncovered in­
side the tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father
naked,® and he told it to his brothers outside. 23 Then Shem
and Japheth took a cloth, held it against both their backs and,
walking backward, covered their father’s nakedness; their faces
were turned the other way, so that they did not see their father
naked.
24 When Noah woke up from his wine and learned what his
youngest son had done, 25 he said,
“A curse on Canaanl
The lowest of slaves
Shall he be to his brothers.”
26He went on,
“Blessed be Yahweh,
The God of Shem.
Let Canaan be slave to the others.
27 May God make room6 for Japheth,
That he dwell among the tents of Shem.
And let Canaan be their slave.”
/28 Noah lived 350 years after the Flood. 29 All the days of
Noah came to 950 years; then he died./
° LXX adds “he came out.”
6 Heb. yapt, a play on the name Yepet “Japheth.”
i x 18-29 61

Notes

ix 18. Ham being the father of Canaan. The apparent purpose of this
remark is to relate Ham to the subsequent curse against Canaan.
20. was the first to plant a vineyard. If MT intended to say “Noah
was the first man of the soil” (as it is generally taken to mean), we
should expect hehel lihydt, exactly as in x 8. Moreover, Cain had been
introduced as the first farmer (iv 2). Thus both text and context require
the translation here offered, which is entirely consistent with Heb. idio­
matic usage. The present notice harks back to v 29, with its reference
to the fruits of the soil.
22. saw his father naked. Literally “saw his father’s nakedness.” The
specific reference is to the pudenda; see the various injunctions in Lev
xviii 6ff. The term itself relates to exposure (cf. xlii 9, 12) and does not
necessarily imply sexual offenses; cf. ii 25 and Exod xx 26.
25. The lowest of slaves. Literally “slave of slaves,” one of the Heb.
ways to express the superlative. The phrase points evidently to the
inferior social and political status of Canaanites. Was this an accom­
plished fact at the time of composition, or is the allusion no more than
a wishful projection into the future, as the context would seem to
suggest?
26. One expects this blessing to be aimed at Shem rather than
Yahweh; hence various changes m the pointing have been proposed.
Nevertheless, the ancient versions support the received text, which does
not lack champions among modem critics (cf. von Rad, p. 114),
28-29. This postscript from the hand of P supplements the list in ch.
v, if it does not indeed belong there directly after v 32

Comment

This short piece constitutes a link between /’s account of the

Flood and the same author’s version of the Table of Nations in
ch. x. It may even go back all the way to v 29, where the name
Noah was explained as that of the patriarch who was destined to
wrest comfort out of the very soil which Yahweh had placed under
a ban. The Flood story would then stand out all the more as an
awesome and elemental break in the gradual progress of mankind.
Connecting passages can be puzzling precisely because they are
meant to bridge gaps, and they are usually laconic. We have had
62 GENESIS

one such example in iv 17-24. In the present instance the question

arises whether what we have before us is merely a splinter from a
more substantial narrative. A fuller account, for example» would not
have been likely to telescope Ham and Canaan, as is now the case.
For if it was Ham who was guilty of such disrespect toward his
incapacitated and exposed father, why is Noah’s curse directed at
Canaan (25)? And why is Ham spoken of as the youngest son in
vs. 24, whereas vs. 18 lists him as the second of three? Have two
divergent traditions been fused, or was Canaan the original offender?
At all events, the moral of the story is actually aimed at Canaan
and, by extension, at the Canaanites. And the burden of it is not so
much to justify an accomplished political fact, as it is to stigmatize
distasteful practices on the part of the older inhabitants of the land.
The passage thus supplies more questions than answers. One
point, however, is abundantly clear: the background is distinctly
local, in marked contrast with the bulk of Primeval History, for
which the ultimate inspiration came from Mesopotamia.
To come back briefly to the villain of this tale, the explicit order
of the sons of Noah, which indicates age, is invariably Shem-Ham-
Japheth; see v 32, vi 10, vii 13, ix 18, x 1. Accordingly, one is not
prepared for the notation in 24 that Ham was the youngest. At most,
he should have been called “the younger,” but Hebrew cannot be
forced to yield this meaning. Two possible explanations suggest
themselves: (1) the passage before us derives from a different tradi­
tion, one in which either Ham or Canaan was cited as the third son
of Noah; this is the view of most modem critics. (2) The statement
refers not to Noah’s youngest son, but Ham’s; and on the evidence
of x 6, that individual was Canaan. This view is expressed already
in the commentary of Ibn Ezra (twelfth century) ad loc. Ham
himself, then, would be the offended party, and his son Canaan
the perpetrator of some base deed, the details of which were either
accidentally lost or deliberately suppressed. The omission led in turn
to the disturbed text that is now before us. It can be seen that both
views leave much to be desired. The problem remains unresolved.
No less perplexing in its own way is the statement that Japheth
shall dwell in the tents of Shem (27). This must allude to some
form of co-operation between the two groups, with Canaan con­
demned to enslavement by both. What, then, is the historical back­
ground of the verse in question? The most likely period that would
seem to fit the conditions here reflected is the turn of the twelfth
i x 18-29 63

century B.C., when the Israelites were struggling against the en­
trenched Canaanites at the same time that the recently arrived
Philistines were trying to consolidate their hold on the coastal strip.
By the end of the eleventh century, the Canaanites were no longer
a major political factor in Palestine, and the advantageous coalition
of Philistines and Israelites gave way to bitter conflict between the
two successors. If these deductions are correct (cf. also A. Van
Seims, OTS 12 [1958], 187), we would have here a criterion for
dating the verses with reasonable accuracy. By the same token,
however, the Japhethites of the present account would differ con­
siderably from their namesakes in the Table of Nations (x 2-5: P).
For by then, the Philistines too had ceased to be a politically signifi­
cant group; and they had been settled long enough to be classed
with the Hamites (x 14).
 11. THE TABLES OF NATIONS
(x 1-32: /?/, J)

X /1 These are the lines of Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and

Japheth, to whom sons were bom after the Flood.
2 Descendants of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan,
Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. 3 Descendants of Gomer: Ash-
kenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah. 4 Descendants of Javan:
Elishah, Tarshish, the Kittim, and the Rodanim.® 5 [These are
the descendants of Japheth],6 and from them branched out the
maritime nations, in their respective lands—each with its own
tongue—by their clans within the nations.
6 Descendants of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan.

7 Descendants of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and

Sabteca. Descendants of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan./
8 Now Cush begot Nimrod, who was the first potentate on
earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter by the will of Yahweh, hence
the saying, “Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter by the will of Yah­
weh.” 10 The mainstays of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech,
and Accad, 'all of them® in the land of Shinar; n from that land
came Asshur. And he built Nineveh, Rehoboth-ir, Calah, 12 and
Resen, between Nineveh and Calah, the latter being the main
city.
13 Mizraim begot the Ludim, the Anamim, the Lehabim, the
Naphtuhim, 14 the Pathrusim, the Casluhim, and the Caph-
torim,tf from whom the Philistines descended.
15 Canaan begot Sidon, his first-born, and Heth; ifi also the
Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites, 17 the Hivites, the
0 So with LXX and I Chron i 7; Heb. Dodanim.
b Accidental omission in MT; cf. vss. 20 and 31.
°~c MT cons, wklnh; see Note.
«•See Note.
x 1-32 65
Arkites, the Sinites, 18 the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the
Hamathites. Later on, the clans of the Canaanites spread out,
19 until the Canaanite borders extended from Sidon all the way

to Gerar, near Gaza, and to Sodom, Gomonrah, Admah, and

Zeboyim, near Lasha. /20 These are the descendants of Ham,
according to their clans and tongues, by their lands and
nations./
21 To Shem for his part—ancestor of all the children of Eber
and Japheth’s older brother—sons were bom. /22 Descendants
of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. 23 De­
scendants of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether, and Mash./
24 Arpachshad begot Shelah, and Shelah begot Eber. 25 Two

sons were bom to Eber: the name of the first was Peleg, because
it was at that time that the world was dispersed6; his brother’s
name was Joktan. 26 Joktan begot Almodad, Sheleph, Hazar-
maveth, Jerah, 27Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, 28Obal, Abimael,
Sheba, 29 Ophir, Havilah, and Jabab; all these were descendants
of Joktan. 30 Their settlements extended from Meshah all the
way to Sephar, the hill country to the east. /31 These are the
descendants of Shem, according to their clans, tongues, and
lands, by their nations.
32 Such are the groupings of Noah’s descendants, according to

their origins, by their lands. And from these branched out other
nations of the world after the Flood./
«See Note.

Notes

x 1. For the ethnic list as a whole cf. my discussion in The Interpreter’s

Dictionary of the Bible, III, 1962, pp. 235 ff.
2. Descendants. Literally “sons,” but the list includes not only ob­
vious eponyms but also outright ethnic names (Kittim, Rodanlm), which
are plurals.
Japheth. The same name is apparently reflected in lapetos (cf. Com­
ment on Sec. 7), who was one of the Titans. It is significant, therefore,
that the descendants of Japheth include the Ionians (Javan, i.e., Yawan)
In general, the Japhethite line may be said to comprise various ethnic
66 GENESIS

groups that were settled at the time in Anatolia, the Aegean region, and
beyond. The principal criterion was geographic. But it so happened that
most of the groups involved were of Indo-European stock, so that the list
becomes ethnogeographic and ethnolinguistic in effect, as is actually in­
dicated in vs. 5.
Gomer. See also Ezek xxxviii 6. These are the Gimirray of the As­
syrians, the Cimmerians of classical sources, a name still in use ap­
parently for the Welsh (Cymry).
Magog. This is the land of Gog (Ezek xxxviii 2), who has been com­
pared with Gyges of Lydia, the ruler whose reign coincided with the pe­
riod of Assyrian campaigns against the Cimmerians.
Tubal, Meshech. Both are familiar from Ezekiel (xxvii 13, xxxii 26,
xxxviii 2, xxxix 1) and were located in eastern Anatolia.
Tiras. Probably to be compared with Eg. Tur(u)sha and Gr. Tyrsenoi,
perhaps the Aegean counterpart of the Etruscans.
3. Ashkenaz. Also Jer li 27. The name is evidently connected with
cun. Ashguza “Scythians.”
Togarmah. Cl. Ezek xxvii 14, xxxviii 6; cun. Tegarama, near Car-
chemish (see A. Goetze, Kizzuwatna, 1940, pp. 19 f.).
4. Elishah. Corresponds to cun. Alashiya “Cyprus.”
Rodanim. Inhabitants of the island of Rhodes. The miswritten “Do-
danim” of MT (see textual note °) is readily explained by the graphic
similarity of “D” and “R” in the “square” Heb. script.
Of the two remaining names in this verse,
Kittim is the Kition of the Greeks, which is modem Lamaka, in
Cyprus. In that case,
Tarshish, might be sought, analogously, on the island of Rhodes, or
perhaps in western Anatolia. Yet the usual practice is to adduce Gr.
Tartessos, in Spain (for other occurrences see Ezek xxvii 12; Isa lxvi
19; Ps lxxii 10; Jon i 3); cf. W. F. Albright, BASOR 83 (1941), 21 f.,
for a namesake in Sardinia. The biblical name may well refer to more
than one place.
5. maritime nations. Literally “the isles (or ‘coastlands’) of the nations.”
6. Cush. This geographic term is used in the Bible for two widely sepa­
rated lands whose names happen to be similar by coincidence: (1)
Ethiopia, as here. (2) Cossaea, the country of the Kassites, as in vs. 8,
below, and ii 13; see Comment on Sec. 2). The present combination of
Ethiopia, Egypt (Mizraim), and
Put, which is either Punt, or Libya (JNES 2 [1943], 309), corresponds
thus to ethnolinguistic facts.
Canaan. In a strictly linguistic sense, the term designates a people
who spoke a language that was closely related to Heb., or some specifi­
cally the Phoenicians. And indeed, vs. 15 (/) lists Sidon as the first-born
x 1-32 67

son of Canaan. Moreover, Isa xix 18 calls Hebrew (but on other

ground) “the tongue of Canaan.” For the earliest uses and background
of this term attention may be called to my paper in Language 12 (1936),
121-26; the cun. occurrences have recently been increased by instances
from Alalakh. In these circumstances, the subsuming of Canaan under
Hamites appears at first to be strange. The solution is to be sought ap­
parently in geographic and political connection rather than in ethno-
linguistic relations.
7. The list proceeds now from the African to the Asiatic side of the
Red Sea; on Dedan see especially W. F. Albright, Festschrift Albrecht
Alt, 1953, pp. 1-12. The combination of Cush and Havilah is known also
from ii 11, 13, in the context of the rivers of Eden. There, however, the
locale is the head of the Persian Gulf, and the Cush in question is het­
erogeneous.
8-12. These five verses constitute a fragment from, or a summary of,
an account dealing with the exploits of Nimrod. The immediate source is
readily identified as /; note the repeated mention of Yahweh in 9. The
piece owes its position to the occurrence of the other Cush in vss. 6-7,
and the same circumstance has contributed to the confusion that has long
centered about the figure of Nimrod.
8. potentate. Literally “mighty man, hero.” The allusion, however, is
political, as can be seen from 10-12; the effect is that of “mighty con­
queror.”
9. by the will of Yahweh. See Note on vi 11.
10. mainstays. Heb. re'Sit, which has been translated regularly as
“beginning,” or the like. Yet three ancient and authentic capitals cannot
all have been the beginning of a famous ruler’s career. One need not
look farther than Jer xlix 35 to find the same noun in the sense of
“mainstay (of their might)”—and so actually rendered in modem
translations.
all of them. The cons, text is pointed wekalneh “and Calneh,” but no
such south Babylonian city, let alone capital, is attested in cun. records; it
should be noted that the mention of Accad points up the soundness of the
source, since that city, while most important at one time, had lost is pre­
eminence as far back as the end of the third millennium. Accordingly, the
repointing of Heb. to kullana(h), which is known independently from xlii
36, has everything in its favor (cf. W. F. Albright, JNES 3 [1944],
254 f.).
Shinar. The biblical counterpart of cun. Sumer(u) “Sumer”; see xi 2,
xiv 1.
11. from that land came Asshur. The transition would be smoother if
the clause read “from that land he went forth to Ashur”; but this would
make for awkward syntax. At any rate, it was obviously Nimrod and not
some ruler by the name of Ashur who went on to found the Assyrian
68 GENESIS

centers that are here listed. The debt of Assyria to Sumer is, of course, an
established cultural fact.
Rehoboth-ir. In all likelihood, this is not a city name but a phrase
which describes Nineveh as a city of broad streets; the Gilgamesh Epic
speaks analogously, and repeatedly, of Vruk-rebitu “Uruk of the spacious
markets,” the Akk. epithet being actually a cognate of Heb. r*hdb (singu­
lar). The prepositional we’et could just as readily express “namely” as a
serial accusative.
12. Resen. No such place of suitable prominence has as yet been
identified in that particular region. This entry, too, may have served origi­
nally as a parenthetic description rather than an additional place name.
Some impressive engineering or military construction, perhaps some kind
of water works (*reS eni, which would become resen in Heb.) might
have inspired such a comment. The next-named place actually lay at the
confluence of the Tigris and the Upper Zab.
Calah. There is no question about the importance or impressive appear­
ance of this place, Akk. Kalfru. The city was built, interestingly enough
(cf. Comment), by Shalmaneser I, father of Tukulti-Ninurta I. It was a
major center in the days of Tiglath-pileser I (at the end of the twelfth
century), and Ashumasirpal II (884—859 B.C.) made it the capital of As­
syria. Its palaces and temples have yielded enormous treasure to several
generations of excavators. It is suggestive, moreover, in the present con­
text that the modem name of the site is Nimrud.
the latter being the main city. When this was committed to writing (by
J. hence not later than the tenth century), Calah certainly outranked
Nineveh in political importance. The final clause, therefore, should apply
to Calah, as the word order of MT demands, and not to Nineveh, as is
commonly assumed.
13-14. All the names in these two verses have the plural form in Am,
thereby emphasizing the ethnic character of the entries.
13. the Ludim. Although mentioned elsewhere (Isa lxvi 19; Jer xlvi 9;
Ezek xxvii 10, xxx 5), they are yet to be identified. Described sometimes
as mercenaries, the Ludim could have been recruited from distant parts;
cf. “Lud” in vs. 22. Similar uncertainty characterizes some of the other
listings in this portion of the Table.
14. the Pathrusim. Based on Eg. “the people of the south land,” i.e.,
Upper Egypt; see Isa xi 11; Jer xliv 1, 15; Ezek xxix 14, xxx 14.
the Caphtorim. Since Caphtor, evidently “Crete,” is recorded as the
home or staging center of the Philistines (Deut ii 23; Amos ix 7; Jer xlvii
4), the clause “from whom the Philistines issued/descended” cannot be
applied to the preceding Casluhim, as the word order of MT indicates,
and should be transposed to the end of the verse.
x 1-32 69
the Philistines. If origin had been the criterion (see above), this
people should have been listed among the “maritime nations” descended
from Japheth (vs. 5). But that part of the record stems from P, whereas
the present notice derives from J. Since the historic Philistines were
settled along the coastal approaches to Egypt, the classification here
given is evidently geographic. It is worthy of special mention that the
Philistines are never mentioned with the stereotyped groups of pre-
Israelite nations (e.g., xv 19 f.). This reflects sound chronology inasmuch
as the Philistine invasion occurred in the twelfth century, by which time
the Israelites had already been settled in the land.
15. Heth. The indicated family relationship between “Hittites” and
Phoenicians (Sidon) would be cause for surprise only if the Table
of Nations, or its J section in any case, set out to offer ethnolinguistic
data. What the present passage is saying depends, of course, on the
meaning of the term Heth: does this name describe the pre-Indo-
European Hattians, the “Hittites” of ca. 1450-1200 B.C., or the Hur-
rians? In favor of the last-named connection is the fact that by the
middle of the second millennium the population of Syria and north-
central Palestine was largely a mixture of Semitic and Human elements.
The present notice might well reflect just such a condition. It may be
noted in passing that LXX and MT between them confuse Hurrians,
Hittites, and Hivites more than once. Cf. also Ezekiel’s reference to
Jerusalem, “Your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite”
(Ezek xvi 3); see further the Comment on xxiii.
16-18. These verses can be distinguished at a glance from the rest
of the Table inasmuch as all the names which they list are formal
ethnica (with the adjectival suffix -i). On this and other counts the pas­
sage is considered to be a later addition, perhaps by Jl(edactor). Some
of the names remain obscure and are passed over without comment.
16. the Jebusites. The ruling Human element in Jerusalem during the
Amama age (ca. 1400 B.C.).
the Amorites. Cun. Amurri2, a West Semitic group related to, but not
identical with, the Canaanites. In the Bible, these two designations vary
considerably depending on the documentary source.
17. the Hivites. See above, under Heth.
18. the Arvadites. So named after a town built on an island off the
northern coast of Phoenicia; it is familiar also from Assyrian historical
records.
19. all the way. Literally “as you come,” in an impersonal sense.
21-31. The line of Shem, as recorded by both J and P. P continues
his list in xi 18-27.
21. the children of Eber. They are singled out for special attention
70 GENESIS

and cited in more detail in 24-30. Eber is the eponymous ancestor of

the Hebrews. On the complex question of possible connection between
Hebrews and the extra-biblical JJapiru or yabira, see J. Bottéro (éd.),
Le problème des ffabiru, 1954, and M. Greenberg, The fjab/piru, 1955.
22. Elam. Eastern neighbor and traditional rival of Mesopotamian
states since the dawn of history. The name reflects the native term
flaltam(tu); see A. Poebel, AJSL 48 (1931), 20ff. The Elamite language
is not related to Semitic, Sumerian, Human, or Indo-European. The
present grouping under Shem is due to political and geographic con­
siderations.
Arpachshad. This name (also in xi 10 ff.) continues to defy linguistic
analysis. As the father of Eber, Arpachshad should be transparently
Semitic, yet such is certainly not the case. The name has often been
compared with cun. Arrapfra (modern Kirkuk); but the cons, trans­
literated as ch (spirantized k) does not correspond to b; and the last
two letters would remain unaccounted for. To be sure, the first part
of the name could reflect Human Arip-, which is a common element
in personal names; but the rest would not be a demonstrably Hurrian
component. The best that one can say today is that Arpachshad, if
correctly transmitted, has to be regarded as non-Semitic. This would fit
well enough with what we know today about the composite ethnic
background of the Hebrews; but could the ancient source be credited
with such knowledge? For the present, at any rate, the problem appears
to be insoluble.
Lud. See vs. 13. Here the name seems to point to the Lydians of
Anatolia. If it was homogeneous with Ludim, the duplication might be
due to the circumstance that the earlier passage goes back to J, whereas
this one stems from P.
Aram. Eponymous ancestor of the Aramaeans, the most widespread
of all the Semitic groups. Speakers of Aramaic (or Syriac) dialects are
still to be found in Syria, the region of Mosul, and in the mountains of
Kurdistan.
25. Nothing is said here about the descendants of Peleg because his
genealogy, starting with Arpachshad, is taken up in detail later on (by
P, xi). There can be little doubt that J, too, had something to say about
it at this point, but his data were later omitted in view of the detailed
statement by P (who ignores Joktan altogether).
was dispersed. Heb. niplega, literally “divided, broke up,” wordplay
on Peleg; for the meaning cf. ix 19.
26-30. J’s list of Joktan’s descendants, consisting of various Arabian
tribes. Hazarmaveth is modern Hadramaut, in southern Arabia. Sheba
(which duplicates P’s entry in vs. 7) is located in the Yemen, and
Ophir points to the east coast of Arabia. Finally, Havilah (29) is the
x 1-32 71
same place as the one in xxv 18, and perhaps in vs. 7, above. But the
entry in ii 11 is manifestly a different locality, associated with the Kassite
homophone of Cush, whereas the present passage and more particularly
vs. 7 are linked with the South Arabian and Ethiopian Cushites.

Comment

The Table of Nations, as we now have it, is devoted specifically to

matters of ethnographic import. The various groups may be traced to
individuals in certain instances, yet their collective character is
plainly indicated by the frequent plural forms (4, 13 f.), and still
more so by gentilic adjectives (16—18). The Table incorporates ma­
terial from both / and P; the sections attributed to P have been set
off by means of diagonals. P’s list, in particular, was conceived as a
catalogue of states, as opposed to tribal units. Hence the summaries
stress the term gdy “nation” (5, 20, 31, 32), whereas 'am does not
occur at all; on the far-reaching difference between the two, see JBL
79 (1960), 157—63. Subsidiary criteria of classification include
country, language, and ethnic affinities (cf. the verses just cited).
The whole is thus noteworthy for its wide scope and analytical ap­
proach. As such, the Table stands out as a pioneering effort among
the ethnographic attempts of the ancient world.
The fact, however, that the Table shows a keen awareness of the
need for method does not guarantee correct results in the light of
modem findings. Although modem scholarship continues to operate
with the traditional terms “Semitic” and “Hamitic,” the current
groupings depart considerably from those that are given in the Table.
This is largely because the modem principle of classification is
strictly linguistic, whereas the Bible employs several criteria concur-
rendy, which cannot lead to uniform results. Thus, for example, the
Canaamtes and the “Hittites” are listed with Hamites on grounds
that are partly political and partly geographic; yet all three are lin­
guistically distinctive.
Another source of confusion is bound up with the composite char­
acter of the Table. The Japhethite group as recorded by P is not
later than the seventh century B.C., since it was known to Jeremiah
and Ezekiel, directly or indirectly. Yet much of the same informa­
tion is too late for J’s times. Small wonder, therefore, that J appears
to identify Japheth with the Philistines (see Comment on Sec. 10),
72 GENESIS

whom P does not even mention. The Philistines, in turn, are rela­
tives of the Egyptians (13—14), according to J; in P, however, Egypt
is grouped with Canaan (6) under Ham, and hence is kept apart
from Japheth.
The omission of Peleg’s descendants from the Table may appear
surprising at first glance, inasmuch as Peleg was the direct ancestor
not only of the Israelites, but also of the Ammonites, Moabites, and
Edomites. Verse 25 (/), where this elder son of Eber is cited, breaks
off abruptly, and what follows is a detailed list of the descendants
of Joktan, who was Peleg’s younger brother. In all likelihood, how­
ever, the / document had originally dealt with Peleg at greater
length, but the details were later left out in favor of P’s parallel
genealogy in xi 18-27. Another noteworthy omission is that of the
Babylonians. The chances are that such an entry was once included
under the Mesopotamian Cush (8ff.), the eponym of the Kassites
who were long-time masters of Babylonia. If this is true, the verses
in question would have to be dated not later (in terms of source
material) than the end of the Kassite period (end of twelfth cen­
tury). For a fuller discussion of these and related problems cf. the
writer’s study on “Ethnic Divisions of Man” in The Interpreter’s Dic­
tionary of the Bible, III, 1962.
On the subject of Nimrod (8—12), I had occasion to write more
fully in a paper entitled “In Search of Nimrod,” Eretz-Israel V
(Mazar Volume, 1958), 32*-36*. Various details have already been
taken up in the Notes ad loc. Here it will suffice to comment only
on the historical model behind the legend. For all his prodigious
deeds, Nimrod is depicted in our passage as a recognizably mortal
ruler. Hence various attempts to trace the name back to the Mesopo­
tamian god Ninurta must be ruled out. The appended detail, more­
over, is obviously authentic. The mention of such celebrated southern
capitals as Babylon, Uruk, and Accad, in the land of Shinar (Sumer
and Babylonia), and of such northern capitals as Calah and
Nineveh, in the land of Ashur, is clear proof of a sound historical
background. The biblical Nimrod is said to have combined effective
authority over both Babylonia and Assyria. The first Mesopotamian
ruler to do so on a solid basis was Tukulti-Ninurta I (thirteenth
century B.C.); he was certainly the first Assyrian conqueror of
Babylonia. Aside from his conquests, this king was celebrated also
for his building activities, and an epic extolling his exploits is one
of the literary legacies of Assyria.
x 1-32 73
Compound Akk. names were often reduced in speech to one of
their components. Indeed, classical sources appear to commemorate
Tukulti-Ninurta I under the legendary figure of Ninus. Post-biblical
sources for their part independendy link Nimrod with Ninus, and
the same identification is quoted in the name of the late Babylonian
historian Berossus. The chain of evidence would thus seem to be
complete.
 12. THE TOWER OF BABEL
(xi 1-9: J)

XI i The whole world had the same language and the same
words. 2 As men migrated from the east, they came upon a valley
in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3 They said to one an­
other, “Come, let us mold bricks and burn them hard.” Brick
served them for stone, and bitumen for mortar. 4 Then they said,
“Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top
in the sky, to make a name for ourselves; else we shall be
scattered all over the world.”
5 Yahweh came down to look at the city and the tower that
the earthlings had built. 6 And Yahweh said, “If this is how
they have started to act, while they are one people with a single
language for all, then nothing that they may presume to do
will be out of their reach. 7 Let me, then, go down and con­
found their speech there, so that they shall not understand one
another’s talk.” 8 Yahweh dispersed them from there over the
whole earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why
it was named Babel, since Yahweh confounded0 the speech
of the whole world, as heb dispersed them from there over the
whole world.
o Heb. balal “mixed, confused,” a wordplay on Babel “Babylon.”
6 Heb. Yahweh.

Notes

xi 1. the same. Heb. uses the adjectival “one” in the plural.

2. Shinar. Cf. x 10.
4. to make a name for ourselves. Cf. Note on vi 4.
5. the earthlings. Literally “sons of man,” as opposed to “man” used
xi 1-9 75
collectively. This lends emphasis to the terrestrial status of man, and his
presumptuous ways.
6. For the protasis with hen and the apodosis with we'atta cf. iv 14.
presume. The Heb. stem zmm denotes “to scheme,” and the like.
7. me. Heb. employs the plural pronoun, apparently because the
subject is understood to be analogous to “God,” which is grammatically
plural; or this may be a plural of majesty. If it were not for the singular
in vs. 5, the present instance could also be interpreted as an allusion to
Yahweh’s celestial staff; see Note on i 26.
talk. Same Heb. noun as “speech (‘lip’)” in the first clause.

Comment

This is an exceptionally significant narrative on two separate

counts. For one thing, the episode points more concretely to Baby­
lonia than does any other portion of Primeval History, and the back­
ground that is here sketched proves to be authentic beyond all ex­
pectations. Yet, for another thing, the author’s handling of his
material is not only independent but critical.
Scholars have been inclined, understandably enough, to trace the
original inspiration of this narrative to one of the celebrated temple
towers of Mesopotamia, preferably Entemenanki, the ziggurat of
Babylon itself. Such an interpretation, however, is ruled out by
chronology. For the towering structure that the Greeks saw and de­
scribed was the final achievement of Nabopolassar and Nebuchad­
nezzar, in the seventh/sixth centuries B.C. It could not have been
known in that very form to J, whose work dates to the tenth cen­
tury, let alone to J’s sources which have to be older still.
What inspired the present biblical theme in the first instance was
not monumental architecture but literary tradition (see the writer’s
statement in Orientalia 25 [1956], 317-23). We need look no far­
ther than the account of the building of Babylon and its temple that
is given in Enuma eliS VI, lines 60-62 (ANET, p. 69). In de­
scribing the construction of Esagila, as the sacred precinct was
called, the Akk. text says: “The first year they molded its bricks
(libittaiu iltabnu). And when the second year arrived / They raised
the head of Esagila toward Apsu.” Apsu is, among other things,
a poetic term for the boundless expanse of the sky conceived as one
of the cosmic sources of sweet water. It so happens, moreover, that
the Sumerian name Esagila means literally “the structure with up­
76 GENESIS §12
raised head.” The Akk. for “they raised its (Esagjla’s) head” (ullu
re$i$u) is merely a play on Esagila. It is to this particular phrase in a
well-known canonical composition, transmitted either directly or in­
directly, that the biblical phrase “with its top (literally ‘head’) in the
sky” obviously harks back. The connection is confirmed by the pre­
ceding clause (vs. 3) “let us build bricks.” In a normal Heb. context
such a reference would be out of place and confusing; it thus called
for an explanatory reference about the building customs of the
Babylonians. As a rendition, however, of an Akk. original, the
remark is self-explanatory. For the ceremonial and year-long prepa­
ration of the sacral bricks and the solemn laying of the first brick
were standard practices bound up with the religious architecture of
Mesopotamia.
Our narrator, however, was concerned with more than learned
quotations from traditional Mesopotamian sources. He employed
these data solely as a basis for his criticism of man’s folly and
presumption, by giving the original statement a strictly literal inter­
pretation. At the same time, the author finds in his quotation a
means for explaining the multiplicity of languages throughout the
world. To that end he makes good use of the flexible and ever popu­
lar tool of sound symbolism or word play (cf. Note on ii 5). It is
immaterial whether this particular juxtaposition of similar, yet unre­
lated, words was first introduced by some Mesopotamian rival of
Babylon, or whether it originated on Palestinian soil. Of far greater
consequence are the positive results: first, that the biblical story
about the Tower of Babel had a demonstrable source in cuneiform
literature; and second, that the narrator utilized this source to an­
swer a perplexing question and point a significant moral. The episode
has thus a twofold bearing on the nature of the comprehensive work
in which it came to be incorporated.
 13. GENEALOGIES FROM SHEM TO ABRAHAM
(xi 10-27, 31-32: P; 28-30: ///)

XI 10 This is the line of Shem:

Shem was 100 years old when he begot Arpachshad, two
years after the Flood. 11 After the birth of Arpachshad, Shem
lived 500 years and begot sons and daughters.
12 At 35 years of age, Arpachshad begot Shelah. 13 After the
birth of Shelah, Arpachshad lived 403 years and begot sons and
daughters.
14 At 30 years of age, Shelah begot Eber. 15 After the birth of
Eber, Shelah lived 403 years and begot sons and daughters.
16 At 34 years of age, Eber begot Peleg. 17 After the birth of
Peleg, Eber lived 430 years and begot sons and daughters.
is At 30 years of age, Peleg begot Reu. 19 After the birth of
Reu, Peleg lived 209 years and begot sons and daughters.
20 At 32 years of age, Reu begot Serug. 21 After the birth of
Serug, Reu lived 207 years and begot sons and daughters.
22 At 30 years of age, Serug begot Nahor. 23 After the birth of
Nahor, Serug lived 200 years and begot sons and daughters.
2 4 At 29 years of age, Nahor begot Terah. 25 After the birth of

Terah, Nahor lived 119 years and begot sons and daughters.
26 And when Terah reached the age of 70, he had begotten
Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
27 This is the line of Terah: Terah begot Abram, Nahor, and
Haran. And Haran begot Lot.
/28 Haran died in the lifetime of his father Terah, in his
native land, in Ur° of the Chaldeans. 29 Abram and Nahor took
wives; the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and that of Nahor’s
°LXX “the land.”
78 GENESIS

wife was Milcah daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah and

Iscah. 30 Sarai was barren; she had no child./
31 Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot son of Haran,
and his daughter-in-law Sarai the wife of his son Abram, and
'’they all left6 Ur of the Chaldeans to move to the land of
Canaan; but when they reached Haran, they settled there. 32 The
days of Terah came to 205 years; Terah died in Haran.
fr-s See Note.

Notes

xi 10. According to x 22, Arpachshad was the third of Shem’s five sons.
His own branch is now singled out as the line to which Abraham
belonged.
12-17. The corresponding notices from J are found in x 24-25.
20. Serug. For the pertinent Mesopotamian city and district of Sarug-
(in the region of Harran) cf. Dr., p. 139.
22. Nahor. For the city of Nahur in the Mari documents, see ARM
XV, p. 130.
26. Cf. v 32. [The two sentences are identical in structure, listing the
patriarch and the age at which he had three sons, who are named, i.e.,
Noah at 500 and his three sons; Terah at 70 and his three sons. NF]
28. in the lifetime of. Literally “upon the face/in the presence of,” cf.
also Num iii 4.
Ur of the Chaldeans. The rendering “land” (for “Ur”) in LXX sug­
gests Heb. ’rs instead of ' ( w ) r . But this variant could have been
influenced by the mention of “land” in the phrase immediately preceding.
As the present passage indicates, the place name is given by J, as well as
P (31), so that the problem involved antedates LXX by many centuries.
29. Nahor marries the daughter of his deceased brother Haran.
Juridically, cases of this kind involve adoption (here of an orphaned
niece) followed by marriage. The pertinent document in Nuzi would be
called tuppi mdrtuti u kallatuti “document of daughter- and daughter-in-
law-ship,” since the husband was also the adoptive father and thereby
father-in-law. Interestingly enough, nothing is said here about the parent­
age of Sarah; cf. the discussion of the wife-sister problem in Secs. 15 and
25. These laconic notices by J presuppose a very ancient tradition pre­
cisely because they seem to be pointless in the present context. To be
sure, it has been argued that the background of Nahor’s wife was
significant on account of Nahor’s son Lot. But what reason could there
xi 10-32 79
be for the inclusion of Iscah, other than the fact that such a tradition
had been handed down to J, who had no choice but to record it?
31. Lot son of Haran. This is not an appositional construction in
Heb. (Lot, the son of Haran) but a serial name (Lot-ien-Haran, Lot-
son-of-Haran, or Lot “Haranson.” Similarly, Milcah-ta/-Haran (30),
and so passim.
they all l e f t . MT literally “and they left with them,” which is obviously
in error; either “he brought them out” (with Sam., LXX, Old Latin,
Vulg.), or “he went with them” (with Syr.) which is idiomatically the
same as “he took them.” All these readings are merely a matter of
vocalization, the original consonantal text (which did not express the
final -ii) remaining unaffected.
Haran. Name of an old and prominent city in Central Mesopotamia,
situated on the left bank of the Balikh, a tributary of the Euphrates;
cun. ffarranu(m), with double -rr- which is still reflected in LXX. The
Heb. form Ifaran, follows the rules of Hebrew phonology. The tradi­
tional transliteration of the place name is not to be confused with the
personal name Haran, Heb. Haran (where the initial consonant is a
different phoneme).
32. The Sam. version gives Terah a total of only 145 years (cf. Acts
vii 4). On this reckoning, the year of Terah’s death would be the same
as that of Abraham’s departure from Haran (cf. Gen xii 4).

Comment

This section resumes the genealogical record that was interrupted

at the end of ch. v. It is again the work of P, except for a brief
but important insert from J (28-30). In the meantime, we have had
other passages from P, notably a distinctive account of the Flood
and a portion of the Table of Nations—passages that are now inter­
posed between segments of the genealogy. It is thus likely that the
genealogical record (or “The Tdleddt”) was once a separate and
continuous work which was broken up in course of time and fitted
into a larger whole.
There can be little doubt today that the material before us is
based in large part on very old traditions, some of which may date
to the period of Abraham himself. This is evident especially from
the name Nahor (attributed to the grandfather and to a brother
of Abraham). As we know now from the Mari records, there was
in the patriarchal age a city by the same name (cun. Nabur) lo­
80 GENESIS

cated in the region of Haran (see Note on 22). Significantly

enough, the population cf Naftur in Mari times included demon­
strably West Semitic elements. Another place name in the same
general area was Sarug-. manifestly analogous with the patriarch
(vs. 20; see Note) who was the father of Nahor the older. Such
borrowings from names of places are, of course, a well-known and
universal practice.
On the other hand, the statistics cited by P do not commend them­
selves as the product of a dependable tradition. On this point, MT,
Sam., and LXX have each their own detailed answers. One can
see at a glance that MT is transparently schematic. Thus Shem was
exactly 100 years old at the birth of Arpachshad, and he went on
living precisely 500 years In turn, both Arpachshad and Shelah sur­
vived the births of their respective oldest sons by identical spans of
just 403 years. And Shelah, Peleg, and Serug were each an even
30 when their first sons were bom. All of this indicates a certain
amount of leveling in so far as numbers were involved. If any
particular system of computation was employed in arriving at these
figures, its nature is no longer apparent.
The mention of Ur of the Chaldeans brings up a problem of a
different kind. The ancient and renowned city of Ur is never ascribed
expressly, in the many thousands of cuneiform records from that site,
to the Chaldean branch of the Aramaean group. The Chaldeans,
moreover, are late arrivals in Mesopotamia, and could not possibly
be dated before the end of the second millennium. Nor could the
Aramaeans be placed automatically in the patriarchal period. Yet
the pertinent tradition was apparently known not only to P (31)
but also to / (28). And even if one were to follow LXX in reading
“land” for “Ur,” the anachronism of the Chaldeans would remain
unsolved.
The one fact beyond serious dispute is that the home of the
patriarchs was in the district of Haran, and not at Ur. According
to xii 1 and 5, Haran was Abraham’s birthplace. The toponymic
models for the names of Abraham’s close relatives have been found
in Central Mesopotamia (see above). And the cultural background
of many of the later patriarchal narratives is intimately tied up with
the Hurrians of Haran and the regions nearby rather than with the
Sumerians and Babylonians in the south. Thus Ur proves to be in­
trusive in this context, however old that intrusion may have been.
How then did such an anachronism originate? Any explanation is
xi 10-32 81
bound to be tenuous and purely conjectural. With these reservations,
the following possibility may be hazarded. Both Ur and Haran were
centers of moon worship, unrivaled in this respect by any other
Mesopotamian city. It is remotely possible, therefore, that this reli­
gious distinction, which was peculiar to Ur and Haran, caused the
two cities to be bracketed together, and then to be telescoped in
later versions, at a time when the Chaldeans had already gained
prominence. At all events, the correction required affects only inci­
dental passages that are no more than marginal footnotes to the his­
tory of the patriarchs. That history starts at Haran (xii 5), as is
evident from its very first episode.
II. THE STORY OF THE PATRIARCHS

A. The Story of Abraham

 14. ABRAHAM’S CALL AND MIGRATION
(xii l-4a, 6-9: /; 4b-5: /P/)

XII i Yahweh said to Abram,

“Go forth from your native land
And from your father’s home
To a land that I will show you.
21 will make of you a great nation,
Bless you, and make great your name,
That “it may be® a blessing.
31 will bless those who bless you,

And curse those6 who curse6 you;

And through you shall bless themselves
All the communities on earth.”
4 Abram went as Yahweh told him, and Lot went with him.
/Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran. 5 Abram took
his wife Sarai, his brother’s son Lot, all the possessions that
they had acquired, and all the persons they had obtained in
Haran. They set out for the land of Canaan and arrived in the
land of Canaan./ 6 Abram traveled in the land as far as the
site0 at Shechem, by the terebinth of Moreh. The Canaanites
were then in the land.
7 Yahweh appeared to Abram and said, “I will give this land
to your offspring.” He built there an altar to Yahweh who had
appeared to him. 8 From there he moved on to the hill country
east of Bethel, where he pitched his tent, with Bethel to the
®-°Reading wehSyS; Heb. wehye (second person).
6 Singular in MT, but plural in some manuscripts and various ancient versions.

«Literally “place.”
86 GENESIS

west and Ai to the east. And he built there an altar to Yahweh

and invoked Yahweh by name. 9 Then Abram journeyed by
stages to the Negeb.

Notes

xii 1. from your native land. Literally “from your land and your
birthplace,” a clear case of hendiadys (cf. i 2).
2. nation. The term is significantly goy, not 'am “people.” For the
important distinction between the two, see JBL 79 (1960), 157 ff. Unlike
‘am, gdy requires a territorial base, since the concept is a political one
(cf. Comment on Sec. 11); note also xvii 20, xviii 18, xxi 13, 18,
xlvi 3; Exod xxxii 10; Num xiv 12; Deut xxvi 5.
that it may be. MT is pointed to yield “and you shall be,” and the
ancient versions concur. Nevertheless, the second person is syntactically
unacceptable; it would have to read *wthayita (Ehrl.). The consonantal
text remains the same either way.
3. shall bless themselves. The Heb. form is often translated “shall be
blessed,” inasmuch as it is Niphal, which is generally, though not always,
passive. There are, however, parallel passages with the Hithpael (see xxii
18, xxvi 4), a form that can be reflexive or reciprocal, but not passive.
What the clause means, therefore, is that the nations of the world will
point to Abraham as their ideal, either in blessing themselves (Dr.),
or one another (Ehrl.). The passive, on the other hand, would imply
that the privileges to be enjoyed by Abraham and his descendants shall
be extended to other nations. The distinction may be slight on the sur­
face, yet it is of great consequence theologically. Nor may one disre­
gard the evidence from linguistic usage.
communities. Heb. miSpaha is generally translated as “family.” Its
basic meaning, however, is demonstrably “category, class, subdivision.”
The accent here is on political communities; “families” would be ex­
pressed by 'amme-; cf. xxviii 3.
4b-5. A brief insert that is typical of P in emphasis and phraseology.
6. the site at Shechem. Not the city as such but a venerated spot
within it or nearby, which owed its local prominence to a certain tree
(see below). The ancient city by that name, modern Tell Balatah, gave
way to Flavia Neapolis, modern Nablus.
terebinth. LXX, followed by various later translators, renders “oak,”
here and elsewhere; but the best technical evidence favors "terebinth”;
see Encyclopaedia Biblica (Heb.) I, 294 f. It is worth noting that TO
renders “plain,” evidently to avoid the pagan implications of a sacred
tree.
 87
xii 1-9
Moreh. Tradition regards this as a personal name. The original mean­
ing, however, was probably “guiding, oracular ; LXX renders lofty ,
similarly Vulg. Note the pertinent “Soothsayers’ terebinth m Judg ix 3 .
The Canaanites were then in the land. Iliis brief sentence played a
large part in the early history of biblical criticism. The famous medieval
Jewish commentator Abraham Ibn Ezra states guardedly that this state­
ment could not have been written by Moses, since it implies that the
situation had changed in the meantime; it can hardly mean that the
Canaanites were already in the land at that time (cf. his comment on
Deut i 5). Ibn Ezra concludes by remarking, “there is a my®te^' «ere,
but the wise had best keep silent.” See I. Husik, JAOS 55 ( ),

S lP Bethel. Modem Beitin, 10 miles north of Jerusalem, with Ai,

modem et-Tell, close by. For the archaeological problem of these two
sites, and the possible interchange of their names at certain times, see
G E Wright, Biblical Archaeology, 1959, pp 31 f
invoked Yahweh by name. Cf. iv 26 and Comment ad loc.
9. the Negeb. Literally “dry land,” a geographic term for the southern
part of Palestine.

Comment

The fundamental significance of this brief passage was stressed

in the Introduction. The first three verses signal the beginning of
the integral history of a particular group as opposed to background
episodes in the prehistory of the race as a whole. The story com­
mences with one individual, and extends gradually to his family,
then to a people, and later still to a nation. Yet it is not to be the
tale of individuals or a family or a people as such. Rather, it is to be
the story of a society in quest of an ideal. Abraham’s call, in short,
marks the very beginning of the biblical process.
There was nothing in the preceding accounts to prepare us for
Abraham’s mission. P had done no more than trace the Pelegite
genealogy down to Abraham, whom he left in Haran. / had noted
a few meager details about Abraham’s immediate family. Now, how­
ever, with startling suddenness, a call comes to Abraham, bidding
him to pull up stakes and leave for a destination as yet undisclosed.
The mandate means a complete break with Abrahams immediate
environment. The spiritual objective of the journey is implicit at the
outset; it is to be confirmed time and again in the narratives that
88 GENESIS

follow. Nor were later generations in doubt on this point. The cause
is summed up succinctly in Josh xxiv 2: “They had served other
gods.”
Abraham’s journey to the Promised Land was thus no routine
expedition of several hundred miles. Instead, it was the start of an
epic voyage in search of spiritual truths, a quest that was to consti­
tute the central theme of all biblical history. The all-important com­
mencement is recorded by /, who introduces it fittingly with the im­
perative “Go forth.” A brief insert by P (4b-5) shows that this
source, too, was aware of the epochal bearing of the event, but could
add nothing of moment to J’s account
 15. ABRAHAM AND SARAH IN EGYPT
(xii 10-20: /)

XII 10 There was a famine in the land; so Abram went down

to Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine in the land was severe.
11 As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai,
“Look, I know what a beautiful woman you are. 12 When the
Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘She is his wife!' And they will
kill me, but let you live. 13 Please, say therefore that you are my
sister, so that it may go well with me on account of you and
that I may retain my life thanks to you.”
14 When Abram entered Egypt, the Egyptians saw how
very beautiful the woman was. 15 And when Pharaoh’s courtiers
saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh, and the woman was taken
into Pharaoh’s household. 16 And on account of her it went
very well with Abram, and he came to own sheep and cattle
and he-asses, male and female slaves, she-asses and camels.
17 But Yahweh afflicted Pharaoh and his household with
extraordinary plagues, because of Abram’s wife Sarai. ^ Then
Pharaoh summoned Abram and said, “See what you have done
to me! Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? 19 Why
did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her for my wife?
Now, here is your wife. Take her and be gone!”
20 Then Pharaoh put men in charge of him, and they sent
him on his way, with his wife and all his possessions.
90 GENESIS

Notes

xii 10. went down. Heb. regularly describes travel from Palestine to
Egypt as “going down,” and the reverse trip as “going up,” because of the
respective elevations of the two countries.
Egypt. With the mention of this land so soon after its parting glance at
Mesopotamia, the very first chapter on patriarchal history has something
to say about the two great centers that were always to loom large in bibli­
cal thought.
to sojourn. Heb. giir describes residence that is limited in duration,
privileges, or both; cf. xix 9.
11. / know. MT (consonants) yd'ty, normally first person perfect. It is
worth noting, however, that Sam. has ’ty for the customary ’t “thou
(feminine)” at the end of the verse. It is thus possible that the verb
before us was similarly written as an archaic second person with final
-y, as is actually the case in Judg v 7. If so, the sense would be “you
are well aware that you are beautiful,” which would suit the context
admirably.
beautiful. Here “comely of appearance,” as compared with the simple
adjective in vs. 14. The companion phrase is “comely of figure,” e.g., xxix
17. Apocryphal literature had much to say about Sarah’s exceptional
beauty; cf. especially Gen. Apocr., column xx.
12. let. . . live. Piel, or factitive, form in Heb. The Hiphil of this verb
is often intransitive, cf. vi 19 f. “to stay alive.”
15. courtiers. Not necessarily “princes,” as Heb. Sar(im) is usually
translated, but dignitaries, high officers of the crown.
household. Heb. bayit, normally “house,” but often also home, palace,
family, and the like.
16. it went very well. Here Heb. employs the intransitive Hiphil (cf.
Note on vs. 12) with emphatic connotation; in vs. 13 the verb appears in
its simple stem.
The list of Abraham’s acquisitions appears to have been subjected to
some reshuffling in the course of transmission, as is indicated by the sepa­
ration of he-asses and she-asses. The mention of camels, moreover, al­
though by no means isolated in the patriarchal narratives (see xxiv 10),
is chronologically suspect, since camels did not become an economic fac­
tor until the end of the second millennium. The author may thus be guilty
of an anachronism. Alternatively, the camel may have come into limited
use at an earlier time (as did also the horse), but required centuries be­
fore it ceased to be a luxury.
xii 10-20 91
17. extraordinary. Literally “great”; but when the adjective describes
unusual phenomena, it has the sense of “strange, wondrous, awesome.”
18. Heb. mah-zot is not “what is this?” but merely the interrogative
indefinite reinforced by a determinative pronoun emphatically applied.
For the unaugmented form with the same verb see iv 10.
20. It is characteristic of this author that he does not indulge in
justification or face-saving; contrast xx 11 if. (£). Abraham does not
open his mouth in self-defense. For all that J knew, Abraham had no
defense. His silence is a most effective dramatic touch, given the facts
that the author had. That he did not have all the facts is another matter
altogether; see Comment.

Comment

The present account is one of three closely related narratives, the

other two being xx 1-18 (E) and xxvi 6-11 (/). The three together
have an important bearing on the documentary hypothesis, as was
pointed out in the Introduction; see also Comment on Sec. 25. Of
much broader significance, however, is the joint evidence of these
narratives in regard to patriarchal traditions in general. I have
presented the material in due technical detail in a paper entitled
“The Wife-Sister Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives”; cf. p. XL,
fn. 10. The matter was also broached in the Introduction, although
in a different context. The following is a summary of the salient
points.
All three passages give essentially the same story: a patriarch visits
a foreign land in the company of his wife. Fearing that the woman’s
beauty might become a source of danger to himself as the husband,
the man resorts to the subterfuge of passing himself off as the
woman’s brother.
This recurrent wife-sister theme in Genesis has been the subject
of innumerable comments and speculations. Interpreters through the
ages have found the material both puzzling and disturbing. This is
not surprising in the light of the data that are now available. For it
can be shown on internal grounds that the narrators themselves
were no longer aware of the full import of their subject matter. The
pertinent customs were peculiar to Hurrian society and practiced in
such centers as Har(r)an, where Western Semites, from whom the
patriarchs branched out, lived in closest cultural symbiosis with
Hurrians. On Palestinian soil, however, these exotic customs gradu­
 ** GENESIS § 15

ally lost their original meaning. Tradition retained the details but
their import Small wonder that they came to be reinterpreted in t
light of local circumstances and practices.
In Human society the bonds of marriage were strongest and mo
solemn when the wife had simultaneously the juridical status of a
s*ster, regardless of actual blood ties. This is why a man would
sometimes many a girl and adopt her at the same time as his sister
in two separate steps recorded in independent legal documents. Vi
lations of such sistership arrangements were punished more sever
than breaches of marriage contracts. The practice was apparently
reflection of the underlying fratriardhal system, and it gave the ad
tive brother greater authority than was granted the husband. By t
same token, the adopted sister enjoyed correspondingly greater pr
tection and higher social status. Indeed, the wife-sister relationship
is attested primarily among the upper strata of Human society. It
goes without saying that a blood brother had automatically the sam
kind of authority over his sister when the father died; cf. xriv 55 If
And when a brother, whether natural or adoptive, gave his sister i
marriage, the law regarded the woman as a wife-sister in such case
as well.
It is worth stressing that these particular wife-sister customs wer
peculiar to the Humans—and hence also to groups that took over
Human practices. There is not a trace of such usage among the
Akkadians, and it was expressly stigmatized by the Hittites, who
otherwise had so much culturally in common with the Humans. Th
institution of the levirate affords no parallel whatsoever, since it is
solely concerned with maintaining the line of a deceased brother.
Nor can that institution be compared with the brother-sister mar­
riages of the ruling houses of Egypt, and later those of Persia and
certain Hellenistic states, for the Human practice extended also to
women who were sisters by law but not by blood.
To return to our three narratives, the wife-sister theme is con­
fined here to two successive generations, those of Abraham and
Isaac. In the case of Abraham, we find a few laconic notices about
his family in xi 27-30. His brother Nahor married Milcali, who was
the daughter of a younger brother named Haran. Under the law of
such Human centers as $arran and Nafcur, a marriage of this type
would carry with it the wife-sister provisions. We have fewer de­
tails in regard to Sarah, except that xx 12 (E) describes her in­
directly as the daughter of Terah, but not by Abraham’s own moth
xii 10-20
This alone would make Sarah eligible for “sistership” status under
the law of the land from which Abraham had set out on his journey
to Canaan, with all the attendant safeguards and privileges which
that law afforded.
In Isaac’s case, the situation is appreciably clearer. Not only was
Rebekah a native of Hurrian-dominated Har(r)an, but she was ac­
tually given as wife to Isaac, through an intermediary, by her
brother Laban. As a matter of fact, the details as recorded in xxiv
53-61 are remarkably like a transcript of a Human “sistership” doc­
ument (see Comment ad loc.). There are thus sufficient grounds
for placing the two marriages, those of Abraham and Sarah and of
Isaac and Rebekah, in the wife-sister category.
The problem of the biblical accounts under discussion narrows
down, therefore, to the question of how this material was under­
stood by the narrators. Tradition had apparently set much store by
these incidents, but the key to them had been lost somewhere in
the intervening distances of time and space. In such circumstances,
an interpretation was bound to be improvised, one that would be
in keeping with more familiar conditions and with common human
inclinations. It is not surprising, therefore, that the indicated re­
course to half-truth, if not outright deception, was just so much
anachronism.
We have, of course, no way of telling what really happened on
those visits to Egypt and Gerar, assuming that they did take place.
A plausible guess, however, may not be amiss. Both Abraham and
Isaac were married to women who enjoyed a privileged status by
the standards of their own society. It was the kind of distinction that
may well have been worthy of emphasis in the presence of their
royal hosts, since it enhanced the credentials of the visitors. Status
has always played a role in international relations, as far back as
available records can take us. But popular lore has seldom been in­
ternationally oriented.
Lastly, why was tradition so interested in the matter, enough so
to dwell on it repeatedly? We know now that the wife-sister posi­
tion was a mark of cherished social standing. This kind of back­
ground would be an implicit guarantee of the purity of the wife’s
descendants. The ultimate purpose of biblical genealogies was to es­
tablish the superior strain of the line through which the biblical
way of life was transmitted from generation to generation. In other
words, the integrity of the mission was to be safeguarded in trans­
94 GENESIS

mission, the purity of the content protected by the quality of the

container. This is why the antecedents of the wife—the mother of
the next generation—in the formative early stages were of particu­
lar significance. Hence, too, all such notices would be obligatory en­
tries in the pertinent records.
 16. LOT’S SEPARATION FROM ABRAHAM
(xiii 1-18: J, /P/)

Xm i From Egypt Abram went up to the Negeb, with his

wife, all his possessions, and Lot. 2 Now Abram was very rich
in livestock, silver, and gold. 3From the Negeb he went by
stages toward Bethel, to the place between Bethel and Ai where
his tent had stood formerly— 4 the site of the altar that he had
built there the first time; and there he invoked Yahweh by name.
5 Lot, who accompanied Abram, also had flocks and herds
and tents. /6 The land could not support them if they re­
mained together, for their wealth was abundant, so that they
could not stay together./ 7 There were disputes between the
herdsmen of Abram’s stock and those of Lot’s stock. The coun­
try was occupied at the time by Canaanites and Perizzites.
8 So Abram said to Lot, “Let there be no strife between you
and me, and between your herdsmen and mine, for we are kins­
men. 9 Is not all the land open to you? Then separate from me:
if it is to the left, I will go to the right; and if it is to the right,
then I will go to the left.” 10 Lot looked about and saw how
thoroughly watered was the whole Jordan Plain, all the way
to Zoar—this was before Yahweh had destroyed Sodom and
Gomorrah—like Yahweh’s own garden, or like the land of Egypt.
11 So Lot chose for himself the whole Jordan Plain, and set

out eastward. /Thus they separated from each other: I2 Abram

remained in the land of Canaan, and Lot settled amidst the
cities of the Plain,/ pitching his tents near Sodom. 13 Now
the inhabitants of Sodom were very wicked sinners against
Yahweh.
14 After Lot had parted, Yahweh said to Abram, “Glance
96 GENESIS

about you and from where you are look to the north and south,
to the east and west; 15 for all the land that you can see I give
to you and to your offspring forever. 161 will make your offspring
like the dust of the earth, so that if one could count the dust
of the earth, then your offspring too might be counted. 17 Up,
walk in the land, through its length and breadth, for I give it to
you.”
18 Abram then moved his tent and proceeded to settle near
the terebinths’* of Mamre, which are at Hebron. There he
built an altar to Yahweh.
0 Singular in LXX and Syr.; so too in xiv 13, xviii 1.

Notes

xiii 2. rich in. Literally “weighty with."

livestock. Literally “acquisitions,” specialized to denote domestic ani­
mals. The passage describes the patriarchs as pastoral folk, in full agree­
ment with xlvi 32, 34, xlvii 3; see Note on xxxiv 10.
6. An insert from P, in common with llb-12a.
7. Canaanites and Perizzites. One of the shorter descriptions of the
pre-Israelite nations of Palestine; see also xxxiv 30; Judg i 4f. The
shortest cites the Canaanites alone (xii 6); the longest gives ten names
(xv 19 f.). In the present combination, the Perizzites comprise all the
groups that are not subsumed under the Canaanites. The specific con­
notation and derivation of the term remain obscure. The clause as a
whole appears to point up the dangers of dissension among Abraham’s
followers at a time when the land was ruled by others.
8. between you and me. So in conformance with English usage; the
order in MT is reversed.
9. open to you. Literally “before you,” i.e., at your disposal, for
you to choose from.
left . . . right. Also “north . . . south.” But the more specific direc­
tional names are cited in vs. 14, so that their equivalents have here been
given their primary meanings. The first alternatives are construed ad­
verbially, and are governed by “separate”; the others are expressed by
cognate verbs.
10. Plain. Not “Circle,” as the Heb. is often translated, since “the
Circle of the Jordan” would be difficult to justify topographically. The
Heb. noun kikkar is used for the typical flap of bread, as well as the
xiii 1-18 97
weight known as “talent.” Both objects are round as well as flat. Here,
however, it was evidently the latter feature that influenced the geographic
application.
all the way to Zoar. MT has this phrase at the end of the verse, which
may imply a marginal gloss or a measure of stylistic flexibility.
12. near. Necessarily not “as far”; for this force of the Heb. particle see
H. L. Ginsberg, BASOR 122 (1951), 12ff.; cf. x 19.
13. wicked sinners. Literally “wicked and sinful” (hendiadys).
14. From the heights of Bethel large stretches of Palestine are open to
view; cf. F. M. Abel, Géographie de la Palestine, I, 1933, p. 372, and
Gen. Apocr., column xxviii.
17. walk. On the Heb. form see Note on v 22. A close Akk. parallel,
both in form and content, is found in Gilg., Tablet XI, line 303. In both
instances, a tour of inspection is involved.
18. the terebinths of Mamre. Probably not to be compared with “the
terebinth of Moreh,” xii 6, even though LXX and Syr. give the singular
here and also in xiv 13 and xviii 1. Since Mamre reappears as a personal
name in xiv 13, the phrase could mean here something like “the terebinth
grove of Mamre.”

Comment

The best of the biblical narrators, whether they deal with the pre­
history of a people or the history of a state, have the knack of depict­
ing broad events in terms of their impact on the leading actors. / is
an unsurpassed master of this art, and the present episode is a case
in point.
The slow process of striking root in the Promised Land had begun
The recent immigrants from Mesopotamia have prospered greatly,
thanks to their expanding pastoral economy. Their very success,
however, entails problems and dangers. There are frictions within th
group, which must be resolved before the dominant Canaanite popu
lation is aroused to action.
So much for the background, with its social and political features.
In addition, the reader is being prepared for the presence in Trans­
jordan of two close relatives of Israel, viz., the Moabites and the
Ammonites, both of whom will be traced back to Lot in due time.
Nor is the ultimate spiritual objective ignored; for the view from
Bethel takes in much of the land in which the future of Israel is
destined to unfold.
98 GENESIS

But history, as our author views it, is expressed in the last analysis
through individuals; hence it is essentially personal history—vivid,
concrete, and direct. In the present instance attention centers on the
relations between Abraham and Lot. Having been orphaned early in
his life (xi 28), Lot was brought up at first by his grandfather Terah
(xi 31). The task was then taken over by Abraham (xii 5), who
went on to treat his nephew with unfailing solicitude and tenderness.
Now the two must part, since each requires a large grazing and wa­
tering radius for his flocks and herds. Although the choice of terri­
tory rests with the older man, Abraham generously cedes this right to
his ward. Nor does Lot fail to take advantage of this unforeseen op­
portunity. He picks the greener and richer portion. How was he to
know what fate lay in store for Sodom and Gomorrah, or how glori­
ous was to be the future of the rugged hill country to the west? The
narrative ends thus on a note of gentle irony, the ever-present irony
of history.
 17. INVASION FROM THE EAST. ABRAHAM AND
MELCHIZEDEK
(xiv 1-24: X)

XTV 1 When" Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar,

Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim 2 made
war on Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab
king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of
Bela—that is, Zoar— 3 all the latter joined forces in the Valley
of Siddim—now the Dead Sea.6 4 For twelve years they had
served Chedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled.
5 In the fourteenth year, Chedorlaomer and the kings allied

with him came and defeated the Rephaim in Ashteroth-

karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim,
6 and the Horites in the0 hill country of Seir, near El-paran,

which is on the edge of the wilderness. 7 They then swung

back to En-mishpat—now Kadesh—and subdued all the territory
of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who dwelt in Hazazon-
tamar. 8 Thereupon the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah,
the king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela—
or Zoar—marched forth and engaged them in battle in the
Valley of Siddim: 9 Chedorlaomer king of Elam, Tidal king of
Goiim, Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar—
four kings against five.
!0Now the Valley of Siddim was one bitumen pit after
another. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah flung themselves
into these in their flight; the others escaped into the hills.
11 [The invaders]* seized all the possessions of Sodom and

“See Note.
6 Literally “Salt Sea.”
°So most versions; MT “their.”
<* Literally “They.”
 1UU GENESIS § 17

Gomorrah and all their food, and departed, 12 talcing with them
Lot, the son of Abram’s brother, together with his possessions;
he had been living in Sodom.
13 A fugitive brought the news to Abram the Hebrew, who

was camping at the terebinths of Mamre the Amorite, kinsman

of Eshkol and Aner, these being confederates of Abram.
14 When Abram learned that his kinsman Lot had been cap­
tured, he called up his retainers, bom into his household, in the
number of 318, and gave chase as far as Dan. 15 He and his ser­
vants deployed against the others at night, defeated them and
pursued them as far as Hobah, which lies north of Damascus.
16 He recovered all the possessions, and he also brought back his
kinsman Lot and his possessions, along with the women and
other personnel.
17 When he returned from his victory oveT Chedorlaomer and
the kings who were allied with him, the king of Sodom came
out to the Valley of Shaveh-that is, the King’s Valley-to
greet him. i8And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out
bread and wine; he was priest of El-Elyon. 19 He blessed him
saying,
“Blessed be Abram by El-Elyon,
Creator of heaven and earth.
20 And praised be El-Elyon,

Who has delivered your foes to you.”

And [Abram]« gave him a tenth of everything.
21 the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the per­
711611

sons, and you may keep the property.” 22 But Abram replied to
the king of Sodom, “I have sworn to Yahweh, God Most High/
Creator of Heaven and earth, 23 that not so much as a thread or
a sandal strap would I take of anything that belongs to you, lest
you say, I made Abram rich.’ 24 Nothing for me, save what my
men used up; but as for the men who joined me—Aner, Eshkol,
and Mamre—let them take their share.”
« MT “he.”
^ See Note on Yahweh re V flywn.
xiv 1-24 101

Notes

xiv 1. When. The first clause is unacceptable by normal Heb. standards.

It appears to date the proceedings to four named foreign kings who then
go on to make war against five local rulers. In that case, however, the se­
quel would lack a subject; the same form cannot be construed as both
possessive and subject at one and the same time. We should expect, fol­
lowing the initial narrative wayhX (cf. Judg i 1; Esther i 1), “In the days
of , [these/the above] made war on. . . But Heb. lacks the
resumptive pronoun [hem], unlike the alleged parallel in Esther i 1; and a
dangling predicate would have been supplied with [wa-] in any case. The
omission is hard to gloss over even in translation; Vulg. resumes with “in
those days,” and most modems smuggle in “these/these kings,” or the
like.
But even if the syntax were faultless, the context would still be un­
manageable. Date formulas specify one particular person or event, not
four kings of as many separate countries. Theoretically, of course, the
first of the four names could have marked the date, and the other three
the invaders. But the context, not to mention the syntax, will not permit
such a solution, since the narrative speaks repeatedly of four invaders by
name and number.
All the difficulties, however, vanish once it is assumed that Heb.
bym(y) stood here not for the construct form “in the day(s) of,” but as
a rendition of the cognate Akk. conjunction e/inuma/i “when,” originally
“in the day, at the time”; the final -y would not have appeared in early
consonantal writing in any event. This could not have happened most
readily in a translation from an Akk. account; for an initial iniima in a
historical document from Syria, see D. J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets,
1953, No. 1.1. The traditional bime would be a natural attempt to adjust
the Akkadianism to Heb. usage. Nor would this be an isolated borrow­
ing in this unique document; see Comment.
On the various names in this verse, see Comment.
2. All but the last of the local cities are found in x 19 and Deut xxix
22; cf. Hos xi 8 where only Admah and Zeboiim are mentioned. The
names of the first two kings are evidently pejorative: Bera is based on ra‘
“evil,” and Birsha on reia' “injustice,” in symbolic censure of Sodom and
Gomorrah. The significance of Shinab and Shemeber, whether original or
secondary, is no longer apparent; for the latter, Sam. and Gen. Apocr.
give -d as final consonant. The place name Bela is otherwise unknown;
the name of its king is lacking.
3. Valley of Siddim. Apparently the authentic name of the area at the
southern end of the Dead Sea, which was later submerged.
102 GENESIS

4. Here and in the next verse Chedorlaomer emerges as the head of the
foreign coalition; note especially vs. 17.
5. The Gen. Apocr. (column xxi, line 28) puts the starting point of
the invasion somewhere on the Euphrates.
the Rephaim. A prehistoric race of giant stature. It is worth noting that
elsewhere (see especially xv 20; Deut ii 11, iii 11) this element is
identified as pre-Israelite, which accords well with the indicated early date
of the present account.
the Zuzim. Evidently the same as the Zamzummim of Deut ii 20 f., the
name of a giant pre-Ammonite people. The Gen. Apocr. (column xxi,
line 29) actually speaks of “the Zamzummim of Ammon” in the present
context.
the Emim. Giant forerunners of the Moabites according to Deut ii 10 f.
6. the Horites. In the OT, the name of two unrelated elements: (1) the
non-Semitic Hurrians (LXX in xxxiv 2; Josh ix 7); and the Semitic pred­
ecessors of Seir/Edom (xxxvi 20, Deut ii 12, 22, and present passage);
cf. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, sub voce.
El-paran. The first element in this place name is not to be confused
with the divine appellative El; the cons, text is ’yl, a variant form of the
Heb. word for “terebinth,” and was so translated by LXX.
7. swung back. Literally “returned.” Assyrian rulers often use the
phrase “on my return” to introduce additional victories.
En-mishpat. Literally “Spring of Decision,” another name for Kadesh,
equated with modem ‘Ayn Qadeis, some fifty miles south of Beer-sheba.
The invaders appear to have made a wide turn to the right before starting
on their way home.
territory. Normally, “field, open country.”
the Amalekites. Traditional enemies of Israel; cf. Exod xvii 8-16;
I Sam xv, xxx.
the Amorites. See x 16.
Hazazon-tamar. Equated in II Chron xx 2 with En-gedi, on the west
shore of the Dead Sea.
10. flung themselves. Literally “fell”; but the Heb. stem (npl) often
carries a reflexive connotation, notably in the phrase “to fall on one’s
neck” (xxxiii 4, xlv 14, xlvi 29), which describes a voluntary act; see also
xvii 3.
11. The bracketed words do not imply an omission in MT. They are
required in English for clarity, whereas Heb. is more liberal with its
pronominal references.
13. the Hebrew. LXX translates this occurrence alone as “the one from
across,” in what is apparently an attempt to give an etymological render­
ing based on the Heb. verb ‘br “to pass, cross”; elsewhere, the gentilic
 xiv 1-24 103
“Hebrew” is regularly employed. The special bearing of this one passage
is thus clearly recognized by the Greek translation.
The question of possible connection between Heb. 'ibri “Hebrew” and
cun. ffab/piru and its cognates or counterparts has been fully discussed
in two recent monographs, one by Bottéro, éd., Le problème des ÿlabiru,
and the other by Greenberg, The ffab/piru. The evidence remains ambig­
uous; and within the Bible itself, the matter is complicated by the legal
phrase “Hebrew slave” (Exod xxi 2; cf. Deut xv 12). At any rate, the
present instance accords more closely than any other with cun. data on
the Western JJabiru; note especially the date formula in Alalakh Tablets
58 (eighteenth/seventeenth centuries), 28 ff., which mentions a treaty
with JJabiru warriors; and the Statue of Idrimi (fifteenth century
Alalakh), line 27, which tells how the royal fugitive found asylum among
yabiru warriors.
Of more immediate significance, however, is the fact that the designa­
tion “Hebrew” is not applied elsewhere in the Bible to Israelites, except
by outsiders (e.g., xxxix 14), or for self-identification to foreigners (xl
15; Jon i 9). Hence the fac that the author himself refers here to
Abraham as a Hebrew is strong presumptive evidence that the document
did not originate with Israelites. This deduction receives independent sup­
port from various other details in the chapter before us, and it opens up
in turn unexpected vistas which bear on the historicity of Abraham; see
Comment.
camping. The Heb. stem Skn is applied primarily to dwelling in tents,
cf. xvi 12; hence the derived noun miskàn “tabernacle.”
kinsman. Literally “brother.” But the same term is used in the next
verse with Lot, who was Abraham’s nephew. There is no way to deter­
mine Mamre’s exact relationship to the other two men.
A ner. Cons. Heb. ‘nr; Gen. Apocr. gives ‘mm, which recalls Sam.’s
‘nrm.
confederates. Heb. “members of/in a covenant.” Since a covenant in­
volved obligations under solemn oath (cf. the analogous Akk. bel adë u
mâmït “participant in a compact under solemn oath” and note Heb. ’Slot
habb'rït “curses/sanctions of the covenant,” Deut xxix 20), “confeder­
ates” comes closer to the required meaning than “allies.”
14. he called up. Heb. gives the cons, wyrq, pointed to yield literally
emptied but the pertinent form is used elsewhere of drawing or
unsheathing a sword, which is not the same as mobilizing warriors. LXX
has “mustered,” not necessarily because it read wypqd, but more likely
because it so interpreted the traditional text. Sam. offers wydq, which
could be a case of the frequent confusion of the letters R and D, though
Sam. employes a different script. There is, however, another possibility,
though admittedly a remote one. If Sam.’s reading is correct, it could be
104 GENESIS

an Akkadianism (for etymological wydk), Akk. dekti being the normal

verb for “mobilize, call up.” But whatever the background, the above
translation cannot be far off the mark.
retainers. Cf. T. O. Lambdin, JAOS 73 (1953), 160.
born into his household. As opposed to slaves obtained through
purchase, this class ranked close enough to members of the family to be
entrusted with tasks of considerable importance and responsibility; cf.
xxiv 23. The number involved is not too small for a surprise attack; by
the same token, it enhances the authenticity of the narrative. But it is a
large body of picked servants for the patriarch as he is described in the
remaining narratives. In the present instance, Abraham appears as a pow­
erful sheikh, which could be the aspect that was best known to his con­
temporaries. Elsewhere we see him in idealized retrospect. Once again,
therefore, the account before us proves to be unique.
16. other personnel. For the differentiating force of the article in Heb.,
cf. vi 19 and Ehrl. at iii 2; note further “other flesh,” Lev vii 19, and “the
rest of the blood,” Lev viii 24. For the use of ‘am for military personnel,
with the emphasis on the individual rather than the group (the latter is
saba’), cf. especially I Sam xiii 5; II Chron xii 3.
18. Melchizedek. The Canaanite counterpart of Akk. Sarru(m)ken
“Sargon,” literally “the king is just, legitimate”; cf. Ps cx 4.
Salem. Identified with Jerusalem in Ps lxxvi 3; also the Targumim and
Gen. Apocr.
El-Elyon. Both elements ('el and ‘elyon) occur as names of specific
deities, the first in Ugaritic (Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts) and the
second in Phoenician; the Aram, inscription from Sujin combines the
two into a compound (ibid., 54 ff.). Though appellatives at first (“god”
and “supreme” respectively), both are thus attested also as personal
names of deities. Elsewhere in the OT, ‘el is used as a literary or poetic
synonym for Elohim; and ‘elyon occurs either separately (Isa xiv 14;
Ps ix 3), or as a divine epithet (Pss vii 18, xlvii 3, lvii 3, lxxviii 56).
But these are relatively late passages which conceivably could hark
back to the instances before us. The question, then, is how to interpret
the latter.
Now that this chapter is amply attested as a source unto itself, it is not
only unnecessary but fallacious to harmonize its contents with other por­
tions of the OT. As a Canaanite priest, Melchizedek would invoke his
deity or deities by name; and this is what the above translation has sought
to reproduce. Abraham, on the other hand, would just as naturally turn
to Yahweh, especially in an oath (vs. 22; see below).
19. Creator. For qn ’rs in Phoenician, see Pope, op. cit. pp. 51 f.; the
verb occurs in the same sense in Ugaritic (ibid.).
22.1 have sworn. Literally “I raised up my hand,” followed (in 23) by
 xiv 1-24 105
the negative oath formula: “if I take” - “I will not take,” i.e., may so-
and-so happen to me if I do.
Yahweh. LXX, followed by Syr., omits, which does not automatically
presuppose a superior text, and thereby a late insert of the divine name;
see Note on 18. Nor would the use of “Yahweh” prove J’s authorship
at this point, in a document concerning which there are still so many
question marks. In any case, no conclusions should be based on this
particular occurrence. The accompanying 7 ‘lywn, on the other hand,
is textually impeccable. But as used by Abraham, the phrase appears
to be descriptive, especially in apposition to “Creator of Heaven and
earth,” whereas a Canaanite priest would be expected to employ the
same words in the personal sense in which they are independently
attested.
23. so much as. Literally “from - to, whether - or,” here to convey the
idea of “no matter how trifling.” The corresponding idiom in Akk. is
bamu u frusabu u mimma “a stalk of straw, or a twig, or whatever” (cf.
CAD, Vol. 6, p. 259), and the Aram, analogue is mn hm w‘d hwt (see
the comprehensive discussion JAOS 54 [1934], 200ff.j. It is notewor­
thy that both Akkadian and Aramaic make good use of alliteration (cf.
our bag and baggage,” and German Mann und Maus). Heb. is thus a
paraphrase, evidently because Sem. *bam was not current in Heb. This
again argues for outside influence.
24. my men. Literally “the boys.”
used up. Heb. “ate”; for a similar connotation cf. xxxi 15.

Comment

Genesis xiv stands alone among all the accounts in the Penta­
teuch, if not indeed in the Bible as a whole. The setting is inter­
national, the approach impersonal, and the narration notable for its
unusual style and vocabulary. There is still much about this chapter
that is open to wide differences of opinion. On one point, however,
the critics are virtually unanimous: the familiar touches of the es­
tablished sources of Genesis are absent in this instance. For all these
reasons the chapter has to be ascribed to an isolated source, here
marked X.
Since Genesis xiv constitutes an intrusive section within the patri­
archal framework, and since it contains, moreover, an assortment of
extraneous data, the chapter has long enjoyed more than its pro­
portionate share of scholarly attention. A comprehensive treatment
106 GENESIS

of the various problems at issue was offered long ago by W. F. Al­

bright in his paper on “The Historical Background of Genesis XIV”
{Journal of the Society of Oriental Research [1926], 231-69);
see also BASOR 88 (1942), 33 ff. There is also a separate mono­
graph on the subject by Kroeze (in Dutch), entitled Genesis Veer-
tien (“Genesis XIV”), 1937. Only the briefest outline and comment
can be attempted in the next few paragraphs.
The chapter consists in effect of two loosely connected parts:
(1) the attack by four foreign kings against five local rulers; and
(2) the Melchizedek episode. The link is provided by Abraham’s=
Abram’s intervention. The patriarch’s success is hailed not only by
the king of Sodom, leader of the local coalition, but also by Mel­
chizedek of Salem, a place not otherwise involved in the hostilities.
It is this exploit by Abraham, in the otherwise unfamiliar role of a
warrior, that evidently led to the inclusion of the chapter with the
regular patriarchal material in Genesis.
The date of the narrative has been variously estimated. A rank­
ing documentary critic is inclined to dismiss the story as a late scho­
lastic reconstruction (Noth, Vberlieferungsgeschichte . . . , p. 170).
Others would regard it as the product of living tradition. A fresh
re-examination of all the available scraps of evidence, both internal
and external, favors an early date, scarcely later in fact than the
middle of the second millennium. For one thing, the account is admit­
tedly not the work of J, or E, let alone P. Who, then, could have had
an interest in learned speculations of this sort? For another thing,
Sodom, Gomorrah, and three neighboring towns are still very much
in the picture; except for the apparently tendentious distortion of the
names of two of their rulers (vs. 2), these are not places doomed as
yet to disaster. Most important of all, the names of the foreign in­
vaders and their respective countries are not made up. They have an
authentic ring, in spite of all the hazards of transliteration and trans­
mission; one of them at least (Arioch) takes us back to the Old
Babylonian age, with which the period of Abraham has to be syn­
chronized. These onomastic data call for a brief review.
(1) Amraphel king of Shinar. For Shinar (Heb. Shin'or, Akk.
Sumeru, perhaps Sum. Kiengi(r) ), see x 10, xi 2. Both TO and
Gen. Apocr. render, appropriately enough, “Babylon.” The lin­
guistic associations of Amraphel are obscure. The once popular
identification of this king with the celebrated Hammurabi of Bab­
ylon is most precarious and probably untenable: for the final -I
xiv 1-24 107
would have to be an error for -y, and the initial ’aleph a mistake
for 'ayin, which is scarcely credible. The Heb. form, however, ac­
cords well with several possible Amurrite (Amorite) or even Ak­
kadian combinations; in that case, the bearer could well have been
some minor prince from Lower Mesopotamia.
(2) Arioch king of Ellasar. The name of the land can only be
guessed at at this time; Gen. Apocr. (column xxi, line 23) identifies
it with Kptwk, evidently “Cappadocia.” But the ruler’s name is
transparently clear: it is linguistically the same as Arriwuk, the
name of a vassal of Zimri-lim of Mari (a contemporary of Ham­
murabi), and perhaps also Nuzi Ariukki. The linguistic background
is Human. The form is comparatively rare, and not attested after
the middle of the second millennium. Its appearance in the present
context thus presupposes an ancient and authentic tradition. No late
Hebrew writer would be likely to invent such a name and to assign
it correctly to a neighbor of Babylonia.
(3) Chedorlaomer king of Elam. For the country, see Note on
x 22. The ruler’s name contains tangible Elamite components, but
no such historical figure has as yet been found in the documents;
see BASOR 88 (1942), 33 ff. It is interesting to note, and perhaps
significant, that our text makes Chedorlaomer, and not Amraphel,
the leader of the invaders (vss. 4, 5, 9, 17), which further weakens
the proposed identification of the latter with Hammurabi.
(4) Tidal king of Goiim. Scholars are agreed that Tidal (cons.
td‘l) represents cun. Tudjjaliya. There were, however, no fewer
than five Hittite rulers by that name; the only one who would fit
the chronological requirements is Tudfcaliya I, but we know next to
nothing about him. The name itself goes back to pre-Hittite Ana­
tolia. Once again, this is not the kind of name that could be im­
provised by a late Hebrew writer. The political term Goiim (Heb.
gdyim) is the same as the Hebrew word for “nations.” A possible
link between the two is provided by cun. Umman-Manda (“Manda-
people(s)” in Akkadian), a name used since Old Babylonian times,
if not earlier, to describe the spearhead of a barbarian irruption
that destroyed the empire of Akkad. From that time on, the Um­
man-Manda were virtually synonymous with a divine scourge aimed
at Mesopotamia. Occasionally they are associated with the Elamites,
which could be pertinent to the present passage. Their background,
however, points to Anatolia (cf. JAOS 72 [1952], 100ff.), and
the Hittite Code cites them by name. Thus the combination of Tidal
108 GENESIS

and Goiim has more than one fact in its favor. But if Goiim reflects
Akk. Umman-, the Heb. name is actually a translation, which in
turn has a bearing on the possible source of Gen xiv.
There are other plausible indications of Akkadian influence. The
first sentence is syntactically hopeless without the aid of a cognate
Akk. conjunction (see Note on vs. 1). Other such possibilities have
been noted in vss. 7, 14, and 23. None of these would carry enough
persuasion by itself; but taken together, they cannot be dismissed
offhand. There are also additional details which point independently
to extraneous influences. The narrative is unique in its international
orientation. Abraham is glimpsed incidentally, through the eyes of
outsiders, and he is depicted as a resolute and powerful chieftain
rather than as an unworldly patriarch. What is more, he is identified
as “Abram the Hebrew,” which an Israelite source would not do in
such circumstances (see Note on 13). All of this adds up to an
impressive cumulative argument in favor of a foreign source for this
chapter, from which the present narrative was either excerpted or
adapted. A good analogue would be the so-called Spartoli Tablets in
Akkadian, which have been often adduced in this connection, nota­
bly by Albright. Equally pertinent is the cun. cycle of historical
legends about Naram-Sin, famous ruler of the Dynasty of Akkad.
These compositions were popular in such distant lands as Anatolia,
no less than in Mesopotamia proper. They tell, moreover, of rival
coalitions of various rulers (just as the present narrative does), with
good historical support; cf. H. G. Guterbock, ZA 42 (1934), 78 ff.,
and my comments in JAOS 72 (1952), 97 ff.
All this imposes one conclusion above all others which can be
of outstanding importance for the study of biblical origins. If Abra­
ham was cited in a historical or quasi-historical narrative that was
written not by Israelites but by outsiders, it necessarily follows that
Abraham was not a nebulous literary figure but a real person who
was attested in contemporary sources. Short of a non-Israelite text
mentioning an Abram son of Terah, or an Isaac son of Abram, this
is as close as we can as yet come to a direct epigraphic witness of
the patriarch.
The geographic detail that marks the route of the invaders, and
the casual listing of the Cities of the Plain, lend further support to
the essential credibility of the narrative. Who the foreign invaders
were remains uncertain. It is highly improbable, however, that they
were major political figures. The mere fact that Abraham could rout
XIV 1-24 109
them with no more than 318 warriors at his disposal (the force is
just small enough to be realistic) would seem to suggest that the
outlanders were foreign adventurers bent on controlling the copper
mines south of the Dead Sea (cf. Wright, Biblical Archaeology,
pp. 50 f.). The most likely date for such an expedition would be
approximately the eighteenth century B.C.
Finally, the notice about Melchizedek merits a measure of confi­
dence in its own right. He invokes an authentic Canaanite deity
(see Note) as a good Canaanite priest would be expected to do.
Abraham, on the other hand, refers to Yahweh, using the Canaanite
name or names in suitable apposition, which is no less appropriate
in his particular case. That later religious Hebrew literature should
have identified El-Elyon with Yahweh, quite probably on the basis
of this passage, is readily understandable. But this appears to be the
only late reflex of Gen xiv. The narrative itself has all the ingredi­
ents of historicity.
 18. PROMISE AND COVENANT
(xv 1-21: J, /E?/)

XV i Some time afterward, this word of Yahweh came to

Abram, in a vision:
“Fear not, Abram!
I am your shield;
Your reward shall be very great.”
2 But Abram answered, “O Lord Yahweh,® to what purpose are
your gifts, when I continue childless, /and the successor to my
house is Dammesek6 Eliezer? 3 Since you have granted me no
offspring,” Abram continued,/ a member of my household will
become my heir.” 4 Then Yahweh’s word came back to him in
reply, “That one shall not be your heir; none but your own issue
shall be your heir.” /5 He took him outside and said, “Look up
at the sky and count the stars if you can. Just so,” he added,
“shall be your offspring.”/ 6 He put his trust in Yahweh, who
accounted it to his merit.
7 He then said to him, “I am Yahweh who brought you out
from Ur° of the Chaldeans to give you this land as a posses*
sion.” 8 He replied, “O Lord Yahweh,® how shall I know that I
am to possess it?” 9 He answered, “Bring me a three-year-old
heifer, a three-year-old she-goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtle­
dove, and a young pigeon.” 10 He got them all and slit them
through the middle, placing each half opposite the other; but
he did not cut the birds. 11 When birds of prey swooped down
upon the carcasses, Abram drove them off. 12 As the sun was
*Vocalized in MT to read (Qr?) Elohim.
6 See Comment.
«LXX “land”; cf. xi 28.
XV 1-21 111
about to set, a trance fell upon Abram, and a deep dark dread
descended upon him.
/13 He said to Abram, “You should know that your offspring
shall be strangers in a land not theirs, to be enslaved and op­
pressed for four hundred years. 14 But I will bring judgment on
the nation they must serve, and in the end they shall leave with
great wealth. 15 As for you, you shall join your forefathers in
peace; you shall be buried at a happy old age. 16 And the others
shall return here in the fourth time span, for the iniquity of the
Amorites will not have run its course until then.”/
17 When the sun had gone down and it was very dark, there

appeared a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch which passed

between those pieces. 18 That day Yahweh concluded a covenant
with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from
the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates: 19 the
Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonim, 20 the Hittites, the
Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the
Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

Notes

xv 2. Lord. Yahweh. The consonants YHWH are vocalized this time

(and in vs. 8) to be read “God” instead of the customary “the Lord,”
because the latter word is already present.
to what purpose are your gifts. Literally “what will/can you give
me?” But this question refers to the promise of rewards in the preceding
verse, and the Heb. verb ntn often signifies “to present,” as is plain
from the derived noun mattana “gift.”
successor. The term ben-meSeq does not occur elsewhere in the
Bible, and the clause as a whole is generally regarded as hopeless.
Nevertheless, its approximate sense can be gathered from two separate
sets of circumstances. (1) The present clause, which may stem from
E (see Comment) is duplicated by 3b (/), where the meaning is not
in doubt: since Abraham has no descendants, his estate will pass to a
member of his household. (2) The clause itself contains, in all proba­
bility, an internal gloss, with deliberate wordplay on bn rriSq : dmiq.
The old place name Dimasgi “Damascus” (non-Semitic) was etymol­
ogized in Aramaic as di maSqya “having water resources,” to judge
from the Assyrian paraphrase of the name (cf. JAOS 71 [1951], 259 f.).
112 GENESIS

On this basis, Heb. ben meSeq (one of meSeq) would be an analogue of

the Aramaic phrase. In like fashion, the two were further juxtaposed to
signify hereditary succession: a servant by the name of Eliezer, ap­
parently a Damascene by birth, was the only prospective heir to Abra­
ham’s estate. A semblance of linguistic support for such a connotation
may be found in the term mi-mSaq- (Zeph ii 9) “province, sphere of X.”
This linguistic interpretation is by no means definitive. There can be lit­
tle doubt, however, about the legal aspect of the passage. We know now
that in Hurrian family law, which was also normative for the patriarchs
(see Comment on Secs. 15, 19, 35, 42), two types of heir were sharply
distinguished. One was the aplu or direct heir; and the other was the
ewuru or indirect heir, whom the law recognized when normal inheritors
were lacking. Such an ewuru could be a member of a collateral line, and
at times even an outsider, depending on the circumstances. Consequently,
our Dammesek Eliezer—whoever he may have been and whatever the
first word might mean—was juridically in the position of an ewuru. Here,
then, is another instance of Hurrian customs which the patriarchs fol­
lowed, but which tradition and its later expounders were bound to find
perplexing.
4. your own issue. Literally “what comes from your body.”
6. put his trust. The invariable translation of Heb. he’emin as
“believed” does not always do justice to the original. The basic sense of
the form is “to affirm, recognize as valid.” In other words, the result is
not so much a matter of objective faith as of absolute fact. Our “Amen”
derives from the same Heb. root.
7. For the problems posed by the mention of Ur in MT, see Comment
on Sec. 13.
9. The ritual details that accompany the conclusion of a covenant are
ultimately derived from sympathetic magic. The contracting parties—so
at least in an agreement between equals; otherwise perhaps only the
weaker of the two—passed between the sections of the dismembered ani­
mals (cf. Jer xxxiv 19 ff.) and thus left themselves open, by extension, to
the fate of the sacrificed victims in the event of future violation. The
specified age of the animals was a matter of ritual maturity; cf. I Sam i
24 (where MT misreads “three bulls” for “a three-year-old bull”), and
the discussion in BASOR 72 (1938), 15 ff. The choice of the animals used
for the purpose was governed by ritual custom and economic conditions.
The Amorites of the Mari documents used asses, with the result that in
their terminology “to slay an ass” was idiomatic for “to enter into a com­
pact”; cf. G. E. Mendenhall, BASOR 133 (1954), 26 ff., and M. Noth,
Gesammelte Studien, 1957, pp. 142 ff. It is this prominence of the ass in
pagan cults that caused the Israelites to proscribe the custom in their own
XV 1-21 113
ritual practices (cf. Exodxiii 13, xxxiv 20). The Hurrians of Nuzi resorted
on solemn occasions to a fixed combination of “one bull, one ass, and ten
sheep”: see the writer’s analysis in Orientalia 25 (1955), 9ff. Lastly,
turtledoves and pigeons are cited repeatedly among the ritual provisions
of Leviticus; see especially xiv 22; hence the above “young pigeons to
render a Heb. noun that normally means “young bird(s).”
13-16. The documentary source of this passage is still unclear. There
can be no doubt, however, about the significance of the contents in
Israelite historical thought. The covenant between God and Israel was the
charter on which Israel’s national position was founded.
15. in peace. But Heb. salom seldom means “peace” in the usual
sense of the term; the emphasis is rather on security, satisfaction,
or fulfillment; in other words, here “in peace of mind, untroubled.” This
special nuance is underscored in the next clause.
a happy old age. The opposite connotation is unambiguously conveyed
by the phrase “to send one’s old age (literally ‘white hair/head’) down to
Sheol in grief,” cf. xlii 38, xliv 29, 31. Accordingly, the present expres­
sion is qualitative rather than quantitative.
16. time span. See Note on vi 9. Heb. dor signifies “duration, age, time
span,” and only secondarily “generation” in the current sense of the term.
The context does not show specifically how the author used the term in
this instance; it could have been any of several round numbers of years.
No conclusions can therefore be drawn from this passage in regard to the
date of the Exodus.
Amorites. Normally the name of a specific people (cf. x 16, and
Note), but sometimes also the collective term for the pre-Israelite popu­
lation of Canaan (E). For the same comprehensive use of the term
“Canaanites,” cf. xii 6 (/).
17. The smoking fire pot (literally “oven”) and flaming torch (to
keep the fire going in the brazier) were not just fanciful inventions by
the author or his immediate source. Both these details are recorded in
Akk. texts pertaining to magic. They are listed together in an incanta­
tion against witches: “I sent out against you repeatedly a ‘going’ (i.e.,
lighted) oven (aliku tinuru), a fire that has caught”; cf. Maqlu II
lines 190f. and W. von Soden, Orientalia 26 (1957), lines 127f. The
combination is almost exactly the same as in the present instance. It
was evidently believed to be highly efficacious, which may explain the
archaic use of “oven” in the sense of “brazier,” since no detail of an
occult practice, or of the wording that goes with it, must be disturbed;
actual ovens would not have the required mobility. Very likely, there­
fore, Heb. tannur in this particular context was due to similar con­
siderations, if not directly to the use of tinuru in Akkadian. And a
114 GENESIS

combination that worked so well against witches would be no less

impressive as an ominous feature in a covenant.
18. concluded a covenant. The Heb. verb in question (krt) means “to
cut.” The noun, Heb. berit, lacks an established etymology. M. Noth has
suggested recently (Gesammelte Studien, pp. 146 ff.) that this term may
go back to Akk. bint “between,” which appears in the Mari description
of a covenant as “the slaying of an ass between X and Y.” Thus an Akk.
preposition descriptive of the mutual character of the agreement would
have become in Heb. a technical term for the compact itself, the “co-” in
“covenant,” so to speak. For partial confirmation we need look no farther
than vs. 10, which employs different words to describe the process, but
they mean much the same thing, namely, “he slit/cut (them) in the mid­
dle.” And alongside Mari “to kill an ass,” Heb. “to cut between” would
not seem too far-fetched as a technical term for so significant and serious
an institution.
the river of Egypt. Normally, this phrase designates the Nile. The bor­
der of Egypt is elsewhere (e.g., Num xxxiv 5; Josh xv 4, 47) demarcated
by a wadi or brook (Heb. nahal), modern Wadi el-‘ArIsh. There is reason
to assume, therefore, that an original cons, nhl was misread in this in­
stance as nhr “river.”
19. The Kenites and the Kenizzites were tribal groups in the Negeb,
eventually absorbed by Judah.
the Kadmonim. Literally “Easterners,” cf. xxix 1.
20. the Hittites. Cf. x 15, xxiii 3, xxxvi 2.
the Perizzites. See Note on xiii 7.
the Rephaim. Cf. xiv 5.
21. the Jebusites. See x 16.

Comment

While this chapter shows no trace of the P source, it exhibits

nevertheless, for the first time in Genesis, other marked departures
from the usual manner of /. Vss. 2—3 combine two separate forms
of the same statement. It is nighttime in vs. 5 but still daylight in
12. Vs. 16 employs “Amorites” as the comprehensive term for the
pre-Israelite population of Canaan, whereas J is known to speak of
Canaanites in such cases (cf. xii 6). Repeated occurrences of the
name Yahweh (1, 6, 7, 8, 18) permit us to attribute certain por­
tions to / with relative confidence. The evidence concerning the rest
is mainly circumstantial, since the term Elohim is absent through­
out. But the whole is clearly not of a piece, though now intricately
XV 1-21 115
blended; cf. Noth, Vberlieferungsgeschichte . . . , p. 29, n. 85, and
L. A. Snijders, “Genesis XV The Covenant with Abram,” OTS 12
(1958), 261 ff.
In its present fused form, the chapter consists of two interrelated
parts. The first (1-6) takes up the increasingly urgent matter of
Abraham’s succession. The patriarch’s original call (xii Iff.) implied
that the mandate was to be taken over by Abraham’s descendants.
Thus far, however, Abraham has remained childless. The ultimate
success of his mission was therefore in danger. Moreover, he had
cause for personal anxiety, for in ancient Near Eastern societies it
was left to a son to ensure a restful afterlife for his father through
proper interment and rites (“he shall lament him and bury him” say
the Nuzi texts). God’s reaffirmed promise of a son now sets
Abraham’s mind at rest on both counts.
The remainder of the chapter (7-21) places the preceding inci­
dent in a broader perspective. Above and beyond personal consid­
erations, the birth of an heir to Abraham is essential to God’s
scheme of things. It involves a nation to be, and its establishment in
the Promised Land. That land shall extend from Egypt to Mesopo­
tamia (18). The emphasis shifts thus to world history, and the im­
portance of the episode is underscored by the conclusion of a cove­
nant. In secular practice, this is normally a binding compact between
states. This time, however, we are witnessing a covenant between the
Creator of the universe and the ancestor of a nation ordained in ad­
vance to be a tool for shaping the history of the world. Small won­
der, therefore, that the description touches on magic (cf. Note on
17) and carries with it a feeling of awe and mystery which, thanks to
the genius of the narrator, can still grip the reader after all the inter­
vening centuries.
 19. THE BIRTH OF ISHMAEL
(xvi 1-16: /, /P/)

XVI 1/Abram’s wife Sarai had borne him no children./

Now she had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar.
2 So Sarai said to Abram, “Look, Yahweh has restrained me

from bearing. Cohabit then with my maid. Maybe I shall re­

produce0 through her.” And Abram heeded Sarai’s plea.
/3 Thus, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan,
his wife Sarai took her maid, Hagar the Egyptian, and gave her
to her husband Abram as concubine./ 4 He cohabited with her,
and she conceived. And when she saw that she was pregnant,
she looked upon her mistress with contempt. 5 So Sarai told
Abram, “This outrage against me is your fault! I myself put my
maid in your lap. But from the moment she found that she had
conceived, she has been looking at me with contempt. Yahweh
decide between you and me!” 6 Abram answered Sarai, “Your
maid is in your hands. Do to her as you like.” Sarai then abused
her so much that she ran away from her.
7 Yahweh’s angel found her by a desert spring, the spring on
the road to Shur, and he asked, “Hagar maid of Sarai, from
where have you come and where are you going?” 8 She replied,
“I am fleeing from my mistress Sarai.” 9 But Yahweh’s angel
said to her, “You must go back to your mistress and submit to
abuse at her hand. 10 For,” Yahweh’s angel told her, “I will make
your offspring so numerous that they shall be too many to
count.” 11 And Yahweh’s angel further said to her,
“You are now with child and shall bear a son;
You shall name him Ishmael,6
“See Note.
6 Literally “God heard.”
xvi 1-16 117
For Yahweh has paid heed to your woes.
12 He shall be a wild colt of a man,
His hand against everyone,
And everyone’s hand against him;
And in the face of all his kin he shall camp.”
13 And Yahweh who had spoken to her she called by the name
“You are El-ro’i,”° by which she meant, “Did I not go on seeing
here after he had seen me?”4 14 That is why the well is called
Beer-lahai-roi,' it is between Kadesh and Bered.
/15 Hagar bore Abram a son, and Abram gave the son whom
Hagar bore him the name Ishmael. 16 Abram was 86 years old
when Hagar bore him Ishmael./
cOr “God of seeing” (cons.).
<*So MT literally; see Note.
« Literally “Well of the Living One who sees me"; see Note.

Notes

xvi 2. Cohabit. See Note at vi 4.

I shall reproduce. The verb as it stands (Heb. ’ibbane) can only mean
“I shall be built up” (see especially xxx 3); and the usage is confirmed
by Deut xxv 9. At the same time, however, it is an obvious word play
on ben “son,” alluding to “I shall have a son,” although this would not
be grammatically correct. The above translation seeks to convey some
of the same double meaning. For the legal background see Comment.
3. A typical insert from P.
concubine. Like its Akk. cognate aSSatum, Heb. ’issa may signify
either “wife” or “concubine.” For the principal wife, however, in non-
legal contexts Akkadian uses the term Ijirtum “chosen woman.”
4b. The literal meaning of the clause is “her mistress was lessened in
her eyes,” i.e., she lost caste in her estimation.
5. This outrage. Literally “my injustice” in objective construction: the
injustice done to me; the possessive is adequately reflected by “this,”
as happens so often in interchanging possessive and defined forms, cf.
“the boys” : “my men,” xiv 24. For Heb. hamas “lawlessness, injustice,”
cf. vi 11; it is a strictly legal term, which trad, “violence” fails to show
adequately. The same force is reflected in the Akk. verb frabalum “to
deprive someone of his legal rights,” adjective bablum “wronged.” The
Code of Hammurabi states explicitly that a slave girl who was elevated
to the status of concubine must not claim equality with her mistress
 118 GENESIS

(par. 146). Sarah is thus invoking her legal rights, and she holds her hus­
band responsible (literally “it is against you”) for the offense.
I myself put my maid in your lap. This is not just a fanciful expression,
but recognized legal phraseology. For the identical usage, cf. the old
Sum.-Akk. dictionary of legal expressions known as ana ittisu (B. Lands-
berger, MSL I, 1937): “he placed his daughter in [the other’s] lap,”
Tablet 3, column iv, line 34.
6. abused her. Literally, applied force to her, treated her with violence.
7. Yahweh’s angel. The Heb. noun meant originally “messenger,” ex­
actly as its Gr. equivalent ’angelos. In association with a divine term, the
noun refers to a manifestation of the Deity, but not necessarily a separate
being. In the present chapter, for instance, the angel is later identified
with Yahweh himself (vs. 13). For one reason or another, an angel is in­
terposed, in human form as a rule, to avoid direct contact between
Yahweh and mortals. The concept was obviously familiar to J (cf. xix
13); the corresponding manifestation in E is “angel of God” (cf. xxi 17,
xxxi 11). The use of the term to describe a distinct class of supernatural
beings is of later date.
Shur. A locality near the Egyptian border; cf. xx 1, xxv 18.
12. a wild colt of a man. The qualifying Heb. noun pere’ could stand ei­
ther for wild ass or wild horse; cf. also Job xi 12 and, in variant form,
Gen xlix 22. The phrase recalls Akk. lullu-awelu, approximately “savage
of a man,” which the Akkadians used to describe both Enkidu and the
first primitive man created by the gods.
in the face of. One of the idiomatic uses of Heb. ‘al pene (literally
“upon/against the face of”) is “to the face” (cf. Job i 11, vi 28, xxi 31),
and more particularly “in defiance/disregard of,” as proved by Deut
xxi 16: “he shall not be able to give the birthright to the (younger) son
of the loved wife, in disregard of (‘al perie) the (older) son of the
unloved wife.” For the present occurrence, cf. the parallel reference to
Ishmaelites in xxv 18: “they shall make raids against ('al perie) all their
kinsmen”; what is thus described is a typically Bedouin mode of life
which the preceding clauses sum up so vividly. Such customary trans­
lations as “in the presence of,” or “to the east of” ignore both idiom
and context.
13. El-ro'i. MT is pointed defectively (’El-r°'i), perhaps on purpose,
to leave the reader a choice between this, i.e., “God of seeing,” one
whom it is permitted to see, and the ro’i of the last clause, “one who
sees me.” The explanatory gloss that follows is hopeless as it now
stands. Its original form, however, can be inferred from the next verse
which starts out with “That is why,” On the use of ki in this verse cf’
iv 25.
14. Beer-lahai-ro’i. The meaning is relatively clear, and it may thus
xvi 1-16 119
furnish the key to the interpretation of the enigmatic last clause of 13,
which reads unvocalized hgm him r’yty ’hry r'y. As J. Wellhausen realized
nearly a century ago, some part of this sequence should anticipate the
Living One,” Heb. cons. Ihy, in the commemorative name of the well.
The only suitable spot for it is the received ’hry, which Wellhausen
emended accordingly to w’hy “yet I lived.” The logical next step was to
change the unmanageable him “here” to 'Ihm “God,” and to assume
that the concluding r’y was copied from the place name after w’hy had
been corrupted to ’hry. The gloss would thus have read originally hgm
’Ihm r’yty w’hy “Did I really see God, yet remained alive?” an excellent
paraphrase of the name of a well that could be translated to mean “Well
of the living sight.” At all events, the disfigurement of the text is old
enough to be witnessed in LXX. It is not surprising in aetiological
explanations of very ancient names. The well itself is independently
attested in xxiv 62.
15-16. These concluding verses bear the unmistakable stamp of P.
Vital statistics are always important to that source; cf. v, xi 10-26.

Comment

Except for marginal notices by P, the narrative goes back to 1,

as is immediately apparent from the repeated use of the name Yah-
weh (5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13). Moreover, the author is here at the peak
of his art.
The twin themes that J follows throughout his work—the societal
and the personal—are again intertwined, each tied up in its own way
with the matter of Abraham’s successor. But whereas the broader
aspect was featured in the previous episode, the writer now restores
the balance, as it were, by permitting the individuals to move to the
fore. In so doing, he utilizes his material to create an interlude of
acute suspense: Abraham is indeed to have an heir; not by Sarah,
however, but by her slave girl Hagar. Is this not contrary to earlier
hints and expectations, a disappointing anticlimax? The reader can
only wait and see.
At the personal level, from which the author starts out, the basic
conflict is between certain specific legal rights and natural human
feelings. We know now the pertinent legal measures as illustrated
by the Laws of Hammurabi and the Nuzi documents. The juridical
background of the issue before us is as complex as it is authentic,
a circumstance that makes the unfolding drama at once more poign­
120 GENESIS

ant and intelligible. All three principals in the case have some
things in their favor and other things against them. Sarah is thus not
altogether out of order when she bitterly complains to Abraham that
her rights have not been honored (5). Beyond all the legal niceties,
however, are the tangled emotions of the characters in the drama:
Sarah, frustrated and enraged; Hagar, spirited but tactless; and
Abraham, who must know that, whatever his personal sentiments,
he may not dissuade Sarah from following the letter of the law.
For the legal background in the case, we were limited until re­
cently to the provisions of par. 146 of the Code of Hammurabi,
which are pertinent only in part: A priestess of the naditum rank,
who was free to marry but not to bear children, gives her husband
a slave girl in order to provide him with a son. If the concubine
then tries to arrogate to herself a position of equality with her mis­
tress, the wife shall demote her to her former status of slave; but
she may not sell her to others.
This law is applicable to the case before us in that (a) the child­
less wife must herself provide a concubine; (b) the successful sub­
stitute must not forget her place. But these provisions are restricted
to ceftain priestesses for whom motherhood was ruled out. No
such limitations applied to Sarah. Her case, however, is covered in
full by the family law of another society; one document in particular
combines all the requisite details save only for the inescapable dif­
ference in names. It is a text from Nuzi, which was published in
HSS V (1929) as No. 67, and which I presented in transliteration
and translation in AASOR 10 (1930), 31ff. Because this text is
of outstanding significance for our present purposes, and because its
original treatment needs to be brought up to date, it will not be
amiss to take up the relevant portions afresh, but necessarily in all
brevity.
The document as a whole records the adoption of a certain Shen-
nima and his concurrent marriage to Gilimninu. It is the marriage
alone that we are concerned with here. These are the stated pro­
visions (lines 17ff.): “If Gilimninu bears children, Shennima shall
not take another wife. But if Gilimninu fails to bear children, Gilim­
ninu shall get for Shennima a woman from the Lullu country (i.e.,
a slave girl) as concubine. In that case, Gilimninu herself shall have
authority over the offspring (u serri Gilimninu-ma uwar).” In
other words, in this socially prominent lay family, the husband may
not many again if his wife has children. But if the union proves to
be childless, the wife is required to provide a concubine, but would
then have all the legal rights to the offspring. This must be the exact
bearing of the term ’ibbane (“I shall reproduce/be built up”) in vs.
2 above. The other provisions of the Nuzi case are likewise paral­
leled in our narrative: Sarah is childless, and it is she herself who has
pressed a concubine on Abraham (vs. 5). What Sarah did, then, was
not so much in obedience to an impulse as in conformance with the
family law of the Hurrians, a society whose customs the patriarchs
knew intimately and followed often.
The extra-biblical material gives new meaning also to the next
phase in the story as described in vs. 6. Although Abraham told
Sarah to do to Hagar as she pleased, Sarah stops short of expelling
her slave. Hammurabi Law 146 would forbid it in these circum­
stances, and Deut xxi 14 also imposes certain restraints upon the
owner. But there is nothing in either source (the meaning of the key
verb in Deut is “to pledge for debts,” not “to treat brutally”) to dis­
courage intolerable abuse, which eventually drove Hagar to flight.
But our author must not dwell too long on personalities. Presently
he shifts to a different plane and larger issues. It is time to account
for the place of the Ishmaelites in the scheme of things, the role of
the Bedouin who are always in evidence on the border between the
desert and the sown, a group as defiant and uncontrollable as the
young woman from whom the narrative derives them. / handles both
episodes, with all their wealth of facts and overtones, in a bare dozen
verses.
 20. COVENANT AND CIRCUMCISION
(xvii 1-27: P)

XVII 1 When Abram was 99 years old, Yahweh0 appeared to

Abram and said to him, “I am El Shaddai. Follow my ways and
be blameless. 2 I will grant a covenant between myself and you,
and will make you exceedingly numerous.”
3 Abram threw himself on his face, as God continued speak­
ing to him, 4 “And this is my covenant with you: You are to be
the father of a host of nations. 5 Nor shall you be called Abram
any longer: your name shall be Abraham, meaning that ‘I make
you the father of a host of nations.’11 6 I will cause you to be ex­
ceedingly fertile, and make nations of you; and kings shall stem
from you. 7 And I will maintain the covenant between myself
and you, and your offspring to follow, through the ages, as an ev­
erlasting pact to be God to you and to your offspring to follow.
8 And I will give to you, and to your offspring to follow, the land

in which you are now sojourning—the whole land of Canaan—as

an everlasting possession. And I will be their God.”
9 God further said to Abraham, “For your part, you must

keep my covenant, you and your offspring to follow, through the

ages. 10 And this shall be the covenant between myself and you,
and your offspring to follow, which you must keep: every male
among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall circumcise the
flesh of your foreskin, and that shall be the mark of the cove­
nant between me and you. 12 At the age of eight days, every
male among you, through the ages, shall be circumcised, even
housebom slaves as well as those whom you have acquired for
money from any outsider who is not of your bloodc— 13 yes,
housebom slaves and those that you purchase must be circum-
aSee Note.
6Wordplay on “Abraham”; see Note.
- c Literally “seed.”
xvii 1-27 123
cised—Thus shall my covenant be marked on your flesh as an
everlasting pact. 14 An uncircumcised male, one who has not
been circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin—such a person shall
be cut off from his kin: he has broken my covenant!”
15 God also said to Abraham, “As for your wife Sarai, do not
call her Sarai, for her name shall be Sarah.“* 16 I will bless her;
moreover, I will give you a son by her, 'whom I will bless also.®
And she shall give rise to nations; rulers of peoples shall issue
from her/ 17 Abraham threw himself on his face, and he smiled17
as he said to himself, “Can a child be bom to one who is 100
years old, and could Sarah give birth at 90? 18 Then Abraham
said to God, “Let but Ishmael thrive if you so will it.” 19 But
God replied, “Still, your wife Sarah is to bear you a son, and you
shall name him Isaac; and I will sustain my covenant with him,
and* with his offspring to follow, as an everlasting pact. 20 Fur­
thermore, I will heed* you as regards Ishmael: I hereby bless
him. I will make him fertile and exceedingly numerous; he shall
bring twelve chieftains into being, and I will make of him a
great nation. 2* But my covenant I will maintain with Isaac,
whom Sarah shall bear you by this time next year.” 22 And as
soon as he finished speaking with him, God was gone from
Abraham.
23 Then Abraham took his son Ishmael and all his slaves,
whether housebom or acquired—every male in Abraham’s house­
hold—and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins on that
same day, as God had told him. 24 Abraham was 99 years old
when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, 25 and his
son Ishmael was 13 years old when he was circumcised in the
flesh of his foreskin. 26 Thus Abraham, together with his son
Ishmael, was circumcised on that very day; 27 and all his re­
tainers, his housebom slaves as well as those that had been
acquired for money from outsiders, were circumcised with him.
<* Heb. for “princess”; cf. Note.
»-* MT “and I will bless her”; see Note.
t Some versions read "him”; see Note.
b Heb. yifhaq, play on “Isaac.”
* So with many manuscripts, Sam., and LXX.
* MT iäma'fi, wordplay on “Ishmael.”
 124 GENESIS

Notes

xvii 1. Yahweh. Since the rest of the chapter has Elohim consistently,
this single exception appears to be a slip under the influence of the pre­
ceding narrative. For an analogous carry-over in an introductory verse,
cf. xxi 1.
El Shaddai. According to the present author, this was the only divine
appellation known to the patriarchs prior to the time of Moses (Exod vi
3); see Comment on iv 26. The traditional translation of Shaddai as “Al­
mighty” goes back to an early rabbinic etymology (“Self-sufficient”).
Modem scholarship leans toward Albright’s derivation from Akk. sadu
“mountain” employed as a divine epithet (JBL 54 [1935], 180ff.). But
the comparison runs into phonologic difficulties (the same stem has an in­
itial f in Heb.); and in AJckadian itself, the epithet was but one of hun­
dreds like it. Thus a satisfactory explanation of this term (significantly
enough, Exod vi 3, does not call it a name) is yet to be proposed, just as
is that of Yahweh.
Follow my ways. In the light of vi 11 and x 9, lepanay has here a
concessive connotation: conduct yourself in a way I approve: see espe­
cially vs. 18.
2. I will grant a covenant. The verb in Heb. is literally “give, set.” A
lasting covenant must be established or concluded before it can be main­
tained. An initial step was recorded in xv 18, but by a different source
(/). This is the first such reference to Abraham in P (on the covenant
with Noah, cf. ix 9 ff.); for the follow-up P uses here heqim “to main­
tain” (7,21).
3. threw himself. Cf. Note on xiv 10.
4. host. Or “multitude,” Heb. hamon (construct state), the initial h
explicating symbolically the added -ha- in "Abraham" (5).
5. Abraham. Linguistically, the medial -ha- is a secondary extension in
a manner common in Aramaic. The underlying form Abram and its
doublet Abiram are best explained as “the (not ‘my’) father is exalted”;
the supposed Akk. cognate Abam-rama is not to be adduced, since it is
unrelated and means “love the father.”
For the premise that a change in name signifies a change in status, see
Comment.
7. your offspring to follow. Literally “your seed after you”; a favorite
phrase in P.
ages. Trad, “generations,” cf. vi 9 and Note; the possessive pronoun in
Hebrew has here, as elsewhere, the force of our definite article.
xvii 1-27 125
pact. Same Heb. noun as “covenant”; but some such variation is
desirable in English.
8. in which you are now sojourning. Heb. “of your sojoumings,”
where the plural stands for a collective abstract. On the meaning of the
stem gur, see xii 10, xix 9.
12. houseborn slaves. Cf. xiv 14.
13. shall... be marked. Literally “shall be.”
15. Sarah. Linguistically, Sara embodies the common feminine ending
(Sem. *-at). whereas Saray preserves an old and specialized feminine
form.
16. whom I will bless also. So with LXX, Syr., Vulg., reading the
pronominal suffix as masculine and applying it to Isaac. The last
clause, however, need not be shifted, with the same ancient versions,
from Sarah to Isaac. This would involve not merely a repointing but an
emended cons, text (whyh for whyth); moreover, the passage is con­
cerned with Sarah, whereas her son is as yet incidental. Indeed, if it
were not for redundancy in the Heb. verse as it stands (the repetition
of “I will bless her”), no reference to the blessing of Isaac would have
been suspected at this point. There is also the inherent possibility that
the second instance is to be construed as part of a subordinate clause:
“And when I have blessed her, she shall give rise to nations.’
17. he smiled. Heb. way-yishaq anticipates, of course, the personal
name Isaac (Yifhaq). P does this here, J offers a variant explanation in
xviii 12, and £ still another in xxi 6. Each allusion operates with the
verb shq, which covers a wide range of meanings, including to play, be
amused,” and notably also “to rejoice over, smile on (a newborn child).
A Hurro-Hittite tale describes the father (Appu) as placing his new­
born son on his knees and rejoicing over him (ZA 49 [1956], 220, line 5).
Such acts were often the basis for naming the child accordingly. The
shortened form Isaac (with the subject left out) undoubtedly reflects
some such symbolic gesture: (X) rejoiced over, smiled on (the child).
To judge from the three separate explanations in our documentary
sources, this last application was no longer familiar at the time of the
writing, even as far back as the time of J. Tradition was thus reduced to
speculations based on the later connotations of the verb. The meaning
chosen varied with the source and the context. In the earthy treatment
by J, an incredulous Sarah could well be shown as laughing bitterly to
herself (xviii 12). But the concept of Abraham in a derisive attitude
toward God would be decidedly out of keeping with P’s character. The
above translation, therefore, should come close to the spirit of the
received text, though not the original use of the pertinent verb.
18. thrive. Literally “live,” with the force of "stay well, prosper.”
if you so will it. Cf. “follow my ways,” vs. 1, Note.
126 GENESIS

20. chieftains. Literally “elevated (in the assembly),” cf. Num i 16; see
the full discussion in CBQ 25 (1963), 111-17.
22. was gone from. Literally “rose from upon,” with a suggestion of
suddenness, which “departed” would not convey.

Comment

The entire chapter is from the hand of P. As a unit of consid­

erable length, and richer in content than the genealogical lists, this
section affords a better picture of P’s scope and approach. At the
same time, the contrast with other sources stands out all the more
sharply in view of J’s parallel treatment of the covenant theme in
xv.
P’s concern about chronological detail is reaffirmed at the outset
(vs. 1); and it is worth stressing that all other statistics about
Abraham or Sarah stem from the same source (xvi 3, 16, xxi 5,
xxi 4f., xxiii 1, xxv 7, 17; cf. von Rad). The over-all chronological
scheme remains obscure. It is apparent, however, that the round
figure of 100 played a part in this tradition. This is obviously the
reason for stressing that Abraham was exactly 99 years old at the
start of this episode, for that would make him 100 at the time of
Isaac’s birth. Analogously, Shem was an even 100 when Arpachshad
was bom (xi 10). If J was familiar with these computations, he did
not consider them germane to his story.
The most striking difference, however, between P and J lies, here
and elsewhere, in their contrasting treatments of the same event and
their dissimilar approach to the individual. Both here and in xv the
central theme is the covenant. / saw the covenant as a future factor
in world history. It was set against a fearsome background which
helped to bring out the numinous character of Yahweh’s partnership
with Abraham. Yet for all his bewilderment, Abraham was presented
as a sensitive participant in an intensely dramatic process. Just as in
the Eden account, J’s handling of the episode was earth-centered. In
the present account by P, on the other hand, the overriding feature
of the covenant is circumcision. And much of the chapter is devoted
to a formal pronouncement by God. P’s approach, in short, is rit­
ualistic and impersonal.
Circumcision is an old and widely diffused practice, generally
linked with puberty and premarital rites. In the ancient Near East
xvii 1-27 127
it was observed by many of Israel’s neighbors, among them the
Egyptians, the Edomites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and certain
other nomadic elements (cf. Jer ix 25). But the Philistines did not
follow it (cf. II Sam i 20), and neither did the “Hivites” (i.e.,
Horites) of Central Palestine (xxxiv 15). Nor was the custom in
vogue in Mesopotamia. Thus the patriarchs would not have been
likely to adopt circumcision prior to their arrival in Canaan, which
is just what the present account says in another way. The terse
passage in Exod iv 24-26 suggests a primitive religious connection.
Eventually, the rite became a distinctive group characteristic, and
hence also a cultural and spiritual symbol. To P, however, it was
essential proof of adherence to the covenant. (For a comprehensive
recent summary, see R. de Vaux, Les Institutions de VAncien Testa­
ment I, 1958, pp. 78 ff.)
Another feature of the present chapter is the formal change of
the names Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah respectively.
But this motif is not peculiar to P. It is found also in other sources,
for instance, xxxii 29 (/). Such a change is viewed as the
external sign of an important turn in the life or function of the
bearer. A similar milestone is signaled by the recorded transition
from El Shaddai to Yahweh (Exod vi 3: P). The underlying con­
cept was probably much the same as in a king’s assumption of a
special throne name. The event marked a new era. Such notices
are not to be confused with frequent wordplays on original names;
for P’s own paranomasia on “Isaac,” see Note on vs. 17.
 21. ABRAHAM AND HIS MYSTERIOUS VISITORS
(xviii 1-15: /)

XVm i Yahweh appeared to him by the terebinths® of

Mamre; he was sitting at the entrance of his tent as the day was
growing hot. 2 Looking up, he saw three men standing beside
him. When he saw them, he rushed from the entrance of the
tent to greet them and, bowing to the ground, 3 he said, “My
lord,6 if I may beg of you this favor, please do not go on past
your servant. 4 Let a little water be brought, then bathe your
feet and rest yourselves under the tree. 5 And I will fetch a
morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves before you go
on—now that you have come right by your servant.” They an­
swered, “Very well, do as you have said.”
6 Abraham hastened into the tent and called to Sarah,
“Quick, three seahs of the best flour! Knead and make rolls!
7 With that, Abraham ran to the herd, picked out a tender and

choice calf, and gave it to a boy, who lost no time in preparing

it. 8 Then he got some curds and milk, and the calf that had
been prepared, and set these before them; and he stood by under
the tree while they ate.
9 “Where is your wife Sarah?” they asked him. “In there, in
the tent,” he replied. 10 Then one said, “When I come back to
you when life would be due, your wife Sarah shall have a son!”
Sarah had been listening at the tent entrance, 'which was just
behind him.011 Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in
years; Sarah had stopped having a woman’s periods. 12 So Sarah
laughed to herself, saying, “Withered as I am, am I still to know
1 °LXX, Syr. “oak” (singular); cf. xiii 18.
See Note.
6

- c-°Cf. Note.
xviii 1-15 129
enjoyment—and my husband so old!” 13 Yahweh said to Abra­
ham, “Why did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Shall I really give birth,
old as I am?’ *4 ls anything too much for Yahweh? I will be
back with you when life is due, and Sarah shall have had a son!”
15 Sarah dissembled, saying, “I didn’t laugh,” for she was afraid.

But he answered, “Yes, you did.”

Notes

xviii 1. as the day was growing hot. With this short comment (only two
words in Hebrew) the author evokes a complete picture. The old patri­
arch is resting in front of his tent on a typically hot day, when the land­
scape turns hazy and one’s vision is blurred.
2. he rushed. No exertion, even in behalf of total strangers, is too much
were hospitality is concerned.
3. Cons. Heb. ’dny can represent ’addm “my lord” (singular), ’addnay
“my lords” (ordinary plural), or ’adonay, the special form with long third
vowel, which is reserved for the Deity, i.e., “my/the Lord,” the pointing
that is applied to YHWH in the received text. The versions support tradi­
tional Hebrew. Nevertheless, at this stage Abraham is as yet unaware of
the true identity of his visitors, so that he would not address any of them
as God; and he cannot mean all three, because the rest of the verse con­
tains three unambiguous singulars. What the text indicates, therefore, is
that Abraham has turned to one of the strangers whom he somehow rec­
ognized as the leader. In vss. 4—5 he includes the other two as a matter of
courtesy. His spontaneous hospitality to seemingly ordinary human beings
is thus all the more impressive. Later on, in vss. 27, 32-33, the divine ap­
pellation is in order, because by then it is clear that Abraham’s guests are
out of the ordinary. The present pointing was probably influenced by the
explicit mention of Yahweh in vs. 1. But this is the author’s aside to the
reader who is thus prepared at the outset for the surprise that is in store
for Abraham.
if I may beg of you this favor. See Note on vi 8.
4. a little water. Like the “morsel of bread” in the next verse, an at­
tempt by the host to minimize his own efforts.
5. before you go on. Literally “(and) you shall continue later”; the ini­
tial we- is missing in MT but supplied by some manuscripts and reflected
in the versions.
now that. Heb. ki 'al ken, for which see Ehrl.
6-8. The actual performance is in sharp contrast with the deprecating
references in 4-5.
130 GENESIS

6. three seahs. A seah was a third of an ephah, or approximately

thirteen liters.
the best flour. Heb. solet, a kind of semolina.
7. With that. Heb. is inverted for special emphasis.
curds. Actually a type of yoghurt, Ar. leben.
8. that had been prepared. Heb. uses here the active verb with im­
personal force.
10. one said. One of the visitors now acts as spokesman, and his
statement is the first direct intimation that the visitors might not be
what they seemed at first.
when life would be due. Heb. literally “at about a life’s interval,” i.e.,
at the end of the period of pregnancy; cf. Ehrl.
which was just behind him. MT “he/it was behind him/it,” which
is far from clear. Sam. and LXX read the first pronoun as feminine;
this would mean that Sarah was not far from the speaker; in Heb.,
however, the pronominal suffix at the end is more likely to refer either
to the tent or the entrance, so that the received version is to be preferred.
11. a woman’s. Plural in MT.
13. Yahweh. This time the speaker is plainly identified. Sarah’s
reference to her husband’s age is not repeated; either the speaker or the
author has chosen to disregard it.
14. too much for. The Heb. stem pY refers to things that are unusual,
often beyond human capabilities.
15. dissembled. The stem khs denotes subservience (cf. Deut xxxiii
29, Niphal) or deceit (Piel).
Yes, you did. In Heb. a reply often repeats the wording of the pertinent
question or statement (cf. xxix 6); here literally “. . . you did laugh.”
The verbal form is preceded by Id’ ki. The particle ki is, among many
other things, an adversative. When it follows a positive or rhetorical
statement, its sense is often “No,” cf., for example, xxxvii 35, Deut
xiii 10, Job xxii 2, and see KB, p. 431, No. 7; in conjunction with the
negation Id’, it conveys the opposite meaning, hence here “Yes,” cf.
xlii 12.

Comment

Chapters xviii-xix present a continuous and closely integrated

narrative which, with the sole exception of xix 29, is the work
of J throughout. The author not only maintains the high quality
of the earlier sections, but introduces, in his account of Abraham’s
intercession for Sodom, a new moral and philosophical dimension.
xviii 1-15 131
The present section begins with the appearance of three strangers
who materialize in front of Abraham’s tent as if from nowhere. The
heat of the Palestinian summer lends a dreamlike touch to the
scene. Abraham is startled, but recovers quickly, and the gener­
osity of his welcome is enhanced by his attempt to disparage his
efforts. He knows as yet neither the identity of the strangers nor
the nature of their errand.
One of the visitors appears to be the leader, and it is through
him that Abraham extends his invitation to all three (see vs. 3,
Note). Gradually, however, it dawns on the host (vs. 10) that
the ’addni (approximately “sir,” cf. Note on 3) to whom he had
been speaking is no mere mortal; and vs. 14 shows him to be
Yahweh himself, so that Abraham can now address him deferentially
as ’addnay “the Lord.” The reader, on the other hand, is made
aware from the start that Yahweh is present, but not how to distin­
guish him from the other two. To that extent, therefore, we are
made to share Abraham’s uncertainty and thus re-enact the patri­
arch’s experience. It is not until xix 1 that the narrative speaks of
angels as such. By then, however, the grim nature of the errand
is all too evident.
There is nothing equivocal, on the other hand, where Sarah is
concerned. She is depicted as down-to-earth to a fault, with her
curiosity, her impulsiveness, and her feeble attempt at deception. It
must not be forgotten, however, that this vivid sketch has been
colored, at least in part, by the supposed origin of the name Isaac.
On this point, J’s interpretation is entirely different from P’s (xvii
17). For all that Sarah knew, the promise of a child was a gesture
made by meddlesome travelers; her impetuous reaction was one of
derision. This is what 7’s play on the verb shq plainly implies. The
traditional connection with “laugh” is therefore closer in this instance
than it was on the previous occasion. That neither J’s etymology nor
P’s happens to be right is beside the point, since the underlying
cultural context had been lost in the meantime.
 22. ABRAHAM INTERCEDES FOR SODOM
(xviii 16-33: J)

XVIII 16 The men set out from there and faced toward
Sodom, Abraham walking with them to see them off. 17 And
Yahweh reflected, “Shall I conceal from Abraham what I am
about to do, 18 now that Abraham is due to become a great and
populous nation, and all the nations of the world are to bless
themselves through him? 19 For I have singled him out in order
that he may instruct his sons and his future family to keep the
way of Yahweh by doing what is just and right, so that Yahweh
may achieve for Abraham the promises he made about him.”
20 Then Yahweh said, “The outrage of Sodom and Gomorrah is

so great, and their sin so very grave, 2 1 that I must go down and
see whether their actions are at all like the“ outcry that has
reached me, l,or not. Then I will know.”1’
22 The men left from there for Sodom, 'but Yahweh paused
in front of Abraham.® 23 Abraham came forward and said, “Will
you stamp out the innocent along with the guilty? 24 Suppose
there are in the city fifty who are innocent; would you still level
the place, rather than spare it for the sake of the fifty innocents
inside it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing, to make the
innocent perish with the guilty, so that innocent and guilty
fare alike. Far be it from you! Shall he who is Judge of all the
world not act with justice?” 26 Yahweh replied, “If I find in the
city of Sodom fifty who are innocent, I will spare the whole
place on their account.” 27 Abraham spoke up again, “Here I
am presuming to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and
- 0 MT “her.”
- &-D For an alternative word division see Note below,
o-“ See Note.
xviii 16-33 133
ashes: 28 What if the fifty innocent should lack five? Would
you destroy the whole city because of those five?” “I will not
destroy it,” he replied, “if I find there forty-five.” 29 But he
persisted, and said, “What if only forty are found there?” He
answered, “I will not do it, for the sake of the forty.” 30 Said he,
“Let not the Lord be impatient if I go on: What if only thirty
are found there?” He answered, “I will not do it if I find there
but thirty.” 31 But he persisted, “Again I presume to address the
Lord: What if there are only twenty?” “I will not cause de­
struction,” came the reply, “for the sake of the twenty.” 32 Still
he went on, “Please, let not the Lord be angry if I speak this
last time: What if there are no more than ten?” He answered,
“I will not bring destruction, for the sake of those ten.”
33 As soon as Yahweh finished speaking with Abraham, he

departed. And Abraham went back home.

Notes

xviii 16. faced toward. Literally “looked down upon the face of.”
After “Sodom” LXX adds “and Gomorrah.” But in this narrative,
Sodom is used for the whole area, except in vs. 20.
17. reflected. Literally “said.” The verb ’mr, however, covers a wide
range of meaning. The translation (cf. “persisted, replied,” and the
like in subsequent passages) has to be guided by the context.
18. populous. Heb. ‘dsum stresses numbers rather than strength.
For the last clause, cf. xii 3, Note.
19. I have singled him out. Another aspect of the flexible stem yd‘;
cf. Comment on iv 1. Here the stress is on “to acknowledge.” The
verse as a whole gives an excellent summary of the way of life (“way of
Yahweh”) that is expected of Abraham and his descendants.
future family. Literally “his house after him”; cf. P’s “your seed after
you,” xvii 7 and passim.
20. outrage. The noun ze'aqa is subtly distinguished from its doublet
se'aqa (21), which is construed objectively to yield “the outcry against
one.”
21. / must go down and see. For the phrase cf. xi 5.
at all. Heb. it aid. The same form occurs also in the sense of “destruc­
tion” (e.g., Jer iv 27, v 10), which TO applies here as well, perhaps
134 GENESIS

rightly. Some modems would emend cons, klh to klm “all of them”: “are
all of them guilty?”
like the outcry. The Heb. noun (cf. Note on 20) is vocalized to read
“her outcry” (the feminine possessive pronoun -tah, with the -h
sounded). But the pronoun has no antecedent. The same final letters
could stand for an archaic feminine suffix without possessive. LXX and
TO read the last letter as -m and render “their outcry,” i.e., the indict­
ment against them.
or not. Then I will know. Alternatively, “And if not, I will find out.”
For a similar use of the verb, cf. Exod ii 25.
22. the men. This time, the two companions of Yahweh.
left from there. Literally “turned . . . and went.” In this combination,
the first verb describes not so much a turn as a specific direction.
Yahweh paused in front of Abraham. So the original text. But the pas­
sage is listed among the rare instances of Masoretic interference known as
Tiqqurie soprim "scribal corrections,” whereby the text was changed to
“Abraham paused before Yahweh,” for deferential reasons. The change is
already witnessed in LXX.
23-32. In this dialogue several of the recurrent phrases have been
varied in translation on stylistic grounds.
24. innocent. . . guilty. Not “righteous . . . wicked”; for the legal em­
phasis, cf. Exod xxii 8.
25. Judge . . . act with justice. Heb. uses the form sopet and the
derived noun mil pat. The basic sense of the stem Spf is “to exercise au­
thority” in various matters, hence “govern, decide,” and the like; and
the noun signifies norm, standard, manner. The legal connotations are at
best incidental. The title Sopef, as used in the Book of “Judges,” has
nothing to do with the judiciary. In the highly significant Foundation
Inscription of Yahdun-lim of Mari (slightly earlier than Hammurabi)
the cognate term iapitum is distinct from dayanum “judge” (Syria, 1955,
p. 4, lines 4, 9). In the present instance, however, “Judge” and “justice”
can be employed in a non-technical sense; cf. also xix 9.
27. 1 presume. Also in 31. The basic sense of Heb. is “to undertake”
(Deut i 5), hence also to venture, presume.
the Lord. Here, and in vss. 32-33, cons, 'dny refers to Yahweh, al­
though Abraham knows by now who his visitors are. The author remains
consistent throughout this narrative. When he speaks for himself, he
refers to God as Yahweh; but when Abraham is the speaker, the appella­
tion is “the Lord.”
33. home. Literally “his place,” that is Mamre, cf. vs. 1.
xviii 16-33 135

Comment

The rebuke to Sarah, as the author records it (vs. 14), was

enough to reveal to Abraham the true character of his guests, but
not the nature of the mission which his hospitality had delayed
for the time being. He now escorts the travelers to a spot outside
Mamre, where the Hebron hills overlook the Dead Sea and the
bordering district to the south. While his companions take the road
to Sodom, Yahweh pauses to talk to Abraham. There can no longer
be any doubt as to the visitors’ objective. The ensuing dialogue
takes place in the gathering dusk (cf. xix 1), within sight of Sodom,
still lush and thriving, yet doomed to be reduced before sunrise to
a smoldering ruin.
In Yahweh’s soliloquy (vss. 17-19), and the colloquy with Abra­
ham that follows, J appears in a new role. What the author sets
down is not so much received tradition as personal contemplation.
The result is a philosophical aside, in which both Yahweh and the
patriarch approach the issues of the moment as problems in an
enduring scheme of things. Specifically, the theme is the relation be­
tween the individual and society. For Yahweh, the individual who
matters is Abraham. Having chosen Abraham as the means for
implementing his will, and as the spearhead in the quest for a
worthy way of life (“the way of Yahweh,” vs. 19), should he not
now take Abraham into his full confidence? The patriarch, on the
other hand, in his resolute and insistent appeal on behalf of Sodom,
seeks to establish for the meritorious individual the privilege of sav­
ing an otherwise worthless community.
The correlation between merit and fate is not a question which
/ is the first to broach. The basic issue is only one aspect of the
theme of the Suffering Just, which Mesopotamian literature wres­
tled with as early as the Old Babylonian age (cf. AOS 38 [1955],
68 ff.); the OT has treated it most eloquently in the Book of
Job. J’s own answer is an emphatic affirmation of the saving grace
of the just. And even though the deserving minority proves to be in
this instance too small to affect the fate of the sinful majority, the
innocent—here Lot and his daughters—are ultimately spared.
 23. DESTRUCTION OF SODOM. LOT’S ESCAPE
(xix 1-28: /; 29: /P/)

XIX i The two angels arrived in Sodom in the evening, as Lot

was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose
to greet them and, bowing low with his face to the ground, 2 he
said, “Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant’s house for
the night, and bathe your feet; you can then start early on your
way.” They said, “No, we will rest in the square.” 3 But he urged
them so much that they turned toward his place and entered
his house. He prepared for them a repast, and baked flat cakes,
and they dined.
4 Before they could lie down, the townspeople, the men of
Sodom, young and old—all the people to the last man—closed
in on the house. 5 They called out to Lot and said to him,
“Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out
to us that we may get familiar with them.” 6 Lot met them
outside at the entrance, having shut the door behind him. ^ He
said, “I beg you, my friends, don’t be wicked. «Look, I have
two daughters who never consorted with a man. Let me bring
them out to you, and you may do to them as you please. But
don’t do anything to these men, inasmuch as they have come
under the shelter of my roof.” 9 They answered, “Stand back!
The fellow,” they said, “came here on sufferance, and now he
would act the master! Now we’ll be meaner to you than to
them!” With that, they pressed hard against the person of Lot
and moved forward to break down the door. i°But the men
put out their hands and pulled Lot inside, shutting the door.
11 And the people who were at the entrance of the house, one

and all, they struck with blinding light, so that they were unable
to reach the entrance.
xix 1-29 137
12Then the men asked Lot, “Who else belongs to you here?
Sons daughters, anybody you have in the city—get them out
,0
of the place! 13 For we are about to destroy this place; the out­
cry to Yahweh against those in it has been such that he has
sent us to destroy it.” 14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-
in-law, who had married his daughters, and urged them, “Up,
leave this place, for Yahweh is about to destroy the city.” But
his sons-in-law looked at him as if he were joking.
15 As dawn broke, the angels urged Lot on, saying, “Hurry,
remove your wife and the two daughters who are here, or you
shall be swept away in the punishment of the city. 16 Still he
hesitated. So the men seized his hand, and the hands of his wife
and his two daughters—Yahweh being merciful to him—and led
them to safety outside the city. 17 When they had brought them
outside, he was told, “Flee for your life! Do not look behind you
or stop anywhere in the Plain. Flee to the hills, or you will be
swept away.” 18 But Lot replied,6 “Oh no, my lord!® 19 If you
would but indulge your servant, having shown so much kindness
in what you did for me by saving my life—I cannot flee to the
hills, or disaster will overtake me and I shall die. 20This town
ahead is near enough to escape to, and it is scarcely anything!
Let me flee there—it is a mere nothing—that my life may be
saved.” 21 He answered, “I will bear with you in this matter
also, by not overthrowing the town you speak of. 22 Hurry, flee
there, for I can do nothing until you arrive there.” This is how
the town came to be called Zoar.4
23 The sun rose upon the earth just as Lot entered Zoar.
24 Then Yahweh rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrah

sulphurous fire from Yahweh in heaven. 25 He overthrew those

cities and the whole Plain, with all the inhabitants of the cities
and the vegetation on the ground. 26 As Lot’s wife glanced
back,® she turned into a pillar of salt.
“MT adds “son-in-law”; see Note below.
& MT adds “to them.”
- c MT “Lord”; see Note.
<* Interpreted as “Little (town),” and connected with the repeated mis'dr of
vs. 20, literally “little thing.”
«MT “behind him”; see Note.
 138 GENESIS

27Next morning, Abraham hurried back to the spot where

he had stood before Yahweh. 28 As he looked down toward
Sodom and Gomorrah and the whole area of the Plain, he could
see only smoke over the land rising like the fumes from a kiln.
/29And so it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the
Plain and overthrew the cities amidst which Lot had lived, God
was mindful of Abraham by removing Lot from the midst of the
upheaval./

Notes

xix 1. The two angels. This identification is meant for the reader, who
knows that Yahweh stayed behind with Abraham (xviii 22) in order to
tell him of the melancholy mission. The author was equally direct in in­
troducing the other visit (xviii 1). But Lot must discover the truth for
himself, as Abraham did earlier. It is only in the light of the sanwerim
(11), that the “men” (5, 8, 10) are revealed as angels (15). By thus
viewing the action through the eyes of the actors, the spectator also is
caught up in the unfolding drama, in spite of his advance knowledge.
in the evening. The southern tip of the Dead Sea is approximately forty
miles from Hebron. The angels left after their sumptuous meal, hence in
late afternoon at the earliest. Normal traveling time for that distance
would be about two days.
in the gate. The focal point of all communal activities in an urban
center like Sodom.
with his face to the ground. This is how courtiers and clients address
their superiors in the Amama Letters. In the corresponding case of
Abraham (xviii 2), the term for “face” (’appayim) is significantly miss­
ing.
2. house. In contrast to Abraham’s tent; cf. xviii 1, 6, 9, 10.
early. The Heb. verbal form hiSkim is used adverbially when coordi­
nated with another verb, as it is here. In conjunction with babboqer (27),
it is not of itself “to rise early in the morning,” since a second verb is im­
plied there; cf. xx 8, xxi 14, etc. Moreover, as an adverbial complement,
hiskim signifies not only “early,” but also “persistently, diligently,” or the
like (e.g., Jer vii 13, 25, xxv 3, 4; Zeph iii 7, etc.). The independent finite
usage is rare; cf. 27, where the sense is “he proceeded promptly” (with
the preposition ’el “to”).
No. The reply is abrupt. The angels’ grim errand leaves no room for
the usual amenities.
xix 1-29 139
3. urged. Heb. psr describes various types of pressure; in vs. 9 the
verb is rendered “pressed hard.” For our “urged . . . on” in vs. 15, Heb.
uses a different stem.
they turned toward his place. Literally “they turned aside to him,”
with the nuance of “chez lui”; cf. “turn aside” in vs. 2.
repast. Heb. mitte, also “feast, banquet” (cf. xxi 8); but here the
reception is far from elaborate.
flat cakes. Heb. mascot “unleavened bread.” The description is meant
to contrast with the semolina biscuits of xviii 6; hurriedly baked flat
flaps of bread are the daily fare of the region. “Unleavened” now
tends to emphasize ritual rather than expediency.
4. to the last man. Heb. miqqa$e “(even) from the fringe(s),” i.e.,
everybody.
closed in on. Literally “placed themselves around.” The Heb. Niphal
used with the preposition ‘al “upon, against” can describe hostile moves;
cf. “to gather, combine against” (verb qhl), Exod xxxii 1; Num xvi 3,
xvii 7, xx 2, and “to bear down on” (verb kbd)\ Exod xiv 4; Lev x 3
(not “to be glorified”); see Ehrl., Vol. I, p. 316.
5. get familiar with. The same circumlocution for sexual relations as
in iv 1, but used under different circumstances.
6. met them outside at the entrance. Literally “went out to them to
the entrance.” The entrance is the doorway, which in well-appointed
houses was protected by solid and costly doors; cf. 9.
7. be wicked. The Hiphil form without object is generally intransitive;
cf. Note on iii 6, vi 19; see also vs. 9.
8. consorted with. Same Heb. idiom as in vs. 5.
9. on sufferance. Heb. lagur “to sojourn,” cf. Note on xii 10. The
sojourner lacked the privileges and protection enjoyed by citizens.
act the master. Heb. stem Ipt; see xviii 25, Note.
the person of Lot. Literally “the man Lot.” The same idiom is used
also in the sense of “X as a person, individual,” e.g., Num xii 3.
11. one and all. Literally “whether little or big”; cf. “young and old,”
vs. 4.
blinding light. Heb. sanwefim is a loanword based on Akk. funwurum,
an adjectival form with superlative or “elative” force; “having extraor­
dinary brightness” (cf. my discussion in JCS 6 [1952], 81 ff., esp. p. 89,
n. 52). For ordinary blindness Heb. employs native terms (stem Vr),
cf. Lev xxii 22; Deut xxviii 28; Zech xii 4. But these would not be
suitable in the present instance, since what is involved is not the
common affliction, not just “total blindness,” as the word before us is
generally rendered, but a sudden stroke. And that is just what the term
suggests: a blinding flash emanating from angels—who thereby abandon
their human disguise—which would induce immediate, if temporary,
 140 GENESIS

loss of sight, much like desert or snow blindness; the same is true of
II Kings vi 18, the only other passage where this noun is used (Elisha
and the Aramaeans). Thus the very word evokes a numinous image. It
is a matter of magic as opposed to myopia.
they were unable. Heb. wyl’w, which is not “they wearied themselves.”
In Exod vii 18 the Niphal form describes a condition of helplessness, as
is proved by the parallel “they could not” later on (vs. 24). In all
probability, the present occurrence should also be pointed as Niphal:
*wayyilla’u.
12. the men. Sam. reads “the angels,” which is now appropriate; Heb.
does the same in vs. 15.
Before “Sons, daughters . . .” the text has “son-in-law,” which is
immediately suspect: the singular is inconsistent with what follows
(LXX has plural), the pronominal suffix is lacking (restored in Syr.,
TJ), and above all, a son-in-law would not be mentioned before direct
descendants. The word in question is obviously intrusive, evidently from
vs. 14.
13. the outcry . . . against those in it. MT literally “the outcry against
them,” the pronoun referring not to “the place,” which is the actual ante­
cedent, but—by extension—to the inhabitants; for the noun, cf. xviii 20.
The original is self-explanatory, but in translation a concession has to be
made to clarity.
14. who had married. Heb. employs the agent form “takers of,” which
could refer to the past (as interpreted by LXX), or (with Vulg.) the fu­
ture, i.e., those who were due to marry the two girls. The ambiguity
would disappear if we knew the technical meaning of hannimsa’dt in the
next verse: literally “within reach, present, at hand,” which could mean
either pledged but still at home, or unattached altogether. The traditional
translation that has here been followed presupposes that two older daugh­
ters had to be left behind with their husbands, who had every legal right,
however, to oppose their departure. But the alternative interpretation is
by no means improbable.
15. in the punishment. Or “because of the iniquity”; on Heb. 'awon see
iv 13.
16. he hesitated. The text has a pause sign after the verb. Lot is thus
pictured as hesitant to abandon his possessions.
led them to safety. Literally “brought them out and deposited them”
(hendiadys).
17. Flee. The Heb. stem (n)mlf is used five times in this short passage
(17-22), evidently because of its assonance with the name Lot (Iwf).
he was told. Literally “he (the speaker) said”; cf. xviii 10, as con­
trasted with the preceding verse. The subject in such situations is often
xix 1-29 141
left ambiguous in Heb. The same is true of vs. 21, below, but there Lot
had already addressed one of the two angels; see below.
18. But Lot replied. The text reads “said to them,” which cannot be
right, since immediately afterward Lot is addressing himself to a single
companion. The error is probably traceable to the ambiguous 'dny, which
must have been read as plural; cf. Note on xviii 3. The context, however,
favors ,<ldom.
19. If you would but indulge your servant. Another nuance of the flexi­
ble “to find favor in the eyes of. . .”; see vi 8, Note.
20. town. Heb. 'ir ranges all the way from “city” to “depository”
(cf. I Kings ix 19). The present occurrence describes a small settlement.
ahead. Literally “that, yonder.”
to escape to. For once Heb. departs from nml( and substitutes lanus.
scarcely anything ... a mere nothing. Heb. mis’ar (both times), a
skillful wordplay on the place name Zoar (s‘r). Aetiological explanations
were always popular, but seldom as plausible as this one is, at least on the
surface.
24. sulphurous fire. While sentiment favors the traditional “brimstone
and fire,” the context points plainly to hendiadys.
25. The repeated use of the verb “to overthrow” may well hark back to
an earthquake; cf. Dr. On the problem of location see Wright (Biblical
Archaeology, p. 50), who assumes, with Albright, that the destroyed
cities were buried beneath the shallow waters of the southern tip of the
Dead Sea. This view has been questioned by E. G. Kraeling, Bible Atlas,
1956, p. 71; see also J. P. Harland, BA 5 (1942), 41 ff.
26. glanced back. MT has “(Lot’s wife,) behind him, looked.” The
verb itself does not indicate direction. Unless, therefore, something like
“(who followed) behind him” is intended, the pronominal suffix was orig­
inally feminine; cf. also vs. 17. The present translation leaves the matter
open.
27. hurried back. Not “rose early (in the morning),” which cannot be
construed with "to the place,” in any case; some such verb as “and
went/hastened” is implied, cf. Note on vs. 2.
28. smoke . . . fumes. Heb. does not employ here its regular term for
smoke, but uses instead, both times, a noun cognate with the term for
“incense.” The emphasis is thus on dense vapors, such as might be caused
by the firing of lime or the burning of fat or incense.
142 GENESIS

Comment

The focus of attention now shifts from Abraham to Lot, whose

part in the impending drama was foreshadowed in chapter xiii and
gained substance in xviii. By taking advantage of his uncle’s kindness
and staking out the Plain for himself (xiii 10 f.), Lot became an un­
witting accessory to Sodom’s guilt. The story of Lot, which is a
subplot in the history of Abraham, is now coming to a close. J never
loses sight of the fact that history, in the last analysis, is made by in­
dividuals. But the individual, in turn, mirrors larger issues and
events.
At the present juncture, the author is leading up to the origins of
Moab and Ammon, two of Israel’s close kin. And since these were
Transjordanian groups, J combines a popular tradition about them
with a geographic upheaval south of the Dead Sea. His approach is
normative, and the judgment is apparently calculated to point up by
indirection the sterner moral values of Israel as compared with those
of its neighbors. National history as a vehicle for a way of life
remains J’s central objective; and that history is at this point per­
sonified by Abraham and Lot.
To judge from xiii 10 and vs. 29 here, a major natural catastrophe
must have destroyed the settlements at the southern tip of the Dead
Sea some time after the patriarchal period had commenced. This
could well have been an earthquake, accompanied perhaps by an
eruption of petroleum gases underground. The event could not but
be ascribed to the delinquency of the local population. But there was
no uniform tradition as regards the nature of the offense. Isaiah
stresses lack of justice (i 10, iii 9), Jeremiah cites moral and ethical
laxity (xxiii 14), and Ezekiel speaks of Sodom’s disregard of the
needy (xvi 49). To J, however, it was the city’s sexual depravity, the
manifest “sodomy” of its inhabitants, that provided the sole and self-
evident reason for its frightful fate.
The action is swift and grim, inevitable yet suspenseful. Nor is
it surprising, given the author’s insight and skill, that in the personal
equation between Abraham and Lot the latter should emerge a
poor second. Having met the strangers before, the reader will not
need to ask how they could cover the distance between Hebron and
Sodom, normally a two-day journey, in the brief interval between
xix 1-29 143
midaftemoon and sundown. Lot is dutiful in his hospitality. His
manner with the visitors, however, appears servile (“with his face
to the ground,” vs. 1), as contrasted with the simple dignity of
Abraham (xviii 2), and both his invitation and subsequent prepara­
tions lack his uncle’s spontaneity. But true to the unwritten code,
Lot will stop at nothing in his effort to protect his guests. Presently,
the identity of the visitors is revealed in a flash of supernatural
light (vs. 11). The angels’ intercession serves to bring out the
latent weaknesses in Lot’s character. He is undecided, flustered,
ineffectual. His own sons-in-law refuse to take him seriously (14).
He hesitates to turn his back on his possessions, and has to be led
to safety by the hand (16), like a child—an ironic sidelight on a
man who a moment earlier tried to protect his celestial guests
(von Rad). Lot’s irresoluteness makes him incoherent (20). Small
wonder that his deliverance is finally achieved without a moment
to spare. Had the sun risen an instant sooner, Lot might have
shared the fate of his wife; for God’s mysterious workings must
not be looked at by man.
As Abraham peered anxiously at the scene of the disaster, from
the distant heights of Hebron, he had his answer to the question
he had posed the night before. A pall of dense vapors was all that
could be seen. All life was extinguished. The author is much too
fine an artist to spell out the viewer’s thoughts, and the close of
the narrative is all the more eloquent for this omission.
P’s one-sentence summary of the episode (29)—unmistakable in
its wording, style, and approach—is an example of scholastic
succinctness at its best.
 24. LOT’S DAUGHTERS
(xix 30-38: /)

XIX 30 Lot went up from Zoar with his two daughters, and
settled in the hill country; he was afraid to stay in Zoar. And he
lived with his two daughters in a cave. 31 The older one said to
the younger, “Our father is growing old, and there is not a man
on earth to unite with us as was the custom throughout the
world. 32 Come, let us ply our father with wine, then lie with
him, in order that we may preserve life through our father.”
33 That night, after they had plied their father with wine, the
older one went in and lay with her father; he was not conscious
of her lying down or her getting up. 34 Next morning the older
said to the younger, “Look, last night it was I who lay with
father. Tonight let us again ply him with wine, and you go in
and lie with him, so that we may preserve life through our
father.” 35 So after they had plied their father with wine that
night also, the younger went in and lay with him; nor was he
conscious of her lying down or her getting up.
36 Thus both Lot’s daughters came to be with child by their

father. 37 The older bore a son, whom she named Moaba; he is

the father of the Moabites of today. 38 And the younger also
bore a son, whom she named Ben-Ammi6; he is the father of the
Ammonites of today.
a Heb. md’ab, equated with rrif’ab “from father.”
6 “Son of my kin,” equated with “children of Ammon."
xix 30-38 145

Notes

xix 30. cave. Vocalized with definite article to signify “a certain

cave.”
31. growing old. The inchoative aspect is necessary in order to point
up the urgency of the situation.
unite with. Cf. Note on vi 4.
32. ply .. . with wine. The primary meaning of the Heb. verb is
“to irrigate the ground” (ii 10), then to furnish drink to animals (xxiv
14, xxix 7) or humans (e.g., xxiv 18 f.). Here the object of the scheme
is not just to make Lot drink but to get him drunk.
preserve life. Literally “keep seed alive.”
34. with father. Heb. literally “my father,” but the possessive in this
case is more stylistic than proprietary. LXX has “our father,” without
necessarily implying a variant reading.

Comment

Popular tales about neighboring peoples are encountered the

world over. The product of traditional rivalries, local pride, and raw
folk humor, they often tend to place the neighbor’s character and
origin in an uncomplimentary, if amusing, light. Was the narrative
before us inspired by similar considerations? What little evidence
there is would seem to contradict such an assumption.
As they are here portrayed, Lot and his two daughters had every
reason to believe that they were the last people on earth. From the
recesses of their cave somewhere up the side of a canyon formed
by the earth’s deepest rift, they could see no proof to the contrary.
The young women were concerned with the future of the race, and
they were resolute enough to adopt the only desperate measure that
appeared to be available. The father, moreover, was not a conscious
party to the scheme. All of this adds up to praise rather than blame.
The account itself, of course, was colored to a substantial degree
by the popular etymology of the ethnic terms for the Moabites and
Ammonites. Did the derivations here recorded originate with Israel­
ites, or with the natives themselves whose dialects differed very little
from Hebrew? Such points could be argued either way, and with
equally inconclusive results. More practical is the question as to why
146 GENESIS

J incorporated such a tale about outsiders in a story of his own peo­

ple’s past. The likeliest answer would seem to be that these neighbors
were too important to be ignored. Yet there is little evidence of such
prominence in extant historical records, certainly not in records that
J could have known. / might have been familiar with the substance
of I Sam xi, and quite probably with the background of Judg iii 12ff.
and xi 4 ff. But the folk tale before us presupposes a longer period of
incubation. It may go back to the thirteenth century, when both
Transjordan and Palestine were being setded by related tribes, at
which time their relative strengths appear to have been more on a
par than was later the case; cf. Deut ii 9, 19. J’s parallel treatment
of the histories of Abraham and Lot is added proof that interrela­
tionship was particularly intimate and important in early times.
In short, the anonymous Dead Sea cave with which this tale is
concerned entails its own full complement of intriguing issues.
 25. ABRAHAM AND SARAH AT GERAR
(xx 1-18: E)

XX i Abraham journeyed on to the region of the Negeb and

settled between Kadesh and Shur. While he was sojourning in
Gerar, 2 Abraham said of his wife Sarah, “She is my sister.” So
Abimelech king of Gerar had Sarah brought to him. 3 But God
came to Abimelech in a dream one night and said to him, “You
are due to die because of the woman you have taken, for she is a
married woman.” 4 Abimelech, who had not come near her,
asked, “O Lord, would you slay one0 even though he be inno­
cent? 5 The fact is that he told me, ‘She is my sister’; and she her­
self stated, ‘He is my brother.’ I did it in good faith and with
clean hands!” 6 God answered him in a dream, “Yes, I know that
you did this in good faith; I myself kept you from sinning against
me, which is why 1 would not let you touch her. 7 But you must
now return the man’s wife—since he is one who speaks up, he
will intercede for you—to save your life. If you do not restore
her, know that this means death for you and all yours.”
8 Early next morning, Abimelech called all his attendants and
told them everything that had happened; and the people were
deeply shocked. 9 Then Abimelech summoned Abraham and
said to him, “See what you have done to us! Wherein did I fail
you that you should have brought such great guilt upon me and
my kingdom? You have behaved toward me in an unforgivable
manner. 10 What then,” Abimelech demanded of Abraham,
“was your purpose in doing such a thing?”
11 “I thought,” Abraham replied, “there is surely no fear of
God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.
12 Besides, she is in truth my sister—my father’s daughter though

°MT “nation”; see Note below.

 148 GENESIS

not my mother’s—who became my wife. 13 So when Heaven8

caused me to wander far from my father’s home, I said to her,
‘I want you to do me this kindness: whatever place we come to,
say there of me, He is my brother.’”
n Abimelech got sheep and oxen, and male and female
slaves, and gave them to Abraham; and he restored his wife
Sarah to him. 15 Said Abimelech, “Here, my land is open to you:
settle wherever you please.” 16 And to Sarah he said, “I have
given your brother a thousandworth of silver. Let that serve
you as a blind0 to everybody who is with you; you have been
publicly vindicated.”“
17 Abraham then interceded with God, and God restored full
health to Abimelech, namely, his wife and his maidservants, so
that they could bear again. 18 For Gode had closed fast every
womb in the household of Abimelech on account of Sarah, wife
of Abraham.
6 Literally “God”; cf. Note.
0 Literally “covering for the eyes."
<*See Note.
8 So Sam., LXX manuscripts; MT “Yahweh.”

Notes

xx 1. (journeyed) on. The text has “from there,” which in the present
context could only refer to Lot’s cave. In the original context of E,
the nearest antecedent would be xv 5, assuming that nothing from that
source is missing at this juncture. The translation seeks to reflect some of
the Heb. without making it meaningless.
While he was sojourning. The received verse division causes trouble,
at least on the surface. It suggests that to be settled between Kadesh and
Shur was the same thing as sojourning in Gerar. By taking lc as a
temporal protasis to vs. 2, we obtain a statement that is immediately
clear: in the Negeb, Abraham ranged with his herds from Kadesh to
Shur; in the course of that stay, he paid a visit to Gerar. This natural
interpretation has the added advantage of automatically clearing up a
geographic problem, since Gerar (near Gaza) does not fit readily “be­
tween Kadesh and Shur.”
3. a dream. In E, the normal means of communication between God
and man; cf. vs. 6 and xxxi 10.
xx 1-18 149
one night. Definite article in Heb. with the force of our “a certain
. . cf. xix 30, Note.
You are due to die. In the original, the periphrastic construction with
hinneka.
4. one. The text for the interrogative clause gives the consonants
hgwy gm fdyq thrg. Here (h)gwy presents an old crux, as old as the
ancient versions, which attest the reading but cannot solve it. The noun
stands for “nation” (cf. xii 2, Note) as a collective, political, and
territorial concept. No such meaning can be forced into the present
context; and “people” is ruled out by the fact that even for a group of
individuals the required Heb. term would be ‘am, which is sharply
demarcated from goy (cf. JBL 79 [1960], 157ff.). The respective
usages are established by some 2350 occurrences in the OT. Not one
of them favors “person” or “persons” for goy; the connotation “other-
national, gentile” is post-biblical and predicated on the fact that Israel
was no longer a nation.
The combined evidence thus points overwhelmingly to an old textual
corruption. The original must have read either hgm, which came to be
expanded to hgyhgm through dittography (the -w-, as vowel letter, would
not be used in very old texts), or h. .gm, wherein the lacuna was first
taken up by some reinforcing particle, but later displaced by dittography.
The first of these alternatives seems preferable and is reflected in the
translation; for an analogous case of haplography involving goy, see xxi
13.
5. The fact is. Translating the rhetorical halo’ “is it not?”
6. in good faith. Literally “in the integrity of my heart.”
7. one who speaks up. Heb. nabV, normally “prophet,” in the sense
of one who speaks (stem nb') on behalf of another, specifically God;
note especially Deut xviii 18; but the nabV can also represent, be spokes­
man for, a mortal, cf. Exod vii 1. Here the allusion is apparently to the
latter function.
9. For the first clause, cf. xii 18.
fail. The primary meaning of hf is “to be deficient,” hence ultimately,
but in a restricted sense, “to sin.”
unforgivable. Literally “not to be done,” cf. xxxiv 7.
10. What. . . was your purpose. Literally “What ... did you (fore)-
see?”
11. fear of God. In general, respect for moral and social obligations.
my father’s daughter though not my mother’s. It is noteworthy that
a Hittite treaty which concerns itself with a similar case of wife-sister,
uses virtually the same terminology (uterine sister : sister “germane”; cf.
P. Koschaker, ZA 41 [1933], 10ff.). According to xi 29 (/), Abraham’s
brother Nahor married his niece, whom he had evidently adopted. The
150 GENESIS

same verse tells of Abraham’s marriage to Sarah without, however, in­

dicating her family background, conceivably because she was already a
member of Terah’s family; cf. Note ad loc.
13. Heaven. Literally “God.” The accompanying verb is in the plural,
which is grammatically permissible, but not customary with Elohim
“God”; cf. xxxv 7; II Sam vii 23. Here the construction may hint inde­
pendently at a related but broader connotation, something like our
Heaven, Fate, Providence.
15. settle. As opposed to “sojourn,” vs. 1.
16. a thousandworth of silver. Heb. literally “a thousand of/in silver”;
but the figure is obviously a round number, and what Abraham actually
received (vs. 14) was not in currency.
a blind. Literally “a covering for the eyes,” which appears to describe a
method for diverting or forestalling suspicion. Whether the phrase carries
special overtones cannot, of course, be determined.
publicly. This represents the vocalized text, literally “before all.” But
neither the pointing nor the cons, text inspires confidence.
you have been . . . vindicated. The causative stem of the indicated root
ykh means “to decree” (xxiv 14, 44), “to set right, give judgment” (xxxi
42); and other passages carry a similar legal or disciplinary connotation
(e.g., xxi 25). The Niphal (passive or reflexive) is rare, but not unrelated
in meaning (Isa i 18; Job xxiii 7). The present occurrence, if correctly
recorded, points in the same direction.
17. restored full health. Not “healed,” as traditionally rendered, but
“cured,” or the like.
namely. Explicative use of Heb. we-; cf. i 14, Note; as the following
verse demonstrates, only the women were involved.
18. God. So correctly in Sam., LXX manuscripts. The “Yahweh” of
MT must be a copyist’s error influenced by YHWH in the next line
(xxi 1).

Comment

This is the first connected narrative from the hand of E (for

probable earlier fragments cf. xv), and it has most of the charac­
teristics which go with that source: Elohim instead of Yahweh;
dreams as a medium of communication; a marked tendency to ex­
plain and justify. The contrast with J is particularly sharp in this
instance because the account before us parallels J's narrative in xii
10-20. The external differences stand out, therefore, that much more
clearly. What is more, even without the discrepancies in vocabu-
xx 1-18 151
laiy, style, and treatment, internal evidence from content would still
show independently that the two accounts could not have been writ­
ten by the same author. The present section thus adds up to a
strong argument in favor of a distinct narrative source that is not to
be confused with J; cf. pp. xxxift
Actually, the episode before us is paralleled not once but twice.
The first incident, (a), xii 10-20, involved the encounter of Abra­
ham and Sarah with the ruler of Egypt; the writing was seen to
bear all the earmarks of J. The other parallel, (c), xxvi 6-11,
echoes an identical experience by Isaac and Rebekah with Abime-
lech of Gerar; it too can be traced to /. There is, however, complete
separation of cast, locale, and generations: Abraham-Sarah-
Pharaoh-Egypt as against Isaac-Rebekah-Abimelech-Gerar. The two
narratives are thus entirely appropriate in a work by an individual
author.
The present account, (b), on the other hand, juxtaposes Abra­
ham and Sarah with Abimelech of Gerar; it crosses the visitors of
(a) with the host and locale of (c). Moreover, if all three reports
stemmed from the same source, it would follow (1) that Abraham
learned nothing from his experience in Egypt, and (2) that Abime­
lech was in no way sobered by his all but fatal involvement with
Sarah, an affair in which he went to such lengths to protest his in­
nocence. Furthermore, Abimelech would have had to be either a
fool or a knave to accept Isaac’s subsequent pretense at face value;
yet this passage depicts him as both wise and sincere. Lastly, our
king of Gerar would be much too old as a candidate for Rebekah’s
attentions. In short, the three episodes viewed together cannot be
homogeneous. As soon, however, as they are traced back to two
separate sources, all the contradictions and inconsistencies are re­
solved automatically.
J knew of two occasions (a, c) when a patriarch thought it neces­
sary to introduce his wife as a sister; there is in them no duplication
of principals, locale, or generations. In E, however, the two epi­
sodes became telescoped, with the result that Abraham and Sarah
were shifted from Egypt to Gerar, while Isaac and Rebekah did not
participate at all. Thus each source remains entirely consistent within
itself; between the two, however, two original incidents branched out
into three. Fluctuations in underlying oral tradition would readily
account for the eventual confusion.
Where the evidence from content agrees so completely with inde­
152 GENESIS

pendently established criteria of terminology and general approach,

the combined results may be accepted without serious misgivings.
The narrative before us becomes thus a parade example of E’s work.
It is immediately apparent that this writer, too, has outstanding gifts
as a storyteller. He also had access to, and respect for, authentic de­
tail. But E cannot match J’s economy of speech, and he lacks J’s
ability to let actions speak for themselves. Whereas Abraham makes
no reply to Pharaoh’s stinging indictment (see Note on xii 20), he
has here a great deal to say to Abimelech in self-defense (vss.
11-13, above).
On the significance of the theme which constitutes the subject mat­
ter of all three narratives under discussion, see Comment on Sec. 15
and, for the whole, cf. pp. xxxi ff.
 26. BIRTH OF ISAAC AND EXPULSION OF HAGAR
(xxi l-2a: /J/\ 2b-5: |P|; 6-21: E)

XXI Yahweh now took note of Sarah as he had said, and

he® did for Sarah what he had promised. 2 Sarah conceived and
bore Abraham a son in his old age,/ |at the set time that God
had stated. 3 Abraham gave his newborn son that Sarah had
borne him the name Isaac. 4 And Abraham circumcised his son
Isaac at the age of eight days, as God had commanded him.
5 Now Abraham was 100 years old when his son Isaac was born

to him./'
6 And Sarah said,

“God has brought me laughter6;

All who hear of it will rejoice0 with me.”
7 And she added,
“Who would have said to Abraham
That Sarah might nurse children!
Yet I have bome a son in his old age.”
8The child grew and was weaned. On the day that Isaac was
weaned, Abraham held a great feast. 9 When Sarah noticed that
the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had bome to Abraham was
playing ‘‘with her son Isaac/ 10 she turned on Abraham, “Cast
out that slave with her son! No son of that slave is going to
share inheritance with my son Isaac! 11 The matter distressed
Abraham very much, for the son was his too. 12 But God said
to Abraham, “Do not be distressed about the boy, or about
0 Heb. “Yahweh”; see Note.
6 Play on the name “Isaac.”
0 Or “rejoicing.”
So with LXX, Vulg. (manuscripts); omitted in MT.
154 GENESIS

your slave woman. Do whatever Sarah tells you, for it is through

Isaac that your line shall be continued. 13 And as for the maid’s
son, I will make of him also a great0 nation, for he too is your
offspring.
14 Early next morning Abraham got some bread and a skin of
water 'to give to Hagar. He placed them on her back and sent
her away with the child'. She wandered aimlessly in the wilder­
ness of Beer-sheba. 15 When the water in the skin was used up,
she left the child under one of the shrubs, 16 and went and sat
down at a distance, about a bowshot away; for she said to her­
self, “Let me not look on as the child dies.” And as she sat thus
at a distance, she broke into sobs.
17 God heard the boy’s cry, and an angel of God called to

Hagar from heaven, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for
God has heard the cry of the boy "in his present plight'.
18 Come, pick up the boy and comfort him; for I will make of

him a great nation.” 19 Then God opened her eyes and she be­
held a well of water. She went and filled the skin with water,
and let the boy drink.
20 God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert

and became a skilled bowman. 21 His home was in the wilder­

ness of Paran. And his mother got a wife for him from the land
of Egypt.
e So with most versions, cf. vs. 18; omitted in MT.

/-/Text obscure; see Note.

o-e See Note.

Notes

xxi 1. The second half of the verse duplicates the first. It appears to
stem from P, with a secondary change of Elohim to Yahweh, induced
by the preceding clause. It did not, however, seem practical to reflect
such a possibility in the translation.
now. Some such nuance is demanded by the inverted syntax of Heb.
took note. The primary sense of the common and richly shaded stem
pqd; trad, “visited” is suitable at best in punitive contexts alone.
2b. Elohim is the normal designation of the Deity not only in E (vss.
6ff.) but also in P (along with El Shaddai).
xxi 1-21 155
5. 100 years old. Cf. Comment on xvii.
6. laughter . . . rejoice. A double allusion by E to the name Isaac;
see Note on xvii 17. The derisive “laugh at” is ruled out by the tenor of
vs. 7; note also the unique construction of the verb fhq with ti.
7. said. The stem mil is limited in the OT to poetry.
8. was weaned. To this day, weaning may take place in the Near
East as late as at three years or more; it is often followed by a celebra­
tion.
9. was playing. Piel form of the verb $hq, in further wordplay on
the name Isaac. Traditional “mocking” would require the preposition b-
to designate the object. To judge, however, from some of the ancient
versions, the original text appears to have included “with her son Isaac,”
which is lacking in MT, perhaps through haplography. According to
xvi 16 combined with vs. 5 above (both from P, however), Ishmael
would now be at least fifteen years old. But his “playing” with Isaac
need mean no more than that the older boy was trying to amuse his
little brother. There is nothing in the text to suggest that he was abusing
him, a motive deduced by many troubled readers in their effort to
account for Sarah’s anger.
12. your line shall be continued. Literally “your seed shall be called,
identified”: the important branch of your family will descend through
Isaac rather than Ishmael; for an analogous employment of “seed,” cf.
xvii 12.
14. on her back. Heb. literally “on her shoulder,” but the term covers
also the upper part of the back in general. The middle of the sentence
is now distorted. The translation of LXX and Syr., “and he placed the
child on her shoulder,” would yield an acceptable word order for Heb.,
yet would not automatically guarantee its authenticity. The real prob­
lem is Ishmael’s age at the time. If the boy was about fifteen years
old (see above, Note on 9), his mother would not have carried him on
her back. Obviously, the present narrative depicts Ishmael as younger
(cf. 15ff.), but still old enough to play the big brother to a weaned
Isaac (8f.). The various emendations that have been proposed merely
substitute one set of problems for another. An acceptable solution
has yet to be discovered.
15. left. Not necessarily “cast away”; cf. Ehrl.
16. bowshot. Heb. mthwy is quite probably dual, so that “two bow­
shots” may be a better translation.
she broke into sobs. LXX, followed by most moderns, substitutes the
masculine pronoun, thus making Ishmael the subject, evidently because
of vs. 17. There, however, the noun “sound, voice” is not expressly con­
nected with weeping; moreover, the text employs the unambiguous
feminine prefix twice, the Heb. idiom in this instance being made up of
156 GENESIS

two verbs (“she lifted up her voice and she wept”), which would mean a
double emendation. As for the idiom itself, the tendency to interpret it
in the sense of “she wept aloud" is not in accord with good Heb. usage.
Elsewhere, the verb ni’ is used with bodily organs (eyes, passim; feet,
xxix 1; hands, Hab iii 10) not with the sense of “to lift,” to signify
degree or volume, but with the shading of “to pick up,” to focus attention
on the activity involved (cf. Ehrl. at xiii 10); Hagar’s weeping was
audible but not necessarily loud; the above translation reflects, further­
more, the “ingressive” force of the phrase; cf. xxix 1.
17. heard. Another explanation of the name Ishmael; cf. xvi 11.
in his present plight. Literally “where he is”; but the phrase would
hardly be much to the point as a topographical reference (Ehrl.), for
it is not a question of where the boy is but how he is.
18. and comfort him. Literally “make your hand firm upon him,”
which is idiomatic for lending support and encouragement; the traditional
“seize him by his hand,” or the like, would require “get hold of his
hand” in Heb., for which cf. xix 16 (three times).
20. a skilled bowman. Heb. robe qassat, a combination of two agent
nouns, hence a bowman (qassat) who does something, not a person
who uses the bow. Moreover, no such meaning as “to shoot” can be
established for the first element, which might be connected at best with
Heb. for “great,” or Aram, for “youth,” not without some difficulties
in either case. The general type of compound, however, recalls in its
construction “a wild colt of a man” (xvi 12), or Akk. “hunter-man,”
which is familiar from the Gilgamesh Epic. The present translation is
conjectural.
21. got a wife for him. In ancient Near Eastern society the father
had to obtain a wife for his son and assume the costs involved; here it
is Hagar who has to take over the responsibility.

Comment

Except for the first five verses, the narrative is the work of E. The
proof goes deeper than the external evidence from the consistent
use of Elohim (6, 12, 17, 19, 20). The present account duplicates
ch. xvi. More significant, however, is the fact that the reason for
Hagar’s departure is not at all the same as in the earlier story by /,
nor does the personality of Hagar as here depicted bear any re­
semblance to that of her namesake in the other story. So complete
a dichotomy would be inconceivable in the work of the same author,
or in a fixed written tradition.
xxi 1-21 157

According to xvi 5, Sarah’s hatred of Hagar stemmed from the

concubine’s tactless behavior toward her childless mistress; and
Abraham was either unable or unwilling to intervene in the bitter
rivalry between two headstrong women. Here it is Ishmael who be­
comes the unwitting cause of Sarah’s fury; and Abraham makes an
effort to remonstrate with Sarah, while Hagar is the downtrodden
slave throughout. Once again, E seeks to explain people and their
actions, but he does so with the aid of words rather than deeds. If
E’s characters do more reasoning than /’s, they are also less natural
and impulsive.
These differences in depth are independently reflected in the in­
nocuous medium of sound symbolism. All three sources are inter­
ested in the aetiology of the name Isaac. P ascribed it to Abraham’s
surprise at God’s announcement that Sarah would bear a son
(xvii 17). / traced the name back to Sarah’s incredulity (xviii 10-
14). E, however, postpones his derivation until after the child has
been bom, and he bases it on the mother’s delight with the event.
Nor do / and E agree on the precise reasons behind Ishmael’s name.
In the former account, Yahweh “heeds” the mother’s misery; in the
latter, Elohim “hears” the cry of the abandoned child. There is thus
much that is the same in the theme as a whole, but also a vast
difference in detail and treatment. Both sources drew manifestly on
the same underlying tradition. By the time of the writing, however,
the material had come to be transmitted through more than one
channel, and the individual writers contributed indirectly to the
widening gap.
 27. ABRAHAM AND ABIMELECH AT BEER-SHEBA
(xxi 22-32, 34: E; 33: /J/)

XXI 22 At about that time Abimelech, accompanied by Phicol

chief of his troops,“ said to Abraham, “God is with you in every­
thing you undertake. 23 Therefore, swear to me by God here and
now that you will not deal falsely with me, or with my kith and
kin, but will act as kindly toward me and the land in which you
are residing as I have acted toward you.” 24 And Abraham re­
plied, “I swear it.”
25 Abraham then reproached Abimelech about the well of
water that Abimelech’s servants had seized. 26 Abimelech an­
swered, “I have no idea who did that thing. You never told me,
nor have I heard of it until this moment.”
27 Then Abraham took sheep and oxen and gave them to
Abimelech, and the two of them concluded a pact. 28 Abraham
also set apart seven ewe-lambs of the flock, 29 whereupon Abim­
elech asked Abraham, “What is the meaning of these seven ewe-
lambs that you have set apart?” 30 He answered, “It is this: you
will accept the seven ewe-lambs from me as my proof that this
well was dug by me.” 31 This is why that place was called Beer-
sheba,6 meaning that the two of them swore an oath there.
32 Upon the conclusion of the pact at Beer-sheba, Abimelech

and Phicol, chief of his troops, left and returned to Philistine

country.
/33 As for Abraham,® he planted a tamarisk at Beer-sheba,
and there he invoked the name of Yahweh, the Eternal God./'
34 And Abraham resided in Philistine country many years.

0LXX, Old Latin add “and Ahuzzath his councilor”; cf. xxvi 26 (/).
6Literally “Well of Seven,” or “Well of the Oath.”
«Sam., LXX, Syr., Vulg.; MT omits.
xxi 22-34 159

Notes

xxi 22. Phicol. See also vs. 32. The same military man is mentioned in
xxvi 26 (/), together with an adviser whom two ancient versions (LXX
and Old Latin) cite in this context as well.
23. here. The site of future Beer-sheba, in assonance with h-Sb'-h
“swear.”
kith and kin. To reflect the alliteration in the Heb. pair riini : nekdi,
both nouns referring to progeny.
you are residing. Stem g-r in Heb. probably a deliberate reference to in­
ferior political status as an argument for the desired treaty; cf. xix 9. In
vs. 34 the same argument would not apply any longer. But that passage is
not believed to be original with E; see below.
27. pact. Same Heb. noun as is used for “covenant,” cf. xv 9, Note;
the latter translation, however, may best be reserved for treaties in which
God is one of the parties.
28, 29. apart. Literally “by themselves,” a pointed allusion to the spe­
cial purpose which the seven ewe-lambs are to serve.
30. It is this. Heb. ki is used here to introduce a gloss; cf. Note on
iv 25.
32, 34. Philistine country. An anachronism, cf. Comment on ix 27
(/); this is one of the reasons why these verses are usually attributed to J,
or to a .R(edactor) familiar with J.
33. the Eternal God. Heb. ’el ‘Siam, for which cf. Pope, El in the
Ugaritic Texts, pp. 14 f. This need not, however, refer to the local deity
of Beer-sheba, but may be a logical epithet of a deity called upon to sup­
port a formal treaty that is expected to be valid for all time.

Comment

Except for vs. 33, and possibly also 32 and 34, the narrative stems
from E, hence the use of Elohim in 22f. The subject matter is the
aetiology of the important desert center of Beer-sheba, or rather two
distinct aetiologies based on common uses of the element -Seba'. The
first part of the compound means “well”; but the second part could
be either “seven” or “oath.” Hence an original and entirely appro­
priate “Well of Seven,” i.e., Seven-Wells, lent itself to elaboration as
“Well of the Oath,” which popular etymology would be loath to ig­
nore. As a matter of fact, all three connotations—well, seven, and
160 GENESIS

oath—figure in the present episode through the medium of popular

interpretation: a dispute over a well is resolved by a treaty that is
solemnized by seven ewe-lambs, which in turn symbolize a mutual
oath.
Many modems would regard the narrative proper (22-31) as
composite and in disorder. Consequently, they would place vs. 27
right after 25, arguing that Abraham used sheep and oxen in one
oath, but seven ewe-lambs in another oath—or in another version—
all this as a result of disputes over a well. Aside from such drastic
manipulation of the text, the hypothesis has to assume two E-like
sources. Yet no such measures would seem to be at all necessary.
The narrative can be logically interpreted as it stands.
Following his encounter with Abimelech (xx, E), Abraham found
a promising base of operations in the oasis of Beer-sheba, a number
of miles inland from Gerar. Evidently, the ruler of Gerar sought to
extend his jurisdiction to the district of Beer-sheba, but could not
back his claim with an adequate show of force. When a dispute over
water rights at Beer-sheba threatened to get out of hand, Abimelech
deemed it wisest to conclude a treaty with the local settlers, which
would assure him a certain degree of authority. It is such a mutual
non-aggression pact that the story before us commemorates. Abim­
elech brings with him his army chieftain, and perhaps also his politi­
cal councilor (cf. Note on vs. 22), to strengthen his position as the
stronger party, a claim which Abraham, as a newcomer, does not ap­
pear to dispute.
What follows is a description of the ceremonies. The first group of
animals symbolizes the basic pact (cf. xv 9 f.). The second group, on
the other hand, which consists of seven ewe-lambs, is clearly labeled
as a gift, the acceptance of which by Abimelech is to constitute vali­
dation ('eda) of Abraham’s claim to the well. In other words, there
is only one formal occasion with two parts to it, instead of two sepa­
rate pacts—or two different sources. That the proceedings are linked
to the dual aetiology of the name—seven and oath—is a charac­
teristic of the times, and certainly not inconsistent with the character
of the E document.
A new note is added in vs. 33, which ties the worship of Yahweh
to the symbolism of a sacred tree. One can only guess at the reason
why such a brief excerpt from J was inserted at this particular point.
For the epithet ’el ‘olam, see Note ad loc.
 28. THE ORDEAL OF ISAAC
(xxii 1-19: E/Ja)

XXII i Some time afterwards, God put Abraham to the test

He said to him, “AbrahamI”6 “Ready,” he answered. 2 And he
said, “Take your son, your beloved one, Isaac whom you hold so
dear, and go to the land of Moriah,® where you shall offer him
up as a burnt offering on one of the heights that I will point out
to you.”
3 Early next morning, Abraham saddled his ass, took two of
his servant boys along with his son Isaac, having first split some
wood for the burnt offering, and started out for the place that
God had indicated to him. 4 On the third day Abraham sighted
the place from afar. 5 Then Abraham said to his servants, “You
stay here with the ass while the boy and I go on yonder; we will
worship and then come back to you.”
6 Abraham then took the wood for the burnt offering and put

it on Isaac his son; the firestone and the cleaver he carried in his
own hand. And the two walked off together. 7 Isaac broke the si­
lence and said to his father Abraham, “Father!” “Yes, my son,”
he answered. “There is the firestone,” he said, “and the wood,
but where is the sheep for the burnt offering?” 8 Abraham
replied, “God will see to the sheep for his burnt offering, my
son.” And the two of them walked on together.
9 They came to the place that God had spoken of to him.
Abraham built an altar there. He laid out the wood. He tied up
his son Isaac. He laid him on the altar on top of the wood.
10 He put out his hand and picked up the cleaver to slay his son.
11 But an angel of Yahweh called to him from heaven, “Abra-

°Cf. 14-16, and see Comment.

6 LXX, Vulg. repeat
0 See Note.
 162 GENESIS § 28

ham! Abraham!” “Here I am,” he answered. 12 And he said,

“Lay not your hand upon the boy, nor do the least thing to him!
Now I know how dedicated you are to God, since you did not
withhold from me your own beloved son.” 13 As Abraham
looked up, his eye fell upon ad ram snagged in the thicket by its
homs. Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a
burnt offering in place of his son. n And Abraham named that
site Yahweh-yireh,« hence the present saying, “On Yahweh’s
mountain there is vision.’7
15 Yahweh’s angel called to Abraham a second time from
heaven, 16 and said, “ 'I swear by myself,’ declared Yahweh,
‘that because you have acted thus, and did not withhold your
beloved son "from me*', 17 I will therefore bestow my blessing
upon you and make your offspring as numerous as the stars in
heaven and the sands on the seashore; and your descendants
shall take over the gates of their enemies. 18 All the nations of
the earth shall bless themselves by your descendants—all because
you obeyed my command.’ ”
19 Abraham then returned to his servants, and they left to­
gether for Beer-sheba. And Abraham stayed in Beer-sheba.
d MT “behind”; see Note.

• “Yahweh sees/finds”; cf. vs. 8.

1Last two words yhwh yr’h in Heb. text; see Note.
t-v Not here in MT.

Notes

xxii 1. God put Abraham to the test. Heb. is inverted for emphasis, and
the effect is heightened by the definite article with Elohim. The idea is
thus conveyed that this was no ordinary procedure, but that God had a
particularly important objective in mind. But the precise shading is
difficult to determine. It might be that God chose to do so, or that it was
an exceptional test
Ready. Literally “here I am,” a courteous response to a call, which
should not be stereotyped in translation. Here the effect is that of our
“Sir?” or “At your service, at once,” much the same as the actual
“Ready” of Arabic; cf. especially xxvii 1. In vs. 7 we obviously need
something like “Yes?” (cf. also xxvii 18). In vs. 11, on the other hand,
“Here I am” is not out of place.
xxii 1-19 163
2. beloved. Heb. uses a term that is not the regular adjective for “one,”
but a noun meaning “the unique one, one and only.” Isaac, of course,
was not an only son (xxi 11). The correct rendering is already found in
LXX, and the meaning is reinforced in Heb. by the phrase that immedi­
ately follows.
land of Moriah. LXX gives “lofty,” the same translation as for Moreh
in xii 6; Syr. “of the Amorites”; other versions operate with mr’h “sight,
vision”; elsewhere only in II Chron iii 1, referring to Temple Hill, cf. vs.
14 below.
3. started out for. Literally “rose and went to”; when so construed with
another verb, Heb. presents a hendiadys in which q-m indicates the start
or speed of action; cf. xxxi 21.
4. sighted. Literally “lifted up his eyes and saw”; for this function of
the verb ns’, cf. Note on xxi 16.
5. worship. Literally “bow low.”
6. firestone. Heb. “fire,” but the flame would scarcely have been kept
going throughout the long journey. What is evidently meant here is
equipment for producing fire, other than the wood itself, which is sepa­
rately specified: Akk. uses analogously (aban) isdti “fire (stone).”
cleaver. The pertinent Heb. noun (see also Judg xix 29 and Prov xxx
14) is used expressly for butcher knives.
together. Same Heb. term as in vs. 8, with singular possessive suffix in
adverbial use. Here the point is that Abraham and Isaac left the servants
behind; there the picture is that of two persons walking together in op­
pressive silence.
7. broke the silence and said. Literally “said . . . and said.”
8. will see to. Literally “will see for himself,” in anticipation of the
place name Yahweh-yireh “Yahweh will see,” vs. 14.
my son. Also in vs. 7, both times as a mark of great tenderness.
9—10. For the somnambulistic effect of these successive steps described
in staccato sentences, see the sensitive comment by von Rad.
12. how dedicated you are to God. Literally “that you fear God, that
you are a God-fearing man.” But the manifest stress is not so much on
fear, or even awe, as on absolute dedication.
13. his eye fell upon a ram. Text literally “he saw, and behold, a ram
after,” which is syntactically no better in Heb. than in word-for-word
translation; nor would the ungrammatical “behind him/after” suit the
context. Not only the ancient versions but many Heb. manuscripts read
'hd for ’hr (for the common misreading of Heb. letters R/D, cf. x 4),
which makes immediate sense.
14. This parenthetical notice embodies two separate allusions. One,
Yahweh yir’e, points back to Elohim yir’e in vs. 8; the other is con­
nected with Temple Hill in Jerusalem. As now vocalized, the verb in the
164 GENESIS

descriptive clause is pointed as a passive, i.e., yera'e “(Yahweh) is seen,

appears,” which accords with Mount Moriah, but obscures the allusion
to vs. 8. If we repoint the verb to yir’e, the balance will shift the other
way. The translation given above is intentionally neutral.
17. The phrase “shall take over [or ‘possess’] the gates of their ene­
mies (see also xxiv 60) refers to capture of the opponent’s administra­
tive and military centers. Analogously, in Akkadian omen literature,
favorable signs promise the conquest of enemy territory, while un­
favorable signs indicate surrender to the enemy.
18. all because. Literally “on the heels, in consequence of.”

Comment

The episode before us embodies what is perhaps the profoundest

personal experience in all the recorded history of the patriarchs; and
the telling of it soars to comparable literary heights. The very es­
sence of the biblical process itself is laid bare here through the
medium of a fearful test which Abraham had to face and surmount.
Isaac was to Abraham more than a child of his old age, so fer­
vently hoped for yet so long denied. Isaac was also, and more par­
ticularly, the only link with the far-off goal to which Abraham’s life
was dedicated (see xxi 12). To sacrifice Isaac, as God demanded,
was to forego at the same time the long-range objective itself. The
nightmare physical trial entrains thus a boundless spiritual ordeal.
The reader’s anxiety, to be sure, is allayed at the very outset
by the underscored notice (see Note on vs. 1) that this is to be only
a test, however heroic the scale and the stakes. The suspense is
thus shifted from viewers to actors, yet the transfer does little to
relieve the tension. There is no way of assuring the father that he
need have no fear about the final result; one can only suffer with
him in helpless silence.
Each successive moment in that seemingly interminable interval
of time is charged with drama that is all the more intense for not
being spelled out: the saddling of the pack animal; the unarticulated
orders to the servants; the splitting of the wood for the sacrificial
fire; the long, wordless trip to the spot from which the chosen site
can first be seen; the forced matter-of-factness of Abraham’s part­
ing instructions to the attendants. As father and son go off by them­
selves on the last stage of that melancholy pilgrimage—the boy bur­
dened with the wood for his own sacrificial pyre, and the father
xxii 1-19 165
fidgeting with the flint and the cleaver—the unwary victim asks but
a single question. The father’s answer is tender but evasive, and
the boy must by now have sensed the truth. The short and simple
sentence, “And the two of them walked on together” (8), covers
what is perhaps the most poignant and eloquent silence in all
literature.
At the appointed site, Abraham goes about his task with abnormal
attention to each detail (von Rad), with the speechless concentration
of a sleepwalker, as if thus to hold off by every possible means the
fate that he has no hope of averting. He constructs the offering stand,
arranges the wood, straps the boy, lays him on the altar on top of the
wood. The blade is in midair when his hand is stayed by a voice
from heaven. A scapegoat is providentially at hand. The harrowing
test is over.
What is the meaning of this shattering ordeal? In this infinitely
sensitive account the author has left so much unsaid that there is
now the danger of one’s reading into it too much—or too little.
Certainly, the object of the story had to be something other than
a protest against human sacrifice in general, or child sacrifice in
particular—an explanation that is often advanced. To be sure, the
practice is traced to Israel’s neighbors (II Kings iii 27, xvii 31),
and even to Judah (II Kings xvi 3, xxi 6, xxiii 10; cf. Jer vii 31,
xix 5; Isa lvii 5; Ezek xvi 20f., xxiii 37). It was not unknown in
Mesopotamia, as is apparent from the so-called Royal Tombs at Ur,
and attested by the murder of substitute kings (H. Frankfort,
Kingship and the Gods, 1948, p. 264). Yet here the subject comes
up indirectly, as something not normally expected, and all the more
terrifying because demanded by God himself. More important, the
sacrifice is characterized at the outset as unreal, a gruesome mandate
to be canceled at the proper time. If the author had intended to ex­
pose a barbaric custom, he would surely have gone about it in a
different way.
Was it, then, the aim of the story to extol obedience to God as a
general principle? Abraham had already proved himself on that
count by heeding the call to leave Mesopotamia and make a fresh
start in an unknown land (xii Iff.). The meaning of the present
narrative, therefore, would have to be something more specific. And
we can hardly go too far afield if we seek the significance of
Abraham’s supreme trial in the very quest on which he was em­
barked. The involvement of Isaac tends to bear this out, since the
 166 GENESIS § 28
sole heir to the spiritual heritage concerned cannot but focus atten­
tion on the future. The process that Abraham set in motion was not
to be accomplished in a single generation. It sprang from a vision
that would have to be tested and validated over an incalculable span
of time, a vision that could be pursued only with singlemindedness
of purpose and absolute faith—an ideal that could not be perpet­
uated unless one was ready to die for it, or had the strength to see
it snuffed out. The object of the ordeal, then, was to discover how
firm was the patriarch’s faith in the ultimate divine purpose. It was
one thing to start out resolutely for the Promised Land, but it was
a very different thing to maintain confidence in the promise when
all appeared lost. The fact is that short of such unswerving faith,
the biblical process could not have survived the many trials that lay
ahead.
It is ironic that the writer who distilled this unique affirmation in
so unforgettable a manner should himself be more difficult to as­
certain than virtually all critics have assumed. The narrative is
attributed to E with scarcely a dissenting voice, and with only a
few minor reservations. Nor can the consensus be held at fault, in
view of the repeated mention of Elohim (1, 3, 8, 9, 12) and the
seemingly theological tenor of the narrative. Yet Yahweh is also
mentioned further down, vss. 11, 15, 16; and if the last two occur­
rences are credited to i?(edactor), the same is not the case with
the two aetiological references to Yahweh in vs. 14. Furthermore,
the style of the narrative is far more appropriate to / than to E,
and the ability to paint a vivid scene in depth, without spelling
things out for the reader, is elsewhere typical of /. What this
amounts to, therefore, is that, on external grounds, J was either
appended to E, or E was superimposed upon /. There was ad­
mittedly some fusion in any case (cf. the perplexed comment by
Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschichte . . . , 38, n. 132). On internal evi­
dence, however, based on style and content, the personality behind
the story should be /’s. Since the crystallized version was such as to
be cited and copied more often than most accounts, it is possible
that a hand which had nothing to do with E (conceivably even from
the P school) miswrote Elohim for Yahweh in the few instances in­
volved, sometime in the long course of written transmission. The
issue is thus not a closed one by any means. But no such documen­
tary perplexities can disturb the total impact of this unique narrative.
 29. THE LINE OF NAHOR
(xxii 20-24: /)

XXII 20 Some time later, word reached Abraham, as follows,

“Milcah too has borne children—to your brother Nahor: 21 Uz
his first-born, his brother Buz, and Kemuel (the father of Aram);
22 also Chesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph, and Bethuel”— 23 Bethuel

being the father of Rebekah. These eight Milcah bore to Nahor,

Abraham’s brother. 24 And his concubine, whose name was
Reumah, also bore children: Tebah, Gaham, Tahash, and
Maacah.

Notes

xxii 20-24. The list contains names of Aramaean tribes traced to

Nahor. The total number is twelve, precisely as with Ishmael (xxv 13 ff.)
and Jacob. There are obvious parenthetic notices in 21 f., dealing with
the next generation.
20. Milcah too. Referring apparently to xxi 2f., where the birth of
Isaac was recorded.
21 f. Uz, Buz, and Hazo are attested in later books as settled to the
north of Edom. According to x 22 (P), Aram was a son of Shem. In
view, however, of the wide diffusion of Aramaean elements, such
divergencies in the extant traditions are readily understandable. Chesed
is probably the eponymous ancestor of the Chaldeans (Heb. KaSdim),
who eventually settled in southern Babylonia.
23. Bethuel. A shadowy figure (see Notes on xxiv 50, xxix 5), but
of interest to genealogists as the father of Rebekah.
24. concubine. Heb. pillegeS. A non-Semitic term, though found in
other Semitic languages as well as in Greek and Latin. It was introduced
into Heb. evidently in order to relieve the ambiguous ’i$sa, for which
see xvi 3, Note.
Maacah. The only one of the collateral tribes—descended from a
concubine—that can be geographically fixed, namely, to the south of
Mount Hermon; cf. Deut iii 14; Josh xiii 11, 13.
 30. THE MACHPELAH PURCHASE
(xxiii 1-20: P/J)

XXDI 1 The span® of Sarah’s life came to 127 years. 2 Sarah

died in Kiriath-arba—now Hebron—in the land of Canaan; and
Abraham proceeded to mourn for Sarah and to bewail her.
3 Then Abraham rose from beside his dead and addressed the
children of Heth: “4 Although I am a resident alien among you,
sell me a burial site from your holdings so that I may remove my
dead for burial.” 5 The children of Heth replied to Abraham:
“Pray,6 6 hear us, my lord! You are the elect of God amidst us.
Bury your dead in the choicest of our burial sites. None of us
will deny you a burial ground to bury your dead.” 7 Thereupon"
Abraham bowed low to the natives, the children of Heth, 8 and
pleaded with them, saying, “If you really wish to me to remove
my dead for burial, you must agree to intercede for me with
Ephron son of Zohar, 9 that he sell me the cave of Machpelah
which he owns, and which is on the edge of his land. Let him
sell it to me in your presence, at the full price, for a burial site.”
10 Ephron was on hand with the children of Heth. So Ephron
the Hittite replied to Abraham in the hearing of the children of
Heth—dall who sat on the council of that townd: n “But no,
my lord, hear me outl I give you that land and the cave that is
in it. I make this gift in the presence of my kinsmen. Bury
your dead!” 12 Abraham made a bow before the natives, 13 as
he addressed Ephron in the hearing of the local people: “If
you will please agree with me, I will pay the price of the land.
Accept it from me, that I may bury my dead there.” 14 And
0 See Note below.
& Reading lu for Id of MT; see Note.
“Literally “He rose and.”
Literally “all who came in at the gate of his city”; see Note.
xxiii 1-20 169
Ephron replied to Abraham, saying “Pray,* 15 hear me, my lord!
The land will be four hundred shekels of silver—what is that be­
tween you and me? Then you can bury your dead.” 16 Abraham
complied with Ephron’s request, and so Abraham weighed out
to Ephron the silver that he spoke of in the hearing of the chil­
dren of Heth—four hundred shekels of silver at the current mer­
chants’ rate.
17 Thus Ephron’s land in Machpelah, facing on Mamre—the
field with its cave and all trees anywhere within the limits of
that field—was made over 18 to Abraham as his property, in the
presence of the children of Heth—all who sat on the council of
that town. 19 Abraham then buried his wife Sarah in the cave of
the field of Machpelah, facing on Mamre—now Hebron—in the
land of Canaan. 20 And so the field with its cave passed from
the children of Heth to Abraham, as a burial site.

Notes

xxiii 1. The span. Literally “years,” for which cf. xlvii 28; omitted in
MT at this point, but included in the phrase “the years of Sarah’s life” at
the end of the verse. The latter clause is missing in LXX and Vulg.; it
was evidently dislocated in the received text from the beginning of the
verse.
2. Kiriath-arba. Literally “City of Four” (“the four” in xxxv 27;
Neh xi 25), remembered as the older name for Hebron (cf. Josh xiv
15; Judg i 10, and Comment on vs. 19, below). Some passages (Josh
xv 13, xxi 11) take the second element as a personal name, i.e., Arba,
father of the giants. Not improbably, “four” was merely a popular
adaptation of another name, perhaps non-Semitic, which is exactly
what happened with the celebrated Mesopotamian city of Arbilum
(older Urbilum), incorrectly etymologized as “four gods.” In other
words, the possibility of non-Semitic origin of the name cannot be dis­
counted, and this could have some connection with the tradition about
the “children of Heth.”
mourn . . . bewail. A reference to formal rites, which has no bearing,
one way or another, on the survivor’s personal feelings; just so, a Nuzi
adoption document (JEN, No. 59, lines 19-23) provides that “when A
dies, B shall weep for him and bury him.”
3. children of Heth. The Heb. compound has been reproduced literally
 170 GENESIS

in this chapter so as not to imply identification with the historical Hittites

of the north; here the terminology would seem to come closer to the
usage of x 15. Verse 10, however, employs the gentilic form which had to
be translated accordingly.
4. resident alien. In Heb. a hendiadys construction, literally “sojourner
and settler,” i.e., a settled sojourner, long-term resident, but one lacking
the normal privileges of a citizen (cf. xii 10, xix 9), notably, the right to
own land. The concession that Abraham seeks, following the death of
Sarah, is to acquire enough land for a burial site.
sell. One of the meanings of the verb ntn, basically “to give”; see espe­
cially vss. 9, 11.
from your holdings. Literally “with you,” but the preposition 'im has
here the technical sense of “under one’s authority,” for which cf. xxxi 38,
Lev xxv 35 ff.
5. Pray. Here and in vs. 14 the text (cons. Iw) is pointed as Id “to
him,” and construed with the preceding “saying/as follows”; but such a
construction would be unidiomatic; the only partial analogue is found in
Lev xi 1, as against hundreds of instances without a pronoun. The letters
stand, no doubt, for the precative particle lu “would that,” for which cf.
xvii 18, xxx 34; here a mark of exaggerated politeness, approximately
“but please!” Misinterpretation of the text led to wrong verse division
both here and in 14.
6. elect of God. Generally translated “prince of God,” or “mighty
prince.” The term naB’ (cf. xvii 20, Note) designates an official who has
been “elevated” in or by the assembly, hence “elected” (see CBQ 25
[1963], 111-17); here an honorific epithet.
7. Thereupon. Literally “he arose,” with auxiliary use of the verb “to
rise”; cf. xxii 3. It is unlikely that the clause describes rising and bowing
at the same time, especially since the petitioner was evidently standing all
the time.
8. you must agree. One of the common uses of the verb im' “to hear”;
cf. vs. 16 (“complied with . . . request”).
intercede . . . with. With the nuance of “put pressure on, use influence
with.”
9. Machpelah. Not just the name of the cave, but of the district; cf.
vss. 17, 19.
in your presence. So rather than “in your midst, territory,” in view of
the word order in Heb.
10. on hand. Not “sitting, seated,” but “present,” a common secondary
meaning of the verb (ySb); cf. especially Deut vi 7; this usage is particu­
larly prominent in Akkadian.
who sat on the council of that town (also vs. 18). Literally “who came
in at the gate of his city”; for the analogous idiom with “went out,” cf.
xxiii 1-20 171
xxxiv 24, (bis). See the full discussion in BASOR 144 (1956), 20ff., and
for a dissenting view note BASOR 150 (1958), 28 ff.
12. the natives. Also vs. 7, and vs. 13, in the latter instance translated
“the local people” for stylistic reasons. Literally “the people of the land,”
here juxtaposed to the resident alien.
14. Sales of whole villages are attested for the patriarchal age in north­
ern Syria; cf. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets, Nos. 52 ff. Prices ranged
from 100 shekels to upward of 1000 shekels, depending on the size of the
territory and the services and income involved; the weight of the shekel
varied, of course, from one center to another, even during the same pe­
riod. Nevertheless, 400 shekels for a piece of land containing a cave
would seem to be excessive in any circumstances. Omri paid 6000 shekels
for the entire site of Samaria (I Kings xvi 24; see von Rad); and
Jeremiah gave only 17 shekels for land that was probably no less spacious
than the field of Machpelah (Jer xxxii 9). At any rate, the sum here ex­
acted appears to have been abnormally high, yet Abraham was in no po­
sition to demur.
15. Then you can bury your dead. Note that the word order of Heb.
differs significantly from that of vs. 11, although the same words are em­
ployed.
16. at the current merchants’ rate. Literally “that passes to the mer­
chant.” That this is an old technical phrase is proved by the parallel Akk.
maftirat illaku “the rate that is current,” which is common in Old
Babylonian and is used officially as early as the Eshnunna Laws (par. 41;
cf. A. Goetze, AASOR 31 [1936], lllf.). This means that the goods
which were offered in payment were computed in terms of silver at the
fixed rate that was current at the time. The parallel just cited, together
with the idiom discussed in the Note on vs. 10, points up the antiquity
of the background of the account before us. The circumstance is sugges­
tive, though not decisive.
17-18. The specifications read as though they followed closely the lan­
guage of sale transactions. Moreover, the deal was duly witnessed by all
the representative members of the community. In short, no effort was
spared to make the sale strictly legal and incontestable.

Comment

The subject matter of this chapter came to be viewed in retrospect

as a very significant milestone in Israel’s remote past. The Promised
Land was a spiritual grant from God. But the best practical safe­
guard in terms that everybody could recognize and accept was a
clear legal title to the land. The living could get by as sojourners;
172 GENESIS

but the dead required a permanent resting ground. The Founding

Fathers, at least, must not be buried on alien soil. The spot had
to be theirs beyond any possibility of dispute.
Abraham’s wife was the first member of the patriarch’s immediate
family to be laid to rest; hence the extraordinary emphasis on the
Machpelah purchase with all its legal minutiae. Later on, Sarah was
to be joined by Abraham himself (xxv 9), Isaac (xxxv 29), Re-
bekah and Leah (xlix 31), and lastly by Jacob (1 13). Small wonder,
therefore, that tradition had to insist on a title which no law-abiding
society would dare to contest and upset.
The first thing was to find a landowner who could be induced
to sell to a stranger. There is more to the contrast between
“resident alien” (4) and “natives” (7, 12) or “the local people”
(13) than appears on the surface. The former evidently lacked the
citizen’s right to acquire holdings in a routine business transaction.
Such a deal required approval by the oommunity council (10),
which in turn had to use its influence (pg‘) with the owner of the
property in question. Abraham’s bereavement, and the high regard
in which he was held by the local population (6), predisposed the
citizenry in his favor, but the individual owner was yet to be won
over. Ephron knew the score all too well. He felt safe in his pretense
that he preferred to present the land to Abraham as a gift. But
a gift was the last thing that would answer Abraham’s need. He
insisted on a formal sale, to which Ephron eventually agreed—
at an exorbitant price. Abraham promptly paid the sum as demanded
“in the hearing of the children of Heth,” at the full exchange rate
(of goods for silver), and so the property was officially transferred
(wayyaqom: 17) to Abraham, at long last, “in the presence of the
children of Heth” (18).
In these exceptional circumstances, there is the inherent possibil­
ity that “the children of Heth” became a party to the transaction by
design rather than by coincidence. For reasons of both history and
geography, it is most unlikely that this group name has any direct
connection either with the Hattians of Anatolia or with their “Hit-
tite” successors. Much more plausible is some kind of association
with the eponymous Heth of x 15. In that case, the people in
question belonged to the non-Semitic strain of pre-Israelite Palestine.
The assumption gains a measure of support from the pertinent place
name Kiriath-arba (which may be non-Semitic; cf. Note on vs. 2),
later changed to Hebron. The change of names would thus have
xxiii 1-20 173
coincided with a change in ethnic composition. Furthermore, accord­
ing to Ezek xvi 3, 45, the ethnic background of not too distant
Jerusalem was part Amorite and part “Hittite,” the Hittites in that
reference being the same as Jebusites. On this compound evidence,
the present “children of Heth” should also be Jebusites or an element
closely related to them: not only non-Canaanite but non-Semitic as
well. Would this circumstance help explain the success of Abraham’s
effort to acquire a parcel of land? In other words, would non-Semitic
elements in the settled population of the country be more readily
disposed to sell land to outsiders than was the case with Canaanites
(cf. also xxxiv)? The fact is that the narrative lays constant stress
on the term “children of Heth” (3, 5, 7, 10, 18, 19). It is a working
hypothesis, of course; but it appears to work, as far as it goes.
The subject matter of this narrative was bound to loom large in
the national tradition of Israel. But when was the account composed,
and by whom? What we have before us is certainly not homogene­
ous. The introductory notice about Sarah’s life-span is unmistakably
from P. As a whole, however, the story betrays a different hand.
With a few deft strokes, the author makes us aware not only of the
solemnity of the occasion and thé high stakes involved, but also of
the humorous aspects of the situation. All of this points strongly to J,
and this circumstantial identification is strengthened by a significant
idiomatic detail. The technical phrase those “who came in at the gate
of his city” (10, 18) has its analogue in the idiom “all who went out
of the gate of his city,” which is used twice in xxxiv 24 to describe
the fighting men of the community; and that narrative is commonly
attributed to J, with no sign, moreover, of any interference from P.
By the same token of authentic technical usage, however, both pas­
sages—this one and the account in xxxiv—prove to go back in sub­
stance to earlier traditions. The antiquity, or at least the technical ac­
curacy, of the present account is vouched for independently by the
reference to “the current merchants’ rate” (16), which can be traced
to Old Babylonian legal documents and the Eshnunna Laws (see
Note ad loc.). What the author did, then, was not to make up a
story but retell it in his own inimitable way.
 31. ISAAC AND REBEKAH
(xxiv 1-67: J)

XXIV 1 Abraham was now old, advanced in years; and Yah-

weh had blessed Abraham in everything.
2 Abraham said to the senior servant of his household, who

had charge of all his possessions, “Place your hand under my

thigh, 3 and I will make you swear by Yahweh, God of heaven
and God of the earth, that you will not obtain a wife for my son
from the daughters of the Canaanites among whom I dwell,
4 but will go to the land of my birth to get a wife for my son

Isaac.” 5 The servant said to him, “What if the woman refuses

to follow me to this land? Should I then take your son back to
the land from which you came?” 6 But Abraham told him, “On
no account are you to take my son back there! 7 Yahweh God of
heaven,® who took me from the home of my father and the
land of my birth, and who solemnly6 promised me, saying, ‘I
will give this land to your offspring’—he will send his angel be­
fore you that you may bring my son a wife from there. 8 Should
the woman still refuse to follow you, you shall then be absolved
of this oath to me; but you must not take my son back therel”
9 So the servant placed his hand under the thigh of his master

Abraham and swore to him concerning this matter.

10 The servant took ten of his master’s camels and, armed
with all kinds of gifts from his master, made his way to the city
of Nahor in Aram-naharaim. 11 He made the camels kneel by
a well outside the city, it being close to evening, the time when
the women come out to draw water. 12 And he said, “O Yah-
° LXX adds “and the God of the earth”; see vs. 3.
b Literally “swore to me.”
xxiv 1-67 175
weh, God of my master Abraham, grant me a propitious sign
this day and deal thus graciously with my master Abraham! 13 As
I stand by the spring while the daughters of the townsmen come
out to draw water, 14 let the girl to whom I say, ‘Please lower
your jug that I may drink,’ and who answers, ‘Drink, and I will
also give water to your camels!’—let her be the one you have
decreed for your servant Isaac, and by her shall I know that you
have dealt graciously with my master.”
15 He had scarcely finished speaking when Rebekah, who was
bom to Bethuel son of Milcah, the wife of Abraham’s brother
Nahor, came out, a jug on her shoulder. 16 Now the girl was very
beautiful, a virgin untouched by man. She went down to the
spring, filled her jug, and returned. 17 The servant ran toward
her and said, “Please let me have a little sip of water from your
jug.” 18 “Drink, sir,” she replied and, quickly lowering the jug
onto her hand, let him drink, l? When she had let him drink his
fill, she said, “I will draw for your camels, too, until they have
drunk their fill.” 20 With that, she quickly emptied her jug into
the trough, and ran back to the well to draw anew, until she
had drawn for all the camels. 21 All the while the man stood
gaping at her, not daring to speak until he learned whether Yah-
weh had made his errand successful or not.
22 When the camels had finished drinking, the man took out
a gold ring weighing half a shekel, Cwhich he put on her nose,c
and two gold bands weighing ten shekels, for her arms. 23 “Tell
me, please,” he asked, “whose daughter are you? And is there
room in your father’s house for us to spend the night?” 24 She
answered, “I am the daughter of Bethuel son of Milcah, whom
she bore to Nahor. 25 And there is,” she went on, “plenty of
straw and feed in our house, and also lodging for the night.”
26 Thereupon the man bowed in homage to Yahweh. 27 Said he,

“Praised be Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, who has

never withheld his steadfast kindness from my master. Yahweh
has led me straight to the house of my master’s brother1*!”
28 The girl went at a run to spread the news in her mother’s

So with Sam. and vs. 47; omitted in MT.

<* So with most ancient versions; plural in MT.
176 GENESIS

house. 29 Now Rebekah had a brother whose name was Laban.

Laban rushed outside to the man at the spring. 30 Having no­
ticed the nose-ring, and the bands on his sister*s arms, and hav­
ing heard his sister say, “Thus and so did the man speak to me,”
Laban went to the man, who was still standing beside the
camels at the spring. 31 Said he, “Come, O blessed of Yahweh!
Why do you remain outside, when I have readied the house
and a place for the camels?” 32 So the man went inside. The
camels were unloaded; straw and fodder were given to the camels.
Then water was brought to bathe his feet and the feet of the
men who were with him. 33 But when food was set before him,
he said, “I will not eat until I have told my tale.” “Do so,”
they told him.
34 “I am Abraham’s servant,” he began. 35 “Yahweh has

richly blessed my master, who has prospered: he has given him

sheep and cattle, male and female slaves, camels and asses.
36 My master’s wife Sarah bore my master a son after reaching
old age; and he has given him everything he owns. 37 Then my
master put me under oath, as follows: ‘You shall not obtain a
wife for my son from among the daughters of the Canaanites in
whose land I dwell; 38 instead, you shall go to my father’s fam­
ily, to my own kindred, to get a wife for my son.’ 39 I said to my
master, ‘What if the woman refuses to follow me?’ 40 He
replied to me, ‘Yahweh, in whose ways I have walked, will send
his angel with you and make your errand successful, that you
may get for my son a wife from my own kindred, my father’s
family. 4i Thus only shall you be released from my ban: if you
come to my kindred, and they refuse—only then shall you be
released from my ban.’
42 “When I came today to the spring, I said, ‘O Yahweh, God

of my master Abraham, if you would really lend success to the

errand on which I am engaged! 43 As I stand here by this spring,
let the young woman who comes out to draw water, to whom I
say, “Please give me a little water from your jug,” 44 and who
answers, “Not only may you drink, but I will also water your
camels”—let that one be the woman whom Yahweh has decreed
for my master’s son.’
xxiv 1-67 177
45 “I had scarcely finished saying this in my mind, when out
came Rebekah, a jug on her shoulder. When she had been down
to the spring to draw, I said to her, ‘Please let me have a drink!’
46 She quickly lowered the jug she was carrying, and said,

‘Drink, and I will also water your camels.’ I drank, and she wa­
tered the camels also. 47 I inquired of her, ‘Whose daughter are
you?’ She answered, ‘The daughter of Bethuel son of Nahor,
whom Milcah bore to him.’ I then put the ring on her nose and
the bands on her arms. 48 And I bowed in homage to Yahweh,
and praised Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, who had
led me by the direct path to obtain the daughter of my master’s
kinsman for his son. 49 Now then, if you mean to treat my
master with true loyalty, tell me; and if not, tell me, that I may
‘proceed this way or that.”*
50 Laban 'and Bethuel' spoke up in reply, “This matter stems

from Yahweh: we can neither disapprove nor approve. 51 Re­

bekah is at your call; take her with you, and let her be a wife to
your master’s son, as Yahweh has spoken.”
52 When Abraham’s servant heard their decision, he bowed to

the ground before Yahweh. 53 Then the servant brought out ob­
jects of silver and gold, and articles of clothing, and presented
them to Rebekah; and he gave presents to her brother and her
mother. 54 Then he and the men who were with him ate and
drank, and they passed the night.
As soon as they were up next morning, he said, “Give me
leave to return to my master.” 55 Her brother and her mother
answered, “Let the girl remain with us ten days or so; then you
may leave.” 56 But he said to them, “Do not detain me, now
that Yahweh has lent success to my errand. Give me leave to re­
turn to my master.” 57 They replied, “Let us call the girl and ask
her own mind.” 58 So they called Rebekah and said to her,
“Will you go with this man?” She replied, “I will.” 59 So they
said good-by to their sister Rebekah and her nurse, along with
Abraham’s servant and his men. 60 And they blessed Rebekah
and said to her,
*-« Literally “turn right or left.”
1-1 Probably intrusive.
178 GENESIS

“Our sister, may you grow

Into thousands of myriads!
And may your offspring take over
The gates of their enemies.”
61 Thereupon' Rebekah and her maids mounted the camels and
followed the man. Thus the slave got Rebekah and departed.
62 Isaac, meanwhile, had come back from the vicinity* of

Beer-lahai-roi, having settled in the region of the Negeb.

63 While Isaac was out walking* in the fields toward evening, he
saw there camels approaching. 64 When Rebekah noticed Isaac,
she alighted from her camel 65 and asked the servant, “Who is
that man out there in the field walking toward us?” “That is
my master,” replied the servant. So she took her veil and
covered herself.
66 The servant recounted to Isaac all the things he had done.
67 Then Isaac took her into his tent. He married Rebekah

and she became his wife. And in his love for her, Isaac found
solace after the death of his mother.
s See xxiii 7, Note.
h See Note.
1MT obscure.
^ Text adds “his mother Sarah”; see Note.

Notes

xxiv 1. the senior servant of his household. Cf. xv 2 for reference

to a trusted retainer. But the name Eliezer is never used in the present
narrative; nor is it certain that the same domestic was involved both
times.
2. Place your hand under my thigh. The symbolism of this act is
not clear. At any rate, the pledge thus elicited was evidently a most
solemn one, for it carried with it a curse or ban (Heb. ’ala) in the
event of non-compliance. Since sons are said to issue from their father’s
thigh (xlvi 26; Exod i 5), an oath that involved touching this vital
part might entail the threat of sterility for the offender or the extinction
of his offspring. The only other instance of the same usage in the
Bible, xlvii 29, is linked, like the present, to a man’s last request—
always a solemn occasion; cf. JBL 74 (1955), 252ff.
xriv 1-67 179
3. I will make you swear. This is later summarized as an “oath to
me” (vs. 8). In the servant’s retelling, however, it becomes “my ban,”
i.e., a curse (41). In other words, it was more than just a solemn
assurance, which is the sense in which the same stem is used in vs. 7.
Rather, it was a formal adjuration which carried sanctions against the
delinquent party. Abraham chooses the term tactfully; the servant
rephrases it realistically; and the author subtly varies the emphasis.
obtain a wife. Not simply “take,” but acquire. The father or his
representative (in Ishmael’s case, the mother, cf. xxi 21) had to pay
the bride price, whether the amount was specified or not; see also
xxix 20, 27.
6. On no account. Literally “beware lest.”
7. home of my father. Heb. bet ’Sb, which may here be translated
literally. Elsewhere, however, (notably so in 38, 40) the phrase often
describes a consanguineous unit which may vary in size from immediate
family to large tribes (cf., for example, Num vii 2).
10. ten .. . camels. The figure may be a round one, in the sense of
our “a number,” cf. vs. 55, and xxxi 7, 41. Similarly “five” may stand
for “several,” cf. xliii 34. As regards camels, cf. Note on xii 16. In
the present narrative, however, these animals are mentioned exclusively;
cf. also 61. The writer could, of course, be guilty of an anachronism,
or he may have chosen the camel as a symbol of Abraham’s great
wealth—if widespread use of these animals was still some centuries
away. Note, however, the occurrence in an Old Babylonian text from
Alalakh, in Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets, plate 32, line 62, and cf. A.
Goetze, JCS 13 (1959), 37.
armed with . . . gifts. Literally “with . . . gifts in his hand,” a
circumstantial clause. The term translated “gifts” means literally “goods,
wealth, luxuries,” or the like.
made his way. Literally “rose and went,” but the latter verb can be
terminative, which it obviously is in this instance.
city of Nahor. Is it the place in which Nahor had lived, or the place
name Nahor in the district of Haran? For the city Nafrur, see xi 22,
Note.
Aram-naharaim. Central Mesopotamia, originally the area within the
great bend of the Euphrates; see J. J. Finkelstein, “Mesopotamia,”
JNES 21 (1962), 73ff.
12. grant me a propitious sign. That is, bring about an omen/occur­
rence (cf. Num xxiii 15) in my favor (see xvii 18); for the whole
phrase, cf. xxvii 20.
deal thus graciously. For Heb. hesed see below, vs. 27.
16. untouched by man. Heb. “no man had known her,” same idiom
as at iv 1.
180 GENESIS

17. sip. A different stem from “to drink,” and “to water” which
are regularly used elsewhere in this narrative; the variation is highly
effective.
18. sir. Same term as “my lord” in xviii (cf. Note on vs. 3); the
present context calls for something not quite so formal.
19. let him drink his fill. Literally “finished letting him drink”; cf.
also xix 32, Note.
21. For the initial phrase (“stood gaping”) Heb. uses a special stem
which describes something continuous or repeated (hence “all the
while”); see v 22, Note.
not daring to speak. In Heb., the participle of the verbal form mean­
ing “to be stark still” (see JCS 6 [1952], 81 ff.). This can be construed
with the preceding (stood gazing in silence), as is generally done. Yet
the syntax of Heb. points to what follows, and this is also favored by
the context: he waited with bated breath.
made his errand successful. Literally “caused his way/mission to
prosper." See also vss. 40, 42, 56.
22. After “took out a gold (nose-) ring,” MT must have had originally
“and put it on her nose,” the same verb also governing the sequel,
literally “the two bands on her hands/arms.” The additional clause
is found in Sam., and MT gives it in the parallel passage, vs. 47; here
it must have dropped out accidentally.
25. in our house. Literally “with us.”
27. steadfast kindness. In this frequently used hendiadys, the first
noun, hesed (cf. vs. 12), stands for “kindness, grace, loyalty,” and the
other noun Cemet) is “firmness, permanence, truth.” The combined
phrase describes thus true or steadfast kindness, grace, loyalty. The
traditional “steadfast grace and truth” would thus be redundant as a
translation of the Heb. aside from ignoring the idiomatic construction.
Yahweh has led me straight. Literally “As for me, Yahweh has led
me on the road (to)”; cf. the parallel “by the direct path” (i.e., “firm,
true”; see preceding Note) in vs. 48.
brother. The text is vocalized as plural, against the singular in most
of the versions. In the parallel passage, vs. 48, Heb. gives the singular,
“my master’s kinsman” in that instance being Bethuel, that is “a close
kin,” rather than brother in the literal sense. Here, however, the text
speaks of the “house,” that is, the family (see “home,” vs. 7), which
might apply to Nahor. In any case, the pointing of the MT is erroneous,
and probably intended to make sure that Laban would not be mistaken
for Abraham’s brother.
28. the news. Literally “all such things.”
in her mother’s house. This phrase can only mean that Bethuel was
no longer alive; hence the immediate reference to Rebekah’s brother
xxiv 1-67 181
(29), whose authority in such circumstances would be an overriding
factor in any Hurrian or Humanized society; note the order “her
brother and her mother” in 53, 55, and even “Laban and Bethuel” in
50, where the second personal name is certainly intrusive for that very
reason.
29. Many modems would move the second part of the verse to vs. 30,
after “the man.” But the transposition is not supported by the versions
and is by no means self-evident from the context, once it is realized that
all of vs. 30 is the author’s own aside about Laban’s character.
32. So the mart went inside. Vulg. construes Heb. wyb’ as a causative
(which requires no more than changing the final vowel); this would
make Laban the subject (“he brought the man inside”) throughout the
verse. The received text, however, is preferable, with the remaining verbs
construed impersonally, as is often the case in Heb. when the verb is used
without an explicit subject. Note that at the beginning of vs. 33, while the
Kethib has an active form of the verb, the Qere reads the passive.
33. they told him. Impersonal, or “[Laban] told him.”
34-38. Here the servant restates everything that has happened, re­
peating much of the preceding narrative, often word for word. Such “epic
particularity” is a common practice in ancient literary compositions. It is
found, for instance, in Enuma-eliS, in successive descriptions of Tiamat’s
conduct; and it is used similarly in the Gilgamesh Epic, at various stages
of the hero’s journey to Utnapishtim. Our author, however, employs the
device constructively, by introducing a few minor changes which add,
nevertheless, very notably to the characterization and general content.
Thus in vs. 41, the servant speaks of Abraham’s ban or curse, whereas
Abraham himself referred only to an oath (8). Similarly, when the
speaker addresses Rebekah’s family, he alludes to Rebekah as 'alma
“young woman” (43); but in his own mind he used the less distinctive
term na‘ara “girl” (14). Nor does the servant mention Abraham’s cate­
gorical injunction not to take Isaac to Mesopotamia under any circum­
stances (8), since that would not have been a tactful thing to tell his
hosts.
37. put me under oath. Not “made me swear,” for the words that fol­
low relate to Abraham and not his servant.
49. true loyalty. The same Heb. phrase was rendered as “steadfast
kindness” in vs. 27; here, however, it is applied to men and not Yahweh.
that / may proceed this way or that. Heb. “to turn to the right or the
left” is obviously an idiom for “to know where one stands.”
50. and Bethuel. As was pointed out in the Note on vs. 28, this cannot
be original. The consonants wbtw’l could represent an earlier bn btw’l
“son of Bethuel,” less probably wbytw “and his family.” Better still,
we may have here a marginal gloss on the part of some ancient
182 GENESIS

scribe who did not realize that the father had no place in this narrative.
53. presents. Although the same term is used elsewhere (Ezra i 6;
II Chron xxi 3, xxxii 23) for “valuable gifts,” it should have here the
technical sense of mohar “bride price.”
55 ten days or so. Literally “days or ten.” If correctly transmitted,
this is the kind of idiom that makes no sense whatever when it is
slavishly reproduced. For the number, see Note on vs. 10.
57. her own mind. Literally “her mouth,” i.e., let us ask her in
person.
58. I will. Literally “I will go.” On the form of reply in Heb., cf.
xvifi 15, Note.
62. the vicinity of. MT cons, mb’, for which Sam. and LXX read
bmdbr, as though Isaac had come “into the desert” of Beer-lahai-roi.
In this context (b’ mb’ b’r), the middle word is most likely a dittographic
corruption for original mb’r (Isaac had arrived from B.). But any such
assumption is just as conjectural as the above translation.
63. walking. For the obscure Iswh of MT see Comment.
67. into his tent. MT gives literally “into the tent, his mother Sarah,”
which is grammatically unmanageable. The words “his mother Sarah”
probably stood originally at the end of the verse and were moved up
from there through an old scribal error.
after the death of his mother. Heb. literally “after his mother,” with
the preposition employed in this technical sense in complete agreement
with Akk. arki, which is both “after,” and “after the death of.”

Comment

The present narrative provides a restful interlude between the

story of Abraham’s life, which is just coming to a close, and the
history of Jacob that will soon unfold. Isaac, who can scarcely
be described as a memorable personality in his own right, is im­
portant chiefly as a link in the patriarchal chain. Continuity is es­
sential, but the vitality of the line will now depend on the woman
who is to become Jacob’s mother. While history would thus seem
to be marking time, the narrator, who is J throughout this long
chapter, uses the lull as a welcome occasion to relate in unhurried
detail how Rebekah was found and won.
Against an idyllic background, the story is told in a series of del­
icately balanced scenes. As is typical of J, the principal charac­
ters—in this instance the servant, Rebekah, and Laban—are shown
in action rather than through description. And while certain partic­
xxiv 1-67 183
ulars are restated in the epic maimer (vss. 34-48), the repetition
is never mechanical, but subtly varied (see Note ad loc.). The chap­
ter as a whole, the longest in the book by far, is a self-contained
unit and an unsurpassed literary masterpiece of its kind.
Abraham has sensed that his end is near. This is apparent from
the symbolism of the oath—the hand is placed between the
adjurer’s thighs; this gesture is duplicated only in xlvii 29, where
the text says explicitly “the time approached for Israel to die.” And
indeed, Abraham is no longer alive when the servant comes back
with Rebekah and refers to Isaac as his master (65); cf. Comment
on Sec. 32. The statement about Abraham’s death in xxv 8 is mani­
festly from another source (P). What Abraham does, therefore, at
the beginning of this episode has all the impact and solemnity of
a deathbed disposition (cf. xxvii).
Abraham’s request contains two main points: (1) Isaac must
not take a wife from among the Canaanites, for that would affect
the purity of the line through which God’s covenant is to be im­
plemented; and (2) he is not to be repatriated to Mesopotamia, for
the covenant is bound up with the Promised Land. It is worth stress­
ing that the role which is assigned here to Isaac is strictly a passive
one.
The man to whom the patriarch delegates such a serious mission
is never identified by name in the present account. In xv 2, where
we seem to have a reference to the same person, the name is
Eliezer; but that text is not free from doubt. Here the emissary is
spoken of either as “the servant” or as “the man.” The Heb. term
'ebed “servant” may designate anybody from a common slave to the
king’s subject or the servant of Yahweh. Juridically, too, the noun
covers considerable variations in status. Its Akk. counterpart war-
dum, primarily “slave,” could analogously designate persons who
had land holdings of their own and owned slaves in turn. A Nuzi
document tells of one such “slave” who makes an “old-age” dec­
laration whereby he appoints five men as executors of his estate
(HSS IX [1932], No. 37). It is not surprising, therefore, that Abra­
ham should entrust Isaac’s future to such a dependent.
The long trip to the city of Nahor—probably from Hebron—
which must have taken at least a month, is not permitted to slow
down the pace of the narrative; one instant the caravan is loaded,
md the next instant it is at its destination (10). The discriminating
reader may be relied upon to fill in such details for himself. Nor is it
184 GENESIS

necessary to explain to him why the messenger, as soon as he is

within sight of the place, resorts to an omen for a prognosis of his
mission’s success; everybody would be expected to understand these
things. What the servant is saying in so many words (vs. 12) is,
Please Yahweh, grant me a “phenomenon” and make it favorable
for the sake of my master Abraham. The actual suspense lies in
the gradual unfolding of the complex test.
The personalities of Rebekah and her brother are established
with a few deft strokes; the servant himself gains in stature with
each phase of the story. The girl is friendly, helpful, generous, eager
to share her excitement with members of her household; Laban, on
the other hand, is greedy and insincere, the sort of person that the
reader will find it easy to resent later on. Rebekah’s father Bethuel,
however, presents some difficulties in the present context. The genea­
logical references to him (vss. 15, 24; also xxii 22, 23, and xxv
20—the last one from P) are no problem. In vs. 50, however, the
text states that “Laban and Bethuel spoke up in reply.” The listing
of the father after the son is irregular enough; what is worse, no
gifts for the father are mentioned in vs. 53, although the recipients
include Rebekah’s “brother and mother” as well as the young woman
herself; similarly, in vs. 55 it is once again “her brother and her
mother” who ask that Rebekah postpone her journey, while nothing
is said about the father. Hence there can be little doubt that Bethuel
was no longer alive at the time, which is why Laban was free to
exercise his prerogatives as brother (cf. Comment on Sec. 15).
The inclusion of Bethuel in vs. 50 is due either to a marginal gloss
inspired by the genealogical references, or to some textual mis­
adventure.
The relative freedom, however, which the author could en­
joy in this narrative in drawing on his great literary gifts,
does not mean that the detail was invented by and large. If
there was ever much doubt on this point, it should be dispelled by
what we now know of the Hurrian marriage practices—which were
normative in the Haran region—when the brother acted in place
of the father. The pertinent marriage contract would them come
under the heading of tuppi ahatuti or “sistership document.” A com­
posite agreement of this kind would embody the following specifica­
tions: (a) The principals in the case, (b) Nature of the transaction,
(c) Details of payments, (d) The girl’s declaration of concurrence,
(e) Penalty clause. A close study of vss. 50 ff. should show that
xxiv 1-67 185
what we have there is virtually a restatement, in suitable literary
form, of such a “sistership document.” For principals we have this
time, on the one hand, Abraham’s servant as the spokesman for
the father of the groom and, on the other hand, Laban as the
responsible representative of the prospective bride. The trans­
action is thus necessarily of the “sistership” type, since it is the
girl’s brother who acts on the request. The emissary gives presents
to the girl, but does not neglect the “gifts” for her brother and
mother, which must cover the customary bride payment. Most signif­
icant of all, in view of the detailed evidence from Nuzi, is the state­
ment that Rebekah herself should be consulted (57); her reply is in
the affirmative: ’elek “I will go” (58). The Nuzi texts says in similar
cases ramaniya u aiyuya “myself and my brother (agree to this
marriage)” (HSS V [1929], No. 25, lines 14f.), or irramaniya “(I
do this) of my own free will” (JEN, No. 78, lines 23f.). The only
thing, then, that is missing is the penalty clause, which would surely
be out of place in a literary transcript.
The final scene of the narrative (62-67) is obscured by textual
and linguistic uncertainties. Abraham had presumably died in the
course of the intervening months, and the servant could have heard
the news as he was approaching home. If we knew the meaning of
the key verb in vs. 63 (Heb. la-iuah), we might have a further
clue to Isaac’s personality; but the guesses of the ancient versions
(to chat, pray, meditate, take a walk) leave too wide a choice, to
say nothing of the possibility that none may have hit the mark;
and neither usage nor etymology is of much help in this instance. It
is clear only that Sarah’s death had affected her son deeply (67).
Rebekah’s arrival soon proved to be a source of solace and support.
32. THE SONS OF KETURAH. DEATH OF ABRAHAM.
THE LINE OF ISHMAEL
(xxv 1-6, lib, 18: 7-lla, 12-17: /P/)
XXV 1 Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah,
2 and she bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak,
and Shuah. 3 Jokshan begot Sheba6 and Dedan. The descend­
ants of Dedan were the Asshurim, the Letushim, and the Leum-
mim. 4 The sons of Midian were Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida,
and Eldaah; all these were descendants of Keturah.
5 Abraham deeded to Isaac everything he owned. 6 But to his
sons by concubinage he made grants while he was still living, as
he sent them eastward, away from his son Isaac, to the country
of the East.
/1 This was the total span of Abraham’s life: 175 years.
8 When Abraham had breathed his last, dying at a happy ripe

age, old and full0 of years, he was gathered to his kin. 9 His sons
Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the
field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite, which faces on Mamre,
10 the field which Abraham had bought from the children of

Heth. There Abraham was buried along with his wife Sarah.
11 After Abraham’s death, God blessed his son Isaac./ Isaac set­

tled near Beer-lahai-roi.

/12 This is the line of Ishmael son of Abraham, whom Hagar
the Egyptian, Sarah’s slave, bore to Abraham. 13 These are the
names of each of Ishmael’s sons, in the order of their births:
Nebaioth, Ishmael’s first-born, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam,
14Mishma, Dumah, Massa, 15 Hadad,1* Teman, Jetur, Naphish,

0 See Comment.
b LXX adds “and Teiman.”
°Text “full” alone; “(of) days” in manuscripts, Sam., LXX, Syr.
‘‘Text doubtful.
xxv 1-18 187
and Kedmah. 16 These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are
their names by their dwelling places and encampments: twelve
chieftains of as many tribal groups. 17 And this was the span of
Ishmael’s life: 137 years. When he had breathed his last and
died, he was gathered to his kin./ 18 They ranged from Havilah-
by-Shur, which is close to Egypt, all the way to Asshur; and each
made forays against his various kinsmen.

Notes

xxv 2 ff. On the Arabian elements in general, see J. A. Montgomery,

Arabia and the Bible, 1934.
2. Midian. The best-known name in the list. The Midianites ranged
from the head of the Gulf of Aqaba to Moab and even Gilead (cf. Judg
viff.).
Shuah. Cf. the gentilic “Shuhite,” Job ii 11.
3. The second clause, which gives the descendants of Dedan, is omitted
in the parallel passage in I Chron i 32. The translation “descendants” in­
stead of “sons” is necessitated here by the plural form of the names. On
Dedan see Albright, Festschrift Albrecht Alt, pp. 1-12.
4. Ephah. Cf. Isa lx 6, and for the verse as a whole, Montgomery, op.
cit. p. 43.
Hanoch. Same name as that of the patriarch Enoch (iv 17, v 18 ff.).
5. deeded. Literally “gave”; but the Heb. verb has various other mean­
ings (cf. Note on xxiii 4); the explicit “while he was still living” (for
which cf. ina bulfisu “in his lifetime,” Code of Hammurabi 170.43,
171.61) in the next verse implies that the “gift” in the present instance
was a testamentary grant.
6. his sons by concubinage. Literally “the sons that Abraham had by
concubines”; but the plural is either a grammatical pleonasm, or an ab­
stract, since only one concubine is mentioned in this context, unless
Hagar is included. The above translation (cf. Ehrl.) should suit either in­
terpretation.
away from his son Isaac. Literally “from upon . . . Isaac,” i.e., to free
Isaac from them.
the country of the East. Apparently used here as a vague geographical
concept for “desert lands.”
8. kin. Same Heb. term as the plural for “people,” used in its primary
connotation of close relative; in this particular idiom the noun may alter­
nate with “fathers,” cf. xv 15.
188 GENESIS

13. the names of each. Literally “the names ... by their names.”
Nebaioth. Cf. xxviii 9, xxxvi 3; Isa lx 7; not to be confused with the
Nabataeans, see Montgomery, op. cit., pp. 31, 54.
Kedar. Often mentioned in later times as a prominent tribe; cf. Isa xxi
16 f., xlii 11; Jer ii 10, xlix 28; Ps cxx 5.
14. Dumah. Connected with the oasis Dumat al-Ghandal in the Syrian
desert.
15. Teman. Cf. the celebrated oasis of Teima in northwest Arabia. The
name is found in an inscription of Tiglath-pileser III, in association with
cun. equivalents of Sheba, Ephah, Adbeel, and possibly also Massa and
M/Bedan; see Montgomery, op. cit., pp. 58 f. Nabonidus, the last native
king (555-39 B.C.) of Babylonia, used Teima as his residence for a num­
ber of years.
Jetur. The same as the later Ituraeans (Dr.).
16. chieftains. Cf. xvii 20 and xxiii 6.
18. Havilah-by-Shur. Since the name Havilah was shared by several lo­
calities (cf. ii 11), further identification was necessary at times to avoid
confusion.
Asshur. Hardly “Assyria”; perhaps connected with the tribal name
Asshurim in vs. 3.
each made forays against his various kinsmen. This clause has to be in­
terpreted in conjunction with the virtually identical passage in xvi 12:
And in the face of all his kinsmen he shall camp.” Here the sentence
starts with “They ranged/camped,” the same verb as in xvi 12, but this
time in the plural, referring to various Bedouin tribes; in the clause before
us the verb in npl, in the singular, evidently distributive, hence the ren­
dering “each.” The primary meaning of the stem is “to fall”; but, all
other things being equal, "camp” (dweU in tents) and “fall” cannot be
very far apart in their present applications. The clue has to be sought in
the recurrent preposition 'al p?rie, in its adversative sense of “in disregard,
to the detriment of ; cf. Note on xvi 12. For the technical sense of npl,
cf. also Judg vii 12, where the verb is used absolutely, just as here, in the
sense of “to be deployed, arrayed,” and applied—significantly enough—to
Midianites and Amalekites.

Comment

The section is made up of fragments, some of which are typical

of P, while others are excerpts from narrative sources. The only pas­
sage that may be safely attributed to J is lib, in view of Beer-lahai-
roi, for which see xvi 13 f. and xxiv 62. The list in 2—4 may, how­
xxv 1-18 189

ever, be compared with the / portions in x, and vs. 18, as pointed

out in the Note ad loc., links up with xvi 12. Nevertheless, in sum­
mary notices of this sort, the documentary analysis is more uncer­
tain than elsewhere, and must so be labeled in the present instance.
In any event, the passage as a whole cannot have been intended
as a chronological sequel to xxiv. According to xxv 20 (P), Isaac
was 40 years old when he married Rebekah, at which time the
Abraham of the previous chapter (/) was scarcely apt to remarry
and have more children. But even according to P’s own calculations,
the data before us cannot be in chronological sequence. If Isaac was
60 at the birth of Jacob and Esau (vs. 26), and Abraham was
then 100 years older (xxi 5), the grandfather still had 15 years of
life ahead of him (xxv 7) when the twins were bom. Consequently,
the notice of Abraham’s death should have come not at the begin­
ning but at the end of this chapter. It is thus evident that the various
details of this chapter have been grouped in such a manner as to
interfere as little as possible with the progress of the narrative. All
of which lends independent support to the assumption that, accord­
ing to J’s timetable, the death of Abraham occurred prior to Rebek-
ah’s arrival.
The descendants of both Keturah and Ishmael represent sundry
elements from the northern peripheries as well as the interior of the
Arabian peninsula. Some (Sheba and Dedan) were cited in the Ta­
ble of Nations (x 7); others are listed here for the first time. The
line of Ishmael comprises yet another group of twelve tribes, along­
side the Nahorites (xxii 20—24) and Israel; cf. M. Noth, Geschichte
Israels, 1950, pp. 74 ff.
II. THE STORY OF THE PATRIARCHS

B. The Story of Jacob

 33. ESAU AND JACOB: THEIR BIRTH AND YOUTH
(xxv 19-20, 26b: /P/; 21-26a, 27-34: J)

XXV /19This is the story of Isaac son of Abraham: Abra­

ham begot Isaac. 20 Isaac was 40 years old when he married Re-
bekah, daughter of Bethuel the Aramaean of Paddan-aram,
sister of Laban the Aramaean./
21 Isaac pleaded with Yahweh on behalf of his wife, since

she was barren. Yahweh responded to his plea, and his wife
Rebekah conceived. 22 But the children clashed inside her so
much that she exclaimed, “If this is how it is to be, why do I go
on living?” Finally,0 she inquired of Yahweh. 23 And Yahweh
answered her,
“Two nations are in your womb,
Two peoples at odds while still in your bosom.
But one people shall surpass the other,
And the older shall serve the younger.”
24 When it was time for her to be delivered, there were
twins in her womb! 23The first one emerged reddish,6 like a
hairy0 mantle all over; so they named him Esau.4 26 Next came
out his brother, his hand holding on to Esau’s heel"; so they
named him Jacob. /Isaac was 60 years old when they were
born./
27 As the boys grew up, Esau became a skilled hunter, a man
of the outdoors; whereas Jacob was a retiring man who kept
“Literally “she went (and).”
6 Heb. 'admdnj, play on “Edom.”
0 Heb. if'Sr, play on "Seir,” synonym of Edom.
d Eponym of Edom; cf. Note.
•Heb. ‘qb, play on y-'qb “Jacob.”
194 GENESIS

to his tents. 28 Isaac favored Esau, because he had a taste for

game; but Rebekah was fonder of Jacob.
29 Once, when Jacob was cooking a stew, Esau came in from
the country, famished. 30 Said Esau to Jacob, “Give me a swal­
low of that 'red stuff/ for I am famished”—which is why they
named him Edom. 3i Jacob answered, “First give me your birth­
right in exchange.” 32 Esau replied, “Here I am at the point of
death, so what good is birthright to me!” 33 But Jacob said,
“You must swear to me first.” So he swore to him, giving up his
birthright to Jacob. 34 Jacob then gave Esau some bread and
lentil stew. He ate, drank, got up, and went away. Thus did
Esau misprize his birthright.
t-i Heb. ha-’adom, repeated, another play on “Edom.”

Notes

xxv 21. she was barren. This condition persisted, according to P, for
twenty years, cf. vss. 20 and 26.
responded to his plea. Niphal of the form for “pleaded,” above;
for a parallel development, cf. Akk. salu “to ask,” reciprocal stem “to
respond.”
22. The exact meaning of Rebekah’s exclamation is difficult to ascer­
tain. Most moderns translate “why do I live?” following Syr., and more
particularly with an eye on xxvii 46. But the two passages are by no
means analogous; a closer parallel is found in vs. 32, below “what
good is . . . !” Rebekah proceeds to consult Yahweh through an oracle
(Heb. drs), which shows that, though desperate, she was not as yet
resigned to her fate.
23. peoples. Heb. le’dm, a poetic synonym for “nation,” used here
in preference to ‘am, which is not only “people” but more specifically
“kin,” and would hence be redundant if applied to twins.
at odds while still in your bosom. More specifically, who have been
drawing apart ever since (min) they were implanted in your womb.
the older shall serve the younger. The normal sense of Heb rab is
“numerous, plentiful,” rather than “great”; actually, the two adjectives
are etymologically distinct. In the latter connotation, rab is a cognate
of Akk. rabu. And it is worthy of special notice that the present pair
rab : sa'Tr has its exact counterpart, both in etymology and usage, in
the Akk. pair rabu : $e\}ru, which has a precise function in family law.
xxv 19-34 195
The m&ru rabu “elder son” was entitled to an inheritance share which
was double that of the maru $e(fru. However—and this is particularly
true of Hurrian law, and hence a likely source of patriarchal customs—
the maru rabu could be designated as such by the testator contrary to
the actual order of birth. In the present instance, we have not only an
echo of Akk. linguistic usage but also a significant survival of Mesopota­
mian legal practice, one which Israel had to outlaw later on; cf. Deut
xxi 16. The tradition behind this narrative, as well as behind ch. xxvii,
employs thus an authentic and ancient motif in focusing on the joint
prehistory of Israel and Edom.
25. they named him Esau. This is an indirect word play. To make
the aetiology explicit, the text should have said “they named him Seir,”
since only this synonym for Edom, and not the eponym Esau, is at all
evoked by Se'ar “hair.” The more familiar Esau may have been sub­
stituted mechanically; or else, the author left it to the reader to com­
plete the identification.
26. Jacob. See Comment.
27. The description of the two boys is clearly antithetical. The last
parts of the comparison are self-evident: Esau is a man of the outdoors
(field, steppe), whereas Jacob prefers the quieter life indoors (literally
in the “tents,” the plural being used in the abstract; “in the house” would
be too urban for the purpose); note the semantically identical Akk.
phrase asibuti/u kultari “dwellers in tents,” which in Assyrian king lists
(JNES 13 [1954], 210 f., lines 8f.) summarizes the background of the
first seventeen rulers; it was no longer primitive, like Enkidu’s (see Com­
ment), yet not urban, but pastoral-rural. The first parts of the com­
parison, however, are less transparent. Esau is given to hunting (literally
“experienced in, privy to,” cf. Isa liii 3 “familiar with illness”), as
opposed to Jacob who is (11) tdm, something like “of simple tastes,
quiet, retiring.” The over-all contrast, then, is between the aggressive
hunter and the reflective semi-nomad.
28. for he had a taste for game. The exact force of the phrase is not
entirely clear; cf. perhaps Job xx 12.
30. Esau is depicted as an uncouth glutton; he speaks of “swallowing,
gulping down,” instead of eating, or the like.
31. first. Heb. kayyom “as of now,” also in vs. 33; see Ehrl.
give me ... in exchange. Traditionally “sell me” does not bring out
the fact that the birthright was to be bartered (the basic meaning of
Hebrew) for food; in vs. 33, however, “sold” may be retained.
34. The second half of the verse presents a staccato succession of
five verbal forms, which is evidently calculated to point up Esau’s lack
of manners and judgment. But this is merely literary license. In xxxiii
1-17 we get an altogether different picture of Jacob’s older brother.
 196 GENESIS

Comment

The section starts out with a brief notice by P. The initial phrase,
traditional “these are the generations of Isaac,” leads one to expect
a genealogical list, but none is forthcoming. The only birth recorded
is that of Isaac himself, so that tol'dot, if applied here in its usual
technical sense, should actually have referred to Abraham as beget­
ter, and not to Isaac. Something is obviously out of line here. The
term may have been used this time in its broader sense of “story”
(cf. ii 4a, from the same source), which the above translation has
adopted for the sake of expediency. Or the passage may have been
construed originally much like vi 9-10, i.e., with heading, paren­
thetic clause (19—20), and some such notice as [Isaac begot Esau
and Jacob]; but the latter lost out to the narrative by / (21 ff.) in
the final compilation. One could go on with other conjectures; a con­
vincing conclusion has yet to be found.
The rest of the section is manifestly from J (see 21, 23). The
author was limited to some extent by the various aetiologies which
had to be worked into the account. Three of these involve Esau:
“hair” as a roundabout reference to Seir (25); its “reddish” color as
an allusion to Edom (25); and the “red stuff” in the bowl as an­
other such allusion (30); the fourth pertains to Jacob, and features
‘qb “heel” as symbolic of y-'qb (26), for which see below. Yet /
is still able to depict Esau as a sort of Enkidu figure: the child
emerges “like a hairy mantle all over,” which is almost the same
as “shaggy with hair was his whole body,” applied to Enkidu in
Gilg., Tablet I, column ii, line 36 (where the phrase su’ur sarta is
cognate with Heb. Se dr); and Esau, like Enkidu, is a man of the
open spaces. The rest of the narrative sustains the image of un­
couthness, which is heightened by the drumbeat effect of five suc­
cessive verbal forms in vs. 34.
In seeking to assess the meaning of this section, we should bear
in mind the following points: (1) Business transactions in the Near
East, while always subject to strict legal norms, have also been
looked upon to some extent as a game, one in which the contest­
ants match wits with one another (xxiii). Popular lore takes de­
light in such gamesmanship,” much as official law stresses the ethi­
cal and moral side in such dealings (cf. for example, Exod xxii
xxv 19-34
20 ff.). Abstract judgments could thus be easily misapplied. (2) Tra­
dition, which guided the writers, was influenced in turn by ae-
tiological uses of words and sounds; in this instance, the name Jacob
had a ready surface explanation. (3) As was true, however, in so
many other cases, the popular explanation is not necessarily, or even
usually, the correct one. The original meaning of the name Jacob,
shortened from Y‘qb-’l “may God protect,” or the like, was forgotten
once the pertinent verb had gone out of general use; all that
remained was its apparent connection with “heel,” which symbolists
could not be expected to leave alone. (4) Above all, the main motif
with which tradition had to deal in the case of Isaac’s sons was the
transfer of birthright from the older to the younger. That this was
more than casual word play is evident from the very different and
obviously serious background of the narrative in xxvn. Yet the social
setting of that transfer was no longer self-evident at the time of the
writing, which permitted popular etymology to impose its own inter­
pretation. For a discussion of the underlying social factor, which is
the heart of the matter, see Comment on Sec. 35 (ch. xxvii).
 34. VARIOUS NOTICES ABOUT ISAAC
(xxvi 1-33: J; 34-35: / P / )

XXVI 1 There was a famine in the land—aside from the previ­

ous famine that had occurred in the days of Abraham—and so
Isaac journeyed to Abimelech, king of the Philistines in Gerar.
2 Yahweh had appeared to him and said, “Do not go down to

Egypt; stay in the land that I will point out to you. 3 You shall
sojourn in that land, but I will be with you and bless you; for I
will give all these lands to you and to your offspring, in
fulfillment of the oath that I swore to your father Abraham.
4 And I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in

the sky, and give all these lands to your offspring, so that all the
nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your offspring—
5 all because Abraham heeded my call and kept my mandate:

my commandments, my laws, and my teachings.”

6 While Isaac stayed thus in Gerar, 7 the men of the place
asked questions about his wife. He answered, “She is my sister”;
for he was afraid to say, “My wife,” thinking, “The men of
this place might kill me on account of Rebekah, since she is
so beautiful.” 8 After he had been there a long time, Abimelech,
king of the Philistines, happened to look out of the window,
and saw Isaac fondling his wife Rebekah. 9 Abimelech sent for
Isaac and said, “Then she is your wife! How could you have
said, She is my sister?” Isaac said to him, “Because I thought
that I might lose my life on account of her.” 10 But Abimelech
replied, “Think of what you could have done to us! One of the
men might have lain with your wife; you would thus have
brought guilt upon us!” 11 Then Abimelech issued orders to all
xx vi 1-35 199

his people, saying, “Anyone who touches this man or his wife
shall be put to death!”
12 Isaac sowed in that region, and reaped a hundredfold“ the
same year, for Yahweh had blessed him. 13 The man grew richer
all the time, until he was very wealthy. 14 He acquired flocks and
herds, and a large retinue; and the Philistines were envious of
him. 15 So the Philistines stopped up all the wells that his fa­
ther’s servants had dug—back in the days of his father Abraham
—and filled them up with earth.
16 Then Abimelech said to Isaac, “You must go away from us,
for you have become too big for us by far.” l? So Isaac departed
from there and encamped in the wadi6 of Gerar, where he
remained. 18 Isaac next reopened the wells which “had been dug
in the days ofc his father Abraham, but were later stopped up by
the Philistines after Abraham’s death; and he gave them the
same names that his father had given them. 19 But when Isaac’s
servants, digging in the wadi, found there a well with spring
water, 20 the herdsmen of Gerar contended with the herdsmen
of Isaac, saying, “This water is ours!” So they named that well
Esek/ because they had bickered with him. 21 Then they dug
another well, and there was contention over that one also; so he
called it Sitnah.® 22 Moving on from there, he dug still another
well; and there was no contention over it. So he called it
Rehoboth, which is to say, “This time Yahweh 'has granted us
room' to increase in the land.”
23 From there he went up to Beer-sheba. 24 The same night
Yahweh appeared to him, and said,
“I am the God of your father Abraham.
Fear not for I am with you.
I will bless you and increase your offspring,
For my servant Abraham’s sake.”
0 See Note.
b Not “valley,”
see Note.
0-0 Versions differ, see Note.
d Literally “challenge,” an allusion to “contended.”
e “Opposition.”
1-1 Heb. hi-rtfib, play on “Rehcboth.”
200 GENESIS

25 He built an altar there, and invoked Yahweh by name; there,

too, he pitched his tent, while Isaac’s servants started digging for
a well.
26 Meanwhile, Abimelech had gone to him from Gerar, with

Ahuzzath his councilor and Phicol chief of his troops. 27 Isaac

asked them, “Why have you come to me, seeing that you have
been unfriendly to me and have driven me away from you?”
28 They answered, “We can see that Yahweh is with you, so we

propose, ‘Let there be a sworn treaty between our two sides—

between you and us. Let us conclude a pact with you: 29 you
shall not be hostile to us, just as we have not molested you, but
have always been kind to you and allowed you to depart in
peace. Henceforth, Yahweh’s blessing upon you!’ ” 30 He made
them a feast, and they ate and drank. 31 Early next morning
they took oath with each other. Then Isaac bade them good-by
and they departed from him as friends.
32 That same day Isaac’s servants came to him with the news
about the well they had been digging, and told him, “We found
water!” 33 He called it Shibah,1' hence the name of the city of
Beer-sheba to this day.
/34 WTien Esau was 40 years old, he took to wife Judith
daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath daughter of Elon
the Hittite.'* 35 They became a source of embitterment to Isaac
and Rebekah./
0 Variously understood by the versions, cf. Note.
h “Hivite” in Sam., LXX, Syr.

Notes

xxvi 1. the previous famine. Cf. xii 10 (J); no such notive is given in
E’s account in xx.
Abimelech. Here identified explicitly as the Philistine ruler of Gerar.
Anachronistic use of the term Philistines appears to be peculiar to J, cf.
xxi 32, 34, perhaps because that ethnic group loomed large at the time of
the writing; the parallel account of E speaks only of Gerar, but says noth­
ing about Philistines (xx 2). If it were not for the fact that in both pas­
xx vi 1-35 201
sages Abimelech is accompanied by a military aide who bears the unusual
name of Phicol (vs. 26, below, xxi 22, 32), it would be easy enough to
assume two distinct local kings with the routine Semitic name of
Abimelech. As it is, only one generation can be involved, contemporary
with Isaac’s, as recorded by J; the other listing reflects not a separate gen­
eration but a different source, see Comment on xx.
2. stay. Heb. stem Skn, which in J carries the idiomatic nuance of “to
camp,” cf. xvi 12.
3. You shall sojourn. Since Gerar has its own ruler, Isaac can only have
the status of sojourner; cf. xx 1; accordingly, 2b and 3a are not redun­
dant, but in perfectly logical sequence.
5. mandate. Something to be scrupulously observed; the three nouns
that follow spell out the contents.
6. Note that the third narrative to deal with the wife-sister theme starts
here and not with vs. 7, as often cited, owing to the misleading verse divi­
sion in xx 1-2.
7. thinking. Heb. pen “lest,” followed by direct address, as in vs. 9.
8. fondling. Heb. cons, mshq immediately after the name yshq, perhaps
an intentional wordplay; for the meaning cf. xxxix 14, 17.
10. one of the men. Literally “one of the people,” the noun ‘am
describing a combination of individuals; cf. JBL 79 (1960), 157 ff.
might have lain. Heb. approximately “a little more/longer and he
would have lain.”
12. a hundredfold. Heb. “100 s'rym (approximately proportions)”;
some versions, including LXX, read S'rym “of barley” (same cons.), but
traditional text is preferable. The verb for “reaped” is literally “reached,
achieved.”
14. He acquired flocks and herds. Literally “he came to have posses­
sions of flocks and cattle.”
retinue. Abstract formation in Heb., from ‘bd “to serve, work”; possi­
bly to be interpreted more generally as “equipment.”
17. wadi. Heb. nhl, either “brook” or its dry bed, here obviously the
latter, see vs. 19.
18. reopened. Literally “returned and dug.” The latter verb, Heb. hpr
describes digging that has been carried to a successful conclusion (also
15, 19, 21, 22, 32). As against this, krh (25) designates primarily exca­
vation still in progress or unutilized; see especially Ps vii 16 (where the
two verbs are juxtaposed), and also Exod xxi 33; Jer xviii 20, 22.
in the days of. Heb. bymy, for which Sam., LXX, Vulg. read 'bdy “the
servants of,” as in vs. 15, where bymy follows; the accompanying verb
need not in this case be construed impersonally. Text probably had origi­
202 GENESIS

nally the same sequence as in 15, but one of the nouns dropped out acci­
dentally.
25. started digging. See Note on 18. The success of the attempt is not
reported until 32.
26. councilor. An extension of the noun rea‘ “friend, companion,”
which has a similar technical connotation in II Sam xv 37, xvi 16, and es­
pecially I Kings iv 5. Analogously, Akk. mudu “familiar, expert” be­
comes a councilor of the crown in the court of Ugarit; cf. JAOS 75
(1955), 163. The parallel account in xxi 22 does not mention this official
in the MT version, but he is included in LXX and Old Latin.
28. a sworn treaty. Heb. ’aid “adjuration, curse” (cf. xxiv 41), but also,
by extension, a treaty with sanctions, note especially Deut xxix 20.
between our two sides. Heb. benot-, not the preposition “between” but
a secondary noun “between two parties,” or the like; cf. xlii 23.
29. Yahweh’s blessing upon you! Not an invocation but a form of wel­
come (Ehrl.) which cancels the expulsion decree of vs. 16. With the
treaty concluded, Isaac is assured of a friendly reception throughout
Abimelech’s territory.
31. bade them good-by. Literally “blessed,” but often used in greeting
or parting, since pertinent formulas would normally include an appeal for
the good will of the deity; cf. xlvii 7, 10.
33. Shibah. The cons, text of MT can yield: (a) Sib'a “seven” (tradi­
tional); (b) Sib'd “satedness, plenty” (Syr., Vulg., Aquila, Symmachus);
(c) imbu'd “oath” (cf. LXX). Of these choices, (a) does not fit
the context at all, since nothing has been said here about the number
seven; (b) has a possible indirect connection, inasmuch as the discovery
of a new well has a bearing on future crops; the most pertinent of the ex­
tant interpretations, however, is (c), since the narrative features a politi­
cal treaty solemnized by an oath (vss. 28, 31). The pointing of MT was
influenced obviously by direct association with the name Beer-sheba, as
recalled from the other narrative. The facts before us, however, favor the
third interpretation, especially since the parallel account in xxi 27 ff. also
lists the oath as one of the reasons for the name of the city.
34—35. This excerpt from P has no connection with the preceding epi­
sodes. As now placed, it may be viewed as a later and separate motivation
(disappointment with Esau’s Canaanite wives) for the narrative in xxvii.
One of the two gentilics in vs. 34 is almost certainly an error for “Hivite”
or “Horite”; cf. textual note h.
xxvi 1-35 203

Comment

The section groups together several episodes in the life of Isaac,

a further unifying factor being the presence of Abimelech of Gerar.
Except for the last two verses (34—35, for which see Note), the
whole is essentially the work of /. This is attested directly by the use
of the name Yahweh (2, 12, 22, 25, 29); and indirectly, by the
anachronism of the Philistines (cf. Note on vs. 1) and, more par­
ticularly, by divergencies from duplicate accounts which can be at­
tributed to E on internal grounds.
The recurring themes fall into two classes: (1) a wife-sister epi­
sode at Gerar (vss. 6-11 : xx 1-18); and (2) the Treaty of
Beer-sheba (vss. 15-33 : xxi 22-32), with pertinent aetiologies. On
the former, see the detailed Comment on Sec. 25. In /’s version,
this is the only episode to involve Abimelech with a patriarchal
couple; nor do Abraham and Sarah repeat the naive deception
which they attempted with Pharaoh (Sec. 15). Abimelech is thus
absolved of any charge of insincerity, or short memory; nor is the
author guilty of inconsistencies in characterization. By the same
token, E’s account in xx is likewise self-consistent.
The same basic factor of two distinct sources accounts also for
the problems raised by the respective versions of the Treaty of
Beer-sheba. The facts are similar in substance but different in some
of the details (cf. Comment on Sec. 27), notably as regards the
aetiology of that place name. Evidently, tradition had preserved an
old report of a treaty between one of the patriarchs and a local
ruler of Gerar. In the version utilized by E, the patriarch in ques­
tion was Abraham, whereas the material handed down to J placed
Isaac in that position. It may be regarded as certain that no two
such events actually did take place. For even if one were to grant
that a pact entered into by Abraham was subsequently renewed by
Isaac, it is improbable in the extreme that the same Abimelech par­
ticipated in both agreements; and since Phicol is the Gerar troop
chieftain in both instances, one can hardly posit two rulers who
happened to share the name Abimelech. In other words, we again
have a single incident which was differently reported in two inde­
pendent sources. Which of these two accounts comes closer to the
factual core? With so little to go by, the point could be argued either
204 GENESIS

way. But if Abimelech was actually host to Isaac and Rebekah at

Gerax, it would have to be Isaac and not Abraham who was the
other party to the Treaty of Beer-sheba—assuming, of course, that
tradition was still fairly close to the truth.
 35. ISAAC DECEIVED
(xxvii 1-45: /)

XXVII 1 When Isaac was so old that his eyesight had faded
away, he called his older son Esau and said to him, “Son!” “At
once,” he answered. 2 And he said, “As you see, I am so old
that “there is no telling® when I may die. 3 So take your gear—
your quiver and bow—and go out to the country to hunt some
venison for me. 4 Then prepare it as a festive dish, the way I
like, and bring it to me to eat, so that I may give you my very
own blessing before I die.”
5 Rebekah had been listening as Isaac spoke to his son Esau.
So when Esau had gone off to the country to hunt venison for
his father,6 6 Rebekah said to her son Jacob: “I just overheard
your father speaking with your brother Esau, thus, 7 ‘Bring me
venison and prepare it for me as a festive dish that I may eat it
and bless you with Yahweh’s approval before I die.’ 8 Now, my
son, listen carefully to my instructions. 9 Go to the flock and
fetch me from there two choice kids. I will prepare them as a
festive dish for your father, the way he likes. 10 Then take it to
your father to eat that he may bless you before he dies.”
11 “But my brother Esau,” Jacob said to his mother, “is a
hairy man, and I am smooth-skinned! 12 Suppose my father
feels me? He will think me frivolous, and I shall bring on myself
a curse instead of a blessing.” 13 His mother replied to him, “Let
any curse against you, my son, be my concern! Just do as I say.
Go and fetch them.”
14 So he went and got them and brought them to his mother;

and his mother prepared the festive dish, the way his father
a~a Literally “I do not know the day of my death”; cf. Note.
6 Heb. “to bring”; see Note.
206 GENESIS

liked. 15 Rebekah then got the best clothes of her older son Esau
which she had in the house, and put them on her youngest son
Jacob;16 and with the skins of the kids she covered up his hands
and the hairless parts of his neck. 17 She then handed to her son
Jacob the festive dish and the bread that she had prepared.
18 He went to his father and said, “Father!” “Yes?” he an­
swered, “Which one of my sons are you?” 19 Jacob said to his
father, “I am Esau, your first-born. I did as you told me. Pray sit
up and eat of my venison, that you may give me your very own
blessing.” 20 Isaac asked his son, “How is it that you succeeded
so quickly, my son?” He answered, “Because Yahweh your God
made things go well for me.” 21 But Isaac said to Jacob, “Come
closer, that I may leam by feeling you whether you really are my
son Esau or not. 22 Jacob moved up to his father Isaac, who felt
him and said, “The voice is the voice of Jacob, yet the hands are
the hands of Esau.” 23 He had not identified him, because his
hands were hairy, like those of his brother Esau. Still, as he was
about to bless him, 24 he asked again, “You are my son Esau?”
“Of course,” he replied. 2* So he said, “Serve it to me, and let
me eat of my son’s venison, that I may give you my very own
blessing.” He served it to him, and he ate; then he brought him
wine, and he drank. 26 Then his father Isaac said to him, “Come
closer my son, and kiss me.” 27 As he went up and kissed him,
[Isaac] sniffed the smell of his clothes. TTien, at last, he
blessed him, saying,
“Ah, my son’s smell
Is like the smell of a field0
Which Yahweh has blessed.
28 May God give you

Of the heaven’s dew

And of the earth’s riches—
Abundance of new grain and wine.
29 Let peoples serve you,

And nations may homage to you.

cSam., LXX, Vulg. add “full (rich).”
xxvii 1-45 207
You shall be your brothers’ master
And your mother’s sons shall bow to you.
Cursed be they who curse you,
And blessed they who bless you.”
30 Jacob had no sooner left his father Isaac, right after Isaac
had finished blessing Jacob, than his brother Esau came back
from his hunt. 31 He too prepared a festive dish, which he took
to his father. Said he to his father, “Let my father please4 eat of
his son’s venison, that he may then give me his very own bless­
ing.” 32 “Who are you?” his father Isaac asked him. “Why,” he
answered him, “your son Easau, your first-bom!”
33 Isaac was seized with a violent fit of trembling. “Who was
it, then, that hunted the game and brought it to me? I finished
eating it just before you came, and I blessed him; and now he
must remain blessed!” 34 On hearing his father’s words, Esau
burst into sobbing of the most violent and bitter kind. “Bless
me too, Father,” he begged. 35 But the other answered, “Your
brother came here by a ruse, and he carried off your blessing.
36 He replied, “Did they name him Jacob so that he should

cheat* me twice? First he took away my birthright/ and now

he has gotten away with my blessing!' Haven’t you saved a bless­
ing for me?” he pleaded. 37 But Isaac answered Esau, “I have al­
ready made him master over you; I have made all his kinsmen
his slaves, and have braced him with new grain and wine. What,
then, is there that I could do for you now, my son?” 38 Esau
pleaded with his father, “Have you just that one blessing, my fa­
ther? Bless me too, Father!” [Isaac said nothing]"; and Esau
wept.39 Then Isaac spoke up and said to him,
“Your home shall be far* from the earth’s riches
And the dew of heaven above.
40 By your sword you shall live,

d Literally “rise.”
« “Be at my heel,” play on Jacob.
/ Heb. cons, hkrty : brkty.
o So LXX; MT omits.
h See Note.
208 GENESIS

And your brother you shall serve.

But as you grow restive/
You shall throw off his yoke from your neck.”
41 Esau harbored a grudge against his brother Jacob on ac­
count of the blessing that his father had given him. And Esau
said to himself, “As soon as the time to mourn for my father is
at hand, I will kill my brother Jacob.” 42 When these words of
her older son Esau were reported to Rebekah, she called her
younger son Jacob and said to him, “Your brother Esau is
hoping for redress by killing you. 43 Now, then, my son, listen
to my request: flee at once to my brother Laban in Haran,
44 and stay with him a while, until your brother’s anger has

subsided—45 until your brother’s wrath turns away from you

and he has forgotten what you did to him. I will then send
for you to bring you back. Let me not be bereft of both of you
in a single day!”
‘Meaning of Heb. verb uncertain.

Notes

xxvii 1. his eyesight had faded away. Literally “his eyes were too dim
to see (with).”
At once. Literally “Here I am,” which must be varied in translation
according to the context; cf. “Yes?” in vs. 18, and see xxii 1, Note.
2. The literal “I know not the day of my death,” would be meaning­
less, since nobody could be said to know that; cf. JBL 74 (1955), 252.
3. country. Literally “field,” the outdoors; see xxv 27.
4. festive dish. The traditional tasty, savory dish is a slavish rendering
of Heb. All dishes were presumably meant to be tasty. Moreover, the
plural ending of the Heb. noun suggests something more or less abstract,
not unlike our “delicacy.” The qualifying phrase means either “the way
I like (it)” or “the kind I like.”
that I may give you my very own blessing. Literally “that my being
may bless you”; but this is not “that I may bless you myself.” That the
added term carries some technical nuance is suggested by the fact that
it is used no less than four times in this narrative; cf. 19, 25, 31. But
what that connotation may be is difficult to decide. Conceivably, how­
xxvii 1-45 209

ever, the emphasis is thus put on the special circumstances of a deathbed

declaration.
5. for his father. So LXX, which reflects Vbyh jw for the Ihby' of MT.
The latter might be forced to yield “to take home,” yet such a phrase
without indirect object would violate Heb. usage.
7. with Yahweh’s approval. Another inescapable instance of the idio­
matic use of liprie, for which see vi 11, Note. Incidentally, this partic­
ular phrase was added by Rebekah; it is missing in Isaac’s own state­
ment, vs. 4.
13. Not “your curse,” which would be ambiguous; for a significant
analogue of the entire phrase, cf. xii 3.
18. He went. LXX, Syr., Vulg. offer “he brought (them),” which
implies a slight revocalization of the cons. text. The change is no im­
provement.
Which one of my sons are you? This is the idiomatic force of Heb.
“Who are you, my son?” which conveys nothing when rendered literally.
20. you succeeded so quickly. Not the traditional “you found,” which
would be suspect in any case without a pertinent object. The basic sense
of the verb is “to reach, attain.”
made things go well for me. The idiom is identical with the one
used in xxiv 12 (“grant me a propitious sign”), for which see Note
ad loc.
21. learn by feeling you. Literally “feel you . . . (whether . . .)”.
23. identified him. The verb (nkr) is in this instance not so much
“knew, recognized” as “discovered, unmasked.”
Still, as he was about to bless him. Not “and he blessed him,” as a se­
quel to the preceding clause, which would mean that Isaac blessed “Esau”
twice—an event that would completely vitiate the inner logic of the con­
text and destroy the relentlessly increasing tension; but a necessary
prelude to the next in the series of tests. This verbal aspect is one of the
many denotations of the Heb. imperfect.
24. Of course. Literally “I am”; for the mode of reply to a question in
Heb., cf. xviii 15, Note.
27. The reading “[full, lush] field” in some of the versions adds little to
the impact of the passage, while impairing its metric structure; yet to the
combined authority of Sam., LXX, and Vulg. cannot be minimized; per­
haps an authentic, though inferior, variant.
28. new grain and wine. Unlike the everyday terms for “grain, wine
(and oil),” the words employed here are specialized for ritual and poetic
purposes, notably so in Deuteronomy. In similar contexts, Akk. employs
asnan for the prosaic le’um “barley.” The qualifying “new” in the trans­
lation may help to make the necessary distinction.
31. please. Heb. employs the verb “to rise” as an auxiliary element,
210 GENESIS

here to express courtesy rather than urgency; cf. the parallel “pray sit up”
in vs. 19.
33. I finished eating it. MT w'kl mkl, literally “I ate of everything,”
perhaps a scribal slip for the infinitive absolute w’kl ’kl, for which cf. xxxi
15. The above translation can do justice to either reading.
he must remain blessed. A blessing given in such circumstances cannot
be revoked; cf. vs. 7.
36. In addition to the play y'qb : wy'qbny, the verse also juxtaposes
most skillfully the pair bkrty “my birthright” and brkty “my blessing.”
38. [Isaac said nothing]. This clause is missing in MT but given in
LXX; note Lev x 3, where a similar crisis is at issue. Although LXX is
not supported in this instance by other versions, it is improbable that this
highly effective remark was made up by the translators. It is brief enough
to have been skipped accidentally by a scribe.
39. far from. Heb. employs here the preposition mi(n), the same as in
the corresponding portion of vs. 28, in a partitive sense, which is but an­
other nuance of the common “from, away from.” To treat both passages
on a par, implying that Esau too was promised agricultural wealth, would
undermine the whole tenor of the context. But to understand the particle
as “without . . . ,” with many older translators and most modems, is not
sanctioned by established Heb. usage. To be sure, the style remains awk­
ward, quite aside from the preposition. Yet some such meaning as the
one here reflected is clearly indicated: Edom is doomed to privations, yet
his day will come.
40. as you grow restive. Cf. Jer ii 31; Ps lv 3. But the ancient versions
differ widely in their understanding of the verb, which need mean no
more than that the precise force would no longer be determined. The
other occurrences are similarly inconclusive. An old textual error is by no
means improbable.
42. is hoping for redress. Literally “is consoling himself (with the
thought of).” On the basis of Isa i 24, Heb. mtnhm could be a variant for
mtnqm “is seeking vengeance,” without the outright emendation that
many have proposed. But the present text yields excellent sense as it is.
44. a while. Literally “some days/years.”
45. bereft of both of you. Killing Jacob would expose Esau to the death
penalty, through blood vengeance or otherwise.

Comment

The subject matter of this narrative is clearly related to the ac­

count in xxv 27—35; and the link is expressly underscored in
vs. 36, above. Both stories feature the rivalry between Jacob and
Esau, a rivalry that focuses on birthright in the one instance, and
xxvii 1-45 211

the father’s blessing in the other. In both episodes, moreover, allu­

sions to the name Jacob play an incidental part. Yet there is also
a profound difference between the two narratives, even though both
are the work of the same author (/). In the earlier episode Esau
was presented as a virtual caricature of the uncouth hunter, who had
only himself to blame for what happened; here, however, he is a
deeply moving figure, an innocent victim of a heartless plot.
In evaluating the content of the present account, it is essential
that we dismiss at the outset the various value judgments with which
the story has been encumbered through the ages. For it goes with­
out saying that the task of the interpreter is not to justify or sit
in judgment, to condone or condemn, but only to inquire what the
given source means in terms of its own context and background.
To be sure, the background has been clarified only in relatively
recent times, thanks to modem discoveries. The fact remains,
however, that even the foreground has not always been kept in
proper focus, with the inevitable result that the picture has suffered
from needless distortion.
That the story before us poses a moral problem, among many
others, was already clear in biblical times—although this point has
been suppressed by many of the later moralizers. Both Hosea
(xii 4) and Jer (ix 3) allude to Jacob’s treatment of Esau with
manifest disapproval. What is more, the author himself, by dealing
so sensitively with the hapless plight in which Isaac and Esau find
themselves through no fault of their own (cf. especially vss. 33-
38), demonstrates beyond any doubt that his personal sympathies
are with the victims. It is, furthermore, a fact that Jacob himself
did not think up the scheme; he acted, though not without remon­
strance and uneasiness, under pressure from his strong-willed
mother; and he had to pay for his misdeed with twenty years of
exile!
How, then, did the author view the situation as a whole? This
is not made explicit in the narrative; yet a conclusion may be
hazarded from the overtones of the story and, more especially,
from the general tenor of /’s work. The fate of individuals caught
up in the mainstream of history will often seem incomprehensible;
for history is but the gradual unfolding of a divine master plan, many
details of which must forever remain a mystery to mortals. It so
happened that Abraham’s family was singled out to serve God’s
ultimate purpose (von Rad); that is all we know. In short, / did
not edit his data. He only retold, in his own matchless way, what
212 GENESIS

tradition had handed down to him. To be sure, much of this matter

has been immensely enriched by the depth of his own understand­
ing. Yet J also recorded, with scrupulous impartiality, some things
that he did not comprehend, convinced no doubt, that there must
be a higher purpose behind it all.
The ultimate historical kernel of the story is problematic in itself.
There is here some hint, obviously, of earlier relations between
Israel and Edom—or Seir in the role of Edom’s predecessor. But
there is no way of ascertaining the nature of those contacts. We
cannot draw for this purpose on the known facts from the age of
David and Solomon; for J himself was a product of that age, and
by /’s time the material had already passed into the domain of
popular tradition. The actual starting point would have to be
sought considerably earlier. Now according to Deut ii 12—a source,
incidentally, that had access to much antiquarian lore—combined
with Gen xxxvi 20, protohistoric Edom was dominated by Horites.
Thus Jacob and Esau, as eponymous figures, would symbolize early
interrelations between Israelites and an older strain: cf. also Gen
xxxiv.
The possibility just adduced—with all necessary circumspection—
is enhanced to some extent by the background detail of the pres­
ent narrative. On this point we now have pertinent illustrations in
the Human sources from Nuzi, which in turn mirror social con­
ditions and customs in the patriarchal center at Haran. Birthright
in Hurrian society was often a matter of the father’s discretion
rather than chronological priority. Moreover, of all the paternal
dispositions, the one that took the form of a deathbed declaration
carried the greatest weight. One such recorded statement (AASOR
16 [1936], No. 56) actually safeguards the rights of the youngest son
against possible claims by his older brothers. Another is introduced
by the formula “I have now grown old,” which leads up to an oral
allocation of the testator’s property or, in other words, a deathbed
“blessing.” (See my detailed discussion in JBL 74 [1955], 252 ff.)
Isaac’s opening words in the present instance reflect thus an old
and authentic usage. The background is Hurrian, which accords
with the fact that Haran, where the patriarchs had their roots,
was old Hurrian territory. On the socio-legal level, therefore, the
account is a correct measure of early relations between Hebrews and
Hurrians. With Seir—a synonym of Esau—assigned in Deut ii 12
to the Horites (even though not all of them can be equated with
xxvii 1-45 213
Humans), it would not be surprising if the same account should
also echo remote historical rivalries between the same two groups.
At any rate, tradition succeeded in preserving the accurate set­
ting of this narrative precisely because the subject matter was
deemed to be of great consequence. In essence, this matter was the
continuity of the biblical process itself, a process traced through a
line that did not always hold the upper hand. Legally, the older son
was entitled to a double and preferential share of the inheritance,
especially in Human society. But since the status of older son
(Akk. maru rabu, cf. vs. 1 and xxv 23, Note) could be regulated
by a father’s pronouncement, irrespective of chronological preced­
ence, and since the legacy in this instance had been established by
divine covenant, the emphasis of tradition on transfer of the birth­
right in a deathbed blessing—with Yahweh’s approval (cf. vs. 7)
—can be readily appreciated. With the passage of time, however,
the background of a practice no longer in common use was gradually
forgotten. The lost detail was dubbed in, out of context and with
confusing results, as we have seen. / was not free to choose his
incidents or slant their motivation; yet an artist of J’s caliber and
integrity could not ignore altogether the human side of the issue.
The purely literary aspects of this vivid account require little
comment. Tension mounts constantly as Isaac, sightless and never
altogether convinced by the evidence of his other senses, resorts to
one test after another: his visitor sounds like Jacob, but says he is
Esau, yet the hunt took much less time than expected; the skin
feels like Esau’s and the food tastes right; the lips betray nothing,
but the clothes smell of the chase; so it has to be Esau after all! The
reader is all but won over by the drama of Jacob’s ordeal, when
Esau’s return restores the proper perspective. The scene between
Isaac and Esau, both so shaken and helpless, could scarcely be
surpassed for pathos. Most poignant of all is the stark fact that the
deed cannot be undone. For all the actors in this piece are but
tools of fate which—purposeful though it must be—can itself be
neither deciphered nor side-stepped by man.
 36. JACOB IS SENT TO LABAN
(xxvii 46-xxviii 9: P)

XXVII 46 Rebekah said to Isaac, “I am disgusted with life on

account of the Hittite women. If Jacob should also marry a Hit-
tite woman like these, another native, what good would life be
to me?”
XXVm 1 So Isaac sent for Jacob, greeted him, and enjoined
him, saying, “You are not to marry a Canaanite woman! 2 Go at
once to Paddan-aram, to the house of your mother’s father
Bethuel, and choose there a wife for yourself from among the
daughters of your uncle Laban. 3 And may El Shaddai bless you,
make you fertile and numerous, so that you may become an as­
sembly of tribes. 4 May he extend to you the blessing of
Abraham, and to your offspring along with you, so that you may
take over the land in which you are sojourning, and which God
gave to Abraham.” 5 Then Isaac sent Jacob off, and he went to
Paddan-aram, to Laban son of Bethuel the Aramaean, brother
of Rebekah, the mother of Jacob and Esau.
6 When Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob when he sent
him to Paddan-aram to take a wife from there, enjoining him as
he blessed him, “You shall not marry a Canaanite woman,”
7 and that Jacob had obeyed his father and mother and gone to

Paddan-aram—8 Esau realized how much the Canaanite women

displeased his father Isaac. 9 So Esau went to Ishmael, son of
Abraham, and took to wife, in addition to the wives he had,
Mahalath daughter of Abraham’s son Ishmael, the sister of
Nebaioth.
xxvii 46-xxviii 9 215

Notes

xxvii 45. This is a direct sequel to xxvi 34-35. For the last clause cf.
xxv 22.
xxviii 1. greeted him. Heb. berek, though normally “to bless,” is also
used for greeting and parting; cf. Note on xxvi 31. In this instance, no
blessing is recorded until vs. 3. The intervening passage deals, instead,
with strictly mundane matters. It is not improbable that P had a particu­
lar purpose in mind in employing the stem brk repeatedly in this context
(cf. 4, 6—bis), namely, to emphasize that Isaac had nothing but the
friendliest feelings toward Jacob; see especially xlvii 7, 10.
3. El Shaddai. See xvii 1.
tribes. Heb. ‘ammim, often “peoples,” but also “kinsfolk,” cf. xxv 8.
The present terminology is not political (which would require goy), the
promised increase alluding not to peoples but people.
4. the blessing of Abraham. Cf. xii 7.
9. Nebaioth. Ishmael’s first-born; cf. xxv 13.

Comment

The section differs sharply from the preceding narrative in style,

phraseology, motivation, and timetable. To start with the last, the
Isaac of this context should still have close to 80 years of life ahead
of him: he was 60 when the twins were bom (xxv 26), and
Esau was 40 when he married (xxvi 34) and thus precipitated
Rebekah’s countermove; and Isaac lived to be 180 (xxxv 28). In
the previous account, however, Isaac’s days were numbered; he was
blind and barely able to function a short time before Jacob’s
departure. It follows that the present source—which is P through­
out—had no knowledge, or took no notice, of J’s version wherein
Isaac was the victim of a cruel ruse, and in no mood to plan
for Jacob’s future.
The chronological chasm between the two versions is matched by
the wide gap in the motives that each gives for Jacob’s departure. In
J’s version, it was fear of Esau’s revenge; but in P’s account
before us, the motive is Rebekah’s aversion to Hittite women and
her insistence that Jacob choose a wife from among her own
Aramaean relatives. Nor is there in P’s version the slightest hint
216 GENESIS § 36

of Isaac’s anguish and resentment, which / described so movingly

just a few verses before (xxvii 33); Isaac is here the solicitous—and
still alert—father who gives his son advice and blessing.
The section is typical of P’s style and vocabulary. In addition to
El Shaddai, we find here also the land of the “sojouming(s)” (cf.
xvii 8, xxxvi 7), the place Paddan-aram, and the term qahal for “con­
gregation, assembly.” The tradition or theory behind P’s chronological
system is still obscure. But the interest of this source in purity of line­
age is a factor that is both transparent and constant. / and P moved
indeed in different worlds, yet somehow both sources were equally
devoted to the same way of life.
 37. JACOB’S DREAM AT BETHEL
(xxviii 10-22: J,/E/a)

XXVIII 10 Jacob left Beer-sheba and set out for Haran. 11 He

came upon a certain place and stopped there for the night, since
the sun had set. /Taking one of the stones of that place, he put
it under his head and lay down on that spot. 12 He had a dream:
a stairway was set on the ground, with its top reaching to the
sky; and angels of God were going up and down on it./ 13 And
there was Yahweh standing beside him and saying, “I Yahweh
am the God of your forefather Abraham and the God of Isaac;
the ground on which you are resting I will give to you and to
your offspring. 14 Your offspring shall be (as plentiful) as the
dust on the ground, and you shall spread, out west and east,
north and south; and all the communities of the earth shall bless
themselves by you and your offspring. 15 Remember,6 I am with
you; I will protect you wherever you go, and bring you back to
this land; nor will I leave you until I have done what I promised
you.”
16 Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, “Truly, Yahweh
abides in this site, but I was not aware! /17 Shaken, he ex­
claimed, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than
the abode of God, and that is the gateway to heaven!” 18 Early
next morning, Jacob took the stone that he had put under his
head, set it up as a pillar, and poured oil on its top./ 19 He
named that site Bethel,® whereas the former name of that town
had been Luz.
/20 Jacob then made a vow, saying, “If God remains with

“ Some of the “joins” remain doubtful.

» Literally “behold.”
0 Heb. “house of El,” linked to “house of Elohim” in vs. 17.
218 GENESIS

me, protecting me on this journey that I am taking, and giving

me bread to eat and clothing to wear, 2i and I come back safe
to my father’s house—/Yahweh shall be my God. /22 This
stone that I have set up as a pillar shall be God’s abode; and of
all that you may grant me, I will always set aside a tenth for
you.”/

Notes

xxviii 11. a certain place. The attribute is implicit in the definite arti­
cle of Heb. The noun, Heb. maqdm, has several connotations, including
“spot” (here in vs. 11) and “(religious) site” (invss. 16, 19).
stopped . . . for the night. Not “spent the night,” since his sleep was to
be interrupted. The imperfect of Heb. often has an inchoative connota­
tion.
12. a stairway. The traditional “ladder” is such an old favorite that it is
a pity to have to dislodge it. Yet it goes without saying that a picture of
angels going up and down in a steady stream is hard to reconcile with an
ordinary ladder. Etymologically, the term (stem sll “to heap up, raise”)
suggests a ramp or a solid stairway. And archaeologically, the Mesopo­
tamian ziggurats were equipped with flights of stairs leading up to the
summit; a good illustration is the excavated ziggurat of Ur (Third Dy­
nasty). Only such stairway can account for Jacob’s later description of it
as a “gateway to heaven” (17).
set. Literally “was stationed, planted.”
13. standing beside him. This is the established meaning of the Heb.
phrase, cf. xviii 2. The preposition, literally “upon,” is a matter of idio­
matic usage (cf. especially xxix 2), and should not be strained unduly.
I Yahweh am the God. . . . Not “I am Yahweh, the God. . . .” The
description applies not to the name but to the deeds; cf. especially the in­
troduction to the Decalogue, Exod xx 2, Deut v 6.
17. Shaken. Literally “terrified.”
this . . . that. Heb. uses the same demonstrative pronoun both times,
but the repetition makes it distributive.
20. bread . . . clothing. These two items were regularly issued to
slaves, servants, and seasonal workers, and are often listed together in
business documents. The sense here is equivalent to “just enough to
subsist on.”
21b. A manifest insert from J. E’s version read “If . . . house-—(22)
[then] this stone. . .
xxviii 10-22 219

Comment

The narrative connects directly with xxvii 45. In compliance with

his mother’s request, Jacob lost no time in starting out on his jour­
ney. Normally, the narrator does not linger over a trip, no matter
how long and strenuous (cf. xxiv 10). This time, however, an excep­
tion is made. The reason is soon apparent.
To the individuals concerned, Jacob’s abrupt departure was a mat­
ter of personal safety (xxvii 41 ff.). But in the history of the patri­
archs, especially as seen by J, the individual is a free agent only on
the surface. Fundamentally, he is part of a larger pattern oveT which
he has no control, and in which he functions as the unwitting tool of
destiny. At this stage, Jacob’s security and future are important be­
cause both bear on the continuity of the biblical process. The time
has now come for the fugitive to be given a glimpse of the deeper
truth.
That this broader meaning of the Bethel episode was sensed
very early is evident from the fact that both narrative sources
already have this tradition. They differ mostly as to detail, possibly
also as regards the exact chronology (cf. Sec. 46); but Bethel stands
out either way as a spiritual milestone. The upshot is that instead
of parallel accounts separately presented, as is usually the case,
we have this time a composite version intricately blended. Yet the
fusion is unmistakable as soon as one pauses for a second look.
Elohim and Yahweh alternate in consecutive verses (12:13; 16:17).
God communicates with Jacob in a dream (12), as is customary
in E (cf. xx 3, xxxi 10); whereas J speaks of Yahweh as stand­
ing beside Jacob and addressing him directly (13). The successive
exclamations in vss. 16 and 17 would be redundant in an account
by the same writer, but are natural enough when traced back to
separate sources.
One particular detail of the narrative merits special attention. In
his dream Jacob sees a stairway (not “ladder,” cf. Note on vs. 12)
whose base is on the ground but whose top reaches to the sky. The
description evokes inevitably both the image and the concept of the
Mesopotamian temple tower or ziggurat, especially when read in
conjunction with vs. 17 (which immediately followed vs. 12 in the E
version): “This is none other than the abode of God, and that is the
220 GENESIS

gateway to heaven!” For a ziggurat rose hard by the main temple

on the ground (the so-called Tieftempel), to provide on its summit
a place for the deity to visit (Hochtempel) and communicate there
with mortals: a spiritual symbol, in short, of man’s efforts to reach
out to heaven. The phraseology is much too typical of the temple
tower to be merely coincidental, and the underlying imagery cannot
be mistaken; the allusion is all the more suggestive when viewed in
connection with Jacob’s journey to Mesopotamia. The tradition that
E reflects at this point is thus authentic in more ways than one.
The link with Bethel carries its own symbolism as well. The
theophany made Jacob realize that this was an abode of the Deity,
hence the new name replaced the older Luz, as this aetiology sees it.
Actually, Bethel was an old center (cf. xii 8, xiii 3 f.), which man­
aged to retain its religious influence until late in the seventh century,
when the holy place was destroyed by Josiah (II Kings xxiii 15).
The etymology seeks to fix the locale of Jacob’s spiritual experience,
but does not otherwise circumscribe its significance.
 38. JACOB’S ARRIVAL IN HARAN
(xxix l-14a: /)

XXIX 1 Jacob resumed his journey and made his way to the
land of the Easterners. 2 There before his eyes was a well out in
the open, and three droves of sheep huddled beside it, for the
droves were watered from that well. The stone over the mouth
of that well was large: 3 only when all the shepherds0 had as­
sembled there together, could they roll the stone from the
mouth of the well and water the flocks; then they would put
back the stone over the mouth of the well.
4 Jacob said to them, “My friends, where are you from?”

They answered, “We are from Haran.” 5 He asked them, “Do

you know Laban son of Nahor?” They said, “We do.” 6 “Is he
well?” he asked them. “He is,” they replied, “and there is his
daughter Rachel arriving with the flock.” 7 He said, “It is still
broad daylight, hardly the time to round up the animals. Why
don’t you water them and go on grazing?” 8 “We can’t,” they
answered, “until all the shepherds® are gathered together to roll
the stone from the mouth of the well, so that we can water the
droves.”
9 While he was still talking with them, Rachel arrived with
her father’s sheep; for she was a shepherdess. 10 As soon as Jacob
saw Rachel, the daughter of his mother’s brother Laban, 6with
the sheep of his mother’s brother Laban,6 Jacob went up, rolled
the stone away from the mouth of the well, and watered the
sheep of his mother’s brother Laban. 11 He then kissed Rachel
and burst into tears. 12 Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s
kinsman, being Rebekah’s son; and she ran to tell her father.
°So Sam., some MSS of LXX (see Note), reading r’ym for MT ‘drym
“droves.”
6-6 LXX omits.
222 GENESIS

13 When Laban heard the news about his sister’s son Jacob, he
rushed out to greet him; he embraced him, and kissed him, and
took him to his house. The other than recounted to Laban ev­
erything that had happened; 14 and Laban said to him, “You are
truly my cflesh and blood.”0
°~c Literally “bone and flesh.”

Notes

xxix 1. resumed his journey. See Note on xxi 16, and cf. vs. 11. In all
such instances, the verb ns’, literally “to lift,” is only used to emphasize
the particular activity.
the Easterners. See xxv 6, and cf. Judg vi 3, 33; Isa xi 14; Jer xlix 28,
etc.
2. beside it. Clearly not “upon it”; cf. xxviii 13.
was large. The construction is predicative, not attributive (“a large
stone”).
3. shepherds. This is the reading of Sam. and some MSS of LXX; in vs.
8, the same reading is given by LXX A and B, as well as Sam. MT
“droves” (cons, 'drym for r'ym) may have been influenced by the preced­
ing verse. The change supplies the necessary subject both here and in vs.
8; and it also furnishes an antecedent for the third masculine plural pro­
nouns in vss. 4-8 to “they” at the beginning of vs. 8, which MT lacks.
5. We do. Since biblical Heb. lacks a word for “yes,” it can only ex­
press affirmation by restating the question in positive terms: Do you
know?—We know; Is he well? (vs. 6)—Well. Cf. xviii 15, Note.
7. Why don’t you. Heb. uses imperatives, but these should not be
construed as commands. Once again, it is a question of Heb. idiom,
evidently the vernacular in the present context.

Comment

The narrative has much in common, necessarily, with the account

in xxiv; for even though the principal characters represent another
generation, the subject matter is much the same. This fact may be the
reason why the author—who is / in both instances—uses here so
much less space than he required on the earlier occasion. That he
manages, nevertheless, to accomplish so much, is further proof of his
consummate artistry.
xxix 1-14a 223
The encounter between Jacob and the local shepherds is a model
of effective characterization. The traveler is excited and talkative
after his long journey, whereas the herdsmen are composed, almost
taciturn; they act as if each word were just too much trouble. True
to an ageless pattern, the prospective suitor is inspired to a display
of superhuman prowess at the very first sight of Rachel. He
also appears to be more affectionate than one would think proper
under the circumstances. Yet Jacob’s impulsive kiss—a detail that
Calvin attributed to a redactional slip on the part of Moses (cf. von
Rad)—need not have been out of tune with the mores of the times.
We know from the Nuzi records, which so often mirror conditions
in the Har(r)an area—and hence also in the patriarchal circle—
that women were subject to fewer formal restraints than was to be
the norm later on in the Near East as a whole.
 39. JACOB’S MARRIAGES WITH LEAH AND
RACHEL
(xxix 14b-30: J)

XXIX 14b After Jacob“ had stayed with him a month’s time,
1 Laban said to him, “Just because you are my kinsman, should
5

you serve me for nothing? Tell me what your wages shall be ”

16Now Laban had two daughters: the name of the older was
Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. 17 Leah had
tender eyes, but Rachel was shapely and beautiful. ig Jacob loved
Rachel, so he answered, “I will serve you seven years for your
younger daughter Rachel.” 19 “It is better,” Laban replied, “that
I give her to you than that I should give her to an outsider
Remain with me.” 20 So Jacob served seven years for Rachel, yet
they seemed to him but a few days because of his love for her.
21 Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife that I may
unite with her, for my term is completed.” 22 Laban gathered
all the local inhabitants and gave a feast. 23 And when evening
came, he took his daughter Leah and brought her to Jacob; and
he cohabited with her.— 24 Laban had assigned his maidservant
Zilpah as maid to his daughter Leah.— 25 Came morning, and it
was Leah! Why did you do this to me?” Jacob6 demanded of
Laban. Was it not for Rachel that I have served you? WTiy did
you trick me?” 2* “ft is not the practice in our place,” Laban
replied, “to marry off the younger daughter before the older.
27 Wait until the bridal week of this one is over, and we will give

you that one too—in exchange for your remaining in my service

another seven years.”
28 Jacob agreed. He waited until the first bride’s week was
“Moved up from next clause for clarity.
6 So LXX; pronoun in Heb.
xxix 14b-30 225
ended, whereupon Labanc gave him his daughter Rachel in mar­
riage.— 29 Laban had assigned his maidservant Bilhah as maid to
his daughter Rachel.— 30 Jacob* cohabited with her also; in fact,
he loved her more than Leah. And so he stayed in service with
Laban1* seven more years.
« So LXX, reading Ibn for the extra Iw “to him” in Heb.
* Personal pronoun in Heb.

Notes

xxix 17. tender. Not necessarily “weak,” for the basic sense of Heb. rak
is “dainty, delicate”; cf. xxxiii 13. The traditional translation has been
influenced by the popular etymology of the name Leah as “weak.” What
the narrative appears to be saying is that Leah had lovely eyes, but
Rachel was an outstanding beauty.
19. Remain with me. The prepositional phrase ‘immadi stresses “under
my authority,” for which cf. vs. 27, below; cf. also Note on xxiii 4.
21. unite with. For the Heb. idiom cf. Note on vi 4. In vss. 23 and 30,
the imperfect has been translated “cohabited.”
23. Starting with the wedding festivities and until the marriage was
consummated, the bride is assumed to have been veiled; cf. xxiv 65.
24. See Comment; also vs. 29.
27. Wait until the bridal week . . . is over. The verb means literally
“fulfill” (imperative); cf. next verse. The bridal week is expressly defined
as “seven days of festivities”; cf. Judg xiv 12.
28. Jacob agreed. Cf. xlii 20; hardly “he did so,” because what is ex­
pected in this context is some form of direct reply rather than long-term
compliance alone. Cf. Akk. anna/anna kina, with nadanu, sakdnu, apalu
“to give an affirmative response” (ki/enu is, of course, a cognate of Heb.
ken “thus, right”).

Comment

The older school of documentary criticism assigned this section,

or rather vss. 15 ff., to E, with the exception of vss. 24 and 29,
which were unanimously ascribed to P (cf. Dr.). The result was an
artificial fragmentation which ran counter to the logical unity of
the content. The more recent critics, on the other hand, no
longer find here any trace of either E or P (cf. Noth, Über-
226 GENESIS

lieferungsgeschichte . . . , p. 30). According to this view, all of ch.

xxix (Secs. 38, 39 and part of 40) as well as all but the last verse
of ch. xxvii (Sec. 35) constitute an integrated and virtually con­
secutive part in the total story of Jacob. The latter analysis accords
admirably with the internal evidence of the narratives. It can be
confirmed, moreover, by further arguments which should put the
whole matter beyond any possibility of dispute. Two of these addi­
tional points are sufficiently important to deserve mention even in
this non-technical context.
There never was any direct basis for attributing this section to
E. No reference is made to Elohim, dreams, or angels. The sup­
posed parallels in phraseology between vss. 25-26 and xx 9 are
by no means complete; certain idioms, moreover, are bound to be
the common property of all speakers—and writers. Where, then, did
the older critics pick up the false scent? The spot happens to be
vs. 14. Its second half appears to say, when mechanically interpreted,
“and [Jacob] stayed with him a month’s time.” Since the author
thus far has been J, and since vss. 15 ff. go on to describe the
circumstances that caused Jacob’s visit to be drawn out for twenty
years (xxxi 41), it follows, so the argument ran, that the over­
extended stay was unknown to J, and had to be debited to E.
Nevertheless, the alleged boundary is an optical illusion induced
by erroneous verse division, of which there are many other instances
(notably in ii 4). If the ancient Masoretic divider had been placed
before 14b, that is, in other words, if vs. 15 had begun with
the clause under discussion, the chances are that E would never
have been injected into this particular narrative. For in that case,
the natural reading of the text would be “After [Jacob] had stayed
with him a month’s time, 15Laban said to Jacob,” etc., which is
the interpretation that has here been adopted. This way there
is no striking chronological discrepancy, indeed no inconsistency
whatever. On the contrary, the host waited no longer than conven­
tion prescribed, before embarking on a scheme calculated to exploit
his guest.
Turning now to vss. 24 and 29, it must be admitted that they appear
at first glance to be the type of statistical detail that is customary
with P. Nevertheless, it is precisely these two verses that are most
likely to constitute direct transcripts from some old and authentic
document. The proof comes again from the Nuzi tablets; more specifi­
cally, from a document (HSS V [1929], No. 67) which was already
xxix 14b-30 227
discussed at some length, though in a different connection, in the
Comment on Sec. 19. The text deals in part with a marriage involv­
ing a young woman of high standing in the local community. When
all the pertinent details have been set forth, the text adds parenthet­
ically: “Moreover, Yalampa (a slave girl) is herewith assigned to
Gilimninu (the bride) as her maid” (lines 35-36). This notation is
just as abrupt and marginal as are the present notices about Zilpah
and Bilhah. Evidently, it was the norm in the upper stratum of Hur-
rian society to treat the bride to a personal slave girl. If our author
had copied the two verses from an original contract from Harran, he
could not have come any closer to the cuneiform parallel just cited.
These particular notices bear thus authentic witness to conditions
that prevailed in Hurrian centers such as Harran during the patriar­
chal period, which is also true, of course, of the context as a whole.
Significantly enough, Lev xviii 18 expressly forbids marriage to two
sisters. The practice would probably not have been sanctioned in the
days of the narrator himself. As was the case with negotiable birth­
right (xxv 27 ff.), the subject matter of this section was similarly a
custom of a distant age and land, recorded only because tradition
insisted on citing it.
With the documentary obstacles safely out of the way, the present
narative falls into its rightful place. It is a logical sequel to Sec. 38,
which analysis has never denied to J; and it leads up to Sec. 40,
which speaks of Yahweh in the very first clause (vs. 31). The con­
tinuity is now faultless. Laban’s elaborate pretense of politeness and
family solidarity is maintained for just one month. Immediately
thereafter he puts into operation a scheme of singular cunning and
duplicity. But the schemer is himself the unwitting tool of destiny,
the means whereby Jacob is repaid for his part in the mistreatment of
Esau, through an ironic turn of fortune. The ultimate background,
therefore, has to be sought in ch. xxvii, an account necessarily from
the same hand as the present, in an over-all presentation to which
only a writer of J's caliber could do full justice.
 40. THE BIRTH OF JACOB’S CHILDREN
(xxix 31-xxx 24: J, with /E/a)

Whe n
i Yahweh saw that Leah was unloved he un-
re' ^ k° remained barren 32 Leah con
mved and bore a son, whom she named Reuben; for she de-
c ared, It means Yahweh has seen my distress ’ and skn ‘M
my husband will love me.’ ”» 33 She conceived w
»n declaring, -,t means,
tae™ 3?A1?‘T ab°” Hence she na^ ht
oimeon Again she conceived and bore a son, declaring “Now

she cMS VXsf

praise' Yahweh”.
ItaTons" rhLST0n,tattf'hCi‘10 me’ for 1 have bo'"e W“

•
^is35H°"“ rC
u , aecJanng- ^is time let me
stopped bearing.’ “ 7 named him 'udah' ^e"she

Sen^'h?“ RaCM ® that she had fai,ed ‘° l«r Jacob

’ .^ 'e envious of her sister. Said Rachel to Jacob
Give me children, or I shall diel” 2 Toz-./Vk u ’

hah as concubine, and Jacob cohabited with her- 5and

COnCaved a"d ^ J-cob a son. /e Said RacM, "Sfi

•SSStSrs isrKS: ss* - “ —

• Heb. sama‘ “heard,” explaining Sim'on.
Heb. ytllawe, explaining Lewi
M,T.“he call«l him/was called.”
7 Heb- ode, explaining Yehuda.
xxix 31-xxx 24 229
has vindicated' me: indeed, he has heeded my plea by giving
me a son”; hence she named him Dan./ 7 Rachel’s maid Bilhah
conceived again and bore Jacob a second son. 8 Said Rachel, “A
fateful* ‘contest waged I* with my sister: moreover, I have
prevailed.” So she named him Naphtali.
9 When Leah saw that she had stopped bearing, she took her
maid Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as concubine/ 10 Leah’s maid
Zilpah bore Jacob a son. 11 Said Leah, “How propitiousl”fc So
she named him Gad. 12 Then Leah’s maid Zilpah bore Jacob a
second son. 13 Said Leah, “How fortunate!1 It means that the
women will consider me fortunate.” So she named him Asher.
14 One day, at the time of the wheat harvest, Reuben came
upon some mandrakes in the field and brought them home to
his mother Leah. Rachel asked Leah, “Please give me some of
your son’s mandrakes.” 15 Leah”* answered, “Was it not enough
for you to take away my husband, that you should also take my
son’s mandrakes?” Rachel replied, “Then let him lie with you
tonight, in return for your son’s mandrakes.” 16 So when Jacob
came home from the fields that evening, Leah went out to meet
him. “You stay with me,” she announced, “for I have paid" for
you with my son’s mandrakes.” So he lay with her that night.
/17 God heeded Leah, and she conceived and bore Jacob a fifth
son. is Said Leah, “God has granted me my reward® for having
given my maid to my husband.” So she named him Issachar.
19 Leah conceived again and bore Jacob a sixth son. 20 Said
Leah, “God has given me a precious gift.”/ This time my hus­
band 9will bring me presents,11 for I have borne him six sons.” So

0 Heb. dan, cf. the name Dan.

h See Note.
4-1 Heb. naptulf . . . niptalti, to explain Naphtali.
1LXX adds “Jacob went in to her and she conceived.”
k So MT cons., but pointed to read ba.’ gad “luck has come,” both forms ex­
plaining Gad.
1 Heb. be’oirt, for Asher.
m So with LXX, reading I'h for MT Ih.
» Heb. Sakor iekarfika, literally “I have hired you,” for Issachar.
0 Heb. iekari, another explanation for Issachar.
p Heb. zebadarii zebed. in assonance with Zebulun.
o-9 Heb. yizbetfrii, another explanation for Zebulun.
230 GENESIS

she named him Zebulun. /21 Lastly, she bore a daughter, and
named her Dinah.
22 God remembered Rachel: God heeded her and unclosed
her womb. 23 She conceived and bore a son, declaring, God has
removedr my disgrace./ 24 She named him Joseph, meaning,
“May Yahweh add' another son for mel”
r Heb. 'Ssap, in assonance with Yosfp “Joseph.”

* Heb. yostp.

Notes

xxix 31. unloved. Not so much “hated” (with tradition), as “rejected,

unloved”: cf. xxvi 27, and especially Deut xxi 15. Akkadian presents an
exact semantic counterpart in zdru(m), which has the additional nuance
of “renounce”; cf. Gilg., Tablet XI, line 26.
32. Reuben. The name, literally “Look, a son!” is given a composite
symbolic explanation (from two sources): ra’a b6- “he saw, looked at,”
and (ye’eha) bant “he will love me.” The plain connotation is of course
the real one; cf. the Akk. name Awtlumma “it’s a man/male,” and cf.
Job iii 3.
It means. Heb. ki in its explicative sense (twice); see also xxx 13, and
iv 25; note also the other use of the particle in the present verse, i.e.,
“for, because.”
xxx 3. on my knees. To place a child on one’s knees is to acknowledge
it as one’s own; cf. the Hurro-Hittite tale of Appu, ZA 49 (1956), 220,
line 5. This act is normally performed by the father. Here, however, it is
of primary interest to the adoptive mother who is intent on establishing
her legal right to the child. For the pertinent verb ’ibbdne cf. xvi 2, in a
closely related context (J); both passages stem undoubtedly from the
same author.
4. concubine. For this usage of Heb. 'iSSa, normally “woman, wife,” cf.
xvi 3. The emphasis is manifestly on “connubium.”
8. fateful. Literally “of/before God,” with the adjectival use of Elohim
to describe something extraordinary or numinous (cf. i 2) rather than
“mighty”; see D. W. Thomas, VT 3 (1953), 209ff. There is, furthermore,
the inherent likelihood that the combination naptule >eldhlm designates
something more specific than is immediately apparent. Elsewhere, ’eldhim
occurs not only in the specialized sense of “housegods,” cf. xxxi 30,
Exod xxi 6, but also as the instrument of divination by ordeal when
data for a routine legal decision are lacking; cf. A. Draffkom, JBL 76
xxix 31 -xxx 24 231
(1957), 216 ff. The latter usage is frequent with ilani, the Akk. cognate
of ‘Hohim, when an ordeal is involved. In the present instance, a
metaphorical allusion to an ordeal is entirely plausible. What Rachel
-vould thus be saying is approximately as follows: I have been entangled
n a contest with my sister, which only celestial powers could resolve,
.nd I have emerged victorious from the ordeal. It would be a figure of
speech, of course, but one for which there must have been ample basis
in everyday life; a less nebulous allusion, at any rate, than the traditional
“wrestlings with God,” or even the attenuated—and untenable—“mighty
wrestlings.” The above “fateful contest” leaves the issue open, without
undue strain on sense or usage. (Incidentally, such use of Elohim as an
appellative or attribute is not unusual with J; see also xxxii 10.)
13. the women. Literally “daughters, girls.’’
14. mandrakes. Heb. dudalm, which has an erotic connotation; and
the fruit of the plant is still considered in the East to have aphrodisiac
properties (Dr.).
20. As is the case with Reuben, Issachar, and Joseph, the name
Zebulun is given a double aetiology: (a) “a precious gift,” Heb stem
zbd, which is more commonly used in Aramaic (E); and (b) Heb. stem
zbl (J). The latter has traditionally been interpreted as “to dwell,”
which lacks etymological justification, and cannot be forced in any case
to yield “will dwell with me” on syntactical grounds. Others have pro­
posed “uphold, support,” partly in view of Heb. zebul “eminence,” and
Ugaritic zbl “prince,” or the like. But the required link is supplied by
Akk. zubullu “bridegroom’s gift,” which is construed with the cognate
verb zabalu; for the specific technical application, cf. Assyrian Laws A
30.29, 31.2. The connection is self-evident: it supplies a natural semantic
basis; it automatically accounts for the form (zubullu Zcbulun) \ and it
accords with the alternate interpretation based on zbd.
21. Dinah. Cf. xxxiv. No explanation of the name is given, which has
caused critics to question the originality of the notice.
22 ff. Another double aetiology Joseph is traced back to (a) ’sp ( E ) ,
and (b) y s p ( J ) , with Yahweh adduced in the latter instance.

Comment

The section lists the births and names of eleven of Jacob’s sons.
The notice about the birth of the one daughter, Dinah, is given at
the end, and it is the only instance in which no explanation is
linked with the name; the notation may thus be a later gloss On
the whole, the naming of a child was never a casual matter; cf
M. Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen, 1929, and J. J Stamm,
232 GENESIS

Die akkadische Namengebung, 1939. And because name and person

were viewed as interrelated, the explanations are symbolical; a cor­
rect, or even plausible, linguistic derivation would be purely coinci­
dental, since the play on the name was the significant thing—ae­
tiology rather than etymology.
Each of Jacob’s sons came to be celebrated as the eponymous an­
cestor of a tribe. Yet all the allusions in the present account are per­
sonal, not tribal, in marked contrast with the analogous poetic pas­
sages in xlix and Deut xxxiii. This implies a distinctive tradition.
Moreover, we find here a hint of agricultural pursuits (vs. 14), as
opposed to the prevailing pastoral background in other sections; this
would accord with the indicated locale in Central Mesopotamia,
since the Har(r)an district was part of a thickly populated area (cf.
the Mari records), with a long cultural and political history behind
it. To be sure, the only positive link with that region is the name
Zebulun, for which see the Note on 20. Nevertheless, the tradition
as a whole presupposes a long process of transmission, since it
reached J and E through separate channels which had time to
develop considerable variations of detail.
The two documentary sources have been fused more intricately
in this section than anywhere else in Genesis, more so even than in
Sections 37 and 49. The eventual compiler did such a thorough job
that redistribution at this time poses a delicate problem. The
boundaries between J and E are sometimes indistinct; in a passage
like xxix 32, they have been left unmarked in the translation for
practical reasons. In general, it may be assumed that the section
goes back basically to J, with E contributing specific additions and
variants. One reliable criterion for separating the two sources is
the alternation of the divine names (see, however, the Note on
vs. 8, end); another criterion is furnished by duplicate aetiologies,
which can then be safely allocated to J and E respectively. Thus E
traces the name Issachar to Leah’s reward for providing her hus­
band with a concubine (vs. 18, note the occurrence of Elohim); the
divergent explanation in vs. 16—namely, as repayment for Reuben’s
mandrakes—/’s. Similarly, E connects the name Zebulun with
God’s gift of a son to Leah (20), while J makes it a general ac­
knowledgment for all six of her sons (ibid.)', and whereas J derives
“Joseph” from ysp “to add” (vs. 24, note “Yahweh”), E connects
the name with ’sp “to gather, remove” (23, note “Elohim”). Ac­
xxix 31 -xxx 24 233
cordingly, since the first interpretation of Reuben is manifestly J’s,
the second has to be ascribed to E (xxix 32).
The significant thing about this complex patchwork is not that it
got put together, but that the compiler who did the work refrained
from arbitrary leveling and harmonizing. However inconsistent the
respective traditions might appear to be, they were not to be tam­
pered with by later custodians.
 41. JACOB’S BARGAIN WITH LABAN
(xxx 25-43: /)

XXX 25 After Rachel had borne Joseph, Jacob said to Laban,

“Give me leave to go to my own homeland. 26 Give me my
wives, for whom I have served you, and my children, that I may
depart; surely, you know how much my service has done for
you.”
27 Laban answered him, “If you will permit me, I have learned
through divination that Yahweh“ has blessed me on account of
you. 28 Therefore,” he continued, “name any wages you want
from me, and I will pay.” 29 He replied, “You know what my
service has meant to you, and how your livestock has fared in
my care. 30 For the little that you had before I came has grown
into very much, since Yahweh has blessed you for my actions.
It is high time that I do something for my own household as
well.”
31 “What should I pay you?” he asked. And Jacob answered,
“You need not pay me anything outright. If you do this one
thing for me, I will again pasture and tend your flock: 32 Go6
through your entire flock today and remove from it every
animal* among the sheep that is dark-colored, and every one
among the goats that is spotted or speckled; they alone shall be
my wages. 33 And next time, when you check these wages, let
your own view of my honesty be used as an argument against
me: any goat in my possession that is not speckled or spotted,
or any sheep that is not dark-colored, got there by theft!”
34 “Very well,” said Laban, “let it be as you say.”

°LXX, Old Latin, Syr., Vulg. read “God.”

6 MT “I will go," see Note.

»For the additional clause in MT see Note.

xxx 25-43 235
35 But that same day he removed the streaked and spotted
he-goats and all the speckled and spotted she-goats—every one
with white on it—as well as the fully dark-colored sheep, and
left them in the charge of his sons. 36 And he put a distance
of three days’ journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob
went about pasturing the rest of Laban’s flock.
37 Jacob then got fresh shoots of poplar, and of almond and
plane, and peeled white stripes in them, laying bare the white
of the shoots. 38 The rods that he had peeled he set up in front
of the flocks in troughs—the water receptacles that the flocks
came to drink from. Since they mated as they came to drink,
39 the goats'* mated thus by the rods, and so the goats'* brought
forth streaked, speckled, and spotted young. 40 The ewes, on
the other hand, Jacob kept apart and made these animals'*
face the streaked and the fully dark-colored animals4 of Laban.
Thus he produced special flocks for himself, which he did not
put with Laban’s flocks. 4* Moreover, when the sturdier animals'*
were mating, Jacob would place the rods in the troughs in full
view of the animals,“* so that they mated by the rods; 42 but with
the feebler animals'* he would not place them there. And so the
feeble ones went to Laban and the sturdy ones to Jacob.
43 Thus the man grew exceedingly prosperous, and came to
own large flocks, maidservants and menservants, camels and
asses.
d Literally “flock.”

Notes

xxx 25. Give me leave to go. A self-evident nuance of the Piel stem;
the identical idiom is used in Arabic.
my own homeland Literally “mv place and my land”; for an analogous
hendiadys cf. xii 1.
26. and my children. In the case of slaves, children remained the
property of the master; cf. Exod xxi 4 ff.; the same was true of the off­
spring (serru) of slaves according to cun, and specifically Nuzian,
law, which is particularly relevant in this context. The status of Jacob
and his household was, of course, not of the same order, at least tech­
236 GENESIS

nically. Yet the narrative would seem to intimate that Jacob’s treatment
at the hands of Laban was not much better than that of slaves; cf. xxxi
43.
27. / have learned through divination. The same Heb. verb is found
also in xliv 5, 15. In a Mesopotamian context, such as the present, the
term refers undoubtedly to inquiries by means of omens; cf. Ezek xxi 26.
Yahweh. Many versions read Elohim, see textual note a; that variant
may well be the superior reading, since the more general term for the
deity is expected from Laban, in contrast to Jacob’s mode of reference
(vs. 30).
30. for my actions. Heb. leragli, literally “according to my foot,
step,” in the sense of either “in my wake, train,” as here assumed, or
perhaps “since I have set foot here”; cf. also xxxiii 14.
It is high time that. Literally “Now, when will I. . . ?”
31. again. Literally “I will come back and.”
32. This verse and the next abound in problems of text and interpreta­
tion, partly no doubt because of the idiomatic language and the special­
ized character of the context, which made transmission that much more
difficult.
Go. So Vulg. MT has “I will go,” but this cannot be co-ordinated
grammatically with a following imperative haser “remove”; and a
gerund would require wehaser. Logically, too, MT is suspect, since Laban
would scarcely agree to let Jacob make the division; what is more, vs
35 says explicitly that Laban did the removing.
animal. Heb. ie, which is not only “sheep” but also “goat”; cf. Exod
xii 5; Deut xiv 4.
At this point, the Heb. text reads redundantly “speckled and spotted,
and every sheep,” evidently added through conflation with the following
verse; LXX omits.
dark-colored. Heb. hum, a different term from the common Heb.
adjective for “black.” Sheep were normally white, while goats were
dark-brown or black all over; cf. “fully dark-colored,” vss. 35, 40.
33. when you check these wages. Evidently a technical use of the
phrase bd’ 'al literally “to come over/upon.” Uncertainty about the in­
terpretation has led to different readings of the pronominal prefix:
alongside the second person in the Heb. text, we find the first person in
TP, and the third person in Sam. (“when [it] comes to my wages”).
The above translation has the advantage of dispensing with an emendation
and, what is more, it provides a logical premise for what follows.
your own view of my honesty. Literally “my honesty” (sidqati), con­
strued with “before you” (lepaneka), that is, as you yourself judge it.
let .. . be used as an argument against me. Literally “let it testify
against me.” For this force of the preposition bi with the verb in
xxx 25-43 237
question, see especially Num xxxv 30; II Sam i 16 (and I Sam xii 3);
“for me” would probably have been ti. The concluding clause (it got
there by theft”) clearly presupposes adverse testimony.
in my possession. Heb. 'itti, at the end of the verse.
35. every one with white on it. Heb. laban in this phrase isprobably an
incidental wordplay on the name Laban.
36. At the end of this verse Sam. inserts the text of xxxi 11-13, per­
haps in an endeavor to bring the two narratives into harmony. The three
days’ distance applies only to this particular juncture in the narrative. The
events described in the rest of the account required more than one sea­
son; cf. Note on 43.
37. shoots. Literally “rods,” cf. next verse; but the descriptive “fresh”
(Heb. lah) shows that the noun was also used of branches before they
were made into rods.
39. goats. Here Heb. $d’n, normally “flock.” But just as the singular Se
(cf. Note on 32) is either “sheep” or “goat,” so may its collective coun­
terpart so’n stand not only for sheep and goats, but also sheep or goats.
(Similarly, bdqar may be collective for “cattle,” or discrete for “oxen”
alone; see Num vii 6 as contrasted with vii 3.) The present context shows
conclusively that only goats are involved, since the same markings are re­
stricted to goats according to 32, 35. In Heb. the necessary identification
is conveyed automatically, as is true also of our “animals” (cf. 40, 41) in
given contexts. A translation, however, needs to be more specific at times.
The above interpretation, for which cf. R. P. de Vaux in SB, note,
removes an old crux; see the Comment below.
40. The ewes, on the other hand. This nuance is assured by the promi­
nent inversion in Heb. These animals are thus sharply contrasted with the
“flock,” i.e., goats of the preceding verse.
41. when. For this sense of Heb. kol (=every time that) followed by
an infinitive, cf. Ehrl.
sturdier. TO, Symmachus, and Vulg. offer “early-bearing/bom,” and
similarly “late” for “feebler.” The end result is the same, since the
stronger ewes are known to lamb in winter, and the weaker ones in spring
(Dr.). But the alternative rendering is a paraphrase, nonetheless; Heb. ‘fp
“to be faint” is well attested, and qSr in this particular sense corresponds
to Akk. gaSrum “sturdy, robust,” an adjective applied to animals, among
others.
43. This progress was obviously a matter of years, not just days; cf.
xxxi 41, at least according to one of the sources.
238 GENESIS

Comment

Having first tricked Jacob into a double bride-payment, Laban

now seeks to extend the profitable arrangement beyond the stipu­
lated total of fourteen years of service. This time, however, he is
due to be repayed in kind for his machinations. It is a theme that is
made to order for vivid presentation. Yet the treatment in this in­
stance is not just another variation on a popular literary motif. The
indicated Mesopotamian locale is borne out by authentic back­
ground detail. The subject matter, moreover, is later treated anew
by an independent narrative source (xxxi 5S.). The underlying
tradition, in short, is of long standing, and it would seem to point
back to patriarchal Mesopotamia.
The present account may safely be ascribed to J, not only be­
cause of the use of the name Yahweh (especially in vs. 30), but also
because it differs significantly from a parallel account (xxxi 5ff.)
which is clearly E’s. Jacob consents to remain in Laban’s service, in
return for all such increase in Laban’s flock as may prove to have
abnormal coloring—black or dark-brown lambs and parti-colored
kids. Laban is delighted with the terms, and promptly proceeds to
violate the spirit of the bargain by removing to a safe distance all
the grown animals that would be likely to produce the specified
sports. Nevertheless, Jacob finds a way to outwit his father-in-law,
through prenatal conditioning of the flock by means of visual aids—
in conformance with universal folk beliefs.
In E’s version, on the other hand (see especially xxxi 8ff.),
Jacob does not act at all on his own initiative: he merely follows
God’s advice as conveyed to him in a dream. The difference is
significant, and may be due to later ethical reflections: Jacob him­
self is blameless, whereas Laban must be taught a lesson. Yet the
background of E’s narrative is itself authentic in its detail (see
Comment on next section). Thus each narrative source rested on
sound traditional data.
The bargain between Jacob and Laban is limited to new births
among Laban’s droves, and specifically to lambs and kids with rare
markings and pigmentation. Mesopotamian economy always paid
very close attention to distinctive breeds of sheep and goats, as is
amply attested in countless business and lexical documents. More
xxx 25-43 239
significant still is that country’s preoccupation with biological sports
among those species, to judge from the omen texts. Many such ab­
normalities, both real and theoretical, are minutely described. Of
particular relevance to the present context is the following entry: “If
a sheep has the appearance of a goat, its wool being black, the
position of the country will be secure” (CT 31, plate 31, line 19). In
other words, not only does the omen make note of this particular
coloring, but it regards its occurrence as a favorable sign. Such local
beliefs and practices could have been reason enough for Jacob’s
seemingly peculiar request—if it is granted that Laban was tem­
porarily thrown off by his own greed. What matters, however, is
not so much the application of the scheme as the reasoning behind
it.
The biblical writers, however, operating as they did in a different
cultural environment, may well have been puzzled by some of the
transmitted detail. Yet they managed to put down the involved de­
tails that tradition had handed down in a form that still lends itself
to plausible reconstruction. The subsequent difficulties have been
largely translational, arising from the flexibility of the term sd’n,
which is generally “flock,” but can stand also for either sheep or
goats, as the case may be; see Note on vs. 39. To obtain appro­
priately pigmented kids, Jacob resorted to the visual stimulus of rods
with chevron markings whittled onto them. The sheep, on the other
hand, needed only to face the goats, which came naturally by the
dark color required. These were the goats of Laban (40), who had
thought it safe to leave them with Jacob, while he was removing the
parti-colored specimens out of Jacob’s reach; he had not figured on
crossbreeding between the two kinds on so occult a basis.
Lastly, the use of the phrase “that same day” in vs. 35 should
not be taken to imply that the whole operation was a matter of
hours or, at most, days. Actually, vss. 41-42 are frequentative. More­
over, the results described in vs. 43 presuppose a number of seasons.
We know from xxxi 38 that Jacob’s total length of service with
Laban added up to twenty years, which leaves six years over and
above the fourteen stipulated as payment for Jacob’s two wives. And
six years would be about the minimum to permit the kind of natural
increase that the concluding verse seeks to stress.
 42. JACOB’S FLIGHT FROM HARAN
(xxxi l-18a: / and E ; 18b: /P/’, 19-54: / and Ea)
a

XXXI iNow Jacob6 learned of the things that Laban’s sons

were saying: “Jacob has taken everything that belonged to our
father, and he has built up all this wealth out of what should be
our father’s.” 2 Jacob also noticed that Laban’s manner toward
him was not as it had been in the past. 3Then Yahweh said to
Jacob, “Return to the land of your fathers, where you were bom,
and I will be with you.”
4 So Jacob sent for Rachel and Leah to meet him in the field

where his flock was, 5 and he said to them, “I have noticed that
your father’s manner toward me is not the same as in the past;
but the God of my father has been with me. 6 You know that I
have put all my effort into serving your father. 7 Yet your
father has cheated me, and has changed my wages time and
again. But God would not allow him to do me harm. 8 If he
should state, ‘Speckled animals shall be your wages,’ then the
whole flock would drop speckled ones; and if he should an­
nounce, ‘Streaked animals shall be your wages,’ then the whole
flock would drop streaked ones. 9 Thus had God reclaimed your
father’s livestock and given it to me.
1° “Once, at the mating time of the flocks, I suddenly saw in
a dream that the he-goats in the flock, as they mated, were
streaked, speckled, and mottled. 11 And in the dream an angel
of God called to me, ‘Jacobi’ ‘At once!’ I answered. 12 He said,
‘Note well that all the he-goats in the flock, as they mate, are
streaked, speckled, and mottled—for I too have noted all the
“Documentary distribution unclear at times; see Comment and Notes.
6LXX; Heb. “he.”
xxxi 1-54 241
things that Laban has been doing to you, 13 I the God 'who ap­
peared to youc in Bethel, where you anointed a stele and made a
vow to me. Up, then, leave this land and return to the land of
your birth.’ ”
14 Rachel and Leah answered him, saying, “Have we still an

heir’s portion in our father’s estate? 15 Are we not considered by

him as outsiders? Not only did he sell us, but he has used up the
money he got for us! 16 All this wealth that God has reclaimed
from our father is really ours and our children’s. Do just as God
has told you.”
17 Thereupon Jacob put his children and his wives on camels,
18 and he drove off with all his livestock, /and all the possessions

that he had acquired—the property in his possession that he had

acquired in Paddan-aram—to go to his father Isaac in the land
of Canaan./
19 Laban was away at the time to shear his sheep. Rachel
meanwhile had appropriated her father’s household images;
20 and Jacob had lulled the mind of Laban the Aramaean, so
that he would not be forewarned of his flight. 21 He thus got
away with all that he had. Soon he was across the Euphrates,
heading toward the hill country of Gilead.
22 On the third day, Laban got word that Jacob had fled.
23 Having rallied his kinsmen, he pursued him a distance of
seven days, until he caught up with him in the hill country of
Gilead. 24 But God appeared to Laban the Aramaean in a
dream that night and warned him, “Take care not to press mat­
ters with Jacob for good or bad!”
25 When Laban overtook Jacob, Jacob’s tents were pitched on
the Height; and Laban pitched his tents'* on Mount Gilead.
26 “What did you mean,” Laban demanded of Jacob, “by
lulling my mind and carrying off my daughters like captives of
the sword? 27 Why did you flee so furtively, and dupe me, and
not tell me? I would have sent you off with festive music, with
timbrel and lyre. 28 You didn’t permit me so much as a parting
kiss for my grandchildren and daughters! It was certainly a sense-
So LXX, “T”; MT omits.
<* MT literally “his brothers”; see Note.
242 GENESIS

less thing for you to do. 29 I have it in my power to harm all of

you; but the God of your father said to me last night, ‘Take care
not to press matters with Jacob for good or bad!’ 30 Very well,
then: you had to leave because you were homesick for your
father’s house; but why did you steal my gods?”
31 “I was frightened,” Jacob replied to Laban, “at the thought

that you might take your daughters away from me by force.

32 But as for your gods, you find them with anybody, and he

shall not live! In the presence of all this company, if you dis­
cover here anything that belongs to you, take it!” Jacob, of
course, did not know that Rachel had appropriated them.
33 Laban went through Jacob’s tent, and Leah’s tent, and the

tents of the two maidservants, but did not find them. He came
out of Leah’s tent and went into the tent of Rachel. 34 Mean­
while, Rachel had taken the idols, put them inside a camel cush­
ion, and sat on top of them. When Laban had combed through
the rest of the tent, to no avail, 35 Rachel” said to her father,
“Let not my lord take it amiss that I cannot rise before you, for
a woman’s period is upon me.” And so, though he searched, he
did not find the idols.
36 Aroused now, Jacob took up his grievance with Laban. He
spoke up to Laban, and said, “What is my crime, what is my
guilt, that you should have hounded me? 37 Although you have
rummaged through all my things, have you found a single object
from your household? If so, produce it, before your companions
and mine, that they may decide between us two.
38 “In the twenty years that I was under you, your ewes and
your she-goats never miscarried, nor did I ever feast on rams
from your flock. 39 I never brought to you the prey of beasts: I
myself made good the loss; you exacted it from me, whether
snatched by day or snatched by night. 40 Often, scorching heat
ravaged me by day and frost at night; and sleep drifted from my
eyes. 41 Of the twenty years that I spent in your household, I
slaved fourteen years for your two daughters, and six years for
your flock, since you changed my wages time and again. 42 If my
« MT “she.”
xxxi 1-54 243
ancestral God, the God of Abraham and the Awesome One of
Isaac, had not been on my side, you would have sent me away
empty-handed. But God saw my plight and my labors, and he
gave judgment last night.”
43 “The daughters are mine,” Laban replied to Jacob, “and
the children are mine; so too is the flock. Everything you see be­
longs to me. Yet what can I do now about these my daughters,
or about the children they have borne? 44 So come, let us con­
clude a pact, you and I, that there' may be a witness between
you and me.” 45 Jacob then took a stone and set it up as a stele.
46 Jacob said to his companions, “Gather stones.” They got
stones and made a mound, and they broke bread there over the
mound. 47 Laban named it Yegar-sahadutha/ but Jacob called it
Galeed.'* 48 Said Laban, “This mound shall be witness, as of this
day, between you and me.” That is why it was named Galeed—
49 also Mizpah, for he said, “May Yahweh keep watch4 between

you and me when we are out of sight of each other: 5° if you ill-
treat my daughters, or take other wives besides my daughters—
though no one else be about, know that God will be witness be­
tween you and me.”
51 And Laban said to Jacob, “Here is this mound, and here the

stele which I have erected between you and me: 52 this mound
shall be witness, and this stele shall be witness, that I am not to
cross to you past this mound, and that you are not to cross to
me past this mound, or this stele, with hostile intent. 53 May the
God of Abraham and the god of Nahor (their respective ances­
tral deities )J maintain order between us.” And Jacob took the
oath by the Awesome One of Isaac his father.
54 Jacob offered a sacrifice on the Height, and invited his com­
panions to partake of the meal. After the meal, they passed the
night on the Height.

f See Note.
0 Aramaic for “mound of testimony.”
* “Mound of witness.”
4 MT cons, y f p , in assonance with m f p h “Mizpah.”

1 An obvious marginal gloss; omitted in LXX.

244 GENESIS

Notes

xxxi 1. Laban’s sons. The relationship need not be taken literally. In vs.
28, e.g., the same Heb. term stands for “grandchildren.” Here it could
refer to any prospective heirs, such as adopted sons, or the like. At any
rate, nothing was said about any sons of Laban in ch. xxix, where such a
reference would surely have been in order; and vs. 23, below, speaks only
of “brothers," i.e., kinsmen, but no sons.
Verse 1 connects directly with the preceding chapter, and is followed
by vs. 3, the whole stemming from Ts account: note “Yahweh” in vs. 3.
2. In this verse, it is Laban’s altered attitude toward Jacob that is cited
as the reason for Jacob’s flight, thus reflecting a variant tradition (E).
as ... in the past. Literally “as yesterday, day before yesterday”; same
phrase in 5.
4. E’s account is resumed and continues in the main through 44; note
the use of Elohim for the Deity in 7, 9, 11, 16, 24, 29.
7. time and again. Literally “ten times,” also in vs. 41; cf. especially
Num. xiv 22, and see Note on xxiv 10.
9. reclaimed. Cf. 16 (the approximate sense is that of “salvaged”).
10. / suddenly saw in a dream. Literally “I lifted up my eyes and saw,
and there (‘behold’) in a dream. . . The dream is in £ the usual me­
dium of communication between God and man. In the parallel account
by J (xxx 32), no such suggestion from above is either mentioned or im­
plied.
the he-goats in the flock, as they mated. Literally “the he-goats that
mounted on the flock”; similarly in 12.
12. Note well. Heb. “Lift up your eyes and see.”
13. / the God. For the appositional construction, cf. xxviii 13: see ibid.
for the theophany, vs. 18 for the anointing of the stele, and vss. 20-22
for the vow.
The Heb. text is obviously defective, not because “God Bethel” would
be an improbable title (for one just like it, cf. Ilu-Bayti-ili, in an Assyro-
Tyrian treaty, AFO 9 [1933/34], 109, line 6), but because the phrase is
syntactically untenable; the missing words, which automatically right the
syntax, are supplied by two of the ancient versions.
14-16. On this passage, see M. Burrows, ‘The Complaint of Laban’s
Daughters,” JAOS 57 (1937), 259-76.
14. an heir’s portion. Literally “portion and inheritance” (hendiadys).
15. outsiders. Literally “foreign women.” The Nuzi texts furnish new
evidence on the favored status of native women compared with that
xxxi 1-54 245
of outsiders; see ZA 41 (1933), 16. Under certain conditions, moreover,
transfer of property to such “foreign women” is expressly forbidden.
used up. Literally “eaten up” (infinitive absolute). The terminology
(“sell” in marriage, “eat” the monies received) is again in complete
harmony with cun. technical usage. The point in this instance, as
elucidated by tablets from Human centers, is that part of the bride
payment was normally reserved for the woman as her inalienable
dowry. Rachel and Leah accuse their father of violating the family laws
of their country. Significantly enough, the pertinent records antedate
Moses by centuries.
17. Thereupon. Literally “he rose (and),” another instance of the
auxiliary use of wyqm; cf. xxii 7, Note. In vs. 21 the same term is
translated “soon.”
18b. A transparent insert from P.
19. The initial clause is circumstantial, as shown by both the tense
and the inverted construction; cf. i 2.
appropriated. Also vs. 32. Heb. stem gnb, which usually means “to
steal.” But it also has other shadings in idiomatic usage. Thus the very
next clause employs the same verb, no doubt deliberately and with
telling effect, in the phrase “lulling the mind,” i.e., stealing the heart;
the phrase is repeated in 26; in 27, with Laban speaking, the verb is
used by itself in the sense of “to dupe.” Finally, in vs. 29, the passive
participle occurs (twice) to designate animals snatched by wild beasts.
The range of gnb is thus much broader, in Heb. in general, and in the
present narrative in particular, than our “to steal” would indicate.
A reasonably precise translation is especially important in this instance.
The issue is bound up with the purpose of Rachel’s act. If it was
inspired by no more than a whim, or resentment, or greed, then Rachel
stole the images. But if she meant thereby to undo what she regarded
as a wrong (cf. Comment), and thus took the law, as she saw it, into
her own hands, the translation “stole” would be not only inadequate
but misleading. On the other hand, when Laban refers to the same
act further down (vs. 30), he clearly meant “steal.”
household images. Heb. Prapim. They were figurines, sometimes at
least in human shape (I Sam xix 13, 16), which were in popular use
for purposes of divination (Ezek xxi 26; Zech x 2; cf. also Judg xvii 5,
xviii 14 ff.; Hos iii 4). The etymology is obscure, but derivation from
(cons.) rph “to be limp” is not improbable; hence perhaps “inert things,
idols.” The usage in the present narrative suggests a pejorative connota­
tion; for when the author speaks for himself, he refers to these objects as
terapim (also vss. 34 f.); Laban, on the other hand, calls them “gods”
(vs. 30; when Jacob does the same in vs. 32, he is only quoting Laban).
20. the Aramaean. The term is troublesome for chronological reasons.
246 GENESIS

It is used in patriarchal contexts by E (here and in vs. 24, if these pas­

sages have been correctly attributed to E), by P (xxv 20, again with
Laban; xxviii 5, with Bethuel), and in Deut xxvi 5 (referring to Jacob).
Moreover, the analogous “Chaldeans” would seem to have the endorse­
ment of J in xi 28 and xv 7. Yet Aramaeans as such are not independ­
ently attested until the late centuries of the second millennium; cf. R. T.
O’Callaghan, Aram Naharaim, 1949.
Ordinarily, one might dismiss this usage as the product of later
geographic terminology. Laban and the other Nahorides were settled
in an area which came to be known as Paddan-aram (cf. vs. 18; see
also xxv 20, xxviii 2, 5 ff., xxxiii 18, xxxv 9, 26, xlvi 15), or Aram-
naharaim (xxiv 5). On this basis, all the inhabitants could have been
identified as Aramaeans by retrojection. The Mari material, however,
which comes close to the patriarchal age in date, shows that the Semitic
population of the Nahor area itself was Amorite, not Aramaean. An
analogous example of telescoping would be the use of the term Philistines
by /; see Note on xxvi 1.
The problem is complicated, however, by vs. 47 (/), which shows
Laban as speaking Aramaic. The identification, therefore, was not only
geographic but also linguistic. Accordingly, we must either attribute the
confusion to the relatively early period of J, if not earlier still, or else
we must entertain the notion that actual Aramaeans were on the scene a
good deal earlier than is generally assumed. At all events, the problem
should not be minimized.
23. a distance of seven days. This is meant as a general figure in­
dicating a distance of considerable length; cf. II Kings iii 9. Actually,
Gilead could scarcely have been reached from Har(r)an in seven days,
especially at the pace of Jacob’s livestock.
24. to press matters. Literally “to speak (with),” in the juridical
sense which dbr often carries. Yet even “to dispute, argue,” or the
like, would not suit the context, since Laban proceeds to argue bitterly,
even though he claims to heed God’s warning (29). The phrase requires,
therefore, some such translation as the above.
25. tents (twice). Heb. uses the singular, but obviously in a collective
sense, in view of vs. 33.
the Height. It has been conjectured that the text originally gave the
name of the mountain, perhaps Mizpah, for which cf. vs. 49. But the
text repeats the present reading in vs. 54 ( b i s ) , which lessens the
likelihood of accidental omission; nor is the context of vs. 49 a close
enough parallel. The translation assumes, on strictly methodological
grounds, but without undue confidence, that the noun was used here as
a place name for one of the elevations in the Gilead range; cf. “the
River” for the Euphrates in vs. 21.
xxxi 1-54 247
and Laban pitched his tents. The present Heb. text is contrary to es­
tablished usage; and the literal “he pitched his kinsmen” is hopeless. The
translation accepts the long-favored change of cons, ’hyw “his kinsmen”
to 'hlw “his tent,” as in the immediately preceding clause. The intrusive
'hyw is apparently a misreading influenced by vs. 23.
27. dupe. See remarks on gnb, vs. 19.
29. all of you. To reflect thus the plural form of the Heb. pronoun.
31 f. Jacob’s rejoinder is in two parts, corresponding to the two-point
complaint by Laban (vs. 30). The reply embodies Laban’s phraseology,
hence “your gods.”
32. this company. Literally “our brothers, companions.”
that belongs to you. The translation follows LXX; MT has a slightly
different arrangement of the words.
of course. This nuance is implied by the prominent inversion in Heb.
38. under you. Cf. xxiii 4, Note. For this legal connotation of Heb. ‘im
“with,” cf. Akk. itti “with,” short for ina bit N “in the household of X,”
i.e., dependent. Actually, in the present context we find the exact dupli­
cate of the latter phrase in vs. 41 “in your household,” in parallelism with
“under you.”
30. The pertinent law in the Code of Hammurabi (par. 266) reads: “If
there occurs in the fold an act of god, or a lion takes a life, the shepherd
shall clear himself before the deity; the owner of the fold must then ac­
cept the loss incurred.” Thus Laban is accused of disregarding the explicit
legal provision for such contingencies; cf. also Exod xxii 12.
40. Often. Heb. literally “I was” in absolute usage: the verb imparts
here a durative or iterative denotation to the rest of the clause; cf. xxxviii
21 f., xlvi 34 for a similar extension into the past.
42. the Awesome One of Isaac. The appellative (Heb. pahad) remains
obscure. It may have here its customary sense of “fear,” in which case some
reference to the Ordeal of Isaac (xxii) may be implicit; or it might be an
altogether different term; cf. A. Alt, Der Gott der Vdter, 1929, pp. 27 ff.
labors. Not so much the effort expended as (with Ehrl.) the returns
from it, analogous to Akk. manafratu “earnings” (literally “the fruit of
strain”).
44. that there may be a witness. The clause as it now reads in MT
cannot be right. The implied subject is not the pact, because (1) Heb.
berit is feminine whereas the verb before us is masculine; (2) it is not
the treaty but the deity invoked that is really the witness (cf. vs. 50).
Some critics assume accidental loss of “Yahweh” following the verbal
form, cons, whyh (haplography); yet this simple textual remedy is not
favored by the context, since the expected divine term should be Elohim
(as in vs. 50). The LXX version probably points to the correct solution.
It adds just before the clause in question, “though no man be with us,
248 GENESIS

know that God (will be witness between you and me),” that is, the same
clause as 50b. Two such passages in the original, only a few lines apart,
could readily lead to the loss of one of them in the course of repeated
copying (so-called homoioteleuton). The translation given above is
neutral.
46 ff. Here we get two versions of the mutual friendship and non-
aggression pact between Jacob and Laban, one from / (46-50), and the
other from E (51-54). In all likelihood, the mound of stones ( g a l )
served as the symbol of the treaty in /s version, and the stele or stone
slab (masseba) in E’s. In course of time, however, a certain amount of
cross-harmonization took place. Thus gl'd (Galeed, Gilead), which is
appropriate only to fs gal, was joined by msph (Mizpah), evidently a
symbolic echo of E’s msbh; and conversely, vss. 51 ff. were eventually
filled out with balancing references to the mound from the earlier
source.
50. The stipulation against taking other wives is basic to many
cuneiform marriage documents.
53. The phrase enclosed between parentheses is immediately betrayed
as redactional by its use of the third person (“their”), as opposed to the
direct address in the preceding verses. Apparently, a marginal notation
in an early copy sought to explain how the god of Nahor had come into
the picture. But such marginal comments have found their way more
than once into the body of the text with the passage of time.

Comment

This narrative has long been celebrated in its own right. In the
light of recent discoveries, moreover, it has become a key witness
on the subject of patriarchal traditions in general. But before we
consider the extra-biblical connections, the traditional data need to
be surveyed in brief.
The documentary distribution appears to be clear-cut at first
glance. The hand of J is manifest in vss. 1 and 3, and then toward
the end, in 46-50. Verse 18 contains a typical summation of P. The
rest of this long chapter would thus seem to belong to E, and the
assumption has strong evidence in its favor, both external and in­
ternal. Nevertheless, sporadic echoes of J would seem to be present
here and there, notably in 38-40. As was the case with ch. xxii,
where one source appears to have colored another, we may have
here instance where the hand is mainly E’s, yet the voice is some­
times /’s. At any rate, the problem is too complex to be discussed
here in detail. It did not seem advisable, however, to mark the doc­
xxxi 1-54 249
umentary boimdaries in the translation, except for the transparent
intrusion by P; the salient points have been touched upon instead in
the Notes.
The subject matter of the narrative subdivides into two parts.
The first, and much the longer of the two, tells of Jacob’s increasing
difficulties with Laban, the Sight and pursuit, and the dramatic en­
counter in Gilead. The other portion takes up the treaty between
Jacob and Laban (46-54).
That the account of the flight is essentially the work of E is
immediately apparent from the frequent mention of Elohim and the
repeated stress on dreams (10f., 24). Even more significant, how­
ever, is the internal evidence of the contents, as compared with the
pertinent passages from the hand of /. According to J, Jacob’s
flight was precipitated by agitation on the part of Laban’s pros­
pective heirs (vs. 1). On the other hand, E ascribes Jacob’s abrupt
departure to Laban’s menacing moods (vs. 2). We have, more­
over, conflicting explanations of Jacob’s prosperity itself: J de­
scribes it as the result of Jacob’s own ingenious countermoves to
Laban’s schemes (xxx 27-42), whereas in E (xxxi 10ff.) the ini­
tiative is God’s.
The two sources differ likewise in their interpretation of the
treaty between Jacob and Laban. To J, the ostensible, if not the
actual reason for the pact is Laban’s new-found solicitude for his
daughters’ future (50). In E’s formulation, the object is a mutual
non-aggression pact (52), that is, a strictly political agreement. The
outward symbols of the treaty are no less distinct. J’s version
features a mound of stones, or cairn (Heb. gal), as a permanent
witness Ced), the two terms together supplying an explanation for
the regional name Gilead. For his part, E concentrates on a stele or
pillar (Heb. masseba). Interestingly enough, the text also alludes to
the respective deities of the contractual parties (53), in apparent
compliance with treaty practices throughout the ancient Near East;
nor does E omit to record the meal that was an important concluding
feature of treaty ceremonies (vs. 54; cf. xxvi 30). Both reports,
incidentally, have the authentic ring of legal and political documents;
they thus appear to hark back to an actual agreement between
early Israelite and Amorite/Aramaean elements; cf. the date formula
in Alalakh Tablets 58 (Old Babylonian period).
There is, however, one particular feature in this chapter which is
exclusive with E. It concerns the household images which Rachel
250 GENESIS

removed from her father’s house without his knowledge. The author
handles the entire episode with outstanding skill. When he speaks of
the figurines on his own (19, 34 f.), he uses the secular, and some­
times irreverent, term frapim (perhaps “inert things,” cf. Note
on vs. 19); but Laban refers to them as “my gods” (’Hohay,
vs. 30). The search is suspensefully depicted, as Laban combs
through one tent after another until he gets to the tent of Rachel,
where they have been hidden. Rachel’s pretense of female incapaci­
tation is a literary gem in itself. The crowning touch of drama and
irony is Jacob’s total unawareness of the truth—the grim danger
implicit in his innocent assurance that the guilty party would be
put to death.
But the basic significance of the incident now transcends all such
considerations of human interest or literary presentation. It derives
from underlying social practices as they bear on the nature of the pa­
triarchal narratives in general. According to the Nuzi documents,
which have been found to reflect time and again the social customs
of Haran (see Comments on Secs. 15, 25, 35, and the Note on xxv
23), possession of the house gods could signify legal title to a given
estate, particularly in cases out of the ordinary, involving daughters,
sons-in-law, or adopted sons (see Anne E. Draffkom, Ilani/Elohim,
JBL 76 [1957], 219ff.).
This peculiar practice of Rachel’s homeland supplies at last the
motive, sought so long but in vain, for her seemingly incom­
prehensible conduct. Rachel was in a position to know, or at least to
suspect, that in conformance with local law her husband was entitled
to a specified share in Laban’s estate. But she also had ample reason
to doubt that her father would voluntarily transfer the images as for­
mal proof of property release; the ultimate status of Laban’s daugh­
ters and their maidservants could well have been involved as well. In
other words, tradition remembered Rachel as a resolute woman who
did not shrink from taking the law—or what she believed to be the
law—into her own hands.
The above technical detail would help to explain why Laban was
more concerned about the disappearance of the images than about
anything else (vs. 30). For under Human law, Jacob’s status in
Laban’s household would normally be tantamount to self-enslave­
ment. That position, however, would be altered if Jacob was rec­
ognized as an adopted son who married the master’s daughter.
Possession of the house gods might well have made the difference.
xxxi 1-54 251
Laban knew that he did not have them, but chose to act £ts though
he did, at least to save face. Thus his seeming magnanimity in the
end (43 f.) would no longer be out of character. He keeps up the
pretense that he is the legal owner of everything in Jacob’s posses­
sion; yet he must have been aware that, with the images gone, he
could not press such a claim in a court of law.
Was the author conscious of all these complex and to him alien
details? Such intimate knowledge on his part is scarcely to be ex­
pected in the circumstances, after a lapse of centuries and under
totally different conditions. In view of E’s known tendency to pre­
sent his heroes in the best possible light (cf. Comment on Sec. 25),
his present failure to tone down Rachel’s apparent misconduct can
only mean that he had no basis for doing so. To put it differently,
E did not invent this story any more than J made up the wife-sister
motif (Sec. 15), since so much intricate background detail could not
be improvised and still prove to be authentic by coincidence.
Yet this material must have reached the writer (independently of
J, it should be stressed!) after a long period of transmission, long
enough for the meaning behind the incident to have been completely
lost. On both these counts, the ultimate tradition points back to
mid-second millennium Har(r)an or earlier, the period to which
the story itself is dated. One such example by itself may not be de­
pendable. But when it is joined by others like it, the cumulative
evidence becomes increasingly impressive.
 43. ENCOUNTERS
(xxxii 1-3: E; 4-33: /J/)

XXXII 1 Early next morning Laban kissed his daughters and

grandchildren good-by; then Laban left on his homeward jour­
ney, 2 while Jacob went on his way. And angels of God encoun­
tered him. 3 When Jacob saw them, he said, “This must be
God’s encampment.” So he named that site Mahanaim.0
/4 Jacob sent messengers ahead to his brother Esau in the
land of Seir, the country of Edom 5 and gave them this message:
“To my lord Esau say as follows, ‘Thus speaks your servant
Jacob: I have been staying with Laban, and have been held up
there until now. 61 own cattle and asses and sheep, menservants
and maidservants. I am sending this information to my lord in
the hope of gaining your favor.’ ”
7 The messengers returned to Jacob to say, “We reached your
brother Esau; he himself is on his way to meet you, accompa­
nied by four hundred men.” 8 Jacob was badly frightened. In his
anxiety, he divided the people with him—as well as the flocks,
the cattle, and the camels6—into two camps.0 9 For he reasoned,
“If Esau should come upon the one camp and attack it, the
other camp may still survive.”
10 Then Jacob prayed, “O God of my father Abraham and
God of my father Isaac, O Yahweh who told me, ‘Go back to
your native land and I will be good to you!’ 111 am unworthy of
all the kindness that you have so steadfastly shown your
servant: I crossed the Jordan with nothing but my staff, and
now I have grown into two camps. 12 Deliver me, I pray, from
the hand of my brother Esau! Else, I fear, he may come and
° Connected with Heb. for “camp.”
b LXX omits, cf. Note.
0 Cf. the name Mahanaim “Twin camps.”
xxxii 1-33 253
strike US'* down, mothers and children alike. 13 For it was you
who said, ‘I will be very good to you, and I will make your off­
spring like the sands of the sea which are too numerous to
count.’ ”
14 After passing the night there, he selected from what was
ready to hand the following present for his brother Esau: 15 200
she-goats and 20 he-goats; 200 ewes and 20 rams; 16 30 milch
camels with their colts; 40 cows and 10 bulls; 20 she-asses and
10 he-asses. 17 He put them in the charge of his servants, each
drove by itself, and told his servants, “Go on ahead of me, but
keep a space between the droves.” 18 He instructed the one in
the lead, “When my brother Esau meets you and asks, ‘Whose
man are you? Where are you going? And who is the owner of
all this in front of you?’—19 you shall answer, ‘Your brother
Jacob’s; it is a present dispatched for my lord Esau; and Jacob8
himself is right behind us.’ ” 20 He gave similar instructions to
the second one, and the third, and all the others who followed
behind their droves, namely, “Thus and so shall you say to Esau
when you reach him. 21 And be sure to add, ‘Your servant Jacob
is right behind us.’” For he reasoned, “If I first propitiate him
with advance presents, and then face him, maybe he will forgive
me.” 22 And so the gifts went on ahead, while he remained in
camp that night.
23 In the course of that night he got up and, taking his two
wives, the two maidservants, and his eleven children, he crossed
the ford of the Jabbok. 24 After he had taken them across the
stream, he sent over all his possessions. 25 Jacob was left alone.
Then some man wrestled with him until the break of dawn.
26 When he saw that he could not prevail over Jacob, he struck

his hip at its socket, so that the hip socket was wrenched as
they wrestled. 27 Then he said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”
Jacob® replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”
28 Said the other, “What is your name?” He answered, “Jacob.”

29 Said he, “You shall no longer be spoken of as Jacob, but as

dLiterally “me.”
«Heb. “he.”
254 GENESIS

Israel, for you have striven' with beings divine* and human, and
have prevailed.” 30 Then Jacob asked, “Please tell me your
name.” He replied, “You must not ask my name.” With that,
he bade him good-by there and then.
31 Jacob named the site Peniel,* meaning, “I have seen God

face to face, yet my life has been preserved.” 32 The sun rose
upon him just as he passed Penuel,4 limping on his hip.
33 That is why to this day the children of Israel do not eat the
sciatic muscle that is on the hip socket, inasmuch as Jacob’s hip
socket was stricken at the sciatic muscle./'
f Heb. Santa, linked with first part of “Isra-el.”
»Heb. 'eldhim, for second part of “Isra-el.
* Taken as “The face (pny) of EL”
4 Older form of the place name.

Notes

The verse count follows the Hebrew text. In many English translations,
ch. xxxii begins with the present vs. 2.
xxxii 1. good-by. Literally “and he blessed them”; cf. xxvi 31, and
vs. 30, below.
2. encountered him. Heb. pg‘ construed with be- conveys the idea of
physical contact. On this basis, the present incident has an inner con­
nection with the encounter at Peniel, vss. 23 ff.
3. Mahanaim. The name is formally a dual of the noun for “camp”;
cf. the “two camps” of vss. 8, 11.
5. The correct syntax of this verse, as against the traditional accents,
was recognized by Ehrl., although he was not aware of the conclusive
outside evidence. A man who is about to pray to God for help against
his brother is not likely to speak of him privately as “my lord”; this
address is part of the message to be delivered. Aji exact parallel is pro­
vided by the routine epistolary formula of Akk.: ana N beliya qibima
umma N waradkama “To my lord X say, Thus (speaks) your servant Y.”
6. The size of the possessions is subtly left undefined through the use
of singular nouns with the force of collectives.
in the hope of gaining your favor. Another nuance of the idiomatic
phrase “to find favor in one’s eyes.”
8. the camels. This entry, which is lacking in LXX, is syntactically
suspect in that it lacks the prepositional ’et. No camels are mentioned
in vs. 6, but they are included in the list of presents (vs. 16).
xxxii 1-33 255
9. he reasoned. Literally “said (to himself)”; also in vs. 21.
10. I will be good to you. That is, “make it advantageous for you”; cf.
Num x 32.
11. all the kindness . . . steadfastly. An extension of the principle of
hendiadys.
12. strike us down. The pronoun in Heb. is in the singular, “me” refer­
ring to the master and all that is his.
14. present. Heb. minha, perhaps in intentional assonance with Maha-
naim; also vss. 19, 21, 22 (“gifts”).
21 f. Note the five occurrences of the stem pny, each with a different
connotation, yet all leading up to Peniel in vs. 31.
21. propitiate. Literally “screen the face.”
forgive. Literally “lift the face”; cf. xl 13.
26 f. The question about Jacob’s name is rhetorical. The object is to
contrast the old name with the new and thereby mark the change in
Jacob’s status.
Israel. The name is best explained etymologically as “May El perse­
vere” (Dr.). But both Jacob and Israel are treated here symbolically, to
indicate the transformation of a man once devious (Jacob) into a forth­
right and resolute fighter.
29. beings divine. Not specifically “God”; note the allusion to the pres­
ent incident in Hos xii 5.
30. he bade him good-by. Cf. Note on vs. 1; no blessing can be in­
volved at this point, since that was already represented in the change of
the name.
31. Peniel. The spelling in this instance points back to the multiple ae­
tiology, vss. 21 f. Elsewhere Penuel (as in 32). For this locality in Trans­
jordan, cf. Judg viii 8 f.; I Kings xii 25.

Comment

In this section, an incident with overtones that are all too mundane
(4-22) has been fitted between two frightening spiritual experiences.
To be sure, the authorship is not uniform. The Mahanaim episode
(1-3) is manifestly from E (note the occurrence of Elohim in vs.
2), whereas the rest of the chapter bears the stamp of J (cf. vs. 10).
Nevertheless, Mahanaim would seem to have an inner relationship
with Penuel (32), aside from an external connection with the “twin
camps” of vs. 8. In all likelihood, therefore, the subject matter of the
entire section was familiar to both sources.
In fact, the chapter as a whole is given over to encounters of
 256 GENESIS

one kind or another: actual and anticipated, sublime and trifling.

Ironically enough, it is the incalculable that turns out to be real,
while the carefully calculated never comes off. The contrast is signifi­
cant, if not altogether deliberate. As has been stressed repeatedly
in other sections, biblical history in general, and patriarchal his­
tory in particular, unfolds on two planes. At the one level, man
is entangled in his ephemeral personal affairs; at the other level,
there can be glimpsed a master plan wherein man is used as the
unwitting tool of destiny.
On several occasions, Abraham was favored with an insight into
the divine purpose: Promise and Covenant (Sec. 18: /); Abraham
intercedes for Sodom (Sec. 22: /); the Ordeal of Isaac (Sec. 28:
JE). The wonder is greater in the case of Jacob, who would not ap­
pear offhand to be marked as an agent of destiny. Yet Jacob is af­
forded a glimpse of a higher role through the medium of his vision
at Bethel (Sec. 37: JE), on the eve of his long sojourn with Laban.
Now that he is about to return to Canaan, he is given a forewarning
at Mahanaim, and is later subjected to the supreme test at Penuel.
^ie general purpose of the Penuel episode should thus be suf­
ficiently clear. (For various views on the subject, cf. F. Van Trigt,
OTS 12 [1958], 280—309.) In the light of the instances just
cited, such manifestations serve either as forecasts or as tests.
Abraham’s greatest trial came at Moriah (xxii). That the meaning
of Mahanaim was similar in kind, though clearly not in degree, is
indicated by the affective pg‘ be- (see Note on vs. 2). The real
test, however, was reserved for Penuel—a desperate nocturnal
struggle with a nameless adversary whose true nature does not
dawn on Jacob until the physical darkness had begun to lift. The
reader, of course, should not try to spell out details that the author
himself glimpsed as if through a haze. But there can surely be no
doubt as to the far-reaching implications of the encounter. Its out­
come is ascribed to the opponent’s lack of decisive superiority. Yet
this explanation should not be pressed unduly. For one thing,
Jacob s injury was grave enough to cost him the contest, if such a
result had been desired. And for another thing, the description
now embodies three distinct aetiologies: (1) The basis for the name
Israel; the change of names is itself significant of an impending
change in status (as with Abraham and Sarah; see Sec. 20); (2)
The origin of the name Penuel, for which a basis is laid in vss.
21-22 by their fivefold use of the stem pny (von Rad). (3) The
xxxii 1-33 257
dietary taboo about the sciatic muscle. Any one of these motifs
would suffice to color the whole account.
One may conclude, accordingly, that the encounter at Penuel
was understood as a test of Jacob’s fitness for the larger tasks that
lay ahead. The results were encouraging. Though he was left alone
to wrestle through the night with a mysterious assailant, Jacob did not
falter. The effort left its mark—a permanent injury to remind Jacob
of what had taken place, and to serve perhaps as a portent of
things to come. Significantly enough, Jacob is henceforth a changed
person. The man who could be a party to the cruel hoax that was
played on his father and brother, and who fought Laban’s treachery
with crafty schemes of his own, will soon condemn the vengeful deed
by Simeon and Levi (xxxiv) by invoking a higher concept of mo­
rality (xlix 5-7). It is noteworthy that this transformation is
intimated by / who, unlike E, does not normally go out of his way
to portray his protagonists as blameless heroes.
 44. MEETING BETWEEN JACOB AND ESAU
(xxxiii 1-17: 18a: |P|; 18l>-20: /£/)

XXXm 1 Looking up, Jacob saw Esau coming, accompanied

by four hundred men. He divided his children among Leah,
Rachel, and the two maidservants, 2 putting the maids and their
children first, Leah and her children next, and Rachel and
Joseph last. 3 He himself went on ahead, bowing to the ground
seven times, until he was next to his brother.
4 Esau had rushed out to meet him. He hugged him, flung
himself upon his neck and kissed him as he wept. 5 Looking
about, he saw the women and the children. “Who,” he asked,
“are those with you?” “The children,” he answered, “with
whom God has favored your servant.” 6 Then the maids came
forward with their children, and bowed low; 7 next came Leah
with her children, bowing low; lastly, Joseph and Rachel came
forward, and bowed low.
8 Esau" asked, “What did you want with all that train that I
came across?” He answered, “To gain my lord’s favor.” 9 Esau
replied, “I have enough, my brother; you should keep what you
have.” 10 But Jacob said, “No, I beg of you! If you will do me
the favor, please accept this present from me; just to see your
face is like seeing the face of God, now that you have received
me so kindly. 11 Accept, then, from me, the bounty that °is of­
fered” you, inasmuch as God has favored me, and I have plenty.”
And since he urged him so, Esau6 accepted.
12 Esau6 said, “Let us start on our journey, and I will travel
alongside you. 13 But he replied to him, “As my lord knows, the
“But cf. Comment.
» Heb. “he.”
«►-«Some of the versions read “that I offer” (same cons.).
xxxiii 1-20 259
children are frail. Besides, the flocks and herds are nursing, much
to my encumbrance: if one should drive them hard just one
day, all the flocks would die. 14 So let my lord go on ahead of
your servant, while I travel slowly in the wake of the caravan
before me, and of my children, until I join my lord in Seir.”
15 Esau answered, “Let me at least put at your disposal some
of the men who are with me.” But he said, “What for? Please
indulge me, my lord.” 16 So Esau started back that day on his
way to Seir. 17 And Jacob journeyed to Succoth, where he es­
tablished quarters for himself and made stalls for his livestock.
That is why the place came to be called Succoth.d
|18 Jacob arrived safe in the city of Shechem, which is in the
land of Canaan—having come thus from Paddan-aram.| /He
encamped within sight of the city; 19 the plot of ground where
he pitched his tent he then bought from the sons of Hamor, the
father of Shechem, for a hundred kesitahs.6' 20 He erected there
an altar and called it El-elohe-IsraeU/
<* “Huts.”
eA monetary unit of unknown value.

i That is, “El, the God of Israel.”

Notes

xxxiii 2. next. MT has 'hrnym, same form as for “last,” evidently

through erroneous duplication; the context calls for ’hryhm.
3. bowing to the ground seven times. A gesture of submission common
in the Amarna Letters.
4. flung himself upon his neck and kissed him. For the first verb
(literally “fell”), cf. xiv 10, Note. The whole is duplicated in (and thus
indirectly confirmed by) Enuma elis 1,11. 53 f.: itedir kisassu . . . unassaq
sasu "he encircled his neck . . . and kissed him.” The text is thus cor­
rect, even though the Masora indicates some doubt by placing dots over
the second verb (evidently because of a Midrashic wordplay—nsq
“kiss” : n&k “bite”).
as he wept. MT gives the plural, but it is out of place; LXX has to
supply “both of them” for clarity. The text is a simple case of dittog-
raphy, since the form ends in -w, and the next word begins with the
same letter.
 260 GENESIS §44

8. What. Heb. literally “who?” which may be so employed under

certain conditions; cf Judg xiii 17; Mic i 5.
train. Literally camp,” but the pertinent noun also has the sense of
“marching company, division”; cf. Num ii 3 ff.
to gain my lord’s favor. Cf. xxxii 6, and vss. 10, 15, below.
11. bounty. Literally “blessing.”
12. alongside you. For Heb. Ingdk, cf. kngdw, ii 18.
13. much to my encumbrance. Literally “upon/against me”; cf. xlviii

14. in the wake. Cf. xxx 30 (equivalent to “in my footsteps”).

caravan. Literally “expedition,” from stem l’k “to send.”
15. men. Literally “people.”
17. quarters. Literally “house”; but this would not be appropriate in
view of the short stay, and the normal “tents” elsewhere. The noun is
used here solely in contrast with “huts,” thus pointing up the aetiology of
Succoth.
19. For the significance of such purchases, cf. Comment on xxiii; note
also the approximate correspondence between “the children of Heth” in
that passage and “the sons of Hamor” in the present instance.

Comment

The meeting between the two brothers turned out to be an affec­

tionate reunion. Jacob’s apprehensions had proved unfounded and
his elaborate precautions altogether unnecessary. While the inter­
vening twenty years could not erase Jacob’s sense of guilt, Esau’s re­
sentment had long since vanished.
The sympathetic portrayal of Esau accords well with the picture
that I drew of him in ch. xxvu. The present account of the meeting is
largely from the same hand, perhaps even entirely. To be sure, vss.
5, 10, and 11 use the term Elohim, hence many critics would assign
all or most of 4-11 to E. Actually, however, the argument is far
from conclusive. The remarks are addressed to Esau, who would not
necessarily be portrayed as a follower of Yahweh; in vs. 10, more­
over, the term Elohim is plainly used in the sense of “superior, divine
being,” exactly as / used it in xxxii 29, and apparently also in 31; see
also xxvii 28, and xxxx 50 (Laban speaking). For a reasonably safe
division into sources we need not only external but also, and more
especially, internal evidence. The entire account of the brothers’ re­
union is much too well integrated to be composite.
xxxiii 1-20 261
On the other hand, and as a good case in point, the appended
notices about Succoth and Shechem are of a different order. Verse
18 contains a gloss from P, to judge from the phraseology and the
abrupt syntax. And the naming of the altar as “El, the God of
Israel” marks the rest as an apparent addition from E.
 45. THE RAPE OF DINAH
(xxxiv 1-31: J)

XXXIV 1 Dinah, the daughter whom Leah had borne to

Jacob, went out to visit some“ of the women of the land.
2 Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite," head of the region, saw
her, seized her, and slept with her by force. 3 But being deeply0
attracted by Dinah daughter of Jacob, and in love with the
maiden, he then sought to win her affection. 4 Shechem also
asked his father, “Get me this girl for a wife.”
5 Jacob had learned that Shechem'8 had defiled his daughter
Dinah. But his sons were out in the fields with his livestock, so
Jacob took no action until they came home. 6 Meanwhile
Hamor, father of Shechem, had gone to Jacob to make arrange­
ments with him, 7 just as Jacob’s sons were returning from the
fields. When they heard the news, the men were shocked and
seething with anger: what Shechem had done, by sleeping with
Jacob’s daughter, was an outrage in Israel; such things cannot be
tolerated.
8 Hamor addressed them, saying, “My son Shechem has his
heart® set on your daughter. Please give her to him in marriage.
9 Intermarry with us; give your daughters to us and take our
daughters for yourselves. l°You can thus live among us: the
land shall be open to you to settle, move about freely, and ac­
quire holdings in it.” 11 Then Shechem addressed himself to her
father and brothers, “Do me this favor, and I will pay whatever
® Expressed in Heb. by bi-.
o LXX “Horite,” see Comment.
° Literally “his soul, being.”
<* Heb. “he.”
« Cf. textual note °.
xxxiv 1-31 263
you say. 12 Ask of me a bridal payment ever so high, and I will
pay whatever you say; only give me the maiden in marriage!”
13 Jacob’s sons replied to Shechem and his father Hamor with
guile—speaking as they did because their sister Dinah had been
defiled— 14 and said to them, “We could not do this thing, and
give our sister to someone uncircumcised, for that would be a
disgrace among us. 15 On one condition only will we give in to
you: if you become like us by having all your males circumcised.
16 Then we can give our daughters to you and marry your

daughters, settle among you, and be one kindred. 17 But if you

do not agree to our terms as regards circumcision, we will take
our daughter and go.”
17 Their request seemed fair to Hamor and Shechem son of
Hamor. 19 The youth lost no time in acting on the request, so
strong was his desire for Jacob’s daughter; and he was more re­
spected than anyone else in his clan.
20 Hamor and his son Shechem went to their town council
and addressed their fellow townsmen as follows: 21 “These men
are our friends. Let them settle in the land and be free to move
about in it; there is ample room in the country for them. We
can take their daughters in marriage and give our daughters to
them. 22 But the men will accede to our request that they live
with us and become one kindred only on one condition: that all
our males be circumcised as they themselves are circumcised.
23 Would not the livestock they have acquired—all their animals

—then become ours? So let us give in to them, that they may

settle among us.”
24 All the 'able-bodied men in the community agreed with

Hamor and his son Shechem, and every male—every able-bodied

man in the community—was circumcised.
25 On the third day, while they were still ailing, Dinah’s

brothers Simeon and Levi, two of Jacob’s sons, took each his
sword, advanced against the city unopposed, and massacred all
the males. 26 They also put to the sword Hamor and his son
Shechem, removed Dinah from Shechem’s house, and left.
/-/ Literally “all who go out at the gate of his city”; see Note.
o Initial u- omitted in MT through haplography, but attested in Sam., LXX, Syr.
264 GENESIS

27 When" the other sons of Jacob came upon the slain, they
plundered the city in reprisal for the sister Dinah’s defilement.
28 They seized their flocks and herds and asses, everything that
was inside the city and outside, 29 and all their possessions; they
took all their children and their wives as captives, and plundered
everything that was in the homes.
30 Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have brought trouble
upon me by making me obnoxious to the inhabitants of the
land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites. With our ranks so mea­
ger, if they unite against me and attack me, I shall be wiped out
with all my people.” 31 But they retorted, “And should our sister
have been treated like a whore?”

Notes

xxxiv 1. Dinah. Cf. Note on xxx 21.

2. the Hivite. One of the terms that MT applies to the Humans, reserv­
ing “Horite” as a rule for the predecessors of Edom in Seir. LXX, how­
ever, still recognizes Horites in Palestine proper; cf. Note on x 15 and
the Comment on Sec. 30.
head. That is, “chief,” not “prince”: cf. Note on xxiii 6. The non-
authoritarian nature of his office is plainly indicated in vs. 20.
slept with her by force. Literally “lay with her and violated her”
(hendiadys).
3. he then sought to win her affection. Literally “he spoke at/upon her
heart,” not so much to comfort her as to persuade her; see Judg xix 3;
Hos ii 16 (Ehrl.).
5. were out in the fields. This could have been a considerable distance
away, so that the men did not necessarily come home every night
took no action. Literally “kept still”; cf. xxiv 21.
6. to make arrangements. Literally “to speak,” i.e., enter into negotia­
tions for the girl on behalf of his son.
7. an outrage in Israel. A deed regarded as moral anathema by the
Israelites; cf. Judg xix 23; Deut xxii 21; Jer xxix 23.
cannot be tolerated. Literally “is/are not done.”
10. You can thus live among us. Heb. inverts for special emphasis.
move about freely in it. The prevailing translation “trade therein” is
against both syntax and context. The Heb. verb shr signified originally
“to circle, follow an irregular course,” and this range of meaning persists
in Akkadian and Aramaic. The verb is construed with the accusative
xxxiv 1-31 265
(also and xlii 34), which accords well with “to traverse,” but could not
possibly yield “to trade in” (i.e., in the land, not buy and sell land). The
connotation “to trade” is a late secondary development in Heb. and Jew­
ish Aramaic based on the noun soher “merchant” (cf. xxiii 16), i.e.,
“peddler, one who makes the rounds.” The main point of Hamor’s argu­
ment is that as relatives by marriage, the Israelites would be regarded as
full-fledged citizens rather than as gerim; in xlii 34, Joseph tells his
brothers that, once they have established their innocence by producing
Benjamin, they would be free to go about as they pleased instead of being
detained as spy suspects. Moreover, the patriarchs are constantly de­
scribed as pastoral folk (cf. xlvi 32, 34, xlvii 3), and not as merchants.
For a full discussion, cf. my paper in BASOR 164 (1962), 23-28.
12. a bridal payment. Heb. mohar umattan, not as two separate items
but as one payment of the amount due the family for release of the girl;
for a similar hendiadys in Akkadian cf. biltu u mandat tu, literally “tribute
and payment,” i.e., payment of tribute.
13. speaking . . . because. For the same use of ’aSer in this narrative,
cf. vs. 27.
16. one kindred. Heb ‘am as a consanguineous body; see JBL 79
(1960), 157 ff.
20. their town council. Literally “the gate of their town,” the place
where all public business was transacted and hence, by extension, “com­
munity,” as in Ruth iii 11.
23. the livestock they have acquired. Heb. “their property/livestock
and their possessions,” clearly a hendiadys as proved by xxxi 18, where
the same two nouns are in construct state, “the livestock/property in their
possession”; this way the appended “their beasts” is explicative instead of
redundant; see also xxxvi 6.
24. All the able-bodied men in the community. Literally “all those who
go out at the gate of his city,” with the verbal stem used in its technical
sense of going to war; a phrase analogous to “all those who come in at
the gate of his city,” i.e., who participate in the city council; for the latter
term, cf. Note on 20, above, and for the idiom, see xxiii 10, Note and
reference. The whole point of the passage before us is that all the poten­
tial defenders were incapacitated (cf. next verse). Women and children
were not involved directly (cf. 29), yet they too would be included in this
description if the phrase were to be interpreted literally; for the original
discussion on the subject see Ehrl.
25. unopposed. Heb. “in security,” which describes not the confident
mood of the city but the attackers’ immunity from effective interference.
27. the other sons of Jacob. Heb. often expresses the sense of the
“other” through mere juxtaposition. Simeon and Levi are obviously not
266 GENESIS

involved in this particular deed, having been responsible for the massacre
in the first place, so that they could not be among the brothers who
“came upon” the corpses by accident.
in reprisal for. Literally “because of’; cf. vs. 13.
29. Cf. Num xxxi 9.
30. You have brought trouble. The basic meaning of the stem is to
muddy waters, hence to upset, and the like.
with all my people. The Heb. noun is literally “house,” i.e., bet in the
sense of bet ’ab “clan.”

Comment

The narrative is unusual on more counts than one. For one thing,
it is the only account to concern itself with Jacob’s daughter Dinah,
who is otherwise relegated to two statistical entries (xxx 21, xlvi
15). For another, Jacob himself has a minor part, while the spotlight
rests throughout on the next generation. For still another, there is a
pronounced chronological gap between this section and the one be­
fore. There, Jacob’s children were still of tender age (xxxiii 14);
here, they have attained adulthood.
Most important of all, the history of Jacob has hitherto been in the
main a story of individuals. This time, to be sure, personalities are
still very much in the forefront of the stage; but their experiences
serve to recapitulate an all but lost page dealing with remote ethnic
interrelations. The account, in other words, presents personalized
history, that is, history novelistically interpreted. And since we have
so little independent evidence about the early settlement of Israelites
in Canaan, the slender thread that we find here assumes that much
more importance. By the same token, extra caution is needed to pro­
tect the sparse data from undue abuse.
With such a stratified context before us, it is no wonder that
the documentary analysis of the chapter has run into its share of
snags. All critics are agreed that the core stems from J; many of
them, however, have been bothered by various intrusions, obvious
or imaginary, but have not been able to decide whether they are to
be attributed to P, E, or to both. If P has received the majority
vote, it is due largely to certain unmistakable connections between
this chapter and ch. xxiii, notably the idiomatic reference to the
“city gate” (vs. 24, bis, xxiii 10, 18). But the last-named chapter
xxxiv 1-31 267

as a whole can no longer be credited to P (see ad loc.). What is

more, the present section is no respecter of home talent. Jacob is
presented in an unimpressive light, and his sons Simeon and Levi
are all but condemned for their primitive impulses (cf. also xlix
5-7); on the other hand, the portrayal of Shechem and Hamor
is certainly not lacking in sympathy. Such impartiality and forth­
rightness cannot be said to be typical of E, let alone P; but we
have met with it in J, especially in ch. xxvii. All in all, therefore,
and having regard also to the smooth flow of the narrative as a
whole, there is no valid reason for assuming a conflate text. The
whole may be attributed to / with moderate confidence, beyond
such minor blemishes as are to be expected in the transmission of
very old tales.
Now if the narrative rests somehow on a historical foundation,
what is its ultimate background in fact? The actual events behind
the story would have to go back far enough in time to allow for the
transformation into the personalized version that was handed down
to /. Fortunately, there still are a few scattered guideposts for a
tentative, yet plausible, reconstruction. Shechem was inhabited at
the time by Hurrian elements; the text (vs. 2) calls Hamor a
Hivite, but the LXX identifies him as a Horite. This latter identi­
fication is supported by two independent details: (1) The Shechem-
ites are as yet uncircumcised, a circumstance that supplies the key
feature of the story; the contrary was presumably true of Semitic
Canaanites. (2) Cuneiform records from the region of Central
Palestine have shown that Hurrians were prominent there during
the Amama age (ca. 1400 B.C.); they must have arrived prior to
that date.
There is, furthermore, the fact (as has already been mentioned)
that Simeon and Levi are depicted here as headstrong and vengeful.
In later sources, Simeon is a rudimentary tribe settled in the south
of Judea, a long way from Shechem; and Levi has no territorial
holdings whatsoever. Evidendy, therefore, a pair of once vigorous
tribes had suffered critical losses in their attempt to settle in Central
Palestine, losses which they were never able to recoup. Standard
tradition retained no memory of that remote event, except for the
faint echo in the Testament of Jacob (xlix), where the blame is
laid, significantly enough, on the two brother tribes themselves. The
period in question should thus be dated before the Exodus, and
very likely prior to Amama times.
268 GENESIS

The story before us is a tale of sharp contrasts: pastoral simplicity

and grim violence, love and revenge, candor and duplicity. There
is also a marked difference between the generations. Hamor and
Jacob are peace-loving and conciliatory; their sons are impetuous
and heedless of the consequences that their acts must entail. The
lovesick Shechem prevails on his father to extend to the Israelites
the freedom of the land—with the requisite consent of his followers.
But Dinah’s brothers refuse to be that far-sighted. After tricking
the Shechemites into circumcising their males, and thus stripping the
place of its potential defenders, they put the inhabitants to the
sword. Jacob is mournful and apprehensive. But his sons remain
defiant and oblivious of the future.
 46 BETHEL REVISITED
(xxxv 1-8, 14: Ea; 9-13, 15: / P / )

XXXV 1 God said to Jacob, “Proceed6 to Bethel, where you

shall remain to build there an altar to the God who appeared to
you when you were fleeing from your brother Esau.” 2 So Jacob
told his household and all the others who were with him, “Rid
yourselves of the alien gods in your midst, then cleanse your­
selves and put on fresh garments. 3 We will proceed6 to Bethel,
where I shall build an altar to the God who answered me when
I was in distress, and who has been with me wherever I have
gone.” 4 They handed over to Jacob all the alien gods in their
possession, and the rings that were in their ears; Jacob buried
them under the terebinth near Shechem, 5 and they set out. And
a terror from God fell on the settlements round about them, so
that they did not pursue Jacob’s men.
6 Thus Jacob arrived in Luz—that is, Bethel—in the land of
Canaan, together with all the people who were with him. 7 There
he built an altar and named it El-bethel, for it was there that
God had revealed himself to him when he was fleeing from his
brother.
8 Death came, meanwhile, to Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse; she
was buried under the oak below Bethel; hence it was named
Allon-bacuth.®
/ 9 God appeared again to Jacob upon his arrival from Pad-
dan-aram, and blessed him. lOGod said to him,

“You whose name is Jacob,

You shall be called Jacob no more,
But Israel shall be your name.”
0Basically.
6Literally “arise, go up.”
«That is, “Oak of Weeping."
270 GENESIS

Thus he was named Israel. 11 And God said to him,

“I am El Shaddai.
Be fertile and increase;
A nation, yea an assembly of nations,
Shall descend from you,
And kings shall issue from your loins.
12 The land that I gave to Abraham and Isaac

I now give to you,

And to your offspring to come
Will I give this land.”
13Then God was gone from him—■'at the spot where he had
spoken with him.“*/
14 On the site where he had spoken with him, Jacob set up a
stele of stone, over which he offered a libation; and he poured
oil upon it. /15 And Jacob named that site Bethel, because God
had spoken there with him./
‘*-d Perhaps dittography from next verse; omitted in Vulg.

Notes

xxxv 2. alien gods. That is, images which some of Jacob’s people were
bound to have brought along from Har(r)an; for the usage, cf. xxxi 19 in
the light of xxxi 30.
the others. Implied through juxtaposition; cf. xxxiv 27, Note.
put on fresh garments Literally “change your garments,” for the forth­
coming occasion.
4. the terebinth near Shechem. See Note on xii 6.
5. a terror from God. On the numinous use of Elohim cf. i 2, xxx 8.
settlements. Heb. 'ir designates settlements of various sizes.
6. This verse may well be from P.
7. On El-bethel, cf. Note on xxxi 13 (especially for the cun. refer­
ence).
God. According to xxxi 13, it was God who appeared to Jacob at
Bethel; but xxviii 12 speaks of “angels of God.” The present occurrence
is construed with the verb in the plural, and should perhaps be rendered
“divine beings.”
8. Rebekah’s nurse. Cf. xxiv 59, where no name, however, is given; this
laconic notice may have been displaced (Dr.).
9. again. There has been so far no mention of an actual theophany
xxxv 1-15 271
since Jacob’s departure from Paddan-aram. The writer (P) may have had
in mind the first visit to Bethel; or else, the adverb is intended as a gen­
eral (and later) reference to the account given above.
10. For another version of the change of names (in a different source),
see xxxii 28 f.
13. The second part of the verse is duplicated exactly in vs. 14, where
the preposition b - (in/at) is in order, whereas here it is out of place;
evidently, a dittographic error in the present instance.
14—15. Cf. xxviii 18-19. Between the two passages, all three sources, J,
E, and P, are on record on this particular subject—with inevitable
conflation and duplication.

Comment

Bethel marks two significant stages in Jacob’s life: one on his flight
from Esau (Sec. 37), and the other on his return trip home, many
years later. Each received attention from more than one source. The
first episode was duly noted by E as well as J . The present account is
likewise composite. The main contribution comes from E (1-8); / is
probably to be credited with vs. 14. But we now have also an unmis­
takable addition from P (vss. 9-13, and apparently 15), one of the
few passages from this source to be woven into the Jacob story.
With three documents thus converging on the same site, a site that
was the scene of two episodes, a certain amount of duplication and
confusion is to be expected. In the previous narrative, it was J who
recorded the aetiology of the name Bethel (xxviii 19), while E had
Jacob set up a commemorative stele (xxviii 18). This time the nam­
ing is recorded by P, who also notes the change of Jacob into Israel;
the latter event was traced back by / to Jacob’s nocturnal contest at
Penuel (xxxii 28 f.). Thus the one thing on which all three sources
are in accord is the spiritual significance of the site in patriarchal
times.
 47. BRIEF NOTICES ABOUT JACOB’S FAMILY
(xxxv 16-20: E; 21-22a: ///; 22b-29: \P\)

XXXV !6Then they set out from Bethel; but when they were
still some distance away from Ephrath, Rachel was in child­
birth; she had hard labor. I7 When her labor was at its hardest,
her midwife said to her, “Have no anxiety, for you have another
boy.” 18 With her last gasp—for she was dying—she named him
Ben-oni“; his father, however, called him Benjamin.1’ 19 Thus
Rachel died; she was buried on the road to Ephrath—now
Bethlehem. 20 On her grave Jacob set up a monument, the same
monument that is at Rachel’s grave to this day.
/21 Israel journeyed on, and pitched his tent beyond Mig-
dal-eder. 22 While Israel was encamped in that region, Reuben
went and lay with Bilhah, his father's concubine; and Israel
found out./
|The sons of Jacob were now twelve. 23 The sons of Leah:
Jacob’s first-born Reuben; and Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar,
and Zebulun. 24 The sons of Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin.
25 The sons of Rachel’s maid Bilhah: Dan and Naphtali. 26 And

the sons of Leah’s maid Zilpah: Gad and Asher. These are the
sons of Jacob who were born to him in0 Paddan-aram.
27 Jacob came home to his father Isaac at Mamre, in Kiriath-
arba—now Hebron—where Abraham and Isaac had sojourned.
28 Isaac’s age came to 180 years. 29 Then he breathed his last and

died, old and in the fullness of years; and he was gathered to his
kin. He was buried by his sons Esau and Jacob. |
“Understood as “son of misfortune,” or “son of my vigor,”
6 Understood as “son of the right”; see Comment.

«See Note.
xxxv 16-29 273

Notes

xxxv 16. They were still some distance away from Ephrath. Literally
“there was still a stretch of land to go to Ephrath.”
was in childbirth. Not “gave birth” because she was still in labor.
The same inchoative aspect of the verb is found also in the next verse,
“she was dying,” not “she died.”
17. When her labor was at its hardest. A parade example of the
“elative” use of the Hiphil, for which see JCS 6 (1952), 81 ff., and cf.
for other intransitive uses iii 6. Note the contrast between “she had
hard labor” (Piel) and “her labor was at its hardest” (Hiphil). Failure
to observe this idiomatic distinction has led to redundant translations
and misjudgment of the text.
22. was encamped. For this connotation of the stem fkn cf. xvi 12.
This usage is characteristic of J.
26. in Paddan-aram. If the preposition was not loosely used,this
statement would imply that Benjamin too wasborn in Mesopotamia.
Very likely, we have here a difference in traditions. The preceding
notice about the birth of Benjamin in Canaan stems from E, whereas
the present summary is from P.
29. Cf. the similar notice (also by P) in xxv 8 (death of Abraham).

Comment

The section combines several notices, which deal with various

topics: birth of Benjamin and death of Rachel (16-20); Reuben’s
transgression (22a); list of Jacob’s sons (22b-26); and death of
Isaac (27-29). All three sources have contributed. P’s hand in
22b ff. is immediately apparent. But the preceding segment is in
itself not of a piece. The difference is marked externally by the
alternation of the names Jacob (20) and Israel (21 f.), which
becomes a consistent documentary criterion in the Joseph story,
where Jacob is employed by E and Israel by /. Accordingly, vss.
16-20 are assigned to the former, and 21-22a to the latter.
The birth of Benjamin is specifically linked by E to the last stage
of Jacob’s long journey, when he was virtually within sight of home
after many years of exile; for the possibility of a variant tradition
in P cf. Note on vs. 26. The infant is given two names. One, Ben-
274 GENESIS

oni, is attributed to the dying mother, but its meaning is obscure.

The element ‘dm may signify “my vigor” (cf. xlix 3), and this
sense is supported by the orthography; the context, however, favors
(at least symbolically) “misfortune, suffering” (from a different
root), and this interpretation is preferred by tradition (cf. also
Hos ix 4); it has furthermore good extra-biblical parallels (e.g.,
Akk. Bilti-marsat “my burden is grievous”). The other name,
Benjamin, is ascribed to the father. It means literally “son of the
right (side, hand, or the like),” that is, one on whom the father
expects to count heavily for support and comfort; or, alternatively,
one who promises good fortune, a propitious turn of events. The
analysis of the name has been complicated by the occurrence of
the tribal term DUMV (plural) -yamin in the Mari documents; the
first element is written logographically, so that the reading is un­
certain, but it means “sons of.” This designation is applied to
southern Amorite elements, as opposed to their northern counter­
parts, the DUMU (plural) -Jim’Sl. The correspondence, however,
could be coincidental; if it is not, the original meaning of the
biblical name would have to be “Southerner.”
The laconic notice about Reuben’s immorality is echoed in xlix
3f. and Deut xxxiii 6; the offense cost Reuben his birthright (I
Chron v 1). In terms of history, these scattered hints suggest that
the tribe of Reuben once enjoyed a pre-eminent position, only to
fall upon evil days. In the Song of Deborah, Reuben is reproached
and taunted for his failure to respond to the national emergency
(Judg v 15 f.). Together with Simeon and Levi (cf. xxxiv), the
two descendants next in order of seniority, Reuben became politi­
cally insignificant. But tangible evidence about the events in question
is unfortunately lacking.
The list of Jacob’s sons would be pointless if it stemmed from
the same writers who have already introduced us to all twelve
brothers in a far more vivid manner (xxix 31-xxx 24; and 16-
18, above). But the present enumeration has come down not from
J and E but from P, a fact that may account also for the apparent
reference to Paddan-aram as the birthplace of Benjamin (vs. 26),
along with that of his brothers.
There still remains the chronological discrepancy between the
present notice of Isaac’s death at the age of 180 (vs. 28), and
the account in xxvii, according to which Isaac was all but dead
before Jacob ever set out for Haran. Yet on the basis of xxv 26
xxxv 16-29 275
and xxvi 34 (both from P), Isaac would have had to survive that
deathbed scene by some 80 years (see Comment on Sec. 36).
P’s chronology is self-consistent, but it cannot be integrated with the
data of J and E. Moderate documentary analysis, by enhancing
the credibility of each separate source, can only add to one’s ap­
preciation of the work as a whole.
 48. EDOMITE LISTS
(xxxvi 1-xxxvii 2a: P°)

XXXYI 1 This is the line of Esau—that is, Edom.

2 Esau chose his wives from among Canaanite women: Adah,

daughter of Elon the Hittite, Oholibamah, daughter of Anah-

son6-of-Zibeon the Hivite,0 3 and Basemath, daughter of Ish-
mael and sister of Nebaioth.d 4 Adah bore Eliphaz to Esau;
Basemath bore Reuel; 5 and Oholibamah bore Jeush, Jalam, and
Korah. These are the sons of Esau who were bom to him in the
land of Canaan.
6 Esau took his wives and his sons and daughters, and all the
members of his household, his livestock comprising various
beasts, and all the property that he had acquired in the land of
Canaan, and went to the land "of Seir,* away from his brother
Jacob. 7 For their possessions had become too many for them to
stay together; and the land in which they were sojourning could
not support them on account of their livestock. 8 So Esau settled
in the hill country of Seir—Esau being Edom.
9 This is the line of Esau, ancestor of Edom, in the hill coun­
try of Seir.
10 These are the names of Esau’s sons: Eliphaz, son of Esau’s

wife Adah; Reuel, son of Esau’s wife Basemath. 11 The sons of

Eliphaz were: Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz. 12 El­
iphaz son of Esau also had a concubine Timna, who bore
Amalek to Eliphaz. These are the descendants of Esau’s wife
Adah.
° In final compilation, see Comment.
* MT “daughter”; see Note.
0 “Horite” in vs. 20; see Note.
<* For conflicting lists of Esau’s wives, see Note on vs. 3.
•-« Mt omits; see Note.
xxxvi 1 - xxxvii 2a 277
13 And these are the sons of Reuel: Nahath, Zerah, Sham-
mah, and Mizzah; they were the sons of Esau’s wife Basemath.
14 And these were the sons of Esau’s wife Oholibamah, daughter

of Anah-son6-of-Zibeon, whom she bore to Esau: Jeush, Jalah,

and Korah.
15 These are the clans7 of the children of Esau.

Descendants of Eliphaz, Esau’s first-born: the clans of

Tern an, Omar, Zepho, Kenaz, 16 Korah, Gatam, and Amalek.
These are the clans of Eliphaz in the land of Edom; they are de­
scended from Adah.
17 Descendants of Esau’s son Reuel: the clans Nahath, Zerah,

Shammah, and Mizzah. These are the clans of Reuel in the land
of Edom; they are descended from Esau’s wife Basemath.
18 Descendants of Esau’s wife Oholibamah: the clans of

Jeush, Jalam, and Korah. These are the clans of Esau’s wife
Oholibamah, daughter of Anah.
19 These are the sons of Esau—that is, Edom—with their

clans.
20 These are the sons of Seir the Horite/ occupants of the

land: Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, 21 Dishon, Ezer, and Di-

shan; they are the Horite clans descended from Seir, in the land
of Edom.
22 Lotan’s sons were Hori and Hemam; and Lotan’s sister was
Timna. 23 These are the sons of Shobal: Alvan, Manahath, Ebal,
Shepho, and Onam. 4 These are the sons of Zibeon: Aiah and
Anah—he is the Anah who found water* in the wilderness while
he was pasturing the asses of his father Zibeon. 2* These are the
children of Anah: Dishon and Oholibamah daughter of Anah.
26 These are the sons of Dishon*: Hemdan, Eshban, Ithran,

and Cheran. 27 These are the sons of Ezer: Bilhan, Zaavan, and
Akan. 28 And these are the sons of Dishan: Uz and Aran.
29 These are the Horite clans: the clans Lotan, Shobal, Zib-

/ Traditional “dukes, chiefs.”

o “Hivite” in vs. 2.
* Syr.; trad, “hot springs.”
<Cf. vss. 21, 30, and I Chron i 41; Heb. “Dishan.”
278 GENESIS

eon, Anah, 30Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan. These are the clans
of the Horites, clan by clan, in the land of Seir.
31 These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom be­
fore any king reigned over the Israelites. 32 Bela son of Beor be­
came king of Edom, and the name of his city was Dinhabah.
33 When Bela died, he was succeeded as king by Jobab son of

Zerah, from Bozra. 34 When Jobab died, he was succeeded by

Husham from the land of the Temanites. 35 Upon the death of
Husham, Hadad son of Bedad became king in his stead, the one
who defeated the Midianites in the land of Moab; the name of
his city was Avith. 36 When Hadad died, Samlah of Masrekah
succeeded him as king. 37 Upon the death of Samlah, Shaul from
Rehoboth-on-the-River became king in his stead. 38 When
Shaul died, he was succeeded by Baal-hanan son of Achbor.
39 Upon the death of Baal-hanan son of Achbor, Hadadi became
king in his stead; the name of his city was Pau, and his wife’s
name was Mehetabel daughter of Matred-son^-of-Mezahab.
40 And these are the names of the clans of Esau—each with

its subdivisions and localities—by their names: the clans Timna,

Alva, Jetheth, 41 Oholibamah, Elah, Pinon, 42 Kenaz, Teman,
Mibzar, 43 Magdiel, and Iram.
These are the clans of Edom, as settled in territories which
they hold—Edom’s father being Esau.

XXXVII 1 Jacob, meanwhile, settled in the land where his fa­

ther had sojourned, the land of Canaan.
2 Such, then, is the line of Jacob.

i Heb. “Hadar,” but see I Chron i 50 £., and cf. Sam.

k MT “daughter”; cf. textual note6.

Notes

xxxvi 2. Anah. In MT “daughter of Zibeon” (same as in 14), but “son”

in Sam., LXX, Syr. In vs. 24, however, Anah is a celebrated son of
Zibeon. The error (bt for bn) was probably induced by the correct bt
after Oholibamah. A better way to indicate the relationship in English
 xxxvi 1 -xxxvii 2a 279
would be “Oholibamah daughter of Anah-ben-Zibeon,” or Anah “Zibeon-
son.”
Hivite. The analogue in vs. 20 uses “Horite”; the latter reading is un­
doubtedly correct. For while Hivite is a virtual synonym of Horite/ Hur-
rian, it is not interchangeable with the homophonous “Horite” of Seir;
See Comment.
3. The present list of Esau’s wives agrees with vss. 9-14 below, but
departs from xxvi 34 and xxviii 9. The other two jointly yield:
Adah, daughter of Beeri the Hittite
Basemath, daughter of Elon the Hittite
Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael and sister of Nebaioth;
whereas the list before us gives
Adah, daughter of Elon the Hittite
Oholibamah, daughter of Anah the “Horite”
Basemath, daughter of Ishmael and sister of Nebaioth.
Curiously enough, both notations (in the three passages in question) go
back to P. This is not a matter of textual dislocation but rather one of
conflicting compilations, evidently by different researchers in the “P"
school.
6. his livestock comprising various beasts. Literally “his livestock, that
is (explicative we-, cf. i 14), all his beasts.” The trad, “and his cattle, and
all his beasts” is obviously illogical; miqne “livestock” alone covers all do­
mestic animals; cf. xxxiv 23.
and went to the land of Seir. MT “and went to a/the land” is mani­
festly defective; hence the Targumim add “(to) another (land),” while
LXX reads “from the land of Canaan”; the text here assumed is given
by Syr. (where it is surely conjectural), and supported indirectly by vs. 8.
away from. Heb. mippene either “from the presence” or “on account
of’ (as in vs. 7).
7. their livestock. Note that this term is inclusive; cf. preceding verse.
11. Teman. Elsewhere, the name of a district in Edom; cf. Amos i 12;
Jer xlix 7, 20, etc.
Kenaz- Cf. xv 19.
12. The notice about the concubine appears to be parenthetical; if it is
not, then Timna’s son was legally counted as Adah’s.
Amalek. Cf. xiv 7; here probably a branch of that people (Dr.).
15. clans. See Comment.
20. Seir the Horite. According to Deut ii 12, the Horites of Seir were
supplanted by descendants of Esau.
24. water. MT hymm (vocalized hayyemim) is variously reproduced
by the ancient versions: Sam. “the Emim,” cf. Deut ii 10; TO “the
280 GENESIS

giants”; Ar. "the mules.” There is no warrant for the traditional “hot
springs.” The simplest solution is to assume (with Syr.) a mechanical
transposition of an original hmym. The discovery of water in the desert
would be sufficient cause for astonishment.
26. Dishon. MT mispoints to “Dishan.” But the descendants of the
latter are listed in 28; cf. also 30. I Chron i 41, in a passage which
reproduces the list, spells out Dishon; see also LXX, Sam. (manuscripts).
32. Bela. Heb. cons, bl' calls to mind Balaam (cons, bl'm), likewise
son of Beor, Num xxii 5; but the similarity appears to be coincidental.
37. Rehoboth-on-the-River. “The River,” used absolutely, is normally
the Euphrates. But an Edomite king of Mesopotamian origin cannot
be posited without other evidence. A local river could conceivably
have figured in such a place name, to distinguish it from other names
with the same popular connotation; cf. x 11, and for a well by the
same name, see xxvi 22.
39. Hadad. MT “Hadar” is an obvious slip (see textual note*), in­
volving the frequent interchange of written D/R; cf. x 4- D/Rodanim.
Mehetabel. An Aramaic formation.
40. each with its subdivisions and localities. Traditional “according to
their families, after their places.”
xxxvii 2a. For the significance of this clause, see the discussion in
the Comment.

Comment

The evaluation of this section depends to some extent on our

understanding of xxxvii 2a. The clause in question reads, “These
are the tdledot of Jacob.” The technical term can be taken in its
usual sense of “line, genealogy,” in which case it could not possibly
refer to what follows, since no genealogy is given there; or it may
be understood in its secondary sense of “history, story” (as in ii
4a), in which case it would definitely be a colophon. Either way,
therefore, this particular occurrence of toleddt must go with what
precedes. If the term stands for genealogy, then ch. xxxvi is per­
tinent in that it deals with the descendants of Esau, who was a son
of Isaac; the clause under discussion would then be tantamount to
something like “This concludes the genealogies of Jacob.” But if
the secondary meaning is more appropriate, the clause marks the
dividing line between the story of Jacob, whose generation must
now yield to the next, and that of Joseph, which is just beginning.
In that event, the notation need not have anything to do with ch.
xxxvi 1 -xxxvii 2a 281
xxxvi directly; indirectly, however, it would still point up the fact
that the Edomite lists have to be traced back to Esau’s father Isaac.
The section itself, of course, is sufficient proof of a solid interest in
Edom; the tdleddt clause seeks only to show why these lists were in­
cluded in a composite history of patriarchal times.
Esau-Seir is the ancestor of the Edomites in the same way that
Jacob-Israel is the eponym of the Israelites. As Israel’s neighbor and
close relative, Edom is no stranger to biblical tradition, even though
it never loomed large in historical times. There must have been, how­
ever, a period in the formative stage of Israel when Edom’s position
had been of greater consequence. This is still reflected by Esau’s sta­
tus as the older of the twins. The surrender of his birthright to Jacob
(xxv 29 ff.) is but a reminder of the eventual turn in political for­
tunes. The present section contains another such reminder—indeed,
a far more impressive one in a historical sense—with its list of
Edomite rulers who antedate any king of Israel (vs. 31; that this
statement may be incompatible with the assumption that Moses
wrote the Pentateuch was already an issue to Ibn Ezra). It is a bare
skeletal framework, to be sure, which archaeology may yet articulate
some day. But it has its interest and its value, nevertheless. Eduard
Meyer was able to utilize the passage for immensely fruitful deduc­
tions—which were later confirmed—as early as 1906 (Die Israeliten
und ihre Nachbarstamme, pp. 328 ff.). The material, in short, dry
though it may seem, is significant in its own way, and it has retained
its importance to this day precisely because the nameless researchers
who compiled it in ancient times had great respect for such data. But
by the time that the results had to be incorporated in the general
framework of Genesis, the compilations had grown into several lists,
based on much the same facts but arranged according to different
principles; hence the various duplications in the composite account
that has come down to us.
In these circumstances, the customary breakdown into documen­
tary sources cannot be attempted with much hope of success. The
material was based on independent files, so to speak, to be proc­
essed eventually, in whole or in large part, by P. The fact remains,
however, that P exercised little if any editorial supervision. This is
clearly demonstrated by the record of Esau’s wives (vss. 2-4),
which departs in detail from P’s other lists on the same subject
(xxvi 34, xxviii 9; cf. Note on vs. 3). It was thus a question of
incorporation rather than co-ordination; and it is only in this limited
282 GENESIS

sense that P may be described as the “author” of the present section.

The section as a whole subdivides into several lists (cf. von Rad)
which appear to be curiously interlocked and repetitious: (a) vss.
1-9; (b) 10-14; (c) 15-19; (d) 20-30; (e) 31-39; and (f)
40-43. List “b” combines the names cited in “a” and “c,” while
“f ’ duplicates in turn some of the names in “b.” On further probing,
however, a pattern begins to emerge. List “a” gives the names of
Esau’s three wives and their children; “b” starts out with the sons
and goes on to the grandchildren; “c” treats the same individuals
as heads of clans, and “f ’ deals outright with “the clans of Esau—
each with its subdivisions and localities—by their names” (vs. 40).
Some of these tribal elements are actually attested in independent
contexts (e.g., Teman, Kenaz, Amalek). The pertinent technical
term ’allup, trad, “chieftains, dukes” (the latter based on Vulg.
dux), stands here for “clan, group” (cf. ’elep “thousand”). This
meaning is confirmed by the supplementary comment “in the land
of Edom” (vss. 16, 17; cf. 20); individuals would not be so de­
scribed (cf. also Exod xv 15).
The two remaining lists are substantially different from the above.
List “d” records a number of clan-eponyms who are explicitly desig­
nated as Horite (29f.); it also contains an incidental notice (vs.
24) that is in the style and spirit of narratives (cf. xxx 14). And
list “e” gives a succession of Edomite kings, all of whom antedate
the Israelite monarchy. Interestingly enough, none of these rulers
was succeeded by his son; this feature is paralleled in Israel under
the period of the Judges, but the institution of kingship presupposes
a more developed system of government in ancient Edom. The
same list “e” includes also an aside (vs. 35), which recalls the
marginal notations in the Mesopotamian king lists. All in all, there
is a marked difference between “d”-“e” and “a”-“c,” “f”; but it
would be going too far to attribute the first two to /.
The term Horite (vss. 20, 21, 29) calls for special comment.
In vs. 20, one of the men so characterized is Zibeon son of Seir;
but in vs. 2 the same person is designated as a Hivite. The as­
sumption that “Hivite” is here a textual slip for “Horite” fails to
take account of other aspects of the problem. The received Heb.
text does not recognize any Horites in Palestine proper; the LXX,
on the other hand, reads “Horite” for Heb. Hivite in xxxiv 2 and
Josh ix 7. These Horites/Hivites may safely be equated with the
extra-biblical Humans, whose personal names have turned up in
xxxvi 1 -xxxvii 2a 283
the very areas where MT speaks of Hivites. The latter term was
evidently a synonym for “Horite,” which MT used consistently
where Humans were involved.
But the Horites of Seir-Edom can no longer be equated with
Humans. There is no archaeological or epigraphic trace of the
Humans anywhere in Edomite territory. Moreover, the Horite per­
sonal names recorded in this section (20 ff.) are clearly Semitic
in so far as they can be analyzed at all (so already Meyer, op. cit.).
It follows that Heb. Horl (in common with Cush, see Note on x 6)
designated two unrelated groups: the non-Semitic Humans, who
had spread to Syria and North-Central Palestine; and the Semitic
group that bore by coincidence the same name and was centered in
Seir. Hebrew tradition evidently sought to differentiate between these
homophones: for the Human Shechemites and their relatives it
adopted the synonymous term “Hivite” (as in xxxiv 2); but for the
proto-Edomites Hebrew retained the other and unrelated term Horl,
which was apparently of Semitic origin, perhaps even “cave
dweller,” as tradition has suspected all along. That the writer of
vs. 2 should have called them Hivites can only indicate that he must
have confused them with their non-Semitic namesakes. The variant
in vs. 2 would thus be a “learned” but unsuccessful correction of
vs. 20.
II. THE STORY OF THE PATRIARCHS

C. Joseph and His Brothers

 49. JOSEPH SOLD INTO EGYPT
(xxxvii 2b-36: J, /E/a)

XXXVII 2b At seventeen years of age, Joseph tended flocks

with his brothers. He was assisting the sons of his father’s wives
Bilhah and Zilpah; and Joseph brought his father bad reports
about them.
3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than any of his other sons,
for he was the child of his old age; and he made him an orna­
mented6 tunic. 4 When his brothers saw that their father loved
him more than any of his cother sons,0 they came to hate him so
much that they could not say a kind word to him.
5 One time, Joseph had a dream, which he told to his brothers;
and this made them hate him even more. 6 He said to them,
“Listen to the dream I had! 7 In it,“* we were binding sheaves in
the field, when suddenly4 my sheaf rose up and stood upright;
and your sheaves formed a ring around my sheaf and bowed
down to itl” 8 “Do you propose,” his brothers asked him, “to rule
over us? Are you to be our master?” And they hated him all the
more for his talk about his dreams.
9 Then he had another dream, which he told to his brothers,
saying, “Look, I had another dream! This time,1* the sun and the
moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me!” 10 When he
recounted it to his father,6 his father rebuked him. “What is the
meaning,” he asked him, “of this dream of yours? Shall I and
your mother and your brothers come bowing to you to the
«For details cf. Comment and Notes.
6Traditional “of many colors,” or “with sleeves.”
So with several manuscripts, Sam., LXX; MT “brothers.”
** Literally “here, behold.”
»MT adds “and to his brothers”; LXX, Syr. omit
288 GENESIS § 49
ground?” I1 But while his brothers were wrought up at him, his
father pondered the matter.
12 One day, when his brothers had gone off to pasture their
father's flocks at Shechem, 13 Israel said to Joseph, “Look, your
brothers are with the flocks at Shechem. Come, let me send you
to them.” “I am ready,” he answered. 14 “Go then,” he went
on, “find out how your brothers and the flocks are faring, and
bring back word.” With that, he sent him off from the valley of
Hebron, and he made his way to Shechem.
15 A man came upon him as he was wandering in the fields.
"What are you looking for?” the man asked him. 16 “I am look­
ing for my brothers,” he replied. “Could you tell me where they
are pasturing?” 17 The man answered, “They have moved on
from here; in fact, I heard them say, 'Let us go on to Dothan.’ ”
So Joseph followed his brothers and caught up with them in
Dothan.
is They noticed him from a distance; and before he got close
to them they conspired to kill him. 19 They said to one another,
"Here comes that dreamerl 20 Why don’t we kill him now and
throw him into one of the pits? We could say that a wild beast
devoured him. We shall then see what came of his dreams!”
<4/£i~When Reuben' heard this, he tried to save him from their
hands. He said, “Let us not take his life! 22 Shed no blood!”
Reuben told them. “Just throw him into that pit, out there in
the desert, but don’t do away with him yourselves”—his purpose
being to deliver him from their hands and restore him to his
father. 23 So when Joseph reached his brothers, they stripped
Joseph of his tunic, the ornamented tunic that he was wearing,
24 and they seized him and threw him into the pit. The pit was

empty; there was no water in it./

25 They sat down to their meal. Looking up, they saw a car­
avan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, their camels bearing
gum, balm, and ladanum to be taken to Egypt. 26 Then Judah
said to his brothers, "What would we gain by killing our brother
and covering up his blood? 271 say," let us sell him to the Ish-
tSo MT; for the proposed emendation to “Judah,” see Note.
»Literally “come.”
xxxvii 2b-36 289
maelites, but let us not do away with him ourselves. After all, he
is our brother, our own flesh!” His brothers agreed.
/^"Meanwhile, Midianite traders passed by, and they pulled
Joseph up from the pit./' They sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites
for twenty pieces of silver. /Joseph was thus taken to Egypt.
29 When Reuben went back to the pit and saw that Joseph was

missing, he rent his clothes 30 and returned to his brothers, ex­

claiming, “The boy is gone! What am I to do now?”
31 They took Joseph’s tunic, slaughtered a kid, and dipped the
tunic in its blood. 32 They had the ornamented tunic taken to
their father, and they said, “We found this. Make sure whether
it is your son’s tunic or not.” 33 He recognized it, and exclaimed,
“My son’s tunic! A wild beast devoured him! Joseph fell prey to
beasts!”
34 Jacob rent his clothes, put sackcloth on his loins, and

mourned his son many days. 35 All his sons and daughters tried
to console him, but he refused to be consoled, saying, “No, I
will go down to Sheol in mourning!” Thus did his father lament
him.
36 The Midianites, meanwhile, sold Joseph* in Egypt to Pot-
iphar, a courtier of Pharaoh, his chief steward.^/
*MT “him.”

Notes

xxxvii 2b. He was assisting. For this sense of Heb. na'ar “attendant,” or
the like, cf. Exod xxxiii 11.
bad reports. For the same phrase, cf. Num xiv 37.
3. Israel. As applied to Jacob (but not in the phrase “children of Is­
rael”), an invariable indication of J’s authorship; cf. xxxv 21, and Com­
ment ad loc.; see also vs. 13.
and he made. Note the circumstantial aspect in Heb. (signified by the
use of the perfect).
an ornamented tunic. The traditional “coat of many colors,” and the
variant “coat with sleeves” are sheer guesses from the context; nor is
there anything remarkable about either colors or sleeves. The phrase,
Heb. kHonet passim, occurs aside from this section (also vss. 23, 32)
only in II Sam xiii 18 f., where it describes a garment worn by daugh­
290 GENESIS

ters of kings. Cuneiform inventories may shed light on the garment in

question. Among various types of clothing listed in the texts, there is
one called kitû (or kutinnü) piiannu (cf. JNES 8 [1949], 177). The
important thing there, besides the close external correspondence with
the Heb. phrase, is that the article so described was a ceremonial robe
which could be draped about statues of goddesses, and had various
gold ornaments sewed onto it. Some of these ornaments would occasion­
ally come undone and need to be sent to the proper craftsman for
repairs, hence the notation in the inventories. If the comparison is valid—
and there are several things in its favor—the second element in the
Heb. phrase, i.e., passim, would be an adaptation of Akk. piSartnu,
a technical term denoting appliqué ornaments on costly vests and
bodices.
The last clause is generally attributed to E on account of vss. 23,
32 (£).
4. him. The pronoun is emphasized in Heb. through inversion.
his other sons. So with Sam., LXX, and several Heb. manuscripts,
(“other” is implicit in the juxtaposition), against “his brothers” in the
text, which was probably copied inadvertently from the beginning of
the clause.
5. One time. Implicit in the initial wa-.
and this made them hate him even more. Literally “and they proceeded
to hate him more”; this clause is missing in LXX.
8. his talk about his dreams. Literally “his dreams and his words.”
10. to his father. Heb. adds “and to his brothers,” which LXX leaves
out, no doubt justifiably, since Joseph had already described his dream
to his brothers (vs. 9); by the same token, the added “and to his
father” in the LXX version of vs. 9 is equally gratuitous. Joseph ap­
parently reported first to his brothers (9) and then to his father, without
realizing how invidious his words might seem; later copyists tried to
fill in imaginary lacunae, to the detriment of the original account.
11. pondered. Literally “guarded” (i.e., in his mind). Jacob knew
enough to realize, on second thought, that dreams should not be dis­
counted offhand.
13. Look. Heb. halô’ “is it not?” which is merely another way of saying
hinrie “here, behold.”
14. I am ready. Heb. hinrierii, literally “here I am,” for which cf.
xxii 1, Note. A mechanical translation would be particularly pointless
in this sequence.
17. Dothan. Modem Tell Dothan, about a day’s journey north of
Shechem.
18. conspired. Literally “sought/weighed clever schemes.”
20. Why don’t we kill him. Literally “come, let us kill him.”
pits. Primarily, water holes or cisterns.
xxxvii 2b-36 291
21. Most modems would change Reuben in this verse to Judah, on the
assumption that the next verse would otherwise be a duplicate; the change
to Judah, would certify the present verse as J’s, so that the redundancy
would actually be due to two separate sources. The reasoning, however, is
by no means cogent. It calls for an emendation for which there is no en­
couragement from any of the ancient versions. What is more, the alleged
duplication vanishes once the Heb. imperfect is understood in a conative
sense, i.e., “he tried, attempted to save him”; for the related inchoative
aspect of the Heb. verb, cf. xxxv 16f. On this basis, both vss. 21 and 22
go naturally together; accordingly, both may be attributed to the same
source, in this case E. Judah’s independent effort (according to J) is dealt
with in vss. 26-27.
22. his purpose being. Literally “in order that,” which introduces the
author’s comment.
25. Ishmaelites.' The traders in question according to J; also vs. 27 f.;
Joseph’s protector is now Judah.
For a discussion of the goods which the Ishmaelites were transporting
to Egypt, cf. the monograph by J. Vergote, Joseph ett Egypte, 1959,
pp. 10ff.; this study will be cited henceforward as “Vergote”; see also
J. M. A. Janssen, Ex Oriente Lux 14 (1955-56), 63-72.
27. I say. Literally “come,” with the auxiliary connotation that this
stem shares with the Heb. verb “to rise.”
let us not do away with him. Literally “let us not lay (our) hands on
him”; but such a translation would be misleading inasmuch as the
brothers had to take Joseph by force in order to throw him down the
cistern.
28. The first part of this verse is manifestly from another source (£)
which knew nothing about the Ishmaelite traders. It speaks of Midianites
who pulled the boy up from the pit, without being seen by the brothers,
and then sold him in Egypt into slavery. This is why Reuben was so sur­
prised to find that Joseph was gone. The sale to the Ishmaelites, on the
other hand (28b: /), had been agreed upon by all the brothers (27: J),
so that Reuben would have no reason to look for the boy in the pit, let
alone be upset because he did not find him there. This single verse alone
provides a good basis for a constructive documentary analysis of the Pen­
tateuch; it goes a long way, moreover, to demonstrate that E was not just
a supplement to J, but an independent and often conflicting source; cf.
pp. xxii ff.
34. Jacob. A reliable witness of E; contrast vss. 3, 13.
36. Potiphar. An Egyptian personal name, “One whom (the god) Re
has granted.”
courtier. Literally “eunuch.”
chief steward. Literally “chief/master of the cooks,” a royal post
292 GENESIS

which was probably as far removed from its original connotation as,
say, “Lord Chamberlain.” For a possible Eg. prototype, cf. Vergote,
pp. 31 ff. The tide, Heb. Sar hattabbBhim, should not be confused with
the analogous rab hatfabbahim (II Kings xxv 8ff.; Jer xxxix 9ff., etc.),
approximately “captain of the guard,” but reflecting a non-Egyptian
office.

Comment

The last major division of Genesis concentrates with but a few

exceptions (notably xxxviii) on the eventful story of Joseph. It
is at once the most intricately constructed and the best integrated of
all the patriarchal histories. For sustained dramatic effect the nar­
rative is unsurpassed in the whole Pentateuch. The theme is es­
sentially personal and secular. Other aspects, to be sure, are in
evidence here and there, yet they are never allowed to distract
attention from the central human drama.
In retrospect, of course, the story of Joseph was seen as a link in
a divinely ordained course of human history. But while the writing
is by no means oblivious of this approach, the theological com­
ponent has been kept discreetly in the background. And the ulti­
mate historical framework is understated to such a degree that
the related data on the Sojourn in Egypt and the eventual Exodus
are to this day beset by uncertainties. What has come down is a
richly personal document, which accounts no doubt for its great
appeal.
An achievement of such literary excellence should be, one would
naturally expect, the work of a single author. Yet such is definitely
not the case. While P’s part in the story of Joseph is secondary and
marginal, / and E are prominently represented throughout, each in
his own distinctive way. The casual reader is hardly aware that he
has a composite story before him; and even the trained analyst is
sometimes baffled when it comes to separating the parallel accounts.
All of which points up the skillful and unobtrusive achievement of
the compiler or redactor. For the most part he was content to take
substantial portions from each source and arrange them consecu­
tively. Only on rare occasions did he find it necessary to intertwine
the two narratives. The present section is a case in point; it is also
xxxvii 2b-36 293

a parade example of the problems involved in documentary de­

tection of this kind, as well as the benefits which may lie in store.
In this particular instance we lack the immediate external evi­
dence from references to the Deity, since neither Yahweh nor
Elohim happens to occur in the chapter before us. Nor can much be
made of the motif of dreams, prominent though it is here. For while
it is true that dreams play a significant part in the £ narrative (cf.
chs. xx, xxviii, xxxi), they help to identify the source only
when used as a medium of contact between God and man. This
time, however, no such message is as yet involved. Joseph’s two
dreams are a factor in the relations between him and his brothers;
as such, they would not be ignored by any good writer, certainly
not by /.
We do get, however, for a start, a valuable hint from another
quarter. Joseph’s father is called Israel in vss. 3 and 13, but Jacob
in 34. Elsewhere in the Joseph story, Israel can be traced con­
fidently to J (also in xxxv 21), and Jacob to E (and P). Thus
J’s hand is apparent in the first part of the chapter, and E’s toward
the end; but the middle portion is chaotic at first glance.
It goes without saying that external evidence from personal names
or typical motifs is valid only to the extent to which it accords with
the internal evidence of the content as a whole. The work of a
competent writer surely presupposes an inner consistency of theme
and details. Yet vss. 21—30, as they now read, are marked by
inconsistency, duplication, and discrepancies. First Reuben, in the
hope of saving Joseph later on, persuades his brothers not to kill
him but throw him instead into an empty cistern, which they do
(21-24). Then Judah, who is also intent on sparing Joseph’s life,
prevails on his brothers to sell the boy to a passing caravan of
Ishmaelite traders, which they do likewise (25-27). Meanwhile,
Midianite traders turn up who, unnoticed by the brothers, discover
Joseph in the pit, pull him out, and take him with them to Egypt—
where he is eventually sold to Potiphar; the discovery takes place at
the same time that the same boy is bought by the Ishmaelites at the
low slave rate of twenty shekels (28). Small wonder that Reuben,
who knows nothing about the sale, is shocked at not finding his
brother in the cistern (29-30).
All this confusion is dissipated automatically once the narrative
is broken up into two originally independent versions. One of these
(/) used the name Israel, featured Judah as Joseph’s protector,
294 GENESIS

and identified the Ishmaelites as the traders who bought Joseph

from his brothers. The other (E) spoke of Jacob as the father and
named Reuben as Joseph’s friend; the slave traders in that version
were Midianites who discovered Joseph by accident and sold him
in Egypt to Potiphar. Each source is entirely self-consistent thus far,
and goes on to build on its own set of data, which hold up meaning­
fully as the story unfolds. Indeed, each version gains in significance
and impact when viewed as a unit unto itself.
For all the existing differences in detail, sight should not be lost
of the prevailing similarities. In both versions Joseph is his father’s
favorite and is bitterly resented by his brothers; he can count on
only one friend among them; eventually he falls into the hands of
nomadic traders who sell him into slavery in Egypt. Without this
common core there would be no story of Joseph in Egypt. The
divergencies must be due to the fact that tradition had seized on
the subject matter long before it was committed to writing, so that
there was ample time for the details to develop differently, and to
fall into slightly varying patterns during the process of oral transmis­
sion. Today, the documentary distribution may not be clear in every
given instance (cf., for example, the Note on vs. 21). But the main
contours would seem to be assured.
Lastly, it may be in order to return, in passing, to the question
about the ultimate compiler’s approach to his task. A verse like 28
could hardly have been regarded as satisfactory by a conscientious
redactor. It was impossible to ignore the discrepancy between the
Midianites and the Ishmaelites in two adjoining clauses. The omis­
sion of either one would have eased the problem considerably; yet
the remedy was not applied. Undoubtedly it could not be because
no such editorial license was permissible. R could still rearrange
the material in / and E into a connected text, but he was not free
to suppress any statement in either source. The remarkable thing is
that the whole still appears to be deceptively smooth, after so mucih
legitimate scrutiny by modem critics.
 50. JUDAH AND TAMAR
(xxxviii 1-30: J)

XXXVm 1 At about that time, Judah parted from his

brothers and put in with a certain Adullamite named Hirah.
2 There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite named Shua,

and he married her and cohabited with her. 3 She conceived and
bore a son, “who was named® Er. 4 She conceived again and bore
a son, whom she named Onan. 5 Then she bore still another
son, whom she named Shelah; they were* at Chezib when she
bore him.
6 Judah got a wife for his first-born Er, and her name was

Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s first-bom, displeased Yahweh, and

Yahweh took his life. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Unite with
your brother’s widow,0 fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law, and
thus maintain your brother’s line.” 9 But Onan, knowing that
the seed would not count as his, let it go to waste on the ground
every time that he cohabited with his brother’s widow, so as not
to contribute offspring for his brother. 10 What he did dis­
pleased Yahweh, and he took his life too. 11 Whereupon Judah
said to his daughter-in-law, “Stay as widow in your father’s
house until my son Shelah grows up”—for he feared that this
one also might die like his brothers. So Tamar went to live in
her father’s house.
12 A long time afterward, Judah’s wife, the daughter of Shua,

died. When the period of sorrow was over, Judah went to

Timnah for the shearing'* of his sheep, in the company of his
friend Hirah the Adullamite. 13 When Tamar was told, “Your
father-in-law is on his way to Timnah for the sheep-shearing,”
a~a MT “he named him,” but see Note.
b MT “he was"; LXX “she was”; cf. Note.
»Literally “wife.”
dLiterally “upon the shearers.”
296 GENESIS

w she took off her widow’s garb, wrapped a veil about her to
disguise herself, and sat down at the entrance to Enaim, which
is on the way to Timnah; for she saw that, although Shelah was
grown up, she had not been given to him in marriage. 15 When
Judah saw her, he took her for a harlot, since she had covered her
face. 16 So he turned aside to her by the roadside, and said, “See
now, let me lie with you”—not realizing that she was his daugh­
ter-in-law. She answered, “What will you pay me for lying with
me?” 17 He replied, “I will send you a kid from my flock.” But
she answered, “You will have to leave a pledge until such time
as you send it.” i8 He asked, “What pledge shall I leave you?”
She answered, “Your seal-and-cord, and the staff you carry.” So
he gave them to her, and lay with her, and she conceived by
him. 1» She left soon, took off her veil, and resumed her widow’s
garb.
20 Judah sent the kid by his friend the Adullamite to redeem
the pledge from the woman, but he could not find her. 21 He
inquired of the men of that place, “Where is the votary, the one
by the Enaim road?” They answered, “There has never been
here a votary!” 22 So he went back to Judah and said to him, “I
couldn’t find her. What is more, the townspeople told me,
‘There has never been here a votary.’ 23 And Judah replied, “Let
her keep the things, or we shall become a laughingstock. I did
my part in sending her the kid, but you never found her.”
24 About three months later, Judah was told, “Your daughter-
in-law has played the harlot; moreover, she is with child from
harlotry.” “Bring her out,” Judah shouted, “and she shall be
burned!” 25 As they were taking her out, she sent word to her
father-in-law, “It is by the man to whom these things belong
that I am with child. Please verify,” she said, “to whom these
things belong—the seal-and-cord and the staff!” 26 Judah rec­
ognized them, and said, “She is more in the right than I, inas­
much as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” Nor was he
intimate with her again.
27 When it was time for her to give birth, there were twins in
her womb! 28 While she was being delivered, one put out his
hand, and the midwife tied a crimson thread on his hand, to
xxxviii 1-30 297
signify: this one came out first 29 But just then he drew back
his hand, and out came his brother; and she said, "What a
breach* you have opened for yourself I” So he was named Perez.
30 Then his brother came out, with the crimson thread on his
hand. So they named him Zerah/
*Heb. peref.
/Perhaps “brightness,” alluding to the crimson band.

Notes

xxxviii 1. At about that time. Literally “at that time,” which in this
context would amount to “at the precise time that Joseph was being
sold to Potiphar.” But the Heb. phrase is formulaic and just as general
as the corresponding Akk. ina umiSu “on his/that day, then.”
parted from. Heb. “went down from,” namely, from the hill country.
put in with. Literally “turned aside next to.”
2. met. Literally “saw.”
3. who was named. The corresponding Heb. has masculine singular,
which is often used impersonally (as in 29 f.). But Sam., TJ, and
some Heb. manuscripts have the feminine, the same as Heb. in vss. 4
and 5, no doubt correctly. The translation is neutral.
5. Chezib. Probably the same as Achzib, Josh xv 44; Mic i 14.
7. displeased. Literally “was bad in the sight of.” The nature of the
offense is not specified here, unlike vs. 10.
8. widow. Heb. uses “wife,” namely, “your (dead) brother’s,” but
such ambiguity is less acceptable in translation; in vss. 14, 19 Heb.
employs the abstract noun “widowhood,” in speaking of a widow’s garb.
fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. Heb. literally “levirate her.”
The institution of levirate, whereby a man married his brother’s child­
less widow in order to provide continuity for the line of the deceased,
is an alternative to adoption; cf. JBL 79 (1960), 161 f. The require­
ment was later relaxed, cf. Deut xxv 5 ff.
line. Literally “seed”; the same noun, Heb. zera‘, is used in the next
verse both in its literal sense and in the secondary sense of “offspring-”
11. Stay. The cons, text Sby can be vocalized to yield either “return”
(cf. Lev xxii 13) or with tradition, “stay, dwell”; but no repointing
appears necessary in this instance.
12. A long time afterward. Literally “days/years multiplied, and.”
When the period of sorrow was over. Literally “when he had been
consoled,” when the time for mourning and condolence was past.
298 GENESIS

for the shearing. The Heb. noun is vocalized as “shearers”; but cf.
the infinitive in vs. 13. If the text is retained, the translation should
read “to (supervise his) shearers,” or the like; the original may have
used an abstract plural.
14. to disguise. Literally “she covered up”; cf. vs. 15.
the entrance to Enaim. TO, Syr., and Vulg. understand this as the road
juncture of/for Enaim. The place is probably the same as Enam in Josh
xv 34 (in the Shephelah).
16. The circumlocution for sexual intercourse which Heb. employs
here (literally “to go in to”; see Note on vi 4) was chosen no doubt
as a matter of tact. The phrase has been shaded in the translation of
the various passages, depending on the context.
17. from my flock. The definite article of Heb. often has the force
of the personal pronoun in English, and vice versa; see vs. 21.
pledge. Heb. 'erabdn. A loanword from Akkadian, which is also found
in Greek.
18. seal-and-cord. The two nouns of Heb. must represent a hendiadys,
something like “the seal on the cord” (cf. also the plural form of the
second noun in vs. 25, approximately “cording”), for the following
reasons. The items named by Tamar were not chosen for their intrinsic
value but for purposes of personal identification, as is made clear by
vs. 25; when produced in due time, they must allow of no doubt as to
their owner. The cylinder seal was such an object above all else; it
served as the religious and legal surrogate for the person who wore
it, and its impression on a document signalized the wearer’s readiness to
accept all consequences in the event of non-compliance, through sym­
pathetic magic among other things (like sticking pins in a doll). The
possessor of such a seal was thereby marked as a responsible person;
and, as Herodotus reminds us, no Babylonian of any standing would
ever be seen without one. The use of the cylinder seal spread from
Mesopotamia throughout the Near East, and even to Crete; and many
specimens have turned up in Palestine. While the stamp seal fulfilled
a similar function, its use was limited in time and space; moreover, the
term for the latter would be fabba'at (xli 42), not hdtam as here. Now
all cylinder seals were perforated vertically for suspension, so that the
seal and the cord or chain on which it was worn became a unit. A
cord by itself would be a worthless thing, and meaningless in the present
context. Incidentally, the inclusion of the cord is further proof that
no signet ring was involved.
the staff. Necessarily, another distinctive means of identification. Cunei­
form records of the Old Babylonian period often mention the bukanum,
an object which looked liked a pestle and which changed hands to
symbolize the conclusion of certain types of transaction. Whether Judah’s
xxxviii 1-30 299
staff was comparable cannot be determined. In any case, Tamar knew
exactly what she was doing in telling Judah what she wanted from
him as a pledge.
19. soon. Literally “she arose,” as an auxiliary verb; cf. xxxi 21.
21. that place. Literally “her place”; cf. vs. 17.
votary. Ancient Near Eastern society, notably in Mesopotamia, rec­
ognized various classes of temple women other than priestesses, who
were employed for services connected with the cult We know now
that they had to be virgins in order to qualify (HSS XIV [1950], No. 106,
line 31); any subsequent promiscuity was ritually conditioned. One of these
classes was the qadiitu, a cognate of Heb. qedes3 (vs. 21). There is no
indication that they were socially ostracized, although their status was
inferior to that of married women. It is obvious that the q’deSS was
not the same as the zdna (vss. 15, 24; cf. xxxiv 31).
25. As they were taking her out. Passive in Heb.
28. a crimson thread. Literally “some crimson” (indefinite).
29 f. For the clans of Perez and Zerah, cf. I Chron ii. The aetiologies
are, as usual, symbolic retrojections in which the correct etymology is
immaterial.

Comment

The narrative is a completely independent unit. It has no con­

nection with the drama of Joseph, which it interrupts at the con­
clusion of Act I. Judah, we are informed, has left his kin and moved
to Adullam, in the Canaanite lowlands to the west (cf. Josh xv 35).
There he marries a Canaanite woman and has three sons by her, all
of whom reach manhood in the course of that stay. Yet no such
prolonged interval is indicated when the story of Joseph resumes.
Judah is then still a member of Jacob’s household (the genealogical
notice in xlvi 12 is an insert from P).
It is especially interesting that this narrative should stem from /
(cf. vss. 7, 10), precisely because J also has a substantial stake in
the Joseph story. Once again it becomes self-evident that the nar­
rators acted in the main as custodians of diverse traditions which
they did not attempt to co-ordinate and harmonize when the re­
spective data appeared to be in conflict. The history of Judah was
significant in its own right, and it was not to be tampered with, let
alone ignored. The place of the present account was chosen with
keen literary sensitivity. To his family, Joseph had disappeared
300 GENESIS

from view—forever, as far as they knew. From the viewpoint of the

reader, moreover, the ill-treated boy is in temporary eclipse. What
better place, then, to take up the slack with a different story, one
that covers many years?
Because of the eventual pre-eminence of the tribe of Judah, the
personalized history of that branch was of obvious interest to tra­
dition. Through the period of Judges and down to the time of
David, Judah expanded by absorbing various Canaanite elements.
This beginning of that composite history is here intimated by Judah’s
settlement among Canaanites and his acquisition of a Canaanite
wife. His line, however, is in danger of extinction; but a daughter-
in-law by the name of Tamar, apparently another Canaanite, takes
heroic measures and triumphs in the end. In resolutely following
the intent of the law, by unorthodox and hazardous means, Tamar
thus takes her place alongside Rachel (xxxi 19). She had the stuff,
it was felt, to be the mother of a virile clan, which is clearly the main
theme of the story.
What brings this theme into bold relief is the institution of the
levirate marriage, that is, marriage with the wife of a deceased
brother (or another relative in special circumstances). The objective
was to maintain the family line in a society that set great store by
blood ties, and consequently had little use for adoption (see JBL
79 [1960], 161 f.). Biblical law upholds this obligation and frowns
on any attempt to circumvent it (cf. Deut xxv 5ff.; Ruth iiif.).
Judah sought to live up to this practice, yet shrank from risking
the life of his last surviving son. When Tamar became convinced
that her father-in-law was temporizing, she tricked him into leaving
her with child, by waylaying him in the disguise of a harlot. But
she had the presence of mind to secure positive proof of her mate’s
identity (see Note on vs. 18). Here / adds a subtle human touch.
Judah mistakes Tamar for a common harlot (Heb. zona, vs. 15),
just as he was meant to do. But when his friend Hirah seeks to
redeem the pledge, he asks for the local qede$a (votary, hierodule,
cult prostitute), in order to place the affair on a higher social level.
At the critical moment, Judah finds out that Tamar was no
wanton, and absolves her of any guilt in the matter. She rewards
him for his candor and understanding by presenting him with twins.
An aetiologjcal notice about the boys’ names brings the unique tale
to a dose.
 51. THE TEMPTATION OF JOSEPH
(xxxix 1-23: J)

XXXIX l When Joseph was taken to Egypt, a certain Egyp­

tian—Potiphar, a courtier of Pharaoh and his chief steward-
bought him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him there.
2 But since Yahweh was with Joseph, he did very well, and was

assigned to his Egyptian master’s household. 3 And when his

master saw that Yahweh was with him, and that Yahweh lent
success to everything that he undertook, 4 he took a fancy to
Joseph and made him his personal attendant; he also put him in
charge of his household and entrusted to him all his possessions.
5 And from the moment that he had put him in charge of his

household and all his possessions, Yahweh blessed the house of

the Egyptian for Joseph’s sake; indeed, Yahweh’s blessing was
on everything he owned, inside and outside. 6 And everything he
owned was left in Joseph’s charge; with him there, the other
gave no thought to anything, except the food that he ate.
Now Joseph was handsome of figure and features. 7 After some
time, his master’s wife fixed her eye on Joseph, and said, “Sleep
with me.” 8 He refused. “Look,” he told his master’s wife,
“with me here, my master gives no thought to anything in this
house, having entrusted to me all his possessions. 9 He wields no
more authority in this house than I, and he has withheld from
me nothing except yourself, for you are his wife. How then
could I commit so great a wrong, to stand condemned before
God?” 10 And much as she cajoled him day after day, he would
not agree to lie down beside her “or stay with her."
11 One such day, when he came into the house to do his work,

0-0 LXX omits.

302 GENESIS

and none of the house servants were there inside, 12 she caught
hold of him by his coat and said, “Sleep with mel” He got away
and escaped outside, leaving his coat in her hand. 13 When she
saw that he had left his coat in her hand as he fled outside,
14 she called out to her house servants and said to them, “Look,

he had to bring us a Hebrew fellow to make love to us! He

broke in on me to sleep with me, but I screamed as loud as I
could! 15 When he heard me screaming for help, he left his coat
near me and fled outside.”
16 She kept the coat by her until his master came home.
17 Then she told him the same story: “The Hebrew slave whom

you brought to us only to make love to me broke in on me.

18 But when I screamed for help, he left his coat near me and

fled outside.”
19 When his master heard the story that his wife told him,
namely, “Thus and so did your slave do to me,” he was enraged.
20 So Joseph’s master took him and threw him into the jail

where the crown’s prisoners were confined. But even while he

was in that jail, 21 Yahweh remained with Joseph; he extended
kindness to him and disposed the chief jailer favorably toward
him. 22 The chief jailer put Joseph in charge of all the prisoners
who were in that jail; and whatever had to be done there, was
done through him. 23 Since Yahweh was with him, the chief
jailer did not himself supervise anything in his charge whatso­
ever. And whatever he undertook, Yahweh made prosper.

Notes

xxxix 1. The words between dashes are a redactorial gloss carried over
from xxxvii 36 (£), the last previous verse in the Joseph narrative.
Throughout the rest of the chapter, Joseph’s master is never referred to
by name, but only as “the Egyptian” or “the master.”
2. he did very well. Literally “he was a man who succeeded.” The
Hiphil stem hslh is used in this narrative both as intransitive and as tran­
sitive (cf. vss. 3, 23).
was assigned to .. . his household. Literally “he was in the house,” as
opposed to having to toil in the fields.
xxxix 1-23 303
4. he took a fancy to Joseph. Another variation on the theme of “to
find favor in one’s eyes.”
made him his personal attendant. Literally “he ministered to him” (in­
transitive) ; the transitive rendering is required in English for clarity.
6. except the food that he ate. Possibly an allusion to Egyptian dietary
taboos (von Rad); cf. xliii 32.
handsome of figure and features. Same phrase as in xxix 17, but
differently translated there because it was used of a woman.
7. fixed her eye on. Literally “raised her eyes at/to.” The identical
idiom is used in Akkadian to describe Ishtar's designs on Gilgamesh
(Giig., Tablet VI, line 6). Yet a literal rendering would be misleading
since the Heb. phrase can also denote trustfulness (Ezek xxxiii 25) or
prayerful appeal (Ps cxxiii If.).
9. God. Not Yahweh this time, because Joseph is speaking to an Egyp­
tian.
10. cajoled. Literally “spoke to.”
The last clause is not give in one MS of LXX, and may well be a late
gloss.
14. He had to bring us a Hebrew fellow. The nuance “he had to” is
dictated by the sarcastic purpose of the exclamation. Instead of ’is “man,
fellow,” it is preferable to read ’iSi “my husband” (same cons.), because
the sequel (vs. 17) speaks of a “Hebrew slave,” which is far more suita­
ble (Ehrl.). In that case, the translation would read “My husband had to
import a Hebrew [slave] ... I”
The term “Hebrew” (see Note on xiv 13) is applied to Israelites when
they speak of themselves to outsiders, or when outsiders refer to them; cf.
vs. 17, xl 15, xli 12, xliii 32. It was clearly the more general and wide­
spread designation.
to make love. For this nuance, cf. xxvi 8 (also J, but with a different
preposition); the possible alternative “to toy with us” is not favored by
the context.
to us. That is, Egyptians, who looked down on foreigners such as He­
brews.
15. screaming for help. Literally “that I raised my voice and called”;
also vs. 18.
20. jail. Heb. bet hassohar; cf. Vergote, pp. 25 ff.
304 GENESIS

Comment

The story of Joseph is now resumed with a dramatic episode from

J’s version; note the mention of Yahweh in vss. 2, 3, 5, 21, 23, and
the reference to Ishmaelites in vs. 1. After Judah had prevailed on
his brothers to sell the boy to nomad traders rather than take his life
(xxxvii 26-27, 28b), the Ishmaelites disposed of him in Egypt to
one of Pharaoh’s officials. Fortune smiled on the handsome youth
until his master’s wife became aware of his charms and tried to
seduce him. Spumed, she got her revenge by accusing Joseph of at­
tempted rape, offering as proof the coat that Joseph had left in her
hand as he fled from the scene. The master had him jailed, but the
jailer was soon won over by Joseph, as his owner had been before
him.
The name of Joseph’s master is given in vs. lb as Potiphar. But
this accords ill with the appended “a certain Egyptian.” Besides,
there is no mention of the name in the rest of the narrative, where
the man is described anonymously as “the master” (vss. 3, 7, 19,
20). Potiphar, on the other hand, is cited in the “Midianite” or E’s
version (xxvii 36), only one verse above the intrusive episode about
Tamar. There can thus be no doubt about the secondary origin of
this particular clause.
The motif of a faithless wife who turned on the young man who
had spumed her was well known to the Egyptians from “The Tale of
the Two Brothers” (now available in J. A. Wilson’s candid transla­
tion, ANET, pp. 23-25). Whether this circumstance can be invoked
to explain the surprisingly mild punishment of Joseph—in that other
such accusers were ultimately exposed and the accused vindicated—
it is now impossible to decide. Speculations on this subject are nat­
ural—but inconclusive. Nor should one overlook the simple point
that if Joseph had been subjected to the fate that the ancient Near
East normally reserved for such moral offenses—real or presumed—
the Joseph story itself would have died an untimely death.
 52. JOSEPH INTERPRETS THE DREAMS OF
PHARAOH’S SERVANTS
(xl 1-23: E)

XL 1 Some time afterwards, the Cupbearer and the Baker of

the king of Egypt gave offense to their lord, the king of Egypt.
2 Pharaoh was angry with his two courtiers, the chief cup-bearer
and the chief baker, 3 and he put them in custody in the house
of the chief steward—the same jail where Joseph was confined.
4 The chief steward assigned Joseph to wait on them.

After they had been in custody for some time, 5 both the
Cup-bearer and the Baker of the king of Egypt, who were
confined in that jail, had dreams the same night, each dream
having its own meaning. 6 When Joseph came to them in the
morning, he noticed that they were dejected. 7 So he inquired of
Pharaoh’s courtiers, who were with him in custody in his
master’s house, “Why are you so downcast today?” 8 They an­
swered him, “We had dreams, and there is nobody to interpret
them.” Joseph said to them, “Surely, interpretations come from
God. Tell me about them.”
9 Then the chief cup-bearer told his dream to Joseph. “In my
dream,” he said to Joseph, “there was a vine in front of me,
10 and on that vine were three branches. It had barely budded,

when out came its blossoms, and its clusters ripened into grapes.
11 Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand; so I took the grapes, pressed

them into Pharaoh’s cup, and placed the cup in Pharaoh’s

hand.”
12 Joseph said to him, “This is what it means: The three
branches are three days: 13 within three days, Pharaoh will par­
don“ you and restore you to your post, and you will be handing
“Literally “lift your head”; cf. vss. 19, 20, also xxxii 21, and see Comment.
306 GENESIS

the cup to Pharaoh as was your former practice when you were
his Cup-bearer. 14 So if you still remember that I was here with
you, when all is well with you again, please do me the kindness
to mention me to Pharaoh and try to free me from this place.
15 For I was in fact kidnaped from the land of the Hebrews; nor

have I done anything here that they should have put me in a

dungeon.”
16 When the chief baker saw how well he had interpreted, he
said to Joseph, “As regards my dream, there were three wicker
baskets on my head. 17 In the uppermost basket were all kinds of
pastries that a baker makes; and birds were picking at them out
of the basket over my head. 18 Joseph said to him in reply, “This
is what it means: the three baskets are three days: 19 within
three days Pharaoh will lift off your head and have you impaled
on a pole, and birds will be picking off your flesh.”
20 And indeed, on the third day, when Pharaoh gave a ban­
quet for all servants—for it was his birthday—he "singled out6
the chief cup-bearer and the chief baker from among his serv­
ants. 21 He restored the chief cup-bearer to his cup-bearing, so
that he again placed the cup in Pharaoh’s hand; 22 but the chief
baker he had impaled—just as Joseph had indicated to them.
23 Yet the chief cup-bearer gave no thought to Joseph; he had
forgotten him.
fc-6 Literally, “lifted the head of.”

Notes

xl 1. Cup-bearer . . . Baker. Since these are titles of Pharaoh’s officials

which alternate with “chief cup-bearer, chief baker,” they have been
marked by capital letters.
gave offense. Literally “proved to be at fault.” Traditional “sinned”
is inappropriate, particularly in a secular context.
3. house. There is no indication whether the building was private or
public.
The second clause refers back to xxxix 20 (/). Actually Joseph was
not Potiphar’s prisoner but his duly acquired slave (xxxvii 36), and
as such was assigned by his master to wait on the incarcerated courtiers.
xl 1-23 307
In vs 15 the noun translated “dungeon” is the same that was rendered
“pit” m xxxvii 28a; the whole clause was apparently inspired by that
passage, which also records the kidnaping by the Midianites. It is possible,
therefore, that vss. 3b, 15b, and also xxxix 20b, are to be regarded
as cross references inserted by the compiler.
5, On the general subject of dreams, see E. L. Ehrlich, Der Traum
ini Alten Testament, 1953, and A. Leo Oppenheim, The Interpretation
of Dreams in the Ancient Near East, 1956.
14. This is an intricately construed sentence, but it yields good Hebrew
and excellent sense. The apodosis begins with “please do me the kind­
ness” (Ehrl.). In the protasis, Heb. has literally “if you remember me
with you,” that is, if you can still recall this occasion, when I was
with you.
16. wicker. This interpretation of Heb. hori is favored by Arabic;
see also Rashi and Ehrl. Such baskets would permit birds to peck at
the pastries from the sides as well as the top.
19. impaled. Not “hanged”; aside from other evidence, a beheaded
man is not for hanging; also vs. 22.
20. singled out. Cf. BASOR 149 (1958), 17 ff. On the triple use of
nS’ r’i in this chapter, see Comment.

Comment

The story of Joseph reached both / and E in essentially the

same outline, but with marked variations in detail. This is why
episodes that are really parallel could be construed by the compiler
as separate and consecutive, since outward signs of duplications
(as in xxxvii 28) are relatively infrequent. On closer probing, how­
ever, discrepancies become apparent at every stage, thus helping to
distinguish the two separate strands in the narrative.
The whole of ch. xxxix (if one disregards an occasional cross
reference) could be safely assigned to J. In the present section, on
the other hand (as in much of the following), E’s authorship is
equally assured. One cannot but be struck immediately by the sudden
cessation of all references to Yahweh, as against seven such in­
stances within the brief space of the preceding section alone. On
the positive side, there is the mention of Elohim in vs. 8; what is
more, the passage in question deals with dreams, not merely as a
curious experience (such as in xxxvii) but as a prediction of im­
minent events. The emphasis on the kidnaping (vs. 15), moreover,
308 GENESIS

points back to E’s statement about the Midianites who made off
with Joseph and sold him to Potiphar (xxxvii 28a, 36). J, it will be
recalled, had no record of any such thing; in his version, Joseph was
sold by his brothers to itinerant Ishmaelites. Incidentally, the perti­
nent Heb. verb gnb is elsewhere used by £ in a number of shadings
and with telling effect (see Note on xxxi 19).
Since chs. xxxix and xl thus had different authors, it is not
surprising that their accounts of Joseph as prisoner are at variance.
J’s version had the Hebrew youth advance to the position of un­
official head of the jail (xxxix 22 f.). On the other hand, when we
rejoin Joseph with E as our guide, he is a hapless stranger who
was “kidnaped from the land of the Hebrews” and is now a servant
of Egyptian prisoners. In other words, the present chapter is the
direct sequel to xxxvii 36, and shows no awareness of /’s account
in xxxix.
The central theme at this juncture is Joseph’s way with dreams.
As a gifted interpreter, he has the knack, shared by many oracular
mediums, of couching his pronouncements in evocative terms. The
key phrase this time is ntf r’s, literally “to lift the head.” It has sev­
eral widely deviating connotations, and Joseph—or E—plays on
these with great skill. One of the meanings is to lift up the head of
one who is depressed, mentally or socially, hence “to comfort, par­
don”; this nuance is pressed into service in vs. 13. Another sense
is grimly literal, namely, “to lift off the head, behead,” and this is
used in vs. 19. Still another idiomatic usage is “to poll, take the
census of, give minute attention to,” and the like, exactly as with
the corresponding Akk. rSsam nc&dm (BASOR 149 [1958], 17ff.);
cf. Num i ff., where the repeated use of this idiom has supplied the
very name of the Book of Numbers. Joseph takes full advantage of
this aspect in vs. 20.
The author succeeds thus in making a single phrase symbolize
an entire episode: Pharaoh will review the cases of his two dis­
graced appointees, pardon the Cup-bearer, but behead the Baker.
Any one of these distinctive uses might apply to Joseph himself. But
the writer is not ready as yet to tip his hand. Good storyteller that
he is, E knows how to maintain suspense. Restored to grace, the
cup-bearer promptly forgets the slave for whom he was to inter­
cede with Pharaoh.
 53. WHAT DREAMS DID FOR JOSEPH
(xli 1-57: E,a except 46a: /P/)

XLI 1 After a lapse of two years, Pharaoh had a dream: He

was standing beside the Nile, 2 when out of the Nile came up
seven cows, handsome and sturdy, and grazed in the reed grass.
3 But right behind them, seven other cows, ugly and gaunt, came

up out of the Nile and stood on the bank of the Nile beside the
others. 4 And the ugly gaunt cows ate up the seven handsome
sturdy cows. Then Pharaoh awoke.
5 He went back to sleep and dreamed a second time: Seven
ears of grain, solid and healthy, grew on a single stalk. 6 But
close behind them sprouted seven other ears, thin and scorched
by the east wind. 7 And the seven thin ears swallowed up the
seven solid and full ears. Then Pharaoh woke up: it had been
a dream!
8 Next morning, his spirit agitated, he sent for all the magi­
cians of Egypt and all its wise men. Pharaoh recounted his
dreams to them, but none could interpret them for Pharaoh.
9 Then the chief cup-bearer addressed Pharaoh; “I must make

confession of my remissness at this time. 10 Once, when Pharaoh

was angry with his servants, lie placed me in custody in the
house of the chief steward—me and the chief baker, n We both
had dreams the same night, he and I; each of us had a dream
with a meaning of its own. 12 A Hebrew youth was there with
us, a servant of the chief steward; and when we told him our
dreams, he interpreted them for us, telling each the meaning of
his own dream. 13 And just as he told us, so it turned out: I was
restored to my post, but the other was impaled.”
0 For a few suspected glosses see Notes.
310 GENESIS

14 Pharaoh sent immediately for Joseph, who was rushed from

the dungeon. He cut his hair, put on fresh clothes, and appeared
before Pharaoh. 15 Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I had dreams that
nobody can explain. But I have heard it said of you that you can
interpret a dream the instant you hear it.” 16 “Not I,” Joseph
replied to Pharaoh. “God will give Pharaoh the right answer ”
17 Pharaoh then said to Joseph, “In my dream, I was standing
on the bank of the Nile, 18 when out of the Nile came up seven
sturdy and well-formed cows and grazed in the reed grass. 19 But
right behind them followed seven other cows, scrawny, exceed­
ingly ill-formed, and emaciated—never have I seen their likes for
ugliness in all the land of EgyptI 20 And the seven lean and ugly
cows ate up the first seven sturdy cows. 21 Yet when they con­
sumed them, no one could tell that they had consumed them,
for they looked just as bad as before. TTien I awoke. 22 In my
other dream, I saw seven ears of grain, solid and healthy, grow­
ing from a single stalk. 23 But close behind them sprouted seven
other ears, shriveled and thin and scorched by the east wind.
24 And the thin ears swallowed up the seven healthy ears! I
have spoken to the magicians, but none has given me the an­
swer.”
25 Joseph said to Pharaoh, “Pharaoh’s dreams are one and the
same: God has thus foretold to Pharaoh what he is about to do
26 The seven healthy cows are seven years, and the seven healthy

ears are seven years; it is the same dream. 27 The seven lean and
ugly cows that followed are seven years also, as are the seven
empty ears scorched by the east wind; they are seven years of
famine. 28 It is just as I have told Pharaoh: God has revealed
to Pharaoh what he is about to do. 29 Immediately ahead lie
seven years of great abundance in all the land of Egypt 30 But
these will be followed by seven years of famine, when all the
abundance in the land of Egypt will be forgotten. As the land
is ravaged by famine, 31 no trace will be left in it of the abun­
dance because of the famine thereafter, for it will be most severe.
32 And as for Pharaoh having had the same dream twice, it
means that the matter has been reaffirmed by God, and that
God will soon bring it about.
xli 1-57 311
“Let Pharaoh, therefore, seek out a man of discernment
33

and wisdom, and place him in charge of the land of Egypt.

34 And let Pharaoh take steps to appoint overseers for the land

so as to organize” the country of Egypt for the seven years of

plenty. 35 They shall husband all the food of the good years that
lie immediately ahead, and collect the grain by Pharaoh’s au­
thority, to be stored in the towns for food. 36 And let that food
be a reserve for the country against the seven years of famine
that are coming upon the land of Egypt, so that the land may
not perish in the famine.”
37 The whole thing pleased Pharaoh and all his officials.
38 Said Pharaoh to his officials, “Could we find another like him,

one so endowed with the divine spirit?” 39 Then Pharaoh said to

Joseph, “Since God has made all this known to you, there could
be none so discerning and wise as you. 40 You shall be in charge
of my palace, and all my people shall submit” to your orders; I
shall outrank you only with respect to the throne. 41 See,” said
Pharaoh to Joseph, “I place you in charge of the whole land of
Egypt.” 42 With that, Pharaoh removed the signet ring from his
hand and put it on Joseph’s hand. He then had him dressed in
robes of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck. 43 He
also had him ride in the chariot of his second-in-command, and
they shouted “Abrek”d before him. Thus was he installed over
the land of Egypt.
^Pharaoh told Joseph, “Although I am Pharaoh, no one in
all the land of Egypt shall move hand or foot without your ap­
proval.” 45 Pharaoh then gave Joseph the name of Zaphenath-
paneah,' and he gave him as wife Asenath daughter of Poti-
phera, priest of On. And Joseph became known' throughout
the land of Egypt.
Z46 Joseph was 30 years old when he entered the service of
Pharaoh king of Egypt./
b See Note.
0 Meaning of Heb. uncertain.
<* Perhaps Eg. “Attention!”
«Probably Eg. “God speaks: he lives.”
/Precise meaning uncertain.
312 GENESIS

After Joseph left Pharaoh’s presence, he traveled throughout

the land of Egypt. 47 During the seven years of plenty, when the
land produced in overabundance, 48 he husbanded the various
crops' of the seven years that the land of Egypt was enjoying,
and stored the food in the cities, placing in each city the crops of
the fields around it. 49 Joseph gathered in grain in very large
quantities, like the sands of the sea, until he stopped taking
stock, for it was past computing.
50 Before the years* of famine set in, Joseph became the father

of two sons, whom Asenath daughter of Poti-phera, priest of

On, bore to him. 51 Joseph named the first-born Manasseh,
meaning, "God *has caused me to forget* entirely my hardships
and my parental home.” 52 And the second he named Ephraim,
meaning, “God ^as made me fruitful* in the land of my sor­
row.”
53 The seven years of plenty that the land of Egypt enjoyed
came to an end, 54 and the seven years of famine set in, just as
Joseph had predicted. There was famine in all the countries, but
in the land of Egypt there was food. 55 And when all of Egypt,
too, came to feel the hunger and the people cried to Pharaoh
for bread, Pharaoh would tell all the Egyptians, “Go to Joseph;
do whatever he tells you.”
56 As the famine spread throughout the land, Joseph opened
*all the stores'* and rationed grain1 to the Egyptians, since the
famine in the land of Egypt was becoming severe. 57 And all the
world came to Joseph in Egypt to obtain rations, for famine had
gripped the entire world.
0 Literally “food.”
* Literally “year.”
4-4 Heb. na&ani, connected with Manasseh.

Heb. hiprarii, associated with Ephraim.

Literally “what was in them.”
1 Supplying br; see Note.
 xli 1-57 313

Notes

xli !• the Nile. For the underlying Eg. term see T. O. Lambdin, JAOS
73 (1953), 151.
2. sturdy. Literally “healthy, robust of flesh.”
3. the others. Heb. “the cows," i.e., the other cows by juxtaposition.
5. healthy. Literally “good(ly)
8. magicians. See Vergote, pp. 80-94; cf. Exod vii 11, 22.
9. remissness. Heb. literally “omissions, ‘sins,’ failings,” the plural being
used in an abstract sense.
10. Once. Implicit in the word order and tense of Heb.
15. dreams. This time, singular with collective sense; cf. vs. 8 where the
singular noun is construed with plural pronoun. In each instance (also vs.
25) more than one dream is manifestly involved.
27. empty. Heb. reqot, cons, rqwt; but Sam., LXX, TO, Syr. show
“thin” (cons, dqwt), which involves the frequent graphic confusion of
R/D. MT may have been influenced by raqqdt “lean” in first clause
(same cons.). At all events, the sense remains the same.
31.no trace will be left. Literally “will not be known.”
34. The overseers are regarded by some critics as contrary to the
proposal of a single manager in vs. 33; hence they assign 34a to 1 (cf.
Noth, Vberlieferungsgeschichte . . . , p. 31). Yet the task clearly in­
volved a large staff, so that all that the clause implies is that Joseph
could pick his own assistants. Had J recorded the episode, or had his
account been available to R, more of it would surely have come through
than the few phrases and lines which are alleged to disrupt the flow
of E’s narrative.
to organize. Traditional “to take a fifth part of” (the land) or al­
ternatively “to divide (the land) into five parts.” But a denominative
based on “five” is by no means the only possible solution of Heb.
w'himmeS; and xlvii 24 is not strictly parallel. The very next verse
calls for state control over the whole crop. There is, however, a verbal
stem hmS, the passive participle of which means “armed, equipped”
in Josh i 14, iv 12; Judg vii 11; cf. also Exod xiii 18; and Arabic
employs the identical cognate (Ehrl.). Accordingly, the present oc­
currence may be safely translated “to organize, regiment,” or the like,
in complete agreement with attested usage and etymology, not to men­
tion the text
40. shall submit to. Heb. cons, ysq, as now pointed (yissaq, preceded
by al pika), can only mean “shall kiss you on the mouth.” By re­
pointing the verb to yasoq (with Ehrl.), we obtain the sense here
314 GENESIS

indicated. For the same sense with 'al pi, cf. especially Num xxvii 21.
If, on the other hand, the meaning of the verb should be something
like “be managed,” there might be a connection with the noun meseq
in xv 2.
42. signet ring. Cf. JAOS 73 (1953), 151 and Vergote, pp. 116 ff.;
this is not to be confused with the cylinder seal, for which a different
noun is employed in xxxviii 18 (see Note ad loc.).
gold chain. On the royal chain in Egypt see Vergote, pp. 116ff.
43. his second-in-command. For this sense cf. II Chron xxviii 7; not
“the second best” (chariot). The Heb. term, like its Akk. analogue
terdennu (cf. tartan, Isa xx 1), is used both as a title and an adjective.
Here, however, the title is plainly indicated, for the reference is spe­
cifically to the Vizier, who was also the Royal Seal-bearer (42).
Abrek. For a probable Egyptian etymology, see JAOS 73 (1953),
146; contrast, however, Vergote, pp. 135 ff. The alleged “kneel down!”
of Heb. origin is morphologically untenable and contrary to the Egyptian
background of the episode.
45. Zaphenath-paneah. For the underlying Eg. form and meaning,
cf. BASOR 140 (1955), 31 and Vergote, pp. 141 ff.
Asenath. Eg. “belonging to (the goddess) Neith”; see Vergote, pp.
148 ff.
Poti-phera. Eg. “he whom Re gave”; cf. Vergote, pp. 146ff.; a fuller
form of the same name as Potiphar (xxxvii 36), but referring to a
different person. The name is of a type common to many languages and
applicable to many individuals.
On. Cf. vs. 50 and xlvi 20; also Ezek xxx 17. Gr. Heliopolis, seven
miles northeast of modem Cairo.
became known in. Heb. literally “rose over”; in this construction,
the verb is attested in the sense of “to spread, become familiar” in
Esther i 17, and perhaps Ps lxxxi 6. Accordingly, this clause is not
a duplicate of 43c, and need not therefore indicate a different source.
46. The first part of the verse is an unmistakable insert from P.
According to that source, therefore, Joseph’s servitude lasted thirteen
years (cf. xxxvii 2).
48. of the seven years. Sam. and LXX add “of plenty,” which MT
gives in vs. 53; the omission was caused by haplography (“seven” and
“plenty” share the same letters).
51 f. The aetiological explanations of the names are, as usual, in­
dependent of correct etymology.
51. meaning. Both in vss. 51 and 52 Heb. ki takes the place of
“saying”; this is clear proof, if such proof were needed, that the particle
is not to be confused with the conjunction ki “that,” in which case
the direct address would be stylistically awkward; cf. iv 25, Note.
xli 1-57 315
entirely. The repeated kol in vs. 51 is not “all” but comparable to
our colloquial “all about”; note the use of the term with “parental
home.”
56. all the stores. Heb. literally “all that was in them” is unmanage­
able as it stands. Sam. reads an added br (“everything in which there
was grain”; similarly LXX), and these conss. could have been lost
through haplography, in view of the form wyibr which follows. It is
virtually certain that the same two conss. dropped out after wysbr. The
restored passage (with additions given in square brackets) would thus
read; ‘t kl ’Sr bhm [br] wysbr [br]. The translation here offered presup­
poses some such text, since a slavish rendering would have been
meaningless, and a neutral translation misleading.
rationed. The Heb. stem Sbr (noun and verb) is used in the Joseph
story specifically of countermeasures against hunger (note especially
xlii 19). It is not to be confused, therefore, with “grain” (br), “bread”
(Ihm), or “food” (’kl), but should be interpreted (with Ehrl.) as
referring to “(emergency) supplies” and the sale or purchase of such;
apparently based on the common verb Sbr “to break (the fast).”

Comment

The section forms an organic unit with the preceding chapter.

With all of Pharaoh’s experts baffled by his two disquieting dreams,
the cup-bearer recalls belatedly the lowly Hebrew youth who did
so well by him in similar circumstances. Joseph is rushed to the
palace, where he soon attains a position second only to that of
Pharaoh himself. His subsequent rise to power exceeds even the
extravagant promise of his boyhood visions.
The story that is thus artfully built up is in all essentials a
secular account. Yet the very fact that the history of Joseph oc­
cupies such a prominent place in the patriarchal narratives is suf­
ficient proof, as was indicated earlier, that the subject matter was
viewed as part of a broader spiritual pattern. The factual back­
ground is now all but obliterated by the rich literary detail. Yet some
intimation of a deeper purpose can be found fairly close to the
surface. It is God, the author assures us through Joseph, who
causes dreams to serve as guideposts to the future (vs. 16). Thus
even the distractions of an unusually exciting story cannot crowd
out entirely the recurrent refrain that human destiny is divinely
316 GENESIS

ordained. By the same token, Joseph’s career as a whole is ulti­

mately but a link in a grander design.
Since the two consecutive sections are so closely interrelated,
one expects them to derive from the same source; and they do.
E’s hand could be discerned throughout ch. xl, and the same holds
true of the present chapter: it is Elohim, not Yahweh, whom Joseph
invokes when he names his two sons, not to mention his address to
Pharaoh; the dream motif is more prominent than ever before; and
the cast of characters is basically the same as in ch. xl. To be sure,
some apparent discrepancies and duplications have been pointed
out toward the end of the chapter. But these are by no means as
definite as is sometimes alleged. Indeed, in at least two instances
(34a, 45c), the problem is one of interpretation rather than parallel
documents (cf. Notes ad loc.). Nor can the minor textual irregu­
larities in vs. 56 be ascribed to an intrusive source. All in all, the
case for fractional additions from J must be said to rest on very
flimsy foundations. The statistical comment by P in 46a, on the
other hand, is beyond serious dispute.
No appreciable progress has been made in the effort to establish
the historical setting of the episode, and with it the identity of the
Pharaoh “who knew Joseph.” A faint hint, but no more than that,
may be contained in vs. 39, which has Pharaoh refer to God with
obvious reverence. An Egyptian ruler of good native stock would
not be likely to do so, since he was himself regarded as a god.
When the Pharaoh of the Oppression speaks of Yahweh in Exodus,
he does so in defiance, or in extreme straits, but never in sincere
submission. The attitude of the present Pharaoh, therefore (barring
an oversight on the part of the author), might conceivably suggest
that he was not a traditional Egyptian ruler; and such a description
would fit best some member of the foreign Hyksos Dynasty (ca.
1730-1570). It has long been assumed on other grounds that the
Hyksos age offered the best opportunity for the emergence of some­
one like Joseph. Nevertheless, the narrative before us furnishes too
slender a basis for historical deductions.
On the other hand, the incidental detail is authentically Egyptian.
Pharaoh elevates Joseph to the typically Egyptian post of Vizier
(43). This is corroborated by the transfer to Joseph of the royal
seal (42), inasmuch as the Vizier was known as the “Sealbearer
of the King of Lower Egypt” as far back as the third millennium.
(Cf. J. A. Wilson, The Burden of Egypt, 1951, pp. 81 f.; and for
xli 1-57 317
this and other details, see Vergote, pp. 96 fl.) The gift of the gold
chain is another authentic touch. The three names in vs. 45 are
Egyptian in type and components; so, too, in all probability, is the
escorts’ cry “Abrek” (43, see Note).
While the story is the main thing, the setting is thus demonstrably
factual. And although the theme and the setting together cannot as
yet be fitted into an established historical niche, the details are not
out of keeping with that phase of Egyptian history which can be
independently synchronized with the patriarchal period.
 54. THE BROTHERS’ FIRST TRIP TO EGYPT
(xlii 1-26, 29-38: E*; 27-28: ///)

XLII 1 When Jacob saw that there were rations to be had in

Egypt, he6 said to his sons, “Why do you keep staring at one
another? 21 hear,” he went on, “that there are rations in Egypt.
Go down there and procure some for us, that we may survive
and not die.” 3 So ten of Joseph’s brothers went down to procure
grain from Egypt; 4 it was only Benjamin, Joseph’s full-brother,
that Jacob did not send with his brothers, for he feared that he
might meet with disaster. 5 Thus the sons of Israel were among
the others who came to get rations, for there was famine in the
land of Canaan.
6 Joseph was the regent of the land; it was he who dispensed
rations to the entire population. When Joseph’s brothers came
to him, they bowed low, face to the ground. 7 Joseph recognized
his brothers as soon as he saw them; but he kept his identity
from them, and spoke to them sternly. Said he to them, “Where
have you come from?” They answered, “From the land of
Canaan, to procure food.”
8 Now when Joseph recognized his brothers, while they failed

to recognize him, 9 Joseph was reminded of the dreams that he

had dreamed about them. So he said to them, “You are spies.
You have only come to look at the land in its nakednessl”
10 “But no, my lord,” they said to him, “truly,® your servants
have come to procure foodl 11 All of us are sons of the same
man; we are forthright men; your servants have never spiedl”

«See Notes for details.

6 Heb. “Jacob."
°Heb. wa-.
xlii 1-38 319
12 But he answered them, “Yes, you have come to look at the
land in its nakedness.”
13 They persisted, “We your servants were twelve brothers,
sons of the same man in the land of Canaan; but the youngest
is just now with our father, and another one is gone.” 14 But
Joseph answered them, “It is just as I told you; you are spies.
15 This is how you shall be put to the test: unless your youngest

brother comes here, I swear by Pharaoh that you shall not go

free from here! 16 So send one of you to fetch your brother,
while the rest of you remain under arrest; thus shall your words
be put to the test whether there is truth in you. Otherwise, by
Pharaoh, you are nothing but spies!” 17 With that, he herded
them into the guardhouse for three days.
18 On the third day Joseph said to them, “Do this, and you
shall live, since I am a God-fearing man. 19 If you have been
forthright, let but one of you brothers be detained in your place
of custody, while the rest of you go and take home rations for
your starving households. 20 But you must come back to me with
your youngest brother; thus shall your words be verified, and
you shall not die.” They agreed. 21 To one another, however,
they said, “Alas, we are being punished for our brother, since
we looked on at his personal anguish, when he pleaded with us,
but paid no heed. That is why this distress has come upon us.”
22 Reuben retorted and said to them, “Did I not warn you to do

no wrong to the boy? But you wouldn’t listen! Now comes the
accounting for his blood.” 23 They did not know, of course, that
Joseph understood, since there was an interpreter between them
and him. 24 He turned away from them to cry. When he was
able to speak to them again, he picked out Simeon from among
them and had him bound before their eyes. 25 Then Joseph
gave orders to fill their containers with grain, replace each one’s
money in his sack, and give them provisions for their journey;
and it was so done for them. 26Then they loaded their asses
with their rations and departed.
/27 As one of them was opening his bag4 at the night en-
<*See Note.
320 GENESIS

campment to give his ass some fodder, he saw that his money
was there at the mouth of his bag. 28 “Someone has returned my
money,” he called out to his brothers, “it is here in my bag!”
Their hearts sank. They asked one another anxiously, “What is
this that God has done to us?”/
29 When they got back to their father Jacob in the land of
Canaan, they told him about all their adventures, saying,
30 “The man who is lord of the country spoke to us sternly and
charged us with spying on the land. 31 We said to him, ‘We are
forthright; we have never spiedl 32 There were twelve of us
brothers, sons of the same father; but one is gone, and the
youngest is just now with our father in the land of Canaan.’
33 But the man who is lord of the country replied to us, ‘This is
how I shall know that you are forthright: Leave one of your
brothers with me while the rest of you go home with something4
for your starving households. 34 "When you come back to me
with your youngest brother, and I know that you are forthright,
and not spies, I will restore your brother to you, and you shall be
free to go about in the land.’ ”
35 As they were emptying their sacks, there in each one’s sack
was his money bag! On seeing their money bags, they and their
father were dismayed. 36 Their father Jacob said to them, “I am
the one you would leave bereft! Joseph is gone, and Simeon is
gone, and now you would take away Benjamin! This always hap­
pens to me!" 37 But Reuben told his father, “You may kill my
own two sons if I fail to bring him back to you! Leave him in
my care, and I will get him back to you.” 38 But he answered,
“My son shall not go down with you, for his own brother is dead
and he alone is left. If he should meet with disaster on the trip
you take, you will send my white head down to Sheol in grief.”
xlii 1-38 321

Notes

xlii 3. procure. Here the verb Sbr is combined with the noun bar
“grain,” yielding approximately “get us an emergency supply of grain”;
also vs. 5, etc.
4. it was only Benjamin. Some such emphasis is indicated by the in­
version in Heb.
full-brother. This nuance is self-evident from the specific construction
with Joseph.
he feared that. Literally “he said: ‘lest. . this is one of the methods
that Heb. uses to express indirect discourse.
disaster. Comparison with Exod xxi 22 f. makes it clear that Heb. ’ason
is not just the traditional “harm” but a fatal misadventure; also vs. 38,
below, and xliv 29.
5. sons of Israel. Whereas Joseph’s father is called Israel by J, but
Jacob by E (cf. xxxv 21), the same does not apply to the possessive com­
pound “sons of Israel,” as is definitely shown by xlvi 5 (“Jacob : sons of
Israel”). Because of its prevailing ethnic connotation, the phrase “chil­
dren of Israel’’ would occur automatically to any writer. The use of this
compound as a documentary criterion is therefore fallacious.
•were among the others who came. Lit. “came . . . among the comers.”
7. kept his identity from them. Literally “made himself a stranger to
them.”
spoke to them sternly. Literally “spoke harsh things to them”; cf. the
Akk. idiom dannatim (which is likewise a feminine plural) iakanum
(same sense), which is common in the Mari texts.
8. Not necessarily, or even plausibly, a duplicate of 7a, and hence
not to be credited mechanically to another source (J). This is the
author’s comment to explain Joseph’s treatment of his brothers: Joseph
was still very much aware of the past. Accordingly, this is a sub­
ordinate clause.
9. to look at the land in its nakedness. Heb. ‘erwd is not “nudity” (cf. ii
25) but “nakedness,” in the sense of something that is unseemly (Deut
xxiii 15), and improper to look at or expose (cf. ix 22 f.; Lev xviii 6ff.);
here metaphorically, things that are meant to be hidden from potential
enemies.
10. truly. Or "on the contrary,” Heb. wa- in the sense of Ar. fa-.
11. sons of the same man. A family unit as opposed to a recon­
naissance task force.
forthright. Heb. ken, cf. Akk. kenu “right, legitimate”; here men who
322 GENESIS

are what they appear to be, aboveboard, not undercover agents, in con­
trast with “spies.”
12. Yes. See xviii 15, Note.
15. by Pharaoh. Literally “life of Pharaoh,” with “life” having the tech­
nical sense of “oath,” precisely as Akk. nelum. In the translation, “I
swear” is based on Heb. ’im as used in oaths; in vs. 16, on the other
hand, “by Pharoah” is a circumstantial expression.
20. They agreed. That is, “they made (the) Yes (sign),” cf. xxix 28;
not “they did so” for no deed follows. Contrast vs. 25, where the same
words are used with “to them” in a more general sense.
22. Reuben. Joseph’s advocate throughout the E version; cf. vs. 37, and
also xxxvii 22. In J, the same part is taken by Judah, cf. xxxvii 26, xliii 3,
xliv 18.
the accounting for his blood. Cf. ix 6. In E’s version the brothers did
not know what the Midianites had done (see xxxvii 29). For all they
knew, Joseph was dead and they were responsible for his blood.
23. of course. Emphatic in Heb., cf. xxi 32.
between them and him. Heb. benotam (not beriehem); cf. Note on
xxvi 28.
24. When he was able to speak to them again. Literally “he returned
to them and spoke to them.” Some manuscripts of LXX omit the
second half of the clause, probably because no speech is indicated. But
with the first verb used adverbially, as it often is in hendiadys con­
structions, the whole has the force of “when he was able to face them
again.”
Simeon. Next in seniority to Reuben, who was spared because Joseph
remembered him as his protector.
27 f. For this excerpt from /, cf. Comment.
27. one of them. The first one who happened to do so. We know from
xliii 21 that the others followed suit.
his bag. MT has “his sack”; but LXX gives here the same term that is
used to translate ’amtahat “bag” at the end of this verse and in xliii 12,
18, 21 ff. The text apparently carried over the other term from vs. 25.
28. God. Heb. Elohim is not a stranger to / in the general sense of
“Fate, Heaven, Providence”; cf. for example, xxvii 28. In this non-specific
usage the term is not of itself a dependable documentary criterion. There
is no call as yet for such an exclamation in E, where the discovery of
the money does not take place until the brothers are back home.
33. something. MT appears to say “take home the starvation of your
households,” unless one ascribes to the noun the added meaning of rem­
edy against starvation. In all likelihood, however, the phrase read origi­
nally “take home [rations for] . . . ,” etc., just as in vs. 19; the supple­
mented text is found in LXX, TO, Syr.
xlii 1-38 323
34. you shall be free to go about. Cf. the discussion on xxxiv 10
(Note).
36. make desolate. Literally “bereave.”
This always happens to me. Literally “all these things are against
„me.
_ »»
37. Reuben. See above on vs. 22.
38. you will send my white head down to Sheol in grief. Trad, “you
will bring down my gray hairs” etc. Actually, however, the Heb. noun
in question is an abstract, either “grayness,” or “whiteness,” which
applies, of course, to hair. But in very advanced age the hair is white
rather than gray, and in an instance such as this it is not only the
disembodied hair but the whole person that is involved; moreover,
“white head” is a familiar figure of speech in English. For the converse
image “happy old age,” cf. xxv 8.
The verse as a whole is often attributed to J as the beginning of the
long account that follows. The reason is Jacob’s failure to say anything
about the detention of Simeon, a detail of which J is apparently not
aware (xliii 14, 23b are taken as cross references to J). Nevertheless,
the present verse is concerned solely with Benjamin as Rachel’s only
surviving son, so that a reference to Simeon would not be expected at
this point. Moreover, the next verse (xliii 1) is the logical starting point
of a separate section, which cannot be said of the verse before us.

Comment

The leading theme of the Joseph story, as proclaimed at the

outset, is the relationship between the protagonist and his brothers.
Hence Joseph’s rise from servitude to unprecedented authority,
dramatic though this event may be in itself, is but one strand in a
complex fabric. Before the dull design can be unfolded, therefore,
the other main thread must be picked up and woven in with the
first. In other words, Joseph’s brothers need to be placed on the
scene in Egypt.
The required impetus is provided by the catastrophic famine that
grips all the countries, Canaan included. Egypt is still, for the time
being, the traditional breadbasket of the region, but only so because
of Joseph’s foresight and his far-reaching countermeasures. When
Joseph’s brothers arrive thus in Egypt for emergency supplies (tech­
nical term seber), they are brought face to face with their brother.
They have, of course, no intimation of his true identity; to the best
of their knowledge, Joseph perished long ago in the wilderness near
324 GENESIS

Dothan. The man who must approve their request for food rations
is the Vizier of Egypt, to whom Pharaoh has ceded virtually un­
limited powers. As for Joseph, the intervening years have left no
outward sign of his origin. He is thoroughly Egyptian in rank, name
(xli 45), and speech; he communicates with the petitioners through
an interpreter (vs. 23). But there are no corresponding barriers to
Joseph’s recognition of his brothers. Joseph’s private knowledge
leaves him with mixed emotions, whereas his brothers go on un­
suspecting, until events finally force to the surface their ever-present
but hitherto unarticulated sense of guilt. All this is handled by the
author with great subtlety and insight. The immediate personal
drama overshadows, but is never allowed to drive out, the under­
lying moral issue.
The intimate structural connection between the present episode
and Joseph’s whole Egyptian career to date automatically presup­
poses a corresponding unity of authorship. It is natural, therefore,
that all the incidental evidence should point once again to E. In­
deed, the whole is so closely knit that any discordant note, any
intrusive passage, is bound to stand out prominently. Such is the
case with vss. 27-28. In that passage, the discovery of the money
that Joseph caused to be replaced in his brothers’ bags is made at a
lodging place on their way home to Canaan (cf. also xliii 21). But
a few verses farther down, in what is clearly an integral part of the
present narrative, we find that the same disturbing discovery takes
place while the brothers are unpacking upon their return home (vs.
35). Nor was there any need in the first place to open the bags on
the way in order to feed the animals, since provisions for the
purpose had been separately supplied (vs. 25). The brief conflicting
statement is thus clearly marked as an excerpt from I, whose
parallel account is given in xliii 1 ff. Significantly enough, the in­
trusive fragment uses ’amtahat “bag” (as opposed to E’s faq), the
same term that J employs thirteen times in his own version.
On the other hand, there is no such manifold evidence to back
up the claim of some critics that several other passages should be
similarly ascribed to /, or at least denied to E; for details, cf. the
Notes on vss. 5, 8, 28c, and 38. It will be found that in each
instance the point at issue can be logically accounted for and in­
dependently confirmed.
 55. SECOND TRIP TO EGYPT
(xliii 1-34: /“)

XLHI 1 The famine in the land grew more severe. 2 So when

they used up the rations that they had brought from Egypt,
their father said to them, “Go back and procure us some food”
3 But Judah told him, “The man warned us repeatedly, ‘You
may not come before me unless your brother is with you!’ 4 If
you are ready to let our brother go with us, we will go down and
get you food. 5 But if you withhold permission, we cannot go
down, for the man told us, “You may not come before me un­
less your brother is with you!’ ”
6 “Why did you make it so hard for me,” Israel demanded,
“by telling the man that you had another brother?” 7 They an­
swered, “The man kept asking us about ourselves and our fam­
ily: ‘Is your father still living? Have you another brother?’ We
had to answer his questions! How were we to know that he
would insist, ‘Bring your brother here’?”
8 Judah then urged Israel his father, “Send the boy in my

care, and let us be off and be on our way if any of us is to sur­

vive and not die—we and you and our children! 9 I will stand
surety for him; you shall hold me accountable for him: if I fail to
bring him back and produce him before you, I shall stand con­
demned before you forever. io As it is, had we not dillydallied,
we could have been there and back twice!”
Their father Israel replied to them, “If it must be so, do
this: Put in your baggage the land’s best products and take them
to the man as a gift—some balm, and a little of the honey, gum,
ladanum, pistachios, and almonds. i2Take also a double
° See Notes on vss. 14, 23.
326 GENESIS

amount of money, for you must return the sum that was put
back in the mouths of your bags; it may have been an oversight.
13 Take your brother, too, and be off; go back to the man.

14 And may El Shaddai6 dispose the man to mercy toward you,

that he may let your other brother go, as well as Benjamin. As
for me, if I am to suffer bereavement, I shall suffer it.”
15 So the men took this gift, and double money they took in
their hands, and Benjamin, and soon0 made their way to Egypt,
where they presented themselves to Joseph. 16 When Joseph saw
them with Benjamin, he told his house steward, “Take these
men into the house, and have an animal slaughtered and
prepared, for the men are to dine with me at noon.” 17 The
steward4 did as Joseph told him and took the men into the
house. 18 But they became apprehensive on being taken into
Joseph’s house. They said, “It must be on account of the money
which was put back in our bags the first time that we are being
taken there—a pretext against us to attack us and seize us as
slaves, with our animals.” 19 So they went up to Joseph’s house
steward and talked to him at the entrance of the house.
20 “If you please, sir,” they said, “we were here once before to
procure food. 21 But when we got to a night encampment and
opened our bags, there was each man’s money at the mouth of
his bag—our money in the exact amount! We have brought it
back with us; 22 and we have brought other money to procure
food with. We don’t know who put the *first money® in our
bags.” 23 He replied, “All is well with you; have no fear. Your
God and the God of your father must have put treasure in your
bags for you. I got your payment.” /With that, he brought
Simeon out to them./
24 The steward4 then brought the men inside Joseph’s house.
He gave them water to bathe their feet, and got feed for their
asses. 25 They laid out their gifts to await Joseph’s arrival at
noon, for they had learned that they were to dine there.
b See Note.

o See xxxi 21 for a similar auxiliary use of the verb q-m.

d Literally “man.”

e-e Literally “our money.”

xliii 1-34 327
26 When Joseph came home, they presented to him the gifts
that they had brought inside, and they bowed before him to the
ground. 27 After inquiring how they were, he asked, “And how is
your aged father of whom you spoke? Is he still 'in good
health ?” 28 They answered, “Your servant our father is well
and still in good health.” And they bowed respectfully.
29 As his eye fell on his brother Benjamin, his mother’s son,

he asked, “Is this the youngest brother of whom you spoke to

me?” And he added, “God be gracious to you, my boy.”
30 With that, Joseph hurried out, for he was overcome with feel­

ing for his brother, and wanted to cry. He went into a room and
wept there. 31 Then he washed his face, reappeared and—now in
control of himself again—gave the order, “Serve the meal!”
32 They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the

Egyptians who partook of his board by themselves; for Egyp­

tians could not eat with Hebrews, since that is loathsome to
Egyptians. 33 And as the men took their seats "at his direction/
the oldest in the order of his seniority and the youngest in the
order of his youth, they gazed at one another in astonishment.
34 Portions were served them from his table, but Benjamin’s

portion was several* times as large as that of anyone else. And

they feasted with him and drank freely.
i-t Literally “alive.”
v-o Literally “before him”; see Note.
* Literally “five.”

Notes

xliii 3. warned us repeatedly. Expressed in Heb. by the infinitive abso­

lute. Verses 3 and 5 would thus seem to allude to a prior journey of the
brothers to Egypt as told by J in a passage that is no longer extant. For
according to E, Benjamin was to be produced as proof that the brothers
were telling the truth (xlii 20, 34)—a motive that was apparently absent
in J.
5. if you withhold permission. Literally “if you will not let go,” without
object. Cf. also vs. 14 in which the object is expressed.
9. / will stand surety for him. Technical sense of the verb ‘rb, partic-
328 GENESIS

ularly common in Akk. legal usage;cf. the cognate noun 'erabon

“pledge,” xxxviii 17 £.
stand condemned. Stem h(\ with the primary sense of “to fail, be
guilty, at fault,” hence also “to offend” (xl 1). The translation is compli­
cated by the added “to you forever.” The general force is that of “I shall
be in chancery to you for the rest of my life” : “you can hold it over my
head, I shall never be able to live it down,” or the like.
12. double the amount of money. So certainly in vs. 15. Here, how­
ever, “extra money” is also possible; cf. “other money” in vs. 22. Heb.
miSne has these and many other nuances; cf. “second-in-command,”
xli 43.
14. that he may let your other brother go. Actually, Heb. has “that he
may release your other brother to you,” which can apply to Simeon, but
cannot be referred at the same time to Benjamin, as the text does, since
Benjamin has not been detained. This difficulty, however, is symptomatic
of the marginal character of the verse as a whole. It is doubtful alto­
gether whether J made anymention of Simeon’s arrest; certainly
nothing of this kind is apparent from the material before us; note the
omission of any such allusion in the preceding verses (3ff.). On these
and other counts (note especially El Shaddai), the verse has long been
regarded as conflate, and influenced mostly by the previous account
from E.
18. The brothers became uneasy when they realized that they were
going to Joseph's house. Heb. appears inconsistent at first glance, in that
the men first go there, then they talk to the steward, and finally they go
there again (24). Actually, however, the stem in question (causative of
b’) is both ingressive (to conduct) and terminative (to bring); the first
connotation is used in vs. 17 f.; the second in vs. 24. The talk with the
steward takes place before the brothers got inside the house.
21. in the exact amount. Literally “in its weight.” Until coins were in­
troduced, toward the middle of the first millennium, all payments in
metal were made by weight (stem Sql, hence the monetary unit
“shekel”). This mode of payment is still often practiced in the Near East.
22. the first money. Literally “our money,” but it was no longer theirs;
hence, in effect, the money we had paid, our payment.
23b. From E; cf. Note on vs. 14.
27. in good health. Literally “alive”; cf. I Kings xx 32 Akk. balafu “to
live” carries the same two meanings.
28. they bowed respectfully. Literally, “they prostrated themselves and
bowed” (hendiadys).
30. he war overcome with feeling. Literally “his emotions boiled over.”
32. Joseph’s eating by himself was evidently a matter of rank, since the
cultic and social taboo (“abomination, anathema”) against taking food
xliii 1-34 329
with Hebrews would scarcely include the Vizier who bore a pious
Egyptian name (xli 45).
33. at his direction. For this nuance of Heb. lipne, see Note on vi 11.
It is possible, of course, that this term may have here its primary meaning
“before”: Joseph’s brothers were seated facing their host. In that case,
however, the seating of the men in the exact order of their ages—a
detail on which the text lays much stress—would have to be ascribed
to coincidence, or at most to prior instructions on the part of Joseph
which the author chose to pass over in silence. We have seen that the
same expression can signify “at the instance, behest, with the approval,
by the will of," and the like (cf. x 9, xvii 18, xxvii 7). Since the con­
text favors some such meaning, this interpretation (with Ehrl.) has
been given preference.
34. several. For this non-specific sense of Heb. “five,” see Note on
xxiv 10; cf. also xlv 22, and II Kings vii 13.
And they feasted with him and drank freely. Literally “and they
drank and became drunk with him”; cf. ix 21. Here, however, the
emphasis is not on the consequences of the carousal, but rather on
the contrast between the carefree banquet and the rude awakening that
awaits the brothers. The clause depicts thus a convivial, but not neces­
sarily indecorous, occasion. The first verb, moreover, yields a noun
milte, which means simply “feast”; cf. xxi 8.

Comment

As the story of Joseph progresses, the two parallel strands of

which it is composed stand out more and more sharpy by reason
of their sustained and increasing differences in detail. According to
the E version so far, Joseph won a reprieve thanks to Reuben, only
to be kidnaped by Midianites, who sold him as slave to an Egyptian
official named Potiphar. Eventually, fate turns the tables on the
brothers by placing them at Joseph’s mercy. They fail to recognize
him, having no reason to think that he is still alive, let alone that
he has become the all-powerful regent of mighty Egypt. But there
are no such obstacles to Joseph’s immediate recognition of his
brothers. He charges them with spying against Egypt, demands
that they prove their innocence by producing Benjamin, and retains
Simeon as hostage. Upon their return home, the brothers are further
upset by the discovery of the money that Joseph had ordered to
be put in their grain bags. Reuben personally vouches to their father
330 GENESIS

for Benjamin’s safe return from the unavoidable second trip to

Egypt. The father is consistently referred to as Jacob.
In /’s account, on the other hand, it is Judah who prevails on
his brothers to stop short of fratricide and instead dispose of
Joseph to Ishmaelites, who sell him in turn to a high-ranking but
unnamed Egyptian official. The official’s faithless wife delays, but
cannot cut off, Joseph’s ultimate rise to great power. Eventually,
there is a similar encounter in Egypt between the brothers and
Joseph, but nothing is said apparently about Simeon’s detention as
hostage. The brothers discover the planted money a night en­
campment, long before their return home. Their anxious father is
identified as Israel.
On the strength of these criteria, among others, the present nar­
rative proves to be the work of /. The brothers’ spokesman is not
Reuben but Judah, and it is he who gives Israel his personal
guarantee of Benjamin’s return—with significant differences in
language and specific detail. The replaced money has been dis­
covered at a night encampment (21); and the term for “bag” is in­
variably ’amtahat, not iaq as in E. Only two brief fragments, which
refer to Simeon (14, 23b), appear to belie this uniformity; but
these are precisely the kind of exceptions that point up the rule,
and thus stand out as intrusive glosses, as does the use of El Shaddai
in vs. 14.
Closer scrutiny, moreover, will reveal other characteristics that we
have learned to associate with /. In dealing with his father, Judah
does not hesitate to speak up forcefully, and even accuse Israel of
dangerous indecision (10); in similar circumstances, E’s Reuben
pleads, but does not reproach (xlii 37). A phrase or two at the
proper time and place adds dimension to the portrayals of the stew­
ard (23) (whose use of Elohim, moreover, is natural in an Egyp­
tian) and of Joseph himself (30f.). Incidentally, the domestic is
called simply “the man” in vs. 17, the same term that J applied to
another trusted servant in the story of Rebekah (xxiv 21 ff.). And
just as the long journey to Mesopotamia was summed up there in a
few words (vs. 10), so too the trip to Egypt is here covered by a sin­
gle phrase (vs. 15).
The ability to maintain suspense is common to both J and E. The
episode ends on a merry note. But the reader knows, or will soon
find out, that the very next morning will confront the brothers with
their gravest crisis, just when their worst fears appear to have been
allayed.
 56. THE ULTIMATE TEST
(xliv 1-34: 7“)

XLIV 1 Then Joseph ' instructed his house steward, as follows,

“Fill the men’s bags with all the food they can carry, and put
each man’s money in the mouth of his bag.0 2 Put also my gob­
let, the silver one, in the mouth of the youngest one’s bag, with
the money for his rations.” He did as Joseph told him.
3 With the first light of morning, the men were sent off, pack
animals* and all. 4 They had gone but a short distance from the
city, when Joseph said to his house steward, “Up, go after the
men! When you overtake them, say to them, ‘Why did you re­
pay good with evil?9 5 It is the very one from which my master
drinks and which he uses in divination. You have done a base
thing!’ ”
6 He overtook them and repeated those words to them. 7 They
remonstrated with him, “How can my lord say such things? Far
be it from your servants to act in such a way! 8 In fact/ we even
brought back to you from the land of Canaan the money we had
found in the mouths of our bags. Why then would we steal
silver or gold from your master’s house! 9 If any of your servants
is found to have it, he shall die, and the rest of us, moreover,
shall be slaves to my lord!” 10 He replied, “Even though what
you propose is just, only he who is found to have it shall become
my slave, and the rest of you will be exonerated.”
11 Each of them eagerly lowered his bag to the ground, and
each opened his bag. 12 He searched, starting with the oldest and
° Except for glosses in vss. 1, 2; see Notes.
6 Literally “he.”
c On this clanse, see Note.

<* Literally “they and their asses.”

• LXX adds “and why have you stolen my silver goblet?”
/ Literally “here, behold.”
332 GENESIS

ending with the youngest. And the goblet turned up in Ben­

jamin’s bag.
13 At this, they rent their clothes. Each reloaded his animal,
and they turned back toward the city.
14 As Judah and his brothers re-entered Joseph’s house, he was

still there. They flung themselves before him on the ground.

15 Joseph said to them, “What a thing for you to have donel

Surely, you must know that a man like me resorts to divina­

tion!” 16 Judah answered, “What can we say to my lord? How
can we plead, how try to prove our innocence? It is God who
has uncovered your servants’ misdeeds. Here we are, then, my
lord’s slaves, the rest of us no less than the one in whose posses­
sion the goblet turned up.” 17 But he replied, “Far be it from
me to act thus! Only he who was found to have the goblet shall
be my slave; but the rest of you can go back to your father with­
out hindrance.”
18 Thereupon Judah stepped up to him and said, “I beg of
you, my lord, may your servant speak earnestly1' to my lord, and
do not be impatient with your servant, you who are the equal of
Pharaoh. 19 My lord asked your servants, ‘Have you a father, or
another brother?’ 20 We said to my lord, ‘We have a father,
who is old, and there is a child of his old age, the youngest; his
own brother died, and he is the only one by that mother who is
left, so his father dotes on him.’ 21 Then you told your servants,
‘Bring him down to me that I may set my eye on him.’ 22 We
explained to my lord, ‘The boy cannot leave his father; his fa­
ther would die if he were to leave him.’ 23 But you declared to
your servants, ‘Unless your youngest brother comes back with
you, you shall not be admitted to my presence again!’ 24 When
we returned to your servant my father, we reported my lord’s
statement to him.
25 “In time, our father said to us, ‘Go back and get us some
food.’ 26 We reminded him, ‘We cannot go down; only if our
youngest brother is with us, can we go, for we shall not be al­
lowed to see the man if our youngest brother is not with us.’
27 Your servant my father said to us, ‘As you well know, that

o Literally “in the ears/hearing of,” cf. xxiii 10, 13, 16.
xliv 1-34 333
wife bore me two sons. 28 One, however, disappeared, and I had
to conclude that he must have been tom by beasts; nor have I
seen him again to this day. 29 If now you take from me this one,
too, and he meets with disaster, you will send my white head
down to Sheol in grief.’
30 “If I appear before your servant my father, and the boy—
whose very life is so bound up with his—is not with us, 31 when
he sees that the boy is missing, he will die; and your servants will
thus send the white head of your servant, our father, down to
Sheol in grief. 32 Besides, this servant got the boy from my fa­
ther under the following pledge: ‘If I do not restore him to you,
I shall stand condemned before my father forever.’ 33 Therefore,
may your servant remain here as your slave instead of the boy,
and let the boy go with his brothers. 34 For how can I go back to
my father if the boy is not with me? Let me not be witness to
the ill fate that would overtake my father!”

Notes

xliv 1. and put each man’s money in the mouth of his bag. This clause,
and the phrase “with the money for his rations” in vs. 2, must both be
out of place in view of vs. 12 where nothing is said about any money
being replaced and the goblet alone is the object of the search. The insert
appears to have been influenced by xlii 27 f., which in turn represents an
excerpt from J’s account of the brothers’ first journey.
2. See the previous Note concerning the intrusive phrase.
4. LXX adds a direct question concerning the theft of the silver goblet,
but the addition is not necessarily original. The text as it stands is effec­
tive by indirection: the steward pretends that the brothers know what he
is talking about.
5. Divination by means of liquids is well attested, especially in Mesopo­
tamia; cf. J. Hunger, Becherwahrsagung bei den Babyloniern, 1903 (see
also Vergote, pp. 172ff.). Oil or water was poured into a bowl or cup,
and omens were then based on the appearance of the liquids inside the
container; hence the importance of the receptacle was likely to exceed
its intrinsic value.
uses in divination. Or “consults the omens”; also vs. 15, and cf. Num
xxiv 1.
9. the rest of us. Heb. uses the pronoun alone, but the added nuance is
apparent through juxtaposition; analogously in vss. 10, 16.
334 GENESIS

10. On the syntax and meaning of this verse, cf. Ehrl The steward con­
cedes that the suggested punishment would fit the crime, but pretends to
be magnanimous: only the actual culprit is to be arrested, and his punish­
ment shall be slavery, not death.
13. The brothers are too stunned to speak; but their actions are enough
to show their abject resignation.
16. God. The choice of Elohim may have been for the Egyptian’s
benefit. But J is also known to use this appellation m the more general
sense of "Heaven, Fate,” or the like, e.g., xxvii 28; see xlii 28; the present
translation does not, of course, preclude a broader meaning Though in­
nocent of the present charge, the brothers are now being punished for a
past crime which cannot be covered up indefinitely. It would be Judah’s
way of saying that justice has finally caught up with them.
19. My lord asked your servants. It is worth stressing that in E's ac­
count the brothers volunteer this information; see xlii 13.
27. that wife. Literally “my wife,” either in the sense of “my
chosen/favorite wife,” or “that particular wife”; cf. “that mother” vs. 20.
28. disappeared. Literally “is gone from me.”
I had to conclude. Heb. “I said,” followed by direct statement.
29. white head. See Note on xlii 38.

Comment

The episode links up intimately with the preceding section both in

time and content. Only a few hours separate the two accounts—the
short time between the end of the banquet and the onset of dawn;
even this slight break is not entirely blank, since Joseph uses the in­
terval to brief his steward about the part he wants him to play. The
drama that will soon unfold depends, moreover, in some measure on
the false sense of security into which the brothers have been lulled
In short, since the previous section was the work of 7, the sequel
must also stem from the same author. Other criteria, and especially
the major part that Judah assumes, are fully in accord with this con­
clusion. Indeed, there is, for once, not the slightest trace of any other
source throughout the chapter. The two discordant clauses in vss
1-2, though intrusive, would still seem to derive from 7 in the final
analysis (see Note on vs. 1).
Actually, the present narrative is not only an integral part of
7’s account, but the real climax of that author’s conception of the
Joseph story. The events that now come to a head, reach back,
beyond the carefree interlude of the preceding afternoon, to that
xliv 1-34 335
fateful day far away and long ago when Joseph was surrendered
by his brothers to Ishmaelite slave traders (xxxvii 28c). Nothing
in the crowded period since then could drown out the memory of
that deed. The brothers are haunted by a burden of guilt that is
never far from the surface (vs. 16); and Joseph still harbors a
feeling of resentment, which time and success may have helped
to blunt, but could not altogether obliterate.
It is these deep-rooted and sharply contrasted personal issues that
/ makes into his principal theme. For the moment at least, every­
thing else is underplayed and blended with the background detail.
To be sure, the great famine and Joseph’s spectacular rise to power
are to / echoes of historical events, just as they are to E. Both J
and E, moreover, see in these factors a higher design for vindicat­
ing Joseph and punishing his brothers. But Joseph is not interested
in retribution. Still, he expects from his brothers something more
than mere admission of their past guilt. As / has portrayed him,
Joseph needs to find out whether the men have been morally re­
generated (von Rad): if an emergency arose, would they now resist
the temptation of saving themselves by sacrificing another of their
number? To find the answer, Joseph offers them Benjamin as bait.
There is more to the choice of Benjamin than immediately meets
the eye. Many years ago, his brothers had treated Joseph with
incredible callousness and cruelty. Why? Was it because they had
never forgiven their father for favoring Rachel over their own
mothers, and then transferring his affections to Rachel’s older son?
If so, and if they were still much the same, they would be most
likely to betray themselves now at the expense of Rachel’s other
boy.
Joseph’s attachment to his full-brother is never left in doubt
(xliii 29, 34). Benjamin was obviously in no danger of suffering
personal harm. Joseph’s choice of him was only meant to duplicate
as closely as possible the other conditions. Would the brothers revert
to type, and welcome the opportunity to leave without Benjamin,
this time with a genuine excuse? This was the test.
Once again it is Judah who takes the initiative. This time, how­
ever, he rejects the course of least resistance. Instead, he offers his
own person to the Vizier—who is still the forbidding stranger—as
substitute for the boy for whose safe return he had vouched to his
father.
The brothers had indeed changed. They passed the ultimate test.
And Joseph had his answer.
 57. THE DISCLOSURE
(xlv 1-28: J, Ea)

XLV 1 Joseph was no longer able to control himself in the

presence of all his attendants. He cried out, “Have everyone
withdraw from me!” Thus no one else was about when Joseph
made himself known to his brothers. 2 But his sobs were so loud
that the Egyptians could hear, and so the news reached
Pharaoh’s palace.
3 Joseph said to his brothers, “I am Joseph! Is Father still in

good health?” But his brothers were unable to reply, so dum-

founded were they at him.
4 Joseph told his brothers, “Come closer to me.” And when

they had done so, he went on, “I am Joseph, your brother,

whom you once sold down to Egypt. 5 But do not worry now or
reproach yourselves for having sold me here. It was really God
who sent me here in advance of you as an instrument of sur­
vival. 6 For it is now two years that there has been a famine in
the land; and there are five more years to come in which there
shall be no yield from tilling. 7 Therefore God sent me ahead of
you to insure for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives
in an extraordinary deliverance. 8 So it was really not you but
God who sent me here; he has set me up as a father to Pharaoh,
lord of all his household, and ruler over the whole land of
Egypt.
9 “Hurry back, then, to my father and tell him, ‘Thus says

your son Joseph: God has made me lord of all Egypt; come to
me without delay. 10 You will live in the region of Goshen,
where you will be near me—you and your children and grand­
children, your flocks and herds, and everything you own.
° See Comment.
xlv 1-28 337
11 There I will provide for you—for there are still five years of
famine ahead—so that you and your family and all that is yours
may suffer no want.’ 12 Surely, you can see for yourselves, and
my brother Benjamin can see for himself, that it is I who am
speaking to you. 13 Tell my father everything about my high sta­
tion in Egypt and what you have seen here; but hurry and bring
Father down here.”
14 With that, he flung himself on the neck of his brother Ben­
jamin and wept; and Benjamin wept on his neck. 15 Then he
kissed all his brothers, crying upon them; only then were his
brothers able to talk to him.
16 The news reached Pharaoh’s palace, “Joseph’s brothers
have come.” Pharaoh and his courtiers were pleased. 17 And
Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Tell your brothers, ‘This is what you
shall do: Load up your beasts and go to the land of Canaan
"/ithout delay. 18 Take your father and your households, and
come back here. I will assign to you the best territory in Egypt,
where you will live off the fat of the land. 19 You 6are further
requested (to say),6 ‘Do the following: Take from the land of
Egypt wagons for your children and your wives, and to transport
your father, and come back. 20 And never mind your belongings,
since the best in all the land of Egypt is to be yours.”
21 The sons of Israel did accordingly. Joseph gave them
wagons, as Pharaoh had ordered, and he supplied them with
provisions for the journey. 22 To each of them, moreover, he
gave fresh clothes; but to Benjamin he gave three hundred
pieces of silver and several® changes of clothing. 23 And to his fa­
ther he sent the following: ten asses loaded with Egypt’s finest
products, and ten she-asses loaded with grain, bread, and suste­
nance for his father on his journey. 24 And as he sent his
brothers off on their way, he told them, “Don’t be fretful on the
way.”
25 They left Egypt and made their way to their father Jacob
in the land of Canaan. 26 When they told him, “Joseph is still
alive, and it is he who is ruler over the whole land of Egypt,” his
So MT, but see Note.
« See xliii 34.
338 GENESIS

heart went numb, for he could not believe them. 27 But when
they repeated to him all that Joseph had told them, and when
he saw the wagons that Joseph had sent for his transport, the
spirit of their father Jacob revived. 28 “Enough,” said Israel,
“my son Joseph is still alivel I must go and see him before I
die.”

Notes

xlv 2. his sobs were so loud that. Literally “he gave/put his voice/
sound in weeping.”
3. Is Father still in good health. Literally “is my father still alive?” Cf.
xliii 27. (/). If the present passage goes back to E, no actual redundancy
is involved. But even if J was the author, the question may have been
asked for reassurance: tell me the truth, is he really all right? As for the
noun, Heb. actually says “my father,” whenever Joseph refers to Jacob;
but the noun without possessive pronoun would be unidiomatic. This
time, at any rate, the pronoun may be advantageously left out in transla­
tion.
5. God. Here, and in vss. 8, 9, Elohim has distinctly the more general
sense of “Heaven, Providence,” so that the term cannot be an automatic
indicator of E’s authorship; cf. xliv 16.
6. there shall be no yield from tilling. Nowhere is the special force of
hendiadys—the use of two co-ordinated terms to express a single
modified concept—better demonstrated than in the instance before us.
The literal and traditional “there shall be neither plowing nor harvest”
is out of the question. No farmer could be expected to stop tilling the
soil because somebody had predicted five more years of famine, least
of all in Egypt, where good crops depend on irrigation and not on rain­
fall. Quite the contrary, after two years of famine, the farmers would
work that much harder instead of remaining idle. As a hendiadys, how­
ever, the phrase “tilling-and-reaping” describes cultivation which leads
to harvesting, as opposed to whatever the earth might produce without
man’s efforts. This self-evident interpretation is independently sup­
ported by the syntax of Heb. The alleged “neither . . . nor” would call
in the original for repetition of the negative particle ’en (Ehrl.). Note
that when the same two nouns are separately employed, the pertinent
particle is repeated: “both at plowing time and at harvest time” (Exod
xxxiv 21).
7. extraordinary. Heb. gddol “great” with reference to something su­
pernatural.
xlv 1-28 339
8. father to Pharaoh. This phrase is applied to Viziers as far back as
the third millennium.
9. The message from Joseph to his father is couched m epistolary style
with the standard introductory formula; cf. xxxii 5. For letters reflect
only the spoken word, which is why they begin with the imperative
“speak,” a term that is all the more appropriate in an oral message. The
invitation to Jacob is sent in Joseph’s own name, as opposed to Pharaoh’s
invitation in vss. 16-20. Yet, according to xlvi 31 ff. Jacob’s arrival comes
as news to Pharaoh. The inconsistency disappears once the present pas­
sage is assigned to J (on the independent evidence of sale into slavery,
vss. 4f.), and the other to E.
10. the region of Goshen. Identified with the Wadi Tumilat, the eastern
part of the Nile Delta. Since this is a part of Egypt, the traditional “land
of Goshen” is misleading.
12. The original says “your eyes and Benjamin’s see that it is my mouth
which is speaking to you,” to underscore the directness of the evidence.
14. flung himself. Literally “fell”; for this idiom see xiv 10, Note. If
“neck” sounds somewhat strange in this context, it is mainly because the
respective Heb. noun (and its Sem. analogues) designates not only neck
but also the shoulder blades (note the plural, or rather dual, construct
and possessive in this verse).
17. go . . . without delay. Literally “go . . . arrive,” lose no time in
getting there.
19. You are further requested (to say). Literally “you have been com­
manded,” followed by the content of the command. In all probability,
however, the present cons, text swyth represents an original yw ’tm, or the
like, that is “instruct them,” cf. LXX, Vulg.
20. never mind. Literally “let not your eye grudge”; cf. Deut vii 16, xiii
9, xix 13, etc.
24. The Heb. stem rgz may describe excitement, anger, impatience, and
the like. The proposed translation seeks to leave the choice open. Very
likely, the general sense is, “let there be no recriminations.”
25. Jacob. In the Joseph story, a direct sign of E’s authorship; also
vs. 27.
28. Israel. See Comment below.

Comment

After the strain and tension of the last episode, the present
narrative is bound to appear as an anticlimax. Joseph’s brothers
had passed the critical test, which was all the more revealing since
they did not know that they were being tested. Joseph’s disclosure
340 GENESIS

of his real identity brings relief at long last to himself, his brothers,
and—a fact that should not be overlooked—the reader as well.
Indeed, so welcome is this happy ending that one is not likely to
realize right away that the account is no longer of a piece, but
a blend of more than one source.
This is the point in the story at which the often separate paths of
/ and E must draw together. Both sources had to highlight Joseph’s
self-revelation and the receipt of the good news by Jacob. Such
episodes could not be lifted bodily from the two parallel accounts
and then arranged consecutively, as was done with the others
(xxxix-xliv), without irreparable damage to the story as a whole.
Hence the present chapter is no less composite and fused than was
the start of the story in ch. xxxvii; but this time the component
parts are much more difficult to separate and identify.
The beginning of the section is the obvious sequel to Judah’s
moving recapitulation immediately before it; therefore / must still
be the author. Thereafter, however, the reflective reader runs into
trouble. Do vss. 3 and 4 indicate that Joseph revealed himself to
his brothers twice? If so, does such duplication betray the presence
of E, alongside J? The critics who subscribe to the latter assumption
find a measure of support in the use of the term Elohim in vss.
5, 7, 8, and 9. Yet the solution is not that simple. While E does
not speak of Yahweh in Genesis, so that the use of this personal
name becomes a direct witness of J, the converse does not apply;
/ employs the term Elohim on various occasions as a general term
of reference to a superior power, and the present passage is
especially well suited to just this kind of usage. To be conclusive,
the external criterion of terms for the Deity should be corroborated
by the internal evidence of the given context.
Now on such internal grounds, there can be no doubt that vss.
4 and 5a go back to J; for both say that Joseph was sold into
slavery by his brothers, yet that detail was unknown to E, the Mid-
iarutes having picked up the boy without his brothers’ knowledge.
The passage, moreover, which consists of vss. 9-13, must also stem
from /. In it Joseph invites his father in his own name to come
to Egypt; this accords well with xlvi 31 ff. (/), where the news of
Jacob’s arrival comes as a surprise to Pharaoh. Yet, significantly
enough, this message too cites Elohim in vs. 9. Thus far, therefore,
there is no sure sign of E’s contributions to the narrative; the re­
xlv 1-28 341
peated statement “I am Joseph” is entirely natural in the given cir­
cumstances.
For cogent proof of E’s participation we have to wait until vss.
16-20. There a separate invitation to Jacob is issued by Pharaoh
himself; since he is unaware of this step in the episode in xlvi 31 ff.,
which is traceable to J, the author in the present instance must be E.
Farther down, the name Jacob occurs twice (25, 27), and that is an
independent witness of E. The last sentence, however, substitutes Is­
rael (28), which points in turn to / (cf. xxxv 21 f., Comment on
Sec. 47, and Note on xlii 5). There is thus at least a fair presump­
tion that vss. 16-27 are to be attributed to E, and the rest to J; but
since"we cannot put it more definitely, it has seemed best to omit the
usual source markers in the translation.
Because of the involved nature of the composition, which may
have caused omissions from the originally separate and independent
documents, a few loose ends remain that can no longer be tied to­
gether. As J tells the story, it was Judah’s forthright confession that
finally made Joseph reveal himself to his brothers. But no such mo­
tive is explicit in the extant material from E. Furthermore, it goes
without saying that when the brothers brought the startling news to
their father, they could not but make a clean breast of their previous
crime and lies. This detail is passed over in silence, very likely by
design rather than through accidental loss in the text. Good writers
are not given to spelling things out; the reader, too, has his part to
play. In this case, the joy of recovering a son who had long been
given up for dead, coupled with the fact that the brothers’ schemes
had not only been frustrated but turned to good purpose, may have
been reason enough for Jacob to forgive and forget. Such at least is
the inference that the narrative would seem to favor.
 58. JACOB’S MIGRATION TO EGYPT
(xlvi 1-34: J, /E/, |P|)‘

XLVI 1 So Israel set out with all that was his, and arrived in
Beer-sheba, where he offered sacrifices to the God of his father
Isaac.
/2 God spoke to Israel in a vision by night, and called, “Jacobi
Jacob!” “At once,” he answered. 3 He said, “I am El, the God of
your father. Be not afraid to go down to Egypt, for I will make
you there into a great nation. 4 I will go down with you to
Egypt, and I myself will bring you back; and Joseph’s hand shall
close your eyes.”
5 So Jacob left Beer-sheba, and the sons of Israel put their fa­
ther Jacob, and their little ones and their wives, aboard the
wagons that Pharaoh had sent to transport him./ |6 They took
their livestock and the possessions that they had acquired in the
land of Canaan, and arrived in Egypt—Jacob and all his
offspring. 7 He brought with him his sons and grandsons, his
daughters and granddaughters—all his offspring.
8 These are the names of the Israelites, Jacob and his descend­
ants, who migrated to Egypt.6
Jacob’s first-born Reuben; 9 Reuben’s sons: Hanoch,” Pallu,
Hezron, and Carmi. 1°Simeon’s sons: Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad,
Jachin, Zohar, and Shaul4 son of a Canaanite woman. 11 Levi’s
sons: Gcrshon, Kohath, and Merari. 12 Judah’s sons: Er, Onan,
Shelah, Perez, and Zerah—but Er and Onan had died in the
land of Canaan; and the sons of Perez were Hezron and Hamul.
0 For details, see Comment and Notes.
6For parallels and variants, cf. Num xxvi and I Chron ii 1 ff.
0Same as Enoch.
<* Same as Saul.
xlvi 1-34 343
13Issachar’s sons: Tola, Puvah, Jashub,® and Shimron. 14Zeb-
ulun’s sons: Sered, Elon, and Jahleel. 15 These were the sons
that Leah bore to Jacob in Paddan-aram, aside from his daugh­
ter Dinah. Persons in all, male and female—33.
16Gad’s sons: Ziphion/ Haggi, Shuni, Ezbon, Eri, Arodi,
and Areli. 17 Asher’s sons: Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi, and Beriah,
with Serah their sister; and Beriah’s sons: Heber and Malchiel.
18 These were the descendants of Zilpah, whom Laban had
given to his daughter Leah, that she bore to Jacob—16 persons.
19 The sons of Jacob’s wife Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin.
20 Joseph became the father of two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim,

whom Asenath daughter of Poti-phera, priest of On, bore to him

in the land of Egypt. 2i Benjamin’s sons: Bela, Becher, Ashbel,
Gera, Naaman, pEhi, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim," and Ard.
22 These were the descendants of Rachel, who were bom to Ja­

cob—14 persons in all.

23 Dan’s son:* Hushim. 24Naphtali’s sons: Jahzeel, Guni,
Jezer, and Shillem. 25 These were the descendants of Bilhah,
whom Laban had given to his daughter Rachel, that she bore
to Jacob—7 persons in all.
26 Altogether, Jacob’s people who migrated to Egypt—his own
issue, not counting the wives of Jacob’s sons—numbered 66 in
all. 27 Together with Joseph’s sons who were born to him in
Egypt—two persons—all the people comprising Jacob’s family
who came to Egypt came to 70 persons. |
28 Israel* had sent Judah ahead to Joseph, 'to precede him5' to
Goshen. When they reached the region of Goshen, 29 Jo­
seph ordered* his chariot and went up to Goshen to meet his
father Israel. As soon as he appeared before him, he flung him­
self on his neck and wept upon it a long time. 30 And Israel said
«So Sam., LXX, Num xxvi 24; MT cons, ywb (lob), textual error for ySwb.
/Sam., LXX, Num xxvi 15 Zephon.
b-9 To be corrected to Ahiram, Shephupham, Hupham, for which see Num
xxvi 39 f.; cf. I Chron viii 4 f.
*Heb. "sons” in formulaic use.
<Cf. vs. 30; MT “he.”
f-i See Note.
k Literally “tied, hitched up.”
344 GENESIS

to Joseph, “Now I can die, having seen 'in person1 that you are
still alive.”
31 Then Joseph said to his brothers and his father’s house­
hold, “I will go and inform Pharaoh, and say to him, ‘My
brothers and my father’s household, who were formerly in the
land of Canaan, have come to me. 32 The men are shepherds,
having long been keepers of livestock; and they have brought
with them their flocks and herds and everything they own.’ 33 So
when Pharaoh summons you and asks about your occupation,
34 you shall answer, ‘Your servants have been keepers of live­

stock from the beginning* down to the present—we and our fa­
thers too’—in order that you may stay in the region of Goshen.
For every shepherd is abhorrent to Egyptians.”
Literally “face to face.”
m Literally “from our youth.”

Notes

xlvi 1. Beer-sheba. A logical stop on the way from Canaan (presuma­

bly Hebron) to Egypt.
2. a vision by night. For this indirect mode of communication, which is
characteristic of the E source, cf. xx 3, 6, xxxi 11, 24.
3. a great nation. Note that E uses here goy, not 'am, precisely as J did
in xii 2, see Note ad loc.
5. the sons of Israel. In this combination, the use of the name Israel is
not limited to J; cf. Note on xlii 5.
10. Jemuel. Num xxvi 12 and I Chron iv 24 give Nemuel. The present
reading is inferior because (1) Num xxvi has proved dependable on
many counts, and (2) Heb. n will be mistaken for y more readily than
the other way about.
12. According to the data in xxxviii, Perez was bom to Judah after
the latter’s three older sons had reached adulthood. Here Perez is
recorded as having two sons of his own, who in terms of the total
elapsed time could have been Judah’s great-grandchildren. Yet at the
time of Jacob’s migration to Egypt, Judah’s brother Joseph had been
there only 22 years (combining xxxvii 2, xli 46 f., and xlv 6: 13 years
in Egypt plus 7 years of plenty and 2 years of famine). The chronological
discrepancy disappears, however, once it is established that the present
xlvi 1-34 345
list had originally nothing to do with the record of the migration to
Egypt.
13. Jashub. See textual note *. The dropping of a cons. (3r) is easy
enough to explain, whereas its addition in the parallel passages could not
be accounted for.
15. aside from his daughter Dinah. This is believed to be a harmonizing
insert, caused by the need to bring the total number of migrants up to 70.
19. Jacob’s wife Rachel. The appositional “wife” is not found with
Leah, let alone the two concubines. The same apparent partiality to
Rachel is reflected in xliv 27 (/). Evidently, Heb. ’isSa could carry the
specialized meaning of “principle, favorite wife.”
21. The list of Benjamin’s sons has been badly mangled in the present
version. Aside from mechanical textual corruptions, which can be cor­
rected on the basis of parallel passages (cf. textual note *~r), Num xxvi
38—40 credits Benjamin with only five sons, as opposed to ten in the pres­
ent instance; the others become grandchildren (cf. also LXX, which
credits Benjamin with three sons and seven grandchildren). All of which
serves to point up the secondary character of the list before us; see next
Note.
26 f. The figure 66 would seem to be a later correction by someone
who deducted from the total of 70 the two sons of Judah (Er and Onan)
who died in Canaan, and Joseph and his two sons who were already in
Egypt, but counted Dinah; cf. Dr.
28. to precede him. Little can be done with Heb. Ihwrt, which would
require an object if interpreted as “to show, point.” LXX suggests that
the original may have read Ihr’wt “to present (himself)”; but even then
the syntax would not be smooth. In any event, Joseph does not start for
Goshen until he has been informed of his family’s arrival (29). The
translation here adopted is in the nature of a compromise, dose enough
to the admittedly defective Heb. and also to the not altogether convinc­
ing LXX.
34. from the beginning. The literal “from our youth” is ruled out by
the following “and our fathers,” since the ancestors’ childhood could not
be so described.
all shepherds are abhorrent to Egyptians. The taboo cannot apply to
shepherds as such; cf. xlvii 6. In all likelihood, the term shepherds is here
a play on the popular interpretation of the Hyksos as “shepherd kings”
(SB), whose temporary domination of Egypt dealt a severe blow to na­
tional pride.

I
346 GENESIS

Comment

The section is made up of excerpts from all three major sources.

But the component parts have been left more or less intact, so that
each has retained its individuality and can be identified without
much difficulty. The narrative portions comprise vss. 1-5 and
28-34. The break between them is filled by a long insert from
P, which betrays itself as intrusive in more ways than one.
The first verse finds Israel on his way to Egypt, with his entire
family and their possessions. The name Israel points directly to
J, the same source from which the last verse of the preceding sec­
tion was also derived. This version is resumed in vss. 28 ff.; note
the two occurrences of the name Israel in 29 f., and the prom­
inent role of Judah (as is customary with /) in 28. One needs
only to read xlv 28 - xlvi 1 -f 28-34 consecutively to see how
well these passages fit together as a unit. It will be recalled, more­
over, that in 31 ff. Pharaoh is shown to know nothing about
Israel’s arrival until Joseph’s family had crossed into Egypt. This
is why Joseph has to maneuver Pharaoh into assigning to the
visitors a part of the Goshen district—an area good for grazing and
close to the Asiatic border. The detail accords well with xlv 9-13
(/), where it is Joseph himself who issues the invitation to his
family, but is in marked contrast with xlv 16 ff. (£), where the
invitation originates with Pharaoh.
Verses 2-5, on the other hand, are manifestly from E. Not only
does the divine name appear as El, but God communicates with
Jacob (vs. 2) by means of a night vision, as is customary in this
source. The patriarch is reassured that his departure from Canaan
is not contrary to the divine plan but, in fact, in keeping with it;
the isolated “Israel” in vs. 2 is an accidental carry-over from
the preceding verse. The transportation, finally, is furnished by
Pharaoh (vs. 5).
The extensive insert from P can be identified at a glance by its
content and phraseology. The genealogical interest is dominant
throughout. A record of Jacob’s family was deemed necessary on
the eve of the sojourn in Egypt, and this seemed to be the best
place to give it. A similar record of the Israelites as they are about
to return to Canaan is furnished by the same source in Num xxvi.
xlvi 1-34 347
Indeed, the names of the principals are essentially the same in both
instances, except for textual changes: the future clan-heads of
Joseph’s time become populous clans in the Mosaic period. On
closer examination, however, the present list turns out to be a sum­
mary of the data in Num xxvi, compiled without reference to the
Egyptian interlude and only later readjusted to the requirements of
the present context (Dr.). Since Er and Опал died in Canaan
(12), they could not be part of a record devoted expressly to
“Jacob and his descendants who migrated to Egypt” (8). The two
sons of Perez (12), who are in effect two generations removed
from Judah (xxxviii), can scarcely be synchronized with a Joseph
who is still a relatively young man. The traditional, and originally
round, number of 70 male descendants (27) can be eked out
only by adding Jacob himself and Dinah. And lasdy, where the
present list departs from that in Num xxvi (as, for example, in
the case of ten sons of Benjamin, vs. 21, as against five in Num),
it proves to be a distortion of the other. On all these counts, the
list before us is not only intrusive in the present narrative but also
secondary within the P source itself.
 59. JACOB BEFORE PHARAOH.
JOSEPH’S LAND POLICY
(xlvii 1-26: J, /P/ a )

XLV1I i Joseph then went and reported to Pharaoh, saying,

“My father and brothers have come from the land of Canaan,
with their flocks and herds and everything they own; they are at
present in the region of Goshen.” 2 He had picked several6 of his
brothers and presented them to Pharaoh. 3 Pharaoh asked his
brothers, “What is your occupation?” “We your servants,” they
replied to Pharaoh, “are shepherds, the same as our fathers were.
4 We have come,” they said to Pharaoh, “to seek sojourn in this

country, for there is no pasture for your servants’ flocks in the

land of Canaan, so severe has been the famine. Pray, then, let
your servants stay in the region of Goshen.” 5a Pharaoh turned
to Joseph, saying,' 6b “They may stay in the region of Goshen.
And if you know any of them to be suitable, you may put them
in charge of my own livestock.”
/‘‘[Thus, when Jacob and his sons came to Joseph in Egypt,
and Pharaoh king of Egypt heard about it, Pharaoh said to
Joseph,]“ 5b “Your father and brothers have come to you;
6a the country of Egypt is at your disposal: settle your father
and brothers on the pick of the land.” 7 Then Joseph brought
his father Jacob and presented him to Pharaoh. Jacob paid re­
spects to Pharaoh. 8 Pharaoh then asked Jacob, “How many are
the years you have lived?” 9 Jacob said to Pharaoh, “The years I
have been granted6 add up to 130. Few and hard have been these
years of my life; nor do they compare with the life-spans that my
0 See Comment.
bLiterally “five,” cf. xliii 34.
0 From here through vs. 6, see LXX and Note.
*-<* Supplied from LXX.
8 Literally “of my sojoumings”; see Note.
xlvii 1-26 349
fathers were granted.” lOThen Jacob took his leave from
Pharaoh and left his presence. 11 And so Joseph settled his fa­
ther and brothers and gave them land holdings in Egypt, on the
pick of the land—the region of Rameses—as Pharaoh had com­
manded. 12 And Joseph sustained his father and brothers, and
his father’s entire household, with food, down to the youngest./
13 There was, however, no food in any country, for the famine
was very severe; and the lands of Egypt and Canaan languished
from hunger. 14 Joseph gathered in all the money that was to be
found in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, as pay­
ment for the rations that were being dispensed, and he put the
money in Pharaoh’s palace. 15 And when the money in the land
of Egypt and in the land of Canaan was spent, all Egypt came
to Joseph, pleading, “Give us bread, or we shall perish under
your eyes, for the money is gone.” 1« Joseph replied, “Give me
your livestock, and I will make distribution in return for your
livestock, since your money is gone.” i? So they brought their
livestock to Joseph, and he sold food to them in return for
horses, for their stocks of sheep and cattle, and for asses. Thus
he saw them through that year with bread in exchange for all
their livestock. 18 And when that year was ended, they came to
him the next year and said to him, “We cannot hide from my
lord that, with the money and the animal stocks made over to
my lord, there is nothing left at my lord’s disposal except our
persons and our farm-land. 19 Why should we perish before your
very eyes, both we and our land? Take us and our land in ex­
change for bread, and we shall become serfs to Pharaoh, with
our land; only give us seed, that we may survive and not perish,
and that the land not turn into a waste.”
20 So Joseph acquired for Pharaoh all the farm-land in Egypt;
for every Egyptian sold his field, since the famine was too much
for them; thus did the land pass over to Pharaoh. 21 As for the
people, Joseph7 'reduced them to serfs" from one end of Egypt’s
territory to the other. 22 Only the priests’ land he did not take
/MT “he.”
So Sam., LXX; MT “transferred to the cities” (change of D/R), see
Note.
350 GENESIS

over; for it was the priests’ allotment from Pharaoh, and they
lived off the allotment that Pharaoh had made them, which is
why their land was not sold.
23 Joseph told the people, “Now that I have acquired you and
your land for Pharaoh, here is seed for you to sow the land.
24 But when the harvest is in, you must give a fifth to Pharaoh,

keeping four-fifths as seed of/for the field, as food for yourselves

and members of your households, '“and to feed the children.*”
25 They answered, “You have saved our livesl We are thankful

to my lord that we can be serfs to Pharaoh.” 26 And Joseph

made it a land law in Egypt, which is still valid, that a fifth
should go to Pharaoh. Only the land of the priests did not pass
over to Pharaoh.
!^-h LXX omits.

Notes

xlvii 2. He had picked. Literally “he took from the edge/fringe” (Heb.
miqse) in a context made emphatic through inversion. This strongly sug­
gests something like “he took the outstanding ones” (cf. Ehrl.); Joseph
evidently selected those brothers who were most likely to make a good
impression. On “several” for “five,” cf. Note on xliii 34.
3. the same as our fathers were. Literally “both we and our fathers,”
which is standard Heb. but unacceptable in translation since only one an­
cestor was still alive.
4. to seek sojourn. That is, permission for temporary residence; not “to
sojourn” without modification, since the necessary permission should not
be taken for granted.
in this country. Literally “in the land.” Heb. 'eres appears in this
narrative in three related connotations: (1) “country” as a political
entity; (2) “land” in general (cf. vs. 1); and (3) “region,” as with
Goshen (passim) or Rameses (11), which are merely districts within a
country.
5f. The translation follows LXX both in the order of clauses and in
supplying a sentence which is now missing in MT. The fact that LXX is
self-explanatory indicates that the disturbance in MT is relatively late.
The authenticity of the Greek version should be clear from the context;
note especially the logical transition from 4b (Please, may we stay in
Goshen) to 6b (Yes, they may stay in Goshen). Above all, the sentence
xlvii 1-26 351
which LXX supplies will readily account for the difficulties in the re­
ceived text: the added part ends with “Pharaoh turned (spoke) to Joseph,
saying,” the identical clause that both MT and LXX read in 5a. Such
endings (a feature known as homoioteleuton) often cause copyists to
confuse the first occurrence with the second, and hence skip the inter­
vening part; for a parade example, cf. I Sam xiv 41, where LXX comes
again to the rescue in a context of unusual importance. The upshot in the
present instance has been the loss of a sentence and the consequent dislo­
cation of 5b-6a.
6a. at.your disposal. Literally “(open) to/before you”; cf. vs. 18.
7. paid respects. Cf. vs. 10.
8. How many are the years you have lived. The natural translation
would be simply “how old are you?” But the question has to contain “the
years,” since the answer goes on from this very word.
9. The years I have been granted. The literal “the years of my sojoum-
ings” would be misleading. Jacob cannot be alluding to his ancestors’ ac­
tual wanderings, inasmuch as Abraham’s total time outside Mesopotamia
was exactly 100 years, whereas the present verse goes on to say that
Jacob cannot match his forefathers in this respect; this point gains in
significance when P is found to be the author of all the relevant passages.
The alternative, therefore, is to interpret the noun megurJm in some other
sense. But “pilgrimage,” which has often been proposed, is unsatisfactory;
such an allusion to wandering through life has rightly been suspect as un­
duly sophisticated. But the attested range of the stem g-r includes “to live
on sufferance” (see especially xix 9), and this suits the present context
admirably: any time that man is allowed to stay on earth is but borrowed
time.
10. took his leave. For Heb. berek in the sense of either “to greet on
arrival” (vs. 7) or “to bid farewell,” cf. Note on xxviii 1.
11. region of Rameses. Used as a synonym for Goshen (which is J’s
term). It is, however, an anachronism, since the royal name became pop­
ular only under the Nineteenth Dynasty (not before the end of the thir­
teenth century).
2. down to the youngest. Literally “according to the little ones,” which
is obscure; perhaps, including the least significant members of the house­
hold, or the like; cf. vs. 24.
13. in any country. Literally “on all the earth,” but hardly “in all the
land (of Egypt).”
16. / will make distribution. Literally “I will give/sell,” without direct
object.
17. he saw them through. Literally “he guided them.”
The question may be raised at this point why it was necessary for the
Egyptians to exchange their livestock for bread when it would have been
352 GENESIS

simpler, and more provident, to kill off their animals gradually as a

means of feeding themselves. No plausible answer is immediately appar­
ent. A possible reason may be sought in the existing animal taboo; an­
other would be the exigencies of storytelling.
18. our persons. Literally “our bodies, carcasses,” perhaps in the sense
of “our bodily shells.”
our farm-land. Heb. ’adamd, as distinct from ’eres; the emphasis is on
arable land.
21. reduced them to serfs. Aside from the evidence of Sam. and LXX,
and the mechanical nature of the slight chance that is involved (h‘byd
. . . Vbdym for MT h'byr . . . I’rym, primarily D/R), the reading here
adopted is strongly favored by the context. The people had offered them­
selves for servitude, according to vs. 19. Nor would the transfer of the
entire rural population—the overwhelming majority of the people—be
practicable or serve any conceivable purpose.
24. and to feed the children. This is obviously related to the last phrase
in 12, which is obscure (see above). The omission of the present passage
in LXX hints at trouble of some sort, without betraying, however, its na­
ture and significance.

Comment

Joseph presents his father to Pharaoh, along with several of his

hand-picked brothers who have been specially briefed for the oc­
casion (xlvi 31-34). The audience comes off according to plan.
The brothers answer Pharaoh’s friendly question with all due defer­
ence, stressing their pastoral pursuits as instructed. Pharaoh invites
them to settle in Goshen. The end of the preceding chapter and
the beginning of the present section are thus clearly from the same
hand, in this case J. It will be remembered that E had Pharaoh is­
sue an invitation to Jacob while the latter was still in Canaan (xlv
17 ff.).
The meeting of Jacob and Pharaoh is also recorded by another
source. Some critics (cf. Noth, Vberlieferungsgeschichte . . . , p.
38) would attribute this parallel to E. The majority, however, ascribe
is to P with ample show of reason. The phraseology is distinctly
P’s; note especially the literal “the days of the years” (f.) and
the use of the term megurim (9). More important perhaps is the
nature of the context. The subject matter is not primarily statistical
as is so often the case with P. Neither is it, however, narrative in the
xlvii 1-26 353
sense that the story is materially advanced; what happens is that the
two men meet, at which time polite comments are exchanged in the
spirit of “Wisdom” literature. Such an unworldly approach, which
totally ignores the essence of the story, is precisely what one is ac­
customed to in P. When Pharaoh shows a courteous interest in his
visitor’s venerable age, Jacob counters with a modest disclaimer:
his stay on earth, on borrowed time, may appear to have been im­
pressive in length, but it has really been brief and insubstantial.
These are sentiments that are well known from many wisdom com­
positions of the ancient Near East.
The rest of the section (13-26) reverts to J. It dwells on the
increasingly acute effects of the prolonged famine, and thereby
highlights the importance of Joseph’s precautionary measures. More
than one modem writer has found in this report of the enslavement
of the Egyptian peasant shocking proof of Joseph’s inhumanity. But,
as has been stressed repeatedly by more objective students, such
censorious comments show little understanding of either history or
literature. The Egyptian concept of state, whereby the king was
viewed as a god, made the pharaoh an absolute ruler from the start,
and hence the owner of all he surveyed, at least in theory (cf.
Vergote, pp. 190 ff.). In practice, private ownership of land appears
to have been sanctioned in the Middle Kingdom. But the pharaohs
would seem to have reasserted their titular rights with the beginning
of the New Kingdom, following the expulsion of the Hyksos. The
need for a stronger government, which the Hyksos experience was
bound to accentuate, may have brought with it corresponding cur­
tailment of individual privileges.
To that extent, therefore, the agrarian changes that are here de­
scribed may reflect actual socio-economic developments. There is
no evidence that Egyptian society would have found such changes
to be anything other than constructive. That they should be credited
in this narrative to Joseph is part and parcel of his idealized his­
torical image. Pharaonic Egypt followed its own due course, regard­
less of ancient visitors or modem moralizers.
60. THE BLESSING OF EPHRAIM AND MANASSEH
(xlvii 27-xlviii 22: J, E, a /P/)

XLVII 27 Thus Israel settled in the land of Egypt, in the

region of Goshen. /They acquired holdings in it, were fertile,
and increased greatly. 28 Jacob lived in the land of Egypt 17
years; thus the span of Jacob’s life came to 147 years./
29 When the time approached for Israel to die, he called his

son Joseph and said to him, “If you really wish to please me,
put your hand under my thigh as a pledge of your steadfast loy­
alty to me: do not let me be buried in Egypt! 30 When I lie
down with my fathers, have me moved from Egypt and bury me
in their burial place.” He answered, “I will do as you have said.”
31 “Swear it to me,” he demanded; and he swore to him. Then

Israel bowed at the head of the bed.

XLVm 1 Some time later, Joseph was informed, “Your father
is failing.”
He took along with him his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim.
2 When Jacob was told, “Your son Joseph has come to you,”

he6 summoned his strength and sat up in bed.

/3 Jacob said to Joseph, “El Shaddai appeared to me at Luz,
in the land of Canaan, and blessed me 4 and said to me, ‘I will
make you fertile and numerous, and raise you into an assembly
of tribes; and I will give this land to your offspring to come as
an everlasting holding.’ 5 Now your two sons who were born to
you in the land of Egypt before I joined you in Egypt shall be
mine: Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, no less so than
Reuben or Simeon. 6 But progeny born to you after them shall
»On the parts from J and E, see Comment.
b MT “Israel"; see Note.
xlvii 27 - xlviii 22 355
remain yours; they shall succeed® their brothers in their inherit­
ance. 7 “I want this because," when I was returning from Pad-
dan, 'your mother6 Rachel died, to my sorrow, as we were travel­
ing in Canaan, only a short distance from Ephrath; and I buried
her there on the way to Ephrath—now Bethlehem.”/
8 Noticing Joseph’s sons, Israel asked, “Who are these?”
9 “They are my sons,” said Joseph to his father, “whom God has

granted me here.” He said, “Bring them to me that I may bless

them.” 10 —Now Israel’s eyes had faded from age; he could not
see. —So Joseph7 brought them close to him, and he kissed them
and embraced them, n Said Israel to Joseph, “I never expected
to see your face again, and here God has let me see your progeny
as well!”
12 Joseph removed them from Israel’s" knees, and bowed, face
to the ground. 13 Then Joseph took both of them, Ephraim with
his right hand, to Israel’s left, and Manasseh with his left hand,
to Israel’s right, and led them to him. 14 But Israel put out his
right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the
younger, and his left hand on the head of Manasseh, although
Manasseh was the first-bom—thus crossing his hands: 15 and he
blessed them/ saying,

“The God in whose ways walked my fathers, Abraham and

Isaac,
The God who has been my shepherd from my birth to this
day,
16 The Angel who has delivered me from all harm—bless the

boys,
That in them be recalled my name, and the names of Abra­
ham and Isaac, my fathers,
And that they may become teeming multitudes upon the
earth!”
0 Literally “shall be called by the names of.”
*-<*Heb. “I” in emphatic construction..
•~® Reading with Sam. and LXX. MT omits.
/Heb. “he.”
»Heb. “his.”
* So with LXX; MT “Joseph” (cons, ’t-ywsp for ’wtm).
356 GENESIS

17 When Joseph saw that his father had laid his right hand on
Ephraim’s head, he deemed it wrong; so he grasped his father’s
hand in order to move it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s.
is Said Joseph to his father, “Not so, Father, for the other one is
the first-born; lay your right hand on his head!” But his father
resisted, saying, “I know it, my son, I know. That one too shall
become a tribe, and he too shall be great. But his younger
brother shall surpass him, and his offspring shall suffice for na­
tions.” 20 And he blessed them then/ on that day, saying,
“Through you1 shall Israel bless itself/ thus:
May God cause you to be like Ephraim and Manasseh,”
putting Ephraim ahead of Manasseh.
2i Thereupon Israel said to Joseph, “I am about to die, but
God will be with you and restore you to the land of your fathers.
22 As for me, I give you,* as the one above your brothers,

Shechem, which I captured from the Amorites with my sword

and bow.”
4 Singular in Heb.
i Active form in Heb.
* Rest of the clause obscure; see Note.

Notes

xlvii 29. If you really wish to please me. Literally “Please, if I have
found favor in your eyes”; yet another variation on a versatile idiom.
put your hand under my thigh. For the same phrase, followed by an
oath, cf. xxiv 2 (/).
as a pledge of your steadfast loyalty. Here the substance of the oath is
expressed indirectly, literally “that you will act toward me with steadfast
loyalty,” followed by the heart of the matter (burial in Canaan). On the
hendiadys describing “steadfast loyalty /kindness,” see xxiv 27.
31. Joseph’s promise (30) was not enough. Israel demanded an explicit
oath.
Israel bowed at the head of the bed. So MT; but the text has given
trouble to interpreters all the way back to LXX. The difficulty appears
to be due to the verb; the literal “prostrated himself, bowed low” is hard
to visualize in the circumstances, hence LXX read the pertinent conss.
xlvii 27-xlviii 22 357
mth as matfe “staff,” and not mitta “bed,” an interpretation which is
echoed in Heb xi 21. But the picture of Jacob leaning here on his staff
is equally implausible. The trouble derives in all probability from taking
the Heb. stem too literally. The term “to bow low” need not signify here
anything more than a gesture of mute appreciation on the part of a
bedridden man on the point of death. The bow or nod would come
naturally from the head of the bed.
xlviii 1-2. The passage would be abrupt and redundant if the author
were still J. But the transition to “Jacob” suggests immediately that we
have here a duplicate account by E, who had similar material before
him (note “bed” in vs. 2). The ultimate joining of the two statements
left its mark in the use of “Israel" and “Jacob” in the same verse.
4. and raise you into an assembly of tribes. For virtually the same
statement, cf. xxviii 3 (also from P).
5b. In consequence of their adoption by Jacob, Joseph’s two sons
acquire the status of Jacob’s sons, on a par with that of Reuben and
Simeon (Jacob’s oldest).
6. Concurrently, Joseph’s younger sons will move up, in terms of
inheritance, to the senior spots left vacant by their older brothers; see
above, textual note °.
7. to my sorrow. For this “adversative” sense of Heb. ‘alay, cf xxxiii
13.
8ff. Direct sequel to vs. 2 (£); but the combination of Elohim and
the repeated Israel indicates that this passage now represents a fusion of
both narrative sources.
10. had faded. Literally “had grown heavy”; for the use of the same
stem (kbd) with one of the other parts of the face (=mouth), cf. Exod
iv 10 (impaired speech).
11. / never expected. Heb. pll has the basic sense of “to estimate”;
cf. p'tilim, which in Exod xxi 23 means “assessment” (by the husband
of the age of the embryo), and in Deut xxxii 31 “(even in) the esti­
mation (of our enemies).”
12. The act of placing a child on the father’s knees signifies acceptance
of the child as legitimate; the same act also serves to formalize adoption.
14. crossing his hands. The verbal form appears to denote “plaiting,”
if the generally cited Ar. cognate is pertinent. In any case, the context
speaks for itself.
15. he blessed them. Heb. “he blessed Joseph” is obviously in disorder.
Either the ywsp of the text is a mechanical slip for ’wtm “them” (with
LXX), or the word “sons of’ dropped out in Heb.
in whose ways walked. Cf. xvii 1.
19 .a tribe. Clearly not “a people” in this instance; see Note on xxviii
3.
358 GENESIS

shall suffice for Tuitions. Literally “shall become a quantity of (=suffi­

cient for) nations,” i.e., sufficient in numbers to constitute nations
(Ehrl.).
20. Through you. In place of the singular pronoun LXX and TP read
plural, referring to both boys; but MT is acceptable in the sense of
“each of you.”
shall Israel bless itself. Pointing the conss. ybrk of MT as passive
(Pual), with LXX, Syr. The trad, vocalization is due to the interpretation
of Israel as a person (hence active singular) rather than a people.
22. A laconic and obscure allusion. Part of the difficulty arises from
the fact that Heb. Seihem may stand either for the city of Shechem or
the common noun “shoulder.” In the latter case, we would have here
a reference to a mountain side or slope, specifically Mount Gerizim, which
dominates Shechem. The common noun, however, should be feminine,
whereas the numeral that follows in the present text is masculine; the
Sam. version makes it feminine (’ht), understandably enough, as a
welcome allusion to Mount Gerizim. The translation here adopted con­
strues the numeral (actually adjective) ’hd with Joseph, who is thus
described as “the one who is above/unique among” his brothers. To
be sure, we have no independent notice of a conquest of Shechem by
Joseph; nor does xxxiv state that the brothers who massacred the in­
habitants actually retained the city itself. But the alternative interpretation
runs up against the same difficulty, inasmuch as “mountain slope” would
likewise presuppose possession of Shechem. For the present, at any rate,
no plausible solution is in sight.

Comment

Joseph’s eventful career is now drawing to a close. At such major

junctures, the main concern is for the proper link with the next gen­
eration, to maintain the continuity of patriarchal traditions. Signifi­
cantly enough, there appears to be a need to emphasize this
continuity in both directions, the past as well as the future—in retro­
spect as much as in prospect. We have seen that the shift in em­
phasis from Jacob’s generation to the next was marked both by
the birth of Benjamin (xxxv 16ff.: /) and the death of Isaac
(xxxv 28 f.: P). This time, Jacob is on his deathbed, and so he
makes far-reaching provisions for two of Joseph’s sons. The theme
is of sufficient consequence to have found its way into all three
sources.
The portions from P (xlvii 27b-28, xlviii 3-7) are, as usual, easy
xlvii 27 —xlviii 22 359
enough to identify: note the characteristic remarks about fertility and
increase (xlvii 27b, xlviii 4), El Shaddai (xlviii 3), “assembly of
tribes” (xlviii 4) and the geographic term Paddan (xlviii 7)—short
for the familiar Paddan-aram. Indeed, the whole of xlviii 4 is but a
restatement of xxxv Ilf. (likewise P). What is new now is the adop­
tion of Ephraim and Manasseh as Jacob’s own sons. The genealogi­
cal reason for this extraordinary fact might be traced to the circum­
stance that the boys’ mother was an Egyptian. Another reason, of
course, is aetiological, in that Ephraim and Manasseh became
eponyms of tribes and thus the equals of Jacob’s natural sons. Verse
7 would seem to be irrelevant at first glance. On closer probing, how­
ever, its pertinence is easily vindicated. Death had robbed Jacob of
his beloved Rachel (cf. the Akk. personal name Islul-ilum “god has
taken away,” to designate a replacement). Hence Jacob feels justified
in substituting two of Rachel’s grandsons for such other sons as fate
may have prevented her from bearing.
As for the remainder of the section, however, the source analysis is
a task of a different order. / is plainly the author of xlvii 29-31. This
is shown not only by the use of the name Israel (29, 31), but also by
the “hand under thigh” form of oath, which is known elsewhere from
only one passage (xxiv 2) in a celebrated account by /. The burden
of this statement, made especially solemn by its deathbed setting (cf.
xxvii), is that Jacob is to be buried in Canaan and not in Egypt’s
alien soil.
In xlviii 1-2, on the other hand, E’s hand is unmistakable. The
name of the patriarch is now given as Jacob (see Note loc.
cit.). The fragment, moreover, parallels the antecedent notice about
Israel’s impending death.
Verses 8ff. constitute an obvious sequel to vs. 3, as is immedi­
ately apparent when the two passages are read consecutively. Joseph
takes his two sons to be blessed by their grandfather, who raises
himself to a sitting position (2), whereupon he notices the boys
(8). The author, therefore, is once more E, so that the repeated
mention of Elohim (9, 11, 15 bis) comes as no surprise. Yet the
patriarch is now called Israel (lOff.) instead of Jacob; and the
blessing in vs. 20 would seem to be repetitive. It appears probable,
therefore, that E and J are now so fused that they can no longer be
pried apart.
A deathbed blessing is irrevocable, as we know from xxvii 33.
Joseph tries to make sure that the hands of his unseeing father would
360 GENESIS

not be misdirected. But Jacob crosses his hands, thus reversing the
order of seniority, as though guided by an inner light. Thus the
story anticipates history: Manasseh, originally the more prominent
of the two tribes in question (cf. the order in Num xxvi 28, 34—35),
was eventually outstripped by Ephraim, the ultimate leader of the
Israelite group. For the enigmatic last verse, see the Note ad loc.
 61. THE TESTAMENT OF JACOB
(xlix 1-27: X)

XLEX 1 Jacob called his sons and said, “Gather round that
I may tell you what is in store for you in days to come:
2 Assemble and listen, O sons of Jacob,
Listen to Israel your father.
3You Reuben, my first-bom,
My strength and first fruit of my vigor,
Exceeding in rank and exceeding in honor!
4 Unruly like water, you shall excel no more;

For you climbed into your father’s bed,

Thus defiling my couch “to my sorrow.®
5 Simeon and Levi are a pair;
Their wares” are the tools of lawlessness.
6 My person must not enter their council,

Or my being be joined with their company!

For they killed men in their fury,
And maimed oxen at their whim.
7 Cursed be their fury so fierce,

And their wrath so relentless!

I will disperse them in Jacob,
Scatter them throughout Israel.
8 Your brothers shall praise you, O Judah,
Your hand ever on the nape of the enemy—
The sons of your father shall bow to you.
°~a Assuming conss. 'ty, in the sense of xlviii 7; MT ‘lh “he climbed”; LXX,
TO “you climbed."
b MT obscure; see Note.
362 GENESIS

9 A lion’s whelp is Judah;

You have battened on prey, my son.
He crouches like a lion recumbent,
A lion’s breed—who would dare rouse him?
10 The scepter shall not move from Judah,
Or the mace from between his feet,
'To the end that tribute be brought him,0
And to him go the peoples’ homage,
n He tethers his ass to a vine,
His purebred to the choicest stem;
In wine he washes his garments,
His robes in the blood of grapes.
12 His eyes are darker than wine,
And his teeth are whiter than milk.

13 Zebulun shall dwell by the seashore,

Which shall be a haven for ships;
And his flank shall be based on Sidon.

14 Issachar is a rawboned ass,

Crouched amidst saddlebags.
15 When he saw how good was the homestead,
And how very pleasant the country,
He bent his shoulder to burdens
And became a willing serf.

16 Dan shall govern'1 his kindred

Like other tribes in Israel.
1 May Dan be a serpent by the roadside,
7

A homed snake by the path,

That bites the horse’s heel,
So that backward is tossed the rider.

is I long for your deliverance, O Yahwehl

Obscure; see Note.
<* Heb. ydyn, play on Dan.
xlix 1-27 363
19 Gad shall be raided' by raiders,
And he shall raid at their 'heels.
20 Rich shall be the yield" of Asher,
And he shall furnish dainties for kings.

21 Naphtali is a hind let loose

That brings forth lovely fawns.

22 Joseph is a wild colt,*

A wild colt by a spring,
Wild asses on a hillside.
23 Archers in their hostility

Harried and attacked* him.

24 Yet each one’s bow stayed rigid/

And their arms were unsteady,

By dint of the Champion of Jacob,
"The Shepherd, Rock of Israel,
2 5 The God of your father who aids you,

Shaddai who grants you his blessings—

Blessings of heaven above,
Of the deep that couches below,
Blessings of breast and womb,
26 ‘Blessings of grain stalk and blossom,

Blessings of mountains eternal,1

The delights of hills everlasting.
May they rest upon the head of Joseph,
The crown of one set apart from his brothers I
*Heb. ygwdnw, along with gdwd and ygd, all plays on Gad.
/So LXX, Syr., Vulg., reading 'qbm for MT ‘qb, where the final m has been
erroneously moved to the next line.
* Literally “bread, food.”
* Relating the whole verse to fauna and not, with tradition, to flora.
1 MT obscure.

'Trad, “strong,” with reference to Joseph; LXX has “strong/with strength,”

metd. krdtous.
* Preceded in Heb. by miSSSm “from there,” misread for mSSfm “on account
of,” for which see TO, Syr. Omitted in the translation as redundant.
*-* See Deut xxxiii 13 ff., and cf. Note ad loc. for details.
364 GENESIS

27 Benjamin is a wolf on the prowl:

Mornings he devours the prey,
And evenings he distributes the spoils.”

Notes

xlix 1. Superscription, whereby the poem is attributed to Jacob. The

name of the patriarch betrays a hand other than /’s; but the heading does
not necessarily stem from the compiler of the poetic sayings.
in days to come. Not “in the end of days,” with tradition, but in the
days to follow; cf. the analogous Akk. ina arkat umi “in the future.
3. You Reuben, my first-born. The pronoun is appositional (you
Reuben), not predicative (Reuben, you are); cf. vs. 8. The first three
lines constitute the address. Such a statement as “you are my first-born”
would be banal in this context.
exceeding in. Heb. yeter (twice), used as a construct adjective; cf.
the cognate Akk. (w)atar, notably in the familiar Atar-basis “exceeding
wise.”
4. you shall excel no more. The verb (totqr) is correctly pointed as
Hiphil. The suggested repointing to a Niphal (intransitive/passive) fol­
lowing LXX, to yield “you shall remain, survive,” would destroy the
subtle literary effect (you were, but shall no longer be yeter), aside from
contradicting the historical data (Reuben did survive, after all). This
is yet another example of the “elative” Hiphil; cf. JCS 6 (1952), 81 ff.,
and see Note on iii 6.
Thus defiling my couch to my sorrow. MT literally “then you defiled;
my couch he climbed.” But the first verb requires an object; what is
more, in the corresponding passage I Chron v 1, we actually find “he
[Reuben] defiled his father’s couch.” The source of the difficulty lies
in the last word, Heb. cons. ‘lh, which in this form had to be interpreted
as “he went up.” Yet TO and LXX give here the second person, which
helps very little, except to indicate that the problem is of long standing.
The very slight change of ‘lh to 'ly (h and y are not unlike in the old
script) yields an adverbial phrase, which we know from xxxiii 13 and
xlviii 7, instead of a discordant and disruptive verb. To be sure, this is an
emendation (accepted by SB); but the received text is unmanageable,
contrary to usage, and acknowledged as a stumbling block by the oldest
versions. That at least some portions of this old poem are demonstrably
corrupt is shown most clearly by vs. 26.
For the offense that is alluded to here, see xxxv 22.
5. a pair. Literally “brothers,” two of a kind.
xlix 1-27 365
wares. Heb. mkrtyhm, an old and stubborn puzzle. The form lends
itself to a variety of derivations, none of which has proved convincing.
Traditional “weapons” involves the anachronism of a Greek etymology.
The ancient versions reflect little more than guesswork. Syr. and many
moderns adduce the consonantally identical noun in Ezek xvi 3 and xxi
35, meaning “origins”; others operate with “schemes, plots, ruses,” on
flimsy linguistic grounds. The translation offered above hazards the
possible, but unsubstantiated, derivation from mkr “to sell, trade”; it is
intended as a neutral rendering and nothing else.
lawlessness. See xvi 5.
6. For the verb b- used of participation in a council, cf. xxiii 10.
being. Tradition “glory,” which is a frequent mistranslation of Heb.
kabod. Even when applied to the Deity, this noun usually has the mean­
ing of “essence, being, presence”; and with mortals, “glory” is altogether
out of place. LXX reads kabed “liver, mood,” which has been adopted
by many moderns; but this is not a logical parallel to “self, soul.”
For the pertinent incident and its setting, cf. Comment on xxxiv.
be joined with. Cf. Isa xiv 20; a suitable parallel to “enter” in the
preceding phrase. Although the form appears to have caused trouble in
more than one ancient version, the only problem is a grammatical one;
the pronominal prefix is feminine, whereas kabod is always (and kabed
usually) masculine; in fact, Sam. has here the masculine prefix. But the
preceding parallel verb is feminine, which may have caused the error
by attraction.
at their whim. Literally “at their pleasure, will,” with the nuance of
“willfulness.”
8. shall praise . . . Judah. The verbal form (yodu-ki) is in assonance
with Judah; cf. xxix 35.
9. You have battened. Literally “you have risen, gone up” in the
metaphorical rather than physical sense.
a lion's breed. Generally translated “a lioness”; for the latter, however,
we would expect the feminine form of the noun, for which cf. Ezek
xix 2. The several biblical synonyms for “lion” designate various breeds
(e.g., the Asiatic as opposed to the African) or stages of growth. It so
happens that no direct synonym is available in English.
10. mace. Etymologically, something pertaining to a legislator or one
in authority; and from the context, an analogue of the scepter. When
the dignitary was seated, the staff would rest between his feet.
To the end that tribute be brought him. Although this is one of the
most widely discussed passages in the Bible, the clause continues to defy
solution. Traditionally, the conss. are broken up into ‘d ky yb‘ iylh. The
main stumbling block is the last group (variant Sylw), which elsewhere
stands for the sanctuary of Shiloh. On this basis, the phrase might be
366 GENESIS

rendered either “until he [Judah] comes to Shiloh,” or “until Shiloh

comes.” But the first runs into various difficulties, chronological as well as
substantive, among them the decisive fact that Shiloh was an Ephraimite
and not a Judaean shrine. The latter rendering involves faulty grammar,
in that the verb should be feminine and not masculine; nor would the
Heb. be idiomatic in such a case, and even if it were, the statement would
remain incomprehensible. In these circumstances, it is methodologically
precarious to construe the phrase, with rabbinical and later interpreters,
as a Messianic allusion to David, who never had much to do with Shiloh.
There is even less of an excuse to import for the same purpose the rare
Akk. noun selu “counselor,” when Hebrew (and Akkadian) had various
direct terms for “ruler.” Now is the situation improved if sylh/w is
emended to mslh/w “his ruler”; what would be the antecedent of his ?
Where the procedure is so forced, it tends to condemn itself. In a poem
that is manifestly pre-Davidic on every apparent count, one does not
strain for veiled references to David.
The older versions, notably LXX, TO, and manuscripts of Sam., appear
to have read sellö “what is his, due him,” with the general sense of until
he comes into his own.” Perhaps more to the point is an old Midrashic in­
terpretation, followed by some of the medieval Jewish authorities, which
operates with say 16 “tribute to him,” in agreement with the cons, text
(cf. Ps xxvi 12, following Rashi); for the phrase and context cf. Isa xviii
7, where even the accompanying verb is analogous in meaning (‘ shall be
brought”), and close enough in its written form (ywbl : yb’). The sequel
would then be in perfect poetic parallelism (tribute is brought him: hom­
age is his). The whole, then, would affirm that Judah is assured of a posi­
tion of leadership. The above translation reflects this particular reading,
without undue confidence, as the one that is least objectionable.
There is another possibility, however, which called for bolder remedies
but is more plausible on the whole. The parallel Song of Moses, Deut
xxxiii, contains in its concluding verse the phrase “your enemies shall
come fawning to you” (29), the verb in that case being ykh$w. If the
same form was present here originally, the clause may have read *‘dyw
ykhsw Ih/w “his foes shall come fawning to him,” with a perfect sequel
in “and the peoples’ homage shall be his.” The required change would be
no more drastic than the well-supported alterations in vs. 26. At a mini­
mum, the conjecture is worth noting in passing.
11. purebred. Literally “the young of (his) she-ass,” for which see
Zech ix 9, and cf. W. F. Albright, ANET, p. 482, n. 6. The identical
phrase is now known from Mari, in the form of mär atänim; for the
meaning “choice, purebred ass,” as against the literal “ass foal,” see Noth,
Gesammelte Studien, 1957, pp. 144 f., n. 8.
12. dark(er). Heb. hak tili, cognate of Akk. ekelu “to be dark.”
xlix 1-27 367
13 .a haven for ships. Heb. uses the term hop twice, the first time with
seas and the second time with ships; there is, however, the possibility of
textual corruption in the latter instance.
14. saddlebags. Against trad, “sheepfolds,” cf. A. Saarisalo, The Bound­
ary between Issachar and Naphtali, 1927, p. 92.
It is apparent that this pronouncement is caustic rather than compli­
mentary.
15. homestead. Literally “place of repose, stability.”
16. Like other tribes. Literally and trad, “one of,” in the sense of “any
other” (Ehrl.).
17. is tossed. Literally “falls”; cf. Note on xiv 10.
18. In all likelihood a marginal gloss or a misplaced general invocation;
alternatively, the cry of a tumbling rider (Ehrl.).
19f. On the erroneous verse division, see textual note 1. All the other
names, with the exception of Joseph, head their respective passages, and
even the latter is without preposition.
21. The meaning of this distich depends entirely on the pointing of
two words, cons, 'ylh and ’mry. The trad, reading of the first yields
“hind”; but different pointing ([’eld) would yield “terebinth,” and this is
what both LXX and TO appear to paraphrase; the accompanying
article happens to be applicable to either form (a hind let loose; a
branching tree). But the ambiguity is increased rather than resolved by
the second word; for, depending on the vocalization, ’mry may be
“crowns, crests, tops” (’amire), “words” (’imre), or “fawns” (7m-
“lambs” in Aramaic and Akkadian). Many of those who accept
the received text and render “hind,” still translate “words” in the next
phrase; but the picture of an articulate animal, or an eloquent Naphtali
(note the masculine form of the pertinent participle), gives rise to serious
misgivings. It so happens, however, that the received 'imre is a permis­
sible reduced form of ’immare' > immere, so that even the pointed text
does not oblige us to separate the hinds from their young.
22. This verse, which introduces the long pronouncement about Joseph,
leads to more problems than any other passage in the poem; but it also
affords better prospects of a solution than, for example the “Shiloh”
phrase in vs. 10.
a wild colt. The trad, “a fruitful bough” is vulnerable on various
counts. Heb. prt could conceivably be connected with the stem for “to be
fruitful” and “fruit,” but that would still be a long way from an
unspecified fruitful tree. Besides, the other such metaphors in this poem
are taken from the animal world, not the flora: lion’s whelp (9) raw-
boned ass (14), serpent (17), and wolf (27), not to dwell on the
ambiguous allusion in vs. 21 which was discussed in the preceding
Note. More important still, the present saying about Joseph is closely
paralleled in Deut xxxiii, where the counterparts are an ox and a wild ox
368 GENESIS

(vs. 17). Lastly, in the present passage, the next new term features ani­
mals once again, as we shall presently see, in apposition to prt. On this
combined evidence, the phrase bn prt, in which ben designates a mem­
ber of the given class, cannot but point to the animal world. Nor is the
etymological basis far to seek; it is provided by the established term
pere' “wild ass, equid,” which is found in the poetical books and has
already been met with in xvi 12; our prt (whatever the correct vocaliza­
tion) would thus be the feminine form of pr’. The following phrase,
then, depicts the same animal by a spring—recalling a common theme
in Tablet I of the Gilgamesh Epic—and not a fruit tree, which would
have to be transformed into a vine according to the prevailing interpreta­
tion.
wild asses. MT cons, bnwt s‘dh, whose first element, literally “daugh­
ters,” is forced to serve as “shoots, branches,” and the accompanying
verbal stem is made to mean “to climb, run over.” Yet Arabic diction­
aries carry the term banat sa'dat (the exact phonologic counterpart of
the Heb. phrase before us) with the undisputed meaning of “wild
ass(es),” as noted by Ehrl. The complete correspondence with our
Heb. term cannot possibly be ascribed to mere coincidence. On this
basis, Ehrl. viewed the preceding prt as a corruption of the common
Heb. noun para “cow.” There is no reason, however, to change species
in the middle of a metaphor. Wild asses are logical literary companions
of wild colts (of ass, horse, or onager); and the otherwise troublesome
$'dh turns out to be an integral component of the term.
hillside. Heb. sur is a poetic term for “wall, terrace,” cf. II Sam xxii
30; Ps xviii 30. The picture, then, is that of spirited young animals
poised on some nearby elevation.
23. in their hostility. This represents the last of the three Heb. verbs
in this clause; literally “and they opposed him.”
and attacked him. MT cons, wrbw, which is generally derived from a
questionable stem rbb “to shoot.” Sam. and LXX read wyrbhw (from
rib) “and they contended with him,” which the translation above re­
flects.
24. Here begins a long sentence which carries through 26a. In this
regard, the present passage is paralleled by the pronouncement about
Joseph in the Song of Moses, Deut xxxiii 13-16a. Both sayings, more­
over, end with the identical distich (26b : 16b). The parallels are very
helpful, precisely because they diverge in certain details.
Yet each one’s bow stayed rigid. Traditional “But his bow abode in
strength.” The principal question is whose bow was involved. Heb. has
the pronoun suffix “his,” which is why tradition has made Joseph the
subject. But we have just learned that the shooting came from the
opposition; and singular forms can often be used collectively or dis­
xlix 1-27 369
tributively. LXX, moreover, read wtsbr (for Heb. wtib) “it was broken,”
thus assigning the weapon to the hostile archers (and following up with
“their bows”). The second Heb. word (b’ytn) normally describes some­
thing permanent. But if the text is right, and the bows belong to the
enemy, the emphasis in this instance has to be on “rigid, inflexible.” (For
an illuminating parallel of a bow that failed, cf. the Akkadian myth of
“Zu,” ANET, p. 515, lines 16 ff.; and the military inventories from Nuzi
often list bows that lost their resilience.)
their arms were unsteady. The pronominal suffix is again singular
in Heb., and is to be interpreted the same way as with the bow. The
predicate (Heb. wypzw) has an Ar. cognate (/zz) meaning “to tremble,
shake.”
By dint of. Literally “by the hands of’; the favorable result of the
contest is traced to the intervention of Joseph’s protector, the Champion
(literally the “mighty one”) of Jacob.
In the translation, “by dint of” carries over to the next phrase. MT
gives msm, vocalized missam “from there,” which is neither a co­
ordinate of mlde “by the hands of” nor appropriate to the context. TO,
however, reads missem, “by the name,” which can be a divine epithet
(“Name,” cf. SB), or can have the force of “because” (cf. Aram.
missum, Akk. assum).
Rock. Literally “stone”; if correctly transmitted, the epithet is an
unusual one; cf. M. Dahood, Biblica 40 (1959), 1002 ff.
25. who grants you his blessings. The corresponding Heb. form
governs the detailed list of blessings as given in 25b-26a.
26a. MT reads “the blessings of your father have been mightier than
the blessings of my progenitors, unto the desire of theeverlasting hills.”
This reading is hopeless on more counts than one: (1) the poetic meter
is suddenly abandoned; (2) the prosaic content is even more disturbing;
(3) emphasis shifts abruptly from boons to beneficiaries; (4) the term
for “progenitors” (literally “conceivers”) is without parallel in biblical
Heb., the only form otherwise known being in the feminine singular
(Hos ii 7; Song of Sol iii 4), and having the natural sense of “mother”;
(5) the attested term for “parents” is ’abdt; (6) the connection with the
next clause is disrupted; (7) above all, the parallel text in Deut xxxiii
15 gives hrry qdm “the ancient hills,” which is paralleled in turn by
hrry ‘d (same meaning) Hab iii 6, the obvious prototype of the present
h(w)ry 'd. The only difference is the graphically slight change of r/w
(in the “square” script); but the misreading was sufficient to throw the
rest of the verse completely out of balance.
It remains only to restore the beginning of the verse (26). With the
“parents” (hwry) of the second hemistich gone in favor of “hills,” the
370 GENESIS

text’s “your father” is now all the more out of place. The received cons,
text is as follows:
brkt ’abyk gbrw 7—for which read (with SB)
brkt 'abyb wgb'l
“blessings of grain-stalk and blossom.” The whole sequence becomes at
once natural and cohesive—and an analogue to Deut xxxiii 13 ff. There
can be little doubt that this, or something very close to it, was the original
wording of the passage.
one set apart from. In Heb., the same term that is used to designate the
“nazirite,” one who is distinguished from his fellows and consecrated to a
specific task.
27. on the prowl. Literally “who tears (the prey)
prey. Heb. ‘ad, a rare noun, the meaning of which is not definitely es­
tablished; another possibility is “foe.”

Comment

The traditional designation of this poem as the “Blessing of Jacob”

is a misnomer, since the pronouncements are not always favorable.
Indeed, the first three sons are sternly reproved, and the very word
“cursed” is employed in vs. 7. The misleading label is based no
doubt on vs. 28, where the stem brk, normally “to bless,” is used;
but that passage is manifestly from a different source. To be sure, the
analogous composition which constitutes Deut xxxiii is described as
the Blessing of Moses in its superscription; but the tone of that poem
is uniformly benign. There are thus good reasons for renaming the
poem before us as the Testament of Jacob.
Aside from its poetic form, the Testament is notable also for its
approach to the subject matter. Elsewhere in Genesis, the descend­
ants of Jacob are treated as individuals; here they are considered
as tribes, as is explicitly stated in the colophon (28a, see next sec­
tion). This puts us immediately on guard as to the authorship of
the piece. We miss here the typical indications of the three familiar
sources. The occurrence of the name Yahweh in vs. 18 cannot be
viewed as a valid criterion, inasmuch as this term is part of a brief
ejaculation (three words in the original) that has little, if anything,
to do with the body of the poem, and could well be a displaced or
marginal gloss. In vs. 2, the names Jacob and Israel occur side by
side, yet it is obvious that the distich is not the joint effort of E
and /. The superscription cites Jacob, but this is not part of the
xlix 1-27 371

poem, and there is no way of deciding when it was added, or by

whom. Most important of all, the body of the poem proves to be
much earlier, on internal evidence, than even J, the oldest of the
tangible sources. At best, J may have collected the tribal sketches
before us and incorporated them at this point as a pertinent poetic
retrospect and prospect
The Testament of Jacob invites comparison with two other poems
in which the Israelite tribes pass in review, i.e., Deut xxxiii and
Judg v. The latter, the celebrated Song of Deborah, deals with one
specific occasion—the critical war against a Canaanite coalition—in
the early period of Judges, and cannot therefore be properly aligned
with the present composition. The Blessing of Moses (Deut xxxiii),
on the other hand, is a much closer analogue, as was indicated
above. The pronouncements that are attributed to both Jacob and
Moses cover an indeterminate period of time. Both are general in
their characterization, and each abounds in poetic imagery and ob­
scure allusions. And since each tribe is a subject unto itself, the
reader is obliged to make his way without the guiding thread of a
connected context.
The Blessing of Moses is the later of the two collections not only
because of the titular author but also on internal grounds. Simeon
had apparently ceased to exist as an independent tribe, while Levi
is praised for his piety; the only significant feature that is common
to both poems is their great respect for Joseph, which is expressed
in similar terms. The Testament, for its part, still knows Simeon
and Levi as impetuous and worldly; and the memory of Reuben’s
moral offense is fresh in the poet’s mind. All of which points to an
early stage in the Israelite settlement in Canaan, with some of the
allusions resting perhaps on still earlier traditions. In no instance is
there the slightest indication of a setting later than the end of the
second millennium. Small wonder that the text is now uncertain at
a number of points. Where the Blessing parallels the Testament,
notably in the case of Joseph, the younger composition helps to cor­
rect obvious errors in the older poem, which was exposed to greater
attrition in the long process of transmission.
For the most part, however, the interpretation of this poem is be­
set with extraordinary difficulties, as is to be expected from a work
of such scope, complexity, and antiquity, and replete with unfamil­
iar expressions and allusions. It is indeed doubtful whether some of
the problems here encountered can ever be resolved with any de­
372 GENESIS

gree of confidence. On several points there is considerable disagree­

ment among the oldest versions, and this lack of a firm tradition
complicates still further the task of modem scholarship. At times,
the attempted solutions are diametrically opposed to one another.
Verses 21 and 22, for example, contain metaphors from the plant
world according to some translators, and from the animal world ac­
cording to others, even though each school operates with the same
consonantal text.
In these circumstances, a comprehensive commentary on this
poem would require a book in itself. Indeed, a summary of views
about the four words in the “Shiloh” passage (10) would fill a
good-sized monograph. Since such exhaustive detail would be nei­
ther suitable nor feasible within the present framework, the com­
ment and notes have been held down to bare essentials. Having been
warned about the problems and pitfalls of this particular section,
and the tentative nature of some of the conclusions that are here
embodied, the reader may be referred to more detailed works and
special discussions. Among the recent articles on the subject are
B. Vawter’s “The Canaanite Background of Gen. 49,” CBQ 17
(1955), 1-18, and J. Coppens’ “La bénédiction de Jacob,” VT 6
(1956), 97-115.
 62. DEATH OF JACOB AND JOSEPH
(xlix 28-1 26: P, /3/, |E|)

XLIX 28 All these were tribes of Israel, twelve in number, and

this is what their father said about them as he bade them fare­
well, addressing to each an appropriate parting message.
29 Then he gave them instructions as he said to them, “I am
about to be gathered to my kin. Bury me with my fathers in the
cave which is in the field of Ephron the Hittite, 30 in the cave
that lies in the field of Machpelah, facing on Mamre, in the land
of Canaan—the field that Abraham bought from Ephron the
Hittite for a burial site. 31 There Abraham and his wife Sarah
were buried, and so were Isaac and his wife Rebekah; there, too, I
buried Leah— 32 the cave and the field in it having been bought
from the children of Heth.”
33 When Jacob finished his instructions to his sons, he drew

his feet into the bed, breathed his last, and was gathered to his
kin.

L /!Joseph flung himself on his father’s face and wept upon

him as he kissed him. 2 Then Joseph ordered the physicians in
his service to embalm his father, and the physicians embalmed
Israel. 3 It required forty days, for such is the full period of em­
balming; and the Egyptians bewailed him seventy days. 4 When
that wailing period was over, Joseph addressed Pharaoh’s court
as follows, “Do me this kindness and convey to Pharaoh this ap­
peal : 5 My father put me under oath, saying, ‘When I die, be
sure to bury me in the grave that I made ready for myself in the
land of Canaan!’ May I, therefore, go up now, bury my father,
and come back?” 6 Pharaoh replied, “Go and bury your father,
as he made you promise on oath.”
7 So Joseph left to bury his father; and with him went up all
374 GENESIS

of Pharaoh’s officials who were senior members of his court, and

all of Egypt’s dignitaries, 8 together with Joseph’s household,
his brothers, and his father’s family; only their children, their
flocks, and their herds were left in the region of Goshen. 9 Char­
iots, too, and horsemen went up with him; it was a very large
train.
10 When they arrived at Goren-ha-Atad,® which is beyond the
Jordan, they held there a very great and solemn memorial ob­
servance; and Joseph6 observed a seven-day period of mourning
for his father. 11 When the Canaanites who inhabited the land
saw the mourning at Goren-ha-Atad, they remarked, “This is a
solemn mourning by the Egyptians.” This is why "the place” was
named Abel-mizraimd—which is beyond the Jordan./
12 Thus Jacob’s6 sons did for him as he had instructed them.
13 His sons bore him to the land of Canaan and buried him in

the cave in the field of Machpelah, facing on Mamre, the field

that Abraham had bought from Ephron the Hittite for a burial
site.
/14 After burying his father, Joseph returned to Egypt, to­
gether with his brothers and all who had gone up with him to
bury his father./
115 When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead,
they said, “Suppose Joseph is resentful toward us and tries to
pay us back for all the wrong we did him!” i6So they sent Jo­
seph a message, as follows, “Before his death, your father left
these instructions: 17 You shall say to Joseph, ‘Forgive, I urge
you, the crime and faults of your brothers who treated you so
harshly.’ So please, forgive the crime of the servants of your
father’s God!” Joseph broke into tears at this word from them.
i8 Then the brothers went to him themselves, flung them­
selves before him, and said, “Let us be your slaves!” 19 But Jo­
seph replied to them, “Have no fear. How could I act for God?”
«A place name, literally “threshing place of brambles.”
» Heb. “he.”
»-'Literally “it.”
«•Wordplay on “mourning”; see Note.
« Literally “his.”
xlix 28 -1 26 375
20 Besides, although you meant me harm, God meant it to good
purpose, so as to attain the present end—the survival of many
people. 21 So have no fear now. I will provide for you and your
children.” Thus he reassured them by speaking to them with
affection.
22 Joseph stayed on in Egypt together with his father’s family.
Joseph lived 110 years; 23 he lived to see the third generation of
Ephraim’s line, and the children of Machir son of Manasseh
were also bom on Joseph’s knees.
24 At length, Joseph said to his brothers, “I am about to die.
God will surely take notice of you and take you up from this
land to the land that he promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob.” 25 Then Joseph put the sons of Israel under oath,
saying, “When God has taken notice of you, be sure to take up
my bones from here.”
26 Joseph died at the age of 110 years. He was embalmed 'and
laid to rest' in a coffin in Egypt. |
t-t Heb. impersonal; Sam. passive.

Notes

xlix 28. This verse could be placed just as readily at the end of the pre­
ceding section. The first half is a colophon, to go with the superscription
in vs. 1, and it may be due to the compiler of the poem. The rest of the
verse, at any rate, appears to stem from P, who is dearly the author of
vss. 29-33.
about them. So rather than “to them,” since the various sayings were
primarily about the respective tribes, a term that is used here explicitly.
as he bade them farewell. For this connotation of brk see especially
xlvii 10, and cf. Note on xxvi 31; accordingly, the corresponding noun is
here “a parting message” rather than “blessing.”
29. my kin. Heb. 'am in the singular stands for “people, tribe,” but in
the plural the sense is normally that of “kin.” In this verse, the term is
pointed as singular, but in vs. 33 as plural, although the phrase is the
same in both instances. It follows that either the form has been
mispointed or the singular could also have the sense of “kin.”
1 1. flung himself upon. Cf. xiv 10. Verses 1-11, 14 stem from /.
3. forty days. According to Diodorus Siculus I 91, the embalming proc­
376 GENESIS

ess lasted more than thirty days, while Herodotus speaks of as many as
seventy (Dr.); Diodorus also states (I 72) that the Egyptians mourned
their kings seventy-two days. Cf. also Vergote, pp. 197 ff.
4. that wailing period. Literally “his days of wailing.”
5. put me under oath. Not “made me swear,” for what follows is not
the wording of the oath taken by Joseph but the content of the promise
that Jacob exacted from his son. The Heb. stem in question can carry ei­
ther of these meanings.
I made ready. For the pertinent verb, see Note on xxvi 18.
7. senior members . . . dignitaries. Heb. “elders” in both instances.
9. train. Literally “camp”; cf. xxxiii 8.
10. Goren-ha-Atad. A place name based evidently on some locally
prominent threshing center. The customary translation “threshing floor of
Atad” is not a suitable topographic designation. Analogously, Akk.
magrattu (from *ma-gran-tu), perhaps a cognate of Heb. goren, denotes
in the Nuzi texts both private and communal threshing areas.
seven-day. The normal wailing period among the Hebrews; cf. I Sam
xxxi 13.
11. the place was named. Literally “its name was called,” the pro­
nominal suffix (feminine) presupposing “the city’s.”
Abel-mizraim. This aetiology rests on the popular equation of "ebel
“mourning” with ’abel, probably “watercourse, conduit”; cf. BASOR 89
(1943), 15, n. 44.
15-26. This account comes from E.
16. they sent Joseph a message. Literally “they ordered for Joseph,” ap­
parently elliptical for “they ordered someone to inform Joseph”; but LXX
reads “they drew near to Joseph,” suggesting an error in MT in antici­
pation of the same verb (“left instructions”) in 16b.
17. at this word from them. Literally “as they spoke to him”; the
brothers, however, have not as yet appeared in person.
19. How could I act for God. Same phrase as in xxx 2 (also E).
20. you meant . . . God meant. Cf. the proverbial “man proposes,
God disposes.”
21. speaking to them with affection. For the same Heb. idiom cf.
xxxiv 3.
22. 110 years. The Egyptians viewed this span as the ideal lifetime for
a man; cf. Vergote, pp. 200 f.
23. on Joseph’s knees. That is, in time for Joseph to accept them for­
mally into his family; cf. xxx 3.
25. put. . . under oath. Cf. vs 5.
the sons of Israel. As previously noted (xxxvii 3), this phrase is not
exclusive with J.
xlix 28-1 26 377

Comment

The Book of Genesis carries its account down to the end of the
story of the patriarchs. This major milestone is now before us, and
all three of our principal sources are on hand to witness it. As was
to be expected, however, each author writes finis in his own charac­
teristic fashion. Yet, while the differences of J, E, and P from one
another are thus plainly in evidence, the three concluding passages
have this feature in common: the stay in Egypt is but a passing
phase, a sojourn; the focal point continues to be the Promised
Land. Hence the physical remains of the main characters in the
cast must not be left in alien soil; they are to be taken back to
Canaan.
The verse that now constitutes xlix 28 is at once a colophon to
the preceding section, the Testament of Jacob, and a transition to
the epilogue of the book as a whole. It is probable that this verse
has been pieced together from two different sources; in any event,
vs. 28b comes from P, as do also 29-33 and 1 12-13. P foreshadows
the eventual shift back to Canaan no less than J or E. But P’s
main concern remains formal and impersonal. Abraham’s purchase
of the cave of Machpelah (xxiii) gave Abraham a legally valid
foothold in that land. And so it is there that Abraham’s grandson
must be buried, in conformance with patriarchal precedent.
J (vss. 1-11, 14) also ends the story of the forefathers with the
death and interment of Jacob—who is again referred to as Israel
(vs. 2). But it is the personal aspect of the story that this source
emphasizes, here as elsewhere. Joseph is deeply moved by his fa­
ther’s death. Israel is embalmed, in accordance with the practices
of the host country. The period of mourning that follows corre­
sponds in round figures to the seventy-two days that were reserved
for the pharaohs themselves (von Rad). Pharaoh is then petitioned
to let Joseph accompany the funeral party to Canaan. The request
is made through intermediaries, perhaps because of local taboos cal­
culated to shield the Egyptian god-king from direct contact with
persons who had been exposed to a corpse. After another period of
solemn commemoration prior to the burial, Joseph and his people
return to Egypt. This detail serves as a reminder that, although
Jacob is gone, the Egyptian phase has barely begun for his descend­
378 GENESIS

ants. But in the background there is always the main course of his­
tory, with all its twists and turns—and with occasional glimpses of
an ultimate purpose.
E (vss. 15-26), for his part, brings his story down to the death of
Joseph. Even in this brief passage, the author manages to assert
himself again as a moralist. Joseph’s brothers have never been able
to rid themselves of the sense of guilt incurred when Joseph was
still a boy. Now that the moderating influence of their father has
been removed, the specter of reprisals comes up to plague them
afresh. They fling themselves at Joseph’s feet, as if to validate the
dream recorded in xxxvii 7. In the end, Joseph succeeds in allaying
their fears. It may be noted in passing that the problem of the broth­
ers’ guilt was no longer an issue with /. For him the matter had
been resolved a long time ago, when his brothers met their severest
test (xliv), which established them as morally regenerated.
Joseph’s thoughts, too, turn in his dying moments to the Promised
Land, as did Jacob’s. Those at his bedside swear to see to it that
his remains shall be removed to Canaan; and it is actually recorded
that this promise was carried out in due time (Exod xiii 19). For the
time being, however, the Sojourn is still unaccomplished, and it is to
be followed by the extreme crisis of the Oppression. Significantly
enough, the last Hebrew word in the book reads “in Egypt.”
The interval between the death of Joseph and the emergence of
Moses represents a dark age in two ways: (1) the Israelites in
Egypt fell upon evil days; and (2) the available record is limited to
a few meager references at the beginning of the Book of Exodus.
Nevertheless, circumstantial evidence indicates that the quest which
began with the patriarchs was never completely abandoned. It re­
quired, however, the challenge of the Oppression and the inspired
leadership of Moses to reactivate that drive and give it new impetus
and direction. The Genesis phase had served its purpose. In time,
biblical history will enter upon its next stage, the Hebrew term for
which (stem ys’) denotes not only physical departure but also spir­
itual liberation. It is in this dual sense that “Exodus” has to be
evaluated.
 KEY TO THE TEXT

Chapter Verse Chapter

I Verse S
i 1-31 1 XXV 1-18 32
ii l-4a 1 19-34 33
4b-24 2 xxvi 1-35 34
25 3 XX vii 1—45 35
iii 1-24 3 46 36
iv 1-16 4 xxviil 1-9 36
17-26 5 10-22 37
V 1-32 6 xxix l-14a 38
vi 1-4 7 14b-30 39
5-22 8 31-35 40
vii 1-24 8 XXX 1-24 40
viii 1-22 8 25—43 41
ix 1-17 9 XX xi 1-54 42
18-29 10 xxxii 1-33 43
X 1-32 11 xxxiii 1-20 44
xi 1-9 12 xxxiv 1-31 45
10-32 13 XXXV 1-15 46
xii 1-9 14 16-29 47
10-20 15 xxxvi 1-43 48
xiii 1-18 16 XXX vii l-2a 48
xiv 1-24 17 2b-36 49
XV 1-21 18 xxxviii 1-30 50
xvi 1-16 19 XXX ix 1-23 51
xvii 1-27 20 xl 1-23 52
xviii 1-15 21 xli 1-57 53
16-33 22 xlii 1-38 54
xix 1-29 23 xliii 1-34 55
30-38 24 xliv 1-34 56
XX 1-18 25 xlv 1-28 57
xxi 1-21 26 xlvi 1-34 58
22-34 27 xlvii 1-26 59
xxii 1-19 28 27-31 60
20-24 29 xlviii 1-22 60
xxiii 1-19 30 xlix 1-27 61
xxiv 1-67 31 28-33 62
1 1-26 62