The Formation of Genesis 1 11 Biblical and Other Precursors 0190062541 9780190062545 Compress

The Formation of Genesis 1–11
The Formation
of Genesis 1–11
Biblical and Other Precursors
DAV I D M . C A R R
1
3
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark 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, United States of America.
© Oxford University Press 2020
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Carr, David M., 1961– author.
Title: The formation of Genesis 1–11 : biblical and other precursors / David M. Carr.
Description: New York : Oxford University Press, 2020. |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019035962 (print) | LCCN 2019035963 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780190062545 (hardback) | ISBN 9780190062552 (updf) |
ISBN 9780190062569 (epub) | ISBN 9780190062576 (online)
Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Genesis, I-XI—Criticism, Textual.
Classification: LCC BS1235.52 .C368 2020 (print) | LCC BS1235.52 (ebook) |
DDC 222/.11066—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019035962
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019035963
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America
To Erhard Blum, friend, master exegete
Contents
Introduction 1
1. Precursors to the Priestly Creation Account (Gen 1:1–2:3) 7
2. Precursors to the Eden Narrative (Gen 2:4b–3:24) 30
3. The Formation of Narratives about Adam and Eve’s
Descendants (Genesis 4) 66
4. The Book of the Toledot (Descendants) of Adam
(Genesis 5; 11:10–26 and Related Texts) 83
5. The First Noah and the Sons of God and Daughters of
Humanity (Gen 5:29; 6:1–4; 9:18–27) 115
6. Precursors to the Flood Narrative (Gen 6:5–9:17) 141
7. Aftermath to the Flood: Layers in the Coverage of Noah’s
Descendants in Gen 9:18–11:9 178
8. The Non-P Primeval History: Layers and Dating 223
9. The Priestly Primeval History and Conflation of P and
Non-P: Layers and Dating 250
Bibliography 265
Index of Subjects 285
Select Index of Primary Text Citations 287
Introduction
The Formation of Genesis 1–11 consists of a series of related studies of various

kinds of precursors to the texts found in Genesis 1–11. As such, it focuses
both on what we might be able to say about the sources and secondary layers
embedded in Genesis 1–11 itself and about ways those different materials
are built on or engage with other biblical and nonbiblical texts. The studies
in this book originated as preliminary studies related to a commentary that
I have written on Genesis 1–11 for the Kohlhammer International Exegetical
Commentary on the Old Testament.1 Some chapters originated as lectures
that I’d initially planned to publish as separate articles in advance of the com-
mentary. Other materials began as discussions meant to be included in the
commentary. It turned out, however, that these arguments were integrally
related to each other. Moreover, their level of detail surpassed that appro-
priate for an exegetically oriented commentary. Therefore, I have revised
these materials and gathered them here, so that the different treatments
could build on each other and be accessible in a single work. As such, this
book stands in a symbiotic relation with the commentary from which it orig-
inated. There will be some points of overlap between the two books and also
between parts of this book and a handful of articles that cover some topics in
more detail.2 Two other notes on the mechanics of the book: I have depended
1 To appear as Genesis 1-11. International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2020.

2 These include an elaborated treatment of the question of the formation of Gen 1:1–2:3 to appear
as “Standing at the Edge of Reconstructable Transmission History: Signs of a Secondary Sabbath-

Oriented Stratum in Gen 1:1–2:3,” VT 70 (2020):17-41, a summary of work that went into c hapters 1
through 3 that was initially presented at a May 2016 conference at the College de France, which will
be published as “Scribal Dynamics at the Beginning of the Bible: The Case of Genesis 1–4,” in Oral et
écrit dans l’Antiquité orientale: les processus de rédaction et d’édition. Actes du colloque organisé par le
Collège de France, Paris, les 26 et 27 mai 2016, ed. Thomas Römer et al., OBO (Leuven: Peeters, forth-
coming); a version of the argument in c hapter 5 regarding Gen 6:1–4 to appear soon as “Looking
at Historical Background, Redaction and Possible Bad Writing in Gen 6,1–4: A Synchronic and
Diachronic Analysis,” BN 181 (2019): 7–27; and a more extensive treatment of source-criticism of the
flood narrative (especially its chronology) and briefer discussion of other aspects of its formation will
appear in “On the Meaning and Uses of the Category of ‘Diachrony’ in Exegesis,” in Exegetik des Alten
Testaments, ed. Joachim Krause and Kristin Weingart, FAT; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2020), I provide
some guidance at points in this book to points treated in more detail in these treatments.
The Formation of Genesis 1–11. David M. Carr, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190062545.003.0001
2 The Formation of Genesis
throughout on the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) abbreviation system

for primary and secondary sources, so a separate list of abbreviations is not
provided here; and in general—unless the Hebrew form of a name is perti-
nent to the discussion—I have used standard English forms of biblical names
as they generally appear across the Bible (following the NRSV).3
The book starts with several chapters treating larger blocks at the outset
of the primeval history: Gen 1:1–2:3 (hereafter often Genesis 1), Gen 2:4b–
3:24 (hereafter often Genesis 2–3), and Gen 4:1–24. Chapter 1 focuses pri-
marily on ways that the creation account of Genesis 1 interacts with several
identifiable precursors outside it, namely the Enuma Elish epic, Psalm 104,
and (countering some recent treatments) Genesis 2–3. In chapter 2 I argue
that Genesis 2–3 is a literarily unified text whose complexity arises from how
it engages multiple Near Eastern themes of creation and mortality that are
manifest in several prebiblical Mesopotamian texts. In chapters 2 and 3 I also
argue that both the Eden-disobedience story of Genesis 2–3 and especially
the Cain-Abel account in Gen 4:1–16 are built around a template of an ear-
lier set of (likely oral) traditions about Cain and the Kenites that shimmers
behind the current literary form of Gen 4:1–24. Most of these conclusions
have been advanced in various forms by earlier scholars. In this sense, the
first three chapters of the book really represent critical, synthetic summaries
of what I consider to be the best prior research on precursors to Genesis 1–4.
This book also explores multiple literary layers in the Priestly stratum of
Genesis 1–11, again synthesizing and build upon a wealth of excellent schol-
arship by others. This includes a brief discussion in c hapter 1 of the likelihood
that the creation story in Genesis 1 has been subject to a Sabbath-oriented
compositional revision, one similar to Sabbath-oriented expansions found
across numerous other parts of the Pentateuch (and often associated with the
Holiness [H]‌layer of the Pentateuch). In addition, in c hapter 4 I argue that
the bulk of Genesis 5, along with the similarly structured genealogy in Gen
11:10–26 and less clearly identifiable portions in between these sections and
perhaps also in Gen 11:27, 32, originated as an originally separate Toledot
book, one that is actually explicitly referenced as such in Gen 5:1. This book
appears to have been based on non-Priestly genealogical information in Gen
3 Thus, I refer to Abraham rather than Abram, and Sarah rather than Sarai, since discussion of the
name shift for both in Genesis 12–17 is not pertinent to the discussion. Where the Hebrew form of
the name is potentially relevant for the discussion, its Hebrew form is quoted. In addition, I have fol-
lowed the modern Hebrew convention of rendering final tav as t rather than th in names, thus Japhet
not NRSV Japheth.
Introduction 3
4:1–26 (note also Gen 10:21 [maybe 10:24, 25]; 11:28–30), though that in-
formation has been rearranged and reoriented partly along the lines of a late
version of the Sumerian King List tradition.
Chapters 5, 6, and 7 turn to different literary layers regarding Noah, the
flood, and its aftermath. Contrary to some recent treatments, I argue in
chapter 5 that the story of the sons of God and daughters of humanity (Gen
6:1–4) and the story of Noah and his sons (Gen 9:18–27) are both pre-Priestly.
In chapter 6 I then argue for a basic source-conflation approach to the forma-
tion of the flood story, with P’s flood narrative seen as a likely expansion of
an earlier, briefer Toledot book section focused on Noah and his descendants
(introduced by Gen 6:9aα). Then the balance of the chapter gathers a number
of arguments that the non-P flood narrative is a secondary, pre-P addition to
a non-P primeval history that originally lacked it.4 Chapter 7 continues this
approach. It starts by arguing that the overview of postflood humanity and
its spread in Gen 9:18–11:9 likewise was the product of source conflation, in-
cluding some substantial conflational blocks such as Gen 10:1b or 10:26–30.
This then prepares for my arguments that an early, independent, non-P pri-
meval history once ended with the proclamation of Shem as the father of “all
the sons of Eber” (Gen 10:21). Only later was this implicit primeval etiology
of the Hebrews expanded through the addition of a flood narrative and other
related elements, among which I include elements such as the Babel story in
Gen 11:1–9 and the Nimrod materials of Gen 10:8b–12.
The last two chapters of the book provide some concluding reflections.
This starts with discussion in chapter 8 of the scope and dating of layers of
the non-P portions of the primeval history. I then conclude the book with
a ninth chapter with some summary reflections on P and post-P layers in
Genesis 1–11, focusing in this case on their relations to earlier materials
and potential dating. Overall, we see a move from (a) a fluid engagement
with diverse (largely) Mesopotamian prebiblical traditions evident in the
early (nonflood) primeval history; to (b) more extended Judean engage-
ment of specific Mesopotamian texts in the flood-related expansion of the
non-P primeval history and the P Toledot book and broader Priestly source;
4 As I will discuss in c
hapter 6, this kind of approach was already advanced by Wellhausen and de-
veloped by others in the late 1800s into the early 1900s. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge
that I was motivated to revisit these older arguments in part by unpublished papers on Gen 6:1–4 and
9:20–27 done by a New York University PhD student, Ki-Eun Jang, in a 2015 seminar that I offered on
Genesis. Though Ki-Eun approved my citation of her work as a part of my publication, I have avoided
mentioning arguments by her that are not anticipated by earlier scholarship.
to (c) diminished engagement with nonbiblical precursors in the Sabbath-

oriented revision of Genesis 1 and the conflation of P and non-P.
As mentioned, the studies in these chapters appear together because their
arguments are somewhat interdependent. Nevertheless, this overview is
provided to help guide those who might prefer to skip to a portion of the
book more relevant to their interests. I should emphasize at the outset that,
by necessity, this book does not purport to be fully original work on its topic.
Scholars have been doing high-quality work on the sources and prebiblical
precursors of Genesis 1–11 for over two hundred years. This means that it is
quite difficult to say many things about the formation of these chapters that
are both new and good.5 Moreover, it is impossible to fully document all of
the previous scholars who have arrived at similar conclusions, let alone pro-
vide fully adequate refutations of every alternative perspective.
This means that this book has a necessarily provisional character, rep-
resenting my best attempt at this juncture to offer a contribution to an on-
going conversation. I am ever more aware of hundreds of years of discarded
theories (now including some of my own), and this makes me increasingly
conscious of the limited shelf-life of theories about intertextual dependence
(inner or extrabiblical) and literary formation. Indeed, I found that my mind
often changed on many points in the process of writing this book. Therefore,
even if I sometimes let qualifiers fall by the wayside as arguments proceed
in the following text, let me underline that this book represents a set of pro-
visional syntheses on fraught issues surrounding the formation of Genesis.
That is why I frame the book with mention of the tentativeness of its propos-
als, both here in this introduction and again at its end.
I note in conclusion my deep gratitude to numerous scholars who have
given generously of their time and expertise in helping me with this project.
Though the material in this book has become a separate work from my com-
mentary on Genesis 1–11, I am most grateful to the Kohlhammer Press and
its staff for their support as I wrote the commentary on Genesis 1–11 and
their willingness to work with me as took some material from it to produce
this book. The Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung greatly supported my work
with a stipend for a research stay in Tübingen in February 2016. Also I gained
5 I am glad to note, for example, that my final results regarding the likely original scope of the non-
P primeval history happen to coincide somewhat with the scope of an early primeval history pro-
posed by Reinhard Kratz (consisting primarily of elements from Genesis 2–3, 9:18–27; and Genesis
10), even as numerous other elements of our analysis remain quite distinct. See Reinhard G. Kratz,
Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik, UTB
2137 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 252–63 [ET 251–59].
Introduction 5
immeasurably from being able to present various parts of my work across the
last four years and gain feedback on it. This included presentations on Genesis
1 and then on Genesis 9:18–11:9 at two meetings of the Columbia University
Hebrew Bible Seminar (September 2015 and May 2019; Joel Baden helpfully
responded in both instances), a lecture on Genesis 2–3 at the Altes Testament
Kolloquium for Heidelberg and Tübingen (January 2016; hosted by Jan Gertz),
a lecture on Genesis 1 at the Old Testament Kolloquium of Tübingen (January
2016; hosted by Erhard Blum and Martin Leuenberger), a workshop on scrib-
alism and formation of Genesis 1–11 in Koblenz (February 2016; hosted by
Michaela Bauks), a small-group discussion of a draft of my work on the non-P
flood narrative with Joel Baden and Ed Greenstein (February 2017), a talk on
a version of my work on Genesis 2–3 in May 2018 as a Killeen lecture at St.
Norbert’s College (April 2018), and a lecture on the original scope of the non-
P primeval history in Zurich (July 2018; hosted by Konrad Schmid). I also
gave an overview presentation on Genesis 1–4 at a May 2016 Conference at
the College de France and then made progress on this study during a one-
month visiting professorship in May 2017 at the College de France (both
hosted by Thomas Römer). Across this period, I also benefited from critiques
of my work received at presentations at the 2016 Annual SBL Meeting (on
Genesis 1–5), 2017 International SBL (on the non-P flood story), and 2018
Annual SBL Meeting (on Genesis 6–11). Finally, I shared various parts of
my work across a doctoral seminar that I taught at New York University on
Pentateuchal Theory (Spring 2017) and then continued those discussions at a
session of a doctoral seminar on the Priestly source hosted by Liane Feldman
(Spring 2019). My deepest thanks to the organizers of these sessions and hosts
of lectures for giving me a chance to present different iterations of my work
and receive such helpful input on it.
Across these last five years, a number of colleagues and doctoral students
have read parts of this work and generously offered comments on different
parts of it. In hopes that I have not missed someone, I offer deep thanks to
Fynn Adomeit, Joel Baden, Walter Bührer, Colleen Conway, John Day, Paul
Delnero, Liane Feldman, Dan Fleming, Aron Freidenreich, Jan Gertz, Ed
Greenstein, Esther Hamori, Ki-Eun Jang, Christophe Nihan, Thomas Römer,
Konrad Schmid, and Mark Smith.6 Toward the end of the project, my former
6 On this count I want to note in particular that these readers were not exposed to some errors
that entered the manuscript at a late stage in the process as a result of a bibliographic database error
(caused by an update of my word processing/database program) that capitalized all of the German
and French titles across the manuscript. Unfortunately, I did not realize that these errors had been
student, Dr. Todd Kennedy, provided excellent editorial help and expert
input on several chapters.
As I conclude, I want to note the extensive and extremely important feed-
back provided across this project by my friend and colleague in the field,
Erhard Blum. He started as coauthor for the previously mentioned commen-
tary on Genesis 1–11, but he had to withdraw because of other commitments.
Across the last five years he has reviewed numerous arguments that are now in
this book, giving generously of his time, expertise, and hospitality (the latter
with his beloved wife, Ruthi, now departed). Moreover, he (along with my
wife, Colleen Conway) played an important role in persuading me to produce
this book separate from the commentary. Anyone who has had the privilege
to work closely with Erhard Blum is aware that he is an extraordinarily gifted
reader and occasionally sharp critic. Nevertheless, I can testify that his inci-
sive critique can be an excellent spur to making one’s work stronger. That is
certainly true here, even as I know that parts of my model in this book still
diverge from perspectives that he holds, and this work doubtlessly could be
improved through further discussion with him. Despite such differences, it is
with deepest respect and gratitude that I dedicate this book to him, both as a
good friend and truly one of the finest biblical exegetes of our age.
generated in the final production of the digital files sent to the publisher, and so I and the copyeditors
at Oxford needed to correct these by hand. There may be a few loci overlooked. They do not result
from a lack of awareness by myself or my readers of capitalization conventions in these languages. My
fervent hope is my readers may still find worth in the book’s arguments despite any remaining issues
of these and other types in this book
1
Precursors to the Priestly Creation
Account (Gen 1:1–2:3)
Standing as the first pericope in the Bible, Gen 1:1–2:3 has been one of the
earliest and most frequent foci of studies of biblical backgrounds.1 Hennig
Bernard Witter’s initial probe in 1711 isolated Gen 1:1–2:3 as a likely separate
source from Gen 2:4–3:24, decades before Astruc (1753) developed similar
observations into a broader source theory for Genesis. Some of the earliest
literary-critical studies of the Bible in the late 1700s by Ziegler (1794), Gabler
(1795), and Ilgen (1798) argued for a variety of additions in the chapter, par-
ticularly relating to the Sabbath. In the early 1900s Schwally and Stade pro-
posed a distinction between a speech-oriented source and an act-oriented
source in Genesis 1 that has reemerged in recent years as proposals of act-or
speech-oriented redactional strata. Meanwhile, across the twentieth century
and continuing to today there has been an increasing appreciation of ways
that Gen 1:1–2:3 may be genetically dependent on other biblical and nonbib-
lical texts, such as the Enuma Elish epic (hereafter the Enuma Elish), Psalm
104, and Gen 2:4–3:24.
This chapter starts with and focuses primarily on the latter sort of pre-
cursors to Gen 1:1–2:3: that is, the likely genetic, intertextual dependence
of Gen 1:1–2:3 on several specific biblical and nonbiblical texts. Though
I will conclude with brief consideration of what, in my judgment, is the most
likely of the various proposals for literary stratification within Gen 1:1–2:3
itself, I maintain that we are on the firmest ground in tracing relations of Gen
1:1–2:3 to several specific texts standing outside it. This then forms the first
1 Though many earlier studies saw the superscription in Gen 2:4a as part of the pericope, perhaps
displaced from an original location at the outset of the chapter (and maybe in a form like that in the
LXX), a number of arguments have converged to identify 2:4a as a superscription added to introduce
the non-P materials beginning in Gen 2:4b ff. Markus Witte, Die biblische Urgeschichte: Redaktions-
und theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Genesis 1,1–11,26 (BZAW 265; Berlin: De
Gruyter, 1998), 54–56; and Jan Christian Gertz, “Von Adam zu Enosch. Überlegungen zur
Enstehungsgeschichte von Gen 2–4,” in Gott und Mensch im Dialog, ed. Markus Witte (Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2004), 218–20.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190062545.003.0001
part of a broader argument in this book regarding the likely dependence of

several Priestly primeval texts on identifiable, specific, often nonbiblical pre-
cursor texts, a dependence that contrasts with a more fluid and difficult-to-
trace relationship of most non-P primeval materials to various nonbiblical
traditions.
Nonbiblical Precursors to Gen 1:1–2:3
To start, I note that Genesis 1 shows substantial parallels with Egyptian

cosmogonic traditions. Several Egyptian cosmogonic traditions begin, like
Genesis 1 does, with a description of the world before creation as char-
acterized by a windy, watery darkness (cf. Gen 1:2).2 Furthermore, much
as some Egyptian cosmogonic traditions seem to have used an exclusive
focus on the creative power of a single god (e.g., Ptah) to implicitly assert
the supremacy of that god and his city/sanctuary over other gods (e.g., Re),
so now Genesis 1 develops its resolute focus on the sole existence of one
god by describing the creation of a human-oriented cosmos by a god re-
ferred to not by a name but by the simple designation “God.”3 Finally, we
should note the particularly striking parallel between the depiction of this
“God’s” power in Genesis 1 to create things through proclamation and the
emphasis within the Memphite strand of Egyptian cosmogonies on how
Ptah created the cosmos through planning it in his heart and then speaking
it into existence with his tongue.4
These potential echoes of Egyptian cosmogonic traditions combine in
Genesis 1 with its interaction with elements of Mesopotamian literary tra-
ditions. First, Genesis 1 links overall with the widespread Mesopotamian
2 For a particularly thorough comparison of Egyptian (and other) concepts of pre-creation with
Genesis 1, see Michaela Bauks, Die Welt am Anfang: Zum Verhältnis von Vorwelt und Weltentstehung
in Gen 1 und in der altorientalischen Literatur (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997),
147–310.
3 For more on the distinction between a name and a designation functioning in this way, see
Erhard Blum, “Der vermeintliche Gottesname ʿElohim’,” in Gott Nennen: Gottes Namen und Gott
als Name, ed. Ingolf U. Dalforth and Philipp Stoellger, Religion in Philosophy and Theology 35
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 97–119.
4 For a basic comparison see Richard Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and
in the Bible (CBQMS 26; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1994), 111. For an edi-
tion of the Memphite stele and discussion of more recent scholarship on it, see Amr El Hawary,
Wortschӧpfung: Die Memphitische Theologie und die Siegesstele des Pije—Zwei Zeugen kulturel-
ler Repräsentation in der 25. Dynastie, OBO 243 (Fribourg and Göttingen: Academic Press and
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010).
Precursors to the Priestly Creation Account 9
tradition that humans were created to relieve the (lower) gods of their bur-
densome work. In contrast with these traditions, Genesis 1 presents a bold
picture of human beings as semi-godlike rulers over all other living beings.
This is then connected with a reorientation of the theme of divine “rest” that
is seen in earlier traditions. Where multiple Mesopotamian traditions have
the lower gods “rest” after the high god creates humans, God himself ceases
from God’s creation work on the seventh day (Gen 2:2–3).
More specifically, Genesis 1 seems to relate to and contrast with the
Enuma Elish epic, a text apparently recited at the Babylonian New Year fes-
tival and one of the most-cited and commented-on compositions in the
whole Babylonian corpus.5 This epic appears to have been written sometime
in the mature period of Babylonian literature (1500–1000 BCE), eclectically
drawing on multiple older Mesopotamian traditions to establish the su-
premacy of Marduk and his temple in Babylon.6 Half or more of the seven-
tablet composition draws especially on the traditions surrounding Ninurta’s
triumph over the dragon Anzu to detail two successive battles for supremacy
among the gods. This starts on tablet one of the Enuma Elish with Ea’s victory
over the sweet-water god, Apsu, after which Ea “rests” in the heavenly temple
that he builds for himself (I:75). The next three tablets show how Ea’s son,
Marduk, was recruited by the gods for a similar battle against Tiamat, a fe-
male dragon representing the primeval ocean. After Marduk defeats her and
her retinue, the council of the gods asserts to Marduk that “[w]‌e bestow upon
you kingship of all and everything” (IV:14) and joyfully proclaim “Marduk
is king!” (IV:28). The absolute power of Marduk’s authoritative word is then
demonstrated when, at the prompt of the gods, Marduk is able to make a
constellation of stars disappear and reappear by his command (IV:19–26),
a Mesopotamian counterpart to elements of creation by word seen in both
Egyptian cosmogonies and Genesis 1.
5 For an overview, see Benjamin Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature
(3rd ed.; Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005), 25–26, 437 and Eckart Frahm, “Counter-Texts,
Commentaries, and Adaptations: Politically Motivated Responses to the Babylonian Epic of Creation
in Mesopotamia,the Biblical World, and Elsewhere,” Orient: Reports of the Society for Near Eastern
Studies in Japan 45 (2010): 3–33. The translations of the Enuma Elish used in this commentary are
taken from Foster.
6 A useful overview of the Enuma Elish and its use of earlier traditions can be found in Andrea
Seri, “The Role of Creation in Enūma Eliš,” JNES 12 (2012): 4–29. For arguments for a composition
date toward the end of the above chronological spectrum and analysis of ways the epic builds on ear-
lier traditions, see also W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, Mesopotamian Civilizations 16
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 439–457.
At this point the Enuma Elish uses descriptions of Marduk’s creation of

parts of the cosmos to further demonstrate his kingly power. This starts with
him splitting Tiamat’s carcass in two, with one half of the carcass becoming
a heavenly barrier to keep the upper ocean from merging with the lower one
(IV:137–38). He soon creates the heavenly bodies, including celestial signs
“for oracular judgment” (V:23–24), concluding with his founding of the New
Year Akitu festival at which the Enuma Elish composition itself seems to have
been recited. After various creation acts, including taming and redirecting
the waters of Tiamat’s body (V:48–62), tablet VI narrates Marduk’s consulta-
tion with Ea and then Ea’s subsequent creation of humanity. This narration
draws on prior Mesopotamian traditions about the creation of humanity to
give the gods rest (VI:2–34), but the Enuma Elish epic connects this creation
of humanity with a narration of Marduk’s creation of his temple in Babylonia
as the site where the other gods could enjoy that rest (VI:57–66). At the fol-
lowing celebratory feast for the gods, the council of the gods yet again recog-
nizes Marduk’s absolute rule over them and swears an oath of obedience to
him (VI:95–120).
The focus of many elements of Genesis 1 on demonstrating God’s power
through God’s sovereign control over creation resembles the focus of the
Enuma Elish epic on demonstrating Marduk’s absolute supremacy through
his creative and other powers. In addition, the description of God’s creation
of the cosmos in Genesis 1 features many of the same elements that occur
in the description of Marduk’s creation of the cosmos—Marduk’s splitting
of the upper and lower oceans through erecting a roof made out of Tiamat’s
carcass (IV:137–38; cf. 1:6–8), his organization of the world waters (V:48–62;
cf. 1:9–10), his creation of the heavenly bodies and placement of them in the
water-free space (V:23–24), and his role in creation of humanity, instigating
that creation through consulting with Ea (VI:2–34).7
7 In addition, see Jan Gertz, “Antibabylonische Polemik im priesterlichen Schöpfungsbericht?”
ZThK 106 (2009): 149–55 for a nuanced discussion of how Genesis 1 (and Ezekiel) seem to build on
a Mediterranean–Near Eastern koine of emergent concepts about the astral world (including stars
being fixed in the heaven above earth) that originated in Babylonia and is evident in Anaximander,
Anaximenes, Ezekiel, and Genesis 1 (see also the earlier discussion of similar materials in Baruch
Halpern, “The Assyrian Astronomy of Genesis 1 and the Birth of Milesian Philosophy,” EI 27
[2003]: 74*–83*). The best Babylonian attestation of this concept is a seventh-century esoteric com-
mentary on the Enuma Elish (KAR 307 [VAT 8917]) that was published by Alasdair Livingstone,
Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, SAR 3 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1989), 99–102,
and then related to the pre-Socratic philosophers Anaximander and Anaximenes along with Ezekiel
by Walter Burkert in the mid-nineties (starting with “Orientalische und griechische Weltmodelle
von Assur bis Anaximandros,” Wiener Studien 107/108 [1994/1995]: 179–86).
Moreover, a closer look reveals that many parallel elements between

the Enuma Elish and Genesis 1 appear more deeply rooted in the former,
while they stand as relatively isolated blind motifs in the latter.8 For ex-
ample, Gen 1:6–7 resembles Marduk’s separation of oceans in the Enuma
Elish, where Marduk separates the upper and lower seas with a heavenly
roof made out of Tiamat’s carcass.9 Yet in contrast to the Enuma Elish, we
never hear what this roof in Gen 1:6–8 is made of. In this sense, the heav-
enly “plate” of Genesis 1 is a blind motif, likely taken from the Enuma Elish,
where the corpse/roof theme marks both the defeat of Marduk’s foe and the
outset of creation.10 When we come later to the purposes of the heavenly
bodies in Gen 1:14, the listing of “festivals, days, and years” corresponds to
later Priestly emphases on festivals, days, and years (e.g., Lev 23; Num 28–
29), but the mention of “signs” in this list stands out. This latter motif may
have its original home in the Enuma Elish, where Marduk sets the stars in
the heavens to provide heavenly “signs” used in astral divination so impor-
tant to Babylonian literate culture (V:23–24). Such astral divination has no
place in Priestly ideology, and so this mention of “signs” in 1:14 represents
another blind motif in the text, faintly reflecting its precursor (Enuma
Elish) text, but soon discarded as Genesis 1 proceeds to its report of God’s
execution of God’s intent in 1:16–18, where the stars are barely mentioned
and the focus is exclusively on how the sun and moon distinguish day and
night. Finally, there is the strange mention of God’s creation of great “sea
monsters” (‫ )התנינם הגדלים‬in Gen 1:21, monsters not mentioned in God’s
initial creation order (1:20) and not reproducing “according to their kind.”
Here again we may have a blind motif in Genesis 1 echoing Tiamat, the sea
dragon so prominent in the Enuma Elish, though here she (along with any
other sea monsters) is demoted in Genesis 1 into another creature in the list
of God’s creations.
8 For further definition of blind motifs and discussion of how they are relevant for questions of
genetic intertextuality, see David Carr, “Method in Determining the Dependence of Biblical on
Non-Biblical Texts,” in Subtle Citation, Allusion, and Translation in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Ziony Zevit
(Sheffield: Equinox, 2017), 41–53, esp. 46–47.
9 For a broader survey of reflections of the influence of the Enuma Elish epic concept of spreading
out the heavens in biblical literature, see Friedhelm Hartenstein, “JHWH, Erschaffer des Himmels: Zu
Herkunft und Bedeutung eines monotheistischen Kernarguments,” ZtK 110 (2013): 383–409, esp.
400–405.
10 See Christoph Koch, Gottes himmlische Wohnstatt: Transformationen im Verhältnis von
Gott und Himmel in tempeltheologischen Entwürfen des Alten Testaments in der Exilszeit, FAT 119
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 196–98, 232 for discussion of translation of ‫ רקיע‬as “plate” rather
than “dome” and the particular similarity of Gen 1:6–7 to the depiction in the Enuma Elish epic.
There are some other themes in the Enuma Elish that seem to function
quite differently in Genesis 1. For example, Marduk’s general demonstra-
tion of his power through destroying and creating a constellation by force
of his command (IV:19–26) is analogous to the broader command structure
of Genesis 1, but much more focused. Similarly, God’s ceasing of work on
the seventh day (Gen 2:2–3) corresponds to and yet contrasts with the rest
that Ea enjoys in his heavenly temple after conquering Apsu (I:75) and that
the lower gods enjoy in Marduk’s temple (VI:50–54). Notably, the temple
theme so crucial to this latter theme of “rest” and to the Enuma Elish in ge-
neral is not specifically paralleled by elements in Genesis 1. Nevertheless,
the Priestly narrative of the building of the tabernacle in the wilderness ac-
cording to the “pattern” (‫ )תבנית‬revealed by God on Sinai (Exod 25:9, 40;
26:30; see also 27:8) represents a Priestly counterpart to and transformation
of the building of Marduk’s Esagila temple on the pattern of Ea’s Apsu temple
in heaven (VI:57–66).11 In this sense, the parallels to the Enuma Elish in the
Priestly narrative, though particularly dense in Genesis 1, appear to continue
through to the construction of God’s sanctuary at the end of Exodus and his
climactic descent to dwell in the midst of Israel (Exod 40:34–35).12
This listing of connections to the Enuma Elish, however, also points
to the profound way in which Genesis 1 represents a resistant counter-
presentation to the Enuma Elish rather than a mere extension, revision,
or allusion to it. Some Assyrian versions of the Enuma Elish, for example,
merely substitute the Assyrian state god, Ashur, for Marduk. Many other
Mesopotamian traditions cite it or allude to it as authoritative.13 Genesis
1, in contrast, transforms and counters basic elements of the popular
Mesopotamian epic, not once citing or specifically echoing it. For example,
the entire polytheistic scenery of the Enuma Elish, so central to its theme
of Marduk’s supremacy and recognition as king by other gods, is com-
pletely absent in the resolutely monotheistic Genesis 1 creation account.
Moreover, there is no reflection in Genesis 1 of the theme of divine combat
11 Here see Koch, Gottes Himmlische Wohnstatt, 226–27, who suggests that P’s Tabernacle narra-
tive seems to share the innovation of the Enuma Elish regarding the dwelling of the chief deity in an
earthly sanctuary.
12 For a survey of some of the previous studies observing these links, see Erhard Blum, Studien
zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990), 306–7. For connection of
these to the Enuma Elish, see especially Moshe Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement
of the Lord: The Problem of the Sitz Im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3,” in Mélanges bibliques et orien-
taux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles, ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor (Kevelaer and Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 501–3.
13 See Foster, Before the Muses, 25 for an overview.
that takes up the majority of the tablets in the Enuma Elish. The possible
faint echo of Tiamat’s name in calling the primeval ocean, ‫תהום‬, in Gen 1:2
only highlights how distant God’s total control over the ocean in Gen 1:2
and 9–10 is to Marduk’s battle with Tiamat.14 Furthermore, Genesis 1 never
once uses vocabulary specific to kingship despite its thoroughgoing depic-
tion of God in sovereign control and its echoes of royal theology in depict-
ing humans created “as the image of ” their king-like deity “in order to rule”
(Gen 1:26; also 1:28). These elliptical connections to themes of kingship in
Genesis 1 strongly contrast with the frequent, explicit emphasis on Marduk
as “king” in the Enuma Elish (e.g., IV:14, 28; V:109–10, 131–36, 151–52;
VI:95–120, 142).
These contrasts between Gen 1:1–2:3 and the Enuma Elish stand as
part of a broader way that the picture of creation in Gen 1:1–2:3 decisively
opposes central features of the Mesopotamian creation tradition as a whole.
As has been noted before, that tradition repeatedly depicts the gods as cre-
ating humans in order to take over the onerous labor of subservient gods.
In this sense, humans are depicted as substitute servants of the gods, re-
lieving the lower gods so that they can rest. In contrast, Genesis 1 depicts
a single, totally sovereign god as the complete master of creation, with this
God creating humans as God’s own image to rule over the rest of creation.
Furthermore, this God’s commission of humans to “be fruitful and mul-
tiply” (Gen 1:28) strongly contrasts with the Atrahasis Epic, which was
highly influential in the Mesopotamian literary tradition. In that epic, the
gods repeatedly seek ways to reduce human population because they are
disturbed by the noise of multiplying humans and cannot rest. In Genesis
1, in contrast, God commissions humans from the outset to multiply and
then pronounces them “very good” (Gen 1:31).15 God’s following rest on the
seventh day of creation (Gen 2:1–3) anticipates a Sabbath rest that God later
will command for his people.
The fraught relationship of Gen 1:1–2:3 with its nonbiblical precursor
texts, especially the Enuma Elish, means that there will always be those
who emphasize its similarities to such precursors and others who empha-
size its dissimilarities. Moreover, it must be stressed once again that any
14 If this is some kind of echo, it should be stressed that the word ‫ תהום‬is not actually related to the
name Tiamat and refers elsewhere in the Bible to underground water sources (Gertz, Genesis 1–11,
42).
15 Helge S. Kvanvig, Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical and Enochic—An Intertextual Reading
(JSJSup 149. Leiden: Brill, 2011), 314.

specific connections that Genesis 1 has to the Enuma Elish, Atrahasis,

or other known texts occur within the context of a probable broader and
more amorphous interaction with some other nonbiblical precursors,
likely including lost written texts and oral traditions to which we lack ac-
cess. That said, the example of the Enuma Elish is particularly promising
for illustrating how interpretation can be enriched through attention to di-
achronic precursors, and this is so for several reasons. First, the Enuma
Elish was one of the most often copied, taught, cited, and performed texts
in Babylonia, where the Judean exiles found themselves. This increases the
likelihood that this epic might have been known in some form by Judean
scribes.16 Second, in articulating Marduk’s absolute, unquestioned domi-
nance, the Enuma Elish stands as a powerful articulation of the power of
the Babylonian empire, and its concluding celebration of Marduk’s Esagila
temple stood as a stark challenge to the Judeans’ attachment to a Jerusalem
temple that now stood in ashes. Third, as discussed above, Genesis 1 shows
multiple and specific connections to the Enuma Elish epic—connections
that provide more substantiation of a likely genetic intertextual link than
one usually finds between biblical and nonbiblical traditions. This range of
connections grounds a reading of Genesis 1 as, in part, a likely response to
the Enuma Elish epic.17
Such a reading then highlights, by contrast, elements of Genesis 1 seen
against the backdrop of the Enuma Elish. The resolute focus on God alone
contrasts with the constant focus on the gods of Babylonia in the Enuma Elish.
The emphasis on God’s sovereign power becomes a counterstatement to the
argument for Marduk’s power across the Enuma Elish. Finally, the picture of
God’s creation of humans as god’s image, mini-god replicas thus equipped to
rule creation (1:26), stands as a striking contrast to the depiction—found in
the Enuma Elish and other Mesopotamian cosmogonies—of humans created
to take over the work of the gods and care for them in their temples. Overall,
the Enuma Elish articulates a vision of humanity in service to Marduk’s
temple in Babylon. Starting in Genesis 1, the Priestly author separates the
16 For discussion of the frequent claim that the Enuma Elish was not widely enough known
for Judean scribes to know it, see Eckart Frahm, “Creation and the Divine Spirit in Babel and
Bible: Reflections on mummu in Enūma eliš I 4 and rûaḥ in Genesis 1:2,” in Literature as Politics (FS
Peter Machinist), ed. David Vanderhooft and Abraham Winitzer (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
2013), 99–101.
17 For a collection of arguments for Genesis 1 as a response to the Enuma Elish, see in particular
Kenton L. Sparks, “Enuma Elish and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism,” JBL 126
(2007): 625–48 and Frahm, “Creation and the Divine Spirit,” 102–116.
creation of humanity as a whole from the creation of the heaven-modeled

sanctuary. According to P, God created all of humanity for godlike rule over
the rest of creation, while God’s people Israel, especially the sons of Aaron,
are the ones who are designated for service in God’s tabernacle sanctuary.
In this way, a comparison of the Enuma Elish with Genesis 1 relates to the
oft-observed phenomenon of concentric circles of divine involvement that is
found in P, moving from a focus on all of humanity in the primeval history, to
a narrowing focus on Abraham and his descendants in the Priestly ancestral
bridge, and then to a final focus on holy Israel and the Aaronide priesthood
in the Priestly Moses story.
Psalm 104 and Genesis 1
Another important possible precursor to Genesis 1 is Psalm 104, and perhaps

by way of Psalm 104, influence on Genesis 1 from Egyptian and/or Canaanite
hymnic traditions adapted in Psalm 104.18 In particular, Psalm 104 features
intriguing parallels to Genesis 1 up through day five. The prologues of the
two texts feature similar pictures of water (with the relatively rare word
‫ )!תהום‬covering the earth and wind before creation (Gen 1:2; Ps 104:3–6),
of light at the outset of creation (Gen 1:3–4; Ps 104:1b–2a), of God spreading
out heaven (Ps 104:2b) and of making the heavenly plate (Gen 1:6–8), of God
gathering waters into one place (Gen 1:9–10; Ps 104:7–9), of God making
food (and other goods) on the earth thus revealed (Gen 1:11–12; Ps 104:10–
18), and of God creating the heavenly bodies (to mark time; Gen 1:14–18; Ps
104:19–23), and the sea and its creatures (Gen 1:20–21; Ps 104:25–26).19
18 The hymn of Aten has been the most prominent nonbiblical precursor mentioned in relation to
Psalm 104, even as the centuries separating its composition from that of Psalm 104 has posed a sig-
nificant problem for those positing any kind of direct relationship between it and Psalm 104. For an
overview of some possible means of transmission, see Sirje Reichmann, “Psalm 104 und der große
Sonnenhymnus des Echnaton. Erwägungen zu ihrem literarischen Verhältnis,” in Israel zwischen den
Mächten (FS Stefan Timm), ed. Michael Pietsch and Friedhelm Hartenstein (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag,
2009), 272–85. Recent decades have highlighted the possible role of Canaanite tradition as another
source of Psalm 104 and/or mediator of Egyptian tradition to Psalm 104 (e.g., Paul E. Dion, “YHWH
as Storm-God and Sun-God: The Double Legacy of Egypt and Canaan as Reflected in Psalm 104,”
ZAW 103 [2009]: 43–71; Mark S. Smith, God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the
Biblical World, FAT 2/57 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008], 69–76); and/or later Egyptian traditions
being more plausible influences behind elements in Psalm 104 (e.g., Carsten Knigge, “Überlegungen
zum Verhältnis von altägyptischer Hymnik und alttestamentlicher Psalmendichtung. Zum Versuch
einer diachronen und interkulturellen Motivgeschichte,” Protokolle zur Bibel 9 [2000]: 93–122).
19 . For some helpful lists of parallels, see A. van der Voort, Genesis I,1a-II,4a et la Psaume 104.”
RB 58 (1951):330–31; Jon Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of
If these striking and relatively specific parallels are interpreted as indica-

tors of genetic textual dependence, there are some indicators that Psalm
104 would be the earlier of the two texts. Most importantly, there is little
reflection in Psalm 104 of major parts of Genesis 1, especially the central
and theologically evocative description of the creation of humanity in Gen
1:26–28. If the two texts are genetically related, it is easier to see how the
author of Genesis 1 might expand the creation praise in Psalm 104, than it
is to see why the author of the Psalm 104 hymn would only praise the less
theologically central parts of the Genesis 1 creation. Furthermore, there
are some parallel elements in the two texts that seem to have their orig-
inal home in Psalm 104 rather than in Genesis 1. For example, the initial
praise of YHWH as “wrapped in light like a garment” in Ps 104:2 seems
part of an ancient solar concept of deity; this concept likely is drawn in
turn from Egyptian cosmogonic traditions (perhaps via Canaanite chan-
nels), whether from the hymn of Aten or elsewhere.20 It is unlikely that
Psalm 104 adapted this initial focus on light from the creation description
of Genesis 1, where God’s creation of light somewhat prematurely occurs in
Gen 1:3–4 to initiate “day” (through alternation with preexisting “night”)
in the seven-day structure (even though the heavenly bodies that usually
regulate day/night only are set to that purpose in 1:16–18).21 Similarly, the
picture of God riding on the wings of the wind in Ps 104:3 seems to be an-
other ancient divine concept, demythologized into the windy prologue to
God’s speech in Gen 1:2b.22
In sum, there are a number of indicators to suggest that large portions
of Genesis 1 represent a prose-narrative iteration of Priestly temple cos-
mological traditions attested in poetic form in Psalm 104. To be sure, it
is impossible to reach certainty on a specific textual relationship between
these texts, especially given the fact that they are (despite hymnic elem-
ents in Gen 1) different genres and have different foci. Nevertheless, they
have enough similarities in specifics and order that theories about the
Divine Omnipotence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 54–61; and John Day, “The Meaning and
Background of the Priestly Creation Story,” in From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1–11; by
John Day (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 21–22, who notes several distinctive expressions shared be-
tween the texts (e.g., ‫ למועדים‬Gen 1:14; Ps 104:19 and ‫ חיתו‬Gen 1:24 and Ps 104:11, 20).
20 Day, “Priestly Creation Story,” 10–11, 21–23.
21 See David M. Carr, “Standing at the Edge of Reconstructable Transmission History: Signs of a
Secondary Sabbath-Oriented Stratum in Gen 1:1–2:3,” VT 70 (2020): 21–22 for more discussion of
how Gen 1:3–5 and 1:14–18 are related in the present text.
22 Day, “Priestly Creation Story,” 9–10.
intertextual dependence of Genesis 1 on Psalm 104 (or vice versa) will

persist.23
Gen 2:4b–3:24 as Probable Precursor to Genesis 1
Another often discussed possible textual precursor to Genesis 1 is the

Garden of Eden story in Gen 2:4b–3:24. As noted above, scholars like Witte
and Astruc already recognized the basic literary-critical distinction between
these texts in the 1700s. Scholars have added to their observations in the
intervening centuries, so that there is now more consensus on the distinction
between Gen 1:1–2:3 and 2:4–3:24 than on almost any other point in bib-
lical scholarship. Nevertheless, there have been waves of disagreement, es-
pecially in recent years, on which text was dependent on which. The earliest
historical-critical scholars tended to see Genesis 1 as the earlier text. Then
the Graf-Reuss-Wellhausen revolution led most scholars to see Genesis 2–3
as the earlier text, with Genesis 1 possibly composed independent of know-
ledge of Genesis 2–3. From the 1990s onward, a wave of scholars has returned
to a view that Gen 1:1–2:3 was the earlier text, with Gen 2:4–3:24 composed
as a revision and extension of it.24 Finally, a group of recent scholars, some-
times termed “Neo-Documentarians,” have argued that the strata of which
Gen 1:1–2:3 and 2:4–3:24 are a part were composed independently of each
other.25
The supposition of some kind of relationship between Genesis 1 and 2–3
is prima facie plausible, given the probable small size of the ancient Judean
scribal elite class, especially in the postmonarchic period.26 It remains to be
23 See especially Paul Humbert, “La relation de Genèse 1 et du Psaume 104 avec liturgie du
Nouvel-An Israëlite,” RHPR 15 (1935): 20–27; and Van der Voort, “Gen 1 et Psaume 104,” 321–47.
The same cannot be said for parallels between Psalm 104 and Genesis 2–3. For example, the bulk of
parallels between parts of Psalm 104 and parts of Genesis 2–3 in Thomas Krüger, “‘Kosmo-theologie’
zwischen Mythos und Erfahrung—Psalm 104 im Horizont alttestamentlicher und altorientalischer
‘Schöpfungs’-Konzepte,” BN 68 (1993): 72, n. 104, appear, on closer reflection, to be quite different
treatments in the two texts of only vaguely similar topics.
24 For review, see Walter Bührer, Am Anfang.: Untersuchungen zur Textgenese und zur relativ-chro-
nologischen Einordnung von Gen 1–3. (FRLANT 256. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014),
284–87.
25 For a summary of the basic perspective, see Joel Baden, The Composition of the
Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 2012), 188–92.
26 For more on limited literacy in ancient Judah, see David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the
Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 115–22, 165–
66, 172–73; and Christopher Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic
Evidence from the Iron Age (Archaelogy and Biblical Studies; Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2010), 122–32.
seen, however, whether we see good indicators in Genesis 1 and 2–3 that
one or the other of these texts was written in relation to the other, and the
extent and evident specificity of the intertextual interaction. Overall, there
is no place where one text cites the other. The closest parallels between the
two occur toward their beginnings and endings. Similar prologues occur to-
ward the outset of each text Gen 1:1 and 2:4b, both of which are followed
by descriptions of the state of things before God’s creative actions (1:2; 2:5–
6). In addition, the closing sections of both texts feature a speech by God to
God’s council about human similarity to them: “Let us make humans as our
image, similar to our likeness” (1:26); and “See, the human has become like
one of us” (3:22).
More broadly, both texts provide etiological explanations for prominent
aspects of the human world, and thus share numerous points of contact when
compared with nonbiblical theogonies/cosmogonies with more developed
pictures of the divine world (e.g., the Enuma Elish). To be sure, Genesis 1 is
broader in its etiological focus than Genesis 2–3, describing God’s creation of
the stars, heaven, seas (and sea creatures), land, and land plants. Nevertheless,
Genesis 1 and 2–3 otherwise explain a quite similar set of basic elements in
human life: human sexuality and reproduction, the origins of birds and mul-
tiple categories of land animals, the particular relation of humans to animals
and God, and the origins and nature of human food.27 Given that many such
shared themes could be explained by the common etiological and monothe-
istic character of Genesis 1 and 2–3, we must proceed carefully to examine
how these themes are treated in each text.
Perhaps the most general set of common elements seen in Genesis 1 and 2–
3 are the way both texts depict human relations with the animal world. Given
the prominence of the animal world in the everyday life of the ancients, it is
no surprise that two Hebrew etiological texts would both focus on human re-
lations to the animal world and somehow categorize that animal world. That
27 See Annette Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild Gottes?: Zum Gedanken einer Sonderstellung
des Menschen im Alten Testament und in weiteren altorientalischen Quellen (Zürich: Theologischer
Verlag, 2011), 238–39 for a particularly useful summary of often-observed commonalities. Some con-
nections proposed by others are not quite so compelling. See, for example, Ernst Joachim Waschke’s
proposal in “Zum Verhältnis von Ruhe und Arbeit in Den Biblischen Schöpfungsgeschichten Gen
1–3,” in “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu Üben” [Gen 18,19]: Studien Zur Altorientalischen und Biblischen
Rechtsgeschichte, Zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und Zur Religionssoziologie [FS Eckart Otto], ed.
Reinhard Achenbach and Martin Arneth (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2009), 74. He argues that
there is a particular link between the implicit Sabbath theme in Gen 2:2–3 and the use of the Hiphil
for “rest” (‫ )נוח‬to describe God’s placement of the human in the garden (2:15). Nevertheless, both the
Masoretic pointing of this verb as the Hiphil II of ‫“( נוח‬he set”) and the context of Gen 2:15 (note the
following “to work and guard it”) make it clear that no (Sabbath) rest is intended in this verse.
said, these two texts share a specifically ambivalent picture of human rela-
tions to the animal world. They both depict human domination of animals as
part of an initially peaceful state (1:26–30; 2:19–20), whereas animal-human
hostility (‫ ;איבה‬Gen 3:15) or violence (‫ חמס‬Gen 6:11, 13) is connected in
both texts with postcreation disorder and the loss of supreme human con-
trol over the animal world.28 This is part of a more general way that the “very
good” pre-flood creation described in Genesis 1 parallels the idyllic garden
world depicted in Gen 2:4b–25. Both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2–3 initially
develop an ideal picture of God’s initial creation (German Gegenwelt), one
that partially explains certain aspects of creation (thus semi-etiological) and
yet also stands to be corrupted by later developments, whether garden trans-
gression (Gen 3:1–6) or pre-flood violence (Gen 6:11, 13). These different
dimensions of relations with animals relate to ancient life and could conceiv-
ably be parallel etiological developments, but these unusually specific paral-
lels at least establish the possibility of some relation (as yet undetermined) of
genetic textual dependence.
Another promising avenue for establishing both textual dependence and
direction of dependence is analysis of the way Genesis 1 and Genesis 2–3
depict the relation of humans to the plant world. Though a few other ancient
cosmogonies mention divine provision of food for humans and animals,
none feature divine speeches where the deity instructs humans (or animals)
on what they may and may not eat.29 Genesis 1 concludes with a divine speech
where God permits seed-bearing plants and fruit-bearing trees to humans,
while green vegetation is given to other land animals for food (1:29–30). In
contrast, Genesis 2–3 features a speech where YHWH allows the human to
eat of the fruit trees in the garden (and not eat of the tree of knowledge; 2:16–
17), and then offers a subsequent speech where God condemns the human to
lifelong work eating “vegetation of the field” (3:17–19), a destiny he will en-
dure outside the garden (3:23). On the one hand, these treatments of human
28 For observation of the shift from human dominion over animals/peace to equality with
animals/discord in Genesis 2–3, see Annette Schellenberg, “‘Und ganz wie der Mensch es
nennt.’: Beobachtungen zu Gen 2,19f.” in Jürg Luchsinger, et.al. (ed.) ‘.. der seine Lust hat am Wort
des Herrn!’ FS Ernst Jenni (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2007), 306. For observation of a similar contrast
in Genesis 1 (dominion over animals, peace) and Gen 6–9 (loss of dominion, violence), see Phyllis
Trible, “The Dilemma of Dominion,” in Faith and Feminism, ed. Diana Lipsett and Phyllis Trible
(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 17–39.
29 Food provisions are seen in, for example, the Egyptian Hymn to Amon-Re (Papyrus Boulaq 17,
vi.4; ANET 366) and the Hymn to the Aton (ANET 370). The Hymn to Amon-Re is particularly in-
teresting because it praises the provision of fruit trees for humans and herbage for cattle, but neither
text (nor others in the ancient Near East) features explicit divine proscriptions regarding this compa-
rable to Gen 1:29–30.
food in Gen 1:29–30, 2:16–17, and 3:17–19 are quite different, with each
linked to the broader aims of their respective contexts. On the other hand,
the common focus of both texts on direct divine involvement in instructions
about human food is striking. In addition, the particular focus on tree fruit
in the specification of human food in Gen 1:11–12, 29 is somewhat unusual
vis-à-vis overviews of plant food elsewhere in the Bible. The main other locus
where we see this pairing is in the description in Exod 10:15 of how locusts
ate all of the “vegetation of the earth” (‫ )עשב הארץ‬and “fruit of the trees”
(‫)פרי העץ‬. Otherwise, overviews of edible plant life both in Exodus (Exod
9:22, 25; 10:12) and other biblical loci (e.g., Prov 27:25; Ps 104:14; cf. also 2
Kgs 19:26//Isa 37:27; Deut 32:2) focus exclusively on “vegetation” (‫ )עשב‬and
other forms of green plant life (e.g., ‫חציר‬, ‫דשא‬, and ‫)ירק‬. Even Psalm 104,
otherwise quite parallel to Genesis 1 and likewise focused on God’s nourish-
ment of humans, has no focus on tree nourishment in its praise of trees (cf.
104:12, 16). In this sense, the prominent focus on fruit trees in Gen 1:11–12,
29 appears to be a blind motif derived from Genesis 2–3, where the fruit tree
motif is firmly rooted in that story’s focus on humanity’s beginning in a di-
vine orchard garden and eating of forbidden fruit there.30
Perhaps most importantly, Genesis 1 and 2–3 are parallel and yet quite dis-
tinct in how they treat the human relationship to God, with contrasting posi-
tions on their common topic of human similarity to divine beings. Genesis
3 concludes with God’s speech to the divine council about God’s anxiety that
the humans have “become like us,” seemingly voicing an anxiety that might
be shared by the divine beings (3:22).31 We see this theme of a divine council
jealous of its prerogatives again toward the end of the J primeval history in
the Tower of Babel story, where God calls on them to join in descending to
earth to frustrate human plans to build a tower with its top in the heavens
(Gen 11:7). Gen 1:26 likewise has God address the council, asking them to
join in God’s intention to “make humans as our image,” indeed using the
more general term ‫ עשה‬for this making, rather than the verb ‫ ברא‬reserved
for creation by the supreme God in particular. But here God goes on to re-
assure this council that the image will only be “similar to our likeness,” thus
not identical to them in a way similar to the threat (of human achievement of
30 Erhard Blum, “Von Gottesunmittelbarkeit zu Gottähnlichkeit: Überlegungen zur theologischen
Anthropologie der Paradieserzählung,” in Gottes nähe im alten Testament, ed. Eberhardt Gönke and
Kathrin Liess, SBS 202 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2004),” 15, n. 27.
31 This is named the main point of specific contrast in Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur
Geschichte Israels, 2nd ed. (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883), 306.

godlike immortality) that YHWH speaks to a similar divine council in Gen

3:22.32 In this way, Gen 3:22 and 1:26 share a focus on the divine council and
a possible similar picture of that divine council as concerned about human
similarity to God, even as the formulation of God’s speech in 1:26 (compared
to other speeches in Genesis 1) shows God attempting to overcome that anx-
iety and gain their cooperation in making humanity semi-godlike. Notably,
the following description of God’s actual creation of humanity then reverts
to the singular and the God-specific verb of creation ‫ברא‬, asserting that God
and God alone created human beings. This may represent yet another way
that this Priestly narrative makes a resolutely monotheistic claim. Though
there is a nod to pictures of divine plurality (Gen 3:22; 11:7) as well as non-
biblical precursors (especially the Enuma Elish) in the 1:26 consultation with
the divine council, Gen 1:27 clearly assigns creation of humanity to the one
God, ‫אלהים‬.33
Finally, a dependence of Genesis 1 on Genesis 2–3 also may provide back-
ground to the use of the expression ‫( האדם‬including the definite article)
to refer generically to God’s creation in Gen 1:27 (as in Deut 8:3; Isa 2:20)
rather than the indefinite form, ‫אדם‬, that also can be used to refer to hu-
manity (e.g., Deut 32:8; 1 Sam 25:29 and also Gen 1:26). This usage of ‫האדם‬
parallels ‫ האדם‬in Gen 2:7 and the rest of Genesis 2–3. Nevertheless, the un-
derstanding of ‫ )ה(אדם‬in Genesis 1 probably is different. Within Genesis 2–3
the frequent references to ‫“( האדם‬the human”) are related to that narrative’s
stress on an individual primal human and that individual’s relation to the
ground (‫ )האדמה‬from which he was made and that he was destined to farm
and return to (Gen 2:5, 7; 3:17b–19, 23). Within Genesis 1 the references in
32 Randall Garr, In His Own Image and Likeness: Humanity, Divinity, and Monotheism (Culture and
History of the Ancient Near East 15; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 203–4.
33 For additional considerations arguing for Gen 1:26 being a later generalizing and demytholo-
gizing response to Gen 3:22, see Raik Heckl, “Die Exposition Des Pentateuchs. Überlegungen Zum
Literarischen und Theologischen Konzept von Genesis 1–3,” in Ex Oriente Lux: Studien zur Theologie
des Alten Testaments. Festschrift für Rüdiger Lux zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Angelika Berlejung and
Raik Heckl (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012), 11–25; and (in relation to the Enuma Elish
epic and other precursors) see Benjamin Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 269, n. 92. Note also Garr, In His Own Image and
Likeness, 51–85, who makes the intriguing proposal that 1:26–27 represents a kind of bait-and-switch
maneuver by God, where the wording of God’s proposal in 1:26 subtly enlists the approval of the
divine council through invoking their cooperation (“let us make”) and adding a qualification to the
similarity (“similar to our likeness”) before 1:27 reports God’s own creation (‫ ברא‬in singular) of hu-
manity purely “as God’s image.” Though intriguing, this latter reading is undermined by the fact that
the move from plural to singular in 1:26–27, as Garr himself observes, is found in Gen 11:7–8 as well.
Moreover, other parts of Genesis 1 have featured similar small divergences between divine order and
execution, without these divergences undermining the essential agreement of each execution with
the speech preceding it.
Gen 1:26–27a to ‫ אדם‬and especially ‫ האדם‬represent somewhat of a blind

motif vis-à-vis the likely Genesis 2–3 source text, as does the implicit sin-
gular in 1:27a (both for humanity and image) that then must be switched to
plural in referring in 1:27b to God’s creation of both genders of humanity and
God’s blessing them and giving them food in 1:28 and 29.34
In sum, Gen 1:26–27 adapts combined themes of human godlikeness and
consultation with the divine council about it from multiple loci in the J pri-
meval history. For Genesis 1, contra Genesis 2–3, human godlikeness is no
accident produced by human opposition to the divine will. Indeed, the entire
structure of Genesis 1 can be seen as a decisive refutation of Genesis 2’s pic-
ture of a God who could produce a creation situation that initially was “not
good” (2:18) and then seems to fail to create a helper corresponding to the
first human (2:19–20). Instead, Genesis 1 presents God as always totally in
control of God’s creation, with each creation act completed as “good” and the
final whole—now including godlike male and female humans—being pro-
nounced “very good.”35
Interim Conclusion on Freestanding Literary Precursors

to Genesis 1
The preceding discussion has only touched on three major possible precur-
sors to Genesis 1. Likely there were many more, since sophisticated literary
texts like Genesis 1 were written in a scribal context by textual profession-
als who had memorized numerous texts as part of their training. Within
Israel, this fund of memorized traditions included texts from the major
Mesopotamian and/or Egyptian scribal systems.36 We see the persistence
of this kind of interplay of Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Canaanite tra-
ditions into the Hellenistic period in the cosmogonic sections of Philo of
Byblos.37 Genesis 1, apparently, similarly partakes of this complex mix of
34 This understanding of the background of ‫ האדם‬is an alternative interpretation of the data
grounding James Barr’s arguments for translating ‫ )ה(אדם‬in Gen 1:26–27 as referring to a single
individual in “One Man or All Humanity?” in Recycling Biblical Figures, ed. Athalya Brenner and Jan
Willem van Henten (Leiden: Deo Publishing, 1999), 3–21.
35 See Carr, Genesis 1–11, for some more discussion of theories of Gen 2:4b–3:24 as a post-Priestly
supplement to Gen 1:1–2:3.

36 Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, 56–61, 85–88.
37 Clifford, Creation Accounts, 141.
Near Eastern traditions, though not reflecting the sort of Greek motifs
that allow us to date Philo of Byblos’s formulation well into the Hellenistic
period.
Even just focusing on these three particularly probable diachronic pre-
cursors to Genesis 1 (Enuma Elish, Psalm 104, and Genesis 2–3), we can see
some of the complex ways in which such precursors stand as background
to a given biblical text. On the one hand, there is some evidence that Psalm
104, like Genesis 1, was also influenced by the Enuma Elish, standing as part
of a broader family of exilic biblical texts (including, e.g., Second Isaiah),
that interact in diverse ways with that powerfully influential Mesopotamian
text.38 As a result, in some instances, it is difficult to determine whether a
given motif in Genesis 1 connects to the Enuma Elish, Psalm 104, or both
texts. For the author, such distinctions were likely insignificant. Meanwhile,
it appears that many of the closest connections between Genesis 1 and
Genesis 2–3 occur in portions of Genesis 1 that have the fewest connec-
tions to the Enuma Elish epic (and Psalm 104) and vice versa. In this case,
we see generally complimentary influence on Genesis 1 of two families of
(probable) literary precursors. The following table is not comprehensive,
but illustrates ways that the Enuma Elish (sometimes in concert with Psalm
104) has its closest connections to the portions of Genesis 1 that focus on
God’s power, while Genesis 2–3 seems most connected with the focus in
Genesis 1 on male-female differentiated humanity and its relations to God
and animals (see the following chart).
Other nonbiblical cosmogonies, Connections to Genesis 2-3

Psalm 104
Content of prologue in Gen 1:2: sub- Form of prologue in Gen 1:1–2
merged earth under primeval ocean and 2:4b–5
(‫)תהום‬, wind and similar prelude to
creation in Ps 104:3–6 (wind, earth
under ‫)תהום‬
38 Matthias Albani, Der eine Gott und die himmlischen Heerscharen: Zur Begründung des
Monotheismus bei Deuterojesaja im Horizont der Astralisierung des Gottesverständnisses im alten

Orient, Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 1 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1960), 124–
252; and Hartenstein, “JHWH, Erschaffer des Himmels,” 400–404.

Psalm 104
Gen 1:3-4 initial creation of light/
day and Yhwh “clothed in glory and
majesty” and “wrapped in light like a
cloak” in Ps 104:1b–2a
Gen 1:6–8 creation of heavenly plate
to divide waters and Marduk’s use of
Tiamat’s carcass to divide waters (cf.
echo of this in Ps 104:2b ‫נטה שמים‬
‫)כיריעה‬
Gen 1:9–10 gathering of waters and
Marduk’s organization of Tiamat’s
body into world rivers, specific par-
allel to gathering waters in “one place”
in Ps 104:7–9 (especially 104:8)
Gen 1:11–12 plant/tree world and Gen 1:11–12; 2:8–9 plant/fruit
broader survey of watering, plants, tree world
wine, oil, bread, trees in Ps 104:10–18
Gen 1:14-19 creation of sun, moon,
stars for “signs” and for marking time
and Marduk’s creation and setting of
heavenly bodies for signs, etc. along with
creation of heavenly bodies in Ps 104:19-
23 (esp. moon to mark the appointed
times/‫ מועדים‬Gen 1:14; Ps 104:19)
Blind motif of Gen 1:21 brief men-
tion of sea monsters (‫ )תנינים‬and
dragon Tiamat in Enuma Elish and
Leviathan in Ps 104:26
Gen 1:20–21 creation of sea creatures
that swarm (‫)נפש החיה הרמשת‬
and Ps 104:25 sea with its countless
“swarm” (‫ )רמש‬of wild animals (‫חיתו‬
‫יער‬/‫שדי‬/‫ ארץ‬Gen 1:24; Ps 104:11, 20)

Psalm 104
Gen 1:24–25 and 2:19–20 cre-
ation of domesticated and wild
animals, birds
Consultation with council in Gen 1:26 and 3:22 speeches to divine

Gen 1:26 about creating humans council about godlikeness
and Marduk’s consultation with
Ea in Enuma Elish (and other
Mesopotamian consultations with
the divine council)
Male and female creation in Gen
1:27 and Gen 2:21–24
Reproduction in Gen 1:28; 3:16, 20
Human relation to rule over/ani-
mosity from animals in Gen 1:26, 28
and Gen 2:19–20; 3:15
Gen 1:29–30 focus on nourishment Divine speeches instructing about

of animals and humans and praise of human (and animal) food Gen
God’s feeding of all earth’s creatures 1:29(-30; 9:2-6); 2:16–17; 3:17–19
in Ps 104:14, 27-2
God’s ceasing from work on seventh
day in 2:2 and motif of Ea resting
after victory over Apsu and lower
gods resting after creation of humans
‍ rough this chart we can see how the interaction with Genesis 2–3 in
Th
Genesis 1 yields a more differentiated picture of male-female humanity and
the relations of men and women to their surroundings than the Enuma Elish,
where humans are just servants of a Marduk-centered temple complex, or
Psalm 104, where the creation of humans (and land animals) is not treated.
At the same time, Genesis 1 offers an important alternative perspective
on major themes found in Genesis 2–3. God creates by word, not by hand
(1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14–15, etc.; cf. 2:7, 19, 21). God is completely in charge, acting
in no way that could even be conceived as a possible misstep (cf. 2:18–20).

The things that God creates are repeatedly “good” (1:4, 10, 12, 18, etc.; cf.
2:18, 20b), and the whole at the end is “very good” (1:31; cf. 3:22–24). God
intends humans from the very outset to be godlike, at least like the divine
beings of God’s council (1:26; cf. 3:22). Humans are destined for permanent
rule over animals (1:26, 28; cf. 3:15), and human reproduction in Genesis
1 is part of God’s sovereign blessing on humanity (1:28), not in any way as-
sociated with punishment (cf. 3:16). In these ways and others, Genesis 1—
considered in diachronic comparison with its probable precursor in Genesis
2–3—emerges as a dialogical text, developing a perspective on godlike sov-
ereign male and female humans that responds both to the picture of servant
humanity in the Enuma Elish and humanity fumbling toward adulthood in
Genesis 2–3.
The Question of Stratification within Gen 1:1–2:3 Itself
One final place to ask diachronic questions is exploration of the possibility

that we might reconstruct within Gen 1:1–2:3 itself embedded precursor
texts, whether in the form of sources or earlier oral or written traditions dis-
tinguished from later reshaping and/or redaction. As noted at the outset,
from the late 1700s onward, scholars have thought it possible to identify later
additions to the chapter. The above synchronic and (intertextual) diachronic
analysis, however, raises significant questions about these theories.
The most plausible theory proposed so far is the earliest one. Already in
the late 1700s, several scholars (Ziegler, Gabler, and Ilgen) argued that the
theme of the Sabbath in 2:2–3 had been added secondarily to the creation
narrative that preceded it.39 There were two main grounds for this theory: (1)
their intuition that the style of the seventh-day narration diverged from that
of the preceding chapter; and (2) their belief that the eight creation acts dis-
tributed over six days in Gen 1:3–31 is a secondary adaptation of an earlier
account to the present seven-day structure. This theory has gained many
39 Werner Carl Ludewig Ziegler, “Kritik über den Artikel von der Schöpfung nach unserer gewöhn-
lichlichen Dogmatik,” Magazin für Religionsphilosphie, Exegese und Kirchengeschichte 2 (1794): 28,
33, 39–44, 48, 76–77; Johann Philipp Gabler, Neuer Versuch über die mosaische Schöpfungsgeschichte
aus der höheren Kritik: Ein Nachtrag zum ersten Theil seiner Ausgabe der Eichhorn’schen Urgeschichte
(Altdorfand Nürnberg: Bey Monath und Kussler, 1795), 83–94, 105–20; Karl David Ilgen, Die
Urkunden des Jerusalemischen Tempelarchivs in ihrer Urgestalt..: Theil I: Die Urkunden des ersten
Buchs von Moses (Halle: Hemmerde und Schwetschke, 1798), 433–35 (also 10–12, 349–50).
adherents in subsequent years and a few new arguments. For example, in

1877 Wellhausen found it problematic that day and night were said to al-
ternate from day one, even though the sun and other heavenly bodies that
would enable such alternation are not created until day four.40 Furthermore,
Westermann noted that the closest parallels between Genesis 1 and its prob-
able Enuma Elish precursor begin after the problematic creation of light
on day one, with the creation of a heavenly plate in Gen 1:6–8 that parallels
Marduk’s splitting of upper and lower oceans with Tiamat’s carcass (IV:137–
38). This led Westermann to follow an earlier 1939 study by May, which pos-
ited a secondary Sabbath layer in Gen 1:1–2:3 that included the first day in
1:3–5, the broader day structure it enables (Gen 1:5b, 8b, 13, 19, 23, 31b), and
God’s rest on the seventh day in 2:2–3.41
Some additional text-internal features provide support for this idea of a
secondary addition of Sabbath themes to Genesis 1, both through the ad-
dition of Gen 2:2–3 and elements that prepare for it in Gen 1:1–31. In par-
ticular, the awkward transition from the conclusion of God’s creation of
“heaven, earth and their army” in 2:1 to God’s conclusion of God’s work
in 2:2a could point to a secondary combination of the seventh-day rest
theme with the preceding creation. The likelihood of a secondary addi-
tion of a seven-day structure to an earlier Genesis 1*42 creation account is
increased by the fact that the Sabbath seems to have become an increas-
ingly prominent theme during the Babylonian exile, as is seen, for example,
in the central focus on Sabbath in exilic/postexilic books like Ezekiel and
Ezra-Nehemiah. Moreover, such an increased exilic/postexilic interest in
the Sabbath appears to have led to the augmentation of the Exodus taber-
nacle narrative with a speech about the Sabbath likely added toward the
end of God’s tabernacle instructions (Exod 31:12–17).43 Indeed, many such
Sabbath-oriented texts are now seen by many scholars as part of a broader
Holiness School stratum in the Pentateuch, with some now arguing that the
40 Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments (4th. ed.; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963 [orig. 1876]), 187.

41 Claus Westermann, Die Schöpfungsbericht vom Anfang der Bibel (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag,
1960), 17, 20, following Herbert G. May, “The Creation of Light in Genesis 1:3–5,” JBL 58 (1939): 206.
42 Here and elsewhere I follow the convention of using an asterisk (*) to indicate that the citation
encompasses much or most of the indicated text, but not all of it. In this instance, for example, I am
referring to Gen 1 without elements like Gen 1:3–5 and the day numberings that are specific to the
Sabbath-oriented day structure.
43 For discussion of the links of this text with the Holiness School and citation of literature see
Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of
Leviticus, FAT 2/25 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 567–68.
report of God’s Sabbath rest in Gen 2:2–3 shows thematic and terminolog-
ical links to that stratum.44
At the same time, there are some potential problems with the theory of a
Sabbath-oriented revision in Gen 1:1–2:3. To start, any such Sabbath-focused
revision likely would have encompassed multiple elements of Gen 1:1–2:3
that are not otherwise marked as secondary additions to their context, such
as the mention of darkness on the face of the deep (Gen 1:2aβ) just prior to
the making of light in Gen 1:3–5.45 In addition, if Genesis 1 is as related to the
Enuma Elish epic as is argued earlier, then one must engage proposals by past
scholars that the Enuma Elish provides parallels to the creation of light/day-
night in Gen 1:3–5 and God’s rest in Gen 2:2–3; both elements would have
been part of any Sabbath-focused revision.
There are ways to answer these and other questions about the theory of
a Sabbath-focused compositional layer in Gen 1:1–2:3.46 Nevertheless, it
must be recognized that this hypothesis will always be undermined by the
fact that we lack the data to definitively establish such a hypothesis. After
all, we have no manuscript attestation of a pre-Sabbath stage to Gen 1:1–
2:3 and thus are limited to working with a present text that likely does not
perfectly preserve a pre-Sabbath stage. Moreover, as in other cases of re-
dactional/compositional revision, we cannot count on such a revision being
marked by consistently identifiable seams. In any case, this hypothesis of a
Sabbath-oriented revisionary layer in Gen 1:1–2:3 stands on firmer ground
than attempts to distinguish act-and word-oriented sources (e.g., Stade,
Schwally) or redactional layers (Levin, Hutzli). The basis for such pro-
posals was already undermined by the exegetical studies of Humbert and
Steck, and their use of a redactional model eliminates much of the basis that
44 Yairah Amit, “Creation and the Calendar of Holiness [Hebrew],” in Tehillah-le-Moshe
(FS Greenburg), ed. Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay (Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 25–26; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, AB 3A (New York: Doubleday,
2000), 1344; Alan Cooper and Bernard R. Goldstein, “The Development of the Priestly Calendars
(I): The Daily Sacrifice and the Sabbath,” HUCA 74 (2003): 13–14.
45 Note also the nuanced discussion in Odil Hannes Steck, Der Schӧpfungsbericht der
Priesterschrift: Studien zur literarkritischen und überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Problematik von Genesis

1, 1–2, 4a, FRLANT 115 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 106–15 of how the design of
the report of the making of the heavenly lights in Gen 1:14–18 now coordinates with the (potentially
secondary report of) the making of light in Gen 1:3–5. There are some signs that this unusually ex-
tended report in Gen 1:14–18 has undergone one or more stages of expansion, but it is extremely
difficult to identify the exact shape of such expansions in a methodologically controlled way.
46 For more extensive arguments and treatment of such counterarguments to the hypothesis
of a Sabbath-oriented revision in Genesis 1, see Carr, “Standing at the Edge of Reconstructable

Transmission History.”
originally stood behind Stade and Schwally’s proposal of parallel act-and

word-oriented source layers.47
Conclusion
Having briefly noted the possibility of a Sabbath-oriented (Holiness School?)

redaction within Gen 1:1–2:3, I end where I began: with a primary emphasis
on the relations of Gen 1:1–2:3 to likely precursor texts, Enuma Elish outside
the Bible and Psalm 104 and Genesis 2–3 within it. To be sure, one faces in-
evitable methodological uncertainty in identifying such precursor texts as
well. Insofar as Gen 1:1–2:3 creatively appropriates and contrasts with such
precursors, it lacks definitive marks of intertextual reference (e.g., citation
or quotation). At the same time, Gen 1:1–2:3 features more extended and
specific parallels to both the Enuma Elish and Psalm 104 than Gen 2:4b–
3:24 shows regarding potential nonbiblical and biblical intertexts. I turn
now to look at the more complex picture of potential precursors behind Gen
2:4b–3:24.
47 Paul Humbert, “Die literarische Zweiheit der Priesterkodex in der Genesis,” ZAW 58 (1941): 30–
57; Steck, Schӧpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift, esp. 16–18, 25, 40–51.

2
Precursors to the Eden Narrative
(Gen 2:4b–3:24)
Genesis 2:4b–3:24 (hereafter this story is often referred to as “Genesis 2–3”)

is a text full of puzzles—puzzles that have led to a myriad of proposals re-
garding its formation over time. These proposals have ranged from a widely
varying series of attempts to identify remnants of parallel pre-J sources in the
late 1800s and early 1900s to a more recent trend, which includes a 1993 ar-
ticle by the present author, that sees Genesis 2–3 as formed through a process
involving one or (often) more compositional expansions of the initial story.1
The puzzles of Genesis 2–3 are of various sorts. To start, there are indica-
tors of the kind that often preoccupy literary critics, such as the doubled re-
port of the placement of the human in the garden in 2:8b, 15 and the doubled
report of God’s sending/expulsion of the human from the garden in 3:23–
and 3:24.2 But many other questions have also played roles in literary-critical
analyses of the chapters. Such questions include:
(1) Why is the tree of life is only mentioned at the beginning (2:9) and end
(3:22, 24) of the story?
1 David M. Carr, “The Politics of Textual Subversion: A Diachronic Perspective on the Garden of
Eden Story,” JBL 112 (1993): 577–95, which posited two basic layers of expansion of an early creation
story, one involving the addition of the Genesis 3 crime and punishment story along with related
materials in Genesis 2 (e.g., Gen 2:16–17, 25) and another involving the more limited addition of
materials relating to the “tree of life” (e.g., Gen 2:9b; 3:22, 24). That article cites a number of prior
literary-critical studies of Genesis 2–3 (583–84, nn. 20 and 21). More recent treatments have tended
to attribute larger swaths of Genesis 2–3 to post-Priestly layers of redaction, e.g., Reinhard Kratz
and Hermann Spieckermann, “Schöpfer/Schöpfung II,” TRE 30 (1999): 272–74; Eckhart Otto, “Die
Paradieserzählung Genesis 2–3: Eine nachpriesterschriftliche Lehrerzählung in ihrem religions-
historisichen Kontext,” in “Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit”: Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen
Weisheit (FS D. Michel), ed. Anja A. Diesel et al., BZAW 241 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996), 167–92;
Christoph Uehlinger, “Genesis 1–11,” in Introduction à l’Ancien Testament, ed. Thomas Römer, Jean-
Daniel Macchi, and Christophe Nihan, Monde de la Bible (Genève: Labor et Fides, 2009), 205, among
others.
2 This paragraph summarizes observations from a huge range of literary-critical studies of Gen
2:4b–3:24 over the last century and a half. For representative studies, see the previous note.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190062545.003.0001
Precursors to the Eden Narrative 31
(2) Why does the woman only mention one forbidden tree “in the midst
of the garden” (3:3), when two trees are prominently mentioned there
earlier in the narrative (2:9b)?
(3) Why does God place the human in the garden (2:8b, 15) when the sto-
ry’s outset (2:5b) and end (3:23) seem oriented toward provision of a
human to work the broader earth?
(4) Why does the story diverge to speak of a subterranean stream in 2:6
and rivers in 2:10–14 when the initial setting specifies a lack of rain
(2:5) (and indeed the coming of rain is never reported in the Eden
story)?
(5) Why is the creation of animals and the woman as a “helper corre-
sponding to” the first human given such a prominent role (2:18–24) in
a story of a lost chance at immortality that in its Mesopotamian ana-
logues (Gilgamesh, Adapa epics) is lacking such figures?
(6) What is the nature of the “knowledge of good and evil” granted by the
forbidden tree and why is “knowledge” connected in the story with a
“tree” (2:9, 17; 3:5–7, 22)?
(7) Why does a snake suddenly appear as an actor in the creation story
(3:1) and play such a prominent role in human disobedience?
(8) Why is the snake’s pronouncement about the consequences of eating
forbidden fruit (3:5; cf. 3:7) seem—on some level—to be more correct
(initially) than God’s pronouncement that humans will “certainly die”
if they eat of the fruit?
(9) Why is this apparently correct statement by the snake characterized as
deception by the woman (3:13b) and not challenged by God (3:14a)?
(10) Why does the clothing of the humans appear twice in the narrative
(3:7, 21)?
(11) Why are God’s pronouncements of punishment in 3:14–19—as a re-
sponse to eating forbidden fruit—combined with expulsion from the
garden (3:22–24), a seeming double-punishment for one act?
(12) Why is the latter consequence (expulsion) introduced by God’s seem-
ingly sudden recognition (3:22, ‫ )הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו‬that a
problem of godlikeness has been caused by the human gaining of god-
like knowledge of good and evil?
(13) Why does the woman disappear from view in the closing verses of the
story (3:22–24)?
This chapter constitutes a diachronically informed synchronic reading of

Genesis 2–3 that offers solutions to these and other often-noted puzzles in
the text. In the course of developing this reading, I will suggest that Genesis
2–3 offers an excellent example of a traditio-historically complex text whose
complexity includes surface elements that can mislead literary critics into
reconstructing literary prestages that likely did not exist.
Before commenting on features of Genesis 2–3, I will briefly review the an-
cient Near Eastern literary world, with particular attention to elements of the
Adapa and Gilgamesh epics, in which many of those features took shape and
make sense. This initial focus on literary precursors constitutes one part of a
“diachronic” exploration of the prehistory of Genesis 2–3, that is, its depth
dimension. That discussion prepares for a synchronic reading of Genesis 2–3
that interprets key features and puzzles in the present form of the text in re-
lation to those (probable) literary precursors. Following that diachronically
informed synchronic reading of Genesis 2–3, I will return to questions of the
formation of the Eden story and whether it is possible to reconstruct precur-
sors to the text in the form of literary strata embedded in its present form.
In the material that follows, diachronic questions about the prehistory of
Genesis 2–3 thus enclose a synchronic reading of those chapters.
The Literary World before and behind Genesis 2–3
Genesis 2–3 is particularly distinguished by its potential links to specifically

Mesopotamian traditions. To be sure, scholars have noted some possible
links to Egyptian traditions as well. We have some Egyptian depictions of
the god Khnum forming humans on a potter’s wheel, which are reminiscent
of the picture in Gen 2:7 of YHWH “forming” the first human.3 Similarly,
YHWH’s breathing life into that human’s nostrils recalls Egyptian depic-
tions of gods holding life to the noses of humans.4 Moreover, it is in Egypt,
not Mesopotamia, that we find actual mention of a “tree of life,” and the
Egyptian literature of the dead refers to the power of a grave goddess to give
eternal life.5
3 See already Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 106; and the contrast with Mesopotamian traditions on
this point in J. Alberto Soggin, Das Buch Genesis: Kommentar (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Gesellschaft, 1997), 60–61.
4 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 106.
5 Michaela Bauks, “Sacred Trees in the Garden of Eden and Their Ancient Near Eastern Precursors,”
JAJ 3 (2012): 282–89; and Jutta Krispenz, “Wie viele Bäume braucht das Paradies? Erwägungen zu
Nevertheless, Genesis 2–3 has even stronger evident connections to

Mesopotamian cosmogonic traditions. Numerous distinctive aspects of the
story in Genesis 2–3 seem to point to Mesopotamian antecedents: the refer-
ence to the underground ‫“( אֵ ד‬water flow, underground stream”) watering
the surface of the ground in Gen 2:6,6 the specifically Babylonian elements of
the garden evoked in Gen 2:8–9,7 the four rivers tradition in Gen 2:10–14,8
the idea of creation out of a “rib” and the use of both the word ‫ צלע‬to refer to
that rib and the root ‫ בנה‬to refer to that creation in Gen 2:22,9 etc. More gen-
erally, a longstanding Sumero-Akkadian tradition, encompassing both rela-
tively early and later texts, depicts the creation of humanity on the command
of a high god in order to provide labor and thus relieve the burden put on
lower gods who have become rebellious about doing the hard work of canal
maintenance and farming. Often created from a combination of clay and
the blood of one of the rebel gods (e.g., in Atrahasis and the Assur bilingual
creation account), the primeval humans of these Mesopotamian cosmogo-
nies are destined, from the outset, for the backbreaking canal-maintenance
and farming work that so irked the lower gods previously. In Atrahasis, the
Gen ii 4b-iii 24,” VT 54 (2004): 311–12 (who also notes variation in these texts between reference to
one or two trees, 312–13).
6 See Magne Sæbø, “Die hebräischen Nomina ʾed und ʾēd—Zwei sumerisch-akkadische
Fremdwörter?” Studia Theologica 24 (1970): 130–41; and Paul V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loan Words
in Biblical Hebrew, Harvard Semitic Studies (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 25–27 for per-
suasive arguments for an etymology of Hebrew ‫ אד‬from Sumerian id = underground river (also bor-
rowed into Akkadian), which then would serve as preparation for the later description of Eden as the
source of a world-watering river (Gen 2:10–14). Others have advocated another Mesopotamian loan-
word behind ‫אד‬, Akkadian edû = flood, but this does not accord as well with the context of Genesis 2.
7 For a useful summary synthesis, see Manfried Dietrich, “Das biblische Paradies und der baby
lonische Tempelgarten. Überlegungen zur Lage des Gartens Eden,” in Das biblische Weltbild und
seine altorientalischen Kontexte, ed. Bernd Janowski and Beate Ego, FAT 32 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2001), 281–323; Manfred Dietrich, “Der ‘Garten Eden’ und die babylonischen Parkanlagen im
Tempelbezirk. Vom Ursprung des Menschen im Gottesgarten, seiner Verbannung daraus und seiner
Sehnsucht nach Rückkehr dorthin,” in Religiöse Landschaften, ed. Johannes Hahn (Münster: Ugarit
Verlag, 2002), 1–29.
8 For images of the four rivers see Othmar Keel, Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das
Alte Testament: am Beispiel der Psalmen, 4th ed. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984),
102–4, 122–26; (ET The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the
Book of Psalms, ed. Timothy J. Hallett [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997], 116–17, 138–44),
especially images 153, 153a, 185, and 191, with some discussion in Meik Gerhards, Conditio hu-
mana: Studien zum Gilgameschepos und zu Texten der biblischen Urgeschichte am Beispiel von Gen
2–3 und 11,1–9, WMANT 137 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2013), 201.
9 See Howard Wallace, The Eden Narrative, HSM 32 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 69; Walter
Bührer, Am Anfang..: Untersuchungen zur Textgenese und zur relative-chronologischen Einordnung

von Gen 1–3, FRLANT 256 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 228–29; and Jan Christian
Gertz, Das erste Buch Moses (Genesis): Die Urgeschichte Gen 1–11, ATD (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2018), 124–25 for the use of ‫ בנה‬as a verb of creation (echoing the use of banû[m]‌ in
Akkadian for the same) and a wordplay on “rib” in the Dilmun myth of Enki and Ninhursag as well as
in Akkadian love poetry.
laborer humans soon start multiplying and disturbing the gods with their
noise, which leads to several divine attempts to terminate (through the flood)
or limit (through barrenness, etc.) the human population, and this theme of
human reproduction occurs in some other Mesopotamian cosmogonies as
well.10 Overall, it is striking how different texts within the Mesopotamian
stream of tradition (to use Leo Oppenheim’s term) loosely draw on and re-
verse themes found in other written texts in the same tradition.11
One especially clear example of this phenomenon is the Enuma Elish epic,
whose status as an eclectic compilation of older Mesopotamian traditions has
been well established by a number of prior studies.12 The Enuma Elish draws
freely on traditions about Ninurta’s triumph over the dragon Anzu in the
Ninurta epic, detailing two successive battles for supremacy among the gods,
first that of Ea’s triumph over Apsu and then Marduk’s defeat of Tiamat and
her retinue. Then, in tablet VI, the Enuma Elish describes Marduk’s creation
of humanity in order to give the gods rest, drawing on prior Mesopotamian
traditions about the creation of humanity (e.g., the Atrahasis epic). What
I wish to highlight here is the following: these dependencies of the Enuma
Elish on Ninurta traditions on the one hand and cosmogonic traditions
on the other are dependencies on texts that were, in large part, written yet
the Enuma Elish draws creatively on these (often) written traditions, rarely
echoing their exact wording and dramatically redeploying themes, motifs,
and other elements to serve the unique compositional aims of the Enuma
Elish as an etiology of the dominance of Marduk and, more specifically, his
Esagila temple in Babylon. This sort of free adaptation will be seen in the in-
teraction of Genesis 2–3 with precursor traditions known from Mesopotamia
as well (likely in adapted, Levantine forms). It is a characteristic, I believe, of
ancient intertextual dependence within an oral-written environment where
such written texts were largely used and adapted in memorized form.
One theme that is developed emphatically across a broad range of noncos-
mogonic Mesopotamian texts is that of mortality as an unavoidable boundary
that distinguishes deities and humans. Though the flood hero Ziusudra gains
10 For more on Mesopotamian depictions of humans as laborers for the gods see the foundational,
if somewhat dated, Giovanni Pettinato, Das altorientalische Menschenbild und die sumerischen und
akkadischen Schöpfungsmythen, Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften-
Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 1 (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1971), 16–29.
11 For the “stream of tradition” idea see Leo Oppenheim’s discussion toward the outset of his
Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977),
13–22.
12 See note 6 in the previous chapter (1) for citation of studies synthesizing research on the precur-
sors of the Enuma Elish Epic.

immortality in the Eridu Genesis, a broad selection of Mesopotamian tradi-

tions assert that (postflood) humanity must cope with mortality as an irre-
versible aspect of the human condition. We see this theme, for example, in
the Sumerian Death of Gilgamesh text (ETCSL 1.8.1.3), in various Akkadian
iterations of the Gilgamesh tradition, and in the Babylonian Counsels on
Pessimism (4–10). The motif of the inevitability of human mortality appears
across multiple cuneiform wisdom texts found at Ugarit and Emar (e.g.,
Enlil and Namzitarra) and is also attested in Levantine alphabetic literary
texts such as the Ugaritic Aqhat epic (KTU 1.17 VI:26–38) and the medita-
tion on death and mortality in lines 5–16 of combination B of the Deir ‘Alla
inscriptions.13
A few Mesopotamian texts (often mentioned in connection with Genesis
2–3) feature narratives where semidivine and/or supremely wise human
protagonists lose a chance at immortality—indeed, more specifically, they
lose a chance to consume a food (or drink) that grants immortality. In the
Gilgamesh epic, the semidivine hero, Gilgamesh, obtains a plant that will
grant eternal youth. He starts to bring it back to his home city (for the old
men there), but a snake eats the plant while he is bathing, and it is lost.14
The association of snakes with immortality is also found in the Adapa Myth,
where Adapa loses a chance at immortality when he refuses to eat the food
and drink of immortality offered to him by Ningishzida, a god closely as-
sociated with snakes, in the context of his meeting with the high god, Anu
(Adapa (Frag. C) 76–83).15 There is particular interest in the Gilgamesh and
Adapa epics on mortality as the crucial feature distinguishing these godlike
human heroes from the gods.16
13 For the wisdom texts at Ugarit and Emar, see Yoram Cohen and Andrew R. George, eds., Wisdom
from the Late Bronze Age, Writings from the Ancient World 29 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013), 81–163.
See Erhard Blum, “‘Verstehst du dich nicht auf die Schreibkunst...?’: Ein weisheitlicher Dialog über
Vergänglichkeit und Verantwortung - Kombination II der Wandinschrift vom Tell Deir ʿAlla,” in Was
ist der Mensch, dass du seiner gedenkst? (Psalm 8,5): Aspekte einer theologischen Anthropologie (FS
Janowski), ed. Michaela Bauks, Kathrin Liess, and Peter Riede (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 2008), 33–53 for discussion of themes of mortality in the Deir ‘Alla text.
14 Standard Babylonian Edition of Gilgamesh (SB Gilg.), 11:281–309.
15 K. Joines, “The Serpent in Genesis 3,” ZAW 87 (1975): 3. For discussion of questions surrounding
whether Adapa can be seen as a Mesopotamian counterpart to “Adam” see Hans-Peter Müller, “Drei
Deutungen des Todes: Genesis 3, der Mythos von Adapa und die Sage von Gilgamesch,” JBTh 6
(1991): 122–23. Adapa does not know that the food and drink offered by Ningishzida are the food
and drink of immortality. See the following for discussion of the contrast between Adapa’s obedience
to Ea in his refusal and the circumstance of the humans’ eating in Genesis 2–3.
16 Tryggve Mettinger, The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 2–3
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 99–114, discusses this same pair of Near Eastern precursors,
noting an earlier genealogy for such study starting with Johannes Pedersen, “The Fall of Man,” NTT
56 (1955): 162–72. A similar discussion is found in Müller, “Drei Deutungen.”
Finally, scholars have long noted an important precursor to Genesis 2–3 in

the scenes at the outset of the Gilgamesh epic that describe the two-stage cre-
ation of a companion for Gilgamesh, Enkidu. In the first scene, the goddess
Aruru fashions Enkidu out of clay, following much the same procedure seen
in the creation of humanity in a number of Mesopotamian cosmogonies. But
this initial Enkidu is a (childlike) proto-human, running naked, eating grass,
and drinking water alongside the animals (SB Gilg. 1:101–112), much like
the precivilized primeval humans described at the outset of creation in some
Sumerian cosmogonic texts.17 It is only when Gilgamesh hears of Enkidu and
sends a prostitute, Šamḫat, to have sex with him that Enkidu takes the next steps
toward full (adult) human status. After six days and nights of sex, Enkidu finds
that the animals shun him. Šamḫat dresses him, and he eats food, drinks beer,
and joins civilization (OB Gilg. [Penn] 2.2.44–115 ; cf. SB Gilg. 1:207). Then,
in the latter part of the epic, Enkidu perishes. Gilgamesh mourns his friend
who now has turned into the clay from which he was made (SB Gilg. 8)and
begins his final struggle with his own inevitable immortality (SB Gilg. 9–11).
In this way, the Gilgamesh epic combines two broad theme-complexes in the
Mesopotamian literary world: anthropogonic themes, involving the crea-
tion of humans from clay and human growth toward civilization; and other
themes surrounding the inevitability of human mortality.
Though Genesis 2–3 does not represent a reformulation of any one of
these texts, it features a similar combination of anthropogonic and mortality
themes as that seen in the Gilgamesh epic. Moreover, the Mesopotamian cos-
mogonic tradition drawn upon in Gilgamesh seems to be part of a broader
literary world in light of which certain features of Genesis 2–3 have a partic-
ular significance, including the formation of the first human from clay/earth,
his destiny to work the ground, the focus on divine wisdom and a lost chance
I should note here, however, that the juxtaposition of wisdom and immortality may be an el-
ement specific to the first-millennium, Neo-Assyrian version of Adapa. Significant questions
have been raised by Sara Milstein, “The Origins of Adapa,” ZA 105 [2015]: 30–41; and Milstein,
Tracking the Master Scribe: Revision through Introduction in Biblical and Mesopotamian Literature
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 83–96), about the extent to which second-millennium
iterations of the Adapa myth already juxtapose themes of wisdom and a human loss of a chance at im-
mortality. Though these questions facilitate a closer reading of the El Amarna iteration of the Adapa
myth, there are data outside those materials for an early association of Adapa with wisdom, including
his status as a devoteé of Ea, god of wisdom (for broader discussion, see Benjamin Foster, “Wisdom
and the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Or 43 [1974]: 344–54, esp. 344–49). This is not the place to
pursue a more substantial assessment of Milstein’s alternative reading of the earlier version of Adapa.
17 Such animal-like proto-humans are best illustrated in two Sumerian compositions, the Rulers
of Lagash (ETCSL 2.1.2) and the Debate Between Sheep and Grain (ETCSL 5.3.2). See also the
Sumerian Flood story (aka Eridu Genesis; ETCSL 1.7.4) for a briefer example of this theme of giving
(urban) civilization to initially uncivilized humans.
at immortality for humans, the human distinction from animals by virtue of

wearing clothing, and human multiplication.
A Diachronically Informed Synchronic Reading

of Genesis 2–3
With that background, I turn now to a tour of Genesis 2–3 with an eye
to how its various elements reflect an appropriation of aspects of these
Mesopotamian traditions in the development of its own unique exploration
of YHWH’s gradual creation of humans as autonomous creatures, similar to
and yet separate from their creator.
After an initial temporal label, preserved in Gen 2:4b, the story opens, like
several Mesopotamian primeval traditions, with a statement of how things
were before creation. As in the Enuma Elish, this statement identifies not
only a lack of scrub and vegetation on the still uncultivated earth but also the
presence of a sweetwater stream (the primeval Apsû in the Enuma Elish).18
Implicitly paired statements in Gen 2:5 suggest that there are no wild shrubs
(‫ )שיח השדה‬because God had not yet caused rain on “the earth” (‫)הארץ‬,
while the green vegetation of the field has not yet sprung up because there
is no human to work “the arable ground” (‫)האדמה‬. Nevertheless, a stream
arises and waters the whole surface of the arable ground (Gen 2:6).
In this context, God then starts to address the other lack identified in Gen
2:5 by forming a “human” from the dust of the ground (2:7), planting a garden
“in Eden,” and placing this human (presumed to be male without other iden-
tification) in that garden (2:8).19 The well-known wordplay between ‫האדם‬
18 For more on similarities to the Enuma Elish here, see Wallace, Eden Narrative, 66–67.
19 Paralleling more ancient interpretations of the first human as androgynous, Phyllis Trible, God
and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1979), 80–81, 98–99, argued that Genesis
2–3 is best read as depicting the first human as nonsexed before it is split into male and female and
the words “man” and “woman” are used (together, first by the man) in Gen 2:22–23. This reading
has been persuasively critiqued by Susan Lanser, “Feminist Criticism in the Garden: Inferring
Genesis 2–3,” Semeia 41 (1988): 71–74; and David Clines, “What Does Eve Do to Help? and Other
Irredeemably Androcentric Orientations in Genesis 1–3,” in What Does Eve Do to Help? and Other
Readerly Questions in the Old Testament, ed. David Clines (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990),
40–41, among others. See in particular Julie Galambush, “ʾĀDĀM FROM ʾǍDĀMÂ, ʾŠŠÂ FROM
ʾÎŠ: Derivation and Subordination in Genesis 2.4b–3.24,” in History and Interpretation (John Hayes
FS), ed. M. Patrick Graham, William P. Brown, and Jeffrey K. Kuan (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993),
36 on the terminology used across Genesis 2–3 for each figure, and the study of differences across
Genesis 2–3 in its depiction of male and female speech relationships in Cynthia Chapman, “The
Breath of Life: Speech, Gender and Authority in the Garden of Eden,” JBL 138 (2019): 241–62 (this
study appeared too late to be fully incorporated into the following discussion).
(“the human”) and the ground from which he is made, ‫האדמה‬, links with
the initial focus of the narrative on the lack of a human to work the ground.
Meanwhile, we also see the word “dust” (‫ )עפר‬added as well, and its particular
significance is not initially clear. It does not occur again until the pronounce-
ment of punishment on the snake (3:14) and God’s affirmations of human
mortality in 3:19. At the same time, this pairing of “ground” and “dust” in the
making of the first human is one of the first indicators in the story of its twin
interests, both telling the story of human maturation to adult, civilized life
working the ground and affirming human mortality (as a boundary between
humans and god[s]‌). These two elements are likewise paired in 2:9, where
God makes trees sprout up in the garden, including two special trees in the
midst of the garden—the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. The tree of
knowledge is closely linked with the theme of human maturation, while the
tree of life is linked with the theme of human mortality.
Here we begin to see the traditio-historical mix standing behind the com-
plex story of Genesis 2–3. Diachronic precursors to the theme of human matu-
ration can be found in the Mesopotamian cosmogonies that tell of the making
of humans as part of a broader account of city-temple civilization (e.g., Rulers
of Lagash and the Debate Between Sheep and Grain), along with the mini-
anthropogony in the two-stage creation of Enkidu as a wise, clothed, and civi
lized human in Gilgamesh. Diachronic precursors to the latter theme of the
affirmation of human mortality include the previously discussed stories of lost
chances at immortality in the accounts of Gilgamesh and the snake and of
Adapa, as well as more broad affirmations in cuneiform wisdom traditions of
mortality as an unavoidable aspect of the human condition.
The text then moves to a puzzling link of contemporary world rivers to the
Eden garden (Gen 2:10–14) before resuming the narrative thread with the
placement of the human in the garden “to work and guard it” (2:15). Influenced
by the later divine pronouncement of endless labor outside the garden as
punishment (3:17–19), many interpreters have found it problematic that the
human would already be described as working in the garden before doing
anything wrong. But there is nothing in the narrative so far that would pose
any problem to the idea of the human’s working and guarding God’s garden.20
On the contrary, especially since this garden could be seen as a sacred pre-
cinct analogous with the temple and royal gardens of the ancient world, God’s
20 See Terje Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical
Hebrew Literature (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 222–23 on Gen 2:15 as describing the particular way that
the human works.
placement of the human in the garden as worker and guard should be read as a
privilege given to the human.21 That the work envisioned here is not especially
hard is suggested by the immediately following divine permission to eat of the
trees of the garden (2:16), which we have heard earlier are “pleasant in appear-
ance and good to eat” (2:9a) and which YHWH caused to grow in the garden
(2:9) prior to his placement of the human there (2:15). And it does not appear
to be too much of a stretch for a reader to suppose that this privileged working
and guarding God’s garden (2:15) represents the particular way that the first
human works the ground (2:5) from which he was made (2:7). The reader will
not encounter a more exact fulfillment of the lack of a “human to work the
ground,” as found in the introduction to the story in 2:5b, until the very end.
The twin themes of human maturation and mortality—each associated
previously with one or the other of the garden’s two special trees—continue
to be intertwined, but this time with reference to only one of the trees, as
we proceed further in the story to God’s prohibition, “You shall not eat of
the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely
die.” This is an absolute prohibition, combined with a threat of death, though
many have pointed out that the threat of death does not take the form of
specific death penalty law.22 Instead, God’s statement of the consequences
for eating the forbidden fruit of knowledge resembles pronouncements else-
where in the Bible, often made by human characters, that a given person will
soon die of unspecified causes.23 The link of God’s pronouncement here to
human mortality will not become clear until Gen 3:22.
Themes of human maturation and mortality are likewise intertwined in
the next major section on the creation of animals and the woman as a “helper
corresponding to” the first human. The description of the making of the
woman fits the theme of the unfolding of mature human life and civilization
most obviously, especially when it is compared with the prominent role of a
woman, the prostitute Šamḫat, in helping Enkidu mature from a childlike and
animal-like lack of bodily shame to clothed and wise adulthood. The human
in the Eden story is first clearly distinguished from and put over the animals
by his naming of them as well as his recognition that none “correspond” to
21 Gerhards, Conditio humana, 205–7. Note also material presented orally by Bruce Wells, “Adam
as Temple Oblate: The Yahwist’s Garden and the Eanna and Ebabbar Temples,” November 20, 2017,
SBL Annual Meeting, Assyriology and the Bible Section, being prepared for publication.
22 For helpful discussion of the formulation, see Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 226, esp. n. 59.
23 J. Alberto Soggin, “Philological-Linguistic Notes on the Second Chapter of Genesis,” in Old
Testament and Oriental Studies, ed. J. Alberto Soggin (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975), 172–74;
Ziony Zevit, What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
2013), 124, 295–6, n. 5.
him (2:19–20). The introduction of the woman made out of his substance
(2:21–22) becomes an occasion for the anticipation of the adult sexual and
kin connection between the human and his woman (“bone of my bone, flesh
of my flesh.” 2:23), which is in turn etiologically connected to the way in
which maturing men of the readers’ world reorient their allegiance from par-
ents to wife, “abandoning” their parents for a fleshly (kin) connection with
their wives as new family (2:24).24 Within the story world of Genesis 2–3, this
maturation is yet to come, particularly because the human and his woman
are naked and yet still have a childlike lack of shame before each other (2:25).
Indeed, the whole description of the making of the woman in Gen 2:21–24
has helped prepare for this note in 2:25 about the first humans’ Enkidu-like,
childlike, and animal-like immaturity: without another human present (par-
ticularly a member of the opposite sex) there would be no cause for the first
human to feel ashamed, either by himself or before animals. Gen 2:25 then,
in turn, prepares for later narrative descriptions of the humans’ preliminary
emergence into mature adulthood, an emergence seen in their recognizing
their nakedness and becoming clothed after eating the fruit of knowledge.25
In addition, there are subtle ways in which this section on making animals
and the woman links with the theme of human mortality—and a lost chance
at immortality. First, the making of the animals in 2:19–20 prepares for the
mention of the snake in 3:1, who will turn out to be integrally connected
to the theme of (im)mortality. Second, the making and celebration of the
woman in 2:21–24 prepares for the mention of (human) reproduction in 3:16
and 3:20 as a(n implicit) balance to God’s enforcement of human mortality
at the end of the story. There are no references to reproduction in the ini-
tial anticipations of male-female sexual connection in 2:23–24, probably be-
cause of the narrative’s emphasis on the immaturity of the first humans at this
point (2:25). Nevertheless, in an ancient world without reliable birth control,
24 On the kin connections of the expressions in Gen 2:23, see Benno Jacob, Das erste Buch der
Tora: Genesis (Berlin: Schocken Verlag, 1934), 99 who notes their occurrence in loci such as Gen
29:14; Judg 9:2; 2 Sam 5:1; 19:13–14.
25 Frank Crüsemann, “Was ist und wonach fragt die erste Frage der Bibel? Oder: Das Thema
Scham als ‘Schlüssel zur Paradiesgeschichte’,” in Fragen wider Antworten (FS Jürgen Ebach),
ed. Kerstin Schiffner, et al. (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2010), 63–79, esp. 72–73. See
Mark Smith, The Genesis of Good and Evil: The Fall(Out) and Original Sin in the Bible (Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox, 2018), 39 for survey of various earlier readings of Genesis 2–3 in re-
lation to human maturing, stretching as far back as the 1526 Catechism of the Anabaptist Balthasar
Hubmaier. I have been particularly informed here (and throughout this chapter) by Erhard Blum,
“Von Gottesunmittelbarkeit zu Gottähnlichkeit: Überlegungen zur theologischen Anthropologie
der Paradieserzählung,” in Gottes Nähe im Alten Testament, ed. Eberhardt Gönke and Kathrin Liess,
SBS 202 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2004).
it is hard to imagine a reader of these verses not thinking of the reproduc-

tive consequences of a man’s bodily connection with his woman (2:23, 24).
The myth of original androgynous humanity told by Aristophanes in Plato’s
Symposium (189e–191b) shows how a culture with broader sexual options
(viz. male-male and female-female sexuality) could talk of bodily connection
in a way that was not exclusively oriented to male-female sexual connection
and its inevitable (in the ancient world) reproductive consequences. In that
myth, humanity originates from the dividing in half of three different mul-
tipart humans, one with a pair of male parts, one on each side (anticipating
male-male couples), one with a pair of female parts (anticipating female-
female couples), and one that had opposite male and female parts and was
the ancestor of male-female pairs. As fits with the heteronormative presup-
positions of its cultural world, Gen 2:18–24, however, anticipates exclusively
male-female sexuality and thereby implicitly connects such sexuality with
the reproductive consequences of such, which are made explicit in the con-
text of the affirmation of human mortality toward the close of the narrative.
Themes of knowledge/maturation and immortality are similarly inter-
twined in the next scene of the story, Gen 3:1–5. On the one hand, the di-
alogue seems focused on the tree of knowledge: the woman and snake talk
of a forbidden tree “in the midst of the garden” (3:3), and 2:17 clearly for-
bids eating from the tree of knowledge, which is described earlier as in the
“midst of the garden” (2:9b). Furthermore, the snake identifies eating of the
tree’s fruit as producing an “opening of eyes” leading to a godlike “knowledge
of good and evil” (3:5). Themes of wisdom and knowledge appear already in
the introduction of the snake as “more clever than all the animals of the field”
(3:1a) and are reinforced by general references to the “knowing” of God in 3:5
and of “humans” in 3:7 along with more specific allusions to wisdom in the
“opening of eyes” in 3:5, 7 and the “wisdom” that the woman sees will come
from eating of the forbidden fruit in 3:6. Here I would oppose attempts such as
Kübel’s, which aims to reconstruct a form of the dialogue scene in 3:1–6 that is
focused not on the tree of knowledge but instead on the tree of life.26
On the other hand, Kübel and others are right that the dialogue subtly
keeps the reader’s view on the tree of life as well. For it, along with the tree of
knowledge, is also described in Gen 2:9b as “in the midst of the garden,” and
Gen 3:1–5 consistently refers only to “the tree” (and not “the tree of life” or
26 Paul Kübel, Metamorphosen der Paradieserzählung, OBO 231 (Fribourg and Göttingen:
Academic Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 67–99 (building on earlier proposals by Steck
and others).
“the tree of knowledge”). Moreover, the stories of Adapa and of Gilgamesh

both connect the consumption of food/drink to the gaining of immortality,
not knowledge, and, in the case of Gilgamesh, the plant of rejuvenation is
typologically similar to the tree of life featured in Genesis 2–3. Finally, the
snake that is so prominently introduced in Gen 3:1a was seen as a symbol of
rejuvenation in the ancient world because of its ability to shed its skin. This
basic association with snakes is particularly played on in the Gilgamesh epi-
sode where a discarded snakeskin is a clue to Gilgamesh of the identity of the
creature who took the plant of rejuvenation while he was bathing (Gilgamesh
11:305–308). Such associations with mortality/immortality—the food/plant
of immortality and (skin-changing) snakes—stand behind the scene in Gen
3:1–5, along with the previously described wisdom elements.
The next section of text quite briefly describes the woman’s perception,
in the wake of her dialogue with the snake, of the forbidden tree as good for
gaining wisdom (3:6aα), her eating from it, and then her giving of it to the
man who also eats (3:6aβb). The theme of human maturation and wisdom
emerges clearly in the description of the effects of the eating in 3:7, where
the humans recognize their nakedness, realize that it is not good, and stitch
together flimsy fig-leaf loincloths to cover their nakedness (3:7). Though this
shows that the humans did, in fact, gain a measure of knowledge in having
“their eyes opened” and “knowing” that they were naked, it also shows some-
thing of the limits of their knowledge with respect to their being able to act
on it. Like God in 2:18, who recognized that it was not good for a human
to be alone, these humans now know enough about good and evil to recog-
nize that it is not good for them to be naked. Moreover, they have enough
knowledge to act, albeit imperfectly, on that basis. The limits of their know-
ledge are underlined by the fact that the human still feels naked when he
hears God in the garden (3:10) and by the contrast between the flimsy fig-leaf
loincloths that the humans make and the full-length skin tunics that God
makes and clothes them in later in the story (3:21). In this way, “knowledge
of good and evil” represents—building on Wellhausen and others—both the
human gaining of a knowledge of what is good or bad for them and a related
knowledge of good or bad ways to act on that knowledge.27 Later parts of the
27 Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883), 300–302 (cit-
ing Goethe as one of his many forerunners); and some recent discussions adding support include
Odil Hannes Steck, Die Paradieserzählung: Eine Auslegung von Genesis 2, 4b–3, 24 (Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970), 34, n. 43; Annette Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild
Gottes?: Zum Gedanken einer Sonderstellung des Menschen im Alten Testament und in weiteren altori-
entalischen Quellen (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2011), 214–16; Bührer, Am Anfang, 238–39.
non-P primeval history, with which this story is inextricably connected (e.g.,
Gen 4:1–16; 9:20–27), will likewise explore both the possibilities and severe
limits of human knowledge and striving.
EXCURSUS: The Naked/Clever Snake

The prominent introduction of the snake as ‫ ערום מכל חית השדה‬in 3:1a
may have even more significance than it first appears to have. Past inter-
preters have often noted the rather sudden nature of the snake’s appearance
at this point in the story. This sort of explicit characterization of a character
is quite unusual in biblical narrative, which usually depicts its characters by
way of their actions and words (alone). In addition, numerous interpret-
ers have noted the wordplay between the snake’s superlative “cleverness”
(‫ )ָערוּם‬asserted here and the first human couple’s nakedness (‫ )עֲרוּמּים‬in
the previous verse.28 What is less often noted is the reputation that snakes—
with their scaly, changing skins—have in the ancient world for being furless
(in a sense “naked”) when compared to other animals, a characteristic that
they share with humans.29 In this light, one could read the introduction of
the snake in Gen 3:1a as both an assertion of the snake’s supreme “clever-
ness” beyond the other animals of the field and of the snake’s supreme “na-
kedness” vis-à-vis them. Having just heard that the humans were “naked,”
Gen 3:1 can be read as saying that the “snake” was likewise “naked.”
In Gen 3:7 the two humans suddenly realize their nakedness after eating
the forbidden fruit of knowledge. Might it be that the superlatively “naked”
snake is thought here to have gained his “cleverness” by likewise eating of
the tree and realizing his furless nakedness? The eating of the tree, then,
would explain how the snake became so clever; it might also suggest that the
snake is depicted as “naked” not only in lacking the fur that other animals
possess, but also in being acutely conscious of that fact (and its affinity with
humans in that respect). In convincing humans to eat of the tree, the snake
thus reduces them to the state of wisdom yet nakedness (3:1a) in which he
finds himself.30 Such play in language seems quite possible in a narrative
28 See e.g. Genesis Rabbah 18:6; Rashi. Note also that, in addition to the fact that the plural form of
“naked” here (‫ )עֲרוּמּים‬matches the word for clever (‫)עָ רוּם‬, the singular forms of these words (‫עָ רוּם‬
[clever] and ‫[ עָ רוֹם‬naked]) would have been graphically identical in the consonantal writing system
in which the text was composed.
29 Galambush, “Genesis 2.4b–3.24,” 38; Kratz and Spieckermann, “Schöpfer/Schöpfung II,” 274;
Kübel, Paradieserzählung, 83–86; Crüsemann, “Das Thema Scham,” 74–75; Joseph Blenkinsopp,
Creation, Un-Creation, Re-Creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1–11 (London: T&T Clark,
2011), 73.
30 This approach is anticipated by observations in Kratz and Spieckermann, “Schöpfer/Schöpfung
II,” 274; Gerhards, Conditio Humana, 74. The latter notes earlier interpretations along these lines.
as built around wordplay and naming as Genesis 2–3 is. Moreover, this
reading of 3:1 in relation to 3:7 would add another layer of signification to
the prominent but rather stylistically anomalous statement in 3:1a that “the
snake was more naked/more clever than all the other animals of the field.”
To be sure, this reading may be nothing more than a creative riff on the
semiotic potential of a complex narrative. Since nothing in the following
argument depends on it, it is relegated here to an excursus.
As if to underline the importance of the introduction of the snake and its

perhaps mutivalent wordplay on the snake’s supreme -‫( ערום‬nakedness),
God’s pronouncement of punishment on the snake in Gen 3:14 begins with
the statement that the snake is now more cursed (‫ )ארור‬than all the other an-
imals, whether domesticated or of the field. God then gives the snake a pun-
ishment fitting his role in the humans’ eating of the forbidden fruit, making
him crawl on his belly and “eat” dust, while also putting enmity between him
and his offspring and the woman and her offspring (3:14b–15). Here the text
links to another element of snake life that is often experienced by people in
nonurban settings and is widely noted in the Bible: the extreme danger to
human life posed by snakes in particular (Num 21:6–9; Deut 8:15; Isa 30:6;
Jer 8:17; Amos 5:19; Ps 91:13; Prov 23:32; Eccl 10:8).31
Though God does not specifically accuse the woman of wrongdoing, God
does make several negative pronouncements about her destiny that corre-
spond to her role in the eating of the forbidden fruit of knowledge. YHWH’s
proclamation that the woman will be ruled by the man (Gen 3:16aβ) is a re-
versal of the situation for which YHWH criticizes the man—viz. obeying his
wife’s voice (Gen 3:17aα, in place of YHWH’s Gen 2:17)—at the beginning
of his subsequent speech to the man. In addition, YHWH announces that
he will multiply the woman’s toil in conception and reproduction (3:16a),
thus mirroring for the woman the endless toil that YHWH is about to impose
on the man for his part in eating forbidden fruit (3:17–19).32 At the same
time, much as laborious food production has a positive side (gaining of food)
as well as a negative aspect, so also YHWH’s multiplication of the wom-
an’s laborious conception and childbirth has a positive aspect: providing a
31 I am indebted to an oral communication from Raik Heckl regarding the fact that snakes are the
cause of many animal-caused fatalities in poor, non-urban contexts throughout the world.
32 As observed in Galambush, “Genesis 2.4b–3.24,” 40–41, both punishments relate to the material
from which the given figure is made—the woman desires and is ruled by the human from which she
was taken (Gen 3:16; 2:21–22) and the human toils in working the ground from which YHWH made
him (Gen 3:17–19; 2:7
means—through reproduction—for humans as a whole to survive despite

their inescapable mortality.
Finally, God pronounces punishment on the man for eating the forbidden
fruit: a sentence of lifelong labor—hard farming of the soil amid the scrub
of the field, now “thorns and thistles”—in order to gain his food (3:17–19).
Here again we see the intertwining of a depiction of mature human life
with the mortality theme noted earlier. The limits of human life are doubly
emphasized, both in a statement about the human’s gaining food through
hard farming until he “returns to the ground from which he was taken” (a
theme related to the etiological focus on adult human life in connection with
the ‫[ אדמה‬ground]) and through the quotation of an aphorism about how
he was created “from dust” and “to dust [he] will return” (3:19). As others
have noted, this is not a new imposition of human mortality, since the limits
of human life are connected here to the material from which humans were
made.33 God’s somewhat counterfactual pronouncement in 3:14 that the
snake must eat dust and God’s concluding aphoristic statement that humans
must return to dust in 3:19 enclose God’s several pronouncements in Gen
3:14–19 with the theme of human mortality that has been present implicitly
from early in the narrative with the making of humans out of “dust from the
ground” (2:7).
These pronouncements of consequences combine with the depiction of
God’s indignation in interrogation of the humans in Gen 3:9–13 to show
that the story means to depict human disobedience as a negative act.
Contrary to some recent attempts to interpret Genesis 2–3 as a purely pos-
itive story of human maturation, these elements indicate that Genesis 2–3
tells the story of a fraught maturation, one that is achieved at the price of
angering God; losing a life in God’s sacred, well-watered garden (under-
stood in positive terms); and living instead a hard life of toil ending with
unavoidable death.34
Some of this new alienation existing on the other side of human
disobedience—specifically the new rule exercised by man over woman—
is indicated by the man’s naming of the woman as a goddess-like “mother
of all life” (3:20), now using the same formula he once used in naming and
33 Theodorus Christiaan Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling bij de oude Semietische
volken (Wageningen: H. Veenan & Zonen, 1937), 188–89.

34 Blum, “Paradieserzählung,” 22. Cf., e.g., Harold Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good
People (New York: Schocken, 1981), 72–86; Lynn Bechtel, “Genesis 2,4b–3.24: A Myth about Human
Maturation,” JSOT 67 (1995): 3–26.
exerting mastery over the animals.35 Within the immediate context, this
naming represents the human’s recognition of her destiny to “help” him in
part by helping him reproduce, a reproductive role that was (re)affirmed and
intensified by God’s pronouncement over her in Gen 3:16 and will then be
performed by her in Gen 4:1 and (after the death of the first human) in 4:25.
Along with 3:16, this naming of Eve by the man makes an explicit connection
with themes of human mortality already intimated by numerous aspects of
the preceding narrative: human creation from dust, the creation of woman
out of man’s body for future (reproductive) connection with him, the choice
of the snake (with its renewing skin) as God’s antagonist in the story, and
YHWH’s emphasis on the human’s mortality in his final speech to him. In the
end, this naming of Eve by the human in 3:20 represents a proximal response
to both God’s pronouncement about the woman’s pregnancies (3:16a) and
recent underlining of the man’s mortality (3:17b, 19).36
God then officially recognizes and affirms this solidification of the dis-
tinction of the humans (with their shame) from animals (who lack bodily
shame) by “making skin tunics” for both the human and his woman and then
dressing them in the tunics (3:21). These tunics, virtually a second “skin” for
the humans, previously clothed in flimsy fig-leaf loincloths, represent a de-
cisive marker of the new, divinely recognized difference of humans from an-
imals. Though this distinction is present preliminarily in the human-made
fig-leaf loincloths fashioned after their eating the fruit (3:7), only here with
God making skin tunics (implicitly out of dead animal carcasses) for the
humans (3:21) do they—man and woman—graduate to the status of human
beings who now are sharply distinguished from the animals. And this then
represents the conclusion to an intricately interconnected narrative arc con-
structing human difference from animals, an arc that started in Gen 2:18–24
with a contrast between (1) YHWH’s “building” of the woman out of the ac-
tual flesh of the human as a full counterpart to him and true kin (“bone of
my bone, flesh of my flesh,” Gen 2:23; see also Gen 2:24) versus (2) YHWH’s
35 These resonances of Eve with the mother goddess occur again in her speech about having cre-
ated a man with YHWH in Gen 4:1. On these associations of Eve with goddess figures see Norbert
Clemens Baumgart, Die Umkehr des Schöpfergottes: Zu Komposition und religionsgeschichtlichem
Hintergrund von Gen 5–9, HBS 22 (Freiburg: Herder, 1999), 444–47 along with additional literature
noted in Smith, Genesis of Good and Evil, 125–26.
36 Blum, “Paradieserzählung,” 24. For survey and discussion of the modification of these divine
designations in the non-P material of Genesis 1–11 by tradents apparently unaware of this dynamic,
see Markus Witte, Die biblische Urgeschichte: Redaktions- und theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen
zu Genesis 1,1–11,26, BZAW 265 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998), 288; Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of
Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 37–38.
“making” of animals out of the ground and bringing them to the human to
name. Once this woman is closely associated with the human and has played
a crucial role in a move by both of them toward a self-conscious bodily
shame that divides them from animals, the narrative does not seem to see
more reason to explicitly name her, and only “the human” receives further
mention.37
YHWH then turns in Gen 3:22 to address his divine council in noting
a problem that has emerged in the wake of human eating from the tree of
knowledge: since the human has gained knowledge of good and evil and
thus become similar to YHWH and his council (“like one of us”), he might
now become entirely godlike if he takes and eats from the tree of life and
is thus also able to “live forever.”38 Earlier parts of the story depicted the
effects of eating from the tree of knowledge (Gen 3:5, 7ff.), but this speech
in Gen 3:22 is the first description of the effects of eating from the tree of
life that was introduced, along with the tree of knowledge, in Gen 2:9b. In
noting the power of that tree to give immortality to apparently otherwise
mortal humans, this divine speech adds a new focus on the theme of mor-
tality/immortality, which is paired with wisdom in the literary world of the
story (e.g., Adapa, Gilgamesh) and already implicit in numerous elements
across the biblical story, including the choice of a snake (cf. snake characters
in Gilgamesh and Adapa) as the key figure that ultimately leads to human ex-
pulsion from the garden and loss of access to the tree of immortality.
As the snake asserted earlier in 3:5, God in Gen 3:22 is apparently con-
cerned about the human becoming too godlike. The text does not explain ex-
actly why this is, but we can assume in light of the broader literary world of the
text that the gods were somewhat jealous of their prerogatives, in particular
regarding immortality as a distinctively divine attribute. Godlike wisdom,
such as that possessed by Adapa or Gilgamesh—or the “knowledge of good
and evil” possessed by the human and his wife in Genesis 2–3—was appar-
ently regarded as possible in humans, albeit a knowledge in this case that is
like divine beings in general (“like one of us,” Gen 3:22) rather than YHWH
37 On this arc and shifts in character groupings, see Jacob, Genesis, 124–25. Cf. Schellenberg, Der
Mensch, das Bild Gottes? 219–20, who argues that ‫ האדם‬in Gen 3:22–24 is a blanket term for the man
and woman. Note, however, how the term ‫ האדם‬has functioned throughout the preceding narra-
tive to refer to the initial (implicitly male) individual created by YHWH (e.g., 3:8, 9, 12, 17, 20, 21).
It makes the most sense to see that usage continuing in the references to ‫ האדם‬across Gen 3:22–24,
especially the reference in 3:23 to his working the ground from which he was made (Gen 3:23; cf. 2:7;
3:17–19).
38 For comments on the narrative arc from Gen 2:27 to 3:21 see Jacob, Genesis, 124–25.
himself. Though such (semi- godlike) knowledge is permitted, human

immortality—at least as something in addition to godlike knowledge—is
not. In this respect, the YHWH depicted in Gen 3:22 is not angry—or even
indignant—as he was in Gen 3:11–19, but concerned. Indeed, God’s concern
about human gaining of immortality appears so intense that he does not even
finish the sentence in 3:22 (“Now, lest he stretch out his hand and take from
the tree of life and eat and live forever”), but instead proceeds directly to ac-
tion (3:23–24).39
Given this urgency, interpreters have naturally wondered why the God
depicted here did not do more to obstruct the way to the tree of life be-
fore this point and/or why the humans had not already eaten of the tree
of immortality. Working within the logic of the story and especially in
light of the “opening of eyes” in 3:7 and the human’s gaining a godlike
“knowledge of good and evil,” I suggest that YHWH in 3:22 anticipates
that humans will soon see and correctly assess the effects of the “tree of
life” in the midst of the garden in a way that they previously could not
and then eat from it. According to this approach, it was only by chance
that humans did not previously eat from the tree of life, a circumstance
that was unlikely to persist once they had “eyes to see” and recognize the
tree for what it was. In this sense, the “opening of eyes” so prominent in
3:5, 7, gains specific significance with respect to seeing the tree of life, so
pointedly ignored by the woman in 3:3. Now that the humans’ eyes “are
opened” to potentially see the tree of life for what it is, God can no longer
leave it to chance that the humans might gain immortality: the gain of
immortality alongside knowledge of good and evil apparently represents
an unacceptable level of dual godlikeness for humans. Beyond this, the
narrative is not interested in exploring precisely why humans did not eat
of the tree of life earlier. It only assumes that they did not do so prior to
eating the fruit of knowledge and that God was quite worried afterward
that they would.
Out of this concern, God “sends” (‫ )שלח‬the (hu)man from the garden of
Eden “to work the ground from which he was taken” (3:23). This “send” at the
outset of 3:23 echoes and responds to God’s just-expressed worry in 3:22b
that “the human” would “send” (again ‫) שלח‬forth his hand and eat of the
fruit, and thus represents a preemptive divine “sending” in order to prevent
39 For more on the translation of 3:22 as an incomplete sentence, see Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis,
vol. 1 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 85.

the human “sending” forth of a hand to gain immortality. In narrating his ex-
pulsion, Gen 3:23 continues the redirection of focus seen in 3:22’s reference
exclusively to “the human.” The woman, now under the domination of the
man (3:16, 20), is implicitly included in his household and encompassed in
expressions about what happens to him.
As often noted, this “sending” forth of the human “to work the ground”
(3:23) precisely fulfills the lack noted in 2:5b of a “human to work the
ground.” But this sending does not deal with the possible threat that the
human might return to the garden and gain godlike immortality from the
tree of life. Therefore, the narrative concludes with a restatement of God’s
removal of the human from the garden (3:23//3:24), this time with a stress
on permanent exclusion of humans from the garden by way of language
of YHWH’s “expulsion” (‫ )גרש‬of them rather than “sending” (‫)שלח‬, and a
description of YHWH’s placement of guards—cherubim and the flame of
a revolving sword—to protect the way to the tree of life. With the mortal
boundary thus firmly established between the human(s) and divine beings,
the non-P narrative thenceforth stops referring to the deity with the awk-
ward expression stressing YHWH’s divinity, ‫( יהוה אלהים‬YHWH God; e.g.,
2:4b, 5, 7; 3:23), and refers instead just to YHWH (e.g., Eve in Gen 4:1; nar-
rator in 4:4, 6, etc.).40
This concluding focus on preventing human reentry to the garden aids us
in identifying the questions on which the narrative means to focus, while
also helping to control for questions about which the narrative shows new
interest. One thing that Genesis 2–3 seeks to explain is why humans can be as
godlike as they are (especially in possessing wisdom) and yet still be mortal. It
is this etiological focus on multiple aspects of human life (wisdom, mortality,
farming) that explains numerous aspects of the present narrative, including
its somewhat awkward locution of humans as being made “of dust from the
earth” (‫ ;עפר מן־האדמה‬2:7), its focus on two trees in the midst of the garden
(2:9b), puzzles revolving around God’s attachment of a threat—“you will cer-
tainly die” (‫ ;מות תמות‬2:17b)—to the prohibition of eating from the tree of
knowledge (2:17a), and the interwoven concerns with farming and mortality
in both YHWH’s proclamation to the human (3:17–19) and the narrative’s
doubled conclusion that anticipates both human farming life (3:23) and the
unavoidability of human mortality (3:24, cf. 3:22).
40 Blum, “Paradieserzählung,” 26.

Genesis 2–3 provides a story background to its audience’s present in which

male and female humans live hard, often short lives, working the soil, having
children, and fending off animals. Like other narratives in its literary world,
Genesis 2–3 is also interested in exploring the semidivine nature of humans
as rational, mortal beings. Crucial for Genesis 2–3 and similar narratives is
explaining why humans could be as godlike as they are (particularly in pos-
sessing godlike wisdom), and yet still be mortal. For this reason, the narra-
tive’s double conclusion describes not only the human departure from the
garden to work the earth (3:23) but also God’s barring the way back to the
tree of immortality (3:24).
Meanwhile, the narrative does not appear interested in addressing a
number of other theoretical questions about what might have been that do
not relate to its etiological purpose. For example: Why did the humans not al-
ready eat of the tree of immortality? Why didn’t God forbid eating from that
tree also? What would have happened if the humans had eaten of the tree of
immortality? What would have happened had the humans not eaten of either
the tree of immortality or the tree of knowledge? The narrative awkwardness
of 3:24 vis-à-vis 3:23 indicates the etiological importance of depicting the
human’s permanent exclusion from a chance at immortality, while the narra-
tive’s silence on these other questions demonstrates their relative unimpor-
tance for the author of the story.
These considerations can be important as we look back on the story and
attempt to determine the reason for God’s forbidding of the tree of know-
ledge in 2:17a and assess the accuracy of God’s statement in 2:17b that the
human would “surely die” if he ate of the forbidden fruit. The human’s eating
of the fruit did not lead to immediate death, to be sure, and in that sense the
snake’s statement in 3:4–5 (“you will not surely die”) was correct. But we see
in 3:22–24 that the human’s gaining of godlike knowledge from eating the
fruit did lead YHWH to permanently exclude him from the garden and a
chance to gain immortality through eating of the tree of life. In that sense, he
will now “surely die” in a way that was not (necessarily) the case before eating
the fruit.41 Unknowingly given the chance of immortality, the human loses
that chance—and indeed loses it in a similarly random way as in Adapa’s un-
knowing refusal of the food of immortality or Gilgamesh’s loss of the plant of
rejuvenation while taking a swim.
41 Blum, “Paradieserzählung,” 22–25, anticipated by briefer proposals, such as Bruce Vawter, On
Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), 73; and Nahum Sarna, Genesis, JPS
Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 21.
Seen in this light, God’s prohibition of eating from the tree of know-
ledge in 2:17 can be read as a divine provision for keeping the human in the
garden, aimed at preserving the human (and soon his wife) in the special,
elevated position of tending God’s sacred garden that he gained in 2:15. In
this sense, the prohibition of 2:17 is consistent with God’s prior generous
provision of other garden fruit (2:16) and God’s subsequent care in pro-
viding the human with a corresponding “helper” in the garden work (2:18–
22). All of these acts reflect God’s initial gracious intent for humanity to
live with God in the abundant Eden garden. And all of this was lost when
humans chose to eat of the forbidden fruit, thereby growing up in gain-
ing a modicum of godlike “knowledge of good and evil,” but losing their
privileged position as God’s garden attendants and their chance at godlike
immortality.
The Diachronic Prehistory of Genesis 2–3, Part Two
Let us now return to the diachronic background of Genesis 2–3. The pre-
vious discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a
complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the
Mesopotamian literary world, particularly the themes of human maturing
toward adult civilization (e.g., Rulers of Lagash, Debate Between the Sheep
and the Grain, Eridu Genesis) and the loss of a chance at immortality by a
primal, semi-godlike human (Gilgamesh, Adapa).
In addition, much as multiple Mesopotamian myths depict humans as cre-
ated to do agricultural work, so YHWH places the first human in the Garden
of Eden “to work and protect it,” and the overall arc of the story moves from the
lack of a “human to work the ground” (Gen 2:5) to God’s sending of the first
human out of the garden “to work the ground” from which he was made (Gen
3:23). Yet, in contrast to the Mesopotamian myths in which humans take over
the work of lesser gods, there is no sense in Genesis that the human is relieving
God of any heavy burden. The Mesopotamian myths (especially Atrahasis)
also feature a concern with human reproduction, a reality that the gods can
regard as problematic and eventually attempt to restrict. Genesis 2–3 simi-
larly includes a focus on human reproduction in God’s pronouncement over
the woman (3:16) and the human’s naming her “the mother of all life” (3:20).
Nevertheless, the theme of reproduction is juxtaposed late in c hapter 3 with the
human’s loss of a chance at immortality, and, as such, the human capacity to
reproduce stands as crucial insurance of humanity’s future in the wake of that

loss (3:22, 24). Finally, Genesis 2–3 joins the motifs of Gilgamesh’s and Adapa’s
loss of a chance at immortality on the one hand and the story of Enkidu’s mat-
uration on the other through the theme of “wisdom” found in both. Unlike
the case of Enkidu, wisdom, not sexuality, is the key factor in Genesis 2–3 that
moves the first human couple from childlike unashamed nakedness to adult
maturity. In these and other ways, Genesis 2–3 appears to be part of a conversa-
tion involving several themes found especially in Mesopotamian myths, even
as it develops these themes and issues in its own distinctive way.
To be sure, there are important differences between Genesis 2–3 and
the aforementioned Mesopotamian texts. For example, unlike Gilgamesh,
there is no indication anywhere in Genesis 2–3 that the first humans were
searching for a way to be immortal. In this way, the human’s lost chance at
immortality (Gen 3:22–24) more closely resembles Adapa’s unknowing loss
of a chance at immortality when he refuses the food and drink of life offered
to him by the gods. Yet Genesis 2–3 contrasts with Adapa as well on this
point. Where Adapa lost the chance at immortality as a result of his obey-
ing instructions from his patron, Ea, the humans of Genesis 2–3 are barred
from access to the tree of life because they disobeyed God’s prohibition con-
cerning the tree of knowledge. These contrasts are evidence that Genesis 2–3
does not simply mirror such nonbiblical traditions on this point. At most, its
treatment of the motif of humans unknowingly losing a chance at immor-
tality is a distant echo of more focused treatments of mortality, such as that
seen in the Gilgamesh epic. Furthermore, this etiology of human mortality in
Genesis 2–3 appears as only one part of the story that also includes etiologies
of numerous other aspects of human existence, such as farming, reproduc-
tion, male-female bonding, and the human capacity for rational discernment
(“knowledge of good and evil”) that is initially illustrated here by an emer-
gent consciousness of how one is seen through others’ eyes. Despite these
important differences, texts such as Gilgamesh and Adapa can help us appre-
ciate the unique combined focus on wisdom and mortality found in the Eden
story (“the tree of knowledge” and “tree of life”), along with certain elements
of the story such as the presence of the snake, an animal that plays a role in
those earlier narrative explorations of human mortality as well.
It must be stressed how Genesis 2–3 seems to represent a quite fluid adap-
tation of its Near Eastern precursors. For example, despite its apparent mul-
tiple connections to different parts of the Gilgamesh epic (Enkidu in tablet
2, the snake in tablet 11), Genesis 2–3 quite creatively reappropriates and
recontextualizes themes from that epic, almost the way that a dream can ran-
domly incorporate various elements from the dreamer’s waking life. First,
there is the free way in which Genesis 2–3 transforms the story of the making
of a male companion for Gilgamesh into the making of a female companion
for the first human. Second, where Gilgamesh featured a female goddess
making Enkidu as an animal-like proto-human and a female prostitute com-
pleting his transformation into a clothed, nonanimal adult, Genesis depicts
the making of the first woman by God as a stimulus for the transformation
of the first human into a full adult. Only with the creation and subsequent
agency of the first woman do the human and his wife move from being
“naked and not ashamed” (2:25) to shame (3:7) and eventual clothing by God
(3:21). But Genesis 2–3 lacks the crucial element of sex with this female com-
panion as the factor that initiates this transition into nonanimal adulthood
as found in Gilgamesh. The appropriation of themes from Gilgamesh of na-
kedness and transition to adulthood through association with a female com-
panion and yet without explicit reference to an intervening sexual initiation
may be seen as a sort of blind motif in Genesis 2–3. The effects of this partial
appropriation may be seen in the work of interpreters of later centuries who
have presupposed that the eating of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil”
was actually a reference to sexual activity or desire. Such interpreters have
resupplied the element of sexual initiation found in the Gilgamesh precursor
to Genesis after Genesis 2–3 replaced that element with wisdom.
There is one other element that may point to a uniquely Mesopotamian back-
ground to Genesis 2–3. Gen 2:5 notes the lack of “vegetation of the field” be-
cause there was no rain. It then goes on to note the lack of a “human to work
the soil.” The rest of the story addresses virtually every lack mentioned in Gen
2:5: Gen 2:7 describes the making of the first human; and Gen 3:18 describes the
human’s future struggle with the equivalent of “scrub of the field”—“thorns and
thistles”—in the process of farming “vegetation of the field.” But nowhere does
the text speak of God’s providing rain so that “vegetation of the field” can grow.
What Genesis 2 does mention, however, is the presence of a subterranean
stream (2:6), and it goes on to describe how the earth is watered by a river
(perhaps from the spring?) out of Eden that splits into four world rivers, the
most recognizable of which are the Mesopotamian Tigris and Euphrates
(2:14).42 Though it is not explicit, these elements of Genesis 2 may link with
42 For earlier arguments that Gen 2:10–14 might be an integral part of the Genesis 2–3 text, see
Blum, “Paradieserzählung,” 18, who notes affinities between its function and other elements in
Genesis 2–3, such as Gen 2:24, that link with the audience’s world.
the focus on human irrigation work in Mesopotamian traditions—the idea

that first the lower gods and then the humans were responsible for maintain-
ing the irrigation ditches that watered fields with the waters of the Tigris and
Euphrates. Rain is not provided in the Genesis Eden story, but God’s making
of humans and the presence of world rivers (Gen 2:10–14) in their vicinity
make possible the hard, human work of irrigation that allows humans to
grow some “vegetation of the field” amid the scrub of the field that grows
without the help of irrigation. This irrigation-oriented view of agriculture is
not native to the hill country of Israel-Canaan, but it is an essential part of
the Mesopotamian cosmogonic tradition to which Genesis 2–3 seems closely
related in other ways. In this light, it may be that the related notes about the
watering of the earth in Gen 2:6, 10–14—though possibly building on earlier
separate traditions—are more integrally related to the core of the story than
they first appear. After all, the type of resumptive repetition that one sees be-
tween 2:8b and 15 can be produced by a single author, and it is unthinkable
that an ancient Near Eastern author would have described an idyllic garden,
especially one named “well-watered place” (the most plausible interpreta-
tion of “Eden”). without extensive comment on where its water came from.43
Moreover, the picture in Gen 2:10–14 of a single water source dividing into
multiple ones is not natural to most river systems (aside from rivers emptying
at their ends into river deltas), but it does mirror the division of a trunk canal
into multiple branch canals. As such, Gen 2:10–14 could be a reimagining of
world rivers spreading out of Eden along the lines of an ancient trunk and
branch irrigation system such as was particularly common in Mesopotamia.
I once thought it possible to separate out a “tree of life” layer in Genesis 2–3
that would have corresponded to the theme of lost chances for immortality and
been distinct from an earlier core story of human disobedience to God’s com-
mand about the tree of knowledge.44 Now I no longer think it is possible to do
so. The themes are at times somewhat awkwardly combined, to be sure, as in
the inclusion of “dust” in the materials used to make the human in 2:7 in antic-
ipation of the affirmation of mortality in 3:19 or in the twofold sending/expul-
sion of the human from the garden (3:23 etiology of agriculture, 3:24 etiology of
mortality). Nevertheless, the themes are inextricably intertwined in the weave
43 For survey and discussion of proposals on the meaning of Eden, see David Toshio Tsumura,
“Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood,” in I Studied Inscriptions from
Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11, ed.
Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura, Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 4 (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 40–41.
44 Carr, “Eden Story,” 583.
of the story—the understanding of the shape of the divine proclamation “for

you will surely die” in connection with the prohibition of the tree of knowledge;
the dual significance of the woman’s making as part of the story of human mat-
uration (playing a role similar to that of Šamḫat vis-à-vis Enkidu in Gilgamesh)
and as provision for human survival in the context of mortality; and the way
that the snake and its characterization link both to themes of knowledge and
immortality. Already we saw themes of wisdom and immortality combined in
the previously discussed diachronic precursors to Genesis 2–3 in Adapa and
Gilgamesh. Now we have seen that these two themes are combined across the
whole Garden of Eden story. On closer examination, the theme of missed im-
mortality is not isolated to a few key loci—such as the “tree of life” elements in
Gen 2:9b; 3:22, 24—but is integral to the warp and weft of the text as a whole.
For example, the snake is an essential character across Genesis 3, and this snake
is inextricably linked to both its wisdom and immortality themes. Moreover,
a focus on mortality/immortality is found in other important story elements
and themes, such as the emphasis on certainty of death in the divine prohibi-
tion in Gen 2:17, references to the extent of life (Gen 3:14, 19) enclosing the
overall pronouncement of consequence for the humans and snake (3:14–19),
and the emergence of a specific focus in the story on reproduction (3:16, 20) in
the wake of exclusion from a chance at immortality (3:6, 22, 24).
Furthermore, the diachronically informed synchronic reading offered
here undermines attempts, including some prior ones by the present au-
thor, to isolate an originally independent story of creation behind Genesis
2 that preceded Genesis 2–3.45 The garden motif in Gen 2:8 (and following)
has no substantial rationale without the continuation of the story in Genesis
3. Furthermore, the listing in Gen 2:5 of “vegetation of the field” (that requires
watering) alongside “scrub of the field” (that does not require such watering)
only gains significance in Gen 3:18, where God tells the human of his destiny
to work all his life fighting field “thorns and thistles” (=“scrub of the field”)
through sweaty labor (including irrigation?), thereby winning “vegetation of
the field” from cursed earth. The focus on the creation of the woman as the
climax of Genesis 2 (2:21–24) helps prepare for the focus on her reproductive
capacity as compensation for human mortality in Gen 3:16, 21. The creation
of animals in Gen 2:19–20 (part of the account of the creation of woman) is
an essential preliminary to the mention of the crucial snake in Gen 3:1 as
well as the broader reflection in Genesis 2–3 on how humans are eventually
45 E.g., Carr, “Eden Story,” 577–83.

distinguished from animals by their bodily shame, clothing, and wisdom.

Any hypothesized early creation story that includes the prologue in 2:5, cre-
ation of the human in 2:7, placement of him in the “garden” in 2:8, and cre-
ation of animals and woman (2:19–24) already points toward the unfolding
of each of these elements in Genesis 3. Finally, the etiology in 2:24 is one of
the few parts of Genesis 2–3 that explicitly treats the theme of human matu-
rity that is so important to Genesis 2:25 and its development in the following
chapter. Overall, the more one rereads Genesis 2—especially with its likely
diachronic background in various Mesopotamian cosmogonic traditions
about human creation, civilization, and mortality—the more clearly one can
see how it was formed from the outset as a preparation for Genesis 3.
In conclusion, this synchronic reading of Genesis 2–3, a reading informed
by the Mesopotamian literary world that stands behind it, undermines
a number of diachronic theories about literary—or even specific oral—
prestages to the Genesis 2–3 story. The distinct traditio-historical origins of
its maturity and immortality motifs has led to some awkward juxtapositions,
such as the combination of dust and ground in 2:7 and the two sendings of
the human from the garden in 3:23–24. Nevertheless, it is a mistake to in-
terpret these traditio-historical features in a literary-critical way. Genesis 2–
3 is an unusually traditio-historically complex text, one whose intertwined
reflections on human maturity and mortality are best seen through sustained
attention to the subtle formulation(s) of the present text.
Diachronic Prehistory, Part Three: Precursors

Preserved in the Bible
Though it appears impossible to reliably reconstruct any extensive precur-

sors to Genesis 2–3 embedded in the chapters themselves, the story does
appear in places to build on prior traditional elements—elements with a
probable independent history before they were adapted into various biblical
contexts. One possible example is the range of potential precursors to the
dual tree motifs now at the center of the story—the tree of knowledge of good
and evil and the tree of life. Recent studies of iconography in the Levant and
the rest of the Near East have highlighted the importance of trees as cen-
tral cultic and religious symbols.46 More specifically, the theme of a “tree of
46 See Bauks, “Sacred Trees” for a synthesis.

life” is attested in ancient Egypt and, more proximately, in biblical tradition

in two parts of the book of Proverbs—the sayings in Prov 11:30; 13:12; 15:4
and a description of female wisdom as a “tree of life” in Prov 3:18. The com-
paratively archaic nature of the “tree of life” motif may explain why that tree
is only explicitly mentioned at the beginning and end of the narrative (e.g.,
2:9b; 3:22, 24), while the author’s creation of a “tree of knowledge” is at the
center of the wisdom-focused Genesis 2–3 narrative about the origins of ma-
ture male and female humans.47
The following story of Cain and Abel in Gen 4:1–16 may provide clues
to an earlier narrative tradition (whether oral or oral-written) about the
brothers that also played a role in the formation of Genesis 2–3. As we will
see in more detail in the later treatment of that chapter, the material about
Cain and his descendants in Gen 4:1–24 shows several signs of having orig-
inated in noncosmogonic traditions about Cain and his line, probably re-
lated to the Kenites mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. This Kenite tradition
explained the seminomadic, yet protected character of the Kenites with ref-
erence to Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and God’s subsequent punish-
ment and protection of him.
A more extensive discussion of this tradition behind Genesis 4 can be
found in the next chapter. For now, I note a few of the often-noted similari-
ties between Genesis 2–3 and 4 that may be the result of the use of motifs that
originate in this earlier tradition about Cain and the Kenites in Genesis 2–
3.48 Both stories focus on God’s outraged response to human transgression.
But God’s indignation in responding to Cain’s murder of Abel in Genesis 4
seems more obviously understandable than God’s outrage in response to
the humans’ eating the fruit of knowledge in Genesis 3 (“knowledge” usu-
ally being a good thing), an aspect of the Genesis 2–3 story that has puz-
zled many interpreters. This element in Genesis 3 may be a locus where the
author of Genesis 2–3 appropriated a motif of human transgression from
the Cain-Kenite tradition (behind Gen 4:2–16) and adapted it to focus on
themes of knowledge (and mortality). The motif of God’s post-punishment
provision for Cain in 4:15—which arises as a specific response to Cain’s pro-
test (4:13–14)—is likely part of its broader focus on the Kenites’ special status
47 As Erhard Blum has suggested (“Paradieserzählung,” 18–19, note 36), Gen 3:23 is more focused
on the original human destiny to work the ground and corresponds to the initial descriptions of
God’s creation of humans as garden workers (2:15), while Gen 3:24 is focused on (the prohibition of)
the tree of life and chiastically links with the description of that tree as part of the garden orchard in
2:9.
48 See the next chapter for an overview of these similarities.
in Genesis 4. The motif of the divine clothing of the humans in Gen 3:21,
itself a post-punishment provision, may represent an adaptation of the cor-
responding motif in the precursor tradition to Gen 4:13–15 even though it
does not come about specifically as a response to the punished humans (who
do not request for God to clothe them).
Finally, a word should be said about the complicated problem of the rela-
tion of Genesis 2–3 to traditions seen in Ezekiel about a prideful figure who
was once in God’s garden in Eden (28:11–19) and about a beautiful world
tree within God’s garden (31:3-9). This complex of links to Genesis 2–3 in
Ezekiel starts in the sayings against Tyre and its king (Ezek 28:1–19), which
refer to Eden by name (28:13a) and speak judgment against a figure/the king
in Eden who is described as having wisdom (28:3–4, 12; Gen 2:17; 3:6–7,
22) and yet is precluded from divine status by his mortality (28:2, 9; Gen
3:22). Though this figure was provided with many riches in Eden when he
was created (28:13; cf. Gen 2:7–9), God, by way of a cherub, throws him out
(28:16; Gen 3:24) because of his aspiration to a divine status that was not his
(28:2, 17; Gen 3:5–7, 22).49 We see another complex of potential connections
to Genesis 2–3 in the oracle against Egypt in Ezek 31:1–18, which describes
a massive tree that God tended in “the garden of God” (‫ ;גן אלהים‬31:8–9), an
“Eden” (31:9, 18) nurtured by luxuriant waters (31:4).
This set of clear resonances between Genesis 2–3 and Ezekiel 28, 31
makes apparent that there is some sort of relationship between these texts
in Ezekiel and Genesis 2–3, but scholars have understood this relation in
different ways. Some have been inclined to see the materials in Ezekiel as
the source for Genesis 2–3.50 Others have seen both sets of texts as de-
pendent on a common legend about a single figure in Eden, the garden of
God, who was expelled from it because of pride.51 The analysis of Genesis
2–3 given in this chapter, for its part, has aimed to show that the cluster of
49 For brief discussion of the textual issue regarding the cherub in Ezek 28:16, see John Day,
“Problems in the Interpretation of the Eden Story,” in From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1–11
(New York: Bloomsbury, 2013), 48.
50 John Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 119–22 and (with nuances) Konrad Schmid, “Die Unteilbarkeit
der Weisheit: Überlegungen zur sogenannten Paradieserzählung Gen 2f. und ihrer theologischen
Tendenz,” ZAW 114 (2002): 36–37. Schmid argues that Ezek 28:11–19 cannot originate in a citation
of Genesis 2–3 because it presumes that the exit from the garden is accompanied by a loss of wisdom
rather than the gain of “knowledge of good and evil” associated with expulsion from the garden in
Genesis 2–3. But Ezek 28:17 speaks of a corruption (‫ )שחת‬of the wisdom of the figure who was once
full of wisdom (28:12) and not a loss of it, which is a conceivable later reconceptualization of the
fraught gaining of “knowledge of good and evil” in Genesis 2–3.
51 See, for example, Markus Saur, Der Tyroszyklus des Ezechielbuches, BZAW 386 (Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2008), 317–22.

images found both in Genesis 2–3 and in Ezekiel—the presence of a pri-

meval figure in a garden of God, considerations of human wisdom versus
immortality, expulsion from the garden (with a cherub involved)—are
thoroughly integrated in the narrative of Genesis 2–3 and, for that reason,
likely originated there. There is simply no need to posit the existence of
an additional ancient creation myth behind Ezekiel, distinct from other
Near Eastern precursors (e.g., in the “garden” and “expulsion” elements)
in ways that happen to parallel the narrative in Genesis 2–3. Moreover,
it is easier to explain the scattering of these shared Eden themes across a
few oracles against foreign nations in Ezekiel as the result of the appropri-
ation of motifs from a known narrative than to explain the creation of the
Genesis 2–3 Eden narrative as a synthetic appropriation of and elabora-
tion on scattered, less-integrated elements in a pair of foreign oracles in
Ezekiel. Furthermore, an analysis sensitive to the genre and focus of the
respective texts can explain some of the major differences between them.
For example, the focus of Ezekiel 28 on the condemnation of a single figure
(the king of Tyre) likely transformed what was already a primary focus on
the man in the Genesis 2–3 Eden tradition (see the previous reading) into
an exclusive focus on God’s condemnation of one figure. Insofar as this is
true, the references to “God’s garden” in Ezekiel 28 and 31 would repre-
sent fragmentary, creative reappropriations (perhaps via memory) of var-
ious associated parts of the Genesis 2–3 tradition—a created figure once
in “God’s garden” in “Eden” (in Ezekiel 28), a “tree” in “God’s garden” (in
Ezekiel 31)—within the exilic or postexilic priestly circle that produced
the book of Ezekiel. In the end, enough different aspects of Genesis 2–3
are reflected in Ezekiel 28 and 31 to posit the dependence of these chapters
on Genesis 2–3, even as the partial and fluid nature of this dependence
across genres means that achieving consensus about it is likely to remain
difficult.52
52 This is likely even more true for a series of references to “(the garden of) Eden” in Ezek 36:35,
Isa 51:3, and Joel 2:3. Even though these references lack the additional elements of the Genesis 2–3
story found in Ezek 28 and 31 (e.g., a wise but mortal figure, a tree, a cherub), it should be noted that
the motif of human creation within a luxuriant garden (Eden)—which functions as a contrast to the
audience’s present world—is narratively developed only in Genesis 2–3 and is not common else-
where in other Near Eastern cosmogonies. We do not see a comparable narrative development of
human life inside/outside such garden space in other contexts that are sometimes productively com-
pared to Genesis 2–3 and/or Ezekiel 28, 31, e.g., the idea of a garden dwelling of the gods in Lebanon
(on this see Smith, Genesis of Good and Evil, 19–20).
EXCURSUS on Proposals that Genesis 2–3 is a Post-Priestly Extension of

Genesis 1
Several scholars have proposed recently that Genesis 2–3 represents a
post-Priestly extension of Genesis 1, rather than a (pre-P) precursor to
it.53 For example, Arneth argues that Genesis 2–3 reorganizes the human
diet in Genesis 1 so that trees are now allowed as food only inside the
garden (Genesis 2:9), while nontree vegetation becomes the diet outside
the garden.54 According to Arneth, Genesis 2–3 was written to follow up
on and qualify Gen 1:29 by limiting the allowance of eating tree fruit and
advancing an understanding of the eating of vegetation as cursed growth
once outside the garden. The plausibility of such a reading is severely
hampered, however, by the lack of any textual cues in Genesis 2–3 that
would signal to the reader that such a reinterpretation has taken place.
Compare, for example, the explicit correction and revision of the divine
eating instructions in Gen 1:29–30 in Gen 9:2–3, where the divine speech
uses the same verb as 1:29–30, ‫“( נתן‬give,” 9:2b, 3), and even compares the
new gift of animal life to the prior one of “vegetation” (‫ כירק עשב‬9:3; cf.
1:30). The Gen 9:2–6 text leaves no room for doubt about how the post-
flood eating regulations contrast with the specific regulations given earlier
in 1:29–30.
Several other authors have seen echoes in Genesis 2– 3 of the
Mesopotamian mīs pî (mouth opening) ritual for enlivening cult statues
and proposed that Genesis 2–3 might have been intended to develop the
account of YHWH’s creation of the human God statues initially envi-
sioned in Gen 1:26–27.55 On the one hand, this reading suggests some
evocative ways in which Genesis 2–3 might be imaginatively read in rela-
tion to Genesis 1. On the other hand, as others have noted, there are sig-
nificant problems with such a reading offered as a reconstruction of what
Genesis 2–3 was originally meant to depict. As it is, Genesis 2 diverges in
53 In addition to authors cited below, note the important early studies by Joseph Blenkinsopp,
The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, AB Reference Library
(New York: Doubleday, 1992), 64–67, 93; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “A Post-Exilic Lay Source in Genesis
1–11,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion, ed. Jan
Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte, BZAW 315 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002), 51–52,
54–55; and Otto, “Paradieserzählung.”
54 Arneth, Durch Adams Fall ist Ganz Verderbt, 107–8.
55 Andreas Schüle, “Made in the ‘Image of God’: The Concepts of Divine Images in Gen 1–3,” ZAW
117 (2005): 11–13; and McDowell, Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 43–85.
important respects from the mīs pî ritual as attested in the Mesopotamian

exemplars: for example, God breathes life into the nose of the first human
(2:7aβ) rather than the mouth, and numerous important elements of the
mīs pî ritual, such as its timing over a night, the placement of the cult statue
next to a river, and processions with the object, do not occur in Genesis
2. In particular, the sequence in Gen 2:7–8 makes clear that the animation
of the human figure takes place outside the garden (and its river)—indeed
before the garden exists.56
The more one analyzes the details of Genesis 2-–3, the less it appears
to be a compositional expansion of Genesis 1. Instead, as argued in the
previous chapter, it appears that Genesis 1 preserves several blind motifs
from Genesis 2–3. This suggests that Genesis 2–3 was an originally sep-
arate precursor to Genesis 1 and not composed as a compositional
extension of it.
Conclusion
These reflections on the background to Genesis 2–3 represent a focus on

only the most probable, identifiable diachronic precursors to the story. There
could well be other precursors, both Judean and non-Judean, whose exist-
ence and links to Genesis 2–3 are not reconstructable using present evidence.
Nevertheless, this selection may help us see some of the complexity of the
web of oral and oral-written traditions that may have been drawn upon for
the composition of Genesis 2–3.
The following chart summarizes how parts of Genesis 2–3 may be linked
with the previously discussed nonbiblical traditions on the one hand and
the tradition behind Genesis 4 on the other (in the latter case anticipating
some parallels between Genesis 2–3 and 4 to be discussed in the next
chapter).
56 Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild Gottes? 90 (n. 265), 113 (n. 420), 196 (n. 59); Jan Christian
Gertz, “The Formation of the Primeval History,” in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and
Interpretation, ed. Craig Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 116; Bührer,
Am Anfang, 344–46. It should be noted that Schüle himself notes some initial contrasts between
Genesis 2–3 and the mīs pî ritual (Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel: Der literar- und theologiegeschich-
tliche Diskurs der Urgeschichte [Genesis 1–11], ATANT 86 [Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2006], 165).
Genesis 2–3 (Tradition behind) Nonbiblical Parallels

Genesis 4
Emphasis on link of Central character, Cain, Focus in Mesopotamian
‫“( האדם‬the human”) to is ‫“( עבד אדמה‬a worker cosmogonies (e.g.,
‫“( האדמה‬the ground”), of the ground”) 4:2. Atrahasis) on crea-
which he works (‫)עבד‬ tion of humans to do
2:5, 7; 3:23. hard farming/canal
work once done by
lower gods.
Making of human Mesopotamian making
(‫ )אדם‬from the ground of humans from soil,
(‫ ;האדמה‬2:7). also Aruru’s creation
of Enkidu from clay in
Return of humans Gilgamesh (to which he
to ground/dust from returns).
which made (3:18–19).
Dual human characters Dual figures in single-

in single-family, man- family, two brothers.
woman pair, 2:23–24
and passim.
Etiology of male-female Overall focus on

(sexual) bond in 2:24 reproduction in
and theme of sexual re- Mesopotamian cosmog-
production in 3:16, 20. onies; role of female and
sex in Enkidu’s matura-
Role of woman in eating tion in Gilgamesh.
of fruit of knowledge/
maturation (3:1–6).
Central focus on lead- Focus on lead-up to and

up to and consequences consequences of piv-
of pivotal human otal misdeed (murder)
misdeed. by Cain.
Divine dialogue with Divine dialogue with

humans post-misdeed Cain post-misdeed
opened with “where” opened with “where is
question and conclud- your brother” (4:9) and
ingwith exclamation, closed with exclamation
“What is this that you “what have you done”
have done” (3:9–13). (4:10).
The male and female Enkidu (in Gilgamesh)

are initially animal-like, naked, close to animals
naked, and unashamed initially, then distanced
(2:25); clothed, enmity from animals and
with snake after eating clothed after sex with
fruit/maturation (3:15). Šamḫat.
Prohibition and eating Godlike/divinely granted

of fruit of godlike know- wisdom of Gilgamesh,
ledge of good and evil. Adapa, and (after matu-
ration) Enkidu.
God’s curse (‫ )ארור‬of God’s curse (‫ )ארור‬of
ground (‫ )האדמה‬on ac- Cain from the ground
count of human’s eating (‫ )האדמה‬that he pol-
of forbidden fruit, caus-luted with his brother’s
ing endless work with blood (4:–11), ending
sweat (3:17–19). his “work” (‫ )עבד‬of the
ground (4:12).
Expulsion (‫ )גרש‬from Explusion (‫ )גרש‬from
garden, guards placed to surface of the ground
East of Eden (3:24). and from God’s pres-
ence/face (4:14), settling
east of Eden (4:16).
Lost chance at fruit of Lost chance at immor-
immortality (3:22, 24). tality through lost access
to divine food/drink
(Adapa) and plant of re-
juvenation (Gilgamesh).
God’s dressing of first Divine post-curse care
humans in skins (3:21). through sign (4:15).
If the above analysis is on target, Genesis 2–3 alternates in its dependence

on its pre-biblical precursor (the tradition about Kenites more clearly seen
behind Gen 4:1–24) and on motifs seen in non-biblical precursors. It crea-
tively and loosely engages with themes documented in nonbiblical precursors
(especially Gilgamesh), while also being modeled to some extent on a unpre-
served precursor to the Cain-Abel tradition behind Genesis 4. Indeed, this po-
tential dependence of Genesis 2–3 on a precursor tradition to Genesis 4 may
be responsible for some of its divergences from its nonbiblical precursors. The
dual dependence of Genesis 2–3 on a tradition about Kenite origins behind
Genesis 4 and a tradition like Gilgamesh that is focused on human mortality
could explain why the conclusion to Genesis 2–3 combines a Genesis 4–like
divine pronouncement of punishment/curses (3:14–19//4:11–12) and a di-
vine expulsion from the garden to prevent immortality (3:22, 24).
More broadly, we may see in Genesis 2–3 a first and paradigmatic example of
the interaction between oral, indigenous Israelite/Judean traditions and their
revision in light of oral-written Near Eastern literary traditions like Gilgamesh
and Adapa. As we will see in the following discussion of Genesis 4, that chap-
ter’s treatment of (murderous) brotherly conflict and the origins of the Kenites
resembles traditions in Genesis 12–50 and elsewhere in the Torah about broth-
erly conflict and the origins of other Levantine ethnic groups, traditions that
likely originated as part of Israel’s oral heritage. Yet Genesis 2–3 refracts themes
from this tradition about Kenites in Genesis 4 through a Near Eastern, cos-
mogonic lens. In this respect, Genesis 2–3 provides a literary example of the
transition from an early tribal Israel focused on (exclusively) oral traditions
into a tribal alliance with a(n imitative) royal-dynastic overlay, which mimics
and adapts (oral-)written literary traditions of the Near Eastern empires in the
process of developing a specifically Judean-Israelite primeval tradition.
In that light, perhaps the composition of Genesis 2–3 should be linked to
the emergence within Israel of monarchal structures—or at least the wish to
mimic such structures through the development of cultural accoutrements
such as scribes and literary texts that were associated with the great empires
of the Near East. It is difficult to know for sure, and the dating of the emer-
gence of monarchy and/or literacy in ancient Israel is particularly debated
at this point.57 That said, there are some archaic aspects of the text, such as
57 Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, 115–22, 165–66, 172–73; Rollston, Writing and Literacy,
122–32; Matthias Richelle, “Elusive Scrolls: Could Any Hebrew Literature Have Been Written Prior
to the Eighth Century BCE?” VT 66 (2016): 556–94.
the possible use of the ‫ ה‬in 2:15 to render the “o” sound of a third masculine
suffix or implicit links to Jerusalem (mention of the Gihon in 2:13; possible
reflections of the temple’s eastern gate in 2:24), that make a relatively early
pre-exilic dating of Genesis 2–3 plausible.58
58 On the use of ‫ ה‬in Gen 2:15, see Blum, “Paradieserzählung,” 18, note 36 (and more generally, Joel
S. Baden, “‘His Tent’: Pitched at the Intersection of Orthography and Source Criticism,” in “Like ’Ilu,
Are You Wise”: Studies in Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures in Honor of Dennis G. Pardee,
ed. H. H. Hardy II, Joseph Lam, and Eric D. Reymond [Chicago: Oriental Institute Press, forthcoming
2020]). For echoes of Jerusalem in Genesis 2–3 see Hartmut Gese, “Der bewachte Lebensbaum
und die Heroen: Zwei mythologische Ergänzungen zur Urgeschichte der Quelle J,” in Wort und
Geschichte: FS Karl Elliger, ed. Hartmut Gese and Hans Peter Rüger (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker,
1973), 82; Manfred Görg, “Wo Lag das Paradies?” BN 2 (1977): 30–32; Gordon Wenham, “Sanctuary
Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” in I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood: Ancient
Near Eastern, Literary and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11, ed. Richard S. Hess and David
Toshio Tsumura, Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 4 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994
[orig. 1986]), 399–404 and (for more recent literature) Smith, Genesis of Good and Evil, 42–43.
3
The Formation of Narratives about Adam
and Eve’s Descendants (Genesis 4)
As was briefly discussed in the last chapter, the first broad feature to be noted
in Genesis 4 is its links and parallels with Genesis 2–3, particularly in Gen
4:1–16. We see this overall in the focus of both stories on escalating alien-
ation of major characters from “the ground” (first “the human” and then
Cain) along with a move from connection to disconnection of pairs of char-
acters defined by primary family relations: the male and female spouse in
Genesis 2–3 and the two brothers in Gen 4:1–16.1 More specifically, the birth
report at the outset of the chapter (4:1abα) echoes the focus on knowledge
in Genesis 2–3 (‫ ;והאדם ידע את־חוה‬and the human “knew” Eve) and ver-
bally fulfills anticipations of human reproduction (‫ חרה‬and ‫ )ילד‬in Gen 3:16
(see also 3:21). The reports of the brothers’ occupations (4:2b) that appear
next likewise link to Genesis 2–3 in having the main protagonist of the story,
Cain, follow his father’s destiny to “work the ground” (‫ ;עבד האדמה‬3:17–19,
23; also 2:5). The report of Cain’s following sacrifice in 4:3b foregrounds a
reference to his offering from the fruit of the ground, resonating with the
prior focus of Genesis 2–3 as a whole on the fruit of the trees of the garden
(Gen 2:16–17; 3:1–6, etc.). Moreover, much as YHWH stimulates the further
plot of Genesis 2–3 by introducing an unexplained prohibition of the tree of
knowledge (Gen 2:17), so also YHWH’s unexplained different response to
Cain and Abel’s offerings (Gen 4:4b–5a) is the prompt for further develop-
ments in Gen 4:1–16.
1 The summary below synthesizes numerous studies. For a particularly detailed overview of
links, see Alan J. Hauser, “Linguistic and Thematic Links between Genesis 4:1–16 and Genesis
2–3.” JSOT 23 (1980): 297–305 along with some observations in Cynthia Edenberg, “From Eden
to Babylon. Reading Genesis 2–4 as a Paradigmatic Narrative,” in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or
Enneateuch: Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings, ed. Thomas Dozeman and Konrad
Schmid, SBL.AIL 8 (Atlanta: Scholars, 2011), 156–57, and Mark Smith, The Genesis of Good and
Evil: The Fall(out) and Original Sin in the Bible (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2018), 66–
71, 147n(note 59).
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190062545.003.0001
The Formation of Genesis 4 67
Then the story of the aftermath to Cain’s and Abel’s offerings (4:6–16) par-
allels and yet develops many parts of Genesis 3, step for step (some nonpar-
allel elements in each are indicated with [square brackets]), with particular
parallels between the speeches of both texts:2
Pre-misdeed dialogue with serpent Pre-misdeed divine instruction of

3:1–5 Cain 4:6–7
[God not explicitly present]
Role of nonhuman serpent (3:1–5) Threat of nonhuman demon-like “sin”
crouching (‫ ;רבץ‬4:7)3
[cf. pronouncement of woman’s future The “desire” ‫ תשוקה‬of sin for Cain
(4:7b) desire (‫ )תשוקה‬for her husband
3:16b]
Terse report of misdeed: eating fruit Terse report of misdeed: murder of
3:6 Abel 4:8
Human hiding from before (‫)מפני‬ [cf. Cain’s hiding from YHWH’s face
YHWH 3:8 (‫ ;מפניך‬4:14)]
God’s initiates follow-up with “where” 3:9 God initiates follow-up with “where” 4:9a
[Human report of fear at nakedness 3:10]
[God’s accusation 3:11]
Human deflection of blame 3:12 Cain’s lie about lack of knowledge 4:9bα
Appointment of human to “guard” Cain’s denial that he was Abel’s “guard”
garden 2:15 (4:9bβ)
God’s cry [to woman] “what . . . have God’s cry “what have you done” 4:10a
you done” 3:13a
God’s accusation of human 3:17a God’s evidence against Cain 4:10b
2 On this latter point, see Walter Dietrich, “‘Wo ist Dein Bruder?’: Zu Tradition und Intention von
Genesis 4.” in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (FS W. Zimmerli), Herbert Donner, Robert
Hanhart, and Rudolf Smend (eds.) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 98.
3 The translation problems surrounding Gen 4:7 are particularly difficult and discussed in my com-
mentary (Genesis 1–11, IECOT [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2019]). In the meantime, on translating
‫ רבץ‬here as referring to “sin” as a demon-like lurker, see Karel Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel: Onderzoek naar
exegetische methode inzake een ‘kleine literaire eenheid’ in de Tenakh (Amsterdam: W. Ten Have N.V.,
1967), 107; Horst Seebass, Genesis I: Urgeschichte (1,1–11,26) (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener-
Verlag, 1996), 144; Robert Gordon, “‘Couch’ or ‘Crouch’? Genesis 4:7 and the Temptation of Cain,” in
On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies, ed. James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell,
and Brian A. Mastin (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 201–2.
Punishment involving reduction in life Punishment involving reduction in

of each character (3:14–19) Cain’s life, loss of farming ground (Gen
4:10–12)
Overall curse (linked to ‫ )אדמה‬3:17–19 Overall curse (linked to ‫ )אדמה‬4:10–12
rather than expected death (cf. 2:17) (rather than expected death for murder)
God’s curse of snake 3:14–15 (‫ארור‬ God’s curse of Cain 4:11–12 (‫ארור‬
... ‫ )אתה מ‬enmity with humans ... ‫אתה מ‬.) (cf. feared attacks of other
3:14–15 humans, 4:14)
[3:16 anticipation of reproduction] [4:1–2a fulfillment of reproduction,
‫ ילד‬. . . ‫]חרה‬
God’s curse of ground because of the God’s curse of Cain from the ground
human’s misdeed 3:17b because he seeded ground with broth-
er’s blood 4:11–12
[The human’s naming of woman 3:20] [Cain’s protest 4:13–14]
God’s gracious clothing of humans 3:21 God’s gracious response to Cain’s
Protest 4:15
[dealing with post-misdeed nakedness [dealing with post-crime
3:7] vulnerability 4:14b]
Sending/“expulsion” (‫ )גרש‬of human Settlement (expulsion 4:14 ‫ )גרש‬of
east of Eden, guards on way back 3:24 Cain in land of wandering (Nod) east of
Eden 4:16
In addition to and through these numerous links, the story in Gen 4:1–
16 builds on and refers back to Genesis 2–3, in both positive and negative
ways. On the one hand, the births in Genesis 4 illustrate the actualization of
God’s provisions in Gen 3:16 (see also 3:20) for human reproduction in the
face of irreversible mortality, and God’s care for and responsiveness to Cain
(e.g., 4:6–7, 15) can be seen as an unfolding of the sort of divine care God
already showed the first humans (e.g., 3:21). On the other hand, the Cain-
Lamech section of Genesis 4 contains elements that illustrate, specifically
in that Cain-Lamech genealogical line, some negative outcomes when the
first child of the humans poorly handled the choice of good and evil gained
in the garden of Eden (3:6), even when he was directly warned by YHWH
about the risks he faced (4:6–7; cf. 3:1–5). The divine confrontation in 4:6–7
specifically echoes the wording of YHWH’s speech to the woman in 3:16b,
and YHWH’s post-crime pronouncement of punishment on Cain (4:11–12)
intensifies on him YHWH’s prior curse of the “ground” spoken to the first
human (3:17–19). Moreover, numerous elements in the Cain-Abel story
display an intensification of the break in human-human and divine-human
relations already seen in human hiding (3:8, 10) and deflection of blame in
Eden (3:12–13): the falling of Cain’s face (4:5b), his murder of Abel (4:8),
his defiant reply to YHWH after the crime (4:9b), his hiding from /depar-
ture from YHWH’s face (4:14aβ, 16a), and his vulnerability to other humans
amid his wandering (4:14bβ). Finally, the theme of human mortality that
was so prominent in Genesis 2–3 is touched on repeatedly in the Cain-Abel
story. Abel’s death at the hand of Cain (4:8) represents the first instance of the
human mortality that was proclaimed as inevitable at the end of the garden
of Eden story (3:17–19, 22, 24). Moreover, Cain’s subsequent protest to God
(4:14bβ) revolves around his fears that he soon will be the second such in-
stance, a threat that YHWH acknowledges and addresses (4:15).
Looking more broadly, the Cain-Abel story returns the storyline to the
“earth” (‫ )ארץ‬that was the initial focus of Gen 2:4b–5abα. Overall, Gen 2:4b–
4:16 moves through the following concentric spatial progression from earth
to garden and back:4
a An inital focus on the “earth” (2:4b–5bα)

b Focus on the ground (‫ )האדמה‬that will be farmed by the human made
from it (‫ ;האדם‬2:5bβ–7)
c Extended focus on the plentifully watered, idyllic Eden garden
(2:8–3:21)
b′ Focus on the human sent out to work “the ground” from which he was
made (3:22–4:4a)
a′ Cain leaving YHWH to wander on the “earth” away from the “ground”
from which he has been cursed.
Given the focus of this broader narrative on the ultimate destiny of humans to
“work” the ground from which they were made (2:7; 3:23), it seems unlikely
that this ‫ארץ‬-‫אדמה‬-‫גן‬-‫אדמה‬-‫ ארץ‬sequence will conclude with nonfarming
humans endlessly wandering the earth (4:16). This then points forward to
the line of Seth (4:25–26) and later links of his descendants with farming the
ground in 5:29 and 9:20.
4 Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 127.

Aside from the birth notices in Gen 4:17 and 25 and YHWH’s speech to
Cain in Gen 4:6–7, the remainder of Genesis 4 lacks the sort of close linkages
to Genesis 2–3 that characterize much of the Gen 4:1–16 story. Instead, most
of the literary features of Gen 4:18–24 link back to elements of Gen 4:1–16
specifically. In the end, the widespread parallels to of 2–3 with Genesis 4,
especially in the story of Cain and Abel (4:1–16), have led past scholars to a
general consensus on a close literary relationship between these texts, with
the usual assignment of both to a pre-P “J” layer.5
Gen 4:1–24 as Adaptation of a Prebiblical Tradition about

the Cain-Lamech Line
At the same time, the story of brother murder in Genesis 4 seems to origi-
nate in a different set of traditions than the stories of creation that have been
discussed so far in this book. Where Genesis 1 and 2–3 appear to build par-
ticularly on parallels in Near Eastern literature, the core story at the outset of
Genesis 4 (4:1–16) has its closest analogues in biblical traditions about the
origins of peoples and brotherly conflict, particularly those in the latter half of
Genesis.6 In addition, the bulk of Genesis 4 shows signs of having originated
in an earlier tradition about Cain and his descendants up through Lamech,
one that was not originally a primeval story. The clearest indicators of the non-
cosmogonic origins of the Cain and Abel story are the ways that multiple parts
of it presuppose the existence of more humans on earth than would be ex-
pected in a story about brothers in the first human family. These include Cain’s
efforts to move his brother out to “the field,”—apparently in order to avoid
witnesses—in a narrative world where the only possible witnesses would be
his parents and YHWH (4:8), Cain’s statement of worry about people who
5 Studies assigning large swathes of other non-P material to a post-P layer have rarely focused
on Gen 4:1–24. For classic arguments linking Genesis 4 to an early non-P (//J) layer, see, e.g., Karl
Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen. 1–12, 5) (Giessen: Ricker, 1883), 220; John Skinner, A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 2nd ed. ICC Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1930), 100. To
be sure, already Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des
Alten Testaments 4th ed. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963 [orig. 1876]), 10–12, argued for some form of
stratification between the core story of Gen 4:1–16a and an earlier literary layer on which it was
modeled in Gen 2:4b–3:24; 4:16b–24. The treatment here offers a different conceptualization of the
relations of Genesis 4 with Genesis 2–3.
6 Cf. Susan Niditch, Chaos to Cosmos, Studies in the Humanities 6 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1985),
48–49, who notes parallels between Gen 4:1–16 and the Roman tradition regarding Romulus’s killing
of his brother Remus. This motif of brotherly fratricide appears to be a relatively widespread folk
motif.
will murder him (4:14), YHWH’s promise (using a participial case-law form
that implies broader relevance to multiple situations) that anyone who kills
Cain will have their kin killed as well (4:15), and the report of Cain taking a
wife (4:17a).7 Furthermore, the beginning of the Cain story reports his har-
vest of field produce (4:3) without the slightest hint of the curse of the ground
that was so prominently featured in the preceding chapter (Gen 3:17–19), a
potential indicator that this part of the story at least was not conceived with
Genesis 3 in mind.8 Some of these indicators are stronger than others, and
there are harmonizing ways to read many of these features. Nevertheless,
they are important initial indications that much of Gen 4:1–24 originates in a
nonprimeval tradition.
Getting a more precise idea of this nonprimeval precursor tradition is dif-
ficult because of the degree to which it has been reworked in the present text,
including and especially through revising whatever earlier tradition once
existed in order to closely connect it with the Genesis 2–3 story that now
precedes it. As noted previously, some have assumed that virtually all of the
Cain and Abel story was produced in imitation of the Garden of Eden story.9
Nevertheless, in light of my discussion of precursors to Genesis 2–3 in the
previous chapter, several motifs that Genesis 2–3 and 4 have in common—
e.g., the focus of both stories on God’s punishment of a human misdeed—
seem more likely to have originated in the Cain-Abel story (focused on
the punishment of fratricide) than in the Garden of Eden story (where the
punishment is for gaining knowledge). There are, to be sure, certain elem-
ents of Genesis 4 that appear to specifically echo and build upon parts of
Genesis 2–3, but these elements are quite localized. The main examples are
7 R. W. L. Moberly, “The Mark of Cain—Revealed at Last?” HTR 100 (2007): 15–16. In addi-
tion, August Dillmann, Die Genesis, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament
11 (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1892), 86 [ET 175], suggests that the matter-of-fact note about the diverse
occupations of Cain and Abel in 4:2 seems to presuppose a world of more people and occupa-
tions than the first family setting of the story we now have. As Gunkel points out (Genesis, HAT.1
[Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917], 42 [ET 42]), Abel’s occupation as a shepherd (4:2b) is
an unexplained divergence from the general human vocation in Gen 2:5; 3:17–19, 23, to “work the
ground.”
8 Bernard Stade, “Das Kainszeichen: Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der jahwistischen
Pentateuchquelle und zur israelitischen Sagenkunde,” ZAW 14 (1894): 272, notes issues in coordi-
nating the curse on Cain alone in Gen 4:11–12 with the curse on all arable ground in Gen 3:17–19.
Within the present text, Gen 4:11–12 can be read as an intensification of Gen 3:17–19, but the rela-
tionship is not made clear.
9 Wellhausen (Composition des Hexateuchs, 10–12) was an early and influential advocate of this
position. For a more recent example, see Seebass, Genesis I, 160–61. At the same time, Wellhausen
was also one of the first to see Kenite origin traditions behind parts of Genesis 4*, especially the gene-
alogical sections that he assigned to an earlier layer (Gen 4:16b–24). This treatment finds indicators
of such traditions behind Gen 4:1–16a as well.
the birth reports at junctures of the narrative in Gen 4:1, 17, 25,10 and the
echoes of themes of good and evil (Gen 2:9b, 17; 3:22) and desire (Gen 3:16)
in YHWH’s warning speech to Cain (Gen 4:6–7). These elements in 4:1 and
6–7 bind the Cain-Abel story to themes that have their home in the Garden
of Eden story, but they show signs of secondary addition to their contexts in
Genesis 4 and do not seem integral to the story itself.11 The core of the Cain-
Abel narrative, however, appears to reflect an earlier tradition about broth-
erly murder that was not associated with the first human couple or another
primeval context.
In other cases the direction of influence is more difficult to assess. Indeed,
many of the already-noted connections between Genesis 2–3 and 4:1–16
could be explained either as the modeling of Genesis 2–3 on Genesis 4 or as
the result of the revision of (the tradition behind) Genesis 4 along the lines of
Genesis 2–3. For example, one might maintain that the motifs surrounding
the “ground” (‫ )אדמה‬in both stories originated in a Cain-Abel story that
culminated in a “curse from the ground” caused by Cain’s pollution of the
ground with his brother’s blood (4:11). Where the Cain-Abel story features
a fully developed idea of Cain’s curse being caused by the ground “opening
its mouth to take in streams of [Cain’s] brother’s blood from [Cain’s] hand”
(4:11–12), the link of YHWH’s curse of the ground to the man’s misdeed
in Genesis 2–3 (3:17–18) is more tenuous. Alternatively, one might argue
that these “ground” elements are so thoroughly interwoven into almost all
of Genesis 2–3 that they must have originated in that story and then been
accentuated through insertions into an earlier tradition found in Genesis
4 (e.g., 4:11b–12a). In that case, YHWH’s pronouncement of both a “curse
from the ground” and “endless wandering” for Cain in Gen 4:11–12 would
represent a combination of Genesis 2–3 “curse” and “ground” motifs with an
expulsion motif original to the Cain-Abel tradition. This latter alternative
would be supported by the fact that the conclusion to the story (4:13–16)
10 As noted earlier, Eve’s jubilant song about having created “a man” with YHWH (4:1b) is a coun-
terpart to the human’s jubilant song over YHWH’s having creating her out of him (Gen 2:23).
11 As Henning Heyde, Kain, der erste Jahweverehrer: Die ursprüngliche Bedeutung der Sage von
Kain und ihre Auswirkungen in Israel, Arbeiten zur Theologie 1:23 (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1965),
10, and Seebass, Genesis I, 161, note, the sudden appearance of grown brothers in 4:2b suggests the
replacement of some kind of earlier exposition of the Cain-Abel story with the genealogical intro-
duction (linking to Genesis 2–3) now in Gen 4:1–2a. For discussion of indicators of the secondary
nature of Gen 4:6–7 (with reference to other representative studies) see Jan Christian Gertz, Das erste
Buch Moses (Genesis): Die Urgeschichte Gen 1–11, ATD (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018),
165–66.
relates exclusively to the “expulsion” and wandering elements of YHWH’s

pronouncement.12
Despite uncertainty on this and other issues in the reconstruction of the
shape of a prebiblical tradition behind Genesis 4, we can make a few general
suppositions about its character. The prebiblical Cain tradition does not
appear originally to have focused on the first family on earth, since other
humans are presupposed at several points in the Genesis 4 tradition. The tra-
dition probably started with a story about two brothers, Cain and Abel, with
a primary focus on Cain, and it appears to have extended to include some
form of the genealogy reaching to Lamech and his children, whose names
echo those of Cain and Abel. This early Cain-Abel story then probably fea-
tured a scene with a sacrifice by the two brothers and an enigmatic divine
response to those brothers and their sacrifices, a scene without a clear par-
allel in Genesis 2–3. This prebiblical story, like the present biblical version,
centered on Cain’s murder of Abel, a motif of murderous brotherly rivalry
seen widely in folklore and well-documented in Israelite traditions.13 It then
described YHWH in terms evoking the role of blood avenger in family law,
expelling Cain to a vulnerable life of endless wandering. Finally, this hypoth-
esized early Cain-Abel story demonstrated YHWH’s remarkably enduring
bond with Cain by narrating Cain’s protest and YHWH’s provision of protec-
tion for him amid his wandering, by setting a sign on Cain and threatening
violence on those who might threaten him. Cain was thus singled out in this
early tradition as the recipient of special divine favor that was not explained
or developed in the story, but merely demonstrated and exemplified in the
protective “sign” that YHWH puts on Cain.14 This (unspecified) sign likely
marked a group connected to Cain that was known to the Cain-Lamech
tradition’s audience. As Gunkel already noted, various Near Eastern groups
seem to have borne some kind of bodily sign (e.g., circumcision, tattoo) or
adornment (e.g., earring) that marked them as belonging to and specially
protected by their group’s patron deity.15
12 See Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11, BKAT I/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1974 [English translation 1984]), 416 (ET 306) for this observation and related traditio-historical
reflections about the formation of 4:11–12.
13 For the Bible, consider the stories of Jacob and Esau in Genesis 25–35 and of Joseph and his
brothers in Genesis 37–50.

14 Heyde, Kain, der erste Jahweverehrer, 18–19.
15 Gunkel, Genesis, 47 [ET 46–47], building on some earlier studies by Stade and others. See
particularly the eclectic older survey in Theodore H. Gaster, Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old
Testament: A Comparative Study with Chapters from Sir James Frazier’s Folklore in the Old Testament
(New York: Harper and Row, 1969), 55–56.
Several features of 4:1–24 indicate that this group linked to Cain was the
Kenites.16 For one thing, Cain’s name, ‫קין‬, looks like an eponymous name
related to the name Kenites, ‫קיני‬.17 Moreover, numerous features of Gen 4:1–
24 appear to link the Cain-Lamech line described there with characteristics
that are connected with the Kenites in other biblical traditions. The Kenites
were a semi-nomadic group, associated in 1 Sam 27:10 with the Negev, some-
times linked or interchanged in the Bible with other tent-dwelling (semi-)
nomadic groups (e.g., Midianites, Amalekites, or Rechabites).18 Genesis 4
alludes to the semi-nomadic life of the Kenites in its description of Cain’s
expulsion from the ground to a life of endless wandering (4:12, 14) and in
its association of his descendant Jabal with tent-dwelling (4:20). At the same
time, Cain’s status as “a builder of a city” (4:17) would fit with the fact that the
biblical tradition knows of “cities of Kenites” in the region of Judah initially
ruled by David (1 Sam 30:29).
Finally, Genesis 4 seems to reflect an association of Cain and Kenites with
metalworking. The root from which Cain’s name comes, ‫קין‬, is used in other
Semitic languages for craftwork, particularly metalworking, and this meaning
of the root appears to be behind its use to refer to Ishbaal’s spear in 2 Sam
21:16. We even see a potential attestation of Kenite metalworkers near the
South Judean desert with which they were associated in an inscription found
at a metal mine in the Sinai that refers to a “chief of the Kenites” (‫)רב בן קן‬
there.19 The Genesis 4 genealogy of Cain connects part of Cain’s line with
metalworking at its conclusion, with Tubal-Cain’s founding of bronze and
iron-working (4:22). In sum, the name “Cain” and the professions associated
with Lamech’s sons in Gen 4:20–22 all appear linked to the association of
metalworking and other crafts of ancient Kenites.20
16 The origins of this theory are particularly associated with Wellhausen, Composition des
Hexateuchs, 11, with the first broad development of it in Stade, “Das Kainszeichen.”
17 It is immaterial to this argument whether Cain’s name was formed out of the name Kenite or the
reverse.
18 These connections are a frequent theme in studies of Genesis 4, from earlier discussions (e.g.,
Stade, “Das Kainszeichen,” 286–87; Heyde, Kain, der erste Jahweverehrer, 28–33) to more recent
ones (e.g., Kent Sparks, “Israel and the Nomads of Palestine,” in Community Identity in Judean
Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Kenneth A. Ristau
[Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009], 9–26; John Day, “Cain and the Kenites,” in From Creation to
Babel: Studies in Genesis 1–11 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013), 51–60).
19 Meindert Dijkstra, “The Statue of SR 346 and the Tribe of the Kenites,” in ‘Wünschet Jerusalem
Frieden’: Collected Communications to XIIth Congress of Int’l Organization for the Study of the Old
Testament, Jerusalem, 1986, ed. Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunck (Frankfurt am
Main: P. Lang, 1988), 95–97.
20 These elements do not constitute a more general depiction of the emergence of human culture
akin to the Mesopotamian tradition of seven semi-divine Apkallu providing humans with the arts
Excursus: Genesis 4 and Anthropological Studies of Attitudes Toward

Metalworkers among Contemporary Settled Peoples
Paula McNutt, building on earlier work by Edmund Leach, has been fore-
most in showing how certain features of the Cain-Abel story in Genesis 4
can be illuminated through comparison with attitudes toward smiths and
other artisans seen in anthropological studies of settled peoples in the
Middle East and Africa. Such smiths and other artisans typically stand sep-
arate from the settled societies with whom they interact, and the people of
such societies tend to view artisans, especially metalworkers, with ambiv-
alence. These metalworkers are seen as standing outside the genealogical
relationships that connect settled clans, and they are often marked as dif-
ferent from their more settled counterparts by their physical appearance,
dress, and/or separate residence. Their socially marginal status means that
they can be shunned and/or despised, yet they are also feared and respected
as possessors of mysterious expertise essential to the societies with whom
they interact. Within African societies, these smith groups are often por-
trayed as both creators and destroyers, transmitting essential arts of civi-
lization to society but also committing heinous acts that mark their status
outside traditional structures and societal mores.21
As McNutt notes, the Cain-Abel tradition of 4:1–24 similarly depicts
the Cain-Lamech line with ambivalence. Cain commits the heinous act of
fratricide, and Lamech boasts of extravagant violence, yet Cain’s descen-
dants bear a sign (likely a tattoo of some kind) that signals YHWH’s spe-
cial protection of them from those they wander among. The Cain-Lamech
line is credited with establishing various aspects of culture (cities, music,
metalworking), but it is also marked by a taboo against the farming of land
that is typical of settled peoples. To be sure, there is a huge chronological
and geographical gap between the Cain-Lamech tradition and the African
and Middle Eastern settled societies that McNutt discusses. Nevertheless,
McNutt’s work is evocative in suggesting ways that the mixed picture of
of civilization. This against the theory of some (e.g., Robert Wilson, Genealogy and History in the
Biblical World, Yale Near Eastern Researches 7 [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977], 187)
who argue that metalworking and other practices associated with Lamech’s sons in Gen 4:20–22 link
the seven-part Cain-Lamech genealogy of Genesis 4 to the Mesopotamian Apkallu tradition, much
as Genesis 5 is linked to a late version of the Sumerian King list tradition (on which see the next
chapter of this book).
21 Paula M. McNutt, “In the Shadow of Cain,” Semeia 87 (1999): 47–53. See an anticipation of
McNutt’s overall thesis in Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Pt. 1. From Adam
to Noah, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961 [1944 Hebrew original]), 180.
Cain and his descendants in Gen 4:1–24 may originate from similarly am-
bivalent attitudes among the Judean authors of the tradition toward socially
marginal yet specially skilled, metalworking Kenites living on the margins
of their society in tents and/or their own cities.
In implicitly suggesting the background of the special yet marginal status

of the Kenites, the Cain-Lamech tradition behind Gen 4:1–24 bears some re-
semblance to traditions about the origins of various other groups in Genesis
12–50, from tribes of Israel in Gen 29:1–35:22 to non-Israelite peoples, such
as the Ishmaelites (16:1–16; 21:8–21), Ammonites and Moabites (19:30–38),
Edomites (25:21–34; 27:1–45), and Midianites and other Arabic tribes (25:1–
6). These etiological traditions about other groups in Genesis 12–50 feature
a focus on women, particularly matriarchs, that marks them off from many
other parts of the biblical tradition. Gen 4:1–24, for its part, features a focus
on mothers that distinguishes it from other materials in the primeval history.
It is possible that Naamah, who is merely mentioned as a sister of Tubal-Cain
in 4:22b, had a more extensive function in the prebiblical ethnic etiology of
the Kenites behind 4:1–24.22 Finally, there is a particular resemblance be-
tween the depiction in 4:1–24 of Kenites as both cared for by God and yet
(violently) at odds with those around them and the Ishmael traditions found
in the Abraham story. Those traditions depict God’s care for Ishmael and his
mother in the desert (esp. 21:14–21, but also 16:10–12) even as God prom-
ises Ishmael a destiny where he will be a “wild ass” type of human, with his
hand raised against everyone and the hand of everyone raised against him
(Gen 16:12).23 Overall, (agrarian) Israel appears to have regarded Cain,
Ishmael, their descendants and other Levantine nonfarming peoples like the
Midianites as sharing a special attachment to YHWH while also reflecting a
particular aggression toward them (the Israelites) as well, likely the result of
conflicts experienced with those peoples.
Meanwhile, there are some important differences between 4:1–24 and the
ethnic etiologies of Genesis 12–50. Much as smith clans in contemporary
contexts are seen as standing outside the genealogical frameworks of other
groups, so also the Cain-Lamech line depicted in 4:1–24 stands isolated
22 Thomas Hieke, Die Genealogien der Genesis, HBS 39 (Freiburg: Herder, 2003), 278–98, surveys
how, in most cases, women are typically only mentioned in genealogies when they have significance.
This makes the lack of such any elaboration on Naamah more conspicuous.
23 For comparison with the Ishmael saga, see especially A. Menes, “Die sozialpolitische Analyse
der Urgeschichte,” ZAW 43 (1925): 47–48, and Seebass, Genesis I, 163.

among the other genealogies in Genesis 1–11 and beyond. Whereas later
parts of Genesis relate the genealogical origins of the Moabites, Ammonites,
Ishmaelites, and Edomites to the Israelites in various ways, chapter 4 of
Genesis depicts the Cain-Lamech line as a completely separate genealogical
strand, distinct from the Israelites’ primeval ancestors (e.g., Sethites) from
the earliest primeval period.24 Moreover, the Gen 4:1–24 etiology of the
artisanal-metalworking Kenites contrasts with etiologies of other groups in
Genesis 12–50 (and resembles contemporary traditions about artisan groups
in Africa and the Middle East) in describing Cain and his descendants as
mediators of certain arts of civilization to broader humanity. In this re-
spect, the postulated Cain-Lamech tradition behind Gen 4:1–24 has a semi-
primeval character, describing the origins of some arts of civilization in the
process of offering an etiology for the Kenites.
Not enough of this (postulated) Cain-Lamech tradition is preserved to de-
termine whether it was an exclusively oral tradition or was transmitted in
writing. Much, however, would speak for an (exclusively) oral background to
the relatively brief ethnic etiology of Gen 4:1–24.25 Etiologies of other ethnic
groups (such as those behind parts of Genesis 12–50) also seem particularly
likely to have been transmitted in exclusively oral contexts. Also, it is not
clear what sort of function a brief written text about the Kenites (and sim-
ilarly for the other peoples found in later Genesis genealogies) would have
served. Finally, Gen 4:1–24 has an unusual density of gaps and enigmas—
e.g., the sacrifice episode in 4:3–5 and obscure genealogical notes in 4:17b,
22—that might characterize a partial written appropriation of an earlier oral
tradition.26
This hypothesis of an (oral) etiology of the Kenites standing behind Gen
4:1–24 can explain numerous specific features in the text along with its mixed
function within the present primeval history. Though Cain functions in the
broader non-P primeval history as an example of the moral risks faced by
24 To be sure, this depends on whether Gen 4:25–26 is understood to be an earlier pre-P genealog-
ical element or a post-P bridge. See later in this chapter for arguments that it is the former.
25 Here and elsewhere, the modifier “exclusively” is added to clarify that discussion of the specific
“oral” origins of some biblical traditions pertains to whether they were only transmitted orally, since
most written literary traditions were transmitted through a mix of oral and written modes.
26 This overall phenomena in Genesis 4 led Cassuto (Genesis Pt. 1, 183) to posit that the Genesis
text at this point represents a written summary of an oral tale known at more length from else-
where. In this, he anticipated a theory about Israelite writing—namely, as abbreviated summary of
oral tradition—later advocated more generally by Antony Campbell, “The Reported Story: Midway
Between Oral Performance and Literary Art,” Semeia 46 (1989): 77–85; Campbell, “The Storyteller’s
Role: Reported Story and Biblical Text,” CBQ 64 (2002): 427–41.
broader humanity in the wake of Genesis 2–3 (e.g., Gen 4:6–7), and some of
the etiological features of the Cain tradition are now assimilated to its place
in the present text (e.g., the association of Cain’s name with creation in Gen
4:1), the story still preserves numerous elements of its specificity as an (out-
sider) etiology of the Kenites. The diachronic complexity behind the present
text—understood as a universalizing/creation-oriented non-P appropria-
tion of an earlier ethnic etiology—helps explain the continuing preponder-
ance of interpretations of Genesis 4 as an ethnic etiology of the Kenites as
well as those that read it as a universal statement about humanity.27 Both
approaches have a basis in the text. And yet neither fully accounts for all its
present aspects. Finally, the background of Gen 4:1–16 in an adapted and im-
perfectly preserved earlier Cain/Kenite tradition could also explain the par-
ticular density of puzzles within such a short compass of text, features such
as the absence of Cain’s speech to Abel (following the likely early MT reading
for Gen 4:8) or preparation for YHWH’s question regarding Abel’s appar-
ently missing body (Gen 4:9) may be evidence that Gen 4:1–16 contains rem-
nants of a more complete story tradition that once stood behind it.28
The Literary Status of Gen 4:1–24 and (especially) 4:25–26
So far, I have argued that the bulk of Genesis 4, the Cain-Lamech tradition
seen in Gen 4:1–24, represents a literary adaptation of a likely oral tradi-
tion about the Kenites. The close links of Gen 4:1–24 to the Garden of Eden
story provide a strong indication that they share the same author. Indeed,
as argued in the previous chapter, that author likely modeled the Garden of
Eden story’s broader transgression theme on the tradition of brother murder
seen in Gen 4:1–16, even as he also shaped his literary version of that tradi-
tion in Genesis 4 so that it linked back to Genesis 2–3 in crucial ways (e.g.,
Gen 4:1–2, 6–7). Getting more specificity about the exact shape of that adap-
tation process is likely impossible, especially since the earlier tradition was
likely oral and fluid. Nevertheless, we can conclude, with relative certainty,
that such adaptation happened and that Genesis 4, like the Garden of Eden
story with which it is so closely connected, is pre-Priestly.
27 Cf. the surveys and different stances taken in Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 385–91 [ET 282–86],
and Seebass, Genesis I, 160–63.

28 For reflections along these lines, see, e.g., Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 391 [ET 287].
Meanwhile, it is more difficult to achieve a similar level of certainty on

the background of the Seth-Enosh tradition that follows this material in Gen
4:25–26. In the present form of Genesis, this genealogy bridges the birth of
the first two children and murder of one of them in the Cain-Lamech sec-
tion (4:1–24) and the first three generations of the Priestly Seth genealogy
in Genesis 5 (5:1–8). The question to be focused on in this section is the fol-
lowing: was 4:25–26 composed from the outset for this coordinating pur-
pose, or is this coordinating function a secondary reuse of pre-Priestly
material in 4:25–26 that originally functioned within a pre-P context in-
cluding Gen 2:4b–4:24?
Already in 1863, Eberhard Schrader argued extensively that 4:25–26 was
created from the outset as a post-Priestly bridge between the Cain-Lamech
material in 4:1–24 and the Priestly genealogy in Genesis 5, and this position
has gained much favor among recent scholars.29 Schrader and others have
noted that Gen 4:25–26 agrees with P and disagrees with the preceding non-P/
J sections in referring to the human without the definite article (‫“ אדם‬Adam”
in 4:25 [cf. P in 5:1, 3–5] rather than ‫ )האדם‬and having Eve use the divine des-
ignation ‫“( אלהים‬god”) rather than ‫ יהוה‬in naming Seth (4:25b). Those advo-
cating a post-Priestly composition of Gen 4:25–26 also point to the way that
the unit functions presently in the combined P/non-P text: it stands at a seam
between two layers (Genesis 4 and Genesis 5) and could be seen as harmo-
nizing a non-P concept of Noah’s background in a line from Adam through
Cain to Lamech (Gen 4:1–24) with a Priestly concept of Noah’s background in
a line from Adam through Seth and Enosh to Lamech (Genesis 5*).
A closer look at Genesis 4 as a whole, however, offers an alternative expla-
nation for some features in Gen 4:25–26 that often have been attributed to
Priestly influence. The reference to the first human as ‫ אדם‬may be explained
by the fact that this is the first place in the (non-P) text where he is men-
tioned alongside other humans. It would not work for a narrator to refer
to “the human” in 4:25 in a world that now features another male human,
Cain.30 Similar literary-contextual elements probably stand behind the use of
the designation ‫ אלהים‬for God in Eve’s naming of Seth. Eve’s use of this more
general designation for God in her naming and implicit petition that Seth be
29 Schrader, Studien, 122–24 (earlier Tuch, Genesis, 99; also cf. B. D. Eerdmans, Die Komposition
der Genesis, vol. 1 of Alttestamentliche Studien [Gießen: A. Töpelmann, 1908], 80–81, and Jacques
Vermeylen, “La descendance de Caïn et la descendance d’Abel [Gen 4,17–26 + 5,28b–29],” ZAW
103 [1991]: 184–86). See Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 62–65 for an excellent overview of the main
arguments.
30 Dillmann, Genesis, 104; Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 128.
a replacement line for Abel (4:25aβb) stands as a contrast to Noah’s father’s

later naming and implicit petition that Noah provide comfort from YHWH’s
curse (5:29). The naming of Noah (which is found after Seth’s naming and the
report of Enosh’s birth) follows the notice that humans began to call on the
name of YHWH in the time of Seth’s son, Enosh (4:26b). As will be discussed
more in c hapter 5 of this book, “calling on the name” of a deity refers to use
of the deity’s name in an act of petition, and these namings in Gen 4:25 and
5:29 both obliquely express the wishes of a parent regarding the destiny of a
son. The contrast between Eve’s use of ‫ אלהים‬in 4:25 and ‫ יהוה‬in 5:29 fits with
a broader move toward human use of God’s intimate name, YHWH, in such
petitions.
Meanwhile, the Seth-Enosh genealogy in Gen 4:25–26 has far more in
common with non-P than with P. It links back to earlier elements of the pre-
P narrative in its reference to ‫אדם‬, its use of the verb ‫ ידע‬for his sex with Eve
(Gen 4:25//4:1, 17), and Eve’s reference back to the murder of Abel (4:25b).
Eve’s bearing of a third child and naming him in relation to the death of
her first (Gen 4:25) can be seen as a subtle way that the non-P narrative
depicts the working out of YHWH’s earlier prediction of multiplied preg-
nancies and painful toil associated with them (Gen 3:16). In addition, much
as (non-P) Gen 4:22 used ‫“( גם היא‬also her”) to introduce the birth of chil-
dren to Zillah after the prior birth of children to her sister Adah in 4:21,
so also 4:26a uses ‫“( גם־הוא‬also him”) to introduce the birth of Enosh to
Seth parallel to the birth of Irad to Cain in 4:18. Moreover, much as non-P
used a passive formulation to report the birth of Adam and Eve’s first grand-
child, Irad (Gen 4:18; ‫“[ ויולד לחנוך את־עירד‬and to Enoch was born Irad”]),
so also 4:26 uses a passive formulation to report the birth of their second
grandson, Enosh (‫“( ולשת גם־הוא ילד בן‬and to Seth also was born a son”).31
This name, “Enosh,” is another word for “human,” thus underlining the al-
ternative character of the line established by Seth (4:25b). In this way, the
reports of the births of Seth and Enosh in Gen 4:25–26 connect with the
plays on language and emphases on naming seen throughout Gen 2:4b–
4:24. In particular, Gen 4:25–26 resembles Gen 2:4b–4:24 in its interpre-
tation for a name, Seth, whose link to the narrative would not have been
obvious to the ancient reader (see “Eve” in 3:20 and “Cain” in 4:1b) and the
absence of any explanation in the introduction of a name, Enosh, whose
31 Benno Jacob, Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis (Berlin: Schocken Verlag, 1934), 151.
meaning to the reader would have been clear (see also “the human” Gen 2:7;
“Abel”//transitoriness 4:2).
The above reflections show how Gen 4:25–26 connect integrally with
other parts of the pre-P primeval history. In addition, as Hupfeld originally
observed, the theory of post-Priestly origins for Gen 4:25–26 cannot explain
some crucial features in it. In particular, it is difficult for advocates of this ap-
proach to explain why a post-Priestly redactor would create a two-generation
genealogical report in Gen 4:25–26 that doubled both the Adam>Seth (5:1–
5) and Seth>Enosh (5:6–8) sections of the Priestly genealogy to which it
now connects.32 Moreover, it is difficult to explain how P (or a genealogical
source of P) would have arrived at a genealogy that moved from Adam (=
“the human”) to Seth to Enosh (= “human”) apart from its basis in a non-P
genealogy like the one in Gen 4:25–26. Within non-P, Seth is presented in
4:25 as a transitional link from the first human, Adam, to the new human,
Enosh (4:26), providing a substitute for the line lost with Abel. Yet within
Gen 5:1–7 Seth simply stands as an intervening figure between two primeval
figures whose names signify “human.”
The next chapter will discuss the possible significance, within a non-P
context, of the presentation of Enosh as a new “human” in whose genera-
tion people began to call on the name of YHWH (Gen 4:26). For the pre-
sent purposes, it is important to note that this idea of humans calling on the
name of YHWH would be superfluous in a post-Priestly genealogical bridge.
Moreover, it contradicts the periodization of divine designations found in the
Priestly material, where God is known by other names—and not YHWH—
in the pre-Mosaic period (Gen 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; Exod 6:2–3).33
Finally, the theory that 4:25–26 is a post-Priestly bridge makes it more dif-
ficult to explain the current distribution of names between Genesis 4 (non-
P) and Genesis 5. As we will see in more detail in the following chapter on
Genesis 5, the Priestly genealogy there has correlates to all of the names of
the pre-Noah primeval fathers in Genesis 4 and no others, albeit in a different
order (with P names corresponding to 4:25–26 that then precede P names
that correspond to 4:1, 17–18). To explain the current distribution of names
in Genesis 4 and 5 and maintain the theory of post-Priestly authorship of
32 See Herman Hupfeld, Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung von neuem
untersucht (Berlin: Verlag von Wiegandt und Grieben, 1853), 129–30. This issue was already noted in
the important early discussion of Genesis 4 and 5 in Philipp Buttmann, Mythologus oder gesammelte
Abhandlungen über die Sagen des Alterthums 1 (Berlin: Mylius, 1828), 171.
33 Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 5; Skinner, Genesis, 99.
4:25–26, one must suppose that P modified the Gen 4:1–24 genealogy and
extended it backward through the addition of Seth and Enosh, before a post-
Priestly redactor then selectively expanded the Gen 4:1–24 genealogy with
4:25–26. Notably, this post-P redactor thus would have focused exclusively
on both new names supposedly added by P to the older Gen 4:1–24 gene-
alogy (Seth, Enosh; 5:3–7) but avoided adding any of P’s adaptations of names
in the older 4:1–24 genealogy, e.g., Qenan (versus Cain), Mahalel (versus
Mehujael), Yered (versus Irad). A far simpler explanation of the existing par-
allels between Genesis 4 and 5 is to see P (or possibly a pre-P Toledot book)
as rearranging and adapting the names of preflood patriarchs found already
in Gen 4:1–26.
In conclusion, it appears that the genealogy of Seth and Enosh in 4:25–
26 is the first part of a pre-Priestly alternative genealogical line to that of
Cain-Lamech in 4:1–24. A common literary origin of 4:25–26 with 4:1–24
(with 4:1–24 dependent in turn on an earlier oral tradition) best explains the
overall similar formulation of 4:25–26 to elements of 4:1–24, other intricate
connections of 4:25–26 to the rest of the chapter, and the specific correla-
tions between names of pre-Noah patriarchs in Gen 4:1–26 (as a whole) and
Genesis 5.
The other major question about this theory is how this initial Sethite
genealogy in 4:25–26 once connected to other pre-Priestly materials re-
garding Noah and the flood (e.g., 5:29; 6:5–9 up through 9:20–27) and/or
the fragment regarding offspring from sons of God and daughters of hu-
manity (6:1–4) before the interposition of Priestly and other materials now
separating these sections. Those issues will be dealt with in c hapters 5 and 6
of this book.
4
The Book of the Toledot (Descendants)
of Adam (Genesis 5; 11:10–26 and
Related Texts)
As anticipated in the previous chapter, the genealogies in Genesis 4 and Genesis–

5 form another place of apparent conflation of originally separate genealogies.
Genesis 4 gives a series of five names leading from Adam’s oldest son, Cain (4:1),
through to Lamech and his offspring (4:17–22) before giving a shorter gene-
alogy leading from Adam, through Seth, to Enosh (4:25–26). Genesis 5 then
gives another genealogy of Adam, Seth, and Enosh (5:3–8//4:25–26) that then
continues with descendants of Enosh whose names (roughly) parallel the gene-
alogy of Cain through Lamech (5:9–27//4:17–22). As indicated in the following
chart, this continuation starts with Enosh’s son, “Qenan,” whose name sounds
similar to “Cain,” and concludes with a new “Lamech” who is now Noah’s fa-
ther (5:28–29) rather than the father of Jabal, Jubal, Tubal-Cain, and Naamah
(4:20–22). As a result, the present text of Genesis 4–5 presents Seth as having
grandchildren and great-grandchildren with quite similar or identical names
to the figures listed in non-P (Gen 4:17–18) as the more immediate sons of his
brother Cain. The following chart shows parallels between Genesis 5 and Gen
4:17–18 (names that occur in a different father-son locus inside Gen 4:17–18
than in Genesis 5 are highlighted by [square backets]):1
Genealogy of Adam-Cain in Genealogy of Adam-Seth in Genesis 5

Genesis 4 (in order)
Adam (‫ )אדם‬4:1–16, 25 Adam (‫ )אדם‬5:1–5
Seth (‫ )שת‬5:6–8 (//Gen 4:25)
1 As noted in the introduction, names in this chapter and throughout are given in the standard
English forms that they appear in the NRSV, since an attempted representation of the Hebrew would
not generally add to the discussion. The main exception is that names ending in Hebrew tav are ren-
dered with a final t (following the typical modern Hebrew pronunciation tradition) rather than th.
Thus, for example, Japhet not Japeth. Another exception, the need to distinguish between the place
name Haran (‫ ;חרן‬rendered here as Harran) and the character Haran (‫)הרן‬, is noted later in this chapter.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190062545.003.0001
Enosh (‫ )אנוש‬5:6–11 (//Gen 4:26)

Cain (‫ )קין‬4:1–17 Kenan (‫ )קינן‬5:9–14
[Enoch (‫ )חנוך‬4:17–18] Mahalalel (‫ )מהללאל‬5:12–17
Irad (‫ )עירד‬4:18 Jared (‫ )ירד‬5:15–20
[Mehujael (‫ )מחויאל‬4:18] Enoch (‫ )חנוך‬5:18–24
Methushael (‫ )מתושאל‬4:18 Methuselah (‫ )מתושלח‬5:21–27
Lamech (‫ )למך‬4:18 Lamech (‫ )למך‬5:25–31
I‍ t is unlikely that a scribal reviser would have created this parallel between
the descendants of Cain and Seth, each leading up to a differently understood
“Lamech.” Instead, the parallels in Genesis 4–5 are best explained as the com-
bination of originally separate genealogies that were based on common in-
formation. Moreover, given that the P and non-P materials spanning Adam
to Noah in Genesis 4 (non-P) and Genesis 5 (P) feature pre-Noah fathers
with similar or identical names, and neither mentions any other fathers be-
fore Noah, the most economical explanation of the data is that P or non-P
adapted the names of preflood patriarchs from the other.
This chapter explores the background of these and other issues sur-
rounding the formation of the Seth-to-Noah genealogy in Genesis 5 along
with related material in the Shem-to-Noah genealogy of Gen 11:10–26.
Building on the previous chapter’s discussion of the background of Genesis
4, this one makes the case that the bulk of Genesis 5, 11:10–26, and a few re-
lated texts represent remnants of an early Priestly composition, “The Book
of the Toledot (Descendants) of Adam,” that traced a genealogical line from
Adam to Noah (Genesis 5*) and then from Noah and his postflood descen-
dants to Abraham (Gen 11:10–26).
Initial Indicators of “The Book of the Toledot of Adam”

and Its Original Scope
We have an apparent explicit indication of this early Priestly source in the label
at the outset of Genesis 5: “This is the book [‫ ]ספר‬of the descendants [Toledot
‫ ]תולדת‬of Adam” (5:1a). The rest of Genesis features other such Toledot/de-
scendant (‫ )תולדת‬labels (e.g., Gen 2:4a; 6:9aα; 10:1aα).2 This one, however, is
2 On the translation of ‫ תולדת‬as referring to descendants, see the discussion in David M. Carr,
“Βίβλος γενέσεως Revisited: A Synchronic Analysis of Patterns in Genesis as Part of the Torah (Parts
One and Two),” ZAW 110 (1998): 163–64.
The Book of the Descendants of Adam 85
distinguished by its reference to an independent text, a separate “book,” prob-

ably in the form of a book scroll. The term translated here as “book,” ‫ספר‬,
generally refers to a text written on freestanding media, usually a scroll in the
ancient Levant, but occasionally a tablet (Isa 30:8) or potsherd (e.g., Lachish
3:5, 9–11; 6:3–4, 14).3 As such, the label in Gen 5:1a implies that the material it
introduces originated in a separate book, whether on a scroll or other media,
that was focused on Adam’s Toledot (‫)תולדת‬, that is, his “descendants.”4
The material immediately following this label in Genesis 5 provides clues
as to the overall focus and scope of this genealogically focused Toledot book.
Rather than providing a broad overview of different descendants of Adam’s
various progeny (cf., e.g., Genesis 10), the following material in Genesis 5 is
a linear genealogy tracing a single line of the eldest descendants and implicit
heirs of Adam, leading up to Noah, the flood hero. Each section in Genesis
5 follows a distinctive pattern with chronological notices that are focused on
the age of each primeval patriarch when he fathered his first son and then his
remaining years of life, fathering various other unnamed progeny after the
first son, before death:
(1) A report of the age of the ancestor at birth of first son introduced by a
form of ‫ויחי‬, then name and years (Gen 5:3a, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 25, 28).
3 It should be emphasized that the word “book” is used here as the best available English word to
refer to an extended writing on separate written media. It is not meant to refer to the codex/bound
book form that such extended writings often have taken in the late antique Greco-Roman world
and afterward. Notably, Avi Hurvitz, “The Origins and Development of the Expression ‫מגִ לַּת־סֵ פֶ ר‬: ְ A
Study in the History of Writing-Related Terminology in Biblical Times [Hebrew],” in Texts, Temples,
and Traditions: FS Haran, ed. Michael Fox et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 37*–46*,
argues persuasively that the term ‫ ספר‬came to refer ever more specifically to book scrolls in later peri-
ods of biblical Hebrew, while other terms often deriving from Aramaic—e.g., ‫“( אגרת‬letter”)—came
to be used for other text types. Insofar as Gen 5:1a was written in a later, more Aramaic-influenced
period of biblical Hebrew, it too then could be understood to be referring specifically to “the book
scroll of the Toledot (descendants) of Adam.” Questions surrounding the dating of Gen 5:1a and the
rest of the Toledot book to be discussed here will be discussed in chapter 9.
4 Though some have noted that the reference to a ‫ ספר‬at this locus need not refer to a separate
document (e.g., Otto Eissfeldt, “Biblos Geneseōs,” in Kleine Schriften, vol. 3, ed. R. Sellheim and F.
Maas [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1966], 464–65), this chapter will gather data that Gen 5:1a does, in
fact, refer to an earlier document. In doing so, it builds on a host of earlier studies positing such a
“Toledot book” behind some or all of the Toledot labels spanning Genesis; see, e.g., Johann S. Vater,
Commentar über den Pentateuch [vol. 1] (Halle: Waisenhaus Buchhandlung, 1802), 48, 172–73; B. D.
Eerdmans, Die Komposition der Genesis, vol. 1 of Alttestamentliche Studien (Gießen: A. Töpelmann,
1908), 4–5; Gerhard Von Rad, Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch. Literarisch untersucht und theologisch
gewertet, BWANT 65 (Berlin: Kohlhammer, 1934), 33–40; Peter Weimar, “Die Toledot Formel in der
priesterschriftlichen Geschichtsdarstellung,” BZ 18 (1974): 44, 85. For broader survey and discussion
of the scholarship, see Walter Bührer, Am Anfang..: Untersuchungen zur Textgenese und zur relative-
chronologischen Einordnung von Gen 1–3, FRLANT 256 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2014), 156–60.
(2) A statement of how many years the primeval patriarch lived after the
birth of the first son introduced by ‫ויחי‬, then [name of son] followed
by ‫אחרי הולידו‬, and then the years (Gen 5:4a, 7a, 10a, 13a, 16a, 19a,
26a, 30a; cf. an altered form of this element for Enoch in 5:22a).
(3) A statement that the patriarch “fathered sons and daughters” (‫ויוליד‬
‫ )בנים ובנות‬across this latter period of his life, one that reinforces the
status of the first named son (in the first section of the pattern) as the
eldest of various (unnamed) progeny of the given patriarch (Gen 5:4b,
7b, 10b, 13b, 16b, 19b, 26b, 30b).
(4) A summary of the total years of the patriarch’s life (Gen 5:5a, 8a, 11a,
14a, 17a, 20a, 23a, 27a, 31a).
(5) A report that the patriarch died (Gen 5:5b, 8b, 11b, 14b, 17b, 20b, 23b,
27b, 31b).
‍Each such section is then followed in Genesis 5 by a section focused exclu-

sively on the firstborn son featured in the initial fathering report, thus under-
lining the focus of the whole on firstborn sons. And although the conclusion
of Genesis 5 reports that Noah fathered three named sons (Shem, Ham, and
Japhet, Gen 5:32), a new section in Gen 11:10–26 then picks up the pattern
from Genesis 5 with an initial focus on Shem (Gen 11:10–11), the son who
was listed first in Gen 5:32, thus implying Shem’s firstborn status.5
The rest of this genealogy of Shem in Gen 11:10–26 shares with Genesis 5
the previously surveyed, highly regularized pattern that dates and stresses the
status of each patriarch’s firstborn son. Each successive section then focuses,
as in Genesis 5, on the firstborn son noted in the previous one, dating his
fathering of his firstborn son and noting his remaining life years. To be sure,
Gen 11:10–26 diverges from Genesis 5 in not including summaries of each
patriarch’s life and a report that he died, a divergence that I will discuss in the
following section.6 Otherwise, however, Genesis 11:10–26, like the bulk of
5 A longstanding rabbinic interpretive tradition, often focused initially on the listing of Noah’s sons
in Gen 5:32 (e.g., b. Sanh. 69b; Gen. Rab. 26.3; Rashi) or the mention of Japhet in Gen 10:21 (e.g., Gen.
Rab. 37.7; Ibn Ezra), proposed seeing Shem as actually Noah’s third son. This was partly based on a
certain reading of Gen 10:21b, but it mostly served as a way of solving chronological problems caused
by a likely secondary chronological note in Gen 11:10b that Arpachshad was born in the second
(year) after the flood. That latter note (including its translation) is discussed later in the chapter.
6 In addition, the initial reports of the ages of Arpachshad and Shelah at fathering in Gen 11:12 and
11:14 slightly diverge from others in Genesis 5 and 11:10–26 in featuring the patriarch’s name first
and then a suffix form of the verb. Benno Jacob, Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis (Berlin: Schocken
Verlag, 1934), 308 suggests that this may result from the fact that Gen 10:24 already has reported the
fathering of named sons by these two patriarchs. This could be the case, but, if so, it was the result
of post-Priestly conflational adjustment since Gen 10:24 shows multiple signs (to be discussed in
chapter 7 of this book) of non-P, possibly post-Priestly, authorship.
Genesis 5, is a highly regularized survey of the implicitly eldest descendants

of Adam (through Shem) leading up to Abraham. And much as Genesis 5
concludes with a report of Noah’s fathering of three named sons (Gen 5:32),
starting with Shem who is treated as his implicit firstborn in Gen 11:10–26,
so also Gen 11:10–26 concludes with a report of Terah’s fathering of three
named sons, starting with his implicit firstborn, Abraham, the ancestor of
Israel (11:26).
In sum, Genesis 5* and 11:10–26 together constitute a distinctive linear
genealogy of the eldest descendants extending from Adam to Abraham.
Moreover, the chronological notices that occur across both of these gene-
alogical sections diverge from other P (and non-P) age notices in giving
age numbers in an ascending pattern, starting with the single digits and
then moving upward to decades and centuries (e.g., 5:6–8, 10–11, 13–18,
20–21, 23, 25–31; 11:12–13; 15–17, 19–21, 24–25).7 Together with the pre-
viously noted distinctive linear pattern focused on the eldest descendants,
this distinctive numbering system dominating most of Genesis 5* and
11:10–26 confirms the identification of these sections as the main identifi-
able parts of the “Book of the Toledot (Descendants) of Adam” introduced
in Gen 5:1a.8
Containing roughly these contents, this “Book of the Toledot of Adam”
constituted a linear genealogy focused particularly on establishing Abraham’s
primeval lineage, with Abraham standing as the eldest, privileged heir of
a line of elder sons extending back to the first human, Adam. This sort of
7 Age references in P generally start with larger numbers and then move downward to single digits
(e.g., Gen 25:7; 35:28; 50:22; Deut 34:7), though we do see exceptions in Gen 11:32; 12:4; and 47:28
(the case of Gen 11:32 will be discussed later in the chapter). For an excellent recent discussion of this
phenomenon (and apparent Priestly adaptation of this system in Gen 5:5), see Robin B. ten Hoopen,
“Genesis 5 and the Formation of the Primeval History: A Redaction Historical Case Study,” ZAW 129
(2017): 177–93, esp. 185. Late in the production of this book I came across an relatively recent, excel-
lent article by John Screnock (“The Syntax of Complex Adding Numerals and Hebrew Diachrony,”
JBL 41 [2018]: 789–819) that presented persuasive arguments (especially pp. 799–800, 804, 815–816)
that the Toledot book’s numbers are distinguished from the rest of P both by the above-noted as-
cending number pattern and (less consistently) preservation of an older multiple-distribution system
where the different digit numbers are each followed by the item being numbered (here ‫)שנה‬. Later
texts, including a number of P texts, are more characterized by a descending order (perhaps from
Aramaic influence) along with the deletion of one of the numbered items. This suggests that the
numbering pattern used alongside other indicators in this chapter to identify Toledot elements is
part of the diachronic profile of the Toledot book.
8 Again, I diverge here from my earlier restriction of the Toledot book to Genesis 5 (Reading the
Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox,
1996], 72n47). My position now more closely approximates identifications of such a book as being
largely reflected in Genesis 5* and 11:10–26 (and not the ancestral parts of Genesis). See e.g., Erhard
Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte, WMANT 57 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1984), 451–52 (including n. 29).
linear genealogical form had a particular function in the ancient world, one
that contrasted with the segmented genealogies of the sort characteristic of P
(e.g., Genesis 10*; 25:12–16; and 36). Whereas such segmented genealogies
aim to outline social relationships between peoples, linear genealogies focus
on asserting the ancestral privilege of a given figure. For example, a linear
genealogy of a royal dynastic line establishes the legitimacy of the king or dy-
nasty at its conclusion. A high priest’s genealogy authenticates the right and
privilege of its final member.9 So also, the aim of this “Book of the Toledot of
Adam” must be understood from the perspective of the most central figure
standing at its end. Originally, it was not focused on demonstrating the out-
working of God’s creation blessing or implying the filling of the world with
humanity (cf., Gen 1:26–28). Instead, it was focused on establishing the pri-
meval pedigree of Abraham.10
In addition, there are a number of signs that this “Book of the Toledot of
Adam” included some additional material on Noah, material bridging its pre-
flood (Genesis 5*) and postflood (Gen 11:10–26) sections.11 We already see
Noah as a prominent character at the conclusion of Genesis 5, in the report
that he fathered three sons at age 600 (Gen 5:32). Moreover, Noah stands as a
crucial transitional figure between the Toledot book genealogy of preflood pri-
meval patriarchs leading up to him in Genesis 5* and the genealogy of postflood
patriarchs in Gen 11:10–26 that starts with his son, Shem. Considering the ma-
terial between Genesis 5 and 11:10–26, there are several additional elements
that look like parts of a separately labeled Toledot section on Noah, one with
chronological notices oriented around the flood. The concluding notices of
Noah’s life after the flood (9:28) and total life span before death (9:29) adapt
the pattern seen for primeval patriarchs in Gen 5:3–31, but now orient the total
of the years given for Noah’s overall life by the number of years lived after the
flood (9:28) rather than by years lived after the birth of his first son (cf. Gen
5:4, 7, etc.). This suggests that some form of the dating of the flood (by years of
Noah’s life) in Gen 7:6 also was part of a Toledot section on Noah. This Noah
9 Robert Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, Yale Near Eastern Researches 7 (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 41–43; Rüdiger Lux, “Die Genealogie als Strukturprinzip des
Pluralismus,” in Religion und Identität: Im Horizont des Pluralismus, ed. Werner Gephart and Hans
Waldenfels (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1999), 255; Thomas Hieke, Die Genealogien der Genesis,
HBS 39 (Freiburg: Herder, 2003), 155–63.
10 Horst Seebass, Genesis I: Urgeschichte (1,1–11,26) (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener-Verlag,
1996), 291–92. I will return toward the end of this chapter to questions surrounding the presence of
Abraham’s brothers and nephew in this conclusion alongside Abraham.
11 Here building in particular on Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW
189 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990), 280–82.

section was introduced by the Toledot label in Gen 6:9aα, probably accompa-
nied by the additional description of elements that ensured Noah’s survival of
the flood (Gen 6:9aβb): that he was “a righteous man” (‫)איש צדיק‬, “blame-
less among his generations” (‫)תמים בדרתיו‬, and that he “walked around with
God” (‫ )את־האלהים התהלך‬much like Enoch was said to do in Genesis 5:22aα,
24a.12 Through this separate Toledot label for Noah, the Toledot book identi-
fied Noah as the focal point for the transition between Genesis 5* and 11:10–
26, much like the separate Toledot label for Shem’s descendants (Gen 11:10aα)
then introduced a new postflood portion of the Toledot book. Finally, the focus
on descendants in this Toledot label for Noah likely prompted a (nondated)
repeat of the report that Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japhet (Gen 6:10).
Otherwise this section on Noah’s “descendants” (‫ ;תולדת‬Gen 6:9aα) would not
have had a single mention of his sons.13 In sum, Gen 6:9–10, 7:6 and 9:28–29
seem to have originated in some form as the Noah portion of an earlier Toledot
book, a separate Noah section that followed up on and overlapped with the in-
itial report of his fathering in Gen 5:32.
Finally, this Toledot of Adam book probably included a concluding
“descendants of Terah” Toledot section that is reflected in parts of 11:27a,
32*.14 The concluding summary of Terah’s lifespan (Gen 11:32) features the
ascending number system otherwise predominant in sections that likely de-
rive from the Toledot book.15 Moreover, the section initially labeled “These
12 For translation of Gen 6:9aβ as two clauses, see Benno Jacob, Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis
(Berlin: Schocken Verlag, 1934), 267.

13 Blum, Studien, 280 argues that the doubled report of Noah’s fathering of sons in Gen 6:10 may
be secondary vis-à-vis the initial report in Gen 5:32. He suggests that it may stand as a resump-
tive mention of Noah’s sons required by the inclusion of intervening non-P material (Gen 6:1–8)
that interrupts the movement from 6:9 to 6:11. Nevertheless, we see a quite similar repetition
of fathering reports within a short compass in Gen 11:26/27 (emphasized in Jan Christian Gertz,
“Genesis 5: Priesterliche Redaktion, Komposition oder Quellenschrift?” in Abschied von der
Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte, ed. Friedhelm Hartenstein and Konrad Schmid
[Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2015], 78–80). Moreover, as noted in Gertz, Genesis 1–11,
201, this kind of repetition in 5:32//6:10 and 11:26//27 provides an augmented narrative focus on
the descendants of Noah and Terah (respectively) that is akin to that provided by the repeated (and
grammatically unnecessary) specification of a subject in certain loci (e.g., Noah in both Gen 5:32a
and 5:32b). Finally, it is not clear what narrative thread would be resumed by this report of fathering
in Gen 6:10. It appears instead that the interruptive character of this notice is caused by P building a
flood story around this earlier (repeated) report of fathering.
14 The present form of Priestly materials in Gen 11:27, 31–32 anticipate the following narrative in
focusing on Haran’s fathering of Lot (11:27), the family’s journey to Harran (Gen 11:31), and Terah’s
death there in Harran (Gen 11:32). If some form of an earlier Toledot book is preserved here, it is dif-
ficult to distinguish it from later adaptations of it to fit its present context.
15 In addition, the numbering in Gen 11:32 features the multiple distribution (repetition of ‫שנה‬
after each number) that Screnock identifies as a distinctive early linguistic feature particularly char-
acteristic of the Toledot book (Screnock, “Syntax of Complex Adding Numerals,” 801–4).
are the descendants of Terah” (11:27aaα) includes several parts that are sim-
ilar to the previously discussed Toledot section on Noah:
An initial label focused on his descendants (Gen 11:27aα//6:9aα).

An (undated) repeat of the idea that he fathered these three descendants
(11:27aβ//6:10). (Gen 9:28)]
A summary of the total years of his life and report that he died (Gen 11:32//
9:29).
Furthermore, certain indicators suggest that the parts of the treatment of Terah
that most closely match the Toledot pattern (Gen 11:26 and 11:27a, 32) were
not originally continued by the Priestly material that follows. The dating of
Terah’s fathering at 70 (Gen 11:26) and death at 205 (Gen 11:32) imply that he
lived another 135 years after fathering his sons. Yet the Priestly chronological
notice for Abraham’s departure has him leaving at age 75 (Gen 12:4b), thus
having Abraham depart for Canaan 60 years before the death of his father,
Terah. Rabbinic interpreters (e.g., Radak, Ralbag) noticed this implication and
developed narrative encounters where Abraham tried to persuade Terah to
come with him. A tradent behind the Samaritan Pentateuch apparently saw
an issue with this, and accordingly revised the conclusion of the Terah section
so that Terah died in the year of Abraham’s departure. The original reading for
Terah’s overall age, however, is likely 205.16 The questions that are posed by its
combination with the following Priestly notices for Abraham may have been
caused by a Priestly author who imitated and expanded upon the chronolog-
ical notices in the Toledot book without necessarily fully thinking through the
implications. In the following section, I will discuss some other examples of
these sorts of chronological incongruencies in (likely) Priestly material.
In sum, “the Book of the Toledot of Adam” that is introduced in Gen 5:1a
apparently included something like the following materials:
The bulk of Genesis 5 (the case of Genesis 5:29 is discussed in an excursus

shortly).
A brief separate Toledot section on Noah’s descendants, overlapping
with 5 (6:9*; 6:10[//5:32]; 7:6; 9:28–29].
16 Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1998), 73–74.

Almost all of the Toledot of Shem in Gen 11:10–26 (Gen 11:10b is discussed
in the following section).
A brief concluding Toledot section on Terah’s descendants, overlapping
with 11:10–26 (Gen 11:27* [//11:26], 32).
‍ e fact that the Toledot section on Noah’s descendants concludes with a

Th
summary of his years of life and report of his death (Gen 9:29)—as do sub-
sequent Priestly Toledot sections on particular figures (e.g., Ishmael [Gen
25:17], Isaac [35:28–29], and Jacob [47:28; 49:33])—provides additional
confirmation that the original “Toledot of Terah” section introduced in Gen
11:27 likely concluded with his death in Gen 11:32.17 When a Priestly author
extended the Terah Toledot to include new materials about Abraham (e.g.,
Gen 12:4b–5; 13:6, 11b–12abα; 17:1–27; 19:29), he added a new conclusion
to this Terah Toledot (starting in 11:27aα) that summarized Abraham’s total
years of life and reported his death (Gen 25:7–8), along with a series of other
materials that included chronological elements not fully conforming to the
chronology of postflood ancestors in Gen 11:10–26 (e.g., Gen 12:4b).18 The
original “Book of the Toledot of Adam,” however, likely followed the pre-
ceding outline, with two longer sections on pre-and postflood ancestors of
Abraham (Genesis 5; 11:10–26), each followed and partially overlapped by
a briefer, one-generation Toledot section on Noah and Terah respectively
(Gen 6:9–10; 7:6; 9:28–29 and 11:27*, 32*).
EXCURSUS: A Likely Non-P Fragment in Gen 5:29

Before proceeding with further analysis of the materials in Genesis 5* and
11:10–26, it must be acknowledged that there is one element in Genesis 5
17 The multigenerational sections of Toledot in Genesis 5* and 11:10–26 do not conclude with
the death of a primeval ancestor. The initial Adam-to-Noah Toledot section concludes with Noah’s
fathering of three sons (Gen 5:32), much as the Shem-to-Terah section concludes with Terah’s
fathering of three sons (Gen 11:26). In both cases, these fathering reports are then repeated at the
outset of the following shorter sections focused on Noah’s Toledot (Gen 6:9–10) and Terah’s (Gen
11:27).
18 An additional mark of the distinctively Priestly character of the concluding notice for Abraham
(Gen 25:7–8) and other concluding sections in the ancestral section is the fact that are these ancestral
concluding notices about the total days of Israel’s ancestors and them dying and being gathered to
their people (Gen 25:7–8, 17; 35:28–29; and [in modified form] 47:28; 49:33) diverge from the gen-
erally consistent formula for reporting the total years of a primeval patriarch’s life (‫“[ ויהיו כל ימי‬and
all of the years of [X]‌were”]) and simple report of his death (‫ ;וימת‬e.g., Gen 5:5; 9:29). Note, however,
that the formula introducing Terah’s total years (‫“[ ויהי ימי‬and the days [of X] were”]; 11:32) parallels
the one that is used to introduce Isaac’s total years (35:28), a possible sign that this notice, standing
as the final element of a Toledot book, was another locus of Priestly adaptation (as in Gen 9:28–29, a
similar notice toward the end of a Toledot book section).
that appears to derive from the non-Priestly strand of Gen 1–11: Gen 5:29,
or at least the speech anticipating Noah’s destiny in 5:29b.19 This appears
to be a fragment of non-Priestly material now inserted into the largely
Priestly Adam-Noah genealogy as an additional element anticipating
Noah. We have seen how such etymological explanations of names play a
prominent role in the non-Priestly material of Genesis 2–4 (e.g., 2:7; 3:20;
4:1, 25), while the Priestly material does not generally feature such explicit
explanations (though cf. Gen 17:5).20 In this case, Lamech is depicted in
5:29b as explaining Noah’s name as resulting from the fact that he will
give humankind comfort (‫ )ינחמנו‬from “our labor and toil of our hands”
(‫ )ממעשנו ומעצבון ידינו‬from the ground that YHWH cursed. Notably, the
word used here, ‫“( עצבון‬toil”), is a rare one in the Hebrew Bible, appearing
only here and in the previous descriptions of the woman’s toil in childbirth
(3:16) and the man’s toil in working “the ground” (‫ )האדמה‬all his life (Gen
3:17–19). Indeed, multiple elements in 5:29b—for example, this mention of
‫“( עצבון‬toil”) along with ‫“( האדמה‬ground”), YHWH (‫)יהוה‬, and his curse
(‫—)ארר‬are specifically characteristic of the non-Priestly material seen in
Genesis 2–4, with no elements connecting with specifically Priestly themes.
As such, Gen 5:29 is integrally connected to preceding non-P materials, as
it also is to following non-P materials in Gen 9:20ff. The next chapter of this
book will discuss the various parts of this non-P depiction of Noah in Gen
5:29; 9:18–27 and consider alternative proposals for the link of Gen 5:29
to what follows. For now it is enough to confirm that the naming report in
Gen 5:29, along with elements that anticipate it in the birth report of Gen
5:28 (e.g., the report that Lamech fathered an unnamed “son”), is likely not
part of the original literary fabric of Genesis 5.
Signs of Priestly Adaptation of a Toledot Book

in Genesis 5–11
Though the preceding discussion has identified the overall contours of a

Toledot book behind parts of Genesis 5–11*, precise identification of this
19 The naming formula in 5:29a, ‫ויקרא את־שמו‬, matches that in 4:26 (non-P) and 5:3 (P). Some
have been inclined to see this expression as a specific Priestly naming formula, thus identifying its
appearances in 5:3 and 29a as the original Priestly instances and 4:25–26 as a post-Priestly imitation
of them. See the preceding discussion (pp. 79–82) for arguments that Gen 4:25–26 is pre-Priestly.
20 Markus Witte, Die biblische Urgeschichte: Redaktions–und theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen
zu Genesis 1,1–11,26, BZAW 265 IBerlin: De Gruyter, 1998), 129.

book’s contents is hampered somewhat by the fact that such a work evidently
has undergone multiple stages of often seamless redaction, starting with sev-
eral loci where it appears to have been adapted by the Priestly author who
appropriated this Toledot book into a broader Priestly source.
We see a good initial example of this in the concluding notices about
the years that Noah lived after the flood and his total years found in Gen
9:28–29. As noted in the preceding discussion, these verses correspond to
the concluding notices about other primeval ancestors in Genesis 5 and thus
are good candidates for being the conclusion to the Toledot book’s treat-
ment of Noah. Nevertheless, the age notices in these verses follow the typical
descending-order system seen in P (and non-P) rather than the distinctive
ascending-order system characteristic of most of Gen 5:3–31; 11:10–26 (and
11:32). If these concluding verses about Noah were once part of the treat-
ment of him in a Toledot book, their age formulations likely were adapted,
seamlessly, by the same Priestly author who massively expanded that Toledot
book’s brief genealogical section on Noah and his sons into a full narrative
about the flood and postflood covenant.21 The same could be said, by the way,
for the concluding age notice for Adam (Gen 5:5), which likewise diverges
from the rest of Gen 5:3–31, 11:10–26 in giving numbers in descending
order,22 while agreeing somewhat in formulation with the Priestly sum-
mary for Abraham (25:7).23 In this respect, we seem to see particular signs of
Priestly reworking of the Toledot book at points where that book focused on
figures who were particularly important for P—Adam on the one hand and
Noah on the other.24
We see further evidence of such Priestly reworking of the Toledot book’s
depiction of Adam in Gen 5:1b–3. Interpreters have long noted the way that
Gen 5:1b–2 interrupts the movement from “The Book of the Descendants
of Adam” in 5:1a to the genealogical section devoted to him (5:3–5). In par-
ticular, the review of God’s creation and blessing of ʾādām as humanity in
general in 5:1b–2 (both male and female) contrasts with the focus of 5:1a
and 5:3–5 on ʾādām as the first male human individual. At the same time,
Gen 5:1b–2 has an important function vis-à-vis the surrounding sections
21 ten Hoopen, “Genesis 5,” 185.

22 Blum, Studien, 282n203 notes this phenomenon.
23 Hieke, Genealogien der Genesis, 73.
24 Alternatively, Blum, Studien, 282n203 suggests that the corresponding use of the descending
numbering system at the beginning (Gen 5:5) of the Adam section and end of the Noah section (Gen
9:28–29) forms an inclusio binding these sections together.
in 5:1a and 5:3–5. Its review of human creation and blessing helps build a
bridge between the Priestly description of the creation and blessing of col-
lective humanity/(hā)ʾādām in 1:26–28 and the Toledot book’s focus on
ʾādām as the first primeval ancestor in 5:1aff. As such, the insertion in Gen
5:1b–2 likely connects the Toledot book’s beginning point, ‫( אדם‬Adam) as
an individual (5:3–5, adapting non-P), to a distinctively Priestly depiction
of God’s creation of male and female humanity, now ‫ האדם‬as “humanity in
general,” as images of God (Gen 1:26–27). Moreover, Gen 5:1b–2 explicitly
adds elements of God’s original multiplication blessing from Gen 1:28 into
a Toledot book originally focused on reporting and dating each primeval
patriarch’s fathering of an eldest son.25 These connections of Genesis 5* back
to P in Genesis 1 and then continue with echoes of God’s making of humans
as images of God in accordance with God’s likeness (Gen 1:26) in Adam’s
fathering of Seth as his likeness in accordance with his image (Gen 5:3aβ).26
These sections in Gen 5:1b–3a and 9:28–29 are but two examples of likely
Priestly adaptation of the Toledot book made in the process of incorporating
that book into a larger Priestly literary whole. Their often seamless char-
acter (e.g., the “image” and “likeness” elements likely added into Gen 5:3aβ)
point to the fact that this Priestly adaptation of the Toledot book sometimes
can be identified only through comparison with other parts of P (e.g., Gen
1:26–28 in this case). We may see additional signs of such Priestly adaptation
in other anomalous elements of Genesis 5* and 11:10–26. For example, the
notices of Noah’s and Shem’s ages at the birth of their children in Gen 5:32
and 11:10 follow the typical form of Priestly age notices ([so many years]
‫ בן‬X [‫ו]יהי‬, e.g., Gen 17:1; 25:20; 26:34) as opposed to formulations in other
parts of Genesis 5 and 11:10–26 that emphasize how long a given patriarch
lived before fathering his first child ([so many years] X ‫ ויחי‬in Genesis 5 and
25 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 196–97. The connections back to Gen 1:26–28 are thus concentrated in Gen
5:1b–2 (and 5:3*), not other parts of Genesis 5 (cf. Gertz, 192). The Toledot book’s reporting of each
patriarch’s fathering of “sons and daughters” forms a part of each section’s report of the additional
years that the given patriarch lived after fathering his first son, highlighting the elder status of the
given son. It does not stress the numbers of additional descendants, and the earth would not likely
be filled by the descendants, however numerous, of a single line of primeval patriarchs. Later in the
chapter I will discuss some specifically Priestly elements that unfold in the postflood filling of the
earth by humanity (e.g., Gen 9:1, 7 and Priestly parts of Genesis 10*).
26 As noted in Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 126, these parallels to Gen 1:26–28 in Gen 5:2–3aβ
bind the two texts together by unfolding themes in reverse (chiastic) order (cf. Wenham, Genesis
1–15, 126 for a slightly different proposal). Also, it should be noted that the numbering formulation
used for Adam’s years at Seth’s birth in 5:3aα features the “node raising” and ‘deletion’ that Screnock
(“The Syntax of Complex Adding Numerals,” 798) argues is characteristic of relatively later texts. This
may be another mark of P’s seamless adaptation of 5:3 and other parts of the treatment of Adam.
[so many years] X ‫ וחי‬in Gen 11:10–26). These P-like age notices in Gen 5:32
and 11:10, diverging as they do from the age notices that predominate across
the rest of Genesis 5* and 11:10–26, are contiguous with either side of the
extended Priestly narrative of the flood. These borders between Genesis 5,*
11:10–26 and the P flood narrative, like the sections focused on Adam and
Noah, formed an additional locus for particularly intense adaptation of the
Toledot book by the Priestly author who built a broader Priestly composition
around it.
Finally, we see an additional, more identifiable Priestly modification of
the Toledot structure, once again toward the outset of a Toledot section.
The beginning of the Toledot of Shem has an initial section regarding Shem
that includes two, somewhat divergent chronological notices about the
age at which he fathered Arpachshad. Like other Toledot sections across
Genesis 5* and 11:10–26, this unit on Shem starts with a chronological no-
tice that Shem was 100 years old when he fathered Arpachshad (11:10aβ).
Since Noah was reported to be 500 years old when he fathered Shem, Ham,
and Japhet (Gen 5:32) and 600 years old when the flood arrived (Gen
7:6), this first chronological note in 11:10aβ implies that Shem fathered
Arpachshad in the year of the flood. The following chronological note in
Gen 11:10b, however, contradicts this, specifying that Shem’s fathering
happened in the second (year) after the flood (the actual word for “year” is
not included).27 Several aspects of this half-verse mark it as a likely addi-
tion by an author: its cryptic character (lacking the word ‫ שנה‬in its chrono-
logical specification), the fact that it represents an unusual extension of the
dating of Shem’s fathering in comparison with the one-part specification
of age at fathering of other pre-and postflood patriarchs in Genesis 5* and
11:10–26, and the fact that this unusual extension also happens to implic-
itly conflict with the information given in the chronological notice that it
supplements.28
As others have pointed out, this secondary chronological notice appears
to have been added in order to insert a specifically Priestly concept of the
27 Here I adopt the rendering of ‫ שנתים‬as “in the second [year]” (with H. Holzinger, Einleitung in
den Hexateuch [Freiburg: J.C.B.Mohr, 1893], 114; Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 115). The contrast of
Gen 11:10aβ and 11:10b is even more pronounced if one translates Gen 10:10bα, as many do, “two
years after the flood.”
28 To be sure, interpreters found various complex ways to resolve the conflict between Gen 11:10aβ
(combined with Gen 5:32; 7:6) and 11:10b, and some such reconstructions may approximate the
understanding of the author of this chronological specification. See in particular the discussions in
Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 115–16; Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 346–47.
periodization of the flood into the Toledot book. Where the Toledot chron-
ological structure implicitly associated Shem’s fathering of Arpachshad
with the flood, this Priestly concept distinguished between a liminal period
during the flood when Noah’s family and one pair of each earth-based crea-
ture were on the ark together without any offspring (Gen 7:13–16a; 8:16–17a,
18–19) and the period after exit from the ark when the animals (Gen 8:17b)
and humans (Gen 9:1, 7) would then multiply and populate the earth.29 The
author who added this Priestly concept to Gen 11:10 by way of the notice in
Gen 11:10b does not appear to have been overly concerned with the exact
congruence of this additional chronological note with chronological notices
across the Noah story (e.g., Gen 5:32; 7:6; 11:10aβ). Instead, he just seems
to have been focused on clarifying that Arpachshad was born well after the
flood, with Shem’s fathering of him standing as an initial instance of the
broader human multiplication with which God blessed Noah and his sons
(Gen 9:1, 7).30 We saw other likely Priestly interventions at the outset of the
Genesis 5* Adam-to-Noah genealogy (e.g., Gen 5:1b–2, 3*). This additional
chronological notice in Gen 11:10b is a likely similar Priestly adaptation at
the outset of the Shem-to-Abraham section.31
Ultimately, of course, we cannot securely determine all of the loci where
the Toledot book was revised and expanded. The main aim of the chapter so
far has been to argue that some such primeval Adam-to-Abraham Toledot
book preexisted the Priestly work. If so, then this pre-P Toledot of Adam
book likely formed the initial building block and model for what became a
more extended Priestly book surveying Israel’s ancestors—a Priestly proto-
Genesis that provided a “Toledot” of the sons of Israel as background to a
Priestly Moses-exodus book beginning with Exod 1:1–5. P created this ex-
panded Priestly overview of the pre-Mosaic generations by adding a version
of Genesis 1 as a prologue to the Toledot of Adam beginning in Genesis 5*,
and accordingly connected the first part of the Toledot book back to this new
creation account, adding themes of human multiplication and blessing to a
Toledot book Adam-to-Noah genealogy that lacked them (Gen 5:1b–2).32
29 Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 75–76.

30 Lothar Ruppert, Genesis, 1. Teilband Gen 1,1–11,26, Forschung zur Bibel 70 (Würzburg: Echter
Verlag, 1992), 522.
31 In addition, the P-like notice of Shem’s age at fathering—‘‫ ויולד א‬. . . ‫ ושם בן‬11:10a, as in Gen
16:16; 21:5 versus, e.g., Gen 5:3 ‫ שנה ויולד‬. . . ‫—) ויחי אדם‬likely was part of this Priestly modification
of the outset of the Toledot book.
32 As discussed above, there are additional signs of Priestly adaptation of the Toledot book in Gen
5:3* and 5:5*.

P also expanded brief Toledot notices about Noah into a complete Priestly
flood narrative, one now featuring an expanded New Year–oriented chro-
nology by day and month of Noah’s life (e.g., Gen 8:13) as an expansion of
the year-oriented chronology of the Toledot book (e.g., Gen 7:6).33 Then,
where the postflood “Descendants of Shem” section just traced the line from
Noah to Abraham (Gen 11:10–26), P created a new, overlapping section on
the “Descendants of the sons of Noah” (Gen 10:1a; cf. 11:10aα; also 10:22//
11:10aβ) that surveyed postflood humanity more generally (Gen 10:2–7, 20,
22–23, 31–32) and connected in multiple ways back to P’s creation narrative
(Genesis 1).34 The emphasis in P’s overview of postflood humanity on the
differentiation of the descendants of Noah’s sons in clans, lands, languages,
and/or nations (Gen 10:5, 20, 31) stands as a specifically human counterpart
to the descriptions in Genesis 1:11–12, 21, 24–25 of the generation of plants,
sea and air creatures, and animals “each according to its kind” (‫)למניהו‬.35
The geographic orientation of P’s overview shows the initial fulfillment of the
specifically Priestly idea—doubly renewed in the wake of the flood (Gen 9:1,
7)—that humans were empowered by God to multiply and fill the earth (Gen
1:28).36
Finally, as noted above, P also seems to have extended an initial Toledot
section about Terah’s fathering that concluded with his death (Gen 11:32*)
with additional Toledot-like material about Abraham and his descendants
(e.g., Gen 12:4b; 16:3, 16; 21:5; 25:7–8) and associated Priestly narratives
(e.g., Genesis 17; 26:34–35; 27:46–28:9; 35:9–15), even as the formulae used
33 I return in chapter 6 of this book to this and other distinctions between the Toledot book’s Noah
section and P’s expansion of it into a flood narrative.

34 Gen 10:1 and 11:10 are the only examples of Toledot headings in Genesis that overlap in speci-
fying the descendants of the same figure, Shem (among the sons of Noah) in Gen 10:1 and then again
(by himself) in 11:10. This, along with the doubled coverage of Shem’s descendants in Gen 10:22
(P) and 11:10–12 (Toledot book) are important indicators that these two genealogical sections did
not originate on the same diachronic level, even though P likely crafted its overview of postflood hu-
manity in Genesis 10* with 11:10–26 in mind.
35 Andreas Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel: Der literar- und theologiegeschichtliche Diskurs
der Urgeschichte (Genesis 1–11), ATANT 86 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2006), 373; Amanda
Beckenstein Mbuvi, Belonging in Genesis: Biblical Israel and the Politics of Identity Formation (Waco,
TX: Baylor University, 2016), 43.
36 John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 2nd ed., ICC vol. 1
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1930), 193 (and, for reflections of this geographic interest specifically in P’s
listing of Arparchshad third among Shem’s descendants in Gen 10:22, see Ruppert, Gen 1,1–11,26,
522). The contrast of Genesis 10* on these points (linking with Genesis 1) with the linear genealogy
in Genesis 5 helps highlight the extent to which the latter text does not seem crafted to report the ful-
fillment of the Gen 1:28 blessing. However much P may have conceived that blessing to have worked
in the preflood period as well, this source only provides, in Genesis 10*, this explicit description of
the outworking of this fertility blessing in the postflood period, and this coordinates with the extra
stress put on this blessing in the immediate aftermath of the flood (Gen 9:1, 7).
in these ancestral sections often diverge subtly from Toledot patterns that
predominate across most of Genesis 5* and 11:10–26.37 Notably, in several
cases—for example, the previously discussed additional notice about Shem’s
fathering of Arpachshad (Gen 11:10b) and various Priestly chronological
elements in Genesis 12–50 (e.g., Gen 12:4b; 25:7)—the Priestly author intro-
duced chronological elements in and after the Toledot book that do not ap-
pear to have been fully and systematically coordinated with it. This factor
then prompted later scribal modifications and interpretive reflections, to
which I now turn.
Ongoing Scribal Adaptation of the Toledot Book in the

Early Textual Traditions for Genesis
As some early tradents of Genesis seem to have realized, this Priestly exten-
sion of the Toledot book, including specifically Priestly chronological notices
in the ancestral section of Genesis (e.g., Gen 12:4b; 16:3, 16; 17:1; 25:7, 17,
20), conveyed some potentially unintended implications. This was, perhaps,
most evident as one moved from the Toledot book’s chronology for postflood
patriarchs in Gen 11:10–26 to the Priestly chronology for Abraham and
other ancestors of Israel. As rabbinic and many later interpreters have noted,
the chronology in the Masoretic text for Gen 11:10–26 has all of the post-
diluvian patriarchs living into the time of Abraham; three of them (Shem,
Shelah, and Eber) living after the time of Abraham’s death, and Shem even re-
maining alive into the time of Jacob.38 In contrast, the Samaritan Pentateuch
and Septuagint both reflect an apparent altered chronology that solves this
problem through adding one hundred years to the age of most postdiluvian
patriarchs at the age that they begin fathering (fifty years for Nahor) and then
reducing their remaining years of life by a corresponding amount.39 The
precisely common agreement between the LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch
at this point suggests a common Vorlage behind their chronology for Gen
37 Notably, the Priestly author does continue to use the distinctive ascending numbering system
otherwise typical of Toledot sections in Gen 12:4 and then again in 47:28. As noted earlier, the re-
mainder of P’s chronological notices follow a descending pattern instead.
38 This is most evident in various Targumic and other (e.g., Gen. Rab. 63:6) references to the study
house (‫ )בית מדרש‬of Shem (sometimes the study house of Shem and Eber) that was visited by various
ancestors. See, e.g., comments on Rebecca’s “seeking” (‫ )לדרש‬YHWH in Gen 25:22 (Rashi, Radak) or
renderings of Gen 24:62 (Targum Neofiti) or 25:22 (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan).
39 See Ronald S. Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 71–73 for a comparative overview of the chronologies of
Gen 11:10-26 and excellent discussion of the textual issues surrounding them.
11:10–26, a Vorlage that also likely included a slight adaptation (seen in the
LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch) of each section on postflood patriarchs
in Gen 11:10–26 with a report that “he died” so that these sections better
matched the sections on preflood patriarchs in Genesis 5*.
The Samaritan Pentateuch and (Vorlage behind the) LXX then diverged in
featuring yet further adjustments in Genesis 11. The LXX reflects the addition
of an additional postflood primeval patriarch Καιναν (//Gen 5:9–14), thus
making the postflood Shem-to-Abraham genealogy of Gen 11:10–26 have
ten generations corresponding to the ten-generation Adam-to-Noah gene-
alogy of Genesis 5. Along similar lines, the Samaritan Pentateuch conformed
the sections of Gen 11:10–26 to sections in Genesis 5 by adding summaries
of the years that each patriarch lived. In addition, the Samaritan Pentateuch
reading for Gen 11:32 has Terah die in the same year that Abraham is re-
ported in Gen 12:4b to have departed for Canaan (cf. Gen 11:26), thus avoid-
ing the implication (present in the Masoretic and Septuagint readings for
Gen 11:32) that Terah lived another sixty years after Abraham’s departure.40
In these and other ways, the Masoretic text reflects an earlier textual form of
Gen 11:10–26, while the Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint textual tradi-
tions reflect diverse forms of scribal revision of Gen 11:10–26 and 11:32.41
We see a similar set of scribal adjustments to the Toledot book chronology
in Genesis 5, this time likely to a base text most reflected by the Samaritan
Pentateuch. The chronology found in this latter tradition distinguishes be-
tween two preflood patriarchs who walked around with God and were
spared the flood—Enoch (Gen 5:22–24) and Noah—and three patriarchs
who die in the year of the flood, indeed at premature ages compared to the
average 900-year lifespan of their earlier ancestors (Jared 847; Methusaleh
720; Lamech 656).42 It seems that later tradents had some concerns about
the way this chronology implied that these latter, Sethite preflood patriarchs,
ancestors of Noah, were killed by God as part of evil humanity. For we see
a set of readings in the Masoretic and Septuagint, similar to the LXX and
Samaritan Pentateuch readings for Gen 11:10–26 discussed earlier, that avoid
this implication by adding a hundred-plus years to the age of first fathering
by Jared, Methusaleh, and Lamech and yet more additional years for Jared
40 Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 73–74.

41 Here again, Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 73–75 provides an excellent discussion of other forms of har-
monization in the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch traditions in Gen 11:10–26 and 11:32.
42 This presentation and much of the following analysis of the chronological system in Genesis 5
builds particularly on analyses of this problem by Gertz, “Formation,” 121; also Gertz, “Genesis 5,” 84
on the same point.
and especially Methusaleh. This extended the lifetimes of these latter patri-
archs and also the absolute date of the flood so that they lived longer lives,
even as these modifications meant that these particular three patriarchs are
reported (in the MT and LXX) to have fathered children at ages considerably
later than other pre-and postflood patriarchs.43
EXCURSUS: The MT and LXX Chronologies for Preflood Patriarchs

Following the previously discussed model, Jared’s years at fathering ap-
pear to have been raised by a century in the MT and LXX readings for Gen
5:18, and his remaining life is extended by fifteen years in both traditions
for Gen 5:19–20. The MT and LXX readings for Gen 5:25 similarly appear
to add a century (LXX) or more (MT) to Methuselah’s age at fathering, and
then their readings for Gen 5:26–27 augment his remaining life by yet more
years. Finally, the MT and LXX readings for Gen 5:28 augment Lamech’s
age at fathering Noah by over a century, ensuring that he too is spared death
in the flood.44
Notably, the LXX witnesses here, as elsewhere, to an unusually revi-
sionary scribal tradition, going beyond these similarities to the MT chro-
nology for late preflood patriarchs in adding a century to the period before
other preflood patriarchs father their first son and subtracting a corre-
sponding amount from their remaining years after fathering their first son.
In this respect, the LXX shows the application to all preflood patriarchs of a
scribal revisionary strategy applied to postflood patriarchs in the LXX and
Samaritan Pentateuch readings in Gen 11:10–26 and the MT readings for
late preflood patriarchs.
These parallels shared between the LXX and MT chronologies for the
late preflood patriarchs hint at some kind of shared tradition behind the
two, though it is difficult to square the idea of a LXX/MT revisionary
Vorlage behind their similar readings for Genesis 5 with the yet clearer
picture of a shared Vorlage behind the common system of LXX/Samaritan
Pentateuch readings for Gen 11:10–26. Rather than accounting for these
interrelationships only with a model of rote scribal copying and stemmata
43 In addition, as noted in Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 190, the extended chronologies meant that now
either Noah (in the proto-MT chronology) or Adam and Noah (in the LXX chronology) had no
personal acquaintance with Enoch. According to the Samaritan chronology, all preflood patriarchs
know Enoch, indeed in the time that he “walked around with God” between fathering his first child
and death.
44 See Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 66–69; and Gertz, “Genesis 5,” 88–90 for discussions of the particular
problems surrounding the chronology of Lamech.

of manuscripts, it may be that the data in Genesis 5 point to a scribal en-

vironment where scribes, particularly those inclined to more extensive
scribal revisions like those often seen behind the Vorlage of the LXX, some-
times appropriated textual and/or interpretive traditions from other manu-
scripts in the process of producing a new textual exemplar. In this case, the
tradents behind the LXX likely started with a Vorlage somewhat like that
seen in the Samaritan Pentateuch (for both Genesis 5* and 11:10–26), but
augmented the chronology for all preflood patriarchs in Genesis 5 along the
lines of adjustments seen only for the late preflood patriarchs in the MT.45
As in the case of the Samaritan Pentateuch and LXX for Gen 11:10–26,
the MT and LXX for Genesis 5 show some additional divergent modifi-
cations in their readings. Earlier I noted the addition in (the Vorlage of)
the LXX of a century to the time before every preflood patriarch fathered.
Meanwhile, The MT adjusts the years for Methusaleh so that he dies in the
year of the flood (at a very old age) rather than surviving it (cf. the LXX).46
In addition, the MT chronology for Noah’s father, Lamech, seems to have
been adjusted so that his overall total age is 777, in correspondence with the
prominence of the numbers 7 and 77 in the non-P depiction of the Lamech
descending from Cain (4:24).47
The relatively earlier chronology for preflood patriarchs reflected in the

Samaritan Pentateuch edition of Genesis 5 connected with the implicit flood-
focus of much of the previously discussed Toledot book. As we have seen, that
book distinguished between pre-(Genesis 5*) and postflood (Gen 11:10–26)
primeval patriarchs, while orienting its Toledot section about Noah around a
dating of the flood (Gen 9:28–29; cf. 7:6). In accordance with this general flood
orientation in the Toledot book, the chronology of the last five preflood patri-
archs that is reflected in the Samaritan Pentateuch features a contrast between
Enoch and Noah (who were spared death in the flood) on the one hand and
Jared, Metushaleh, and Lamech (who die in the flood) on the other. Moreover,
this implicit contrast in Genesis 5 between the survival of Noah-Enoch on the
one hand and deaths of Jared-Methusaleh-Lamech on the other explains the
45 As is indicated in the following parts of the discussion, the MT itself also shows signs of scribal
revision. Thus the model for chronology of preflood patriarchs that the LXX seems to have appro-
priated and expanded upon was not that seen in the MT itself, but one embedded in a tradition that
preceded both the MT and LXX traditions.
46 Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 66.
47 August Dillmann, Die Genesis, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 11
(Leipzig: Hirzel, 1892), 112 [ET 221].

previously noted inclusion, specifically within the Toledot sections of Genesis

5, of final notices of the total years of preflood patriarchs and reports that
each one died (Gen 5:5, 8, 11, 14, etc.). For it is these final notices for preflood
patriarchs that foreground the unusually long lives of the first five patriarchs
(Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, and Mahalalel) and the premature deaths of the
later preflood patriarchs who do not survive the flood.48 Meanwhile, a flood-
linked chronology behind Genesis 5, as seen in the Samaritan Pentateuch,
connects specifically with the way that Enoch is singled out in the Toledot
book’s special treatment of him (Gen 5:22–24), a treatment that presents
Enoch, despite the short years of his life on earth (365 years), as a contempo-
rary of all preflood patriarchs (in the Samaritan Pentateuch chronology) and
a forerunner of Noah who likewise is spared death in the flood (Gen 6:9–10;
7:6; 9:28–29).49 Finally, the Toledot book notice regarding Noah stresses that
he was “blameless in his generations” (‫ ;תמים בדרתיו‬6:9aβ), an idea that pro-
vides background for why Noah lived up to and beyond the flood (Gen 7:6;
9:28–29), while multiple other “generations” (plural) of preflood patriarchs
did not.50 In sum, the implicit links with the flood in the chronology behind
the Samaritan Pentateuch are consistent with multiple ways that the Toledot
book is oriented around and connected with the flood event, from the book’s
overall pre-and postflood structure to specific aspects of the Toledot material
embedded in Genesis 5*; 6:9; 7:6; 9:28–29.
To be sure, scholars disagree about the history of the chronology in Genesis
5, and it has proven especially difficult to clarify the relations of the three major
witnesses to the chronology for the section on Lamech in Gen 5:28, 30–31.51
Ron Hendel, for example, has provided the most thorough argumentation
48 This approach thus represents a revision of the present author’s interpretation of the significance
of these final notices in Genesis 5 (Carr, Reading the Fractures, 72n47). Cf. also the different interpre-
tation of them as signs of Priestly revision in ten Hoopen, “Genesis 5,” 188.
49 That this description of Enoch derives specifically from the Toledot book (in contrast to, e.g.,
ten Hoopen, “Genesis 5,” 186–87) is suggested by the fact that it represents a modification of a spe-
cific element characteristic of that book. Where the latter parts of other pre- and postflood Toledot
sections give the numbers of years that a given patriarch lived (‫ )חי‬after fathering his first son, the
treatment for Enoch reports how long he “walked around with God” after fathering Methusaleh. This
implication that Enoch started walking around with God only after fathering his first son was noted
by various rabbinic interpreters (e.g., Radak and especially Ralbag on Gen 5:22), but it likely is an ac-
cidental byproduct of the fact that the author of the highly standardized Toledot book just modified
this particular component of its treatment of Enoch.
50 Below I briefly discuss an additional proposal originating in Karl Budde, Die biblische
Urgeschichte (Gen. 1–12, 5) (Giessen: Ricker, 1883), 89–116 that the flood-linked chronology in
the Samaritan Pentateuch might also connect with potential associations with violence for Lamech
(cf. Gen 4:23–24) and the other preflood patriarchs dying in the flood that have names (Jared,
Methuselah) that might link them with preflood sin or violence.
51 For citation of studies on the textual traditions around Lamech’s chronology, see above note 44.
that the flood-linked chronology behind the Samaritan Pentateuch is a later

modification of a yet earlier chronology in the Vorlage to Genesis 5—partially
witnessed to by the Septuagint and the Masoretic text—where the death-
ages of preflood patriarchs were not related to the flood.52 A key virtue of this
approach is the way it builds on the hypothesis—already advocated in this
chapter—that Genesis 5 derives in large part from an earlier Vorlage. A major
disadvantage, however, is the way it posits a lack of coordination in that
Vorlage with the flood. As was argued earlier, there are numerous signs that
the Toledot book Vorlage behind Genesis 5 was structured by and thoroughly
coordinated with the idea of a flood and of Noah as the flood hero.
EXCURSUS: Proposals to Link the Chronologies of the Masoretic Text

Tradition (and others) with Later Events
Amid the uncertainty surrounding the history of different textual chronol-
ogies for Genesis 5, one commonly proposed hypothesis does not appear
plausible: the often argued idea that the years of the (proto-) Masoretic tradi-
tion, starting with Genesis 5, were constructed to provide an even 4,000-year
period from creation to the rededication of the temple by Judas (with the
Exodus placed at 2,666 years after creation, two-thirds of the way to temple
rededication).53 The fatal problem with this proposal is that it requires the
unlikely presupposition that the authors of the proto-MT chronology had
an accurate knowledge of the actual Persian-Hellenistic chronology extend-
ing from Cyrus to Judas Maccabeus. In point of fact, our documented
examples of Jewish historiography of the period (such as Esther, Daniel,
Ezra-Nehemiah, and Josephus) evidence striking ignorance of crucial elem-
ents of that chronology.54 A similar problem attends attempts to explain the
Samaritan Pentateuch chronology (starting with Genesis 5) as an attempt
to anticipate the year of the founding of the Samaritan temple at Gerizim.55
52 Most recently in Ronald S. Hendel, “A Hasmonean Edition of MT Genesis? The Implications
of the Editions of the Chronology in Genesis 5,” HBAI 1 (2012): 7–10, with an earlier discussion in
Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 61–69.
53 See, e.g., A. Murtonen, “On the Chronology of the Old Testament,” Studia Theologica 8
(1954): 137; Klaus Koch, “Sabbatstruktur der Geschichte: Die sogenannte Zehn-Wochen-
Apokalypse (I Hen 93,1–10; 91,11–17) und das Ringen um die alttestamentlichen Chronologien im
späten Israelitentum,” ZAW 95 (1983): 423–24; Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of the Times: Myth and History
in Biblical Chronology, JSOTSup 66 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 233–37 (appropriated by the pre-
sent author in Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, 234).
54 I am indebted to John Collins, oral communication, for this point regarding the weaknesses of
such proposals. For more thorough critique, see Ronald S. Hendel, “A Hasmonean Edition of MT
Genesis,” 2–7.
55 E.g., Alfred Jepsen, “Zur Chronologie des Priesterkodex,” ZAW 47 (1929): 253.
In conclusion, rather than positing the Samaritan, Septuagint, and

Masoretic texts as partial reflections of an earlier, nonflood-oriented Vorlage
to Genesis 5 and 11:10–26, it seems preferable to see these textual traditions
as witnesses to an ongoing process of scribal accommodation of a Toledot
book about pre-and postflood patriarchs to its evolving contexts. This pro-
cess started already before the divergence between early textual traditions,
with some apparent adjustments to the Toledot book made by the Priestly
author (e.g., Gen 5:1b–2; 11:10b). We then see that further modifications
introduced into the text of the Toledot sections as later tradents, standing
behind the three early textual traditions for Genesis, related the Toledot book
and Priestly chronological systems with each other and considered their
implications. As argued earlier, a number of these scribal modifications re-
lated to the flood-orientation of the original Toledot book chronology, an
orientation manifest in both its overall pre-and postflood structure and in
details of its notices about Noah in particular (e.g., Gen 6:9; 7:6; 9:28–29). We
see a similar orientation—in structure, detail, and scope—in a likely nonbib-
lical precursor to the Toledot book that I now turn to discuss.
A Precedent to the Genesis Toledot Book in the Sumerian

King List Tradition
The Toledot book under discussion here has an important potential pre-
cursor in another Near Eastern tradition, the Sumerian King List tradition
(hereafter often SKL), and this precursor is attested in a freestanding form,
with pre-and postflood sections, much like that posited here for the Toledot
book. To be sure, early forms of this SKL tradition focused only on post-
flood kings, only later being augmented by a tradition of preflood kings.56
Nevertheless, by the first millennium, the SKL circulated in an expanded
pre-and postflood form that began with the extraordinarily long rules (cov-
ering many thousands of years) of a succession of of preflood kings (usually
56 For one attempt at reconstructing this early history, see Piotr Michaelowski, “History as
Charter: Some Observations on the Sumerian King List,” JAOS 103 (1983): 237–48; and for discus-
sion of the formation of the preflood section see Jöran Friberg, A Remarkable Collection of Babylonian
Mathematical Texts, Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection Cuneiform Texts 1 (New York: Springer,
2007), 231–41; Helge Kvanvig, Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical and Enochic—An Intertextual
Reading, JSJSup 149 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 90–99; Sara Milstein, Tracking the Master Scribe: Revision
Through Introduction in Biblical and Mesopotamian Literature (New York: Oxford University Press,
2016), 45–48.
eight such kings) in five Sumerian cities,57 before surveying the gradually
shorter rules of postflood kings, starting with a dynasty in Kish concluding
with a dynasty in Isin. In the first millennium itself this Sumerian tradi-
tion was incorporated into a longer Babylonian Chronicle, now sometimes
transmitted in bilingual (Sumerian and Akkadian) form, that featured nine
preflood kings prior to an extended list of postflood kings extending into
Babylonian dynasties (K11624; CT 46,5//K11261 and K12054).58 Then the
third-century Hellenistic historian Berossus reflects a version of the SKL tra-
dition that includes ten preflood kings.59
There is good reason to conclude that a late, first-millennium iteration of this
SKL tradition was a model for the Toledot book discussed so far. To be sure, this
Toledot book appears to have been a genealogy of long-lived primeval patri-
archs in contrast to the SKL list of long-ruling Mesopotamian kings.60 I will
return to this difference later. Several other features of the previously hypothe-
sized Toledot book, however, do resemble the SKL tradition. To start, the scope
is quite similar: a linear list of preflood figures, a flood hero, and a linear list
of postflood figures. In addition, the prominent focus on chronology in the
Toledot sections of Genesis 5–11* resembles a similar such chronological focus
in the SKL tradition. Echoing an idea, seen in the Atrahasis epic, that the gods
imposed mortality on humans after the flood as one of several means to check
human population growth, SKL features the contrast between extraordinarily
long rules of preflood kings and decreasing rules of postflood kings. Similarly
Genesis 5 surveys the especially long lives of preflood patriarchs, and then Gen
11:10–26 covers the decreasing lifespans of postflood descendants of Shem.
57 Though one early exemplar often compared to Genesis 5 features ten kings (WB 62), this is
probably because of its scribe’s patriotic addition of the scribe’s city, Larsa, and two kings there. J. J.
Finkelstein, “The Antediluvian Kings: A University of California Tablet,” JCS 17 (1963): 46–47.
58 Jean-Jacques Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, Writings from the Ancient World
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 126–35 provides an edition and citation of earlier
treatments.
59 There is a still later and shorter Seleucid-period appropriation of the SKL tradition found in the
Resh Temple at Uruk, but its brevity—only seven preflood kings—apparently results from the fact
that it represents a merger of the preflood part of the SKL tradition with the seven-member Apkallu
tradition of prediluvian sages. For translation and discussion with citation of recent literature, see
Seth L. Sanders, From Adapa to Enoch: Scribal Culture and Religious Vision in Judea and Babylon,
Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 59.
60 Treatments that stress these differences and critique arguments for a direct relationship of Genesis
5 and SKL include C. Hartman, “Some Thoughts on the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5 and 11B,” JBL
91 (1972): 27–30; Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Genealogies of Gen 5 and 11 and Their Alleged Babylonian
Background,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 16 (1978): 364–72. They emphasize the fact that the
SKL tradition does not start with creation, but with the descent of kingship to Eridu and then traces the
rules of kings. In addition, such critiques rightly emphasize the variability of the SKL tradition, thus
correcting a tendency in some biblical studies to depict the SKL tradition as following some kind of ca-
nonical ten-part form (e.g., in WB 62 and Berossus) with a sequence similar to Berossus.
To be sure, the numbers given for the long lifespans of primeval patriarchs in
Genesis 5 and 11:10–26 are much lower than those seen in the various itera-
tions of SKL. Nevertheless, the Toledot book’s figure of 600 for Noah’s life be-
fore the flood (Gen 7:6; 9:28–29) and for Shem’s overall life (Gen 11:11–12)
may echo the prominence of the Babylonian ner unit (600) that was part of
the Babylonian sexagesimal numbering system used throughout the SKL tra-
dition.61 In this way, the Toledot book’s chronology for pre-and postflood
primeval patriarchs may preserve echoes of the longer SKL chronology for pre-
and postflood kings’ reigns that it reduced.
The emphasis at the outset of the preceding paragraph on the idea that
a late iteration of the SKL tradition was involved comes from recognition
of particular links of Genesis 5 with the version of SKL reflected in the first
millennium. Both the previously noted Babylonian Chronicle version and
the version reflected in Berossus include the flood hero.62 Moreover, the
Babylonian version features nine prediluvian kings and the version re-
flected in Berossus features ten such kings, reflecting a late lengthening of the
shorter, earlier SKL tradition of eight preflood kings.63 So also, the total lack
of any focus on cities or other locales in Genesis 5* and 11:10–26 corresponds
61 In treatments focused on the MT chronology, Cassuto and Bailey have argued that most of the
year figures in Genesis 5 are five-year-equivalents to the base 60 at the heart of the sexagismal system
(60 months = five years). Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Pt. 1. From Adam
to Noah, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961 [1944 Hebrew original]), 259–64; Lloyd
Bailey, “Biblical Math as Heilsgeschichte?” in A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and
Community in Honor of James A. Sanders, ed. Richard D. Weis and David M. Carr (Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1996), 90–94. Most of their observations would hold for the likely earlier Samaritan chro-
nology in Genesis 5 (see below), but their approach requires a number of adjustments (whether
working with the MT or SP chronology), and it is not clear why the intensely year-oriented chro-
nology in Genesis 5 and 11:10–26 would be so determined by numbers of months.
62 With the earlier versions, only WB 62 clearly ends with the flood hero. This may well be the re-
sult, however, of the poor preservation of the ends of two of the four early lists (Ni 3195 and UCBC
9-1819; on the latter see Finkelstein, “Antediluvian Kings,” 42–43) and of deliberate omission in the
case of WB 444 (see ibid., 47).
63 Genesis 5*, with its ten-generation genealogy of preflood patriarchs, most closely parallels
Berossus’s presentation of preflood kings in this respect (as mentioned earlier, the ten-generation
length of the earlier SKL list in WB 62 likely is the result of special circumstances behind that list).
For more on the particular parallels of Berossus with Genesis 5, see especially John Day, “The Flood
and Antediluvian Figures in Berossus and in the Priestly Source in Genesis,” in From Creation to
Babel: Studies in Genesis 1–11 (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 67–74.
One might argue that Genesis 5 originated in an eight-generation genealogy beginning with
Enosh (“human”) as a Priestly counterpart to the Adam (“human”) of the non-P materials, such that
Adam and Seth were added later to Gen 5:1–2 and a post-Priestly bridge in Gen 4:25–26. On this see
already Philipp Buttmann, Mythologus oder gesammelte Abhandlungen über die Sagen des Alterthums
1 (Berlin: Mylius, 1828), 170–71. Nevertheless, both the previous and following chapters provide
arguments for the pre-P character of 4:25–26 and against the idea that P (or a pre-P Toledot source)
originated the idea of a “Seth” standing between Adam and Enosh. In addition, such an eight-genera-
tion Enosh-to-Noah genealogy would then feature a prominent focus on Enoch at an anomalous fifth
to the dilution of the focus on prediluvian cities seen partially in Berossus

(reducing from five cities to three) and especially in the Uruk SKL-Apkallu
list (no focus on cities at all).
Finally, a link to the Mesopotamian SKL tradition could also explain one
element noted earlier as a key feature in Genesis 5*: the particular, expanded
focus on Enoch, who stands as the seventh preflood patriarch and is celebrated
in Gen 5:22, 24 as having “walked around with God” (Gen 5:22, 24).This sev-
enth place was a particularly significant position in Mesopotamian list tradi-
tions, including the SKL tradition, where figures such as Enmeduranki (WB
444; Berossus) or Utuabzu (Uruk list), both associated with ascents to heaven,
appear in the seventh position of the preflood king list.64 From the time of
Zimmern onward, the example of Enmeduranki has been a particularly in-
teresting analogue to Enoch in Gen 5:22–24, since a couple of Neo-Assyrian
period traditions ascribe to him a heavenly ascent and audience with the sun
god, Shamash (along with Adad).65 Enoch’s unusual lifespan of 365 years in
Gen 5:22–24 corresponds to the days of a solar year. This has suggested to
many that a version of SKL that put Enmeduranki in the seventh position, like
that seen in Berossus, may have been a model for the depiction of Enoch in
Genesis 5*. This theory then might explain why Enoch is placed in a similar
seventh position in Genesis 5, lives a lifespan whose 365 years mirror the days
in a solar year (//Shamash), and enjoys a heavenly audience with YHWH akin
to that which Enmeduranki is described as having with Shamash.66
position rather than the seventh position that seems privileged in Mesopotamian and other contexts
(see Jack Sasson, “A Genealogical ‘Convention’ in Biblical Chronography,” ZAW 90 [1978]: 171–85).
64 For the initial argument regarding the number seven, see Sasson, “Geneaological ‘Convention’ ”
(with discussion of Gen 5 on pp. 174–6) For more recent discussion of this motif, see Sanders, From
Adapa to Enoch, 53–56.
65 Heinrich Zimmern, “Urkönige und Uroffenbarung,” in Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament, ed. Eberhard Schrader (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1903), 540; VanderKam, Enoch and
the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, CBQMS 16. (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association,
1984), 33–44. Note also W. B. Lambert, “Babylonien und Israel,” in TRE 5: 73–75, who affirms that a
dependence of Genesis 5 on the SKL tradition is one of the clearer cases of the dependence of a text in
Genesis 1–11 on a specific Near Eastern precursor.
66 Sanders, From Adapa to Enoch, 11–19, 89–93 is highly critical of this theory, depicting it as a
perpetuation by James VanderKam and other scholars of Zimmern’s 1903 theory without a con-
sciousness of how it had been undermined by a subsequent century of Assyriological scholarship,
particularly regarding the relative marginality and idiosyncrasy of the two texts often cited as evi-
dence for Enmeduranki’s association with heavenly ascent and Shamash (both published in W. G.
Lambert, “Enmeduranki and Related Matters,” JCS 21 [1967]: 126–38). Though Sanders is right
to emphasize the variability of the SKL tradition and relative marginality of Enmeduranki in the
Mesopotamian tradition (e.g., in comparison to Adapa), he may overdo the emphasis on scholarly
tradition behind VanderKam’s and others’ highlighting of multiple parallels between Gen 5:22–24
and later versions of the SKL tradition. Note, for example, Sanders’s dismissal of Kvanvig’s hypo-
thesis of a late lengthening of the SKL tradition as a reflection of “the attractiveness of Zimmern’s
The Relation of the Toledot Book to Non-P

Primeval Materials
Where the preceding section identified several major components of the

Toledot book as likely reflections of its partial modeling on a late iteration of
SKL, it did not account for other key elements of the Toledot book, such as
the names that occur in it and its specifically non-royal orientation.67
Those elements likely originate in the preceding non-P materials, some-
thing most clearly seen in the way that the names of all of the pre-Noah patri-
archs featured in Genesis 5* are paralleled by preflood patriarchs surveyed
in (non-P) Genesis 4. This chapter started with a chart showing the relatively
close parallels between the names of preflood patriarchs in Genesis 5 and
the names of preflood patriarchs in (non-P) Genesis 4. A closer look sug-
gests that some of the slight differences between the names in these lists can
be explained as resulting from the author of the Toledot book adapting cer-
tain names from Genesis 4 to function better as part of a genealogy that was
particularly focused—as discussed earlier—on the relatively righteous eldest
descendants leading from Adam through (Enoch and) Noah to Abraham.
This starts where the Toledot book takes up names from the Cain-Lamech
genealogy of Genesis 4:1–24 to build beyond Seth and Enosh (Gen 4:25–26)
to fill out a ten-generation (SKL-like) preflood genealogy leading to Noah.
Instead of the violent Cain of Genesis 4:1–16, Enosh fathers a ‫( קינן‬Kenan;
5:9), and the name of Kenan’s firstborn son in Genesis 5, ‫( מהללאל‬Mahalalel;
Gen 5:12–17), bears a name implying praise of God in comparison with the
relatively obscure name of his counterpart in Genesis 4, ‫מחויאל‬/‫מחייאל‬
(Mehuyael/Mehiyael).
As we then move into the latter parts of the Genesis 5 genealogy of pre-
flood patriarchs, there could be yet further adaptations of some names
from Genesis 4 to imply sin or violence on the parts of patriarchs who die
in the flood—Jared (“downfall”?), Methuselah (“man of spear”?), Lamech
schema in the face of countervailing evidence” since there is a still later list [the Uruk list] which
features seven (Sanders, 17n35; seemingly referring to Helge S. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic: The
Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man, WMANT 61 (Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988]). As was noted above, the short, seven-number shape of the Uruk
list is likely specifically attributable to its status as a merging of the SKL tradition with the Apkallu
tradition of seven prediluvian sages.
67 These contrasts are prominently featured in treatments, such as Hartman, “Sumerian King
List and Genesis 5 and 11B,” 27–30; and Hasel, “Genealogies of Gen 5 and 11,” 364–72, which argue
against a specific link of Genesis 5 and the SKL tradition.
(//Lamech of Gen 4:19–24)—as opposed to the virtue of Enoch and Noah

who “walked around with God” (Gen 5:22, 24; 6:9).68 Nevertheless, it is
difficult in such cases to know whether the shifts in such names repre-
sent mere linguistic variations—such as that which may be seen within the
Genesis 4 transmission tradition for the son of Irad in Gen 4:18: ‫מחויאל‬
(Mehujael) or ‫( מחייאל‬Mehijael).69 Moreover, in accordance with the
overall scope and focus of the Toledot book, the stress in that book appears
to have lain particularly on the virtue of characters leading up to Abraham
rather than any shortcomings of his ancestors. In accordance with this,
the deaths of Jared, Methusaleh, and Lamech are reported in a way exactly
comparable with other preflood patriarchs (‫ ;וימת‬5:20b, 27b, 31b; cf. e.g.,
5:5b [Adam], 8b [Seth]) with no additional explanation. If the (Toledot
book) author of Genesis 5 intended an implication of preflood evil for
such patriarchs, it hardly compared to the clearer interest of that author
in stressing the particular righteousness of figures like Enoch (Gen 5:22,
24) and Noah (6:9).
The particular stress on the righteousness of Enoch can be seen in the one
major shift in order seen between Genesis 5 and the genealogical sequences
in its Genesis 4 precursor: within Genesis 5 the positions of Cain’s son, Irad
(//Jared in Genesis 5), and Enoch are switched, so that Enoch occupies
the seventh position of the ten-generation preflood genealogy in Genesis
5. Earlier I discussed how Enoch’s placement in this seventh position in
Genesis 5 corresponds to the privileged treatment of the seventh figure in
several iterations of the SKL tradition. Here I suggest that this SKL model
likely was a key factor in this particular rearrangement of the Genesis 4 ge-
nealogical sequence in Genesis 5. Although the author of the Toledot book
generally seems to have preserved the father-son pairings in the Gen 4:25–26
and then 4:17–18 non-P genealogical sections, he switched the positions of
Enoch and Irad/Jared as part of a broader exceptional presentation of Enoch.
As we saw earlier, this presentation also included the adjustment of the
68 Initially argued thoroughly in Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, 89–116; and recently developed in
Gertz, “Genesis 5,” 81–84; Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 193.

69 ‫ מחויאל‬is the version of the name that appears first in the MT, while ‫ מחייאל‬appears for the
second instance (the NRSV harmonizes both names to Mehujael). Other early textual witnesses (e.g.,
Samaritan Pentateuch and LXX) for Gen 4:18 represent both instances of the name in ways closer to
‫מחייאל‬. As noted, in Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 47–48, the variation may derive from graphic confusion
of ‫י‬/‫ ו‬or “Mehijael” may be a modernization of an older “Mehujael.” In either case, the MT reading
of diverse forms of the name in the same verse has some precedent elsewhere (Gen 32:31–32 [ET
32:30–31]; 1 Sam 25:14, 18) and seems to represent the more difficult and earlier reading (Abraham
Tal, Genesis, Biblia Hebraica Quinta [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2016], 89*).
section on Enoch’s remaining years of life to stress his walking around with
God (Gen 5:22a), the reemphasis on him walking around with God after the
summary of his total years of life (5:24a), and the replacement of a death no-
tice for Enoch with a note that God took him (Gen 5:24b).70 These elements
mark Enoch, whose name means “dedication,” as a righteous forerunner of
Noah, taken up by God rather than dying in the flood.71
This mix of data illustrates, in turn, how the Toledot book, especially in
its preflood section, represents an adaptation of genealogical information
in the non-P materials now in Genesis 4 along the lines of a model provided
by the SKL tradition as it is attested in some first-millennium exemplars.
On the one hand, Genesis 5 appears to represent an adaptation of gene-
alogical information from Genesis 4, both names of patriarchs leading
up to Noah and the basic sequence of the two non-P genealogical lines of
Genesis 4 (Gen 4:25–26 and 4:17). On the other hand, a late iteration of
the SKL tradition (with flood hero) likely served as the model for this re-
arrangement in the Toledot book of information about two genealogical
lines in Genesis 4 into one, ten-generation, preflood genealogy of Sethites
leading up to Noah. Furthermore, the SKL tradition provided a model for
highlighting the seventh member of this extended Sethite pre-Noah gene-
alogy, a position occupied in Genesis 5 by its special treatment of Enoch as
Noah’s forerunner (Gen 5:22–24). Finally, more broadly, the SKL tradition
is a likely template for the creation of the Toledot book as an independent
document providing a chronologically structured survey of pre-and post-
flood pre-Abrahamic primeval figures, with the extraordinarily long lives
of the preflood patriarchs in Genesis 5* representing a reductive adaptation
of the even longer reigns attributed to pre-and postflood kings in the SKL
tradition.
Turning to Gen 11:10–26, it is more difficult to determine the relations
of this postflood portion of the Toledot book to non-P materials. As will
be discussed in c hapter 7 of this book, it is not clear the extent to which
non-P materials found in Genesis 10 included genealogical elements cor-
responding to the names of Shem’s descendants in Gen 11:10–26. At most,
we see possible pre-P parallels in Gen 10:21 and 10:24–25 to the first four
70 As noted in Blum, Studien, 291, the reference to Enoch and Noah both walking around with God
in Gen 5:22, 24; 6:9 is reminiscent of the description in the non-P Eden story of YHWH “walking
around in the garden” (‫ ;מתהלך בגן‬Gen 3:8).
71 Though Enoch is reported (in the Samaritan tradition) to have been taken up by God in his
365th year, 420 years before the flood, he would have survived into the time of the flood (at age 785) if
he had a lifespan comparable to those of other preflood patriarchs.
patriarchs appearing after Shem in Gen 11:10–19 (Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber,

and Peleg).72 A dependence of the Toledot book on non-P associations of
Abraham’s family with the area of the ancient Syrian city of Harran (biblical
‫ ;חרן‬Gen 27:43; 28:10; 29:4) also might provide a background for names of
the final three Abrahamic ancestors in Gen 11:20–26—Serug, Nahor, and
Terah—each of which appear to be personalized forms of place names as-
sociated with areas in the vicinity of Harran.73 Finally, dependence of the
Toledot book on likely non-P materials about Abraham’s family in Gen
11:28–30 could help explain why the Toledot book does not just conclude
with Israel’s ancestor, Abraham, but with a focus on three named descen-
dants of Terah—Abraham, Nahor, and Haran (Gen 11:26 [also 11:27*]) that
then correspond to the three named descendants of Noah (Gen 5:32 [also
6:10]).74 Though these links are possible, important questions surround the
pre-or post-P character of these non-P materials between the Babel account
and Abraham narrative, and there are also questions about whether there
ever was a non-P transition between the primeval and ancestral sections of
Genesis.75 We just seem to have less data to work with here than in the case of
the pre-Noah portion of the Toledot book (Genesis 5*//Genesis 4), whether
because there never were non-P materials corresponding to Gen 11:10–26 or
because any such non-P materials were sacrificed at the expense of the con-
flator’s use of the Toledot book’s Shem-to-Abraham genealogy (Gen 11:10–
26) for this part of Genesis.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Toledot book, particularly its preflood section in Genesis

5*, appears to represent an adaptation of genealogical information deriving
72 As will be discussed there, it is unclear whether the genealogical materials regarding Arpachshad
to Peleg in Gen 10:24–25, often seen as pre-Priestly because of their verbal formulation (with Qal
forms of ‫ )ילד‬are actually post-Priestly. Gen 10:21 does depict Shem as “the father of all of the sons of
Eber” (‫)אבי כל־בני־עבר‬, a mention of “Eber” that at least partially parallels the appearance of Eber as
Shem’s great-grandson in Gen 11:10–14.
73 Seebass, Genesis I, 291; Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 347–48. As emphasized in treatments such as Gertz,
Genesis 1–11, 348, the resemblance of the placename, ‫( חרן‬often rendered as Haran in English trans-
lations), and the name of Abraham’s brother, ‫( הרן‬also usually rendered Haran), is misleading.
74 For arguments regarding the pre-P character of Gen 11:28–30 (and citation of arguments to
the contrary), see Carr, Reading the Fractures, 110–11, 194–95, 203–4; Ronald Hendel, “Is the ‘J’
Primeval Narrative an Independent Composition?: A Critique of Crüsemann’s ‘Die Eigenständigkeit
der Urgeschichte,’” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. Thomas
Dozeman, Baruch Schwartz, and Konrad Schmid, FAT (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 186–90.
75 See, e.g., Blum, Vätergeschichte, 359–60.
from a non-P primeval history, an adaptation that originally stood separate

from that non-P material as part of a new presentation of Abraham’s primeval
pedigree. This adaptation starts with the Toledot book author’s construction
of an extended genealogy for Noah from the outset of the non-P genealogy of
the Sethite line (Gen 4:25–26) started by Adam and Eve as a new genealogical
“seed” replacing the murdered Abel and as an implicit substitute for the vio-
lent Cain-Lamech line of Gen 4:1–24. Yet even as this Toledot book parallels
Genesis 4 in privileging this Sethite line (as in 4:25) and presupposes and
builds on the use of “Adam” as a proper name in Gen 4:25, its implicit depic-
tion of Seth as Adam’s firstborn son in Gen 5:3–4 diverges from the picture
of Seth as the third son of Adam and Eve in Gen 4:1–2, 25. This, along with
the extended parallels between names in Genesis 4 and 5, indicates that the
Toledot book was not originally meant to be read alongside of or as a sup-
plement to Genesis 4. Instead, it seems to have been crafted as an SKL-like,
freestanding presentation of the Adam-to-Abraham genealogical line, one
intended to correct and replace certain elements of non-P texts such as that
seen in Genesis 4.
Insofar as this Toledot book thesis holds, it would suggest that many of
the elements in Genesis 5 and 11:10–26 that have been taken by some as
signs that P was a separate source—for example, the extensive parallels in
names between Genesis 4 and 5—actually originated in a pre-Priestly Adam-
to-Abraham genealogical composition.76 At the same time, there are signs
that the Priestly adaptation of this Toledot book also was meant to stand
separately from its non-P primeval counterpart. The previously discussed
Priestly insertion into the Toledot book in Gen 5:1b–2 connects in multiple
ways with P’s creation account in Gen 1:1–31, but lacks clear links to themes
in Gen 2:4b–4:26 (non-P).77 So also, the Priestly addition of a report of Adam
naming Seth in Gen 5:3 duplicates (and is perhaps modeled on) the non-P
76 In this respect, I am correcting part of my presentation in Carr, Reading the Fractures, 68–71.
77 Among many others, Graf, “Grundschrift,” 470 (see also Blum, Studien, 280) suggested that the
review of creation and blessing in 5:1b–2 is a form of resumptive repetition of those themes after the
interruption of the (non-P) material in 2:4–4:26. Nevertheless, as pointed out in Gertz, “Genesis 5,”
76–78, 5:1b–2 diverges from clearer examples of resumptive repetition in that it does not precisely
repeat the contents of material before the interruption. Instead, 5:1b–2 is carefully constructed for
its specific bridging function between the Gen 1:26–28 general creation and blessing and the Gen
5:3–5 genealogy of Adam. In this function, Gen 5:1b–2 picks up toward the end of Gen 1:1–2:3 (over-
lapping with 1:26–28), but not the end (whether Gen 2:1–3 or perhaps a form of Gen 1:31*; on this
see c hapter 1 of this book). Meanwhile, if the 5:1b–2 transition had been composed to deal with the
Genesis 2–4 non-P interruption and specifically explain the individual use of “Adam” in a text con-
sisting of Genesis 1–4, it probably would have been better placed at the first mention of individual
Adam in Gen 4:25, not in its present position at the head of Genesis 5.
report of Eve’s naming of him in Gen 4:25 (‫ ויקרא את־שמו‬5:3//‫ותקרא את־‬

‫ שמו‬4:25).78 These indicators provide additional data within Genesis 5 that
the Priestly primeval history, like the pre-P Toledot book that it expanded,
was crafted to stand separately from the non-P materials that it occasionally
engaged and/or adapted.
Certain problems seem to have been created for later tradents when this
originally separate Priestly presentation of Noah’s genealogy in Genesis 5
was combined with its non-P precursor in Genesis 4. Standing on its own,
the Adam-to-Noah Sethite genealogy in the Toledot book Genesis 5 focused
particularly on Noah’s primeval pedigree, only briefly noting (but explaining)
the deaths of Noah’s immediate ancestors in the year of the flood (Samaritan
chronology for Jared, Methusaleh, and Lamech) while focusing particularly
on Enoch’s status as Noah’s forerunner (Gen 5:22–24). This depiction was
complicated when it was placed after non-P material now in Genesis 4, ma-
terial where the names of Noah’s immediate ancestors resembled those for
the latter part of the Cain-Lamech line of Gen 4:18, a line presented in Gen
4:1–24 as distinct from and more violent than the Sethite line founded as a
replacement for Abel in 4:25–26.79 As was noted in the earlier discussion of
divergent chronologies in Genesis 5, the tradents behind the proto-MT and
LXX Vorlage modified the numbers associated with Jared, Methusaleh, and
Lamech in ways that avoided the implication that these Sethite ancestors of
Noah had died in the flood.
These apparent adjustments are part of a longer series of apparent scribal
revisions occurring across Genesis 5–11 that occurred as part of the gradual
accommodation of the Toledot book to new contexts. These started with
previously discussed revisions of the Toledot book by the Priestly author,
expanding on the Toledot book with newly composed Priestly materials and
revising parts of the Toledot book (e.g., Gen 5:1b–2, 3*, 5*). Still later scribes
behind the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Masoretic text modified parts
of the chronologies in Genesis 5* and 11:10–26 to deal with potentially un-
intended implications of the combination of the Toledot book with its sur-
rounding Priestly and non-Priestly contexts. And, as noted above, the MT,
Samaritan, and LXX each reflect yet further revisions that coordinate parts of
78Dillmann, Genesis, 113–14 [ET 223].

79A textual indicator that later tradents did correlate the more immediate ancestors with the Cain-
Lamech line is the previously noted coordination (in the MT) of the chronology for Noah’s father,
Lamech (Gen 5:28–31), with numbers associated with Cain’s grandson, Lamech in Gen 4:24.
Genesis 5 with Genesis 4 (e.g., the MT chronology for Lamech) and Genesis
11:10–26 with patterns in Genesis 5. In this way, we see ongoing textual
reverberations, well into the Hellenistic period, of P’s building of a broader
Priestly proto-Genesis narrative around an early “Book of the Toledot of
Adam” that is preserved in parts of Genesis 5–11.
5
The First Noah and the Sons of God
and Daughters of Humanity
(Gen 5:29; 6:1–4; 9:18–27)
Noah is best known as the biblical flood hero, but there are a number of other
elements in his depiction in the present text of Genesis. This chapter exam-
ines other non-P traditions about Noah and about humanity more broadly in
Gen 5:29–9:27.
Genesis 5:29 and 9:18–27
As noted in the last chapter, the naming of Noah in Gen 5:29 is likely a non-P
element that connects to the story of Noah and his sons in Gen 9:20–27. In
particular, the naming anticipates Noah’s role in providing comfort “out of
the ground” (‫ )מן־האדמה‬from the toil (‫ )עצבון‬resulting from YHWH’s curse
of that ground. This explanation of Noah’s name in Gen 5:29 links back to
the non-P story of the garden of Eden, specifically its account of YHWH’s
curse of the ground on account of the first human’s disobedience (Gen 3:17–
19). The link back to the garden curse in Gen 5:29 is highlighted by its refer-
ence to “the ground that YHWH cursed” as well as the “toil” caused by that
curse, using a word for the latter, ‫עצבון‬, that only occurs in Gen 5:29 and
in YHWH’s pronouncements of punishment in Genesis 3 (Gen 3:16, 17).1
Besides the specific connection to Gen 3:17–19, Gen 5:29 uses the divine des-
ignation YHWH and shares a concern—with a “curse” (‫ ;ארר‬see Gen 3:14;
4:11; also 9:25) and “ground” (‫ ;האדמה‬Gen 2:5–7, 9, 19; 3: 23; 4:3, 10–12,
14; etc.) characteristic of other non-P primeval texts. It does not contain any
elements that connect with specifically Priestly themes.2
1I am indebted to a private communication from Esther Hamori for particular emphasis on this point.
2Markus Witte, Die biblische Urgeschichte: Redaktions- und theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen
zu Genesis 1,1–11,26 (BZAW 265; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998), 207 argues for 5:29b as a post-Priestly
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190062545.003.0001
The anticipation in Gen 5:29 that Noah will provide comfort “out of the
ground” (‫ )מן־האדמה‬points ahead to Noah’s discovery of wine cultivation at
the outset of the story of Noah and his sons in 9:20–27. Several texts in the
Bible stress how wine (or alcohol in general) can provide humanity joy (Judg
9:13; Ps 104:15; Prov 31:6) and comfort (‫ ;תנחומים‬Jer 16:7).3 In Genesis 9,
Noah, “the man of the ground” (‫ ;איש האדמה‬9:20, cf. ‫ האדם‬in Gen 2:5, 7;
3:23), plants a vineyard in that ground, produces wine, and gets drunk on it
(Gen 9:20–21a). Much as other parts of the non-P primeval history associate
names of major characters with their role vis-à-vis humanity (e.g., ‫האדם‬
2:7; 3:23; ‫ חוה‬3:20; ‫ קין‬4:1; ‫ הבל‬4:2), so also Gen 5:29 and 9:20–21a associate
Noah’s name (‫ )נח‬with the comfort (‫ ינחמנו>נחם‬in 5:29) that he provided
humanity through inebriating wine.4
Yet it should be emphasized that the overall story in Gen 9:20–27 only briefly
anticipates the comfort of wine (5:29; 9:20–21a) before concretely illustrating its
potential pitfalls (9:21b–25). In particular, Gen 9:21b depicts the risk of sexual
shame through drunken nakedness that is noted in some other biblical texts (see
Hab 2:15; Lam 4:21) and is grounded in a broader ancient Near Eastern linking
of alcohol and sex.5 This emphasis in Gen 5:29 and 9:20–27 on the positive and
addition (mostly through a process of eliminating 8:21–22 and 9:20–27 as referents for 5:29b), pointing
toward the Priestly covenant with Noah as the promised “comfort” (‫ ;נחם‬cf. ‫ הניחה‬in Gen 8:21)
produced by the offering in 8:20–21. At most, Witte can point to various benefits of the covenant
understood as such “comfort,” but he does not establish any terminological or substantial links be-
tween 5:29 and 8:21. For a similar approach, but focused on Sabbath rest, see Rüdiger Lux, “Noah
und das Geheimnis seines Namens: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der Flutgeschichte,” in “..und Friede
auf Erden”: Beiträge zur Friedensverantwortung von Kirche und Israel (FS Chr Hinz), ed. Rüdiger Lux
(Berlin: Institut Kirche und Judentum, 1988), 109–35.
3 Some have wanted to argue that the prophecy about a “cup of comfort” (‫ )כוס תנחומים‬in Jer 16:7 is
irrelevant here because “wine” is not explicitly mentioned, e.g., Lux, “Noah und der Geheimnis seines
Namens,” 118; and Norbert Clemens Baumgart, “Gen 5,29—ein Brückenvers in der Urgeschichte
und zugleich ein Erzählerkommentar,” BN 92 (1998): 31–32. Nevertheless, the image in Jer 16:7
involves a “cup” and, in so doing, assumes as background the concept of alcohol-induced inebriation,
an inebriation that—in an Israelite context—was generally provided by wine.
4 For broader arguments, see, e.g., John Day, “Noah’s Drunkenness, the Curse of Canaan, Ham’s
Crime, and the Blessing of Shem and Japheth (Genesis 9.18–27),” in From Creation to Babel: Studies in
Genesis 1–11 (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 147–50. Cf. Lux’s insistence (“Noah und der Geheimnis
seines Namens,” 117n38) on the idea that the root ‫ נחם‬in Gen 5:29b could link with Noah only if his
name more clearly came from the root ‫נחם‬, as in, for example, ‫( נחמיה‬Nehemiah). But this denial
of any link between 5:29b and Noah requires a closer, more scientific link between etiology and the
name than actually seems to have been required in Hebrew etiologies. See, e.g., the etiology for ‫חוה‬
from ‫( חי‬Gen 3:20) or ‫ קין‬from ‫( קנה‬Gen 4:1). One might think that an ancient author would have
preferred a link of Noah’s name (‫ )נח‬to the root ‫נוח‬, but that would have involved a folk etymology as
well. Apparently the author of this text found the connection of ‫ נח‬to ‫ נחם‬sufficient for his purposes.
5 For fuller discussion of biblical texts, see Lux, “Noah und der Geheimnis seines Namens,” 118–
19. On the broader link of alcohol use and sex, see—within the Bible—Song 1:6, 14; 2:15; and the dis-
cussion in Manuel Dubach, Trunkenheit im Alten Testament: Begrifflichkeit—Zeugnisse—Wertung,
BWANT 184 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2009), 214–25.
the First Noah 117
negative potential of Noah’s discovery resembles the emphasis in other parts of

the preceding non-P primeval narrative on the Janus-faced character of other
aspects of mature human life. Take, for example, the production of children,
which stands in the non-P story as both a compensation for irreversible mor-
tality and as a cause of female “labor” (‫ עצבון‬3:16, 20, 22–24). The same is true
of the non-P garden story, which emphasizes agriculture as involving toilsome
labor (again ‫ עצבון‬Gen 3:17 as in 5:29), while also being an essential source of
food and constitutive of human destiny (Gen 2:5, 7; 3:17–19, 23).6
Excursus: To be sure, some have proposed that the anticipation of Noah’s

future in Gen 5:29 was meant to point to his role in rescuing humanity in
and after the flood. In particular, his name ‫ נח‬has been seen as linked to the
soothing smell (‫ )ריח הניחח‬of his postflood sacrifice, whose scent seems to
lead YHWH to promise not to treat lightly (‫ קלל‬piel form the ground on ac-
count of human evil and kill all life again (Gen 8:21).7 But the Gen 8:21–22
promise not to bring another event like the flood in the future (using the root
‫ קלל‬and the adverb ‫“[ עוד‬again”]) fails to fulfill Gen 5:29b, which promised
one who would provide comfort [to us] (‫ )זה ינחמנו‬from the ongoing condi-
tion of “toil” (‫ )עצבון‬associated with the curse (‫ )ארור‬of the ground (cf. Gen
3:17–19). Importantly, Gen 8:21–22 fails to link to the “toil” (‫ )עצבון‬that so
specifically connects 5:29 to 3:17–19.8 Finally, it is a stretch to see Noah’s an-
imal sacrifice in Gen 8:20 as something that he provides “out of the ground”
(‫)מן־האדמה‬. Rather, Noah’s planting vines in Gen 9:20b, something he does
as “a man of the ground” (‫ ;איש האדמה‬9:20a), seems a much clearer and
more direct way that he works to provide something out of the ground, wine,
that then deadens him to his toilsome work and anything else for a time (Gen
9:21). In these respects, Noah’s initiation of vine cultivation and discovery of
6 On this Janus-faced character of non-P primeval narratives, see Erhard Blum, “Urgeschichte,”
TRE 34 (2002): 439–40. For a similar instance of wordplay in English (women in labor/travail)
and French (femmes en travail) for both female labor and other labor, see Dorothea Erbele-Küster,
“Generationenfolge und Geschlecht. Variationen über drei alttestamentliche Texte,” in Gender and
Generation, ed. M. Bidwell-Steiner and Karin S. Wozoning (Innsbruck: Studienverlag, 2005), 35.
7 E.g., August Dillmann, Die Genesis, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament
11 (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1892), 115–16 [ET 228]; Rolf Rendtorff, “Gen 8,21 und die Urgeschichte des
Jahwisten,” KD 7 (1961): 69–78; Howard Wallace, “The Toledot of Adam,” in Studies in the Pentateuch,
ed. John A. Emerton, VTSup 41 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 26–29; Frank A. Spina, “The ‘Ground’ for Cains
Rejection (Gen 4): adamah in the Context of Gen 1–11,” ZAW 104 (1992): 329–30; Norbert Clemens
Baumgart, Die Umkehr des Schöpfergottes: Zu Komposition und religionsgeschichtlichem Hintergrund
von Gen 5–9, HBS 22 (Freiburg: Herder, 1999), 153–62.
8 In addition, if 8:21–22 included a promise of a reversal of the Gen 3:17–19 curse as Spina (“The
‘Ground’ for Cains Rejection,” 329–30) maintains, that would undermine the obvious etiological in-
tent of Gen 3:17–19, offered in explanation of the hard agricultural labor known by the audience.
inebriation (9:20–21a) provides the most plausible fulfillment of the 5:29b

promise, even as the rest of the story focuses on the downside of this new dis-
covery (9:21b–27).
Overall, Gen 9:20–27 shares numerous links with the surrounding non-P
primeval history. Its initial report that Noah “began” to engage in viticulture
parallels preceding non-P texts describing how humanity “began to call on
YHWH’s name” in the time of Enosh (4:26) and later “began to multiply”
(6:1). More broadly, the focus of this verse on the founding of viticulture
resembles etiological elements found through many other parts of the non-P
primeval strand, connecting the stories of that strand to its audience’s experi-
ence and traditions (e.g., Gen 2:24; 3:16–19, 21; 4:15b, 20–24, 26; 6:4).
More specifically, the narrative in Gen 9:20–27 connects with the Eden
narrative in Gen 2:4b–3:24 (along with Gen 5:29) and the Cain-Abel narra-
tive in 4:1–16. Gen 2:4b–3:24 focused on the story of ‫“( האדם‬the human”)
made from ‫“( האדמה‬the ground”) in order to farm it (Gen 2:5, 7–8, 15; 3:17–
19, 23), while Gen 4:1–16 showed how his first son lost his ability to farm
the ground because he polluted it with his brother’s blood. Now, building
on those two stories, Gen 9:20–27 opens with a depiction of Noah as an ‫איש‬
‫“( האדמה‬man of the ground”), focusing, like those stories, on the negative
impacts of what particular characters “did” (9:24 ‫ ;עשה‬see Gen 3:13–14;
4:10) that is articulated through concluding speeches connecting to the audi-
ence world (Gen 9:25–27; see Gen 3:14–19; 4:10–12, 15).9
Together with the specific verbal echoes of YHWH’s curse of the ground
(3:17–19) in the naming of Noah (5:29; ‫“[ עצבון‬toil”], ‫“[ ארר‬curse”], ‫האדמה‬
[“the ground”]), other echoes of Gen 2:4b–3:24 in Gen 5:29 and 9:20–29
underline Noah’s role in providing comfort from the agricultural toil that
began with Adam.10 The story of Noah begins with a focus on Noah as a
prototypical farmer of “the ground” (‫ ;האדמה‬9:20a cf. Adam in Gen 2:5, 7;
Cain in 4:1) and an early narration of “planting” (‫ נטע‬9:20b; YHWH in 2:8).
Yet whereas toil resulted from Adam’s eating of fruit from the forbidden tree
(3:17–19), Noah discovers the implicit comfort of wine from getting drunk
on the fruit of the vine (9:21a). This then leads him to reveal his nakedness
9 Here see the synthesis in Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 193–95; and (with particular
reference to the links to ‫ אדמה‬in these three stories) Mari Jørstad, “The Ground That Opened Its
Mouth: The Ground’s Response to Human Violence in Genesis 4,” JBL 135 (2016): 706–7.
10 Willy Staerk, “Zur alttestamentlichen Literarkritik: Grundsätzliches und Methodisches,” ZAW
42 (1924): 52.
the First Noah 119
“in the midst of his tent” (‫ ;בתוך האהלה‬Gen 9:21b), much as the first human
couple ate fruit from a tree repeatedly described as “in the midst of the
garden” (‫ ;בתוך הגן‬Gen 2:9; 3:3). Adam and Eve’s eating from that tree led
to their eyes being opened and their “knowing” (‫ )ידע‬that they were naked
(3:7). So also, Noah’s drinking leads to his youngest son’s “seeing” Noah’s na-
kedness (9:22 ‫)ראה‬, an act that is then contrasted with Shem’s and Japhet’s
care to avoid “seeing” the same (9:23).11 The fateful “knowing” of the first
human couple (3:7) finds its counterpart in Noah’s “knowing” (‫ )ידע‬upon
awakening what his youngest son had done (9:24). Finally, Adam and Eve’s
eating of the tree of knowledge leads to the curse (‫ )ארר‬of the ground by
YHWH (3:17–19; see also 5:29), while Noah’s drinking of wine leads to the
curse (‫ )ארר‬of his son (9:25).12
Gen 9:20–27 contrasts with Genesis 2–3 and corresponds to Gen 4:1–16
in focusing on a division between brothers. Gen 4:1–16 and 9:20–27 are
distinguished in the primeval history by their prominent and repeated use
of “brother” language for the main characters (Gen 4:2, 8–10; 9:22, 25).13
Moreover, the stories of both texts lead up to a curse on one brother—Cain
in 4:11–12 and Canaan in 9:25.14 Yet this thematic-verbal (‫ )אח‬connection
to the story of Cain and Abel does not fully emerge until one recognizes the
original focus of Gen 9:18–27 on Canaan specifically as “brother” to Shem
11 To be sure, the words referring to nakedness are different in Genesis 2–3 and 9:20–27, but these
differences are determined by context. As discussed in c hapter 2, the adjective ‫ערום‬/‫ עירום‬is used
in Gen 2:25, 3:7 to refer to the nakedness of the first human couple as part of a complex wordplay
on the snake’s “cleverness” (‫ ;ערום‬3:1). Gen 9:20–24 focuses on different responses of Noah’s sons to
Noah’s uncovering of himself (Gen 9:21), with Gen 9:22–23 featuring the noun ‫( ערוה‬genitalia, pri-
vate parts) as part of a contrast between one son’s seeing Noah’s ‫ ערוה‬and telling about it versus his
other sons’ careful avoidance of seeing Noah’s ‫ ערוה‬and covering it. On Gen 9:20–24, see Michaela
Bauks, “Clothing and Nudity in the Noah Story (Gen. 9:18–29),” in Clothing and Nudity in the Hebrew
Bible: A Handbook, ed. Christoph Berner et al. (London: T&T Clark, 2019), 384–85.
12 See in particular H. J. L. Jensen, “Über den Ursprung der Kultur und der Völker: Eine trans-
formationskritische Analyse von Komplementarität und Verlauf in der Jahwistischen Urgeschichte,”

SJOT 2 (1987): 39–40; Devora Steinmetz, “Vineyard, Farm and Garden: The Drunkenness of Noah in
the Context of the Primeval History,” JBL 113 (1994): 197–207; Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes,
187–90. Baumgart also observes (190) that the blessing on Japhet implies a dwelling of Shem and
Japhet together in a tent that does not seem to include Canaan, thus implying an expulsion of Canaan
from Noah’s tent that parallels the expulsion of the first human couple from Eden. In this sense, the
parallel of terms related to the midst of the garden/tent may be part of a larger implicit parallel be-
tween garden (in Gen 2–3) and tent (in Gen 9:20–27) as idealized primeval communal life.
13 The term for brother also appears briefly in Gen 9:5, a Priestly text with evident links to the Cain-
Lamech story (see especially Jacob, Genesis, 245–46; Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 347–62),
and in Gen 10:25. Chapter 7 of this book identifies Gen 10:25 as a potential post-P element, mod-
eled on non-P elements like Genesis 4 and 9:20–27 but functioning vis-à-vis a mix of non-P and P
materials.
14 The following represents a critical selection of characteristics surveyed in my Reading the
Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox,
1996), 237.
and Japhet (see Gen 9:22, 25), “the young one” among Noah’s sons (Gen
9:24), rather than their nephew. This expression of superlative servitude of
Canaan to his brothers (9:25) clarifies that the story of Noah and his sons
is not aimed at an etiological explanation of servant/slave (‫ )עבד‬status per
se, say, as a part of elaborating all the roles in a Near Eastern household (in-
cluding that of slave or servant). Instead it is focused on the intense servi-
tude of a particular, genealogically defined class of people: the descendants
of Canaan specifically, something also expressed by an implicit wordplay be-
tween Canaan’s destiny of servitude and the verb ‫“( כנע‬submit, be humble”)
in Canaan’s name, a verb that means “be humbled” in the Niphal (e.g., Judg
3:30; 1 Sam 7:13; 1 Chr 20:4) and “humble someone else” in the Hiphil (e.g.,
2 Sam 8:1; Isa 25:5).15 As such, Gen 9:25–27 etiologically anticipates a spe-
cific Levantine social world where the Canaanite people will be enslaved to
descendants of Shem and Japhet (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 9:20–21).
EXCURSUS: The Likely Original Focus of Gen 9:18–27 on Canaan’s

Failure of Filial Obligation
Scholars have long noted the awkwardness of the mention of Ham’s
fathering of Canaan in the initial list of Noah’s sons (Gen 9:18) and then
again as part of the report of Ham’s actions (9:22a).16 This mention is nec-
essary in the story as it stands since Canaan, and not Ham, is cursed toward
the end of the story (Gen 9:25). Nevertheless, the fact that the mention of
Ham’s fathering of Canaan is doubled within the short compass of a single
narrative and that it occurs already (and uniquely) in a report of the sons
who were with Noah upon exit from the ark (Gen 9:18)—well before any
other non-P reports of Noah’s sons having offspring in the postflood pe-
riod (in Genesis 10)—has attracted attention. Indeed, as others have noted
previously, the narrative scenery of the story of Noah and his sons seems to
presuppose a situation where Noah’s sons are still young and living in their
father’s tent, without any offspring of their own in view.17
Earlier scholars who have noted these phenomena have hypothesized,
plausibly, that original mentions of Canaan in Gen 9:18b and 9:22a were
15 As noted in Moshe Garsiel, Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns,
trans. Phyllis Hackett (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1991 [1987 original]), 170, this meaning is
latent in Gen 9:25–27, but it is explicit in Judg 4:23.
16 See, e.g., Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des
Alten Testaments, 4th ed. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963 [orig. 1876]), 14; Hermann Gunkel, Genesis,
HAT.1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917), 78 [ET 79].
17 Karl Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen. 1–12, 5) (Giessen: Ricker, 1883), 310.
the First Noah 121
modified to include Ham as Noah’s third son, making Canaan into Noah’s
grandson (by way of Ham) and making Ham, not Canaan, the son who of-
fended Noah by seeing his nakedness. According to this hypothesis, an ear-
lier version of the list of Noah’s sons in Gen 9:18 consisted (only) of Shem,
Japhet, and Canaan (in that order), and the perpetrator of the misdeed re-
ported in Gen 9:22a was simply identified as Canaan. The original presence
of Canaan as the last and implicitly youngest brother in the list of Noah’s
sons would explain why the narrative refers to the son whom Noah later
curses as “the young one” (‫ ;הקטן‬9:24), even though Ham is now listed as
the second of Noah’s sons in Gen 9:18, 22. It also would explain why Canaan
is cursed to be a slave to his “brothers” (in Gen 9:25), brothers who are iden-
tified in the following verse explicitly as Shem and Japhet (Gen 9:26b, 27b),
even though Canaan is introduced in the present text of Genesis as Shem
and Japhet’s nephew, the son of Shem and Japhet’s brother, Ham (9:18,
22). In the original version of Gen 9:18–27, Shem and Japhet actually were
Canaan’s immediate “brothers.” Finally, the secondary addition of Ham as
Noah’s son (and father of Canaan) would account for the curious fact that
the broader story anticipates the fate of Shem, Japhet, and their offspring
(by way of their [plural] domination of Canaan; 9:26b, 27b) but focuses on
only one of Ham’s offspring, Canaan, thereby ignoring the fate of Ham him-
self or any of his other children.18
To be sure, there have been several recent studies that attempt to explain
such features through reading Ham’s “seeing” of his father’s “nakedness” as
akin to incestuous unveiling of the nakedness of a family relation (e.g., Lev
18:7–8; 20:11; Deut 23:1), in this case implying sex with his mother.19 If
Ham’s “seeing” of his father’s nakedness in Gen 9:22 was sex with his father’s
wife, this could explain the particular focus on Ham’s fathering of Canaan
(Gen 9:18, 22) as well as Noah’s curse of him, since Canaan might be un-
derstood as the offspring produced through the incestuous union.20 And
18 Ramban hypothesizes that Canaan must have been the oldest of Ham’s sons, since other sons
would have been included if they had been around at the time of Noah’s curse. For an earlier syn-
thesis of arguments regarding Canaan as the original brother of Shem and Japhet, see Day, “Genesis
9.18–27” 140–1.
19 See, e.g., John S. Bergsma and Scott W. Hahn, “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan
(Genesis 9:20–27),” JBL 124 (2005): 25–40; Albert DePury, “Sem. Cham et Japhet. De la fra-
ternité à l’esclavage,” in Koruphaio Andri: Mélanges offerts à André Hurst, ed. Antje Kolde and
Alessandra Lukinovich (Genève: Droz, 2005), 504–5. Most key aspects of the argument already ap-
pear in Frederick Bassett, “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan, a Case of Incest?” VT 21
(1971): 232–37.
20 Bergsma and Hahn, “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan,” 35–36.
this understanding of Ham’s misdeed as incestuous sex with his mother

(occasioned by his father’s drunken vulnerability) would make the Gen
9:20–23 incident similar both to examples of sons usurping fatherly au-
thority through having sex with their father’s concubines (e.g., Reuben in
Gen 35:22; Absalom 2 Sam 16:20–23) and to the story of Lot’s daughters
producing Moab and Ammon through incestuous sex with their drunken
father (Gen 19:30–38).21
Nevertheless, this approach (and others seeing other forms of incest be-
hind Gen 9:22–25) go far beyond the text’s description of Ham’s misdeed,
while failing to account well for the emphasis of the following text on the
contrasting behavior of Ham’s brothers, Shem and Japhet, as consisting in
not looking at Noah’s nakedness (9:23). First, Gen 9:20–27 never says a word
anywhere about Noah’s wife, including in the references to Ham’s fathering
of Canaan. Moreover, there is no specific hint of Ham having sex with his
mother (or father) in Gen 9:22, despite the fact that we have examples of bib-
lical texts that speak explicitly, without a problem, of Reuben’s sex with his
father’s concubine (Gen 35:22) and Absalom’s sex with his fathers’ concu-
bines (2 Sam 16:20–23). Second, this biblical story spends even more words
in Gen 9:23(–24), describing Shem and Japhet’s contrasting action to Ham’s,
than it does in describing Ham’s own behavior. That contrasting action has
to do with the fact that the brothers, literally, did not “see” their father’s na-
kedness. The extended description starts by describing a complicated pro-
cess by which the two brothers covered their father’s nakedness without
seeing it (9:23a) and then reemphasizes that their faces were turned away
so that they did not see their father’s nakedness (9:23b). Interpretations of
Ham’s “seeing” his father’s nakedness as incestuous sex in 9:22 must then
strain to explain the why the term “see nakedness” is an oblique reference to
incestuous sex in 9:22, but a literal seeing of nakedness in 9:23.22
A preferable alternative to the incest interpretation is to take Gen 9:22
and 9:23 as contrasting examples of failed (9:22) and successful (9:23) ob-
servance of the filial obligation of Noah’s sons toward their (drunken) fa-
ther.23 The Ugaritic Aqhat epic has Baal describe sympathetically Daniel’s
21 Ibid.
22 Examples include Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Nashville: Abingdon,
2001), 67; Steinmetz, “Vineyard, Farm and Garden,” 200n15.
23 Terms such as “filial obligation” (here) and “filial devotion” are used in this discussion to des-
ignate the range of duties that adult children owed their immediate parents, in contrast to the term
“filial piety,” which usually refers to a broader range of ethical and religious duties of children toward
parents and other elders evident, for example, in Confucianism and cultures particularly influenced
by Confucianism.
the First Noah 123
lack of a son, “who takes him by the hand when he’s drunk, carries him
when he’s sated with wine” (KTU I:27–34, 45–49; II:1–8, 16–23). This is a
concrete form of filial devotion, an honoring of and caring for parents (by
adult children), that is one of the pillars of the Ten Commandments (Exod
20:12//Deut 5:16). Indeed, good treatment of parents appears as a more ge-
neral focus in other biblical legal and wisdom material (e.g., Exod 21:15, 17;
Lev 19:3; Deut 21:18–21, 27:16; Prov 19:26; 20:20; 23:22; 28:24; 30:11, 17),
thus meaning that the focus on filial obligation in Gen 9:22–27 connects
back to wisdom themes seen throughout Genesis 2–3.24 Noah’s three sons
exemplify different stances toward such filial obligation in responding to
their father’s drunken nakedness. First, Ham exemplifies failure to honor
his father in his “seeing” of his father’s drunken nakedness and telling of it.
In contrast, Shem and Japhet positively exemplify filial devotion, carefully
protecting their father from further shame while avoiding seeing Noah’s
nakedness themselves. These contrasting forms of behavior lead directly to
Noah’s contrasting pronouncements regarding his sons’ fates: one speech
pronounces a “curse” on the son who failed to observe faithful sonship
toward Noah (9:25) while another speech assigns blessings to Shem and
Japhet along with repeated pronouncements of Canaan’s servitude to them
(9:26–27).
In sum, Gen 9:18–27 is a story that introduces the family of Noah and his
three sons—Shem, Japhet, and Canaan (9:18)—before blaming Noah’s curse
of Canaan as a slave to his brothers (Gen 9:25–27) on Canaan’s failure to ful-
fill his filial obligations to Noah through seeing and further telling about his
father’s drunken shame (9:21–22) in contrast to his brothers’ exemplary filial
devotion (9:23). In this way, the story of Noah and his sons in Gen 9:22–23
chronicles a breakdown in the father-son relationship that corresponds to
the breakdown in the male-female relationship in the garden of Eden story
24 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 199–200; Seebass, Genesis I, 246. This theme is also very prominent,
of course, in nonbiblical wisdom, e.g., Ahiqar 138 and Egyptian instructions of Any 4:4-6; 7:17-8:1;
Kheti XXVIII:a; XXX:f; Kemit 13; Ankhsheshonqy 6:6; 10:21; Insinger 2:14; also see Sir 3:1–16. For a
superb survey of additional Mesopotamian and Levantine literature, as well as persuasive arguments
that these injunctions relate to adult children, see the classic article Rainer Albertz, “Hintergrund
und Bedeutung des Elterngebots im Dekalog,” ZAW 90 (1978): 348–74; along with more recent
treatments in Arndt Meinhold, “Zum Verständnis des Elterngebotes,” in Zur weisheitlichen Sicht
des Menschen: Gesammelte Aufsätze, ed. Thomas Neumann and Johannes Thon, Arbeiten zur Bibel
und ihrer Geschichte 6 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2008 [1985 original]), 65–68 and
Eckart Otto, “Altersversorgung im Alten Orient und in der Bibel,” in Altorientalische und biblische
Rechtsgeschichte: Gesammelte Studien, ed. Eckart Otto, BZAR 8 (Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz Verlag,
2008 [1995 original]), 367–80.
(Genesis 3) and the brother-brother relationship in the Cain and Abel story
(Gen 4:1–16).
In this and other respects, Gen 9:20–27 represents a final development
from the family stories in both Genesis 2–3 and Gen 4:1-16. Where Genesis
2–3 anticipated human reproduction and described both created connected-
ness and emergent alienation between the first male-female couple, and Gen
4:1–16 described murderous dynamics between the first brothers produced
by the first parents, Gen 9:20–27 depicts a breakdown between children (spe-
cifically sons) and their parent. Thus, Gen 9:20–27 completes a primeval de-
piction of the complex dynamics surrounding the three axial relationships of
the nuclear family—husband-wife, sibling-sibling, and parent-sibling—and
rounds out a sapiential focus on son-parent relations initiated by the etiology
of a son “abandoning” his father and mother for his new “flesh and bone”
female kin in Gen 2:21–24 (see also Gen 4:1, 25).25 Moreover, these three
stories are bound together by a common focus on “the ground” as an initial
orientation point for the figures in the stories (Gen 2:7; 4:2, 10–14; 9:20a) and
a “curse” that results from a breakdown in their relationships (3:17–19; 4:10;
9:25). Finally, much as the two other major stories in this non-P triad link
the destinies of their characters with explicit (Eve in Gen 3:20; Cain in Gen
4:1; Seth in Gen 4:25; Noah in 5:29) or implicit (the human in Gen 2:7; 3:23;
Abel in Gen 4:2; Enosh in 4:26) interpretations of their names, so also Gen
9:20–27 starts with a completion of the depiction of the name ‫ נח‬as reflecting
Noah’s discovery of viticulture (5:29; 9:20–21), and it concludes with a focus
on Canaan’s servitude (9:22–27) that implies a connection of Canaan’s name
(‫ )כנען‬with the verb ‫( כנע‬knʿ; “be humbled/humble someone”).
Genesis 9:18–27 as Pre-P and Not Post-P
This deep rootage of Gen 9:20–27 specifically in the non-P primeval history
is one of several reasons militating against its assignment to a post-Priestly
25 Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11, BKAT I/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974
[English trans. 1984]), 661 [ET 494]; Andreas Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel: Der literar-
und theologiegeschichtlich Diskurs der Urgeschichte (Genesis 1–11), ATANT 86 (Zürich: Theologischer
Verlag, 2006), 358. So far as I know, the sapiential links of the Gen 2:21–24 etiology have not been
observed previously, but the focus on both father and mother, and on the problematic of why a son’s
allegiance might be diverted from parents by a new spouse, connect directly to the issue of filial obli-
gation that is central across much ancient Near Eastern literature, particularly instructional material
(see above, note 24).
the First Noah 125
layer of redaction, as found, for example, in recent work by Marcus Witte,

Jan Christian Gertz, and Abraham DePury.26 These arguments center par-
ticularly on the purported Priestly character of the initial listing of Noah’s
sons in Gen 9:18, since this verse provides an introduction to the story about
Noah and his sons in Gen 9:20–27.27 Whereas many prior commentators
took Gen 9:18 as a key locus where the non-P(J) primeval history finally
specified the identity of Noah’s sons (cf. Noah’s “house” in 7:1), Witte and
others argue from the same data that the Shem-Ham-Japhet listing in Gen
9:18 was likely P or post-P since all other mentions of these three sons occur
in Priestly (Gen 5:32; 6:10; 7:13; 10:1) or later (1 Chr 1:4) contexts. Although
the listing of Noah’s sons in 9:18 overlaps with prior Priestly reports of Noah
fathering Shem, Ham, and Japhet (5:32; 6:10), Witte and Gertz nonethe-
less regard Gen 9:18 as playing an important role within the Priestly section
about Noah where the relisting serves as a follow-up to the Priestly reports
of God’s speeches to Noah and his sons (Gen 9:1–17) and a transition to the
Priestly genealogy of Noah’s grandsons beginning in Gen 10:1a.28 In addi-
tion, Gertz maintains that the extra listing of Noah’s sons in 9:18, occurring
as it does toward the end of the Noah section, served as a Priestly anticipation
of the Toledot of Noah’s sons in Gen 10:1ff, much as the creation and blessing
of humans in Gen 1:26–28 anticipates the outset of the Toledot of Adam in
Gen 5:1–2; the fathering of Noah’s sons in Gen 5:32 anticipates the Toledot
of Noah in Gen 6:9–10; and Terah’s fathering of Abram, Nahor, and Haran in
11:26 anticipates the Terah Toledot in Gen 11:27.29
These arguments for the Priestly character of Gen 9:18—and the result-
ing post-Priestly character of Gen 9:20–27—do not, however, hold up under
scrutiny. To start, it appears that Gertz’s theory of a general tendency in P
to conclude a Toledot section with an anticipation of the next actually only
applies to 5:32/6:10 and 11:26/27, the ends of the two main sections of the
Priestly Toledot scroll that was discussed previously in c hapter 4 of this book.
26 Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 100–105, 186–89; DePury, “Sem, Cham et Japhet,” 503–5; Jan
Christian Gertz, “Hams Sündenfall und Kanaans Erbfluch: Anmerkungen zur kompositionsgeschich-
tlichen Stellung von Genesis 9,” in “ ‘Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben’ (Gen 18,19): Studien zur altori-
entalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie
[FS Eckart Otto], ed. Reinhard Achenbach and Martin Arneth (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag,
2009), 81–95.
27 E.g., Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 100–102.
28 Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 100 also argues for an inclusio across the Priestly Noah section
connecting (P in) Gen 6:10 to Gen 9:18 (and Gen 6:9 to 9:28–29). See below for discussion of Witte’s
treatment of Gen 9:19.
29 Gertz, “Hams Sündenfall und Kanaans Erbfluch,” 89; also Gertz, Das erste Buch Moses
[Genesis]: Die Urgeschichte Gen 1–11, ATD (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 288.
As discussed in the same chapter, the echo of Gen 1:26–27 in 5:1b–2 is not a
case of Gen 1:26–27 anticipating 5:1b–2, but rather of 5:1b–2 (adapting and)
recalling Gen 1:26–27 at the outset of the Toledot of Adam that begins in 5:1.
Finally, this pattern of duplication does not hold in other Priestly sections
of Genesis: the Priestly Toledot section for Terah does not conclude with an
anticipation of the Ishmael (25:12–18) and Isaac (25:19–35:29*) Toledot, nor
does the Priestly Toledot section on Isaac conclude with an anticipation of
the sections on Esau (36:1–37:1*) and Jacob (37:2–50:26*).30
Meanwhile, Witte’s and others’ arguments for a specifically Priestly
character to the trio of sons Shem-Ham-Japhet suffer from a common but
highly problematic assumption in many recent arguments regarding post-P
material—namely, the principle that P must have had an element first when a
given word, phrase, or theme appears in both P and non-P, especially if P has
more examples of the given element.31 The problem with such an assump-
tion is made especially clear in the case of P’s multiple mentions of Shem,
Ham, and Japhet: P has already noted twice that Noah fathered Shem, Ham,
and Japhet (Gen 5:32; 6:10) before Gen 9:18 then lists Noah’s sons as Shem,
Ham, and Japhet. Witte’s (and others’) revivification of the theory identifying
Gen 9:18 as P thus requires the somewhat implausible idea that P introduced
both the Toledot of Noah (Gen 6:9–9:29*) and the Toledot of Noah’s sons
(Gen 10:1–32*) through parallel introductions of Noah’s three sons (5:32
and 9:18 respectively), with the result that P introduces Noah’s three sons not
once or twice, but three times (5:32; 6:10; 9:18). More likely, in this author’s
judgment, is the idea that the Priestly source only had the report of Noah’s
fathering of three sons in Gen 6:10, along with its anticipation in Gen 5:32,
while the listing of Noah’s sons in Gen 9:18 is a non-P text composed to intro-
duce the story of Noah and his sons in Gen 9:20–27.
Indeed, a closer look at the listing in Gen 9:18 vis-à-vis these Priestly
reports of fathering in Gen 5:32 and 6:10 shows signs that Gen 9:18 likely
served as a model for Gen 5:32 and then 6:10. The note about Noah’s fathering
of Shem, Ham, and Japhet at the end of the Adam Toledot in Gen 5:32 is
30 In addition, it should be noted that Gen 9:18 would not be analogous to the anticipations of
Priestly toledot in 5:32 (cf. 6:10) and 11:26 (cf. 11:27), since those latter cases feature examples of the
complete renarration, at the outset of a given Toledot section, of the Toledot’s main figure—Noah
or Terah—fathering the (three) descendants to be featured in that section. In contrast, the listing of
Noah’s sons in Gen 9:18 merely overlaps with the contents of the Toledot heading in Gen 10:1.
31 On this see David M. Carr, “Strong and Weak Cases and Criteria for Establishing the Post-
Priestly Character of Hexateuchal Material,” in The Post-Priestly Pentateuch, ed. Federico Giuntolli
and Konrad Schmid, FAT (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 26.
the First Noah 127
awkward in its context because it dates Noah’s fathering of these three sons
to the same (500th) year of Noah’s life.32 In contrast, the mention of Noah’s
three sons together in Gen 9:18 is unproblematic in its context since it does
not presume to refer to their initial birth. Genesis 9:18 simply lists all three of
Noah’s sons as a prelude to the story about Noah and his sons in Gen 9:20–27.
Insofar as it is reasonable to see a relationship between the P and non-P tradi-
tions about Noah’s sons, it is much easier to see how the awkward Priestly no-
tice of the seemingly simultaneous fathering of three sons in Gen 5:32 might
betray its dependence on the listing of Noah’s three sons in Gen 9:18 than it
is to see Gen 5:32, 6:10, and 9:18 as written by the same author or Gen 9:18
as dependent on 5:32 and 6:10.33 And this supposition would be reinforced if
we consider that the Shem-Ham-Japhet combination now seen in Gen 9:18
likely results from the (previously observed) addition of Ham to the listing of
Noah’s sons in 9:18 and the story in Gen 9:20–24. In other words, Gen 9:18
cannot be Priestly if it originated as a listing of Noah’s sons as Shem, Japhet,
and Canaan.34
Having discussed the main arguments for the post-Priestly character of
Gen 9:18, it should be noted that the other features that Witte adduces as
signs of the post-Priestly character of 9:20–27 largely reflect the fact that the
story of Noah and his sons is a new episode in the narrative that, accord-
ingly, contains elements not found in earlier portions.These features include
the focus in Gen 9:20–27 on a contrast between bad (Canaan/Ham) and
good (Shem, Japhet) actions along with a corresponding curse (Canaan) and
blessing (Shem, Japhet) and the focus of the story on an unlimited curse by
a human (Noah; 9:25) rather than a divine punishment that is then softened
(e.g., Gen 3:21; 4:15).35 In particular, the designation of Noah as “man of the
ground” (‫)איש האדמה‬, in contrast to early non-P descriptions of the first
32 Jacob, Genesis, 167 is an example of one interpreter who noticed this problem and attempted to
solve it.
33 To be sure, this theory would require that the similar report of Terah fathering his three sons
in the same year (Gen 11:26) was modelled on Gen 5:32, much as other elements of the Noah and
Terah portions of the Toledot book, such as the doubling in Gen 5:32//6:10 and 11:26//27, ap-
pear crafted in relation to each other. Cf. a different perspective argued in Jan Christian Gertz,
“Genesis 5: Priesterliche Redaktion, Komposition oder Quellenschrift?” in Abschied von der
Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte, ed. Friedhelm Hartenstein and Konrad Schmid
(Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2015), 78–79.
34 In addition, the formulations in 9:18–19, though vaguely similar to Priestly expressions in
Genesis 10, diverge from those of P. The clause ‫ שם וחם ויפת‬... ‫ ויהיו בני נח‬is a verbal clause that is
differently formulated than the verbless clauses in P’s overview of nations (Genesis 10), and 9:19 uses
the verb ‫ נפץ‬to describe the scattering of Noah’s sons where P in Genesis 10 uses the verb ‫ פרד‬to more
neutrally describe human spreading (10:4, 32; on this, see esp. Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 288–89).
35 Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 185–86.
human (2:5) and Cain (4:2) as “working” (‫ )עבד‬the ground, hardly consti-
tutes the kind of contradictory terminology that would suggest separate lit-
erary levels. Notably, Gertz’s generally sympathetic development of Witte’s
position leaves these arguments of Witte’s to the side.36
Before moving further, it also should be noted that Witte adds Gen 9:19
into the argument, maintaining that its neutral description of the scattering
(‫ )נפץ‬of humanity contrasts with the Babel story’s description of such scat-
tering (now ‫ )פוץ‬as punitive.37 Witte takes 9:19, along with 9:18a (minus the
note about Ham as father of Canaan in 9:18b), as a chiastically structured
Priestly unity that both wrapped up the preceding Priestly speech of God
to Noah and his sons (9:8–17) and looked forward to the Priestly descrip-
tion of the spreading of humanity (‫ אלה בני‬and ‫ מאלה‬before spreading,
Gen 10:1ff [esp. 10:1, 5, 20, 31–32]). This simultaneously backward- and
forward-looking aspect of Gen 9:18–19* matches the similar backward-and
forward-looking aspect of previous Priestly sections in Gen 2:2-3 and 5:1–
3.38 Nevertheless, as noted by Gertz, Witte’s understanding of Gen 9:19 as
a neutral description of humanity’s spread founders on the fact that other
occurrences of ‫ נפץ‬are consistently negative.39 Instead, the description of
human scattering from Noah’s sons in Gen 9:19 serves as an anticipation, at
the outset of the non-P section on Noah’s sons, of the fuller description of the
occasion for such scattering at the end of that non-P section (11:1–9), which
uses a Nebenform of ‫( נפץ‬i.e., ‫ פוץ‬for “scatter”) that contrasts with P’s use of
the term ‫ פרד‬for human spreading (10:5, 32). I will return to the relation of
Gen 9:19 and 11:1–9 in chapter 7 of this book, where I will identify it as a
likely pre-Priestly expansion of the story of Noah and his sons in Gen 9:18,
20–27 that anticipates Gen 11:1–9.
In the end, the main thing to be affirmed is the clear pre-P character of
the story of Noah and his sons (Gen 9:20–27), which is essential to filling
out the broader depiction of family dynamics seen in the preceding non-P
primeval episodes of Genesis 2–3 and 4. As discussed previously, there are
strong signs of a pre-P character for Gen 9:18–19 as well, but the assignment
of these verses is not essential for maintaining the pre-P character of Gen
9:20–27. Indeed, a number of prior scholars understood Gen 9:20–27 to be
36 See, e.g., Gertz, “Hams Sündenfall und Kanaans Erbfluch.”

37 Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 101. Here he builds on earlier arguments regarding ‫ נפץ‬cited in
n. 88.
38 Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 100–102.
39 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 289.
the First Noah 129
part of a pre-Priestly Jahwist even though they assigned Gen 9:18–19 to P or

another (J2) source.40
The Story of the Sons of God and Daughters

of Humanity (6:1–4)
There are two main non-Priestly elements that occur between the anticipa-
tion of Noah’s destiny to provide comfort in Gen 5:29 and the story of him and
his sons in Gen 9:18, 20–27: the non-P story of the sons of God and daugh-
ters of humanity in 6:1–4 and the non-P flood narrative, partially preserved
in Gen 6:5–8:22*. The next chapter will argue that the non-P flood narrative
constituted an addition to an earlier non-P primeval history. This leaves the
story of the sons of God and daughters of humanity (6:1–4) as a possible in-
terlude between the pronouncement about Noah at his birth (5:29) and the
story about him as a father of three sons (9:18–27).
As I have argued at more length in other contexts, the story in Gen 6:1–4 is
best understood in light of certain ancient assumptions about divine-human
pairings and human mortality, including those reflected in the depiction of
YHWH establishing a divine-human mortal boundary in Genesis 2–3.41
We have good documentation across multiple cultures of the Near East
and Mediterranean of a belief that gods and humans could couple and pro-
duce offspring and that those offspring then shared some of the attributes
that distinguished deities from mortals: extraordinary beauty and strength,
large size, and even immortality. The story in Gen 6:1–3 quite generally nar-
rates that divine figures, “sons of gods” (‫)בני האלהים‬, were on the verge of
marrying human daughters when YHWH intervened to make sure that
the semidivine offspring of such pairings would be limited to a lifespan of
120 years. There is no judgment expressed in the story itself on such pairings,
and the lifespan of 120 years is a standard figure for maximum human life-
span, attested in Near Eastern and Greek sources for an extraordinarily long
40 Witte himself notes several examples among older analyses in Biblische Urgeschichte, 102. To
these could be added examples such as Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, 303–4 (on 9:18–19), 306–21
(on 9:20–27); and H. Holzinger, Genesis, Kurzer Handkommentar AT (Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1898),
89–90, both of whom assign Gen 9:18–19 to a different J source (with a flood narrative) than Gen
9:20–27 (without a flood narrative).
41 The following overlaps significantly with my treatment of this text in David M. Carr, “Looking
at Historical Background, Redaction and Possible Bad Writing in Gen 6,1–4: A Synchronic and
Diachronic Analysis,” BN 181 (2019): 7–24 and draws on work done for my commentary on Genesis
1–11, Genesis 1–11, IECOT (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2020).
human life.42 In this respect, YHWH’s behavior is depicted as preventative,

reinforcing the divine-human mortal boundary established in Gen 3:22–24
with respect to humans even though some of those born to human mothers
would now be partially divine. The story then features an etiological con-
clusion that suggests that these unions produced the giants known in other
Israelite traditions as inhabitants of pre-Israelite Canaan (‫ נפלים‬6:4a; cf.
Num 13:33 along with Deut 1:28; 2:10–11, 20–21; Amos 2:9) and whose later
couplings produced the huge warrior-heroes of the Judges and early monar-
chic times (Gen 6:4b; cf. e.g., 2 Sam 23:8–12).43 Moreover, much as other
Near Eastern traditions suggested that mortal humans could gain a proxi-
mate form of immortality through gaining a lasting, famous “name,” so the
story of YHWH’s reinforcement of human mortality in Gen 6:1–4 concludes
by terming these heroic warriors “men of the name” (‫)אנשי השם‬, that is, “fa-
mous men”: “these [warriors of old produced by gods and humans] were the
men of the name.”44
This discussion would suggest a link between Gen 6:1–4 and preceding
non-P primeval stories about the initial loss of a chance at immortality by
human beings (Genesis 2–3) and their first experiences of reproduction
and mortality (4:1–26). Indeed, most scholars up through a few decades ago
agreed in assigning all or part of the story of the sons of God and daugh-
ters of humanity (Gen 6:1–4) to a pre-Priestly Jahwistic source. Its concept of
YHWH limiting human expectancy to 120 years during the primeval period
(Gen 6:3) is not compatible with later mentions in the combined P/non-P text
42 As noted in Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 212, the formula used for divine-human marriages in Gen 6:2
is the one found elsewhere in the Bible for normal marriages, with biblical descriptions of rape being
characterized by additional descriptors. On the 120-year lifespan, see Jacob Klein, “The ‘Bane’ of
Humanity: A Lifespan of 120 Years,” Acta Sumerologica 12 (1990): Bane of Humanity,” 58 for citation
of a version of the Enlil and Namzitarra myth at Emar that includes an extra line (23’) specifying
120 years as the maximum human lifespan. Similar 120-year spans are noted at a couple of loci in
Herodotus (Hist. 1:163; 3:23). This factor lessens the chance that the 120-year number in Gen 6:3 was
crafted to anticipate Moses’s 120-year lifespan (Deut 34:7).
43 See Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 116–18 for discussion of questions surrounding
identification of who the ‫ נפלים‬are. As noted there, they are presupposed as known to the audience
of the text yet belonging (as do the warriors of 6:4) to a bygone (though not necessarily preflood)
age. For broader discussion of this range of references to pre-Israelite giant figures (and link to Gen
6:1–4), see (among others) Brian R. Doak, The Last of the Rephaim: Conquest and Cataclysm in the
Heroic Ages of Ancient Israel, Ilex Foundation Series 7 (Boston: Ilex Foundation, 2012), 51–118.
For discussion of biblical traditions about heroes in relation to Gen 6:1–4, see especially Rüdiger
Bartelmus, Heroentum in Israel und seiner Umwelt: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu
Gen. 6, 1–4 und verwandten Texten im Alten Testament und der altorientalischen Literatur, ATANT 65
(Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1979), 79–129.
44 Annette Zgoll, “Einen Namen will ich mir machen,” Saeculum 54 (2003): 1–11; Ellen
Radner, Die Macht des Namens: Altorientalische Strategien zur Selbsterhaltung, SANTAG 8
(Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2005), esp. 74–118.
the First Noah 131
of primeval and later patriarchs living much longer (e.g., Gen 9:29; 11:10–26;
47:28). Moreover, the story in Gen 6:1–4 is intricately connected to multiple
elements in the pre-P primeval history. The description of YHWH’s con-
fronting a threat to the divine-human mortal boundary (Gen 6:2–3) echoes
specific elements of the Garden of Eden story (e.g., Gen 6:2//3:6; 6:3//3:22),45
and the introduction to the non-P flood narrative in Gen 6:5–7 begins and
ends with echoes of the description of “humanity” (‫האדם‬, now collective)
beginning to grow numerous (‫ לרב‬. . . ‫“ )החל‬on the surface of the ground”
(‫ )על־פני האדמה‬found in Gen 6:1.46 Furthermore, several aspects of the
non-P flood narrative link back to and build on terminology seen in Gen
6:1–4. In an ironic twist, Gen 6:5 starts with YHWH’s recognition that the
evil of “humanity” now is great (‫רבה‬//‫ לרב‬in 6:1) on the earth, and Gen 6:7
reports YHWH’s resulting decision to wipe “humanity” off “the surface of
the ground” that 6:1 had reported them multiplying on.47 Chapter 6 will pre-
sent arguments that this non-P flood narrative, though likely later than sur-
rounding non-P primeval texts, preceded P’s flood narrative. If so, then these
connections of Gen 6:5–7 and 6:1–4 are an additional indicator that 6:1–4
is pre-P, since it is more likely that 6:5–7 was composed in relation to 6:1–4
than it is that the connections to Gen 6:5–7 in Gen 6:1 were created by its au-
thor in order to provide ironic background to Gen 6:5–7.
It should be noted, however, that an increasing number of scholars have
seen Gen 6:1–4 as a late, post-Priestly addition to its context. Most of their
arguments have turned on the identification of several terminological links
between 6:1–4 and the Priestly tradition, none of which turns out, on closer
inspection, to be exact enough to establish a convincing connection. For ex-
ample. though the reference to human multiplication in Gen 6:1 has been
seen as echoing the Priestly focus on that theme, it uses the verb ‫ רבב‬rather
than ‫רבה‬, the latter used in the numerous Priestly references to the multipli-
cation blessing (1:28; 5:1; 9:1, 7).48 Gertz proposes a link between the use of
45 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 141; Walter Bührer, “Göttersöhne und Menschentöchter: Gen 6,1–4 als
innerbiblische Schriftauslegung,” ZAW 123 (2011): 501.

46 There is room for this new collective use of the term ‫( האדם‬in contrast to use this expression to
refer to an individual, the human, e.g., 2:7; 4:1) in 6:1, since non-P shifts in Gen 4:25 to referring to
that individual by the proper name ‫( אדם‬now that there are more male humans in the story world
than just one human).
47 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 302; Andrezej Strus, Nomen-Omen: La stylistique sonore des noms propres
dans le Pentateuque, AnBib 80 (Rome: Pontifical Institute Press, 1978), 119; Sarna, Genesis, 47.
48 Cf. Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 72. Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel, 220 suggests that
the mention of multiplication and birthing of human daughters in 6:1 links back to the beginning of
multiplication at the outset of Genesis 5 (P). Nevertheless, there is nothing in Gen 6:1 that requires
such a prelude, and Genesis 5 actually does not verbally link to the multiplication theme.
the word ‫ טוב‬in Gen 6:2 and the occurrences of the same word across Genesis
1 (e.g., Gen 1:5, 10, 12).49 Nevertheless, the word in Gen 6:2 is used quite dif-
ferently from Genesis 1 to refer to the beauty of the daughters of humanity
(cf. Exod 2:2; Judg 15:2).50 Some also have linked the reference to YHWH’s
“spirit” (‫ )רוח‬and human “flesh” (‫ )בשר‬in Gen 6:3 to Priestly references to
spirit (Gen 6:17; 7:15) and “all flesh” (e.g., Gen 6:12–13, 17).51 Nevertheless,
a closer look again shows that Gen 6:3 contrasts strongly with these Priestly
texts, which refer to a “spirit of life” (‫ )רוח חיים‬rather than a divine spirit and
use “flesh” as an expression for human and animal life together. In the end,
Gen 6:1–4 contrasts with P at every locus where scholars have seen termino-
logical links to it.
These arguments for the post-Priestly status of Gen 6:1–4 have converged
with a number of treatments that see Gen 6:1–4 as dependent on the early
Enochic Watchers tradition about the origins of primeval giants (especially
Enoch 6:1–2; 7:1–2), where sex between angels and humans produces a
race of extraordinarily violent giants whose actions prompt the sending of
the flood (Enoch 10). Closer examination of the story in the Watchers tra-
dition, however, reveals that it, like other parts of the Watchers section, is
a harmonizing elaboration of Gen 6:1–4. The elaboration of Gen 6:1–4 in
the Watchers tradition can be seen to solve certain problems perceived by
later readers of the biblical text through its explicit connection of the divine-
human marriages in 6:1–2 to the giant offspring in Gen 6:4 and the fol-
lowing flood story.52 As it is, the connection of the divine-human pairings
in Gen 6:2 and the giants mentioned in 6:4 is only implied in the biblical
text (on the basis of ancient ideas about the giant size of offspring produced
by divine-human couplings).53 In contrast, the Watchers account makes ex-
plicit that the giant Nephilim (Gen 6:4) were the products of divine-human
pairings in (Enoch 7:1–2; cf. Gen 6:1–2). And where the relatively neutral
biblical account of divine-human couplings in Gen 6:1–4 is followed by and

50 John Day, “The Sons of God and Daughters of Men and the Giants: Disputed Points
in the Interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4,” in From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1–11
(London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 80–81.
51 Here again, see Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 213.
52 For analyses placing this aspect of Gen 6:1–4 within this broader aspect of the Watchers tra-
dition, see esp. Kenneth Pomykala, “A Scripture Profile of the Book of Watchers,” in The Quest for
Context and Meaning, ed. Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 263–84;
Devorah Dimant, “1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work,” JJS 53 (2002): 225–37.
53 On this, see the discussion in Carr, “Gen 6,1–4,” 8–14.
the First Noah 133
contrasts with the subsequent divine judgment in non-P (6:5–7) as well as

P’s description of the earth being corrupted by worldwide violence in P (Gen
6:11), the Watchers version melds these elements: attributing the flood to the
giants’ polluting the earth with extravagant violence (Enoch 7:4–5; 9:8–10).54
Features such as these make clear that the Watchers tradition, though rela-
tively early in comparison to other Second Temple texts, represents one of
the earliest documented interpretations of Gen 6:1–4 in relation to the flood
story rather than a more complete version of a mythic tradition that is abbre-
viated in the Bible.55
There remains one other consideration that has contributed to recent
tendencies to attribute Gen 6:1–4 to a post-Priestly redactor rather than a
pre-P J source: the question of how the story in Gen 6:1–4 connects to its
surrounding literary context.56 Some who have argued for the post-Priestly
status of Gen 6:1–4 have maintained that its focus on human multiplication
(6:1) and limited life expectancy (6:3) stands as a follow-up to the Priestly
focus on the long lives and multiplication of primeval ancestors in Genesis
5, each of whom is given a lifespan of multiple hundreds of years.57 The force
of this argument is undermined somewhat by the fact that YHWH’s limi-
tation of the human lifespan in Gen 6:3 is prompted most immediately by
the divine-human pairings in Gen 6:1–2, not the long lifespans of Genesis
5. Moreover, as discussed in the previous chapter (4), the bulk of Genesis 5
(from the Toledot book) is a linear genealogy focusing on the continuity of
the Adam-to-Noah line, and even the Priestly addition to its outset (5:1b–2)
does not quote the multiplication blessing in the process of briefly referring
to it (‫ ;ויברך אתם‬cf. Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7). In this respect, the reference to multi-
plication in Gen 6:1 merely serves, along with references to the distant past
54 Here see also Christoph Uehlinger, Weltreich und “eine Rede”: eine neue Deutung der soge-
nannten Turmbauerzählung (Gen 11, 1–9), OBO 101 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1990), 566–68;
George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom: An Alternative to the Mosaic Torah?” in Hesed ve-
Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs, ed. Jodi Magness (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 166–68.
55 Examples include J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 31–32; Philip R. Davies, “Women, Men, Gods, Sex and Power: The Birth
of a Biblical Myth,” in A Feminist Companion to Genesis, ed. Athalya Brenner (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1993), 196–98; Philip R. Davies. “And Enoch Was Not, For Genesis Took Him,” in
Biblical Traditions in Transmission. Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb, ed. Charlotte Hempel and
Judith M. Lieu (Leiden: Boston, 2006), 97–107; Helge S. Kvanvig, “Gen 6,1–4 as an Antediluvian
Event,” SJOT 16 (2002): 89–90; Helge S. Kvanvig, “The Watcher Story and Genesis: An Intertextual
Reading,” SJOT 18 (2004): 163–83; and Helge S. Kvanvig, Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical and
Enochic—An Intertextual Reading, JSJSup 149 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 361–93.
56 In addition, there is some question about linguistic dating of the compound conjunction in Gen
6:3, ‫בשגם‬. See Carr, “Gen 6,1–4,” 18 for discussion of this set of questions.
57 Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 71–74; Bührer, “Göttersöhne und Menschentöchter,” 509–11.
in Gen 6:4 (‫)אשר מעולם ;בימים ההם‬, to place Gen 6:1–4 and the beings that
it etiologically explains (giants, famous warriors) in a primeval past now in-
accessible to its audience. In this respect the time reference in Gen 6:1 (along
with 6:4) works similarly well in a P or non-P context. The same cannot be
said, however, about how Gen 6:1–4 functions vis-à-vis the Priestly material
that follows, since, as noted earlier, the combined P/non-P text of Genesis
features continuing (Priestly) notices of figures who lived much longer than
120 years. Furthermore, as will be discussed in more detail in the following
chapter, the etiology of giants and warriors in Gen 6:4 is compromised by the
P (and non-P) flood narratives that follow, since that narrative would imply
that these ancient figures were destroyed by an ancient primeval flood. This
lessens the chance that 6:1–4 was added to a P/non-P context that already in-
cluding these flood narratives.58
Clarity on such questions, of course, is difficult since we cannot be sure
that the conflator of P and non-P preserved the order or relevant literary con-
texts of his sources, particularly in the case of non-P.59 Nevertheless, several
considerations suggest that Gen 6:1–4 may have represented a crucial inter-
lude within the non-P primeval history between Noah’s birth (reflected in
the non-P naming in Gen 5:29) and Noah’s adult life as father (Gen 9:18–27).
It may be that the narrative element in Gen 6:1–4 provided a transition to the
Noah-sons story of Gen 9:20–27 much as the expression “after some days”
(‫ ;ויהי מקץ ימים‬Gen 4:3a) follows on the initial report of Cain and Abel’s
birth (4:1–2) as a transition to the story of their offerings and Cain’s murder
of Abel (4:3b–16). In contrast to that brief chronological marker in Gen 4:3a,
however, the more extended account in Gen 6:1–4 performs other functions
within the broader non-P primeval history as well. For one thing, it describes
YHWH’s final reinforcement of the divine-human mortal boundary that was
initially established in the Garden of Eden (Gen 6:3; see 3:22–24). Moreover,
just after the mortality of humans has been reinforced, Gen 6:4 immedi-
ately introduces the idea of humans gaining proximate immortality through
a great “name” (“the men of the name”; Gen 6:4), and this introduction of
58 Some later rabbinic readers noticed this latter problem and had an ancient giant, Og, survive the
flood by clinging to the outside of Noah’s ark (e.g., Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 23:8 and Yalqut—Noah 55).
I am indebted to Malka Strasberg, a Ph.D. student at Jewish Theological Seminary, for notation of this
tradition.
59 In chapters 6 and 7 of this book, I note several cases of evident conflational displacement of
non-P materials (e.g., Gen 7:16b; 10:8b–12) from their original locus and—in the case of the Nimrod
materials of Gen 10:8b–12—likely elision of the original context of such displaced materials (through
the use of P’s transition from Noah’s sons to Terah in 11:10–26).
the First Noah 135
name/fame provides an implicit background to Noah’s favored son Shem/

“name.”60 Notably, extracting Gen 6:1–4 from the non-P primeval history
would then mean that early history (before the addition of Ham to it) had
etiological explanations for every other major figure in it (e.g., “the human”/
Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Noah, Japhet, Canaan), but not “Shem.” The conclu-
sion to Gen 6:1–4 provides that crucial element—connecting Noah’s eldest
son, whose God is YHWH (Gen 9:26) and is the father of “the sons of Eber”
(//Hebrews; 10:21), to the fame that gave past warriors and giants a proxi-
mate form of immortality (6:4).61
These links of 6:1–4 and 9:18–27 would have been clearer when 6:1–4 im-
mediately preceded the story of Noah, Shem and other sons in Gen 9:18–27.
Within the present text, the introduction of the “men of the name” at the end
of 6:4 and of Shem at the outset of 9:18 are now separated by the (likely addi-
tion of an) intervening non-P flood account (Gen 6:5–8:22*) and—with the
conflation of P and non-P—the additional intermixing of the P flood account
into the same context (6:5–9:17).62 At an earlier point, however, Gen 5:29; 6:1–
4; 9:18, 20–27 probably constituted a concluding unit in a non-P primeval his-
tory that played in multiple ways on the ancient idea of “name” as a proximate
form of human immortality. This unit included an interlude in 6:1–4 where
the fame of a great “name” is mentioned as a follow-up to YHWH’s definitive
reinforcement of the divine-human mortal boundary (6:4b), following which
Noah is described in Gen 9:18–27 as having a son named “name”/Shem and
blessing him with the blessing of YHWH, “god of Shem” (9:26).
Chapter 7 of this book will further explore the links between this extraor-
dinary son named “name” and the audience for the non-P primeval history.
For now, it is enough to note that the brief interlude in Gen 6:1–4 is impor-
tant for understanding the background to the name of Noah’s first son, Shem.
As others have observed, the name “Shem” does not occur elsewhere in the
60 See, e.g., Jacob, Genesis, 273 who is building on earlier rabbinic interpretations.
61 The essential character of Gen 6(1-)4 in its broader non-P primeval context greatly lessens the
chance that it is a post-P, yet pre-conflational addition to its context. Though this latter model is
explored quite productively for many Pentateuchal texts in a brilliant dissertation by my student,
Aron Freidenreich (“Reconceptualizing the Relation of P and Non-P: A Study of the Dynamic
Interaction between the Priestly and Non-Priestly Narrative Texts of the Pentateuch and their Mutual
Development” [Ph.D. diss., New York: Union Theological Seminary in New York, 2020]), and though
this model could explain the above-discussed semi-Priestly and/or potential late aspects of Gen
6:1–4 (and account for the lack of fit between Gen 6:1–4 and subsequent P texts), the hypothesis of
Gen 6:1–4 as a post-P, pre-conflational addition would mean that the earlier non-P primeval history
explained the name of every major character except Shem.
62 Again, see c hapter 6 of this book for discussion of the likely secondary character of the non-P
flood account within the broader non-P primeval history.
Near East as the designation of a people.63 Instead, like other names of major
characters in the non-P primeval history—the human Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth,
Enosh, Noah, Canaan, Japhet—the name of Noah’s son “Shem” has meaning
within its literary context. And this meaning of Shem’s name only emerges if
it follows on the implication in Gen 6:4 that “name” fame now stands as a po-
tential proximate replacement for the immortality from which humans are
forever excluded in Gen 3:22–24; 6:3.
A Possible Beginning of the Section Regarding Noah
One other issue relevant to the history of Gen 5:29; 6:1–4; 9:18, 20–27 is the
question of the portion of the preceding non-P primeval history, if any, to
which this Noah section would have connected. The birth report for Noah
now preserved in Genesis 5:28 loosely follows Priestly models found in the
rest of the chapter, but it has been modified to report the birth of an unnamed
son (cf. 5:3) in Lamech’s fifty-third year64 so that it can introduce the non-P
naming report for Noah in Gen 5:29. As such, Gen 5:28 appears to be, in
part, a conflational composition that builds on an earlier Priestly fathering
report for Lamech (of Noah; see Gen 5:30). The conflator of P and non-P did
not preserve a non-P fathering report. In this respect, the conflator of P and
non-P was following his usual practice—seen in other parts of Genesis—of
not preserving duplicate P and non-P birth or death reports for the same
individual.65
In the past, many have been inclined to see this non-P treatment of
Noah as originally connecting to the non-P material about Lamech (Gen
4:18bβγb–24). Noah is identified as a son of Lamech in the Priestly gene-
alogy of Genesis 5 (Gen 5:28, 30), and the non-P material between Lamech
and Noah (Gen 4:25-26) has been seen by many as post-Priestly.66 Putting
63 Cf. Richard S. Hess, Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis 1–11, AOAT 234 (Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993), 29–30, who notes examples of individuals with names formed
with the equivalent of “name” in construct with a deity. “Name” by itself as a personal name is
unusual.
64 Taking here the likely earlier reading of 53 in the Samaritan Pentateuch rather than 182 in the
Masoretic text and 188 in Septuagint, though it is not relevant to this argument which year is chosen.
For a judicious discussion of the problems surrounding different witnesses for Lamech’s age at
fathering in Gen 5:28, see Gertz, “Genesis 5,” 86, 88–90.
65 See c
hapter 7, p. 180, note 6.
66 Examples and arguments for this position are considered on pages 79–81 of chapter 3 of this
book.
the First Noah 137
these two considerations together, it has been natural to conclude that P

(or a pre-P Toledot source) got its idea of Lamech as father of Noah from
non-P traditions partially preserved in the connection of Gen 4:18b–24 and
Gen 5:28–29*. Yet I have already gathered multiple arguments at the end of
chapter 3 that Gen 4:25–26 was pre-Priestly and not a post-P conflational
block. In addition, it is not clear how a birth report for Noah would func-
tion as part of a non-P Lamech section beginning in Gen 4:18bβ–24. After
all, this non-P material about Lamech already includes an extended descrip-
tion of Lamech fathering three sons and a daughter with his wives, Adah and
Zillah (4:20–22). There is no clear place for a Noah birth as an extension of
that section, reporting yet another son of Lamech (Noah) and adding a nam-
ing of him. Instead, it makes more sense to see the non-P primeval history
as featuring two main lines, a Cain-Kenite one leading to Lamech and his
fathering of three sons and a daughter (4:20–22) and a Sethite one beginning
in Gen 4:25–26 that leads to Noah (Gen 5:29) and his three sons listed in Gen
9:18: Shem, Japhet, and (originally) Canaan.
These conclusions raise a question surrounding who was understood as
the father of Noah in this non-P primeval history. It is, of course, possible
that the conflator eliminated multiple non-P fathering reports such that
Genesis does not preserve the name of Noah’s father from the original non-P
primeval history. Nevertheless, several considerations suggest that the con-
flator eliminated a minimal amount of non-P’s genealogy and that Enosh
was Noah’s father in the non-P tradition before it was (partially) conflated
with P. As discussed in c hapter 4, the Adam-Noah genealogy in Genesis 5—
likely originating in a Toledot scroll—appears to adopt and reorganize the
genealogical information now found in Genesis 4. The Genesis 5 genealogy
has parallels for all nine names of the fathers in Genesis 4, but the names in
the Sethite genealogy of Gen 4:25–26 now precede slightly modified (and
reorganized) versions of the names in the Cain-Lamech genealogy of Gen
4:18–22. If Enosh was the father of Noah, then P (or, more likely, the au-
thor of the Toledot scroll which underlies it) can be seen to have created its
ten-generation Adam-Noah genealogy out of the names of the nine fathers
present in its non-P precursor in Genesis 4, without eliminating the name of
any figure. In sum, the most economical hypothesis for the existing genea-
logical data in Genesis 4–5 is that P/the Toledot book created its genealogy
from Adam to Noah out of the names of fathers in non-P that stood before
Noah and that the conflator accordingly eliminated a minimum of non-P
material, namely a (now-missing) fathering report for Enosh (of Noah)
since it both duplicated and contradicted P’s depiction of Noah’s fathering

by Lamech.
In addition, it would make sense that non-P would have had the father
of its final major figure, Noah, be named “Enosh.”67 As has been observed
by many, “Enosh” in Hebrew means “human” and as such represents an
equivalent to the first figure in the non-P primeval history, ‫“( האדם‬the
human”). If Gen 4:25–26 was, in fact, part of a pre-Priestly primeval his-
tory, then that history presented Seth and then Enosh as a replacement
genealogical line, a “seed” (‫ )זרע‬in place of the murdered Abel. Seth’s
name is explained as a sign of the alternative character of this line (Gen
4:25b). Enosh’s name as “human” is left unexplained, likely because it—
like some other names that are not explained in non-P (e.g., “the human”
[2:7]; “Abel”/transitoriness [4:2]; “Shem”/name [9:18])—is taken as hav-
ing a meaning so clear as to not require a separate explanation. Much as
the first figure in non-P, “the human,” fathered a farmer, Cain (Gen 4:1), so
also non-P may have had this second “human,” Enosh, father a “man of the
ground” (‫ ;איש האדמה‬Gen 9:20a), Noah, who will later produce comfort
from toil “from the ground” (‫ ;מן־האדמה‬Gen 5:29; 9:20b–21a). Having
“Enosh” as the father of Noah in non-P would have been an additional
way that the conclusion of the pre-P primeval history (e.g., Gen 5:29; 6:1–
4; 9:20–23) resumed themes of primal humanity and “the ground” that
characterized the “human” and “Cain-Abel” stories with which it began
(Gen 2:4b–4:16).
Finally, an original non-P connection between Enosh in Gen 4:26 and the
naming report in Gen 5:29 would mean that the report of humans “calling
on the name of YHWH” in Gen 4:26b would have closely preceded the first
human use of the divine name in Noah’s father’s [Enosh?] naming Noah after
the comfort that he would provide from the ground that YHWH cursed.
While “calling on the name of YHWH” is a general way to refer to a petition
to YHWH as patron deity, the proclamation over Noah in the naming of Gen
5:29 represents the specific aspiration of Noah’s parent (Enosh?) about the
role that Noah will play vis-à-vis YHWH’s curse.68 Rather than floating in
the air as a random mention of primeval use of the divine name during the
67 For an earlier proposal along similar lines, see, e.g., Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 185.
68 Though such naming speeches usually express some form of thanksgiving (e.g., Gen 29:33, 35;
30:6, 8, 11, 13, 18, 23), they also can include a petition (e.g., Gen 30:24) or an aspirational proclama-
tion of the future akin to Gen 5:29 (e.g., 29:32, 34; 30:13, 20). On the petitionary character of “calling
on the name of YHWH” see discussion and citations in Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 64n57.
the First Noah 139
time of Enosh, the notice of people’s calling on YHWH’s name in Gen 4:26b
originally constituted a specific preparation for a certain human (Enosh’s)
use of the divine name in the naming of his son (5:29). To be sure, Gen 5:29b
does not constitute a vocative use of the divine name, YHWH, and thus is not
an immediate exemplar of “calling on the name of YHWH.” Nevertheless, if
this theory of Enosh as father of Noah in non-P is correct, the first one to use
the divine name (in non-P) in a petitionary context (here a naming) would
have been a person named “human” (‫)אנוש‬, who was wishing for relief from
YHWH’s curse on the ground, indeed a curse caused by the first “human”
(‫)האדם‬.69
Concluding Reflections
This chapter has aimed to recover the original significance of Noah, before he
became a flood hero in the P and non-P traditions. It has worked from most
plausible conclusions to more hypothetical ones. In my view, the most secure
of the reconstructions in this chapter is the initial argument that the story of
Noah and his sons (originally Shem, Japhet, and Canaan) was thoroughly in-
tegrated into the pre-P primeval history as its third major episode, focusing
on comfort from the initial curse in Eden and a breakdown in father-son
relations corresponding to earlier breakdowns in male-female (Genesis 2–3)
and brother-brother (Gen 4:1–16) family relations. Slightly less secure, but
still plausible, is the argument that the story of the sons of God and daughters
of humanity (Gen 6:1–4) functioned as a thematic nexus (viz. proximate im-
mortality through “name” in 6:4b anticipating Noah’s son, Shem [“name”],
in 9:18, 23, 26) and a temporal interlude between Noah’s birth (cf. 5:29) and
his adult life (Gen 9:18; cf. Gen 4:3a). The most hypothetical proposal of this
chapter—not necessary for any further arguments in this book—is the idea
that the unpreserved non-P fathering report for Noah originally depicted
Enosh as Noah’s father, with Enosh’s naming of Noah in Gen 5:29 standing
as a particular example of the use of YHWH’s name, a use for which the
69 To be sure, Eve is described in Gen 4:1 as using YHWH’s name in the process of celebrating
having created a man with YHWH, but this is not yet the kind of wishful “calling on the name” seen
in the proclamation over Noah in Gen 5:29. Moreover, the beginning of such calling on the name
of YHWH in Gen 4:26b and the example in Gen 5:29 can be seen as exemplifying the restoration/
growth of human relations with YHWH in the generation after Cain who hid his face from YHWH
after his murder of Abel (Gen 4:8, 14).
elliptical, general report of human calling on YHWH’s name (Gen 4:26b)

prepared.
Insofar as these three hypotheses hold, they allow us to reconstruct sev-
eral ways in which this Noah section, standing as the concluding non-P story
of three familial dyads, wraps up key themes in the non-P primeval history.
Seeing Gen 4:26; 5:29; 9:18, 20–27 in this broader non-P primeval context
provides deeper significance to Noah’s status as a “man of the ground” (‫איש‬
‫ )האדמה‬who produces inebriating wine from that ground (9:20) and then
demonstrates its effects in getting drunk and accidentally returning to the
state of nakedness of the first humans (Gen 9:21). The Enosh-Noah section,
for its part, would have connected in multiple ways with the initial episode
of the non-P primeval history. Both episodes would have featured a person
named “human” (‫האדם‬, ‫ )אנוש‬who fathers a son (Cain [Gen 4:1]; Noah
[original non-P fathering report for Enosh’s father lost]) who then works
“the ground.” So too, both would have involved negative consequences,—
including, in each case, (the realization of) nakedness—as a result of eating
(/drinking) a fruit from that ground. At the same time, this third major sec-
tion of the primeval history—after the Eden story of Genesis 2–3 and the
Cain-Abel episode of Gen 4:1–16—would have featured some new “begin-
nings” (‫)חלל‬, including (1) the beginning of calling on the name of YHWH
(4:26b; ‫ חלל‬hophal) that is exemplified in the naming of Noah (5:29);
and (2) the beginning (‫ חלל‬hiphil) of human multiplication on the earth
(6:1–2).
Insofar as the early non-P primeval history thus featured a concluding
focus on Noah along with a (neutrally reported) “multiplication” of hu-
manity (Gen 6:1) that recalled the cause of the flood in the Atrahasis epic,
we can better understand the development of this Noah figure into the flood
hero and father of all postflood humanity. The next two chapters build the
case for this picture.
6
Precursors to the Flood Narrative
(Gen 6:5–9:17)
Where the last chapter explored the non-P picture of Noah as provider of
comfort from YHWH’s curse of the ground, this one examines the picture
of Noah as flood hero in Gen 6:5–9:17 with a particular focus on the non-P
flood narrative.
The non-P flood narrative is particularly important in this context for two
reasons. First, in contrast to more than a century of source-critical treatments
that saw the non-P/J flood narrative as a separate source, an increasing number
of studies have seen it instead as originating as a compositional supplement to
the P flood narrative.1 Building on an earlier study, this chapter sees both the
non-P/J and P strands of the flood as originally separate source strands, each of
which built in specific ways on earlier Mesopotamian flood literary traditions.
1 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis, vol. 1 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 144–81, esp. 168; idem. “The
Priority of P,” VT 49 (1999): 250–52; Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the
First Five Books of the Bible, AB Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 78–98; idem., “P
and J in Genesis 1:1–11:26: An Alternative Hypothesis,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in
Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Astrid B. Beck et al.
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 8–10; Jean Louis Ska, “El relato del Diluvio: un relato sacerdotal
y algunos fragmento redaccionales posteriores,” EstBib 52 (1994): 37–62; ‘(English Translation,
“The Story of the Flood: a Priestly Writer and Some Later Editorial Fragments,” in The Exegesis
of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions, ed. Jean Louis Ska [Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2009], 1–22); David Petersen, “The Formation of the Pentateuch,” in Old Testament
Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future. Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker, ed. David Petersen,
James L. Mayes, and Kent H. Richards (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 42–43; Thomas Krüger, “Das
menschliche Herz und die Weisung Gottes: Elemente einer Diskussion über Möglichkeiten und
Grenzen der Tora-Rezeption im Alten Testament,” in Rezeption und Auslegung im Alten Testament
und in seinem Umfeld: Ein Symposion aus Anlass des 60. Geburtstags von Odil Hannes Steck (Fribourg
and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 74–81; Erich Bosshard-
Nepustil, Vor uns die Sintflut: Studien zu Text, Kontexten und Rezeption der Fluterzählung Genesis
6–9, BWANT 9:5 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005), 49–77; Andreas Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen
Bibel: Der literar- und theologiegeschichtlich Diskurs der Urgeschichte (Genesis 1–11), ATANT 86
(Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2006), 258–60; Craig Y. S. Ho, “The Supplementary Combination of
the Two Creation Stories in Genesis 1–3,” in Stimulation from Leiden: Collected Communications to
the XVIIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of Old Testament, ed. Hermann
Niemann and Matthias Augustin, BEATAJ 54 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2006), 15–18;
Martin Arneth, Durch Adams Fall ist ganz verderbt: Studien zur Entstehung der alttestamentlichen
Urgeschichte, FRLANT 217 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 171–98
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190062545.003.0001
Second, building on both older (e.g., Wellhausen, Kuenen) and newer (e.g.,
Kratz, Dershowitz) treatments, this chapter will argue that the non-P flood
narrative was a secondary addition to a non-P primeval history that lacked it.
Genesis 6:5–9:17 as a Product of Source Conflation
The first step here is a preliminary review of the source analysis of the flood
narrative. This analysis began with Jean Astruc in 1753 and basically con-
cluded with the analyses of Schrader, Hupfeld, and Budde in the late 1800s.2
Already for Astruc, the first and most important indicator of multiple sources
was the incredibly extensive doubling of reports of the same event within the
scope of the narrative, thus meaning that this story is distinguished by having
so many sets of two. This starts with doubled reports of the deity’s “seeing”
of a problem of evil that will prompt worldwide destruction (Gen 6:5//6:12)
and extends to include more or less fifteen other distinct, doubled elements
up through doubled reports of the deity’s resolution not to bring a similar
worldwide destruction (Gen 8:20–22//9:8–17).3
(1) The deity’s “seeing” of a problem of evil in humanity (6:5–6; YHWH)//

ruin of the earth by the violence of all flesh (Gen 6:12; [see also
6:11, 13]; God) that will prompt the flood.
(2) Assertions that Noah is an exception to this problem in being right-
eous in his generation (6:9 God)/enjoying God’s favor (6:8 YHWH).4
2 Jean Astruc, Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux dont il paroît que Moyse s’est servi pour
composer le livre de la Genése (Paris: Chez Fricx, 1999 [1753 original]); Herman Hupfeld, Die
Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung von neuem untersucht (Berlin: Verlag von
Wiegandt und Grieben, 1853), 6–16, 132–36; Eberhard Schrader, Studien zur Kritik und Erklärung
der biblischen Urgeschichte (Zurich: Meyer & Zeller, 1863), 136–54; Karl Budde, Die biblische
Urgeschichte (Gen. 1–12, 5) (Giessen: Ricker, 1883), 248–76. For survey and effective critique of later
attempts to counter such source analysis, see John Emerton, “An Examination of Some Attempts to
Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative in Genesis: Part 1,” VT 37 (1987): 401–20; and idem. “An
Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative in Genesis: Part 2,” VT
38 (1988):1–21 along with later studies (and responses to them) surveyed in Bernard M. Levinson,
“A Post-Priestly Harmonization in the Flood Narrative,” in The Post-Priestly Pentateuch: New
Perspectives on Its Redactional Development and Theological Profiles,” in The Post-Priestly Pentateuch,
ed. Federico Giuntolli and Konrad Schmid, FAT 101 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 119, n. 12.
3 This discussion and the rest of this section is an abbreviated version of the argument for
source-conflation in Gen 6:5–9:17 in David M. Carr, “On the Meaning and Uses of the Category of
‘Diachrony’ in Exegesis,” in Exegetik des Alten Testaments, ed. Joachim Krause and Kristin Weingart,
FAT (forthcoming Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2020)
4 Jan Christian Gertz, Das erste Buch Moses (Genesis): Die Urgeschichte Gen 1–11, ATD
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 253–54 (building others’ studies) argues that the
Precursors to the Flood Narrative 143
(3) The deity’s decision to destroy humanity (Gen 6:7 YHWH)//all flesh
(Gen 6:13; God).
(4) The deity’s announcements to Noah of the oncoming flood (God
6:13//7:4 YHWH).
(5) The deity’s commands for Noah to enter the ark with his sons, wife,
and son’s wives (God 6:18b)//house (7:1a YHWH).
(6) The deity’s commands to bring representatives of each of the earth’s an-
imals onto the ark (God, one pair of animals, 6:19–20//7:2–3; YHWH,
seven pairs each of pure animals, one pair each of impure animals).
(7) Assertions that Noah complied with the deity’s orders (6:22 God//
7:5 YHWH).
(8) Explicit descriptions of Noah’s entry into the ark (7:7//7:13).
(9) Causing of the flood by opening of heavenly and earthly portals (7:11)
or forty days of heavy rain (7:12).
(10) The rising of the waters so that the ark floated on them (7:17b ‫רבה‬//
7:18 ‫)גבר‬.
(11) The “death” (‫ מות‬7:22) or perishing (‫ גוע‬7:21) of all life.
(12) The ending of the flood through the closing of portals (8:2a) or the end of
heavy rain (8:2b).
(13) The gradual receding of waters for forty days (8:3a, 6 ‫וישוב המים מעל‬
‫ )הארץ הלוך ושוב‬or 150 days up through the end of ten months (8:3b–5a;
see 8:5a ‫)והמים היו הלוך וחסור‬, with “waters” as an explicit subject of
both sentences.
(14) The drying of the ground (8:13b)//earth (8:14b).
(15) Final scenes where the deity resolves not to destroy the ground on ac-
count of humanity (8:20–22) or not to send another flood to destroy all
flesh and ruin the earth (9:8–17).‍
These and other doublets have been discussed and analyzed in numerous
prior analyses, and there is no need to rehearse further details here.5 The
additional specification in Gen 7:1b is a post-Priestly imitation of Gen 6:9, based on ways that it
interrupts the chiastic pattern and overall focus of its context and on a sense that the endorsement in
Gen 7:1 takes away the idea in Gen 6:8 of an ungrounded favor shown to Noah by YHWH. A deci-
sion on this point does not affect the basics of this source analysis, but it is potentially relevant for a
discussion of the relation of Gen 6:9 to the highly parallel formulation in Gen 7:1b. In the following
discussion I will turn to questions relating the source analysis of the flood story to the hypothesis,
proposed in c hapter 4, of a Toledot book behind parts of Genesis 5–11*, including a Noah section
likely embedded in verses such as Gen 6:9–10 and 7:6.
5 For example, some of these doublets—e.g., 7:11b–12, 23; 8:2, 3—are contiguous and short
enough that Cassuto (Genesis Pt. 2, 24–25) and others have argued that they are actually examples
importance of such widespread doublets in Gen 6:5–9:17 comes from the

fact that such doubling is not typical of scribal supplementation of an ear-
lier Vorlage. After all, such supplementation can presuppose and expand on
existing material. Instead, this doubling is a prominent initial indicator sug-
gesting that it was created through the conflation of two preexisting, origi-
nally separate accounts of Noah and the flood.
This hypothesis of conflated documents has been further reinforced by
additional analyses that have sorted members of the doublets—and texts
related to them—into two relatively complete stories of Noah and the flood.
Identifications of these two strands typically identify a Priestly flood strand
in Gen 6:9–22; 7:6, 11, 13–16a, 17* (without “forty days”), 18–21, 24; 8:1–2a,
3b–5, 13a, 14–19; 9:1–17 and parts of a non-Priestly flood strand preserved
in 6:5–6, 7aα*; 7:1–2, 3b–5, 10, 7* (minus mention of Noah’s family), 16b, 12,
22, 23*; 8:2b–3a, 6–12, 13b, 20–22, and a number of conflational additions in
loci such as Gen 6:7*; 7:3a, 7–9*, 17a* (“forty days”), 23*.6 To be sure, as one
would expect in the conflation of two complete texts into a single narrative—
and as seen in an example like Tatian’s Diastessaron—we do not have ab-
solutely complete versions of the P and (especially) non-P flood stories in
the present text.7 Rather P seems to have been used as the main basis for
this section, while the conflator more selectively drew on large portions of
a non-P version to supplement the Priestly version. For example, a non-
Priestly notice about YHWH shutting Noah into the ark (7:16b) probably
originally stood before a (non-P) notice of the coming of the flood (7:10, 12).
Nevertheless, this notice was moved so that it now stands in the present text
after the Priestly report of the entry of Noah and the animals into the ark
(7:13–16a).8 Such movement of a text, of course, is not necessary and would
not happen with a supplementary layer, since the author would just place
the texts where they needed to go. Such a rearrangement was necessary for
a conflator, who could not have YHWH close Noah into the ark (Gen 7:16b
after 7:7) before first giving the second, Priestly report of his entry into it
(7:13–16a).
of semipoetic speech embedded in the flood narrative. Nevertheless, such a model of poetic speech
cannot explain numerous other doublets of extended narration in the flood section.
6 In “Meaning and Uses of the Category Diachrony,” I add arguments for the conflational character
of several evident secondary chronological notices (originally) referring to the seventeenth of the
month and/or coordinating such dates with the non-P system in Gen 7:11*; 8:4, 5bα, 14a.
7 George F. Moore, “Tatian’s Diatessaron and the Analysis of the Pentateuch,” JBL 9 (1890): 203;
David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (New York: Oxford, 2011),
88–90, 112.
8 Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, 267.
The original separateness of the P and non-P narratives is also indi-

cated by how they each feature different conceptual systems that have not
been completely harmonized with one another. For example, as scholars
have long recognized, the non-P flood story prepares for a description of
Noah’s sacrifice of clean animals after the flood (8:20) by having YHWH
instruct Noah in 7:2 to bring seven pairs of clean animals onto the ark
(‫ )הבהמה הטהרה‬along with one pair of each unclean animal (‫הבהמה אשר‬
‫)לא טהרה‬, while the Priestly strand lacks such a sacrifice narrative and in-
stead describes God ordering Noah to bring only one pair of each kind of
animal onto the ark (6:19–20; execution in 7:15–16a). So also, the Priestly
flood narrative notes that the tops of the mountains already have appeared
(8:5) before the non-P narrative describes a dove unable to find a place to
land (8:9).9 In addition, there are various issues with the chronological sys-
tems in the flood narrative. For example, the Priestly narrative organizes the
chronology of the flood by the year and (sometimes) day of Noah’s life (e.g.,
Gen 7:6; 8:13), connecting with a broader emphasis in the Priestly Genesis 5
genealogy on years of the lives of primeval figures. As in some other parts of
P, there is emphasis on exactitude, even an emphasis that Noah entered the
ark on the very day that the portals of heaven and earth opened to let the wa-
ters onto the earth (7:13, linking to 7:11).10 Nevertheless, within the present
conflated text, the specificity of the Priestly notice about the “very day” that
Noah entered the ark (7:13) now follows and conflicts with the generality of
the preceding non-P report that heavy rain fell on the earth “forty days and
forty nights” (7:12).
A redactional/supplement model for the non-P portions of the flood nar-
rative also cannot account well for the way some portions of non-P appear
to have been secondarily adapted to agree with their non-P counterparts.
Thus, the redactor who combined the strands secondarily harmonized their
divergent concepts of which animals entered the ark by supplementing the
non-P description of Noah’s entry into the ark (7:7a*) with an awkward
note about clean (‫ )הבהמה הטהורה‬and unclean (‫)הבהמה אשר איננה טהרה‬
animals coming to Noah in the ark, one pair each as “God” (‫ )אלהים‬com-
manded (7:8–9). This note about clean and unclean animal pairs here ini-
tially sounds somewhat like an execution of YHWH’s order to bring seven
pairs of clean animals and one pair each of unclean animals onto the ark

10 I argue in “Meaning and Uses of the Category Diachrony,” that Gen 7:11 likely originally featured
a date on the first of the year coordinating with a New Year emphasis seen in Gen 8:13.
(7:2).11 Nevertheless, it ends up using a similar doubled formulation to non-

P’s ‫ שבעה שבעה‬for its contrasting assertion that Noah only brought two of
each kind of animal (‫ )שנים שנים‬onto the ark, thus reinforcing P’s concept
of how many animals were rescued (7:14–16a; also 6:19–20).12 So also, the
explicit listing of members of Noah’s family entering the ark in Gen 7:7* ex-
actly parallels language for his family seen in Priestly texts (e.g., 6:18b; 8:15b
versus non-P “your house” 7:1), and it is marked as a probable harmonizing
revision of non-P (to P) by its divergence from the singular verb for entry at
the outset of 7:7 and by the exclusive focus on Noah in the report of YHWH’s
shutting of the door behind him (7:16b).13 These factors suggest that Gen 7:7
(which doubles the Priestly report of entry in Gen 7:13–16a) originally just
focused on Noah’s entry into the ark (with his “house” implicitly included)
and was originally followed in the non-P flood narrative by the notice now in
Gen 7:16b that YHWH closed the ark door behind him.
We see another example of secondary harmonization of non-P with P in
the apparent addition of a P-like catalogue of animals in Gen 6:7 to a sen-
tence that initially seems to have focused exclusively on YHWH’s resolve to
wipe humanity off the face of the ground because he was sorry he made them.
This adds a P-like focus on animals and the flood (see 6:11, 12b; 7:14–16a;
8:17–19; 9:2–6, 10–17) to the outset of the non-P flood strand starting in Gen
6:5. That non-P strand focuses more exclusively than P on YHWH’s dealings
with humanity, especially Noah (Gen 6:5–8; 7:7a*, 16b; cf. P in Gen 6:11–
13), while depicting animals as side-actors/collateral damage to the destruc-
tion of humanity. In this respect, yet another similarly formed, secondary
“from . . . to” catalogue appears to have been added to the non-P report of
destruction in Gen 7:23 as well (‫מאדם עד־בהמה עד־רמש ועד־עוף השמים‬,
“from humans to animals to the creeping creatures and birds of heaven”), this
time followed by a resumptive repetition that all beings were wiped off the
earth (‫ ;וימחו מן־הארץ‬cf. 7:23aα* ‫)וימח את־כל־היקום אשר על־פני האדמה‬.14
11 Gen 7:8–9 is only somewhat like non-P here because its terminology for pure and impure
(‫ אשר איננה טהרה‬. . . ‫ )הטהורה‬diverges slightly from that used in (non-P) Gen 7:2 (‫ אשר‬. . . ‫הטהורה‬
‫)לא טהרה הוא‬.
12 Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990),
284–85. More broadly on Gen 7:8–9, see also Levinson, Flood Narrative, 120–3.
13 August Dillmann, Die Genesis, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 11
(Leipzig: Hirzel, 1892), 143 (ET 276–77); Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, 258.
14 An additional mark of the likely editorial character of the resumptive repetition in 7:23aβ is its
use of ‫ ארץ‬to specify the ground from which life was destroyed rather than ‫( פני האדמה‬cf. 6:7; 7:4,
23aα).
Such secondary harmonizations do not typically need to be added to re-

dactional supplements, since redactional supplements are built around their
Vorlagen and often do not conflict with them. That an author-redactor saw
a need to expand and revise these non-P texts through adding marked sec-
ondary elements (such as Gen 6:7*; 7:3a; 7:7*–9 and 7:23*) is another in-
dicator that the non-P flood texts into which they were inserted were not
originally composed as a supplement to P.
These indicators of the secondary harmonization of non-P texts to P help
highlight how much the original non-P texts fail to connect with the Priestly
texts they have been thought to supplement. For example, aside from the pre-
viously discussed catalogue of animals secondarily added to Gen 6:7 (and
the use of the verb ‫ ברא‬for “create”), the core of the anticipation of the flood
in Gen 6:5–7 connects to the non-P account of YHWH’s forming (‫ )יצר‬of
the human from “the ground” (‫ ;האדמה‬2:7) and not to broader cosmo-
logical elements of the Priestly Genesis 1 account. Even at loci of potential
overlap between P and non-P, the non-P texts do not connect with P. For ex-
ample, the non-P flood strand prominently features the number seven, both
in YHWH’s command to Noah to bring seven pairs of clean animals on the
ark (7:2) and especially in non-P’s specification of seven-day intervals be-
tween YHWH’s entry order and the coming of the flood (7:4, 10) and Noah’s
sendings of birds (Gen 8:10, 12). Yet nothing in this non-P strand coordi-
nates or connects its seven-day chronological scheme (in the flood) with the
seven-day, Sabbath-focused framework introduced in Gen 1:1–2:3 (P). In
this way and others the original non-P flood story appears to work within a
synchronic system bounded exclusively by non-P texts. It does not connect
with the P texts with which it is now combined, aside from evident secondary
additions such as the previously discussed expansions found in Gen 6:7*;
7:7*, 8–9 and 7:23*.
In sum, the recently popular redactional/supplement model for the non-P
stratum fails to account for the major features of the present flood account.
These include:
1. Its extensive doubling;

2. The fact that the non-P and P strata—even with some gaps (expected
in a text that has been conflated)—both represent relatively readable
wholes;
3. Evidence that the non-P stratum has been rearranged from a likely dif-
ferent order in an earlier text (e.g., Gen 7:16b);
4. Only partially resolved conflicts between the conceptual systems of P

and non-P;
5. Evidence that some portions of the non-P flood stratum have been sec-
ondarily adapted to better conform to P; and
6. Ways that the non-P strand works exclusively within a synchronic
system bounded by other non-P texts and does not link in an integral
way with the P texts it supposedly expanded upon.‍
Together these are powerful data that confirm the basic source-critical
approach to the flood that was initially advanced more than two-and-a-half
centuries ago by Astruc and refined over subsequent years.15
One potentially new element, however, is a refinement of this source
approach through linkage to the Toledot book hypothesis advanced in
chapter 4 of this book.16 One ripple found within the previously identified
Priestly layer is the fact that P’s narrative about the flood and God’s rescue
of Noah and others from the flood is labeled as specifically focused on his
descendants (‫ ;תולדת‬Gen 6:9aα). This issue is dealt with in some current
translations (e.g., the NJB) through translating the instance of ‫ תולדת‬in Gen
6:9 with an expression like “story” rather than “descendants.” Nevertheless,
such a label focused on “descendants” would serve as a perfectly adequate
introduction to a short section on Noah’s ‫ תולדת‬consisting of the verses
identified in c hapter 4 as likely parts of a Toledot book (Gen 6:9–10; 7:6;
9:28–29). This points to the possibility that there is a diachronic distinction
inside the Priestly Noah-flood materials between a substratum of Toledot
materials focused on Noah and his sons and a Priestly elaboration of such
materials into a full narrative about the flood and God’s rescue of Noah and
his family from it. To be sure, this Priestly elaboration was built around the
earlier Toledot materials and even echoed certain elements in it, such as
resuming the Toledot book’s focus on Noah’s sons (Gen 6:9–10) in its nar-
ration of the flood’s aftermath (Gen 9:1, 8). Nevertheless, this hypothesis of
a distinction between the Toledot book and a Priestly expansion of it could
explain some features in the previously identified Priestly flood narrative,
such as the distinction within it of year-oriented datings likely related to
15 For more discussion of issues surrounding evident missing elements in the non-P flood narra-
tive and other issues relating to source conflation in Genesis 6–9, again see Carr, “Meaning and Uses
of the Category Diachrony.”
16 This blended approach to the Toledot book and P components of the flood story was anticipated,
in particular, by Blum, Studien, esp. 280.

the earlier Toledot book (Gen 7:6; 9:28–29) and likely Priestly chronolog-
ical notices on dating the flood vis-à-vis the day, month, and year of Noah’s
life.17 In particular, the dating of the beginning of the postflood renewal
of creation to the very first day of the six-hundred-and-first year of Noah’s
life (Gen 8:13) was likely part of a broader, specifically Priestly New Year
thematic, also seen in the Priestly Tabernacle narrative, that was part of P’s
expansion of an initial Toledot dating system originally confined to the pri-
meval history.18 In this way, P introduced New Year elements into its Noah-
flood narrative, elements that are already seen in an earlier, Mesopotamian
iteration of the flood tradition (Gilgamesh, 11:75).
The Relation of the P and Non-P Flood Narratives
Let us turn now to one last, major diachronic issue surrounding these origi-
nally separate P and non-P materials about Noah and the flood: the issue of
whether one or the other was written in relation to the other. Though some
have presupposed that P was modelled on non-P or vice versa, a few have
maintained that the resemblances of the P and non-P flood narratives derive
from the fact that both are dependent in multiple and specific ways on prebib-
lical flood traditions. The latter is true: both non-P and P show independent
dependence on earlier Mesopotamian flood traditions. Nevertheless, several
indicators suggest that the previously identified Priestly flood narrative (and
17 In chapter 4 of this book, I note (building on suggestions, such as John Skinner, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 2nd ed., ICC vol. 1 [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1930], 163), the
echoes of the Babylonian sexagisimal system in datings specifically around the flood, such as Gen 7:6
(9:28–29) and also the overall years of life for Shem, the first to father at the conclusion of the flood
(11:10–11*).
18 On these New Year links in P’s flood narrative, see, e.g., Erich Zenger, Gottes Bogen in den
Wolken: Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie der priesterschiftlichen Urgeschichte,

Stuttgarter Bibelstudien (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983), 173n22; Bernd
Janowski, “Tempel und Schöpfung. Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen
Heiligtumskonzeption,” JBTh 5 (1990): 55. In “Meaning and Uses of the Category Diachrony,” I ad-
vance the argument (building on work by others) that the original Priestly flood narrative likely
featured a similar, New Year–oriented dating in Gen 7:11 (as a reference-point for the following P
reference to Noah’s entry into the ark “on this very day” (‫ בעצם היום הזה‬7:13), before that note was
modified to its present dating (on the seventeenth day of the second month) as part of a broader
conflational system of dating notices that coordinated P’s New Year structure to a non-P structure
oriented around periods of forty and seven days (e.g., 8:4, 14; also 8:5bα). The Priestly elaboration of
the year-oriented Toledot structure (Gen 7:6; 9:28–29), with these day-month-year datings focused
on the first of the year (8:13; also an early form of 7:11), placed God’s renewal of creation across a sim-
ilar one-year period to the span separating P’s dating of the Exodus (Exod 12:1–2) and construction
of the Tabernacle (Exod 40:1).
possibly also its Toledot book precursor) is dependent on the non-P flood
narrative as well as prebiblical, Mesopotamian flood traditions.19
From the outset, we can suppose a likelihood of genetic relation of these P
and non-P flood narratives to each other because of their extensive parallels,
including parallels involving elements missing from their Mesopotamian pre-
cursors. We see this in some parallels between the earlier discussed Toledot
sections about Noah and the non-P flood narrative, such as the focus in both
on Noah and his sons (6:9–10 [also 9:1, 8 P]//9:18–27, non-P) and an emphasis
on Noah’s righteousness vis-à-vis contemporaries (‫ ;דור‬6:9//7:1b non-P), nei-
ther of which are key elements in Mesopotamian flood narratives.20 As we
turn to other parts of the Priestly Noah-flood narrative, we see more extensive
parallels between P and non-P materials, including the initial expositions in
both P and non-P that attribute the coming of the flood to the deity’s “seeing”
of a moral failing in humanity (6:5//6:12), commands for Noah to take “for
yourself ” (‫ )לך‬food//animals onto the ark (6:21; 7:2), verbally parallel sum-
mary descriptions of the flood hero’s execution of the deity’s orders to enter
the ark (6:22/7:5),21 the presence in both the P and non-P flood narratives
of the rare word for “ark” (‫)תבה‬, similar paired descriptions of the floating
of this ark and rising of waters (7:17b//7:18), explicit description in both of
the receding of the waters (8:3a//8:3b) and drying of earth (8:13b//8:14b), and
overall emphases in both non-P and P on the relation of the flood to specific
dynamics of the deity’s initial creation of humanity—an emphasis not seen in
a similar extent in the nonbiblical Mesopotamian flood stories. To be sure, as
in the P and non-P creation narratives and other corresponding parts of P and
non-P, none of these elements feature the sort of extensive verbatim parallels
seen, for example, between much of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. Still, they
do suggest some kind of particular genetic relation between the P and non-P
flood narratives, albeit one of a fluid and often contrastive nature.
Moreover, as in other cases discussed in this book, a number of data sug-
gest that P’s broader Noah-flood narrative is dependent on non-P rather than
the reverse. 22 For example, as argued by Hermann-Josef Stipp, P’s inclusion
19 On this question, see especially the earlier discussion by Sean E. McEvenue, The Narrative Style
of the Priestly Writer, AnBib 50 (Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1971), 24–27.

20 To be sure, there are various questions surrounding the latter case, especially because the state-
ment about Noah’s righteousness has been identified by some as a likely post-P conflational addition
(see n. 4). Indeed, in chapter 9 I note some indicators that 7:1b may be modelled on the description of
Noah in 6:9, preserving blind motifs from that locus.
21 Bosshard-Nepustil, Vor uns die Sintflut, 75.
22 As indicated above in note 20 and discussed in chapter 9, there are some mild indicators that the
pre-P Toledot book may have preceded the non-P flood narrative and formed a model for its depic-
tion of Noah as the flood hero.
of animals as culpable in the flood-causing ruin of the earth (6:11–13) deals

with the problems of theodicy in non-P where animals are killed as a by-
product of humanity’s evil (Gen 6:5–7).23 So also, Baumgart and others have
noted multiple ways that P’s depiction of the preflood corruption of the earth
through violence and God’s postflood regulations about violence (Gen 6:11–
13; 9:2–5) reflect an awareness of the depiction in Gen 4:1–16 (non-P) of
the pollution of the ground through spiraling human brother-brother vio-
lence.24 In including animals in such preflood violence, P’s flood narrative
diverges from that non-P material and does not seem crafted to follow on
it. Nevertheless, P’s picture draws on and expands the picture of human vio-
lence in non-P in crafting its broader picture of human and animal violence
prompting God’s destruction of most earth-based life.
In addition, some elements in P echo elements in non-P’s flood narrative
but awkwardly fit as blind motifs into their present P context. P’s final report of
God’s resolve to send the flood includes God’s intent “to ruin all flesh in which
is the breath of life from under the heavens” (6:17)—an awkward combination
of P’s distinctive emphasis on the flood as a “ruin” of all flesh (6:13, cf. 6:11–
12) with non-P’s distinctive emphasis on the flood as a “wiping” of humanity
“from off the surface of the earth” (6:7, ‫ ;מעל פני האדמה‬transformed in P into
“from under heaven,” ‫)מתחת השמים‬. Similarly, the two P references to all flesh
“with the breath of life in it” (‫ ;אשר בו רוח חים‬6:17; 7:15) diverge from other
P expressions for living creatures (e.g., simply ‫[ כל־בשר‬all flesh]; 6:13; ‫כל־בשר‬
‫[ הרמש על הארץ‬all flesh that creeps on the earth]; 7:21) to include the distinc-
tive non-P emphasis on the death of all beings with a “breath of life in their nos-
trils” (‫ ;נשמת חים באפיו‬7:22). This focus on breath as defining life has no larger
connection in P, but it is firmly rooted in non-P (see Gen 2:7; 6:3).25
Overall, these and other indicators suggest that here, as in other parts of
the primeval history, P is dependent on non-P materials, in this case basing
23 Hermann Josef Stipp, “‘Alles Fleisch hatte seinen Wandel auf der Erde verdorben’ (Gen 6,12): Die
Mitverantwortung der Tierwelt an der Sintflut nach der Priesterschrift,” ZAW 111 (1999): 167–86;
Hermann Josef Stipp, “Who Is Responsible for the Deluge?: Changing Outlooks in the Ancient
Near East and the Bible,” in “From Ebla to Stellenbosch”—Syro-Palestinian Religions and the Hebrew
Bible, ed. Isak Cornelius and Louis Jonker, Abhandlungen des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 37
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008), 148–51.
24 Norbert Clemens Baumgart, Die Umkehr des Schöpfergottes: Zu Komposition und religionsge-
schichtlichem Hintergrund von Gen 5–9, HBS 22 (Freiburg: Herder, 1999), 231–52, 347–63 (citing
earlier proposals along similar lines).
25 Cf. Bosshard-Nepustil, Vor uns die Sintflut, 73–76, who fails to explain the divergences in ter-
minology (along with the parallels) between Gen 6:17 and 7:22. It should be noted here that the MT
(plus) reading of ‫( רוח‬vis-à-vis its absence in LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch) in Gen 7:22 is a likely
harmonization to P. See Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical
Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 53–54.
its narrative expansion of the Toledot book section on Noah’s descendants at

least in part on elements drawn from the non-P primeval history, even as it
diverges in key respects from that history.26 Let us now turn to look at ways
that P, along with non-P, also drew on prebiblical, Mesopotamian precursors.
Nonbiblical Precursors to the Non-P and P

Flood Accounts
This whole biblical description of a world-destroying flood represents a

foreign element in Israelite tradition. After all, the Levantine highlands
in which Israel/Judah was situated are relatively arid and do not experi-
ence sustained, overwhelming floods. Rather, such floods are more typical
of the river plains in Mesopotamia, especially in the wake of snowmelts
in the mountain headlands of the Tigris and Euphrates in Turkey and
Iran.27 It was in this Mesopotamian context, during the gradual collapse
of the UR III order, that we see the development of several Mesopotamian
narratives about the flood and the increasingly frequent use of the flood
as the narrative backdrop for cosmological etiologies of Mesopotamian
civilization.28
The three main Mesopotamian literary texts with narratives about the
flood are the Atrahasis epic (in various editions; hereafter often abbreviated
Atr for the Old Babylonian [OB] version), the Sumerian Flood narrative
(aka “Eridu Genesis,” PBS V/I, cited hereafter as the “Sumerian Flood”), and
the adaptation of a version of Atrahasis in the eleventh tablet of the standard
edition of the Gilgamesh epic (hereafter Gilg). These stories, especially the
26 See Carr, “Meaning and Uses of the Category Diachrony” for details on an additional argu-
ment: P’s extensive dating system, built in large part around (schematic) five-month increments (=
150 days) of rising and falling water, is best seen as an expansion of non-P’s own dating system, ex-
panded vis-à-vis its Mesopotamian precursors, and possibly originally spanning a total of five lunar
months (= 148 days).
27 On this, see already Karl Budde, Was soll die Gemeinde aus dem Streit von Babel und Bibel
lernen?: Ein Vortrag (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1903), 34. On Mesopotamian floods, see J. Nicholas
Postgate, Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History (London: Routledge,
1992), 181–83; Claus Wilcke, “Weltuntergang als Anfang: Theologische, anthropologische, politisch-
historische und ästhetische Ebenen der Interpretation der Sintflutgeschichte im babylonischen
Atram-hasīs-Epos,” in Weltende: Beiträge zur Kultur-und Religionswissenschaft, ed. Adam Jones
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999), 65. Note that the flood texts at Ugarit (RS 22.421 and RS 94.2953)
are the Levantine exception proving the rule, since they occur in a scribal context (Ugarit) with broad
and deep attestation of influence from the Sumero-Akkadian tradition.
28 Y. S. Chen, The Primeval Flood Catastrophe: Origins and Early Development in Mesopotamian
Traditions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 66–128.

versions of the Atrahasis flood story (including the Standard Babylonian

[SB] Gilgamesh), share an overall framework. Within that story, the flood
arises out of an ongoing annoyance of the gods at the noise produced by
humans, who are multiplying on the earth without restraint. In response,
the chief god Enlil and the other gods in the divine council agree to all swear
to kill humans with a flood. Enki/Ea, the patron god of Eridu and crafty god
of subterranean waters, conspires to alert the flood hero of the gods’ plans
by taking his oath outside a reed hut (likely an implicit ancient temple) in
which the flood hero can overhear him.29 He tells the flood hero to build
an ark, a floating ziggurat, made partly out of the previous reed hut/temple,
sealed watertight with pitch and securely roofed-over, to escape the coming
flood. He then tells the elders of his town that he must leave in a boat to
dwell with his patron, Enki/Ea, in the subterranean waters, and the flood
hero organizes the people to help him build the boat providing them a feast
while they work. When they are done, he brings his family, animals, and var-
ious craftspeople onto the ark, and the hatch is closed behind him. Soon the
flood waters arrive, attacking the people like an army and terrifying even the
gods. The creatrix goddess Nintu/Belet-ili cries over the death of her human
children and reproaches herself for ever having agreed to the plan to destroy
them. After seven days and nights of flooding, the waters cease. With the ark
run aground in the mountains above Mesopotamia, the flood hero opens
the roof of the ark to see that the waters are drying. He offers a sacrifice, and
the starving gods gather round it. The mother goddess proclaims that the
flies of her necklace will stand as reminders of the days of flood destruction.
Then, after a confrontation between Enlil and Enki about the survival of the
flood hero, the gods make provisions regarding the mortality of humans.
In Atrahasis they reduce the human population by enforcing a destiny of
eventual death for all humans along with measures to reduce human births
through infant mortality, some sterile women, and the establishment of
an order of celibate priestesses. In Eridu and Gilgamesh the gods grant the
flood hero godlike immortality.
29 John Day, “Rooms or Reeds in Noah’s Ark (Genesis 6.14)?” in From Creation to Babel: Studies in
Genesis 1–11 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013), 113–22 (who notes [p. 106] a parallel in the sequence
of artisans in Atrahasis [3.2.11–4] and Gilgamesh [11.50–56] and of the materials used by such arti-
sans [including reeds] in Gen 6:14); Jason M. McCann, “‘Woven of Reeds’: Gen 6:14b as Evidence
for the Preservation of the Reed-Hut Urheiligtum in the Biblical Flood Narrative,” in Opening
Heaven’s Floodgates: The Genesis flood Narrative, Its Context, and Reception, ed. Jason Silverman
(Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013), 115–20. More briefly, see already Benno Jacob, Das erste Buch
der Tora: Genesis (Berlin: Schocken Verlag, 1934), 188, along with Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 172 and
other discussions cited there.
Nonbiblical Precursors to the Non-P Flood Account
The non- P flood narrative features a number of connections to these

Mesopotamian flood stories, even as it diverges in crucial respects as well.
To be sure, the non-P flood story is no longer a drama of interaction between
gods, and there is no evidence that it ever featured several significant features
of the Mesopotamian tradition, such as the address to the elders, convening
of the people to construct the ark, or a correlate to the goddess memorial-
izing the days of the flood. Nevertheless, the non-P flood story does follow a
similar trajectory of movement in the Mesopotamian flood narratives. These
include:30
(1) Humans producing discomfort in god(s) through noise (Atrahasis,

Eridu) or evil (Gen 6:5–6).
(2) A divine decision to destroy human life with a flood (6:7//Gilg 11:14;
see also Sumerian Flood 156–159).
(3) A deity’s instructions to his human devoteé (6:8, “Noah found favor
in the eyes of YHWH”) seven days prior to the flood (Atr 3.1.37) on
the need to enter an ark so that he, his family, and animals can sur-
vive the flood (7:1–4//Atr 3.1.20–35; Sumerian Flood 153–160; Gilg
11:21–31).
(4) The entry into the ark from before the oncoming flood (Gen 7:7*//Atr
3.2.29–46; Gilg 11:81–94).
(5) Explicit note about shutting the ark (Gen 7:16b//Atr 3.2.51–52; Gilg
11:94).
(6) Onset of a flood resulting from a violent storm over a set number of
days: seven days (Atr 3.3.5–24; Sumerian Flood 201–203; Gilg 11:97–
116 [six days, seven nights])31 or forty days (Gen 7:12).
(7) Death amid the resulting flood (Gen 7:22– 23//Atr 3.4.6–
9; Gilg
11:124, 135).
(8) End of the flood and sacrifice by the flood hero (Gen 8:2b–3a, 20//
Atr ~3.5.30– 32 [see 3.5.34– 36]; Sumerian Flood 204– 213; Gilg
11:157–160).
30 This section appropriates material from Carr, “Meaning and Uses of the Category Diachrony.”
31 Andrew R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition, and Cuneiform
Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 515, 711 for discussion of textual traditions on the du-
ration of the flood (especially 11:128).
(9) After smelling the sweet smell of the offering—promise by YHWH not
to destroy humanity again (Gen 8:21–22)//debate among the gods of
the wisdom of having destroyed humanity by flood (Atr 3.5.34-3.6.4;
Gilg 11:161–195) and (in Atrahasis) declaration that there will not be
another flood (Atr 3.5).32
In particular, the non- P flood story shares several elements of the

Mesopotamian flood tradition evident in tablet 11 of Gilgamesh. For ex-
ample, there is a long-recognized resemblance between the non-P depiction
of Noah’s sending of a raven and then a dove out after the diminishment of
the flood (8:6–12) and the depiction in Gilgamesh of Utanapishtim sending
a dove, sparrow, and raven out at the same point (11:147–156), including a
strikingly close parallel to Gilg 11:150 in Gen 8:9aα.33 In addition, the non-P
flood story shares a particular focus on the number seven with the Gilgamesh
version of the flood story. Whereas other versions of the Mesopotamian tra-
dition depict the flood as lasting seven days, the Gilgamesh version also fea-
tures a seven-day period of ark construction before the coming of the flood
(11:57, 76, 97; cf. 7:4, 10), another seven-day period separating the end of
the flood and Noah’s sending of the birds (11:144–147; cf. 8:10, 12),34 and an
emphasis on seven in relation to other loci (e.g., seven parts of the ark 11:62;
parts of sacrifice 11:159; and of bread baked 11:225–230, 237–241; cf. the
seven pairs of pure animals brought on the ark in Gen 7:2). Together, these
parallels suggest that the non-P flood narrative is a creative appropriation of
a Mesopotamian flood tradition especially like that in Gilgamesh.35
32 On this latter element, see John Day, “The Genesis Flood Narrative in Relation to Ancient Near
Eastern Flood Accounts,” in From Creation to Babel, 106.

33 See Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11, BKAT I/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1974 [English translation 1984]), 601 [ET 448] for notation of the virtual quote here. For discus-
sion of source-critical issues surrounding the raven and a Ugaritic flood text that likewise appears
to feature the sending of different kinds of birds, see Carr, “Meaning and Uses of the Category
Diachrony.”
34 The Gilgamesh epic has yet another locus of seven-day chronology later with the seven days of
insomnia for the flood hero (11:209).

35 Though Day, “The Genesis Flood Narrative,” 105–6, makes several arguments that the non-P
flood account is more similar to the Atrahasis version of the Mesopotamian flood tradition than
to that seen in tablet 11 of the Gilgamesh epic. But it should be noted that several of his arguments
pertain to the absence in the Gilgamesh version of elements that are specific to its narrative context,
e.g., its voicing as a first-person report by the flood hero rather than being a third-person report of a
flood (like Atrahasis and the biblical flood narratives), the fact that the Gilgamesh version does not
occur in a broader creation account, and the Gilgamesh version’s lack of a report of a divine vow not
to send another flood (an element seen in Atrahasis and the biblical flood narratives). We know from
Ugarit that other versions of the Mesopotamian flood tradition were in circulation in Canaan (RS
22.421 and RS 94.2953), including a version (RS 94.2953) that had a bird scene similar to, but not
EXCURSUS: Proposed Inner-Biblical Precursors to the Non-P Flood

Account
At least since the Zohar (Noah 67b–68a), biblical interpreters have noted
parallels between the story of Noah and the images of Abraham and Moses
as intercessors (Genesis 18–19; Exod 32:7–14; 33:12–17; 34:9). More recent
scholarship has multiplied these observations, noting particular links of the
non-Priestly flood narrative to the story of Moses’s intercession for Israel
at Sinai. Moses is multiply noted in the Sinai narrative as a privileged in-
tercessor for the people because he has “found favor in the eyes of YHWH”
(Exod 33:12–17; 34:9; see Gen 6:8). He trades on this status, using the same
verb for “wipe” (‫ )מחה‬seen in the non-P flood narrative (Gen 6:7; 7:4, 23),
in asking that YHWH “wipe me out of your book” (‫ ) מחני נא מספרך‬if
YHWH does not forgive their sin (Exod 32:32), and YHWH instead prom-
ises to “wipe from my book the ones who have sinned against me” (‫מי אשר‬
‫ ;חטא־לי אמחנו מספרי‬Exod 32:33). And all this is preceded by an earlier in-
teraction between YHWH and Moses, where Moses gets YHWH to repent
(‫ נחם‬niphal; 32:14) of his plan to “finish them from off the surface of the
ground” (Exod 32:12; cf. 32:10), a picture that resonates with and contrasts
to YHWH’s being sorry/repenting for having created humans at the outset
of the non-P flood narrative and following through on the flood destruc-
tion (Gen 6:6–7).36
It is difficult to interpret these potential signs of textual dependence
as going in just one direction. On the one hand, two of these motifs ap-
pear more firmly rooted in the Moses narrative than the non-P flood
identical with, that seen in Gilgamesh (Antoine Cavigneaux, “Les oiseaux de l’arche,” Aula Orientalis
25 (2007):319–21]; Guy Darshan, “The Calendrical Framework of the Priestly Flood Story in Light
of a New Akkadian Text from Ugarit [RS 94.2953],” JAOS 136 [2016]: 509–12). In light of this, it
is unwise to depend too much on elements that are present or absent in one of our few extant ver-
sions of the flood tradition. The non-P tradition may have relied on more than one iteration of the
Mesopotamian flood tradition, and it is possible that whatever specific iteration(s) it used (one per-
haps close to that on which the Gilgamesh epic is based) are no longer attested.
36 For summaries of these and other connections, see Bosshard-Nepustil, Vor uns die Sintflut,
223–26; Jean-Pierre Sonnet, “God’s Repentance and ‘False Starts’ in Biblical History (Genesis 6–9;
Exodus 32–34; 1 Samuel 15 and 2 Samuel 7),” in Congress Volume: Ljubljana 2007, ed. André Lemaire,
VTSup 133 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 469–75. Bosshard-Nepustil, Vor uns die Sintflut, 225–226, provides
an extended discussion of the oft-noted parallel of the non-P flood narrative period of forty days
and nights of rain (Gen 7:4, 10, 12, 17), Moses being on the mountain receiving law from YHWH
for the same length period (Exod 24:18; 34:28; note also Deut 9:18; 10:10), and he also argues for a
link between the return of the spies from Canaan at the end of forty days (Num 13:25) and the non-P
note about the receding of waters after forty days (Gen 8:6). Nevertheless, the number forty seems to
have been a round number for an extended period, whether of days (seen also in 1 Kgs 19:8) or years,
and it is a less reliable indicator of specific literary relationships than the previously noted clusters of
themes..
narrative: Moses as a figure who can mediate with YHWH based on Moses
having “found favor in the eyes of YHWH” (Exod 33:12, 13 [twice], 16,
17) and the idea of “wiping” (= erasing) people out of a book (Exod 32:32–
33). On the other hand, the motif of YHWH “finishing” (‫ )כלה‬the Israelites
“from off the surface of the ground” (‫ ;מעל פני האדמה‬32:12) that occurs in
Exod 32:10–14 is likely based on the more integrated non-P flood image of
YHWH using a flood to “wipe” (‫ )מחה‬living beings off the surface of the
ground. Exod 32:10–14 is a likely later insertion into its context,37 while
the expression “surface of the ground” (‫ פני האדמה‬in Exod 32:12) seems
to have its original home in the broader focus on the “ground” and sur-
face of the ground in the non-P primeval history (‫ פני האדמה‬in Gen 2:6;
4:14; 6:1, 7; 7:4, 23; 8:13). This distribution of data would seem to point
to a form of mutual redactional assimilation of the sort proposed by
Zakovitch and applied to this problem by Sonnet.38 In this case, the non-P
flood narrative partly modeled its vision of Noah as flood hero on a picture
of Moses in an early form of Exodus 32–33 as one who “enjoyed favor in
the eyes of YHWH” yet failed to avert YHWH’s resolve to “wipe” sinners
from YHWH’s book (Exod 32:32–33; 33:12–17; 34:9). Only later did an
author-reviser of Exodus 32, creatively adapting themes from the non-P
flood account in Gen 6:5–7, insert a picture of Moses successfully getting
YHWH to “repent” (‫ )נחם‬of a plan to finish Israel “from off the surface of
the ground” (Exod 32:10–14).
Nonbiblical Precursors to the Priestly Flood Account
Meanwhile, the P Noah/flood narrative also shows significant connections

to the Mesopotamian flood traditions, including aspects not featured in the
non-P flood narrative. To be sure, like the non-P flood narrative, it too lacks
the dramatic interaction between gods or any correlates to the scenes with
the elders and with various builders of the ark. P even lacks a parallel to the
final scene of the flood hero’s sacrifice. Nevertheless, we do have a preserved
version of P’s divine instruction to the flood hero to build the ark, and these
37 For discussion, see Carr, Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 260–61, with n. 16. Exod 32:9 is an
MT-plus likely imported from Deut 9:13.

38 Sonnet, “False Starts,” 481–82, building on Yair Zakovitch, “Assimilation in Biblical Narratives,”
in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, ed. Jeffrey Tigay (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1985), 175–96.
instructions feature some striking motifs that parallel Mesopotamian flood

traditions: the idea that the ark might be constructed in part from reeds (Gen
6:14; perhaps of the cane hut/temple in which the flood hero heard his patron’s
warning about the flood), the use of an Akkadian loan word for pitch in stress-
ing the importance of making the ark watertight (‫ ;כפר‬6:14), the instructions
to make the ark with dimensions corresponding to a sanctuary (in P now the
Jerusalem temple/tabernacle rather than the Ziggurat of its precursors), and
the specific divine instruction provision of food for the animals on the ark
(6:21; cf. the Middle Assyrian Atrahasis II 7’–10’). Potential linguistic links to
cuneiform literature continue into the latter half of P’s flood narrative with P’s
use of an apparent loan word out of Akkadian to describe the closing of the
heavenly portals (the hapax legomena ‫ סכר‬in 8:2; cf. Akkadian sekēru).39
Also, much like the Gilgamesh variant of the flood story includes a brief
note that the feasting at construction of the ark was like that at New Year
itself (11:75), P orients its entire chronology around an implicit New Year
theme. In P’s case, this chronology is coordinated with the years of Noah’s
life: spanning his 600th year (7:6), ending on the first day of his 601st year
(8:13), and possibly (originally) beginning on the first day of his 600th year
(cf. 7:11). Furthermore, the focus on the 600th year of Noah’s life as the
year of the flood may link to broader Babylonian chronological use of the
base-60 sexagesimal system.40 We see some reflections of that system in
the dating of the second major section of Atrahasis as occurring before
the end of two Babylonian ner (2.1.1), with the ner equaling 600 years.
In addition, the editions of the Sumerian King List give the length of the
reign of the Mesopotamian flood hero, Ziusudra, in 3,600 year (602) šar
units: for example, 10 šar (3,600 years) in W-B 62 and 18 šar (64,800 years)
in Berossus. In dating the flood to Noah’s 600th year, P—or P’s Toledot
book source (discussed in chapter 4)—thus reduces the primary unit from
the šar to the more modest Babylonian 600 ner unit.41 Finally, God’s re-
solve to set a rainbow in the clouds so that God would “remember” the
covenant not to send another flood (Gen 9:13–16) may be an oblique echo
39 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 184. In addition, at a late stage in production of this book, John Day
called my attention to Irving Finkel’s publication of a version of the Old Babylonian Atrahasis tradi-
tion that has wild animals entering the ark two by two (Finkel’s “Ark Tablet” 52), much as P depicts
the entry of all animals (Gen 6:19-20; 7:13–16a). Irving Finkel, The Ark before Noah: Decoding the
Story of the Flood (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2014), 189, 365.
40 This system may also be evident in P’s Adam-Noah genealogy. For discussion, see the discussion
above, p. 106 (inclusive note 61).

41 Skinner, Genesis, 163; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 178.
of the Mesopotamian creator goddess’s postflood resolve that the flies on

her necklace would stand as an eternal reminder of the days of the flood
(SB Gilg. 11:166–67). In sum, these links between P and Mesopotamian
flood accounts are good evidence that P modelled parts of its narrative on
Mesopotamian precursors, reflecting often specific knowledge of those tra-
ditions that suggests independent access.42
The Non-P Flood Narrative as Secondary to the

Surrounding Non-P Primeval History
The discussion so far has reinforced older hypotheses about the source anal-
ysis and Mesopotamian background of the Genesis flood narratives, but
I now take this analysis one step further with the hypothesis that the non-P
flood narrative, though originating as part of a separate non-P primeval his-
tory, was composed as a secondary addition to that history.
An initial version of this theory was developed already in 1876 by Julius
Wellhausen (followed by Abraham Kuenen), largely on the basis of the fact
that the etiology of various professions linked to Lamech’s sons in Gen 4:20–
22 did not seem to presuppose that these sons and their descendants would
be destroyed by a global flood.43 Then Karl Budde and numerous others
around the turn of the century developed an alternative version of the theory
that postulated that the non-P primeval history was created out of two, orig-
inally separate J source strands, one with a flood and the other without.44
42 Day has argued that certain elements in the Priestly flood narrative link it with the version seen
in Berossus (“The Flood and Antediluvian Figures in Berossus and in the Priestly Source in Genesis,”
in From Creation to Babel, 62–67), such as the dating of the flood, shape of the ark, or its reputed
landing place in Armenia (in both P and Berossus). The usability of some of these shared characteris-
tics, however, is undermined by the fact those pertaining to the flood account are rather general (e.g.,
various rectangular, rather than cubical, shapes for the ark; the landing of the ark at an Armenian
locus). As argued in c hapter 4 (and surveyed in Day, “Berossus and the Priestly Source,” 69–71), the
main specific characteristics shared between Berossus and the Priestly primeval history appear to de-
rive from their dependence on relatively similar, late iterations of the Sumerian King List tradition. It
may also be that Berossus also attests to a relatively late version of the flood tradition with affinities to
that also used by P, but the links are more difficult to assess.
43 Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments, 4th ed. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963 [orig. 1876]), 10. This argument still plays a primary
role in recent treatments, e.g., Idan Dershowitz, “Man of the Land: Unearthing the Original Noah,”
ZAW 128 (2016): 358.
44 Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, esp. 309–11, 314, 321–22, 325–26. Examples of others pursuing
a similar source approach include H. Holzinger, Genesis, Kurzer Handkommentar AT (Freiburg: J.

C. B. Mohr, 1898), xxv, 57–58, 91, 120–12; Rudolf Smend (Sr.), Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf
ihre Quellen untersucht (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1912), 16–26; Hermann Gunkel, Genesis, HAT.1
These theories faded, however, in the later part of the twentieth century,
along with the overall popularity of such detailed source analysis. To be sure,
there have been some recent proposals that the non-P flood narrative was
a later addition to its context, such as Reinhard Kratz’s proposal that it is a
post-Priestly expansion or Idan Dershowitz’s theory that the non-P flood
story is an adaptation of an original (nonpreserved) story about a famine that
is ended in Gen 8:20–22.45 Nevertheless, most scholars, including the pre-
sent author in earlier publications, have been influenced by the example of
the creation-flood pattern in the Atrahasis epic (and Eridu Genesis) to see
this combination of creation and flood as part of the original layer of the non-
P primeval history.46
This chapter critiques that position. It raises questions about the extent to
which scholars have assumed that the creation-flood pattern of the present
form of Genesis 1–11 (and texts like the Atrahasis epic) has been assumed to
be the normative pattern for primeval origins accounts like Genesis. Instead,
I will argue that the creation-flood combination seen in the Atrahasis epic
is more the exception than the rule in such primeval origins accounts.
Moreover, I will go beyond Wellhausen’s initial observation of the conflict
between the non-P flood account and the etiology of professions in Gen
4:20–22 to show other ways that the non-P flood account contrasts with and
disrupts elements of the surrounding non-P primeval history.
The General Incompatibility of Primeval Origins Accounts

(with Their Etiological Orientation) and Flood Narratives
I start with a brief discussion of primeval origins accounts, particularly as

widely documented in the Mesopotamian literary tradition, since the com-
bination of creation and flood in the Mesopotamian Atrahasis epic has been
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917), 1–3, 25–26, 53–54, 77 [ET 2–4, 25–27, 54–55, 79];
Otto Procksch, Die Genesis (Leipzig: Deichertsche, 1924).
45 Reinhard G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen
der Bibelkritik, UTB 2137 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 252–63 [ET 251–59];
Dershowitz, “Original Noah.”
46 For my own work, see Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches
(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 241–45. An important recent example of a
scholar positing an Atrahasis-like creation-flood non-P primeval history is Jan Christian Gertz,
“The Formation of the Primeval History,” in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and
Interpretation, ed. Craig Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 131.
so influential in many scholars’ assumptions that the creation-flood com-

bination was an original part of the non-P primeval history. And indeed,
one can make a good argument that the Mesopotamian literary tradition
provides a particularly important background to the non-P primeval his-
tory, flood and nonflood portions alike. Though Egyptian and Levantine
contexts certainly featured some (largely oral) cosmogonic traditions,47
Mesopotamian texts provide especially good correlates to the range of top-
ics covered in the non-P primeval history, such as the creation of two-sexed
humanity and reproduction, origins of rivers, animals, field farming and
animal husbandry, and urban centers. Moreover, this range of connections
between the non-P primeval history and Mesopotamian accounts is accom-
panied by a number of links in the non-P primeval history to specifically
Mesopotamian topoi, such as the focus at the outset on river-watering in
Gen 2:6, 10–14; the articulation of achievement of immortality through
achieving a lasting “name” through heroic deeds (Gen 6:4) or building con-
struction (11:4);48 and the emphasis on the founding of Mesopotamian cit-
ies toward the end (10:10–12; 11:9).49
As more than forty Mesopotamian creation accounts and traditions have
been published and studied, it has become increasingly clear that they do
not focus on world creation per se, but rather on describing the emergence
47 On the relative absence in Egypt of written myths of creation, despite the evident existence
of oral mythic traditions, see John Baines, “Egyptian Myth and Discourse: Myth, Gods, and the
Early Written and Iconographic Record,” JNES 50 [1991]: 81–105). In this respect the “Memphite
Theology” is the exception rather than the rule (for survey of recent study of this text, see Amr El
Hawary, Wortschӧpfung: Die memphitische theologie und die siegesstele des Pije—zwei zeugen kul-
tureller repräsentation in der 25. Dynastie, OBO 243 [Fribourg and Göttingen: Academic Press and
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010]). For a survey of semicosmogonic Levantine materials (outside
the Bible), mostly consisting of stories of conflicts among deities, see Richard J. Clifford, Creation
Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible, CBQMS26 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical
Association, 1994), 117–33. The cosmogonic elements (purportedly drawn from Sanchuniathon)
in Philo of Byblos appear to date well into the Hellenistic period (see Albert I. Baumgarten, The
Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary, Etudes préliminaires aux religions orientales
dans l’Empire romain 89 [Leiden: Brill, 1981], esp. 42–51, 125–30, 178).
48 See Ellen Radner, Die Macht des Namens: Altorientalische Strategien zur Selbsterhaltung,
SANTAG 8 (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2005), esp. 90–118.

49 A more specific connection may be evident if Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of
Genesis: Pt. 1. From Adam to Noah, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961 [1944 Hebrew
original]), 228–31 is right, when he proposes that there may also be some garbled echo of the focus
of Mesopotamian cities on the founding of Eridu as the first, primal city in the tradition of Cain
building a first city and naming it after his son in 4:17, with his grandson identified in 4:18 as “Irad”
(‫)עירד‬, a possible Hebrew reflection of “Eridu.” Within the present text, such an interpretation is not
evident, because the verse concludes by repeating the name of Cain’s son, Enoch, but this could be a
clarifying gloss.
of different aspects of the overall socio-natural world of Mesopotamia, par-

ticularly the Mesopotamian canal-based, temple-city social system.50 We see
this etiological dimension first of all in several separate Mesopotamian nar-
ratives devoted to primeval origins, here termed “primeval origins accounts.”
For example, the Sumerian Enlil and Ninlil myth (ETCSL 1.2.1) encodes an
etiology of the emergence of the canal system of Nippur and associates it with
the gods of canals, trees, and plants.51 The Sumerian Enki and Ninmah myth
(ETCSL 1.1.2) starts with gods laboring on the canal system “when heaven
and earth were created” before Enki (prompted by the goddess Ninmah) cre-
ates humans to take over their labor. The Bilingual Creation of Humankind
text (KAR 4) similarly begins with heavens separating from earth before
proceeding to detail the emergence of rivers and canals and then the gods’
creation of humans to maintain the canal system and provide for the gods in
their sanctuaries. The beginning of the Sumerian flood account is lost, but
the first parts of the preserved text presuppose the existence of humanity and
describe the goddess Nintur founding the five major cities of Sumer, establish-
ment of kingship, and inauguration of the canal system. The creation portions
of the Enuma Elish build from Marduk’s creation of heaven from one-half of
Tiamat’s body and the rivers from her eyes (IV:137–38), followed by the crea-
tion of humans to relieve the gods’ labor (VI:2–34) and the climactic building
of the great Babylonian Esagila temple for the gods to rest in (VI:45–62). We
do not see explicit mention of creation of the canal system and cities in two
other Mesopotamian creation accounts—Atrahasis and the Creation of the
King—but both texts present humans as created to take over the gods’ labor,
and Atrahasis specifies that labor to be the toil of canal maintenance.
We see a similar inclusion of a thoroughgoing etiological dimension in
primeval traditions incorporated into Mesopotamian hymns, debate texts,
and other genres. These traditions speak particularly of the origins of
50 For surveys of the broad etiological dimension in Mesopotamian cosmological texts and
traditions, see especially Claus Wilcke, “Vom altorientalischen Blick zurück auf die Anfänge,”
in Anfang und Ursprung: Die Frage nach dem Ersten in Philosophie und Kulturwissenschaft, ed.
Emil Angehrn (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007), 3–59; and Annette Zgoll, “Welt, Götter und Menschen
in den Schöpfungsentwürfen des antiken Mesopotamien,” in Schöpfung, ed. Konrad Schmid
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 17–70, esp. 25–30. For emphasis on the nondivision of natural
and social aspects of the Mesopotamian world view, see recently Seth L. Sanders, From Adapa to
Enoch: Scribal Culture and Religious Vision in Judea and Babylon, Texts and Studies in Ancient
Judaism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 77, 114–16.
51 Annette Zgoll, “Enlil und Ninlil,” in U4 du11-ga-ni sá mu-ni-ib-du11: Ancient Near Eastern
Studies in Memory of Blahoslav Hruška, ed. L. Vácin (Dresden: Islet, 2011), 287–98.
canal-irrigation (fifteen texts),52 agriculture (eight texts),53 and cities (six

texts).54 All these themes are more common in such creation traditions than
a focus on creation of humans (five texts)55 or wild animals (three texts).56
Notably, this overall etiological emphasis seen in Mesopotamian primeval
origins accounts (and embedded primeval traditions) seems to have mili-
tated against a regular combination of such creation narratives with stories
of a world-destroying flood. To be sure, creation and flood episodes are inte-
grated in the Atrahasis epic. That epic includes a focus on different kinds of
global death (e.g., famine, pestilence, flood) as part of its emphasis on var-
ious ways that contemporary life structures resulted from the gods’ attempts
to end human multiplication and its accompanying noise. Nevertheless, the
flood does not appear at all in most Mesopotamian primeval origins accounts,
and the flood is only incompletely integrated with creation-etiological elem-
ents in the Sumerian flood story (the Eridu Genesis). Moreover, in the case of
Atrahasis we see a concentration of multiple etiological elements at its end,
thus insuring that these etiological aspects of the text are not compromised
by the preceding flood account.
The documented secondary insertion of a flood account into the SB edi-
tion of the flood account into the Gilgamesh epic (tablet 11) shows that some
52 Especially in this and following notes, I include (where possible) the name and number of the
Sumerian texts in the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL at http://etcsl.orinst.
ox.ac.uk). For Akkadian texts, I have followed, where possible, the names for texts in Benjamin R.
Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, 3rd ed. (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press,
2005). The number counts for motifs given here and in what follows are approximate, intended
to indicate broader ratios. Nevertheless, for etiological focus on the origins of the Mesopotamian
river-canal irrigation system see the following texts. Sumerian: Debate between Winter and Summer
(5.3.3), Debate between Bird and Fish (5.3.5), Debate between Copper and Silver (5.3.6), Lugalbanda
in the Mountain Cave (1.8.2.1), Enki and Ninhursaga (1.1.1), the World before Creation (NBC 11108;
not in ETCSL), Enki and the World Order (1.1.3), Rulers of Lagash (2.1.2), Ninurta’s Exploits (2.1.2).
Akkadian: Anzu Epic, Debate between the Palm and Tamarisk, Worm and Toothache Incantation,
Marduk Creation Account, Restoration of the Temple Incantation, Namburbi Incantation.
53 Sumerian: How Grain came to Sumer (1.7.6), Debate between Winter and Summer (5.3.3), NBC
11108, Enki and the World Order (1.1.3). Akkadian: Harab text/Dunnu Theogony, Insects debate,
Restoration of Temple, Ergot Incantations 1 and 2.
54 Sumerian: Debate between Winter and Summer (5.3.3), Debate between Bird and Fish (5.3.5),
Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (1.8.2.3), Enki and the World Order (1.1.3), Rulers of Lagash
(2.1.2). Akkadian: Marduk Creation Account. Note also the specific focus on initiation of temples in
Enki’s journey to Nibru (1.1.4). Somewhat related to this focus on cities is the frequent focus on the
origins of kingship (Debate between Bird and Fish 5.3.5; How Grain Came to Sumer 1.7.6, Palm and
Tamarisk, Restoration of Temple, [Sumerian] Flood Story (1.7.4), along with the previously men-
tioned Creation of the King).
55 Sumerian: Enki’s journey to Nibru (1.1.4), Song of the Hoe (5.5.4). Akkadian: Marduk Creation
Account, Restoration of the Temple Incantation, Birth Incantation.

56 Sumerian: Enki and the World Order (1.1.3), Marduk Creation Account. Akkadian: creation of
living creatures. This also occurs in the (Sumerian) Flood Story (1.7.4).
scribes could bring flood traditions into relation with other textual tradi-
tions. Nevertheless, the broader picture of Mesopotamian primeval origins
accounts and traditions shows that narrative integration of creation and
flood episodes—seen particularly in the Atrahasis epic—was the exception
rather than the rule, especially for first-millennium primeval origins ac-
counts such as the Ashur bilingual (KAR 4) and Creation of the King texts.
The scribes who created such texts almost certainly knew of flood traditions
like Atrahasis, of course. It is just that they did not integrate such flood tradi-
tions into their etiologically oriented cosmogony as a matter of course. To do
so was generally problematic in terms of the genre of such accounts, even as
one could presuppose much textual knowledge of earlier flood texts on the
part of the authors of these Mesopotamian cosmologies.
With this background, I argue that the non-P primeval historical materials
as a whole feature a similar etiological dimension, indicating their participa-
tion in the broader genre of primeval origins accounts. In this case, however,
the non-P primeval history links to the socio-natural realities and traditions
of ancient Judah to lend a patina of realism to its own account of the na-
ture of adult human life and Israelite agricultural-social life in particular.
Gen 2:4b–3:24 starts by describing the emergence of civilized (rational and
clothed), mortal, yet sexually differentiated and reproducing humans, des-
tined to a lifelong field-agricultural toil (‫ ;עצבון‬3:17–19, 23; also 2:5) of the
ground (‫)האדמה‬. This initial picture of farming humanity is then unfolded
in the following non-P materials, which give the background of semino-
madic Kenites and human violence (Gen 4:1–16, also 4:20), the emergence of
the first city (4:17), musicians and artisan-crafts (associated in Gen 4:21–22
with Kenites), and ancient giant-like figures (6:1–4) seen in other Israelite
traditions to have inhabited pre-Israelite Transjordan and Canaan up to even
David’s time.57 Then the non-P materials after the flood provide etiological
background to the emergence of viticulture (Gen 5:29; 9:20–21a) and an ar-
rangement of Levantine peoples descending from Noah’s three sons: “Shem”
(= “name”) as the father of “all the sons of Eber” (= the Hebrews) at the top,
“Japhet” associated closely with Shem in his tent, and Canaan as father of the
Phoenicians (“Sidon”) and Hittites as slave to both (9:25–27; 10:15, 21).58
Thus, much as Mesopotamian creation accounts and traditions broadly
include etiologies of various elements of the irrigation-based temple-city
57 For David, see e.g., 2 Sam 21:15–22; 1 Sam 17. For the pre-Israelite Transjordan, see Num 13:33;
Deut 1:28; 2:10–11, 20–21; 3:11; 9:2; Amos 2:9. For discussion, see chapter 5.
58 These materials are discussed in chapter 7.
world of Mesopotamia, so also the bulk of the non-P primeval history pro-
vides an etiology of the overall world of ancient Israel, including its imme-
diate Levantine social world.59 The focus on providing an ancient primeval
background to contemporary realities is not just a feature of individual tradi-
tions behind the non-P primeval history, nor is it simply an etiological reflex
of Hebrew traditions more generally. Rather, the particularly intensive etio-
logical dimension of the overall non-P primeval history (aside from the flood
narrative) is integral to the genre of primeval origins narrative traditions,
representing a crucial literary strategy through which such narratives laid
a claim to be accurately characterizing the theological and social world of
the audience. Much like a contemporary painter might add realism to their
work through use of perspective techniques or a window-like picture frame,
these ancient scribes (in Mesopotamia, Israel, and elsewhere) added grav-
itas to their myths through connecting parts of them to important contem-
porary social realities. In this way, ancient authors turned elements of their
readers’ contemporary world—such as rivers and canals, farming, cities, and
kingship—into testimony of the broader truth of certain primeval literary
myths that purported to explain them.
The inclusion of a flood narrative in the sequence of the non-P primeval
history significantly disrupts the etiological force of the portions of that his-
tory that occur before the flood in Gen 2:4b–6:4. The tent dwellers and arti-
sans featured in Gen 4:20–22 ostensibly die in the flood of Gen 6:5ff. So also,
the flood destroys the primeval giants whose earlier existence in Canaan and
Transjordan is explained in Gen 6:4, and (as will be explored further later
in the discussion) it interrupts the etiology of viticulture spanning 5:29 and
9:20–21a.60 More subtly, the inclusion of a flood narrative obliquely conflicts
with the implicit dichotomy set up between Adam and Eve’s sons in Gen 4:1–
24//4:25–26. Though the Sethite line is ostensively set up to provide a substi-
tute for lost Abel alongside his murderous brother (Gen 4:25), and this line
59 For surveys of the broad etiological focus of Mesopotamian cosmological texts and traditions,
see esp. Wilcke, “Altorientalischen Blick zurück auf die Anfänge”; and Zgoll, “Schöpfungsentwürfen
des antiken Mesopotamien,” esp. 25–30.
60 Malka Strasberg, a Ph.D. student at Jewish Theological Seminary, called my attention to later
Jewish traditions that solved this problem by imagining a pre-flood giant like Og surviving the flood
by clinging to the outside of Noah’s ark. See b Zevachim 113b; Nid. 61a and, more extensively, Pirqe
Rabbi Eliezer 23:8 and Yalqut—Noah 55.
To be sure, a number of scholars in the last two decades have identified the periscope where
giants occur, Gen 6:1–4, as one or more layers of post-Priestly material. For citation and critique
of this position, see the preceding chapter and David M. Carr, “Looking at Historical Background,
Redaction and Possible Bad Writing in Gen 6,1–4: A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis,” BN 181
(2019): 7–24.
soon begins to call on God’s name (Gen 4:26), the (insertion of the) non-P
flood narrative implies that God soon ends up destroying the Sethites along
with Cain’s descendants because of their overwhelming evil (Gen 6:5ff).61
At an earlier point, it was more possible to downplay the conflict between
the etiology of professions in Gen 4:20–22 (Wellhausen’s original focus) and
the non-P flood narrative by arguing that it just involved the incorporation by
J/non-P of an earlier Cain-Lamech tradition of the sort outlined in chapter 3.
But this perspective becomes less compelling the more we recognize how the
non-P primeval history as a whole, qua its status as a primeval origins ac-
count, provides an etiological background to the overall socio-natural world
of ancient Judah—from agriculture, Kenites, and ancient giants in the pre-
flood narratives to various social groups in the non-P postflood narratives.
Furthermore, it is difficult to see how the non-P flood narrative itself
links to this etiological dimension of the broader non-P primeval history.
To be sure, it might be tempting to see YHWH’s introduction of extended
forty-day torrential rain at the outset of the flood narrative (7:4, 12) and his
later promise to restore seasonal rhythms (Gen 8:22) as an introduction of
the “rain” that non-P notes as missing at the very outset of creation (Gen
2:5). Nevertheless, on closer inspection, it appears that the note about lack
of rain in Gen 2:5 mainly serves as contrastive background for the following
description of the watering of the luxuriant Eden garden and the rest of
the earth through a primal spring (Gen 2:6) and world rivers coming out
from Eden (Gen 2:10–14). The following non-P narrative then describes
humans being sent out from the garden to work the ground (Gen 3:17–19,
23; 4:1–2) with no apparent narrative needed to explicitly describe how that
was possible through rain or irrigation. Finally, when rain is first explicitly
noted in the non-P flood narrative (Gen 7:4, 12), it is not introduced as an
explicitly new phenomenon (cf. e.g., Gen 2:24; 4:26; 9:20), and the conclu-
sion of the non-P flood narrative merely promises the restoration of natural
61 Of course, many have argued that the genealogy in Gen 4:25–26 is a post-Priestly addition at the
seam between non-P (4:1–24) and P (Gen 5:1ff). For early arguments along these lines, see Friedrich
Tuch, Kommentar über die Genesis (Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1838), 99–100; and
Schrader, Studien, 122–24. Nevertheless, it is difficult for advocates of this approach to explain why
a post-Priestly redactor would create a two-generation genealogical report in Gen 4:25–26 that dou-
bled the Adam-Seth-Enosh genealogy in 5:1–8 to which that post-Priestly genealogical report was
bridging (yet avoided including alternate versions of names in Gen 4:1–24 found in P, e.g., Qenan in
5:9–14//Cain in 4:1–17). On this, see Hupfeld, Quellen der Genesis, 129–30. In addition, the fact that
the Priestly Adam to Noah genealogy in Genesis 5* features correlates to all the patriarchal names in
Gen 4:1–26 (and no more) is most economically explained through the theory that P adapted and
reorganized a genealogy of pre-Noah primeval patriarchs quite like that found in 4:1–26.
rhythms—seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and
night—conspicuously lacking any specific reference to the regularizing of
crop-watering rain. In sum, the bulk of the non-P flood narrative is nonetio-
logical and just focuses on world destruction and selective rescue of Noah
and his “house” (Gen 7:1). Only Noah’s sacrifice and the following divine
promise provide background to YHWH’s decision not to kill all life again
because of human evil (8:21) and YHWH’s future decision not to interrupt
natural rhythms (8:22).62
These broader etiological features of primeval origins traditions, and
their disruption by the flood account in the non-P primeval history, suggest
that I and others were mistaken in assuming that the joining of creation and
flood motifs seen, for example, in Atrahasis, was the norm for ancient pri-
meval narratives and the model for the non-P primeval history. This does not
deny, by the way, that the author of the non-P primeval history knew of the
Atrahasis epic and/or the Standard edition of Gilgamesh (with a flood narra-
tive in tablet 11). It is just that such knowledge did not necessarily lead to the
inclusion of a flood narrative in the initial version of the non-P primeval his-
tory. After all, the well-educated Mesopotamian authors of first-millennium
primeval origins accounts (e.g., the Ashur bilingual, Creation of the King)
almost certainly knew of flood narratives in classic texts like Atrahasis and
Gilgamesh, even though they did not include a flood component in their
narratives. So also, it is quite possible, even likely, that the author of the early
non-P primeval history was well acquainted with Mesopotamian literary tra-
ditions, Atrahasis included, yet likewise did not see the point of including an
account of a world-destroying flood in his primeval origins account.
The Two Noahs
These considerations of etiological elements in primeval origins accounts

lead to a more specific way in which the non-P flood narrative contrasts with
the surrounding, etiologically focused non-P primeval history. From Budde
62 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 275. For discussion of questions about the link of 8:22 (especially in SP and
LXX) with the preceding non-P flood narrative, see Dershowitz, “Original Noah,” 358–60. Though
Adrian Schenker argues for Gen 8:20–21 as an etiology for (burnt) offerings in ancient Israel (“Die
Stiftungserzählung des Brandopfers? Wie versteht Gen 8:20–21 das Brandopfer?” in Studien zu
Propheten und Religionsgeschichte [Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2003], 143–53), his sac-
rifice is described as a one-time act that leads to an all-time decision by Yhwh to never again destroy
all life.
onward, numerous scholars have noted a contrast between depictions of

Noah as flood hero in (the non-P portions of) Gen 6:5–8:22 and the depic-
tion of him as founder of viticulture and discoverer of inebriating drink in
Gen 5:29; 9:20–27.63
As was argued at length in the previous chapter, the depiction of Noah as
founder of viticulture and discoverer of alcohol is deeply rooted in the sur-
rounding non-P primeval history. It picks up multiple themes from that his-
tory, completes the three dyads of the primary family, and generally binds
together the non-P Garden of Eden and Cain-Abel sections (Gen 2:4b–4:26)
with the story of Noah and his sons (Gen 9:20–27). The links among Gen
3:17–19, 5:29, and 9:20–21 are particularly important because they span
multiple episodes of the primeval history. This sort of arch across the non-
Priestly primeval history is not easily explained as a byproduct of its author’s
building of a broader primeval account out of diverse traditions (e.g., flood
versus other traditions) that might conflict with each other.64 Instead, the
arch connecting Gen 3:17–19 with 9:20–27, via 5:29, is a component of the
non-P primeval history as a whole.
These connections between Gen 5:29 and 9:20–27ff are now obscured by
the intervening flood narrative, such that Noah’s role as flood hero becomes
primary and the story of him and his sons in 9:20–27 appears almost as an
appendix.65 Indeed, one effect of this extensive interruption has been the ten-
dency of some interpreters to try to see the fulfillment of Noah’s destiny to
provide comfort from the ground (Gen 5:29) not in his provision of wine
from the ground (Gen 9:20–27), but in his rescue of humanity and restora-
tion of natural rhythms (Gen 8:20–22). Nevertheless, as was argued in the
previous chapter, the description in Gen 8:21–22 of YHWH’s intent not to
bring another specific event like the flood fails to fulfill Gen 5:29b in pro-
viding comfort from the ongoing condition of “toil” (‫ )עצבון‬associated with
the curse (‫ )ארור‬of the ground (cf. Gen 3:17–19), and 8:20–22 does not de-
scribe Noah as providing comfort “from the ground” (‫ ;מן־האדמה‬5:29). Yet
63 E.g., Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, 310–11; Dillmann, Genesis, 156–57 [ET 301]; Bernard Stade,
“Das Kainszeichen: Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der jahwistischen Pentateuchquelle und zur isra-
elitischen Sagenkunde,” ZAW 14 (1894): 274; Skinner, Genesis, 181–82; Willy Staerk, “Zur alttesta-
mentlichen Literarkritik: Grundsätzliches und Methodisches,” ZAW 42 (1924): 52.
64 The importance of this feature was already noted by Gunkel (Genesis, 2 [ET 3]), who other-
wise noted that some potential indicators highlighted by prior scholars (e.g., etiological elements in
Gen 4:20–22 highlighted by Wellhausen) could be explained by the diverse traditio-historical back-
ground of the non-P primeval history.
65 Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, 309, an observation revived in Christoph Levin, Der Jahwist,
FRLANT 157 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 117.

the attempt to associate Noah’s name with his role as flood hero shows the
extent to which the flood narrative between Gen 5:29 and 9:20–27 has influ-
enced interpreters’ perceptions of Noah in general.
Contrasts in Theme between the Flood Narrative and

the Rest of the Non-P Primeval History
This chapter does not provide the space for detailed exegesis of the richly
complex texts of the non-P primeval history.66 Nevertheless, it is important
to note at least briefly some crucial contrasts between the ambivalent reflec-
tion on humans and YHWH’s relations with them in most of the non-P pri-
meval history and the more clear-cut perspective on divine-human relations
in the non-P flood narrative.
The bulk of the non-P primeval history features a complex picture of
divine-human relations. Though God predicts that the human will “certainly
die” if he eats of the fruit of wisdom (Gen 2:17), God responds to actual dis-
obedience with a mix of responses: indignation (Gen 3:11), pronouncement
of punishment on the humans (3:16–19), care in providing them durable
animal-skin garments to cover the nakedness that they now see (3:21), and
concern that these humans possessing godlike knowledge might also ac-
quire godlike immortality (3:22). Similarly, God responds to Cain’s murder
of his brother with a combination of outrage (4:10), an actual curse on Cain
(4:11–12), and yet gracious provision of protection to Cain after his protest
(4:13–15). When the sons of god marry daughters of humanity, God does not
express judgment of any kind. Though God resolves that the offspring of the
unions will not enjoy the immortality that their semidivine status might have
given them, God still allows humans—even the future semidivine offspring
of these unions—the possibility of enjoying an extraordinarily long lifespan
(by ancient standards) of 120 years.67 Across this whole sequence of preflood
non-P narratives, humans prove capable of a variety of acts, including some
(often furthered by a nonhuman figure—snake [3:1–5], demon-like lurker
[4:7], sons of God [6:1–3]) that explicitly cause YHWH concern, but YHWH
never responds to any such acts with unrestricted judgment, and often
66 More of this is attempted in my commentary on Genesis 1–11 for the Kohlhammer IECOT
series.
67 Horst Seebass, “Die Gottessöhne und das menschliche Mass: Gen 6,1–4,” BN 134 (2007): 15–17.
combines a measure of judgment with explicit care, even for the brother-
murderer Cain.68
Contrast this perspective with that of the non-P flood account. It starts
(Gen 6:5) and concludes (Gen 8:21a) with a statement by YHWH that the “for-
mation of the [thoughts of the] heart” (‫ )יצר [מחשבות] לב‬of humans are evil
(‫)רע‬, indeed (in the case of Gen 6:5) “only evil all the time” (‫)רק רע כל־היום‬.
Where preflood non-P accounts show a mix of YHWH’s judgment and care,
the closest the non-P flood narrative comes to depicting the care of YHWH
for his creatures is YHWH’s decision, for the future, not to repeat the act of
killing all life off (Gen 8:21b; cf. 3:20; 4:15). The preceding non-P stories in
Gen 2:4b–4:26; 6:1–4 have not prepared us for such an undifferentiated nega-
tive judgment by YHWH on human potential nor for YHWH’s devastatingly
violent response to it.69 To be sure, the non-P flood narrative doubly empha-
sizes that YHWH only enacts this violent response out of intense regret (‫)נחם‬
and distress (‫ יצב‬Hithpael), and YHWH does decide this destruction will not
recur (8:21). Nevertheless, there is still a contrast between the complex picture
of both humanity and YHWH in Gen 2:4b–4:16; 6:1–4 and the non-P flood
narrative’s picture of a totally evil humanity and a violently reactive YHWH.
The complex links of the non-P flood narrative to its surroundings are
particularly evident in the relation of the introduction to the non-P flood
narrative (Gen 6:5–8) to the non-P texts that immediately precede it in Gen
5:29; 6:1–4. Where Gen 5:29 spoke of Noah “providing comfort” (‫ נחם‬piel) to
people from their toil (‫)עצבון‬, God in Gen 6:6a speaks of YHWH regretting
(‫ נחם‬niphal) having made (‫ ;עשה‬cf. ‫ יצר‬in 2:7) humans, and being “vexed”
(6:6b ‫ )יתעצב‬in God’s heart. And where Gen 6:1–4 spoke of “humanity” be-
ginning to become “numerous” (‫ רבב‬verb) and sons of God “seeing” that
their daughters were “beautiful” (‫)טוב‬, Gen 6:5 describes YHWH “seeing”
that the “wickedness” (‫ )רעה‬of “humanity” has become “great” (‫ רבב‬adjec-
tive). In sum, Gen 6:5 echoes terminology from both texts but uses it in quite
different ways. Most importantly, the story of about the actions of the sons
of god in Gen 6:1–4 represents a complete, if brief, narrative unit and serves
particularly poorly as a lead-in to YHWH’s intensely negative judgment on
68 Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 151 on the role of nonhuman characters in the preflood
stories.
69 Kratz, Komposition, 253 [ET 251]. The contrast is so great that Baumgart, Umkehr des
Schöpfergottes, 135 must speak of a completely different picture of a preflood YHWH (in 2:4b–6:5*;
cf. 6:5–7), despite the fact that he reckons with a non-P flood narrative integrated into its surrounding
non-P context.
the evil of humanity in Gen 6:5–7 and the following flood.70 Not only does
Gen 6:1–4 say nothing about the actions of humanity (the daughters are
purely passive in Gen 6:1–2), it does not even report a negative judgment
by YHWH on the actions of the sons of god.71 Instead, as argued in the pre-
vious chapter, YHWH’s speech in that context (Gen 6:3) preemptively avoids
the possibility that the semigodlike offspring of the divine-human marriages
of Gen 6:2 might enjoy godlike immortality, instead restricting even those
offspring to a lifespan limit of 120 years that is actually unusually long by an-
cient standards. Meanwhile, the following non-P flood narrative reports a
destruction of the humans who were judged evil in Gen 6:5–7, never men-
tioning punishment of the sons of God who were the sole actors in Gen 6:1–4
nor the destruction of their semidivine offspring.72
Mesopotamian Flood Accounts and the Primeval

History Revisited
The case of the Mesopotamian literary tradition shows several different

ways that a flood tradition might be used in relationship with stories of the
origins of humans and their society. In the exceptional cases that flood and
creation traditions are linked in Mesopotamia, this linkage happens in dif-
ferent ways. It can be oblique (Enuma Elish)73 or integrated (e.g., Sumerian
flood story and Atrahasis). Flood waters are among Marduk’s weapons in the
Enuma Elish (IV:49, 75), thus echoing flood traditions but not including a
separate flood account. Meanwhile, when a world-destroying flood is explic-
itly narrated in a tradition including elements of human origins—such as the
Sumerian flood story and Atrahasis—those traditions coordinate the story of
70 On the narrative completeness of Gen 6:1–4, see Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 99–100.
71 Skinner, Genesis, 141–42; and Ki-Eun Jang, “The Problems of Sons of Gods, Daughters of
Humans, and Nephilim in Genesis 6:1–4: A Reassessment,” unpublished seminar paper (cited with
permission, 2015); along with Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 112–14 (for a clear analysis of
the passive daughters of humanity versus active sons of god). Despite the efforts of some commenta-
tors (e.g., Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 141) to build a link to the flood by assuming some complicity of
daughters in the marriages, Gen 6:2–4 provides no indicator whatsoever of judgment on humans.
72 Cf. Helge S. Kvanvig, “Gen 6,1–4 as an Antediluvian Event,” SJOT 16 (2002): 89 (who then posits
a nonattested precursor to the non-P narrative like that in the Enoch Watchers tradition that resolves
these problems) and Walter Bührer, “Göttersöhne und Menschentöchter: Gen 6,1–4 als innerbib-
lische Schriftauslegung,” ZAW 123 (2011): 507. Here again, these older observations are sharpened in
Jang, “The Problems of Sons of Gods, Daughters of Humans, and Nephilim.”
73 In addition to the oblique inclusion of flood waters as one of Marduk’s weapons in the Enuma
Elish (discussed above), the flood is assumed as a chronological point of orientation in multiple itera-
tions of the Sumerian King List and in the corresponding Lagash King List tradition.
human origins with the flood. For example, the Sumerian flood story and ver-
sion of the flood tradition seen in Berossus feature flood heroes who are also
kings, thus accounting for the persistence of preflood kingship in the post-
flood world.74 The flood motif is more integral to the Atrahasis epic, largely
because of the way that particular text depicts certain contemporary realities
of human life (e.g., mortality, still births, female priests who do not marry) as
strategies (alongside the flood) imposed by certain gods (esp. Enlil) to deal
with rampant human reproduction.75 Nevertheless, even here, the Atrahasis
epic shows an awareness of the problem of a flood’s interruption of etiolog-
ical motifs, being sure to note that Atrahasis brought various artisans onto
the ark with him (ii 10ff) and—as mentioned previously—concentrating
most such etiological elements at a concluding point after the flood is over.
The Atrahasis example has been particularly important in shaping schol-
ars’ assumptions of a link of creation and the flood, partly because of its
prominence in the Mesopotamian tradition itself and partly because of the
correspondence of the creation-flood sequence in Atrahasis to the existing
creation-flood sequence in the Bible. Nevertheless, Mesopotamia offers an-
other important example of how a flood account might be secondarily linked
with another text. The foundational (Old Babylonian) tradition of Gilgamesh
focused on the irreversible reality of human mortality, but almost certainly
lacked a description of a flood.76 The later SB version of Gilgamesh includes
an extended account of the flood in tablet 11, which provides background
for Gilgamesh’s dialogue about immortality with the flood hero, Utnapishtim
(a figure already in the OB version). This inclusion of a full flood narrative
in SB Gilgamesh represented a form of scribal coordination of one major
Mesopotamian tradition, Gilgamesh, with another major one, Atrahasis.
Both texts were prominent in the scribal tradition from earlier times.
74 Chen, Primeval Flood Catastrophe, 121–22 argues that this element in the Sumerian flood story
is likely a correction of versions of the Sumerian King List tradition (e.g., WB 444) that secondarily
added prediluvian kings to an earlier version of the King List tradition that only had postdiluvian
kings. The inclusion of both pre- and postdiluvian kings in such lists left open the implication that
prediluvian kingship was obliterated by the flood, an implication that is handled by the idea that
Ziusudra was a king who survived the flood.
75 William Moran, “Atrahasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (review of Millard, Atrahasis),”
Bib 52 (1971): 51–61; “The Creation of Man in Atrahasis,” BASOR 200 (1971): 48–55; Wilcke,
“Weltuntergang als Anfang.”
76 See George, Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 273–75 for discussion of evidence that the unpreserved
ending of OB Gilgamesh included an encounter with the (immortal) flood hero. Since that ending of
OB is not preserved, the only evidence that we have of the secondary addition of the flood to the OB
tradition are the sorts of internal indicators discussed in Jeffrey Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh
Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982), 232–38.
Nevertheless, it was only in a later period that a scribe saw fit to combine
them in what became the standard and widely copied edition of Gilgamesh.
The Addition of the Non-P Flood Account as a Form

of Scribal Coordination
I suggest here that the non-P primeval historical material of Genesis presents
a biblical counterpart to this process of secondary addition of a flood in the
Mesopotamian tradition. The earliest form of the non-P primeval history, like
the earlier edition of the Gilgamesh epic, likely lacked a flood story. Instead, it
provided, like many prior Mesopotamian primeval compositions and tradi-
tions, an etiological account of the origins of humanity and its social system.
Already at this stage, this hypothesized non-P, nonflood primeval history
was formed in dialogical relation with Mesopotamian traditions, perhaps as
refracted through a Levantine lens. For example, as argued in chapter 2 of this
book, this non-P, nonflood primeval history provided an account of human
mortality and (as a compensating element) reproduction, perhaps in dialogue
with the Atrahasis epic picture of human mortality as a balance to human
reproduction.77 Moreover, the non-P reflections on human achievement of
an approximation of immortality in a famous “name” (e.g., 6:4) may well be
shaped in dialogue with the Gilgamesh epic, particularly its depiction of semi-
divine Gilgamesh’s search for immortality and his eventual acquisition of a
proximate form of immortality via fame: his heroic killing of Humbaba and
his ultimate achievement of a lasting name through building his city’s walls.78
One or more of these correspondences could have played a role in
prompting a scribe working in the non-P scribal tradition to add a flood ac-
count to an earlier non-P primeval history, thus helping it better correspond
to the presence of flood accounts in the Atrahasis and/or (SB edition of) the
Gilgamesh epics. This addition thus can be seen as roughly analogous to
one of the best-documented forms of scribal intervention in literary tradi-
tions: scribal harmonization-coordination.79 As was argued above, striking
77 Here the restoration of W. G. Lambert, “The Theology of Death,” in Death in Mesopotamia,
ed. Bendt Alster (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980), 58 of Atrahasis 3.6.47–50 is crucial. See
chapter 2 for brief discussion of Late Bronze Age cuneiform and alphabetic texts that focus on the
inevitability of human mortality.
78 Annette Zgoll, “Einen Namen will ich mir machen,” Saeculum 54 (2003): 1–11; Radner, Macht
des Namens, 74–118.

79 For survey and discussion of this phenomenon across multiple scribal contexts, see Carr,
Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 37–56, 90–98.

links of non-Priestly portions of Gen 6:5–8:22 with Mesopotamian flood tra-

ditions in Atrahasis, the Sumerian Flood story and tablet 11 of Gilgamesh
suggest that the author of the non-P flood account modelled his narrative, in
part, on such specific nonbiblical traditions.
Indeed, the extent and specificity of parallels of the non-P flood ac-
count with the Mesopotamian flood tradition (especially in tablet 11 of SB
Gilgamesh) is another way that this non-P flood account is distinguished
from other parts of the non-P primeval history to which it probably was
added. Other, nonflood parts of the non-P primeval history share general
characteristics of Mesopotamian primeval traditions and appear to be in crit-
ical dialogue with their broader themes (e.g., human wisdom versus human
mortality, origins of agricultural water, cities, fame-name). Nevertheless,
none of the nonflood portions of the non-P primeval history follows spe-
cific plot lines of a Mesopotamian text. In contrast, the non-P flood sup-
plement in Gen 6:5–8:22*—though divergent in important respects from
Mesopotamian flood accounts—is clearly recognizable as a Judean appropri-
ation of the Mesopotamian flood story, likely in a form similar to that seen
in the Gilgamesh epic. As noted before, it adds to the non-P primeval his-
tory a description of a natural threat—overwhelming flood—which is native
to Mesopotamia (in early spring) but is not a major threat in the Levantine
context.80 We see a similar dynamic in the late importation of foreign flood
traditions into Greece, a locus that likewise lacked indigenous experiences of
floods as a common natural catastrophe.81
Possible Reasons for Placement of the Non-P Flood

Account in the Noah Section and Problems Produced
by This Placement
Several factors may have contributed to the insertion of the flood account
between 6:1–4 and 9:20–27 and the decision to make Noah into the Israelite
80 For studies related to this, see n. 27 previously in this chapter.

81 See John Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 81, who notes that the reference to a flood in Greek tradition is
an apparent interpolation into Pindar, Olympia 9.49ff, followed by Ovid, Metamorphosis 1.259–417
and Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 1.7.2. I am indebted to John Day (private communication) for noting
an additional relatively early Greek occurrence of the flood story in Epicharmus (discussed in Martin
L. West, The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth [Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1997], p. 489).
flood hero. One factor could have been the correspondence between the ref-
erence to human multiplication in Gen 6:1 and a likely reference to human
multiplication at the outset of the flood account in Atrahasis.82 Though
human multiplication is not implied as the cause of the flood in the non-P
flood narrative (in contrast to Atrahasis), a scribe interested in adding a flood
account to an earlier non-P primeval account could have been prompted to
put it here, after 6:1–4, at this Atrahasis-like point where humans have just
begun to multiply (6:1).
In addition, Noah was a natural candidate to be the father of postflood hu-
manity because he likely already was the father of multiple sons in the earlier
nonflood primeval history. Much as Lamech is depicted as producing a set of
three sons at the end of the seven-generation genealogy of Cain (4:20–22),
Noah is depicted as having three sons in 9:18–27. Whatever the reason for
placement of the flood at this location, this secondary addition of the non-P
flood account produced some ripples in the resulting non-P primeval history.
The main ones described in the preceding discussion include: the disruption
of the etiological explanations in the (now) preflood portions of the non-
P primeval history (esp. Gen 4:1–26; 6:1–4), the interruption of the depic-
tion of “Noah” (‫ )נח‬as the one comforting (‫ )נחם‬humanity from toil (‫)עצבון‬
through viticulture (Gen 3:17–18; 5:29; 9:20–21a), and the introduction (in
the added flood story) of a radically negative judgment on the basic character
of humanity (6:5–7) that contrasted with the earlier primeval history’s more
complex, ambivalent picture of humanity and God’s responses to humans.
Conclusions
Here again I have proceeded from relatively secure theories about the for-
mation of the Genesis flood story to more speculative ones. The more se-
cure results pertain to the biblical flood story itself. Contrary to some
recent trends, I gathered an array of arguments for the origins of the bib-
lical flood story in originally separate P and non-P flood narratives, with
82 The existing copies of Atrahasis only preserve references to human multiplication (and unhap-
piness of Enlil about it) before other disasters (e.g., drought and pestilence; OB Atrahasis 1.353–59;
2.2–8 with the Neo-Assyrian recension (K 3399+3934 rev. iv 2–8; see also the speech of Enlil in BE
39099 rev i 2–7). Nevertheless, it is likely that the unpreserved lead-up to the flood in Atrahasis had
a similar reference. See the arguments of Moran, “Atrahasis”; Anne D. Kilmer, “The Mesopotamian
Concept of Overpopulation and Its Solution as Reflected in the Mythology,” Or 41 (1972): 160–77.
P’s flood narrative standing as a likely expansion of briefer mention of the

flood hero and flood in an earlier Toledot book. The non-P flood narrative,
in turn, appeared to have been modeled on some kind of Mesopotamian lit-
erary flood tradition(s) along with biblical precursors (e.g., an early form
of Exodus 32). The P flood narrative built in its own way on Mesopotamian
flood traditions as well, but it also seems to have been modeled on the non-P
narrative, even as it originally stood separate from it.
The less secure results pertain especially to the question of the relation-
ship of the non-P flood narrative to the rest of the non-P primeval history.
In essence, I have argued that the depiction of Noah in that history (Gen
5:29; 9:18–27*), along with the story of the sons of God and daughters of
humanity (Gen 6:1–4), were additional precursors to the non-P flood nar-
rative. The prologue to Gen 6:1–4, with its description of the multiplication
of “humanity” (‫האדם‬, now collectively understood”) “on the surface of the
ground” (‫ ;על־פני האדמה‬Gen 6:1), became the setting for the placement of
a non-P flood narrative that attributed flood destruction of this “humanity”
to a very different cause than multiplication (cf. Atrahasis). And the non-P
picture of Noah’s name (‫)נח‬, signifying his status as as a “man of the ground”
who would provide comfort (‫ )נחם‬from the ground that YHWH cursed (Gen
5:29), turned into the influential picture of Noah as biblical flood hero, who
turned away YHWH’s destructive response to human evil with his Atrahasis-
like postflood sacrifice (Gen 8:20–22). The next chapter will explore the fur-
ther effects of this transformation, where Noah went—as a result of insertion
of the flood narrative—from being the father of several Levantine peoples
(Shem>Eber [Hebrews], Japhet, and Canaan) to the father of all of postflood
humanity.
This result may be relatively uncertain vis-à-vis the preceding source anal-
ysis, but it is nevertheless based on a variety of arguments. To be sure, some
of the indicators advanced in favor of the theory may be more persuasive
than others. In particular, some readers in this current age of biblical schol-
arship will diverge from my view on whether some of the non-P, nonflood
primeval texts (e.g., 4:25–26; 5:29; 6:1–4) are pre-P (as argued in this book)
or post-P (as some understand them today). That is why the preceding mix of
arguments has been brought to bear on the problem. Those unpersuaded by
some will hopefully find others plausible, even as absolute certainty on a hy-
pothetical traditio-historical reconstruction like this is impossible.
That said, one more set of arguments that pertain to this question of a sec-
ondary non-P flood narrative remains to be made: an explanation of several
long-recognized seams in the non-P elements regarding Noah’s sons (par-

tially preserved in Gen 9:18–11:9*) as resulting from a flood-related expan-
sion of an initial treatment of Noah as the father of Levantine groups into
a revised picture of him as the father of all of postflood humanity. This and
other aspects of Gen 9:18–11:9 are the focus of the next chapter.
7
Aftermath to the Flood
Layers in the Coverage of Noah’s Descendants in
Gen 9:18–11:9
The previous chapter gathered arguments to suggest that the non-P primeval
history probably did not originally include a flood account. This chapter
explores the question of whether the addition of a flood narrative in Gen 6:5–
8:22* was linked to other shifts in the treatment of (now) postflood humanity
in non-P texts in Gen 9:18ff. After reviewing classic arguments for a basic
distinction between P and non-P materials in Gen 10:1–11:9, this chapter
will analyze the broader formation of the section that describes the aftermath
of the flood in Gen 9:18–11:9. Although a number of recent treatments un-
derstand the non-P portions of this section to be post-Priestly in character,
I will argue that the identification of post-Priestly composition in these texts
applies most clearly to just a few non-P portions in Genesis 10—principally
Gen 10:1b, 5*, 8a, and 26–30.1 Otherwise, it appears that the non-P portions
of Gen 9:18–11:9 represent one or the other of two stages of pre-Priestly com-
position: (1) an early conclusion to the non-P primeval history; and (2) an
expansion of that conclusion into an overview of the development and scat-
tering of postflood humanity. Both of these layers of non-P are presupposed
and then paralleled by the Priestly genealogical overview of the peoples
descended from Noah’s sons, well preserved in the Priestly stratum reflected
in Gen 10:1a, 2–7, 20, 22–23, 31–32.
P, Non-P, and Post-Priestly Material in Gen 10:1–11:9
Before delving into the formation of non-P materials, I turn first to the dis-
tinction of P and non-P in Gen 10:1–11:9.2 Ever since the 1800s, scholars
1 Other possibilities to be discussed below include 10:16–19 and 10:24–25.

2 The identification of Gen 9:18–27 as non-P (as well as pre-P) was discussed previously in
chapter 5 of this book.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190062545.003.0001
Aftermath to the Flood 179
have agreed in distinguishing two basic layers in this material: (1) a Priestly
layer consisting of an introductory Toledot label in 10:1a, which is followed
by a (predominantly) verbless genealogical overview of the descendants of
Noah’s three sons in Gen 10:2–7, 20, 22–23, 31–32; and 2), some fragments
of non-Priestly (verbal) genealogical material in Gen 10:1b, 8–19, 21, and
24–30 followed by the non-Priestly story of the Tower of Babel in Gen 11:1–
9. The verbal/non-P genealogical material in Genesis 10 is stylistically sim-
ilar to earlier non-P material (e.g., Gen 4:17–24) and contrasts with nearby
Priestly genealogical sections (Genesis 5* and 11:10–26) in its use of the Qal
active and Qal passive (e.g., Gen 10:21, 25) forms of the verb ‫ ילד‬to describe
various figures “fathering” descendants.3 Moreover, as I will discuss in de-
tail shortly, the Tower of Babel story manifests a number of specific relations
with the non-Priestly creation account, foremost among them the descrip-
tion of YHWH’s prevention of human achievement of divine immortality
(Gen 3:22–24). Meanwhile, the labels, verbless lists, and concluding sum-
maries in the framework of Gen 10:1a, 2–7, 20, 22–23, 31–32 elaborate the
broader Priestly Toledot pattern (see Gen 5:1; 6:9; 11:10, 26) and parallel the
list-format and structure of other Priestly genealogies in Genesis (e.g., Gen
25:12–18; 36:9–43).
These basic identifications of P and non-P in Gen 10:1–11:9 have been well
established for over a century and are not the subject of any further consid-
eration here. The key issue under discussion in this section is the diachronic
relationship of these Priestly and non-Priestly materials to each other. Most
earlier historical scholars took the non-P and P layers of Gen 10:1–11:9 to be
parts of originally separate P and pre-P (J) sources. More recently, however,
an increasing number of studies have argued that part or all of the non-P
material in Gen 10:1–11:9 is actually a post-Priestly supplement, composed
from the outset to expand upon and correct the Priestly layer that preceded
it.4 This more recent approach to non-P material is supported by three
3 See Genesis 5; 11:10–26 for examples of P’s use of the Hiphil of ‫ ילד‬for a similar meaning.
On the Qal passive in Gen 10:21, 25, see Ronald S. Hendel, “‘Begetting’ and ‘Being Born’ in the
Pentateuch: Notes on Historical Linguistics and Source Criticism,” review of, VT 50 (2000): 42–45
(with citation of earlier treatments on 42, n. 16) along with more general treatments of the qal pas-
sive in Steven E. Fassberg, “The Movement from Qal to Piel in Hebrew and the disappearance of
the Qal Internal Passive,” HS 42 (2001): 252–55; Eric D. Reymond, “The Passive Qal in the Hebrew
of the Second Temple Period, especially as Found in the Wisdom of Ben Sira,” in Sibyls, Scriptures,
and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy, ed. Joel Baden, Hindy Najman, and Eibert Tigchelaar, JSJ 175
(Leiden: Brill, 2016), 1111–15.
4 See, e.g., Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 108–13; Thomas Hieke, Die Genealogien der Genesis,
HBS 39 (Freiburg: Herder, 2003), 34–35; Albert DePury, “Sem. Cham et Japhet. De la Fraternité à
significant indicators: (1) fragments of non-P material serve in their present

context to supplement (e.g., Genesis 10*) or explain (e.g., Gen 11:1–9) elem-
ents in the Priestly material; (2) the non-P genealogical material embedded
in Genesis 10 seems to have significant gaps when compared with its Priestly
counterpart (e.g., there is nothing on Japhet’s descendants and no report of
Ham fathering descendants);5 and (3) certain elements previously identified
as non-P, such as the genealogy of Joktan (Gen 10:26–30), themselves seem
to function in P-like ways vis-à-vis their context.
On closer inspection, the first two types of arguments are not compelling.
With regard to the present supplementary function of non-P elements: the
fact that non-P elements sometimes seem placed to function vis-à-vis a
Priestly structure testifies to the work of the final composer of the text.
This circumstance is compatible with either a supplementary or source-
conflation model for non-P material. With regard to the gaps in the non-P
materials in Genesis 10, it is notable that gaps like these are to be expected
when parallel materials are conflated with one another. Indeed, scholars have
long noted that the conflator of P and non-P appears to have avoided pre-
serving parallel birth and/or death notices for the same figure.6 This makes
it expected, not unusual, that the conflated text would not have preserved a
non-P report describing Ham’s fathering (‫ )ילד‬of sons, even as it does pre-
serve a non-P report of Hamite Egypt fathering sons.7 A (preserved) verbal/
l’Esclavage,” in Koruphaio Andri: Mélanges Offerts à André Hurst, ed. Antje Kolde and Alessandra
Lukinovich (Genève: Droz, 2005), 508; Walter Bührer, “Nimrod Coram Domino—Nimrod Cora
Israhel: Inhalt und Tendenz der Nimrod-Notiz Gen 10,8–12,” BN 173 (2017): 11–12. Earlier
Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 666–67 [ET 498–99] noted the supplementary character of the two
“J” blocks in 10:8–19 and 10:24–30. See also Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis, vol. 1 (Waco, TX: Word,
1987), 214–15 for observations along similar lines. In addition, a few scholars, starting with
Friedrich Tuch, Kommentar über die Genesis (Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1838),
196–97, have argued that the Priestly framework of Genesis 10 was written from the outset as
an expansion of its present context. See, e.g., B. D. Eerdmans, Die Komposition der Genesis (vol.
1 of Alttestamentliche Studien (Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1908), 4; Christoph Levin, Der Jahwist,
FRLANT 157 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 124; and my own earlier work,
David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 99–101.
5 Here, as elsewhere, I follow the common English form of biblical names even when that rend-
ering is somewhat imprecise, unless a variation in vocalization is meaningful to the argument.

6 Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (2nd; Darmstadt/Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1960 [original 1948]), 14 [ET 13–14]; Carr, Reading the Fractures, 98; Joel Baden, The Composition of
the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 2012), 183.
7 Egypt is associated with Ham in several poetic texts—Pss 78:51; 105:23, 27; 106:22.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that Psalms 105 and 106 both show signs themselves of being
based, in part, on Priestly traditions (for summary of the discussion, see Konrad Schmid, Erzväter
und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der
non-P report that Ham had fathered Egypt and Canaan—preparing for the
non-P fathering reports for these figures in Gen 10:13–14 and 10:15 (16–
19)—would have competed (or even conflicted) with P’s listing of Ham’s
descendants in Gen 10:6.
EXCURSUS: The Preservation of the Non-P Notice of Shem’s Fathering

(Gen 10:21)
In this respect, it is actually remarkable that the conflator does appear to
have preserved somewhat parallel non-P and P reports regarding Shem’s
fathering—Gen 10:21 (non-P) and Gen 10:22 (P). This exceptional pres-
ervation of (somewhat) parallel notes about Shem’s offspring was likely
prompted by one or more factors: (1) the particular importance of Shem as
Noah’s implicitly oldest son (and father of the “sons of Eber”); (2) the fact
that the fathering report for Shem in Gen 10:21 is formulated in an ellip-
tical way—a passive verb without an explicit subject—that does not directly
contradict the Priestly listing of Shem’s descendants; and/or (3) the fact that
the non-P notice in 10:21 about Shem as the father of “all of the sons of
Eber” could be understood as compatible with P’s treatment of Shem as the
great grandfather of Eber (Gen 10:22; 11:10–14). Below I will discuss mild
conflicts between P and non-P on this point. Nevertheless, these two treat-
ments could coexist in a conflated text where 10:21 was understood to an-
ticipate Shem’s distant descendants through Eber.
Having established the relative unhelpfulness of the first two major types
of arguments for the post-P character of non-P material in Gen 10:1–11:9, we
are left with the third: certain elements previously identified as non-P seem
to presuppose and prepare for Priestly materials. This is an important indi-
cator that a given text is post-Priestly. We will be better prepared to eval-
uate such arguments after establishing whether and where pre-P material is
located in Genesis 10.
Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments, WMANT 81 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,

1999], 314 ). Moreover, some would see the mention of “the tents of Ham” in association with Egypt
in Ps 78:51 as part of an insertion (e.g., Hermann Spieckermann, Heilsgegenwart: Eine Theologie
der Psalmen, FRLANT 148 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989], 137–38; Frank-Lothar
Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalmen 51—100, HTKNT (Freiburg: Herder, 2000), 423 [ET 290]). For
treatment of theories that Ham was exclusively a figure in P (later added into Gen 9:18, 22 by the con-
flator of P and non-P), see c hapter 5. Such theories have particular difficulty explaining the fathering
report for Egypt/Mitzrayim in Gen 10:13–14.
The next subsections of this chapter gather evidence that some signifi-
cant portions of non-P material were not written for their present context
but instead were part of an originally separate non-P primeval history. I start
with arguments related to the Babel account (Gen 11:1–9) and diverse non-P
materials about Noah’s offspring in Gen 10:8–19, 21. These elements, with
the probable exception of Gen 10:16–19 (to be discussed in the following
section), appear to have been part of an originally separate, pre-P primeval
history that also included Gen 2–4, 5:29, 6:1–4, and the non-P portions of
Gen 6:5–9:27. This discussion prepares for my subsequent arguments that
the genealogy of Joktan in Gen 10:26–30 is post-Priestly and some more
minor materials (e.g., Gen 10:1b, 5*, 8a) seem to have been part of the confla-
tion of P and non-P. This basic distinction of P, non-P, and post-P materials
in Gen 10:1–11:9 is crucial for the argument in the latter half of this chapter,
where I make a case for two literary strata in the non-P materials and discuss
the relation of P to both.
Gen 11:1–9
I start with the end of the non-P materials under discussion, the Tower of
Babel story in Gen 11:1–9. This text offers an account of how the earth came
to be populated by diverse peoples originating in Noah’s family, one that fun-
damentally diverges from the Priestly material that precedes it in Genesis
10. On the one hand, the Priestly material in Genesis 10* describes how the
descendants of Japhet, Ham, and Shem gradually and naturally spread out
after the flood. Moreover, the Priestly summaries of each son’s descendants
specify language as just one of four things that distinguish groups of Noah’s
descendants from one another (Gen 10:20, 31; also likely the original form
of 10:5). On the other hand, the non-P Tower of Babel story (Gen 11:1–9)
describes the division of humanity as the result of an event at a specific time,
one that occurred when YHWH confused human language out of a con-
cern to prevent humanity’s growth in collective power (Gen 11:6–9). This
difference between P’s and non-P’s conception of human diversification is
reflected in the divergent vocabulary that each group of texts uses for these
phenomena. P uses ‫( פרד‬niphal) to describe the natural “spread” of humanity
(Gen 10:32) in contrast to non-P’s use of the more violent root ‫( פוץ‬Gen 11:4,
8)—and the similar ‫ נפץ‬in Gen 9:19—to describe the “scattering” of hu-
manity after the flood. In addition, P uses ‫ לשון‬to refer to the languages that
naturally emerge alongside each other in accordance with humanity’s spread

(Gen 10:5, 20, 31) versus non-P’s use of ‫ שפה‬to designate the one (spoken)
speech of collective humanity that is then confused (Gen 11:1, 7, 9).8
Rather than being composed from the outset as a revisionary supplement
to the different picture of human differentiation in P, the non-P Babel story
in Gen 11:1–9 functions better as a follow-up to the non-P fathering notices
for Noah’s descendants embedded in Genesis 10 (e.g., Gen 10:13–15 [16–19],
21). This non-P genealogy contrasts with P (Gen 10:5, 21, 31) in not system-
atically describing a process of human spatial and linguistic differentiation
that has already taken place.9 If the Babel story had been composed to follow
the Priestly materials of Genesis 10*, its account of the confusion of human
speech and scattering of humanity would have been undermined from the
outset by preceding Priestly materials that depicted such processes as already
having occurred in a gradual and natural way. This sort of narrative incom-
patibility is of the same sort as that already seen in the conflation of originally
separate P and non-P narratives in Gen 1:1–9:17 where doubling and contra-
diction are produced by the combination of P and non-P narratives that were
originally composed to stand separately. In sum, the present combination of
P in Genesis 10* and non-P in Gen 11:1–9 was not produced by a single nar-
rator or a revisionary supplementer with both narratives in view but instead
by a conflator of originally distinct texts who was willing to tolerate such con-
flicts in the interests of preserving large swathes of both narratives.
This understanding of Gen 11:1–9 as composed to be part of an origi-
nally separate, broader non-Priestly text conforms with the fact that 11:1–9
contains a number of connections to non-P texts in the preceding primeval
history (e.g., Gen 3:22, 24; 4:16–17; 6:1–4) while lacking similar integral
connections to P. To start, the Tower of Babel story conforms to the overall
eastern/Mesopotamian setting of the preceding non-P materials, with the
movement of “all the earth” (‫ )כל־הארץ‬from the east (‫ )מקדם‬to Shinar (Gen
11:2; see Gen 10:10) representing a movement of humans from an eastern lo-
cation initially established in the garden of Eden story (Gen 2:8; see also 3:24;
4:16). Furthermore, the picture of the growing power of collective human
8 The notice in Gen 10:25 about the “spreading” (‫ )פלג‬of humanity uses still different vocabulary,
probably because it is linked to the figure Peleg. This verse will be discussed later in the chapter.
9 Gen 10:16–19 is bracketed here and further later in the chapter because it presents a particular
problem, though one not relevant to this analysis. Within this section, the dispersal (‫ )נפץ‬of the clans
of Canaan in Gen 10:18b is explicitly described as occurring “after” (‫ )ואחר‬their fathering by Canaan,
thus placing any geographic distribution of Canaanite peoples at a point after that which is purport-
edly covered by the non-P notices embedded in Genesis 10*.
civilization in Gen 11:3–4 builds on earlier non-Priestly depictions of the

gradual growth of human ability (e.g., Gen 3:6; 4:17, 20–22; 9:20), and this,
in turn, grounds YHWH’s statement in 11:6 that the building of the tower
represents a threatening “beginning” of human endeavors that now requires
intervention (cf. 4:26; 6:1; 9:20; 10:8 for other non-P texts that note various
human “beginnings”). Indeed, as Wellhausen noted long ago, the description
of YHWH’s concern about human power in Gen 11:6 has a striking, organic
resemblance to the description of his concern about human godlikeness in
Gen 3:22.10 The speech to divine beings in Gen 11:7 shares with the Eden
story (Gen 3:22) as well as the story of divine-human unions (Gen 6:1–3)
an implicit focus on divine beings below YHWH. So, too, YHWH’s preemp-
tive act of response, scattering humanity (Gen 11:7–8), resembles similar
preemptive divine responses to potential threats to the boundary between
humanity and divine beings in non-P texts (Gen 3:24; 6:3). Finally, the move-
ment from YHWH’s “seeing” a problem to speech about it and then action
to counteract that problem in Gen 11:5–8 parallels the same sequence in the
non-P flood narrative of Gen 6:5–7; 7:1–5, 10, 12).11
These multiple and integral connections of Gen 11:1–9 to preceding
non-P materials contrast with the relative lack of such connections between
Gen 11:1–9 and Priestly materials. Indeed, as noted above, the main point
of overlap between Gen 11:1–9 and Priestly materials—the common focus
in 11:1–9 (non-P) and Gen 10:5, 20, 31 (P) on the geographical spread of
humanity and its linguistic diversity—is actually a point of contradiction.
Together, the deep connections of Gen 11:1–9 with non-P primeval texts and
their contradiction of key aspects of Priestly materials confirm the basic idea
that Gen 11:1–9 was initially composed to continue a non-P primeval nar-
rative, connected in multiple ways with themes and elements in those pre-
ceding non-P texts. Only later was that narrative, now including Gen 11:1–9,
combined with the Priestly account.
10 Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition Des Hexateuchs und der Historischen Bücher Des Alten
Testaments, 4th ed. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963 [orig. 1876]), 13. In addition, YHWH’s expression of
concern here that nothing that humans plan will be impossible for them (11:6) shows signs of some
kind of specific relationship with Job’s description of God as one from whom no plan can be with-
held (Job 42:2), both of which feature some distinctive expressions (‫“ זמם‬plan” and ‫“ לא־יבצר‬not be
withheld”). In this case, as argued in Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 733–34 [ET 551], Job 42:2 appears
dependent on a fixed hymnic formulation for praise of God on which both it and Gen 11:6 are de-
pendent (with Job 42:2 closer to the formulation)
11 See Levin, Jahwist, 127–29 for these observations and others linking to Gen 18:20–21 and Exod
3:7–8. Parallels between the non-P flood (and related materials like 11:1–9) and parts of the non-P
ancestral history will be discussed later in this chapter and in the next chapter of this book.
To be sure, as will be discussed further later in the chapter, Gen 11:1–9 is dis-
tinct in some notable ways from the non-P materials that immediately precede
it in Genesis 10*. Yet the distinction between Gen 11:1–9 and non-P materials
like Gen 10:13–15 [16–19] and 10:21 is one of differing perspective. It is not
a matter of narrative incompatibility, as it is between 11:1–9 and the P por-
tions of Gen 10* where conflicting accounts of the same basic process follow
one after the other. Therefore, it will be argued below that Gen 11:1–9 seems to
supplement and revise earlier non-P materials of Genesis 10*, whereas it con-
tradicts the Priestly materials of Genesis 10* with which it now is combined.
EXCURSUS: Theories of Stratification within Gen 11:1–9

Though the preceding arguments might be undermined by a theory of strat-
ification within Gen 11:1–9 (e.g., by the idea that the theme of “scattering”
was added secondarily), the text appears to be a literary unity. Gunkel’s
proposal of a city and a tower recension in 1901 was linked to his broader
theory of two J primeval histories and was based on several putative prob-
lems in the text: there are supposedly doubled notices about building mate-
rials in 11:3, a double descent of YHWH in 11:5 and 7, and the doubled
aim of humans to make a name for themselves and avoid scattering in 11:4;
verse 11:8 has both a notice of the humans’ scattering and a following notice
that they ceased their work (which Gunkel took as self-evident if they had
scattered); and verse 11:9 notes both that YHWH confused human speech
and scattered humans from Babylon. These textual features led Gunkel to
see two relatively complete Babel stories preserved in 11:1–9, a city recen-
sion (which Gunkel links to his Je) featuring language confusion in 11:1, 3a
(the wish to build a city in 4:aα plus), 4aβ, 6aα, 7, 8b–9a, and a tower recen-
sion (which Gunkel links to his Jj) focusing on scattering that has been reor-
dered, but can be reconstructed partially in 11:2 (the wish to build a tower
with its top in heaven in 4aα plus), 4b, 3b, 5, 8a, 9b.12
Most scholars have not been persuaded. To start, Gunkel’s separation
of the city of Babylon from its tower is artificial. Mesopotamian cities were
often associated with ziggurats, and the link of Babylon with its famous E-
temen-anki tower was widely known, e.g., in the fifth century by Herodotus
(Hist. I:181). Furthermore, a city by itself would not have posed a clear
threat to YHWH, and it would be quite strange to have a story about the
12 The latest version of the argument appears in Hermann Gunkel, Genesis, HAT.1 (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917), 92–94 [ET 94-95].

construction of a tower in the middle of nowhere.13 The descent in Gen 11:5

is linked to YHWH’s investigation of the human project; Gen 11:7 mentions
descent again at the outset of YHWH’s subsequent proposal to the heavenly
collective of a means to put an end to the human project.14 Rather than being
indicators of parallel narratives, the doubled descents of YHWH (11:5,
7) help highlight the distance that the narrative wants to assert between the
divine and human realms. The other motifs that Gunkel proposes as con-
flicting actually combine well with each other. The notice of brick and as-
phalt construction in 11:3b follows on the people’s statement about making
brick in 11:3a. The ceasing of construction in 11:8b follows naturally, if pre-
dictably, as a consequence of the scattering in 11:8a which in turn is caused
by the language confusion as intended by YHWH in 11:7. Finally, the motifs
of language confusion and (resultant) scattering are again combined (in the
same order) in the name etiology for Babylon in 11:9.15
Overall Gunkel’s approach suffered from two problematic assump-
tions: (a) that a literary narrative could feature only one motif (e.g., scat-
tering or language confusion; city or tower); and (b) that a narrative must
explicitly narrate each step (e.g., an ascent between two descents). On the
contrary, Gen 11:1–9 links multiple elements associated with Babylon to-
gether and records numerous acts in a context that includes prominent
speeches contrasting human (11:3a, 4) and divine (11:6–7) plans. The nar-
rative assumes divine ascent (cf. 11:5, 7) and divine confusion of human
language (cf. 11:7, 8) even though these things are not explicitly narrated.16
Similar problems attend later efforts to identify separate redactional lev-
els, such as those by Seybold17 or Uehlinger.18 Uehlinger rejected some of
13 Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Pt. 1. From Adam to Noah, trans. Israel
Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961 [1944 Hebrew original]), 236–37.

14 Benno Jacob, Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis (Berlin: Schocken Verlag, 1934), 300.
15 See critiques of Gunkel’s approach along these and others in Hubert Bost, Babel: Du Texte au sym-
bole, Monde de la Bible (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1985), 24–25; P. J. Harland, “Vertical or Horizontal: The
Sin of Babel,” VT 48 (1998): 517; Jan Christian Gertz, “Babel im Rücken und das Land vor Augen.
Anmerkungen zum Abschluß der Urgeschichte und zum Anfang der Erzählungen von den Erzeltern
Israels,” in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition (FS Köckert), ed. Anselm Hagedorn and Henrik
Pfeiffer (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009), 18–23; Joel Baden, “The Tower of Babel: A Case Study in the
Competing Methods of Historical and Modern Literary Criticism,” JBL 128 (2009): 217–18 (n. 28).
16 J. Severino Croatto, “A Reading of the Tower of Babel from the Perspective of Non-Identity,” in
Teaching the Bible: The Discourses and Politics of Biblical Pedagogy, ed. Fernando F. Segovia and Mary
Ann Tolbert (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1998), 215; Gertz, “Babel im Rücken,” 22.
17 Klaus Seybold, “Der Turmbau zu Babel: Zur Entstehung von Genesis XI 1–9,” VT 26 (1976): 453–
79, esp. 457–58.

18 Christoph Uehlinger, Weltreich und “eine Rede”: Eine Neue Deutung der Sogenannten
Turmbauerzählung (Gen 11, 1–9), OBO 101 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1990), especially the initial
argument for the literary-critical model on 308–14 and 317–32.
Gunkel’s analysis but nevertheless agreed with the basic idea of separating
out the “scattering” motifs in 4b, 8a, and 9b from a basic story focused on
language confusion and relied on some of the indicators critiqued above
that were used by Gunkel in his source approach. He also thought that the
name etiology of Babylon in 11:9 was secondary because the naming of a
completed Babylon did not fit with the picture of an incomplete city in the
rest of the narrative. Uehlinger’s approach is partly connected to his theory
that the first version of Gen 11:1–9 related to the incomplete construction
of Sargon’s Dur-Sharrukin.19 That theory will be discussed in the following
chapter.
Non-P in Gen 10:8–19, 21
Much as the above discussion of Gen 11:1–9 identified it as contradicting P

materials preceding it in Genesis 10*, so also the bulk of the non-P material
present in Genesis 10* disrupts, rather than supplements, the Priestly mate-
rial with which it is combined. The Priestly framework focuses on eponymous
ancestors of peoples/places and moves from peripheral Japhetite Northern
peoples (in Asia Minor and Greece) in 10:2–5 to Hamite Southern neighbors
of Israel in 10:6–7 (20) before arriving at the Shemite Mesopotamian and
Aramean peoples in Gen 10:22–23 (31) that will lead to Abraham’s father in
Gen 11:10–26. The focus in non-P materials on Mesopotamia in Gen 10:8b–
12 disrupts the general western-southern (Egypt-Cush-Libya) focus seen in
the verbless Priestly framework regarding Ham (Gen 10:6–7). Furthermore,
as was noted previously, the verbal introduction of Shem’s descendants in
Gen 10:21 partially doubles P’s verbless list of Shem’s descendants in 10:22.
Finally, P’s inclusion of Assur and Lud among Shem’s descendants in this Gen
10:22 list contrasts with the treatment of Assur in the non-P verbal material
in Gen 10:11 and Lud as one of Egypt’s sons in the non-P verbal material of
Gen 10:13.
Such occasional and minor conflicts between non-P and P materials do
not have the look of a systematic scribal attempt to supplement and revise an
19 Some additional discussions of Uehlinger’s specific theory include Ron Hendel, re-
view of Christoph Uehlinger, “Weltreich und ‘Eine Rede’: Eine neue Deutung der sogenannten
Turmbauerzählung (Gen 11,1–9),” CBQ 55 (1993): 786; Harland, “Sin of Babel,” 518–20; Andreas
Schüle, Der Prolog der Hebräischen Bibel: Der Literar- und Theologiegeschichtlich Diskurs der
Urgeschichte (Genesis 1–11), ATANT 86 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2006), 387–89; and Gertz,
“Babel im Rücken,” 20–23.
earlier Priestly substructure. Instead, the previously surveyed differences in

detail and in the geographic-conceptual systems found in Genesis 10 speak
for the chapter as a product of the conflation of originally separate P and
non-P genealogical overviews of peoples descending from Noah, each with
its own system and style. As a result of the conflation of these competing sys-
tems, it is quite difficult to develop a clear and simple scheme that explains
the distribution of peoples through Noah’s three sons according to the pre-
sent synchronic form of Genesis 10.20
Once one distinguishes the P and non-P materials in Genesis 10, however,
the particular focus and synchronic function of each layer become clearer.
The basic shape of the Priestly Toledot of Noah’s sons was noted earlier: it
provides a survey of eponymous ancestors of postflood peoples, starting
with the peripheral Japhetite peoples (10:2–5) before moving to the Hamite
Southern neighbors of Israel (10:6–7, 20) and finally to the Shemite peoples
seen as most closely related to Israel (10:22–23, 31). While this peripheral-
to-central (Japhet-to-Shem) organization of the Noachide peoples privileges
the final Shemite peoples to some degree, the Priestly overview of Noah’s
descendants features relatively comparable treatments of the offspring of
each of Noah’s sons. Earlier, P’s creation narrative emphasized the created
diversity of earth’s plants and nonhuman creatures (Gen 1:11–12, 21, 24–25).
This Priestly overview of the diverse peoples descending from Noah consti-
tutes P’s description of the divinely–wished (Gen 1:18; 9:1, 7) filling of the
postflood world with a similar diversity of human beings.21
P’s relatively equal treatment of the descendants of Noah’s sons filling the
world contrasts with non-P’s bipartite distinction between Canaan’s cursed/
enslaved status on the one hand and the higher status of Shem and Japhet on
the other.22 This basic division among Noah’s offspring first appears in the
non-P story of Noah and his sons, beginning with the contrasting descrip-
tion of the sons’ actions in Gen 9:22–23: the younger son (originally Canaan,
now Ham) “sees” the nakedness of his father and reports it to his two brothers
(Gen 9:22), while his two brothers take pains to avoid seeing their father’s na-
kedness (Gen 9:23). The text continues this bipartite distinction among sons
in Gen 9:25–27—two speech reports that contrast Noah’s curse of Canaan,
20 See, for example, the thorough discussion in Detlef Jericke, “Literarische Weltkarten im
Alten Testament,” Orbis Terrarum 13 (2015): 113–21; and the map on p. 353 of Detlef Jericke,
Die Ortsangaben im Buch Genesis: Ein historisch-topographischer und literarisch-topographiscer
Kommentar, FRLANT 248 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013).
21 DePury, “Sem, Cham et Japhet,” 502; Schüle, Der Prolog der Hebräischen Bibel, 373.
22 Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 105.
Ham’s son, to enslavement (Gen 9:25) with Noah’s blessings on the pair of
other sons, Shem and Japhet (9:26–27).23 The non-P genealogical sequel to
Gen 9:20–27 in Genesis 10*, though only partially preserved, continues this
bipartite, one-versus-two grouping of sons (Ham/Canaan versus Shem and
Japhet). Despite the lack of a non-P report of Ham’s fathering preserved in
Genesis 10, the preserved portions of the non-P genealogy feature an over-
view of the descendants of Hamite Egypt (10:13–14) and Hamite Canaan
(10:15–19) before turning to a brief final note on Shem along with Japhet
(10:21). One clearly perceives this bipartite grouping of Noah’s sons in the
non-P material of Genesis 10* only when that non-P material is separated
out from the more even treatment of Noah’s three sons in the Priestly mate-
rial. This is another sign that the non-P material was not composed to sup-
plement the surrounding P material since their combination blurs its main
emphases.
EXCURSUS: The Original Placement of the Material about Nimrod (Gen

10:8b–12).
The non-P material about Nimrod in Gen 10:8b–12 shows signs of hav-
ing originated in a later location in non-P (after Gen 11:1–9) before being
displaced into the Genesis 10 overview of the offspring of Noah’s sons.24
The material about Nimrod diverges from both P and non-P materials in
Genesis 10 in the way that it speaks of the acts of an individual figure rather
than of a figure’s fathering ancestors of various people groups. Nimrod, a
mighty hunter, does not “father” various Mesopotamian cities, but builds
them.25 The “beginning of his kingdom” (‫ )ראשית ממלכתו‬was in Babylon,
Uruk, and Akkad, all three cities in central Mesopotamia, “Shinar.”26 He
23 As noted in Norbert Clemens Baumgart, Die Umkehr des Schöpfergottes: Zu Komposition und
religionsgeschichtlichem Hintergrund von Gen 5–9, HBS 22 (Freiburg: Herder, 1999), 179–81, this
grouping is accentuated by the idea in Gen 9:27 that Japhet should take shelter within Shem’s tent.
24 To be sure, others have suggested different theories of rearrangement. Josephus rearranged
materials from Genesis 10 into the section of his Antiquities following the Babel story (Ant. I vi
1–4; I:122–147), and some recent scholars (e.g., Horst Seebass, Genesis I: Urgeschichte [1,1–11,26]
[Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener-Verlag, 1996], 266; similarly Hieke, Genealogien der Genesis,
109–12) have suggested that some or all of the non-P materials now in Genesis 10 were originally
located after the Tower of Babel story in 11:1–9. The main problem with this theory is that if the Babel
story originally followed a non-P Noah section and concerned Noah and his own sons (Gen 6:5–8:22
and/or 9:18–27), it then becomes difficult to conceive of who “all the earth” (‫ )כל־הארץ‬at the outset of
the Babel story might be.
25 Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 110.
26 For Samaritan evidence on this reading (“all of them”) for Gen 10:10, see John A. Thompson,
“Samaritan Evidence for ‘All of Them in the Land of Shinar,’” JBL 90 (1971): 101–2. For early in-
ternal arguments for this reading, see William F. Albright, “The End of ‘Calneh in Shinar,’” JNES 3
(1944): 254–55.
then leaves Shinar for Assyria27 and builds several great Assyrian cities,
Nineveh, Calah and “Resen” (probably meant as a primeval stand-in for
the later, explicitly Neo-Assyrian, city of Dur-Sharukkin).28 Overall, the
section about Nimrod is so different from the material that surrounds it
in Genesis 10 that even a scholar as skeptical about literary criticism as
Cassuto postulated that the section must have originated from an ancient
source distinct from the rest of the chapter.29
Indeed, there are problems with the placement of this section about
Nimrod’s beginning in Babylon and departing from Shinar (Gen 10:10–
11a) in the present text of Genesis before the (non-P) story about the en-
tire population of primeval humans (“all the earth”) arriving at Shinar,
building Babylon there, and then departing (Gen 11:2–9).30 As Dillmann
suggested early on, Gen 10:8–12 was probably originally placed after, not
before, Gen 11:1–9.31 Indeed, the Nimrod section does not link with the
family theme of the non-P genealogical overview or the broader focus of
Genesis 10 on eponymous ancestors, but it does follow up in multiple ways
on themes in Gen 11:1–9. An original placement of 10:8–12 shortly after
11:9 would explain how an already existing “Babylon” (11:4–9) could be
the “beginning” of Nimrod’s kingdom (10:10). Moreover, the text’s report
of Nimrod’s departure from Shinar to Assyria (10:11) could then be part of
27 On reading Nimrod as the subject of Gen 10:11, see Samuel Abramsky, “Nimrod and the Land
of Nimrod I: On the Perspective on the Beginning of Kingship in the Book of Genesis [Hebrew],”
Beth Miqra 82 (1980): 240; Seebass, Genesis I, 260; John Day, “In Search of Nimrod: Problems in
the Interpretation of Genesis 10:8–12,” in ‘What Mean These Stones?’: Essays on Texts, Philology, and
Archaeology in Honour of Anthony J. Frendo, ed. Dennis Mizzi, Nicholas C. Vella, and Martin R.
Zammit, Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 50 (Leuven: Peeters, 2017), 104.
28 Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, “In Search of Resen (Genesis 10:12): Dūr-Šarrukīn?” in Birkat
Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to
Shalom Paul, ed. Chaim Cohen et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 1:511–24, who notes
(p. 523) that Resen is on a road connecting Nineveh and Calah and thus, in this sense, “between”
them (Gen 10:12a), thus resolving the main objection to identifying Resen as Dur Sharrukin in
Abramsky, “Nimrod and the Land of Nimrod I [Heb],” 248.
29 Cassuto’s formulation is as follows: “One may conjecture that here, in the second part of v. 8
and in the first part of v. 9, as well as in vv. 10–12, several lines of an epic devoted to Nimrod are
quoted—perhaps an excerpt from the very opening lines”; Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the
Book of Genesis: Pt. 2. From Noah to Abraham. with an Appendix: A Fragment of Part 3, trans. Israel
Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964 [1949 Hebrew original]), 200.
30 Samuel Abramsky (“Nimrod and the Land of Nimrod II [Hebrew],” Beth Miqra 83 [1980]: 331)
recognizes these elements and then interprets Gen 10:8–12 as a picture of Nimrod as “hunter” king,
exemplifying an ideal kingship before there were many humans to rule. This seems a somewhat fan-
ciful way to make sense of the present text.
31 Dillmann, Genesis, 164 [ET 313]. Others (e.g., Catherine Vialle, “Babel ou la dispersion [Gn
11, 1–9],” in La Tour de Babel [Arras: Artois presses université, 2012], 17; similarly Bührer, “Gen
10,8–12,” 16–17) have arrived at the same idea, apparently independently, based on the same strong
textual indicators.
a more general dispersal of humanity from Babylon/Shinar that is reported

in Gen 11:8–9.32 In sum, the description of “the beginning of his kingdom”
in Babylon, Uruk, and Akkad fits best in a narrative context that discussed
humanity coming to Shinar and building Babylon before scattering from
there (11:1–9).33
If this theory is correct, the conflator of P and non-P has not pre-
served that narrative context, since the present P/non-P composition
uses P’s genealogy in Gen 11:10–26 to build a bridge from Shem to Terah.
Nevertheless, there are a variety of ways that the note about Nimrod now
found in Gen 10:8b–12 could have been deployed as an interlude after Gen
11:1–9. Whether or not one adopts this theory of the Nimrod section’s dis-
placement to before the Tower of Babel story, then, would depend largely
on whether one presupposes that conflators preserved virtually all of the
source texts with which they worked. If one presupposes that our present
text preserves both P and non-P intact, then a hypothesis about confla-
tional deletion of the original context of Gen 10:8b–12 looks far-fetched.
In that case, the Nimrod material appears as an erratic boulder of unknown
origin in its present context, and its connections to the Tower of Babel story,
as sequel, go un(der-)interpreted. If one sees the connections of Gen 10:8b–
12 to Gen 11:1–9 as sufficient data to posit that the Babel story and Nimrod
material were once in reverse order in their original non-P context, it would
be an additional datum supporting the idea that the non-P and P materials
in Gen 9:18–11:9 were originally composed separately. Indeed, such a pro-
posed rearrangement of the non-P Babel story and non-P Nimrod materi-
als would be incoherent if these texts had been composed from the outset
as supplements to their present contexts in Genesis 10–11. Instead, the ap-
parent rearrangement of the order of the Babel and Nimrod materials, like
the rearrangements of non-P materials noted earlier in the flood narrative
(Gen 7:16b from before 7:12 to after it), is an additional mark of the prob-
able conflation of originally separate (and differently-ordered) sources,
now in Genesis 10.
32 Vialle, “Babel,” 17. Note also Westermann’s (Genesis 1–11, 698 [ET 523]) observation of a sim-
ilar emphasis on migration in Gen 10:18b and 11:2, 8–9. In addition, insofar as material in non-P
following the Babylon story likely focused on descendants of Shem most closely related to Abraham,
Nimrod would originally have stood as a warrior who was a “son of Shem” (son of name), reminis-
cent of the warrior “men of the name” in Gen 6:4.
33 The question of how “all the earth” (Gen 11:1, 9) would make sense in an exclusively non-P
context that only featured a few generations after the flood is a diachronic issue to be addressed in
relation to the non-P primeval history as a whole (whether a flood narrative was an original part of it)
and 11:1, 9 in particular. This will be discussed later in the chapter.
Before moving on, it is important to consider briefly the reasons a confla-

tor might have produced this rearrangement of the Babel and Nimrod mate-
rials, thus producing a text with the Nimrod material about his kingdom
in Babel and going out to Ashur now standing before the account in which
Babel is built and humanity is scattered out from it. I suggest that the confla-
tor of P and non-P followed P’s template in Gen 10:6–7 and supplemented
that list of Ham’s descendants with a (relocated) non-P block regarding
Nimrod (Gen 10:8b–12) and earlier non-P materials regarding Egypt and
Canaan’s descendants (10:13–14). Thus, where P listed Ham’s descendants in
Gen 10:6 as Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan, the conflator followed the order
and contents of that list with sections regarding Cush’s fathering of Nimrod
(Gen 10:8–12), Egypt’s fathering of descendants (10:13–14), and Canaan’s
fathering of descendants along with their areas of settlement (Gen 10:15–
19). At the same time, this conflational supplement to P is introduced by a
new post-P verbal notice of Cush’s fathering of Nimrod (Gen 10:8a) that fol-
lows non-P models for reporting a figure’s “fathering” of a primeval ancestor.
Sons of Ham in Gen Conflational Supplement on Ham’s Descendants

10:6 (P) (Created Mostly out of Non-P materials, with New
Intro in 10:8a)
Cush [non-P’s Nimrod as additional son of Cush]
10:8a conflationary addition: Cush fathered Nimrod
10:8b–12 relocated non-P Nimrod material
(from original location in non-P after 11:1–9)
Egypt 10:13–14 non-P material on Ham’s Egypt
descendants
Put [no non-P material]
Canaan 10:15–19 non-P material on Ham’s Canaan
descendants
‍
The link created here between Cush and Nimrod has often puzzled inter-
preters, especially given the general association of Cush elsewhere in the Bible
with upper Egypt (including Gen 10:6a) and the association of Nimrod in
Gen 10:8b–12 with Mesopotamian cities.34 The theory advanced above would
34 See Jericke, Die Ortsangaben Im Buch Genesis, 76 for a brief discussion of various hypotheses,
including the idea that “Cush” here is associated with the Kassites of Mesopotamia.
suggest that this strange link of Cush and Nimrod in 10:8a was produced by
the conflator of P and non-P.35 This conflator may have been prompted to
make this connection of Cush with Mesopotamia (10:8b–12) by the non-P
section on world rivers in Gen 2:10–14, where “the land of Cush” is mentioned
just prior to the listing of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (Gen 2:13–14).36
As noted previously, the impact of this theory on the discussion in this
chapter is limited. There is a good deal of other data to support the thesis
that P and non-P in Gen 9:18–11:9 were composed separately. Moreover, the
Nimrod materials in Gen 10:8b–12 do not constitute an important lynchpin
in the non-P primeval history, wherever one believes them to have stood
originally. Treatment of these questions about the Nimrod materials is put
forward here nonetheless because a theory of conflational displacement of
the Nimrod materials in Gen 10:8b–12 could solve several thorny problems
regarding their oft-noted distinctive character.
Likely Post-P Materials in Genesis 10
The preceding sections have prepared us to now consider several portions of

Genesis 10 that do appear to be post-Priestly. Like the previously-discussed,
apparent conflational addition in Gen 10:8a, these materials often coordinate
Priestly materials with texts identified above as originally separate, non-P
materials, namely the overview of descendants of Egypt and Canaan in Gen
10:13–15 and the brief note about Shem as being the father of “all of the sons
of Eber” in 10:21. Some cases are more likely than others. I start with the
most extended and clearest case: the apparent post-P origins of the non-P
genealogy of the sons of Joktan (Gen 10:26–30).
35 Ron Hendel has argued that an early date for Gen 10:8a is demonstrated by the use in it of the
Qal stem of ‫ ילד‬to report Cush’s fathering of Nimrod (whereas later texts, e.g., P, used the Hiphil
form of ‫ ילד‬for such fathering reports). As he well knows, however, in this particular locus, the Qal
stem is only witnessed in the proto-MT, while the Samaritan Pentateuch has a Hiphil form of the
verb. Hendel proposes elsewhere that the Qal form witnessed in the proto-MT is the earlier reading
while the Hiphil form is a linguistic modernization (The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and
Critical Edition [New York: Oxford University Press, 1998], 142). Nevertheless, it is striking that the
Samaritan Pentateuch does not modernize the Qal forms of the verb anywhere else. More likely, in
my view, is that the proto-MT reading of the Qal form is a harmonization of the fathering report
for Cush (Gen 10:8a) so that it parallels the fathering reports immediately following for Egypt (Gen
10:13a) and Canaan (Gen 10:15). Moreover, even if Hendel is right about the priority of the proto-
MT Qal reading for Gen 10:8a (over the Hiphil), it is easily understood as a conflational imitation of
these following reports rather than an indicator of Gen 10:8a’s early date.
36 For this connection, see Jericke, Die Ortsangaben Im Buch Genesis, 76.
A Post-Priestly Supplement in Gen 10:26–30
On first glance, the material regarding Joktan’s descendants and their set-
tlement area in Gen 10:26–30 looks much like various pre-P materials in
Genesis 10. For one thing, it contrasts with the P listings of Noah’s grandsons
(Gen 10:2-4, 6–7, 22–23) in featuring a verbal report that Joktan “fathered”
descendants (with the Qal form of ‫)ילד‬. This resemblance to other non-P
materials, along with the unit’s disagreement with P in placing Havilah and
Sheba in the line of Shem (Gen 10:28–29; cf. P in 10:22–23), led most past
scholars to assign this textual block to J/non-P.
Nevertheless, starting with Wenham in 1987, a series of more recent anal-
yses have shown that the genealogy of Joktan in Gen 10:26–29 serves a P-
like function vis-à-vis the Priestly genealogy leading from Shem via Peleg to
Abraham (Gen 11:10–26).37 The following Priestly ancestral narrative dis-
tinguishes between two sons within the Abrahamic line, namely Isaac versus
Ishmael and Jacob versus Esau. In each case, P provides a genealogical over-
view of the descendants of the Abrahamic son who does not inherit the land
promise (Ishmael, Esau) and a notation of their settlement outside the land
of Israel (Gen 25:18; 36:8, 43) before giving a more detailed treatment of that
son’s brother (Isaac, Jacob) who inherits the Abrahamic promise. P gives a
genealogy of Ishmael’s twelve descendants/chiefs (‫ ;נשאים‬Gen 25:12–16)
before a section on Isaac’s descendants (e.g., Genesis 26:34–35; 27:46–28:9;
35:9–15) and then an overview of Esau’s descendants (Gen 36:1–43*) in their
“habitations” (‫ )משבתם‬before the P section on Jacob/Israel’s descendants
(Gen 37:1–2 and mostly remnants on the end of Jacob’s life, e.g. Gen 47:27–
28; 48:3–6; 49:29–33; 50:12–13; 50:22–23).38
37 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 227. See also more recent discussions in Baumgart, Umkehr des
Schöpfergottes, 20–21; Hieke, Genealogien der Genesis, 108; Schüle, Der Prolog der Hebräischen Bibel,
377; and older identifications of 10:26–30 as a late expansion in Rudolph Smend (sr.), Die Erzählung
des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen Untersucht (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1912), 24; and Cuthbert A. Simpson,
The Early Traditions of Israel: A Critical Analysis of the Pre-Deuteronomic Narrative of the Hexateuch
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1948), 66.
38 A mix of materials appears to have been collected in Genesis 36, without consensus on what rep-
resents the original contents of P. Depending on one’s judgment in such matters, it may be that P also
featured twelve “chiefs” (‫ )אלופים‬in Gen 36:40–43, corresponding to the twelve ‫ נשאים‬of Ishmael in
25:12–16. The Septuagint lacks an equivalent to the Hebrew Iram (‫ ;עירם‬MT, SamP; Gen 36:43 and
parallel in 1 Chr 1:54, also in LXX of 1 Chr 1:54), while the Hebrew witnesses (and parallel in 1 Chr
1:54) lack an equivalent to the Septuagint ζαφωιμ (=?‫צפו‬, but note equivalent to this in LXX 36:11 as
Σώφαρ; Abraham Tal, Genesis, Biblia Hebraica Quinta [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2016],
168*; cf. Moshe A. Zipor, The Septuagint Version of the Book of Genesis [Hebrew] [Ramat-Gan: Bar-
Ilan University Press, 2005], 450). It is possible that the original list of chieftains of Edom in Gen
36:40–43 had both figures, and, if so, had the number twelve.
The survey of Joktan’s descendants in Gen 10:26–30 lists twelve39 descen-

dants of Eber, through Joktan, who do not lead up to Abraham and then notes
their “habitation” (‫ )מושבם‬outside Israel in a region extending from “Mesha
toward Sephar,” which is further defined as “the eastern mountain(s).” This
extended treatment of Joktan’s descendants (and not Peleg’s) in Gen 10:26–
30 would have no apparent rationale in an exclusively non-P literary context.
Instead, much as the P ancestral history contrasted dyads of sons of Abraham
who were not included (Ishmael, Esau) or included (Isaac, Jacob) in the land
promise, the genealogy of Joktan in Gen 10:26–29a extends this pattern back to
the proto-Hebrew “sons of Eber,” offering a list of descendants of Eber (through
Joktan) who were not included in the promise prior to the Priestly genealogy of
Eber’s son, Peleg, that leads to the promise-recipient Abraham (Gen 11:18–26).
Furthermore, much like the Priestly sections on Ishmael and Esau concluded
with notations of their settlement outside the land (e.g., 25:18; 36:8, 43), so also
this section on Joktan’s descendants concludes with a notation regarding their
settlement area outside the land. Indeed, it even uses a singular form of the
noun, ‫“( מושבם‬their settlement area”; 10:30), which appears in the plural at the
conclusion of the section on Esau (‫“ ;משבתם‬their settlement areas”; 36:43).40
Together, these indicators support the idea that the genealogy of Joktan in
10:26–30, though following non-P models in its framing as a fathering report
(with ‫ ילד‬in the Qal), is a post-P addition to its context.
To be sure, as others have noted, the list of names of Joktan’s descen-
dants found in Gen 10:26–29a does not appear to have originated in this
literary setting. Instead, it appears to build on an independent listing of
Arabian/South Arabian loci (Gen 10:26–29).41 This tradition overlaps with
39 As noted in Zipor, Septuagint Genesis [Hebrew], 171–72 (paralleling earlier treatments),
Alexandrinus and other LXX traditions lack an equivalent to Obal in Gen 10:28. The earlier version
of the list probably had twelve descendants for Joktan, a traditional number of descendants/tribal
leaders not only for Jacob/Israel, but—as noted earlier—for Ishmael (25:16) and perhaps Esau (Gen
36:40–43). With Gunkel (Genesis, 92) and Witte (Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 106), Obal (‫עובל‬, cf.
‫ עיבל‬in 1 Chr 1:24) is likely a later addition to the list. Alternatively, it is also possible, though less
likely, that Obal was eliminated from Gen 10:28 in the LXX Vorlage or LXX to yield the stereotypical
number twelve.
40 To be sure, the term ‫ מושב‬occurs in a couple non-P contexts as well (Gen 27:39; Num 24:21),
but it is used in quite different ways. Gen 36:43 appears to be the model for 10:30, even as 10:30 (as a
post-P text) diverges slightly from P in using ‫ מושב‬in the singular rather than the plural. In addition,
see Uehlinger, Weltreich und “eine Rede,” 318–19, 559; Hieke, Genealogien der Genesis, 109 on po-
tential links of the designation ‫( הר הקדם‬the eastern mountain; Gen 10:30) most proximately to the
following Babel story (Gen 11:2 ‫ )מקדם‬and more generally to a geographical scheme in earlier non-P
texts such as Gen 2:8; 3:24; and 4:16. This suggests that 10:30, despite its apparent following of some P
models, also links to non-P material (11:1–9) that soon follows.
41 This argument regarding relationship to other traditions is anticipated in Witte, Biblische
Urgeschichte, 106–7. In his WiBiLex article on Genesis 10 (July 2011; http://www.bibelwissenschaft.

P in including the figures/loci of Sheba and Havilah (Gen 10:28–29a), but its
placement of these figures in the line of Shem conflicts with P’s placement of
the same among Ham’s descendants (Gen 10:22–23). Apparently, the post-
Priestly author was not overly concerned with this possible discrepancy, per-
haps because figures of the same name in different lines could be considered
different people.
Minor Elements in Genesis 10 That Are Likely Parts of the Post-P

Conflation
Gen 10:1b.
Before moving to analysis of the formation of the non-P materials, there are a
couple of other loci in Genesis 10 where one can likely detect the hand of the
post-P conflational redactor. The first is the note after the Toledot label, “These
are the descendants of Shem, Ham and Japhet” (Gen 10:1a), in Gen 10:1b: “sons
were born to them after the flood.” Though this note now serves as an exten-
sion of that Toledot label, its verbal report that “sons were born to them after
the flood” reads like a belated and somewhat awkward appendage to a Priestly
heading (10:1a) that already purports to introduce the descendants of these
sons. In addition, the passive verbal formulation of Gen 10:1b—“sons were
born to them” (‫—)ודלויו להם‬diverges from the list-like format of P in the rest of
Genesis 10* and agrees with reports elsewhere in non-P texts of sons being born
to other primeval figures in the primeval period. We see Qal passives used to
report sons being born to Seth, Shem, and Eber in 4:26; 10:21, 25 and daughters
being born to humans in Gen 6:4, while a (possible) niphal form (parallel to that
in 10:1b) is used to report the birth of Irad to Enoch in Gen 4:18. Factors such as
these have led past scholars to assign Gen 10:1b to the J/non-P source.
Upon closer examination, however, it is not clear that Gen 10:1b was once
part of such a separate non-P source. To start, it is unclear what part of the
preceding non-P narrative this verbal report would have connected to. The
note about sons being born to “them” [Shem, Ham, Japhet] in Gen 10:1b
does not function well as a sequel to the story of Noah and his sons in Gen
9:20–27. Indeed, for this reason the original source critics who assigned
Gen 10:1b to non-P tended to see it as connecting directly to Gen 9:18a or
de/stichwort/34251/), Witte suggests (“Völkertafel,” section 2.3) that one reason for the addition of
the Joktan list of Arabian and South Arabian tribes was the late advance of Nabatean tribes. Notably,
we see a similar summary notation to that used for the sons of Joktan (‫ )כל־אלה בני יקטן‬in the gene-
alogy of Arabian tribes descending from Keturah in Gen 25:4 (‫)כל־אלה בני קטורה‬.
9:18–19 as a whole, thus separating the non-P introduction of Noah’s sons

(Gen 9:18a) from the story of Noah and his sons that follows it (Gen 9:20–
27).42 If, however, one sees an original connection of Gen 9:18 with 9:20–27
(as was argued in c hapter 5 of this book), then it appears more likely that Gen
10:1b is not a displaced element of the J/non-P source but was instead written
from the outset as a continuation of the Toledot label in Gen 10:1a. Indeed,
the reference to sons being born to them in 10:1b connects seamlessly to the
preceding Priestly listing of Shem, Ham, and Japhet in the Toledot label of
Gen 10:1a. Moreover, the reference to these sons being born “after the flood”
in Gen 10:1b coordinates the Genesis 10 genealogy of Noah’s offspring with
the preceding flood narrative, emphasizing—especially after the disruption
of the (non-P) story of Noah and his sons (Gen 9:18–27)—that the overview
of Noah’s descendants in Genesis 10 is an overview of postflood humanity.
This resumptive function of Gen 10:1b is an indicator that it likely was added
to the Gen 10:1a Priestly Toledot label at a time when P and non-P were com-
bined and the non-P story of Noah and his sons was included between the
flood narrative (6:9–9:17) and this Priestly introduction to an overview of
postflood humanity (Genesis 10:1a). In this case, as in the case of the previ-
ously discussed conflationary additions in Gen 10:8a and 10:26–30, the con-
flationary author of Gen 10:1b seems to have followed the model of verbal
birth reports in non-P materials.
Gen 10:5 (Formulation)

Next, there is the question of the formulation of the conclusion to the survey
of the sons of Japhet (Gen 10:5). Scholars have for some time noted various
problems with this verse. It diverges from the similar Priestly concluding sec-
tions for Ham and Shem: “these” are the sons of Ham/Shem “according to
their clans and their languages, in their lands in/according to their nations”
(Gen 10:20, 31). Gen 10:5, for its part, concludes: “[F]‌rom these spread the
islands of the nations in their lands, each according to its language, according
to their clans in their nations.” The key differences are indicated in the fol-
lowing table. Boldface is used to indicate extra elements in Gen 10:5, while
italics highlight elements that appear in a different order than the parallel
formulations of 10:20, 31.
42 Wellhausen, Composition Des Hexateuchs, 8, 13–14; John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on Genesis, 2nd ed., ICC Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1930), 207.
Chart
Comparison of 10:5, 20, 31 (bold elements are unique to 10:5)
10:20 ‫אלה בני־חם למשפחתם ללשנתם בארצתם  בגויהם‬
10:31 ‫אלה בני־שם למשפחתם ללשנתם בארצתם  לגויהם‬
10:5 ‫מאלה נפרדו איי הגוים בארצתם איש ללשונו למשפחתם בגויהם‬
If 10:5 followed the models in Gen 10:20, 31

‫אלה [בני־יפת] למשפחתם ללשנ]תם [בארצתם בגויהם‬
10:20 These are the sons of Ham

according to their clans and their languages, in their lands in their
nations.
10:31 These are the sons of Shem
according to their clans and their languages in their lands according
to their nations.
10:5 From these spread the islands of the nations in their lands,
each one according to his language by their clans in their nations
If 10:5 followed the models in Gen 10:20, 31:

These are the sons of Japhet
according to their clans and their languages, in their lands in their nations‍
Many translations of Gen 10:5 harmonize it with the formulations in Gen

10:20, 31 by beginning it with a verbless clause, ‫“( אלה בני־יפת‬These are the
sons of Japhet”), before describing their spreading. Such an emendation has
no manuscript support. The differences in Gen 10:5 extend beyond the lack of
an initial verbless clause such as those found in 10:20, 31. The verse includes
several of the elements present in Gen 10:20, 31, but they are (re)arranged such
that 10:5 is not a summary conclusion to the list of Japhet’s descendants (as
10:20, 31 are for the lists of Ham’s and Shem’s) but rather a description of the
spreading of a subgroup of Japhet’s descendants: ‫“( איי הגוים‬the islands of the
nations”).
On the one hand, the final part of the Japhet section in Gen 10:5 features
a number of elements found in the substantially parallel summary formu-
lations in Gen 10:20, 31—for example, ‫“( אלה‬these”), ‫“( בארצתם‬in their
lands”), ‫“( במשפחתם‬in their clans”), ‫“( בגויהם‬in their nations” as in 10:20;
cf. ‫ לגויהם‬in 10:31), and a form of “language” (‫ ;ללשונו איש‬cf. ‫ ללשנתם‬10:20,
31). On the other hand, the divergences of Gen 10:5 from 10:20, 31 suggest
that, upon closer inspection, the note about spreading in Gen 10:5 is a revi-
sion of an earlier summary heading for Japhet that once corresponded more
closely to Gen 10:20, 31 (see the earlier parallel version for 10:5 following
models in 10:20, 31). Whereas the mentions of diverse “clans,” “languages,”
and “nations” in Gen 10:20, 31 make sense in concluding summaries of
the various kinds of diversity represented among Ham and Shem’s descen-
dants, these elements have a less obvious function in a note about the spatial
spreading of “the islands of the nations” (Gen 10:5). The main element in the
lists of Gen 10:20, 31 that is relevant to such a note about spreading is ‫ארצתם‬
(“their lands”). And, indeed, precisely this element has been switched with
‫“( למשפחתם‬according to their clans”) in 10:5 (cf. 10:20, 31) so that this spa-
tial element of lands now immediately follows the verb for spreading: ‫מאלה‬
‫“( נפרדו איי הגוים בארצתם‬from these the islands of the nations spread in
their lands”). After this, Gen 10:5 preserves the other aspects of ethnic di-
versity seen in Gen 10:20 and 31—language, clan, and nation—despite the
relative lack of fit of these elements with a notice about spreading. Yet Gen
10:5 does show some interest in the linguistic distinctiveness of the Greek-
speaking “sons of Javan” through a switch from ‫“( ללשנתם‬according to their
languages”), seen in Gen 10:20, 31, to ‫“( איש ללשונו‬each one according to his
language”).
Together these indicators suggest that the unique and somewhat obscure
formulation of the conclusion to the Japhet section (Gen 10:5) was produced
through a conflational modification of an original Priestly summary heading
(akin to Gen 10:20, 31) into a notice about the spreading and habitation of
the sons of Javan that is similar to the non-P notice about spreading of the
clans of Canaan (Gen 10:18b). Through this modification of the Priestly
summary conclusion for Japhet, a conflator (or perhaps a later scribe) made
the Japhet section conclude with a spatially oriented note about a subgroup
in Japhet, a note about spreading that then paralleled the (non-P) one about
Canaanites spreading toward the end of the Ham section (Gen 10:18b–19)
and the post-P note about the settlement of Joktan’s descendants toward the
end of the Shem section (Gen 10:30).43
43 See Jan Christian Gertz, Das erste Buch Moses (Genesis): Die Urgeschichte Gen 1–11, ATD
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 310 for discussion of the older proposal (revived in
Seebass, Genesis I, 257) that this set of shifts may have been prompted by the late addition (in Gen
10:4b) of the island peoples, Kittim and Rodanim to the list of Japhet’s descendants.
Conclusion on P and Non-P in Gen 9:18–11:9
In combination with the discussion of Gen 5:29 and 9:18–27 in chapter 5, the
arguments in this chapter have, at this point, identified distinctions between
three layers in Gen 9:18–11:9. I have agreed with past analyses in identifying
a Priestly layer in Gen 9:18–11:9. This layer consists of the listings of the off-
spring of Noah’s sons in Gen 10:1a, 2–7, 20, 22–23, 31–32, followed by the
Priestly genealogy of Shem to Terah in 11:10–26. In addition, the following
materials remain as potential parts of a non-Priestly treatment of Noah and
his descendants that originally stood separate from the P material that it now
supplements: Gen 9:18–27; 10:13–19, 21, 24–25; 11:1–9 followed in some
way by the note on Nimrod (Gen 10:8b–12).44 The third identifiable layer
(discussed thus far) is a layer that appears to bridge between those (earlier)
non-P and P strata. Its contents include:
(1) An extension of the P Toledot heading (10:1a) in 10:1b, which specifies

that the genealogical overview introduced by that Toledot heading is
an overview of offspring of Noah’s sons born after the flood. This spec-
ification may be prompted in part by the presence of the non-P story
of Noah and his sons (Gen 9:18–27) between the flood narrative (Gen
6:5–9:17) and the Toledot heading (10:1a), and it appears to be mod-
elled on several non-P verbal reports of sons being born to primeval
figures (e.g., Gen 4:18).
(2) The creation of a note about the spreading of the sons of Javan in Gen
10:5, on the model of the notice about spreading of Canaanite clans in
Gen 10:18b, out of an earlier, Priestly version of Gen 10:5 that summa-
rized the sons of Japhet in a way parallel to similar notices for the sons
of Ham (10:20) and Shem (10:31).
(3) An extension in Gen 10:8–19 of the Priestly coverage of Ham’s sons
in 10:6–7, which relocates pre-P Nimrod material (10:8b–12) from
its (potentially) original position after Gen 11:1–9 and makes the
Mesopotamian hero Nimrod into an additional son of Ham’s firstborn,
Cush (Gen 10:8a), before continuing with material about Egypt (Gen
10:13–14) and Canaan (Gen 10:15 [16–19]). Again, the new fathering
report in Gen 10:8a appears to have been modeled on non-P verbal
44 Questions will be raised below regarding Gen 10:16–19 and 24–25 as part of this layer.
fathering reports, but the overall treatment of Ham’s offspring in Gen

10:8b–19 builds on and supplements Priestly material (in 10:6–7).‍
Finally, the genealogy of Joktan’s descendants in Gen 10:26–30 is a likely

post-Priestly addition (whether conflational or post-conflational) that sur-
veys descendants of Eber (through Joktan) that are left out of the promise
and settle outside the land before the P genealogy in Gen 11:16–26 traces the
genealogy of Eber’s descendants (through Peleg) that lead to Abraham
Insofar as this analysis of post-P material in Genesis 10 is correct, it less-
ens the likelihood that the Priestly layer of Genesis 10 was originally com-
posed as a compositional extension and reframing of non-P material. To be
sure, some indicators might point in that direction, and this author has been
among those favoring an understanding of the Priestly layer of Genesis 10
as having been created at or after the point when P and non-P were com-
bined.45 In particular, I (along with a number of others) have been struck
by the overlap and narrative incongruence that would have existed in a sep-
arate Priestly source that moved fairly rapidly from a listing of Arpachshad
among Shem’s descendants in Gen 10:22 to the following report that Shem
fathered Arpachshad.46 Nevertheless, I now feel that such an indicator is an
insufficient ground for positing that P in Genesis 10 originated as a compo-
sitional expansion of the non-P material. Instead, as suggested in c hapter 4,
the overlap between that material and the Shem-to-Abraham genealogy in
Gen 11:10–26 (Gen 10:22//11:10; also 10:1aα~11:10aα) was likely caused by
a Priestly author’s decision to preface a section from the Toledot book on
the “descendants of Shem” (Gen 11:10–26) with a “descendants of Noah’s
sons” section (10:1aα) showing the initial fulfillment of the (renewed) cre-
ation blessing (Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7) in the postflood period. This then made
the Toledot book’s report of Shem fathering Arpachshad in 11:10 function
within its new (P) context as a resumptive introduction of Shem’s line at the
outset of the overall Shem-to-Abraham genealogy in Gen 11:11–26.47
45 See previous note 4.

46 In my earlier discussion I also drew on others’ arguments that, in light of the notice of the
spreading of the “islands of the nations” in P’s material about Japhet (10:5), P’s lack of notices of hab-
itation for Ham’s and Shem’s descendants was another indicator that Priestly material was created to
build around non-P material in Genesis 10. The discussion of Gen 10:5 in this chapter now provides
an alternative explanation for the current formulation of Gen 10:5, one that weakens this potential
example of P’s supplementary quality.
47 It is also possible that such overlap between P in Genesis 10* and 11:10–26 reflects P’s appropri-
ation of a pre-P genealogical survey of peoples (see, e.g., Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des
Pentateuch, BZAW 189 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990], 279).
More remains to be done in assessing the likely relation of the previously

discussed P and non-P layers to each other. Are they genetically related, and,
if so, in which order? That discussion will be taken up after the following sec-
tion on stratification within the originally separate non-P materials. Once
the formation of non-P materials has been treated, we will be better prepared
to explore the extent to which P presupposes one or more layers of non-P or
vice versa.
Stratification in Non-P’s Treatment of Noah and

His Offspring
Having initially distinguished non-P, P, and post-Priestly conflationary lay-

ers in Gen 9:18–11:9, I turn in this section to the hypothesis that the addition
of a flood narrative in Gen 6:5–8:22*, discussed in chapter 6, was linked to
other shifts in the treatment of (now postflood) humanity in the non-P texts
of Gen 9:18ff. Building on long-observed indicators of growth in the story of
Noah and his sons (Gen 9:18–27) and in the non-P account of the growth of
diverse humanity from Noah’s sons (Gen 10:1–11:9*), I will discuss several
indicators of an overall compositional expansion in this non-P material that
was connected to the addition of a flood account. This pre-Priestly layer of
expansion turned a treatment of one human family, Noah and his sons, into
an overview of the progenitors of (postflood) humanity in general. Where
once these sons of Noah were implicitly the ancestors of Levantine groups
close to ancient Judah, the compositional additions in Gen 9:18–11:9* now
show Noah’s sons scattering over the entire earth after the flood and diversi-
fying in language. Furthermore, when these potential secondary elements of
non-P are bracketed out, we are left with a non-P primeval history that may
once have stood separate from the non-P ancestral history found in the later
chapters of Genesis that it now introduces.
The Addition of Ham to the Story of Noah and His Sons

(9:18–27) and a Related Expansion in Genesis 10:13–14
I start with the story of Noah and his sons in Gen 9:18–27. In chapter 5
I gathered scholars’ observations that led to the conclusion that the orig-
inal pre-P story of Noah and his sons featured Shem, Japhet, and Canaan,
rather than the current Shem, Ham, and Japhet. This theory has been a com-
monplace in study of Genesis 9 since the 1800s. What has been less than
clear in this discussion is why an author-redactor would go to the trouble of
inserting a new figure, Ham, into an earlier story focused on Shem, Japhet,
and Canaan. Now, on the other side of the discussion of the secondary char-
acter of the non-P flood narrative in c hapter 6 of this book, I suggest that
the addition of Ham was made as part of an expansion of the genealogy
of Noah’s sons from an overview of Levantine peoples close to Judah into
a genealogy that purported to provide a broad overview of postflood peo-
ples in general. In particular, the addition of Ham as the father of Canaan
in Gen 9:18–27 made possible the inclusion of Egypt in the non-P overview
of postflood peoples, now standing alongside Canaan as another offspring
of Noah’s son, Ham (Gen 10:13–14, 15–19). Starting with Abraham’s trip to
Egypt in Gen 12:10–20, Egypt is a particularly important people, featured in
a number of the non-P ancestral narratives that follow Genesis 10, including
the non-P stories about the Egyptian Hagar in Genesis 16* and 21:8–21 and
the Joseph story of Gen 37–50, not to mention the Moses-exodus tradition
more generally.
The addition of Ham to Gen 9:18–27 provides for the inclusion of Egypt
in the non-P overview of Noah’s sons as progenitors of all of the earth’s (post-
flood) peoples. To be sure, as noted above, the present conflated text does
not preserve a non-P fathering report by Ham of Egypt (nor of Canaan, for
that matter). Nevertheless, the text does preserve some indirect evidence of
the original existence of such a non-P fathering report by way of the non-
P fathering report for Hamite Egypt found in Gen 10:13–14.48 At the same
time, this non-P fathering report for Egypt distinguishes itself in its extended
list of seven49 people, peoples who are designated by plurals as opposed to
the compact non-P formulations for Canaan (Gen 10:15) and Shem (Gen
10:21) that are focused on eponymous individuals—Canaan’s fathering of
Sidon and Het and Shem’s fathering of “all of the sons of Eber.” This distinc-
tion in formulation has led numerous prior scholars to plausibly identify
the list of Egypt’s descendants in Gen 10:13–14 as a later expansion of its
48 An earlier non-P link of Egypt and Ham may be reflected in P’s treatment in Gen 10:6. As was
suggested in a discussion of this material with Joel Baden, one could suppose that P was the first to list
Noah’s sons as Shem, Ham, and Japhet, with the additions of Ham in Gen 9:18, 22 then being inser-
tions by the conflator of P and non-P aimed at conforming a non-P (J) story of Shem, Japhet, and
Canaan with its P context. Such a theory, however, has more difficulty than the one offered here in ac-
counting for the existence of a verbal, non-P like genealogy of Egypt’s descendants in Gen 10:13–14.
49 This number is eight if the Philistines mentioned in 10:14 are included.
non-P context.50 And this marked secondary quality of the fathering report
for Hamite Egypt reinforces the arguments above for the secondary quality
of the inclusion of Ham in Gen 9:18–27.
The Description of the Spreading of Postflood Humanity

(Gen 11:1–9; also 9:19)
Scholars have long noted ways that the Babel story’s picture of a unified
humanity—“all the earth” (‫ ;כל־הארץ‬Gen 11:1)—being scattered by YHWH
across “the surface of all the earth” (‫ ;על־פני כל־הארץ‬Gen 11:8) does not con-
form well with the preceding non-P picture of the division of Noah’s sons
into separate peoples descending from Noah’s sons and grandsons. Indeed,
as Wellhausen already noted, it is difficult to know where a story of the scat-
tering of broader humanity in 11:1–9 could have stood in relation to the
table of nations. Its focus on the movement and eventual scattering of “all
the earth” (‫ )כל־הארץ‬makes it function poorly as an immediate follow-up
to the story of Noah and his sons. If Noah’s offspring—each fathers of dif-
ferent peoples in Gen 9:25–27 and in the non-P materials of Genesis 10*—
are imagined to have joined into a unified people by the outset of Gen 11:1–9,
then the ethnic significance of the genealogical division among Noah’s sons
in Genesis 10* is compromised.51
In this respect, it seems unlikely that the author of the non-P material
in Gen 9:20–27 and Genesis 10* was also the author of the Tower of Babel
story. If Gen 11:1–9 is thus a secondary addition to non-P, the question then
arises about how this material came to be combined in the way it now stands.
Wellhausen thought that the Tower of Babel story was originally located
earlier, continuing the Cain-Lamech genealogical section (4:17–24) and
standing as a part of an early primeval history that did not yet include a flood
narrative. But the focus on a broader humanity described as “all the earth”
functions even worse as a sequel to the unilinear Cain-Lamech genealogy
than it does to the non-P survey of the offspring of Noah’s sons. At least with
the non-P survey of peoples descending from Noah’s sons, we have a world
50 E.g., Smend, Erzählung Des Hexateuch, 24; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 692 [ET 518–19]; Lothar
Ruppert, Genesis, 1. Teilband Gen 1,1–11,26, Forschung Zur Bibel 70 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag,
1992), 469; Levin, Jahwist, 125; Seebass, Genesis I, 266; Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 108.
51 Wellhausen, Composition Des Hexateuchs, 12–13, with the latter sentence a paraphrase of
Wellhausen’s comment on 13.

composed of diverse peoples—especially so if those peoples include Egypt

and related people groups (10:13–14) and perhaps additional Canaanite eth-
nicities (10:16–18a). The genealogy leading from Cain to Lamech concludes
with a considerably smaller number of people in view in the diverse occupa-
tional groups initiated by Lamech’s sons (4:20–22).
It is more plausible to suppose that Gen 11:1–9 is part of a reconceptu-
alization of the ethnic division implicit in the non-P genealogy of Noah’s
sons—a reconceptualization that was connected to the transformation of
that genealogy into an overview of postflood humanity. The author who ex-
ecuted this transformation was faced with the challenge of explaining how
Noah’s tiny family came to populate the entire postflood earth after the deci-
mation of humanity by the flood. This author started by noting, immediately
after Noah’s sons are introduced (Gen 9:18), that “from them” (‫“ )מאלה‬all the
earth scattered” (‫ ;נפץ‬9:19b). The beginning of this note, Gen 9:19a, dupli-
cates the content of Gen 9:18 (“the sons of Noah were . . . ”), and Gen 9:19 as
a whole interrupts the movement from the list of Noah’s sons in Gen 9:18 to
the story about Noah and his sons for which it prepares in Gen 9:20ff.52 Gen
9:19b cannot report an event understood as contemporaneous with Noah’s
family and sons, since it concerns the spreading of a larger population, ‫כל־‬
‫“( הארץ‬all the earth”), that will descend from them. The hypothesis being
advanced here is that this additional—interruptive and doubling (9:18//
9:19a)—note about the role of Noah’s sons in populating the earth (Gen 9:19)
was added to anticipate the Babel account in Gen 11:1–9, prefacing the mate-
rials about Noah’s sons in Gen 9:20–10:32 with a note about the future spread
of the offspring (‫ )כל־הארץ‬to come from them (‫ )מאלה‬over the postflood
earth (11:1–9).53
Nevertheless, this author could not tell the complete story of this scat-
tering of Noah’s offspring across the earth until after his expanded version
of the overview of ethnic offspring of Noah’s sons, now partially preserved
in Gen 10:13–15 (possibly 16–19) and 10:21 (perhaps also 10:24–25). That
story of scattering is found in the Tower of Babel narrative in Gen 11:1–9, a
story that echoes Gen 9:19 through featuring a similar verb for scattering, ‫פוץ‬
9–8 ,11:4(; cf. ‫ נפץ‬9:19) and multiple references to “all the earth” (‫;כל־הארץ‬
11:1, 9a; also used for the earth’s surface in 11:8, 9b). In this way, the reviser
52 Ruppert, Gen 1,1–11,26, 416.

53 Cf. Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 288–89, who likewise sees Gen 9:19 as an anticipation of Gen 11:1–9,
albeit a post-Priestly one. For a somewhat similar phenomenon (using an infinitive construct rather
than perfect), note the anticipation of Elijah’s departure in 2 Kgs 2:1.
of the non-P account of Noah’s offspring enclosed the earlier non-P genealog-
ical material about Noah and his sons and revised its genealogical account of
implicit ethnic diversity with an introductory anticipation (9:19) and fuller
account (11:1–9) that emphasized the scattering of humanity (“all the earth”)
across the whole world (“all the earth”). The secondary character of this con-
ceptualization explains the contrast in the non-P materials between the im-
plicit idea of genealogically grounded ethnic diversity in the non-P material
of Gen 9:25–27 and Genesis 10* and the idea of YHWH’s active scattering of
postflood humanity in 11:1–9. Gen 9:19 and 11:1–9, standing as they do on
either side of the material about Noah and his offspring, represent a redactor-
author’s best attempt to add the distinct idea of YHWH’s active scattering of
unified humanity to a genealogical overview that had no exact place for it.
Moreover, it is only in the concluding Tower of Babel account that the reader
perceives the particular significance of the reference to “all the earth” (‫כל־‬
‫ )הארץ‬found in Gen 9:19. In Gen 9:19 (as in Gen 11:1 as well) this phrase
designates (only) the broader humanity that spreads from Noah’s sons, but
Gen 11:8–9 uses the phrase both for the humanity that is scattered and the
broad surface of the earth across which they spread. This shared terminolog-
ical feature in texts that treat the populating of all the earth by humanity, also
designated as “all the earth,” is another indication that Gen 9:19 and 11:1–9
are together focused on providing an account of the populating of the deci-
mated postflood earth by Noah’s offspring.54
One more indication of the connection of the Babel story (Gen 11:1–9)
to the (secondary) non-P flood narrative is the similarity between its report
of YHWH’s response to human building in Gen 11:5–7 and the introduc-
tion to the non-P flood account in Gen 6:5–7. Both divine responses begin
with YHWH “seeing” (‫ )ראה‬a problem (Gen 6:5; 11:5), followed by a divine
speech report where YHWH expresses (to himself) his decision about how
to address the problem (Gen 6:7; 11:[6–]7). Furthermore, as we will see in
54 This concept of Gen 9:19 as related to Gen 11:1–9 can be found in numerous older treatments,
e.g., Jacob, Genesis, 303; Bost, Babel, 76; as well as in some more recent discussions (e.g., Hieke,
Genealogien der Genesis, 109–10). Nevertheless, treatments such as those of Westermann (Genesis
1–11, 650–51 [ET 486]; and Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 101 argue for an understanding of a sig-
nificant contrast between the neutral report of human spreading in Gen 9:19 and a negative account
of YHWH’s punitively scattering humans because of their building of the tower and city at Shinar in
Gen 11:1–9. Putting aside questions about just how much Gen 11:1–9 is a story of crime and pun-
ishment, these treatments seem to overlook that there is no real place in the brief Gen 9:19 note
about Noah’s sons for a fuller anticipation of YHWH’s role and motivation in human scattering. The
emphasis there is on the idea that from them—from Noah’s three sons—all of postflood humanity
“scattered.”
more detail in the next chapter, there are parallels in both 6:5–7 and 11:5–7
to the prelude to the destruction of Sodom (Gen 18:20–21), one of several
elements that connect the non-P flood narrative and Babel story to the non-
P ancestral story. The parallels among Gen 6:5–7, 11:5–7, and 18:20–21 are
just one indicator—to be supplemented by more extensive discussion in the
next chapter—that the Gen 11:1–9 Babel story is part of a secondary compo-
sitional stratum that begins in the non-P flood narrative (e.g., Gen 6:5–7),
explains the population of the whole earth out of Noah’s tiny family in the
wake of the flood’s destruction (Gen 9:19), and is then continued in parts of
the non-P story of Abraham (e.g., Gen 18:20–21).
Before moving on, it should be noted that this hypothesis presupposes that
a scribe expanding on a given text—in this case, a non-P primeval history—
could skillfully link with that text in multiple ways. To recapitulate several
parts of the preceding discussion, it is apparent that the Tower of Babel story
links in multiple ways with the preceding primeval history: presupposing the
location of humans in the east (Gen 2:8; 3:24; also 4:16), obliquely providing
a collective counterpart in this nameless group of humanity attempting to
make a name for themselves (Gen 11:4; cf. “all the earth” 11:1) to the theme
of individuals gaining a heroic “name” (cf. Gen 6:4; “Shem” in Gen 9:18–27;
10:21), and adding another locus where YHWH is depicted as concerned
about and preemptively responding to a threat to the boundary between
humans and the divine realm (Gen 11:6–8; cf. non-P 3:24; 6:1–3).55 These
and other sorts of intricate links to an earlier composition are not necessarily
characteristic of all scribal expansions, but they are not ruled out either, as is
seen, for example, in similarly specific ways that the non-P flood narrative
adopts terminology and rhetoric from preceding non-P narratives of crea-
tion (Gen 2:4b–3:24) and divine-human marriages (Gen 6:1–4).
On the one hand, the Tower of Babel story features multiple and integral
links with non-P materials, while lacking clear connections to P materials
and contradicting key parts of P’s conceptuality. This establishes the story
as a likely part of an originally separate non-P text. On the other hand, the
Tower of Babel story (along with Gen 9:19) diverges from the bulk of pre-
ceding non-P materials in Genesis 10* in its distinctive emphasis on the
55 It should be noted that these elements are only the beginning of various ways that the lan-
guage, design and emphases of Gen 11:1–9 resemble other non-P materials. Here again Wellhausen,
Composition Des Hexateuchs, 13, including n. 1, provides an interesting comparison point. For him,
the similar profile (“gepräge”) of Gen 11:1–9 and 3:22 is a sign of identical authorship. Yet the same
indicators can point to the modeling of Gen 11:1–9 on Gen 3:22 (and other non-P texts) rather than
their common authorship.
“scattering” of Noah’s descendants across the surface of the earth.56 In the

end, the Tower of Babel story in Gen 11:1–9 features the sort of mix of indica-
tors that would point to its existence as a supplement to non-P rather than an
original part of it.
Other Signs of Scribal Supplementation of Non-P

in Gen 9:18–11:9
So far the discussion has identified two likely layers preserved in the pre-P
materials of Gen 9:18–11:9: (1) an initial layer focused on Noah as the pro-
genitor of Shem, Japhet, Canaan, and a limited set of grandchildren through
them (e.g., Sidon and Het in Gen 10:15; “all the sons of Eber” in Gen 10:21);
and (2) an expansion—related to the addition of the non-P flood narrative—
that transformed Noah into the father of all postflood humanity, scattered
across “all the earth” (Gen 9:19; 11:1–9), which now included Ham (Gen
9:18*, 22*, 24*) as father of Egypt and his descendants (Gen 10:13–14) along
with Canaan (Gen 10:15).
The next sections explore the prospect that some other pre-P texts about
the spreading of (parts of) humanity in Gen 9:18–11:9 may be part of the
same transformation: Gen 10:16–19 and Gen 10:24–25. Scholars have long
identified each of these as secondary for other reasons. The argument offered
here begins with an analysis of the non-P materials about Ham and Shem
that precede each of these blocks, arguing that Gen 10:15 and 10:21 were the
original follow-up to the story of Noah and his sons (Gen 9:20–27). This dis-
cussion then prepares for discussions of Gen 10:16–19 and 10:24–25 as sec-
ondary additions to their contexts, whether on a pre-or post-Priestly level.
The Focus and Emphases of the Earliest Non-P Survey of the Offspring
of Noah
Originally the list of Noah’s sons in non-P Gen 9:18–10:21* seems to have
had a more local focus. This is most clear in the case of Canaan. Though it
has proven notoriously difficult to determine the exact scope of the land des-
ignated as “Canaan,” both biblical and nonbiblical materials seem to treat
56 As noted earlier, the notice about the “spreading” (‫ )פוץ‬of Canaanite clans in Gen 10:18b could
be an additional example of this theme in pre-P, but this element also could be part of a post-Priestly
stratum.
“Canaan” as a region contiguous with and/or overlapping with Phoenicia

and the land of Israel. Moreover, the term “Canaanite” within the Bible gen-
erally designates the pre-Israelite inhabitants of that region.57 The report that
Canaan fathered Sidon and Het in Gen 10:15 reflects this understanding, with
Phoenicia represented by the figure of “Sidon” and the pre-Israelite inhabit-
ants of the inland hills represented by “Het.” Sidon was the old head city of
the Phoenicians and frequent symbol for Phoenicians in general, both in the
Bible (e.g., Judg 18:7; 1 Kgs 5:20 [ET 5:6]; 16:31) and outside it, in Homer
(Iliad VI 290–291).58 Much as the name “Cain” (‫ )קין‬in Gen 4:1–17, 24 seems
to be the creation of a proper name from the gentilic for “Kenite” (‫)קיני‬, so
also the name “Het” is an artificial production of an individual name out of
the term “Hittite.” This designation originally related to the ancient Hittite
empire north of Israel but came to function in the Bible as a designation of
previous inhabitants of the Israelite hill country in particular (e.g., Josh 11:3;
Num 13:29) and/or as the name of one of the most prominent pre-Israelite
peoples displaced by Israel (e.g., Gen 15:20; Exod 3:8, 17; 13:5; 23:23) and
then later subjected to forced labor by Solomon (1 Kgs 9:20–21; 2 Chr 8:7–
8). In following and connecting to the story of Noah’s curse of Canaan (Gen
9:20–27), the fathering report of Gen 10:15 resembles 1 Kgs 9:20–21//2 Chr
8:7–8’s depiction of pre-Israelite, Canaanite peoples as subject to forced labor
(see also Josh 16:10; 17:13; Judg 1:28, 30, 33, 35), but it audaciously differs
from that tradition in including the prestigious Phoenicians (Sidon) among
the peoples destined for such subjection, indeed abject enslavement (‫עבד‬
‫ ;עבדים‬Gen 9:25).59
The notation about Shem in Gen 10:21 shares this local focus, in this case
connecting to the intended audience of the text. Scholars have noted that
“Shem” appears to be specially related to Israel, with YHWH described in
Noah’s blessing of Shem as “the god of Shem” (9:26). Yet, as was noted in
chapter 5, “Shem” is not an ethnic designation. Instead, the author of the
non-P primeval history named Noah’s eldest son after the fame (a great
“name”) that allowed some bygone primeval giants and heroes a proximate
57 For survey of sources and discussion of diverse meanings, see H. J. Zobel, “‫כנען‬,” in TWOT, vol.
4, 226–30 [ET 214–17]; and F. Stolz, “Kanaan,” in Kanaan, vol. 17 of TRE, 540–43.
58 Jacob, Genesis, 286.
59 The inclusion of Sidon is one important feature distinguishing the picture in Gen 9:20–27;
10:15 from traditions of enslavement of pre-Israelite peoples such as that in 1 Kgs 9:20–21//2 Chr
8:7–8 (‫למס עבד‬...‫“ ;ויעלם‬and he subjected them to slave labor”), even though they have the theme of
Israelite subjection of earlier, implicitly “Canaanite” peoples in common. The traditions appear to be
distinct: in addition to this significant contrast, there are no signs of specific intertextual dependence
between these texts in either direction.
form of immortality (e.g., Gen 6:4). Thus, the name of Noah’s oldest son
quite intentionally does not link with any people in particular but instead
with a theme—fame of a “name”—as well as the broader idea that his god
was Israel’s God, YHWH (9:26). This son named Shem/“name” is given fa-
vored status in this section as the eldest of Noah’s sons (Gen 9:24; 10:21; also
listed first in 9:18, 23), in being granted the first of Noah’s blessings (9:26),
and in being identified as the one in whose tent his brother Japhet should find
shelter (9:27).
This elevation of Shem/“fame” among Noah’s sons prepares for the text’s
elevated presentation of Shem in Gen 10:21 as the elder brother of Japhet
(10:21b) and the father of “all of the sons of Eber” (10:21a). As Jacob and
others have noted, the passive formulation used in Gen 10:21 (with a [qal]
passive form of ‫ )ילד‬distinguishes this fathering report from most others in
non-P.60 At the same time, it parallels the distinctive fathering report (again
with qal passive) for Seth’s fathering of Enosh in Gen 4:26 and, to a lesser
extent, the fathering report (with passive) for Cain’s fathering of Enoch in
Gen 4:18.61 Those reports used the passive form of ‫“( ילד‬have children”) to
designate the beginning of a new genealogical line from a given primeval
ancestor: the beginning of the Kenite line from Cain in Gen 4:18 and the be-
ginning of the Sethite line from Seth in Gen 4:26. The passive formulation in
Gen 10:21 likely serves a similar function, now designating a new genealog-
ical line stemming from Shem. And, in this case, that line is identified not in
terms of a single son through whom the line is traced but instead as consist-
ing of “all of the sons of Eber.”62
At the same time, Gen 10:21 diverges in a crucial respect from Gen 4:17, 26
in its unusual lack of a subject for the passive verb ‫ילד‬. Rather than including
“sons” or “Eber” in the initial passively formulated sentence, it reserves men-
tion of “all of the sons of Eber” for a following apposition that identifies Shem
60 Jacob, Genesis, 289–90; Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 106; Thomas Hieke, “Die Völkertafel
von Genesis 10 als genealogische Raumordnung. Form, Funktion, Geographie,” in Genealogie und
Migrationsmythen im antiken Mittelmeerraum und auf der Arabischen Halbinsel, ed. Almut-Barbara
Renger and Isabel Toral-Niehoff, Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 29 (Berlin: Edition Topoi,
2014), 30 (also n. 9).
61 Here again the verb is likely a qal passive, but it is difficult to be sure, since the consonantal rend-
ering of the qal passive and niphal (as it is pointed in the Masoretic tradition) is identical. Notably,
one might argue that Gen 10:21 parallels 4:26 as well in its inclusion of ‫( גם־הוא‬albeit after the verb,
rather than before as in 4:26). Nevertheless, this expression has no correlate in the Septuagint of Gen
4:26, thus raising the question of whether ‫ גם־הוא‬there is a MT plus, perhaps added to clarify the text
and/or harmonize with Gen 10:21 (and possibly 4:22).
62 Klaus Koch, “Die Hebräer vom Auszug aus Ägypten bis zum Großreich Davids,” VT 19
(1969): 73.
as “father of all of the sons of Eber” (‫)אבי כל־בני־עבר‬. Other loci in Genesis
use the “father” designation to point to the origins of an ethnic group from
a given ancestor: Moab as the father of Moab (19:37), Qemuel as the fa-
ther of Aram (Gen 22:21), and Esau as the father of Edom (Gen 36:9, 43).
Particularly interesting is the specification of “Ben-Ammi” (‫ )בן־עמי‬as the
father of “the sons of Amon” (‫ )בני־עמון‬in Gen 19:38, since this formulation
identifies one figure, Ben-Ammi, as the “father” of a group designated as “the
sons of Amon.”63 The formulation in Gen 10:21 shows a wider divergence,
using an apposition (10:21bα) following the initial fathering report for Shem
(10:21a) to identify “Shem” as “father” to a similarly plural group designated
as “all of the sons of Eber.”
As with the “father” texts in Gen 19:37, 38; 22:21; 36:9, 43, the group
described by this “father” text with Shem seems to be an ethnic group as
well—in this case, a primeval group of proto-Hebrews anticipating the
“Hebrew” audience of the text.64 To be sure, in accordance with the genea-
logical character of the early non-P text in Gen 9:18–27; 10:15, 21, Shem is
not described here as the father of the “Hebrews” (plural ‫[ עברים‬cf. 10:13–
14] or gentilic ‫[ עברי‬cf. 10:16–18a]). We see such explicit designations of
people with plurals or gentilics only in likely later additions to non-P (e.g.,
Gen 10:13–14, 16–19 [see below]). In place of such explicit references to
peoples Gen 10:21 uses a semigenealogical designation “sons of Eber”
(‫)בני עבר‬, with “sons” here indicating membership in a social group and
“Eber” standing as a cipher—artificially created from the gentilic “Hebrew”
(‫—)עברי‬that indicates the association of this “sons” group with later
Hebrews. We have seen similar artificial creations of individual names in
the (non-P) formation of a figure, ‘Het’ (‫ )חת‬in Gen 10:15 from “Hittite”
(‫ )חתי‬and the preceding creation of a figure ‘Cain’ (‫ )קין‬in Gen 4:1–24 from
“Kenite” (‫)קיני‬.
Indeed, unlike other discussions of Shem’s fathering in Gen 10:24–25 or
Gen 11:10–17, the unusual formation in Gen 10:21 does not clearly specify
this “Eber” as an actual, separate descendant of Shem. We do not have, for ex-
ample, a report in Gen 10:21 that Shem fathered Eber and Eber then fathered
various sons (cf. Gen 10:24). Instead, Gen 10:21 presupposes and builds on
63 Jacob, Genesis, 290.

64 I am not going to attempt here to give a history of the ethnic use of the term ‫עברי‬. It appears par-
ticularly frequently as an outsider designation for Israelites, including in some narratives that have a
good claim, in my opinion, to containing large swathes of pre-exilic material (e.g., the non-P Joseph
narrative of Genesis, early David materials, the Covenant Code). For citations and a classic discus-
sion, see Koch, “Die Hebräer,” 38–40.
the previous report of Canaan fathering Sidon and Het (10:15), asserting that
Shem received offspring as well (‫)ולשם ילד גם־הוא‬. It is only in an apposition
further describing Shem that we then hear that he was a father of this broader
primeval, proto-Hebrew group. Thus 10:21 does not feature a figure “Eber”
per se. Indeed, the audience of the text may not have been meant to think of
this “Eber” as any more of an actual ancestor than the audience of Gen 19:38
was meant to think that an ‫( עמון‬Amon) was the ancestor of the ‫בני־עמון‬
(sons of Amon) fathered by ‫“( בן־עמי‬son of my people”). Instead, the focus
in 10:21 is on Shem on the one hand and his father-relation to these primeval
“sons of Eber” collective on the other.
Thus recognizing, as earlier interpreters like Radak and Ibn Ezra did, that
the “sons of Eber” is a construction referring to a primeval cluster of proto-
Hebrew peoples helps us identify a crucial locus where the non-P overview
of Noah’s offspring in Genesis 10 includes a counterpart to the text’s intended
audience. Some recent interpreters have asserted that the survey of peoples
in Genesis 10 contrasts with nonbiblical overviews of humanity in lacking a
mention of the author’s own people, in this case Israel.65 This is indeed true
for the Priestly overview of postflood humanity, since P reserves treatment
of Israel’s origins for its ancestral and Moses narratives. Nevertheless, I am
arguing here that the Gen 10:21 fathering report does feature the closest pos-
sible primeval counterpart to the text’s own audience in its mention of “all
of the sons of Eber.” Genesis 10 could not include a direct reference to “the
sons of Israel” since early ancestral and Moses-exodus traditions placed the
origins of “Israel” much later: many generations must pass before Jacob can
father the “sons of Israel,” and the formation of the people of Israel in Egypt
is an obviously post-primeval event. The most this primeval text could do in
anticipating Israel is to link Shem with a primeval ancestor, “Eber,” whose
name is created out of the designation “Hebrews” (‫)עברי‬. Moreover, the text
does not refer simply to the “sons” of this “Eber,” as if a counterpart to later
Israel already existed as a specific primeval group. Instead the text artificially
constructs a broad primeval background for the later Israelites, “all of the
sons of Eber,” an umbrella group out of which later Israelites can descend. In
this way, the text may partake of an early understanding of “Hebrew” (‫)עברי‬
as a larger group, including but extending beyond Israel, an understanding
65 E.g., Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 20–21; Hieke, “Völkertafel,” 32; DePury, “Sem, Cham
et Japhet,” 502.
that is occasionally attested in other biblical texts as well (e.g., 1 Sam 13:3;
14:21; 29:3).66
Finally, Japhet is the most enigmatic of Noah’s sons. The non-P story of
Noah and his sons seems to conceive of Japhet as living near “Shem.” The
name “Japhet” reflects Noah’s wish that “God” (not YHWH as in Shem’s
blessing [9:26]) expand (Hiphil of ‫“ פתה‬make wide”) space for Japhet so that
he might dwell in the “tents of Shem” (Gen 9:27). Given the close association
of this “Japhet” with Israel, Budde and others argued that Japhet’s descen-
dants were the Phoenicians who were ethnically akin to Israel as fellow
Semites, dwelled next to Israel, and are reported to have been especially co-
operative with David and Solomon (e.g., 1 Kgs 5:15–26 [ET 5:1–11]).67 This
identification is undermined, however, by the previously noted association of
the Phoenicians with Canaanites, which would put them under the heading
of “Canaan” (not “Japhet”) in this story.68 Moreover, non-P identifies Sidon,
the head city of the Phoenician alliance, as Canaan’s firstborn (Gen 10:15).
Alternatively, several indicators have led Wellhausen and most others to
take “Japhet” as the progenitor of the Philistines. The name “Japhet” appears
to be a non-Semitic name related to the Titan deity, Ιαπετός; the Aegean
Philistines conform to the Aegean associations of several “sons of Japhet”
surveyed by P in Gen 10:2–4; and the Philistines were a people that lived in
proximity to Israel and indeed spread out across the coastal plains as seems
to be envisioned in the blessing that Noah gives to “Japhet” (Gen 9:27).69 This
latter possibility seems the most likely.
However one elects to identify the ethnic correlate to Japhet, the analysis
in the preceding section suggests that the names of Noah’s sons, despite the
encoded/symbolic character of two of them (Shem and Japhet), were meant
to refer to peoples close to Judah/Israel, whether various “sons of Eber”
(~Hebrews), friendly but subordinate neighbors (Japhet), or the competing
and ultimately enslaved Canaanites (Canaan, including Sidon and Het/
66 For discussion, see Koch, “Die Hebräer,” 45–49, who also suggests (77–78) that the obscure ref-
erence in Num 24:24 to ships of “Kittim” descending on “Ashur” and “Eber” is intended to refer to a
threat to a broader circle of Levantine peoples (Moab, Edom, Seir) named in the preceding context.
67 Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, 333–58; H. Holzinger, Genesis, Kurzer Handkommentar AT
(Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1898), 92–93.

68 E.g., Num 13:29; 14:25; Josh 5:1; 11:3; Judg 3:3. Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, 349–52 argues that
these inclusions of the Phoenicians among the Canaanite peoples occur mostly in glosses and reflect
a later association of the Phoenicians with Canaanites.
69 See esp. Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 14–15; Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 200, among
many others. Ruppert, Gen 1,1–11,26, 414–15 agrees and dates this saying about Japhet to the Neo-
Assyrian period.
Hittites). And this relatively local focus corresponds to the implicitly local
focus of the Cain-Lamech section on the ancestors of the Kenites that pre-
cedes the story of Noah and his sons in non-P.
To be sure, as will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter, the early
non-P primeval history places the overall origins of humanity in Eden, in
the east (Gen 2:8; 3:24), and Cain even further east in a “land of wandering,”
apparently far from Canaan. In this way, the narrative appears to identify the
origins of Judah and neighboring peoples in an area far east of the audience,
a mythical place of beginnings, even as it maintains a local focus in intro-
ducing those peoples (e.g., Canaan, Kenites, Sidon, Hittites, Hebrews) and
their social practices (e.g., highland agriculture, vine cultivation). The next
chapter will discuss how this mythical topography seems to function in a
narrative about the origins of local peoples.
The Expansion of the Description (and Spreading) of Canaan’s Sons

(Gen 10:16–19)
As scholars have long recognized, this initial mention in Gen 10:15 of Sidon
and Het as primeval ancestors fathered by Canaan is distinct from the fol-
lowing list of nine additional descendants of Canaan in 10:16–18a, each of
which is marked by a gentilic ending as a people.70 The addition of these
peoples to the list of descendants of Canaan seems aimed at supplementing
“Sidon” as the sole Phoenician city in the preceding verse and “Het” as the
only representative of hill-country “Canaanite” peoples. Of the nine addi-
tional peoples, four typically appear in lists of peoples displaced by Israel
(Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, Hivites) and the remaining five are names
of peoples that have been created through adding gentilic endings to the
names of Phoenician cities.71
In addition to thus focusing on peoples rather than primeval ancestors,
this addition deviates in another respect from Gen 10:15: it adds a particu-
larly spatial dimension. Where Gen 10:15 focused on descendants of Canaan
who implicitly shared his destiny of enslavement (9:20–27), the addition in
Gen 10:16–18a implicitly anticipates the displacement of Canaan’s descen-
dants through making this list of his descendants better resemble other long
lists of peoples displaced by Israel (e.g., Gen 15:19–21; Exod 3:8, 17; Deut
70 E.g., Smend, Erzählung des Hexateuch, 24; Ruppert, Gen 1,1–11,26, 470; Levin, Jahwist, 125;
Seebass, Genesis I, 266.

71 See Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 697 [ET 522–23] for discussion of these five cities.
7:1). Following on this, the expansion starting in Gen 10:16–18a likely also
included the subsequent mention of the scattering (‫ ;פוץ‬niphal) of Canaanite
clans (Gen 10:18b) and the specification of the boundaries of the land that
they occupied, with Sidon now functioning as the mark of this “Canaan’s”
northwest border (Gen 10:19).72
This secondary expansion regarding Canaan’s offspring in Gen 10:16–19
links to other parts of the previously discussed flood-related, non-P revision
of the section regarding Noah’s grandsons. Its focus on the “scattering” of
Canaanite clans resembles the focus of Gen 9:19; 11:–9 on the broader scat-
tering of postflood humanity, and Gen 10:18 uses a verb for scattering, ‫פוץ‬,
that is similar to the verb ‫נפץ‬, used for scattering in Gen 9:19, and identical to
the one found across the Tower of Babel story (Gen 11:4, 8–9). Moreover, the
mention in 10:18 that these Canaanite clans scattered later (‫ )אחר‬prevents
a conflict between the report of Canaanite scattering here and the report
of more general scattering of all humanity in the following Babel account
(Gen 11:8–9). Such coordination with Gen 11:1–9 could be an indicator that
10:18b may have been crafted as part of the same secondary non-P layer as
that latter story. Finally, the amplification of material about Canaan in Gen
10:16–19 partakes of a specifically non-Priestly focus on distinguishing
Canaan from his other brothers. We saw this focus on Canaan already in
the emphasis of the non-P Noah-sons story (Gen 9:20–27) on explaining
the curse/enslavement of Canaan (Gen 9:22–24, 25) and then again in the
pairing of Shem-Japhet in Gen 10:21, on the one hand, and Canaan in Gen
10:15 (later expanded with 10:13–14 and 10:16–19) on the other. Here the
Canaanite clans stand as a particular microcosmic illustration of the semi-
punitive “scattering” experienced by all of humanity in 11:1–9.73 Together,
these indicators would support a theory that 10:16–19 was added to a sepa-
rate non-P text that still featured this particular focus on a contrast between
Canaan and his brothers Shem and Japhet.74 That bipartite contrast among
72 Though some have been tempted to see the spatial elements in Gen 10:18b–19 as an original
continuation of Gen 10:15, this theory requires positing the existence at some time of a nonpreserved
transition between 10:15 and 10:18b that made Sidon and Het into the “clans of Canaan” mentioned
in 10:18b (e.g., Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 698 [ET 523]).
73 Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 109. This is not to adopt the crime-punishment understanding of
Gen 11:1–9 common in earlier interpretations. I provide exegesis of Gen 11:1–9 in the aforemen-
tioned commentary for the Kohlhammer IOCOT series.
74 In addition, the “scattering” of Canaanites across a particular part of the Levant in Gen 10:18b–
19 prepares for a focus on the land of the Canaanites that is continued in non-P materials at the outset
of the Abraham section (Gen 12:6–8; 13:7, 12) that will be connected in the next chapter with the
previously-discussed layer of flood-related additions.
Noah’s sons (Ham/Canaan versus Shem-Japhet) disappears in the Priestly

layer, and it is blurred as a result in the conflated P/non-P text.
At the same time, it should be noted that geographic information con-
tained in Gen 10:16–19 could be taken as an indicator that this section is
actually a post-Priestly addition to its context. Four of the five cities on
Canaan’s eastern border in Gen 10:19 (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and
Zeboiim) overlap with four of the five cities depicted as part of a pre-Israelite
Canaanite coalition in Genesis 14, a chapter often seen as post-Priestly.75 The
match is not exact, since the coalition in Genesis 14 also includes a fifth city
not mentioned in Gen 10:21, Bela/Zoar (‫ ;בלע היא צער‬Gen 14:2, 8, perhaps
anticipating Lot’s flight there in Gen 19:18–22), while Gen 10:19 includes in
its description of Canaan’s eastern border a locus that is not found in Genesis
14—Lasha (‫)לשע‬. It could be that Gen 10:19 and these geographical elem-
ents in Genesis 14 are not genetically related, but just reflect a similar un-
derstanding of Canaan’s eastern border. Nevertheless, the possibility of
post-Priestly authorship of Gen 10:16–19 is not ruled out.
An Expansion Regarding Eber and His Sons in 10:24–25

Though Gen 10:24 and 10:25 connect to and resemble non-P materials in
some respects, a closer analysis reveals that they were added to their context
and were not the original continuation of the previously discussed non-P no-
tice about Shem (10:21). The verses typically have been identified as part of
the broader non-P layer, both because they follow typical non-P models in
using Qal forms of ‫ ילד‬to report fathering by primeval figures (active ‫ילד‬
in 10:24//4:18; 10:15; passive ‫ ילד‬in Gen 10:25//10:21) and because the re-
port and etiology of Peleg’s name in 10:25b resembles several naming reports
given in non-P (e.g., Gen 3:20; 4:25, 26; 5:29). Nevertheless, the treatment
of Eber as Shem’s (great-)grandson in Gen 10:24 contrasts with Gen 10:21,
which seems crafted to assert some kind of more direct link of Shem, as fa-
ther, to “all of the sons of Eber.”76 Furthermore, as others have noted, the
75 Jericke, Die Ortsangaben im Buch Genesis, 18–19, 76–77. It should be noted, however, that the
post-Priestly character of Genesis 14 is not as assured as it is often taken to be. For review of the
main arguments, see David M. Carr, “Strong and Weak Cases and Criteria for Establishing the Post-
Priestly Character of Hexateuchal Material,” in The Post-Priestly Pentateuch (ed. Federico Giuntolli
and Konrad Schmid; FAT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 24–26.
76 This contrast puzzled later interpreters, leading Rambam, for example, to ask, “Why should the
Torah associate [Shem] with Eber more than with any other offspring?” Note also the discussions by
commentators of the particular need to translate ‫“( אבי‬father”) in Gen 10:21 as grandfather, e.g., Jacob,
Genesis, 290; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 228. This is, indeed, the meaning of Gen 10:21 in its present con-
text, but see the previous discussion of Gen 10:21 for proposal of a potential earlier meaning of 10:21.
report in Gen 10:25 of Eber fathering just two sons (Peleg and Joktan) does
not appear to have been an original elaboration of the Gen 10:21 note about
Shem being the father of “all of the sons of Eber.”77 Indicators such as these
mark Gen 10:24–25 as a likely secondary expansion of its context, one that
appropriates non-P verbal genealogical models and adapts elements from
the preceding non-P note about Shem’s offspring (Gen 10:21).
It is difficult, however, to determine whether this expansion was pre- or
post-Priestly. Presently, Gen 10:24 presupposes and builds on the Priestly
listing of Arpachshad among Shem’s descendants, and there is much plau-
sibility for Dillmann’s proposal that Gen 10:24 is a post-Priestly conflational
addition designed to harmonize non-P Gen 10:21 with the different, Priestly
genealogical understanding of the link between Shem and Eber (Gen 10:22;
11:10–14).78 Nevertheless, it is also possible that Gen 10:24 is part of the pre-
viously discussed flood-related revision of the non-P primeval history, one
that more explicitly treated “Eber” as a primeval patriarch and added two
post-Noah generations between Shem and Eber (Arpachshad, Shelah), gen-
erations in which Noah’s grandsons could grow into a more substantial post-
flood population, “all the earth,” that then would scatter from Babel (Gen
9:19; 11:8–9). This latter option (Gen 10:24 as pre-P) requires the hypothesis
that the conflator eliminated a report of Shem fathering Arpachshad (at the
expense of P in Gen 10:22) much like the previously mentioned proposal of
a similar conflational elimination of a fathering report of Ham for Egypt and
Canaan (at the expense of P in Gen 10:6).
Similarly, indicators in Gen 10:25 point to either pre- or post-P author-
ship. Its mention of Joktan could be taken as an indicator of post-Priestly
authorship, since this mention now prepares for the post-Priestly report re-
garding Joktan’s descendants and their settlement area (Gen 10:26–29). At
the same time, one might see 10:25 as part of the flood-related pre-P expan-
sion of non-P materials, particularly because of its anticipation of the Babel
account (Gen 11:1–9) in explaining Peleg’s name as relating to the “division”
(‫ )פלג‬of “the earth” (‫ ;הארץ‬cf. 9–8 ,11:1 ;9:19 ‫ )כל־הארץ‬in his time.79
77 Emphasis has been added here to the quote of the Hebrew in Gen 10:21. Others noting the in-
congruity of Gen 10:21 with the following P (and non-P) material, include Seebass, Genesis I, 265;
Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 21.
78 Dillmann, Genesis, 164 [ET 313]; also Gunkel, Genesis, 84 [ET 85]; Henri Cazelles, “Table des
peuples, nations et modes de vie,” in Biblica et Semitica (Francesco Vattioni mem), ed. Luigi Cagni,
Series minor 59 (Napoli: Istituto universitario orientale, 1999), 74 ;and numerous others.
79 Cf. Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 347, who argues that the use of a different verb for human spreading in
Gen 10:25 marks it as a secondary link to the Babel account.

In the end, a decision on the pre- or post-P character of Gen 10:24–25 is

not crucial to other hypotheses in this chapter. For now it is enough just to
note the likelihood that these verses were not an original sequel to the note
about Shem’s offspring in Gen 10:21.
One More Likely Flood-Related Expansion Embedded in Gen 9:18

As we know from documented cases of scribal revision, not all such trans-
formations and expansions are clearly marked as secondary, and that is prob-
ably the case here as well.80 For example, if the hypothesis of a postflood
expansion of the non-P Noah section is correct, the specification in Gen 9:18
that Noah’s sons are the ones who “came out of the ark” (‫)היצאים מן־התבה‬
would have been added to the listing of Noah’s sons when the flood narra-
tive was added to a non-P primeval history. The original notice of Noah’s
sons (in 9:18*) would have simply listed the three sons—originally “Shem,
Japhet, and Canaan”—as a prelude to a story focused on the divergent extents
to which those sons exhibited filial devotion in relation to Noah’s drunken
nakedness: Canaan failed in his filial obligations by looking at his father’s na-
kedness and reporting it (Gen 9:22), while Shem and Japhet exhibited filial
devotion in carefully avoiding seeing Noah’s nakedness and instead covering
it (Gen 9:23). The original focus of Gen 9:18* was the identification of the
filial relation of Shem, Japhet, and Canaan to Noah, not the fact that they
came out of the ark with him. When the flood narrative was added, however,
either the same scribe or a later one also added to Gen 9:18 a description of
these sons as having “come out of the ark.”81
Conclusion on an Expansion Layer in Non-P Gen 9:18–11:9
As noted in various loci in the preceding discussion, the arguments for

stratification in non-P discussed here have different levels of strength.
Nevertheless, I have identified a relatively recognizable set of revisions—the
initial disruptive and duplicative note of Noah’s sons spreading across “all the
80 David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2011), 111–15, 146–47; Juha Pakkala, God’s Word Omitted: Omissions in the
Transmission of the Hebrew Bible (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013).
81 As Joel Baden reminded me (in a response to a presentation of work now in this chapter, noted
here with permission), this phrase may be particularly linked to a specifically Priestly emphasis on
the sons of Noah accompanying him into the ark (e.g., Gen 7:13) and coming out of it with him (8:16,
18). As such, it may then be a conflational addition to (non-P) Gen 9:18.
earth” in Gen 9:19 (cf. 9:18), the replacement of original Canaan with Ham in
Gen 9:18–27, the addition of a stereotyped list of descendants (plural groups)
of (Hamite) Egypt in Gen 10:13–14, the concluding account of human
spreading across “all the earth” in the Tower of Babel story of Gen 11:1–9,
and the list of additional peoples descending from Canaan and the note
about their (later) spreading across their areas in Gen 10:16–19. It appears
that the Tower of Babel story was then followed somehow, as argued earlier
in the chapter, by the material about Nimrod’s kingdom in Babel and his de-
parture from there (Gen 10:8b–12), though it is impossible to know exactly
how those materials were originally connected to each other in non-P. Be
that as it may, I have argued that all of these changes were part of an overall
transformation of the non-P Noah materials in light of the addition of the
non-P flood account, such that Noah’s sons became the fathers not just of
particular peoples (to be discussed further in the following section) but of all
of postflood humanity. The mention of the ark in the initial list of Noah’s sons
in Gen 9:18 is likely another part of this set of supplements, though it is less
obviously recognizable as secondary in its own context.
Summary and Concluding Reflections on

Relations of P and non-P
The preceding arguments suggest that the non-P material about Noah’s sons
in Gen 9:18–11:9 has gone through three main stages of development. It
began with an account of Noah and his sons (Gen 9:18*, 20–27) whose an-
ticipation of Canaan’s, Shem’s, and Japhet’s destinies (9:25–27) was followed
by brief notations of Canaan fathering Sidon and Het (Gen 10:15) and Shem
establishing a new genealogical line as father of “all the sons of Eber” (Gen
10:21).82 This account, like the non-P etiology of Kenites in Gen 4:1–24,
appears to have been locally, or at least regionally, focused and concludes the
non-P primeval history with the closest that such a primeval history could
come to an etiology of its Judean audience: namely with Shem as the father
of an amorphous umbrella group of proto-Hebrews out of which Israel might
later emerge.
82 Though Japhet is briefly mentioned in Gen 10:21, there is no indication that non-P had a sepa-
rate section regarding his descendants. Such a section would not be necessary in a non-P primeval
history initially focused on Canaan on the one hand (Gen 10:15) and Shem-Japhet on the other (Gen
10:21).
This non-P treatment of Noah’s sons was then significantly expanded

when the account of a worldwide flood catastrophe was added to the non-P
primeval history. In light of the flood story, Noah’s sons now stood as the fa-
thers of all of postflood humanity, and the statement in Gen 9:19 was added,
insisting that “from these three” the entire world of humanity scattered. So
also, the Tower of Babel story in Gen 11:1–9 was added to tell how and why
this scattering of “all the earth” occurred. This revision may also have in-
cluded the expansion regarding Canaanite peoples in Gen 10:16–19 since
it features a micro-version of such “scattering” in its note that Canaanite
“clans” (‫ )משפחות‬later (‫ )אחר‬scattered over their region (10:18b). Other
parts of this revision likely include the addition of Ham to the story of Noah
and his sons (9:18*, 22*), the related inclusion of Egypt and his descendants
among Noah’s descendants (10:13–14), and the addition of materials about
Nimrod’s kingship over great Babylonian and Assyrian cities (10:8b–12).
These revisions transformed what was once a more locally focused non-P eti-
ology of Hebrews, Kenites, Canaanites (including Phoenicians and Hittites),
and their “Japhetite” neighbors to include an etiology of the great civiliza-
tions of Egypt and Mesopotamia and a picture of Noah’s sons populating the
whole postflood earth.
Notably the Priestly portions of Gen 10:1–32 correspond in focus to this
supplemented form of non-P. As in the non-P expansion layer, P lists Noah’s
sons as Shem, Ham, and Japhet (Gen 5:32; 6:9; 10:1), with Canaan standing
as Noah’s grandson (Gen 10:6). Moreover, much as the non-P expansion
layer added a focus on the spread and linguistic diversification of postflood
humanity (Gen 9:18; 11:1–9; perhaps also Gen 10:18b), P features a similar
emphasis in the conclusions to each major section on Noah’s sons (Gen
10:5, 20, 31) and in the conclusion to the section as a whole (Gen 10:32).
As noted at various points above, P has a quite different concept of how
that spread and diversification happened, but it nevertheless features a
strikingly parallel interest to that of the non-P supplemental layer. Finally,
P shares with the non-P supplement layer an explicit depiction of Noah’s
sons as the fathers of postflood humanity (Gen 10:32), with an inclusion of
major empires like Egypt (Gen 10:6) and Mesopotamia (Gen 10:22) in that
purview.
In all these ways, P in Genesis 10* represents a treatment of Noah’s sons
that consistently reflects the emphases of the flood-related expansion of the
supplemental non-P material (Shem, Ham, Japhet; global focus; spreading
and diversification of all humanity). In contrast, the Priestly treatment of
Noah’s sons’ offspring shows no reflection of the emphases specific to the

earlier layer of non-P, such as the emphasis on Canaan’s cursedness and en-
slavement or the corresponding division among Noah’s offspring between
Canaan on the one hand and Shem and Japhet on the other. All this suggests
that P in Genesis 10 is not modeled on the earlier layer of non-P but on the
form of non-P that includes the previously discussed set of supplementary
expansions related to the addition of a flood narrative to non-P. This con-
clusion regarding P in relation to non-P in Genesis 9:18–11:9 is consistent
with data discussed in c hapter 6, which suggests that P’s flood narrative both
postdates and is partially modeled on the non-P flood narrative. In sum, the
Priestly layer embedded in Genesis 10 appears to represent an originally sep-
arate genealogical overview of the offspring of Noah’s sons that reflects and
reorganizes information and themes of the non-P overview of Noah’s sons’
offspring, including flood-related expansions such as Gen 9:19; 10:13–14
and 11:1–9.
The last stage of composition, one paralleling that discussed in relation to
other pericopes in Genesis 1–9, was the conflation of the non-P and P treat-
ments of Noah’s family. The conflator introduced the section with the non-P
story of Noah and his sons (Gen 9:18–27) along with an expanded version
of P’s Toledot label (10:1a) with a conflational addition (Gen 10:1b) that now
links back to the flood narrative and places the birth of Noah’s grandsons after
that event. The conflator then used P’s genealogical overview of Noah’s sons
as the basic structure for his overview of Noah’s grandsons, but he expanded
that structure using non-P materials. In particular, he expanded on the Priestly
listing of Ham’s and Cush’s descendants in Gen 10:6–7, following the order of
P’s listing of Ham’s descendants in Gen 10:6 and incorporating (rearranged)
non-P materials about Nimrod as an additional son of Cush (10:8b–12) as well
as non-P materials about Egypt’s (10:13–14) and Canaan’s (10:15–19) descen-
dants. As discussed earlier, the conflator, or a later post-P author, seems to have
expanded on the Shem section as well, at least in adding the post-P genealogy
of Joktan’s descendants in Gen 10:26–30 or possibly Gen 10:24–30 as a whole.
The conflator followed this expansion of the treatment of Shem’s descendants
with P’s summary of Shem’s descendants (Gen 10:31) and then a final sum-
mary of the descendants of Noah’s sons (Gen 10:32//10:1a). The conflator then
concluded this expanded Toledot section about the descendants of Noah’s sons
with the non-P Tower of Babel story (Gen 11:1–9), a story that now stands as
a follow-up to P’s concluding focus on human diversification and spreading in
Gen 10:32b.
The final result is a conflated text in which P in Genesis 10* is supple-

mented by non-P materials (Gen 10:8b–19, 21; 11:1–9) and post-Priestly
conflational materials that were formulated on non-P models (e.g., Gen
10:1b, 5*, 8a, 26–30). Though some conceptual contradictions between P and
non-P were preserved—such as the competing ideas of human scattering and
linguistic diversification—the conflator seems to have avoided other sorts of
conflationary problems through the elimination of non-P genealogical ma-
terial that directly duplicated or contradicted P material, such as a (putative)
non-P report of Ham’s fathering that would have directly paralleled P’s listing
of Ham’s sons (10:6). The doubled material about Shem’s fathering in (non-P)
Gen 10:21 was preserved as an anticipation of P’s treatment in Gen 10:22–23,
partly because of its different formulation and partly because of the impor-
tance of Shem as the ancestor of Abraham.
Thus we conclude where this chapter began, with treatment of the relation of
P and non-P. The next step is to explore further the scope and background of the
previously discussed layers of non-P and their relation to other parts of Genesis.
8
The Non-P Primeval History
Layers and Dating
The preceding chapters have built the case for the multistage growth of the
non-P primeval history, starting from an early independent primeval history
without a flood narrative and extending to the expansion of that primeval his-
tory through the addition of a flood narrative and other materials in the Gen
9:18–11:9 postflood section. Chapters 2 and 3 built a case for Genesis 2–4 as
part of a pre-P narrative extending from the creation of “the human”/Adam
to Enosh, and chapters 5 and 7 then found further parts of this early narra-
tive relating to Noah and his sons (Gen 5:29; 9:18*, 20–27; 10:15, 21; along
with an interlude between 5:29 and 9:18 in 6:1–4). Meanwhile, chapters 6
and 7 built arguments for a pre-Priestly expansion of that primeval history
in the non-P flood narrative and some parts of Genesis 10–11 (e.g., Gen 9:19;
10:13–14; 11:1–9; and possibly 10:16–19, 24–25). This chapter reflects more
broadly on the contents and historical context of the independent primeval
history discussed across these chapters, while also considering the probable
historical context and scope of expansions of that history into a prologue to
the non-P ancestral history.
The Probable Contents and Context of the Earliest Non-P

Primeval History
From the outset it must be reemphasized that the reconstruction of the ear-
lier stages of any biblical text is a fraught and often approximate enterprise.
Though we have many documented cases where scribes appear to have pre-
served earlier Vorlagen and merely added new materials to them, there are
plenty of other cases where scribes appear to have significantly transformed
the materials on which they built later texts. However convenient it may be to
assume that all of the prestages of a given biblical text are well preserved (and
recognizable as such) in the present one, such an assumption reflects the
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190062545.003.0001
wishes of contemporary literary-critical scholars much more than it does the

likely literary-historical realities behind the formation of the existing corpus
of biblical texts. We can and should do our best to identify indicators of tex-
tual growth and build plausible models to account for them, but we must also
balance that effort with a recognition of the limits of such an enterprise.
The present chapter attempts to adhere to both these imperatives. On
the one hand, the following discussion will be specific about which texts in
Genesis 1–11 may be taken to reflect the contents of the earliest independent
non-P primeval history. On the other hand, it must be recognized that—
despite such specification—we cannot precisely reconstruct the contours of
such a (relatively) early prestage to the Genesis primeval history with perfect
confidence. That said, adding the relevant qualifiers at each and every stage
of the discussion that follows would be unwieldy. Suffice it to say at the be-
ginning of this section that the outlines of an independent primeval history
offered in the following discussion are (and can only be) an approximation.
The Shape and Character of the Independent Non-P

Primeval History
With those cautions firmly in mind, the primeval history hypothesized here is
focused particularly on three stories about individual characters. Each story
concerns relations within a primary (nuclear) family: the first human and his
wife (Genesis 2–3); the first brothers (Gen 4:1–16); and the story of Noah,
a father, and his three sons (Gen 9:18–27). These three pillars of the early
non-P primeval history explore the three main types of relationships within
an ancient nuclear family (couple, sibling, and parent-child), with a focus on
the male figures in these relationships. There is an overall etiological focus
in the primeval origins account, and each of the figures in these three stories
bears one or more names with etiological significance: ‫“( האדם‬the human,”
linked to ‫ ;האדמה‬2:5, 7) becoming ‫( אדם‬Adam) in Gen 4:25; ‫“( האישה‬the
woman,” linked to ‫ ;האיש‬2:23–24) becoming ‫( חוה‬linked to life) in 3:20; ‫קין‬
(Cain, linked to “create” ‫ ;קנה‬4:1); ‫( הבל‬Abel = transitoriness; 4:2); ‫( נח‬Noah,
linked to ‫“ נחם‬comfort”; 5:29); ‫( שם‬Shem = “name”; 9:18, 26); ‫( כנען‬Canaan,
linked to ‫“ כנע‬submit, be humble”; 9:25–27); and ‫( יפת‬Japhet, linked to ‫פתה‬
Hiphil, “make spacious”; 9:27). The biblical text often leaves the significance
of a given name implicit, particularly in cases where it is obvious (e.g., ‫האדם‬
[for “the human,” linked to “the ground” ‫ האדמה‬in Gen 2:7], 4:2[‫]הבל‬, ‫שם‬
The Non-P Primeval History 225
[9:18, 26; 10:21], ‫[ כנען‬9:25–27]), but adds an explicit etiological explanation

in some cases involving a bigger leap from name to significance, such as ‫אשה‬
(2:23-24), ‫( חוה‬3:21), ‫( נח‬5:29), and ‫( יפת‬9:27).1
The brief account of divine-human unions and their consequences (Gen
6:1–4) lacks such named, individual figures and stands in between Noah’s
naming (Gen 5:29) and his founding of wine cultivation and first experience
of drunkenness (Gen 9:18, 20–27). As such, it provides—as argued earlier—a
necessary time delay within the context of an early (sans flood account) pri-
meval history between Noah’s birth and a story that features him as a farmer
and father, much as the briefer temporal clause “[a]‌fter time had passed”
(‫ )ויהי מקץ ימים‬at the outset of Gen 4:3 inserts a time lag between the birth
of Cain and Abel (4:1–2) and their bringing of products to YHWH from each
of their professions (Gen 4:3b–4a). Indeed, this parallel suggests a structural
division in the (early) non-P primeval history between two major sections,
each built around a transition (Gen 4:3a and 6:1–4), which provides an in-
terval between (1) the production and initial naming of a son (or sons) (Cain
and Abel as sons of the human and his wife in Gen 2:4b–4:2; Noah as son of
“human”/Enosh? in Gen 4:26; 5:29) and (2) a story about their early adult
lives (Gen 4:3b–16 and 9:18–27*).
At the same time, as was argued in c hapter 5, the brief account in Gen 6:1–
4 serves another important purpose within the broader stretch of the non-P
primeval history: it combines a note about YHWH’s decisive reinforcement
of the divine-human boundary of mortality before demigods are produced
(Gen 6:1–3) and the introduction of a famous, heroic “name” as a proximate
substitute for the immortality that humans will never have under any cir-
cumstances (Gen 6:4). This then forms the background to the episode that
likely followed soon after: a story of Noah and his sons that begins with the
mention of Noah’s oldest son “Name” (‫ שם‬Shem; Gen 9:18*) and concludes
with Noah’s blessing of that son (Gen 9:26) along with his brother, Japhet,
living in his tent (Gen 9:27). As such, this somewhat anomalous account
of general developments surrounding the sons of god and daughters of hu-
manity in Gen 6:1–4 serves as a pivotal nexus in a non-P primeval history
1 See Moshe Garsiel, Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns, trans.
Phyllis Hackett (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1991 [1987 original]), 14–28 for a survey of
the phenomenon of explicit name explanations and implicit literary plays on names (termed by him
“midrashic name derivations [MNDs]” from the Hebrew ‫ )מדרשי שמות‬in biblical and nonbiblical
literature.
that was (otherwise) focused on stories and genealogies of individual figures

(e.g., the human and his wife, Cain and Abel, Noah, etc.).
To be sure, the early primeval history being hypothesized here also con-
tained other materials besides these three main episodes (Genesis 2–3; 4:1–
16; 9:20–27) and the Gen 6:1–4 transition. These materials mostly consisted
of genealogical and other elements that were once part of the previously
hypothesized Cain-Lamech tradition, reflected particularly in parts of Gen
4:1–24. Perhaps modeling his composition on those earlier traditions, the
author of the non-P primeval history then composed some additional ge-
nealogical links such as the transitional genealogy establishing an alterna-
tive Sethite line to that of Cain-Lamech (Gen 4:25–26) and brief genealogical
notes about Canaan (Gen 10:15) and Shem (Gen 10:21) fathering additional
sons known to the audience of the primeval history. The final result of this
genealogical superstructure was a picture of diverse kin relations across the
early primeval history, starting with the Eden story’s contrast of the first cou-
ple’s kin relations with each other in contrast to all animals (Gen 2:18–24),
continuing with the depiction of an implicitly Kenite Cain-Lamech line in
contrast to the Sethite line, and concluding with a contrast among Noah’s
descendants between Shem and Japhet on the one hand and their brother,
Canaan, on the other, the latter destined—despite his kin status—to extreme
enslavement to his “brothers” (Gen 9:25–27).
Insofar as the preceding discussion has correctly identified the contours of
this non-P primeval history, that history seems to have been built around two
main lines originating from the first human parents, one based on the earlier
Cain-Lamech tradition and one created by the author of the primeval history
as an alternative line, “seed” (‫ ;זרע‬4:25), to that of Abel, who was killed before
fathering sons in the Cain-Lamech tradition. The first line had seven gener-
ations extending from Cain to Lamech’s three sons and daughter Naamah,
and it concluded with each son of Lamech standing as a “father” of a given
profession (Gen 4:20–22a). The second line had six generations extending
from Seth and Enosh (4:25–26) to Noah’s sons (9:18–27*) and grandsons
(Gen 10:15, 21) and concluded with a description of Noah’s son, Shem, as
a “father” not to various professions (cf. 4:20–22a), but to a larger ethnic
grouping—“all of the sons of Eber.” Since there are no ages given in non-P for
any of the figures in the genealogies, there is no major issue with the slightly
different number of generations in these two lines. As it is, they represent
two parallel post-Adam genealogical lines—Cain to Lamech’s three sons and
Seth to Noah’s three sons and grandsons—of roughly similar length.
Thus, the early non-P history, as it is preserved in the text before us, begins
with the Eden story about the first human couple (Gen 2:4b–3:24) and continues
with the Cain-Abel story and an account of five generations leading up to Lamech
and his sons (Gen 4:1–24). Then it moves to the birth of Seth as a substitute for
Abel (4:25), who then founds a new, non-Cain line of humans, starting with his
son “human” (Enosh) in whose generation humans start to call on the name of
YHWH (Gen 4:26). Indeed, Enosh himself names his son “Noah” after the com-
fort that he will provide from the earth that YHWH has cursed (Gen 5:29). The
(preserved portions of the early) non-P narrative then move to the previously
discussed interlude about divine-human unions (6:1–4) before describing how
Noah, now an adult with children (9:18), fulfilled his destiny by discovering wine
and inebriation, even as he illustrated the risks of the same (9:20–24). Finally,
the primeval narrative concluded with Noah’s pronouncement of the divergent
destinies of his three sons: a curse of slavery on his youngest son, Canaan (9:25);
blessings on his eldest son, Shem (9:26), and younger brother, Japhet (9:27); and
a brief description of Canaan’s fathering Sidon and Het (Gen 10:15) and Shem’s
fathering of all of the sons of Eber (Gen 10:21).
In this way, the early non-P primeval history, insofar as it is preserved in
Genesis, appears to have reached its conclusion with the note about Shem as
father of the sons of Eber in Gen 10:21. As discussed in c hapter 7, this arti-
ficial creation of an eponymous ancestor “Eber” and a “sons of Eber” group
was as close as an independent primeval account could get to providing an
etiological background for an Israelite people who saw themselves as emer-
ging within more recent history. Its focus on plural “sons of Eber” gives the
impression that Gen 10:21 aims to account for its audience’s sense that there
are other “Hebrew” peoples beyond the Israelites as well as to give a primeval
origin—through “Shem”—for all of them.
In the terms of the primeval history up to this point, these Hebrew and
other offspring of Noah are implicitly located in the region east of Eden, the
direction in which the first human couple was banished (Gen 3:24; 4:16).
Though this “Eden” is located “in the east” (‫ ;מקדם‬2:8) and linked in 2:10–14
to the major rivers of Mesopotamia (Tigris and Euphrates, 2:14) and possibly
to the Gihon of Jerusalem (2:13), it does not reflect an exact location known
to its audience.2 Rather, the main places featured in this early non-P primeval
2 To be sure, Terje Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in
Biblical Hebrew Literature (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 261–70 and others reject the frequent locative
translation of ‫ מקדם‬and argue for a temporal understanding, e.g., “long ago” (see already Targum
Onkelos). Nevertheless, ‫ קדם‬appears in relation to other places elsewhere in the narrative, such as
history—“Eden” and the “land of Nod” to which Cain goes (Gen 4:16)—bear
names associated with their role in the narrative. The name “Eden” reflects
the luxuriance of the divine garden, and “the land of Nod (‫ ”)נוד‬is verbally
and conceptually linked to Cain’s sentence to wander (‫ ;נע ונד‬Gen 4:12).3 At
the same time, several elements of the Eden garden—such as its tree at the
center, eastern gate, and link with the Jerusalem Gihon spring—are remi-
niscent of the Jerusalem sanctuary, suggesting that this primeval narrative
builds on ancient associations between cult centers (here, the Jerusalem
temple) and the site of creation.4 This nonexact, mythic association of Eden
with Jerusalem is reinforced by the dreamlike geography of the rivers flowing
out of Eden in Gen 2:10–14, a picture that overlaps with concepts elsewhere
of Jerusalem’s Mount Zion as the origin point of the world’s waters (Ps 46:5
[ET 46:4]; Ezekiel 47). Not only does this overview have an unnatural picture
of a river progressively dividing at its head (rather like a massive irrigation
canal) rather than one of its tributaries joining together, but its geograph-
ical concept also bears only an approximate connection to Jerusalemite and
other topographical realities. We see what appears to be the Jerusalem Gihon
spring flowing from this Eden river alongside the Tigris, Euphrates, and a
still unidentified “Pishon.”5
In this way, the independent non-P primeval history being hypothe-
sized here seems to place the origins of human practices and peoples in a
distant time and place, even as Jerusalemite-Judean associations shimmer
through. The first story is placed in a mythic “Eden” garden with a talking
snake (3:1–5)—a place that is somehow associated with but not identical to
3:24, ‫ מקדם לגן־עדן‬and 4:16, ‫קדמת עדן‬. A temporal understanding here would seem to duplicate the
immediately preceding, quite explicit temporal placement of the story in 2:4b–5.
3 On Eden, again relevant is David Toshio Tsumura, “Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories
of Creation and Flood,” in I Studied Inscriptions before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary and
Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11, ed. Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura, Sources for
Biblical and Theological Study 4 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 40–41.
4 See, e.g., Hartmut Gese, “Der bewachte Lebensbaum und die Heroen: zwei mythologische
Ergänzungen zur Urgeschichte der Quelle J,” in Wort und Geschichte: FS Karl Elliger, ed. Hartmut
Gese and Hans Peter Rüger (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1973), 82; Manfred Görg, “Wo lag das
Paradies?” BN 2 (1977): 23–32; Gordon Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden
Story,” in I Studied Inscriptions before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary and Linguistic
Approaches to Genesis 1–11, ed. Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura, Sources for Biblical and
Theological Study 4 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994 [orig. 1986]), 400–403.
5 For arguments identifying the Pishon in Gen 2:11–12 with the Nile, see especially Görg, “Wo
lag?” 28–30; Görg, “Zur Identität des Pischon (Gen 2:11),” BN 40 (1987): 11–13. Cf. Stordalen, Echoes
of Eden, 281 and Jan Christian Gertz, Das erste Buch Moses (Genesis): Die Urgeschichte Gen 1–11
(ATD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 115–16, who makes persuasive arguments that
the authors of the mythic geography in Gen 2:10–14 actually meant to associate the Jerusalem Gihon
spring with the Nile.
Jerusalem. The Cain-Abel narrative occurs just east of Eden and features
sin as a demon-like “lurker” threatening to attack and master Cain (4:7).
Finally, we see a brief episode concerning divine-human unions and by-
gone heroes and giants (6:1–4). Only with later additions (e.g., Gen 10:8b–
12; 11:1–9) will this originally independent, semimythic cosmological
account be connected to major cities and lands of the likely Judean audi-
ence’s known world.6
Dating This Hypothesized Non-P Primeval History
The dating of this primeval history is hampered by its semimythic cosmolog-

ical character, providing a primeval account before historical time and loca-
tion. Moreover, various allegorical readings of non-P primeval stories, such
as the recently popular tendency to read expulsion from the garden of Eden
as an oblique echo of the Judeans’ forced exile from Israel, fail to account for
the text’s lack of significant or specific verbal links to later discourses about
the exile.7
One possible indicator of the primeval history’s social and historical set-
ting is the apparent engagement with wisdom discourse that begins and is
particularly prominent in the Garden of Eden story but also continues in
limited ways in the Cain and Abel account and story of Noah and his sons.
The Eden story revolves around what is effectively a tree of wisdom, “the tree
of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen 2:9), which grants wisdom and human
maturing (Gen 3:5–7, 21), and c hapter 2 explored several other ways that
this narrative describes the enlightenment of the first human couple.8 The
6 For good arguments regarding the pointedly nonexact, mythical character of Eden (and result-
ing futility of attempts at exact location) see Peet Van Dyk, “In Search of Eden: A Cosmological
Interpretation of Genesis 2–3,” OTE 27(2014): 656–63.
7 See, for example, analogies to the exile noted in Mark Smith, The Genesis of Good and Evil: The
Fall(out) and Original Sin in the Bible (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2018), 47 (who
reads Gen 2–3 as a reply to Ezekiel 28 rather than the other way around, cf. the discussion in this
book, chapter 2). For arguments against this and other proposed links of Genesis 2–3 to the exile
or to specifically Deuteronomistic terminology, see my The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New
Reconstruction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 466–67.
8 The wisdom associations of Gen 2:4b–3:24, particularly the tree of knowledge of good and evil,
have been recognized for decades. See, e.g., Luis Alonso-Schökel, “Motivos Sapienciales y de Alianza
en Gn 2–3,” Bib 43 (1962): 295–316; George Mendenhall, “‘The Shady Side of Wisdom: The Date
and Purpose of Genesis 3,” in Light unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers,
ed. Howard N. Bream, Ralph D. Heim, and Carey A. Moore (Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
1974), 319–34; and David M. Carr, “The Politics of Textual Subversion: A Diachronic Perspective on
the Garden of Eden Story,” JBL 112 (1993): 588–90.
Cain-Abel story that follows is built on an earlier Kenite tradition without

such wisdom associations, but the biblical version of that tradition continues
wisdom themes from Genesis 2–3. These include the repeated use of the
term “know” to describe the human’s sex with his wife, which produces their
children (Gen 4:1, 25), and YHWH’s speech in Gen 4:6–7, where he tells
an angry Cain that the latter now confronts a wisdom-like choice between
“doing well” or “not doing well.”9 Similarly, the story of Noah and his sons
(9:20–27) connects with themes of filial obligation that are central in bib-
lical (and nonbiblical) wisdom literature.10 In the recent past, these wisdom
elements have often been used as evidence in arguments that the non-P pri-
meval history likely dates to the postexilic period, since many have supposed
that the book of Proverbs and broader wisdom emphases only developed
then.11 Nevertheless, others, including myself, have argued that the wisdom
of Proverbs may be datable to an earlier period of Israelite scribal production
than previously supposed.12 In general, it appears that one’s presuppositions
(including this author’s) about dating wisdom materials play a primary role
in determining the date of non-P primeval history texts (like Genesis 2–3) to
which they are compared.
Potential intertextual relations between the non-P primeval history and
other biblical texts have also played a role in past discussions of dating. For
example, some have argued for a post-Priestly dating of the Garden of Eden
story and other texts based on the relative lack of clear references to this story
in much biblical literature.13 Nevertheless, there are two major problems
9 These are among the portions of Genesis 4 that were identified in chapter four of this book
as showing the most signs of being by the author of Genesis 2–3 and the broader non-P primeval
history.
10 See the biblical and nonbiblical references noted in chapter 5’s discussion of filial obligation and
Gen 9:20–27. As noted there, this focus on filial obligation represents something of an inclusio with
the oblique treatment of a son’s cessation of filial devotion to his parents at the end of the creation
portion of the Eden account (Gen 2:21–24).
11 See, e.g., Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible,
AB Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 65–67; Jean-Louis Ska, “Genesis 2–3: Some
Fundamental Questions,” in Beyond Eden: The Biblical Story of Paradise (Genesis 2–3) and Its
Reception History, ed. Konrad Schmid and Christoph Riedweg (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008),
17; and the broader survey in Konrad Schmid, “Die Unteilbarkeit der Weisheit: Überlegungen zur
sogenannten Paradieserzählung Gen 2f. und ihrer theologischen Tendenz,” ZAW 114 (2002): 21–24.
Markus Witte, Die biblische Urgeschichte: Redaktions- und theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu
Genesis 1,1–11,26, BZAW 265 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998), 205 terms the primeval history a sapiential
history. Cf. my discussion in Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 465–66.
12 See Carr, Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 403–31.
13 See, e.g., Eckhart Otto, “Die Paradieserzählung Genesis 2–3: Eine nachpriesterschriftliche
Lehrerzählung in ihrem religionsghistorisichen Kontext,” in “Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit”: Studien
zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit (FS D. Michel), ed. Anja A. Diesel et al., BZAW 241
(Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996), 174; Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 21–22; Ska, “Genesis 2–3,” 19; Smith,
Genesis of Good and Evil, 15–20.
with this argument from silence. First, it presumes that later authors would
have had to refer to the Eden account in Genesis 2–3 when they spoke of cre-
ation themes, even though that story stood alongside an influential alterna-
tive presentation of creation in Genesis 1. Second, Genesis 2–3 does seem to
be obliquely reflected in some Hebrew Bible texts, such as God’s pronounce-
ment to members of the divine council that they will “die like Adam” in Ps
82:714 and multiple reflections of the Eden story in potential early-sixth-
century texts from Ezekiel, discussed in c hapter 2 of this book.15 Yet here
again, scholars’ prior opinions and/or models (including this author’s) in-
evitably play a major role in how these potential intertextual relations are
evaluated and dated.
One more potentially significant indicator for dating the earliest version
of the non-P primeval history is its linguistic profile. Overall, it is written in
classical Hebrew, without widespread presence of the kinds of isoglosses that
mark later Hebrew. Indeed, these materials contain several elements—e.g.,
the qal internal passive (Gen 4:26; 6:1; 10:21) and the rendering of 3ms suf-
fixes with ‫ ה‬in Gen 2:15 and 9:21—that are marked characteristics of early
Hebrew. The disappearance of these elements from the literary Hebrew dia-
lect cannot be reliably dated to a particular century, but the presence of these
elements in materials assigned here to an independent non-P primeval his-
tory provides some evidence for dating this primeval history to the pre-exilic
period, indeed relatively early in it.16
14 See the superb and highly persuasive discussion in Peter Machinist, “How Gods Die, Biblically
and Otherwise: A Problem of Cosmic Restructuring,” in Reconsidering Revolutionary Monotheism,

ed. Beate Pongratz-Leisten (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 210–18, who later notes (236–40)
that there is little good evidence within this psalm to allow a secure dating of it. Mark Smith’s reserva-
tions about reading Ps 82:7 as addressed to gods (Genesis of Good and Evil, 18–19) do not, in my view,
take sufficient account of Machinist’s arguments relating to this point vis-à-vis Psalm 82 as a whole
pp. 195–209). Though David Clines advances arguments that Ps 19:8–10a [ET 19:7–9] is a praise
of Torah as surpassing the tree of knowledge in Gen 2–3 (“The Tree of Knowledge and the Law of
YAHWEH [Psalm XIX],” VT 24 [1974]: 8–14), any reflection of Genesis 2–3 in that Psalm is more
oblique than in the other cases discussed here.
15 These texts are termed potentially early sixth century out of recognition of the ongoing debate
about the formation and dating of parts of Ezekiel. For an overview of relatively recent scholar-
ship, see K. F. Pohlmann, “Forschung am Ezekielbuch 1969–2004,” TRu 71 (2006): 60–90, 164–91,
265–309.
16 On the internal passive of ‫ ילד‬see the resources cited in chapter 7, note 3, especially Ronald S.
Hendel, “‘Begetting’ and ‘Being Born’ in the Pentateuch: Notes on Historical Linguistics and Source
Criticism,” review of, VT 50 (2000): 42–45. On the rendering of the 3ms suffix, see Joel S. Baden,
“‘His Tent’: Pitched at the Intersection of Orthography and Source Criticism,” in “Like ’Ilu, Are You
Wise”: Studies in Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures in Honor of Dennis G. Pardee, ed. H. H.
Hardy II, Joseph Lam, and Eric D. Reymond (Chicago: Oriental Institute Press, forthcoming 2020)
and Eric Reymond, “The 3ms Suffix on Nouns Written with a Heh Matter,” forthcoming in the same
volume. Note also the use of ‫ אנכי‬rather than ‫ אני‬as the 1cs pronoun in Gen 3:10 and 4:9 (also Gen
7:4 in the above discussed expansion layer), and the apparent oblique reflection of Philistines in
In the end, perhaps the most promising basis for dating the early, semi-
mythic primeval history is the way it predates a relatively more datable layer
of primeval texts—the previously discussed expansion of that earlier his-
tory with a non-P flood narrative and related materials. In the next section,
I will argue for the dating of this non-P expansion to the later Neo-Assyrian
period. Insofar as that date holds, it would require a date for the earlier
wisdom-infused, Judean primeval history before then, whether earlier in the
Neo-Assyrian period or earlier still.17
The Expansion/Appropriation of the Early

Primeval History
The Scope of the Revision/Extension of the Early

Primeval History
Previous chapters in this book have already outlined the likely scope of the
first non-P revision of the early primeval history. In c hapter 6 I discussed
multiple indicators that the non-P primeval history had no flood narrative,
such that Noah was not a flood hero but (only) a father and discoverer of
wine cultivation and inebriation (Gen 9:18, 20–27). Chapter 7 then identi-
fied a series of likely additions to the story of Noah and his sons that appear
to be part of the same secondary expansion layer as the non-P flood nar-
rative. These additions (e.g., Gen 9:19; 10:13–14; 11:1–9; possibly 10:16–19,
24–25) transformed the early, implicitly local account of Noah and his sons
in Gen 9:18–27; 10:15, 21 into an overview of the scattering of “all the earth”
over the surface of the earth (Gen 9:19; 11:1–9). As a result of this overview
and its likely sequel in the (later relocated) Nimrod episode (Gen 10:8b–12),
the non-P primeval history now included etiological anticipations of the
great Egyptian (Ham, descendants of Egypt 10:13–14) and Mesopotamian
the focus on Japhet in Gen 9:20–27. On the latter, see John Day, “Noah’s Drunkenness, the Curse of
Canaan, Ham’s Crime, and the Blessing of Shem and Japheth (Genesis 9.18–27),” in From Creation to
Babel: Studies in Genesis 1–11 (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 143–7.
17 In Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 463–69, I suggest that the sort of nonpolemical engagement
with Mesopotamian traditions that is seen in the non-P primeval history is best placed in a time be-
fore the Neo-Assyrian period. That point would only be underlined by the literary analysis here, one
that distinguishes between entirely nonpolemical interaction with Mesopotamian tradition in mate-
rials assigned to the earlier primeval history (Genesis 2–3) and semipolemical, mocking elements
vis-à-vis Mesopotamian tradition in the later material of Gen 10:8b–12 and 11:1–9.
(11:1–9; 10:8b–12) civilizations as well. At the same time, even as this flood-
related revision specifically connected to and echoed elements of the earlier
primeval history that it built upon (e.g., Gen 6:5–7//Gen 2:7; 3:17–19; 5:29;
6:1–4; Gen 11:6//Gen 3:22), the texts that appear to have been part of this
revision somewhat mute key emphases of that earlier history (discussed ear-
lier), for example, the integral human link to “the ground” (‫ )האדמה‬and ge-
neral themes of wisdom.18
As we move to consider the scope and character of this layer of revision,
it is important to note that several elements in it suggest that this layer of
revision continued into the rest of non-P Genesis. To start, it is unlikely
that an independent primeval history would have ended with the materi-
als regarding Babel (11:1–9) and Nimrod (Gen 10:8b–12). This would have
had a Judean etiologically focused primeval history end with etiologies of
major Mesopotamian cities (e.g., Babylon, Erech, Accad, Nineveh, Calah).19
Furthermore, the revision of the Noah and sons section into a broad over-
view of postflood humanity can be seen as an effort to shape the non-P pri-
meval history into a background narrative for the following non-P ancestral
history. More specifically, the picture of postflood humanity as genealogi-
cally related clans forms the background for promises found at key points
in the non-P primeval history that these “clans” will find blessing through
Abra(ha)m and his seed (Gen 12:3; 28:14).20 Moreover, the failed attempt of
broader humanity to “make a name for [them]selves” in Gen 11:4–9 forms a
background for YHWH’s promise to make Abraham’s name great (Gen 12:2).
There are also several more or less approximate parallels in human move-
ment between the added non-P sections in Gen 9:19 and 11:1–9 (perhaps
also 10:18b) and those envisioned in the non-P ancestral history. These in-
clude the parallel between the movement of humanity from Shinar/Babylon
18 To be sure, as part of its echo of the earlier primeval history, Gen 6:5 focuses particularly on the
evil of human cognition in an apparent development of themes seen in Genesis 2–3 and 4:6–7, and
we see a similar connection to earlier wisdom themes of the non-P history in the focus on dangerous
human “planning” (‫ )זמם‬in its specific echo of Genesis 2–3 in 11:6. Outside these loci, however, the
links to specific wisdom elements are more tenuous in texts assigned here to the flood-related revi-
sion, and this is yet more true for the likely continuation of this layer in the non-P Abraham story to
be discussed later in the chapter.
19 For arguments regarding a likely original placement of the Nimrod material after the Babel story,
see the previous chapter of this book.

20 This point might be supported further by the mention of Canaanite “clans” in 10:18b if that text
is also part of this pre-Priestly layer. Moreover, the foregrounding of the scope of Canaan in Gen
10:19 anticipates a particular focus on Canaanites being in the land in Gen 12:4 and other loci in the
non-P Abraham story. See the previous chapter for discussion of difficult-to-resolve questions sur-
rounding the relative dating of Gen 10:16–19.
in Gen 11:8; 10:11 (Nimrod) and that of Abraham from Ur to Canaan (11:28;
12:1–4a, 6) and the possible relationship between the scattering of humanity
across the earth (Gen 9:19; 11:1–9; [10:18b–19]) and YHWH’s promise to
Abraham and Jacob that their descendants will spread in all four directions
across the promised land (Gen 28:13b–14a; also 13:14–17).21
To be sure, these links are of varying levels of specificity, and none are de-
cisive proof that these non-P narratives were connected. Nevertheless, it is
significant that these links are concentrated near the transition point from
the non-P primeval history (Gen 9:19; 11:1–9; also 10:16–19 if pre-P) to the
non-P ancestral history (especially Gen 11:28–30; 12:2–3). Moreover, these
primeval anticipations of the ancestral history occur in materials such as Gen
11:1–9 (see also 10:16–19) that are marked in other ways as secondary to ear-
lier non-P primeval materials in Gen 9:20–27; 10:15, 21. As such, they pro-
vide important evidence that the earlier non-P primeval history was likely
not originally continued by the non-P ancestral history. Instead, whatever
connection now exists was the result of the expansion of that history with
the materials identified here as part of a compositional layer that started with
the non-P flood account and then continued with flood-related additions in
parts of Gen 9:18–11:9 that transformed Noah into the father of postflood
humanity.22
Finally, the flood portion of this hypothesized revision of the primeval his-
tory anticipates multiple elements in the story of the destruction of Sodom
and Gomorrah (Gen 18:20–21; 19:1–28). In both the non-P flood narrative
and the Sodom and Gomorrah story, YHWH kills a large number of human
beings through “making it rain” (Hiphil of ‫ ;מטר‬7:4; 19:24), while providing
instructions for an individual who “finds favor” with YHWH (6:8; 19:19) to
escape with his family (6:8; 7:1–4; 19:12–14). Moreover, the whole Sodom
and Gomorrah episode is preceded by the description of YHWH’s decision
to “go down” and “see” what is happening there (Gen 18:20–21), which fea-
tures similar wording to that used to describe YHWH’s earlier investigation
21 Here again, there might be an additional set of connections between the spatially focused mate-
rial regarding Canaanite peoples in Gen 10:16–19 and the prominent focus on Canaanites in the land
and Abraham’s settlement in Canaan in non-P Abraham materials (e.g., Gen 12:6–8; 13:7, 12, etc.).
22 The theory that the non-P ancestral history, especially the non-P Abraham story, is a con-
tinuation of the expansion of the primeval history that is posited here would explain many of the
connections of that non-P ancestral history/Abraham story with the non-P primeval history that
are surveyed in Ronald Hendel, “Is the ‘J’ Primeval Narrative an Independent Composition?: A
Critique of Crüsemann’s ‘Die Eigenständigkeit der Urgeschichte,’” in The Pentateuch: International
Perspectives on Current Research, ed. Thomas Dozeman, Baruch Schwartz, and Konrad Schmid, FAT
2/78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 181–205.
of human building at Babel (“YHWH went down to see” [‫;]וירד יהוה לראת‬
Gen 11:5).23 Several more parallels can be seen between the aftermath of the
flood account and the aftermath of the Sodom and Gomorrah episode:
Noah’s sons’ fathering of postflood- Lot’s daughters’ (mis)percep-

humanity in wake of total destruction of the lack of other humans and
tion (9:18–19). need to use their father to reproduce
(19:31).
Noah gets drunk and his naked- Lot’s daughters make him drunk and
ness is exposed to his son, Canaan have sex with him (19:33–36).
(9:21–22).
Noah curses Canaan[his descen- Lot fathers offspring whose descen-
dants] (9:25). dants are thus tainted by incest
(19:37–38).
To be sure, Lot is also a contrast to Noah here. Indeed, the parallel hospi-
tality scenes and several details of Genesis 18 and 19 portray Lot as a nega-
tive contrast to his uncle, Abraham, who hosts YHWH and the messengers
as well.24 Nevertheless, the story about Lot’s rescue from the rain of destruc-
tion in Genesis 19 features an unusually dense set of links specifically associ-
ated with the materials assigned earlier to the revision of the non-P primeval
history.25
Together, these indicators suggest that the flood-related expansions of the
non-P primeval history were part of a secondary compositional layer that
newly connected that history to the following non-P ancestral section. As
such, these revisions took what once was an independent primeval history
and turned it into the first part of a composition that extended at least into
the (non-P) ancestral parts of Genesis.26 Further details about the formation
23 Christoph Levin, Der Jahwist, FRLANT 157 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993),
129. For discussion of Gen 18:20–21 as part of an earlier non-P layer connecting to the Sodom and
Gomorrah episode, see my Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches
(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 159–61, 170–72.
24 I discuss these parallels in more depth, citing previous studies in Reading the Fractures, 190–92.
25 As noted in c hapter 6, interpreters from the Zohar onward have noted parallels between Noah of
the flood narrative, Abraham at Sodom and Gomorrah, and Moses in the golden calf story. As noted
there, it may well be that the non-P flood narrative is modelled in some respects on an early form of
the golden calf story, and the same may be said for the Sodom and Gomorrah story discussed here.
26 For the purposes of this argument it is not essential to establish the further contours of that com-
position. Those working within a documentary framework might incline toward seeing that com-
position as a “J” source extending into the Moses story, while others might see the composition as
extending only to Abraham- and Jacob-story materials.
of that longer composition lie outside the scope of this study. It is possible
that an author expanded a non-P primeval history composition with var-
ious flood-related materials before then also composing (as an extension of
that primeval history) an early form of the non-P ancestral history. It is also
possible that an author, rather than composing an early version of the non-
P ancestral history that follows, linked a preexisting (and expanded) non-
P primeval history with some kind of preexisting non-P ancestral history.
I slightly prefer a mixed model, where the author of the flood-related expan-
sions of the non-P primeval history was also the author of an early form of
the non-P Abraham story that then bridged to preexisting Jacob and Joseph
story materials (now augmented at points with new Abraham-promise
elements).27 This model has three main advantages over one that posits the
linkage of preexisting primeval and Abraham-story compositions: (1) it does
not require the positing of the beginning of a non-P Abraham story/ances-
tral history that does not exist in the present text of Genesis;28 (2) this model
would better explain connections of parts of the Abraham story to parts of
the non-P primeval history that precede the secondary expansion of that his-
tory (e.g., “garden of YHWH” in Gen 13:10 to Gen 2–3);29 and (3) it would
provide an account of the scope of a non-P proto-Genesis composition that
would stand as a precursor to an existing composition, the book of Genesis.30
Nevertheless, whichever model one chooses, one could explain the previ-
ously described link of the non-P primeval history with a non-P ancestral
history as constituted by the transformation of an earlier Judean cosmolog-
ical account ending with an etiology of “Hebrews” into a more extended nar-
rative that provided an etiology of the “sons of Israel.”31
27 I make the case for this model in Reading the Fractures, 248–89, synthesizing work on the
Jacob-Joseph story by Erhard Blum in particular (Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte, WMANT 57
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984], 66–263).
28 This is not, of course, a definitive argument since it would not be unusual for a scribe to elimi-
nate elements of a narrative in the process of connecting it to another. This happened, for example, in
the selective appropriation of a version of the Atrahasis flood account into tablet 11 of the Standard
Babylonian edition of the Gilgamesh epic.
29 In addition, Phyllis Trible (“Ominous Beginnings for a Promise of Blessing,” in Hagar, Sarah and
Their Children, ed. Phyllis Trible and Letty Russell [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006],
38, 41, 45, 47) notes some evocative resonances between the non-P Sarah-Hagar-Ishmael stories of
Genesis 16 and 21 and the Garden of Eden story.
30 For more arguments regarding the original independence of such a proto-Genesis composition,
see now my “Joseph between Ancestors and Exodus: A Gradual Process of Connection,” in Book
Seams in the Hexateuch I: The Literary Transitions between the Books of Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/
Judges, ed. Christoph Berner, Harald Samuel, and Stephen Germany, FAT 2/120 (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2018), 84–97, with citation of some other literature.
31 See Klaus Koch, “Die Hebräer vom Auszug aus Ägypten bis zum Großreich Davids,” VT 19
(1969): 40–47 for suggestive reflections on “Hebrew” as a relatively early ethnic identifier, even though
The Character of the Revision of the Primeval History
With that prelude, I now focus here on the distinct character of the revisions
of the non-P primeval history as compared to the earlier primeval history
that they revised. Where that earlier history featured several stories involving
interactions among individuals (e.g., Genesis 2–3; 4:1–16; 9:20–27), the re-
vision of that history focuses more on primeval groups—e.g., all (human)
life in the flood narrative or “all the world” at Babel (possibly also the clans of
Canaan in Gen 10:18b)which, I have argued, now stand as a background to
the following story of ancestors. Where the earlier history developed a pic-
ture of genealogically-related social groups and focused on questions sur-
rounding relations among “brothers” (e.g. Gen 4:1–9; 9:20–25), the Babel
story portion of the expansion of that history focuses on the loss of the lin-
guistic means for communication between and cooperation among “neigh-
bors” ( ַ‫ ֵ;רע‬11:3, 8). Finally, where the earlier non-P primeval history featured
detailed depictions of human interactions (Gen 2–3; 4:1–16; 9:20–24), the
revision focuses particularly on problems in the primeval period relating
to processes of human interior cognition and planning (‫ לב‬. . .‫“[ יצר‬forma-
tion of . . .the heart/mind”]; Gen 6:5; 8:21 and ‫“[ זמם‬plot”] 11:6). The closest
this revision of the primeval history comes to a focus on an individual is in
the character of Noah as hero of the non-P flood story. But this Noah never
speaks, and—aside from his wordless compliance with divine commands—
his sole actions appear to be the sending of various birds in order to deter-
mine when the flood is over.
The early primeval history focused much on the “ground” and the close
connection of its various characters—the first human (Gen 2:7), Cain (Gen
4:1–16), and Noah (5:29; 9:20)—to working that ground.32 In contrast, the
flood-related revision of that history lacks this focus on farming and—aside
from some links to parts of the early primeval creation account in the non-P
flood story (e.g., creation 6:6–7; curse of ground 8:21, but ‫ קלל‬not ‫—)ארר‬uses
the relevance of his survey is compromised somewhat by datings of biblical texts that are not as ac-
cepted today as they were at the time of the article’s composition. I should note as well that some schol-
ars (e.g., Jakob Wöhrle, Fremdlinge im eigenen Land: Zur Entstehung und Intention der priesterlichen
Passagen der Vätergeschichte, FRLANT 246 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012], 89–90, cit-
ing earlier literature) take the renaming of Jacob as “Israel” in Gen 32:28–30a (ET 32:27–29a) to be a
secondary addition to its context. This is not the place to engage those arguments in detail. Even if they
hold, however, the focus of the non-P ancestral history on the background of the sons of Jacob (who
will later become Israelite tribes) makes the etiological link of the narrative to later “Israel” clear.
32 Mari Jørstad, “The Ground That Opened Its Mouth: The Ground’s Response to Human Violence
in Genesis 4,” JBL 135 (2016): 706–7.

‫“ אדמה‬ground” as a more abstract concept akin to “world” (e.g., 7:4, 23; 8:8,
13; also 12:3; 28:14). So also, the early primeval history contains very little
in terms of specific anticipations of the people of Israel, aside from identi-
fying Shem as one whose god is YHWH (9:26) and giving an implicit eti-
ology of the Hebrews (10:21). The revision of that history, however, merges
primeval humanity into “all the world” (9:18; 11:1–9) and then tells the story
of YHWH’s special promise to Abraham and his heirs in the ancestral history
of Gen 12:1–3 and following.
This revision also seems to have involved significant shifts in the spatial
world of the revised (proto-Genesis) composition. As discussed previously,
the earlier primeval history featured a blurry, highly symbolic, and semimy-
thic geography, one with only implied links to its likely Judean-Jerusalemite
audience. In contrast, the revision of this history features specific place
names, such as Shinar and Babylon in the Babel story (11:1–9), as well as
the names of major Babylonian (Babylon, Uruk, and Akkad) and Assyrian
(Nineveh, Calah, and “Resen” [a likely stand-in for later Dur-Sharrukin]) cit-
ies. Moreover, in introducing “Ham” as a son of Noah and including Egypt
as Ham’s offspring alongside Canaan (as reflected obliquely in the non-P
survey of Egypt’s offspring in 10:13–14), this revision of the primeval history
adds the major spatial counterpart to the land of Israel that is featured across
the non-P ancestral story—Egypt. In the ancestral story, “Egypt” stands as
the major place to which patriarchal ancestors may flee (e.g., Gen 12:10–20)
or be tempted to go (e.g., Gen 26:2–3; 46:3–4) in a Canaan/Israel-centered
world. These specific geographical-ethnic elements added to the early pri-
meval history in Gen 10:1–11:9* thus prepare for the spatial geography of
the Israel-centric non-P ancestral history, featuring numerous Israelite place
names, such as Shechem (e.g., Gen 12:6), Bethel and Ai (Gen 12:8), Hebron
(13:18), and Beer-Sheba (21:14, 31–32).
Dating the Revision/Extension of the Independent

Primeval History
Data in the Nimrod Section (10:8b–12) and Babel Story (11:1–9)

In contrast to the geographic blurriness of the independent primeval his-
tory, the Babel and Nimrod materials of the secondary layer provide more
specific data to aid in dating the revision of that history. In particular, these
texts feature a density of elements connected to Neo-Assyrian places and
Neo-Assyrian royal-ideological themes. The Nimrod material depicts a

geographical and chronological movement of kingship from the famous
southern and central Mesopotamian cities of Babylon, Uruk, and Akkad
(10:10) to the major Neo-Assyrian capitals of Nineveh, Calah, and Dur-
Sharrukin (as primeval “Resen”).33 The Babel story (Gen 11:1–9), for its part,
also has distant echoes of Neo-Assyrian rhetoric. Where the royal propa-
ganda of Sargon II boasted of his imposing “one mouth” on his various sub-
jects (through suppression of divergent speech), the Babel story features a
powerful collective humanity with “one lip” (11:1) whose joined power
YHWH undermines through confusing their speech (11:9).34
To be sure, Gen 11:1–9 ends with an implicit focus on the great Babylon.
But this is not necessarily evidence for the writing of this story in the Neo-
Babylonian period. Babylon was famous long before the Neo-Babylonian
period, including and especially in the later Neo-Assyrian period. Sargon
II (722–705 BCE) was well known for proudly claiming that his new cap-
ital named after himself, Dur-Sharrukin, was a new Babylon-like center of
the world.35 This preoccupation with Babylon was diminished somewhat
33 If the clause “it is the great city” in Gen 10:12 refers to Calah, as would appear natural since
this clause follows immediately on mention of that city, one could take this as an indication that the
expansion layer should be dated to the almost two-hundred year period when Calah was the cap-
ital of Assyria (880–700 BCE). See John Day, “In Search of Nimrod: Problems in the Interpretation
of Genesis 10:8–12,” in ‘What Mean These Stones?’: Essays on Texts, Philology, and Archaeology
in Honour of Anthony J. Frendo, ed. Dennis Mizzi, Nicholas C. Vella, and Martin R. Zammit,
Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 50 (Leuven: Peeters, 2017), 106. There are some ques-
tions, however, about whether this was the referent of the clause. See Benno Jacob, Das erste Buch
der Tora: Genesis (Berlin: Schocken Verlag, 1934), 284; Samuel Abramsky, “Nimrod and the Land
of Nimrod I: On the Perspective on the Beginning of Kingship in the Book of Genesis [Hebrew],”
Beth Miqra 82 (1980): 247–49; Horst Seebass, Genesis I: Urgeschichte (1,1–11,26) (Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener-Verlag, 1996), 260 and Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, “In Search of Resen
(Genesis 10:12): Dūr-Šarrukīn?” in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern
Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom Paul, ed. Chaim Cohen et. al. (Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 522.
34 On this see Angelika Berlejung, “Living in the Land of Shinar: Reflections on Exile in Genesis
11:1–9?” in The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah, ed. Peter Dubrovsky and Dominik Markl,
FAT (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 102–5; and Samuel Boyd, “Sargon’s Dūr-Šarrukīn Cylinder
Inscription and Language Ideology: A Reconsideration and Connection to Gen 11:1–9,” JNES
(2019): 87–111. To be sure, Berlejung treats Gen 11:1–9 more generally as a post-Priestly text and on
102–9 suggests that several motifs point to a dating of Gen 11:1–9 to the Neo-Babylonian period or
later: the “one lip” motif, exile-like “scattering” in Gen 11:8–9, and overall focus on Babylon. Boyd’s
article, along with work by Andrew Giorgetti cited later in the chapter, instead make a convincing
case for specific Neo-Assyrian links in the story. The scattering envisioned in Gen 11:8–9—though
certainly compatible with a dating to the exile—does not require it. Moreover, dating Gen 11:1–9
during the exile would place the story during the time when the Etemenanki tower was restored and
at its most splendid, while the Babel account presupposes that the tower is unfinished.
35 On naming other cities as Babylon see Stephanie Dalley, “Babylon as a Name for Other
Cities including Nineveh,” in Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, ed.
Robert D. Biggs, Jennie Myers, and Martha T. Roth, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 62
when Sargon II’s successor, Sennacherib (705–681 BCE), sacked Babylon

in the process of putting down a revolt there (689 BCE), but Sennacherib’s
successor, Esarhaddon (681–669 BCE), initiated a renewal of Neo-Assyrian
focus on Babylon and its deity Marduk.36 Over time, Neo-Assyrian texts
came to criticize Sargon II for his grand ambitions, including his attempt
to make a name for himself through building a city named after him. These
critiques bear some resemblance to the Babel story’s ironic depiction of hu-
manity in general trying futilely to make a name for themselves (Gen 11:4; cf.
11:9).37
In addition, the Babel story’s depiction of the tower at “Babel” matches the
state of the Etemenanki tower in the last decades of the Neo-Assyrian period.
To start, the story places specific emphasis on humanity’s use of baked brick
and asphalt (Gen 11:3) to build the great city and tower at what would come
to be known as Babel (11:9). This type of construction was first employed in
connection with the great tower at Babylon by Esarhaddon (681–669 BCE) in
the reconstruction of the tower after its destruction in 689 BCE. Esarhaddon
did not complete the reconstruction, such that the brick and asphalt tower
stood unfinished for fifty years (669–626). The reconstruction of the tower
began again under the Neo-Babylonian king, Nabopolasar (626–605 BCE),
and was finished under Nebuchadnezzar II (605–562 BCE). Thus, the Babel
story’s picture of the great city of Babel whose great tower was built of asphalt
and baked brick (11:3) but stood unfinished (11:8) links best with the middle
of the seventh century (669–626 BCE), just before the beginning of the Neo-
Babylonian period and the resumption of rebuilding work.38
(Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2008), 25–33, especially her comments on developments traceable to
the reign of Sargon II (28–29).
36 For a survey of these shifts in the Neo-Assyrian relationship to Babylon (and Marduk), see
John P. Nielsen, “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I in History and Historical Memory,” in The Reign of
Nebuchadnezzar I in History and Historical Memory (Abingdon: Routledge, 2018), esp. 94–104.
37 On this and other ways that Gen 11:1–9 can be seen as a parody of Neo-Assyrian royal tra-
ditions, see initially Andrew Giorgetti, “The ‘Mock Building Account’ of Genesis 11:1–9: Polemic
against Mesopotamian Royal Ideology,” VT 64 (2014): 1–10; and a more extended treatment in a
forthcoming monograph, a revision of the same author’s dissertation, Building a Parody: Genesis
11:1–9, Ancient Near Eastern Building Accounts, and Production-Oriented Intertextuality, VTSup
(Leiden: Brill, 2020).
38 Christoph Uehlinger, Weltreich und “eine Rede”: Eine neue Deutung der sogenannten
Turmbauerzählung (Gen 11, 1–9,) OBO 101 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1990), 246 (see also 505–6
on how the city-citadel/tower combo in Gen 11:1–9 was typical for Neo-Assyrian construction, as
was the practice of a king gaining a “name” through naming his capital after himself); and dating
reflections in Erhard Blum, “Urgeschichte,” TRE 34 (2002): 441. Also see the helpful synthesis and
reflection on the archaeology of Babylon (especially the review and critique of Hans Jörg Schmid, Der
Tempelturm Etemenanki in Babylon [Mainz: Von Zabern, 1995]) in Andrew George, “The Tower of
Babel: Archaeology, History and Cuneiform texts,” AfO 51 (2005–6): 75–95.
Of course, one might object that such reflections presuppose too much
knowledge of Babylon on the part of Judean authors, especially if the text was
written while such authors were in pre-exilic Jerusalem, far removed from
Babylon. Moreover, one could argue that the Babel story synthesizes various
Judean impressions of Mesopotamia—not just specific knowledge of the (un-
finished) tower in Babylon, but perhaps other well-known elements as well,
such as Sargon II’s famous failure to complete the great city of Dur-Sharrukin
through which he hoped to secure his name.39 Nevertheless, I would argue
that we should at least consider the resonances between certain aspects of
Neo-Assyrian royal rhetoric and their potential engagement or inversion in
the Babel story.40 And the architectural details of the Babel story—for ex-
ample, the baked brick and asphalt construction (11:3) and its unfinished
nature (11:8)—are central enough to the story that they could be taken as
reflections of specific elements in Babylon at the time of the author(s), which
the author aimed to explain etiologically.
These indicators would suggest that the Babel story is to be dated in the
seventh century, prior to the Neo-Babylonian period. Furthermore, a dating
of the Babel story prior to the Neo-Babylonian period would explain why it
lacks the sharp hostility toward Babylon that is typical of exilic and later bib-
lical texts.41 Compare, for example, the oracles against Babylon to be found
in Isa 13:1–14:32; 21:1–10; 47:1–15; or Jeremiah 50–51. These oracles sharply
criticize Babylon for its oppression and blasphemy, while celebrating its im-
minent downfall. Still later Persian or early Hellenistic traditions in Daniel
depict Babylon as a site of religious persecution of exiles, and it appears
that the Hellenistic-period editors who created the proto-MT edition of
Jeremiah moved the oracles against Babylon to the final, climactic position
in the book.42 In contrast, the primeval myth about Babylon in 11:1–9 has
39 On the latter, see Christoph Uehlinger’s initial arguments for a quite specific link of an earlier
stratum of Gen 11:1–9 to Sargon II’s reign and failed Dur-Sharrukin project. As noted in some sub-
sequent critiques (e.g., Seebass, Genesis I, 280–82; and Andreas Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen
Bibel: Der literar- und theologiegeschichtlich Diskurs der Urgeschichte [Genesis 1–11], ATANT 86
[Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2006], 411–12; see also Ron Hendel, “Review of Christoph Uehlinger,
Weltreich und ‘Eine Rede’: Eine neue Deutung der sogenannten Turmbauerzählung [Gen 11,1–9],”
CBQ 55 [1993]: 785–87), the Babel story in Gen 11:1–9 lacks a number of elements that one might
expect in a specific critique of Neo-Assyrian imperialism.
40 For similar questions and answers about Judean recollection of elements of Mesopotamian ide-
ology and architecture see Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel, 380–81.
41 Seebass, Genesis I, 287.
42 See Bernard Gosse, “La malédiction contre Babylone de Jérémie 51, 59–64 et les rédactions du
livre de Jérémie,” ZAW 98 (1986): 392–97; and James W. Watts, “Text and Redaction in Jeremiah’s
Oracles against the Nations,” CBQ 54 (1992): 432–47.
a lighter touch. It appropriates some Babylonian traditions about the cen-

trality and antiquity of the city, while mocking its claims to greatness. Not a
word is spoken anywhere in 11:1–9 about oppression or violence; there is no
empire or kingship (cf. Gen 10:8–12); and the people are never identified as
Babylonians. Instead, primeval Babylon in Gen 11:1–9 is an emblem of the
loss of successful communication among all primeval humans and their sub-
sequent scattering (as a result).
Data for Dating in the Non-P Flood Narrative

Indicators of dating are less specific in the non-P flood narrative, partly be-
cause it is an adaptation of an earlier Mesopotamian flood myth that has few
specific connections to the historical world. Nevertheless, there are some
more indirect potential indicators of dating in the way that the non-P flood
narrative diverges from the rest of the (earlier) non-P primeval history. In
particular, the non-P flood narrative reorients the primeval history around
a story of divine genocide of virtually all of humanity and other life on earth,
coupled with a totalizing negative judgment by YHWH regarding the evil
of humanity (Gen 6:5–7; 8:21). As argued in prior chapters on Genesis 2–3
and Genesis 4, the earlier primeval history assuredly recognized negative po-
tential in humans—for example, the disobedience of the first human couple,
fratricide. Nevertheless, it offered a broadly ambivalent picture of human
striving and failings and a depiction of YHWH as responding with a mix of
judgment and gracious provision for his creations. The addition of the non-
P flood narrative, however, featured the eruption of a new, harsher divine
reality in the story world, a YHWH who deeply regrets having created such
thoroughly evil creatures and is intent on destroying them all (Gen 6:5–7).
This thoroughly negative picture of humanity seen in 6:5–7; 8:21 is akin to
the sort of deep self-blame and fractured self-image that is cross-culturally
characteristic of victims of trauma, in this case projected as righteous di-
vine judgment on humanity in general.43 Moreover, the flood narrative’s
picture of the sudden onset of total destruction can be seen as a projection
into the primeval world of violence known personally by the text’s author
43 A couple of exemplary discussions of the ubiquity of this phenomenon in classic treatments of
trauma are Judith Lewis Herman, Trauma and Recovery (New York: Basic Books, 1992), 53–54; and
Ronnie Janoff-Bulman, Shattered Assumptions: Towards a New Psychology of Trauma (New York: Free
Press, 1992), 123–32. For discussion of issues (and citation of some relevant literature) regarding
anachronism and chronocentrism in the application of trauma theory (especially concerning
Western individuals) to ancient texts, see my Holy Resilience: The Bible’s Traumatic Origins (New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014), 263–70.
and audience.44 Of course, the author of the non-P flood narrative, building
extensively on earlier flood traditions from Mesopotamia, did not just de-
scribe destruction and judgment. Ultimately, the flood narrative assures its
audience that such global violence will not reoccur (8:21–22). In this sense,
the non-P flood narrative can be seen as an oblique processing of chaotic
violence and self-blame in insisting to its audience that—however much
their self-judgment may be justified—YHWH has made a determination
never again to respond to global human evil with the violence which that evil
deserves.
One might object that such arguments depend on a somewhat allegorical
reading of trauma into biblical texts, and that could be the case. Nevertheless,
we ought to at least consider the historical circumstances that might have
contributed to the flood narrative’s fundamental reorientation of the more
ambivalent, nuanced perspectives on humanity and YHWH that are found in
the other (earlier) non-P primeval stories. If that reorientation was prompted
by some sort of communal trauma, there are numerous candidates for it from
the Neo-Assyrian period onward. The Neo-Assyrian destruction of the State
of Israel and decades-long domination of Judah left marks of trauma in a
number of loci in biblical literature, particularly in the prophecies of Amos,
Hosea, Micah, and Isaiah. Indeed, as Jan Gertz has argued, the non-P flood
narrative can be seen as a providing background for the God of the prophets.
Much like the God seen in several of the prophetic books, the YHWH of
the non-P flood narrative has a keen sense of the moral shortcomings of the
humans that he has created (Gen 6:5; 8:21). But this flood-narrative YHWH
also resembles the god of the prophets in his decision not to punish humans
as they deserve. Much as YHWH in Amos 7:1–6 and especially Hosea 11
renounces his right to punish his beloved people, YHWH in the non-P flood
narrative at length comes to a place in which he relinquishes his right to com-
pletely destroy his wayward creations (Gen 8:21–22).45 In sum, though the
non-P flood narrative does not show any specific intertextual dependence
on these prophetic texts, its distinctive picture of YHWH finds its religio-
historical place as an etiology of YHWH as he is depicted in literary prophecy
of the Neo-Assyrian period and later.
schichtlichem Hintergrund von Gen 5–9, HBS 22 (Freiburg: Herder, 1999), 305.
45 Jan Christian Gertz, “Noah und die Propheten: Rezeption und Reformulierung eines altori-
entalischen Mythos,” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 81

(2007): 519–22.
Data for Dating of the Non-P Revision in the Non-P Ancestral History
Insofar as the previously hypothesized expansion of the non-P primeval
history (with flood and related materials) formed a composition layer that
then continued with (promise-centered) non-P ancestral history materials,
the dating of those non-P ancestral materials (especially the non-P Abraham
story) would also be relevant to the dating of the expansion of the non-P pri-
meval history. Since this book is primarily focused on the primeval history,
only a few brief notes in this direction will be given here.
Most importantly, as numerous studies have established previously, the
non-P ancestral story is bound together by a theme of promise to Abraham
and his heirs (e.g., Gen 12:1–3; 28:13–14), a promise that is referred back
to in a number of key biblical loci that have good claims to stand at the
border of pre-exilic and exilic materials. One important example is the or-
acle of Ezekiel responding to people in the land who are citing the promise to
Abraham (Ezek 33:24). This passage is part of a dialogue—attested in other
similarly dated texts (Ezek 11:15; Jer 39:10; 44:10; 2 Kgs 25:12)—about the
respective claims to the land made by exiles and those left in the land. As
such, it has good claim for dating at the outset of the sixth century.46 At the
same time, the oracle seems to engage a group of people who already know
of stories of a promise being given to Abraham and can treat that tradition as
a basis for argument. Insofar as this is true, it would suggest that at least the
earliest layer of the non-P ancestral promise tradition (= the posited expan-
sionary layer of the non-P primeval narrative) be dated (just) prior to this
early-sixth-century oracle, say in the seventh century.47 This time, of course,
is similar to that posited above on the basis of indicators in the expansionary
layer in Gen 11:1–9; 10:8b–11.
46 In addition, insofar as the association of Harran with Abraham’s relatives in Genesis 12–35
(e.g., Gen 27:43; 28:10; 29:4) is an innovation connected to the non-P Abraham materials and thus
to materials associated here with the expansion of the non-P primeval history, this is an additional
potential pointer to a dating of that expansion to the Neo-Assyrian period. See Blum, Vätergeschichte,
164–67, 343–44 (n. 11) for discussion of diachronic issues surrounding this association; and also
see the observation in John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1975), 24, that the Syrian city of Harran (= biblical Haran) came to prominence as
an Aramean center particularly in the Neo-Assyrian period in the wake of the fall of Damascus.
47 Blum, Vätergeschichte, 294–96; and Thomas Römer, “Abraham Traditions in the Hebrew Bible
Outside the Book of Genesis,” in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation,
ed. Craig Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 161–64, who identifies
Ezek 33:24 as the demonstrably earliest evident non-Pentateuchal reference to Abraham. Note, how-
ever, other treatments (e.g., Anja Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39, BZAW 391 [Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008], 355–56) that take Ezek 33:24 as
part of a later stratum in the book.
Conclusion on Dating the Revision Layer

It should be clear by now that a number of vagaries are attached to dating
this hypothesized revision of the independent primeval history. To start,
there are questions regarding the contents of the revision itself, for example,
whether the Nimrod materials (10:8b–12) were even part of this revision
such that indicators found within them would bear on the dating of the
broader composition. In addition, some other important materials, such as
the non-P flood narrative, lack features that would lend themselves well to
specific dating. As a result, the previously advanced hypothesis about reflec-
tions of trauma in the non-P flood narrative must depend on a more general
reasoning rather than arguments pertaining to places and specific datable
elements found in some other texts that are likely part of the same secondary
revision (e.g., Gen 11:1–9).
With those qualifications, the earlier arguments have landed on a dating
of the revision of the primeval history—and the non-P ancestral texts asso-
ciated with it—in the mid-seventh century, late in the Neo-Assyrian period.
This dating places the overall proto-Genesis compositional layer prior to
the brief references in Deuteronomy and related literature to YHWH’s land
oath to the ancestral “fathers”—some of which may date to the later seventh
century48—and (at least) a few decades prior to possible reflections in Ezekiel
traditions of the Eden account (Ezek 28:11–19; 31:3–9) and Abraham-
promise traditions (Ezek 33:24).49
To be sure, Blum argues later in the book (349–59) that a separate layer of the promise tra-
dition (his Vg2) dates to the exile, based both on resonances between its focus on the blessing of
Abraham and discourses in the exile and post-exile surrounding the cursedness of Israel and the way
that Blum’s Vg2 texts transfer royal motifs to nonroyal figures. Such motifs, however, need not be seen
in Genesis as a substitute for royal promises and could easily occur in a context where royal promises
were still seen as valid. In addition, the late pre-exile is also a time when the people of Judah could
have felt themselves to be cursed, and at least one of the texts that Blum cites on this idea, Deut 28:37,
could be dated to that time rather than the exile.
48 Cf. Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 287–88 and literature cited there.
49 A dating of this revisionary layer to the late Neo-Assyrian period strikingly coincides with the
dating of some of the potentially earliest biblical references to monotheism (Jer 16:19, 20; 1 Sam 2:2;
cf. also Deut 4:35, 39). This raises the question of whether there might be some kind of connection
between the emergence of a belief in YHWH as the sole deity of the whole universe and the expan-
sion of an earlier, locally focused primeval history (ending with Hebrews, Hittites, Phoenicians) into
a more global account of flood and the choosing by YHWH of Abraham among the scattered post-
flood peoples. For discussion of the biblical references and other potential factors in favor of a late
pre-exilic emergence of monotheism, see Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s
Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 152–66.
Final Reflections on The Formation of the Non-P

Primeval History
So concludes this analysis of an apparent divide in non-P primeval history

materials between a relatively early independent primeval history and the ex-
pansion and appropriation of that history in a broader non-P proto-Genesis
(or longer) composition to be dated to the (seventh-century) Neo-Assyrian
period. Precisely dating both layers has proven a difficult enterprise, par-
ticularly given their overall primeval focus. Nevertheless, the distinction
between them might be broadly characterized as one between a history com-
posed in a pretraumatic phase in Judah’s history and a revision of that history
in a time when Judah’s writings—whether prophetic collections or narratives
like the one under consideration here—were impacted by the trauma of its
encounter with Neo-Assyrian and later forms of imperial domination.50
The two layers also manifest an interesting divergence in how they engage
earlier nonbiblical written traditions. While the independent primeval his-
tory frequently engages themes and motifs from the Mesopotamian cosmo-
gonic and epic literary tradition, none of its narratives match the scope and
focus of compositions in that tradition. In contrast, the revision of the pri-
meval history features multiple reflections of specific Mesopotamian texts.
The non-P flood story follows the outlines of the Mesopotamian flood nar-
rative tradition, particularly some specific details also seen in tablet 11 of the
(standard edition of the) Gilgamesh epic. Moreover, the Babel story can be
seen as a highly abbreviated inversion of the Enuma Elish account: where
the Enuma Elish epic offers a relentlessly Marduk-focused picture of the
founding of the Babylonian Esagila Temple, the biblical Babel story offers a
thoroughly secularized version of Babylon’s founding, one which details its
founding by humans, not gods, and in which YHWH prevents those humans
from finishing their project of building a city and tower that would touch
heaven.51 Among the materials assigned here to the revision of the non-P
50 For appropriate qualifications regarding what is meant here by “pre-trauma” see my Holy
Resilience, 22–23.
51 The most extended proposal along these lines is J. Severino Croatto, “A Reading of the Tower
of Babel from the Perspective of Non-Identity,” in Teaching the Bible: The Discourses and Politics
of Biblical Pedagogy, ed. Fernando F. Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1998). Cf.
arguments against a specific link to the Enuma Elish in Klaus Seybold, “Der Turmbau zu Babel: Zur
Entstehung von Genesis XI 1–9,” VT 26 (1976): 461–62; and especially Uehlinger, Weltreich und “eine
Rede,” 246–53. These treatments rightly identify differences between the two traditions but miss the
idea that they could be explained by the contrastive/inversive character of the Gen 11:1–9 as a parody
of Mesopotamian traditions.
primeval history, the Nimrod materials of Gen 10:8b–12 do not seem to par-
allel any specific Mesopotamian compositions. Nevertheless, their reference
to Nimrod’s hunting prowess as a background to his kingship stands as an
unusually specific parallel to Neo-Assyrian royal ideological depictions of
Assyrian kings as great hunters.52
Thus the revision of the non-P primeval history seems to have been pro-
duced by Neo-Assyrian period (or later) Judean scribes who had a relatively
specific knowledge of certain Mesopotamian texts and circumstances such
as the current unfinished state of Babylon’s Etemenanki tower, while the (rel-
atively) earlier primeval history shows a more approximate (and less datable)
relation to Mesopotamian realities and literary traditions.53 It is difficult to
know the context in which Judean scribes would have gained specific know-
ledge of Mesopotamian literary traditions, especially insofar as it involved
awareness of some more advanced Akkadian literary texts than were in-
cluded in elementary scribal training. Nevertheless, an increasing array of
evidence in the Bible, in the non-P materials of Genesis 1–11 and beyond,
suggests that such knowledge did exist, at least among a few Judean scribes.
EXCURSUS: Possible Vectors for Transmission of Knowledge of

Cuneiform Literature
The specific knowledge seemingly reflected in the revision of the primeval
history may have emerged from the sort of interchange among elites that
is documented in other parts of the Mesopotamian empire, where youths
of outlying parts of the Neo-Assyrian empire were moved to Neo-Assyria
and received education in cuneiform writing and traditions.54 To be
sure, we have no specific evidence that this was done with Judean youths.
Nevertheless, the possible presence of Judean women in Esarhaddon’s royal
52 The literature linking Gen 10:8b–12 to a specifically Neo-Assyrian context is increasingly broad.
See Karel Van der Toorn and Peter W. Van der Horst, “Nimrod before and after the Bible,” HTR 83
(1990): 4–13; Abramsky, “Nimrod and the Land of Nimrod I,” 244–55; Yigal Levin, “Nimrod the
Mighty King of Kish, King of Sumer and Akkad,” VT 52 (2002): 350–66; Israel Knohl, “Nimrod,
Son of Cush, King of Mesopotamia, and the Dates of P and J,” in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible,
Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom Paul, ed. Chaim Cohen
et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 1:45–52; Walter Bührer, “Nimrod coram Domino—
Nimrod cora Israhel: Inhalt und Tendenz der Nimrod-Notiz Gen 10,8–12,” BN 173 (2017): 8–10.
53 For a similar distinction in terms of the level of Mesopotamian influence between the earlier
monarchy and Neo-Assyrian period, see Karl Budde, Was soll die Gemeinde aus dem Streit um Babel
und Bibel lernen? Ein Vortrag (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1903), 33–34; along with Jan Gertz’s updated
development of Budde’s basic idea in Gertz, “Noah und die Propheten,” 509–22.
54 Carr, Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 305–6; Amitai Baruchi-Unna, “‘Your Servant and Son
I Am’: Aspects of the Assyrian Imperial Experience of Judah,” in The Southern Levant under Assyrian
Domination, ed. Shawn Zelig Aster and Avi Faust (University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2018), 128–29.
harem, precisely in the time posited here for dating the non-P expansion
layer, suggests the possibility of a remarkably upper-level interchange be-
tween Judah and Assyria that could well have included Judean men as
well.55 Furthermore, the likelihood of such interchange increases as more
evidence is found in the Hebrew Bible itself for knowledge of Neo-Assyrian
traditions.56 Particularly interesting is the evidence recently collected by
Jacob Lauinger for the deposit of a copy (and possible regular performance)
of Esarhaddon’s succession treaty in Judah, an Akkadian text for which
there appears to be particularly good evidence for its influence on parts of
the Hebrew Bible.57
It is less clear how the Judean authors of the earlier independent primeval
history might have encountered themes and motifs from Mesopotamian lit-
erary tradition. Perhaps the more approximate and fluid nature of echoes of
the Mesopotamian tradition in that history is simply the result of the dif-
ferent compositional modes and preferences of an earlier author (potentially
equally acquainted with the literary tradition), whether during the Neo-
Assyrian empire or an earlier period. It is also possible that the more fluid
interaction with Mesopotamian tradition evident in the earlier primeval
history reflects a different (earlier) stage in the encounter of Judean scrib-
alism with that tradition. Recent work by William Schniedewind suggests
that pre-exilic Judean scribal education may have followed models derived
from cuneiform education more closely than previously thought.58 Insofar
55 Stephanie Dalley, “Yabâ, Atalyā and the Foreign Policy of Late Assyrian Kings,” SAAB
(1998): 83–89.
56 For a relatively recent survey of evidence of specific knowledge of Neo-Assyrian traditions
among biblical authors, see Shawn Zelig Aster, “Treaty and Prophecy: A Survey of Biblical Reactions
to Neo-Assyrian Political Thought,” in The Southern Levant under Assyrian Domination, ed. Shawn
Zelig Aster and Avi Faust (University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2018), 89–118.
57 Jacob Lauinger, “Neo-Assyrian Scribes, ‘Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty,’ and the Dynamics
of Textual Mass Production,” in Texts and Contexts: The Circulation and Transmission of Cuneiform
Texts in Social Space, ed. Paul Delnero and Jacob Lauinger, SANER (Boston: De Gruyter, 2015), 285–
314. See Carr, Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 307–9 for collection and summary of exemplary studies
suggesting specific links of Esarhaddon’s Succession treaty with Deuteronomy.
For broader reflections on the problem of assessing how Judean scribes would have been exposed
to Neo-Assyrian cuneiform materials, I am particularly indebted to some private email exchanges
with William Morrow as well as his publications (e.g., “Tribute from Judah and the Transmission
of Assyrian Propaganda,” in “My Spirit at Rest in the North Country” [Zechariah 6.8]: Collected
Communications from the XXth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old
Testament, Helsinki 2010, ed. Hermann Michael Niemann and Matthias Augustin, Beiträge zur
Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums 57 [Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,
2011], 183–92).
58 William Schniedewind, The Finger of the Scribe: The Beginnings of Scribal Education and How
It Shaped the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019). It should be noted that
as some of the more advanced Mesopotamian literary texts that are docu-
mented in the Levant during the Bronze Age (e.g., Gilgamesh, Adapa, var-
ious wisdom instructions) may have persisted in some form in Iron Age
Levantine scribal training, that training could explain the more atomized
echoes of Mesopotamian tradition that are evident in the earlier primeval
history.59
In either case, it is clear that both layers of the non-P primeval history as-
sociate accounts of primeval origins with Mesopotamian topoi, perhaps re-
flecting a Judean association of cosmological accounts with Mesopotamian
culture. It is perhaps for this reason that the earlier primeval history’s ex-
planation of Judean farming and local peoples (e.g., Kenites, Canaanites,
Hebrews) is nonetheless placed in a set of symbolic locations in a distant,
Mesopotamia-like “East” (Gen 2:8; 3:24). The proto-Genesis revision of this
early primeval history preserved and continued this focus on origins in the
Mesopotamian East, placing the story of human scattering and language dif-
fusion at Babylon (11:1–9) and describing the movement of Nimrod’s king-
ship from central/southern Mesopotamia to the Assyrian north (10:10–12).
At the same time, there is an important shift. Within the new proto-Genesis
extension of the primeval history, these (new) primeval elements now serve
as background for a new, Israel-focused narrative about the ancestors of the
sons of Israel, starting with Abraham’s trip from Haran to the land of Israel
(11:28–30; 12:1–4a, 6). We will see another form of this linkage of primeval
and ancestral epochs in the next chapter, which offers conclusions on Priestly
and post-Priestly stages of development of Genesis 1–11.
Schniedewind focuses on evidence of Mesopotamian structures of education in Hebrew and Aramaic

materials (inscriptions and biblical texts). He is not arguing for Iron Age education in Akkadian texts,
and his conclusions would only bear on the possibility that some more advanced forms of Levantine
scribal training used alphabetic texts that echoed earlier Mesopotamian traditions.
59 Ugarit, with its writing of alphabetic texts on less perishable clay tablets, remains our best Late
Bronze Age picture of a literary culture that combined Mesopotamian cuneiform and Levantine al-
phabetic forms of literature. See Seth L. Sanders, From Adapa to Enoch: Scribal Culture and Religious
Vision in Judea and Babylon, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016),
5–6 for arguments (helpfully correcting my earlier treatment of Ugaritic education in Writing on the
Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature [New York: Oxford University Press, 2005],
52–56), which described how alphabetic education at Ugarit “piggybacked” on cuneiform educa-
tion, with scribes progressing through a cuneiform curriculum of some kind before completing more
basic exercises in Ugaritic.
9
The Priestly Primeval History and
Conflation of P and Non-P
Layers and Dating
The first seven chapters of this book presented a picture of the parallel devel-
opment of two proto-Genesis scrolls, P and non-P, out of earlier composi-
tions that had a more limited, primeval focus. The last chapter argued that
the non-P proto-Genesis scroll was formed out of a primeval history ending
with an implicit etiology of the Hebrews, now expanded with the flood nar-
rative (and related materials) and extended with some form of the non-P an-
cestral history leading to the sons of Jacob/Israel. Earlier chapters built the
case for a similar development in P, one that moved from a Sumerian King
List–like Priestly Toledot book to an expanded Priestly primeval history (as
part of a broader Priestly source)—including (among many other elements)
a version of Genesis 1 (perhaps lacking Sabbath-related elements) and then
a Priestly overview of flood and postflood peoples descending from Noah.
Building on these reflections, this chapter argues that the present form of
Genesis 1–11 arose out of a multistage dialogue of Priestly authors with non-
Priestly traditions, starting with Priestly compositions on separate media
(e.g., the Toledot “scroll of the descendants of Adam” referred to in Gen 5:1)
and eventually concluding with a P-like conflation of the Priestly tradition
and non-P in Genesis 1–11.
The P Toledot Book: Its Precursors and Likely Dating
As argued in chapter 4, the P Toledot book, particularly in evidence in

Genesis 5* and 11:10–26, seems to have drawn on the names of (non-P)
Genesis 4 for its ten-generation genealogy from Adam to Noah, while also
listing further postflood patriarchs leading up to Abraham. Chapter 4 of
this book also argued that the author of the P Toledot book likely used a late
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190062545.003.0001
P and the Conflation of P and Non-P 251
iteration of the Sumerian King List tradition as a model for these adapta-
tions of non-P, including its overall representation of the primeval period in
terms of a linear, pre-and postflood genealogy and its addition of a strong
emphasis on chronology, including an overall orientation of the preflood
portion of that chronology to the flood.
Though it seems as if this Toledot book drew on the non-P material in
Genesis 4, it is not so clear which version of the non-P primeval history it
was related to. The scope of the P Toledot book—extending from Adam to
Abraham—most closely approximates that of the earlier independent non-P
primeval history that likely ended with Shem and “all the sons of Eber.” One
could suppose that the P Toledot book represented the particular Priestly
counterpart of an early non-P primeval history, quite generally modelled
on the primeval scope on that history, but offering a new, genealogically-
oriented representation of that history along the lines of a late version of the
Sumerian King List (SKL) tradition (e.g., where Noah is now a flood hero).
In this case, the Toledot book would have preceded the addition of the non-P
flood and related narratives to the primeval history, with that addition then
depending in some ways on the pre-P Toledot book, e.g. in its extended treat-
ment of Noah as flood hero (cf. Gen 6:9; 7:6; 9:28–29).1 Following this ap-
proach, the chronology of P and non-P sources would be reconstructed in
the following order: from 1) a non-P primeval history (without flood) to 2) a
Toledot Book (Noah as flood hero) to 3) expansion of non-P primeval his-
tory with the flood and other narratives to 4) P’s expansion of the Toledot
book with a creation account, flood and other narratives.
Interesting as that model might be, it is also accompanied by certain prob-
lems. In particular, there are some indicators suggesting that the Toledot
book built on the expanded form of the non-P primeval history—including
a flood narrative and following ancestral section—rather than preceding it.
For example, as discussed in chapter 4, the picture of Abraham’s family at
the conclusion of the Toledot book (Gen 11:26) and link of his family with
Harran in the Toledot book’s possible conclusion (Gen 11:27, 32) may be
1 A possible indicator supporting this model of a relatively early Toledot book is the way Yhwh’s
focus on Noah’s righteousness “amidst this generation” in the non-P flood narrative (‫אתך ראיתי‬
‫ ;צדיק לפני בדור הזה‬7:1b) might be a blind motif partially echoing a focus in the Toledot book on
Noah’s righteousness across the multiple generations of pre-diluvian humanity (‫;תמים היה בדדרתיו‬
6:9aβ). Nevertheless, as mentioned in note 4 of c hapter 6, a number of interpreters (e.g., Jan Christian
Gertz, Das erste Buch Moses (Genesis): Die Urgeschichte Gen 1–11, ATD [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2018], 253–4) see Gen 7:1b as a post-P addition to Gen 7:1–4 modelled on Gen 6:9 (and
contrasting with non-P in Gen 6:8).
dependent on non-P materials (e.g., Gen 11:28–30) that have been assigned
here to the extension of a non-P primeval history with the flood narrative
and subsequent non-P ancestral narrative.2
Turning to questions of dating this Toledot book, the material assigned
to it (in chapter 4) does not provide much of a basis on which to date it. One
might argue for a relatively early dating of the Toledot book on the basis of
its preservation of an unusually early stage of the Hebrew numbering system
(with ascending digits and repetition of ‫)שנה‬, early compared both with
P and non-P.3 Nevertheless, insofar as an early dating of the Toledot book
(perhaps even before the expansion of the non-P primeval history) implies a
dating of that book in the monarchal period, one must ask how likely it is that
monarchal-period Priestly tradents would have created such a Toledot book,
modelled on the royally focused SKL tradition, which itself lacked a clear
link to the Davidic kingship. To be sure, the Toledot book’s focus on nonroyal
primeval patriarchs was likely derived in part from the nonroyal character
of the non-P genealogy in Genesis 4, and Judean tradents may have been
reluctant to posit a primeval origin for Davidic kingship that is identified
in other traditions (e.g., 1–2 Samuel) as originating in a much later period.4
Nevertheless, given the other ways in which the Toledot book apparently cre-
atively rearranged and augmented non-P materials (and the fact that its likely
Sumerian King List model was focused on royal dynasties), it is striking that
its Adam-to-Abraham genealogy is not more directly linked to the Davidic
monarchy (aside from concluding with Abraham).
A Separate Priestly Source in the Primeval History
The previously discussed Toledot book appears to have been the founda-
tion on which P created the Genesis portion of its longer work—a longer
2 As noted in Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte, WMANT 57 (Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984), 343–44, n. 11, the secondary addition of Har(r)an to non-P an-
cestral traditions may be associated with a later extension of the earlier Jacob story, one that placed
Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia.
3 On this, see again John Screnock “The Syntax of Complex Adding Numerals and Hebrew
Diachrony,” JBL 41 (2018): 789–819, especially 799–800, 804, 815–6.

4 This book will not attempt engagement with the intense discussion regarding the dating and
formation of these traditions about kingship in 1–2 Samuel. The preceding discussion presup-
poses a premonarchal base to them (building on discussions such as Erhard Blum, “Ein Anfang der
Geschichtsschreibung?” in Die sogenante Thronfolgegeschichte Davids: neue Einsichten und Anfragen,
ed. Albert de Pury and Thomas Römer [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000], 4–37), but this
is not agreed.
work that appears to have stood separately from the non-P Genesis materi-
als discussed in the previous chapters. This development started with P’s
addition to the Toledot book of a preceding account of God’s creation of
the human biome and humans as God’s image (Gen 1:1–2:1*), which both
built on and contrasted with certain aspects of the non-P story of YHWH’s
creation of the first humans (Gen 2:4b–3:24) while also differing from and
echoing elements of the Mesopotamian Enuma Elish epic. After adding
materials to the outset of the earlier Priestly Toledot book (Gen 5:1b–2,
3*) that refer back (chiastically) to the climax of the P creation account
(Gen 1:26–28), P then expanded on portions of a Toledot section regarding
Noah’s descendants (Gen 6:9–10; 7:6; 9:28–29), adding its own extended
account of the great flood and rescue of Noah’s family (e.g., Gen 6:11–22;
9:1–17 and many intervening elements), one that paralleled and yet re-
vised numerous elements of the pre-P flood narrative while also echoing
aspects of the Mesopotamian flood tradition. Finally, building somewhat
on a model provided in non-P materials about Noah’s grandsons (Gen
10:13–15 [?16–19], 21), P preceded the Toledot book’s “Descendants of
Shem” section on the postflood Shem-to-Abraham line with a new, over-
lapping section on “the descendants of Noah’s sons” (Gen 10:1a, 2–7, 20,
22–23, 31–32), one that showed the fulfillment of the Genesis 1 creation
blessing on humans (Gen 1:28), specifically renewed after the flood (Gen
9:1, 7) by describing Noah’s sons diversifying and preliminarily filling the
postflood earth.
This Priestly primeval history then seems to have been followed with
Priestly treatments of the ancestors and the Moses-exodus story. Perhaps
building on earlier Toledot book elements in Gen 11:27*, 32*, the Priestly
source continued with Priestly sections regarding Abraham as Terah’s de-
scendant (Gen 11:27, 31–32; 12:4b–5, etc.) and then genealogies of sons of
Abraham excluded from the promise and settled outside the land (Ishmael,
Gen 25:12–16; Esau, 36*), each of which preceded a corresponding section
on chosen sons (Isaac, Gen 26:34–35, etc.; Jacob, Gen 37:1–2, etc.).5 As others
have observed, these Priestly treatments of the ancestors of Israel are less
complete than the Priestly primeval narratives that are the focus of this book.
Indeed, the P ancestral texts often function to frame and recontextualize
5 See David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches
(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 79–81 for a survey of some long-recognized indica-
tors that link Priestly texts about promises to the ancestors to the Priestly primeval history.
more extensive non-P ancestral narratives. Though this is seen by some as

an indicator that P’s ancestral section was originally conceived as a compo-
sitional expansion of non-P texts,6 I am inclined to see this as evidence that
P’s relatively sparse, genealogically oriented treatment of ancestors led the
conflator of P and non-P to preserve fewer parts of P in Genesis 12–50 than
in Genesis 1–11 and to treat them differently.7 Overall, the data suggest that
the Priestly source that begins in the primeval history (Gen 1:1–2:3; 5:1–28,
32; 6:9–22; etc.) was the first part of an expanded Priestly Toledot of Israel’s
ancestors, a P proto-Genesis that originally stood separate from non-P mate-
rials with which it is now combined and contrasted with those materials in
its predominantly genealogical character. This Priestly proto-Genesis, an ex-
panded form of the Toledot “scroll of the descendants of Adam” (Gen 5:1),
stood as the first part of a multiscroll Priestly work that continued with a
Priestly version of the Moses-exodus story that began with a resume of the P
proto-Genesis in Exod 1:1–5.8
Be that as it may, this Priestly work, like the Toledot book that it ex-
panded, appears to have been composed at points in response to the non-P
primeval history that preceded it, albeit in an often loose and contrastive
way. Already in chapter 1 I have discussed indices that parts of Genesis
1 reflect and/or contrast with certain conceptual elements and themes
appearing in the Genesis 2–3 creation story. So also, the introduction to
the Priestly flood story appears to echo and expand on the non-P depic-
tion of the violence of Cain and Lamech (Gen 4:1–16, 23–24), transform-
ing these elements into an account of worldwide violence on the part of
animals and humans that causes the flood (Gen 6:11–13) prior to YHWH’s
institution of regulations concerning human-animal violence and violence
6 For a relatively recent formulation (with citation of earlier treatments) see Erhard Blum, “Noch
einmal: Das Literargeschichtliche Profil der P-Überlieferung,” in Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum
Stand der Pentateuchdebatte, ed. Friedhelm Hartenstein and Konrad Schmid (Leipzig: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 2015), 35–49, who ventures the possibility that an early, incomplete form of P or pre-
forms of P (a stratum designated by him as P0) might have been drafted alongside non-P as prep-
aration for publication of a mixed non-P/P text (Blum’s P Komposition) that is more like present
manuscript text forms (52–54). See also the proposal that P in the ancestral section may represent a
special case in Jakob Wöhrle, Fremdlinge im eigenen Land: Zur Entstehung und Intention der priest
erlichen Passagen der Vätergeschichte, FRLANT 246 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012).
7 My initial treatment of these texts in Reading the Fractures, 89–129, is now updated and revised
with respect to the particularly crucial Joseph story in “Joseph between Ancestors and Exodus: A
Gradual Process of Connection,” in Book Seams in the Hexateuch I: The Literary Transitions between
the Books of Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/Judges, ed. Christoph Berner, Harald Samuel, and Stephen
Germany, FAT 120 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 97–101.
8 Carr, “Joseph between Ancestors and Exodus,” 101–3 advances this proposal regarding P’s early
scroll division, relating it to the present scroll division of the P/non-P conflated text.
among “brothers” after the flood (Gen 9:2–6).9 In addition, P appears to

turn relatively brief mentions of human multiplication in the Garden of
Eden story (Gen 3:16, 20) and at the outset of the story of divine-human
unions (Gen 6:1) into a central vision of the human vocation to “multiply”
(Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7). Following on this, P depicts the postflood spreading of
Noah’s descendants across the earth as a natural process (Gen 10:32), ful-
filling the human vocation to “fill the earth” (Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7), rather than
the result of human overreach and YHWH’s preemptive protection of his
divine power (Gen 11:1–9).
The Priestly work also may briefly appropriate and adapt a more sus-
tained focus in non-P on divine beings that stood alongside YHWH in the
divine council. Non-P included these beings as minor characters at several
points: YHWH consults them about the threat of human godlikeness at the
end of the Garden of Eden story (Gen 3:22); YHWH preemptively prevents
their offspring with human daughters from gaining godlike immortality
(Gen 6:3); and—echoing the humans’ calls to one another to join together
in building and making a name for themselves (‫ ונעשה לנו שם‬. . . ‫;הבה נבנה‬
Gen 11:4)—YHWH calls on a group of heavenly beings to join him in de-
scending and confusing their language (‫ ;הבה נרדה ונבלה שם שפתם‬11:7).
This repeated focus on the divine collectivity in the pre-P primeval history
may stand in the background of P’s brief depiction of God addressing a divine
collectivity in its creation account, indeed at a point pertaining to human
godlikeness. As discussed in c hapter 1, the Genesis 1 Priestly creation narra-
tive has God consulting with the divine collectivity about God’s plan to make
humans godlike—“as our image, similar to our likeness” (‫;בצלמנו כדמותנו‬
Gen 1:26)—in an apparent contrast to YHWH’s concerns in the non-P crea-
tion narrative about excessive human godlikeness (Gen 3:22–24).
In these and other cases, P reflects an apparent awareness of broader
themes in the non-P materials and traces an often similar plot trajectory.
Nevertheless, such similarities should not blind us to the way that the Priestly
proto-Genesis source, like the Toledot book that it expands, is constructed as
an expanded genealogy that is fundamentally distinct in genre and ideology
from the corresponding non-P Genesis materials. It certainly does not rep-
resent itself as any kind of reproduction, paraphrase, or commentary on the
non-P materials. If anything, P appears as something of a counter-write of the
schichtlichem Hintergrund von Gen 5–9, HBS 22 (Freiburg: Herder, 1999), 240–52, 347–63, 406–7.
non-P materials, indeed in precisely the loci, such as the creation of humans
(Gen 1:26–28; cf. Gen 3:22-24), where it shows the most relation to them.10
The basic differences between P and non-P along with the general lack of ver-
batim overlap between them leave room for ongoing debate about the extent
of P’s knowledge of non-P and response to those materials. At the same time,
this book has offered an analysis of indicators in several different portions
of P’s primeval history (Gen 1:1–2:3; 5*; 6:9–9:17*, 10*) that indicate a more
substantial relation of P to non-P than may be evident on a surface level.
The Priestly work was not, however, just dependent on non-P materials.
I have noted in earlier chapters several ways that P adapts and engages some
specific Mesopotamian literary traditions as well. Indeed, in several cases, P’s
alterations vis-à-vis the pre-P narrative appear to have been influenced by
its simultaneous engagement of these nonbiblical traditions. P’s creation ac-
count includes the cosmic scope and implicit focus on divine sovereignty of
the Enuma Elish epic. So also, the Priestly flood narrative itself appropriates
specific elements from the Mesopotamian flood traditions as known from
Atrahasis and tablet 11 of Gilgamesh. More specifically, P’s description of the
human vocation to “multiply and fill the earth” (Gen 1:28; 9:1) may repre-
sent a Priestly counter to the Atrahasis epic’s depiction of the gods’ constantly
struggling to prevent human multiplication.11 In contrast to that depiction,
P emphatically depicts God as wishing such multiplication from the very
outset of creation (Gen 1:28), and, following humanity’s decimation by the
flood, narrates God’s immediate reestablishment (or reinforcement) of the
imperative of human multiplication (Gen 9:1–7).12
Turning to the question of dating, the Priestly layer of the primeval history
does not feature many specific indicators that might help in dating it. Like
the non-P material, it is written in classical Hebrew, which makes highly un-
likely a dating of P well into the Persian or Hellenistic periods.13 P’s apparent
10 Erhard Blum makes a similar point about another place of significant overlap in the P (Gen
35:9–15) and non-P (Gen 28:10–22) stories of Jacob at Bethel (Blum, Vätergeschichte, 265–70).
11 For discussion of the Atrahasis epic on this point, see William Moran, “Atrahasis: The
Babylonian Story of the Flood (review of Millard, Atrahasis),” Bib 52 (1971): 51–61; Anne D. Kilmer,
“The Mesopotamian Concept of Overpopulation and Its Solution as Reflected in theMythology,” Or
41 (1972): 160–77.
12 As suggested in John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 2nd ed., ICC, vol.
1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1930), 171; Ephraim A. Speiser, Genesis (AB 1; Garden City: Doubleday,
1964), 57, this may be expressed in an original reading for Gen 9:7 (preserved in some LXX manu-
scripts) as calling for humans to “be fruitful and multiply, swarm on the earth and rule it.” My com-
mentary on Gen 9:1–7 explores these and other elements of Gen 1:26–28; 9:2–6 that focus on the
sovereignty of humans over the earth and the link of their multiplication to that sovereignty.
13 As argued in Jan Joosten, “Pseudo-Classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew,” in Sirach, Scrolls and
Sages (ed. T. E Muraoka and J. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 146–59; “The Evolution of Literary
specific knowledge of Mesopotamian traditions (Enuma Elish, Sumerian

King List, Mesopotamian flood traditions) might incline one toward a Neo-
Assyrian or Neo-Babylonian period dating, but there is also evidence for on-
going contact with Mesopotamia into the Persian and later periods.14
Another possible indicator for dating P is its apparent relation to texts
identified with late pre-exilic prophets, especially its links with the book of
Ezekiel. To start, there are general similarities between prominent concepts
in Ezekiel, such as a crystalline heavenly plate (‫ ;רקיע‬Ezek 1:22–23, 26) and
the vague vision of a divine figure with humanlike “form” (‫ )דמות‬enthroned
above it (1:26), and the picture in Genesis 1 of God creating a heavenly plate
(1:6–8) and humans in accordance with God’s form (‫ ;כדמות‬Gen 1:26; cf.
5:1).15 It is not clear, however, whether these similar concepts point to a di-
rect genetic relationship between Ezekiel 1 and Genesis 1 and, if so, which
text is dependent on which.16
Hebrew in Biblical Times: The Evidence of Pseudo-classicisms,” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (ed.
Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 281–92, it appears
that Second Temple scribes lost the ability to produce classical Hebrew at some point. Some would
place the disintegration of classical Hebrew at the outset of the Babylonian exile, succeeded by a
form of “Transitional Biblical Hebrew” (illustrated especially in the book of Ezekiel) produced by
all Judean scribal groups (for a recent example, see, Ron Hendel and Jan Joosten, How Old Is the
Hebrew Bible? A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study [AB Reference Library; New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2018], 73–84). Nevertheless, the database used for this supposed “Transitional
Biblical Hebrew” includes a number of books that appear to originate in the Persian period or
later—whether on the whole (e.g., Job, Jonah, MT pluses in Jeremiah, Haggai, Zechariah) or in part
(Ezekiel, Isaiah 40-66). As it is, the best evidence for the disintegration of the classical Hebrew dialect
is found in works datable to the end of the Persian period or beginning of the Hellenistic period (e.g.,
Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Daniel, Esther). It is likely that this disintegration impacted different
text types to divergent extents and also happened gradually and to differing extents in various sec-
tors of Judean scribalism from the early sixth century onward. For further discussion, see Erhard
Blum, “The Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Approach with Methodological Limitations,” in
The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America
(ed. Konrad Schmid, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 303–25, especially 311–14.
14 For a sophisticated and up-to-date survey, see the discussion in Jonathan Ben-Dov, Head of All
Years: Astronomy and Calendars at Qumran in Their Ancient Context (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 270–75,
though note important questions raised in Mladen Popović, “The Emergence of Aramaic and Hebrew
Scholarly Texts: Transmission and Translation of Alien Wisdom,” in Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of
Traditions and Production of Texts (ed. Sarianna Metso, Hindy Najman, and Eileen Schuller; STDJ 92;
Leiden: Brill, 2010), 110–14 about Ben-Dov’s (and others’) suggestion that the name Shemaya in the
colophon of a likely Persian-period Babylonian cuneiform scholastic text (BM 47463) is an identifi-
ably Jewish name.
15 I make a case that this concept in Gen 1:26-28 and related texts includes an idea of physical
resemblance, much like that affirmed in a very qualified way in Ezek 1:26, in my discussion of this
pericope in Genesis 1–11 (IECOT; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2019). One might also bring into this dis-
cussion the mention of Noah in a trio of figures who have righteousness (‫ )צדקה‬in Ezek 14:14, but
this mention could equally be a place where Ezekiel is dependent on an element in the non-P flood
story (Gen 7:1; or an interpretation of Gen 6:8).
16 See John Day, “‘So God Created Humanity in His Own Image’ (Genesis 1.27). What Does the
Bible Mean and What Have People Thought it Meant,” in Human Dignity in the Judaeo-Christian
Tradition, ed. John Loughlin (London: Bloomsbury, 2019), 21–24 for recent argument for a genetic
Perhaps yet more significant is P’s use in the flood narrative of concepts
of “ruin” (‫)שחת‬, a place being filled with “violence” (‫)חמס‬, and a resulting
“end” (‫)קץ‬, a matrix of ideas that resembles clusters of these same concepts
in judgment prophecies on Israel in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The wordplay on
‫( שחת‬ruin) in Gen 6:11–13—as a designation of both God’s destructive pun-
ishment and the state that prompted this punishment—resembles similar
usage of this term in Ezekiel and Jeremiah. In particular, two loci in the book
of Jeremiah (13:1–11; 18:1–11) likewise feature the idea of YHWH’s impend-
ing “ruin” (‫ ;שחת‬hiphil; 13:9) of something as a response to its “becoming
ruined” (‫ ;שחת‬niphal; 13:7; 18:4).17 Furthermore, God’s announcement in
Gen 6:13 of an “end” (‫ )קץ‬caused by the earth’s being filled with “violence”
(‫ )חמס‬is close to a similar conjunction of these concepts in Ezekiel 7 (7:2–
3, 6, 23; also filling with violence in 8:17).18 In sum, Gen 6:11–13 features
a striking cluster of multiple, distinctive concepts that appear together in
prophetic books associated with the end of the pre-exilic period. Moreover,
the direction of dependence seems clearer than in a case like Genesis 1 and
Ezekiel 1. Rather than seeing these judgment oracles in Ezekiel and Jeremiah
as fragmenting motifs from P in Gen 6:11–13 in order to formulate judg-
ments on Israel, it seems more likely that P gathers these motifs from late
pre-exilic prophecies and globalizes their focus to provide a fitting prophetic-
style divine judgment at the outset of the flood narrative. If so, these con-
siderations would put the composition of the broader Priestly source, at the
earliest, in the exile.19
Such a dating in the exile would also conform with other elements in the
Priestly primeval history. In particular, the names specific to the Priestly
relation between Ezekiel (esp. 1:26) and Gen 1:27. For discussion of problems surrounding different
models for the relationship of Ezekiel 1 and Genesis 1, see especially Walter Bührer, “Ezechiel und
die Priesterschrift,” in Das Buch Ezechiel: Komposition, Redaktion und Rezeption, ed. Jan C. Gertz, C.
Körting, and Markus Witte, BZAW 516 (Berlin: De Gruyter, forthcoming), . My thanks to the author
for sharing a prepublication version of this article with me.
17 Robert Oberforcher, Die Flutprologe als Kompositionsschlüssel der biblischen Urgeschichte,
Innsbrucker theologische Studien 8 (Innsbruck: Tyrolia Verlag, 1981), 416–23.

18 As noted in the classic article Rudolph Smend, “‘Das Ende ist gekommen’: Ein Amoswort in der
Priesterschrift,” in Die Botschaft und die Boten, ed. Jörg Jeremias and Lothar Perlitt (Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 67–72, the concept of a coming “end” appears in the book of
Amos (8:2) as well. Nevertheless, the particular iteration of this idea in Ezekiel 7–8 appears closer
to P’s formuation. See Andreas Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel: Der literar- und theologiege-
schichtlich Diskurs der Urgeschichte (Genesis 1–11), ATANT 86 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2006),
305–6 (building on many others).
19 Depending on how one views the literary history of Ezekiel, this data could also point to a still
later dating of P. On this, again compare the careful treatment of the issue, including discussion of
how European accounts of the formation of Ezekiel would bear on the question of the relationship
between Ezekiel and P, in Bührer, “Ezechiel und die Priesterschrift.”
layer in Genesis 10 are best attested in texts associated with Jeremiah and
(especially) Ezekiel, while Genesis 10 lacks a counterpart to the Persians,
who become more important in the later sixth century.20 In addition, schol-
ars have long observed that the Priestly depiction of God’s creating humans
“as our image, in accordance with our likeness, in order to rule” appears to
democratize the Near Eastern concept of the king as representing the image
of the deity on earth and exercising rule as the deity’s representative.21 Such
a democratization would seem to make the most sense in a postmonarchic
context. Similarly, P features a striking density of temple imagery across its
creation, flood, and tabernacle narratives without ever arriving at a specific
anticipation of/affirmation of the Jerusalem Temple. This, too, seems to make
the most sense in a sixth-century context in which the first Temple had al-
ready been destroyed and the second one not yet (re)built.22 At the same
time, these latter arguments in particular (regarding the image of God and
temple imagery in P) only represent plausible suppositions about a likely
context for certain features of the P narrative; it is, of course, also possible
that they originated in another time.23
20 Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11, BKAT I/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974
[English translation 1984]), 680 [ET 509], who focuses on connections between P in Gen 10:2–5
and Ezekiel 27 and 38. On links of names in Genesis 10 (particularly P) to texts in Jeremiah and
Ezekiel, see already August Dillmann, Die Genesis, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten
Testament 11 (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1892), 166 [ET 316–17]; Donald J. Wiseman, “Genesis 10: Some
Archaeological Considerations,” Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 87 (1955): 14–
24 (esp. p. 14); and Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Pt. 2, From Noah to
Abraham, With an Appendix: A Fragment of Part 3, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press,
1964 [1949 Hebrew original]), 185. For discussion of particular links of Ezekiel’s oracle on Tyre
(Ezekiel 27–28) and the names in P, see Markus Saur, Der Tyroszyklus des Ezechielbuches, BZAW 386
(Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008), 66–71, 197–237.
21 For a summary of relevant literature and specification of the nature of adaptation, see Bernd
Janowski, “Die lebendige Statue Gottes. Zur Anthropologie der priesterlichen Urgeschichte,” in Gott
und Mensch im Dialog, ed. Markus Witte, BZAW 345 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004), 183–214. More
broadly, see especially the discussions in Randall Garr, In His Own Image and Likeness: Humanity,
Divinity, and Monotheism, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 15 (Leiden: Brill, 2003); J.
Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press,
2005); and Annette Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild Gottes?: Zum Gedanken einer Sonderstellung
des Menschen im Alten Testament und in weiteren altorientalischen Quellen (Zürich: Theologischer
Verlag, 2011).
22 I discuss temple-linked elements in Genesis 1 and 6:11–22, citing earlier literature, in my treat-
ment of these texts in Genesis 1–11.

23 On this problem, see the helpful reflections in Benjamin Sommer, “Dating Pentateuchal Texts
and the Perils of Pseudo-Historicism,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current

Research, ed. Thomas Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch Schwartz, FAT (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2011), 85–94. Also, though the implicit focus on Sabbath in Genesis 1 has been used by me
(e.g., Reading the Fractures, 138) and others in order to identify an overall date for P, I identify this
element in chapter 1 of this book as a likely augmentation of an earlier P text. As such, it is not as
useful an index of dating as some other customs prominent in P are (surveyed briefly in Reading the
Fractures, 137–38).
Finally, one might date P in relation to the Toledot book on which it builds
and the non-P primeval history upon which it appears to depend at points.
In the previous chapter I argued for a late Neo-Assyrian period dating for
the expanded non-P primeval history, which would, in this light, suggest a
(somewhat) later dating for P. That said, I acknowledged the tentative char-
acter of that dating for non-P in the earlier discussion, and other scholars dis-
agree that P is, in fact, genetically dependent on the non-P primeval history.
The above suggested exilic dating for the Toledot book is even more tenta-
tive, which makes it a weak basis for dating the Priestly source that was built
around it. In sum, dating P on the basis of its likely dependence on tentatively
dated and hypothetically reconstructed literary strata (both the non-P pri-
meval history and pre-P Toledot book) adds multiple layers of uncertainty to
an already hypothetical enterprise.
With all those qualifications, the data that are available do seem to point
to the composition of the Priestly primeval history sometime during the
Babylonian exile. This would be compatible with datings proposed here for
other reconstructed documents in Genesis 1–11, such as the non-P primeval
history, on which P appears to depend. An exilic dating of P also would ac-
count for the particularly close affinities of P (especially Gen 6:11–13)
with materials associated with early-sixth-century prophets (Jeremiah and
Ezekiel). Finally, an exilic dating could also help explain the circumstances
under which the Priestly primeval history might (re)deploy motifs around
kingship and temple in ways that do not directly refer to the Davidic mon-
archy and Jerusalem Temple.
Late and Post-Priestly Layers of the Primeval History
Turning to the final stages of composition of Genesis 1–11, it appears that

the work of the conflator of P and non-P can be seen as part of a trajectory
of Priestly composition, broadly construed. We see this initially in the fre-
quent P-like diction and/or P-like function of elements identified in previous
chapters as conflational. These start with a P-like Toledot heading in Gen
2:4a (noted in chapter 1, note 1), that performs a conflational function in
bridging between the P creation account in Genesis 1 and the non-P block in
Gen 2:4b–4:26.24 In chapter 6 I discussed a series of conflational additions to
24 For discussion and engagement of proposals that Gen 2:4 as a whole is literarily unified, see
especially Markus Witte, Die biblische Urgeschichte: Redaktions- und theologiegeschichtliche

non-P materials that conformed those materials more closely to Priestly con-
cepts of the role of animals in the flood (e.g., 7:8–9, 23*; also Noah’s family
in 7:7a*) as well as additions of specific month and day notices to Priestly
materials to coordinate the P and non-P chronological systems (7:11*;
8:4a, 5bα, 14). Finally, in chapter 7 I discussed some conflational additions
that adopt non-P-like diction in the process of extending Priestly elements
and/or following P models. These include the resumptive expansion of the
P Toledot heading in Gen 10:1b to situate the Genesis 10 overview in the
postflood period, the verbal fathering report for Nimrod (Gen 10:8a) that
introduces the material about him in a new context as an expansion related
to the “Cush” listed by P among Ham’s descendants (Gen 10:6), and materials
concerning Joktan’s descendants (Gen 10:26–30) that provide a P-like survey
of descendants of Shem/Eber who do not lead to the promise (cf. Gen 25:12–
18; 36:1–43). In this latter case, one can see how the conflator only partially
extended or followed P models, since the overview of Joktan’s descendants is
not a perfect counterpart to P’s genealogical sections for Ishmael and Esau.
On balance, however, it appears that the conflator of P and non-P generally
privileged Priestly perspectives over those in non-P and can, in this sense, be
seen as continuing a Priestly trajectory of composition.
This privileging may also be seen in the way the conflator organized and
preserved P and non-P materials across Genesis 1–11. The primeval history
begins, as would necessarily be the case, with P’s broader creation narrative
in Genesis 1. The conflator then included the initial episodes of the non-P
primeval history virtually intact as a supplement to the Priestly creation
narrative, creating a P-like Toledot label for that material as concerning the
“Outcomes of heaven and earth” (Gen 2:4a). In this way the conflator ex-
tended backward the Priestly Toledot system that originally began with the
introduction to the Toledot book in Gen 5:1a. After this point, the confla-
tor appears to have (only) partially preserved some non-P materials in the
process of using them to supplement a better-preserved Priestly framework,
while preserving more completely non-P stories that had no counterpart in
P. Thus non-P stories that do not duplicate an extended story in P—such as
the story of divine-human unions in Gen 6:1–4, the story of Noah and his
sons in Gen 9:18–27, and the Babel story in Gen 11:1–9—were preserved
entire. But the conflator was more selective in incorporating other non-P
Beobachtungen zu Genesis 1,1–11,26, BZAW 265 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998), 54–56; and Jan Christian
Gertz, “Von Adam zu Enosch. Überlegungen zur Enstehungsgeschichte von Gen 2–4,” in Gott und
Mensch im Dialog, ed. Markus Witte (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004), 218–20.
materials regarding Noah, starting with his apparent elimination of a non-

P birth notice for Noah and preserving only the non-P naming report as a
supplement to the Toledot book’s treatment (Gen 5:29). In the case of the
flood narrative, the conflator moved the non-P introduction to non-P’s flood
narrative to a point prior to the Noah Toledot section as an anticipation of it
(Gen 6:5–8). He also moved the non-P report of YHWH’s closing of Noah
into the ark (Gen 7:16b) to a point after the arrival of the rain, which re-
port it likely originally preceded (Gen 7:12). Finally, the conflator apparently
eliminated an earlier non-P description of YHWH’s orders for ark construc-
tion and Noah’s compliance with them that would have conflicted with the
Priestly version of the same (Gen 6:13–22).
The P-like conflator executed similar eliminations and reorganizations
of the non-P overview of the descendants of Noah’s sons, as discussed in
chapter 7. He eliminated a non-P report of Ham’s fathering of Egypt and
Canaan that would have conflicted with P’s prior listing of Ham’s sons (Gen
10:6). Moreover, he seems to have moved the Nimrod section (Gen 10:8b–
12) prior to the story of Babel that it likely followed in an earlier arrange-
ment of non-P (11:1–9), adding a (verbal, non-P-like) identification of
Nimrod as a(nother) son of Cush (Gen 10:8a), beyond those listed in P in
Gen 10:7. Finally, the conflator appears to have eliminated the non-P tran-
sition from the Babel account (11:1–9) and Nimrod materials (10:8b–12) to
the Abraham story (Gen 11:28-30; 12:1ff.) in favor of P’s transition between
those sections (Gen 11:10–26).
Thus the partial character and apparent supplementary function of non-P
across the flood and postflood portions of Genesis 6–10 should not be seen
as evidence of the post-Priestly supplementary nature of the non-P materi-
als. These features of non-P materials in Genesis 6–10 result from the partic-
ular challenges involved in making one narrative out of parallel P and non-P
materials in these chapters. This conflational challenge explains why a partial
and seeming supplementary character for non-P appears specifically in the
flood and postflood sections where P and non-P have been interwoven—and
not elsewhere in Genesis 1–11.
There is very little evidence available for dating the conflation of P and
non-P in Genesis 1–11. This is partly a result of the quite limited amount of
material that is identifiable as created in this conflation. Yet it is also a result
of the fact that this conflational material generally imitates material in earlier
layers. Some such conflational materials—such as the Toledot label in 2:4a
and various additions to the flood narrative (e.g., Gen 6:7*; 7:23 and P-like
conflational dates)—adopt P-diction and models. Other materials—such as

the extension of the Toledot label in Gen 10:1b (//4:18), the fathering report
for Cush (10:8a Qal), and the report of the birth of sons to Eber (Gen 10:25//
10:21, if conflational)—imitate archaic language in earlier non-P texts.25
The limited scope of these conflational fragments and their apparent imita-
tive character mean that the linguistic profile of these texts is less helpful for
dating than such analysis can be when working with longer stretches of non-
imitative narrative material.26 Moreover, most of these conflational additions
seem focused on bridging between divergent elements in P and non-P and
thus do not provide independent data with which one might date them. If the
material about Joktan in 10:26–29a originates in a list of Nabatean tribes, it
might suggest a Second Temple period date for that and related additions.27
But that is the only material with potential relevance for dating that I see in
the identifiable conflational materials of Genesis 1–11.
Finally, there is the case of the possible addition of a Sabbath-focused
layer (e.g., 1:3–5; 2:2–3) to the Priestly creation account in Gen 1:1–2:3.
Some would argue that these Sabbath additions were made by a Holiness
redactor who was more broadly responsible for the conflation of P and non-
P.28 And one might indeed suppose that the proposed Sabbath-oriented
revision of Genesis 1 was part of a broader conflation of P and non-P, par-
ticularly because one crucial element in it, Gen 2:2–3, is contiguous with
the Gen 2:4a Toledot label that also appears to be a part of the conflation
of P and non-P. Nevertheless, this Sabbath-oriented revision in Genesis 1
appears to be both more extensive and subtle than other identifiable parts
of the conflation of P and non-P across Genesis 1–11. It does not consist of
discrete additions similar to those that coordinate chronological notices
in non-P to portions of the Priestly flood narrative. Instead, this Sabbath-
focused revision of Genesis 1—if it even happened at all—represents a
thoroughgoing, partially unidentifiable modification of its earlier Priestly
25 Gen 10:1b follows the imperfect passive verbal form (Niphal [or Qal passive] of ‫ )ילד‬that
appeared previously in Gen 4:18, while Gen 10:25 shifts to follow the prefix passive verbal form (now
more clearly Qal passive) that appeared just before it in Gen 10:21. To be sure, these correspondences
could be interpreted as evidence of common authorship. See chapter 7 for discussion of regarding the
likely conflational character of these verses instead (possible conflational character in the case of Gen
10:25).
26 For this reason, I have doubts about the dating of these particular fragments on that basis in
Ronald S. Hendel, “‘Begetting’ and ‘Being Born’ in the Pentateuch: Notes on Historical Linguistics
and Source Criticism” (review), VT 50 (2000): 38–46.
27 Witte, “Völkertafel,” sec. 2.3.
28 This is the perspective on H advanced in Israel Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah
and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 102–3, 200.

Vorlage. Moreover, the hypothesized Sabbath expansion of Genesis 1 (e.g.,

Gen 1:3–5; parts of 1:14–18; 2:2–3 and day structure) shows no signs of co-
ordinating P and non-P elements as seen in the previously discussed can-
didates for conflational additions in Genesis 2–10 and by which they may
be identified.
Here again, as so often in this analysis, we find ourselves at the edges of
what we might potentially identify as options in the hypothetical reconstruc-
tion of the formation of Genesis 1–11. We cannot go further—if we can even
go this far. And on that quite uncertain but methodologically necessary note,
I conclude.
Bibliography
Abramsky, Samuel. “Nimrod and the Land of Nimrod I: On the Perspective on the
Beginning of Kingship in the Book of Genesis [Hebrew].” Beth Miqra 82 (1980): 237–55.
———. “Nimrod and the Land of Nimrod II [Hebrew].” Beth Miqra 83 (1980): 321–40.
Albani, Matthias. Der eine Gott und die himmlischen Heerscharen: Zur Begründung des
Monotheismus bei Deuterojesaja im Horizont der Astralisierung des Gottesverständnisses
im Alten Orient. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 1. Leipzig: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1960.
Albertz, Rainer. “Hintergrund und Bedeutung des Elterngebots im Dekalog.” ZAW 90
(1978): 348–74.
Albright, William F. “The End of ‘Calneh in Shinar.’” JNES 3 (1944): 254–55.
Alonso- Schökel, Luis. “Motivos Sapienciales y de Alianza en Gn 2– 3.” Bib 43
(1962): 295–316.
Amit, Yairah. “Creation and the Calendar of Holiness [Hebrew].” Pages 13*–39* in
Tehillah-le-Moshe (FS Greenberg). Edited by Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and
Jeffrey H. Tigay. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987.
Arneth, Martin. Durch Adams Fall ist ganz verderbt: Studien zur Entstehung der alttes-
tamentlichen Urgeschichte. FRLANT 217. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007.
Aster, Shawn Zelig. “Treaty and Prophecy: A Survey of Biblical Reactions to Neo-Assyrian
Political Thought.” Pages 89–118 in The Southern Levant under Assyrian Domination.
Edited by Shawn Zelig Aster and Avi Faust. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2018.
Astruc, Jean. Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux dont il paroît que Moyse s’est servi
pour composer le livre de la Genése. Paris: Chez Fricx, 1999 [1753 original].
Baden, Joel. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis.
Anchor Bible Reference Library. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012.
———“‘His Tent’: Pitched at the Intersection of Orthography and Source Criticism”
in “Like ’Ilu, Are You Wise”: Studies in Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures
in Honor of Dennis G. Pardee. Edited by H. H. Hardy II, Joseph Lam, and Eric D.
Reymond. Chicago: Oriental Institute Press, forthcoming 2020.
———. “The Tower of Babel: A Case Study in the Competing Methods of Historical and
Modern Literary Criticism.” JBL 128 (2009): 209–24.
Bailey, Lloyd. “Biblical Math as Heilsgeschichte?” Pages 84–102 in A Gift of God in Due
Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders. Edited by
Richard D. Weis and David M. Carr. JSOTSup 225. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996.
Baines, John. “Egyptian Myth and Discourse: Myth, Gods, and the Early Written and
Iconographic Record.” JNES 50 (1991): 81–105.
Barr, James. “One Man or All Humanity?” Pages 3–21 in Recycling Biblical Figures. Edited
by Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten. Leiden: Deo Publishing, 1999.
Bartelmus, Rüdiger. Heroentum in Israel und seiner Umwelt: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung zu Gen. 6, 1–4 und verwandten Texten im Alten Testament und der altori-
entalischen Literatur. ATANT 65. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1979.
266 Bibliography
Baruchi-Unna, Amitai. “‘Your Servant and Son I Am’: Aspects of the Assyrian Imperial
Experience of Judah.” Pages 119–38 in The Southern Levant under Assyrian Domination.
Edited by Shawn Zelig Aster and Avi Faust. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2018.
Bassett, Frederick. “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan, a Case of Incest?” VT 21
(1971): 232–37.
Bauks, Michaela. “Clothing and Nudity in the Noah Story (Gen. 9:18–29).” Pages 379–87
in Clothing and Nudity in the Hebrew Bible: A Handbook. Edited by Christoph Berner
et al. London: T&T Clark, 2019.
———. “Sacred Trees in the Garden of Eden and Their Ancient Near Eastern Precursors.”
JAJ 3 (2012): 267–301.
———. Die Welt am Anfang: Zum Verhältnis von Vorwelt und Weltentstehung in Gen 1 und
in der altorientalischen Literatur. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997.
Baumgart, Norbert Clemens. “Gen 5,29—ein Brückenvers in der Urgeschichte und
zugleich ein Erzählerkommentar.” BN 92 (1998): 35–56.
———. Die Umkehr des Schöpfergottes: Zu Komposition und religionsgeschichtlichem
Hintergrund von Gen 5–9. HBS 22. Freiburg: Herder, 1999.
Baumgarten, Albert I. The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary. Etudes
préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 89. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
Bechtel, Lynn. “Genesis 2,4b- 3.24: A Myth about Human Maturation.” JSOT 67
(1995): 3–26.
Ben-Dov, Jonathan. Head of All Years: Astronomy and Calendars at Qumran in Their
Ancient Context. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Bergsma, John S., and Scott W. Hahn. “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan
(Genesis 9:20–27).” JBL 124 (2005): 25–40.
Berlejung, Angelika. “Living in the Land of Shinar: Reflections on Exile in Genesis 11:1–
9?” Pages 89–111 in The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah. Edited by Peter
Dubrovsky and Dominik Markl. FAT 107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A Discursive Commentary on
Genesis 1–11. London: T&T Clark, 2011.
———. “P and J in Genesis 1:1–11:26: An Alternative Hypothesis.” Pages 1–15 in
Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of
His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Astrid B. Beck et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
———. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. AB Reference
Library. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
———. “A Post-exilic Lay Source in Genesis 1–11.” Pages 49–61 in Abschied vom
Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by
Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte. BZAW 315. Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2002.
Blum, Erhard. “Ein Anfang der Geschichtsschreibung?” Pages 4–37 in Die sogenante
Thronfolgegeschichte Davids: Neue Einsichten und Anfragen. Edited by Albert de Pury
and Thomas Römer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000.
———. Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte. WMANT 57. Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984.
———. “The Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Approach with Methodological
Limitations.” Pages 303–25 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic
Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America. Edited by Konrad Schmid, Bernard
Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Jan Christian Gertz. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2016.
Bibliography 267
———. “Noch einmal: Das Literargeschichtliche Profil der P-Überlieferung.” Pages 32–
64 in Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte. Edited by
Friedhelm Hartenstein and Konrad Schmid. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2015.
———. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. BZAW 189. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990.
———. “Urgeschichte.” TRE 34 (2002): 436–45.
———. “Der vermeintliche Gottesname ʿElohim.’” Pages 97–119 in Gott nennen: Gottes
Namen und Gott als Name. Edited by Ingolf U. Dalforth and Philipp Stoellger. Religion
in Philosophy and Theology 35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
———. “‘Verstehst du dich nicht auf die Schreibkunst?’: Ein weisheitlicher Dialog
über Vergänglichkeit und Verantwortung—Kombination II der Wandinschrift vom
Tell Deir ʿAlla.” Pages 33–53 in Was ist der Mensch, dass du seiner gedenkst? (Psalm
8,5): Aspekte einer theologischen Anthropologie (FS Janowski). Edited by Michaela
Bauks, Kathrin Liess, and Peter Riede. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008.
———. “Von Gottesunmittelbarkeit zu Gottähnlichkeit: Überlegungen zur theologischen
Anthropologie der Paradieserzählung.” In Gottes Nähe im Alten Testament. Edited by
Eberhardt Gönke and Kathrin Liess. SBS 202. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2004.
Bosshard-Nepustil, Erich. Vor uns die Sintflut: Studien zu Text, Kontexten und Rezeption
der Fluterzählung Genesis 6–9. BWANT 9:5. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005.
Bost, Hubert. Babel: Du texte au symbole. Monde de la Bible. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1985.
Boyd, Samuel. “Sargon’s Dūr-Šarrukīn Cylinder Inscription and Language Ideology: A
Reconsideration and Connection to Gen 11:1–9.” JNES 78 (2019), 87–111.
Budde, Karl. Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen. 1–12, 5). Giessen: Ricker, 1883.
———. Was soll die Gemeinde aus dem Streit um Babel und Bibel lernen? Ein Vortrag.
Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1903.
Burkert, Walter. “Orientalische und griechische Weltmodelle von Assur bis
Anaximandros.” Wiener Studien 107/108 (1994/1995): 179–86.
Buttmann, Philipp. Mythologus oder gesammelte Abhandlungen über die Sagen des
Alterthums 1. Berlin: Mylius, 1828.
Bührer, Walter. Am Anfang . . . : Untersuchungen zur Textgenese und zur relativ-
chronologischen Einordnung von Gen 1–3. FRLANT 256. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2014.
———. “Ezechiel und die Priesterschrift.” In Das Buch Ezechiel: Komposition, Redaktion
und Rezeption. Edited by Jan C. Gertz, C. Körting, and Markus Witte. BZAW 516.
Berlin: De Gruyter, forthcoming.
———. “Göttersöhne und Menschentöchter: Gen 6,1– 4 als innerbiblische
Schriftauslegung.” ZAW 123 (2011): 495–515.
———. “Nimrod coram Domino— Nimrod cora Israhel: Inhalt und Tendenz der
Nimrod-Notiz Gen 10,8–12.” BN 173 (2017): 3–22.
Campbell, Antony. “The Reported Story: Midway between Oral Performance and Literary
Art.” Semeia 46 (1989): 77–85.
———. “The Storyteller’s Role: Reported Story and Biblical Text.” CBQ 64 (2002): 427–41.
Carr, David M. “Βίβλος γενέσεως Revisited: A Synchronic Analysis of Patterns in Genesis
as Part of the Torah (Parts One and Two).” ZAW 110 (1998): 159–72, 327–47.
———. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2011.
———. Genesis 1–11. IECOT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2019.
———. Holy Resilience: The Bible’s Traumatic Origins. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 2014.
268 Bibliography
———. “Joseph between Ancestors and Exodus: A Gradual Process of Connection.” Pages
85–103 in Book Seams in the Hexateuch I: The Literary Transitions between the Books of
Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/Judges. Edited by Christoph Berner, Harald Samuel, and
Stephen Germany. FAT 120. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018.
———. “Looking at Historical Background, Redaction and Possible Bad Writing in Gen
6,1–4: A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis.” BN 181 (2019): 7–24.
———. “Method in Determining the Dependence of Biblical on Non-Biblical Texts.”
Pages 41–53 in Subtle Citation, Allusion, and Translation in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by
Ziony Zevit. Sheffield: Equinox, 2017.
———. “On the Meaning and Uses of the Category of ‘Diachrony’ in Exegesis.” In
Exegetik des Alten Testaments. Edited by Joachim Krause and Kristin Weingart. FAT.
Forthcoming Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2020.
———. “The Politics of Textual Subversion: A Diachronic Perspective on the Garden of
Eden Story.” JBL 112 (1993): 577–95.
———. Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches. Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996.
———. “Scribal Dynamics at the Beginning of the Bible: The Case of Genesis 1–4.”. In Oral
et écrit dans l’Antiquité orientale: les processus de rédaction et d’édition. Actes du colloque
organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 26 et 27 mai 2016. Edited by Thomas Römer,
Hervé Gonzalez, Lionel Marti, and Jan Rückl. OBO. Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming.
—— — . “Standing at the Edge of Reconstructable Transmission History: Signs of
a Secondary Sabbath- Oriented Stratum in Gen 1:1– 2:3.” In Vetus Testamentum
Anniversary Volume. Edited by Jan Joosten. VTSup. Leiden: Brill, 2020.
———. “Strong and Weak Cases and Criteria for Establishing the Post-Priestly Character
of Hexateuchal Material.” Pages 9–34 in The Post-Priestly Pentateuch. Edited by
Federico Giuntolli and Konrad Schmid. FAT 101. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.
———. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Pt. 1. From Adam to Noah.
Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961 [1944 Hebrew original].
———. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Pt. 2. From Noah to Abraham. With an
Appendix: A Fragment of Part 3. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 1964 [1949 Hebrew original].
Cavigneaux, Antoine. “Les oiseaux de l’arche,” Aula Orientalis 25 (2007): 319–21.
Cazelles, Henri. “Table des peuples, nations et modes de vie.” Pages 67–79 in Biblica
et Semitica (Francesco Vattioni mem). Edited by Luigi Cagni. Series minor 59.
Napoli: Istituto universitario orientale, 1999.
Chapman, Cynthia. “The Breath of Life: Speech, Gender and Authority in the Garden of
Eden.” JBL 138 (2019): 241–62.
Chen, Y. S. The Primeval Flood Catastrophe: Origins and Early Development in
Mesopotamian Traditions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Clifford, Richard J. Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible. CBQMS
26. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1994.
Clines, David. “The Tree of Knowledge and the Law of YAHWEH (Psalm XIX).” VT 24
(1974): 8–14.
———. “What Does Eve Do to Help? and Other Irredeemably Androcentric Orientations
in Genesis 1–3.” Pages 25–48 in What Does Eve Do to Help? and Other Readerly
Questions in the Old Testament. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990.
Bibliography 269
Cohen, Yoram, and Andrew R. George, eds. Wisdom from the Late Bronze Age. Writings
from the Ancient World 29. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013.
Cooper, Alan, and Bernard R. Goldstein. “The Development of the Priestly Calendars
(I): The Daily Sacrifice and the Sabbath.” HUCA 74 (2003): 1–20.
Croatto, J. Severino. “A Reading of the Tower of Babel from the Perspective of Non-
Identity.” In Teaching the Bible: The Discourses and Politics of Biblical Pedagogy. Edited
by Fernando F. Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1998.
Crüsemann, Frank. “Was ist und wonach fragt die erste Frage der Bibel? Oder: das
Thema Scham als ‘Schlüssel zur Paradiesgeschichte’.” Pages 63–79 in Fragen wider
Antworten (FS Jürgen Ebach). Edited by Kerstin Schiffner et al. Gütersloh: Gütersloher
Verlagshaus, 2010.
Dalley, Stephanie. “Babylon as a Name for Other Cities Including Nineveh.” Pages 25–33
in Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Edited by Robert D.
Biggs, Jennie Myers, and Martha T. Roth. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 62.
Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2008.
———. “Yabâ, Atalyā and the Foreign Policy of Late Assyrian Kings.” SAAB (1998): 83–89.
Darshan, Guy. “The Calendrical Framework of the Priestly Flood Story in Light of a New
Akkadian Text from Ugarit (RS 94.2953).” JAOS 136 (2016): 507–14.
Davies, Philip R. “And Enoch Was Not, for Genesis Took Him.” Pages 97–107 in Biblical
Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb. Edited by Charlotte
Hempel and Judith M. Lieu. Leiden: Boston, 2006.
———. “Women, Men, Gods, Sex and Power: The Birth of a Biblical Myth.” Pages 194–
201 in A Feminist Companion to Genesis. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1993.
Day, John. “The Enochs of Genesis 4 and 5 and the Emergence of the Apocalyptic Enoch
Tradition.” Pages 293–313 in Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy.
Edited by Joel Baden, Hindy Najman, and Eibert Tigchelaar. JSJ 175. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
–——. “The Flood and Antediluvian Figures in Berossus and in the Priestly Source
in Genesis.” Pages 61– 76 in From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1– 11.
New York: Bloomsbury, 2013.
———. “The Genesis Flood Narrative in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Flood
Accounts.” Pages 24–50 in From Creation to Babel.
———“In Search of Nimrod: Problems in the Interpretation of Genesis 10:8–12.” Pages
95–110 in ‘What Mean These Stones?’: Essays on Texts, Philology, and Archaeology in
Honour of Anthony J. Frendo. Edited by Dennis Mizzi, Nicholas C. Vella, and Martin R.
Zammit. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 50. Leuven: Peeters, 2017.
———. “The Meaning and Background of the Priestly Creation Story.” Pages 1–23 in
From Creation to Babel.
———. “Noah’s Drunkenness, the Curse of Canaan, Ham’s Crime, and the Blessing of
Shem and Japheth (Genesis 9.18–27).” Pages 137–53 in From Creation to Babel.
———. “Cain and the Kenites.” Pages 51–60 in From Creation to Babel.
———“Rooms or Reeds in Noah’s Ark (Genesis 6.14)?” Pages 113–22 in From Creation
to Babel.
———. “Problems in the Interpretation of the Eden Story.” Pages 24–50 in From Creation
to Babel.
———“‘So God Created Humanity in His Own Image’ (Genesis 1.27). What Does the
Bible Mean and What Have People Thought it Meant.” Pages 15–35 in Human Dignity in
the Judaeo-Christian Tradition. Edited by John Loughlin. London: Bloomsbury, 2019.
270 Bibliography
———. “The Sons of God and Daughters of Men and the Giants: Disputed Points in the
Interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4.” Pages 77–97 in From Creation to Babel.
DePury, Albert. “Sem. Cham et Japhet. De la fraternité à l’esclavage.” Pages 495–508 in
Koruphaio Andri: Mélanges offerts à André Hurst. Edited by Antje Kolde and Alessandra
Lukinovich. Genève: Droz, 2005.
Dershowitz, Idan. “Man of the Land: Unearthing the Original Noah.” ZAW 128
(2016): 357–73.
Deurloo, Karel. Kaïn en Abel: Onderzoek naar exegetische methode inzake een “kleine lit-
eraire eenheid” in de Tenakh. Amsterdam: W. Ten Have N.V., 1967.
Dietrich, Manfried. “Das biblische Paradies und der babylonische Tempelgarten.
Überlegungen zur Lage des Gartens Eden.” Pages 281–323 in Das biblische Weltbild
und seine altorientalischen Kontexte. Edited by Bernd Janowski and Beate Ego. FAT 2
32. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.
———. “Der ‘Garten Eden’ und die babylonischen Parkanlagen im Tempelbezirk. Vom
Ursprung des Menschen im Gottesgarten, seiner Verbannung daraus und seiner
Sehnsucht nach Rückkehr dorthin.” Pages 1–29 in Religiöse Landschaften. Edited by
Johannes Hahn. Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 2002.
Dietrich, Walter. “‘Wo ist Dein Bruder?’: Zu Tradition und Intention von Genesis 4.”
Pages 94–111 in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (FS W. Zimmerli). Edited
by Herbert Donner, Robert Hanhart, and Rudolf Smend. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1977.
Dijkstra, Meindert. “The Statue of SR 346 and the Tribe of the Kenites.” In “Wünschet
Jerusalem Frieden”: Collected Communications to XIIth Congress of Int’l Organization
for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem, 1986. Edited by Matthias Augustin and
Klaus-Dietrich Schunck. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang, 1988.
Dillmann, August. Die Genesis. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten
Testament 11. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1892. [ET Genesis, Critically and Exegetically Expounded.
Trans. William B. Stevenson. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1897.]
Dimant, Devorah. “1 Enoch 6– 11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work.” JJS 53
(2002): 223–37.
Dion, Paul E. “YHWH as Storm-god and Sun-god: The Double Legacy of Egypt and
Canaan as Reflected in Psalm 104.” ZAW 103 (2009): 43–71.
Doak, Brian R. The Last of the Rephaim: Conquest and Cataclysm in the Heroic Ages of
Ancient Israel. Ilex Foundation Series 7. Boston: Ilex Foundation, 2012.
Dubach, Manuel. Trunkenheit im Alten Testament: Begrifflichkeit—Zeugnisse—Wertung.
BWANT 184. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2009.
Edenberg, Cynthia. “From Eden to Babylon. Reading Genesis 2–4 as a Paradigmatic
Narrative.” Pages 155–67 in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch: Identifying Literary
Works in Genesis through Kings. Edited by Thomas Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. SBL.
AIL 8. Atlanta: Scholars, 2011.
Eerdmans, B. D. Die Komposition der Genesis. Vol. 1 of Alttestamentliche Studien.
Gießen: A. Töpelmann, 1908.
Eissfeldt, Otto. “Biblos Geneseōs.” Pages 458–70 in Kleine Schriften, Vol. 3. Edited by R.
Sellheim and F. Maas. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1966.
Emerton, John. “An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood
Narrative in Genesis: Part 1,” VT 37 (1987): 401–20.
——— “An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative in
Genesis: Part 2.” VT 38 (1988): 1–21.
Bibliography 271
Erbele-Küster, Dorothea. “Generationenfolge und Geschlecht. Variationen über drei alt-

testamentliche Texte.” Pages 33–48 in Gender and Generation. Edited by M. Bidwell-
Steiner and Karin S. Wozoning. Innsbruck: Studienverlag, 2005.
Fassberg, Steven E. “The Movement from Qal to Piel in Hebrew and the disappearance of
the Qal Internal Passive.” HS 42 (2001): 243–55.
Finkel, Irving. The Ark before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood. London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 2014.
Finkelstein, J. J. “The Antediluvian Kings: A University of California Tablet.” JCS 17
(1963): 39–51.
Foster, Benjamin R. “Wisdom and the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Or 43
(1974): 344–54.
———. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 3rd ed. Bethesda,
MD: CDL Press, 2005.
Frahm, Eckhart. “Counter-Texts, Commentaries, and Adaptations: Politically Motivated
Responses to the Babylonian Epic of Creation in Mesopotamia,the Biblical World,
and Elsewhere.” Orient: Reports of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 45
(2010): 3–33.
———“Creation and the Divine Spirit in Babel and Bible: Reflections on mummu
in Enūma eliš I 4 and rûaḥ in Genesis 1:2.” Pages 97–116 in Literature as Politics (FS
Peter Machinist). Edited by David Vanderhooft and Abraham Winitzer. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013.
Freidenreich, Aron. “Reconceptualizing the Relation of P and Non-P: A Study of the
Dynamic Interaction between the Priestly and Non-Priestly Narrative Texts of the
Pentateuch and their Mutual Development.” Ph.D. diss. New York: Union Theological
Seminary in New York, 2020.
Friberg, Jöran. A Remarkable Collection of Babylonian Mathematical Texts. Manuscripts
in the Schøyen Collection Cuneiform Texts 1. New York: Springer, 2007.
Gabler, Johann Philipp. Neuer Versuch über die Mosaische Schöpfungsgeschichte aus
der höheren Kritik: Ein Nachtrag zum ersten Theil seiner Ausgabe der Eichhorn’schen
Urgeschichte. Altdorf und Nürnberg: Bey Monath und Kussler, 1795.
Gagnon, Robert A. J. The Bible and Homosexual Practice. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001.
Galambush, Julie. “ʾĀDĀM FROM ʾǍDĀMÂ, ʾIŠŠÂ FROM ʾÎŠ: Derivation and
Subordination in Genesis 2.4b–3.24.” Pages 33–46 in History and Interpretation (John
Hayes FS). Edited by M. Patrick Graham, William P. Brown, and Jeffrey K. Kuan.
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
Garr, Randall. In His Own Image and Likeness: Humanity, Divinity, and Monotheism.
Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 15. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Garsiel, Moshe. Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns.
Translated by Phyllis Hackett. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1991 [1987
original].
Gaster, Theodore H. Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament: A Comparative Study
with Chapters from Sir James Frazier’s Folklore in the Old Testament. New York: Harper
and Row, 1969.
George, Andrew R. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition, and
Cuneiform Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
George, Andrew. “The Tower of Babel: Archaeology, History and Cuneiform Texts.” AfO
51 (2005–2006): 75–95.
272 Bibliography
Gerhards, Meik. Conditio humana: Studien zum Gilgameschepos und zu Texten der bib-
lischen Urgeschichte am Beispiel von Gen 2–3 und 11,1–9. WMANT 137. Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2013.
Gertz, Jan Christian. “Antibabylonische Polemik im priesterlichen Schöpfungsbericht?”
ZThK 106 (2009): 137–55.
———. “Babel im Rücken und das Land vor Augen. Anmerkungen zum Abschluss der
Urgeschichte und zum Anfang der Erzählungen von den Erzeltern Israels.” Pages 9–34
in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition (FS Köckert). Edited by Anselm Hagedorn
and Henrik Pfeiffer. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009.
———. Das erste Buch Moses (Genesis): Die Urgeschichte Gen 1– 11. ATD.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018.
———. “The Formation of the Primeval History.” Pages 107–35 in The Book of Genesis:
Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Craig Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and
David L. Petersen. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
———. “Genesis 5: Priesterliche Redaktion, Komposition oder Quellenschrift?” Pages
65–93 in Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte. Edited by
Friedhelm Hartenstein and Konrad Schmid. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2015.
———. “Hams Sündenfall und Kanaans Erbfluch: Anmerkungen zur komposition-
sgeschichtlichen Stellung von Genesis 9.” Pages 81–95 in “ ‘Gerechtigkeit und Recht
zu üben’ (Gen 18,19): Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte,
zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie [FS Eckart Otto]. Edited by
Reinhard Achenbach and Martin Arneth. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2009.
———. “Noah und die Propheten: Rezeption und Reformulierung eines altorientalischen
Mythos.” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 81
(2007): 503–22.
———. “Von Adam zu Enosch. Überlegungen zur Enstehungsgeschichte von Gen 2–
4.” Pages 215–36 in Gott und Mensch im Dialog. Edited by Markus Witte. Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2004.
Gese, Hartmut. “Der bewachte Lebensbaum und die Heroen: zwei mythologische
Ergänzungen zur Urgeschichte der Quelle J.” In Wort und Geschichte: FS Karl Elliger.
Edited by Hartmut Gese and Hans Peter Rüger. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1973.
Ginzberg, Louis. Legends of the Jews, vol. 1, Bible Times and Characters from the Creation
to Jacob. Translated by Henrietta Szold. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1909.
Giorgetti, Andrew. Building a Parody: Genesis 11:1–9, Ancient Near Eastern Building
Accounts, and Production-Oriented Intertextuality. VTSup. Leiden: Brill, 2020.
———.“The ‘Mock Building Account’ of Genesis 11:1–9: Polemic against Mesopotamian
Royal Ideology.” VT 64 (2014): 1–10.
Glassner, Jean-Jacques. Mesopotamian Chronicles. Writings from the Ancient World.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.
Gordon, Robert. “‘Couch’ or ‘Crouch’? Genesis 4:7 and the Temptation of Cain.” Pages
195–210 in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies. Edited by
James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011.
Gosse, Bernard. “La malédiction contre Babylone de Jérémie 51, 59–64 et les rédactions
du livre de Jérémie.” ZAW 98 (1986): 392–97.
Görg, Manfred. “Wo lag das Paradies?” BN 2 (1977): 23–32.
———. “Zur Identität des Pischon (Gen 2:11).” BN 40 (1987): 11–13.
Graf, Karl Heinrich. “Die sogenannte Grundschrift des Pentateuchs.” Archiv für die wis-
senschaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments 1 (1869): 466–77.
Bibliography 273
Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. HAT. 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917. [ET,
Genesis. Trans. Mark Biddle. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997]
Halpern, Baruch. “The Assyrian Astronomy of Genesis 1 and the Birth of Milesian
Philosophy.” EI 27 (2003): 74*–83*.
Harland, P. J. “Vertical or Horizontal: The Sin of Babel.” VT 48 (1998): 515–33.
Hartenstein, Friedhelm. “JHWH, Erschaffer des Himmels: Zu Herkunft und Bedeutung
eines monotheistischen Kernarguments.” ZTK 110 (2013): 383–409.
Hartman, C. “Some Thoughts on the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5 and 11B.” JBL 91
(1972): 25–32.
Hasel, Gerhard F. “The Genealogies of Gen 5 and 11 and Their Alleged Babylonian
Background.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 16 (1978): 361–74.
Hauser, Alan J. “Linguistic and Thematic Links between Genesis 4:1–16 and Genesis 2–3.”
JSOT 23 (1980): 297–305.
Hawary, Amr El. Wortschӧpfung: Die Memphitische Theologie und die Siegesstele des Pije—
zwei Zeugen kultureller Repräsentation in der 25. Dynastie. OBO 243. Fribourg and
Göttingen: Academic Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010.
Heckl, Raik. “Die Exposition des Pentateuchs. Überlegungen zum literarischen und
theologischen Konzept von Genesis 1–3.” Pages 3–37 in Ex oriente Lux: Studien zur
Theologie des Alten Testaments. Festschrift für Rüdiger Lux zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited
by Angelika Berlejung and Raik Heckl. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012.
Hendel, Ronald S. “‘Begetting’ and ‘Being Born’ in the Pentateuch: Notes on Historical
Linguistics and Source Criticism.” Review of. VT 50 (2000): 38–46.
———. 2012. “A Hasmonean Edition of MT Genesis? The Implications of the Editions of
the Chronology in Genesis 5.” HBAI 1 (2012): 1–17.
——— . “Is the ‘J’ Primeval Narrative an Independent Composition?: A Critique
of Crüsemann’s ‘Die Eigenständigkeit der Urgeschichte.’” Pages 181– 205 in The
Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas Dozeman,
Baruch Schwartz, and Konrad Schmid. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
———. Review of Christoph Uehlinger, Weltreich und “Eine Rede”: Eine neue Deutung
der sogenannten Turmbauerzählung (Gen 11,1–9). CBQ 55 (1993): 785–87.
———. The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition. New York: Oxford
Hendel, Ronald S., and Jan Joosten. How Old Is the Hebrew Bible? A Linguistic, Textual, and
Historical Study. AB Reference Library. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018.
Herman, Judith Lewis. Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books, 1992.
Hess, Richard S. Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis 1–11. AOAT 234. Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993.
Heyde, Henning. Kain, der erste Jahweverehrer: Die ursprüngliche Bedeutung der Sage von
Kain und ihre Auswirkungen in Israel. Arbeiten zur Theologie 1:23. Stuttgart: Calwer
Verlag, 1965.
Hieke, Thomas. Die Genealogien der Genesis. HBS 39. Freiburg: Herder, 2003.
——— . “Die Völkertafel von Genesis 10 als genealogische Raumordnung. Form,
Funktion, Geographie.” Pages 23–40 in Genealogie und Migrationsmythen im antiken
Mittelmeerraum und auf der Arabischen Halbinsel. Edited by Almut-Barbara Renger
and Isabel Toral-Niehoff. Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 29. Berlin: Edition
Topoi, 2014.
Ho, Craig Y. S. “The Supplementary Combination of the Two Creation Stories in Genesis 1–3.”
Pages 13–21 in Stimulation from Leiden: Collected Communications to the XVIIIth Congress
274 Bibliography
of the International Organization for the Study of Old Testament. Edited by Hermann
Niemann and Matthias Augustin. BEATAJ 54. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2006.
Holzinger, H. Einleitung in den Hexateuch. Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1893.
———. Genesis. Kurzer Handkommentar AT. Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1898.
Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalmen 51—100. HTKNT. Freiburg: Herder,
2000.
Hughes, Jeremy. Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology. JSOTSup
66. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.
Humbert, Paul. “Die Literarische Zweiheit des Priesterkodex in der Genesis.” ZAW 58
(1941): 30–57.
———. “La relation de Genèse 1 et du Psaume 104 avec liturgie du Nouvel-An Israëlite.”
RHPR 15 (1935): 1–27.
Hupfeld, Hermann. Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung von
neuem untersucht. Berlin: Verlag von Wiegandt und Grieben, 1853.
Hurowitz, Victor Avigdor. “In Search of Resen (Genesis 10:12): Dūr-Šarrukīn?” Pages
1:511–24 in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and
Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom Paul. Edited by Chaim Cohen et al. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.
Hurvitz, Avi. “The Origins and Development of the Expression ‫מגִ לַּת־סֵ פֶ ר‬:
ְ A Study in the
History of Writing-Related Terminology in Biblical Times [Hebrew].” Pages 37*–46*
in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: FS Haran. Edited by Michael Fox et al. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996.
Ilgen, Karl David. Die Urkunden des Jerusalemischen Tempelarchivs in ihrer
Urgestalt..: Theil I: Die Urkunden des ersten Buchs von Moses. Halle: Hemmerde und
Schwetschke, 1798.
Jacob, Benno. Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis. Berlin: Schocken Verlag, 1934.
Jang, Ki-Eun. “The Problems of Sons of Gods, Daughters of Humans, and Nephilim
in Genesis 6:1– 4: A Reassessment.” Unpublished seminar paper (cited with
permission), 2015.
Janoff-Bulman, Ronnie. Shattered Assumptions: Towards a New Psychology of Trauma.
New York: Free Press, 1992.
Janowski, Bernd. “Die lebendige Statue Gottes. Zur Anthropologie der priesterlichen
Urgeschichte.” Pages 183–214 in Gott und Mensch im Dialog. Edited by Markus Witte.
BZAW 345. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004.
———. “Tempel und Schöpfung. Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftli-
chen Heiligtumskonzeption.” JBTh 5 (1990): 37–69.
Jensen, H. J. L. “Über den Ursprung der Kultur und der Völker: Eine transformationskri-
tische Analyse von Komplementarität und Verlauf in der Jahwistischen Urgeschichte.”
SJOT 2 (1987): 28–48.
Jepsen, Alfred. “Zur Chronologie des Priesterkodex.” ZAW 47 (1929): 251–55.
Jericke, Detlef. “Literarische Weltkarten im Alten Testament.” Orbis Terrarum 13
(2015): 102–23.
———. Die Ortsangaben im Buch Genesis: Ein historisch-topographischer und literarisch-
topographiscer Kommentar. FRLANT 248. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.
Joines, K. “The Serpent in Genesis 3.” ZAW 87 (1975): 1–11.
Joosten, Jan. “The Evolution of Literary Hebrew in Biblical Times: The Evidence of
Pseudo-classicisms.” Pages 281–92 in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia
L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012.
Bibliography 275
———. “Pseudo-Classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew.” Pages 146–59 in Sirach, Scrolls and
Sages. Edited by T. E. Muraoka and J. Elwolde. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Jørstad, Mari. “The Ground That Opened Its Mouth: The Ground’s Response to Human
Violence in Genesis 4.” JBL 135 (2016): 705–15.
———. Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament: Am Beispiel der
Psalmen. 4th ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984 [ET The Symbolism of
the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. Translated
by Timothy J. Hallett. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997]
Kilmer, Anne D. “The Mesopotamian Concept of Overpopulation and Its Solution as
Reflected in the Mythology.” Or 41 (1972): 160–77.
Klein, Anja. Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen
zu Ez 34–39. BZAW 391. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008.
Klein, Jacob. 1990. “The ‘Bane’ of Humanity: A Lifespan of 120 Years.” Acta Sumerologica
12: 57–70.
Knigge, Carsten. “Überlegungen zum Verhältnis von altägyptischer Hymnik und alttes-
tamentlicher Psalmendichtung. Zum Versuch einer diachronen und interkulturellen
Motivgeschichte.” Protokolle zur Bibel 9 (2000): 93–122.
Knohl, Israel. “Nimrod, Son of Cush, King of Mesopotamia, and the Dates of P and J.”
Pages 1:45–52 in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature,
and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom Paul. Edited by Chaim Cohen et al.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.
———. Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1995.
Koch, Christoph. Gottes himmlische Wohnstatt: Transformationen im Verhältnis von Gott
und Himmel in tempeltheologischen Entwürfen des Alten Testaments in der Exilszeit.
FAT 119. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018.
Koch, Klaus. “Die Hebräer vom Auszug aus Ägypten bis zum Großreich Davids.” VT 19
(1969): 37–81.
———. “Sabbatstruktur der Geschichte: Die sogenannte Zehn-Wochen-Apokalypse (I
Hen 93,1–10; 91,11–17) und das Ringen um die alttestamentlichen Chronologien im
späten Israelitentum.” ZAW 95 (1983): 403–30.
Kratz, Reinhard G. Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments:
Grundwissen der Bibelkritik. UTB 2137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000.
Kratz, Reinhard, and Hermann Spieckermann. “Schöpfer/ Schöpfung II.” TRE 30
(1999): 258–83.
Krispenz, Jutta. “Wie viele Bäume braucht das Paradies? Erwägungen zu Gen ii 4b–iii 24.”
VT 54 (2004): 301–18.
Krüger, Thomas. “‘Kosmo-theologie’ zwischen Mythos und Erfahrung—Psalm 104 im
Horizont alttestamentlicher und altorientalischer ‘Schöpfungs’- Konzepte.” BN 68
(1993): 49–74.
———. “Das menschliche Herz und die Weisung Gottes: Elemente einer Diskussion
über Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Tora-Rezeption im Alten Testament.” Pages
65–92 in Rezeption und Auslegung im Alten Testament und in seinem Umfeld: Ein
Symposion aus Anlass des 60. Geburtstags von Odil Hannes Steck. Fribourg and
Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997.
Kushner, Harold. When Bad Things Happen to Good People. New York: Schocken, 1981.
Kübel, Paul. Metamorphosen der Paradieserzählung. OBO 231. Fribourg and Göttingen:
Academic Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007.
276 Bibliography
Kvanvig, Helge S. “Gen 6,1–4 as an Antediluvian Event.” SJOT 16 (2002): 79–112.

———. Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical and Enochic—An Intertextual Reading.
JSJSup 149. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
———. Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the
Son of Man. WMANT 61. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988.
—— — . “The Watcher Story and Genesis: An Intertextual Reading.” SJOT 18
(2004): 163–83.
Lambert, W.G. Babylonian Creation Myths. Mesopotamian Civilizations 16. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eisenbrauns, 2013.
———“Babylonien und Israel.” Pages 69–79 in TRE, 1980.
———. “Enmeduranki and Related Matters.” JCS 21 (1967): 126–38.
———. “The Theology of Death.” Pages 53–66 in Death in Mesopotamia. Edited by Bendt
Alster. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980.
Lanser, Susan. “Feminist Criticism in the Garden: Inferring Genesis 2–3.” Semeia 41
(1988): 67–84.
Lauinger, Jacob. “Neo- Assyrian Scribes, ‘Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty,’ and the
Dynamics of Textual Mass Production.” Pages 285–314 in Texts and Contexts: The
Circulation and Transmission of Cuneiform Texts in Social Space. Edited by Paul
Delnero and Jacob Lauinger. SANER. Boston: De Gruyter, 2015.
Levenson, Jon. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine
Omnipotence. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.
Levin, Christoph. Der Jahwist. FRLANT 157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993.
Levin, Yigal. “Nimrod the Mighty King of Kish, King of Sumer and Akkad.” VT 52
(2002): 350–66.
Levinson, Bernard M. “A Post-Priestly Harmonization in the Flood Narrative.” Pages 113–
23 in The Post-Priestly Pentateuch. Edited by Federico Giuntolli and Konrad Schmid.
FAT 101. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.
Livingstone, Alasdair. Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. SAR 3. Helsinki: Helsinki
Lux, Rüdiger. “Die Genealogie als Strukturprinzip des Pluralismus.” Pages 242–58 in
Religion und Identität: Im Horizont des Pluralismus. Edited by Werner Gephart and
Hans Waldenfels. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1999.
—— — . “Noah und das Geheimnis seines Namens: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie
der Flutgeschichte.” Pages 109– 35 in “. . . und Friede auf Erden”: Beiträge zur
Friedensverantwortung von Kirche und Israel (FS Chr Hinz). Edited by Rüdiger Lux.
Berlin: Institut Kirche und Judentum, 1988.
Machinist, Peter. “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise: A Problem of Cosmic
Restructuring.” Pages 189–240 in Reconsidering Revolutionary Monotheism. Edited by
Beate Pongratz-Leisten. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011.
Mankowski, Paul V. Akkadian Loan Words in Biblical Hebrew. Harvard Semitic Studies.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000.
May, Herbert G. “The Creation of Light in Genesis 1:3–5.” JBL 58 (1939): 203–11.
Mbuvi, Amanda Beckenstein. Belonging in Genesis: Biblical Israel and the Politics of
Identity Formation. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016.
McCann, Jason M. “‘Woven of Reeds’: Gen 6:14b as Evidence for the Preservation of
the Reed-Hut Urheiligtum in the Biblical Flood Narrative.” Pages 113–40 in Opening
Heaven’s Floodgates: The Genesis Flood Narrative, Its Context, and Reception. Edited by
Jason Silverman. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013.
Bibliography 277
McDowell, Catherine L. The Image of God in the Garden of Eden: The Creation of
Humankind in Genesis 2:5–3:24 in Light of the Mīs pî, pīt pî and Wpt-r Rituals of
Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. Siphrut 15. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015.
McEvenue, Sean E. The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer. AnBib 50. Rome: Pontifical
Institute, 1971.
McNutt, Paula M. “In the Shadow of Cain.” Semeia 87 (1999): 47–53.
Meinhold, Arndt. “Zum Verständnis des Elterngebotes.” Pages 61–70 in Zur weisheitlichen
Sicht des Menschen: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Edited by Thomas Neumann and Johannes
Thon. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 6. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
2008 [1985 original].
Mendenhall, George. “‘The Shady Side of Wisdom: The Date and Purpose of Genesis 3.”
Pages 319–34 in Light unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers.
Edited by Howard N. Bream, Ralph D. Heim, and Carey A. Moore. Philadelphia: Temple
Menes, A. “Die sozialpolitische Analyse der Urgeschichte.” ZAW 43 (1925): 33–62.
Mettinger, Tryggve. The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-Historical Study of Genesis
2–3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
Michaelowski, Piotr. “History as Charter: Some Observations on the Sumerian King List.”
JAOS 103 (1983): 237–48.
Middleton, J. Richard. The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Grand
Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005.
Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17–22. AB 3A. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Milik, J. T. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave. Oxford: Clarendon,
1976.
Milstein, Sara J. “The Origins of Adapa.” ZA 105 (2015): 30–41.
———.Tracking the Master Scribe: Revision through Introduction in Biblical and
Mesopotamian Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Moberly, R. W. L. “The Mark of Cain—Revealed at Last?” HTR 100 (2007): 11–28.
Moore, George F. “Tatian’s Diatessaron and the Analysis of the Pentateuch.” JBL 9
(1890): 201–15.
Moran, William. “Atrahasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (review of Millard,
Atrahasis).” Bib 52 (1971): 51–61.
———. “The Creation of Man in Atrahasis.” BASOR 200 (1971): 48–55.
Morrow, William S. “Tribute from Judah and the Transmission of Assyrian Propaganda.”
Pages 183–92 in “My Spirit at Rest in the North Country” (Zechariah 6.8): Collected
Communications from the XXth Congress of the International Organization for the
Study of the Old Testament, Helsinki 2010. Edited by Hermann Michael Niemann and
Matthias Augustin. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken
Judentums 57. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011.
Murtonen, A. “On the Chronology of the Old Testament.” Studia Theologica 8
(1954): 133–37.
Müller, Hans-Peter. “Drei Deutungen des Todes: Genesis 3, der Mythos von Adapa und
die Sage von Gilgamesch.” JBTh 6 (1991): 117–34.
Nickelsburg, George W. E. “Enochic Wisdom: An Alternative to the Mosaic Torah?”
Pages 123–32 in Hesed ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs. Edited by Jodi
Magness. Brown Judaic Studies 320. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998.
Niditch, Susan. Chaos to Cosmos. Studies in the Humanities 6. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1985.
278 Bibliography
Nielsen, John P. The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I in History and Historical Memory.

Abingdon: Routledge, 2018.
Nihan, Christophe. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the
Book of Leviticus. FAT 2/25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
Noth, Martin. Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch. 2nd ed. Darmstadt/Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1960 [original 1948; ET A History of Pentateuchal Tradition. Trans.
Bernard M. Anderson. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1972.].
Oberforcher, Robert. Die Flutprologe als Kompositionsschlüssel der biblischen Urgeschichte.
Innsbrucker theologische Studien 8. Innsbruck: Tyrolia Verlag, 1981.
Oppenheim, A. Leo. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1977.
Otto, Eckart. “Altersversorgung im Alten Orient und in der Bibel.” Pages 367– 93
in Altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte: Gesammelte Studien. BZAR
8. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2008 [1995 original].
———. “Die Paradieserzählung Genesis 2–3: Eine nachpriesterschriftliche Lehrerzählung
in ihrem religionsghistorisichen Kontext.” Pages 167–92 in “ ‘Jedes Ding hat seine
Zeit” ’: Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit (FS D. Michel). Edited by
Anja A. Diesel et al. BZAW 241. Berlin: De Gruyter”, 1996.
Pakkala, Juha. God’s Word Omitted: Omissions in the Transmission of the Hebrew Bible.
Pedersen, Johannes. “The Fall of Man.” NTT 56 (1955): 162–72.
Petersen, David. “The Formation of the Pentateuch.” Pages 31–45 in Old Testament
Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future. Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker. Edited by
David Petersen, James L. Mayes, and Kent H. Richards. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995.
Pettinato, Giovanni. Das altorientalische Menschenbild und die sumerischen und
akkadischen Schöpfungsmythen. Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der
Wissenschaften- Philosophisch- historische Klasse, 1. Heidelberg: Carl Winter
Universitätsverlag, 1971.
Pohlmann, K. F. “Forschung am Ezekielbuch 1969–2004.” TRu 71 (2006): 60–90, 164–91,
265–309.
Pomykala, Kenneth. “A Scripture Profile of the Book of Watchers.” Pages 263–84 in The
Quest for Context and Meaning. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon.
Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Popović, Mladen. “The Emergence of Aramaic and Hebrew Scholarly Texts: Transmission
and Translation of Alien Wisdom.” Pages 81–114 in Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission
of Traditions and Production of Texts. Edited by Sarianna Metso, Hindy Najman, and
Eileen Schuller. STDJ 92. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Postgate, J. Nicholas. Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History.
London: Routledge, 1992.
Procksch, Otto. Die Genesis. Leipzig: Deichertsche, 1924.
Radner, Ellen. Die Macht des Namens: Altorientalische Strategien zur Selbsterhaltung.
SANTAG 8. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005.
Reichmann, Sirje. “Psalm 104 und der Große Sonnenhymnus des Echnaton.
Erwägungen zu ihrem literarischen Verhältnis.” Pages 257–88 in Israel zwischen den
Mächten (FS Stefan Timm). Edited by Michael Pietsch and Friedhelm Hartenstein.
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2009.
Rendtorff, Rolf. “Gen 8,21 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten.” KD 7 (1961): 69–78.
Bibliography 279
Reymond, Eric D. “The Passive Qal in the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period, espe-
cially as Found in the Wisdom of Ben Sira.” Pages 1110–27 in Sibyls, Scriptures, and
Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy. Edited by Joel Baden, Hindy Najman, and Eibert
Tigchelaar. JSJ 175. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
———“The 3ms Suffix on Nouns Written with a Heh Matter.” In “Like ’Ilu, Are
You Wise”: Studies in Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures in Honor of
Dennis G. Pardee. Edited by H. H. Hardy II, Joseph Lam, and Eric D. Reymond.
Chicago: Oriental Institute Press, forthcoming 2020.
Richelle, Matthias. “Elusive Scrolls: Could Any Hebrew Literature Have Been Written
Prior to the Eighth Century BCE?” VT 66 (2016): 556–94.
Rollston, Christopher. Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic
Evidence from the Iron Age. Archaelogy and Biblical Studies. Atlanta, GA: SBL
Press, 2010.
Römer, Thomas. “Abraham Traditions in the Hebrew Bible Outside the Book of
Genesis.” Pages 159– 80 in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and
Interpretation. Edited by Craig Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen.
Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Ruppert, Lothar. Genesis, 1. Teilband Gen 1,1– 11,26. Forschung zur Bibel 70.
Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992.
Russell, Letty, and Phyllis Trible. “Ominous Beginnings for a Promise of Blessing.” Pages
33–69 in Hagar, Sarah and Their Children. Edited by Phyllis Trible and Letty Russell.
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006.
Sæbø, Magne. “Die hebräischen Nomina ʾed und ʾēd—: Zwei sumerisch-akkadische
Fremdwörter?’” Studia Theologica 24 (1970): 130–41.
Sanders, Seth L. From Adapa to Enoch: Scribal Culture and Religious Vision in Judea and
Babylon. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.
Sarna, Nahum. Genesis. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 1989.
Sasson, Jack. “A Genealogical ‘Convention’ in Biblical Chronography.” ZAW 90
(1978): 171–85.
Saur, Markus. Der Tyroszyklus des Ezechielbuches. BZAW 386. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008.
Schellenberg, Annette. Der Mensch, das Bild Gottes?: Zum Gedanken einer Sonderstellung
des Menschen im Alten Testament und in weiteren altorientalischen Quellen.
Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2011.
———. “‘Und ganz wie der Mensch es nennt..’: Beobachtungen zu Gen 2,19f.” Pages
291–308 in “. . . der seine Lust hat am Wort des Herrn!“ FS Ernst Jenni. Edited by Jürg
Luchsinger, Hans-Peter Mathys, and Markus Saur. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2007.
Schmid, Hans Jörg. Der Tempelturm Etemenanki in Babylon. Mainz: Von Zabern, 1995.
Schmid, Konrad. Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der
Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments. WMANT
81. Neukirchen- Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999. [ET Genesis and the Moses
Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible. Trans. James M. Nogalski. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010.]
—— —. “Die Unteilbarkeit der Weisheit: Überlegungen zur sogenannten
Paradieserzählung Gen 2f. und ihrer theologischen Tendenz.” ZAW 114 (2002): 21–39.
Schniedewind, William. The Finger of the Scribe: The Beginnings of Scribal Education and
How It Shaped the Hebrew Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.
280 Bibliography
Schrader, Eberhard. Studien zur Kritik und Erklärung der biblischen Urgeschichte.
Zurich: Meyer & Zeller, 1863.
Schüle, Andreas. “Made in the ‘Image of God’: The Concepts of Divine Images in Gen
1–3.” ZAW 117 (2005): 1–19.
——— Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel: Der literar-und theologiegeschichtliche Diskurs
der Urgeschichte (Genesis 1–11). ATANT 86. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2006.
Screnock, John. “The Syntax of Complex Adding Numerals and Hebrew Diachrony.” JBL
41 (2018):789–819.
Seebass, Horst. Genesis I: Urgeschichte (1,1–11,26). Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener-
Verlag, 1996.
———. “Die Gottessöhne und das menschliche Mass: Gen 6,1–4.” BN 134 (2007): 5–22.
Seri, Andrea. “The Role of Creation in Enūma eliš.” JANES 12 (2012): 4–29.
Seybold, Klaus. “Der Turmbau zu Babel: Zur Entstehung von Genesis XI 1–9.” VT 26
(1976): 453–79.
Simpson, Cuthbert A. The Early Traditions of Israel: A Critical Analysis of the Pre-
Deuteronomic Narrative of the Hexateuch. Oxford: Blackwell, 1948.
Ska, Jean Louis. “El relato del Diluvio: un relato sacerdotal y algunos fragmento redac-
cionales posteriores.” EstBib 52 (1994): 37–62. [ET “The Story of the Flood: A
Priestly Writer and Some Later Editorial Fragments.” Pages 1–22 in The Exegesis
of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions. FAT 66. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2009].
———. “Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions.” Pages 1–27 in Beyond Eden: The
Biblical story of Paradise (Genesis 2–3) and Its Reception History. Edited by Konrad
Schmid and Christoph Riedweg. FAT 2/34. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. 2nd ed. ICC vol.
1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1930.
Smend, Rudolf. “‘Das Ende ist gekommen’: Ein Amoswort in der Priesterschrift.” Pages
67–72 in Die Botschaft und die Boten. Edited by Jörg Jeremias and Lothar Perlitt.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981.
Smend, Rudolf, Sr. Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht. Berlin: G.
Reimer, 1912.
Smith, Mark S. The Genesis of Good and Evil: The Fall(out) and Original Sin in the Bible.
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2018.
———.God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World. FAT
57. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
———. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the
Ugaritic Texts. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Soggin, J. Alberto. Das Buch Genesis: Kommentar. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Gesellschaft, 1997.
———. “Philological-linguistic notes on the Second Chapter of Genesis.” Pages 169–78 in
Old Testament and Oriental Studies. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975.
Sommer, Benjamin. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2009.
———. “Dating Pentateuchal Texts and the Perils of Pseudo-Historicism.” Pages 85–
108 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by
Thomas Dozeman Konrad Schmid, and Baruch Schwartz. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2011.
Bibliography 281
Sonnet, Jean-Pierre. “God’s Repentance and ‘False Starts’ in Biblical History (Genesis
6–9; Exodus 32– 34; 1 Samuel 15 and 2 Samuel 7).” Pages 469– 94 in Congress
Volume: Ljubljana 2007. Edited by André Lemaire. VTSup 133. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Sparks, Kenton L. “Enuma Elish and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent
Judaism.” JBL 126 (2007): 625–48.
__ __ __. “Israel and the Nomads of Palestine.” Pages 9–26 in Community Identity in Judean
Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives. Edited by Gary N.Knoppers
and Kenneth A. Ristau. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.
Speiser, Ephraim A. Genesis. AB 1. Garden City: Doubleday, 1964.
Spieckermann, Hermann. Heilsgegenwart: Eine Theologie der Psalmen. FRLANT 148.
Spina, Frank A. “The ‘Ground’ for Cains Rejection (Gen 4): Adamah in the Context of
Gen 1–11.” ZAW 104 (1992): 319–32.
Stade, Bernard. “Das Kainszeichen: Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der jahwistischen
Pentateuchquelle und zur israelitischen Sagenkunde.” ZAW 14 (1894): 250–318.
Staerk, Willy. “Zur alttestamentlichen Literarkritik: Grundsätzliches und Methodisches.”
ZAW 42 (1924): 34–74.
Steck, Odil Hannes. Die Paradieserzählung: Eine Auslegung von Genesis 2, 4b–3, 24.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970.
———. Der Schӧpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift: Studien zur literarkritischen und
überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Problematik von Genesis 1, 1– 2, 4a. FRLANT 115.
Steinmetz, Devora. “Vineyard, Farm and Garden: The Drunkenness of Noah in the
Context of the Primeval History.” JBL 113 (1994): 193–207.
Stipp, Hermann-Josef. “‘Alles Fleisch hatte seinen Wandel auf der Erde verdorben’ (Gen
6,12): Die Mitverantwortung der Tierwelt an der Sintflut nach der Priesterschrift.”
ZAW 111 (1999): 167–86.
———. “Who Is Responsible for the Deluge?: Changing Outlooks in the Ancient Near East
and the Bible.” Pages 141–53 in “From Ebla to Stellenbosch”—Syro-Palestinian Religions
and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Isak Cornelius and Louis Jonker. Abhandlungen des
deutschen Palästina-Vereins. 37. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008.
Stolz, F. “Kanaan.” TRE 17: 539–56.
Stordalen, Terje. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical
Hebrew Literature. Leuven: Peeters, 2000.
Strus, Andrezej. Nomen-Omen: La stylistique sonore des noms propres dans le Pentateuque.
AnBib 80. Rome: Pontifical Institute Press, 1978.
Tal, Abraham. Genesis. Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
2016.
ten Hoopen, Robin B. “Genesis 5 and the Formation of the Primeval History: A Redaction
Historical Case Study.” ZAW 129 (2017): 177–93.
Thompson, John A. “Samaritan Evidence for ‘All of Them in the Land of Shinar.’” JBL 90
(1971): 99–102.
Tigay, Jeffrey. The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1982.
Trible, Phyllis. “The Dilemma of Dominion.” Pages 17–39 in Faith and Feminism.
Edited by Diana Lipsett and Phyllis Trible. Louisville, KT: Westminster John
Knox, 2014.
———. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1979.
282 Bibliography
Tsumura, David Toshio. “Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and
Flood.” Pages 27–57 in I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood: Ancient Near
Eastern, Literary and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11. Edited by Richard S. Hess
and David Toshio Tsumura. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 4. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994.
Tuch, Friedrich. Kommentar über die Genesis. Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses,
1838.
Uehlinger, Christoph. “Genesis 1–11.” Pages 114–33 in Introduction à l’Ancien Testament.
Edited by Thomas Römer, Jean-Daniel Macchi, and Christophe Nihan. Monde de la
bible. Genève: Labor et Fides, 2009.
———. Weltreich und “eine Rede”: Eine neue Deutung der sogenannten Turmbauerzählung
(Gen 11, 1–9). OBO 101. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1990.
Van der Toorn, Karel, and Peter W. Van der Horst. “Nimrod before and after the Bible.”
HTR 83 (1990): 1–29.
Van der Voort, A. “Genesis I,1a–II,4a et la Psaume 104.” RB 58 (1951): 321–47.
Van Dyk, Peet. “In Search of Eden: A Cosmological Interpretation of Genesis 2–3.” OTE
27, 2 (2014): 651–65.
Van Seters, John. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1975.
———. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox, 1992.
VanderKam, James C. Enoch, A Man for All Generations. Studies on Personalities of the
Old Testament. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2008.
———. Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. CBQMS 16. Washington,
DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984.
Vater, Johann S. Commentar über den Pentateuch [vol. 1]. Halle: Waisenhaus
Buchhandlung, 1802.
Vawter, Bruce. On Genesis: A New Reading. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977.
Vermeylen, Jacques. “La descendance de Caïn et la descendance d’Abel (Gen 4,17–26 +
5,28b–29).” ZAW 103 (1991): 175–93.
Vialle, Catherine. “Babel ou la dispersion (Gn 11, 1–9).” Pages 13–24 in La Tour de Babel.
Edited by Jean-Marc Vercruysse. Arras: Artois presses université, 2012.
Von Rad, Gerhard. Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch. Literarisch untersucht und theologisch
gewertet. BWANT 65. Berlin: Kohlhammer, 1934.
Vriezen, Theodorus Christiaan. Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling bij de oude
Semietische volken. Wageningen: H. Veenan & Zonen, 1937.
Wallace, Howard. The Eden Narrative. HSM 32. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.
———. “The Toledot of Adam.” Pages 37–56 in Studies in the Pentateuch. Edited by John
A. Emerton. VTSup 41. Leiden: Brill, 1990.
Waschke, Ernst Joachim. “Zum Verhältnis von Ruhe und Arbeit in den biblischen
Schöpfungsgeschichten Gen 1– 3.” Pages 69– 80 in “ ‘Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu
üben’ (Gen 18,19): Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur
Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie [FS Eckart Otto]. Edited by
Reinhard Achenbach and Martin Arneth. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2009.
Watts, James W. “Text and Redaction in Jeremiah’s Oracles against the Nations.” CBQ 54
(1992): 432–47.
Weimar, Peter. “Die Toledot Formel in der priesterschriftlichen Geschichtsdarstellung.”
BZ 18 (1974): 65–93.
Bibliography 283
Weinfeld, Moshe. “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord: The Problem of
the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3.” Pages 501–12 in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux
en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles. Edited by A. Caquot and M. Delcor. Kevelaer and
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchener Verlag, 1981.
Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments. 4th ed. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963 [orig. 1876].
———. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883. [ET Prolegomena to
the History of Israel. Trans. J. Sutherland Black and and Allan Menzies.
Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis. Vol. 1. Waco, TX: Word, 1987.
———. “The Priority of P.” VT 49 (1999): 240–58.
———. “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story.” Pages 399–404 in I Studied
Inscriptions from Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary and Linguistic
Approaches to Genesis 1–11. Edited by Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura.
Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994
[orig. 1986].
West, Martin L. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11. BKAT I/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1974 [ET Genesis: A Commentary. Trans. John J. Scullion. Continental Commentary.
Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1984].
———. Der Schöpfungsbericht vom Anfang der Bibel. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag,
1960. [ET The Genesis Accounts of Creation. Translated by Norman E. Wagner.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964.]
Wilcke, Claus. “Vom altorientalischen Blick zurück auf die Anfänge.” Pages 3–59 in
Anfang und Ursprung: Die Frage nach dem Ersten in Philosophie und Kulturwissenschaft.
Edited by Emil Angehrn. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007.
——— . “Weltuntergang als Anfang: Theologische, anthropologische, politisch-
historische und ästhetische Ebenen der Interpretation der Sintflutgeschichte im bab-
ylonischen Atram-hasīs-Epos.” Pages 63–112 in Weltende: Beiträge zur Kultur-und
Religionswissenschaft. Edited by Adam Jones. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999.
Wilson, Robert. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. Yale Near Eastern Researches
7. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977.
Wiseman, Donald J. “Genesis 10: Some Archaeological Considerations.” Journal of the
Transactions of the Victoria Institute 87 (1955): 14–24.
Witte, Markus. Die biblische Urgeschichte: Redaktions-und theologiegeschichtliche
Beobachtungen zu Genesis 1,1–11,26. BZAW 265. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998.
———. “Völkertafel.” July 2011. WiBiLex. http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/
34251/
Wöhrle, Jakob. Fremdlinge im eigenen Land: Zur Entstehung und Intention der pries-
terlichen Passagen der Vätergeschichte. FRLANT 246. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2012.
Zakovitch, Yair. “Assimilation in Biblical Narratives.” Pages 175–96 in Empirical Models
for Biblical Criticism. Edited by Jeffrey Tigay. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1985.
Zenger, Erich. Gottes Bogen in den Wolken: Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie
der priesterschiftlichen Urgeschichte. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien. Stuttgart: Verlag
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983.
284 Bibliography
Zevit, Ziony. What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? New Haven, CT: Yale
Zgoll, Annette. “Einen Namen will ich mir machen.” Saeculum 54 (2003): 1–11.
———. “Enlil und Ninlil.” Pages 287–98 in U4 du11-ga-ni sá mu-ni-ib-du11: Ancient Near
Eastern Studies in Memory of Blahoslav Hruška. Edited by L. Vácin. Dresden: Islet, 2011.
——— . “Welt, Götter und Menschen in den Schöpfungsentwürfen des antiken
Mesopotamien.” Pages 17–70 in Schöpfung. Edited by Konrad Schmid. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2012.
Ziegler, Werner Carl Ludewig. “Kritik über den Artikel von der Schöpfung nach
unserer gewöhnlichlichen Dogmatik.” Magazin für Religionsphilosphie, Exegese und
Kirchengeschichte 2 (1794): 1–113.
Zimmern, Heinrich. “Urkönige und Uroffenbarung.” Pages 530–43 in Die Keilinschriften
und das Alte Testament. Edited by Eberhard Schrader. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1903.
Zipor, Moshe A. The Septuagint Version of the Book of Genesis [Hebrew]. Ramat-Gan: Bar-
Ilan University Press, 2005.
Zobel, H. J. “‫כנען‬.” TWOT 4:224–43.
‫‪Index of Subjects‬‬
‫‪INDEX OF HEBREW WORDS‬‬ ‫‪, 210n64, 236, 236–37n31‬עברי‬

‫‪AND EXPRESSIONS‬‬ ‫‪, 33n6, 51, 54, 54n43, 58–59, 59n52, 69,‬עדן‬
‫‪227–28, 229n6‬‬
‫‪, 30, 30n6‬אד‬ ‫‪, 37–38, 49, 54‬עפר‬
‫‪[, 21–22, 22n34, 37–38, 47n37,‬ה]אדם‬ ‫‪, 44, 92, 115–18‬עצבון‬
‫‪79–80, 94, 118, 131, 131n46, 138–39‬‬ ‫‪, 119n11‬ערוה‬
‫‪[, 37–38, 45, 72, 92, 118, 124,‬ה]אדמה‬ ‫‪, 43–44, 44n28, 119n11‬ערום‬
‫‪127–28, 138, 140, 147, 237–38‬‬ ‫‪, 20, 118, 170‬עשה‬
‫‪, 119–20, 237‬אח‬ ‫‪, 33‬צלע‬
‫‪, 19‬איבה‬ ‫‪, 74, 83–84, 116, 116n4, 209, 211, 224‬קין‬
‫‪, 79–80‬אלהים‬ ‫‪, 258‬קץ‬
‫‪, 138–39‬אנוש‬ ‫‪, 117, 237‬קלל‬
‫‪, 130‬אנשי השם‬ ‫‪, 119, 206‬ראה‬
‫‪, 44, 119, 124, 237‬ארור‬ ‫‪, 131, 170‬רבב‬
‫‪, 146n14‬ארץ‬ ‫‪, 131, 143‬רבה‬
‫‪, 33, 33n9‬בנה‬ ‫‪, 132‬רוח חיים‬
‫‪, 20, 147‬ברא‬ ‫‪, 117‬ריח הניחח‬
‫‪, 184n10, 233n18, 237‬זמם‬ ‫‪ֵַ , 237‬רע‬
‫‪, 140‬חלל‬ ‫‪, 11, 11n10, 15, 24, 27, 257‬רקיע‬
‫‪, 19, 258‬חמס‬ ‫‪, 58n50, 258‬שחת‬
‫‪, 111n73‬חרן‬ ‫‪, 130, 134–36, 173, 207, 209–10‬שֵׁ ם‬
‫‪, 131–32, 170‬טוב‬ ‫‪, 12‬תבנית‬
‫‪, 66, 80, 119‬ידע‬ ‫‪, 13, 13n14, 15, 23‬תהום‬
‫‪, 49‬יהוה אלהים‬ ‫‪, 84–85, 84n2‬תולד[ו]ת‬
‫‪, 66, 68, 111n72, 179n3, 180, 193n35,‬ילד‬
‫‪195, 210, 212, 216, 231n16‬‬ ‫‪INDEX OF ENGLISH TOPICS‬‬
‫‪, 147, 170‬יצר‬
‫‪, 210–13, 227‬כל־בני־עבר‬ ‫‪animals, 18–19, 19n28, 25–26, 36, 39–41,‬‬
‫‪, 183, 189n24, 204–7, 217‬כל־הארץ‬ ‫–‪43–47, 50, 55–56, 63, 96–97, 145‬‬
‫‪, 120, 124‬כנע‬ ‫‪47, 150–51, 158, 158n39, 163, 226,‬‬
‫‪, 131, 156–57‬מחה‬ ‫‪254, 260–61‬‬
‫‪ (hiphil), 234‬מטר‬ ‫‪Apkallu, 74–75n20, 105n59, 107–8n66‬‬
‫‪, 234–35‬מצא חן‬
‫‪, 183, 195n40, 227, 227–28n2‬מקדם‬ ‫‪blind motifs, 11, 11n8, 20, 21–22, 24, 53,‬‬
‫‪2, 18n27‬נוח‬ ‫‪126–27, 151, 251n1‬‬
‫‪, 116, 116n4, 156–57, 170, 175–76, 224‬נחם‬
‫‪, 130, 130n43‬נפלים‬ ‫‪chronology, 90, 95–96, 98–104,‬‬
‫‪, 127n34, 128, 182, 183n9, 205, 215‬נפץ‬ ‫‪105–6, 113–14‬‬
‫‪, 128, 182, 205, 215‬פוץ‬ ‫‪conflation technique, 86n6, 134n59,‬‬
‫‪, 182‬פרד‬ ‫‪135–36, 135n61, 136, 144, 180–81,‬‬
‫‪, 85, 85n3, 85n4‬ספר‬ ‫‪183, 188, 191, 192–3, 197, 217,‬‬
‫כל־בני־עבר ‪, see‬עבר‬ ‫‪221–22, 261–62‬‬
286 Index of Subjects
divine council, 20–22, 21n33, 25, 47, 153, midrashic name derivations,
231, 255 120n15, 225n1
Enmeduranki, 107, 107–8n66 New year, 10, 97, 149, 149n18, 158
Enuma Elish epic Neo-Documentarian Approach, 17
formation, 9, 9n6, 34
etiology, 161–67, 162n50, 165n59, 167n62 oral tradition, 77–78
filial obligation, 122–24, 122n23, 123n24, Post-Priestly composition, 60–61, 70n5,

124n25, 230, 230n10 79–82, 83–84, 115–16n2, 124–29,
131–35, 135n61, 142–48, 166n61,
genealogy 178–202, 260–64
linear, 85, 87–88 Priestly dependence on non-P, 17–26,
segmented, 97 83–84, 108–11, 149–52, 220–21,
250–51, 254–56
Hittites, 209
human godlikeness, 20–21, 47–48, 50 royal motifs, 10
human maturation, 36, 36n17,
38–56, 40n25 Sabbath, 18n27, 26–29, 147,
human (im)mortality, 21–22, 34–35, 38– 259n23, 263–64
56, 105–6, 123–30, 169–71, 173 sex, 36, 40, 53, 62, 80, 116, 116n5, 121–22,
humans as laborers for gods, 33, 34, 34n10, 132, 230, 235
51, 105 sexagesimal numbering system, 105–6,
106n61, 158
irrigation, 53–54
tabernacle, 14–15, 149
kenites, 57, 64, 74–78, 209 Toledot book, 84–113, 148–49,
knowledge of good and evil, 42, 47–48, 53 250–54, 260
trauma, 242–43, 242n43
linguistic dating, 133n56, 179, 179n3, tree of life, 54–57
193n35, 210n61, 231, 256–7n13,
263, 263n26 wisdom, 35, 35–36n16, 41–43, 47, 49–50,
52, 56–57, 58n50, 123, 123n24,
Mesopotamian tradition, vectors for 229–30, 233,
Judean exposure to, 247–48 233n18
Select Index of Primary Text Citations
This selective index omits some texts that only appear as part of a sequence of texts cited
in comparison with texts under discussion (e.g. [mostly Egyptian] wisdom texts on filial
obligation in note 24 on p. 123 or numerous Mesopotamian cosmological texts listed in
notes 52–56 on p. 163). It also does not index discussions and references to texts of Genesis
1–11 in the chapters devoted as a whole to given texts. Thus, for example, it does not
include references to texts inside Gen 1:1–2:3 that occur in chapter one of this book, which
is devoted to that chapter and its precursors. It does index some larger discussions of some
texts, e.g. Gen 11:1–9, where the main discussions occur in subsections of chapters.
Genesis 2:17 72, 169

1:1–2:3 147 2:18–24 226
1 97, 112, 112n77, 253, 259, 259n22, 261 2:19–20 39–40
1:3–5 263–64 2:21–24 124, 124n25
1:6–8 257 2:25 119n11
1:11–12 97 3:1–6 19
1:14–18 28n45, 263–64 3:1–5 228
1:21 97 3:7 119, 119n11
1:24–25 97 3:8 110n70
1:20–21 15, 24 3:14 115
1:26–28 94, 94n25, 112n77, 125–26, 3:15 19
255–57, 257n15, 258–59n16 3:16–19 115
1:26 255, 257 3:16 68, 72, 92, 118, 255
1:28 97, 97n34, 97n36, 255–56 3:17–19 92, 117–19, 117n8
2:2–3 26–28, 263–64 3:20 92, 116, 116n4, 216, 255
2:4a 7n1, 84, 260, 261 3:21 118, 127
2:4b–4:26 112, 112n77 3:22–24 136, 255–56
2:4b–3:24 17–26, 66–73, 78, 118–19, 129– 3:22 18, 20–21, 21n33, 72, 183–84,
30, 139–40, 169–70, 207, 224–25, 207n55, 233, 255
229n8, 231, 231n14, 232n17, 233n18, 3:23 116, 5, 5
236, 254 3:24 183–84, 207, 195n40, 249
2:18–20 26 4:1–24 64, 211
2:4–3:24 17–22 4 113, 137, 226, 252
2:4 260–61n24 4:1–16 57–58, 62–63, 118–20, 139–40,
2:5–7 115 169–70, 224–25, 254
2:5 116 4:1 46, 46n35, 92, 116n4, 124, 138, 139n69
2:7 92, 116, 147 4:2 116
2:8 183, 195n40, 207, 249 4:3 115, 134, 139, 225
2:9 72, 229 4:4 49
2:10–14 31, 33, 53–54, 53n42, 166, 193, 4:6–7 233n18
227–28, 228n5 4:6 49
288 Select Index of Primary Text Citations
4:7 67n3, 229 6:11 19, 89n13, 133

4:8 139n69 6:13 19, 262
4:11–12 112, 119, 169 7:1–5 184
4:11 115 7:1 251n1
4:14 139n69, 157 7:4 157, 234
4:15 118, 121 7:6 88–91, 95, 95n28, 96–97, 101–2, 104,
4:17–24 204–5 106, 253
4:17 161n49 7:7 261
4:16 183, 195n40, 207 7:8–9 261
4:18–24 136–37 7:10 184
4:18 109, 109n69, 263, 263n25 7:11 149n18, 158, 261
4:19–24 109 7:12 184, 262
4:20–24 118 7:13 125, 218n81
4:20–22 159, 168n64, 175 7:13–16 96
4:22 210n61 7:16 262
4:23–24 102n50, 254 7:23 157, 261, 262–63
4:24 101, 113n79 8:4–5 261
4:25–26 79–82, 136–39, 165, 166n61, 226 8:13 97, 157
4:25 92, 124, 216 8:14 261
4:26 118, 138, 138n69, 184, 196, 210n61 8:16–19 96
5 131n48, 137 8:16 218n81
5:1–2 125–26, 253 8:18 218n81
5:1 257 8:20–22 167n62
5:3–7 81–82 8:21–22 115–16n2, 117n8, 243
5:28 136, 136n64 9:1–17 125, 253
5:29 81, 91–92, 115–18, 124, 136–39, 9:1 97, 255–56
138n69, 168–69, 216, 261–2 9:2–6 254–5
5:30 136 9:5 119n13
5:32 125, 126n30, 127n33, 220, 255 9:7 97, 255–56, 256n12
6:1–4 129–36, 139, 164, 165n60, 169–71, 9:18–27 116–29, 135, 197, 200, 202–4,
175–76, 204, 207, 225–26, 261 211, 226, 261
6:1–3 184 9:18–22 235
6:2 130n42 9:18–19 129n40
6:3 255 9:18 124–27, 203n48, 218, 225
6:1 118, 157, 184, 255 9:19 205, 233
6:4 118 9:20–27 115–29, 129n40, 115–16n2, 134,
6:5–8 262 168–69, 189, 196–7, 202–4, 209,
6:5–7 133, 184, 207, 242–3 209n59, 215, 224–25
6:5 131 9:20–24 119n11
6:7 131, 157, 262–63 9:20 184
6:8 234, 251n1 9:22 203n48
6:9–10 253 9:25 5(5 119)
6:9 89n13, 220, 251, 251n1 9:26 135, 213, 225
6:10 89, 89n13, 90, 111, 125, 125n28, 126, 9:27 213, 225
126n30, 127, 127n33 9:28–29 88–91, 93, 93n24, 101–2, 104,
6:11–22 253, 259, 259n22 106, 125n28, 148–49, 149n17,
6:11–13 151, 254, 258, 260 251, 253
10 97, 97n36, 253 12:3 233–3

10:1aα 97n34, 125, 220 12:4 87n7, 91, 98, 233n20
10:1b 196–7, 261, 263n25 12:6–8 215n74, 234n21
10:4 127n34 12:6 249
10:5 97, 197–200 12:10–20 203
10:6 261, 262 13:6 91
10:8b–12 134n59, 189–93, 232n17, 262 13:7 215n74, 234n21
10:8 184, 261 13:10 236
10:10–12 239, 245 13:12 215n74, 234n21
10:12 239n33 14:2 216
10:13–14 203, 203n48, 208, 211, 215 14:8 216
10:15 208–9, 209n59, 211, 214 15:19–21 214–15
10:16–19 214–16 16:1–16 76, 203, 234n29
10:18 233, 233n20 16:3 98
10:19 233n20 16:16 98
10:20 97 17 91
10:21 86n5, 110–11, 111n72, 135, 179n3, 17:1 81, 94, 98
181, 187, 189, 196, 208–13, 263, 18–19 156
263, 263n25 18:20–21 184n11, 207, 234–35, 235n23
10:22 97n34 19:1–28 234–35
10:24–25 110–11, 111n72, 216–18 19:18–22 216
10:24 86n6 19:19 234
10:25 119n13, 196, 263, 263n25 19:24 234
10:26–30 193–96, 261 19:29 91
10:31 198, 200, 221 19:30–38 76, 122
10:32 127n34 19:31 235
11:1–9 182–87, 204–8, 232n17, 233, 19:33–38 235
239–42, 239n34, 240n38, 241n39, 19:37–38 211
245, 255, 261, 262 19:38 212
11:2 195n40 21:8–21 76, 203, 236n29
11:4–9 233 22:21 211
11:4 255 25:1–6 76
11:5 234–35 25:4 196n41
11:6 233n18 25:7–8 91, 91n18
11:7–8 21n33 25:7 87n7, 98
11:7 20–21, 184, 255 25:12–18 253, 261
11:10–26 134n59, 200–201, 262 25:12–16 194, 194n38
11:18–26 195 25:16 195n39
11:26 125, 126n30, 127n33 25:17 91, 98
11:27 89–91, 91n17, 111, 125, 126n30, 25:18 194–95
127n33, 251, 253 25:20 94, 98
11:28–30 111n74, 249, 262 25:22 98n38
10:31 97 25:21–34 75
11:32 89–91, 251, 253 26:34–35 194
12:1–4 249 26:34 94
12:1–3 244 27:1–45 76
12:2 233–34 27:39 195n40
27:43 244n46 27:8 12

27:46–28:9 194 32–34 156–57, 156n36
28:10–22 256n10 40:34–35 12
28:10 244n46
28:13–14 244 Leviticus
28:13 233 18:7–8 121
29:1–35:22 76 20:11 121
29:4 244n46
29:33 138n68 Numbers
29:35 138n68 13:29 209
30:6 138n68 13:33 164n57
30:8 138n68 21:6–9 44
30:11 138n68 24:21 195n40
30:13 138n68 24:24 213n16
30:18 138n68
30:23 138n68 Deuteronomy
30:24 138n68 1:28 164n57
32:28–30a (ET 32:27–29a) 237n31 2:10–11 164n57
32:31–32 (ET 32:30–31) 109n69 2:20–21 164n57
35:9–15 194, 256n10 3:11 164n57
35:22 122 4:35 245n49
35:28–29 91, 91n18 4:39 245n49
35:28 87n7 5:16 123
36:1–43 194, 253, 261 7:1 214–15
36:40–43 194n38, 195n39 8:3; 21
36:43 195n40 8:15 44
36:8 195 9:2 164n57
36:9 211 23:1 121
36:43 195, 211 32:2 20
37–50 203 32:8 21
47:28 87n7, 91, 91n18, 98n37 34:7 130n42
49:33 91, 91n18
50:22 87n7 Joshua
50:28 87n7 4:23 120n15
9:13 116
Exodus 11:3 209
1:1–5 96, 254 18:7 209
3:7 184n11
3:8 214–15 1 Samuel
3:17 214–15 2:2 245n49
9:22, 20 13:3 213
9:25 20 14:21 213
10:12 20 17 164n57
10:15 20 25:29 21
20:12 123 29:3 213
25:9 12
25:40 12 2 Samuel
26:30 12 16:20–23 122
21:15–22 164n57 2:9 164n57

25:14 109n69 8:2 258n18
25:18 109n69
Habakkuk
1 Kings 2:15 116
5:20 (ET 5:6) 209
9:20–21 120, 209, 209n59 Psalms
16:20 209 19:8–10 (ET 19:7–9)
46:5 (ET 46:4) 228
2 Kings 78:51 180–81n7
2:1 205n53 82 231, 231n14
19:26 20 91:13 44
25:12 244 104 15–17, 23–26
104:14 20, 25
Isaiah 104:15 116
2:20 21 105:23 180n7
13:1–14:32 241 105:27 180n7
21:1–10 241 106:22 180n7
30:6 44
30:8 85 Proverbs
37:27 20 3:18 57
39:10 244 11:30 57
47:1–15 241 13:12 57
15:4 57
Jeremiah 27:25 20
8:17 44 23:32 44
13:1–11 258 31:6 116
18:1–11 258
16:7 116, 116n3 Job
16:19–20 245n49 42:2 184n10
40:10 244
50–51 241 Song of Songs
1:6 116n5
Ezekiel 1:14 116n5
1:22–23 257 2:15 116n5
1:26 257, 257n15, 257–8n16
7 258 Lamentations
8:17 258 4:21 116
11:15 228
14:14 257n15 Qohelet (Ecclesiastes)
27–28 259n20 10:8 44
28:11–19 58–59, 58n50, 59n52, 229n7, 245
31:3–9 58–59, 58n50, 59n52, 245 1 Chronicles
33:24 244, 244–45n47, 245 1:4 125
38 259n20 1:24 195n39
47 228
Sirach (Ben Sira)
Amos 3:1–16 123n24
5:19 44
OTHER BIBLICAL TEXTS Atrahasis Middle Assyrian 158

II 7’–10’ 158
Enoch
6:1–2 132–33
Babylonian Chronicle 104
7:1–2 132–33
Babylonian Counsels on Pessimism
9:8–10 133
(4–10) 35
10 132–33
BM 47463 257n14
RABBINIC LITERATURE Creation of the king 162, 164, 167

Babylonian Talmud
Zevachim 165n60 Death of Gilgamesh (ETCSL 1.8.1.3) 35
Niddah 61a 165n60 Debate Between Sheep and Grain (ETCSL
5.3.2) 36n17, 38
Genesis Rabbah
63:6 98n38 Enki and Ninmah (ETCSL 1.1.2) 162
Enlil and Namzitarra (Emar version) 35
Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer ‘25 130n42
23:8 134n58, 165n60 Enlil and Ninlil (ETCSL 1.2.1) 162
Enuma Elish Epic 18, 23–26, 246, 256
Yalqut I:75 9, 12
Noah 55 IV:14 9, 13
IV:19–26 9, 12
Zohar IV:49, 75 171
Noah 67b–68a 156 IV:28 9, 13
IV:137–38 10, 27, 162
V:23–24 10
HEBREW INSCRIPTIONS
V:48–62 10
Lachish V:109–110 13
3:5, 9–11 85 V:131–36 13
6:3–4, 14 85 V:151–52 13
VI:2–34 10, 34, 162
MESOPOTAMIAN LITERATURE VI:50–54 12
VI:57–66 10, 12
Assur bilingual (KAR 4) 33, 162, 164, 167 VI:45–62 162
Adapa Epic VI:95–120 10, 13
C: 76–83 35 Esarhaddon Vassal Treaty 248, 248n57
Atrahasis Epic
Atrahasis, Old Babylonian 13, 105, 140, Gilgamesh (overall) 35
155n35, 160–61, 163, 171–2, 256 Gilgamesh Epic (Old Babylonian,
1.353–359 175n82 Penn) 172, 172n76
2.1.1 158 2.2.44–115 36, 52
2.1.2–8 175n82 Gilgamesh Epic (Standard Babylonian)
3.2.11–14 153n29 1:101–112 36
3.6.47–50 173n77 1:207 36
Atrahasis (“Ark Tablet”) 8 36
52 158n39 9–11 36
11 155n35, 163–4, 172–73, 236n28, Deir ‘Alla Plaster Inscription,

246, 256 Combination B
11:50–56 153n29 5–16 35
11:128 154n31
11:166–67 158–59 EGYPTIAN
11:281–309 35, 42 (Papyrus) Boulaq 17.vi.4 19n29
Hymn to the Aton 19n29
KAR 307 (Ashur Bilingual) 10n7
CLASSICS AND JEWISH
Ninurta epic (all) 34 LITERATURE IN GREEK
Rulers of Lagash (ETCSL Anaximander 10n7

2.1.2) 36n17, 171n73 Apollodorus, Bibliotheca
1.7.2. 174n81
Sumerian Flood story (aka Eridu
Genesis; ETCSL 1.7.4) 36n17, 38, Berossus 105–106, 149n42
160, 162
Sumerian King List (SKL) 104–107, Epicharmus 174n81
171n73, 250–51
WB 62 106n62, 106n63 Homer, Iliad
WB 444 106n62, 172n74 VI 290–291 209
Ni 3195 106n62 Herodotus, History
UCBC 9–1819 106n62 1:163; 3:23 130n42
Uruk SKL-Apkallu list 105n59, 107, 1:181 185
107–8n66
Josephus Antiquities
I vi 1–4 189n24
NORTHWEST SEMITIC LITERATURE I:122–147 189n24
Aqhat epic (KTU 1.17) Ovid, Metamorphosis

I:27–34 122–23 1.259–417 174n81
I:45–49 122–23
II:1–8 122–23 Philo of Byblos 22
II:16–23 122–23 Plato, Symposium
VI:26–38 35 189e–191b 41
Pindar, Olympia
RS 94.2953 (fragment of 9.49ff, 174n81
flood) 155–56n35
RS 22.421 (flood) 155–56n35

The Formation of Genesis 1 11 Biblical and Other Precursors 0190062541 9780190062545 Compress

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Formation of Genesis 1 11 Biblical and Other Precursors 0190062541 9780190062545 Compress

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Formation of Genesis 1–​11

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

© Oxford University Press 2020

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

You must not circulate this work in any other form

Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data

The Formation of Genesis 1–​11 consists of a series of related studies of various

1 To appear as Genesis 1-​11. International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament.

Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2020.

as “Standing at the Edge of Reconstructable Transmission History: Signs of a Secondary Sabbath-​

throughout on the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) abbreviation system

to (c) diminished engagement with nonbiblical precursors in the Sabbath-​

part of a broader argument in this book regarding the likely dependence of

Nonbiblical Precursors to Gen 1:1–​2:3

To start, I note that Genesis 1 shows substantial parallels with Egyptian

At this point the Enuma Elish uses descriptions of Marduk’s creation of

7 In addition, see Jan Gertz, “Antibabylonische Polemik im priesterlichen Schöpfungsbericht?”

Moreover, a closer look reveals that many parallel elements between

(JSJSup 149. Leiden: Brill, 2011), 314.

specific connections that Genesis 1 has to the Enuma Elish, Atrahasis,

creation of humanity as a whole from the creation of the heaven-​modeled

Psalm 104 and Genesis 1

Another important possible precursor to Genesis 1 is Psalm 104, and perhaps

If these striking and relatively specific parallels are interpreted as indica-

intertextual dependence of Genesis 1 on Psalm 104 (or vice versa) will

Gen 2:4b–​3:24 as Probable Precursor to Genesis 1

Another often discussed possible textual precursor to Genesis 1 is the

30 Erhard Blum, “Von Gottesunmittelbarkeit zu Gottähnlichkeit: Überlegungen zur theologischen

Geschichte Israels, 2nd ed. (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883), 306.

godlike immortality) that YHWH speaks to a similar divine council in Gen

Gen 1:26–​27a to ‫ אדם‬and especially ‫ האדם‬represent somewhat of a blind

Interim Conclusion on Freestanding Literary Precursors

34 This understanding of the background of ‫ האדם‬is an alternative interpretation of the data

supplement to Gen 1:1–2:3.

Other nonbiblical cosmogonies, Connections to Genesis 2-​3

Monotheismus bei Deuterojesaja im Horizont der Astralisierung des Gottesverständnisses im alten

Other nonbiblical cosmogonies, Connections to Genesis 2-​3

Other nonbiblical cosmogonies, Connections to Genesis 2-​3

Consultation with council in Gen 1:26 and 3:22 speeches to divine

Gen 1:29–​30 focus on nourishment Divine speeches instructing about

in no way that could even be conceived as a possible misstep (cf. 2:18–​20).

The Question of Stratification within Gen 1:1–​2:3 Itself

One final place to ask diachronic questions is exploration of the possibility

adherents in subsequent years and a few new arguments. For example, in

Testaments (4th. ed.; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963 [orig. 1876]), 187.

44 Yairah Amit, “Creation and the Calendar of Holiness [Hebrew],” in Tehillah-le-Moshe

Priesterschrift: Studien zur literarkritischen und überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Problematik von Genesis

of a Sabbath-oriented revision in Genesis 1, see Carr, “Standing at the Edge of Reconstructable

originally stood behind Stade and Schwally’s proposal of parallel act-​and

Having briefly noted the possibility of a Sabbath-​oriented (Holiness School?)

57; Steck, Schӧpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift, esp. 16–18, 25, 40–51.

Genesis 2:4b–​3:24 (hereafter this story is often referred to as “Genesis 2–​3”)

This chapter constitutes a diachronically informed synchronic reading of

The Literary World before and behind Genesis 2–​3

Genesis 2–​3 is particularly distinguished by its potential links to specifically

Nevertheless, Genesis 2–​3 has even stronger evident connections to

Bührer, Am Anfang..: Untersuchungen zur Textgenese und zur relative-chronologischen Einordnung

sors of the Enuma Elish Epic.

immortality in the Eridu Genesis, a broad selection of Mesopotamian tradi-

Finally, scholars have long noted an important precursor to Genesis 2–​3 in

at immortality for humans, the human distinction from animals by virtue of

A Diachronically Informed Synchronic Reading

it is hard to imagine a reader of these verses not thinking of the reproduc-

“the tree of knowledge”). Moreover, the stories of Adapa and of Gilgamesh

The Formation of Genesis 1–11

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The Formation of Genesis 1–11 consists of a series of related studies of various

1 To appear as Genesis 1-11. International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament.

as “Standing at the Edge of Reconstructable Transmission History: Signs of a Secondary Sabbath-

to (c) diminished engagement with nonbiblical precursors in the Sabbath-

Nonbiblical Precursors to Gen 1:1–2:3

creation of humanity as a whole from the creation of the heaven-modeled

Gen 2:4b–3:24 as Probable Precursor to Genesis 1

Gen 1:26–27a to ‫ אדם‬and especially ‫ האדם‬represent somewhat of a blind

Other nonbiblical cosmogonies, Connections to Genesis 2-3

Other nonbiblical cosmogonies, Connections to Genesis 2-3

Other nonbiblical cosmogonies, Connections to Genesis 2-3

Gen 1:29–30 focus on nourishment Divine speeches instructing about

in no way that could even be conceived as a possible misstep (cf. 2:18–20).

The Question of Stratification within Gen 1:1–2:3 Itself

originally stood behind Stade and Schwally’s proposal of parallel act-and

Having briefly noted the possibility of a Sabbath-oriented (Holiness School?)

Genesis 2:4b–3:24 (hereafter this story is often referred to as “Genesis 2–3”)

The Literary World before and behind Genesis 2–3

Genesis 2–3 is particularly distinguished by its potential links to specifically

Nevertheless, Genesis 2–3 has even stronger evident connections to

Finally, scholars have long noted an important precursor to Genesis 2–3 in

EXCURSUS: The Naked/Clever Snake

means—through reproduction—for humans as a whole to survive despite

himself. Though such (semi- godlike) knowledge is permitted, human

Genesis 2–3 provides a story background to its audience’s present in which

The Diachronic Prehistory of Genesis 2–3, Part Two

the focus on human irrigation work in Mesopotamian traditions—the idea

of the story—the understanding of the shape of the divine proclamation “for

images found both in Genesis 2–3 and in Ezekiel—the presence of a pri-

EXCURSUS on Proposals that Genesis 2–3 is a Post-Priestly Extension of

These reflections on the background to Genesis 2–3 represent a focus on

Genesis 2–3 (Tradition behind) Nonbiblical Parallels

Dual human characters Dual figures in single-

Etiology of male-female Overall focus on

Central focus on lead- Focus on lead-up to and

Prohibition and eating Godlike/divinely granted

If the above analysis is on target, Genesis 2–3 alternates in its dependence

Pre-misdeed dialogue with serpent Pre-misdeed divine instruction of

a An inital focus on the “earth” (2:4b–5bα)

Gen 4:1–24 as Adaptation of a Prebiblical Tradition about

The Literary Status of Gen 4:1–24 and (especially) 4:25–26

As anticipated in the previous chapter, the genealogies in Genesis 4 and Genesis–

Genealogy of Adam-Cain in Genealogy of Adam-Seth in Genesis 5

Enosh (‫ )אנוש‬5:6–11 (//Gen 4:26)

An initial label focused on his descendants (Gen 11:27aα//6:9aα).

EXCURSUS: A Likely Non-P Fragment in Gen 5:29