Genesis 16-50, Volume 2

By Gordon John Wenham

The Word Biblical Commentary delivers the best in biblical scholarship, from the leading scholars of our day who share a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation. This series emphasizes a thorough analysis of textual, linguistic, structural, and theological evidence. The result is judicious and balanced insight into the meanings of the text in the framework of biblical theology. These widely acclaimed commentaries serve as exceptional resources for the professional theologian and instructor, the seminary or university student, the working minister, and everyone concerned with building theological understanding from a solid base of biblical scholarship.

Overview of Commentary Organization

• Introduction—covers issues pertaining to the whole book, including context, date, authorship, composition, interpretive issues, purpose, and theology.
• Each section of the commentary includes:
• Pericope Bibliography—a helpful resource containing the most important works that pertain to each particular pericope.
• Translation—the author’s own translation of the biblical text, reflecting the end result of exegesis and attending to Hebrew and Greek idiomatic usage of words, phrases, and tenses, yet in reasonably good English.
• Notes—the author’s notes to the translation that address any textual variants, grammatical forms, syntactical constructions, basic meanings of words, and problems of translation.
• Form/Structure/Setting—a discussion of redaction, genre, sources, and tradition as they concern the origin of the pericope, its canonical form, and its relation to the biblical and extra-biblical contexts in order to illuminate the structure and character of the pericope. Rhetorical or compositional features important to understanding the passage are also introduced here.
• Comment—verse-by-verse interpretation of the text and dialogue with other interpreters, engaging with current opinion and scholarly research.
• Explanation—brings together all the results of the discussion in previous sections to expose the meaning and intention of the text at several levels: (1) within the context of the book itself; (2) its meaning in the OT or NT; (3) its place in the entire canon; (4) theological relevance to broader OT or NT issues.
  • General Bibliography—occurring at the end of each volume, this extensive bibliography contains all sources used anywhere in the commentary.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Zondervan
• Release date: Oct 10, 2017
• ISBN: 9780310585862

Gordon John Wenham

Gordon J. Wenham (PhD, University of London) is tutor in Old Testament at Trinity College, Bristol, England, and professor emeritus of Old Testament at the University of Gloucestershire. He is the author or editor of numerous books, including Story as Torah and commentaries on Genesis, Leviticus, and Numbers.

Book preview

Editorial Board

Old Testament Editor: Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (2011–)

New Testament Editor: Peter H. Davids (2013–)

Past Editors

General Editors

Ralph P. Martin (2012–2013)

Bruce M. Metzger (1997–2007)

David A. Hubbard (1977–1996)

Glenn W. Barker (1977–1984)

Old Testament Editors:

John D. W. Watts (1977–2011)

James W. Watts (1997–2011)

New Testament Editors:

Ralph P. Martin (1977–2012)

Lynn Allan Losie (1997–2013)

Volumes

*forthcoming as of 2014

**in revision as of 2014

Word Biblical Commentary

Volume 2

Genesis 16–50

Gordon J. Wenham

General Editors: David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker

Old Testament Editor: John D. W. Watts

New Testament Editor: Ralph P. Martin

ZONDERVAN

Genesis 16-50, Volume 2

Copyright © 2000 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Previously published as Genesis 16-50.

Formerly published by Thomas Nelson, now published by Zondervan, a division of HarperCollins Christian Publishing.

Requests for information should be addressed to:

Zondervan, 3900 Sparks Dr. SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546

ePub edition August 2017: ISBN 978-0-310-58586-2

The Library of Congress has cataloged the original edition as follows:

Library of Congress Control Number: 2005295211

All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission.

The author’s own translation of the Scripture text appears in italic type under the heading Translation.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher.

For John, Mary, Elizabeth, and Christopher

Genesis 33:5

Table of Contents

Author’s Preface

Editorial Preface

Abbreviations

Main Bibliography

Introduction

Historical Setting of the Patriarchs

The Egyptian Background to the Joseph Story

The Chronology of the Patriarchs

The Religion of the Patriarchs

History, Theology, and the Commentator

Text and Commentary

The Birth of Ishmael (16:1–16)

The Covenant of Circumcision (17:1–27)

Excursus on Circumcision

The Overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah (18:1—19:38)

Sarah and Abimelek (20:1–18)

Isaac Displaces Ishmael (21:1–21)

Covenant with Abimelek (21:22–34)

The Testing of Abraham (22:1–19)

The Genealogy of Rebekah (22:20–24)

Purchase of Burial Ground (23:1–20)

The Betrothal of Rebekah (24:1–67)

Concluding the Life of Abraham (25:1–11)

The Family History of Ishmael (25:12–18)

The Story of Isaac (25:19—35:29)

First Encounters of Jacob and Esau (25:19–34)

Isaac and the Philistines (26:1–33)

Jacob Cheats Esau out of His Blessing (26:34—28:9)

Jacob Meets God at Bethel (28:10-22)

Jacob Arrives at Laban’s House (29:1–14)

Jacob Marries Leah and Rachel (29:15–30)

The Birth of Jacob’s Sons (29:31—30:24)

Jacob Outwits Laban (30:25—31:1)

Jacob Leaves Laban (31:2—32:3[2])

Jacob Returns Esau’s Blessing (32:4—33:20)

Dinah and the Hivites (34:1-31)

Journey’s End for Jacob and Isaac (35:1–29)

The Family History of Esau (36:1—37:1)

The Joseph Story (37:2—50:26)

Joseph Is Sold into Egypt (37:2–36)

Tamar and Judah (38:1–30)

Joseph and Potiphar (39:1–20)

Joseph in Prison (39:21—40:23)

Joseph in the Palace (41:1–57)

First Visit of Joseph’s Family to Egypt (42:1–38)

Second Visit of Joseph’s Family to Egypt (43:1—45:28)

Third Visit of Joseph’s Family to Egypt (46:1—47:31)

The Last Days of Jacob and Joseph (48:1—50:26)

Indexes

Author’s Preface

It is with a great sense of relief and thankfulness that after fourteen years I have finally reached the end of this commentary. As the author, I am only too aware of its shortcomings. Much more could have been said on nearly every page, but I have tried to resist the modern urge to ever longer commentaries. I think most readers will prefer a manageable volume to an exhaustive one.

The format of this volume is similar to the first. Those looking for a compact overview of my interpretation should read first the Explanation section, which sums up the more detailed exegesis of the Comment section. Though of course based on a detailed study of the Hebrew text, I have tried to write both sections so that those who do not know the language may follow the argument. Do not be put off by the occasional use of Hebrew words: they are either translated, or the context should make their meanings plain. However, the Notes do presuppose some knowledge of Hebrew as they discuss problems of Hebrew grammar and text-critical issues. Like the Notes, the Form/Structure/Setting sections are intended primarily for scholars and serious students, who wish to enter into the critical debates about the arrangement and growth of the text, issues that often have an important bearing on interpretation. Finally, the bibliographies should, as in the first volume, be seen as supplementary to Westermann’s: they do not pretend to be exhaustive. While trying to list fully the more recent scholarly literature on Genesis available to me, I have only cited the most significant earlier publications.

Again I have many people to thank for help in this volume. My colleagues for several terms of sabbatical leave. The British Academy and Tyndale House for research grants. Mrs. Margaret Hardy for typing it. Professor K. A. Kitchen for reading parts of the manuscript, and various students, especially Dr. Y. Endo, P. Barker, C. Bartholomew, and T. Renz for help with checking it. Mrs. Melanie McQuere and Mrs. Terri Gibbs for all their work in preparing it for publication. And last, but not least, my wife and family, for putting up with me writing it.

GORDON J. WENHAM

Cheltenham

July 1993

Editorial Preface

The launching of the Word Biblical Commentary brings to fulfillment an enterprise of several years’ planning. The publishers and the members of the editorial board met in 1977 to explore the possibility of a new commentary on the books of the Bible that would incorporate several distinctive features. Prospective readers of these volumes are entitled to know what such features were intended to be; whether the aims of the commentary have been fully achieved time alone will tell.

First, we have tried to cast a wide net to include as contributors a number of scholars from around the world who not only share our aims, but are in the main engaged in the ministry of teaching in university, college, and seminary. They represent a rich diversity of denominational allegiance. The broad stance of our contributors can rightly be called evangelical, and this term is to be understood in its positive, historic sense of a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation, and to the truth and power of the Christian gospel.

Then, the commentaries in our series are all commissioned and written for the purpose of inclusion in the Word Biblical Commentary. Unlike several of our distinguished counterparts in the field of commentary writing, there are no translated works, originally written in a non-English language. Also, our commentators were asked to prepare their own rendering of the original biblical text and to use those languages as the basis of their own comments and exegesis. What may be claimed as distinctive with this series is that it is based on the biblical languages, yet it seeks to make the technical and scholarly approach to a theological understanding of Scripture understandable by—and useful to—the fledgling student, the working minister, and colleagues in the guild of professional scholars and teachers as well.

Finally, a word must be said about the format of the series. The layout, in clearly defined sections, has been consciously devised to assist readers at different levels. Those wishing to learn about the textual witnesses on which the translation is offered are invited to consult the section headed Notes. If the readers’ concern is with the state of modern scholarship on any given portion of Scripture, they should turn to the sections on Bibliography and Form/Structure/Setting. For a clear exposition of the passage’s meaning and its relevance to the ongoing biblical revelation, the Comment and concluding Explanation are designed expressly to meet that need. There is therefore something for everyone who may pick up and use these volumes.

If these aims come anywhere near realization, the intention of the editors will have been met, and the labor of our team of contributors rewarded.

General Editors: David A. Hubbard

Glenn W. Barker†

Old Testament: John D. W. Watts

New Testament: Ralph P. Martin

Abbreviations

PERIODICALS, SERIALS, AND REFERENCE WORKS

MODERN TRANSLATIONS

TEXTS, VERSIONS, AND ANCIENT WORKS

BIBLICAL AND APOCRYPHAL BOOKS

Old Testament

New Testament

HEBREW GRAMMAR

MISCELLANEOUS

Main Bibliography

COMMENTARIES (quoted by author’s name alone)

Aalders, G. C. Genesis I, II. 5th ed. Korte verklaring der Heilige Schrift. Kampen: Kok, 1974.

Brueggemann, W. Genesis. Interpretation Commentary. Atlanta: John Knox 1982.

Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis 1–11. Tr. I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961, 1964.

Calvin, J. A Commentary on Genesis. Tr. J. King, 1847. Repr. London: Banner of Truth, 1965.

Coats, G. W. Genesis. FOTL 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983.

Cook, F. C. Genesis-Exodus. Speaker’s Bible. London: Murray, 1871.

Davidson, R. Genesis 1–11, 12–50. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: CUP, 1973, 1979.

Delitzsch, F. A New Commentary on Genesis. Vols. 1,2. Tr. S. Taylor. Edinburgh: Clark, 1888; repr. Klock, 1978.

Dillmann, A. Die Genesis. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch. 6th ed. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1892.

Driver, S. R. The Book of Genesis. 3rd ed. Westminster Commentary. London: Methuen, 1904.

Ehrlich, A. B. Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, vol. 1. Hildesheim: Olms, 1968 (original edition 1908).

Gibson, J. C. L. Genesis I, II. Edinburgh: St. Andrew Press, 1981, 1982.

Gispen, W. H. Genesis I–III. Commentar op het Oude Testament. Kampen: Kok, 1974–83.

Gunkel, H. Genesis. 9th ed. (=3d ed.) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1977 (1910).

Hamilton, V. P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990.

Jacob, B. Das erste Buch der Tora. New York: Ktav, 1974 (1934).

Junker, H. Das Buch Genesis. Echter Bibel. 4th ed. Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1965.

Keil, C. F. The Pentateuch I. Biblical Commentary. Tr. J. Martin. Repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.

Kidner, D. Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale OT Commentary. London: Tyndale, 1967.

König, E. Die Genesis eingeleitet, übersetzt, erklärt. Gütersloh: Bertelsman, 1919.

Leibowitz, N. Studies in Bereshit. 4th ed. Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, 1981.

Procksch, O. Die Genesis übersetzt und erklärt. 2d ed. Leipzig: Deicherische Verlags-buchhandlung, 1924.

Rad, G. von. Genesis. 2nd ed. Tr. J. H. Marks and J. Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1972.

Rashi. Pentateuch with Rashi’s Commentary. Tr. M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann. New York: Hebrew Publishing Company.

Sarna, N. M. Genesis. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989.

Skinner, J. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. ICC 2d ed. Edinburgh: Clark, 1930.

Speiser, E. A. Genesis. AB New York: Doubleday, 1969.

Spurrell, G. J. Notes on the Text of the Book of Genesis. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896.

Vawter, B. On Genesis: A New Reading. Garden City: Doubleday, 1977.

Weinfeld, M. Sefer Bereshit. Tel-Aviv: Gordon, 1975.

Westermann, C. Genesis. 1–11, 12–36, 37–50. Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974–82. Vols. I, II, III. Tr. J. J. Scullion. London: SPCK, 1984, 1986. (Quotations are usually from Scullion’s translation; my own translations are indicated by dual page numbering with German page number first, e.g., 296, ET 217).

Zimmerli, W. 1. Mose 1–11:Die Urgeschicte. Zürich: Zwingli, 1967.

OTHER FREQUENTLY CITED WORKS

Aharoni, Y. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Tr. A. F. Rainey. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967.

Alter, R. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.

Anderson, F. I. The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch. Nashville: Abingdon, 1970.

Blum, E. Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte. WMANT 57. Neukirchen: Neukirchener 1984.

Clines, D. J. A. The Theme of the Pentateuch. JSOTSup 10. Sheffield: JSOT, 1978.

Dahood, M. North-west Semitic Notes on Genesis. Bib 55 (1974) 76–82.

Fishbane, M. Text and Texture. New York: Schocken, 1979.

Fokkelman, J. P. Narrative Art in Genesis. Amsterdam: van Gorcum, 1975.

Fowler, J. D. Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew. JSOTSup 49. Sheffield, JSOT, 1988.

Freedman, D. N. Notes on Genesis. ZAW 64 (1952) 190–94.

Humphreys, W. L. Joseph and His Family: A Literary Study. Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1988.

Jacob, E. Theology of the Old Testament. Tr. A. W. Heathcote and P. J. Allcock. New York: Harper, 1958.

Kirkpatrick, D., ed. Faith Born in the Struggle for Life. Tr. L. McCoy. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988.

Longacre, R. E. Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989.

McEvenue, S. E. The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer. AnBib 50. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1971.

Millard, A. R., and Wiseman, D. J., eds. Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983.

Noth, M. Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928.

Radday, Y. T., and Shore, H. Genesis: An Authorship Study in Computer-Assisted Statistical Linguistics. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1985.

Redford, D. B. A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph. VTSup 20. Leiden: Brill, 1970.

Rendsburg, G. A. The Redaction of Genesis. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986.

Rendtorff, R. Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch. BZAW 147. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976.

Ross, A. P. Creation and Blessing. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1988.

Schmidt, L. Literarische Studien zur Josephsgeschichte. BZAW 167. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986.

Schmitt, H.-C. Die nichtpriesterliche Josephgeschichte. BZAW 154. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980.

Seters, J. Van. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven: Yale UP, 1975.

Soggin, J. A. OT and Oriental Studies. BibOr 29. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975.

Speiser, E. A. Oriental and Biblical Studies. ed. J. J. Finkelstein and M. Greenberg. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1967.

Sternberg, M. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1985.

Strus, A. La poétique sonore des récits de la Genèse. Bib 60 (1979) 1–22.

———. Nomen-Omen: La stylistique sonore des noms propres dans le Pentateuque. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978.

Stuart, D. K. Studies in Early Hebrew Meter. HSM 13. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976.

Thompson, T. L. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham. BZAW 133. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1974.

Vaux, R. de. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Tr. J. McHugh. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

———. The Early History of Israel. Tr. D. Smith. London/Philadelphia: DLT/Westminster, 1978.

Vergote, J. Joseph en Egypte. Louvain: Publications universitaires, 1959.

Volz, P., and Rudolph, W. Der Elohist als Erzähler ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? An der Genesis erläutert. BZAW 63. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1933.

Weisman, Z. From Jacob to Israel. (Heb.) Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986.

Wellhausen, J. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. Reprint. Cleveland: World, 1965.

Whybray, R. N. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. JSOTSup 53. Sheffield: JSOT, 1987.

Zohary, M. Plants of the Bible. Cambridge: CUP, 1982.

Introduction

In the Introduction to Volume 1 of this series, I surveyed current critical approaches to the book of Genesis as a whole and then looked at some of the special problems raised by Gen 1–11 for the modern reader. Here I shall consider some of the issues raised by the stories of the patriarchs in chaps. 12–50. Limitations of space prevent a full review of modern debate, which has been intense and detailed. What follows is merely an attempt to orient the reader to current discussion and to clarify some of the assumptions that underlie the rest of the commentary.

Historical Setting of the Patriarchs

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bimson, J. J. Archaeological Data and the Dating of the Patriarchs. In Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, ed. A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman. Leicester: IVP, 1980. 59–92. Coats, G. W. Genesis with an Introduction to Narrative Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Dever, W. G., and Clark, W. M. The Patriarchal Traditions. In Israelite and Judaean History, ed. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller. London: SCM Press, 1977. 70–166. Eichler, B. L. Nuzi and the Bible: A Retrospective. In in Dumu-e2-dub-ba-a. FS Å W. Sjöberg, ed. H. Behrens, D. Loding, and M. T. Roth. Philadelphia: Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11. Pennsylvania: University Museum, 1989. 107–19. Kitchen, K. A. The Bible in Its World. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1977. Laessoe, J. Literacy and Oral Tradition in Ancient Mesopotamia. In Studia orientalia Ioanni Pedersen septuagenario . . . dicata. Munksgaard, Copenhagen, 1953. 205–18. Luke, J. T. Abraham and the Iron Age: Reflections on the New Patriarchal Studies. JSOT 4 (1977) 35–47. Malamat, A. Mari and the Early Israelite Experience. Oxford: British Academy, 1989. Mazar, A. Archaeology and the Land of the Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Millard, A. R. Abraham. ABD 1:35–41. ——— and Wiseman, D. J., eds. Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives. Leicester: IVP, 1980. Rowton, M. B. Dimorphic Structure and Topology. OrAnt 15 (1976) 17–31. ———. "Dimorphic Structure and the Problem of the ʿapirû-ʿibrîm." JNES 35 (1976) 13–20. Selman, M. J. The Social Environment of the Patriarchs. TynBul 27 (1976) 114–36. ———. Comparative Customs and the Patriarchal Age." In Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, ed. A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman. Leicester: IVP, 1980. 93–138. Seters, J. Van. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven: Yale UP, 1975. ———. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis. Louisville: Westminster, 1992. Talmon, S. ‘400 Jahre’ oder ‘vier Generationen’ (Gen 15:13–15): geschichtliche Zeitangaben oder literarische Motive? In Die hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: FS R. Rendtorff, ed. E. Blum, C. Macholz, and E. W. Stegemann. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. 3–12. Thompson, T. L. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives. BZAW 133. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974. Vaux, R. de. The Early History of Israel. Tr. D. Smith. Philadelphia: Westminster/London: DLT, 1978. Weeks, N. Mari, Nuzi and the Patriarchs. AbrN 16 (1975/76). Westbrook, R. The Purchase of the Cave of Machpelah. ILR 6 (1971) 29–38.

The chronology of Genesis dates Abraham about 2000 B.C. and his descendants in the following centuries. Between Joseph and the time of Moses, it places a long interlude of four generations (15:16) or four centuries (15:13; Exod 12:40–41). Whether this chronological framework can be trusted has long been debated, especially since the composition of Genesis occurred long after the events it purports to relate (cf. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, xxvi–xlv). The most conservative critic would admit a gap of six to seven centuries between Abraham and the composition of Genesis, while the more radical would double that. Are there any grounds for holding that Gen 12–50 describes historical events and people, or are its stories merely the creation of a gifted novelist?

The New Literary Criticism (cf. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, xxxii–xxiv) often sidesteps side-steps this question. The new critics tend to be concerned with the final form of the text and the narrator’s art as a writer: for them it does not matter very much whether what is described really happened. It is the story that counts: whether it tells exact history or pure fiction is irrelevant. While this commentary owes much to the new criticism, the old historical questions are still valid, even though answers are not easy to find.

An assessment of the historical worth of the patriarchal narratives must take into consideration four issues. First, their character or genre: are they trying to report events? Second, is it possible that reports of patriarchal deeds could have been reliably transmitted to form the written sources of Genesis? Third, can a patriarchal period be identified? Dates suggested for the patriarchal period vary from about 2200 B.C. to 1200 B.C.. If we can determine when the patriarchs may have lived, we can then address the final issue: do the accounts of their lifestyle and customs match what we know from external sources? I shall look at these questions in turn.

First, what kind of story are we dealing with in Gen 12–50? Older theories that the stories were originally about astral or Canaanite gods have been abandoned. Nor can the patriarchs be viewed simply as personifications of tribal groups. The Genesis stories are essentially stories about family life: birth, rivalry between wives and siblings, marriage, and death are the dominant interests of these stories. Westermann aptly sums them up: The whole has the form of a family history over three generations (2:28). Working within this general framework, Coats has classified every part of Genesis form-critically as report, tale, novella, and so on. This broad consensus about the character of the material in Gen 12–50 clarifies the intentions of the author, but it does not show whether the book gives a reliable account of events.

Comparison with other literature from the ancient Near East shows the unusual, if not unique, quality of the patriarchal story. Apart from royal inscriptions and myths about the gods, oriental narratives about human subjects fall into three main groups. Autobiographies, and occasionally biographies, are written close to the events described and recount events in a straightforward unmiraculous style. The stories of Sinuhe and Wenamun (ANET 18–22, 25–29) fall into this category. Then there are historical legends, such as the epic of Gilgamesh. These deal with historical figures, but they are written centuries later and are full of fantastic deeds, which are clearly the product of imaginative storytellers. Finally, there are purely fictional stories, e.g. The Three Ox-Drivers of Adab, about people who never existed. K. A. Kitchen (The Bible in Its World, 65) observes that the patriarchal narratives fall somewhere between the first and second types of narrative. In sober content and mode of expression, they are clearly closest to the first category. . . . They share their third person narrative form with occasional texts of the first category and all texts of the second group, but entirely lack the fantasy-embellishments of the second group. Like the historical legends, the patriarchal stories are written centuries after the events recorded, but unlike them they lack the fantastic details, apart from the great ages of the patriarchs. But even were we to class them as legends, rather than as biographies, oriental parallels would suggest that we are dealing with real historical figures, not make-believe.

The question of the survival of valid historical reminiscence over centuries of oral transmission is more problematic. Ancient historians tend to be very suspicious of oral tradition more than a hundred years old. Can we place any trust in stories that appear to have been handed down by word of mouth for centuries? De Vaux (The Early History of Israel, 182) points to the methods of Arab storytellers as giving some reason for holding that the patriarchal stories have not been completely distorted in the retelling. Nomadic and semi-nomadic Arabs still narrate in their tents the traditions, genealogies and stories of their tribes or families. Both adults and children hear the same stories again and again and whenever the narrator omits or adds something, they correct him at once. Different versions of the same story are often found in different families. Everyone knows the history of his tribe or clan by heart. And this history can cover many centuries. The orally transmitted reminiscences of the Taamira tribe from the Bethlehem area go back four centuries. Mohammed’s ancestral history went back seven centuries, while Yemenite tribes traced their genealogy back for ten centuries before the rise of Islam. De Vaux observes that while these traditions are to some extent credible, they are not entirely reliable (Early History, 183). These parallels certainly show that complicated folk history may be passed down over many generations, so that the relatively simple outline of the Genesis story could have been preserved intact.

Various dates have been proposed for the patriarchal age. The extreme proposals may be quickly dismissed. To date the patriarchs to the Late Bronze Age (fourteenth century B.C.) allows too little time between the entry into Egypt in Joseph’s time and the exodus. On the other hand, the proposal to date the patriarchs in the Early Bronze Age (c. 2300 B.C.) rests on rather a narrow basis. It depends on equating the destruction of the towns near Bab edh-Dra with that of Sodom and Gomorrah as described in Gen 19. Most modern scholars have preferred to identify the patriarchal age either with Middle Bronze Age I (MB 1), which spans roughly 2200–2000 B.C. or Middle Bronze Age 2 (MB 2), 2000–1700 B.C.. MB 1 is an intermediate period between the great urban civilizations of the Early Bronze and MB 2. During MB 1 the cities seem to have been largely abandoned, but the Negeb, the dry and sparsely populated south of Canaan, had quite a number of settlements at this time. This fits in with the activities of Abraham and Isaac, whose main sphere of action seems to have been in the south of the country around Beersheba, Gerar, and Hebron.

Against identifying MB 1 with the patriarchal age is the apparent absence of settlement at some of the major cities visited by them, Dothan, Schechem, Bethel, Hebron, Beersheba (cf. Dever and Clark, Israelite History, 99–101). But many sites were rebuilt in MB 2, so that if we place the patriarchs in this era, many of the details of their wanderings make sense.

Bimson (Archaeological Data, 59–92) has suggested that it may be unnecessary to choose between MB 1 and MB 2, if we admit that the patriarchal period spanned more than a century or so. The Abraham/Isaac stories could fit in MB 1, and the Jacob stories in MB 2. But there are many uncertainties, which make it unwise to be dogmatic. Do the biblical references to a place, e.g., Beersheba, imply there was a town there when the patriarchs visited it? Have archeologists correctly identified the site mentioned in the Bible and been able to excavate there, e.g., Hebron? In our present state of knowledge, we must admit to some uncertainty and take it as likely that the patriarchs lived sometime in the early second millennium.

Finally, does Genesis’ picture of patriarchal life match what is known from extrabiblical sources in the early second millennium? This was the subject of heated debate in the 1970s and early 1980s, but more recently the debate has moderated. R. de Vaux (Early Israel, 161–266) offers a magisterial discussion of the issues. Some scholars did indeed create parallels between the stories of Genesis and extrabiblical texts where there were none and then on the basis of real or imagined parallels made strong claims for the historicity of Genesis. The studies of Thompson (Historicity) and Van Seters (Abraham in History) were a salutary reaction to these excesses, but they go too far in belittling the historical accuracy of Genesis and trying to place its customs and ideas in the first millennium. The picture of patriarchal life and religion drawn in Genesis does not fit well with what we know of Israel in 600–500 B.C.. But once again we cannot discuss the evidence in detail; we simply point to what conclusions may fairly and reasonably be drawn.

Genesis places Abraham’s origins in Ur in southern Iraq. (The epithet of the Chaldeans is a later clarificatory gloss.) Ur was a flourishing center long before 2000 B.C., but it is remarkable how many of the biblical names are attested in southern Mesopotamia at this period, e.g., Serug (Abraham’s great-grandfather), Nahor (Abraham’s brother), Jacob-El (cf. Abraham’s grandson). Several names seem to be connected with the worship of the moon, whose god and goddesses were patrons of Ur: they include Laban, Sarah, Milcah, and Terah. No one claims that any of the people named in the nonbiblical texts should be identified with the biblical figures: the evidence simply shows that the patriarchal stories fit the environment in which they are set.

Abraham then moved to Harran in northern Syria (upper Mesopotamia), and it is to this region that he sent his servant to find a wife for Isaac and to which Jacob went for the same purpose. Once again, personal and place names found in this area (e.g., Serug, Terah, Nahor, Jacob) echo those in Genesis. Particularly striking proof of the antiquity of the biblical tradition are names like Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob, which are Amorite imperfects. De Vaux observes that the names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob belong to onomastic types which were well known before the Israelites emerged as a people and, what is more, they appeared in the very regions from which the patriarchs came according to the Bible. One is bound to conclude that these traditions have a firm historical basis (Early History, 199, 200). More recently A. Malamat (Mari, 31) has affirmed that the patriarchal names common to Mari and the OT constitute a most potent argument in favour of the antiquity of Israel’s proto-historical core.

The Amorite background of the patriarchs may explain their close relationship with the Arameans (e.g., Laban’s family), who were probably descended from the Amorites who appeared to have settled in this area in the early second millennium (cf. de Vaux, Early History, 200–209). Another striking feature of the patriarchs is their lifestyle. They are not bedouin who migrate across deserts on camels, nor are they traders on donkeys, although they own donkeys and keep to the trade routes. Rather, they are seminomadic: they move from place to place when the situation demands it but stay for longish periods in one place making agreements with local townspeople. Their main occupation is keeping flocks and herds, but sometimes they sow and raise crops. Studies by Rowton (OrAnt 15 [1976] 17–31) and Malamat (JNES 35 [1976] 13–20) suggest that patriarchal society was dimorphic, i.e., a tribal grouping partially settled in towns or villages but partially on the move with their flocks. Such social groupings have doubtless existed throughout Middle Eastern history, but it is striking that the texts from Mari (c. 1700 B.C.), which lies between Ur and Harran, exemplify this type of existence. Not only does patriarchal society seem to be organized like Mari’s, but many Mari terms (e.g., pasture land, inheritance, tribes, leaders; cf. Malamat, Mari, 33) find parallels in the Bible. While it would be wrong to insist that these parallels demonstrate that the patriarchal age is contemporary with Mari, as dimorphism is a recurrent phenomenon, the differences between patriarchal society and that of the monarchy period in Israel suggest that Genesis enshrines valid historical reminiscence of earlier times.

Finally, since family issues are so prominent in Genesis, it is natural that many customs in Genesis about adoption, marriage, inheritance, and burial have been compared with extrabiblical texts. These texts come from a wide range of periods and locations, and they shed much light on biblical practice; indeed, they show that the accounts in Genesis are true to life and reflect authentically the customs of the ancient Orient. However, some scholars have gone further and attempted to demonstrate close affinities between the record of Genesis and particular Near Eastern texts. Hence, appeal was made to the Nuzi texts to demonstrate that the patriarchs were of Hurrian origin or that the patriarchs lived in about the fourteenth century B.C.. But in most instances this overpresses the comparative evidence (cf. Eichler, Nuzi and the Bible, 107–19). Indeed, in some cases such parallelomania has led to quite false comparisons being made, e.g., in 12:10–20 (wife-sister). More generally, social customs in the ancient Orient changed so slowly that it is difficult to use them for dating purposes. For instance, the dowry was a regular part of marriage arrangements throughout the ancient world, so its mention in Gen 29:24, 29 says nothing about the age of the story.

If social laws and customs are to be used for dating purposes, we must be able to trace their evolution chronologically and geographically across the ancient Near East. A careful attempt to do this has been made by M. J. Selman (Comparative Customs; TynBul 27 [1976] 114–36). He concludes that the patriarchal narratives accurately reflect a social and historical setting which belongs to the second and first millennia B.C. (Comparative Customs, 128). In other words, most of the stories would be perfectly at home at any point in this era. However, he does note three points at which Genesis seems more at home in the second millennium than later: in its use of the term rab for the eldest son in 25:23, in the adoption of a slave as heir in 15:3, and in the adoption by a grandfather of his grandsons in 48:8–20 (Comparative Customs, 126–27). In a similar comparative study, Westbrook (ILR 6 [1971] 38) argues that the law underlying the purchase of land in Gen 23 reflects earlier, not later, custom.

Further discovery may shed light on these and other parallels, showing perhaps their persistence over a wider span of time and area. However, comparative study may be done within the OT itself, and this clearly shows that some of the practices apparently taken for granted by the patriarchs were forbidden by later law. For example, Abraham married his half sister (20:12), which is prohibited in Lev 18:9, 11; 20:17, and Jacob married two sisters (29:21–30), which is banned in Lev 18:18. Judah and Simeon married Canaanites, and Joseph an Egyptian, whereas intermarriage with foreigners was later fiercely condemned (Exod 34:16; Deut 7:3). Isaac and Jacob both change the order of seniority of their descendants in making their will (27; 48:13–20), something prohibited by Deut 21:15–17. If the patriarchal stories were merely the invention of later writers, it is hardly likely that the patriarchs would have been portrayed as flouting the law at so many points. For, whenever these stories were written down, it is certain that they portray the patriarchs as paradigms, the fathers of the nation with whom God related in remarkable ways. These discrepancies between the behavior of the patriarchs and later legal norms clearly suggest that the traditions were old and were preserved despite the moral waywardness of those whose lives were recalled.

A similar picture emerges in the study of patriarchal religion. At many points the beliefs and practices of the patriarchs seem to be at variance with those inculcated in the later books of the Pentateuch or the prophets. This is discussed more fully below. But once again this discrepancy between the witness of Genesis and the other books suggests that Genesis is based on traditions going back to much earlier times.

In his recent authoritative discussion of the archeological evidence, A. Mazar writes, The patriarchal narrative known to us from the Book of Genesis must have been very old traditions which were orally passed on from generation to generation until they were written for the first time, perhaps during the time of the United Kingdom of David and Solomon. To substantiate this theory and identify the earliest nucleus of these traditions, we should note the many details which do not correspond to the period of the Israelite settlement and monarchy. As is the nature of oral transmission, many features have been added, yet the origin of the traditions might go back as early as MB II (Archaeology and the Land of the Bible, 225–26). What Mazar says about the archeological data in Genesis applies just as aptly to the social and religious data too.

The Egyptian Background to the Joseph Story

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Geyer, J. B. The Joseph and Moses Narrative: Folk-Tale and History. JSOT 15 (1980) 51–61. Herrmann, S. Israels Aufenthalt in Ägypten. SBS 40. Stuttgart: Katholisches Katholiches Bibelwerk, 1970. Humphreys, W. L. Joseph and His Family: A Literary Study. Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1988. Janssen, J. M. A. Egyptological Remarks on the Story of Joseph in Genesis. JEOL 14 (1955/56) 63–72. Kitchen, K. A. Review of The Biblical Story of Joseph by D. B. Redford. OrAnt 12 (1973) 233–42. ———. Some Egyptian and Near Eastern Background to Genesis 12–50. In He Swore an Oath, ed. R. S. Hess, P. E. Satterthwaite, and G. J. Wenham. Cambridge: Tyndale House, 1993. 67–92. Redford, D. B. A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph. VTSup 20. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Schulman, A. R. On the Egyptian Name of Joseph: A New Approach. In Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur, ed. H. Altenmüller and D. Wildung. Hamburg: Buske Verlag, 1975. 2:235–43. Vergote, J. Joseph en Égypte Louvain: Publications Universitaires, 1959. ———. Review of The Biblical Story of Joseph by D. B. Redford. BO 29 (1972) 327–30. ———. "‘Joseph en Égypte’: 25 ans après." In Pharaonic Egypt, ed. S. Israelit-Groll. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1985. 289–306. Ward, W. A. The Egyptian Office of Joseph. JSS 5 (1960) 144–50. Willi-Plein, I. Historiographische Aspekte der Josefsgeschichte. Hen 1 (1979) 305–31.

It is often argued that the Joseph Story (Gen 37–50) constitutes a discrete, independent unit within Genesis. For reasons explained below (p. 345), I prefer to regard it as the second half of the Jacob story, which begins in 25:19. The Jacob story has been split in two by the insertion of the family history of Esau (36:1—37:1). But though there are many close links in style, theme, and actors between chaps. 25–35 and 37–50, the latter chapters are unique in setting most of the action within Egypt instead of in Canaan or Mesopotamia.

Particularly in chaps. 39–42, Egyptian life and institutions are described in astonishing detail and color. The narrator relishes reporting the exotic customs of the Egyptian court to entertain and instruct his readers. Clearly he was someone well informed about Egypt. Indeed, according to Vergote, he must have had experience living in Egypt, for his knowledge extends to the smallest details (Vergote, Joseph en Égypte, 209; cf. Schulman, Egyptian Name of Joseph, 236). The names of people in the story, Potiphar, Asenath, Zaphenath-Paneah are well-known types of Egyptian names. The rise of Semites to high positions in the Egyptian court is well attested. The description of Joseph’s investiture corresponds well with Egyptian paintings of such ceremonies. The dreams are full of authentic Egyptian color: their importance and that of official dream interpreters are also true to life. The comments on land tenure in Egypt, that all land except for the priests’ holdings was held by the Pharaoh, is also an apt generalization. Finally, the mummification of Jacob and Joseph is typically Egyptian; and Joseph’s age at death, 110, was the ideal span of life in ancient Egypt. Further minor points of correspondence between the story of Joseph and Egyptian life are noted in the studies of Janssen (JEOL 14 [1955/56] 63–72), Vergote (Joseph en Égypte), Redford (Biblical Story of Joseph), de Vaux (Early History), and Kitchen (Some Egyptian) and at appropriate points in the commentary.

But can all these references to Egyptian customs be used to date Joseph’s career and the composition of the narrative? Here it is much harder to be dogmatic, because as in other parts of the ancient Near East, society was conservative and Egyptian customs changed very slowly. Thus many features of the Joseph story could fit with what we know of Egyptian life from 2000 B.C. to the Christian era. Furthermore, as in other parts of the patriarchal story, the past is described with the terminology of the narrator’s own era. Particularly names of places and peoples seem to have been modernized in Genesis, e.g. Dan (14:14), Ur of the Chaldeans (15:7), possibly Philistines (21:32, 34), and Arameans (31:20, 24). These terms may be, strictly speaking, anachronisms, but they represent the narrator’s way of clarifying the story for his contemporary readers, just as a modern writer might describe Babylon as being near Baghdad, although Baghdad did not exist in Nebuchadrezzar’s day. Thus, when we read the story of Joseph, we view his career from the standpoint of a later writer, who has described Joseph in terms that made sense to the first readers rather than with the terminology that a contemporary of Joseph would have used. But with these cautions we shall try to suggest a date for Joseph and a date for the composition of the Joseph story.

There is little that enables us to date Joseph firmly. His name, like that of Jacob, Isaac, Ishmael, is an early Amorite one, typical of the early second millennium. Texts from Egypt of this era (the Middle Kingdom) show there were many Asiatic slaves there then, probably brought by slave traders. It is usually thought though that Joseph’s rise to power coincided with the Hyksos dynasty c. 1650–1540 B.C., when Semitic chieftains ruled Egypt.

Into this background Joseph fits perfectly. Like so many others, he was a Semitic servant in the household of an important Egyptian. The royal court is punctiliously Egyptian in etiquette (Gen 41:14; 43:32); yet the Semite Joseph is readily appointed to high office (as in the case of Ηυmρ, perhaps, a little later). The peculiar and ready blend of Egyptian and Semitic elements mirrored in the Joseph-narrative fits the Hyksos period perfectly. Furthermore, the E. Delta is prominent under the Hyksos (Avaris), but not again in Egyptian history until Moses’ day (K. A. Kitchen, IBD, 420).

However, Vergote suggests that Joseph should be dated somewhat later in the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty (c. 1550–1300 B.C.), as he observes that famine and Semites settling in the delta and rising to high office are found in many periods. He holds that the titles given to Joseph in 41:40–41 and 45:8 fit the eighteenth dynasty best (Vergote, Joseph en Égypte, 98–102, 212). However, in this era the Pharaohs lived in Thebes (330 miles south of Cairo) and Memphis, which does not fit the biblical account so well.

None of these arguments are very cogent, but if we cannot be sure when Joseph lived, we may be confident that he did. As de Vaux observes: This early tradition must have a historical basis. There is no reason to doubt that a person called Joseph really existed (Early History, 313).

The narrative itself has also been dated very differently by different scholars. Despite accepting the documentary hypothesis, Vergote (Joseph en Égypte, 210) maintains that the Ramesside coloring of the narrative is so pronounced that it must have originally been written then, perhaps by Moses. At the other extreme, Redford (Biblical Story of Joseph) holds that it was written in about the sixth century B.C. Most writers adopt a mediating position. A date in the reign of Solomon (c. 970–930 B.C.) is often suggested as a possibility in view of his close connections with Egypt.

Once again the problem lies in dating evidence. On the one hand, the evidence is at home in many periods of Egyptian history; on the other, the Ramesside period is much better documented than later eras. The issues here are complicated and can be dealt with adequately only by Egyptologists. Here I can merely set out the arguments in favor of different dates.

Vergote (Joseph en Égypte, 203–9) points to names in the Joseph story that apparently originated in the new kingdom era. Potipher(a) belongs to a class of names that developed in the eighteenth dynasty, though most examples come from later periods. According to Vergote, the same may be said of Joseph’s Egyptian name, Zaphenath-Paneah, and his wife’s, Asenath. Similarly, the word Pharaoh becomes a title for the Egyptian king in this era and the words for reed grass ( ), magician ( ), and bow down ( ) seem to come into use in this period. Details in the investiture ceremony also seem to reflect customs in about the thirteenth century. Similarly, the phrase the Land of Rameses (47:11) fits this era. Vergote admits such practices and terminology may have continued in use later than 1200 B.C., but if Joseph lived long before then, why should the narratives about him reflect thirteenth-century Egyptian practice unless they were first committed to writing about that time?

Whereas Vergote looks for the era in which terms and customs originated as a way of dating the narrative, Redford (Biblical Story of Joseph) looks for eras in which they are clearly attested and dates the writing to this period. Since the spice trade is not mentioned until the sixth century, Gen 37 cannot be earlier than that. This appeal to negative evidence, however, proves nothing save that Egyptian records do not tell us everything. However, Redford does contest some of Vergote’s specific arguments, e.g., about the term magicians, Zaphenath-Paneah, and the investiture, which he claims only fit a late composition. But, on closer examination, none of Redford’s arguments are conclusive (cf. reviews of Redford by Vergote, BO 29 [1972] 327–30, and Kitchen, OrAnt 12 [1973] 233–42).

But this is not to accept that Vergote has demonstrated that the Joseph story was first written down in the time of Moses. The evidence he cites is suggestive but not decisive. In fact, Vergote himself points to features within the story in its present form that indicate it was at least revised in Canaan. For example, in Canaan the grain shrivels up in the east wind (41:6, 23, 27), whereas in Egypt it is the south wind that is hot and drying. Similarly if the title lord over his house (45:8) is understood in the Hebrew sense of prime minister, i.e., the official next to the king, it fits the story better than if it is given its Egyptian meaning, which would suggest that Joseph was a lesser official. These features show that, whenever the Joseph story originated and was first put in writing, its present form at least dates from post-settlement or early monarchy times.

The Chronology of the Patriarchs

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fokkelman, J. P. Time and the Structure of the Abraham Cycle. OTS 25 (1989) 96–109. Gevirtz, S. "The Life Spans of Joseph and Enoch and the Parallelism: šibʿātayim-šibʿîm wĕšibʿāh." JBL 96 (1977) 570–71. Hughes, J. Secrets of the Times. JSOTSup 66. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1990. Labuschagne, C. J. The Life Spans of the Patriarchs. OTS 25 (1989) 121–27. Young, D. W. On the Application of Numbers from Babylonian Mathematics to Biblical Life Spans and Epochs. ZAW 100 (1988) 331–61. ———. The Influence of Babylonian Algebra on Longevity among the Antediluvians. ZAW 102 (1990) 321–35.

Scientifically minded Western readers are perplexed by the ages of the patriarchs. We find it hard to believe that Isaac was 180 years old when he died or that Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born. In otherwise quite sober family tales, the ages at which the patriarchs marry, give birth to their first child, and die all seem distinctly high.

There are other problems too. Apparently on their deathbeds both Abraham and Isaac give their parting instructions to their servant (chap. 24) or son (chap. 27), but a look at their obituary notices in 25:7 and 35:28 suggests that Abraham lived another thirty-five years and Isaac perhaps another forty-five years. It could be that they did not die as soon as they expected, but 24:55–67 certainly gives the impression that Abraham’s servant did not stay long with Laban and that when he returned Abraham was dead.

Furthermore, many of the figures seem to be round numbers: 14, 20, 40, 60, 100 are common. Fourteen years elapsed between the birth of Ishmael and the birth of Isaac (17:24–26). Jacob worked 14 years for Leah and Rachel (29:18, 30). On inclusive reckoning, Joseph was a slave and imprisoned for a total of 14 years (37:2; 41:46). There were 14 years of plenty and famine in Egypt (41:26–27). Rebekah waited 20 years for the birth of children (25:20, 26). Jacob spent 20 years in Laban’s household (31:41). Isaac and Esau both marry at the age of 40 (25:20; 26:34). Joseph was about 40 when his father arrived in Egypt (41:46–47; 45:6). Isaac was 60 when Jacob was born (25:26). Joseph was 30 (half of 60), when he entered Pharaoh’s service (41:46). Abraham was 100 at the birth of Isaac (17:17), and 100 years elapsed between his departure from Harran and his death (12:4; 25:7).

The announcement of the birth of Isaac is marked out as specially significant, not simply by the five divine speeches in Gen 17 but by the clustering of chronological detail (16:16; 17:1, 17, 24, 25). This recalls the flood story, which is also marked by its abundance of chronological data (7:6, 11, 17, 24; 8:3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14). The flood divides world history into two epochs: it marked the end of the old world and the beginning of the new and is therefore chronicled in terms of Noah’s life. The birth of Isaac is of similar significance and is therefore carefully dated, too, in terms of his parent’s and brother’s ages.

Outside Genesis it has long been recognized that