International Exegetical Commentary on

the Old Testament (IECOT)

Edited by:

Walter Dietrich, David M. Carr, Adele Berlin, Erhard Blum, Irmtraud

Fischer, Shimon Gesundheit, Walter Groß, Gary Knoppers (†),
Bernard M. Levinson, Ed Noort, Helmut Utzschneider and Beate Ego
(Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books)

Cover:

Top: Panel from a four-part relief on the “Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III” (859–
824 BCE) depicting the Israelite king Jehu (845–817 BCE; 2 Kings 9f) paying
obeisance to the Assyrian “King of Kings.” The vassal has thrown himself to the
ground in front of his overlord. Royal servants are standing behind the Assyrian
king whereas Assyrian officers are standing behind Jehu. The remaining picture
panels portray thirteen Israelite tribute bearers carrying heavy and precious gifts.
Photo © Z.Radovan/BibleLandPictures.com

Bottom left: One of ten reliefs on the bronze doors that constitute the eastern
portal (the so-called “Gates of Paradise”) of the Baptistery of St. John of Florence,
created 1424–1452 by Lorenzo Ghiberti (c. 1378–1455). Detail from the picture
“Adam and Eve”; in the center is the creation of Eve: “And the rib that the LORD
God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.”
(Gen 2:22)Photograph by George ReaderBottom right: Detail of the Menorah in
front of the Knesset in Jerusalem, created by Benno Elkan (1877–1960): Ezra
reads the Law of Moses to the assembled nation (Neh 8). The bronze Menorah
was created in London in 1956 and in the same year was given by the British as a
gift to the State of Israel. A total of 29 reliefs portray scenes from the Hebrew bible
and the history of the Jewish people.
David M. Carr

Genesis 1–11
Verlag W. Kohlhammer
1. Edition 2021

All rights reserved

© W. Kohlhammer GmbH, Stuttgart
Production: W. Kohlhammer GmbH, Stuttgart

Print:
ISBN 978-3-17-020623-6

E-Book-Formate:
pdf: ISBN 978-3-17-037512-3
epub: ISBN 978-3-17-037513-0
mobi: ISBN 978-3-17-037514-7

W. Kohlhammer bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or

content of any external website that is linked or cited, or for that of
subsequent links.
This commentary offers a synthesis of close readings of Genesis 1-
11 and up-to-date study of the formation of these chapters in their
ancient Near Eastern context. Each interpretation of these evocative
and multilayered narratives is preceded with a new translation (with
textual and philological commentary) and a concise overview of the
ways in which each text bears the marks of its shaping over time.
This prepares for a close reading that draws on the best of older and
newer exegetical insights into these chapters, a reading that then
connects to feminist, queer, ecocritical, and other contemporary
approaches.

David M. Carr is Professor of Old Testament at the Union

Theological Seminary, New York.
Content
Editors’ Foreword

Preface and Acknowledgements

Introduction to the Commentary

Initial Overview of the Contents and Literary Patterns in Gen 1–11
Major Themes in the History of Interpretation of Gen 1:1–6:4
Major Contours of the Diachronic Background to Gen 1–11
Ancient Non-Biblical Precursors
The Character of Mesopotamian Primeval Texts and Traditions
The Limited Usefulness of the ‘Creation’ Category for Reading
Gen 1–11
Literary Stages in the Formation of Gen 1–11
P, Non-P, and Models for their Relationship
Layers and Dating of the Pre-P Primeval History
Layers and Dating in the Priestly Levels of the Primeval History
Early Textual Transmission of Gen 1–11: The Three Major
Traditions
Moving to Commentary

Genesis 1:1–2:3: The Seven Day Creation Account

Notes on Text and Translation
Diachronic Prologue
Genesis 1:1–2:3 as Priestly and Its Relations to Gen 2:4b–3:24
Separate Precursors to Gen 1:1–2:3: The Enuma Elish Epic and
Psalm 104
The Question of Stratification within Gen 1:1–2:3 Itself
Synchronic Analysis
Overview of Gen 1:3–31
Commentary
Conclusion: Divergent Patterns Spanning Gen 1:1–2:3
Synthesis
Genesis 2:4–3:24: The Origins of Adult Human Life in the
Garden of Eden
Notes on Text and Translation
Diachronic Prologue
Genesis 2:4a as a Conflational Superscription
Genesis 2:4b–3:24 (Gen 2–3) as a Pre-Priestly Creation
Narrative
Non-Biblical (Mesopotamian) Precursors to Gen 2–3
Other Precursors to Gen 2–3
Synchronic Analysis
Overview
Commentary
Temporal Placement
Genesis 2:4b–17: Scene One in the Concentric Structure(cf.
Scene Seven in 3:22–24)
Genesis 2:18–25: Scene Two in the Concentric Structure (cf.
Scene Six, 3:14–21)
Genesis 3:1–5: Scene Three in the Concentric Structure(cf.
Scene Five, 3:8–13)
Genesis 3:6–7: Scene Four, The Central Scene in the
Concentric Structure
Genesis 3:8–13: Scene Five in the Concentric Structure(cf.
Scene Three, 3:8–13)
Genesis 3:14–21: Scene Six in the Concentric Structure(cf.
especially Scene Two, 2:18–25)
Genesis 3:22–24: Scene Seven in the Concentric
Structure(cf. Scene One, 2:4b–17)
Conclusion to Synchronic Analysis of Gen 2:4b–3:24 (in its
Pre-P Context)
Synthesis

Genesis 4:1–26: First Descendants of the Initial Human Couple

Notes on Text and Translation
Diachronic Prologue
Synchronic Analysis
Overview
Commentary
 Genesis 4:1–5: Narrative Background—Part One of the
Concentric Structure (cf. Part Five, 4:16)
Genesis 4:6–7: ’s Instruction—Part Two of the Concentric
Structure (cf. Part Four, 4:9–15)
Genesis 4:8: The Central Crime—Part Three of the
Concentric Structure
Genesis 4:9–15: Consequences for Cain—Part Four of the
Concentric Structure (cf. Part Two, 4:6–7)
Genesis 4:16: Narrative conclusion—Part Five of the
Concentric Structure (cf. Part One, 4:1–5)
Genesis 4:17–18
Genesis 4:19–24
Genesis 4:25–26
Conclusion to the Synchronic Analysis
Diachronic Analysis
Synthesis

Genesis 5:1–32: The Genealogical Line from Adam to Noah and

his Sons
Notes on Text and Translation
Diachronic Prologue
Part One: P and Non-P in Gen 5 (and Relations to non-P in Gen
4)
Part Two: A Priestly Toledot Book Standing Behind (most of)
Gen 5
Part Three: Links of the Toledot Book to (a Late Iteration of) the
Sumerian King List Tradition
Part Four: Scribal Adaptations of the Chronological System
Conclusion to the Diachronic Prologue
Synchronic Analysis
Overview
Commentary
Synthesis

Genesis 6:1–4: The Marriages of Sons of God with Human

Daughters and Their Effects
 Notes on Text and Translation
Diachronic Prologue
Genesis 6:1–4 as a Part of the Pre-P Primeval History
Traditional Precursors to Gen 6:1–4
Conclusion to the Diachronic Prologue
Synchronic Analysis
Overview
Commentary
Conclusion to the Synchronic Analysis
Synthesis

Genesis 6:5–9:17; 9:28–29: Noah and the Flood

Notes on Text and Translation
Diachronic Prologue
Preliminary Source Analysis of Gen 6:5–9:17
Non-Biblical Precursors to the Noah and Flood Story
Synchronic Analysis
Commentary on the Non-Priestly Story of the Flood and Noah
Diachronic Conclusions on the Non-P Synchronic Level of the
Flood Narrative
Commentary on the Priestly Story of Noah and the Flood
Diachronic Conclusions on the Priestly Synchronic Level of
the Flood Narrative
Comments on the Present Combined P/non-P Noah-Flood Story
Synthesis

Genesis 9:18–29: The Conclusion of the Noah Account—Noah

and His Sons
Notes on Text and Translation
Diachronic Prologue
Genesis 9:18–27 as Pre-Priestly
Ancient Near Eastern Precursors
Literary Stratification: The Addition of Ham (Gen 9:18, 22) and
the Spread of Noah’s Family (Gen 9:19)
Synchronic Analysis
Commentary
 Concluding Overview of the Non-P Narrative of Noah and his
Sons
Synthesis

Genesis 10:1–32: Post-Flood Peoples Descending from Noah’s

Sons
Notes on Text and Translation
Introduction and Diachronic Prologue
Synchronic Analysis
Commentary on Pre-P Elements Embedded in Gen 10
Genesis 10:8(b)–12: A Non-Priestly Etiology of Mesopotamian
cities and Kingship associated with Nimrod
Genesis 10:15 and 21: An Early Sequel to the Story of Noah
and His Sons
Genesis 10:13–14: Egypt’s Fathering of Peoples
Genesis 10:16–19: An Expansion of the Report of Canaan’s
Fathering
Conclusions on the Non-P Overview of Noah’s Offspring
Commentary on the P/Verbless Framework of Gen 10
Conclusions on P’s Treatment of the Descendants of Noah’s
Sons
Comments on the Present (Conflated P/non-P) Overview of
Noah’s Post-Flood Descendants
Synthesis

Genesis 11:1–9: Divine Prevention of Human Collective Power

through Linguistic Confusion and the Scattering of Humans
Notes on Text and Translation
Introduction and Diachronic Prologue
Synchronic Analysis
Overview
Commentary
Conclusion to the Synchronic Reading of the Present Text
Diachronic Analysis
Proposed Literary Strata Inside Gen 11:1–9
Non-Biblical Precursors to Gen 11:1–9
 Genesis 11:1–9 as part of the Pre-Priestly Primeval History
Synthesis

Genesis 11:10–26: The Genealogical Line from Shem to

Abraham
Notes on Text and Translation
Diachronic Prologue
Synchronic Analysis
Synthesis

Selective Bibliography

Indexes
Index of Hebrew Words
Index of Key Words
Index of Biblical Citations
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Judges
Ruth
2 Samuel
1 Kings
1 Chronicles
4 Maccabees
Job
Psalms
Wisdom
Sirach
Isaiah
Ezekiel
Amos
Micah
Romans
 1 Corinthians
1 Timothy
Hebrews
1 John
Revelation
Index of Other Ancient Literature

Plan of volumes
Editors’ Foreword
The International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament
(IECOT) offers a multi-perspectival interpretation of the books of the
Old Testament to a broad, international audience of scholars,
laypeople and pastors. Biblical commentaries too often reflect the
fragmented character of contemporary biblical scholarship, where
different geographical or methodological sub-groups of scholars
pursue specific methodologies and/or theories with little engagement
of alternative approaches. This series, published in English and
German editions, brings together editors and authors from North
America, Europe, and Israel with multiple exegetical perspectives.
From the outset the goal has been to publish a series that was
“international, ecumenical and contemporary.” The international
character is reflected in the composition of an editorial board with
members from six countries and commentators representing a yet
broader diversity of scholarly contexts.
The ecumenical dimension is reflected in at least two ways. First,
both the editorial board and the list of authors includes scholars with
a variety of religious perspectives, both Christian and Jewish.
Second, the commentary series not only includes volumes on books
in the Jewish Tanach/Protestant Old Testament, but also other books
recognized as canonical parts of the Old Testament by diverse
Christian confessions (thus including the Deuterocanonical Old
Testament books).
When it comes to “contemporary,” one central distinguishing
feature of this series is its attempt to bring together two broad
families of perspectives in analysis of biblical books, perspectives
often described as “synchronic” and “diachronic” and all too often
understood as incompatible with each other. Historically, diachronic
studies arose in Europe, while some of the better known early
synchronic studies originated in North America and Israel.
Nevertheless, historical studies have continued to be pursued
around the world, and focused synchronic work has been done in an
ever greater variety of settings. Building on these developments, we
aim in this series to bring synchronic and diachronic methods into
closer alignment, allowing these approaches to work in a
complementary and mutually-informative rather than antagonistic
manner.
Since these terms are used in varying ways within biblical
studies, it makes sense to specify how they are understood in this
series. Within IECOT we understand “synchronic” to embrace a
variety of types of study of a biblical text in one given stage of its
development, particularly its final stage(s) of development in existing
manuscripts. “Synchronic” studies embrace non-historical
narratological, reader-response and other approaches along with
historically-informed exegesis of a particular stage of a biblical text.
In contrast, we understand “diachronic” to embrace the full variety of
modes of study of a biblical text over time.
This diachronic analysis may include use of manuscript evidence
(where available) to identify documented pre-stages of a biblical text,
judicious use of clues within the biblical text to reconstruct its
formation over time, and also an examination of the ways in which a
biblical text may be in dialogue with earlier biblical (and non-biblical)
motifs, traditions, themes, etc. In other words, diachronic study
focuses on what might be termed a “depth dimension” of a given text
– how a text (and its parts) has journeyed over time up to its present
form, making the text part of a broader history of traditions, motifs
and/or prior compositions. Synchronic analysis focuses on a
particular moment (or moments) of that journey, with a particular
focus on the final, canonized form (or forms) of the text. Together
they represent, in our view, complementary ways of building a textual
interpretation.
Of course, each biblical book is different, and each author or
team of authors has different ideas of how to incorporate these
perspectives into the commentary. The authors will present their
ideas in the introduction to each volume. In addition, each author or
team of authors will highlight specific contemporary methodological
and hermeneutical perspectives – e.g. gender-critical, liberation-
theological, reception-historical, social-historical – appropriate to
their own strengths and to the biblical book being interpreted. The
result, we hope and expect, will be a series of volumes that display a
range of ways that various methodologies and discourses can be
integrated into the interpretation of the diverse books of the Old
Testament.
Fall 2012 The Editors
Preface and Acknowledgements
The following commentary is a guided tour of some of the most
interesting and discussed chapters of the Bible. Much like a tour
guide informs his group about particular features of an often-visited
city, this guide to Gen 1–11 discusses aspects of the biblical text that
I know the most about and find particularly fascinating. In this case,
many other such commentary/tours of Gen 1–11 have been and will
be done, and this tour makes no pretense to cover the text
comprehensively.1 Instead, in agreement with the focus of the overall
series, I focus on ways that the Bible might be illuminated through a
combination of close reading and attention to the original literary
contexts of the texts under discussion. In addition, I have tried to
bring together diverse worlds and forms of biblical criticism together
in this commentary. I attend in the historical exegesis portions to a
mix of international perspectives on the philology and formation of
the texts discussed, and I include at least some pointers (in the
Synthesis) to how such discussions might interact with non-historical
approaches to the biblical text.
Having brought this commentary to a close, I have ever more
respect for my predecessors who have done the same. I keep
learning interesting things about these texts, and so there is never a
point of obvious closure. Moreover, as one works on a commentary
of this sort over years, the successive stages of learning necessarily
end up reflected in diverse diachronic levels of the commentary
itself. I and my editors have done our best (perhaps like the editors
of Gen 1–11 itself) to bring the whole into a coherent unity.
Nevertheless, I hope remaining imperfections can stand as an
important reminder that this guide offers an imperfect and partial, but
hopefully suggestive mix of ways one might understand the texts in
Gen 1–11.2 It does not, contrary to some concepts of biblical
commentary, purport to have mastered the text.
This work would be more imperfect if I had not had the aide of
numerous people. I have presented and gained invaluable feedback
on my work as I presented it to two seminars on Gen 1–11 at Union
Theological Seminary (Fall 2015 and Fall 2019) and two seminars at
NYU (Spring 2017; Spring 2019 host Liane Feldman), two meetings
of the Columbia University Hebrew Bible seminar (September 2015,
May 2019), two Colloquiums on Old Testament at Heidelberg and
Tübingen (January 2016; hosts Jan Gertz and Erhard Blum), a
conference on scribalism and orality at the College de France (May
2016; host Thomas Römer), a workshop on scribalism and Genesis
in Koblenz (February 2016; host Michaela Bauks), a faculty and
doctoral student gathering in Zurich (July 2018; host Konrad
Schmid), and multiple presentations at both the International SBL
(2017) and Annual SBL meeting (2016, 2018, 2019). Along the way,
I gained specific help from more people than I can gather and name
here. Nevertheless, the following is an alphabetical list of some of
the individuals who provided extra comments on my work and/or
private copies of theirs: Fynn Adomeit, Joel Baden, Walter Bührer,
Simeon Chavel, Colleen Conway, John Day, Paul Delnero, Albert
DePury, Liane Feldman, Dan Fleming, Aron Freidenreich, Jan Gertz,
Esther Hamori, Robin ten Hoopen, Ki-Eun Jang, Ed Greenstein,
Christophe Nihan, Thomas Römer, Konrad Schmid, Stephan
Schorch, Mark Smith, and (for discussion of theological matters) my
Union Seminary colleagues John Thatamanil and Andrea White.
Above all I thank Erhard Blum for his extraordinary help. Initially
he read and discussed my work across a series of visits to Tübingen
in Winter 2016 (funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung) and
Summer 2017 as we planned then to write this commentary together.
Even when he had to withdraw as co-author, he continued to provide
generous help up to the final days of the commentary’s completion.
Along the way I have become ever more convinced that Erhard Blum
is one of the premier Hebrew philologians and exegetes of our age.
This commentary, especially the translation, is immensely better as a
result of his input, even as I must stress that he did not read the final
whole and would not agree with some of the positions adopted in it.
One thing that both Erhard Blum and my wife, Colleen Conway,
encouraged me to do was to publish my work on Gen 1–11 in two
books. My initial work on this commentary ended up being too long
to be included in a single volume, and my diachronic discussions of
precursors to Gen 1–11 had become too technical. Therefore, I
made the decision to include those more technical, diachronic
discussions in a separate monograph, The Formation of Genesis 1–
11, which was published this year (2020) by Oxford University Press
(New York). I still treat diachronic issues in this commentary, but the
separate publication allowed me to treat them in a more summary
way.3 I apologize in advance to some readers who then must consult
a different book to find more detailed coverage of issues that interest
them. At the same time I hope that this move thus makes this
particular volume more accessible to those who do not need as
much technical background.
I must stress that most of this commentary is a synthesis of
others’ work. Of course, I have attempted through footnotes to
indicate particular places where I have gotten ideas. Nevertheless,
as a result of reading and composing this commentary over a
number of years, there are places where I have absorbed something
from somewhere and forgotten my source. In particular, I found
myself coming back again and again to certain interpreters of
Genesis that I found to be unusually good readers, even when I also
disagreed with aspects of their positions. They are cited in the
relevant parts of the commentary, but I list here some that I found to
be particularly useful and interesting resources to be in dialogue
with: studies of all of Gen 1–11 by Umberto Cassuto, John Day, Jan
Gertz, Benno Jacob (the original German edition of his commentary),
Andreas Schüle, Horst Seebass, Gordon Wenham, and Markus
Witte; and studies on specific parts of Gen 1–11 by Samuel
Abramsky (Gen 10), Norbert Clemens Baumgart (on Gen 4, 6–9),
Walter Bührer (especially Gen 1–3; 6:1–4 and 11:1–9), Frank
Crüsemann (Gen 2–3, 4 and 10), Karel Deurloo (Gen 4), Ron
Hendel (text-criticism of Gen 1–11), Henning Heyde (Gen 4), Annette
Schellenberg (Gen 1–3), and Odil Hannes Steck (on Gen 1 and 2–
3). If nothing else, I hope the reader discovers in my footnotes some
more guides like these to enrich their reading of Gen 1–11. It should
be emphasized that I give full information on many materials that I
cite at the locus where those materials are discussed, but (as per the
style of the commentary) the reader must consult the selective
bibliography at the end of this commentary for bibliographic
information on items that are cited by author and short title across
disparate pages.
The Kohlhammer staff, particularly Florian Specker and Jonathan
Robker, have provided fantastic support as I have worked to
complete this project. In addition, I must thank my fellow
IECOT/IKAT authors. Some paved the way for this commentary by
writing earlier volumes in the series, while others provided especially
helpful feedback on draft sections of this commentary at IECOT
author-editor workshops in November 2017, August 2019 and
November 2019. In particular, I benefited from the careful, frank
feedback of Christl Maier at those workshops, and feedback from
Carolyn Sharp prompted me to engage postmodern and
(consciously) ideological readings of Gen 1–11 more than I
otherwise would have.
I conclude with three mechanical notes and one dedicatory one.
As per the style of the series, I use abbreviations from John Kutsko
et al., The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern,
Biblical, and Early Christian Studies, 2nd ed. (Atlanta: SBL Press,
2014). Therefore, I do not provide a separate list of abbreviations
here aside from noting here my frequent use of Gesenius18 to refer
to the eighteenth edition of the Gesenius Handwörterbuch.4 In
addition, even though the Hebrew names in Gen 1–11 often diverge
from their common equivalents, I have used standard English forms
of biblical names as they generally appear in the Bible (following the
NRSV), and I default to the most common form of characters whose
names change across the biblical narrative, e.g., Abraham rather
than Abram. Along the way, I frequently use the convention of using
an asterisk (*) to indicate a citation of a verse range that is
substantially, though not completely, made up of the texts that I
mean to point to. For example, I sometimes refer to priestly elements
embedded in Gen 10—Gen 10:1a, 2–7, 20, 22–23, 31–32—with the
shorthand Genesis 10* after I have specified those elements at least
once in the prior discussion.
Finally, I dedicate this book to a person who will not be aware of
its existence for quite some time: my new (and first) granddaughter,
Kaia Comorau, who was born on Oct. 17, 2019 in the later stages of
finishing this work. While the outset of the present decade (2020)
seems quite fraught and the outlook for earth’s life unclear, Kaia’s
birth and that of others in her generation stand as symbols of human
commitment to the future. Genesis 1–11 is a story of first births, and
it articulates both that potential and certain challenges for human life
on this earth. I dedicate this critical analysis of Gen 1–11 to Kaia and
other little ones in a prayer for them finding ways to flourish together.
To quote a poem by Buddhist teacher and author, Zenju Earthlyn
Manuel “For All Beings”:5
May all beings be cared for and loved,
Be listened to, understood and acknowledged despite different
views,
Be accepted for who they are in this moment,
Be afforded patience,
Be allowed to live without fear of having their lives taken away or
their bodies violated.
May all beings,
Be well in its broadest sense,
Be fed,
Be clothed,
Be treated as if their life is precious,
Be held in the eyes of each other as family.
May all beings,
Be appreciated,
Feel welcomed anywhere on the planet,
Be freed from acts of hatred and desperation including war,
poverty, slavery, and street crimes,
Live on the planet, housed and protected from harm,
Be given what is needed to live fully, without scarcity,
Enjoy life, living without fear of one another,
Be able to speak freely in a voice and mind of undeniable love.
May all beings,
Receive and share the gifts of life,
Be given time to rest, be still, and experience silence.
May all beings,
Be awake.
Let us turn now to look at stories of earth, family, and awakening in
Gen 1–11.
Introduction to the Commentary
Initial Overview of the Contents and Literary
Patterns in Gen 1–11
The first eleven chapters of Genesis offer a picture of the origins of
their audience’s present world—e.g., their agricultural way of life,
family relationships, distinction from and relation to animals, and the
backgrounds of social groups (e.g., Kenites, Canaanites) and
famous foreign loci (e.g., Babylon, Nineveh). The general lack of
focus in these chapters on specifically Israelite figures and explicitly
Israelite places distinguishes these chapters from the rest of the
book of Genesis, indeed from Exodus and other historical books that
follow.1 At the most, the figure of Shem among Noah’s sons is
identified here as Abraham’s direct ancestor (Gen 11:10–26), and he
is particularly connected in Gen 10:21 with a group—“all the sons of
Eber”—that seems specially related to, though not identical to the
“Hebrews” with which Israel is later identified.
This primeval history is split by the great divide of the flood
narrative. Indeed, the Jewish liturgical calendar separates Gen 1–11
into two liturgical portions that are read in the first two weeks of the
annual Torah-reading cycle: an initial pre-flood portion labeled “in the
beginning” from Gen 1:1–6:8 and then a subsequent liturgical
reading labeled “Noah” that covers Gen 6:9–11:32.
The text of Gen 1–11 itself contains explicit structuring elements:
a series of labels, starting in Gen 2:4a, that designate the following
text as concerning the “descendants” (‫—)תולד[ו]ת‬or, by extension,
“generations” for Gen 2:4a—of figures featured in the preceding text.
Here again the flood features prominently, with both post-flood labels
(Gen 10:1; 11:10) stressing the post-flood character of the
descendants that they focalize. As indicated in the following
overview, most of these labeled subsections feature an element
toward their conclusion that anticipates the focus of the following
one:2
In the beginning (Gen 1:1–6:8)
 [God’s seven-day creation of heaven, earth and living beings in them (Gen
1:1–2:3)]
“These are the generations of heaven and earth” (Gen 2:4a): first humans
along with animals (2:4b–4:26)
Anticipation of the first parts of the following Adam-to-Noah genealogy
(Gen 4:25–26)
“This is the book of the descendants of Adam” (Gen 5:1a): Adam-to-Noah
genealogy (5:1–32), demigods (6:1–4)
Anticipation of flood destruction/Noah rescue (6:5–8)
Noah (Gen 6:8–11:32)
“These are the descendants of Noah” (Gen 6:9a): Story of Noah/flood (6:9–
9:17), Noah and his sons (Gen 9:20–27)
Anticipation of post-flood humanity from Noah’s sons (Gen 9:18–19)
“These are the descendants of Noah’s sons … after the flood” (10:1a): The
expansion and spreading of post-flood humanity (Gen 10:1–11:9)
“These are the descendants of Shem” (Gen 11:10aα): From Shem to Israel’s
ancestor, Abraham (11:10–26)
Anticipation of the Abraham story (Gen 11:26)
Though the beginning of the “descendants of Terah” section in Gen
11:27–32 is included in the “Noah” liturgical reading, these verses
are not actually part of the primeval history. Instead, they begin the
story about Abraham and his family that extends into the following
chapters. Therefore this commentary will not cover this section,
reserving its treatment for the IECOT volume on the Gen 12–50
ancestral materials.
The orientation of the primeval history around creation and flood
means that the story of primeval origins clearly distinguishes the
present, experienced world of the audience from the world as God
initially created and intended it. Thus, Gen 1–11 does not just
present contemporary realities as an immutable, divinely-created
order. Instead, these chapters depict present reality as the result of a
complex process leading from 1) God’s creation of an initial “very
good” order (Gen 1:1–2:3, also 2:4–25) that was then compromised
by human actions (Gen 3:1–4:24) to 2) a flood destruction and partial
revision of the initial creation order (Gen 6:5–9:17). This depiction
starts with an account of God’s ideal creation in Gen 1:1–2:3 and the
initial story of Y ’s creation of an initial human, the first animals,
and the first woman as the human’s true counterpart and helper
(Gen 2:4–24). These two texts, complexly related and distinguished
in numerous respects, both explain some aspects of present reality
(e.g., distinct components of the present cosmos [Gen 1], the strong
bond of a young man to his wife [Gen 2:24]) and also present ideal
“counterworlds” (German Gegenwelten) to the audience’s present,
where, e.g., humans peacefully dominate animals (Gen 1:26, 28–30;
2:18–20) and survive on plant life (1:29–30; 2:8–9, 15–16).
Starting in Gen 3, however, human disobedience and violence
disrupts this ideal picture, and subsequent narratives show other
ways that humans act and God must react. In this way, the primeval
narratives of Genesis explain non-ideal elements of human life—
such as animosity with animals (Gen 3:14–15), hard labor for food
(Gen 3:17–19, 23), and violence (Gen 4:8)—as the result of primeval
events involving the first humans. Nevertheless, the stories of Adam
and Eve in Eden and Cain and Abel are much more complex than
the simple “crime and punishment” model that is often applied to
them.3 These pre-flood stories depict the gradual emergence of the
first humans from a state of childlike [and animal-like] lack of shame
(Gen 2:25), gullibility, and naivete (Gen 3:1–6) into the hard work
and hard choices of life outside the garden. This certainly involves
human mistakes and misdeeds, partly instigated by other non-
human powers—disobedience prompted in part by the snake Gen
3:1–6 and fratricide associated with sin lurking as a demon in Gen
4:7–8. Nevertheless, humans also gain important adult capabilities
along the way, such as godlike “knowledge of good and evil” (3:7,
22), and God does not only respond to their actions with anger, but
also with compassion (Gen 3:8–24; 4:9–15). We see this mix of
divine responses also in the divine response to marriages between
the sons of god and human daughters in Gen 6:1–2. There Y
imposes a 120-year lifespan limit to humanity (6:3), one that both
a) allows the potentially immortal children produced by such
marriages to live unusually long lives and yet b) reinforces the
mortality of such divine-human offspring. Amidst all this, there is little
to indicate that God will impose a world-destroying flood on all life. At
most, there are subtle anticipations of the coming of diluvian
destruction in the names for the last five primeval ancestors in Gen 5
and their age notices.
 The following flood narrative echoes and reverses aspects of the
Gen 1 and 2 creation stories. To start, Gen 6:5–6 echoes Gen 2 in
describing God’s regret at having made (‫ )עשה‬humans whose
formation (‫ )יצר‬is thoroughly evil (cf. ‫ יצר‬in 2:7) and then Gen 6:11–12
echoes and contrasts with Gen 1 in describing the corruption of the
“very good” earth that was created at the outset (cf. Gen 1:31~6:13).
God then goes on to destroy all of humanity except Noah (7:6–8:19)
before promising not to bring another flood (8:20–9:17). The status
of the flood as an uncreation of God’s initial creation is highlighted by
parallels between God’s creation of the heavenly plate in Gen 1:6–8,
God’s opening of its windows to create the flood in 7:11, and God’s
closing of them in 8:2.
The text in Gen 9:18–11:9 then continues the meditation on
human possibilities and limits seen in Gen 3:1–6:4. For example,
much as the Eden story in Gen 2–3 presented a fundamentally
ambivalent picture of human acquisition of wisdom (3:7, 22) and
concomitant condemnation to hard labor (Gen 3:17–19, 23–24), the
story of Noah combines a picture of him discovering comfort from
that hard labor through farming grapes from the ground (Gen 5:29;
9:20–21a) and his accidental descent into a drunken nakedness
reminiscent of nakedness in Eden (Gen 9:21b; cf. 2:25; 3:7) and
subsequent imposition of a curse (‫ )ארר‬on his grandson (Gen 9:21–
25; cf. Gen 3:17–19). And, as partially indicated in the table below,
various other aspects of the post-flood stories in Gen 9:20–11:9
resume themes of human division (e.g., Gen 4:1–26 // Gen 9:25–
10:32) and threat to the divine-human boundary (e.g., Gen 3:22;
6:1–2 // 11:1–4) that were seen in the stories leading up to the flood:4
General (un)creation, three pairings of the nuclear family, divine-human
boundary, peoples
Initial Divine Creation of Humans and the Biome that They Rule (Gen 1:1–2:3)
First Human Couple: End of Nakedness, Start of Farming,
Reproduction (Gen 2–3)
Establishment of firm divine-human boundary (of
mortality)
First Sibling Pair: Echoes of Eden (Gen 4:1–16)
Kenite Peoples (tents, pastroralists, metalurgists) (Gen
4:20–22)
Sethite Substitute for Abel—Calling on Y ’s Name
(4:25–26)
 Reinforcement of Divine-Human Boundary (Gen 6:1–4)
Divine Uncreation and Recreation of the Cosmos (6:5–9:17)
Parent-Children Pairing: Echoes of Eden—Farming, Nakedness, and
Curse (Gen 9:20–27)
Population of Earth from Noah’s Sons (Gen 10)
Spatial Reinforcement of the Divine-Human Boundary
(Gen 11:1–9)
(11:1–9 provides background to spread of earth’s
population in Gen 10)
The flood and post-flood stories (Gen 6:5–11:9) thus unfold themes
from the pre-flood section (Gen 1:1–6:4) in two main ways. First,
they echo specific elements of Gen 2:1–6:4, describing the
continuing development of human farming, unfolding of ethnic
divisions, and featuring themes of nakedness, curse, and God’s
concerns about preserving the divine-human boundary. Second, the
flood narrative represents a temporary interruption in the emergence
of the current world order, echoing elements of Gen 1–2 in the
process of describing God’s undoing and revision of God’s initial
creation work.
Major Themes in the History of Interpretation of
Gen 1:1–6:4
The above-surveyed texts in Gen 1–11 have played such an
important role in Jewish and Christian interpretation that adequate
treatment of that history requires a book (or books) in itself.
Therefore, this commentary does not provide a sustained treatment
of this area. Nevertheless, I note below a few central foci in the
history of interpretation of the texts in Gen 1–11 as a preface to this
commentary’s diachronic exploration of their formation over time and
synchronic reading of the distinct diachronic levels embedded in
them.
I start by noting a marked contrast between the Hebrew Bible’s
general lack of specific reference to stories in Gen 1–11 and the
broad and deep reflection on these chapters from the Second
Temple period onward. Aside from more general references to
creation in a number of biblical texts, the main potential reflections of
Gen 1–11 in other Hebrew Bible texts occur in a brief mention of “the
garden of Y ” in Gen 13:10; Isa 51:3, reference to Noah in Ezek
14:14, 20 and Isa 54:9, use of genealogical information from Gen 1–
5 in 1 Chr 1:1–4, and a likely reflection on the Gen 1:26–28 picture of
God’s creation of humans to rule in Ps 8:5–9 (ET 8:4–8; cf. also Ps
136:8–9).5 In addition, as will be discussed more later, there may be
some ways that the garden of Eden story of Gen 2:4–3:24 is
responded to or otherwise appropriated in Psalm 82:7 and texts in
Ezekiel on the expulsion of a proud figure from the garden of
God/“Eden” because of his pretensions to divinity (28:11–19) and of
a great world tree in the garden of God/“Eden” (31:3–9).
This general lack of reflection on texts in Gen 1–11 in the rest of
the Bible (excepting Ezekiel) stands in marked contrast to the
relatively frequent interpretations of Gen 1–11 in Second Temple
Jewish literature and even more intense reflection on these chapters
in the Christian theological tradition. For example, several early
Jewish texts clarify the background of God’s judgment and the world-
destroying flood of Gen 6:5–7:23 by seeing the stories of Gen 2:4–
6:4 against the background of Hellenistic and Roman-period
traditions about demonic powers and fallen angels.6 In addition,
early and later Jewish readers added new semi-divine characters to
the mythical world of Gen 1–11—taking the snake in Gen 3 to be
Satan (e.g., 4 Macc. 18:7–8; Rev 12:9; Apoc. Mos. 16:4; 17:4;
possibly Wis 2:24), the “sons of God” in Gen 6:2, 4 as rebel angels
producing evil and violent giants who then caused the flood (e.g.,
1 En. 6:2–7:5; Jub. 5:1–5), and the figure of Nimrod in Gen 10:8–12
as a giant, evil rebel warrior who led the project to build the tower in
Babylon (11:1–9).7 Meanwhile, the character of Enoch, who only
briefly appears in Gen 5:22–24 as a proto-Noah character who
“walked with God” (cf. Gen 6:9), became a much more important
figure in several early Jewish texts—moral example, mediator
between heaven and earth, sage, and revealer of heavenly secrets
(Sir 44:14–16; Ps.-Philo, LAB 1:16; Josephus, Ant. 1.85; cf. Heb
11:5).8 In a similar vein, interpreters endeavored to elaborate on the
Bible’s brief positive comments about Noah, Gen 6:8, 9; 7:1),
developing stories of his righteous attempts to warn his
contemporaries of the oncoming flood (Sib. Or. 1:127–131, 149–151;
Jos. Ant. 1.74) and starting to see him as inaugurating a set of
“Noachide laws” about murder and other topics that apply to
humanity as a whole (cf. Gen 9:2–6).9
Later rabbinic and mystical Jewish interpretation of these
chapters have varied widely, depending on the theme under
discussion. Overall, interpreters often have tended to reinterpret
various parts of the Gen primeval history through the lens of the
flood narrative’s report of the pervasive, irremovable evil of humanity
(Gen 6:5–7; also 8:21). For example, an initial stratum in the Enochic
Book of the Watchers (1 En. 6:2–7:5) is the earliest tradition to link
the evil of the flood (Gen 6:5) with the preceding story of marriages
of sons of God and daughters of humanity (Gen 6:1–4) by telling
how those marriages produced violent giants whose violence caused
the flood.10 The above-noted tradition about evil Nimrod built on that
picture, seeing the “warrior” (‫ )גבור‬Nimrod of Gen 10:8–9 as a
continuation of the line of evil, giant “warriors” noted in Gen 6:4. This
interpretation then was complemented by a broad tendency to
attribute grave sexual sins to Noah’s son, Ham (Gen 9:22–23), and
see the building of Babylon (often seen as Nimrod’s work) as an
illustration of the persistence of human evil in the post-flood period
(Gen 11:1–9; cf. Gen 8:21).11 As will be discussed later in this
commentary, these negative strands of interpretation of Gen 1–11,
particularly those focused on semi-outsider figures in the story world
(e.g., Cain, Nimrod), have been used by some to justify exclusion,
colonization, or enslavement of perceived others, especially people
of African descent, who are often identified with those figures.
Another broader trend to note is the way that the flood narrative’s
depiction of the evil of humanity in Gen 6:5–7 appears to have
influenced early Jewish and, particularly, Christian readings of the
Garden of Eden story (Gen 2–3). We may already see this in the
Dead Sea Scrolls, in the Paraphrase of Genesis and Exodus (4Q422
1:11–12), which seems to link the “evil inclination” (‫ )רע … יצר‬of
humanity mentioned in Gen 6:5 to rebellion of the first human in the
Garden of Eden (Gen 2–3).12 This idea of original human evil,
undergirded by a reading of Gen 2–3 in light of Gen 6:5–7, then
appears even more explicitly in Paul’s reading of the Garden of Eden
story as an account of the “fall” of all of humanity into sin and death
(Rom 5:12–21; also 1 Cor 15:21–22, 45–49).13 The Eden story
served for Paul as a crucial background for his broader theology
about Jesus’s salvation of the entire world, both gentile and Jewish.
Though there were other stories in Scripture, such as the golden calf
incident (Exod 32:1–14), that depicted sins by Israel, Paul focused
on the Gen 3 story of disobedience in Eden because of its potential
to illustrate a universal human deficiency—something suffered by
both gentiles and Jews—to which Jesus Christ’s death and
resurrection could stand as a universal solution.14 In the wake of
Paul’s interpretation, most Christians have read Gen 2–3 as a story
of the original sin of the first humans that was then inherited by all of
subsequent humanity.15
The more interpreters focused on Gen 3 as the story of a fall into
sin, the more they also sought figures to blame, and the most
obvious suspects often ended up being Eve and the snake, rather
than the man in the story. To be sure, Paul himself juxtaposed
Adam’s bringing of sin with Christ’s bringing of salvation (e.g., Rom
5:12–21), and only a few early Jewish interpretations stressed Eve’s
role in bringing death into the world (e.g., Sir 25:24; Philo Creation
151–152). Nevertheless, following the scriptural precedent of 1 Tim
2:14–15, many Christian interpreters particularly blamed Eve for the
garden sin, projecting onto her an anxiety about women, bodies, and
desire that was characteristic of their context.16 In addition, building
on the above-described early-Jewish tendency to see angelic and
other demonic powers at work in the primeval period, Christians saw
the snake of Gen 3 as Satan in disguise, tricking the woman into her
temptress role.
More recently, especially in the seventeenth and subsequent
centuries, these first chapters of Genesis have been a central locus
for European Christian development of concepts of race, as
Europeans colonized and enslaved people of color. On the one
hand, the primeval history posed a challenge for concepts of race
because it posited a unitary origin for all humans, with the diverse
peoples of the world sharing a common set of parents and being
siblings to each other. On the other hand, the depiction of post-flood
peoples in Genesis 10 came to be a crucial template for European
constructs of “Semitic,” “Hamitic,” and “Japhetite” (the latter often
associated with Europeans) races and development of religiously-
based ideologies supporting racial domination. In particular, the
stories of Cain and Ham were reinterpreted to provide an account of
African peoples as subhuman products of a separate line of Adam’s
descendants, bearing the dark “mark” of Cain’s infamy (Gen 4:15)
and the curse of Ham’s descendants to slavery (Gen 9:25).17
In the contemporary context, the first chapters of Genesis also
have been a focus of discussions around gender, ecology and
broader questions surrounding the relations of humans to other living
beings. For example, some feminist interpreters such as Phyllis
Trible have critiqued traditional Christian readings of the Garden of
Eden story as a story of a fall caused by Eve’s weakness. So also,
Trible and others have found salutary the Gen 1 description of God’s
creation of male and female “humanity” (‫ )האדם‬in (or as) God’s
image.18 Meanwhile, an increasing sensitivity to the problem of
human destruction of the environment has raised questions about
the anthropocentric character of Gen 1–3, particularly God’s intent in
Gen 1:26–28 for humans to “rule” and even “subdue” creation. An
oft-cited 1967 article on “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological
Crisis” by Lynn White attributes part of this crisis to the
anthropocentric perspective of the Genesis creation stories.19 In
response, some religious interpreters of the Bible have offered more
ecofriendly readings of Genesis, seeing Gen 1:26–28 as envisioning
human royal care for creation or the stories of Adam, Eve, Cain, and
Abel as chronicling the corruption of the earth that follows on human
misdeeds.20 Still more recent readings of Gen 1–9 have followed the
lead of Jacques Derrida in raising questions surrounding the basic
distinction between humans and all other living beings that is
presupposed in many such readings, a distinction that is a particular
focus of the creation stories in Gen 1–3.21
Major Contours of the Diachronic Background to
Gen 1–11
This commentary aims to enrich the above-surveyed centuries-long
conversation about Genesis with a mix of diachronic and synchronic
analysis, each pursued in turn and in relation to each other. As
stated in the preface to the series, “diachronic analysis” is
understood here to pertain to the “depth dimension” of a given text—
that is its various sorts of identifiable precursors: earlier source or
compositional-redactional strata, oral traditions, and/or separate
biblical or non-biblical texts with which the text specifically interacts.
The following section of this introduction prepares for the diachronic
portion of the commentary by surveying the main precursors of Gen
1–11 to be discussed across the course of the commentary, starting
with pre-biblical Near Eastern literary traditions.

Ancient Non-Biblical Precursors

Much of Gen 1–11 appears to interact with primeval traditions
attested in a variety of non-Israelite contexts. Genesis 1, in
particular, manifests some potential links to motifs seen in Egyptian
contexts. Genesis 6:1–4 features some elements known from Greek,
Hittite (originally Hurrian), and Ugaritic texts. In general, however, the
texts in Gen 1–11 show the most identifiable connections to texts in
the Mesopotamian Sumero-Akkadian literary tradition.
There are several factors that may contribute to the
predominance of parallels between Gen 1–11 and Mesopotamian
literary texts. To start, we have better access to Mesopotamian
literary texts because they were recorded on imperishable clay
tablets and sometimes collected in large archives, such as the library
of Ashurbanipal. Yet, even beyond such accidents of preservation
and collection, the Mesopotamian literary tradition appears to have
included an unusually large number of stories about primeval times
that are analogous to parts of Gen 1–11. Egyptian scribes seem to
have developed relatively few such traditions about primeval times.22
Moreover, most traditions specifically connected to the Levant (e.g.,
Ugarit) and broader Mediterranean (e.g., Greece) focus on royal-
legendary heroic figures rather than the creation of the cosmos and
human civilization.23 In connection with Gen 6:1–4, I will mention
Hittite-Hurrian myths around Kumarbi and some Greek traditions
(especially in Hesiod and Homer) that apparently develop older Near
Eastern, Hittite, and Levantine themes about ancient interactions of
the gods and humans. Nevertheless, the level of focus on such
primeval times is far less in Egypt and Mediterranean scribal spheres
than that seen in the Mesopotamian literary tradition, and there is not
good evidence for a text in Gen 1–11 specifically responding to a
specific text in the Egyptian, Greek, Hittite/Hurrian, or Phoenecian
sphere.
Finally, it is important to recognize the multiple occasions in
which the Judean scribes might have been exposed to
Mesopotamian literary traditions or themes from such traditions. We
know that cuneiform texts—specifically including the Adapa and
Gilgamesh epics—circulated in the Levant during the Bronze Age,
and it is possible that early Judean scribes encountered echoes of
those texts in some form, whether preserved versions of some
Mesopotamian texts themselves or Canaanite reflections of them.24
When Judah was under Assyrian domination, some elite Judean
youths may have been sent to Assyria for education in Assyrian
literature, much as happened in other parts of the Assyrian empire.25
Finally, it is possible that the Judean exiles in Babylon encountered
and engaged elements of Babylonian literature during their stay
there.26
In the end, the argument for textual influence of Mesopotamian or
other traditions must be made on a case by case basis.
Nevertheless, numerous discussions in the following commentary
will provide support to the idea that the character and broader shape
of Gen 1–11 were particularly influenced by primeval compositions
and cosmogonic traditions seen in Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform
literature.
The Character of Mesopotamian Primeval Texts
and Traditions
Given the close connections of Gen 1–11 to Mesopotamian literary
traditions, our examination of these chapters can be informed by a
brief overview of primeval themes seen in this corpus. To start, this
literature contains an impressive range of texts devoted all or in part
to narrating the gods’ creation of civilized humanity. These include
both Sumerian (e.g., Enki and Ninmah, the Eridu Genesis) and
Akkadian (portions of the Atrahasis and Enuma Elish Epics) texts,
along with a couple of bilinguals (the Ashur bilingual [KAR 4],
Marduk bilingual).27 I will term such texts “primeval creation
accounts.” In addition, we see a number of important traditions about
primeval origins embedded in texts of other genres. They are
particularly frequent in hymns (Enki and the World Order, Ninurta’s
Exploits, Hymn to the Engura, Song of the Hoe, How Grain Came to
Sumer). But we also see such primeval themes occur briefly in some
incantations,28 the outset of the Rulers of Lagash list, a part of the
Eridu Genesis text, and part of a Sumerian school debate (Debate
between Grain and Sheep). This mix of genres shows the overall
prominence of themes of primeval origins in the Mesopotamian
literary tradition and suggests the possibility of mutual influence of
primeval creation narratives on the one hand and the treatment of
creation themes in other genre texts (e.g., hymns) on the other.
Notably, the bulk of Mesopotamian primeval creation narratives
and cosmological traditions in other genres do not focus generally on
the creation of the world per se, but rather on describing the
emergence of different aspects of the Mesopotamian canal-based,
temple-city social system.29 In doing so, this etiological dimension of
numerous Mesopotamian literary texts integrally connect their
audience’s world to the story world of the creation narratives,
depicting key aspects of contemporary reality, including social reality,
as resulting from events at the outset of time. Far from being an
added or superficial element of the stories, this overall etiological
dimension of creation narratives constituted a key aspect of their
claim upon their readers, turning key elements of the contemporary
world—e.g., canals, farming, cities, kingship—into testimony of the
truth of the creation myths that purported to explain them.
Certainly the creation of humans by the gods (usually Enki/Ea) is
often included as a part of this. Nevertheless, even here
Mesopotamian compositions include an anticipation of irrigation-
based agriculture on which Mesopotamian civilization depended. A
particularly frequent theme in Mesopotamian texts is the idea that
humans were created to do labor to support the gods. In particular,
we see multiple attestations in Sumerian texts of the idea that, prior
to the creation of humanity, the lower gods were sorely burdened by
labor, bearing the hoe and the bucket30 or more specifically
maintaining the canals.31 Yet more Sumerian and Akkadian texts
then go on to describe how higher gods then create humanity to
alleviate the lower gods’ labor, often after a specific consultation
among the gods. These themes appear already in the ancient
Sumerian Enki and Ninmah myth, and they reappear in Sumerian
compositions (Song of the Hoe, Debate between Grain and Sheep)
and the Akkadian Atrahasis Epic, the Akkadian Enuma Elish Epic
and several later Akkadian compositions (Ashur bilingual, Marduk
bilingual) as well as being briefly mentioned in some incantations.32
These stories of the origins of humans typically occur as parts of
broader compositions about the origins of Mesopotamian city-temple
culture. Alongside the creation of human beings, we see a particular
focus in these Mesopotamian origins texts on themes such as: 1) the
origins of the great cities like Eridu (in Sumerian compositions) and
Babylon (in bilingual and Akkadian compositions); 2) the creation of
the Tigris and Euphrates rivers; and 3) the founding of field
agriculture along with the canal-irrigation system that made such
agriculture possible in Mesopotamia. In the hymn to Enki and the
world order, along with the Eridu Genesis, the creator, Enki, is
praised as the founder of the first city, Eridu, along with other
important Sumerian cities. Later bilingual and Akkadian texts
(Enuma Elish Epic, the Marduk bilingual) then shift this achievement
to Marduk, who is praised for founding Babylon and its great Esagila
temple. So also, Enki (in the hymn to the world order), Ninurta (in the
exploits of Ninurta), Marduk (in the Marduk bilingual and Enuma
Elish), or the gods in general (in the Ashur bilingual) create the Tigris
and Euphrates rivers on which the Mesopotamian irrigation system
depended. Finally, the creation of that irrigation system is
presupposed in the Atrahasis Epic (where humans take over canal
maintenance from lower gods) and explicitly described in the Eridu
Genesis, Ashur bilingual, and the Hymn to Enki and the world order.
Notably, this overall etiological emphasis seen in Mesopotamian
primeval creation accounts (and creation traditions) seems to have
militated against a regular combination of such creation narratives
with stories of a world-destroying flood. To be sure, creation and
flood are integrated in the Atrahasis Epic, focused as it is on various
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 creation accounts, and the flood is only incompletely
integrated with creation-etiological elements in the Eridu Genesis.
The documented secondary insertion of a flood account into tablet
eleven of the Standard Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh epic
(hereafter “SB Gilgamesh” as opposed to the Old Babylonian [OB]
versions) shows that some scribes could bring flood traditions into
relation with other textual traditions. Nevertheless, the broader
picture of Mesopotamian primeval narratives and traditions shows
that narrative integration of creation and flood episodes—seen
particularly in the Atrahasis Epic—was the exception rather than the
rule.
Finally, I must emphasize that the Mesopotamian literary tradition
regarding primeval times is varied, constituted as it is by works of
various genres in two languages (Sumerian and Akkadian) that were
composed over many centuries. There are important differences
across this corpus. For example, the Akkadian texts, which generally
lie closer than the Sumerian texts to the time of the composition of
Gen 1–11, are distinguished from those Sumerian texts by their more
resolutely negative view of the heavy labor put on humans by the
gods and their more exclusive picture of humans as created through
a process of formation, generally a god or goddess crafting humans
out of clay (where several Sumerian texts depict humans as
sprouting from the earth).33 In addition, it appears that certain texts
enjoyed more prominence in different periods of the Mesopotamian
scribal context. In particular, it seems that the Enuma Elish Epic,
composed in the later second millennium and synthesizing earlier
traditions of varied kinds (e.g., the Anzu and Atrahasis Epics),
became increasingly prominent across the first millennium BCE and
particularly influenced later representations of primeval times.34 For
example, Berossus’s Babylonian History, composed in the early third
century, particularly reflects the version of creation seen in tablet VI
of the Enuma Elish Epic.35
The Limited Usefulness of the ‘Creation’
Category for Reading Gen 1–11
The following commentary will explore more similarities and
distinctions between texts in Gen 1–11 and their Mesopotamian (and
other) counterparts. The point for now is to emphasize how the
broader focus of the Gen 1–11 materials corresponds to the focus of
many Mesopotamian primeval narratives on the overall origins of
human city culture and specific temple cults as well. Both sets of
material undermine a common contemporary conceptual division
between cosmos-oriented “creation stories” on the one hand and
other primeval stories on the other. Such an understanding assumes
a semi-scientific division of the order of the natural world from social,
ethnic, and other constructed orders (e.g., canals, cities), a division
that was foreign to the world of the Bible.36 Where modern readers
might separate off the seven-day account of Gen 1 or the Eden story
of Gen 2–3 as being stories of “creation,” ancient authors and
readers probably would have seen the entire primeval history of Gen
1–11, including its account of post-flood peoples and cities in Gen
10:1–11:9, as an overall account of the primeval origins of the
audience’s natural-ethnic-social world.37
Literary Stages in the Formation of Gen 1–11

P, Non-P, and Models for their Relationship

Two and a half centuries of scholarship have established a basic
distinction in Gen 1–11 between a Priestly strand (often designated
“P” in the following) starting in the seven-day creation account of
Gen 1:1–2:3 and a non-Priestly strand (non-P; often termed “J”)
starting with the garden of Eden story in Gen 2:4–3:24. The following
commentary will argue for and develop this picture. The basic
distinctions between these Priestly and non-Priestly materials have
been established for over a century and will only be fine-tuned in
minor respects across this commentary.
Basic Shape of P and non-P In most cases, the conflator who
combined them seems to have preserved major blocks of each.
From the P source, the conflator preserved the P creation account in
Gen 1:1–2:3, Adam-to-Noah genealogy in most of Gen 5*,38 and the
Shem-to-Abraham genealogy of Gen 11:10–26. From the non-P
primeval history, the conflator preserved stories about first humans
found in Gen 2:4b–4:26; the brief account of sons of God and
daughters of humanity in Gen 6:1–4; the stories of Noah and his
sons in 9:20–27; and building of Babylon in 11:1–9. Nevertheless,
the conflator appears to have more finely interwoven P and non-P
sources in two cases where P and non-P contained parallel
materials: the story of the flood (Gen 6:5–9:17) and the overview of
offspring of Noah’s sons (Gen 10). In general, across the primeval
history the conflator appears to have preserved the P narrative as
the primary structuring element, while non-P materials have been
more selectively preserved and reorganized to supplement this
Priestly substructure. That said, substantial portions of both P and
non-P strata have been preserved, forming relatively readable
parallel strands.39 Though the conflator occasionally eliminated
portions of the non-P narrative in the process of producing a
readable text, the combined P/non-P result still preserves enough of
each source to produce relatively secure hypotheses about their
original contents.
Non-P = Post-P in Gen 1–11? Thus this commentary does not
join with a number of recent studies that have argued for the post-
Priestly, supplementary character of all or most of the non-P material
in Gen 1–11. Starting in the late eighties, studies by Wenham (1987),
Blenkinsopp (1992, 1995), Ska (1994), and Krüger (1997) argued
that major portions of the non-P primeval history were post-Priestly
expansions of the Priestly primeval history,40 and this approach was
then developed extensively in several early twenty-first century
monographs along with numerous essays.41 Overall, these studies
have made significant contributions to our understanding of texts in
Gen 1–11. Where many (including the present author) were once
tempted to place the non-P (a.k.a. “Jahwistic”) primeval history in the
early monarchal period, these more recent studies of the non-P
primeval history materials have highlighted elements in it that point
to a relatively later date, at least for portions of that history.
Moreover, many of these studies have illuminated the character of
the present (conflated) Gen 1–11 text by showing elegant ways in
which the non-P parts of Gen 1–11 are selected and arranged in
relation to the P materials that surround them.
P and non-P conceived separately, not supplementarily That
said, there still are strong indicators that the P and non-P strands in
Gen 1–11 were originally composed separately before they were
combined: the extensive doubling of P and non-P elements (not
typical when redactional strata are added), the relative readability of
both strands as originally independent sources, the existence of
competing conceptual systems in P and non-P, and identifiable
secondary attempts to harmonize those systems. These features will
be discussed at more length in the following commentary.42
P’s Relation to Non-P Furthermore, there are subtle indicators
that P was partially modelled on corresponding parts of the non-P
primeval history. To be sure, the narratives do not verbally parallel
each other, and there is no locus where P cites non-P. In this sense,
P is not a paraphrase of non-P nor is it a transformation of non-P in
the manner of Chronicles vis-à-vis parts of Samuel–Kings. At the
same time, the two strands are distinguished from other Near
Eastern chronologies by a shared contrast in both narratives
between the deity’s creation of an ideal initial creation order (P in
Gen 1:1–2:3; non-P in Gen 2:4b–25) and then the disruption of that
order by evil (non-P in Gen 3:1–4:24; P in Gen 6:11–13). Moreover,
P’s depiction of the corruption of the earth by pre-flood violence (Gen
6:11–13; cf. 9:5–6) seems to adapt elements of the non-P depiction
of events surrounding Cain’s pollution of the earth through the
murder of his brother, Abel (Gen 4:8–14).43Across the following
commentary I will discuss yet other elements in P that appear to
have had their original home in the corresponding non-P narratives.
These and other indicators suggest that the author(s) of P, though
uninterested in providing an exact mirror of every element in non-P,
had the non-P primeval history among its literary precursors.

Layers and Dating of the Pre-P Primeval History

The supplementary character of the non-P flood This commentary
will develop the case for one main, additional theory about the
formation of the non-P strand: the idea that the non-P material in
Gen 1–11 originally did not originally include a flood story. This idea
was developed long ago in 1872 by Julius Wellhausen, 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.44 Ten years later Karl Budde offered a source version of
Wellhausen’s approach, hypothesizing that the non-P material of
Gen 1–11 originated in two J sources, one with a flood and one
without.45 This two-source approach to the non-P (“J”) primeval
history then enjoyed much popularity amidst a broader focus on
source criticism in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s before it was
discarded by most scholars in the early twentieth century.46
In recent years, Wellhausen’s original supplement approach to
the question of the non-P flood narrative has been revived by
scholars such as Kratz (2000) and Dershowitz (2016),47 and this
commentary joins them. Not only does the etiology of professions in
Gen 4:20–22 contradict the idea of a flood, but the flood also
disrupts other etiological elements strewn across Gen 4:1–26; 5:29
and 6:1–4. We will see how various elements in Gen 4:1–24
etiologically explain aspects of the Kenite tribe, known as a present
reality to the text’s later audience. Though Gen 5:29 and 9:20–27 are
now widely separated from each other by the P and non-P flood
narratives, they originally stood closer together in identifying Noah’s
name as signifying the comfort that he would provide out of the
ground (‫ )האדמה‬from the toil (‫ )עצבון‬caused by Y ’s curse of the
ground (Gen 3:17–19). Finally, the description of divine-human
marriages and Y ’s response to them in Gen 6:1–4, concludes
with etiological elements linked to giants and famous warriors placed
back in antiquity (‫)מעולם‬, but an antiquity related to Israel’s earliest
pre-monarchal history, not a pre-flood period.
These issues with etiologies in Gen 1–11 are the first of several
indicators suggesting that the earliest non-P primeval history did not
have a flood narrative. Instead, like the Mesopotamian creation
traditions discussed above (most of which also did not feature a
flood), the earliest non-P primeval history told a complicated story of
early humans and God’s relations with them. Though this story
encompassed many of the non-P materials (aside from the non-P
flood narrative) in Gen 2:4b–9:27, it revolved particularly around
three stories featuring the three major dyads of a primary family
within a patriarchal context: male-female (Gen 2–3), brother-brother
(Gen 4:1–16), and father-sons (Gen 9:20–27). It likely concluded
with a couple of notes in Gen 10:15, 21 about the descendants of
Noah’s sons—Canaan’s fathering of the ancestors of ancient
Phoenicians (Sidon) and inland Hittites (Het) and Shem’s fathering of
a vaguely defined group, “all of the sons of Eber,” that appears to
have been intended as a primeval counterpart to the later concept of
Hebrews. In this way the non-P primeval history did not just provide
a universal account of human origins. Like the Mesopotamian
primeval origin accounts surveyed above, it also provided an etiology
of its audience’s own social identity (Hebrews here as “sons of Eber”
in Gen 10:21) along with etiological background for the early giant
inhabitants of pre-Israelite Canaan (Gen 6:1–4) and Judah’s most
immediate neighbors—Kenites (Gen 4:1–24) and Canaanites (Gen
10:15). Only later was this early primeval history expanded through
the addition of the non-P Noah-flood narrative and related materials
that transformed Noah’s sons into the fathers of post-flood humanity
and added materials pertaining to Mesopotamian kingship and major
cities (e.g., Gen 10:8b–12; 11:1–9). Notably, it is these potential later
expansions of non-P materials that show the most potential links to
non-P materials about Israel’s ancestors that follow, both the pre-
Priestly flood narrative (Gen 6:5–8:22*) showing parallels to the story
of Lot’s rescue from Sodom (Gen 19) and the Babylon story (Gen
11:1–9) bridging to the outset of the Abraham narrative (Gen 12:1–
4a, 6–8). This suggests that an originally independent non-P
primeval history may have been expanded not just with a flood
narrative and related materials (e.g., the Babylon story in 11:1–9),
but that the flood expansion was the first part of a lengthening of that
primeval history (originally ending with Noah and his [grand]sons)
into a narrative of primeval and ancestral origins that included at
least some non-P ancestral materials across the rest of Genesis.
I return to these ideas in the following commentary.48 For now it
is important to anticipate this theory because this diachronic insight
into the secondary character of the non-P flood narrative (and
related materials) opens new horizons for the interpretation of the
first chapters of Gen 1–11. For example, the above-noted reading of
the Garden of Eden as a story of original sin is grounded in part on a
retrospective reading of Y ’s absolute judgment on human evil at
the outset of the flood (Gen 6:5–7) back into Gen 2–3.49 Recognizing
the secondary character of these non-P flood materials allows one to
more clearly perceive the more complex, ambivalent picture of
humanity and God in Gen 2–3 and related texts. At the same time,
the exegesis of the flood narrative and related texts may gain
precision through recognizing their distinction from and yet relation to
the earlier non-P materials that they expand upon.
Dating the non-P elements in Gen 1–11 Though this distinction
and relative dating of two overall layers in the pre-P materials of Gen
1–11—an earlier, independent primeval history (without flood
narrative, etc.) and later expansion of it by a flood narrative and
other materials—would be quite exegetically significant, the absolute
dating of these layers to specific times is less so. After all, in contrast
to time-linked texts like literary prophecies, the stories in Gen 1–11
generally refer to what were seen as lasting realities in the world of
their audience. They do not purport to interpret or predict historical
developments. That said, there is some evidence to link the above-
described expansion of the primeval history to the Neo-Assyrian or a
later period. The Neo-Assyrian and later periods are the most likely
times for the kind of specific reflections of Mesopotamian literary
traditions (e.g., the flood narrative as seen in the SB Gilgamesh epic)
and realia (e.g., an unfinished, brick-covered tower in Babylon in
11:1–9) that occur in materials that seem associated with this
expansion layer. In addition, the trauma of the Neo-Assyrian period
provides a plausible background for the interruptive introduction of
the flood narrative, with its new depiction of absolute human evil
(Gen 6:5; 8:21), into an earlier non-P primeval history that lacked
such an emphasis.
Such considerations around dating, however, must remain
tentative and pertain especially to the expansion of the non-P
primeval history. The earlier non-P primeval history provides fewer
indicators for absolute dating in a particular historical period. To be
sure, it contains some relatively archaic linguistic isoglosses, such as
the qal passive (Gen 4:26; 6:1; 10:21) and the rendering of 3m.s.
suffixes with ‫ ה‬in Gen 2:15 and 9:21, that would suggest a dating
toward the early period in the development of the classical Hebrew
dialect.50 Otherwise, however, the primary evidence for dating this
earlier primeval history is the way it seems to be presupposed in the
expansion of it with a flood narrative and related texts (e.g., Gen
11:1–9 along with its likely sequel in 10:8b–12), which in turn shows
signs of being composed in the Neo-Assyrian period.
In sum, this initial diachronic picture yields the following picture of
earlier synchronic layers of the pre-Priestly portions of the primeval
history, with areas of particular uncertainty marked by a question
mark (?):
Initial Independent Primeval One or more pre-Priestly
History (Neo-Assyrian period?)
layers of expansion
The first human couple and first
brothers 2:4b–4:26
The birth of Noah (5:29), ?interlude Addition of pre-Priestly flood
on divine-human pairings (6:1–4), ? narrative, transforming Noah
introduction of Noah’s three sons into a flood hero (e.g., Gen
(9:18*; Shem, Japheth, Canaan), 6:5–8 … 8:20–22)
Noah’s discovery of viticulture and Addition of “Ham” (and “who
inebriating drink as a “man of the came out of the ark) to Gen
ground”(9:20–21a) 9:18 and “Ham” to 9:22
Story of Noah and sons: failure of (?now missing report of Ham
filial obligation by Canaan versus fathering Egypt and Canaan)
fulfillment of filial obligation by Shem
and Japheth (9:21b–24), resulting in
separate destinies of Shem and
Japheth versus Canaan (9:25–27)
Canaan fathering Sidon and Heth Addition of Egypt’s fathering
(Gen 10:15) descendants (Gen 10:13–14)
and (? possibly pre or post-
Priestly) additional
descendants of Canaan and
note of their settlement (Gen
10:16–19)
Conclusion with Shem as „father of ?Story of the dispersal of all
all the sons of Eber [~Hebrews] (Gen humanity from Babylon in
10:21) Shinar across the whole
(post-flood) earth (Gen 11:1–
9, also 9:19)
Initial Independent Primeval One or more pre-Priestly
History (Neo-Assyrian period?)
layers of expansion
?Notes on Nimrod, including
his initial kingship in Babylon
in Shinar and departure from
there to construct Neo-
Assyrian capitals (Gen
10:8b–12)
[?missing bridge (cf. P in
Gen 11:10–26) and then
continuation with stories
about Abraham and other
ancestors of Israel (Gen
12:1–4a, 6–8 and other pre-P
materials in Gen 12ff.)]

Layers and Dating in the Priestly Levels of the

Primeval History
Turning to the Priestly layer, we can identify several levels of P-like
composition in Gen 1–11. Toledot Book Genesis 5 begins with what
appears to be a label of an originally separate document, a “book of
the descendants [‫ תולדת‬tōlĕdōt] of Adam” (Gen 5:1a) that likely
introduced an originally separate genealogy of primeval ancestors
that was one of P’s sources. As will be discussed at more length in
relation to Gen 5, this Toledot book-scroll likely included the Adam-
to-Noah genealogy in most of Gen 5, a few elements regarding Noah
and the flood (e.g., Gen 6:9; 7:6; 9:28–29), the Shem-to-Abraham
genealogy in Gen 11:10–26, and possibly a short conclusion on
Terah and his three sons in Gen 11:27a, 32*.51 As such, this Toledot
book linear genealogy formed a linear genealogy establishing
Abraham’s primeval heritage, posing this ancestor of Israel as part of
a genealogical line of succession extending back to the flood hero,
Noah, and to the first human, Adam. Its standardized linear form and
ascending numbering system generally contrasts with that used
elsewhere in P.52 Moreover, the chronology of ages contained in
these sections does not appear designed to coordinate with the
ancestral P (and non-P) narratives that the Toledot book materials
precede. These discrepancies then prompted a number of scribal
changes by the early tradents of the Gen 1–11 tradition and are
manifest in chronological differences between the earliest
manuscripts of Genesis.
This Toledot book, perhaps along with other sources available to
P, then was expanded by P into a more complete Priestly primeval
history that introduced a more extended Priestly treatment of Israel’s
origins.53 The Priestly Source The Priestly primeval history
included the P creation narrative (Gen 1:1–2:3), Adam-Noah
Genealogy (Gen 5*), flood narrative (Gen 6:9–9:17*), and overview
of post-flood humanity deriving from Noah’s sons (in parts of Gen
10*) before bridging to Abraham (11:10–26, 27, 31–32) and the
following P story of ancestors and exodus-Moses account. It is not
crucial for this context to define the original end of this Priestly layer.
Nevertheless, the connections of Gen 1 to the Priestly narratives
about the wilderness tabernacle suggest that the P-layer beginning
in Gen 1 extended at least that far.54
Like the Toledot book that it expanded, it appears that the bulk of
this Priestly layer in Gen 1–11 originally stood separate in some form
from the non-P material with which it is now connected.55 The
originally separate character of these Priestly primeval materials
provides the best explanation for why those materials form a
relatively readable narrative. Moreover, as will become evident in the
following commentary, key elements in the Priestly primeval history
seem to have been crafted to function in an exclusively Priestly
context and are only secondarily coordinated with the surrounding
non-P materials. This suggests that, at least in the primeval history
section, the bulk of the Priestly layer initially was composed to stand
separate from the non-P materials, even as parts of that layer
occasionally interact in fluid ways with those (originally separate)
non-P materials.56
 Finally, a conflator combined this originally separate P source
with its non-P precursor, producing the complex text we now have.
Notably, at least in Gen 1–11, this conflator was not neutral, but
seems to have combined P and non-P in a P-like way. Priestly cast
and structure in Gen 1–11 As mentioned above, the conflator used
the P source as the superstructure for the present text. Moreover, as
will be shown in more detail in the following commentary, the
conflator occasionally used secondary expansions with a Priestly
cast to coordinate P and non-P materials. In this way, the present
form of Gen 1–11 can be seen as resulting from a multi-stage
process of Priestly and P-like composition, even as it also preserves
significant blocks of originally separate non-P material.57
Dating P and its conflation with non-P As with the non-P
materials, these multiple layers of P-like and Priestly composition
provide little information for dating, and conclusions on that issue
relate only minimally to their exegesis. Insofar as the above-
discussed layers of P presuppose the pre-P primeval history,
including its flood narrative, that would suggest a dating of P
sometime in the Neo-Assyrian period or later. Meanwhile, the
classical Hebrew dialect in which the P Toledot book and broader
primeval history is written likely would not have been produced late
into the Second Temple period.58 Together, these elements would
suggest a tentative dating of the P Toledot book and later P source
sometime in between the (very) late monarchal and the early Persian
periods.59 The conflation of P and non-P then would post-date the P
source, though indicators within Gen 1–11 provide little information
for further specification.60
Overview of Priestly and post-Priestly layers in Gen 1–11
Pre-Priestly “Book [scroll] of the descendants of Adam” (Toledot Book)
Gen 5:1a, 3*–28, 30–32; 6:9–10, 7:6; 9:28–29; 11:10a, 11–26, 27a, 32

Priestly expansion of that book into an expanded genealogy of the “sons of

Israel”
Gen 1:1–2:3; 5:1b–2; expanded P narrative of flood (e.g., Gen 6:11–
22; 9:1–17), addition of genealogical overview of post-flood peoples
(e.g., Gen 10:1a, 2–7, 20, 22–23, 31–32) and continuation with
materials about Abraham and his descendants (e.g., Gen 12:4b–5;
13:6 … 17:1–24).
Conflation of the Priestly expanded genealogy (= Priestly source) with Pre-P
materials along with the addition of some post-P elements
Candidates for such post-P elements include the label in Gen 2:4a,
some animal catalogues (e.g., Gen 6:7; 7:23) and dates (e.g., Gen
8:14) in the flood narrative, addition of Joktan and his descendants as
a sideline to Peleg (Gen 10:24–30)
Early Textual Transmission of Gen 1–11: The
Three Major Traditions
In addition to a few fragmentary Qumran biblical manuscripts for Gen
1–11, there are three major early textual traditions for Genesis, each
of which testifies to a different strand of textual transmission of
Genesis during the Hellenistic period.61 The Septuagint of Genesis
(LXX), probably composed in the mid-third century BCE, witnesses
both to an early Hebrew Vorlage and (by way of exegesis implicit in
its translation) to some traditions of Jewish exegesis at the time.62
The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) appears to represent a slight
Samaritan Recension of a Palestinian text tradition current in the
early second century BCE.63 Finally, the Masoretic text (MT)
generally reflects a text tradition that probably dates (for the
Pentateuch and some other books) to the second or first century
BCE, but did not become dominant among Jewish circles until after
the destruction of the Second Temple.64
Harmonization within each tradition As we will see, all three
traditions attest to varying levels of scribal harmonization and other
forms of scribal coordination. This appears particularly the case as
these tradents confronted potential problems in reconciling the
chronology of the above-mentioned Toledot book with parts of the
narratives that followed it. For example, the Masoretic text for Gen
11:10–26 appears to reflect an early chronology that implied that all
of the post-diluvian patriarchs survived into the time of Abraham,
with Shem surviving into the time of Jacob. In contrast, the archetype
behind the Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint eliminated that
implication by lengthening the ages at which most post-flood
patriarchs fathered their first son and then reducing the remainder of
their life by a corresponding amount. So also, the Masoretic text and
Septuagint both witness to an early reading for the total years of
Terah’s life in Gen 11:32 that has him surviving another sixty years
after Abraham’s departure for Canaan (Gen 12:4; cf. Gen 11:26),
while the Samaritan Pentateuch avoids that problem by having Terah
die in the year of Abraham’s departure.65 Turning to Gen 5, the
Samaritan Pentateuch witnesses to an early chronology for pre-flood
patriarchs that has several of them (Jared, Methusaleh, Lamech) die
in the midst of the flood, while the Septuagint and Masoretic text
avoid this implication by lengthening the years of their lives in
different ways.66 In this way, the Masoretic text shows use of a
scribal coordination strategy (here lengthening of patriarchs’ life
lengths) that is also seen in the Septuagint and Samaritan traditions
(SP and LXX for Gen 11:10–26; LXX also for Gen 5), even as these
latter traditions, especially the Septuagint, manifest a more marked
tendency toward such scribal adaptation in these and other loci
across the rest of Gen 1–11.67
Continuing literary development These divergences in the
textual traditions for the primeval history show that the process of the
formation of Gen 1–11 did not conclude with the above discussed
combination of P and non-P. On the contrary, later scribal copyists
continued to coordinate the P and non-P strands, dealing with
specific problems that they perceived in the text that they had
received. This probably began in the Persian period, but extended
long after. The various “final redactions” that we now have in the
Septuagint, Samaritan, and Proto-Masoretic versions of Genesis
represent diverse products of this long-term process of scribal
coordination and revision, including revisions that did not relate to
the combination of P and non-P.
Though these three traditions represent slightly different literary
wholes, they do not constitute the kind of fully separate literary
composition that we see, for example, in the differences between
Ezra–Nehemiah and Esdras or even the MT and LXX editions of
Jeremiah. This commentary focuses on reconstructing, translating
and commenting on a text of Gen 1:1–11:26 as close as possible to
the archetype of the LXX, SP, and MT Genesis. Thus, the target text
for this commentary stands prior to this broader process of scribal
harmonization and other forms of coordination, even as these
different textual recensions will be considered below at relevant
points.
Moving to Commentary
The following commentary builds on and presupposes the above
discussions. As with other volumes in the series, each section of this
commentary begins with a translation of the text under discussion,
followed by philological and text-critical annotations on the
translation. Since there is little chance of this translation being
adopted in any large-scale edition of the Bible, it often tends toward
the formal correspondence end of the continuum, risking
awkwardness in the hopes of conveying specific aspects of the
Hebrew. In several cases, larger scale text-critical or translation
issues are discussed in an excursus following these annotations. As
noted in the preface, the discussion does not attempt to provide a full
reference to the mountain of critical scholarship regarding elements
in Gen 1–11, especially given the range of excellent commentaries
recently or soon appearing that do more of that.68 Instead, I have
reduced this volume’s size by focusing its diachronic, textual, and
philological discussions on issues that appear particularly pertinent
to the following commentary.
Diachrony and Synchrony The following commentary then
integrates diachronic and synchronic discussions in different ways,
depending on the particular problems presented by the given text.
Each section starts with a diachronic prelude providing an overview
of the basic diachronic profile of the text to be treated. This prologue
focuses on separate textual precursors to the text and any widely-
agreed upon distinctions of non-P and P material within it. These
diachronic reflections then organize and inform the following
synchronic overview and commentary in diverse ways. In some
cases, such as Gen 1:1–2:3; Gen 2:4–3:24; or even Gen 5, the given
text block is formed largely from one, widely-agreed-upon diachronic
level, and so the commentary moves directly from the diachronic
prologue to a synchronic overview of the overall text and more
detailed commentary on its parts. In the case of the story of Babylon
(Gen 11:1–9) most diachronic discussion is postponed until after a
close reading of the text at hand. Finally, in the cases of the Noah-
flood story (Gen 6:5–9:17) and the overview of post-flood peoples
(Gen 10), the given text represents a mix of P and non-P strata,
each of which were composed for different synchronic contexts. In
these cases, I initially comment on the different textual strata
separately, attending to how they work in their original synchronic
context, before turning to some final discussion of the composite
whole. Overall, years of work on these chapters have shown me
ever more that “no one size fits all” on this question, especially given
the way synchronic and diachronic modes of analysis are intricately
interrelated.
The above paragraph underlines the extent to which this
commentary diverges from some understandings of the adjective
“synchronic” as pertaining primarily to a non-historical reading of a
final form of the biblical text.69 This is especially relevant for Gen 1–
11 insofar as one follows the above-outlined source-critical model for
the formation of Gen 1–11. Though the redactor-conflator of P and
Non-P did work to create a meaningful text, much of his work seems
to have been dictated by the constraints of combining large swathes
of two, often overlapping and divergent narratives.70 For example,
the ordering of the Eden story in Gen 2–3 after the seven-day
creation account in Gen 1 is determined first and foremost by the
respective contents of each block of material. Genesis 2–3 makes
the most sense as a specifying follow-up to the creation of plants,
animals, and humanity in Gen 1, and the reverse order would not
work. Insofar as such a (conflational) decision was required on a
more mechanical level, one must take care about making grand
assumptions about a masterful “final redactor” creating a particular
theological or literary synthesis by way of putting Gen 1:1–2:3 before
Gen 2:4ff.71 The following commentary will consider some likely
cases for redactional intervention, particularly in the discussion of the
flood narrative and the overview of post-flood peoples. Nevertheless,
many final form readings of a conflated text like Gen 1–11, though
potentially meaningful for various reading communities, cannot
plausibly claim to represent a meaning that was intentionally
embedded by anyone within the ancient text itself.
 Synthesis For this reason, this commentary’s discussion of the
significance of the text’s final form is often reserved for the synthesis
sections that conclude each section. These synthesis sections aim to
summarize the preceding diachronic and synchronic analyses and
continue the exegetical discussion. In particular I try to provide some
connections here to interpretations of Gen 1–11 that stand outside
the historical approach adopted through the bulk of this commentary.
Such reflections are only selective, brief, and illustrative.
Nevertheless, they attempt to underline the partial nature of the
analysis advanced here. This commentary is focused on providing
historically-oriented diachronic and synchronic reflections that
contribute to a broader interpretive conversation around these texts.
It cannot claim to offer a definitive exegesis of them, especially given
their above-described multi-voiced and intertextual character.
Genesis 1:1–2:3: The Seven Day
Creation Account
1:1 At the beginning of when God created the heavens and the
earth,a 2 the earth was utterly desolate,a darkness was above the
primeval ocean, and the breath-wind of Godb moved over the
waters.
3 God said,a “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that
the light was good, and God distinguished between the light and the
darkness. 5 God called the light ‘day’, and the darkness hea called
‘night’. It was evening, and it was morning. One day.
6 God said, “Let there be a vast platea in the middle of the waters,
and may it continually separateb waters from waters.” 7 God then
made the plate and it then separateda the waters that were below
the plate from the waters above the plate. And it was so.b 8 God
called the plate ‘sky’.a It was evening, and it was morning. A second
day.
9 God said, “Let the waters that are below the heavenly plate
continually assemble themselvesa into a single collecting placeb so
that the dry groundc appears.” And it was so. dThe waters that were
under the heavenly plate assembled themselves into their gathering
places, and the dry ground appeared.d 10 God called the dry ground
‘earth’, and the gathering of the waters he called ‘seas’. And God
saw that it was good.
11 God said, “Let the earth sprout forth sprouting plantsa—plants
that yield seeds andb fruit trees making fruit each according to its
kindc with internal seeds—on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth
began to bring out sprouting plants, plants that yield seeds each
according to its kind and trees making fruit with internal seeds each
according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 It was
evening, and it was morning. A third day.
14 God said, “Let there be lights in the heavenly plate to distinguish
between the day and the night, and they shall serve for signs, for
festivals, for days and for years.a 15 They shall be lights in the
heavenly plate to illuminate the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made
the two great lights, the great light for rule over the day, and the
small light for rule over the night, and also the stars. 17 And God set
them in the heavenly plate to illuminate the earth, 18 to rule over the
day and night and to distinguish between the light and the darkness.
And God saw that it was good. 19 It was evening, and it was
morning. A fourth day.
20 God said, “Let the waters continually bring forth a swarm of living
beings, and may birds fly about above the earth under the heavenly
plate.”a 21 God created the great sea monsters, and all of the
creeping living beings which swarm the waters according to their
kinds, and each winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that
it was good, 22 and God blessed them, “May you be fruitful and
multiply and filla the waters in the seas. And may the birds multiply
on the earth.” 23 It was evening, and it was morning. A fifth day.
24 God said, “Let the earth continually bring forth living beings of
every kind—domesticated animals, creeping things, and wild animals
each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild
animals of every kind, and the domesticated animals of every kind,
and every creeping thing of the earth according to its kind, and God
saw that it was good.
26 God said, “Let us make humankinda as our image,b similar to our
likeness, so thatc they may rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the
sky, the domesticated animals and all the earth,d and every creeping
thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 And God created humankind as
his image. As the image of God, he created humankind. Male and
female he created them. 28 God blessed them, and God said to
them, “May you be fruitful and multiply,a and fill the earth and subdue
it, and may you rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and
every creeping being that creeps on the ground.” 29 And God said,
“Look!a I hereby give you every seed-bearing plant which is on the
surface of the whole earth and every tree which has in it fruitb
bearing seed. For youc it is to be food. 30 But for every animal of the
earth and every bird of the air and every being that creeps on the
earth, that has life in it—the green vegetation is for food.” And it was
so. 31 God saw all that he had made, and, indeeda it was very good.
It was evening, and it was morning. The sixth day.b
2:1 And the heavens, the earth, and all their arraya were finished. 2
When God finisheda on the seventh dayb his work which he had
done, he refrainedc on the seventh day from all his work which he
had done. 3 God blessed the seventh day and set it apart as holy,
because on it he refrained from all the work which God had created
by doing it.a
Notes on Text and Translation
1a See the following excursus on translation of Gen 1:1–3 for more discussion of
the translation of Gen 1:1 as prepositional phrase, literally “at the beginning of
when God created heaven and earth” that introduces Gen 1:2.
2a For more on this translation, see the commentary below.
2b This expression has been interpreted in some Christian contexts as the Holy
Spirit, but this is anachronistic. For more on its translation, see the synchronic
analysis of Gen 1:2 below.
3a Though it produces a bit more awkward text, I have endeavored across the
translation of Gen 1:1–2:3 to translate the numerous mentions of “God,” a
feature characteristic of the text, not of Hebrew.1
5a Though this commentary avoids gender-exclusive language for humans and
God, the (male) pronouns are left here and in some other loci in the chapter
(e.g., 1:10, 27, 31; 2;2–3) where “God” is not explicitly indicated (see
comment 3a directly above).
6a See Koch, Gottes himmlische Wohnstatt, 196–98, 225 for discussion of
translation of ‫ רקיע‬as “plate” rather than the common “firmament” or “dome.”
The adjective “vast” is added initially here to convey the scale of the plate
being imagined here.
6b The verb “to be” plus participle (‫ )ויהי מבדיל‬appearing here expresses an
ongoing function for the plate. It is not just that the waters are separated once
by God in a final action, but God sets up a heavenly plate to do this job over
time, hence the addition of the adverb “continually” in this translation.
7a Jacob, Genesis, 40 notes that the subject of this sentence must be the
heavenly plate, not God, since God would be specified and because all of
God’s other creation acts in Gen 1 are acts of speech, creation and making.
Moreover, God had earlier specified in 1:6 that the plate should continually
separate (using an expression with a participle ‫ ויהי מבדיל‬rather than ‫)ויבדל‬
waters from waters.
7b The Old Greek has the correspondence formula, “and it was so” at the end of
1:6, rather than at the end of 1:7 as it is translated here. For discussion of the
issues surrounding the LXX edition of Gen 1 on this and similar points, see
the commentary below.
8a The Old Greek also has “and God saw that it was good,” seemingly
harmonizing day two with similar affirmations of goodness in the other days—
 1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25 and similar ones in 1:4, 31. For discussion of this and
similar instances of LXX harmonization in Gen 1, see below.
9a The niphal here of ‫ קוה‬II also occurs in Jer 3:17 and refers there to peoples
converging on Jerusalem. The translation here renders this reflexive form of
assembly, thus matching the more active way that earth is involved in creation
in day three, fulfilling God’s commands there (1:11–12).
9b The Masoretic text along with 4QGenb, Samaritan Pentateuch, Jub 2:5;
Pseudo-Philo 15:6 reads ‫ מקום‬here, which better fits the description of it as
“one” (4 2.(‫אחד‬QGenh reads ‫ מקוה‬and the Septuagint reads the equivalent of it
(συναγωγην) probably harmonizing this verse with ‫ מקוה‬in 1:10.
9c The word translated here as “dry ground,” ‫יבשה‬, is distinct from the word ‫אדמה‬,
“ground” that is used throughout Gen 2–3 (also Gen 1:25) and subsequent
parts of the primeval history to refer to arable ground. The term “dry ground” is
used to indicate that the ground is potentially watered, fertile land, whereas
“dry land”—which is frequently used to translate ‫( יבשה‬e.g., NRSV)—can have
the implication of desert. The productivity of the ‫ יבשה‬becomes clear here
already in Gen 1:11–12.
9d The phrase “The waters … dry ground appeared” is a plus reflected in the
Septuagint, and possibly in a small fragment of 4QGenk. For more discussion
of this plus and other issues surrounding the Septuagint, see the commentary
below.
11a As in Gen 1:20, the divine speech here starts with a joining of verb and noun
constructed from the root of the verb, a common combination in Hebrew
(figura etymologica) that emphasizes the linguistic connection between verb
and object, here “sprout” (‫ )דשא‬and green plants that are sprouted (‫)ד ֶשׁא‬.
ֶ
Apparently the push to use this figura etymologica is enough to have ‫ֶד ֶשׁא‬
function here somewhat differently than its usual usage to refer more
exclusively to the sort of low-level grassy plant eaten by animals (Jer 14:5;
Job 6:5) and/or the very earliest stage (generally) of plant growth, and arising
with the rain (Job 38:27) or lost when land is dry (Isa 15:6).3
11b “and” is the reading in numerous textual witnesses (e.g., SP, LXX, Syriac,
Targum Jonathan, Vulgate), while the MT lacks the conjunction. Though the
majority reading could be understood to be a harmonization with 1:12, it
conforms better with Hebrew usage, where an asyndetic list of three items
would be unusual.
11c As noted in Edward J. Young, “The Days of Genesis: Second Article,” WTJ 25
[1962/63]: 143–71 [here 158, note 96], the expression ‫( מין‬translated here and
throughout Gen 1 as “kind”) means mainly that the producer will produce
something “essentially the same as itself,” and is thus not precisely identical to
the modern concept of “species.”
14a Reading ‫“( לשנים‬and for years”) with 4QGenk, Old Greek, and Samaritan
Pentateuch versus ‫ שנים‬in Syriac and the MT. Alternatively, it is quite possible,
especially in this last position in the sequence, that the preposition ‫“( ל‬for”)
serves double duty to characterize “for days and years.” Either way, the
semantic content is the same.
20a The LXX includes another “and it was so” at the end of 1:20, matching the
report of making sea and air creatures to other creation acts in Gen 1. For
more discussion of this and similar ways that the LXX presents a more
uniform version of the creation process, see below.
22a Standing within a blessing, the imperative form functions as a modal wish, not
a prediction, hence the translation “may you be fruitful” rather than “be
fruitful….” The modal force of this blessing (and, by analogy, the similar
blessing in 1:28) is further indicated by the marked jussive wish relating to
birds in the latter part of the verse: ‫“( והעוף ירב בארץ‬may the birds multiply on
the earth”). For discussion of the modal use of the imperative in such
blessings see the translation note below on Gen 1:28 (28a).
26a This translation, like most, renders ‫ אדם‬as a collective term for humanity, but
cf. James Barr, “One Man or All Humanity?” in Recycling Biblical Figures, ed.
Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten (Leiden: Deo Publishing, 1999),
3–21, who argues that such an inclusive use of ‫ אדם‬is poorly attested and that
the term refers here, as in Gen 2–3, to an individual male figure. This
rendering, however, becomes difficult to sustain when the text goes on in 1:26
to have this figure made in the images (plural) of the speaker, use the plural
‫ וירדו‬to refer to this figure’s future rule over creatures, and (in 1:27b) describe
the creation of both male and female. Indeed, in contrast to the usage in Gen
2–3, there is no broader context in Gen 1 in which a reference to an individual,
“the human,” would make sense. All of the rest of Gen 1 describes God’s
creation of types of living creatures, and it is natural to understand God’s
creation of ‫ אדמה‬here in similar terms. That said, see below in the diachronic
discussion of the relation of Gen 2–3 to Gen 1 for one possible explanation for
the choice of ‫ האדם‬to refer to collective “humankind” in this context.
26b As argued in Walter Gross, “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen im
Kontext der Priesterschrift,” TQ 161 (1981): 21–22; idem. “Die
Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen nach Gen 1,26.27 in der Diskussion des
letzten Jahrzehnts,” BN 68 (1993): 36–37; Garr, In His Own Image and
Likeness, 168–69; and Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild Gottes? 76, 114–
15 (among others), both literary context and Near Eastern parallels suggest
that the preposition ‫ ב‬here is not a bet normae focused on similarity of
humans to God (e.g., “in the image of God”) but a bet essentiae (“as the
image of God”) that is focused on the human role as divine representatives on
earth. Nevertheless, one should be careful here not to develop a false
 either/or, where a primary focus on human status “as” images of God
excludes the idea that this status is embodied by some human similarity to a
God that is conceived along anthropomorphic lines. See the commentary
below for more discussion.
26c The sequence of cohortative followed by a jussive expresses purpose, “so
that.”4
26d The reading translated here, “all the earth” (‫ )בכל־הארץ‬is reflected in all the
major early witnesses, while the Syriac has “all the wild animals of the earth”
conforming 1:26 to lists in 1:24 and 25. This latter reading could be supported
by the fact that having “all the earth” as the reading here gives a premature
conclusion to what the humans are to rule, since this expression is followed by
“and all the creeping animals that creep on the earth.” Nevertheless, “all the
wild animals of the earth” is a late attested reading and may be an
assimilation to lists found in 1:24 and 25, as may be the mention of “creeping
animals that creep on the earth” that follows it (in all witnesses).5 Either the
Syriac preserves an earlier reading than a corrupted version in all the
witnesses, or the earlier witnesses preserve a slightly harmonized reading
(where “creeping animals that creep on the earth” was added by an early
scribe after “and the earth” to conform 1:26b to the “all the creeping animals
on the earth” in 1:28) that was later harmonized in the Vorlage to the Syriac to
more fully correspond to 1:24–25.
28a The blessing here, as in 1:22, is formulated in Hebrew with an imperative
form. This corresponds to the rule, wherein the contents of blessings, insofar
as they are formulated in verbal form, are expressed with modal verb forms.
Since ancient Hebrew uses a supplitive system (first person cohortative,
second person imperative, third person jussive [short form of the prefix
conjugation]), the second person blessing here is formulated with the
imperative form. There is, therefore, no implication of a command to multiply
or rule the earth in the imperative forms of v. 28. Instead, there is the promise
of powers/capabilities.6
29a The expression ‫ הנה‬translated here as “Look!” and in 1:31 as “indeed” is a
interjecting deictic particle calling attention to what follows. Older translations
render it with the now archaic “Behold.” Contemporary English lacks an exact
equivalent to ‫הנה‬. Therefore, the context leads to different renderings in this
commentary of this particle that is difficult to precisely translate into English or
German.
29b The MT and SP have ‫“( פרי עץ‬tree fruits”) here possibly anticipating this
expression in Gen 3:2, while this is missing from the OG, which only has an
equivalent to ‫“( פרי‬fruit”).
29c Emphasis is added in the translation here to reflect the front-extra position of
this prepositional phrase in the Hebrew clause.
31a See note 29a on ‫ הנה‬in 1:29.
31b The addition of the definite article to day six is another marker that the entire
day label system beginning in 1:5, but only featuring days without definite
articles up to this point, is aimed to mark off the six days prior to Sabbath. The
day-label system is Sabbath-oriented.
2:1a The Hebrew word here, ‫צבא‬, means “army,” whether heavenly or earthly. In
many translations it is commonly rendered with the archaic English word for
army “host.” For more discussion of this difficult expression see the
commentary below.
2:2a This translation follows the proposal in Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 61–62 that the
formation in Gen 2:2 follows a pattern seen elsewhere (e.g., Gen 17:22;
24:19; 49:33; Exod 40:33b–34) where an initial clause with the verb ‫כלה‬
(“finish”) places the event of the second clause after the completion of a given
act.7
2:2b The SP, LXX, and Peshitta (also Jubilees 2:16) read (the equivalent of) ‫השישי‬
“sixth” here, a reading that avoids the implication that God was still working on
the seventh day. Some argue that the difficult MT (and Targum) reading
‫“( השביעי‬seventh”) in this locus is the accidental product of scribal assimilation
of 2:2a to the description of God’s rest on the seventh day (e.g., Ronald
S. Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 33; Krüger, “Schöpfung und Sabbat,” 166). Though
this latter process is possible, I opt for the difficult MT and Targum reading of
“seventh,” since a reading of “sixth” here would represent a step back in the
narrative into the sixth day, which is concluded in 1:31 and reflected back on
in 2:1. For more discussion see the commentary below.
2:2c As discussed in the commentary below, the text here and in 2:3 does not
feature the word for “rest” (‫)רוח‬, but the word for cease, stop—‫שבת‬.
2:3a This expression is awkward in Hebrew as well as English. Here we do have
the inverted subject-suffix-verb formulation of a pluperfect expression (cf. note
2:2b), ‫“( אשר ברא אלהים‬which God had created”).

Translation of Gen 1:1–3

One of the first and most important interpretive and translation issues in this
chapter is the question of whether Gen 1:1 is a dependent clause introducing
what follows (“when God created…”) or an independent clause (“In the
beginning, God created…”). Though some traditional Jewish commentators
(e.g., Rashi and Ibn Ezra) advocated the former translation of Gen 1:1 as a
dependent clause, most Jews and Christians up through the last century
(including the Masoretes who added vowels and punctuation to the traditional
Jewish manuscript tradition) understood Gen 1:1 as an independent clause
—“In the beginning, God created heaven and earth.”8 A similar understanding
of 1:1 as an independent statement has helped support Christian
understandings of God having created the universe ex nihilo (“out of nothing”).9
Now, even scholars advocating a translation of Gen 1:1 as an independent
clause generally reject an understanding of it as an assertion of God’s creation
of the universe from nothing.10 Comparable ancient Near Eastern creation
accounts, most famously the above-discussed Mesopotamian Enuma Elish
epic, start their account of creation with what things were like before creation:11

when on high no name was given to heaven,

nor below was the netherworld called by name …
Then were the gods formed within the(se two). (I:1–2, 9)

The creation account that follows Gen 1 in the Bible and likely predated it, Gen
2:5–3:24, likewise begins with a description of the uncreated prologue to God’s
creation:

no shrub of the field was yet on the earth, and no vegetation of the field
was yet sprouting up because God Y 12 had not [yet] caused it to
rain on the earth and there was no human to work the ground…. Then
God Y formed the human (Gen 2:5, 7)

Genesis 1 similarly begins with a statement of what creation was like before
God created. This begins properly in Gen 1:2—“the earth was an uninhabitable
mass, darkness was on the surface of the primeval ocean, and the breath of
God swirled over the surface of the waters.” Only after this description of pre-
creation earth, ocean, and wind does the Genesis creation account truly get
underway in Gen 1:3: “God said, ‘let there be light.’” In this sense Gen 1 agrees
with other accounts in seeing cosmic elements that preceded God’s creative
work.
The main issue to be considered now is whether Gen 1:1 was meant
specifically to provide the setting for the following clause in Gen 1:2 (and
possibly also 1:3) at the outset of God’s creation of the cosmos (the
“hypotactic” understanding of 1:1) or whether it was meant to serve as a
summary superscription indicating the overall theme of the entire following
narrative (the “paratactic” understanding of 1:1). The former, hypotactic,
understanding of Gen 1:1 as a temporal introduction to 1:2(–3) yields the
translation “when God created [heaven and earth],” while the latter, paratactic,
understanding of 1:1 as an independent clause yields the rendering “in the
beginning God created [heaven and earth].”
Though much work has been done on the syntax of the verse, it appears that
the text, particularly the Hebrew consonantal text, admits either interpretation.
Nevertheless, the paratactic understanding of Gen 1:1 is undermined by the
problem that “beginning” in ‫אשׁית‬ ִ ‫ ְבּ ֵר‬is not vocalized in the Masoretic Text with
the definite article (that would be ‫אשׁית‬ ִ ‫)בָּ ֵר‬. Instead, the vowels of ‫אשׁית‬
ִ ‫ ְבּ ֵר‬imply
a translation “in a beginning God created….”13 This datum is particularly
striking, given the above-mentioned fact that the Masoretes, who added this
vocalization to the Hebrew text, appear to have followed the paratactic
understanding of the verse. To be sure, some have noted a similar lack of
definite article in expressions meant as definite, including expressions of
beginning (e.g., Isa 46:10; Prov 8:23), but all of the relevant examples come
from poetry, where the definiteness of nouns is often unmarked.
Conversely, it should be noted that the hypotactic understanding of Gen 1:1
—“in the beginning of when God created heaven and earth…”—presupposes, if
one follows the Masoretic vocalization of the text, that Gen 1:1 contains a
relatively rare grammatical phenomenon: the noun ‫ ראשית‬in construct with and
modified by an unmarked relative clause “[when] God created heaven and
earth.”14 Not only is this phenomenon uncommon (at least in terms of the
present vocalization of the overall Hebrew Bible), but the examples of such
phrases with unmarked relative clauses generally modify a limited range of
words (‫[ יד‬hand], ‫[ יום‬day] and ‫[ ימי‬days], ‫[ כל‬all], ‫[ עת‬time], and ‫[ מקום‬place])
and are most often found in poetry.15 Genesis 1, though seen as having poetic
elements, is prose.
The verses that follow Gen 1:1 also provide data relevant to its translation. If
Gen 1:1 were an independent clause labeling the following narrative, it would
be the only instance in the Priestly narrative where a superscription is followed
syndetically by a clause (Gen 1:2) beginning with “and” ‫“( והארץ היתה‬and the
earth was…”).16 Indeed, most Hebrew literary compositions do not begin with
such a conjunction.17 Genesis 1:2 also presents somewhat of a problem for
those who translate Gen 1:1–3 as one unit, with the three clauses of Gen 1:2
taken as a parenthesis before the main clause of 1:3. Though such an
extended sentence (Gen 1:1–3) is theoretically possible in Hebrew and has
some parallel in the prologue to the Enuma Elish epic, it is relatively
unprecedented in length (within the Hebrew Bible) and contrasts substantially
with the otherwise quite standardized beginnings of the other acts of creation
through word found in Gen 1 (1:6, 9, 14, 19, 24).18
The (hypotactic) translation adopted above understands Gen 1:1 as providing
the temporal setting for the description of pre-creation elements in Gen 1:2.19
The lack of temporal specificity in Gen 1:1 thus is not a problem, since the
Priestly writing would not be concerned with establishing exact chronology for
elements preceding God’s creation. Instead, the focus here is on how things
stood at the outset, before “God created heaven and earth.” In this respect, the
introduction to Gen 1 in Gen 1:1–2 parallels the function of the introduction to
the following creation account (Gen 2:4b–3:24) in Gen 2:4b–5, with its temporal
introduction in Gen 1:1 echoing that in Gen 2:4b. Where Gen 2:4b introduces
the ground (‫)אדמה‬-focused account in Gen 2–3 with “when God Y created
earth and heaven” (‫)ביום עשות יהוה אלהים ארץ ושמים‬, Gen 1:1 introduces the
broader cosmology in Gen 1 with “at the beginning of when God created the
heavens and the earth (20.(‫ בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ‬This is one of
the closer parallels of the P and non-P histories.
Diachronic Prologue

Genesis 1:1–2:3 as Priestly and Its Relations to

Gen 2:4b–3:24
Genesis 1:1–2:3 has long been recognized as a key part of a
broader Priestly Source extending at least into the Tabernacle
Narrative at the conclusion of Exodus. The chapter as a whole is
saturated by vocabulary and phrases that are otherwise mostly
attested in Priestly contexts, e.g., ‫“( ברא‬create”; Gen 1:1, 21, 27;
2:3); ‫( בדל‬hiphil, “separate, divide”; Gen 1:4, 6, 14, 18), ‫חית הארץ‬
(“[wild] animals of the earth”; 1:24, 25, 30), ‫“( מין‬kind”; Gen 1:11, 12,
21, 24, 25), ‫ר ֶמשׁ‬/‫רמש‬
ֶ (“crawl/creeping thing” Gen 1:21, 24–26, 28,
30), ‫“( שרץ‬swarm”; Gen 1:20, 21) and ‫“( לאכלה‬for food”; Gen 1:29,
30).21 More importantly, as we will see in the following commentary,
the chapter introduces key themes that are unfolded in subsequent
Priestly texts about the flood, Israel’s ancestors, and the story of
Moses.
This Priestly creation account in Gen 1:1–2:3 (Gen 1) in turn is
literarily distinct from the following non-Priestly Eden story in Gen
2:4b–3:24 (Gen 2–3) along with the P-like superscription in Gen 2:4a
that bridges the two texts. These latter texts will be discussed in the
commentary on Gen 2:4–3:24. For now it is just important to
consider the potential relationship between Gen 1 and Gen 2–3.
Whereas older scholarship tended to see these two creation
narratives as either originally parallel or Gen 1 as dependent in some
way on Gen 2–3, a number of recent studies have suggested instead
that Gen 2–3 was composed from the outset as a post-Priestly
expansion of the Gen 1 creation account.
This commentary likewise sees these two texts as related, but
with Gen 1 later than and dependent on Gen 2–3, particularly at its
beginning (Gen 1:1–3; cf. 2:4b–7) and end (Gen 1:26–30; cf. Gen
3:22, also 2:16–17). Though neither text cites the other, the
beginning of Gen 1:1–2 structurally parallels that in Gen 2:4b–5 (see
the Excursus on Translation below). More importantly, God’s speech
to the divine council in Gen 1 about the making of humanity “as our
image, similar to our likeness” (Gen 1:26) specifically contrasts with
the non-P report of Y ’s speech to the divine council expressing
concern about an emergent human similarity to God caused by the
human attainment of godlike wisdom (Gen 3:22).22 These elements,
along with some apparent blind motifs from Gen 2–3 in Gen 1,
suggest that Gen 2–3 is one of the precursors to Gen 1.23

Separate Precursors to Gen 1:1–2:3: The Enuma

Elish Epic and Psalm 104
Genesis 1 also relates to several traditions outside of the book of
Genesis. In particular, Gen 1 seems to relate to and contrast with the
Enuma Elish epic, a second millennium text that later became one of
the most often cited and commented-on compositions in the
Babylonian corpus.24 This text eclectically draws on multiple
Mesopotamian traditions to establish the supremacy of Marduk and
his temple in Babylon.25 After an initial description of the triumph of
Marduk’s father over the sweet-water god, Apsu, the epic turns to
detail Marduk’s similar triumph over Tiamat, a female dragon
representing the primeval ocean. The gods then proclaim him king
(IV: 14, 28), and he further demonstrates his absolute power by
making constellations of stars appear and disappear at his command
(IV:19–26). After the gods reaffirm his absolute kingship (V:109–110,
131–36, 151–2), Marduk then further demonstrates his power
through his following acts of creation: using the upper half of
Tiamat’s carcass as a barrier to keep the upper ocean from merging
with the lower one (IV:137–138), creating the astral bodies to mark
calendar days and give divinatory signs (V:1–41), and reorganizing
Tiamat’s watery body into the clouds along with the Tigris and
Euphrates rivers that were so important to Mesopotamian civilization
(V:48–62). The epic’s description of creation concludes by adapting
older Mesopotamian traditions about the creation of humanity, now
having Marduk prompt Ea to create humans so that the gods can
rest, which they eventually do in Marduk’s own Esagila temple (VI:2–
66).26 This creation section is followed by yet more reaffirmations of
Marduk’s kingship in the council of the gods (VI:95–120) and in the
epic’s concluding list of fifty names for him (VI:121–166).
Though Gen 1 never once uses the word “king” for God, it
echoes the Enuma Elish epic in its use of a creation account to
demonstrate the absolute supremacy of ‘God’. God now creates
every element of the cosmos by decree (cf. Enuma Elish IV:19–26).
There is no Tiamat-like opposition to this God’s supremacy, and we
only see faint echoes of this motif in a fleeting reference to God’s
creation of sea monsters (‫ תנינם‬Gen 1:21) and possibly the choice of
the Hebrew word ‫ תהום‬to refer to the primeval ocean (1:2).27 With
such divine opponents out of the picture, the demonstration of God’s
power in Gen 1 comes exclusively through God’s creation of a
cosmos crowned by humans, a creation description whose major
components parallel those in the Enuma Elish epic—the creation of
a heavenly roof to separate upper ocean from lower (Gen 1:6–8; cf.
Enuma Elish IV:137–38), the making of astral bodies for marking
time and signs (Gen 1:14–18; cf. V:1–41), the organization of world
waters (Gen 1:9–10; cf. V:48–62); and a climactic focus on the
creation of humans in the wake of a process of divine consultation
(Gen 1:26–27; cf. VI:1–33).28 Along the way, certain elements in the
Gen 1 creation account, such as its echo of the Enuma Elish epic’s
idea of stars as useful for divination (“for signs” ‫ לאתת‬Gen 1:14),
seem to be blind motifs derived from its Mesopotamian precursor
text.
Finally, though less clear, it is likely that Gen 1 draws as well on
Psalm 104, and—by way of Psalm 104—possibly on Egyptian and/or
Canaanite hymnic traditions, such as the famous Egyptian Hymn to
the Aten.29 Scholars have long observed numerous parallels
between the first part of Gen 1 and Psalm 104, earth initially covered
by a primeval ocean (again ‫ תהום‬Ps 104:6; Gen 1:2), God’s wind and
light at the outset of creation (Ps 104:2, 4), God’s spreading out the
heavens (Ps 104:2b; Gen 1:6–8), gathering the waters (Ps 104:7–9;
Gen 1:9–10), providing food from the earth (Ps 104:10–18; Gen
1:11–12), creating heavenly bodies to mark time (Ps 104:19–23; Gen
1:14–18), and forming the sea and its creatures (Ps 104:25–26; Gen
1:20–21).30 Though the different wording and genre of the texts
makes a precise determination of their relationship difficult, the
extent of their parallels seems to indicate some kind of particular
connection. Moreover, if they are genetically related to each other, it
is easier to see how the author of Gen 1 might expand the praise of
creation in Psalm 104, than it is to see the author of the Psalm 104
hymn as only praising the less theologically central parts of the Gen
1 creation.31

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 distinguished from later reshaping and/or
redaction. From the late 1700’s onward, scholars have thought it
possible to identify later additions to the chapter.
The most plausible theory proposed so far is the earliest one.
Already in the late 1700’s, 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.32 There
were two main grounds for this theory—their intuition that the style of
the seventh day narration diverged from that of the preceding
chapter, and their belief that the distribution of eight creation acts
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 adherents in subsequent years and a few new arguments. For
example, in 1877 Wellhausen found it problematic that day and night
were said to alternate from day one, even though the sun and other
heavenly bodies that would enable such alternation are not created
until day four.33 Furthermore, Westermann noted that the closest
parallels between Gen 1 and its probable Enuma Elish epic
precursor begin after the problematic creation of light on day one,
with the creation of a plate divider on 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, that posited 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
2:2–3.34
The following close reading of Gen 1:1–2:3 could provide some
additional grounds for taking this theory seriously. For example,
towards the conclusion we will see how the text preserves competing
structural frameworks, one that connects to the broader Sabbath
theme of the present chapter (a balance of 3+3 days) and one that
does not. Nevertheless, some ongoing problems with the theory of a
secondary Sabbath redaction of Gen 1 render this theory too
speculative to form the basis for synchronic commentary.35 As we
will see, the present form of the description of creation of heavenly
bodies in Gen 1:14–18 seems shaped to account for how day and
night might be distinguished in the wake of the intervening creation
of the heavenly plate (Gen 1:6–8). In addition, a good argument can
be made that the motif of God’s Sabbath rest in Gen 2:2–3 is the
Gen 1 counterpart to the rest of the gods featured at multiple points
in the Enuma Elish epic.36
Theories of Word and Act Sources or Strata in Gen 1
It should be emphasized that there are fewer indicators in Gen 1 to point to the
reconstruction of “word” and “act” sources of the kind posited initially by
Schwally in a 1904 lecture in Giessen (published in 1906) and then published
by his former professor in Giessen, Stade, in 1905,37 and there are even more
serious problems with the more recent modification of this theory into “word” or
“act” compositional layers.38 These approaches are first of all founded on a
fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the above-discussed
correspondence formula as an independent statement, an understanding
initially refuted in responses from Jacob and Humbert.39 Second, they over-
read and misunderstand slight differences in formulation between the divine
creation speeches and creation events, differences that the text itself bridges
with regular correspondence formulae and statements of divine approval. Third,
as Steck points out, more recent redactional approaches differentiating a later
“act” or (more often) “word” layer fail to capitalize on the argument of doubling
between act and word reports that was so crucial to Stade and Schwally’s initial
proposals of parallel sources, and they fail to explain why an “act” or “word”
redactor would have so carefully preserved an earlier source whose
perspective they felt so compelled to correct.40
Synchronic Analysis
Gen 1:1–2 If the above treatment of translation of Gen 1:1–2 is
correct, Gen 1:1 is a temporal expression that places the following
description of primeval waters, darkness and wind (1:2) at “the
beginning of when God created heaven and earth.” The absolute use
of the divine designation ‫“( אלהים‬God”)—without any definite (“the”)
or possessive (“my,” “your”) article—stands here as an implicit
monotheistic claim. To be sure, analogous terms were often used in
the surrounding context of Israel to refer more generally to a “god,”
without specifying a particular deity’s name.41 In this case, however,
the reference to ‫ אלהים‬in Gen 1 is part of a broader narrative where
the “god” referred to here will turn out to be a quite specific god,
Y , the God of Israel (see Exod 6:2–3). The verb ‫ ברא‬used here
for “create” underlines the exclusive creation power claimed for this
one and only “God” since the verb is reserved in the Bible
exclusively to refer to divine creation (in contrast to ‫“[ עשה‬make”;
e.g., Gen 2:4b).42
Genesis 1:2 then begins with a clause that contrasts the pre-
creation state of the earth with the created “earth” (‫ )הארץ‬featured in
Gen 1:1. The contrast is made by putting ‫ הארץ‬at the outset of the
clause soon after the mention of earth in the preceding verse: “at the
beginning of when God created heaven and earth, the earth was…”
The particular construction of 1:2, ‫“( הארץ‬the earth”) followed by ‫היתה‬
(“was”), produces an effect akin to “now the earth previously was an
uninhabitable mass” [before God created heaven and earth].43 The
past sense thus introduced by the perfect verb in 1:2aα then
transfers to cover the following two statements that follow in 1:2aβ
and 1:2b.
The expression describing the earth, ‫ תהו ובהו‬often used to be
understood as a more general description of chaos. Nevertheless,
work by Tsumura in particular suggests that this description of earth
is focused instead on the hostility to life of pre-created earth.44 The
following verses of Gen 1 focus on God’s shaping of a livable
cosmos, including preparing earth to be the home of plants, animals
and people (especially Gen 1:9–12). This clause at the outset of 1:2
establishes that earth was previously unsuited for such purposes.
The next clause in 1:2 “darkness was above the primeval ocean”
characterizes the pre-creation state of affairs as dark and introduces
the ocean that will be especially prominent in God’s creative acts on
days two (separation of the oceans) and five (creation of the sea
creatures). A primeval ocean is prominent in earlier creation
accounts as well. Some have even seen a faint echo of the name of
Tiamat in the choice of the word ‫ תהום‬to represent the ocean here.45
Nevertheless, the primeval ocean mentioned in Gen 1:2 is but a
passive precursor to creation, a far cry from the powerful, combative
mythical presence of Tiamat in the Enuma Elish epic.
Genesis 1:2 concludes with a third clause about a ‫רוח אלהים‬
moving across the surface of the waters just mentioned. The Hebrew
word ‫ רוח‬can mean “breeze,” “wind,” “breath,” or (particularly in
construct with divinity) “spirit.” Ancient Christian interpretations have
readily found a reference here to the Holy Spirit of the Christian
Trinity, but that idea is certainly anachronistic here. Others have
seen a reference to a “wind” over the waters, a primal force
analogous to the uninhabitable earth and primeval waters mentioned
just previously in Gen 1:2. If so, the qualifier “of God” here would
mean that this “wind of God” was supremely powerful. Nevertheless,
as Steck and others have pointed out, the Hebrew word used here,
‫אלהים‬, means “God” everywhere else in Gen 1, including the verses
appearing immediately before (1:1) and after (1:3) this reference in
1:2b to a 46.‫ רוח אלהים‬Moreover, Gen 1:2b is a prologue to God’s
speech in Gen 1:3, and as such could be referring to a voiceless
divine “breath” that is about to speak its first words. Therefore, in this
commentary the ‫ רוח אלהים‬concluding Gen 1:2 is understood to be a
divine breath preceding creation, though this evocative, multivalent
expression may also be suggesting that this divine “breath” was—at
the same time—a powerful primeval “wind” (perhaps echoing Ps
104:3b–4a) on analogy with the earth and water that preceded God’s
creation.
In summary, the prologue of Gen 1:1–2 tells us that, at the outset
of God’s creation, there were three main precursors, with the
description of each element building on the others: the uninhabitable
formless mass of earth (1:2aα), the dark primeval ocean in which
that earth was submerged (1:2aβ), and God’s breath/primeval wind
moving over the face of the waters (1:2b). The initial elements—
uninhabitable earth/wilderness, water, and darkness—are all ancient
symbols of chaos, while the last element—the multivalent wind of
God/breath of God—represents a more positive element
transitioning toward God’s creative ordering speeches to follow.47

Overview of Gen 1:3–31

Genesis 1:3–31 is a highly orderly description of God’s development
of a human-inhabited biome out of the pre-creation elements of
earth, sea, and wind described in Gen 1:2. God’s creation of this
biome occurs through eight creation acts spread over six days. In a
mode roughly akin to the regularity of the Priestly genealogies that
follow (e.g., Gen 5; 11:10–26),48 each act of this Priestly creation
report follows a similar pattern. It starts in each case with a divine
speech commanding that a certain element be put in place as part of
an ongoing order of creation: light (1:3a), heavenly plate divider
(1:6), waters gathering and uncovering dry ground (1:9a), the earth
sprouting self-replicating plants and trees (1:11), etc. This is followed
by the initial fulfillment of God’s creation decree, sometimes by
elements of creation itself (e.g., waters 1:9; earth 1:12), but often
initiated by God (e.g., 1:21 versus 1:20).49 Though there are slight
divergences between these overall orders of creation and the
wording of the initial executions of God’s orders, the fundamental
agreement between them is often emphasized through the insertion
of the statement “it was so” (‫ )ויהי כן‬into creation acts, usually
between the divine speech and initial execution of it. This statement
will be termed a “correspondence formula” because of the way it
functions, here and elsewhere in the Bible, to stress the
correspondence between a divine word and events that followed that
word.50
These creation elements (divine word, correspondence formula,
and creation act/event) are followed in almost every case in Gen 1
with a statement that God “saw that it was good,”51 an element that
lends a semi-doxological, hymnic tone to the overall stately creation
report.52 Each day concludes with the statement “it was evening, it
was morning” and a number labeling for the day (e.g., “one day”
1:5b).53 The presence of this generally steady sequence across 1:3–
31, without real narrative tension or resolution, justifies the
application of the generic term “creation report” to Gen 1, rather than
creation “story” or “narrative.”54 It represents a stately, sometimes
semi-poetic narrative counterpart to hymns that praise God’s
creation, such as Psalm 104 discussed above.55
Together, these initial four elements in the creation descriptions of
Gen 1 show God as supremely powerful through God’s speaking
and having God’s wishes precisely fulfilled. The strong
correspondence between God’s wishes and their fulfillment are
underlined not only by consistent pairing of divine speech and act of
fulfillment, but also by the frequent inclusion of the correspondence
formula “and it was so” (‫ ;ויהי כן‬varied to ‫ ויהי אור‬in the first instance)
in the creation acts and similarly frequent concluding note that God
approved of the fulfillment (“and God saw that it was good” ‫וירא אלהים‬
‫)כי טוב‬. Together these elements, occurring in some form across
virtually all eight creation acts, stress in different ways God’s
absolute domination of the cosmos. This will be relevant as we later
look at God’s creation of humanity “as God’s image” for godlike rule
over the creation’s living creatures.
Finally, this particular focus on the depiction of God as powerful
ruler in Gen 1 resembles a similar use of cosmogonic traditions in
the Enuma Elish epic to demonstrate Marduk’s supreme power.
Nevertheless, despite this broader similarity to the Enuma Elish and
some more specific similarities (and contrasts) to be discussed
below, there is one massive difference between Gen 1 and that early
Mesopotamian Epic (alongside numerous smaller differences).
Whereas the Enuma Elish epic demonstrates Marduk’s supreme
power over the gods through his vanquishing of the goddess Tiamat,
Gen 1 does not contain the slightest hint of any other deity or power
that might oppose God.
The Septuagint (= LXX) and Other Textual Editions of Gen 1
The textual editions for Gen 1:1–2:3 diverge on how regularly they reproduce
the pattern described above. In particular, the LXX quite precisely follows this
pattern while most other ancient witnesses (e.g., MT, SP, Qumran manuscripts)
feature minor divergences. These include the following: the first specific
occurrence of the correspondence formula (“and it was so”; 1:7b) occurs after
(rather than between) God’s initial order about the heavenly plate (1:6) and
God’s making of that plate (1:7a); there is no statement of divine approval
directly after God’s creation of the divider (1:8); and there is no correspondence
formula at all in the description of God’s creation of the sea/air creatures (1:20–
21). In each of these cases, the LXX provides a Greek rendering that more
strictly follows the overall pattern of the chapter. Though one could argue that
the LXX is original and the divergent versions the result of secondary errors,56
most studies of this set of problems have opted to see the Septuagint as
representing a generally harmonizing tradition here, much as it represents a
harmonizing tradition in numerous other parts of the Genesis primeval
history.57 It appears that the original, non-harmonized version of Gen 1:1–2:3,
though highly regular overall in its emphasis on God’s supreme control of the
process, is irregular in details. In this respect the chapter, like other texts in the
Priestly tradition, manifests a interplay between regular structure and
variation.58
That said, there are some cases where the LXX may witness to an earlier text
in Gen 1. For example, the function of the correspondence formula in the non-
LXX traditions for day two (formula after divine act in 1:7, versus after divine
word in 1:6 LXX) is unclear, since this would be the only instance of the formula
that does not immediately follow the quoting of a divine word (e.g., 2 Kgs
7:20a; cf. 7:19 and 15:12b; cf. 15:12a) or human request for a divine sign (Judg
6:38, cf. 6:37). If the MT and other traditions represent the earlier reading in
this case, it is difficult to know what was intended by the placement of the
formula in 1:7.
More significant for actual interpretation is the probability that the LXX reading
including the waters gathering themselves into their gathering places in 1:9 is
earlier than its MT and SP counterparts. In this case, the loss of this plus in
other manuscript traditions can be explained by a more substantial error of
homoioarkton skipping from the [‫“( וו[ויק‬and they gathered”) retroverted at the
outset of the LXX plus to the [‫ רא[ויק‬that is reflected in all textual witnesses at
the outset of 1:10.59 In addition, this case of divergence in the LXX is unlike
others in that in the missing element is not just a formulaic element—
correspondence formula or statement of divine approval—accentuating the
complete execution of God’s orders, but an entire report of that execution,
indeed one that diverges from God’s orders in featuring a plural for the
gatherings of waters (τὰς συναγωγάς αὐτῶν < ‫ )מקוהם‬that contrasts with the
stress in God’s order on waters gathering in “one place” (1:9 ;‫מקום אחד‬aα). That
 said, some have argued that the LXX is harmonizing in the case of this plus as
well.60

Commentary
Gen 1:3–5. The creation of light This first creation act, like the
others that follow in Gen 1, is initiated by a divine speech. With the
exception of 1:26, these initial speeches by God (1:3a, 6, 9a, 11a,
14–15a, 20, 24a), are not addressed to anyone, but instead express
God’s internal intention, highlighting how all of the creation of
humans and their biome corresponded precisely to God’s plan. The
speech in Gen 1:3a is distinguished by its unusual brevity,
contrasting with the descriptions of created objects by its lack of a
statement about the purpose of the created element (cf. 1:6, 9a, 14–
15).61 Moreover, this divine speech is alone in featuring the same
verb “to be” that occurs in the execution formula.
These divergences in Gen 1:3a, are but the first examples of how
several elements in this first day contrast with similar elements in the
following five days of creation.62 For example, the first statement of
divine approval, “and God saw the light that it was good” (‫וירא אלהים‬
1:4 ;‫את־האור כי־טוב‬a) diverges from the statements of divine
approvals for following days—“God saw that it was good” (‫וירא אלהים‬
‫)כי טוב‬, a divergence that—in this case—limits God’s approval
exclusively to the “light” created on day one, while excluding such
approval from the pre-existing (and soon to be named) darkness.63
Then, in 1:4b, God himself distinguishes here between light and
darkness, where in other parts of P the distinguishing is done by
another created object or being, whether the heavenly plate (1:7),
heavenly lights (1:14, 18), or (more distantly) humans (Lev 10:10;
11:47; 20:25; Ezek 22:26).64 This is important because there are no
heavenly bodies yet to enable the transition from day to night and
back again, thus leaving only God as the one to power the
transitions between day and night that precede the making of those
heavenly bodies that are specifically oriented toward that end (1:14–
18). God then names the light “day” and the darkness “night,” a
naming that parallels the naming of other foundational elements of
creation up through the naming of land and sea in Gen 1:10.65
On one level, the appearance of light at the outset of the creation
process, long before the creation of heavenly bodies (1:14–18),
might seem odd, and it has troubled some previous commentators.66
Yet, within the present text, the placement of “light” at the outset of
Gen 1:3ff. is crucial in introducing the “day” and thus initiating the
seven-day, Sabbath-oriented time structure that characterizes 1:3–
2:3 as a whole.67 In this sense, echoes of Sabbath already ring at
the outset of creation.
Gen 1:6–8. The creation of the heavenly plate The second day
follows a sequence similar to the first and others, starting with the
decisive divine speech where God expresses an intention to have a
heavenly plate to divide the primeval waters (1:6; see 1:2). The plate
that God then creates (1:7) creates a crucial air bubble in which the
rest of creation can take place. This, following God’s creation of light
on day one, represents the final, brand new building block of
creation. From this point forward, much of the rest of God’s creation
will involve creation components cooperating with God: waters
gather (1:9), earth sprouts plants (1:11–12), waters are called on to
swarm with living beings (1:20; cf. 1:21), and earth is called on to
bring forth animals (1:24; cf. 1:25). A correspondence formula then
follows (unless the LXX placement of this formula in 1:6b is original),
“and it was so” (‫ )ויהי כן‬emphasizing the correspondence of this
creation act (1:7a) with God’s order (1:6), and this heavenly plate is
then named “heaven” (1:8a) before the second day label is given
(1:8b). As noted above, this creation act is the only one that has no
statement, at least in textual witnesses other than the LXX, that God
“saw that it was good” (cf. 1:4a, 10b, 12b, 18b, 21b, 25b, 31a).
Gen 1:9–10. The gathering of waters and revealing of dry
ground-earth The first part of day three involves the emergence of
dry land, starting with God’s next creation speech calling on the
waters to “assemble themselves” so that the dry land appears (1:9a).
As a command for created order, this call relates not only to the
initial execution of this order that follows, but also to the way that
waters can be observed “assembling themselves” even today in an
ongoing way into puddles, lakes, and oceans.
 The text then continues with a correspondence formula, and—as
noted above—probably included a Hebrew counterpart to the
Septuagint’s report (possibly partially preserved in 4QGenk) that “the
waters under the heavenly plate assembled themselves into their
gathering places, and the dry ground appeared.” Thus, in this initial
execution of God’s creation order, the previously submerged and
uninhabitable earth (1:2aα) is here opened to the air by God having
the waters gather into various gathering places (Gen 1:9 LXX).
Though there is a slight divergence between God’s order that waters
assemble themselves into “one place” (1:9 ;‫ )מקום אחד‬and the report
(in the plus reflected in the LXX) that they assembled themselves
into their multiple gathering places (Greek συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν,
probably translating ‫)מקויהם‬, both concepts contrast with the
contemporary scientific concept of continents lying in oceans.
Instead, the earthly biome is imagined in this text as dry land with
water heaped up in spots within it.68
This is the first locus in Gen 1 where parts of creation respond to
and cooperate with God’s stated decrees. The featuring of waters
responding to God’s orders corresponds to the idea in some pre-
biblical cosmogonies that elements of creation, especially water
figures like Tiamat or Apsu, have their own subjectivity. The Enuma
Elish epic, for example, focuses on Marduk’s battle with and victory
over Tiamat, a monster representing the ocean/salt water. More
specifically, Psalm 104:6–7 describes the sound of Y ’s thunder
powerfully forcing the waters covering the earth into a single place
established for them. Nevertheless, Gen 1:9–10 contrasts with the
Enuma Elish epic in lacking any personal characterization of the
“waters” (no Tiamat here), and it likewise lacks some of the violent
power seen in Psalm 104’s description of Y ’s restriction of the
ocean. Instead, the “waters” in Gen 1 are not divine (cf. the Enuma
Elish epic) or resistant natural forces (Psalm 104), but aspects of
nature totally subservient to and cooperative with God’s divine will.
The description of this creation act concludes with God naming
the revealed dry ground “earth” and the gathered waters “seas,” and
then seeing that they were good (1:10). These are the last divine
namings in Gen 1, marking the conclusion of the structural
groundwork for creation: “light,” “darkness,” “heaven,” “earth,” and
“sea.” There is no day formula here because day three features two
creation acts, the next one following in 1:11.
Gen 1:11–13. The earth sprouting seed-bearing plants and fruit-
bearing trees God’s next speech, like the first one on day three,
calls on an aspect of creation to participate in the creation process,
and there may be echoes here of ancient Near Eastern ideas of
earth as the mother of life. But those echoes are faint, only
consisting in the obedience of earth to God’s initial statement of
intention “let the earth sprout forth sprouting plants…,” with the figura
etymologica match between verb (sprout, ‫ )דשא‬and initial description
of plants (‫)ד ֶשׁא‬
ֶ in the divine speech helping to emphasize, through
language, the coherence of the creation event. The text goes on to
focus on two types of self-replicating plants, those that bear seeds
(‫ )מזריע זרע‬versus those that have fruit whose seed is inside it (‫אשר‬
‫)זרעו־בו … עץ פרי עשה פרי‬, each “according to its kind.” This is
followed by the correspondence formula and a description of how the
earth did sprout forth seed and fruit-bearing plants (11:11b–12).
In this creation of the plant world we see the clearest
differentiation yet between God’s speeches in Gen 1 that command
an ongoing element of creation order and the following reports that
narrate the beginning of the execution of God’s commands. God’s
order that the “earth sprout forth vegetation” in Gen 1:11 does not
just hold for the initial creation, but institutes a longer-term order
where plants will come forth from the earth. When earth then sprouts
forth plants, each with seeds “according to its kind” (1:12), provisions
are in place for this order to continue. Indeed, the focus already in
God’s speech on how and where each plant carries its seeds
indicates this focus on the self-replicating character of plants, and
this will reappear in the creation of other living parts of creation in
Gen 1.69 On the one hand, within Gen 1 there are the foundational,
named, building blocks of creation—heaven, earth, seas featured in
1:6–13. On the other, there are the living elements that God has
sprout from them and then self-replicate according to their kinds:
plants, sea and air creatures, non-human animals, and humans.
Seed and fruit-bearing plants are the first of the latter, self-replicating
type. Yet they are distinguished from animals by the fact that they
are fixed in place as earth’s plant covering, thus constituting a part of
the cosmic house that God builds in contrast to the moving beings
with which God later populates that house (Gen 1:21–27).70
The focus on seeds and fruit thus begins an emphasis in Gen 1
on God’s creation of a human biome that can sustain itself long after
God’s initial creation work is finished. Moreover, the plant-focused
food instructions at the end of the chapter (1:29–30) indicate that
plants are considered to be a food-providing aspect of earth. There it
is stressed that humans have the privilege of eating the seeds and
fruits that are particularly emphasized in Gen 1:11–12, while earth-
based animals are restricted to the leafy portions of these plants. In
this way, even the general description of creation of plants in Gen
1:11–12 anticipates the concluding focus of the chapter on humans.
The day concludes with now familiar elements of divine approval
(1:12b) and the passing of day three (1:13). The naming element is
absent by now because we have now moved to God’s enhancement
of structural elements of creation (heaven, earth, sea) with additional
elements of plant life, stars, etc.
Gen 1:14–19. The creation and placement of astral bodies in the
heavenly plate God’s speech about the creation of the sun, moon
and stars in 1:14–15a is the most extensive, by far, of God’s creation
speeches to this point. The main reason seems to be the elaboration
of the purpose of these heavenly bodies, initially stated by God to be
“to distinguish between day and night” (1:14aβ), “for signs, for
festivals, for days and for years” (1:14b), and “serve as lights in the
heavenly plate to illuminate the earth” (1:15a). This focus on the
purpose of heavenly bodies is resumed twice more in the following,
both when God makes them (1:16bαβ) and then when God sets
them in the heavenly plate (1:17b–18). Some have seen a conflict
between these statements, but Steck argues persuasively that—in
addition to a more obvious parallel between the distinguishing
function of the heavenly bodies (14aβ and 18aβγ) and their
illumination functions under the heavenly plate (15a and 17b)—there
is some parallel between the list “for signs, for festivals, for days and
for years” (14b) and the otherwise unparalleled element specifying
the function of God’s creation of the two larger bodies “the large light
[sun] to rule over the day and the small light [moon] to rule over the
night” (16bαβ).71
God’s creation speech God’s making 1:16 God’s setting in
1:14–15 (purposes of sun, plate 1:17–18
moon; stars
nothing)72
to distinguish day and [see below] to distinguish
night light and
darkness
for signs—appointed large light to rule day to rule over day
times, days and years small light to rule night and night
as lights inside the plate to shine on the
to illuminate the earth earth

The rather elaborate statements of purpose of heavenly bodies

across 1:14b–18a coordinate the creation of these heavenly bodies
with the creation of light in 1:3–4. Genesis 1:3b–4a has already
asserted that God himself distinguished light and darkness through
creating light, thus preparing for God’s naming of “day” and “night.”
Therefore, the day-distinction function is not mentioned in the report
of God’s creation of the heavenly lights in 1:16. Nevertheless, this
function reappears and is highly focalized when God sets them in the
heavenly plate (1:17a, 18aβ), implying that the light of the bodies set
in the heavenly plate was necessary to mark days on earth after that
plate had blocked the light created at the outset of creation. By this
point any focus on “for signs, for festivals, … and for years” (1:14) or
even on “stars” (cf. 1:16bγ) has fallen to the side. Instead, the focus
in Gen 1:16–18 is exclusively on the day/night distinction introduced
on day one, indeed a distinction doubly emphasized in God’s
placement of them in the plate (1:17–18a) where they are to “rule”
the “day” and “night” named on day one (1:5) and “distinguish” the
“light” and “darkness” that were “distinguished” on day one (1:4b). In
this way, Gen 1 continues the implicit Sabbath-oriented, day-oriented
focus started in Gen 1:3–5, now with the heavenly bodies (1:16, 18)
taking over God’s original role in distinguishing light/day and
darkness/night (1:4b–5a).
 This report of God’s creation of heavenly lights includes some
anomalous elements that should be noted. In other parts of the Gen
1 creation account abstract descriptions of creation elements—e.g.,
the “plate” created in 1:7—receive their conventional names before
the close of the creation day. Not so for the two biggest “lights”
created and placed in the heavenly plate here, which retain their
rather strange designations, “the big light” (‫ )המאור הגדול‬and “the
small light” (‫)המאור הקטן‬, rather than the Hebrew words ‫“( שמש‬sun”)
and ‫“( ירח‬moon”). One might argue that this is because they do not
constitute the sort of basic creation building blocks that are given
names in the initial acts of creation of Gen 1. Nevertheless, Gen 1,
like other Near Eastern creation accounts, classifies sun and moon
in broader categories as “big” and “little” lights, as part of a broader
Near Eastern scholarly systematization of heavenly bodies and other
aspects of creation.73 It is a counterpart in Gen 1:14–18 of the
various “kinds” of life mentioned in Gen 1:11–12, 21, 24–25.
In addition, the text mentions the purpose of these heavenly
bodies to “rule,” both the role of the sun to rule the day and moon to
rule the night when they are created (1:16) and the role of all these
heavenly bodies to “rule” day and night when they are installed in the
heavenly plate (1:18aα). The Hebrew word ‫ ממשלה‬used in both loci
comes from a root, ‫משל‬, that is used specifically for the exercise of
power of a sentient being over another, used elsewhere specifically
for the authoritative direction exercised by God over creation (e.g.,
Ps 22:29; 59:14), a king over a people (e.g., 1 Kgs 5:1), a husband
over his wife (Gen 3:16), and even person over self (Prov 16:32).
What is odd here is that Gen 1:14–18, especially with the absence of
even the mention of conventional names of the heavenly bodies,
gives no sense whatsoever that these bodies have a personality that
could exercise such “rule” in any way. Indeed, its concept of astral
bodies as affixed into the heavenly vault (Gen 1:17) somewhat
militates against a concept—seen in some Greek and Near Eastern
loci—of stars and planets as independent, acting beings.74
Nevertheless, it appears that this otherwise unexplained “rule”
(‫ )ממשלה‬by non-personified heavenly bodies in 1:14–18 anticipates
the (differently worded) “rule” (‫ )רדה‬to which humans will be destined
in 1:26, 28.
 Gen 1:20–23. The creation of sea and air creatures With the
fifth day, God begins to populate more nearby regions of the cosmos
with living creatures, both the living beings in the seas and the birds
in the sky. Where God once commanded the earth to “sprout forth
sprouting plants” (‫)תדשא דשא‬, now God commands that the sea
“bring forth a swarm of living beings” (‫ )ישרצו שרץ נפש חיה‬and “birds
to fly about above the earth under the heavenly plate” (‫עוף יעופף‬
‫)על־הארץ על־פני־השמים‬. Again the text matches verbs with subjects
from the same roots (‫ישרץ שרץ‬, ‫ ;עוף יעופף‬the figura etymologica) to
create a picture of a swarming, whirring multitude of swimming and
flying creatures, all inhabiting realms—sea and air—relatively distant
from the earth habitat that is shared by animals and humans.
When the text turns to the initial execution of God’s creative will,
it begins with a verb reserved for divine creation, ‫ברא‬, that has not
been seen since the first verse’s description of “when God created
heaven and earth” and will not appear again until God creates the
humans (1:27). In this case, God “creates” (‫ )ברא‬the great “sea
monsters” (‫)תנינם‬, not specifically mentioned in God’s initial speech
(1:20) before also listing the water and air creatures featured in
God’s speech, albeit with slightly different terminology. Interestingly,
these sea monsters appear to be one of a kind, since the other sea
creatures and birds are created in different self-replicating species
(“according their kinds” 1:21), much like the plants seen in 1:11–
12.75
A new element within Gen 1 first seen here is God’s blessing
these sea and air creatures, which starts with a direct blessing of the
sea creatures “be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas”
before proceeding, almost as an afterthought, to include a wish that
“the birds multiply in the earth.” Much as the “rule” of the stars on
day four anticipated human rule, so this blessing, particularly the
blessing of sea-swarming creatures, verbally anticipates God’s
similar, though more extensive, blessing of humans (1:28). Both sea-
air creatures and humans are “created” (‫)ברא‬, and both are “blessed”
(‫)ברך‬, with the correspondence in the beginnings of both words
‫ברך‬/‫ ברא‬possibly implying a relationship between divine “creating”
and “blessing” sea-air creatures and humans.76
 Gen 1:24–25. The Creation of (non-human) land animals The
description of God’s creation of land animals, in contrast, seems
designed to distinguish God’s making (‫ )עשה‬of animals from God’s
creation (‫ )ברא‬of humans. The initial divine creation order in 1:24
describes their emergence more on the analogy of plants than even
the sea and air creatures of 1:20–23, with God saying “let the earth
bring forth living beings” (1:24), much like God had said on day three
“let the earth sprout forth grassy plants” (1:11). Just as both God’s
speech about plants (1:11) and their subsequent creation (1:12)
focused on the creation of seed-bearing plants “each according to its
kind” and fruit bearing trees “each according to its kind,” so also the
creation of animals features a divine speech and following act
outlining the creation of land creatures “each according to its kind.”
Moreover, the three-part division among land creatures in Gen 1:24–
25—domesticated animals (‫)בהמה‬, creeping things (;1:24 ‫רמש‬
1:25 ‫)כל־רמש האדמה‬, and wild animals (‫ חיתו־ארץ‬last in 1:24; ‫חית‬
‫ הארץ‬first in 1:25)—corresponds to the three-part division among the
sea/air creatures on day four—the great sea monsters (‫התנינם‬
‫)הגדלים‬, creatures swarming in the waters (‫נפש החיה הרמשת אשר שרצו‬
‫)המים‬, and all winged birds (77.(‫עוף כנף‬
Unlike the creation of plants, the initial execution of God’s
creation order for land creatures does not describe the earth as
extruding animals (cf. 1:12). Instead, God himself “makes” (‫ )עשה‬the
animals. This makes their creation more similar to the creation of
sea-air creatures on the one hand (1:21) and humans on the other
(1:27), though in both of these other cases the text uses the special
divine creation word ‫ ברא‬for the creation process.
Finally, the land creatures do not receive the multiplication
blessing given to both sea-air creatures (1:22) and humans (1:28).
This may be because land creatures share their habitat with
humans, and Gen 1 does not want to suggest that God originally
intended for non-human land creatures to multiply and thus
successfully compete for limited land with the humans who are the
pinnacle of creation. Such considerations did not apply to swarming
sea creatures, or even—to the same extent—for birds of the air that
alight on land only part of the time.78 This concern with distinguishing
land creatures from the humans with whom they share habitat will
resurface in 1:29–30, where God designates a different range of
foods for each.79
Gen 1:26–28. The Creation and Blessing/Commissioning of
Humanity Much of what preceded prepared for the description in
these verses of God’s creation of “humanity.” Gen 1:3–24 does not
describe the creation of the cosmos in general, but instead focuses
on elements that contribute to the creation of the human biome: land
apart from sea, the specific plants that will later be designated for
human consumption (1:11–12, cf. 1:29), the heavenly bodies to help
humans keep time (1:14–19), land animals (1:24–25), etc. In
addition, the overall picture of God as in supreme control of the
creative process (1:3–25) prepares for God’s commissioning of
humanity in 1:26b, 28 for godlike rule over the cosmos that God has
created. Finally, as noted across the discussion of Gen 1:3–25,
specific elements of this creation description anticipate themes in
1:26–30. The somewhat unexplained (see above) “rule” of sun and
moon (1:16) and then all heavenly bodies (1:18) anticipates human
rule in 1:26, 28. God’s blessing of the sea and air creatures in 1:22
anticipates the longer blessing directly given to humans in 1:28. The
focus on seed and fruit-bearing plants in 1:12 prepares for the eating
instructions given to humans as opposed to animals in 1:29–30. In
sum, Gen 1:26–30 is not only the final and most lengthy creation-act
description, it is also the thematic endpoint of the preceding creation
description.
At the same time, the description of humanity’s creation in Gen
1:26–30 diverges in numerous respects from what preceded. We
see this already in the divine speech of 1:26. Though other creation
acts all started with a divine speech, all of them used third person
Hebrew jussive verbs to express God’s wish for a certain state of
affairs: “let there be light” or “let the waters swarm.” In contrast, Gen
1:26 opens with a Hebrew cohortative where God calls on an
unspecified group, probably to be understood as God’s divine
council,80 to join in this “making” (‫)עשה‬: “let us make humankind.”
Where other creation speeches stated God’s wish for a certain thing
to happen, the verb “make” in 1:26 is an unusual and unprepared
formation calling for direct divine involvement of the addressed
beings (the council) in creation. The very uniqueness of this
formulation, otherwise seen (within the Bible) in non-Priestly
primeval history materials (Gen 3:22; 11:7), emphasizes from the
outset the importance of God’s creation of humans.81
Other elements of Gen 1:26ff. similarly diverge from the
narrations of preceding creation acts to highlight God’s creation of
humans as the goal toward which the preceding chapter has been
oriented. Where the other reports of creation of living things implied
their indirect production by land or sea “according to their kind(s)”
(Gen 1:11–12, 20–21, 24), God’s speech in Gen 1:26 describes God
calling on God’s council to join in making humanity “as our image,
similar to our likeness.”82 Where God’s previous creation speeches
in Gen 1 are followed by formulae of correspondence and then
narrations of how God’s intentions were executed, Gen 1:26 is
followed by a doubled description of God’s own creation of humanity
in 1:27, with this being a heightened, semi-poetic speech that
highlights the importance of this event. The blessing then given to
humans in 1:28 contrasts with that given to water and air creatures in
1:22 in being more explicitly addressed to humans (‫“ ויאמר להם‬and
said to them”), being longer, and including the call for humans to
subdue the earth and rule other creatures. The instructions
distinguishing human from animal food in Gen 1:29–30a have no
precedent in the preceding chapter. Finally, the whole of 1:26–30a—
including the blessing and instructions about food—is followed by the
correspondence formula (1:30 ;‫ויהי כן‬b) that previously in Gen 1 was
just focused on the creation of elements in accordance with God’s
instructions. In sum, virtually every part of Gen 1:26–30 diverges
from corresponding parts of the descriptions of previous creation
acts in Gen 1:3–25.
Perhaps the most remarkable element in Gen 1:26–31, certainly
the most debated, is what is intended in the description of God’s
creation of humanity as God’s image in 1:26–27. Though this
commentary is not the context for thorough review of centuries of
interpretation of this section, a few central insights can be
summarized, especially on how this motif is subtly developed within
Gen 1 and other parts of the Priestly primeval history (Gen 5:1b–2;
9:6) in relation to ancient Near Eastern precursors.
 Before exploring Gen 1:26–27 more, it should be noted at the
outset that this text is not as specific about its implications as many
of its interpreters would have it be. For example, there has long been
a major emphasis, particularly characteristic of traditional Christian
theological interpretation of the text, to stress that Gen 1:26–27 does
not imply any physical resemblance between divine beings and
humans.83 As will be argued below, this approach is only true in
terms of what the text emphasizes. However much Gen 1:26–27
does presuppose some physical resemblance between the bodies of
human beings and a God that is imagined (as in other biblical and
many other Near Eastern texts) as having human form, the text is
much more focused on how this physical resemblance to God is a
reflection of the destiny of humans to exercise godlike rule over
creation.84
That said, it should be emphasized that the text does imply a
physical resemblance between humans and God, even as it qualifies
just how much humans are thought to be like God (more on this
below). Indeed, the text privileges (in Gen 1:26 and 1:27) a term for
humans as divine replicas of god(s), ‫צלם‬, which is routinely used for
three-dimensional statues, including cult statues of deities, the latter
of which were typically given human-like form in the ancient Near
East, including the Levant.85 Moreover, the Hebrew Bible itself
features numerous descriptions of God as having human(like) body
parts, doing human things, and sometimes even being so similar in
human form as to be confused with human beings (e.g., Gen 18:1–
15; 32:23–33 [ET 32:22–32]).86 All this would suggest that the
description of God’s call to “let us make humans as our image [‫”]צלם‬
and subsequent act “and God created humans as the/an image of
God” includes as one of its implications an actual physical
resemblance between divine beings/God and humanity even if other
meanings are encompassed and even prioritized in the rest of the
text. And P will then later describe the first human, Adam, passing
this physical resemblance on to his son (5:1–3).87
 This concept of human creation “as the image of God in Gen
1:26–27 has been further illuminated through consideration of
ancient Near Eastern conceptuality surrounding cultic images of God
on the one hand and kings as images of deities on the other.
Especially if one judges that Gen 1 was written in the Babylonian
diaspora, we have good reason to believe the author and his
community were familiar with Mesopotamian practices surrounding
cult images of deities. These practices included the manufacture of
images of gods that were (usually) in human form, the cultic
activation of these images through rituals that denied the human
origins of the images and attributed their making to divine
intervention, and overall worship and care for such images as
primary ways in which the gods made themselves physically
accessible in the earthly world.88 Already the Deuteronomistic
History and Ezekiel include some critique of these practices and
ideas surrounding cult images. Nevertheless, the late exilic prophetic
material of Second Isaiah represents the most detailed engagement
with Mesopotamian conceptuality surrounding divine images. For
example, Isa 44:9–20 directly challenges the idea that gods, rather
than humans, were the real manufacturers of cult images.89
Likely crafted within a similar Mesopotamian diasporic context,
Gen 1:26–27 represents a creative critique and alternative to
Mesopotamian (and other) theology around cult images. Rather than
endorsing (or critiquing, so Isa 44:9–20) human-made clay (often)
anthropomorphic statues as images of God, it depicts actual humans
—long recognized as divinely made in older cosmogonic traditions—
as the truly God-made divine images.90 In this sense, Gen 1 plays
on the widespread phenomenon of depicting God in human form,
present in Israel and many other cultures as well. Rather than
understanding the correspondence between human form and human
pictures of god as a result of people’s projection of their own form on
god(s), this text proposes that the one God who created the universe
projected his form on humans. In sum, Gen 1:26–27 suggests that
God had (what we call) ‘human’ form first.
At the same time, Gen 1:26–27 qualifies the similarity of humans
to their divine creator in ways foreign to Near Eastern cult image
theology. Where Mesopotamian and other texts stressed the strong
links of cult images with the gods they depicted, even to the point of
speaking of cult images as if they were identical to the gods they
represented, Gen 1:26 suggests, at least initially, that God made
humans as images of God’s council in general (“let us make humans
as our image”), and it adds an additional specification, “similar to our
likeness,” that both claims (physical) similarity and also establishes
some distance between humans and the divinity that they
resemble.91 The term translated here as “likeness,” ‫דמות‬, elsewhere
is primarily attested in Ezekiel’s (exilic) prophecy as a term for quite
approximate, and difficult-to-specify similarity, a sort of image that is
otherwise indescribable (Ezek 8:2; see also 1:10, 13, 16, 22, 26, 28;
10:1, 10).92 Moreover, the preposition ‫( כ‬here “similar to”) asserts
both similarity and separation of its object from that with which it is
being compared.93 Anything that is merely similar to something else
is also somehow different. Thus, within the charged diasporic context
surrounding divine image practices, the crucial divine speech in Gen
1:26 states God’s intent to make humans as image-statues of divine
beings in general, but also asserts, at least initially, that these
statues will only be similar, in a difficult-to-quantify way (‫ )דמות‬to the
divinity they represent. Though Gen 1 singles humans out from other
creatures as made by God as God’s image, they are also not
identical replicas to God in the way that plants or other animals
reproduce “according to their kind(s).”
Just as important, if not more so, for understanding the
associations of the divine image language in Gen 1:26–27 is ancient
Near Eastern ideology surrounding kings as images of gods,
particularly insofar as the power exercised by kings mirrored and
served as an extension of the power attributed to deities. For
example, the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic speaks of how the Assyrian king
“is the very image of Enlil” and similar statements about the king are
found in a handful of later Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian letters.
This theme is more common in Egyptian literature, starting in the
Middle Kingdom period and expanding during the New Kingdom
period in particular.94 For example, an inscription for
Amenophis/Amenhotep III from the 14th century BCE (New
Kingdom) has the god, Amun-Re-Kamutef, declare to the king:
 For you are my beloved son, who came out from my love, my image that I put
on earth. I set you in peace to rule the land, in which you wipe out the heads of
all the foreign lands.95
For now it is important to recognize that these ideas of the king as an
“image of [deity x]” occurred in cultures with cult images and were
more or less linked with those cultures’ ideas of cult images as
“images of [deity x].” In the case of the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic, the king
is described as the “cult image” (ṣalmu) of the high God, Enlil, using
language of birth and manufacture typical of Mesopotamian cult
image theology.96 Overall, the king as an animate and powerful
“image of god” along with cult statues in Mesopotamia and other
parts of the ancient Near East stood as the two chief ways in which
otherwise unseen deities were understood to make themselves
physically available in the earthly world.97
Genesis 1 connects initially and repeatedly with these royal
ideological strands of ancient Near Eastern image theology. This
starts in God’s Gen 1:26 speech, when God says, “let us create
humans as our image … so that they may rule the fish of the sea,
the birds of the sky, the domesticated animals and all the earth, and
all the creeping animals that creep on the earth.” Thus, it is as
godlike rulers that humans stand vis-à-vis the animal world, not as
cult statues representing God to them.98 At the same time, Gen 1
diverges in significant ways from traditions about the king as image
of God. To start, Gen 1:26–27 now depicts all of humanity—not just
the king—as bearing this divine image conferring rulership, implicitly
royalizing all of humanity.99 Moreover, the scope of rule has shifted.
Rather than a king ruling other humans, here humans rule all other
creatures of God’s creation, even the fish of the sea and the birds of
the air. There is no other obvious set of candidates to be ruled by all
of humanity than these non-human creatures in the rest of
creation.100
As established by Stipp, the word used here for rule, ‫רדה‬,
diverges from the more general root ‫ משל‬used for the rule of
heavenly bodies (1:16, 18; see also 3:16) in stressing the rule of a
figure over peoples or other creatures perceived as strangers and
potential enemies.101 Thus, we see the appearance in Gen 1:26 of a
theme of potential animosity between humans and other creatures.
Such a potential of animosity was already implied earlier in the
chapter in the absence of a multiplication blessing for land creatures
with whom humans share their habitat. Nevertheless, this animosity
remains only an unrealized potential in the world of Gen 1, one only
pronounced “very good” (1:31a) after God’s pronouncement of food
regulations that presuppose peaceful co-existence of humans and
animals (Gen 1:29–30). We will not see the actualization of the
potential for violence between humans and animals until the flood
narrative (esp. Gen 6:12; 9:2–6). So also, God’s call for humans to
“subdue” (‫ )כבש‬the earth does not imply violence against other
earthly creatures. Rather this term probably anticipates the serious
reworking of the earthly ground required for human production of
vegetation through farming, which is an implicit focus of God’s
immediately following instructions about food (Gen 1:29).
Contemporary interpreters sensitized to the negative impact that
humans have had on the environment have struggled with this
picture of powerful human rule over creation. Indeed, some have
wanted to see God’s call here as implying a clear call for human care
for creation, along the lines of expectations in texts like Psalm 72
that the king preserve justice.102 Nevertheless, such readings
probably overlook how the Gen 1 picture of human domination was
meant to stand as a utopian counter-picture to a later world where
humans were and are subject to occasional threats from the animal
world. In this respect, Gen 1 parallels its likely precursor in Gen 2(–
3) in depicting an initial, ideal time where humans exercised control
over animals (Gen 1:26–30//Gen 2:18–19), a time then followed by
the present reality of animal-human enmity (‫ ;איבה‬Gen 3:15) or
violence (‫ ;חמס‬Gen 6:11–13). Both texts were written in an ancient
context where animals (e.g., snakes in Gen 3:15) were seen more
generally as hostile and potentially dangerous forces than they are in
most parts of the developed world. We see this in biblical depictions
of humans threatened or killed by bears and lions (Amos 5:19; 1 Kgs
13:23–30) and God’s promises to insure that Israelites in the land
will not be threatened by wild animals (Exod 23:29; Lev 26:6; Ezek
34:25). Within ancient Israel, a world without the threat of animal
violence was either an inaccessible golden age before the flood
(Gen 1:29–30) or a distant utopia (Hos 2:20 [ET 2:18]; Isa 11:6–9).
The picture of supremely powerful human rule over animals in 1:26–
28 was in relation to these assumptions.103
Seen in this context, the creation of humans as godlike rulers
over creation (1:26–27) is integrally connected to the following
blessing by God to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (1:28).
Multiple biblical narratives presuppose the (common sense) idea that
military power comes with large numbers of troops (e.g., Judg 7:2–8;
1 Sam 14:6), and we also see a focus on the destructive power of
animal fertility in the description of the plague of locusts filling the
houses of Egypt (Exod 10:4–6). Building on these presuppositions,
Gen 1 depicts God as initially bestowing such a power of
multiplication on humans on day six, even as God does not grant the
same power in numbers to the land animals with whom humans
share the earth.104
The power implications of this multiplication blessing are
confirmed by the fact that it is immediately followed by God’s call for
these humans, with their power in numbers, to “subdue” the earth
and “rule” all animals. Though some have interpreted this blessing
through the lens of later Hebrew as a command, the imperatives
here represent the divine will to enable such multiplication,
expressing God’s empowering blessing of multiplication and rule that
prepares for the sustainability and continuity of human rule.105 Just a
pair or handful of humans would exercise little power vis-a-vis the
animal world. Only if humans multiply greatly and “fill” the earth, with
millions of god replicas teeming over different parts of its surface
(and animals not enjoying a similar reproductive success), could
humans hope to achieve domination of it. So God empowers
humans for such multiplication and filling of earth through the
blessing in Gen 1:28.
The importance of this multiplication blessing helps explain the
doubled report of God’s creation of humans in 1:27b. Whereas other
creation acts in Gen 1 all just report the creation of a given thing
once, Gen 1:27 does so three times, using virtual poetic couplets.
The following provides an extra-literal rendering of the Hebrew to
make clear the shifts in number and gender:106
God created humankind (or “the human” ‫ )האדם‬as God’s image,
 As the image of God, he created him.
Male and female, he created them.
The second line diverges in number from the first (“he created them”
versus “he created him”) to allow for the creation of both sexes of
humanity, with a stress put on these sexes by placement at the head
of the clause in front extra position. This description of God’s
creation of male and female humans in 1:27b then serves as a
bridge between God’s creation of humans in 1:26–27a and God’s
call on them to “be fruitful and multiply,” thus preparing for this
multiplication blessing in 1:28.107 Notably the plural form begun in
Gen 1:27b forms the background for God’s address to humans in the
plural in Gen 1:28, blessing “them” and now giving commands to
male and female humanity in plural imperatives.
Finally, it should be noted that we see a particular intensity of
potential echoes of Gen 2–3 in this climactic final portion of P’s
creation report. This starts with a parallel in formulation between Gen
1:26 and Gen 3:22. God’s consultation with the divine council about
making humans as God images in Gen 1:26 and Y ’s
consultation with the divine council about the problem posed by
human godlikeness in Gen 3:22. Whereas Gen 2–3 concludes with
Y ’s consultation with an unspecified plural group (the divine
council) about the threat posed by human godlikeness (Gen 3:22),
Gen 1 concludes with God consulting with a similar unspecified
plural group about a plan to make humans as god images (Gen
1:26).108 In addition, a dependence of Gen 1 on Gen 2–3 at this
point could explain why the Priestly description of God’s creation of
humanity in 1:27 initially describes God as creating “the humanity”
(‫ ;האדם‬cf. ‫ אדם‬in 1:26), a possible blind motif left in Gen 1 of the
focus across Gen 2–3 on “the human” (8 ,2:7 ;‫האדם‬, passim).109
Finally, the description of human creation in Gen 1 and Gen 2–3 are
both distinguished from a number of other such accounts in the Near
East by their emphasis on the creation of male and female humans
(Gen 1:27; 2:21–23) along with a related focus on intense human
multiplication (Gen 1:28; 3:16). Seeing these various links of Gen 1
to its likely Gen 2–3 precursor can help the reader of Gen 1
appreciate how its author reconfigured themes in its precursor text in
the process of also pointedly opposing certain aspects of it (e.g., the
depiction of the divine response to human godlikeness in Gen 3:22).
1:29–30a. Provision of Different Vegetable Foods for Humans
and Other Land Animals One other element that Gen 1 shares with
Gen 2–3 that is lacking in most other accounts of human creation is
a set of divine instructions about permitted foods, indeed one
highlighting tree fruit as one major type of human food (Gen 1:29–
30a; cf. Gen 2:16–17). In this case, God’s speech to humans about
food allowed for humans and animals continues the plural address to
humans as a group (‫ לכם‬in both 29a and 29b) initiated in 1:28 and
prepared for by the description of two-sexed humanity in 1:27b.
Nevertheless, the speech to humans in Gen 1:29–30 is distinguished
from the prior one in 1:28 by the fact that the prior one is introduced
as a “blessing” (‫ )ויברך אתם‬while this one is just speech (‫)ויאמר‬.
The initial and primary content of the overall speech in Gen 1:29–
30 is God’s declaration that humans are allowed to eat both of the
sorts of plants that God had created on day three, both seed-bearing
vegetation (‫ ;עשב זרע זרע‬cf. ‫ [עשב מזריע זרע [למינהו‬in 1:11–12) and
trees that have fruit with seeds in them (‫ ;העץ אשר בו פרי עץ זרע זרע‬cf.
1:11 ‫ עץ פרי עשה פרי‬and 1:12 ‫)עץ עשה פרי אשר זרעו בו למניהו‬. Using
language with echoes of a legal proclamation that effects a state of
affairs, God starts with the untranslatable deictic interjection ‫הנה‬
(something like the French voila; here “see!”) and then uses the
suffix form of the verb ‫“( נתן‬give”) to state that these two types of
vegetation have now been given to humans. God’s mention in 1:29
of both types of plants featured in plant creation of Gen 1:11–12, with
the same wording and in the same order, implies that humans are
given all plantlife for food.110 This would correspond to the sovereign
place of humans as godlike rulers over God’s cosmos.
Genesis 1:30a continues God’s speech about food to humans,
but shifts to tell humans about foods that earth’s animals are allowed
to eat. The specific focus on animal food is highlighted by the
prepositional phrase at the outset, indicating that this instruction
excludes fish, focusing on restricting food for land-based animals—
animals, birds, and creepers [likely various sorts of insects and
reptiles]. The term used for their food, ‫“( ירק עשב‬green vegetation”),
indicates that these animals are only allowed to eat the grass or
leaves on plants, thus not competing with humans for the calorie-rich
seeds and fruits that form the center of most human agriculture.
Nevertheless, it should be understood that this does not imply that
humans are thus excluded from eating such greenery. Whatever
limitation is given here is meant for animals, and God’s later post-
flood instructions to humans that that they now may eat animals “like
green vegetation” (9:3) implies that such green vegetation was
always allowed for humans.
Thus, not only are humans implicitly forbidden from eating
animals, but animals are implicitly forbidden (at least in the ideal
world of Gen 1) from eating the sorts of grains and fruits that were
cultivated as staples of the ancient Near Eastern human diet. In this
way, Gen 1:29–30 depicts an initial “very good” world where humans
and land animals should not compete for food. Later, the P prologue
to the flood will note that the earth has been “corrupted” and “filled
with violence,” and after the flood God will give animals to humans
for food “like green vegetation” (9:3 ;‫)כירק עשב‬, thus negating the
implicit veganism (for all earth creatures) in 1:29–30. Nevertheless,
that time is yet to come. Genesis 1:29–30 depicts an ideal
antediluvian world where humans and animals were meant to
peaceably co-exist.
Food provisions sometimes appear in ancient descriptions of
human creation, particularly Egyptian cosmogonic traditions, but
those traditions do not feature this sort of differentiated divine
instruction regarding human and animal food.111 Within the nearby
context, this speech about allowed foods underlines yet again the
distinction that Gen 1 has already drawn between humans and other
living creatures (e.g., 1:24–25 versus 1:26–27). In this case, 1:29–30
focuses on creatures, created on both day five and day six, who at
least sometimes live on land (including birds). This means fish are
excluded here, despite the fact that humans rule them (1:26, 28),
because they do not live on land and thus would not have access to
land plants. Again, the issue of shared habitat seems to be primary
in the inclusion/exclusion of different animal groups.
Gen 1:30b–2:1. The Conclusion of Creation of the Cosmos The
sixth day concludes with several elements seen previously, yet each
with a slight alteration. Genesis 1:30b contains a statement of
execution, ‫“( ויהי כן‬and it was so”) that usually followed the initial
divine statement of intention (thus expected after 1:26). Yet the
placement of the correspondence formula at the end of the day here
follows God’s further blessing to humans (1:28) and instructions
regarding food (1:29), as if to emphasize that these divine wishes,
too, were completed as intended. The different placement of the
correspondence formula here and also in (most early witnesses of)
1:7 should caution us about having too uniform a view of its function
vis-à-vis other elements in the creation reports.
The statement of divine approval in Gen 1:31a corresponds to
the statements of divine approval that appear everywhere except in
day two. Yet where most other such reports focus exclusively on a
given creation act, asserting that “God saw that it was good” (‫וירא‬
‫)אלהים כי טוב‬, this expanded approval formula embraces the entire
preceding creation and intensifies the statement of divine approval:
“God saw all that he had made, and indeed it was very good” (‫וירא‬
‫)אלהים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד‬. This intensified statement thus
serves to provide an extra emphasis on God’s approval not only of
the creation of humanity (animals already had one in 1:25b), but also
God’s multiplication blessing on humanity (1:28) and God’s
provisions for peaceful coexistence of humans and animals (1:29–
30). Furthermore, the expansion and intensification of the approval
formula in this context gives a sense that the creation report is
drawing to a close.
Before this report concludes, however, we have two elements.
The first is the day formula seen before, but this time with the
number of the day featuring a definite article, “the sixth day” (cf. “one
day” [1:5 ‫“ ;יום אחד‬a second day” 1:8 ‫ ;יום שני‬etc.). This shift is one
indicator that a block of days is now concluded, but the text does not
yet tell us more.
Finally, Gen 2:1 wraps things up by saying that “the heavens, the
earth and all their array were completed” (‫)ויכלו השמים והארץ וכל־צבאם‬,
thus linking back to the reference to when God “created the heavens
and the earth” at the very outset of the text (Gen 1:1). “Heaven and
earth” are an expected pair, but the focus on “their array,” literally
“their army” (‫ )צבאם‬is unusual. Often the word ‫“( צבא‬army”) is in
construct with heaven alone, ‫“( צבא שמים‬the army of heaven,” e.g.,
stars in Deut 4:19; 17:3). Genesis 2:1 seems to use a traditional
word, ‫ צבא‬in an untraditional way to embrace the broader array of
created things introduced in the prior creation acts, hence the
translation “array” in this context. In Gen 1:1 it was enough to use
the traditional pair “heaven and earth” to refer to the whole before
they were created. Nevertheless, by Gen 2:1 both of these words,
‫“( שמים‬heaven”) and ‫“( ארץ‬earth”) are now linked explicitly by naming
with more specific elements of the preceding creation, the heavenly
plate (1:6–8) and the chunk of earth revealed when God had the
waters gather (1:9–10). Therefore, in order to encompass the full
range of other created things (e.g., sea, plants, heavenly bodies, sea
and air creatures, land animals, humans), the author here recruits a
word ‫“( צבא‬army”) often used to refer to a broad array of stars or
heavenly beings after an initial reference to “sun and moon” (e.g.,
Deut 4:19; 17:13; Jer 8:2) or “Baal and Asherah” (2 Kgs 23:4). This
time, however, ‫“( צבאם‬their array”) in 2:1 does not refer exclusively to
heavenly bodies, as is indicated by the fact that it is preceded by the
pair “heaven and earth” rather than the more traditional “sun and
moon” or the like.112
Gen 2:2. God’s Ceasing of Work and Blessing and Sanctification
of the Seventh Day Though the report of God’s creation work
concludes with 2:1, Gen 2:2 seems to reopen the conclusion in order
to introduce God’s anticipation of the later Sabbath. The core of the
verse, the statement of God’s ceasing from God’s work on the
seventh day in 2:2b, seems clear. As discussed in the translation
commentary, it is less clear whether this statement about God’s
stopping of work is preceded by a description of God concluding
God’s work on the sixth day (so LXX, SP, and Peshitta) or on the
seventh day (MT). Both readings are difficult, and neither is crucial
for interpretation of the chapter. Either way, the statement in Gen
2:2a about God’s concluding God’s work merely introduces the
following statement about God’s ceasing work on the seventh day
(2:2b).
God then goes on to “bless” the seventh day and set it apart from
the others (2:3). This use of the term ‫“( ברך‬bless”) is somewhat
unusual, since it does not directly refer in this case to God’s
empowering of the life force of living beings.113 Perhaps on analogy
with the idea of God’s institution of self-replicating life forms in Gen
1:11–28, this verse means to imply that God instituted a replicating
seventh day, set apart in an ongoing way from the other six days of
the week. Just as plants reproduced from seeds “each according to
its kind” as do birds, sea and land creatures, so also God “blessed”
this seventh day by not just resting on the initial seventh day, but
“setting it apart” (‫ קדש‬piel) in the future. Through this “blessing” and
“setting aside” the seventh day thus becomes part of God’s creation
order, though this day is distinguished from others by not quoting an
initial divine decree. The divine speech is only implied in the verbs
“bless” and “set aside.”
Nothing more is said here about how the seventh day is set
apart. God never commands that anyone else cease work like God
did on the seventh day. Indeed, there is no specific implication that
God or anyone else will do so on another seventh day.114 Yet it is not
a coincidence that interpreters have thought of later Sabbath
commands to Israel when reading this text. The text’s descriptions of
God’s prior creation work are infused with expressions used to
describe six days of work in later Sabbath commands to Israel, such
as “all of his work” (‫ ;כל מלאכתו‬Gen 2:2, 3)115 and “do work” ‫עשה‬
‫( מלאכה‬twice in 2:2), and the verb used here for God’s act on the
seventh day is ‫( שבת‬šbt “cease, stop”; 2:2, 3) rather than the more
generic ‫( נוח‬rest).116 Therefore, even though the noun “Sabbath”
never occurs here and the Sabbath commands will only come much
later to Israel (and be specific to Israel), this text suggests that some
sort of ongoing Sabbath-oriented week structure was established
already by God at creation when God “blessed” the seventh day by
“set[ting] it apart” after doing “his work” for the previous six days.
The theme of divine rest after creation is seen in some famous
Mesopotamian cosmogonies, such as the Atrahasis and Enuma
Elish epics, but in those contexts a high god creates humanity as
part of a project to ease labor originally done by lower deities.117
There is no such implication here. Genesis 1 gives no suggestion
that God’s rule and creation-work was previously onerous. On the
contrary, God’s sovereign creation speeches and immediate
execution across Gen 1:3–27 convey a sense of effortless creation.
Perhaps this is another reason why Gen 2:2–3 never uses the word
“rest” that occasionally occurs in Sabbath commands (cf. Exod 23:12
and Deut 5:14). Instead, Gen 2:2 merely echoes the word “Sabbath”
by using the verb šābat to describe God’s “ceasing” from God’s work
on the seventh day. This avoids any implication here that God might
need to “rest” from being tired from creating the cosmos by
command(s).

Conclusion: Divergent Patterns Spanning Gen

1:1–2:3
Looking back at the broader whole, numerous commentators have
noted broader patterns binding together Gen 1:1–2:3. Probably the
most common has been the observation, often associated with
Herder, of a balance between the four creation acts spread across
days one through three and those spread across days four through
six.118 Some of the correspondences can be indicated as follows:

Day One: creation of Day Four: creation of heavenly “lights” (sun,

light moon, stars)
Day Two: splitting of Day Five: creation of creatures that live in
primeval ocean the sea and birds flying across the heavenly
through the heavenly plate
plate
Day Three: (1st act) Day Six: (1st act) creation of land animals
revealing of earth by and creepers and then
gathering waters and
then
(2nd act) Making earth (2nd act) creation of humans as God’s
sprout seed bearing image and giving humans plants and tree
plants and trees with fruits for food (animals are given seed-
fruit trees bearing plants for food)

This pattern highlights how the eight acts spread over six days
described in Gen 1:3–31 are distributed into two sets of three days,
with the last day of each three-day set, days three and six, having
two acts. All six of these days are understood here as a block,
concluded by a sixth day marked separately as “the” sixth day
(1:31a), and standing over against the seventh day on which God
ceased from the work of all preceding six days.
At the same time, Odil Hannes Steck has argued persuasively
that the acts spread across days two through six manifest an even
tighter relationship with each other, with the whole framed by the
creation of day and night on day one (1:3–5) and the climax of the
day structure on day seven (2:1–3). He argues that the core of the
creation account is divided between an initial description of God’s
creation of cosmic spaces (heavenly plate, sea, earth in 1:6–13)
before describing God’s corresponding population of those spaces
with stars and creatures (1:14–31). Both halves of the creation
account, so Steck, are oriented toward the ultimate creation of
humans, with the description of cosmic spaces starting with spaces
not inhabited by humans (heaven and sea) and then climaxing with
the human habitat of earth and the description of God’s population of
those spaces starting with sea and air creatures before climaxing
with humans.

Spaces of Creation Filling of Spaces

—Life Realms (farthest from human to creation of -
(farthest from humans)
human to nearest)
Time Thematic
Act 1: heavenly plate Act 4: Making and installation of heavenly
“lights” in the heavenly plate
Life Thematic
Act 2: gathering of Act 5: Creation of sea creatures (and air
waters—sea creatures)
(revealing earth)
Act 3: plant/fruit- Act 6: Creation of animals (eating plants)
bearing earth Act 7: Creation of humans (eating plants
and fruits)
Steck admits that this observed pattern in 1:6–31 does not have the
same balance as the 3+3 day scheme advanced by others.
Nevertheless, he argues that it avoids the strange parallel in the 3+3
pattern between the making of the plate on day two and the creation
of sea and air creatures on day five, and it better fits the actual
sequence of the creation account as it builds, step by step, toward
the creation of humans as its crowning element. Most particularly,
Steck’s proposal highlights the human-oriented organization of the
quite similarly-structured creation acts in 1:6–31.119
That said, Steck’s grouping of the creation of day and night (1:3–
5) with the Sabbath that it prepares for (2:2–3) does not
acknowledge the way God’s ceasing from work in 2:2–3 relates to all
six days that precede, 1:3–5 along with days 2–6. All six days follow
a similar pattern that contrasts with that in 2:2–3, and all six are
concluded on “the” sixth day in 1:31. In this sense, Steck’s overall
proposal, though rightly recognizing some kind of a special
connection between days one and seven, clashes with the overall
Sabbath structure (six days of “work,” ‫ מלאכה‬in 2:2, one day of rest)
that day one makes possible and day seven concludes.
In sum, Gen 1:1–2:3 seems characterized by multiple structural
frameworks—highlighted by Herder, et al. on the one hand and
Steck, et al. on the other.120 Each framework connects with
important aspects of the text, and no framework fully accounts for all
of the existing text.
Synthesis
Genesis 1:1–2:3 within Its Priestly Context As read above, Gen 1
represents a powerful response to both non-biblical (esp. the Enuma
Elish epic) and biblical (Gen 2–3 along with Psalm 104) textual
precursors, taking up elements of each in the process of presenting
its distinctive picture of a solely dominant God, who surpasses
Marduk, making humans as divine images for godlike dominance
over creation. This presentation of God’s creation of humans as god-
images Humans as God’s image is as close as the Bible gets to
the sort of theogonies that were common in Egypt and Mesopotamia.
As discussed above, these humans are godlike in only a qualified
sense, and they are presented in Gen 1 as enjoying a power purely
derivative of their sovereign creator. Nevertheless, insofar as the six
days of creation in Gen 1 are ultimately focused on God’s creation of
humanity as God’s three-dimensional representatives on earth, this
account represents a distinctive Judean alternative to ancient, non-
Judean worldviews focused on multiple deities who were
represented on earth by manufactured statues and (occasionally for
high gods) human kings.121 Within this perspective, all humans are
given a highly elevated, semi-divine status, and their fertile
multiplication is seen as divinely empowered, rather than—as, e.g.,
in the Atrahasis Epic—being a feature that continually annoys the
gods.
Rest and the Sabbath This creation account (at least in its
present form) is articulated in an implicitly Sabbath-focused six-day
structure that leads up to God’s seventh-day ceasing from God’s
work, which in turn corresponds to the “rest” in temple sanctuaries
typically enjoyed by gods in Near Eastern cosmogonies. Within Gen
1 itself, however, the word “rest” is never used for what God does,
and there is no explicit reference here to a sanctuary distinct from
the cosmos that God just created.122 Rather, that sanctuary only
emerges in P toward the end of Exodus with the making of the
wilderness tabernacle and God’s climactic descent to dwell in it
(Exod 25–31, 35–40). At this juncture we see the reemergence of
the Sabbath theme so crucial to the broader structure of Gen 1.
Cosmogony and Temple The tabernacle sanctuary, however,
only emerges as a concluding divine response to profound breaks
after God has finished God’s “very good” creation (Gen 1). In this
respect, the broader Priestly narrative of which Gen 1 is a part
diverges profoundly from the Enuma Elish epic (and comparable
non-biblical cosmogonies) that describe the creation of temples as
the concluding act of the cosmogony proper. To be sure, Gen 1 itself
can be read as a description of God’s creation of the whole cosmos
as a temple-like structure, starting with the roof-plate on day two
(1:6–8), continuing with the earth floor sprouting with plants on day
three (1:9–13), and also featuring lamps in the roof-plate on day four
(1:14–18).123 Nevertheless, this is quite a different concept from the
special sanctified space (within the broader world) of a temple or
tabernacle. Within P, the need for such a tabernacle within the world
only occurs when the earth of God’s very good creation is corrupted
by violence (Gen 6:12), thus causing God to make it uninhabitable
through covering it again with the primeval ocean (‫ ;תהום‬Gen 7:11;
cf. 1:2), and thus killing all life on the earthly biome that was not on
the ark. The priestly tabernacle, with its echoes of Gen 1, is part of a
series of divine provisions on the other side of this destruction to
regulate the violence that has emerged in God’s creation (e.g., Gen
9:2–6; Lev 17) and create a space within the broader earthly biome
where God can again “go around” in the human world (now with
Israel), as God once did, pre-flood, with Enoch and Noah (Gen 5:24;
6:9).124
A traumatic background for P’s creation narrative We will return
to Priestly emphasis on themes of violence in the commentary on the
flood narrative. For now it is just relevant to note that some kind of
experience of social violence, perhaps the trauma of the destruction
of Jerusalem and exile in Babylonia, likely stands in the background
of the Priestly document’s split between a pre-violence cosmos in
Gen 1 and the corruption of the earth and subsequent developments
seen in the rest of P.125 Moreover, either the Neo-Assyrian or Neo-
Babylonian periods form a likely context for the engagement with
and opposition to the claims of the Enuma Elish epic in Gen 1.126
Though debate continues about the dating of P, one’s interpretation
of Gen 1 as part of P can be enhanced through a non-reductionistic
understanding of its picture of God’s absolute dominion and original
cosmic peace as addressing some kind of Judean experience of
communal trauma.
Creation as prologue Turning to the literary context of Gen 1 in
a broader Priestly document, this implicitly Sabbath-focused Priestly
cosmogony in Gen 1 represents the introduction to a longer Priestly
work that originally extended at least up to the Sabbath-focused,
Priestly description of the making of the tabernacle in the wilderness
(Exod 25–40).127 Functionally, this broader Priestly work (up through
Exod 25–40), and not Gen 1 alone, is the full counterpart to the
Enuma Elish epic. Through this whole narrative, P offers an
“etiology” of God’s dominance and God’s dwelling within an earth
corrupted by violence, to compete with the Enuma Elish epic’s
etiology of Marduk’s dominance and Marduk’s Esagila temple in
Babylon. Within this broader context, Gen 1:1–2:3 depicts God’s
originally intended, peaceful and orderly perfect cosmos, presided
over by godlike humans.
Creation as anticipation These anticipations of the wilderness
tabernacle in P point to other ways that Gen 1 introduces multiple
themes that are developed in later Priestly texts, often through
intensified application to ever narrowing circles of Abraham and his
heirs in the “children of Israel.” The multiplication blessing given to
humanity at the outset (1:28) is echoed in multiplication commands
given to Noah and his sons in the wake of the flood (9:1, 7) and even
applied to the animals who lacked such a blessing in the initial
creation (8:17b; cf. 1:24–25). Then, in the ancestral history, this
multiplication promise is specifically applied to Abraham (17:6), now
intensified with the promise that “nations” and even “kings” will
emerge from him.128
As we have seen already in the case of the Sabbath-focused
construction of the wilderness tabernacle (Exod 25–31, 35–40), the
themes introduced in Gen 1 are ultimately unfolded in the portion of
P that is focused on the Israelites. To start, the more specific
multiplication promise to Abraham is transmitted through his heirs,
Isaac (28:3) and Jacob/Israel (35:11; also 48:4), and then it is fulfilled
in Egypt among the “children of Israel” (Exod 1:7; see also 47:27).
Moreover, these children of Israel are given kosher food instructions
that narrow those that were given to humanity as a whole in the
wake of the flood (Lev 11; cf. Gen 1:29; 9:2–6). Finally, the Israelites
receive God’s command to observe a Sabbath that is analogous to
God’s ceasing of work on the seventh day (Exod 16:4–5, 22–30;
20:8–11). Indeed, this Sabbath theme is then thoroughly woven
through later priestly texts (see esp. 31:12–17; 35:1–3; Lev 16:31;
19:3, 30; 23:3 and passim; 26:2; Num 15:32–36; 28:9–10), including
the unfolding of the Sabbath theme into the idea of a Sabbath-jubilee
year for the land of Israel (Lev 25; 26:34–35; 43).129 These are
important ways in which Gen 1 is significant in its function as the
beginning of a broader Priestly account.
The universal vision in P’s creation narrative At the same time,
Gen 1 also has significance in itself, in applying to humanity as a
whole themes that could have been applied by P exclusively to
Israel, or even a specific group within Israel, such as men or male
priests. Take especially the theme of humans as God’s image on
earth (1:26–27). Though this image theme is generally restricted in
ancient Near Eastern non-biblical texts to sanctified cult images or
kings, P does not limit this quality to just priests, Israelites or men.
Instead, P initially applies this image to all of humanity, male and
female, and this quality is seen as persisting and having significance
after the flood (Gen 9:6). It is not lost (contrary to later Christian
theology) nor limited by subsequent historical events.130
Genesis 1:1–2:3 Within the Present (P/non-P) Context of
Genesis Though Gen 1 likely was originally intended to function
within an exclusively Priestly context, it now stands as the first major
section of a conflated P/non-P narrative. Its broader picture of God’s
creation of the cosmos and humanity forms the context for the
following non-P depiction of Y ’s creation of the first male and
female human individuals, along with animals (Gen 2). Moreover, the
strong emphasis on God’s power and on the goodness of creation
across Gen 1 (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31) softens and puts in
perspective any implication in the following non-P narratives of the
deity’s lack of control (e.g., Gen 3:22; 11:4–7) and/or a fundamental
deficiency in God’s creation (e.g., Gen 6:5–7). Finally, the Gen 1
picture of God’s creation of humans as God images facilitates a
rereading of Gen 2 as a more detailed account of how God created
these human god-images, indeed one that paralleled certain aspects
of Mesopotamian rituals for the manufacture and divine animation of
cult images.131
At the same time, a question can be raised as to how many such
connections were intended by the redactor who created the present
text of Genesis. On the one hand, redactional/compositional
approaches to Gen 1 and other P texts would stress the idea that
numerous aspects of this Priestly creation narrative were intended to
function in relation to the non-P materials that it introduces.132 On
the other hand, the source-conflational model to P and non-P that is
advocated in this commentary would imply that many resonances of
P and non-P in the present narrative, though they form part of the
semiotic potential of the present text, are accidental byproducts of
the combination of P and non-P texts not originally meant to stand
alongside each other.
From Exegesis to the Contemporary Significance of Gen 1 This
Priestly application of the “image of God” idea to all of humanity has
complex potential implications for the present day. Humanity as
God’s image On the plus side, given the widespread phenomenon
of human anthropomorphic concepts of God, there is a certain
elegance about P’s proposal that God had the ‘human’ form first and
gave it to humans to enable human rule over the rest of creation.
After all, all humans, not just kings, possess the anthromorphic form
that corresponds to many human god-pictures, and living humans
are already active, living beings, not requiring the sort of detailed
rituals of animation and other practices used to mark cult statues as
god-representatives on earth. Moreover, this idea of humans as
divinely-made god-images can be theologically evocative. Consider,
for example, Abraham Heschel’s use of this theme to argue that
every human being is a theophany, and that acts of racism and
violence thus constitute acts of blasphemy against the images that
God godself has created.133
Ecological issues and implications Meanwhile, within the
present ecological crisis, authors such as Lynn White and Carl
Améry have noted potential problems with P’s particular link of this
“image of God” theme to human multiplication and the idea of human
godlike rule over creation.134 These readings have some cogency,
especially when Gen 1 is read on a surface level without attention to
its broader literary functions. After all, parts of the picture of human
destiny depicted in Gen 1 mirror contemporary problems of human
overpopulation and domination of the earthly biome, and it is easy to
misread the concluding “very good” in Gen 1:31 as being God’s
ringing endorsement of human domination and multiplication run
amok. Nevertheless, such a reading misses the fact that God’s
statement that creation was “very good” follows God’s instructions
for human and animal nourishment (1:29–30), instructions which
underline God’s intention that the earthly biome that is presided over
by godlike humans be a space free from all violence. Its ancient
authors were well aware of the potential for conflict between humans
and the animal world (e.g., in the choice of the verb ‫ רדה‬for human
rule, 1:26, 28). Still, they developed Gen 1 as an ideal picture of
God’s original intent for a totally harmonious ecosystem. This ideal
picture retains enduring significance as a contrast to the
contemporary reality of an earthly biome corrupted by violence (cf.
Gen 6:12). Later texts in P recognize divine concessions to this
violent world (e.g., Gen 9:2–6; Lev 17). Still, P begins its account
with how God really wanted the earth to be. Genesis 1 is the
statement of that ideal.
Genesis 1, read in this broader context of P, stands as a useful
contrast to romantic notions that humans should see themselves as
equal partners to other members of our ecosystem. As long as
humans continue to use technology and live in community, a reality
already symbolized by the implicit presupposition of seed-farming in
Gen 1:29–30, there is no going back to a time when humans are
non-dominant participants in the ecosystem. The choice, rather, is
what sort of dominant role humans end up playing. To pretend that
any human can act as just another member of the ecosystem is
much like someone raised in and accustomed to privilege (gender,
wealth, class, race, etc.) joining a group of people less privileged and
presuming that they are exactly similar political actors. Once power
is gained, even its renunciation is an unavoidable exercise of power,
and the renounced power is easily reclaimed.
 Written millenia ago, Gen 1 provides a remarkably prescient
picture of humans as bearing the responsibility that comes with
unequal power over the earthly biome. Moreover, Gen 1 articulates
God’s intention that such power be exercised peaceably.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that, aside from this implication
of a peaceful ideal in Gen 1:29–30, the concept of rule in Gen 1 itself
lacks a specification of ethical requirements for legitimate human
rule over and relating to animals and the rest of the human biome. In
particular, there seems a conflict between the ideal of peace with the
animal world in 1:29–30 and the blessing enabling humans to
multiply very much in Gen 1:28 (also 9:1, 7). The problems with this
blessing in Gen 1:28 are, to be sure, related to the original context of
this text. The authors of Gen 1 (and 9) lived in a world that had far
fewer people than today, and these authors were concerned about
the threats of wild animals to human life rather than any threat of
human overpopulation.135 Yet however much one may gain insight
into the ancient background of the Priestly depiction human rule and
multiplication, it also is important to recognize potentially damaging
ways that this depiction can be reread within the present context of
environmental crisis.
Postmodern approaches These considerations lead to some
ways that a careful historical reading of Gen 1 can be related to a
variety of postmodern, resistant readings of the text. Though some
early feminist readings of Gen 1 found in it a theologically evocative
depiction of females bearing the divine image alongside males,
some more recent feminist approaches (e.g., Claasens) have
analyzed and critiqued the way Gen 1 celebrates the organization of
the cosmos into a series of binary dualisms.136 Recent posthumanist
approaches have particularly questioned the human-animal
dichotomy developed in Gen 1, even as they have noted ways that
parts of Gen 1 celebrate the intrinsic worth of non-human beings and
depict God’s concern for them.137 So also, Deryn Guest’s
transgender interpretation of Gen 1 argues against interpretive
collusion with the text’s unquestioned celebration of gender and
other forms of order, advocating instead a resistant reading of Gen 1
that highlights and finds the divine in elements like the primeval
ocean (138.(‫ תהום‬In each case, these resistant postmodern readings
draw on and benefit from historical analysis of elements in Gen 1,
even as they critique any claim by such a reading to provide a
definitive account of the meaning and significance of the text.
Universal aspects of the Sabbath Finally, this exegesis should
not overlook the implicit emphasis across Gen 1:1–2:3 on
anticipating the Sabbath. Christian ambivalence toward the Sabbath
has contributed to a tendency among non-Jewish interpreters to read
the Bible’s first creation account if it ended with the creation of
humans. Indeed, this tendency was enshrined in the chapter-
structure of Genesis when thirteenth-century Christian theologians
introduced the present chapter division, placing the first six days of
creation into chapter one (Gen 1:1–31) while relegating God’s
blessing and sanctification of the seventh day to the outset of
chapter two (Gen 2:1–3).139 This chapter division obscured the way
Gen 1:1–2:3 as a whole emphasizes the idea that a seven-day,
Sabbath-oriented time system is built into the very structure of
creation (see also Exod 16:4–5, 22–30). Moreover, even though
subsequent biblical texts treat this creation-founded Sabbath as a
practice exclusive to Israel (e.g., Gen 20:8–11; 31:12–17), the Gen 1
description of all humans as God’s representatives on earth (Gen
1:26–27) suggests that God’s cessation of work in Gen 2:2–3 may
have implications for all humans. Overall, having such a prominent
Sabbath emphasis in the Bible’s programmatic introduction provides
a biblical foundation to readings, such as that of Abraham Heschel,
of the relevance and significance of the biblical Sabbath to humanity
as a whole.140
Genesis 2:4–3:24: The Origins of
Adult Human Life in the Garden of
Eden

2:4 These are the generationsa of the heavens and the earth when
they were created:
Whenb God Y c made earth and heaven, 5 no shrub of the field
was yet on the earth, and no vegetation of the field was yet sprouting
up because God Y had not [yet] caused it to rain on the earth
and there was no human to work the ground;a 6 but at that timea a
water flow welled upb from the earth and watered the whole surface
of the ground, 7 then God Y formed the human out of dust from
the ground and breathed into hisb nostrils a breath of life so thatc
a
the human became a living being. 8 God Y planted a garden in
Eden, in the east,a and set there the human whom he had formed. 9
God Y caused to sprout from the ground every kind of tree
pleasant in appearance and good for food, with the tree of life and
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the midst of the
garden.a
Aside on Audience World 10 A river flows out from Eden to water
the garden, and from there it progressively dividesa and becomes
four river headwaters. 11 The name of the first is “Pishon.” It is the
one that flows around the whole land of Havilah where gold is
located. 12 The gold of that land is good. Bdelliuma and carnelian
stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is
the one that flows around the whole land of Cush. 14 The name of
the third river is the Tigris. It is the one that flows east of Ashur.
The fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 God Y took the human and placeda him in the garden of
Eden to work and guard it.b 16 And God Y commanded the
human, “From every tree of the garden you may certainly eat. 17 But
from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you may never eat,a for
whenb you eat from it, you will certainly die.”c 18 And God Y
said, “It is not good for the human to be alone. I will make for him a
helper corresponding to him.” 19 And God Y formed from the
ground every animal of the field and every bird of the sky and
brought [each one] to the human to see what he would call it.
Whatever the human called it, as a living being,a that would be its
name. 20 And the human nameda every domesticated animal, the
birds of the sky, and every wild animal of the field, but for the humanb
no helper corresponding to him was found.c 21 And God Y
caused a deep sleep to fall on the human, and he slept. And he
[God] took one of his ribsa and closed up the flesh behind it. 22 And
God Y built the rib which he had taken from the human into a
woman. He brought her to the human, 23 and the human said,

This one,a at last,b is bone from my bones

and flesh from my flesh
This one will be called ‘woman’
because from man this one was taken
Aside on Audience World 24 Therefore a man abandons his
father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become
one flesh.
25 And the two of them were naked, the human and his woman, and
they were not ashamed before each other.a

3:1 Now, the snakea was more clever/more nakedb than all of the
animals of the field whom God Y had made. And he said to the
woman, “Did God really say, “You may not eat from any treed in the
c
garden?” 2 The woman said to the snake, “From the fruit of the trees
of the garden we may eat, 3 but from the tree which is in the midst of
the garden, God said ‘You shall not eat from it, nor touch it, lest you
die.’” 4 The snake then said to the woman, “You shall not ‘certainly
die’a 5 but rathera God knows that when you eat from it your eyes
will be opened and you will become like godsb, knowing good and
evil.” 6 And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it
was a delight for the eyes, anda desirable for making [one] wise.b
She took from its fruit and ate. She also gave to her man with her,
and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of the two of them were opened, and
they knew that they were naked; and they stitched together fig
leaves and made themselves loincloths.
8 They heard the sound of God Y walking around in the evening
breeze,a and the human and his woman hid themselves from God
Y in the midst of the trees of the garden. 9 God Y called to
the human and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 He said, “I heard
the sound of you in the garden and I was afraid because I was
naked, and I hid myself.” 11 He said, “Who told you that you are
naked? Did you eat from the tree of which I commanded you not to
eat?” 12 The human said, “The woman whom you gave to be with
me, she is the one whoa gave to me from the tree and I ate.” 13 And
God Y said to the woman, “What have you donea?!” The woman
said, “It was the snake thata deceived me and I ate.” 14 God Y
said to the snake,

“Because you have done this,

you are more cursed than all the domesticated animals
and all the wild animals.
On your belly you shall go,
and you shall eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 Enmity will I seta
between you and the woman,
and between your seed and her seed.
He [her seed] will strike you on the head,
and you will strike him on the heel.”

16 To the woman he said,

“I will greatly multiply

your toilsome pregnanciesa
With effort shall you bear children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”
17 To the humana he said,
“Because you listened to the voice of your wife and ate from the tree
about which I commanded you, saying ‘You may never eat from it,’

The ground is cursed on your account.

With toil shall you eat ita
all of the days of your life.
18 Thorns and thistles are what it shall sprout for you,
and you shall eat plants of the field.
19 With sweat on your face
you shall eat bread
until you return to the ground.
For from it you were taken.
Indeed,a you are dust,
and to dust you will return.”

20 The human then named his wife ‘Eve’ [Ḥawwah] for she was the
mother of everyone that livesa [Ḥay]. 21 God Y made skin tunics
for the humana and his wife and dressed them. 22 God Y then
said, “See, the human has become like one of us, knowing good and
evil. Now then, lest he stretch out his hand and takea from the tree of
life and eat and live forever…”b 23 And God Y sent him from the
garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He
expelled the human, and east of the garden of Eden he placed the
cherubima and the flame of a revolving sword to guard the way to the
tree of life.
Notes on Text and Translation
2:4a The Hebrew expression here, ‫“( תולדות‬generations”), is formed from the root
‫“( ילד‬bear children”) and appears across the rest of Genesis, generally
referring to the offspring of the figures that it is in construct with. Usually it
refers specifically to genealogies of the “descendants” of certain human
figures (e.g., Gen 5:1; 11:10; 25:12; 36:1), but it is also used to introduce
narratives about the offspring of given figures (e.g., Gen 11:27; 25:19; 37:2).1
The occurrence of ‫ תלדות‬in 2:4a functions in this latter way vis-à-vis stories of
the first humans in Gen 2:4b–4:26, now considering them more generally as
among the generations produced out of the “heaven and earth” that were
featured in the preceding creation account (Gen 1:1; 2:1).
4b The Hebrew expression ‫ ביום‬literally means “on the day of,” but often can more
generally mean “when” and that seems to be its meaning here.2
4c This part of the verse features the first instance in the story of a somewhat
awkward Hebrew designation, ‫יהוה אלהים‬, that stresses the divine identity of
Y . This stress is rendered throughout in this translation with a similarly
awkward English expression “God Y ” on an analogy with “the prophet
Isaiah” (e.g., Isa 37:2; 38:1) or “King David” (e.g., 1 Chr 21:23; 24:31). See the
commentary below for further discussion of the background for this emphasis,
specifically in the Eden story, on Y ’s divinity.
5a The word used for “ground” here in 2:5, ‫אדמה‬, is not just earth in general, but
arable soil capable of being farmed.
6a The expression here “at that time” is meant to render the long (prefix) form of
the verb used here (‫ )יעלה‬to indicate the simultaneity of the water flow in 2:6
with the pre-creation lacks noted in 2:5, especially the lack of rain. See the
following note (6b).
6b The prefix form ‫ יעלה‬here indicates punctual, rather than durative action. See
the preceding note. The expression “welled up” is taken from Alter, Books of
Moses, 13.
7a Joüon 125v suggests that this clause is an example of the use of double
accusative to transform a nominal expression (‫“ כי עפר אתה‬for dust are you”
3:19) into a verbal expression, ‫“ וייצר יהוה אלהים את־האדם עפר‬and God Y
formed the human out of dust.”
7b See the commentary below on 2:7 for discussion of the text’s implication that
the figure described here and elsewhere in Gen 2–3 as ‫“ האדם‬the human” is
meant to be understood to be male.
7c With the preposition ‫ ל‬here indicating purpose.3
8a Cf. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 261–70 who critiques the frequent locative
translation of ‫ מקדם‬and argues for a temporal understanding in this locus (see
already Targum Onkelos). Nevertheless, elsewhere in the narrative ‫קדם‬
appears in relation to other places, such as 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.
9a Though earlier scholars often saw the placement of ‫ בתוך הגן‬between the tree of
life and tree of knowledge as implying that this phrase modified just the
preceding tree of life, Michel’s work on the “split coordination” in biblical
Hebrew showed that this placement of the preposition is appropriate to modify
both trees, with the longer modified element (the tree of knowledge of good
and evil) placed second.4
10a Though many understand this verse as referring to origination of the four
rivers from one point (often depending on some Mesopotamian reliefs
depicting four rivers in this way, below, note 69), the use of the long
(unconverted prefix) form of the verb for “divide, separate” (‫ )יפרד‬expresses
durative action (on this here, see Jouon-Muraoka 119k), thus indicating an
idea that the river separates repeatedly, at multiple points, into the four world
rivers mentioned here.
12a Bdellium is a sweet resin from southern Arabia. Num 11:7 compares manna to
Bdellium.
15a The Masoretes point this instance of the hiphil of ‫ נוח‬with a dagesh in the nun
as the Hiphil II of the verb. As indicated, e.g., in Gesenius18 (p. 793), this form
of the verb means “set, place” rather than “cause to rest,” and this sense well
fits the context where the text goes on to say that the human was not put
there to rest, but “to work and guard” the garden.
15b Though the ‫ה‬- object suffixes on ‫“( עבד‬work”) and ‫“( שמר‬guard”) are pointed as
feminine suffixes (consistent with later Hebrew orthography), they have no
nearby feminine referent. Instead, the ‫ה‬- here probably is an archaic rendering
of the masculine suffix (referring to the masculine ‫“ גן‬garden” earlier in the
clause), a possible linguistic mark of the relatively old age of this text.5
17a The absolute expression “you may never eat” aims to render the prohibitive
here (negative particle plus prefix form), a Hebrew grammatical expression
that expresses a timeless prohibition as opposed to a time-specific instruction
(e.g., do not shut that door right now).6
17b As in Gen 2:4b, the expression ‫ ביום‬here does not refer specifically to a “day”
when something will happen, but more generally to “when.” See the note at
that locus.
17c ‫ מות תמות‬is an example of the infinitive absolute, a form that stresses the
certainty of the outcome. As will be discussed in the commentary below, we
do not have here a variant of the form ‫“( מות יומת‬he will certainly be put to
death”) that is specifically used in death penalty law (e.g., Gen 26:11; Exod
19:12; Lev 20:2, 9, etc.).
19a The translation of the phrase ‫ נפש חיה‬in 2:19b is extremely difficult.7 This
rendering allows that it could modify either the human or the living beings that
he is naming.
20a The Hebrew idiom here and nearby instances (e.g., Gen 3:20; 4:25–26; 5:3) is
literally “call the name.”
20b This is the first of several instances where the Masoretic text vocalizes
“human” without a definite article (cf. 2:7, 8), seemingly understanding ‫אדם‬
here as a proper name, “Adam,” as in Gen 4:25 and 5:1, 3. Nevertheless, this
and other similar instances in the MT of ‫ אדם‬pointed as a proper name (3:17,
21) are likely harmonizations with this usage later on in 4:25; 5:1.
20c This is a rendering of an elliptical passive formulated with the 3 m.s. form of
the verb, ‫( לא מצא עזר כנגדו‬see GKC 144de). Alternatively, the man, who is the
subject of the preceding verbs in 2:19b–20a, could be the subject here,
though this latter solution does not conform as well with ‫ לאדם‬at the outset of
the clause in 2:20.8 God is unlikely to be meant as the subject here because
God was last a subject of a clause in 2:19a, and no change of subject has
been indicated.9
21a The term ‫ צלע‬used here usually refers to a part of building or building materials
(e.g., Exod 25:12, 14; 26:20, 26–27; 1 Kgs 6:5, 8; 7:3. Its use to refer to a
human rib is unique here in the Hebrew Bible, but this meaning is assured by
the use of cognates of ‫ צלע‬to refer to “rib” in other Semitic languages. The
isolation of this usage in Gen 2:21–22 speaks only to the lack of discourse
about ribs elsewhere in the Bible.10
23a ‫“( זאת‬this one”) here, as in the next two occurrences in 2:23b, refers to the
woman. It is the first part of a nominal sentence which is completed by the
following phrases describing “this one” as related to the (hu)man. This
contrasts with some interpretations (e.g., Targum, Saadiah Gaon, Ramban,
and many modern commentators), which take this first ‫ זאת‬as referring to the
“time” which follows it, an interpretation which leaves less clear how the
following phrases of relatedness (“bone from my bones, flesh from my flesh”)
function.
23b With HALOT (“‫( פעם‬897 ”,‫ הפעם‬functions adverbially here (“the time” meaning
“this time, at last”) to indicate that the (about to be noted) correspondence
between the woman and man is climactic. The previous times God had
 “brought” a being to the human, that being had not “corresponded” to him
(1:20b).
25a The hithpolel verb form here (‫ֹשׁשׁוּ‬
ָ ‫ )י ְִתבּ‬is a reflexive form emphasizing shame
in the presence of another.11 As will be discussed further below, this
corresponds with a broader focus in the verse on the fact that the human and
his woman are both naked and not ashamed in each other’s presence.
3:1a Building on an ancient tradition that the ‫“( נחש‬snake”) featured here and
elsewhere in the story (Gen 3:1–5, 13–15) was some kind of supernatural
being, especially Satan (see Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 99–100), there is a
longstanding tradition of speaking of him as a “serpent.” The story’s etiological
treatment of this figure (Gen 3:14–15), however, depends on an assumed
equivalence between him (in a post-garden, transformed state) and later
snakes in the audience’s world.
1b As will be discussed in more length in the commentary below, the alternatives
given here are meant to convey a possible wordplay (especially in the original
consonantal text) between (“naked”; a by-form of the more usual ‫ ﬠֵ ירֹם‬that is
used in 3:7 more distant from this wordplay) in 2:25 and ‫“( ﬠָ רוּם‬clever”) in 3:1.
Cf. “nackte Klügheit” (“naked cleverness”) in Willi-Plein, “Sprache als
Schlüssel,” 6 and “Die Schlange hatte weniger an, aber mehr darauf als alle
anderen Tiere des Feldes” (“the snake had less on, but was more on top of
things than all the other animals of the field”) in Frank Crüsemann, “Das
Thema Scham,” 75. One problem, however, for such renderings is that the
sense of the superlative is somewhat less clear for “naked” in this case (the
snake is more naked than all other animals?) than it is for the snake’s
cleverness in this story since he does seem quite crafty (and also speaks).
1c There is some debate about whether the snake’s speech here is meant to be
understood as a question. It is not introduced by the typical interrogative, but
instead by the expression ‫ אף־כי‬that is sometimes used to exclaim over the
following statement (e.g., 1 Sam 21:6 [ET 21:5]; 2 Sam 16:11). Alternatively,
there is a Jewish exegetical tradition that understands the text here to just
quote the end of a longer speech of the snake, and some recent
commentators (e.g., Speiser, Genesis, 23; Frank Crüsemann, “Das Thema
Scham,” 63–64) have similarly understood the snake’s first speech as a
statement (perhaps interrupted by the woman contradicting him in 3:2). This
approach, however, requires several assumptions about partially quoted
speech and/or interruption (by the woman in 3:2). It seems more simple to
make the smaller assumption that 3:1b is a question that is understood as
such from context and the exclamatory ‫אף־כי‬.
1d The Hebrew here may be multivalent. See the following commentary on 3:1b
for discussion of alternative understandings of the snake’s question.
4a As Jacob, Genesis, 105 (and others) point out, the unusual placement of the
negative particle before an infinitive absolute-verb construction (otherwise
seen in Amos 9:8; Ps 49:8 [49:7 ET]) rather than between the infinitive
absolute and the verb, suggests that the snake character here is depicted as
negating the whole quoted expression from God.
5a For the sense of ‫ כי‬as “but rather” see DCH 4:387 (no. 8). This sense fits the
context.
5b Though the term used here, ‫אלהים‬, could be understood as singular, it is paired
in this case with a plural participle, in contrast to the singular participle of the
same verb used with the same subject at the outset of the verse (‫)כי ידע אלהים‬.
This contrast suggests that this latter part of the verse intends to refer to
human similarity to knowledge among a plurality of divine beings. That sense
is confirmed later in Gen 3:22, where we see God Y apparently refer
more broadly to a group of divine beings that humans have become similar to
(‫“ כאחד ממנו‬like one of us”) by eating the selfsame fruit described here as
providing special godlike knowledge.12
6a The MT and SP have an additional mention here of “the tree” ‫העץ‬. This element
deviates from the pronoun in the preceding nominal clause (‫)תאוה הוא לעינים‬
and probably is a harmonization to the nominal formulations (‫העץ‬, ‫ )הוא‬in the
preceding descriptive phrases for the tree. It is not reflected in the LXX and
Vulgate.13
6b See the commentary on Gen 3:6 below, including note 133, for discussion of
the proposal by Isaac Leo Seeligmann and others to read ‫ להשכיל‬here as a
verb of perception rather than of causing one to become wise.
8a The significance of the expression ‫( לרוח היום‬rendered here as “in the evening
breeze”) is unclear. See Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 346 [ET 254] for brief
discussion and citation of earlier treatments, but cf. objections to the rendering
adopted here in Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 153.
12a This awkward English sentence renders a causus pendens in Hebrew that
starts with the fuller description of the woman “the woman whom you gave to
be with me” and then starts the clause with a pronominal reference (‫“ היא‬she”)
that connects back to that causus pendens. This rendering reflects the
particular emphasis in the Hebrew sentence on where the woman came from.
13a See GKC 136c and 148b along with Gesenius18 on the use of ‫ זאת‬to
emphasize the strength of an interrogative.
13b “It was the snake that” aims to reflect the emphasis on ‫ הנחש‬by its placement
in front extra position at the outset of the clause.
15a Again, ‫“( איבה‬hatred”) is in front extra position, as in 3:12 (‫‘ האשה‬the woman’)
and 3:13 (‫‘ הנחש‬the snake’) and thus receives extra emphasis in the
translation adopted here from Alter, Books of Moses, 17.
16a The word rendered here, ‫עצבון‬, refers to “toil” in the immediately following
verse (3:17) and other biblical loci, but is often mistranslated in other
translations at this particular locus as pain. As argued by Carol Meyers and
others, the verse here is referring to the woman’s future toil, not specifically
pain.14 There is some debate about whether the toil here is the woman’s
significant responsibilities in the ancient Israelite household economy (so
Meyers) or more exclusively her reproductive labor. The commentary below
finds more evidence for the latter option. Therefore, I follow Gesenius18 999 in
understanding ‫ עצבונך והרנך‬as a hendiadys “your toilsome pregnancies.”
17a See note on 2:20 (20b above) regarding this as “the human” and not the
proper name, “Adam.”
17b Often translated “eat from it,” this formulation does not feature the sort of
prepositional phrase with ‫“( מן‬from”) that appears earlier in the verse with the
verb for “eat” (3:17 ,‫ותאכל מן־העץ‬a) and often elsewhere in the story (2:17; 3:3,
5, 11, 22). Instead, as pointed out in Jacob, Genesis, 120, the expression here
—literally “you will eat it [the ground] all the days of your life”—parallels the
earlier pronouncement that the snake will eat dust (‫ )עפר‬all the days of its life
(3:14bβ). As becomes clear in the next verse (3:18), this does not mean
eating ground per se, but vegetation from it.
19a This translates a second ‫ כי‬which could also repeat the “for” of the preceding
verse. The conjunction can emphasize the idea, and that is the approach that
is taken here.
20a Though one might follow Gesenius18 (p. 342) and others in understanding ‫כל‬
as a substantive in construct with the noun ‫חי‬, that designates living beings in
general, this rendering takes ‫ כל‬as an adjective modifying ‫ חי‬as a masculine
singular adjective, functioning as an undetermined substantive (living being).
In some contexts it seems to refer specifically to human beings (e.g., Job
30:23 and, especially, Ps 143:2), while in others it refers more generally to all
living beings (e.g., Gen 8:21; Job 12:10; 28:21; Ps 145:16; Sir 40:1).15 The
formulation “everyone that lives” aims at preserving some of that ambiguity,
even as the context would suggest a primary focus here on human offspring.
21a See the note on 2:20 (20b above) regarding this as “the human” and not the
proper name, “Adam.”
22a The Septuagint lacks a Greek equivalent to the ‫“( גם‬also”) standing here in the
Masoretic and other Hebrew witnesses, as do the (quite differently formulated)
Targumic witnesses. Building on some other loci where the Septuagint lacks
an equivalent to ‫“( גם‬also”) in Hebrew witnesses (e.g., Gen 6:4; 14:7), Prestel
and Schorch, “Genesis,” 162 suggest that the Septuagint (and Targum)
merely leave a ‫ גם‬in their Vorlage untranslated. The translation given here,
however, understands the ‫ גם‬of the Hebrew witnesses to be a rare MT/SP
 harmonizing plus, added in this case to coordinate God’s speech here with
Gen 3:6, although the woman, not the man, actually picks the fruit there.
22b Gesenius18 (p. 1048) takes this abbreviated ‫“( פן‬lest”) clause as an
abbreviation typical of expression of worry or concern, but the other examples
listed usually feature an abbreviated ‫ פן‬clause after the action explained by
the worry (Gen 19:19; 26:7; 31:31; 38:11; 42:4; Exod 13:17; Num 16:34;
1 Sam 13:19; 27:11), not before it as here in 3:22–23. Thus, with GKC 152w
and Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 85, we probably can understand God’s speech
here to be an incomplete sentence expressing particular urgency.
24a Within the ancient world, ‫( כרובים‬cherubim) are mixed-form, winged creatures,
often combining the form of a lion or bull with wings and a human head. Aside
from their semi-human character and winged form, it is unclear precisely what
form is presupposed here and elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., Ezek 28:14, 16).
Diachronic Prologue

Genesis 2:4a as a Conflational Superscription

The unit covered here, Gen 2:4b–3:24 represents a superscription
(Gen 2:4a) and first major narrative complex (Gen 2:4b–3:24) of a
section focused on the “generations of heaven and earth when they
were created.” Though there has been a recent trend to read Gen
2:4 as a whole as a superscription, it features an overall doubling
(2:4a/2:4b) that is unusual for a biblical superscription, and the verse
features a move from determined heaven and earth in 2:4a to
undetermined heaven and earth in 2:4b that would be unusual in a
single textual unit.16 In addition, if Gen 2:4 as a whole were a
superscription, the text that it would introduce happens to begin with
a conjunction, ‫“( וכל שיח‬and all the shrubs…” (Gen 2:5).17 Most
biblical superscriptions, including all such superscriptions in Genesis
(5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 37:2), are followed asyndetically (by a clause without
a conjunction). These indicators suggest that 2:4a is the actual
superscription within the present form of the text, while 2:4b, the
asyndetic follow-up to 2:4a, is the beginning of the material
introduced by that superscription.
To be sure, the superscription in 2:4a is bound to the material it
introduces in 2:4b by inverse parallels (after its introduction ‫אלה‬
‫ )תולדות‬in 2:4a:

In this way, the superscription in Gen 2:4a connects to the beginning

of the narrative in 2:4b with an abc c’b’a’ pattern. This makes 2:4a
introduce the following narrative in Gen 2–3, rather than functioning
as a subscription summarizing Gen 1:1–2:3.18
We see a system of similar Priestly ‫“( ת]ו[תולד‬descendants”)
superscriptions introducing the other major sections of the book of
Genesis (Gen 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, etc.), and this one seems to
serve an analogous function. Those other superscriptions frame the
sections that follow them as focusing on the “descendants” (‫ )תולדת‬of
a given figure, starting with Adam in Gen 5:1, and then continuing
with the descendants of Noah (Gen 6:9), Noah’s sons (Gen 10:1),
and so on. The reference back to “heaven and earth when they were
created” helps Gen 2:4a connect what went before (Gen 1:1–2:3) to
what follows (2:4bff.). More specifically, Gen 2:4a frames the
following narratives about the first humans as about something like
the “generations” (‫ תולדות‬understood more broadly) of the “heaven
and earth” that were so prominently featured in Gen 1:1–2:3.19
At the same time, the fact that one must adapt the translation of
‫ תולדות‬in 2:4a away from its typical, more straightforward designation
of the descendants of a human figure is an important indicator that
Gen 2:4a is not itself part of the Priestly system of ‫תולדות‬
superscriptions. Instead, Gen 2:4a is a post-Priestly superscription
that extends that system backward in order to pose the non-Priestly
materials of Gen 2:4bff. as a continuation of the Priestly creation
account in Gen 1:1–2:3. The author of Gen 2:4a did this by
presenting the following story about the first humans, created from
“the ground” and animated by divine breath (Gen 2:7), as somehow
constituting the “descendants”—broadly construed (e.g.,
“generations”) of God’s seven-day creation of the cosmos in Gen
1:1–2:3. The resulting implication that“heaven and earth” functioned
as ancestor-like figures to the first plants, animals, and humans is a
linguistic turn that recognizes the role attributed to earth in bringing
forth life (Gen 1:11–12, 24; also Gen 2:7, 19) while also insisting on
the idea that these two entities are themselves created (‫;בהבראם‬
“when they were created”).20

Genesis 2:4b–3:24 (Gen 2–3) as a Pre-Priestly

Creation Narrative
Turning to Gen 2:4b–3:24 itself, the most important diachronic
observation is the long-recognized fact that it originates from a
different author than the preceding creation account in Gen 1:1–2:3.
This observation remains one of the oldest and most secure
conclusions of historical-critical analysis of the Bible.21 As was
discussed in the preceding commentary on Gen 1:1–2:3, the two
texts offer different overall understandings of the sequence of earthly
creation: plants > animals > male and female humans in Gen 1
versus male human > garden (plants) > animals > female human in
Gen 2. In addition, a non-harmonizing reading of both sections
reveals profoundly different designs, aims and conceptualities in Gen
1:1–2:3 and 2:4b–3:24. Finally, they are both complete accounts.
There is no evidence that one was created as an expansion of the
other.22 Instead, as was discussed in the preceding commentary
section, Gen 1:1–2:3 appears to have been composed to stand
separate from its likely precursor in Gen 2:4b–3:24, even as it also
shows some signs of having been composed in relation to the Eden
story, responding to some parts of it.23 Now, with the two texts
combined into a single narrative, they are only minimally and, at
most, inconsistently coordinated with each other, as in, for example,
the possibly secondary insertion of the grammatically-difficult phrase
“living being” (‫ )נפש חיה‬into Gen 2:20.
Arguments for the Datings of Gen 2–3 after P and/or Ezekiel
The reading above thus diverges from a recent trend toward viewing Gen 2–3
as a post-Priestly extension of Gen 1. This theory started with arguments about
identifying expressions in Gen 2–3 as Deuteronomistic or late, many of which
have since been critiqued.24 In addition, subsequent responses to this
hypothesis have pointed out the striking lack of any reflection of or engagement
with central elements of Gen 1 in Gen 2–3, such as the theologically-charged
use of ‫ ברא‬to describe creation or creation by divine word.25 Though many
elements of Gen 2–3 appear to diverge in order and concept from the
presentation in Gen 1 without a clear theological or ideological rationale, some
scholars have presented readings of the Eden story as an extension and
response to Gen 1.26 Such readings often force interpretations onto Gen 2–3—
e.g., the idea that Gen 2–3 was originally meant to elaborate Gen 1:26–27 by
describing the making of humans as god statues—for which the text is not well
 suited. Nevertheless, they have the potential virtue of enhancing a reading of
the present, P/non-P text on multiple levels.27
These readings of Gen 2–3 as post-Priestly have been reinforced by recent
treatments of the story as dependent on oracles against Tyre and Egypt in
Ezek 28 and 31 or on a common garden of God myth standing behind both
texts.28 The following commentary will argue that a number of elements in
common between Gen 2–3 and Ezekiel are integrally connected to each other
and at home in the Gen 2–3 Eden narrative, while they appear relatively
unconnected to each other in diverse parts of the Ezekiel oracles—e.g., a
“garden of God” specifically designated as luxuriant (“Eden”; Ezek 28:13a), a
beautiful tree in the midst of that garden (Ezek 31:3–9), and God’s concern
about a human figure becoming too godlike (Ezek 28:2, 6). The most plausible
interpretation of the partial and unconnected appearance of such motifs in Ezek
28 and 31 is that these shared motifs in Ezekiel stand as reappropriations of
elements from the Genesis non-P cosmological narrative, selected and
repurposed for the purpose of condemning foreign figures.29

Non-Biblical (Mesopotamian) Precursors to Gen

2–3
Before engaging in a synchronic exploration of features in Gen 2:4b–
3:24, it is important to review some features of its diachronic
background in the ancient Near Eastern literary world in which many
such features took shape and make sense. In
particular,Mesopotamian cosmogonic traditions appear to stand in
the background of much of Gen 2–3, virtually all of which are
embedded in longer compositions about the origins of
Mesopotamian city-temple civilization (e.g., the Atrahasis Epic, Eridu
Genesis, Ashur Bilingual Creation Story, Bilingual Creation of the
World by Marduk, Myth of the King’s Creation) or the great
accomplishments of royal heros (e.g., Gilgamesh) or supreme gods
(e.g., the Enuma Elish epic). Humans Created as Laborers for the
Gods As discussed in the introduction to this commentary, a
particular longstanding Sumero-Akkadian tradition depicts humanity
as created to provide laborers to 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., Atrahasis epic,
Enuma Elish epic, Ashur Bilingual Creation Story) the primeval
humans of these Mesopotamian cosmogonies are destined, from the
outset, for the backbreaking canal- and farming work that so irked
the lower gods previously. These elements form an important context
and contrast point for Gen 2–3’s depiction of “the human” created
out of earth and divine breath by Y for the privilege of working
and guarding Y ’s luxuriant garden orchard (Gen 2:15).
Mortality Meanwhile, some other parts of the Mesopotamian
literary tradition feature another particularly important theme that
occurs in Gen 2–3 and other parts of the non-P primeval history:
questions surrounding the mortal destiny of humans. In both the
Gilgamesh and Adapa epics mortality is the crucial feature
distinguishing wise human heroes (Gilgamesh and Adapa) from the
gods.30 Moreover, a food—whether divine food for Adapa (MB
Adapa B1 75–78) or the plant of rejuvenation for Gilgamesh (SB Gilg.
11:279–285)—is a means for countering mortality, and a snake plays
a role in offering (Adapa epic) or stealing (SB Gilg. 11:303–307) that
food from the wise human. Yet these motifs are not limited to the
Adapa or Gilgamesh epics. We have oblique reflections of similar
ideas elsewhere in Mesopotamia and its sphere of influence, such as
Aqhat’s refusal of Anat’s offer of immortality out of belief that
immortality is reserved for the gods (Aqhat Epic [KTU 1.17] VI:26–
38),31 and a number of Bronze and Iron Age Levantine Wisdom texts
include a general stress on humanity’s irrevocable mortality.32
The process of civilization Finally, several Mesopotamian
literary texts display a focus on the gradual civilization of initially
animal-like uncivilized humans, a focus that partially resembles the
transition of the Gen 2–3 couple in Gen 2–3 from childlike lack of
shame (Gen 2:25) to the wisdom and hardships of self-conscious,
adult humans (3:6–21).33 We see this first in some Sumerian texts,
Debate between Grain and Sheep and a prologue to the Rulers of
Lagash text, which describe how humans began as uncivilized
animal-like beings before they put on clothes and/or learned other
aspects of civilization (farming, houses).34 These anthropogonic
elements then appear in microcosm toward the outset of the
Gilgamesh epic, which describes the creation of a companion for
Gilgamesh, Enkidu. This starts when the goddess Aruru fashions
Enkidu out of clay, following much the same procedure seen in
above-described creation of humans out of a mix of clay and the
blood of a god (SB Gilg. 1:101–104). But this initial Enkidu is animal-
and child-like, running naked with the animals (SB Gilg. 1:105–112).
It is only when Gilgamesh hears of him and sends a prostitute,
Šamḫat, to have sex with Enkidu that he takes the next steps toward
full (adult) human status. After six days and nights of sex he loses
his community with animals, puts on clothes, drinks beer, and
anoints himself (OB Gilg. [Penn] II.2.44–115; cf. SB Gilg. 1:207). In
this way Enkidu’s journey toward fully human status parallels that of
the first human couple who gain godlike wisdom after eating
forbidden fruit and then put on clothes (Gen 3:5–7, 21–22).
Though scholars diverge on their assessment of the significance
of such precursor texts, I maintain that these Mesopotamian
cosmogonic texts form part of a broader literary world in which
certain features of Gen 2–3 have a particular significance. These
include the formation of humans from a combination of earth and
divine breath, Y ’s initial intention to have the human care for the
garden, the broader human destiny to work the ground, and the
focus on human acquisition of divine wisdom and the loss of a
chance at immortality. A synchronic analysis of Gen 2–3 is enriched
through attention to the way it offers a particular take on these
themes, echoing and yet distinguishing itself from these pre-biblical
precursors.

Other Precursors to Gen 2–3

Yet Gen 2–3 does not just reflect non-biblical Mesopotamian
traditions. It likely also builds on earlier traditio-historical elements
that are well attested in Egypt and in Israel itself. For example, trees
had a particular significance in the semi-arid Ancient Near East, and
orchard-gardens of the kind envisioned in Eden were powerful
images of royal (or temple) privilege and abundance. Egypt and
Proverbs More specifically, we see correlates to the “tree of life” of
Gen 2–3 in Egypt, and then “a tree of life” (‫ )עץ חיים‬appears in the
description of female wisdom and other wisdom sayings in the book
of Proverbs (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; 15:4).35 The comparatively
archaic nature of this “tree of life” motif may explain why “the tree of
life” (‫ )עץ החיים‬is only explicitly mentioned around the margins of the
narrative (e.g., 2:9b; 3:22, 24), while the author’s creation of a “tree
of knowledge” now is the focus of the wisdom-centered Gen 2–3
narrative about the origins of mature male and female humans.
Theories of a “Tree of Life” or Other Kinds of Literary Layers
in Gen 2–3
Though past scholars have speculated on the existence of multiple literary
layers within Gen 2–3, this commentary understands Gen 2–3 to be a literary
unity, even as it manifests multiple signs of traditio-historical complexity. For
example, interpreters have long been inclined to identify mentions of “the tree
of life” (Gen 2:9b; 3:22, 24) as secondary, often along with some elements of
Gen 2–3 that feature a similar focus on human mortality, such the mention of
“dust” (‫ )עפר‬along with “ground” (‫ )האדמה‬in Gen 2:7 or the references to human
mortality in Gen 3:19.36 This theory runs into problems, however, as it
becomes clear that the theme of mortality/immortality is not limited to Gen 2:9b;
3:22, 24, but is also linked to core elements of the rest of the story that will be
discussed in more detail below, e.g., recurrence of the “dust” motif across other
key parts of the story (Gen 3:14, 19) and the centrality of the snake as a
character linked in the story to both the acquisition of wisdom and loss of a
chance at immortality (cf. SB Gilgamesh 11:303–307).
So also, a close reading of Gen 2–3 undermines other proposals regarding
stratification within it, such as various theories about the origins of Gen 2–3 in a
separate creation account. As we will see below, crucial details in the Gen 2
creation account prepare for and are integrally related to Gen 3, including the
initial description of how things were before creation (Gen 2:5), the placement
of the human in an idyllic garden representing an existence that contrasts with
that of the audience (Gen 2:8, 15), and the extended focus on the creation of
woman who will—among other things—help provide offspring to compensate
for unavoidable human mortality (Gen 2:18–24; see 3:16, 20). It is quite difficult
to reliably reconstruct an earlier creation story including such elements that did
not also include the development of such themes in Gen 2–3.37
The closest we have to a potential pre-existing tradition(s) embedded within
Gen 2–3 is the survey of world rivers in Gen 2:10–14, possibly along with the
fragment about the water flow in Gen 2:6. The following commentary will argue
that these elements are integrated into the narrative and serve a function in it:
explaining how the luxuriant Eden garden received its water. Nevertheless,
these elements, especially Gen 2:10–14, seem to have a certain pre-existing
integrity (whether as oral-written or exclusively oral traditions) that meant that
 they contrast with and somewhat interrupt the narrative built around them.38 It
seems difficult, however, to further determine the exact shape and character of
these traditions, aside from some kind of probable link (via the “Gihon” in 2:13)
of the 2:10–14 fragment to Jerusalemite circles.
Oral Tradition about Kenites One final likely precursor to Gen 2–3
is an earlier oral tradition about Kenites standing behind the Cain-
Lamech section in Gen 4:1–24. As we will see in more detail in the
commentary there, Gen 4 parallels and connects to Gen 2–3 in
numerous ways. Some such parallels (e.g., in Gen 4:1–2, 6–7, 25)
almost certainly point to the formulation of Gen 4 in relation to the
Eden story. Nevertheless, some other parallel elements seem
relatively isolated in the Eden story. For example, both stories focus
on God’s outraged response to human transgression (Gen 3:6; 4:8).
Nevertheless, God’s indignation in responding to Cain’s murder of
Abel in Gen 4:9–12 seems more obviously understandable than
God’s prohibition of and negative response to human consumption of
the fruit of knowledge in Gen 2:17; 3:17–19, 23–24. Also, the motif of
God’s post-punishment provision for Cain (4:15) seems part of the
broader focus of the Cain-Abel story on providing background to the
Kenites’ special status, and this divine provision arises as a specific
response to Cain’s protest (4:13–14). In contrast, the humans do not
request for God to cloth them (3:21), and so this parallel to Gen 4:15
in Gen 2–3 appears more isolated in its context. Perhaps this motif
of divine clothing of humans in Gen 3:21 represents some kind of
adaptation of a corresponding motif in the precursor tradition to Gen
4:13–15. Overall recognition of the background of Gen 2–3 on the
tradition behind Gen 4 may explain such aspects of Gen 2–3 as
undeveloped “blind motifs” that had their original home in the
tradition reflected more clearly in Gen 4.
With this prelude, let us turn now to a reading of Gen 2:4b–3:24
itself.
Synchronic Analysis

Overview
As will be argued below, Gen 2:4b–3:24 is a relatively cohesive story
of God’s creation of adult, preliminarily civilized, yet permanently
mortal humans. The whole is organized in a concentric pattern of
seven scenes that revolve around the narrative of the man and
woman’s eating the fruit and its aftermath in 3:6–7.39 Following a
hierarchy of structural indicators developed in text-linguistics, each is
delimited here by a specific cast of actors.40 In addition, as indicated
in the diagram below, these seven scenes also follow a spatial
pattern centered on the forbidden tree of knowledge in the middle of
the garden:
Textual Unit/Cast of Characters Location of events

Scene 1—2:5–17 God in relation to passive (hu)man earth-garden border

Scene 2—2:18–25 God-(hu)man-woman-animals relations in garden
Scene 3—3:1–5 Snake-initiated dialogue with woman
(looking at) away from tree
Central Scene 4—3:6–7 woman, man eating and gaining
wisdom at tree
Scene 5—3:8–13 God’s interrogation of man, woman
(hiding) away from tree
Scene 6—3:14–21 God-(hu)man-woman-animal relations in garden
Scene 7—3:22–24 God in relation to passive (hu)man garden-earth border
Structure The outermost scenes in the above diagram, scenes 1
(2:5–17) and 7 (3:22–24), are joined by a common emphasis on the
garden of Eden (especially the “tree of life” and “tree of knowledge”),
the human destiny to “work the ground,” and exclusive focus on
God’s relation with the first human. The next inner set of scenes,
scene 2 (2:18–25) and scene 6 (3:14–21), focus particularly on the
relations between man, woman, and animals, and these scenes
conclude similarly, with notes about what the woman will be called
(2:23; 3:20a) and the man’s and woman’s clothing status (2:25;
3:21). The inner set of scenes (3:1–5 and 3:8–13) are dialogues that
explore the lead-up to the eating of forbidden fruit and its immediate
aftermath. Finally, the central scene in 3:6–7 focuses exclusively on
the man and woman at the center of the garden with the tree of
knowledge. Notably, this fourth scene at the center of the Gen 2:4–
3:24 has its own semi-concentric character by virtue of the mentions
of gaining wisdom (3:6 ;‫להשכיל‬aα and “their eyes were opened and
they knew,” 3:7a) bracketing the act of eating of the fruit by the man
and woman (3:6aβ).41
Such concentric structures are well-known in oral-written
literature,42 but this particular structure helps highlight the way the
central act of disobedience in 3:6 compromises some elements of
creation established before it. The following commentary will show
how the scenes leading away from the central scene of disobedience
reverse crucial elements of the prior corresponding scenes that led
up to the center. This concentric whole, all revolving a central act of
human disobedience (3:6), represents a particular way to explore the
background and character of human life, especially when compared
with major Near Eastern traditions that touch on similar themes. The
following synchronic commentary will explore the present form of
Gen 2–3 in more detail, including comparison and contrast of this
narrative with non-Biblical traditions such as the Gilgamesh and
Adapa epics discussed above. In the process, I will develop a
reading of Gen 2–3 as an etiological reflection on the possibilities
and hardships of adult human life. We will see how the narrative’s
subtle picture of human life is unfolded in etiological elements across
both halves of the Gen 2–3 concentric structure, pre- and post-eating
of forbidden fruit.

Commentary
Temporal Placement
Gen 2:4b Consistent with the following ground/‫אדמה‬-focused
narrative in Gen 2–3, Gen 2:4b foregrounds “earth” (‫ )ארץ‬before
“heaven” and sets the following story about human creation in the
context of God’s “making” (‫ )עשות‬of earth and heaven.43 The divine
designation Moreover, Gen 2:4b introduces the relatively rare divine
designation, ‫“( יהוה אלהים‬God Y ”) that is used across Gen 2:4–
3:24 to stress Y ’s status as “God” versus the non-divine, mortal
status of the humans in the narrative. In this respect, this doubled
expression functions much like other doubled expressions serve in
the Bible to emphasize the particular status of various humans, e.g.,
Pharaoh Necho, King David, the prophet Isaiah, etc. As we will see,
the broader narrative in Gen 2:4b–3:24 develops the idea of a
distinction between mortal humans on the one hand and divine
beings like Y on the other.44 In accordance with this, the
designation “God Y ” is used across the whole narrative up
through its conclusion, where “God Y ” consults with other divine
beings and decides that humans are too godlike to remain in Eden
(3:22), thus sending them out and permanently expelling them from
the garden (3:23–24). After that point, the non-P narratives refer to
God simply as Y (e.g., Gen 4:1, 6, 26).45

Genesis 2:4b–17: Scene One in the Concentric Structure

(cf. Scene Seven in 3:22–24)
The above-discussed temporal phrase in Gen 2:4b sets in context
this first of three scenes in Gen 2–3 before the central act of eating
the fruit of knowledge and the “opening of eyes” of the first humans
(2:4–17; 2:18–25; 3:1–5). Like the following two scenes, this initial
one begins with and focuses on a problem (or problems) in the
storyworld around which the rest of the scene will revolve (Gen 2:5;
cf. 2:18; 3:1). In this case, the problem is the earth’s lack of two
kinds of plants: the wild, uncultivated shrubs requiring the least
moisture (2:5aα) and “vegetation of the field” (‫ )עשב השדה‬requiring
rain and a human to work it (2:5aβb). Yet this first scene also starts
with a notation about a positive element that balances the lack of
rain: the beginning of a water flow that waters “the whole surface of
the ground” (2:6). This positive statement both prepares for the
following description of God’s potter-like formation of humans (2:7)46
and introduces a theme of watering of ground (‫ )אדמה‬that a) is
explicitly featured in the 2:10–14 digression about rivers and b)
implicitly stands behind the focus of Gen 2:8–17 on God’s planting of
a luxuriant garden into which the first human is placed “to work and
guard it” (2:8b, 15). By the end of the scene, the problems identified
at the outset (2:5) have been preliminarily addressed. Nevertheless,
this scene also looks forward to further unfolding of the narrative,
especially in God’s concluding prohibition of the tree of knowledge
and threat of certain death to the human if he eats of it (Gen 2:17).47
Gen 2:5–6. Pre-Creation Somewhat like Gen 1:1–2 described
the universe before God began to create “heaven and earth,” 2:5–6
describe the prologue to God’s creation of humanity. In this case, the
focus is on a lack of vegetation. So far, the broader earth has none
of the wild, uncultivated shrubs (‫ )שיח‬of the field (2:5aα) because
Y has not yet caused it to rain (on earth [2:5 ,[‫ארץ‬bα), and the
more domesticated “vegetation of the field” (‫ )עשב השדה‬has not yet
“sprouted” (2:5 ;‫יצמח‬aα) because “there was no human to work the
ground” (Gen 2:5bα).48 This word ‫“( אדמה‬ground”), featured at the
conclusion of 2:5, is used in the Bible especially to designate arable
ground. Its use here allows for the first introduction of a wordplay
between the Hebrew word for “human” (‫אדם‬, ʾĀdām) and “ground”
(‫אדמה‬, ʾădāmāh), a wordplay that stresses the link of (future)
humans to the earth and anticipates their destiny to work it (see also
2:7a; 3:23).49
After looking in 2:5 at the absence of vegetation and other
elements at the outset of creation, the text then proceeds in 2:6 to
stress something that is present: a subterranean water flow, watering
the whole surface of “the ground” (‫)האדמה‬. This initiation of the
subterranean water flow in 2:6 prepares for God’s potter-like crafting
of humans out of moistened ground in the next verse (2:7). In
addition to preparing for God’s crafting of humans (Gen 2:7), 2:6
raises a question for the reader about how this water flow will
eventually irrigate “the entire surface of the ground.” We will not see
an answer to this question, and then only an implicit one, until the
section in 2:10–14 about how the garden of Eden was (and is)
watered by a river that becomes the headwater of four major world
rivers.50
Gen 2:7 God’s making of the human in 2:7 begins with the verb
‫יצר‬, translated here as “form” that is used to describe the kind of
active fashioning of an object that a potter or other artisan does in
creating an artifact. The thing that is formed here, ‫“( האדם‬the
human”), is the primary character in the story.
The mention of “ground” (‫ ;אדמה‬ʾădāmāh) here as the material
out of which “the human” (‫ ;האדם‬hāʾādām) was formed reinforces
through sound rhyme the link between humanity and the arable earth
that humans will cultivate (and to which they will return, 3:19a). This
making of a human from the “ground” (2:7) precedes God’s planting
and growing of the garden (2:8–9), and the text eventually will circle
back—after the garden interlude in 2:8–3:22—to the human destiny
to “work the ground from which he was taken” after the human is
sent from that garden (3:23). Moreover, the remainder of the non-P
primeval history will continue a focus on human connections to “the
ground.” The next major story in it, the Cain-Abel narrative in Gen
4:1–16, introduces Cain as working “the ground” like his father (Gen
4:2) and concludes with him being cursed from the ground and
protesting (Gen 4:11–14). Later, the non-P materials about Noah
likewise emphasize his connection to the ground as a “man of the
ground” (Gen 9:20) and his destiny to provide comfort out of the
ground from Y ’s curse of it (Gen 5:29). These sorts of
connections make clear that the Eden story’s initial wordplay
between ʾādām and ’ʾădāmāh in both 2:5bβγ and 2:7 is part of the
non-P primeval history’s overall stress on the integral connection of
humans to the ground that they farm.
When God breathes the breath of life into the figure that God has
formed (2:7aβ), that breath simply animates the (moistened) ground
dust into a “living being” (2:7 ,‫נפש חיה‬b), a term used elsewhere to
designate creatures in general, especially non-human animals (e.g.,
Gen 1:20–21, 24, 30; 2:19; 9:10, 12, 15–16; Lev 11:10, 46; Ezek
47:9).51 In this sense, Gen 2:7 describes the preliminary creation of
an animal/childlike proto-human who—in the course of Gen 2–3—
will be differentiated from other creatures as a qualitatively different
being.52 Certainly, there is no implication that a special divine
essence has been injected into this human’s body, with the narrative
contrasting on this point with some Mesopotamian accounts (e.g.,
Atrahasis epic, Enuma Elish epic) where humans are created partly
out of the blood of a rebellious God.53 God Y breathes into this
dust-earth statue the same “breath of life” that is later mentioned as
enlivening all living animals and humans at the time of the flood (Gen
7:22), and the point of the breath motif here seems to be to stress
human life as a gift of the deity.54
Especially in the wake of Phyllis Trible’s feminist rereading of
Gen 2–3, many have been inclined to read the human individual
created in Gen 2:7 as not yet having a sex, neither male nor
female.55 Trible notes the well-established fact that ‫אדם‬, the term
used for this figure across most of Gen 2–3, can refer to humans of
both genders (e.g., Gen 1:26–27). Therefore, she suggests that “the
human” introduced in Gen 2:7 does not become specifically male
until the woman is created, sexual differentiation becomes possible,
and the terms “male” and “female” first appear (Gen 2:22–23).56
Nevertheless, critiques of this view by Lanser, Clines, Kawashima,
Galambush and others have led to an increased recognition that the
“human” featured in Gen 2:7 and other parts of the story is implicitly
male throughout.57 As Lanser points out, linguistic statements such
as those in Gen 2–3 build on a set of assumptions of readers. They
do not stand in a vacuum. If an individual human character is
introduced into a story, especially an ancient Near Eastern story like
Gen 2–3, that character is assumed to be sexed, and indeed of the
male sex, unless the figure’s sex (or lack of it) is otherwise marked.
Therefore, when the text introduces “the human” in 2:7 without any
other qualifications, the reader is led to infer that this figure is male.
This impression is reinforced by the text’s subsequent use of the
same term, “the human,” to refer to the male (as opposed to the
woman) in 3:9, 12, 20 even after the woman’s creation at the end of
chapter two, with this male “human” later being condemned to
farming labor of the ground from which he was taken prior to the
creation of woman (Gen 3:17–19; cf. Gen 2:7).58 At most one can
observe that this initial human seems to come to new consciousness
of his own gender identity (now contrasted with that of the woman’s)
in Gen 2:23.
Gen 2:8 Having addressed the absence of humans at the
outset of creation (cf. Gen 2:5b), God now addresses the lack of
vegetation (cf. 2:5a). God plants a garden in “Eden” to the East and
sets the human whom God had “formed” there.59 The exact location
of “Eden” likely was unknown even to the readers of the text, but was
seen as exotic and/or inaccessible (“in the East” ‫)מקדם‬. It may be
that the term “Eden” is meant to evoke a quality of place rather than
a specific location. Recent studies, building particularly on the
occurrence of ʿdn in the (Aramaic) Tel Fekheriye inscription, have
argued that the name “Eden” here may derive from a verb ʿdn
meaning “make abundant in water supply,” thus signifying a place
that has lots of water.60 The idea that “Eden” is meant to evoke the
location as a “well watered” or “luxuriant” place is supported by the
fact that several biblical references to the “garden of Eden” contrast
it with dry desolation (e.g., Isa 51:3; Ezek 36:35; Joel 2:3).
Another striking element of this story is its idea that human
creation preceded the planting of the garden. Several Mesopotamian
cosmogonies (e.g., Enki and Nimnah, Atrahasis epic, Enuma Elish
epic) assert that humanity was created in order to take over the
maintenance of canals and gardens that previously were maintained
by lower-level deities. In contrast, the sequence of human creation
and then garden planting in Gen 2 suggests that the garden in Eden
was created, if anything, for humans.61 This hunch is then reinforced
through the divine command that will come later allowing human
consumption of fruit from most of the trees in the garden (Gen 2:16).
Nevertheless, we should be clear on the special associations of
the “garden” here, as opposed to emphasis on human nourishment
in general featured in creation hymns like Psalm 104 or the creation
report of Gen 1. The audience for this text probably associated the
divine “garden” planted in “Eden” with royal and/or temple gardens of
their own time. The temple garden was protected for the deity and
maintained by temple servants.62 The palace garden was a
centerpiece of the palace complex, with an exotic collection of plants
and animals to entertain the king and his privileged guests.
Because of the dry climate of most of the Near East, such
gardens were usually located near rivers and often required
elaborate arrangements—through extended canals or aqueducts
and/or human labor—for conveyance of river water to the plants,
particularly the fruit and flowering trees which were the focal points
of such gardens. Royal gardens also often had a collection of
animals within their walled boundaries. Moreover, ancient depictions
of such gardens also feature birds in the tree foliage, and Egyptian
inscriptions sometimes mention provisions required to protect ripe
tree fruit from these birds. This idyllic place, whether royal or temple
garden, usually was surrounded by a protective wall, one that both
kept wild animals and uninvited people out of the garden and helped
keep the precious moisture for the garden inside. The wall helped
mark off the beautiful garden—with its fruit trees and assemblage of
other flowering plants and animals—as a protected, special place
contrasting with the dry world outside.63
This remote, especially lush garden setting helps mark off the
events of Gen 2:8–3:24 as occurring in a world that contrasts to that
of its intended readership (German Gegenwelt). Such readers were
embedded in a farming culture. They could imagine such a garden
and envy it, but this kind of luxuriant royal garden would be an
otherwise inaccessible fantasy to most of them.64 The garden-
fantasy setting of Gen 2 helps mark as utopian the following
description (2:9ff) of the first humans’ initial idyllic life in the garden,
existing in unbroken communion with each other, the animals, and
the earth.65
Gen 2:9 The narrative turns now to God’s cultivation of the
Eden garden, setting the stage for the following story. Though 2:8
described the “planting” more generally of the garden, 2:9 now
describes God’s growing the most important part of royal and sacred
gardens: the fruit trees, which provided cool shade, attractive
blossoms, and delicious fruit. Using the verb for “sprout” (‫)צמח‬
initially used in 2:5 to describe the lack of growth of shrubs and
plants, 2:9 focuses on the trees that will be the focus of God’s
coming prohibition in 2:17 and the drama of Gen 3.66 In addition, the
narrator here tells us that all the trees of the Eden garden were
pleasant in appearance and good for food (‫)נחמד למראה וטוב למאכל‬.
These two features anticipate two of the three things the woman will
see as desirable in the forbidden tree (‫תאוה־הוא לעינים … טוב העץ‬
‫“[ למאכל‬the tree was good for food … a delight for the eyes”] 3:6).
The last half of the verse then goes on to detail more specifically
the presence in this divine orchard of two special trees: the tree of
life and the tree of knowledge. Both are in the “midst of the
garden.”67 The determination of the two trees (“the tree of life … the
tree of knowledge of good and evil”) implies that both are already
known to the audience. Elsewhere in Israelite tradition, wisdom is
compared to “a tree of life” in Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; 15:4. And the
tree of life here in Genesis also bears an approximate resemblance
to the plant of rejuvenation featured in the above-mentioned story of
Gilgamesh and the snake (SB Gilg. 11:281–307).68 When this tree
next appears explicitly in Gen 2–3 we will hear God say that eating
of the tree of life will cause the human to gain immortality (Gen 3:22).
Less clear is the exact nature of the “knowledge of good and evil”
produced by the tree of knowledge mentioned here. More discussion
of that issue is postponed to the commentary below on God’s
prohibition of eating from that tree (Gen 2:17) and the effects of
eating from it (3:7).
Gen 2:10–14 At this point, the narrative digresses, using a
participle form (‫ )יֹ צֵ א‬to describe how a river goes out from Eden to
“water” the garden. The verb used here for “watering” the garden
(2:10 ;‫ )השקה‬is the same that was used previously to describe the
way the underground stream once “watered” the entire surface of the
ground (2:6). Especially since that verse stressed how the
underground ‫( אד‬a water flow of some kind) provided water to the
whole surface of the ground, the resumption of the verb “water” in
2:10 may mean that the following text then describes how this
watering of the whole ground (2:6) occurred. Moreover, an implicit
link between the watering of the “whole surface of the ground” in 2:6
and 2:10–14 could explain why the latter describes four world rivers
originating from the Eden river. The number four is often used in the
ancient Near East to signify completeness, and there is some
documentation of a Mesopotamian tradition of four rivers.69 In this
case, Gen 2:6 combined with 2:10–14 may suggest that “Eden” is
(and was) so well watered (by the primal ‫אד‬/water flow of 2:6?), that
its river breaks up (repeatedly) into separate tributaries watering the
earth, rather than following the typical pattern of smaller tributaries
flowing downstream and gradually joining into one river. Note,
however, that 2:6 and 10–14 are not explicitly coordinated in the text,
and the ‫ אד‬in 2:6 is not specifically connected to Eden.
 In either case, 2:10–14 steps out of the focus on narrative past in
2:4b–9 and describes how the Eden garden relates to the readers’
present world. The section starts with a participial construction (‫נהר‬
‫ )יֹ צֵ א‬implying an ongoing flow of the Eden river, and it continues with
nominal clauses that refer to places (e.g., “Havilah” 2:11; “Cush”
2:13; “Ashur” 2:14a) as if they are familiar to and contemporary
realities for its audience.70 As such, this section seems explicitly
formulated as a parenthesis referring to present circumstances, a
digression within a surrounding narrative about the past that is also
marked by the resumptive (part) repetition (and unfolding) of 2:8b in
2:15.
Some elements of this digression in 2:10–14 have been unclear
to many interpreters. To be sure, the third and fourth rivers (2:14),
the Tigris and Euphrates, are clear enough, world famous even in
antiquity, and this explains why the text says little more about them,
other than the apparently ancient note that the Tigris (‫ )חדקל‬flows
east of Ashur.71 The identity of the other pair, “Pishon” and “Gihon,”
is not so clear, even to the intended readers, as is indicated by the
extra textual space used in 2:11–13 to describe their locations.
Especially since the other major ancient Near Eastern river, the Nile,
is not explicitly named here, interpreters have long been inclined to
connect the Pishon, Gihon, or both rivers (as the Blue and White
branches of the Nile) to the Nile. Perhaps because the Gihon is
linked with Cush in 2:13b, we already see an identification of it with
the Nile in several late biblical texts,72 yet it is hard to believe that
ancient Judean readers would not have seen a link between the
“Gihon” here and the “Gihon” spring in Jerusalem where royalty were
anointed (1 Kgs 1:33, 38, 45; see also Ps 110:7). Perhaps Gertz is
correct that Gen 2:13 labels the Nile “Gihon” out of an intent to link
the Nile through imaginative geography with the Jerusalem Gihon
spring.73 Alternatively, the Pishon’s association with Havilah in 2:11,
a name that is associated by P with Cush in Gen 10:7 (though cf.
10:29, where Havilah is associated with Shem’s grandson, Joktan),
could suggest that the Pishon in 2:11–12 is meant to be the Nile.74
However one resolves these questions, Gen 2:10–14 links the
ancient “Eden” garden of the Gen 2–3 story with two familiar
contemporary world rivers (the Tigris and Euphrates in 2:14) and two
rivers, the Pishon and Gihon, whose identity was/is more obscure. In
doing so, this set of verses implies that the primeval “Eden” initially
described in 2:8–9 and mentioned as existing in 3:23–24; 4:16, still
exists in the readers’ world, even as it is not accessible in the way
that other, more familiar places are.75 Moreover, in having all world
waters originate in this semi-mythical Eden garden, the narrative
stresses yet again just how well-watered and luxuriant this garden
was (and is). Given the strategic importance of water for ancient
gardens, this stress on Eden’s abundant waters in 2:10–14 is
anything but superfluous. It is a “digression” in terms of the narrative
line leading from garden planting and placement of the human in it
(2:8–9) to God’s instructions about it (2:16–17), but the importance
of this theme of water would have been obvious to ancient
audiences familiar with royal and temple gardens.76
Gen 2:15 The resumption in 2:15 of narration left in 2:8–9 helps
the reader contend with the digression about world rivers in 2:10–14.
Nevertheless, the echo of the basic contents of Gen 2:8b in 2:15 is
not an exact verbal repetition (German Wiederaufname). Instead,
2:15 adds a new mention of why God placed the human in the
garden of Eden: “to work and guard it” (77.(‫ לעבדה ולשמרה‬Since the
Eden garden could be seen as a sacred precinct on analogy with
temple and royal gardens of the ancient world, the human’s
installment as garden worker is not a work burden, but a privilege
given him.78 Moreover, this working and guarding God’s garden
(2:15) represents a particular way that the first human now works the
ground (2:5b) from which he was made (2:7).79 The reader will not
encounter a more exact resolution of the lack of a “human to work
the ground” (‫ )לעבד את־האדמה … אדם‬in 2:5b until the very end of the
story (3:23).
Gen 2:16–17. Divine instructions to the human about the garden
trees The placement of the human in the garden thus complete
(2:15), God gives instructions regarding it in 2:16–17. God’s speech
consists of two elements: 1) an initial permission to eat from “every
tree of the garden” and 2) a prohibition from eating of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil, the latter including a statement of
consequence for disobedience. Together, these two elements
correspond to both halves of the description in 2:9 of God’s making
the garden orchard grow: the description of planting of most garden
trees (2:9a) and the description of two special trees singled out from
the rest (2:9b).80
The contrast between God’s permission to eat and prohibition of
one tree in 2:16–17 is highlighted by the contrasting objects placed
in front extra position at the outset of each clause: “every tree of the
garden” versus “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” The
permission in 2:16 is thus but a brief prologue to the prohibition of
2:17 around which much of the following narrative will revolve.
Though this tree of “knowledge of good and evil” is strictly
prohibited here, such knowledge is depicted positively elsewhere in
biblical tradition.81 “Knowledge of good and evil” was understood to
be a basic recognition of what was good or bad for life, a recognition
that marked the movement from childhood to adulthood. The
association of childhood with lack of such practical knowledge of
good and bad things (for life) is evident in Isaiah’s oracle to Ahaz
where he refers to the time “before [the child] knows how to refuse
the evil and choose the good” (Isa 7:15), and we see a similar
association in Deut 1:39.82 This capacity for discernment of good
and evil could be refined through study of wisdom, and wise
“knowledge of good and evil” was exhibited in ideal form by kings.
Thus, 1 Kgs 3:9 describes a young Solomon asking God for wisdom
in the form of a “hearing heart in order to distinguish good from evil.”
In doing so, Solomon asks for the sort of knowledge of “good and
evil” that the wise woman of Tekoa asserted that his father, David,
possessed (2 Sam 14:17, 20).83
The text here, however, specifies no such positive associations,
but instead describes God as emphasizing simply that the human
“will surely die” when he eats from it. It is not clear yet exactly what is
meant by this pronouncement. On the face of it, it looks like a divine
threat to kill the human if he eats from the tree. Nevertheless, the
expression used here for God’s command, ‫“( צוה על‬command over”),
is not a formal law (usually ‫)צוה את‬, but a formulation typically used
for provisional, though binding instructions by a ruler for
subordinates (e.g., Gen 12:20; 44:1).84 Moreover, the formulation of
consequences in 2:17b diverges from the ‫יוּמת‬ ַ ‫“( מוֹת‬surely be put to
death”) formula for imposition of the death penalty. Instead, the
second person address with infinitive absolute of ‫ מות‬in 2:17b
resembles pronouncements elsewhere in the Bible, often made by
human characters, that a given person will definitely die (of
undetermined causes) for committing a misdeed (e.g., Gen 20:7;
1 Sam 14:44).85 The exact meaning of the expression only becomes
clear by the end of the story (3:17–19, 22–24).

Genesis 2:18–25: Scene Two in the Concentric Structure

(cf. Scene Six, 3:14–21)
Like the scenes before (2:4b–17) and after (3:1–5), this second
scene continues the movement toward 3:6–7 with an identification of
a problem that propels the following narrative forward (2:18). Where
the earlier scene featured the making and placement of the human
(‫ )האדם‬in response to a lack relating to the ground (‫)האדמה‬, this one
will feature the making and celebration of a woman (‫ )אשה‬in
response to a lack relating to the (hu)man (86.(‫האדם‬//‫ איש‬In this case,
Y ’s reflective speech notes the need for the human to have “a
helper corresponding to him” (‫)עזר כנגדו‬, a recognition that then
introduces sections on the creation and labeling of the animals
(2:19–20) and then the woman (2:21–23). These sections thus
significantly expand the range of story characters from the focus of
Gen 2:4b–17 on just Y and the human. Moreover, the scene in
2:18–25 develops a picture of the harmonious initial relations
between these characters. Later, in the corresponding scene of the
concentric structure (3:14–21), the relations between these
characters will change in the wake of human disobedience (3:6).
Together, these human-animal-woman-focused scenes in 2:18–25
and 3:14–21 open and close the central part of Gen 2–3 story.87
Gen 2:18 This initial speech in 2:18–25 is not addressed to
anyone in the text, and thus appears as a divine internal thought
process leading to a subsequent act of creation. The making of the
first human in 2:7 and placement in the garden “to work and guard it”
(2:15, see also 2:8b) has led to a new problem (cf. 2:5)—the
isolation of the first human (‫“ ;היות האדם לבדו‬for the human to be
alone”) and need for a “helper corresponding to him” (‫)עזר כנגדו‬. That
this isolation is perceived here as “not good” reflects the value
placed on family and community in the ancient Israelite highland
context, a context where aloneness was seen as aberrant and
miserable.88
God then states an intention to “make” (‫ ;עשה‬cf. 19 ,2:7 ‫ )יצר‬this
helper for the human. Since God’s wish to make a helper comes
soon after the work theme associated with humans already in 2:5bβ
and preliminarily implemented in 2:15, it is natural for the reader to
conclude that God is not just making a companion for the first
human, but a partner in the cultivation of earth that this human is
destined to do.89 Yet the narrative has not clarified the nature of this
“helper” role. Much past interpretation saw the creation of woman as
“helper” in Gen 2:18, 21–22 as implying a subservient role for
women in general. Nevertheless, such “help” elsewhere in the Bible
often comes from God or military allies, thus not implying any
secondary status for such “helpers.”90 Moreover, the addition of
“corresponding to him” in 2:18b underlines the idea that this “helper”
must be a full counterpart to the first human, not to be confused with
a “helper” as pure underling.91
 Gen 2:19–20 The stress on the “correspondence” theme
emerges more clearly in this next episode, where God “forms” (‫)יצר‬
the “animals of the field” and “birds of the sky” from the same
“ground” (‫ )אדמה‬that God had made the first human, with the “field”
and “sky” habitats of these initial animals corresponding to the
“earth” and “heaven” mentioned at the outset of the story (Gen
2:4b).92 The reader has every reason to expect that one of these
similarly-made “living beings” in 2:19aα will indeed “correspond” to
the human who lacks a work companion. Indeed, this is the measure
that is mentioned for the animals at the end of the scene in 2:20b
when it is noted that none of the animals, in fact, was a true
counterpart to the human.
The intervening scene in 2:19aβ–20a envisions God bringing
each such “animal of the field” and “bird of heaven” to the human to
see what he would name them. Notably ancient royal gardens were
particularly famous for their assemblages of exotic land animals and
birds, seen to reflect in microcosm the wonderous diversity of the
living world outside. The focus in Gen 2:19–20, however, is on a
divinely-facilitated process of human naming (2:19aβγ–20a) of the
birds and animals that God creates (2:19aα).93 This naming of
animals serves two main purposes. First, this section shows
discernment, almost list-type wisdom, on the part of the first
human.94 He labels the animals with permanent names and
recognizes that none constitute a helper corresponding to him. This
discernment will also be evident later when God creates the woman
and he sings praises to her as a fully corresponding partner (2:23).
Second, though naming need not always indicate mastery,95 the fact
that the human is naming animals probably implies a form of
divinely-sanctioned distinction from and mastery over them, much as
the human’s later naming of the woman (Gen 3:20) follows soon
after Y ’s proclamation of his rule over her (Gen 3:16b).96
Gen 2:21–24 The text stresses a divergence from prior creation
acts here. The process of creating the woman begins in 2:21 with
something much like surgery, with God anesthetizing the man by
putting him into a “deep sleep” (‫)תרדמה‬, extracting a rib (‫ )צלע‬and
closing up the flesh behind it. The following report then uses terms
otherwise known in building construction, a word (‫ )צלע‬normally
designating a “side” or “plank” in a structure and a verb for building
(‫ )בנה‬to describe God’s construction of a woman from the man’s
“side,” here probably a “rib” among the man’s other ribs (,‫צַ ְלעֹ ָתיו‬
97.(2:19 Thus, where earlier God was like a potter “forming” (‫ )יצר‬the
first human and animals from (different) clumps of ground (2:7, 19),
now God is a constructor “building” the woman from the human’s
own “side”/“rib.”98 This overall shift in metaphor field helps underline
how the first woman is distinguished from the animals by the fact that
she was carefully built from part of the first (hu)man. Then a relative
clause, “[the rib] which God had taken from the human,” further
emphasizes the origins of the material for woman in the first human.
This different material for the woman vis-à-vis the man (and animals)
will play a role in the later narrative.99
The man’s subsequent reply indicates the point to which all these
special elements in Gen 2:22 have been building—that this woman
(created from part of the man) truly corresponds to the man in a way
that the previous animals did not (2:19–20).100 To set this up, the text
jumps straight to describing God as bringing the woman to the man
(2:22b), a parallel to God’s prior bringing of the animals and birds to
him “to see what he would call each one” (2:19aβ). The human then
breaks into poetry, the first words spoken by a human in Genesis.
His initial adverbial use of the term “the time” (‫ )הפעם‬to mean “finally”
marks the woman’s arrival as a long-awaited event, contrasting with
the preceding lack of a “helper corresponding to him” among the
animals brought to him before (2:20b).101 The phrases that the man
then uses to describe her—“bone from my bone” and “flesh from my
flesh”—build beyond the description of God’s creation of the woman
from the man’s rib (“bone”; cf. ‫“[ צלע‬rib”] in 2:21–22), to encompass
the “flesh” often referred to in expressions of kin relations (Gen
29:14; Judg 9:2; 2 Sam 5:1; 19:13–14).102 By saying that the woman
is “bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh” the man recognizes
her as a family relation, a kin relationship that then distinguishes her
as his true counterpart (‫ )כנגדו‬from earth’s other creatures who are
not (Gen 2:18–20).
 The last couplet of the man’s poem (2:23b) uses a Hebrew
wordplay to underline the man’s relatedness to the woman just
created from him. He anticipates that the woman will be called ‫אשה‬
(ʾīšāh, “woman”), and explains this call as justified by the fact that
this “woman”(ʾīšāh) was taken from “man”(ʾîš). The text here
contrasts with the formulation of the man’s naming of the animals in
2:19 and later of the woman in 3:20 (where we see the naming
formula, ‫)קרא שם‬, in the fact that the man is not “naming” the woman,
but anticipating the general designations others will use for both her
and him.103 The expression ‫“( זאת‬this one” feminine) opens and
concludes this final naming line with a Hebrew deictic-pointing word,
as if to say “this and only this one” deserves the designation
“woman,” because she was taken from “man.”104
Though this picture of creation of male and female out of one
body in 2:21–23 somewhat resembles the account of the gods’
creation of two-sexed humanity out of an initial human in the
Atrahasis epic (OB Atrahasis 1:220–300), it is part of a broader
emphasis in Gen 2:21–24 on the family bond, both bodily and social,
that can and often does form between men and women.105 A bodily-
sexual bond is implied by the focus of the story on male-female
pairing, the grounding of that pairing in an original bodily connection
of the first man to the first woman, and the reflection of that
connection in men now “cleaving” to women and thus becoming “one
flesh” with them. The bodily connection of a man to a woman then
helps explain why a man would leave his father and mother (in terms
of basic allegiance) to join with his wife in marriage. Thus, the focus
in 2:23–24 is not on sexual desire per se, nor on some kind of
physical relocation of the man to his wife’s household (which did not
generally occur in ancient Israel), and certainly not yet on human
reproduction.106 Rather, the conclusion to Gen 2 explains a change
that occurs when a man bonds with his wife and becomes one family
with her, a shift in kin relations whose often wrenching character (in
ancient Israel) is vividly represented here as an “abandonment” of
father and mother.107 Indeed, we see the same combination of
verbs, in this case relating to a daughter’s “abandonment/leaving”
(‫ )עזב‬of a family versus “cleaving” (‫ )דבק‬to her mother in law in the
description of Ruth’s decision not to “abandon” Naomi, but instead to
“cling” to her in Ruth 1:14–16.108
This focus on kin relations will continue across the rest of the
non-P primeval history, both more broadly in its organization around
genealogical lines (Gen 4:1–24, 25–26, etc.) and more specifically in
the focus on the tragedy of brother murder in the Cain-Abel account
(4:1–16) and on father-son relations and the enslavement of brothers
(through Canaan) in the story of Noah and his sons (Gen 9:20–27).
Indeed, some kind of semi-parental role may even be implied for
Y here. Y serves a parent-like role in initially producing the
human (Gen 2:21–22), is implied in a similar parent-like role in Eve’s
speech about producing a “man with Y ” (Gen 4:1), and will
experience a form of parental “abandonment” when the human
decides to listen to the voice of his wife rather than Y ’s in eating
the forbidden fruit (Gen 3:17; cf. 2:17; 3:6).109
Finally, Gen 2:24 does not stand on the same narrative level as
2:23. Instead, like Gen 2:10–14, the etiology in 2:24 steps out of the
story world to link a contemporary reality—the potential for a man’s
powerful attraction and family connection to a woman—back to
developments in Gen 2.110 There is no assertion here that the first
human already had “united with his wife and become one flesh” any
more than the first human has a human “father” or “mother”
(2:24a).111 The building blocks for such attraction are certainly
present in the man’s song (2:23) and the story’s coming anticipations
of human reproduction (3:16, 20). Moreover, this anticipation of
contemporary male-female bonding in the 2:24 etiology indicates
how Gen 2, and not just Gen 3, means to explain the potentialities
and actualities of later human life. At the same time, the story neither
asserts nor denies at this point that the human potential for sex was
already actualized in Eden.112
Gen 2:25 After the concluding etiology of 2:24, Gen 2:25 is a
bridge connecting the creation story of Gen 2:5–24 with the
impending story of disobedience and consequences in 3:1–24. The
sexual implications of the preceding etiology in 2:24 are reinforced
with the reference to the “nakedness” of the first human pair. But
where Gen 2:24 presumably connected to a contemporary reality
(the powerful family consequences of male attraction to women),
2:25 describes a condition which most readers would find counter to
their present reality: the male and female were naked and “not
ashamed before each other” (‫)ולא יתבששו‬. Shame only becomes a
possibility among humans when they are in each other’s presence,
and are aware of how they look through another human’s eyes.113 At
this point, however, the narrative features male and female humans
who lack this self-consciousness. In this respect, the first man and
woman remain partially unformed proto-humans, so far resembling
animals or young children, who are likewise naked and unashamed
in each other’s presence.

Genesis 3:1–5: Scene Three in the Concentric Structure

(cf. Scene Five, 3:8–13)
The scene in 3:1–5 leads up to the central eating of the garden fruit
(3:6–8), much as the corresponding interrogation after the fruit eating
(3:8–13) leads away from it. The appearance of the snake at the
very outset of 3:1 initiates a new grouping of characters in 3:1–5 (the
snake and the woman) that contrasts with the focus of the previous
scene on YHWH, the man, animals, and woman (2:18–25) and the
following scene on the man and woman alone (3:6–7). Overall, 3:1–5
consists of talk about God’s command to the first human (2:16–17)
by two characters who were not present to hear it because they had
not been created yet (2:18–22). As we will see, these characters
manifest a form of discourse that diverges in important ways from
the assertions and form of the Y -human discourse that
preceded it.114
Where the two previous scenes ended with a destabilizing
element that anticipated the continuation of the following narrative
(2:17 and 2:25), the snake-woman dialogue as a whole represents a
destabilizing element that leads straight into the central act of eating
forbidden fruit (3:6–7). The 3:1–5 dialogue focuses on God’s
prohibition in 2:17, and the snake’s successful undermining of that
prohibition leads to a reversal in 3:7 of the unashamed nakedness
with which the second scene of the Eden story concluded (2:25).115
 Gen 3:1a The importance of the snake is signified by the fact
that the word “snake” (‫ )הנחש‬is put at the head of the sentence just
after the conjunction (‫ )ו‬in front-extra position, and this word is
followed by an extended narrator characterization of the snake that
is unusual in classical Hebrew narrative.116 Snakes were viewed as
special creatures in the ancient Near East and the importance of this
snake has been amplified greatly in later Jewish and (particularly)
Christian interpretation. Later, of course, the “snake” would be
identified by Christians as Satan, who is seen as introducing sin into
the world through tempting the woman. This identification is
anachronistic. The text here stresses that the snake was among the
“animals of the field” that God made. Moreover, the text never
asserts that he was evil.117
Instead, the one thing that the text asserts about the snake is that
he was ‫ערום‬, a word that appears to pick up on the association of
snakes with wisdom.118 All ten other occurrences of the word ‫ﬠָ רוּם‬
appear in the books of Proverbs and Job. In Proverbs ‫ ערום‬is used to
positively depict the mature knowledge of the wise one in contrast to
the stupid naiveté of the “fool” (e.g., Prov 12:16, 23: 13:16; 14:8) or
“young-simple one” (Prov 14:15, 18). In Job, ‫ ערום‬seems to
designate something more like craftiness (e.g., 15:5) that God can
frustrate (5:18). Thus the ‫ערום‬/“craftiness” of the snake can be
understood to be an adult sophistication that, at times, can be
viewed negatively.
The reader should know, however, about two other associations
of snakes with which the narrative may be connecting. The first is the
link of snakes to immortality, or at least rejuvenation, largely because
of their well-known ability to shed their skin. This characteristic of
snakes appears explicitly in the Gilgamesh Epic episode where
Gilgamesh loses the plant of rejuvenation to a snake, who then
reveals his acquisition of that plant by shedding his skin (SB Gilg.
11:303–307). It also happens to be associated with immortality in the
Adapa epic (MB Adapa B1 68–78), because one of the two gods
offering Adapa the food of immortality, Ningishzida, is particularly
associated with snakes.119 As we will see, the snake will play a
significant role in the human’s loss of a chance at immortality
through leading humans to eat forbidden fruit (3:1–6) and be barred
from the tree of life (3:22–24). In this way the snake of Gen 3:1
somewhat parallels the role of the thieving snake in the Gilgamesh
epic.
Finally, the snake’s scale-covering is connected to one more
association that may be active in this story, the idea that snakes
were/are more naked than other animals because of their lack of
fur.120 This is significant since the mention that the snake was more
‫ ﬠָ רוּם‬than other animals (3:1a) follows immediately on the description
of the humans as naked (‫ ;ﬠָ רוֹם‬plural ‫ֲרוּמים‬
ִ ‫ )ﬠ‬in 2:25. This leads to a
potential double-reading of Gen 3:1a, especially since ‫ ﬠָ רוּם‬and ‫ﬠָ רוֹם‬
are graphically identical in the consonantal writing system in which
this text was composed. On the one hand, the subtle, talking snake
that the reader sees in 3:1b–5 seems superlatively clever (‫)ﬠָ רוּם‬. On
the other hand, perhaps he is also seen as more naked (‫ )ﬠָ רוֹם‬than
the other animals that God made, shares this furless status with
humans, and soon brings humans to a consciousness of their similar
furless nakedness (3:7).
Gen 3:1b The snake opens with a question to the woman. We
are not told how this snake came to be able to speak, a rather
unusual circumstance in a Bible where the only other talking animal
is the donkey, who tried to help Balaam avoid an angel with drawn
sword (Num 22:28, 30). The one thing the text possibly gives to
explain the snake’s unusual capacity to speak is his superlative
“cleverness” (‫)ערום‬. As in wisdom discourse more generally, the
snake uses the general designation ‫“ אלהים‬God”) to speak of the
deity, and this ‫ אלהים‬designation will be continued in the following
interchange between the woman (3:2–3) and the snake (3:4–5). This
then distinguishes the general discourse about “God” by these non-
divine characters from the narrator’s use of the special divine name,
‫( יהוה‬Y ) as part of the phrase ‫( יהוה אלהים‬God Y ) across the
rest of the story. The following non-P narrative features only halting
initial human use of the divine name ‫יהוה‬, first with Eve’s speech
about making a man with Y (Gen 4:1b) and then the gradual
beginning of human “calling on the name” of Y in an invocatory
way (Gen 4:26; 5:29; cf. 4:25) and Y later being the God of
Noah’s son, Shem (Gen 9:26).
 The snake’s initial speech almost exactly reverses God’s earlier
permission to eat from all the trees of the garden (“from every tree of
the garden you may certainly eat” 2:16b), with an exclamation (‫)אף כי‬
understood by most to mark incredulity and an implicit question. The
wording of the question can be understood in multiple ways, ways
that can be paraphrased either as a total contradiction of God’s
speech in 2:16–17—[Did God really say] “you may not eat from any
tree at all in the garden?”121—or as in basic agreement with it—[Did
God really say] “you may not eat from all trees in the garden, but
only some of them?”122 In either case, the snake’s question about
God’s speech in 3:1b diverges from the narrative report about it in
2:16–17 in speaking of God’s directive as what God “said” (‫)אמר‬
rather than what God “commanded” (2:17 ‫צוה‬, cf. also divine
speeches in 3:11, 17).123 Moreover, the snake asks about a
prohibition in the plural, addressed to both the human and the
woman (‫)לא תאכלו‬, even though the narrator describes Y
consistently using singular language forms before and after this point
to speak of a command addressed to the human in particular (Gen
2:17; 3:11, 17).124 In this way, the snake, who was not present to
hear God’s command in 2:16–17 (cf. 2:19–20), opens a wedge
between the narration of that command and what the snake
incredulously implies God actually said. It is left to the woman,
likewise not present for the actual giving of the command, to
decipher the snake’s multivalent question and present her own
understanding of God’s command.
Gen 3:2–3. The woman’s report of God’s prohibition The
woman’s reply in 3:2–3 follows the sequence of God’s speech in
2:16–17, but deviates from it in subtle ways. She starts by
paraphrasing God’s permission to eat of the trees of the garden,
though she eliminates the infinitive absolute in 2:16 and the “all” from
God’s permission to eat from “all the trees of the garden.”125 She
then replies to the snake’s question in 3:1b by providing her own
description of the fruit that actually was forbidden, a description
revealing her limited knowledge of the garden trees. Where God had
prohibited the human from eating of “the tree of knowledge of good
and evil,” she characterizes the tree just as the one “in the midst of
the garden.” In 2:9b this expression “in the midst of the garden”
applies to both the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. The
humans, however, have only been told by God in 2:17 about one
forbidden tree, “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Since this
tree is “in the midst of the garden,” the woman’s description of the
forbidden tree as “in the midst of the garden” is true. It is just that she
does not show any knowledge of what this tree does, nor that there
is another tree also “in the midst of the garden,” “the tree of life” that
provides immortality (Gen 2:9b; 3:22, 24).126
The woman then goes on in 3:3aβb to exegete God’s prohibition
by paraphrasing it, saying that God had “said” regarding this tree,
“you [plural] may not eat from it, nor touch it, lest you die,” thus
continuing the snake’s implication that the command was addressed
to both her and the human (cf. Gen 2:17; 3:11, 17). As numerous
interpreters have pointed out, her characterization of a speech she
had not heard diverges in several details from the quote of the
speech in the preceding chapter (major differences in bold):
17–2:16 ‫*תמות מות אכלך ממנו ביום כי לא תאכל ממנו … אלהים על־האדם ויצו יהוח‬
3:3 ‫תמתון פן ולא תגעו בו ממנו ולא תאכל אלהים אמר‬aβb
2:16–17 And God Y commanded the human you (sg.) may never eat from
it, for when you eat from it, you will certainly die.
3:3aβb God said you (pl.) shall not eat from it, nor touch it, lest you die.
Among other differences, the woman does not just agree with the
snake’s characterization of God’s directive as a speech and not a
command, but she adds that touching the tree was forbidden. This
represents an expansion of God’s earlier prohibition akin to a child’s
naive extension of a parent’s instructions. In addition, the woman’s
paraphrase eliminates the infinitive absolute and thus the
multivalence of God’s pronouncement of consequence (“you will
certainly die” 2:17 ;‫מות תמות‬b), having God say “lest you die”
(‫ )פן־תמתון‬when you eat forbidden fruit. This latter shift suggests that
the woman believes that the result of eating of the forbidden tree is
immediate death, almost as if the tree itself was poisonous.127
Together, these divergences of 3:2–3 from 2:16–17 depict her as
having only an approximate knowledge of God’s speech and lacking
knowledge of the tree’s properties in particular.128
 Gen 3:4–5. The snake’s characterization of God’s
motives Building on the woman’s lack of exact knowledge of God’s
prohibition, the clever snake then discards the questioning mode. His
speech in 3:4 begins with a quote and denial of God’s assertion in
2:17b that “you will certainly die … when you eat from it.”129 In so
quoting Y ’s speech (with the infinitive absolute), the snake
betrays a more precise knowledge of Y ’s command than the
woman does. At the same time, the snake’s denial is multivalent in a
slippery way. Is he denying only the woman’s divergent and
intensified version of God’s prohibition, saying that they both will not
die if they just “touch” the tree? Or is he denying God’s version of the
prohibition, as the semi-quote of God’s speech would suggest?130
However the snake’s denial is understood, such a denial only
becomes compelling if a reason is given, or implied, for why God
would have inaccurately asserted that the humans would die after
eating forbidden fruit. So the bulk of the snake’s speech questions
God’s motives for the prohibition: God knew that another
consequence (than death) would ensue from eating of the tree. This
is when the snake reveals to the woman the sapiential benefits of the
forbidden tree: “your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods
knowing good and evil.” To have one’s “eyes opened” is a technical
expression in the ancient Near East for attaining wisdom.131 The
snake here does not explicitly state, but leaves implied, that God
was protective of God’s possession of the kind of wisdom provided
by the tree. Therefore, God forbade human eating of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil in order to keep such knowledge only for
God/divine beings (3:5, see 3:22) and prevent humans from
becoming “like gods” (‫)כאלהים‬. This jealous possessiveness of
godlike status, asserts the snake, is the real reason for God’s
prohibition, not a concern for human welfare.132
As the later narrative will show, the snake’s speech initially
appears more obviously accurate than God’s emphatic assertion in
2:17 that the human would “certainly die” when he ate from the
forbidden tree. Neither he nor the woman die soon after eating the
fruit, certainly not in the scope of the narrative. Rather, as the snake
predicted, the man and woman’s eyes are opened after eating the
fruit (3:7a). As a result they lose their childlike unashamed
nakedness, gaining a measure of the “knowledge of good and evil”
that marks maturing into adulthood (3:7b). Furthermore, in the
conclusion of the narrative (3:22–24) we will see God jealous of
God’s divine prerogatives, attempting to prevent humans from
becoming even more like gods than they already have by excluding
them from the tree of life that would give them immortality.

Genesis 3:6–7: Scene Four, The Central Scene in the Concentric

Structure
These verses are marked as a separate scene by a temporary shift
to a narrative focus exclusively on the man and woman as actors,
versus the focus on the snake-woman before (3:1–5) and God-man-
woman afterward (3:8–13). As indicated in the initial synchronic
overview of Gen 2–3, this concentrically-structured scene is itself the
center of the concentric structure in Gen 2–3, and it takes place at
the spatial center of the storyworld—right at the forbidden tree in the
midst of the garden. Together, these embedded concentric patterns
show how the overall narrative of Gen 2–3 revolves around the terse
report of eating the forbidden fruit in 3:6aβb, even as the vast bulk of
verses in the story are devoted to the lead-up to and consequences
of this eating.
Gen 3:6 Out of approximately sixteen words in the first half of
this verse, thirteen are devoted to the woman’s new perception of
the tree, while only three are devoted to the result of this new
perception: ‫“( ותקח מפריו ותאכל‬and she took from its fruit, and ate”).
The tree, of course, has not changed, and this is partially reflected in
the fact that two out of three of the woman’s observations
correspond to the narrator’s original description of all the trees of the
garden that God made sprout (Gen 2:9a). Only the third element of
the woman’s perception, the one connected to the tree’s capacity to
give wisdom (‫ )נחמד העץ להשכיל‬is new, and it shows the effectiveness
of the snake’s preceding speech about how this tree will “open …
eyes,” that is, make one wise (3:6). The following chart lines up the
descriptors of the tree by the order they appear in Gen 2:9a and
3:6a:133
2:9a trees sprouted by God 3:6a woman’s perception of
forbidden tree
‫ נחמד למראה‬pleasant in ‫ טוב העץ למאכל‬good for food
appearance
‫ טוב למאכל‬good for food ‫ תאוה־הוא לעינים‬a delight for the eyes
‫ נחמד להשכיל‬desirable for making
[one] wise

The woman appears to have come a long way from seeing this tree
as just “in the middle of the garden” as she said in 3:3. Whereas
previously she seemed under the impression that the tree was
poisonous (3:3b), now she realizes that it is “good for food” (cf. this
expression second in 2:9a).134 She next realizes how pretty the tree
was, with a description that now uses the expression “eyes” that was
so prominent in the snake’s description of the tree’s properties
(3:5aγ; cf. 2:9 ‫נחמד למראה‬a).135 And this then leads to the third
description of the tree’s benefits and the one most related to the
snake’s preceding speech, the desirability (‫ )נחמד‬of the tree, not only
for food (cf. 2:9a, ‫)נחמד למאכל‬, but also for “making [one] wise”
(‫)להשכיל‬. In sum, whereas the woman’s earlier vague reference to
the forbidden tree as “in the midst of the garden” left open the
possibility that she did not know of its knowledge-giving properties,
the snake’s words in 3:5 appear to have empowered her to see the
wisdom benefits of the forbidden tree (‫“[ להשכיל‬to make wise”]) on
which she was not previously focused. This apparent link of the
woman’s new perception of the tree’s wisdom benefits with the
snake’s description of them to her have contributed to a tendency
among interpreters to conclude that the first humans ate of the
forbidden fruit out of a prideful wish to become godlike.136 If so, this
is left implicit in the text, which otherwise describes the woman’s
motivating perception at some length (Gen 3:6a). Within the text,
human achievement of godlikeness is identified in the story—by the
snake (3:5) and then God (3:22)—as a topic of divine concern, but
not a human aspiration.137
 The resulting action (eating the fruit) is reported perfunctorily, but
the brief continuation of this verse (3:6b) includes a striking
expression in an interaction that, up to this point, has only featured
the snake and the woman: “she also gave to her man with her [‫]עמה‬
and he ate.” This implies that the man was present and silent
throughout the preceding dialogue with the snake.138 To be sure, the
absence of any such mention of the man earlier in the scene is
striking, especially since the man thus would have been in a position
to correct the above-noted divergences between the snake’s and
woman’s modified representations of Y ’s commands to him
(Gen 2:16–17). Nevertheless, this lack of earlier focalization on the
man may be one of several ways that the text stresses the
problematic character of his passivity vis-à-vis the woman in this
middle part of the narrative. Following on this implicit depiction of him
deferring to her voice in the Gen 3:1–5 dialogue, subsequent parts of
the text will depict Y as holding the (hu)man accountable for
being influenced by the woman (Gen 3:12) rather than by Y ’s
command (Gen 3:17a).
Gen 3:7 The first result of eating the fruit appears to be exactly
what the snake predicted:

Snake’s prediction in 3:5 Narrator’s report of result 3:7

‫בום אכלכם ממנו ונפקחו עיניכם‬ ‫ותפקחנה עיני שניהם‬
When you eat from it, your eyes Then the eyes of the two of them
will be opened were opened

Where in other cases of corresponding speech and narration, such

as God’s command (2:16–17) and the woman’s and snake’s reports
about it (3:1b–5) the parallels have been approximate, the
connection in wording between 3:5aγ and 3:7aα could not be much
more tight. The one divergent element from the prediction, ‫“( שניהם‬of
the two of them”) in the report of the actual opening of the eyes,
helps the reader contrast the open eyes of the “two of them” in 3:7
with the last use of this exact expression in describing the
nakedness of the “two of them” in 2:25, where they were
unashamed.
 This then prepares for the next result of the fruit eating, the
“knowledge” (‫ )וידע‬that they were naked. This development, which is
a reversal of 2:25, represents a somewhat ironic fulfillment of the
snake’s earlier statement that “God knows when you eat of it you will
be like god(s), knowing good and evil.” From the repeated
references to “knowledge” in 3:5, through the woman’s perception
that the tree was good for “making one wise” (‫ )להשכיל‬in 3:6, to the
mention of knowledge in 3:7, it has become clear that the forbidden
tree “in the midst of the garden” in 3:1–5 is the tree of knowledge.139
Nevertheless, the knowledge that the humans gain from that tree’s
fruit hardly seems to be the godlike wisdom predicted by the snake.
Instead, they simply know that they are naked, graduating from the
animal/childlike lack of bodily shame that characterized them
previously (2:25).
As Crüsemann has pointed out, the pointed inclusion of ‫ שניהם‬in
3:7 emphasizes the reflexivity of the seeing of the two humans, with
them realizing now that they are each seen by the other. This
consciousness of one’s self appearing in another’s eyes produces in
the man and woman the “knowledge” that they are naked and an
immediate attempt to clothe themselves.140 In this way the Eden
story suggests another dimension to the above-discussed
“knowledge of good and evil” whose possession marks one’s
transition from childhood. As discussed previously (in relation to Gen
2:17), this knowledge is more generally depicted in the Bible as the
adult ability to discern what is good or bad for life. That idea is not
contradicted here. Yet the description of the result of eating the “fruit
of knowledge of good and evil” in 3:7 and 8 stress a particular type of
“knowledge” that marks the transition from childhood—the self-
conscious awareness by an emergent adult of how his or her body
and actions look to others. With this self-consciousness, this
particular type of non-childlike “knowledge of good and evil,” a youth
no longer runs naked and unashamed in front of others, but now
shapes his or her behavior and appearance with a eye toward
others’ views, and overall becomes sensitive to avoiding shame.
Notably, toward the conclusion of the non-P primeval history we will
see a particular instance of this kind of shame in the story of Noah
and his sons (Gen 9:20–27), when naked Noah awakes from his
drunken stupor, realizes that his youngest son saw his nakedness
(Gen 9:24), and reacts with a curse of enslavement on him (Gen
9:25–27).141
Though the mark of such self-consciousness involves body
consciousness and the making of clothes, past interpreters have
been wrong when they have read this transition in 3:6–7 as involving
sexual activity or maturity.142 In contrast to the above mentioned
Enkidu story, where Enkidu’s transition to full human status is started
by several days of sex with Šamḫat (OB Gilg. II [Penn] 2.44–49; SB
Gilg. 1:188–194), nothing at all is said about sex here. Elsewhere the
Gen 2–3 narrative shows no reticence in speaking about and
anticipating human sexual desire and activity (e.g., Gen 2:24; 3:16).
Here, however, the story speaks not of sex, but of the gaining of
wisdom—“their eyes were opened.” To be sure, they then “know”
that they are naked, but this merely represents a new form of non-
childlike self-consciousness.
The man and woman respond to their new knowledge by making
flimsy, inadequate garments for themselves. Where God later will
“make” skin tunics (‫ )כתנות עור‬for their whole bodies and dress them
(3:21), the humans now “stitch together fig leaves” (‫)יתפרו עלה תאנה‬
to make mere loincloths (‫ )חגרת‬for themselves. Though fig trees
have fairly large leaves, a mere experiment with sewing leaves into
clothing would convince most readers that such fig leaf loincloths
would be quite perishable, and they would only cover the man and
woman’s genitals, leaving the rest of their body exposed.143 Indeed,
the (hu)man of the story seems to recognize the inadequacy of the
garments when he explains to Y that he hid in the garden—
though clothed at the time with his fig loincloth—“because I was
naked” (3:10 ;‫)כי־עירם אנכי‬. Thus, the humans only make a partial,
first step toward clothed-existence here, a move that Y will help
them complete by the end of the story (3:21). 144

Genesis 3:8–13: Scene Five in the Concentric Structure

(cf. Scene Three, 3:8–13)
The man’s and woman’s hearing of the sound of Y walking in
the garden (3:8a) marks the beginning of a scene in 3:8–13, with a
new cast of actors (Y , man, woman) that contrasts with the
focus of 3:7–8 on just the man and the woman. Within the concentric
structure of Gen 2–3, the post-disobedience interrogation of the
humans by Y in 3:8–13 corresponds to the pre-disobedience
interaction between the snake and woman in 3:1–5. A key
difference, of course, is that Y , and not the snake, is the
interlocutor with the humans in 3:8–13.
Overall, the interrogation scene that unfolds in 3:8–13 gradually
moves back through the chain of actors seen in 3:1–7: from Y ’s
questioning of the man (3:9–12; cf. 3:6b), to Y ’s questioning of
the woman blamed by the man (3:13a; cf. 3:6a), to the woman’s
blaming of the snake (3:13b; cf. 3:1–5). In this way, the divinely-
driven follow-up to the fruit eating in Gen 3:8–13 connects with 3:1–5
by working backward to the snake, the figure (introduced in 3:1a)
who instigated and drove the dialogue in 3:1b–5 that led to the
eating of the fruit. As we will see, the man and woman’s responses
to God in this interrogation scene illustrate a breakdown in the
relationship between the man, woman, and God that contrasts with
the connectedness between them in 2:18–25.
Gen 3:8 The man and woman’s hiding of themselves in this
verse mirrors and contrasts with the final note in 2:25 on their pre-
crime state, marking the crucial shift caused by their newly
recognized nakedness in the sight of others (3:7). In particular, the
parallel reflexive verbs highlight a contrast between the humans’ pre-
crime lack of shame in each other’s presence (2:25 ;‫ )לא יתבששו‬and
their post-crime hiding of themselves from Y (145.(3:8 ;‫ יתחבא‬At
the same time, their hiding from God represents yet another way in
which these humans still act childlike, despite having eaten the fruit
of knowledge.
Gen 3:9–10 Here Y opens an interaction, solely with the
first human, about his presence amidst the trees.146 This shift from
the focus of the previous context (2:22–3:8) on the first human
couple marks Y ’s first step in the above-described move across
3:8–13 back through the chain of causality seen in 3:1–6. Though
that scene describes the woman as eating the fruit first (3:6a) and
this following scene opens with both humans hiding in the trees
(3:8b), Y starts in 3:9 by addressing the (hu)man who was
specifically charged with guarding the garden (2:15b) and forbidden
from eating from the tree of knowledge (Gen 2:17; also 3:11, 17),
initiating an interaction with the rhetorical question “Where are
you?”147
The human’s reply in 3:10 is revealing in at least two ways. On a
surface level, his statement that “I was afraid because I was naked”
is an admission that he has lost the unashamed nakedness that
preceded eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. On another level,
the man’s statement of “fear” about his nakedness indicates that,
despite the stitched-together fig leaf loincloth, he still feels vulnerably
naked,148 indeed feeling a particular vulnerability in terms of
inadequate clothing before Y (cf. Exod 20:26; Isa 6:2).149
Gen 3:11 The human spoke only for himself, continuing the
one-on-one exchange initiated by God in 3:9. This one-on-one
exchange is then continued in God’s two related follow-up questions
in 3:11: “who told you (singular) that you were naked?” and “did you
(singular) eat of the tree that I commanded you not to eat from it?”
The first question, though rhetorical, implies God’s suspicion that
the man and woman had another interlocutor, the snake, who was
“telling” them things that prompted their action. Though the snake
does not “tell” them that they are naked, the other things he tells
about fruit-eating and God in 3:4–5 are depicted in the story as
playing a crucial role in the humans’ decision to eat of the tree and
thus learn that they were naked (3:6–7).
The second question is notable for the new way it refers to the
tree, as the tree of prohibition. No longer is it “the tree of knowledge
of good and evil” as in the command (2:17) nor “the tree in the midst
of the garden” as in the dialogue (3:3). The reference to “command”
(‫ )צוה‬here in God’s own back-reference to 2:16–17 helps further
highlight the absence of that verb throughout the snake and
woman’s interaction in 3:1b–5. This reference, along with the focus
on the tree as forbidden, indicates that this dialogue with the man
has legal overtones. The prohibition in 2:17, to be sure, is not
formulated as a law,150 but the wording of this question in 3:11b
gives God’s subsequent interactions with the humans the forensic
overtones of a legal process revolving around a “command” that has,
apparently, been disobeyed.
 Gen 3:12 After such focus on a one-to-one interaction between
God and the man across 3:9–11, the man’s speech here
reintroduces the woman into the discussion. His speech begins with
her in front-extra position, ‫“( האשה‬the woman”), with the added
specification that this woman is the one that God gave to him (‫אשר‬
‫)נתתה‬. There is, of course, no other “woman” in this story world that
the man could mean, so this relative clause is superfluous in terms
of clarity of reference. Its sole purpose is to implicitly blame God for
the fruit eating. Furthermore, as if to double-underline the blame on
the woman (and God, the woman-giver, by implication), the subject
of the sentence is restated with the pronoun “she” before it continues
to say “gave to me from the tree and I ate.” Finally, the implicit blame
of God and woman is reinforced by the fact that God’s “giving” of the
woman is put in the same order and with the same verb (‫“ נתן‬give”)
as the woman’s “giving” of the fruit to the man: ‫אשר נתתה‬
‫נתנה־לי‬//‫עמדי‬. So the man depicts himself as a victim of multiple
“gifts,” first the woman (from God) and then the fruit (from the
woman). This brief, prosaic blame-deflection of the man in 3:12b
could hardly be much further from his only other utterance in the
entire Bible, Gen 2:23, where he sung the praises of the woman God
had “brought” him!151 His connection to both woman and God
appears damaged after eating the fruit.
Despite all these contrasts with Gen 2:23, the latter part of the
(hu)man’s report in 3:12b corresponds to virtually all of the elements
of the previous narrator’s report of the actual fruit eating, indeed in
ways that implicitly convict the human who is trying to deflect blame
from himself:152

Narrator report The human’s report 3:12

‫ ותתן‬and she gave [the woman whom you gave]
‫ גם לאשה‬also to her man ‫ עמדי‬to be with me
‫ עמה‬with her ‫ היא נתתה‬she gave
‫ לי‬to me
These correspondences help reinforce the accuracy of the (hu)man’s
statement, even as they remind the reader that he was “with” the
woman when she ate the fruit and, as far as we can tell, was with her
beforehand (‫אישה עמה‬, “her man with her” 3:6). So this man, who
blames the woman and (implicitly) God for the fruit eating, seems to
have been “with” the woman and snake throughout their interaction
and the woman’s eating of the fruit.
Gen 3:13 God turns now to the woman that the man blamed for
the fruit eating. As with the man, where God presupposed guilt in
asking “did you eat of the tree?,” here God presupposes the truth of
the man’s statement, asking not “what have you done?” (‫)מה עשית‬,
but “what is this that you have done?” Both the interrogative “what”
and the near-demonstrative “this” intensify the indignation of the
query.153 In so accepting the (hu)man’s perspective, Y seems to
be confronting her with the crime of giving the human the fruit that
the human was specifically forbidden from eating (Gen 2:17; 3:11,
17).
The woman’s reply, however, reflects an ongoing contrast
between her perception of the problem and Y ’s (3:12b).
Continuing the snake’s and her rephrasing of the Gen 2:17
prohibition in the plural (Gen 3:1b, 3), she builds on the
(understandable) assumption that the prohibition was addressed to
her and justifies her disobedience of it: “the snake deceived me and I
ate.”154 Notably, the narrative in 3:1–5 provides little to support the
woman’s charge of deception here. The snake did something in his
dialogue with the woman, but it does not seem completely true that
he “deceived” her. His slippery, multivalent speech (3:4–5), while
potentially misleading, also could be seen at this point as more
accurate about the forbidden fruit and its consequences than God’s
own speech (2:17b).
In addition, the woman’s own speech here suggests that the wise
snake’s speech rubbed off on her, since her reference to the snake
is full of sibilants that reproduce the sound of a hissing snake: ‫הנחש‬
‫ השיאני‬hannāḥāš hiššîʾanî (“the serpent deceived me”). Thus, having
eaten of the tree of knowledge, the woman now sounds like the
supremely “clever” (3:1) snake! In this way, the woman’s speech
functions to display to the reader shifts in personhood and relation
that have occurred in the wake of eating the fruit of knowledge. In
particular, it culminates a narrative depiction of her speech as
inaccurate and misleading where Y ’s and the human’s speech
are more direct and in accordance with the narrator’s discourse.155

Genesis 3:14–21: Scene Six in the Concentric Structure

(cf. especially Scene Two, 2:18–25)
After having worked back to the snake’s role in instigating the garden
crime, the text shifts from interrogation to proclamation as God turns
to the snake. This turn in 3:14 starts a linked series of divine
pronouncements of punishment to all three participants in the garden
scene, pronouncements that follow the order of active participation in
that scene: snake > woman > man (3:14–19), with the conclusions of
the first two pronouncements looking ahead to the next.156 These
pronouncements about the future relations of the snake, woman, and
man represent a counterpoint to Y ’s initial specification of those
relations in 2:18–25. Y proclaims enmity and not just rule
between future snakes and humans (3:15; cf. 2:19–20), male rule of
women alongside male connectedness to women (3:16b; cf. 2:23–
24), and hard work for food as a lifelong part of the connection of
humans to the ground (3:17b–19; cf. 2:7–16). These
pronouncements thus provide an etiology of human life outside the
garden, one that balances (but does not completely replace) the
depiction of more harmonious relations of male, female and animals
in 2:18–25 and of the human with the ground in 2:7–17.
The scene then concludes with elements that correspond to and
yet contrast with the corresponding scene before the humans ate of
forbidden fruit (2:18–25). That pre-disobedience scene concluded
with the human calling on the female to be called “woman” because
of her origins in “man” (2:23), an anticipation of future male
attachment to women (2:24), and note about the humans’ initial
unashamed nakedness (2:25). This post-disobedience scene (3:14–
21) concludes with counterparts to these three elements in 2:23–25.
The man more formally names the woman “Eve” (3:20a; ‫קרא שם‬, cf.
the naming of animals 2:20). He anticipates her future role in
reproduction (3:20b). Then God dresses the humans in animal skins
(3:21), thus definitively reversing their prior unashamed nakedness
(2:25) and marking their distinction from animals with clothes formed
from the dead carcasses of animals.
Gen 3:14–15 Following so soon on the woman’s self-
justification, Y ’s speech to the snake seems to accept at face
value the woman’s snaky characterization of the serpent’s deception,
saying “because you did this” (‫)כי עשית זאת‬. At the least, God
accepts both the woman’s and the narrator’s implication that the
snake played an initiating role in the chain of events that led to the
(hu)man eating the forbidden fruit, and God here pronounces a
resulting negative consequence. This may seem unfair, since God is
never described in the narrative as announcing a consequence to
the snake in advance. Nevertheless, God seems to presuppose that
the snake’s generative role in challenging God’s “command” to the
(hu)man deserves an explicit punishment. Indeed, only the snake
and human are told that their destiny results from their culpability in
the fruit eating, and only they receive punishments that explicitly
span their entire life (“all your days” 3:14, 17; cf. also 3:19).
Much as the snake once was “more clever than all the animals of
the field,” God now announces that he will be “more cursed [‫]ארור‬
than all the animals of the field.”157 The particular curse that God
pronounces here on the snake explains a major feature of snakes in
the world of the readers—the fact that they crawl on their bellies
(Prov 30:19).158 Through thus condemning the snake to a shameful
lower position even than other animals, Y reinforces the human-
animal hierarchy (Gen 2:19–20) whose disturbance by the somewhat
human-like snake helped prompt the humans’ eating of forbidden
fruit (Gen 3:1–6).159 In addition, Gen 3:14 further links the
phenomenon of snakes crawling on the ground to the Gen 2–3 story
by having God say that the snake will “eat dust all the days of his
life” (‫)עפר תאכל כל־ימי חייך‬. As Radaq notes in his comments on this
text, the reference here to “eating dust” makes the snake’s
consequence (the well-known crawling of snakes on their bellies)
correspond to the snake’s crime in inducing the humans to “eat”
forbidden fruit (3:6). Meanwhile, the mention of “dust” (cf. Gen 2:7)
and note about the snake’s lifespan (echoed in ‫ כל־ימי חייך‬in 3:17bγ)
introduce themes of mortality in 3:14 at the outset of a set of divine
pronouncements that will conclude with divine mention of human
mortality and use of the “dust” theme to underline that mortality
(3:19).
Finally, the second part of the pronouncement over the snake,
Gen 3:15, speaks of the enmity that now will stand between it and
the woman, and between its offspring and the woman’s offspring.
The translation of this verse remains a puzzle, but at the minimum
this pronouncement marks a turn in human-animal relations, indeed
an important shift from the mastery implicit in the human’s naming of
the animals in Gen 2:20. The snakes among the animal subjects of
the human in 2:20 will now be the eternal enemies of his wife and
her offspring in an apparent unending battle.160 This too represents
an etiological link to the reality of life of the readers of the text. Other
biblical texts frequently note the danger that snakes pose to
humans.161 Indeed, in many contemporary non-urban contexts
analogous to the world of ancient Israel, an unusually high
percentage of human fatalities from wild animals involve human
encounters with snakes.162 This text reflects this sort of reality.
Moreover, it may imply that such human-snake enmity is God’s
guard against future humans falling victim to a process like that in
3:1–5. As a result of this enmity, the woman and her offspring will not
be prone to being “deceived” by snakes in the future (cf. 3:13b).163
Gen 3:16 The history of interpretation of Gen 2–3, especially
within Christianity, has tended to condemn the woman for her role in
eating the forbidden fruit.164 Nevertheless, God’s speech to the
woman leaves out any reference to punishment or curse, and this
stands in contrast to the speeches to both the snake and the
(hu)man. In this way, the church fathers uncritically accepted the
(hu)man’s characterization of events in 3:12 as opposed to God’s
own speech in 3:16. As Benno Jacob points out, God’s speech to the
woman in 3:16 is almost a parenthesis between the proclamations of
punishment before (3:14–15 to the snake) and after it (3:17–19 to
the man).165
Jacob is partially right in arguing that the description of the
woman’s fate is as much a prediction of an existing destiny of
women (childbirth) as an announcement of God’s punishment of her
for her role in the garden crime. Indeed, the first part of God’s
pronouncement (3:16a) anticipates a process of humans being
produced by women much as the woman was initially “taken from
man” (Gen 2:23).166 If it was not for the context of this speech (after
3:8–13 and between 3:14–15 and 3:17–19) and repeated emphasis
in it on the toil involved in pregnancy (‫עצבון‬, ‫)עצב‬, one might even see
God’s promise to “greatly multiply” (‫ )הרבה ארבה‬the woman’s effort in
reproduction in 3:16a as a positive anticipation of the woman’s future
fertility, much like promises to “multiply” offspring later given to Hagar
(16:10) and Abraham (e.g., Gen 22:17; 167.(‫ הרבה ארבה‬This
anticipation of children, enclosed as it is between emphasis on the
snake’s (3:14) and man’s (3:17, 19) mortality, stands as an implicit
act of divine provision for humanity, one that starts to unfold the
previously unexplicit reproductive implications of the initial creation of
the woman from a part of the (hu)man so that she would be “one
flesh” with him (Gen 2:24). Within this context, this divine
proclamation stands as a crucial affirmation of the woman’s role in
insuring generational replacement just in advance of Y ’s
reaffirmation of human mortality (3:17, 19) and making human
mortality permanent through excluding the human(s) from the
immortality-granting tree of life (3:22, 24).168 The very next non-P
narrative section will juxtapose the first death of a human (Gen 4:8)
with the report of conception to replace that human (Gen 4:25; see
also 4:1–2) and the remainder of the non-P primeval history is
organized around genealogical lines that presuppose and focalize
the continuing reality of human reproduction (e.g., Gen 4:26; 10:15,
21; see also 6:1 if part of the earlier non-P history).
Nevertheless, in contrast to Jacob’s reading of Gen 3:16, there is
still a note of punishment in the repeated mention of “toil” (‫ )עצבון‬and
“effort” (‫ )עצב‬associated with the woman’s future childbearing.
Moreover, this emphasis on “toil” in the woman’s pregnancy in turn
anticipates and helps color God’s impending pronouncement that the
man will be punished with lifelong “toil” in earth farming (3:17).169
Indeed, these negative aspects of God’s pronouncement to the
woman in 3:16a link to the quite considerable pains and risks, often
of death, that women in the ancient world faced with pregnancy and
birth.170
Earlier in the story, Gen 2:23–24 anticipated a male-female
sexual bond, though there it was part of a broader focus on the
man’s familial attachment to his woman.171 Following on the double-
emphasis on pregnancy in 3:16a (3:16 ,(‫ תלדי בנים‬,‫הרנך‬bα now
anticipates the woman’s sexual desire for her man. Indeed, this
desire on her part makes clear one way that this text views her future
of “toil” in pregnancy as unavoidable. She will be drawn to the man
from whom she was made (3:16bα; cf. 2:20–21), much as God soon
will say that the man will unavoidably return to the earth from which
he was made (3:19; cf. 2:7).172
God’s pronouncement over the woman concludes with a
prediction of the man’s rule over the woman (3:16bβ), a rule that is
contrasted with her desire for him through placement of an explicit
subject at the outset of the following clause (“but he shall rule”; ‫והוא‬
173.(‫ ימשל‬Parallel to Y ’s earlier reestablishment of the human-
animal hierarchy by having the snake crawl on his belly and eat dust
for his role in prompting eating of the forbidden fruit (Gen 3:14–15),
Y ’s pronouncement of male “rule” here represents Y ’s
introduction of a clearer male-female gender hierarchy than existed
before, one enacted in response to what the text sees as the
woman’s dominant role leading to the human’s disobedience of
Y ’s prohibition (Gen 3:1–6, 12, 17).174 Up to this point the
woman, though created (like the animals before her) to fulfill an
undefined “helper” role vis-à-vis the human (Gen 2:18), is
distinguished from the animals by corresponding to the man and not
yet being formally named by him (Gen 2:23; cf. 2:19–20 [‫)שם[ קרא‬.
Now, at least part of that helper role is specified in describing her toil
in having children (Gen 3:16a); Y then pronounces a male rule
over her as if it were something new (Gen 3:16b); and one mark of
that new rule will be the human’s formal naming of her—in relation to
her childbearing role—soon afterward (Gen 3:20).175
The text implies that this divine reinforcement of the gender
hierarchy is prompted by similar preventive aims to Y ’s earlier
reinforcement of the human-animal hierarchy vis-à-vis the hybrid
snake. Earlier God had responded to the snake’s proactive role and
the woman’s assertion that the snake had deceived her (3:13b) by
lowering the snake (3:14) and putting enmity between the snakes
and the woman and her offspring (3:15; cf. 3:13b). Now God
responds to the woman’s proactive role and the man’s blaming of
her for his disobedience (3:12; see also 3:1–6, 17a) through
imposing future male rule on women (3:16bβ). In this sense, the text
does depict God as imposing patriarchy on the woman (and implicitly
women in general), and there is no suggestion that this is a
challenge to women that should be overcome.
Thus, the text does not challenge nor predict the end of
patriarchy, but it must be emphasized that the text does not simply
endorse ancient patriarchy either. Instead, it offers a complex, multi-
layered etiology of its ancient audience’s gender world.176 Even as
its conclusion does conform to realities of gender hierarchy in
ancient Israel, it depicts women’s pregnancies as “toil” (‫ )עצבון‬and
suggests that male rule of their wives represents an unfortunate
divergence from the initial structure of Y ’s creation.177 Contrary
to later, particularly Christian, justifications of patriarchal gender
relations with this text, we should no more take women’s
reproductive destiny (3:16a) and the “rule” of husbands over their
wives (3:16b) to be a goal of creation, than God’s announcement
that all humans will be subject to lifetimes of backbreaking
agricultural labor (3:17–19) or that humankind should forever be at
odds with snakes (3:15). Instead, these and other realities of the
audience’s world are depicted as negative results of eating the
forbidden fruit.178 Moreover, Y ’s pronouncement over the
woman in 3:16 is not the text’s only word about gender relations.
Instead, its first part (2:5–25) depicts certain aspects of Y ’s initial
creation-structure—including his creation of males and females to
correspond with and attract one another (Gen 2:18–22)—as still in
force for the present readers (2:23–24).179
Gen 3:17–19 With God’s extensive speech to the (hu)man in
3:17–19 we return to the place where this sequence began in 3:12,
with the outset of 3:17 now verbally echoing God’s query to the man
about whether he “ate from the tree about which I commanded you,
saying ‘you may never eat from it’” (‫המן העץ אשר צויתיך לבלתי אכל ממנו‬
‫)אכלת‬, but now adding the judgment that the man “listened to the
voice of your wife” (3:17aα; cf. 3:12).180 Earlier in 3:14a, God had
referred far more briefly to the snake’s culpability, just saying
“because you did this” (3:14 ;‫כי עשית זאת‬aα) to link back to the
woman’s prior statement (3:13). This two-part description of the
man’s culpability (eating from forbidden fruit and listening to the
voice of his wife) is longer in 3:17a for several reasons. The
description of the man’s misdeed is more distant than 3:14 from the
divine interrogation that it relates back to (3:8–13). It covers more
ground, touching both on the man’s action of eating the fruit in 3:6b
and his own defense in 3:12. And God’s accusation against the man
is longer because Gen 2–3 as a whole is androcentric, devoting
primary attention to the man, with secondary attention to other
characters.181 In particular, Y ’s accusation in 3:17 continues the
narrative’s more general characterization of the man as the one
particularly addressed by the divine prohibition (Gen 2:17; 3:11), but
adds an implication that his failure to exercise his authority and resist
the woman’s gift of the fruit to him represented a way that he
“listened to [her] voice.”182
The following description of consequence in 3:18 indicates a
profound shift from the idyllic life of the garden (2:7–15) to a situation
of farming anticipated by the prologue at the outset of the story (2:5).
Y pronounces that the ground (‫)האדמה‬, so central from the
outset of the narrative (Gen 2:5–7, 9, 19), is now “cursed” (‫ )ארור‬on
account of the human. As a result, rather than eating of the beautiful
and delicious trees God “made sprout” in Eden (2:9 ‫)צמח‬, thorns and
thistles now will “sprout” for the man, the type of plants that
threatened to overgrow highland fields (Hos 10:8; Jer 12:13).183 This
mention of “thorns and thistles” (‫ )קץ ודרדר‬is the first and only time
the text connects back to the “shrubs” (‫ )שיח‬mentioned as missing at
the outset of creation (2:5aα). Their “springing forth” then helps
explain the intense labor that the man must expend in producing the
“vegetation of the field” that also had been missing at the story’s
outset (3:18b; cf. 2:5aβ). That effort is underlined by mention that the
man will eat bread “with sweat on your face” in contrast to his prior,
much easier tree fruit diet.184
 God’s speech concludes with a re-emphasis on the lifelong
character of the human’s toil, connecting back in 3:19aβγ to the
human’s creation from the “ground” (whose name ‫אדמה‬, ʾădāmāh)
reflects the word used to designate him (hā ʾādām): “until you return
to the ground, for from it you were taken.” The last poetic line of the
speech (3:19b) almost seems a quote of a proverb about human
origins and death in dust (“you are dust and to dust you will return”),
or at least builds on a strong ancient Israelite association of dust with
death/mortality (see Job 21:26; 34:15; Qoh 3:20; also Lam 3:20).
This concluding divine statement about humans as dust and
returning to dust evoke these links of dust to mortality and help make
sense of the awkward statement at the outset of the story that God
formed the human out of both dust and ground (‫ ;עפר מן האדמה‬Gen
2:7a).
Thus linking in both cases (3:19aβγ and 3:19b) back to the
story’s beginning, these pronouncements about the lifelong extent of
hard human labor do not seem to represent the imposition of a
human mortality that did not exist before. Rather they seem to
assume a mortality in the human that is connected to the material
(dust from the earth) out of which he was made.185 The doubled
emphasis, however, on this pre-existent human mortality may be
read as an indication in 3:19 that the limits of human life—already
implicit in the material from which humans were made—have
become more inescapable as a result of eating of the forbidden fruit.
We will learn more from the text about how this is so in Gen 3:22, 24.
This emphasis in God’s speech on the human’s mortality “all the
days of your life” (3:17) and God’s use of the more broadly attested
“dust” motif to underline this mortality (3:19b) echoes and makes
sense of God’s initial mention of the snake’s mortality (“all the days
of your life”) and destiny (“eat dust”; 3:14). These elements, standing
at the beginning and end of God’s pronouncements in Gen 3:14–19,
are part of a broader theme of mortality implicitly introduced by the
making of the human “out of dust from the ground” (‫)עפר מן־האדמה‬.
This mortality theme becomes ever more explicit with references like
this (3:14, 17, 19) toward the end of the narrative, concluding with
God’s actions imposing permanent mortality on humans (Gen 3:22,
24).
 Finally, we should note additional parallels between God’s initial
pronouncement of punishment on the snake (3:14–15) and this
concluding pronouncement of punishment on the human (3:17–19).
Both start with specific divine accusations against the characters
(3:14aα, 17a). Both feature a state of being cursed (‫ )ארור‬that will
impact those characters’ entire lives (3:14b, 19), and both focus
more specifically on the characters’ destiny to eat earth—the snake
eating dust in 3:14b and the man eating ground (‫ )תאכלנה‬in
3:17bβ.186 In this sense, the punishments to both creatures formed
from “the ground” (‫ )האדמה‬relate to this ground and are similar to
each other. The intervening punishment on the woman formed “from
the man” (Gen 2:23; cf. 2:21–22) contrasts with those
pronouncements and relates to how she will soon produce children
from herself.187
Conclusions on Gen 3:14–19 These pronouncements of
punishment, each tailored to the role of the character in breaking
God’s commandment (e.g., snake eating dust and enemy to
humans, woman suffering exhausting pregnancies and subordinated
to man, man’s toil in eating), combine with the depiction of God’s
indignation and interrogation of the humans in 3:9–13, to show that
the story means to depict human disobedience as a negative act.
There has been a rise in recent years of attempts to read Gen 2–3
purely as a story of divinely-intended positive maturation, but that is
too simple.188 Though Gen 2–3, like earlier Mesopotamian
cosmogonies, tells the story of maturation, it is fraught and bought at
the cost of angering God. As a result of so angering God, the
humans lose a blessed life in God’s sacred garden. Instead, from
now on they must live a hard life characterized by new forms of
alienation (God-human, man-woman, human-animal), suffering and
unavoidable mortality.189
Nevertheless, the interpreter of this text faces a delicate
balancing act, both recognizing how 3:14–19 proclaim a diminution
in the quality of human life, while not over-reading this as a complete
reversal of the etiological elements surrounding human life in Gen 2.
As we have seen, the curse on the ground because of the man’s
action (3:17–19) still presupposes that he will work the ground from
which he was made (2:7), and the doubled emphasis in God’s
speech on the human’s mortality (3:19) merely unfolds the
anticipation of that mortality in the reference to “dust” (‫ )עפר‬in that
creation report. So also, the proclamation in 3:16b of female desire
for the man and male rule over the woman does not negate the
emphasis on male attachment to the woman and female parity with
the man in 2:21–24. Instead, it merely provides an overlay to that
initial positive anticipation of male-female relations, one that
etiologically anticipates difficult elements of later Israelite females’
lives. Even the proclamation of enmity between the woman/her
progeny and the snake/its progeny in 3:15 does not undo the stress
in 2:19–20 and the rest of the narrative on the basic superiority of
both men and women to animals. In this way, Gen 2–3 provides an
etiological exploration of easier and harder aspects of adult human
life.190
Gen 3:20 The (hu)man’s naming of his woman at this point
represents the first point where he formally names her as an
individual, now using the same naming formula ‫ קרא שם‬that was
used earlier to describe the human’s naming of the animals (2:20).
This highlights, by contrast, the different character of his earlier call
for her to be called “woman because from man she was taken”
(2:23b). That call anticipated how others would designate the
woman, using the general designation ‫“( אשה‬woman”). In contrast,
3:20 is presented parallel to 2:19b–20a (the naming of animals) as
the (hu)man’s formal “naming” of his woman. As such, it is an
assertion of power over her on analogy with his implicit power over
animals. It is an initial illustration of one way the man now “rules”
over the woman (3:16b).191 Following immediately on Y ’s
pronouncement of her role in reproduction and placement under
male authority (Gen 3:16), the human’s claiming of such authority
over her by naming in Gen 3:20 represents the culmination of the
narrative’s etiology of male authority over females.192
The name that the man gives her, ‫( חוה‬ḥavvāh; translated into
English as “Eve”) is explained by the narrator as a reflection of her
role as “the mother of everyone that lives” (193.(‫ אם כל־חי‬Within its
immediate context, this naming of the woman by virtue of her role of
mother stands as a follow-up to Y ’s announcement that he will
multiply her toil in pregnancies (Gen 3:16), thus anticipating the
woman’s bearing of ancestors of the human species. As such, the
naming in 3:20 is prospective, like the divine speech (3:16) it follows.
This potentiality for reproduction, particularly focused on the woman,
is something that has been in view ever since the narrative
described the making of the woman and anticipated later male
attraction to females (2:21–24). Nevertheless, the human can not
name his wife in relation to her future as mother until she eats of the
forbidden fruit and God announces her destiny as mother as a
consequence of that act (3:16). This destiny for the woman to
produce new (human) life represents a crucial way that she provides
a counterpoint to the emphasis in the immediately preceding verse
on human mortality (3:19). Though the human is condemned to hard
labor until he returns to the ground/dust from which he was made,
the human naming of her in 3:20 represents his recognition that
humans, by virtue of the creation of the woman, can reproduce and
have their children survive them after they die.194 It represents his
naming follow-up to God’s reaffirmation of his mortality (Gen 3:19)
much like the Gen 2 creation narrative concluded with his praise of
her bodily connection to him and proclamation of what others would
call her (Gen 2:23).195
Yet, in addition to standing as an affirmation of the woman’s
crucial role as the mother of future humans, the epithet “mother of
everyone that lives” suggests some kind of broader connection of
this first woman to all life and thus to older ideas of mother
goddesses, such as the Syrian goddess Ḫepa/Ḫebat.196 Where
ancient Mesopotamian myths often featured a prominent role of
mother goddesses collaborating with a male deity in the creation of
human life (e.g., OB Atrahasis epic 1:189–237), this story seems to
pose Eve as the human counterpart to that female divine figure.
Indeed, the next and last time the narrative uses the name “Eve” will
be when she bears her first child and proclaims that she, much like
the mother goddesses in those myths, “created a man with Y ”
(Gen 4:1).197 In this way, as initially in the construction of Eve (Gen
2:21–22), elements from mother goddess traditions may shine
through the character of Eve, even as she is clearly presented as
human and her role as the female ancestor of humanity is the sole
focus of the following narratives.
 Gen 3:21 God officially recognizes and affirms the distinction of
man and woman (with their shame) from animals (who lack bodily
shame) by making and dressing them in “skin tunics.” The making of
such tunics implies divine violence against animals, but that is not
stressed here (cf. the stress on the problem of human murder in Gen
4:1–16). Instead, these tunics represent a decisive mark of a new,
divinely recognized difference of humans from animals such that
humans are distinguished from animals by wearing animal skins over
their own. The importance of these tunics as a sign is indicated by
the explicit statement that God “dressed them” in these tunics
(‫)וילבשם‬. The other main occurrences of this verb appear in Moses’s
dressing of Aaron in the robe (‫ ;מעיל‬Lev 8:7) and Aaron’s sons in
tunics (‫ ;כתנת‬Lev 8:13), full length outer garments that marked their
priestly status and allowed them to appear before God (cf. Gen 3:8–
10). The special status marked here is “human being” and it applies
to both man and woman.
This, then, represents the conclusion of a narrative arc begun
back in chapter two with God’s intent to make a “helper
corresponding to” the first human. That intent initially issued in God’s
making of animals and bringing them to the man to see what he
named them (2:19–20). God eventually makes woman from man
(2:21–22), and she is certified by the man as corresponding to him
(2:23). But the concluding note to this part of the narrative, that the
man and woman were not ashamed before each other (2:25),
suggested their creation was still unfinished, and we have seen
continuing hints of the humans’ childlike status in the woman’s
improvisation on God’s command (3:2–3), the humans’ childlike
hiding from God walking in the garden (3:8), and their clumsy
attempts to deflect blame from themselves when confronted with
their disobedience (3:12–13). Only preliminarily with human-made
leaf loincloths after eating the fruit (3:7) and then more officially here
with God making skin tunics for both humans (3:21) do both humans
gradually move toward the status of adult human beings. This
movement toward full adulthood across the span of Gen 2:25–3:21
represents the full process of creation and naming of humans that
then corresponds to God’s creation and naming of animals in 2:21–
22.
Genesis 3:22–24: Scene Seven in the Concentric Structure
(cf. Scene One, 2:4b–17)
Once the above-described move to full (adult) humanity has
occurred, the narrative seems to see no occasion to again mention
the woman, the “helper corresponding to him,” that God intended to
make at the outset of this narrative arc. As in the corresponding
scene at the outset of Gen 2–3 (2:4b–17), every reference to
humanity in this final scene (3:22–24) is to the original (hu)man
alone. The “woman” character seems to have served her purpose, at
least as far as the terms of the Gen 2–3 narrative is concerned.198
Considered more positively, this final scene in 3:22–24 undoes
certain aspects of the first scene in Gen 2–3, where God created and
placed the human in the garden to work and protect it. The
description of God’s process of expelling the human from the garden
“to work the ground” (‫ )לעבד את־האדמה‬in 3:22–24 undoes God’s
earlier placement of the human in the Eden garden (2:8, 15). As we
will see, this act fulfills God’s prediction at the end of scene one that
the human would “certainly die” if he ate the fruit by excluding him
from the tree granting immortality (2:17). Finally, God’s sending of
this human “to work the ground from which he was taken” (‫לעבד‬
3:23 ;‫ )את־האדמה אשר לקח משם‬provides a more explicit remedy to
the lack of a human “to work the ground” (noted in 2:5) than the
original placement of him in the garden “to work and guard it” (2:15).
Much of the rest of the non-P primeval history will focus on the
human’s male descendants and especially the relation of
subsequent major male characters to “the ground” that they were
destined to farm (Gen 2:5, 7; 3:23) and plots that follow from fruits
that they produce from that ground (Gen 4:1–16; 9:20–21). Following
on the reproductive focus in Gen 3:16, 20, women generally appear
only briefly, and mostly as mothers (Gen 4:1, 20–22, 25; 6:1–4; cf.
Naamah in 4:22b).
Gen 3:22 Not only does this divine speech initiate a shift in
3:22–24 away from the woman and animals introduced in 2:18–25, it
also represents a shift away from the interactions with humans that
have dominated the narrative from God’s making of the first human
in 2:7 to God’s dressing of the two humans in tunics in 3:21. At this
point in the narrative, God evidently turns to God’s divine council in
noting the problem caused by the human eating of the forbidden tree
of knowledge: having eaten of the tree of knowledge and thereby
become more similar to God and God’s council (“like one of us”), the
human now might become completely godlike if he, like the woman
initially did with the tree of knowledge (Gen 3:6), takes from the tree
of life, and “lives forever.”199
 By this point in the story we have heard (3:5, 7) and seen (3:7ff.)
the effects of the tree of knowledge, but this speech by God in 3:22
is our first explicit statement of the effects of the tree of life
introduced in 2:9b.200 In noting its power to confer immortality upon
apparently mortal humans, this divine speech only brings to the fore
a theme of mortality/immortality that is implicit in numerous earlier
parts of Gen 2–3, from the making of the human from “dust” (Gen
2:7) to the underlining of mortality as the boundary of human life
(3:17–19) and emphasis on the woman’s destiny to provide children
to help transcend it (Gen 3:16, 20), and even the overall choice of
the skin-changing snake (cf., e.g., the snake in the SB Gilgamesh
epic [11:303–307]) as the key figure that leads to human expulsion
from the garden and loss of access to the tree of immortality.
The text does not tell us why Y is concerned in Gen 3:22
about humans becoming too godlike. The text seems to be building
here from the ancient assumption, seen also in Mesopotamian and
other contexts, that deities did not want humans to gain divine
immortality and thus cross the divine-human boundary. Genesis 2–3
seems to presuppose that humans are capable of possessing a
wisdom that is godlike, in this case godlike “knowledge of good and
evil” (3:5, 22). Genesis 3:22 merely qualifies this somewhat by
having God speak of humans having knowledge like “one of us” in
God’s council, rather than like God himself. Yet once this godlike
wisdom has been attained, God expresses concern in 3:22 about the
prospect of humans gaining immortality. Indeed, God’s concern
about this 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 proceeds directly to
action (3:23–24).201
Gen 3:23–24 Out of this, God then “sends” (‫ )שלח‬the (hu)man
from the garden of Eden “to work the ground from which he was
taken” (3:23). This “sending” of the human out of the garden
constitutes God’s act to prevent the human from “sending” (again
‫ )שלח‬forth his hand, eating the fruit of life, and gaining immortality.202
Notably, Gen 3:23 continues the focus already in Gen 3:22 on “the
human,” considering the woman as implicitly included in his
household and encompassed in expressions about his fate.
 The focus in 3:23 on God’s sending of “the human” out of the
garden “to work the ground” (‫ )לעבד האדמה‬provides the first exact
narrative solution to the problem noted at the outset of the narrative
(“there was no human to work the ground”; 2:5bβγ). That initial
statement focused on the lack of a farmer-human for the ground, and
it was soon followed by God’s formation of “the human” out of “the
ground” he was destined to work (2:7). But even though God’s
appointment of him to “work and guard” the garden (2:15) did not
stand in contradiction to this destiny to work “the ground,” this is the
first point in the story where we see a more exact fulfillment of that
destiny. Now the human will not just (implicitly) work the ground
inside the Eden garden, but he and his numerous offspring will work
the ground of the broad earth outside it (see Gen 4:2; 5:29; 9:20).
Meanwhile. Y ’s sending forth of the human in 3:23 does not
deal with the possibility that the human might return to the garden
and gain godlike immortality from the tree of life. Therefore, the
narrative restates Y ’s act with a new stress on the prevention of
return (3:24). Where Gen 3:23 focused on the goal toward which
God sent the human out of the garden (to work the earth), verse 24
focuses on God’s permanent expulsion of humans away from the
garden. Toward this end God sets up guards—winged figures
(Cherubim) and the flame of a revolving sword—to block the way
back to the tree of life.203 Notably, the text pictures this opening
guarded by cherubim “east of the garden of Eden” (‫)מקדם לגן־עדן‬.
This may mean to depict the guarded opening to the primeval Eden
sanctuary on analogy with that of the later Jerusalem temple, which
probably had an Eastern gate, and indeed one that also featured
cherubim in some way.204
This final focus on prevention of human reentry to the garden
provides an example of what the narrative is focused on, while also
helping to control for what it is not focused on. Like other narratives
in its literary world, Gen 2–3 is interested in exploring the semi-divine
nature of rational, yet mortal human beings. Working back from that,
the text provides a story background to its audience’s present, where
male and female humans live hard, often short lives, working the
soil, having children, and fending off animals. Crucial for Gen 2–3
and similar narratives is explaining why humans could be as godlike
as they are (especially in possessing some godlike wisdom), yet still
be mortal. For this reason, the narrative doubles back on itself, not
only explaining the human departure to work the earth (3:23), but
also clarifying that God forever barred the way back to the tree of
immortality (3:24). At the same time, the Gen 2–3 narrative shows
minimal interest in a variety of non-etiological, theoretical questions
that have preoccupied subsequent readers: e.g., why didn’t Y
forbid the tree of life as well; why didn’t the humans already eat of
that tree and what would have happened if they had; etc.205
Thus, it is only in hindsight that the reader is able to perceive the
truth of Y ’s pronouncement in Gen 2:17 that the human would
surely die (‫)מות תמות‬. Certainly the human’s eating of the fruit did not
lead to immediate death. In that sense, the snake was right in 3:5.
Nevertheless, Y ’s response in 3:22–24 clarifies how human
acquisition of knowledge from the tree was connected to death: it led
to an expulsion from the garden and resulting loss of the chance at
immortality. As a result the human now truly will “certainly die” in a
way that was not as true before eating the fruit.206 The Y of the
story seems initially to wish for humans to live inside the precious
orchard-garden with the privilege of working and guarding it (Gen
2:8, 15), and the prohibition in Gen 2:17 can be seen as part of that
gracious provision—insuring that humans can be allowed to stay
there. Ultimately, however, the story is explaining a world where
humans live outside the garden, working “the ground” more broadly,
and everything in the story, including the prologue about “ground
lacking a human to work it” (Gen 2:5), is written from and in relation
to that later audience’s standpoint.

Conclusion to Synchronic Analysis of Gen 2:4b–3:24 (in its Pre-

P Context)
The above analysis has presented Gen 2:4–3:24 as a multivalent
reflection on the nature of human life. In particular, it is a literarily-
sophisticated work, featuring numerous plays on language with
many linguistic elements amenable to multiple interpretations. Not
only is the text bound together by an intricate concentric structure,
but this structure allows the text to be an etiology of human life in its
reality and potential, from wonder at the potential for human intimacy
to the emergence of “knowledge of good and evil” and the toil and
suffering linked with human reproduction, farming, and death. At the
same time, some of the more subtle aspects of Gen 2–3, such as the
above-discussed exploration of a lost chance at immortality, are so
deftly developed as to be potentially overlooked without attention to
how Gen 2–3 interweaves themes of wisdom and immortality seen in
its Near Eastern precursors. In the end, this overall picture of human
life in Gen 2–3 can be characterized as irreducibly “ambivalent.” It
celebrates the potential of humans for connection to the earth and
each other, while also recognizing a fundamental fracture in human
relationships connected to adult human consciousness and
civilization.207
Various parts of the above commentary also have highlighted
ways that Gen 2–3 introduces elements that are developed further in
a non-P primeval history extending up through the (non-P) materials
about Noah and his sons in Gen 9:20–27; 10:15, 21. These include:

a) the introduction of a broader emphasis across the history on the

connection of humans (here an implicitly male “human” ‫ )האדם‬to
“the ground” (7 ,2:5 ;‫ האדמה‬and passim, then 4:11–14; 5:29; 6:1;
9:20);
b) a focus on kin-relations of the human with the woman (Gen 2:18–
24) that will be developed in other ways across the history (Gen
4:1–16; 9:20–27); and
c) a broader focus on human reproduction (Gen 3:16, 21) that
prepares for the history’s genealogical unfolding (Gen 4:1–2, 25–
26; 10:15, 21; also 6:1).

In addition, the theme of human mortality that occurs across diverse

parts of Gen 2–3 will be diversely engaged by subsequent parts of
the non-P primeval history. Though humans now are condemned to
unavoidable mortality (Gen 3:22–24), they can achieve proximate
immortality through both reproduction of subsequent generations
(3:16, 21; 4:1–2, 25) and through achieving the lasting fame of a
great “name” (Gen 6:4; note also the name of Noah’s son Shem =
“name”). Subsequent parts of this commentary will discuss how
these texts in the non-P primeval history develop these and other
elements from Gen 2–3. In these ways and others, the relative
dating of Gen 2:4b–3:24 vis-à-vis Gen 1:1–2:3 and its placement in a
pre-Priestly context can be quite exegetically significant.
This commentary does not, however, advocate a particular
absolute dating for Gen 2–3 and other non-P primeval history texts.
Though a variety of dates for Gen 2–3 (and the non-P primeval
history of which it is a part) have been proposed, none has achieved
consensus and it is not clear, in any case, how such a specific dating
would aide in interpretation of it.208 It can be helpful to recognize
some of the ways, noted above (see the commentary on Gen 2:10–
14 and 3:24), that the garden and river elements of Gen 2–3 may be
connected to concepts of Jerusalem and its sanctuary. More
generally, it is quite important to read the etiological elements
permeating Gen 2–3 in relation to the social realia of life in the
ancient Judean highlands. Otherwise, however, the historical
exegesis of Gen 2–3 (and other parts of the non-P primeval history)
is not significantly advanced by establishing a specific historical
context for it.
Synthesis
Genesis 2–3 in Comparison with Identifiable Ancient Near Eastern
Precursors Returning to look at cosmogonic precursors to Gen 2–3,
it becomes more clear how this biblical narrative is distinguished
from them by its focus on a luxuriant garden as the now-lost origin
point for primeval humans. This divinely provided garden serves
within Gen 2–3 to depict a set of divine intentions for creation—
connection of man and woman, connection of human and earth—
that are only imperfectly realized in the present world.209 Thanks to
this garden motif, Gen 2–3 depicts central aspects of present reality
as a divergence from God’s created intent. Where Mesopotamian
cosmogonies depict the gods imposing backbreaking farming labor
on humans to relieve lower gods of their work, Gen 2–3 depicts God
as originally creating the first humans for idyllic life working and
guarding God’s well-watered garden orchard. The exhausting
character of gaining food to “eat” through agriculture is made an
outcome of similarly eating forbidden fruit (3:17–18). Similarly Gen
2–3 depicts the gender inequality that characterized the social world
of its intended audience not as divinely-intended patriarchy, but as a
tragic result of human disobedience. In this way the garden of Eden
narrative in Gen 2–3 avoids merely legitimizing the present world
and becomes both an etiology of diverse aspects of the present
human world (relationships of males, females, animals, farming,
reproduction, mortality, etc.) and a vision of divinely-intended
possibilities for human life.210
One of the most intriguing elements in Gen 2–3 is its choice of
focal point to explain the entire movement from inside to outside this
garden. Though there is a focus here in Gen 2–3 (as in Gen 4) on a
human misdeed, it is not murder or an equivalent. And though a
woman plays a prominent role in this transition to adulthood outside
the garden, the transition is not enacted through sexual maturation
(cf., e.g., the Enkidu episode in the Gilgamesh epic). Instead, the
entire movement from inside to outside the garden, with its various
consequences, is attributed in Gen 2–3 to a decision by the first
humans (first the woman, then her man) to defy God’s prohibition
and seize the knowledge to discern for themselves between good
and evil. On one level, this seizure is depicted in the story as a tragic
cause of human estrangement from God, of man from woman and
even—in relation to the snake—of humans from animals. Indeed, it
ultimately leads to human loss of idyllic life in the garden and the
concomitant loss of a chance for immortality. On another level, this
human gaining of “knowledge of good and evil” represents an
important step toward human agency, adulthood, and civilization.
This capacity for human agency is an implicit background for the
Cain and Abel story in Gen 4 and other narratives that follow. It
represents the (narrative) beginning of “history” in a meaningful
sense of the term.
In the end, Gen 2–3 provides a fraught picture of humanity, living
outside the garden without the full measure of connectedness to
each other and the earth that God intended. Written thousands of
years ago, the text offers a remarkably prescient picture of the
irreversible, profound and often painful consequences that attend the
human move toward farming culture and toward other aspects of
civilized-adult human existence.211 The move toward farming culture
is accompanied here by a “curse on the earth” (3:17) that means
lifelong toil for humans. Contrary to any utopian hope for a return to
an earlier natural state, Gen 2–3 depicts farming humans as
permanently destined for a measure of alienation from the earth from
which we were made. Agrarian human life is thus characterized by a
permanent fracture between humans on the one hand and the
natural world of animals and earth on the other.
In addition, the Gen 2–3 anthropogony develops a complex
picture of both the potentialities and limits of human relations,
particularly between the sexes. It enriches older, wisdom-oriented
ideas of “knowledge of good and evil,” suggesting that the primeval
human move from a childlike adulthood involved a gaining of such
knowledge that included a self-conscious awareness of others’
perceptions of one’s self—seen especially in the humans’
consciousness of their nakedness before each other (3:7; cf. 2:25).
Future adult human life will be marked by such knowledge and
vulnerability to shame, along with concomitant alienation from God
and other humans that is illustrated here in the human hiding from
God (3:8), the man’s attempt to blame God and the woman for his
misdeed (3:12), and the loss of some of the previous parity between
man and woman (2:18–23) with the man’s “rule” over the woman
(3:16bβ). At the same time, the Gen 2–3 narrative also affirms that
human life still can reflect God’s original created intent—such as in
the potential of a man to be powerfully drawn from his parents to his
wife (2:24). This attraction of the man to the woman, combined with
the woman’s “desire” for her man (3:16b), helps provide for human
reproduction (3:16a, 20), thus allowing humans to survive into future
generations, despite being condemned to mortality by being
permanently excluded from the tree of life (3:22, 24).
Genesis 2–3 in Literary, Postmodern, and Other
Perspectives Already the above diachronically-informed, synchronic
commentary on Gen 2–3 has drawn extensively on prior literary,
feminist and other readings of the text by Trible, Galambush,
Kalmanofsky, Chapman, etc. Such readings have played a crucial
role in balancing widespread use of this text to undergird patriarchal
and misogynist attitudes about women and male-female relations. In
addition, especially in the wake of Derrida’s lectures on L’animal que
donc je suis (delivered 1997; published in 2006 and [in English]
2008), Gen 2–3 have been a focus of critical analysis of how the
Bible constructs “human” and “animal” categories and relates them
to each other. And indeed, such analyses can interlock with this one
in highlighting how the Eden story’s depiction of the human’s gradual
assumption of dominant relations over animals and women is but the
introduction to a larger non-P primeval account of (male) human
relations, an account that culminates in the enslavement of “brother”
Canaan in the story of Noah and his sons (Gen 9:20–27).212 In these
and other ways there are numerous evocative intersections between
the historically-cued reading offered here and interpretive
methodologies that are particularly focused on how biblical texts
relate to contemporary social and power relations.
At the same time such historical analysis highlights the fact that
no amount of careful reading of Gen 2–3 will reveal it as a
particularly liberative text in modern terms. As such this analysis can
underline the ongoing relevance of resistant interpretive
methodologies that refuse to read Gen 2–3 on its own terms. For
example, from Jobling’s initial post-structuralist reading of God as
the “opponent” of the plot in Gen 2–3 to Yamada’s post-colonial
interpretive parallel of Eden and internment camps, various non-
historical readings have balanced past interpretive tendencies to
privilege the God character in Gen 2–3 and unquestioningly endorse
God’s expressed wishes and apparent plans.213 Within the present
ecological crisis, eco-critical readings, such as that by Carol
Newsom, have suggested that the Eden story can be reread as an
account of how humans lost community with the earth and other
beings through agricultural exploitation of the earth, a loss caused by
a human move toward anthropocentric determination of what is
“good” and “bad.”214 Finally, Ken Stone balances the story’s explicit
endorsement of the gender binary and associated heteronormative
norms (e.g., Gen 2:24; 3:16, 20) with observation of how it also
undermines such norms through elements like its implication that
(female) sexual desire and reproduction are among the
consequences of eating forbidden fruit.215
As was implied in the introduction to this commentary, a more
conventional final-form reading of Gen 2–3 in relation to Gen 1 can
be included among such non-historical interpretive approaches,
since it cannot plausibly claim to represent an ancient redactor’s
original intent. That said, the present combination of the two texts
has resulted in a theologically evocative whole. By itself, the picture
in Gen 1 of humans created as images of God for godlike rule is
optimistic in its view of human possibility (thus paralleling Gen 2),
even as it forms just one part of a broader, less-optimistic Priestly
narrative. So also, the above-discussed picture of human growth
toward painful adulthood in Gen 2–3, though ambivalent, is more
negative in its assessment of human potential and limits, especially
in its depiction of the dire consequences of human acquisition of a
limited “knowledge of good and evil.” The texts may be stronger
together than they are apart in representing both the potential and
the liability of human development.
Moreover, one might combine the two pictures to yield new ways
of encountering other humans in their mix of godlike potential and
human fallibility. Genesis 2–3 deepens the bold picture from Gen 1
of all humanity created as God’s image in suggesting that a key
internal godlike characteristic of humans is the capacity to discern,
on one’s own, good and evil. This ability is not romanticized, of
course, in Gen 3. Quite the contrary. Subsequent stories in Gen 4–
11 will deepen the sense that this human capacity for self-
discernment quite often leads to disaster. Nevertheless, taken
together, Gen 1–3 can be interpreted as an encouragement to
readers to see a divine quality in others, even in the capacity of
those other people to make their own determinations of what is good
for life or bad. Putting Gen 1 and 2–3 together, this could mean fully
recognizing the tragedy that often attends human decision making,
but also seeing aspects of the creator God as potentially reflected in
every person’s bodily presence (Gen 1) and that person’s
independent judgments of what is beneficial/good and non-
beneficial/evil (Gen 2–3).
To be sure, neither this nor other readings of the complex whole
now found in Gen 1–3 can claim to be a representation of what the
original creators of the text intended. Rather, the approach
suggested here is just one example of how a contemporary reading
of the diachronically complex whole might be informed by historical-
critical exegesis of its parts.
Genesis 4:1–26: First Descendants of
the Initial Human Couple

4:1 The human knewa Eve, his wife, and she conceived and bore
Cain. She said, “I have createdb a man withc Y .” 2 She gave
birth again, to his brother, Abel. Abel was a shepherd of flocks, while
Cain was a worker of the ground. 3 After a while, Cain brought from
the fruit of the ground an offering to Y . 4 Abel brought as well
from the first born animals of his flock, indeed from their fat.a Y
looked upon Abel and his offering, 5 but upon Cain and his offering
he did not look.
Cain became very angry, and his face fell. 6 Y said to Cain,
“Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 Is it not so that
if you do well, you will lift up [your face].a And if you do not do well,
sin is a crouching one at the opening. Its desire is for you, but you
should rule over it.”b
8 Cain said to his brother, Abel,a and when they were in the field,
Cain rose up against his brother, Abel, and killed him.
9Y said to Cain, “Where is Abel, your brother?” And he said, “I
don’t know. Am I my brother’s guardian?”a 10 He [Y ] said, “What
have you done? Hear,a your brother’s violently shed bloodb is crying
out to me from the ground. 11 Now, cursed are you away from the
ground which opened its mouth to take your brother’s blood from
your hand. 12 If you work the ground, it will not again give up its
strength to you. You will be an endless wanderer on the earth.”
13 Cain said to Y , “My punishment is too great to bear.a 14 See,
you have expelled me today from the face of the ground, and from
your face I will hide myself. I will be an endless wanderer on the
earth, and anyone who finds me will kill me.” 15 Y then said to
a
him, “Therefore, anyone who kills Cain will suffer seven-fold
revenge.” And Y put a mark on Cain to prevent anyone who
found him from striking him down. 16 Cain then went out from
Y ’s presence and settled in the land of wanderinga east of Eden.
17 Cain knewa his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. Now he
was buildingb a city, and he named the city after his son Enoch. 18
Irad was born to Enoch, and Irad fathered Mehujael. Mehujaela
fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech.
19 Lamech took for himself two wives. The name of the first was
Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah. 20 Adah bore Jabal.
He was the ancestora of those who dwell in tents, with livestock.b 21
His brother’s name was Jubal. He was the ancestor of all who play
the zither and flute. 22 Zillah also bore Tubal-Cain, a sharpener, [the
ancestor of] of all who craft bronze and iron.a The sister of Tubal-
Cain was Naamah. 23 Lamech said to his wives,
Adah and Zillah, listen to my voice,
wives of Lamech, give ear to my speech.
Indeed,a I have killed a man for injuring me,
and a child for wounding me.
24 Indeed, sevenfold is Cain avenged,a
and Lamech seventy-sevenfold.

25 Adam knewa his wife, and she boreb a son and named himc
‘Seth,’ [saying] “For God ‘set’d me another seed in the place of Abel
because Cain killed him.” 26 And to Seth was borna a son, and he
named him ‘Enosh.’ It was then that the name of Y began to be
called upon.b
Notes on Text and Translation
4:1a As discussed further in the commentary on Gen 4:1–2, the root used here to
express “have sex with” is ‫ידע‬, a root that is associated with knowing and
knowledge in other contexts, including throughout the Eden story in Gen 2–3
(e.g., Gen 2:9, 17; 3:5, 7, 22). In this and analogous instances in the
subsequent chapter (e.g., 4:17, 25), ‫ ידע‬primarily means “have intercourse” as
it also does, e.g., in Gen 19:5, 8; 24:16; and Judg 11:39. For similar usage of
this root in other languages see Gesenius18 442.
1b The verb used here, ‫קנה‬, can mean “acquire” or, in some contexts, “create.”
Occurring here just after the creation story in Gen 2–3 and in connection with
Yahweh, “create” seems the main meaning actualized here, but the other may
be implied as well. For more, see the commentary below.
1c The use of ‫ את‬here is somewhat unusual. Translating it as the direct object
marker (“I have created [or acquired] … Y ”), though advocated by some
as the original meaning (e.g., Heyde, Kain, der erste Jahweverehrer, 9), does
not make sense in the context. Though the preposition ‫ את‬does not usually
refer to a person or object who enables an action, it can express a sense of
“together with.” In particular, 1 Chr 2:18 appears to refer to Caleb’s fathering
children with (‫ )את‬his wife Azubah, of Jerioth, an analogous usage to what we
see in Eve’s speech in Gen 4:1b. This sort of looser meaning of “along with”
for ‫( את‬as suggested by Westermann, among others [for references, see
Genesis 1–11, 396–397 [ET 290–291]) would conform to broader use for the
preposition and make sense as a follow-up to Y ’s creation of the two
humans in Gen 2.
4a Here the wav preceding ‫“( מחלבהן‬from their fat”) is understood (with Heyden,
“Die Sünde Kains,” 93) as explicative.
7a Already rabbinic interpreters identified the isolated infinitive here as difficult to
interpret (see bYoma 52a–b and parallels; literally, “if you do well, a lifting” ;
Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 208–9 and Frank Crüsemann, “Autonomie und
Sünde,” 64). Nevertheless, since this part of God’s speech follows
immediately on God’s notation of the “falling” of Cain’s “face” (4:6bβ; see also
4:5bβ), most scholars plausibly understand ‫ נשא‬here to refer to a lifting up of
Cain’s face. As Deurloo points out (Kaïn en Abel, 105), this supplying of “face”
in 4:7aα is somewhat analogous to the widespread assumption that “gift”
(‫ )מנחה‬is to be supplied for Abel’s offering as with Cain’s, even though it is not
explicitly mentioned in the report of Abel’s sacrifice in 4:4a. In general, this
 text is characterized by its extremely compact formulation, sometimes to the
point of obscurity (as in the case of 4:7 in particular).
7b See the excursus below for discussion of the translation of 4:7. “Its desire is for
you” here exactly parallels the prediction of the woman’s desire for her
husband in Gen 3:16a.
8a The MT and one Qumran Genesis manuscript (4QGenb [4Q2]) merely have
‫“( ויאמר קין אל־הבל אחיו‬and Cain spoke to Abel, his brother”), while the
Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, and Targum also include
some equivalent to ‫“( נלכה השדה‬let us go to the field”) as a quotation of his
speech, leading into the following description of what happened “when they
were in the field” (4:8bα). Normally, a narrative imperfect ‫“( ויאמר‬and he said”)
is followed by a quote of what is said; this quoted speech works well in its
context as a transition to 4:8b; and some (e.g., Ronald S. Hendel, Genesis 1–
11, 47) find it striking that so many textual witnesses agree on the contents of
missing quoted speech. Nevertheless, the agreement between witnesses is
not as clear as it often is taken to be, and their approximate agreement with
each other may result from the fact that they are similarly-directed facilitating
readings that fail to recognize the occasional use of ‫ אמר‬without quoted
speech.1 Such cases are especially characteristic of cases like 4:8a where
‫ אמר‬refers to a command whose contents are clear in context (e.g., Jonah
2:11 [ET 2:10]; 2 Chr 1:2–3; Job 9:7).2 Either way, it is understood that Cain
said something to his brother about going to the field. Moreover, it is easier to
explain the addition of the quoted speech to a text lacking it than its deletion
(cf. Hendel, 47 for one such explanation). Because of the common implication,
a decision on this issue is not so important for the interpretation of the text.
9a The verb used here, ‫שמר‬, is used in the immediate preceding chapter to refer to
the guarding of the Eden garden (Gen 2:15; 3:24). The translation here aims
to convey a somewhat broader range of responsibility implied here for the
older brother, one more akin to that which Cain implicitly had in tending (‫)רעה‬
his livestock (Gen 4:2).
10a Here ‫( קול‬usually “sound” or “voice”) at the outset of the clause is probably an
exclamation (GKC 146b). Alternatively, this clause could have God saying “the
sound [or voice] of your brother’s blood is crying out…,” but this translation is
hampered by the fact that “cry” ‫ צעקים‬is a plural participle, which matches the
plural used for violently-shed blood, which would mean the blood and not the
“voice” is “crying” (so Ibn Ezra).
10b We see here ‫דמים‬, the plural of the Hebrew word for “blood,” an expression
that is used elsewhere to refer to violently shed blood, see, e.g., 1 Kgs 2:5,
31; Isa 4:4; 26:21; Hos 1:4), such that an unusually violent man is called a
“man of blood(s)” (e.g., 2 Sam 16:7–8; Prov 29:10).
13a Traditionally this verse has been translated by many, in concert with usage of
‫ נשא‬elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., Lev 10:17; Hos 14:3; Ps 85:3), as “my guilt is
too great to forgive.” Nevertheless, this statement by Cain in 4:13 follows a
divine pronouncement of punishment (4:11–12). Moreover, as Ibn Ezra points
out, the rest of Cain’s statement in 4:14 focuses on redescribing that
punishment, and God’s response to Cain (4:15) deals with the problematic
aspect of punishment identified by Cain in 4:14b. This all suggests that ‫ עון‬is
used in 4:13 in its meaning “punishment,” rather than “guilt,” and that Cain
here is asserting his inability to “bear” this punishment (cf. the attempt by
Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 420–421 [ET 309] to argue for both senses
here). As an additional support, Williamson (“Getting Carried Away with ‫)”נשא‬
suggests that different infinitive construct forms of ‫ נשא‬are used in 4:7 and 13
to underline the different senses of ‫ נשא‬in these contexts, with the long
infinitive form in 4:13 suggesting a non-metaphorical use “bear” (versus
metaphorical “lift up” ‫ שאת‬in 4:7).
15a The Greek tradition (both LXX and Theodotian, Symmachus; see also
Vulgate) and Syriac render equivalents of ‫לא כן‬, “not so.” This reading would
also make sense in context, but it probably should be taken as an easier
reading, to make sense of ‫( לכן‬MT, Samaritan Pentateuch).
16a The “land of wandering” is used here to reflect the closeness of this name (‫)נוד‬
to the Hebrew verb ‫“( נוד‬wander”) used to predict Cain’s endless wandering in
4:12 and 14.
17a See note 1a for comments on the use of the root ‫“( ידע‬know”) used here and
elsewhere in Gen 4 for “have sex with.”
17b With Joüon 121f, the qal participle ‫ ֹבנֶה‬here following the converted imperfect
‫ ַוי ְִהי‬is taken as expressing a durative function in the past, “he was building.”
18a The written form of Masoretic tradition reads a variant name here in 18b,
‫“( מחייאל‬Mehijael”), rather than the ‫“( מחויאל‬Mehujael”) described in 4:18a as
the son of Irad. The same figure is surely meant as the son of Irad and father
of Metushael. ‫ מחויאל‬might be linked to the use of the archaic root ‫ חוה‬in the
preceding naming of Eve (Gen 3:21) and might thus be earlier. The creation of
the variant ‫ מחייאל‬could be explained as the result of the common confusion of
‫ו‬/‫ י‬and/or linguistic modernization. We often see such ‫ו‬/‫ י‬variants in other
names, e.g., Peniel/Penuel (Gen 32:31–32 [ET 32:30–31]).3
20a The expression translated “ancestor” here and in the following verse is ‫אבי‬, a
noun that usually means “father.” These instances of ‫אבי‬, however, do not
mean to stress a genealogical relation. Therefore, the frequent translation of
“ancestor” is used in these instances to distinguish them from references
elsewhere in the chapter (e.g., just previously in 4:18) to male figures
fathering children.
20b Literally “ancestor of those who inhabit tents, with livestock.” This rendering
“with livestock” was adopted from Alter, Books of Moses, 21.
22a The note for Tubal-Cain features the m.s. participle ‫“( טֵ שׁ‬sharpener”; cf.
1 Sam 13:20; Ps 7:13) where the previous verses had ‫“( אבי‬father”). The
rendering here stays close to that substitution, and the verse is discussed
more below.
23a Hebrew ‫ כי‬is rendered here and at the outset of 24a as a deictic, asservative
particle rather than causal, e.g., justifying why Lamech’s wives should be
listening to him (“for…”).
24a This verse uses a hophal prefix form (‫ )י ַֻקּם‬to express repeated, habitual
action, here: just as one could count on Cain being avenged sevenfold (Gen
4:15), so also Lamech will be avenged seventy-seven fold. As noted in
Waltke-O’Connor (p. 506, section 31.3.e), the sort of gnomic, non-tense
oriented expression seen here is particularly typical of poetry (see also Joüon
113e).
25a See note 1a for comments on the use of the root ‫“( ידע‬know”) used here and
elsewhere in Gen 4 for “have sex with.” With Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 48, 128–
29 the expression ‫ עוד‬in the MT and Samaritan Pentateuch (but not reflected
in the LXX) is taken to be an expansion aimed at coordinating this birth report
with those in Gen 4:1–2.
25b The Septuagint and Syriac harmonize this birth report with that for Cain in 4:1,
adding Eve’s name along with a counterpart to the verb ‫“( ותהר‬and she
conceived”) that appears in 4:1.
25c The Samaritan Pentateuch and 11QJub 1:2 (=Jub 4:7; see also Philo QG
1:78) have “and he named him” rather than the reading “she named him” of
MT chosen here. The third masculine reading is probably a harmonization of
the formulation in 4:25 to Adam’s naming of Seth in 5:3b.
25d The translation here (“Seth”—“set”) is meant to convey some of the
connection between the name “Seth” (literally transcribed Sheth) and the
Hebrew verb used here (‫שית‬, “set”), somewhat awkwardly, to explain the
name.
26a The MT and Samaritan Pentateuch include an additional ‫ גם הוא‬conforming
this verse to models seen in 4:22 and the later reference to Sem’s fathering of
children in 10:21.
26b This reading follows the more difficult MT reading of ‫ אז‬and the hophal ‫הוחל‬
(used as an impersonal passive, GKC 144k; see also Joüon 155d), rather
than the ‫ החל‬reading in the Samaritan Pentateuch (see also 11QJubm
3.2=Jub 4:12) and the ‫ זה הוחיל‬reading implied in the Septuagint (οὗτος
ἤλπισεν “this one hoped”; Wevers, Notes on Genesis, 66). Hendel (Genesis
1–11, 49, citing earlier treatments) is influenced by the agreement of the ‫החל‬
 reading with the occurrences of ‫ ל‬+ ‫ חחל‬+ infinitive in Gen 6:1 and 10:8 to
follow the Samaritan Pentateuch and Peshitta reading of ‫ זה החל‬here.
Nevertheless, as argued in Tal, Genesis, 90*, this is likely a harmonizing (and
facilitating) modification, possibly influenced by the rarity of this passive
construction in later Aramaic and Samaritan Hebrew.

Translation of Gen 4:7

It is impossible to reach high levels of certainty on translating this difficult verse.
Nevertheless, I have opted for the more traditional translation, given above,
where Y is understood to be warning Cain that he risks being overcome by
“sin” in succumbing to his negative reaction to Y ’s response to his and
Abel’s sacrifices. The “sin” here is depicted along the lines of a semi-demonic
figure lying at the opening (of his dwelling), referred to with the participle ‫רֹבֵ ץ‬
functioning as a predicate nominative—a “crouching one” to whom the later
masculine pronouns in 4:7b then refer: its (the crouching one’s) desire is for
you, but you should rule over it. Cuneiform sources use the participle form of
rbṣ to refer to a demon (the rābiṣu) that often lurks at the opening to a
dwelling.4 The text seems to be invoking that sort of demonic figure in
metaphorically depicting the threat that “sin” poses to Cain.
Some important questions have been raised about this rendering, but each can
be answered. This reading of 4:7a does not seem at first glance to be helped
by the placement of “at the opening” (‫ )לפתח‬at the outset of the Hebrew clause
in 4:7aγ, rather than after ‫ רֹבֵ ץ‬as a more obvious modifier to it.5 Yet, one should
understand this placement of ‫ לפתח‬in front extra position as a way that the text
emphasizes the nearness and urgency of the threat posed to Cain by this semi-
demonic “sin,” an understanding that could be paraphrased as “at your very
door sin is a crouching one.” In addition, some have objected that the verb ‫רבץ‬
generally refers to animals peacefully lying down with no hint of threat,6 but the
verb can have a negative connotation when connected to an entity, such as a
lion (Gen 49:9) or dragon (Ezek 29:3), that is otherwise threatening.7 Finally, it
must be acknowledged that the metaphor of sin having a semi-erotic “desire”
(‫ )תשוקה‬for Cain is awkward. Nevertheless, this idea of “sin” having “desire”
serves as an adaptation of the anticipation of male rule in 3:16b, allowing
Y here to urge Cain to “rule” over the sin threatening him (4:7bβ) much like
Y just predicted the man would “rule” over the woman with “desire” for him
(3:16b). In this respect, Y is urging Cain to exhibit the masculinity implicit in
Eve’s initial naming speech about him (‫“ ;קניתי איש‬I have created a man ”) now
in “ruling” over the sin that desires him.
Whatever questions can be raised about the understanding of 4:7b presented
here, they are preferable to the even greater weaknesses of alternative
renderings of the verse. These have taken two major forms, represented below
next to the translation adopted here, both of which understand the latter part of
 the verse to be referring to Abel, so that Y in 4:7b is saying that Abel’s
“desire” is for Cain, but that Cain should rule over “him.” Alternative 1 sees
“Abel” as the one lying down in 4:7a as an “opening to sin,”8 while alternative 2
sees a masculine animal lying down as a possible “sin offering” in 4:7a that
Y is pointing out to Cain as available for offering to make up for
shortcomings of his first (cf. Gen 22:12–13).9

Translation Alternative 1: Alternative 2: an animal “sin

adopted in Abel lies before offering” lies at the opening [of
this Cain as “an the Eden garden] for Cain to
commentary opportunity for rectify an error in offering
sin”
[Is it not so [Is it not so [Is it not so that…]
that…] that…] If you do not do well,
If you do not If you do not do at the opening [of the Eden
do well, then well, garden] a sin offering lies.
sin is a as an occasion Abel’s desire is for you [your
crouching for sin, Abel lies. brotherly privilege],
one at the His desire is for but you can rule over him [if you
opening? you, rectify things with the sin offering]
Its desire is
for you, but you should
rule over him.
but you
should rule
over it.

Both of these alternative translations have significant problems. Though the

verb ‫ רבץ‬usually refers to animals lying down, alternative 1 understands this
verb to refer here to Abel’s lying down,10 and its translation of ‫ לפתח‬as “an
occasion for” lacks precedent in the Hebrew Bible.11 Alternative 2 reads into
the text an assumption that Cain made a mistake with his sacrifice that requires
a sin offering—something never said in Gen 4. Moreover, this second
alternative approach assumes that ‫“( לפתח‬the opening”) refers to the opening
of the Eden garden where the brothers must have sacrificed, even though the
word ‫ פתח‬never occurs in relation to the way out of Eden and the location of
the brothers’ sacrifices is unspecified in 4:3b–4a.12 In addition, both alternative
1 and alternative 2 problematically take “Abel” to be the referent of the
masculine singular pronouns in 4:7b (and, for alternative 1, also the participle
‫ רבץ‬in 4:7aβ) even though Abel has not been mentioned in the text since his
offering in 4:4a. Finally, both alternatives posit that Abel is the one who has the
sort of erotically tinged desire for Cain that lovers feel for each other (Gen
3:16b; Song 7:11), a concept of homoerotic love for which the text has not
prepared us and which is not developed in any other part of the story.
Diachronic Prologue
Genesis 4 represents the next major section in the non-P primeval
history that began with the Eden story of Gen 2–3. As we will see in
the following commentary, this expanded genealogy starts and is
structured by several birth reports (Gen 4:1–2a, 17, 25) that bridge
back to the sexuality and knowledge themes in Gen 2–3 through the
use of the term ‫“( ידע‬have sex with” and also “know”) to describe the
sex that produces major figures in the genealogy. These structuring
elements in the chapter as a whole represent just a few of the ways
that the terminology, design, and themes of Gen 4, especially the
story of Cain and Abel, parallel corresponding elements in Gen 2–
3.13
At the same time, in the following commentary we will see
several indicators that large portions of the material about Cain and
his descendants originated in a pre-literary tradition that preceded
the non-P primeval history. Recognition of the existence of this
earlier Cain-Lamech tradition can help account for some puzzling
elements in Gen 4 to be discussed below, such as the lack of a clear
origin for Cain’s wife (cf. Gen 4:17) or of humans to threaten Cain’s
life and be warned away by Y ’s promise of sevenfold
punishment (cf. Gen 4:14–15). In addition, the conclusion of this
commentary section will note some indicators that suggest that this
pre-biblical tradition about “Cain” and his ancestors was intended to
provide an account, from a Judean perspective, of the origins of the
“Kenites,” a non-Israelite group of artisans who lived in tents and
cities near Southern Judah. As will be discussed there, the likely
background of much of Gen 4 in this etiology of Kenites may explain
the chapter’s curiously mixed depiction of Cain and his descendants,
e.g., as both prone to extreme violence and yet attended to and even
protected by Y .
Meanwhile, scholars have been quite divided on whether the
material about the Sethite line in Gen 4:25–26 is pre- or post-
Priestly.14 The following commentary finds multiple indicators to
support the former position, that Gen 4:25–26 is pre-Priestly. I will
briefly consider this topic after we have considered the most
distinctive features seen in Gen 4:25–26 can be linked to the fabric
of the preceding chapter.
Synchronic Analysis

Overview
This story, like the Eden story that it follows, is structured
concentrically around a terse report of a human misdeed, even as its
concentric structure is somewhat less elaborate than that in the
preceding, longer text:15
A 4:1–5 Narrative background—Cain, Abel are main actors, Y less so (in
4:4b–5a)
[Alternating focus Cain-Abel spanning birth report 4:1–2 and sacrifice episode
4:3–5]
B 4:6–7 Speech—Y ’s instruction for Cain to master anger-driven
impulses
C 4:8 Cain and Abel alone—central crime (of murder)
B’ 4:9–15 Speech exchange—Y and Cain, consequences for
Cain
A’ 4:16 Narrative conclusion—Cain sole actor, follow-up to preceding story
Together, the Eden story in Gen 2–3 and Cain-Abel story in Gen 4:1–
16 combine to provide a sustained reflection on human moral
character in relation to the divine. Genesis 2–3 shows the
emergence and initial limits of such moral character, and Gen 4
further demonstrates its potential shortcomings. They share with
each other a minimal focus on the details of the human misdeeds
themselves. Instead, they encircle these misdeeds with pre- and
post-crime speeches depicting subtle processes of human thought
and divine (or snake)-human interaction that lead up to those
misdeeds and then respond to them. Indeed, almost all of the Cain-
Abel story in 4:1–16 is built upon two brief episodes introduced by
parallel circumstantial clauses (4:3b–5 introduced by ‫ויהי מקץ ימים‬
“after a while”; 4:8b introduced by ‫“ ויהי בהיותם בשדה‬when they were
in the field”), each of which is followed by extensive speeches (4:6–7
and 4:9–15 respectively).16
After the concentrically structured Cain-Abel story concludes in
4:16, Gen 4:17a resumes the genealogical focus of the outset of the
chapter, and the rest of the chapter unfolds two genealogical lines:
one Cainite line concluding with Lamech’s boastful song about
violence (Gen 4:22–24) and another Sethite line that moves to
Enosh and humans calling on the name of Y (Gen 4:25–26).17
The broader whole can be outlined as follows:
I. The Cain-Lamech Genealogical line 4:1–24
A. Extended (concentric) initiation (‫ )ידע‬of genealogical line: Cain,
Abel, murder 4:1–16
B. Continuation (‫ )ידע‬of genealogy up to Lamech 4:17–24
1. Genealogical bridge Cain to Lamech 4:17–18
2. Marriages, births, and song (of violence) associated
with Lamech 4:19–24
II. The Seth-Enosh Genealogical line (26–4:25 (‫ידע‬
A. Initiation of genealogical line: Seth as God’s replacement for the
dead Abel 4:25
B. Continuation: Enosh and the beginning of “calling on the name of
Y ” 4:26
Overall, the Cain-Lamech line is marked particularly by violence, with
the concentric Cain-Abel story of murder at its outset and Lamech’s
song at its conclusion. Meanwhile, the much briefer Seth-Enosh line
is marked by its status as a follow-up to the loss of Abel and an
implicit alternative to the Cain-Lamech line.

Commentary
Genesis 4:1–5: Narrative Background—
Part One of the Concentric Structure (cf. Part Five, 4:16)
These first five verses set up the crisis around which the following
story will revolve. The bulk of this unit consists of alternating
statements about Cain and Abel (4:1–5a) that lead up to the
concluding exclusive focus on Cain in 4:5b. The alternating
statements appear in two sets, both of which have statements about
Cain (the primary focus) that enclose statements about his brother
Abel.18 The final statement about God’s overlooking of Cain’s
sacrifice (4:5a) in the second abb’a’ pattern then leads directly into
Cain’s intensely angry reaction (4:5b) that prompts Y ’s speech
of the next section (4:6–7).
 First abb’a’ statement exposition on the births and occupations of the two
characters:
Cain-Abel: report of Cain then Abel’s birth 4:1–2a
Abel-Cain: report of Abel’s profession then Cain’s profession 4:2b
(Separation of first abb’a’ pattern from second by “after a
while”)
Second abb’a’ statement beginning of the narrative proper
Cain-Abel: Cain’s then Abel’s sacrifice, each from fruits of their
profession 4:3–4a
Abel-Cain: Abel and his sacrifice looked upon by Y ,
Cain and his sacrifice not looked upon 4:4b–5a
One effect of this pattern of alternating statements about Cain and
Abel is to highlight the abruptness of the narrative shift to an
exclusive focus on Cain’s reaction to God’s response to the
sacrifices in 4:5b. If the pattern were to continue, the text would
include Abel’s reaction as well. But the text has no separate interest
in the Abel character or his internal processes.
Gen 4:1–2. Concentric exposition introducing the brothers and
their occupations The unusually extensive formulation of the birth
report in 4:1—with a report of the human’s sex with his wife, as well
as conception and birth—connects with both wisdom and sexuality
themes of Gen 2–3. To be sure, one can sometimes have an explicit
mention of sex in birth reports when sex is thematized as part of the
story, as in the giving of Hagar to Abram in Gen 16:4 (where Abram
“enters” her; see also 16:2). Nevertheless, most birth narratives of
Genesis refer exclusively to just fathering (e.g., Gen 5 passim) or
birth (e.g., 25:2–3; 41:50), or (if prior barrenness of the mother was
an issue) conception and birth (e.g., Gen 21:2; 25:21; 29:31–
30:23).19 The mention here of sex as well in the Gen 4:1abα birth
report is a follow-up to the thematization of male-female desire and
erotic intimacy in Gen 2–3 (esp. 2:23–24; 3:16b). Moreover, the
particular word chosen to describe the human’s sex with his wife, ‫ידע‬
(“know”), continues the focus of Gen 2–3 on human acquisition of
knowledge, indeed knowledge of good and evil that is somehow
linked to sexual maturation (3:6–7; cf. 2:25).20
Eve’s following celebration of Cain’s birth (Gen 4:1b) has a
similar tone to the man’s exclamation at her appearance before him
after her creation (Gen 2:23). Where before the man sang of how
“woman” came from “man” (‫)איש‬, she echoes that speech here in
speaking of having “created” a “man” (‫ )איש‬along with Y .21 The
specific verb used here for create, ‫קנה‬, shares consonants with
Cain’s name and thus makes this speech serve as an implicit
explanation for it.22 Though the text does not explicitly say that Eve
“named” Cain (cf. 4:25), this speech about having “created” him (‫)קנה‬
serves as her implicit naming of “Cain” (‫)קין‬, a name that probably
originally meant something like “artisan” or “smith.”23
Eve’s speech combines an emphasis on her own and Y ’s
role in producing Cain.24 On the one hand, her speech, like many
other motherly namings in Genesis (e.g., 21:1–3; 29:31–32; 30:22–
23), notes Y ’s involvement in the birth. On the other hand, Eve’s
speech contrasts with other such namings in stressing Eve’s role in
reproduction even more than God’s. Other motherly namings in
Genesis—e.g., Eve’s later naming of Seth in 4:25—talk about what
God has done in providing a child. In contrast, Eve, not Y , is the
subject of her implicit naming of Cain in Gen 4:1b (“I have created a
man”), and Y is noted here as just participating somehow in the
process (“with Y ”). Thus, Eve’s speech focuses on her own
reproductive power. Moreover, the product of this first creation bears
a name, ‫( קין‬Cain) that—through Eve’s speech—is implicitly related
to her creating (‫)קנה‬. Indeed, this use of ‫ קנה‬to refer to Eve’s creation
diverges from the exclusive use of this verb elsewhere to refer to
God’s creation, as in, for example, the Phonecian epithet for El as
“creator of earth” (qn ʾrṣ) and all other uses of ‫ קנה‬in the Bible for
creation (Gen 14:19,22; Deut 32:6; Ps 139:13; Prov 8:22).25 The
closest biblical analogy to the kind of collaborative ‫קנה‬-creation
celebrated by Eve is Psalm 139:13, where the psalmist speaks of
how God “created” (‫ )קנה‬his inward parts and fashioned him in his
mother’s womb.26
It should be stressed that Eve is not negatively judged by the
narrator or God for proclaiming that she has completed this semi-
godlike “creation” of a man. Instead, the text leaves her speech
standing as an implicitly accurate characterization of her godlike
creative power, and (by implication) the implicitly godlike creative
power of all mothers, in giving birth to new human beings. In this
sense, Eve’s speech in Gen 4:1b affirms and develops the first
human’s naming of her in 3:20 as the “mother of all living beings.”
Moreover, its invocation of Eve as “creator” (‫ )קנה‬of a man parallels
the characterization of Asherah at Ugarit as “creator of the gods”
(qnyt ʾilm), thus continuing the echoes of goddess imagery in relation
to Eve seen already in 3:20, albeit here with an additional emphasis
on collaboration with Y as her partner (“together with Y ”).27
After this extended birth and (implicit) naming report in 4:1, the
first half of 4:2 provides a much terser description of Eve giving birth
to Cain’s “brother” Abel. Notably, his status as Cain’s brother is
mentioned before his name, an initial sign that Abel’s sole role in the
narrative is exclusively as Cain’s brother and future victim of Cain’s
fratricide.28 This lack of narrative emphasis on Abel as a separate
character may also explain the highly abbreviated character of his
birth report, only noting his birth without any note about his separate
conception. Nevertheless, some have read this lack of a separate
note of conception in 4:2a as implying that Cain and Abel are meant
to be seen as twins even though they are not explicitly described as
such (cf. Gen 25:22–26; 38:27–30).29 I will return to the question in
the discussion of Gen 4:4b–5a below.
There is no jubilant speech of Abel’s mother reported after his
birth like the one after Cain’s birth (cf. 4:1b). Instead, the significance
of Abel’s name is left for the reader to deduce. Much as the names
of Naomi’s sons in Ruth 1:2, ‫“( מחלון‬sickly person”) and ‫“( כליון‬frailty,
mortal”) anticipated their early deaths (Ruth 4:5), Abel’s name (‫)הבל‬
—which means “breath” or (more generally) “ephemerality”—
anticipates his death at the hands of his brother (Gen 4:8). Indeed,
the word ‫ הבל‬is used elsewhere in the Bible precisely to underline
the shortness of human life (e.g., Ps 144:4; Job 7:16) and is the lead
concept in Qohelet’s meditation on the ephemeral character of all
human pursuits (Qoh 1:2; also 1:14; 2:1, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, etc.).30
Thus Abel’s name links to his purpose in the story—to be the victim
of Cain’s brotherly violence and the first human death in the wake of
the finalization of the human fate of mortality in the garden (Gen
3:17–19, 22, 24). The “ephemeral”/‫“ הבל‬Abel” character—soon to die
an early death—is an extreme example of the more general mortality
that humans were just condemned to in Gen 3:17–19, 22, 24.
 Finally, this chiastic introduction of the two brothers closes with a
brief statement of their occupations in 4:2b. Contrary to
interpretations of Gen 4:1–16 as an allegory of conflict between
shepherds and farmers (and Y ’s preference for shepherds), this
description of the brothers’ occupations is minimal. It merely serves
as background for the following, narratively-crucial episode of the
two brothers’ sacrifices and Y ’s differential reaction to them
(4:3–5a). The note about their occupations starts by describing Abel
as a “shepherd of flocks” (‫)רעה צאן‬, and then describes Cain as
following in his father’s footsteps (3:23; see also 3:17–19) in being a
“worker of the ground” (4:2 ;‫עבד אדמה‬b). Nothing in Gen 2–3 has
prepared us for a figure who “shepherds flocks,” and short-lived Abel
hardly founds this profession. In the end, the closing focus of this
abb’a’ section (in 4:1–2) is not on Abel’s (unprecedented)
shepherding, but on Cain’s farming, which then leads into the
following report of his sacrifice (4:3).31
Gen 4:3–5a. The brothers’ sacrifices and Y ’s response A
gap in time (‫“ ויהי מקץ ימים‬after a while”) separates the introduction of
Cain and Abel (4:1–2) from the opening of the narrative regarding
them in these statements about their sacrifice (4:3b–5a). Building on
the preceding description of the brothers’ occupations (4:2b), this
pair of statements starts with the report that each brother brought an
offering (‫ )מנחה‬to Y (4:3b–4a), with a stress in each case that
each brother offered from the fruits of his own occupation—Cain
offering “from the fruit of the ground” (‫ )מפרי האדמה‬and Abel from the
firstborn of his flock and from their fat (‫)מבכרות צאנו ומחלבהן‬. Next, in
reverse order, the narrative reports the result of the two sacrifices:
Y looked on Abel and his offering, but did not look on Cain and
his offering (4:4b–5a).
Especially because Cain’s subsequent murder of Abel seems to
grow out of his reaction to Y ’s response to the brothers and their
sacrifices (4:5b–8), centuries of interpreters have attempted to
determine the reason for Y ’s differential response to the
brothers and their offerings. To be sure, some have argued that the
Cain-Abel story has an intentional gap regarding Y ’s process,
but that would leave a central turn in the plot unexplained.32 For this
reason, most interpreters have attempted to fill that gap, usually with
limited success. Though some have inferred that Cain must have
sacrificed with the wrong internal attitude (e.g., Heb 11:4), there is
nothing in the text to support such an inference.33 Others have
surmised that the text’s depiction of God’s preference for Abel and
his offering reflects an assumed preference (on the part of author
and reader of the text) for shepherds (e.g., Abel) over farmers
(Cain). This option likewise lacks textual support since Abel, the
shepherd, seems to play no role in the story besides being the victim
of Cain’s murder, and Cain’s farming profession is affirmed
throughout Gen 2–3 as the original human destiny (Gen 2:5, 7–8, 15;
3:17–19, 23). This latter fact, that farming the “ground” was the
occupation appointed for humans by God in Gen 2–3, also
undermines another approach to this problem: that Y rejected
Cain’s sacrifice because it came from that (cursed) ground.
There is more textual grounding for the other main explanation
for part of Y ’s response—that Y preferred Abel’s sacrifice
because it was from a firstborn animal, indeed the animal’s fat. After
all, much as Y ’s gaze will later settle on Abel and his offering
(Gen 4:4b), the text here lingers over an extended description of
Abel’s animal offering (‫“ מבכרות צאנו ומחלבהן‬from the firstborn animals
of his flock, indeed from their fat”; Gen 4:3a), and this focus on an
offering of animal (indeed fat) connects with an ancient Near Eastern
idea that the gods particularly enjoy animal offerings.34 What
remains unexplained, however, is why Y did not “look upon”
Cain and his offering. As Heyden points out, sacrifices are generally
described as accepted in the Bible unless there is a clear reason for
rejection.35
The text offers subtle suggestions, however, that the text does
not mean to describe Y ’s specific approval or disapproval of the
brothers or their offerings, but merely Y ’s selective attention to
Abel’s offering of fat from firstborn animals and resulting lack of
attention to Cain’s simultaneous offering.36 The simultaneity of the
brothers’ sacrifices is suggested both by the wording of the sacrifice
report for Abel—‫( והבל הביא גם הוא‬literally “And Abel offered, also
him”)37 and the way all of the paired reports about the brothers in
4:1–5a seem to presuppose simultaneity, even the report of their
births in 4:1–2a as if they were virtual twins.38 The entire paired
abb’a’ structure spanning 4:1–5a thoroughly intertwines the paired
reports of the brothers’ births, occupations, and sacrifices, with no
emphasis on the sequence of the paired births, occupations or
sacrifices. Rather, the brothers and their actions are presented in the
prose equivalent of stereo, constantly juxtaposed to each other.
These considerations then can combine with the above-
mentioned idea that God naturally preferred Abel’s more valuable
offering of fat from firstborn animals to explain both Y ’s “looking
on” Abel and his offering and not “looking on” Cain and his offering.
The verb used for Y ’s response, ‫שעה‬, is important here,
because it merely describes a given figure “paying attention to” or
“gazing upon” a given object. It is not one of the verbs typically used
in the Bible to signal God’s approval or disapproval of a sacrificial
object.39 Instead, the text seems to presuppose a quite physical
concept of Y akin to that of him walking in the garden in Gen
3:8. This time Y visibly “looks upon” Abel and his offering while
not attending to Cain and his offering.40 The verb ‫ שעה‬thus implies
both the nature of Y ’s response here—selective response to the
brothers’ implicitly simultaneous sacrifices—and the means by which
Cain perceived the response, beholding Y ’s selective
attention. 41
Indeed, the abb’a’ structure in 4:3b–5a puts Y ’s positive
response to Abel’s offering (4:4b) right after the narrative report of
that succulent offering (4:4a).42 Y ’s (possibly simultaneous)
overlooking of Cain’s offering comes afterward (4:5a), more distant
from the report of his offering (4:3b). There is no judgment of Cain
implied here, nor special approval of Abel. Moreover, there is not
necessarily a competition between the brothers when they both offer
the fruits of their labors. In describing Y ’s response to their
sacrifices, Gen 4:4b–5a simply reports a two-sided event with two
sentences, an event constituted by a single divine action—visibly
paying attention to (‫ )שעה‬one thing while thus overlooking (‫)לא שעה‬
another.
Gen 4:5b This introductory unit in the Cain-Abel story (4:1–5a)
concludes with a description of Cain’s reaction to Y ’s response
to him, Abel and their sacrifices. The text starts with the clear
statement that “Cain became very angry” (‫)ויחר לקין מאד‬. The
placement of this statement leaves no doubt about what prompted
Cain’s anger—it was caused by Y looking at Abel and his
sacrifice instead of looking on him and his sacrifice. Thus, Cain is
angered by the preferential attention to Abel and his sacrifice by
God, not anything that Abel himself did. In this sense Cain’s anger
(ultimately expressed in actions toward Abel) is somewhat like that
which Joseph’s brothers feel toward Joseph, whom they want to
murder when they see that Joseph is loved more by their father (Gen
37:3–4). Indeed Cain responds to Y ’s selective attention as if
Y was a parent, an interesting implicit follow-up to Eve’s earlier
implication of Y ’s collaborative role in producing Cain in the first
place (Gen 4:1b). 43

Cain’s angry response is further underlined by a bodily action: his

face “falls” (4:5bβ). This falling of Cain’s face/eyes is a subtle, but
important indicator of a break in his relationship with the God whose
gaze was just turned away from him and his sacrifice (4:5a). Within
the Bible, “to see the face” is how one describes a substantial
encounter with another person (e.g., Gen 46: 30; 48:11; 2 Sam
3:13), people pray that God’s face might turn/shine on them (e.g.,
Num 6:26; Ps 4:7 [ET 4:6]), and the most intimate and potentially
dangerous encounter with God is one that is “face to face” (e.g., Gen
32:31 [ET 32:30]; Exod 33:20–23; Num 12:6–8). Conversely, an
inability to “lift [one’s] face” to a person or God indicates a problem in
the relationship. Abner speaks to Asahel of how he could not “lift
[his] face” to Asahel’s brother, Joab, if he struck Asahel down (2 Sam
2:22); Jer 2:27 quotes Y as reproaching an idol-worshipping
Israel for turning their backs to him rather than their “faces”; and
Job’s friends speak of how Job must repent in order to “lift [his] face”
(Job 22:21–26) or “lift [his] face, free of blemish” to God (Job 11:13–
15).44
In the case of the “falling” of Cain’s face in Gen 4:5b, there is no
specification that his face fell away from God, his brother, or both.
Even the later reference to a contrasting “lifting” (4:7aα) lacks an
indication if such lifting is toward God or brother. One could interpret
this resulting indeterminate “falling”/“lifting” of Cain’s face as
indicating that Cain’s anger led to a disconnection from his
relationships with both Y and his brother, especially given the
way this falling of Cain’s face leads to the murder of his brother (4:8)
and hiding of his face from Y (4:14aβ). Whether or not this is the
case, the notation in 4:5b of the bodily appearance of Cain’s reaction
(through his face) is crucial to the narrative. It leads into Y ’s
questions and speech to Cain in the next major section of the text,
Gen 4:6–7, including Y ’s reminding him of how he would see a
“lifting” that contrasts with his fallen face, if he “did well” (‫)אם־תיטיב‬.

Genesis 4:6–7: Y ’s Instruction—

Part Two of the Concentric Structure (cf. Part Four, 4:9–15)
The human misdeed in Gen 2–3 was preceded by the woman’s
dialogue with the snake, 3:1–5, while Y ’s speech to Cain in 4:6–
7 precedes his murder of Abel in Gen 4. In this way, Gen 4 balances
a potential gap in Gen 3. An interpreter might wonder “where was
God during the woman’s dialogue with the snake?” “Why did God not
interrupt and correct the snake’s characterization of God’s command
so that the woman and man would not disobey?” Here in Gen 4:6–7
we have God making exactly this sort of direct intervention, asking
Cain to recognize the danger that his reaction places him in (4:6–7a)
and exhorting him to successfully control the semi-demonic forces
poised to attack him in the midst of his anger (4:7b). Where Gen 3
featured immature humans, lacking basic “knowledge of good and
evil” to help them fend off the snake’s questions, Gen 4 here
features Cain addressed directly by God with an opportunity to use
knowledge of good and evil to confront a new crisis posed by “sin”
that arose in the wake of his response to God’s overlooking of his
sacrifice (4:5).
Turning to the beginning of the speech, God’s initial questions to
Cain about why he is angry and his face has fallen (4:6) merely
repeat and ask about Cain’s reaction in 4:5b. The tone of God’s
response here further undermines above-described interpretive
approaches to the text that explain Y ’s non-attention to Cain and
his offering (4:5a) as resulting from a mistake in Cain’s offering or
shortcomings in Cain himself. Y says nothing to Cain here about
any problems with his past sacrifice. Instead, Y engages Cain
with questions (4:6) that recognize his visibly negative post-sacrifice
response (4:5b) and query him about it. If anything, the tone of
Y ’s rhetorical questions in 4:6 and 7a invite Cain into dialogue
rather than sharply rebuking him for any misdeed. This is the first of
several signs in the text (see also 4:15 and commentary below) that
Y starts and remains in a close relationship with Cain across the
span of the entire story.45
That said, the continuation of Y ’s speech in 4:7a suggests
that Cain’s angry response to having himself and his sacrifice
overlooked (4:5b) is a sign that he stands in a risky situation, with
“doing well” (‫ )תיטיב‬representing a general description of good,
ethical action.46 Y ’s speech starts with a rhetorical question—
‫“( הֲ ל ֹא‬is it not so”)—that suggests a divine assumption that Cain
already possesses some “knowledge of good and evil” (see 3:6–7,
22).47 In a mirror of the way that wisdom and folly are often
presented as alternatives to the student of wisdom literature, Y
reminds Cain of two options that he already should know are
available to him in this moment. To start, if he does well, he can
experience a “lifting” (‫)שאת‬, ostensibly of the face that was fallen in
4:5b [also 4:6]). Next, Y ’s notation of the alternative, “And, if you
do not do well,” is not the usual opposite of “do well,” which would be
“do evil” (‫ רעע‬hiphil; e.g., Lev 5:4; Isa 1:16–17; 41:23; Jer 4:22;
13:23; Zeph 1:12). Rather, Y uses the gentler expression “do
not do well” (‫ )לא־תיטיב‬to describe what Cain might do, another
reflection of God’s attachment to and engagement with Cain.
The rest of the verse redescribes the challenge faced by Cain
(4:7aβγ) and what he must then do (4:7b), stressing the urgency and
the power of the risk posed by sin. The placement of ‫“( לפתח‬at the
opening”) at the outset of the clause underlines the immediacy of the
threat that Cain faces when his face has fallen and he is very angry.
Then the description of this sin as a “crouching one” conveys a
sense that sin is not just a bad choice but a semi-demonic power
poised to attack a Cain made vulnerable by his anger. Finally, the
masculine-singular references in 4:7b to “the crouching one” rather
than to “sin” underline this presentation of sin as a virtually
independent, semi-demonic entity (akin to the Akkadian rābiṣu), now
one that Cain must “rule.”48 In sum, the bulk of 4:7 is crafted to focus
the reader’s attention not merely on a purely ethical choice between
“doing well” and “not doing well” (4:7aα) but on Cain’s confronting
and mastering the particularly powerful dynamics of anger. Those
dynamics are then embodied in the metaphor of sin as “a crouching
one” waiting “at the opening” and threatening Cain.

Genesis 4:8: The Central Crime—

Part Three of the Concentric Structure
Cain fails to “rule over” this sin that crouches “at the opening,” but
instead kills his brother. Rather than responding to Y ’s engaging
question to him (“is it not so?”), Cain speaks to his brother instead.49
Moreover, the spare report of his speech to his brother, especially if
the MT and 4QGenb (4Q2) are correct in not quoting the speech, is
connected to the following report of murder through their highly
parallel formulations:

‫ ויאמר קין אל־הבל אחיו‬Cain said to (‫ )אל‬Abel, his brother

[‫ויהי בהיותם בשדה‬ and when they were in the field]
‫ויקם קין אל־הבל אחיו‬ Cain rose up against (‫ )אל‬Abel, his brother,
‫ויהרגהו‬ and killed him.

Cain’s speech to his brother thus becomes a direct lead-in and

parallel to his murder of his brother. His speech (to Abel, rather than
Y ) becomes another manifestation of the loss of relationship to
and dialogue with Y , alongside the “falling” of his face discussed
above in relation to 4:5b. We will see another manifestation of this
loss of relationship and dialogue in Cain’s defiant initial response to
Y ’s queries in 4:9b before Cain’s reengagement with Y via
lament in 4:13–14.50
The report of the murder focuses less on the killing itself than the
fact that it was a fratricide and pre-meditated. The fratricidal
character of the murder is underlined through the doubled re-
emphasis in 4:8a and b (cf. 4:1–2) of the fact that Abel was Cain’s
brother. The intentional character of the act is underlined through two
elements that indicate the act’s legal status.51 First, Cain’s speech
leads to him and his brother being in “the field,” a locus named in
Deut 21:1–9 as where one might commit a crime without
witnesses.52 Second, the idiom “rise up and x” (‫ )קום על‬is used
elsewhere in the Biblical law to indicate non-accidental action,
especially murder.53 It is not as if Cain impulsively kills Abel as soon
as he realizes God’s preference for Abel and his sacrifice. Rather,
starting already with the description of Cain’s reaction in 4:5b (“and
Cain became very angry and his face fell”) and then continuing with
Y ’s questioning of this reaction (4:6) and warning about the risks
facing him (4:7), Cain is presented as a person facing an important
choice. The deliberateness of his choice for murder is then
underlined in 4:8.

Genesis 4:9–15: Consequences for Cain—

Part Four of the Concentric Structure (cf. Part Two, 4:6–7)
The dialogue here between Y and Cain represents the
counterpart in the above-diagrammed 4:1–16 concentric structure to
Y ’s warning speech to Cain in 4:6–7. Both units start with God’s
question(s) to Cain (4:6//9a, 10a) and then continue with a focus on
God’s speech to him (4:7//10b–12, 15a). In Gen 4:6–7, Y gave
Cain a brief, wisdom-like instruction about the urgent threat posed by
sin amidst his angry response to Y ’s earlier selective attention to
Abel and Abel’s sacrifice. Now, after Cain’s murder, Y confronts
Cain with the killing he did after failing to master that risk, and Y
also specifies the consequences that Cain faces for this murder.
Both of these speech-focused units, before and after Cain’s murder
of Abel, depict Y as particularly solicitous of Cain. Just as Y
in 4:6–7 offered gentle, persuasive words of instruction (“why are
you angry and your face fallen? Is it not so…”), in 4:13–15 Y
listens to Cain’s protest and protects him from those who would
murder him.
Gen 4:9 Specific echoes of Gen 2–3, already seen in the echo
of 3:16b in 4:7b, resume here with God’s rhetorical question to Cain,
“where is Abel, your brother?” As in Y ’s earlier question to the
man in the garden, “where are you?” (3:9b) after he ate forbidden
fruit, this question to Cain about Abel in 4:9a functions less as a
request for information, than an initiation of an interaction. Yet more
than in the case of God’s question to the first man in Eden, this
question to Cain already hints at the nature of the crime: Abel is
missing. The text tells us nothing about Cain hiding or burying the
body, but Abel is implicitly not visible when Y confronts Cain
about his brother’s whereabouts. In this way, more than with God’s
earlier question to the man “where are you” (3:8), Y ’s question
to Cain implies prior knowledge of Cain’s crime.
Cain responds to the implicit accusation with a lie (“I do not
know”) and implicit defense of himself. Cain’s defense—a rhetorical
question to Y , “am I my brother’s guardian?”—is a cheeky
response playing on Abel’s own status as the shepherd and thus
implicit guard of his flock (4:2). Yet where 4:2 used the common word
‫ רעה‬to describe Abel’s shepherding, Cain uses the more general
term ‫שמר‬, a word that focalizes Cain’s responsibility to protect or
guard his brother.54 Moreover, this use of ‫ שמר‬echoes the use of this
word to describe the first human’s task to “work and guard” the
garden (Gen 2:15).55 Cain appears to be asking Y if
guarding/shepherding his shepherd brother is his job the way the
first human was appointed by Y to guard the Eden garden. The
sentence ends with a pronominal “I” that is not easily rendered in
correct English word order, but puts an emphasis on Cain and the
question he is raising about his relationship, literally: “a shepherd of
my brother am I?”56 That he can so question his basic relationship to
his “brother” suggests that the lack of knowledge he asserts at the
outset of his interaction with Y (‫“ לא ידעתי‬I do not know” 4:9bα) is
different and more profound than Cain realizes.
Together, Cain’s lie and defiant question back to Y represent
an intensification of the break in divine-human relations already seen
in the evasive responses of the man and woman to Y ’s
questions after they ate of the fruit (3:12–13). In comparison to Cain,
at least both of them answered Y ’s questions with half-truths. In
contrast, Cain lies in his response to Y and pushes back with a
question revealing his own lack of comprehension of his obligation to
guard his own brother. In this way, Cain’s response reveals a break
in his relationship with Y , already initially evident in the falling of
his face after Y ’s overlooking of him and his sacrifice (4:5), that
goes beyond the alienation of the first humans from God in the wake
of eating forbidden fruit (3:8–13).57
Gen 4:10–12 The divine speech that follows (4:10b–12), doubly
emphasizes Cain’s filial relationship to his murdered brother, both in
Y ’s accusation (4:10b) and pronouncement of punishment
(4:11b). Y ’s accusation echoes Gen 3. Where God Y
confronted the woman just before pronouncing punishment by
saying “what is this that you have done?” (3:13 ;‫)מה־זאת עשית‬, now
Y begins his speech of punishment to Cain with the rhetorical
question “what have you done?” (4:10 ;‫מה עשית‬a). The rhetorical
nature of this question becomes clear as Y goes on to reveal
that Y knows exactly what Cain has done (4:11). No response to
the question is expected. Rather, both this rhetorical question and
following implicit cry for Cain to pay attention, ‫“( קול‬hear!”) underline
Y ’s viscerally negative response to Cain’s murder of his
brother.58
Y does not actually assert that Cain killed his brother, but
implies knowledge of that fact in stating the evidence against Cain:
“your brother’s violently shed blood is crying out to me from the
ground.” As noted in the translation commentary, the plural of blood
used here (‫ )דמים‬signifies blood outside the body, shed through
violent attack. Indeed, this form is often used in contexts that
emphasize the bloodguilt that attends such violent attack.59 The “cry”
(‫ )צעק‬of this [violently shed] blood is a technical term for protest of
victims against their violators.60 As with many such cries, this one
comes to God, who is the ultimate blood avenger (Ps 9:13 [ET 9:12];
see also Exod 2:23–24). Notably, there is no presupposition of
omniscience here. Y does not speak here of having seen the
61
crime. Instead, the blood of Abel crying from the ground witnesses
against the brother who murdered him, countering Cain’s attempt to
cloak the crime by committing it “in the field.”62
Y ’s description of the blood’s cry concludes with an element,
“from the ground” (‫)מן־האדמה‬, which is unique among such
descriptions of protesting cries and points to a major emphasis on
the ground in Gen 4:1–16 (as in Gen 2–3). The last time “the ground”
was featured in this text was where the outset of the narrative
characterized Cain, like his father, as a “worker of the ground” (4:2b;
cf. 3:17–19, 23) and described him bringing offerings “from the fruits
of the ground” (4:3a). Now Y tells Cain, a man of “the ground,”
that he will be cursed (‫ )ארור‬from the very ground that he has just
polluted with his brother’s blood. Moreover, much as Y ’s earlier
instruction to Cain spoke of “sin” as an independent entity (4:7),
Y ’s post-crime statement to Cain here, as in Num 16:30–32,
describes the ground as if it were a semi-independent subject, even
as it plays a role in God’s response here of curse. It “opened its
mouth to take your brother’s blood from your hand” (4:11) and now
will “not again give up its strength” to Cain when he tries to “work” it
as he once did (4:12, cf. 4:2b). As a result of this “curse” Cain “will
be an endless wanderer on the earth.” From now on “the earth”
(‫ )הארץ‬will replace the farmable “ground” (‫ )האדמה‬as the stage of
Cain’s further life.
These “ground” (‫)האדמה‬-related elements of 4:11b–12a represent
an intensification of similar themes in Gen 3:17–19, where Y
cursed the ground (‫ )האדמה‬on account of the disobedience of the
first human. There humans would have to work hard to gain food
from the ground (‫ )האדמה‬that had been cursed (‫ )ארור‬on account of
the human (3:17–19). Now, however, Cain himself is cursed (‫)ארור‬
from “the ground” (‫)האדמה‬, and the result is that the ground will yield
nothing at all to him. Elsewhere, we see—especially in texts within
the Deuteronomistic stream of tradition—multiple threats by God to
punish Israel’s disobedience through making the “ground” (‫)אדמה‬
unproductive (e.g., Deut 11:17; Josh 23:15–17; Hos 4:1–3).
Nevertheless, the formulation of Y ’s speech in 4:10–12a
suggests a more impersonal side to this “curse” on Cain “from the
ground.” A diverse series of other biblical texts suggest a basic
agrarian concept that the ground itself might be polluted by the
unatoned blood of innocent people (e.g., Num 35:30–34), including
blood shed in an unwitnessed murder in “the field” like that in Gen
4:8 (e.g., Deut 21:1–9). Such (violently shed, unatoned) “blood”
(‫ )הדמים‬could cause the land to stop yielding produce, causing
famine (2 Sam 21:1–9). Though Y is certainly involved in this
process, e.g., in pronouncing the curse in Gen 4:11–12, there is a
sense across these texts that the ground itself is impacted by and
responds to being touched by violently shed blood of innocent
people. In this case, that idea takes the form of a “curse” of the
ground no longer “giving” (‫ )נתן‬produce to this farmer (Cain) after it
just “took” (‫ )לקח‬blood (rather than seed) from his hand.63
This curse of Cain then moves into God’s final pronouncement
that he will “be an endless wanderer on the earth.” Within many
ancient societies, including ancient Israel, it was common for capital
crimes within the family to be punished through the wrongdoer being
“cursed” and expelled from the family and its protection, made taboo
for further contact with other family members. Because of the
vulnerability of family-less individuals in the ancient world, such
expulsion often was an effective death sentence, but it absolved
family members of exacerbating the inner-family crime by committing
further violence against kin. This concept of Cain’s punishment for
inner-family violence, the murder of his brother, may be reflected in
Y ’s pronouncement of punishment, especially the outer parts
“and now cursed are you away from the ground…. You will be an
endless wanderer on the earth” (4:11a, 12b).64
Gen 4:13–14 Cain responds at length here to Y ’s
pronouncement of punishment, offering a miniature version of the
personal complaint, starting with an overall I-complaint that his
punishment is too great to bear (4:13b), which is then specified
through two redescriptions of a part of God’s punishment and the
effects of that punishment.65 The overall speech can be diagrammed
as follows:
I. Overall statement that the punishment just pronounced (4:11–12) is too great
to bear 4:13
II. Two-part specification of how that punishment is too great to bear 4:14
A. Cain’s being “cursed from the ground” (4:11abα1–2) redescribed
4:14a
1. Redescription: Y ’s “expulsion” of Cain from “the
face of” the ground 4:14aα
2. Unbearable impact-relation with God: “from the face of
Y.” Cain will hide 4:14aβ
B. (Result of loss of God’s protection) Cain’s wandering (4:12b)
redescribed 4:14b
 1. Paraphrase: “I will be an endless wanderer on the
earth” 4:14bα
2. Unbearable impact on human relations: “Anyone who
finds me will kill me” 4:14bβ
The import of this overall design is to highlight how all of Cain’s
speech in 4:13–14, and not just his initial statement in 4:13, is
focused on the unbearability of the punishment that Y has just
pronounced, producing unbearable effects on both his relation to
God (4:14a) and ultimately (because of loss of God’s face/protection)
humans (4:14b).
Cain’s statements about Y ’s curse and its effects in 4:14a
vividly articulate the catastrophic impact on him, a man who “works
the ground” (4:2bβ), of now being cursed from it. Contrary to what
one might expect from God’s previous pronouncement that humans
would gain bread from lifelong hard labor with the earth (Gen 3:17–
19), Cain does not state here a fear of starvation from the new curse
on him. Instead, he initially focuses on the impact of this curse on his
relation with Y . The two statements in 4:14a are bound together
by an abb’a’ structure reminiscent of those seen in 4:1–2 and 4:3–
5a, one revolving around a central focus on the ‫פנים‬, both of the
ground (its “surface” ‫ )פנים‬and of Y (his “face” ‫)פנים‬:
A. ‫ הן גרשת אתי היום‬See, you have expelled me today
B. ‫ מעל פני האדמה‬from the surface (‫ )פני‬of the ground.
B’ ‫ ומפניך‬And from your face (‫)מפניך‬
A.’ ‫ אסתר‬I will hide.
Where Y ’s curse of Cain in 4:11–12a focused exclusively on
how “the ground” (‫ )האדמה‬will not yield its strength to Cain after
taking blood from his hand, Cain’s redescription of that curse in
4:14aα leaves aside any response to Y ’s description of what this
“ground” once did or will not do for Cain (4:11b–12a). Instead, it links
back to Gen 3:24 in recasting the 4:11–12a curse now as Y ’s
active “expulsion” of him from the ground. Moreover, the closely-
bound second part of Cain’s pronouncement in 4:14aβ implies that
Y ’s expulsion of him from the ground’s surface (‫ )פנים‬will lead
Cain to a hiding from the ‫“( פנים‬face”) of Y , one more permanent
than the temporary hiding from Y ’s face that the first humans
once did (3:8, 10). Thus, in a complex alchemy, Cain, a man bound
so far to “the ground” (4:2b) connects loss of access to the ground’s
“face” with an extended hiding on his part from Y ’s face. We will
see this parallel between physical relocation of Cain and departure
from Y later in 4:16 when Cain goes out “from Y ’s
presence” [‫ ]מלפני יהוה‬and settles in “the land of wandering.”
Other parts of the Bible faintly resemble elements of Cain’s
speech in depicting Y removing Israel from its “ground” (e.g.,
1 Kgs 14:15; Jer 12:14; cf. Amos 9:15), Y “hiding” (‫ )סתר‬his face
from his people (Deut 31:16–18; Ps 88:15; 102:3),66 or some
combination of both (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:7; 2 Kgs 17:23).67 Nevertheless,
Gen 4:14a speaks not of Israel, but of Cain; not of the “ground”
belonging to Israel, but the “ground” in general;68 and most
importantly speaks not of Y hiding his face from Israel, but of
Cain hiding from the face of Y . This appears to be a final
outgrowth of the dynamics surrounding the “face” seen in the lead-up
to Cain’s murder of Abel in 4:5b–7a. There Cain’s intense anger led
to a falling of his “face” that represented a break in relationship with
God and brother. This break in relationship contrasted with how Cain
might do when “doing well” (4:7a; “lifting”) and posed intense, semi-
demonic risks to him (4:7b). Now that he has fallen prey to those
risks and murdered his brother (4:8), Cain predicts that he will hide
from the “face” of the God who has “expelled” him (4:14) from the
ground to which he was bound (4:2b).69
As Deurloo suggests, the Cain-Abel story, like the garden of
Eden story, is written from the perspective of a Levantine farming
culture where life and the ground are inextricably connected. The
speech in 4:13–14 focalizes through Cain’s voice the horror that its
author/readers would feel at the prospect of permanent loss of that
connection. Such readers in a Levantine agrarian context could
relate with envy to the sort of royal watered garden in Eden from
which the first humans are expelled, and they would identify with the
hard farming life to which those first humans are condemned. But
these same readers would only react with repulsion to Cain’s
fratricide and contemplate with severe pathos Cain’s destiny as a
former farmer now forever excluded from the ground. And it is from
this perspective of pathos that Cain is now depicted as leaving the
land and thus permanently “hiding from the face” of Y . This
fratricidal, former farmer Cain thus represents the furthest thing from
“normal” for such a reader in Israelite farming society. Instead, he
represents a limit situation of lost land and lost relationship to God
resulting from the crime of fratricide.70
This idea of “hiding from the face” of Y in 4:14a leads into
Cain’s redescription in 4:14b of Y ’s condemnation of him to
wandering (4:12b) and its consequences. Deuteronomy 31:16–18
and various loci in Pss 13:2–5; 88:15; 102:3 (ET 13:1–4; 88:14;
102:2]) connect Y ’s hiding of his face with the loss of Y ’s
71
protection from violence and misfortune. Here Cain’s own hiding
from the face of Y is the prelude to a life of endless wandering
(‫ )נע ונד‬that makes him vulnerable to others—we are not told who—
who will murder him.72 Cain thus connects Y ’s expulsion of him
from “the ground” with a loss of access to Y ’s “face” that will
lead to his own death.73 Indeed, this threat to his own life stated in
Gen 4:14bβ represents the ultimate unbearable consequence
introduced by Cain in Gen 4:13, and it is this element specifically to
which Y then responds in the next verse (4:15).
Gen 4:15 Y does not dispute Cain’s protest, but seemingly
agrees with his assessment of risk and addresses it. This explains
why Y ’s speech begins with the somewhat enigmatic “therefore”
(‫ )לכן‬that would usually follow earlier speech by the speaker. In this
case, this “therefore” in God’s speech follows the speech by Cain
(4:13–14), implying that Y ’s amelioration of Cain’s punishment in
4:15 is an immediate response to Cain’s protest: Cain says x (4:13–
14), and—recognizing the validity of Cain’s concern—Y says
“therefore…” (4:15). Despite Cain’s murder of Abel and his recent
prediction of hiding from the face of Y , the impression given in
4:15 is that Y remains quite responsive to Cain, responding
positively to his protest, rather than rejecting it.
Y ’s speech in 4:15 specifically responds to the final concern
in Cain’s speech about others killing him, indeed promising to
revenge him with more killing than he has just committed.74 It
echoes the conclusion of Cain’s speech (‫“ כל־מצאי יהרגני‬anyone who
finds me will kill me” 4:14) at both the beginning (‫“ כל־הרג קין‬anyone
who kills Cain” 4:15aα//‫“ כל־מצאי‬anyone who finds me”) and end
(‫“ כל־מצאו‬anyone who found him”). Notably, though the speech is
addressed to Cain (‫)לו‬, it is a third-person pronouncement about him
(‫“ כל־הרג קין‬anyone who kills Cain”) that has the participial character
of death-penalty law relating to attacks on both him and his
descendants (e.g., Exod 21:12, 15). Rather than just saying ‫הרג קין‬
(“the one who kills Cain”), its specification of “anyone” who kills
(‫ )כל־הרג‬is how such death penalty law looks toward multiple
situations. Y ’s pronouncement in 4:15a thus implicitly relates to
a plurality of “wandering” people descending from and identified with
Cain that might be threatened by murder and pronounces that the
killing of any of these “Cains” will be avenged sevenfold. As in Ps
79:12 and Prov 24:16, the “sevenfold” specified here is not literally
meant, but merely indicates that the revenge will be complete and
encompass multiple members of the murderer’s family (see, e.g.,
2 Sam 21:1–6).75
God then implements a means so that such potential killers will
not strike—a mark that God sets on Cain.76 We see a similar idea of
a mark on people’s bodies—in this case an old Hebrew tav
(resembling a roman letter x)—marked on the forehead—protecting
them from harm in Ezek 9:4–6.77 Yet Gen 4:15 does not similarly
specify the nature of the mark put on Cain. Instead, it appears that
the text presupposes knowledge on its audience’s part of what this
narratively crucial “mark” on Cain consists of.78 Several other ethnic
groups in Israel’s vicinity bore signs of their ethnic identification.79
The story in Gen 4:3–15 appears to provide an etiological
explanation for such a visible mark, known to the story’s audience,
that identified a certain ethnic group as the descendants of Cain.
Nevertheless, the text, as we now have it, never specifies who that
group is.
Within the story-world of the text, however, Y ’s
pronouncement and setting of a mark in 4:15 relate initially just to
Cain, granting him survival amidst the vulnerability of his wandering.
This is a minimal provision of life amidst punishment, much as we
see in Y ’s promise to preserve Baruch’s life wherever he goes
(‫ )על כל־מקמות אשר תלך שם‬despite him having to share in the
punishment on “all flesh” that is to come (Jer 45:5).80 In this case,
Y ’s preservation of Cain’s life amidst his wandering (4:15) is the
parallel in Gen 4 to Y ’s clothing of the first humans in animal-
skin tunics in Gen 3 (3:21) after pronouncing punishment on them
(3:16–19).
Genesis 4:16: Narrative conclusion—
Part Five of the Concentric Structure (cf. Part One, 4:1–5)
This concluding narrative verse about Cain’s actions represents a
counterpart to the more extensive narrative set-up about Cain and
Abel in 4:1–5, linking with multiple aspects of the preceding story.
The description of Cain going out “from Y ’s presence” (‫מלפני‬
‫ ;יהוה‬literally “from the face of Y ”) connects with his prediction
that his expulsion from the “face of the ground” (‫ )פני־האדמה‬meant
that he would “hide from your [Y ’s] face” (4:14a; 81.(‫ מפניך‬Then,
Cain’s settlement “in the land of wandering” (‫ )בארץ נוד‬verbally links
to Y ’s and Cain’s prediction of Cain’s endless wandering (;‫נע ונד‬
4:12b, 14bβ). Much like the “garden of Eden” functioned as a semi-
mythical, symbolic place of utopian pre-existence, so also this “land
of wandering” functions as a symbolic place name to suggest Cain’s
settlement in the kind of no-man’s land where criminals and other
outcasts fled.82 It thus has a semi-ironic tone that can be loosely
paraphrased “and he ‘settled’ nowhere.”83 The statement that this
nowhere/land of wandering was “east of Eden” places Cain’s
expulsion in relation to, and yet further out from, Y ’s expulsion of
the first human eastward of the Eden garden and (3:24). This
conforms to other ways that Cain’s punishment (implicitly inherited
by his descendants) goes beyond that inflicted on his parents and
faced by humans in general (cf. 3:16–19).

Genesis 4:17–18
As noted earlier, the birth report with which this section begins, Gen
4:17, parallels the birth report for Cain at the outset of the chapter
(4:1) while also linking to Gen 2–3. Yet, unlike 4:1, this report about
Enoch’s birth does not name Cain’s wife, and it is not clear where
Cain’s wife came from. Traditional interpreters of the past often
assumed that Cain’s wife must be one of his sisters,84 but one would
expect at least a brief note about such a sister before she was
mentioned as Cain’s wife in this part of the text (cf. Naamah in Gen
4:22b). The lack here presents a problem for a synchronic reading
focused purely on the present form of the text, much like the mention
of other humans threatening Cain in 4:14–15 and of an unspecified
“mark” on Cain in 4:15.
The following description of the building of the first city (4:17b)
presents interpretive puzzles, since it is not clear initially who is the
subject of the first clause “he was a builder of a city” (‫)ויהי בנה עיר‬.
Usually one would assume that the unspecified subject of the verb
here ‫“( ֹבּנֶה‬a builder” [m.s. participle]) would be the “he” most recently
mentioned, which would be the “Enoch” just mentioned as being
born to Cain’s wife. Moreover, it would seem that Cain’s son, Enoch,
would be a more likely city builder in this text than the figure of Cain
who was just condemned to a life of endless wandering (4:11–12).85
Finally, one might see an echo here of Mesopotamian traditions of
Eridu as the first city in an idea that Enoch named this city after his
first son, who turns out to be “Irad” (4:18a), now also possibly playing
on the homology of Irad’s name, ‫עירד‬, and the Hebrew word for “city”
86.‫ עיר‬Nevertheless, the present form of the text (in all witnesses)

repeats the name of Cain’s son, Enoch, at the end of the verse,
implying that Cain was the city’s builder, who then named the city
after his son, Enoch. It may be that this repetition of Enoch’s name at
the end of the verse is an early gloss, clarifying the unspecified
referents in the latter part of 4:17. Alternatively, it may be that the
original form of Gen 4:17 meant to depict Cain, despite his curse of
wandering, as building a city named after his son (Enoch) and for
Enoch’s use.87
Finally, Gen 4:17–18 as a whole bridges to verses focused on
Lamech (4:19–24) in a way that parallels the later introduction of
Seth’s genealogical line in 4:25–26. In addition to both linking to the
wisdom theme of Gen 2–3 in using the verb ‫“( ידע‬know”) to report the
sexual conception of a son, both genealogical sections also use
passive verbs (albeit in different formulations) to report the birth of
the next member of the line, whether Irad (4:18aα) or Enosh
(4:26aα). These parallels set up a contrast between 4:17–24 and
4:25–26, establishing them as reports of two genealogical lines
descending from the first human family: Cain-Lamech versus Seth-
Enosh. In the case of Gen 4:17–18aα, the text uses a genealogical
bridge to build quickly to Lamech’s birth by way of the births of his
grandfather Mehujael and father Methushael (4:18aβb). The brevity
of these reports in 4:18aβb indicates the primary focus of this portion
of text (4:17–24) on outlining the line leading from Cain to Lamech
and preparing for the focus in the next section on Lamech (4:19–24).
Nevertheless, as in the case of the meaning of Enoch’s name
(“foundation, dedication”), there is no negative connotation to the
names of these next two generations. “Mehujael” probably means
“God produces life” and Methushael probably means “man of God.”
Both are typical West-Semitic names formed with the theophoric
element 88.‫אל‬

Genesis 4:19–24
The following text indicates a particular focus on Lamech and his line
by branching out to report the birth of multiple offspring and other
details regarding them and Lamech. Somewhat like the report of the
initiation of Cain’s line started with a notice about him knowing his
wife (4:17aα), this unit focused on Lamech goes yet further in
reporting his marriage to two women (4:19a), this time explicitly
named: Adah (“jewelry”) and Zillah (“shadow”; 4:19b). The following
text then gives two outgrowths to these marriages that highlight both
semi-positive and negative sides to the Cain-Lamech line. On the
one hand, Lamech’s wives give birth to children who help found
professions in the ancient world: tent dwelling and shepherding,
music, and metalworking (4:20–22). On the other hand, Lamech’s
wives are witness to a song by Lamech to them where he boasts of
a violence surpassing even his ancestor, Cain (4:23–24). The
relations of these sections can be diagrammed as follows:
Concluding focus (of genealogy) on Lamech’s Heritage 4:19–24
I. Lamech’s marriages to Adah and Zillah 4:19
II. Dual outgrowths of marriages 4:20–24
A. The birth of founders of (certain) professions to Adah and Zillah 4:20–22
B. Lamech’s song to Adah and Zillah of his superior violence 4:23–24
Let us now look in more detail at the two sections outlining dual
outgrowths of Lamech’s marriages.
Gen 4:20–22 This section is divided into two subsections
focused on Adah’s children (4:20–21) and Zillah’s children (4:22).
Each of the two subsections starts with a full birth report along with
professions associated with the sons (4:20, 22a) followed by a
briefer note on the name of the firstborn’s sibling and (in the case of
Adah’s son, Jubal) the profession associated with him (4:21, 22b).
Notably, the unit concludes with the Bible’s first report of the birth of
a daughter, Zillah’s daughter Naamah, whose name could be linked
to roots for “lovely” or [connected to her half-brother, Jubal] “sing.”
Nevertheless, in contrast to other genealogies where named figures
—especially daughters—play some kind of genealogical or narrative
role in the following text (e.g., Dinah in Gen 30:21 before Gen 34),
we never hear any more about Naamah (4:22b) or her heritage,
another gap in the text.89 Meanwhile, the sons’ names, like some
other sibling names in the Bible (Gen 25:2; 25:4; 46:17; Num 11;26;
Ezek 23:4; 1 Chr 4:16), are joined by alliteration—Jabal (‫)יָבָ ל‬, Jubal
(‫ )יוּבָ ל‬and Tubal-Cain (‫—)תּוּבַ ל ַקיִן‬and they link in turn to the siblings,
Cain and Abel, with which Gen 4 began.90 The names of Adah’s
sons, Jabal (‫ )יָבָ ל‬and Jubal (‫)יוּבָ ל‬, are both closest to Abel’s name
(‫)הֶ בֶ ל‬. Jabal’s tent dwelling and livestock associations (4:20b) link
back to Abel’s profession as a shepherd of flocks (4:2), even as the
association of tent dwelling specifically with him suggests the idea
that other descendants of Cain could have more settled lifestyles.91
Meanwhile, Zillah’s son, Tubal-Cain, has a name explicitly linking
back to Cain’s name.
Finally, Tubal-Cain’s profession is differently formulated from his
half-brothers’, featuring—as noted above—the designation
“sharpener” (‫ )לטש‬at the same position where the descriptions of
Lamech’s previous sons had had “father of.” “Sharpener of” (cf.
“father of”) is followed by the expression “all who craft (‫ )חרש‬iron and
bronze.” These two terms, ‫ לטש‬and ‫ חרש‬are coordinated in 1 Sam
13:19–20, which describes how all in Israel used to go to Philistia to
have their metal implements “sharpened” (‫ )לטש‬because there was
no smith (‫ )חָ ָרשׁ‬in Israel. Since the simple mention of Tubal-Cain as a
“sharpener” diverges from the previous notes about Lamech’s sons
(4:21), it may well have been the original description of Tubal-Cain,
using a relatively obscure word (‫ )לטש‬that a glossator clarified
through a harmonizing, marginal note on the model of the preceding
brothers (4:21) as meaning [father of] “all who craft bronze and
iron.”92 As often happens, this marginal note, which presupposed the
“father of” portion of the preceding formulations for Adah’s sons, was
later incorporated into the text alongside the element that it glossed,
“sharpener.” The rendering given in the translation above is built on
this understanding, but other scenarios are possible for
understanding the present difficult text.93
Overall, the broadening out of the Cain-Lamech genealogy at this
point means that Cain’s descendants are characterized as engaging
in a variety of non-(vegetable) farming occupations: tent-dwelling
combined with animal husbandry, music-making, and metalworking,
with the last profession linked more closely to Cain via the name of
Tubal-Cain. Contrary to some interpretations that see the Cain-
Lamech genealogy as an etiology of human civilization, this list is far
from an overview of major human occupations, even if Cain’s (or
originally Enoch’s) city-building in 4:17 is included.94 Moreover, most
figures in the Cain-Lamech genealogy are not associated with any
specific profession.95 And though some have seen a broader critique
of civilization in the association of these professions with the Cain-
Lamech line,96 there is nothing in 4:20–22 to suggest a steadfastly
negative evaluation of these professions. The names of Lamech’s
wives and sons all possess a neutral to positive meaning, and the
professions of Adah’s sons (tent dwelling, music) do not necessarily
have negative connotations. Moreover, Gen 4:22 does not
specifically link Tubal-Cain’s metalworking with weapons, and metal
implements are associated elsewhere in the Bible with a variety of
farming and military uses.97 At most, the close sequence of Tubal-
Cain’s metalworking (4:22) and Lamech’s following boastful song
about violence (4:23–24) suggest an ambivalent depiction of the
possible outcomes of Lamech’s sons’ professions, much as Gen
4:1–24 more generally presents an ambivalent picture of Cain and
his line (more on this below).
Gen 4:23–24 The violent side of the Cain-Lamech line is
underlined by this final scene, where Lamech sings a song to Adah
and Zillah about his superlative violence, boasting about past
violence and promising violent revenge that even surpasses that
which Y promised against those who might threaten Cain.
Where Y promised sevenfold revenge against anyone who
murdered Cain (4:15a), Lamech boasts to his women that he himself
killed a “man” for just injuring him, even a “child” for wounding him
(4:23b) and then promises that he will be avenged seventy-seven
fold (4:24). This picture of violence, both in the targets of killing—
including a child and a person who had just injured Lamech—and
amount—seventy-seven fold vengeance rather than an “eye for an
eye” (e.g., Exod 21:23–25)—is clearly meant to represent horrific
excess. Human aggression (at least in boast form) has gone out of
control.
This song scene links back in multiple ways to the beginning of
the chapter, binding 4:1–24 into a whole. The mention of Cain here
in 4:24 recalls his introduction at the chapter’s outset. The
focalization of violence connects to the violence theme that began
with Cain’s murder of Abel in 4:8. Lamech’s boastful song to his
wives not only escalates the violence promised against others by
Y (4:15a), but Lamech claims the killing role previously asserted
by Y . Overall, Gen 4:1–24 seems to link Cain and his
descendants not only with a certain “mark” (‫ )אות‬of their protection by
Y , but also with a miasma of excessive violence, both in their
origins and in their own claims about themselves.

Genesis 4:25–26
With Cain and his descendants thus designated as particularly
violent, the text shifts back in time to introduce a new genealogical
line from the first parents, one not originating from Cain. Genesis
4:25 parallels 4:1 in describing the human as knowing/having sex
with his wife, her bearing a child, and naming him with a speech
about God’s action in the birth. Nevertheless, there are shifts from
4:1 as well. Now that there are more “men” in the world than the first
one (4:1), the first human is called “Adam” (‫ )אדם‬rather than the
generic expression “the human” (‫ )האדם‬featured up to this point.98 In
addition, the wife (not explicitly named, cf. 4:1a) uses a complete
naming formula (‫ )כי … ותקרא את־שמו‬to name her third son and
gratefully speaks of what God (‫ )אלהים‬has done for her rather than
what she had done with Y (4:1bβ). Eve’s description of Seth as
a new “seed” (‫ )זרע‬given to her by Y positions Seth as the start
of a new genealogical line. As she says, this line is to replace Abel,
who was murdered by Cain, thus standing as an implicit alternative
to the Cain-Lamech line of his murderer.
The next birth report in 4:26a continues this theme, being
formulated to coordinate and contrast with the previous Cain-
Lamech line. In order to stress the parallel between the births of two
grandchildren to Adam and Eve, the birth report for Enosh is
formulated passively, similarly to that of the continuation of Irad’s line
in 4:18 (‫“( ולשת גם־הוא ילד בן‬and to Seth also was born a son”
[4:26]//‫“ ויולד לחנוך את־עירד‬and to Enoch was born Irad” 4:18).99 The
implicit naming that concludes the birth report, this time by the father,
underlines the alternative character of this genealogical line. The
child’s name, Enosh (‫)אנוש‬, is not explained, but the word ‫ אנוש‬is a
synonym for ‫ אדם‬and likewise means “human being.” In this way,
4:26a tells of another figure named “human” standing toward the
outset of the genealogical line that replaces the lost Abel. With this
“human” now standing as Adam’s/[the]human’s grandchild in Seth’s
line, the alternative represented by the Sethite genealogy is fully
clear.
Where the Cain-Lamech line (4:1–24) concluded with Lamech’s
sons inaugurating tent-dwelling and artisanal modes of life
associated with Kenites (4:20–22), this section on Seth’s line (4:25–
26) concludes with a more general note about the beginning of the
calling on the name of Y (‫ )קרא בשם יהוה‬an expression that
elsewhere designates the calling on a divine patron’s name as part
of a petition.100 This is located “then” (‫)אז‬, which would seem to be in
the time around the birth of Enosh. Otherwise, we hear nothing
about who “called on the name of Y ” or precisely what this
means. Prior to this point Eve has been described as making a
speech about Cain’s name that featured the name Y (4:1b), and
some readers have assumed that the brothers’ sacrifices in 4:3b–4a
implicitly involved a calling on this same Y .101 Nevertheless, the
conclusion to the Cain-Abel narrative, especially Cain’s speech
about him hiding from the face of Y (4:14aβ) and his subsequent
departure from Y (4:16a), implied a break in relation with Y ,
at least for Cain. Indeed, even Eve herself uses the divine
designation ‫( אלהים‬Elohim) when naming Seth, rather than the divine
name (Y ), when she wishes that the son born in the wake of
Cain’s murder of Abel would found a new genealogical line (‫זרע‬
[‘seed’]) to replace lost Abel (4:25; cf. 4:2).
Within this context, the beginning of “calling on the name of
Y ” during Enosh’s generation, represents a possible renewal of
relationship with “Y ” in the generation after Cain and Seth.
Earlier we saw either Cain or (originally) his son, Enoch, build a city
and name it after his son, thus marking the conclusion (at least for
the next generation) of Cain’s punishment of eternal wandering. So
also here, the calling on the name of Y in 4:26b that reverses
Cain’s hiding from Y (4:14a) is linked with the post-Cain/Seth
generation by being associated with Enosh. In this way, both parts of
the unbearable consequences on Cain noted in 4:14—the alienation
from God and the eternal wandering—are partially reversed by notes
related to the children (Enoch [or originally Irad] and Enosh) who
followed Cain’s generation.

Conclusion to the Synchronic Analysis

The first broad feature that has emerged in the above commentary
are the numerous connections with the Eden story in Gen 2–3,
especially connections between it and the Cain-Abel story at the
outset of Gen 4. We see this overall in the focus of both stories on
escalating alienation of major characters from “the ground” (first “the
human” and then Cain) along with a move from connection to
disconnection of pairs of characters defined by primary family
relations: the male and female spouse in Gen 2–3 and the two
brothers in Gen 4:1–16.102 Yet Gen 4 does not just represent a
negative unfolding of dynamics from Gen 2–3. Instead, it links back
to the Eden story in both positive and negative ways. On the one
hand, the births in Gen 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 Gen 4 contains elements
that illustrate some negative outcomes, specifically in that Cain-
Lamech genealogical line, when the first child of the humans
handled the choice of good and evil gained in the garden of Eden
poorly (3:6), even when he was directly warned by Y about the
risks he faced (4:6–7; cf. 3:1–5). The divine confrontation in 4:6–7
specifically echoes the wording of Y ’s speech to the woman in
3:16b, and Y ’s post-crime pronouncement of punishment on
Cain (4:11–12) intensifies on him Y ’s prior curse of the “ground”
spoken to the first human (3:17–19). Morover, the theme of human
mortality that was so prominent in Gen 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 which was
proclaimed as inevitable at the end of the garden of Eden story
(3:17–19, 22, 24). Also, Cain’s subsequent protest to God (4:14bβ)
revolves around his fears that he soon will be the second such
instance, a threat that Y 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:103
a An initial focus on the “earth” (2:4b–5bα)
b focus on the ground (‫ )האדמה‬that will be farmed by the human made
from it (2:5 ;‫האדם‬bβ–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 Y 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 non-farming humans endlessly wandering the earth
(4:16). This then points forward to the line of Seth (4:25–26) and
later links of his descendents with farming the ground in 5:29 and
9:20.
And this then leads to some different ways that the Cain-Abel
story anticipates patterns and themes in the story of Noah and his
sons in Gen 5:29; 9:20–27. To start, the story of brotherly envy and
fratricide in Gen 4:1–16 stands as a middle pillar in a non-P primeval
history moving from exploration of male-female relations in Eden
(Gen 2–3) and father-son relations (Gen 9:18–27). Like those two
stories, it features protagonists with a special relation to “the ground”
(‫ ;האדמה‬e.g., Gen 2:7; 3:23; 4:2; 9:20). Yet, Gen 4:1–16 is more
specifically linked to Gen 9:18–27 by focusing on brotherly division
and questions surrounding familial obligation, whether responsibility
among brothers (e.g., Gen 4:9) or of brothers toward their father
(Gen 9:20–24). In addition, there may be a focus in both stories on
dynamics surrounding the privilege of the firstborn, both Cain’s
resentment at Y ’s greater regard for Abel’s offering of “firstborn”
animals (Gen 4:3–5) and the status of Canaan (the original referent
of Gen 9:24b) and Japheth as younger siblings vis-à-vis Shem
(10:21). Finally, Cain (‫ )קין‬and Canaan (‫ )כנען‬have similar sounding
names, those names link etymologically to the stories about them
(via ‫ קנה‬and ‫ כנע‬respectively), and both are personally cursed (Gen
4:11; 9:25).104
Meanwhile, most of the rest of the treatment of Cain’s line lacks
such clear connections to the broader primeval history. Though the
birth notice in Gen 4:17 connects with knowledge themes in the
Eden story, the other literary features of Gen 4:18–24 link back
specifically to the Cain-Abel story in Gen 4:1–16. As noted above,
the names and professions of Lamech’s sons in Gen 4:20–22
connect with those of Abel and Cain at the outset of the chapter, and
Lamech’s boast to his wives of superlative violence in 4:23–24
explicitly links back to the overall violence theme of the Cain-Abel
story and Y ’s promise of protection in 4:15 in particular. This
final song by Lamech serves within the chapter as a whole as a
demonstration that the tendency toward violence seen initially in
Cain has not diminished in his line. If anything, it appears to have
escalated.
Diachronic Analysis
The above synchronic commentary connects back to diachronic
theories summarized toward the outset of the discussion.
To start, in the diachronic prologue I already noted elements in
Gen 4:1–24 that conflict with its current status as the story of earth’s
first descendants. These include, among others, the oft-noted lack of
explanation of the origins of Cain’s wife (Gen 4:17), the description
of Cain’s fear of attack by those that he will meet (Gen 4:14), and
Y ’s solution of setting a mark on Cain that will warn off such
potential attackers (Gen 4:15). Indicators like these point to the
background of part of Gen 4:1–24 in a non-cosmogonic tradition
about Cain and his ancestors, one that presents the line of Cain-
Lamech as the beginnings of an ethnic group known to its audience
for associations with violence (Cain, Lamech) and yet some kind of
special care and protection from Y . Furthermore, several clues
suggest that this ethnic group was the Kenites. The name “Cain” (‫)קין‬
resembles the name for Kenite (‫)קיני‬, and various characteristics of
his genealogical line apparently connect with Kenites—e.g., the link
of Tubal-Cain to metalworking (Gen 4:22) and also association of the
Cain-Lamech line with cities on the one hand (Gen 4:17; cf. 1 Sam
30:29) and tent-dwelling pastoralism on the other (Gen 4:20; cf. Judg
5:24; 4:17–22).105 In addition, as argued in particular detail by Paula
McNutt, the mixed picture of Cain and his descendants in Gen 4:1–
24—as prone to violence, yet protected by Y —may originate
from ambivalent Judean attitudes toward socially marginal, yet
specially skilled, metal-working Kenites.106
At the same time, we also have seen numerous ways in which
the Cain-Lamech section, especially the story of Cain and Abel,
connects to the preceding Garden of Eden story: from their parallel
design to thematic connections. This shows that Gen 4:1–24 is not
just a written reflection of an earlier tradition about the Kenites.
Instead, it is related both to its broader non-P primeval context and
to an earlier ethnic etiology of Kenites. The complex mix is not well
explained by simple diachronic theories. Though many in the past
have tended to see the Cain-Abel story as modelled on the
preceding Eden account, only a few parts of Gen 4 contain elements
clearly originating from the wisdom-oriented account Gen 2–3, e.g.,
the divine speech in Gen 4:6–7 and the formulation of birth reports in
Gen 4:1–2, 17, 25. In addition, as was discussed in the previous
commentary on Gen 2–3, some shared elements connecting Gen 2–
3 and 4 likely originate in the tradition behind Gen 4, standing as
relatively isolated blind motifs in Gen 2–3. This mix of indicators
suggest a complex diachronic picture, where parts of Gen 2–3 were
modelled on the tradition behind Gen 4, while the present form of
Gen 4 also was crafted in relation to Gen 2–3 as its sequel.107
Finally, the above synchronic treatment included data supporting
the idea that the genealogy of Seth in Gen 4:25–26 is pre-Priestly.
Though some have argued for this section’s post-Priestly status
because it shows a shift toward use of Adam as a proper name (Gen
4:25; cf. Gen 5:1, 3–5) and of the divine designation ‫“( אלהים‬God”)
rather than ‫( יהוה‬Y ), the above commentary suggested that both
elements link with narrative dynamics in the overall chapter. In
addition, the theory that 4:25–26 is a post-Priestly bridge creates its
own difficulties. In particular, 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 doubled the
Adam-Seth-Enosh genealogy in 5:1–8 to which that post-priestly
genealogical report was bridging.108 Rather than standing as a
strange two-generation transition to the following Priestly genealogy
in Gen 5, the section on Seth and Enosh in Gen 4:25–26 seems to
be a pre-Priestly counterpart to the section on Cain and his
descendants, composed as the beginning of a new genealogical line
(“seed”) from Adam and Eve that ultimately leads to Noah, Shem
and the proto-Hebrew ancestors of Israel.
Synthesis
The text we have now places horrific inner-family violence at the very
start of human history. Nevertheless, it betrays ambivalence about
how much present humanity is plagued by tendencies toward such
violence. On the one hand, we have seen numerous ways that
Cain’s violence toward Abel represents an immediate follow-up and
parallel to the human eating of forbidden fruit of knowledge of good
and evil in Gen 3. In this sense, Gen 4 is an illustration of the outer
limits of what might happen to any human when they determine for
themselves what is good and evil. On the other hand, the present
text, with the inclusion of Gen 4:25–26, also seems to link this
possibility of violence specifically with Cain’s line, both in the echo of
Cain’s violence in Lamech’s boasts to his wives (4:23–24) and in the
implicit dichotomy established in 4:25–26 between the Cain-Lamech
line and the Seth-Noah line that will survive the flood. This could be
read as a suggestion that post-flood humanity might not be as
subject to the problems of violence as the Cain-Lamech line once
was.109
This irresolvable ambivalence in the present text likely results
from the chapter’s complex diachronic prehistory—starting with a
hypothesized Judean Cain-Lamech tradition that linked outsider
Kenites with both violence and divine provision and then continuing
with a reappropriation of that tradition to depict the potentially
extreme consequences of garden disobedience in the post-garden
world. Insofar as any specific associations of Cain with the Kenites
remained for the text’s early audience, they still could have read it as
an illustration—via Cain as a primeval Kenite/semi-nomad—of more
general propensities toward human violence toward fellow humans.
In this way the text uses an implicit figure of the “other” (brother-
murderer Cain, founder of the Kenites) as a canvas on which to paint
the most extreme human tendencies to which any human is
vulnerable, especially if they fail to “master” threatening tendencies
to sin amidst a murderous rage. It probably was less threatening to
use outsider Cain as an object lesson in human tendencies toward
extreme violence than to attribute such vulnerability toward rageful
violence to an implicitly universal ancestor like Adam. Cain in the
present text is thus not a representative of murderous tendencies in
everyone nor is he exclusively a representative of a specific people
(e.g., Kenites) or profession (e.g., farmers or [once expelled]
nomads). Rather, he is at one and the same time an outsider
representing the outer limit of human experience and an illustration
of the extreme lows of morality that all humanity now risks as a result
of the primeval acquisition of “knowledge of good and evil.”110
This mix of elements in the text has been reflected in its later
interpretation, though negative depictions of Cain and his “mark”
have predominated. On the one hand, an important stream of
rabbinic interpretation focused on Cain’s statement that his ‫עון‬
(understood as “sin”) is too great to bear (Gen 4:13), and developed
pictures of him as a model of repentance. Some contemporary
counterparts to this positive reading of Cain can be found in Von
Kellenbach’s and Snyman’s readings of the Cain figure as a potential
biblical model for repentence by former oppressors of others (and/or
their descendants).111 On the other hand, a larger number of
interpretations have developed negative pictures of Cain, expanding
on the biblical story in finding fault in him that caused Y not to
look on him and his sacrifice and associating him (negatively
characterized) with groups that later interpreters saw as other. One
part of this negative stream of interpretation was rabbinic Jewish
reinterpretation of Y ’s protective mark on him (Gen 4:14) as a
blemishing sign of his sin, such as leprosy or a horn from his
forehead.112 Medieval Christian interpreters built on this approach,
yet reversed it, taking Cain to be a symbol of condemned Jews,
whose outsider status is marked by the sign of the law or by
circumcision.113 Then modern period European Christians (and later
Mormons) reinterpreted Cain’s “mark” as his black skin and so
recruited the figure of Cain—negatively depicted—as a symbol of
African peoples to be enslaved, confined to segregated schools, or
excluded from church leadership.114 Moreover, the puzzle of the
text’s lack of specification of the origins of Cain’s wife (Gen 4:17)
was resolved by racist interpretations asserting that Cain married
into a non-human, pre-Adamite race, with humanity then
permanently divided between a subhuman, evil race descending
from Cain and the fully human descendants of Adam through
Seth.115
This propensity of the Cain-Lamech story to be used to
negatively characterize specific groups must be kept in view, even as
the text has potential to speak to dynamics relating to humanity as a
whole. In particular, inter-human violence, in a variety of forms,
seems to characterize much of human life. The Gen 2–4 text can be
read as identifying such violence as violence of siblings (now broadly
construed) against each other, an offense against God, and a way
that humans pollute the ground on which they depend.116
Some non-historical readings of the chapter have connected with
this depiction of violence affecting “the ground.” A prelude to such
readings was Allan Boesak’s reflection from a black South-African
perspective on how violence condemns Cain to a life of unending
fear, wandering and separation from the human community.117 This
was followed by multiple readings of the Cain-Abel story (along with
Gen 2–3) as a depiction of the sort of violent toxic masculinity that
has been critiqued in contemporary feminist discussions (e.g., Olson
2006).118 Brigitte Kahl added an ecofeminist dimension to this
reading, noting how Eve sings of having created a “man” (‫ )איש‬rather
than a child at the outset of the story, a “man” who starts by “serving”
(‫ )עבד‬the ground (Gen 4:2) but ends up anticipating the current
ecological crisis in the way he pollutes the ground with his brother’s
blood, thus destroying his relation with it (Gen 4:11–12).119 These
readings illustrate how this ancient, complex text can link in
productive ways with contemporary discussions of gender, violence,
and environmental catastrophe.
Genesis 5:1–32: The Genealogical
Line from Adam to Noah and his Sons

5:1 This is the booka of the descendantsb of Adam [ʾādām].c When

God created humankind/Adam [ʾādām],d he made theme as a
likeness off God. 2 Male and female he created them. And he
blessed them and called them humankind/Adam [ʾādām] when they
were created. 3 When Adam had lived one hundred thirty yearsa, he
fathered a sonb as his likeness, similar to his image, and he named
him Seth. 4 The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were eight
hundred years, and he had sons and daughters. 5 All the days that
Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and then he died.
6 When Seth had lived one hundred and five years, he fathered
Enosh. 7 Seth lived eight hundred and seven years after he fathered
Enosh, and he had sons and daughters. 8 Seth’s entire lifetimea was
nine hundred and twelve years, and then he died. 9 When Enosh
had lived ninety years, he fathered Kenan. 10 Enosh lived eight
hundred and fifteen years after he fathered Kenan, and he had sons
and daughters. 11 Enosh’s entire lifetime was nine hundred and five
years, and then he died. 12 When Kenan had lived seventy years,
he fathered Mahalalel. 13 And Kenan lived eight hundred and forty
years after he fathered Mahalalel, and he had sons and daughters.
14 Kenan’s entire lifetime was nine hundred and ten years, and then
he died. 15 When Mahalalel had lived sixty-five years, he fathered
Jared. 16 Mahalalel lived eight hundred and thirty years after he
fathered Jared, and he had sons and daughters. 17 Mahalalel’s
entire lifetime was eight hundred and ninety-five years, and then he
died. 18 When Jared had lived sixty-two years,a he fathered Enoch.
19 Jared then lived seven hundred eighty-five years after he fathered
Enoch, and he had sons and daughters. 20 Jared’s entire lifetime
was eight hundred forty-seven years, and then he died. 21 When
Enoch had lived sixty-five years, he fathered Methusaleh. 22 Enoch
walked with Goda after he fathered Methusaleh three hundred years,
and he had sons and daughters. 23 Enoch’s entire lifetimea was
three hundred and sixty five years. 24 Enoch walked with Goda and
[then] he was no longer around, because God took him. 25 When
Methusaleh had lived sixty-seven years, he fathered Lamech.
26 Methusaleh lived six hundred and fifty-three years after he
fathered Lamech, and he had sons and daughters. 27 Methusaleh’s
entire lifetime was seven hundred and twenty years, and then he
died. 28 When Lamech had lived fifty three years, he fathered a son
29 and called him ‘Noah’, saying “this one will provide us comfort
from our labor and toil of our hands, from the ground which Y
cursed.” 30 And Lamech lived six hundred years after he fathered
Noah, and he had sons and daughters. 31 Lamech’s entire lifetime
was six hundred and fifty three years, and then he died. 32 When
Noah was five hundred years old, he fathered Shem, Ham and
Japheth.
Notes on Text and Translation
5:1a The Hebrew word translated here, ‫הספר‬, 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). The term
“book” seems the closest English equivalent, as long as it is not understood to
be restricted to the bound-codex form most familiar to contemporary readers.
1b The term translated here, ‫תולדת‬, generally refers elsewhere in Genesis to the
offspring of a given figure.1
1c This use of ‫ אדם‬heads a genealogical list starting with the first human being.
Though the subsequent uses of the same term in 5:1b–2 have complex
referents (see notes below), this one both labels an overall genealogy starting
with an individual “Adam” in 5:3–5 and closely follows a reference to an
individual “Adam” in 4:25. Therefore, this ‫ אדם‬is rendered simply “Adam,” a
figure whose background will be given in 5:1b–2.
1d As will be discussed in the commentary below, 5:1b–2 sets the individual,
genealogical figure of “Adam” within the context of God’s broader creation and
blessing of two-sexed humanity in Gen 1:26–28. This, then, is the reason for
the repetition of the term ‫ אדם‬in 5:1b, now in the sense of “humankind” from
Gen 1:26–27, rather than merely giving a 3 m.s. object suffix here that would
then clearly refer to the figure, Adam, mentioned in 5:1a. At the same time,
the text’s following use of a singular pronoun to refer to God’s creation of this
Adam (5:1bβ; cf. 1:27a) and God’s naming of him (5:2b) implies that this
“humanity” ‫ אדם‬is also meant to be understood as the individual “Adam” seen
in 5:3ff. The Hebrew term, ʾādām, admits of both interpretations and this
multivalent Hebrew wordplay (with no good English language equivalent) is
crucial to 5:1b–2, hence the use of the slashed translation “humankind/Adam”
here (and in 5:2) and the addition of Hebrew ʾādām in brackets across this
portion of the translation.
1e “Them” translates the 3rd masculine singular pronoun ‫אתו‬. This pronoun refers
back to the ʾādām (humankind/Adam) mentioned in 5:1b.
1f See the commentary on Gen 1:26 for the rationale behind this translation “as a
likeness of” rather than “in the image of.”
3a The date for Adam’s fathering of Seth is 100 years higher here in the
Septuagint than it is in the Samaritan Pentateuch and Masoretic Text, and the
corresponding dates are raised the same amount (with corresponding
decreased numbers of years after fathering) for other primeval ancestors in
 the Septuagint. For discussion of this and other differences between the
chronological systems of the Septuagint, Masoretic, and Samaritan versions
of Gen 5, see the following excursus.
3b Reading ‫ בן‬here with many commentators, omitted (so because of haplography
caused by homoioarkton 2.‫בן‬//‫בדמותו‬
8a “Seth’s entire lifetime” renders the Hebrew expression “all the days of Seth
were” (‫ ;ויהיו כל־ים‬cf. Gen 5:5, “all the days that Adam lived”—‫ויהיו כל־ימי אדם‬
‫)אשר־חי‬. In this and other instances (5:11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 27, 31), the term
“entire lifetime” substitutes for the Hebrew idiom to avoid the direct
conjunction of “days” and the following reference(s) to “years” and to highlight
the focus of this and other verses on the total lifetime of a given patriarch (a
major focus of the chapter).
18a In this and other instances across 5:18–31 the translation follows the
chronology seen in the Samaritan Pentateuch version of Gen 5. See the
following excursus on chronology for discussion.
22a Though one might join James VanderKam, Enoch, A Man for All Generations,
13, 43–44 in surmising that the expression ‫ האלהים‬here and in 5:24a refers to
a plural “the gods” with whom Enoch walked in contrast to the undetermined
‫“( אלהים‬God”) who later takes Enoch up (5:24a), this expression is the first in a
series of expressions in P that emphasize interaction with the God in the
singular (Gen 6:9; 17:1, 18; see also Lev 26:12) and thus seems to function
as a singular as well, at least within a broader Priestly context. See Blum,
Studien, 325–326.
23a Reading ‫ ויהיו‬with the Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint versus ‫ ויהי‬of the
Masoretic text with the same error apparent in the Masoretic tradition (versus
the Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint) in 5:31.3
24a For explanation see the note above on “God ” for Gen 5:22.

The text-critical problem of the years in Gen 5

There is a significant divergence between the major ancient textual witnesses
for Gen 5—Masoretic Text, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Septuagint—on the
subject of the ages of the primeval ancestors. The MT and LXX give higher
numbers for the age of Jared, Methusaleh, and Lamech when they had their
first son than the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the LXX features higher numbers
for the ages of all the primeval ancestors at the birth of their first son. This
lengthening of the ages of primeval ancestors at the births of their first sons
delays the date given for the onset of the flood in the Masoretic and Septuagint
traditions so that the later primeval ancestors do not appear to have died as
part of the flood punishment: Enoch is taken up by God; Methusaleh dies in a
very old age (969) either in the year of the flood (MT) or fourteen years after it
(LXX); and Jared and Lamech die years before the flood. Meanwhile, the
chronological system in the Samaritan Pentateuch has Jared, Methusaleh, and
Lamech 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).4
Table on chronologies of pre-flood ancestors in major versions (adapted from
Hendel, Genesis 1–11, p. 65)
b—age at begetting r—remainder t—total lifespan A.M.—year after creation
(anno mundi)
Items relating to problems of the flood or harmonization (discussed below) in
bold

Samaritan (proto)Masoretic LXX

Pentateuch text
Adam b 130 b 130 b 230
r 800 r 800 r 700
t 930 t 930 t 930
A.M. 1–930 A.M. 1–930 A.M. 1–
930
Seth b 105 b 105 b 205
r 807 r 807 r 707
t 912 t 912 t 912
A.M. 130–1042 A.M. 130–1042 A.M. 230–
1142
Enosh b 90 b 90 b 190
r 815 r 815 r 715
t 905 t 905 t 905
A.M. 235–1140 A.M. 235–1140 A.M. 435–
1340
Kenan b 70 b 70 b 170
r 840 r 840 r 740
t 910 t 910 t 910
A.M. 325–1235 A.M. 325–1235 A.M. 625–
1535
Mahalalel b 65 b 65 b 165
r 830 r 830 r 730
t 895 t 895 t 895
A.M. 395–1290 A.M. 395–1290 A.M. 795–
1690
 Samaritan (proto)Masoretic LXX
Pentateuch text
Jared b 62 b 162 b 162
r 785 r 800 r 800
t 847 t 962 t 962
A.M. 460–1307 A.M. 460–1422 A.M. 960–
1922
Enoch b 65 b 65 b 165
r 300 r 300 r 200
t 365 t 365 t 365
A.M. 522–887 A.M. 622–987 A.M. 1122–
1487
Methusaleh b 67 b 187 b 167
r 653 r 782 r 802
t 720 t 969 (longest t 969
A.M. 587–1307 lived) A.M.
A.M. 687–1656 1287–2256
Lamech b 53 b 182 b 188
r 600 r 595 r 565
t 653 t 777 (cf. Gen t 753
A.M. 654–1307 4:24) A.M.
A.M. 874–1651 1454–2207
Year of Flood A.M. 1307 A.M. 1656 A.M. 2242
(after creation)

Though numerous scholars have attempted to reconstruct the original

sequence of the numbers in Gen 5 from these varied textual witnesses, the
data does not allow an easy solution. One commonly proposed approach,
however, does not seem a probable option: the often argued idea that the
years of the (proto-) Masoretic tradition, starting with Gen 5, were constructed
to provide an even 4000 year period from creation to the rededication of the
temple by Judas (with the exodus placed at 2666 years after creation, 2/3 of
the way to temple rededication).5 The central 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 extending from Cyrus to Judas Maccabeus. Nevertheless,
documented examples of Jewish historiography of the period (such as Esther,
Daniel, Ezra–Nehemiah and Josephus) show striking ignorance of crucial
elements of that chronology.6 Similar problems accompany attempts to explain
the Samaritan Pentateuch chronology (starting with Gen 5) as an attempt to
anticipate the year of the founding of the Samaritan temple at Gerizim.7
With those explanatory options eliminated, there are two main remaining
approaches to the chronologies of Gen 5. One is to see all of the textual
witnesses as divergent adaptations of an earlier genealogical Vorlage—
originally not connected to a flood narrative—where the ages of the primeval
ancestors were not coordinated with the flood. Because this Vorlage was not
initially coordinated with the flood, some of the ages in it implied that some
patriarchs—Jared, Methusaleh and Lamech—survived the flood. According to
this first approach, the three major textual traditions for the chronology of Gen 5
represent diverse solutions to this problem (though the LXX misses with
Methusaleh).8 The chief problem with this approach is its supposition about the
Priestly author’s highly selective adaptation of this (hypothesized) Toledot-book
-source. Below, we will see indicators that this pre-Priestly genealogical source,
a pre-P Toledot book, was adapted in multiple ways by the Priestly author to fit
its present context. If this is true, it seems odd that the Priestly author who
adapted this genealogical source to fit its context would overlook a problem of
primeval ancestors surviving the flood, indeed a problem so obvious that the
scribes behind all three major textual traditions for Gen 5 would aim to solve
that problem.9
The best remaining alternative is that the chronology found in the Samaritan
Pentateuch generally presents the earliest form of the chronological system for
Gen 5, but that its system was altered by the MT and especially LXX so that
none of the major primeval patriarchs were killed prematurely in the flood.10 As
we will see, Gen 5 as a whole prepares for the flood narrative by tracing the
lineage of the flood hero (and father of all post-flood humanity), Noah, as the
heir of Adam, the first human. The chronological system in the Samaritan
Pentateuch conforms with this overall aim of the chapter by being part of an
implicit contrast between the characters and fates of pre-flood ancestors who
escaped the flood—Enoch and Noah—and the other late pre-flood ancestors
who died prematurely in (the year of) the flood—Jared, Methusaleh, and
Lamech. As we will see in the commentary below, Enoch and Noah are
explicitly affirmed in the text as righteous, “walking around with God” (‫התהלךּ את‬
6:9 ;24 ,5:22 ;‫)האלהים‬. God takes special measures to save both from the flood
—taking Enoch up to heaven at age 365 (he would have been a young 785 at
the year of the flood) and rescuing Noah through the ark.
Diachronic Prologue

Part One: P and Non-P in Gen 5 (and Relations to

non-P in Gen 4)
The first and clearest probable precursor to Gen 5 is Gen 4,
especially the genealogical portions of that chapter. As indicated in
the chart below, Gen 5 and Gen 4 feature an extremely similar set of
names of primary patriarchs following Adam:

Corresponding names in Gen 4: Names in Gen 5 (in order):

Adam (25 ,16–4:1 (‫אדם‬ Adam (5–5:1 (‫אדם‬
Seth (26–4:25 (‫שת‬ Seth (8–5:6 (‫שת‬
Enosh (4:26 (‫אנוש‬ Enosh (11–5:6 (‫אנוש‬
Cain (17–4:1 (‫קין‬ Kenan (14–5:9 (‫קינן‬
Mehujael (4:18 (‫מחויאל‬ Mahalalel (17–5:12 (‫מהללאל‬
Irad (4:18 (‫עירד‬ Jared (20–5:15 (‫ירד‬
Enoch (18–4:17 (‫חנוך‬ Enoch (24–5:18 (‫חנוך‬
Metushael (4:18 (‫מתושאל‬ Methusaleh (27–5:21 (‫מתושלח‬
Lamech (4:24–4:18 (‫למך‬ Lamech (31–5:25 (‫למך‬

It is, of course, always possible that the two genealogies are

dependent on a common precursor. Nevertheless, the chances of
that are reduced when it is observed that the deviations between
Gen 5 and Gen 4 can be explained as adaptations by Gen 5 of
names taken from Gen 4 as part of its own broader scheme.11 For
example, the overall order of the figures in Gen 5 matches that of
Gen 4:25–26 and then 4:17–18 with one significant exception: Enoch
is switched from being the son of Cain (//Kenan in Gen 5) and father
of Irad in Gen 4 (//Jared in Gen 5) into the seventh position of the
Gen 5 genealogy (between Jared and Methusaleh). At the same
time, the figure who was the son of Irad (//Jared) and father of
Metushael (//Methusaleh in Gen 5) in Gen 4, Mehujael/Mehijael (now
Mahalalel in Gen 5), is switched earlier in the Gen 5 genealogy to
occupy the place occupied in Gen 4 by Enoch, between Cain
(//Kenan in Gen 5) and Irad (//Jared in Gen 5). As will be argued
below, this specific switch in order from the Gen 4 Vorlage probably
was part of an effort by the author of Gen 5 to have Enoch—who
functions as an anticipation of Noah in both righteousness and being
spared the flood—stand in the crucial seventh position of the
genealogy. We see a similar focus on this seventh position in other
Near Eastern traditions, including the Sumerian King List tradition to
be discussed below.12
This evidence for adaptation in Gen 5 of elements from Gen 4 is
a first block of data indicating that Gen 5 originally stood separate
from the chapter it now follows. As earlier interpreters noted, an
author-redactor would have had no need to repeat both names in
4:25–26 nor duplicate/adapt the names of 4:17–18.13 In addition,
insofar as the overall genealogical structure of Gen 5:3–31 starts
each section with a report and dating of a primeval ancestor’s first
fathering of a son, the report and dating of Adam’s fathering of Seth
in Gen 5:3 seems to ignore the fact that he had already fathered
Cain (and Abel) in Gen 4:1–2a. So also, the report of Adam’s naming
of Seth in 5:3b conflicts with the report of Eve naming him in 4:25.14
Finally, the introduction to the genealogy in 5:1b–2 connects with P’s
creation account in Gen 1:1–31, but lacks clear links to themes in
Gen 2:4b–4:26 (non-P).15 Indeed, as noted in the synchronic
commentary below, the chiastic pattern binding Gen 5:1b–3 to Gen
1:26–28 is somewhat obscured now by Gen 1:29–4:26, especially
the extensive non-P block of material in 2:4b–4:26. Once this
material is removed, it becomes clearer how Gen 5 builds a
genealogical bridge leading directly from God’s creation and blessing
of humans and their biome in Gen 1:1–2:3 to the Priestly flood
narrative beginning with the “Descendants of Noah” label in Gen 6:9.
These data suggest that the vast bulk of Gen 5 originally stood as
part of a separate Priestly primeval narrative and originally followed
immediately on the creation report in Gen 1:1–2:3. Nevertheless,
there is one element in Gen 5 that appears to derive from the non-
Priestly strand of Gen 1–11: the naming of Noah and linking of his
name (‫ )נח‬to his destiny to provide comfort (‫ )נחם‬out of the ground
(‫ )האדמה‬from Y ’s curse of the ground (Gen 5:29). 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 Gen 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).16 Most
importantly, the speech in 5:29b connects specifically and
exclusively to non-Priestly material in Gen 2–4 and 9, positioning
Noah as a figure who will provide comfort from the curse on the
ground given in Gen 3:17–19, a comfort that he then provides via
inventing viticulture in Gen 9:20. Numerous elements in 5:29b, e.g.,
the mention of ‫“( עצבון‬toil”), ‫“( האדמה‬ground”), Y (‫ )יהוה‬and his
curse (‫—)ארר‬are specifically characteristic of the non-Priestly
material seen in Gen 2–4, with no elements connecting with
specifically Priestly themes.17

Part Two: A Priestly Toledot Book Standing

Behind (most of) Gen 5
Many of the distinctive characteristics of Gen 5 (along with its
extension in 11:10–26) can be explained by the theory that the bulk
of the chapter originated in a pre-P “Toledot book” of the
descendants of Adam that provided a linear genealogy of Abraham’s
primeval descendants. This commentary is not the context for
detailed argumentation for this theory. Nevertheless a few key
indicators of the existence of such a Toledot book behind Gen 5 (and
Gen 11:10–26) can be mentioned. These include: the presence of a
label that introduces Gen 5 as part of a “book of the descendants of
Adam” (Gen 5:1a), the distinctive and highly regularized pattern of
the sections for pre- and post-flood patriarchs in Gen 5 and 11:10–
26, the widespread use in these sections of a distinctive ascending
numbering scheme for ages of patriarchs (from single digit numbers
to tens and hundreds), and the conflict of some aspects of the
chronological system of ages in Gen 5 and 11:10–26 with narrative
elements in P narrative texts.18
Insofar as this theory of a Toledot book holds, then this book was
the likely original context for the above-discussed adaptation of the
names of pre-flood primeval patriarchs from Gen 4. These names
form a central part of the framework of the chapter. To be sure, there
are some likely Priestly adaptations of the Toledot book. The most
central of these is the bridge to the Priestly creation account in Gen
5:1b–2 (see below). Nevertheless, much of Gen 5, aside from this
Priestly bridge and the insertion from non-P in Gen 5:29, appears to
originate from this pre-P Toledot book.

Part Three: Links of the Toledot Book to (a Late

Iteration of) the Sumerian King List Tradition
A probable non-biblical precursor to this Toledot book is the
Sumerian King List tradition (hereafter often SKL), particularly as it is
reflected in first millennium versions, such as Berossus. This
tradition, particularly in such later versions, surveyed the extremely
long rules of a set of pre-flood kings before then attributing
increasingly short rules to a series of post-flood kings. Most
interesting for our purposes is the fact that the later versions of this
tradition featured relatively longer lists of pre-flood kings, with
Berossus’s version (composed in the third century) containing a
version with ten kings paralleling the ten-geneation list of pre-flood
patriarchs in Gen 5. Moreover, Berossus follows the above-noted
Near Eastern convention of placing an important figure in the
seventh position of the genealogy, in this case featuring
Enmeduranki, a figure described in some Mesopotamian traditions
as enjoying a heavenly audience with Shamash, the Mesopotamian
sun god.19 The modelling of Gen 5 on a similar version of the
Sumerian king list tradition could explain a number of deviations of it
from Gen 4, especially the prominent focus in Gen 5 on the (high)
number of years that the pre-flood ancestors lived and its status as a
ten-generation bridge from the first human to the flood hero.
Moreover, the placement of Enmeduranki in seventh position (or a
similar position) in the (late) SKL tradition may have been a
precedent for the unique placement of Enoch in seventh position in
Gen 5, doubled assertion that Enoch “walked with God” (‫התהלך‬
5:22 ;‫את־האלהים‬a, 24a), and attribution to Enoch of the unusual
lifespan on earth of 365 years, corresponding to the days in a solar
calendar.20
To be sure, SKL is not preserved in a single, standardized
version that Gen 5 could then parallel. Moreover, Gen 5 deviates
from all versions of SKL in featuring non-royal patriarchs—not kings
—and in surveying their lifespans—not their reigns. In these
respects, Gen 5 reflects its status as a genealogy of pre-flood
patriarchs paralleling that seen in Gen 4. The hypothesis of
dependence of Gen 5 on SKL alongside Gen 4, however, could
explain some important deviations of Gen 5 from the Gen 4
genealogy, such as its reorganization of the two genealogical lines of
Gen 4 into a ten-generation sequence, the above-noted deviation(s)
from Gen 4 regarding Enoch, and the particular SKL-like focus on
chronology in Gen 5. Furthermore, the overall contours of the SKL
linear genealogy of pre- and post-flood kings provides a good
analogy to the likely contours of the above-discussed pre-P Toledot
book surveying pre- and post-flood ancestors of Abraham.

Part Four: Scribal Adaptations of the

Chronological System
The substantial textual deviations for years in Gen 5—initially
discussed above—add yet another dimension to its diachronic
profile. As argued above, its earliest version—reflected best in the
Samaritan Pentateuch—probably featured a chronological system
contrasting pre-flood ancestors dying in the flood (Jared,
Metushelah, Lamech) with righteous intimates of God rescued from
the flood (Enoch, Noah). Meanwhile, the Masoretic text and
Septuagint traditions show adaptations of this original Priestly
presentation.
These chronological adaptations in the MT and LXX likely
originate in an early scribal attempt to deal with possible
contradictions between the priestly depiction of the Seth-Noah line in
Gen 5 and its precursor in Gen 4. Although these genealogies once
stood separately, the Seth-Noah line in Gen 5, as a follow-up to Gen
4:25–26, now represents a relatively virtuous alternative
genealogical line (4:25–26) that contrasts with the violence-prone
Cain-Lamech line (4:1–24). This new significance of the Seth-Noah
line in the combined P/non-P text of Gen 4:25–5:32 rendered
irrelevant and even problematic the original Priestly presentation of
the later patriarchs of this Adam-to-Noah line (Jared, Methusaleh,
Lamech) as dying prematurely in the flood. So the chronology was
secondarily adapted in an early manuscript tradition (behind the LXX
and MT) to have them die at more normal old ages before (Jared,
Lamech) or in the year of (Methusaleh) the flood. Both the MT and
LXX witness to an interpretation tradition that raised the ages of
fathering of the three problematic late pre-flood ancestors (Jared,
Methusaleh, and Lamech) by a century (a bit more for Lamech) so
that these primeval ancestors did not die prematurely in the flood.21
At some point these textual traditions then diverged. The LXX
tradition, whether its Vorlage or the translator, went beyond the
above-described adaptation of the chronology for Jared, Methusaleh,
and Lamech, systematically applying that adaptation to Enoch and
early pre-flood patriarchs. One result of this systematizing adaptation
was that Methusaleh was then reported to have survived the flood by
fourteen years.22 Meanwhile, the Masoretic tradition features
readings of ages for Methusaleh and Lamech that insure that
Lamech’s final age in Gen 5:31 (‫)שבע ושבעים שנה ושבע מאות שנה‬
echoes his earlier boast of being revenged seventy-seven times in
4:24 (‫ )שבעים ושבע‬even as the date of the flood does not change.23

Conclusion to the Diachronic Prologue

The above discussion helps us see how the bulk of Gen 5 derives
from an early Priestly, Toledot book re-presentation of Abraham’s
pre-flood ancestry as found in non-P (Gen 4:1–26; 5:29) along the
lines of the Mesopotamian SKL tradition. This Toledot book is likely
behind the entire sequence of ten names of pre-flood patriarchs
across the chapter, the regularized pattern of treatment of each
figure (to be surveyed below), and the flood-oriented chronological
system of years across the chapter. The Priestly source appears to
have appropriated and built around this Toledot book, prefacing it
with the creation account reflected in Gen 1, connecting back to that
creation account with the material in Gen 5:1b–2, echoing that
account in reporting Adam’s fathering of Seth as his likeness similar
to his image (Gen 5:3a), and making some more modest
adaptations, such as reporting the total years of Adam’s life in the
typical descending order of numbers seen elsewhere in P (Gen 5:5)
and introducing Noah’s age at fathering with a Priestly age formula
using the word “son” (Gen 5:32; cf. Gen 17:1; 25:20; 26:34) rather
than the formula using the verb for “live” more typical of the rest of
the chapter (e.g., Gen 5:3, 6, 9).24
These Priestly revisions and the above-discussed insertion of a
non-P element into the chapter (Gen 5:29) represent relatively
discrete modifications of this Toledot book genealogy from Adam to
Noah. Therefore, the following synchronic commentary follows the
order of the chapter as a whole. Along the way, it features distinct
discussions of elements identified above as diachronically distinct
from the rest of the chapter (e.g., Gen 5:1b–2 and Gen 5:29), and
these discussions connect these elements to their relevant Priestly
and non-Priestly synchronic contexts.
Synchronic Analysis

Overview
The genealogy in Gen 5 is divided primarily between a label in Gen
5:1a (“this is the book of the descendants of Adam”) and the
genealogical material in Gen 5:1bff. This label is discussed in the
commentary below.
The genealogical material in Gen 5:1bff is introduced by a review
of God’s creation (5:1b–2) that bridges between God’s creation,
blessing, and naming of “humanity” (‫ )]אדם]ה‬in general (1:26–28) to
the focus of the first part of the genealogy that follows on the
fathering (and naming) by first “human” (ʾādām; 5–5:3 ;‫)אדם‬. All the
way up through the end of 5:2 the focus is on plural humanity,
including God’s naming of all of “them” ʾādām (“humanity”). Yet this
leads into the focus of 5:3ff. on one such ʾādām/“human” in
particular, the primeval father of all subsequent generations, starting
with Adam’s continuation of God’s creation by fathering Seth in his
image and naming of him (5:3).
The following Adam-Noah genealogy in Gen 5:3–32 consists of
nine similarly structured sections about pre-diluvian ancestors (5:3–
31) and an initial note about Noah’s age at the time of his fathering
of Shem, Japheth, and Ham (5:32). The nine sections generally
feature the following elements:

1. Statement of the primeval ancestor’s age at the time of his

fathering of his (implicitly) first son, usually simply given by name
(e.g., ‫“ ;ויחי שת חמש שנים ומאת שנה ויולד את־אנוש‬When Seth had
lived one hundred and five years, he fathered Enosh”).
2. Statement of how many years the ancestor lived after fathering his
first son (e.g., ‫ויחי שת אחרי הולידו את־אנוש שבע שנים ושמונה מאות‬
‫“ ;שנה‬Seth lived eight hundred and seven years after he fathered
Enosh.”)
3. Statement that the ancestor fathered other sons and daughters
(e.g., ‫“ ;ויולד בנים ובנות‬He had sons and daughters.”)
4. Summary of how many years in total the ancestor lived (e.g., ‫ויהי‬
‫“ ;כל ימי שת שתים עשרה שנה ותשע מאות שנה‬Seth’s entire lifetime
was nine hundred and twelve years.”)
5. Report that the ancestor died (‫“ ;וימת‬And then he died.”)

Though this pattern varies for the figures of Adam, Enoch, and
Lamech, the overall regularity of Gen 5 gives a sense of order last
seen in the account of God’s creation of the human-centered
cosmos in six days in Gen 1:3–31. Moreover, especially with the
expansion at the outset (Gen 5:1b–2), the Gen 5 genealogy helps
illustrate the successful unfolding of God’s creation of male and
female humans as God’s image (1:26–27) and provision to these
humans of a blessing of multiplication (1:28). This initial expansive
section on Adam, including his naming of Seth (5:3b) is balanced
toward the end of the genealogy with a longer section on Lamech,
especially his naming of Noah and anticipation of his destiny (5:29)
vis-à-vis the curse of Gen 3:17–19.
Ultimately, however, the broader structure of Gen 5 is more
focused on giving the genealogical line leading up to Noah than it is
on illustrating the outworking of God’s multiplication blessing in Gen
1:28. To start, rather than providing an overview of the filling of the
earth by fruitful humanity (cf. Gen 10*), Gen 5:3–32 focuses
resolutely on a single genealogical line of implicitly eldest sons,
leading from Adam down to the flood hero, Noah. This explains the
focus in Gen 5 on the age of each ancestor when he fathered a
given son and the fact that the next genealogical section focuses
exclusively on that son’s fathering, with virtually no attention to the
children had by his other “sons and daughters.” To be sure, in the
present, conflated text of Genesis, Adam fathers Cain and Abel (4:1–
2) before having Seth (4:25), a problem with 5:3 already noted by
rabbinic interpreters.25 Nevertheless, Gen 5:3 implicitly treats Seth
as Adam’s true heir, and most of Gen 5:6ff. focuses on the
subsequent eldest sons of the rest of Adam’s line, leading finally to
Noah. In this way, much as other such linear genealogies are
focused on legitimization of a given official line,26 the bulk of Gen 5
builds a picture of Noah, the flood hero who “walked with God” as
the true heir of Adam. Moreover, to build this picture, Gen 5 needs to
shift to its (linear) genealogical mode through an extended treatment
in 5:1b–2 of the shift from the use of ʾādām in Gen 1:26–27 to refer
to "humanity" to the genealogy’s use of ʾādām to refer to the first
human (5:1a, 3ff; see 4:25).

Commentary
Gen 5:1a. Label for the book of Adam’s descendants The chapter
opens with a label (5:1a) of the following as a “book” of the
“descendants of Adam.” Within the present conflated text of Genesis,
it is not clear how much of what follows is to be identified as part of
this “book.” At the very least, this label covers the genealogy of Gen
5:1b–32, along possibly with the textual material (6:1–8) preceding
the “descendants of Noah” label in Gen 6:9aα. Nevertheless, the
deictic reference of the label “this” (‫ )זה‬identifying what follows as a
“book” is distinctive in the Bible. It contrasts both with otherwise
similar labels that identify the following with a text type on a certain
topic (e.g., a teaching [‫ ]תורה‬in Lev 6:2, 7, 18; 7:1, etc. or
proclamation [‫ ]משא‬in Isa 13:1, etc.) and contrasts with references to
scrolls elsewhere in the Bible that identify a certain book/scroll as the
source of a specific citation (e.g., Num 21:14) or a locus containing
information not in the present text (e.g., 1 Kgs 14:19, 29, etc.).
Instead, one could interpret this deictic reference to a “book” (‫ )ספר‬in
5:1a—on analogy, say with Isa 1:1—as a global reference to the
entire following book of Genesis (Gen 5:3–50:26) as thus
constituting a “book of the descendants of Adam.” This book in turn
would be understood to include subparts with their own labels,
starting with “the descendants of Noah” in Gen 6:9, much like the
book of Isaiah likewise contains such labeled subparts (e.g., Isa 2:1;
13:1; 15:1, etc.). In this way, Gen 5:1a would characterize the status
and character of the book in which it stands as fundamentally a
genealogy of “the descendants of Adam.” And indeed this is how
many interpreters traditionally understood it, starting with the Greek
label of Genesis as γενέσεως (“genealogy”).
 Of course, this does not clarify why such a global textual label did
not occur at the beginning of the book of Genesis (cf. Isa 1:1). At
least one tradent of the book, the author of the LXX (or its Vorlage),
seems to have tried to solve this problem by transforming a
preceding label in Gen 2:4 into the label of a book (“this is the book
of the birth of heaven and earth”) on analogy with Gen 5:1a.
Moreover, some recent commentators have taken this the rest of the
way by suggesting that this LXX label once stood at the beginning of
Genesis before it was displaced to its present position after Gen 1:1–
2:3.27 Nevertheless, these latter suggestions appear to be attempts
to fit a complex text into the potentially global text label in Gen 5:1.
As it stands, the present book of Genesis is evidently easily
understood by at least some readers to be a “book of the
descendants of Adam” (Gen 5:1a), even though its present shape
does not perfectly lend itself to that interpretation.
Gen 5:1b–2. A priestly introduction to the genealogy This label
of 5:1a is followed in 5:1b–2 with a repetition of key elements of Gen
1:26–28: God’s making of humans as God’s likeness, God’s creation
of humans as male and female to make possible their reproduction,
and God’s blessing of them. These elements prepare for the
genealogical description of nine generations of pre-flood human
reproduction and long life in Gen 5:3–32. At the same time, there are
two major variations of 5:1b–2 from 1:26–28, each of which prepare
for the beginning of that genealogical sequence in Adam’s fathering
and naming of Seth in 5:3.
The first variation pertains to the Gen 5:1b description of God’s
creation of humans as divine replicas. Where Gen 1:27a reported
that God made humans “as God’s image” (5:1 ,(‫בצלם אלהים‬b reports
that God made humans “as God’s likeness” (‫)בדמות אלהים‬. It is
difficult to discern a significant semantic shift in this variation. Rather
it appears to be part of a larger literary design that binds 5:1b–3 back
to Gen 1:26–27 in a chiastic structure. As indicated below, 5:1b–3
inverts the order of the “image-likeness” elements seen in 1:26–27,
while also moving from the general references in 1:26–27 to
humanity as hāʾādām (literally “the humans” collectively meant) to
the singular ʾādām (either “humanity” or “Adam”) that connects with
the 5:1a label and the 5:3 report of Adam’s fathering of Seth:28
‫ נעשה האדם בצלמנו כדמותנו‬Let us make humankind [haʾādām] as our image similar
to our likeness 1:26a
‫ ויברא אלהים את האדם בצלמו בצלם אלהים ברא אתו‬God created humankind
[haʾādām] as God’s image. As the image of God he created humankind 1:27a
[then “male and female he created them. God blessed them.” (1:27b–28)]
‫ ביום ברא אלהים אדם בדמות אלהים עשה אתו‬When God created humankind/Adam
[ʾādām], he made [him/humanity] as God’s likeness 5:1b [then “male and
female he created them. And he blessed them.” (5:2)]
‫ … ויולד בדמותו בצלמו‬He [ʾādām] fathered a son as his likeness similar to his image
5:3aβ
Though somewhat obscured by the intervening non-P material in
Gen 2:4b–4:26 (on this see the above diachronic discussion) and
possibly the Sabbath material in Gen 2:2–3, this chiastic pattern
binding 1:26–28 to 5:1–3 highlights how ʾādām’s fathering [of Seth]
in Gen 5:3 represents the first instance of ongoing human
transmission of God’s image and likeness through male fathering.29
Once this point is made for this first instance, it is implied for all
subsequent reports of human reproduction. This is how Gen 5
reports the bestowal on all human males and females of the image
and likeness that God ordained in 1:26 and initially instituted on the
sixth day in 1:27.
The second variation of 5:1b–2 from 1:26–28 occurs in the follow-
up to the mention that God blessed the humans (5:2 ‫ויברך אתם‬bα1–2
[“and he blessed them”]//‫“[ ויברך אתם אלהים‬and God blessed them”]
1:28aα). In Gen 1:28 this statement of divine blessing is followed by
a quote of God’s multiplication blessing along with God’s commission
to subdue the earth and rule other living creatures. In contrast, the
statement of divine blessing in Gen 5:2a is followed by the statement
that God named them (humankind/Adam) ʾādām when they were
created (5:2b). If the text ended here, one might conclude that God
named humanity in general ʾādām when they were created.
Nevertheless, because 5:2b is immediately followed by a description
of an individual, Adam’s, fathering of a son (Gen 5:3), we can read
the naming in Gen 5:2b as God’s naming of this first human with the
word, ʾādām, that was just used for humanity in general. In this way,
the naming report in 5:2b subtly bridges between the generic use of
the term ʾādām in 5:1b–2a (and the text of 1:26–28 to which it
links)for humankind as a whole and the use of the same term to
designate an individual in 5:1a and 5:3–5.
Gen 5:3–5. The first genealogical unit Genesis 5:3–5 is the first
of the above-described genealogical sections of Gen 5:3–31,
sections that move from Adam through to Lamech’s fathering of
Noah. As with other such sections, this first one includes a statement
of the primeval ancestor’s age at the time of his fathering, a
statement of how many years he lived after fathering his first son, a
statement that he fathered other sons and daughters, a summary of
the years of his life, and a final statement that he died. Nevertheless,
this first genealogical section in Gen 5 contrasts in a few ways with
the following ones.
Most importantly, Gen 5:3 begins with statements that pattern
Adam’s fathering and naming of Seth on God’s previous creation
and naming of Adam. Much as God made Adam/humanity as his
image (5:3 ;‫בצלמו‬aβ) and named him “Adam”/humanity (5:2b), so
now Adam fathers Seth “as his likeness, similar to his image” (‫בדמותו‬
‫ )כצלמו‬and names his son Seth (5:3b). Thus the formulation of Gen
5:3 explicitly suggests that Adam’s fathering and naming of his first
son is a way that he manifests his status as a likeness/image of God
on earth.30
Gen 5:6–32. The rest of the Adam-Noah genealogy Once this
point has been made for Adam, it is not repeated for other primeval
ancestors covered in Gen 5:6–32. Instead, later versions of the basic
genealogical pattern in Gen 5 (aside from Lamech, discussed below)
omit mention of the divine image-likeness as well as an explicit
report of naming. Instead, they simply give the name of the son in
the report of the age of the primeval ancestor when he fathered, e.g.,
‫“( ויחי שת חמש שנים ומאת שנה ויולד את־אנוש‬When Seth had lived one
hundred and five years, he fathered Enosh”). Nevertheless, the
pattern established by Adam seems to be presupposed in the
otherwise similar coverage of the fathering by Seth through Noah in
5:6–32. The primeval ancestors’ fathering and (implicit) naming of
sons across 5:6–32 are an important way that these ancestors stand
as earthly images of the heavenly God, even as their unusually long
lives stand as an oblique manifestation of the profusion of life power
in the pre-flood world.
 Gen 5:21–24. The divergent section concerning Enoch This
section on Enoch, whose name means “dedication,” prepares for
Noah by reporting God’s saving of another figure, Enoch, who
“walked with God” from the destruction that his contemporaries
eventually encountered. Though the section starts, like others, with
Enoch’s fathering of Methusaleh at age sixty-five, it then diverges.
Rather than just reporting how many years Enoch lived after
fathering Methusaleh, it reports that Enoch “walked with God” (‫ויתהלך‬
‫ )חנוך את האלהים‬for three-hundred years afterwards (5:22aα1–3) and
it later repeats this unusual assertion in Gen 5:24a. The expression
“walked with God” refers, as in the case of 1 Sam 25:15, to a regular
form of daily interaction with another. In focusing on God in this case,
the expression in 5:22, 24 resembles others for particularly righteous
life that involve walking “with” Y (e.g., Mic 6:8; Mal 2:6) or
“before” Y (Deut 13:5; 1 Kgs 14:8). Nevertheless, its closest
parallel is Gen 6:9, which follows a description of Noah as a
righteous and blameless man in his generation with the statement
that he “walked with God.” The repetition of the idea that Enoch
“walked with God” in 5:22 and 5:24 lays extra stress on his intimacy
with God and may imply that this intimacy lasted most of his life.31
Moreover, within the present (conflated) form of the text, this
description contrasts Enoch (and Noah) with the first human and his
wife, who hid from Y when they heard Y “walking around”
(‫ )מתהלך‬in the garden after they had eaten the forbidden fruit (Gen
3:8).32
Enoch’s intimacy with God then provides background for the final
divergence of 5:21–24 from the usual pattern: its replacement of the
typical laconic death notice ‫“( וימת‬and he died”) with the statement
that Enoch “was no longer around because God took him” (‫ואיננו כי‬
5:24 ;‫לקח אתו אלהים‬b). Such a “taking” by God is to be understood as
a rescue, much like the ark functions for Noah. It is the kind of
rescue that the psalmist trusts in Ps 49:16 [ET 49:15]; 73:24 and
Elijah experiences when he is taken up by a whirlwind (2 Kgs 2:1–
11). Though later Jewish and other interpreters speculated much on
Enoch’s life after being taken by God into heaven, the text itself
shows no interest in that topic.33 Instead, it depicts Enoch as living a
virtuous life on earth encompassed by a relatively short 365 years,
corresponding to the 365 days in the solar calendar. This short time
that Enoch spends on earth means that he is not around to be killed
by the flood, like his father Jared or his (Enoch’s) son, Methusaleh,
and grandson, Lamech.
Gen 5:28–31. Lamech’s fathering and anticipation of Noah’s
destiny (including non-P, Gen 5:29) This section devoted to Lamech
diverges in its central section to anticipate the special significance of
Noah. To start, the report of Lamech’s age at Noah’s birth is the first
since Adam to distinguish the report of the fathering of a son (5:28;
cf. 5:3a) from his naming of that son (5:29; cf. 5:3b). Furthermore,
Lamech is depicted in 5:29b as explaining Noah’s name as resulting
from the fact that he will provide humankind comfort (‫ )ינחמנו‬from
“our labor and toil of our hands” from the ground that Y 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). Clearly, the speech in
Gen 5:29 looks toward a way that Noah will provide “comfort” from
this toil of working the ground (‫ )האדמה‬from that ground, indeed from
the very ground (‫ )האדמה‬that was cursed in Gen 3:17–19.34
We then see this comfort occur in Gen 9:20–21, when Noah
begins to plant vines, drinks of the fruit of the vines, and gets so
drunk that he passes out in his tent naked (cf. 9:24). This inebriated
deep sleep of Noah, one following soon after his first work as a “man
of the ground” (‫)איש האדמה‬, illustrates an initial fulfillment of the
promise in 5:29 that Noah would “provide comfort to us” (‫“ )ינחמנו‬out
of the ground that Y had cursed” (‫)מן־האדמה אשר אררה יהוה‬. It is
an anesthetizing sleep akin to the “deep sleep” that Y placed the
first man into before opening him up to produce the first woman (Gen
2:21–22),35 and his inebriation returns him to a state of nakedness
akin to that of the first humans (Gen 9:21; see 2:25; 3:7).
As we will see in the commentary on the story of Noah and his
sons, the rest of that story focuses more on the potential negative
consequences of alcohol (Gen 9:22–27), rather than elaborating any
kind of “comfort.” In this respect, the anticipation of Noah’s destiny in
Gen 5:29 is part of a broader non-P depiction of both positive and
negative aspects of wine consumption, much as other parts of the
non-P primeval history focus on positive and negative aspects of
agricultural toil and child-bearing.36
Within the present text, however, this non-P fragment in 5:29 now
serves to augment the treatment of Noah in this pre-flood genealogy,
much as the Priestly insertion in Gen 5:1b–2 augmented the
preceding treatment of Adam. Through these P (Gen 5:1b–2) and
non-P (Gen 5:29) additions, the beginning and end of the Toledot
genealogy of pre-flood patriarchs is now further integrated into the
material preceding (Gen 5:1b–2) and following it (Gen 5:29).
Gen 5:32. Noah’s fathering of three sons This statement of
Noah’s age (500) at fathering Shem, Ham, and Japheth normally
would begin a new genealogical section that then would continue
with his years after fathering, his fathering of other sons and
daughters, and his overall age and death. In this case, however,
Noah is unusually old at the time of his initial fathering, and the
fathering encompasses three sons, not just one implicit heir. His old
age at time of fathering improves the chances that his sons will not
themselves become fathers and/or become evil before the flood
comes one hundred years into their lives.37 At the same time, the
mention of the fathering of three sons in one year is a divergence
from the preceding, and the text says nothing about how this
happened. At the most, we can say that this branching out of the
Adam-Noah genealogy to three sons in 5:32, much like the
branching out of the Cain-Lamech genealogy into three sons in
4:19–22, presents Noah and his three sons as an intermediate
endpoint of the Gen 5 “book of the descendants of Adam.” These
three sons will be presented in Gen 10 as the ancestors of all of
post-flood humanity.
Synthesis
As we have seen, the “scroll of the descendants of Adam” introduced
in Gen 5:1a turns out to be thoroughly embedded in its broader
P/non-P literary context. It connects via Gen 5:29 to non-P materials
—looking back on Y ’s curse on the ground, while looking
forward to Noah’s provision of comfort from it through inventing
viticulture (9:20). In addition, the chapter links back via Gen 5:1b–2
to the Priestly depiction of God’s creation and blessing of humans in
Gen 1:26–28. Finally, and most importantly, the overall chapter forms
the background for the following flood narrative through tracing the
lineage of the flood hero Noah and implicitly contrasting his fate (and
that of his righteous forerunner, Enoch) with the fates of other late
primeval ancestors, Jared, Methusaleh, and Lamech. Genesis 5
could have reported more generally the outpouring of God’s blessing
on humanity, with humans simply multiplying, as God’s image, and
“filling” the earth as envisioned in Gen 1:26–28. Instead, this Gen 5
follow-up to Gen 1—built as it was around a linear Toledot book
genealogy from Adam through Noah to Abraham—focuses
resolutely on the line leading to the father of post-flood humanity,
Noah, while reporting the deaths of other primeval ancestors,
including some who implicitly do not achieve Noah’s (or Enoch’s)
level of intimacy with God and die in the flood.38
In the end, this combined diachronic and synchronic analysis
shows Gen 5 to be an example both of the artfulness of redaction
and of the kinds of problems that ancient tradents were concerned to
address. For example, even as the conflator of P and non-P
secondarily inserted the non-P fragment about Noah’s destiny
(5:29b) into the Priestly description of Lamech’s fathering, he
adapted that description so that the birth and naming of Noah toward
the end of the Gen 5 genealogy (5:28–29a) somewhat corresponded
to the birth and naming of Seth at its outset (5:3). In this way he
formed a partial inclusio, making this post-label genealogical bridge
from Adam to Noah (5:3–32) begin (5:3–5) and conclude (5:28–31)
with expanded sections on Adam and Lamech, before the genealogy
initiated a section on Noah’s fathering of three sons (5:32).
At the same time, this conflator apparently left certain issues in
the Gen 5 chronology that then occupied later tradents of the text. If
the above analysis of the Gen 5 chronology is on target, then the
original Priestly chronology had three late primeval patriarchs die
prematurely (by pre-flood standards) in the flood. Later, the tradents
behind the proto-MT and LXX manuscript traditions seem to have
found it troubling that these patriarchs are implied to have been killed
by the flood. After all, in the present (P and non-P) text of Genesis
these patriarchs are part of the Sethite line (4:25ff.) that is presented
in Gen 4 (non-P) as an implicit alternative to the violence-prone
Cain-Lamech line (4:1–24). So, the tradents behind the MT and LXX
manuscript traditions variously adjusted the numbers in Gen 5 so
that all pre-flood patriarchs live long lives. In this way, these
manuscript traditions manifest ongoing redactional adjustment
connected to the conflation of P and non-P traditions. At the same
time, these redactors apparently were not concerned by other
problems created by their solution. For example, the Septuagint
chronology implicitly has Methusaleh live several years after the
flood.
This illustrates the particular concerns that occasionally guided
the tradents who conflated, redacted, and copied Hebrew Bible
traditions. They do not seem to have been overly bothered by some
narrative irregularities that would occupy later readers, such as the
lack of mention of Cain or Abel in the section on Adam’s fathering in
Gen 5:3–5. In the case of the Septuagint, the redactors solved one
set of problems (pre-flood ancestors dying prematurely in the flood)
only to create another one, with Methusaleh surviving the flood. And
where some early tradents (starting with the author of Gen 5) may
have been concerned to distinguish the Gen 4 Lamech line in Gen 4
from Seth’s line in 5, at least one scribe behind the proto-Masoretic
tradition seems to have coordinated the age for Lamech in Gen 5:31
with the focus on multiples of seven in the section on him in Gen
4:24.
Amidst this variation, however, the overall chapter continues to
serve as a bridge from creation to flood. The present text connects
back specifically to the Gen 1 creation account (Gen 5:1b–2), and
the following genealogy shows the outworking of God’s creation
blessing (Gen 5:28) in the long lives lived by the Adam-to-Noah line,
the patriarchs’ mirroring of God in fathering and (implicit) naming
descendants, and incipient fulfillment of God’s mandate to fill the
earth (Gen 1:28a) through having multiple sons and daughters.39
Meanwhile other aspects of the chapter anticipate what follows.
Enoch’s walking around with God and rescue from death in the flood
(5:21–24) parallels Noah’s (6:9ff.). And Noah is the final focal point
of the genealogy, marked off from other members of the Gen 5
genealogy by his placement at the end, the anticipation of his destiny
in his naming (5:29), and the fact that his three sons are named
(5:32). He will be the starting point of the next major genealogical
label in Genesis, “these are the descendants of Noah” (6:9aα), and
his three sons will be the focus of the next, “these are the
descendants of Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth” (10:1a).
Genesis 6:1–4: The Marriages of Sons
of God with Human Daughters and
Their Effects
6:1 When humans began to multiply on the surface of the ground
and daughters were borna to them, 2 the male divine beingsa saw
that the human womena were beautifulb and took wives for
themselves of all that they chose. 3 And Y said, my spirita shall
not prevailb in humanity forever because humanity is indeedc flesh.
Their lifespand will be one hundred twenty years. 4 The giant fallen
onesa were on the earth in those days and also after that, when the
male divine beings went into the daughters of humanity, and they
bore [offspring] to them. They were the warriors of old, the famous
men.c
Notes on Text and Translation
1a The verb ‫ י ְֻלּדוּ‬is pointed here as a pual, but like some similar verbs in other non-
P primeval history material (e.g., Gen 4:26; 10:21, 25), it probably originated
as a qal passive. Hendel, “‘Begetting’ and ‘Being Born’,” 42–44.
2a Literally “the sons of God” (‫ )בני־האלהים‬and “the daughters of humanity”
(‫)בנות־האדם‬, but these formulations, most clearly “the daughters of humanity”
and—by implication—“the sons of God,” are examples of expressions that use
“sons of” (or “daughters of” for females) to express membership in a class, in
this case juxtaposing the divine status of the divine beings with the human
status of the women that they take as wives. The formulation “the daughters
of humanity” is not stressing the status of these daughters as the literal
offspring of ‫האדם‬, and there is no implication that “the sons of God” are literal
offspring of God.1
2b As noted in Jacob, Genesis, 172, the Hebrew expression here, ‫טֹ בֹת‬, normally
means beautiful when conjoined with a word for appearance, e.g., ‫טובת מראה‬
Gen 26:7, or 1 ‫ טוב תאר‬Kgs 1:6 or 1 ‫ טוב ראי‬Sam 16:12. Nevertheless, as
pointed out by Day, “Sons of God and Daughters of Men,” 431, the particular
character of goodness meant by ‫ טוב‬is decided by context (not just conjoined
words). We see this in a couple of probable examples of absolute ‫ טוב‬for
physical attractiveness in Exod 2:2 and Judg 15:2 (Day, 431; also Dillmann,
Genesis, 119 [ET 233]). In this case, it is beauty that the sons of God are most
likely to be able to “see” (‫ ויראו‬at the outset of 6:2), and this seeing of “beauty”
is central to narratives about kings taking beautiful women as sexual partners
(discussed below) that 6:1–2 resembles (e.g., Gen 12:14–15; 20:2–3; 2 Sam
11:2–4).
3a The Hebrew word here, ‫( רוח‬discussed above in this commentary on Gen 1:2)
can mean breath or spirit. As in Gen 1:2, the text here may be playing on both
meanings. Nevertheless, as will be discussed in the commentary below
(informed by Erhard Blum, private communication), the divine speech in 6:3
seems to be building on a contrast between God and humans, and a related
contrast of “spirit” and “flesh,” that we also see in Isa 31:3. The translation
given here picks up on that contrast.
3b There is no good inner-Hebrew equivalent to the Hebrew word used here, ‫ דון‬or
‫דנן‬. The rendering of ‫ ידון‬given in this translation is based on a comparison of
this form (understood as from ‫ )דנן‬with Akkadian danānu (“be strong, govern”)
first proposed in Karl Vollers, “Die Erklärung von ‫ יָדוֹן‬Gen 6,3,” ZA 14
 (1899): 349–56 (here 353–54). See the synchronic commentary below for
more on why this translation makes sense in the context.
3c Following the pointing of the MT (‫)בּ ַשׁגַּם‬,
ְ the expression ‫ בשגם‬should be
understood as a combination of the preposition ‫ב‬, the conjunction ‫ש‬, and the
word ‫גם‬. The latter is understood here as an intensifying particle.2 Alternative
translations of the expression ‫ גשגם‬as “in their error” (e.g., Budde, Biblische
Urgeschichte, 13–24), based on a repointing as ‫בּ ַשׁגָּם‬, ִ are less persuasive,
especially since this translation involves the supposition of a plural possessive
suffix that does not match the singular of its preceding antecedent, ‫אדם‬. We
see examples of ‫ ב‬combined with the conjunction ‫( אשר‬a conjunction similar to
‫ )ש‬in Qoh 7:2; 8:4; and other biblical loci (e.g., Gen 39:9, 23), while the
combination ‫ שגם‬is attested biblically in Qoh 1:17; 2:15; 8:14.
3d Literally “its [humanity’s] days” (‫ )ימיו‬will be.
4a The expression ‫( נפלים‬Nephilim) appears to refer to giants in Num 13:32b–33a,
and that is how it was understood in the LXX (γίγαντες) rendering of Gen 6:4
and is understood here. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this Hebrew
term appears to have been obscure even to early tradents of the text of
Numbers, since Num 13:33 includes an MT plus (‫“ ;בני ענק מן־הנפלים‬the sons
of the Anakim that came from the Nephilim”) that connects the ‫ נפלים‬to the
better known giant Anakim/sons of the Anakim mentioned in multiple loci
(Deut 1:28; 2:21; 9:2).
One possible background to this obscure term is noted by Christophe
Lemardelé (“Une gigantomachie,” 155–74, esp. 166–167), who argues that
the word “Nephilim,” formed as it is from the root for “fall” (‫)נפל‬, is another way
of referring to giant heroic Rephaim such as Og of Bashan (Deut 3:11) or the
heroic “sons of Rapha” in 2 Sam 21:15–21), or the ghost figures rising to meet
the king of Babylon in Isa 14:9 and revered in Ugarit’s ancestral cult. He
connects these concepts by way of Ezekiel’s oracle against Egypt, which
speaks of great warriors sleeping in Sheol who “fell” in battle (Ezek 32:20–23,
27). Whether or not all these associations hold, the above translation adopts
the expression “giant fallen ones” to indicate the way the expression ‫נפלים‬
here might underline the bygone character of these giant figures.
4b ‫ אשר‬has a temporal force (“when”), effectively connected to and modifying the
temporal expression ‫“ בימים ההם‬in those days” by the preceding conjunctive
phrase ‫“( וגם אחרי־כן‬and also after that”).
4c Literally, this expression is “men of the name” with “name” (‫ )שם‬here meaning
fame (see HALOT).
Diachronic Prologue

Genesis 6:1–4 as a Part of the Pre-P Primeval

History
This story relating to marriages of male divine beings to human
women has long been recognized as part of the non-P strand of the
primeval history. Not only is God referred to in Gen 6:3 as ‫יהוה‬, but
Gen 6:1 resembles other non-Priestly primeval texts in its reference
to humanity “beginning” to do something (‫ ;החל‬Gen 4:26; 9:20; 10:8;
11:6) and to “the surface of the ground” (‫ ;פני־האדמה‬e.g., 2:6; 4:14;
6:7; 7:4).3 As the commentary below will detail, the passage contains
etiological elements (especially in Gen 6:4) that connect it to the
etiological focus that is particularly evident in other non-P primeval
texts, and it shows multiple and specific links to the Gen 2–3 Eden
story in particular.4 Meanwhile, the narrative cannot have originated
as a P text. In particular, its concept that humans may not live longer
than 120 years (Gen 6:3) is incompatible with Priestly notices that
subsequent human figures lived longer than this (e.g., Gen 9:29;
11:10–26; 25:7; 35:28; 47:28).5
Despite these conflicts with P, a number of recent scholars have
argued that Gen 6:1–4 may be a post-Priestly, post-conflational
addition to its context, distinguished from and yet dependent on both
P and non-P. And indeed, the passage has some superficial
resemblances to elements in P. These include a focus in 6:1 on
humans (‫ )האדם‬multiplying that is reminiscent of the Priestly
multiplication blessing (Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7) and a reference in 6:3 to
God’s ‫“( רוח‬spirit”/“breath” 6:3) that is similar to references in the
Priestly flood narrative to “flesh which has a spirit of life in it” (Gen
6:17; 7:15).6 Nevertheless, the specific terminology used at both of
these points in Gen 6:1–4 contrasts with that used in corresponding
passages in P.7 In addition, Gen 6:1–4 does not connect as much
with its surrounding Priestly context as much as some have
suggested it does. Though some have seen the reference to human
multiplication in Gen 6:1 as a connection back to Gen 5, the latter
text is actually focused more on the continuity of the genealogical
line leading from Adam to Noah, with only passing mention of the
primeval patriarchs in that line fathering sons and daughters.8
Moreover, Gen 6:1–4 would function poorly if crafted as a
conflational addition contradicting the description of long-lived
primeval patriarchs in P, since its present conflational context stands
in the midst of Priestly age notices about pre- and post-flood
patriarchs living long beyond the 120-year limit set in Gen 6:3.9
Scholars arguing for the post-Priestly character of 6:1–4
sometimes have joined such arguments with observations of
potentially late features in the text. To start, our best analogies to the
compound conjunction ‫ בשגם‬in Gen 6:3 (“because … indeed”) occur
in the book of Qohelet (6:3 1:17; 2:15; and 8:14). Nevertheless, such
rare attestations of compound conjunctions in Qohelet, indeed
conjunctions that are only partially similar to ‫ בשגם‬in Gen 6:3, form a
weak basis for linquistic dating, and ‫ בשגם‬in Gen 6:3 includes a
relative particle, ‫( ַשׁ‬cf. šu/ša in Akkadian), that may be an archaic
element (cf. Judg 5:7).10 Some have seen echoes of Greek traditions
in the focus of Gen 6:1–4 on male deities taking human woman that
they desire and producing potentially immortal, heroic offspring, but
we see Near Eastern precedents for these aspects of the story as
well.11 Finally, some have proposed to explain the cryptic and
somewhat incongruous narrative in Gen 6:1–4 as an abbreviated
version of a tradition that is more fully preserved in the Book of the
Watchers (1 Enoch 6–11).12 The following commentary, however,
provides explanations of many elements in Gen 6:1–4 that have
been taken by later commentators as incongruous. The harmonizing,
expansionist reading of Gen 6:1–4 in the Book of the Watchers
represents an early example of a reading that reinterprets ancient
elements in this brief text.13
To be sure, it is possible that Gen 6:1–4 was a post-Priestly
supplement added to the non-P primeval history before its conflation
with P, perhaps as a contrastive critique of a (still separate) Priestly
depiction of long-lived primeval patriarchs.14 Not only would this
theory explain potentially late elements in Gen 6:1–4 and the vague
parallels of this passage with Priestly formulations, but it also would
account for the poor fit of Gen 6:1–4 with Priestly age notices about
long-lived post-flood patriarchs. After all, as a pre-conflational, post-
P addition to a still separate non-P primeval strand, Gen 6:1–4 would
not have been written to stand in a literary context before such
notices. At the same time, this idea of Gen 6:1–4 as a late addition to
its non-P context is undermined by synchronic links noted below
between Gen 6:1–4 and that non-P context, especially the way this
text provides essential etiological background for the name of Noah’s
son, Shem in subsequent non-Priestly materials.

Traditional Precursors to Gen 6:1–4

Genesis 6:1–4 opens with a picture of divine-human marriages that
builds on and presupposes a broader ancient idea that deities
occasionally mated-with human partners and produced offspring.
Though the examples of this motif from Greece are particularly well
known, there are similar analogies of such pairings in Near Eastern
texts, such as Mesopotamian descriptions of the semi-divine
character of kings in the Gilgamesh epic and old Hittite Illuyanka
tales (A i:21–26; iii:4–8).15 The products of these divine-human
pairings often receive a portion of the superhuman characteristics of
their divine parent. As Hesiod puts it, deities having sex with humans
“bore children like unto the gods” (γείναντο θεοῖς ἐπιείκελα τέκνα;
Theog. 1020; see also 968, 987). This meant that the semi-divine
offspring of such unions often turned out to be giant, superhumanly
strong warriors, such as Hercules and Achilles in Greece or
Gilgamesh and Enmerkar in the Near East (see, e.g., SB Gilg 1:37,
48, 52). In addition, there was the question of whether such offspring
might also inherit the immortality of their divine parent. Within
Greece, the products of such divine-human pairings sometimes did
receive such immortality (e.g., Hesiod, Theog. 940–942, Op. 156). In
contrast, in Mesopotamia the semi-divine warrior, Gilgamesh, seeks
such immortality in the Gilgamesh Epic, but in the end must accept
the inevitability of his mortality (cf. Gen 6:3) and settle for the
proximate immortality provided by fame (SB Gilg. 11:308–12:1).
More specifically, the commentary below will discuss how Gen
6:4 presupposes prior knowledge in its audience about earlier famed
heroes and giants within the Israelite tradition. This element of Gen
6:1–4 links in turn with themes of immortality in its broader Near
Eastern context. The above-mentioned Mesopotamian depictions of
semi-divine heroes like Enmerkar and Gilgamesh occur in a cultural
context where such warriors enjoyed a proximate form of immortality
in the form of the great “name” they received through their heroic
deeds.16 Similarly, Hesiod and Homer speak of famous, semi-divine
Greek heroes living in the distant past, whose fame lives on in the
epics that sing of them. Genesis 6:4 presents legendary giants and
warriors as enjoying a similar fame, standing as illustrations in the
Israelite tradition of one form of immortality (fame) left to humans in
the wake of Y ’s decisive affirmation of a limitation to the human
lifespan in Gen 6:3.
In sum, Gen 6:1–4 is written against the background of a
common fund of Mediterranean and Near Eastern traditions about
many of the themes presupposed in Gen 6:1–4: superhuman
anthropomorphic deities, divine-human pairings, and heroic offspring
whose superhuman deeds lived on in their fame.17 At the same time,
Gen 6:1–4 quite generally presupposes such themes. Its lack of
naming of any specific individual figures makes it impossible and
unhelpful to posit a dependence of Gen 6:1–4 on any specific non-
biblical tradition.

Conclusion to the Diachronic Prologue

The above reflections suggest that Gen 6:1–4 should be seen as
having been written initially for a specifically non-P synchronic
context. Though one can link its references to the multiplication of
humanity and the birth of human daughters (Gen 6:1) to preceding P
texts about multiplication (Gen 1:28) and patriarchs having “sons and
daughters” (e.g., Gen 5:4, 7, 10), these appear to be resonances
produced through the secondary combination of Gen 6:1–4 with
Priestly materials. Therefore, the following synchronic commentary
on Gen 6:1–4 will initially read it in relation to other non-P texts, and
discussion of connection to P texts will only be returned to in the
conclusion.
Furthermore, Gen 6:1–4 does not show clear signs of literary
stratification. To be sure, some have argued for the secondary
character of some elements in the text, such as the divine speech in
Gen 6:3 or various parts of Gen 6:4.18 Nevertheless, the synchronic
reading offered below removes the basis for such theories. It may be
that the text was updated in minor ways, such as the above-noted
conjunction ‫ בשגם‬in Gen 6:3. Nevertheless, Gen 6:1–4 generally
appears to be a literary unity, though one that builds in complex
ways on the above-noted traditions about famous giant heroes
produced by divine-human pairings.
Synchronic Analysis

Overview
Genesis 6:1–4 can be initially outlined as follows:
I. Y ’s limit of the effects of divine-human mixing on human mortality 6:1–3
A. Marriages between “the male divine beings” and “daughters of humanity”
6:1–2
B. Y ’s imposition of a long outer limit (120 years) on human mortality 6:3
II. Etiological notes on ancient super-human beings created by such mixing 6:4
In addition, there are some pointers to suggest that this tiny narrative
in Gen 6:1–4 has a simplified concentric pattern surrounding Y ’s
speech in Gen 6:3, one that resembles concentric patterns
discussed earlier in Gen 2:4b–3:24; Gen 4:1–16; and 11:1–9.19 In
this case, both 6:1–2 and 6:4 end up focusing in some way on
sexual relations between male divine beings (‫ )בני האלהים‬and human
women. Genesis 6:1 focuses more generally on human reproduction
(daughters), while 6:(2)4 focuses more specifically on divine-human
reproduction (bygone giants and ancient famous warriors). The
correspondences between 6:1–2 and 6:4 help highlight the centrality
of Y ’s speech in 6:3, where Y imposes an extreme outer
limit on the mortality of human offspring, including the potentially
immortal offspring of the divine-human marriages just narrated in
6:2.

Commentary
Gen 6:1–2 The narrative opens with a temporal clause setting the
following account back in the time when humanity (‫ )האדם‬began to
multiply on the ground (20.(‫ חחל האדם לרב על־פני האדמה‬This quite
general temporal setting corresponds to the otherwise general
character of the narrative—focusing as it does on larger classes of
actors such as “divine beings,” “human women,” giants, and “the
warriors of old”//“famous men.” The emphasis here on the idea that
these figures interacted at the “beginning” of human multiplication is
the first of several indicators in the narrative (see also “in that time,”
“of old” in Gen 6:4) that this general account concerns events and
characters that stand in a distant, inaccessible past of the text’s
audience.
The narrative goes on to describe how “the male divine beings”
(‫ )בני־האלהים‬married certain “human women” that they saw were
beautiful. Past and some present interpreters have associated these
‫( בני־האלהים‬literally “sons of god”) with various human groups. Early
Jewish interpreters began the approach that identified the male
divine beings here with powerful human rulers. Early Christian
readers favored an identification of the male divine beings with the
descendants of Seth.21 Nevertheless, the text of Gen 6:1–2
presupposes a broader distinction between the divine status of the
male beings and human status of the women, a distinction which
precludes identifying the ‫ בני האלהים‬with any human group.
For this reason, most contemporary interpreters interpret the ‫בני‬
‫ האלהים‬of Gen 6:1–2, 4 as divine figures, akin to the bn ʾl[m] (“sons
of El”) seen in several Ugaritic texts as a group of deities subordinate
to El. The Bible contains several other references to ‫בני‬/‫בני האלהים‬
‫ אלהים‬as divine beings standing below and in relation to Y . The
exact term ‫ בני האלהים‬is used for members of Y ’s divine council
in Job 1:6; 2:1. We see similar terms for lower level deities in Y ’s
council in Job 38:7 (‫ )בני אלהים‬and Ps 29:1; 89:7 (‫ ;בני אלים‬ET 82:6);
Ps 82:1–7 features a broader confrontation scene between Y
and the “council of El” (‫ )עדת־אל‬and the early text of Deut 32:8
(4QDeutj,with a reading that is also obliquely reflected in the LXX)
probably featured ‫ בני אלהים‬as well.22
The focus of the narrative in 6:2 is on an instance where these
lower-level divine figures see the beauty of human women and use
their power to take whatever wives they want from among them.
Other ancient narratives, such as the outset of the Gilgamesh epic
(SB Gilg. 1:76–77) and the story of David seizing Bathsheba (2 Sam
11:2–4), feature royal figures who use their superior political power
to seize women who belong to others. In the stories of David and
Bathsheba or of Pharaoh and Abimelek taking Sarah (Gen 12:11,
14–15; 20:2–3) the royal figure is prompted to seize a married
woman after seeing her great beauty.23 Genesis 6:2 distinguishes
itself from these narratives in three main ways: 1) it features male
“divine beings” rather than a king as the dominant actor(s); 2) the
women in question are not identified as already being married (cf.
Sarah and Bathsheba or the wives of nobles in Gilgamesh); and
3) the text of 6:2 specifies that the male divine beings actually
married the women that they chose (‫ ;ויקח להם נשים‬cf. Gen 12:15;
20:2; 2 Sam 11:4).
Past interpreters have tried to find some way in which these
marriages involved some kind of human wrongdoing, especially
since the story in Gen 6:1–4 is immediately followed by a description
of Y ’s perception that human wickedness had become great on
the earth (24.(6:5 ;‫ רבה רעת האדם בארץ‬Nevertheless, as noted by
Cassuto (among others), Gen 6:2 itself does not imply wrongdoing
by the male divine beings in choosing and marrying daughters of
humanity.25 Contrary to attempts as early as Ibn Ezra and Rambam
to find implications of violence in the “taking” (‫ )לקח‬of daughters of
humanity, the expression “take for [oneself] a wife” (‫)אשה … לקח ל‬
occurs elsewhere for marriage (e.g., Gen 4:19; 11:29).26 Moreover,
even if some wrongdoing on the part of the male divine beings was
implied in 6:2, there is no mention of human misbehavior in this
verse. After all, the male divine beings are the only subject of the
verbs in Gen 6:2–4, and they alone have implicit power to choose
and marry.27 At most, one might see a resemblance between the
male divine beings seeing that the daughters were ‫טוב‬
(“good>beautiful”) and “taking” them (6:2) and the first woman
seeing that the fruit of the tree was “good to eat” (‫ )למאכל … טוב‬and
taking and eating it (3:6 ;‫)ותאכל … ותקח‬. Nevertheless, it is the male
divine beings that are doing the taking here, and the fruit taken and
eaten in 3:6 is explicitly forbidden (2:17), while divine-human
marriages are not depicted here as forbidden, neither in the verses
preceding 6:2 nor in the divine speech that follows (6:3).
Gen 6:3 Despite the differences between the divine-human
marriages of Gen 6:2 and human eating of the fruit in Gen 3, there
are similarities in Y ’s response to both events—concern. Within
Gen 3, human gaining of godlike knowledge in Gen 3:6–7 is followed
by a divine soliloquy in 3:22 expressing concern about humans
becoming like divine beings (“like one of us” [‫)]כאחד ממנו‬. Similarly,
the marriages of divine beings with human women in 6:2 are
followed by a divine soliloquy in 6:3 on the necessity to limit how
long Y ’s breath/spirit (‫ )רוח‬will prevail in humans. Within Gen 3,
Y ’s concern about human likeness to divine beings led to
Y ’s exclusion of humans from the chance to gain immortality
through eating of the tree of life (3:24). So also, Y ’s concern
about divine-human marriages leads Y in 6:3 to prevent another
form of immortality—his spirit prevailing “forever” (‫ )לעלם‬in humans.
In both Gen 3 and 6:1–3, humans are not described as seeking
immortality. Nevertheless, Y progressively reinforces human
mortality across these passages—first excluding humans from
immortality in 3:22, 24 and then specifying a lifespan in Gen 6:3—
thus preserving the boundary between humans on the one hand and
divine beings (both Y and other divine figures)—on the other.
The key difference in Gen 6:1-4 is that the threat to the divine-human
boundary that prompts Gen 6:3 is caused by divine beings
themselves. The role of the “male divine beings” in 6:1–2 may
explain why this speech in 6:3, in contrast to parallel speeches
where Y consults with his council about threats to the divine-
human boundary (Gen 3:22; 11:7), features Y speaking only to
himself.28
The issue here does not appear to be with the marriages
themselves, but with the offspring that inevitably would come from
them.29 As discussed above, some ancient Mediterranean and Near
Eastern traditions describe male gods fathering semi-divine offspring
by human women, and some Greek traditions depict such offspring
as being immortal. Seen within this Mediterranean-Near Eastern
context, the marriages of male divine beings with daughters of
humanity (6:2), even before they have produced offspring, pose the
risk of inserting a divine spirit in future offspring that could “prevail”
“forever.”30 In its focus on marriage rather than sex (the latter a focus
typically seen in stories otherwise parallel to Gen 6:1–2), Gen 6:1–2
focuses resolutely on the impending potential for offspring, while
leaving room in the narrative for Y to intervene in determining
the status of the offspring arising from such marriages.31
 At exactly this point, Y acts preemptively. He juxtaposes the
prospect of his spirit prevailing forever in humanity—perhaps
especially in the products of such divine-human marriages—with the
fact that humans are “indeed” (‫ )גם‬flesh, a category that is
associated elsewhere with the transitoriness of humanity (Isa 40:6–
7; Ps 78:39; Isa 31:3). Indeed, Isa 31:3 features a contrast between
God and humans (‫ )אדם‬and between “spirit” (‫ )רוח‬and “flesh” (‫ ;בשר‬in
this case, of horses) akin to that asserted by Y in Gen 6:3a.32
Nevertheless, Gen 6:3a is distinguished here by its play on multiple
meanings of the word ‫רוח‬, which can mean “spirit” and/or “breath,” a
play that is seen in the focus of 6:3b on the limited lifespan of
humans. Earlier, the Eden story described how Y enlivened the
first human formed of earth by breathing into him a “breath of life”
(‫ ;נשמת חיים‬Gen 2:7), and other parts of Gen 2–3 then looked at how
that human must eventually return to the earth from which he was
formed (3:19, 22–24). Now, with the prospect of semi-divine offspring
produced by the divine-human marriages of Gen 6:2, Y sets an
outer limit of 120 years that God’s spirit/breath (‫“ )רוח‬will prevail” (‫)ידון‬
in them. Though ancient assumptions about such offspring of gods
and humans suggested they were larger and stronger than normal
humans (on this see also Gen 6:4) and possibly even immortal,
Y insists in Gen 6:3 that these figures are still “flesh” (‫ )בשר‬and
thus mortal.33 Like the humans in the garden and afterward, they too
will return to the earth after a period of time.
As noted, Y ’s speech in 6:3 expresses no negative judgment
of actions by either the male divine beings or the daughters of
humanity. This is just the first indicator that Y ’s action here is
preventative, not punitive.34 Genesis 2–3 featured an interrogation of
the humans by Y (3:11–13) and explicit pronouncements of
consequences upon them (3:16–19) for disobeying Y ’s explicit
prohibition (2:17). Genesis 6:1–3 contains no such elements.
Moreover, the 120-year limit that Y sets for human life in 6:3 is
far longer than humans typically lived in ancient Israel. Psalm 90:10
envisions an outer limit of an 80 year lifespan for those who enjoy
with extra “strength” (‫)גבורת‬, and analysis of age notices for kings in
the Bible and ancient Levantine cemetaries suggests that most
adults died before their thirties (women) or forties (men).35 Thus,
Y ’s setting of a 120-year limit to human life in Gen 6:3 would
allow for an especially long lifespan from an ancient perspective.36
Yes, it is still a form of mortality for humans. Nevertheless, a 120-
year lifespan would be equivalent to the length of three or four
lifetimes of normal men or women in ancient Judah.37
Within the broader scope of the Torah, only one individual is
described as achieving exactly this age: Moses (Deut 34:7). Some
have seen in this an intentional connection between the beginning
and end of the Torah. Nevertheless, the 120-year figure is attested in
both Syria and Greece as a more general outer limit for unusually
long human lives. A version of the Enlil and Namzitarra myth found
at Emar includes extra lines that specify 120 years as the fated
lifespan of humanity from the beginning of time (18’–24’).38 Similarly,
Herodotus speaks of king Arganthonius of Tartessus, who lived for
120 years (Hist. 1:163) and of the Ethiopians who attained lifespans
of 120 years and up (Hist. 3:23).39 This attestation in both Greece
and Syria of 120 years as an imaginary outer limit of human life
suggests that Gen 6:1–3 is not attempting to anticipate Moses in
particular, but to describe the divine origins of a lifetime limit that was
more generally known. With this in mind, Moses’ achievement of a
120-year (vigorous) lifespan represents a statement in Deut 34:7 of
his unique achievement of the superlative lifetime limit set in Gen
6:3, much as Moses’s superlative prophecy is noted a few verses
later (Deut 34:10–12).40 This is yet another mark that 120 years was
a mark of a long, blessed life, rather than a curtailed one. Over time,
of course, interpreters have noted the congruence of the 120 year
life limit in Gen 6:3 and the lifespan of the Pentateuch’s most
important figure, Moses.41
120 years as a Lifetime Limit, not as a Delay in Judgment
Until the Flood
Though the above exegesis provides multiple grounds for viewing Y ’s
statement in Gen 6:3 as relating to a limit of human lifespan, many interpreters
have understood the 120 years in 6:3 to refer not to the limit on an individual
human life, but to a 120 year grace period between Y ’s judgment and
Y ’s extinction of humans in the flood if they did not repent.42 Such an
interpretation helped prior interpreters account for the fact that many figures
are said to have lived longer than 120 years after this point in the Pentateuch,
 including Noah (Gen 9:29) and other patriarchs (e.g., Jacob, Gen 47:28).
Nevertheless, Gen 6:3 itself never mentions the flood or even includes a basic
particle pointing forward to a limited period of survival (e.g., ‫)עוד‬, and the
subsequent flood narrative does not refer back to Gen 6:1–3 or a lack of
repentance.43 Rather than importing the flood into Gen 6:1–3 in order to solve
its conflicts with age notices elsewhere, the features of Gen 6:1–3 are best
explained as resulting from the focus of this story on reinforcing and specifying
the length of human mortality (following on Gen 3:22–24). The clash between
the lifespan limit in Gen 6:3 and age notices in Gen 9:29 and later in Genesis
cannot be resolved satisfactorily by synchronic interpretation. We will return to
this in the diachronic discussion below.
Gen 6:4 Genesis 6:4, most explicitly 6:4aβb, finally comes to
discussion of the offspring of the divine-human marriages in 6:2,
linking them to ancient giant and heroic figures known to the text’s
audience. Several texts about the Israelites’ transit through the
Transjordan speak of ancient giants who used to live there, variously
called Anakim (‫ ;ענקים‬Deut 2:21; also sons of the Anakim 1:28; 9:2),
Emim (‫ ;האמים‬Deut 2:10), Rephaim (‫ ;רפאים‬Deut 2:11, 20) and
Zamzumim (‫ ;זמזמים‬Deut 2:20). Similarly, Amos 2:9 looks back on
Israelites conquering giant Amorites preceding them in the land, a
people “whose height was like the height of the cedars” (‫אשר כגבה‬
‫)ארזים גבהו‬. Also, Israelite spies report in Num 13:32 that the land
that Israel is about to enter features “men of stature” (‫)אנשי מדות‬.
They then go on to say that they saw “Nephilim” in the land so large
that they seemed like grasshoppers next to them (Num 13:33).
Given this association of Nephilim with the giant inhabitants of
pre-Israelite Canaan, it makes sense to conclude that Gen 6:4aα
means to imply some kind of connection between the presence of
(giant) Nephilim “in the land in those days” and the divine-human
marriages described in 6:1–2.44 It is difficult to know another function
for the mention of Nephilim in 6:4aα other than to identify offspring
produced by the divine-human unions described in 6:1–2 and
implicitly anticipated by Y in 6:3.45 Moreover, as noted
previously, products of divine-human unions are often marked by
their superhuman size in non-biblical traditions about the offspring
from divine-human pairings.
This supposition is supported by analysis of the following
statement in 6:4aβγb about later products of divine human unions.
This statement notes the ongoing presence of these giant figures
after the primeval period mentioned in Gen 6:4aα. Those giants were
not only present on the earth “in those days” but also “after that.” The
rest of 6:4aβγb then explains why, using the imperfect of ‫ בוא‬to
describe the ongoing intercourse of male divine beings with
daughters of humanity (‫ )יבאו בני האלהים אל־בנות האדם‬and the
women’s resulting production of offspring from these unions to the
male divine beings (‫)וילדו להם‬. Since the flood has not been
mentioned yet, there is no ground for past interpretations that have
taken this to be a reference to the birth of semi-divine figures after
the flood (‫“ ;אחרי כן‬after that”).46 Instead, the probable orientation
point for “after that” in this expression is the “in those days” temporal
marker introduced at the outset of the verse.47
Genesis 6:4b then identifies the large offspring of these later
unions as “the warriors of old” (‫ )הגבורים אשר מעולם‬who were the
“famous men,” literally the “men of the name” (‫)אנשי השם‬. This
portion of the verse builds on assumed audience knowledge of
extraordinary, even semi-divine, warriors who enjoyed a lasting
fame. We cannot know the exact nature of such knowledge.
Nevertheless, the existing biblical tradition preserves some traditions
of implicitly semi-divine, famous warriors, such as the legend of the
birth of heroic Samson after an angelic visitation to his barren mother
(Judg 13:2–4, 24) or of Shamgar, who is a “son of Anat” (‫;בן ענת‬
Judg 3:31). Both of these potentially semi-divine warriors are
reported to have killed hundreds of Philistines with their superhuman
strength (Judg 3:31; 15:15; 16:30).48 In addition, David is praised for
killing thousands of Philistines (1 Sam 18:7; cf. 17:4–18:8) and the
books of Samuel preserve lists of warriors famed for being part of
David’s entourage (2 Sam 17:8, 10; 23:8–12).
The brief note in Gen 6:4aβγb loosely identifies such famous
ancient warriors of old/“men of the name” as some sort of
continuation (“and also after that”) of ancient pre-Israelite giants
mentioned in Gen 6:4aα, placing all such figures in the audience’s
distant past. With the exception of David and Samson, the fame of
these figures lives on in archaic notes about long-gone ancient
Canaanite giants (e.g., Num 13:33; Deut 3:11) or lists of legendary
warriors and their great deeds (e.g., 2 Sam 23:8–12).49 This aura of
antiquity surrounding them links with the emphasis of Gen 6:3 on
Y ’s intention to insure that such figures would die sometime,
despite their superhuman size or power. And the connections of
these giant and warrior traditions with Judah’s distant past also
explains the insistence in Gen 6:4 on the presence of giants (‫)נפלים‬
and famous warriors (‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ג‬, ‫ )אנשי השם‬in an ancient time before the
text’s readers (“in those days” 6:4 ‫בימים ההם‬a; “of old” 6:4 ‫מעולם‬b).
That said, this distant past is not a specifically pre-flood past.
After all, other biblical texts see these giant and/or heroic figures as
present in Canaan long after any primeval flood. In this sense, the
etiology of these pre-Israelite giants and later famous
warriors/heroes in Gen 6:4 does not conform well to the idea of a
comprehensive life-destroying flood occuring later on. This may be
why several later Jewish traditions imagined a pre-flood giant like Og
surviving the flood by clinging to the outside of Noah’s ark.50

Conclusion to the Synchronic Analysis

The preceding analysis shows that Gen 6:1–4, like many of the texts
preceding it, presents a complex picture of God and humanity. Far
from being a simple story of misdeed and punishment, Gen 6:1–4
instead presents us with a God continuing to struggle with the
blurring of divine-human boundaries and reinforcing such boundaries
through limits on the length of human life. The text etiologically links
this brief narrative about divine-human unions to giant/famous
figures in Israel’s distant, blurry past, rather than trying to connect
this narrative of divine-human partnering to something in the
audience’s contemporary reality. In this sense, Gen 6:1–4 shares
with other Near Eastern and Mediterranean narratives (briefly noted
in the above diachronic prologue) a sense of a now bygone era of
superhuman figures. It looks back on a time when such giant figures
were “in the land” and enjoyed superhuman lifepans—up to 120
years—corresponding to their giant stature and great fame.
Genesis 6:1–4, however, does not seem aimed at merely
providing an etiological background of such figures. Instead, it
seems to play a few different roles within its broader, non-P context.
Most immediately, the narrative in Gen 6:1–4 stands between Noah’s
father’s proclamation of Noah’s destiny in Gen 5:29 and his initial
fulfillment of that destiny (with some bad accompanying
consequences) in the story of Noah and his sons (Gen 9:20–27),
especially if the intervening non-P flood narrative (across parts of
Gen 6:5-8:22) was a later addition to the non-P strand. Since the
proclamation of Noah’s destiny in Gen 5:29 is associated with his
birth and naming, a narrative interlude like that in Gen 6:1–4 would
have helped establish distance within an early non-P primeval
history (without a flood narrative) between that initial notice (Gen
5:29) and a story about his adult life (Gen 9:20–27).
More importantly, Gen 6:1–4 represents a transition within a
broader non-P primeval discourse on themes of immortality. Already,
the Eden story told of how humans lost a chance at immortality,
gaining a godlike knowledge of good and evil that led Y to
consult with divine beings and expel them permanently from the
garden (Gen 3:22–24). Genesis 6:1–4 connects in multiple ways to
that account. It opens with divine beings akin to those implied in Gen
3:22, and it tells of how Y dealt with a threat to the divine-human
boundary posed by those being themselves: marrying human
women and thus presenting the potential to produce semi-divine,
immortal offspring. Within this context, Y ’s speech about the
maximum lifespan of humans (Gen 6:3) represents a definitive
conclusion on human mortality, insisting that it holds—now with a
specific 120-year lifespan limit—even for the sort of beings soon to
be produced by the divine-human marriages.
This then forms the background for the mention of legendary
giants and warriors in Gen 6:4. As initially suggested above, these
figures in Israelite tradition are cited in Gen 6:4 as examples of
famous ones who achieved an immortal fame, a “name” (‫)שם‬,
despite Y ’s enforcement of mortality on them and all other
humans. And this implicit idea of proximate immortality through the
fame of a “name” (Hebrew shem) then forms the most likely
background for the name of Noah’s favored son, Shem, whose name
means “name” in Hebrew. Without Gen 6:1–4, Shem would be the
only major figure in the non-P strand whose name is not at least
implicitly explained.51 Yet he is one of the most important figures in
that strand. He is listed first among Noah’s sons (Gen 9:18, 23),
Y is described as his God in Noah’s blessing of him (Gen 9:26),
and Noah wishes that Japheth may dwell in Shem’s tent (Gen 9:27).
Moreover, as will be discussed in the commentary on Gen 10:21, this
Shem is ultimately characterized in the text as the elder brother of
Japheth and the “father” of “the sons of Eber,” an apparent link of
Shem in the text to the later “Hebrew” audience of the text.
In sum, the story of divine-human pairings and the production of
famous beings in Gen 6:1–4 forms a transition in non-P material
between a period when humans might have had some access to
immortality (through the tree of immortality or divine-human pairings)
to the reality of the later audience, where humans cannot hope to
live forever, but they can aim for the immortality that comes through
the fame, a lasting “name,” that they have heard of among past
warriors.
Of course, this whole reading of Gen 6:1–4 as a reinforcement of
human mortality runs at odds to the tendency among some
commentators to understand Gen 6:1–4 as describing some kind of
misdeed by humans.52 One major factor leading to such a reading is
the placement of this interlude just prior to the flood story, particularly
Y ’s global negative judgment on human character seen in Gen
6:5. As we have seen, however, the text of Gen 6:1–4 does not
provide an illustration of the human evil that Y “sees” in Gen 6:5.
Instead, it focuses exclusively on the actions of the “male divine
beings” and Y ’s allowance of their offspring to enjoy long,
though limited lives. Moreover, the following flood narrative of
Genesis never refers specifically to any element in Gen 6:1–4,
including lacking a description of the destruction of the Nephilim
and/or warrior-heroes produced by the divine-human pairings.53 It
easily could have. The flood narrative in the pre-biblical Atrahasis
epic attributes the flood to the gods’ unhappiness with human
multiplication, and Gen 6:1 begins on exactly that note, locating
divine-human marriages in a time when humans began “to
multiply.”54 Nevertheless, the reasons given for the flood in Gen 6:5–
7, 11–13; and 7:1 are different. None echoes any element of 6:1–2.55
In the end, the etiological elements explaining the early
Canaanite Nephilim/giants and famous men in Gen 6:4 contradict
the idea of a later flood destroying all life (6:5–7:23). Nevertheless,
Gen 6:1–4 can be read as more approximately anticipating another
narrative that follows in the primeval history: the story of dispersion
from Babylon in 11:1–9.56 Where 6:4 identified the origins of “famous
men”—literally “men of the name”—in divine-human marriages, 11:4
describes a later human attempt to achieve similar status to these
divine-human “men of the name” by making a “name for ourselves”
(‫)ונעשה לנו שם‬. Their attempt to build a city with a tower reaching
heaven then leads to a divine soliloquy expressing concern about
the divine-human boundary (11:6–7), much like those seen in Gen
6:3 and earlier in 3:22. In Babylon, however, Y does not limit
humans chronologically—through enforcing a limit on human life (cf.
3:22; 6:3). Instead, he limits them spatially, ending their attempt to
build a heaven-reaching tower by confusing their language and
causing them to scatter across “all the earth.”
Synthesis
Though the above diachronic and synchronic reading has argued
that Gen 6:1–4 should be read initially in relation to a specifically
non-P synchronic context, it presently stands after the Priestly
Adam-to-Noah genealogy in Gen 5 and before the P and non-P flood
narratives in Gen 6:5 and following.
With regard to what precedes, the focus in Gen 6:1–4 on
activities of lower-level divine beings connects with occasional
references to God’s council in both P (e.g., Gen 1:28) and non-P
(Gen 3:22; 11:7). Moreover, certain elements at the outset of Gen
6:1–4 connect somewhat with parts of Gen 5. Though Gen 5 is
mostly focused on establishing the continuity of a single genealogical
line extending from Adam to Noah and Abraham (by way of Gen
11:10–26), its outset references the priestly blessing of multiplication
(Gen 5:2>1:28) that is paralleled by the reference to the
multiplication of humanity in Gen 6:1a. Moreover, much as Gen 5
repeatedly reports patriarchs fathering sons and daughters (Gen 5:4,
7, 10), Gen 6:1b can be seen as a more general description of the
same phenomenon. In this respect, the current placement of Gen
6:1–4 immediately after the genealogy in Gen 5 makes sense.
Meanwhile, Gen 6:1–4 is not so compatible with the flood
narrative that follows. Though I have noted analogies between the
focus on human multiplication in Gen 6:1 and the way that non-
biblical flood narratives (e.g., Atrahasis) explain the flood by
overpopulation, nothing else in Gen 6:1–4 suggests any relation to
the following flood story. More importantly, the ambivalent picture of
humanity and Y ’s relation with humans in 6:1–4 and related non-
Priestly texts has been blurred by the (likely) later addition of Y ’s
comprehensive judgment on human nature in 6:5 and the non-P and
(later) P strand description of God’s destruction of all human life
except for Noah and his family. Such additions led centuries of
interpreters (including the author of an early layer of the Book of the
Watchers in 1 Enoch 6–11) to seek some evidence of human fault in
Gen 6:1–4 and read the story as one of crime and punishment. Yet,
as we have seen, the text does not provide a basis for such
readings.
This sort of combined synchronic and diachronic reading of Gen
6:1–4 helps us gain precision on the actual picture of humans and
God in 6:1–4 and hold it in tension with the perspectives of other
texts that surround it. Rather than transform 6:1–4 into a prologue to
the flood narrative or otherwise harmonize 6:1–4 with its context, a
synchronic-diachronic reading of 6:1–4 allows us to preserve its
distinct perspective. So equipped, we can read Gen 1–11 more like a
chorus of sometimes discordant voices rather than as a single-
voiced solo. One element of that primeval chorus is this brief
etiological narrative in 6:1–4, one that links figures in Israel’s distant,
blurry past (fallen pre-Israelite giants, warriors/famous men) with
Y ’s reenforcement of the mortal boundary between humans and
gods (started in 3:22–24), imposing an extended lifespan of 120
years on humans, even on the products of divine-human marriages.
Genesis 6:5–9:17; 9:28–29: Noah and
the Flood
6:5 And Y saw that the evil of humanity on the earth was great,
and every formation of the thoughts of the human hearta was only
evil all of the time.b 6 And Y regretted having made humanity on
a
the earth, and he felt anguish in his heart. 7 Y said, “I will wipe
the humans whom I have created from the surface of the ground—
from humans to animals, creeping things, to birds of the heavens—
for I am sorry that I made them. 8 But Noah found favora in the eyes
of Y .

9 These are the descendants of Noah.

Noah was a righteous man. He was blameless in his generations.a

Noah walked with God.
10 Noah fathered three sons—Shem, Ham and Japheth. 11 The
earth, however, was ruineda before God, and it became full of
violence. 12 And God saw the earth, and, look!, it was ruined. For all
flesh had ruined its way on the earth.a 13 God said to Noah, “The
end of all flesh is coming before me for the earth is full of violence
because of them. Behold, I am about to ruinously destroy thema
along with the earth. 14 Make yourself an ark out of gopherwood.a
You should make the ark with reeds,b and seal it inside and out with
pitch. 15 This is how you shall make it. Three hundred cubits will be
the length of the ark. Fifty cubits its width. Thirty cubits its height. 16
You shall make a roof for the ark. And you shall finish it to a cubit up
to the top. And you shall put an entrancea in its side. You shall make
it with a bottom, second and third deck. 17 As for me, I am about to
bring the heavenly oceana—water—on the earth, to ruinously
destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under the heavens.
Everything on the earth will die. 18 But I will establish my covenant
with you. You should enter into the ark—you, your sons, your wife,
and the wives of your sons with you. 19 And from every living thing,
from all flesh, one pair of each you shall bring into the ark to keep
them alive with you. They will be a male and a female. 20 From
every kind of bird, from every kind of animal, and from every kind of
creeping creature on the ground, one pair of each shall come in to
you to keep them alive. 21 But as for you, take nowa every kind of
food that may be eaten and store it by you. It will serve for you and
them as food. 22 And Noah did this. In accordance with all that God
commanded him, thus he did.
7:1 Then Y said to Noah, “Enter the ark, you and all your house,
for you are the onea I have found to be righteous before mea amidst
this generation. 2 You now,a take seven pairs each of every clean
animal, a male and his mate, and from the animals which are not
clean, one pair, a male and his mate. 3 Also seven pairs, male and
female, from the birds of the heavens, to preserve seed alive on the
surfacea of all the earth. 4 For seven days from now I am about to
make it rain forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe every living
thing which I have made from the face of the ground. 5 And Noah
acted in accordance with all that Y had commanded him.
6 When Noah was six hundred years old,a the heavenly oceanb
came on the earth. 7 Noah entered the ark—along with his sons, his
wife and his sons’ wives with him—to escape the waters of the
heavenly ocean. 8 Of the clean animals and of the animals in which
there is no cleanness, of the birds and of alla which creep on the
ground—9 by pairs they came to Noah into the ark, male and
female, as God commanded Noah. 10 Seven days later the waters
of the heavenly ocean came on the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on
the seventeenth day of the month,a on that day, all of the springs of
the primeval ocean broke forth and the hatches of the sky opened
up. 12 Torrential raina fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. 13
On this very day, Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth (Noah’s sons), and
Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons together with them,
entered the ark, 14 theya and every kind of wild animal, every kind of
domestic animal, every kind of creeping creature that creeps on the
ground, and every kind of bird [entered the ark].b 15 They came to
Noah into the ark, pair by pair, from all flesh that has the breath of
life in it. 16 The ones who entered, a male and female from all flesh,
came in as God commanded him, and Y shut him in.a
17 The heavenly ocean was on the earth forty days. The waters
increased and bore up the ark, so that it rose up above the earth. 18
The waters became powerful and increased much on the earth, and
the ark traveled on the face of the water. 19 The waters became very
powerful on the earth, and all of the high mountains that are under
the entire heaven were covered up. 20 To a height of fifteen cubits
above [them] the waters rose upa so that the mountains were
covered. 21 All flesh that creeps on the earth died—among the birds,
the domesticated animals, the wild animals, and all the swarmers
that swarm on the earth along with all of humanity. 22 All with the
breatha of life in its nostrils, from among all on the dry ground, died
23 He thus wipeda every living being from the face of the ground—
from humans to animals,b to the creeping creatures and birds of the
sky. They were wiped off of the earth. Only Noah remained, and
those with him in the ark. 24 The waters prevailed on the earth one
hundred and fifty days.

8:1 And God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and
domestic animals that were with him in the ark. God made a wind
pass over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 The springs of the
deep and the hatches in the sky closed up, and the torrential rain
from the sky was stopped up. 3 The waters retreated gradually from
the earth, and they declined after one hundred fifty days. 4 The ark
came to a rest on the mountains of Ararata in the seventh month on
the seventeenth day of the month. 5 The waters continued to retreat
up through the tenth month.a In the tenth month, on the first day of
the month, the tops of the mountains appeared. 6 At the end of forty
days, Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made, 7 and
sent the raven out. It went to and fro until the waters dried up from
the earth. 8 Noah sent the dove out from with him to see if the
waters had diminished from the surface of the ground; 9 but it did not
find a resting place for its foot and returned to him into the ark
because the waters were still on the surface of the entire earth. He
stretched out his hand, took it, and brought it back to him in the ark.
10 He waiteda another seven days and again sent out the dove from
the ark. 11 The dove came back in to him at evening time and, see!,a
a plucked olive leaf was in its beak. So Noah knew that the waters
had diminished from on the earth. 12 He waited another seven days
and sent the dove out; and it did not return to him again. 13 In the
six-hundredth and first year [of Noah’s life], on the first day of the first
[month], the waters dried from the earth. Noah took off the cover of
the ark, and he looked and, see!,a the surface of the ground had
dried up. 14 In the second month, on the seventeenth day of the
month,a the earth was dried out. 15 Then God spoke to Noah, 16
“Go out from the ark, you and your wife, your sons and your sons’
wives with you. 17 Bring out with you every living thing that is with
you from all flesh—the birds, the animals,a and all creeping
creatures that creep on the earth—so they may swarm on the earth,
and be fruitful and multiply.”b 18 So Noah went out—along with his
wife, his sons and his sons’s wives with him. 19 And every animal—
every bird and every one of the moving creatures that crawla on the
earth—came out of the ark according to their families.b
20 Noah then built an altar to Y , and he took from each of the
clean animals and each of the clean birds and offered up burnt
offerings on the altar. 21 Y smelled the savory smell, and Y
said to himself, “I will not again treat the ground poorlya on account
of humanity, for the formation of the human heart is evil from youth
onward.b I will not again strike down all living beings as I have done.
22 As long as the earth exists—
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night,
shall not cease.
9:1 God then blessed Noah and his sons and said to them,

“May you be fruitful and multiplya and fill the earth.

2 Fear and terror of you will be upon all of the animals of the
earth and on all of the birds of heaven, among everything that
 creeps on the ground and among all of the fish of the sea.
They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving creaturea that
has life shall be yours to eat. Like green vegetation, I now
hereby giveb all to you. 4 But flesh with its life, with its blood,a
you shall not eat.
5 But I will demand a reckoning for your blood, your lives.
From the hand of every living animal I will demand a
reckoning. And from the hand of human beings, from the hand
of each man, his brother,a I shall demand a reckoning for the
life of a human. 6 One who pours out the blood of the human,
for the humana his blood will be poured out. For as an image
of God he created humans.
7 And as for you, may you be fruitful and multiply. May you swarm
on the earth and rulea it.

8 God said to Noah and his sons with him, 9 “As for me, I am about
to establish my covenant with you and your progeny after you 10 and
with every living being that is with you—including the birds, the
domestic animals, and every wild animal of the eartha—with all of
those that came out of the ark with you.b 11 I will establish my
covenant with you so that never again will all flesh be cut off by the
waters of the flood,a and there will never again be a flooda to destroy
the earth.”
12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I am
making between me, you and every living being with you for all
generations to come. 13 My bow I seta in the clouds,b and it will be a
sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 When I let storm
clouds cloud upa over the earth, the bow will appear in the clouds.b
15 Then I will remember my covenant between me, you, and every
living being among all flesh, and the waters will not again become a
flood to destroy all flesh. 16 When the bow is in the clouds, I will see
it and remember the eternal covenant between God and every living
being among all flesh which is on the earth.” 17 God said to Noah,
“This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me
and all flesh that is on the earth.”
[9:28a Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. 29
Noah’s entire lifetime was nine hundred and fifty years, and then he
died.]
Notes on Text and Translation
6:5a ‫ לב‬here can mean “heart” or “mind.” It designates the decision-making center
of a human.
5b Literally, the Hebrew expression here, ‫כל־היום‬, means “all day,” but the intention
is to indicate that this condition holds always. Hence the translation here,“all of
the time.” Jacob, Genesis, 179 notes that similar expressions for all the time
(usually with ‫“ יום‬day”) occur frequently elsewhere to articulate deep affect
(e.g., Deut 33:12; Isa 56:5; 65:2, 5; Jer 20:7–8).
6a For discussion of how passive forms of the verb ‫ עצב‬express intense anguish,
see Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 145. As will be noted below, this verb also
connects with themes of toil (‫ )עצבון‬in 3:16, 17; 5:29.
8a The expression ‫“( מצא חן‬find favor”) here in Gen 6:8 stands in direct contrast to
the global judgment on humanity in 6:5–7. As such, it speaks to how Y is
pleased by Noah in a way that stands in opposition to the universal judgment
just pronounced. See the commentary below for more discussion.
9a For translation of Gen 6:9aβ as two clauses, see Jacob, Genesis, 183–184.
Though some have argued that Gen 6:9aβ should be translated as one clause
with ‫ תמים‬as a modifier of ‫( צדיק‬righteous) as is also seen in Job 12:4 (e.g.,
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 169, citing earlier such treatments), it is more likely
that two clauses are intended here. The first asserts Noah’s status as a
righteous man, and the latter asserts that he was blameless in his
generations. This seems to be the understanding of Gen 6:9 that is reflected
in subsequent Priestly materials. The flawless blamelessness of Noah in Gen
6:9 contrasts with the corruption of the earth described in Gen 6:11–12, while
Noah’s being blameless also parallels the Priestly description of God’s later
call for Abraham to “be blameless” (‫ ;תמים היה‬Gen 17:1).1
11a See the commentary below for discussion of the wordplay across Gen 6:11–
13, building on a precedent from prophetic texts, a wordplay focusing on on
the ruin (‫ )שחת‬of the earth that then causes God to ruinously destroy (‫שחת‬
causative) it.
12a Gen 6:12 is the second instance of the use of the verb ‫ שחת‬to describe the
conditions that prompted the flood (see above, Gen 6:11), again linking with
the use of the same root in the next verse, now in causative, to describe
God’s response.
13a The translation of ‫ השחית‬here as “ruinously destroy” is meant to reflect the
wordplay, noted above in relation to Gen 6:11 and 6:12, and God’s cause of
 destruction on the earth (‫ שחת‬causative) here in Gen 6:13. See the
commentary below for more discussion.
14a “Gopher wood” is formed from a transcription of the Hebrew ‫( גפר‬gpr), an
unknown type of tree specified here as the source of the wood for the ark.
14b The translation here is based on an often-proposed revocalization of
ָ reed).2 See
Masoretic ‫( ִקנִּ ים‬plural of ‫ ֵקן‬nest > chamber) as ‫( ָקנִ ים‬plural of ‫קנֶה‬,
Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 250 for discussion of how this reed-wood construction
links better to the context (focusing on materials for the ark, gopher wood and
pitch) and corresponds with ancient boat-building technology. As noted in Day,
“Rooms or Reeds,” 117–118, the sequence gopher wood-reeds-pitch (in Gen
6:14 as translated) is also implied as the primary materials used to build the
ark in the Mesopotamian flood tradition that was a model for this text (OB
Atrahasis 3.2.11–14; SB Gilg. 11:50–56).
16a The additional ‫“( התבה‬the ark”) after the opening (in the Samaritan Pentateuch
and MT, but not LXX) is likely an explicating plus.3
17a ‫ מבול‬is often translated “flood,” but, as noted by Joachim Begrich (“Mabbūl:
Eine exegetisch-lexikalische Studie,” Zeitschrift für Semitistik und verwandte
Gebiete 6 [1928]: 135–53), this word is a specific term for the celestial ocean,
a body of water that is released on and spreads on the earth with the coming
of the flood. This first appearance of this obscure term is explained here in the
text by having ‫“( מים‬water”) as an explanatory apposition to it (so Begrich, 44,
building on others).
21a The word order (“as for you”) and translation “take now” are used to render the
extra pronoun ‫( אתה‬in front extra position in the clause) along with the
prepositional phrase ‫ לך )ל‬plus the second masculine singular suffix, “you”)
following the imperative. As in an analogous case in Gen 7:1, the combination
of this prepositional phrase with other elements stressing Noah (here ‫ אתה‬at
the outset of the imperative clause) suggest that this and Gen 7:1 may be
instances of the “ethical dative” to emphasize/actualize the subject of an
imperative, with the sense of “you, right here and now.”4
7:1a The italics and word order here aim to convey the emphasis placed on Noah
through placement of the object pronoun referring to him (‫ )אתך‬before the
verb.
1b “Before me” (‫)לפָ נַי‬
ְ meaning “in view of” (HALOT, vol. 3, p. 941).
2a Here again we see a combination of elements in Gen 7:1–2a emphasizing
Noah in combination with an urgent command for him to take (‫ )לקח‬something
onto the ark. On questions surrounding ‫ לך‬here and in 6:21 as an ethical
dative, see above, p. 226, note 21a.
3a Cf. Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 51, who takes the lack of an explicit correlate in the
Septuagint to ‫“( פני‬surface”) in the MT and Samaritan Pentateuch as a sign
that they may reflect a plus here, harmonizing an earlier “on the whole earth”
(‫ )על כל הארץ‬phrase reflected in the LXX with the more common “on the
surface of the whole earth” occurring in its nearby context (Gen 8:9, also
1:29). The lack of an exact correlate in the Greek to Hebrew ‫ פני‬also could just
reflect some translation interference (note a similar phenomenon in the
Septuagint of Gen 6:1) and does not seriously impact exegesis either way.
6a This is an episode-initial circumstantial clause introducing what follows.5
6b For “heavenly ocean” as a translation for ‫ המבול‬see above on Gen 6:17. See
Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 51–52 for summary of considerations suggesting that
the awkward ‫ מים‬in this verse (absent in Alexandrinus, but present in other
witnesses, including other LXX manuscripts) is a harmonizing plus to Gen
6:17. It may also play a similar role clarifying the obscure ‫ המבול‬that is seen in
the phrase ‫ מים על־הארץ‬in Gen 6:17. Note also the reflections in Begrich,
“Mabbūl, 142.
8a Though Zipor, Septuagint Genesis [Hebrew], 138 suggests that the Septuagint,
Samaritan Pentateuch, Vulgate, and Syriac might reflect an earlier reading of
‫ ומכל‬here (“and from all” versus MT ‫“[ וכל‬and all”]), these witnesses more likely
represent expansions on a shorter MT text in which the earlier iterations of the
preposition ‫ מן‬are doing double-duty to govern “all that creep on the earth.”6
11a This reading follows the argument in Ronald S. Hendel, “4Q252 and the Flood
Chronology,” 72–79 that the LXX reading of 27th here and in 8:4 (cf. 17th in
MT, Samaritan Pentateuch, 4Q252, Jubilees) and the MT, Samaritan
Pentateuch, and LXX reading of 27th in Gen 8:14 (cf. 4Q252, Jubilees) all
result from a well-attested scribal shift from ‫ עשר יום‬to ‫עשרים‬. The original flood
length in these Priestly dating notices was likely one year.7
12a The word used for rain here, ‫גשם‬, refers to an especially violent rain, a
common occurrence in the land of Israel.
14a The LXX omits an equivalent to the initial pronoun ‫“( המה‬they”) at the outset of
the clause, transforming 7:14 from an inclusion of animals into the entry report
in 7:13 into a prelude to the description of animal entry in 7:15. This is
probably a facilitating reading that avoids a possible contradiction between
7:14 reporting an entry of both Noah and the animals together and the
description of animals coming to Noah in the ark in 7:15.8
14b The expression “entered the ark” is added in brackets since it is assumed from
7:13. Also, as observed by Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 53, the strange explicating
plus at this point in the MT and Samaritan Pentateuch ‫“( כל צפור כל כנף‬every
flying thing all with wings”), but absent from LXX, was likely drawn from Ezek
 17:23 to clarify that only winged birds among the “flying things” (‫ )העוף‬entered
the ark, not insects.
16a The closest analogy to the cryptic expression here, ‫ סגר בעד‬plus suffix (“close
behind someone”), is Judg 9:51, which appears to be a shortened version of
“close the door [or like object] behind” as in Judg 3:23; 2 Kgs 4:4, 5, 21, 33.9
20a Reading here ‫“( גבהו‬rose in height”), the verb reflected in the LXX (ὑφώθη),
rather than ‫“( גברו‬became powerful, prevailed”) in the MT and Samaritan
Pentateuch (the LXX preserves a parallel to ‫ גבר‬in the other instances of this
root in Gen 7:18, 19, 24). See Skinner, Genesis, 165; Hendel, Genesis 1–
11, 53 and the discussion in Zipor, Septuagint Genesis [Hebrew], 143, who
notes a rabbinic parallel to this reading as well.
22a The extra ‫“( רוח‬breath, wind, spirit”) in MT and Samaritan Pentateuch (but cf.
LXX and Vulgate) is a likely harmonizing plus with occurrences of this noun in
nearby Priestly expressions for breath (Gen 6:17; 7:15). For citation of earlier
scholars and an argument for an LXX/Vulgate minus at this point, see Hendel,
Genesis 1–11, 53–54.
23a See Tal, Genesis, 97* for support of the active reading of the verb ‫ מחה‬here
and critique of proposed emendations of this verb to the niphal (‫)וַיִּ ַמּח‬.
23b As is evident from the terms that accompany it here (‫“[ רמש‬creeping things”],
‫“[ עוף השמים‬birds of the sky”]), the term ‫ בהמה‬is used here to refer more
generally to animals, rather than its frequent use to refer more specifically to
domestic animals. Otherwise, it is not clear how wild animals would be
included in this list.
8:4a This renders Hebrew ‫( אררט‬ʾǎrārāṭ), referring apparently to the kingdom of
Urartu located in the region now known as the Armenian highlands.
5a Though the preposition ‫ עד‬can mean “until,” it appears to mean “up through” in
this instance, since the end of the tenth month represents the conclusion of
two periods comprised of five 30-day schematic months, the first comprised of
150 days (=five schematic months) when the waters prevailed over the earth
(Gen 7:24) and the second comprised of 150 days of gradual ebbing of the
waters (Gen 8:3b) after God’s intervention and the closing of the springs of
the primeval ocean and hatches in the sky (Gen 8:1–2a). For review of this
use of the preposition ‫ עד‬see Gesenius18, 922.
10a The obscure ‫ ַויָּחֶ ל‬of the MT is understood here with GKC 69u as piel imperfect
of ‫“( יחל‬wait”) where an elision of the first radical has occurred (see also Tal,
Genesis, 98*).
11a, 13a The expression “see” is added here as an interjection in these two loci to
render the Hebrew deictic particle ‫ הנה‬that has no clear equivalent in English,
but is often translated with the more archaic “Behold.”
14a See the note above on Gen 7:11 on the flood chronology. To be sure, at least
as early as Genesis Rabbah (33.7) there has been speculation that the extra
ten days between (the proto-MT readings for) Gen 7:11 (17th day of the
second month of Noah’s 600th year) and 8:14 (27th day of the second month
of Noah’s 601st year) were meant to accommodate the approximate ten day
difference between the shorter lunar year and the longer solar year.10
Nevertheless, other parts of this Priestly chronology tend to work with 30-day
schematic months, not the variable-length months of the lunar calendar.11 In
addition, as Ibn Ezra pointed out long ago (recension B, comment on Gen
7:11), the lunar year varies to different extents from the solar year such that a
ten-day elongation (in the proto-MT of Gen 7:11; 8:14) would not clearly
coordinate the two systems.
17a As in 7:23, the overall contents of this list, a list meant to comprise every living
being from all flesh (‫)מכל־בשר … כל־החיה‬, make clear that ‫ בהמה‬here again
refers to animals in general and not just domesticated animals.
17b The MT and Samaritan Pentateuch include an extra phrase “swarm on the
earth” (‫)ושרצו בארץ‬, likely harmonizing with God’s blessing in Gen 9:7.12
19a The noun ‫ רמש‬and corresponding verb are rendered here as “moving
creature” and “crawl” as opposed to “creeping creatures” and “creep” (e.g,.
Gen 7:14) since this term is used in this verse as an umbrella term for land
creatures (e.g., Gen 9:3), rather than as a term specific to creeping non-
mammals (e.g., Gen 1:24–25). In addition, there is a text-critical issue
regarding placement of the noun ‫“( רמש‬moving creature”). The translation
here follows the order of the Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint rather
than the reversal of ‫“( כל־העוף‬every bird”) and ‫“( כל־הרמש‬every moving
creature”) in the MT that separates the moving creatures from the modifying
clause “that crawl on the earth” (]‫ )ה] רומש על הארץ‬that is usually connected to
it (Gen 1:26; 7:14; also with a harmonization toward the addition of ‫ כל‬before
creeping, cf. Gen 1:30). Finally, the translation here does not follow the
Septuagint and related translations (Armenian, Coptic; also Jubilees 5:32) that
feature an equivalent ‫“( הבהמה‬animals”) in the list of Gen 8:19. This added
element probably is a harmonization of the report of the animals exiting the
ark with corresponding listings of animals, several of which feature a triad of
‫“( עוף‬bird”), ‫“( רמש‬crawling thing”), and ‫ בהמה‬as animals (Gen 6:20; 7:8; 8:17)
expanding on a global use of ‫ חיה‬for such creatures in general.13
19b The expression used here, ‫( משפחה‬translated here as “families”), is used
elsewhere by P (e.g., Gen 10:5, 20, 31) to characterize multi-layered
genealogical trees. Its use here to refer to animals, however, is somewhat
unusual and prompted discussion among some rabbinic interpreters.14
21a The verb translated here “treat poorly,” ‫ קלל‬piel is often translated as “curse,”
but as already noted in Rendtorff, “Gen 8,21,” 71–72, ‫ קלל‬piel does not
generally have the same meaning as ‫ארר‬, the verb that is used repeatedly in
other parts of the non-P primeval history for “curse” (e.g., Gen 3:14, 17; 4:11;
5:29; 9:25). Indeed, in a number of loci (e.g., Judg 9:27; 2 Sam 16:9–10;
19:22; Qoh 10:20) piel forms of ‫ קלל‬are used to designate someone treating
God, a ruler, or another person with disrepect, as if they were insignificant (cf.
the qal of ‫קלל‬, “to be small, insignificant”). This usage occasionally can
overlap with curse, sometimes with the nuance of “declare cursed” (Rendtorff,
71–72), but it can also refer to other forms of treating another lightly. For
discussion of the particular sense meant here, see the commentary below.
21b Literally “from its [humanity’s] youth” (‫)מנעריו‬.
9:1a For the particular modal force of these imperative forms, see the previous
commentary on translation of the blessings in Gen 1:22 and 1:28.
3a As in 8:19 (and 7:23), the noun ‫ רמש‬is used here as an umbrella term for
creatures that move on land rather than a more specific term for crawling
creatures.
3b The perfect of ‫ נתן‬here has performative force. See Joüon 112f.
4a With Skinner, Genesis, 170, ‫“( דמוֹ‬its blood”), functions here as a clarifying
apposition to ‫“( נפש‬life”) in the prepositional phrase “with its life” (‫)בנפשו‬.
Hence the rendering here “with its blood.”
5a See Jacob, Genesis, 245–46 for discussion and evaluation of the main options
for translation of this difficult half-verse. The translation here renders the text
we have, versus, e.g., Skinner, Genesis, 170–71, who understands the given
text to be an abbreviation for ‫“( מיד איש את־נפש אחיו‬from each man his
brother’s life”).
6a This verse is often translated as a divine endorsement of human revenge, “one
who pours out the blood of the human, by the human his blood will be shed.”
Nevertheless, the ‫ ב‬preposition in ‫ באדם‬is probably not an instrumental beth
(“by the human”), but a beth pretii (“for the human”), much as it is in a
comparable reference to talion law in Deut 19:21.15 Moreover, it makes sense
to take “the human” mentioned twice at the center of this abb’a’ pattern (as its
‘b’ part) to be the same figure: one who pours out the blood of the human, for
that human his blood will be poured out. Finally, the stress of the context is not
on the agent who will shed blood (probably envisioned here ultimately as God,
governing a sacral process staffed by humans), but on the supreme worth of
the murdered human victim as a divine image (Gen 9:6b).16
7a Reading ‫“( רדו‬rule”) here (with some LXX manuscripts) as an allusion to the
same theme following the multiplication blessing in 1:28. The more common
 reading ‫“( רבו‬multiply”) in the major witnesses harmonizes to the frequent
references to multiplication in the nearby context (9:1b, 7a).
10a The MT and Samaritan Pentateuch feature a plus “with you” (‫ )אתכם‬at this
locus that is not reflected in the LXX (or Vulgate), a plus that may have been
added at the end of the sequence of animals to parallel the “with you” phrase
after the initial overall mention of animals at the outset of the verse.17
10b The MT and Samaritan Pentateuch (but not LXX) feature an extra phrase at
the end ‫“( לכל חית הארץ‬every living being on the earth”) that diverges from the
earlier reference in the verse (present in all textual witnesses) to ‫ חית הארץ‬as
specifically “wild animals,” with the MT and Samaritan Pentateuch plus now
using ‫ חית הארץ‬as a summary term for all animals. Though it may have been
meant to clarify the scope of the previous references to all who exited the ark,
this scribal notation (like others) may have confused more than helped.18
11a See, Begrich, “Mabbūl,” especially his summary conclusion on p. 151,
identifying these two instances of ‫ מבול‬in Gen 9:11 to be the first that clearly
work with an understanding of the word as just referring simply to a “flood.”
13a See Jacob, Genesis, 255 for the argument that the local setting of this bow in
the clouds combined with the commentary on its function in Gen 9:14–15
indicate that the perfect here refers to an act completed in the present, not a
future act. Only thus, with God’s bow now placed in the clouds, can it then
serve its function to remind God of the covenant.
13b ‫“( ענן‬cloud”) in the singular, both here and 9:14, 16, seems to be functioning as
a collective.
14a This somewhat awkward expression “let cloud up” is meant to render a figura
etymologica of ‫( ענן‬piel inf. construct of ‫ענן‬, “bring clouds” [Gesenius18, 992]
and the noun ‫ ענן‬meant collectively (“clouds”). The adjective “storm” is added
as a reflection that this figura etymologica may be used here partly to stress
that rain clouds are under discussion here and not innocuous, fluffy white
clouds.
14b As argued in Jacob, Genesis, 255–56, Gen 9:14–15 seems to clarify 9:13 by
emphasizing the process by which the rainbow will serve as a sign of the
covenant. This process is clearer if 9:14b (“the bow will appear in the clouds”)
is the main sentence introduced by 9:14a (“when I let storm clouds cloud up
over the earth”).
28a The two verses in brackets are included in the translation and commentary
here because they so integrally connect to the preceding Priestly flood story
and are best commented on in this commentary section. They also are
included in the translation of the conclusion of the Noah story in the next
section.
Diachronic Prologue
On a general level most of the flood narrative found here reads
adequately, and it has not presented an unusual level of problems to
ancient interpreters reading it in its present form. God perceives that
the earth and all of its inhabitants (with the exception of Noah) are
thoroughly evil/ruined (6:5–12). God then instructs Noah to build an
ark, announces the flood, and tells him to enter the ark along with at
least two of every land-based creature (6:13–21), and he obeys
(6:22). God then adds another set of instructions specifying that
Noah bring extra pairs of clean animals on the ark (7:1–4), and he
obeys that too (7:5). This prepares for the initial report that the flood
came in Noah’s 600th year (7:6), a more detailed description of entry
into the ark (7:7–9, 13–16), and a more specifically-dated narration
of each stage of the flood’s coming and receding. The relevant dates
implied for the speech of Noah and given or implied for other stages
of the flood narrative are given below (implicit dates in [square
brackets]):19
6:13–22 God’s first speech to Noah(and execution) [?40 days prior to 7:11?
=1.1.600; cf. 7:6]
7:4, 10 God’s speech to Noah seven days prior to the flood
With 7:11, implicitly the 10th day of the 2nd month of his 600th year
[10.2.600]
7:11 Opening of heavenly portals on the 17th day of the 2nd month of Noah’s
600th year 17.2.600
7:12 Forty days and nights of rain [17.2.600 to 27.3.600]
7:24 The waters prevail over the highest parts of the earth 150 days [17.2.600
to 17.7.600]
8:2a Closing of heavenly portals [not specifically dated, but implicitly post 150
days; 7:24]
8:3b Waters recede after 150 days [17.7.600 onward]
8:4 Five months [150 days] after flood onset, ark aground on mountains of
Ararat 17.7.600
8:5a The waters recede up through the 10th month (of Noah’s 600th year) [to
30.10.600]
8:5b The mountains appear on the first day of the 10th month (of Noah’s 600th
year) 1.10.600
8:6 After forty days [eight months after God’s speech to him]: Noah opens the
ark [10.11.600]
 8:8 Seven days later (see 20;8:10 ‫ ויחל עוד שבעת ימים‬thus nine months after
flood’s arrival; 7:11)Noah sends out a dove [17.11.600]
8:10 After waiting seven days, Noah sends dove out again, returns with branch
[24.11.600]
8:12 After waiting seven days, Noah sends dove again, and it stays away
[1.12.600]
8:13 [one month later] Day 1 of Noah’s 601st year: waters dry from earth,
Noah sees the surface of ground has dried 1.1.601
8:14 47 days later (= one year from flood’s arrival) the earth is dry 17.2.601
With the ground dry again, the text moves to describe the exit of
Noah and those with him from the ark on God’s orders (8:15–19).
This sets the stage for Noah’s sacrifice and Y ’s resolve not to
respond again to human evil by disrupting creation and destroying
life (8:20–22). The narrative concludes with a series of divine
speeches to Noah and his sons about post-flood conditions (9:1–7
and 8–17).
Though this large pericope is joined together by its focus on
Noah, his family, and a life-destroying flood that they survive, there
are a number of clues in it, particularly in the flood portion (6:5–9:17),
that this is a composition constructed out of textual elements that
pre-existed their current context. We even see some clues to this in
certain irregularities in the above-surveyed chronological system. For
example, the text does not fully coordinate its mention of forty
days/nights of rain (7:12; also 7:4) and its attribution of the flood to
an opening of primal springs and heavenly portals for 150 days
(7:11, 24; then 8:2a). So also, we have no narrative rationale for why
several dates in the narrative fall on the 17th of the month (7:11; 8:4,
14) rather than the first (e.g., Gen 8:13).
Readers committed to a harmonizing reading of the flood
narrative have sought to find solutions to these and the numerous
other problems in it. Nevertheless, building on over two centuries of
scholarship, this commentary will argue that a reading of the present
form of the Noah/flood story gains precision from a recognition that it
is a complex mix of three types of material, each of which link to
different elements in the above-surveyed chronology: a non-P flood
narrative with a chronological system built around 7- and 40-day
intervals, a Priestly flood narrative that dates the flood vis-à-vis the
600th year of Noah’s life (and implicitly the New Year), and a series
of conflational additions that coordinate these originally separate
strands (including the above-noted datings on the 17th of various
months). The broader case for this picture will be presented below,
with the details explored more in the exegetical commentary.21 For
now, it is enough just to recognize how the present form of Gen 6:5–
9:17 represents a carefully constructed, yet conflated whole.
These diachronic issues appear early in this commentary unit
because this section of Genesis presents particular challenges for an
approach that aims to combine synchronic and diachronic
approaches. Prior sections of Genesis have come primarily from one
or another major literary strand—P for Gen 1:1–2:3 and 5:1–32 and
non-P for Gen 4:1–26 and 6:1–4. In contrast, the story of Noah and
the flood is an intricate intertwining of these two strands, preserving
substantial portions of both. Moreover, many distinct characteristics
of the texts in each strand only come into focus when they are
considered within the context of their given strand. As a result, it
would be artificial to pursue an initial reading of the present form of
this section in Gen 6:5–9:17 without being attuned, from the outset,
to the distinctly different literary strata combined in it. Only after
distinguishing the P and non-P strata and then reading each stratum
in turn will we be fully equipped to discern the shape of the conflation
that combined them and better interpret the present, tensive biblical
flood narrative.
Indeed, diachronic analysis of these materials informs how this
section of the commentary is defined. If one were defining
commentary sections strictly by the contours of the present text, one
might be inclined to follow Cassuto or Wenham in separating Gen
6:5–8 off from the following narrative in 6:9–9:17, since these verses
are separated from the Noah-flood narrative proper by the label in
Gen 6:9.22 After all, within the present form of the text this
anticipation of the flood in Gen 6:5–8 concludes the section on the
descendants of Adam (Gen 5:1–6:8) while the superscription about
Noah’s descendants in Gen 6:9 could be seen as introducing a new
textual unit. Nevertheless, the following diachronic analysis will show
how Gen 6:5–8 originally was the programmatic introduction to a
non-P story of Noah and the flood. As a result, a study of the specific
character of Gen 6:5–8 should attend both to how it was composed
originally to serve as the first part of the non-P story of the flood
before it was redeployed to stand as the conclusion to the preceding
descendants of Adam section (Gen 5:1–6:8).23

Preliminary Source Analysis of Gen 6:5–9:17

As noted, the first step here is a preliminary source analysis of the
overall section, identifying the basic contours of the two source
strands that were conflated into the present whole. Source analysis
of this section was started already by Jean Astruc in 1753 and
basically concluded with the analyses of Schrader and Budde in the
late 1800’s.24 As Astruc already noted at the outset, the first and
primary datum here is the extensive doubled narrations of the same
events/facts:25

 1. The deity’s “seeing” of a problem of evil in humanity (6:5–6

Y )//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. The deity’s decision to destroy humanity (Gen 6:7 Y )//all
flesh (Gen 6:13 God);
 3. Assertions that Noah is an exception to this problem in enjoying
God’s favor (6:8 Y ) and being righteous in this generation
(Gen 7:1 Y )// being righteous in his generations (6:9 God);26
 4. The deity’s announcements to Noah of the oncoming flood (God
6:13//7:4 Y );
 5. The deity’s commands for Noah to enter the ark with his sons,
wife, and sons’ wives (God 6:18b)//house (7:1a Y );
 6. The deity’s commands to bring representatives of each of the
earth’s animals onto the ark (God, one pair of animals, 6:19–
20//7:2–3 Y , 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 Y );
 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
‫ גבר‬7:18//‫;)רבה‬
11. The “death” (7:22 ‫ )מות‬or perishing (7:21 ‫ )גוע‬of all life;
12. The ending of the flood through the closing of portals (8:2a) or
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 degrade the ground
on account of humanity (8:20–22)//send another flood to destroy
all flesh and ruin the earth (9:8–17).

The crucial thing to note here is the unique extent to which the Gen
6:5–9:17 narrative is characterized by sets of two. Such doubling is
not typical of scribal supplementation of an earlier Vorlage since
supplementation can presuppose and expand on existing material.
Instead, the doubling across the flood narrative is a prominent initial
indicator suggesting that it was created through the conflation of two
pre-existing, originally 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, each sharing a range of distinctive
language and conceptuality. Identifications of these two strands
typically identify a Priestly flood strand somewhat like the following:
Gen 6:9–22; 7:6, 11, 13–16a, 17a* [without “forty days”], 18–21, 24;
8:1–2a, 3b–5, 13a, 14b–19; 9:1–17. The non-Priestly flood strand
does not seem to have been as well preserved, but we see
substantial portions of it in Gen 6:5–6, 7aα*, 7b–8; 7:1–2, 3b–5, 7*
[minus mention of Noah’s family], 16b, 10, 12, 17b, 22, 23*; 8:2b–3a,
6–12, 13b, 20–22. These two strands are characterized not just by
doublets, but also by both large and small contradictions with each
other. As we will see below, an overarching Priestly chronological
system based on days and months in a new year has been only
incompletely harmonized in the present text to a non-P system
based on seven- and forty-day intervals, and P and non-P each
feature different concepts of how many animals of each type were
brought onto the ark. P insists that only one pair each were brought
(Gen 6:19–20), while non-P has Y instruct Noah to bring
additional clean animals onto the ark (Gen 7:2) and later sacrifice
them (Gen 8:20).27
To be sure, as is the case in our (few) documented examples of
combination of originally freestanding documents, the original P and
non-P stories are not fully preserved in the present conflated text.28
Rather P seems to have been used as the main basis for this
section, while this P-inclined conflator more selectively drew on and
occasionally reorganized portions of a non-P version to supplement
the Priestly version. For example, a non-Priestly notice about Y
shutting Noah into the ark (7:16b) probably originally stood before a
(non-P) notice of the coming of heavy rain to cause the flood (7:10,
12). Nevertheless, this notice was moved so that it now could stand
in the present text after the Priestly report of the entry of Noah and
the animals into the ark (7:13–16a).29
Scholars have long recognized these and other indicators that
Gen 6:5–9:29 contains two distinct and originally-separate literary
layers. Furthermore, they have reached almost complete agreement
on the assignment of most specific verses to the Priestly or non-
Priestly (“J”) layers. The main point of recent disagreement has been
on whether the non-Priestly layer was originally composed to be a
supplement to its Priestly counterpart or if it represents the remnants
of an originally separate source.30 The main indicators that would
support the former view (non-P composed as supplement) are
twofold: 1) the fact that the present text does not contain a complete
non-P flood story (e.g., lacking divine instructions to build an ark)
and 2) many non-P elements can be seen as functioning in the
present text to supplement the P account. Nevertheless, neither
indicator is decisive. As noted above, conflation typically results in
the selective preservation of source documents. Moreover, the
present function of several non-P elements as supplements to a P
Noah/flood superstructure can be understood as the work of a
conflator who aimed to produce a meaningful text out of two source
texts.
 Most importantly, the proposed redactional/supplement model for
the non-P stratum fails to account for major features of the present
flood account: its extensive doubling, the fact that the non-P and P
strata—even with some gaps (expected in sources that have been
conflated with each other)—both represent relatively readable
wholes, the way parts of the non-P stratum appear to be rearranged
from a likely different order in an earlier (originally separate) text
(e.g., Gen 7:16b), and ways that the two strands appear to have
been secondarily harmonized through secondary modifications of
non-P. Long-recognized examples of such secondary conflational
modifications of non-P include elements such as: the addition of the
phrase “from humans to animals to creeping things to birds of the
heavens” to Gen 6:7; the addition of a similar “from … to” catalogue
of living beings in Gen 7:23; the addition of the command regarding
birds in Gen 7:3a; and the supplementation of the non-P report of
Noah’s entry into the ark and Y closing the hatch behind him
(Gen 7:7aαb, 16b) with P-like descriptions of his family and animals
entering with him (7:7aβ, 8–9).31 Such secondary harmonizations
are not typically added to redactional supplements, since redactional
supplements are built around their Vorlagen and thus generally do
not conflict with them to an extent requiring redactional adjustment.
In sum, the arguments remain strong that the bulk of the Gen
6:5–9:17 story of Noah and the flood is a conflation of two
Noah/flood stories, a complete (or virtually complete) Priestly
account and most portions of an originally separate non-Priestly
account. The following shows their likely extent and parallel
contours:
Non-P Flood Narrative Priestly Flood Narrative
Y sees human evil and Noah is perfectly righteous (Gen 6:9),
decides to wipe it (‫ )מחה‬off while God sees that earth has been
the face of the ground (Gen corrupted by violence (6:11–12)
6:5–7), while Noah, in
contrast, finds favor with
Y (6:8)
[no equivalent in non-P God announces the flood and end of
preserved] “all flesh” to Noah and instructs him
to build an ark (6:13–17)
Y instructs Noah to God instructs Noah to bring his family
bring onto the ark his and one pair of each kind of animal
“house” and one pair of onto the ark (6:18–20) along with
unclean animals along with food for all (6:21)
seven pairs of clean animals
(7:1–2) in order to preserve
a seed before the flood
coming in seven days (7:3b–
4)
Noah does all that Y Noah does all that God commanded
commanded (7:5) (6:22)
Noah enters the ark from [see below for counterpart to 7:7*,
before the waters of the 13–16a]
flood (7:7*) and Y shuts
him inside (7:16b)
The waters of the heavenly The heavenly ocean (‫ )מבול‬arrives on
ocean (‫ )מבול‬arrive on earth earth in Noah’s six-hundreth year
seven days later (7:10) (7:6)
A torrential rain falls on the The springs of the primeval ocean
earth for forty days (Gen break forth, and the hatches of the
7:12) sky open up [on a particular day of
Noah’s 600th year] (Gen 7:11)
Non-P Flood Narrative Priestly Flood Narrative
[see above; 7:7*] Noah enters the ark with his family
and one pair of each kind of animal
as God commanded (Gen 7:13–16a)
The waters increase (‫)רבה‬ The waters of the heavenly ocean
are on the earth (7:17a), and they
become powerful (‫ )גבר‬and increase
(‫)רבה‬
The waters bear up the ark The ark travels on the waters (Gen
above the earth (Gen 7:17b) 7:18)
[no equivalent in non-P The waters prevail (‫ )גבר‬so much that
preserved] the mountains are covered (Gen
7:19–20)
all with breath of life in its “all flesh” dies (Gen 7:21)
nostrils dies (7:22) such that
Y wipes (‫ )מחה‬all living
beings off the face of the
ground (7:23*)
The waters prevail (‫ )גבר‬over the
earth one-hundred fifty days (7:24)
The torrential rain is stopped God remembers Noah and the
up (8:2b) animals with him and makes a wind
pass over the earth so that the
waters recede (8:1–2a), and the
primeval springs and hatches in the
sky close up (Gen 8:1–2a)
The waters retreat gradually After one-hundred fifty days, the
from the earth (8:3a) waters decline so that the ark comes
to rest on the mountains of Ararat
(Gen 8:3b–4*), and they decline
gradually up through the tenth month
(=ten 30-day months=two 150 day
periods) when the tops of the
mountains appear (Gen 8:5)
Non-P Flood Narrative Priestly Flood Narrative
Noah uses birds (a raven [no exact equivalent in P, but see
and a dove) to determine below, 8:15–19]
when the flood waters have
lightened (‫ )קלל‬enough that
land has appeared (8:6–12)
Noah lifts the cover of the On the first day of Noah’s six-
ark and sees that the ground hundred and first year the earth is
has dried (8:13b) dried out (8:13a, 14b)
[no equivalent in non-P] God instructs Noah to come out of
the ark with his family and animals,
and he complies (8:15–19)
God gives provisions to regulate
violence and enable human
multiplication (Gen 9:1–7)
Noah offers a burnt sacrifice [no equivalent in P]
of clean animals (8:20)
After smelling the savory God makes a covenant with Noah,
smell, Y decides not to his sons and the animals, including a
again treat the earth lightly rainbow reminder, not to send
(‫ )קלל‬on account of human another flood (9:8–17)
evil or to strike down all life
(8:21). Now natural rhythms
will persist (8:22)

It should be emphasized that the above listing, though corresponding

to source analysis of the flood narrative over the last one-hundred
fifty years, remains only an approximation of source documents for
which we have no separate copy.32 Nevertheless, given the relative
assurance of this source assignment and the coherence of both
strands, I focus much of the following synchronic analysis on
commentary on the non-P and then P flood narratives in turn,
concluding in each case with some diachronic analysis of precursors
to each strand. Along the way, I will diverge at points to note some
indicators of additions by the conflator who combined the two, but I
reserve most discussion of the present conflated text until after
consideration of the two strands that were used to compose it.

Non-Biblical Precursors to the Noah and Flood

Story
This whole biblical description of a world destroying flood represents
a foreign element in Israel, which did not typically experience
sustained floods. Rather, it is in Mesopotamia, which regularly
experienced spring floods, that we see the development of ancient
flood traditions that were precursors for the P and non-P flood
narratives.33 In particular, there are three extended Mesopotamian
narratives of the flood—the Eridu Genesis (aka Sumerian flood
story), Atrahasis Epic (in various editions) and the adaptation of a
version of the Atrahasis flood narrative in the eleventh tablet of the
standard Babylonian edition of the Gilgamesh epic. These narratives
share an overall framework resembling that found in the P and non-P
flood stories, with the fullest version preserved in the Atrahasis epic.
This starts with the gods’ decision to destroy humanity because of
their population growth and resulting noise, Ea/Enki’s warning to the
flood hero of the gods’ plan of destruction, the flood hero’s
subsequent building of an ark and entry into it, and then the
destruction of earthly life by a seven-day storm that scares even the
gods. After the storm is ended, the ark runs aground in the
mountains north of Mesopotamia, the flood hero opens the roof of
the ark to see that the waters are drying, and he offers a sacrifice
around which the starving gods cluster. The mother goddess then
upbraids the other gods for agreeing to destroy humanity, and other
measures are put in place to keep human population growth under
control. As we will see, the non-P and P flood narratives each
represent similar, though distinct adaptations of this framework. Point
by point they parallel their Mesopotamian counterparts, even as they
adapt those stories so that the same God (whether Y [non-P] or
‘God’ [P]) both brings the flood and enacts the rescue.
Synchronic Analysis

Commentary on the Non-Priestly Story of the

Flood and Noah
Gen 6:5–8*. Introduction of Y ’s decision for total reversal of
human creation (and note on Noah) The non-P account commences
with this exposition primarily anticipating Y ’s destruction of
humanity. It begins with four extended sentences giving background
to that destruction (6:5–7) and only one, laconic clause noting that
Noah, in contrast, “found favor in the eyes of Y ” (6:8).
Nothing so far is said specifically about a flood, though the image
of “wiping” (‫ )מחה‬the ground free of humans (6:7) anticipates the
later oceanic wash (‫ )מבול‬that will work Y ’s destruction. The verb
for “wipe” that is found here, ‫מחה‬, is used elsewhere for erasing
names from a record (Exod 17:14; 32:32–33), wiping plates (2 Kgs
21:13), or even using water to wash a scroll free of a text (Num
5:23).34 Within non-P it is the central verb used to characterize
Y ’s destructive action, not only in 6:7, but also in Y ’s
announcement to Noah (7:4) and the actual narration of the
destruction in 7:23. It anticipates the flood serving somewhat like a
cleaning agent, erasing people from the earth’s surface like a scribe
would erase letters from a scroll.
Y ’s resolve for total destruction of humans is justified in Gen
6:5–6 by Y ’s perception (‫ )ראה‬of total human evil (6:5) and
resulting regret at having made them (6:6). Previous non-P stories
about the first human couple (Gen 2–3) and of Cain (4:1–16)
featured nuanced descriptions of various human motives and non-
human figures (e.g., a snake) contributing to human misdeeds. In
contrast, Y in Gen 6:5 perceives a fundamental rot at the core of
all human decision making: “every formation of the thoughts of the
human heart/mind was only evil all of the time” (6:5).35 The text then
moves immediately to emphasize Y ’s “regret” (‫ )נחם‬at having
made such totally evil humans (6:6). The intensity of this regret is
underlined with the use of a verb ‫ עצב‬that is used elsewhere in the
Bible (in the Hithpael or Niphal stem) to express the most wrenching
of emotions (e.g., 1 Sam 20:34; 2 Sam 19:2–3).36 In this case, the
use of ‫ עצב‬represents an oblique echo of Y ’s pronouncement in
3:16, 17. Where Y once pronounced hard labor (‫ )עצבון‬on
humans, now Y ’s own heart labors with regret (‫ )ויתעצב‬at having
made them in the first place. And the reason for this anguished labor
in “his heart” (6:6 ;‫לבו‬b) is the pervasive evil in the heart of the
humans (6:5 ;‫לבו‬b), with “heart” here referring to the decision-making
core of an individual, the equivalent of “mind” within contemporary
Western culture.
Thus, this is no story of a particular misdeed and punishment,
such as occur in Gen 2–3 or 4:1–16.37 Instead, the threefold
reference to Y ’s creation of humans in Gen 6:6–7 and the echo
of Y ’s crafting (‫ )יצר‬of humans in the use of the word ‫יֵצֶ ר‬
(“formation”) to describe human evil in Gen 6:5 make clear that this
will be a story of complete and total divine reversal of Y ’s main
act of creation as narrated in non-P: the making of humanity in Gen
2. The text roots this act of reversal in an unusual level of divine
distress: an anguished regret at having made humans that impacts
the very heart/mind core of divine decision making. And all this
represents an echo and yet massive shift from the story of sons of
god and daughters of humanity in Gen 6:1–4. There, humans were
beginning to multiply (‫“ )רבב‬on the surface of the earth” (‫על־פני‬
6:1 ;‫)האדמה‬, and the sons of god “saw” that the daughters of humans
were ‫“( טבת‬beautiful, good”; 6:2). Here, Y “sees” that the evil of
humanity is “great/multiplied” (‫ רב‬adjective) on earth (6:5a) and that
humanity itself is not good, but instead is defined by the fact that
“every formation of the thoughts of its [humanity’s] heart was only
evil all of the time” (6:5b). There, Y gave a speech merely
providing an outer limit for human life (6:3). Here, Y gives a
speech culminating in a resolve to wipe humans off the same
“surface of the ground” on which they had multiplied (6:7, cf. 6:1).38
Such an anticipation of total judgment does not leave much room
for a story of rescue. This explains why the brief note about Noah in
Gen 6:8 is introduced with an adversative wav: “But Noah found
favor in the eyes of Y .”39 This introduction in 6:5–8 thus features
two opposing sight events. On the one hand, Y “sees” the
pervasive evil of humanity and plans to wipe humanity off the face of
the ground. On the other hand, Noah finds favor in “the eyes of
Y .”40 Some have been inclined to see a combination here of
ultimate divine judgment on all humanity, including Noah, in Gen
6:5–7 and an ungrounded divine grace for Noah, despite his evil, in
Gen 6:8. This reading, however, is likely anachronistic.41 The
wording of “finding favor” (‫ )מצא חן‬in the Bible comes from court
language, and it speaks of a situation where a subordinate enjoys
the favor of his lord as the result of a series of actions of loyalty and
service.42 This text uses a wordplay on Noah’s name to uniquely
connect him to such divine favor, tersely saying that Noah (‫ )נח‬found
“favor” (‫חן‬, letters reversed of ‫ )נח‬in the eyes of Y . Though the
text does not elaborate, it implies that Noah has been pleasing to
Y in a way that all other humanity has not, and this assertion
stands in contrast (‫“ ונח‬But Noah”) to the preceding global judgment
on humanity’s evil and decree of destruction.
This juxtaposition resembles and may be based on another
incident where Y decrees general destruction, while favoring a
single protagonist: the non-P golden calf narrative (Exod 32). There,
Moses, who later will repeatedly make petitions predicated on him
having “found favor” with Y (Exod 33:12–17; 34:9), petitions
Y to take away (‫ )נשא‬the sin of his people, and if not, to “wipe”
him [Moses] from the pages of Y ’s book (‫ ;ספר‬Exod 32:32).
Nevertheless, Y responds by promising to “wipe” out of his book
those who have sinned against him (Exod 32:33). This cleaning
language of “wipe” (‫ )מחה‬appears more at home in this golden calf
narrative text about erasing people’s names from a book than it is to
a flood narrative. Moreover, the non-P Moses narrative provides an
extended account of the broader relationship between Y and
Moses in which Moses finds favor in Y ’s eyes. Perhaps the non-
P flood story here is echoing such elements in the Sinai story, now
having Y decide to “wipe” evil humanity off the surface of “the
ground” as if it were a scroll surface, yet presenting Noah as a figure
who—like Moses—enjoys Y ’s favor.43
Gen 7:1–2, 3b–4. Y ’s entry order The present text does not
preserve any non-P instructions to Noah to build an ark, but it does
include here a non-Priestly instruction to Noah regarding entry into
“the ark” (7:1 ;‫ )התבה‬that presupposes some kind of earlier divine
communication to him regarding the ark and its subsequent
construction (see also reference to an otherwise unmentioned
window of the ark in 8:6).44
Overall, this speech in 7:1–4 conveys commands to Noah that
are set in the context of Y ’s announcement of a devastating,
forty-day rain that will “wipe” (‫ )מחה‬every living being from the
surface of the ground (7:4; cf. 6:7*). “Rain” was a theme earlier in the
non-P primeval history, but stood as a bit of a loose end. Though the
outset of the primeval history attributed the lack of vegetation in part
to Y not causing it to rain (Gen 2:5), the rest of the chapter went
on to describe the watering of the entire surface of the ground by a
primal spring (2:6; see also 2:10–14) and the planting and human
tending of the well-watered Eden garden (2:7–9, 15) without any
mention of Y bringing rain. Moreover, 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. Now, in Gen 7:4, Y suddenly is going to “cause it to
rain” (‫)המטרי‬. Yet this is not going to be a vegetation-producing rain,
but a forty-day, life-killing rain. And though the non-P narrative will
later describe the end of this rain (Gen 8:2b) and Y ’s resolve to
preserve seasonal and daytime rhythms (Gen 8:22), this resolve is
not pitched as Y ’s intent to restore rain that previously existed in
creation (cf. 2:5). Instead, it is presented as part of a divine resolve
not to destroy life again with an out-of-control rain like that
envisioned in Gen 7:4 and other non-P flood texts. In this sense,
Gen 7:4 picks up on a loose end from the outset of the non-P
narrative—the lack of an explicit narrative introduction of rain that
was missing at the outset of creation—yet develops it in a new
direction.
In light of the fact that Y is about to bring this watery
destruction, Y issues two commands, both focused on the
preservation of specific exemplars of living beings amidst Y ’s
life-destroying flood: 1) Noah and “his house” are to enter the ark;
and 2) he is to take onto the ark for himself seven pairs of every
clean animal and one pair each of every animal that is not clean.
Y grounds Noah’s entry into the lifesaving ark by the assertion
that Y perceives him as “righteous before me amidst this
generation” (7:1b). This represents an elaboration of the contrast
made earlier in the prologue, between Y ’s stance toward
broader humanity (Gen 6:5–7) and toward Noah (Gen 6:8). Now,
however, that favor “in Y ’s eyes” is explained: Y “sees”
(‫ )ראיתי‬Noah as righteous in this generation. 45
This assertion does not just ground Y ’s decision to spare
Noah, but also the impetus to depend on him to execute the
commands given here, commands that relate not only to him and his
house (7:1a), but the rest of earth’s living creatures (Gen 7:2, 3b).
Using a grammatical form (the “ethical dative”) that underlines the
urgency and specificity of the command to Noah (7:2 ‫ )תקח־לך‬that
Y has seen as righteous (Gen 7:1b), Y here commands him
to bring unclean and (extra pairs of) clean animals onto the ark (7:2)
in order to insure the survival of each species (7:3b). Extra pairs of
clean animals are required because a later text in non-P, Gen 8:20,
will narrate Noah’s sacrifice of clean animals after the flood. In the
more immediate context, Noah soon will demonstrate the worth of
Y ’s trust in him—and indirectly his righteousness—by doing
exactly as Y commands (Gen 7:5).
Gen 7:5, 7*, 16b, 10, 12, 17b, 22–23*. The flood’s arrival vs.
entry into and survival in the ark The next portion of the non-P flood
narrative describes the aftermath of things spoken about in Y ’s
speech in 7:1–4. Genesis 7:5 summarizes that Noah did just as
Y commanded him, and then 7:7* elaborates in describing
Noah’s entry into the ark to escape the flood as commanded in Gen
7:1 and Y ’s shutting Noah in (Gen 7:16b).46 To be sure, Noah’s
house and the animals are implicitly included here, since the non-P
report of Noah’s general compliance in Gen 7:5 previously affirmed
that Noah brought his family and animals onto the ark as ordered in
7:1–4. Nevertheless, the original non-P narrative here—before the
above-noted additions of his family and animals in 7:7aβ, 8–9—
probably focused here, as elsewhere in non-P on Noah as the
central figure who is then juxtaposed with all other human and non-
human beings (e.g., 6:5–8; 7:1, 16b; 7:22–23).
 With Noah and his retinue thus enclosed in the ark, the text then
juxtaposes the fate of those on the ark with the rest of the living
beings on earth. The oceanic flood comes on the earth from a forty-
day rain, and the great waters bear the ark up and it is raised up
above the earth (7:10, 12, 17b).47 Whereas all life on earth dies
(7:22) and is wiped off the face of the ground (7:23a), Noah and
those with him survive (7:23b).48 In the end, just a few brief narrative
strokes suffice to describe the major catastrophe to which the whole
(non-P) Noah/flood narrative has led.
Gen 8:2b–3a, 6–12, 13b. The flood’s end and Noah’s
recognition of that fact As far as preserved elements go, non-P’s
narrative then shifts from this forty-day deluge to a description of the
ending of the rain and receding of the waters (Gen 8:2b–3a): “the
hard rain from the heavens was stopped up, and the waters
retreated gradually from the earth.” Y had already announced at
the outset that the rain would be time-limited to forty days and nights
(7:4; see also 7:12). This stopping of the rain in 8:2b then represents
the anticipated conclusion of that process. So also, much as flood
waters more generally are known to recede after rain, the gradual
receding of the waters in 8:3a represents a predictable aftermath to
the conclusion of the rain. The major difference between the events
here and a typical rain-caused flood is that this particular flood
involved a rain so hard and long that it destroyed all life still on earth.
The non-P narrative then features an extended description of the
process by which Noah learns of the reduction of the waters (8:11)
and the drying of the earth (8:13b). Noah’s opening of the ark is
dated in non-P to a time forty days (8:6a) after the torrential rains
stopped (8:2b). These forty days of gradually receding waters (8:3a,
6) thus balance the previous forty days of rising waters due to
torrential rains (7:12, 17, 21–22).49 After these forty days, Noah
sends out a raven (Gen 8:7) before sending, at three seven-day
intervals, a dove (Gen 8:8–12) to see if the waters had “lightened”
(‫ )קלל‬from the earth (8:8b).50 In a possible word play on Noah’s
name, the non-P narrative first describes how the dove cannot find a
“resting place” (‫ )מנוח‬on the still-watery earth, and so the dove
returns and lands on Noah’s (‫ )נח‬outstretched hand to be brought
into the ark (8:8–9).51 The text then proceeds to say that Noah
waited an “additional seven days” (‫ )עוד שבעת ימים‬before sending the
dove a second time, who returned with an olive branch indicating to
Noah that the waters indeed were “lightening” from the earth (8:10–
11; cf. 8:8b). After waiting yet seven more days (8:12a) Noah then
lets the dove go yet again and he does not return (8:12b). This then
is the prompt for Noah to remove the covering of the ark and see
that the ground (‫ )האדמה‬is now dry (8:13b).
Gen 8:20–22. Noah’s burnt offering and Y ’s resolve for the
future Whether or not the non-P narrative once had an explicit report
of Noah’s exit (cf. P in Gen 8:15–19), the conflated text does not
preserve such an element from the non-P story of Noah and the
flood.52 Rather, in the next section of the (preserved) non-P
Noah/flood text, Y resolves to never again make a decision like
the one narrated in Gen 6:5–7. There Y resolved to wipe
humans off the “ground” (6:7) because of his regret about having
made such thoroughly evil beings (6:5–6). Now, at the conclusion of
the non-P flood narrative, Gen 8:21aβb reports a corresponding
internal decision by Y to never do this again. Yet this formulation
otherwise diverges from the introduction to the non-P flood narrative,
having Y commit not to strike down (‫ נכה‬hiphil) all life, and not
treat the ground poorly (‫ )קלל‬because of humanity’s evil.53 The
preceding introduction to the non-P flood narrative lacked such an
emphasis on the impact of the flood on “the ground” (‫)האדמה‬,
focusing on providing Y ’s rationale for wiping humanity off the
surface of the ground (Gen 6:7). Nevertheless, this ground-focused
note follows soon after a preceding non-P note about Noah’s
perception of the drying of the ground (Gen 8:13b) and connects to a
prominent stress in earlier parts of the non-P history on the centrality
of “the ground” (e.g., Gen 2:5; 3:23; 4:10–14). As such, non-P’s
conclusion to the flood narrative contrasts with P’s (Gen 9:8–17) in
having Y commit more generally to preserve the future natural
world, not just avoid sending a flood. This emphasis continues in
Gen 8:22, with the divine promise to avoid other, non-flood kinds of
natural disruption (e.g., day and night) that were not featured at all in
the preceding flood account. Instead, in a poetic section possibly
drawing on calendrical wisdom of the sort we see in the Gezer
calendar, Y resolves that, from this point forward, the natural
rhythms of nature and the agricultural year will not cease.
The text makes clear that what has changed in the wake of the
flood is not the evil human nature that prompted it, but Y ’s
response to that nature. On the one hand, the inner core of human
decision making in the wake of the flood remains permanently evil.
Yet, on the other hand, Y states that he will not again degrade
the earth (just dry in 8:13b) on account of that evil.54 As Baumgart
argues, this internal divine speech represents the fundamental shift
that happens across the non-P flood narrative: Y ’s heart has
shifted, even as the human heart has not. The general statement,
describing the nature of humanity in a way that goes far beyond the
immediate reality of Noah and his family, represents an adjustment
in Y to a permanent human reality: “the formation of the heart of
humanity is evil from its youth.” At the outset of the flood narrative
Y previously responded to that reality with a decision to interrupt
the natural process of rain and destroy human life (6:5–7; 7:4), but
here—in the wake of Noah’s sacrifice—Y seems to recognize
problems with that line of action and decides not to do so from now
on.55 In this sense, the whole non-P narrative does not provide a
typical etiological explanation for a specific reality in its audience’s
world. At the most, one might view it as providing a broader
cosmological justification for God’s reinforcement of the natural world
and more specific background to prophetic depictions of Y as
not punishing the people as much as they deserve.56
Building on Mesopotamian flood narratives noted above, the non-
P flood narrative provides one clear explanation for this crucial shift
in divine response: it comes just after Y smells the “soothing
smell” (‫ )ריח ניחח‬of Noah’s burnt offering of clean animals from the
ark (8:20–21aα).57 In general, Near Eastern sacrifices were viewed
as prompting gracious divine acts. More specifically, Levitical
regulations state that Y ’s smelling the “soothing smell” is the
goal of offerings burned on the altar (Lev 1:9; 2:2; 3:5); David is
described as praying that Y can be shifted by smelling his
offering (1 ;‫ בי ירח מנחה‬Sam 26:19); and Leviticus and Amos contain
threats of times when Y will not do so (Lev 26:31; Amos 5:21–
22).58 In this case, this unique biblical description of Y actually
smelling the soothing odor may play on Noah’s name. The sweet
smell, niḥoaḥ that Noaḥ produces from the burnt offering of clean
animals implicitly prompts the divine resolve/promise in Gen
8:21aβγb–21 to which the whole non-P flood narrative has been
leading.59 And this play on Noah’s name may represent a way that
the author of this narrative saw Noah’s act as post-flood sacrificer
representing a way that he fulfilled his father’s promise that he would
provide “comfort” (‫ )נחם‬out of products of the ground (Gen 5:29).60
In the end, the non-P narrative thus echoes its ancient Near
Eastern precursors, without offering the sort of etiology of sacrificial
practice that those precursors do. Noah is not described here as
“beginning” to offer sacrifice the way people of Enosh’s generation
“begin” to call on Y ’s name (4:26) or Noah later “begins” to plant
vines (9:20; cf. also Cain’s and Abel’s prior sacrifices in 4:3–4).
Instead, his sacrifice is described as a one-time act that leads to an
all-time decision by Y to never again destroy all life. One might
assume that Y ’s decision in 8:21–22 is prompted by anticipation
of future sacrifices like Noah’s, but that is not stated. Moreover, the
non-P story lacks any counterpart to the Mesopotamian pictures of
gods starving after the destruction of humanity and then clustering
like hungry flies around the flood hero’s sacrifice before deciding
never to destroy humanity again.61
 Indeed, the non-P story contrasts with its Mesopotamian
counterparts in depicting Y sovereignly providing the means to
prevent future floods even as he is caught up in a destructive regret
over human evil that cannot be immediately reversed. Though the
non-P account starts with a picture of Y resolving to “wipe
humanity … off the face of the ground” because of his regret over
having made them (6:5–7), this same Y also provides the
means for the post-flood sacrifice: he selects for survival a man who
finds his favor (6:8; see also 7:1b) and orders him to bring extra pairs
of clean animals onto the ark (7:2). In this way, even before inflicting
the life-destroying flood, Y sets up the conditions in which this
flood hero will eventually provide the soothing smell of burnt sacrifice
that will help prompt Y ’s resolve to never cause a similar, flood-
like destruction of all life.
Concluding synchronic overview of the non-P narrative of Noah
and the flood In sum, the non-P flood strand that is partially
preserved in Gen 6–9 links exclusively with preceding non-P
elements. Above, I discussed how Y ’s “wiping” humanity off the
ground with a forty-day and -night “rain” represents an overwhelming
provision of the rain that was initially missing from creation at the
start of the non-P narrative (2:5). This is just one of numerous ways
that the non-P flood strand particularly connects to the non-P
depiction of Y ’s creation of humanity in Gen 2–3. As we have
seen, non-P’s description of this flood destruction integrally links to
the non-P description of Y ’s creation of humans in Gen 2,
representing its reversal. Much as the non-P Eden-creation story
focused on the relation of the human (hāʾādām) to the ground
(hāʾādāmāh) from which he was formed (Gen 2:7; 3:17–19, 23), the
non-P flood narrative focuses on Y ’s decision to “wipe” humanity
(again hāʾādām) humans off the face of the ground (6:7; 7:4, 23) and
then Y ’s later resolve not to degrade the ground (again
hāʾādāmāh) on account of humanity, killing off all life in the process
(8:21). Thus, in contrast to the Priestly flood account to be surveyed
below, the non-P flood narrative is resolutely focused on Y ’s
actions vis-à-vis the humans that Y created (hāʾādām now
understood as “humanity”; cf. 2:5, 7, etc.), with the destruction and
saving of the animals a relative sideline, with the slight exception of
insurance of extra pure animals for Noah’s sacrifice (7:2; 8:20). Even
non-P’s reference to the death of all human and animal life in 7:22
ends up connecting to the preceding non-P picture of Y ’s
creation of the first human through describing the death of all beings
with “the breath of life in its nostrils” (62,(‫ כל אשר נשמת חיים באפיו‬an
echo and extension of Y ’s bringing the first human to life through
breathing into “his nostrils” (‫ )באפיו‬a “breath of life” (2:7 ;‫)נשמת חיים‬.
In addition, the non-P flood strand offers an understanding of
Noah’s significance that is distinguished from, yet related to the
picture of him in other non-P texts as a “man of the ground” (‫איש‬
‫)האדמה‬, a vintner, who discovered comfort from human toil (‫ )עצבון‬in
the form of grape-wine (5:29; 9:20). Early on, the introduction to the
non-P flood narrative ironically reverses the first part of those non-P
texts, Noah’s father’s proclamation of hope in 5:29. Where Noah’s
father proclaimed that Noah would provide “relief” (‫ )נחם‬from human
“work” (‫ )מעשה‬and “toil” (‫)עצבון‬, Y now “regrets” (‫ )נחם‬having
“made” (‫ )עשה‬humans and feels “anguish” (‫ )ויתעצב‬in his heart (Gen
6:6).63 This ironic pun in Gen 6:6 on the Gen 5:29 proclamation
about Noah’s destiny then clears the way for the non-P flood
narrative’s portrayal of Noah (Noaḥ) primarily as the flood hero who
turned Y ’s heart with a sweet smelling (niḥoaḥ) sacrifice (8:20–
22).
Meanwhile, the preserved elements in this non-P flood narrative
diverge from the surrounding P context in following a chronological
structure particularly oriented to seven- and forty- day intervals.
Forty-day intervals mark the longer periods of the coming (7:4, 12)
and initial receding (8:3a, 6) of the flood waters. Seven-day periods
mark the shorter interval between Y ’s entry order and the
coming of the flood (7:4, 10) and between the three sendings of the
birds (Gen 8:10, 12). As noted above, the conflator did not preserve
an initial non-P instruction to Noah to build the ark, and so we have
no chronological note connected with it. Nevertheless, we may have
a faint reflection of the original non-P chronology in the date now
given in the present text for the arrival of the flood (7:11), which is 47
days (the seventeenth day of the second of two thirty-day schematic
months) into Noah’s 600th year. This otherwise unexplained date, 47
days into the year, thus places Y ’s speech to Noah seven days
in advance of the flood (7:4, 10) exactly forty days after Noah’s 600th
year began. This suggests that the otherwise puzzling date on the
17th of the second month in Gen 7:11 can be explained as a
secondary, conflational echo of a chronology in the original non-P
narrative that placed Y ’s first speech to Noah—now replaced by
the P speech in 6:13–21—forty days prior to the second one (non-P)
in 7:1–4. If so, then non-P’s narrative of the flood spanned 148
days.64 In its early form non-P’s flood chronology thus would have
run as follows:
[Missing non-P first speech of Y
regarding construction of the ark]
Second speech of Y regarding entry into the ark 7:1–4 [40 days after first
speech]
Arrival of the flood 7:10 [7 days after second speech]
Duration of the flood 7:4, 12 [40 days and nights]
Duration of initial receding of flood waters 8:3a, 6 [40 days]
Three sendings of birds at 7 day intervals 8:10, 12 [21 days]
--------------------------------------------------
Total number of days covered 148 days
Though likely not originally intended, it turns out that this 148 day
figure almost exactly corresponds to five lunar months (29.7 days
times 5 = 148.5). Strikingly, the Priestly narrative features a
prominent focus on the flood being caused by an implicit five-month
period of waters prevailing over the ground, in its case 150 days of
five schematic 30-day months (7:24; 8:3b; cf. also 7:11; 8:4). This
parallel of 148 days (for the non-P flood process) and 150 days (in P
for the rise and fall of the flood) is unlikely to be coincidental.
Instead, the P chronology seems like an adaptation of an original
non-P chronology, with the five schematic 30-day months (150 days)
in P standing as a possible oblique testimony to the existence, in
non-P, of a corresponding 148-day flood chronology.

Diachronic Conclusions on the Non-P Synchronic Level of the

Flood Narrative
Mesopotamian precursors Looking back, the non-P flood narrative
features a number of connections to the Mesopotamian flood stories
discussed at the outset of the section, 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 found in the Mesopotamian
tradition, e.g., the convening of the people to construct the ark or
exact counterpart to the goddess memorializing the days of the
flood. Nevertheless, the non-P flood story does follow a similar
trajectory of movement in the Mesopotamian flood narratives from
humans producing discomfort in gods/god through noise (Eridu
Genesis and likely also in the Atrahasis epic) or evil (Gen 6:5–6) to a
divine decision to destroy human life with a flood (6:7; SB Gilg.
11:14; Eridu Genesis 156–159), to a deity’s instructions to his human
devoteé (6:8 “Noah found favor in the eyes of Y ”) on the need to
enter an ark in order to survive the flood (7:1–4; cf. OB Atr 3.1.20––
35; Eridu Genesis 153–160; SB Gilg 11:21–31), the entry into the ark
and shutting the hatch (7:7, 16b; Atr 3.2.51–52; SB Gilg 11:94),
death amidst a violent storm (7:12, 17b, 22–23; OB Atr 3.3.5–24;
Eridu Genesis 201–203; SB Gilg 11:97–116), end of the flood and
sacrifice by the flood hero (8:2b–3a, 20; Atr 3.5.30–32 [see 3.5.34–
36]; Eridu Genesis 204–213; SB Gilg 11:157–160), and—after
smelling the sweet smell of the offering—decision by god/the gods to
allow post-flood humanity to persist (8:21–22; cf. OB Atr 3.5.34–
3.6.4; SB Gilg 11:161–195). In particular, the non-P flood story
shares several elements of the Mesopotamian flood tradition evident
in tablet eleven of Gilgamesh, such as remarkably similar scenes of
the flood hero with birds (SB Gilg 11:147–156//Gen 8:6–12) and the
prominent use of the number seven.65
These parallels suggest that the non-P flood narrative is a
creative appropriation of a Mesopotamian flood tradition especially
like that seen in Gilgamesh. These resemblances then make more
significant the divergences of the non-P flood narrative from its
Mesopotamian precursor(s). Where the Atrahasis epic attributed the
flood to the gods’ annoyance at human noise, the non-P flood
narrative attributes the flood to Y ’s intense unhappiness at the
evil formation of the human heart. The non-P flood narrative also
extends the duration of the flood, attributing it to forty days of
torrential rain (rather than seven). Most significantly, the entire drama
between the high god, Enlil, mother-creator goddess Nintu/Belet-ili,
and crafty Enki/Ea drops out of sight in the non-P version. Instead,
the non-P narrative brings together Y ’s decision for general
destruction (6:5–7) and a resolve by Y to preserve Noah, who
“finds favor” in Y ’s eyes (6:8; 7:1). Meanwhile, the non-P
narrative transforms and reapplies the intense picture of the
goddess’s regret at the flood in Mesopotamian traditions. Where
Mesopotamian flood texts depict a female creatrix (Mami or Belet-ili)
as mourning the deaths of her own creations in the midst of and after
the flood (e.g., OB Atrahasis 3.3.27–50; cf. SB Gilg. 11:169–171),
the non-P flood narrative opens with the creator, Y , mourning
having made humans in the first place and out of that regret
instigating a cleansing flood (Gen 6:7).66 Elements such as these
show the non-P flood narrative to be a highly creative
reconceptualization of its Mesopotamian precursor tradition(s), and
this diachronic background helps highlight and reinforce synchronic
observations about the complexity of the divine character who
stands at the center of the non-P account.
The Two Noahs in the Non-P Primeval History Another
diachronic aspect of the non-P flood narrative concerns the relation
of its depiction of Noah as flood hero to the following (non-P)
depiction of him as founding viticulture and later cursing his
(grand)son in Gen 9:20–27. The introduction to this commentary
already gathered a few of the main arguments that the story of Noah
and his sons in Gen 9:20–27 was part of an earlier non-P primeval
history that was subsequently expanded by the non-P flood
narrative.67 The following treatment of Gen 9:20–27 in this
commentary will reinforce that thesis, exploring multiple ways in
which that story is integrally linked to prior elements of the non-P
primeval history. Meanwhile, the non-P flood narrative has a complex
relation to the non-P history that it expands, standing as an insertion
into that history of a point-by-point Hebrew adaptation of a specific
Mesopotamian tradition (the flood). As such, it interrupts etiological
elements in the surrounding non-P primeval history (e.g., culture
heroes, Gen 4:20–22; pre-Israelite giants and heroes Gen 6:1–4)
and strongly contrasts with the rest of that history in its depiction of
humans and God. It inserts a strong note regarding profound human
evil (6:5–7; 8:21) into a non-P cosmological strand that featured an
ambivalent picture of human failings and of nuanced divine
responses to those failings (e.g., Gen 2:4b–3:24; 4:1–16; 6:1–4).
Building on these and other arguments, we should observe ways
that the non-P flood narrative, though likely secondary to its context,
nevertheless builds on and contrasts with the earlier non-P account
about Noah and his family (Gen 5:29; 9:20–27). For example, where
that story explained Noah’s name as a reflection of him “comforting”
humans “out of the ground” through discovering viticulture (Gen
5:29; 9:20–21), the non-P flood narrative implies an additional
explanation of Noah’s name vis-à-vis his role as flood hero: Y ’s
resolve not to destroy life again was prompted by the “savory scent”
(‫נח‬//‫ )ניחח‬of Noah’s sacrifice (8:20–22). Indeed, the non-P flood
narrative features a striking density of other words more slightly
echoing the nun and ḥet in Noah’s name, from Y ’s “regret” (‫)נחם‬
of having made humans to the way the dove finds a “resting place”
(‫ )מנוח‬on Noah’s hands (8:9).68 These elements, now preceding the
Gen 9:20ff. story of Noah’s discovery of viticulture, offer a
complementary—yet related—understanding of Noah as flood hero
to that of Noah as the primeval figure who discovered viticulture (and
its downsides).
In addition, the initial exposition to the non-P flood narrative in
Gen 6:5–7 connects to the same (non-P) garden of Eden story that
was the reference point for the picture of Noah in Gen 5:29 and
9:20–27, yet it develops motifs from Gen 2–3 in a different way.
Genesis 5:29; 9:20–27 connects Noah back to the non-P creation
narrative by posing him as a “man of the ground” (‫)איש האדמה‬
providing “comfort” (‫ )נחם‬out of it. In contrast, the introduction to the
non-P flood narrative echoes language from Gen 2–3 when it
focuses on Y ’s “regret” (6:6 ‫ ;נחם‬cf. 5:29) and being “labored”
(6:6 ‫ ;יתיצב‬cf. 17 ,3:16 ‫ )יצבון‬at having made (‫ )יצר‬humanity (2:7) and
Y ’s resolve to wipe humanity off of the “ground” (‫ ;האדמה‬Gen
6:5–7). Indeed, the middle of Y ’s speech in Gen 6:6 shares
three distinctive roots with Noah’s father’s anticipation of Noah’s
destiny in Gen 5:29—‫מעשה‬/‫נחם‬, ‫עשה‬, and ‫עצב‬/‫( עצבון‬verb)—with
these roots occurring in the same order as in Gen 5:29, to show a
contrasting echo of his father’s hopes for consolation (5:29) in
Y ’s emphatic disappointment with Y ’s creation work (Gen
6:6).69
The exegetical significance of these diachronic reflections on the
non-P treatment of Noah leads in several directions. To start, it helps
the interpreter identify, and not explain away, the contrast in the
present text between the intensely negative depiction of Y ’s
judgment on humanity in the non-P flood narrative (Gen 6:5–7; 8:21)
and the more complexly ambivalent picture of humanity in Gen 9:20–
27 and preceding parts of the non-P primeval history (e.g., Gen
2:4b–4:26; 6:1–4). Observation of the relation of the non-P flood
narrative to polytheistic Mesopotamian flood accounts also highlights
the complex and somewhat non-resolved picture of Y in the
non-P flood account: as both harsh judge of all humanity (Gen 6:5–7;
7:4//Ea as destroyer) and yet also rescuer of one human along with
his family and animals (Gen 6:8; 7:1//Enki, cf. also Nintu/Belet-ili).

Commentary on the Priestly Story of Noah and

the Flood
Gen 6:9–12. Introduction of Noah and the flood’s causes Where
the non-P flood narrative started with Y ’s decision to wipe
humanity off the face of the earth (6:5–7), with Noah as a virtual
footnote to that decision (6:8), P’s flood narrative starts with an
explicit affirmation of Noah’s absolute righteousness, along with a
focus on his sons (6:9–10). Indeed, for P, Noah is not just righteous
(cf. 7:1b non-P), but “a righteous man” (‫)איש צדיק‬, blameless in his
generations (‫ )תמים בדרתיו‬who “walked with God” as Enosh did (6:9b;
cf. 5:22, 24).
After reiterating a report of Noah’s fathering of Shem, Ham, and
Japheth (Gen 6:10; cf. 5:32), P then describes what has happened
to the rest of the world. The earth has “become ruined” before God
and filled with violence (6:11). P then notes God’s perception of this
ruin (6:12). Where Gen 1 concluded with God “seeing” that all that
was created was good (Gen 1:31), now God “sees” that the earth
was corrupt and full of violence (Gen 6:12). This “violence”
represents an ultimate degradation of the peaceful order that God
established at the end of Gen 1. There God provided a blessing that
humans fill the earth and rule its creatures (1:28) and reinforced
peace between creatures by assigning humans and animals different
parts of vegetation for food (1:29–30). Now creation is “filled” not by
sovereign humans, but by global violence. Violent disorder reigns
where humans were supposed to.
In this way, the exposition in Gen 6:9–12 introduces the two poles
of the Priestly Noah-flood narrative: 1) the violent degradation of the
earth so carefully created and populated by God in Gen 1; and
2) God’s word-driven, covenant-based re-initiation of life on earth
through successive orders to Noah, who stands as the new and
exemplary Adam. Like non-P, the Priestly Noah/flood narrative is
intricately related with a preceding creation account. Yet where non-
P emphasizes Y ’s destruction of evil humanity (the death of
animals just being a byproduct), the first emphasis in P is on God’s
preservation—through Noah—of a seed of humanity and all land-
based animals created in Gen 1. Moreover, the focus of the problem
has shifted in P. Where non-P depicted Y as “wiping” the earth
clean of evil humanity (6:5–7; also 7:23*) and thus treating the
ground poorly (cf. 8:21), P depicts God as responding to a problem
with earth itself, a problem caused by “all flesh” (6:11–12; cf. Gen
1).70
Gen 6:13–22. God’s instructions to Noah and his
compliance With this background, P then reports God’s initial
speech to Noah, starting with a prophetic announcement of
destruction, that the “end of all flesh is coming before me” (6:13aα;
cf. Amos 8:2; Ezek 7:2–3, 5–7) because the earth is full of violence
(6:13aβ).71 The wordplays here stress the justice of the global
destruction. The non-P flood narrative described the death of
animals as a byproduct of Y ’s decision to wipe out humanity out
of regret for making them (Gen 6:5–7). P, however, depicts God as
responding to all creatures’ violent ruin (‫ שחת‬niphal) of earth by
destructively ruining them (‫ )משחיתם‬along with the earth that they
have corrupted (6:13 ;‫את־הארץ‬b). Through this wordplay on ‫ שחת‬and
fronting the announcement to Noah of the end of all flesh because of
the violence of all flesh (Gen 6:13a), P thus emphasizes the justice
of God’s action vis-à-vis both humans and animals.72 At the same
time, the P narrative here again depicts the global flood as God’s
response to a broader problem of the violent corruption of the good
earth that God created.73
This announcement then sets the stage for God’s orders to Noah
that will help him and exemplars of earth’s animals survive this
global destruction. This starts with God’s instructions to Noah in
6:14–16 to build a floating house for living creatures. This will be a
microcosm of the Gen 1 cosmic house, protecting living beings while
the Gen 1 house is about to be temporarily opened to oceanic
water.74 I will return to connections of these ark construction
instructions to Gen 1 shortly, but the links of these instructions in
6:14–16 to the Priestly tabernacle narrative in Exod 25–31, 35–40
are equally striking. The ark instructions here and the tabernacle
instructions are the two loci where P describes God instructing a
human to build a building. This is emphasized through parallel
formulations. Both instructions begin with an initial command for the
human agent (Noah, Moses) to make the house in accordance with
God’s instructions, and both conclude with a particular, double
execution formula that stresses that the human precisely followed
God’s commands (Gen 6:22; Exod 40:16; cf. 39:42).

Gen 6:14–15 Exod 25:8–9

6:14 ‫… עשה לך תבת‬ 25:8 ‫ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם‬
[specific materials]
6:15 ‫וזה אשר תעשה אתה‬ 25:9 ‫ככל אשר אני מראה אותך את תבנית‬
[dimensions] ‫המשכן ואת תבנית כל כליו וכן תעשו‬
6:22 ‫ויעש נח ככל אשר צוה‬ 39:42 ‫ככל אשר צוה יהוה את משה כן עשו‬
‫אתו אלהים כן עשה‬ ‫בני ישראל את כל העבדה‬
40:16 ‫ויעש משה ככל אשר צוה יהוה אתו כן‬
‫עשה‬
6:14 Make an ark for 25:8 Make for me a tabernacle so that I
yourself [specific may live in your midst.
materials]
6:15 This is how you 25:9 According to all that I am revealing
shall make it. to you, the design of the tabernacle and
[dimensions] the design of all its implements, thus you
shall make [it]
6:22 And Noah did this. 39:42 In accordance with all that Y
In accordance with all commanded Moses, thus the sons of
that God commanded Israel did the work.
him, thus he did. 40:16 And Moses did in accordance with
what Y commanded him, thus he
did.

The instructions make clear that both objects are for extended
dwelling. Noah is to make an ark for himself (6:14a) so that he and
those with him can survive the months of the flood (6:19–20), while
Moses is to make a tabernacle for God to dwell in across the time of
wilderness wandering (Exod 25:8; 29:48). There are even some
analogies in the construction of the two dwellings. Though the ark is
much bigger than the tabernacle, the dimensions for both are given
in decimals (ark: 300 x 50 x 30 cubits; tabernacle 30 x 10 x 10), both
are rectangular (with the ark exactly ten times longer than the
tabernacle), and the three levels of the ark are implicitly the same 10
cubit height as the height of the tabernacle.75 Finally, P depicts both
divinely-guided building projects as occurring within a covenantal
context, the covenant with Noah for the ark (6:18) and the covenant
(through Abraham) to be Israel’s God for the tabernacle (Gen 17:7–
8; Exod 6:2–8).76
The links of the Priestly creation, ark and tabernacle narratives
illuminate how God’s instructions to Noah in Gen 6:13–22—like
those for the tabernacle—represent a covenantally-grounded
intervention by the creator God, reinstating a portion of creation
structure/space into a cosmos that has gone awry of God’s initial
orders in Gen 1. This creation-orientation is reinforced by a parallel
sequence in Gen 6:13–22 and Gen 1 moving from 1) watery chaos,
to 2) creation of a water-free (roofed and dry) space to 3) the filling of
that water-free space with land creatures who can reproduce and
populate the earth. To start, much as Gen 1 starts with a notation of
pre-creation chaos (1:1–2), so God’s speech in Gen 6:13–22 begins
with God’s announcement of a coming destructive “ruin” of earth and
its creatures (Gen 6:13). In the case of Gen 1, the pre-creation
chaos described in Gen 1:1–2 sets the stage for God’s creation on
day two of a “roof” in the cosmic house to protect its living space
from the upper ocean and God’s orders on day three of a gathering
of the waters that clears dry ground on which humans and animals
can survive. Similarly, in the Priestly flood narrative, God’s
announcement of oncoming watery ruin in 6:13, leads into God’s
orders for Noah to construct the ark-box, made watertight with pitch
(6:14 ;‫כפר‬b) and covered by a roof (6:16 ;‫ )צהר‬to protect it from the
oceanic waters that will soon be allowed to pour through and ruin the
earth (6:17).77 Finally, much as Gen 1 later describes God’s orders
for the creation of animal and human life on day six (1:24–30), so
Gen 6:18b–20 now features divine orders for Noah to enter the ark
with his family (6:18b) and bring one pair of each kind of land-based
creature—from birds to animals to creeping things—onto the ark.
Genesis 1 depicted God’s initial seeding of creation with animals and
humans for them to multiply in the future. Similarly, the emphasis on
male-female pairs of both humans (Gen 6:18b) and animals (Gen
6:18b–20) represents God’s provisions for humans and animals not
just to survive, but to reproduce in the post-flood future.78
Particularly interesting are the ways that Gen 6:13–22 depict
Noah as an ideal human, fulfilling the destiny of rulership (of
animals) originally envisioned by God for humans toward the
conclusion of the Gen 1 creation narrative. Much as God decreed
that humans should rule the animal world in Gen 1:26, 28, so God
orders that Noah play that role in bringing two of every kind of land-
based creature onto the ark (6:18b–20). Indeed, Noah’s power over
animals is highlighted by this order that he “bring” (‫ בוא‬hiphil) animals
onto the ark (6:19) in contrast with the way God previously
commanded that his own family come “with” him (‫ )אתך … בוא‬onto
the ark (6:18b). Finally, Gen 1 concluded with God’s provision for
human-animal peace through instructions to the human rulers about
separate vegetable foods for humans and animals (Gen 1:29–30).
So also, Gen 6:13–21 concludes with God’s instructions to Noah to
bring food onto the ark for him and the animals (6:21).79 The later P
flood narrative will implicitly report Noah’s successful enforcement of
creation peace in the report that all land-based creatures exited the
ark with Noah (8:18–19), something only possible if the food that
Noah brought onto the ark was all plant based (6:21; cf. Gen 1:29–
30) and each and every animal pair survived the months of shared
life on the ark.
In this way, P’s Noah, God’s righteous and blameless (6:9aβb)
covenant partner (6:18a), exemplifies the creation ideal for human
behavior vis-à-vis God and animals. Not only does he successfully
rule and provide for the animal world preserved on the ark, but his
perfect obedience across the whole Priestly ark narrative exemplifies
the ideal human counterpart to the way God’s initial creation orders
were immediately and exactly executed within the initial six days of
creation. This helps make understandable why, in contrast to the
broader covenant made by God with all creatures after the flood
(Gen 9:9–10, 12, 15–16), God’s whole rescue process here is
founded on a covenant with Noah alone (6:18a), so that his family
only enters the ark with him (6:18b) and animals only survive on
account of Noah’s action toward them (6:19).
In sum, God’s speech in Gen 6:13–21 parallels most elements in
Gen 1. The only elements left to the side are parts that are not
touched on by the coming flood: the institution of time on days one
and four (1:3–5, 14–19) and God’s creation of water creatures on
day five (1:20–23). Otherwise, Gen 6:13–21 follows the pattern of
Gen 1: from chaos (1:1–2//6:13) to creation of dry space (1:6–
13//6:14–16), to population of that space with land creatures (1:20–
21, 24–27//6:18b–20) and provision of food for them (1:29–30//6:21).
Finally, the concluding notice in Gen 6:22 of Noah’s absolutely exact
compliance with all of God’s instructions corresponds especially to
the final notice in Gen 1:31 that God saw that the whole creation was
“very good.” Through these correspondences, the Priestly version of
God’s speech to Noah (6:13–21) and compliance report in 6:22 puts
the primary emphasis on God’s reinforcement of a portion of the
creation order amidst the oncoming ruin of the land-based portion of
God’s creation.80
Gen 7:6, 11, 13–16a. The entry into the ark P’s report of the
actual flood starts with an overall dating of the flood in Noah’s 600th
year (Gen 7:6). This dating coordinates P’s story of the flood with the
year system given in the Gen 5 genealogy of primeval ancestors
from Adam to Noah. Yet where that system gave the year of each
primeval patriarch at the birth of his oldest son—500 years for Noah
in Gen 5:32—Gen 7:6 dates an event in the primeval history, the
flood, in the 600th year of Noah’s life. This year date stands as the
orientation point for the entire (P) Noah section beginning in Gen 6:9
and then concluding with the number of years, 350, that Noah lived
after the flood (Gen 9:28).
P next gives a yet more exact dating for and description of the
arrival of the flood. Within the present text this date is placed on the
17th day of the second month of Noah’s 600th year (7:11), but—as
already suggested above—this particular date, 47 days after the
beginning of Noah’s 600th year—probably represents a conflational
adaptation of a Priestly dating scheme to account for 47 days in the
original non-P account (connecting P’s chronology to non-P’s). A
subsequent P notice dates the drying of the waters to the first day of
Noah’s 601st year (8:13a), and it is likely that P originally had the
flood last across Noah’s 600th year (7:6), starting on its first day (in
an earlier version of the notice in 7:11). This year-long P dating then
would have provided the model for a conflational adaptation that
depicted the flood as lasting a single year, one now extending from
the 47th day of Noah’s 600th year (7:11) to the drying of the earth by
the 47th day of Noah’s 601st year (8:14).81 Nevertheless, in the
original Priestly flood story, this year-long period for the flood-caused
renewal of creation likely extended, as in the case of the year
between exodus and Tabernacle (Exod 12:1–2; 40:1), from New
Year to New Year and thus implicitly tied back in this additional way
to God’s creation of the cosmos.82
Whether or not this is the case, the precise dating system
embedded in P reinforces the idea that certain aspects of the Gen 1
creation structure, such as the time-keeping system established on
days one and four of Gen 1 (1:3–5, 14–19), were untouched by the
flood. Not only does ordered time march on during the flood, but the
Priestly chronological system begun in 7:11a will eventually date the
drying of waters from the earth on the first of the year (8:13), an
implicit anniversary of the initial creation. Meanwhile, the description
of the arrival of the flood in 7:11b indicates that it represents only a
time-limited, partial undoing of creation as conceived in the Priestly
creation story of Gen 1.83 There God erected a dome to separate the
heavenly ocean (1:6–8) and gathered waters to clear dry ground
(1:9–10). Now, the violent “ruination” of the earth caused by land
creatures (6:11–13) causes the splitting open of springs of the
subterranean ocean below the earth and the portals of the heavenly
dome.
P then asserts that Noah and those with him entered the ark “on
this very day” (‫ )בעצם היום הזה‬that this catastrophic breakdown in
ocean barriers occurred. Elsewhere P uses this expression to date
Abraham’s immediate compliance with God’s covenantal order for
circumcision of him and his household (Gen 17:23, 26); to date the
exodus and use it as a reference-point for the Passover celebration
(Exod 12:17, 41, 51); and (in H) to give the annual dates for the feast
of the first fruits (Lev 23:14) and feast of weeks (Lev 23:21). In this
case, the expression occurs in relation to Noah’s precise execution
of God’s orders to enter the ark that were given in 6:18b–21.
Noah enters the ark along with exactly the family members
specified in Gen 6:18b: his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives (7:13).
Moreover, land animals and birds enter the ark as well (7:14), with
P’s entry report in 7:14–16a echoing the Gen 1 report of the creation
of land creatures through listing them in the same sequence and
wording as the creation report in Gen 1:25, including an initial
emphasis on each kind of animal entering (7:14). The latter feature
sharpens the sense that only one pair of each kind of animal was
preserved (cf. 7:8–9). The main differences between Gen 1:25 and
7:14 are the addition of birds to the end of the list and the extra
emphasis in Gen 7:14 on the idea that “every” wild animal and
domesticated animal came on the ark, whereas the modifier “every”
was applied only to creeping land animals in Gen 1:25.84 Finally, the
P ark-entry report concludes by doubly emphasizing that all of these
creatures came to Noah in pairs (7:15–16), with the doubled report
(particularly 7:16aβ) stressing that this was in compliance with God’s
orders, orders that also came in doubled form (cf. 6:19, 20). Notably,
this final report of entry of pairs specifies that they entered “to” Noah
(7:15) in contrast to Noah’s extended family, who entered “with” him
(7:13). As noted above, this reinforces the picture of Noah’s implicit
rule of animals that started with God’s commands to Noah in Gen
6:18–21.
Gen 7:17a*, 18–21, 24; 8:1–2a, 3b–5, 13, 14. The rise and fall
of the flood waters and effects This center of the Priestly Noah-flood
narrative (P in 7:17–8:14*) is focused almost entirely on the action of
the waters. After Gen 7:17a* [minus “forty days”] resumes the
narration of the flood (after an extended focus on entry into the ark in
7:13–16a), the first portion of this unit (7:18–21, 24) narrates the
waters rising over 150 days to cover the world’s highest mountains
and surpass them by fifteen cubits (150 divided by 10; also one-half
the ark’s height in Gen 6:15), thus lifting up the ark (Gen 7:18b) but
killing all life on earth (7:21). The specific wording describes how the
flood waters “prevail” (7:24 ;‫ )גבר‬over the earth, almost like in battle
(cf. Exod 17:11), achieving the final victory of submerging the highest
mountains.85 This leads to the death of “all flesh,” with a specific
review of the land creatures destroyed paralleling their listing in the
initial creation narrative (Gen 1:20–21, 24–25, 26–27).86 Then the
latter portion of this P narration reverses this description point by
point, with the waters beginning to retreat at the end of the 150 day
period (8:3b), and then continuing with the landing of the ark, and
eventual uncovering of the mountains. The following table focuses
on these correspondences:
The waters increasing and Waters receding from off the
prevailing (‫ )גבר‬over the mountains
mountains
7:18 The waters became powerful 8:3b the waters declined at the
and increased much on the earth, end of one hundred fifty days.
and the ark traveled on the face of 4 The ark came to a rest on the
the water. mountains of Ararat
7:19 The waters became very 8:5a but the waters continued to
powerful on the earth, retreat up through the tenth
month.
The mountains that are under the 8:5b … the tops of the
entire heaven were covered up. mountains appeared.
7:20 To a height of 15 cubits
above [the earth] the waters rose
up
so that the mountains were [8:5b … the tops of the
covered. mountains appeared.]
[Centerpoint]
7:21 All flesh that creeps on the
earth died … all of humanity
(‫)כל־האדם‬.
7:24 The waters prevailed on the
earth one hundred and fifty days.

The Priestly text in Gen 8:1–2a, 3a that comes between these

corresponding processes describes the critical event that leads from
the waters’ victory over the earth to their retreat: God’s
“remembering” Noah and the animals (8:1a), sending a wind over
the waters (8:1b), and the closing of the primal springs and heavenly
hatches that had originally caused the flood (8:2a). Such language of
“remembering” is used elsewhere in P to represent God’s
preservation of those under the protection of God’s “covenant” (Gen
9:15–16; 19:29 [see Gen 17]). In this case, God’s active intervention
against the flood represents God’s fulfillment of the “covenant” with
Noah that was initially mentioned in Gen 6:18, along with a striking
remembrance of the animals destroyed by the flood as well.87 Acting
on this covenant remembrance, God sends a wind (‫ )רוח‬that causes
the waters to recede (8:1b), a wind that corresponds to the wind
(‫ )רוח‬that hovered over the primeval sea before God originally
created dry space for land animals (Gen 1:2b before 1:6–10).88 In
addition, P describes a reversal of the opening of springs and
heavenly portals that originally caused the flood (8:2a; cf. 7:11b). In
this way P puts a particular stress on God’s active intervention,
grounded in a covenant with Noah, to restore the particular
structures of creation whose ruin (by humans and animals) had
caused the flood in the first place.
This section assigned to P also features an unusual density of
chronological markers identifying different stages of the receding of
the waters, markers which likely derive from a mix of original Priestly
notices and conflational additions and adjustments of the same. As
the text stands, the process of receding water starts at the
conclusion of the initial 150 day period of rising waters (Gen 8:3b), at
which point the ark comes to rest on the mountains of Ararat on the
seventeenth day of the seventh month [of Noah’s 600th year].
Apparently the thirty-cubit high ark (Gen 6:15) is conceived here as
having a draft that makes it land on the high mountains of Ararat
precisely at the point of highest water, despite the fact that they had
been covered by fifteen cubits of water (7:20).89 The text then
asserts that the waters continued to recede through the tenth month
(8:5a) before the mountain tops finally appeared on the first day of
the tenth month (of the 600th year of Noah’s life; 8:5b). The last two
chronological notices date the waters drying from the earth to the
first day of Noah’s 601st year (8:13) and the earth drying out from
water to the seventeenth day of the second month of that year of
Noah’s life, exactly one year after the flood’s onset (7:11).
It is impossible to achieve surety on the background of this
chronological system, but there are several indications that it
represents a conflational modification of a simpler and somewhat
different chronology in P that lacked the specific datings of the
landing of the ark in 8:4, appearance of the mountaintops in 8:5a,
and drying of the land in 8:14. Firstly, the note that the mountaintops
appeared on the first day of the tenth month (8:5b) comes late after
the immediately preceding note (8:5a) that the waters continued to
recede up through the tenth month, a note that—when considered
along with Priestly notes about two five-month (150-day) periods of
rising and falling waters—appears to coincide with the end of the
tenth month. Secondly, it is not clear exactly how the two datings of
different forms of drying in Gen 8:13 and 8:14 are meant to fit
together, and it appears that the second dating in 8:14, with its
orientation to the 47th day of Noah’s 601st year, is coordinated with
the above discussed, likely conflational dating of the arrival of the
flood exactly one year earlier (7:11).90 Thirdly, the dating of the ark’s
running aground in Gen 8:4 also occurs at a strange locus, having
the ark hit the top of the Ararat mountains at the precise 150-day
point when the waters had risen the most.91 Yet within the conflated
text, this dating in Gen 8:4a* does have a clear rationale: it
coordinates with the above-discussed likely conflational dating in
Gen 7:11 to place the ark’s running aground at the exact midpoint of
the 300 day process of rising and falling waters that is dated there to
the seventeenth day of the second month of Noah’s 600th year.
Seeing the datings in 8:4, 5bα and 14a (and modification of 7:11)
as conflational additions would not only explain details and oddities
in the date system in the Priestly portions of 8:1–14, but it would also
highlight an important emphasis in the original Priestly Noah-flood
narrative: P’s idea that the flood occurred across Noah’s 600th year
(Gen 7:6; see also 9:28) and was completely over by the outset of
the first day of Noah’s 601st year (Gen 8:13). We see a similar
emphasis on the first day of the year in the Priestly tabernacle
narrative (Exod 40:2, 17), one that implicitly links the construction of
the tabernacle with the New Year, and by way of that, with creation.
In this case, the emphasis on the first of the year in Gen 8:13 (and
likely the original P date behind 7:11) originally served a similar
purpose. P anticipated the Near Year elements in the later
tabernacle construction narrative that coordinate it with the
Passover/Spring New Year (Exod 40:2, 17), by asserting in 8:13a,
14bβ that God reestablished the dry ground of the human habitat on
a similar first-of-the year date, this time the first day of the year
anniversary of Noah’s birth.92 Moreover, these New Year
associations with Noah’s birthday also resonate with earlier parts of
P’s narrative that depicted him as the ideal human, a new Adam
successfully ruling over and preserving a seed of the entire land-
based animal world (6:9, 18–21). Yet these creation/New Year
emphases in P are now somewhat obscured by conflational
adjustments and additions in Gen 7:11; 8:4, 5b and 14 that displaced
P’s implicit New-Years-(and creation-) oriented chronology in order to
coordinate it with the non-P chronological system.
Gen 8:15–19 P’s report of the exit from the ark features a
particular emphasis on God’s initiative and the post-flood goal of
human and animal reproduction. Where non-P depicted Noah’s exit
as prompted by him learning of the end of flood on his own (Gen
8:6–12, 13b), P stresses that God gave the order for Noah to exit the
ark (8:15–17) to which he then complied (8:18–19). Furthermore,
God’s order to leave the ark stresses the goal of reproduction.
Where P’s other lists of Noah’s family are organized by the males
and then the females (6:18b; 7:13; 8:18), God’s exit order in P lists
Noah’s family in successive male-female reproductive pairs: Noah
and his wife, Noah’s sons and their wives (8:16).93 Moreover,
whereas earlier in the P flood narrative God orders Noah to bring
animal pairs into the ark “to survive” (6:19b), here God orders Noah
to take them out “so they may swarm on the earth, and be fruitful
and multiply” (8:17b). This emphasis on the multiplication of animals
in 8:17b is all the more striking since P’s original description of God’s
creation of land animals on day six lacked such a divine
multiplication intention (1:24–25), thus contrasting with the
description of creation of sea and air creatures on day four (1:21–22)
and of humans (1:24–28).
The following report of Noah’s compliance depicts the whole
process as a carefully-organized procession. The exit of Noah’s
family is organized by gender, first the men, then the women, with a
final emphasis that Noah’s family exited “with him” (Gen 8:18; see
8:16; 6:18; ). Then P stresses that each animal exited “according to
their families” (8:19 ;‫)למשפחתיהם‬, a term used elsewhere in P to
characterize multi-layered genealogical trees of people (see esp.
Gen 10:5, 20, 31). Thus this probably is not meant to characterize
the exit of animal “families” from the ark—that is animal pairs and
their offspring born on the ark. Instead, it is to stress the way animals
exited the ark organized by various species. It is the equivalent in P’s
post-flood narrative to the emphasis in P’s creation narrative (1:21,
24) and earlier half of the flood narrative (6:20; 7:14) on the creation
and preservation of one pair each of every “kind” (‫ )מין‬of animals.94
Gen 9:1–17. The conclusion to the flood narrative The Priestly
conclusion to the flood narrative consists of two main parts, 9:1–7
and 9:8–17. Genesis 9:1–7 is a single section, bound by an inclusio
in 9:1 and 7, that is focused on regulating the violence that,
according to P, caused the flood (Gen 6:11–13). This regulation then
is a presupposition for God’s covenantal commitment in 9:8–17 that
there will not again be a flood to kill all life and ruin the earth.
Together 9:1–7 and 9:8–17 are both introduced as speeches to Noah
and his sons (9:1a, 8a), and both offer a divine follow-up to P’s pre-
flood prelude in 6:9–22. To start, this group of Noah and sons is the
very same group that was prominently featured at the outset of the
Priestly Noah-flood section (6:9–10). In addition, the content of the
Noah and sons section in 9:1–17 parallels successive elements in
Gen 6:11–21. Just as P’s introduction to the flood narrative moved
from an initial focus on the flood’s roots in human/animal violence
(6:11–13) to God’s covenantally-grounded plan for rescuing Noah
and those “with him” (6:14–21), so P’s conclusion here moves from
regulating the human and animal violence that caused the flood
(9:1–7) to God’s covenant commitment to both humans and animals
not to send another flood (9:8–17). As we will see, the common
focus on animals across both major sections of Gen 9:1–17 can
inform the interpretation of both.
Gen 9:1–7. The regulation of violence As noted above, this sub-
section of P’s conclusion to the flood narrative is bound together by
an inclusio echoing the Gen 1:28 multiplication blessing on humanity,
starting with a more precise echo of its first part—“be fruitful and
multiply and fill the earth” (Gen 1:28aβ*)—in 9:1, and eventually
moving to a modified echo of the blessing that emphasizes that
humans now are to “swarm” and (perhaps) “rule”95 the earth: “and as
for you, be fruitful and multiply, swarm on the earth and rule it.” The
interpretation of the whole of 9:1–7 should be guided by this
enclosing set of themes.
 The intervening section in 9:2–6 is divided between two main
parts. The first, in 9:2–4, is focused on God’s modification of parts of
the peaceful cosmic order established in Gen 1:26–30. Now God
sharpens human rule over animals (Gen 9:2; cf. 1:26, 28) and
modifies the food regulations initially given to humans (Gen 1:29–30)
by allowing human killing and eating of animals for food, with the
exception of their “life,” that is their “blood” (9:3–4). The second main
part, in 9:5–6, explicitly prohibits the killing of humans by either
animals or other humans, because of the humans’ special status as
God’s image (9:6b). In the initial section introducing a new
vulnerability of animals to humans, God gives animals “into the
hand” of the humans (9:2b), especially in the sense of allowing
humans to kill all animals for food (9:3–4). In the following section
underlining the sanctity of human life, God states that God will
demand a reckoning96 of human blood/life “from the hand” of any
animal (9:5a) or human (9:5b) who pours it out (9:6a). Together,
these two parts—allowing specific forms of human violence against
animals (9:2–4) and explicitly prohibiting the killing of godlike
humans by humans or animals (9:5–6)—reinforce human
multiplication (and rule) in the post-flood period (9:1, 7) in light of the
earth-ruining violence that caused the flood (Gen 6:11–13).
Overall, it is important to see how the instructions to Noah and
his sons in Gen 9:1–7 reinforce and modify the creation order
established in Gen 1. That text did not feature any instructions to
humans about killing. It only outlined an implicitly peaceful order
where humans and animals did not need to kill or even compete with
each other for food, with humans being granted calorie-rich seeds for
food (1:29) and animals the plentiful green vegetation (1:30).
Genesis 9:1–7 now modifies that initial creation order. The most
specific parallels occur at the outset of 9:1–7 and are noted in the
table below:97
Gen 1:28–30 Gen 9:1–4
28a* Multiplication blessing, fill 1 Multiplication blessing, fill the
the earth earth
(rest of) 28 Humans are to 2 Terror of you on all classes of
subdue/tread on earth, rule animals mentioned in 1:28:
animals: fish, birds, moving birds, moving beings on ground,
beings on ground fish.
29–30 Instructions to humans 3–4 Instructions to post-flood
regarding food sources males (Noah and his sons)
revising the food instructions in
1:29–30
(implicit peaceful order: no killing (regulated violence against
for food or competition for food) animals allowed)
29 seeds will be (‫ )יהיה‬for food 3 animals now will be (‫ )יהיה‬for
(‫ )לאכלה‬for humans food (‫)לאכלה‬
30 vegetation-leaves as food 4 Prohibition of eating “life”
(‫ )לאכלה‬for animals (blood) in meat

These parallels already indicate one way in which the regulations

regarding animals in Gen 9:2–4 echo God’s creation of humans as
godlike rulers in Gen 1:26, 28. In that text, God created humans as
god images in order to rule (1:26), with humans thus bearing the
physical stamp of their special status before the living creatures that
they dominate. Now, in Gen 9:2a, God reinforces that rule by having
earth’s creatures experience fear and terror before these human god
images, much as a subject would feel terror before an absolutely
powerful king. Indeed, much as the divine multiplication blessing
reiterated God’s plan for human rule by decreeing God’s intent that
humans dominate creatures in the sea, sky, and those that move on
earth (1:28b), so here God enforces terror on the same tripartite set
of animals (in different order): birds of the sky, those that move on
earth, and fish of the sea (9:2a).98 All are given “into the hand” of
post-flood humanity much as divine salvation oracles announce to
kings that their enemies are given into their hands.99
 The regulations regarding eating of animals in Gen 9:3–4 follow
up on and extend this reinforcement of human rule in Gen 9:2. There
God pronounced that fear and terror of humans would be on
(imperfect/future of ‫ )היה‬animals and that they are given (‫ )נתן‬into the
hands of humans. In Gen 9:3 God pronounces that all living things
that move are (‫ )יהיה‬provided to humans “for food” (‫ )לאכלה‬and that
all are “given” (‫ )נתן‬to them in this sense. Thus, not only do humans
enjoy extra protection from animal violence because of animal terror
before them (9:2), but human multiplication and filling the earth (9:1,
7) is also promoted by the fact that humans now have a new,
important food source: the flesh of animals (minus the blood/life in
that flesh). We already saw a post-flood emphasis in God’s exit order
to Noah on the importance of land animals swarming and multiplying
on the earth (Gen 8:17b; cf. 1:24–25). Now God pronounces that
these animals—who will be multiplying and swarming in the post-
flood period—will stand as a food source for humans that will be as
plentiful as the greenery once specified as animal food (1:29).100
It is important to note that this is not envisioned as a complete
abrogation of the initial peaceful order of creation. Instead, God’s
instructions about animals in 9:3–4 are a targeted revision aimed at
regulating the violence that caused the flood and also promoting
human multiplication. Indeed, Gen 9:3–4 says nothing explicitly
about killing animals, even as that is implied. Moreover, animals are
not to be killed randomly, but for food.
Through presenting these food regulations in 9:3–4 as a post-
flood revision of the Gen 1 creation order P makes clear that the
killing and eating of animals is not the only way that the world might
be ordered, and not even the best way. After all, Noah is depicted in
this very narrative as an ideally righteous human ruler of animals,
shepherding the world’s animals onto the ark and successfully
enforcing a peaceful order among animals and humans over the
entire year of the ark’s voyage. Moreover, animals—despite now
being at the disposal of humans for the specific aim of nourishment
—will be depicted by P as enjoying divine protection from a future
flood in their status as partners, alongside post-flood humans, in
God’s post-flood covenant (Gen 9:10). In this sense, P depicts
human consumption of animals as a concession to the reality of
violence that caused the flood. At the same time, Gen 9:1–4
presents animal consumption as a new good as well: an extension
and intensification of the divine blessing and intent for human rule
given in Gen 1:28: providing food for post-flood human (animal)
rulers as they multiply.101
The regulations prohibiting the killing of humans in Gen 9:5–6
stand as a contrast to those regarding animals. Whereas humans
can shed animal blood but not eat it (9:4), God will demand a
reckoning for any human blood shed by animals (9:5a) or humans
(9:5b). And this latter principle is underlined by the legal formulation
of 9:6a: “one who pours out the blood of the human, for the human
his blood will be poured out.” The conclusion in Gen 9:6b then
justifies this contrasting treatment of violence against humans (9:4–
5a) versus animals (9:3–4): humans [and not animals] were made as
God’s image.102
In the past, this section often has been read as an endorsement
of the rule of [revenge] talion, especially 9:6a, which has been
rendered along the lines of “one who pours out the blood of a
human, by a human his blood will be poured out.” Nevertheless, as
pointed out by several interpreters, the abb’a’ structure of this legal
formulation places the two instances of “human” next to each other,
a pattern that would suggest a similar reference for both: the victim
of the murder. Moreover, the preceding verse stresses that God will
demand a reckoning from the hand of an animal or human shedding
the blood of human (9:5). This can be understood as an implicit
rejection of human revenge and replacement of it with divine
punishment. Indeed, having God endorse human retaliation in 9:6a
would seem to encourage an increase in the very cycle of violence
that P portrayed as the cause of the flood (6:11–13).103
Thus, rather than approving of human revenge, Gen 9:6a seems
to envision a process of retribution that is first and foremost
governed by God. In this sense, the principle expressed in 9:6a
stands as a universal version of the sort of promise given by Y
to Cain in Gen 4:15. In that case, Y promised protection for
Cain, setting a sign on him that indicated that Y would exact a
sevenfold revenge against anyone who killed him. This promise of
divine revenge in 4:15 then stood in contrast to that boasted of by
Cain’s later descendant, Lamech, who sang of himself executing an
extravagant level of revenge—killing a boy for merely wounding him
and executing seventy-seven fold revenge in place of Cain’s
sevenfold revenge (4:23–24). Lamech’s sort of spiral of revengeful
human violence is akin to that envisioned by P at the outset of the
flood.104 Now, P’s narrative of the aftermath of the flood depicts God
giving humanity a restricted version of the divine promise given to
Cain in 4:15. Now God will seek the life of any animal killing a human
or the life of any human killing his fellow “brother” (‫ ;אחיו‬Gen 9:5; cf.
Gen 4:1–16), and this then means that any being that pours out the
blood of a human will have their own blood poured out on account of
that human (9:6a). The whole is then justified by the particular worth
of the human victim: that person was made as God’s image (9:6b).
In sum, the overall point of 9:5–6 is not the institution of a system of
justice in which humans kill other humans—though some kind of
sacral justice system is probably implied as the strategy by which
God demands a reckoning for human lives. Instead, P’s point here is
that God instituted measures after the flood to prevent the sort of
spiralling violence directed by humans against humans that caused
the flood in the first place. And it is this divine prevention of human
violence that most clearly serves the goal of the multiplication
blessing that begins (9:1) and ends (9:7) the overall section.
In this way, the special protection of humans seen in 9:5–6a
echoes the protection of humans implied in 9:2a, where God
promised that terror and fear of humans would be on animals.105
Moreover, just as the special protection of human life in 9:5–6a is
grounded in 9:6b by the idea that God made humans as God’s
image, so also the promise of terror on animals is implicitly linked to
this idea as well: animals shrink from the human image as abject
subjects stand in terror of their royal ruler. In this way, all of the latter
parts of Gen 9:5–7—including the above-noted contrast between
expressions involving “the hand” in 9:2b and 5—echo and contrast
with portions of 9:1–4.
Gen 9:1 multiplication Gen 9:7 multiplication blessing
blessing, “and fill the
earth”
Gen 9:2a terror on Gen 9:6b emphasis on humans as God’s
animals of [godlike] image
humans
Gen 9:2b animals Gen 9:5 God demands a reckoning “from
given “into the hand” of the hand of” any animal or human killing a
humans human
Gen 9:3 killing of Gen 9:6a any who shed blood of a human,
animals allowed for for the human that one’s blood will be shed
human food

The whole leads from (9:1) and to (9:7) the goal of humans being
fruitful and multiplying, while much of the core in 9:2–6 works toward
that goal through a new polity of humans with each other and with
animals. The post-flood human-animal polity outlined in the two
halves of 9:2–6 will avoid the outbreak of violence that caused the
flood, protect humans, and provide yet more plentiful (animal) food to
promote human multiplication. The main element throughout is
God’s reinforcement and development of the human status as
godlike rulers (1:26–28), now standing as non-killable, sacrosanct
divine images who rule and (now) eat animals (9:2–6). Indeed, this
sharpening of human rule may be expressed in an original reading of
the blessing in 9:7 as “be fruitful and multiply and rule the earth”
(some LXX mss), a reading that may have been modified early on to
“and swarm over the earth” to harmonize 9:7 with the focus on
multiplication in Gen 9:1 and 7.106
Gen 9:8–17. God’s post-flood covenant with humans and
animals The P Noah-flood narrative ends with this set of related
speeches to Noah and his sons. These speeches narrate God’s
covenant commitment not to bring another flood, each speech
relating to a different time point in the process of the post-flood
covenant. The first speech report introduction in 9:8, directed to
Noah and his sons, stands parallel to the blessing on Noah and his
sons in 9:1a and identifies 9:8–17 as a unit comparable to and
following up on the blessing in 9:1–7. It introduces God’s
announcement of the imminent making of a covenant in the future
(‫“ ;הנני מקים‬I am about to establish” 9:9). The second speech
introduction at the outset of 9:12, “and God said,” lacks any
indication of addressee and thus merely extends and subdivides an
overall speech sequence that began in 9:8. In this case, the outset of
9:12 distinguishes the anticipation of future action in 9:8–11 from the
description of present action in 9:12–16: God’s placement of a bow
in the clouds to serve as a future memory-sign for God of the
longterm covenant with life on earth that God is making right now
(9:12, ‫ֹתן‬
ֵ ‫)נ‬. The third and final speech introduction in 9:8–17 then is
directed at Noah alone (9:17a). It now looks back on the covenant
that God has already made with all life on earth, reaffirming to him
the idea that the bow stands as a sign of that, now established,
covenant (9:17b). In this way the speech reports chronologically
structure the overall covenant section in 9:8–17 into successive
sections looking forward to (9:8–11), reporting on (9:12–16) and
looking back on (9:17) God’s making of a covenant commitment,
with a focus on the setting of the sign of the rainbow as the mark of
God’s establishment of this covenant that is visible to the earth-
based humans and animals who are the covenant’s passive
recipients.
Gen 9:8–11 This introduction, anticipating God’s post-flood
covenant, clarifies the parties to the covenant and its overall content.
Though the speech is directed to Noah and his sons (9:8), it first
makes clear that the covenant that God is “about to establish” (‫הנני‬
9:9 ;‫מקים‬a) has a broader scope: it also encompasses the future
offspring of Noah and his sons (9:9b) and the animals (9:10–11). The
wording here indicates that these are the beings that just journeyed
with Noah in the ark. Noah’s sons are “with him” (9:8b) much as his
family was “with Noah” in the ark (6:18; 8:16, 18), and the animals
are described as those who came out of the ark (9:10; cf. 8:19b).
And it is within this decisively post-flood context that God announces
that God will be establishing a covenant with earth-based creatures
not to kill them off again through waters of a flood (9:11).107
 Gen 9:12–17 At this point, the speech reports in 9:12–16 and
17 shift to the present to describe God’s making of a covenant (9:12)
and the perfective/past to refer back to God’s establishment of the
rainbow sign (9:13a) to serve as a future reminder (9:13b–16) and
then the past making of the covenant (9:17). Within the storyworld
Noah and his sons are thus onlookers to the outward signs of God’s
covenant making process, not specific participants in it.
This post-flood covenant thus contrasts with the later Abrahamic
covenant (Gen 17) in involving obligations exclusively on God’s side
and not on the side of God’s covenant partners. That later
Abrahamic covenant includes a requirement that its human partners
“observe” the covenant by putting the “sign” of circumcision on their
males. In contrast, the rainbow “sign” marking this post-flood
covenant (9:12–17) is constructed exclusively by God, and it
functions exclusively in relation to God: it reminds God of God’s
commitment not to send another flood. Some rabbinic interpretations
have seen covenant obligations in Gen 9:2–6, but the very
separateness of these obligations from Gen 9:8–17 undermines that
approach.108 Although God prepares for God’s covenant through
adjusting and reinforcing the human rule over animals in 9:2–6,
nothing in the covenant of Gen 9:8–17 is made conditional on
humans (or animals) fulfilling the post-flood stipulations given to
Noah and his sons. This is underlined by the fact that God can refer
at the conclusion (9:17) to the covenant sign as a mark of a
covenant already established (‫ )אשר הקמתי‬despite the fact that Noah
and his sons have not been asked to do nor done anything in
response to God’s covenantal announcement.
There is general agreement that the rainbow here is God’s
weapon, with colorful rainbows in the sky being understood as God’s
counterpart to the powerful bows that often served in the ancient
Near East as symbols of the military power of ancient kings depicted
as bearing them. Nevertheless, there is some question about the
exact significance of this divine rainbow weapon. Some (e.g.,
Zenger) have argued that verse envisions God’s placement of God’s
bow at the ready, thus showing God’s commitment to fight flood
chaos in the future. In contrast, others (e.g., Rüterswörden) have
understood this element in Gen 9:13–16 to be an unstrung bow that
God puts up and away as a reminder not to use flood waters to fight
against earth creatures ever again.109 This commentary finds the
latter perspective more persuasive. The text repeatedly emphasizes
that the (rain)bow is useful for reminding God not to do something
(9:15b). Indeed, the text stresses that this covenant sign/memory
aide is a rainbow in the clouds. As such, it stands in God’s direct
line-of-sight if God is inclined to make those clouds rain, reminding
God to be restrained. In this way, both the explicit content of P’s
post-flood covenant (9:11, 15b) and its sign are specifically focused
on God’s promise not to send another flood, where Y in non-P
more generally committed not to strike down all earthly life (8:21b) or
otherwise treat the earth poorly (8:21a) or disrupt natural rhythms
(8:22).
Gen 9:8–17 as God’s post-flood covenant, not the Noachic
covenant In conclusion, it must be emphasized that—contrary to
how it often has been interpreted—Gen 9:8–17 is not the “Noachic
covenant” but “God’s Post-flood covenant” with all earth-based
creatures (not just Noah). To be sure, the earlier covenant with Noah
(Gen 6:18) and this post-flood covenant are similar in content: both
involve God’s preservation of earth-based life from a flood. This
linkage is reinforced through echoes of vocabulary from the
preceding (P) flood narrative in God’s post-flood commitment not to
“ruin” (Gen 9:11, 15; cf. 6:11, 17) “all flesh” (Gen 9:11, 15; 6:17) ever
again.110 In addition, the two covenants are related: God’s
faithfulness in “remembering” the covenant with Noah and ending
the flood (8:1–2a) provides reason for post-flood humanity to trust
God’s future faithfulness in similarly “remembering” this new post-
flood covenant and not destroying life with a future flood (9:15–
16).111 Nevertheless, the pre-flood covenant with Noah was
situation-specific and only allowed Noah and those with him to
survive. In contrast, this post-flood covenant includes new partners
(9:9b–10), functioning to prevent a flood for all future generations of
humans and animals, thus extending into the future of the text’s
readers, including every generation of earthly life into eternity (9:12).
Gen 9:28–29 Where earlier P sections on primeval patriarchs
concluded by giving the years that they lived after the birth of their
firstborn son (e.g., 5:4, 7, 10, 13), this special P section on Noah
(beginning in 6:9–10) gives the number of years that he lived after
the flood. This is yet one more indication of P’s focus on the flood in
this section and on dating that event.
Concluding synchronic overview of P’s flood narrative Overall,
the P Noah-flood section in Gen 6:9–9:29* is an orderly, concentric
depiction of God’s control over a chaotic, life-destroying flood.
A Initial genealogical label focused on righteous Noah and his sons (6:9–10)
B1 Notation of violence ruining the earth (6:11–12) then
B2 Divine Speech to Noah about flood and instructing Noah’s
preservation (6:13–21)
C Divinely ordered entry into the ark [possibly on first day
of year 600] (7:6, 13–16a)
D 150 days of waters triumphing, ark floating, mountains -
covered (7:18–21, 24)
E God (covenant) remembers Noah, sends wind, closes -
hatches (8:1–2a)
D' 150 days of waters receding, ark landing, mountains
appear (8:3b–5)
C’ Divinely-ordered exit from ark on day 1 of 601st year
(8:13a, 14b–19)
[B’—two speech sections addressed to Noah and his sons 9:1–17]
B1’ God’s multiplication blessing (9:1, 7) framing instructions re.
violence (9:2–6) then
B2’ Speech series chronicling divine post-flood covenant for no more
floods to ruin the earth (9:8–17)
A’ Final genealogical notice dated vis-à-vis the flood 9:28–29
In the end, P stresses God’s sovereign control over the process. To
begin, God stands behind the corresponding “ruin” of all life because
of all life’s “ruin” of the earth (Gen 6:11–13), a ruin that involves a
temporary, 150 day inbreaking of the waters (7:11, 18–21, 24) that
God earlier had restrained on days two and three of creation (Gen
1:6–9). Yet more importantly, the bulk of P’s narrative is a multi-stage
story focused on God’s provision for post-flood life: 1) God’s
covenant-based creation, through Noah, of a floating microbiome to
preserve a seed of all land-based animals amidst the flood; 2) God’s
(covenant-based) remembering of Noah, repulsing of the once-
triumphant flood waters, and recreation and repopulation of dry land
space (8:1–2a, 3b–5, 13a, 14b–19); and 3) God’s subsequent
provisions for future multiplication of humans and population of the
earth (9:1, 7) through regulation of the violence that originally caused
the flood (9:2–6) and establishment of a new covenant (now with all
humans and animals) not to send another global flood ever again
(9:8–17).
One distinctive characteristic of P, compared to non-P, is its
emphasis on animal and human violence as the cause of the flood.
We see a possible implicit focus on violence already in Gen 5 with
the focus in P on pre-flood primeval patriarchs’ names linked with
downfall (Jared) and violence (Methusaleh “man of spear” and
Lamech). This emphasis then becomes explicit in P’s description of
the causes of the flood (6:11–13) and God’s provisions to prevent a
future one (9:2–6).
This Priestly focus on violence, especially the threat of “pouring
out” of “blood” of a “brother” by another human (9:5–6a) and a flood
of such violence (6:11–13), is something that links P’s Noah-flood
narrative with the material about Cain and Lamech in Gen 4:1–24.112
That text, which is in the non-P primeval history, initially depicted
Cain shedding the blood of his brother, Abel, the ground crying out
from the shed blood that it took from Cain’s “hand” and being cursed
because of it. These elements in non-P correspond to P’s picture of
the “ruin” of the earth by human (and animal) violence (Gen 6:11–13)
and P’s later focus on how God will demand a reckoning for poured
out blood “from the hand” of those who murder humans (9:5). The
concluding part of P’s treatment of violence even uses language
specific to non-P about “the human” (‫ )האדם‬for its legal formulation:
“one who pours out the blood of the human, for the human his blood
will be poured out.” (9:6a) Furthermore, P’s attribution of the flood to
the corruption of earth through an outbreak of violence parallels the
picture in Gen 4:1–24 of earth’s ground made unproductive after
receiving Abel’s blood (4:10–12) and then a widening spiral of
violence (4:14–24). We first see this spiral in Cain’s fear of a world
where anyone who meets him will kill him (4:14) and Y ’s
seeming validation of Cain’s fear (4:15). Genesis 4 then illustrates an
escalation of violence within the Cain line through having Lamech
boast about having killed other individuals for just wounding him
(4:23). Moreover, where Y aimed to prevent violence against
Cain by threatening sevenfold revenge on anyone killing him (Gen
4:15), Lamech boasts of having executed intemperate revenge
himself, executing seventy-seven fold revenge himself in place of
God’s promise of seven-fold revenge (4:24). In the wake of the flood,
P depicts God rejecting this sort of escalation of violence, again
aiming at prevention through instituting life-for-life revenge (9:6a),
where God demands the reckoning for human bloodshed (9:5b),
including the murder by humans of fellow brothers, rather than
allowing the sort of spiral of human revenge depicted in the Cain-
Lamech line.
All these could stand as synchronic links between the P Noah-
flood narrative and the Non-P material about Cain and Lamech that
precedes it now in Genesis, yet there are also some incongruities
between P’s treatment of violence in Gen 6:9–9:17* and the material
about Cain and Lamech in Gen 4. To start, Gen 4 seems to depict
the Cain-Lamech line as especially prone to violence, especially
when the material about Cain-Lamech in 4:1–24 is considered
alongside the material about the Sethite line in Gen 4:25ff. This link
of violence specifically with the Cain-Lamech line in Gen 4 contrasts
with P’s picture of a global flood of violence ruining the earth and
causing the flood (6:11–13). In particular, P explains the death of
animals in the flood by attributing the flood to an outbreak of violence
by humans and animals, decreeing an end of “all flesh” because “all
flesh” has ruined its way on the earth (6:12b) so that the earth is full
of violence because of them (6:13aβ, also 6:11b). The non-P Garden
of Eden did feature a brief anticipation of violent enmity between the
snake and future offspring of the humans (Gen 3:15), but there is
nothing in Gen 4 or other parts of non-P to anticipate P’s attribution
of the flood to human and animal violence or to prepare for P’s new
instructions regulating human—animal violence in Gen 9:2–4
(human violence against animals) and 5a (animal violence against
humans). In this sense, the P Noah-flood narrative seems to
conceive of the flood’s causes along the lines of the non-P picture of
violence in the Cain-Lamech line, even as P’s concept of global pre-
flood human-animal violence ruining the entire “earth” (‫ )הארץ‬goes
far beyond the more focused non-P depiction of Cain’s murder
leading to a curse of the ground (‫ )האדמה‬for him and the later
depiction of Lamech’s boast about out-of-control human revenge
(4:23–24).113
As suggested by Baumgart, this particular focus on violence in
the P Noah-flood story may provide some clues to the socio-
historical world of the anticipated audience of P’s text.114 If it is true
that P was written in a diasporic or post-diasporic context, its
author(s) and envisioned readers may have felt themselves amidst a
world characterized by global, catastrophic violence, indeed violence
extreme enough to threaten their very existence. P’s Noah-flood
narrative responds to that reality by stressing God’s powerful,
covenantally-grounded intervention to preserve life amidst such
violence, first amidst the flood and then forevermore. Moreover, P’s
post-flood conclusion attempts to provide a credible picture both of
God’s long-term provisions to regulate violence for the globe as a
whole (9:2–6) and God’s oath-bound resolution not to execute world-
destroying flood violence ever again (9:8–17). To be sure, P adds
into this picture an implication of animal violence (6:11–13; cf. 9:2–5)
that is likely less a reflection of the audience’s world than a reflex of
P’s concern that the death of animals in the flood be morally
explained. Nevertheless, this inclusion of animals into the picture
also allows P to depict God’s intervention for human life as an
outgrowth of God’s cosmic creative power: ending a global, life-
destroying flood through a sovereign reinstatement of the basic
structures of creation, structures put in place to insure human
flourishing and multiplication (1:28; 9:1, 7).

Diachronic Conclusions on the Priestly Synchronic Level of the

Flood Narrative
Mesopotamian precursors Like the non-P flood narrative, the P
Noah-flood narrative also shows significant connections to
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 parallels to important aspects of the Mesopotamian flood
accounts, particularly their polytheistic dimension. Nevertheless, in
addition to featuring detailed parallels to the plot of the
Mesopotamian flood accounts, P appears to echo those accounts in
its idea that the ark was constructed in part from reeds (‫ קנה‬Gen
6:14), its concept that the ark’s dimensions correspond to the temple
sanctuary, and its use of Akkadian loan words for “pitch” (Gen 6:14)
and the “closing” (‫ סכר‬a hapax legomena in 8:2; cf. Akkadian sekēru)
of the heavenly portals.115 Finally, God’s resolve to set a rainbow in
the clouds so that God would “remember” the covenant not to send
another flood (Gen 9:13–16) may represent a faint biblical echo of
the Mesopotamian motif of the goddess’s post-flood resolve that the
flies on her necklace would stand as an eternal reminder of the days
of the flood (OB Atr 3.6.3–4; SB Gilg. 11:164–167).116 In sum, these
links between P and Mesopotamian flood accounts, all in addition to
the parallels that both P and non-P have with those accounts, are
good evidence that P modelled parts of its narrative on
Mesopotamian precursors, reflecting specific knowledge of those
traditions that suggests independent access.
Nevertheless, in other respects P diverges yet more from the
Mesopotamian precursors than its non-P counterpart. Whereas the
Mesopotamian and non-P traditions attribute the flood to Y ’s/the
gods’ wish to annihilate humanity, P turns the flood narrative into a
story more focused on God’s response to the corruption of a good
earthly creation (Gen 1) by both humans and animals (Gen 6:11–13).
Indeed, P’s picture of God actively promoting human multiplication
both before and after the flood (Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7) is diametrically
opposed to the overall focus in the Atrahasis epic on successive
divine measures to counteract the noise produced by a humanity
that initially reproduced too much and produced irritating noise. This
difference corresponds then to P’s broader way of setting the flood
within the dynamics of God’s work of creation. Where the
Mesopotamian (and also non-P) flood stories featured fairly stark
pictures of deities actively seeking the total destruction of humans, P
places the “end” of all earth-based life (Gen 6:13a) as part of God’s
justified destruction (‫ שחת‬hiphil) of an earth thoroughly corrupted by
animal and human violence (‫ שחת‬niphal; Gen 6:13b; also 6:11–12).
Moreover, P depicts the flood as extending over a longer time
horizon than its precursors. Where Mesopotamian accounts see the
flood as consisting of a seven day rush of storm water overcoming
the people like an army (OB Atr 3.3.12; SB Gilg. 11:111) and non-P
had a forty-day flood (7:4, 12), P depicts the flood as a 150-day
period of oceanic waters triumphing over the mountains (7:18–21,
24), one that was caused by the opening of earthly and heavenly
portals (7:11). The end and aftermath of the flood in P also is quite
different from its precursors. Where the Mesopotamian accounts
depict wind as a key characteristic of the seven-day storm (OB Atr
3.3.5–24; Eridu Genesis 201–203; SB Gilg. 11:97–116 [six days,
seven nights]), the P account depicts God as initiating the end of the
flood through sending a wind over the flood waters (Gen 8:1b, cf.
Gen 1:2b). Finally, where the Mesopotamian and non-P flood
traditions attributed the divine change in heart to a sacrifice by the
flood hero, P depicts God’s resolve regarding another flood as
grounded in a post-flood covenant commitment to Noah and other
post-flood life with him (9:8–17), a covenant echoing the earlier one
with Noah that led to the preservation of his life and that of others
with him in the ark (6:18).
P’s Flood Narrative in Relation to the Non-P Flood Narrative In
addition, there is the question of the relation of P’s Flood Narrative to
Non-P. Though one might consider P’s flood narrative to be prior or
parallel to its non-P flood counterpart, there are several reasons to
suppose that P’s flood account post-dates the non-P version, indeed
that it is modelled on non-P’s complex treatment of Noah, including
the non-P flood narrative. First, we can suppose a high likelihood of
genetic relation of these biblical flood narratives to each other
because of their extensive parallels, including specifically parallel
elements that are not present in Mesopotamian precursors (e.g.,
items 1, 3, 7 in the above source analysis).117 The narratives share
rare expressions, such as ‫ תבה‬for the ark or ‫“( מבול‬cosmic ocean”)
and parallels at the phrase (e.g., Gen 6:9//7:1) and sentence level
(Gen 6:22//7:5). In addition, there are several data that suggest that
the genetic relationship of the P and non-P flood narratives went in
the direction from non-P to P. For example, in the above commentary
I discussed indicators that P’s chronology based on 150-day
increments may have been an adaptation of a non-P chronology that
plotted the flood process over a 148-day period. So also, P in Gen
6:17 and 7:6 seems to include initial explanations of the rare term,
‫( מבול‬originally “cosmic ocean”), that is used (without explanation) in
non-P for the flood (Gen 7:10).118 Finally, P’s inclusion of animals as
culpable in the flood-causing ruin of the earth (6:11–13) can be seen
as a way of dealing with the problems of theodicy in non-P’s
description of Y destroying all land-based life because of human
evil (Gen 6:5–7).119 And these are just some of the apparent blind
motifs reflecting non-P elements that are embedded in P, marking it
as—in part—modelled on the non-P flood narrative.120
 Comparisons of P to its biblical and non-biblical precursors help
the interpreter see how P represents a relative downplaying of God’s
destructive role in the flood. Instead, P puts its emphasis on God as
restoring the structures of creation and on God’s preservation of life
in the midst of and after the flood. Though P includes initial elements
about the causing of the flood by human and animal violence (Gen
6:11–12), it puts more stress on God’s initiatives to preserve and
restore life on earth. To be sure, God observes the ruin of the good
creation order caused by human and animal violence and then
correspondingly inflicts a destructive ruin on earth (Gen 6:13, 17).
Nevertheless, this just sets the stage for P to devote more textual
space to God’s initiatives to preserve human and land-based animal
life amidst and after this catastrophe (6:14–16, 18–21; 9:1–17). In
this way, we can see the Priestly flood narrative as a step in the
evolution of the Noah-flood narrative from being an account
somewhat focused on God’s will to destroy humans because of
pervasive evil (the non-P flood account) to an account more focused
on God’s rescue of Noah and restoration of earth-based life. It is this
latter accent that ends up characterizing the final P/non-P form of the
text and influencing numerous later interpretations of it.

Comments on the Present Combined P/non-P

Noah-Flood Story
The above diachronic prologue already gave an overview of the
combined dating system now in Gen 6:9–9:29, and the commentary
on the non-P and P Noah-flood strands added some discussion of
potential conflationary passages within Gen 6:5–9:17, 28–29.
Overall, the identifiable additions by the conflator seem to
concentrate in two categories: 1) a series of chronological additions
(in Gen 8:4, 5b, 14) or revisions (likely in 7:11) added into Priestly
contexts; and 2) a series of additions to non-P texts of three-part
catalogues of land creatures (‫בהמה‬, ‫עוף‬, ‫[ רמש‬animals, birds,
creeping things]) that were destroyed by the flood (from-to
catalogues added to Gen 6:7; 7:23) or rescued from it (Gen 7:8
added to 7:7*; 7:9 added along with this).121 Both sets of additions
seem oriented toward dealing with specific conflicts between P and
non-P. The chronological additions coordinated competing time
systems in the two strands, while the animal catalogues added a P-
like focus on animals to non-P texts that lacked such a focus.
More broadly, the conflator of P and non-P selected and
organized the P flood story and most of the non-P flood story so that
their parts function together in the combined narrative. As noted
above, the non-P prologue to the flood story in Gen 6:5–8 now
functions in the conflated text as an anticipation of human
destruction at the end of the “Descendants of Adam” section (5:1–
6:8), much like several other texts that appear toward the end of
major sections of the conflated primeval history anticipate the foci of
sections that soon follow (e.g., 1:26–30 for 2:4bff; 4:25–26 for 5:1ff;
9:20–27 for Gen 10; 10:24–25 anticipating 11:10ff.).122 In this case,
Gen 6:5–7 emphasizes the internal qualities of humans leading to
earth’s corruption (6:11), while the explicit contrast of Noah’s
righteousness and the corruption of the ways of all life in 6:11–12
elaborate the undeveloped juxtaposition in 6:5–8 between Y ’s
resolve to destroy all (6:5–7) and Noah finding favor before Y
(6:8).123 Then the non-P report of Y ’s instructions to Noah about
bringing humans and extra pairs of clean animals onto the ark (7:1–
4) serves as a reinforcement and slight modification of the preceding
instructions (from P) for Noah to bring his family and one pair of each
animal onto the ark (Gen 6:18–20). Without the inclusion of the non-
P entry instruction in 7:2(–3), and its implicit execution in Gen 7:5
and 7:8–9, the later report of Noah’s sacrifice (8:20) would imply
massive species extinction for pure animals. That said, the present
conflate report of entry into the ark echoes a mix of elements from P
(Gen 6:9–22) and non-P (Gen 7:1–5), since the first report of entry
into the ark by clean and unclean pairs in Gen 7:7–9 (7:8–9 all
conflationary) is followed by the inclusion of a Priestly entry report
stressing that only one pair of each kind of animal entered (7:13–
16a). The following conflated P and non-P descriptions of flood
destruction are organized so that they correspond to and accentuate
each other, even combining at points to form semi-poetic echoing
descriptions of the flood’s destruction and then withdrawal (e.g., Gen
7:11b–12, 23; 8:2, 3).124 Moreover, the non-P concept of a forty-day
and night rain now serves in the combined text to characterize a first
phase of the flood (Gen 7:12; see also the conflationary addition of
“forty days” in 7:17a) within the broader scope of P’s 150 day period
of waters prevailing (7:24). As the narrative turns toward the end of
the flood, P’s description of covenant remembrance in 8:1 provides
the grounding for both the P and non-P descriptions of the retreat of
the waters (8:2–5). Then non-P’s description of Noah’s sending of
birds (8:6–12) provides a prelude to the P/non-P descriptions of a
dry earth (8:13–14) and P’s report of a divinely-ordered exit from the
ark (8:15–19). Finally, the non-P report of Noah’s sacrifice and
Y ’s inner resolve not to destroy life again on account of human
evil (8:20–22) prepares for P’s reports of God’s speeches to Noah
and his sons in Gen 9:1–17, reports detailing God’s provisions to
make sure violence would not cause another flood (9:2–6), and
God’s announcement to Noah and his sons of a covenant not to
allow another flood (9:8–17).125
The whole is now a roughly concentric whole, formed on the
superstructure of P’s more rigorously concentric narrative. To be
sure, central parts of the concentric structure in the conflate narrative
are somewhat less in balance than they were in the Priestly version
(e.g., B and B’, C and C’), while the outer frame now features
roughly corresponding sections focused on Noah and his sons (A,
A’).126
[Anticipation of life destruction (and preservation of Noah) in Gen 6:5–8]
A Initial genealogical label focused on righteous Noah and his sons (6:9–10)
B Cause of the flood and two divine speeches on preservation of life
in flood (6:11–7:5)
C Flood’s arrival 17.2.600 and two reports of entry into the
ark (7:6–16)
D Forty days of rain/150 days of rising water with ark
floating (7:17–24)
E. God remembers Noah, sends wind, portals close (8:1–
2)
D’ Waters receding, ark landing, mountains appear (8:3–
5)
C’ Noah’s realization of dry earth and divinely-ordered exit
from ark 17.2.601 (8:6–19)
B’ Noah’s sacrifice and divine speeches resolving not to destroy life
again (8:20–9:17)
 A’ Final story of Noah and his sons (9:18–27) and concluding genealogical -
label (9:28–29)
As noted in the above discussion of datings in Gen 7:6–8:14, this
text features a combination of three chronological systems: the non-
P chronological notations of seven and forty days, Priestly datings by
an implicit New Year scheme spanning Noah’s 600th year, and P-like
datings that combine those two systems. The latter, conflational P-
like datings coordinate non-P and P systems (e.g., 8:4a, 5b) and
ensure that the flood begins 47 days after the beginning of Noah’s
600th year (7:11; incorporating non-P’s seven day anticipation of the
flood, along with an additional 40 day span), and that the earth is
fully dry exactly one year after that on the 47th day of his 601st year
(8:14), even as the earlier P dating system ending the flood on the
first day of Noah’s 601st year is preserved as well (Gen 8:13).
Synthesis
This overall analysis has suggested an extended prehistory to the
story of Noah and the flood in Gen 6:5–9:17. Though this section
now features a primary focus on God’s rescue of Noah and other
living beings amidst a world-destroying flood, it likely grew from a
much more locally-focused account of Noah and his sons standing
behind Gen 9:18, 20–27. The basic focus of this portion of Genesis,
however, results from a massive shift in focus compared to that
Noah and sons story, such that Noah became a flood hero. As
discussed above, this move was largely an adaptation of a
Mesopotamian flood tradition (close to that reflected in tablet 11 of
SB Gilgamesh). The two strands of the biblical flood account, both
non-P and P, each show evidence of independent links to that
Mesopotamian flood tradition.
The present shape of Genesis preserves large portions of non-
P’s Noah-flood account within a basic structure defined by an
originally separate Priestly Noah-flood account. As argued above,
this Priestly account of “The Descendants of Noah” was likely
modelled partially on its non-P counterpart. Yet it focuses less on
God’s responsibility for inflicting the global flood destruction and
more on God’s covenantally-grounded provision for life through
Noah, having him build a microcosm of the earth-biome in which to
house and feed his family and a seed of earth’s creatures. Righteous
Noah as the new Adam then successfully shepherds the earth’s
animals through a year of peaceful life on the ark before bringing all
pairs of earth’s animals safe out of the ark to multiply and populate
the earth alongside humans. The P account then ends with God’s
provisions to reinforce broader human rule over animals and
regulate human-animal violence (9:1–7) and a covenant with Noah,
his sons and animals not to send another flood (9:8–17).
Though this Priestly account is preserved more fully than the
non-P account and dominates the structure of Gen 6:9–9:29, the
whole is made more complex through its mix of elements. In
particular, the present narrative is dominated by doubling. The
chronological system generally works, but its conflationally-based
mix of elements renders its details opaque. And no end-text oriented
reading will arrive at a definitive concentric structure for the whole
nor lasting solutions to problems such as determining which animals
Noah brought onto the ark (Gen 6:19–20; 7:13–16a versus 7:2). A
diachronically-informed synchronic reading of the whole militates
against attempts to fully harmonize these strands.
As we have seen, this section of Genesis appears to have been
progressively shaped to focus on Noah and his role in the rescue of
living beings. The non-P exposition to the flood narrative (Gen 6:5–8)
now occurs toward the end of the preceding section of Genesis, so
that Y ’s decision to destroy humanity (6:5–7) is preceded (5:28–
32) and followed (6:8) by positive statements about Noah. As a
result, the Genesis flood narrative proper is a section on the
“descendants of Noah” (Gen 6:9a) that begins (Gen 6:9–10) and
ends (Gen 9:1–29) with a focus on Noah and his sons. Meanwhile,
the intervening P and non-P Noah-flood account has been conflated
in a way that accents the rescue of living beings. The conflate text
includes, for example, an extra inclusion of a non-P report of Y ’s
instruction for rescue of life via the ark (Gen 7:1–4) to prepare for
Noah’s sacrifice (8:20), despite the fact that the details of this report
conflict with the Priestly elements before (6:18–19) and after it (7:14–
16a). And the conflator even seems to have created an extra report
of entry of living beings into the ark (7:8–9), one that provides a P-
like bridge between 7:1–4 and 7:14–16a while making it doubly clear
that animals and family did enter the ark along with Noah.
Though many later readings of Genesis (especially in children’s
literature) have tended to stress the theme of God’s rescue of Noah
and the animals,127 the biblical narrative still preserves contrasting
elements as well, such as the devastating divine judgment of
humanity in Gen 6:5 and 8:21. As noted in the introduction to this
commentary, this negative judgment of humans has played a role in
later readings of the Genesis primeval history. Though the non-P
flood narrative likely was not an original part of that history,
interpreters have been inclined to read the idea that humans had
thoughts “only evil all of the time” back into earlier non-P stories in
Genesis that precede it. They have found deep human sin exhibited
in the garden of Eden story of Gen 2–3, the Cain-Abel story of Gen
4:1–16 and even the story of the daughters of humanity being taken
as wives by the sons of God in Gen 6:1–4. A diachronically informed,
synchronic reading of the present form of Genesis can identify the
pessimistic judgment on humanity in Gen 6:5 as diachronically
distinct from what precedes and thereby help open up the possibility
of recovering the more complex and ambivalent picture of humans
and divine attitudes toward them in the narratives of Gen 2:4–6:4.
For all the benefits of such a reading of the primeval history
without a flood narrative, let us conclude with some reflections on the
flood story itself, particularly how its themes interact in complicated
ways with the contemporary climate crisis. The flood narrative often
emerges in contemporary discussions of Bible and the environment,
particularly because its description of the destruction of earth life by
a global flood somewhat parallels the threat to human and other
habitats by a rise of sea waters caused by global warming. Some,
such as the groups Operation Noah and NOAH, have recruited the
model of Noah to support their call for action to confront the problem
of global climate change.128 At the same time, the Genesis flood
narrative includes aspects that have obstructed, rather than helped
believers engage the contemporary crisis. In particular, one thing
that has contributed to resistance to climate change activism among
Evangelical Christians is widespread belief a) that the world survived
a yet worse form of climate change during the biblical flood than is
confronted now and b) that God promised in the wake of that flood
that the world would be preserved (Gen 8:21–22; 9:12–16).129
Certainly the presence of the biblical flood narrative provides an
occasion for scripturally-oriented believers to engage in discussions
about overwhelming ecological catastrophe and human responsibility
toward other life forms.130 Nevertheless, it is important to recognize
how some aspects of the story, such as its emphasis on divine
rescue/promise and its concluding unqualified endorsement of
human population growth (Gen 9:1, 7), might be unhelpful in the
current context.131
Genesis 9:18–29: The Conclusion of
the Noah Account—Noah and His
Sons
9:18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham,
and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan. 19 These three were
the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth scattered. 20
Noah, the man of the ground,a was the first to plant a vineyard.b 21
He drank some of the wine, became drunk, and exposed himself in
his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his
father and told his two brothers outside. 23 Shem and Japheth then
took the cloak, put it on both of their shoulders, walked backward,
and covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned back,
and they did not see their father’s nakedness. 24 When Noah woke
up from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him,
25 he said,

Cursed be Canaan
The lowest of slavesa shall he be to his brothers.

26 And he said,

Blessed be Y , the God of Shem.

May Canaan be a slave to him.a
27 May God make space for Japheth
May he dwell in the tents of Shem
And may Canaan be a slave to him.

28 Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. 29
Noah’s entire lifetime was nine hundred and fifty years, and then he
died.
Notes on Text and Translation
20a As noted in Blum, Vätergeschichte, 13, note 17, a definite expression like this
can be used to refer to a prominent figure who will be featured in the following
story. It does not presuppose previous mention of that figure. This renders
unnecessary proposals (e.g., Joüon 139b) that this phrase represents a rare
case of an indefinite noun in construct with a definite nomen regens, and it
highlights a way this grammatical construction is used to foreground Noah and
his role.
20b This rendering takes ‫“( ויחל‬he was the first/he began”) at the outset of the
verse as complemented by ‫“( ויטע‬and he planted”) in the next clause (cf. Ezra
3:8). This would be relatively parallel to similar infinitive+verb complement
expressions elsewhere in Gen 1–11 (e.g., Gen 4:26; 6:1; 10:8b), and the
following story in Gen 9:20ff. initially focuses on Noah’s inauguration of
viticulture (Gen 9:20–21), a way that he provides comfort “from the ground”
(‫ )מן־האדמה‬as predicted in Gen 5:29 (see below). Alternatively, one might
regard ‫ ויחל‬as complemented by the substantive “a man of the ground” (‫איש‬
‫ ;האדמה‬so GKC 120b), thus rendering as “and Noah began to be a man of the
ground.” According to this alternative rendering, Noah thus begins to function
as “a man of the ground” like his precursors Adam (Gen 2:7; 3:17–19, 23) and
Cain (Gen 4:2) before then going on to exercise this role by planting a
vineyard (Gen 9:21). The overall meaning of either formulation is similar.
Nevertheless, the translation adopted here emphasizes Noah’s initial role in
this story as founder of vitriculture (“Noah was the first to plant a vineyard”)
rather than him merely beginning to be a man of the ground like his ancestors.
25a The construct here is an expression of the superlative (Joüon 141l).
26a and 27a As noted in GKC 103f (note 3), ‫ למו‬can stand in for the singular ‫“( לו‬to
him”). It could be understood here as referring to plural collectivities of the
sons of Shem and then Japheth, but those sons are not mentioned yet in
either verse (Gen 9:26, 27).
Diachronic Prologue

Genesis 9:18–27 as Pre-Priestly

Though classical source analysis often assigned this whole section
on Noah and his sons to J/non-P, a minority of older analyses
assigned the treatment of Noah and his sons in 9:18–19 to P and
this approach has gained favor in recent years.1 A somewhat similar
pattern has occurred with regard to Gen 9:20–27. Earlier scholars
generally agreed that this story of Noah and his sons was linked to
preceding non-Priestly family-stories of discord and curse in Gen 2–
3 and 4:1–16, constituting another episode in a pre-Priestly
Yahwistic primeval history. Recently, however, an increasing number
of scholars have concluded that this non-Priestly story is actually
post-Priestly, expanding on a Priestly reintroduction of Noah’s sons
in Gen 9:18–19 that originally prefaced a Priestly genealogical
overview of peoples now in Gen 10.2
This commentary, however, treats both Gen 9:18–19 and 9:20–
27 as pre-Priestly texts. Whereas P has already introduced Noah’s
sons by name (5:32; 6:10), the non-P narrative has only spoken of
Noah’s house (7:1). Within a specifically non-P context, the listing of
Noah’s sons in 9:18 thus serves a crucial function vis-à-vis the
following non-Priestly story (9:22–24), introducing precisely these
three sons, and it is not clear how that story would function
narratively without it. Moreover, the listing of Noah’s three sons
together in Gen 9:18 functions well as an introduction of a story
featuring them (Gen 9:20–27), while P’s listing of Noah’s fathering all
three sons in his 600th year in Gen 5:32 appears to be a blind motif
derived from adoption of this formulation from non-P’s (non-birth-
oriented) list in Gen 9:18.3
In the end, the pre- or post-P status of Gen 9:18–19 is not critical
for determination of the status of Gen 9:20–27. Some source critics
have assigned Gen 9:20–27 to a pre-Priestly Yahwist, while
assigning Gen 9:18–19 to P or the conflator who combined P and
non-P. This commentary opts instead for a model of both as pre-P.
Either way, we will see in the following analysis how the story of
Noah and his sons in Gen 9:20–27 connects in an integral way with
preceding non-P texts (Gen 2–3; 4:1–16; 5:29) while not showing
any sign of being built upon or responding to Priestly texts.4

Ancient Near Eastern Precursors

There is no exact precedent in Mesopotamian flood narratives to the
non-P story of Noah and his sons in Gen 9:20–27. As we will see,
this story focuses on a breakdown among Noah’s sons in filial
obligation, with his youngest son failing to care for his honor. The
occasion for this breakdown of filial obligation, Noah’s unwitting
descent into drunken vulnerability (Gen 9:21), vaguely parallels a
number of Mesopotamian accounts of gods getting themselves into
binds as a result of drunkenness. Nevertheless, there are no specific
connections between Gen 9:21–27 and any of these Near Eastern
traditions about problems with drunkenness.5 That said, the initial
account of Noah’s discovery of viticulture (9:20) represents a biblical
version of a broader motif seen in some Mesopotamian cosmologies:
that contemporary, fully adult humans are distinguished from earlier
proto-humans (and animals) by having replaced drinking water from
ditches and springs with the discovery of alcohol (e.g., The Rulers of
Lagash 17–31 and Debate between Grain and Sheep 12–25). In this
case, non-P’s particular version of this motif links Noah’s discovery
of this distinctively human practice to his destiny, reflected in his
name ‫נח‬, to provide “comfort” (‫ )נחם‬to humanity out of the ground
that was cursed at creation (5:29; 3:17–19).

Literary Stratification: The Addition of Ham (Gen

9:18, 22) and the Spread of Noah’s Family (Gen
9:19)
Ham and Canaan From the outset, it is important to observe an
important way that the story of Noah and his sons in Gen 9:18–27
probably was modified: the replacement of Canaan among Noah’s
sons by Ham. More specifically, past interpreters have argued
persuasively that original mentions of Canaan in Gen 9:18 and 22
were modified to include Ham through adding Ham between Japheth
and Canaan in the initial list of Noah’s sons (9:18 ;‫וחם הוא אבי‬a)
along with the insertion of “Ham, father of” (‫ )חם אבי‬before the
second mention of Canaan (Gen 9:22).6 The original presence of
Canaan as the last and implicitly youngest brother in the list of
Noah’s sons would explain why Noah later refers to the son whom
he curses as “the youngest one” (9:24 ;‫)הקטן‬. An original focus of the
story on a misdeed by Canaan also would explain why Canaan is
cursed to be a slave to his “brothers” Shem and Japheth (Gen 9:26b,
27b), since Shem and Japheth then would actually be his brothers.
Finally, this theory regarding the addition of Ham to an original story
about Shem, Japheth, and Canaan would explain why it ends up
focusing on the future of all of Shem and Japheth’s offspring (Gen
9:26–27), but emphasizing only Canaan among Ham’s possible
offspring (Gen 9:25).
It is not precisely clear why this addition occurred. Source critics
who take the listing of Noah’s sons in Gen 9:18 as P or post-P often
conclude that the conflator of P and non-P inserted Ham into the
non-P story (Gen 9:22) in order to coordinate a non-P concept of
Noah’s sons (Shem, Japheth, Canaan) with a divergent Priestly
concept of those sons (Shem, Ham, Japheth; e.g., Gen 5:32; 6:10;
10:1, 2, 6, 20, 22, 31).7 Another approach would be to see the
addition of Ham here as already occurring before P, perhaps as part
of a broader expansion of the non-P primeval history with the non-P
flood narrative and related additions. With the addition of that flood
narrative, Noah became not just the father of a particular strand of
humanity, but of all post-flood humanity. As part of this
transformation an author might have expanded Noah’s genealogy
through having him father a “Ham” who then could father the
important nation of Egypt (Gen 10:13–14) alongside Canaan (Gen
10:15–19).8 Adding Ham to the Gen 9 Noah story (Gen 9:18, 22)
thus would have cleared genealogical space for this addition of
Egypt alongside Canaan as part of the flood-related transformation
of Noah into the father of all post-flood humanity.9
Noah’s sons as humanity’s common ancestors The note in Gen
9:19 about “all the earth” (‫ )כל־הארץ‬spreading from Noah’s three
sons is another potential flood-related addition. Its secondary
character is marked by how it partially duplicates information in the
preceding verse (Gen 9:19a//9:18) and interrupts the movement from
the introduction of Noah’s sons (Gen 9:18) to the story about them
(Gen 9:20–27). The point of this insertion is to assert that all
humanity, here termed “all the earth” (‫)כל־הארץ‬, spread out from
Noah’s three sons (Gen 9:19b). That assertion then anticipates the
Babylon story in Gen 11:1–9, a story that explains how the entire
earth surface (‫ )כל־הארץ‬was populated by a collective humanity
(‫ )כל־הארץ‬out of Noah’s family. Together, Gen 9:19 and 11:1–9 form a
secondary frame around the material about Noah’s family in Gen
9:20–27 and 10, focusing on how that family spread across and
populated the depopulated post-flood earth.10
Synchronic Analysis
With Gen 9:18 the focus of the (non-P) narrative shifts from the non-
P Noah/flood narrative to an etiological story about a single episode
in Noah’s family. This story ultimately explains a differentiation
between the destiny of Canaan, Noah’s original third son, and the
destiny of Noah’s other two sons, Shem and Japheth. As we will see
in Noah’s final paired speeches, Canaan is cursed to be “the lowest
of slaves to his brothers” (Gen 9:25; also 9:26b, 27b), while
blessings are given to Shem and Japheth (Gen 9:26a, 27a).

Commentary
Gen 9:18–19 Within their present P/non-P context, these verses re-
introducing Noah’s sons function as a bridge from the Noah-flood
narrative (Gen 6:5–9:17) to the story about Noah, his sons, and
Canaan (Gen 9:20–27) and the following genealogical overview of
post-flood humanity descending from them (Gen 10). Since these
sons have not been mentioned by name since the Priestly listing in
Gen 6:9, this notice reminds the reader that the sons of Noah “who
came out of the ark” were Shem, Japheth, and Ham, thus preparing
for the present story about these three (Gen 9:20–24) and genealogy
of their descendants (Gen 10).
As noted above, however, it is likely that the listing of Noah’s
three sons in Gen 9:18 originally functioned within an exclusively
non-P context. As such, it served as a crucial first introduction of
Noah’s three sons just prior to a story concerning them in Gen 9:20–
27. The synchronic range of the (likely added) note in Gen 9:19 was
a bit broader. It anticipates the later genealogical overview of post-
flood humanity (Gen 10) and especially the Babylon story (Gen
11:1–9) by noting that it was from these three sons—Shem, Ham,
and Japheth (Gen 9:18)—that humanity scattered (9:19 ;‫ ;נפץ‬cf. ‫פוץ‬
in Gen 11:4, 8–9).
 That scattering, however, does not occur right away. Instead,
Gen 9:20–27 pauses to tell a story of filial failure by Noah’s son,
Ham (9:20–23), and a resulting differentiation by Noah of a destiny
of servitude for Canaan, and non-negative destinies of Noah’s sons,
Shem and Japheth (9:24–27). In the process, this pericope includes
enigmatic blessings relating to Shem (9:26a) and Japheth (9:27a),
but its primary focus is on Noah’s curse of Canaan to slavery (9:25,
26b, 27b).
Gen 9:20–21 The narrative begins as if it were a simple
etiological tale, now featuring Noah, “the man of the ground,” as the
first to plant a vineyard (Gen 9:20), paralleling earlier notes in the
non-P primeval history (e.g., Gen 4:26; 6:1). In Noah’s case, his
discovery of inebriating wine represents a fulfillment of Noah’s
father’s prediction that he would provide humans “comfort from our
labor and toil of our hands, from the ground which Yahweh cursed.”
(5:29b) 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 even comfort (‫ ;תנחומים‬Jer 16:7).11
Noah’s own first encounter with such wine, however, is hardly a
comforting experience. With no experience at all to go on, he
becomes so drunk that he passes out naked in his tent, leaving
himself vulnerable to shaming by his son (9:21b). The narrative does
not include any divine or other judgment of him for this unknowing
act. Nevertheless, on balance, the Noah story only implicitly
anticipates the comfort of wine (5:29; 9:20), while more concretely
illustrating its potential pitfalls (9:21–24), especially a risk of
nakedness from drunkenness that is noted in some other biblical
texts (Hab 2:15; Lam 4:21).12 And this etiological explanation of wine
in 5:29; 9:20–21, emphasizing both its positive and negative
potential, resembles an emphasis seen elsewhere in the non-P
primeval history on the two-edged character of other aspects of
mature human life (e.g., reproduction and farming in Gen 3:16–23).13
Gen 9:22–24 The following narrative in 9:22–23 sharply
contrasts the divergent behavior of Noah’s three sons vis-à-vis his
vulnerable state of nakedness. Ham (originally Canaan) sees and
tells his two brothers about his father’s nakedness (9:22). In contrast,
Shem and Japheth go backwards into the tent to cover Noah’s
nakedness, thus being careful to avoid shaming their father
themselves and prevent his shaming by others. Furthermore, Noah’s
discovery of Ham’s acts is accounted as an independent realization:
“Noah woke up from his wine, and realized what his youngest son
had done to him” (9:24). It is not clear how Noah would have realized
this on his own. Nevertheless, this formulation exonerates Shem and
Japheth of having spoken in any way to their father about his
nakedness.
Particularly because these events soon lead to the extreme of
Noah cursing Canaan (9:25), past interpreters have tried to find
clues in the text to a deeper wrong of Ham that would justify such an
extreme pronouncement. Some rabbinic interpretations suggested
that Ham might have castrated Noah, thus insuring that Noah had no
further offspring after his three sons and explaining Noah’s curse of
Ham’s offspring (e.g., b. Sanh 70a). Others have suggested
interpreting Ham’s “seeing” of his father’s nakedness in relation to
the use of the phrase “see the nakedness [of a family relation]” in
Lev 18 and 20 to refer to sexual intercourse.14 This approach
suggests that Ham’s seeing of his father’s nakedness (Gen 9:22) is
actually an oblique way to refer to his incestuous sexual intercourse
with his own father (e.g., b. Sanh. 70a) or with his mother (e.g.,
Bassett; Bergsma and Hahn; Depury).15 Nevertheless, such
approaches to the story fail to account for the emphasis of the
following text on the contrasting behavior of Ham’s brothers, Shem
and Japheth, as consisting in taking care not to see Noah’s
nakedness (9:23). Moreover, interpreting the misdeed of Noah’s son
as incest goes well beyond the text’s own description of his misdeed,
especially insofar as it imports into it a focus on his mother that does
not appear anywhere in the story.
Rather, it seems better to take Gen 9:22 and 9:23 as examples of
failed and successful examples of filial obligation of sons toward their
(drunken) father.16 Ancient Near Eastern texts, including the Bible,
put a high value on children’s honoring and caring for their parents,
filial obligation, that has been missed by many interpreters.17 One
particular obligation, named in a tradition embedded in the Ugaritic
Aqhat epic, is to “assist his father when he is weak, satiated with
wine.”18 Noah’s sons exemplify contrasting forms of such filial
obligation in responding to their father’s drunken nakedness: Ham
(originally Canaan) fails to honor his father in his “seeing” of his
father’s drunken nakedness and telling of it (9:22). In contrast, Shem
and Japheth show an exemplary care for their father, using a
garment to cover him and thus protect him from further shame while
avoiding seeing his nakedness themselves (9:23). And these
contrasting forms of behavior then lead directly into Noah’s
pronouncements regarding his sons’ fates: one speech giving a
“curse” of enslavement on the son who failed to observe filial
obligation toward him (9:25) and another speech connecting
blessings/wishes to Shem and Japheth with pronouncements of
Canaan’s enslavement to them (9:26–27).
In this way the story of Noah and his sons in Gen 9:22–23
chronicles a break in a father-son relationship that corresponds to
similarly tragic developments in the male-female relationship in the
garden of Eden story (Gen 3) and the brother-brother relationship in
the Cain and Abel story (Gen 4:1–16). As such, these three central
non-Priestly stories depict complex dynamics surrounding the three
axial relationships of the nuclear family—husband-wife, sibling-
sibling, and parent-sibling. 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” as the result of a breakdown in their relationships (3:17–19;
4:10; 9:25).
More specifically, the story of Noah resumes the theme of
nakedness from that seen in the Eden story with which the non-P
primeval history began. Yet there are crucial differences as well. That
story used the word ‫( ﬠָ רוֹם‬plural ‫ֲרוּמים‬
ִ ‫ )ﬠ‬for nakedness as part of a
wordplay on cleverness (‫)ﬠָ רוּם‬. This was linked to a focus in that
story on the first humans’ immature, unashamed state of nakedness
(Gen 2:25) before they acquired self-conscious adult-like wisdom
(Gen 3:6–7a) and gradually gained clothes marking them as civilized
adults (Gen 3:7b, 21). The story here in Gen 9:20–24 focuses on
how Noah, introduced from the outset as an adult “man” (9:20 ;‫)איש‬,
uncovered himself and thus incurred shame in view of his sons. As a
result of this focus on uncovering and shame, the text does not use
the adjective ‫( ﬠָ רוֹם‬naked) to describe Noah’s condition, but the noun
‫ ערוה‬to refer to the nakedness-genitalia of Noah that Canaan “sees”
(9:22 ;‫ראה‬a) and Shem and Japheth do not “see” (9:23bβ).19 Within
an ancient Near Eastern culture like Israel, such seeing of an adult
male’s genitalia represented a fundamental compromise of his
masculinity.20 In this case, Noah awakens from his drunkenness and
somehow knows (‫ ;ידע‬cf. the knowledge theme in Gen 2–3) that his
youngest son has thus compromised his masculinity, both seeing his
nakedness and then telling his brothers/Noah’s sons about it.
Gen 9:25–27 Noah’s following pronouncements separate out
Canaan (the likely original focus of the story) from Shem and
Japheth by way of two speech reports, one focused on Canaan
(9:25) and the other on Shem and Japheth (9:26–27).
The starting point is Noah’s curse of Canaan, a curse (‫ )ארר‬that
echoes Y ’s curse of Cain from the ground (Gen 4:11) and more
obliquely Y ’s curse of the ground on account of the human in the
garden of Eden (Gen 3:17–19). In this case, however, Noah—not
Y —is the one who makes the curse, and its content relates not
to the ground, but to Canaan’s destiny to be the lowest of slaves of
his “brothers” (9:25). Since we have not heard of any other brothers
of Canaan in the story, Noah’s pronouncement of slavery to his
“brothers” must be understood as relating to Shem and Japheth.
This then is confirmed through pronouncements of Canaan’s slavery
to Shem and Japheth in the following statements regarding them
(9:26b, 27b).
The main point is Canaan’s intense servitude to them as a “slave
of slaves” (‫)עבד עבדים‬. This expression of superlative servitude of
Canaan to his brothers clarifies that the story of Noah and his sons is
not aimed at an etiological explanation of servant/slave (‫ )עבד‬status
as an element of an ancient household. Instead, Gen 9:25–27
etiologically anticipates a specific Levantine social world where
“Canaanite” peoples will be enslaved to descendants of “Shem” and
“Japheth”’ (cf. 1 Kgs 9:20–21), a servitude implicitly linked to the
name Canaan by way of the verb ‫“( כנע‬submit, be humble”; cf. Judg
4:23).21
The meaning and ancient ethnic reference point is not as clear
for Noah’s pronouncements regarding Shem and Japheth (9:26–27).
This starts with Noah’s blessing of “Y , the god of Shem” (9:26a).
Several other biblical figures are blessed indirectly through blessings
of their god and mentions of what that god accomplished for them,
such as Abraham’s servant saying “blessed be Y , god of my
master, Abraham” (Gen 24:27; see also 1 Sam 25:32).22 Especially
in an environment where Y was known as the “god of Israel,”23
this blessing of Shem by “Y , god of Shem” probably implies
some kind of connection between Shem and the later people of
Israel. This then would imply a contrast between Noah’s curse of
Canaan and Noah’s implicit blessing, by way of Shem’s god, of the
future people of Israel. This commentary’s further discussion of
Shem’s implicitly “Hebrew” descendants in Gen 10:21 will reinforce
this implicit contrast.
Meanwhile, the referent for “Japheth” has proven a persistent
interpretive puzzle. Japheth’s name, like Shem’s, is not easily
connected with a known ethnic entity, and the later reference point
for Noah’s pronouncement over Japheth—“May God make space for
Japheth, may he dwell in the tents of Shem”—is not clear. Probably
the most likely identification of the ethnic referent behind this
blessing is that proposed by Wellhausen and many others: that this
“Japheth” is a cipher for the Philistines.24 Whether or not this is the
case, Gen 9:27 understands “Japheth” to be a neighboring people in
the area of Israel who was understood to enjoy a type of brotherly
relation and shared dwelling with the descendents of Israel-
associated people(s) of “Shem.” In this way, the text anticipates
close relations of the descendants of Japheth with Shem that
contrasts with an assumed slavery of the descendants of Canaan to
both (9:26b, 27b).

Concluding Overview of the Non-P Narrative of

Noah and his Sons
Though the story of Noah and his sons (along with its setup in Gen
5:29) starts with multiple linkages to the Eden story in Gen 2–3
(“man of the ground,” curse, nakedness, etc.), it ends up providing
an important sequel to the story of Cain and Abel. Where that story
implicitly explained the origins and character of the Kenites, this one
contrasts the brotherly relations of Shem and Japheth with the
assumed servitude of Canaan to both. Both stories explain ethnic
relations in their audience’s world vis-à-vis breakdowns in the
relations between primeval brothers. The Cain and Abel story
involves murder and a curse of Cain to marginal status expelled from
the ground, while the Noah-sons story involves failed filial obligation
and a curse of Canaan to slavery. Yet the Noah-sons story also
includes a wish-anticipation of brothers continuing to dwell together
as well: that Japheth share Shem’s “tent” (9:27a) much as a
preceding part of the story featured their father’s “tent” that they
presumably once shared (9:21b). This common dwelling is not the
main focus of the story, but it sharpens in relief the way that
Canaan’s later servitude to his “brothers” will represent a deviation
from normal brotherly relations that demands explanation.
In the end, the story endorses neither Noah’s reaction to Ham
(originally Canaan) nor Noah’s pronouncement of Canaan’s
servitude. Indeed, it is distinguished from preceding non-P stories of
curse by not narrating a curse given by Y , but a curse
pronounced by an implicitly hungover, recently naked patriarch.
Furthermore, even as the Noah of the story distinguishes Shem and
Japheth’s fate from Canaan’s (9:25–27), it is not clear how Ham
could have avoided “seeing” Noah’s nakedness or how his brothers
could have acted the way they did without being alerted by Ham of
their father’s condition. Thus Gen 9:20–27 is a complex exploration
of the impact of familial breakdown, rather than a simple tale of
misdeed and punishment, much like the complex stories that
precede it about the garden of Eden and Cain’s murder of Abel.
At the same time, this is more than just a family story about
individuals. Much as the Cain-Abel story implicitly anticipated
aspects of Israel’s social world in the form of the Kenites, this Noah-
sons story explicitly looks toward future social relations of peoples
understood to be neighbors in the Levant: Canaanites, “Shemites,”
and the “Japhethites” sharing the Shemites’ tent. Together, the Cain-
Lamech and the Seth-Noah-sons portions of the non-P primeval
history provide a complex cosmological background to relations
among Levantine “brothers” descending from the first human
couple.25 In addition, this story’s singling out of Noah’s son, “Shem”
[Hebrew for “name”] as one whose god is Y (Gen 9:26) may
implicitly build on the non-P history’s previous introduction of ancient
warriors as, literally, “men of the name” (Gen 6:4), with the well-
known fame (“name”) of those figures providing an implicit
background to the specialness of this ancestor of the Hebrews (Gen
10:21).
Synthesis
As discussed above, this section on Noah and his sons contains a
mix of perspectives. On the one hand, the story (in combination with
Gen 5:29) depicts wine as a resource coming from “the ground” that
provides precious comfort from the curse of the ground in Eden. On
the other hand, the story’s main focus ends up being on Noah’s
cursing his (grand)son to be a slave of slaves to his brothers (Gen
9:25–27) as a result of his youngest son’s seeing his nakedness and
telling his brothers about it (Gen 9:22–24). Furthermore, the story
has undergone apparent growth, particularly insofar as its likely
original focus on Canaan’s misdeed and Noah’s resulting curse has
been obscured through a substitution of Ham for Canaan among
Noah’s sons (additions in Gen 9:18, 22a). For centuries interpreters
have been confronted with the challenge of determining the nature of
Ham’s misdeed, such that his seeing of Noah’s nakedness might
then lead to Noah’s curse on Ham’s son.
This challenge has been compounded as this story has been
transmitted in a Hebrew canon alongside texts in Leviticus that refer
to illicit sexual intercourse of the sort that Canaanites have (Lev
18:1–5) with phrases reminiscent of Gen 9:20–27; e.g., “reveal
nakedness” (‫גלה ערוה‬, Lev 18:6–19; 20:11, 18–21; cf. 9:21b) and
“see nakedness” (Lev 20:17; 9:22a). As argued above, these texts in
Leviticus do not actually pertain to the Genesis narrative about Noah
revealing his own nakedness, nor do they support an interpretation
of Gen 9:20–27 as concerning Ham “seeing” his father’s nakedness
by way of sex with Noah himself or Noah’s wife. Nevertheless, this
partial overlap in terminology (and mention of Canaanites in both
Gen 9:18–27 and Lev 18) has encouraged centuries of interpreters
to conclude, wrongly, that Gen 9:20–27 depicts Ham’s son being
cursed because of a sexual act that Ham committed against his
father.26 And this conclusion, in turn, has led to this text being
misused as a prooftext to assert the cursed status of men who are
sexual with other men.27
 In addition, this text has been deployed as a central biblical
prooftext for supporting racist prejudices against Africans and
colonialization and enslavement of African peoples. Already a text
aimed at predicting and justifying enslavement of “Canaanites” in its
ancient Israelite context, Gen 9:20–27 came to be seen as a story
predicting and justifying a broader “curse of Ham” on all his African
descendants.28 Moreover, some interpreters imported this racist line
of interpretation into other parts of the literary context of Gen 9:20–
27. For example, some racist interpretations linked Cain and Ham,
with Ham imagined as marrying into a purportedly non-Adamite line
of Cain and his descendants thus marked as subhuman.29 In
addition, as will be noted in discussion of Gen 10, interpreters from
Josephus onward often have seen Nimrod in Gen 10:8–12 as a
dark-skinned African rebel against God, grandson of Ham by way of
(Ethiopian) Cush (Gen 10:8) and ultimately responsible for the
disastrous building of the tower in Babylon (11:1–9).30
Of course, one can critique such interpretations on multiple
grounds. For example, Gen 9:20–27 depicts the curse of Ham as
coming from a hungover father, not God. Moreover, the interactions
between Noah and his sons stand in the non-P primeval history as
the last of a series of tragic breakdowns in the family structure that
accompany human maturation, from Eden onward. Nevertheless,
however much one might thus reread the text as undermining the
enslavement with which it concludes, Gen 9:20–27 still constitutes
an etiology of slavery that anticipates, and does not explicitly
condemn such enslavement. This aspect of the story, combined with
its implications (read in relation to Lev 18) of potential sexual
misconduct by Ham, mean this text has had and will continue to
have problematic potential. Contemporary interpreters should be
conscious of its past and present problematic aspects, even as some
may propose alternative, reparative readings of its present
implications.31
Genesis 10:1–32: Post-Flood Peoples
Descending from Noah’s Sons
10:1 These are the descendants of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham,
and Japheth.

Sonsa were born to them after the flood.

2 The sons of Japheth:a Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal,

Meshech, and Tiras. 3 The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath, and
Togarmah. 4 The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and
Dodanim.a 5 From these the coastland peoplesa spread outb in their
lands, each one according to his language by their clans in their
peoples.

6 The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan. 7 The sons of
Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca. The sons of
Raamah: Sheba and Dedan. 8 Now, Cusha fathered Nimrod. He was
the first warrior on the earth. 9 He was a warrior of the hunta before
Y . That is why it is said, “Like Nimrod, a warrior of the hunta
before Y .” 10 The beginning of his kingdom was Babylon,a
Erech,b and Akkad, all of themc in the land of Shinar. 11 From that
land he went out to Assyriaa and built Nineveh, the broad city,b Calah
and 12 Resin between Nineveh and Calah. It is the great city.a 13
Egypt fathered Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, 14 Pathrusim,
Casluhim (from which the Philistines came),a and Caphtorim. 15
Canaan fathered Sidon, his first born, and Heth, 16 the Jebusites,
the Amorites, the Girgashites, 17 the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites,
18 the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the Hamathites. Afterward the
Canaanite clans scattered. 19 The territory of the Canaanites
extended from Sidon in the direction ofa Gerar as far as Gazah, and
in the direction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim as far as
Lasha. 20 These are the sons of Ham according to their clans and
their languages, in their lands in their peoples.

21 To Shem also [offspring] were born,a the father of all the sons of
Eber, older brother of Japheth.b 22 The sons of Shem: Elam, Ashur,
Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. 23 The sons of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether,
and Mash.a 24 Arpachshad fathered Shelah. Shelah fathered Eber.
25 Two sons were born to Eber. The name of the one was Peleg, for
in his time the earth was divided. And the name of his brother was
Joktan. 26 Joktan fathered Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah,
27 Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, 28 Obal, Abimael, Sheba, 29 Ophir,
Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan. Their territory
extended from Mesha toward Sephar, the eastern mountains. 31
These are the sons of Shem according to their clans and their
languages in their lands according to their peoples.

32 These are the clans of the sons of Noah according to their

descendants in their peoples. From these the peoples spread out
over the earth after the flood.
Notes on Text and Translation
10:1a Though some translations render ‫ בני‬here and/or throughout Gen 10 with
gender-neutral terms, such as “descendants” (e.g., NRSV) or “children” (e.g.,
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 211), the chapter focuses exclusively on male
progeny of the descendants of Noah’s sons. In this respect it seems to be
working out of an apparent androcentric concept of male figures functioning
as the defining genealogical founders of different ethnic groups. This
translation reflects this focus through rendering ‫ בני‬here and elsewhere in Gen
10 as “sons.”
2a This verse and much of the rest of the chapter consists of lists. Though these
can be understood as verbless clauses and then rendered here and
elsewhere with a present or past form of the verb “to be” (e.g., “the sons of
Japheth were” or “the sons of Japheth are”), the translation here follows the
convention of using a simple colon to indicate equivalency without opting for
past or present.
4a For arguments preferring this MT reading of Dodanim over the Samaritan and
LXX Rodanim (see also 1 Chr 1:7), see Paul-Richard Berger, “Ellasar,
Tarschisch und Jawan, Gn 14 und 10,” WO 13 (1982): 50–78 [here 60–61].
5a The expression ‫ אי הגוים‬here literally means “coasts of the peoples.” It seems to
refer to sea peoples, as it is rendered, e.g., in Alter, Books of Moses, 36. Here
and elsewhere the Hebrew term ‫ גוי‬is translated “people” rather than the
typical “nation,” given the specifically modern significations of the latter term.
5b Many have conjectured an original reading of “these are the sons of Japheth”
(‫ )אלה בני יפת‬at this locus, thus coming closer to the conclusions for Ham (Gen
10:20) and Shem (10:31).1 As I argue in Formation of Genesis 1–11, 197–
198, the original (P) conclusion for Japheth was likely much closer to Gen
10:20, 31 than mere insertion of “these are the sons of Japhet” would indicate.
Rather than halfway reconstructing that original conclusion to the Japheth
section, it is translated here as it appears in the manuscript witnesses.
8a The subject is placed here in front extra position, producing what Andersen
calls a “pseudo-circumstantial clause.”2
9a Literally “warrior of game” (‫ )גבור־ציד‬in both instances. The rendering “warrior of
the hunt” understands this to be an expression referring to a warrior who, like
many ancient kings, exhibits his prowess particularly through the hunt.
10a Though a longstanding translation tradition has rendered ‫ בבל‬here in Gen
10:10 and in 11:9 as “Babel,” there is no compelling reason to diverge here
 from the more typical rendering of this place name as “Babylon,” as in the
other 222 instances of the same place name in the Hebrew Bible.3
10b Scholars are generally agreed that Erech (‫ אֶ ֶרך‬in the Hebrew) is intended to
represent the ancient Sumerian city of Uruk.4
10c Though scholars have proposed Nippur and other possibilities for ‫כלנה‬
(Calneh), no one has succeeded in establishing an identification of it with a
large city in Mesopotamia. Instead, following some manuscripts in the
Samaritan Pentateuch tradition, it makes sense to understand ‫ כ ְָלנֵה‬in the
Masoretic text as a revocalization of an earlier ‫כֻּלָּ נָה‬, the latter expression
meaning “all of them” and stressing that Babylon, Uruk, and Akkad were all “in
the land of Shinar” (‫)בארץ שנער‬, which is then the “land” (‫ )ארץ‬that Nimrod then
leaves at the outset of verse 11.5 It is this shift in location that would explain
the emphasis in 10:11 on the idea that all of the first three cities were in
Shinar. Moreover, this reading, along with the interpretation of ‫ רחבת עיר‬in
10:12 as a descriptor of Nineveh, would suggest that 10:10–11 associates
Nimrod with three early South-Central Mesopotamian cities (Babylon, Uruk,
Akkad) before describing him as moving north to build three great Neo-
Assyrian capitals (Nineveh, Resen [Dur-Sharrukin], and Calah. These sorts of
factors led W. F. Albright to propose this reading as a conjectural emendation
before the Samaritan evidence was known, and many others have since
accepted it.6
11a Some have seen Ashur as the subject of Gen 10:11. Nevertheless, especially
when this verse is read in relation to the following story about the spreading of
“all the earth” specifically from Shinar (Gen 11:1–9), the Nimrod mentioned in
the previous verse as a former ruler of Babylon should be understood to be
the subject of this sentence, while ‫( אשור‬Ashur-Assyria) should be understood
to function adverbially to indicate the direction in which Nimrod went.7
11b The translation here follows Sasson along with Van der Toorn and Van der
Horst (among others) in understanding ‫ רחבת עיר‬here not as another city, but
as a way the text stresses Nineveh’s famous breadth (Jonah 3:3; 4:11).8 This
would parallel an emphasis later in the verse on Niniveh’s (or Calah’s) status
as a “great city.”
12a Here understanding ‫( הוא העיר הגדול‬it is the great city) as an appositional
clause, functioning as a relative clause to modify ‫( כלה‬Calah) or ‫נינוה‬
(Nineveh). Andersen, Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, 58–59 notes other
examples of this kind of clause in the non-P material of Gen 10.9
14a Some suppose that this relative clause should be placed after Caphtorim,
since the Philistines are associated with Caphtor elsewhere (Amos 9:7; Jer
 47:4).10 Nevertheless, this suggested emendation could just as well be a
modern harmonization of Gen 10:14 to those verses.
19a Though ‫ באך‬is an infinitive construction (infinitive construct of ‫ בוא‬with 2 m.s.
suffix) that literally means “until your (m.s.) coming” and often functions
analogously to ‫ עד‬in its locative mode (“as far as”; e.g., Judg 6:4; 1 Kgs
18:46), its presence alongside ‫ עד‬in this verse suggests that it is meant here
(and likely in 10:29 as well) to indicate direction. Hence the rendering “in the
direction of.”
21a The masculine singular subject of the passive verb is only implicit in the verb,
an archaic qal passive formulation like those seen in 4:26; 6:1; 10:25 and
possibly 4:18; 10:1b [where the niphal and qal passive are not morphologically
distinct in a consonantal text]). Though many translations supply “sons” here
(this one supplies “offspring” in brackets), the Hebrew has a strange elliptical
formulation (‫ ;לשם גם־הוא יֻלַּ ד‬literally “to Shem, also him, [m.s.] was born”) that
does not specify the number of Shem’s descendants.11 As will be discussed
below, there is a chance that this elliptical formulation was chosen to allow the
understanding that Shem’s offspring came through Eber, the eponymous
ancestor of the Hebrews.
21b The translation here understands ‫“( הגדול‬the older/bigger one”) to modify
Shem at the outset of the sentence, thus agreeing with implicit depictions of
Shem elsewhere (e.g., Gen 9:18–27) as the eldest of Noah’s sons. Some
versions, many rabbinic interpretations, and more recent scholars (e.g.,
Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 218) take the adjective to modify Japheth, thus
implying that Japheth is the older of the brothers.
23a The MT reading of ‫“( מש‬Mash”) diverges from that of the Septuagint (Μόσοχ
reflecting ‫ )משך‬and Samaritan Pentateuch and Qumran Community Rule
(1QS ii 11)—‫משא‬. The former reading by the Septuagint is likely an
assimilation of ‫ מש‬to the better known ‫( משך‬see, e.g., Ezek 27:13; 32:26),
while the Samaritan reading may assimilate an unknown ‫ מש‬in Gen 10:24 to
‫ משא‬in Gen 25:14.12
Introduction and Diachronic Prologue
Genesis 10 often has been labelled the “table of nations,” with
exegetes taking it to be an attempted comprehensive overview of the
world’s peoples. Indeed, though the chapter mentions 71 figures
under the heading of the “descendants of Noah’s sons,” many have
read this overview of post-flood people(s) descending from Noah’s
sons through the lens of Deut 32:8 as a survey of the “70” original
post-flood peoples.13 In addition, many past interpreters have
focused on identifying which peoples were meant as referents for the
often obscure names in Genesis 10 and distributing these
names/peoples across a map of the ancient world. This effort often
has intersected with racial and colonial politics, especially as
interpreters used Genesis 10 to import European categories of race
into the Bible and distinguish purported “lower” races of Hamites and
Canaanites from the Semitic peoples leading to Israel.14 One
specific manifestation of this has been the traditional reading of
Nimrod in Gen 10:8–12—combined with the Babylon story in Gen
11:1–9—as a black-skinned, “Hamite” rebel against God, starting his
kingdom in Babylon (Gen 10:10) and eventually leading people to
build the tower there and threaten heaven (Gen 11:1–9).15
Closer examination shows that the chapter seems composed to
resist attempts to read it as an overview of known peoples, even as
some portions of it—especially its non-Priestly portions—link in
problematic ways with later discourses on slavery and race. To start,
approximately 30% of the names listed in the chapter remain
obscure, despite hundreds of years of attempts of scholars to identify
their referents. Of course, at least some of this difficulty in identifying
names in Gen 10 probably results from the chronological distance
separating contemporary readers from the ancient author’s
geographical understanding. The learned scribes who wrote these
texts probably had access to now-unavailable traditions about exotic
locales and distant peoples. At the same time, they may have drawn
some relatively obscure names from such traditions in order to
impress their intended readers with the vast scope of descendants of
Noah’s sons, presupposing, to some extent, a lack of knowledge of
some topoi even on the part of their intended ancient recipients.
Insofar as this is true, the intense effort expended by later exegetes
to clarify the identity and map all of the names in the chapter may
stand in opposition to the text’s original pragmatic stategies.16
As in other sections of the commentary, this treatment of Gen 10
focuses particularly on how a diachronically-informed synchronic
approach can illuminate these and other issues surrounding this text.
In brief, Gen 10 seems to contain four identifiable diachronic strata,
with the materials in each linking to a different broader synchronic
context: an early non-Priestly treatment of Canaan’s and Shem’s
offspring (Gen 10:15, 21), later expansions of that treatment (Gen
10:13–14, 16–19; also Nimrod in Gen 10:8b–12), an originally
separate Priestly genealogy (Gen 10:1a, 2–7, 20, 22–23, 31–32),
and a conflation of that Priestly genealogy with the expanded version
of non-P. This latter conflation probably also involved the addition of
some materials to the chapter that connect to both P and non-P
materials (e.g., Gen 10:24–30).
To start, scholars have long distinguished between the chapter’s
overall Priestly superstructure which consists largely of verbless
clauses listing descendants (Gen 10:1a, 2–7, 20, 22–23, 31–32) and
intervening non-Priestly verbal genealogical materials that show links
to previously discussed pre-P primeval history material (usually
identified as “J”). These two layers are distinct in style, geographical
concept, and some details. The P framework focuses almost
exclusively on eponymous ancestors of peoples/places and moves
from peripheral Japhetite Northern peoples (Asia Minor and Greece)
in Gen 10:2–5 to Hamite neighbors to Israel’s (south)west in 10:6–7
(20) before settling on eastern Shemite Mesopotamian and Aramean
peoples in Gen 10:22–23(31) that will lead to Abraham’s father in
Gen 11:10–26.
Meanwhile, the design and conceptuality of this P framework is
duplicated and/or disrupted by intervening non-P materials used to
supplement it. The focus on Mesopotamia and Canaan in the non-P
material of Gen 10:8–12 and 10:15–19 disrupts the general western-
southern (Egypt-Cush-Libya) focus seen in the Priestly framework
regarding Ham (Gen 10:6–7). The non-Priestly introduction of
Shem’s descendants in Gen 10:21 somewhat doubles the Priestly
list of Shem’s descendants in 10:22. Finally, P’s inclusion of Ashur
and Lud among Shem’s descendants in this Gen 10:22 list contrasts
with the treatment of Ashur in the non-P material in Gen 10:11 and
Lud as one of Egypt’s sons in the non-P material of Gen 10:13.
These sorts of indicators suggest that much of the non-P material
surveyed above originated as parts of a specifically non-P overview
of the offspring of Noah’s sons featured in Gen 9:20–27. To be sure,
a number of scholars have argued for a redactional/compositional
approach to the chapter. Some argued that the Priestly portions were
composed to reframe the non-P materials that they now enclose.17
Recently there has been a trend for more scholars to argue that the
non-P materials were composed from the outset to perform the
supplementary role that they now play vis-à-vis P materials.18
Nevertheless, ancient authors who expanded earlier texts did not
typically produce the kinds of disruptive contrasts seen here between
the Priestly substructure of the chapter and the non-P elements that
now supplement it.19 Moreover, an evident broader conflict in
structural concepts between P and non-P in Gen 10 speaks for the
chapter being the 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: with P providing the
above-noted three-part survey of Israel’s peripheral (Japhetite) to
near (Shemite) ancestors and non-P contrasting the descendants of
Ham and Shem (along with brief mention of Japheth in 10:21b). As a
result of the conflation of these competing systems, it is almost
impossible to develop a scheme to explain the distribution of peoples
across Noah’s three sons in the present synchronic form of Gen
10.20 Rather, a diachronic distinction between originally separate P
and non-P layers in Gen 10 clarifies the particular focus and
synchronic function of each overview within its respective P and non-
P context. And this distinction, in turn, provides a basis for some
further discussion of the special character of the Nimrod material in
Gen 10:8–12 and ways that various elements now embedded in Gen
10 might be related to non-biblical precursors.
That said, some portions of the non-P material in Gen 10 do
appear to be post-Priestly, even though they mimic verbal
genealogical formulations otherwise typical of non-P genealogies.
This seems clearest for the material about Joktan’s descendants in
Gen 10:26–30. As will be discussed below, Gen 10:26–29a, though
resembling non-P verbal reports of a figure “fathering” (‫ ילד‬qal)
descendants, appears to follow Priestly models in surveying
descendants of Joktan (who do not lead to the promise) before the
Priestly genealogy in Gen 11:10–26 gives the genealogy leading
from his brother Peleg to Abraham (the recipient of God’s promise).
This section has no clear rationale aside from following this Priestly
model of successive sections regarding excluded and included sons,
and it follows this model by virtue of being combined with the
following Priestly genealogy leading from Shem through Eber and
Peleg to Abraham (11:10–26).21
Another significant post-Priestly intervention involved the
apparent relocation of non-P material about Nimrod (Gen 10:8b–12)
such that Nimrod became a son of Cush (Gen 10:8a). This section in
Gen 10:8–12 is the first of three sections in Gen 10:8–19 where non-
P material augments the treatment of three out of the four sons of
Ham that are listed in Gen 10:6. Yet whereas the non-P material
about Egypt’s fathering (10:13–14) and Canaan’s fathering (Gen
10:15–19) does seem to have originated in a pre-Priestly overview of
Noah’s grandsons, the material in Gen 10:8b–12 about Nimrod is not
genealogical. Instead, it focuses on his status as a famous hunter,
his original kingdom in Shinar (including the city of Babylon), and his
move to Assyria to build capitals there. The latter elements (Shinar,
Babylon, and Nimrod’s move from there) connect the Nimrod
fragment to the Babylon story in Gen 11:1–9, but as others have
observed, these connections make more sense if the Nimrod section
originally followed the account of Babylon’s building rather than
preceding it. In that original placement, Babylon would already exist
(in some form) to be the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom (Gen 10:10;
cf. 11:4–5), and Nimrod’s departure from there to Assyria (Gen
10:11) would have connected with a more general human dispersion
from Babylon (11:7–9).22 Now, however, the Nimrod fragment
functions in its present context to fill out P’s treatment of Cush’s
descendants in Gen 10:7. As will be discussed below, a post-P
conflator likely relocated the Nimrod material from its original location
(after the Babylon story), making Nimrod into a son of Cush (Gen
10:8a) in order to provide an extra section on Cush’s descendants
(10:8–12) before using non-P genealogical materials to provide
similar elaboration about Egypt (10:13–14) and Canaan (10:15–
19).23
Finally, scholars have long recognized indicators of stratification
within the remaining non-P materials surveying Noah’s sons. In
particular, there seems to be some sort of distinction between the
initial list of Canaan’s sons as “Sidon, his first born, and Heth” in Gen
10:15 and the subsequent listing of additional peoples (with gentilics,
e.g., “Jebusites”) descending from Canaan in Gen 10:16–18a. This
has led most critical scholars to identify a likely supplementation of
Canaan’s descendants in either Gen 10:16–18a or, more broadly, in
10:16–19 as a whole.24 So also, the list-style and plurals of the list of
Egypt’s descendants in Gen 10:13–14 is distinct from the non-P
treatments of Noah’s grandsons in Gen 10:15 and 10:21.25 This
suggests that this listing also is part of a supplementation of the non-
P overview of Noah’s sons, perhaps added to insure that a
forerunner to Egypt was included in post-flood humanity.
To be sure, such diachronic distinctions, especially those just
mentioned within non-P materials, must remain tentative, and this
commentary does not provide space to give full rationales for each of
them. Moreover, it is particularly difficult to ascertain the pre- or post-
Priestly status of some portions of the chapter, such as the
expanded treatment of descendants of Canaan (Gen 10:16–19) and
the genealogical bridge from Arpachshad to Peleg and Joktan (Gen
10:24–25).26 With these qualifications, the following overview is
offered of the synchronic levels that will be discussed in the following
commentary:
Portions of Gen 10 Synchronic Context
Early non-P juxtaposition Part of an early version of the story of
of the descendants of Noah and sons—Shem, Japheth,
Canaan to be enslaved Canaan (9:18, 20–27)—at the end of
(10:15 [Sidon, Heth) with an independent Primeval History
the proto-Hebrew (“sons of
Eber”) descendants of
Shem, Japheth’s older
brother (10:21)
Expansions of non-P on Following on an updated story of Noah
Egypt’s descendants and sons—Shem, Ham, and Japheth
(10:13–14) and (originally (9:18–27)—amidst an expanded non-P
after Gen 11:1–9) Composition that included a (non-P)
Nimrod’s founding of flood narrative (Gen 6:5–8 … 8:20–22)
Mesopotamian city-states and before likely portions of a non-P
(10:8b–12) ancestral history (e.g., Gen 11:28–30;
12:1–3)
Priestly genealogy of Following on the Priestly flood story
descendants of Noah’s (Gen 6:9–22 … 9:1–17) and preceding
sons (Gen 10:1a, 2–7, 20, P elements (e.g., Gen 1) in an originally
22–23, 31–32) separate Priestly composition
Conflational or post- Parts of a combined P/non-P
Conflational Expansions composition, selectively adapting parts
(Gen 10:1b, 8a, 26–30 of an originally separate non-P
and the reformulation of composition to supplement P’s
Gen 10:5 (now Javan framework
focus) to match territory
sections for Canaan and
Joktan in Gen 10:19, 30)
Synchronic Analysis

Commentary on Pre-P Elements Embedded in

Gen 10
Let us now examine the blocks of likely pre-P material in Gen 10:8–
19, 21. I start with an extended analysis of the above-mentioned
non-genealogical block of material about Nimrod and his building of
Mesopotamian cities (Gen 10:8b–12) before turning to discuss
different levels of non-P’s genealogical overview of Noah’s
grandsons: an early non-P survey of Noah’s sons through Canaan
and Shem (Gen 10:15, 21) and subsequent supplements to
anticipate Egypt (Gen 10:13–14) and expand coverage of Canaan
(Gen 10:16–19).

Genesis 10:8(b)–12: A Non-Priestly Etiology of Mesopotamian

cities and Kingship associated with Nimrod
Where the non-P materials in Gen 10:13ff. focus on the descendants
and (occasionally) territory of Noah’s descendants, the Nimrod
section in Gen 10:8b–12 reports several things about Nimrod as an
individual: 1) he starts (‫ )החל‬to be a warrior on the earth, famous as
a game-hunter (10:8b–9); 2) the “beginning” (‫ )ראשית‬of “his kingdom”
(‫ )ממלכתו‬was in Babylon, Uruk, and Akkad in Shinar (10:10); and
3) he subsequently went out “from that land [Shinar]” to Ashur and
built three famous capital cities of the Neo-Assyrian kingdom—
Nineveh, Calah, and Resen.27 “Resen” The latter, of course, is not
known as a great Neo-Assyrian capital. Nevertheless, recent studies
have argued persuasively that this biblical “Resen” is meant to
function as a stand-in for Sargon II’s ambitious, yet unfinished
capital, Dur-Sharrukin.28 The author could not easily name this
capital “Dur-Sharrukin” in this primeval context, since this name is so
clearly connected to a historical, Neo-Assyrian king, Sargon II, who
bragged about having founded the city from the ground up. So
instead the author of this text picked a town located next to the site
of Dur Sharrukin, Resen, and asserted that—despite Sargon II’s
claims—primeval Nimrod built the city of “Resen” long before Sargon
II renamed it after himself. Indeed, one possible point of this last
section about Nimrod’s building of Neo-Assyrian capitols may be to
undermine the boasts by Sargon II and other Neo-Assyrian kings to
have built great cities. Genesis 10:8–12 asserts instead that Nimrod,
a mighty warrior before Y , did so and emphasizes the historical
point that all of these Assyrian royal capitals post-dated more ancient
sites of kingship in Mesopotamia (Babylon, Uruk [biblical Erech], and
Akkad).
Oral background of the tradition The Nimrod section is
distinguished from surrounding materials by the fact that it purports
to be explicitly built around an oral tradition, known to its audience,
about a hunter-warrior before Y . This tradition is cited in Gen
10:9b with a formula “That is why it is said” (‫ )על־כן יאמר‬that is used
elsewhere to introduce previously known sayings, whether from a
proverb (1 Sam 19:24; cf. 10:12; Gen 22:14; 2 Sam 5:8) or a book
(Num 21:14).29 In this case, the cited saying—starting “like
Nimrod”—focuses on Nimrod as a widely known exemplary “warrior
of the hunt before Y ,” much like other “like” sayings in the Bible
—e.g., “like Sodom and Gommorah” (Isa 1:9; 3:9; Jer 23:14; Zeph
2:9)—draw on oral commonplaces to make a broader point. This
famed hunter status of Nimrod as a warrior hunter (‫ )גבור ציד‬helps
him function well as a primeval figure that might originate a
Mesopotamian ideal of kingship that prominently featured boasts
about kings’ hunting prowess.30 To be sure, many have interpreted
Nimrod’s name as meaning “we will rebel,” and seen that as an
indicator that Nimrod is viewed negatively here. Nevertheless, the
text itself, especially the part building on an audience’s prior
knowledge of this figure’s status as a “warrior of the hunt before
Y ,” does not seem to presuppose such a negative judgment.31
Instead, Nimrod stands as a “warrior” successor (Gen 10:8b) to the
“warriors of old” mentioned in Gen 6:4, while his famed status as a
“warrior of the hunt before Y ” (10:9 ;‫ )גבור ציד לפני יהוה‬makes him
contrast with Cain, who went “from before Y ” (‫ ;מלפני יהוה‬Gen
4:16).32 In this way, the author of Gen 10:8b–12 built a written
section about a primeval ruler around an earlier, fixed (likely oral)
tradition about Nimrod as an exemplary warrior hunter before Y ,
with “before Y ” here meant to function as a positive superlative
(and contrast to Cain).33
The connection to Assyria Later on, the association of Nimrod
with Assyria in 10:11–12 would lead interpreters of this text toward a
negative perspective on Nimrod. After all, Assyria is more generally
viewed quite negatively across the rest of the Hebrew Bible. For
example, a late oracle in Mic 5:5 proclaims divine judgment against
the “land of Assyria” and then names the same land “the land of
Nimrod.” Interpreters have expanded on these associations,
depicting Nimrod as an evil, demonic figure (perhaps one of the
giants in Gen 6:4) who was “against” Y .34 Nevertheless,
considered within its likely original synchronic (pre-P) context, Gen
10:8–12 presents Nimrod as a relatively neutral to positive figure.
The Mesopotamian origin of kingship Overall, this material in
Gen 10:8b–12 synthesizes Mesopotamian motifs and history to
provide a biblical etiology of kingship in the primeval period, indeed a
kingship originally situated among the great cities of Mesopotamia.35
As noted above, his particular form of warrior-ship (cf. Gen 6:4) is
one of hunter-warriorship (10:10 ,‫ )גבר־ציד‬that puts him in continuity
with Mesopotamian kings.36 Moreover, the etiology of kingship in
Gen 10:8b–12 is parallel to a similar focus in several Mesopotamian
cosmologies and in the Sumerian King List tradition on the primeval
origins of kingship. Indeed, this Hebrew text retains a Mesopotamian
flavor in depicting Nimrod as embodying characteristics of multiple
Mesopotamian kings (e.g., Gilgamesh, Tukulti-Ninurta) and deities
(e.g., Ninurta, Marduk).37 This idea in 10:8–12 that kingship
originated outside Israel is obliquely consistent with biblical
traditions, especially in Samuel–Kings, that take the development of
Israelite kingship as an appropriation of a foreign practice that
originated elsewhere. Reflecting a similar understanding of kingship
as a historical, originally pre-Israelite phenomenon, Gen 10:8b–12
locates the ultimate origins of kingship and cities in post-flood
Mesopotamia.
Genesis 10:15 and 21: An Early Sequel to the Story of Noah and
His Sons
The story of Noah and his sons in Gen 9:20–27 provides the original
synchronic context for the notices about Ham, Shem, and Japheth
here in Gen 10:15 and 10:21. Where that story focused particularly
on the destiny of Canaan to be a slave to his brothers (Gen 9:24–
27), the notice in Gen 10:15 focuses on Canaan’s descendants,
Sidon and Heth. And where that story closely paired Shem and
Japheth (9:22–23), Gen 10:21 likewise treats those two brothers
alongside each other and coordinates them.
Phoenicians and Hittites The fathering report for Canaan in Gen
10:15 symbolizes lowland Phoenicia with the figure of “Sidon” and
the pre-Israelite inhabitants of the inland hills with “Heth.” Sidon was
the old head city of the Phoenicians and frequent symbol for
Phoenicians in general (Judg 18:7; 1 Kgs 5:20 [ET 5:6]; 16:31).38
Heth is an artificial name formed to represent the Hittites. The
Hittites are depicted elsewhere in the Bible as inhabiting the inland
hill country (e.g., Josh 11:3; Num 13:29) and stand among the pre-
Israelite peoples displaced by Israel (e.g., Gen 15:20; Exod 3:20)
and later enslaved by Solomon (1 Kgs 9:20–21).39
“Eber” Next, Gen 10:21 likely represents the original conclusion
to the non-P overview of the grandsons of Noah (see below on Gen
10:22–23 [P] and 10:24–30 [likely later post-P layers]). After Gen
10:15 reported Canaan’s fathering of two (or more, once extended)
sons, Gen 10:21 presupposes and builds on that verse in reporting
that Shem also received offspring (qal passive of ‫)ילד‬, and then uses
an apposition to describe Shem as the “father of all of the sons of
Eber” and the “older brother of Japheth.”40 Earlier loci in the non-P
primeval history that featured a similar passive report of offspring
being born to a patriarch occurred toward the outset of new
genealogical lines: Irad being born to Hennoch toward the outset of
the Cain/Kenite line (Gen 4:18) and Enosh being born to Seth toward
the outset of the Sethite line (Gen 4:25).41 Genesis 10:21 diverges
somewhat with its unusual report that Shem was the recipient of
sons, but not having those sons be the subject of the passive verb.
Nevertheless, the similarity of the passive formulation in Gen 10:21
to those in Gen 4:17, 25 suggests a particular significance to the
offspring introduced in Gen 10:21.42
It has not always been clear, however, who those offspring—“all
of the sons of Eber”—are meant to represent. Some, such as Rashi
and Rambam, have seen the name “Eber” as a way of reflecting the
Mesopotamian origins of Shem’s offspring, with them coming
“across” (‫ )עבר‬the river. Others, such as Pseudo-Jonathan, Ibn Ezra,
and Radak, have linked “Eber” here with the designation “Hebrew”
that is often applied to Israelites in biblical narratives, especially by/to
foreigners (e.g., Gen 39:14, 17; 40:15; 41:12; Exod 1:16, 19; 2:6–7;
Jonah 1:9). This commentary sides with the latter interpretation of
Eber. Already we saw the artificial creation of an individual “Cain” out
of the designation “Kenite” (Gen 4:1–16, 24–25) and “Heth” out of
the ethnic designation “Hittite” (Gen 10:15) in preceding non-P texts.
It seems that a similar production of “Eber” (‫ )ﬠֵ בֶ ר‬out of “Hebrew”
(‫)ﬠ ְב ִרי‬
ִ has occurred in this locus. As such, “all of the sons of Eber” in
Gen 10:21 is the creation of a non-P author to provide an
anticipatory primeval analogy to “the sons of Israel.”
“The sons of Eber” as primeval Hebrews Given the tendency of
many ancient cosmologies to provide primeval background to their
audience’s social world, it would make sense that the non-P primeval
history would provide one here. At the same time, it would not have
worked for an author to have “the sons of Israel” themselves appear
in the primeval history well before stories of their emergence from
ancestors and exodus. So, instead, that author created a primeval
ancestor, “Eber,” who could stand as the father of a broader group of
primeval Hebrews (“all of the sons of Eber”) from which the later
Hebrew Israelites could emerge. In this way, the text may partake of
an early understanding of “Hebrew” (‫ )עברי‬as a larger group,
including but extending beyond Israel, an understanding which is
occasionally attested in other biblical texts as well (e.g., 1 Sam 13:3;
27:12; 29:3).43
Japheth The verse concludes with brief mention of Japheth as
part of an additional designation of Shem. Shem is “the brother of
Japheth, the big one.” Already Japheth stood paired with and
subordinate to Shem in the story of Noah and his sons. The two
always stand together in the story itself (Gen 9:22–23), their
blessings occur in the same speech (Gen 9:26–27), and Japheth’s
blessing consists largely of being able to dwell in Shem’s tent (Gen
9:27). The brief note here seems to explicate that blessing,
designating Shem as “the big one” capable of providing such shelter
to Japheth. As such, Japheth seems to stand between his two
brothers in Gen 9:20–27; 10:15, 21: Canaan (originally) designated
as the “small” son to Noah (Gen 9:24) and Shem designated as “the
big” brother to Japheth (Gen 10:21bβ).
As a sequel to Gen 9:20–27, Gen 10:21 thus links the famous
and privileged status of Noah’s eldest son, Shem/“Name,” whose
god is Y (Gen 9:26), with the “sons of Eber” [Hebrews] to whom
the text was addressed. In addition, the combined materials in Gen
10:15, 21 make a bold claim: that a broad “Canaanite” group
composed of inland descendents of “Heth” and coastal descendants
of “Sidon” is cursed to slavery under the “Hebrew” descendents of
Shem. In this respect, Gen 9:20–27; 10:15, 21 resembles 1 Kgs
9:20–21//2 Chr 8:7–8’s depiction of pre-Israelite peoples as slaves,
but it audaciously differs from that tradition in including the
prestigious Phoenicians (Sidon) among the peoples destined for
such enslavement.44

Genesis 10:13–14: Egypt’s Fathering of Peoples

As discussed in the commentary on Gen 9:18–27, the original
counterpart to Japheth and Shem in non-P likely was Canaan,
Noah’s original “small/young” son (Gen 9:24). Only later was Ham
substituted for Canaan (Gen 9:18*, 22b), likely to provide room in the
genealogy of post-flood peoples for inclusion of Egypt (10:13–14)
alongside Canaan (Gen 10:15–19) as among Noah’s offspring. This
suggests that the extended listing of Egypt’s offspring in Gen 10:13–
14 was probably formed with the addition of Ham to Gen 9:18–27 in
view. Together, these additions (perhaps along with the
Mesopotamia-focused Nimrod material) expanded what once was a
more regionally-focused, non-P primeval history with figures like
Ham>Egypt that stood behind the major empires of their world.
The seven peoples listed here as Egypt’s descendants are
relatively obscure. The Ludim (=Lydians; cf. Isa 66:19; Ezek 27:10;
30:5) and Pathrusim (Jer 44:1, 15; Ezek 29:14; 30:14) are the most
identifiable, but neither play a prominent role in later biblical
traditions. Meanwhile, Egypt itself is an important locus in later
stories of Genesis (e.g., Gen 12:10–20; 37–50) and Exodus. The
(extra) treatment of Egypt as a primeval ancestor in Gen 10:13–14
anticipates this later focus.

Genesis 10:16–19: An Expansion of the Report of Canaan’s

Fathering
At some point the brief notice about Canaan fathering Sidon and
Heth was expanded by a list of nine additional Canaanite peoples
(Gen 10:16–18a) and a description of their spread across a specific
territorial area from coast (Sidon) to inland loci (Gen 10:18b–19).
The above-discussed earlier non-P primeval material had focused
particularly on the enslavement of Canaanites (Gen 9:25; 10:15).
Now, with its territorial focus, this expansion in 10:16–19 anticipates
later biblical materials about Israel’s displacement of Canaanites
(e.g., Gen 15:18–21; Exod 3:17; Deut 7; Joshua). Nevertheless, Gen
10:16–19 does not just anticipate Israel’s later conquest of Canaan
in Exodus–Joshua. Within the present text of Genesis it also
prepares for the Gen 14 story of Abraham’s conquest of a coalition
of Canaanite cities who had kidnapped Lot, a kind of proto-conquest
of the land. Four of the five cities mentioned in Gen 10:19 as part of
the eastern border of the Canaanite peoples (Sodom, Gomorrah,
Admah and Zeboiim) overlap with the cities said to have been ruled
by the Canaanite coalition in Gen 14 (Gen 14:2, 8).45
To be sure, this does not account for the other five names of
peoples added to the list—Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites, Zemarites, and
Hamathites. These names seem to be gentilics created out of a list
of five Phoenician cities.46 I suggest that the author-redactor of Gen
10:16–19 added these names as ethnic equivalents to the
Phoenician “Sidon” standing at the outset of the list. In this way that
author continued the dual focus in Gen 10:15 on the future
enslavement of (Phoenician) lowland and (Hittite) highland peoples.
Where Gen 10:15 just focused on Sidon and Heth as representatives
of Canaan’s coastal (Sidon) and hill country (Heth) descendants, this
expansionary material added four hill country peoples (Jebusites,
etc.) and five coastal peoples (Arkites, etc.). Moreover, the
expansion then continued by emphasizing the spread of these
peoples (Gen 10:18b) over a settlement area that combined both
coastal and hill country regions (Gen 10:19), indeed one whose
border was initially marked by the coastal city of “Sidon” mentioned
at the outset of the older list of Canaan’s descendants (Gen 10:19aα;
cf. 10:15).

Conclusions on the Non-P Overview of Noah’s Offspring

The preceding sections on the descendants of Egypt (Gen 10:13–
14), Nimrod’s founding of Mesopotamian capitals (Gen 10:8b–12)
and possibly also the additional nation-descendants of Canaan (Gen
10:16–19) likely have a distinct synchronic context when compared
with the likely earlier notes on Canaan and Shem’s descendants
(Gen 10:15, 21). As we saw earlier, Gen 9:20–27 focused
particularly on Canaan’s actions and providing background to his
future slavery to his brothers, Shem and Japheth. The early non-P
material in Gen 10:15, 21 followed the same emphasis, grouping,
and order: starting with a report of Canaan’s fathering of ancestors of
lowland (Sidon) and highland (Heth) Canaanites (Gen 10:15/9:25)
before moving to mention of Shem’s identity as father of primeval
Hebrews (Gen 10:21abα/9:26) and a closing brief mention of a
“Japheth” under the tent of Shem whose correlate in the ancient
Levant is unclear (Gen 10:21bβ/9:27). Whatever ethnic group this
Japheth once stood for, it does not appear to be a primary focus of a
text much more focused on Canaanites cursed to slavery on the one
hand and implicitly Hebrew descendants of famous “Shem” on the
other.
When the non-P flood narrative was added, this locally-focused
overview of Noah’s sons shifted in its significance, even as it still
partook of the regional focus of the earlier non-P layer. The
expanded non-P primeval history (now including a flood narrative)
purported to survey post-flood humanity as a whole, “all the earth”
descending from Noah’s sons, starting with the addition of Gen 9:19.
In the process, it expanded the scope of the non-P survey at least
slightly, to include Egypt (as a son of Ham), suggesting that the
broader world of peoples surrounding Israel, even potential enemy
figures such as Canaan and Egypt, are common parts of a post-flood
family that all descends from Noah’s sons. In this sense, these
peoples—“Hebrews” included—descend from a set of “brothers” and
have corresponding family-clan bonds. Nevertheless, such family
bonds hardly guarantee peace in this non-P narrative, as is seen in
preceding non-P stories of brother conflicts in the primeval history
(Gen 4:1–16; 9:20–27) and the following non-P ancestral history
(Jacob-Esau; Joseph and his brothers). In this way, the non-P
genealogical overview of Israel’s far neighbors in Gen 10 does not
smooth over tensions between Israel and these neighbors, but
reconceptualizes them as inner-family conflicts.
This theory about the gradual development of the non-P
materials in Gen 10 might help clarify how it correlates with other
ancient depictions of foreign peoples. Other studies have noted that
non-biblical overviews of foreign peoples often feature a clear
distinction between insider and lesser outsider/foreign groups. We
see this in Egyptian depictions of subjected foreigners, Hittite
depictions of peoples on the border, Persian overviews of the
diversity of peoples ruled by the Persian king, and Greek materials
surveying barbarian peoples.47 Even the Greek catalogue of women,
though bearing some similarities to Gen 10, actually consists of
multiple genealogies and has a consistent focus on establishing the
attachments of Greek communities to various lands and neighbors.48
I am suggesting here that we see a similar insider/outsider distinction
in the non-P layers of Gen 10*. This starts with an earlier layer
depicting the enslavement of Canaanites to the implicitly Hebrew
heirs of Shem along with a liminal group of “Japhetites” under
Shem’s tent (Gen 9:27). And it then continues with the replacement
of Canaan among Noah’s sons by Ham (Gen 9:18*, 22b), the
inclusion of Egypt among Ham’s sons as potentially included in the
curse of slavery (Gen 10:13–14), and the augmentation of the
treatment of Canaan to include anticipations of Israel’s conquest of
the land (Gen 10:16–19). To be sure, even with the inclusion of
Egypt, the scope remained limited to relatively near neighbors of
Israel. Nevertheless, the implicitly universal vision of this
reconceived non-P survey of post-flood humanity (with Noah’s sons
now as Shem, Ham, and Japheth) stood as a precedent for the
Priestly layer to more fully expand and develop. Let us turn to that
next.

Commentary on the P/Verbless Framework of

Gen 10
As noted above, scholars generally have assigned the genealogical
list-framework and accompanying labels in Gen 10 (Gen 10:1a, 2–7,
20, 22–23, 31–32) to the Priestly source found elsewhere in
Genesis. This P overview of post-flood peoples embedded in Gen 10
originally connected directly to P’s flood account (e.g., Gen 9:1–17)
and was continued with P’s linear genealogy leading from Shem to
Abraham (Gen 11:10–26). This forms the original synchronic context
for the P genealogy of Noah’s sons.
Gen 10:1a, 32a. The Priestly Frame P’s overview opens with a
Toledot label (Gen 10:1a) identifying the following as concerning the
descendants of Noah’s sons.49 This superscription in Gen 10:1a is
balanced, on the other side of the 10:2–31 overview, by a
corresponding subscription in Gen 10:32a:
10:1 ‫תולדת בני־נח שם חם ויפת ואלה‬a These are the descendants of the sons of
Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth
10:32 ‫אלה משפחת בני־נח לתולדתם בגויהם‬a These are the clans of the sons of Noah
by their descendants in their peoples.
The parallels between the two verbless clauses—both of which refer
to the people(s) listed in 10:2–31 with the deictic particle “these”
(‫ )אלה‬and label them as the “descendants” (‫ )תולדת‬of the “sons of
Noah”—indicate that both labels properly function vis-à-vis 10:2–31
alone.
Three broader sections of P’s overview: Japheth, Ham, and
Shem The P overview enclosed by these notices consists of three
sections—one each devoted to descendants of a son of Noah—
starting with Japheth’s descendants (Gen 10:2–5), continuing to
Ham’s (Gen 10:6–7, 20), and concluding with Shem’s descendants
(Gen 10:22–23, 31). With the slight exception of the conclusion to
the Japheth section, these P sections follow a single pattern. Each
starts with a listing of the sons of a given son of Noah (10:2, 6, 22).
Each then includes one or more listings of the grandsons of the
given son of Noah (10:3–4, 7, 23). As part of a survey, these lists
seem to move in geographical order (e.g., east to west for Shem’s
sons, Gen 10:22), rather than purported birth order (cf. Gen 11:10–
11 on Arpachshad as Shem’s implicit firstborn).50 Finally, each
section concludes with a summary note indicating that the peoples
produced by Noah’s sons were distinguished by a mix of social
categories:51
10:5b ‫בארצתם איש ללשנו למשפחתם בגויהם‬
[coastland peoples] in their lands, each one according to his language
by their clans in their peoples.
10:20 ‫למשפחתם ללשנתם בארצתם בגויהם‬
[sons of Ham] according to their clans and their languages,
in their lands in their peoples.
10:31 ‫למשפחתם ללשנתם בארצתם לגויהם‬
[sons of Shem] according to their clans and languages
in their lands according to their peoples.
These concluding notes indicate the common ethnic importance of
the preceding mixed lists of personal names, place names, and
gentilics. To be sure, the verse that concludes the Japheth section
diverges from those for Ham and Shem in focusing on the spread of
a subset of Japheth’s descendants, “the coastland peoples,” a
designation probably meant to refer to the largely Greek “sons of
Javan” that were listed last among Japheth’s descendants (Gen
10:4). As scholars have long recognized, this is likely a later
adaptation of the Japheth conclusion from one that originally just
focused on “the sons of Japheth.”52 Be that as it may, we should just
note for present purposes that these concluding elements in the
Japheth, Ham, and Shem sections construe the diversity of their
descendants by a combination of genealogical (‫)משפחת‬, linguistic
(‫)לשון‬, geographical (‫)בארצתם‬, and ethnic (‫ )גוים‬elements.
Gen 10:2–5. The descendants of Japheth P’s genealogical
overview of post-flood peoples starts with this section on the sons of
Japheth, the last named son in most lists of the sons of Noah (e.g.,
Gen 5:32; 10:1). Insofar as the names of his descendants can be
connected to ancient peoples, they appear to be groups who lived in
the region of Asia Minor, the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea
region. For example, Gomer appears to represent the Cimmerians
on the North of the Black Sea. Tubal is an area of eastern Asia Minor
connected to the Greek Tibarenoi, and Ashkenaz may represent the
Scythian people who lived in regions abutting the Black Sea. Finally,
Javan and his descendants (e.g., Elisha, Tarshish, Kittim, and
Dodanim [or Rhodians]) are associated with Mediterranean coastal
cities and islands. Since these Japhetite peoples are treated
relatively briefly and stand first in the genealogical overview, they
appear to be considered relatively peripheral to the Shemite line that
will eventually lead to Israel.
Gen 10:6–7, 20. The descendants of Ham The Priestly section
on Ham’s descendants starts with a list of Ham’s sons that moves
from Cush (~Ethiopia), to Egypt, Libya, and Canaan (Gen 10:6).
With the exception of Canaan, these are peoples located to the west
and southwest of Israel-Judah. The known names in the subsequent
list of Cush’s sons in 10:7 are connected to Arabia (e.g., Sabtah,
Ragmah, Sheba [Sabaeans], and Dedan) and seem mostly known
as more distant Arabian trading partners with Israel.
Gen 10:22–23, 31. The descendants of Shem The Priestly
overview of Shem’s descendants features, like the Japhetite and
Hamite sections, listings of Shem’s descendants, first listing Shem’s
sons (10:22) and then the sons of his son, Aram (10:23). The
ethnic/geographic referents for the list of Aram’s sons remain
obscure, and it is not clear exactly what locales or peoples Shem’s
sons, “Lud” and “Arpachshad,” are supposed to represent.
Nevertheless, several of Shem’s sons stand for clearly identifiable
eastern entities—Elam, Ashur, and Aram. In addition, numerous
interpreters have proposed that “Arpachshad” (concluding with the
consonants kšd) is meant to be an encrypted reference to the
Babylonian Chaldeans.53

Conclusions on P’s Treatment of the Descendants of Noah’s

Sons
The global reach and systematic organization of P’s overview of
Noah’s offspring stresses their role in populating the post-flood earth
and thus realizing the creation blessing first bestowed on humans in
Gen 1:28 and then renewed twice in the wake of the flood (Gen 9:1,
7).54 Indeed, P’s stress on the differentiation of the descendants of
Noah’s sons in clans, lands, languages, and/or peoples (Gen 10:5,
20, 31) represents a specifically human counterpart to the
descriptions in the Priestly creation account (Gen 1:11–12, 21, 24–
25) of the generation of plants, sea and air creatures, and animals
“according to their kind(s)” (e.g., ‫ ;למניהם‬Gen 1:21).55 Following a
similarly envisioned biological process (and contrasting with the non-
P Babylon story in Gen 11:1–9), P’s post-flood genealogy describes
how the descendants of Noah’s sons—empowered by God’s
creation and post-flood multiplication blessing (Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7)—
naturally multiply into diverse social groups across various regions
and thus (implicitly) fill the earth.56 Nevertheless, it should be clear
that, in contrast to the Gen 1 depiction of the development of diverse
plant and animal species, the humans of Gen 10 are not depicted in
any way as distinguished from each other by physical type or
species. On the contrary, the post-flood humans of Gen 10 are all
related members of one post-flood family. All implicitly bear the
image of God transmitted from generation to generation (see Gen
5:1–3), while being distinguished socially from one another by a mix
of geographical, ethnic-national, and linguistic features (Gen 10:20,
31 and the original form of 10:5).
This primary focus of P’s overview on all humanity, rather than
separating out and privileging one part, is indicated by its status as a
horizontal, segmented genealogical overview of the descendants of
Noah’s sons. Whereas linear genealogies of the form seen in Gen
5:1–32 and 11:10–26 tend to emphasize the transmission of
authority and privilege across a particular genealogical line (e.g.,
kings or priests), the kind of horizontal genealogical overview seen in
Gen 10 functions to interrelate diverse social groups with each other,
classifying them by nearer and farther genealogical relations.57 The
three-part structure of Gen 10 is the top-most level of that overview,
corresponding to the three sons of Noah. The whole can be
diagramed as follows:
I. Superscription: Post-flood descendants of Noah’s sons 10:1a
II. Three part overview of Noah’s descendants/fathers of post-flood humanity
10:2–31
A. (Most peripheral sideline) the sons of Japheth 10:2–5
 B. (Closer sideline) the sons of Ham 10:6–20
C. (Central focus) the sons of Shem 10:21–31
III. Subscription: Fulfillment of creation/post-flood blessing through spreading
of above clans of sons of Noah as peoples on the earth 10:32
The final emphasis of the chapter on the population of the earth
(10:32)—and the lack of a similar overview of pre-flood peoples in
Gen 1:1–6:4—indicates the stress of this chapter on the idea that it
was in the post-flood period that the creation blessing was
definitively fulfilled.58
Notably, the Priestly genealogical overview of post-flood
humanity, though apparently presupposing the non-P concept of
Noah’s sons as Shem-Ham-Japheth (found in the above-discussed,
expansionary layer of non-P), inherited none of non-P’s focus on
anticipating Israel’s dominance of Canaan or the relatively regional
focus of the non-P materials.59 Indeed, in contrast to non-P (that
seems to refer to proto-Hebrews, Gen 10:21), P’s overview does not
include any specific anticipation of Israel. At the most, it organizes its
global overview to conclude with Israel’s post-flood ancestors
(Shem, Arpachshad; Gen 10:22–23), reserving treatment of Israel’s
specific line for a separate genealogy leading to Abraham (Gen
11:10–26). Meanwhile, P’s emphasis in Gen 10 is on
comprehensiveness and scope, depicting all post-flood peoples
(whether named or not) as descending from one, initial post-flood
family and describing the descendants of Noah’s sons as settling as
far north as the Black Sea (Gomer), as far south as Ethiopia (Cush),
as far east as Elam, and as far west as Libya. P further adds to this
air of comprehensiveness through including some particularly
obscure peoples, perhaps drawing in this regard on esoteric ethnic
information about foreign peoples included in late pre-exilic or later
portions of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.60 And P includes an outlook on yet
more peoples through its concluding note on the spreading of yet
more peoples from these ones (Gen 10:32b).

Comments on the Present (Conflated P/non-P)

Overview of Noah’s Post-Flood Descendants
The existing biblical overview of post-flood peoples owes its basic
structure to the above-discussed Priestly version. Indeed, the above
overview of the structure of P also applies to the present text,
encompassed as that text is by P’s inclusio on the sons of Noah
(Gen 10:1a, 32) and moving through P’s three sections on Japheth
(Gen 10:2–5), Ham (10:6–20), and Shem (Gen 10:21–31).
At the same time, P’s structure is interrupted in the present text
by certain features of the non-P texts used to supplement it. The
above diachronic prologue noted how the non-P materials about
Ham’s descendants in Gen 10:8–19 disrupt the west-to-south
geographical focus of P’s treatment of Ham (Gen 10:6–7), and non-
P’s material on Shem as “father of all of the sons of Eber” in Gen
10:21 does not cohere with P’s treatment of his descendants in Gen
10:22–23 and 11:10–14.61 These textual features are relevant here
because they have contributed to the difficulty that centuries of
interpreters have had in trying to develop a single scheme to explain
the distribution of peoples in Gen 10.62
The conflational supplementation of P’s Ham and Shem sections
meant that the conflate text provides different levels of coverage for
the three lines of Noah’s sons.63 It starts with a more shallow (two
generation) genealogical list of what appear to be considered the
more peripheral Japhethite ancestors of the Mediterranean peoples
(10:2–5), before featuring a somewhat deeper coverage of the
Hamite line seen as relatively closer to Israel (10:6–20; three
generations), and then concludes with the genealogically deepest
(four or five-generation) survey of the Shemite line (10:21–31).64 Let
us look now more specifically at how the sections on Ham (Gen
10:6–20) and Shem (Gen 10:21–31) are distinct from their Priestly
precursors.
In the case of Ham, P’s initial listing of Ham’s sons (Cush, Egypt,
Libya, and Canaan; 10:6) is extended in three ways by non-P
materials. Nimrod is made into an additional son of Cush (Gen
10:8a) so that the non-P materials about Nimrod (Gen 10:8b–12)
extend P’s coverage of Ham’s firstborn, Cush (Gen 10:7). Then non-
P materials about Egypt’s descendants supplement P’s listing of
Egypt as Ham’s son (Gen 10:13–14), and P’s brief listing of Canaan
as Ham’s youngest son is expanded by non-P materials regarding
Canaan’s descendants (Gen 10:15–18a), the spread of Canaanite
clans across Canaan (Gen 10:18b), and their settling in cities that
will later be part of the Canaanite coalition conquered by Abraham
(Gen 10:19; cf. Gen 14).65 This latter section thus anticipates a focus
in subsequent Pentateuchal texts on the future displacement of
Canaan’s sons, present in the land at the time of Abraham (Gen
12:6b), but to be displaced by his descendants (e.g., Gen 15:18–20).
Meanwhile, P’s relatively cursory treatment of Shem (Gen 10:22–
23) is both extended and reformulated in the present text. Not only
does it now feature a genealogical bridge in Gen 10:24, likely
modelled on Gen 11:12–15, that links P’s Arpachshad (Gen 10:22–
23) to the Eber that was more immediately connected to Shem in
non-P (Gen 10:21).66 It also reports that Eber had two sons, Peleg
(also mentioned in P, Gen 11:16–17) and Joktan (Gen 10:25), with
Peleg linked to the Babylon story by way of reporting that the one-
time division of the “the earth” (‫ )הארץ‬seen in that story (‫ כל־הארץ‬in
Gen 11:8–9) occurred during Peleg’s lifetime. The Shem section then
shifts to a focus on Joktan’s fathering of thirteen sons and settlement
in the eastern mountains (10:26–30) before concluding with P’s
overall summary notice for Shem (Gen 10:31).
The tradition incorporated here about Joktan’s thirteen sons likely
has little importance in itself. The figures in it are either unknown or
connect to relatively distant southwest Arabian locales (e.g.,
Hazarmaveth = the east Yemenite city of Hadramaut) and peoples
(e.g., Sheleph = Yemenite Silf tribes), and the territories with which
they are associated have proven particularly difficult to locate.67
Nevertheless, the introduction of Joktan (10:25a) and final focus on
his sons (10:26–30) represent a way that the present portion on
Shem links with both P and non-P materials in anticipating the
following narrative on ancestors of Abraham. A key part of the
specifically Priestly superstructure to the Genesis ancestral story is
the way it twice surveys a genealogical sideline to Israel and
stresses the settlement of that line outside the land (e.g., Ishmael
Gen 25:12–18 and Esau/Edom Gen 36) before turning to coverage
of sons of Abraham that will inherit the land (e.g., Isaac in Gen
25:19ff. and Jacob in Gen 37:[1]2ff.).68 The report of Eber’s fathering
of two sons in Gen 10:25 combines with the genealogy of Joktan in
Gen 10:26–30 to introduce the first part of a similar split in the
primeval period before Abraham. In this case, however, the split
does not concern diverse lines originating from Shem. Instead, Gen
10:25–30 takes as its point of departure the proto-Hebrew “sons of
Eber,” first introducing Joktan alongside Peleg (Gen 10:25) and then
tracing the “Hebrew” descendants of Eber, through Joktan, who do
not lead to Israel (Gen 10:26–29) and noting their settlement in a
territory outside the land (Gen 10:30) before the P genealogy will
then provide the genealogy from Peleg to Abraham (Gen 11:16–26).
In this way, the materials about Eber’s descendants in Gen 10:25–30
work within a combined P/non-P synchronic context. They connect to
the non-P Babylon story (Gen 11:1–9) and echo verbal non-P verbal
genealogical forms (e.g., ‫“[ ולעבר ילד בנים‬and sons were born to
Eber”] 10:25; cf. Gen 4:18, 26). Yet they also combine with Gen
11:10–26 to introduce a primeval counterpart to later P sections in
the ancestral history on excluded and included sons.69
In sum, the present genealogical overview of post-flood humanity
in Gen 10 represents a complex combination of P, diverse non-P
genealogical (e.g., Gen 10:13–15, 21) and non-genealogical (Gen
10:8b–12) materials, and likely post-P materials (e.g., Gen 10:24–
30). Recognition of the diachronic background to this whole lends
caution to elaborate attempts to discern a systematic structure
unifying it. It also highlights those aspects of literary unity that were
important to its author-redactors, versus concerns that were not so
primary. On the one hand, the post-P authors of the text do not seem
to have been preoccupied with different geographical treatments of
similar figures, preserving divergent P and non-P treatments of
Ashur and Lud and even introducing some divergences of their own
regarding Sheba and Havilah in their appropriation of a tradition
about Joktan’s descendants in Gen 10:26–29a (cf. Gen 10:7 [P] and
Gen 10:28–29 [post-P]).70 Apparently, the authors assumed such
overlaps in different loci could represent different figures and/or
distinct peoples. On the other hand, the text does not feature an
obvious introduction of the same figure in the same context. It does
not preserve, for example, a report that Ham fathered Egypt and
Canaan that might have competed with P’s listing of Ham’s
descendants in Gen 10:6. In this respect, the Gen 10 composition
seems to reflect a reticence, also seen in the composition of the
Genesis ancestral history, to avoid any implication that the same
figure was born (or died) twice.71 The result is a text that is
somewhat of a geographical jumble, but no figure is introduced/born
twice. Moreover, this complex P/non-P mix now serves both as a
global fulfillment of the Priestly creation and post-flood blessings in
Gen 1:28 and 9:1–7 and a follow-up to the more focused non-P story
of Noah and his sons (Gen 9:20–27).
Synthesis
The mix of diachronic and synchronic analysis offered here has
uncovered likely earlier levels to the predominantly non-political,
static overview of post-flood descendants of Noah’s sons in Gen 10.
The chapter’s verbless framework lists the descendants of Shem,
Ham and Japheth in a resolutely flat manner, with nothing
distinguishing them other than their order in various lists. Yet this
reading has uncovered another type of overview of post-flood
descendants in the non-P sections regarding Nimrod (10:8–12),
Egypt (10:13–14), and Canaan (10:15–19). These sections likely
represent the remnants of a non-P overview of post-flood peoples
that anticipated Israel’s dispossession of Canaan, the complex
relations of Israel to Egypt (famine refuge, occasional ally, and
ancient oppressor), and the eventual dominance of the Levant by
Mesopotamian empires—particularly Assyria. In addition, a post-P
section leading to and from the proto-“Hebrew” Eber (Gen 10:24–30)
links to P and non-P materials in anticipating the focus on Israel’s
ancestors in Gen 12–50.
These insights can help the interpreter take account of the
semiotic cross-currents evident in the chapter’s history of
interpretation. On the one hand, the chapter’s picture of post-flood
humanity as descendants from one family (Noah’s) has provided a
basis for recent readings stressing human relatedness, such as the
recent reading of the chapter by Mbuvi in light of African and other
genealogical traditions.72 On the other hand, the chapter is now
placed after the non-P story predicting enslavement of Canaanites
because of Ham’s misdeed (Gen 9:20–27), and Gen 10 also
includes non-P materials about Nimrod (Gen 10:8–12) and Canaan’s
descendants (Gen 10:15–19) in its treatment of Ham’s descendants.
These aspects of Gen 10 (sometimes combined with the Cain-Abel
story) have provided a textual touchpoint for racist readings of the
chapter more generally as supporting subjugation of African
(“Hamite”) peoples and more specifically depicting Nimrod as a
black-skinned (again “Hamite”) king who will rebel against God.73
Contemporary analysis certainly can unmask the racist
presuppositions of such interpretations. Moreover, one can note, as I
have here, that Gen 10:8–12 actually provides a positive depiction of
Nimrod, such that later readings of him as a “rebel” are misleading.
Nevertheless, one must also recognize that the chapter does not just
unite post-flood humanity into one family. It also presents post-flood
humanity as divided into descendants of three sons—Japheth, Ham,
Shem—who are treated as having crucially different destinies in the
story that immediately precedes it (Gen 9:20–27). If one were
working just with the Priestly overview of post-flood humanity, one
that likely originally stood separate from this (non-P) story of the
destiny of Ham’s Canaanite descendants to be enslaved (Gen 9:20–
27), the picture of human unity would be clearer. Instead, we have a
conflate P and non-P overview of Noah’s postflood grandsons whose
implications—especially with it following on Gen 9:20–27—are a mix
of potentially positive and demonstrably negative potential. In this
respect, Gen 10 is an example of a text whose theological yield for
the present likely is greater for a textual pre-stage (P’s genealogy of
Noah’s sons) than its final canonized form(s).
Genesis 11:1–9: Divine Prevention of
Human Collective Power through
Linguistic Confusion and the
Scattering of Humans

11:1 All of the earth had one speecha with one set of words.b 2
When they departed from the East,a they found a valley in the land
of Shinar, and they settled there. 3 Each man said to his neighbor,
“Come, let us make bricks and fire [them] thoroughly.” Brick served
for them as stone, and asphalt served for them as mortar. 4 They
said, “Come, let us build for ourselves a city and a tower with its top
in the heavensa and let us make for ourselves a name, lest we
scatterb across the surface of all the earth.” 5 Y descended to
see the city and the tower which the humansa had built. 6 Y
said, “Look, they are one people who all have one speech, and this
is the beginning of what they will do.a Now then nothing that they
plan to do will be withheldb from them. 7 Come, let us descend and
confuse their speech there so that each man will not understand the
speech of his neighbor.” 8 And Y caused them to scatter from
a
there across the surface of all the earth, and they stopped building
the city. 9 That is why its name was called “Babylon.”a For there
Y confused the speech of all of the earth, and from there Y
caused them to scatter across the surface of all of the earth.
Notes on Text and Translation
11:1a As noted in the commentary discussion below, the word used here is not
“language” (‫)לשון‬, but “speech” (‫)שפה‬. This use of a different Hebrew word
helps highlight that this story concerns a time before there could even be one
language, as if there could be others. Instead, there is only one primeval
speech, not yet disturbed by plurality or confusion.
1b The use of the numeral ‫“( אחד‬one”) in the plural is highly unusual. As noted in
Uehlinger, Weltreich und ‘eine Rede’, 352, the construction emphasizes the
fact that the words used by humanity were all the same. The formulation used
here, “one set of words,” is another locus where I’ve been informed by a
formulation in Alter, Books of Moses, here p. 37.
2a As suggested in Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 233, ‫ מקדם‬may be multivalent.
Nevertheless, its primary locative meaning is indicated in its echo of Gen 2:8
and 3:24 (see also 4:16), indicating a placement of the story Eastward of the
envisioned audience.
4a “with its top in the heavens” is a verbless circumstantial clause modifying the
preceding ‫“( מגדל‬tower”; see Andersen, Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, 85 for
this and other examples).
4b Though ‫ נָפוּץ‬is often translated “be scattered” (e.g., NRSV, NJB), it is an active
stem (1 c.p. qal prefix form of ‫)פוץ‬, and it anticipates Y later causing
humans to scatter from each other (11:8 and 9, ‫ פוץ‬hiphil causative) rather
than them “being scattered.”1
5a The expression translated here as “humans” is literally “the sons of the
human/humanity” (‫)בני האדם‬, but the meaning of “sons” here seems to be that
of class—that these beings building toward heaven are in the mortal, human
group. See, e.g., a similar use of language for class/groups in Gen 6:2a.
6a Literally ‫ החלם‬is an infinitival construction meaning “their beginning,” as in “their
beginning to do.” As noted in Hiebert, “Tower of Babel,” 34, there is nothing in
the Hebrew itself here to justify the addition of “only” as is done in some
translations (e.g., NRSV).
6b Though ‫ לא יִבָּ צֵ ר‬is often rendered generally as indicating impossibility (e.g., “be
impossible” NRSV, “be beyond them” NJB), the niphal stem here functions as
the passive counterpart to a verb that means “hold, withhold” in the qal stem.
This suggests, as noted in Gesenius18, a meaning of “nothing will be kept far
from them,” a meaning which then would connect with the earlier instance
where Y was able to keep the tree of life from humans after they had
 gained godlike wisdom from the tree of knowledge. See the commentary
below for other links of this story, especially this section in Gen 11:6–7, to Gen
3:22–24.
8a The causative (hiphil) stem of the verb ‫“( פוץ‬scatter”) conveys the idea that
Y caused humanity itself to scatter by confusing their language (see note
4c above). Y does not directly scatter humans here. This process of
specifically human scattering is anticipated by the humans’ worry about
themselves scattering across the earth (‫ פוץ‬in the qal stem in 11:4). The same
idea and verb form is present in the summary in 11:9b.
9a As noted in the translation commentary on Gen 10:10, there is not a good
reason to diverge in this case from the typical rendering of ‫ בבל‬as “Babylon”
across the rest of the Hebrew Bible.2 Though the traditional rendering of this
instance as “Babel” would facilitate an English approximation of the Hebrew
wordplay in Gen 11:9,3 it seems more advisable in this context for the English
translation to provide an indication that the ‫ בבל‬seen here is the same as that
in the hundreds of other instances of ‫בבל‬/Babylon in the Bible and reserve
discussion of the wordplay for the commentary.
Introduction and Diachronic Prologue
Often referred to as “the Tower of Babel story,” Gen 11:1–9 is
actually set in “Babylon” and Babylon’s famous tower plays a more
subsidiary role here than the “Tower of Babel story” designation
would suggest. To be sure, primeval humanity does intend to build a
brick tower that, like Babylon’s Ziggurat, would have its “head” in
heaven (11:4), and this forms at least part of the prompt for Y ’s
concern about what this human collectivity (“one people who all have
one speech”) can achieve in the future (11:6). Nevertheless, that is
as much as we hear about the tower, and the story ends up focusing
more on the city of Babylon as a whole as a tragic locus (see the
emphasis on “there” 9–8 ,11:2 ;‫ )שם‬where collective humanity built a
city and heavenly tower in order to prevent their dispersion and
make a name for themselves, only to have Y end their
linguistically-unified collectivity so that they disperse. In the end, their
city—not they themselves—bears a name, and that city’s name,
“Babylon,” memorializes their linguistic confusion. Given this ending
point, the following discussion will often use the brief designation
“story of human dispersion” for Gen 11:1–9, even as this phrase
does not fully encompass the multiple etymologies and themes
packed into this compact story.
Though other sections of this commentary have featured fuller
diachronic prologues, the commentary on Gen 11:1–9 postpones
discussion of diachronic issues until after the synchronic treatment of
the passage. Especially in this case, that synchronic treatment
provides important information for the diachronic discussion. The
following synchronic commentary, for example, explores the
particular poetics of the passage, including features that have been
misunderstood in the past as indicators of literary stratification. In the
commentary I also discuss ways that Gen 11:1–9 links in integral
ways to non-Priestly texts both before and after it. Indeed, the story
shows particular connections to the non-P flood narrative,
suggesting that it too might be an expansion upon an earlier non-P
primeval history. Finally, I will discuss ways that Gen 11:1–9 appears
to link in multiple ways with Mesopotamian traditions about Babylon
and its famous tower, including possibly showing knowledge of the
state of the tower of Babylon as it stood in the Neo-Assyrian period.
These topics—the literary unity of Gen 11:1–9, its non-Priestly
character, and its links to Mesopotamian (especially Neo-Assyrian)
precursors—are only anticipated here in order to provide background
for the synchronic discussion.
Synchronic Analysis

Overview
The outer framework of the story (Gen 11:1 and 9) defines a
movement from: a) a united humanity (“all of the earth” ‫)כל־הארץ‬
possessing “a single speech with one set of words” (11:1) to b) God’s
“confusion” of the speech of all of humanity (again ‫ )כל־הארץ‬so that
they stop building their city and spread out over the surface of
‫“( כל־הארץ‬all of the earth”; 11:[8–]9). This twofold use of “all of the
earth” to designate both humanity and the entire earth helps highlight
the fact that the broader plantless “earth” (‫ )ארץ‬of 2:5a that lacked
rain and a “human” (‫ )אדם‬to work the arable ground (2:5b) is fully
populated on the other side of Gen 11:1–9 with “children of the
human” (11:5 ‫)בני האדם‬. Specifically, in Gen 11:1–9 all of the
inhabitable earth is populated by all of humanity (“all of the earth”) in
a way surpassing God’s initial expulsion of the first human (couple)
out of the garden, east (‫ )מקדם‬of Eden (Gen 3:24; see ‫ מקדם‬in
11:2).4
The narrative connecting these two points in Gen 11:1 and 9 is
bound together by an intricate set of correspondences, most of
which show Y ’s reversal in Gen 11:5–8 of the actions and plans
of unified humanity in Gen 11:2–4.5 In particular, Y ’s speech in
11:6–7 echoes and reverses specific elements of the speeches of
the humans in 11:3 and 4, starting with Y ’s ironic echoing at the
outset of 11:6 of the twofold “come let us” that opens the humans’
speeches (11:3, 4). The following concentric overview (drawn from
Fokkelman) indicates some additional important parallels, all
revolving around Y ’s descent at the outset of 11:5:6
A ‫ כל הארץ שפה אחת‬All the earth had one speech (11:1)
B ‫ שם‬there (11:2)
C ‫ איש רעיהו‬each man [said] to his neighbor (11:3a)
D ‫ הבה נלבנה‬come, let us make bricks (11:3a)
E ‫ הבה נבנה‬come, let us build (11:4)
F ‫ עיר ומגדל‬a city and a tower (11:4)
 X ‫ וירד יהוה לראת‬and Y came down to see (11:5)
F’ ‫ העיר והמגדל‬the city and the tower (11:5)
E’ ‫ בנו בני האדם‬the offspring of the human had built (11:5)
D’ ‫ נבלה … הבה‬come, … let us confuse (11:7)
C’ ‫ איש שפת רעהו‬each man [will not understand] the
speech of his neighbor 11:7)
B’ ‫ משם‬from there (11:8)
A’ ‫[ ]שפת כל הארץ ]בלל‬confused] the speech of all the earth (11:9)
To be sure, the above diagram covers some parts of the text
relatively well (e.g., 11:1, 3–5, 9), while quite tenuously linking some
sections (e.g., “there” ‫ שם‬in Gen 11:2 and 8 [also in 11:7, 9]) and
ignoring others (e.g., 11:3b, 6).7 Moreover, van Wolde, Brettler, and
others have noted other correspondences that do not fit well into this
particular concentric scheme.8 For example, parallels between the
wording of 11:4 and 11:8–9 contrast the human attempt to prevent
their scattering across the surface of all the earth through building a
city (11:4) and God’s scattering of them from that city across all the
earth (11:8a, 9b), a scattering that ends their city-construction
process (11:8b). So also, the human intent to “make a name for
ourselves” through city (and tower) building (11:4) is ironically
mocked when the main result of their building is a city with a name
(Babylon), that is seen as a reflection of Y ’s confusion of their
speech (11:9). In sum, a complex mix of correspondences connect
the humans’ situation, actions, and plans in 11:1–4 with Y ’s
reversal of that state and frustration of their plans and actions in
11:5–9.

Commentary
Gen 11:1 The beginning describes the state of human unity that will
be undone over the course of the story. Notably, humanity at this
point is not characterized by genealogical background (e.g., “sons of
the human/humans” Gen 11:5), nor given any other name, but
instead described by the same general expression, “all of the earth”
(‫ )כל־הארץ‬that will later be used to describe the entire globe (11:4, 8,
9). The main thing asserted about this otherwise anonymous, global
humanity is that it had one “speech” with a common vocabulary, a
“single set of words.” The word ‫“( לשון‬tongue”), normally used for
different languages alongside each other (cf. 10:5, 20, 31), is
avoided here. Instead, the word ‫“( שפה‬lip” or “speech”) serves to
designate a form of clear common communication prior to the
misunderstanding that comes in the confrontation of foreign-
language speakers with each other.9 Thus the emphasis here is not
on providing an etiology of multiple languages. After all, “language”
implies an ability to communicate, if only with others who speak the
same tongue. Instead, this story emphasizes the flip side of multiple
languages: their unintelligibility to non-speakers (Isa 28:11; Ezek
3:5–6).10 Therefore, an alternative term to “language” (‫ )לשון‬is used
in the above translation of Gen 11:1, ‫“( שפה‬speech”), that simply
points to a primeval unity of speech and vocabulary.
Gen 11:2–4 The following section on human action features
three main parts: travel and settlement in a broad valley in Shinar
(11:2), the human making of bricks (11:3), and the human decision to
build a city and tower to make a name for themselves and avoid
dispersion (11:4). Overall, the movement from humanity’s initial
departure (‫ )נסע‬in 11:2a to settlement (11:2b) and city-building (11:3–
4) stands in the broader primeval history as a preliminary (see 11:8,
9b) transition toward settled living from the wandering implicit in
Noah’s post-flood, tent-dwelling life (Gen 9:21).11 It is preliminary
because this text will end with a resumption of the people’s
movement (Gen 11:8, 9b), and the next spatial markers in Genesis
will likewise focus on migration, this time of the families of Terah and
Abraham, from Ur to Canaan (Gen 11:28; 12:1–4a non-P [cf. also
10:10–12]; Gen 11:31; 12:4b P).12
Several aspects of this initial section signal the status of Gen
11:1–9 as an account about foreign places and ways to the Judean
audience for the text. Shinar stands in the Bible for the area of
Mesopotamia where some of earth’s oldest cities, including
Babylonia, were located, existing hundreds of miles east of the land
of Israel.13 The humans’ statement of intent to make bricks, ‫לבנה‬
‫לבנים‬, features a figura etymologica for making bricks that is common
in Akkadian, libitta/i(m) libnāte labānu.14 Such brick construction was
the norm in the “broad plain” (11:2 ,‫ )בקעה‬where Babylon was
located, with fired bricks (often glazed) used in Mesopotamia for
major display buildings (e.g., temples, palaces).15 Genesis 11:3b
explains the human use of burnt bricks and asphalt for building,
apparently clarifying these practices to a Levantine audience more
familiar with stone or baked brick and mortar construction. The
emphasis here on the human intention to make fired bricks and
asphalt can be read as implying that this technology makes possible
the type of city and heaven-touching construction that humans plan
in the next verse.
In their following speech (Gen 11:4), the humans state what they
hope to accomplish with these new fired bricks and asphalt: build a
city and a tower (‫“ )מגדל‬with its top [literally ‘head’] in the heavens.”
Some commentators have argued that “top in the heavens” here is
merely a hyperbolic comment about the height of the tower.16
Nevertheless, such readings overlook how this text, in describing a
great tower in Babylon, provides background for the Babylonian
Etemenanki tower, a tower that—like other Babylonian Ziggurats—
formed a sacral link of earth and heaven.17 Indeed, Etemenanki is
part of a temple complex in Babylon that bears the name “house
whose head is raised up” (Esagila), and the etiology of the Esagila
temple in the Enuma Elish epic uses an idiom featuring similar
“head” language to speak of the way the gods raised the top (“head”)
of that temple complex toward heaven (Enuma Elish VI:62).18
After stating their intention to build a city and heaven-reaching
tower, the text then has earth’s people further wish to make “a name”
for themselves. Up to this point the narrative has pointedly avoided
providing a name for primeval humanity other than “all the earth”
(11:1 ;‫)כל־הארץ‬. Therefore, one might assume that humans simply
wish here to emerge from anonymity. Yet, viewed in its ancient Near
Eastern context, it becomes clear that this wish involves more than
the aspiration of primeval humans to have an ethnic designation.
Instead, having a “name” in the ancient Near East meant having
great fame, achieving a form of immortality in human memory much
like the ancient warriors briefly noted in Gen 6:4. Within the Near
East, a king could display his immense power by attaching his name
to a major construction. For example, Sargon II attempted to build a
massive, new capital, one that could claim to be a Neo-Assyrian
“Babylon,” on open land north of Nineveh, and named this new
construction “Dur-Sharrukin” after himself.19 Now, in the non-P
primeval history, the people’s wish to make a name for themselves
by building a city (Gen 11:4) stands as an implicit follow-up to Cain’s
building of earth’s first city and naming it after his child, Hennoch
(Gen 4:17).20 Earth’s people at Shinar attempt a somewhat similar
thing, building Babylon as earth’s first post-flood city in an effort to
achieve a name for themselves as a group.
The text puts particular stress on how both aspects of the
humans’ plan involve an intent to make things for themselves
(twofold ‫“[ לנו‬for ourselves”] 11:4a; cf. twofold ‫“[ ותהי להם‬it served for
them”] in 11:3b), and in both cases these are things that deities
generally initiated in the ancient world of the text. For example, the
Bible and other ancient Near Eastern texts generally stress that gods
were the proper initiators of plans for building sanctuaries. Indeed,
we see this stress in the Enuma Elish epic’s description of Marduk’s
plan to make the Esagila temple and name it Babylon (V:119–130),
and we see analogous emphasis on divine instructions for
sanctuaries in the Bible as well (e.g., Exod 25–31; 2 Sam 7:5–13;
1 Chr 28:1–9).21 In contrast, Gen 11:4 asserts that it was primeval
humans who initiated this construction, aiming to construct the
heaven-touching tower in Babylon “for ourselves.” So also, within the
Near East and especially the Bible, the deity generally grants
humans a famous name. We see this, for example, soon after this
text in Genesis, when Y grants Abraham a great name (Gen
22
12:2). Genesis 11:4, however, describes humans as aiming to
make a name “for ourselves” (again ‫)לנו‬. In sum, whether read
against the background of the Enuma Elish epic or in relation to
biblical traditions, the emphasis on human agency in Gen 11:4,
indeed doing each thing “for ourselves,” implies a human usurpation
of properly divine roles.
The speech of the humans concludes with a statement of
purpose in Gen 11:4b: to avoid scattering across the surface of the
whole earth. This statement at the end of the humans’ speech
(11:4b) most clearly relates to its beginning, where the humans
expressed a desire to build a city for themselves (11:4aα). Thus
primeval humanity might avoid scattering by building a city they
could inhabit together. At the same time, Croatto may be right
suggesting that the text—focused as it is on language—may
envision humans seeking unity through the name that they make for
themselves, e.g., by becoming known, together, by the name of the
magnificent city and tower that they build and inhabit.23
Y ’s response Like 11:2–4 on the human project, the section
on Y ’s response in 11:5–8 has three main parts: Y ’s
descent to see the city and tower that the humans built (11:5),
Y ’s speech stating an intent to descend and confuse human
language (11:6–7), and Y ’s causing of humans to scatter so that
the humans ceased construction of the city (11:8).
Gen 11:5 The section starts with an initial description of Y ’s
descent “to see the city and the tower which the humans were
building” (11:5). This description, which stands at the center of many
proposed chiasms for Gen 11:1–9, stresses the distance between
the tower in Babylon and the heavenly realm it was intended to
reach. Especially coming just after the humans’ description of intent
to build such a heaven-touching tower (11:4), there is irony in the
report that Y had to descend in order to even see the tower. The
implicit picture is of a cosmos where Y is enthroned so high
above the human plain that he must stoop low to see even their
greatest construction achievement. The epithet for Y in Isa
40:22 conveys the idea: “Y who is enthroned above the circle of
the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers.”24 The
equivalent of these grasshoppers in Gen 11:4 intended to build a
tower that would touch Y ’s habitation, but the report in Gen 11:5
makes clear that they had not achieved this goal.
Indeed, the two parts of the report in 11:5 further juxtapose the
distant human and divine realms. On the one hand, there is Y ’s
descent to see the city and tower. On the other hand, the verse
concludes with a somewhat unnecessary relative clause (since only
one city and tower is under discussion) emphasizing that this city
and tower are the buildings that the humans had built (‫אשר בנו בני‬
25.(‫ האדם‬The designation for the humans here, literally “sons/children

of the human,” also highlights the distinction between humans and

Y that is at issue in the middle of this story. To be sure, the
expression ‫“( בני‬sons/children of”) is a perfectly normal way for
Hebrew to refer to a class of beings, in this case, “humans” (cf. Gen
6:2). Yet the deviation in this central verse from the expression “all of
the earth” used for humans elsewhere in the story (11:1, 9)
underlines their non-divine character and implicitly reminds the
reader of the link of these humans to their ancestor, “the human”
(ʾādām) who was formed from the “ground” (ʾadāmāh) in the (non-P)
Eden story (Gen 2:7; 3:23). With this, we thus have two levels in the
story, each with its own community. On one level are the earthling
humans/“children of the human” restricted to crawling around on
earth like insects whose skyward tower is still built of earthen
materials (Gen 11:3).26 On the other level is Y far above, along
with the divine beings implicitly addressed in Gen 11:7, who must
descend to inspect (11:5) and later act upon (11:7) their city and
tower, lowly as it is.
Some past interpreters have found this juxtaposition of two divine
descents in the text confusing, especially since the text does not
report that Y went back up after the initial descent (Gen 11:5) so
that he could then address the divine council and propose another
descent (Gen 11:7).27 This text, however, seems to have been
crafted in a narrative style that focuses only on essential elements
and leaves others presupposed. Earlier the text only implies the
humans’ building of the city and tower (Gen 11:4) in reporting
Y ’s descent to see it (Gen 11:5), and later the text just implies
Y ’s confusion of human language (11:7) through the etiology of
the name Babylon (11:9a) and the report that Y caused humans
to scatter from there (Gen 11:8a, 9b). Similarly here, in accordance
with the text’s stress on the ongoing distance between humans and
God, Gen 11:5–7 focuses on the fact that Y had to descend to
see and act on the human project, without including an explicit report
of an intervening ascent.28
Gen 11:6–7 Despite this stress on the existing distance
between the tower-building humans and heaven, the story’s next
section features a divine speech (11:6–7) signaling Y ’s worry
about what the humans’ construction project indicates about
collective humanity’s future potential to threaten the divine-human
boundary. In this case, Y states a concern that this initial tower
building is a “beginning” (‫ )החלם‬that indicates that “now then nothing
that they ‘plan’ to do (‫ יזמו‬from ‫ )זמם‬will/can be withheld (‫)לא־יבצר‬
from them” (Gen 11:6).29 Comparable language appears in Job 42:2,
which depicts Job as coming to a realization that God is the one from
whom no plan (‫ מזמה‬from ‫ )זמם‬can be withheld (‫)לא־יבצר‬. Genesis
11:6 shows Y intent on making sure that humans do not obtain
similar omnipotent power.
We have seen similar descriptions of Y ’s intent to protect the
divine-human boundary in Gen 3:22 and 6:3. Genesis 3:22
particularly resembles 11:6 in Y starting with a description
(introduced by ‫“[ הן‬look, behold”]) of the human having achieved
godlike knowledge (3:22a//11:6a) and then continuing with a
description of a possible future threat to the divine-human boundary
(introduced by ‫“[ ועתה‬now then”]; 3:22b//11:6b). In 3:22, Y states
a concern to the divine council that the humans have become “like
one of us” (‫ )כאחד ממנו‬in gaining godlike knowledge of good and evil,
while in 11:6–7 Y addresses the divine council in proposing to
confuse human language—“Come, let us descend and confuse their
speech there” (‫)הבה נרדה ונבלה שם שפתם‬. Genesis 6:3 deals with a
situation where members of the heavenly realm themselves now
pose a threat to the divine-human boundary in marrying daughters of
humanity, and so there Y reflects alone on the problem and
reinforces the divine-human mortal boundary through imposing an
outer life limit for humans of 120 years. In each case Y is
contending with a future threat to the divine human boundary posed
by a present reality: gaining of godlike knowledge (3:22), marriage
(but not yet offspring) of divine beings and humans (6:3), and the
building of a primeval city and tower in Shinar (11:6). In response to
each of these three cases, Y ’s action is preventative, not
punitive. This is signaled here in 11:6 by the emphasis in Y ’s
speech that this is the beginning of what humans will do (‫זה החלם‬
30.(‫לעשות‬
Whereas Gen 2–3 and 6:1–4 told of threats that humans might
achieve divine status of immortality, Gen 11:1–9 tells of new threat
posed by a linguistically unified human collectivity (“one people who
all have one speech” [11:6 ;[‫עם אחד ושפה אחת לכלם‬aα): humans
building a tower that will reach the heavenly realm itself (11:4aα).31
Though their tower—as built so far—is presently low enough to
require Y to descend to see it, this beginning suggests that
nothing that humans plan (‫ )זמם‬can be withheld from them
(11:6aβb). God is at a point of decision here: needing to intervene
now to end human collective power or forever lose the chance.
The next part of the divine speech in 11:7 juxtaposes the divine
collectivity against the human collectivity. Earlier, in the human
speeches stating human plans (11:3–4), two paired cohortative
phrases (‫[ ונספרה … הבה נלבנה‬come let us make bricks … and fire
[them]] 11:3; ‫“[ ונעשה … הבה נבנה‬come let us build and make”] 11:4)
and the repeated prepositional phrase “for ourselves” stressed the
separate agency of the human collective group as they planned to
make a city, tower, and name for themselves. Now, the
corresponding divine speech in Gen 11:6–7 concludes with a
similarly-formed paired cohortative expression addressed by Y
to an unspecified group, likely Y ’s divine council, proposing a
descent to counteract human collective power: ‫… הבה נרדה ונבלה‬
(“come let us descend and confuse…”). Thus Gen 11:3–4 and 7
juxtapose the discourses and plans made by competing communities
—a human one on earth (11:3–4) and a divine one in heaven (11:6–
7)—with the human one threatening to eventually reach heaven and
the divine one aiming to compromise their future ability to do such
acts. No one in either community addresses the other.32
Y ’s proposal—“let us confuse their speech there so that each
man will not understand the speech of his neighbor”—is specifically
aimed at ending the unified human linguistic community with which
the story began (Gen 11:1) and that now presents a threat of future
unlimited power (11:6). The cohortative verbal expression that the
Y character uses here (11:7) for “let us confuse”—‫—נבלה‬not
only anticipates the later naming of Babylon (‫בבל‬, see 11:9a), but
also echoes (in grammatical form and reversed letters) the humans’
initial proposal for collective action “let us make bricks” (33.(‫נלבנה‬
Moreover, Y ’s intent to prevent each “man” from understanding
the speech of his “neighbor” (11:7b) is aimed at ending the kind of
common speech among humans described toward the outset of the
story: “Each man said to his neighbor” (11:3). This speech is the
basis for human unity and the central ground of any future human
threat to the divine, and so this unified human speech is the sole
target of Y ’s intended actions.
 Gen 11:8 The immediate following text does not directly report
Y ’s execution of this plan. Instead, it implies Y ’s confusion
of unified human speech by reporting that Y “caused them to
scatter.” Y ’s response in 11:6–8 to the human plan in Gen 11:4a
thus produces the exact condition of dispersal that the humans had
hoped to prevent (11:4b). Genesis 11:2–4 had started with their
settlement in a particular place, “there” (11:2 ;‫)שם‬, and it concluded
with their fear of dispersion in Gen 11:4b. Now, in 11:8a, it is from
that very place, “from there” (‫ )משם‬that the dispersion that they
feared occurs, and this leads to a cessation of the humans’ building
of the city they had hoped would prevent such dispersion (11:8b; see
11:4b).
We should be careful to attend to what the text here explicitly
says and does not say about Y ’s intent and actions. The text
does not describe Y judging human pride, counteracting human
aggression, or aiming to accomplish human dispersion in and of
itself.34 The text certainly says nothing to indicate that Y ’s action
is punishment for a human infraction of some kind (cf. Gen 3:17–19;
4:10–12).35 Moreover, the report of the result of Y ’s action,
cessation of building the city (11:8b), does not even mention the
tower that is the focus of many interpretations of this text. The point
of inclusion of brief allusion to that tower in Babylon in Gen 11:4a
seems to have been to provide some background for Y ’s
concern about what a unified humanity might achieve in the future
(11:6) even as multiple reports of Y ’s descent (11:5, 7) mock
Babylonian pretensions that the existing (unfinished) tower at
Babylon actually could connect heaven and earth.
Gen 11:9 The text’s focus on language continues in the text’s
concluding etiology of the name of Babylon. Whereas Babylonian
traditions feature folk etymologies for Babylon as “gate of God” or
“houses of the great gods,”36 Gen 11:9a offers a Hebrew folk
etymology of the name as meaning “confusion.” According to this
text, it was at the site of Babylon, “there” (‫)שם‬, that Y confused
the speech of all of humanity. Notably, this represents the first explicit
statement of the execution of Y ’s intent to confuse human
speech in Gen 11:7, albeit now described as an accomplishment of
Y alone in 11:9a rather than by the group called up in 11:7.37 As
noted above, this naming of Babylon represents an ironic outcome of
the initial human intent to “make a name for ourselves.” The primeval
human collectivity remains anonymous, “all the earth” (11:1, 9) or
“humans” (11:5 ;‫)בני האדם‬. The only “name” resulting from their work
memorializes not them, but Y ’s confusion of their speech.
Finally, the etiology is rounded out by the text’s review in 11:9b of
another dimension of Y ’s confusion of humanity’s common
speech: the resulting human scattering from the very place, “there”
(‫ ;שם‬in Babylon) where the primeval human collectivity initially tried
to settle together. This emphasis on the specific spatial location of
events, the “there-ness” of this story, seems central to its intent.
Babylon, a particular geospatial “there” (‫)שׁם‬, ָ is identified here in
11:9b as the place from which primeval humanity—designated in
both 11:1 and 9a as “all the earth” (‫—)כל־הארץ‬scattered over “the
surface of all the earth” (again ‫)פני כל־הארץ‬. Here, finally, the text
clarifies the import of a wordplay started already in the reference to
humanity as “all the earth” in the description of the scattering (‫ )נפץ‬of
Noah’s sons in Gen 9:19. In Gen 11:9 a human “all the earth” now
scatters over a spatial “all the earth.”38
This represents the final instance in 11:1–9 as a whole of multiple
echoes of consonantal rhymes of the words for “there” (‫שׁם‬/šām; ָ
11:4, 8, 9) and “name” (‫שׁם‬/šēm;
ֵ 11:4, 9). Together, these echoes
bind together the twin themes of the inversion at Babylon/‫ָשׁם‬
(“there”) of the human attempt to gain a great “name” (‫)שׁם‬ ֵ and the
undoing at Babylon (‫“ משם‬from there”) of the human attempt to
prevent scattering.39

Conclusion to the Synchronic Reading of the

Present Text
As Cassuto, Fokkelman, and many others have noted, the above-
noted consonant-rhyme of “name” and “there” is but one of several
ways in which this story about language is infused with play on
language. The initial unity of language is mirrored in the frequent
word pairs used in describing humans and citing their speech: all
humans had “one” speech and “a single” set of words (;‫אחדים … אחת‬
11:1), and then rhyming pairs of words are used repeatedly in
relation to humans in 11:3: “let us make bricks” (‫)נלבנה לבנים‬, “let us
fire [them] in fire” (‫ ;)נשרפה לשרפה‬asphalt (‫ )חֵ ָמר‬for mortar (40.(‫ חֹ ֶמר‬In
addition, the consonants nun, beth, and lamed that are featured in
Y ’s later intent to “confuse” ‫ נבלה‬human language (11:7) are
anticipated by the frequent use of words featuring these consonants
in the descriptions of human activities in 11:3–5. This starts with the
human wish to make bricks (‫ )הבה נלבנה לבנים‬and then continues
with the explanation of how bricks served for stone (;‫להם הלבנה לאבן‬
11:3b), the human wish to build (11:4 ;‫)הבה נבנה לנו‬, and their actual
construction ([11:5 ;‫)האדם[ בנו בני‬. These consonants (‫ ל‬,‫ נ‬,‫ )ב‬then
occur one more time in the description of the ceasing of the humans’
building (11:8 ;‫ויחדלו לבנת‬b) which leads finally to the occurrence of
beth and lamed in the name ‫“( בבל‬Babylon” 11:9a). Notably, that
name is derived here from the verb for “confuse,” which is formed
from the same consonants (bll; 41.(‫ בלל‬It is hard to know exactly how
many such sound and word plays are intended. Nevertheless, the
intricate design and abundant wordplays present in Gen 11:1–9 mark
it as a text about human language that features an unusual level of
linguistic virtuosity.42
As we turn to look at placing Gen 11:1–9 in a broader synchronic
context, much turns on what sort of synchronic context is chosen.
For example, one longstanding line of rabbinic interpretation (e.g.,
Radak, Rashbam) has read this story in relation to the Priestly
creation account of Gen 1, seeing it as a depiction of God’s
insurance that humans would fulfill an imperative to fill the earth
(Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7). Nevertheless, this approach probably represents
both a misreading of Gen 1:28 and a secondary re-interpretation of
Gen 11:1–9. As noted in the discussion of Gen 1:28 in the preceding
commentary, it is only through the lens of the later rabbinic Hebrew
verbal system that 1:28 appears as a command rather than a
blessing enabling human rule. Moreover, a reading of Gen 11:1–9 as
a story of resistance to Gen 1:28 (also 9:1, 7) understood
(anachronistically) as a command, misses the more integral links of
Gen 11:1–9 specifically to non-P primeval history texts.
These links appear in sharper profile when Gen 11:1–9 is read
synchronically as the conclusion to a non-P primeval history. In
particular, read in this context, Gen 11:1–9 becomes the final
episode in a primeval story of Y ’s struggle with escalating
human ability starting with the Eden story in Gen 2–3. That initial
episode chronicled the first human steps toward godlike ability when
the first human pair defied Y ’s prohibition (Gen 2:17), ate of the
forbidden tree of knowledge (3:6), and stitched together flimsy
loincloths of fig leaves to cover the nakedness which they had
suddenly became cognizant of (3:7). Though the limits of their initial
ability is marked by God’s subsequent provision of more adequate
clothing to cover their ongoing nakedness (3:20; cf. 3:10), their
growing potential is also marked by Y ’s decision to prevent them
from gaining godlike immortality by expelling them from the garden
(3:22–24). Later stories in the non-P primeval history chronicle
growing human ability—building a city (4:17), discovery of metalwork
and other arts of civilization (4:20–22), inauguration of viticulture
(9:20), and discovery of fired brick and asphalt construction (11:3).
Reading Gen 11:1–9 at the end of this non-Priestly sequence
highlights ways that the collective human city and tower-building
project in 11:2–4 demonstrates the growing threat to the divine realm
itself that is posed by the human collective (with one speech)
described in 11:1. Y ’s following disruption of human language so
that earth’s people scatter (Gen 11:7–8) then bookends this story of
growth in human power that began with Y ’s granting of the first
human the authority to name the members of the animal world in the
(non-P) Gen 2–3 Eden story (2:19–20).
In this and other ways, Gen 11:1–9 rounds out the etiology of a
multi-national world of humans covering “all the earth” that stands as
the context for the emergence of the “sons of Israel” in Gen 12–50.
With the divine-human boundary reinforced both in time (mortality;
3:22, 24; 6:3) and space (11:1–9), we will no longer hear Y
consult with the divine council about protecting divine prerogatives.
The setting of primeval narratives that started in Eden (“in the east”
2:8), and continued with the eastward settlement of the human and
his wife (3:24; see also Cain in 4:16) and movement of “all the world”
from the east in 11:2, continues with Y ’s scattering of humans in
11:8. This scattering helps underline that, though humanity and
human civilization is envisioned across Gen 2–11 as originating in
“the East” (in Mesopotamia), humans eventually (11:1–9) were
spread out from Babylon over “all the earth.” In this way “all the
earth” would finally be worked (cf. Gen 2:5) by “the sons of the
human” (‫ בני־האדם‬Gen 11:5; see Gen 2:4b–4:1, 24).
Placed after the non-P picture of genealogically-related post-flood
humanity (Gen 9:18–19; 10:13–19, 21), this broader human
migration from Shinar/Babylonia (Gen 11:8–9) then sets the stage for
Y ’s later command to Abraham to leave his kindred in the East
(“your land, kindred and father’s house”; Gen 12:1) on a journey that
takes him westward to Canaan (12:6). More specifically, the human
failed attempt to “make a name for ourselves” in 11:4–9 stands as a
counterpoint to Y ’s promise to make Abraham’s name great
(12:2). Where Gen 11:3–4 depicts all humans as an anonymous
group settling down and building a great tower toward heaven
(‫“ מגדל<גדל‬great”) and trying to make themselves a name, Gen 12:1–
3 depicts Y impelling a specific individual, Abraham, in the line
of Shem (//“name”) to migrate from home and promising to make his
name great (‫)ואגדלה שמך<גדל‬. And this then represents the
conclusion to primeval threads focused on immortality and “name”
seen in Gen 2:4b–3:24 onward.43
Diachronic Analysis

Proposed Literary Strata Inside Gen 11:1–9

Though scholars have speculated over the years about multiple
literary strata in Gen 11:1–9, the text appears to be a literary unity.
Gunkel’s influential proposal of a City and a Tower recension in 1901
was linked to a broader theory of two J sources standing behind the
primeval history, and it was based on a misunderstanding of features
like the above-discussed lack of a report of a divine ascent between
the text’s two references to divine descents (Gen 11:5, 7).44 More
recent redactional approaches, such as those by Uehlinger and
Seybold, suffer from similar issues, particularly a failure to recognize
how the text’s themes of linguistic confusion and dispersion are
related.45 Once one understands the text’s internal logic and spare
poetics, it shows no clear signs of literary stratification.

Non-Biblical Precursors to Gen 11:1–9

The beginning and end of Gen 11:1–9 highlight a distinctive feature
in it that connects it to earlier precursors: its placement in a particular
setting—Mesopotamia—assumed to be familiar to its readers. All of
humanity settles in a broad valley in “Shinar” (in Mesopotamia); they
make bricks typical of construction there (where there is a paucity of
stones); they build a city and tower that have implicit links to Babylon
and its famous tower reaching heaven; and the story concludes by
explicitly asserting that the city was named Babylon.46 No other
narrative in Gen 1–11 is so clearly set in a particular known place of
the ancient world.47 Moreover, this sort of foreign setting is relatively
unusual as a central locus for an ancient cosmology. Egyptian
cosmologies, such as the Memphite theology, place the creation of
humans at the center of temple complexes in Egypt. When they are
localized at all, Mesopotamian cosmologies are typically focused on
Mesopotamian sites. For example, the Enuma Elish epic ends up
focusing on Marduk’s establishment of his Esagila temple in
Babylon.
As we have seen in the preceding discussion, central parts of
Gen 11:1–9 (e.g., the “top” [‫ ]ראש‬of the tower in heaven) are best
understood against the backdrop of Mesopotamian traditions,
especially traditions about Babylon such as the Enuma Elish Epic.48
At the same time, Gen 11:1–9 pointedly contrasts with the claims of
the Enuma Elish Epic, standing in some ways as an anti-Enuma
Elish myth. Genesis 11:1–9 does not entertain any possibility that the
tower of Babylon served any actual cultic function, beyond its claim
to have its “top” “in the heavens.” Moreover, contra the Enuma Elish
Epic, the Babylon seen in Gen 11:1–9 is not built by Marduk nor any
other God. Instead, the city of Babylon and its unfinished brick tower
becomes a famed example of a human attempt to reach heaven and
prevent dispersion, an attempt that backfired.
Nevertheless, despite these ways that the story of dispersion in
Gen 11:1–9 counters traditions about Babylon, it lacks the sharp
hostility toward Babylon that is typical of exilic and later biblical texts.
If one considers clearly exilic and early post-exilic texts such as Ps
137:8–9; Jer 50–51 or oracles against Babylon in Isa 13:1–14:32;
47:1–15, they document revengeful hostility against Babylon as the
destroyer of Jerusalem, deporter of its population, and symbol of
imperial oppression. The depiction of Babylon in Gen 11:1–9, though
mocking and undermining some of Babylon’s claims to greatness, is
not so overtly hostile. Nothing is said about oppression or violence;
there is no empire or kingship (cf. Gen 10:8–12); and the people are
never identified specifically as Babylonians. Instead, Babylon is used
in Gen 11:1–9 as a symbol of failed attempts at greatness among all
primeval humans.
These and other considerations suggest a historical placement of
the Gen 11:1–9 story in the Neo-Assyrian period, prior to the time of
exile. As others have noted, this is the period in which the famous
tower in Babylon started to be covered with fired bricks, but was left
unfinished for a period of decades. In ending with a still unfinished
(Gen 11:8), asphalt and fired brick construction (Gen 11:3) at
Babylon, the Gen 11:1–9 story seems to presuppose independent
knowledge of the city as it stood during the Neo-Assyrian period,
before Neo-Babylonian rulers completed the fired-brick
reconstruction begun (but not completed) by Esarhaddon.49 In
addition, the text shows multiple levels of potential connections to
Mesopotamian traditions, including specifically Neo-Assyrian
traditions related to Sargon II and/or Neo-Assyrian building traditions
more generally, e.g., Sargon II’s rhetoric of imposing unity of will on
foreign peoples (and depiction of unity among enemies as a threat;
cf. Gen 11:1, 6) and/or his failed attempt to build a grand new capital,
a new “Babylon,” north of Niniveh that he named after himself (Dur-
Sharrukin, cf. Gen 11:4aβ).50 All this does not indicate that Gen
11:1–9 was ever specifically focused on Dur-Sharrukin rather than
Babylon. Nevertheless, it is possible that the picture of an unfinished
Babylon in Gen 11:1–9 may mix motifs of the original Babylon (in
central Babylonia) with other “Babylons” such as Sargon’s unfinished
capital.51 Moreover, irrespective of the passage’s possible
connections to Sargon II’s shortlived city-building project,52 work by
Uehlinger, Boyd, Giorgetti and others has shown various ways it
parodies and otherwise undermines multiple themes seen in Neo-
Assyrian royal ideology.53

Genesis 11:1–9 as part of the Pre-Priestly

Primeval History
As interpreters have long recognized, the story of human dispersion
in Gen 11:1–9 connects in multiple ways with non-P materials, while
it contradicts key aspects of the preceding Priestly overview of post-
flood humanity. The connections with preceding non-P materials—
e.g., Gen 3:22–24; 4:17; 6:1–4—were surveyed above and will not
be rehearsed here. Meanwhile, despite later readings of Gen 11:1–9
in relation to the Priestly multiplication blessing (see above), the
story does not manifest an original connection to such Priestly texts.
Indeed, the story contradicts those texts on a crucial point: its
explanation of human spreading and linguistic diversity from Y ’s
onetime causing of a human “scattering” (‫ פוץ‬hiphil; Gen 11:8–9)
stands in opposition to the preceding Priestly explanation of human
spreading (‫ פרד‬niphal; Gen 10:31) and linguistic diversity as resulting
from a gradual process of human multiplication after the flood (Gen
10:20, 31; see also 10:5). This sort of contradiction of Priestly
materials and lack of connection to or coordination with them
suggests that the story of human dispersion from Babylon originated
separately from them, rather than representing a post-Priestly
expansion of an already conflated P/non-P text.54
At the same time, even as the dispersion story in Gen 11:1–9
connects in numerous ways with non-P primeval texts, it also
contrasts with some of them in important respects. To start, the focus
in Gen 11:1–9 of humanity as a unified, cooperative collectivity (11:1,
6) contrasts with the emphasis of preceding non-P materials on a
division among Noah’s descendants between the enslaved
Ham/Canaan on the one hand and Shem-Japheth on the other (Gen
9:20–27; 10:13–15, 21). This difference in emphasis does not
represent the kind of contradiction seen above between competing
explanations of human diversity and spreading in Gen 11:1–9 and
Priestly materials. Nevertheless, it is an initial indicator that the
dispersion story in Gen 11:1–9 may have been secondarily added to
preceding non-P materials about Noah’s grandsons. This impression
is reinforced by the way the collective focus of the Babylon story in
Gen 11:1–9 contrasts with a focus on individual characters in non-P
stories like the Eden story (Gen 2–3), Cain-Abel story (4:1–16) and
story of Noah and his sons (Gen 9:20–27). In this respect the story
about Babylon in Gen 11:1–9 resembles the non-P flood story in
depicting Y ’s response to the human collectivity as a whole,
particularly focusing on problems with how humans think (Gen 6:5;
8:21) and plan (11:6 ‫)זמם‬.
These and other potential linkages of Gen 11:1–9 to the non-P
flood account raise the question of whether this narrative might
likewise be part of a pre-Priestly expansion of a non-P primeval
history that originally concluded with an overview of Noah and his
(grand)sons (e.g., Gen 9:20–27; 10:15, 21). As such, the dispersion
story of Gen 11:1–9 would have been crafted, in part, to deal with a
specific narrative problem posed by the added flood story: explaining
how the “whole earth” just devastated by the flood could have been
populated by Noah’s modest offspring. This hypothesis would then
explain above-noted ways that the dispersion story in Gen 11:1–9
contrasts with other non-P stories in mild ways and resembles the
(likely added) non-P flood narrative in others. This hypothesis,
however, represents just one possibility, especially given the way
Gen 11:1–9 echoes so many aspects of theme and diction in the
non-P primeval history.55 It is unclear whether a secondary reviser
would have created a text with so many resemblances and
connections to materials that he was expanding upon.
Synthesis
The preceding analysis takes Gen 11:1–9 as a non-P text, probably
composed sometime in the Neo-Assyrian period, that mocks
Babylon and its (unfinished brick) tower, depicting them not as the
divinely constructed context where a temple bridges to heaven (so,
e.g., the Enuma Elish Epic), but as the locus where primeval
humanity themselves tried and failed to build a city and heaven-
touching tower. A central aspect of its presentation is the idea that
primeval humankind was a unity (“one people”) defined by a
common speech (Gen 11:1, 6), such that Y ’s disruption of this
linguistic unity through confusing their speech (Gen 11:7, 9b) caused
humans to disperse (Gen 11:8, 9a). Ironically, this story—so focused
on how human speech got mixed/confused (Gen 11:7, 9a)—is a
showpiece of literary elegance—both in its overall intricate
compositional patterns and its saturation with sound and word plays.
Historically, the intense focus on “language” in Gen 11:1–9 has
provided the basis for language-focused interpretations of the text,
from older treatments that took Hebrew to be the primordial
language of humanity before Babylon to more recent reflections on
Gen 11:1–9 and problems of language in literary theory.56
Though the narrative manifests indicators of composition when
Judah was under Mesopotamian domination (likely Neo-Assyrian,
possibly Neo-Babylonian), the text itself does not reflect or critique
imperial power. This has been overlooked by many ancient and more
contemporary interpreters. For example, a long line of interpretation,
starting already in the Second Temple period, merged this story with
materials in Gen 10 about Nimrod (Gen 10:8–12), to create a new
account of how king Nimrod rebelled against God in leading the
people to build a tower to storm heaven.57 More recent
interpretations have taken Gen 11:1–9 (or an earlier form of it) as
implicitly critical of Mesopotamian imperial domination.58
Nevertheless, the passage itself provides little basis for such
interpretations of Gen 11:1–9 as a depiction and/or critique of
centralized power. It depicts humanity as a whole (“all the earth”), not
any king or specific empire, as the protagonist throughout, and it
focuses on God’s concern about the power of this human-wide
collectivity.59 In this sense the passage actually provides more of a
basis for contemporary interpretations from more conservative
perspectives that take Gen 11:1–9 as an account of the dangers of a
democratic tyranny of an international collective (e.g., the United
Nations).60
To be sure, some have argued that Gen 11:1–9 is actually a
positive account, depicting the human building project neutrally and
Y ’s intervention as a positive measure to populate the earth
and/or encourage human diversification. For example, Ellen Van
Wolde’s semantic analysis takes Gen 11:1–9 as a story of Y ’s
insurance that humans spread across the earth; Ted Hiebert’s
approach reads the story as a divine endorsement of cultural
diversity; and J. Severino Croatto’s liberation reading interprets the
text as an anti-Enuma Elish myth critiquing imperial suppression of
individual cultures and languages.61 These readings have made
important contributions, balancing past readings of the passage as a
story of “crime and punishment” with sensitivity both to the text’s
complex portrayal of humanity’s efforts and the way Y ’s
response here is not depicted as a punishment of human
disobedience. At the same time, such readings overlook ways that
Gen 11:1–9 implies a critique of humanity’s efforts to build a heaven-
touching structure and make a name for themselves, and they miss
the text’s depiction of Y ’s concern about the problematic
challenge such efforts represent. Ultimately, the text remains a
negative depiction of human striving and folly, even as past readings
of the passage as a story of human disobedience and even war
against heaven (e.g., Syb Or 3:99–100; Jubilees 10:19) missed the
mark.
Ultimately the challenge in reading Gen 11:1–9, as with several
other non-Priestly texts, is avoiding an overly positive or negative
reading. Past readings have shown a tendency either to take it as a
story of human crime and divine punishment or as one about God’s
gracious insurance of human diversity and filling the earth. This
treatment takes the story as a polemical depiction of human striving
and primeval problems for God that could attend unrestricted human
collective power. As seen in the discussion above, contemporary
elaborations of the story have varied sharply, depending in large part
on the sorts of questions brought to the text by the interpreter. Much
rides, for example, on whether the interpreter approaches the story
with a concern about how colonial empires have damaged
indigenous linguistic communities or with a focus on a perceived
threat to “traditional values” posed by some form of ethical relativism.
Notably, most contemporary interpretations leave to the side the
passage’s prominent description of a deity concerned to protect
divine prerogatives by disrupting human community. Looking to the
future, one might ask whether this passage’s deep skepticism about
global human cooperation might not be particularly problematic in a
time like this where central issues, such as climate change, require
the global community to find a common language to address
profound challenges to the ongoing life of the “children of the human”
on “all the earth.”
Genesis 11:10–26: The Genealogical
Line from Shem to Abraham
11:10 These are the descendants of Shem. When Shem was one
hundred years old, he fathered Arpachshad in the second year after
the flood.a 11 Shem lived five hundred years after he fathered
Arpachshad, and he had sons and daughters.
12 Arpachshad liveda thirty-five years, and he fathered Shelah. 13
Arpachshad then lived four hundred and three years after he
fathered Arpachshad, and he had sons and daughters.
14 Shelah liveda thirty years, and he fathered Eber. 15 Shelah then
lived four hundred and three years after he fathered Eber, and he
had sons and daughters.
16 When Eber had lived thirty-four years, he fathered Peleg. 17 Eber
then lived three hundred and seventy yearsa after he fathered Peleg,
and he had sons and daughters.
18 When Peleg had lived thirty years, he fathered Reu. 19 Peleg
then lived two hundred and nine years after he fathered Reu, and he
had sons and daughters.
20 When Reu had lived thirty-two years, he fathered Serug. 21 Reu
then lived two hundred seven years after he fathered Serug, and he
had sons and daughters.
22 When Serug had lived thirty years, he fathered Nahor. 23 Serug
then lived two hundred years after he fathered Nahor, and he had
sons and daughters.
24 When Nahor had lived twenty-nine years, he fathered Terah. 25
Nahor then lived one hundred nineteen years after he fathered
Terah, and he had sons and daughters.
26 When Terah had lived seventy years, he fathered Abram, Nahor,
and Haran.
Notes on Text and Translation
11:10a A number of interpreters have noted that ‫ שנתים‬could be understood as an
accusative of time, indicating that it was in the second year after the flood that
Shem fathered Arpachshad (on analogy, e.g., with Gen 14:4). See Holzinger,
Genesis, 114; Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 115.
12a The translation diverges here and in the following section on Shelah to
indicate that the initial clause is formulated with a perfect form of the verb:
‫“( … וארפכשד חי‬and Arpachshad lived”) as opposed to the converted imperfect
form of the verb, e.g., 11:16) … ‫ ;ויחי עבר‬rendered here as “When Eber had
lived”). Though the preceding (Gen 5) and following (Gen 11:16–26) temporal
clauses typically are formed with converted imperfects, it is not clear whether
a semantic difference is intended by this formulation with the perfect in 11:12,
14. For one proposal, see Jacob, Genesis, 306–307.
14a See the preceding note on 11:12.
17a Here following the Septuagint, where the MT conforms to 11:15, 16 ‫ארבע‬
‫( ושלשים‬thirty-four); cf. Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 72–73, 146.

Excursus on Text-Critical Issues with the Overall Chronology

in Gen 11:10–26
Overall, the above translation follows the readings in the MT. The variant
chronological system generally shared here by the Samaritan Pentateuch and
Septuagint extends the ages at first fathering for most patriarchs by one
hundred years (fifty years for Nahor) and then reduces their remaining years of
life by a corresponding amount. This set of adjustments, which likely originates
in a common Vorlage behind the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch, helps
avoid the implication that Noah and the post-diluvian patriarchs all lived into the
time of Abraham and that three of them (Shem, Shelah, Eber) lived after
Abraham’s death (with Shem living into the time of Jacob’s life). In addition,
both the Samaritan Pentateuch and LXX added a report of death for each
patriarch (“and he died”) that conformed the pattern for each post-diluvian
patriarch in 11:10–26 to the pre-diluvian patriarchs seen in Gen 5:1–32. This
process of scribal revision of Gen 11:10–26 then seems to have continued with
tradents behind the Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint each making
additional modifications to Gen 11:10–26 to make it better match elements in
Gen 5*.1
Diachronic Prologue
Gen 11:10–26 appears to be a continuation of the Toledot book
source initially seen behind Gen 5—a pre-Priestly “book of the
descendents (‫ )תולדת‬of Adam” that is labeled in Gen 5:1a and whose
first major section (an Adam-to-Noah genealogy) is embedded in
most of Gen 5*.2 Genesis 11:10–26 is another major section of that
Toledot book, featuring the same ascending numbering system that
helped distinguish the bulk of Gen 5 from the rest of the Priestly
source. Moreover, as in the case of Gen 5, the chronology for
primeval post-flood patriarchs in Gen 11:10–26 does not appear to
have been originally crafted to stand in relation with narrative
materials surrounding it, in this case the following Priestly ancestral
texts across parts of Gen 12–50 (see the above excursus on text-
critical issues). Instead, this chronology—with its picture of post-flood
patriarchs living superhumanly long lives—appears to echo a similar
picture of long-lived post-flood patriarchs seen in the Sumerian King
List tradition (SKL) which served as a loose model for the Toledot
book.
Whereas Gen 5 appears to have undergone fairly significant
Priestly (e.g., Gen 5:1b–2) modification and conflational insertion of
non-P material (e.g., Gen 5:29), the bulk of Gen 11:10–26 appears to
reflect its original synchronic context in the Toledot book. That said,
the outset of the genealogy of Shem appears to have undergone at
least one adjustment: a likely expansion on a typical Toledot-book-
type heading that indicated that Shem was one-hundred years old
when he fathered Arpachshad (Gen 11:10aβ; cf., e.g., 11:12, 16, 18,
20) with a note specifying that this fathering occurred ‫שנתים אחר‬
‫“( המבול‬in the second [year] after the flood”; Gen 11:10b). The
commentary below will discuss the conflict of this extra chronological
note about Shem’s fathering with Gen 5:32; 7:6; 11:10a, a conflict
that is an initial, important indicator that Gen 11:10b is a secondary
expansion of the section on Shem (Gen 11:10–12), one likely made
by the Priestly author.
The following synchronic commentary thus focuses primarily on
ways that the materials in Gen 11:10–26 function within their likely
original Toledot Book context, even as it will include some discussion
of the just-mentioned (P) expansion in Gen 11:10b.
Synchronic Analysis
Overview of Gen 11:10–26 Gen 11:10–26 is a linear genealogical
bridge from Noah’s son, Shem, to Abraham, the recipient of the
covenant in P and father of many peoples. Like other such linear
genealogies, it is best understood from its endpoint backward.3
Where a genealogy of a royal dynasty establishes the legitimacy of
the final king and a similarly linear genealogy of a high priest
authenticates the status and purity of its final member, this linear
genealogy establishes the primeval background of Abraham, its
most prominent final member (Gen 11:26).4 Following on the earlier
parts of the “Book of the Toledot of Adam” in Gen 5* and 6:9–10; 7:6;
9:28–29, the Toledot of Shem in Gen 11:10–26 establishes Abraham
as the putative eldest heir of a series of primeval ancestors going
back to the flood-hero, Noah, and, before him, the first human,
Adam. The chronological notices in each subsection of Gen 5* and
11:10–26 are completely oriented around the year in which each
patriarch fathered his first son, who in turn is the focus of the next
genealogical subsection. Shem, the starting point for Gen 11:10–26,
is listed first in the fathering reports for Noah (Gen 5:32; 6:10), and
Abraham is likewise listed first in the fathering report for Noah in Gen
11:26 (see also 11:27).
At the same time, subtle indicators in Gen 11:10–26 place
Abraham and other descendants of Shem in a line of post-flood
humanity that does not enjoy quite the longevity of the pre-flood
primeval patriarchs seen in Gen 5. Though Shem’s total six hundred
years of life somewhat approaches the multi-century lifespans of the
patriarchs seen in Genesis (Gen 11:10–11), the next three post-flood
patriarchs only live a bit over four hundred years (Arpachshad,
Shelah, Eber), and then four out of the following five post-flood
patriarchs live a bit over two-hundred years (Peleg, Reu, Serug,
Terah; Nahor lives 148 years). These are still superhuman lifepans
by any standard, especially when it is considered that most ancient
men did not survive to forty years.5 Yet the chronology of Gen 11:10–
26 shows a gradual shift in primeval patriarchs toward long lives that
more closely approach those of later patriarchs such as Abraham.
In this and other respects this latter section of the Toledot book in
Gen 11:10–26 echoes and yet reduces the picture of primeval
human longevity in the Sumerian king list tradition that preceded it.
That list attributed reigns of tens of thousands of years to pre-flood
kings before then surveying post-flood kings who enjoyed reigns of
reduced length. The survey of (non-royal) primeval ancestors in Gen
5 and 11:10–26 starts in Gen 5 by depicting ten pre-flood patriarchs
who generally lived lives of multiple hundreds of years, concluding
the section on each one with a report on their total years of life along
with an explicit note that each one died (e.g., Gen 5:5). The
otherwise parallel survey of post-flood ancestors of Abraham in Gen
11:10–26 lacks these concluding elements on total years and death
of each figure. Instead, the reader can only deduce their relatively
reduced lifespans (in comparison with pre-flood ancestors) by way of
adding up the years of life lived by each patriarch before and after he
fathered his initial son. Notably, P’s extension of this system to cover
Abraham and other ancestors of Israel includes final reports of their
deaths and summary notices on their years of life that resemble, but
do not match, those for pre-flood patriarchs in Gen 5 (Gen 25:7–8,
17; 35:28–29; note also 47:28 along with 49:33). This holds even
though the lifespans of Israel’s ancestors are just a bit below the
200+-year totals for most post-flood patriarchs—175 for Abraham;
137 for Ishmael, 180 for Isaac, 147 for Jacob.
Gen 11:10a. The Toledot label As noted by Benno Jacob, the
lack of a conjunction at the outset of this label is similar to the
Toledot labels that introduce the descendants of Adam (Gen 5:1) and
Noah (Gen 6:9).6 Except for the conflational label in Gen 2:4a, most
other such Toledot headings are connected with what precedes them
by a conjunction (e.g., Gen 10:1; 11:27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9). We do
not see another Toledot label introduced without a conjunction until
the one in Gen 37:2 that introduces the sons of Jacob. This pattern
may imply that Shem, as the first-listed son of Noah (Gen 5:32; 6:10)
and first post-flood father, represents a similarly important starting
point to those represented by Adam, Noah, and Jacob.
 Gen 11:10b–12. The initial section on Shem’s fathering of
Arpachshad The bulk of the section on Shem here mostly follows
the pattern for following post-flood ancestors leading to Abraham,
which in turn is a modified form of the pattern seen in Gen 5:

Gen 11:10b–13 (Shem) Gen 5:6–8 (Seth)7

Age at Gen 11:10aβ Gen 5:6
fathering - '‫ושם בן־מאת שנה וילד א‬ '‫שנה ויולד את־א … ויחי‬
initial son: Shem was 100 years old ‫שת‬
when he fathered Seth lived … years
Arpachshad and fathered Enosh
Length of life Gen 11:11a Gen 5:7a
after fathering ‫שנה … 'ויחי־שם אחרי הולידו א‬ ‫שנה … 'ויחי־שת אחרי‬
Shem lived … years after his ‫הולידו א‬
fathering Arpachshad Seth lived … years
after his fathering
Enosh
Fathering of Gen 11:11b Gen 5:7b
other - ‫ויולד בנים ובנות‬ ‫ויולד בנים ובנות‬
offspring And he fathered sons and And he fathered sons
daughters and daughters
Report of [no equivalent] Gen 5:8a
total lifespan
Report that [no equivalent] Gen 5:8b
he died

As was noted above, the sections on Shem and other post-flood

patriarchs in Gen 11:10–26 lack equivalents to the final sections in
Gen 5 summarizing the extraordinarily long lives of pre-flood
patriarchs and reporting that they died (e.g., Gen 5:8). Nevertheless,
the other elements for Shem are quite parallel to those for Seth and
other figures between Adam and Noah in Gen 5:6–28, 30–31.
Despite these broader parallels, the section about Shem diverges
in one important respect from the (modified) Toledot pattern seen
across the rest of Gen 11:10–26: the inclusion of an additional note
offering further chronological specification about when Shem
fathered Arpachshad: ‫שנתים אחר המבול‬. In thus specifying that
Shem’s fathering happened in the second [year] after the flood (the
actual word for “year” is not included), this cryptic chronological
specification insures an understanding that both Arpachshad’s
conception and birth occurred in the post-flood period.8 In this way,
this note inserts a Priestly concept about flood chronology into the
Toledot section on Shem, a concept that distinguishes between a
liminal period during the flood when Noah’s family and one pair of
each earth-based creature were on the ark together without 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. The preceding parts of the
Toledot book relating to Shem’s chronology could be seen as
contradicting this concept (Gen 5:32; 7:6; 11:10a), implying that
Shem might already have fathered Arpachshad in his one-hundreth
year while on the ark. In response, this additional note in Gen
11:10bα insists that Arpachshad was born well after that period, now
standing as an initial instance of the broader human multiplication
with which God blessed Noah and his sons (Gen 9:1, 7).9
Meanwhile, the original Toledot section on Shem, like other
sections of the Toledot book in Gen 5* and 11:13–26, just focused on
how old Shem was when he fathered his first son (Gen 11:10a)
before then noting how many additional years he lived and reporting
that he fathered other (unnamed) sons and daughters (Gen 11:11).
The focus in this case was on Arpachshad as Shem’s eldest son and
implicit heir. As such, Arpachshad stood in the Toledot book as the
first post-flood genealogical link in a chain of such eldest sons
leading ultimately to Abraham.10 Moreover, once Gen 11:10b is
bracketed as a likely Priestly adaptation of this section, it appears
that the earlier Toledot chronology of Gen 11:10a associated this
Arpachshad’s birth with the end of the flood, perhaps even having
Arpachshad’s birth help mark the beginning of post-flood human
existence. Shem’s fathering of Arpachshad occurs relatively late in
life, occurring in the very same implicit year as the Toledot book’s
dating of the flood (Gen 5:32; 7:6; 11:10a). )Moreover, Shem’s implict
overall lifespan—at 600 years (Gen 11:10a, 11a)—is identical with
the Babylonian ner (600) that is also featured in the Toledot Book as
the year of Noah’s life when the flood occurred (Gen 7:6; 9:28–29).
This focalization on “Arpachshad” as Shem’s first son and marker
of the very beginning of post-flood humanity raises a particular
question about whether the readership of this text is meant to
associate this Arpachshad with a known ancient place or people.
Though a secure identification has not succeeded thus far, the most
plausible suggestion seems to be that Arpachshad is a secondary
place designation meant to stand in some way for the land of the
“Chaldeans,” a term that in turn is associated with Babylon and seen
in some biblical traditions as the homeland of Abraham (e.g., Gen
11:28, 31; 15:7).11 Insofar as this association of Arpachshad with
Chaldea/Babylon is correct, Gen 11:10–11 thus would place this
primeval ancestor of Babylon at the very outset of the post-flood
period. Much as the non-P primeval history echoed Near Eastern
traditions about the antiquity of Babylon in focusing on Babylon as
the site of the initial spreading of post-flood humanity (Gen 11:1–9),
so here the Toledot book may be placing an implicit ancestor of the
Chaldeans at the very outset of the post-flood period.12
Gen 11:13–26. The other post-flood primeval ancestors The
remaining portions of Gen 11:13–25 almost precisely follow the
above-surveyed modified pattern for primeval patriarchs, reporting
the age of the patriarch at the birth of his first son, his remaining
years, and reporting that he fathered additional sons and
daughters.13 The pattern of generally decreasing ages across this
section was discussed in the overview above.
That leaves the question of whether some of these figures were
meant to be understood as representing the fathers of peoples
known to the ancient readership of the text. In the preceding
commentary on Gen 10 I discussed ways that Gen 10:21 seems to
associate Arpachshad’s grandson, “Eber,” as part of an expression
“all of the sons of Eber” with primeval Hebrews. The mentions of
Eber in Gen 11:14–17 may presuppose a similar link or, alternatively,
an understanding of “Eber” as representing the region “beyond the
Euphrates” (‫ ~ עבר‬across).14 The figures appearing toward the end
of the list—Serug, Nahor, and Terah—appear, like Arpachshad, to be
personalized forms of place names, in this case places in the vicinity
of the Northern Mesopotamian city of Harran: Sarûgi (=Serug)
between Harran and the Euphrates, Til-Naḫiri (=Nahor) near Harran,
and Til ša turāḥi (=Terah) northeast of Harran.15 Biblical Haran
(=Mesopotamian Harran) is identified in some non-P traditions as the
land of Abraham’s relations (Gen 27:43; 28:10; 29:4) and in P as a
way-station where Terah stopped and died on his way to Canaan
from Ur of the Chaldeans (Gen 11:28, 31) before Abraham departed
from there for Canaan (Gen 12:4b–5).
Meanwhile, the origins and associations of other names in the list
remain unclarified. Genesis 10:25 connects Eber’s son, “Peleg,” to
the division (‫ )פלג‬of humanity that supposedly occurred in his time.
Genesis 10:25, however, may be a relatively late part of the overview
of Noah’s sons and not presupposed by the author of the Gen
11:10–26 Toledot section.16 At best, one might follow Seebass in
concluding that the remaining names in 11:10–26 are constructed to
refer to more general elements in Mesopotamian and (for Reu)
Syrian culture—Shelah (irrigation line), Peleg (canal) and possibly
Reu (“pastureland” if emended to 17.(‫ רעי‬Nevertheless, these latter
proposals, especially the last, are highly uncertain.
In general, the most we can say with some surety is that the
name “Arpachshad” at the outset of the Toledot book seems
associated with Babylon and connects with the more general
Mesopotamian setting of the post-flood, non-P primeval narratives
(e.g., Gen 10:8–12; 11:1–9), while the names Serug, Nahor, and
Terah are associated with Harran, noted above as the North Syrian
homeland of part of Abraham’s family in non-P (Gen 27:43; 28:10;
29:4).18 In this way, the Shem-to-Terah (and sons) genealogy in Gen
11:10–26 builds a genealogical bridge from early primeval ancestors
implicitly connected to Mesopotamia to the more immediate
background of Abraham’s family in northern Syria.
Synthesis
Overall, the bulk of Gen 11:10–26 appears to be the last major part
of the Toledot’s book’s re-presentation of Abraham’s origins as part
of a genealogical line extending back to Adam and Noah. Within the
Toledot book, Arpachshad’s birth at the outset of the line is
associated with the year of the flood, and the subsequent
chronological system represents a gradual transition from multi-
hundred year lifespans of pre-flood patriarchs (e.g., Shem 600,
Arpachshad 438) and the extended lifespans of later post-flood
patriarchs (e.g., Nahor 158). By the end, we have arrived at three
sons of Terah to correspond to the three sons of Noah, with one of
those sons, Abram, representing the first specific ancestor of
Israel.19
As discussed above, the present text of Gen 11:10–26 represents
a slight Priestly adaptation of this scheme so that it starts after the
conclusion of the flood. Since P’s more extended flood narrative
depicts the year on the ark as a liminal period that was free of
reproduction (see above), the Priestly adaptation in Gen 11:10b then
clarifies that Shem’s fathering of Arpachshad did not occur during
the flood (cf. Gen 5:32; 7:6; 11:10a), but in the second year after it.
As such, Shem’s fathering of Arpachshad then stands as a part of a
broader post-flood multiplication of humanity, a multiplication that is
particularly thematized by P in the flood’s aftermath (Gen 9:1, 7) and
then outlined in the Priestly portions of Gen 10.
Selective Bibliography1
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.
Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible, Vol. 1, The Five Books of Moses. New York: W.
W. Norton, 2019.
Andersen, Francis. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. The Hague: Moulton, 1974.
Anderson, Gary. “Celibacy or Consumation?” HTR 82 (1989): 121–48.
Arneth, Martin. Durch Adams Fall ist ganz verderbt: Studien zur Entstehung der
alttestamentlichen Urgeschichte. FRLANT 217. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2007.
Baden, Joel S. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary
Hypothesis. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 2012.
Barré, M. L. “Rabiṣu.” Pages 1287–90 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the
Bible. Edited by Karel Van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der
Horst. Leiden: Brill, 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 altorientalischen Literatur. AThANT 65. Zürich:
Theologischer Verlag, 1979.
Bauks, Michaela. “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): 21–37.
———. Die Umkehr des Schöpfergottes: Zu Komposition und
religionsgeschichtlichem Hintergrund von Gen 5–9. HBS 22. Freiburg: Herder,
1999.
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.
———. Die Theologie der Bilder: Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbildern in
Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche Bilderpolemik. OBO 162. Freiburg and
Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998.
Beyer, Klaus. “Althebräische Syntax in Prosa und Poesie.” Pages 76–96 in
Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt [FS K. G. Kuhn].
Edited by Gert Jeremias, Wolfgang Kuhn, and Harmut Stegemann. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971.
Blum, Erhard. “Das althebräische Verbalsystem: Eine synchrone Analyse.”
Pages 91–139 in Sprachliche Tiefe – theologische Weite. Edited by Oliver
Dyma and Andreas Michel. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 91. Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008.
———. Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte. WMANT 57. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1984.
———. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. BZAW 189. Berlin: De Gruyter,
1990.
———. “Urgeschichte.” TRE 34 (2002): 436–45.
———. “Von Gottesunmittelbarkeit zu Gottähnlichkeit: Überlegungen zur
theologischen Anthropologie der Paradieserzählung.” Pages 8–27 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 165. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 2005.
Bost, Hubert. Babel: Du texte au symbole. Monde de la Bible. Genève: Labor et
Fides, 1985.
Brett, Mark G. Decolonizing God: The Bible in the Tides of Empire. Sheffield:
Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008.
Budde, Karl. Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen. 1–12, 5). Gießen: Ricker, 1883.
Bührer, Walter. Am Anfang..: Untersuchungen zur Textgenese und zur relativ-
chronologischen Einordnung von Gen 1–3. FRLANT 256. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014.
———. “Göttersöhne und Menschentöchter: Gen 6,1–4 als innerbiblische
Schriftauslegung.” ZAW 123 (2011): 495–515.
Carr, David M. “Βίβλος γενέσεως Revisited: A Synchronic Analysis of Patterns in
Genesis as Part of the Torah (Part One),” ZAW 110 (1998): 159–72
———. The Formation of Genesis 1–11: Biblical and Other Precursors. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2020.
———. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. New York:
Oxford, 2011.
———. “Looking at Historical Background, Redaction and Possible Bad Writing in
Gen 6,1–4: A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis.” BN 181 (2019): 7–24.
———. “On the Meaning and Uses of the Category of ‘Diachrony’ in Exegesis.”
Exegetik des Alten Testaments: Bausteine für eine Theorie der Exegese.
Edited by Joachim Krause and Kristin Weingart. FAT. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2020.
———. Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches.
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996.
———. 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].
Chapman, Cynthia. “The Breath of Life: Speech, Gender and Authority in the
Garden of Eden.” JBL 138 (2019): 241–62.
Cohen, Yoram, Andrew R. George, ed. Wisdom from the Late Bronze Age.
Writings from the Ancient World 29. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013.
Croatto, J. Severino. “A Reading of the Tower of Babel from the Location of Non-
Identity.” Pages 203–23 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 (with Hartwig Thyen). Als Mann und Frau geschaffen:
Exegetische Studien zur Rolle der Frau. Gelnhausen: Burckhardthaus, 1978.
Crüsemann, Frank. “Autonomie und Sünde: Gen 4,7 und die ‘jahwistische’
Urgeschichte.” Pages 60–77 in Traditionen der Befreiung: sozialgeschichtliche
Bibelauslegungen, Bd. 1, Methodische Zugänge. Edited by Willy Schottroff and
Wolfgang Stegemann. München: Kaiser, 1980.
———. “Was ist und wonach fragt die erste Frage der Bibel? Oder: das Thema
Scham als ‘Schlüssel zur Paradiesgeschichte’.” Pages 63–79 in Fragen wider
die Antworten (FS Jürgen Ebach). Edited by Kerstin Schiffner et al. Gütersloh:
Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2010.
Day, John. “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.
———. “Rooms or Reeds in Noah’s Ark (Genesis 6.14)?” Pages 113–22 in From
Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1–11. London: Bloomsbury, 2013.
———. “The Sons of God and Daughters of Men and the Giants: Disputed Points
in the Interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4.” HeBAI 1 (2012): 427–47.
———. “The Tower and City of Babel Story (Genesis 11.1–9): Problems of
Interpretation and Background.” Pages 166–88 in From Creation to Babel:
Studies in Genesis 1–11. London: Bloomsbury, 2013.
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.
Derrida, Jacques. L’animal que donc je suis (Paris: Galilée, 2006); ET The Animal
That Therefore I Am. Translated by David Wills. New York: Fordham University
Press, 2008.
Deurloo, Karel. Kaïn en Abel: Onderzoek naar exegetische methode inzake een
‘kleine literaire eenheid’ in de Tenakh. Amsterdam: W. Ten Have N.V., 1967.
Dillmann, August. Die Genesis. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten
Testament 11. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1892.
Dubach, Manuel. Trunkenheit im Alten Testament: Begrifflichkeit – Zeugnisse –
Wertung. BWANT 184. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2009.
Ehrlich, Arnold B. Genesis und Exodus. Vol. 1 of Randglossen zur Hebräischen
Bibel; textkritisches, sprachliches und sachliches. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche
Buchhandlung, 1908.
Fokkelman, Jan P. Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural
Analysis. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.
Foster, Benjamin R. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 3rd
ed. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005.
Frahm, Eckart. “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.
Galambush, Julie. “ʾĀDĀM FROM ʾǍDĀMÂ, ʾIŠŠÂ FROM ʾΊ: 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, 1991
[1987 original].
Gerhards, Meik. Conditio humana: 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.
Gertz, Jan Christian. “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.
———. “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.
Goldenberg, David M. The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in early Judaism,
Christianity and Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.
Gross, Walter. “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen im Kontext der
Priesterschrift.” TQ 161 (1981): 244–64.
———. “Syntaktische Erscheinungen am Anfang Althebräischer Erzählungen:
Hintergrund und Vordergrund.” Pages 131–45 in Congress Volume
International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament: Vienna, 1980.
Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 32. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
Grossman, Jonathan. “The Double Etymology of Babel in Genesis 11.” ZAW 129
(2017): 362–75.
Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. HAT 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917.
Hauser, Alan J. “Linguistic and Thematic Links Between Genesis 4:1–16 and
Genesis 2–3.” JSOT 23 (1980): 297–305.
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. Geburstag. 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.
———. The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1998.
———. “4Q252 and the Flood Chronology of Genesis 7–8: A Text-Critical
Solution.” DSD 2 (1995): 72–79.
Heyde, Henning. Kain, der erste Jahweverehrer: Die ursprüngliche Bedeutung der
Sage von Kain und ihre Auswirkungen in Israel. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1965.
Heyden, Katharina. “Die Sünde Kains: Exegetische Beobachtungen zu Gen 4,1–
16.” BN 118 (2003): 85–109.
Hiebert, Theodore. “The Tower of Babel and the Origin of the World’s Cultures.”
JBL 126 (2007): 29–58.
Hieke, Thomas. Die Genealogien der Genesis. HBS 39. Freiburg: Herder, 2003.
Holzinger, H. Genesis. Kurzer Handkommentar zum AT. Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr,
1898.
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.
Jacob, Benno. Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis. Berlin: Schocken Verlag, 1934.
Janowski, Bernd. Anthropologie des Alten Testaments: Grundfragen, Kontexte,
Themenfelder. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019.
———. “Herrschaft über die Tiere. Gen 1,26–28 und die Semantik von ‫רדה‬.”
Pages 183–98 in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel. Edited by
Georg Braulik et al. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1993.
———. “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.
Jericke, Detlef. Die Ortsangaben im Buch Genesis: Ein historisch-topographischer
und literarisch-topographischer Kommentar. FRLANT 248. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.
Jobling, David. Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible. Vol. 2 of The Sense of
Biblical Narrative. JSOTSup 7. Sheffield, England: Dept. of Biblical Studies,
1986.
Kahl, Brigitte. “Fratricide and Ecocide: Re-reading Gen 2–4.” Pages 53–68 in Earth
Habitat: Eco-Justice and the Church’s Response. Edited by Dieter Hessel and
Larry Rasmussen. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.
Kalmanofsky, Amy. Gender Play in the Hebrew Bible: The Ways the Bible
Challenges Its Gender Norms. New York: Routledge, 2016.
Kidd, Colin. The Forging of Races: Race and Scripture in the Protestant Atlantic
World, 1600–2000. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Knust, Jennifer. “Who’s Afraid of Canaan’s Curse?: Genesis 9:18–29 and the
Challenge of Reparative Reading.” BibInt 22 (2014): 388–413.
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.
Krüger, Thomas. “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 Symposium aus Anlass des 60. Geburtstags von Odil
Hannes Steck. Fribourg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1997.
———. “Schöpfung und Sabbat in Genesis 2,1–3.” Pages 155–69 in Sprachen –
Bilder – Klänge. Dimensionen der Theologie im Alten Testament und in seinem
Umfeld. Festschrift für Rüdiger Bartelmus zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by
Christiane Karrer-Grube. Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 2009.
Kugel, James L. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start
of the Common Era. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1998.
Lemardelé, Christophe. “Une gigantomachie dans la Genèse? Géants et héros
dans les textes bibliques compilés.” RHR 227 (2010): 155–174.
Levin, Christoph. Der Jahwist. FRLANT 157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1993.
———. “Tatbericht und Wortbericht in der priesterschriftlichen
Schöpfungserzählung.” ZThK 91 (1994): 115–33.
Lewis, Jack P. A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and
Christian Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1968.
Lipinski, Edward. “Nimrod et Assur.” RB 73 (1966): 77–93.
Loewenclau, Ilse. “Genesis IV 6–7 – Eine Jahwistische Erweiterung?” Pages 177–
88 in Congress Volume. Edited by John Emerton. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
Lux, Rüdiger. “Das Bild Gottes und die Götterbilder im Alten Testament.” ZThK 110
(2013): 133–57.
———. “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.
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.
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.
Mellinkoff, Ruth W. The Mark of Cain. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1981.
Meyers, Carol. Rediscovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. New York:
Oxford, 1988.
Middleton, J. Richard. The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Grand
Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005.
Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch,
Chapters 1–36, 81–108. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.
Nihan, Christophe. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition
of the Book of Leviticus. FAT, 2. Reihe 25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
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.
Prestel, Peter; Stefan Schorch. “Genesis. Das erste Buch Mose.” Pages 145–257
in Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen
Alten Testament. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011.
Rendtorff, Rolf. “Gen 8,21 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten.” KD 7 (1961): 69–
78.
Richelle, Matthias. “La structure littéraire de l’Histoire Primitive (Genèse 1,1–11,26)
en son état final.” BN 151 (2011).
Rouillard-Bonraisin, Hedwige. “L’étrange cas de Qayin et de Hevel..” In Jalousie
des dieux, jalousie des hommes. Edited by Hedwige Rouillard. Turnhout:
Brepols, 2011.
Rösel, Martin. Übersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung: Studien zur Genesis-
Septuaginta. BZAW 223. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994.
Runions, Erin. The Babylon Complex: Theopolitical Fantasies of War, Sex and
Sovereignty. New York: Fordham University Press, 2014.
Ruppert, Lothar. Genesis, 1. Teilband Gen 1,1–11,26. Forschung zur Bibel 70.
Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992.
Sarna, Nahum. Genesis. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 1989.
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.
Schmidt, Werner H. “Mythos im Alten Testament.” EvTh 27 (1967): 237–54.
———. Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift. 3rd ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1973.
Schrader, Eberhard. Studien zur Kritik und Erklärung der biblischen Urgeschichte.
Zurich: Meyer & Zeller, 1863.
Schüle, Andreas. Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel: Der literar- und theologie-
geschichtlich Diskurs der Urgeschichte (Genesis 1–11). ATANT 86. Zürich:
Theologischer Verlag, 2006.
———.“Made in the ‘Image of God’: The Concepts of Divine Images in Gen 1–3.”
ZAW 117 (2005): 1–19.
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.
Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. 2nd ed. ICC 1.
Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1930.
Smend (Sr.), Rudolf. Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht.
Berlin: De Gruyter, 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.
Soggin, J. Alberto. “Philological-linguistic notes on the Second Chapter of
Genesis.” Pages 169–78 in Old Testament and Oriental Studies. By J. Alberto
Soggin. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975.
Speiser, Ephraim A. Genesis. AB 1. Garden City: Doubleday, 1964.
Stade, Bernard. “Das Kainszeichen: Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der jahwistische
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 Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift: Studien zur literarkritischen und
überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Problematik von Genesis 1, 1–2, 4a. FRLANT
115. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981.
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.
Stone, Ken. “The Garden of Eden and the Heterosexual Contract.” Pages 48–70 in
Bodily Citations. Edited by Ellen T. Armour and Susan M. St. Ville. New York:
Columbia University Press, 2016.
———. Reading the Hebrew Bible with Animal Studies. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press, 2018.
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.
Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress,
1979.
Tuch, Friedrich. Kommentar über die Genesis. Halle: Buchhandlung des
Waisenhauses, 1838.
Uehlinger, Christoph. Weltreich und “eine Rede”: Eine neue Deutung der
sogenannten Turmbauerzählung (Gen 11, 1–9). OBO 101. Freiburg:
Universitätsverlag, 1990.
Van der Toorn, Karel; Peter W. Van der Horst. “Nimrod Before and After the Bible.”
HTR 83 (1990): 1–29.
VanderKam, James C. Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. CBQMS
16. Washington D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984.
———. Enoch, A Man for All Generations. Studies on Personalities of the Old
Testament. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2008.
Van Seters, John. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis.
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992.
Van Wolde, Ellen. Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1–11.
BibInt 6. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Vawter, Bruce. On Genesis: A New Reading. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977.
Von Rad, Gerhard. Das erste Buch Mose: Genesis. ATD 8. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972 [ET 1972].
Vriezen, Theodorus Christiaan. Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling bij de oude
Semietische volken. Wageningen: H. Veenan & Zonen, 1937.
Weimar, Peter. Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch. BZAW
146. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1977.
Weippert, Manfred. “Tier und Mensch in einer menschenarmen Welt: Zum sog.
dominium terrae in Genesis 1.” Pages 35–55 in Herrscher über die Welt:
Studien zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen. Edited by Hans-Peter Matys.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988.
Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher
des Alten Testaments. 4th. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963 [orig. 1876].
Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis. Vol. 1. Word. Waco, TX: Word, 1987.
Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11. BKAT I/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1974 [English translation 1984].
Wevers, John W. Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis. SBLSC 35. Atlanta:
Scholars, 1974.
White, Lynn. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis.” Science 155
(1967): 1203–7.
Williamson, Hugh. “On Getting Carried Away with the Infinitive Construct of ‫נשא‬.”
Pages 357*–367* in Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, Its Exegesis and
Its Language. Edited by Moshe Bar-Asher et al. Jerusalem: Bialek, 2007.
Willi-Plein, Ina. “Sprache als Schlüssel zur Schöpfung. Überlegungen zur
sogenannten Sündenfallgeschichte in Gen 3.” ThZ 51 (1995): 1–17.
Witte, Markus. Die biblische Urgeschichte: Redaktions- und
theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Genesis 1,1–11,26. BZAW 265.
Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998.
———. “Völkertafel.” WiBiLex. http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/34251.
July 2011.
Wolfe, Kellyann Falkenberg. “Creation, Crisis, and Comedy: An Ecocritical
Reading of the Eden story, Joel, and Jonah.” New York: Union Theological
Seminary in New York, 2011.
Zenger, Erich. Gottes Bogen in den Wolken: Untersuchungen zu Komposition und
Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Urgeschichte. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien.
Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983.
Zevit, Ziony. What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2013.
Zipor, Moshe A. The Septuagint Version of the Book of Genesis [Hebrew]. Ramat-
Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2005.
Indexes
‫‪Index of Hebrew Words‬‬
‫ה)אדם ‪)321 ,269 ,210 ,210 ,195 ,186 ,177 ,139 ,111 ,103 ,102 ,72‬‬
‫ה)אדמה ‪),168 ,168 ,167 ,136 ,135 ,134 ,103 ,102 ,101 ,88 ,43 ,42‬‬
‫‪168279 ,270 ,248 ,248 ,245 ,191 ,180 ,‬‬
‫אלהים ‪178 ,118 ,90 ,54 ,52‬‬
‫אנשי השם ‪216‬‬
‫ארור ‪168 ,135 ,134 ,130‬‬
‫ארר ‪286 ,229‬‬
‫בבל ‪325 ,315 ,315 ,291‬‬
‫בהמה ‪229 ,228‬‬
‫ביום ‪88‬‬
‫בלל ‪323 ,323‬‬
‫בנה ‪113‬‬
‫ברא ‪95 ,64 ,63 ,63 ,53 ,48 ,46‬‬
‫ברך ‪75‬‬
‫בשגם ‪209 ,207‬‬
‫גבר ‪228‬‬
‫גם ‪213 ,205‬‬
‫דמות ‪68‬‬
‫דמים ‪167 ,167‬‬
‫דרש ‪262‬‬
‫דשא ‪60 ,59‬‬
‫הנה ‪228 ,73 ,44‬‬
‫השכיל ‪122‬‬
‫חמס ‪70‬‬
‫טוב ‪204‬‬
‫ידע ‪174 ,166 ,157 ,149‬‬
‫יהוה אלהים ‪118 ,101 ,88‬‬
‫יום;ביום ‪89‬‬
‫יצר ‪240 ,113 ,112 ,103 ,17‬‬
‫יצר … רע ‪20‬‬
‫ירק עשב ‪73 ,73 ,60‬‬
‫יתבששו ‪126 ,116‬‬
‫כבש ‪70‬‬
‫כל־בני־עבר ‪302 ,301 ,301‬‬
‫כל־הארץ ‪325 ,319 ,318 ,316 ,310 ,282‬‬
‫לב ‪225‬‬
‫מבול ‪272 ,230 ,227 ,226‬‬
‫מחה ‪242 ,239 ,228‬‬
‫ת ‪ 111‬מוֹת יוּ‬
‫מין ‪43‬‬
‫מנה ‪64‬‬
‫מצא חן ‪241‬‬
‫משל ‪70 ,62‬‬
‫נפלים ‪205‬‬
‫נפץ ‪308‬‬
‫נשא ‪149‬‬
‫נשא עון ‪150‬‬
‫ספר ‪186‬‬
‫עזב ‪115‬‬
‫עזר ‪131‬‬
‫עזר כנגדו ‪114 ,114 ,114 ,112 ,112 ,111‬‬
‫עמה ‪128 ,123‬‬
‫עץ חיים ‪98‬‬
‫עצב ‪240 ,225‬‬
‫עצבון ‪251 ,248 ,240 ,225 ,200 ,192 ,133 ,132 ,132 ,131 ,91 ,30‬‬
‫ערוה ‪285‬‬
‫ערום ‪118‬‬
‫רוֹם ‪/ 128 ,118 ,117 ,90‬רוּם‬
‫עשה ‪112 ,65 ,64 ,63‬‬
‫פוץ ‪330 ,315 ,315 ,308‬‬
‫פן ‪92‬‬
‫פתח ‪164 ,154 ,154 ,154 ,152‬‬
‫צבא ‪76 ,75 ,74‬‬
‫צוה על ‪111‬‬
‫צלם ‪199 ,66 ,66‬‬
‫קום על ‪165 ,165‬‬
‫קלל ‪245 ,229‬‬
‫קנה ‪159 ,158 ,158 ,158 ,153 ,149‬‬
‫ים ‪226‬‬
‫קרא בשם יהוה ‪178‬‬
‫ראה ערוה ‪285‬‬
‫ראשית ‪47 ,46‬‬
‫רבץ ‪164 ,154 ,154 ,152 ,152 ,152‬‬
‫רדה ‪83 ,70 ,63‬‬
‫רוח ‪258 ,213 ,213 ,212 ,204 ,53‬‬
‫רמש ‪229 ,229‬‬
‫רקיע ‪58 ,58 ,41‬‬
‫שחת ‪253 ,253 ,226 ,226 ,226‬‬
‫שם ‪218‬‬
‫ם ‪/ 325‬ם‬
‫שמר ‪166‬‬
‫שעה ‪162 ,161 ,161 ,161‬‬
‫שפה ‪318 ,314‬‬
‫תבה ‪272 ,255‬‬
‫תהו ובהו ‪53‬‬
‫תהום ‪79 ,53 ,49‬‬
‫תוך ‪107‬‬
‫תולד[ו]ת ‪335 ,186 ,94 ,93 ,87 ,33 ,15‬‬
‫תשוקה ‪153‬‬
Index of Key Words
animals 63, 63, 64, 64, 69, 70, 70, 71, 71, 73, 73, 73, 74, 103, 106,
112, 112, 113, 114, 114, 129, 130, 136, 138, 138, 144, 144, 145, 247,
252, 253, 255, 260, 263, 264, 266, 267, 270, 276
Book of the Watchers 20
Canaanites 287, 303
of flood 231, 248, 249
chronologytexts of Gen 11:10–26
chronologytexts of Gen 5:1–32
civilization of humans 97
concentric patterning 99, 101, 155, 210, 268, 274, 316, 317, 318
conflation 27, 34, 39
correspondence formula 56, 59
critical animal studies 22, 145, 184
cross references and quotes 120, 124
curse of Ham 20, 20, 289
dating 31
linguistic 32, 32, 33, 35, 35
neo-Assyrian period 31, 32
Priestly layer 35
divine council 48, 65, 65, 72, 72, 75, 139, 139, 211, 322, 323, 327
ecocriticism 22, 70, 82, 83, 83, 146
Eden 105, 108, 109, 141
Egyptian literature 50
cosmological texts 23
Enmeduranki 193
Enuma Elish epic 45, 62, 80, 332
Eridu, as first city 174
ethical dative 226, 243
The Fall 20
farming 25, 102, 102, 103, 107, 134, 135, 136, 139, 142, 144, 159,
160, 170
irrigation 25, 106, 106, 108, 109
irrigation (in Mesopotamia) 26
feminist interpretation 21, 104, 112, 131, 131, 132, 132, 132, 133,
133, 134, 184
figura etymologica 59, 63, 230, 319
filial obligation 284
in Mesopotamian tradition 26, 238, 271
secondary addition to non-P 29, 30, 31
garden 18, 106, 107, 141, 143, 170, 173
gender 21, 21, 72, 72, 81, 83, 104, 111, 112, 113, 114, 114, 115,
129, 131, 131, 132, 132, 132, 133, 133, 133, 134, 134, 136, 137,
138, 138, 139, 139, 142, 144, 145, 145
of first human 104, 105, 105
giants 20, 30, 216
Gihon 109
god as parent 115, 162
goddess imagery (vis-a-vis Eve) 137, 158
Greek literature 23
Hittite-Hurrian Literature 23
human godlikeness 66, 66, 67, 67, 69, 81, 82, 123, 140, 141
human maturation 16, 97, 97, 121, 125, 136, 138, 138, 144
human mortality 17, 96, 121, 130, 131, 131, 135, 135, 135, 135,
135, 137, 137, 140, 142, 145, 159, 159, 213, 213, 215
human reproduction 131, 132, 132, 133, 137, 139, 142
humans as laborers for the gods 25, 76, 96, 106, 110, 144
image of God 66, 67, 68, 69, 80, 82, 104
cult statue 67
royal usage 68, 69, 69, 69
See farming 26
Kenites 99, 99, 155, 181, 181, 182, 183, 287, 301
kin relations 114, 115, 142, 168, 284, 287
knowledge of good and evil 110, 111, 121, 124, 125, 145
linear genealogy 196, 336
Masoretic text 36
chronology 187, 189, 189, 193, 194, 203, 335
cosmologies 24, 25, 25, 26, 26
possible vectors of transmission 23
mīs pî (mouth opening) ritual for cult statues 104
nakedness 283, 285
naming 113, 113, 129, 136, 177
Noachide laws 19
Noah 19
oral tradition, behind Gen 2–3, 4 154
original sin 21, 31
God 115
Paul 20, 21
Pishon 109
postcolonial reading 146
posthumanist criticism 145
of Genesis 1 84
Post-Priestly composition 28, 92, 206, 207, 235, 273, 279, 280,
281, 295, 295, 296, 309, 310, 310, 310, 330
poststructural reading 146
Priestly dependence on non-P 48, 48, 94, 190, 190, 264, 269, 270,
270, 272, 273, 308
Priestly layer 33, 34, 34
primeval creation accounts 24
P’s dependence 29
qal passive 204, 292, 301
queer reading 146
race 183, 183, 289, 312
Sabbath 51, 75, 75, 78, 81, 84
sacrifice 160, 160, 160, 161, 162, 162, 246, 246, 247
Samaritan Pentateuch 36
chronology 187, 189, 193, 194, 335
Septuagint 36, 56, 57, 57, 58, 59
187, 189, 193, 194, 203, 335
sexuality 97, 114, 115, 116, 116, 125, 131, 132, 136, 144, 157, 284,
288
shame 116, 124, 125, 125, 126, 126, 145, 284
snake 116, 117, 118, 128
naked (furless) 118
sons of God 19
South African reading, of Gen 4:1–16 184
synchronic, definition 38
tabernacle 79, 79, 80
Toledot book 33, 192, 335, 341
transgender criticism, of Genesis 1 84
trauma 79, 80
tree of life 98, 98, 107, 140
Ugaritic literature 23
wisdom 17, 96, 98, 107, 111, 121, 123, 124, 125, 140, 145, 157,
164, 166
Word and Act Sources (in Genesis 1) 52, 52
Index of Biblical Citations

Genesis
1:1–2:3 94, 106, 197, 203
1:1–3 45, 47, 47
1:3–2:1 253, 253, 255, 256, 257
1:3–31 196
1:6–9 269
1:11–12 307
1:20–21 258
1:21 261, 307
1:24–25 258, 307
1:24 261
1:26–30 262
1:26–28 18, 22, 197, 202
1:26–27 258
1:26 263
1:28–30 252
1:28 261, 263, 270, 271, 307, 312, 326
2:4–3:24 19, 72
2:4–25 81
2:4 197
2:4b–3:24 48, 72, 154, 178, 180, 181, 214, 240, 247, 251, 277,
287, 326
2:5 242, 242
2:6–3:19 242
2:7 213
2:8 327
2:21–22 201
2:25 201
3:1–24 285, 285
3:1–15 19
3:1–5 163
3:7 201
3:15 270
3:16–19 200
3:16–17 240
3:17–19 196, 245, 286
3:19 213
3:22–24 215, 218
3:22 72, 322
3:24 212, 213
4:1–26 190, 191, 191, 192, 193
4:1–24 30, 99, 99, 115, 269, 270
4:1–16 103, 138, 240, 265, 277, 285, 287, 304
4:1–2 196, 242
4:1 138
4:11–12 245
4:11 286
4:16 299, 327
4:17 326
4:18 311
4:25–26 194
4:25 196
4:26 247, 311
5:1–32 337
5:1–3 67, 308
5:22–24 19
5:29 30, 103, 180, 218, 246, 246, 251, 251, 279, 280, 283, 284
5:32 280, 338, 339
6:1–4 19, 30, 240, 277
6:3 322
6:4 299, 319
6:5–7:23 19, 219
6:5–7 81, 219
6:5 219, 220
6:9 19, 203
6:11–13 219
7:1 19
7:6 338, 339
7:11 338, 339
8:17 71
8:21–22 267
9:1–17 305
9:1–7 312
9:1, 7 80, 307, 326
9:1 71
9:2–6 19
9:18–27 302
9:18 218
9:19 304, 325
9:20–27 30, 30, 115, 125, 125, 142, 145, 180, 201, 218, 250, 251,
295, 300, 302, 304, 304, 304, 312, 312, 313, 330
9:20–21 201, 251
9:20 202, 247, 326
9:21 201, 318
9:23 218
9:24 201
9:25 303
9:26–27 219
9:27 305
9:29 215
10:1 203
10:8–12 19, 20, 31, 289
10:13–19 281
10:13–15 330
10:15 30
10:21 30, 219, 330, 340
10:25 340
11:1–9 20, 31, 220, 282, 289, 296, 307, 311, 339
11:8–9 310
11:10–26 305, 309
11:10–14 309
11:12–15 310
11:31 318
12–50 312
12:1–4 318
12:1 327
12:6b 310
12:11, 14–15 211
13:10 18
14 310
14:2, 8 303
15:7 339
15:18–20 310
17:7–8 254
20:2–3 211
25:12–18 311
28:12 319
36 311

Exodus
2:2 204
6:2–8 254
12:1–2 256
25–31, 35–40 79, 80
25–31 253, 320
32:1–14 20
35–40 253
40:1 256
40:2, 17 260

Leviticus
18 288
18:6–19 284
20:11, 17–21 288
20:11, 18–21 284
20:17 284

Numbers
13:32–33 216

Deuteronomy
21:1–9 165
32:8 211
34:7 215
34:10–12 215

Judges
3:31 217
5:7 207
13:2–4, 24 217
15:2 204

Ruth
1:14–16 115

2 Samuel
7:5–13 320
11:2–4 211

1 Kings
9:20–21 301, 302

1 Chronicles
1:1–4 18
28:1–9 320

4 Maccabees
18:7–8 19

Job
38:7 211
42:2 322

Psalms
8:5–9 18
29:1 211
82:1–7 211
82:7 19
89:7 211
104 50, 50, 55, 59, 106
136:8–9 19

Wisdom
2:24 19

Sirach
25:24 21
44:14–16 19

Isaiah
40:22 321
44:9–20 67
51:3 18
54:9 18

Ezekiel
14:14 18
28 95
28:11–19 19
31 95
31:3–9 19

Amos
2:9 216

Micah
5:5 299

Romans
5:12–21 20, 21

1 Corinthians
15:21–22, 45–49 20

1 Timothy
2:14–15 21

Hebrews
11:5 19

1 John
3:10–12 19

Revelation
12:9 19
Index of Other Ancient Literature
Hymn to Amon-Re 73
Hymn to the Aten 50, 50, 73
Instruction of Ani 69
Instruction of Merikare 69
Papyrus Boulaq 17, vi.4 73
Greek and Latin classics, early Church Fathers 
Aristotle 

Generation of Animals 729b–730b 198

Herodotus 

History 214

214

Hesiod 

Theogony 208

208

208

208

Works and Days 156 208

Plato 

Symposium 105

105
105

Greek and Latin classics, early Church FathersTertullianOn Patience

5
Hebrew inscriptions and other Northwest Semitic literature 
Aqhat epic (KTU 1.17) 

I:27–34 285

I:45–49 285

II:1–8 285

II:16–23 285

VI:26–38 96

96

Gezer calendar 245
Mesopotamian and Hittite literature 
(Hittite) Illuyanka tales A 

i:21–26 208

iii:4–8 208

Adapa epic (B1 MB Amarna) 96

1 68–78 118

1 75–78 96

Atrahasis epic 239

Late Assyrian version (K3399+3934) 219

Late Babylonian version (BE 39099) 219

Old Babylonian version 115

138

219

219

226

250

271

272

272

Berossus 26, 193
Creation of the King 7–11 72
Debate between Grain and Sheep 97

12–25 280

Enki and Ninmah 52–110 280

Enlil and Namzitarra 18’–24’ 214
Enuma Elish epic 25, 26, 47, 49, 49, 50, 51, 53, 56, 59, 59, 79,
79, 80, 80, 320, 328

IV:14-VI 49

IV:19–26 49

V:119–130 320

V:128–129 324

VI:2–34 72
VI:62 319

Eridu Genesis 239

153–213 249

201–203 272

Gilgamesh epic 96

Old Babylonian edition II (Penn) 97

125

144

280

Standard Babylonian edition 26

96

97

97

98

108

118

125

140

144

208
208

208

208

211

226

239

249

250

250

271

271

272

272

KAR 307 62
Marduk bilingual 26

20–21 159

Sumerian King List 192, 193, 337

The Rulers of Lagash 97

17–31 280

Tukulti-Ninurta Epic 68
Abot de R. Nathan (A) 32 215
Babylonian Talmud 
Niddah 61a 217

Zevachim 113b 217

Genesis Rabbah 

8:1 104

19:1 130

20:11 137

20:12 183

22:2 137

22:3 159

23:3 175

Mekhilta de R. Ishmael bshalaḥ 5 215

Rabbinic literaturePirqe Rabbi Eliezer 23:8
Rabbinic literatureTargum Pseudo-Jonathan 4:1
Yalqut Noah 55 217
Second Temple Jewish and Early Christian texts 
1 Enoch 

6–11 207

220

6:2–7 20

20

7:2 216

Second Temple Jewish and Early Christian textsApoc. Mos. 16:4;

17:4
Second Temple Jewish and Early Christian textsGospel of Philip
61:5–10
Josephus 

Jewish Antiquities 19

19

332

Jubilees 

5:1–5 19

6:1 216

Philo 

On the Creation of the World 21

105

Questions and Answers on Genesis 2:82 299

332

Pseudo-Philo (LAB) 

1:16 19

4:7 332

6:13–14 332

Second Temple Jewish and Early Christian textsQumran4QGenk

Second Temple Jewish and Early Christian textsQumran4Q201
[4QEnocha ar]
Qumran 
4Q422 (4QParaGenExod) 1:11–12 20

4Q252 1:1–3 215

Sibylline Oracles 

1:127–131 19

1:149–151 19

1 Enoch 

6:2–7 19
Plan of volumes
Genesis
I (1–11): David Carr
II–III (12–50): Konrad Schmid
Exodus
I–II: Helmut Utzschneider / Wolfgang Oswald
Leviticus
Baruch Schwartz / Naphtali Meshel
Numbers
I–II: NN
Deuteronomy
I–II: Jeffrey Stackert / Joel S. Baden
Joshua
I–II: Michaël van der Meer / Cor de Vos
Judges
Andreas Scherer
Ruth
Shimon Gesundheit
1./2. Samuel
I (1. Sam 1–15): Regine Hunziker-Rodewald
II (1. Sam 16–2. Sam 5): Johannes Klein
III (2. Sam 6–24): Thomas Naumann
1./2. Kings
I (1 Kgs 1–15): Jonathan M. Robker
II (1 Kgs 16–2 Kgs 16): Steven L. McKenzie
III (2 Kgs 17–25): Shūichi Hasegawa
1./2. Chronicles
I–II: Ehud Ben Zvi
Esra / Nehemia
I–II: Richard J. Bautch
Tobit
Beate Ego
Judith
Barbara Schmitz
Esther
Jean-Daniel Macchi
Job
Melanie Köhlmoos
Psalms
I–III: NN
Proverbs
I–II: Jutta Krispenz
Ecclesiastes
Katharine Dell / Tova Forti
Song of Songs
Martien A. Halvorson-Taylor
Wisdom
Luca Mazzinghi
Sirach
Frank Ueberschaer
Isaiah
I–III: NN
Jeremiah
I (1–25): Christl M. Maier
II (26–52): Carolyn J. Sharp
Baruch
NN
Lamentations
Andreas Michel
Ezekiel
Michael Konkel
Daniel
Devorah Dimant
Hosea
Eberhard Bons
Joel/Obadiah
Anselm Hagedorn
Amos
Rainer Kessler
Jonah
Irmtraud Fischer
Micah
Burkard M. Zapff
Nahum / Habakkuk / Zephaniah
Walter Dietrich
Haggai / Zechariah 1–8
Jakob Wöhrle
Zechariah 9–14
Paul L. Redditt
Malachi
Aaron Schart
1. Maccabees
Dov Gera / Jan Willem van Henten
2. Maccabees
Johannes Schnocks
1 Esdras
Dieter Böhler
1 In accordance with the focus of this book on commenting on Gen
1–11, the concluding index is selective, aimed primarily at offering
guidance to a few topics, Hebrew expressions, specific citation of
non-biblical texts, and (for the index of biblical texts) discussions of
pericopes in Gen 1–11 that occur outside of the main commentary
sections focused on those pericopes.
2 In particular, I must stress that, though I have found comparison of
Gen 1–11 with cuneiform texts particularly productive, I have
depended throughout on others with specialist knowledge of those
texts. I hope this commentary provides a useful entry into such
comparison, but I have cited editions and other publications by such
specialists and hope that readers use these to verify, correct, and
further explore the theses advanced here.
3 Because I treat diachronic issues in both books and advance
similar positions, some overlap between them is inevitable. I have
avoided exact duplication wherever possible, but there are some
instances where I deemed certain formulations to be useful to both
works and mere shift in wording for the sake of variation seemed
superfluous. In addition, I note here several existing and forthcoming
article-length publications where I pursue topics relevant to this
commentary: “Looking at Historical Background, Redaction, and
Possible Bad Writing in Gen 6,1–4: A Synchronic and Diachronic
Analysis,” Biblische Notizen 181 (2019):7–24; “Standing at the Edge
of Reconstructable Transmission History: Signs of a Secondary
Sabbath-Oriented Stratum in Gen 1:1–2:3,” Vetus Testamentum 70
(2020):17–41; “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, Hervé Gonzalez and Lionel Marti, OBO (Leuven—Paris—
Bristol, CT: Peeters, 2020), 31–50; and “On the Meaning and Uses
of the Category of ‘Diachrony’ in Exegesis” [in honor of Erhard
Blum], in Exegetik des Alten Testaments, ed. Joachim Krause and
Kristin Weingart, FAT (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020).
4 Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebräisches und Aramäisches
Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament begonnen von D. Rudolf
Meyer bearbeitet und herausgegeben von Herbert Donner, 18th
edition (Berlin: Springer, 2013).
5 The poem “For All Beings” comes from Zenju Earthlyn Manuel, Tell
Me Something About Buddhism: Questions and Answers for the
Curious Beginner (Newburyport, MA: Hampton Roads Publishing,
2011), 116–117. I thank Zenju Earthlyn Manuel (www.zenju.org) for
permission to quote this poem.
1 In this respect, Gen 1:1–11:9 resembles the book of Job.
2 The latter point is made in Richelle, “Structure littéraire de l’Histoire
Primitive,” 4.
3 Cf., for example, the influential commentary of Westermann, “all
narrative passages of Gen 1–11 are concerned in some way with
crime and punishment” (“in den erzählenden Bestandteilen von Gen
1–11 geht es in allen hier aufgenommen Erzählungen in irgeneinem
Sinn um Schuld und Strafe”; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 66
[abbreviated translation taken from the ET 47].
4 The correspondences between these parts of the primeval history
are discussed in Carr, Reading the Fractures, 236–38. See the
following commentary for more nuance on the themes of these texts.
5 In addition, it should be noted that some have found more subtle
reflections of the Genesis primeval history in other Hebrew Bible
texts thought to post-date it. See, for example, the overview and
judicious evaluation of proposals for links of Ecclesiastes and Gen
1–11 in Katharine Dell, “Exploring Intertextual Links Between
Ecclesiastes and Genesis 1–11,” in Reading Ecclesiastes
Intertextually, ed. Katharine J. Dell and Will Kynes (London: T&T
Clark, 2014), 3–14.
6 Annette Yoshoko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism
and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2005), 20–120.
7 For an overview of early Jewish and Christian interpretations of
Nimrod (including a minority of positive depictions) see Van der
Toorn and Van der Horst, “Nimrod,” 16–29. Note also later Jewish
and Christian readings of Cain as the offspring of Satan in 1 John
3:10–12; Gos. Phil. 61:5–10; Tertullian, Patience 5:15; and Tg. Ps.-J.
4:1. For overview of these and other interpretive traditions, see
Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, esp. 98–100, 147, 180–81. See below
for more on the giants tradition in the book of the Watchers.
8 VanderKam, Enoch and the Apocalyptic Tradition; idem. Enoch, A
Man for All Generations.
9 For a broader, more differentiated survey, see Lewis, Interpretation
of Noah and the Flood.
10 This commentary on Gen 6:1–4 below joins earlier studies (e.g.,
Uehlinger, Weltreich und ‘eine Rede’, 566–68; 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; George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1:
A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36, 81–108
[Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001], 166–68) in concluding that the giants
tradition in the book of the Watchers (1 En. 6:2–7:5; cf. 4Q201
[4QEnocha ar]) represents an interpretive adaptation of the Gen 6:1–
4 rather than reflecting an earlier non-Biblical tradition.
11 For summary of relevant literature and analysis of the frequently
racist and colonialist interpretations of the story of Noah and Ham,
see Knust, “Canaan’s Curse.” For survey of early Jewish
interpretation of the Babel story, see Phillip Michael Sherman,
Babel’s Tower Translated: Genesis 11 and Ancient Jewish
Interpretation, BibInt 117 (Boston: Brill, 2013).
12 See Torleif Elgvin, “The Genesis Section of 4Q422
(4QParaGenExod),” DSD 1 (1994): 180–96 [here 187] for discussion
of questions surrounding this locus.
13 For discussion of issues and scholarship surrounding
interpretation of Genesis in 4Q422 and a linking of this retrospective
reading to early Christian texts like Rom 5:12–21; 1 Cor 15:21–22,
Smith, Genesis of Good and Evil, 24–27, 110–12 (notes).
14 Gary Anderson, The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in
Jewish and Christian Imagination (Louisville, KY: Westminster John
Knox, 2001), 209–10.
15 For discussion of Jewish correlates to this belief, see Alan
Cooper, “A Medieval Jewish Version of Original Sin: Ephraim of
Luntshits on Leviticus 12,” HTR 94 (2004): 445–59.
16 Helen Schüngel-Straumann, Die Frau am Anfang: Eva und die
Folgen (Freiburg: Herder, 1989), 1–86.
17 For a global discussion of the role of Genesis in these constructs,
see Kidd, The Forging of Race. I will return to these themes in the
following commentary with a few more resources.
18 See, e.g., Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. The following
commentary will argue for a translation of Gen 1:26 as “as God’s
image,” but many such interpretations presuppose a rendering of “in
God’s image.”
19 White, “Ecologic Crisis,” 1205
20 See, e.g., Janowski, “Herrschaft über die Tiere” and Kahl,
“Fratricide and Ecocide.”
21 These questions are already raised vis-à-vis Gen 1–4 by Derrida
himself in chapter one of his classic L’animal (originating in lectures
at a 1997 conference). See Hannah M. Strømmen, Biblical Animality
after Jacques Derrida (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2018) for a recent
example of a biblical scholar rereading Gen 1–9 from this
perspective.
22 John Baines, “Egyptian Myth and Discourse: Myth, Gods, and the
Early Written and Iconographic Record,” JNES 50 (1991): 81–105.
As Baines notes, there are indirect indications of various kinds of
Egyptian oral narratives about mythic events, and we see the
emergence of some narrative primeval myths in New Kingdom
Egypt. In this respect the “Memphite Theology” is the exception
rather than the rule. For a survey of recent study of this text, see Amr
El Hawary, Wortschöpfung: 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).
23 For a survey of semi-cosmogonic 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, CBQMS 26 (Washington, D.C.: 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, EPRO 89 [Leiden: Brill,
1981], especially 42–51, 125–30, 178).
24 Note here the recent work 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) that
finds inscriptional and biblical evidence that early Levantine
education in alphabetic indigenous languages (e.g., Hebrew)
followed templates for elementary education derived from
Mesopotamian models.
25 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,
Penn: Eisenbrauns, 2018), 119–38 (here 128–29).
26 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 also note cautions 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.
27 Here and in the following commentary I generally use
designations of Sumerian texts from the Electronic Text Corpus of
Sumerian Literature (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk), while depending on
Foster, Before the Muses, for designations of Akkadian texts.
28 Sumerian and Akkadian mīs pî rituals for cult statues, prologue to
astrological omens, fragment in ritual (on the latter, see Foster,
Before the Muses, 494).
29 Pettinato, Altorientalische Menschenbild und
Schöpfungsmythen, 21–38; Annette Zgoll, “Welt, Götter und
Menschen in den Schöpfungsentwürfen des antiken Mesopotamien,”
in Schöpfung, ed. Konrad Schmid (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2012), 17–70, esp. 25–26 and 64–65; and 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.
30 See the Exploits of Ninurta 334–46 and Hymn to Nippur and the
Ekur (given in Pettinato, Altorientalische Menschenbild und
Schöpfungsmythen, 23).
31 Enki and Ninmah 1–11.
32 Note, e.g., the cosmological fragment added to a ritual text and
translated in Foster, Before the Muses, 494, along with two texts
presented in Pettinato, Altorientalische Menschenbild und
Schöpfungsmythen, 26.
33 For these and other distinctions, see, e.g., Pettinato,
Altorientalische Menschenbild und Schöpfungsmythen, 18–46.
34 For an overview of the influence of Enuma Elish on other
Mesopotamian literature, see Foster, Before the Muses, 25–26, 437;
Frahm, “Politically Motivated Responses.”
35 Pettinato, Altorientalische Menschenbild und
Schöpfungsmythen, 21.
36 See here Francesca Rochberg, “The History of Science and
ancient Mesopotamia,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 1
(2014):37–60.
37 In this respect, I also disagree with proposals like that of
Baumgart (“Das Ende der biblischen Urgeschichte in Gen 9,29,”
BN 82 [1996]: 27–58) that a primeval history per se excludes
material of a specific ethnic-national character (e.g., Gen 10:1–11:9).
On this see also the critical remarks in Gertz, “Formation,” 110–11.
38 As noted in the preface, here and elsewhere in the commentary
an * is used in citations meant to designate a portion of the verses
enclosed in the citation, but not all. In this case, the naming report in
Gen 5:29 is widely recognized as non-P.
39 The term “relative” should be highlighted here because any such
conflation involves the subtraction of major elements from the source
compositions. Some such elements, such as duplicate birth or death
reports, are omitted for obvious reasons, while the omission of other
elements simply seems to have to do with a given author-conflator’s
individual preferences and compositional goals.
40 Wenham, Genesis 1–15; Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch:
An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, AB Reference
Library (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 78–98; Jean-Louis Ska, “El
relato del Diluvio: un relato sacerdotal y algunos fragmento
redaccionales posteriores,” EstBib 52 (1994): 37–62 (ET “The Story
of the Flood: a Priestly Writer and Some Later Editorial Fragments”
in idem., The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and
Basic Questions [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009], 1–22); Krüger,
“Menschliche Herz,” 74–81.
41 E.g., Bosshard-Nepustil, Vor uns die Sintflut; Schüle, Der Prolog
der hebräischen Bibel; Arneth, Durch Adams Fall ist ganz verderbt.
42 In addition, yet more detailed argumentation is provided in the
relevant chapters of Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11 and (for the
flood narrative) idem. “Meaning and Uses of the Category
Diachrony.”
43 See the commentary on Gen 9:1–7 below for more details and
relevant citations regarding this relationship.
44 Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 10–14, later followed
by Abraham Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan
en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds.
Amsterdam: S. L. van Looy, 1887–93), 140, 227–28, 245–46 (ET:
142–43, 233–34, 252); Stade, “Das Kainszeichen,” 274–81.
45 Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, esp. 309–11, 314, 321–22, 325–
26.
46 Examples of those following this source approach to J in the
primeval history include Holzinger, Genesis, xxv, 57–58, 91, 120–12;
Rudolf Smend (Sr.), Erzählung des Hexateuch, 16–26; Gunkel,
Genesis, 1–3, 25–26, 53–54, 77 [ET 2–4, 25–27, 54–55, 79]; Otto
Procksch, Die Genesis (Leipzig: Deichertsche, 1924). An important
article marking the beginning of the end for this two-source approach
to J was Staerk, “Alttestamentliche Literarkritik,” 34–74.
47 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];
Idan Dershowitz, “Man of the Land: Unearthing the Original Noah,”
ZAW 128 (2016):357–373. Note also Christoph Levin, Jahwist, 103,
who attributes the non-P flood account to his cross-Pentateuchal
“Jahwist.”
48 This model is developed in Formation of Genesis 1–11, 233–236.
49 See Smith, Genesis of Good and Evil, 26 for a particular focus on
this dynamic. Of course, the idea of a universal original sin does not
precisely correspond to Gen 6:5–7 either, especially insofar as Noah
is noted as an exception to Y ’s judgment (Gen 6:8, 9; 7:1). See
the commentary on these loci for discussion of issues surrounding
these latter texts.
50 On the qal passive in these and other texts, see Hendel,
“‘Begetting’ and ‘Being Born’,” 42–44. It should be noted that though
Gen 10:25 is another text with qal passive that is often analyzed as
non-P, it may actually be post-Priestly. See the commentary on this.
For discussion of the suffixes in Gen 2:15 and 9:21, 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. II Hardy, Joseph Lam, and Eric D. Reymond (Chicago:
Oriental Institute Press, forthcoming 2020). Note also the use of ‫אנכי‬
rather than ‫( אני‬the latter seen in P texts in Gen 1–11) as the 1c.s.
pronoun in non-P texts Gen 3:10 and 4:9 (also Gen 7:4 in the above
discussed expansion layer).
51 See Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 84–91 for discussion of
identification of the contours of this pre-P Toledot book, including
indicators suggesting the connection of this last part of Gen 11:27a,
32 to the primeval Toledot book.
52 See John Screnock, “The Syntax of Complex Adding Numerals
and Hebrew Diachrony,” JBL 41 (2018): 789–819 for arguments that
this ascending numbering system and other aspects of the age
notices manifest a linguistic profile (vis-à-vis numerals) that is
relatively earlier than other texts often assigned to P.
53 Building on work by others, Blum argues elsewhere
(Studien, 279–85) for other sources used by P in the primeval
history, e.g., behind the P material in Gen 10 (p. 279, also note 187),
that then could explain some puzzling elements in P, like doubling in
P’s genealogies of Shem (Gen 10:22; 11:10–11).
54 For an excellent survey of literature (up through the early 2000’s)
on the original end of P, see Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah
to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus,
FAT 25 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 20–68.
55 For reflection on questions surrounding diverse forms of P 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), 32–64 [here 35–49],
who ventures the possibility that an early, incomplete form of P
and/or pre-forms of P (a stratum designated by him as P0) might
have been drafted alongside, but initially separate from non-P
materials as a preparation for publication of a P composition
incorporating non-P materials (Blum’s PK composition, see pp. 52–
54).
56 For a proposal that P in the ancestral section may represent a
special case see Jakob Wöhrle, Fremdlinge im eigenen Land: Zur
Entstehung und Intention der priesterlichen Passagen der
Vätergeschichte, FRLANT 246 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2012).
57 Within the P-Composition model developed by Erhard Blum
across multiple publications, this latter stage would correspond to the
PK (P composition) level, with the P-like conflation of P and non-P in
Gen 1–11 thus comprising a concluding point of a multiphased
Priestly composition process. Again, for summary of this position,
see the synthesis by Blum himself in “Literargeschichtliche Profil der
P-Überlieferung.”
58 Here, 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 is pertinent, but see also 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., FAT 111 (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2016), 303–25.
59 Again, see Screnock, “Syntax of Complex Adding Numerals” for
arguments that might suggest a relatively earlier dating for the
Toledot book around which P built its primeval history.
60 Because of the limited scope and often imitative character of this
conflation, linguistic considerations are less relevant for the dating of
this conflational layer. For more reflections on the character,
contours and dating of this conflation along with the Toledot book
and broader P source see Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 260–
263.
61 For the Qumran texts, see Eugene Ulrich et al., eds., Genesis to
Numbers, DJD 12 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), 7–78 and James
Davila, “New Qumran Readings of Genesis 1,” in Of Scribes and
Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and
Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His
Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and
Thomas H. Tobin (Lanham, MD: University Press of America,
1990), 3–11. The material is sparse, but 4QGenk is especially
relevant as a potential confirmation of the longer Septuagint reading
in Gen 1:9. See the commentary. In addition, some parabiblical texts
at Qumran (e.g., 4Q252) combine with other Second Temple
witnesses (e.g., Jubilees) to provide some text-critically relevant
information. See, e.g.,Hendel, “4Q242 and the Flood Chronology.”
62 For discussion of this witness, see especially Rösel, Übersetzung
als Vollendung der Auslegung (with discussion of dating of the
Genesis LXX on pp. 10 and 66).
63 Esther Eshel and Hanan Eshel, “Dating the Samaritan
Pentateuch’s Compilation in Light of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls,” in
Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls
in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. Shalom M. Paul et al., VTSup 94
(Leiden: Brill, 2003), 215–40.
64 For survey of the available data regarding the data regarding
isolated examples of this text-form in the second and early first
centuries, as well as evidence (outside Jerusalem) of later
standardization around this text form, see Armin Lange, “Ancient and
Late Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic Jewish Texts.” in The Textual
History of the Bible: Volume 1A Overview Articles, ed. Armin Lange
and Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 112–66 [here 149–58].
65 See Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 71–76 for an excellent discussion of
evidence surrounding these and other scribal shifts evident in the
Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint of Gen 11:10–32.
66 See here Jan Gertz’s development of this older position (and
response to some other approaches) in “Genesis 5,” 86–90.
67 See, e.g., Emanuel Tov, “The Harmonizing Character of the
Septuagint of Genesis 1–11,” in Die Septuaginta – Text, Wirkung,
Rezeption, ed. Wolfgang Kraus and Siegfried Kreuzer (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 315–32. Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 81–92 (for SP
and LXX, often shared with MT) also notes (pp. 41–57) a number of
possible examples of harmonization and forms of secondary
assimilation in the proto-MT alone (1:11, 29; 2:2; 7:3, 6, 20, 22; 8:17;
9:7).
68 See, e.g., Gertz, Genesis 1–11 along with forthcoming
commentaries by Michaela Bauks (BK), John Day (ICC), and Ron
Hendel (AB) to name just a few.
69 See the preface for the IECOT series and discussion of issues
surrounding this problematic definition of synchronic in Erhard Blum,
“Von Sinn und Nutzen der Kategorie ‘Synchronie’ in der Exegese,” in
David und Saul im Widerstreit – Diachronie und Synchronie im
Wettstreit, ed. Walter Dietrich, OBO 261 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
und Ruprecht, 2004), 16–30 [=idem. “Von Sinn und Nutzen der
Kategorie ‘Synchronie’ in der Exegese,” in Grundfragen der
historischen Exegese: Methodologische, philologische und
hermeneutische Beiträge zum Alten Testament, ed. Wolfgang
Oswald and Kristin Weingart, FAT 95 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2015), 55–68].
70 In this respect I am in sympathy with points made in Joel
S. Baden, Composition of the Pentateuch, 188–92 and other neo-
Documentarian discussions, even as I disagree with the strong
emphasis in some such treatments on the unreadability of the
conflational combination and find more evidence than they do of
conflational and post-conflational materials in the text.
71 For broader questions surrounding the concept of such a final
redactor, see especially Erhard Blum, “Gibt es die Endgestalt des
Pentateuch?” in Congress Volume, Leuven, ed. John Emerton,
VTSup 43 (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 46–57.
1 Jacob, Genesis, 23.
2 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 35.
3 For more discussion and citation of earlier literature, see especially
Bryan Paradise, “Food for Thought: The Septuagint Translation of
Genesis 1.11–12,” in A Word in Season. Essays in Honour of William
McKane, ed. James R. Martin and Philip R. Davies, JSOTSup 42
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1986), 178–84.
4 Klaus Beyer, “Althebräische Syntax, 90 (among others).
5 See Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 42.
6 The wording here is from a private communication from Erhard
Blum. For more discussion of this blessing in the context of P (and
argument against translating Gen 1:28 as a command), see Norbert
Lohfink, “Die Priesterschrift und die Grenzen des Wachstums,”
Stimmen der Zeit (1974): 435–50 (=idem. “Die Priesterschrift und die
Grenzen des Wachstums,” in Unsere grossen Wörter: das Alte
Testament zu Themen dieser Jahre; by Norbert Lohfink [Freiburg im
Breisgau: Herder, 1977], 156–71).
7 Cf. Jacob, Genesis, 67 and Steck, Schöpfungsbericht der
Priesterschrift, 186, who propose that this (and a parallel
construction in 2:3) is a modal sentence clarifying the preceding, and
also Ruppert, Gen 1,1–11,26, 98, who takes the piel of ‫ כלה‬as having
a declarative force (Joüon 52d), thus yielding a translation “declared
finished.”
8 See Hermann-Josef Stipp, “Gen 1,1 und asyndetische Relativsätze
im Bibelhebraïschen,” in Alttestamentliche Studien. Arbeiten zu
Priesterschrift, Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk und Prophetie,
BZAW 442 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013 [orig. 2007]) on how the
Tiberians seem to have selectively recognized asyndetic relative
clauses.
9 Though some have seen earlier origins to this idea (e.g., in 2 Macc
7:28), it seems to have developed in the later second century as an
inner-Christian development. For discussion, see Gerhard May,
Schöpfung aus dem Nichts: Die Entstehung der Lehre von der
creatio ex nihilo, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 48 (Berlin: De
Gruyter, 1978) and James N. Hubler, “Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter,
Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy
through Aquinas” (Ph.D. diss., Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania, 1994).
10 See Westermann (Genesis 1–11, 130–35 [ET 93–97]) and more
recently Bauks (Welt am Anfang, 91–146) for prominent examples of
treatments that combine translation of Gen 1:1 as an independent
clause with rejection of an interpretation of it as creation out of
nothing. In this respect, Von Rad’s affirmation of the traditional
“creatio ex nihilo” in his popular commentary (Genesis, 29–30 [ET
48–49]) is out of date.
11 The translation of the Enuma Elish here is from Foster, Before the
Muses, 439.
12 See the translation note 2:4b below and the following commentary
on Gen 2:4b for discussion of the meaning and translation of the
epithet ‫ יהוה אלהים‬that is used across much of Gen 2:4b–3:24.
13 Note Jenni’s proposal of an elative reading of “beginning” here as
“in a very early time” or “in primordial times” (“Erwägungen zu
Genesis 1,1 ‘Am Anfang’,” ZAH 2 [1989]: 121–27 [here 126]). As
Stipp points out (“Gen 1,1,” 6), Jenni’s proposal here posits an
uncharacteristic indeterminancy on the part of P on the chronology of
creation, particularly striking given the focus of P on precisely this
topic.
14 It should be noted that Beyer, “Althebräische Syntax,” 81 (among
others) has argued for the possibility that ‫ ברא‬in Gen 1:1 was
originally vocalized as an infinitive construct, yielding a more
common temporal intro, “in the beginning of God’s creating of
heaven and earth,” an introduction all the more common if it is
concluded—as will be argued later in this commentary—that Gen 1
responds to Gen 2–3, so that 1:1 originally may have been modelled
on the temporal introduction (with an infinitive construct) that opens
that narrative: ‫“ ביום עשות יהוה אלהים ארץ ושמים‬On the day of God
Y ’s making of earth and heaven.” Alternatively, one could argue
that such vocalization of ‫ ברא‬as an infinitive construct in parallel with
Gen 2:4b might be just a modern form of harmonization, analogous
to more ancient forms of harmonization widespread in the Septuagint
and other ancient textual witnesses for Gen 1–3.
15 Stipp, “Gen 1,1,” 22–30. Though such phrases with relative
clauses can feature definite nouns, Stipp finds that unmarked
relative clauses with prepositional phrases never feature determined
nouns, if those nouns are preceded, like ‫ ראשית‬in Gen 1:1 is, with
the preposition ‫“( ב‬in”).
16 Walter Gross, “Syntaktische Erscheinungen am Amfang,” 144.
17 Walter Gross, “Syntaktische Erscheinungen am Amfang,” 145.
18 Steck, Die Paradieserzählung, 225.
19 An understanding revived in the last decades by Walter Gross
(“Syntaktische Erscheinungen am Amfang”), preceded long before
by Ibn Ezra and other scholars cited by Gross (p. 145).
20 See the commentary below on Gen 2:4–3:24 for further
discussion of Gen 2:4 as a whole and consideration of questions
regarding the relation of its two halves to each other.
21 For the other loci in P where these and other expressions in Gen
1 occur, see Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hexateuch (Freiburg:
J.C.B.Mohr, 1893), 339–48.
22 Garr, In His Own Image and Likeness, esp. 51–85; Heckl, “Die
Exposition des Pentateuchs,” 11–25.
23 See chapter one of Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11 (especially
pp. 17–22) for a more extended discussion of the apparent relation
of Gen 1 and 2–3, including more extended discussion of potential
blind motifs in Gen 1 that point to its dependence on Gen 2–3.
24 For an overview, see Foster, Before the Muses, 25–26, 437 and
Eckart Frahm, “Politically Motivated Responses,” 3–33. The
translations of Enuma Elish used in this commentary are taken from
Foster.
25 A useful overview of Enuma Elish and its use of earlier traditions
can be found in Andrea Seri, “The Role of Creation in Enūma eliš,”
JANES 12 (2012): 4–29.
26 Foster (Before the Muses, 439) notes that this is yet another way
that Enuma Elish betrays its complex relationship with older
precursors in the stream of tradition, acknowledging the role
previously given to Ea in earlier Mesopotamian cosmogonic
traditions, but attributing the idea of human creation to Marduk.
27 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).
Note as well Frahm’s proposal of a link between the emphasis at the
outset of Enuma Elish (I 4) on the creative spirit (mummu)
possessed by Tiamat and the emphasis on the divine
wind/breath/spirit at the outset of Gen 1 (1:2), “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), 97–116.
28 As noted in Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 48, the Enuma Elish epic is the
only other cosmological tradition where we see the appearance of
the motif of a heavenly plate separating upper and lower oceans.
29 Though older scholarship posited the Egyptian hymn to the Aten
as a possible direct model for Psalm 104, more recent scholarship
has advocated Canaanite tradition as a more proximate source and
possible mediator of Egyptian tradition (e.g., Mark S. Smith, God in
Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World,
FAT 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).
30 For some helpful lists of parallels, see A. Van der Voort, “Genesis
I,1a-II,4a et la Psaume 104.” RB 58 (1951):321–47 [here 330–331]
1951) and Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 54–61.
31 For classic contrasting treatments, see, e.g., Paul Humbert, “La
relation de Genèse 1 et du Psaume 104 avec liturgie du Nouvel-An
Israëlite,” RHPR 15 (1935): 1–27 [here 20–27] and Van der Voort,
“Gen 1 et Psaume 104,” 321–47.
32 Werner Carl Ludewig Ziegler, “Kritik über den Artikel von der
Schöpfung nach unserer gewöhnlichlichen 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 (Altdorf-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).
33 Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 187.
34 Claus Westermann, Der 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): 203–11
[here 206].
35 I more fully explore arguments for (and against) this theory in
“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.
36 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 orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles,
ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor (Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 501–12.
37 Bernard Stade, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments
(Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1905), 349; Frederich Schwally, “Die
biblischen Schöpfungsberichte,” ARW 9 (1906): 159–75.
38 E.g., Levin, “Tatbericht und Wortbericht, 115–33; Jürg Hutzli,
“Tradition and Interpretation in Gen 1:1–2:4a,” JHS 10.Article 12
(http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_140.pdf 2010). These two
articles cite much of the recent literature on the question. For an
example of a work that proposes to reconstruct an oral “act”
precursor to Gen 1, see Schmidt, Schöpfungsgeschichte, 73–163.
39 Paul Humbert, “Die literarische Zweiheit des Priesterkodex in der
Genesis,” ZAW 58 (1941): 30–57; Steck, Schöpfungsbericht der
Priesterschrift; Bührer, Am Anfang, 40–52.
40 Steck, Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift, 16–18, 25.
41 Joel S. Burnett, A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim, SBLDS 183
(Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2001), 7–56.
42 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 38–39.
43 Though ‫ היה‬functions here as a verb of state, the perfect form of
this verb of state seems to be used to express a past state. See
Beyer, “Althebräische Syntax,” 81–82 and Joüon 111i.
44 See Toshio Tsumura, Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of
the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2005), 22–35 along with Bauks, Welt am Anfang, 111–
18 and Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 139.
45 Here the reflections by Kenton Sparks on the significance of this
choice of word (“Enuma Elish and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation
in Nascent Judaism,” JBL 126 [2007]:625–48 [here 630, note 14])
are an important corrective to arguments against any link of Tiamat
and ‫ תהום‬found in David Toshio Tsumura, The Earth and Waters in
Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation, JSOTSup 83 (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 48–83, 156–59.
46 Steck, Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift, 235 with citations in
note 966 of similar arguments.
47 This reading thus agrees with Bauks’ interpretation of the
expression as a bridge between an Egyptian-like description of the
pre-creation state and an anticipation of the creation process itself
(Welt am Anfang, 127–41, 280–86). Also, an additional reason that
“wind” may be featured here, after formless earth and dark ocean, is
because wind was often associated with other main elements of
creation (heaven, earth, ocean, sun) in the lexical lists often used to
train ancient Mesopotamian scribes. Hans Rechenmacher, “Gott und
das Chaos. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis von Gen 1,1–3,” ZAW 114
(2002): 1–20 [here 18].
48 Bernd Janowski, “Schöpfung, Flut und Noahbund. Zur Theologie
der priesterlichen Urgeschichte,” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1
(2012): 502–21 [here 506–507].
49 This follows Steck’s distinction of speeches specifying an ongoing
order (“Dauerzustand”) from the following initial executions of those
orders (“Erstausführung”), as introduced for analysis of Gen 1:20–22
in Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift, 68 and developed across
the following study.
50 For a discussion and the citation of earlier literature (esp. Steck,
Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift, 32–61), see now Bührer, Am
Anfang, 48–52, though I opt here for “correspondence formula”
rather than Bührer’s “Geschehensformel” because of the way this
formula functions to emphasize correspondence even in the bulk of
cases in Genesis 1 where the wording does not perfectly match (cf.
Bührer, 52–54, who applies the term “Entsprechungsformel”
(“correspondence formula”) only to Gen 1:3b because it is the
formula that perfectly matches the preceding divine speech.
51 This formula is missing for day two in the MT, and it is modified in
the conclusion for the whole, 1:31. For more on irregularities,
especially in the MT, see below.
52 Janowski, “Schöpfung, Flut und Noahbund,” 506.
53 This morning-evening pattern, along with the way this day
structure in Gen 1 points toward Sabbath, undermines past attempts
to meld science and Gen 1 by way of redefining “day” in Gen 1
(along the lines of Ps 90:4) as referring to some other time unit than
the revolution of the earth. Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 47 (also other
discussion of coordination of Gen 1 and science on 78–79).
54 Cf. Janowski, “Schöpfung, Flut und Noahbund,” 506.
55 On the semi-poetic nature of Priestly narratives like Gen 1, see
the comments in Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 57 on Gen 1:27 and (more
generally) McEvenue, Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer, who
argues that P is written in “the style of epic poetry … rather than that
of story and legend” (p. 36).
56 Steck, Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift, 40–44.
57 For more complete survey and discussion of examples of LXX
harmonization in Gen 1–11, see Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 88–92 and
Tov, “Septuagint of Genesis 1–11.”
58 Early observations of this were made in McEvenue, Narrative
Style of the Priestly Writer, 30–31 and 80–81 (on the Priestly flood
story) and 113–115 (on the Priestly spy story), also 185 overall. For
more recent observations along similar lines, see Schellenberg, Der
Mensch, das Bild Gottes? 44, note 77.
59 For more discussion, see the above translation note on Gen 1:9
(9d).
60 Cf. in particular, Rösel, Übersetzung als Vollendung der
Auslegung, 39–41, who explains the plural of the LXX plus as
prompted by the plural in the following naming (1:10). Generally,
harmonizing impulses should be stronger toward the preceding text,
particularly when the text that follows is an execution of an order in
the preceding text.
61 Notably, most of the divine speeches of intention about living
things lack any statement of ultimate result or purpose (1:11, 20, 24).
Only the speech about humans (1:26) includes this kind of element,
with the purpose of plants later implied by God’s instructions about
humans and animals eating them (1:29–30).
62 For more, see Jacob, Genesis, 30–32; Steck, Die
Paradieserzählung, 174–77.
63 Martin A. Klopfenstein, “‘Und siehe, es war sehr gut!’ (Genesis
1,31). Worin besteht die Güte der Schöpfung nach dem ersten
Kapitel der hebräischen Bibel?” in Ebenbild Gottes – Herrscher über
die Welt. Studien zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen, ed. Hans-
Peter Mathys (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1998), 56–74
[here 61].
64 Jacob, Genesis, 32.
65 Nevertheless, here too day one is distinguished by the fact that it
includes God’s naming of an element, “darkness,” that pre-existed
day one and is only “created” on day one by contrast with the
created light.
66 Particularly influential was Wellhausen, Composition des
Hexateuchs, 187.
67 Jacob, Genesis, 36.
68 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 20. Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 50 suggests
that one may perceive in the background of the text the phenomenon
—seen in river cultures like Mesopotamia and/or Egypt—of fruitful,
arable land appearing after the withdrawal of flood waters.
69 The importance of this focus is an additional argument against
the idea that the text intends a tripartite division of the plant world,
with green plants (1:30 ‫; ירק עשב‬12 ,1:11 ‫ )דשא‬on the one hand
designated for animals (1:30) and seed and fruit bearing plants
(1:11, 12, 29) on the other hand for humans. The ancients could well
perceive that green plants also had seeds, and Gen 1 is quite
focused on underlining that all such plants, by divine order,
reproduced with seeds “according to their kind(s).”
70 Karl Löning and Erich Zenger, Als Anfang schuf gott: Biblische
Schöpfungstheologien (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1997), 144 [ET 106];
Peter Riede, “Von der Zeder bis zum Ysop: Zur Bedeutung der
Pflanzen in der Lebenswelt des alten Israel – Eine Einführung,” in
Das Kleid der Erde: Pflanzen in der Lebenswelt des alten Israel, ed.
Peter Riede and Ute Neumann-Gorlsolke (Stuttgart: Calwer,
2002), 1–16 [here 7]. As will be suggested below, the astral bodies of
Gen 1:14–18 may also be understood under this heading of moving
beings, but they are not clearly self-replicating and Gen 1:17
presents them as set by God into the plate of heaven such that their
movement only comes through the movement of that element.
71 Steck, Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift, 105–6.
72 Cf. Christoph Levin, “Tatbericht und Wortbericht,” 124, who
observes that God’s initial creation speech (1:14aβ) and the report of
God’s installation of the lights in the heavenly plate (18aα) do not
explicitly exclude the stars from the function of distinguishing day
and night in the first of its list of functions of the astral bodies, but this
is clarified in 1:16 by the clear exclusion of stars from “rule” over day
and night in the list of functions of these bodies when God actually
creates them.
73 Jan Christian Gertz, “Antibabylonische Polemik im priesterlichen
Schöpfungsbericht?” ZThK 106 (2009): 137–55 [here 147–48], who
responds here to the frequent assertion that the lack of “sun” and
“moon” here represent a Priestly polemic against solar and lunar
deity worship.
74 Cf. Gerhard Liedke, Im Bauch des Fisches: Ökologische
Theologie (Stuttgart: Berlin, 1979), 126–27. For discussion of the
background of this Babylonian cosmological concept of affixed astral
bodies—best attested in a scholarly commentary on Enuma Elish
(KAR 307)—that is also reflected in pre-Socratic philosophers (and
Ezekiel), see Baruch Halpern, “The Assyrian Astronomy of Genesis
1 and the Birth of Milesian Philosophy,” EI 27 (2003): 74*–83* and
the especially judicious discussion (with citation of earlier literature)
in Gertz, “Antibabylonische Polemik?” 149–54. As noted in Gertz,
Genesis 1–11, 54–55, the idea of stars ruling is not completely
compatible with the concept of them being fixed in a heavenly plate.
75 Perhaps the reservation of “according to their species” to general
sea creatures and birds, explains the lack of use of the term
“according to their species” in the divine speech (1:20) where the
sea monsters are not separated out from the other sea creatures (cf.
1:11–12, 24–25 where the term occurs in both the divine speech and
subsequent creation).
76 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 24.
77 The variation in order, the placement of ‫ למנה‬only after the listing
of three land-creature types in 1:24 (rather than after each one, as in
1:25), and slight variation in terminology for wild animals are prime
candidates for meaningless variation in a composition with oral-
written origins.
78 Jacob, Genesis, 56. See also Steck, Schöpfungsbericht der
Priesterschrift, 216, note 891. Note that this might seem to be
contradicted by God’s general wish that birds “multiply in the earth”
in 1:22bβ. Nevertheless, this latter note is not formulated the same
way as the initial blessing on the sea creatures (1:22bα, parallel to
1:28), and seems peripheral to the text, whether in the mind of the
original author or even as a possible later addition to the text.
79 We first see God’s intention that land animals “be fruitful and
multiply” in God’s speech about the post-flood world in Gen 8:17, a
speech that conspicuously lacks an accompanying “fill the earth”
(‫)מלא את הארץ‬, thus contrasting with the application of this
reproductive wish to humans (1:28; 9:1; Exod 1:7). For discussion
see Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild Gottes? 47.
80 For discussion of the divine council reflected in Gen 1:26, see,
e.g., Gunkel, Genesis, 111 [ET 112–13] and Garr, In His Own Image
and Likeness, 18–21, 72–92, 201–2. This concept is most explicit in
passages such as 1 Kgs 22:19–22; Isa 6:1–8; Ps 82; 89:7 [ET 89:6];
and Job 1:6–12; 2:1–6, but it also is implicit in nearby non-Priestly
passages in the primeval history, Gen 3:22 and11:7.
81 For thorough study of special similarities in formulation between
1:26 and its non-P parallels see Garr, In His Own Image and
Likeness, 85–87.
82 McDowell, Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 132–33.
83 For brief surveys see Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 204–14 [ET
148–55] and Middleton, Liberating Image, 18–24.
84 Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild Gottes? 114–15.
85 For discussion, see Berlejung, Theologie der Bilder, 35–60 on
human form outside Palestine, pp. 293–95 on examples inside
Palestine. For a broader discussion of anthropomorphic concepts of
deity in Mesopotamia, see Tallay Ornan, “In the Likeness of Man:
Reflections on the Anthropomorphic Perception of the Divine in
Mesopotamian Art,” in What is a God?: Anthropomorphic and Non-
anthropomorphic Aspects of Deity in Ancient Mesopotamia, ed.
Barbara Nevling Porter (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 93–
151.
86 Already recognized in Gunkel, Genesis, 112 and Bernhard Duhm,
Die Psalmen, 2nd ed., KHC 14 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1922), 28; see also
in particular Weippert, “Tier und Mensch in einer menschenarmen
Welt,” 42. For extensive discussion of the theophanies in Gen 18
and 32, see Esther Hamori, ‘When Gods Were Men’: The Embodied
God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature, BZAW 384 (Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2008). For broader treatment of Gen 1:26–27 in the context
of concepts of God’s bodily form, see the excellent discussion in
Benjamin Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient
Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), esp. 69–70
(along with notes on 223–225) and note 92 on p. 269.
87 Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild Gottes? 73–84, 114. For
more arguments vis-à-vis human physical resemblance to God in
Gen 1:26–27 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), 15–35
[here 21–24].
88 Berlejung, Theologie der Bilder, especially 35–311.
89 Berlejung, Theologie der Bilder, 402–19.
90 Berlejung, Theologie der Bilder, 169.
91 Walter Gross, “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen nach Gen
1,26.27 in der Diskussion des letzten Jahrzehnts,” BN 68 (1993):
35–48 [here 44–45].
92 Weippert, “Tier und Mensch in einer menschenarmen Welt,” 39–
40; McDowell, Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 124–25.
93 See Garr, In His Own Image and Likeness, 96–110 on the
distinction of ‫ כ‬as a “similative-separative preposition” asserting
approximation, likeness, and similarity versus ‫ ב‬as a “locative-
proximative preposition” asserting proximity physical, emotional,
coextensive, parallel, coreferentiality.
94 See the judicious survey in Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild
Gottes? 99–113.
95 Translation here following Boyo Ockinga, Die Gottebenbildlichkeit
im alten Ägypten und im Alten Testament, ÄAT 7. Wiesbaden:
Harassowitz, 1984, 21–22.
96 McDowell, Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 134–35.
97 Rüdiger Lux, “Bild Gottes und die Götterbilder,” 146–48. This
interpretation of Gen 1:26–27 thus diverges from the either-or
approach in Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild Gottes? 115–17 by
maintaining that this text (and related ones) are simultaneously
informed by multiple streams of Near Eastern conceptuality
regarding representations of deities in cult images and kings.
98 Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild Gottes? especially 118,
expresses reservations about interpreting the divine image motif in
Gen 1 through the lens of ancient Near Eastern royal ideology,
especially because we have absolutely no evidence that Judean
kings were thought to be divine. This might be more of an objection if
Gen 1 were thought to be written in the monarchic period.
Nevertheless, since Gen 1 appears to have been written in a
diasporic, post-monarchic context and in dialogue with non-biblical
traditions, interaction with non-biblical ideas about cult images and
kingship becomes more plausible. Moreover, Schellenberg does not
take seriously enough, in my view, the way the text of Gen 1:26–28
intricately intertwines the theme of divine image and human rule,
doing so in a way that quite closely mirrors a similar intertwining in
ancient Near Eastern royal ideology.
99 Following Janowski, “Lebendige Statue Gottes,” 193, Gen 1 thus
royalizes all of humanity rather than democratizing a royal image.
Note that there are a few examples in Egypt of a similar application
of the idea of “image of God” to all humans. The main one
comparable at all to Gen 1 is the hymn to the creator in the Egyptian
Instruction of Merikare (P 127–134). Here all humans are designated
as images of God, and indeed even the Egyptian determinative for
cult statue is added, to make plain the way humans stand as
physical representations of the deity on earth (McDowell, Image of
God in the Garden of Eden, 135–36). Yet in this case, the focus is
not on how the divine image reflects human destiny to rule, but
instead shows God’s particular care for humans, a theme shared
with several other Egyptian texts that stress human equality and
links with God as part of a broader emphasis on God’s good creation
(on this see David Lorton, “God’s Beneficent Creation: Coffin Texts
Spell 1130, the Instructions for Merikare, and the Great Hymn to the
Aten,” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 20 [1993]: 125–55).
Therefore, though the divine image is spread to all humans in the
Instruction of Merikare, that text is a less helpful parallel to the
divine-image plus rule matrix than other Egyptian examples. For
more discussion, see Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild
Gottes? 102–3 (who also discusses the other possible example of
such Egyptian broadening of this concept in the Instruction of Ani).
100 Weippert, “Tier und Mensch in einer menschenarmen Welt,” 44.
101 Hermann-Josef Stipp, “Dominium terrae. Die Herrschaft der
Menschen über die Tiere in Gen 1,26.28,” in idem. Alttestamentliche
Studien. Arbeiten zu Priesterschrift, Deuteronomistischem
Geschichtswerk und Prophetie, BZAW 442 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013
[orig. 2001]), 53–93 [here 59–86].
102 A pre-eminent, closely argued example is Janowski, “Herrschaft
über die Tiere.”
103 Weippert, “Tier und Mensch in einer menschenarmen Welt,” 52–
53. See Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 71–72 for helpful reflections on how
Gen 1:26–28 implies human domination of the cosmos akin to a pax
romana or pax assyriaca, certainly rule associated with the threat of
violence, but also with the responsibility to protect and provide for
the ruled subjects.
104 Within P, God later does wish for multiplication of animals on the
earth in God’s order for Noah to lead an exit from the ark (Gen 8:17),
but even here there is no intention that animals “fill” the earth the
way humans are supposed to (Gen 1:28; 9:1). As noted in Jakob
Wöhrle, “Dominium terrae: Exegetische und religionsgeschichtliche
Überlegungen zum Herrschaftsauftrag in Gen 1,26–28,” ZAW 121
(2009): 182–83 the next major occurrence of the themes of human
multiplication and “filling” a specific land is in P’s description of
Israelite multiplication and filling the land of Egypt (Exod 1:7) that
prefaces Israel’s confrontation with Egypt in the exodus story.
105 In this respect, I would disagree with the sharper distinction that
Phyllis Bird seems to want to make between these themes in “‘Male
and female he created them’: Genesis 1:27b in the Context of the
Priestly Account of Creation,” 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. 1981]), 329–61, especially 349–51.
106 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 57.
107 Jacob, Genesis, 60.
108 The focus on divine consultation in Gen 1:26 may also be a faint
biblical echo of a broader tradition in Mesopotamian cosmological
texts regarding consultation of the gods before the creation of
humans (e.g., Enuma Elish VI:2–34; Creation of the King 7–11).
Nevertheless, Gen 1:26 and 3:22 (along with Gen 11:4, a non-P text
featuring a cohortative like that in Gen 1:26) are distinguished from
such texts by the above-noted particularly similar way of describing
this consultation.
109 This is another way to construe the data and arguments
gathered in Barr, “One Man or All Humanity?.”
110 This observation was brought to my attention by a personal
communication from Aron Freidenreich.
111 Food provisions are seen in, for example, the Hymn to Amon-Re
(Papyrus Boulaq 17, vi.4 ; ANET 366) and the Hymn to the Aten
(ANET 370). The Hymn to Amon-Re is particularly interesting
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 comparable
to Gen 1:29–30.
112 Cf. Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 74, who takes Gen 2:1 as a late
addition referring only to the creation of astral bodies with “army”
aiming to counter a possible impression from the address to the
divine council (Gen 1:26) that the heavenly beings preceded
creation. The position of Gen 2:1 and its echoes of Gen 1:1,
however, suggest more of a function of a comprehensive summary,
with ‫“( צבא‬army”) now being used in an atypical way not to refer just
to astral bodies, but to the whole of creation alongside heaven and
earth.
113 Steck, Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift, 193.
114 Jacob, Genesis, 66.
115 See ‫ כל מלאכתך‬Exod 20:9//Deut 5:12; ‫ כל מלאכה‬of Exod
20:10//Deut 5:13.
116 See Exod 20:9–10//Deut 5:12–13; Exod 31:14; 35:2. For more
on the implicit echoes of the Sabbath see especially Schmidt,
Schöpfungsgeschichte, 156–7 and Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 76.
117 Schmidt, Schöpfungsgeschichte, 158–59.
118 Middleton, Liberating Image, 76, note 89 observes that, though
this theory is associated by many with Herder, it is prefigured in the
famous medieval distinction between God’s work of separation (opus
distinctionis) on days 1–3 and adornment or embellishment (opus
ornatus) on days 4–6 (see, e.g., Aquinas, Summa part 1, Q, 65a
answer to objection 1). This is based on the mistranslation of
Hebrew ‫ צבא‬of 2:1 in the Vulgate as ornatus (LXX misread ‫ צָ בָ א‬as
‫—צָ ִביא‬adornment).
119 Steck, Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift, 13, 206–15.
120 For another proposal, see Michaela Bauks, “Genesis 1 als
Programschrift der Priesterschrift (Pg),” in Studies in the Book of
Genesis, ed. A. Wénin, BETL 55 (Leuven and Sterling, VA: Leuven
University and Uitgeverij Peeters, 2001), 333–45 [here 334], who
puts days 1–4 as ordering of cosmos, days 5–6 as ordering of life,
and day 7 as prospective ordering of cult.
121 Lux, “Bild Gottes und die Götterbilder,” 146–48.
122 To be sure, typical Near Eastern cosmogonies often focus on an
isomorphism between the created cosmos and the sanctuary (for a
recent formulation relating to Gen 1, see Bernd Janowski, “Die Welt
des Anfangs: Gen 1,1–2,4a als Magna Charta des biblischen
Schöpfungsglaubens,” in Schöpfungsglaube vor der
Herausforderung des Kreationismus, ed. Bernd Janowski, F.
Schweitzer, and Chr. Schwöbel [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 2010], 27–53 [here 47]), but Gen 1 does not yet feature a
separate sanctuary (e.g., the heavenly Apsu or earthly Esagila in the
Enuma Elish epic) that would exhibit such isomorphism in its story
world.
123 This point comes from multiple publications by Bernd Janowski,
such as Janowski, “Die Welt des Anfangs,” 49. As an additional
example, he cites Isa 45:18, which may be a reflection on the picture
in Gen 1.
124 On this see especially Blum, Studien, 291–93, 306–12.
125 Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 380.
126 For linkage of some of the tropes in Gen 1 to a broader, exilic
period appropriation of motifs from the Enuma Elish see Friedhelm
Hartenstein, “JHWH, Erschaffer des Himmels: Zu Herkunft und
Bedeutung eines monotheistischen Kernarguments,” ZTK 110
(2013): 383–409, esp. 400–405.
127 Nihan, Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 20–68; Thomas Römer,
“Von Moses Berufung zur Spaltung des Meers: Überlegungen zur
priesterschriftlichen Version der Exoduserzählung,” in Abschied von
der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte, ed.
Friedhelm Hartenstein and Konrad Schmid (Leipzig: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 2015), 134–60 [here 136–39].
128 Janowski, “Lebendige Statue Gottes,” 193, note 41, suggests
that this represents an intensification of the broader human destiny
to rule creation (1:26, 28). Nevertheless, the mention of “kings” in
Gen 17:6 and “princes” in Gen 17:20 seems part of an emphasis in
both verses on the greatness of the nations originating from
Abraham. Unlike Gen 1:26, 28, there is no prediction in Gen 17:6, 20
that all who originate from Abraham will “rule,” and the ruled over
subjects in Gen 17:6, 20 are humans, not animals.
129 For the purposes of this commentary it is not crucial to unravel
the specific literary history of these texts, many of which probably
represent later layers of the Priestly tradition. Whatever their history,
it is likely that the Sabbath theme in Gen 1:1–2:3 was not the earliest
introduction of the Sabbath theme into the Priestly material.
130 This builds especially on Paul’s influential argument that Christ
as the new Adam conforms humans to the image of God (1 Cor
15:45–49) and Iraneus’s distinction (responding to ‘gnostic’
opponents) between human eternal possession of God’s “image”
and loss of God’s “likeness” (on this see especially Arnold Struker,
Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen in der christlichen Literatur
der ersten zwei Jahrhunderte: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
Exegese von Genesis 1,26 [Münster: Aschendorffsche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1913]). For broad surveys, see, David Cairns,
The Image of God in Man, Revised ed. (London: Collins, 1973) and
Marcel Kemp, Het verscheurde beeld: de vraag naar lot, kwaad en
lijden in de pastoraal-theologische theorievorming, benaderd vanuit
het joodse denken over de mens als beeld Gods (The Hague:
Boekencentrum, 2002), 14–44.
131 See, e.g., Andreas Schüle, “Image of God,” 1–19; McDowell,
Image of God in the Garden of Eden for a survey of such rituals and
their links to Gen 1 and 2–3, albeit in a different way than that
proposed above.
132 See Mark S. Smith, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 129–137 for one example of a
sophisticated approach exploring how Gen 1 might have been
composed, in part, to precede Gen 2–3.
133 Abraham J. Heschel, “Religion and Race,” in The Insecurity of
Freedom: Essays on Human Existence (New York: Farrar, Straus &
Giroux, 1966), 85–100 [here 95, 98–99]. I develop this point in “Von
der Diachronie zur diachron informierten Synchronie Gen 1–3,” in
Lichte von Rolf Rendtorffs Früh- und Spätwerk neu lessen, ed.
Manfred Oeming, BThSt 179 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2018), 75–91.
134 White, “Ecologic Crisis,” 1205; Carl Améry, Das Ende der
Vorsehung: Die gnadenlosen Folgen des Christentums (Reinbek bei
Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag, 1972), especially pp. 15-22 and 197-200.
135 See Brett, Decolonizing God, 38, who notes more broadly (32–
34) questions surrounding the empowerment for human rule in Gen
1:26, 28 and rhetorics of colonization, even as some aspects of the
picture of human-earth relations in Gen 1:26–28 more resemble
diverse indigenous cosmologies than later colonizing Christian ones.
136 L. Juliana M. Claasens, “And the Moon Spoke Up: Genesis 1
and Feminist Theology,” RevExp 103 (2006): 325–42. Cf. the more
positive reading of Gen 1 from an African feminist perspective in
Muse Dube, “‘And God Saw that it was Very Good’: An Earth-friendly
Theatrical Reading of Genesis 1,” Black Theology 13 (2015): 230–
46.
137 See, e.g., Aaron Gross, The Question of the Animal and
Religion: Theoretical Stakes, Practical Implications (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2014), 154–86, among many treatments
of Gen 1 from a posthumanist/animal studies perspective.
138 Deryn Guest, “Troubling the Waters: ‫תהום‬, Transgender, and
Reading Genesis Backwards,” in Transgender, Intersex, and Biblical
Interpretation, ed. eadem. and Teresa Hornsby, Semeia Studies 83
(Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 21–44.
139 The introduction of this chapter division is usually associated
with Stephen Langton’s edition of the Vulgate in 1205.
140 Abraham J. Heschel, The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man
(New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1951).
1 For more discussion see David M. Carr, “Βίβλος γενέσεως,” 159–
72.
2 Blum, “Verbalsystem,” 126–27, then 132 (on ‫ ביום‬in 1 Kgs 13:3);
Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 84, 94.
3 Karl Brockelmann, Hebraische Syntax (Neukirchen: Kreis Moers,
1956), par. 107iγ.
4 Andreas Michel, Theologie aus der Peripherie: Die gespaltene
Koordination im Biblischen Hebräisch, BZAW 257 (Berlin: De
Gruyter, 1997), esp. 1–22.
5 See Blum, “Paradieserzählung,” 18, note 36.
6 R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (2nd ed.; Toronto:
University of Toronto, 1976), 35.
7 For overview and discussion of main options see Annette
Schellenberg, “‘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, ed. Jürg Luchsinger, Hans-
Peter Mathys, and Markus Saur (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2007),
298–308 [here 298–303].
8 So, e.g., Soggin, “Second Chapter of Genesis,” 166–67; Anderson,
“Celibacy or Consumation?” 126–27.
9 Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling, 168.
10 Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling, 168.
11 Friedhelm Hartenstein, “‘Und sie erkannten das sie nackt waren’
(Gen 3,7): Beobachtungen zur anthropologie der
Paradieserzählung,” EvTh 65 (2005): 277–93 [here 286–7].
12 See Peter Machinist’s report of this observation by James Russell
in Peter Machinist, “How Gods Die,” 211, note 59.
13 See Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 124.
14 Carol Meyers, Rediscovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in
Context (New York: Oxford, 1988), 95–109, anticipated already in
Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling, 185; Cassuto,
Genesis Pt. 1, 165 and Steck, Die Paradieserzählung, 108, with
further recent critique of the traditional “pain” translations in 3:16 in
Ziony Zevit, What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? (New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013), 207–9. For an overview of
various translation issues and possibilities in 3:16 as a whole, see
Detlef Dieckmann, “‘Viel vervielfachen werde ich deine Mühsal – und
deine Schwangerschaft. Mit Mühe wirst du Kinder gebären.’ Die
Ambivalenz des Gebärens nach Gen 3,16,” in ‘Du hast mich aus
meiner Mutter Leib gezogen.’ Beiträge zur Geburt im Alten
Testament, ed. Detlef Dieckmann and Dorothea Erbele-Küster,
BThSt 75 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006), 11–38.
15 Gerhards, Conditio Humana, 252–53.
16 See Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 54–56 and Gertz, “Von Adam
zu Enosch,” 218–20 and idem. “Formation,” 117, who notes the
problems with the oft-cited parallel in Ps 148:13.
17 Tuch, Genesis, 63.
18 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 46; Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 174–75.
Examples of scholars who see Gen 2:4a as a subscription
summarizing Gen 1:1–2:3 include Zenger, Gottes Bogen, 143–44
and Ruppert, Gen 1,1–11,26, 102. Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 55
(see also others cited by him in note 14) sees Gen 2:4a as originally
a Priestly subscription to 1:1–2:3 that was later displaced to its
current location.
19 See Carr, “Βίβλος γενέσεως,” 160–65 (especially 164–65).
20 Also note Blum, Vätergeschichte, 451–52 on the implications of
this formulation.
21 Hennig Bernard Witter, Jura Israelitarum in Palaestinam.
(Hildesiæ: Sumtibus Ludolphi Schröderi, 1711) is often mentioned as
the first to posit a specific literary distinction between Gen 1 and Gen
2–3, but his basic approach was anticipated by prior close readers of
the Bible and it was not developed into a fuller literary theory about
the composition of Genesis until 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]).
22 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 84 and idem. “Von Adam zu Enosch.”
23 In addition, see Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 17–26 for more
extended discussion.
24 Blum, “Paradieserzählung,” 14–16; Bührer, Am Anfang, 304–39.
25 Bührer, Am Anfang, 316–326.
26 See, e.g., Eckhart Otto, “Paradieserzählung Genesis 2–3: Eine
nachpriesterschriftliche Lehrerzählung in ihrem religionshistorisichen
Kontext,” in ‘Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit…‘: Studien zur israelitischen
und altorientalischen Weisheit (FS Diethelm Michel), ed. Anja A.
Diesel et al. (Berlin: De Gruyter 1996), 167–92; Schüle, “Image of
God”; idem., Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel, 160–77 (cf. esp.
164–70); Arneth, Durch Adams Fall ist ganz verderbt, 107–8.
27 For further response, see the discussion of Gen 1 in this
commentary along with the commentary on Gen 2:7 below and
further discussion in Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 17–21.
28 Cf. Konrad Schmid, “Die Unteilbarkeit der Weisheit:
Überlegungen zur sogenannten Paradieserzählung Gen 2f. und ihrer
theologischen Tendenz,” ZAW 114 (2002): 21–39; Saur, Tyroszyklus,
317–22; Smith, Genesis of Good and Evil, 15–17.
29 This phenomenon of selective reappropriation of motifs for a new
context explains the extent of divergence between Gen 2–3 and
Ezek 28 and 31 that has led some interpreters, e.g., Seebass,
Genesis I, 136–37 to argue against a connection between the texts.
30 Sara Milstein (“The Origins of Adapa,” ZA 105 [2015]: 30–41;
eadem. Tracking the Master Scribe: Revision Through Introduction in
Biblical and Mesopotamian Literature [New York: Oxford, 2016], 83–
96) raises some important questions 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 immortality.
31 Aqhat Epic (KTU 1.17) VI:26–38. Schüle, Der Prolog der
hebräischen Bibel, 168. Note also Etana’s search for a plant of birth
to help his barren wife have an heir for him (Etana Epic, Middle
Assyrian version IC 1–10; Late Version I/B 4–16).
32 Here see Cohen and George, Wisdom from the Late Bronze Age
and Erhard Blum, “‘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), ed.
Michaela Bauks, Kathrin Liess, and Peter Riede (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 2008), 33–53.
33 As surveyed in Bernard Batto, “Creation Theology in Genesis,” in
Creation in the Biblical Traditions, ed. Richard J. Clifford and John J.
Collins, CBQMS 24 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association,
1992), 16–38 [here 18–21], the bulk of the following references are
cosmogonic sections of texts focused on other topics, but this motif
also appears in the Eridu Genesis.
34 As pointed out in Pettinato, Altorientalische Menschenbild und
Schöpfungsmythen, 35, this pre-civilized state often bears an
approximate resemblance to that of the semi-nomadic peoples
despised by the city-dwelling authors of these texts.
35 Bauks, “Sacred Trees,” 282–89 (see 267–301 for a helpful
broader overview of Near Eastern tree imagery) and Jutta Krispenz,
“Wie viele Bäume braucht das Paradies? Erwägungen zu Gen ii 4b-
iii 24,” VT 54 (2004): 301–18 [here 311–12].
36 These include (among many others) the present author (“The
Politics of Textual Subversion: A Diachronic Perspective on the
Garden of Eden Story,” JBL 112 [1993]: 577–95 [here 583]). For a
more recent example, see, e.g., Gertz, “Von Adam zu Enosch,” 225–
31.
37 I have been particularly influenced here away from my earlier
treatment of these questions (“Eden Story,” 577–83) by Blum,
“Paradieserzählung.” For more extended discussion of these
theories, see Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 54–56.
38 As noted in Blum, “Paradieserzählung,” 18, Gen 2:10–14 steps
out of the story world to link to its audience’s world in a way
analogous to other elements, such as Gen 2:24. For more
discussion of the literary relation of Gen 2:10–14 to its context, see
Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 53–54.
39 See in particular, Jerome Walsh, “Genesis 2:4b–3:24: A
Synchronic Approach,” JBL 96 (1977): 161–77; P Auffret, La
sagesse a bâti sa maison (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires,
1982), 25–67; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 50–51, 75–76, 85. See
these treatments for additional vocabulary and other features joining
the corresponding scenes to each other, beyond those noted in the
summary of their positions that follows. The presentation here
diverges slightly from these other treatments in joining 3:8 with the
interrogation scene that it introduces (3:9–13), rather than seeing it
as part of the central scene. This and other proposals of concentric
structures in Gen 2–3 are anticipated by an observation about 2:18–
3:21 as a core element of Gen 2–3 in Jacob, Genesis, 124–25.
40 Key early works developing this hierarchy are Wolfgang Raible,
Satz und Text: Untersuchungen zu vier romanischen Sprachen,
Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die romanische Philologie 132 (Tübingen:
Niemeyer, 1972), 230–37 and Elizabeth Gülich and Wolfgang Raible,
“Textsorten-Probleme,” in Linguistische Probleme der Textanalyse,
ed. Hugo Moser (Pädagogischer Verlag Schwamm, 1975), 144–97,
especially 151–60. Higher level structural indicators are separate
labels, such as Gen 2:4a and introductory, concluding and other
pragmatic textual elements that are specifically directed from author
to reader. In addition, major structural-scene shifts in narratives are
often marked by location shifts of the kind discussed in the next
sentence and surveyed in the diagram.
41 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 75.
42 See, e.g., Stephen A. Nimis, “Ring Composition and Linearity in
Homer,” in Signs of Orality: The Oral Tradition and Its Influence in
the Greek and Roman World, ed. E. Anne MacKay (Leiden: Brill,
1999), 65–78.
43 Within Gen 2:4b, “earth” and “heaven” are undetermined, not
requiring further determination because they are understood here as
single-class entities, much like “Pharaoh” in Exodus along with later
parts of Genesis or “God,” already in Gen 1.
44 This commentary, which does not share the particular emphasis
of the Gen 2–3 story on the distinction between God and humans,
will only use this expression “God Y ” in quotations, otherwise
using the designations “Y ” or “God” to refer to the divine
character present here.
45 Blum, “Paradieserzählung,” 26.
46 Initially already Rashi’s comment on the verse. More recently,
see, e.g., Paul Humbert, Études sur le récit du paradis et de la chute
dans la Genèse, Mémoires de l’université de Neuchatel (Neuchatel:
Secrétariat de l’Université, 1940), 11.
47 This connection of the Gen 2–3 concentric structure with lacks
builds on Galambush, “Genesis 2.4b–3.24,” 37–38.
48 For discussion of the two broader plant types and links of them to
the economy of ancient Israel, see Theodore Hiebert, The Yahwist’s
Landscape: Nature and Religion in Early Israel (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1996), 36–38.
49 Jacob, Genesis, 80.
50 Notably, the text’s focus on the human’s farming of the ground
(Gen 2:5b, 7; 3:17–19, 23; note also 4:2, 11–12; 9:20) seems to
eliminate a need to provide a specific narration of the arrival of rain
that will enable the growth of wild plants (cf. Gen 2:5a). Note,
however, that the growth of wild plants is presupposed in the
description of the human’s later fate despite the lack of a specific
report of the inauguration of rain (Gen 3:18).
51 Janowski, Anthropologie, 49.
52 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 106.
53 This is a correction of Carr, The Erotic Word: Sexuality,
Spirituality and the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press,
2003), 30.
In relation to this overall theme, it should be noted that several
authors, e.g., Schüle, “Image of God,” 11–13; Der Prolog der
hebräischen Bibel, 161–68 and McDowell, Image of God in the
Garden of Eden, 43–85, have seen echoes here and elsewhere in
Gen 2–3 of the Mesopotamian mīs pî (mouth opening) ritual for
enlivening cult statues. Nevertheless, as noted by others
(Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild Gottes? 90 [n. 265], 113 [n.
420], 196 [n. 59]; Gertz, “Formation,” 116; Bührer, Am Anfang, 344–
46), Gen 2 diverges in important respects from the mīs pî ritual as
attested in the Mesopotamian exemplars (on this, see already
Schüle, Prolog, 165 and following). 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 enlivening of the cult statue next to a
river, and processions with the object, do not explicitly occur in Gen
2. In particular, the sequence in Gen 2:7–8 makes clear that the
animation of the human figure takes place outside the garden
(indeed before the garden exists).
54 Jacob, Genesis, 84. In this respect, I thus disagree with
Chapman’s theory that Y ’s gift of breath in Gen 2:7 represents
the empowerment of the human with a particular, powerful kind of
divine speech (“Breath of Life,” esp. 243–245; cf. earlier rabbinic
ideas, e.g., in Targum Neofiti on Gen 2:7, that Y gave the
human speech here). Most of the citations that Chapman marshals
in support of this thesis (see p. 243) merely conform to the idea that
humans depend for life on the breath of God in them. The main
exception is Job 32:8, an isolated assertion that the breath (‫ )נשמה‬of
God provides understanding. Also, as noted in Schellenberg, “Gen
2,19f,” 294–98, the lack of explicit mention of Y ’s gift of breath to
animals in the otherwise similar description of their creation seems to
be an abbreviation resulting from relative lack of narrative focus on
them (cf. Chapman, “Breath of Life,” 247).
55 Of course, this more contemporary reading paralleled an older
interpretive tradition that interpreted Gen 1:27 as referring to the
making of a primeval, male-female androgyne (e.g., Gen. Rab. 8:1).
56 Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, 80–81, 98–99. Indeed,
already ancient interpreters, such as Philo, understood the first
human in Gen 1 to be androgynous (Creation 134), though this
interpretation was generally focused on Gen 1 rather than the
“human” of Gen 2 and was advocated on generally different grounds
than those advanced by Trible and others.
57 Lanser, “Feminist Criticism in the Garden,” 67–84 [here 71–74];
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
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 25–48 [here 40–41];
Robert Kawashima, “A Revisionist Reading Revisited: On the
Creation of Adam and then Eve,” VT 56 (2006): 46–57. Galambush,
“Genesis 2.4b–3.24,” 36–41 provides a particularly informative
discussion of the conceptuality behind the distribution of the terms
‫ איש‬,‫האדם‬, and ‫( אשה‬the human, man, woman) across the narrative.
58 On this latter point, Stone, “Heterosexual Contract,” 57, and the
observation in Galambush, “Genesis 2.4b–3.24,” 36 that the text
reserves the word ‫“( איש‬man”) for references to the male in his
capacity as husband (Gen 2:23–24; 3:6, 16; 4:1) while using ‫האדם‬
(“the human”) everywhere else to refer to him as an (implicitly male)
individual. In addition, as noted in Wolfe, “Creation, Crisis and
Comedy,” 68, God is described in 2:21 as creating the woman out of
a small part of the first human, his “rib,” closing the flesh behind the
incision, thus “referring to a discrete wound, not a process of splitting
the human down the middle.” In this respect, Gen 2:21 is different
from a myth like that the myth of primeval androgynes attributed to
Aristophanes in Plato’s Symposium where the attraction of pairs of
humans to each other is explained by way of a story of such
primeval androgynes being divided into equal halves (Sym 189e–
190a, 190d-e, 191a-b).
59 Once God has planted the garden in Eden (2:8), subsequent
references to the garden refer to it as a known quantity—“the garden
of Eden” (24 ,3:23 ;2:15 ;‫)גן־עדן‬. Contra Westermann, Genesis 1–
11, 285 [209] there is no contradiction in terminology here.
60 For a survey and discussion, 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), 27–57
[here 40–41].
61 Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling, 133.
62 Manfried Dietrich, “Das biblische Paradies und der babylonische
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; idem. “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.
63 The background on Near Eastern gardens in this paragraph
comes from Jean-Claude Margueron, “Garten im Vorderen Orient,”
in Der Garten von der Antike bis zum Mittelalter, ed. M. Carrol-
Spillecke (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1992), 45–80, esp. 46–74,
along with the following essays from the same volume: Jean-Claude.
Hugonot, “Ägyptische Gärten” (summarizing idem., Le jardin dans
l’Égypte ancienne, Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe 38, no.
27 [Frankfurt: Lang, 1989]) and Trudy S. Kawami, “Antike persische
Gärten,” along with Wolfgang Fauth, “Der königliche Gärtner und
Jäger im Paradies. Beobachtungen zur Rolle des Herrschers in der
vorderasiatischen Hortikultur,” Persica 8 (1979): 1–53; Donald J.
Wiseman, “Mesopotamian Gardens,” AnSt 33 (1983): 137–44; idem.
“Palace and Temple Gardens in the Ancient Near East,” in
Monarchies and Socio-Religious Traditions in the Ancient Near East,
ed. H.I.H. Prince Takahito Mikasa (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
1984), 37–44 and Alix Wilkinson, The Garden in Ancient Egypt
(London: Rubicon, 1998).
64 Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 122.
65 Cf. McDowell, Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 143, who (in
my view mistakenly) sees the significance of the garden setting of
Gen 2–3 as an indicator of its being modelled on garden-located
rituals for enlivening cult statues.
66 Jacob, Genesis, 86.
67 For a discussion of how ‫ תוך‬can designate a broader inner-portion
of a structure, rather than a single center point, see, e.g., Soggin,
“Second Chapter of Genesis,” 72.
68 In this sense, with Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de
paradijsvoorstelling, 137, the motif of special “trees” in Gen 2:9 (and
Gen 2–3 more generally) is more closely connected to the idea of
plants of rejuvenation than to broader tree motifs broadly
documented (especially iconographically) in the ancient Near East.
For survey of the latter, see, e.g., Bauks, “Sacred Trees.”
69 Cf. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 175 for examples of the number
four for completeness. 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: Eisenbrauns,
1997], 116–17, 138–44), especially images 153, 153a, 185, and 191,
with some discussion in Gerhards, Conditio humana, 201.
70 On the implicit present-implications of the participle form in 2:10
(‫)יצא‬, see Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling, 154.
71 As Gunkel already notes (Genesis, 7 [ET 9]), Ashur (west of the
Tigris) was only the capital of Assyria up through the late Bronze
Age, while the capitals during the Neo-Assyrian period, such as
Nineveh, were east of the Tigris.
72 Examples include the Old Greek of Jer 2:18; Sir 24:27; the
Genesis Apocryphon 21.15, Jubilees 8:15, and Josephus Ant. 1.39.
73 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 115–16, preliminarily also Stordalen,
Echoes of Eden, 281.
74 For additional arguments for identification of the Pishon in Gen
2:11–12 with the Nile, see especially Manfred Görg, “Wo lag das
Paradies?” BN 2 (1977): 23–32 [here 28–30]; idem. “Zur Identität
des Pischon (Gen 2:11),” BN 40 (1987): 11–13. If the Pishon was
meant to be understood as the Nile (and the Gihon linked with the
Jerusalem spring), Gerhards, Conditio humana, 202–3 observes that
Gen 2:11–14 then would move from West to East in describing world
rivers, first the Nile/Pishon to the west, Gihon (spring) in Jerusalem,
and the Tigris and Euphrates to the East at the end. Cf., however,
John Day, “Problems in the Interpretation of the Eden Story,” in From
Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1–11 (London: Bloomsbury,
2013), 24–50 [here 29–31].
75 Dillmann, Genesis, 57 [ET 123]; Westermann, Genesis 1–
11, 216; Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 274, 278, 282; Blum,
“Paradieserzählung,” 18; Wolfe, “Creation, Crisis and Comedy,” 64.
76 See the resources on gardens surveyed in note 63.
77 Notably, once God plants a garden “in Eden” in 2:8, subsequent
references to it in the story (here in 2:15 as well as 3:23) are simply
to “the garden of Eden” as a known entity.
78 Gerhards, Conditio humana, 205–7.
79 Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 222–23.
80 Bührer, Am Anfang, 220.
81 See especially Rainer Albertz, “‘Ihr werdet sein wie Gott’ Gen
3,1–7 auf dem Hintergrund des alttestamentlichen und des
sumerisch-babylonischen Menschenbildes,” WdO 24 (1993): 89–111
[here 91–94].
82 Such a competence apparently also could be lost late in life. In
1 Sam 19:36 eighty year old Barzillai asks the king whether he thinks
Barzillai still has the “knowledge of good and evil” to enjoy life at the
royal court.
83 Significantly, both 2 Sam 14:17 and 14:20 assert that David’s
ability “to hear good and evil,” his “wisdom,” is like that of
“messengers of God” (‫)מלאך האלהים‬, a striking parallel to statements
later in Gen 2–3 (Gen 3:5, 22) that the forbidden tree confers godlike
knowledge of good and evil.
84 Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 226, especially note 59.
85 Soggin, “Second Chapter of Genesis,” 172–74; Baumgart,
Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 285; Zevit, Garden of Eden, 124, 295–6
note 5.
86 Galambush, “Genesis 2.4b–3.24,” 37–38.
87 Jacob, Genesis, 124–25.
88 Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling, 163.
89 Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling, 163;
Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 299 [ET 219]. Ibn Ezra notes an
interesting biblical parallel to the notion of the importance of a co-
worker in Eccl 4:9 (see also 4:8).
90 A point made initially in Trible, God and the Rhetoric of
Sexuality, 90 and developed in Rainer Kessler, “Die Frau als Gehilfin
des Mannes? Genesis 2,18.20 und das biblische Verständnis von
‘Hilfe’,” in Gotteserdung. Beiträge zur Hermeneutik und Exegese der
Hebräischen Bibel (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2006), 35–40.
91 Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild Gottes? 193.
92 Bührer, Am Anfang, 225, note 271.
93 As noted by Steck, Die Paradieserzählung, 91, the addition in
2:20 of “domesticated animals” (‫ )בהמה‬to the classification in 2:19 is
from the human’s perspective.
94 Seebass, Genesis I, 116.
95 George W. Ramsey, “Is Name-Giving an Act of Domination in
Genesis 2:23 and Elsewhere?” CBQ 50 (1988): 24–35.
96 The association of naming with God’s power is clear in texts such
as Ps 147:4 and Isa 40:26. Here God delegates this godlike power
over naming animals to humans. Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das
Bild Gottes? 197–99 and note 68. Schellenberg, “Gen 2,19f,” 304–5
suggests an additional significant element here: the fact that the
animals—in contrast to the human—are not named after the earth
from which they are made, indeed that their names are not included
at all. This feature, however, probably is just a reflection of the
etiological focus of Gen 2–3 on explaining the background of
humans, not animals.
97 On the translation as “rib,” see the translation note on 2:21 (21a)
above.
98 Victor Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, NICOT (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1990), 179. See Bührer, Am Anfang, 228–29 and Gertz,
Genesis 1–11, 124 for suggestions of a Mesopotamian cosmogonic
background both for the use of ‫ בנה‬as a verb of creation (echoing the
use of banû[m] in Akkadian for creation) and a wordplay on “rib” in
the Dilmun myth of Enki and Ninhursag. See also Joel Baden, “An
Unnoted Nuance in Genesis 2:21–22,” VT 69 (2019): 167–72, who
provides a helpful critique (p. 168) of Ziony Zevit’s proposed
interpretation of the ‫ צלע‬as an etiology of the lack of a baculum in
male humans (Garden of Eden, 40–50) and suggests that the text
may imagine Y as a gardener here, creating the woman from
the man as a gardener might create a virtually identical plant from a
cutting.
99 Galambush, “Genesis 2.4b–3.24,” 40–41.
100 Though some have stressed the idea (from 2:18) that the
woman is created as a “helper” (‫ )עזר‬for the first human (e.g., Lisbeth
Mikaelsson, “Sexual Polarity: An Aspect of the Ideological Structure
in the Paradise Narrative, Gen 2,4 — 3,24.” Temenos 16 [1980]: 84–
91 [here 86–88]; David Clines, “What Does Eve Do to Help?”), the
focus of the narrative here seems more on the “corresponding to
him” (‫ )כנגדו‬portion of the formulation in 2:18.
101 We see this expression elsewhere to mark long awaited events,
particularly births (e.g., Gen 29:34, 35; 30:20; 46:30). Anderson,
“Celibacy or Consumation?” 125.
102 Jacob, Genesis, 99. See Bührer, Am Anfang, 227 on distinctions
of this kin statement from the above-listed examples.
103 Crüsemann (with Thyen), Als Mann und Frau geschaffen, 59–
60; Jobling, Sense of Biblical Narrative, 36.
104 Though some have noted that this text curiously reverses the
actual birth process in living beings, the text here is emphatic that
the male himself does not produce the woman. Instead, it repeats
three times that the rib (out of which she is made) is “taken” from the
(hu)man by God (2:21, 22, 23).
105 For a fuller reconstruction of this section of the Atrahasis epic
and discussion of its significance for Gen 2 see Bernard Batto, “The
Institution of Marriage in Genesis 2 and in Atrahaasis,” CBQ
(2000): 621–31, esp. 624–628.
106 Crüsemann (with Thyen), Als Mann und Frau geschaffen, 60–
61.
107 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 137; Crüsemann (with Thyen), Als
Mann und Frau geschaffen, 60; Blum, “Paradieserzählung,” 19;
Bührer, Am Anfang, 231.
108 Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling, 170–71.
109 To be sure, no specific parent language is used for Y in the
text, so this implication must only be deduced by the focus on
parent-child relations in Gen 2:24 and 9:20–27, the textual
connections noted above (including the use of ‫ עזב‬to characterize
abandonment of a parent in Ruth 1:16), and imaging of Y as a
father elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, building on such imagery for
other deities in the Ancient Near East. For one preliminary study on
the latter topic see Janet Melnyk, “When Israel was a Child: Ancient
Near Eastern Adoption Formulas and the Relationship between God
and Israel,” in History and Interpretation (John Hayes FS), ed. M.
Patrick Graham, William P. Brown, and Jeffrey K. Kuan (Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1993), 245–59.
110 Blum, “Paradieserzählung,” 19. The focus here is on potential,
not what actually holds in every case (cf. the emphasis on the
potentially less passionate/companionate character of many ancient
marriages in Seebass, Genesis I, 117 and the excellent survey of
early Jewish exegeses of this text that relate it to marital joy in
Anderson, “Celibacy or Consumation?” 131–36).
111 Seebass, Genesis I, 119; Bührer, Am Anfang, 231.
112 This reading of Gen 2:24 diverges in multiple ways from the
argument in Gerhards, Conditio humana, 211–15 that 2:24 is a
continuation of the (hu)man’s speech in 2:23. Gerhards’ theory is
based on the idea that 2:24 is a premature description of human
sexuality (when it actually describes post-Eden sexuality), that it
depicts a form of matriarchal marriage (when it depicts the man’s
reorientation from parents to his wife), and that 2:24 cannot be an
etiological statement, since it follows on the man’s song (2:23) rather
than the sort of narrated events that usually precede etiologies (e.g.,
in Gen 10:9; 26:33; 32:33). The reason past interpreters have been
virtually unanimous in reading Gen 2:24 as a narrator comment is
that Gen 2:24 deviates from the couplet form of the human’s song in
2:23, and the formula with which it begins, ‫“( על־כן‬Therefore”) is a
standard introduction for narrator etiologies.
113 Frank Crüsemann, “Das Thema Scham,” 72–73.
114 On this point, see Chapman’s contrast between the Eden story’s
scenes of gendered discourse in “Breath of Life,” esp. 253–257.
115 Galambush, “Genesis 2.4b–3.24,” 38.
116 Eric Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in
Western Literature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953), 3–
23.
117 Dillmann, Genesis, 71 [ET 149].
118 Dillmann, Genesis, 71 [ET 149]. For more on ancient
associations with snakes see K. Joines, “The Serpent in Genesis 3.”
ZAW 87 (1975): 1–11.
119 Joines, “Serpent in Genesis 3,” 2.
120 Galambush, “Genesis 2.4b–3.24,” 38; Reinhard Kratz and
Hermann Spieckermann, “Schöpfer/Schöpfung II,” TRE 30
(1999): 258–83 [here 274]; Paul Kübel, Metamorphosen der
Paradieserzählung, OBO 231 (Fribourg and Göttingen: Academic
Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 83–86; Frank
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.
121 For this interpretation see GKC 152b, HALOT “452 ”‫כל‬, citing
examples of ‫ כל‬following the negative particle (Exod 12:16; Hab
2:19; 2 Sam 12:3; Ps 49:18; Judg 13:14).
122 This latter understanding would take ‫ העץ‬as a collective, with ‫כל‬
then indicating the entirety of that collective—“all of the trees.” See,
e.g., Steck, Die Paradieserzählung, 102, who suggests that the
snake’s comment is not completely false, though its almost exact
reversal of God’s permission in 2:16 leads in a misleading direction.
123 In addition, as noted in Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 131, the snake’s
question (and the woman’s reply) assumes that God’s directive
pertained to both humans, even though it is only addressed to the
one human in 2:16–17. This shift, however, is easily understood to
be a contextual adaptation to the different world of human characters
(now including the woman) present in 3:1, but not yet in 2:16–17.
124 Chapman, “Breath of Life,” 253 stresses that the narrator
describes Y consistently using singular language forms before
and after this point to speak of a command addressed to the human
in particular (Gen 2:17; 3:11, 17), but this argument is undermined by
the fact that this singular usage conforms to the fact that Y is
only addressing the human in all three cases.
125 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 73.
126 Blum, “Paradieserzählung,” 20; Tryggve Mettinger, The Eden
Narrative: A Literary and Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 2–3
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 36–37. I do not share
Mettinger’s further speculation on the woman’s unknowing allusion to
the tree of life as if it too were forbidden. The prohibition in 2:17
speaks only of the forbidding of the tree of knowledge, not a tree in
the midst of the garden. Therefore, the reader has no reason to think
the woman means any other tree than the tree of knowledge in
referring to a forbidden tree (in the singular) in the midst of the
garden (Gen 3:3).
127 Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 200.
128 To be sure, as astutely noted in William A. Tooman,
“Authenticating Oral and Memory Variants in Ancient Hebrew
Literature,” JSS 64 (2019): 91–114, biblical quotes in narratives
rarely exactly parallel previous narrations. At the same time, the
snake’s and women’s representations of Y ’s speech (Gen 2:16–
17) in Gen 3:1–4 diverge more from that speech than the reports of
Y ’s own back-references to it in 3:11 and 3:17, even as they
both stress their status as quotes of Y ’s prohibition in Gen 2:17
(‫“[ כי אמר אלהים‬did God really say”] 3:1b; ‫“[ אמר אלהים‬God said”] 3:2).
These elements suggest that the divergences in Gen 3:1–4 might be
exegetically significant. For more exploration of the implications of
divergences of the woman’s speech from 2:17, see Jacob,
Genesis, 103–4; Reuven Kimelman, “The Seduction of Eve and the
Exegetical Politics of Gender.” BibInt 4 (2001): 1–39 [here 7]; Blum,
“Paradieserzählung,” 21; Zevit, Garden of Eden, 167; Chapman,
“Breath of Life,” 252–54.
129 See the commentary on the translation of 3:4 for arguments that
the snake character here is depicted as quoting and denying the
divine speech. Jacob, Genesis, 105.
130 For discussion of these alternatives, see Wenham, Genesis 1–
15, 74, though I disagree that the context would allow that the snake
could be understood to be saying, “no, you will certainly die.” The
snake is somehow opposing God’s speech, as becomes clear in the
continuation of the snake’s speech that questions God’s motives.
131 Key references in Mesopotamian school literature for this are
discussed in Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, 31.
132 Gunkel, Genesis, 16.
133 These elements represent the main problems with the proposal
in Isac Leo Seeligmann, “Erkenntnis Gottes und historisches
Bewusstsein im Alten Israel,” in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen
Theologie: FS W. Zimmerli, ed. Herbert Donner, Robert Hanhart, and
Rudolf Smend (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 414–
445 [here 432] that ‫ השכיל‬here might mean “see” rather than “make
[one] wise” (for an earlier interpretation of ‫ השכיל‬similar to
Seeligmann’s, see, e.g., Tuch, Genesis, 86; anticipated by the LXX,
Peshitta and Vulgate).
134 Rambam on 3:6.
135 Rashi comments on ‫ כי תאוה הוא לעינים‬in 3:6 saying ‫ונפקחו עיניכם‬
(citing Gen 3:5).
136 One influential example is Augustine, City of God, XIV:12–15.
137 Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild Gottes? 213.
138 Katherine D. Sakenfeld, “The Bible and Women: Bane or
Blessing?” ThTo 32 (1975): 222–33 [here 225]; Jean M. Higgins,
“The Myth of Eve: The Temptress,” JAAR 44 (1976): 639–47 [here
646–7] and the discussion of the contrasting agency of the woman
and man in Gen 3:1–6 versus the rest of the story in Kalmanofsky,
Gender Play, 30–42 (especially 36–39); Chapman, “Breath of
Life,” 254–55. Julie Faith Parker, “Blaming Eve Alone: Translation,
Omission, and Implications of ‫ עמה‬in Genesis 3:6b,” JBL 132 (2013):
729–47 [here 736–47] surveys a number of translations that omit any
translation of this phrase and links at least some of these instances
to an interpretive tendency to blame Eve exclusively for the garden
transgression.
139 Howard Wallace, The Eden Narrative, HSM 32 (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1985), 102.
140 Frank Crüsemann, “Das Thema Scham,” 72–73.
141 As will be discussed in the commentary below on Gen 9:20–27,
the story likely originally featured Canaan as the youngest son who
saw the nakedness and was cursed before Ham was added as his
father.
142 The most recent and extensive argument for a primary
sexual/reproductive meaning for “knowledge of good and evil” is
Gerhards, Conditio humana, 214–58. Much of Gerhards’s
argumentation is dependent on his problematic understanding of the
etiology in Gen 2:24 as the human’s clueless anticipation of future
male-female relations (on the problems for this reading see the
above commentary on Gen 2:24, note 112).
143 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 134.
144 For more on how the partially clothed human(s) are presented
further in the Gen 3 narrative as still feeling naked in 3:8, 10, see the
commentary below on 3:10.
145 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 134–35.
146 For discussion of the rhetorical function of the divine question
“where are you?,” see Jacob, Genesis, 109.
147 Jacob, Genesis, 109
148 Frank Crüsemann, “Das Thema Scham,” 74.
149 Seebass, Genesis I, 123.
150 See the above commentary on the formulation in Gen 2:17 and
its distinction from death penalty law.
151 Jacob, Genesis, 110–11.
152 In this respect, the relative reticience of the man’s
characterization in Gen 3:12b may more reflect a parallel to Gen
3:6b than a depiction of his reticience to refer to the tree or its fruit
(cf. Chapman, “Breath of Life,” 257).
153 GKC 136c and 148b.
154 Chapman, “Breath of Life,” 257.
155 Chapman, “Breath of Life,” 255–56, building on Carol Newsom,
“Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom,” in Gender and
Difference in Ancient Israel, ed. Peggy L. Day (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1989), 142–60.
156 Seebass, Genesis I, 129. Note that there is no questioning of
the snake because the narrative is not interested in displaying the
snake’s interiority. He is a mere plot device in the story of the
maturation of humankind and thus gets no chance to give an
account of himself. As noted by Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 347 [ET
255], the lack of interrogation of the snake is yet another indicator
that Genesis 2–3 is not focused on the origins of evil per se.
157 Contra Jacob, Genesis, 113, this comparison does not require
an implication that other animals are cursed. Instead, it links with
3:1a and stresses that the snake is, in fact, cursed. The linked
comparatives in 3:1 and 14 also feature a possible semi-rhyme
between the snake’s nakedness/cleverness (‫ )ערום‬and the snake’s
consequent cursedness (‫)ארור‬. See Gen. Rab. 19:1; Cassuto,
Genesis Pt. 1, 159.
158 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 139. Chapman, “Breath of Life,” 258 notes
that the snake’s condemnation to be low (3:14) and below humans in
particular (3:15) corrects the way that the snake’s assertion of
agency vis-à-vis the human, instigating—via the woman—the
human’s disobedience (3:1–6), contradicted Y ’s implicit
placement of animals like him under the human’s authority (Gen
2:19–20.
159 Kalmanofsky, Gender Play, 31.
160 Jacob, Genesis, 114–15; Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild
Gottes? 225.
161 Gen 49:17; Amos 5:19; Pss 58:5; 140:4; Prov 23:32; Qoh 10:8.
Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 140.
162 I am indebted to an oral communication from Raik Heckl
(Heidelberg, Jan. 29, 2016) for this observation.
163 This explains the special focus on the woman and her offspring
in Gen 3:15, noted in Kalmanofsky, Gender Play, 31.
164 See Parker, “Blaming Eve,” 730–32 for an overview of some
major examples.
165 Jacob, Genesis, 117.
166 Galambush, “Genesis 2.4b–3.24,” 42. As Galambush points out,
this equivalence is underlined by Eve’s later speech after the first
human birth about having “created a man” (4:1 ;‫קניתי איש‬b), echoing
the description of her being “taken from man” (‫ )מאיש לקחה זאת‬in
2:23.
167 Dieckmann, “Ambivalenz des Gebärens,” 27–28.
168 Chapman, “Breath of Life,” 257. Contra Chapman, “Breath of
Life,” 249, 254, 259, this locus—where mortality is an increased
concern—appears to be the instance where the woman’s role as
“helper” (‫ )עזר‬starts to be paired with her reproductive role, while this
helper role vis-à-vis the human, especially in Gen 2:18, earlier can
be understood in relation to his garden work (Gen 2:15) or to a more
general need for relationship.
169 In addition, much as the snake’s punishment of “eating of the
dust” (3:14) and the human’s punishment to “eat” from the ground
with toil (3:17) corresponded their roles in the garden crime of
“eating,” there may be a wordplay here between the ‫“( עצבון‬toil”) and
‫“( עצב‬effort”) doubly predicted for the woman here and her role in the
crime of eating from the forbidden ‫“( עץ‬tree”); cf. Cassuto, Genesis
Pt. 1, 165.
170 Meyers, Rediscovering Eve, 90–102; Galambush, “Genesis
2.4b–3.24,” 47.
171 Desire of a man for a woman is also the focus of a similar
expression in Song 7:11, which may have been the model for the
formulation in Gen 3:16. For more on Song of Songs see 432–438 in
Carr, Formation of the Hebrew Bible.
172 Galambush, “Genesis 2.4b–3.24,” 40–42. Indeed, the parallel
between the woman’s desirous return to the man she was made
from and the man’s return to the ground he was made from may help
explain the tendency of later versions to understand ‫ תשוקה‬in 3:16b
as meaning return (‫ )תשובה‬rather than desire. Nevertheless, contra
Joel N. Lohr, “Sexual Desire? Eve, Genesis 3:16,and ‫תשוקה‬,”
JBL 130 (2011): 227–46, there is not sufficient evidence that ‫תשוקה‬
itself meant “return” in biblical Hebrew.
173 Willi-Plein, “Sprache als Schlüssel,” 11.
174 See the discussion of Gen 3:6 above for further discussion of
how these textual elements link with the implied presence of the man
and his passivity in the Gen 3:1–5 dialogue.
175 See the helpful proposal in Kalmanofsky, Gender Play, 30–42
(especially 30) that Gen 2–3 presents three contrasting models for
gender dynamics—an initial more egalitarian (though not totally
egalitarian) model in Gen 2:5–25, a model of female domination in
Gen 3:1–6, and the final development in Gen 3:7–24 of a more
conventional gender hierarchy akin to that known in ancient Israel.
Cf. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 81, who is one of many who melds the
first and third, suggesting that the divine pronouncement of male rule
in 3:16 merely represents an unfolding of the woman’s helper role
already specified in Gen 2:18.
176 Galambush, “Genesis 2.4b–3.24,” 45.
177 For biblical references relating to pains and risks associated with
pregnancy see especially Gen 25:22; 35:16–20; 38:28–30; and Isa
37:3 and the discussion in Dieckmann, “Ambivalenz des
Gebärens,” 31–32.
178 As noted in Crüsemann (with Thyen), Als Mann und Frau
geschaffen, 64, one way this is reflected is the way that God’s saying
about the woman is placed in a sequence of severity of bodily impact
across all of 3:14–19: proceeding from the snake, whose body is
most effected by God’s direct curse (3:14), to the woman whose
body will be subject to strenuous and risky pregnancies (3:16), to the
man whose body is only subject to general effort (3:17) and sweat
(3:19).
179 This whole paragraph (and related parts of the conclusion
below) builds on Crüsemann (with Thyen), Als Mann und Frau
geschaffen, 66–68. See also Vawter, On Genesis, 85 and Trible,
God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, 128.
180 Though Y accuses the human here of having “listened to
the voice of your wife,” neither the earlier narration of the human’s
eating of the fruit (Gen 3:6b) nor the description of his report of his
eating the fruit (Gen 3:12) mention him having listening to any
speech by the woman. This surface-level non-congruence could just
be an instance where a narrative includes a back-reference to non-
narrated events, or (more likely) it implies a critique by Y that
the human ended up being more influenced by his woman giving the
fruit to him (Gen 3:6b) than by Y ’s explicit prohibition of that fruit
(Gen 2:17).
181 Cf. Seebass, Genesis I, 127, 129 and Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 144.
182 Chapman, “Breath of Life,” 259–60.
183 Seebass, Genesis I, 128.
184 Jacob, Genesis, 121 (citing Ibn Ezra); Bührer, Am Anfang, 251.
185 Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling, 188–89. In
concert with the androcentric nature of the story, nothing is said in
3:18–19 about the woman’s mortality.
186 Both expressed directly as accusatives (Jacob, Genesis, 120).
187 Galambush, “Genesis 2.4b–3.24,” 41–42.
188 Cf., e.g., Harold Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good
People (New York: Schocken, 1981), 72–86; Niditch, Chaos to
Cosmos, 30–31; Dan E. Burns, “Dream Form in Genesis 2:4b–3:24:
Asleep in the Garden,” JSOT 37 (1987): 3–14; Ellen Van Wolde, A
Semiotic Analysis of Genesis 2–3: A Semiotic Theory and Method of
Analysis Applied to the Story of the Garden of Eden, Studia Semitica
Neerlandica 25 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1989), 69–231; Lynn Bechtel,
“Genesis 2,4b–3.24: A Myth about Human Maturation,” JSOT 67
(1995): 3–26.
189 Blum, “Paradieserzählung,” 22.
190 Crüsemann (with Thyen), Als Mann und Frau geschaffen, 54–
56.
191 Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, 133.
192 For more detail, see Chapman, “Breath of Life,” 260–62.
193 Already certain Midrashim (e.g., Gen. Rab. 20:11; see also
22:2), working in a partly Aramaic environment, connected the name
“Eve” (‫ )חוה‬to the Aramaic word for snake. It is unclear whether
Aramaic would have been in the minds of the original readers.
Nevertheless, this connection could be a fascinating unfolding of the
earlier soundplay between the woman’s hissing speech about the
snake in 3:13b and the possible naming of her after the snake.
194 Blum, “Paradieserzählung,” 24.
195 Seebass, Genesis I, 103.
196 Gerhards, Conditio Humana, 252–54; Smith, Genesis of Good
and Evil, 42 and 126, note 76 (noting readings by some of rbt ḥwt ʾlt
in KAI 89:1 as an epithet of a goddess).
197 Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 446–47.
198 Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild Gottes? 219–20 concludes
that “the human” (‫ )האדם‬must be a blanket term for man and woman
in 3:22, 24 because they refer back to the eating of the fruit, which
was done by both individuals. Nevertheless, the divine speech in
3:22 also uses singular expressions in its latter half, apparently
referring to God’s anxiety only about what one person, “the human”
might do. It seems implausible to suppose that the expression “the
human,” used so frequently in the previous narrative to refer
specifically to the man (e.g., 3:8, 9, 12, 17, 20, 21) would now switch
back here in 3:22–24 to being a general designation for a male or
female individual or humanity as a collective.
199 We see clearer references to thie idea of a “divine council” in
1 Kgs 22:19–23; Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7; and Ps 82, but this is an
Israelite version of a broader Near Eastern idea that the divine world
mirrors monarchal patterns where a king has a set of advisors. For
more background, see Lowell Handy, Among the Host of Heaven
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994).
200 Bührer, Am Anfang, 257–8.
201 Interestingly Y is depicted here speaking about possibilities
to be avoided, using the conjunction ‫פן‬, much as the woman reports
God speaking about consequences of human eating of the tree of
knowledge (Gen 3:3b).
202 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 173.
203 Gerhards, Conditio humana, 239 suggests, in addition, that the
setting of cherubim “to guard” (‫ )לשמר‬represents a shift away from
the earlier setting of the human in the garden “to work and guard it”
(2:15 ;‫)לעבדה ולשמרה‬. In 3:24, however, the cherubim do not guard
the garden per se, but the way back to it.
204 Gordon J. 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 [here 401]. See Ezek 43:1; 44:1–2; also the ideal
depiction of the Eastern front of the tabernacle sanctuary in Exod
27:13 probably reflects the eastward/solar orientation of the
Jerusalem temple.
205 Seebass, Genesis I, 132.
206 Blum, “Paradieserzählung,” especially 25. For anticipations of
this overall idea, see, e.g., Dillmann, Genesis, 46–47 [ET 106];
Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling, 138–42, 188–9,
195–96; Sarna, Genesis, 21; Seebass, Genesis I, 114.
207 See especially Hermann Spieckermann, “Ambivalenzen:
Ermöglichte und verwirklichte Schöpfung in Gen 2f.’,” in
Verbindungslinien (FS Werner H. Schmidt), ed. Axel Graupner,
Holger Delkurt, and Alexander B. Ernst (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 2000), 363–76.
208 In this respect, I am rejecting as implausible various semi-
allegorical readings of the expulsion from the garden in Gen 3:22–24
as a metaphor for the Babylonian exile. See my Formation of
Genesis 1–11, 229–232 for more discussion of this issue along with
some linguistic indices that Gen 2:4b–3:24 along with other parts of
the non-P primeval history are relatively early.
209 As initially noted in the preceding diachronic prologue to this
reading of Gen 2–3, the above exegesis vis-à-vis the distinctiveness
of the Eden garden motif in Gen 2–3 and its deep rootedness in the
pragmatics of this specific text undermine theories that fragmentary
reflections of this and other motifs in Gen 2–3 (e.g., the tree in its
midst) in various prophetic texts (especially Ezek 28:11–19; 31:3–9;
also Isa 51:3; Ezek 36:35; Joel 2:3) reflect some kind of an earlier
Eden myth separate from Gen 2–3 itself. Rather, these texts appear
to selectively and creatively appropriate various motifs that are fully
integrated in the Gen 2–3 account. For more discussion, see Carr,
Formation of Genesis 1–11, 58–59 and cf. the different conclusions
of, e.g., Van Seters, Prologue to History, 119–22 and Saur,
Tyroszyklus, 317–22. For persuasive reflections on Ps 82:7 as
another biblical echo of Gen 2–3, see Machinist, “How Gods
Die,” 210–18.
210 Crüsemann (with Thyen), Als Mann und Frau geschaffen, 53–
55.
211 This correlates with the fundamental change in human
population and impact of humans on the environment that begins
with the parallel development of communal (village-level) human
agriculture on multiple continents about 10,000 years ago. For an
overview, see, e.g., Clive Ponting, A Green History of the World: The
Environment and the Collapse of Great Civilizations (New York:
Penguin, 1991), 37–67.
212 In his interview “‘Eating Well’ or the Calculation of the Subject:
An interview with Jacques Derrida,” in Who Comes After the Subject,
ed. Eduardo Cadava, Peter Connor, and Jean-Luc Nancy (New York:
Routledge, 1991), 96–119, Derrida coined the term
‘carnophallogocentrism’ to describe the ideological interweaving of
domination of animals and humans. Though the concept is helpful,
the epithet “carno” here, appropriate as it is in an interview about
vegetarianism, is not as illuminating of a non-P primeval history that
lacks an emphasis on human eating of animals (cf. P in Gen 9:2–4).
This author is working on a separate study of the non-P and P
primeval history in relation to questions raised by critical animal
studies.
213 Jobling, Sense of Biblical Narrative, 23–36; Frank M. Yamada,
“What Does Manzanar have to do with Eden? A Japanese American
Interpretation of Genesis 2–3,” in They Were All Together in One
Place: Toward MinorityBiblical Criticism, ed. Randall Bailey, T. Benny
Liew, and Fernando Segovia (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2009), 97–
117. A similar impetus, with less theory, is in Roger N. Whybray, “The
Immorality of God: Reflections on Some Passages in Genesis, Job,
Exodus and Numbers,” JSOT 72 (1996): 89–120 [here 89–96].
214 Carol Newsom, “Common Ground: An Ecological Reading of
Genesis 2–3,” in The Earth Story in Genesis, ed. Norman C. Habel
and Shirley Wurst (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 60–
72.
215 Stone, “Heterosexual Contract.”
1 See M. W. Scarlata, Outside of Eden: Cain in the Ancient Versions
of Genesis 4:1–16 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2012), 111–30 for
thorough survey of the expanded readings for Gen 4:8 and argument
that they are not identical with each other.
2 See especially Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 114.
3 For discussion, see Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 47–48.
4 See Barré, “Rabiṣu” and Baumgart, Umkehr des
Schöpfergottes, 131–32 for discussion and relevant literature. Note
also Smith, Genesis of Good and Evil, 68, 146 (notes 43, 44), who
mentions an Akkadian text at Ugarit (RS 34.021, line 8) that features
mention of the demon rbṣ, using the word in a singular, absolute
state that corresponds to ‫ רבץ‬here in Gen 4:7.
5 For example, this is one of two objections to this translation in
Barré, “Rabiṣu.” The other major question raised here by Barré
(among others) is one about why 4:7b has the third m.s. pronouns
refer to a predicate nominative “croucher” rather than to the f.s.
subject, “sin.” Nevertheless, this is not grammatically problematic,
and the masculine pronouns in 4:7b merely focus Yahweh’s speech
on the semi-demonic character of the “croucher”/rabiṣū rather than
“sin.”
6 E.g., Joaquim Azevedo,.“At the Door of Paradise. A Contextual
Interpretation of Gen 4:7,” BN 100 (1999): 45–59 [here 53].
7 Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 107; Seebass, Genesis I, 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), 195–210 [here 201–2].
8 Ehrlich (Randglossen, 20–21 in 1908) is often mentioned as the
earliest advocate of this approach, but it is found almost 100 years
earlier (1815) in Jehudah Leib Shapira, ‫( הרכסים לבקעה‬Altona: Bon,
1815). Note also that Ibn Ezra argues against those who relate the
pronominal suffixes of 4:7b to Abel. More recent advocates include
Thomas Willi, “Der Ort von Genesis 4:1–16 innerhalb der
Althebräischen Geschichtsschreibung,” in Non-Hebrew Section, vol.
3 of Isac Leo Seeligmann volume: Essays on the Bible and the
Ancient World, ed. Alexander Rofé and Yair Zakovitch (Jerusalem:
E. Rubinstein’s Pub. House, 1983), 99–113 [here 102–3]; Heyden,
“Die Sünde Kains,” 83 and Bernd Janowski, “Jenseits von Eden:
Gen 4,1–16 und die nichtpriesterliche Urgeschichte,” in Die
Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und
frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt, ed. Armen Lange,
Hermann Lichtenberger, and K. F. Diethard Römheld (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 137–59 [here 141]. For a slight variation of this
approach (where Cain himself lies at the gateway to sin), see
Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 108.
9 E.g., Azevedo, “At the Door of Paradise,” 48–56 and L. Michael
Morales, “Crouching Demon, Hidden Lamb: Resurrecting an
Exegetical Fossil in Genesis 4.7,” BT 63 (2012): 185–91. For an
early advocate of a similar view see Joseph Halévy, Histoire des
origines d’après la Genèse, vol. 9 of Recherches bibliques (Paris: E.
Leroux, 1895), 208.
10 Azevedo, “At the Door of Paradise,” 53.
11 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 165. Ehrlich suggests Hos 2:17 [ET 2:15]
(Randglossen, 20; cf. Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 108), but ‫ פתח‬does not
mean “Gelegenheit” (“opportunity”) there. Heyden, “Die Sünde
Kains,” 99 and Janowski, “Jenseits von Eden,” 151 suggest the
mention of ‫ פתח‬in Elijah’s vision in 1 Kgs 19:13, but there the word
‫ פתח‬just refers to the opening of his cave.
12 The Eden garden only has a “way” to it in Gen 3:24. Azevedo and
Morales use references to sacrifices, including sin sacrifices, at “the
opening” of the tent of meeting to justify this understanding of ‫ פתח‬in
4:7 as the gateway to the Eden sanctuary (Azevedo, “At the Door of
Paradise,” 56; Morales, “Exegetical Fossil in Genesis 4.7,” 188).
Nevertheless, the tabernacle context is clear in the texts that they
cite (e.g., Lev 1:3; 3:2), while there is nothing in Gen 3:24–4:5 to
suggest the existence of a cultically-significant “opening” to the Eden
sanctuary.
13 I will return to fuller discussion of these links at the end of this
commentary section.
14 The main arguments appear already in Schrader, Studien, 122–
24 (arguing for post-P origins) versus Hupfeld, Quellen der
Genesis, 129–30 (for 4:25–26 as pre-P).
15 This diagram is adapted from Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 99. The
primary difference is that 4:15, which concludes the exchange
between Yahweh and Cain (4:9–14) and is exclusively connected to
it (including Yahweh’s giving of a protective sign in 4:15b), is
connected with 4:9–14 in this diagram. The conclusion in 4:16
focuses exclusively on human action, in this case Cain’s, and
corresponds more to the narrative mode and primary focus on
human action in 4:1–5.
16 Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 95.
17 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 242–43.
18 Seebass, Genesis I, 152; Kenneth M. Craig “Questions Outside
Eden (Genesis 4.1–16): Yahweh, Cain and their Rhetorical
Interchange,” JSOT 86 (1999): 107–28 [here 110].
19 The mention of Judah’s sex with Shua in Gen 38 is one exception
to this statement, but this may relate to the specific focus of Gen 38
(esp. 38:8–26) on whether or not Judah and his sons later had sex
with Tamar in order to continue his line.
20 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 217.
21 Rouillard-Bonraisin, “Qayin et de Hevel,” 130.
22 Rouillard-Bonraisin, “Qayin et Hevel,” 131 argues for an
unspoken link of the root of Cain’s name to the verb ‫קנא‬, “be
jealous,” underlining a narrative undercurrent of sibling jealousy
behind the Cain-Abel story. Nevertheless, the sounds of the roots
‫ קנא‬and ‫ קנה‬were more different in an ancient Israel that preserved a
sound for ‫א‬, and the narrative itself only links ‫ קנה‬with Cain’s name
here in 4:1b through Eve’s speech.
23 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 197; Seebass, Genesis I, 149–50. See
the diachronic section on Gen 4 for more discussion of how this
original meaning of Cain’s name might link to the function of this
character in a pre-biblical tradition standing behind the chapter.
24 Aron Freidenreich, personal communication, was crucial in noting
the emphasis in Eve’s speech on her role in producing Cain.
25 See Patrick D. Miller, “El, the Creator of the Earth,” BASOR 239
(1980): 43–46 for an overview of relevant inscriptions, including a
possible reference in an inscription from the late monarchic period
found by Avigad in Jerusalem.
26 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 157.
27 Smith, Genesis of Good and Evil, 42. Rashi is an early interpreter
emphasizing this collaborative aspect. As pointed out in
Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 396 [ET 291], we see a similar idea of
collaboration between a male and female deity in creating humans in
lines 20–21 of the Bilingual Account of Marduk’s creation.
28 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 159.
29 E.g., Gen.Rab. 22:3; also Jacob, Genesis, 136; Stade, “Das
Kainszeichen,” 266 and more recently Rouillard-Bonraisin, “Qayin et
Hevel,” 140–42.
30 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 202.
31 Deurloo (Kaïn en Abel, 99) persuasively argues that Abel’s
occupation here merely serves as a counterpoint to Cain’s farming
the land from which he soon will be cursed.
32 Examples of commentators who have argued that Yahweh’s
motives here are simply inscrutable include Von Rad, Genesis, 76
[ET 104]; Vawter, On Genesis, 94–95 and Westermann, Genesis 1–
11, 404–405 [ET 297].
33 Most ancient explanations along these lines read back into Cain’s
sacrifice (4:3b) negative judgments on his character formed by his
reaction to Yahweh’s rejection of it (4:5a; see, e.g., Dillmann,
Genesis, 93 [ET 187]), and/or the fact that the report of Yahweh’s
response does not just mention Yahweh looking at the sacrifices, but
also at each brother (see Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 147–48,
150–52). Nevertheless, we do not see here an explicit divine
judgment of either brother, and such judgment already in 4:4b–5a
would seemingly undermine the coaxing speech by Yahweh in 4:6–7
offering Cain alternatives if he “does well” or not (Heyde, Kain, der
erste Jahweverehrer, 11–12; Spina, “The ‘Ground’ for Cains
Rejection,” 319–32 [here 331–32]).
34 See, for example, Jacob, Genesis, 137 and more recently Carol
Meyers, “Food and the First Family,” in The Book of Genesis:
Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, ed. Craig Evans, Joel N.
Lohr, and David L. Petersen (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 137–57 [here 152–
53].
35 Heyden, “Die Sünde Kains,” 91–92.
36 For an earlier approach along these lines, see especially C. A.
Keller, “Kain und Abel,” in RGG3 (1959), 1089–90 [here 1089],
“bringen beide gleichzeitig ein Opfer dar.”
37 Heyde, Kain, der erste Jahweverehrer, 10. See the discussion of
indication of earlier time of an action through interruption of a
narrative imperfect sequence with a perfect form (cf. Exod 17:10b) in
Blum, “Verbalsystem,” 121 and note 79.
38 See above comment on Gen 4:1–2a.
39 Here again, Heyden, “Die Sünde Kains,” 92 is helpful.
40 Heyde, Kain, der erste Jahweverehrer, 11; Deurloo, Kaïn en
Abel, 101–2. See also Keller, “Kain und Abel,” 1089.
41 For reflections in this direction focused on how Cain knew of
Yahweh’s response, see Heyde, Kain, der erste Jahweverehrer, 11.
Contra Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 161, this picture of selective divine
response does not require the idea that Cain and Abel’s implicitly
simultaneous offerings were some kind of competition.
42 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 206–7.
43 This idea of divine parentage, however, does not seem to be
developed in the text. If it is implied at all, it is located exclusively in
the character perspectives of Eve and Cain, while the narrator
clearly emphasizes the human’s fatherly role in the birth report at the
outset of the chapter (4:1a).
44 On this link of Gen 4:5b–7 to biblical discourse about seeing
faces, see particularly Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 103–4. This approach
appears more appropriate to the specificity of the language of this
part of the story than more general descriptions in wisdom texts of
how a person’s internal processes—whether good or bad—are
reflected in one’s face (e.g., Prov 15:13; 21:29) highlighted in
Loewenclau, “Genesis IV 6–7,” 184.
45 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 208; Heyde, Kain, der erste
Jahweverehrer, 11–12.
46 This in contrast to an approach, like Deurloo’s (Kaïn en
Abel, 106), that understands Yahweh’s speech here as implying a
prepositional phrase following ‫ תיטיב‬referring to Abel, so that the
issue is what Cain will do vis-à-vis his brother. Notably, the usage of
‫( יטב‬hiphil) in both 4:7aα and 4:7aβ is absolute and thus more
general in its reference (Lev 5:4; Isa 1:17; 41:23; Jer 4:22; 10:5;
13:23; Zeph 1:12).
47 Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel, 186; Rouillard-
Bonraisin, “Qayin et Hevel,” 136.
48 Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 132–33.
49 Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 114–15; Seebass, Genesis I, 146, 154.
50 Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 116–17.
51 For emphasis on the specifically legal character of the report in
4:8b, see Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 116.
52 Jacob, Genesis, 140; Seebass, Genesis I, 145. Notably, “the
field” in 4:8 contrasts with the possible implication in 4:7 that Cain is
in a dwelling, an implication seen in the reference to “the opening” in
4:7aγ.
53 As suggested by Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 166, it may be a bit too
much to emphasize premeditation (cf. Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 116).
Nevertheless, the idiom “rise up” before killing is often used to
characterize murder (e.g., Deut 19:11; 22:26, both ‫)קום על‬, and the
rarer phrase ‫( קום אל‬as in 4:8b) sometimes indicates intentional
action as well (1 Sam 22:13; 24:8; Jacob, Genesis, 140).
54 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 168 cites Gen 30:31; 1 Sam 17:20; Jer
31:10; and Hos 12:13 as examples of use of ‫ שמר‬for shepherding.
55 Arneth, Durch Adams Fall ist ganz verderbt, 163.
56 Jacob, Genesis, 140.
57 Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 118.
58 Heyde, Kain, der erste Jahweverehrer, 13.
59 For discussion of the connotation of unatoned character of such
violently shed blood and citations, see Seebass, Genesis I, 155.
Notably, m.San 4.5 and other early Jewish interpreters interpreted
the plural of blood here to refer to the future generations of Abel’s
descendants cut off because of his death.
60 See already Jacob, Genesis, 141 (more recently Gertz, Genesis
1–11, 168–69), who notes that ‫ צעק‬is a term used specifically for
calls for help and justice (Gen 18:20–21; 19:13; Exod 3:9; 21:22,26;
Deut 22:24–27; 1 Kgs 20:39; 2 Kgs 4:1; 6:26; 8:3).
61 Heyde, Kain, der erste Jahweverehrer, 13.
62 Job’s call for the ground not to stifle the cry of his blood in Job
16:18 is sometimes cited as illustrating the conceptuality of blood
crying from ground that is behind Gen 4:10a (e.g., Gertz, Genesis 1–
11, 169), in this case representing a later text possibly dependent on
Gen 4:10. More distant examples of the revealing of murder by way
of blood on the earth include Isa 26:21; Ezek 24:7, 8; and 2 Kgs 9:26
(Skinner, Genesis, 108).
63 Jacob, Genesis, 142.
64 Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 416 (ET 306).
65 Cf. Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 421 [ET 309–10] for comparison
of this sequence with I-complaints, you-complaints, and statements
about enemies in biblical laments.
66 For focus on the latter statements as comparison points for 4:14,
cf. Jacob, Genesis, 144 and Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 171–72. Stade,
“Das Kainszeichen,” 257–58 suggests that Cain’s statement about
hiding from Yahweh’s face pertains to his inability to seek refuge
from potential avengers in a cult place within the settled areas from
which he is excluded, but existing biblical laws about asylum in cult
places pertain to the protection of those who have accidentally killed
someone (e.g., Deut 19:1–10; Num 35:9–19), something that is not
the case for Cain (Gen 4:5–8).
67 Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 124–25.
68 Cf. Heyde, Kain, der erste Jahweverehrer, 15–17, who argues
that the story sees Cain as being expelled from the sacred, promised
land, hence the loss of access to Yahweh’s “face.” The text as we
have it, however, does not provide specific data to undergird these
associations of the “ground” in Gen 4:11–14 with the promised land.
69 Hauser, “Genesis 4:1–16 and Genesis 2–3,” 303.
70 Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 123.
71 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 171–72. Some interpreters (e.g., Stade,
“Das Kainszeichen,” 257–58) interpret the “face” here to refer
specifically to Cain’s loss of access to Yahweh’s face as seen in the
cult. Yet Cain has not proven particularly successful earlier in the
story in accessing Yahweh’s face cultically (cf. Gen 4:3–5).
Moreover, though the psalm citations given here might be strictly
connected by some to a cultic setting, they, along with Deut 31:16–
18, are probably best understood to refer more generally to loss of
access to Yahweh’s presence and protection, both in and outside a
cultic sanctuary.
72 Many interpreters have struggled to explain Cain’s fear here,
since the story world of Gen 4 does not feature many humans who
would pose a threat to Cain. Ancient interpreters sometimes
speculated that Cain might be worried here about his vulnerability to
wild animals, other offspring of Adam and Eve, or future generations.
See Gunkel, Genesis, 41 (ET 46). Nevertheless, these all appear to
be harmonizing solutions for a story that was not originally set in its
present context.
73 This, then, is a more specific way that Gen 4:14 connects a life of
wandering and helplessness with murder than is seen in Prov 28:17.
See Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 171–72.
74 Heyde, Kain, der erste Jahweverehrer, 18.
75 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 172.
76 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 228 suggests that the text here shifts
from Y ’s plan to revenge the killing of Cain (4:15a; ‫ )הרג‬by
putting a sign on him that will prevent others from “striking” him
(4:15b, ‫ נכה‬hiphil) to prevent blows on Cain that would even have the
possibility of killing him.
77 R. W. L. Moberly, “The Mark of Cain—Revealed At Last?” HTR
100 (2007): 11–28 [here 14]. See also Isa 44:5.
78 Moberly’s proposal that Y ’s pronouncement in 4:15a is itself
the “sign” for Cain lacks good analogies to where a mere verbal
statement (and not an amulet bearing a written text, e.g., Deut 6:8;
11:18) can serve as a “sign” (cf. “The Mark of Cain,” 19–21).
79 Gunkel, Genesis, 46 [ET 47] 47. See also Stade, “Das
Kainszeichen,” 299–312 for discussion of various ancient signs and
possible analogues.
80 Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 126. This proclamation in Jer 45:1–5
presents itself as a response to Baruch’s lament (45:3), much like
Gen 4:15 is a response to Cain’s (4:13–14).
81 Contrary to Cain’s hyberbolic description of Yahweh “expelling”
him (4:14aα, cf 3:24), the narrative describes Cain himself departing
from Yahweh in 4:16 (cf. Gen 3:24).
82 Seebass, Genesis I, 160; Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 172. Thus there is
no contradiction between Cain “settling” in this “land of wandering”
(4:16a) and earlier predictions that he would endlessly wander
(4:12b, 14b). As Skinner, Genesis, 117 notes, the verb ‫“( ישב‬settle”)
can be used to refer to mobile tent-dwelling existence (Gen 13:12;
1 Chr 5:10).
83 Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 126.
84 The harmonizing reading in Jacob, Genesis, 147 builds on these
interpretations.
85 Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 10.
86 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 228–31 (who also notes, p. 231, a
possible wordplay here between the verb ‫‘( בנה‬build’) and ‫( בן‬the
‘son’ after which the built city is named).
87 Seebass, Genesis I, 167. See also Radak, who understands
4:17b to refer to what Cain was doing when Enoch was born, so that
the whole half verse becomes a naming report—When Enoch was
born, Cain was building a city right then, and Cain named the city
after his new son. He must wander, but at least his son can settle in
a new city. Either way, whether Cain or Enoch is the subject, this
report of building and naming the first city now anticipates and yet
contrasts with the later story about humans trying to make a name
for themselves by building Babel (Gen 11:1–9; Heyde, Kain, der
erste Jahweverehrer, 43).
88 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 178.
89 Hieke, Genealogien der Genesis, 278–98. Gen. Rab. 23:3 (along
with other rabbinic traditions) has Naamah be Noah’s wife, thus
allowing at least one member of Cain’s tree to survive the flood
(Jacob, Genesis, 149).
90 On alliteration being common in biblical names of siblings, see
Jacob, Genesis, 148.
91 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 179.
92 See Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 180 for the suggestion that “Cain” of
Tubal-Cain may also be a later addition, added to connect to the
beginning of the chapter.
93 Cf. Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 48 and Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 95
versus the objections in Seebass, Genesis I, 169.
94 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 175–76.
95 Seebass, Genesis I, 168.
96 E.g., Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, 132–33 (a similar tendency
can be seen in Rashi’s synthesis of negative traditions about
Lamech’s offspring in his commentary on Gen 4:20, 22).
97 1 Sam 13:20; Isa 2:4//Mic 4:3; 1 Kgs 7:14, though the Philistines
are depicted as particularly concerned about military use in 1 Sam
13:19. See Jacob, Genesis, 149; Seebass, Genesis I, 170.
98 Dillmann, Genesis, 104; Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 128.
99 Jacob, Genesis, 151. As Jacob notes, we see a similar passive
construction—‫“( וגם הוא ילד להרפה‬also he was born to the giants”)—
used in 2 Sam 21:20 to refer to another giant warrior felled by David.
100 Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 64, note 57.
101 E.g., Dillmann, Genesis, 105 [ET 209].
102 The summary here synthesizes numerous studies. For a
particularly detailed overview of links, see Hauser, “Genesis 4:1–16
and Genesis 2–3” 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), 155–67 [here 156–57].
103 Deurloo, Kaïn en Abel, 127.
104 This whole discussion presupposes and builds on positions
argued for in the later commentary sections on Gen 9:18–27 and
10:21, particularly arguments regarding the original focus of Gen
9:18–27 on Canaan as Noah’s youngest son. For additional
observations of connections between Gen 4:1–16 and 9:18–27,
particularly in the sequence of elements, see Devora Steinmetz,
“Vineyard, Farm and Garden: The Drunkenness of Noah in the
Context of the Primeval History.” JBL 113 (1994): 193–207 [here
197–207].
105 We see other apparent instances of the formation of a
character’s name out of an ethnic designation later in the primeval
history, with “Het” (‫ ;חת‬Gen 10:15) out of “Hittite” (‫ )חתי‬and possibly
also “Eber” (‫ )עבר‬from “Hebrew” (Gen 10:21).
106 Paula M. McNutt, “In the Shadow of Cain,” Semeia 87 (1999):
47–53. For more extensive discussion of the likely Kenite
connections of Gen 4:1–24, see Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11,
74–78.
107 See Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 57, 61–4 and 66–70 for
development of this diachronic model.
108 Hupfeld, Quellen der Genesis, 129–30 (see also, earlier, Philipp
Buttmann, Mythologus oder gesammelte Abhandlungen über die
Sagen des Alterthums 1 [Berlin: Mylius, 1828], 171).
109 For earlier reflections on the theological impact of the tradition-
history of Gen 4 (somewhat differently conceived than here), see
especially Walter Dietrich, “‘Wo ist Dein Bruder?’: Zu Tradition und
Intention von Genesis 4,” in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen
Theologie (FS W. Zimmerli), ed. Herbert Donner, Robert Hanhart,
and Rudolf Smend (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 94–
111 [here 109–10].
110 Loewenclau, “Genesis IV 6–7,” 184, but see cautions in Frank
Crüsemann, “Autonomie und Sünde,” 66.
111 Katharina von Kellenbach, The Mark of Cain: Guilt and Denial in
the Post-war Lives of Nazi Perpetrators (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2013); Gerrie Snyman, “A Hermeneutic of Vulnerability:
Redeeming Cain?” Stellenbosch Theological Journal 1 (2015):633–
65.
112 Both of these occur in Gen. Rab. 20:12, an oft-cited compilation
of interpretations of the mark of Cain that also includes the above-
mentioned repentance approach (associated with R. Hani). For
broader survey of these and other early interpretations of Cain’s
mark, see Ruth W. Mellinkoff, The Mark of Cain (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1981), 14–91.
113 Mellinkoff, Mark of Cain, 92–98; Snyman, “Redeeming Cain?”
647–649.
114 See Goldenberg, Curse of Ham, 178–82 for a survey of early
sources related to this stream of interpretation. As he notes there (p.
178), this theory often was combined with racist interpretation of
biblical traditions about Ham, including the assumption that the black
skin of Ham’s cursed offspring must derive from a marriage between
him and a descendant of Cain marked by her black skin.
115 Kidd, Forging of Races, especially 113-114, 163-166, 213-220.
116 Kahl, “Fratricide and Ecocide.”
117 Allan Boesak, “Where is Your Brother…? (Gen 4:9),” in Black
and Reformed: Apartheid, Liberation, and the Calvanist Tradition, ed.
Leonard Sweetman (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1984), 137–45.
118 Dennis Olson, “Untying the Knot? Masculinity, Violence and the
Creation-Fall Story of Genesis 2–4,” in Engaging the Bible in a
Gendered World: An Introduction to Feminist Biblical Interpretation in
Honor of Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, ed. Linda Day and Carolyn
Pressler (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 73–86.
119 Kahl, “Fratricide and Ecocide.” Along somewhat similar, but
distinct lines, note the prominent focus on Y ’s apparent
preference for Abel’s sacrifice of killed animals (Gen 4:3–5) in
Jacques Derrida’s foundational discussion anticipating later critical
animal studies (L’animal, 66–68, 155–56 [ET 42–44, 155–56]).
1 For survey of literature and discussion, see Carr, “Βίβλος
γενέσεως,” 159–72.
2 So Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 49–50.
3 Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 50.
4 This presentation and much of the following analysis of the
chronological system in Gen 5 builds particularly on analyses of this
problem by Gertz, “Formation,” 121 also idem. “Genesis 5,” 84.
5 See, for example, A. Murtonen, “On the Chronology of the Old
Testament,” Studia Theologica 8 (1954): 133–137 [here 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): 403–430 [here 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 present
author in Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, 234).
6 On this and other problems with this approach, see Ronald
S. Hendel, “A Hasmonean Edition of MT Genesis? The Implications
of the Editions of the Chronology in Genesis 5,” HBAI 1 (2012): 1–
17.
7 E.g., Alfred Jepsen, “Zur Chronologie des Priesterkodex,” ZAW 47
(1929): 251–55 [here 253].
8 See Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 61–71 for a clearly argued version of
this approach and survey of some others.
9 Gertz, “Genesis 5,” 88 (with further specific responses to Hendel’s
alternative solution to the puzzle of chronology in the versions for
Gen 5). Furthermore, as Gertz notes, the LXX does not even solve
the issue of Methusaleh, since its system has him survive the flood
by fourteen years. Hendel’s suggestion that this is because the LXX
scribe did not want to alter his system to resolve the Methusaleh
problem (Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 64) seems, as Gertz suggests, an
implausible “ad hoc thesis” that leaves unclear exactly what the LXX
scribe was attempting to accomplish.
10 As argued particularly by Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, 93–98.
11 Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, 93–98 developed an early,
influential version of this approach (see more recently Gertz,
“Genesis 5,” 81–84). It included the hypothesis that the three
patriarchs who die in the flood in the earliest version of Gen 5
(reflected in the Samaritan Pentateuch chronology) all were
associated with evil or violence: Jared (“downfall”?), Methuselah
(“man of spear”?), and Lamech (//Lamech of Gen 4:23–24). If
present at all, these potential negative implications of these three
names are less clear than the explicit positive picture of Enoch
(5:22–24) and Noah (6:9) along with their exclusion from flood
destruction.
12 For a more general survey, see Jack M. Sasson, “A Genealogical
‘Convention’ in Biblical Chronography,” ZAW 90 (1978): 171–85.
13 An early and influential example is Hupfeld, Quellen der
Genesis, 129–30.
14 Dillmann, Genesis, 113–14 [ET 223].
15 See Gertz, “Genesis 5,” 76–78, on past proposals that 5:1b–2
might have been composed as a conflational (or post-conflational)
resumptive repetition of relevant themes from Gen 1 after it was
combined with non-P material in Genesis 2:4b–4:26.
16 Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 129.
17 See Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 115–118 for more
extended discussion.
18 For notation of the distinctive numbering system here as an
indicator of the countours of the Toledot book (and descending
numbers as a sign of Priestly adaptation of it), see Robin B. ten
Hoopen, “Genesis 5 and the Formation of the Primeval History: A
Redaction Historical Case Study,” ZAW 129 (2017):177–93
(especially 185). As noted in the introduction, these observations
regarding the linguistic profile of Gen 5 and 11:10–26 are now
developed further in John Screnock, “The Syntax of Complex Adding
Numerals and Hebrew Diachrony,” JBL 41 (2018): 789–819.
19 See 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), 61–76
[here 67–74] for particular stress on the relevance of Berossus to
Gen 5.
20 See Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 107–108 (including note
66) for development of this case and nuancing of this point regarding
Enoch and Enmeduranki.
21 Gertz, “Genesis 5,” 89–90. Notably, Lamech is somewhat of an
exception to the premature dying part of this statement. Though he
does not die in the flood in these other chronologies, he dies
relatively early (by the standards of pre-flood ancestors of Gen 5) in
his late seven-hundreds.
22 Without the addition of one-hundred years to Enoch’s age at first
fathering, Enoch would have fathered Methusaleh in year 1187
according to the LXX chronology, and his remaining years would
have had him die in 2156, years before the LXX date of flood in
2242.
23 Dillmann, Genesis, 112 [ET 221].
24 See Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 92–98 for further survey
and discussion of evidence for a Priestly revision of the Toledot
book.
25 Targum Jerushalmi, for example, interprets Gen 5:3 to imply that
Seth was the first to bear Adam’s image, even though (evil) Cain had
been born earlier.
26 Rüdiger Lux, “Genealogie,” 252–55.
27 For examples, see Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 55 and others
cited by him in note 14.
28 Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 126. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 126
proposes a different chiasm in arguing for parallels with Gen 2:4.
Both Witte’s and Wenham’s chiasms ignore the blessing theme in
Gen 5:2b. See Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 196–97 for sensitive discussion
of how Gen 5:1b–2 bridges between a more general concept of
‫ )אדם)ה‬as humanity to use of ‫ אדם‬in 5:1a, 3–5 as a proper name to
refer to the first member of a genealogical chain.
29 This emphasis here on male transmission of God’s image in Gen
5 corresponds to a belief in epigenesis that is attested in Aristotle
(especially Gen. an. 729b–730b) and later sources. According to that
theory, the male contributes the active seed that provides the form of
the offspring, while the female provides only the material for the
offspring and carries that seed to term.
30 Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 127. There are some other minor
variations between 5:3–5 and the genealogical sections that follow.
For example, the summary of Adam’s total years includes an
additional phrase ‫“( אשר חי‬which he lived”), which apparently is seen
as superfluous after the first generation (cf. Jacob, Genesis, 163).
There is also a slight variation in how the numbering of Adam’s years
at fathering is reported (see Jacob, Genesis, 162) and in the formula
for reporting the length of Adam’s life after fathering Seth.
31 Jacob, Genesis, 163–65.
32 Blum, Studien, 291.
33 For a excellent discussion of the growth of the Enochic tradition
out of the biblical tradition, VanderKam, Enoch and the Apocalyptic
Tradition, esp. 52–190 complemented with a focus on Atrahasis in
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).
34 I am indebted to a private communication from Esther Hamori for
identification of the rare ‫ עצבון‬as a key indicator of the network of
specific connections highlighted in the previous two sentences.
35 The emphasis in these episodes on how sleep causes
unconsciousness is distinct from other examples of mention of sleep
in Genesis (and elsewhere in the Bible) where sleep functions to
introduce divine-human communication (e.g., Gen 15:12–21; 28:10–
17; 46:1–4).
36 On this aspect of non-P, see Blum, “Urgeschichte,” 439–40. For
discussion of other proposals of how Gen 5:29 links to subsequent
material in the primeval history see the Noah section of this
commentary and Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 115–118.
37 Dillmann, Genesis, 117 [229 ET]; Jacob, Genesis, 167.
38 In this respect, Gen 5 does not appear to have been originally
conceived to depict the fulfillment of the Gen 1:28 fertility blessing,
even as its report of fathering by a specific Adam-to-Noah line of pre-
flood patriarchs is quite compatible with that blessing (cf. Gertz,
Genesis 1–11, 192).
39 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 192, though I would argue that this
phenomenon represents, in part, an adaptation of Toledot elements
—e.g., the report of fathering of multiple descendants—that did not
originally function vis-à-vis the Gen 1:28 blessing.
1 G. Cooke, “Sons of the God(s),” ZAW 76 (1964): 22–47 [here 24].
2 C. J. Labuschagne, “The Emphasizing Particle GAM and Its
Connotations,” in Studia biblica et semitica (FS Vriezen)
(Wageningen: Veenman, 1966), 193–203 and Gesenius18 221
(though cf. questions about this usage in Takamitsu Muraoka,
Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew [Jerusalem and
Leiden: Magnes Press and Brill, 1985], 142–46).
3 Note also similarly terse reproduction reports in Gen 6:4b (‫וילדו לה‬
(“They bore [offspring] to them,” who are “the men of the name”) and
the subsequent non-P statement about Shem’s (“name’s”) offspring
in Gen 10:21 ‫“( ולשם ילד גמ־הוא‬to Shem also were born [offspring]”).
4 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 141; Bührer, “Göttersöhne und
Menschentöchter,” 501.
5 A number of early Jewish sources struggled with this problem,
positing a phased imposition of this lifetime limit, such that the 120
year limit in Gen 6:3 did not come into force until the time of Moses,
with his 120-year span (Deut 34:7) then corresponding to it. See
diverse sources surveyed in Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 214–16.
6 Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 72 was influential in stressing links
like these. See also Bührer, “Göttersöhne und
Menschentöchter,” 501.
7 For list of these examples and further discussion, see Carr, “Gen
6,1–4,” 17.
8 Gertz’s suggestion (Genesis 1–11, 203) that the reference to
multiplication at the outset of 6:1–4 is a back-reference to the theme
of multiplication in Gen 5:1–3 is a result of overly reading the P
theme of multiplication into Gen 5. On this, see the preceding
commentary on Gen 5.
9 Cf., e.g., Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 120–21. There is
no clear textual support for the proposal in Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 215
that the patriarchs leading up to Israel were seen as enjoying an
exception to the lifetime limit imposed in Gen 6:3.
10 Seebass, “Gottessöhne und das menschliche Maß,” 5–6.
11 For broader survey and discussion, see Carr, Formation of
Genesis 1–11, 129–135 which slightly revises the analysis in Carr,
“Gen 6,1–4,” 10, 18.
12 E.g., J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic fragments of
Qumrân Cave (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 31–32 and, more recently,
Helge S Kvanvig, Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical and Enochic
—An Intertextual Reading, JSJSup 149 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 361–93.
13 Uehlinger, Weltreich und ‘eine Rede’, 566–68; Nickelsburg, 1
Enoch 1, 166–68 and Carr, “Gen 6,1–4,” 18–19.
14 This option is explored for various secondary (late) P and non-P
Pentateuchal texts in 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).
15 For Mesopotamian examples, see Bartelmus, Heroentum, 37–49.
For Hittite examples, see Harry Hoffner, Gary Beckman, ed., Hittite
Myths (Atlanta: Scholars, 1990), 12, 13.
16 For review of such traditions in Mesopotamia, see Annette Zgoll,
“Einen Namen will ich mir machen,” Saeculum 54 (2003):1–11 and
Ellen Radner, Die Macht des Namens: Altorientalische Strategien zur
Selbsterhaltung, SANTAG 8 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005), 90–
96. I was pointed to these traditions by Walter Bührer, “‘Ich will mir
einen Namen machen!’: Alttestamentliche und altorientalische
Verewigungsstrategien,” Bib 98 (2017): 481–503.
17 To some extent, Greece may have inherited such traditions via
the Near East, but such questions of likely Bronze age processes of
tradition development lie well before any likely writing of Gen 6:1–4.
See Jan Bremmer, “Remember the Titans!” in The Fall of the Angels,
ed. Christoph Auffarth and Loren Stuckenbruck, Themes in Biblical
Narrative 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 35–61 for summary of scholarship
regarding traditions about giants in Greece and Northern Syria and
Mesopotamia.
18 See, e.g., Schmidt, “Mythos im Alten Testament,” 243–45;
Brevard Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament, Studies in
Biblical Theology 27 (Naperville, IL: A.R. Allenson, 1960), 57;
Oswald Loretz, Schöpfung und Mythos: Mensch und Welt nach den
Anfangskapiteln der Genesis, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 32 (Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968), 39; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 495
(ET 366) on the supposed secondary character of Gen 6:3, and
Gunkel, Genesis, 57–58 (ET 58–59); Lothar Perlitt, “Riesen im Alten
Testament: Ein literarisches Motiv im Wirkungsfeld des
Deuteronomismus,” in Deuteronomium Studien, FAT 8 (Tübingen:
Mohr-Siebeck, 1994 [orig. 1990]), 205–246 [here 244]; Weimar,
Redaktionsgeschichte, 36 for various proposals about glosses in
Gen 6:4.
19 W. Creighton Marlowe, “Genesis 6,1–4 as a Chiasm,” SJOT 30
(2016): 129–44. The following selectively uses the more compelling
of Marlowe’s observations.
20 By this point in non-P, the expression “the human” (‫ )האדם‬has
been replaced as the designation for the first human by the proper
name Adam (‫ ;אדם‬Gen 4:25), thus clearing the way for this collective
use of ‫ האדם‬to refer to humanity in general.
21 See Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 139 for a good brief survey and
critique of both approaches.
22 For survey and discussion, see Seebass, “Gottessöhne und das
menschliche Maß,” 8–9.
23 Seebass, “Gottessöhne und das menschliche Maß,” 10–11; also
Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 501 (ET 370–71).
24 For a recent interpretation along these lines, cf. Wenham,
Genesis 1–15, 141.
25 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 294.
26 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 294; Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 212.
27 If the text had meant to imply such wrongdoing, especially such
that the following flood (6:5ff.) might be justified, there are many
ways it could have done so (on this cf. the way 1 Enoch 6–11 fills out
the narrative in 6:1–4; Bührer, “Göttersöhne und
Menschentöchter,” 506–7).
28 David L. Petersen, “Genesis 6:1–4: Yahweh and the Organization
of the Cosmos,” JSOT 13 (1979): 47–64 [here 57].
29 This contra Seebass, “Gottessöhne und das menschliche
Maß,” 14–15, who asserts, without argument, that Y ’s speech
prevents future marriages. As will be discussed below, Gen 6:4aβ
seems to presuppose ongoing sexual intercourse of divine beings
with human women, even “after that” (‫)וגם אחרי־כן‬, which seems to
imply a reference to after Y ’s pronouncement in 6:3.
30 Petersen, “Genesis 6:1–4,” 48. Notably, Gen 3:22 featured a
similar appearance of urgency insofar as Y ’s speech about the
risk of human godlikeness is unfinished before he moves to action in
Gen 3:23–24.
31 Once the divine resolution in Gen 6:3 is made, Gen 6:4 soon
switches back to a more typical focus on divine-human intercourse in
Gen 6:4aβγ.
32 Tuch, Genesis, 157–58. The point regarding Isa 31:3 comes from
a personal communication from Erhard Blum. Baumgart, Umkehr
des Schöpfergottes, 116 notes that the contrast of spirit and flesh in
Gen 6:3 is prepared for and anticipated by the passage’s initial
contrast between “divine beings” (‫ )בני־האלהים‬and “human women”
(‫)בנות האדם‬.
33 As noted in Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 68, the terms
throughout Gen 6:3 are general. In this sense, A. Tsukimoto may be
mistaken in reading ‫ רוח יהוה‬in Gen 6:3 as a special royal
characteristic (comparing especially with Isa 11:2), as opposed to
something all humans possess to some extent or another (cf. A.
Tsukimoto, “Der Mensch ist geworden wie unsereiner:
Untersuchungen zum zeitgeschichtlichen Hintergrund von Gen 3,22–
24 und 6,1–4,” Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 5 [1979]: 3–
44 [here 5, 10–13]).
34 Cf. Tuch, Genesis, 156, who reads Gen 6:3 as another instance
of divine humbling of human pride, citing Ps 9:20–21; Job 40:11; Isa
2:12.
35 For biblical life-lengths (of kings), see Hans Walter Wolff,
Anthropologie des Alten Testaments, 3rd. edition (Munich: Kaiser,
1977), 177–79 (cf. ET of earlier edition 119–20). For
archaeologically-focused studies, see Carol Meyers, “The Roots of
Restriction: Women in Early Israel,” in The Bible and Liberation:
Political and Social Hermeneutics, ed. Norman K. Gottwald
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1983), 289–306 [here 295] and Athalya
Brenner, The Intercourse of Knowledge: On Gendering Desire and
Sexuality in the Hebrew Bible, Biblical Interpretation (Leiden: Brill,
1997), 61–69. For other Near Eastern imaginative reconstructions of
legendary life lengths see especially the overview of decades up to
90 in Sultantepe 400 and the outline of a 100-year life in Papyrus
Insinger 17.21–18.3.
36 See below on the Enlil and Namzitarra myth found at Emar and
discussed in Jacob Klein, “The ‘Bane’ of Humanity: A Lifespan of
120 Years.” Acta Sumerologica 12 (1990): 57–70 [here 62]. This
version of the myth contains lines suggesting an upper human
lifespan limit of 120 years. On the the broader point about this figure
as an unusually long lifespan limit, see especially Seebass,
“Gottessöhne und das menschliche Maß,” 15–17.
37 Van Seters, Prologue to History, 159, note 14 points out that one
fragment of the catalogue of women (fr. 19a in Evelyn-White, Hesiod
[LCL] 603) has Sarpedon, a son of Zeus, granted a lifespan equal to
“three generations of mortal man,” which could be understood to be
120 years as three times 40 years.
38 Klein, “Bane of Humanity,” 58 (line 23’), as noted in Cohen and
George, Wisdom from the Late Bronze Age, 162–63, this is likely a
specifically Mesopotamian number limit, because of its creation from
the sum of two times 60.
39 Emil G. Kraeling, “The Significance and Origin of Gen. 6:1–4,”
JNES 6 (1947): 193–208 [here 201]. Though Day, “Sons of God and
Daughters of Men,” 92, note 38 rightly notes that Herodotus’s
comments only concern long-lived individuals (and indicate the
possibility of even longer life for some Ethiopians), they still seem to
pertain to individuals who lived superlatively long lives.
40 To be sure, this effect is undermined somewhat in the present
conflate P/non-P Pentateuch by the appearance of numerous figures
in the Torah, from Noah (Gen 9:29; 950 year life) to Aaron (Num
20:28), who live longer than Moses.
41 Cf. Roy A. Rosenberg, “Beshaggam and Shiloh.” ZAW 105:258–
61 [here 258–259], who proposes that this may even be reflected in
the match of the numerical value of the expression ‫“[( בשגם‬because
[humanity is] indeed”]=145) and the numerical value of Moses’s
name (145). Though this could explain the insertion of ‫ בשגם‬into Gen
6:3 to signal a coordination of Gen 6:3 with Moses’s lifespan, this
proposal rests on a fairly tenuous assumption of gematric
calculations playing a role in biblical composition.
42 Already in 4Q252 (4QCommentary on Genesis A) 1:1–3, but also
a number of rabbinic texts, e.g., Targumin Onqelos and Neophyti to
Gen 6:3; Mekhilta de R. Ishmael bshalaḥ 5; Abot de R. Nathan (A)
32.
43 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 2, 297; Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 68–
69, note 79; Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 99–100.
44 As Jacob, Genesis, 177 notes, the reference to “in the land” ‫בארץ‬
in 6:4aα contrasts with the broader reference to multiplication “on the
surface of the ground” (‫ )על־פני האדמה‬in 6:1. This tightens the
association between the Nephilim mentioned in 6:4aα and the giant
inhabitants of the land of Canaan seen in Num 13:32–33; Deut 1–2;
9; and Amos 2:9.
45 Skinner, Genesis, 146; Schmidt, “Mythos im Alten
Testament,” 244. Numerous interpreters dispute this. For one cogent
example, see Seebass, “Gottessöhne und das menschliche Maß,” 7
and 10–11, who separates 6:4aα from the preceding, but then
reassociates the Nephilim and products of divine-human marriages
in 6:4aβγb via a diachronic theory regarding the latter. Cf. also, Day,
“Sons of God and Daughters of Men,” 431–33, who notes more
explicit links of divine-human unions and Nephilim in later
interpretations of Gen 6:1–4 (e.g., 1 Enoch 7:2; Jub 6:1).
46 Cf. Jacob, Genesis, 177; Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 69.
47 This overall understanding of the clause comes from a private
communication from Erhard Blum. Note also the nuanced discussion
in Bührer, “Göttersöhne und Menschentöchter,” 509.
48 Bartelmus, Heroentum, 81–114.
49 Skinner, Genesis, 140. As noted in Lemardelé, “Une
gigantomachie?” 167, the focus in Gen 6:4 on the antiquity of the
giants and heroes (“in those days” ‫ ;בימים ההם‬and ‫“ אשר מעולם‬of old”)
places them in the realm of the bygone ‫ רפאים‬spirits, which appear to
have been thought of as both giant and extinct (see Deut 3:11 on Og
of Bashan), associated in some way with ancestral worship.
50 B. Zevachim 113b; Nid. 61a; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and, more
extensively, Pirqe R. El. 23:8 and Yalqut – Noah 55. My thanks to
Malka Strasberg Edinger, a Ph.D. student at Jewish Theological
Seminary, for noting these traditions to me.
51 The non-P primeval history includes implicit or explicit etiologies
for other major characters, from Adam (Gen 2:5, 7; 3:23) to Eve
(3:21), Cain and Abel (4:1–2), Seth (4:25), Noah himself (Gen 5:29),
Noah’s other two sons, Shem’s brothers—Japheth, whose name is
linked to spreading out (9:26), and Canaan, whose name has an
implicit name etiology related to ‫כנע‬, “bow down/be humble” (9:25; cf.
Judg 4:23; Garsiel, Biblical Names, 170).
52 E.g., Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 500–501 [ET 370–71];
Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 498–506 [ET 368–74].
53 Helge S. Kvanvig, “Gen 6,1–4 as an Antediluvian Event,”
SJOT 16 (2002): 79–112 [here 89].
54 The existing copies of Atrahasis only preserve references to
human multiplication (and unhappiness of Enlil about it) before other
disasters (e.g., drought and pestilence; OB Atrahasis 1:353–359;
2.1.2–8 along with the late Assyrian recension (K 3399+3934 rev. iv
2–8; see also the speech of Enlil in the late Babylonian version (BE
39099 rev. i 2–7)). Nevertheless, it is likely that the unpreserved
lead-up to the flood in the Atrahasis epic had a similar reference.
See the arguments of 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 the Mythology,” Or 41 (1972): 160–
77.
55 Skinner, Genesis, 141–42; Kvanvig, “Gen 6,1–4 as an
Antediluvian Event,” 20. Despite the efforts of some commentators
(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.
56 The following commentary on Gen 11:1–9 will suggest that this
narrative represents a later (though still pre-Priestly) addition to the
non-P primeval history, in which case the associations noted here
may result from the composition of Gen 11:1–9 in relation to 6:1–4,
rather than the reverse.
1 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 246.
2 For citation of earlier treatments, see Wenham, Genesis 1–
15, 172. For another recent treatment (alongside Day, noted below),
see 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), 113–40.
3 Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 51.
4 On the ethical dative, see Ernst Jenni, Die hebräischen
Präpositionen, vol. 3, Die Präposition Lamed (Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 2000), 13 along with reservations noted on p. 52 about
interpreting cases like this with the verb ‫ לקח‬as such ethical datives.
The context, however, suggests that this concept may indeed apply
here and in Gen 7:2.
5 Andersen, Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, 80.
6 For review of earlier literature and discussion of this phenomenon,
see Cynthia L. Miller, “A Reconsideration of ‘Double-Duty’
Prepositions in Biblical Poetry,” JANES 31: 99–110.
7 For more discussion of remnants of multiple chronological systems
in Gen 6–9 see the following commentary and the more extended
discussion in Carr, “Meaning and Uses of the Category Diachrony.”
8 Tal, Genesis, 96*.
9 Tal, Genesis, 96*.
10 Lewis, Interpretation of Noah and the Flood, 191.
11 Seebass, Genesis I, 219.
12 Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 56.
13 For discussion of these issues, see especially Hendel, Genesis
1–11, 56; Zipor, Septuagint Genesis [Hebrew], 151.
14 For discussion, see Zipor, Septuagint Genesis [Hebrew], 152.
15 Ernst Jenni, Die hebräischen Präpositionen, vol. 1, Die
Präposition Beth (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992), 154, with note 260.
16 Alexander Ernst, “‘Wer Menschenblut vergießt..’: Zur
Übersetzung von ‫ באדם‬in Gen 9,6,” ZAW 102 (1990): 252–53; Johan
Lust, “‘For Man Shall His Blood Be Shed’: Gen 9:6 in Hebrew and in
Greek,” in Tradition of the Text (FS Barthelémy), ed. Gerard J.
Norton and Stephen Pisano, OBO 109 (Freiburg and Göttingen:
Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 1991), 91–102; and
Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 315–16. Cf. contrasting
arguments for an instrumental beth here in Jacob, Genesis, 246.
17 Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 57.
18 Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 57.
19 Much of this commentary’s discussion of chronology, and this
tabular list of dates in particular, builds on material and reflections on
flood chronology provided to me privately by Erhard Blum,
preliminarily published in Blum, Studien, 283, building on
observations in Niels Peter Lemche, “The Chronology in the Story of
the Flood,” JSOT 18 (1980): 52–62 along with the final-form reading
of the chronology of the flood narrative in Cassuto, Genesis Pt.
2, 43–45. I discuss the chronology of the Genesis flood narrative in
more detail in Carr, “Meaning and Uses of the Category Diachrony.”
20 As indicated in the parenthesis, this initial seven-day interval
before the first sending of the dove is implied in the description of
Noah’s second sending of the dove, where it is said that he waited
an “additional” (‫ )עוד‬seven days (Gen 8:10). In addition, the above
surveyed math of the current flood chronology needs this additional
seven days to have Noah’s first sending of the dove occur exactly
nine months after the flood arrived (thus implicitly 17.11 of Noah’s
600th year) and then Noah’s third and final sending of the dove fall
on or near the first of the twelfth month of Noah’s 600th year (40+
[7]+7+7=61 days after 1.10.600 in Gen 8:5b). For more discussion,
see Carr, “Meaning and Uses of the Category Diachrony.”
21 A yet more expanded treatment of these and other source-critical
matters can be found in Carr, “Meaning and Uses of the Category
Diachrony.”
22 Cassuto treats the passages in different volumes of his
commentary. See also the treatment of Gen 6:5–8 in Wenham,
Genesis 1–15, 135–37 as part of his discussion of Gen 6:1–8,
separate from the Noah/flood section beginning on pp. 138ff.
23 Though one might argue that the story of Noah and his sons (Gen
9:18–27) also should be included in this section, sustained treatment
of this block has been reserved for a separate section in this
commentary. The story of Noah and the flood has a character of its
own, and Gen 6:5–9:17 (28–29) is already quite an extended unit.
24 Schrader, Studien, 136–54; Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, 248–
76.
25 See Carr, “Meaning and Uses of the Category Diachrony,” for
more extensive treatment.
26 Cf. Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 253–54 (building others’ studies), who
argues that 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 Y . The commentary below
argues on the contrary that such an idea of ungrounded favor is
anachronistic, and 7:1b represents an elaboration of favor grounded
in a relationship that is already implied in 6:8.
27 See Carr, “Meaning and Uses of the Category Diachrony,” for
further discussion. Note in addition that P’s assertion that the
mountains appeared in Gen 8:5 does not conform with non-P’s
description of the dove finding no place to rest (Gen 8:9).
28 On the question of preservation, see Carr, Formation of the
Hebrew Bible, 88–90, 112.
29 Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, 267.
30 For particularly closely argued versions of this position see the
early study in Ska, “Relato del Diluvio” [ET: “The Story of the Flood: a
Priestly Writer and Some Later Editorial Fragments,” in The
Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic
Questions; Jean Louis Ska (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 1–22]
and the more recent formulation in Bosshard-Nepustil, Vor uns die
Sintflut, esp. 49–77.
31 The following discussion will expand on these initial examples, in
particular with regard to likely conflational additions regarding
chronology that will be identified in below in Gen 7:11*; 8:4, 5bα,
14a. Blum, Studien, 280 argues that the report of Noah’s fathering of
sons in Gen 6:10, interrupting the movement from Gen 6:9 to 6:11,
may be secondary vis-à-vis the initial report that it doubles in Gen
5:32. Nevertheless, Gertz, “Genesis 5,” 78–80 brings good
arguments to the contrary, and Gen 6:10 probably is an original part
of a Toledot book that may have included a similar doubling for
Terah’s descendants (Gen 11:26//11:27).
32 Some would go further in differentiating possible later additions
and nuances, especially in Gen 6:5–7:24. See, e.g., Gertz, Genesis
1–11, 223 and discussions across 236–274. Though some have
proposed assigning the sending of the raven in Gen 8:6 to P, good
arguments against this approach are raised in Budde, Biblische
Urgeschichte, 271 and Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 140.
33 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), 63–112 [here
65].
34 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 145.
35 Baumgart, “Gen 5,29 – ein Brückenvers,” 146–47.
36 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 145 notes that it is used only twice for
God, describing anguish caused to God by murmuring Israelites in
the wilderness (Ps 78:40; Isa 63:10). I am also indebted to
preliminary dissertation research by my student, Kay Apigo, in
highlighting the theme of divine regret at this juncture of the flood
story.
37 Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 139. Cf. Westermann,
Genesis 1–11, 66 [ET 47].
38 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 302; Strus, Nomen-Omen, 119; Sarna,
Genesis, 47.
39 The adversative here reflects the placement of Noah in front-extra
position. Seebass, Genesis I, 209.
40 I am indebted to my student, Kay Apigo, for the observation of
this opposition.
41 See, e.g., Christoph Levin, Jahwist, 105, who cites Enki-Ea’s care
for the flood hero as an analogous instance of ungrounded favor.
There, however, the flood hero is a devotée of the deity. Moreover,
biblical examples of such favor cited by Levin (e.g., Gen 18:3; 19:19;
30:27) are clear that Y ’s favor is toward a figure (e.g., Abraham,
Moses) who has proven faithful.
42 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 232, who also observes the wordplay noted
in the next sentence.
43 See 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 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 469–94 [here 481–82] for an
astute analysis of how this juxtaposition of “wiping” and “finding
favor” in the flood narrative may be appropriated from an earlier level
of the golden calf narrative, even as an apparent insertion into the
narration of that incident in Exod 32:10–14 augments these parallels
in apparent dependence on the non-P primeval history’s emphasis
on Y destroying humanity “from the surface of the ground” (‫מעל‬
‫ ;פני האדמה‬Exod 32:12).
44 See Carr, “Meaning and Uses of the Category Diachrony,” for
discussion of these and other indicators of parts of the non-P flood
narrative that were not preserved.
45 Here again, I have been particularly informed by personal
communications from Erhard Blum; cf. arguments (e.g., Krüger,
“Menschliche Herz,” 66) that Gen 7:1b only represents an assertion
of Noah’s relative righteousness vis-à-vis this generation. This
understanding, however, would be expressed by a more negative
formulation, e.g., “you are not as evil as this/your generation.” The
text that we have simply contrasts Noah’s righteousness with that of
(all) others, in this respect resembling the contrast already seen in
Gen 6:5–8.
46 For early arguments regarding an original exclusive focus on
Noah in Gen 7:7, see Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, 258; Dillmann,
Genesis, 143 [ET 276–77].
47 As noted in Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, 263–64, the note
about the arrival of the flood in Gen 7:17a, though including a non-P
like chronological indicator of forty days, probably is a modified form
of an earlier Priestly notice of the flood’s arrival.
48 Much as the order to take animals in Gen 7:2 extended to
animals, the expression “man and wife” used for human pairs in Gen
2:23–24; 3:16, so here the expression “breath of life” is applied to all
living creatures when it was reserved for humans in Gen 2:7 (cf.
2:19). Now animals with their “breath of life” experience the fate
predicted for humans in Gen 6:7: they are wiped off the face of the
ground by the forty day and night rain that was predicted in Gen 7:4.
49 Building on earlier proposals, Budde (Biblische
Urgeschichte, 267) provided the most thorough arguments that non-
P originally had the dating notice in Gen 8:6a before 8:2b (see also
Herbert Donner, “Der Redaktor: Überlegungen zum vorkritischen
Umgang mit der Heiligen Schrift,” Hennoch 2 [1980]: 1–30 [here 22]).
Nevertheless, Weimar, Redaktionsgeschichte, 143, note 122
observes that Gen 8:6a works well as an introduction to the time-
structured sending of birds (corresponding to Gen 8:10a, 12a), while
also following well on the description of receding waters in Gen
8:2b–3a.
50 The mention of Noah waiting “an additional seven days” (‫עוד‬
‫ )שבעת ימים‬before sending the dove the second time (8:10a) implies
that Noah waited seven days before sending the first. Seebass,
Genesis I, 217. Though some (e.g., Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 186)
have seen a contrast here between an unclean raven (Gen 8:6) and
a clean dove (8:7–12), it now appears as if ravens were only
included in lists of unclean birds at a late stage in the textual
tradition. On this, see Anna Angelini and Christophe Nihan, “Unclean
Birds in the Hebrew and Greek Versions of Leviticus and
Deuteronomy,” in The Textual History of Leviticus; ed. Innocent
Himbaza, OBO (Fribourg and Göttingen: Academic Press and
Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, forthcoming).
51 Jacob, Genesis, 220.
52 For arguments that non-P once contained an exit report that was
lost in conflation, see Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, 275. For the
suggestion that the non-P narrative may have left it to the reader to
assume such an exit from Noah’s building of an altar and sacrifice,
see Schrader, Studien, 147.
53 Seebass, Genesis I, 221. The close correlation of 8:21aβb and
6:5–7, the repeated ‫ עוד‬in both clauses indicating a resolve to not
“again” repeat an act like the preceding narrative, and the final back-
reference to the flood destruction (“as I have done”) all work against
Baumgart’s attempt (Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 161–62) to
interpret only the second clause about striking down all life (8:21b)
as relating to the divine resolve to not send another floodlike
destruction. Baumgart argues that the first clause, as about Y
resolving not to degrade the ground, is unconnected to the flood (or
sacrifice, see p. 168) and is instead a decision not to further curse
the ground because of human evil (versus 3:17–19; 4:11–12). In
addition to failing to acknowledge above-noted ways that all of
8:21aβb represent a reversal of 6:5–7, Baumgart’s interpretation of
8:21aβ as the end of a progressive cursing of the ground (across
3:17–19; 4:11–12) misses the fact that it is Cain that is cursed in Gen
4:11–12.
54 See Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 190–91 and Baumgart, Umkehr
des Schöpfergottes, 160 for observation of some subtle differences.
Nevertheless, it is unclear how significant these shifts are, especially
since 8:21 represents a divine resolve, in the immediate wake of the
flood, not to again degrade the (recently dried) ground on account of
human evil.
55 Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 165.
56 Jan Christian Gertz, “Noah und die Propheten: Rezeption und
Reformulierung eines altorientalischen Mythos,” Deutsche
Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und
Geistesgeschichte 81 (2007): 503–22 [here 519–22].
57 For this connection, see especially Gerlinde Baumann, “Das
Opfer nach der Sintflut für die Gottheit(en) des Alten Testaments und
des Alten Orients: Eine neue Deutung,” Verbum et Ecclesia 34
(2013): 1–7. Arguments against a link of Noah’s sacrifice and
Y ’s resolve, such as Baumgart, Umkehr des
Schöpfergottes, 168 (other sources cited there), assume too much
about the need for the divine speech to refer back to Noah’s sacrifice
and fail to interpret the close sequence of sacrifice and divine
speech in 8:20–22 within Near Eastern assumptions that sacrifices
prompted gracious divine responses.
58 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 189.
59 To be sure, this is not the destiny anticipated in Gen 5:29. Noah is
not offering comfort here “from the ground” and his act does not
provide relief from the “work and toil of our hands” mentioned there
(cf. 3:17–19). Nevertheless, the implicit play on Noah’s name in Gen
8:20–21 provides another narrative interpretation of the significance
of Noah’s name, this one centering his name on his role as flood
hero and sacrificer in averting a future world catastrophe.
60 For interpretations stressing this link, see, e.g., Dillmann,
Genesis, 115–16 [ET 228]; Rendtorff, “Gen 8,21”; Howard Wallace,
“The Toledot of Adam,” in Studies in the Pentateuch, ed. John A.
Emerton, VTSup 41 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 37–56 [here 26–29];
Baumgart, “Gen 5,29 – ein Brückenvers,” 33–35. This commentary
(see discussions of Gen 5:29 and 9:20–27) argues that this link,
though present, is a secondary reinterpretation of the anticipation of
the story of Noah and his sons (Gen 9:20–27) in Gen 5:29.
61 These arguments militate against an approach such as that in
Adrian Schenker, “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.
62 See the commentary on translation of 7:22 above for comment on
the apparent harmonizing plus in the MT and Samaritan Pentateuch
of ‫( רוח‬vis-à-vis the LXX, Vulgate).
63 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 144.
64 In particular, this treatment of the non-P flood chronology is
dependent on prior, unpublished reflections on the topic shared with
me (and shared here with permission) by Erhard Blum.
65 These overlaps are discussed in my Formation of Genesis 1–11,
154–55.
66 Originally advanced in Othmar Keel, “JHWH in der Rolle der
Muttergottheit,” Or 53 (1989): 89–92. For broader citations and
discussion, see Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 441–47;
Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel, 333–34.
67 A more expansive treatment can be found in Carr, Formation of
Genesis 1–11, 159–174.
68 Strus, Nomen-Omen, 137; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 189; Garsiel,
Biblical Names, 203–4; Baumgart, Umkehr des
Schöpfergottes, 159–60, 186.
69 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 144. I refer to “Noah’s father” here
because of lack of clarity on whether non-P originally presented
Lamech as Noah’s father or another figure.
70 See especially the discussion in Robert Oberforcher, Der
Flutprolog als Kompositionsschlüssel der biblischen Urgeschichte,
Innsbrucker theologische Studien 8 (Innsbruck: Tyrolia Verlag,
1981), 433–35 who notes a similar play on different senses of ‫שחת‬
(“ruin”) in Jer 13:7, 9 and then also Jer 18:1–11 (the ruined pot).
71 On the prophetic echoes see the classic essay (focused on Amos
8:2) in Rudolf 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 along with discussion and more recent literature
emphasizing connections of multiple parts of Gen 6:13 to elements
in Ezekiel in Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 218–19
(including note 94).
72 Stipp, “Mitverantwortung der Tierwelt.,” especially 170–178.
73 As noted in Seebass, Genesis I, 210 (building on Smend,
“Ende”), the link of violence and the end already appears in early
prophetic literature like Amos. Nevertheless, as discussed in detail in
Oberforcher, Flutprolog, 422–35, we see a particularly similar play on
different forms and meanings of ‫ שחת‬in Jeremiah and Ezekiel,
particularly Jer 13:7, 9 and Jer 18:1–11.
74 Notably, the ark’s three-level construction (Gen 6:16) may echo
the implicit three-level character of the cosmos in Genesis 1 (with
earth between a lower ocean and an upper ocean held up by the
heavenly plate). See below for clearer textual parallels between P in
Gen 6–9 and Gen 1.
75 See Jacob, Genesis, 190–93 for some more detailed proposals of
correspondences between the dimensions of the ark and tabernacle.
Jacob was one of the first to develop these parallels that have been
expanded on by others. Jonathan Robker (personal communication)
notes that the ark at 450,000 cubits3 also turns out to be
volumetrically 150 times larger than the tabernacle at 3000 cubits3,
an interesting conjunction of the spatial measures focalized in Gen
6:15 and the 150-unit temporal unit central to P’s flood chronology
(e.g., Gen 7:24; 8:3; implicitly Gen 8:5).
76 See Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 232–41 for a very
useful synthesis and expansion on prior studies of links between the
P flood story and tabernacle narrative, along with citations of earlier
studies. Baumgart also notes the association of both narratives with
the “tops” of mountains (Gen 8:5; Exod 24:17) and New Years
datings toward their conclusions (Gen 8:13; Exod 40:17) that
implicitly connect both construction projects to creation. I will discuss
the New Year motifs at more length below.
77 Notably, the rare word used for this ark, ‫תבה‬, is an Egyptian loan-
word for chest, and only occurs elsewhere in the story of Moses’s
mother placing infant Moses in a chest to float on the Nile (Exod 2:3,
5). This highlights the particular function of the ark as an enclosed
space to protect life within a broader, watery chaos.
78 Janowski, “Herrschaft über die Tiere,” 195; Baumgart, Umkehr
des Schöpfergottes, 261–62, 264.
79 Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 263, 267–71.
80 Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 256–59.
81 Here and elsewhere in this section I draw on more detailed
discussions of the chronology of the flood in Carr, “Meaning and
Uses of the Category Diachrony.”
82 I am indebted to a personal communication from Liane Feldman
(March 27, 2019) for the observation of this parallel.
83 Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 256–59.
84 Jacob, Genesis, 206.
85 Skinner, Genesis, 165; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 182–83.
86 On the parallels and slight terminological divergences, see Jacob,
Genesis, 210. The listing distinguishes between the types of animals
(all introduced with ‫“ ב‬among”) and a final simple listing of humans
using the distinctive expression ‫כל־האדם‬.
87 Notably, the members of Noah’s family are not included in this list,
in contrast, for example, to the clear inclusion of Noah’s sons among
the addressees in the speech-report introductions in Gen 9:1 and 9:8
(cf. 9:17).
88 Jacob, Genesis, 112; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 184.
89 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 103.
90 As Liane Feldman pointed out to me in a personal communication
(March 27, 2019), the Priestly notice that Noah lived 950 years in
Gen 9:29 only coordinates properly with the earlier Priestly age
notices (Gen 7:6; 9:28) if the beginning of the post-flood period
begins already on the first day of his 601st year, thus coordinating
with Gen 8:13 and not the likely conflational notice in Gen 8:14. If the
flood only fully ends on the 47th day of Noah’s 601st year, then a
subsequent 350 years (Gen 9:28) would take his lifespan partway
into his 951st year.
91 See Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 2, 103; Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 266–67
for reflections on how Gen 8:4 might link with P’s descriptions of the
height of the ark (Gen 6:15) and height of the waters over the
mountains (Gen 7:20).
92 Bernd Janowski, “Tempel und Schöpfung.
Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen
Heiligtumskonzeption,” JBTh 5 (1990): 37–69 [here 55]; Thomas
Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift: Beobachtungen zur
Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg, WMANT 70
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), 124–25, note 350;
Zenger, Gottes Bogen, 173, note 22; Baumgart, Umkehr des
Schöpfergottes, 540–41.
93 Jacob, Genesis, 225, here, as often, adapting earlier rabbinic
observations.
94 Notably, in contrast to the description of the animals’ entry to the
ark, the animals no longer come “to Noah” (Gen 7:15).
95 See the translation note on Gen 9:7 (7a) above for discussion.
96 For ‫ דרש‬as “require” see Jacob, Genesis, 245 and (more recently)
Gesenius18 261 “einfordern, jemandes Blut (als Bluträcher)
einfordern.”
97 The chart below and overall discussion of Gen 9:1–7 in relation to
Gen 1:1–2:3 is informed particularly by Baumgart, Umkehr des
Schöpfergottes, 363–81.
98 Jacques Chopineau, Quand le texte devient parole, Analecta
Bruxellensia 6 (Bruxelles: Faculté Univ. de Théologie Protestante,
2001), 7–8. This parallel is a primary reason for doubting the
arguments of Seebass, Genesis I, 223; Baumgart, Umkehr des
Schöpfergottes, 370; Stipp, “Mitverantwortung der Tierwelt,” 169
(among others) that ‫ חית הארץ‬in 9:2 refers to wild animals. Rather it
seems to be a global category that is then specified by the three
habitats that follow, in correspondence with those named in Gen
1:28 and with the same emphasis in Gen 1:28 on land animals as
those that “creep” (‫ )רמש‬on the earth. In addition, insofar as Gen 9:3
is formulated in a parallel way to 9:2 and seems to elaborate it (see
commentary), domestic animals certainly are included among those
that humans now can eat.
99 See especially Edward Lipinski, “‫ ”נתן‬ThWAT V, 693–712 (here
699) [ET 90–107, here 95–96] along with McEvenue, Narrative Style
of the Priestly Writer, 68; Seebass, Genesis I, 222; Baumgart,
Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 376.
100 See Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 307–8 for
additional observations on how 9:3 emphasizes the plentitude of
animal food for animals.
101 Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 370–74.
102 Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 319–20 against
concessive readings of this verse.
103 Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 315–21, 350–62.
104 Here building on the discussion in Baumgart, Umkehr des
Schöpfergottes, particularly 240–251, 352–359. The question of the
specific intertextual relation of P’s Noah/flood narrative to non-P will
be addressed in the conclusion to this section.
105 Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 321.
106 Gunkel, Genesis, 150 [ET 150]; Skinner, Genesis, 171; Speiser,
Genesis, 57.
107 Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 322.
108 Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel, 267.
109 Zenger, Gottes Bogen, 124–31; Udo Rüterswörden, Dominium
terrae: Studien zur Genese einer alttestamentlichen Vorstellung,
BZAW 215 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1993), 131–54.
110 Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 339.
111 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 196; Seebass, Genesis I, 227;
Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 346.
112 Jacob, Genesis, 245–46; Baumgart, Umkehr des
Schöpfergottes, 347–62.
113 In addition, there is one more subtle difference. Where Y in
non-P promises to exact a sevenfold revenge against anyone who
strikes Cain (Gen 4:15), God in P appears to decree a more limited
retaliation against the animal or human murderer of a human in Gen
9:5–6a.
114 Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 305.
115 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 184. In addition, the 30-day schematic
month that is so central to P’s chronological system (e.g., Gen 7:24;
8:3, 5) may be modelled on the 30-day month used in the
administrative version of the Babylonian calendar (on this latter see
John Steele, “Making Sense of Time: Observational and Theoretical
Calendars,” in K. Radner and E. Robson, The Oxford Handbook of
Cuneiform Culture [New York: Oxford, 2011], 470–85 (here 470–71).
This 30-day scheme is featured in the Enuma Elish Epic (V:1–22)
that is also echoed by P in Gen 1. Egypt, however, also had a
calendar of twelve thirty-day months (each comprised of three ten-
day units, with 5 added epagomenal days to round out a year). See
Alexandra von Lieven “Divine Figurations of Time in Ancient Egypt,”
in Jonathan Ben-Dov and Lutz Doering (eds), The Construction of
Time in Antiquity: Ritual, Art and Identity (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2017), 97–123 (here 98–99).
116 Another potential echo is an appropriation of the idea that the
ark was constructed at the New Year seen in the Gilgamesh iteration
of the flood tradition (SB Gilg. 11:75) in the distinctive new-year like
chronology in the Priestly layer of the flood, dating the flood across
Noah’s 600th year (e.g., Gen 7:6; 8:13). This element, however, also
could derive from the pre-P Toledot book, which shows other signs of
dependance on the Babylonian sexagesimal system where 600 is a
fundamental unit (the ner). See my Formation of Genesis 1–11, 106
(with note 61), 158 for review and critical appropriation of broader
proposals about such appropriation.
117 See the list of doublets above, p. 234. For an additional list
stressing the most specific parallels, see Baumgart, Umkehr des
Schöpfergottes, 405–6. There is also an more approximate parallel
between the formulation of P’s depiction of Y calling on Noah to
‫“( תקח־לך‬take” with the ethical dative “you now”) animals onto the ark
(Gen 7:2) and P’s use of a similar ethical dative depicting God telling
Noah to ‫“( קח־לך‬you, take”) food onto the ark.
118 Cf. later mentions of the ‫ מבול‬in P (Gen 7:17a; 9:11, 15) and the
discussion in McEvenue, Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer, 26.
119 Stipp, “Mitverantwortung der Tierwelt.”
120 These and other potential links of the P and non-P flood
narratives are listed and discussed in Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–
11, 157–59.
121 As noted in Seebass, Genesis I, 209, the author of these
catalogues appears sensitive to the narrative context, omitting fish
since a flood would not kill them.
122 Richelle, “Structure littéraire de l’Histoire Primitive,” 4.
123 Bosshard-Nepustil, Vor uns die Sintflut, 66–69.
124 Blum, Studien, 283–84 with note 210.
125 As noted in Blum, Studien, 283, there is a somewhat similar
combination of P and non-P at the outset of the flood narrative,
where Y ’s self-reflection in Gen 6:5–7(8)—along with the
Priestly general description of affairs in Gen 6:9–12—sets the stage
for God’s speech to Noah in Gen 6:13–21, with P’s description of
Noah’s righteousness in Gen 6:9 readable as a
concretization/explanation of him finding favor with Y in Gen 6:8.
126 See Todd L. Patterson, The Plot Structure of Genesis: ‘Will the
Righteous Seed Survive?’ in the Muthos-logical Movement from
Complication to Dénouement, BibInt 160 (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 74–80
for survey of earlier concentric approaches and proposal of his own.
Compare critiques of such approaches in John Emerton, “An
Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood
Narrative in Genesis: Part 1,” VT 37 (1987): 406–7; idem. “An
Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood
Narrative in Genesis: Part 2,” VT 38 (1988): 6–11, 15–20.
127 Here I anticipate some broader trends emerging in a doctoral
dissertation being completed at Union Theological Seminary by Kay
Apigo, preliminarily titled “Yahweh’s Flood, Noah’s Ark: Adaptations
of the Genesis Flood Story Then and Now.”
128 Information on these groups was accessed on January 17, 2020
from www.operationnoah.org www.noah.dk. The Priestly depiction of
Noah as exhibiting God’s ideal for humanity in preserving all life
forms together (Gen 1:26–29; 7:13–16a; 8:17–19) is a particular
resource for this sort of linkage of the Bible to contemporary
ecological concerns.
129 See, e.g., Wylie Allen Carr et al., “The Faithful Skeptics:
Evangelical Religious Beliefs and Perceptions of Climate Change,”
Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture 6 (2012): 276–
99, especially p. 285. Examples can be found across the web of
pastors and other believers advocating similar positions.
130 For example, environmental crisis is a regular topic each Fall in
numerous Jewish sermons on the Noah pericope in the annual
Torah-reading cycle.
131 Note the thoughtful reading of the flood narrative in relation to
the sixth extinction and questions of population growth in Ken Stone,
Reading the Hebrew Bible with Animal Studies (Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press, 2018), 173–76.
1 Theodor Nöldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments
(Kiel: Schwers’sche Buchhandlung, 1869), 13, 143; Staerk,
“Alttestamentlichen Literarkritik,” 40; Witte, Biblische
Urgeschichte, 100–102.
2 Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 100–105, 186–89; DePury, “Sem,
Cham et Japhet,” 503–5; Jan Christian Gertz, “Hams Sündenfall und
Kanaans Erbfluch: Anmerkungen zur kompositionsgeschichtlichen
Stellung von Genesis 9” 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), 81–95.
3 On this, with Gertz, “Genesis 5,” 78–79 it should be noted that P
features an additional fathering of three sons implicitly dated to one
year in Gen 11:26. This may have been modelled on Gen 5:32; 9:18.
For more extensive discussion of the status of Gen 9:18, see Carr,
Formation of Genesis 1–11, 125–127.
4 Here again, fuller arguments (and responses to arguments for the
post-P character of Gen 9:18, 19 and 20–27) are provided in Carr,
Formation of Genesis 1–11, 124–129.
5 Consider, for example, Enkidu’s initiation into beer by Šamḫat in
Gilgamesh (OB Gilg. II [Penn] 3.98–104), Enki’s gift of the ME to
Inanna after getting drunk in Inana and Enki (ETCSL 1.3.1), and
Enki’s creation of people with disabilities after getting drunk in Enki
and Ninmah 52–110 (ETCSL 1.1.2). I am indebted to a private
communication from Esther Hamori for notation of these texts as
comparison points with Gen 9:20–27. For a broader survey of
various ancient Near Eastern depictions of drunken gods, see
Dubach, Trunkenheit im Alten Testament, 168–75.
6 See, e.g., Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 14; Gunkel,
Genesis, 78 [ET 79].
7 See, e.g., Cuthbert A Simpson, The Early Traditions of Israel: A
Critical Analysis of the Pre-Deuteronomic Narrative of the Hexateuch
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1948), 63–64. A weakness of this first approach
(9:18–19 as P or post-P; Ham as a conflational addition to Gen
9:20–27) is that it has some difficulty explaining the origins and
rationale behind the non-P genealogy of Egypt’s descendants in Gen
10:13–14 (cf. Simpson’s bracketing of this text on p. 66).
8 A key weakness of this latter approach (Ham added to a pre-P
Gen 9:18–27) is the fact that we have no preserved non-P report of
Ham fathering Egypt. See Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 180–81
for arguments that an original non-P report of Ham’s fathering of
Egypt was eliminated by the conflator-author of Gen 10 in order to
avoid conflict with the nearby Priestly listing of Ham’s descendants
(Gen 10:6).
9 In this respect, note that Ham’s name might be obliquely
anticipated in the mention of ‫“( חֹ ם‬heat”) in Y ’s poem at the end
of the preceding non-P flood story (Gen 8:22). If so, the connection
is left on the level of an unexplicit midrashic name derivation of the
sort discussed in Garsiel, Biblical Names (cf. Garsiel p. 86 and 140–
141 for proposals of other midrashic name derivations related to
Ham). The reason for his placement in the middle of the listing of
Noah’s sons is unclear, but it may have been prompted in part by a
growing emphasis in non-P on Ham and Shem’s offspring, while no
offspring (or few) were attributed to Japheth. See Carr, Formation of
Genesis 1–11, 218 for brief discussion of the diachronic status of the
phrase “who came out of the ark” (‫ )היצאים מן־התבה‬in Gen 9:18.
10 Notably there is no emphasis in either Gen 9:19 or 11:1–9 on
humanity filling that earth, such that they might function as post-
Priestly fulfillments of the Priestly multiplication blessing (Gen 1:28;
9:1). For fuller discussion of this and other diachronic issues
surrounding Gen 9:19 and 11:1–9, see Carr, Formation of Genesis
1–11, 204–208 along with the following commentary on Gen 11:1–9.
11 For a survey and response to objections, already among rabbinic
interpreters, that Noah’s name ‫ נח‬is too unlike the verb ‫ נחם‬for this
explanation to work, see Garsiel, Biblical Names, 32, 203–4.
12 For fuller discussion and texts, see Rüdiger Lux, “Noah und der
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 (Institut Kirche und Judentum, 1988), 109–35 [here
118–19]. For broader discussion of biblical and other ancient Near
Eastern texts linking drunkenness and sexuality, see the survey in
Dubach, Trunkenheit im Alten Testament, 214–25.
13 Blum, “Urgeschichte,” 439–40.
14 See, e.g., Lev 20:17. Cf. also “reveal nakedness” [‫ גלה ערוה‬in Lev
18:6–19; 20:11, 18–21.
15 Frederick Bassett, “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan,
a Case of Incest?” VT 21 (1971): 232–37; DePury, “Sem, Cham et
Japhet,” 204–5; John S. Bergsma and Scott W. Hahn, “Noah’s
Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan (Genesis 9:20–27),” JBL 124
(2005): 25–40. See especially the latter for an overview of other
proposals.
16 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 199–200; Seebass, Genesis I, 246.
17 For surveys and discussion of relevant ancient material, see Jan
L. Verbruggen, “Filial Duties in the Ancient Near East,” Ph.D. diss.
(Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins, 1997); Eckart Otto,
“Altersversorgung im Alten Orient und in der Bibel,” in
Altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte: Gesammelte
Studien; by Eckart Otto, BZAR 8 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag,
2008 [1995 original]), 367–93 [here 367–80]. For more discussion of
this term “filial obligation” and other references, see my Formation of
Genesis 1–11, 122–124.
18 KTU 1.17 I:27–34, 45–49; II:1–8, 16–23. Translation is from
Verbruggen, “Filial Duties,” 234, who surveys scholarship on this
multiply-repeated list and agrees with studies seeing it as an earlier
tradition embedded in the epic (pp. 233–34, especially note 146).
19 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), 379–87 [here
384–85].
20 On the ancient significance of nakedness see Hartenstein,
“Beobachtungen.” and more recent discussions in Christoph Berner
et al., eds. Clothing and Nudity in the Hebrew Bible: A Handbook
(London: T&T Clark, 2019).
21 On such implicit wordplays, see more generally Garsiel, Biblical
Names, with specific discussion of this case on p. 170.
22 See Jacob, Genesis, 265, who adds some less comparable
examples.
23 On the “God of Israel” epithet that this formulation may echo, see
Michael Stahl, The ‘God of Israel’ in History and Tradition, VTSup
(Leiden: Brill, Forthcoming).
24 Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 14–15 and more
extensive recent argument in 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), 137–53 [here 144–47].
25 Cf. Baumgart, Umkehr des Schöpfergottes, 13, who argues that
the non-P primeval history does not focus on specific socio-political
groups until Gen 10.
26 As suggested in Brad Embry, “The ‘Naked Narrative’ from Noah
to Leviticus: Reassessing Voyeurism in the Account of Noah’s
Nakedness in Genesis 9.22–24,” JSOT 35 (2011): 417–33, it may be
that idiom seen in these texts in Leviticus represent a Holiness
school interpretation of the current complex form of Gen 9:20–27
(combined with the story of Lot and his daughters in Gen 19),
presupposing an interpretation of Noah’s extreme curse of his
grandson in Gen 9:25 to be the result of some kind of sexual sin by
that son’s father. As such, these texts then would stand as the first of
a long-line of sexualized interpretations of the story. Further
exploration of this thesis, however, pertains more to Lev 18.
27 For a recent example, see, e.g., Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible
and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville:
Abingdon, 2001), 63–71.
28 For broader surveys of use of the “curse of Ham” to support and
develop racist ideology, see Stephen R. Haynes, Noah’s Curse: The
Biblical Justification of American Slavery (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2002) and Kidd, Forging of Races, especially 39-
41, 67-71, 75, 138-41, 235-7. For analysis of rabbinic traditions on
Ham, see David H. Aaron, “Early Rabbinic Exegesis on Noah’s Son
Ham and the So-Called ‘Hamatic Myth’,” JAAR 63 (1995): 735–49
29 Kidd, Forging of Races, 221.
30 Runions, Babylon Complex, 62–68.
31 For questions about the wisdom of such a “reparative reading,”
see Knust, “Canaan’s Curse.”
1 See, e.g., Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 58–59.
2 Andersen, Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, 88.
3 See the brief discussion in Day, “Tower and City of Babel
Story,” 166 and (for linguistic background on the two renderings)
David S. Vanderhooft, “Babylonia and the Babylonians,” in The
World around the Old Testament, ed. Bill T. Arnold and Brent A.
Strawn (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2019), 107–37 [here
108].
4 Jericke, Die Ortsangaben im Buch Genesis, 46.
5 John A. Thompson, “Samaritan Evidence for ‘all of them in the land
of Shinar’,” JBL 90 (1971): 99–102 [here 101–2].
6 William F. Albright, “The End of ‘Calneh in Shinar’,” JNES 3
(1944): 254–55. For another perspective, see Abramsky, “Nimrod
and the Land of Nimrod I [Heb],” 244.
7 Abramsky, “Nimrod and the Land of Nimrod I [Heb],” 240;
Seebass, Genesis I, 260; Day, “Nimrod,” 104.
8 Jack M. Sasson, “Reḥōvōt ʿîr,” RB 90 (1983): 94–96 and Van der
Toorn and Van der Horst, “Nimrod,” 5. For earlier arguments for the
character of ‫ רחבת עיר‬as a further description of Nineveh see also
Edward Lipinski, “Nimrod et Assur,” RB 73 (1966): 84–85 and
Abramsky, “Nimrod and the Land of Nimrod I [Heb],” 247–48.
9 On questions surrounding the referent of the clause see Jacob,
Genesis, 284; Abramsky, “Nimrod and the Land of Nimrod I
[Heb],” 247–49; Seebass, Genesis I, 260 and Hurowitz, “In Search of
Resen,” 522.
10 Examples include Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 693 (ET 519);
Witte, “Völkertafel.”
11 Note a similarly clipped formulation of birth report in Gen 6:4,
which also lacks explicit mention of the offspring produced by a
figure—‫“( וילדו להם‬They bore [offspring] to them”).
12 Tal, Genesis, 104–5*.
13 As noted in Dillmann, Genesis, 324 [ET 170] various arbitrary
shifts in counting peoples are required to harmonize Gen 10 with the
tradition of 70 nations, and one can only arrive somewhat close to
that number by considering the conflate text.
14 Kidd, The Forging of Race, 20 argues that Genesis 10 was “the
most influential passage of scripture” in this European project, even
as the stories of Cain and Ham also played important functions.
15 See the essays in Anthony B. Pinn and Allen Dwight Callahan,
eds., African American Religious Life and the Story of Nimrod (New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).
16 Jacob, Genesis, 187; Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 187; Gustav
Hölscher, Drei Erdkarten. Ein Beitrag zur Erkenntnis des
hebräischen Altertums (Heidelberg: Winter, 1949), 187.
17 See, e.g., Levin, Jahwist, 124.
18 See, e.g., Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 105–16; DePury, “Sem,
Cham et Japhet,” 508; Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 302–3, 317–20, 324–
25.
19 Though some (including myself in Reading the Fractures, 99–
101) stressed the awkwardness that a separate P source would
have featured an awkward juxtaposition between a Priestly section
surveying the sons of Shem, including Arpachshad (Gen 10:22[–23,
31–32]) and an immediately following Priestly report of Shem’s
fathering of Arpachshad (Gen 11:10). Nevertheless, it appears that
such awkwardness was tolerated as part of a Priestly move from its
list-like demonstration of the filling of the entire earth with
descendants of Noah’s sons preserved in much of Gen 10 to a
telescopic focus in Gen 11:10–26 (likely originating from an earlier
Toledot book source) on those descendants of Shem that would lead
to Abraham’s father, Terah, and P’s account of the ancestors of
Israel.
20 Jericke, Die Ortsangaben im Buch Genesis, 113–21.
21 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 227; Baumgart, Umkehr des
Schöpfergottes, 20–21; Hieke, Genealogien der Genesis, 108;
Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel, 377.
22 See already Dillmann, Genesis, 164 [ET 313].
23 Here in particular, the reader can consult chapter seven of my
Formation of Genesis 1–11 (especially pp. 189–193, 203–204, and
208–216) for more detailed discussion of these sections.
24 E.g., Smend (Sr.), Erzählung des Hexateuch, 24; Christoph Levin,
Jahwist, 125; Seebass, Genesis I, 266. I argue in Formation of
Genesis 1–11, 214–216 that the addition (whether pre- or post-
Priestly) encompassed all of Gen 10:16–19.
25 Examples of prior scholars identifying 10:13–14 as a secondary
addition to the non-P (J) overview of humanity include, e.g., Smend
(Sr.), Erzählung des Hexateuch, 24; Westermann, Genesis 1–
11, 692 [ET 518–19]; Christoph Levin, Jahwist, 125; Seebass,
Genesis I, 266.
26 See Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 214–218 for discussion of
options for both texts. In this commentary, Gen 10:16–19 is treated
as a likely pre-P text, while Gen 10:24–25 is seen as more likely
conflational, the assignments for these texts could be revised without
much impact on the overall discussion.
27 Abramsky, “Nimrod and the Land of Nimrod I [Heb],” 241.
28 See, in particular, Hurowitz, “In Search of Resen.” Hurowitz 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 Dillmann, Genesis, 185 [ET 352]. Comparison of 1 Sam 10:12
(citing an apparently oral “proverb” ‫ )משל‬and of the same saying in
1 Sam 19:24 (‫ )על־כן יאמר‬suggests that the formula used here
generally introduced oral sayings, unless otherwise specified. Jacob,
Genesis, 251 argues that the formula specifically refers to citations
from books, noting that Num 21:14 is written in a way that suggests
that a citation from a scroll required explicit mention of it.
30 Note also link to Ninurta and Marduk in this respect. See
Abramsky, “Nimrod and the Land of Nimrod I [Heb],” 250.
31 Here see especially the critique in Day, “Nimrod,” 100–101.
32 An additional possible point of contrast between Nimrod and Cain
could be that Cain is reported in present textual traditions as the
builder of the first city (Gen 4:17) and Nimrod is likewise reported to
have built cities (Gen 10:11–12). Nevertheless, as was discussed in
the commentary on Gen 4:17, there is a strong likelihood that the
original text of Gen 4:17 had Hennoch, not Irad, as the actual builder
of the first city.
33 Jacob, Genesis, 281; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 223 based
particularly on analogous function of ‫ לאלהים‬in Jonah 3:3. See also
the discussion of similar expressions in Abramsky, “Nimrod and the
Land of Nimrod II [Heb],” 321. This approach contrasts with the
discussion in Mary Katherine Hom, “‘…A Mighty Hunter before
YHWH’: Genesis 10:9 and the Moral-Theological Evaluation of
Nimrod,” VT 60 (2010): 63–68, who does not appear aware of these
earlier treatments.
34 See, e.g., Philo, QG 2:82 and other sources surveyed in Kugel,
Traditions of the Bible, 230–32.
35 Here I depend particularly on Abramsky, “Nimrod and the Land of
Nimrod I [Heb].”
36 Note also link to Ninurta and Marduk in this respect. See
Abramsky, “Nimrod and the Land of Nimrod I [Heb],” 250.
37 For this basic understanding of Nimrod (as a synthesis of various
Mesopotamian figures and motifs) and arguments against specific
associations of the figure of Nimrod with any of these figures, see
Abramsky, “Nimrod and the Land of Nimrod I [Heb].” This approach
fundamentally undermines attempts to identify a specific figure
standing behind the biblical figure of Nimrod—such as Marduk (e.g.,
Lipinski, “Nimrod et Assur,” 78–82), Ninurta (e.g., Van der Toorn and
Van der Horst, “Nimrod,” 8–12; Day, “Nimrod,” 99–100 [with an
updated survey of options, 96–99]), Gilgamesh (e.g., Skinner,
Genesis, 209), Tukulti-Ninurta (e.g., Ephraim A. Speiser, “In Search
of Nimrod,” EI 5 [1958]: 32*–36* [here 34*–36*]) or a blend of
Naram-Sin and Sargon (e.g., Yigal Levin, “Nimrod the Mighty King of
Kish, King of Sumer and Akkad,” VT 52 [2002]: 350–66 [here 359–
61]). Together these approaches have merit because 10:8–12
synthesizes elements from these diverse Mesopotamian traditions in
its concise depiction of “Nimrod” as the true first king and builder of
Assyrian super-cities.
38 Jacob, Genesis, 286.
39 Though the “Hittites” were a Bronze age empire centered in Syria
to the north of Israel, a number of biblical narratives about
interactions with pre-Israelite characters in Canaan identify those
characters as “Hittite” (e.g., P in Gen 23; stories of Uriah the Hittite in
2 Sam 11–12). By this point it is not clear what, if any, this “Hittite”
designation has to do with the earlier Hittite kingdom, and it seems
that the term “Hittite” came to function many contexts as a term for
pre-Israelite inhabitants of Canaan or a subgroup thereof.
40 This understanding of the relation of the unspecified subject and
passive verb in Gen 10:21 building on the preceding verse in 10:15
is preferable to an understanding like that in Gertz, Genesis 1–
11, 324 that takes 10:21 as dependent on and presupposing the
following verse (10:22).
41 See already Jacob, Genesis, 289–90.
42 To be sure, we see one more such passive formulation in the
report of birth of Peleg and Joktan to Eber in Gen 10:25. This report,
which uses the same passive qal form seen in Gen 10:21 and could
be seen as a continuation of it, might be taken as an additional non-
P element focusing on the importance of Eber’s sons. Other
indicators discussed below, however, suggest that Gen 10:25
probably represents a post-Priestly imitation of the formulation in
Gen 10:21.
43 For discussion, see Klaus Koch, “Die Hebräer vom Auszug aus
Ägypten bis zum Großreich Davids,” VT 19 (1969): 37–81 [here 45–
49].
44 The inclusion of Sidon sharply distinguishes the picture in Gen
9:20–27; 10:15 from the tradition of enslavement of pre-Israelite
peoples in 1 Kgs 9:20–21//2 Chr 8:7–8, even though they have the
theme of Israelite enslavement 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.
45 Jericke, Die Ortsangaben im Buch Genesis, 76–79.
46 Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 697–98 [ET 522–23].
47 Thomas Staubli, “Verortungen im Weltganzen: Die
Geschlechterfolgen der Urgeschichte mit einem ikonographischen
Exkurs zur Völkertafel,” BK 58 (2003): 20–29 [here 25–29].
48 Richard S. Hess, Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis 1–
11, AOAT 234 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993), 251–
53; 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), 23–40 [here 31–32].
49 As noted in Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 196–197, the non-P
like additional note in Gen 10:1b that Noah’s grandsons were born
after the flood was likely added to P’s Toledot superscription at the
conflation stage, when the non-P story of Noah and his sons (Gen
9:20–27) newly interrupted the original movement from P’s flood
story (Gen 9:1–17) to P’s overview of post-flood humanity in Gen
10*.
50 Tuch, Genesis, 371 [194]; DePury, “Sem, Cham et Japhet,” 500.
51 For analysis and interpretation of differences between these
summaries, see, e.g., 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), 67–79 [here 70–72]; Hieke, Genealogien der Genesis, 107ְ.
52 See Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 197–199 for a proposal for
how this adaptation took place.
53 See, e.g., Skinner, Genesis, 205.
54 Jacob, Genesis, 294; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 193; Christophe
Nihan, “L’écrit sacerdotal entre mythe et histoire,” in Ancient and
Modern Scriptural Historiography/ L’historiographie biblique,
ancienne et moderne, ed. George J. Brooke and Thomas Römer,
BETL 207 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2007), 151–90 [here
180–81].
55 Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel, 373; Amanda
Beckenstein Mbuvi, Belonging in Genesis: Biblical Israel and the
Politics of Identity Formation (Waco, TX: Baylor University,
2016), 43.
56 As will be discussed in this commentary’s treatment of Gen 11:1–
9, that story resembles P’s post-flood genealogy in its depiction of
the deity (Y ) as causing human dispersion (‫ פוץ‬hiphil, Gen
11:8a, 9b; cf. also ‫ נפץ‬Gen 9:19). Yet, where that pre-Priestly story
depicted Y as causing dispersion through imposing on humanity
a confusion of their originally unified tongue (11:6–9) such that they
are no longer “one people who all have one speech” (Gen 11:5), P
depicts God as behind this process in Gen 10* through giving
humans an empowering blessing to multiply (Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7).
57 Lux, “Genealogie,” 38.
58 Jericke, Die Ortsangaben im Buch Genesis, 74.
59 For discussion of how P appears to presuppose the expanded
form of non-P, see Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 220–21.
60 On these links of P in Gen 10 to Jeremiah and Ezekiel, see
already Dillmann, Genesis, 166 [ET 316–17]. See note 20 on p. 259
of chapter nine of my Formation of Genesis 1–11 for citation of some
others.
61 For more discussion of these cases, see my Formation of
Genesis 1–11, 208–213.
62 Jericke, Die Ortsangaben im Buch Genesis, 113–21.
63 In addition, the present text contains a note about the birth of
Noah’s grandsons after the flood in Gen 10:1b, likely added at the
point of conflation to link Gen 10 back to the flood last discussed in
Gen 9:1–17. Moreover, there is evidence for revision of an original
Priestly summary for Japheth in Gen 10:5 from a form closer to that
seen for Ham and Shem in Gen 10:20 and 31 respectively. For
treatment of these cases, see Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11,
196–99.
64 Jacob, Genesis, 273; Jericke, Die Ortsangaben im Buch
Genesis, 75. For an overview of the depth of the lines, see Hieke,
Genealogien der Genesis, 100.
65 In Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 214–216 I discuss some
indicators that might point to post-Priestly authorship of Gen 10:16–
19. In particular, four of the five cities listed as part of the eastern
border of the Canaanites in Gen 10:19 overlap with four of the five
cities mentioned as part of the Canaanite coalition in Gen 14, a
chapter often identified as post-Priestly. Jericke, Die Ortsangaben im
Buch Genesis, 18–19, 76–77.
66 For earlier proposals along these lines, see, e.g., Dillmann,
Genesis, 164 [ET 313]; Gunkel, Genesis, 84 [ET 85].
67 Various loci in southwestern Arabia have been proposed for
“Mesha,” “Sephar,” and the “eastern mountain(s),” but all mainly
extrapolate from the southwestern Arabian links of the preceding
name list and none have achieved consensus. Jericke, Die
Ortsangaben im Buch Genesis, 65–68.
68 It should be noted that there are some signs that the note in Gen
25:18 about Ishmael’s settlement outside the land is a later addition
to its context that was made in light of both P and non-P (see Carr,
Reading the Fractures, 108, note 59 and 109 note 62).
69 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 227; Baumgart, Umkehr des
Schöpfergottes, 20–21; Hieke, Genealogien der Genesis, 108;
Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel, 377 and the more
extended discussion of problems surrounding Gen 10:24–30 in
chapter seven of Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 194–196, 216–
218.
70 See Witte, Biblische Urgeschichte, 106–7 and idem. Völkertafel
(section 2.3) for discussion of a possible Nabatean background to
the tradition about Joktan’s descendants.
71 Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 2nd
Edition (Darmstadt/Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960 [original 1948]), 14
[ET 13–14]; Carr, Reading the Fractures, 98; Joel S. Baden,
Composition of the Pentateuch, 183. See Carr, Formation of Genesis
1–11, 180–181 for discussion of this case and comparison of it with
the partial overlap of non-P (Gen 10:21) and P (Gen 10:22) materials
about Shem.
72 Blum, Vätergeschichte, 189; Frank Crüsemann, “Human
Solidarity and Ethnic Identity,” in Ethnicity and the Bible, ed. Mark
Brett, BibInt 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 71; Mbuvi, Belonging in
Genesis, 81–93.
73 See again here the astute analysis in Runions, Babylon
Complex, 62–68.
1 I am indebted for the latter insight to an oral communication from
Christiaan Faul, doctoral student at Union Theological Seminary in
New York.
2 Again, see ‫ בבל‬in DCH.
3 See Day, “Tower and City of Babel Story,” 179 for commendation of
one alternative that will be discussed below in the commentary.
4 See Van Wolde, Words Become Worlds, 104–6, though I am not
sure her more fully earth-centered interpretation of the literary span
connecting these two stories does justice to the predominantly
human foci of the intervening texts.
5 As noted in Yithak Avishur, Studies in Biblical Narrative: Style,
Structure, and the Ancient Near Eastern Literary Background (Tel
Aviv and Jaffa: Archaeological Center Publication, 1999), 282–88,
many of these correspondences were already observed in medieval
Jewish interpretations before being picked up on in the detailed
commentaries by Jacob and Cassuto and then non-Jewish scholars.
6 Fokkelman, Narrative Art, 22. For an excellent overview and
comparison of other proposals, see Van Wolde, Words Become
Worlds, 90–91.
7 See the discussion and advocacy for a simpler concentric structure
in Day, “Tower and City of Babel Story,” 167–70.
8 Van Wolde, Words Become Worlds, 90–91; Marc Brettler, The
Book of Judges (New York: Routledge, 2002), 10–12.
9 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 144–45; Uehlinger, Weltreich und ‘eine
Rede’, 345–49.
10 Uehlinger, Weltreich und ‘eine Rede’, 347.
11 Bost, Babel, 45.
12 Bost, Babel, 45; Gertz, “Babel im Rücken,” 32.
13 Day, “Tower and City of Babel Story,” 171.
14 Uehlinger, Weltreich und ‘eine Rede’, 251, who notes that the
idiom in Akkadian also can refer to sun-dried bricks.
15 Uehlinger, Weltreich und ‘eine Rede’, 360–72.
16 Examples of interpreters to have taken “top in heaven” hyperbolic
and/or just indicating direction are P. J. Harland, “Vertical or
Horizontal: The Sin of Babel,” VT 48 (1998): 515–33 [here 526];
Hiebert, “Tower of Babel,” 37–38.
17 For further discussion of the links of Gen 11:4 to the tower in
Babylon (and response to other readings), see Berlejung, “Exile and
Genesis 11:1–9,” 96–97; Day, “Tower and City of Babel Story,” 171–
77.
18 As noted in Blum, Vätergeschichte, 11–13, note 13, we also have
a closer, biblical analogy to the use of such “head” language in the
Bethel story’s use of similar wording to describe a ramp with “its top
touching the heavens” (‫ )ראשו מגיע השמם‬on which angels went from
earth to heaven and back (Gen 28:12).
19 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, SAOC 62; (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2008),
25–33. I also have been informed by Andrew Giorgetti, “Can Babylon
Be in Assyria?: Genesis 11:9, Babel, and Dur-Šarrukin Revisited”
(paper presented in the Assyriology and the Bible section at the
Annual Meeting of the SBL, Boston, MA, 20 November 2017).
20 As noted in the preceding commentary, an earlier version of Gen
4:17 may have implied that the builder of this first city was Hennoch,
who named that city after his son Irad, a name with a possible link to
Eridu, which was the canonical first city in many Mesopotamian
traditions before Babylon began to assert primacy.
21 Berlejung, “Exile and Genesis 11:1–9,” 99, 109.
22 Berlejung, “Exile and Genesis 11:1–9,” 98–99.
23 Croatto, “Tower of Babel,” 210–11.
24 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 240.
25 I am indebted to Malka Strasberg Edinger, a doctoral student at
Jewish Theological Seminary, for sharing, with her permission, this
part of her observations on Gen 11:5b.
26 Bost, Babel, 60.
27 Note, for example, the early article by Bernard Stade, “Beiträge
zur Pentateuchkritik: 2. Der Thurm zu Babel,” ZAW 15 (1895):157–
178 (here 157–158), who concludes from this doubling that an earlier
report of Y ’s ascent must have been eliminated.
28 Gertz, “Babel im Rücken,” 22; idem. Genesis 1–11, 338–339.
29 Though Hiebert, “Tower of Babel,” 44–45 rightly stresses the
focus on Y ’s present perception of the human beginning (11:6),
he underplays the implicit focus of the next part of Y ’s speech
on what that present reality portends for the future (11:7), a contrast
in time reference made clear by a shift from verbless clauses with
implicit present focus in 11:6 to “now” (‫ )ועתה‬at the outset of 11:7 and
imperfects (‫ יבצר‬,‫ )יזמו‬that refer to what is now possible and can
come in the future.
30 For one precursor to this approach, see Bost, Babel, 81, 84.
31 Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel, 392. Especially in the
wake of Uehlinger’s important study (Weltreich und ‘eine Rede’, 504,
512, etc.), some have seen a link of this concept of linguistic unity to
Neo-Assyrian rhetoric about kings—e.g., Sargon II—imposing “one
mouth” on diverse peoples. This may be true in an oblique way, but
as noted in Seebass, Genesis I, 281, the Neo-Assyrian examples
are focused on the king’s imposition of his one will (one mouth) on
the peoples of his empire, while the Babylon story in Gen 11:1–9
connects the motif of “one lip” to human capacity to work together
effectively on a common project.
32 Berlejung, “Exile and Genesis 11:1–9,” 108.
33 See Fokkelman’s proposal of a sound chiasm here in Narrative
Art, 24. The wish to have Y ’s speech in 11:7 echo the humans’
plan in 11:3 (this latter being a Hebrew version of a fixed Akkadian
expression) may help explain the strange use of ‫ בלל‬here to speak of
confusion/mixing of speech (cf. Grossman, “Double
Etymology,” 366–69).
34 Catherine Vialle, “Babel ou la dispersion (Gn 11, 1–9),” in La Tour
de Babel (Arras: Artois presses université, 2012), 13–24 [here 20–
21]; James C. Okoye, Genesis 1–11: A Narrative-Theological
Commentary (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2018), 134.
35 This point was already made by Calvin and other reformation
commentators (see Hinrich Stoevesandt, “Die eine Menschheit und
die vielen Völker. Die biblische Erzählung vom Turmbau zu Babel,”
KuD 37 (1991): 44–61 [here 51–52]), then reinforced by more recent
exegetes, e.g., Bost, Babel, 60; Hiebert, “Tower of Babel,” 35–36,
41–42.
36 For the latter, see the Enuma Elish epic V:128–129. For Babylon
as “gate of God” see Day, “Tower and City of Babel Story,” 179–180.
37 Bost, Babel, 74.
38 This point is particularly stressed in Schüle, Der Prolog der
hebräischen Bibel, 389, who notes how this literary aspect of the text
undermines past arguments (e.g., Uehlinger, Weltreich und ‘eine
Rede’, 308–11, citing earlier treatments) that the etiology of Babylon
in 11:9 is secondary.
39 Jacob, Genesis, 300 and Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 232–34.
40 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 232–33; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, 28.
41 Cassuto, Genesis Pt. 1, 232–33. As Cassuto suggests (p. 234),
there may even be a subtler wordplay in the anticipation of the
“dispersion” of humanity with the phrase “surface of the earth” (‫פני‬
9 ,8 ,11:4 ;‫ )כל־הארץ‬that begins with the first (‫ )פ‬and ends with the
last (‫ )צ‬consonants for the verb “disperse” (‫)פוץ‬.
42 Leon R. Kass, “The Humanist Dream: Then and Now,” Greg 81
(2000): 633–57 [here 639].
43 Bost, Babel, 76–80; Walter Bührer, “‘Ich will mir einen Namen
machen!’: Alttestamentliche und altorientalische
Verewigungsstrategien,” Bib 98 (2017): 481–503.
44 For Gunkel’s own argument, see Genesis, 92–94 [ET 94–95].
See Joel S. Baden, “The Tower of Babel: A Case Study in the
Competing Methods of Historical and Modern Literary Criticism,”
JBL 128 (2009): 209–24 [here 217–18, note 28] and Day, “Tower and
City of Babel Story,” 167 for examples of critiques of the idea that the
two references to divine descent in 11:5 and 11:7 represent a
doublet. For more critique of Gunkel’s source approach, see my
Formation of Genesis 1–11, 185–86.
45 Seybold, “Turmbau zu Babel,” 457–58; Uehlinger, Weltreich und
‘eine Rede’, 308–32. Again, see my Formation of Genesis 1–
11, 186–87 for engagement with their proposals.
46 See Day, “Tower and City of Babel Story,” 171–77 for synthesis of
observations connecting Shinar and the overall story to Babylon.
47 The closest analogy would be the traditions surrounding Nimrod
and Mesopotamian cities in Gen 10:8b–12, a section that has much
in common with Gen 11:1–9.
48 Numerous scholars have proposed parallels between Gen 11:1–9
and the Enuma Elish Epic, starting especially with Ephraim A.
Speiser, “Word Plays on the Creation Epic’s Version of the Founding
of Babylon,” Orientalia 25 (1956): 317–23 and including, more
recently, Grossman, “Double Etymology,” 364–73 (with sustained
review of earlier proposals). It should be noted that Samuel Kramer
proposed another specific Mesopotamian precursor to Gen 11:1–9,
the Sumerian Enmerkar and the Lord of Arrata; cf. Samuel Noah
Kramer, “Man’s Golden Age: A Sumerian Parallel to Genesis XI,1,”
JAOS 63 (1943): 191–94; “The ‘Babel of Tongues’: A Sumerian
Version,” JAOS 88 (1968): 108–11. In this text (lines 134–155) Inana
calls on Enmerkar to proclaim a message to Mesopotamia of Enki’s
bringing of linguistic unity to them. As noted in Day, “Tower and City
of Babel Story,” 182, the future orientation of this text makes it more
akin to the promise of future linguistic unity in Zeph 3:9.
49 See Andrew George, “The Tower of Babel: Archaeology, History
and Cuneiform texts,” AfO 51 (2005–6): 75–95 on periodization of
the (Neo-Assyrian) destruction and subsequent rebuilding the
Etemenanki tower in Babylon. The relevance of this for dating Gen
11:1–9 has been noted previously by others, e.g., Blum,
“Urgeschichte,” 441. See Day, “Tower and City of Babel Story,” 371
for notation of how mention of asphalt in Gen 11:3 supports the idea
of independent knowledge of the tower in Babylon apart from any
response in the text to the Enuma Elish Epic.
50 On links to Neo-Assyrian traditions and Dur-Sharrukin in
particular, see the original proposal in Uehlinger, Weltreich und ‘eine
Rede’ (pp. 512–513 with observations of how it was the city of Dur-
Sharrukin that was left unfinished, corresponding to Gen 11:8b). See
especially Seebass, Genesis I, 280–81 for critique of parts of
Uehlinger’s original articulation of links between Gen 11:1–9 and the
ideology surrounding Sargon II’s rule and construction of Dur-
Sharrukin.
51 This hypothesis would be reinforced insofar as it turns out that the
‫( רסן‬Resen) that stands as the last city built in Assyria by Nimrod
(Gen 10:12) was an oblique reference to Dur-Sharrukin. See the
preceding commentary on Gen 10:8b–12 for more on this
hypothesis.
52 Cf., e.g., Day, “Tower and City of Babel Story,” 174–75 for
questions about the extent to which a Judean audience would have
known of or focused on Sargon II’s shortlived construction project at
Dur-Sharrukin.
53 In addition to Uehlinger, Weltreich und ‘eine Rede’, see, e.g.,
Andrew Giorgetti, “The ‘Mock Building Account’ of Genesis 11:1–9:
Polemic Against Mesopotamian Royal Ideology,” VT 64 (2014): 1–
10; idem. Building a Parody: Genesis 11:1–9, Ancient Near Eastern
Building Accounts, and Production-Oriented Intertextuality, VTSup
(Leiden: Brill, 2020) 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. See the
introduction to this commentary for some reflections on various
vectors by which knowledge about Babylon and Mesopotamian
traditions might have reached Judean scribes.
54 On this, cf. proposed assignments of Gen 11:1–9 to a post-
Priestly expansion in, e.g., Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen
Bibel, 407–416 and Gertz, “Babel im Rücken,” 27–28. These
proposals are based in part on above-discussed connections of Gen
11:1–9 to texts assigned in this commentary to a pre-Priestly layer
(e.g., Gen 3:22, 24; 6:1–4) but understood by them to be post-
Priestly.
55 See, e.g., Day, “Tower and City of Babel Story,” 181–82, including
note 28 for arguments against literary separation of Gen 11:1–9 from
other parts of the non-P/J history.
56 For a survey, see Siraj Ahmed, “Notes from Babel: Toward a
Colonial History of Comparative Literature,” Critical Inquiry 39
(2013): 301–19.
57 Josephus Ant. 1.113–114; see also Pseudo-Philo 4:7; 6:13–14;
Philo QG 2:82.
58 See, e.g., Uehlinger, Weltreich und eine Rede; Croatto, Tower of
Babel.”
59 See my Formation of Genesis 1–11, 241, note 39 for a survey of
critiques of empire-focused exegeses of Gen 11:1–9, particularly the
thoroughly-argued proposal in Uehlinger, Weltreich und ‘eine Rede’.
60 For overview, analysis, and critique of interpretations moving this
direction, see Runions, Babylon Complex, especially pp. 22–26, 62–
68, 95–108 and eadem., “Babel and the Fear of Same-Sex Marriage:
Mapping Conservative Constellations,” JBRec 1 (2014): 47–65,
especially 54–60.
61 Van Wolde, Words Become Worlds, 100–108; Hiebert, “Tower of
Babel”; Croatto, “Tower of Babel.”
1 See Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 71–73 for survey of the different
chronologies and an excellent discussion, building on earlier
scholarship, regarding the variants between them. As Hendel (and
others) notes, the shared deviation for Nahor (to fifty years) is
particularly strong evidence that the Septuagint and Samaritan
Pentateuch textual traditions share a common ancestor.
2 For fuller discussion of this Toledot book see Carr, Formation of
Genesis 1–11, 84–91.
3 Seebass, Genesis I, 291–92; Lux, “Genealogie,” 255–56.
4 See Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 89–91 for discussion of the
possibility that the pre-P Toledot book included a special Toledot of
Terah section reflected in parts of Gen 11:27, 32*. Nevertheless, the
truth of the above assertion is not affected by the success or failure
of this idea.
5 See p. 214, note 35 in this commentary’s discussion of Gen 6:1–4.
6 Jacob, Genesis, 305.
7 The section for Seth is chosen here as a comparison point
because the initial materials regarding Adam in Gen 5:3–5 appear to
have been slightly augmented as part of the Priestly reshaping of the
start of the Toledot book. For more discussion, see the commentary
on that section.
8 All this is even more true if one translates Gen 10:10bα as many
do “two years after the flood.”
9 Ruppert, Gen 1,1–11,26, 522.
10 Though Arpachshad appears third in the listing of Shem’s sons in
Gen 10:22, that is because this listing is organized—like other parts
of P’s overview of post-flood peoples descending from Noah’s sons
—in geographical order, from eastern offspring (Elam and then
Ashur) to western offspring (Lud and Aram after Arpachshad); cf.
Ruppert, Gen 1,1–11,26, 522.
11 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 323.
12 Seebass, Genesis I, 290 tentatively raises this possibility.
13 As noted in Jacob, Genesis, 308, the only slight modification is
that the notations for the age of Arpachshad and Shelah when they
first fathered a son both foreground the name of the patriarch first,
thus diverging slightly in word order from other such initial age
notices in the Toledot book.
14 Within Rabbinic interpretation, this latter understanding of “Eber”
was the most prominent alternative to associations of “Eber” with
Hebrew, and it has been considered by numerous modern
commentators, e.g., Seebass, Genesis I, 291.
15 Gertz, Genesis 1–11, 347–48.
16 See the commentary on Gen 10:25 for discussion of its likely
status as either a late level of the non-P primeval history or a post-P
conflational addition.
17 Seebass, Genesis I, 291.
18 See Blum, Vätergeschichte, 164–67 for arguments that this locus
represents an adaptation of earlier non-P Jacob-story materials, an
adaptation likely associated with their incorporation into an ancestral
history including Abraham.
19 The process of identifying links of Gen 11:10–26 to potential pre-
P materials about Abraham’s genealogical background are
complicated by the fact we have so few preserved non-P materials
about Abraham’s familial background: at most in Gen 11:28–30.
Assignment of that section to a non-P source (J) was initially
advanced in Hupfeld, Quellen der Genesis, 57 (note) and then fully
developed in Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, 415–26, who
convinced Dillmann in his third edition (Genesis, 213 [ET 405]) and
most other source critics. Because this passage and the surrounding
Priestly materials (Gen 11:27, 31–32) are so thoroughly linked to the
Abraham story, treatment of Gen 11:27–32 is reserved for the IECOT
volume on that section of Genesis.
1 In accordance with the style of the series, items are included here
if they are cited (by author and short title) multiple times across
disparate pages in the preceding commentary, or (in a few cases) if
an item is cited once by short title in the body text of the commentary
on text and translation. If an item is cited once or a few times within
the compass of a few pages, the full information on that item is given
at the location where it is discussed.