Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Promise to
the Patriarchs
JOEL S. BADEN
3
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the Universitys objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide.
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With oces in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by
Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
Contents
Acknowledgments
ix
Introduction
26
57
101
127
Conclusion
158
Notes
163
Bibliography
203
213
217
Acknowledgments
as with all projects of a certain length, this book would not have been
possible without the help of numerous friends and colleagues.
As always, my colleagues at Yale Divinity School have been the perfect
models of collegial support, creating and sustaining an environment for
teaching, research, and writing that could hardly be improved on. I am
particularly thankful to my new Yale colleague Hindy Najman, who has
been both generous with her time and support and a source of much valuable intellectual stimulation.
I continue to be grateful to my coauthor and friend, Professor Candida
Moss, whose work ethic is impressive, whose successes are thoroughly
deserved, and who nevertheless has the time to be a constant source of
support during the writing process.
Over the course of this books gestation from a conference paper to an
article (never written) and eventually to a monograph, many people have
provided input that has made its way into the book, including the anonymous readers at OUP. Two colleagues stand out as particularly worthy of
mention. First, Baruch Schwartz, whose teachingsnot merely the conclusions, but far more importantly the means of reaching themare always
on my mind. Second, my student Liane Marquis, who let me try out with
her most of this book, both orally and in writing; whose keen eye spared me
many a foolish mistake; and whose equally keen mind contributed to, and
at times changed for the better, my own ideas. To both I am grateful.
At times this book required long days and long evenings of work, and
I am thankful to Gillian for never begrudging me the time I felt I needed.
This book is dedicated to my daughters, Zara and Iris. The unmitigated happiness they bring me every single day is worth more than all the
promises any deity could ever make.
Introduction
I will make of you a great nation; I will bless you;
I will make your name great; you, be a blessing. I
will bless those who bless you, and curse him that
curses you, and all the families of the earth will bless
themselves by you
(gen 12:2 3). 1
the patriarchal promise resonates as few other biblical texts do. As the
divine word, pronounced to individuals but denitive for an entire nation,
as the fundamental expression of Gods care for his people, it speaks to
readers in all times and places and situations. Abraham may have passed
from the stage of history long ago, but anyone who considers himself a
descendant of Abraham, be it through genealogy or faith, may be party to
the promise and the blessings it entails.2
The exibility and centrality of the promise for Judeo-Christian
thought are evident in the many texts and traditions that take up the
promise and recongure it for dierent ends. For the classical rabbis, the
promise was bound up with the notion that Abraham knew and studied
the Torah all his life, even before it was given to Moses3 thus on a very
practical level aligning the rabbis themselves, who devoted their own lives
to the study of Torah, with the promise. Similarly we nd in the rabbinic
literature a link expressed between the patriarchal promise and the sacricial system, that is, the practice of fullling the commandments of the
Torah4 again bringing those who practice Judaism in all of its ritual and
legal details in line with the promise and its benets. Thus for the rabbis, the patriarchs were worthy of receiving the promise because of their
behavior (which was modeled on that of the rabbis themselves, of course);
those who participate in the same behaviors are thus laying claim to the
promise as well.5 Of course, for Judaism the patriarchal promise is the
basic expression of the notion of the Jews as Gods chosen people: to be
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
Jewish is to stand in direct descent from Abraham, whom God chose from
all humanity to be the recipient of divine blessing and favor.6
In the New Testament, Jesus is positioned as the fulllment of the
patriarchal promise, thereby dramatically expanding the temporal and
conceptual limits of the promise as it is presented in the Hebrew Bible.
The notion that all the nations of the earth will be blessed by your descendants is taken quite literally: When God raised up his servant, he sent
him rst to you, to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked
ways (Acts 3:26).7 Famously, Paul uses the promise to justify the value
of faith over obedience to the law: It depends on faith, in order that the
promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants, not
only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of
Abraham (Rom 4:16).8 Just as the rabbis positioned obedience to the law
as an emulation of Abrahams promiseworthy behavior, so Paul explicitly
and understandably does the same with faith. And just as lineal descent
from Abraham makes one party to the promise in Judaism, so Paul
changes the terms to center on Jesus: And if you belong to Christ, then
you are Abrahams ospring, heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:29).9
In short, the patriarchal promise is a means of marking identity. It
is available to all who claim to walk in Gods ways, however that may be
dened. It speaks to both the practices of the individual and membership
in a community: one may be party to the promise either by emulating the
individual patriarch or by association with the community that claims
to be the inheritor of the promise. The promise is at once ongoing and
already fullled: one may continually aspire to be worthy of the promise
while simultaneously believing that God has already bestowed its blessings. The promise is a blank theological slate, on which can be inscribed
whatever is of signicance to the author. It is a means of projecting ones
own values onto the most elemental statement of Gods relationship with
humanity, shaping the mythical past in the mold of the present.
Part of the process of making a biblical passage or concept relevant in
another time, however, is loosing its literary moorings, setting it free from
its original historical or narrative context. In this way the promise may be
redened to suit the interpreters needs; one need not have had the same
experiences as Abraham to participate in the Abrahamic promise. The
patriarch himself is abstracted: conceived of as a man of devout practice or
as a man of perfect faith. So too the nation that inherits the promise is not
necessarily the people who were taken out of Egypt and led through the
wilderness, at least not literally; it is a community of right believers. Most
Introduction
interpretations of the promise tell us much about the beliefs and values of
the interpreters, but not very much about the promise itself.
The early interpreters who latched on to the promise chose well, of course.
By laying claim to the promise, they could be seen as laying claim to the
entirety of the Pentateuch, the fundamental text of the Hebrew Bible. For
the promise is the refrain that echoes throughout the Pentateuch. It is present in every one of the ve books; in Genesis alone it appears in chapters 12,
13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 32, 35, 46, 48, and 50. The promise asserts
itself at the highest narrative moments: the call of Abraham, the sacrice
of Isaac, the descent to Egypt, the death of Joseph, the call of Moses, the sin
of the golden calf, the condemnation of the Exodus generation to wander in
the wilderness, the death of Moses. No other concept in the Pentateuch is
treated as extensively or as regularly. The Pentateuch cannot be fully understood without taking the promise into accountbut the promise cannot be
fully understood apart from its setting in the Pentateuch.
This book, then, is an attempt to examine the patriarchal promise as
it functions in the Pentateuch. What precisely does the promise entail?
How does it shape our reading of the whole? What message is conveyed by
it? What theological concepts are encoded within it? Why is it formulated
as it is? These questions will be examined from multiple anglesboth
canonical and literary-historicalin an attempt to extract as much meaning from the promise as possible. Each approach has its benets and its
limitations, and it is part of the contention of this book that they are in fact
complementary: what one approach lacks, the other provides.
Far too oftenindeed, almost universallycanonical and
literary-historical interpretations of the Pentateuch have been kept at
arms length from one another, or have even been positioned as overtly
antagonistic. Canonical readings are said to ignore the history of the text;
literary-historical readings ignore its present form. Canonical readings
are dependent on the subjectivity of the reader; literary-historical readings
are held hostage by the subjective notion of the author. Canonical readings invent meaning; literary-historical readings destroy meaning. While
there is no denying that the two approaches are interested in dierent
questionsfor the canonical approach, how can the text be explained as
it is, and for the literary-historical approach, how can we explain how the
text came to be as it isboth are, in fact, invested in the meaning of the
text. And neither has, nor needs to claim, exclusive rights to that meaning. Dierent questions illuminate dierent aspects of the textand the
text cannot be viewed in its full light without both.
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
Introduction
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
ancient Israel. These perspectives are dened only by the texts that can
be identied with them; as such, every passage plays an important role in
more closely dening the source to which it is ascribed. Given the prominence of the promise throughout the Pentateuch, it is perhaps unsurprising that the promise passages are particularly invested with meaning for
their respective sources. As the most explicit theological statements of
Gods relationship with Israel, the promise texts regularly give expression
to ideas that are only implicit elsewhere. Often, the promise serves as
the nexus for a broad constellation of densely linked concepts. Just as the
promise is necessary for understanding the canonical Pentateuch, so too
it is central to its source contexts. Chapter four details the way in which
the promise serves to encode the unique narrative, thematic, and theological claims of each source.
With the description of the function of the patriarchal promise from
both the canonical and the literary-historical perspectives, and the promise thus seen from multiple angles, at dierent depths, one might consider the work done. Yet it hardly seems enough to simply present the
results of the two approaches. The question remainsparticularly for the
reader interested in making meaning out of the text as we have ithow
can one bring these two perspectives into line? How do the interpretive
conclusions reached by the literary-historical approach aect the way one
reads the canonical text? In chapter ve, an attempt will be made to lay out
a new path for the productive combination of literary-historical and nalform readings. Such a combination has been prevented in most scholarship to this point by the antagonism, real or imagined, between the two
approaches. Or perhaps it has simply been the result of a lack of interest
on the part of each side to engage with the questions and conclusions of
the other. Studies of the theology of the canonical Pentateuch have long
existed, as have studies of the theologies of the individual pentateuchal
sources. What I am proposing in this book is a source-critically informed
canonical theology of the Pentateuch, centered in this case on the patriarchal promise. It is hoped that, at the very least, the program laid out in
chapter ve may demonstrate that the literary-historical approach need
not be the enemy of canonical interpretation. The two can be mutually
informative and constructive, and can result in a more deeply understood
Pentateuch.
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
There are, of course, promise texts that mention only one aspect of the
promise, be it land alone, as in Gen 12:7; 24:7; 50:24, or progeny alone, as
in Gen 16:10; 26:24; 32:13. The presence of such passages has led many
to posit that we are dealing with two originally independent promises,
which were combined only at a later stage in the development of the promise tradition (on which see chapter 2 below). Yet from the canonical perspective, no such claim can be made. The rst promise to each of the
patriarchsto Abraham in Gen 12:13, to Isaac in Gen 26:25, to Jacob
in Gen 28:34 (or 28:1315)is always the full promise, either implicitly
(Gen 12:13) or quite explicitly (Gen 26:25; 28:34). Every repetition of
or reference to the promise thereafter can be only a reinforcement or a
reminder, not a redenition. It is not possible that, having given the full
promise of land and progeny, God would then restrict the promise to only
one of its aspects; rather, in these cases only one aspect is being reemphasized, and in every case, as we will see in the following chapters, for good
contextual narrative reasons. There is no point at which the promise can
be construed as anything other than the full promise of nationhood.
It is this nationhood that constitutes the essence of Yahwehs blessing,
the second statement of Gen 12:2. As with the notion of nationhood, modern readers are perhaps inclined to interpret the term blessing in an
abstract sense. Yet here too the biblical usage suggests that blessing has a
material referent. When individuals are blessed in the Pentateucheither
by another human or by Godthe blessing entails some material gain.6
In the rst category, humans blessing other humans: we may consider
the blessing of Rebekah by her family in Gen 24:60, that she should have
many ospring and that those ospring should defeat their enemies; the
blessing of Jacob by Isaac in Genesis 27, that he should be granted abundant produce and power over other peoples; and the blessing of Josephs
sons by Jacob in Gen 48:1516, that they should be numerous. More to
the point are the numerous times that God blesses humans: beginning
in Genesis 1, with the blessing of fertility; in Gen 24:35, when Abrahams
servant says that God has blessed his master such that he has become
rich; Labans statements in Gen 30:27 and 30 that both he and Jacob have
become wealthy because of Yahwehs blessing; Yahwehs blessing of all
the possessions of Josephs Egyptian master in Gen 39:5; Gods blessing
of the Israelites in Deut 2:7, such that they lacked no provisions in the
wilderness; the divine blessing of abundant crops and livestock in Deut
7:13; the blessing of wealth in Deut 15:6, and so on. Blessing entails material gain in all of these cases, and so too in the promise to the patriarchs,
10
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
11
12
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
13
land nor progeny, and turn him into a nation by giving him both. The
canonical Pentateuch is, then, the story of how that remarkable transformation takes place.
14
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
15
In this group of texts we have three distinct ways in which the promise, specically the aspect of progeny, is challenged and that challenge
overcome. It is noteworthy that the origins of the challenges are distinct
in each case: the natural phenomenon of barrenness; the divine decision to have Abraham sacrice Isaac; and the human inclination toward
self-preservation. This diversity makes clear that the patriarchal promise
is not easily fullledit is assaulted from every direction, and preserved
only through Gods intervention.15
In addition to the episodes described above, we may also include those
narratives that deal with the issue of marriagespecically, endogamous
marriage (within the patriarchal kin group). Thus the story of Abrahams
servant being sent to fetch a wife for Isaac, in Genesis 24, despite its
self-contained nature contributes to the story of the promise, as Abraham
makes perfectly clear: Yahweh, the God of heaven, who took me from my
house and from my native land, who promised me on oath, I will assign
this land to your ospringand here we can only assume that Abraham
must have emphasized the word ospringhe will send his messenger before you. This is no simple wooing mission: Abrahams servant is
responsible for nding the right wife for Isaac to insure the continuity
of the patriarchal promise. And, indeed, the servant prays to Yahweh for
help in his mission, and that help is granted.
The quick success of Abrahams servant stands in contradistinction to
Jacobs later encounter with the same Aramean family, in Genesis 2931.
Jacobs arrival in Labans household begins with what appears to be a positive indication, as Laban welcomes Jacob warmly (29:1314). Yet the joy
of Jacobs arrival is quickly turned to frustration as Laban makes him
work seven years before he may marry Racheland another seven years
before he can actually marry Rachel (29:1528). This frustration is more
than just that of Jacob, the individual; each passing year is another year
in which the potential fulllment of the patriarchal promise is delayed.
And even when Jacob does leave with his family in tow, Laban pursues
him, claiming Jacobs ospring as his own (31:43). Again, it is only divine
intervention that preserves the promise (31:24, 29).
The threat of violence presented by Laban against Jacob is, of course,
not the only such threat that Jacob encounters. Esau represents a direct
threat to the entire promise, rst after the deception of Isaac in Genesis
27, when Esau pledges to kill Jacob, and again when Jacob encounters
Esau on his return from Aram. In this second instance, the threat to the
promise emerges not because Jacobs life is in dangerafter all, Jacobs
16
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
children have all been born by the time Esau catches up with himbut
because Jacob is afraid for the children themselves, as he says: Deliver
me, I pray, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau; else,
I fear, he may come and strike me down, mothers and children alike
(Gen 32:12). This fear, which any reasonable individual would experience,
is not just Jacobs own, however; he fears explicitly for the promise that
supersedes his individuality, as he continues: Yet you have said, I will
deal bountifully with you and make your ospring as the sands of the sea,
which are too numerous to count (32:13).
Even the story of Dinah in Genesis 34, which seems so independent
when read on its own, takes on greater meaning in light of the promise. Not
only is the question of endogamous marriage at the center of the story, as it
is in the stories of Genesis 24 and 2931, but most importantly the conclusion of the narrative signals a potential threat to the promise. After Simeon
and Levi have slaughtered the inhabitants of Shechem, Jacob responds in
fear of retribution: You have made me odious among the inhabitants of
the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites; my men are few in number, so
that if they should unite against me and attack me, I and my house will be
destroyed (34:30). From the perspective of the promise, the destruction of
Jacob and his house is not an individual or even a family issue: the fate of
Gods word hangs in the balance. Not surprisingly, the solution is provided
by God: As they set out, a terror from God fell on the cities round about,
so that they did not pursue the sons of Jacob (35:5).
So too the story of Judah and Tamar in Genesis 38, which, though it
seems to stand very much apart in the pentateuchal context, is, as part of
the pentateuchal story, fundamentally about a challenge to the fulllment
of the patriarchal promise. For it is not enough that Jacob should have
twelve sonshe may have a burgeoning family, but they are not remotely
close to being a nation yet. Thus it is of paramount importance that each
of Jacobs sons has numerous children of his own, and that his children
have children. And this is the topic of Genesis 38: Judahs three sons were
either unacceptable, unwilling, or unavailable to procreate (38:611). Had
the situation at the end of 38:11 continued, Judahs line would have ended.
This is one of the rare stories in which the promise is maintained not by
God, but by a human, in this case Tamar. It is perhaps no wonder that, in
later tradition, she was rewarded by being considered the direct ancestor
of David (Ruth 4:1822).
The stories of the patriarchal family can, of course, be read as deeply
insightful studies of kinship relations, as commentaries on the universal
17
human condition. But these stories are, in the canonical text, invested
with their theological import by virtue of their part in the story of the
patriarchal promise. The continuation of the family line means more than
just one familys success in the world; it is symbolic of Gods power, and it
justies mankinds faith in that power. The obstacles to the continuation
of the family line are more than just the bumps in the road every family
experiences over four generations; they are challenges to the fulllment
of Gods word.16 The promise transforms the story of humanity into the
story of Gods relationship with humanity.
Despite all of the challenges to the aspect of progeny in the patriarchal
promise, it does of course come to pass. The matriarchs are all healed of
their barrenness, the patriarchs all survive the threats to their lives, and,
by the beginning of the book of Exodus, the Israelites have multiplied just
as they were promised. Before turning to ExodusNumbers, however, it
is important to recognize that although the stories of Genesis seem to
be centered on the aspect of progeny, as bets their familial nature, the
aspect of land is not ignored. It is in the background throughout; indeed,
it pervades the entire patriarchal cycle. Despite Gods promise to give the
patriarchs the land in which they are dwelling, the family of Abraham
has a rather dicult time actually settling in even a single location, much
less the entirety of the land. Abrahams arrival in Canaan, the land that
Yahweh promised him, is almost immediately aborted by the famine that
forces him to go to Egypt (Gen 12:10). Upon his return he settles for a time
in Hebron, but soon enough he moves out of the promised land again, to
Gerar (20:1). From there he returns to Beersheba, but after his death Isaac
is also forced from the land by famine, again nding his way to Gerar
(Gen 26:6). After Isaac too returns to Beersheba, Esaus threat of violence
requires Jacob to leave for Aram, this time for twenty years. When he
comes back to Canaan, he settles in Shechem, even purchasing a plot of
land (33:19)yet after the events of Genesis 34, he abandons his recently
acquired property and heads for Bethel (35:6). The last clear statement of
Jacobs location is beyond Migdal-Eder (35:21), before the Joseph story
and the dislocation of the entire family to Egypt.
The point of rehearsing the travels of the patriarchs is to show that they
are never able to actually possess the promised land. Whether by famine,
external threat, or simply their own choice, the patriarchs lead an extraordinarily peripatetic existence. They experience the full range of Canaan,
from top to bottom, but they are never able to claim it as their own. Indeed,
the patriarchal stories are full of encounters with the non-Israelites peoples
18
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
who do lay claim to the land: the Amorites among whom Abraham lives in
Gen 14:13; the Hittites in Genesis 23; the Shechemites in Genesis 34. These
peoples are not dispossessed; there is no conquest of the land in Genesis
that would permit the patriarchs to settle there permanently.
The only piece of the promised land to which Abrahams family can lay
any authentic claim in Genesis is the burial plot at Machpelah (Genesis 23),
where the patriarchs and matriarchs (with the exception of Rachel) are all
buried. This cave is important, to be surea burial plot signals continuity of possession across the generations, the essential prerequisite for land
ownership. Yet with the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt, the burial
plot, and the possession of even a little piece of the promised land that it
represents, disappears, never to be mentioned again. Even the most minor
acquisition of the smallest piece of property in the promised land is obliterated. Indeed, with the enslavement in Egypt, the entire notion that there
could be any fulllment of the promise of land, even a partial fulllment,
during the lives of the patriarchs is shown to be impossible. The nomadic
existence led by the patriarchs may have been an indication that the promise of land was never really going to be fullled during their lifetimesas,
in fact, Abraham was told directly (Gen 15:1316). The patriarchal cycle is
about the aspect of progeny; the aspect of land lingers only in the background, reminding us every time the family moves to a new location that
they continue not to possess the land that had been promised them. All of
the wandering of the patriarchal family in Genesis, inside and outside the
promised land, comes to a head in the descent to Egypt. Just as the roaming
of the patriarchs signied a continuous challenge to the promise of land,
the enslavement in Egypt is the forthright proclamation of that challenge.
The beginning of Exodus is a well-recognized point of demarcation
for the pentateuchal story: it is the border between the patriarchal story
and the Exodus-wilderness story, between Israel the family and Israel the
people. In that transition lies perhaps the fundamental irony of the pentateuchal story as a whole: the greatest challenge to the promise of land
occurs at the same time that the promise of progeny is fullled. After all
of the familial struggles throughout Genesis, the joy of Gods word coming to pass in the multiplication of Abrahams descendants is shattered by
the enslavement in Egypt. Now it seems possible that all was for naught,
that the newly expanded people might never have a land of their own. The
irony runs even deeper: it is precisely because the promise of progeny has
been fullled and the Israelite people are now numerous that Pharaoh
searches for ways to constrain and, eventually, destroy them.
19
It is little wonder that the Exodus became the dominant story and
image of Gods relationship with Israel: the rescue of the Israelites from
Egypt represents more than simply a victory over an oppressive enemy.
The enslavement of Israel marked a wrenching turn from joy to despair;
the Exodus oers the hope that the turn might be reversed. More than
hope: a renewed promise to bring the Israelites into a land owing with
milk and honey (Exod 3:8, 17), the land that was promised to the patriarchs (6:8). From the moment that God takes note of the suering of the
Israelitesand, in doing so, remembers the promise to the patriarchs
(Exod 2:24)there is no question that Israel will leave Egypt. All of the
exchanges between Moses and Pharaoh, all of the plagues, are nothing but
suspense for the sake of eect, as Yahweh says explicitly (Exod 7:35). The
Exodus is more than a great story of redemption from evil; in the canonical
context, it is a demonstration of Gods power to fulll his own word.
The Israelites do not simply walk into Canaan after they leave Egypt,
of course, any more than Abrahams ospring multiplied within the rst
generation. Just as the promise of progeny faced obstacles before it could
be fullled, so now the promise of land faces a remarkable sequence of
challenges. In the patriarchal stories, the survival of the individual was
often at stake; after the people have increased, the individual is no longer
the relevant unit, but rather the people as a whole. Thus most of the challenges faced by the Israelites in their attempt to reach the promised land
are threats to their survival as a corporate whole. Some of these threats
are external, as in the attacks of the Egyptians (Exodus 14), Amalek (Exod
17:816), the king of Arad (Num 21:13), Sihon, king of the Amorites (Num
21:2125), and Og, king of Bashan (Num 21:3335).17 In each of these cases,
Israel is saved by divine intervention of one sort or another, as we might
expect. Some threats to Israels survival are what we might term natural;
that is, they reect the conditions of the wilderness: thirst (Exod 15:2225;
17:17; Num 20:213) and hunger (Exodus 16). In these episodes too it is
God who provides for Israels needs. And, often, the threats to Israels
existence have their origins in Israel itself: in the haste of the people to
get to the promised land, in the lack of faith the people show when facing
a dicult situation. In these cases, it is God who delivers the punishment that threatens the people, and it is frequently Moses and/or Aaron
who prevents God from fully destroying Israel. This can be seen in episodes as famous and important as the golden calf (Exodus 32) and the
spies (Numbers 1314), but also in many smaller episodes in which the
Israelites are struck by divine plague (Num 11:33; 17:11; 21:6; 25:9). At least
20
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
21
22
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
23
24
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
25
27
28
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
29
be a revered site from that moment on. As proof, he brings the promise to
Abraham in Gen 22:1518, which he and many others consider secondary
and which he claims is similar to Gen 13:1417 in that it emphasizes the
content of the speech rather than its location.6 Yet Wellhausen seemingly
nds no such diculty with Gen 12:13, which begins even more generally
than 13:1417Yahweh said to Abramand which certainly emphasizes
solely the content of the promise.7 Thus for Wellhausen the clear sign of a
secondary insertion in one text is passed over silently in another.
These examples demonstrate the subjectivity prevalent in some classical arguments for secondary promise texts. In both cases, it should further
be noted, there is the assumption that Gen 12:13 is original, even though it
shares features with other texts that are deemed secondary. Both arguments
raise the question as to why, if these features are indicative of secondary
texts, Gen 12:13 should not be considered secondary as well. One is tempted
to believe that Gen 12:13 was viewed as original, despite its similarity to
other passages considered secondary, primarily because of its traditional
importance in Judeo-Christian thought. Many other promise texts could be
excised practically without anyone noticing, but the call to Abraham, with
its ostensible demonstration of pure faith, must be authentic.
Beyond the inconsistent application among the classical critics of the
criteria for deeming a passage secondary, however, the criteria themselves
were fraught with diculties. For the most part, these stemmed from
methodological problems common to the older documentary school, and
can be recognized as microcosms of the systemic aws in the standard
application of the classical theory as a whole. The criteria for attributing
promise passages to a secondary layer were basically three: the reference
of one promise passage to an earlier one; the ostensible ease with which
a passage may be removed from its context; and the perceived deuteronomic style of some promise formulations.
We may rst examine the question of references. Gen 18:18 contains a
clear allusion to the promise to Abraham in Gen 12:13: Yahweh had said,
Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, since Abraham is to
become a great and populous nation and all the nations of the earth are to
bless themselves by him? For I have singled him out . . . (18:1718). Though
the narrative of Genesis 18 was considered by the classical critics to be the
work of J, as of course was Gen 12:13, this promise reference in 18:18 was
labeled as an addition specically because it refers back to the earlier J passage.
Hermann Gunkel in particular makes this explicit: The secondary character
of the verses is also clear in the allusion in v 18 to the promises already made
30
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
to Abraham (12:2, 3), as v 19b also explicitly states, whereas the old legend
in 18:116 (as is true of the old narratives in general) is entirely free of such
allusions to other accounts.8 Though it appears that here Gunkel identies
the individual narrative episodes of Genesis 12 and 18 as compositionally distinct, in fact he attributes both Gen 12:13 and 18:116 to J; moreover, although
he divides J into multiple layers, he attributes both of these passages to the
same earliest layer, his Ja.9 Why, then, could the same author not have created an explicit link back to an earlier part of his own narrative? Presumably,
at least for Gunkel, this was a result of the nature of the ancient Israelite:
intellectually undeveloped, subject to a poverty of comprehension.10 Given
these restrictions on the mental capacity of the ancient Israelite, it is no wonder that authorial techniques such as cross-reference had to be seen as the
work of a later stage.
Gunkel comes to the same conclusion in regard to two other promise
texts that make reference back to earlier portions of the narrative, namely,
Gen 26:3b5 and 26:24. The rst of these passages contains the words
fullling the oath that I swore to your father Abraham, and inasmuch
as Abraham obeyed me, in addition to repeating such features from
Gen 12:13 as all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your
heirs. Gunkel concludes that this must be an addition in that it refers
back to the Abraham narrative.11 The second, similarly, says I am the
God of your father Abraham; fear not, for I am with you, and I will bless
you and increase your ospring for the sake of my servant Abraham. Of
this Gunkel claims that the editor betrays his later time by recalling the
Abraham narrative.12
Given the advances in the last century in our understanding of oral
literature and of narrative in general, the argument that cross-references
represent an advanced stage of authorial technique, foreign to the earliest narrators, is easily dismissed. This argument is especially at odds with
the views of the classical critics, who saw in the documentary sources continuous compositions, even if they contained earlier elements. Jor any
of the pentateuchal sourcesmust be, as any author is, considered free to
refer backward or forward within his own literary creation if we are to take
seriously the notion of the sources as documents. It may also be observed
that both Gen 50:24 and Exod 33:1, with their references to the promise
given to all three patriarchs, also clearly refer to previous promise texts; yet
they were considered original.
The ostensible removability of some promises from their narrative contexts served as a further indication of a secondary insertion into the text.
31
Wellhausen uses the ease with which text may be excised from its context
as a criterion in his judgment that Gen 18:1719 was a secondary block,
noting of these verses that one does not miss them before the new beginning of 18:20.13 Similarly, J. Estlin Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby
see Jacobs prayer in Gen 32:1013 (which ends with a reference to the
divine promise) as interrupting the connection between 32:9 and 14.14 This
seems a precarious argument.15 First and foremost, it is a judgment that
can be applied to a nearly innite number of verses in the Hebrew Bible;
in nearly every narrative (or legal collection) there are verses that could
be removed without damaging the basic ow of the narrative.16 (An easy
example is the very beginning of Genesis, where Gen 1:2 can be removed
without aecting the text at all: When God began to create the heavens
and the earth . . . God said, Let there be light, and there was light [Gen
1:1, 3].) A more objective criterion for determining where a connection is
truly broken, rather than intentionally delayed, is required to prove that an
insertion has taken place.17 Moreover, if the preceding criterion for identifying secondary passages denied the ancient author the right to a standard
technique such as cross-reference, this criterion eectively denies him the
equally important devices of digression, tangent, provision of background
information, or interior monologue, all regular features of prose narration. We are again thrown back onto Gunkels unattering views of the
abilities and intellectual facilities of the ancient Israelite. It would be wise
to heed the (admittedly somewhat ambivalent) statement of J. A. Emerton:
The fact that it is usually possible to remove the promises without harm
to their context does not favour their originality, though it is scarcely sufcient to disprove it.18
Furthermore, as may be expected, those promise texts considered original by the classical critics are just as easily removed from their context as
those considered secondary in part for that very reason. Gen 50:2425, it
can be argued, actually interrupts the narrative of Josephs death. Without
these verses, the text reads perfectly smoothly: Joseph lived to see children of the third generation of Ephraim; the children of Machir son of
Manasseh were likewise born upon Josephs knees. . . . Joseph died at the
age of one hundred and ten years, and he was embalmed and placed in
a con in Egypt (50:23, 26). Gen 21:13 and 18 are readily removed without aecting the surrounding narrative. Even Gen 12:13 (along with its
fulllment in 12:4a), at least in the canonical text, stands between the P
travel itinerary of 11:3132 and 12:4b, and as such could easily be removed
without damage to the immediate context; the resulting text would read
32
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
The days of Terah came to 205 years, and Terah died in Haran. Abram
was seventy-ve years old when he left Haran (11:32, 12:4b).19 Again, this
procedure can surely be undertaken with a very large number of biblical verses, and as such is virtually unusable as a criterion for secondary
attribution. What is crucial to recognize is that none of these ostensibly
secondary passages contradict the narrative claims of their contexts; they
simply expand on them. The driving rationale for source division in the
documentary theory is narrative contradiction, not removability of text.
The third and most substantial criterion in the classical approach for
the identication of secondary promise passages is the perception of deuteronomic anities, linguistic and thematic.20 The argument here was
that if a promise text looks as if it contains language or ideas similar to
those of D, it must have been added by a later hand somehow related to
the deuteronomic school.21 There was signicant consensus among the
classical critics as to the identication of these deuteronomic passages,
especially Gen 18:1719; 26:3b5; and Exod 32:13.22 The claim that these
promise texts are to be understood as deuteronomic has persisted in
documentary scholarship to the present.23 Yet despite the broad consensus
among classical scholars (and classical-minded modern scholars), fundamental logical and methodological aws require us to rethink the concept
of the deuteronomic promise passage.
The rst two of the aforementioned passages, Gen 18:1719 and 26:3b5,
are labeled deuteronomic because they employ what seem to be legalistic language and concepts in describing Abrahams delity to Yahweh: to
keep the way of Yahweh by doing what is just and right (18:19) and inasmuch as Abraham obeyed me and kept my charge: my commandments,
my laws, and my teachings (26:5). Obedience to the divinely given laws is
indeed a recurring concept in D. Yet it can hardly be taken here as having
the same meaning. Even a deuteronomic redactor would have easily recognized that in the narrative to this point no laws have been given to which
Abraham could be said to be faithful.24 The import here must be simply
adherence to Yahwehs commandsbeginning with Abraham leaving his
homeland in Gen 12:4.25 In these passages, the legalistic phrases must
have a general meaningin contradistinction to their usage in D, where
they unambiguously refer to the laws of Deuteronomy 1226. If these are
in fact deuteronomic insertions, then it is further remarkable that they
should have been placed only in J contexts, and nowhere in E. Moreover,
J uses similar language outside of the promise texts to mean the same
thing, that is, general obedience to Yahweh: in Exod 15:26 and 16:4, 28,
33
34
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
35
of Gen 22:1518 must also have been additions by the same handeven
though they did not share the conditions that uniquely marked 22:1518 as
secondary. Almost every identication of a promise text as secondary was
based, at least in part, on its commonalities with the one rmly established
secondary passage, 22:1518. Thus Wellhausen argued that Gen 13:1417 are
analogous to 22:1518;31 Kilian saw Gen 16:10 and 22:17 as from the same
hand;32 Carpenter and Harford-Battersby connected the language of Gen
18:18 to 22:18;33 Dillmann related 26:5 to 22:18;34 Kuenen called 28:1316
homogeneous with 22:1518;35 Skinner described 32:1013 as akin to
22:1518;36 Bacon deemed Exod 32:13 secondary because it quotes Gen
22:16.37 Again, verbal similarities to an identiably later passage do not
require, or even imply, that a given passage is also secondary. Rather, the
default assumption should be that the author of the acknowledged secondary passage knew and based his text on the earlier, original material.38
This is especially so when, as in the case of Gen 22:1518, the elements
that compel scholars to view it as late are entirely absent from every other
promise text (on which see the next chapter).
Having surveyed the various criteria among classical scholars for deeming nonpriestly promise texts secondary, we may now return briey to the
priestly promise texts. As noted above, classical scholarship universally
considered the priestly promise texts to be original parts of the P document. Yet it is striking that the very criteria used to determine secondary
passages in the nonpriestly sources are equally present in P, and yet did
not seem to have the same force.
If explicit reference back to earlier promise texts was a sign of a secondary hand in the nonpriestly sources, then on the same grounds nearly every
P promise text should be eliminated. The rst P promise is to Abraham,
in Genesis 17. The next, Gen 28:34, Isaacs transmission of the blessing
to Jacob, says may he grant the blessing of Abraham to you and your
ospring, that you may possess the land where you are sojourning, which
God assigned to Abraham (28:4), explicitly recalling the promise of Gen
17:8: I assign the land where you are sojourning to you. The promise to
Jacob in Gen 35:1112 says, The land that I assigned to Abraham and Isaac
I assign to you (35:12), again referring back to the previous priestly promise texts. We also nd in that passage the phrase be fertile and increase
(35:11), which is, in turn, recalled explicitly in 48:34: El Shaddai appeared
to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and he blessed me and said to me,
I will make you fertile and numerous. In Exod 6:34 God tells Moses,
I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but I did not
36
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
37
Tradition-historical Scholarship
By on the one hand arguing that the majority of the theologically central
patriarchal promise texts were secondary additions to their narrative contexts, and on the other hand failing to provide any motivation for these
insertions, classical documentary scholars left a gaping hole in their theory
of pentateuchal composition, one which was eventually readily lled by
the new nondocumentary approach in the late twentieth century. Before
discussing the nondocumentary approach, however, it is important to consider briey the development of the tradition-historical approach prevalent
in the mid-twentieth century, and particularly the views of the two giants
of that approach, Gerhard von Rad and Martin Noth. Tradition-historical
criticism investigates the preliterary development of the traditions that
have made their way into the biblical text: where and in what circumstances the individual episodes may have had their oral origins, and how
38
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
those episodes were brought together into broader themes, which were
subsequently adopted and composed in a literary form by the pentateuchal
authors. Thus the tradition-historical inquiry regarding the patriarchal
promise has to do less with the question of secondary additions and more
with the question of how rmly grounded in the preliterary traditions of
the patriarchs the concept of the divine promise may have been.
Gerhard von Rad maintains the basic source division of his classical
predecessorsincluding seeing some of the promise texts as late additions40but in light of his tradition-historical approach to the text, with
its emphasis on the theological purpose of each element, he gives even
more weight to the theological purpose of the promise texts, the Yahwistic
ones in particular. For von Rad, the promise is a genuine element of that
pre-Yahwistic patriarchal religion, which assured the semi-nomadic people, driving forward into civilised territory, that they would achieve the
goal of their aspirations, and as such belongs to the most ancient of
the traditions of which the J writer takes cognisance.41 If the concept of
the promise was inherent in and indeed already central to the individual
preliterary traditions, however, it was the J author who expanded it into
the dominant theme of his combined patriarchal narrative. The Yahwist
turned the promise into a theological link connecting not only the disparate patriarchal cultic traditions to each other, but also to the originally
unrelated traditions of the Israelite settlement, the Sinaitic covenant, and
the primeval historyfor the last of which von Rad deems Gen 12:13 in
particular to be the crucial linking text.42
Martin Noth substantially follows von Rad in his views on the centrality
of the promise within the patriarchal traditions. Indeed, in his separation of
the Pentateuch into its constituent overarching themes, that related to the
patriarchs is entitled Promise to the Patriarchs.43 Noth accepts von Rads
view that the promise was already an integral part of the once-independent
oral patriarchal traditions. Though the gure of Jacob, and the promise tradition connected with him, was the rst, according to Noth, to be merged
with the other pentateuchal themes in the preliterary stage,44 the stories
of Isaac and Abraham, added subsequently to the Jacob traditions, each
came with its own promise of progeny and landthe only dierence was
that the worshipers of their deities lived not in central Palestine, as in the
case of the worshipers of Jacobs God, but on the southern margin of the
land.45 Beyond this, however, Noth theorizes that other tribal groups had
similar traditions of patriarchs and promises, traditions which were not
incorporated into the pentateuchal framework: One should take seriously
39
the possibility that the theme the promise to the patriarchs may have
been further developed also among the central Palestinian, the Galilean,
and the East Jordanian tribes in connection with various other patriarchal gures indigenous among them.46 For Noth, then, in contrast to von
Rad, the prominence of the patriarchal promise is a result less of the work
of the Yahwist than of the agglomeration of disparate promise-centered
local traditions, either in Noths proposed prepentateuchal grand narrative,
the somewhat vaguely formulated Grundlage (which, according to Noth,
already contained the Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and even Joseph themes47),
or perhaps even earlier. Regardless of the mechanism by which these independent patriarchal traditions were collected in the preliterary stage, the
centrality of the promise in Genesis was traced back to the centrality of the
promise in the earliest localized oral patriarchal traditions.
Thus while classical documentary scholarship maintained that at least
some of the patriarchal promise texts were original parts of their narrative
sources, early tradition-critical scholarship went even a step further, arguing that the very concept of the Israelite patriarchal age as a whole, from
its earliest oral days, was inseparable from the notion of the promise. If
classical scholarship, by concentrating on the removal of ostensibly secondary promise texts, seemed to downplay the centrality of the promise
in the pentateuchal story, tradition-critical scholarship rmly restored the
promise to a prominent place in the patriarchal narrativealbeit without
challenging the classical view that many of the promise texts in their current literary forms might be secondary. Indeed, some scholars, adapting
the basic tradition-critical insights of von Rad and Noth, argued that in
fact the promise was the creation of J, and was added to the originally
promise-free traditions about the patriarchs by the authors of the pentateuchal documentsthereby giving the promise perhaps an even more
central place in the theologies of the sources.48
The clear link established by von Rad and Noth between the promise
and the early traditions about the patriarchs was substantially challenged
by the study of J. Hoftijzer.49 Hoftijzer combines aspects of literary and
tradition-critical investigations in his analysis of the promise. He begins
by collecting the promise texts in Genesis into two broad groups, on the
basis of linguistic and stylistic similarities: what he calls the El-Shaddai
group, equivalent to the priestly promise texts, and what he calls the
Genesis 15 group, comprising the nonpriestly promise texts.50 Having
argued that the promise texts in each group were interdependentthat
is, that all of the nonpriestly promise texts seem to have come from the
40
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
same hand, and all of the priestly promise texts from anotherHoftijzer
then inquires as to whether the promise is an integral part of the narrative
traditions in which it is now literarily embedded.51 To an extent, this procedure is similar to the classical argument that certain promise texts may be
lifted out of their literary contexts, but Hoftijzer moves this discussion to
the level of tradition, rather than text. Thus he argues, for instance, that in
Gen 12:13 (from the Genesis 15 group) the main tradition expressed in the
text is that of the patriarch moving to Canaan from a foreign landa tradition found elsewhere without any mention of a promise (Gen 11:3132 and
Jos 24:23); from this he concludes that the promise tradition has been
secondarily appended in Gen 12:13.52 Similarly, in Gen 48:34 (from the
El Shaddai group), the main tradition is that of the adoption by Jacob of
Josephs sons Ephraim and Manasseh; as this tradition occurs elsewhere
(in fact in the same chapter of Genesis, though in a nonpriestly narrative) without the concept of the promise, the promise in 48:34 must be
secondary.53
In fact, in only two cases does Hoftijzer argue that the promise is not
a secondary tradition: in Genesis 15 and 17. Each of these texts, he correctly observes, is constructed entirely around the notion of the promise; there is no other tradition in which the promise has been embedded.
Further, both of these texts describe the making of a covenant between
God and Abraham on the basis of the promise. Thus for Hoftijzer, the
central text of the priestly promises is Genesis 17, and the central text of
the nonpriestly promises is Genesis 15. From these observations Hoftijzer
concludes that the promise is, in both groups, tradition-historically a later
development. Thus he thoroughly rejects the traditional primacy of the
promise as argued by von Rad and Noth.
Yet Hoftijzer goes a step further, and claims that the Genesis 15 group
(the nonpriestly promises) is not only tradition-historically but also literarily a secondary stratum in the biblical text: all of these promise texts,
with Genesis 15 as the main one, were inserted into a preexisting narrative by a later hand. At the same time, however, Hoftijzer argues that
the El-Shaddai group (the priestly promise texts), although sharing the
very same tradition-historical features as the Genesis 15 group, was an
original part of its literary context; in other words, the tradition-historical
integration of the promise and the other patriarchal traditions took place
at the preliterary level for the priestly material, but at the literary level for
the nonpriestly material.54 In this analysis, then, Hoftijzer goes beyond the
classical documentary critics, who saw many, but not all, of the nonpriestly
41
42
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
43
44
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
45
for example, in Gen 3:8, 10: The man and his wife hid (wayyitabb, hithpael) from Yahweh Elohim . . . I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid
(wb, niphal). Similarly, in Dan 2:1, 3: Nebuchadnezzar had a dream;
his spirit was agitated (wattitpem, hithpael) . . . I had a dream, and my
spirit was agitated (wattippem, niphal). Unless we are to imagine that in
each of these cases the two verses are actually from two dierent hands, it
must be acknowledged that this kind of variation is untenable as a means
of dierentiating compositional layers. That this argument perhaps puts
too much weight on scanty evidence is also clear when Gen 18:18 is added
to the picture: since Abraham is to become a great and populous nation
and all the nations of the earth (hre) are to bless themselves (wnibrk,
niphal) by him. In this verse, which contains an allusion to the speech
of Gen 12:13, the niphal form of the verb is used; David Carr assigns the
verse, however, to a compositional layer dierent from that of Gen 12:3 and
28:14, though both of these verses contain the same form.69 He does so
on the basis of the word hre, the land, found in Gen 22:18 and 26:4,
while the synonym hadmh, the ground, is used in Gen 12:3 and 28:14.
Thus Gen 18:18 is viewed as standing between the two groups of formulations, employing one of the keywords from each. The root assumption
here is that a single author could evidently not employ even very slightly
dierent formulations of the promise language. It seems considerably
more natural, however, if one does not already assume that the promise
texts must be divided into layers, to take Gen 18:18 as an indication that
they all belong together, since it bridges any distinctions we might otherwise consider indicative of a division. The observation of Jean-Louis Ska,
who though subscribing to the nondocumentary approach in general has
a considerably less complex view of the development of the promise passages, is worth noting: The promise to make Jacob a blessing (28:14b)
is similar to the promise made to Abraham in 12:3, 18:18, and 22:18 and
to Isaac in 26:4. The anity between these dierent texts is undeniable
despite slight characteristic variations of the Hebrew style.70
Similarly, emphasis is laid by the nondocumentary school on the distinctions among the promise texts in the simile used to express the great
numbers of the patriarchs progeny. Gen 13:16 and 28:14 use the expression like the dust of the earth; Gen 15:5; 22:17; 26:4; Exod 32:13 use like
the stars of the sky; and Gen 22:17; 32:13 use like the sands of the sea.
The manner in which these are grouped varies by scholar: Rendtor combines the comparisons to dust and sand, as opposed to those to the stars;
Blum sees the references to the dust of the earth as forming a group, while
46
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
those to the stars and the sand are considered together.71 The view of these
phrases as demarcations of textual layers relies on the notion that they are
somehow unique to a particular authorthat a given author was restricted
to using only one simile for the number of the patriarchs descendants
rather than being common, even generic, essentially interchangeable
expressions of great multitude. An examination of the Hebrew Bible
reveals that the use of dust to express limitless numbers occurs not only
in Gen 13:16 and 28:14, but also in Zech 9:3; Ps 78:27; Job 27:16; 2 Chr 1:9.
The comparison to the sands of the sea occurs outside of the promise
passages in Gen 41:49; Jos 11:4; Judg 7:12; 1 Sam 13:5; 2 Sam 17:11; 1 Kgs 4:20;
5:9; Isa 10:22; 48:19; Jer 15:8; 33:22; Hos 2:10; Hab 1:9; Ps 78:26; 139:18.
That to the stars of the sky is found in Deut 1:10; 10:22; 28:62; Nah 3:16;
Dan 12:3; 1 Chr 27:23, and is also found in Akkadian literature.72 Blum,
in assigning the use of the phrase stars in the sky in the promise texts
to a deuteronomic redactional layer, notes of course the examples from
Deuteronomy, but tellingly does not discuss the nondeuteronomic uses
thereof.73 It is especially noteworthy that two of these phrases can appear
in a single nonpentateuchal source: thus dust and sand are both found
in Psalm 78, while dust and stars are both found in Chronicles. None
of these phrases, it is clear enough, are the creation, or the sole possession,
or are even necessarily typical, of a particular literary author, editor, or stratum. They are part of the common stock of Israelite (and non-Israelite)
expressions for great numbers, and like all stock expressions, are available
for use by any author. They are not a useful indicator of a particular literary
stratum, and are certainly not a signicant piece of evidence for dierentiating layers in the patriarchal promise.74
A third argument against the type of overly detailed lexical analysis
advanced by the nondocumentary school is the evidence of the priestly
promise texts. The priestly layer in the Pentateuch, at least in the narrative
of Genesis and Exodus, is judged by most nondocumentary scholars to be
of one piece, and this goes for the promises found therein as well.75 Yet
on close inspection, the priestly promise texts display precisely the kind of
small verbal dierences that have been held up in the nonpriestly promise
texts as an indication of multiple layers. There is variation in the wording
of Gods promise to make the patriarch fruitful: all the priestly promise
texts (Gen 17; 28:3; 35:11; 48:4) contain this notion, and all use the verbs
p-r-h, be fruitful, and r-b-h, multiply; in Gen 17:6, 20, however, we nd
the added expression md md, very very. Following the nondocumentary analysis of the distinctions in formula among the nonpriestly
47
references to blessing, this variation ought to be a sign of distinct authorship. Similarly, the phrasing used for God making the patriarch into a
great nation diers from passage to passage: in Genesis 17, Abraham
is to become gym, nations (17:6); in 28:3 and 48:4 he is to become
qhal ammm, an assembly of peoples; in 35:11, gy qhal gym.76 This
seems almost entirely analogous to the aforementioned example of the
nonpriestly blessing passages, in which there are two groups with similar
wording and one that apparently bridges the distinction between them.
Perhaps most striking is the idea in the priestly promise texts that kings
will come from Abrahams descendants, a concept found in Gen 17:6, 16;
35:11, but not at all in the promises of 28:34 or 48:34. This is precisely the
type of data employed by the nondocumentary school in discerning layers
in the nonpriestly promise texts, yet here the variations are left to stand.77
The inconsistency in applying these detailed analyses to the promise
is evident not only from the substantially dierent treatment aorded the
priestly promise texts, but even within discussions of the nonpriestly passages. Blum revealingly writes of the promise texts outside of Genesis (all
of which he assigns to his deuteronomic layer KD): The promise of land
(as an oath) is found, admittedly, to vary linguistically and in terms of
content: in particular, in Numbers 11 admh is mentioned (where otherwise it is hre), and in Deuteronomy 31 the promise refers to Israel (and
not the patriarchs). However, corresponding variations can be explained
by the process of the formation of the tradition.78 The most sensible
approach to these slight variations in wording among the promise texts is
that espoused by Emerton: There are also dierences between some of
the promises, and it must be asked whether they tell against the attribution of all of them to the same hand . . . The dierences may, however, be
explained on the hypothesis that the same writer allowed himself variety
in the expression of similar ideas.79
In a related set of arguments, the nondocumentary school has based
its layering of the promise texts on what might be termed a hypercritical
approach to the Hebrew language. This essentially amounts to the demand
that the Hebrew used in the promise texts be more precise than is typical
in biblical usage. Two major examples come readily to hand. The rst is
that of the oath or swearing language used in some of the promise texts
(Gen 22:1618; 24:7; 26:3b; 50:24; Exod 32:13; 33:1; Num 11:12; 14:16, 23;
Deut 31:23; 34:4). The reference to an oath sworn to the patriarch (using
some form of the root -b-) is considered to be an indication of a particular
secondary layer, deriving from a redactor who added the concept of the
48
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
oath to the promise.80 For Blum in particular, this is linked explicitly to the
deuteronomic layer, because the oath language is particularly common
in the deuteronomic references to the promise.81 In all the promise texts,
however, there is only one explicit oath sworn by God, introduced with the
standard formula, and it is found in Gen 22:1618. Every other reference
to an oath simply reminds the addressee that God previously swore an
oath to the patriarch(s). According to Rendtor: The words I will fulll
the oath that I swore to your father Abraham can refer only to 22.16.82 In
the nondocumentary model, then, Gen 22:1618 and all the subsequent
references to the oath are from the same layer.83
The essential issue in this analysis is whether an oath needs to be specically marked with an oath formula; to put it another way, could the
references to a previously given oath to the patriarch refer to anything
other than Gen 22:1618? From a purely technical standpoint, it is clear
that a reference to a sworn oath need not refer to a statement formulated
in any specic manner. In Deut 29:12 it is implied that God had sworn
to the patriarchs (kaaer niba laabteyk, as he swore to your fathers)
that he would some day establish the Israelites as his chosen people, and
be their godan oath not found anywhere in the text, but which may be
a reference to Deut 10:15, in which no explicit oath language is used: It
was to your fathers that Yahweh was drawn in his love for them, so that he
chose you, their lineal descendants, from among all peoples. In Jos 21:42
we read that God fullled his oath (kkl aer-niba laabtm, just as he
had promised to their fathers on oath) to give the people rest on all sides,
potentially a reference to Deut 3:20 (until Yahweh has granted your kinsmen a haven such as you have); in Judg 2:15 God is against the Israelites
in all that they do (kaaer niba yhwh lhem, as Yahweh had sworn to
them), perhaps referring to the curses of Deuteronomy 28; in 1 Sam
20:42 Jonathan reminds David of the oath they have sworn to each other
(aer niban, which we swore), at best a reference to their (oath-free)
dialogue in 20:1216. In none of these cases is there an explicit prior oath
to which the narrative is referring. Rather, what is termed an oath in retrospect was, at the time, no more than a simple statement (when one can
even positively be identied).
Of special importance is the use of oath language in P, in Exod 6:8;
Num 14:30; 32:11. In these passages P refers to Gods oath to the patriarchs
to bring them into the land, a clear reference to the priestly promise in
Genesis; yet in the priestly promise texts themselves, no technical oath
language is ever used. It is thus evident that there is no need for specic
49
50
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
51
52
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
cites both the ease with which these passages can be removed from their
contexts and the seemingly deuteronomic language and ideology in these
speeches as justication for their secondary status.98 The criticisms of
these arguments noted above in relation to the classical model apply
equally to the nondocumentary model. Ska also argues that although
there are other Mosaic intercessions in the ExodusNumbers narrative,
these two stand out in particular as being more developed. This is,
however, to read the intercessions in isolation from their contexts. The
other nonpriestly episodes in the wilderness that require something like
intercession, it should be noted, are essentially complaints: the Israelites
feel that they do not have enough to eat (Exodus 16) or drink (Exodus 17),
or that Moses is a poor leader (Numbers 16). It is only in the narratives
of the golden calf in Exodus 32 and the spies in Numbers 1314 that the
Israelites directly disobey Gods commands, and these happen also to be
the two most critical moments in the entirety of the wilderness traditions:
the sin following the revelation on the mountain and the failure of will
at the intended moment of the conquest of the land. At these moments,
if at no others, it is prima facie unsurprising that an author would view
the disobedience of the Israelites as requiring a more substantial divine
response, and that response, in turn, as demanding a fuller intercession by Moses. To expect in these two instances the same type of divine
response and Mosaic intercession as in the narratives of Israelite murmuring would not reect the basic distinction in importance inherent in
these episodes: only when the promise is actually in danger of being broken for good does Moses remind Yahweh of it, and of how bad Yahweh
will look and feel if he breaks it.
The second problem, as usual, is the evidence of the priestly promise
passages outside of Genesis. Just as with the nonpriestly references to the
promise, there are only a handful of priestly references to the patriarchal
promise in ExodusNumbers (Exod 2:24; 6:8; Num 14:30)99even fewer,
in fact, than in the nonpriestly narrative. According to the nondocumentary
model, the patriarchal and Exodus-wilderness traditions are combined in
part by the addition of the scattered references in ExodusNumbers to the
nonpriestly patriarchal promise. Thus, on this theory, there is an explanation for why they occur so infrequentlythe narratives of the patriarchs
and Exodus-wilderness were originally distinct, and the references are
mere linkages. P, however, according to one version of the nondocumentary model, did not inherit separate traditions that needed to be linked
by means of the promises, but inherited rather the already-combined
53
traditions in a single text.100 Thus, for the priestly author, the patriarchs
and the Exodus-wilderness were already a single story. Why, then, did P
not more consistently reinforce the patriarchal promise in his rendering
of the Exodus-wilderness narratives, if it was already an integral part of
the storyand especially if, as some nondocumentary scholars argue, the
nonpriestly patriarchal promise in Genesis was already before it as the
dominant theological motif of the pre-Exodus traditions? Another school
of thought among the nondocumentary scholars is that P was in fact the
rst to combine the patriarchal and Exodus-wilderness traditions.101 If,
according to this approach, P was trying to bring the two blocks of tradition into a single overarching narrative, then the same question must be
put to it: why did P not employ the dominant patriarchal motif as a linking
text more often in the Exodus-wilderness material?
The natural answer is that the priestly author recognized that the promise of divine activity on behalf of the patriarch was a theme that belonged
essentially to the patriarchal stories, and that in the Exodus-wilderness
traditions it was not unknown, but rather out of place: beginning with
the life of Moses, God no longer needs to promise to take care of the
Israelites, for he actually does so, in action, not in words. The events of
ExodusNumbers are the fulllment of the promise made to the patriarchs; the promise no longer needs to be made or even explicitly referred
to, because every divine action on behalf of the Israelites is an implicit
reminder of the promise. Tradition-historically, the priestly author had
before him patriarchal traditions that contained the notion of the divine
promise and Exodus-wilderness traditions that had their own themes
(e.g., the land of milk and honey). In writing his narratives reecting
these traditions, the priestly author naturally kept the themes where they
belonged traditionally, and used the theme from the preceding patriarchal tradition in the narrative of the subsequent Exodus-wilderness tradition only briey and when appropriate. He had no need to be constantly
reminding his audience of earlier themesthey had just heard or read
them, and their understanding of the subsequent stories was naturally
informed by them. If the priestly author who either knew of or created
the combination of the patriarchal and Exodus-wilderness traditions
could refer to the patriarchs so infrequently after Genesis, then so too
could a nonpriestly author. Surely the relative scarcity of postpatriarchal
references to the promise in the nonpriestly narrative can hardly be an
indication that the two blocks of tradition must have originally been
independent.
54
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
55
56
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
possession of the land, would have existed without any concept of the land
as promised. It is the modern scholarly sensibility that seeks to understand the past without recourse to any supernatural phenomena; in the
ancient world, the deity was at the root of every aspect of life, from the
mundane to the grand, from weather to war. The nondocumentary theory
posits a pretheological conception of history. Yet there are no parallels in
the ancient Near East for such a conception. The involvement of God or
the gods in human activity, from the beginning of the world to the present, is a given for everyone from Egypt to Mesopotamia to Ugarit. The
assumption of a tradition among the Israelites about their possession of
the land that did not integrally involve their national (or even tribal) deity
is anachronistic.108
The nondocumentary theory presents a diculty, then, precisely
because it succeeded in drawing attention to the importance of the promise within the patriarchal tradition, thus raising the question of what purpose, in fact, prepromise independent patriarchal narrativesin their
written form, presumably as a product of the literate segments of Israelite
culturewould have served. In fact, it seems clear that the patriarchal narratives are, at least from the perspective of anyone who would be interested
in or capable of preserving them in written form, meaningful only when
the promise is an integral part of the story.
Both documentary and nondocumentary approaches maintain, to varying degrees, the theological centrality of the promise for the pentateuchal
text, even as they recognize that the narrative inconsistencies inherent in the repetitions of the promise are the result of the history of the
Pentateuchs composition. At the same time, they use the variety of literary expression among the promise texts to argue for the removal of some,
or even all, of the promise passages from the earliest layers of the text.
In this chapter I have tried to show that these and related arguments are
awed. It is not enough, however, to argue against the various scholarly
mechanisms for removing the promise texts from their narrative contexts
and deeming them secondary. We need not give up on the potential for
the literary-historical approach as a means of interpreting the patriarchal
promise. What is required at this point is a return to the promise texts
themselves and a new eort at situating them in their narrative contexts.
It is this task that the next chapter will take up.
58
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
59
60
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
61
nonetheless. Israel, of course, is not only Jacobs name but is the name of
the nation that will descend from him in the generations to come. This
broader meaning comes into play in the rst half of the promise, in 35:11:
Be fertile and increase; a nation, an assembly of nations, shall descend
from you. The phrase be fertile and increase refers not to Jacobs immediate descendants, his twelve sons, but rather to future generationsto
the expansion from the single family of Abraham to the people Israel.6 Of
special note is the phrase a nation, an assembly of nations. The plural
term here, an assembly of nations, is typical for the priestly promises
(with some variations): Gen 17:4, 5, 6, 16; 28:3. The singular a nation,
however, stands outand should be read as responding to the new identication of Jacob as that very nation: Israel. The second half of the promise
in 35:12, which deals with the land, is equally appropriate to its context, as
Jacob has just returned to Canaan from abroad; he has just set foot once
more on the promised ground.
The nal priestly promise text in Genesis is that of Gen 48:34, part of
Jacobs deathbed speech to Joseph (and eventually to his brothers as well,
in the continuation of this passage in 49:1a, 2932). Here Jacob recalls the
promise of 35:1112, but the context in which he does so is important. The
main new information imparted to Joseph in Jacobs speech is in 48:56,
in which Jacob adopts Josephs sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, as his own.
This adoption reects the common Israelite tradition that Ephraim and
Manasseh were among the twelve tribes; in fact, that they were two of the
most prominent in terms of land and power. The adoption of Josephs sons,
then, looks forward, long past their own generation, to the Israelite nation
as it would be established in the promised land. The promise referred to
in 48:34 thus plays a vital part in establishing the import of the adoption in 48:56: it is only because God had promised Jacob he would be
fertile and numerous and possess the land that the adoption of Ephraim
and Manasseh is meaningful. That there is a direct relationship between
the promise and the adoption is explicitly marked by the conjunction at
the beginning of 48:5: watth, now. This particle serves in Hebrew to
mark the shift from a general statement to a specic intended action that
follows logically from the general statement. It serves that purpose here
beautifully: God promised me progeny and land; watth, therefore, I am
adopting your sons. Without the reference to the promise in 48:34, the
adoption in 48:56 comes suddenly and without explanation or meaning.
In Exod 2:23aE25 we nd Ps description of the Israelites crying to
God because of their enslavement in Egypt and Gods recognition of
62
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
63
I will bring you into the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, and I will give it to you for a possession. Again, the reference
to the promise serves a necessary literary function here: the people need
to know not only that they are being taken out of Egypt, but also where
they are going. Freedom from enslavement is only half of the picture;
there must be a place in which they can settle in peace. It will be noted
that in both 6:4 and 6:8 reference is made only to the land, not to progeny; in comparison with the priestly promise texts from Genesis, this is
a new feature. Yet it is one that is sensitive to its context. There is no
need to mention the progeny aspect of the promise, as it has long since
been fullled: The Israelites were fertile and prolic; they multiplied and
increased very greatly, so that the land was lled with them (Exod 1:7; see
also Gen 47:27). What is at stake in the Exodus is not the growth of the
patriarchs into a nation, but rather that nations possession of the land.
The nal priestly reference to the promise comes in Num 14:30, in the
midst of the episode of the spies. Yahweh announces that the generation
of the Exodus will die in the wilderness: not one shall enter the land in
which I swore to settle you. In the priestly account (as in the nonpriestly),
Yahwehs original intention was for the Israelites to go directly from the
revelation on the mountain to Canaan; this plan, however, is disrupted by
the Israelites reticence to enter the land after the spies return with their
report. There is thus no more suitable moment for the promise of the land
to be recalled, especially in a negative context as in Num 14:30. The people
are thereby reminded that the land was promised to them, and simultaneously that they have forsaken it.
That the priestly promise texts are original to the P narrative has never
been in doubt. What we have examined here is the ways in which the
promise texts are integrated into that narrative context. With the exception of Genesis 17, as Hoftijzer correctly observed, the priestly promise
texts are all attached to a distinct tradition: the sending of Jacob to PaddanAram; the renaming of Jacob; the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh; the
cry of the Israelites; the call of Moses; the episode of the spies. Yet there is
no doubt that, literarily, these passages constitute an essential part of their
narrative contexts. They are integrated lexically, syntactically, structurally,
and thematicallythough every text does not necessarily work in all these
ways equally. Thus we can assert a standard against which to measure the
nonpriestly promise texts: if the nonpriestly passages are integrated into
their contexts in the same way that the priestly promise texts are, then the
same conclusions regarding their originality should be reached.
64
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
65
Abraham the land while Abraham is still in his fathers house; Abraham
must rst get to the land, and only then can he be promised it.
That the promise of 12:7 is completely integrated into its context is also
not in doubt. In 12:6, Abraham comes to Shechem. Our verse begins with
the notice that Yahweh appeared to Abraham, wayyr yhwh el-abrm,
upon which Yahweh promises Abraham the land, and concludes with
Abraham building an altar therewhich can refer only to Shechem
from the preceding verseto Yahweh who had appeared to him, layhwh
hannireh lyw. The following verse is dependent upon 12:7, beginning
as it does with the deictic pronoun, he proceeded from there, wayyatq
mim. In addition, the geographical order is correct, as Abraham would
have gone through Shechem before coming to Bethel, if we assume that
he traveled from the north. The same order of travel is found in the nonpriestly narrative of Jacobs return from Abrahams ancestral land: he rst
comes to Shechem (Gen 33:18), and then proceeds to Bethel (Gen 35:1).12
The lengthy promise text of Gen 13:1417 is focused on the divine grant
of the land of Canaan to Abraham. The scope of the promised land is
made very clear by Yahwehs instructions, to look in all directions (13:14)
and to walk the lands length and breadth (13:17), which frame the promise.
In its emphasis on the expanse of the land this promise text is completely
attuned to its context. Here, after the separation of Lot from Abraham
(explicitly noted in the body of the promise text in 13:14), is the rst time
that Abraham is made aware of precisely which lands are to belong to him
and his descendants alone: the land of Canaan (13:12). It is tting, then,
that here, at the rst moment that Abraham stands alone on the land
that is to be his, the promise text should be exceptionally expansive in its
description of the land. We may further observe that without this passage
it would appear as if Abrahams territory came to be his by chance, on the
whim of Lots decision to dwell in the Jordan plain (13:1011a). Yahwehs
statement in 13:1417 makes clear that the divine hand was at work in
the otherwise ostensibly random selection of territory. There is thus no
compelling reason to remove this promise text on purely narratological
grounds; it is, in fact, a very ne moment of reection on the new order
after Abraham has set out on his own.13
The next set of promise texts are found in Gen 15:5 and 1821. This
chapter is one of the two promise narratives identied by Hoftijzer; that
is, the narrative of the chapter is designed specically to deliver the promise contained therein, and could have had no existence apart from the
promise. Further, the chapter is, as recognized by most scholars today,
66
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
67
The tradition that those outside the promise lineage also ourished is
probably no more than the working out of the interface of, on the one
hand, the common tradition that Israels neighbors are related to it via the
patriarchs and, on the other, the realia that these peoples were all signicant nations in their own right. The natural consequence of this interface
is that the relatives of the patriarchs must have been blessed with fruitfulness also, though they were not part of the covenantal promise line.16
Scholars have been bothered, however, by the repetition of the formal
speech introductions in 16:9, 10, and 11, each of which begins with the
identical the messenger of Yahweh said to her . . . 17 Though this type
of repetition is admittedly uncommon in successive verses, the basic
phenomenon at work here is well known: when, in the midst of a single
speech, the speaker changes topic, the transition is frequently marked
by a repeated wayymer, he said.18 In these three verses, the messenger
of Yahweh touches on three distinct topics: in 16:9, he instructs Hagar
to return to Sarah; in 16:10, he tells her that she will have many descendants; in 16:11, he announces that she is pregnant and will bear Ishmael.
This same type of repetition is found in the very next chapter, Genesis
17, a unied P narrative: in 17:38, God changes Abrahams name and
gives him the standard patriarchal promise; in 17:914, he institutes the
covenant of circumcision; in 17:1516, he changes Sarahs name and gives
her a variant of the promise. Each of these topics is introduced with a new
wayymer, and none marks a redactional insertion or secondary element
of any kind.19 Furthermore, the perceived diculty in the biblical style
here should not lead to the conclusion that it is the result of a secondary
addition: why, after all, should a redactor have created a stylistic diculty
by adding the introductory clause, rather than simply appending his addition directly to the preceding speech?20
It is notable that those scholars who attribute this verse to a secondary
hand on the basis of formal criteria are generally unable to provide any
underlying rationale for why the verse should have been inserted in the
rst place, which, as I have suggested above, should be a precondition for
deeming a verse secondary. Noth, in calling this verse secondary, admits as
much when he describes it as an expansion of quite general character.21
Since the content of the verse is comprehensible in its context, and the
form, though uncommon, stands rmly in line with typical biblical style,
there is no compelling reason to view Gen 16:10 as secondary.
The next major reference to the patriarchal promise is in Gen 18:18:
since Abraham is to become a great and populous nation and all the
68
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
nations of the earth are to bless themselves by him. This verse cannot be
removed from the context of the verses immediately before and after it: it
is a parenthetical and explanatory remark, syntactically linked with 18:17
by means of the disjunctive phrasing, with the subject fronted (wabrhm
hy yihyeh), and 18:19 is a subordinate clause dependent on it. It has been
argued that 18:19 was a later expansion of 18:1718.22 This argument, however, is based on the perception that there are two rationales given for
Yahwehs decision to inform Abraham of his decision to destroy Sodom:
one in 18:18 (because Abraham is going to be a great nation) and one in
18:19 (because Abraham is going to instruct his descendants in the ways
of Yahweh). In fact, however, 18:18 by itself makes little sense as a rationale
for consulting with Abraham; the increase of Abrahams descendants and
his stature among the nations are unrelated to Yahwehs present action.
It is only when the increase of Abrahams descendants is linked with the
notion that Abraham is to instruct them in the ways of Yahwehand that
in so doing, presumably, Abraham acts as a model for the non-Israelite
nationsthat the decision to consult with him about this fundamentally
ethically and morally problematic act of destruction is understandable.23
If Moshe Weinfeld is correct that the key phrase in 18:19, dqh mipt,
righteousness and justice, connotes specically social justice, then the
reference to Abrahams status as a model takes on even greater signicance as a counterexample to the distinct lack of social justice exhibited
by the inhabitants of Sodom in 19:411.24
Gen 18:1719, in turn, in which Yahweh indicates and explains his
resolve to inform Abraham of his intentions regarding Sodom, is a necessary introduction to the dialogue between Yahweh and Abraham in
18:2032. From his rst words in 18:23, Will you sweep away the innocent
along with the guilty?, Abraham clearly perceives Yahwehs intentions,
which indicates that he had, in fact, been informed of them. Without
18:1719, there is no reason to think that this would have happened. It has
been suggested, however, that both 18:1719 and the dialogue of 18:22b
33a are secondary insertions.25 This would leave 18:2022a as the continuation of 18:16, and would require us to understand that when it says in
18:22a that the men went toward Sodom Yahweh is included in their
number. The change from Yahweh as the stated subject of 18:2021 to
the men in 18:22a, however, if they are in fact to be understood as identical, is jarring, even in the context of a narrative in which the gures are
somewhat confused.26 The diculty is alleviated, however, by the beginning of the supposed insertion in 18:22b, especially when we take into
69
account the tiqqun sopherim here and read it as but Yahweh remained
standing before Abraham.
In fact, the desire to remove 18:1719, as well as 22b32a, stems less
from any textual diculties caused by these verses than from the perception among some scholars that the concepts broached here are of a conceptually higher level than one would expect from the original biblical author:
they are didactic,27 or moralizing.28 This type of argumentation is subjective at best, and at worst condescending. When we read the text without
preconceptions about the manner in which the ancient author should
have written, there is no reason to consider 18:1719 to be secondary.29
In Gen 21:13, 18, we again nd the promise of ospring for Hagar. In
terms of content, then, we have the same situation as in 16:10: the basic
notion that Hagars ospring should become a nation is unsurprising
and consistent with the rest of the biblical narrative. Even more so than
16:10, however, 21:13, 18 are an integral part of the narrative in which they
are found. The basic theme of this narrative is that Sarah wants Hagar
expelled from the house, and Abraham is worried for the fate of his
rst-born son. Gods statement to Abraham that he should obey Sarah
because Isaac is his covenantal heir (21:12) is therefore incomplete without the subsequent promise that Ishmael too will be taken care of (21:13).
When God speaks directly to Hagar in the wilderness in 21:18, he repeats
this promise virtually word for word;30 if 21:13 is recognized as a necessary
part of the story, 21:18 is only tting as its complement.
Without the formal diculties of the parallel in 16:10, with its repeated
speech introduction, classical scholars had no diculties recognizing that
21:13, 18 belonged squarely in their narrative context, and so none marked
these verses as secondary. For nondocumentary scholars, however, despite
the clear integration of these verses into the story, they have to be redactional additions, because it is unthinkable that Hagar should have originally been seen as the recipient of a promise while the patriarchs were
not (since the patriarchal promises were all secondary).31 In addition, we
again nd that the attempt to apply a form-critical argument regarding
the independence of the promises of land and ospring, such as that by
Rendtor,32 neglects the obvious narratological necessities here: Hagar and
Ishmael are not, according to any biblical conception, the recipients of the
covenantal promise of landafter all, Ishmael is portrayed throughout the
Bible as a nomadic people33 but they are granted the increase of ospring
because they belong to Abrahams family, and this, not any form-critical
reason, is why that promise element alone is found in the text here.
70
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
71
72
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
Again, most of the arguments for this expanded addition revolve around
the style of the passage rather than whether it is disruptive of its context.
There is, however, admittedly one interpretive diculty that is ostensibly
resolved by viewing 26:25 as an insertion. In 26:1, Isaac, in the face of
the famine, goes to Abimelech, king of the Philistines, in Gerar. And
in 26:6, after the divine speech, Isaac indeed dwells in Gerar. Why, then,
does Yahweh in 26:2 tell Isaac not to go to Egypt? As far as 26:1 indicates,
Isaac never intended to go to Egypt; Gerar seems to have been his nal
destination all along.42 This diculty, however, is not really resolved by
attributing 26:26 to a secondary hand; the question remains: why would
anyone, redactor or author, have Yahweh tell Isaac not to go to Egypt, when
he apparently had no intention of doing so?43 A possible answer is that in
the mind of the Israelite audience, Egypt would have been the expected
destination for an Israelite during a time of famine (cf. Gen 12:10, 42:1).
Traditionally and perhaps historically, Egypt seems to have been a land
of refuge for Israelites who found themselves in potential diculty in
Canaan: famine in the patriarchal stories, but also political problems in
the cases of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 11:40) and the remnant of Judah (Jer 43:47).
Thus Isaacs move to Gerar would have been seen as anomalous, or perhaps as a stage on the way to Egypt, despite the counterindications in
the text. It is also possible that Yahweh does not know Isaacs intentions
to sojourn in Gerar; Yahweh speaks to Isaac not while the patriarch is
in Gerarsince he does not reach Gerar until 26:6, when he is said to
dwell therebut when he departs from his home.44 Regardless of how
one resolves the question, however, there is no reason to attribute the creation of this issue to a redactor rather than to an author.
In fact, 26:25 is well integrated into its present context, despite the
aforementioned interpretive issue. In 26:3b and again in 26:4, Yahweh
tells Jacob that he is assigning all of these lands, kol-hart hl, to
Jacob and his ospring. Among all of the promise texts, this use of the
plural, lands, is unique to this passage.45 Yet it is understandable when
read in precisely this context, and only in this context. Three times in
26:13 the word land, ere, is used: in 26:1 to refer to Isaacs homeland
(there was a famine in the land), that is, Beer-lahai-roi (25:11b); in 26:2
to refer to the land in which Yahweh wants Isaac to dwell permanently
(dwell in the land that I will point out to you), that is, Beersheba (26:3);
and in 26:3 to refer to the land in which Isaac is to sojourn temporarily
(sojourn in this land, and I will be with you), that is, Gerar.46 What is
crucial here is that, unlike Abraham and Jacob, who spend time in the
73
74
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
not know it! The reason for Jacobs journey, his fear of Esau, and moreover his reasonable worry that he may never be able to return to Canaan,
are at the root of Yahwehs words in 28:15: I am with you; I will protect
you wherever you go and will bring you back to this land. Also implicit
here is Jacobs fear of being in a foreign land, potentially unprotected by
the god of his fathers. The promise text, then, is specically tailored to
the situation.52
Jacob refers to the promise of ospring in Gen 32:13, part of his larger
speech of 32:1013: Yet you have said, I will deal bountifully with you
and make your ospring as the sands of the sea, which are too numerous to count.53 The prayer as a whole has been attributed to a secondary hand, but only because it seems stylistically similar to other promise
texts that have been deemed secondary.54 Viewed purely within its narrative context, however, Jacobs speech is eminently sensible: he is afraid of
his coming encounter with Esau (32:8), and having taken the necessary
precautions as far as he is able, he prays for divine assistance. Within
the prayer are not only direct references to the events of the surrounding
narrative, but verbal connections as well, in the use of maant, camps
(32:11; see 32:89) and yr, fearer (32:12; see 32:8), which is a particularly nice play on Jacobs fear of meeting Esau over against his fear of
(that is, devotion to) Yahweh. Though these connections could in theory
be attributed to the work of a particularly careful redactor, this type of
literary craftsmanship, with the thematic connections it creates, is more
readily attributable to a single author. As for the reference to the promise
itself, in 32:13, this too ts entirely within the context of the narrative and
the prayer as a whole. Jacob is afraid for two things: his life and that of
his family, as he expresses in both his actions of 32:48 and his words of
32:911; these are precisely the two elements of the promise he refers to
in 32:13. No reference to the promise of land or any mention of blessing is
present here, for none would be appropriate given Jacobs situation: he and
the promise text are focused on survival.55
In Gen 46:3, the last of the direct nonpriestly patriarchal promise texts,
God promises Jacob that he will make him into a great nation in Egypt:
Fear not to go down into Egypt, for I will make you there into a great
nation. Because this promise so directly relates to its contextJacobs
travel to meet Joseph in Egyptmost classical documentary scholars saw
no reason to dispute its originality.56 For the nondocumentary school, this
passage (frequently expanded to 46:1b4), which clearly links the patriarchs
and the Exodus, is automatically secondary.57 The divine speech to Jacob
75
here is, however, readily understandable as an original part of the story. Not
only is it perfectly reasonable for Jacob, a very old man by this time, to be
afraid of the travel to Egypt, he also has every right to wonder whether if, by
leaving Canaan, he is somehow forefeiting his divine favor; Gods words of
46:3 directly address these worries. On a more technical level, however, the
potential transition from 46:1a to 46:5 is a dicult one: Israel set out with
all that he had and came to Beersheba . . . and Jacob left Beersheba. In a
priestly itinerary this would perhaps not be unexpected, but in a nonpriestly
narrative context it is thoroughly odd: why even note that Jacob stopped at
Beersheba if nothing at all happened there? Further, the use of the verb
wayyqom, he arose, in 46:5 may also indicate that something happened
to Jacob in Beersheba. When this verb is used elsewhere in Genesis in the
context of someone traveling from a place that is not their permanent residence, it always follows an event of some signicance.58
The nal promise passage in Genesis is Gen 50:24, in which Joseph
tells his brothers that they (or their descendants) will be brought up from
Egypt to the land that God promised to the three patriarchs. The classical
critics found nothing objectionable in this verse, and none considered it
secondary. As with 46:3, however, for the nondocumentary school this
explicit connection of the patriarchal and Exodus traditions is an a priori
sign of redaction, and a particularly late one at that.59 Yet there are intricate connections between this verse and those surrounding it. It is clear
that 50:24 and 25 must belong together, as Josephs statement in 50:24
that God will take the Israelites out of Egypt becomes the basis for the
brothers oath in 50:25 that Josephs bones will be carried out of Egypt at
that time.60 Josephs announcement that he is about to die follows logically on the heels of the narrators notice that Joseph lived to see the third
generation of his ospring in 50:23; the length of Josephs life is naturally
mentioned only at the moment of his imminent death. Similarly, Josephs
death in 50:26 follows logically from his statement in 50:24, I am about
to die, while the embalming of Josephs body in 50:26 is a necessary step
in the fulllment of his brothers oath to bring his body out of Egypt in
the future.61 In the broader context of the Joseph story, the reference to
the promise plays an important role: when Joseph dies, the protection
oered to his family by virtue of his position in Pharaohs court will be
removed (as indeed it is); the safety of the Israelites thereby rests once
again squarely on Gods attention to the patriarchal promise.
The remainder of the nonpriestly promise passages are allusions, frequently very brief, to the promise that God made to the patriarchs: Exod
76
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
32:13; 33:1; Num 11:12; 14:16, 23; Deut 31:23; 34:4. Of these, only one, Exod
32:13, is of any signicant length. I have already criticized the arguments
that this passage is somehow deuteronomic. Here it is worth noting again
only that if there were to be a single moment in the Exodus-wilderness
narratives at which the promise of ospring, and the promise of land to
that ospring, would be appropriately raised by Moses, it is this moment:
when, at the mountain of revelation, the Israelites have built a golden calf
and God is on the verge of destroying them entirely. The revelation on the
mountain is the moment of greatest signicance in the entire Pentateuch,
and the disobedience is concomitantly the most appalling; Gods intended
punishment is the most destructive, and Mosess intercession by necessity the most convincing.
In the other nonpriestly promise references in Exodus and Numbers,
the reference is always to the promise of land alone. This has been seen
as an indication of a single redactional layer, one concerned only with the
land (usually seen as deuteronomic). In response it may simply be pointed
out again that, as of Exodus 1, the promise of progeny has been fullled,
and what remains to be addressed in the narrative is the promise of the
land. This accounts not only for those references to the promise in Exodus
and Numbers, but also throughout Deuteronomy. We do not have here
evidence of a redactional layer concerned only with the land, but rather
with a biblical author or authors who actually avoid stereotyped phrasing,
remaining entirely cognizant and in control of the historical claims of the
narrative at each point in its progress and relating only the appropriate
matters at the proper stages. Furthermore, each of the nonpriestly references to the promise of land alone after Genesis comes at a moment when
the land is a foregrounded feature of the narrative: when Yahweh instructs
Moses to leave the mountain and begin the journey to Canaan (Exod 33:1);
when Moses, just after leaving the mountain, is worried that he is not
capable by himself of leading all the people to the promised land (Num
11:12); when the Israelites have expressed their doubts about Yahwehs ability to lead them safely into Canaan (Num 14:16, 23); when Joshua is told
that he will lead the Israelites into the land (Deut 31:23); and when Yahweh
shows Moses the entirety of the land before Mosess death (Deut 34:4). As
the promise belongs tradition-historically to the patriarchal narratives, it
is not at all surprising that when it is mentioned thereafter, it should be at
such central moments in the Exodus-wilderness story.
In summary, there is no compelling reason to view all, most, or even
many of the patriarchal promise texts as secondary. At least insofar as
77
78
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
79
however, brings its own set of problems, as we have already had occasion to note in chapter 1. If Abrahams childlessness is an obstacle to the
fulllment of the promise now, why was it not so when the promise was
rst given, in 13:16? Nowhere else do the patriarchs question the validity
of the promise; the only doubts arise with specic regard to the continuity of Abrahams line through Sarah, given her age (18:12; see the parallel
in P in 17:17). Indeed, the issue raised by Abraham in 15:23 is related not
to the long-term promise of many ospring, of which Abraham seems
to have no knowledge, but rather to the pressing question of his immediate inheritance; Abraham is expressing the fears common to anyone,
ancient or modern, without children: who will continue my line after me?
God responds to this immediate fear rst in 15:4: None but your very
own issue shall be your heir. Only once Abrahams question has been
addressed does God deliver the more expansive promise of 15:5, which
is presented here as the rst announcement of the promise to Abraham.
The statement of Abrahams trust in Gods word in 15:6Because he put
his trust in Yahweh, he reckoned it to his meritconrms that this is
not a previously given promise being restated.
Equally dicult is the promise of land, alluded to in 15:7 and fully set
out in 15:1821, where it is not just a promise, but a fully-edged covenant.
Though the mention of the land in 15:78 might be seen as parallel to the
question of ospring in 15:5Abraham wants to be sure that he will actually
be given what he has been promisedthe covenant in 15:1821 is, it would
seem, unnecessary from the point of view of the nonpriestly narrative as a
whole. Abraham has already been promised the land, in very similar language, and, perhaps unlike the question of ospring, he has no reason to
doubt the eventual fulllment of the promise. This covenant adds nothing
new, except a lengthy detailing of precisely which lands are meant.65
The revelation of the future enslavement in 15:1316 and the subsequent
formulation of the patriarchal promise in 15:1821 seem also to be at odds
with the prior promise texts in Genesis 1213. We may therefore at least tentatively discern two separate groups of promises, that of Genesis 1213, hereafter the A group, and that of Gen 15:1821, hereafter the B group. As for
Gen 15:5, it could potentially belong to either when taken alone. When read
in its context, however, it is more closely linked to what follows in Genesis
15 than to what preceded; if Genesis 15 is indeed a unity, then there is little
choice but to read the two promise texts therein as part of the same group.
The promise to Hagar in Gen 16:10 neither conicts with nor necessarily conforms to the promise texts in either the A group or the B group.
80
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
In both Gen 13:16 and 15:5 God has promised Abraham many descendants;
16:10 contains another promise of ospring, here delivered to Hagar on
behalf of Ishmael. On the evidence of this verse aloneat least to this
pointthere are no grounds for assigning it to either group of promise
texts (though see below).
In Gen 18:18 we nd the rst allusion to a previously given promise:
Abraham is to become a great and populous nation and all the nations
of the earth are to bless themselves by him. Yahweh, in deciding to tell
Abraham of his decision to destroy Sodom, bases his decision on the fact
that Abraham will surely be a great and mighty nation, and all the nations
of the earth will bless themselves by him. The phrase gy gdl, great
nation, alone is not indicative of either group of promise texts. Though
it is used in Gen 12:2 and not in Genesis 15, it is a relatively common
phrase, and one whose use crosses compositional boundaries.66 It is also
clear that the concept expressed by the phrase, that Abrahams ospring
will be many and powerful, is common to both groups of promise texts,
however it may be expressed. The second element of Gen 18:18, however,
that the nations of the earth will bless themselves by Abraham, is unique
to Gen 12:3; neither a similar wording nor even a similar concept is found
in Genesis 15. This alone suggests that Gen 18:18 contains a direct recollection of the promise of Genesis 12. This conclusion is reinforced when
viewed in combination with the reference to the great nation; note that
the order of the two elements here is precisely that of Gen 12:23: I will
make of you a great nation . . . and all the families of the earth will bless
themselves by you.
Not only the language but the very concept of the nations blessing
themselves, that is, the idea that somehow Abraham, his actions, and
his ospring, will have an eect, as a model and source of envy, on the
behavior of the non-Israelite nations, is also found only in the A group,
in Genesis 1213. In Genesis 15, it will be recalled, the non-Israelites
referred to are either the nation that will oppress the Israelites (the
Egyptians) or those that the Israelites will dispossess (the Canaanites). In
the larger narrative of Genesis 1213, however, the story of the separation
of Abraham and Lot and their settlement in two dierent lands, to be two
dierent peoples, reinforces the blessing of 12:3: Abraham is responsible
for those nations around him. It is precisely this element of the promise
and blessing of Abraham in Genesis 1213 that Yahweh focuses on in
18:1819: not only that Abraham will become a great nation, but that he
is intimately connected with other peoples, and should thus be privy to
81
the major decision being made about just such a group. Note also that it
is not just any other people that is under discussion in Genesis 18, but
precisely those people and that land that Abraham is most invested in
outside his own: the area where his nephew Lot settled, the rst important non-Israelite, non-Abrahamic territory in the narrative of Genesis
1213. On the basis of both the verbal connections and the thematic/narrative connections, we may conclude that Gen 18:18 is a reminiscence of
the promise texts and narrative of Genesis 1213, to the exclusion of any
elements from Genesis 15.
Like that in Gen 16:10, the promise to Hagar in 21:13, 18 does not necessarily connect to either the A or B group. Gen 21:18 does, however, seem
to conict with 16:10. In both, God tells Hagar that she (or her son) will
have many ospring. In both texts, this is presented as the rst time
this has been announced to Hagar; 21:18 and 16:10 are thus not plausibly
sequential events in a single narrative but rather functionally equivalent
accounts of a single occurrence, and it would be surprising to nd both
in the same narrative. And yet, even though we apparently have here two
promise texts that do not belong together and we may be inclined therefore to assume that each belongs to one of the emerging groups of promise texts, because both are so brief and similar in theme there is very little
in the verses themselves that is determinative one way or the other.67
Though the next promise text in the canonical sequence is Gen 22:1518,
we will examine this passage at the end of the discussion, because it was
the sole passage that, in the previous section, seemed to be demonstrably
secondary within its immediate context.
In Gen 24:7 we encounter a clear reference to a previously given promise. Like the allusion in 18:18, this one too seems specically and unequivocally connected with the promise texts of the A group, rather than of the B
group. We have not only Abrahams explicit recollection in the rst half of
24:7 of the divine command of 12:1, using the same descriptive phrases in
the reverse order (24:7: from my fathers house and from my birthplace;
12:1: from your birthplace and from your fathers house), we also have
a direct, exact, word-for-word quote of the promise of land in 12:7: Who
swore to me, To your ospring I will give this land. Two items in this
passage are worthy of consideration. First, the combined reference to 12:1
and 12:7 conrms the connection between those two passages claimed
above. Second is the use of the verb niba here. As noted above, Abraham
here explicitly describes Yahwehs words of Gen 12:7 as an oath, though
there is no formal oath language used there.68
82
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
83
84
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
camels). Gen 26:5 provides Isaac with a model both for Isaacs behavior
and for the good things that will result from that behavior. The verse also
clearly indicates that Yahweh is willing to do these things for Isaac for the
sake of his father Abraham, who was obedient. This does not indicate, however, that the promise has suddenly become conditional when it originally
was unconditional; it stretches credulity to claim that had Abraham not
been obedient, Yahweh would have still cared for him. Though perhaps
not explicitly stated, it is clear enough that for the patriarchs, at the beginning of Israels life with Yahweh, obedience was a condition upon which
the maintenance of the promises was based.74 The patriarchs, throughout
Genesis, never disobey Gods commands. God is disobeyed only after the
Exodus, and usually by the entire Israelite people or a substantial portion
thereof. By that point, however, as Moses repeatedly points out, God has
invested too much in this people to go back on his promise. In the patriarchal narratives, however, relatively little has been invested, and the threat
of the promise being withdrawn is therefore always a real one.75
The promise of ospring in Gen 26:24 is merely a briefer version of
the promise given in 26:25. Both begin with Yahweh stating that he will
be with Isaac and bless him, both include the promise of increased ospring, using virtually identical language, and both end with a reference
to Abrahams obedience. According to Rendtor, 26:25 and 24 mark,
respectively, the beginning and end of the Isaac cycle.76 Yet the narrative
of Genesis 26 continues until 26:33, placing the promise in 26:24 only
two-thirds of the way through the story, not at the end.77 Further, it is hard
to read Genesis 26 as a larger cycle like the Abraham and Jacob stories.
As most commentators have observed, Genesis 26 forms a single continuous story.78 This story begins with Isaac in a foreign land, continues with
his entrance into Canaan, and comes to its conclusion with the agreement
between the patriarch and his neighbors regarding fair land use. In short,
the narrative of Genesis 26 is a very close replica, one generation later,
of the narrative of Genesis 1213. As such, the promise that stands in the
middle, in Gen 26:24, does not mark the end of the Isaac cycle, but represents the functional equivalent of both Gen 12:7 and 13:1417: the patriarch
has entered Canaan for the rst time since receiving the promise outside
the land, as in 12:7 (after which he builds an altar on the spot: 26:25; see
12:8), and the promise is renewed after the patriarch has claimed land for
himself alone, without the threat of dispute, as in 13:1417.79 As with the
three promise texts of Genesis 1213, the two promise texts of Genesis
26 serve respectively to begin the action of the narrative and to signify
85
that the unsettled situation at the beginning has now been successfully
resolved.80 Just as Gen 13:1417 did not mark the end of the Abraham cycle,
so Gen 26:24 does not mark the end of the Isaac cycle; as noted above,
the chapter continues for another nine verses (which, proportionally, is
a signicant block of text in the very brief Isaac material preserved in
Genesis). If anything, given the example of the Abraham narratives, this
set of promise texts marking the arrival and safe settlement of the patriarch in Canaan signals the beginning of a longer cycle, one that, for Isaac
at least, we do not have.
When we move to the Jacob story, the promise in Gen 28:1315 is reminiscent in numerous ways of both Genesis 1213 and 26:25. As in 26:1,
the patriarch is in danger, this time from his brother, and again he must
leave his homeland. In 12:13, the promise came to Abraham before he
had ever seen the promised land; in 26:25, the promise came to Isaac
just after he had left his homeland; in 28:1315, the promise comes to
Jacob just before he leaves the promised land. Again, these changes are
conditioned by the context of the narrative. Because the promised land in
26:3 seems to have included Gerar, Yahweh did not have to promise Isaac
this land while he was still in Canaan proper. Jacob, however, is going
far beyond the borders of the promised land, and Yahweh therefore must
give him the patriarchal promise before he has crossed those borders. The
promise is given, therefore, not in Beersheba, where Jacobs family lived,
but rather in Bethel, on the way out of the land; on the way out, but still in
the land, so that Yahweh can truly say, the ground on which you are lying
I will give to you and your ospring (28:13).
The promise of ospring in 28:14aYour descendants shall be as
the dust of the earth; you shall spread out to the west and to the east, to
the north and to the southis strongly reminiscent of Gen 13:14, 16, with
the order reversed;81 the statement of blessing in 28:14bAll the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you and your descendantsis
nearly identical to that of 12:3b. This combination of elements from both
Gen 13:1417 and 12:13 again conrms the intrinsic connection between
those two passages in the Abraham story.82 It is also noteworthy that here
again, as only in Gen 13:1417 and 26:25, the order of the promise elements is land followed by progeny.
The pattern established with Abraham in the A group is, it is now clear,
repeated with each of the two succeeding generations. The patriarch, at
the beginning of his narrative career, on the occasion of a major journey away from his homeland, is given the full promise by Yahweh. This
86
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
promise always includes the land and progeny and a statement regarding
the blessing of others by the patriarchin that order. These promise texts
may be divided between the period immediately before the travel and the
arrival in the promised land, depending on the demands of the narrative,
and the wording may vary, as one would expect, though not by much. Yet
the basic narrative premise remains consistent throughout.
In Gen 32:13 Jacob recalls Yahwehs promise to him. The rst aspect
of the promise he mentions is that Yahweh will deal kindly, hb b,
with him; yet this exact sentiment is nowhere to be found in the sole preceding promise to Jacob in 28:1315 (nor anywhere else in the canonical
Jacob cycle). This is neither surprising nor problematic; we may assume
that Jacob is simply paraphrasing Yahwehs words here, a relatively typical feature of biblical narrative style: we may note in this regard that the
general verb deal kindly, -w-b (hiphil), is often used to describe the very
types of actions that Yahweh promises Jacob in 28:1315: preservation of
life (cf. Gen 12:13; see also 50:20; Exod 18:9); increase of ospring (Exod
1:20; Deut 6:3; 28:63; 30:5); possession of the land (Deut 4:40; 5:16; 6:18).83
In the second half of the verse, Jacob remembers that Yahweh promised
to make his ospring like the sands of the sea, which are too numerous to count, while in 28:14 Jacobs ospring are compared to the dust
of the earth, and in 15:5 to the stars of heaven. As we have already seen,
the content of these similes is interchangeable; their meaning remains
consistent. The use of the simile, therefore, does not mark 32:13 as belonging squarely to the A group of promise texts. The verse does, however,
belong to a larger context, the prayer of 32:1013. This prayer begins with
Jacob remembering that Yahweh had promised to deal kindly with him;
the phrase serves, therefore, as something of a bracket for the prayer as
a whole. In 32:10 Jacob also recalls that Yahweh had commanded him to
return to your land and to your birthplace. This is a direct and clear
reference to Yahwehs address to Jacob in 31:3: Return to the land of your
father and to your birthplace, which in turn distinctly echoes both Gen
12:1 and 24:7. Thus indirectly, but quite rmly, the promise reference in
32:13 belongs to the A group of promise texts so far identied throughout
the patriarchal narratives of Genesis.
This verse also helps us in an unexpected way to identify with some
certainty the previously ambiguous Gen 16:10 and 21:13, 18. When we rst
encountered those promise texts to or about Hagar and Ishmael, we did
not have enough data about the A or B groups of promise texts. Gen 32:13,
however, uses a locution, l-yisspr mrb, too numerous to count, that is
87
found elsewhere in the Pentateuch only in Gen 16:10.84 Given the rarity of
this particular expression, we may at least strongly suggest that Gen 16:10,
like 32:13, belongs to the A group of promise texts, and that, as a result,
Gen 21:13, 18 belongs either to the B group or is entirely independent.
Near the end of the Joseph story, in Gen 46:34, as Jacob prepares to
go down to Egypt from Beersheba, God appears to him in a dream and
promises to make the patriarch into a great nation there; he promises also
to bring Jacob back from Egypt. This divine revelation does not t into the
pattern of the A group of promise texts established in the Abraham narrative. On the basis of that pattern, we expect that after the initial promise,
in the case of Jacob that given in 28:1315, there should be only references
back to that promise in the rest of the stories about the patriarch (as we
have in 32:13), not repetitions of the promise itself. The sudden appearance of a full promise late in the life of the patriarch, then, is somewhat
surprising. Even more surprising is that it appears that this is the rst
time that God has spoken with Jacob, since he feels the need for a formal
introduction: I am God, the God of your father.85
Some have argued that the instruction to Jacob not to fear going to
Egypt in Gen 46:34 is intended to be read as a reversal of the command
to Isaac in 26:2 not to go down to Egypt.86 Though such a reading is
tempting, it does not seem to work as well as has been claimed. In 26:2
Yahweh does not really prohibit Isaac from going to Egypt; in fact, as
noted above, Isaac was never planning to go to Egypt. In 46:3, God does
not command Jacob to go to Egypt; Jacob has already begun the journey,
and he is going to go to Egypt whether God appears to him or not. All God
does in 46:3 is alleviate Jacobs fears about the journey and the fate of his
family; he does not allow Jacob to go to Egypt.87 There are, in fact, very
few indicators, either formal or verbal, that suggest a connection between
46:34 and the A group of promise texts.
On the other hand, there may be a few elements of Gen 46:34 that connect to the B group. The rst is the mechanism of the theophany: in 15:1,
Abraham encounters God in a vision; in 46:2, Jacob encounters God in a
dream. In none of the promise texts of the A group is there any description
of the manner in which the divinehuman communication takes place.
The second notable feature of 46:3 is the initial clause of Gods speech: Do
not fear. This is admittedly a relatively common phrase, and in its simple
use is not indicative of particular authorship.88 Yet it is certainly suggestive that these are also the rst words to Abraham in Gen 15:1. Even more
interesting is the appearance of these words at the beginning of the divine
88
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
speech to Hagar in 21:17. As noted above, of the two promises to Hagar, the
one in 16:10 seems to t into the A group of promise texts, while we did not
have enough evidence to denitively assign the promises of 21:13, 18 to the
B group. Now, however, there is a link, provided by the do not fear clause
in Gen 15:1; 21:17; and 46:3. This connection is reinforced also by the use of
the verb -w-m in the phrase I will make you into a great nation; among
the promise texts, this verb is used in this phrase exclusively in Gen 46:3
and 21:13, 18. We may also note that in Genesis 46, the promise is given
after Jacob has made a sacrice (46:1), while in the A group it is the reverse:
the patriarch sacrices after the promise is given (Gen 12:78; 26:2425).
In the B group, however, we have as a parallel to Genesis 46 the extensive
promise of Gen 15:1821 given to Abraham after Abraham has oered the
sacrice between the pieces (15:911).89
Perhaps the most striking connection between Gen 46:34 and the B
group is the theme of Egypt. In Gen 15:1316, God tells Abraham that his
descendants will be enslaved, but that they will also be brought back. As
Jacob prepares to descend into Egypt with his entire family, 46:34 stands
at the decisive juncture for the fulllment of Gods pronouncement to
Abraham. At precisely this fateful moment, then, God appears to Jacob
and tells him that though he is going to Egypt, God will indeed bring him
back. It is more than likely that here the narrator intends Gods speech to
work on both the individual and communal levels: God will accompany
Jacob and Israel to Egypt, and he will bring back both Jacob the individual
and Israel the community. The divine promise to Jacob in 46:34 is therefore a reiteration of the pronouncement to Abraham in 15:1316.90
As disruptive as Gen 46:34 is of the pattern of the A group of promise texts, it is just as structurally satisfying when read as the companion
to Genesis 15. The two patriarchal promise texts in the B group come as
bookends to the patriarchal experiences in Canaan: Genesis 15 stands at
the beginning of the narrative career of the rst patriarch, while 46:34
comes just at the last moment before the patriarchal family in its entirety
leaves Canaan for the lengthy sojourn and enslavement in Egypt. The
brief promise to Hagar in between these two bookends conforms entirely
to the narrative, thematic, and verbal lines established by the patriarchal
promise texts proper. The promise to Hagar comes as she and Ishmael are
in the wilderness between Canaan and Egypt. She is frightened for the
future of her line, and is reassured by the deity. After being encouraged,
she follows the same path that Jacob and his family will take: from the
wilderness of Paran into Egypt, where she gets a wife for Ishmael (21:21).
89
In the B group of promise texts as a whole, then, the two lines of Abraham
are accounted for. The future of his lineage is, of course, the overriding
concern for Abraham in Genesis 15; in 21:13, 18 the line of his elder son is
promised preservation in the face of the wilderness between Canaan and
Egypt; in 46:34 the line of his younger son is promised preservation in
the face of the wilderness between Canaan and Egypt.
With Gen 46:34 the direct promise texts come to an end. This is an
opportunity, then, to assess the data drawn from the passages under consideration before moving ahead to the postpatriarchal references to the promise. The focus of the preceding discussion has been the attempt to read the
promise texts in their narrative context; the overriding question has been
whether, when read in the sequence in which we nd them in the canonical
text, the promise texts fall into natural groupings on the basis of either narratological sense or obvious verbal and thematic links. What emerged from
this analysis were two distinct groups of promise texts, designated as the A
group and B group. The primary criterion for distinguishing these sets of
promise texts was the issue of narratological redundancy: in both Genesis
1213 and Genesis 15 Abraham appears to receive the divine promise of
progeny and land, and in both cases for what appears to be the rst time; in
both 16:10 and 21:13, 18, Hagar is promised that her ospring will become a
signicant people. The pattern that emerged within the A group is that over
the course of the rst signicant narrative event in the life of the patriarch,
he received the divine promise from Yahweh; in each case, the promise
was given as the patriarch was about to embark on or was in the course of
a major journey out of his homeland. The pattern of the B group is centered around Egypt: the initial notice that Abrahams descendants would go
there; the promise to Hagar in the wilderness between Canaan and Egypt;
and the promise to Jacob on his way to Egypt to begin the process of descent
and reemergence proclaimed to Abraham in Genesis 15.
These two large-scale narratological patterns are reinforced by the particular verbal and thematic links within each set. The most striking of
these is the exclusive use in the A group of the theme of blessing, both that
of the deity for the patriarch and that of the other nations in the name of
the patriarch. This theme recurs consistently in the A group, but occurs
nowhere in the B group. This theme alone is perhaps enough to distinguish the two groups, but there are also smaller verbal links, noted in the
course of the preceding discussion, which alone would not be enough from
which to draw any conclusions, but which are substantiating evidence for
the aforementioned larger narratological and thematic observations.
90
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
A Group
B Group
The best external support for both the method and results achieved in
the foregoing analysis comes from the priestly promise texts. According to
P, Abraham received the promise once, in Genesis 17. Jacob also received
the promise once, in Gen 35:1112. The latter episode stands in approximately the same relative place in the priestly Jacob narrative that Genesis
17 does in the Abraham narrative. In both, there is some initial material that indicates how the patriarch acquired his family and possessions
(Abraham: Gen 11:3132; 12:4b5; 13:6, 11b12bD; Jacob: Gen 28:15; 30:43;
35:22b26; 31:1718); this is followed by the promise (Abraham: Genesis
17; Jacob: Gen 35:913); and the cycle ends, in both cases, with the death of
the matriarch and her burial (Sarah: Genesis 23; Rachel: Gen 35:16a, 19).
(The genealogy of the older brother, Isaac or Esau, follows the death of the
mother in both cycles as well: Isaac: Gen 25:1217; Esau: Genesis 36.)
Gods promise to Jacob in 35:12 refers to the land that I gave to Abraham
and to Isaac, suggesting that the promise to Abraham in Genesis 17 was
repeated to Isaac; on the other hand Isaac blesses Jacob by saying May he
give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and your ospring (Gen 28:4).
This implies that, in the mind of the priestly author if not in his actual
narrative, Isaac had received the blessing from Abraham and was now
passing it on, just as Jacob, in turn, will pass on the blessing to Joseph in
Gen 48:34. Narratologically, then, P has a structure similar to that of the
A group of non-P promise texts: the patriarch receives the divine promise
precisely once, in the rst major episode of his narrative. The priestly
91
92
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
93
94
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
with Abraham in Genesis 17. Yet the author of P feels free to refer to the
covenant made with all three patriarchs. This appears to be the result
of the use of a common language to refer to the patriarchs in the narratives of the postpatriarchal period. Regardless of the dierentiations
drawn between the patriarchs in their individual narratives, when looked
back on as a group, their experiences are conated, such that the covenant
with one patriarch is seen as the covenant with all three, and the promise
to one or two patriarchs is considered as having been given to all three.
This is not just a priestly phenomenon, but indeed is best seen in the
nonpriestly text of Exod 32:13: Remember your servants, Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, how you swore to them by your self and said to them, I will
make your ospring as numerous as the stars of heaven, and I will give
to your ospring this whole land of which I spoke, to possess forever.
Here Yahwehs words are quoted back to him, but note that according to
Moses these words were spoken to all three patriarchs, rather than just
one. Since no author attributes the same divine speech to all three patriarchs, this is a clear case of patriarchal conation.
Although the relatively brief style of the postpatriarchal nonpriestly
promise references can at times render a connection with the A or B groups
somewhat dicult, there are a few indicators that can help decide to which
group at least some of these texts belong. The rst of the postpatriarchal
promise references comes in Gen 50:24, only a few chapters after the last
patriarchal promise. Here Joseph tells his brothers that, although he is
about to die, God will bring them out of Egypt back to the promised land.
The theme of going to and returning from Egypt is one we have encountered in the promise passages only in the B group, where it is prominent.
Indeed, the message Joseph passes on to his brothers here is both a reiteration of Gods words to Abraham in 15:14 and an expansion of Gods promise
to Jacob in 46:4. The connections between 50:24 and 46:34 are more
apparent when we include also 50:25, which is frequently recognized as
being chiastically parallel to 50:24.97 Josephs request that his bones be
brought up from Egypt to be buried in Canaan is strongly reminiscent of
Gods promise to Jacob in 46:4 that God himself would bring Jacob up out
of Egypt (using the same root, -l-h, go up, as does Joseph in 50:25), and
that Joseph would close Jacobs eyes. The two elements of Gods speech in
46:4, the ascent from Egypt and the death of the patriarch, are represented
also in Josephs speech to his brothers in 50:25.
The promise ostensibly quoted in Exod 32:13 is not found anywhere
in the extant patriarchal promise texts, at least not literally. The content,
95
however, is known to all the promise texts: the increase of the patriarchs
ospring, illustrated with a simile (in this case the stars of the sky), and
the giving of the land to the patriarchs ospring. No aspect of this promise text is helpful in determining to which group it might belong.
The same is true of Exod 33:1. Here also we nd a quote of a promise,
to your ospring I will give it, and again this precise wording is not used
in any of the patriarchal promise texts in Genesis. Again, however, the
basic sense of the promise is universal to the patriarchal promise texts.
The remaining nonpriestly promise texts in Numbers (Num 11:12; 14:16,
23), as well as the two in the non-D sections of Deuteronomy (Deut 31:23;
34:4), suer from the same problem, and are even briefer than those in
Exodus, containing no more than a reference to the land that God swore
to the patriarchs. As such, there is no way to determine to which group of
patriarchal promise texts each belongs. At most we may draw the connection between Exod 33:1 and Deut 34:4, which are verbally identical from
the word hre, the land, forward, suggesting strongly that they are
from the same hand.
The inability to determine the provenance of the promise texts in
ExodusNumbers, especially when the promise texts in Genesis, even
including that of 50:24, t squarely and clearly into the two promise
groups, may appear to support the nondocumentary claim that Genesis
and ExodusNumbers were not originally connected compositionally.
Yet on consideration this conclusion is illusory. As noted above, the brief
style of the promise texts in ExodusNumbers is found also in Gen 50:24,
the rst of the postpatriarchal promise texts, and the last in the book of
Genesis. This promise text is identiably part of the B group, not because
it is stylistically or formally distinct from the ExodusNumbers promise
texts but because it is set in a context that makes very clear to which group
it belongs. The promise texts in ExodusNumbers, though formulated
nearly identically with that of Gen 50:24, are simply not set in contexts
with such obvious links to earlier promise material. They are, however,
squarely part of their own immediate narrative contexts, as demonstrated
in the rst part of this chapter.
It is worth at least mentioning here the promise references in D.98 As
has long been recognized, all of the references to the patriarchal promise in D refer only to the aspect of land, and all describe the promise as
an oath. These observations have been used to argue for deuteronomic
authorship of the promise texts in ExodusNumbers, since, it is claimed,
they exhibit the same features. Yet the arguments brought in the previous
96
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
97
the Pentateuch. We may feel secure in stating, therefore, that despite the
lack of decisive evidence for source assignment within the narrow scope
of the promise passages in ExodusNumbers, the narrative contexts in
which they are set do belong to the sources to which they have been classically assigned, and the promise texts embedded in those contexts belong
there as well.
The nal step in the analysis of the promise texts is the return to the
promise in Gen 22:1518. It will be remembered that discussion of this
promise text was postponed because, unlike any of the other promise passages, the divine messengers second speech to Abraham in Genesis 22
appears to be a secondary addition to its narrative context. Our rst task,
therefore, was to analyze those promise texts that were not secondary, as
we have done above. Now, however, we may look more closely at 22:1518
and ask whether it is equally secondary in terms of form and content.
As with the other promise texts, however, the rst question to be asked
of this passage is whether it conforms to the narratological pattern established in either the J or E promise texts as groups. The setting of this
promise is squarely in the land of Canaan, and the timing is near, but not
at, the end of the patriarchs narrative career.102 It is dicult to see, given
these elements, how this promise text could be part of the A group, that is,
the J narrative. There is also, however, neither the do not fear opening
typical of the B group, that is, of E, nor is there any connection, either in
terms of content or setting, with Egypt, as is the case in the other E promise texts. From a purely logical standpoint, it should be added that the
notion inherent in this promise speech, that the promise given previously
to Abraham was at risk of being taken away had Abraham not passed this
sudden test, is unique to this passage among all the patriarchal promise texts and stands somewhat in opposition to the sense of the preceding promise speeches to Abraham, all of which indicate that, so long as
Abraham did nothing wrong, the promise was nal.103
Turning then to the details of the passage, the rst element of Gen
22:16 to note is the technical language for swearing an oath. We have
noted already that, beginning with Gen 24:7, the patriarchal promise is
referred to as an oath, though, it should be remembered, only in retrospect; none of the promise texts proper utilize the technical oath formula.
This use of the oath language in 22:16 has, not unexpectedly, formed the
basis of the claim that all the references to the promise as divine oath are
referring back to this passage (and are all of the same layer).104 Yet, as was
pointed out above, the promise references that use oath language deal
98
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
almost exclusively with the promise of the land, and it is that promise
element that is most noticeably absent from 22:1518. Thus to connect
this passage with the subsequent references to a divine oath is to focus
entirely on the use of the verb niba and not at all on the content of the
oath itself. It is more likely that the author of 22:16, recognizing that
the promise is frequently considered an oath in other places, made his
inserted promise text all the more solemn by using the formal oath language at the beginning, despite the fact that none of the other promise
texts do so. Indeed, as we will see, this sort of emphatic solemnity is typical of 22:1518 as a whole.
The two phrases that follow in 22:16, num yhwh, word of Yahweh,
and yaan aer, because, are not found in any of the other nonpriestly
promise texts and are indeed quite rare in the Pentateuch as a whole.105
They are found in succession, as in 22:16, only in Ezek 5:11; 34:8; Hag 1:9.
Both phrases are normally used in heightened speech, whether divine or
prophetic; the unusual combination of them here may be a second indication that the author of 22:1518 made a conscious attempt to imbue this
passage with extra authority.
Gen 22:17 begins with two consecutive innitive absolute + imperfect
clauses, brk abrekk wharbh arbeh, I will surely bless you and surely
increase [your ospring]. This innitival construction occurs occasionally in the J promise texts (Gen 16:10; 18:18; 32:13), though not with the
verb b-r-k, bless, and these two verbs are used in sequence in Gen 26:24.
Nowhere in the other promise texts, however, do we nd this innitive
absolute construction used twice, and certainly nowhere twice in succession; indeed, two such constructions employed consecutively, with no
intervening words, is found only once elsewhere in GenesisKings.106
This passage, then, uses the theme of blessing known from the J promise
texts and the innitive absolute construction known also from J, but in a
manner never found in J itself. Again it seems as if the author is here piling up expressions in order to give the promise more rhetorical force.
The similes used in 22:17as numerous as the stars of heaven and
the sands on the seashoreare both known from other promise texts.
The comparison to the stars is found, as we have seen, in Gen 15:5; 26:4;
Exod 32:13. The comparison to the sand is attested in Gen 32:13. As we
have seen throughout, the use of a specic simile is not a mark of a particular author, as these are stock phrases in Israelite literature. As with the
innitive absolute construction discussed above, however, the combination of two such similes in a single promise text is otherwise unattested,
99
and again suggests an author who is intentionally combining promise elements in a unique manner.
The nal clause of Gen 22:17 states that Abrahams descendants will
possess the gate of their enemies. The sole parallel to this in the Bible is
the blessing given to Rebecca before she leaves with Abrahams servant in
Gen 24:60 (which is not a promise text at all, as it is given to a matriarch
by non-Israelites). It is unclear whether the author of 22:1518 was dependent on the text of 24:60, or whether this was a xed phrase, common in
blessings, that was used by both the authors of 24:60 and 22:17.
The rst half of Gen 22:18 is the standard J formula for nations blessing themselves by the patriarch: all the nations of the earth will bless
themselves by your descendants. The second half, however, is clearly
taken directly from 26:5: because you have obeyed my command. The
use of the phrase qeb aer, because, in these two passages has led
some to claim that they must be from the same hand, and further that
they must both be relatively late. This phrase and its variants, however,
are found across a wide range of biblical texts, and do not indicate either
single authorship or a particular time of writing.107 Given the evidence
presented above that suggests that the author of 22:1518 has gathered and
combined elements from the other promise passages, it is considerably
more likely that he simply took 22:18 from 26:45, rather than that one
person wrote both. This is especially the case because 26:3b5 contains
none of the other dening features of 22:1518 noted above.
The conclusion, then, is that Gen 22:1518 is indeed a secondary insertion. This is initially suggested by its rather ill t with its immediate narrative context, and borne out in both the narratological setting and stylistic
details of the passage. It is unique among the promise texts, even while
employing many of the standard elements known from the other promises passages. As was suggested above, it was this uniqueness that led
to 22:1518 being recognized from a very early period as secondary. The
methodological problem that ensued from this recognition, however, was
that scholars read the other promise texts in light of 22:1518, rather than
the other way around. When 22:1518 is seen as a template, then every
resemblance to it found in another promise text could serve as an indication that that promise text was secondary. The question should not be
what looks like 22:1518, but rather, what does 22:1518 look like? When
the acknowleged secondary passage is read in this light, it becomes plain
that it is unlike any other promise passage, and is simultaneously quite
obviously based, virtually in its entirety, on other promise passages.
100
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
In these last two chapters, we have identied the aws in both the
documentary and nondocumentary arguments that the nonpriestly patriarchal promise texts are secondary elements in the narrative; we have demonstrated that the nonpriestly promise texts are integral to their contexts
narratologically, structurally, thematically, and verbally; and we have seen
that the nonpriestly promise texts can be naturally grouped on the basis
of their narrative situations, central themes, and unique expressions
and that these groups line up precisely with the J and E sources of the
classical Documentary Hypothesis. It is now our task to take each source
independently and inquire as to how the promise texts function to shape
the unique theological message of the document. In other words, we can
now begin to address the question raised at the end of chapter 1: can a
literary-critical analysis of the promise (and the Pentateuch as a whole)
maintain the centrality of the promise while accounting more fully for the
distinctions among its various literary expressions?
1 02
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
1 03
the change of his name (themselves two discrete traditions that were
combined into one episode) in Genesis 35. In J, the promise is attached
to Abrahams sojourn to and settlement in Canaan in Genesis 1213;
Isaacs move from Canaan to Gerar in Genesis 26; and Jacobs move from
Canaan to Haran in Genesis 28. And in E, it is joined with the making of
the covenant in Genesis 15 and Jacobs departure for Egypt in Genesis 46.
Similarly, the secondary references to the promise in each of the sources
are all found in the context of other narrative settings, from Hagars ight
to Josephs death to the episode of the spies.
It is for this reason that the promise has repeatedly appeared to numerous scholars as if it were a secondary addition to a primary tradition:
this is why it is possible for some to claim that, for example, the basic story
of Abrahams sojourn from his homeland to Canaan is the authentic early
tradition in Genesis 12, to which the promise in verses 13 is a later accretion. And to a certain extent, this is not wrong: the plot of Abrahams life,
from his move to Canaan through his death, could well be told without
any mention of the promise, and would, in theory, be told with the same
events in roughly the same order. Where in that narrative the promise
occurred is, in theory, a secondary decision. Yet this is not because the
tradition of the promise is itself secondary; it is because the promise tradition could be placed anywhere in the narrative, while obviously traditions
such as Abrahams journey to Canaan could come only at the beginning
and his death only at the end.2 It is not the relative age of the promise tradition that resulted in its being bound to another narrative; it is, rather, its
fundamentally exible nature.
Just as the pentateuchal authors had the freedom to locate the promise
almost anywhere in their patriarchal narratives, so too they had the freedom to formulate the wording of the promise and the themes connected
with it. The only words that appear in the promise texts across the sources
are the variations on the phrase I give this land to you (and to your descendants). Aside from this stock element, the authors were free to articulate
the promise however they wished, and to frame the promise with themes
that expressed their unique historical and theological notions. Thus, as
observed in chapter 3, we nd in J a focus on the concept of blessing; in E
a link with Egypt; and in P references to kingship, to name only some of
the most prominent themes.
Recognition that the pentateuchal authors had exibility in deciding
where in their narratives the promise texts should be placed, and freedom
in deciding how to formulate the wording of the promise and the themes
1 04
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
related to it, brings to the forefront the issue of the specic renderings
of the promise in each source. Because the authors had such freedom,
the decisions they made become even more important as a guide to their
respective theologies and historical assumptions. Because the promise, for
all its lack of specicity, was the central theological statement of the patriarchal narrative, it stands to reason that where, when, and in what situations the promise was introduced serve as signicant clues to the authors
intentions. When these features are combined with the particular themes
and language each author used in his presentation of the promise, we can
glean more from the promise tradition than might otherwise be apparent.
With these issues in mind, therefore, we can turn to the individual expressions of the promise in each of the pentateuchal sources.
The Promise in P
The major promise texts of P comprise the following: Genesis 17; 28:34;
35:1112; 48:34; Exod 6:34, 8. Within these passages a number of elements are unique, or uniquely emphasized. These include the connection
with the specically priestly use of the term brt; the phrase be fruitful and multiply; the patriarchs as grm; the link between the promise
and family matters; the patriarchs descendants becoming a multitude of
nations; their descendants being kings; and the change of the patriarchs
name. Each of these concepts has its independent function within the
larger priestly work, yet at the same time they all work in concert to highlight one of Ps most pressing concerns: the distinction of Israel from the
other peoples and the formation of an Israelite national identity.
The connection of the promise with the concept of brt is not exclusive to P, as it appears also in Genesis 15 (E). Yet in P the patriarchal brt
is a framing element, introduced at length in Genesis 17 of course, but
referred to again in Exodus 6: I established my brt with them to give
them the land of Canaan (6:4). Thus in the rst and last major references to the promise in Pwhich also constitute the lengthiest narrative
(that is, nonlegal/prescriptive) dialogues between God and an individual
character in the priestly documentthe brt and the promise are linked.3
Indeed, they are more than linkedas will soon become clear, and as
many others have noted, they are identical. The connection between the
promise and the brt in Genesis 17 and Exodus 6 serves to frame the
patriarchal cycle, as Exodus 6 marks the epochal change from the family
history of Abrahams descendants to the national history of the Israelite
1 05
106
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
and thus anyone who is not circumcised will be excluded from the brt
recipients.9 Yet it is clear that the brt and circumcision are not reciprocally
linked: though Ishmael is circumcised, God makes certain to note that
he is not a recipient of the brt: Ishmael is to be blessed, certainly, but
my brt I will maintain with Isaac (17:21). Adherence to the command
of circumcision does not guarantee the receipt of Gods obligations; thus
circumcision is not in fact part of a divinehuman treaty. It is necessary
but not sucient.10 When it is understood that circumcision is not a treaty
obligation but rather the sign of the unilateral brt, it is also understood
that the brt with Abraham in Genesis 17 is in fact coterminous with the
patriarchal promise: an unconditional grant of progeny and land.11
The promise to the patriarchs in P is a brt, that is, a unilateral obligation decided upon by Yahweh and taken freely upon himself, but it is
only one brt among others in P. As has long been noted, the author of P
uses the brt as a structuring element in the early history of Israel. The
rst is made with all humanity and animals after the ood (Gen 9:917);
the second is with Abraham and his descendants (Gen 17:48); the third
is with Aaron and his priestly lineage (Num 18:19); and the fourth is with
the particular priestly family of Phinehas (Num 25:1213).12 Each brt thus
entails a narrower focus, from all esh to one priestly family. The second
b rt, that of Genesis 17, with which we are especially concerned here, represents the most dramatic narrowing: from all esh, including animals,
to a single man and his descendants. It is this brt that is, it is the patriarchal promisethat serves to separate Abrahams family, the Israelite
people, from the rest of humanity.13 The author of P uses the promise for
its own sake, as the dening feature of the patriarchal narrative, but, by
equating it with the covenant, simultaneously embeds it in the overarching history of Israels selection from among all other peoples.
It is no surprise that all three pentateuchal sources should use the root
r-b-h (hiphil) in their promises; it is, after all, the standard Hebrew word
for multiply, and the increase of the patriarchs progeny is a fundamental
element of the basic promise tradition. In P, however, the expected r-b-h is
always accompanied, or even replaced, by p-r-h, to be fruitful (Gen 17:6,
20; 28:3; 35:11; 48:4). The collocation of p-r-h and r-b-h, of course, is typical of
P and hearkens directly back to Genesis 1: Be fruitful and multiply (Gen
1:28). This phrase is more than simply a stylistic quirk of P, however, for
Genesis 1 is more than simply the description of the creation of the world.
Although Genesis 1 is often read as the introduction to Ps particular
conception of God and the cosmoswhich it certainly isthe account
107
108
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
appears in P.17 The blessing has served its designed purpose: Israel has
become a people. The use of creation language in the priestly promise
texts thus reects the general principle in P that already at the moment
of creation God had a special plan in mind for Israel, dierent from the
other families of the world.18
The possession of the land is a central component of the promise tradition. Yet in P we nd a unique designation of the land as the land of your
sojourning [mgureyk] (Gen 17:8; 28:4; see also Exod 6:4). The notion
that the patriarchs were grm in Canaan is found throughout P (in addition to the preceding references, see too Gen 23:4; 35:27; 36:7; 37:1). In the
abstract, this is not particularly surprising, as P (like J and E) clearly states
that Abraham and his family moved to Canaan from elsewhere, and were
therefore grm, resident aliens, in the land. Yet it is noteworthy that P is
the only pentateuchal source to describe the Israelites as grm in Canaan;
in fact, in the nonpriestly texts the patriarchs are described as grm only
when they are somewhere other than Canaan: in Egypt (Gen 12:10; 15:13;
47:4; Exod 2:22; see also Deut 26:5), in Gerar (Gen 20:1; 21:23, 34; 26:3),
and in Aram (Gen 32:5).
In one respect, this sharp divide between P and non-P might be taken
as an indication that P adheres more strictly to the narrative context in its
rendering of the promise tradition, in that it takes into account Abrahams
non-Canaanite origins.19 That said, however, Ps emphasis on the patriarchs as grm also serves a greater purpose. In making abundantly clear
that Abrahams family is not native to Canaan, the priestly promise of the
land takes on an additional signication of Gods power. The gr, after all,
is an outsider, a foreigner by descent, a second-class citizen. It is, from a
sociological perspective, unthinkable that such people might some day
come to possess the land in which they are sojourningsuch possession is entirely at odds with the very meaning of the word gr. Yet, in
the promises, God states that Israel, the descendants of Abraham, will
overcome their status, as, it may be imagined, no other people ever could.
This promised transformation is at once an indication of Gods control of
history and of Israels distinctiveness from all other peoples.
Despite the seemingly obvious connection between the promise of
progeny and the actual children of the patriarchs, more often than not
in the nonpriestly text the two are kept separate. Only in Genesis 15, with
Abrahams query about his inheritance, and in Genesis 24, in the search
that culminates in the wooing of Rebekah, is there a direct link between
the promise and the immediate patriarchal family.20 In the announcement
109
of Isaacs birth in Gen 18:1015, in the narrative of his birth in Gen 21:1,
67, in the birth of Jacob in Gen 25:2126, in Jacobs marriages to Leah
and Rachel in Gen 29:1530, in the births of Jacobs children in Gen
29:3130:24in none of these nonpriestly texts is the promise mentioned
or even alluded to. In P, on the other hand, the promise is always linked to
the patriarchal family, in what appears to be a very intentional manner.
The rst priestly promise text, of course, is set in the context of the
announcement of Isaacs birth (Gen 17:1521). As noted earlier, this context also includes the birth itself (Gen 21:25), since in the independent
P document this follows directly on the end of the material contained in
Genesis 17. The second reference to the promise comes in Isaacs blessing of Jacob before sending him to Paddan-Aram to get married (Gen
28:19).21 The third reference occurs directly upon Jacobs return from
Paddan-Aram, with family in tow (Gen 35:1112).22 And the nal priestly
promise text in Genesis is connected with Jacobs adoption of Josephs
sons Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen 48:37). In each case, there is a clear
family context for the promise. In Genesis 17, the promise serves to distinguish between Abrahams children: it is Isaac, not Ishmael, who will
be party to Gods b rt, who will receive the full blessing of the patriarchal
promise. The promise is thus more closely circumscribed by means of
being attached to the birth of Isaac. In Genesis 28 and 35, we have the
bookends to Jacobs journey to Paddan-Aram to take a wife: Isaacs prayer
that El Shaddai will bless Jacob with the promise, and Gods fulllment
of that prayer. At stake in Isaacs sending away of Jacob is the question
of endogamous marriage: the reason Jacob is to go to Paddan-Aram is
so that he may marry within the family. Here again the priestly author
shows concern for the dilution of the family line: the promise is linked
to genealogy.
In these two cases, the connection of the promise with narratives of
birth and marriage has a restrictive function, narrowing the promise
recipients from all of humanity to Abrahams family, and from there to
a particular lineage within that family. In the case of Jacobs adoption of
Josephs sons in Genesis 48, however, the promise operates dierently, in
no small part because, by this point in the story, the promise of progeny
in the sense of making Abrahams family into a people has been fullled
(Gen 47:27). Now that Israel has increased and become a self-standing
people, the focus of P in general, and the promise in particular, shifts
from ethnic concerns toward a broader, nationalistic perspective. As noted
earlier, the association of the promise with the adoption of Josephs sons
110
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
is an attempt to take into account the reality that Ephraim and Manasseh
were the largest and most important tribes in Israel. Even while maintaining the immediacy of the narrative present, the promise looks ahead to
the future of Israel the nation. The adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh
signals for P the connection between Israels patriarchal past and its contemporary reality: the denition of Israel the nation as the recipient and
fulllment of the promise.
This forward-looking national perspective is present in other aspects of
the priestly promises as well. Although every pentateuchal source employs
the concept of the patriarchs descendants becoming a nation, a gy
indeed, this is, as we have already seen, the very essence of the promise
only in P does God say that they will become nations, plural, gym (Gen
17:6, 16; 35:11).23 Similarly, and in the very same verses, only in P does
God say that the patriarchs descendants will be kings. In Genesis 17, it is
tempting to read these statements as referring to the related nations that
descend from Abraham: Ishmael, of whom God says explicitly that he will
be a great nation (17:20; see the ful llment in 25:1216), and Esau, whose
descendants are described in the Edomite king list of Genesis 36.24 Yet this
reading is undermined by the repetition of Gods words in Genesis 35, to
Jacob. Jacobs children are the twelve tribesno foreign peoples descend
from him to whom the promise of nations and kings could be referring.25 It must refer, therefore, to the Israelites themselves. Yet the individual tribes can hardly be called independent nationsthey are nowhere
so termed anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. Nor, of course, does each tribe
have its own king. The word for nation, gy, has a specically political connotation (as opposed to m, which is primarily an ethnic designation).26
The easiest way that Jacobs descendants could be understood as nations,
plural, is if the promise refers to the northern and southern kingdoms of
Israel and Judah.27 It is dicult to conceive of another scenario in which
Jacobs descendants become multiple nations: P seems here to be referring to the two kingdoms.28 If this is in fact the referent for the promise of
plural nations, then the reference to kings is comprehensible in the same
light: P is referring to the future kings of Israel, in both the northern and
southern kingdoms.
This reading has potentially signicant implications for the dating of
P, although that is not our concern here. What is interesting in the context
of this discussion is how these mentions of nations and kings further
Ps agenda. Ironically, by using the plural nations to describe Israel,
the author of P is more inclusive: when only one nation is mentioned, it
111
might be possible to understand it to refer to either the northern or southern kingdom alone. From the perspective of P, Israel and Judah together
stand as the fulllment of Gods promise to the patriarchs. (That they are
to be considered a unit, though they are two distinct political bodies, is
intimated in the promise to Jacob in Gen 35:11: A nation, an assembly of
nations, shall descend from youthe single nation, Israel, and its two
political embodiments, Israel and Judah, are hereby equated. It may further be noted that in the P spies story the territory investigated is very
explicitly the whole of Canaan: from the wilderness of Zin [in the far
south] to Rehob, at Lebo-Hamath [in the far north] [Num 13:21]; this denition of the promised land makes clear that neither part of the divided
kingdom could constitute the fulllment of the promise.29) Although
Israel and Judah are political entities, gym, just like the other nations
surrounding them, they are dierent. They alone, both corporately and
as embodied in their kings, are the living representation of Gods will,
vivid demonstrations of Gods power on earth. By using terms that have
real-world application, in the two kingdoms, P emphasizes, more than the
other sources, the relationship between Israels political reality and divine
power.30 Not only in an ethnic sense are the Israelite people unique; in
Israels existence as a national polity it has a special place.
In this light we may also note that P alone connects the promise with
the change of the patriarchs names, from Abram to Abraham (Gen
17:45) and from Jacob to Israel (Gen 35:10).31 In the case of Abraham, the
name change is directly linked to the concept of a multitude of nations, as
discussed above.32 Thus already with Abraham, the priestly author looks
forward to the political reality of the two kingdoms. And in the case of
Jacob, the name change is transparently focused on the shift from family
to nation; indeed, despite announcing the name change in Genesis 35,
P never refers to the patriarch as Israel in narrative contexts, using the
name only when referring to the Israelites as a people (Gen 46:8; Exod 1:1,
and thereafter).
It may thus be posited that in Ps formulation of the patriarchal
promise, from its wording to its themes to its narrative and traditional
associations, there is a consistent focus on the distinctiveness of Israel
as a people and as a nation. This focus comports well with the overall
agenda of P. At the center of the priestly narrative are the interdependent
Exodus and Sinai episodes. The former is fundamentally a demonstration
of Gods power and the proof of Gods special relationship with Israel:
I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God, and you shall
112
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
know that I, the Lord, am your God who freed you from the labors of the
Egyptians (Exod 6:7). As for the latter, the central premise of the priestly
Sinai narrative and legislation speaks to the remarkable status of Israel in
the world: though God is the creator of all the world, he chooses to dwell,
out of all the nations, in the midst of Israel: Let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them (Exod 25:8). This notion is unique to
P: the author who presents the most universalistic depiction of the deity,
in Genesis 1, is the same author who has the most personal depiction of
Gods relationship with Israel. The distinction of Israel from the rest of
the created world is of utmost concern to P, and the patriarchal promise
supports and furthers that central concern, highlighting Israels special
status both as an ethnic group and as a fully-edged nation.
The Promise in J
As we have often had occasion to observe, the essence of the patriarchal
promise is the intertwining of the aspects of progeny and land, and both
are present in all of the pentateuchal sources representations of the promise. In J, however, there is a subtle emphasis on the aspect of the land. As
noted in chapter 3, in both P and E when the two aspects of progeny and
land are mentioned together the progeny always comes rst, while in J
when both are mentioned it is the land that is given priority (Gen 13:1417;
26:34; 28:1314). The promise of land plays a central role also in the structure of Js narrative. While the promise proper is always given in the land
of Canaan itself with the regular expression this land, three times in J
Yahweh speaks to a character about the promised land from outside the
land itself. The rst of these, of course, is Gen 12:1, the very rst words of
Yahweh to Abraham: Go . . . to the land that I will show you. The second
occurrence is in Exod 33:1, spoken to Moses just before the Israelites are to
leave Sinai: Set out from here, you and the people that you have brought
up from the land of Egypt, to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob: To your ospring I will give it. And the nal time comes in
Gods nal words to Moses in J, in Deut 34:4, as Moses is about to die:
This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: To your
ospring I will give it. Three seminal moments in the history of Israel
Abrahams sojourn in Canaan, the Israelites departure for Canaan from
Sinai, and the conclusion of their long journey at the border of Canaan
are marked by the introduction of the promise and explicit references to
it (the latter two using virtually identical language). The promise serves
1 13
114
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
1 15
116
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
117
118
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
Here too the divine presence equates to divine aidin this case, as with
that of Abrahams servant, specically in terms of safety in travel to or
through a foreign territory. This is explicitly the import of the phrase also
in the promise to Jacob in Genesis 28: Remember, I am with you; I will
protect you where you go and will bring you back to this land (28:15; see
also 28:2021). And indeed, when it is time for Jacob to return, Yahweh
tells him again: Return to the land of your fathers where you were born,
and I will be with you (31:3). Although no direct intervention is attributed
to Yahweh in these narratives, his presence is repeatedly armed, and
stands as the implicit guarantee of divine assistance.
It is not simply assistance that is at stake in Yahwehs presence, however, as becomes clear over the rest of the J narrative. In Exodus 4, when
Moses objects to being sent by Yahweh to Pharaoh, it is not divine aid that
he doubts, but rather the very success of his mission: he believes that he
will be unable to do what is asked of him. To this Yahweh responds, Now
go, and I will be with you as you speak (4:12), and further, I will be with
you and with [Aaron] as you speak (4:15). Yahwehs presence is more than
an implicit notice of protection, it is a promise of success in the venture.
The theme of Yahwehs presence is most clearly delineated in the wilderness period, in which the regular element of travel associated with the
promise of divine presence is combined with the constant threat to Israels
survival. The Israelites, when faced with dire thirst, specically inquire,
Is Yahweh present among us or not? (Exod 17:7)expressing, perhaps,
their fundamental lack of trust in the behind-the-scenes nature of Gods
actions: when faced with an uncertain situation, the people require proof
of Gods presence, hence their straightforward question. It is this question
that drives the Sinai theophany in J, which is nothing less than the visual
proof of Yahwehs presence before the entire Israelite community (Exod
19:11). At the same time, it is the occasion for Yahweh to threaten divine
abandonment: I will not go in your midst (Exod 33:3). To Moses, this
threat puts the survival and, indeed, the very identity of the community
at risk: How shall it be known that your people have gained your favor
unless you go with us, so that we may be distinguished, your people and
I, from every people on the face of the earth? (Exod 33:16; see also 34:9).
Finally, the meaning of Yahwehs presence among the Israelites is fully elucidated at the end of the spies episode in Numbers 14, when the Israelites
decide to attempt an invasion of Canaan even after being instructed to
turn around and reenter the wilderness: Moses tells them, You will fall
by the sword, inasmuch as you have turned from following Yahweh and
1 19
Yahweh will not be with you (Num 14:43). When the Israelites fail to heed
Mosess words, they are duly routed in battle. In this passage, then, it is
made absolutely clear that Yahwehs presence is not merely a good, but is
a necessity for the survival and success of the Israelite people. Moreover,
it is tied to obedience: it is because the Israelites did not follow Yahweh
that is, because they did not keep the way of Yahweh (Gen 18:19)that
Yahweh was not with them. Yahwehs presence in J, in the words with
you and its variations, is linked to the promise, and in turn to obedience.
And, from the other side, when the phrase appears in the context of the
J promises in Genesis, it sets the standard for the whole of Israels early
history according to J.44
Overall, there is in J a striking immediacy to the patriarchal promise. That is, even as it looks ahead to the future of Israel, it is distinctly
grounded in the narratives in which it is found. The promise occurs at
particular moments when it is of most use, so to speak, to the characters:
notably, at the beginning of journeys, when risk is high and divine aid
most needed. The giving or repetition of the promise on these occasions
serves to reassure the patriarchs in those specic moments, even as they
speak of the longer term. The blessing promised by Yahweh is always
that of the patriarch alone, not of his ospring as well; the obedience in
question is always that of the addressee, not of generations to come. The
promise to be with you is entirely of the moment. Only in the broadest
sense, in the notion that the other families of the earth will bless themselves by the patriarchs, does the promise look beyond its context. This
goal is, however, nearly eschatological, in that it represents the fulllment
of the overarching divine plan; it is not achievable within the narrative
or within the lives of the authors contemporary audience. The promise
is not without import for that audience, inasmuch as they are to think of
themselves as standing in the line of the promise, but the promise never
speaks directly to or even much about Israel in the national sense. It is
tied to the immediate concerns of the narrative, and is presented in a
highly personal manner.
The Promise in E
A consistent feature of the promise in E is the introduction of the promise
with the phrase Fear not (Gen 15:1; 21:17; 46:3). Although this phrase is
used sporadically elsewhere in the Pentateuch and beyond, in E it takes
on special signicance due to the sources overarching concern with the
120
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
121
as we have seen, is the desire that Abraham should fear God, should obey
Gods instructions and trust that faith in Gods providence leads to reward:
protection, wealth, and progeny (15:15).47 And, famously, this is just what
Abraham does: Because he trusted in Yahweh, he reckoned it to his merit
(15:6). This opening scene of Genesis 15, the rst divine appearance in E,
introduces both the promise and one of the fundamental theological arguments of the document as a whole, one that is repeated throughout in various contexts: divine rewards come to those who put aside their mundane
fears and instead feartrustGod.
Perhaps the most striking feature unique to the E promise is the
repeated reference to Egypt: in the initial covenant with Abraham (Gen
15:1316 48) and in the promise to Jacob (Gen 46:34). These are the only
two true instances of the patriarchal promise in E; though God speaks to
the patriarchs elsewhere (Gen 35:1, for example), and though God delivers
something very promise-like to others (Gen 21:18, for example), only in
these two passages does God give the promise directly to the patriarchs.
And in both instances, Egypt plays a central role in the divine discourse.
The reference to Egypt in the context of the promise is not a mere
quirk of E, however, but rather belongs to a larger set of issues in the E
document, some of which are perhaps not readily apparent. Israels experience in Egypt is formative and denitive for E in a way that it is not for
J and P. All three sources tell of the Israelites complaining in the wilderness that they were better o in Egypt, or that they wish to go back;49
this feature seems to be a staple of the underlying wilderness tradition,
which cannot of course be severed from the Exodus tradition proper. In
E, however, in the wilderness period the Exodus experience is used as
a means of dening Israel for outsiders as well. Upon Jethros arrival at
the Israelite camp in Exodus 18, Moses immediately tells him the story:
Moses then recounted to his father-in-law everything that the Lord had
done to Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israels sake, all the hardships
that had befallen them on the way, and how the Lord had delivered them
(Exod 18:9). When the Israelites arrive at the border of Edom in Numbers
20, Moses sends the same message: You know all the hardships that
have befallen us; that our ancestors went down to Egypt, that we dwelt in
Egypt a long time, and that the Egyptians dealt harshly with us and our
ancestors. We cried to Yahweh and he heard our plea, and he sent a messenger who led us out of Egypt (Num 20:1416). Moses, in both cases,
introduces the Israelite people by describing the Exodus experience; this,
Moses is saying, is who we are. Such is not the case in either J or P.
122
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
1 23
124
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
1 25
end of the prophetic spectrum, even for E: both Joseph and Moses are
given advance knowledge of events or processes that are to occur or begin
immediately, yet the patriarchs know the course of history much further
in advance. We may venture to propose that the conuence of this extreme
foresight and the patriarchal promise is not accidental, but rather that the
author of E tries by this conjunction to set the stage, as it were, for the
emergence of Moses in the period of the Exodus. That is, insofar as promise and Exodus are interwoven in E, prophecy may be another strand tied
up with them; the message may be that as the promise is to be fullled
in the period of the Exodus, so too prophecy will reach its zenith in the
person of Moses, who is central to bringing about that fulllment.
Bound up in the E promise, then, are a multitude of issues and themes
that pervade and dene the E document as a whole: fear of and trust in
God; Israels identity; the course of history; and prophecy. These overlap
and intersect throughout the E source, but rst and foremost in the promise, perhaps the only E texts in which all are embedded together.
From a common traditional basethat God promised the patriarchs
land and progenythe authors of J, E, and P constructed intricate and
comprehensive historical and theological statements. They each took
advantage of the freedom permitted them by the unbound promise tradition, locating the promise at dierent points in their narratives, linking
it with dierent other traditions, and employing dierent phrases and
themes in the expression of the promise. In this chapter I have tried to
articulate the ways in which the promise is integrated into its respective
sources, how the promise encodes the larger concerns of the documents
in which it is found. Reading the promise in the context of its original
sources allows us to understand more not only about the promise texts,
but about the sources as wholes.
The elaborate connections between each set of promise texts and the
documents in which they are found serve also to further justify their attribution to the original sources themselves, rather than to secondary layers.
For it would be remarkable indeed if promise texts secondarily inserted
into J contexts happened by chance to engage with precisely the interests of
the J document as a whole, while those inserted into E contexts connected
intimately with the interests of E; that this is indeed the case may be considered another piece of evidence for the originality of the promise.
Engaging the promise on the level of the individual pentateuchal
sources resolves the two major diculties with reading on the level of
the nal form: the narrative contradictions evaporate, and the particular
126
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
literary expressions of the promise texts are not ignored but are rather
highlighted and given great signicance, even while the centrality of the
promise as the leading theological element in the text is preserved. What
the literary-historical approach ostensibly lacks, however, is the capacity to speak to the interpretation of the Pentateuch as a whole, which is
precisely what the canonical reading provides. In the nal chapter, an
attempt will be made to bring these two equally important approaches to
the Pentateuch into a meaningful dialogue.
128
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
presence among the Israelites, the revelation of the divine name, among
many others. Indeed, it was, at least in part, precisely the lack of any unied theology in the canonical Pentateuch that led to the conclusion that
there were multiple sources in the text.
Although perhaps somewhat obvious, it is also the case that the classical
Documentary Hypothesis did not ascribe any particular theological intentionality to the redactors of the Pentateuch. The combination of the sources
was often considered a political necessity, driven by historical events: the
fall of the northern kingdom in the case of the combination of J and E,
and the exile in the case of the combination of JED and P.2 The object of
the redactors was, at each step, merely to combine the given sources into
a single document, thereby preserving their already-authoritative status.
What limited passages could be ascribed to the redactors were primarily
in the service of this mechanical end; or, in a very few cases, were so attributed because the source division was too dicult, and the redactor was an
easy solution. In either case, the redactors work had no clear theological
prole, nor should it have; the theory aimed not at identifying and describing the theological meaning of the canonical Pentateuch, but at identifying and describing its constituent parts.
What Wellhausens work illuminated, then, was not the theology of the
Pentateuch or its redactors, but rather the historical development of Israelite
theology as manifested in the succession of pentateuchal sources. From the
almost chthonic religion discerned in J up to the ostensibly decadent ritualization of P, theology was certainly at the forefront of Wellhausens analysis.
In the pentateuchal documents the trajectory of Israelite faith and practice
was preserved, and the value of the source-critical project, as Wellhausen
clearly demonstrated and as the generations that followed him conrmed,
was grounded in the ability of the scholar to reconstruct the theology of
Israel over the course of several hundred seminal years of its history. But
the theology or theologies that could be extracted from the Pentateuch were
only those of its sources, not of the Pentateuch as a whole.
Precisely because the classical Documentary Hypothesis seemed to
concentrate only on the theologies present in the Pentateuchs constituent
elements, many of the early anticritical writers zeroed in on the fact that
the theory seemed to eliminate any theological meaning for the nal form
of the text. As one author wrote in 1894, If the Bible be broken up as the
critics are doing, then its organic unity is destroyed, then its spiritual life
must leak out, its divine purposes be thwarted, and its divine setting of
truth be almost wholly destroyed.3 One year later, the great anti-critical
129
130
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch, which fully admits to
the basic tenets of the Documentary Hypothesis, but attempts to read the
whole of the Pentateuch as a single unit, with an overarching message:
With this description of the new community of God [in Deut 27:9: this
day you have become the people of Yahweh your God], the Pentateuch has
reached its true endits telosits goal and purpose.11
The divorce of nal-form reading and source-critical analysis need
not be irrevocable, however. While it is safe to say that some aspects of
the historical analysis of the Pentateuch are irrelevant to a nal-form
readingthe dating of the sources, the identity of their authors, and so
onthe existence of the sources may not be. The presence in the canonical text of distinct voices aects any reading of the whole. As demonstrated
in chapter 4, each source makes individual claims, narrative and, more
importantly for our purposes, theological, that stretch over the entirety
of the text. An individual passagesay, the promise to Abrahamdoes
not stand alone, but is deeply interconnected, even in the canonical text,
to a series of other passages that share the same broader conception of
Israel and its relationship to the deity. Even when reading the nal form,
one cannot come across the phrase all the nations of the earth will bless
themselves by you in Gen 12:3 and not associate it with the occurrence of
the same phrase in Gen 18:18, and the context of the latter in the story of
Yahweh and Abrahams dispute over the fate of Sodom and the salvation
of Lot. One cannot read the prediction in Gen 15:13 that Abrahams descendants will be grm in a foreign land without hearing the rationales for the
laws in Exod 22:20 and 23:9, for you were grm in the land of Egypt. It is
impossible to read I will make you fruitful in Gen 17:6 without recalling
the blessing of fruitfulness in Gen 1:28. The texts, in both their wording
and their ideologies, lead to each other. The connections drawn by source
critics as a means of dividing the text into its sources are present for any
reader, even one without any source-critical intentions.
One of the values of source-critical analyis for canonical reading, then,
lies in the closer identication and comprehension of both the divergences
and interconnections among the parts of the Pentateuch. In the vast array
of narratives, laws, and other material, it is easy to miss some of the ner
nuances. Source criticism provides a basis for recognizing more clearly
how a given passage may be read in light of the broader picture created by
the link with other passages. Even a careful canonical reader may miss the
connection between the prediction of the Exodus in Genesis 15 and Mosess
description of the Israelites in Numbers 20, for instance; the source-critical
131
132
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
133
literarily replace the laws they amend, but stand beside them in the nal
form of the text. In the Constitution, then, we have not only the nal legal
viewpoint, but also evidence for earlier legal views; the Constitution is a
layered text. The dierence, however, is that the Constitution is structured
in such a way that the later layers are readily discernible from the earlier;
the amendments stand at the end, and the last of them is the most current
(as in the case of the institution and repeal of Prohibition in the eighteenth and twenty-rst amendments, respectively). In the Pentateuch, on
the other hand, the later layers are structurally indistinguishable from the
earlier; there is no guide for the reader that allows him or her to identify
what is current, so to speak, and what is mere historical remnant of earlier thought. It is thus equally possible to read Ps ood story as a revision
of J, or to read Js ood story as a revision of P.17
More to the point, the canonical text of the Pentateuch does not speak in
one discernible voice, be it that of the latest redactional layer or any other.
Though it is frequently assumed that the nal layers of the Pentateuch
are priestly, the priestly material does not dominate to the degree that is
often claimed, if at all. It is common to point to Genesis 1 as an indicator of Ps conclusive stamp on the whole, yet even while the Pentateuch
begins with Pthough given a text that opens with the word brt, in
the beginning, where else could it possibly go?the Pentateuch does not
end with P. Though P does contain structural elements, they do not always
structure the nal form: the Abraham cycle is initiated not by P, but by
the nonpriestly text (Gen 12:13); Moses is introduced not by P, but by the
nonpriestly text (Exod 2:110); and so on. More importantly, although at
times P certainly does dominate the text, requiring that we read it through
a priestly lensas, for instance, in Genesis 1it is also very often the case
that the priestly theology is subjugated to or undermined by the nonpriestly
material: Ps announcement of the change of Jacobs name to Israel (Gen
35:10), which occurred already three chapters earlier (Gen 32:29); or Ps
dramatic revelation of the divine name to Moses in Exodus 6, preceded
as it is by that of Exodus 3; or, of course, Ps grand presentation of the
patriarchal promise to Abraham, which is rendered somewhat redundant
by the presence of two earlier such promise texts, involving precisely the
same aspects of land and progeny. Some P narratives are virtually lost in
the sea of nonpriestly text: Jacobs journey to Aram, for instance, or the
Joseph story, or the theophany at Sinai. And then there are the laws: for
all of Ps extensive legislation, it is conclusively overshadowed by the existence of Deuteronomy at the end of the Pentateuchnot only as the nal
134
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
word for anyone reading the canonical text, but also explicitly as the laws
and the rules that you are to observe in the land that the Lord is giving you
to possess (Deut 12:1), a claim that the priestly laws, for their part, never
make. It is hardly imaginable that a priestly editor would allow his laws,
the central part of all the priestly writings, to be so utterly undermined.
Nor is it conceivable that a priestly editor, holding the long-recognized
position that there was no sacrice before the establishment of the cult in
Lev 8:2224, could allow that fundamental tenet to be otherwise unrecognizable in light of the sacrices oered before Sinai by, among others,
Noah (Gen 8:2021), Abraham (12:78; 13:18; 15:917; 22:13), Jacob (28:18;
31:54; 35:7, 14; 46:1), Moses (Exod 18:12; 24:48), and Aaron (Exod 32:56).
As William Gilders has pointedly observed, the combination of P and
non-P ends up subverting and negating Ps very ideological point.18
What is true of P is true of every source, strand, and layer proposed in
pentateuchal criticism: no one viewpoint dominates the others. All are, in
one way or another, equally undermined by the others. This alone makes
it dicult to accept the notion that the nal product is the work of any
one of the theologically minded authors whose words are contained in it.19
Indeed, if the Pentateuch is the result of a series of theologically motivated
redactional layers, each of which is intended to recast the whole in its own
image, it must be said that these redactors did a particularly poor job of
getting their messages across. Note that even in the earliest interpretations of the Pentateuch, even those within the Bible itself, no one source
or layer is privileged over the others. The famous example of the law
regarding the passover sacrice in 2 Chr 35:13 demonstrates that the contradictory priestly and deuteronomic positions embedded in the canonical
Pentateuch were given equally authoritative weight. Jubilees does not distinguish between the various pentateuchal viewpoints, but takes bits and
pieces from each, according to its own interpretive needs (and so too other
ancient readers such as Philo and Josephus). This is not to say that ancient
readers were unaware of the contradictions in the text, of course; both
the example of 2 Chronicles and the extensive rabbinic literature make
it abundantly clear that the narrative diculties in the Pentateuch were
indeed registered. Yet no ancient reader, indeed no one at all until the rise
of critical scholarship, was able to identify any one perspective in the text
as interpretively dominant.
What is interesting about the new nondocumentary theory is that,
despite its fundamental opposition to the classical documentary analysis,
it shares with Wellhausen one important basic feature: the notion that
135
the text of the Pentateuch preserves evidence of an evolutionary development of Israelite religious thought. Both theories are founded on the core
idea that the Pentateuch presents a chronological progression of theological arguments; that we can, by peeling back the layers, both get back to
the earliest manifestations of Israelite religion and also see how religious
beliefs changed over the centuries.
Of course, there are dierences in how this sort of evolutionary model
manifests itself in the two approaches. For Wellhausen, the pentateuchal
laws were representative of actual Israelite practice; for contemporary
nondocumentary scholars, there is no such assumptionthese texts are
more literary and theological than practical. For Wellhausen, the pentateuchal documents were authoritative on the national level, such that all
Israelites would have known and respected them; for nondocumentary
scholars, it is, certainly more rightly, assumed that the Pentateuch, in any
of its written manifestations, would have been known by only a small literate elite subsection of Israelite society. Despite these dierences, however, the basic theological arc of the Pentateuchs growth has remained
constant: from original texts that were theologically nave (in the case of
Wellhausens J) or practically nontheological (in the case of the smallest
etiological units in the nondocumentary approach) to nearly exclusively,
almost overbearingly theological, writings (Wellhausens P, and contemporary theorys latest redactional layers, usually also priestly).20
It is precisely this evolutionary scheme, however, that poses a challenge for both the classical documentary model and the contemporary
nondocumentary model. For it is unlikely to the point of near impossibility that the culture from which the Pentateuch emerged, ancient Israel,
would have had any unied religious conception at any single time. Even
in the nondocumentary approach, in which the Pentateuch is the product
of only a very small segment of that society, the problem remains. For
it assumes that the Pentateuch, from its earliest collections on, passed
through a linear sequence of hands, each with a distinctive theological
viewpoint, each unwilling to remove any part of the preceding incarnation, each identiable not only by theology but also by chronology, each
representing the state of theological thinking among Israels elite at that
very momentand all of this despite the undeniable dierences in social
location among the various hands at work, from royal or nationalistic to
popular or prophetic to exclusivist or priestly. Chronology and theology
are, for both Wellhausen and todays pentateuchal critics, so closely linked
as to be virtually identical.
136
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
Yet, while not denying that theological ideas do indeed change over
time, and often in easily discernible ways, it must be remembered that if
ancient Israel, or even the elite portion thereof, held a single consistent
set of theological views at any particular point in time, it would be the sole
exemplar of such religious unity in recorded history. From its very inception, Christianity was marked by discord: the contention between Peter
and Paul, for example, or more broadly the divergent views held by followers of the Jesus movement that are evident in Pauls attempts to unite
them. Islamic unity lasted no longer, fracturing almost instantly upon the
death of Muhammed. And it should not be forgotten that Israelite religion,
even as far back as we can speak of it, did not emerge from a single individual (Abraham notwithstanding), but was always a hodgepodge of elements from Canaanite, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian religions, along with
an admixture of a wide range of localized stories, practices, and beliefs.
The idea of a monolithic Israelite religion, progressing in lockstep down
the centuries, is a myth.
It is far more likely that the diversity of theological views present in
the canonical Pentateuch is evidence not of sequential evolutionary development of religious thought but rather merely of precisely what it looks
like: theological diversity in ancient Israel. The idea that there were multiple, contradictory religious conceptions in Israel at the same time is not
at all dicult to accept: we may consider the wide divergences between
Deutero-Isaiah and Ezekiel, for example, or between Proverbs and
Ecclesiastes. This is not to mention that the theologies present throughout
the Hebrew Bible are essentially elitist; enough archaeological discoveries of local cultic sites, gurines, and other religious paraphernalia have
demonstrated that there was a widespread popular religion that existed
alongside the religion presented as normative in the biblical materials.
Indeed, as has long been recognized, the biblical screeds against various
nonnormative practices serve only to demonstrate the existence of such,
from Baal to the Queen of Heaven. The religion of ancient Israel was
always diverse.
The various theologies present in the Pentateuch should be seen as evidence of the same phenomenon, especially as they seem to emerge from
distinct social settings, all of which existed for the vast majority of Israels
history: the royal court, prophetic circles, the cult. It is fallacious to assign
any of these strands of thought to what might be considered a particularly
appropriate moment in Israels historyfor example, P to the post-exilic
period because at that time Israel was a hierocracy; after all, the Jerusalem
137
Temple existed in the preexilic period also, and there is no reason to think
that its priests would have been any less internally focused when it came
to describing the regulations of the cult in the seventh century than in
the fth.21 Especially when we take into account the considerable evidence
that the strands of the Pentateuch underwent extensive internal developmentmultiple layers within D or P, for exampleit becomes clear that
each of these schools of thought had its own lengthy history, written and
rewritten over multiple generations. It is thus increasingly dicult to put
these theological views into any chronological order; all seem to have been
part of the religious fabric of ancient Israel across the centuries.
In this light, it is worth noting that the absolute dating of the pentateuchal sources is technically not the concern of the documentary theory.
The literary evidence points to four sources, and regardless of when any
of them was written, that evidence would not change. The relative dating,
howeverwhich is another way of saying the literary relationships among
the sourcesis important. Without an externally derived notion of evolutionary development, there are no grounds for seeing any literary relationship between the three major sources in GenesisNumbers, J, E, and P.
None refers to another, none cites another, none interacts in any discernible way with another. Each is referentially self-enclosed, internally coherent, and almost entirely continuous. At the same time, however, it is clear
that D is familiar with and dependent on the J and E sources, in both narrative and law, while H, the latest stratum of the P source, seems to be familiar with and dependent on D and E.22 What is important to recognize about
this sort of dependence, however, is that both D and H were written not to
supplement their sources, but as alternatives to them. This distinction is
not trivial. For supplementation obliterates the independent existence of
the underlying text: a supplemented text remains a single text. Consider,
for example, the diculties of recovering the ipsissima verba of a prophet
amid the various accretions. Critical scholarship may be able to delineate
original text from secondary layers, but in the precritical era, for all practical purposes, there could be no such division. The writing of an alternative
text, on the other hand, does not destroy the original. It creates not a single
text, but two texts, each of which can continue to have a life of its own
among the circles that value it. The composition of D did not negate J and
E; all three continued to exist, as is evident from the dependence of the
Deuteronomistic History on all three (indeed, on all four, including P).23
Thus even though there is evidence of some literary relationship between
certain pentateuchal sources, each remained an independent text.
138
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
139
segment of Israelite society. This points again to the notion that ancient
Israel maintained, over multiple centuries, a rather wide diversity of religious conceptions, and it is probably safe to say that the texts preserved in
the Pentateuch illuminate only a small part of the theological diversity that
must have existed in ancient Israel.
Because the gure of the compiler emerges only from the recognition
of the pentateuchal sources, the minimal description of what the compiler
did is nothing more than that he combined his sources into a single narrative. It is not impossible that the compiler had some ideological agenda
in mind when undertaking the process of combination, but, as with the
notion of multiple redactors, anything beyond the minimum required by
the theory must be justied by the literary evidence. Thus in order to claim
that the combination of the pentateuchal sources was done from a particular theological perspective it is necessary to show where in the process of
redaction that perspective manifests itself.
There are eectively three ways that the compiler could have brought
his multiple sources together while imposing his own particular viewpoint
on the resulting whole. The redactor could have removed those passages
that contradicted his perspective, thereby creating a theologically harmonious text. It is manifestly clear that this did not happen in the compilation
of the Pentateuch: one the one hand, the canonical text is riddled with contradictions, both narrative and theological; on the other hand, when the
sources are read independently, they ow so smoothly that it is dicult to
see where the compiler might have made such cuts.25 The compiler could
also have added passages that reected his views, thereby shaping the
resulting whole by means of a series of guiding insertions. For this too the
evidence is nonexistent: those passages that can decidedly be attributed to
the redactor are very minimal, and contain no theologically important messages; they are brief words or phrases that serve only to better connect the
disparate sources into a unied plot.26 We may note again the model of the
Deuteronomistic Historian in JoshuaKings, who, as has long been recognized, frames his source texts with patently deuteronomistic speeches and
statements, elements that appear regularly throughout the corpus. There
are no similar insertions to be found in the Pentateuchnothing nearly as
consistent in theme or frequency.27 Those most commonly cited as such
are, of course, the promise texts; yet as I have argued in the previous chapters, these are rmly at home in their respective sources.
The third mechanism by which the compiler could have created a new
theological meaning in the combination of his sources would have been
140
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
to reorder them, either by the setting of one text before or after another
such that priority would be given to the presentation in one source over
another, or by placing two texts beside each other such that an entirely new
meaning might emerge. A commonly raised example of the former is the
placing of Genesis 1 at the beginning of the Pentateuch: it is argued that
by doing so the compiler betrayed his propriestly stance. The latter position is exemplied by the claim that the situating of the nonpriestly episode of the golden calf in Exodus 3234 between the two priestly passages
about the construction of the Tabernacle (Exodus 2531; 3540) creates a
meaningful sequence of divine command, disobedience, repentance, and
covenantal reestablishment.28
Neither of these propositions is supported by the text. We have already
seen above that P is not privileged above the other sources. More generally, as noted above, none of the sources is given regular priority over the
others: P may begin the Pentateuch, but it does not end it; J is granted
the lead position in introducing the story of Abraham; E is prominently
featured in its revelation of the divine name in Exodus 3; and D has the
last word in all legal matters. And while it is possible to nd meaning in
the proximity of certain passages, this does not lead to the conclusion that
such meaning was intended by the redactor. For the example of Exodus
3234 given above, for instance, once the redactor had equated Mosess
ascent of the mountain to receive the tablets of the Decalogue in E with
Mosess ascent of the mountain to receive the blueprint for the Tabernacle
in P (Exod 31:18), then the entire golden calf narrative, which takes place
while Moses is on the mountain, can come nowhere else but after Exodus
2531; and since Mosess nal descent from the mountain in J and in E
must be the same as Mosess nal descent from the mountain in P (Exod
34:29), the construction of the Tabernacle in Exodus 3540 could not come
anywhere but after Exodus 3234. In every case where it appears that two
disparate passages create a larger meaningful whole by their sequential
placement in the canonical text, it is evident that, according to the narrative assumptions of each source, there could be no other place for the
passages to be but beside each other in precisely that order.
This last observation leads to the recognition that in order to claim
a theological intentionality in the ordering of the pentateuchal sources
it is necessary to demonstrate that no other logic could be at work. Yet
the Pentateuch, from beginning to end, proceeds in perfect chronological order: what is placed rst in the text must come rst chronologically,
and what is placed next is what must have happened next. At no point
141
142
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
part of their respective sources, and when the method of the compiler is
taken into account, it becomes all too clear that there is no other order in
which these promise texts could have been set. The promise in Genesis 12,
from J, is given before Abraham has entered Canaan; indeed, it contains
the instruction to settle there, and it must have come rst. The promise
in Genesis 15, from E, assumes that Abraham has no ospring at all, not
even Ishmael: what can you give me, seeing that I shall die childless
(Gen 15:2); it therefore must come before Genesis 16, in which Ishmael is
born. In Genesis 17, on the other hand, Ishmael is already thirteen years
old (Gen 17:25), and so must of course come after Genesis 16. As everywhere, the order of the promise texts is entirely contingent on the presuppositions of the narratives in which they are embedded. None of the three
could possibly be put in any other canonical location; by their own words
they would present insurmountable narrative diculties.
What this means from a practical interpretive perspective is thatat
least for someone considering the composition of the text to be an important factor in its interpretationit may be unwise to read too much into
the canonical sequence of the promise texts, as there was no theological
intentionality on the part of the compiler when they were put into their
present order. That said, there is some meaning to be derived from the
canonical Pentateuchjust not in the ordering of the sources. Rather,
the meaning emerges from the even-handed treatment of the sources by
the compiler, from the fact that each is allowed to speak its part fully, in its
own words and in its own way. The compiler of the Pentateuch took four
documents, with all their theological dierences and disagreements, and
set the entirety of each of them into what became, either by intention or by
tradition, the central literary work of the Hebrew Bible.
That is to say, the compilation of the Pentateuch is nothing less than
a bold statement of theological impartiality. Ancient Israelite society
comprised a diversity of theological positions, and that diversity is represented in the text. The Pentateuch is a snapshotor, better, an extended
exposureof the multiplicity of Israelite perspectives on God and Gods
relationship with Israel. From a historical perspective, the existence of the
Pentateuch speaks to the abiding importance of these various theologies
over much of the span of Israels history. The fact that the Pentateuch was
taken up into tradition and given the prominence it has testies to the
acceptability of this diversity for its ancient audience. This may not be particularly surprising, as they would have recognized, more readily than we
do, the manner in which the diversity in the text mirrored the diversity in
143
their own society. It is we who, with our own biases and predispositions,
desire to imprint the Pentateuch with a single identiable theology; this
was evidently not of concern for either the compiler of the Pentateuch or
for its earliest tradents. Nor, for that matter, is it of concern for contemporary readers of the Bible as a whole: the presence in the canonical Bible
of both Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, for example, with their fundamentally
opposing views on the wisdom tradition, does not require and is not susceptible to any leveling into a unied statement. Both books are taken as
exemplars of biblical thought, and they are given equal authority as scripture. So too the sources of the Pentateuch.
From the perspective of one searching for theological meaning in the
Pentateuch today, recognition of its sources and of the process of its compilation provides a clear lens through which the text may be appreciated
one that does not try to explain away the diversity, but rather revels in
it. The theological value of the compilation of the Pentateuch lies in its
implicit permission to understand Gods relationship with humanity from
multiple perspectives. It speaks against any attempt to dene that relationship in one way to the exclusion of others. For all the conict between its
constituent parts, the Pentateuch is fundamentally an irenic document.
Its reader is encouragedor perhaps even requiredto take multiple
conceptions of the divine into account; not to adjudicate between them
and hold up one against the other, but to hold them simultaneously, for all
of them have, by virtue of their compilation into a single text, been granted
equal authority.
In short, if one wants to read the canonical text in light of source-critical
analysis, the method of interpretation that the form of the text calls for
is not one in which individual passages are interpreted in light of those
adjacent to it from a dierent source, for the placement of the texts is
based on thoroughly nontheological rationales. Rather, we should appreciate the broader claims made in each source, across the span of its constituent passages, and read these broad claims alongside one another.
Perhaps ironically, recognition of the literary history of the text frees the
canonical reader from the need to account for the narrative contradictions
and allows instead for concentration on the larger issues presented by
the sources. For it was the whole of each source that was deemed worthy of inclusion in the canonical Pentateuch, not just individual passages;
surely it was the distinctive overarching perspective in each document that
marked it as worthy, rather than the distinctive details of plot. Ps unique
presentation of Abraham as receiving the promise after Ishmael is born
144
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
hardly seems motivation enough for its inclusion in the Pentateuch; but
the uniquely priestly conceptualization of the promise as the fulllment of
Gods design established at creation, as looking ahead to the future political entity of Israel the nation, as separating Israel from others, and so
onthat is a compelling reason to include it. Details of plot are useful,
indeed necessary, for separating the sources of the Pentateuch; the broad
conceptual distinctions among those sources are useful for the interpretation of the nal form of the text.
We may draw an analogy: if we can imagine four brightly colored
threads that have been randomly twisted together, it is certainly possible,
even probable, that in a few spots along the length of the whole the combination of colors will be especially aesthetically pleasing; yet it would be
a mistake, knowing that they were intertwined randomly, to assume that
the creation of these small areas was the result of any intent to create
them. Rather, we should concentrate on how the decision to use those
four colored threads resulted in a whole greater than the sum of its parts,
on how the entire rope is made beautiful and meaningful by the selection
of those particular colors, and on how they interact with each other from
beginning to end. This, I posit, is the best way to think about the relationships between the strands of the Pentateuch as well: not in small bits subjectively selected, but in the presence of all four in the nal work, and how
they play o of and illuminate each other throughout.
The fundamental point here is that we are dealing with sources, with
lengthy documents that contain developed arguments across their entire
lengths. In the early nineteenth century, scholars proposed what came to be
known as the Fragmentary Hypothesis: that the Pentateuch was composed
of small individual units that had been chronologically ordered by one or
more redactors.32 Within such a model, it would be far more reasonable,
even necessary, to think solely about the relationships between adjoining
textual blocks. Yet the Fragmentary Hypothesis quickly fell into disfavor
because it ignored the extensive interconnections between passages of the
Pentateuch. To read source-critically is to engage with the length of each
source, with the range of passages that it comprises, and with the kinds of
claims that can be made and expanded upon and nuanced over the course
of an extended, sophisticated text.
It is, of course, practically impossible to deal with the full scope of
each source in this or any other study of any reasonable length; yet, as
was demonstrated in chapter 4, even by looking at only a subset of each
sourcein this case, the promise to the patriarchs, which as we have seen
145
Defining Israel
For the priestly author, the separation of Israel from all the other peoples
of the earth is of paramount importance. It is anticipated in the act of
146
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
147
the civil laws. It is an answer not only for the Israelites themselves, but
also for any outsider who wants to know what denes the Israelite people.
J, for its part, can be seen as the answer to the question, why are we?:
not only because God chose Israel, but so that Israel could stand as a guide
for others, that they too might see what blessings derive from obedience
to the divine will.
Practical, historical, and ethical considerations are therefore raised
by each of the sources in turn. Together, they present a robust depiction of Israels self-identication; without any one of them, we would
be left with a gap, an unanswered, because unasked, question. As they
are read together, they not only complement each other, but they can
be seen to implicitly expand each other at the same time. While only
E suggests how Israel is to dene itself to others, and does so from a
historical perspective, it is possible to read Ps practical stance into Es
outward message: Israel is a people who experienced the Exodus and
also a people with a prescribed set of rituals. One could even go so far
as to see P as counterintuitively expanding on E, opening the possibility
of membership in the community to nonnative Israelites: one can be an
Israelite not only by having experienced the Exodus, but also by adhering
to the rituals, by participating actively in the process of maintaining the
divine presence in Israels midst. Or the reverse: Ps concern with correct lineage, intended to keep Israel apart, can be made more inclusive
by Es notion of having experienced salvation from unjust oppression
and the ethical demands that such salvation requires. Js broad view of
Israels interactions with other peoples cannot be narrowed to t into Ps
exclusivist perspective, as that would be akin to prioritizing P over J. Yet
both P and E can be read in light of J: just as J suggests that Israel will
be a model of behavior according to the divine will, so we might, reading
in a complementary fashion, consider adherence to the priestly ritual
legislation part of that modeling; so too we might consider that, as E suggests, part of the means by which the divine message is spread involves
the recounting of Israels past, as a demonstration of the salvic benets
that derive from the obedience central to J.
The identity of Israel is a central component of the promise tradition in
all three sources, J, E, and P, and in each the concepts established in the
promise extend throughout the document. When read not in isolation but
in tandem, not as opposing but as complementary, it is possible to nd in
the Pentateuch a nearly comprehensive treatment of the issue, ranging
from internal to external, from practical to historical to ethical, presenting
148
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
the reader both with a variety of answers to discrete questions and with a
variety of avenues for reading them all together.
Israels Obligation
Just as there are three distinct views on Israels identity in the promise
texts of the Pentateuch, so too there are three identiably dierent takes
on Israels selection as the recipient of the promise and the responsibilities that that selection entails. In P, the promise is styled as a brt, which,
as we have seen in chapter 4, should be understood not as a covenant
in the usual sense of the term, but rather as an unconditional promise.
Abraham and his descendants are selected from all the other peoples of
the earth, seemingly at random, to be the beneciaries of Gods blessing. All that is required of them, at least for the time being, is that they
belong to the specic lineage designated by Godfrom Abraham to Isaac
to Jacob, to the exclusion of Ishmael and Esauand that they be circumcised as a reminder to God of his unilateral commitment to them. This situation changes only after the Exodus, when Gods rescue of the Israelites
from Egypt puts them under further obligation to obey the detailed ritual
laws that God prescribes at Sinai. Yetexplicitly according to H, and perhaps implicitly according to Peven lack of obedience to these laws will
not result in the abrogation of the promise to the patriarchs, at least not
permanently.
For J, in contrast, Abraham and his descendants are worthy of the
promise and its blessings because unlike the other nations of the world
they alone maintain the universal laws established by Yahweh: the knowledge of good and evil, Yahwehs path. This is both the warrant for their
selection and the responsibility that ensues from it. Not only did Abraham
obey Yahweh and keep his charge, commandments, laws, and instructions
(Gen 26:5), but it was incumbent on him to do so: I will bless you . . . and
you, be a blessing (Gen 12:2). This responsibility devolves onto future
generations as well: in order that he may instruct his children and his
posterity to keep the way of Yahweh (Gen 18:19). And in E, the blessings
of the promise to the patriarchs are a reward not only for Israels obedience, their fear of God, but also for their trust that God will grant them
protection, wealth, and progenytrust expressed by the regular repetition
of the phrase fear not. In neither E nor J is it at all clear that the promise is unconditional. Certainly for J it seems not to be, as the blessings
of the promise are wrapped up in the partnership between Yahweh and
149
Abraham, such that neither side can succeed without the other. Even for
E, despite its opening wordsFear not, Abram, I am a shield to you; your
reward will be very great (Gen 15:1)the fulllment of the promise seems
dependent on Israels continued trust in and fear of God. Even Abraham,
after all, is subject to a horrifying test of his fear, in Genesis 22, while the
generation of the Exodus must be given a direct experience of Yahweh in
order to conrm their fear. Both sides of Es fearobedience and trust
appear to be in need of regular renewal.
Read independently, these various conceptions of Israels selection and
obligation seem at odds, or at least raise questions for the (Israelite) audience: is the promise unconditional and everlasting or not? what must be
done to maintain it? are the obligations general or specic? When they
are read as complementary, however, the distinctions are elided and the
points of contact highlighted and expanded.
The unconditionality of the priestly brt is tempered by the need for
occasional renewal in E and further by Js obligation on every generation
of Abrahams descendants both to continue to uphold the partnership
with Yahweh and to instruct their ospring to do the same. The canonical promise does not permit Israel to let its guard down for an instant. At
the same time, the priestly brt functions canonically as a safety valve of
sorts for Israel: while they must be vigilantas P itself makes clear in its
ritual legislationthey can rest assured that Yahweh will never fully reject
them. The blessings of the promise may be withdrawn for a time, but as a
nation their status as promise recipient is rm. The two-sided coin of the
promise thus demands uninterrupted present obedience and also maintains the security of the future. Additionally, by incorporating the notion of
renewal from E, the canonical text allows for the possibility that Israel will
have the opportunity to rearm its commitment to God, perhaps even in
the very sorts of crises that would naturally lead to doubt as to whether God
has indeed abrogated the promise. Thus the opportunity for rearmation
blends with the fear of temporary divine withdrawal and the concomitant
reassurance that it is indeed only temporary, a reassurance that is put in
the clearest terms, at least canonically, by the refrain fear not.
The ritual laws are presented as an imposition in the wake of the
Exodus, both in P and in the canonical narrative; so too are the laws of
the Covenant Code, from E. Both of these codes serve to reify the previously abstracted notions of obedience in the nonpriestly sources. When E
mentions the fear of God before the laws (Exod 20:17), it clearly implies
obedience, yet the precise contours of that obedience are ill dened. Aside
150
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
from the two clear examples of Abraham in Genesis 22, who fullls Gods
commands despite their abhorrent content, and the midwives in Exodus
1, who act on behalf of Israel as a whole, the exact nature of what it means
to fear God is left somewhat open: Abraham passes Sarah o as his wife
because he worries that there is no fear of God in this place (Gen 20:11),
but we are given no indication as to what particular practices Abraham is
worried about. Yet when Israel is given a theophany in order that the fear
of God may ever be with you, so that you do not go astray (Exod 20:17)
and those words are followed by Israel formally accepting the obligations
of the laws (Exod 24:3, 7), their meaning is made clear. Similarly, the
laws give shape to Js rather open-ended notion of walking in the way of
Yahweh. The universal laws to which J refers by this phrase, and the other
expressions that connote the same thing, are nowhere explicitly laid out.
When the laws of E and P come into force after the Exodus, however, it is
made clear what is to be taught when Abraham, and by extension Israel,
is to instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of Yahweh by
doing what is just and right (Gen 18:19).
At the same time, the sense of imposition in the legal codes is mitigated
by the notion of natural law in J. Israels obedience is not only required by
Yahwehs salvation from Egypt, but is taken on voluntarily from Israels
earliest days down to the present. The legal codes do not negate the natural law, but give it concrete expression. Every generation from Abraham
onward accepts the burden of obedience voluntarily, and passes it on to
the next. While for both P and E there is a distinct sense of periodization
in Israels historythe imposition of the laws in the wilderness marks a
new beginning, indeed perhaps the true beginning of Israels existence as
a peoplethe contribution of J insists on the elision of any divisions of
Israels past. The Israel that existed when Abraham uniquely worshipped
Yahweh is fundamentally unchanged down to the present, despite the laws.
Though the practices elaborated in the law codes are a new requirement,
the underlying motivation is not. Js notion of divinehuman partnership
is not eliminated at Sinai/Horeb; rather, it serves as a lens through which
to understand the purpose of the laws. It is by these means that both God
and Israel will be exalted.
Historical Scope
Because in the canonical text the promise to the patriarchs occurs over
and over again, often multiple times even with a single patriarch, it can
151
152
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
then, is eective from its initial statement to the present; it speaks equally
to every point in Israels history. Yet there is more that can be said.
Es depiction of the promise as the structuring feature for Israels most
important historical eventsthe patriarchs, the Exodus, and the conquestis
extended by Ps insistence on the fulllment of the promise in the political
state of Israel. We, the intended readership, need not look to the narratives of
Israels early history to see the promise put into eect, for we too are its living
fulllment. The present thus becomes yet another of Israels great moments;
the patriarchs, the Exodus, the conquest, and the present are all put on equal
footing. The past is made present, the historical thread unbroken. Even
though the giving of the promise proper ceases with the death of Jacob, its
force continues unabated through every stage of Israels history.
As E and P can be read together to create a dramatic sweeping view of
the promise working throughout Israels past and present, the J promise
adds a distinctly personal and immediate aspect. It may be that the nation
as a whole stands as the fulllment of the patriarchal promise, but what of
the individual? To this J comes with the answer: the promise is not merely
a national statement, but applies to each Israelite, and particularly in his
time of need. It is a reassurance that God will care for each person, will
be with him. Just as the promise was given to the individuals Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, so too the promise functions for every Israelite individual thereafter. In combination with the broader connotations of E and P,
the individualistic aspect of Js promise leads to an equation between the
Israelite and Israel: the nation is identied as the sum of its members, and
the individual as a necessary and irreducible part of the greater whole.
Furthermore, Js connection of the promise to times of need adds
a distinctive element to the E and P promises. The links in E and P to
Israels triumphant historical moments indicate that those were (and are)
the patriarchal promise put into eect. To this J adds, in eect, all of the
moments in between: the times of crisis, the struggles, the hardships, both
personal and national. The promise is not just about triumph; it is about
the dicult road that leads to triumph. It is not merely a post hoc explanation for success; it begins to take eect at the moment of yearning, with
the need for help. Indeed, as J makes clear, there is no success without
Gods assistance: as both the Tower of Babel story and the episode at the
end of Numbers 14 demonstrate, without Gods accompaniment human
endeavors are bound to fail, even to lead to distresses greater than those
initially felt. The J promise thus gives a personal and clarifying nuance to
the history of Israel as expressed in E and P.
153
The historical scope of the promise in the three sources is not, therefore, simply a temporal matter, or a parenetic issue. Rather, contained
within it are far more substantive theological claims. When these claims
are identied by reading each promise within its original source context,
and when they are then read as complementary aspects of the canonical
promise, the import of the historical scope is signicantly broadened.
154
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
155
156
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
Israels hands. This is both a comfort and a threat, both an assurance and
a responsibility. We can be secure in the knowledge that the divine plan
is set, and its future fulllment certain; yet we must constantly strive to
bring it to pass in the present.
In the preceding section I have taken four topics of central theological
importance to the understanding of the patriarchal promisethe identity of Israel, Israels obligation, historical scope, and the divine plan
and explored some of the ways that the diverse treatments of these topics
across the pentateuchal sources can be brought together in a complementary reading of the canonical text so as to create a wide range of potential
theological readings. The divergent perspectives of the sources can, as I
hope to have demonstrated, serve to instill in the reader not necessarily a
sense of internal contradiction in the text but rather a sense of wholeness;
the fullness of humanitys experience of the divine cannot be captured
by a single author with a single worldview, but rather is brought to light
by the combined and even-handed reading of multiple worldviews. The
interpreter looking to treat the canonical text need not consider source
criticism the enemy, need not treat the documentary theory as innately
anti-theological. Commitment to nding meaning in the nal form of the
text does not require commitment to the authorial unity of the nal form.
Meaning for the whole can emerge from the acknowledgment and appreciation of the voices that make up that whole.33
As already noted, the suggestions raised above are in no way comprehensive or exclusive; not only are there undoubtedly many other, even
entirely opposing, ways to understand each of these issues, but there are
surely many other topics that could be discussed in equally fruitful ways.
The point here was not to present a complete picture, as such may in fact
be impossible, but rather to provide a template for reading the canonical
promise in light of its sources. The method of interpretation promoted
here is one that takes seriously the form of the canonical text: its combination, without prejudice, of divergent theological positions into a
single authoritative whole. The Pentateuch, by its very composite nature,
encodes a basic respect for all the dierent voices that make up a culture,
be it the ancient culture from which the text emergedthat is, those who
eected this combination and the audience for whom it was intendedor
the subsequent cultures of those readers who claim the Pentateuch as a
central text of the scriptural canon. To read the Pentateuch with its composite nature in mind is both to closely identify and understand its individual components and to value the fact that all of those voices are equally
157
Conclusion
as laid out in the introduction, this book has had three main aims: to
examine the patriarchal promise in the Pentateuch from a variety of
angles, both canonical and literary-historical; to highlight and attempt to
overcome some of the methodological diculties inherent in the standard
documentary and nondocumentary approaches to the promise, and by
extension to the entire Pentateuch; and to use the promise as a template
for proposing a new method of canonical theological interpretation, one
that engages with the literary-historical evidence.
From the perspective of the canonical Pentateuch, the patriarchal
promise is the guiding force behind the entire narrative. At the moment
that Abraham emerges on the scene, Yahweh promises to make him into
a great nation, a promise that by necessity involves the inseparably linked
aspects of progeny and land. The rest of the Pentateuch is nothing other
than the story of how that promise comes to be fullledthrough the
lives of the patriarchs, with all the very human obstacles that must be overcome, until their eventual growth into a numerous people, and through
the life of that people Israel as they make their way, haltingly and in the
face of nearly constant threats to survival, to the promised land.
The story of the promise is not one among many in the Pentateuch. It
is the sole story of the Pentateuch. The narrative is lled with individual
episodes, to be sure. But each of those episodes is self-contained, raising a
problem to be overcomefamine, family conict, external threat, marriage,
thirstand resolving it reasonably quickly. These episodes are perfectly
good stories, but they are not the story. And there are of course larger complexes, most signicantly that of the Exodus and the wilderness wandering.
But that narrative complex comprises only parts of the books of Exodus and
Numbers, and obviously has nothing at all to do with the patriarchal cycles
in Genesis. Whats more, even the extended narrative of the Exodus and wilderness wandering is initiated and driven by the promise: I will bring you
into the land that I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod 6:8).
Conclusion
159
160
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
Conclusion
16 1
becomes clear that in fact virtually every promise text is well integrated
into its literary context on the lexical, syntactic, structural, and thematic
levels, and moreover that removing the promise frequently produces a
resulting text that is either syntactically or narratologically problematic.
While the close integration of a promise into its context could in theory be
taken as the work of a particularly sensitive redactor, such a conclusion is
by no means required. If a well-integrated passage is the sign of a secondary hand, then what would a single-authored text look like? The literary
indications of a secondary insertioncontradiction, syntactic confusion,
distinctiveness of narrative claim or theme or theologyare markedly
absent from the promise texts. If the promise texts are deemed secondary,
it is not for any literary reason.
In order to justify any conclusions regarding the groupings of the nonpriestly promise textswhether according to the documentary sources or
according to redactional layersthe promise texts must be examined on
their own, independently of any arguments to be made about their contexts.
That is, one cannot attribute a promise text to J because it is situated in a J
context, or to a particular redactional layer because certain texts are deemed
to have been in need of secondary linking. Groupings of the promise, when
taken independently, should proceed on two grounds. First, does one promise text contradict or repeat a previously given promise in a way that would
present a narrative diculty? For example, Genesis 1213 and Genesis 15
each present the promise as if it were given for the rst time. Second, does a
passage align, in its situating of the promise within the broader patriarchal
narrative and in its focus on specic concepts, with some promise passages
but not others? Thus rather than concentrate on the minor details of style,
which can be part of a single authors artistic repertoire, it is more important to focus on those ideas that are unique to certain sets of promise texts,
such as blessing, kingship, or references to Egypt. When the nonpriestly
promise texts are analyzed from these two perspectives, they fall into two
groups, each internally consistent in terms of their narrative claims and
their thematic presentations. The two groups align exactly with the classical
documents J and E. When the promise texts are then read in light of their
documentary contexts, it becomes clear that they contain numerous important links to other parts of their respective sources. Not only do they t their
sources literarily; they can be seen to encode a wide range of thematic and
theological concepts unique to the sources in which they are found.
Recognition of the deeper interpretive signicance of the promise
when read in light of the pentateuchal sources opens the way for what may
162
t he promise t o t he pa t r i a rc hs
Notes
i n t r oduc t ion
1. Quotes from the Bible throughout the book are based on the NJPS translation.
2 . For the sake of ease, I have everywhere rendered the name as Abraham, rather
than using the shorter form, Abram, found before Gen 17:5; similarly, I always
refer to Sarah, not Sarai (see Gen 17:15).
3. See, e.g., Ber. Rab. 95.3.
4 . Ber. Rab. 44.14.
5. On the rabbinic perspective on the patriarchal promise, see A. Goshen-Gottstein,
The Promises to the Patriarchs in Rabbinic Literature, in Divine Promises to
the Fathers in the Three Monotheistic Religions, ed. Alviero Niccacci (Jerusalem:
Franciscan, 1995), 6097. See particularly the following: The patriarchs are
now the ideal representatives of a lifestyle in which we all participate (89).
6. See, e.g., Benno Jacob, The First Book of the Bible: Genesis, trans. Ernest I. Jacob
and Walter Jacob (New York: Ktav, 1974), 84: God chose Israel as his people for
the sake of the fathers.
7. See also Luke 1:73; Gal 3:16.
8. See also Gal 3:629.
9. See also Rom 9:8; Gal 4:28; Eph 2:1213.
chap ter 1
1. See, even in canonical treatments of the promise (rather than those attempting explicitly to isolate the constituent earlier elements on which the canonical promise is based, on which see chapter 2 below), David J. A. Clines, The
Theme of the Pentateuch, 2nd ed., Journal for the Study of the Old Testament,
Supplements 10 (Sheeld: Sheeld Academic Press, 1997), 29; Terence E.
Fretheim, The Pentateuch, Interpreting Biblical Texts (Nashville: Abingdom,
1996), 9599; R. Norman Whybray, Introduction to the Pentateuch (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 10.
1 64
1 65
10. See Clines, Theme, 31, who makes a similar statement (though he sees three
elements inherent in the promise, rather than two): For the . . . elements are
unintelligible one without the other.
11. In the following discussion, there is some signicant overlap with the treatment
of Clines, Theme, 4865. Clines, however, is interested there mostly in dividing
the Pentateuch into three parts, aligned with his division of the promise into three
elements: progeny (Genesis), divinehuman relationship (ExodusLeviticus), and
land (NumbersDeuteronomy). This division of text and theme allows Clines to
nd meaning in, for example, the laws in Numbers that are specic to the postconquest period, and are thus about the land. For our purposes, however, it is
the plot that is in question, not the thematic arrangement of the Pentateuchan
arrangement that is, to my mind, at least partially articial.
12 . See Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1979), 151: All the individual stories of the Fathers have now been
framed within a bracket of eschatology.
13. Closely aligned with the barrenness of the matriarchs as an obstacle to the
ful llment of the promise is the problem of the age of the patriarchs and matriarchs. Frequently barrenness is not explicitly mentioned, but rather the impossibility of conception and childbirth at a greatly advanced age, as in Gen 17:17;
18:1112. This too is a natural challenge to be overcome by Gods power. It is
important to note that the division between natural and divine is emphatically a modern one, and not a biblical one: in biblical terms, God is clearly
responsible, both in the active and reactive sense, for what we term nature, be
it weather or illness. Yet there is also a distinction made in the Bible between
those aspects of nature that are circumstantial and those that are the direct
result of divine intervention, and the barrenness of the matriarchs ts into the
former category (while the barrenness of Abimelechs kingdom in Gen 20:17
18, by contrast, is an example of the latter).
14 . Note that it is only the rst of these episodes that can be easily read in light of
the promise; in the parallel stories of Genesis 20 and 26, Isaac and Jacob have,
respectively, already been born (contra Clines, Theme, 48).
15. See Whybray, Introduction, 55: It is the uncertainty both about survival and
about the birth of an heir, apparently despite the promises which God has
made, that constitutes the main drama of the patriarchal history. Time and
again these are placed in danger in one way or another, creating a dramatic
suspense. Each of these situations is then resolved by Gods intervention, often
by what we should call a miracle, only to be succeeded by another.
16. See Walter Brueggemann, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and
Christian Imagination (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 45: The
story is told so that the account of the family cannot be narrated apart from the
sometimes overt and sometimes hidden work of God who has promised, willed, and
guaranteed the well-being of the family (italics original).
1 66
17. We may also include Balak in this list, who wants to wage war against Israel but
requires that Balaam curse them rst (Num 22:6).
18. The numerous interpretations of the Pentateuch, from a variety of viewpoints, that make a signicant point of the fact that it does not include the
conquest proper are, in my opinion, not taking full account of the inevitability
with which the conquest and settlement in the land are presented. (Clines,
Theme, 10726, exerts much energy in nding a theological point to the lack
of nality in the conclusion of the Pentateuch before the conquest of the land,
essentially landing on the very open-endedness of the Pentateuch and the
promise as a meaningful message about living in a state of existential hope.)
The nal word on this in the Pentateuch belongs obviously to Deuteronomy,
which is emphatic in its claim that the Israelites will certainly possess the
land: Hear O Israel: you are about to cross the Jordan to go in and dispossess nations greater and more populous than you (Deut 9:1; and see also the
many times that Deuteronomy introduces material with the positive statement
when Yahweh your God brings you into the landDeut 6:10; 7:1; 11:29, and
variations thereon throughout). Readings that present the ful llment of the
promise as being somehow in doubt at the end of the Pentateuch ignore these
de nitive statements.
19 . See Childs, Introduction, 151: In spite of the enormous variety within the
individual traditions which the canonical process has retained, the portrayal of the patriarchs has been refocused about their one role as bearers of
Israels hope.
20. It may be noted that the primeval history of Genesis 111 has gone undiscussed
here. The connections between the primeval history and the promise will be
drawn out in chapter 4.
21. Clines, Theme, 1923.
22 . Here and throughout I translate both the niphal and the hithpael forms of
bless in this context as bless themselves, following the basic hithpael
meaning, rather than the passive niphal meaning of be blessed. I follow
many before me in nding the reexive meaning more probable. The parallel passages in Genesis (18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14) and Jeremiah (4:2) provide
the key to understanding the semantics here. Including Gen 12:3, three of
these six passages use the niphal of b-r-k (Gen 12:3; 18:18; 28:14), and three the
hithpael (Gen 22:18; 26:4; Jer 4:2). Since the context is the same in all cases,
it stands to reason that the meaning of the phrase should be the same as well.
Though there are numerous examples in the Bible of niphal verbs that take
a reexive meaning, there are virtually no hithpaels that are to be understood as passive; see Joel S. Baden, Hithpael and Niphal in Biblical Hebrew:
Semantic and Morphological Overlap, Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010): 3344.
Thus it seems almost certain that the niphal here should be understood as
reexive.
167
23. The impact this sort of attening of language has on interpretation can be seen
clearly in Cliness presentation of the pentateuchal texts that speak to each of
his three parts of the promise (progeny, land, and relationship with God): he
combines every reference to progeny, for example, under one heading, and proceeds to discuss the promise in these broad terms without any eort to make
meaning from the specic verbal instantiations attested under the heading
(Clines, Theme, 3165).
24 . On the lack of methodological antagonism between the two approaches, see
Joel S. Baden, The Tower of Babel: A Case Study in the Competing Methods
of Historical and Modern Literary Criticism, Journal of Biblical Literature 128
(2009): 20924.
chap ter 2
1. This remains the dominant theory, it should be noted, everywhere except
continental Europe (on which see below, Contemporary Nondocumentary
Scholarship).
2 . Although Genesis 15 has always been recognized as a source-critically dicult chapter, the majority of classical scholars, though admitting the inherent
uncertainty of their analysis, largely agree that Genesis 15 was a combination of
J and E, and that the promise in 15:5 belongs denitively to E. On this (and the
assignment of Gen 12:13 to J), cf. Benjamin W. Bacon, The Genesis of Genesis,
rev. ed. (Hartford: Student Publishing Company, 1893), 120, 12425; August
Dillmann, Genesis Critically and Exegetically Expounded (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1897), 2:815, 5356; J. Estlin Carpenter and C. Harford-Battersby, The
Hexateuch According to the Revised Version (New York: Longmans, Green, 1900),
2:1819, 22; S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, 12th ed. (London: Methuen, 1926),
14445, 17475; John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis,
2nd ed., International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930),
24243, 27677.
3. This passage was generally viewed as belonging to E. Cf. Julius Wellhausen,
Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bcher des Alten Testaments
(Berlin: G. Reimer, 1885. Repr., Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963), 60; Abraham Kuenen,
An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch,
trans. Philip H. Wicksteed (London: MacMillan, 1886), 146; W. E. Addis, The
Documents of the Hexateuch, 2 vols. (London: David Nutt, 1892), 1:104105;
Bacon, Genesis, 223; Driver, Genesis, 400; Skinner, Genesis, 536. Carpenter and
Harford-Battersby stand virtually alone in attributing the verse to J (Hexateuch,
2:79).
4 . Generally acknowledged as J; cf. Benjamin W. Bacon, The Triple Tradition of
the Exodus (Hartford: Student Publishing Company, 1894), 151; Carpenter and
Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2:132; A. H. McNeile, The Book of Exodus, 2nd
1 68
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12 .
13.
1 69
1 70
171
singular and usually with the denite article, while the plural formulation is
found in E (Exod 18:16, 20); it is, it should be observed, also found in J (Exod
16:28). Whether he is correct or not, the question should have no bearing on
the determination that these verses are deuteronomic. Given the relative dating of the corpora in question, it is far more prudent to assume that the author
of D has borrowed from and expanded upon the formulations he found in his
source, in this case J. The objections to Weinfeld from Samuel Loewenstamm
(The Divine Grants of Land to the Patriarchs, Journal of the American
Oriental Society 91 [1971]: 50910) are dependent upon the view, criticized in
this chapter below, that formulations similar to those of Deuteronomy should
be axiomatically attributed to a deuteronomic author, and are for that reason
unconvincing.
28. It should be noted that this argument holds equally well for contemporary scholars who see Exod 32:714 as a deuteronomic text (e.g., Erhard Blum, Studien zur
Komposition des Pentateuch, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 189 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990], 73).
29. See Baden, Redaction, 99195.
30. That this was indeed the initial step is clear from Wellhausen, who analyzes the
composition of Genesis 22, and identies the insertion of 22:1518, before dealing with the rest of the patriarchal material, including the rest of the promise
passages (Composition, 1819).
31. Wellhausen, Composition, 24.
32 . Kilian, Abrahamsberlieferungen, 94.
33. Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 26.
34 . Dillmann, Genesis, 2:203.
35. Kuenen, Hexateuch, 247.
36. Skinner, Genesis, 406; see also Carpenter and Harford-Battersby (Hexateuch,
50), who claim that 32:12 depends on 22:17.
37. Bacon, Triple Tradition, 135.
38. We may take, as an example, the laws of Exod 34:1726: scholars have recognized it as late because it incorporates elements from E, P, and D, but were we
to follow the logic employed with the patriarchal promises and Gen 22:1518, we
would have to conclude that all of the passages parallel to Exod 34:1726 are in
fact secondary insertions composed on the basis of these late laws.
39. Assuming that the rst word of Gen 48:5, watth, now, would have also been
part of the insertion, as a means of connecting the two seemingly unrelated
topics.
40. Von Rad agreed that Gen 26:34 (and of course 22:1518) was a late insertion (Genesis, trans. John H. Marks, Old Testament Library [Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1972], 27071).
41 . Gerhard von Rad, The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch, The
Problem of the Hexateuch and other Essays, trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken (New
1 72
York: MacGraw-Hill, 1966), 61. In this he followed Albrecht Alt closely; cf.
Albrecht Alt, Der Gott der Vter, Beitr ge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und
Neuen Testament, 3. Folge Heft 12 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1929).
42 . Von Rad, Form-Critical Problem, 5074. See also Hans Walter Wol, The
Kerygma of the Yahwist, in Walter Brueggemann and Hans W. Wol, The
Vitality of Old Testament Traditions, 2nd ed. (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 4166
(esp. 4655).
43. Noth, Pentateuchal Traditions, 54.
44 . Noth, Pentateuchal Traditions , 56. This goes back to von Rads observation
that what he deemed the early Israelite creed in Deut 26:5 in its most
primitive form began simply with Jacob (Form-Critical Problem, 58; cf.
also p. 56).
45. Noth, Pentateuchal Traditions, 102 n. 300. Cf. also p. 58: Among the southern
tribes the stories of Isaac and Abraham were added to the theme of the patriarchs. These stories introduce nothing fundamentally new but provide a very
lively variation to the theme promise to the patriarchs.
46. Noth, Pentateuchal Traditions, 102 n. 300.
47. Noth, Pentateuchal Traditions, 3940.
48. Cf., e.g., Kilian, Abrahamsberlieferungen; Albert de Pury, Promesse divine et
l gende cultuelle dans le cycle de Jacob: Gense 28 et les traditions patriarcales,
tudes Bibliques (Paris: Gabalda, 1975); and, somewhat dierently, John Van
Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1975).
49. J. Hoftijzer, Die Verheissungen an die drei Erzvter (Leiden: Brill, 1956).
50. Hoftijzer, Verheissungen, 69.
51. Hoftijzer, Verheissungen, 1427.
52 . Hoftijzer, Verheissungen, 14.
53. Hoftijzer, Verheissungen, 2425.
54 . For criticism of Hoftijzers method on this point, see William McKane, Studies
in the Patriarchal Narratives (Edinburgh: Handsel, 1979), 15758; for a more
general rebuttal, see Horst Seebass, Gehrten Verheissungen zum ltesten
Bestand der Vter-Erzhlungen?, Biblica 64 (1983): 189210.
55. Claus Westermann, The Promises to the Fathers, trans. David E. Green
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980).
56. See the criticism of this division of the promises in chapter 1.
57. Westermann, Promises, 28. The opposite conclusion is argued by Z. Weisman,
National Consciousness in the Patriarchal Promises, Journal for the Study of
the Old Testament 31 (1985): 5573 (at 59): the national promises are primary,
and have undergone expansion into the promise of an heir who inherits all the
national promises made to his father, Abraham. See also de Pury (Promesse,
201202), who argues that the promise of land always has the patriarchs
descendants in mind.
173
58. Rolf Rendtor, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch,
trans. J. J. Scullion, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements 89
(Sheeld: Sheeld Academic Press, 1990).
59. Rendtor, Problem, 75. See also Matthias Kckert, Vtergott und
Vterverheissungen: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Albrecht Alt und seinen Erben,
Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 142
(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 172 n. 45.
60. Rendtor, Problem, 83.
61. Rendtor, Problem, 82.
62 . Rendtor, Problem, 83.
63. See also David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary
Approaches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), in which the title of the
section outlining his Proto-Genesis Composition (i.e., the non-P material) is
titled Constructing the Promise (177).
64 . Die Verheissungen als Gestaltungsmittel sind dann aber vor allemund dies
gewiss nicht von ungef hrfr die weitere berlieferung der Vtergeschichte
von zentraler Bedeutung geworden (Blum, Vtergeschichte, 462). See also the
quotes from Rendtor above.
65. Rendtor, Problem, 23.
66. Rendtor, Problem, 173.
67. Rendtor, Problem, 7778; Blum, Vtergeschichte, 364; Carr, Fractures, 15556,
32223.
68. See Baden, Hithpael.
69. Carr, Fractures, 155; 17172. See Kckert, Vtergott, 17173, however, who attributes Gen 18:1819; 22:1618; 26:35, 24 all to one layer, despite the fact that
there is not a single terminological element that is common to all four; rather,
for Kckert the connecting feature of these passages is their references to
Abrahams obedience to Yahwehs word (on which see above).
70. Jean-Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, trans. Pascale Dominique
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 91. See also Van Seters, Prologue,
25455.
71. Rendtor, Problem, 6263; Blum, Vtergeschichte, 290, 364, 367.
72 . Chicago Assyrian Dictionary 8:47 (b), 48 (g).
73. Blum, Vtergeschichte, 364. So also Carr, Fractures, 159.
74 . Cf. Van Seters, Prologue, 302: This lack of precision in quotation does not signify a dierence in authorship. Ancients did not feel the same compulsion as
do moderns toward exact quotation, even of public documents. And when it is
a case of the same author, the variety is simply a matter of literary style.
75. Where P originally ended is a matter of much dispute in the nondocumentary school; for a survey of the issues, see Thomas Rmer, The Exodus
Narrative According to the Priestly Document, in The Strata of the Priestly
Writings: Contemporary Debates and Future Directions, ed. Sarah Shectman and
1 74
Joel S. Baden, Abhandlung zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95
(Zrich: Theologischer Verlag Zrich, 2009), which also conrms the view
that the original P document comprised all of the priestly promise texts in
GenesisExodus.
76. One might also note the variation in the verb used to describe the process of
Abraham becoming a nation: n-t-n in Gen 17:6, 20; 48:4; h-y-h in Gen 17:16;
28:3; 35:11.
77. See also Van Seterss statements regarding inconsistent language in D: If in a
corpus as homogeneous in language and outlook as Deuteronomy one nds a
variety of formulaic expression, there is no need to deny the same possibility to
an author of Genesis (Prologue, 220).
78. Die Landverheissung (als Eid) ndet sich freilich sprachlich und inhaltlich
variiert: Insbesondere ist in Nu 11 von admh (sonst hres) die Rede, und in
Dtn 31 wird die Verheissung auf Israel (und nicht die Vter) bezogen. Doch
lassen sich entsprechende Variationen auch sonst in der Traditionsbildung
(Blum, Studien, 81).
79. Emerton, Origins, 2324. One might also look protably to the extensive corpus
of biblical poetry, which is practically dened by its use of linguistical variation
in word order, in synonymous constructions, in similes, even in binyanim. There
is no reason to suppose that a writer composing a prose work should be any more
limited in his ability to vary his language than would a poet.
80. Rendtor, Problem, 8788; Blum, Vtergeschichte, 36364, 37071.
81. Lohnk (Landverheissung, 2122) correctly notes that even though most of the
references to the promise of land as an oath are from Deuteronomy, it is impermissible to draw general conclusions on that basis about every other such reference. We may similarly critique the assessment of Hans Henrich Schmid (Der
sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung [Zrich:
Theologischer Verlag Zrich, 1976], 13031, 1413), that the themes of progeny
and land so prominent in the promises necessarily have their origins in deuteronomic ideology; so too his claim (ibid., 137) that the concept of blessing
found in some promise texts should be assigned a late date because it is found
in some relatively late contexts.
82 . Rendtor, Problem, 96.
83. Josef Scharbert (Die Landverheissung an die Vter als einfache Zusage, als Eid,
und als Bund, in Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte, ed. Rdiger Bartelmus, et
al; Orbis biblicus et orientalis 126 [Freiburg: Universittsverlag, 1993], 3436)
tries to split the dierence by arguing that the oath language originated in
E, and was subsequently adopted by D and Dtr (including therein all of the
post-Genesis references to the promise as oath listed above). It is not clear, however, why the oath language in Exodus and Numbers should necessarily be deuteronomic, if it is admitted that D learned the phrasing from E.
84 . Indeed, virtually every divine statement can be considered an oath in the sense
of a binding statement: For he is not a man that he should recant (1 Sam
1 75
15:29). See the comments of Marc Brettler: Sometimes late Hebrew works comprehend what God earlier only spoke as a bh (compare 2 Sam 7:8 to Psalm
89:4 and 132:2) (The Promises of the Land of Israel to the Patriarchs in the
Pentateuch, Shenaton 56 [1983]: viixxiv [at xx n. 53]).
85. The rabbis also recognized that oaths could be made without the technical language, as is clear from their comment on these verses. Cf. b. Shevuot 36a and
Rashi on Gen 8:21.
86. Weinfeld, , berth, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G.
Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, 15 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1975), 2:25379 (at 257, 260).
87. Jacob Milgrom, Profane Slaughter and a Formulaic Key to the Composition of
Deuteronomy, Hebrew Union College Annual 47 (1976): 117 (at 34). It is also
worth noting that the typically deuteronomic phrase kaaer niba is found only
once in GenesisNumbers (in the late text Exod 13:11), surprising if, as the nondocumentary scholars would have it, there is substantial deuteronomic material in the patriarchal promises.
88. CAD 13:3839, 41; 21:1617.
89. Brettler, Promises, xx.
90. Cf. Lohnk, Landverheissung, 22. Contra Rendtor: The whole of the divine
address to Abraham in 22.16 is introduced by a solemn oath formula; this
oath is taken up explicitly in 26.3 and the promise described as the ful lment
(maintenance) of the oath. In both cases the promise address comprises the
promise of increaseusing largely the same terminologyand the promise of
blessing for others (Problem, 78). Yet the syntax of Gen 26:3b5 makes clear
that it is only the land that was sworn to Abraham; Rendtor also neglects the
many other passages in which the oath is mentioned alongside the promise of
land alone. Blum, Vtergeschichte, 36382, argues that while the oath language
is all part of the K D layer, which includes Gen 22:1518, all of the oaths of land
refer in fact to Genesis 15which, as he admits, contains no explicit oath language. See the reaction of Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israels
Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible, trans. James D. Nogalski; Siphrut 3 (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 2756.
91. Rendtor, Problem, 58. See also Scharbert, Landverheissung an die Vter,
34041.
92 . Gen 1:16; 12:17; 28:14; 34:29; 43:15, 18; Exod 34:27; Num 13:23, 26; Deut 7:14;
Judg 21:10; 1 Sam 6:11; Jer 27:7; 40:9, et al. (Dillmann, Genesis, 1:123). Though
at least some of these passages are debatably secondary (though none convincingly so, in my opinion), as a class these examples demonstrate that this structure was both acceptable and reasonably common in biblical Hebrew. See also
Ernest Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius
Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 114.
93. As observed by Nicholson, Pentateuch, 115.
94 . As also in Kckert, Vtergott, 1713.
176
95. Cf. Rendtor, Problem, 84100. See most importantly on this topic Schmid,
Genesis, and the two major recent collections of essays from the nondocumentary
school: Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte, eds., Abschied
vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jngsten Diskussion, Beihefte
zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 315 (Berlin: de Gruyter,
2002), and Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid, eds., A Farewell to the
Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Research, SBL
Symposium Series 34 (Atlanta: SBL, 2006). In response, see Hans-Christoph
Schmitt, Erzvtergeschichte und Exodusgeschichte als konkurrierende
Ursprungslegenden Israelsein Irrweg der Pentateuchforschung, in Die
Erzvter in der biblischen Tradition, ed. Anselm C. Hagedorn and Henrik
Pfeier, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 400
(Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 24166.
96. This is not even to mention the question of the references to the patriarchal
promise in Deuteronomy, which constitute a separate case (to be discussed
briey in chapter 3); it is worth noting, however, that there is a signicant movement in nondocumentary scholarship to see the references to the fathers in
Deuteronomy as referring not to the patriarchs of Genesis, but rather to the generation of the wilderness (see most prominently Thomas Rmer, Israels Vter:
Untersuchungen zur Vterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition, Orbis biblicus et orientalis 99 [Freiburg: Universittsverlag,
1990], following an initial suggestion by John Van Seters, Confessional
Reformulation in the Exilic Period, Vetus Testamentum 22 [1972]: 44859).
According to this argument, the explicit mentions of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
by name in Deuteronomy are all secondary insertions; furthermore, the idea
of the promise of the land originated in Deuteronomy, and was subsequently
extended through redactional reworkings back into the preceding books of the
Pentateuch.
97. Rendtor, Problem, 8788. See also Schmid, Genesis, 6667, 27879; Rmer,
Israels Vter, 56166.
98. Ska, Introduction, 9394. On the deuteronomistic nature of these passages, see
also Scharbert, Landverheissung an die Vter, 34445.
99 . Three other passages that are in ostensibly priestly contexts will be left out
of this study. In Num 32:11, we nd a reference to the promiseor, more
accurately, a reference to a reference to the promise, as this verse is simply a recollection of Yahwehs words in Num 14:30. The source division of
Numbers 32 is complicated, and no certain division has yet been oered; since
Wellhausen (Composition, 114), however, many scholars have treated this section of Numbers 32 as a late addition. Whether or not this is correctthough
a recent paper by my student Liane Marquis has me thinking that it probably
isthe nature of this twice-removed reference to the promise may allow us
to set it aside. In Exod 13:5 and 11 we also have references to the promise; both
100.
101.
102 .
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
177
1 78
individual and the working out of that promise. These epics, composed by any
reckoning hundreds of years before the rst biblical text, already contain the
ostensibly late theological motif of the promise. My thanks to David Wright
for this observation.
chap ter 3
1. Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 111.
2 . The one verse from P that stands in the canonical text between Genesis 17 and
21:25 is 19:29, the destruction of the cities of the plain. This verse has long
been recognized as being out of place, moved by the compiler of the Pentateuch
from its original position after 13:12ab D because the cities of the plain are not
destroyed in the nonpriestly narrative (J) until Genesis 19. So already Bacon,
Genesis, 135.
3. The pre x-conjugation verbs in 28:34, though unmarked, are all to be understood as jussives, as they constitute the continuation of the volitive sequence initiated with the imperatives in 28:2 (cf. Harry Orlinsky, On the Cohortative and
Jussive after an Imperative or Interjection in Biblical Hebrew, Jewish Quarterly
Review 31 [194041]: 37182; 32 [194142]: 191205, 27377).
4 . The word again in this verse in the canonical text is a long-recognized redactional insertion: in the P narrative, God has not appeared to Jacob before
Genesis 35, but in the nonpriestly text it has happened repeatedly (28:1215; 31:3,
1013; 32:2530; 35:1). This was observed as long ago as Hermann Hupfeld, Die
Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung (Berlin: Wiegandt und
Grieben, 1853), 56, 203.
5. The description of Jacobs children is found in the canonical text in 35:22b26,
but it originally stood before 31:1718; it was moved here because, in the nonpriestly account, Jacobs last child, Benjamin, was born in Canaan after Jacobs
return from abroad (while in the priestly account, as these verses make clear,
all twelve of Jacobs sons were born in Paddan-Aram). See already H. Holzinger,
Genesis, Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament 1 (Freiburg: J. C. B.
Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1898), 185.
6. That it has this broader meaning is clear not only from the fact that the promise
is made to Jacob after he has already had his children, but also from its attestations elsewhere in P; notably in Gen 1:28: Be fruitful and multiply and ll
the earth. Adams children are obviously not going to ll the earth, but his
descendants, that is, humanity, will. Similarly, Noah receives the same blessing
in Gen 9:1, although his three sons have already been born; Abraham receives
the blessing in 17:6, though according to P he has only two sons, Isaac and
Ishmael.
7. That Gen 11:30 is nonpriestly is widely recognized (though cf. Ska, Call, 49
n. 14 and the scholarship cited therein); in particular we may note that the
8.
9.
10.
11.
12 .
13 .
14 .
1 79
statement of Sarahs barrenness, using the term aqrh, is foreign to the priestly
author, who never describes any of the matriarchs as barren, but is a recurring
theme of the nonpriestly narrative, in which both (and only) Rebekah (Gen
25:21) and Rachel (29:31) are described using the same term.
Gen 12:4b5 is from P.
For this reason, those critics who see this promise as secondary include 12:4a as
part of the insertion. Cf., e.g., Ska, Call.
Westermann, Promises, 12324.
See Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part Two: From
Noah to Abraham, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), 328.
Carr recognizes that Gen 12:14a, 68 is a continuous, coherent account
(Fractures, 18384). He also notes correctly that this text is distinguished by an
unusual density of specic linkages to texts both before and after it (Fractures,
179). Yet Carr somehow takes these two observations to indicate that this text
is redactional rather than an authentic part of the composition with which, as
he observes, it is so closely linked. If a passage that is in itself coherent, and
that is closely linked with the narratives before and after it, is to be considered redactional, it becomes unclear on what basis any passage in the Bible
might be accepted as original. Again, one comes to the conclusion that a text
such as Gen 12:14a, 68 is redactional only if one has determined a priori
that the patriarchal narratives were originally independent and thus required
redaction to bring them together. An intermediate position is taken by Kilian
(Abrahamsberlieferungen, 1012), who sees Gen 12:14a, 68 as a coherent
promise-centered J reworking of a preexisting Abraham narrative (a vorjahwistiche Grundschrift); see also de Pury, Promesse, 6064.
Cf. Van Seters, Prologue, 26061.
The compositional status of Genesis 15 has long been a matter of serious dispute in scholarship, and a rm consensus has yet to be achieved. Classically,
this chapter was divided between J and E, although it was admitted that the
precise assignment of verses, and more importantly the question of how the
two strands had been combined, was a nearly intractable problem (see chapter
2, note 2). More recently, scholars, predominantly European, have tended to see
the chapter as not only a unity, but a very late one, usually postpriestly (see the
bibliography and discussion in Konrad Schmid, The So-Called Yahwist and
the Literary Gap between Genesis and Exodus, in A Farewell to the Yahwist: The
Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, ed. Thomas B.
Dozeman and Konrad Schmid; SBL Symposium Series 34 [Atlanta: SBL, 2006],
2950 [at 38]). For the argument that this chapter derives from a deuteronomic
hand, see Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 12324, and Blum, Vtergeschichte, 36272
(though Blum has since changed his mind and now argues that Genesis 15 is
postpriestly [Verbindung, 15354]). Loh nk (Landverheissung) argued that the
majority of the chapter was quite early, and from J. More recent documentary
180
scholarship has seen the entire chapter as belonging to E: cf. Menahem Haran,
The Brt Covenant: Its Nature and Ceremonial Background, in Tehillah
le-Moshe, ed. Mordechai Cogan, et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997),
20319 (at 206 n. 6). See further below.
15. Rendtor, Problem, 5759. For a clear tradition-historical argument that the
promise of land is an early theme in the Pentateuchal narrative, see Brettler,
Promises.
16. It is telling in this regard that the classical documentary scholars universally
considered the parallel in 21:13, 18 to be original, though it contains precisely the
same promise of ospring to Hagar. See below.
17. Cf. Addis, Documents, 1:24; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2:24;
Gunkel, Genesis, 183; Skinner, Genesis, 285.
18. See the discussion of this phenomenon in biblical narrative by Bernard
Septimus, Iterated Quotation Formulae in Talmudic Narrative and Exegesis,
in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, ed. Hindy
Najman and Judith H. Newman, Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements
83 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 37198 (esp. 37275).
19. Other examples of this phenomenon are equally compelling: in Genesis alone
cf. Gen 1:2829; 9:1, 8, 12, 17; 9:2526; 15:23; 15:5; 18:17, 20; 19:9; 20:910; 21:6
7; 24:2425; 27:36; 30:2728; 41:39, 41; 42:12; 47:34.
20. Indeed, there are places where two speeches from two dierent sources have
been subsumed under a single wayymer introduction; see, e.g., Num 11:16,
wayymer yhwh el-meh, Yahweh said to Moses, which introduces the distinct speeches of 11:1617 and 11:1820 (a distinction which is agreed on by both
documentary and nondocumentary critics alike).
21. Noth, Pentateuchal Traditions, 28 n. 86.
22 . See especially Carr, Fractures, 15961; Levin, Jahwist, 170.
23. See Van Seters, Prologue, 25960.
24 . Weinfeld, Social Justice, 2544; idem, The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance
of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites, Taubman Lectures in Jewish Studies 3
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 19697.
25. See especially Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2:2627; and more
recently see Karin Schpin, Abrahams Unterredung mit Gott und die schriftgelehrte Stilisierung der Abrahamgestalt in Gen 18, 16b33, in Die Erzvter in
der biblischen Tradition, ed. Anselm C. Hagedorn and Henrik Pfeier, Beihefte
zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 400 (Berlin: de Gruyter,
2009), 93113, who argues that the entirety of Gen 18:16b33 is a very late
insertion.
26. The two major transitions between Yahweh and the men come in 18:12 and
910; in the rst, Yahweh is introduced but the men take over the action, and
in the second the men give way to Yahweh again. On the distinction, or lack
thereof, between Yahweh and his appearance to the human characters of the
181
Bible, see James L. Kugel, The God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Bible (New
York: Free Press, 2003), 536.
27. Bacon, Genesis, 131.
28. Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2:126. Carpenter and
Harford-Battersby also recognize, however, that there are no verbal indications
that the dialogue between Yahweh and Abraham is secondary.
29. See the discussion of the contextualization of Gen 18:18 in Gr neberg, Abraham,
7280.
30. The sole discrepancy is the word gdl, great, in 21:18, missing in 21:13 in the
MT; note however, that it is supplied in the versions, though this is probably a
case of levelling rather than an authentic reading.
31. Cf. Claus Westermann, Genesis 1236, trans. John J. Scullion, Continental
Commentaries (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 34143; Levin, Jahwist, 178. Blum
attributes the entirety of Gen 21:821 to his Vg2 layer (Vtergeschichte, 31115).
32 . Rendtor, Problem, 68.
33. Cf. Weisman, National Consciousness, 66.
34 . The only major scholars to claim that Gen 22:1518 is original to the narrative of the binding of Isaac are Richard Elliot Friedman, who tentatively and
unconvincingly proposes that in the original Elohistic story Isaac was actually
sacriced (The Bible with Sources Revealed [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,
2003], 65), and Van Seters (Prologue, 26163). Scharbert (Landverheissung an
die Vter, 34344) suggests that they are from E, but that they are the E supplement to the originally self-standing narrative of 22:115. Konrad Schmid (Die
Rckgabe der Verheissungsgabe: Der heilsgeschichtliche Sinn von Gen 22 im
Horizont innerbiblische Exegese, in Gott und Mensch im Dialog, ed. Markus
Witte, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 345
[Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004], 271300) accepts that 22:1518 is a secondary addition, but sees the entirety of Genesis 22 as dating to the Persian period.
35. In Genesis, cf., e.g., 2:24; 11:9; 16:1314; 19:3738; 21:31; 26:33; 32:3, 31; 33:17.
36. Noth, even in claiming the verse as secondary, saw this narrative connection,
describing 24:7 as a presumably pious addition in view of the question of
doubt in v. 5 (Pentateuchal Traditions, 29 n. 90).
37. Cf., e.g., Gen 4:7; 18:21; 27:21; 34:17; 37:32.
38. Cf. Addis, Documents, 1:45; Bacon, Genesis, 15354; Carpenter and
Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2:38; Dillmann, Genesis, 2:201203; Driver,
Genesis, 250; Blum, Vtergeschichte, 36265; Kckert, Vtergott, 174.
39. Cf. Dillmann, Genesis, 2:201203; Driver, Genesis, 250; Blum, Vtergeschichte,
36265; Levin, Jahwist, 205206; Westermann, Genesis 1236, 42425; de Pury,
Promesse, 186 n. 313; Kckert, Vtergott, 17173.
40. Cf. Gen 1:22, 28; 9:1; 12:2; 14:19; 17:16, 20; 22:17; 24:35, 60; 27:27; 28:3; 35:9.
41. F. Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888
94), 13889; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2:38; Wellhausen,
1 82
Composition, 29; Frank M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 273 n. 231; Westermann, Promises, 129;
Gunkel, Genesis, 294; Kilian, Abrahamsberlieferungen, 202209. Blum
(Vtergeschichte, 29899) and Carr (Fractures, 17780) argue for two stages of
redaction: rst the addition of 26:23bD, and later the expansion of that addition with 26:3bE 5.
42 . Though the locative grrh might be understood as in the direction of Gerar,
the use of the preposition el, to, in the phrase to Abimelech requires that
this be understood as his nal destination. When used in combination with
the verb h-l-k, go, this preposition always indicates the goal of the journey.
In the Pentateuch, cf. Gen 12:1; 13:4; 22:2, 3, 19; 24:4, 5, 10, 38; 27:9; 28:5, 9;
30:25; 36:6; 41:55; Exod 7:15; 18:27; 19:10; Num 10:30; 13:26; 16:25; 22:13; 23:13. The
most relevant example among these is Gen 22:19: wayylk yadw el-br ba
wayyeb abrhm bibr ba (they went together to Beersheba, and Abraham
dwelt in Beersheba), which would represent an almost perfect parallel to the
construction of Gen 26:1, 6.
43. Thus Haran (Brt, 209 n. 12) suggests that 26:25 has been displaced from
its original location after 26:23, since he sees it as authentically connected
with Beer-sheba, rather than with Gerar. This problem is also at the root of
those translations that render the rst words of 26:2, wayyr lyw yhwh, as if
pluperfect: Yahweh had appeared to him (so, for example, in the NJB and NJPS
translations).
44 . If Gen 26:1 intended to describe Isaacs arrival in Gerar, it would say wayyb
grrh, he came to Gerar, as in Gen 35:6; 37:14; 46:1, et al.
45. Thus Kckert, for example, states that the use of the plural here is a sign of late
authorship; he compares it to examples from Chronicles (Vtergott, 175 n. 56).
Yet this comparison does not take into account at all the context of the passage.
Words cannot be separated from their contexts. Quite dierently, Scharbert
(Landverheissung an die Vter, 340) takes the uniqueness of this formulation
as evidence for it being part of the earlier tradition of the land promise.
46. The key distinction here is between the verb -k-n, dwell, in 26:2 and g-w-r,
sojourn, in 26:3; the former connotes permanent residence, the latter a temporary stay.
47. See 1 Chr 4:4, where we should read grr rather than gdr ; cf. Eliezer D. Oren,
Gerar, Anchor Bible Dictionary, 2:98991; S. Cohen, Gerar, Interpreters
Dictionary of the Bible, 2:38182.
48. If this reading is correct, it stands as a counterargument to Harans claim that
this promise text originally belonged after 26:23 and took place in Beersheba.
Harans argument requires that the two lands mentioned in 26:2 and 3 must
be the same, i.e., the territory of Beersheba; yet this raises the question of why
the author would use the plural lands when only one land, the same as in the
other promise texts, is described.
1 83
49. Despite the noted similarities between the two promises in this chapter, documentary scholars for the most part viewed 26:24 as original and 26:3b5 as
secondary. Blum (Vtergeschichte, 301302, 391), as expected, connects the two
promises as part of a single layer. Westermann (Genesis 1236, 428) sees 26:24
as relatively late, though earlier than 26:25. See the criticisms of these scholars in Van Seters, Prologue, 26970.
50. Cf. Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2:4243; Dillmann, Genesis,
2:226; Driver, Genesis, 265.
51. Hexateuch, 147.
52 . Cf. de Pury, Promesse, 17585 (though he considers Gen 28:14 to be unconnected
with its context).
53. Although Gen 31:3 has features in common with other promise textsYahweh
tells Jacob I will be with you, as in 28:15it is not a promise text proper. It is,
more accurately, an instruction: Return to the land of your fathers where you
were born, and should be compared with texts such as Gen 35:1: God said to
Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel and remain there. Important here is the recognition, against Westermann and others, that the promise of divine accompaniment is not to be equated with the patriarchal promise; the former is related
only to the narrative present, the latter always to the narrative future.
54 . Cf. Bacon, Genesis, 173; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2:50;
Skinner, Genesis, 406; Blum, Vtergeschichte, 365; Carr, Fractures, 16869;
Levin, Jahwist, 24849; Westermann, Genesis 1236, 509. Skinner also argues
on the basis of the ease with which the passage may be removed without disturbing its context; see chapter 2.
55. de Pury (Promesse, 95) rejects this interpretation on the grounds that, in his
view, the promise of the land was not in fact an important part of the J promises
(to which he assigns this text); he is unable, however, to account for the downplaying of the promise of land in J.
56. Addis attributes it to RJE, though without any explanation (Documents, 1:95);
Gunkel objects that if the statement were authentic, it would stand after v 4
(Genesis, 404). His argument is, as his frequently were, based on his own aesthetic judgment of what the text ought to look like, and is for that reason not
compelling.
57. Precisely when this text might have been added is a matter of debate within the nondocumentary school. Levin ( Jahwist, 305; idem, The Yahwist and the Redactional
Link between Genesis and Exodus, in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition
of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, ed. Thomas B. Dozeman and
Konrad Schmid, SBL Symposium Series 34 [Atlanta: SBL, 2006], 13141 [at 134])
and Jan C. Gertz (Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzhlung: Untersuchungen
zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten
und Neuen Testaments 186 [Gttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 2000], 27880)
argue for a postpriestly date. Blum (Vtergeschichte, 298), Carr (Fractures, 17779;
1 84
1 85
63. Westermann, for example, states that the passage is a secondary addition to the
narrative of Abrahams separation from Lot (Genesis 1236, 17273, 17880).
Westermann sees 13:16 as a secondary development within the promise tradition itself, because it deals with the promise of ospring rather than of land.
Precisely because 13:16 stands out, and because the particular wording of the
promise of ospring found in this verse is unique, Josef Scharbert has argued
that it is the original kernel of the promise, a special local tradition that has been
preserved (Die Landverheissung als Urgestein der Patriarchen-Tradition,
in Mlanges bibliques et orientaux en lhonneur de M. Mathias Delcor, ed. Andr
Caquot, et al.; Alter Orient und Altes Testament 215 [Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1985], 35968 [at 363]). Neither form-critical argument is
particularly convincing: though Abraham has been told that Yahweh will make
of him a great nation (12:2) and that he will have ospring (12:7), the formulaic
promise of many ospring is, like the promise of the land, introduced in full for
the rst time here.
64 . Alexander Rof, Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch, Biblical
Seminar 58 (Sheeld: Sheeld Academic Press, 1999), 104. See also Kckerts
argument for the connection among the promises of Genesis 1213 (Vtergott,
25253).
65. Bacon already noted that there was a narratological problem in the sequence of
promises in Gen 13:1417 and Genesis 15; his solution was to view Gen 13:1417
as a later addition, on the grounds that Genesis 15 seems not to know of the prior
promise of land (Genesis, 12223). The list of territories, beginning in 15:18bE,
has long been seen (though without justication) as a late addition to the text.
Cf., e.g., Kuenen, Hexateuch, 143; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch,
1:23; Skinner, Genesis, 283.
66. Cf. Gen 17:20; 21:18; 46:3; Exod 32:10; Num 14:12; Deut 4:6, 7, 8; 26:5. It occurs
also twice in Jeremiah: 6:22; 50:41. Though this is precisely the type of data
one would expect the nondocumentary school to use to demonstrate that every
occurrence of this phrase is from one layer (and, given the distribution, one
would expect it to be a deuteronomic layer), note that while Blum assigns some
of these verses to his K D, others belong to his Vg2, and obviously Gen 17:20
belongs to P.
67. The main distinguishing feature of 21:13, 18 is the uncommon use of the verb
-w-m in the phrase make of him a nation, l gy a menn. This occurs only
here and in Gen 46:3; elsewhere in the priestly and nonpriestly promises we
nd the verbs - -h (Gen 12:2; Exod 32:10; Num 14:12; Deut 9:14;), n-t-n (Gen
17:20 [P]), and h-y-h (Gen 18:18; 35:11 [P]; Deut 26:5) used for this concept.
This use of -w-m does not help us to decide to which set of promise texts
21:13, 18 belongs. It is again notable, however, that this dierence in wording, precisely the type of dierence we would expect to be important for
the nondocumentary school in determining layers, is essentially ignored in
186
187
73. Given this list of connections between 26:3b4 and the promises of Genesis
1213, it is dicult to see how Carr can claim that the parallels between the two
passages are conned only to 26:23a, and stop with 26:3b5 (Fractures, 155).
74 . Cf. Weinfeld, Promise of the Land, 18485.
75. It is also possible to simply follow Emerton: it may be doubted whether an
ancient writer would have been conscious of any conict of ideas here (Origin,
24).
76. Rendtor, Problem, 83; see also Kckert, Vtergott, 172 n. 45.
77. Cf. Emerton, Origin, 28.
78. Excluding 26:1315, 18, 34, which belong to P.
79. Note particularly the use of the root rb, dispute, in both Gen 13:7, 8 and 26:20,
21, 22.
80. See the similar observations of Weisman, National Consciousness, 6263.
81. Emerton correctly states that the dierent order of cardinal directions in 28:14
and 13:14 is not to be taken as an indication of dierent authorship (Origin,
24).
82 . Cf. Van Seters, Prologue, 299300. Note also the narrators description of
Yahwehs appearance to Jacob: Yahweh was standing beside [al] him, a relatively uncommon locution, but one that is found prominently in Gen 18:2, at
the beginning of another narrative that contains a promise connected to the
Genesis 1213 set. Strangely, Rof argues precisely the opposite: The fact that
the words of promise in [Gen 28.]1314 resemble remarkably the promise that
had been made to Abraham in Gen 13.1416 only conrms that those verses are
a foreign element (Introduction, 104).
83. Cf. Van Seters, Prologue, 302.
84 . In the entire Bible it is found only in these two passages and in 1 Kgs 3:8. A
similar expression using the verb m-n-h rather than s-p-r is found in 1 Kgs 8:5//2
Chr 5:6. Carr, focusing on the ease with which the prayer of 32:1013 is removed
from its context, and on the ostensible deuteronomic elements of the prayer,
ignores this verbal linkagain, precisely the type of connection we commonly
nd at the root of nondocumentary analyses, at least when convenientand
assigns the two passages to dierent redactional layers (Fractures, 16869,
194).
85. A similar introduction is found in Gen 26:24: I am the God of your father
Abraham. There are two dierences, however, between that passage and this.
First, I have argued above that 26:24 is part of the same initial promise structure as 26:25, just as 13:1417 is part of the same promise structure as 12:13,
7. It is thus not impossible for the deity to make his formal introductions in
the second of the two promise passages. Second, a major theme of the promise
to Isaac is that he is receiving it for the sake of his father; it is thus narratively
sensible for Yahweh to identify himself as the god of Abraham.
86. Blum, Vtergeschichte, 298; Carr, Fractures, 178.
188
Notes on page 96
189
source division of the chapter into two, J and E, has largely been abandoned
in both documentary and nondocumentary scholarship, with many claiming
that the chapter is a postpriestly unity. A major rationale for this late dating of the chapter seems to be that the reference to the Exodus in 15:1315
cannot be prepriestly, because according to the nondocumentary school
the priestly layer was the rst to connect Genesis and Exodus; it cannot be
priestly, because Genesis 17 is from P and is a clear doublet; ipso facto, it must
be postpriestly. This argumentation has no support in the text itself, which
shows virtually no signs, linguistic or otherwise, of a late date. The frequently
cited form wheemin in 15:6, a hiphil weqatal with a clear past tense meaning,
is admittedly dicult, but a single errant form is by no means sucient to
demonstrate the late date of the chapter. To date a passage on the basis of one
form is to say that the oddity is more important than the established norm,
for if the chapter were late, then all of the other forms, the usual wayyiqtols,
would be wrong. It is more likely that this one errant form is the result of
a scribal mistake. It should be noted that two similar forms are found elsewhere in Genesiswhkia (Gen 21:25) and whelip (Gen 31:7)both hiphil,
both weqatals, both with clear past tense meaning, and both in E. This raises
at least the possibility, though no more, that the erroneous change from the
wayyiqtol to a weqatal in the occasional hiphil form could have taken place
within the process of transmission of the independent E document.
It is often claimed that the word rku in 15:14 is an indication that the text
cannot be from E, as this word is, according to many, exclusive to P. It should
rst be recognized that the argument of exclusive language is a problematic
one: just because one author uses a word regularly does not mean that others
are forbidden from doing so as well, even only once. More to the point, however, this is not the only occurrence of the word rku in a nonpriestly context:
it appears in Gen 14:11, 12, 16, 21 (a chapter with its own diculties, but one
that is clearly not priestly) and, most notably, in another clear E context, in
Num 16:32. All told, the word appears in six distinct priestly passages (Gen
12:5; 13:6; 31:18; 36:67; 46:6; Num 35:3), and in three nonpriestly passages
(Genesis 14; 15:14; Num 16:32). This distribution is hardly one-sided enough to
prove that the word is exclusively priestly or, taking that claim a step further,
that every nonpriestly usage must by necessity be postpriestly, the word evidently being known only from its use in P.
All of that being said, it is possiblethough not de nitivethat 15:14b
is in fact part of a secondary addition to the chapter (though one that does
not aect the promise). It seems that 15:13aE 14a is an insertion into the
chapter: whereas 15:13aD , the statement that Abrahams descendants will
be strangers in a foreign land, conforms entirely to Es presentation of
the Israelite experience in Egypt, the notion that the Israelites would be
enslaved for four hundred years does not, for there is no enslavement of
19 0
Notes on page 96
the Israelites in E. On the other hand, the idea that the Israelites would be
in Egypt for four generations, found in 15:16, is ful lled in a remarkable
manner by the E narrative, and exclusively by E, which alone takes great
care to inform us that Joseph lived to see children of the third generation
of Ephraim (Gen 50:23). For the details on both of these points, see Baden,
Joseph.
Finally, one must reckon with the phenomenon of the divine names in
Genesis 15, which has of course long been an ostensible stumbling block to
the recognition of the entire chapter as belonging to E. One is tempted to simply dismiss this issue altogether, since the use of the divine name is emphatically not one of the primary criteria used to identify source documents (see
Baden, Redaction, 22527). Yet it must be admitted that the frequent use of
yhwh in Genesis 15 is striking, and perhaps demands some closer attention. Of
the attestations of yhwh in this chapter, four can be set aside from the beginning: 15:1, 4, 6, and 18. In these cases the name occurs not in direct speech
but in the narrators voice, and is thus unproblematic: the author of E knew
that Gods name was Yahweh; what he claims is that the human characters
in his story did not know that name until Exodus 3. The divine name appears
elsewhere in the E narrators voice (Gen 20:18), and indeed even in P (Gen
17:1). (One might suggest, in fact, that the use of the divine name in 15:1 and
17:1, at least, may be a redactional alteration made by some later scribe who
thought it necessary to use Gods proper name in the context of his promise to
Abraham, thus linking Genesis 12, 15, and 17and maybe also 22:1518.) With
those four examples removed from consideration, we are left with three occurrences of yhwh in Genesis 15. Two of these are in Abrahams voice, and are
therefore theoretically dicult: 15:2 and 8. In both of these, however, the word
appears as part of a collocation, adny yhwh, that is otherwise unattested in
GenesisNumbers. I venture the possibility that yhwh here is a gloss, perhaps
a later scribes attempt to make sense of Abrahams use of the common noun
lord even though the narrator has already said yhwh; since both words had
the same traditional pronunciation, this scribe may have assumed (correctly
enough) that they were to be equated (only at a later stage would the proper
name have been repointed as elhm, as we have it in the MT). Though this is
admittedly speculative, the strange phrase adny yhwh should at least give us
pause when considering the state of the divine names in the chapter. And the
nal use, in 15:7, comes in Gods own words to Abraham: I am Yahweh who
brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans. Here the name occurs in what
we may consider a stock phrase, or at least a deeply signicant one, as the
language here distinctly echoes that of the seminal E text of the Decalogue: I
am Yahweh who brought you out of the land of Egypt (Exod 20:2). (As for the
reference to Ur of the Chaldeans in this verse, which some see as based on the
priestly text of Gen 11:28, 31, it is possible that this is a redactional insertion
101 .
102 .
103.
104 .
105.
106.
107.
19 1
chap ter 4
1. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 47.
2 . Although it is the case that the promise to Abraham comes at the beginning
of his narrative career in all three sources, this is not because there was any
common tradition that maintained that this must be the case. It seems more
likely that all three authors simply recognized that this was the most sensible
place in the Abraham cycle for the promise tradition to make its rst appearance, as it would thereby give an overarching shape to the whole (and to the
rest of the patriarchal narrative and beyond as well). It should be noted, however, that the sources do not agree on when in Abrahams lifeas opposed to
his existence in the storythe promise was rst given. According to J, it was
192
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
before he left his home for Canaan; according to E, it was after; and according
to P, it was well after, twenty-four years to be precise (Abraham leaves Haran
at age 75 according to Gen 12:4b, and is given the promise when he is 99
according to Gen 17:1).
Although Exodus 6 constitutes the last signicant reference to the brt in P, the
promise does appear again in H, in the curses and blessings of Leviticus 26,
where it seems to be used as an intentional bookend to Exodus 6: just as Israels
national history begins in Exodus 6 with God remembering the brt, so too will
it collapse and be renewed with God remembering the brt (Lev 26:42; Baruch
J. Schwartz, personal communication).
See Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 59157. This seems also to be how H views brt, as is
evident in Leviticus 26, the blessings and curses equivalent to those of D in
Deuteronomy 28, where H says If you follow my laws and observe my commandments . . . I will maintain my covenant with you (Lev 26:3, 9)but if you
reject my laws and spurn my rules, so that you do not observe all my commandments, and if you break my covenant, I will do this to you: I will wreak misery
upon you, etc. (26:15).
It has sometimes been understood that the covenant with Noah in Gen 9:817
is dependent on obedience to the preceding Noahide laws in 9:36. Yet this is
a misreading on multiple levels, not least of which is that the entire concept of
the Noahide laws is postbiblical, deriving from postbiblical midrash (see James
L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of
the Common Era [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998], 22426).
The instructions in Gen 9:36, which entail the removal of the restriction on
humans to eat only vegetation, are not really laws, but are rather a revision of the
natural order of humanitys relationship with the animal kingdom. They are a
statement of fact, just as the initial instructions to humankind in Gen 1:2930
are not laws but a statement of fact: this is what humans and animals eat. Even
if one were to take Gen 9:36 as something approximating law, however, this
passage is formally separated from the covenant that follows in 9:817 by the
repetition of the speech introduction in 9:8: God said to Noah and his sons
with him. As has long been recognized, the repetition of the formal speech
introduction in the middle of a single speech serves to delineate between distinct topics in the discourse.
See Na manides on Gen 9:12.
It may be argued that there is another potential obligation in Genesis 17, in Gods
rst words to Abraham: Walk in my ways and be blameless (Gen 17:2). These
words are followed directly by the introduction of the brt, which might be taken
therefore as an implicit result of Abrahams fulllment of the commands in 17:2.
Yet at no point in the entire chapter thereafter is it suggested that Abraham must
behave in any particular way in order to receive the brt. It is therefore possible,
8.
9.
10.
11.
12 .
193
and more likely, that the words of 17:2 are to be taken as a complete thought in and
of themselves: Walk in my ways and (thus) be blameless.
See the seminal article of Michael V. Fox, The Sign of the Covenant:
Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly t Etiologies, Revue Biblique 81 (1974):
55796.
This seems to be what is meant, at the basic level, by the oft-repeated priestly
expression that person will be cut o from his people, which appears rst in
Gen 17:14: not being circumcised will result in not being party to the divine
promise, which is essentially how the Israelite people are dened in P.
As Fox puts it, The covenant in Gen., XVII is not conditionalit will not be
cancelled because of Israels behaviorbut it does have a condition, namely
that the individual Israelite do his part to aid God in ful lling his part (Sign,
596). There are two prerequisites for receiving the benets of the promise in
P: one must be Israelite, and one must be circumcised. Those who are circumcised but not Israelite, like Ishmael, do not receive the promise; those who are
Israelite but uncircumcised are cut o.
The unconditionality of the patriarchal promise in P may be highlighted by the
regular use of the word establish, hqm, in Ps brt language (Gen 6:18; 9:9,
11; 17:7, 19, 21; Exod 6:4; see similarly the use of give, ntan: Gen 17:2; 25:12).
The covenant is not made, or cut (krat; Gen 15:18; 21:27, 32; 26:28; 31:44;
Exod 23:32; 24:8; 34:10, 12, 15, 27), as it is in the nonpriestly texts, where the
covenant (whether between God and humans or between two human parties)
is reciprocal.
The idea that there are four brts in P is commonly associated with Julius
Wellhausen, who, however, identied them as being with Adam, Noah,
Abraham, and Moses; at the very least the rst of these seems and has usually
been correctly deemed a gment of Wellhausens imagination, as there is no
mention of a brt before Noah. Other scholars have adjusted Wellhausens
claim, nding, e.g., only three brts (Noah, Abraham, and Moses; Gunkel,
Genesis, 151), or a dierent four (Noah, Abraham, Moses, Phinehas; Menahem
Haran, The Biblical Collection, Hebrew; 3 vols. [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996
2008], 2:11518). Like those of Genesis 9 and 17, discussed above, the brts
of Numbers 18 and 25 are also unilateral: in Numbers 18, there is no obligation laid on the priests in exchange for their receipt of the perquisites from
the sacred donations of the Israelites; in Numbers 25, though the grant of
eternal priesthood is bestowed as a result of Phinehass actions, there is nothing further that Phinehass descendants need do to insure the continuing
receipt of the promise. The possibility that Numbers 18 is, in whole or in part,
from H (see Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the
Holiness School [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995], 5354) would, of course, simply
mean that P proper contained only three brts, which, unless one is wedded to
Wellhausens notion of four covenants, is essentially unproblematic. It should
19 4
13.
14 .
15.
16.
17.
18.
be noted that the Sabbath in Exod 31:1317 is not a distinct brt, but is rather,
like circumcision, the sign of the brt; the group addressed in Exodus 31 is the
Israelite population, i.e., precisely the same group covered by the promise of
Genesis 17. (Although many scholars have argued that Exod 31:1317 is from H,
or is otherwise later than P, see the recent argument for an original P stratum,
including the brt, by Je rey Stackert, Compositional Strata in the Priestly
Sabbath: Exodus 31:1217 and 35:13, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, 2011, http://
www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_162.pdf.) We may conjecture that the new
sign of the brt in Exodus 31 functions as a supplement to circumcision in
Genesis 17, an element added as a result of the changed circumstances of
Israels relationship with the deity in the aftermath of the Exodus and Sinai.
The selection of Abraham in P is, like virtually everything else in the priestly
narrative, without any stated rationale. That is, we are never told why God
chooses Abraham rather than someone else, just as there is no rationale given
for why Moses is chosen to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, or why the Levites
are chosen among all the tribes to serve as Tabernacle functionaries; it is simply
Gods prerogative to choose whom he will.
Here, with others, I take the waw in ltt lmadm to be a waw explicativum
(GKC 154a1).
See Edwin Firmage, Genesis 1 and the Priestly Agenda, Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament 82 (1999): 97114.
One may note that the blessing of fertility, when given to humans rather than
animals, has a third element in Gen 1:28 and 9:1 and 7: dominion or spreading
over the earth. It is thus possible, if not indeed probable, that this universal
human blessing regarding the earth is a precursor to the land aspect of the
patriarchal promise in Pthat is, whereas all of humanity lls the earth, Israel
is given a particularized version of that blessing, relating to the land of Canaan
alone. My thanks to Liane Marquis for this observation.
It does appear in H, in Lev 26:9, where it is said that the promise to make
them fruitful and multiply them will be one of the blessings that will devolve
from Israels obedience. Here again, however, the dierence between the P
and H uses of the brt emerges: for P, the brt is unconditional and unwavering, while in Leviticus 26, if Israel obeys, then the brt will be maintained,
but if Israel disobeys the laws then Yahweh willtemporarilyallow the b rt
to lapse, and bring terrible punishments down on the people; only once the
people repent will Yahweh remember the brt and restore it (26:42). Even in
this threat, however, the essential unconditionality of the promise from P
seems to retain its force in H: despite the momentary abrogation of the promise as a punishment for disobedience, Yahweh will always restore the b rt
with his people.
See the statement of the rabbis: The intention to create Israel preceded everything else (Ber. Rab. 1.4).
195
19. Konrad Schmid has noted that in the patriarchal accounts it is only P that refers
to the patriarchs as grm in Canaan, but he takes this as an indication that P
is already foreshadowing the Exodus by making the patriarchal familys stay in
Canaan a temporary one (Genesis, 84). Yet the term gr is used to indicate a resident alien; it speaks to a persons origin, rather than his destination. Although
some grm certainly would leave their adopted territory and return to their
homeland, the majority of the biblical usages of the term seem to have no endpoint in mind for the gr s stay.
20. As they speak to a distinct genealogical line, and involve only some aspects of the
promise, we may leave aside the references to Ishmael in Genesis 16 and 21.
21. In J, Jacob goes not to Paddan-Aram but to Haran, where Rebekahs family lives
according to J, and he goes not for the purpose of getting married as in P, but
merely to escape Esaus wrath (Gen 27:4245); that he happens to nd his wives
there is an unplanned but fortunate consequence of his journey.
22 . According to P, all of Jacobs sonsincluding Benjaminwere born in
Paddan-Aram (Gen 35:22b26).
23. In Gen 48:19 (E), the language is similar, but not identical: Manasseh is blessed
before Ephraim because his ospring will be plentiful enough for multiple
nations (mlo-haggym)but not actually multiple nations.
24 . So Rashi on Gen 17:6, though he claims that as Ishmael has already been born
the statement must refer only to Esau.
25. Williamson (Abraham, 15470) attempts to read nations and kings here
somewhat metaphorically, and very much in light of Gen 12:3: that these nations
will be Abrahams descendants insofar as Abraham mediates Gods blessing to
them. This seems to me a stretch.
26. Speiser, People.
27. Although they equate the nations in this passage with the Israelite tribes, the
rabbis were close to this reading when they said that the prediction of kings
coming from Jacob referred to Jeroboam and Jehuthat is, descendants of
Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen Rab. 82.4, followed by Rashi on Gen 35:11).
28. Admittedly, there are no explicit references in P to the divided kingdom, but
this is hardly an obstacle: the narratives of the Pentateuch, in all of its source
documents, take place long before there is any kingdom at all, and in none of
the sources is there any explicit mention of the future division of the Israelite
people into two parts. Furthermore, as is well known, the author P is particularly careful to keep his text anchored in its narrative historical context. The
foremost example of this, of course, is Ps unbending focus on the Tabernacle
as the central cultic site (as it was in the wilderness in which the narrative is
set), rather than the Temple.
29. Thanks again to Liane Marquis for this observation.
30. Though it is often stated that P has no interest in, or even shows no awareness
of, the concept of kingship in Israel (and is thus to be dated to the postexilic
19 6
period when there were no Israelite kings), such a view is, to my mind, unsustainable, if only because of the references to kings in the promise texts.
31. In the nonpriestly narrative of the changing of Jacobs name to Israel (Gen
32:2532), there is no mention of or allusion to the tradition of the promise.
32 . See on this connection especially Noam Mizrahi, Abrahams Name Derivation
(Gen 17:5): A Linguistic Phenomenon as a Literary Device, Tarbiz 71 (2002):
33752 [in Hebrew].
33. In Deut 34:1 both P and J are present: the text according to P read Moses went
up from the steppes of Moab to Mount Nebo, opposite Jericho (cf. Deut 32:48);
according to J, Moses went up to the summit of Pisgah, and Yahweh showed
him the whole land (cf. Num 21:20).
34 . The cardinal directions are mentioned by J also in Gen 28:14, when Yahweh
tells Jacob that his descendants will spread out in all directions.
35. In Deut 3:27 we nd the instructions to Moses for which Deut 34:13 is the fulllment, in the former passage using the cardinal directions rather than geographical features as in the latter. The D text of Deut 3:27 seems to be derived
from the earlier J source in Num 21:20 and Deut 34:13.
36. It is possible, even probable, that this is a ruse: Josephs brothers are, according to J, farmers (Gen 37:7; note also that in J the patriarchs are referred to
as being in the elds: Gen 30:15; 34:5, 7); it is in E that the brothers are
shepherds (Gen 37:2, 1217). If it is possible that Genesis 14 is, for the most
part, from J, as I think is the case, we may add to the foregoing list Abrahams
insistence that he receive nothing in exchange for his part in defeating the
foreign kings, in order that it be clear that everything he has derives from
Yahweh (Gen 14:2224).
37. In P, see Gen 28:14, 6; 48:20; 49:28b; in E, see Gen 48:9, 1316.
38. I have translated the word trty here as my instructions, rather than my
teachings, as the NJPS translation has it. The meaning of teachings is eectively a postbiblical one, grounded in the notion that the entire Torah, both law
and narrative, constitutes a single basis for behavior. Nowhere does the word
have this meaning in the Bible.
39. Bar-On, Festival Calendars.
40. There is an intriguing overlap between this concept of Abrahams unique obedience to the divine will as manifested in the natural law and the classical statement of the rabbis, that Abraham obeyed the entire Torah before it was given
(m. Qid. 4:14).
41. On this reading of Gen 12:13, see Joel S. Baden, The Morpho-Syntax of
Genesis 12:13: Translation and Interpretation, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72
(2010): 22337.
42 . Although these verses are frequently attributed to E, they are in fact from J, as
is clear from Josephs initial words in the speech comprising Gen 45:413: I am
your brother Joseph, whom you sold into Egypta claim that is true only in
19 7
19 8
burial in Canaan. If we read this verse in conjunction with the one that precedes
it, we may posit that Jacob is being spoken of in two distinct ways: in 46:3, he is
directly addressed by God as an individual (Fear not), and it is claimed that he
will become a great nation; in 46:4, then, Gods statement that he will go down
to Egypt with Jacob has an individual focus, but the statement that he will bring
him back up should be taken to refer to Jacobs existence as a people.
51. The closest P comes to a reference to the Exodus in its legal sections is in Num
3:13 and 8:17, where the the selection of the Levites to stand in for the rst-born
of all Israel is linked with the smiting of the rst-born in Egypt.
52 . On the relationship of Ds laws to the Covenant Code, see Bernard M. Levinson,
Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1998); on that of H to the other law collections, see Jerey
Stackert, Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness
Legislation, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 52 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2007). The most obvious text in which the Exodus is used as grounds for legislation is of course Exodus 12; yet in the original P narrative only the instructions
for the rst Passover in Egypt were given, without any laws regarding future
observance of the festivalthose laws, in Exod 12:1420, derive from H. See
Joel S. Baden, Identifying the Original Stratum of P: Theoretical and Practical
Considerations, in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and
Future Directions, ed. Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden, Abhandlungen zur
Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag
Zrich, 2009), 1329.
53. It should be noted that in the latter two cases, the promises occur not only at
narrative borders, but at geographical borders as well.
chap ter 5
1. Wellhausen, Composition, and idem, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, trans.
J. Sutherland Black and Allan Enzies. Repr. (Atlanta: Scholars, 1994).
2 . On this historical/literary presumption, see Baden, Redaction, 28999.
3. Alexander Stewart, The History of the Southern Kingdom in Relation to the
Law of Moses, in Lex Mosaica or The Law of Moses and the Higher Criticism,
ed. Richard Valpy French (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1894), 353406 (at
358).
4 . William Henry Green, The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch (New York:
Charles Scribners Sons, 1895), 172.
5. Green, Higher Criticism, 31.
6. Solomon Shechter, Higher CriticismHigher Anti-Semitism, in Seminary
Addresses and Other Papers (Cincinnati: Ark, 1915), 3539 (at 37).
7. Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the
Pentateuch, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 103.
199
8. M. H. Segal, The Pentateuch: Its Composition and Authorship and Other Studies
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), 30.
9. R. Norman Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study,
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements 53 (Sheeld: Sheeld
Academic, 1987).
10. Of course for the purposes of this discussion I am leaving aside the generations of explicitly theological interpretations of the text, from Jubilees to
Walter Brueggemann, the writings of those who read the text in order to make
sense of it for narrower or wider communities of believers, who knew nothing about or intentionally set aside the critical evaluation of the Pentateuchs
composition. It is worth noting, however, the struggles that Gerhard von Rad
encountered in attempting to write his Old Testament Theology when he dealt
with the Pentateuch: even in trying to participate in the long tradition of theological introductions, von Rad was able to talk almost exclusively about the
theologies of the individual sources, so dicult was it for him, as a pentateuchal scholar, to conceive of any overarching meaning to be found in the
nal form.
11. Thomas W. Mann, The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch
(Atlanta: John Knox, 1988), 161.
12 . Rendtor, Problem; Erhard Blum, Vtergeschichte; idem, Studien. See the two
major collections of essays by scholars adhering to this theory: Jan Christian
Gertz et al., eds., Abschied vom Jahwisten, and Dozeman and Schmid,
Farewell.
13. Rendtor, Problem, 189. The similarities of this view to that of Brevard Childs
should be apparent; it is noteworthy, however, that Childs still worked with a
fundamentally source-critical model for the development of the text, and that
his canonical criticism dealt in practice less with the intentionality of the combination of the sources and more with the resulting meaning as understood by
particular communities of faith. Childs was more sociophenomenological than
literary-historical.
14 . It is not necessarily the case, of course, that each redactional layer should be
thought to have worked over the entire Pentateuch; some are seen to have
treated only the patriarchal narratives, for example (cf. Blum, Vtergeschichte),
and some very late layers dealt exclusively with one or other of the canonical books (see, e.g., the analysis of Numbers by Reinhard Achenbach, Die
Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im
Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 3 [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003], or of
Leviticus by Christoph Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the
Composition of the Book of Leviticus, Forschungen zum Alten Testament II/25
[Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007]).
15. On which see Baden, Composition, 5367.
200
16. Or, for those who see the nonpriestly ood story as the redactional revision
of Ps, vice versa; for this view see, e.g., Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 7887;
Jean-Louis Ska, The Story of the Flood: A Priestly Writer and Some Later
Editorial Fragments, in The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and
Basic Questions, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 66 (Tbingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2009), 16583; Albert de Pury, Pg as the Absolute Beginning, in
Les dernires rdactions du Pentateuque, de lHexateuque et de lEnnateuque, ed.
Thomas Rmer and Konrad Schmid, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum
Lovaniensium 203 (Leuven: University Press, 2007), 99128 (at 114).
17. See above.
18. William K. Gilders, Sacrice before Sinai and the Priestly Narratives, in The
Srata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, ed.
Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden, Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten
und Neuen Testaments 95 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zrich, 2009), 5770
(at 69).
19. This was recognized already in the seminal work of Hupfeld, Quellen, 16566.
20. See, for instance, the analysis of the book of Numbers oered by Achenbach,
Vollendung, which identies the nal three layers of the book as theokratische
Bearbeitungen.
21. On this logical problem, long prevalent in biblical scholarship, see the recent
essay of Benjamin D. Sommer, Dating Pentateuchal texts and the Perils of
Pseudo-Historicism, in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current
Research, ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz;
Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011),
85108.
22 . On the narrative dependence of D on J and E, see Baden, Redaction; on the legal
dependence of D on E, see Levinson, Deuteronomy; on Hs dependence on D
and E, see Stackert, Rewriting.
23. Though the claim that Dtr is dependent on J and E (and even P) is no doubt
controversial, I believe it to be warranted on the basis of such texts as Jos 5:12, in
which it is recorded that the manna ceased once the Israelites entered Canaan
(the explicit ful llment of Ps statement in Exod 16:35 that the Israelites ate the
manna until they entered Canaan); Jos 15:14, in which Calebs dispossession
of the Anakites Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai is narrated (these Anakites are
known by name only from J, in Num 13:22); Jos 24:32, in which we learn that
Joshua buried the bones of Joseph, that were brought up from Egypt, in the site
that Jacob had purchased from the inhabitants of Shechem for one hundred
kesitahs (thus conforming exclusively and explicitly to a series of E texts: Gen
33:18; 48:22; Exod 13:19). This is, of course, far too broad a discussion to enter
into here.
24 . See Baden, Composition, 21721.
201
25. This is not merely an aesthetic judgment, that the independent sources read
well literarily. It has, rather, everything to do with the narrative claims of
the source: for the vast majority of the pentateuchal sources that emerge from
the Documentary Hypothesis, each narrative claim is dependent on, and in
turn forms the basis for, other narrative claims that precede and follow it. What
makes the sources seem complete, then, is that there are so few narrative
claims lackingplaces where we read the independent document and miss an
earlier mention of a person, place, or event that is necessary for understanding
the text.
26. See Baden, Redaction, 26385.
27. On the attempts of classical source-critical scholarship to discern deuteronomic
insertions in the Pentateuch, see Baden, Composition, 13946.
28. See, e.g., Peter J. Kearney, Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 2540,
Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89 (1977): 37587 (at 38184);
Childs, Introduction, 17576.
29. See Joel S. Baden, The Original Place of the Priestly Manna Story in Exodus
16, Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 122 (2010): 491504.
30. As already recognized by Bacon, Genesis, 135.
31. See, e.g., Williamson, Abraham; Dixon Sutherland, The Organization of the
Abraham Promise Narratives, Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
95 (1983): 33743.
32 . On the Fragmentary Hypothesis, see Baden, Composition, 25658 n. 12.
33. Similar arguments for the even-handed reading of the pentateuchal sources,
and for the theological implications of their compilation into a single text,
are made by Benjamin Sommer in Dialogical Biblical Theology: A Jewish
Approach to Reading Scripture Theologically, in Biblical Theology: Introducing
the Conversation, ed. Leo Perdue (Nashville: Abingdon, 2009), 153, 26585.
Sommer applies this argument in his book The Bodies of God and the World
of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 12426,
where he shows that the same approach suggested here can indeed be fruitfully
applied to a central theological issue other than the patriarchal promise.
Bibliography
2 04
Bibliography
Bibliography
2 05
206
Bibliography
Friedman, Richard Elliot. The Bible with Sources Revealed. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 2003.
Gertz, Jan Christian. Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzhlung: Untersuchungen
zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des
Alten und Neuen Testaments 186. Gttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 2000.
. The Transition between the Books of Genesis and Exodus. In A Farewell to
the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation,
edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid, 7387. SBL Symposium
Series 34. Atlanta: SBL , 2006.
Gertz, Jan Christian, et al., eds. Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des
Hexateuch in der jngsten Diskussion. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002 .
Gesundheit, Shimon. Three Times a Year. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 82.
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012 .
Gilders, William K . Sacrice before Sinai and the Priestly Narratives. In The
Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, edited
by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden, 5770. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des
Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Zrich: Theologischer Verlag Zrich, 2009.
Goshen-Gottstein, Alon. The Promises to the Patriarchs in Rabbinic Literature.
In Divine Promises to the Fathers in the Three Monotheistic Religions, edited by
Alviero Niccacci, 6097. Jerusalem: Franciscan, 1995.
Green, Willam Henry. The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch. New York: Charles
Scribners Sons, 1895.
Greenberg, Moshe. in Exodus 20:20 and the Purpose of the Sinaitic Theophany.
Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1960): 27279.
Gr neberg, Keith N. Abraham, Blessing and the Nations: A Philological and Exegetical
Study of Genesis 12:3 in Its Narrative Context. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 332. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003.
Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Mercer Library of Biblical
Studies. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997.
. Israelite Literary History. In Water for a Thirsty Land: Israelite Literature
and Religion, edited by K. C. Hanson, 3141. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.
Haran, Menahem. On the Di usion of Literacy and Schools in Ancient Israel. In
Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986, edited by J. A. Emerton, 8195. Supplements
to Vetus Testamentum 40. Leiden: Brill, 1988.
. The Brt Covenant: Its Nature and Ceremonial Background. In
Tehillah le-Moshe, edited by Mordechai Cogan, et al., 20319. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1997.
. The Biblical Collection [Hebrew]. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes, 19962008.
Hoftijzer, J. Die Verheissungen an die drei Erzvter. Leiden: Brill, 1956.
Holzinger, H. Genesis. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament 1. Freiburg:
J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1898.
Bibliography
207
Hupfeld, Hermann. Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung.
Berlin: Wiegandt und Grieben, 1853.
Jacob, Benno. The First Book of the Bible: Genesis. Abridged, edited, and translated
by Ernest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob. New York: Ktav, 1974 .
Kearney, Peter J. Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 2540. Zeitschrift
f r die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89 (1977): 37587.
Kilian, Rudolf. Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsberlieferungen literarkritisch und
traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht. Bonner biblische Beitrge 24. Bonn: Peter
Hanstein, 1966.
Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
Kckert, Matthias. Vtergott und Vterverheissungen: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit
Albrecht Alt und seinen Erben. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten
und Neuen Testaments 142. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988.
Kuenen, Abraham. An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition
of the Hexateuch. Translated by Philip H. Wicksteed. London: MacMillan,
1886.
Kugel, James L . Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the
Common Era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.
. The God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Hebrew Bible. New York: Free
Press, 2003.
Levin, Christoph. Der Jahwist. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten
und Neuen Testaments 157. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993.
. The Yahwist and the Redactional Link between Genesis and Exodus. In
A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European
Interpretation, edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid, 13141. SBL
Symposium Series 34. Atlanta: SBL , 2006.
Levinson, Bernard M. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Loewenstamm, Samuel. The Divine Grants of Land to the Patriarchs. Journal of
the American Oriental Society 91 (1971): 50910.
Lohnk, Norbert. Die Landverheissung als Eid: Eine Studie zu Gn 15 . Stuttgarter
Bibelstudien 28. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967.
Mann, Thomas W. The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch.
Atlanta: John Knox, 1988.
McKane, William. Studies in the Patriarchal Narratives. Edinburgh: Handsel, 1979.
McNeile, A. H. The Book of Exodus. 2nd ed. Westminster Commentaries. London:
Methuen, 1917.
Milgrom, Jacob. Profane Slaughter and a Formulaic Key to the Composition of
Deuteronomy. Hebrew Union College Annual 47 (1976): 117.
Mizrahi, Noam. Abrahams Name Derivation (Gen 17:5): A Linguistic Phenomenon
as a Literary Device. Tarbiz 71 (2002): 33752 [in Hebrew].
208
Bibliography
Nicholson, Ernest W. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius
Wellhausen. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998.
Nihan, Christoph. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of
the Book of Leviticus. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II/25. Tbingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2007.
Noth, Martin. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated by Bernhard W.
Anderson. Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972 . Repr. Chico, CA: Scholars,
1981.
Oren, Eliezer D. Gerar. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2, edited by David
Noel Freedman, 98991. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 .
Orlinsky, Harry. On the Cohortative and Jussive after an Imperative or Interjection
in Biblical Hebrew. Jewish Quarterly Review 31 (194041): 37182; 32 (194142):
191205, 2737.
Rendtor, Rolf. The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch.
Translated by John J. Scullion. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplements 89. Sheeld: Sheeld Academic Press, 1990.
Rof, Alexander. Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch. Biblical Seminar
58. Sheeld: Sheeld Academic Press, 1999.
Rollston, Christopher A . Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel:
Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age. Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology
and Biblical Studies 11. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010.
Rmer, Thomas. Israels Vter: Untersuchungen zur Vterthematik im Deuteronomium
und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 99. Freiburg:
Universittsverlag, 1990.
. The Exodus Narrative According to the Priestly Document. In The Strata
of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, edited
by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden, 15774 . Abhandlung zur Theologie
des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Zrich: Theologischer Verlag Zrich,
2009.
Scharbert, Josef. Die Landverheissung als Urgestein der Patriarchen-Tradition.
In M langes bibliques et orientaux en lhonneur de M. Mathias Delcor, edited
by Andr Caquot, et al., 35968. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 215.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985.
. Die Landverheissung an die Vter als einfache Zusage, als Eid, und als
Bund. In Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte, edited by Rdiger Bartelmus,
et al., 33754 . Orbis biblicus et orientalis 126. Freiburg: Universit tsverlag,
1993 .
Schmid, Hans Heinrich. Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur
Pentateuchforschung. Zrich: Theologischer Verlag Zrich, 1976.
Schmid, Konrad. Die Josephsgeschichte im Pentateuch. In Abschied vom Jahwisten,
edited by Jan Christian Gertz, et al., 83118. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002 .
Bibliography
209
210
Bibliography
Bibliography
211
von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology, Vol. 1: The Theology of Israels Historical
Traditions. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. Old Testament Library. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1962 .
. The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch. In The Problem of the
Hexateuch and Other Essays, 178. Translated by E. W. Trueman Dicken. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.
. Genesis. Translated by John H. Marks. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1972 .
Weimar, Peter. Gen 46,24* und die Jakobgeschichte: Eine Spurensuche. Revue
Biblique 112 (2005): 481510.
Weinfeld , Moshe. The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the
Ancient Near East. Journal of the American Oriental Society 90 (1970):
184203 .
. , berth. In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 2, edited by
G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, 25379. 15 vols. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1975.
. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns
1992 .
. The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites.
Taubman Lectures in Jewish Studies 3. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1993.
. Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. 2nd ed. Jerusalem:
Magnes, 2000.
Weisman, Z . National Consciousness in the Patriarchal Promises. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament 31 (1985): 5573.
Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B cher
des Alten Testaments. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1885 . Repr., Berlin: de Gruyter 1963.
. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Translated by J. Sutherland Black and
Allan Enzies. Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885. Repr., Atlanta: Scholars, 1994 .
Westermann, Claus. The Promises to the Fathers. Translated by David E. Green.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.
. Genesis 111. Translated by John J. Scullion. Continental Commentaries.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994 .
. Genesis 1236. Translated by John J. Scullion. Continental Commentaries.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
Whybray, R. Norman. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study.
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements 53. Sheeld: Sheeld
Academic Press, 1987.
. Introduction to the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Williamson, Paul R. Abraham, Israel, and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise and Its
Covenantal Development in Genesis. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplements 315. Sheeld: Sheeld Academic Press, 2000.
212
Bibliography
Wol, Hans Walter. The Kerygma of the Yahwist. In Walter Brueggemann and
Hans Walter Wol, The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions, 4166. 2nd ed.
Atlanta: John Knox, 1982 .
. The Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch. In Walter Brueggemann and
Hans Walter Wol, The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions, 6782 . 2nd ed.
Atlanta: John Knox, 1982 .
Young, Ian. Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence. Vetus Testamentum 48
(1998): 23953, 40822 .
214
2 15
Genesis
1
8:1
8:20
8:2021
8:21
9
9:1
62
116
134
49, 174 n. 84
105, 193 n. 12
107, 178 n. 6, 180 n. 19, 181 n.
40, 194 n. 16
9:36
192 n. 5
9:7
107, 194 n. 16
9:8
180 n. 19, 192 n. 5
9:817
105, 192 n. 5
9:9
193 n. 11
9:917
106
9:11
193 n. 11
9:12
180 n. 19, 192 n. 6
9:17
180 n. 19
9:2526 180 n. 19
10
10
11:19
102
11:4
10, 115
11:9
181 n. 35
11:28
188 n. 100
11:30
14, 64, 178 n. 7
11:31
188 n. 100
11:3132 31, 40, 90
11:32
32
12
3, 20, 30, 80, 103, 116, 14142,
146, 155, 186 n. 70, 188 n. 100
1213
2224, 7882, 84, 89, 103,
161, 185 n. 64, 187 nn. 73, 82
12:1
8, 64, 81, 86, 112, 182 n. 42
218
12:12
12:13
188 n. 87
79, 12, 2224, 2731, 38,
4042, 4445, 54, 64, 78,
8283, 85, 90, 103, 133, 167
n. 2, 187 n. 85, 196 n. 41
12:14
169 n. 19, 179 n. 12
12:2
810, 20, 30, 64, 80, 82,
11516, 148, 155, 181 n. 40, 185
n. 63, 185 n. 67
12:23
1, 80
12:3
23, 28, 30, 34, 45, 80, 83, 85,
113, 130, 166 n. 22, 195 n. 25
12:4
3132, 64, 179 n. 9, 191 n. 2
12:45
90, 179 n. 8, 186 n. 69
12:5
188 n. 100
12:6
6465
12:68 179 n. 12
12:7
9, 2728, 50, 54, 6465, 78, 81,
8384, 90, 185 n. 63, 187 n. 85
12:78
88, 134
12:8
84
12:89 78
12:10
17, 72, 108
12:1020 14, 122, 168 n. 12
12:1213 14
12:13
14, 86
12:16
14
12:17
175 n. 92
13
3
13:3
78
13:4
182 n. 42
13:6
90, 186 n. 69, 188 n. 100
13:7
187 n. 79
13:8
187 n. 79
13:1011 65
13:1112 90, 186 n. 69
13:12
65, 141
13:14
23, 65, 85, 113, 187 n. 81
13:1416 187 n. 82
13:1417 8, 22, 2729, 35, 54, 65, 78,
8385, 90, 112, 185 n. 65, 187
n. 85
13:15
13:16
50
4546, 7880, 83, 85, 185
n. 63, 186 n. 72
13:17
65
13:18
78, 134
14
188 n. 100
14:11
188 n. 100
14:12
188 n. 100
14:13
18
14:16
188 n. 100
14:19
181 n. 40
14:21
188 n. 100
14:2226 196 n. 36
15
3, 2224, 40, 7983, 8889,
1034, 108, 120, 12224, 130,
14142, 146, 161, 167 n. 2, 175
n. 90, 177 n. 104, 179 n. 14,
185 n. 65, 188 n. 100, 197 n. 47
15:1
8788, 11920, 149, 188 n.
100
15:15
121
15:2
22, 142, 188 n. 100
15:23
7879, 180 n. 19
15:4
79, 188 n. 100
15:5
8, 22, 2728, 45, 6566,
7880, 8283, 86, 90, 98,
167 n. 2, 180 n. 19, 186 n. 72
15:6
22, 79, 121, 188 n. 100
15:7
66, 79, 82, 188 n. 100
15:78
79
15:8
188 n. 100
15:911
88
15:917 134
15:1215 168 n. 12
15:13
66, 108, 130, 188 n. 100, 197
n. 48
15:1314 188 n. 100
15:1315 188 n. 100
15:1316 18, 79, 88, 121
15:14
94, 188 n. 100
15:1416 197 n. 48
15:16
66, 188 n. 100
17:1
17:2
17:38
17:4
17:45
17:46
17:48
17:5
17:6
17:7
17:68
17:8
17:914
17:11
17:14
17:15
17:1516
17:1521
17:16
17:17
17:18
17:19
17:1921
17:20
17:21
17:25
18
1819
18:12
18:116
18:2
18:9
18:910
18:10
18:1015
18:1112
18:12
18:16
18:1633
18:17
18:1718
18:1719
18:18
18:1819
18:19
18:20
18:2021
18:2022
18:2032
18:21
18:22
18:2232
18:23
19:411
2 19
220
19:9
19:29
19:3038
19:3738
20
20:1
20:3
20:7
20:910
20:11
20:17
20:1718
20:18
21
21:1
21:2
21:25
21:3
21:4
21:5
21:67
21:8
21:821
21:12
21:13
21:17
21:18
21:21
21:23
21:25
21:27
21:31
21:32
21:34
22
22:115
22:2
22:3
22:11
22:12
22:13
22:14
22:15
22:1518
120
134
70
70
14, 2729, 3435, 7071, 81,
9799, 171 nn. 30, 38, 40, 175
n. 90, 177 n. 104, 181 n. 34,
188 n. 100
22:16
35, 48, 9798, 175 n. 90
22:1618 4749, 54, 173 n. 69
22:17
8, 10, 35, 45, 9899, 171
n. 36, 181 n. 40
22:18
35, 42, 4445, 166 n. 22
22:19
182 n. 42
23
18, 90
23:4
108
24
3, 1516, 24, 108, 114, 117, 197
n. 44
24:4
70, 182 n. 42
24:5
181 n. 36, 182 n. 42
24:7
9, 47, 49, 7071, 8183, 86,
90, 97, 117, 181 n. 36
24:8
71
24:10
182 n. 42
24:1213 71
24:21
71
24:2425 180 n. 19
24:27
70, 117
24:35
910, 181 n. 40
24:38
182 n. 42
24:40
71, 117
24:41
71
24:4244 71
24:48
71
24:49
71
24:60
9, 99, 181 n. 40
25
117
25:14
114
25:11
72
25:12
193 n. 11
25:1216 110, 114
25:1217 90
14, 178 n. 7
109, 114
184 n. 58
3, 42, 8284, 103, 114, 11617,
165 n. 14, 168 n. 12
26:1
72, 8283, 85, 168 n. 12, 182
nn. 42, 44
26:13
54, 72
26:2
7172, 87, 182 nn. 43, 46, 48,
186 n. 71
26:23 181 n. 41, 187 n. 73
26:25 9, 42, 72, 8285, 182 n. 43,
183 n. 49, 187 n. 85
26:26 72
26:3
47, 4950, 7172, 82, 85, 108,
114, 117, 175 n. 90, 182 nn. 46,
48, 186 n. 71
26:34 8, 10, 73, 112, 171 n. 40, 187
n. 73
26:35
27, 30, 32, 54, 71, 73, 83, 90,
99, 169 n. 22, 173 n. 69, 175
n. 90, 177 n. 104, 181 n. 41, 183
n. 49, 187 n. 73
26:4
28, 42, 4445, 72, 83, 98, 113,
166 n. 22, 186 n. 72
26:45 99
26:5
32, 84, 99, 115, 148, 170 n. 27
26:6
17, 72, 182 n. 42
26:12
114
26:1315 187 n. 78
26:15
168 n. 12
26:18
187 n. 78
26:20
187 n. 79
26:21
187 n. 79
26:22
187 n. 79
26:23
182 nn. 43, 48
26:24
910, 27, 30, 42, 54, 73,
8485, 90, 98, 114, 117, 173
n. 69, 177 n. 104, 183 n. 49,
187 n. 85
26:2425 88
26:25
84
26:28
26:29
26:33
26:34
27
27:1
27:8
27:9
27:13
27:21
27:27
27:36
27:4145
27:4245
27:43
28
28:1
28:14
28:15
28:19
28:2
28:3
28:34
28:4
28:5
28:6
28:9
28:10
28:1022
28:12
28:1215
28:13
28:1314
28:1315
28:1316
28:14
28:15
28:16
221
222
28:17
28:18
28:19
28:2021
2930
2931
29:1314
29:1528
29:1530
29:31
29:3130:24
30
30:6
30:15
30:25
30:27
30:2728
30:30
30:43
31:3
31:7
31:1013
31:17
31:1718
31:18
31:24
31:29
31:43
31:44
31:54
32
3233
32:3
32:48
32:5
32:8
32:89
32:9
32:911
32:10
32:1012
32:1013
32:11
32:12
32:13
32:14
32:23
32:2530
32:2532
32:29
32:31
33
33:11
33:17
33:18
33:19
34
34:5
34:7
34:17
34:29
34:30
35
35:1
35:5
35:6
35:7
35:9
35:913
35:10
35:11
35:1112
35:12
35:13
35:14
35:15
35:16
35:19
35:21
35:2226
46:34
Exodus
1
1:1
1:17
108
90, 110, 114
182 n. 42
188 n. 100
108
117
108
196 n. 36
196 n. 36
196 n. 36
182 n. 44
196 n. 42
181 n. 37
16
16
910
124
196 n. 42
180 n. 19
180 n. 19
46
182 n. 42
180 n. 19
72
175 n. 92
50, 175 n. 92
196 n. 42
117
3, 88, 103, 122, 124
75, 88, 134, 182 n. 44
74, 188 n. 87
87, 188 n. 100
8, 23, 7475, 8788, 119,
122, 185 nn. 6667, 197
n. 50
27, 54, 8790, 94, 121,
188 n. 87
76, 120
111
92
46:4
46:5
46:6
46:8
46:3134
47:34
47:4
47:27
48
48:3
48:34
2 23
50:2425
50:2426
50:25
50:26
94, 197 n. 50
75
188 n. 100
111
114
180 n. 19
108
63, 107, 109
3, 109
36
8, 10, 3536, 40, 47, 61,
90, 104
109
8, 4647, 91, 106, 174
n. 76
36, 61, 171 n. 39
61
196 n. 37
196 n. 37
9
195 n. 23
196 n. 37
200 n. 23
61
196 n. 37
61
91
3
86, 117
31, 75, 188 n. 100
9, 12, 2728, 30, 47, 75,
9495, 177 n. 104, 184 n.
60, 188 n. 91
31, 123, 184 n. 60
184 nn. 6061
75, 94, 184 n. 60
31, 75, 184 n. 60
1:7
1:17
1:20
2:110
48:37
48:4
48:5
48:56
48:9
48:1316
48:1516
48:19
48:20
48:22
49:1
49:28
49:2932
49:33
50
50:20
50:23
50:24
224
2:22
2:23
2:2325
2:24
2:25
3
3:6
3:8
3:10
3:17
3:1920
4
4:1
4:12
4:15
4:2123
5:1
6
6:2
6:3
6:34
6:35
6:4
6:5
6:6
6:67
6:7
6:8
7:35
7:15
9:1416
11:910
12
12:1420
13:5
13:11
13:19
14
14:1112
14:31
15:2225
15:26
16
16:3
16:4
16:28
16:35
17
17:17
17:3
17:7
17:816
18
18:9
18:12
18:16
18:19
18:20
18:21
18:27
19:5
19:10
19:11
20:114
20:2
20:15
20:17
20:18
20:2323:33
22:20
23:9
23:15
23:21
23:22
23:32
24:3
24:38
24:48
24:7
24:8
24:10
2531
25:8
32, 115
19, 52
197 n. 49
32
32, 115, 170 n. 27
200 n. 23
52
19
20, 197 n. 49
118
19
146
86
134
170 n. 27
170 n. 27
170 n. 27
120
182 n. 42
122, 170 n. 27
182 n. 42
113, 118
170 n. 26
188 n. 100
120
120, 14950, 197 n. 46
188 n. 100
122
122, 130
122, 130
122
170 n. 27
170 n. 27
193 n. 11
150, 155
188 n. 100
134
150
193 n. 11
113
140
112
Leviticus
8:2224
11
26
26:3
Numbers
3:13
8:17
10:30
11
11:46
11:12
11:16
11:1617
11:1820
11:20
11:33
1314
13:21
13:22
13:23
13:26
14
14:24
14:34
14:1123
193 n. 12
107
193 n. 12s
140
7, 19, 33, 52
168 n. 12
140
134
33, 51, 171 n. 28
20, 185 nn. 6667
27, 3233, 35, 45, 47, 51,
76, 94, 98, 169 n. 22,
177 n. 104
33:1
33:3
33:16
33:23
34:9
34:10
34:12
34:15
34:1726
34:27
34:29
3540
26:9
2 25
2728, 30, 47, 51, 76, 95,
112
118
118
113
118
193 n. 11
193 n. 11
193 n. 11
170 n. 26, 171 n. 38
175 n. 92, 193 n. 11
140
140
134
107
7, 192 nn. 34, 194
n. 17
192 n. 4
26:15
26:42
26:43
26:4445
198 n. 51
198 n. 51
182 n. 42
47
197 n. 49
47, 51, 76, 95
180 n. 20
180 n. 20
180 n. 20
191 n. 105
19
19, 52
111
200 n. 23
175 n. 92
175 n. 92, 182 n. 42
7, 118, 152, 155
20
197 n. 49
51
14:12
14:16
14:22
14:2223
14:23
14:24
14:28
14:30
14:43
16
16:25
16:32
17:11
18
18:19
20
20:213
20:4
20:12
20:1416
21:13
226
21:3
21:6
21:20
21:2125
21:3335
22:6
22:13
23:13
24:3
24:4
24:15
170 n. 27
19
196 nn. 33, 35
19
19
166 n. 17
182 n. 42
182 n. 42
191 n. 105
191 n. 105
191 n. 105
Deuteronomy
1
1:8
1:10
1:35
1:36
2:7
3:20
3:27
4:6
4:7
4:78
4:8
4:40
5:16
6:3
6:10
6:18
6:23
7:1
7:3
7:12
7:14
8:1
8:18
8:20
9
9:1
9:5
9:1214
7
188 n. 98
46, 96
188 n. 98
191 n. 105
9
48
196 n. 35
34, 185 n. 66
185 n. 66
37
185 n. 66
86
86
86
166 n. 18, 188 n. 98
86, 188 n. 98
188 n. 98
166 n. 18
9
188 n. 98, 191 n. 107
175 n. 92
188 n. 98
188 n. 98
191 n. 107
33
166 n. 18
188 n. 98
33
24:16
25
25:9
25:1213
26
27:4
2829
32
32:11
35:3
191 n. 105
193 n. 12
19
106
10
11
107
21, 176 n. 99
48, 176 n. 99
188 n. 100
9:14
9:2629
9:2728
10:11
10:15
10:22
11:9
11:21
11:2628
11:29
1226
12:1
15:6
19:8
26:3
26:5
185 n. 67
33
188 n. 98
188 n. 98
48, 96
46
188 n. 98
188 n. 98
34
166 n. 18
32
134
9
188 n. 98
188 n. 98
34, 37, 108, 172 n. 44, 185
nn. 6667
37
36
130
48, 192 n. 4
188 n. 98
46
86
105
7
105
105
36, 48, 188 n. 98
105
26:59
26:16
27:9
28
28:11
28:62
28:63
28:69
29
29:8
29:11
29:12
29:13
86
188 n. 98
47
47, 76, 95, 123
196 n. 33
Joshua
5:12
11:4
15:14
200 n. 23
46
200 n. 23
Judges
2:15
6:16
7:12
13
21:10
48
12
46
12
175 n. 92
2 Samuel
7:8
12:6
174 n. 84
191 n. 107
1 Kings
3:8
4:20
5:9
8:5
11:40
187 n. 84
46
46
187 n. 84
72
Jeremiah
4:2
6:22
15:8
27:7
166 n. 22
185 n. 66
46
175 n. 92
Ezekiel
5:11
34:8
Amos
4:12
98
98
191 n. 107
2 27
34
34:1
34:13
34:4
138
196 n. 33
113, 196 n. 35
7, 47, 76, 95, 112
21:42
24:23
24:32
48
40
184 n. 60, 200
n. 23
1 Samuel
6:11
13:5
15:29
20:1216
20:42
30:8
175 n. 92
46
174 n. 84
48
48
191 n. 106
12:10
17:11
18:18
191 n. 107
46
10
Isaiah
5:23
10:22
48:19
44:3
51:2
54:9
191 n. 107
46
46
164 n. 7
164 n. 7
49
33:22
40:9
43:47
50:41
46
175 n. 92
72
185 n. 66
Hosea
2:10
46
Nahum
3:16
46
228
Habakkuk
1:9
46
Haggai
1:9
98
Zechariah
9:3
46
Psalms
78:26
78:27
46
46
89:4
132:2
139:18
174 n. 84
174 n. 84
46
Job
27:16
46
Ruth
4:1822
16
Daniel
2:1
2:3
12:3
45
45
46
1 Chronicles
4:4
27:23
182 n. 47
46
2 Chronicles
1:9
5:6
35:13
46
187 n. 84
134