The First Noah and the Sons of God and Daughters of Humanity (Gen 5:29; 6:1–4; 9:18–27)

Whereas some have argued that the anticipation of Noah’s destiny in Gen 5:29 and/or the story of Noah and his sons in Gen 9:20–27 are post-Priestly additions, this chapter argues that both texts are thoroughly and integrally embedded in the non-P primeval history discussed in chapters 2 and 3 of the book. Furthermore, the story of the sons of God and daughters of humanity that comes between these texts (Gen 6:1–4) continues the meditation on human limits and mortality that was seen in the Garden of Eden story (6:1–3), while also providing an etiology of bygone giants in Canaan and famous early Israelite warriors (Gen 6:4). Finally, the chapter tentatively proposes that the original connection point for these traditions about Noah (and interlude about marriages of gods and humans in 6:1–4) was the non-P tradition about Enosh and the beginning of humans calling on YHWH’s name during his time. Thus, within the non-P tradition, it may have been Enosh, not Lamech, who pronounced Noah’s destiny to comfort humanity out of the ground cursed by YHWH (Gen 5:29).

Introduction

This chapter situates the book in the context of ongoing debate about basic models for the formation of the Pentateuch. It outlines the chapters and indicates how the topics relate to other publications by the author on similar topics. The conclusion lists scholars and institutions that supported the project.

The Non-P Primeval History

This chapter surveys two main levels in the non-Priestly primeval history. The first is an originally independent primeval history that likely started with the Garden of Eden story and concluded with the account of Shem’s fathering of “all of the sons of Eber”—the closest primeval equivalent the non-P author could have for later Israelites who possessed traditions of the origins of their people from post-Primeval ancestors (e.g., Abraham, Jacob) and/or out of an exodus from Egypt. This originally independent primeval history contained various materials, but it centered in particular on three stories exploring the three major types of pairs of relationships in a patriarchal primary family: (hu)man-wife (Genesis 2–3), brother-brother (Gen 4:1–16), and father-son (Gen 9:20–27). Since this history treats what it takes to be age-old truths and only features semimythic loci such as Eden (Gen 2:8) and the “land of Nod” (Gen 4:16), it provides few indicators with which to date it. Nevertheless, it seems to precede the previously discussed revision of this history through the addition of a flood narrative, a Babel account, Nimrod materials, and also some version of the non-P ancestral story that follows. These latter materials show various signs of likely authorship in the Neo-Assyrian period, drawing deeply and specifically on Mesopotamian traditions (e.g., flood narratives) and mentioning Mesopotamian topoi already prominent in the Neo-Assyrian period (e.g., Babylon, Nineveh).

Aftermath to the Flood

Much like the flood narrative that preceded it, the survey of Noah’s postflood offspring in Gen 10:1–11:9 appears to have been the conflation of a well-preserved Priestly overview of Noah’s sons (10:1a, 2–7, 20, 22–23, 31–32), with portions of a non-P overview of Noah’s sons (e.g., Gen 10:13–19, 21) along with a non-P fragment about Nimrod (Gen 10:8b–12). Within the present text this survey has been reframed by the previously-discussed non-P story of Noah and his sons (Gen 9:18–27) and a non-P account of human spreading from Babel (Gen 11:1–9). The chapter argues that this non-P treatment of Noah and his sons evolved over time, initially featuring the story of Noah and his sons (Gen 9:18–27) along with a brief overview of Shem’s fathering of a proto-Hebrew group “the sons of Eber” (Gen 10:21) versus Canaan’s fathering (10:15) of Sidon (standing for Phoenicia) and Het (standing for inhabitants of inland Canaan). New elements were added to this when Noah was transformed into the flood hero and father of post-flood humanity, including elements about how Noah’s family populated the whole earth (Gen 9:19; 11:1–9) and elements anticipating Egypt (10:13–14) and Mesopotamia (Gen 10:8b–12). The Priestly overview of Noah’s descendants appears to build on both levels of the non-P tradition. Other materials—e.g., Gen 10:1b, 8a, 16–19, 24–30—are later additions, most added with the conflation of P and non-P.

Precursors to the Priestly Creation Account (Gen 1:1–2:3)

This chapter looks at potential precursors to the Priestly creation account, both within the Bible and outside it. It starts by building a case that Genesis 1 shows a particular engagement with the Mesopotamian Enuma Elish epic, claiming a dominance of the Israelite God superior to that which is claimed for Marduk in that epic. It then turns to signs that Genesis 1 also seems to reflect knowledge of the cosmological tradition reflected in Psalm 104, which in turn reflects nonbiblical traditions about origins from Canaan and (perhaps earlier) Egypt. In addition, despite the arguments of some recent studies that Genesis 1 preceded Genesis 2–3, select parts of Genesis 1 appear to be incompletely adapted elements (“blind motifs”) that originated in the non-Priestly story of creation in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:4b–3:24). This suggests that this non-Priestly creation story likely also stands among the texts that preceded and were engaged by the author of Genesis 1. The chapter concludes with brief consideration of the possibility that the Priestly creation account may also preserve, embedded within itself, an earlier literary precursor. The most likely possibility in this case is that the day-structure and final Sabbath focus now found in Gen 1:1–2:3 was a later addition to it, possibly by an author-redactor associated with what is often termed the “Holiness School.”

The Book of the Toledot (Descendants) of Adam (Genesis 5; 11:10–26 and Related Texts)

This chapter moves through multiple phases in tracing the formation of Genesis 5 and 11:10–26. Because the textual history of these chapters is particularly unclear, the chapter starts by treating this issue. It argues that key indicators in Gen 11:10–26 suggest that the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch represent later scribal revisions that solve problems implicit in an early chronology found in the Masoretic text for Gen 11:10–26 by lengthening the lives of most postflood primeval patriarchs. In turn, it appears that the scribes who produced the Septuagint and Masoretic text of Genesis 5 used a similar strategy of lengthening the lives of primeval patriarchs in order to solve problems implicit in an early chronology found in the Samaritan Pentateuch text for Genesis 5. These scribes appear to have been dealing with problems that emerged when an earlier, pre-Priestly “scroll of the toledot (=descendants) of Adam” (Gen 5:1a), with its chronology of long-lived primeval patriarchs, was appropriated by the author of the Priestly source as the initial basis for the primeval history section of that source. This Toledot scroll, in turn, likely took its basic genealogical information from non-P materials about Adam and Eve’s descendants (now found in Genesis 4) as well as Noah’s offspring (Gen 9:18–27 and parts of Genesis 10). Yet it rearranged those materials into a form that was partially modeled on late versions of the Sumerian King List tradition, even as the nonroyal focus of the non-P materials was preserved.

The Formation of Narratives about Adam and Eve’s Descendants (Genesis 4)

The chapter opens with a survey of the extensive parallels between Genesis 2–3 and the story of Cain and Abel. Though some such parallels probably emerge from the modeling of elements in Genesis 4 on the previous Eden story, a number of indicators suggest that the bulk of these parallel elements originated in a tradition, likely oral, about Cain and Abel and then Cain’s line leading up to Lamech. Numerous signs suggest that this Cain-to-Lamech tradition was not originally about the first human family but instead was a Judean tradition about the origins of the Kenites, a semi-nomadic group that is associated with regions in and around Judah and with metalworking. The ambivalence that the Cain and Abel story seems to express about Cain—for example, a brother murderer (Gen 4:8) yet enjoying special divine protection (4:15)—is similar to the ambivalence often expressed toward itinerant artisans in Near Eastern societies. Genesis 4, however, is not just a written presentation of this oral tradition. Rather, it appears that the author of Genesis 4 appropriated and adapted this oral tradition as an account of an initial primeval line of humanity, the Cain-Kenite line, that then was contrasted with a new line of humanity that descended from Adam and Eve’s third son, Seth, and then continued with Enosh (Gen 4:25–26).

Precursors to the Eden Narrative (Gen 2:4b–3:24)

This chapter offers a diachronically informed synchronic reading of the Garden of Eden story (Gen 2:4b–3:24) as a complex meditation on a mix of themes surrounding human identity and mortality that are well attested in Mesopotamian literary texts. Where some scholars (including the present author) have been inclined to see Genesis 2–3 as formed out of distinct literary levels focusing on wisdom and (later) mortality, this chapter argues on the contrary that these themes cannot be separated in Genesis 2–3—that numerous integral components in the Eden story (e.g., the snake) relate to both, much as earlier Mesopotamian traditions (especially the Gilgamesh and Adapa epics) reflect on how humans might have godlike rationality but have no access to godlike immortality. In addition, there are signs that key elements of Genesis 2–3 may have originated from its being loosely modeled on the structure and emphases of an earlier oral tradition about brotherly fratricide that is more closely reflected in Gen 4:1–16.

The Priestly Primeval History and Conflation of P and Non-P

This chapter surveys three main levels of Priestly or P-like composition in Genesis 1–11. It starts by reviewing the scope and possible date of the Toledot scroll discussed in chapter 4. The Priestly source built around this Toledot book source, preceding it with the Genesis 1 story of God’s creation of the cosmos and expanding it with a full flood narrative (rather than the likely brief mention of the flood in the Toledot book) and overview of post-flood peoples (Genesis 10*). The source then continued with new Priestly Abraham materials (e.g., Genesis 17) and multiple new Toledot of Abraham’s descendants leading up to Israel, which were then followed by a Priestly story of Moses, the Exodus, and the eventual construction of a wilderness Tabernacle in which God could dwell. At a later stage, the P and non-P materials were combined, using P as the basic superstructure for the primeval history and adding, at select points, elements that betray a particular affinity for Priestly concepts and/or ideology. In this sense, the conflation of P and non-P can be seen as a continuation of the Priestly composition process, creating a new, conflated narrative embracing non-P materials within a P framework.

Precursors to the Flood Narrative (Gen 6:5–9:17)

Contrary to some recent proposals that the (incomplete) non-P flood narrative was a scribal extension of the Priestly flood story, this chapter begins by assembling the multiple strong arguments that the non-P flood narrative, though incompletely preserved, originated as part of a separate, pre-Priestly literary source. Both the flood narrative in this pre-Priestly source and its originally separate Priestly counterpart appear to have been modeled on earlier Mesopotamian traditions about the flood and rescue of a flood hero (especially as seen in the Atrahasis epic and tablet 11 of the Gilgamesh epic), even as the P flood narrative also seems to have been influenced in some respects by its pre-Priestly flood counterpart. The present complex form of Genesis 6:5–9:17 in turn is the product of the conflation of the P flood narrative with most parts of the non-P flood narrative, with both elements expanded at points with post-P conflational additions that coordinated them. At the other end of the formation process, this chapter builds a case that the non-P flood narrative was not an original part of the non-P primeval history. Rather, it appears to have been crafted as a literary extension of that history, contrasting with and yet connecting with that history in multiple respects.