Читать книгу Genesis, A Royal Epic - Loren R. Fisher - Страница 5
Introduction
ОглавлениеThe translator always stands between the reader and a text, and no translator proceeds apart from some view of how to determine the meaning of the text. The Hebrew text in which Genesis was written cannot “speak for itself” to those who do not read Hebrew. The translator must help the text find its voice, and to find ways to allow the text to speak to modern readers as it once spoke to ancient readers. From the determination of the meanings of individual words, to the syntax of phrases and sentences, to the sense of paragraphs and larger units of material, the translator must constantly endeavor to convey the significance of the text to the reader.
To illustrate the role of the translator, we might turn to Gen 5:22 and 24, where I have translated a Hebrew phrase in each verse as “Enoch walked with the gods.” The reader is not likely to find “the gods” in other translations, which will read simply “God.” How should we account for the two different interpretations of the phrase?
In the Bible, the title “God” is often expressed by the Hebrew word ’elohim, which is the word used in Gen 5:22 and 24. This Hebrew word is not a singular noun! The -im ending is plural. ’Elohim literally signifies “gods,” and when the word appears in texts outside the Bible it is always translated as a plural. However, in the Bible ’elohim usually denotes one god, and in these cases, this translation just leaves it as Elohim. When translators of Genesis see the word ’elohim, how can they know whether it refers to one god or any number of gods?
They could use grammar as a basis. In Gen 5:22 and 24 ’elohim is preceded by the definite article, so that it literally reads “the ’elohim.” The translation “the gods” better conveys the grammatical sense of the text than the translation “God.” Why, then, do most translators use “God” for the phrase “the ’elohim”?
Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, the reference grammar used by most students throughout the twentieth century, shows us the reason. According to Gesenius, we should translate the plural form ’elohim as a singular unless the speaker of the passage can be understood as a “heathen!”1 So according to Gesenius, Enoch could walk with only one God because Enoch was not a heathen. Gesenius’s expectations about the meaning of the text are shaped by theology more than grammar.
Genesis 6:9 offers another example of a man, in this case Noah, walking with “the ’elohim.”2 I have translated: “With the gods, Noah walked,” where other translators perceive Noah walking with “God.” Again, the difference is between the translators, not the wording of the text. Not only do other translators ignore the definite article and the plural form of the noun, they also overlook the narrative fact that Noah in Genesis 6 and Enoch in Genesis 5 live before the Flood. In the traditions inherited by the Israelites, the Flood marks a major dividing-line in human affairs, and the pre-Flood heroes were not monotheistic theologians! The point is that the grammar of the texts and their ancient contexts lead me in one direction, while an anachronistic theological presupposition leads Gesenius in another direction.
The treatment of ’elohim illustrates the need for translators to state their basic understandings of texts and the methods they use to translate the texts. In order to clarify my own understanding of the book of Genesis, I will first consider the question of the sources of the book as it now exists. Next I will describe the kind of literature we have in the book of Genesis, which I believe is “royal” literature. Then I will discuss the structure of Genesis, which offers additional evidence about the royal nature of the material. The cycle of “burial, blessing, and birth” has special significance in royal literature, and I will show how this cycle enlarges our understanding of Genesis. As the last part of this Introduction, I will state the main characteristics of this translation.
Sources of the Book of Genesis
Early Jewish tradition (Babylonian Talmud, Baba bathra 14b–15a) considered Moses as the author of Genesis and the rest of the Torah or the Pentateuch (the first “five books”). The early Christians followed this Jewish tradition. Later, there were early Church Fathers who questioned the Mosaic authorship, and Medieval Jewish authors also raised the question.3 In our day, the Mosaic authorship has become an impossible view, because there are too many indications that the author(s) lived in the land west of the Jordon at a later time.4 During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, literary criticism demonstrated that the Torah was a composite from several sources, and that it was put together long after the time of Moses. I do not intend to go into great detail here concerning the sources (you can read these details in any good commentary; see the Bibliography), but I do want to give a short sketch of the development of this criticism and describe the present state of such studies. Then we can look at some new suggestions.
Jean Astruc, a French physician, separated two major documents in Genesis by using the divine names of Yahweh and Elohim. In other words, one name was used in one document/source, and the other name was used in the second source. He published his work in 1753. He was followed by others and this became known as the Old Documentary Hypothesis. The next step was called the Fragment Hypothesis. This was developed by Alexander Geddes (1800), J. S. Vater (1802), and W. M. L. de Wette (1807). By using this theory the critics could see in a book like Genesis many fragments/sources but could not account for any continuity or plan in such a book. Still later, the Supplement Hypothesis was developed by Heinrich Ewald (1831). In this theory one basic document was proposed (providing the plan), and then to this document material was added from later traditions.
In 1853 H. Hupfeld played a major role in developing the New Documentary Hypothesis. This theory, after a few years and the contributions of others, came up with four sources for the Pentateuch and put them in chronological order: P (the Priestly source), E (the Elohist), J (the Yahwist), and D (Deuteronomy). Through the work of Reuss, Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen these sources were given a new order because of new dates that were assigned to them: J (850 BCE), E (750 BCE), D (622 BCE), and P (450 BCE). All of this was “set in concrete” in Julius Wellhausen’s great book, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (1878). Since then we speak of the Wellhausen Hypothesis.
Wellhausen arranged the sources of the Pentateuch in chronological order so that he could give us a history of the development of Israel and of the religion of Israel. Since the time of Wellhausen, however, there have been many new theories. Today the picture is very unclear. Many scholars have divided documents, added new documents, or have maintained that we do not have continuous documents but rather source strata. These strata have in them old and late materials. It is not a neat system today as it was for Wellhausen. In fact, the Uppsala School in Sweden maintains that these materials were oral for so many years that it would be impossible to separate such things as J and E. So it goes. For the past thirty years scholars have been saying that there is no consensus in all of this, but they usually move along in their work as if all is well.5
I have learned a great deal from the research of the past, but it is not going to help much to re-date J or P or invent new sources. Today we have more information than ever before. The archaeological information that we have could have made things a lot easier for the likes of Wellhausen. In fact, we have recovered entire libraries at sites such as Ugarit/Ras Shamra. When Wellhausen discussed the ritual calendars in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Numbers 28 and 29), he said that these belong to P and they are late. Why? Because definite dates and details in ritual calendars can only be late. But at Ugarit (ca. 1400 BCE, certainly before the time of Israel), there are many ritual texts of various kinds. If we thought like nineteenth-century critics, we would take these ritual texts and put them in chronological order, the simple ones early and the more complex ones late. These texts do have dates for some of the rituals and even detailed instructions, but this does not make them late. Rather the different text types functioned in different ways within the cult.6 Wellhausen had no way of knowing such things.
One thing is very clear. Genesis is made up of several sources, and these sources are put together with a plan and with great care. I would add that the sources are not continuous, and it is an important task to find out what these sources are saying in their present context. At times it may be possible to push beyond the present context, but we do not always know enough to do this. It is also clear that there are some late additions to this book, i.e., additions from a time after the main sources were put together in their present setting.7 In the notes to this translation, I will inform the reader when I think that we are dealing with a separate source.8 I will also note when such decisions are just too difficult. Everyone has the right to know that in Genesis there is one source that is used in Gen 1:1—2:3 and another in 2:4—3:24; there are then two accounts of the formation of all things. If we do not know such things, we can never ask the question, “Why?” The answer to this question is more important than trying to prove that the first one is P (and therefore late) and that the second one is J (and therefore early). If one compares Israel to the other literate states of the Mediterranean world, Israel is so late on the scene that they have ready at hand all types of ideas and literary forms. In one sense, all that Israel had was late; it was available, and Israel used it very well indeed.
So why is there no movement toward a consensus?9 Perhaps, we continue to ask the wrong questions. Are we asking the impossible? In order to answer our usual questions as to the nature of the sources, we would need to find a complete document which was very much like one of the ones which we have proposed. Plus we would need some evidence as to where and when it was used. I doubt if we find such things in the near future. If we do, I will change my ways. For now, I think it would be interesting for us to ask some different questions, and I hope we can learn something about Genesis in asking them. Also the readers of this translation need to know something about these “different questions” in order to appreciate the notes to this translation.
Genesis as Royal Epic
What kind of literature do we have in the Book of Genesis? This is an example of a different question. This does not mean it has never been asked, but it is certainly not the primary focus of most students of Genesis.10 Some just assume that everyone knows the answer, but this is not very realistic. Some think this is historical literature. Some think it is myth. Others say it is legend. It is possible that it contains many of these things, but most of these answers are not big enough. I think the book of Genesis was produced during the Davidic monarchy, and it was “published” by the state.11 What we have in Genesis is a good example of royal literature.
Royal literature is a very broad term. This has its advantages and disadvantages. In talking about Genesis, I sometimes narrow the terminology to “royal epic” (meaning: literature that unites and gives identity to a people and their king). But for many the word epic is a red flag; if you use the word epic, they want you to prove that there is Homeric epic poetry in Genesis. There is a lot of poetry in Genesis, but it is never enough. Others try to show that there was originally an epic poem underlying the Genesis narratives. This may be the case, but it is very difficult to look behind the text that we have. I would maintain that the narratives in Genesis contain many epic features, themes, and structures. After all, these stories are dealing with Israel’s heroic age; they deal with the ancestors of Israel’s kings. In fact, the literature that deals with the ancestors and the periods down through David and Solomon is just different from the later traditions (i.e., in social customs, religion, and laws). In the notes to this translation, I will point out many epic features of these stories.
The presupposition of this introduction and of this translation is that the book of Genesis was a significant part of the royal literature of the Davidic monarchy.12 This book was a political document of the state, and its major function was to exalt David and his monarchy, not only with his own people but also among the other states of that world. The scribes of the monarchy used many sources for this work, and certainly the literary criticism of the past has helped us to isolate many of these sources. However, the view presented here is quite different from the older criticism in that the sources that were used in this work must date from before the exile. This is obvious, if the sources were used by the scribes of the Davidic monarchy.13 None of this can be said with dogmatic zest, but we can at this point discuss some reasons why it seems possible to see Genesis in this way.
One reason Genesis is to be seen as royal literature is that the narratives point to the later kings. In Gen 17:3–8, not only will Elohim establish a covenant with Abraham and his descendants, giving them the land of Canaan as “an everlasting holding” (which is always the case in royal land grants),14 but in v. 6c it also says, “Kings shall come forth from you.” Later in v. 16, Elohim says of Sarah, “Kings of peoples shall issue from her.” Abraham and Sarah will produce kings. Who is it that wants the people to know this? It is the kings; those who trace their lines back to Abraham and Sarah. It is the kings; the ones who want to show that they are the legitimate rulers.15 This is not the only place where such a thing is said. In Gen 35:11 Elohim says to Jacob, “Kings shall come forth from your loins.” The fathers and the mothers in the Genesis narratives were the fathers and mothers of kings.
A second reason for viewing Genesis as royal literature is that the content of Genesis is what we would expect in a political document of the monarchy. Our method in all of this is comparative, and we have centuries of AML before the time of the Hebrews. The Babylonian creation story, Enuma elish, according to Thorkild Jacobsen, celebrates “Babylon’s and Marduk’s rise to rulership over a united Babylon, but projected back to mythical times and made universal. It is also an account of how the universe is ruled; how monarchy evolved and gained acceptance as a unifier of the many divine wills in the universe. It is a story of world origins and world ordering.”16 Gordon and Rendsburg stress the political nature of Enuma elish.17 In this world when a powerful king like David became ruler of both Judah and Israel, the other states of that world would expect a publication from Jerusalem dealing with “world origins” and “world ordering.” Jerusalem was not really interested in dealing with “world origins” (e.g., the birth of the gods), but they were interested in dealing with “world ordering” (i.e., ordering chaos and the formation of this world). In addition, Jerusalem included the stories of the fathers and mothers as mentioned in reason number one (see above). These stories were made to point to David in several ways, with the insertion of Genesis 38 being the most explicit example (see below).
A third reason we look at Genesis as royal literature is that the stories of the ancestors in Genesis probably were formed at the tomb and used by the kings of Israel as a part of the rituals at the royal tombs of those ancestors. We know that such rituals were important for the kings for the purpose of receiving the blessings of their ancestors.18 To receive the blessing of such a father or patriarch meant that the king would produce an heir, and that the dynastic line would continue.
Miriam Lichtheim has an interesting discussion of how in Egypt, “it was in the context of the private tomb that writing took its first steps toward literature.” Here “the autobiography was born,” and it “became a truly literary product.”19 Also in her introduction to “Prose Tales,” she relates that the Story of Sinuhe “is told in the form of the autobiography composed for the tomb . . .”20 I relate these comments for the purpose of pointing out that my suggestions concerning the growth of literature at the tomb are not new in our studies of ancient literature. But it certainly may be new for many to think about the growth of the patriarchal cycles at the tomb. Genesis 48:15–16 is a passage that can help us introduce this subject.
The context of the blessing in Gen 48:15–16 is as follows: 1) Jacob’s instructions for his burial (47:28–31); 2) Jacob’s adoption of Joseph’s sons (48:1–7); and 3) Jacob’s blessing of Joseph which includes the blessing of Joseph’s sons (48:8–20) and Jacob’s gift of Shechem to Joseph (48:21–22).
Genesis 48:15–16
He said:23 “The God before whom my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, walked, the God who has been my shepherd from my birth until this day,24 16 the Messenger who has delivered me from all harm, may he bless these young men. My name and the names of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, shall be called forth by them.25 They will become a multitude in the land.”
The most important part of this passage for us is v. 16b. I do not know of any translation that does it this way, and yet this is a very easy translation. These “young men” shall call forth the names of the fathers at the tomb. Then they will receive the blessing; they will become a multitude. But most just do not understand what it means “to call forth” (qara’) the names, and they do not understand the ritual setting. So they have suggested that it has to do with everything from “recalling” to “perpetuating” the name(s).26 Note the following translations:
AB: “That in them be recalled my name, and the names of Abraham and Isaac, my fathers, . . .”
Tanakh: “In them may my name be recalled, And the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac, . . .”
AAT: “. . . so that my name may be carried on through them, together with the names of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac; . . .”
NEB: “. . . they shall be called by my name, and by that of my forefathers, Abraham and Isaac; . . .”
NRSV: “. . . ; and in them let my name be perpetuated, and the name of my ancestors Abraham and Isaac; . . .”
None of these translations does justice to the Hebrew text, and they all miss the point.
The key for understanding this passage has not been available for very long. We now have a burial ritual from Ugarit in which the “fathers” and the recently departed kings are “called forth” (qara’ = “call/invite/summon,” the same word that we have in the Genesis text) in order for the new king to receive a blessing. In our passage Ephraim and Manasseh will “call forth” at the tomb the names of the fathers. It is important to see the Ugaritic text at this point:
An Ugaritic Liturgy RS 34.126
Translation
1. A document of a celebration of ancestors:
2. You have been summoned, O Rephaim of the netherworld;
3. You have been invited, O Assembly of the Didanites.
4. Ulkn, the Rapha, has been summoned.
5. Trmn, the Rapha, has been summoned.
6. Sdn-w-Rdn, [the Rapha], has been summoned.
7. Tr-‘Illmn, [the Rapha], has been summoned.
8. The ancient Raphaim have been summoned.
9. You have been summoned, O Raphaim of the netherworld;
10. You have been invited, O Assembly of the Didanites.
11. King Ammishtamru has been summoned.
12. Also, King Niqmaddu has been summoned.
13. O throne of Niqmaddu, weep!
14. Let his footstool shed tears;
15. Before him, let the table of the king weep;
16. Let it swallow its tears!
17. Bereft, bereft, and bereft!
18. Be hot, O Shapshu!
Be hot, (19) O great luminary!
Above us, Shapshu shouts:
20. “After your lord, from the throne,
After (21) your lord,
To the netherworld descend!
To the netherworld (22) descend;
Go down low into the world of death.
Below (23) is Sdn-w-Rdn!
Below is Tr- (24) ‘Illmn!
Below are the ancient Rephaim!
25. Below is King Ammishtamru!
26. Below is King Niqmaddu, as well!”
27. [Day] one and an offering,
[Day] two and an offering,
28. [Day] three and an offering,
[Day] four and an offering,
29. [Day] five and an offering,
[Day] six and an offering,
30. [Day] seven and an offering:
You shall present a bird.
31. Shalom!
Shalom, Ammurapi!
32. Shalom (to) his house, as well!
Shalom, Tharyelli!
33. Shalom (to) her house!
Shalom, Ugarit!
34. Shalom (to) her gates!27
This is a remarkable document. In lines 2–12 the departed ancestors and kings are “summoned/called” ten times and invited twice to participate in this ritual. The furniture of Niqmaddu’s throne room weeps, the sun (Shapshu) must locate those who have been summoned, and offerings are presented in a seven-day ritual. The occasion for this ritual seems to be just after the death of Niqmaddu and during the succession or coronation rituals for the new king (Ammurapi) and his queen (Tharyelli). They seek the blessing of the departed ancestors and kings. They do this in order that their line may continue. I have compared this text on several occasions to the Babylonian kispu or mortuary offerings of food and drink for the dead kings who are invoked by name in a ritual. The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty, which contains a king list and other helpful comments, was written for such an occasion.28 There is also a king list from Ugarit which was no doubt used in the same way, i.e., in the context of the Ugaritic funeral ritual.29
One of the most interesting facts that comes out of comparing these texts (including the Assyrian King List) is that the Did/tanites (see lines 3 and 10 in the funeral ritual) have been related to each group. The Babylonians and Assyrians both go back to the Didanites in their genealogies, and the Ugaritians witness to that same Amorite ancestry in their ritual and epic.30 In the Keret Epic from Ugarit, we have the story of the patriarch Keret. The later kings of Ugarit looked back to him as their father, an ancient father from North Mesopotamia. He was related by story and ritual to Ugarit in the same way that Abraham (also from North Mesopotamia) was related to Jerusalem. In the Keret Epic,31 Keret is blessed with these words:
Be most exalted, O Keret,
In the midst the Raphaim of the netherworld,
In the gathering of the assembly of the Didanites. (UT 128:III:13–15)
In our funeral text, the “Raphaim of the netherworld” and “the assembly of the Didanites” are summoned for the ritual. At Ugarit the most important ancestor of that assembly would be Keret.32 Therefore, I think that there is a real possibility that the Keret Epic was used on such occasions.
The sons of Joseph were to summon Jacob, Abraham, and Isaac at the tomb. By doing this they would be blessed; they would become a multitude. Now it is my guess that at some point in the observance of such rituals, the stories of the ancestors were told. I do not think that we can get back to the earliest forms of these stories, but the stories that we have may be based on such stories, and they were used by the kings of Israel.33
Genesis 48:16 is not the only place where the burial ritual is implied. In Gen 21:12b it says,
Whatever Sarah demands of you,
listen to her voice,
because through Isaac,
descendants will call forth to you.
In other words, Isaac’s descendants will care for you at the tomb, and you will bless them. We will see other examples in Genesis when we discuss the structure of these stories of the ancestors. Outside of Genesis this sort of thing is mentioned in Ruth 4:14. Concerning Boaz (David’s ancestor) it says, “May his name be called forth in Israel.” Perhaps the most revealing passage is Isa 14:4–21. Here the king of Babylon is shown to be the most horrible of all the kings. All the great kings are glorified in their tombs, but this one has no grave, no place to lay his head! “You shall not be joined with them in burial, because you destroyed your land; you murdered your people. Let the descendants of evildoers nevermore be called forth” (v. 20). He will not receive proper burial and neither will his descendants. His line is finished. This reminds one of a passage from an Assyrian text, Assurbanipal’s campaign against Elam, VI 70–76:34
The sepulchres of their ancient [and] recent kings, who did not fear Ashur and Ishtar, my masters, who harassed the kings, my fathers, I ravaged, destroyed, and exposed to the sun.35 I took their bones to Assyria. I made their shades insomniacs; I deprived them of funerary offerings36 and libations of water.”37
So the kings of Israel were certainly interested in genealogies and the stories of their ancestors, because they used these materials in rituals wherein they would receive a blessing and their line would endure. The book of Genesis contains royal literature.38
There are many other reasons for seeing in Genesis royal literature, and these items will be mentioned in the notes to the translation. But now, I want to turn to the structure of Genesis, and this will show some additional evidence as to the royal nature of the material.
The Structure of Genesis
At the end of this introduction there is an outline of Genesis titled “The Final Form of Genesis.” This outline will be helpful, because in this section on structure and in the notes to the translation, I will refer to the section numbers of this outline.
Most studies of Genesis divide the book into the Primeval History/Events (as seen in Genesis 1–11) and the Patriarchal History (Genesis 12–50). This way of looking at the book is not very helpful, and it is the invention of modern times. In this translation, Genesis is viewed as divided by the final editor. In other words, we take seriously the titles or division markers between the eleven segments (S 1–11 in the outline) of the book. If one wants to make another kind of division, it could be helpful in some situations, but it would probably have to do with pre-flood stories and post-flood stories. Even so, it is necessary to note that due to parallel literature, Genesis 1–10 should be seen as a unit.39 It may be useful to briefly state the main content of Genesis 1:1—11:26, because I do want to deal in some detail with the structure of the following chapters. So note the following:
1. Elohim brought order out of Chaos (Gen 1:1—2:3).
2. All humans and the other animals are mortal. The humans have a special vocation and have obtained all knowledge. This made the development of civilization a reality (Gen 2:4—4:26).
3. Genesis has its pre-flood sages, and it has accounted for the heroes of old (Gen 5:1—6:4).
4. The Genesis story of the flood is very interesting, and its flood hero, Noah, has given the Hebrews all of the pre-flood knowledge. Thus David, their king, “has wisdom like the wisdom of a messenger of the gods to know all things that are on earth” (2 Sam 14:17, 20). This is a new beginning (Gen 6:5—9:29).
5. The scribes were aware of post-flood developments and the world situation of their day (i.e., David’s day), and they were also interested in background materials for understanding the fathers of the kings of Israel (Gen 10:1—11:26).
In Genesis, there are three major cycles of tradition concerning the ancestors of the kings of Israel and Judah (see sections 6, 8, and 10 of chart one at the end of this Introduction).40 But we need a closer look at the shape of these three documents:
1) All three have similar titles:
a) “These are the Stories of Terah,” Gen 11:27—25:11.
(Terah is the father of Abraham, but the stories are about Abraham.)
b) “These are the Stories of Isaac,” Gen 25:19—35:29.
(Isaac is the father of Esau and Jacob, but most of the stories are about Jacob.)
c) “These are the Stories of Jacob,” Gen 37:2—50:26.
(Jacob is the father of the twelve brothers, but most of the stories are about Joseph.)
In this sequence we are missing a document between a) and b) that could be given the title “These are the Stories of Abraham.” If we had such a document the stories would be about Isaac. Some material from such a document has survived and can be found in Genesis 24 and 26 (see chart two at the end of this Introduction).
2) All three cycles have structural and thematic parallels in the following order:
a) All are interested in the birth of an heir, but great difficulties are always present (famine, seduction [Sarah, Rebekah, and Joseph], and infertility).
b) There is always the point made that the “elder shall serve the younger” (Gen 25:19–34 and 37:2–36). This was not the normal custom, but royal literature is not normal (even David was the youngest).
c) The hero either buys or receives land (e.g., the burial cave [Gen 23] and Shechem [Gen 33:18–20]).
d) Similar conclusions containing three parts: a burial scene (Gen 23:1–20; 35:16–20; 50:1–14), additional material on the heir(s) (Gen 24:1—25:6; 35:21–26; 50:15–21), and a death scene (Gen 25:7–11; 35:27–29; 50:22–26).
This last section (d) of these stories is very important. From our earlier discussion, it is clear that proper burial was important for the blessing of the next “father.” Without such a blessing there would not be another heir.
Now, the overall structure of these cycles is very useful in identifying fragments of such cycles. In Genesis 38, we have the first part of such a cycle (i.e., points 2.a and b). I have given this fragmented cycle the title of “These are the Stories of Judah” (with stories about Perez—see chart two). In Genesis 38, one can see that the scribe hurries by the early events, but soon we are aware of the danger: Judah’s sons are being killed by Yahweh!41 How can his line continue? We could have predicted the seduction scene, and the birth of the twins is very much like the birth of Esau and Jacob. Yes, once again the elder will serve the younger. Now we have more questions: Why did the scribes need this Judah cycle? Why did they only use part of it?
In order to address these questions, it is important to think about David’s situation when he became king. In 2 Sam 2:4 we read, “The men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah.” David ruled Judah in Hebron seven years and six months. During this time his royal scribes probably produced the document that we have called, “These are the Stories of Judah.” This document would have contained stories about Perez, and it would have given us the line of David plus a story about the death and burial of Judah (probably at the cave near Hebron that was purchased by Abraham).42 It would have been used by David to prove that he was the legitimate king of Judah. Since we do not have all of this document, we are forced to use the book of Ruth to complete the Story of Judah (Ruth 4:13–22 and also note Gen 46:12). In Ruth 4:18 we have another title, “These are the Stories of Perez,” so we can suppose that they did have even more materials.
Later the elders of Israel came to David in Hebron, and they made him king over Israel. When David became king over both states, he moved to Jerusalem, and “he ruled over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years” (2 Sam 5:5). At this point the royal scribes had to integrate the stories of the two states and especially the stories of Joseph (from Israel) and Judah. David’s scribes were very talented and they included a lot of very important things. They stressed the importance of Joseph, but they also made Judah very important in the main part of the Joseph story. These scribes also put in the Stories of Judah (Genesis 38) that pointed to David. So all of this material was put into its present form at the time of the Davidic monarchy. It was a royal document, and it not only made David the legitimate heir, but it helped to unify both Israel and Judah.
It is clear that Genesis 38 is very important for David’s kingdom. The scribes had to include this material. Perhaps they thought that in a narrative concerning Joseph where Judah is also a main character, the readers should know more about Judah and the line of David. It still bothers me that they put it where they did, as it interrupts the Joseph story. However the inclusion of the Judah material was necessary, and at least they did it with political taste; they did not give too much of the Judah story, and they were not hostile as scribes were in later materials. Note Ps 78:67–68:
He [God] rejected the clan of Joseph;
the tribe of Ephraim he did not choose.
He chose the tribe of Judah,
Mount Zion, which he loved.
The royal scribes did not want to cause problems; they wanted to unite these states and show their world that the story points to David.
Burial, Blessing, and Birth
In the above discussion on the structure of these cycles, we were looking on the surface of these narratives and noting similar beginnings and conclusions. But within these similar elements, it is very interesting that there is a very real cycle of burial, blessing, and birth that keeps on turning. I say, “very real,” because it appears that a storyteller could start at any point on this circle. The blessing can come first, then birth and burial, and it goes on for another round or two. First, I want to look at a story from Ugarit as an example of this cycle.
The Epic of Aqhat
This story begins with Danel43 participating in a seven-day ritual. This ritual has usually been described as a “rite of incubation.” T. H. Gaster says, “The suppliant lodges for a few days in the precincts of the sanctuary in order to entreat the god and obtain the divine oracle in a dream or by some other manner.”44 However, I think that today we can be more specific; it is possible that this is a funeral ritual. The ritual is for seven days; Danel gives food and drink to the gods, which could be Danel’s departed ancestors; the god Baal makes Danel’s request for a son known to the god El. El blesses Danel so that he can have a perfect son. Danel’s son, Aqhat, is born, and he is a fine son. But, later in the story, the goddess Anat has Aqhat killed. Now, Danel must find Aqhat’s “fat and bone,” because there has to be a proper burial. Danel does find Aqhat’s “fat and bone,” and so the cycle begins again. In this case, Aqhat must be buried “in the grave of the gods of the netherworld,” i.e., the departed fathers and kings who are also called the rephaim. There are some Rephaim texts (UT 121–124) that show how these rephaim were invited to the funeral by Danel. They come first to the threshing floor and then to the palace. They come for the food and drink, but they also come to bless. We do not have all of the story, but I think that Danel is not only blessed again, but he also has another son. The cycle turns again.
Abraham
With the story of Aqhat in mind, we turn back to Genesis. The cycle that deals with Abraham is contained in Gen 11:27—25:11 (“These are the stories of Terah”). At the beginning of this material, we learn about the death of Abraham’s father, Terah. Since it is not mentioned, we are left to assume that indeed there was a burial. We have the post-funeral blessing in Gen 12:1–3. In this story we have to wait a long time for the next element or the birth story. In chapter 21, we have the story of the birth of Isaac. Sarah, with the help of Yahweh, produces a son for Abraham to help him in his old age, and more importantly to be his heir. In Gen 21:12, we catch a glimpse of how the heir (and his heirs) will “call forth” to Abraham at his grave. As the cycle turns, there should be another burial. Genesis 23 tells us about the burial of Sarah. In the Genesis cycles (as discussed above), the last three sections of each cycle deal with 1) death and burial, 2) another word concerning the heirs, and 3) another death and burial. Following the burial of Sarah, the second section from the end (Gen 24:1—25:6) mentions how Yahweh has blessed Abraham in every way, how Abraham arranged for the “right” wife for Isaac, and gives us some information concerning Abraham’s other children. The last section of the Abraham material is about his death. By this time, it should not surprise us to read in Gen 25:9 that “Isaac and Ishmael, his sons, buried him . . .” And the expected note in v. 11 reads, “It was after the death of Abraham that Elohim blessed Isaac, his son.”
Jacob
The cycle that deals with Jacob is contained in Gen 25:19—35:29 (These are the stories of Isaac). Isaac has the “right” wife. He has already been blessed after the burial of his father (Gen 25:11), so that an heir will be in the picture. Therefore, the first element in this cycle is the birth of Jacob and Esau with the epic notation that “the older shall serve the younger.” As we have noted in these epic cycles, the younger son always rules (and so it was with David). All of these cycles have their own individual ways of arriving at a similar end. In the Jacob material, Jacob obtains his father’s blessing before his father’s death, and he takes an epic journey in order to get away from Esau but also for the purpose of obtaining his rightful wife. This part of the story is very much like the story of Keret from Ugarit who also must go on such a journey to get his rightful wife.45 Jacob gets his wives and finally his children are born. In Gen 35:16–21, we have the death and burial of Rachel. “Jacob set up a sacred pillar on her grave” (v. 20a). Next there is a list of Jacob’s heirs, and finally there is the death and burial of Isaac (Gen 35:27–29). Esau and Jacob buried Isaac.
Joseph
The Joseph material is contained in Gen 37:2—50:26 (These are the stories of Jacob). Here the heirs are already born, so the first thing to establish is that the younger will rule the elders. In fact, Joseph is really not the youngest, but he is next to the youngest and Jacob’s favorite. In 37:2–36, the fact that Joseph will rule is driven home again and again even though at the end of the chapter one wonders, how will this be? But Joseph is very successful. In chapter 48, Joseph and his sons are blessed, and within these blessings we are able to discern that the real blessing and the continuation of that blessing will come from God and the fathers, who will bless them as they call forth the names of the fathers at the tomb. They will become a multitude. In Gen 49:29—50:14, the death and burial of Jacob is given in great detail. In the first part, Jacob is still alive, and he charges his sons to bury him with his ancestors in the cave “that Abraham purchased.” After Jacob died, he was embalmed, and “the Egyptians wept for him seventy days.” Then Joseph was granted permission to take his father’s remains to Canaan. According to this story, Joseph left Egypt with a huge entourage made up of Egyptian officials, his brothers, other relatives, and a military guard. When this group was still east of the Jordan river, they arrived at the threshing floor of the Atad. There they lamented and mourned for seven days. As in the story of Aqhat, the funeral begins at the threshing floor; but in this story instead of moving to the palace (to complete the ritual), they continue their journey, moving to the cave that Abraham had purchased.46 This is the way the story reads.47 We really do not have to assume that Joseph and his brothers were blessed because of their efforts; it is clear that in Gen 50:15–21 Joseph will care for the brothers and their children. Finally, we have in Gen 50:22–26, the death and burial of Joseph with his request that his bones be brought up from Egypt.48
When we look at all of these stories and see the importance of burial, blessing, and birth to both the form and content of these stories, we see from a slightly different angle what we have said before: this material was shaped in part by funeral rituals and was used by the monarchy in the interest of the monarchy.
Proper Burial
The importance of proper burial can be seen in some of the materials that we have concerning David. In 2 Sam 21:10–14, David takes a chance. On the one hand, he can score some political points if he gives Saul and his sons proper burial rites in the tomb of Saul’s father Kish. But on the other hand, by so doing, David could be sending the wrong signal to the house of Saul. After all, to give proper burial is one way of preserving a dynastic line. Up to this point, our discussion of proper burial has concentrated on the royal tomb, but we also know that proper burial was important to all members of society. We now know that the people formed funeral associations (a marzeah) to take care of burial and mourning rites, and they usually had a place to meet (called “the House of the Marzeah” or Bet Marzeah).49 In Jer 16:1–9, there is a gruesome picture of life or rather death in Judah. The word is do not marry, because your children will die and not be buried; “they shall be like dung on the surface of the ground.” In v. 5 Yahweh says, “Do not enter the Bet Marzeah, . . . for I have taken away my Shalom from this people.” In other words, there is no point anymore in proper burial and “the care and feeding of the dead,” because there will be no blessing, i.e., no Shalom to put it into the words of Jeremiah and of the royal tomb liturgy from Ugarit. So, there will be no burial, no blessing, and no children.
One thing that we do not know very much about has to do with when these funeral rituals were used. They must have been used at the time of burial, but also they may have been used in some kind of yearly ritual. Some people have thought that the reference in 1 Sam 20:6 by David to an annual sacrifice by his whole family may have had to do with “the care and feeding of the dead.” It would also renew the blessings for such a family. I think that we really do not know much about this. However, I do think that the Ugaritic funeral ritual which we have been discussing was used in connection with the enthronement of the new king. Did enthronement take place at the tomb? We can say that David became king of both Judah and Israel in Hebron and that the scribes of the monarchy located the tomb of the fathers in Hebron. Here David could become king and receive the blessings of the ancestors. David’s rebel son, Absalom, also became king in Hebron. Solomon became king in Jerusalem before the death of David, but since David was buried there, they both started a new tradition. I think that all of this means that the monarchy had a real need for Genesis.
Characteristics of This Translation
The Hebrew Bible is an amazing collection of ancient documents. These documents were gathered over many years, and they were preserved in several textual traditions. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has opened our eyes to the many textual traditions that were around in pre-Christian Palestine. Most translators of the Hebrew Bible start with a Masoretic text (MT) known as the Leningrad Codex B 19A.50 This was copied in about 1009 CE. When these translators encounter problems, they may find a better reading in some other textual tradition, e.g., the Samaritan text (for the first five books) or perhaps in the Hebrew text that was behind the Septuagint (a Greek translation from the third century BCE). In this translation of Genesis, you will not find this kind of search for the best text; this translation is a translation of the Masoretic textual tradition. Other textual traditions are also important, but the translation of those traditions represents another project.
This translation of Genesis tries to make use of recent discoveries. Throughout this introduction, it is clear that new discoveries have given us new information on burial customs. By the study of AML, we are constantly learning more about literary parallels and the meaning of words. Also, we have learned that the peoples of the ancient Mediterranean world formed a cosmopolitan whole. At least the urban centers were in constant contact with each other and shared their learning and traditions. The Mediterranean World had very few isolated communities. There was just too much shipping by sea and trading by land. Fernand Braudel says that one of the great truths that remains unchallenged in his work on the Mediterranean is “the unity and coherence of the Mediterranean region.”51 So, the key is to bring all new information to bear upon our text. We attempt to let the Hebrew text have its day. This is not a revision of the English tradition of Bible translations.
Another characteristic of this translation is that it is not bound by modern theological concerns. In the past, for example, some theologians have demanded that Gen 1:1 be translated, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” But Genesis does not read that way. It does not deal with ultimate origins. In fact, the first two verses describe the circumstance when God first began to bring order out of chaos. The theological demands were designed to protect the doctrine of God from any kind of dualism or pantheism. It is clear that in Genesis God orders chaos. The Hebrew authors did not address the problem of where the matter came from. In this translation, I do not use the words “create” or “creation.” The emphasis of many that “creation” means “creation out of nothing” is just wrong. I hate to give up on good words, but I have been compelled to use the more basic meanings of Hebrew words, in this case “to sculpt”/“to form.” Thus, my own translation of Gen1:1a is “When Elohim first began to form the heavens and the earth . . .”
Other theological problems are not so well known. You will recall that at the start of the Introduction we discussed the plural “gods” in Gen 5:22 and 24 and 6:9. There is another example of this sort of thing in Gen 35:7. In this passage, Jacob “built there an altar; he called the sanctuary El-Bethel, for there the gods were revealed to him when he was fleeing from his brother.” Here we have not only the definite article with ’elohim, but even the verb (“were revealed”) is plural! Genesis 35:7 refers back to 28:20–22 where Jacob deals with two gods, one designated “Elohim” and the other designated “Yahweh.” This is a strong case for the use of the plural, but most translators avoid the issue.52
This translation places a premium on context. The context has a very important influence on the meaning of a word. In Gen 2:6, we are told that “the entire surface of the ground” was flooded. Given this context it becomes impossible to translate v. 7 in the traditional manner: “Yahweh-Elohim formed the human [from] the dust of the ground.” In this context, there would be no “dust.” The options have to do with either “mud” or “clay.” At this point in the translation, there will be a detailed note concerning these options.
This may be the place for a word concerning inclusive language. I can understand that a translator should not import sexist language into the translation, but if such language is in the text, the translator should not remove it. Because of the fear of using sexist language, the New Revised Standard Version (and others) tries to avoid saying “father” or “son” at all costs. But this practice can lead to inconsistencies. In Gen 23:5, “sons of Heth” is translated “Hittites” in a context which suggests that the reference is to Hittite men. In fact, v. 10 contains a different term for “Hittite” that does not denote gender. In Gen 27:46, where the context makes it certain that the reference is to women, inconsistency is forced on the NRSV, which must translate the “daughters of Heth” not as “Hittites” but rather “Hittite women.” Let the text have its day.53
There is a lot of poetry in the book of Genesis. Where it was possible, this translation has given the reader a poem in English. In this poetry, I have sometimes added a word or repeated a word (in brackets)54 to make the lines balanced in English. In addition to the poetry, there is “high prose” in Genesis, which is set in meaningful and rhythmic cola. In other places, the text takes the form of a play. I hope that this emphasis on format will be helpful in reminding the reader that this is royal epic.
After completing the first edition of this translation, two new translations have appeared. These are by Everett Fox and Robert Alter. Fox (The Five Books of Moses) has been interested in the Buber-Rosenzweig translation of the Hebrew Bible into German for many years. He says, “The Five Books of Moses is in many respects an offshoot of the Buber-Rosenzweig translation” (x). For Buber and Rosenzweig (and for Fox), it is important to remember that this was a book to be read aloud. I like the way Fox has given the text of this poetry and “high prose” in lines based on “spoken phrasing” (xv, and for Buber’s comments on this see Buber and Rosenzweig, Scripture and Tradition, 179). If this is the case, then I must say that Fox confuses me. He usually gives a proper name like “Perat” in its Hebrew pronunciation and then follows it with a translation (in this case “Perat/Euphrates”). This does not help me to return to the spokenness of the text (Buber and Rosensweig, 179). Fox’s translation is part of an edition of the Torah. He has translated what Genesis has become in a modern context. I have tried to translate a Royal Epic that had an important ancient context.
Robert Alter (in Genesis) has some of the same interests as Fox. He says, “the mesmerizing effect of these ancient stories will scarcely be conveyed if they are not rendered in cadenced English prose that at least in some ways corresponds to the powerful cadences of the Hebrew” (xxvi). The disappointing thing about Alter’s book is that his publisher has reduced his “cadenced English prose” down to blocks of prose.55 The cadence is buried. I consider this to be a major problem. (The publisher was also in a hurry. The headings in chapter 12 for the chapter and verses on each page all read 11 instead of 12; see 50–53.) The format takes away what Alter calls the “distinctive music” of biblical Hebrew (xxxix). Alter’s emphasis reflects his literary interests, but at times, these interests seem to hide other important issues and problems.
Both of these translations are better than most translations of Genesis. Yet, neither translation makes any real headway on some of the most notorious problems (e.g., 4:8; 35:4; 37:7; or 37:36). The following examples illustrate some of the differences between all three translations:
1:1
Alter: “When God began to create heaven and earth . . .”
Fisher: “When Elohim first began to form the heavens and the earth . . .”
Fox: “At the beginning of God’s creating of the heavens and the earth . . .”
Alter has translated this as “the heavens and the earth” on page xix of his introduction. The fact that he has left out “the” in 1:1 is serious, because on page xx, part of his argument for keeping every “and” is that they are not inaudible elements in the Hebrew text. In v. 1, “the” is not an inaudible element, but it is left out. He can’t have it both ways.
2:4b
Alter: “On the day the Lord God made earth and heavens . . .”
Fisher: “On another day when Yahweh-Elohim was about to make earth and heaven . . .”
Fox: “At the time of YHWH, God’s making of earth and heaven . . .”
I cannot understand Fox’s “At the time of YHWH . . .”
28:20
Alter: “. . .If the Lord God be with me . . .”
Fisher: “If Elohim will be with me . . .”
Fox: “If God will be with me . . .”
It is difficult to understand Alter’s translation. There is no word for “Lord” in the Hebrew text. There is the verb “to be,” which looks something like Yahweh, and Alter does translate Yahweh as “Lord.” (The double name does not occur in this section of Genesis. Also see Alter’s note to 35:3.)
35:7
Alter: “. . . for there God was revealed to him . . .”
Fisher: “. . . for there the gods were revealed to him . . .”
Fox: “. . . For there had the power-of-God been revealed to him . . .”
Fox understands that there is a problem because of the plural form of the verb, but he does not really deal with the problem.
48:16
Alter: “. . . let my name be called in them and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac . . .”
Fisher: “. . . My name and the names of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, shall be called forth by them.”
Fox: “. . . May my name continue to be called through them and the name of my fathers, Avraham and Yitzhak!”
I do not know what Alter’s translation means. Fox’s translation is better, but it is still lacking. My translation assumes a ritual context (see above). The names of the fathers are called forth, or in other words, the fathers are summoned during a ritual for the dead. It was in this context that the stories of the fathers were told, stories that were later incorporated into the Book of Genesis. This is a very important point to consider.
Chart One
Section Headings in the Final Form of Genesis
1. These are the stories of the heavens and the earth since their formation (Gen 2:4a).
2. This is the document of the stories of Adam (Gen 5:1a).
3. These are the stories of Noah (Gen 6:9a).
4. These are the stories of the sons of Noah (10:1a).
5. These are the stories of Shem (11:10a).
6. These are the stories of Terah (11:27a).*
7. These are the stories of Ishmael (25:12a).
8. These are the stories of Isaac (25:19a).*
9. These are the stories of Esau (36:1).
10. These are the stories of Jacob (37:2a).*
*Major cycles of the fathers (see Chart Two for details).
Chart Two
The Three Major Cycles of the Fathers plus Fragments
6. These are the stories of Terah (Gen 11:27—25:11).
(Stories about Abraham)
Missing: These are the stories of Abraham.
(Stories about Isaac—the material in Genesis 24 and 26 could be from this missing cycle.)
8. These are the stories of Isaac (Gen 25:19—35:29).
(Stories about Jacob)
10. These are the stories of Jacob (Gen 37:2—50:26).
(Stories about Joseph)
Plus: These are the stories of Judah (Genesis 38).
(Stories about Perez—Genesis 38 is just the beginning of this cycle.)
Plus: These are the stories of Perez (Ruth 4:18–22).
The Final Form of Genesis
S1:G1–256 The Seven Days, 1:1—2:3
G1 The Formation of the Cosmos, 1:1–31
G1.1 Let there be light, 1:1–5
G1.2 Let there be a vault, 1:6–8
G1.3 Let there be seas, land, and vegetation, 1:9–13
G1.4 Let there be lights, 1:14–19
G1.5 Let there be creatures of the sea and air, 1:20–23
G1.6 Let there be creatures of the land and humans, 1:24–31
G2 The Seventh Day, 2:1–3
S2:G3–9 These are the Stories of Heaven and Earth since their formation, 2:4—4:26
Title, 2:4a
G3 Yahweh-Elohim formed the human, 2:4b–7
G4 The garden and its keeper, 2:8–17
G4.1 Yahweh-Elohim planted a garden, 2:8–9
G4.2 The rivers, 2:10–14
G4.3 The human becomes the keeper, 2:15–17
G5 Yahweh-Elohim forms others; the human is not alone, 2:18–24
G6 Wise but mortal humans, 2:25—3:24
G6.1 Naked and knowing, 2:25—3:7
G6.2 The naked and mortal are clothed, 3:8–21
G6.3 Sent from the garden to till the ground, 3:22–24
G7 Cain and Abel, 4:1–16
G8 Cities and Culture, 4:17–24
G9 The birth of Seth, 4:25–26
S3:G10–13 This is the Document of the Stories of Adam, 5:1—6:8
Title, 5:1a
G10 The making of human beings, 5:1b–2
G11 From Adam to Noah, 5:3–32
G12 The Sages, 6:1–4
G13 The sorrow of Yahweh, 6:5–8
S4:G14–16 These are the Stories of Noah, 6:9—9:29
Title, 6:9a
G14 The Flood, 6:9b—8:22
G15 Blessing and Covenant, 9:1–17
G16 Noah planted a vineyard, 9:18–29
S5:G17–18 These are the Stories of the sons of Noah, 10:1—11:9
Title, 10:1
G17 Friends, enemies, and kin, 10:2–32
G18 The tower of Babel, 11:1–9
S6:G19 These are the Stories of Shem, 11:10–26
Title, 11:10a
G19 From Shem to Terah, 11:10b–26
S7:G20–36 These are the Stories of Terah, 11:27—25:11
Title, 11:27a
G20 Introduction and Promise, 11:27b—12:4
G21 The journey to Canaan, 12:5–9
G22 The journey to Egypt, 12:10—13:1
G23 The move to Hebron, 13:2–18
G24 Abram and Melchizedek, 14:1–24
G25 Yahweh makes a covenant with Abram, 15:1–21
G26 The birth of Ishmael, 16:1–16
G27 Another covenant and Sarah will bear, 17:1–27
G28 Yahweh’s visitation, 18:1—19:38
G28.1 Sarah shall have a son, 18:1–16
G28.2 Abraham intercedes for Sodom, 18:17–33
G28.3 The destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah, 19:1–29
G28.4 Lot and his daughters, 19:30–38
G29 Abraham and Sarah in Gerar, 20:1–18
G30 The Birth of Isaac, 21:1–21
G31 Abraham in Beersheba, 21:22–34
G32 Abraham is put to the test, 22:1–19
G33 The Aramaic tribes, 22:20–24
G34 The death and burial of Sarah, 23:1–20
G35 Abraham’s heirs, 24:1—25:6
G35.1 Isaac and Rebekah, 24:1–67
G35.2 Keturah, 25:1–6
G36 The death and burial of Abraham, 25:7–11
S8:G37 These are the Stories of Ishmael, 25:12–18
Title, 25:12a
G37 The tribes of Ishmael, 25:12b–18
S9:G38–54 These are the Stories of Isaac, 25:19—35:29
Title, 25:19a
G38 The elder shall serve the younger, 25:19b–34
G39 Isaac and Rebekah in Gerar, 26:1–33
G40 Jacob obtains the blessing, 26:34—27:45 (26:34–35?)
G41 Jacob is sent to the house of Bethuel, 27:46 and 28:1–9
G42 Jacob’s departure and his vow at Bethel, 28:10–22
G43 Jacob married Leah and Rachel, 29:1–30
G44 Leah, Rachel, and their children, 29:31—30:24
G45 Jacob’s success, 30:25–43
G46 Jacob’s return to the land of his fathers, 31:1—32:1
G47 Jacob’s fear of Esau, 32:2–21
G48 Jacob’s ordeal, 32:22–32
G49 Jacob meets Esau, 33:1–17
G50 Jacob goes to Shechem, 33:18—34:31
G51 Jacob returns to Bethel, 35:1–15
G52 The death and burial of Rachel, 35:16–20
G53 Jacob and his sons, 35:21–26
G54 The death and burial of Isaac, 35:27–29
S10:G54–55 These are the Stories of Esau, 36:1—37:1
Title, 36:1
G54 Esau/Edom, 36:2—36:43
G54.1 Esau in Canaan, 36:2–8
G54.2 Another Title, 36:9
G54.3 Esau in Seir, 36:10–43
G55 But Jacob was in Canaan, 37:1
S11:G56–72 These are the Stories of Jacob, 37:2—50:26
Title, 37:2a
G56 The elders shall serve the younger, 37:2b–36
G57 An interruption from the Story of Judah (the elder will serve
the younger), 38:1–30
G58 Joseph and his success, 39:1—41:57
G58.1 Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, 39:1–23
G58.2 Joseph interprets dreams, 40:1–23
G58.3 From prisoner to ruler, 41:1–57
G59 Joseph and his brothers, 42:1—45:28
G59.1 Joseph’s ten brothers went down to Egypt, 42:1–38
G59.2 They return to Egypt with Benjamin, 43:1–34
G59.3 Benjamin’s sack, 44:1–34
G59.4 Joseph makes himself known to his brothers, 45:1–28
G60 First stop on the journey to Egypt, 46:1–7
G61 “These are the names,” 46:8–27
G62 Joseph meets his father, 46:28–34
G63 The brothers before the Pharaoh, 47:1–6
G64 Jacob blessed the Pharaoh, 47:7–12
G65 Give us bread, 47:13–26
G66 Joseph’s oath, 47:27–31
G67 The elder shall serve the younger, 48:1–20
G68 The gift of Shechem, 48:21–22
G69 Jacob’s words to the twelve tribes, 49:1–28
G70 The death and burial of Jacob, 49:29—50:14
G71 Joseph comforted his brothers, 50:15–21
G72 The death and embalming of Joseph, 50:22–26
1. Gesenius, §145i, p. 463.
2. For another example, note Gen 6:11 in this translation: “The earth was found corrupt before the gods . . .” This is a court scene in the assembly of the gods.
3. E.g., Porphyry and Celsus among the Church Fathers (see Origen, Contra Celsum IV, 42) and Abraham Ibn Ezra among Jewish authors.
4. See Gen 12:6; 36:31; and 50:10.
5. Some scholars who have given up on the traditional literary criticism have actually gone ahead to something new. This is the case with John Van Seters (see Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition). His “something new” is a supplement theory. For the Abraham traditions the sources are literary not oral. There are five stages in the development of this tradition, and each stage or source supplements the earlier source. He sets it up as follows: Pre-Yahwistic first stage, Pre-Yahwistic second stage, Yahwist (exilic), Priestly (post-exilic), and Post-Priestly.
6. We will have to deal with Num 28 and 29 in a new way. See Fisher, “A New Ritual Calendar From Ugarit.”
7. For an example, see Gen 32:33.
8. Gen 46:8–27 is a separate source. Some say that it is P, but it is different from other sections that are said to be P. It is best to say that it is an unknown source.
9. One reason is that there is a movement, just now, away from consensus. I do not think that this movement will succeed, but there are several scholars who date most of the traditions in the Hebrew Bible to late Persian and early Hellenistic times (including the traditions about David). Also, they reinterpret Israel’s material remains as pertaining to much later times. These people see David and his monarchy as fiction. There is a good article on this matter by Knoppers, “The Vanishing Solomon: The Disappearance of the United Monarchy from recent Histories of Ancient Israel.” These scholars (Philip R. Davies, Thomas L. Thompson, Niels Peter Lemche, and others) would not agree with the position taken in this introduction. For them, Genesis could not be published during the Davidic monarchy if there was no Davidic Monarchy. But this group makes a lot of very basic mistakes. For example, they try to argue that there is “no evidence of a Jerusalem in the LB period,” but in order to say this, they have to set aside the six Amarna letters (EA 285–290) from the king of Jerusalem at that time. See Lemche, “From Patronage Society to Patronage Society,” 119 n. 32.
10. This is a form-critical question. Many ask about the kind/type/genre of small units and of oral tradition; but when one asks such a question of a book it is a much more difficult question.
11. At this point, it is important to ask the question, “Did private parties ‘publish’ books?”
12. This is based upon about thirty years of work on this material (e.g., see Fisher, “The Patriarchal Cycles”). Also, note the discussion of this material by Rummel in RSP III (285–95). Rummel suggests that I have a lot more work to do on this topic, and this introduction aims to get at the task once again.
13. I cannot prove that we are dealing with David’s scribes. Perhaps Genesis was produced during the time of Solomon or even later. But I am prepared to argue that it was pre-exilic. I have at times argued that Genesis was put together during David’s time, because I want to emphasize that this is a real possibility. Robert Alter, “Introduction to the Old Testament,” 30, deals with this in a more general way. He says, “The golden age of Hebrew narrative was the First Commonwealth era, when the great sequence of works from Genesis to Kings was given its initial formulation . . . most of the new Hebrew narratives created after 586 BCE are distinctly the products of a postclassical age.” Benjamin Mazar adds to this conversation (“The Historical Background of the Book of Genesis,” 74) when he says, “It is within reason that Genesis was given its original written form during the time when the Davidic empire was being established, and that additional supplements of later authors were only intended to help bridge the time gap for contemporary readers, and had no decisive effect on its contents or overall character.”
14. Kings gave their loyal officials land grants that were “forever,” but that did not mean that the grants were unconditional. One had to remain loyal.
15. Van Seters in Abraham in History and Tradition, 153, makes no sense to me when he says, “Nothing in Genesis suggests a concern for royal legitimation of any kind.”
16. Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness, 191.
17. Gordon and Rendsburg, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, 43–44.
18. There is a growing bibliography on the cult of the dead. Note the following: Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit; also his article “The Ancestral Estate in 2 Samuel 14:16”; Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead; also her review of Lewis’ book, and her article “The Cult of the Dead in Judah: Interpreting the Material Remains”; Smith, “The Invocation of Deceased Ancestors in Psalm 49:12c”; and Murphy, “Ideologies, Rites and Rituals: A View of Prepalatial Minoan Tholoi.” Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, presents a different view of the cult of the dead, at odds with these authors. For details on these and others see the Bibliography.
19. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 1, 3–4.
20. Ibid., 211.
21. This is Jacob/Israel.
22. The LXX replaces “Joseph” with “them” referring to Joseph’s sons. This seems to make more sense, but it is difficult to account for such a mistake in the MT. It is much easier to have Jacob doing two things: he is blessing Joseph by blessing his sons and by giving Joseph Shechem.
23. This is the blessing on the sons. Also note v. 20, which shows how all of this is continued.
24. The phrase “from my birth until this day” is literally “from my beginning to this day.” This phrase also appears in Num 22:30.
25. Also see Gen 21:12. The names of the fathers are called forth or summoned during a ritual for the dead, and when this is done, one is blessed with heirs.
26. Theodore Lewis should really understand this (“The Ancestral Estate,” 604); but in his article it seems that he is thinking more in terms of “perpetuating” and “preserving” “the memory of the family name” in Gen 21:12 and in 48:16. Also, Westermann does not understand this passage, and he sees it as a late addition (exilic or postexilic; Genesis 37–50, 189–90). He thinks that it has to do with the name of the fathers living on in the grandchildren, and thus the history of the fathers, “which was a history with God,” will continue in the children. This gives the time of the fathers a meaning for the later history of Israel. But he does say something that is important, even though he does not really understand it: “This is the clearest and most important passage in the Old Testament where one can recognize the link between patriarchal tradition and the liturgy of Israel.”
27. See Bordreuil and Pardee, “Le rituel funéraire ougaritique RS 34.126,” for the best text which we have used, and Levine and Tarragon, “Dead Kings and Rephaim,” for a good treatment of this text.
28. For this see Finkelstein, “The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty.”
29. See Kitchen, “The King List of Ugarit.”
30. For a detailed treatment of this see Astour, “A North Mesopotamian Locale of the Keret Epic?”
31. We will give more details of the story later.
32. See de Moor, “Rapi’uma—Rephaim,” 335, where he comments on the Ugaritic funeral liturgy as follows (Kuritu = Keret): “Most important, however, is the first part of the ritual. It proves that the Ugaritic dynasty traced its origins back to the same ancestor Ditanu/Didanu as Kuritu. This finally explains why the Legend of Kuritu was handed down in Ugarit.” Van Seters, In Search of History, 200–202, is clearly wrong when he says, “There is, therefore, at present no evidence to suggest that Keret was an ancestor or royal model for the people of Ugarit.”
33. We do not know much about Jacob, Abraham, or Isaac from these stories, but when the scribes put together such stories and formed an epic in order to unite the people, they were not in a position to invent new names or write new stories. For entertainment, the people wanted their stories. The new historians who see such “hero-kings” as imaginary (i.e., “never living persons”) are just not in touch. N. P. Lemche sees a parallel between “Kirta” and the later kings of Ugarit and David and the later kings of Judah. He could make a better case with a parallel between Kirta and Abraham. See Lemche, “From Patronage Society to Patronage Society,” 120.
34. Streck, Assurbanipal, II Teil: Texte, 54–57. Also see IV 65–82, 38–39, for another example.
35. See CAD, Vol. 8, 523.
36. This is a translation of kispu.
37. In light of all this, it appears that David in 2 Sam 21:10–14 is not helping his cause in giving a proper burial to Saul and Jonathan, but more on this below.
38. The common people also had their rituals for the dead. These were usually held in the House of the Marzeah. For a discussion of this see below.
39. Lambert, after discussing the new material, says, “The very considerable importance of this material is the proof it offers that the whole framework of the Hebrew traditions in Gen. i–x, and not just the episode of the flood, has its counterpart in Sumero-Babylonian legend” (“New Light on the Babylonian Flood,” 116).
40. Between these three major sections, there is in each case a very short section dealing with the elder brother. Genesis 25:12–18, “These are the stories of Ishmael” and Gen 36:1–8 and 9–43 where there are two documents with two titles, “These are the stories of Esau.”
41. Here Yahweh punishes as he does in David’s time (2 Sam 12:15).
42. Hebron was David’s first royal residence (2 Sam 2:1–7), and it is also the location of the cave of the Machpelah, the ancestral tomb (Gen 23:1–20; 25:7–11; 35:29; 49:29–31; 50:13), as well as the location of Absalom’s sacrifice and declaration of his kingship (2 Sam 15:7–12).
43. Danel is the father who is known for his wisdom. In fact, Ezekiel knew of him and listed him along with Noah and Job (see 14:13–20 or 28:3).
44. Gaster, Thespis, 330.
45. I have discussed this in great detail in several places, e.g., Fisher, “The Patriarchal Cycles”; and Fisher, “Literary Genres in the Ugaritic Texts.” For an excellent discussion of all of this see Rummel, “Narrative Structures in the Ugaritic Texts.” Perhaps we should add at this point that after Keret mourns the loss of his family, he is given instructions for his journey to obtain his bride who will produce for him children. This is similar to Abraham’s burial of Sarah followed by the journey to obtain a wife for Isaac.
46. There is a very interesting text from Ugarit (Ugaritica V, 499–504). The instructions are written in Ugaritic, but the main part of the text is in Hurrian. It is “A celebration for Astarte” that begins in four sacred areas of the threshing floor and then moves to the temple for the main sacrifices. It is also interesting to note that at a much later time Marcus Terentius Varro (116–27 BCE) in his book De Lingua Latina relates the Latin area (“threshing floor”) to ara (“funeral pyre/altar”); note Hebrew ’arah, “altar-hearth.” The threshing floor was a very interesting place.
47. It has been suggested in the past that here we have one story about Jacob’s burial at Machpelah (Gen 49:29–33 and 50:12, 13 or P) and another story about Jacob’s burial “beyond the Jordon” (Gen 50:1–11 and 14 or J), which of course does not comply with Jacob’s request. It could be that we have material from more than one source, but the story is told in order to meet all of the requirements for such a story. The burial at Machpelah is important, and the journey to the threshing floor of Atad is also important. It is the first part of the funeral ritual. It lasted for seven days (see 1 Sam 31:13). After these seven days the party went on to Machpelah. It would be impossible to deal with the historical situation behind this story. We do not know the route nor the place. But, from what we do know of funerals and rituals, these two parts form a complete story.
48. See Exod 13:19 and Josh 24:32.
49. On this subject see Miller, “The Mrzh Text”; and Dahood, “Additional Notes on the Mrzh Text.”
50. This is the text used for this translation of Genesis.
51. Braudel, The Mediterranean, vol. 1, 14. And more recently, Gilmore, ed., Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean; and Horden and Purcell, The Corrupting Sea: A Study of the Mediterranean.
52. If Genesis 28 is separated into the J and E sources and if “Yahweh” in 28:21b is seen as an addition, it is possible to see one God in the story, but that is not the way it stands in its present form. Also, for more examples of “gods,” see Gen 20:13, 17, 18; and 31:53.
53. There are so many things that one could say about this translation, and most of them will be mentioned in the notes. For example, most scholars translate the Hebrew waw conversive as a conjunction, and they run a lot of short sentences together with “and,” “then,” “but since,” and other interpretive words. I consider this to be possible, but it is misleading. This waw is a tense indicator, and in this translation it performs that function. Look at the difference between this translation and others in Gen 38:1–9. The other translations destroyed this fast moving narrative with its staccato statements. See Gordon, UT, §12.9, pp. 110 and 111.
54. Throughout the translation all additions to the text are put in brackets.
55. I have also used blocks of prose in the Joseph story, but I have done this to show that the Joseph story has been worked and reworked and is a refined story if we compare it to the earlier epic cycles. In chapters 18 and 39 in my novel, The Jerusalem Academy, I show how this material was edited by at least three persons. It is different from the earlier cycles, and it does not follow the Egyptian tradition of first person autobiographies but tells the story in the third person.
56. S1:G1–2 = Segment 1: Genesis §1 and 2.
