Genesis (Septuagint Commentary)

Genesis

Septuagint Commentary Series Editors

Stanley E. Porter Richard S. Hess John Jarick

Genesis by

Susan Brayford

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2007

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data Brayford, Susan A. Genesis / by Susan A. Brayford. p. cm. — (Septuagint commentary series, ISSN 1572-3755) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and indexes. ISBN-13: 978-90-04-15552-7 ISBN-10: 90-04-15552-X (alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Genesis. Greek—Versions—Septuagint. 2. Bible. O.T. Genesis—Commentaries. I. Bible. O.T. Genesis. Greek. Septuagint. 2007. II. Bible. O.T. Genesis. English. Brayford. 2007. III. Title. BS1234.G7S427 2007 222’.11077—dc22 2006048846

ISSN 1572-3755 ISBN-13: 978 90 04 15552 7 ISBN-10: 90 04 15552 X © Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijho Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS Preface ...................................................................................................... Abbreviations ..........................................................................................

vii ix

Introduction ............................................................................................

1

Genesis Text and Translation .......................................................................... Commentary ........................................................................................

31 203

Bibliography ............................................................................................ Subject Index ........................................................................................... Modern Author Index ............................................................................ Scripture Index ........................................................................................

453 459 462 464

PREFACE I rst became aware of the lack of an English language commentary on the books of the Septuagint during my graduate study. Having been introduced to scholarship on the Septuagint in its own right, I began researching possible dissertation topics that would combine my interests in the book of Genesis, biblical interpretation, and social world issues. I decided to examine the dierences between the Hebrew and Greek versions of the stories of Sarah and Abraham. To my surprise and initial disappointment, I could nd no one source that oered a compendium of scholarship on the Greek Genesis, whereas commentaries on the Hebrew text were plentiful. In retrospect, that situation was both a problem and a benet. It meant that I had to begin my work by researching the topic without a convenient starting place. However, by so doing, I likely discovered scholarship that I might have overlooked during the early stages of my research had I consulted an English language commentary from the start. Fortunately, the excellent resources that John Wevers provided for Septuagintal studies gave me a solid foundation for my own investigations. When invited by E. J. Brill to contribute the volume on Genesis to its Septuagint Commentary Series, I had mixed emotions. I knew rsthand the need for such a resource and was honored by the invitation. However, I was also learning the time demands associated with teaching in a small four-year Liberal Arts college that had a heavy teaching load. Nevertheless, with the encouragement of my colleague Dr. Donald Scott to accept the oer, I nally did so. With the project now nearing completion, I must take a moment to acknowledge and thank the many others who have helped me over the years. First are the outstanding faculty under whom I studied in the Joint Ph.D. program of the Ili School of Theology/University of Denver. Special thanks are due to Dr. David L. Petersen, who sparked my passion both for Hebrew Bible studies and my eventual focus on the book of Genesis, and to Dr. Pamela Eisenbaum, who shared my passion for biblical interpretation and social world issues and advised me in so many ways throughout my dissertation. Here at Centenary College of Louisiana, I have beneted from a stellar group of students, colleagues, and administrators, whose support has been steady and invaluable. Again, I extend special appreciation to particular individuals: Dr. Earl Fleck, then Provost

viii

PREFACE

of Centenary College and Dr. Kenneth Schwab, President of the College, both of whose encouragement and enthusiasm for the project pushed me to take advantage of all available resources the College had to oer as described below; my Religious Studies colleagues Dr. David Otto and Dr. Peter Hu, whose ungrudging willingness to take on additional work allowed me to take sabbatical leave and who, along with other colleagues, including Drs. Michelle Wolkomir, Kim Van Hoosier-Carey, Beth Leuck, and Lisa Nicoletti gave me unfailing friendship, support, and encouragement to nish the project; and Patty Roberts, whose assistance in writing a research grant made my sabbatical possible. My appreciation also goes to several students in particular: Ms. Connie Manning, who worked with me over several summers to translate the entire Greek Genesis and who is now pursuing graduate work in Greek and Classical Studies; Ms. Elizabeth Johnson, who also helped with the translation and was quick to note the possible reason for Mrs. Potiphar’s interest in Joseph; and Ms. Stephanie Beaver and Ms. Elizabeth Coody, who gave me welcome feedback on several parts of the Commentary. A very special thank-you goes to Dr. Richard Hess, Professor of Old Testament at Denver Seminary, whose outstanding editorial assistance and crucial guidance throughout the project has been invaluable. It is rare to nd a person who is very busy with his own scholarship and teaching to be so quick to respond – usually within several hours – to my many questions and concerns. I express my sincere appreciation to the Louisiana Board of Regents for funding that provided me the critical nancial resources to pursue and eventually complete this Commentary. The LBOR matched funds contributed to Centenary College to establish the Endowed Research Professorship in Humanities, which I occupied for two years, and the Endowed Student/Faculty Summer Research Professorships, which supported my work with student colleague Connie Manning over two summers. A Board of Regents ATLAS grant allowed me to take an extra semester of sabbatical leave and provided funds for travel and other expenses. Finally, I acknowledge two very special people who are both my family and my best friends: my mother Mary Brayford and my spouse and partner Jim Whisonant, who read every word. Without their love, support, and patient understanding, I doubt if I would have had the fortitude to complete this project. Sadly, my mom did not live quite long enough to see this book in publication, so I dedicate it to her memory.

ABBREVIATIONS ALEX ANE ANET B.C.E./C.E. IOSCS LSJ LXX-G MT JPS

Codex Alexandrinus Ancient Near East Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton, 1969. Before the Common Era/Common Era International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Liddell, Scott, Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968 Greek translation of Genesis Masoretic Text Jewish Publication Society

INTRODUCTION Beginnings In the beginning, God spoke in Hebrew – or at least the biblical writers recorded what were later declared to be God’s words in Hebrew. And that was good as long as God’s people could read, write, and speak Hebrew. However, one of the greatest of all God’s human creatures entered the scene and changed the world as it was known. In 333 B.C.E. Alexander the Great conquered the Mediterranean and part of the Ancient Near East and made his native Greek language the lingua franca of his empire. In the real world, as in the Garden, actions have consequences. Because he did this, most Jews living outside the land of Israel lost their ability to read God’s word in its original language. No one was cursed, but as in the story world, work needed to be done to restore God’s words to his people outside the garden land of Israel. That work began in third century B.C.E. Alexandria, the cultural center of the Hellenistic world, and continued for several centuries. To add to the collection of his world famous library, so the second century Letter of Aristeas reports, King Ptolemy II Philadelphus commissioned the translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch into Greek. He sent a delegation to Eleazer, the High Priest in Jerusalem, to request that he appoint six learned men from each tribe of Israel to undertake the translation. These seventy-two men traveled to Alexandria with an authorized text of the Hebrew scriptures and completed their translations on the island of Pharos in seventytwo days. When the royal librarian Demetrius read aloud a copy of the translation, it was approved by both the court and the Alexandrian Jews and became their Bible and the Bible of other Greek-speaking Jews. Over a century later, the Hellenistic Jew Philo of Alexandria enhanced the story of Septuagint origins by attributing divine guidance to the enterprise and making the translation even more miraculous. The translators, although chosen for their knowledge, nevertheless made themselves ritually pure and “became as it were possessed, and under inspiration, wrote, not each scribe something dierent, but the same word for word, as though dictated to each by an invisible prompter” (On the Life of Moses 2.37). Philo thus considered these men to be more than translators. Instead, he characterized them as prophets and priests who, like Moses, were direct recipients of the divine word.

2

INTRODUCTION

These legendary accounts of Septuagint origins oer little in the way of historical accuracy. Most scholars agree that the translations were begun sometime during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus in the third century B.C.E., and that the initial translation described in these accounts refer only to the books of the Pentateuch. It is unlikely that the translators came from Israel or that the High Priest in Jerusalem was involved. It is also unlikely that the Alexandrian Greeks initiated the translation. Instead of being valued for their historicity, these accounts are important for portraying the high regard that many Jews had for their scriptures in Greek. The details in the accounts of Septuagint origins were intended to provide the Greek translations the same authority as the Hebrew texts on which they were based. Even in translation, the words were still the words of God to his people wherever they were living. These legends also led to the name of the translation. Although both these accounts report that seventy-two learned Jewish scribes produced the translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch into Greek, their number was eventually decreased to the more important biblical number of seventy. Thus, the title of the collection of the rst ve books of the Greek Old Testament became known as the Septuagint, with its numeral abbreviation LXX. Later Christian retellings extended the inspirational nature of the Greek Pentateuch to all the books that eventually became part of the Greek Old Testament. Before proceeding, a few comments about terminology of the Septuagint are in order. As Karen Jobes and Moisés Silva so accurately state, the adjective “the” modifying Septuagint is misleading. There is no such thing as the Septuagint. Unlike the Latin Vulgate or most modern biblical translations, no one person or group was responsible for the translation of all the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. Rather, what became known as the Septuagint was undertaken by dierent translators, at dierent times, and in dierent locations. Thus, each biblical book has its own separate origin and history. It was only later when scribes bundled together the many separately translated books into codices that “the Septuagint” appeared to be a unied work. Even then, as Jobes and Silva caution, the particular collection of Greek texts that make up the earliest single volume manuscripts usually came together by happenstance, not intention (2000, 30–31). Most scholars agree that it is more accurate to use the term “Septuagint” and its standard abbreviation “LXX” to refer only to the books of the Pentateuch. The other books are better described as the Old Greek (OG). Inasmuch as the Greek translation of Genesis can accurately be termed the LXX, it will be referred to throughout this commentary by the

INTRODUCTION

3

abbreviation LXX-G. Other books outside the Pentateuch will be referred to by the abbreviation LXX/OG to highlight the complicated origin and text history of the set of Greek scriptures known as the Septuagint. For more discussion about terminology, see Leonard Greenspoon 1987, 21–29; Melvin Peters 1992, 1093; and Jobes and Silva 2000, 30–33. The LXX Translation Although most scholars today would not characterize the LXX translation as miraculous, they do maintain that it was a remarkable achievement for several reasons. First, the major dierences between the Hebrew and Greek languages made the translation more complex than second millennium B.C.E. translations of Sumerian texts into Akkadian (Brock 1972, 12). Secondly, the LXX represented the rst translation of a nonwestern religious text into Greek. As Chaim Rabin notes, the Greek attitude of cultural superiority made the LXX translation, in its Hellenistic Greek milieu, innovative. Although Greeks had signicant contact with other nations and were interested in their cultures, they “did not go in for translation, but for independent rewriting of information” (1968, 19). Finally, the Alexandrian Jews had no rules, guidelines, or concepts about what type of translation they wished to produce. Even the simplistic categories of “literal” or “free” types of translation were not consciously adopted until later. Granting that the LXX translation was unique, some scholars nevertheless acknowledge that models did exist for its translators. In a thriving commercial city such as Alexandria, with its diverse population, translation was a necessary part of doing business. Therefore, Elias Bickerman and others following him proposed that the LXX translators modeled their translation on that practiced in the commercial world, namely, translations produced by professional dragomen who translated commercial documents from one language into another in a very literal and mechanical fashion (Bickerman 1959, 8). Unlike most translators, the rst language of the dragomen was not the target language, but the source language. They learned their craft by ear and had neither the ambition nor the skill required for literary translation. To avoid mistakes, these dragomen most often used stereotyped lexical equivalents for their translations. Rabin similarly argues that the LXX translators modeled their translation on translations produced by both court and commercial dragomen.

4

INTRODUCTION

However, he expands on Bickerman’s analysis by discussing the similarities between the techniques of these dragomen and those of the LXX translators. Both, he argues, displayed a penchant for mechanical and stereotypical translation, even when the equivalents made no sense in context; both substituted plain statements for metaphors; both omitted parts of the texts that they considered superuous. He goes on to say that the dragomen’s training to translate word for word and to use “readymade renderings” for syntactical constructions might explain the inuence of biblical Hebrew on the LXX syntax (1968, 21–25). While this model might account for some of the techniques of the LXX translators, it falls short in other areas. Sebastian Brock describes the two primary methods of translation in antiquity in terms that are strikingly similar to what Eugene Nida refers to today as “formal equivalence” and “dynamic equivalence” (1964, 165–176). One method focused on translating the words of the text and was used mainly for legal and business documents. These translators, like the dragomen mentioned above, neither attempted to remove textual diculties nor to explain obscurities and preferred stereotypical and formal renderings. The other method aimed at translating the sense of the text and was used primarily for literary works. These translators attempted to clarify textual diculties and preferred dynamic renderings. Brock, however, maintains that the LXX did not t precisely into either category, since its texts were both legal and literary. Unlike Bickerman and Rabin, he claims that the translators had no real model for their work. Neither did they have a guiding philosophy of translation. As a result, their translation style was inconsistent (Brock 1979, 69–73). Other scholars similarly characterize the style of the LXX translators as eclectic. James Barr, whom many credit with launching the current research in translation technique, dismisses the two-fold distinction between “literal” and “free” translations as being too simplistic. There are, he argues, “dierent ways of being literal and dierent ways of being free, so that a translation can be literal and free at the same time but in dierent modes or on dierent levels” (1979, 6). He goes on to say that ancient biblical translators had no denitive method of translation, especially those who worked on the earliest books of the LXX. Their style was ad hoc and their choice of words was often based on context. It was only later that translators began to dene their translation strategies in the direction of increasing literalism, a trend that reached its apex with the very literal Greek translation of Aquila (1979, 6–9). The reasons for

INTRODUCTION

5

increasing literalism, Barr contends, were both practical and ideological. Translating word by word was easier and seemed to ll the need for greater accuracy. Furthermore, the concept of divinely-inspired scripture made even the most minute aspects of a text more signicant (1979, 50). Thus, although the LXX translators were aware that they were translating a sacred text and were faithful to its words and meanings, they had not yet dened “literalism” as the best way to render God’s words. Along with the trend for more literal translations came the growing recognition that LXX/OG translators did not always understand their Hebrew texts. As a result, they resorted to techniques that actually made their translations less literal. Emanuel Tov identies six indicators of this lack of understanding. Some words were left untranslated or merely transliterated. At times, the translators resorted to “contextual guesses.” Evidence for such guessing includes the reliance on parallelism in poetic texts, reliance on etymology in all types of texts, and the use of a general term that could t multiple contexts. At other times, however, they seemingly manipulated the Hebrew consonants to come up with words that appeared more contextually appropriate (1984, 55–67). Examples of these types of occurrences appear throughout the Commentary. Early LXX/OG History During the next several centuries, the LXX went beyond its Pentateuchal foundation and expanded to include the Prophets, the Writings, and even some Jewish literature that would not be designated as sacred scripture. This Greek Old Testament was the Bible of Greek speaking Jews, some of whom brought it with them when they became part of an apocalyptic sect of Judaism that was emerging in Israel and other parts of the Mediterranean. Eventually, the beliefs of this group caused it to be disassociated with Judaism and become a separate religion known as Christianity. Nevertheless, most of its early adherents retained the Greek Old Testament as their own scripture, but interpreted many of its texts – especially prophetic texts – in ways that authenticated its major belief that their leader Jesus was the promised Jewish messiah. In what C. F. D. Moule describes as “one of the most remarkable take-over bids in history” (1964, 106), Christians claimed their interpretations were correct and began to use the Greek Old Testament against the ideas of the people who originally wrote and translated it. As a result, Jews became suspicious of Christian tampering with the LXX/OG and decided to revise it so that it would be

6

INTRODUCTION

more faithful to the Hebrew version that was current in Judaism (Tov 1992b, 143). The rst such complete revision occurred in the early second century C.E. Aquila, a Gentile who became a Christian and later converted to Judaism, embarked on an explicitly literal revision as a way of rescuing the LXX/OG from Christian abuse. As a result, some Christians were harshly critical of his revision. As Jellicoe notes (1968, 77), Irenaeus thought him too bold in attempting to displace the LXX/OG among Christians (Against Heresies 3.21.1), and Epiphanius accused him of deliberate distortion (Of Measures and Weights 15). Nevertheless, his work was appreciated by the Jews, who continued to use his version until the fth century C.E. ( Jellicoe 1968, 77). Other Church fathers including Jerome and Origin acknowledged Aquila’s faithful rendering of the current Hebrew text and thus his contribution to a type of pre-modern text criticism. His version, along with those of Symmachus (noted for improving the literary quality of Aquila’s text) and Theodotian (since Barthélemy associated with the socalled kaige revision) were collated by the Church father Origin for his six-column Hexapla. In the rst column, Origin transcribed the current Hebrew text, with its Greek transliteration in the second column. Columns three, four, and six contained the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian respectively. The fth column was the Septuagint text currently used by the Church, which Origin edited with text critical signs to indicate where the LXX/OG diverged from the Hebrew text. His aim was to reconstruct the original text of the LXX/OG that had been corrupted over time through intentional and unintentional changes. In so doing, Origin produced not only a signicant text critical resource, but also one that would help fuel the debate between Christians and Jews regarding the accuracy of the Christian LXX/OG compared with what Origin regarded as the superior Hebrew text. Unfortunately, Origin based his eort on the assumption that the Hebrew text of column one was the same text that the rst LXX/OG translators used. As a result, instead of restoring the presumed original Greek text, Origin actually produced an LXX/OG text that reected an earlier version of the Hebrew Masoretic text (hereafter MT) compiled by the Jewish Masorete scholars between the fth and ninth centuries C.E. As a result, he added yet another mixed text and, in Jellicoe’s words, “extended the very confusion he sought to remove” (1968, 111). Several other attempts were made to remedy the problematic proliferation of divergent LXX/OG texts. Earlier scholars maintained that a certain Hesychius, working in fourth century C.E. Alexandria, undertook

INTRODUCTION

7

a revision of the Egyptian form of the LXX/OG. He was said to have based his revisions on the Hebrew and omitted the longer readings associated with earlier Greek versions ( Jellicoe 1968, 146–156; 345–346). Today, however, the lack of veriable information about the man and his text has led some scholars to abandon the notion of a Hesychian recension ( Jobes and Silva 2000, 47–48). Another recension is attributed to the late third century C.E. Antiochian theologian Lucian. However, the presence of presumed Lucianic readings in documents written prior to the historical Lucian has led scholars to speak of a Proto-Lucianic text, which Jobes and Silva describe as an early revision of the LXX/OG that brought it closer to the Hebrew text. If such were the case, the historical Lucian might have used the earlier revision as the basis for his own. The existence of two Lucianic texts – one considered Proto-Lucianic and one attributed to the historical Lucian – would help explain why some Lucianic readings appear to be closer to the Hebrew text than those of other LXX/OG manuscripts, while others seem further removed from the Hebrew text (2000, 54–55). At the same time, the Old Latin, like its LXX/OG parent, had fallen into “low estate” ( Jellicoe 1968, 251). Thus, in the late fourth century C.E., Pope Damascus commissioned Jerome to make a thorough revision. However, after beginning this eort, Jerome acknowledged that what was really needed was a completely new translation from the current Hebrew text. His translation, known as the Vulgate, eventually replaced the LXX/OG as the Bible of the Western Christian Church. Hence, one of the most signicant Bible translations – both historically and exegetically – was relegated to near obscurity for all but the Orthodox Church and a few scholars who used it primarily for text critical purposes. There it remained for centuries. Subsequent Text History of the Greek Genesis (LXX-G) The number and diversity of LXX/OG texts that were in circulation attest to the importance of the LXX/OG to its very dierent audiences. Of the thousands of such witnesses, special text critical signicance is given to certain uncial (all upper case letters) and minuscule (mixed upper and lower case letters) manuscripts and, for LXX-G, the Chester Beatty papyri fragments. Three uncials dating from the fourth to tenth centuries C.E. are considered the primary witnesses for LXX/OG: the fourth century Vaticanus (Codex B) and Sinaiticus (Codex ) and the fth century Alexandrinus

8

INTRODUCTION

(Codex A). Vaticanus is relatively free of corruptions that occurred due to the LXX/OG revisions described above and is the most complete, despite the fact that it lacks all of Genesis before 46:28b. Sinaiticus agrees with Vaticanus in most instances when both reect the Old Greek translation, but shows some signs that it was inuenced by LXX revisions. Alexandrinus (hereafter ALEX) is inuenced by the Hexaplaric revisions and shows signs of harmonizations (Tov 1992b, 138–139). Nevertheless, ALEX is the best manuscript for Genesis. Copied onto leaves of ne vellum, the text is arranged mostly in quires of eight with twenty-three to twenty-ve letters per line, forty-nine to fty-one lines per column, and two columns per page. It is now bound in four volumes, the rst three of which contain the Old Testament. Large letters in the margin indicate the beginning of paragraphs or sections except in the third volume, which also shows a slightly dierent style of writing than that associated with the rst two volumes. There are no breathing marks or accents by the rst hand; apostrophes occasionally separate words; and numerous and lengthy erasures are written over with the preferred text of one of at least three later correctors. Paragraphs are marked by a large capital letter and additional spacing. Some of the superscriptions and colophons show the Egyptian forms of Greek letters and suggest an Egyptian provenance (Swete 1887, xxii–xxiii; Jellicoe 1968, 183–184). A note by the Patriarch Cyril implied that tradition associated the manuscript with Thecla, a “noble lady of Egypt, shortly after the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), and that her name originally appeared in a note (since lost by mutilation) at the end of the volume” (Kenyon 1937, 84). Although Kenyon comments that 325 is too early a date for the note to be authentic, he nevertheless accepts Egypt as ALEX’s place of origin (1937, 84). Others, however, deny ALEX’s Egyptian origin. As Theodore Skeat writes, F. C. Burkitt in 1909 suggested that ALEX was found on Mount Athos, the Holy Mountain associated with Eastern Christian Orthodoxy, and perhaps taken to Egypt by Cyril in 1616. Skeat refutes Burkitt’s reasoning but nevertheless agrees that ALEX likely was transported from Constantinople to Alexandria between 1308 and 1316 and remained there until 1621 (1955, 233–235). Thomas Pattie similarly argues that Athanasius II brought ALEX to Alexandria, but “has no idea where it was originally written” (1998, 70). Despite the uncertainty associated with ALEX’s actual origin, its later history is not debated. It was the property of the Patriarchs of Alexandria from the end of the thirteenth century until 1627. ALEX was then housed in London’s Royal Library of St. James before

INTRODUCTION

9

moving to London’s British Museum in 1757, where it remained until 1973 when the British Library split from the British Museum. Since then, ALEX has been housed in the British Library (Metzger 1981, 86). The rst scholar to produce an edition of ALEX was Johannes Ernst Grabe, who completed two (the Octateuch and the Poetic books) of four volumes before his death in 1711. The other two volumes (Historical Books and the Prophets) were completed by Francis Lee and William Wigan and published at Oxford in 1719–1720. Grabe’s edition was reproduced in Zurich (1730–32), Leipzig (1750–1751), and again in Oxford by Field. As Jellicoe states, Field’s edition of 1859 removed some of the shortcomings of Grabe’s earlier edition (1968, 184); however, he does not indicate the nature of these shortcomings. Several facsimilies of ALEX were undertaken by Henry Herver Baber (1816–1821) and E. Maunde Thompson (1881–1883), both with the British Museum, and a later one begun by Sir Frederic Kenyon in 1909 but not completed until 1957 ( Jellicoe 1968, 184–185). While some scholars such as Swete praise ALEX, others nd fault with its many subsequent corrections and long erasures. Furthermore, it is often said to betray evidence of theologically motivated glosses, as well as signicant Hexaplaric inuence. Jellicoe, however, discounts these latter two criticisms. In his opinion, ALEX has no more theological glosses than other manuscripts, and its Hexaplaric inuence has been “oversimplied” (1968, 186–187). Rather than characterizing the problems in ALEX as indicative of “translation independence,” Jellicoe asserts that it shows “translation eclecticism.” He goes on to posit an early underlying Alexandrian text that he dates to the time of Hesychius in the fourth century C.E. The compiler, however, “far from being satised to reproduce this text, uses it merely as a framework, sometimes rejecting it entirely in favour of other recensions, in particular those of Lucian and Origen . . . His object seems to have been to arrive at a continuous text that would combine and integrate the fruits of the critical labours of Palestine and Syria as well as those of his native Egypt” (1968, 188). The sixteenth century marked the beginning of other editions of the LXX/OG. In the early part of that century, Christian scholars in Spain produced the rst printed edition of the entire LXX/OG as part of the Complutensian Polyglot Bible that included the texts of the Latin Vulgate surrounded by the Hebrew and Greek versions. The Aldine edition of the LXX/OG appeared during the same time period, but was based on only a few late manuscripts. It was the publication of the Sixtine edition in 1587 and its Latin companion the following year that Jellicoe characterizes as

10

INTRODUCTION

the rst tentative steps towards the production of a critical edition of the LXX/OG (1968, 1). Its lead editor Cardinal Antonio Carafa gathered many manuscripts for the project and became convinced of the superiority of Vaticanus, which from that time forward was the uncial used as the base text by nearly all subsequent editions. The exception was that of Grabe, who, as mentioned above, published an edition based on Alexandrinus in the eighteenth century ( Jobes and Silva 2000, 70–71). However, the extensive work undertaken by Robert Holmes and James Parsons in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries to produce an edition that included evidence from over three hundred manuscripts to supplement its Sixtine base text is what Jellicoe credits as the beginning of modern LXX/OG text critical study (1968, 1–2). Of special signicance for LXX-G is Holmes’s 1795 transcription of the Vienna Genesis, followed by his 1798 critical edition of Genesis. Tischendorf published a number of previously unedited or partially transcribed manuscripts in the 1800’s, but none were “truly satisfactory” ( Jobes and Silva 2000, 72). What Jellicoe terms the “Modern Era” in Septuagint research began in the late nineteenth century with the work of Paul Legarde. He was the rst to realize that all extent LXX/OG manuscripts were mixed, not pure, texts and assumed that all extent witnesses could be traced back to the three recensions mentioned by Jerome, i.e., the trifaria varietas that included the Hesychian, the Hexaplaric of Origin, and the Lucian. Once these three were reconstructed, the original LXX/OG could be ascertained. Any attempt at reproducing a so-called Urtext (original text) demanded a knowledge of the translation style of individual translators, and should reect readings that represented a freer translation style and a non-MT Hebrew text. Using these principles, Legarde published his Genesis Graece in 1868. It included material from the Sixtine, Complutensian, and Aldine editions ( Jellicoe, 1968, 6–8). This volume was to be followed by a larger critical edition of Lucian’s fourth century text of Genesis to Esther. However, as Jobes and Silva indicate, only the rst volume was published. It was an uneven work in which he included so many variant readings for Genesis that the critical apparatus was too large to print (2000, 244). Nevertheless, Legarde’s principles provided the foundations for the work of his student Alfred Rahlfs, as well as other scholars associated with the Septuaginta-Unternehmen center at the University of Göttingen. As one of the world’s foremost institutions for text critical research on the Septuagint, the Septuaginta-Unternehmen launched a long-term project to produce a critical edition of each book of the LXX/OG. A critical edition is based on no one manuscript. Instead, its editor uses all available

INTRODUCTION

11

textual evidence in an attempt to reconstruct the “closest approximation” of the original form of each book. The outbreak of the rst World War delayed work on the fully-critical Larger Göttingen Septuagint. However, before his death in 1935, Rahlfs published a semi-critical edition (Handausgabe) that was based primarily on the three major uncial manuscripts described above, but that nevertheless included material from many other manuscripts. Despite its provisional nature, Rahlfs’s Handbook is still considered the standard LXX/OG text ( Jobes and Silva 2000, 74–75). Genesis, the rst volume of the Larger Göttingen Septuagint series, appeared in 1926 and was published by the Württemberg Bible Society. However, as Rahlfs himself acknowledged, it was only “a form midway between that of a pocket edition and that of the larger edition which had been previously proposed” (cited in Jellicoe 1968, 15). Its poor reception delayed the publication of other books in the series until the Göttingen Commission took responsibility for the project. All subsequent volumes have been published by Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. These critical editions have two sets of apparatus: the rst for LXX/OG textual evidence proper and the second for Hexaplaric evidence of revisions attributed to Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus. Another major LXX/OG project was launched by Cambridge University Press in Great Britain in the late nineteenth century. Contributors to the Cambridge Septuagint, like their Göttingen counterparts, collected textual evidence from many dierent manuscripts. However, the results of their work were, and continue to be, based on dierent text-critical methods. The Cambridge LXX/OG texts, which include the so-called “minor editions” of Swete (The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, 1887–1894) and the “major editions” of Brooke, McLean, and Thackeray (the Larger Cambridge Septuagint, 1906–1940), are known as diplomatic texts that use a single “best” manuscript. That Vaticanus is considered the “best” manuscript is made explicit in the longer title of the Larger Cambridge volumes: “according to the text of Codex Vaticanus, supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint” ( Jellicoe 1968, 22). However, because Vaticanus is missing most of Genesis, both minor and major editions of Cambridge Genesis were based on Alexandrinus through 46:28a. Other textual evidence is collated and appears in the Swete editions in a single apparatus that contains readings from , A, B, D (Codex Cottonianus Geneseos or “Cotton Genesis”), E (Codex Bodleianus Geneseos, or “Bodleian Genesis”), and F (Codex Ambrosianus). The apparatus of the Larger Cambridge Septuagint is tripartite. The rst

12

INTRODUCTION

includes the small errors in the principle manuscripts, the second reports the variant readings of all other textual witnesses except the Hexaplaric evidence, which appears in the third apparatus. Genesis, the rst volume of the Larger Cambridge Septuagint, was published in 1906. Issues in Modern LXX-G Scholarship LXX-G and Text Criticism Just as we cannot reclaim the pristine conditions of the primeval garden, we cannot reclaim the original texts of the LXX. Neither can we know the exact Vorlage, i.e., the Hebrew text, used by each individual LXX/OG translator. Even noted text critical scholars such as Tov and John Wevers acknowledge that reconstruction of the original text of either the Hebrew or Greek scriptures is impossible. Nevertheless, the work they and many others have done to achieve the impossible has expanded greatly what is known, and has provided impetus for all that remains to be accomplished. Although hardly a new discipline at the time, text criticism of the Hebrew Bible burgeoned after the mid twentieth century discoveries at Qumran. The value of the Dead Sea Scrolls for LXX/OG studies in general, and for LXX-G in particular, is mixed. As regards the LXX/OG in general, Tov opines that one of the most signicant contributions of the Qumran discoveries is the evidence they oer for reconstructing the Hebrew texts used by the translators of the books of the LXX/OG (1992a, 11). Nevertheless, he elsewhere states that of the thousands of dierences between the MT and the translations, “only a fraction of them was created by a divergence between MT and the Vorlage of the translation. Most of the differences were created by other factors that are not related to the Hebrew Vorlage. These are inner-translational factors, especially in the area of exegesis” (1992b, 123). Thus, any proposed reconstruction of the Hebrew Vorlage should proceed with caution. James VanderKam and Peter Flint report that the remains of twentyfour Genesis manuscripts were unearthed at Qumran, most of them from Cave 4. The oldest of the scrolls containing Genesis is 4QpaleoGenm and dates to the middle of the second century B.C.E. Despite the large number of scrolls containing Genesis, most of them are fragmentary and witness to only thirty-four of the fty chapters of Genesis. Based on the evidence available, VanderKam and Flint conclude that the Hebrew text of Genesis was fairly stable by the period of Qumran and seems to be a text that is close to the traditional MT and the Samaritan Pentateuch. Other than

INTRODUCTION

13

dierences in spelling and other minor deviations, only eleven scrolls of Genesis contain any signicant variations, with the exception of the dierences in the chronological system (2002, 104), as discussed in the Commentary. Nevertheless, the pre-Qumran relationship between LXX-G and its Hebrew parent text is hotly debated. Put succinctly, the question is whether the Hebrew text that the translators used, i.e., its Vorlage, was an early form of the MT (i.e., proto-MT) text or not. Some scholars including Wevers, Albert Pietersma, and Martin Rösel argue that it was; others including William Brown, Ronald Hendel, and James Davila argue that it was not. That such well respected LXX/OG scholars should disagree over this one particular issue is not surprising. Jobes and Silva in fact claim that the opposing positions about the relationship between any LXX/ OG book and its Hebrew Vorlage is “perhaps the weightiest problem in Septuagint scholarship” (2000, 90). It certainly is the most debated question for the LXX-G. The answer or answers to the question leads to other questions. If the dierences between LXX-G and its parent text are not due to a non-MT Vorlage, when, how, and why did they occur, and what are the implications of the dierences? If they are due to a non-MT Vorlage, when, how, and why did the Hebrew text reect what later became the MT? The extensive work that Wevers did to establish the critical text of Genesis to replace the earlier volume of the Göttingen Septuagint project convinced him that the “parent text being translated was in the main much like the consonantal text of the MT; in other words, the extant textual tradition must be taken seriously” (1993, xiii). He goes on to acknowledge, however, that particular passages, described more fully in the Notes themselves, show either a misreading on the part of the translator or a dierent text. Nevertheless, he chides those who speculate, based on fragments found in Qumran, the existence of a non-MT Vorlage. One must begin, Wevers cautions, “with a prejudice towards the text which we actually have. The occasions when it is clear that a reconstructed text was the basis for Gen (the Greek translation of Genesis) are only rarely evident” (1993, xiii). Other conclusions that Wevers reached similarly represent his assessment of the work done by the translator of LXX-G. Wevers maintains that because the translator was consciously working on a canonical text, he did not merely substitute Greek words for their Hebrew counterparts. Rather, he “tried to put in Greek dress what [he] believed God intended to say to his people” (1993, xii). As such, the Greek translation is sensible

14

INTRODUCTION

throughout. Confusion on the part of modern readers is due to our inability to see the text from the point of view of the third century B.C.E. Greek-speaking Alexandrian Jewish translator. He “shared our humanity,” Wevers opines, “but not our culture, our way of thinking, or even our demand for logical consistency” (1993, xiv). Wevers’s nal conclusion reects the interpretive signicance of the Greek Genesis as compared with the Targums and the Mishnah. It is instead “the earliest exegetical source that we have for understanding the Pentateuch” (1993, xv). Thus, Wevers values the Greek Genesis for its own sake, and even as a means of understanding the Hebrew text, but claims that it should not be treated as a “grabbag for emendations” (1993, xv). To support his argument that the translator of the LXX-G used a protoMT Hebrew text, Wevers analyzes the dierences between the two versions of Genesis 3. The dierences in describing the woman’s evaluation of the trees in v. 6 reects the translator’s stylistic improvement, which Wevers considers a common feature of the translator. Yet, two verses later, the translator seems to take a dierent approach. Instead of retaining a “picturesque gure of speech” (1985, 30), the translator shows his interest in clarity. This interest in clarity is better reected in his tendency to add either a subject or an addressee to the verb “said” (e.g., v. 9) and to make explicit what is only implicit in the Hebrew (e.g., v. 17). Wevers also notes the translator’s strong tendency to harmonize the text, while at the same time avoiding excessive formulaic renderings. Overall, Wevers characterizes the dierences between the Hebrew and Greek versions of Genesis 3 as evidence of the translator’s attempt to interpret his parent text “intelligently, rather than to resort to a word-for-word literalism” (1985, 38). Whereas few doubt the text critical value of the Greek books of Samuel and Jeremiah, Martin Rösel represents those scholars who see the text critical value of LXX-G as signicantly less important. He, like Wevers, maintains that the Hebrew Vorlage used by the LXX-G translator was very close to the consonantal text of the MT. Therefore, LXX-G contributes less to text critical issues and more to the history of interpretation and reception (1998, 69). Like Wevers, he notes that the translation of LXX-G shows evidence of harmonization, linguistic sensitivity, and exegesis. In fact, he states that “only if one can exclude with a high degree of probability that the variant in question cannot be explained as a harmonization or an exegetically or linguistically motivated deviation can the MT be corrected with the help of this variant” (1998, 70).

INTRODUCTION

15

Johann Cook, another recognized LXX/OG scholar who has written extensively on LXX-G, acknowledges that LXX-G shows some amount of theologically motivated exegesis. One of the most notable examples is found in the LXX-G translation of 2:2. Finding it troubling that the Hebrew text implied that God did some work on the seventh day, the translator of LXX-G changed ‘the seventh day’ to ‘the sixth day.’ Cook also contends that the addition of the adverb ‘in addition to’ () in 2:9 and the plural reading in 2:18 ‘let us make’ reect the translator’s attempt to avoid apparent anomalies (2004, 4). However, Cook considers these examples unusual. Instead he concurs with those who argue that Genesis is a relatively literal translation of its Hebrew Vorlage. As a result, he contends, contra Wevers and Rösel, that most deviations between the LXX and the MT reect a dierent non-MT parent text (2004, 3). He, in fact, argues more strongly for this position in his later writings. Whereas he rst attributed some of the dierences between the two texts to LXX-G’s harmonizing tendency (1982, 35–36), he later recanted that position and argued instead that most dierences between the Hebrew and the Greek should be attributed to a non-MT Vorlage (2001, 320). His change of opinion is most evident in the dierences between the Hebrew and Greek versions of Genesis 1:9, as is discussed in the Commentary. William Brown, even more strongly than Cook, argues that the LXX-G translators were working from a parent text that preceded the MT. He cites Harry Orlinsky’s pronouncement that the discoveries at Qumran make it more dicult to conclude that dierences in the LXX/OG were the result of the translators “dealing promiscuously with their Hebrew Vorlagen” (1993, 113). Instead, it is the relation between the Vorlage and the MT that needs to be evaluated. Brown’s detailed examinations of Genesis 1:1–2:3 in the MT and LXX-G, especially the role played by the water in both, leads him to conclude that the Hebrew text preserved by the Masoretes is “essentially a subtle ideological revision of the Hebrew Vorlage of the Old Greek” (1993, back cover). Brown not only argues for a non-MT Vorlage, he also oers a proposed reconstruction of the Hebrew text used by the Greek translator of Genesis 1:1–2:3. Both Brown and Cook base at least part of their argument that the LXXG translator was working with a non-MT Hebrew Vorlage on the work of James Davila. His work on several fragments of Genesis discovered in Qumran led him to conclude that some, but not all, of the fragments attest to a Vorlage “more original than the MT” (1990, 3). For example, 4QGenb that preserves parts of Genesis 1, 2, 4, and 5 reects a text identical to the MT, whereas 4QGeng, h, k have readings that diverge from the MT. Of

16

INTRODUCTION

those, Davila maintains that both 4QGenh and 4QGenk oer evidence for a Hebrew text that agrees with the LXX of Gen 1:9 against the MT. Despite the mixed evidence, Davila nevertheless argues that the LXX of Genesis must be regarded as a text critical source for a Hebrew text alternate to the MT (1990, 8–11). He goes on to state that “the translators of Genesis treated their Vorlage with respect and rendered the Hebrew text before them into Greek with great care and minimal interpretation” (1990, 11). Ronald Hendel represents those scholars who, while arming some degree of interpretation in the translation of LXX-G, nevertheless argues that LXX-G provides evidence for a non-MT Hebrew Vorlage. Like Brown, Hendel cites Orlinsky’s post-Qumran caution against assuming “promiscuous” translations on the part of the LXX/OG translators and laments the fact that Wevers and others have not taken the ndings in Qumran more seriously (1998, 16–17). He maintains that the LXX-G translation was “extremely literalistic in its unit-by-unit conservation of the Hebrew, producing a dicult text characterized by Greek words and Hebrew syntax” (1999, 32). Hendel criticizes Rösel and Wevers who both portray the translator’s style in some places as literal and in some places as free – a style that Hendel dubs as “wildly inconsistent” (1999, 32). He instead argues that the translator was more consistently literal in rendering a dierent Vorlage. LXX-G and Translation Technique Contrary to Wevers’s assertion that one should posit “a dierent parent text only if other reasonable explanations fail” (Wevers 1985, 29), Anneli Aejmeleaus argues “the scholar who wishes to attribute deliberate changes, harmonizations, completion of details and new accents to the translator is under the obligation to prove his thesis with weighty arguments and also to show why the divergences cannot have originated with the Vorlage” (1987b, 71). Comments like these and those of the above scholars demonstrate the explicit connection between the question of the LXX-G Vorlage and the translation technique of the LXX-G translator. Described by Tov as the special techniques used by translators when transferring the message of the source language (in this case Hebrew) to the target language (koine Greek), translation technique includes the choice of lexical and grammatical equivalents, as well as the amount of adherence to the Hebrew text (1987, 339). Although often undertaken along with grammatical studies, studies in translation technique are fundamentally dierent. Grammatical studies begin with the language

INTRODUCTION

17

of the LXX/OG and focus on the diachronic development of the Greek language as a whole. Studies of translation technique, on the other hand, begin with the Hebrew text and oer a synchronic perspective on the Greek of the LXX/OG. Tov dates the modern study of translation technique to 1841 and describes its development through the middle of the twentieth century; however, he rightly credits the so-called Helsinki School associated with I. Soisalon-Soininen and his students for making the greatest contribution to the discipline of translation technique (1987, 342–349). They have devoted years of study and research to address all aspects of translation technique, including issues of grammar, lexicography, and syntax. The results of these studies, as they relate to LXX-G, are discussed below. One prolic scholar associated with the Helsinki school is Aejmeleaus. As she observes, the growing interest in translation technique has produced studies that represent three dierent, but at times overlapping, approaches: 1) the technical statistical approach that attempts to provide a quantitative measurement of the relationship between the LXX/OG and its Hebrew Vorlage; 2) the linguistic approach that concerns itself with the Greek language of the translators; and 3) the exegetical approach that attempts to assess the non-quantiable elements of the translation including the attitudes and intentions of the translator. Although most of her work reects the linguistic approach, she nevertheless comments on the third approach and concedes that we know little, if anything, about the intentions of the earliest translators beyond their need to understand their scriptures in the Greek language of their day and time. Study of translation technique, therefore, describes the results of the translator’s work, rather than his method or intention (1991, 28). She concurs with Barr that these translators had no explicit method. Instead, “their work is characterized by intuition and spontaneity more than conscious deliberation and technique,” which she says is evident in “how they employ excellent free renderings and helplessly literal, Hebraistic renderings of one and the same Hebrew expression almost side by side” (1991, 25). Although acknowledging Barr’s critique of the terms “literal” and “free” when assessing translation style, Bénédicte Lemmelijn categorizes the rst two type of studies mentioned above on the basis of these two terms. She characterizes scholars such as Tov and Benjamin Wright, who advocate the approach that Aejmeleaus calls the technical statistical approach, as ones who focus on the degree of literalness of the books of the LXX/OG (2001, 51–54). Building on Barr’s earlier typology

18

INTRODUCTION

of literalism, Tov has proposed ve criteria to describe the degree of literalness in a text, four of which can be measured statistically by means of the CATSS (Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies) database. Statistical analyses, Tov and Wright maintain, help overcome the use of “mere impression” in assessing translation style by providing some element of precision (1985, 149–153). The linguistic approach, on the other hand, addresses free renderings. As Aejmeleaus writes, it is the deviation from literality that points to the unique style of individual translators. “Free renderings,” she maintains, “are like ngerprints that the translators have left behind them. By these ngerprints it is possible to get to know them and to describe their working habits, their actual relationship with the original, and their talent as translators” (1987a, 361–362). She goes on to argue that statistical analyses of literalism do not help determine whether individual deviations from the MT were already found in the Vorlage, came into being during the initial translation, or occurred in later revisions. However, taking into account the amount of freedom characteristic of an individual translator can help resolve the issue (1987a, 362). Her examination of parataxis in the LXX/OG demonstrates how a translator’s deviation from the norm oers a basis for characterizing translation technique. As readers of Hebrew narrative know, the Hebrew conjunction vav () begins over half the clauses in the Hebrew Bible. Because the most literal meaning of vav is “and,” it implies only a coordinate or equal relationship between the clauses it connects. As such, it lacks the sophistication of the Greek language that has many varied ways to express the relationship between clauses. The LXX/OG most often renders vav by the coordinate conjunction  (and). Thus, a translator’s use of other connective particles that are prevalent in non-translation Greek such as  ,  , ,  indicates, per Aejmelaeus, a freer rendering and shows the translator’s ability to use more natural Greek expressions (1987a, 370). The translators of the Pentateuch used  to render vav in ordinary paratactic clauses over seventy-six percent of the time. Although a high percentage, it also means that they chose to use other conjunctions nearly twenty-ve percent of the time. Thus, Aejmelaeus maintains these statistics indicate at that at least some of the translators some of the time thought there was a better way to connect the clauses. Of all the books of the Greek Pentateuch, LXX-G shows the lowest percentage. Its translator used  for vav in less than sixty-three percent of the cases, preferring  , the most common conjunction in original Greek texts, nearly twenty-ve

INTRODUCTION

19

percent of the time. In chapter 31 alone, the LXX-G translator used the post-positive  thirty-four times in fty-four verses (Leiter 1988, 108). Even more signicant, the translator rendered the Hebrew narrative transition formula  (“and it came to be”) by means of    (rather than by    ) in seventy-two percent of the cases, a frequency so high that it can be considered a stereotypical rendering. These statistics show that the LXX-G translator possessed a good command of the Greek idiom and considerable regard for the larger context (Aejmelaeus 1987a, 371). Tov comments that the LXX-G’s frequent use of    instead of the later much more common    implies that its translator, likely the rst, was still searching for a method of translation (1987, 351). The LXX-G translator’s relatively frequent use of the post-positive  and resulting deviation from strict word order, his tendency to choose words based on context and content over mere consistency, and his regard for narrative coherence are factors that lead Leiter and others to characterize the LXX-G as a relatively free translation. Frank Polak similarly comments that the Greek translator of Genesis “positively endeavors to utilize the rich possibilities which the Greek language oers him in order to do justice to the particularities of the Hebrew text” (2003, 529). In so doing, he shows sensitivity to the narrative context in which parataxis occurs. Raija Sollamo examines the ways by which LXX/OG translators render the common Hebrew paronomastic construction that is made up of an innitive absolute and a nite verb of the same stem. This construction most often strengthens the idea of the verb and is thus used for emphasis. In rendering these emphatic constructions, the LXX/OG translators occasionally used a somewhat parallel and thus relatively literal construction of participle plus a nite verb of either the same root or one that was synonymous. However, the more common Greek rendering of the paronomastic innitive construction in the Pentateuch is the nite verb with a cognate noun, most often in the dative, but occasionally in the accusative or with a preposition. In other places, the Hebrew innitive absolute was not translated at all or was rendered by an adverbial construction. Sollamo’s analysis of all such translations in the Pentateuch shows the problems associated with statistical analyses, as well as the categories “literal” and “free.” LXX-G used the rst and more literal way of translating the Hebrew paronomastic construction more often than other Pentateuchal books and would thus be considered a more literal translation. However, interpreting the data in a dierent way produces the opposite result. Analyzing the instances where the translators used

20

INTRODUCTION

the freer methods of rendering the Hebrew innitive construction, Sollamo shows that LXX-G more often than the other books used the most free type of rendering, that of not rendering the innitive at all. In this case, LXX-G would a more free translation. In her nal analysis, Sollamo agrees with others that LXX-G is second only to Exodus in its degree of free renderings (1985, 101–113). Sollamo comes to a similar conclusion after examining the repetition of possessive pronouns in the LXX/OG. This is another instance of a grammatical construction that is quite dierent in Hebrew and Greek. Whereas Greek, like English, indicates possession by a separate possessive adjective (e.g., his book), Hebrew shows possession by attaching a pronoun sux directly to the noun. Thus, “his book” is a single word composed of the word “book” () to which the third masculine singular pronoun “his” () is added, resulting in . When two or more objects are possessed by the same person, the pronoun sux is added to each noun. For example, Gen. 38:18 MT reads ‘your ring, your cord, and your sta ’ (     ). LXX-G, like nonbiblical koine Greek, does not duplicate “your” after every object, so that it reads ‘your ring, the cord, and the sta ’ (     μ

  

). Despite the fact that the possessive pronouns are repeated in the Greek Pentateuch in fty to seventy-seven percent of all cases in the dierent books, Genesis is second only to Exodus in having the lowest percentage (Sollamo 1981, 41–42). The results of these and other linguistic studies on LXX-G leads Aejmelaeus and other scholars to conclude that Genesis is one of the freest translations and represents the most natural Greek. As a result, it is more dicult to trace its Vorlage (1987b, 65–66). That is likely a main reason that scholars disagree about the source of dierences between the Hebrew and Greek texts of Genesis. The third type of translation technique study, the exegetical approach, acknowledges that the translators at times manipulated their Hebrew text. Despite the legendary accounts that the LXX translators worked individually on a remote island, the truth is that translators never work in a contextual vacuum. The LXX translators, like those today, were inevitably inuenced by many dierent types of factors – physical, geographical, social, and psychological. Although psychological factors are both impossible and inappropriate to attempt to discern, the three other factors are more concrete. In the case of the LXX, these relate to the third century B.C.E. Alexandrian milieu of the Hellenistic Jewish translators. Most Alexandrian Jews, while sharing the religious convictions of their Palestinian

INTRODUCTION

21

counterparts, were living in very dierent conditions in a thriving Hellenistic city characterized by ethnic, social, and religious diversity. Robert Hanhart represents those scholars who approach the issue of exegesis in the translation of the LXX/OG cautiously and conservatively. He maintains that interpretation is only evident in the lexical decisions made by the translators in choosing “between the various possibilities of understanding” the Hebrew text. He goes on to say that the LXX/OG translations represented actualization of contemporary matters “only when the choice of the Greek equivalent is capable of doing justice both to the factuality and history of the original Hebrew witness and also to the contemporary history of the translator” (1992, 342–343). Wevers, on the other hand, argues for a much less conservative position. In the last portion of his 1996 essay “The Interpretative Character and Signicance of the LXX,” he discusses the particular features of the LXX-G translation that lend themselves to exegetical possibilities. First is its tendency for harmonization. Should a similar statement recur, the translator often repeats his translation of the earlier statement, rather than retranslate it. In other cases, the translator’s knowledge of his Hebrew text causes him to anticipate what will come later and add to the text of an earlier verse (1996, 96–97). LXX-G often attempts to correct seeming inconsistencies in the text for both grammatical and narrative reasons (1996, 97–100). Wevers also maintains that the translator produced a text “which would make clear what he believed MT meant” (1996, 100). In some cases, the translator opted for semantic clarity, rather than lexical consistency (1996, 101). In others when the obscurity of the Hebrew puzzled him, he resorted to what Tov characterized as “contextual guesses” (1984, 56). Finally there are instances that show the translator intentionally changed the narrative in terms of plot and characterization (Wevers 1996, 103–104) or updated geographic or historical details (1996, 104–105). As a result, Wevers dubs the Greek Genesis as “the earliest commentary extant for any biblical book” and praises it for the insight it provides on “how Jews in third century B.C.E. Alexandria understood their Bible” (1996, 107). Examples of these types of inuences will be noted throughout the Commentary. LXX-G Texts, Translations, and Commentaries LXX/OG study has experienced a renaissance of sorts over the past several decades. Independent scholars and those aliated with organizations

22

INTRODUCTION

and universities all over the world have produced and continue to work on many important research, translation, and commentary projects. Although the Larger Cambridge Septuagint project ceased publication in 1940 with many biblical books not translated, the Larger Göttingen Septuagint project continues. To date, twenty volumes have been published. As mentioned above, the Genesis volume of Rahlfs was not a fully critical edition and not well-received. Therefore, Wevers accepted the oer of the Septuaginta-Unternehmen to produce the needed fully critical edition of Genesis. Although acknowledging that the ultimate goal of determining the “original text (of LXX Genesis) as it had been produced by the translator” was impossible, Wevers nevertheless undertook a long, arduous, and eventually successful investigation into hundreds of manuscripts of Genesis, as well as papyri and other versions. In addition to producing the critical text of Genesis, Wevers wrote a number of studies that analyzed the major textual groups that comprised Genesis’s textual history and later incorporated this research into a separate publication Text History of the Greek Genesis. He also published a verse-by-verse commentary on his critical text of Genesis: Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis. The work that he did to establish the critical edition of Genesis, published in 1974, and the accompanying resources, provided the general pattern that he would follow for producing critical editions of the remaining Pentateuchal books for the Göttingen series (1999, 65–96). The International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies (IOSCS), a nonprot learned society that was formed to promote research on the LXX/OG and related texts, has undertaken two major projects. The rst is a New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS), which is based on the “best available editions.” Thus LXX-G’s translator Robert Hiebert used Wevers’s critical Göttingen text. The two objectives of NETS are “to create a faithful translation of the LXX and to create a tool for synoptic use with the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) for the study of the Greek and Hebrew Bible texts,” with an overall goal of producing an English version that reects “what the translator evidently thought the text to mean, as inferred from the linguistic information his text provides” (Pietersma 2001, 217, 220). Commenting on his translation of the Greek Genesis, Robert Hiebert acknowledges some of the lexical, grammatical, and syntactic challenges of translating a translation. In particular, he cautions those who read and translate the LXX/OG to remember that the Greek text is not always “semantically equivalent” to the underlying Hebrew. In accordance

INTRODUCTION

23

with NETS objectives, Hiebert’s translation of the Greek Genesis seeks to “represent the intended meaning of the creator of a text rather than to reect what the interpretative tradition(s) subsequently made of it” (2000, 78–79). He goes on to comment on verses where the LXX-G translator was quite literal (2000, 80–83), as well as on other verses that show the translator’s tendency for contextualization, harmonization (2000, 85–90), and expansion (2000, 90–92). He, in other words, would characterize LXX-G much like Aejmelaeus, as showing evidence of both literal and free renderings. In conjunction with the NETS project and in collaboration with the Society of Biblical Literature, the IOSCS is publishing a commentary series whose purpose, like that of NETS, is to provide the reader with the “original meaning” of the LXX/OG. Each individual commentary in the SBLCS (Society of Biblical Literature Commentary Series), in other words, will attempt to present the “translator’s intent,” as discerned by means of the linguistic information “embedded in the Greek text.” As such, both the NETS translation and the SBLCS adhere to dierent philosophical principles than those of the other two major commentary series discussed below. The rst major commentary series was launched in 1986 by a group of French LXX/OG scholars led by Marguerite Harl. This nondenominational commentary series, known as “La Bible d’Alexandrie” (BA), uses Rahlfs as its base text. Its rst volume La Genèse, produced by Harl herself, was published in 1986. Its overall goal of providing as exact a translation of the Greek text of the LXX/OG as possible is based on four principal strategies: translating the LXX/OG “according to the Greek,” determining the dierences between the LXX/OG and the Hebrew texts, understanding the reasons for these dierences, and studying the “ancient reception and interpretation of the LXX.” A fth step is to revise the initial literal translation in order to meet the “basic demands of the French language” (Harl 2001, 181–183). One important dierence between the BA project and NETS is the decision that BA translators would work only with the Greek text during the rst phase of the translation. Reference to the MT, the only available Hebrew text but not the exact Hebrew Vorlage, would divert the translator’s attention from the primary aim of rendering the ancient Greek text as accurately as possible. Thus, rather than attempting to determine the meaning of a problematic Greek word or phrase by consulting the Hebrew text, the BA translators look to contemporary Greek texts for elucidation.

24

INTRODUCTION

Another dierence between BA and NETS is the distinction Hiebert makes between “intended” and “apprehended” meaning (2000, 79). Whereas “NETS attempts to reect the manner in which the Greek translator intended his text to be understood rather than the manner in which a Greek audience might understand that text,” BA explicitly acknowledges the responses of LXX/OG’s ancient audiences as a means of providing insight into what early Christians, in particular, understood the Greek scriptures to mean. This approach, Harl states, is “based on the conviction that a writing contains in itself, in its own text, the elements of its future interpretations” (2001, 195). Therefore, she oers many ne discussions of the ways in which Philo, Paul, and most of the early Church Fathers likely understood the LXX-G texts. For more detailed analyses of the goals of both projects and their philosophical dierences, see the essays by Harl, Pietersma, Arie van der Kooij, and Natalio Fernández Marcos in the X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. E. J. Brill Septuagint Commentary on Genesis Text The E. J. Brill Septuagint Commentary series, to which this volume contributes, follows dierent guidelines and philosophies. Unlike the BA that uses Rahlfs as its base text and the NETS/SBLCS that is based on the best editions (thus Göttingen when available), the commentaries in this series are each based on one of the three main uncial codices. The reason for taking this approach is to produce a text that actually existed in a particular reading community. For Genesis, as discussed above, the only uncial that can be used is Alexandrinus. Vaticanus is missing the rst forty-six chapters of Genesis, and Sinaiticus is defective in much of Genesis. By contrast, Alexandrinus lacks only 14:14–17, 15:1–5 and 16–19, and 16:6–9. For its base text, this Commentary relies Swete’s 1887 edition of the Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint, and follows its spelling. Thus spelling throughout the Commentary is conformed to standard conventions. Any lacunae are lled by Holmes’s Cottonianus Geneseos (Codex D). The source of the electronic Greek text of Genesis is Rahlfs, from Bibloi (formerly Bible Windows). This text was then modied to correspond with the 1887 Swete edition. For places in which Swete’s edition is uncertain, Wevers’s Göttingen edition was also consulted. Other characteristics of Swete’s 1887 edition that are followed in the Commen-

INTRODUCTION

25

tary include verse numbers, chapter divisions, major narrative divisions, and capitalization (especially Swete’s distinctive capitalization of the Greek word for Lord,  ). In several places, the chapter and verse numbers are dierent from those of the MT and other LXX/OG manuscripts. ALEX’s Chapter 31 ends with a verse that is the rst verse in Chapter 32 in other versions. Similarly, Chapter 42 ends with a verse that is the rst verse in Chapter 43 in other versions. As a result, the verse numbers in both Chapters 31 and 43 in the Translation and Commentary sections are one number less than other versions. These deviations are noted in the Commentary section. Swete’s punctuation is also followed as often as possible, except when it makes the English translation dicult to understand. Methodology The purpose of E. J. Brill’s commentary series is to provide a commentary on the Septuagint in its own right. Therefore, reference is to be made to the Hebrew text only when necessary. Nevertheless, as stated above, LXX-G does not deviate signicantly from its Hebrew parent text, which, for the purposes of this Commentary, is assumed to be proto-MT. As a result, it is necessary to discuss features of the Hebrew narrative that agree with the Greek version, not only to provide coherence, but also to better understand the signicance of the occasional dierences. Inasmuch as this Commentary is not meant to provide a thorough review of scholarship on the Hebrew text, only a few representative commentaries on the Hebrew text have been used. The two primary ones are Claus Westermann’s three-volume commentary and Nahum Sarna’s JPS commentary. Important contributions on the Hebrew text by other scholars are referenced as appropriate throughout. The two major reference works consulted for the Greek text are Wevers’s Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis and Margarite Harl’s La Genèse. These are supplemented with the ndings of other scholars who have contributed to LXX-G study. An abbreviated reference to all secondary literature appears in the Commentary by author’s last name, date of publication, and page number(s). Complete bibliographic information appears in the Bibliography. The Commentary itself acknowledges text critical issues, especially when ALEX has a dierent reading than other witnesses. In some cases, the text is corrected in accordance with the corrections noted in Swete’s edition. However, no attempt is made to suggest the better or best

26

INTRODUCTION

reading. Instead, the Commentary examines the text as it is and interprets it in its own right from literary, historical, social, and theological points of view. Inasmuch as most of Genesis is narrative, it is best to read the book as one part of the larger story of Israel from the beginning to the time of the sojourn in Egypt. As noted above, it is impossible to ascertain the intention of the author or the translator. However, it is possible and appropriate to analyze the signicance of the dierences between the Hebrew MT and ALEX’s LXX-G – regardless of how and when the differences occurred. In other words, the relationship between the Hebrew Vorlage and LXX-G is not of primary importance. Although the position reected in the Commentary presumes the Hebrew Vorlage was protoMT, rather than a Hebrew text that was later revised and corrected in the MT, the guiding principle for the comments is that of reecting on the manner in which the readers of ALEX might have understood and interpreted their Greek Genesis. Conventions Rendering proper names is particularly challenging. Many such names in Hebrew not only mean something, but those meanings are often wordplays that are usually impossible to duplicate in translation. As a result, most often LXX-G transliterated the Hebrew names, rather than translated their meaning. The conventions for rendering proper names are as follows: – When LXX-G’s rendering of a Hebrew proper name is translated, so is the English rendering of the Greek name. For example, in 33:17 where the Hebrew place name Succoth ( ) is translated as ! , the Greek is also translated into English as “Tents.” – When LXX-G’s rendering of a Hebrew proper name is transliterated, so is the English rendering of the Greek name. For example,  (Joseph) is transliterated in LXX-G as "#$ and in the Translation as Isph. – In the Commentary section, the more common English name will be used. The rst time the common name is used, the name as it appears in the Translation follows the more common name in parentheses. For example, the rst time that Isph appears in the Translation (30:24), the recognizable name Joseph appears beside Isph in the Commentary.

INTRODUCTION

27

– When the LXX-G name replaces the Hebrew name, the more common English name is used. For example, the Hebrew  (Egypt) appears as %& '  in LXX-G and as Egypt in the Translation and Commentary. – Despite their declension in LXX-G according to function, proper names are transliterated only in their nominative form. – Gentilics for Greek words ending in  , ! in most cases will end with the English characters “ite.” Plurals ending in oi will end with the English characters “ians.” Exceptions are noted in the Commentary. – Following A. Graeme Auld in his earlier E. J. Brill Septuagint Commentary Series volume ( Joshua: Jesus Son of Nau in Codex Vaticanus, 2005), the Greek name for Israel’s God (  ) is rendered in the Translation as “Lord,” not the Lord (xvii). Other conventions followed in the Commentary include: – Double quotation marks enclose the exact words of other scholars – Single quotation marks enclose translated material from the MT, LXX, or other primary texts – Transliteration from Greek into English characters follows the guidelines that appear in The SBL Handbook of Style as follows:       * + !    μ

(

'

a b g n (before , , (, )) d e he z  th i k l m n x o p

    $ ) . # /   * !



r rh s t y (not in diphthong) u (in diphthongs: au, eu, u, ou, ui) ph ch ps  (rough breathing = h) au eu heu u ou ui

28

INTRODUCTION

Translation Much like the LXX-G itself, the English translation herein attempts to be faithful to the meaning that the translator discerns in the source text, here ALEX. As such, some renderings are based on context and the requirements for understandable English. For example, the preposition “between” is not repeated when rendering phrases such as that of 3:15:  0 1 μ 

 2 ' μ   0 1 μ 

 2 ' μ  34. The translation reads “and between your ospring and her ospring.” However, the translation as a whole is fairly literal in most places. This often results in awkward and often inelegant English. Nevertheless, its awkwardness to contemporary readers in a sense mimics the manner in which native readers of Greek might have regarded the style of LXX-G. Some particular aspects of the translation’s literalism include: – Lexical consistency: is followed as often as possible except where the literary context makes another translation more sensible. For example, the Greek verb '  μ is most often translated with some form of the English verb “travel,” especially when distance is involved. However, in places where the subject only goes a short distance, some form of the English “go” is used instead. The meanings of some Greek words, however, are especially dependent on context. For example, the Greek word  5 is translated a variety of ways, including “origin” (2:4), “descendants” (6:9), “kindred” (31:13), and “birth” (32:10). – Parataxis: the uncertainty of the precise relationship between clauses in the LXX-G is duplicated in the translation. The Greek  is routinely translated as “and,” and the post-positive  is variously translated as “now,” “then,” or “but/yet.” Thus, the English translation avoids the unintentional interpretation associated with expressing a more precise relationship between clauses. – Subordination of verbal ideas: the opposite problem of parataxis. Throughout LXX-G, the translator often subordinated the rst of two nite Hebrew verbs by rendering it with a participle. For example, the Hebrew of 3:6b (     ) has two vav consecutive verbs that are both translated in the past tense: “and she took from its fruit and she ate.” LXX-G renders the rst nite verb “took” ( ) as the aorist participle  2, thus “taking,” and the second “ate” ( ) as the simple aorist ($ ), thus “she ate.” In so doing, the second verbal idea seems to be the stronger. This way of rendering is followed throughout.

INTRODUCTION

29

– Emphatic constructions: As discussed above, Hebrew often uses two forms of the same verb for emphasis. This occurs most frequently in grammatical constructions involving an innitive plus a nite verb. Throughout this commentary, such phrases are translated as literally as possible, most often by repeating the verbal idea. For example, God’s threat should the human eat from prohibited tree (2:17) in the MT reads  , “you will surely die.” LXX-G renders it with a cognate dative noun (death/- 6) of the verb to die (0' - 7#), thus, the translation “you will die in death.”

GENESIS TEXT AND TRANSLATION

1 1            . 2         !  ,     "#  $!

%·  &μ  &  '(  "#  & ) . 3  *    + -# '.·  ( '.. 4  /    '. 01 2·  131    4 μ(   & '#  4 μ(   &  %. 5  "2     '. μ(,     "2  !.  (

5 (  ( #, μ( μ. 6 *    + -# (#μ  μ( 7  & ) ,  8 # 1#9  4 μ(  )   ) ·  ( )#. 7        (#μ·  131    4 μ(   & )  :  ; "#  & 3μ ,  4 μ(   & )   &  "#  &

3μ . 8  "2     (#μ ·  /   01 2.  ( 5 (  ( #, μ( %(. 6

6 *    μ J 1  B - 1  J 1  B 1 B  &  &  J 1  B   1  &  &· E * \"μ

 ;( $  0μ 1  E. 21   ($2   8  1    \4μ,  ) # ·  82$ μ . 2%.  &   2-#  " C . 22  7_ μ  6!1     2%", ` 82$    & \4μ, = %B·  T    \4μ. 23  *  \4μ [ & & >  &  . > (# μ % 

4?    μ %· ) 2 - 1 +%-, 01   &   2-μ' ) . 24 P  ! % 2I1 F#   (  &   μ (  &,  

 22 - 1  %1  &·  8 1 a ! = " μ. 20

3 1    a ! %μ , 0  \4μ   %  &,   b !  . c  X'1  ' 1μ3  "# .  # .     S    6!1   ·  *   X'1  %1 [ 01 *    ^ μ '"     ?!2 %  &  %; 2  *   % E X'1 \   ?!2 %  &  % 'μ· 3     &  & ?!2 % 0  1  μ( 7  &  %, *    ^ '"   C  &  μ dI   &, e μ  " . 4  *   X'1  %1 ^ "7  B · 5 f1 4   01  U ] μ(Q '"   C  &, 1 1- 1 ;μ. a >'2μ ,  8   W  , 13   2   . 6  /  % 01 2  ?!2  = $. 1,  01    B >'2μ B =B  WB  1  &   1,  2$ &   &  &  & 8'·  8#  E   μC ,  8' . 7  1    a >'2μ  . ! ,  8#  01 %μ   ·  8I '!22 %     5% B 193μ. 6 T %   '#- 6% %  &  & 1  &   E  7  121·  !$  0  \4μ   %  &   

3 % 6% %  &  &  μ( 7  & ?!2 %  &  %. 9  "2  6!1     \4μ  *  E \4μ, & B; 10  *  E [ '#- % T %      E  7,  ' $- , 01 %μ =μ1,  !$ . 11  *  E [ -12( 1 01 %μ *, = μ    & ?!2 % D 12"μ  1  ! % μ % μ 'B,  C  & 8'; 12  *   \4μ g %-, ` 8# μC μ &, ) μ 1 8#    & ?!2 %,  8' . 8

* Reading  with the majority instead of ALEX’s unique .

GENESIS 2:20–24 & 3:1–12

39

And Adam called the names of all the domesticated animals and all the birds of the heaven and all the wild animals of the eld, but for Adam no helper like him was found. 21 And God cast a trance on Adam, and he fell asleep; and he took one of his ribs and lled esh in its place. 22 And Lord God built the rib, which he took from Adam, into a woman; and he brought her to Adam. 23 And Adam said, “Now this one is bone from my bones and esh from my esh; this one will be called Woman, for from her man this one was taken.” 24 On account of this, a human will leave behind his father and his mother, and will be joined to his wife; and the two will be one esh. 20

And the two were naked, both Adam and his wife, and they were not ashamed. Now the snake was the wisest of all the wild animals on the earth, which Lord God made; and the snake said to the woman, “Why is it that God said, ‘Do not eat from every tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the snake, “From every tree of the garden we may eat, 3 but from the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God said, ‘Do not eat from it nor shall you even touch it, so that you not die.’” 4 And the snake said to the woman, “You will not die a death; 5 for God knew that on whatever day you would eat from it, your eyes would be opened, and you would be like gods, knowing good and evil.” 6 And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasing for the eyes to see and was ripe for understanding, and taking its fruit, she ate; and she also gave to her man with her, and they ate. 7 And the eyes of the two were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed together leaves of a g tree and they made themselves aprons.

3

1

And they heard the sound of Lord God walking around in the garden toward evening; and they hid, both Adam and his wife, from the face of Lord God in the middle of the trees of the garden. 9 And Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Adam, where are you?” 10 And he said to him, “Your sound I heard walking around in the garden, and I was afraid, for I am naked, and I hid.” 11 And he said to him, “Who told you that you are naked; unless from the tree of which I commanded you, this one alone, not to eat, from it did you eat?” 12 And Adam said, “The woman, the one you gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.” 8

40

GENESIS 3:13–24 & 4:1–4

 *  6!1     %1 [  &   ;  *   %- cX'1 h " ( μ,  8' . 14  *  6!1    E X'1 i1     & ,  1"  G   "# .  .    "# .  #  ·   E -1 %    12Q ! R,   '"R "  4 μ(  9# %. 15  8 - # 4 μ(  %  4 μ(   %1,  4 μ(   & (μ

%  4 μ(   & (μ  ·  %  - 1 '2-,  G  - 1  & (. 16   %1 *  N2 !# 2 %. 4 2!  %   μ %·  2! 1 (?R (,    F %  

 '- %,   % %1! 1. 17 E  \4μ *  i1 T %   '#  %1 %  8'    & ?!2 % D 12"μ  1  ! % μ % μ 'B,  C  & 8',  1"      B 8 1 %·  2! 1 '"R  "  4 μ(  9# %· 18 "  1$2 % 2B

1,  '"R     &  &. 19  a.1  & 

3 % % '"R  F  % P#  & 

(I1  =   ? j 2-μ' · 01  *  =   2! R. 13

6 "2  \4μ  X μ  %1 k#-, 01 ) μ-  "# . 93#. 21     6!1    E \4μ   %1  & 1. μ %,  (%   !. 20

6 *  6!1    O G \4μ (  W l ? μ.,  & 13 1 2   .  & μ-  R  B  2"$R  & ?!2 %  9#  '"R,  9- 1 =  =.. 23  ? ( 12  6!1      &  %  %', "9 1   ? j 2-μ' . 24  ?($2  \4μ  K1    (1  &  %  %',  8? 4  %$   '2   m μ'  ' μ(  '%2"

1    & ?!2 %  9#. 22

4 1 \4μ  8# Z)  %B  &,  %(2$  8  6"1.  *   "μ  F#  14  &  &. 2  

(  B  2'  &  n$2. 6 ( n$2 1μ  $"#· 6"1   9μ   . 3  ( μC μ( T 6"1   .  .   %  E %7· 4  n$2 T     . # #

GENESIS 3:13–24 & 4:1–4

41

And Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you did?” And the woman said, “The snake tricked me, and I ate.” 14 And Lord God said to the snake, “Because you did this, accursed are you among all the domesticated animals and among all the wild animals of the earth; on your breast and the belly you will travel, and earth you will eat all the days of your life. 15 And hostility I will place between you and the woman, and between your ospring and her ospring; he will watch for your head, and you will watch for his heel.” 16 And to the woman he said, “Multiplying I will multiply your pains and your groaning; in pains you will bear children, and to your husband will be your turning, and he will be lord over you.” 17 Then to Adam he said, “Because you listened to the voice of your wife and ate from the tree of which I commanded you this one alone not to eat, from it you ate, cursed is the earth in your work; in pains you will eat from it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles will rise up for you, and you will eat herbage of the eld. 19 By the sweat of your face you will eat your bread until you return to the earth from which you were taken; for earth you are and into the earth you will be taken.” 13

And Adam called the name of the woman Life, for she is the mother of all the living. 21 And Lord God made for Adam and his wife leather tunics, and he clothed them. 20

And Lord God said, “Look, Adam has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. And now perhaps he might stretch out the hand and take of the tree of life and eat, and he will live forever.” 23 And Lord God sent him out of the garden of luxury, to work the earth from which he was taken. 24 And he threw Adam out and he settled him opposite the garden of luxury, and he stationed the cheroubim and the aming sword that turns itself to guard the way of the tree of life. 22

Now Adam knew Heua his wife, and she conceived and bore Kain. And she said, “I have acquired for myself a human being through God.” 2 And she proceeded to bear his brother Habel. 4

1

And Habel came to be a shepherd of sheep; but Kain was a worker of the earth. 3 And it came to be after some days Kain brought from the fruits of the earth a sacrice to Lord; 4 and Habel he also brought from

42

GENESIS 4:4–24

.  $"#  &    . "# ..        n$2     B 3 1  &· 5    6"1    B % 1  &  

( .  2!   6"1 2  %(   E 

3 7. 6  *  6!1    E 6"1 o  2%  ( %,  e  %(     #  %; 7  " >. 

(R, >.  μ 1(2R, pμ;  ! ·    

 '  &,  G F?1  &. 8  *  6"1  n$2  2'  & q1(2#μ =   .  (  E *1  G  E 7  (  6"1   n$2  2'  &   (1 . 9  *     6"1 N &  1 n$2  2' %;   *  ^ 13 #· μ '!2?  & 2' & μ ! =μ1 3; 10  *    [   ; '# eμ   & 2' & % $ r  μ   . 11  &  1"  G  1  , ` 8  μ  (? 1  lμ  & 2' & %   1 %. 12 01 r  , 

 

- 1  = G   & 1· (#  (μ# 8 R    . 13  *  6"1   !1  s9#  = μ %  & ' μ. 14 = $"2B μ -μ    

3 %  ,     & 

3 % % %$- μ1,  8 μ1 (#  (μ#    ·  J  ; # μ  B μ. 15  *  E 6!1    ^ )#· J    6"1 5 4 1 !μ 2! 1.  8 6!1    μB  E 6"1  & μ 2B  "  ;   . 16 ?2  6"1   

3 %  &  &  t    u (1 Vμ. 6 8# 6"1  %B  &,  %22$ &  8  v3.   =  μ. 21·   #μ   21   E >μ1  & %a &  & 3. 18 -  E vw +1",  +1"x (   s1-2,  s1-2 (   s % 2",  s % 24 (   y"μ. 19  82$ 5%E y"μ ! %B· X μ  μ1r \",  X μ  %(Q (#. 6 ( μ4 

"  μ( h(7? u.  %  1$# & `   , 7   ( 12    & =B =    )#·  ?2w  ; ( I P#  & ? 1  )#    . 8   ( 12  1 4 >  #  & =B =    )#    . 9   ; &   1 4 " % 1  B

  ( I   =  1$#, 01 )#     

3 7 "   ·    B  & 82$   = -   5% =  1$#. 10   1 w 81 μ( 5 4 5( "21 ? ( 12  1 4   1$# &. 11  ( I    1 4   5 (,  * '!22  2 "'   E μ1 6

GENESIS 7:17–24 & 8:1–11

53

And the ood came to be on the earth forty days and forty nights on the earth; and the water multiplied and lifted the ark, and raised it from the earth. 18 And the water was prevailing and multiplying greatly on the earth; and the ark was oating above the water. 19 Now the water was prevailing very greatly on the earth, and it covered all the high mountains that were under the heaven. 20 Fifteen cubits above the water was raised up, and it covered all the high mountains. 21 And all esh that moves itself on the earth died, consisting of the birds and the domesticated animals and the wild animals, and every reptile that moves itself on the earth, and every human being. 22 And all, everyone who has the breath of life and all that were on the dry ground, died. 23 And it wiped away everything that rises up that was on the face of all the earth, from human being to domesticated animals and reptiles and birds of the heaven; and they were wiped away from the earth. And only Ne and the ones with him in the ark were left remaining. 24 And the water was raised up on the earth for one hundred and fty days. 17

And God remembered Ne, and all the wild animals and all the domesticated animals and all the birds and all the reptiles, as many as were with him in the ark. And God brought a wind on the earth, and the water abated. 2 And the springs of the bottomless deep and the oodgates of the heaven were covered over and the rain was held back from the heaven, 3 and the water traveling over the earth was giving up; the water was giving up and lessening after one hundred and fty days. 4 And the ark settled in the seventh month, on the twenty-seventh of the month, on the Ararat mountains. 5 But the traveling water was lessening until the tenth month; now in the eleventh month, on the rst of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared. 8

1

And it came to be after forty days Ne opened the window of the ark that he made, 7 and he sent out the raven to see if the water had abated; and going out, it did not return until the water was dried out from the earth. 8 And he sent the dove after it to see if the water had abated from the earth. 9 And not nding a resting place for its feet, the dove returned to him in the ark, because the water was still on all the face of all the earth; and stretching out his hand, he took it and brought it to himself into the ark. 10 And waiting for another seven days again he sent out the dove from the ark. 11 And the dove returned to him at dusk, and it was holding a dry 6

54

GENESIS 8:11–22 & 9:1–6

·  8# u. 01    )#    . 12   1 w 81 μ( 5 4 5( "21 ? ( 12  1 ",   

(  &  1 (I1   81. 6 (  E 5  5?

1

E 81   9#  & u.,  & μ   & 3 %, μ1r  & μ , ?(21   )#    ·   "2%I u.  (   1$# &,  / 01 ?(21   )#   

3 %  . 14   E μ  E %(7, 5$μR  ="1  & μ , ? "  .

13

6 *  6!1    E u. 2(# 16 V?2   1$# &, G   %- %  a %a  %  a %B . %a. % μ4 &, 17  " 4   0    μ4 &,  J  4?   1. P#  .,  J 5  1 !μ      ?" μ4 &·  ?"   2 !     . 18  ?2 u.   %  &  a %a   &  a %B . %a.  & μC  &· 19  " 4    " 4 -  J 1  J 5  1 !μ      4 (  . ?-2

   1$# &. 15

6 ‚ μ  u. % 1 -1  E E,  82$   "# .  . . .    "# . 1. . .,  - 2  3 1    % 1 -1 . 21  ƒ '" 6!1    > μ #,  *  6!1    1  ^ 

- # 81  & "  1   14 4 8 . 3 #, 01 811  1" 1  & 3 %  1μ2.   4  4    .  

- # } 81 "?1 J  " 9.  w   . 22 "  4 μ(   (μ  1 μ, I&   &μ, (   8 μ(  !   ! % 1. 20

9 1 6 2     u.   G %a G  &,  *   B M?"   2 ! ,  2 3     %1!  . 2   μ  ;μ.   '$  8 1   J 1  B   1      " 4 X  &  &    " 4 1 !μ      "  G =!  2"

· ;  B ;μB (#. 3  J 5  0  1 9. ;μB 8 1 = $. 1· W 2"  % 8# ;μB 4 ". 4 2 (  eμ1 I%  '" · 5  4  ;μ(  lμ . I%. ;μ. 9 - #·  1 "# .  # 9 - # ,   1 3 % 2' & 9 - #  I%  & 3 %. 6  (#

GENESIS 8:11–22 & 9:1–6

55

olive leaf in its mouth; and Ne knew that the water had abated from the earth. 12 And waiting for another seven days again he sent out the dove, and it did not continue to return to him any longer. And it came to be in the six hundred and rst year of Ne’s life, in the rst month, on the rst of the month, the water was disappearing from the earth; and Ne uncovered the roof of the ark, and he saw that the water was disappearing from the face of the earth. 14 Then in the second month, on the twenty-seventh of the month, the land was dried out. 13

And Lord God said to Ne saying, 16 “Go out from the ark, you and your wife and your sons and the wives of your sons with you, 17 and all the wild animals as many as are with you, and all esh from birds to domesticated animals, and all reptiles that move on the earth lead out with you; and increase and multiply on the earth.” 18 And Ne went out and his wife and his sons and the wives of his sons with him; 19 and all the wild animals and all the domesticated animals and all the birds and all the reptiles that move on the earth according to their species went out from the ark. 15

And Ne built an altar to God, and he took from all of the clean domesticated animals and from all the clean birds, and he oered a sacrice on the altar. 21 And Lord God smelled a sweet odor, and Lord God said after pondering, “I will not again proceed to curse the earth on account of the works of the humans, because the mind of the human involves itself only on evil matters from youth. Therefore, I will not again proceed to strike all living esh as I did. 22 All the days of the earth – seed and harvest, cold and heat, summer and spring will not come to an end – by day or night.”

20

And God blessed Ne and his sons, and he said to them, “Increase and multiply, and ll the earth and exercise dominion over it. 2 And your trembling and fear will be on all the wild animals of the earth and on all the winged creatures of the heaven and on all that move on the earth and all the sh of the sea; by hands to you I have given them. 3 And all reptiles that are living for you will be food; as vegetables of herbage I gave you everything. 4 Only meat in which is life blood you may not eat. 5 For your own life blood I shall demand an accounting; from the hand of all the wild animals I shall demand it, from the hand of a human brother I shall demand the life of the human. 6 The one who spills blood of a human, for

9

1

56

GENESIS 9:6–25

lμ 3 %   & eμ   & %- 1, 01  =1  &     F# . 7 ;μB  ?"   2 ! ,  2 3     2 !     . 6 *    E u.   B %a B  & μC  & 2(# 9 w = G   μ1  1-  μ % ;μB  E (μ1 ;μ. μC ;μJ, 10  " R I% 93 R μC ;μ.,   >(#     .,  J 1  B   1   0  μC ;μ.   "# . ?2#   1$# &. 11  - #  1-  μ %  ;μJ,    B1 J  4? 81    & )   & 2% μ &, 

 8 1 81 2% μ )   & 'B1 J   . 12  *  6!1     u. [ &  μB   1-  : w #μ1 4 μ(  μ &  ;μ.  4 μ(  "  I% 93  p  1 μC ;μ. = 4 =# %· 13  ?  μ %  μ1   '(2R,  8 1 = μB  1-  4 μ(  μ &   . 14  8 1  E %'B μ '(2     >'- 1  ?  μ %   '(2R, 15  μ - μ1  1-  μ %, p  1 4 μ(  μ &  ;μ.  4 μ(  "  I% 93   " R

·   8 1 81  )# = 2% μ, H  ?2BI1 J  ". 16  8 1  ?  μ %   '(2R,  XI μ1  & μ 1 1-  =31  4 μ(  μ &  4 μ(  "  I% 93   " R  p  1    . 17  *    E u. [ &  μB   1-  j 1(μ  4 μ(  μ &  4 μ(  "   p  1    . 8

„   a %a  u. a ?2   1$# &
6 89  614 5 1"  8 ,  (   '(1 E. 8   (  B =  X  C  24 A1-2,

* Reading with the corrected Swete text ‰4 instead of ALEX’s unique ‰4. ** Reading with the corrected Swete text z" instead of ALEX’s unique z".

GENESIS 11:24–32 & 12:1–8

65

And Nachr lived seventy-nine years, and he fathered Thara. 25 And Nachr lived after his fathering Thara one hundred and twenty-nine years, and he fathered sons and daughters, and he died.

24

And Thara lived seventy years, and he fathered Abram and Nachr and Harran.

26

Now these are the descendants of Thara; now Thara fathered Abram and Nachr and Harran, and Harran fathered Lt. 28 And Harran died before Thara his father in the land where he was born, in the country of the Chaldeans. 29 And Abram and Nachr took wives for themselves; the name of the wife of Abram was Sara, and the name of the wife of Nachr was Melcha, daughter of Harran, also father of Melcha and father of Iescha. 30 And Sara was barren and she was not bearing children. 31 And Thara took Abram his son and Lt the son of Harran, son of his son, and Sara his daughter-in-law, wife of his son, and he led them out from the country of the Chaldeans to travel to the land of Chanaan; and they went as far as Charran, and they settled there. 32 And the days of Thara in Charran came to be two hundred and ve years; and Thara died in Charran. 27

And Lord said to Abram, “Go out from your land and from your kin and from the house of your father, into the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you and make your name great, and you will be blessed. 3 And I will bless those who bless you, and those who curse you I will curse, and all the tribes of the earth will be blessed in you.” 4 And Abram traveled just as Lord told him, and Lt went along with him; now Abram was seventy-ve years when he went out from Charran. 5 And Abram took Sara his wife and Lt the son of his brother and all their possessions that they acquired and all the persons they acquired from Charran, and they went out to travel into the land of Chanaan; and they came into the land of Chanaan. 6 And Abram traveled through its length as far as the place of Suchem, by the high oak tree; now the Chananites then were settled in the land. 7 Then Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “To your ospring I will give this land;” and Abram built there an altar to Lord, the one having appeared to him. 8 And he went away from there into the mountain area to the east of Baithl, 12

1

66

GENESIS 12:8–20 & 13:1–9

 8   B     &  A12 4 "2

  ‰ C  2"·  ‚ μ  B % 1 -1  E %7   2(    E >μ1 6% %. 9    \$4μ  %   (%    -μ7. 6 ( 21μ    ·  ($ \$4μ = M/%    1 1 B, 01  %   21μ    . 11 (   T1  \$4μ = 2B = M/%  , *  \$4μ 1 8'% . 11 82$   e  J   < μ#  + μ  " 4 $3μ .,   2 . 12 82$ ***    yw %a  & 2' & \$μ****   

%  &,   K  ·  4  1.  < μ 1. 13 μ   .  #(# 1  -12 \$4μ E "R·   K1   %  sμ$  μ 1  & 2' &  w2  2' &  & M",    %#μ1  & \$"μ. 14  !   \$4μ 01 bμ2#! yw  2'  &, hμ   G = % = B  &, 1

 % (  >3,  #? >  # . P# q". 15   (    C  G  !   a B  & μ  &,   "?  G,  #?  G P# {#$"2, p  1  1 r qμ  &. 16   ( I J   e  < μ#·  yw  2'  &  ( I  " 4 ; "   &  4 %B   2. ?2  $ 12G < μ# = %" 1 E, μ4  ;

(I1        & {  22 μ   . $ 12(# . μC  &, =   12"   -  Œ? .  8 ‰4  O μ2 E \$"μ. * Reading the future passive 1μ - 1 with the majority instead of ALEX’s future middle 1μ- 1.

GENESIS 15:18–21 & 16:1–16

75

saying, “To your ospring I will give this land, from the river of Egypt and as far as the great river, the river Euphrates; 19 the land of the Keinites and the Kainaizites and the Kelmnites 20 and the Chettites and the Pherezites and the Raphain 21 and the Amorrites and the Chananites and the Heuaites and the Gergesites and the Jebousites.” Now Sara the wife of Abram was not bearing children for him; but she had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar. 2 Now Sara said to Abram, “Look, Lord closed me up to not bear children; therefore, go into my maidservant, so that you will father children from her.” Then Abram obeyed her voice. 3 And Sara the wife of Abram, taking her own Egyptian maidservant Hagar, after ten years of Abram living in the land of Chanaan, gave her to her husband Abram as his wife. 4 And he went into Hagar, and she conceived; and she saw that she was pregnant and the mistress was shamed before her. 5 Then Sara said to Abram, “I am being wronged by you; I have given over my maidservant into your bosom; now seeing that she is pregnant, I was shamed before her. May God judge between me and you.” 6 But Abram said to Sara, “Look, your maidservant is before you; treat her as it might please you.” And Sara mistreated her, and she ed from her face. 7 Now an angel of Lord God found her near the spring of water in the desert, near the spring on the way to Sour. 8 And the angel of Lord said to her, “Hagar maidservant of Sara, from where are you coming? and to where are you traveling?” And she said, “From the face of Sara my mistress I am eeing.” 9 But the angel of Lord said to her, “Return to your mistress and be humiliated under her hands.” 10 The angel of Lord also said to her, “Multiplying I will multiply your ospring, and it cannot be counted because of its multitude.” 11 The angel of Lord also said to her, “Look, you are pregnant, and you will bear a son, and you will call his name Ismal, for Lord gave heed to your humiliation. 12 This one will be a countryman; his hands against everyone and everyone’s hands against him, and opposite the face of all his brothers he will settle.” 13 And Hagar called the name of Lord who was speaking to her, “You are the God who looks upon me;” for she said, “For even I saw in person the one who appeared to me.” 14 On account of this, she called the well “the Well of the one I saw in person;” look, it is between Kads and Barad. 15 And Hagar bore for Abram a son, and Abram called the name of his son, the one whom Hagar bore for him, Ismal. 16 Now Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ismal for Abram. 16

1

76

GENESIS 17:1–19

17 1 (  \$4μ . -  (,  @' 6!1  E \$4μ  *  E 3 =μ1   %· ( 1   μ &,   % Fμμ  · 2  - μ1  1-  μ % 4 μ(  μ &  4 μ(  &,  2 %.  '. 3  8   \$4μ    #   &,  2"2  E   2(# 4 6 #, = G  1- μ % μ4 &·  8 R  2- % .. 5   2 - 1 81  X μ" % \$"μ, 22C 8 1 \$4μ  X μ"

%· 01 ( 22. . (1" . 6  ?.  ',  - #  = 8 ,  $ 12B  & ?2! 1. 7  - #  1-  μ % 4 μ(  μ &  4 μ(  &  4 μ(   & (μ % μ4  = 4 . = 1-  =31 , * %    & (μ % μ4 (. 8  3 # 1  E

(μ % μ4    `  1B, J    {" = "  1 =31 ·  8 μ1  B . 9  *     \$"μ R, ? 2%- 1  I%    & ( % · 01  1-  μ % 1 ( . Z*     E \$"μ '2μ B  & /,  = G B F a -1   "#  &.  =w 

(μ = %" 1  B    ! 

   &,  

!     · 3  *  6!1, = F D  "1   %, μ (2R  B" %. 4 2 μ'-#  )#,  1I"#  G  ;μ.·  I!? ;   ( . 5  2-μI μ1 F ,  '" ·  μ4  & 2!   =   ;μ., D e ?2   B ;μ..  *  ^)#   w / . 6  8 %  \$4μ       '2μ G ,  / '( )  9. ·   !  8 2     )    1   1 . 20     μ4  & 1 %,  ?-  K    -μ7· (   ? . 21  K    -μ7  Y"·  82$ E  μ-  %B   M=!  %.

(   E 1E 7  *  \$1μ(2  – 94  %μ'#  &  Y12  1 "    %"μ#  &  \$4μ 2(# –  μ4 &  J 1 l 4 1. 23 &

} Xμ

 μ 1  , μ 1- 1 μ μ   (μ μ % μ   X μ" μ %· 224 4  11

!  `    μ4 &, 1- 1 μC μ &,   , U G K   . 24  *  \$"μ w >μ &μ1. 25  T2? \$4μ  \$1μ(2  . '"#  & )  S '2 a B  & \$1μ(2. 26  *  E \$1μ(2 ^ 8#      Jμ  & ·  ! μ 1  -12,  w T %  224 -μ . 27  82$ \$4μ $  μ  %  8# E \$1μ(2·  1( μ' 1 1- . 28  8   \$4μ 5 4 μ"  $"# μ. 29  *  \$1μ(2 E \$"μ [ = 1 a 5 4 μ" .  $"#  !# L 8   μ; 30  *  \$4μ 01 [4 5 4 22

GENESIS 21:10–30

91

Isaak.” 11 Now the matter concerning his son Ismal seemed very harsh in Abraam’s opinion. 12 But God said to Abraam, “Do not let the matter concerning the youngster and the maidservant be harsh in your opinion; everything that Sarra might say to you, listen to her voice; for in Isaak ospring will be named for you. 13 And even the son of this maidservant, into a great nation I will make him, for he is your ospring.” 14 Then Abraam arose early in the morning, and he took bread and a skin of water and he gave them to Hagar; and he placed them on the shoulder along with the youngster, and he sent her away. Then departing, she was wandering around the desert, down from the well of the oath. 15 Now the water from the skin was running out, and she threw the youngster down underneath one of the r trees; 16 and departing, she was sitting opposite him farther away, just about the distance of a bow’s throw; for she said, “May I not see the death of my youngster.” And she was sitting opposite him from afar; then crying out the youngster wept. 17 But God gave heed to the sound of the youngster from the place where he was, and an angel of God called Hagar from the heaven and said to her, “What is it, Hagar?; do not be afraid; for God has harkened to the sound of your youngster from the place where he is. 18 Stand up and take the youngster, and hold him tightly with your hand; for into a great nation I will make him.” 19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of living water; and she went and she lled the skin of water and she gave the youngster a drink. 20 And God was with the youngster, and he grew up and he settled in the desert; now he came to be an archer. 21 And he settled in the desert in Pharan; and the mother took for him a wife from the land of Egypt. Now it came to be in that designated time, Abimelech and Ochozath his groomsman and Phikol the commander-in-chief of his army said to Abraam saying, “God is with you in everything that you ever do. 23 Therefore now swear to me by God, that you will not treat me or my ospring or my name unrighteously; rather according to the righteousness with which I dealt with you, you will deal with me, and the land, where you sojourned.” 24 And Abraam said, “I will swear.” 25 Then Abraam reproved Abimelech about the wells of water that the servants of Abimelech took away for themselves. 26 And Abimelech said to him, “I do not know who did this act; neither did you tell me, nor did I hear but today.” 27 Then Abraam took sheep and calves and gave them to Abimelech; and both of them contracted a covenant. 28 And Abraam set seven lambs of sheep alone. 29 And Abimelech said to Abraam, “What are the seven lambs of sheep that you set alone?”; 30 and Abraam said that “These seven lambs 22

92

GENESIS 21:30–34 & 22:1–13

μ" ! 2-μIR C μ &, e ”  = μ!1  01 w @%?  '(  & . 31 14  &  #μ   X μ  &  %  % Y( 1 μ &, 01 B @μ

 μ' 1. 32  1(

1-   E '(1  & 0 %. (   \$1μ(2  – 94  %μ'#  &  Y12  1 "    %"μ#  &,   ( I =   . Y%21 1μ. 33  '!%  \$4μ F %   E '(1  & 0 %,   2(  B  X μ 6% %, z =31 . 34 K   \$4μ    . Y%21 1μ μ( 22". 22 1 6 ( μ4 4 m-μ &    9  \$"μ·  *    \$4μ, \$"μ.   *  O G 3. 2  *  y"$  %a %    : h" ,  O ",  ! 1 =    ;I 2-,  (   B = 2 " # 1 'C Œ . >(# S F 1 / #. 3  4  \$4μ  #  ( ?  X   &· (2$  μC 5% & ! B  O   %a  &,    ?!2 = 2 " # 1  4  ! .  2      : *  E    μ(Q  R. 4  $2(I \$4μ  B >'2μ B /    μ· 5  *  \$4μ  B 1   & 6   & μ4  X %, w    1  12% μ P# S·  

%-   (I#μ  ;μJ. 6 82$  \$4μ 4 ?!2  2  3 #   (  O 4 E %aE  &· 82$    & μ4 B   μ"1,   !  a ! dμ. 7  *  O 4  \$4μ  (  & /  N"·   *  [  1, ( ; 2(# O G  &  4 ?!2· &  1  $   = 2 " # 1; 8 *   \$"μ c  XI1 5%E $  = 2 " # 1, ( . %(  μ' 1 dμ 9 2       : *  E  .  ‚ μ  B \$4μ % 1 -1    (  4 ?!2· 

%μ   O 4  %a  &  (      % 1 -1   "# . ?!2#. 10  ?(1 \$4μ  B  & 2$B  μ"1, '"?1  %a  &. 11 "2   F2  6% %   &  &  *  E \$4μ, \$"μ.   * * O G 3. 12  *  s  1$"2R  B" %    1"1 , μ  1- R E μ (· & 4 8# 01 ' $   G,   ' #  & %a & %  &   & 1C μ(. 13  $2(I \$4μ  B >'2μ B  & /,  = G 1 l μ   '%E

$ . "#·   ! \$4μ  82$  1,  * Adding   *  with the corrected Swete text and all other manuscripts.

GENESIS 21:30–34 & 22:1–13

93

you will take from me, so that they can be a witness that I myself dug this well.” 31 Because of this the name of that place was named Well of swearing an oath, because there they both swore an oath. 32 And they contracted a covenant at the well of the oath. Then Abimelech and Ochozath his groomsman and Phikol the commander-in-chief of his army arose, and they returned to the land of the Phylistieim. 33 And Abraam planted a ploughed eld by the well of the oath, and he invoked there the name of Lord, God eternal. 34 Then Abraam sojourned in the land of the Phylistieim many days. And it came to be after these things God was testing Abraam; and he said to him, “Abraam, Abraam.” 2 Then he said, “Here I am.” And he said, “Take your son, the beloved one, the one whom you love, Isaak, and travel into the high land, and oer him there as a sacrice on one of the mountains that I will tell you.” 3 Then rising early in the morning, Abraam put a load on his donkey; then he took along with himself two servant boys and Isaak his son, and splitting wood for a sacrice and standing up, he traveled. And he came on the place of which God told him on the third day. 4 And looking up with the eyes, Abraam saw the place from afar. 5 And Abraam said to his servant boys, “Sit here with the donkey, but I and the youngster will travel yonder; and after worshipping we will return to you.” 6 Then Abraam took the wood of the sacrice and he placed it on Isaak his son; then he took both the re and the knife in hand, and the two of them traveled together. 7 And Isaak said to Abraam his father saying, “Father”; then the other said, “What is it, my child?”; saying, “Look, the re and the wood; where is the sheep, the one for the sacrice?” 8 Then Abraam said, “God himself will see to a sheep for sacrice, my child.” Then both of them traveling together 9 came on the place of which God told him. And there Abraam built an altar and he placed the wood; and binding Isaak his son hand and foot he placed him on the altar on top of the wood. 10 And Abraam stretched out his hand to take the knife, to slaughter his son. 11 And an angel of Lord called to him from the heaven and said to him, “Abraam, Abraam.” Then he said, “Here I am.” 12 And he said, “Do not cast your hand on the little boy, nor do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, and you did not spare your beloved son because of me.” 13 And looking up with his eyes, Abraam saw, and look, a ram caught in a sabek plant by the horns; and Abraam went and took the 22

1

94

GENESIS 22:13–24 & 23:1–10

-  = 2 " # 1  O 4  & %a &  &. 14  "2  \$4μ  X μ  &  %  % 6!1  /· e / # 1

-μ   E X1 6!1  @' . 15  "2  F2  6% %  \$4μ !    &  & 2(# 16 6C μ% & @μ

, 2(1 6!1 , D e     mμ  &   ' #  & %a & %  &   & 1C μ(, 17 = μ 2 . 2 - # ,  2 !# 2 %.  (μ % W  G  (  &  &  W  Fμμ   4  B2   2"

,  2   μ- 1 

(μ % 4 21 . ; #. 18  %2  - 1  E (μ % " 4 8 , C S ; - %   μ '#. 19   "'  \$4μ   G B  &,   "  !  dμ    '(  & 0 %·  K  \$4μ   E '(1  & 0 %. (  μ4 4 m-μ &   (2 E \$4μ 2(  O G (  s24   %a G uw E 2'E %, 21  —? #     AG? 2'  &,   6μ %2 (
23 1 (   9# I(,   ! 1 a ;%μ1. 12  *  6!1    & % % \$"μ, #    μ & -μ     82  μ4  & % % μ % \$"μ. 13 = G w P        & ) , a  %( . = !#  21  ! 1 2 1 )#· 14  8 1  (  U ] w / #  21   ; % e #,  / R μ 1 N !,  4 μ-2 % % 1. P# ] ! #1  % 1, !   μ  E 1 % O "·    & 3 μ1 01    82  E %7 μ % \$"μ. 15  (   & %2( 1  22 &   1 Q,  = G †$( ? !  B  A %-2 %aE s(2  %1 u3, 2' &  \$"μ, 8 %   ;   . @μ# . 16   (   2  XI1 '· (  ,   8# -. $J       8 2   ; ,  ($ . 17  (μ   B = %" 1   *  N1  μ μ1 )#   ; %. 18   *  N, !1·  8 %   B2  ;    $     1   P#  ! 

#. 19  *  6 B μ-2 1 % ;! μ1 P# ] J 1 # 1. 20  8 %   ?(#   ;    1 -1 ,  8μ    '( 2 1 )#,  ;!  " 1 B μ-2 1. 21   F#  μ" ,   13   & .1 • # 6!1     & • ‘. 22 (    !  J 1 a "μ 2 1  % 1, 82$  F#  31 % J 4 μ 2  ! I(21   4 B · ( % . 2 .. 23   3    *  z%"    *; "12 μ 1· = 8 1 4 E  %   μB 2& 1; 24  *  E z%"  A %-2 =μ w  & s(2, : 8 E u3. 25  *  E 6 F%   " μ 2G C μB,     & 2& 1. 26   -   F#  

!  6%7  *  27 Z2   6!1     & % % μ % \$"μ, :  (21   11

!   &   2-1    & % % μ %· μ # 6!1  = *   & 2' &  & % % μ %. 28 6 μ &   B  -12 =  *   μ   4 4 m-μ &. 29   †$( 2'  € X μ y$"·  8μ y$4   F#  8?#    -. 9

GENESIS 24:9–29

99

And the servant placed his hand under the thigh of Abraam his lord, and he swore to him concerning this matter. 10 The servant took ten camels from the camels of his lord and from all of the goods of his lord with himself, and standing up he traveled into Mesopotamia into the city of Nachr. 11 And he made the camels rest outside the city by the well of water late in the day, when the women fetching water come out. 12 And he said, “Lord the God of lord Abraam, guide me well today and deal mercifully with my lord Abraam. 13 Look, I am standing by the spring of water, now the daughters of the inhabitants of the city are coming out to draw water; 14 and it will be whomever the virgin to whom I say ‘Extend your water jar so that I may drink,’ and she will say to me ‘You drink, and to your camels I will give water until they stop drinking,’ this one you provided for your servant Isaak; and by this I will know that you dealt mercifully with my lord Abraam.” 15 And it came to be before he nished speaking to himself, and look, Rebekka was coming out, the one born to Bathoul son of Melcha the wife of Nachr, and brother of Abraam, the one holding the water jar on her shoulders. 16 Now the virgin was very beautiful in appearance; she was a virgin, no man knew her. Then going down to the spring, she lled her water jar and she went up. 17 Then the servant ran up to meet her and said, “Give me a little water from your water jar to drink.” 18 Then she said, “Drink, lord;” and she hurried and lowered the water jar onto her arm and she gave him drink until he stopped drinking. 19 And she said, “And for your camels let me fetch water until all have drunk.” 20 And she hurried and emptied the water jar into the water trough, and she ran to the well to draw water and she fetched water for all the camels. 21 Now the man examined her closely, and was silent to know whether or not Lord guided his way well. 22 Now it came to be when all the camels stopped drinking, the man took gold earrings each a single drachm in weight and two bracelets for her hands; ten gold weights each of them. 23 And he inquired of her and said, “Whose daughter are you? Answer me; is there with your father a place for us to take rest?” 24 And she said to him, “A daughter of Bathoul am I of Melcha, who bore him for Nachr.” 25 And she said to him, “And we have cha and much fodder, and a place to take rest.” 26 And being glad, the man bowed down to Lord and said, 27 “Blessed is Lord the God of my lord Abraam, who did not withhold his righteousness and truth from my lord; Lord has guided me well into the house of the brother of my lord.” 28 And running the girl reported to the house of her mother about these matters. 29 Now Rebekka had a brother whose name was Laban; and Laban ran to the man outside by the spring. 9

100

GENESIS 24:30–46

 (  / 4 31  4 I(21   4 B  2'  &,  0 T %  4 m-μ †$(  2'  & 2 !  ^)# 22"2 ( μ 1  F# ,  2   F# , 5     &   . μ-2#    · 31  *  E q& / 2, 2   6!1 · e  P   8?#; w   μ   =    B μ-2 1. 32 = 2   F#  =  =,   ( ?* 4 μ-2 %·  8# F%   " μ B μ-2 1,  )#  B

  &   B

 . . . μC  &, 33  (   B F % 'B.  *  ^ μ '"# P#  & 22  μ 4 m-μ" μ %.  *  y"2 . 34 6 *  NB \$4μ 3 =μ1. 35 6!1   2   !1 μ % ',  ;I3 ·  8# E $  μ  %  !1   %  , B  1 , μ-2 %  X %. 36  8
 μ 1 -μ .  @μ

 E·  (   g G 4 # 1 E O3$. 34 Ow$  8# E g G F   PIμ ' &·  8'  8 1,   4 t ·  '!21  g G 4 # 1. 29 30

26 1 (  21μ    , #  & 21μ &  &   : (-  E 7  & \$"μ·  !  O 4  \$1μ(2 $ 12( Y%21 1μ = +(. 2 @'  E 6!1   *  s $ = M/%  ·        U F 1 / #. 3   1    !R  8 μ1 μ4 &  2 - # ·  4  E (μ % 3 # J    ! ,  - #  0  μ % : @μ

 \$4μ E  %. 4  2 %.  (μ % W  G  (  &  &·  3 # E (μ % J    ! ·  %2  - 1  E (μ % " 4 8  ·

GENESIS 25:20–34 & 26:1–4

107

Syrian, for his wife. 21 And Isaak begged Lord about Rebekka his wife, for she was barren; then God gave heed to him, and Rebekka his wife became pregnant. 22 Now the little ones were jumping around in her; then she said, “If it is thus going to be with me, why is this to me?”; then she went to inquire of Lord. 23 And Lord said to her, Two nations are in your belly, and two people from your womb will be torn apart; and one people will surpass a people, and the greater will be a slave to the smaller.

And the days of her bearing were complete; and there were twins in her belly. 25 Then the rstborn son came out red, as if full of thick hairy skin, now she named his name Esau. 26 And after this his brother came out, and his hand grasping the heel of Esau; and she called his name Iakb. Now Isaak was sixty years old when Rebekka brought them forth. 27 Then the young men grew up; and Esau was a man knowing how to hunt, a countryman; but Iakb was a simple man, living in a house. 28 Now Isaak loved Esau, because his game was food for him; but Rebekka always loved Iakb. 24

Now Iakb boiled a stew; then Esau came from the open eld used up. 30 And Esau said to Iakb, “Give me a taste of some of this red stew, for I am used up;” because of this his name was called Edm. 31 Then Iakb said to Esau, “Turn over to me your birthright today.” 32 Then Esau said, “Look, I am going to die, and so what is this birthright to me?” 33 And Iakb said to him, “Swear to me today.” And he swore to him; then Esau turned over the birthright to Iakb. 34 Then Iakb gave Esau bread and lentil stew; and he ate and drank, and standing up he departed; and Esau disparaged the birthright. 29

Now there came to be a famine in the land, besides the former famine that happened in the time of Abraam; then Isaak traveled to Abimelech king of the Phylistieim in Gerara. 2 Then Lord appeared to him and said, “Do not go down into Egypt; but settle in the land wherever I tell you. 3 And sojourn in this land and I will be with you and I will bless you; for to you and your ospring I will give all this land, and I will execute my oath that I swore to Abraam your father. 4 And I will multiply your ospring as the stars of the heaven; and I will give your ospring all this land; and all the nations of the land will be blessed in your ospring. 26

1

108

GENESIS 26:5–24

C S ; - %  \$4μ  - %  μ '#,  '!2? 4 

"μ" μ %  4  2" μ %  4 113μ" μ %  4 μ1μ" μ %. 6  K  O 4  +" 1. 7  3  

a F  &  %  †$(  %1  &,  *  :1 \2'- μ !  1· ' $- 4 = B 01 +%- μ !  1, μ-   # 1  a F  &  %  †$(, 01 W  XI1 . 8 (  2%1  B· !I  \$1μ(2  $ 12G +"# 14  %  /  O 4 9  μ4 †$(  %1  &. 9 "2   \$1μ(2  O 4  *  E   %- !  1·  01 *  \2'- μ !  1; *   E O " Z*  " s-   " 1C -. 10 *   E \$1μ(2 [  &    μB; μ1 &  1μ- 1  & ( % μ % μ4  %1 %,   - 'C μJ F 1. 11

%(?  \$1μ(2  E 2E  & 2(# NJ  Ž μ   & 3 %  ! % •  %1  & " % 8   8 1. 12 8 1  O 4    R,  D  E 1%E 7 5

! %  1-· 2    6!1 . 13  ;I3  F# ,   $# μ9#  P# D μ(  '· 14 (  E -  $"#  - $ .  31 22". 9-2#    a Y%21 1μ· 15  " 4 '( L @%?

a B  &   &  E 7  &   &, ('? 4 a Y%21 1μ  8 2  4 . 16 *   \$1μ(2  O "  2 'C μ., 01 %3  μ. ( % '. 17   2 B O 4  (2%    '"1 +"#,  K  B. 18  "21 O 4 @%? 4 '(  & )  L @%? a B \$4μ  &   &  ('? 4

a Y%21 1μ μ4   B \$4μ  (  &·   #μ   B >μ 4 4 >μ L  #μ  \$4μ    &. 19 @%?  a B O 4   '"1 +"#,  D  B '( )  9. . 20  μ(  a 1μ( +"# μ4 . 1μ(# O ", '"   . *1  )#·  "2   X μ  & '(   % \1· h  4 . 21  "  O 4 B @%? '( P ·       %,   #μ   X μ  & . 22  "  B @%? '( P ,   μ(    &·   #μ   X μ  & Z%#, 2(# q11 &  2"% 6!1  μB  ‘?  μJ    . 23 ($  B    '(  & 0 %. 24  @' E 6!1    % R,  *  3 =μ1   \$4μ  &  %· μ ' $ &· μ4 & " =μ1,  2 - 3   2 %.  (μ % 14 \$4μ  ( %. 5

GENESIS 26:5–24

109

Because Abraam your father obeyed my voice, and kept my ordinances and my commandments and my regulations and my laws.” 6 And Isaak settled among the Gerarites. 7 Now the men of the place inquired about Rebekka his wife, and he said that ‘my sister is she;’ for he was afraid to say that ‘my wife is she,’ lest the men of the place kill him on account of Rebekka, for she was ripe in appearance. 8 Now it came to be that he was there a long time; then peeping through the window Abimelech the king of the Gerarites saw Isaak playing with Rebekka his wife. 9 Then Abimelech called to Isaak and said to him, “So then she is your wife; why is it that you said, ‘My sister is she?’ ” Then Isaak said to him, “For I said ‘lest I might die because of her.’” 10 Then Abimelech said to him, “What is this you did to us? One of my family nearly laid with your wife, and you would have brought ignorance on us.” 11 Then Abimelech commanded all his people saying, “All who touch this man or his wife will be subject to death.” 12 Then Isaak sowed in that land, and he found in that year barley yielding one hundred fold; now Lord blessed him. 13 And the man was exalted, and advancing he was becoming great until he became very great; 14 now he came to have herds of sheep and herds of cattle and many cultivated elds. But the Phylistieim envied him; 15 and all the wells that the servants of his father dug in the time of his father, the Phylistieim blocked them up and lled them with earth. 16 Then Abimelech said to Isaak, “Depart from us for you have become more powerful than we.” 17 And Isaak departed from there and took rest in the valley of the Gerarites and settled there. 18 And Issak again dug the wells of water that the servants of Abraam his father dug and the Phylistieim blocked them up after the death of Abraam his father; and he named them names according to the names that Abraam his father named them. 19 Then the servants of Isaak dug in the valley of the Gerarites, and they found there a well of living water. 20 And the shepherds of the Gerarites quarreled with the shepherds of Isaak, claiming the water to be theirs; and he called the name of that well Injustice; for they treated him unjustly. 21 Then Isaak, moving on from there, dug another well; but they were in dispute about that one also, and he named its name Hostility. 22 Then moving o from there, he dug another well, and they did not quarrel over it; and he named its name Open Space saying, “Because now Lord expanded us and increased us over the land.” 23 Then he went up from there to the well of the oath. 24 And Lord appeared to him in that night, and he said, “I am the God of Abraam your father; do not be afraid; for I am with you, and I will bless you and I will multiply your ospring because of Abraam you father.” 5

110

GENESIS 26:25–35 & 27:1–9

 ‚ μ  B % 1 -1    2(   X μ 6% %,  8 ? B     &· @%?  B a B O 4 '(. 26  \$1μ(2  !     +"#,  – 94  %μ'#  &  Y12  1 "    %"μ#  &. 27  *   B O " o  T2  μ; ;μB  μ1 - ( μ    2( μ 'C ;μ.. 28  *  O 5#"μ 01  6!1  μ4 &,  / μ +( # 4 4 μ(  μ.  4 μ(  &,  1 μ μ4 & 1-  29 μ 1- 1 μC μ. , 1 μB   $2%?"μ,*  :   -μ" 1 2.  ?  2μ(  μC =- ·  &

G 2   ;  6% %. 30      B  -·  8'   8 1 · 31   "  #, @μ

 F#  E 2    &·  ? ( 12  G O ",   K   C  & μ4

# . 32 (    μ(Q R  μ 1 a B O 4  -12 E   & '(  D @%?,  *  ^ ) μ )#. 33  "2   >™ μ  & i · 14  &  X μ  21 Y( 0 %, P#  -μ  μ(. 25

„  g G . 

"   82$ %B O %, %( A  & { %,   s μμ", %( M=2wμ  & Z; %· 35    9 % 1 E O 4   †$(.

34

27 1 (  μ4   J 1 O 4  hμ$2!  a >'2μ   &  & r·  "2  g G  %a  &   $!   *  E …a( μ %.  *  E O G 3. 2  *  O G -,   13 #  μ(  2% μ %· 3 & } 2$  & , -  '(   ? ,  8?2 =     -%  μ 1 -· 4    μ 1 ( μ, W '12. 3,  8 ™ μ 1 e '"#· 0 # 2 - R   I%- μ %   &  B μ. 5 †$(  T %  22 &  O 4  g G  %a  &·  !  g G =     & 1 - E 1  &· 6 †$(  *   Ow$**  %a   2"

# O w T %   &  % 22 &   g G  2' % 2(   7 V μ 1 -,    μ 1 ( μ· e 'w 2 - #    6% %   &  B μ. 8 & }, %a(, F %  μ % 4 3 (22 μ1 1· 9  % = 4 $ * Reading with the majority $2%?"μ instead of ALEX’s unique $2%?"μ. ** Reading with the logically corrected Swete text Ow$ instead of ALEX’s unique O 4.

GENESIS 26:25–35 & 27:1–9

111

And he built there an altar and invoked the name of Lord, and he pitched there his tent; then there the servants of Isaak dug a well. 26 And Abimelech traveled to him from Gerara, also Ochozath his groomsman and Phikol the commander-in-chief of his army. 27 And Isaak said to them, “Why have you come to me? Now you hated me and you sent me away from you.” 28 And they said, “Seeing we have seen that Lord is with you, and we said, ‘Let there be a sworn oath between us and you, and we will contract a covenant with you 29 not to do us harm, just as we did not loathe you, and in the same way as we treated you well and sent you away in peace; and now you are blessed by Lord.’ ” 30 And he made them a feast and they ate and drank; 31 and rising early in the morning, they swore an oath man to his neighbor; and Isaak sent them away, and they took leave of him safely. 32 Now it came to be on that day, the servants of Isaak arriving told him about the well that they dug, and they said, “We did not nd water.” 33 And he called its name Oath; because of this the name of the city is Well of Oath, until the present day. 25

Now Esau was forty years old and he took as wife Ioudin, daughter of Ber the Chettite, and Masemmath, daughter of Ailn the Heuite; 35 and they would quarrel with Isaak and with Rebekka. 34

Now it came to be after Isaak was old and his eyes became too dull to see; he called Esau his older son and said to him, “My son.” And he said to him, “Here I am.” 2 And he said, “Look, I have become old, and I do not know the day of my end; 3 now therefore take the equipment, both the quiver and the bow, and go out into the open eld and hunt game for me; 4 and make me meat, as I love, and bring it to me in order that I may eat; so that my soul might bless you before I die.” 5 Now Rebekka heard Isaak speaking to Esau his son; then Esau went into the open eld to hunt game for his father. 6 Then Rebekka said to Iakb her small son, “See I heard your father speaking to Esau your brother saying, 7 ‘Bring me game, and make me meat; so that after eating I might bless you before Lord before I die.’ 8 Now therefore, son, hear me exactly as I command you; 9 and going to the sheep, take me from there two kids tender and good, 27

1

112

GENESIS 27:9–28

2$( μ 1 B ! ' % Ž 2 G  2 !,  1- #  G ( μ E  %, W '12B· 10  =  1 E  %,  '"1· 0 # 2 - R   - %   &  B . 11 *   Ow$  †$(  μ (  & V 1 g G  2' μ %   !, w   2B · 12 μ-  I 2'- R μ  - μ %,  8 μ1    & W ' .,   "?#  C μ% "   2 . 13 *   E  μ-   C μ  " %, ( · μ  ; " %   '# μ %,  % 8 μ 1. 14 %  82$  T  μ ,      μ-   & ( μ, 4 '21    &. 15  2$ &  †$(   2 g G  & %a &   &  $%( %  2-, `  C   E /7,  (%  Ow$  %a   3 · 16  4 (μ . '# 1(     G $   &    4 %μ4  & -2 %  &· 17  8# 4 ( μ   G F % ‹   , = 4 B Ow$*  & %a & . 18  = - E   %· *  ( N" μ %·   *  O G 3·   *   * !, ( ; 19  *  Ow$  %a  & E   & w g G  #  %,    4 2"2 " μ 1·  4 "1   '"  - μ %, 0 # 2 - R μ  I%- %. 20 *   O 4 E %aE  & [  & : G D, ” ( ;   *  › (# 6!1      μ %. 21 *   O 4 E O3$ V1  μ 1  I 2'- # , ( , = G *  %a μ % g G • ‘. 22 T1   Ow$  O 4  (  %·  I 2"'    *  œ'# '# O3$, a  B B g !. 23    (# ·   4 a B  & W a B g G  & 2' &  &  B1·  2  . 24  *  GENESIS 27:42–46 & 28:1–13

117

Esau your brother is threatening to kill you; 43 now therefore, child, hear my voice, and getting up ee into Mesopotamia to Laban my brother in Charran; 44 and live with him some days, 45 until the wrath and anger of your brother turns away from you, and he might forget what you have done to him; and sending for I will summon you from there, lest I become childless from the two of you in one day.”

And Rebekka said to Isaak, “I have become provoked about my life because of the daughters of the sons of Chet; if Iakb should take a wife from the daughters of this land, what would life be for me?” 46

Now calling to Iakb Isaak blessed him, and he commanded him saying, “Do not take a wife from the daughters of Chanaan; 2 getting up, ee to Mesopotamia of Syria to the house of Bathoul the father of your mother, and take for yourself there a wife from the daughters of Laban the brother of your mother. 3 Now may my God bless you and cause you to increase and multiply, and you will be a gathering of nations. 4 And may he give you the blessing of Abraam your father, to you and to your ospring after you, to inherit the land of your sojourning, which God has given to Abraam.” 5 And Isaak sent Iakb away; and he traveled to Mesopotamia to Laban the son of Bathoul the Syrian, and brother of Rebekka the mother of Iakb and Esau. 6 Then Esau saw that Isaak blessed Iakb and he was going far away to Mesopotamia of Syria to take himself a wife, and while blessing him he commanded him saying, “Do not take a wife from the daughters of Chanaan.” 7 And Iakb listened to his own father and mother, and he traveled to Mesopotamia. 8 And Esau saw that the daughters of Chanaan were evil before his father Isaak, 9 and Esau traveled to Ismal, and he took Maeleth daughter of Ismal the son of Abraam, sister of Nabaith, for a wife in addition to his wives. 28

1

And Iakb went out from the well of the oath, and he traveled to Charran. And he came upon a place and he went to sleep there; for the sun set; and he took from the stones of the place and he set them in place for his head, and he went to sleep in that place. 12 And he dreamed; and look, a ladder set rmly in the earth, whose head was reaching into heaven, and the angels of God were going up and coming down on it. 13 And Lord leaned on it and said, “I am the God of Abraam your father and the God of Isaak; do not be afraid; the land on which you are sleeping, I will give it 10 11

118

GENESIS 28:13–22 & 29:1–10

3 #   E (μ %. 14  8 1  (μ % W  Fμμ   2"

,  2%- 1   "2

    2$    $ J   C  2"·  %2  - 1   J 1 a '%2     E (μ %. 15  = G w μ4 &, 1'%2"

#    E " R D 4 %·  

(I#

 =   ! , 01  μ-  2 # P#  & 1  μ " 0  2"2 " 1. 16  ? ( Ow$    & )  %  &  *  01 V 1 6!1   E  7  !7, w   f1. 17  ' $-  *  ‡ ' $    D ·  8 1  & 22C •

*   &,  )  !2  &  &. 18  (  Ow$  #,  82$  2  : 8  B  '2  &  8    -2 ,   ( 821     F  . 19  "2  Ow$  X μ  &  %  % ^*   &·  ^2μμG  X μ  21   . 20  ‘? Ow$  2(# 4 ~ 6!1    μC μ &,  1'%2"?R μ   E !R U w ! μ1,  E μ 1 F  'B  aμ"1  1$2( 1, 21  

(IR μ μ4 #  =  *   &  μ %,  8 1 μ 1 6!1  = · 22   2  D , : 8   -2 , 8 1 μ 1

*   &·  "# S " μ 1 E, "   3 1 . 29 1 6 ?" Ow$  G   ! =   2.  y$4  %a A %2  &
 4 $  &  . 10 (  W /

GENESIS 28:13–22 & 29:1–10

119

to you and to your ospring. 14 And your ospring will be as the sand of the sea, and they will spread out westward and southward and northward and eastward; and all the tribes of the earth will be blessed in you and in your ospring. 15 And look, I am with you, watching you closely in every place wherever you travel; and I will return you to this land, for I will never abandon you until I have done all that I told you.” 16 And Iakb was awakened from his sleep and he said that ‘Lord is in this place, but I did not know.’ 17 And he was afraid and he said, “How fearful is this place; it is nothing other than a house of God, and it is the gate of heaven.” 18 And Iakb arose early in the morning, and he took the stone that he placed there by his head and he set it up as a pillar, and he poured olive oil on its top. 19 And Iakb called the name of that place House of God; and Oulammaus was the name of city earlier. 20 Then Iakb vowed a vow saying, “If Lord God is with me, and watches me closely in this way in which I am traveling, and gives me bread to eat and clothes to wear, 21 and returns me safely to the house of my father, then Lord will become for me God; 22 and this stone, which I set up as a pillar, will be for me the house of God; and of all that you may give to me, one tenth of it I will tithe to you.”

And lifting the feet Iakb traveled into the land of the east to Laban the son of Bathoul the Syrian, and brother of Rebekka mother of Iakb and Esau. 2 And he sees – and look – a well in the open eld. Now there were three ocks of sheep resting on it; for from that well they would water the ocks, but there was a large stone at the mouth of the well. 3 And all the ocks would be gathered there, and they would roll away the stone from the mouth of the well, and they would water the sheep, and they would restore the stone over the mouth of the well in its place. 4 And Iakb said to them, “Brothers, where are you from?” Then they said, “We are from Charran.” 5 Then he said to them, “Do you know Laban the son of Nachr?” Then they said, “We know.” 6 Then he said to them, “Is he well?” Then they said, “He is well.” While he was still speaking – look, Rachl his daughter was coming with the sheep of her father; for she tended the sheep of her father. 7 And Iakb said, “There is still much of the day, it is not yet the hour for the herds to be gathered; after watering the sheep, go away and feed them.” 8 But they said, “We will not be able until all the shepherds have been gathered, and they can roll away the stone from the mouth of the well, and we will water the sheep.” 9 While he was still speaking to them, Rachl the daughter of Laban was coming with her father’s sheep; for she fed the sheep of her father. 10 Now it came to be 29

1

120

GENESIS 29:10–30

Ow$  †2 %( y$4 2' &  μ   &,  

2w Ow$  !21   2     & μ   & '( ,   1  4 $ y$4  & 2' &  μ   &. 11  '2  Ow$  †-2,  $ -   '#  & 82% . 12  -12  †2 01 2'  &    1,  01 %a †$(  ·  μ &   -12 E   4 4 m-μ &. 13  (  W T %  y$4  X μ Ow$  & %a &  2'  &, 8μ = %" 1  &,  12$w  '2 ,  = -  = 

*   &·  1 -  E y$4 "  G 2 %  ! %. 14  *  E y$"  . > . μ %     μ % * !.   μC  & μ μ.. 15 *   y$4 E O3$ i1 4 2' μ % *,   %2! 1 μ 1 #"·  "12 μ 1   μ1  !  1. 16 E  y$4   ! %(· X μ  μ9 1 y,*  X μ  #(Q †-2· 17 a  >'2μ  y1  B· †2   2 E /1  W  XI1. 18 h"   Ow$  †-2,  *  q %2! # 1 5 4 8  †2  % %  #(. 19 *   E y$" A(21   & μ   •  & μ   5(7· /  μC μ &. 20   !2%  Ow$  †2 8 5 ". 21 *   Ow$ E y$" \   μ 1  %B" μ %·  2-#1 4 a μ(1 μ % 0 # = (2#  -. 22 %-  y$4 "  G F  &  %     "μ . 23  ( 5 (·  2$w y  %(  & = -   O3$,  = 2   O3$. 24 8#  y$4 k(2' yQ  %  &  1    &  1  . 25 (  #,  = G  y. *   Ow$ y$" [  &   " μ 1;   †2  !2%  ;  e  2  # μ; 26 *   y$" ^ 8 1

)#  E  7 μ.,  &1  #(  •   $%(· 27

%(2  } 4 P$ μ ! ,  3 # 1  !      j r C μ  81 5 4 8 P. 28     Ÿw$ )#,   2-#  4 P$ μ ! ·  8# y$4 †2  %(  & E %B. 29 8#  y$4 †2  %  & A"22  1    &  1  . 30  = 2  †-2· h"   †2 μJ22  • y·   !2%  E 5 4 8 P.

* Reading with the majority y.

GENESIS 29:10–30

121

as Iakb saw Rachl daughter of Laban the brother of his mother, Iakb went to roll away the stone from the mouth of the well, and he watered the sheep of Laban the brother of his mother. 11 And Iakb kissed Rachl, and crying out with his voice, he wept. 12 And he informed Rachl that he was a brother of her father and that he was a son of Rebekka; and running, she told her father about these matters. 13 And now it came to be when Laban heard the name Iakb the son of his sister, he ran to meet him, and embracing him he kissed, and he brought him into his house; and he described in detail to Laban all these events. 14 And Laban said to him, “From my bone and from my esh you are.” And he was with him a month of days. 15 Then Laban said to Iakb, “Because you are my brother, you will not be a slave to me for free; tell me what your wages are.” 16 Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the greater Leia, and the name of the younger Rachl; 17 now the eyes of Leia were weak, but Rachl was beautiful in form and ripe in appearance. 18 And Iakb loved Rachl, and he said, “I will be your slave seven years for Rachl your younger daughter.” 19 Then Laban said to him, “It is better that I give her to you than I give her to another man; live with me.” 20 And Iakb slaved seven years for Rachl. 21 Then Iakb said to Laban, “Turn my wife over to me; for my days have been completed so that I might go into her.” 22 Then Laban gathered all the men of the place and made a wedding feast. 23 And it came to be evening; and taking Leia his daughter he brought her to Iakb, and Iakb went into her. 24 And Laban gave Zelpha his maidservant to Leia his daughter for her maidservant. 25 Then it came to be morning, and look, it was Leia. Then Iakb said to Laban, “What is this that you did to me? Was it not for Rachl that I was your slave? Why did you deceive me?” 26 And Laban said, “It is not this way in our place, to give the younger before the older. 27 Therefore complete these seven, and I will give you this one too for the labor that you will perform for me yet another seven years.” 28 Now Iakb did thusly, and he paid these seven in full; and Laban gave Rachl his daughter to him as a wife. 29 Then Laban gave Rachl his daughter Balla his maidservant for her maidservant. 30 And he went into Rachl; now he loved Rachl more than Leia; and he was his slave seven more years.

122

GENESIS 29:31–35 & 30:1–15

Ow  6!1    01 μ1 B1 y, T 1?  μ- · †2   B. 32  %(2$ y  8 %a E O3$· "2    X μ  & † %$ 2( %  q11 *( μ % 6!1    # 1· &  - 1 μ  - μ %. 33  %(2$ "21 y  8 %a !  E O3$,  *  01   %  6!1  01 μ1 &μ1,  

(#( μ 1   & ·  "2   X μ  & '2μ B %,  =  G " %   G 1 G $    4 $  4 * 12! %  12 %   1B m !· 53 4 0 

1 y$4 1B. 13 3 =μ1    >' 1  E  7 € T21I" μ 1 B -2   ‘?# μ 1 B -· & } "  1  F 2    !   F 2 =    ( 3 %,  8 μ1 μ4 &. 14   1B  †2  y *  E s 8 1 μB 81 μ • 2   μ  E /7  &  μ.; 15  W a 2211 22  μ E; (  4 μJ,  (' $3 1  !1  μ.. 16 "  2 &    ? ` '2    &  μ., μB 8 1   B ( 1 μ.· & } 0  / (   1 1. 10

\ 4  Ow$ 82$ 4 %B  4 1  &   4 μ-2 %· 18   - " 4 ; "   &  J   

%  &, ` 1 1-    s μQ,  " 4  &,  2B  O 4  (  & =  {". 19 y$4  t B1 4 $  &· 82I  †2 4 /#2  &  . 20 8%I  Ow$ y$4 
†2  82$ 4 /#2  ($2 4 = 4 "μ  μ-2 %   "1   B, 35  *  E   s $(# '(, !1·  !μ1  1 3 1 %, 01 4 C 1 μ . %11. μ !  1. h!   y$4  027 E

/7,   D 4 /#2. 36 ƒ   Ow$  μ(  E y$"·  1  Ow$ *  E y$" [   μ" μ %    Žμ" μ" μ %, 01 #? >  # μ %, 37  01 h!  " 4 !  & / % μ %;  D   "# . %.  &

/ % %;  S   . 2'. %  . 2'. μ %,  2?"#  4 μ(  . ! μ.. 38 &" μ 1 /

1 8 3 =μ1 μ4 &· 4 $" %  a *( %  h3 · 1 G .  $"# %  (' · 39  1"2#   - "

1· w  %   C μ% & 2(μμ μ(  2(μμ  %· 40 1μ   μ( %1μ  E ! #1  E  %,  '   )   μ %   . >'2μ. μ %. 41 &" μ 1 /

1 8 3 =μ1   =Q %·  !2% " 1 (  (

 8  . ! %(# %  Œ? 8   B  $" 1

%,  2  #  μ1  μ % ( μ" 1. 42 = μ    &  μ % \$4μ   '$  O 4  μ 1, & ]  μ ? ( 12·   #  μ %     . 1. μ % /  ,  T2?(  (. 43  1  y$4 *  E O3$ Ma %( % %( μ %,  a %a  % %a  μ %,  4 -

% - μ %,  " 0  G r μ"  1·  B %( μ %  1- # !1 -μ  •  B ( 1 . l 8 ; 44 &

} & 13μ 1-  w  !,  8 1 = μ!1  4 μ(  μ &  &. *   E O3$ O G  μC μ. 34

GENESIS 31:29–44

131

And now my hand is strong to do harm to you; but the God of your father yesterday said to me saying, ‘Watch yourself never to speak evil against Iakb.’ 30 Now therefore you have gone; for with longing you longed to depart to the house of your father; and why have you stolen my gods?” 31 Then answering Iakb said to Laban, “For I said perhaps you would take away your daughters from me and everything that is mine;” 32 Iakb also said to him, “With whomever you nd your gods, that one will not live before our brothers. Detect what there is of yours with me and take it.” And he did not detect anything with him. But Iakb did not know that Rachl his wife stole them. 33 Then entering Laban searched in the house of Leia, and he did not nd; and leaving the house of Leia, he searched the house of Iakb and the house of the two maidservants, and he did not nd. Then he also went into the house of Rachl. 29

Now Rachl took the idols and she threw them in the saddlebags of the camel and she sat down on them, 35 and she said to her father, “Do not be annoyed, lord; I am not able to stand up before you, for the customary way of women is on me;” then Laban searched the whole house, and he did not nd the idols. 36 Then Iakb grew angry and he quarreled with Laban; and responding Iakb said to Laban, “What is my crime and what is my error, that you pursued me so eagerly, 37 and that you searched all the goods of my house? What did you nd among all the goods of your house? Place here before your brothers and my brothers, and let them decide between the two of us. 38 For these twenty years of mine I was with you; your sheep and your goats never lost their young; rams among your sheep I did not devour; 39 no torn carcasses have I brought back to you; I would pay damages myself for thefts of the day and thefts of the night; 40 I was consumed with heat of the day and with frost of the night, and my sleep was always falling away from my eyes. 41 For these twenty years of mine I was in your house; I slaved for you fourteen years in exchange for your two daughters and six years for your sheep, and you cheated my wages ten lambs. 42 If the God of my father Abraam and the fear of Isaak were not for me, now you would have sent me away empty; my humiliation and the beating of my hands God saw and reproved you yesterday.” 43 Then responding Laban said to Iakb, “Your daughters are my daughters and your sons are my sons, and your herds are my herds, and everything that you see is mine; and for my daughters what can I do for these today or for their children whom they bore? 44 Now therefore let us contract a covenant here, I and you, and it will be a witness between me and you.” 34

132

GENESIS 31:44–55 & 32:1–9

 1· =   μ"% 4 μ(  μ &  &. 45 2$w  Ow$ 2  8    -2 . 46 *   Ow$  B 2' B  & '2μ B / ,  = G  1  1 O μ 2B1 T   +2",  a "μ 2 1 . 8μ  %μ1μ"#  m1   ·  !   B = M/%  . 26 *   O !   G 2' G  & [ - 1μ  4  #μ 12

* Reading with the corrected Swete text  G instead of ALEX’s unique  &.

GENESIS 37:8–26

151

lord, will you?” And they proceeded to hate him still more on account of his dreams and on account of his words. 9 Then he saw another dream, and he described it to his father and to his brothers, and said, “Look, I have dreamed another dream; such that the sun and the moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” 10 His father rebuked him and said, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall we indeed when we come, I together with your mother and your brothers, come to bow down to you on the ground?” 11 Now his brothers were jealous of him, but his father watched the matter closely. Now his brothers traveled to feed the sheep of their father in Sychem. And Isral said to Isph, “Are your brothers not tending the sheep in Sychem? Come here let me send you to them.” Then Isph said to him, “Here I am.” 14 Then Isral said to him, “Traveling see if your brothers and the sheep are in good health, and inform me.” Then he sent him from the valley of Chebrn; and he came into Sychem. 15 And a man found him wandering in the open eld; then the man asked him saying, “What are you seeking?” 16 Then he said, “My brothers I am seeking; Inform me where they are feeding.” 17 Then the man said to him, “They have moved on from here; for I heard them saying, ‘Let us travel into Dthaeim.’ ” And Isph traveled after his brothers and he found his brothers in Dthaeim. 18 Then they observed him from afar before he drew near to them; and they were driven to kill him. 19 Then each said to his brother, “Look, that dreamer is coming. 20 So now come let us kill him, and let us throw him into one of the pits, and we will say a wicked wild animal devoured him; then we will see what his dreams will be.” 21 Now hearing, Roubn rescued him from their hands, and he said, “Let us not strike him in person.” 22 Then Roubn said to them, “Do not spill blood; but throw him into one of the pits in the desert; but lay no hand on him;” thus he would rescue him from their hands and give him back to his father. 23 Now it came to be when Isph came to his brothers, they stripped Isph of the multicolored tunic that was around him, 24 and taking him they threw him into the pit; now that pit had no water. 25 Then they sat down to eat food; and looking up with the eyes they saw, and look, Ismaleit travelers coming from Galaad, and their camels were laden with incense, pine resin, and myrrh; now they were traveling to bring them into Egypt. 26 Then Jouda said to his brothers, “What advantage is it if we kill our brother and hide his 12 13

152

GENESIS 37:26–36 & 38:1–10

 2' μ.  !I#μ  lμ  &; 27 &  3μ   B O μ 21  ! 1· a  B μ. μ 8 #   C , 01 2' μ.  4? μ.  1. T %   a 2'   &. 28   !  a F# 1 a s1 B 1 a 8μ  1,  ?2%   $$   O# '   & 2" %·   ( 

 O# '  B O μ 21 /

1 % .·  -   O# ' = M/%  . 29 ( I  † %$    2" ,   r  O# '  E 2"7·  1( ? 4 aμ"1  &. 30  ( I   G 2' G  &  *  [ 1"1   8 1· w  & ! μ1 81; 31 2$   1.  & O# ' 8 '? 81'  =.,  μ2%  1. eμ1. 32   ( 12  1.  12   = - E  .,  *  [ &  ) μ.  #1 = 1w  & %a & !  1 • ‘. 33   (#   *  {1w  & %a & μ !  1.      (' ,    p    O# -'. 34 1( ?  Ow$ 4 aμ"1  &,   ( "     > 'G  &,   (1  %a  & μ( 1". 35 %-   " a %a   &  a %(,  2  2( 1 ·   T2 2B 1, 2(# 01 6$- μ1   %a μ % . = ¤ %·  82%      &. 36 a  s1 B 1  (   O# ' = M/%   E N'R* E " 1 Yw 1μ7. 38 1 (   E 1E 7 ($ O !   . 2'.  &,  ' P#  F#  1 – 22μ  € X μ ZaJ. 2  / B O ! %( 3 % { % U X μ !#μ, =     €

a  μ.1  & $ 12(# ( 1 B  E >%3μ1. 21   6!1  μ4 O# '  (  & 82 ,  8# E "1    & 1 μ '!2 . 22  8#  1 μ '!2?   μ#-1  14 1 O# '  "  G  μ( % 0 1  E  μ# 7,  " 0  1 & 1 B. 23    1 μ '!2? 13 # 1C  (· " 4  14 1 O# -', 14   6!1  μC  & *1·  0    1, 6!1    B  B    &. 13

40 1 (  μ4 4 m-μ & pμ  1 1    % $ 12(# M=!  %   1 1 1 E %7 . $ 12B M=!  %. 2  ƒ  Yw    B %   ! 1  &,   E 1 1 7    E 1 1 1E· 3  8  G  '%2 4 E 1 μ '!21 =   μ#-1 , =    D O# '   B. 4  %(    1 μ3  E O# '  !,  (   B·    μ(   '%2. 5  /  μ' 1 ! 1 , 5"  ! 1   μ1r %, 0 1  & %  %  &,  1 1     1 1 1    E $ 12B M=!  %, a X  E  μ# 7. 6 = 2    G  # O# -',  /  !    μ( 1. 7  h3  G  ! % Yw,

   μC  &   '%2 4 E %7  &, 2(# [ 01 4  #  ;μ. %# 4 -μ ; 8 a  *  E ! 1  / μ,   %#   8 1. *    B O# -' ^ 14  &  &  1 "' 1 .  1; 1 -   } μ 1.

GENESIS 39:13–23 & 40:1–8

159

And it came to be that when she saw that he left behind his clothes in her hands and ed and went outside, 14 she called to the ones in the house and said to them saying, “Look, he brought us a Hebrew servant to play with us; he came to me saying, ‘Lie with me;’ and I cried out in a loud voice. 15 But when he heard me raise my voice and cry out, leaving his clothes beside me he ed and went outside.” 16 And she left the clothes beside her until the lord came into his house. 17 And she spoke to him about these matters saying, “He came to me, the Hebrew servant, the one you brought to us, he played with me, and said to me, ‘Lie with me.’ 18 But when he heard that I raised my voice and cried out, he left behind his clothes beside me and ed and went outside.” 19 Now it came to be as the lord heard the matters of his wife, all that of which she spoke to him saying, “Thus your servant did to me,” he was inamed with anger. 20 And the lord took Isph and threw him into the stronghold, into the place in which the prisoners of the king are detained there in the stronghold. 21 And Lord was with Isph and he continued to shower him with mercy, and he gave him favor before the chief jailer. 22 And the chief jailer gave the prison into the hand of Isph and all those who were lead away, as many as were in the prison, and everything whatsoever that they did there. 23 Now the chief jailer knew of nothing because of him; for everything was in the hand of Isph, because Lord was with him; and whatever he was doing, Lord was making prosper in his hands. 13

40 1 Now it came to be after these things the chief cupbearer of the king of Egypt and the chief baker sinned against their lord the king of Egypt. 2 And Phara became angry with his two eunuchs, with the chief cupbearer and with the chief baker. 3 And he placed them in custody with the chief jailor in the prison, in the place where Isph had been lead away. 4 And the governor of the prison placed them together with Isph, and he stood by them; now they were in custody for several days. 5 And both of them saw a dream, each a dream in one night, seeing his dream, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker who were the Egyptian king’s, they were the ones in the prison. 6 Then Isph came to them early in the morning, and he saw them and they were troubled. 7 And he was asking Phara’s eunuchs, those who were with him in custody at his lord’s, saying, “Why is it that your faces are gloomy today?” 8 Then they said to him, “We saw a dream and there is no interpreter for it.” Then Isph said to them, “Are their explanations not through God? Therefore, describe them to me.”

160

GENESIS 40:9–23 & 41:1–4

 1 -   1 1    ! 1   & E O# '  *   E ) 7 μ %  Fμ 2    μ %· 10    μ (27 B %μ(,   "22 %    %B $2  !· ( 1 1

a $% '%2. 11   -1  Yw   1 μ %·  82$   '%2  ?(21I  =  -1 ,  8#  -1  = 4 B Y3. 12  *  E O# -' [ &

 !1 1  &. a B %μ( B μ(1 = · 13 81 B μ(1  μ - 1 Yw   %,    - 1

    1 1   %,  3 1  -1  Yw =  B  & 4  - %   (, W   =  .. 14 224 μ-   μ % 14 % & 0 } 1 ( 1,  1- 1  μ  82 ,  μ - R  μ & Y3,  ?"?1 μ   & >%3μ   ! %· 15 01 2  2"    $#,  S     (, 22C ($2 μ =  2"   & . 16  /  1 1 1 01 >. %(1,  *  E O# -' 6w /  ! 1 ,  tμ   J  1. /1    '2 μ %· 17   E E E  "#   "# .  μ"# S  $ 12G Yw  1, 8  1 1 &·  4 14  &  & - 1 4    &  &  &  "#  '2 μ %. 18  1  O# ' *  E M)  !1 1  &. 4  J B μ(1 = · 19 81 1. μ. '2B Yw  '2- %   &,  μ" 1    ?!2 %,  '"1 4 X  &  & 4

" %   &. 20 (    μ(Q  R μ(  ( #  Y3,   1*   J 1  B 1   &·  μ-     & 1 1  %    & 1 1 1 &  μ( 7 . # % &. 21   (   1 1        &,  8#  -1  =  B Y3· 22   1 1 1 (μ , 4 %(1  B O# -'. 23  μ-    1 1    & O# -', 224  2"  &. 9

41 1 (  μ4 ! 8 μ. Yw / ! 1 . t

5 "1    & μ &, 2  = G H    & μ & "$1 ** 5 4 $ 2 E /1  2 B ?,  $    E F1. 3 F221  5 4 $ ($1  μ4 !   & μ &, =  E /1  2  B ?,  (μ  a $ 4  B2   & μ &  7 F1· 4  ('  a 5 4 $ a * Reading  1 with the majority of Greek manuscripts, instead of ALEX’s unique  1 %. ** Reading with the majority ($1  instead of ALEX’s unique "$1 .

GENESIS 40:9–23 & 41:1–4

161

And the chief cupbearer described his dream to Isph and said, “In my sleep, there was a grapevine before me. 10 Now on the grapevine were three stalks, and it was blooming, having yielded buds; ripe were the clusters of grapes. 11 And the cup of Phara was in my hand; and I took the grapes and squeezed them into the cup, and I gave the cup into the hands of Phara.” 12 And Isph said to him, “This is its interpretation. The three stalks are three days; 13 yet three days and Phara will remember your o ce, and he will restore you to your position as chief cupbearer, and you will put the cup of Phara into his hand according to your earlier o ce, when you were pouring wine. 14 Now you yourself remember me whenever it goes well with you, and you will show mercy on me and will remind Phara of me, and you will lead me out of this stronghold; 15 for by stealth I was stolen from the land of the Hebrews, and here I have done nothing, but they threw me into this pit.” 16 And the chief baker saw that he interpreted properly, and he said to Isph, “I also saw a dream, and I was imagining three baskets of coarse bread rising up over my head; 17 now in the uppermost basket was some of the produce which the king Phara eats, a baker’s work; and the birds of the heaven were devouring things from the basket above my head.” 18 Then answering Isph said to him, “This is its interpretation. The three baskets are three days; 19 yet three days Phara will remove your head from you, and he will hang you on a wood post, and the winged creatures of the heaven will eat your esh from you.” 20 Now it came to be that on the third day was the birthday of Phara, and he was making a drinking party for all his servants; and he remembered the o ce of the chief cupbearer and the o ce of the chief baker in the midst of his servants. 21 And he restored the chief cupbearer to his o ce, and he put the cup into the hand of Phara. 22 But the chief baker he hanged, just as Isph interpreted to them. 23 Now the chief cupbearer did not remember Isph, but he forgot him. 9

Now it came to be after two years of days Phara saw a dream. He was imagining himself standing by the river, 2 and look, as if coming up from the river seven cows beautiful in form and choice of esh, and they were feeding themselves in the reed grass. 3 But another seven cows were coming up after them from the river, ugly in form and thin of esh, and the cows were grazing by the edge of the river in the reed grass. 4 And the 41

1

162

GENESIS 41:4–23

=   2  B ? 4 5 4 $ 4 24 E /1  4 2". h(  Y3. 5  % 1"   ! ·  = G 5 4 "% ($1   %μ(1 5, 2   2 . 6 F22 1  5 4 "% 2    μ'  1 '!  μC  !· 7  ( 1  a 5 4 "% a 2    μ'  1  G 5 4 "%  G 2 G   G 2-1. h(  Y#,   ! 1 . 8 (  #  "  I%  &·  

2 "2  "  G ?  4 M=!  %  "  G ' G ,  1 -   B Yw  ! 1 ·      (22#  E Y3. 9  2"2   1 1    Yw 2(# [ Žμ μ % μ1μ # -μ . 10 Yw #_   B 1   &,  8 μJ  '%2  E /7  & 1 μ '!2 , μ(    1 1 1· 11  / μ ! 1   % μ1r, 3  · P   4  ; &* ! 1  / μ.12   B μC μ.    B $B   & 1μ %,  1  "μ E,  %(1 μB. 13 -  w %(1 μB, )#  %($ , μ(    1    - μ %, B   μ 1. \

2  Yw "2   O# -',  ?-     & >%3μ .  ?!    T22?   2  &·  2  Y3. 15 *   Yw E O# -' ! 1  53,   %#   8 1· w  -   & 2#,  ! "  ! 1 %B1 ". 16  1  O# ' E Yw *  %  &  &   1- 1  #-1  Y3. 17 2"2   Yw E O# ' 2(#  E ) 7 μ % tμ  5 "1  1  B2   & μ &· 18  H    & μ & ($1  5 4 $ 2 E /1  2 B ?,  (μ   E F1· 19  = G 5 4 $ P1 ($1  >  # .   & μ &,    =  E /1  2  B ?,  (μ 

 7 F1· e  *   1!  02R M=! 7 =  (· 20  ('  a 5 4 $ a =   2  4 5 4 $ 4 3 4 24  2", 21  = 2  = 4  12 .·   1" 2 1 (  01 = 2  = 4  12 .,  a XI1 . = 4 4   -. ?   1μ- . 22  /  "21  E ) 7 μ %,  H  5 4 "% ($1   %μ(1 5 2-1  2 · 23 F22 1  5 4 "% 2    14

* Reading P   4  ; % according to a secondary ALEX hand, rather than the original 4  ; .

GENESIS 41:4–23

163

seven cows ugly and thin of esh devoured the seven cows, beautiful in form and choice. Then Phara awoke. 5 And he dreamed a second time; and look, seven ears of corn, choice and beautiful, were coming up on one stalk. 6 But another seven ears of corn, thin and blasted by the wind, were growing up after them. 7 And the seven thin and wind-blasted ears of corn swallowed up the seven choice and full ears of corn. Then Phara awoke, and it was a dream. 8 Now morning came and his soul was troubled; and sending for he called all the dream interpreters of Egypt and all her wise men, and Phara described the dream to them; and there was no one to tell its meaning to Phara. 9 And the chief cupbearer spoke to Phara saying, “My sin I recall today. 10 Phara was angry with his servants, and he placed us in custody in the house of the chief jailer, both I and the chief baker; 11 and we saw a dream in one night, I and he, we each saw according to his own dream. 12 But there with us was a young Hebrew servant of the chief butcher, and we described to him, and he interpreted for us. 13 Now it came to be just as he interpreted to us, so also it happened, as for me I was restored to my o ce, but that other was hanged.”

Then sending, Phara called Isph and he led him from the stronghold. And they shaved him and they changed his robe; and he went to Phara. 15 Now Phara said to Isph, “I have seen a dream, and there is no interpreter for it; but I have heard them saying about you, hearing dreams, you interpret them.” 16 Then Isph answering Phara said, “Without God, the safety of Phara will not be answered.” 17 Then Phara spoke to Isph saying, “In my sleep, I was imagining myself standing by the edge of the river; 18 and as if coming up from the river seven cows beautiful in form and choice of esh, and they were grazing in the reed grass; 19 and look, seven other cows coming up behind them from the river, wretched and ugly in form and thin of esh, and they were grazing in the reed grass; such that I have not seen ugliness so great in the whole of Egypt; 20 and the seven ugly and thin cows devoured the rst seven beautiful and choice cows, 21 and they went into their bellies; and they did not become distinguishable when they went into their bellies, and their appearances were ugly just as also at rst. Then awakening, I went to sleep. 22 And again I saw in my sleep, also as if seven ears of corn full and beautiful were coming up on one stalk; 23 but another seven ears of corn thin and blasted 14

164

GENESIS 41:23–45

μ'  1 '!  μ 1 .· 24  ( 1  a 5 4 "%

a 2    μ'  1  G 5 4 "%  G 2 G   G 2-1. *  }  B ?  B,      (22# μ 1. 25  *  O# ' E Y3 [ ! 1  Yw P  1· 0    1B, 81? E Y3. 26 a 5 4 $ a 2 5 4 8  ,  a 5 4

"% a 2  5 4 8  ·  ! 1  Yw P  1. 27  a 5 4 $ a 2  a $ % 1 >  # . 5 4 8  , 

a 5 4 "% a 2    μ'  1. 8 1 5 4 8 21μ &. 28   mμ : /  Y3· 0    1B 81? E Y3. 29 = G 5 4 8 81   22  " R  M=! 7· 30 p?1  5 4 8 21μ & μ4 &,   12 - 1  2 μ   02R  M=! 7,  23 1  21μ  · 31    1# - 1           & 21μ &  &  μ( % μ4 &, = % 4 8 1 '. 32    & %. 1  ! 1  Yw , 01 2  8 1  mμ  4  &  &,  %B    & 1 1 . 33 & } (I1 F#  '1μ   %,  "        M=!  %· 34  1 "# Yw    "#  "    ,   μ # "#  " 4 -μ   M=!  % . 5 4 .   , 35 

%(#  " 4 $3μ . 5 4 . .  μ(# . 2.  !#·  %-#  B  ;  B Y3, $3μ  B 2 1 %-#. 36  8 1 4 $3μ '%2μ(   = 4 5 4 8  & 21μ & 8 1   M=! 7,   1$- 1    E 21μE.     4 m-μ   Yw    "# . #  &· 38  *  Yw J 1  B 1   & s ;- μ F#   1 & , : 81 &μ  &  E; 39 *   Yw E O# -'  1 81?   1 " &,  8 1 F#  ' 1μ3  %  %3. 40 G 8 R   E /7 μ %,    E μ % ;  ! 1 J  2 μ %· 2    ; (?#

% 3. 41 *   Yw E O# -' O G   μ  -μ    "   M=!  %. 42  12μ  Yw  !21     1  & 1(      B O# -',  (%    2

%$ ,  1(  2 1 % &   " 2   &· 43  $$      dμ  !  .  &,  -%? 8μ 

  & %?·  (    'C 02    M=!  %. 44 *   Yw E O# -' w Y3· F% &  ?B   B  &   " R  M=!  %. 45  "2  Yw  X μ O# ' ¥  μ'-. 37

GENESIS 41:23–45

165

by the wind were growing up holding them. 24 And the seven thin and wind-blasted ears of corn swallowed up the seven beautiful and full ears of corn. Thus, I said to the dream interpreters, but there was no one to tell its meaning to me.” 25 And Isph said to Phara, “The dream of Phara is one; whatever God is doing, he showed Phara. 26 The seven beautiful cows are seven years, and the seven beautiful ears of corn are seven years; the dream of Phara is one. 27 And the seven thin cows coming up behind them are seven years, also the seven thin and wind-blasted ears of corn. They will be seven years of famine. 28 Now the matter of which I have spoken to Phara; whatever God is doing, he showed Phara. 29 Look, seven years are coming of much prosperity in all the land of Egypt; 30 but seven years of famine will come after these, and they will forget the satiety in the whole land of Egypt, and famine will consume the land; 31 and the prosperity in the land will not be acknowledged because of the famine that is coming after these things, for it will be very severe. 32 Now concerning the dream of Phara being repeated twice, the matter from God is coming true, and God will hurry to do it. 33 Now therefore look carefully for a man wise and intelligent, and appoint him over the land of Egypt; 34 and let Phara act and let him appoint regional governors over the land, and let them take one fth of all the harvests of the land of Egypt in the seven years of prosperity, 35 and let them gather all the food coming in these seven good years; and let grain be gathered by the hand of Phara, food for the cities, let it be gathered. 36And the food having been kept safe in the land for the seven years of famine will be in the land of Egypt, and the land will not be destroyed in the famine.” Now the words were pleasing before Phara and before all his servants; and Phara said to all his servants, “We will not nd such a man, who has the spirit of God in him, will we?” 39 Then Phara said to Isph, “Since God showed you all these things, there is no man more wise and intelligent than you. 40 You will be over my house, and what is from your mouth, all my people will obey; only regarding the throne will I be above you.” 41 Then Phara said to Isph, “Look, I am appointing you today over all the land of Egypt.” 42 And taking the ring from his hand Phara put it on the hand of Isph, and he clothed him in a robe of ne linen, and he put a gold collar around his neck; 43 and he made him ride on the second chariot of those of his, and a herald called out in front of him; and he appointed him over the whole land of Egypt. 44 Then Phara said to Isph, “I am Phara; without you, no one raises his hand over all the land of Egypt.” 45 And Phara called Isph’s name Psonthomphanch. 37 38

166

GENESIS 41:45–57 & 42:1–5

 8# E  \  %( N' a(# œ2 %* 2# E = %B. O# '   . 1"  0 8    Yw $ 12(# M=!  %. ?2  O# '  

3 % Y3,  12 J   M=!  %. 47         B 5 4 8 1    "μ· 48  %- " 4 $3μ . 5 4 . 

l    **   M=!  %,  8  4 $3μ  B 2 1· $3μ . #  2# . !27  Š 8   . 49  %- O# ' B  W   Fμμ   2"

 2G ', P#  h! 1μ 1·  4  1μ. 50 E  O# ' (  %a  !   & 2B 4 5 4 8  & 21μ &,

‹ 8 E \  %"  N' a(# œ2 %* 2#. 51 "2   O# '  X μ  & #  % s

 2(# i1  12( 1 μ      "# . # μ %  "# .  &  μ %· 52   X μ  & %( % "2  '"1μ, i1 )I# ( μ      13 3 μ %. 46

N2   4 5 4 8    L (   M=! 7, 54  T? 4 5 4 8  & 21μ & 8 1, 4 *  O# -'.  (

21μ  " R  ·   " R  M=!  %    F 1. 55     J    M=!  %, (?  J  2  Yw  F#· *   Yw J 1  B M=%  1 N !   O# -',  : 4 / R ;μB 1- . 56   21μ    

3 % "   · (7?  O# ' "  G 1 $ 2.,   321 J 1  B M=%  1. 57  J 1 a .1 2  = M/%    "91  O# -'.  "  4  21μ  " R  . 53

42 1 Ow  O3$ 01 8 1 J 1  M=! 7 *   B %a B  & o  mQ%μB; 2 = G -  01 8 1 B   M=! 7· "$  B    μB μ14 $3μ, e 9.μ  μ  "#μ. 3 ($   a 2'  O# ' a (  1 B  ? M=!  %· 4   A1μ  2' O# '   ( 12 μ4 . 2'.  &· *  " s-  %μ$ E μ2. 5 2   a %a  O 2  "91 μ4 .  μ(#·  4  21μ   {".

* Reading with the corrected Swete text against ALEX’s unique spelling Ÿ2 % in favor of the majority spelling and contextually appropriate œ2 %. ** Reading with the corrected Swete text   against ALEX’s unusual spelling  .

GENESIS 41:45–57 & 42:1–5

167

And he gave him Asenneth the daughter of Petreph the priest of Hliopolis to him as a wife. Now Isph was thirty years old when he was set in front of Phara the king of Egypt. Then Isph went out from the face of Phara, and he traveled throughout all the land of Egypt. 47 And the land produced by handfuls in the seven years of prosperity; 48 and he gathered all the food of the seven years in which there was prosperity in the land of Egypt, and he placed the food in the cities; food of the open elds surrounding the city of n he placed in it. 49 And Isph gathered grain in very large amounts, like the sand of the sea, until it could not be counted; for no number existed. 50 Then to Isph were born two sons before the seven years of famine came, sons whom Asenneth the daughter of Petreph the priest of Hliopolis bore for him. 51 Now Isph called the name of the rst born Mannass saying, “For God made me forget all my toils and everything of my father.” 52 Now the name of the second he called Ephraim, “For God has exalted me in the land of my humiliation.” 46

53

But the seven years of prosperity that were in the land of Egypt passed, and the seven years of famine came to be, just as Isph said. And famine came to be in all the land; but in all the land of Egypt there was not bread. 55 And all the land of Egypt hungered, then all the people of Egypt cried out to Phara for bread; then Phara said to all the Egyptians, “Go to Isph, and whatever he says to you do.” 56 And the famine was over the face of all the land; then Isph opened all the granaries, and he was selling to all the Egyptians. 57 And all countries came to Egypt to buy from Isph. For the famine prevailed in all the earth. 54

42 1 Now seeing that there was selling in Egypt Iakb said to his sons, “Why are you delaying? 2 Look, I have heard that there is grain in Egypt; go down there and purchase for us a little food, so that we may live and not die.” 3 Then the ten brothers of Isph went down to purchase grain from Egypt. 4 But Beniamein the brother of Isph, he did not send with his brothers; for he said “Perhaps illness might befall him.” 5 Now the sons of Isral went to buy along with those who were coming; for there was famine in the land of Chanaan.

168

GENESIS 42:6–27

O# '   F#  , D   321  E 2E  · 2  a 2'  O# ' 

!  E    #     . 7 =w  O# '  G 2' G  &  (#,  h22 1 &  C .  2"2   B 2 4,  *   B N p; a  *    {",  " 1 $3μ. 8  (#  O# '  G 2' G  &,      (#  · 9  μ-  O# ' . % # S / .  *   B 6"    ,   1 4 /  3 p. 10 a  *  ^, !1· a B( % T2 μ   1 $3μ· 11 "  μ %a  5 3 %. = 1   μ·  =  a B(

% "  1. 12 *    B ^, 224 4 /   T2 =B. 13 a  *  q3"  μ a B( % 2'    {"·  = G  3  μ4  &  μ. -μ ,   P   ; "1. 14 *    B O# -' [ &  1  /  ;μB, 2(# 01 "    · 15   !7 'B ·   ; Y3,  μ ?(2  & 4 μ  2' ;μ.  3  82R S. 16 

2 ? ;μ. P,  2"$  2' ;μ.· ;μB   "  P#  & '4 ( 1 4 m-μ ;μ., = 2 ! •

‘· =  μ-,   ; Y3, = μ "    . 17  8

 G  '%2 μ( B· 18 *    B  μ(Q  R [ & 1- ,  9-  ·   4 w ' $ &μ1. 19 = = 1   , 2' ;μ. l  -#   '%2·    $    "    μ  1 

 ;μ., 20   2' ;μ.  3  "  μ(,  1 %- 1 4 m-μ ;μ.· =  μ-,  B .     )#. 21  *  P     2'  & u,  ŽμQ "  μ   & 2' & μ., 01 ;  μ  2BI1  I%  & 0 ( μ.   =  ! μ  &· P  ! %  2 'C μJ  2BI1 ) . 22  1  † %$ *   B ^ 2"2  ;μB 2(# s 1-   1"1 ;   =  ! ( μ %·  = G  lμ  & 9 B1. 23     f1  01  !1 O# -',  4 5μ % 4 μ(  . · 24 

'   C . 82%  O# -'.  "21 

2   G  *   B·  82$   # . 3 #  2-μIR  G,  B  B [ 01  3( μ 1  4  2.; e  2(I( μ %  %  % &; 5   &  1  € 1  !1 μ %;   =#1 μE =#91  E·  4 %(2  L  1-. 6 ;w   G *   B 4 4 m-μ &. 7

a  *  E o  22B  !1  4 4 m-μ &;

GENESIS 43:23–33 & 44:1–7

175

and he brought water to wash their feet, and he brought fodder for their donkeys. 24 Then they prepared the gifts until Isph came at midday; for they heard that he was about to eat his midday meal there. 25 Then Isph came into the house, and in the house they oered him the gifts that they were holding in their hands, and they bowed down to him with face on the ground. 26 Then he asked them, “How are you?” And he said to them, “Is your father, the older one of whom you spoke, in good health? Is he still living?” 27 Then they said, “Your servant our father is in good health, he is still living.” And he said, “Blessed is that man to God.” And bending forward, they bowed down. 28 Then looking up with the eyes Isph saw Beniamein his brother born of the same mother, and he said to them, “Is this one your younger brother whom you said you would bring to me?” Also he said, “May God have mercy on you, child.” 29 Then Isph was troubled; for his intestines were twisted because of his brother, and he was seeking a place to weep; then entering the inner chamber he wept there. 30 And washing his face and coming out he took control of himself, and he said, “Serve food.” 31 And they served him alone, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians dining with him by themselves; for Egyptians are not able to eat food with the Hebrews, because every shepherd of sheep is an abomination to the Egyptians. 32 Now they were seated before him, the rstborn according to his seniority and the younger according to his youth; now the men were astounded each with his brother. 33 And they carried a portion of his to them; but the portion of Beniamein was made ve times greater than the portions of all of theirs. Then they drank and became drunk with him. 23

And Isph commanded the one over his house saying, “Fill the bags of the men with as much food as they are able to carry, and throw the money of each into the opening of his bag. 2 And my silver cup throw into the bag of the younger one, and the value of his grain.” Now it happened according to Isph’s word just as he said. 3 Early in the morning it became light and the men were sent away, they and their donkeys. 4 Then leaving the city they were not far away, and Isph said to the one over his house saying, “Standing up, pursue after the men and you will overtake them, and say to them, ‘Why did you repay me evil for good? Why did you steal my silver cup? 5 Is this not that from which my lord drinks? But also by divination he divines with it; you have brought about evil in what you have done.’” 6 Then nding them he spoke to them according to these words. 7 But they said to him, “Why does the lord speak according to these words? 44

1

176

GENESIS 44:7–27

μ ( 1  B 1  % 1 1  mμ  & . 8 =  μ !1  : )μ   B μ  1 μ.   (Iμ     {", . ] 2(I1μ   & / %  & % % % !1  • %  ; 9 C € ] ;  % . # %,  R (#·  μB   μ B E %7 μ.. 10   *  6 & W 2(, )# 8 1·  F#  C € ] ;  %,  8 1 μ % B, ;μB  8    . 11  8 %   B2 P    μ" 1   &    ,  T 1? P    μ" 1   &. 12 h!     &  $%( % ?"μ  P# 2    3 ,  D  %  E μ  7 E A1μ. 13  1( ? 4 aμ"1 .,   (  P    μ" 1   &    X   &,   ( I =  21. 14 = 2  O !  a 2'   &  O# -', 81  & X  B·  8      &    . 15 *    B O# -' [  Jμ  & :  1- ;  / 01 =#1 μE

=#1B1 F#  l  3; 16 *   O ! [  &μ E %7 •  22- #μ •  11#.μ;    D  1 . # %· = !  μ =(1 E %7 μ.,  μB  C € ;(  %. 17 *   O# -' s- μ 1 ( 1 1 1  mμ  & ·  F#  C € ;(  %,  8 1 μ % B· ;μB  "$  μ4 #    ( ;μ..    E O ! *  q( μ1, !1· 22 "#  B

% mμ   %,  μ %μ# E 1 %, 01 G * μ4 Y3. 19 !1, G h3   G B" % 2(# Z= 8 ( • 2'; 20  / μ E %7 V 1 μB   $! ,  1  3  -# E,   2'  &  (,   μ  ; 2' E   &,     h" . 21 *    B 1  % ™1 6"   μ,   1μ2 &μ1  &. 22  / μ E %7 ^ %- 1  1  21 B  (· 4  2 R  (,  B1. 23 G  *   B 1  % 4 μ $  2' ;μ.  3  μC ;μ.,  

-   81 =B   #  μ %. 24 (   ($ μ   B" % (  μ.,  2μ E 4 m-μ  & % %. 25 *   μB   μ. A  "21,  "  μB μ14 $3μ. 26 μB  / μ ^ % μ $1· 22C = μ  2' μ.  3  $1 μC μ., $ μ·  4 % μ =B   #   & 3 %,  & 2' &  & #( % μ X  μC μ.. 27 *    B %   μ.  μJ žμB 13  01 ! 8( μ 1  %-· 18

GENESIS 44:7–27

177

By no means did your servants do this thing. 8 If indeed the money we found in our bags we returned to you from the land of Chanaan, why would we steal silver or gold from the house of your lord? 9 On whomever of your servants the cup is found, let him die; and we ourselves will be servants to our lord.” 10 Then he said, “And now as you speak, thus it will be; the man on whom the cup is found, he will be my servant, but you will be innocent.” 11 And they each one hurried and put down his bag on the ground, and they each one opened his bag. 12 Then he searched starting from the one of the older until he came to the one of the younger, and he found the cup in the bag of Beniamein. 13 And they tore their clothes, and they each one placed his bag on his donkey, and they turned back to the city. 14 Then Jouda and his brothers came to Isph, who was still there; and they fell before him on the ground. 15 Then Isph said to them, “What is this deed that you did? Did you not know that a man like me would divine by divination?” 16 Then Jouda said, “How will we speak against the lord or what might we speak, or how might we be proven right? Now God found the unrighteousness of your servants; look, we are house slaves of our lord, both us and the one on whom the cup was found.” 17 Then Isph said, “By no means would I do this thing; the man on whom the cup was found, he will be my servant; then you go up safely to your father.”

Then drawing near to him Jouda said, “I beseech you, lord; let your servant speak a word before you, and may you not show anger to your servant, for you are after Phara. 19 Lord, you asked your servants saying, ‘Do you have a father or a brother?’ 20 And we said to the lord, ‘We have an older father, and a younger youngster of his old age, and his brother died, then he alone was left to his father, and the father loved him.’ 21 Then you said to your servants, ‘Bring him down to me, and I will take care of him.’ 22 And we said to the lord, ‘The youngster will not be able to leave the father behind; now if he should leave the father behind, he will die.’ 23 Then you said to your servants, ‘If you do not bring your younger brother down with you, you will not come in to see my face again.’ 24 Now it came to be when we went up to your servant, and our father, we told him the words of the lord. 25 Then our father said to us, ‘Go again, buy us a little food.’ 26 But we said, ‘We will not be able to go down; but if our younger brother goes down with us, we will go down; for we will not be able to see the face of the man, unless our younger brother is with us.’ 27 But your servant our father said to us, ‘You indeed know that my wife bore two; 18

178

GENESIS 44:28–34 & 45:1–12

 ?2  l  C μ &,  /  01  1$#  ( , 

 /   81. 29 4 } 2"$    &   

3 % μ % 

%μ$ E μ2   E,  "?( μ %   μ4 2!  = ¤ %. 30 & } 4 = !#μ1   B" % (  μ.,   1"1  μ ~ μC μ.,   I%  & (μ1    ! % I%· 31  8 1  E =B  μ ˜  1"1  μC μ., 2%- 1,  "? % 1 a B( %    & 1

%   μ. μC >!  = ¤ %. 32  4 B % (1  1  4  &  2(# 4 μ "#    

- #    %, μ w 8 μ1   ( "  4 μ(. 33 & } μ. 1 B   & 1 %, =(   & % %·   1  $-# μ4 . 2'.. 34 . 4 $- μ1   (,  & 1 % μ X  μC μ.; e μ /# 4 " L ;- 1  ( μ %. 28

45 1 6  h! O# ' ( 1 "# .   # E, 22C *  ?

2 "  C μ &·   1 -1

 81 E O# '  #9 O# '  B 2' B  &. 2  ' '# μ4 2%μ &· T %   " a M=! 1 1,   %  ( =  *  Y3. 3 *   O# '   G 2' G  & 3 =μ1 O# '  2' ;μ., :  (

 = M/%  · 81  - μ % 9;   ! a 2'   11 E· "  ". 4  *  3 =μ1 O# '  2' ;μ., :  (

 = M/%  . 5 & } μ 2% B , μ  2  ;μB '-# 01  (

( μ S· = 4 9#  ( 12( μ   8μ 

 ;μ.. 6  & 4 !  8  21μ    ,  81 2 1 4 ( 8  l  8 1   1  Fμ  · 7  ( 12 " μ   8μ 

 ;μ., ; 2  1 ;μ. "21μμ    ,  (I1 ;μ. "21I1 μ"2 . 8 & }  ;μB μ   "2 S, 22C T  ·    ( μ W ( Yw  !1    & / %  &  F  "   M=!  %. 9

!  } "$    ( μ %  /  E [" 2(1  %a % O# -'   ( μ   !1  "   M=!  %· "$ 1 }  μ,  μ μR· 10   1- 1   +( μ \$,  8 R ! μ % G  a %a  %  a %a  . %a. %, 4 $" %  a $ %  0   B· 11  (I#  B, 81 4 ( 8 21μ· e μ 1$ G  a %a  %  " 4 ; " " %. 12 = G a >'2μ  ;μ. $2( % 1  a >'2μ  A1μ & 2' & μ % 01  μ μ %  22 &  ;μJ.

GENESIS 44:28–34 & 45:1–12

179

and the one went out from me, and you said that he had become food for a wild animal, and I did not see him again. 29 Therefore if you take this one too from my face and illness comes to him on the road, you would bring me down in old age with pain to Hads.’ 30 Now therefore if I would go to your servant and our father, and the little boy is not with us, then his very life is left hanging on this person’s life; 31 and when he sees the little boy is not with us, he will come to an end, and your servants will lead your servant and our father down in old age with suering to Hads. 32 For your servant had taken responsibility for the youngster with the father saying, ‘If I do not bring him to you and place him before you, I will be guilty before the father all the days.’ 33 Now therefore I will remain a servant to you – a house servant of the lord – instead of the youngster; now let the youngster go up with his brothers. 34 For how will I go up to the father, unless the youngster is with us? Lest I should see the harmful things that will nd my father.” 28

And Isph was not able to endure all those standing by him, but he said, “Send everyone away from me.” And no one was still standing by Isph when Isph was revealing himself to his brothers. 2 And he let go a sound with weeping; now all the Egyptians heard, and it became audible in Phara’s house. 3 Then Isph said to his brothers, “I am Isph your brother, the one you sold into Egypt. Is my father still living?” And the brothers were not able to answer him; for they were troubled. 4 And Isph said, “I am Isph, your brother, the one you sold into Egypt. 5 Now therefore do not distress yourselves, nor let it seem harsh to you that you sold me here; for the purpose of life God sent me ahead of you. 6 For this is the second year of famine on the earth, and still ve years remain in which there will be neither plowing nor harvesting; 7 thus, God sent me ahead of you, to leave you behind a remnant on the earth, and to nourish a great posterity of yours. 8 Now therefore you have not sent me here, but rather God; and he made me as a father to Phara and a lord of all of his house and a ruler of all the land of Egypt. 9 Hurrying therefore go up to my father and say to him, ‘Thus says your son Isph, “God made me lord of all the land of Egypt; come down therefore to me, and do not remain; 10 and you will settle in the land of Gesem of Arabia, and you will be near me, you and your sons and the sons of your sons, your sheep and your cattle and everything whatsoever of yours there; 11 and I will nourish you there, for the famine still has ve years; so that you will not be destroyed, you and your sons and all your possessions.” ’ 12 Look your eyes see, and the eyes of Beniamein my brother, that it is my mouth speaking to you. 45

1

180

GENESIS 45:13–28 & 46:1

 2 } E  μ % J   ? μ %   M=! 7  0  /,  ! "  ( μ % S. 14   1  w    " 2  A1μ  & 2' &  &  (    C 7,  A1μ 82%    E -27  &. 15  '12-  "  G 2' G  & 82%   C  B, xμ4 & 2"2  a 2'   &  . 13

6 1$ -  '# =  *  Yw 2(  š 1 a 2'  O# -'· "  Yw      &. 17 *   Yw  O# -' Z=   B 2' B % [ & 1- · μ  4 B ;μ.   (2 =  {", 18  2$  ( ;μ.  4 ; "  ;μ.* p  μ(·  3 # ;μB "# . . M=!  %,  '"   μ%2  . 19

G  8121 &, 2$B  B Žμ"?   M=!  %  B 1 1 ;μ.  B %1?,  2$  ( ;μ.  · 20  μ '   B >'2μ B ;μ. . %., 4 4 " 4 M=!  % ;μB 8 1. 21     )# a %a  O -2· 8#  O# '  B Žμ"? 4 4 = μ( ;  Yw  & $ 12(#,  8#  B  1 11 μ =  · 22  J 1 8# 1

4  2",  E A1μ 8# 1

 % % &  ( 22

!   2"· 23  E   &  ( 12 4 4 4,  ( X % /    "# . . M=!  %,**  ( μ1 % = !  F % E   & = . 24 ? ( 12   G 2' G  &   ! ·  *   B s >9    E. 25  ($  ? M=!  %,  2  =  {"  Ow$  ( ., 26  -12 E 2(  01 c %a % O# ' 9,  D F1 "    M=!  %.  ?(   1" 1 O3$,  4   %   B. 27 2"2   E " 4 m ( ;  O# -', 0  *   B· =w  4 Žμ"? L  ( 12 O# ' H  2$B , 9# !   &μ Ow$  &  .. 28 *   O -2 s( μ   1 = 81  %a μ % O# ' 9· % XI μ1    &  B μ. 16

46 1 \ "  O -2,   " 4  &, 2     '(  & 0 %,  8%  B %  E E  &   & O ".

* Reading with Swete’s corrected text ;μ. instead of ALEX’s unique μ.. ** Omitting the second /  that occurs only in ALEX.

GENESIS 45:13–28 & 46:1

181

Tell therefore my father all about my glory in Egypt and how much you saw, and quickly bring my father down here.” 14 And falling on the neck of Beniamein his brother he fell on him, and Beniamein wept on his neck. 15 And kissing all his brothers he wept on them, and after these things his brothers spoke to him. 13

And the utterance was proclaimed in the house of Phara with those saying, “the brothers of Isph have come.” Then Phara and his attendants rejoiced. 17 Then Phara said to Isph, “Say to your brothers, ‘Do this; load up your pack animals and depart to the land of Chanaan, 18 and taking your father and your possessions, come to me; and I will give you of all the good things of Egypt, and you will eat the marrow of the land.’ 19 Now you command these things, to take for them wagons from the land of Egypt, ‘for your youngsters and for the wives, and taking up your father present yourselves here; 20and do not spare your eyes of belongings, for all the good things of Egypt will be yours.’ ” 21 And the sons of Isral did so; then Isph gave them wagons according to the sayings of Phara the king, and he gave them provisions for the road; 22 and to all he gave double robes, and to Beniamein he gave three hundred gold pieces and ve exceptional robes; 23 and to his father he sent similar things, and ten donkeys carrying from all the good things of Egypt, and ten mules carrying food for his father for the road. 24 Then he sent his brothers away and they went; and he said to them, “Do not become angry on the road.” 25 And they went up out of Egypt, and they came into the land of Chanaan to Iakb their father, 26 and they informed him saying that “Your son Isph is alive, and this one rules all the land of Egypt.” And the mind of Iakb was astounded, for he did not believe them. 27 Then they spoke to him all the things said by Isph, everything whatsoever he said to them; then seeing the wagons that Isph sent to fetch him, the spirit of Iakb their father revived. 28 Then Isral said, “This is great for me if Isph my son is still alive; traveling I will see him before I die.” 16

Then Isral, removing himself and everything of his, went to the well of the oath, and he sacriced there a sacrice to the God of his father Isaak.

46

1

182

GENESIS 46:2–20

*     O 2  "μ1  % /  Ow$ O3$.   *  [  1; 3 2(# 3 =μ1   . (# %· μ ' $ & $1 = M/%  , = 4 8  μ( 1- #  B· 4  w $- μ1 μ4 & = M/%  ,  w $1$" #  = (2 ·  O# '  1$2B 4 B*    G >'2μ ! %. 5 (   Ow$    & '(   & 0 %,  (2$  a %a  O 2  ( .   

%  4 %B .   4 Žμ"? L  ( 12 O# ' £1 · 6  2$ 4 ; "  .  J    1 ` -    {", = 2 Ow$ = M/%  ,  J  (μ  & μC  &, 7 %a   a %a  . %a.  & μC  &, %(  %( . %a.  & μC  &·  J  (μ  & T = M/%  . 2

[&  4 >μ . %a. O 2 . = 2# = M/%  . Ow$  a %a   &· #   Ow$ † %$-· 9 %a   † %$-· vw  Y22 !, ‰ w  {μ. 10 %a  
* Per Swete’s edited text, omitting ALEX’s unique and likely dittographic % after B. ** Reading against ALEX’s unusual spelling Ÿ2 % in favor of the majority spelling and contextually appropriate œ2 %.

GENESIS 46:2–20

183

Then God said to Isral in a vision of the night saying, “Iakb, Iakb.” Then he said, “What is it?” God saying, “I am the God of your fathers;” do not be afraid to go down into Egypt, for I will make you into a great nation there; 4 and I will go down with you into Egypt, and I will bring you back up in the end; and Isph will put the hands on your eyes.” 5 Then Iakb stood up from the well of the oath, and the sons of Isral took away their father and the little ones and their wives on the wagons that Isph sent to take him; 6 and taking away their possessions and all the property that they acquired for themselves from the land of Chanaan, Iakb went into Egypt, and all his ospring with him, 7 sons and the sons of his sons with him, daughters and the daughters of his sons with him; and all of his ospring he brought into Egypt. 2

Now these are the names of the sons of Isral, the ones entering Egypt. Iakb and his sons; rstborn of Iakb Roubn; 9 now the sons of Roubn; Hench and Phalloud, Hasrn and Charmi. 10 Now the sons of Sumen; Hiemoul and Iamein and Ad and Iacheim and Saar and Samoul son of the Chananite woman. 11 Now the sons of Leui; Grsn, Kaath and Merarei. 12 Now the sons of Jouda; r and Aunan and Slm and Phares and Zara; but r and Aunan died in the land of Chanaan; now the sons born of Phares Hasrm and Iemoul. 13 Now the sons of Issachar; Thla and Phoua and Iasouph and Zambram. 14 Now the sons of Zabouln; Sered and Hasrn and Halol. 15 These are the sons of Leia, whom she bore for Iakb in Mesopotamia of Syria, and Deina was his daughter; all the persons, both sons and daughters, were thirty-three. 16 Now the sons of Gad; Saphn and Haggeis and Saunis and Thasoban and Adis and Arodis and Aroleis. 17 Now the sons of Asr; Iemna and Iesoai and Ieoul and Baria and Saar their sister. Now the sons of Baria; Xhobr and Melchil. 18 These are the sons of Zelpha, whom Laben gave to Leia his daughter, and who bore these for Iakb, sixteen persons. 19 Now the sons of Rachl wife of Iakb; Isph and Beniamein. 20 Now the sons of Isph born in the land of Egypt, those whom Asenneth daughter of Petreph priest of Heliopolis bore for him; Mannass and Ephraim. Now the sons born of Mannass, whom the Syrian concubine bore for him, Machheir; now Machheir fathered Gallad. Now the sons of Ephraim brother of Massass; Soutalaam and Taam, now the sons of Soutallam; Edem. 8

184

GENESIS 46:21–34 & 47:1–4

%a   A1μ· A"2  {$#  \ $-2. (   %a  A2" + 4  u μ4  \  †w  sμ'  c'1μ· + 4  (   . 22 D 1 %a  †2 ‹ (  O3$· J 1 I% ( >3. 23 %a   q"*· ‰ μ. 24  %a  u'2· ‰ 12  +#%  ¡

    & • "2. 10

k$ %2w "21   1- 1,   C 0μ  2 #,  B P#  #, 18  #  1μ(# 6% %. 16

+", 1-1  1! 1 ·   1! 1 . 4 .

19

\ -, #  &  F ,   13 1  ' F % 1.

20

u'2μ, (2  1μ( ,  11 G  E -μ1 "22 .

21

…a ? μ(  O# -', %a ? μ(  9 2#· %a μ % 3 ·  μ " I .

22

* Reading  -# with the corrected Swete text instead of the awkward construction - #.

GENESIS 49:10–22 10

A ruler will not be lacking from Jouda, nor a leader from his thighs, until what has been stored up for him might come, and he will be the expectation of the nations. 11 Tying his colt to the vine, and to the tendril the colt of his donkey; he will wash in wine his robe, and in the blood of the grape his garment. 12 His eyes are bright from the wine, and his teeth are whiter than milk. 13

Zabouln will settle by the sea, and he will be near a haven of ships, and he will extend as far as Sidn.

14

Issachar longed for the good, resting in the midst of the allotted land. 15 On seeing that the resting place was good, and that the land was fertile, he lowered his shoulder to work hard, and he became a man who tilled the ground. 16

Dan will judge his people, just as also one tribe in Isral. 17 Let Dan become a snake on the road, lying in wait on a well-traveled path; biting a heel of a horse, and the rider will fall on what is behind, 18 awaiting the deliverance of Lord. 19

Gad, a band of raiders will raid him; but he will raid them close at their heels.

20

Asr, his food is abundant, and he will distribute nourishment to rulers.

21

Nephthaleim, a tree trunk having set itself free, bestowing beauty in the produce.

22

A son grown up is Isph, one grown up enviable; my young son; to me return.

195

196

GENESIS 49:23–33 = : 1$ %2%μ 1 2 1 %,  B  E !1 1  ?%μ"#· 24  %$ μ4 " % 4 ? .,  ?2! 4 & $1# 1. . 14 B %"  % O3$· B  1 !   O3$· 4  &  &  %. 25  $ - ( 1    μ,  2 (  2   & F#,  2     !  "· P 2  μ . 1* μ-, 26 2   %  μ  %· ;  %   C 2 1 >(#** μ μ#,   C 2 1 1. "#· 8 1   '2 O# -',     %' S -  2'.. 23

A1μ 2!  d ?·  #1 81 81,  =  5 ( 13 1  '-.

27

" a %a  Ow$ 3,  &  B 2"2    .·  2   !, P   4  2   & 2   !. 29  *   B w 

μ1***   μ 2· "I( μ μ4 . (# μ %  E 27 0  1  E E 'w  & { %, 30  E 27 E 1 2E E  (1 sμ$    {", : -  \$4μ  -21  4 'w  & { %  - 1 μ μ %. 31 B 8I \$4μ   & 2% 1 2(#  E μ μ7 € @%? μ%E   {" B μ "I1. & } $4 "I#  ( μ %,   2! μ1. 6  *  Y3 E O# ' \"$ 1, "I   ( % "  H1 ( . 7  ($ O# ' "I1  (  &· 

%($  μC  & " a B Yw  a  $! 1  & / %  &,  " a  $! 1  M=!  %, 8  J    1 O# '  a 2'   &  J   =  1  &   %(1·  4 $   G $ ; 2 

  +( μ. 9  %($  μC  &  dμ  a B,  (  μ$ 2 μ"2 '. 10  (  * 'C d2# \", 0  1 (  & O " %,  I    μ(  = % '·      (  E   & 5 4 μ(. 11  /  a " 1 1   {"  (   d2#1 \4  *  N(  μ(  &  1  B M=%  1· 14  &

"2   X μ  &  %  % N(  M=!  %, 0  1 (  & O " %. 12     E )# a %a  O -2 w 2  B. 13  (2$   a %a   & =  {",  8I  =  -21   1 2 &, : -  \$4μ  -21   - 1 μ μ % 4 'w  & { % (1 sμ$-. 4

6  ( I O# ' = M/%  ,   a 2'   &  a %$" " "I1  (  &. 15 =  a 2'  O# ' 01 (    . *  s-  μ 1- R μB O# -',    μ  E μB " 4 4 L 1?"μ E. 16  μ 1  O# ' *  c

14

* Reading the third person plural (  with the corrected Swete text instead of ALEX’s third person singular.

GENESIS 50:1–16

199

And falling on the neck of his father Isph wept on him and kissed him. 2 And Isph ordered his servants who were undertakers to prepare his father for burial; and the undertakers prepared Isral for burial. 3 And they completed it in forty days; for thus the days of burial preparation are reckoned; and Egypt mourned him seventy days. 50

1

After the days of mourning were past, Isph spoke to the high o cials of Phara saying, “If I have found favor before you, speak about me into the ears of Phara saying, 5 ‘My father made me swear before dying saying, ‘In the tomb that I dug myself in the land of Chanaan you will bury me there.’ Now therefore going up I will bury my father, and I will return.’” 6 And Phara said to Isph, “Go up, bury your father just as he made you swear.” 7 And Isph went up to bury his father; and all the servants of Phara and all the elders of his house, and all the elders of Egypt went up with him, 8 and all the household of Isph and his brothers and all his paternal household and the kin; and the sheep and the cattle were left remaining in the land of Gesem. 9 And chariots and horsemen went up with him, and the camp became very large. 10 And they arrived at the threshing oor of Atad, which is beyond the Iordan, and they beat their breasts for him in very great and mighty lamentation; and he made mourning for his father seven days. 11 And the inhabitants of the land of Chanaan saw the mourning on the threshing oor of Atad and they said, “This is a great mourning by the Egyptians;” because of this one called the name of that place Mourning of Egypt, which is beyond the Iordan. 12 And thus the sons of Isral did for him just as he commanded them. 13 And his sons took him up into the land of Chanaan, and they buried him in the double cave, the cave which Abraam acquired for himself as a tomb property beside Ephrn the Chettite opposite Mambr. 4

And Isph returned to Egypt, he and his brothers and all those who went up together to bury his father. 15 But the brothers of Isph seeing that their father had died said, “Perhaps Isph might bear a grudge against us, and he might requite retribution on us for all the bad things to which we subjected him.” 16 And appearing to Isph they said, “Your 14

200

GENESIS 50:16–26

- % H1    & 2% 1  2(# 17 ^)# /  O# -' '  B  1 ., 01  " 1 ? ·  & (?1  1 .  #  &  &  &  %.  82%  O# ' 22 !# .  . 18  2   *  ^e μB 1 =(1. 19  *   B s ' $B ,  & 4  & =μ1 3· 20 ;μB $ %2!   C μ & =  ",    $ %2!   μ & = ", 0 # ]   W -μ , e 1' 2 2!. 21  *   B s ' $B · w 1(I# ;μJ  4 = ;μ..  "2   G  2"2  . =  . 6 K  O# ' = M=! 7,   a 2'   &  J    1  &   &·  89  O# ' 8 5 (. 23  / O# ' '"1μ 1 P#   J·  %a  s  & %a & s

 (    μ . O# -'. 24  *  O# '  B 2' B  & w   #·  1     1 (I1   ;μJ,  "?1 ;μJ    !  =   ` @μ

   \$4μ  O 4  O3$. 25  H1  O# '  G %a G O 2 2(#    1   U  1 (I1   ;μJ  %  1 4 > J μ % & μC ;μ.. 26  2!  O# ' . 5 (·  8I   8     E  M=! 7. 22

GENESIS 50:16–26

201

father made us swear before he died saying, 17 ‘Thus say to Isph, ‘Forgive them their unrighteousness, for they subjected you to evil things; and now accept the unrighteousness of the attendants of the God of your father;’” and Isph wept as they were speaking to him. 18 And coming to him they said, “We here are your household servants.” 19 And he said to them, “Do not be afraid, for I myself am of God; 20 all of you devised against me for evil, but God devised for me good, so that it might be as today so that many people might be sustained continually.” 21 And he said to them, “Do not be afraid; I myself will sustain all of you and your households continually.” And he comforted them and spoke to them in the heart. And Isph settled in Egypt, he and his brothers and all his father’s household; and Isph lived one hundred and ten years. 23 And Isph saw the youngsters of Ephraim through the third generation; and the sons of Macheir the son of Mannass were born on the thighs of Isph. 24 And Isph said to his brothers, “I myself am dying; but God with a visitation will visit you, and he will lead all of you from this land to the land which God swore to Abraam and Isaak and Iakb.” 25 And Isph made the sons of Isral swear saying, “In the coming visitation in which God will visit you and you will carry my bones up from here with you.” 26 And Isph died at one hundred and ten years; and they buried him and placed him in the co n in Egypt. 22

GENESIS COMMENTARY

1:1–5 The opening verse of LXX-G summarizes God’s beginning act of making the heaven and the earth, and represents, as William Brown maintains, an “initial step of the creative process” (1993, 31) that will be described in detail in vv. 3–31. Like its MT counterpart, LXX-G does not articulate the rst noun (/). Nevertheless many ancient and modern interpreters presume the word’s temporal deniteness and translate accordingly, i.e., the beginning. Others acknowledge the nontemporal aspect associated with both the Hebrew and Greek nouns, but usually consider the instrumental meaning (God’s principle act) as a semantic nuance that complements the temporal aspect of God’s rst act. See discussions in Marguerite Harl (1994, 86) and Brown (1993, 47), among others. Therefore, some notion of temporality appears in both MT and LXX-G. Unlike its MT counterpart, however, LXX-G clearly shows the rst noun to be an object of the preposition . Whether  is an object of  is one aspect of unresolved scholarly debates about grammatical, syntactical, and theological issues in v. 1 of the MT. The grammatical issue, in brief, is whether this verse should be read as an independent clause (as argue Claus Westermann, Gerhard von Rad, and others), or if the verse is a protasis whose apodosis appears in either v. 2 (as claims Hugo Grotius) or v. 3 (as maintain William Albright, E. A. Speiser, Nahum Sarna, and others). For a detailed discussion of the various arguments, see Westermann (1984, 94–97), who concludes that v. 1 is an independent clause that the Priestly source (hereafter P) prexed to his account of creation. Brown similarly provides a summary of the main positions (1993, 63–72) and arrives at a dierent conclusion, namely that v.1 and v. 2 are dependent on v. 3. The grammatical and syntactical debates ultimately underlie a major theological issue. Does the biblical account of creation represent creatio ex nihilo? In other words, did God have raw materials with which to begin or did nothing at all exist before God’s actions? Reading the rst verse as a protasis implies that God had raw materials; reading it as an independent clause leaves open the possibility that God created from nothing. The latter position is maintained by Martin Rösel, who oers an extended discussion of the inuence of Platonic thought, especially Plato’s Timaeus, on the LXX-G translator (1994, 28–31). Johann Cook (1998, 177–183; 2001, 322–328) and Robert Hanhart (1992, 351), however, reject the arguments of Rösel and others who argue that LXX-G’s translation of Genesis 1 and 2 shows clear evidence of Greek philosophy.

206

COMMENTARY

LXX-G’s absence of complex grammatical issues in v. 1 does not provide an unambiguous resolution to the creatio ex nihilo debate. Although some early Christian exegetes did indeed interpret the verse in terms of creatio ex nihilo, the larger question is whether church fathers such as Basilides and Theophilus knew of earlier Greek traditions that might have provided antecedents for the doctrine. Brown, citing Gerhard May, describes the possible history of the idea. He concludes that although v. 1 in LXX-G may not have reected an earlier position supporting creatio ex nihilo, it likely “helped facilitate the development of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo when it did emerge” (1993, 34). Thus, it is unlikely that the translator made an intentional theological interpretation; it is more likely that he made a fairly literal rendering of the simplest reading of the MT. One unique feature of the MT that LXX-G did not duplicate was the Hebrew word ‘create’ (). Appearing eleven times in MT Genesis, the verb  designates an action done only by God. In Sarna’s words,  “signies that the product is absolutely novel and unexampled, depends solely on God for its coming into existence, and is beyond the human capacity to reproduce. The verb always refers to the completed product, never to the material of which it is made” (1989, 5). When describing God’s actions on the latter type of material, the MT uses the word  , as in 1:7, where it refers to the rmament that God previously had spoken into existence. By contrast, the Greek word corresponding to  (  ) occurs more than 160 times in the book and is an act done by all kinds of subjects. This same word also is used to render  . Thus in its rendering of , LXX-G does not distinguish between objects that God makes and objects that humans make. Westermann argues that the Greek word  came to have the same theological signicance as , i.e., a special creative act of God, only after LXX-G (1984, 100). Indeed,  is the word often used as a rendering of  to describe God’s creative act, especially in Isaiah and Psalms, e.g., Isa. 45:7; 54:16; Ps. 50:12; 103:30 (MT = 51:12 and 104:30 respectively). However, despite Westermann’s claim to the contrary,  also appears in LXX-G where both Abram and Melchizedek describe Abram’s God as ‘the one who created the heaven and the earth’ (         [14:19, 22]). In these verses,  renders the Hebrew  , a root that typically refers to acquiring (e.g., 25:10; 39:1). However, it is also used in MT 4:1 as a wordplay describing Eve’s response to her rstborn son Cain. See below. What is signicant here is that the LXX-G translator did know and use  to describe God’s creative act later in Genesis. Why he did not use  in 1:1 is unclear. In his very literal second century C.E.

GENESIS 1:1–5

207

translation, Aquila corrected this apparent inconsistency by rendering the Hebrew  with   . What God made, per the summary statement in v. 1, are the heaven and the earth. Between this summary statement and its elaboration is a description of the as yet incomplete character of the earth; it is ‘invisible’ ( ) and ‘unformed’ (   ). As such, LXX-G’s rendering is an interpretation of the Hebrew phrase  , translated into English both as a single phrase (e.g., Westermann’s ‘desert waste’ [1984, 76] and the NRSV’s ‘formless void’), and as two adjectives (e.g., Robert Alter’s ‘welter and waste’ [1996, 3] and Sarna’s ‘unformed and void’ [1989, 6]). Although all these translations suggest that God’s raw materials, if any, were minimal, each has a slightly dierent connotation. LXX-G comes closer to the latter translations by rendering the two Hebrew words as two separate Greek words. The rst word   is clearly interpretive; ‘invisible’ or ‘unseen’ implies something quite dierent than either the notion of ‘desert’ or ‘formlessness.’ The word   was the term used by Plato to represent the invisible preexisting world of ideas, e.g., Timaeus 51a. Contra Cook (1998, 2001), Ronald Hendel speculates that the word  , “expresses something of Platonic cosmology in biblical guise, perhaps joining the cosmologies of Plato and Moses, as was a commonplace in Hellenistic Jewish thought, particularly in Alexandria” (1998, 19). The second adjective (   ), on the other hand, conveys the sense of formlessness inherent in at least part of the Hebrew phrase. As an antonym of the verb   (‘to construct’), the word implies an unconstructed state and is thus an apt description of the earth before God speaks its elements into existence. Harl argues, contra Cook, that both   and    , which she translates as ‘invisible’ and ‘inorganisé,’ evoke Platonic Greek philosophy (1994, 87). Jennifer Dines similarly maintains Greek philosophical ideas inuenced the translator’s choice of words. However, she notes that the words “show great sensitivity to the sound eects of the Hebrew” (1995, 444) by replicating its alliteration and assonance. Parallel to the two long “o” sounds of the Hebrew      are the similar sounds at the beginnings () and ends ( ) of the Greek words   and    . The meager state of the earth’s condition becomes more ominous when darkness is introduced. An element common to many cosmogonies (including those of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, and Greece [Westermann 1984, 104]), darkness precedes creation and usually symbolizes something sinister. As such, it contrasts with the light and goodness

208

COMMENTARY

associated with the creator. Water, likewise, plays a role in many cosmogonies; like darkness, it can symbolize a hostile force. See below. On the other hand, it also can be a benevolent and generative force (Brown 1993, 175). This element makes its rst appearance as part of the  !, i.e., the bottomless deep that is under the darkness. In articulating  !, LXX-G makes it a less personied force than Gunkel sees in the unarticulated   of the MT. He and others following him observe a connection between the Hebrew   and Tiamat, the Babylonian goddess of the primeval ocean waters, who was brutally conquered by her son Marduk before he split her carcass and assumed the role of creator (Enuma Elish, 90–140). Gunkel discerns a similar motif in the Genesis 1 creation account and argues that “this narrative is merely the Judaic reworking of much older traditional material that originally must have been considerably more mythological in nature” (1984, 44). Sarna maintains that although   “may once have been the name of a mythical being much like the Mesopotamian Tiamat,” its use in Genesis 1 is “thoroughly demythologized” (6). Others, challenging Gunkel’s argument of linguistic borrowing, see no evidence that the biblical use of  , either in Genesis or elsewhere, needs to be demythologized (see discussions in Westermann [1984, 104–106], Richard Hess [1995, 143–144], and Brown [1993, 103]). The argument, however, has little bearing on LXX-G. As John Wevers comments, LXX-G’s rendering of the mythological Hebrew term   with  ! is “not inappropriate, though the term ( !) itself had no mythological overtones as such” (1993, 2). In contrast with the somewhat threatening nature of the darkness over the water of the  !, God’s ‘wind’ or ‘breath’ ("μ # ") is said to be oating over water that is separate from that in the  !. The meaning of the phrase "μ # ", like its Hebrew counterpart   , is debated. Both "μ and   can mean ‘wind,’ ‘breath,’ or ‘spirit.’ Westermann and Brown convincingly argue that the rst two options are more appropriate. Westermann points to comparative evidence of the role of wind in other cosmogonies (1984, 108), and Brown examines the use of "μ by the Stoics and shows that Philo is the rst to ponder its spiritual connotation. It is only much later that the Christian apologists invest the term "μ with “a radically spiritual (i.e., incorporeal) meaning” (1993, 50). Nevertheless, as God’s wind or breath, "μ denotes a creative power. After the summary in v. 1 and the description of the earth prior to God’s involvement, the story’s main character – God – nally speaks. Because

GENESIS 1:1–5

209

this character is grammatically masculine, it will be referred to from here on with masculine singular pronouns. God’s rst words (‘let light come into being’) and their resulting action (‘and light came into being’) provide the framework for God’s orderly process of bringing the natural elements of the cosmos into being. Scholars have discerned formulaic language and patterns that P used to record God’s work of creation in the MT. Westermann, for example, attests to a ve-part framework for God’s actions: an introduction (and God said), a command in the jussive (let x be), completion (and it was so), judgment (and God saw that it was good), and a time sequence (and it was evening . . .). Yet, as he acknowledges, this pattern applies to God’s “creation by speech,” not to God’s “creation by action.” The more active aspect is characterized by ve verbs designating separation, naming, bringing forth, making, and blessing (1984, 84–85). Cook, following Werner Schmidt and Odil Steck, describes a sixpart formula that includes both the passive and active aspects of creation: Wortbericht (creation by word [and God said]), ending formula for the Wortbericht (and it was so), Taterbericht (creation by act [and God made]), name giving, ending formula for Taterbericht (and God saw that it was good), and the ending formula for a day (and it was evening and it was morning). Yet, as he rightly notes, the structure does not appear in all six days or eight acts (Cook 1987, 102). In fact, both he and Brown show that LXX-G employs the same basic formula, but follows it more consistently (Brown 1993, 83–84). In addition to formulaic language, Gen. 1:3–31 follows an ordered pattern in recounting the eight entities God makes or brings into being during six days. Brown reviews several dierent patterns proposed by Gunkel, Umberto Cassuto, and Steck and concludes that the MT lacks a precise thematic structure relative to the formal division of labor. LXX-G, on the other hand, oers such a structure. As Brown argues, all eight creative acts can be grouped according to three main spatial categories: (1) heaven – the space associated with light and luminaries; (2) water – the space associated with seas and lands, as well as marine and winged creatures; and (3) earth – the space associated with vegetation and animals including humans (1993, 36–37). This thematic structure reects LXX-G’s depiction of a more active role for the water, a role that Brown claims was evident in a Hebrew Vorlage, which he refers to as VorLXX, earlier than the MT. The “revisionist activity” in the MT, Brown concludes, negated the symmetry and balance between earth and water that was evident in the VorLXX and LXX-G. These elements are “separate but equally active agents” that collaborate with God

210

COMMENTARY

in constructing the cosmos (1993, 208). Whether or not Brown is entirely correct in his reconstructed Hebrew text, he oers a convincing argument for the role of water in LXX-G. See below. God’s rst words bring light into being in order to counter the darkness that was over the earth. In the rst words attributed to God, LXX-G establishes a formulaic speech pattern that continues throughout the chapter, namely, a verb in the third person imperative (let x be), followed by ‘and,’ and concludes with a verb in the aorist (and x was). The pattern, similar to that in the MT noticed by Westermann and others, not only represents God as an orderly creator, but more importantly, as a powerful creator whose very words accomplish actions. Not only does God bring light into being by divine at, he also sees the light and declares what he has accomplished to be ‘good’ ( $). An apt rendering for the Hebrew   (as both Harl [1994, 88] and Wevers [1993, 2] note), $ expresses a full range of positive qualities from the aesthetic, to the functional, to the moral. Although light now exists as a counterpart to darkness and has been declared good, darkness is not eliminated. Instead, God separates the two opposite elements, thereby establishing the cycle of day (what God calls/names ‘light’) and night (what God calls/names ‘darkness’), and thus the passage of time. As many commentators have noted, the act of naming shows the power or dominance of the one doing the naming over that being named and often establishes an object’s destiny (e.g., Westermann 1984, 114; Sarna 1989, 7). In this case, there is no doubt of God’s dominance. Later in the story, however, the relationship between name giver and name recipient will become more signicant. After light came into being, was separated from the darkness, and both elements named, day one’s cycle of evening and morning occurs. Like the MT, LXX-G here uses the cardinal number μ (one) rather than the ordinal %& (rst). 1:6–8 God’s second saying, like the rst, begins with a verb in the third person imperative. Here, however, the formula is expanded to include two third person imperatives, which together account both for a new element (a rmament in the midst of the water), and also a new act of separation (water divided by the rmament). Unlike the MT that always refers to water as a plural noun (), LXX-G distinguishes between water in the singular and the plural. At this point, presumably only one body of water exists. This singular body of water ('( ) is now to be separated by a ‘rmament’ ( μ). The Greek word  μ is an apt

GENESIS 1:6–8 & 1:9–13

211

rendering of the Hebrew  ; both connote the strength and rmness required to keep the water separate and reect an ancient understanding that a solid material structure kept the water above it in place. When opened slightly, rain would occur; when ruptured, ooding would occur. Thus, the rmament was seen both as a containment against the negative forces of water, and also a regulator of their generative power. Unlike the MT, LXX-G follows the two third person imperatives with the rst of six “execution formulas” that links God’s command with its fulllment (vv. 6, 9, 11, 15, 20, and 30). Brown’s translation of the phrase   '  with ‘and it came about as follows’ ttingly represents the dual purpose (1993, 30). However, rendering it ‘and it came to be in this way’ (as above and elsewhere) more directly translates the verb  . What comes to be is precisely what God declared was to be. Yet, between the command and the narration of its fulllment, God expands his creative speech with creative action. Unlike the light that immediately came to be as a result of God’s command, the rmament presumably requires further eort on God’s part. God ‘made’ ( &) the rmament, the rst specic element that God is said to have made. The following fulllment statement provides additional information that both indicates the precise locations of the now separated water (part under the rmament and part over the rmament) and also suggests the real purpose of the rmament, namely to keep each part of the water in its place. God then names the rmament heaven and, in an addition to the MT, again declares it good. Evening and morning mark the end of the second day. 1:9–13 God’s third saying follows the same pattern as the second with two imperatives, the execution formula, and the narration of the fulllment of God’s declarations. Similarly, God’s commands result in the separation of water. Whereas the earlier separation occurred on the vertical axis (i.e., water above and below the rmament), the present one occurs on the horizontal axis. Ironically, the word God uses to aect the horizontal separation is one that seems to mean the opposite, namely, !#) (to be gathered together). After making the rmament, named heaven, to divide the water vertically into parts above and below it, God now focuses on the water under the heaven and orders it to be gathered together into one collection so that the presuming existing dry land could become visible. Because the verb !#) , like its Hebrew counterpart

, occurs in the passive voice, it is not clear who or what is to gather the water together. LXX-G’s narration of the fulllment of God’s directives, absent

212

COMMENTARY

in the MT, oers no further clues; the waters ‘were gathered together’ (!)#&) into one collection. Despite the fact that the verb !* appears in the passive voice in both parts of v. 9, Brown argues that this verse is one example of the more active role that water plays in the creative process in LXX-G (1993, 45). Cook makes a similar observation and, like Brown, maintains that LXX-G had a non-MT Vorlage that included the part of v. 9 that describes the fulllment of God’s directives. Therefore, both Brown and Cook argue that LXX-G did not add to its Vorlage. Instead, the redactors of the MT later omitted the theologically problematic implication that, as in other ancient creation stories, water itself had generative capabilities (Brown 1993, 234–235). Cook similarly maintains that the Tatbericht was omitted “by the redactor of the MT in order to avoid the possible deduction that the water was able to generate parts of creation by itself ” (Cook 1987, 105). In a later article, Cook argues more strongly in favor of a non-MT Vorlage. A fragment of Genesis (4QGenh) discovered in Qumran and published by James Davila contains the Hebrew word ‘gathering’ ( ) in the third line that corresponds to LXX-G’s ! , against the MT’s ‘place’ ( ). Inasmuch as this fragment seems to support the LXX-G reading in the rst part of v. 9, it “opens the possibility that a Hebrew text which included this Tatbericht [in the second part of v. 9] did indeed exist” (Cook 2001, 318–319). Oddly, Cook does not mention another Qumran fragment of Genesis (4QGenk) that contains the Hebrew []  , i.e., the last two words corresponding to the LXX’s Tatbericht (Hendel 1998, 25). Neither Brown nor Cook acknowledges that the verb !* ’s passive voice would minimize, if not eliminate, the possibility that God was not solely responsible for creation. An examination of the verb’s other occurrences in LXX-G shows that it appears in both active (6:21; 29:3; 29:22; 41:35; 41:48; 41:49; and 47:14) and passive (1:9; 29:7; 29:8; 34:30; 37:35; 41:35; and 49:1) forms. Each time it occurs in the active voice, there is no doubt that the subject is doing the gathering. However, some of its occurrences in the passive voice reect an intransitive force and can be rendered ‘to come together’ rather than to ‘bring or gather together’ (Muraoka 2002, 533). In those instances, the subject still seems to be the one doing the action (e.g., 29:8; 49:1). Nevertheless, in 41:35, both active and passive forms occur. Here it is evident that LXX-G dierentiates between the active ‘let them gather all the food’ (!  * + %μ) and the passive ‘let the grain be gathered by the hand of Pharaoh’ (!#) , -  . - / ) senses of the verb. Therefore, the translator seems intentional in choosing which voice to use. As such,

GENESIS 1:9–13

213

his choice to render the verb two times as a passive innitive in v. 9 suggests that its passive force is the correct reading. Thus, LXX-G here does not allow the water an explicitly more active role. However, water will play an active role during day ve. Equally dicult is the switch between the singular ‘gathering’ of a single body of water (!  μ) in God’s command and the plural ‘gatherings’ of plural waters (+ ! + 0) in the narration of its fulllment. Admittedly, the plural ‘gatherings’ is more plausible in light of the result of the waters being gathered. When the dry land appears, the one body of water now seems to be several smaller gatherings. Wevers maintains that the singular gathering is to be understood as a single occurrence of multiple gatherings, rather than as one single gathering place (1993, 5). Unfortunately, his solution does not address the change from the singular water to its implied plural, i.e., their (0) gathering. Hendel, however, sees the lack of agreement between the plural possessive pronoun 0 and its singular referent '(  as another indication of a non-MT Vorlage. He bases his argument for an earlier Hebrew text not, as Brown and Cook, on ideological reasons but on text critical grounds. Citing scholars from Julius Wellhausen to Emanuel Tov, Hendel claims that the “grammatical discord” can be explained by a Hebrew parent text that included the missing Tatbericht in which the word ‘water’ (), which is grammatically plural, required a plural possessive pronoun. Thus, the LXX-G translator was merely following the hypothetical non-MT text and translated the plural  with the Greek equivalent '( , which is singular, but retained the plural possessive pronoun. Although no manuscript evidence has been found for this part of the disputed verse, Hendel bases his reconstruction on a fragment of 4QGenk (see above) that preserves the nal words of the Tatbericht (1998, 25–26). Thus, like Cook, Hendel is claiming that Hebrew fragments found in Qumran support both the MT and LXX-G readings of v. 9. As before but never again, God names what his sayings accomplished. The dry land he calls earth and the collections of the waters he calls seas. Here for the rst time, LXX-G unambiguously refers to water itself as plural (0 .(* ) and will continue to do so for the remainder of the creation narrative. The appearance of the dry land transforms a single body of water into separate collections of waters that will later play the active role that Brown observes in LXX-G’s creation account. God again positively evaluates the two new parts of creation. However, God’s third day’s work is not done. With the named elements of his created world now existing, God is able to accomplish more

214

COMMENTARY

by delegating some of the jobs remaining to be done. God’s rst active partner in creation is the earth, to which God gives a series of increasingly complex commands. God’s rst imperative to the earth is to produce  *&  !, a phrase whose meaning, like that of the MT, is debated. At issue is both the grammatical and syntactical relationship between LXX-G and MT and also the type and purpose of the vegetation being produced. In his detailed lexical analysis of the words pertaining to vegetation in Gen. 1:11–12 in both the MT and the LXX, Bryan Paradise maintains that LXX-G chose “the least plausible” way of understanding the structural relationship between the types of vegetation described in the MT (1986, 188). He shows that both  *& and   in Greek usage outside the LXX referred to a place where vegetation is produced (i.e., a pasture) as well as to the vegetation itself (i.e., fodder, grass, or plants in general). Within the LXX/OG,  *& often stood for practically and economically useful plants, including fodder and medicinal herbs (190); similarly   designated “an economically useful group of plants, not including trees, which can be grown by man to provide grains for food for himself and fodder for his animals” (1986, 191). Paradise goes on to suggest that LXX-G transferred “some of the semantic value of the MT’s  ” to the Greek word  , “so that the latter comes to stand for a new category of edible grain and seed-bearing plants” (1986, 192). He concludes that the LXX-G translator combined non-central aspects of each word into a phrase that “makes little sense in this situation” (1986, 192), but does not oer an explicit translation for the phrase  *&  !. Whether LXX-G’s translation was the “least plausible” one of the MT is debatable. Nevertheless, the dierent translations of the phrase  *&  ! show the ambiguity of the phrase. Muraoka (2002, 89) denes  *& as “growth on land, plant, herbage” and translates the phrase as ‘plant/herbage of grass.’ Brown, acknowledging Paradise’s study, renders  *& with the general term ‘plants’ and prefers ‘pasture’ for  !, given its genitival form. Thus, Brown translates the phrase as ‘plants of the pasture’ (1993, 51). Harl (1994, 90–91) renders it by ‘pâture d’herbe’ (pasture grass), and Wevers (1993, 6) only oers a translation for  *& (‘pasture’). The rendering ‘pasture herbage,’ while not literal, nevertheless acknowledges the semantic range of both words and attempts to take account of the meaning of the phrase in its context. From a theological perspective, God’s delegating of the creative tasks could challenge God’s overall creative authority. Sarna acknowledges that this “creative act constitutes an exception to the norm that God’s word directly eectuates the desired product” (1989, 9). Westermann similarly

GENESIS 1:9–13

215

admits that God seemingly has abdicated his creative power to that which has been created (1984, 124). Yet both also interpret God’s apparent delegation of power to nature as a polemical response to pagan cultures and their fertility cults. Sarna claims that “the productive forces of nature exist only by the will of one sovereign Creator” (1989, 9); Westermann similarly declares that it is “because God’s creative action allows for ‘origin from’ that there can be no basic opposition between the two” (1984, 124). In what follows, God establishes the method whereby the herbage, with its ‘seed’ (μ) ‘reproducing’ (- ) ‘according to its species and likeness’ ( +    #1 ,μ &), can continue its existence without on-going divine intervention. This same method of replication also applies to the second type of vegetation that the earth is to produce, namely a fruit-bearing tree making fruit. Both Wevers (1993, 6–7) and Brown (1993, 52) acknowledge LXX-G’s unusual rendering of the Hebrew  with 2$ , a word that more often refers to the substance of a tree, i.e., wood, than to the tree itself. Brown posits that this translation emphasizes “the utilitarian quality not only for the fruit production but also for building material and fuel” (1993, 52). An analysis of the term’s use in Genesis supports Brown’s idea. In the rst three chapters of Genesis, 2$  is the only term used to refer to trees. In all cases, the utilitarian aspect of the tree(s) is emphasized. Of its ve other occurrences, it refers four times to wood and only once to a tree (40:17). Yet, even in this last instance, it is the tree’s utilitarian purpose, i.e., where Pharaoh’s chief baker would be hanged, that is important. The more common Greek word for tree, (( , is used only three times (18:4, 8; 23:17), in each case referring to a specic tree or group of trees. The utilitarian or fruitful aspect of a 2$  is reected in its two modiers: ‘fruit bearing’ ( * μ ) and ‘making fruit’ ( " ). Indeed, this latter modier credits a tree with the same creative power as God; both are said to ‘make’ (  ) something that in turn is itself productive. In this case, the seed of the fruit, by analogy with the seed of pasture herbage, will reproduce itself according to species and, per ALEX, for likeness (3 ,μ &). The venue of both types of vegetation was the earth itself. As before, what God commands comes to be in the way that he declares. God then positively assesses both his work of causing land and separate bodies of water to appear, as well as the work of the earth in bringing forth self-reproducing vegetation. Now at the end of day three, many of the natural elements of the earth are in place.

216

COMMENTARY

1:14–19 God now directs his attention back to heaven and speaks celestial lights into being. These luminaries are to provide many functions. As in the MT, they are to be formal means of establishing measures of time. In conjunction with God’s earlier work of separating light and darkness – day and night respectively – the luminaries are to perpetuate the daily process and to extend it to both longer and specically scheduled periods of time. The Greek word  , appearing for the rst time in Genesis, refers to time. Unlike  , which typically indicates a period or passing of time,   usually represents particular points in time, such as seasons or festival occasions, or exceptional or opportune moments in time, such as giving birth. The latter word   is much more common in Genesis, occurring twenty-ve times, as opposed to only two occurrences of  . Nevertheless, the luminaries are used to establish and continue both recurring periods of time and specic points in time. They also provide for light in the heaven that will shine on the earth. As signicant as these celestial lights are in the MT, they have additional functionality in LXX-G. Even before describing God’s dictum to the lights to regulate the times and seasons, LXX-G reports that God’s rst task to them is provide light to the earth. God repeats their earth-lighting duty at the conclusion of his command, thereby forming an inclusio. Reecting its harmonizing tendency, ALEX adds yet another requirement for these lights, namely to rule the day and the night. By preceding God’s separation decree with ‘and’ ( ), instead of ‘in order to’ ( "), ALEX implies that their task of perpetuating God’s initial separation of day and night is in addition to their rule over day and night. Whether God commands the heavenly lights to serve four, ve, or six tasks, he gives these lights considerable responsibility. Nevertheless, as many commentators point out, God is still in control. The lights themselves, considered deities in many cultures, do what they are told to do by God. To reinforce the subordination and dependence of these lights on God, Genesis 1 reports that God actively makes them. Thus, both the earth and the celestial lights come into being by both word and deed. In executing his verbal declaration, God renes the plan by making two great lights; the greater of the two would rule the day and the lesser would rule the night. As both Wevers and Brown note, LXX-G uses the accusative plural + to render the MT’s innitive . The root ) has two distinct semantic elds: when referring to time, it means ‘beginning;’ when referring to people or places, it means ‘ruling’ or ‘authority.’ The latter makes more sense in this context, but its plural form more often refers

GENESIS 1:14–19 & 1:20–23

217

to the former (Wevers 1993, 9). Yet, it can also function as an “abstract plural,” a form that “refers to single cases or manifestations of the idea expressed by the abstract noun” (Brown 1993, 52, citing Smyth 1000.3). The use of the accusative plural + is even more strange in ALEX. In its harmonizing addition to v. 14, it uses the innitive form (4 ) of the verb. Why it did not use this same form in v. 16, where it would be a more comparable rendering of the MT, is not clear, especially since it and other Greek manuscripts use the innitive form in v. 18. It is also odd that these two great lights with their important duties are not named by God. This would have even more strongly implied God’s superiority over them. Nevertheless, they have more signicance than the stars, whose inclusion among the celestial lights appears almost as an afterthought. After making the luminaries, God places them in the rmament from where they will perform their three major tasks, namely shining on the earth, ruling over day and night, and keeping light (i.e., day) and darkness (i.e., night) separate. At this point, the story refers to the functions – light and darkness – rather than to the names that God gave to the functions and had used earlier in the ‘day.’ Nevertheless, God makes a positive evaluation of his work and the fourth day concludes. 1:20–23 As day four represents a continuation of God’s work on the rst day with light, day ve reects a continuation God’s work on the second day with a single body of water that developed into multiple bodies of water. It is to these waters that God turns his attention. God’s command that the waters be productive represents LXX-G’s departure from and interpretation of the MT. As noted earlier, Brown and Cook argue that the MT departed from an earlier non-MT LXX Vorlage in which the waters played a more active creative role. Whether or not LXX-G was merely following its non-MT Vorlage, it denitely shows that the waters, like the earth, were granted creative tasks by God. The earth is to ‘produce’ ($&* ) vegetation, and the waters are to bring forth (2 ) two types of creatures. The verb 2 reects God’s expectation of active involvement compared with the passive role associated with the MT’s ‘swarm’ (). Swarming waters imply some internal action, but such action is not comparable to the kind they are ordered in LXX-G to perform on the external world around them. The waters are to bring forth both 5+ 6!0  0 and  + μ, that is both creeping and ying creatures. The Greek word 5 (‘reptile’) refers to creeping animals, both to crawling animals like

218

COMMENTARY

snakes and to quadruped animals like lizards. These reptiles are further described as animate beings. Although most agree that  0 and its Hebrew equivalent  means ‘life,’ the phrase 6!0  0 is dicult to translate because of the wide semantic range of 6!0. Per LSJ (1968, 2026–2027), the word can mean ‘life’ itself, a ‘departed spirit,’ the ‘immaterial soul,’ and the ‘conscious or emotional aspect of self.’ The word was often used to represent the counterpart of the material world. Although a familiar concept in the Greek world, this neat distinction is absent in the Hebrew counterpart , which most often refers to a breathing being and thus implies a unity of body and soul/spirit. The dierent translations attest to the diculty of the phrase: Brown translates the phrase as ‘living souls,’ Wevers as ‘animate creatures,’ and Robert Hiebert as ‘living creatures.’ The above translation ‘animate beings’ is based on two features associated with these and later creatures: animate takes into account the living, breathing aspect of the creatures; being refers to the quality or state of existence, whether material or immaterial. Thus, an animate being is one whose existence is characterized by living and breathing. Despite the diculty in translating the phrase, its signicance is clear. As opposed to everything that God already had called into being, the 5 were the rst to be designated 6!0  0. The second creature, per LXX-G, that the waters are to bring forth are birds. Unlike LXX-G whose single verb has two objects (reptiles and birds), the MT has two jussive verbs directed to two objects. The MT’s ‘let birds y’ contrasts signicantly with LXX-G’s ‘let the waters bring forth ying birds.’ These birds are to y over the earth and throughout the rmament of the heaven. LXX-G also describes the execution of God’s command in more detail. As he did with the rmament and the celestial luminaries, God supplements his creative word with a creative act of making. This supplementation also implies that the waters need God’s involvement to carry out their task of bringing forth. The rst creature that God makes is the great sea monster, an unexpected creature that God had not included in his command. Commentators on the MT disagree on the signicance of God’s creation of ‘sea monsters’ (). In some poetic texts (e.g., Isa. 51:9; Job 7:12), they are associated with the mythical monster of Chaos. Gunkel maintains that the Genesis 1 account reects a “gradual receding of the mythological” inasmuch as “the primordial chaos monsters have been transformed into a remarkable sort of sh” (1984, 49). Sarna understands this verse as an “unspoken antipagan polemic” by which these monsters are stripped of divinity” (1989, 10). Westermann claims that while it is

GENESIS 1:20–23 & 1:24–31

219

possible that P demythologized received tradition, the demythologization could have occurred earlier than the Genesis 1 account (1984, 139). Wevers comments on LXX-G’s unique rendering of the Hebrew  with )&; it is used to translate both   and  in Job, and was the word used to translate the big sh that swallowed Jonah. Nevertheless, he claims that the Greek word had no mythological overtones and merely referred to a big water creature (1993, 11). The second and third creatures that God makes are not surprising. Although the second creature is described somewhat dierently than it was in God’s command, the equally dicult phrase ‘every animate being among reptiles’ (7 6! 8  50) approximates the earlier 5+ 6!0  0 and has the same signicance. Flying birds, the third creature God makes, are like the reptiles in that they also are brought forth according to species. Not only does God make a favorable assessment of his work, he also blesses the creatures he made. This the rst of God’s blessings goes to the rst of the ‘animate beings.’ The blessing itself is an imperative directly from God to his newly made water creatures to ‘increase and multiply’ in their watery abode and to ll it. These animate beings are the rst creatures addressed directly by God. Although God assigned creative tasks to the earth and the waters, he spoke to them indirectly (i.e., via a third person imperative form). The blessing and its content, on the other hand, is God’s rst direct command to any created being. The winged creatures, although not directly addressed, are to multiply in their location above the earth. God earlier built regeneration in vegetation to allow for its continued existence; here God commands that the creatures originating from the water continue their existence through mating. God’s blessing marks the conclusion of the fth day. 1:24–31 Day six begins as usual with God’s spoken command and represents a continuation of his earlier collaborative eort with the earth. Whereas on day three God ordered the earth to produce self-sustaining vegetation, on day six he charges it to bring forth additional types of ‘living beings’ (6! 0) according to species. These new types of living beings include four-legged animals, reptiles, and wild animals. As Wevers notes, LXX-G’s rendering of the MT’s ‘wild animal’ () with * ( is unusual; more often it is rendered with )& (1993, 13). On the one hand, * ( is a more inclusive category that would include

)& (domesticated animals such as herds and cattle). However, it would

220

COMMENTARY

also include the wild animals and thus appears repetitive. Also seemingly repetitive is the inclusion of reptiles on the sixth day. However, reptiles can indeed come from land or sea. As the waters do not ‘bring forth’ living beings without God’s involvement, neither does the earth. God must ‘make’ the living beings he orders the earth to bring forth. Whereas the earth was able to produce vegetation on its own, it seemingly lacks the power to bring forth living beings. These living beings include the wild animals and reptiles noted above. Yet here LXX-G reverts to the more common )& in place of * (. God’s positive assessment of his work this time is in the plural, indicating that the living beings themselves were good. At this point, one would expect God’s reproductive blessing on the animals he just had declared good. However, the blessing is missing. One would also expect the day’s work to conclude after the evaluation. However, day six continues the work of day three; thus parallel to day three, God has more work to do. God’s eighth and last work of creation is fraught with theological signicance. For the rst time, God acknowledges some being(s) outside the natural world other than himself. ‘Let us make ( ) μ) a human according to our image and according to likeness.’ Such a surprising revelation at this point in the account makes one ask “who’s us”? Scholars and theologians, clergy and laity, teacher and student – all have attempted to explain, or to explain away, just whom God is addressing. Westermann (1984, 144–145) oers a convenient summary of four of the main explanations. The rst he discusses is that of the early Church Fathers, who read us as an expression of the Trinity; however, he and others acknowledge that as a dogmatic interpretation. The second explanation is that us refers to God and his heavenly council. Not only Babylonian parallels, but also other parts of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., 1 Kgs. 22:19, and throughout the book of Job) support this theory. Westermann, however, rejects this proposition as well: it is impossible that P either knew the idea of a heavenly court or that he would abandon “his insistence on the uniqueness of Yahweh, besides whom there could be no other heavenly being” (1984, 145). Likewise, Westermann rejects the explanation that the plural is used to avoid the idea of any immediate resemblance to God. Rather, he concurs that the cohortative grammatical structure is merely a plural of self-deliberation. Wevers agrees with Westermann’s conclusions and states that “no great theological conclusion can be drawn from its use” (1993, 14). Inasmuch as LXX-G follows the MT, the translator seemingly had no theological problem with the cohortative. Living in the pagan cosmopolitan city of Alexandria, the translator had to have known other

GENESIS 1:24–31

221

cosmogonies that included heavenly councils. Presumably, he also would insist on the uniqueness of Israel’s God. These two positions need not be mutually exclusive. The very fact that God may have had a heavenly council that did not challenge his power or authority would indeed make this God unique. As important as the subject of the cohortative verb, but not as debated, is its object, namely 4#  . Nearly all commentators agree that the Greek word 4#  , like its MT counterpart , refers to humanity in general. Both lack articulation, both refer to more than one being, and both will eventually include both male and female. It is this third aspect of 4#   that has generated signicant debate. See below. Yet, the nal issue in the rst part of God’s last creative act, namely the manner in which God and his cohort make 4#   has provided fodder for theological reection on humankind and its relationship to God. What does it mean that humans are made in God’s image and likeness? What does this say about both humans and God? As Westermann rightly notes, however, this intense interest does not derive from the Bible itself. With the exception of Psalm 8, no other part of the Hebrew Bible concerns itself with the issue. Rather, Westermann claims that the interest “has been conned almost exclusively to the area of church doctrine from Irenaeus to Karl Barth” (1984, 148). After providing a summary of theological opinions about humanity being made in God’s image (1984, 148–158), Westermann maintains that nearly all exegetes have missed the point by presuming the text is focused on humanity and human nature. Rather, he argues that the text is about the act itself, the process by which humans are made. He concludes by stating that the “uniqueness of human beings consists in their being God’s counterparts. The relationship to God is not something which is added to human existence; humans are created in such a way that their very existence is intended to be their relationship to God” (1984, 158). LXX-G has essentially the same text, with only minor dierences (Wevers 1993, 14–15). Ivan Golub examines those minor dierences: omission of the pronominal sux ‘our’ on the second noun, the addition of ‘and’ ( ) between ‘image’ and ‘likeness,’ and the change from the Hebrew preposition ‘as’ to the Greek preposition he translates ‘in.’ He concludes that these dierences actually represented good Greek usage at the time and were therefore faithful renderings of the Hebrew text (1988, 229–232). The lack of dierences, therefore, suggests that the translator showed the same disinterest in the issue as did the Hebrew Bible itself. However, the translator’s lack of interpretive tampering does not

222

COMMENTARY

mean that he actually understood the manner of human creation in the same way as the MT author(s). As an Alexandrian Jew inuenced by the Platonic distinction between material and spiritual realities, the translator likely was aware that being made in God’s ‘image’ (3 ) and ‘likeness’ (,μ   ) (1:26a) could refer to spiritual qualities, such as being holy, righteous, and wise (e.g., Theaetetus 176b). Several centuries later, another Alexandrian Jew would further explain the distinction between spiritual and material creation. According to Philo, it is not the human body that is in God’s image. Rather “the resemblance is spoken of with reference to the most important part of the soul, namely, the mind: for the mind which exists in each individual has been created after the likeness of that one mind which is in the universe as its primitive model” (Creation 69). Despite the ambiguity associated with the nature of 4#  , its function is clear. God declares that it is to rule over the animate beings that God previously had made. As such, LXX-G parallels the ruling role that humans are to have over the animate beings brought forth from the waters and the earth with the same role assigned to the greater and lesser luminaries that came into being from the heaven (vv. 14–16). Using the same word to represent the function of 4#   seems more appropriate than the MT’s , i.e., ‘have dominion.’ In MT Genesis, the word occurs only here and in v. 28. However, in other places,  signies a harsh act, e.g., treading the wine press in Joel 4:13 and subjugation in Num. 24:19. Scholars concur that the word is associated with coercive royal power and seems an odd choice in its present context. As a result, many attempt to soften its severity and implications. See, for example, Sarna 1989, 13–14 and Westermann 1984, 158–160. Whether to harmonize with the role of the luminaries or to clarify a dicult text, LXX-G improved on the MT. LXX-G, however, does follow the MT in referring to those that 4#   is to rule somewhat dierently than earlier in the story. Although the phrases ‘sh of the sea’ and ‘birds of the heaven’ replace more specic descriptions of some of the animate beings, both MT and LXX-G refer explicitly to domesticated animals and reptiles. Both also state that humankind is to rule over ‘all the earth’ (*&  /), a category that seems out of place among the animate beings. Later, however, God will explicitly include the earth under human authority. Acting without the help of any others who might have been included in his earlier cohortative, God made ‘the’ () 4#   in accordance with one, not both, of the two features he previously had stipulated.

GENESIS 1:24–31

223

The slight dierences between God’s declarative words and the narrative fulllment of his words are not unusual. Both follow the MT and neither is especially troubling. Commentators, including Sarna (1989, 12) and Wevers (1993, 14), agree that the two characteristics, namely being in God’s image and in God’s likeness, are almost identical in meaning. LXX-G’s omission in v. 27 of one of MT’s two ‘in his image’ phrases loses some of the poetic character of the MT, but does not change what is being narrated. Finally, although both 4#   and  refer semantically to “generic” humanity, grammatically they are masculine singular. Thus, the pronominal object of make/create (  /) must be masculine singular (/ ), despite the unfortunate implication that “generic” is equivalent to “male.” The narration of God’s nal creative act, however, continues with an especially curious and grammatically awkward statement that further denes the human. Both MT and LXX-G acknowledge that the human that God makes according to his image is male and female (4  #$!). While this leads to speculation about both human and divine sexuality, most of the discussion rightly focuses on human sexuality and implications of sexual equality. For example, Johannes C. de Moor, citing a 1909 article by Friedrich Schwally, argues that the original human was androgynous. He also notes a passage in Genesis Rabbah (8:1) that describes the original human man and woman essentially as Siamese twins who were connected to each other along their backs. When God split them apart, the two individuals then craved to be reunited. Plato, in his Symposium, presents a similar idea. The original androgynous human shared a back and had four hands, two faces, and one neck until Zeus split them in two. As in Genesis Rabbah, the two then longed for each other and sexual desire was born (1998, 119–121). Many others commentators discount the idea of original androgyny but agree that having both the male and female human created in God’s image at the same time attests to sexual equality (e.g., Phyllis Trible [1978, 18], Sarna [1989, 13]; but cf. Helen Schüngel-Strauman who maintains that popular Hellenistic philosophers would only consider the male as 4#   [1993, 61]). The sudden change to a plural pronominal object ( ), from the masculine singular, adds yet another question to these verses about human creation. Trible maintains that this shift shows that the human is not “one single creature who is both male and female but rather two creatures, one male and one female” (1978, 18). In other words, 4#  / is not androgynous. A Platonic reading likely

224

COMMENTARY

would ignore sexuality and instead consider the human made in 1:26–28 to be an archetype whose material forms emerge in chapter 2 (William Loader 2004, 30). God’s second blessing, like his rst, relates to fertility. As God commanded the animate beings from the water and the heaven, so he now commands the human beings to ‘increase and multiply’ and ‘ll the earth.’ However, God demands more from human beings. They are also to ‘exercise dominion over it.’ Although human authority over the earth was implied earlier, now God makes this responsibility explicit. LXX-G’s rendering of the MT’s ‘subdue’ () with  !  – literally to ‘lord over’ – seems appropriate for a being made in God’s image. Yet, the image of the divine that the word connotes is one of controlling authority and dominion, rather than the more benevolent notion of caretaker. Written and translated before any ideas of environmental consciousness, the concept of human dominion over the earth would likely be understood in a way parallel to its rule over the animals (see above), an order that God now demands directly from the human. God continues to address the human, but not with another command. For the rst time, God does something other than make something or make demands of something. God tells the human that he has provided it with food. LXX-G’s use of the perfect form (‘I have given’) of the verb ((  is appropriate; God’s gift will have continuing eects. Best characterized as a vegetarian diet, what the human is to eat includes herbage and fruit from trees, both of which, as characterized above, contain seeds for continued reproduction. God provides a similar, but not identical, diet for the other animate beings; they are to have   $ , literally ‘herbage of green’ for food, presumably referring to grass. Rather than eating animals, humans are to share vegetation with animals. Day six is marked by a considerable amount of signicant activity. Yet, what is missing is also signicant. God does not include a separate reproductive blessing on the animate beings brought forth from the earth. He declares them good, but goes no further. Westermann argues that God’s blessing in v. 28 “is eective for all living creatures, for everything that is” (1984, 160). However, it is unlikely that they were included in God’s blessing of the human being, especially in the MT, where the phrase ‘and he (God) said to them’ () implies that God is addressing only the 4#  . LXX-G does not include ‘to them.’ As such, the only dierence between God’s address to the water creatures and to the human beings is the gender of the object pronoun, neuter plural in v. 22 (+) and masculine/common plural in v. 28 ( ). Thus, the parallel between water

GENESIS 1:24–31 & 2:1–3

225

animals and human beings is more striking in LXX-G. Both receive God’s fertility blessing and both are ordered to ll their environmental habitat. In fact, it might be that the common habitat is the reason that the earth animals do not receive God’s blessing. In Sarna’s words, “whereas the natural habitat of sh and fowl allows for their proliferation without encroaching adversely upon man’s environment, the proliferation of animals, especially the wild variety, constitutes a menace,” an idea reected in both Exod. 23:29 and Lev. 26:22 (1989, 11). The other omission in day six, while not negating human superiority over other creatures, nevertheless addresses the superiority that some humans claim over others. All other creatures brought forth from earth and water, including both plant and animate beings, are made according to species. Humans are not; instead they are made in God’s image. There is only one human species, distinguished only by male and female. This, as Sarna and others suggest, “leads to the recognition of the unity of the human race, notwithstanding the innite diversity of human culture” (1989, 13). After a busy sixth day, God surveys ‘all the things, whatsoever he made’ (* 9  &) and declares that it is not just good, but very good. 2:1–3 The second chapter begins with a statement that declares the heaven and the earth and all their ‘order’ ( μ ) were completed. Lacking both the martial imagery and the heavenly orientation associated with the MT’s ‘host’ (), the Greek word μ  retains the idea of an ordered array of elements. Because μ  can also mean ‘adornment’ and ‘embellishment,’ its use here could imply the nely tuned magnicence of the created universe. To insure that the universe is not credited with its own completion, God is quickly identied as the one responsible. Then to insure consistency with the account of creation that concludes with the end of day six, LXX-G departs from the MT by reporting that God completed his works on the sixth day and then stopped working on the seventh day. The wordplay in the MT between God’s resting () on the seventh day and the later designation of the seventh day as Sabbath cannot be duplicated in LXX-G. Nevertheless, the Greek verb !$#& has the same connotation; when used intransitively, it means ‘to leave o’ or ‘to cease.’ As Karen Jobes and Moisés Silva opine, the importance of this verse for Sabbath-keeping likely caused the LXX-G translator to avoid any implication that God may have done some work on the seventh day (2000, 98). Thus the translator sacriced the accuracy of the translation for the importance of the tradition.

226

COMMENTARY

The day’s signicance, however, is attested when God is said to bless and sanctify the seventh day. Unlike God’s rst two blessings, his words are not recorded. Neither does this blessing relate to fertility or productivity because God stops working (but, cf. Westermann [1984, 172] who maintains that the seventh day can be understood abstractly as “fruitful for human existence”). Not only does God bless the seventh day, but he also declares it holy (:). Derived from the earlier Greek verb  (‘to hallow or make sacred, as in a sacrice’ [LSJ 1968, 9]), the form found here and throughout the Greek scriptures (; * ) has the same basic meaning. However, it also signies the notion of being separate, or set apart, from the ordinary that is the root meaning of the Hebrew  . As separation was a key aspect of God’s work during the rst two days, it is the primary feature associated with the seventh day in which God stops the work that, per LXX-G, God began to do. By rendering the Hebrew ‘from all his work that God created to do’ (    ) with -  has a slightly dierent connotation than the MT’s , i.e., ‘desirable’ or ‘pleasurable,’ here with regard to appearance (). The Greek >-  means ‘timely,’ ‘seasonable,’ or ‘ripe.’ While both words imply a beautiful appearance, ‘ripe’ also denotes a quality of readiness or maturity, and thus is a tting condition for watered trees that are ready to produce good food. Of all the trees that have these qualities, two particular ones receive additional comment for their unique and more abstract features. One, the tree of life, is dened by its location in the middle of the garden. Despite the seeming priority of this tree and its association with the motif about the human quest for immortality, the tree of life is mentioned again only

GENESIS 2:8–17

229

at the end of the garden story. It is the other tree, ironically described as the tree of knowing but about which little is known, that plays a signicant role in the narrative. LXX-G expands on the MT’s description of this tree. Rather than merely referring to it as the tree of knowledge, LXX-G characterizes it rather awkwardly as ‘the tree of knowing what is to be known of good and evil’ ( 2$   " 3(   $ "   & "). Yet, it neither claries what is meant by ‘knowing’ (comprehension, recognition, or general knowledge) nor what is included in the phrase ‘good and evil.’ Some interpret this knowledge as sexuality; some understand it as knowledge of morality in general; others consider ‘good and evil’ to be a merism that refers to all types of knowledge (Sarna 1989, 19). When examined in connection with the events that unfold in the narrative, the third option is most viable. Before any events take place, however, the story takes an unexpected geographic detour and focuses on a river that ows out from Edem. Presumably an extension of the earth’s spring, this river provides water to the garden. Even more signicant, the river divides into four heads or branches that likely signify the four ends of the earth. However, of the four named branches, only the Tigris and the Euphrates are well known. This can be attributed, in part, to LXX-G’s modernizing of geographical place names; the MT’s   is updated to the Tigris and its  to the Euphrates (Olofsson 1996, 206). One river, the Geon, is said to surround Ethiopia, LXX-G’s updated name for the MT’s Cush. Pheison, the rst river actually named and described, is completely unknown, as is the land (Eueilat) it is said to surround. Ironically, this unknown land is the only one that is further described. Per LXX-G, the land has gold, coal, and stone that is leek-colored or light green. Whether the last two items correspond with those in the MT is debatable, especially because the meanings of the Hebrew terms themselves are unclear. The ambiguity associated with these four rivers and their peculiar interruption of the narrative suggests that the specic geographic details are not important to the story. In fact, the confusion could be intentional. People are not meant to return to the garden, so its precise location is unclear. However, what can be inferred is its relative location as the presumed base or beginning of the world and the ultimate source of life-sustaining water that ows from it. After the brief digression that establishes the centrality of the garden and its rivers, the story resumes where it left o. Its repetition of Lord God’s earlier act of placing the human in the garden brings the focus back to these two characters. It also repeats that the human is to work the garden and then adds that the human is also to keep (?!$* )

230

COMMENTARY

the garden. The Greek verb ?!$* , like its MT counterpart , can mean to ‘watch,’ ‘keep,’ ‘guard,’ or ‘defend.’ Although all these meanings refer to care taking of some sort, the degree of such care diers. Guarding or defending something implies that it is at risk or in more danger than something that is watched or kept. Literary context helps determine the type of care taking involved. Because the garden and its trees are not at risk, the human is merely to maintain them or keep them doing what God intended. This is conrmed by the command that Lord God addresses, per LXX-G, to Adam (@(+μ). At this point, LXX-G no longer uses the generic 4#   to refer to the human. Rather, moving beyond strict translation to interpretation, LXX-G disregards the MT’s articulation of ‘the human’ (), treats the word as the human’s proper name, and continues to do so in most of the rest of the story. Even in places where @(+μ appears with the article (,), the capitalization of @(+μ in ALEX and other editions of LXX-G indicates its use as a proper name. This contrasts with the MT where the word  throughout the rst three chapters of Genesis is never considered a proper name. Although some occurrences of  are preceded with a lamed preposition in Genesis 2 and 3 and thus could have denoted a proper name in an unvocalized Hebrew text, it is not until 4:25 that the MT indisputably uses the unarticulated  as the male human’s proper name (Hess 1990, 1–3). Despite LXX-G’s “personalizing” (Wevers 1993, 30) the story by referring to the human by name, it does not mean that Adam is now biologically male. As Trible contends, the human/Adam remains sexually undierentiated until 2:23 when God performs “radical surgery” that results in two creatures (1978, 98). The rst words Lord God speaks show his concern for and his limitation of Adam. That Adam may eat from every tree in the garden implies access to food without any restrictions. This highlighting of his ability to eat freely is evident in the MT, where the Hebrew grammatical form (i.e., an innitive used with its corresponding cognate verb) emphasizes the verbal idea. Adam is told that he may really or freely eat ( ). Lacking a corresponding grammatical form, LXX-G attempts to represent verbal emphasis in several other ways. One of them, as Wevers describes, is to use a “semantically related but non-cognate dative noun” (1993, 30); in this case, the noun ‘food’ (% ) is related to the verb ‘eat’ (?*A). Adam’s ability to eat freely, however, is never God’s intent. God immediately declares one tree – the tree of the knowing of good and evil – o limits. He, however, does not tell Adam how to identify that particular tree or why that particular tree is restricted. The only thing that God tells

GENESIS 2:8–17 & 2:18–24

231

Adam is the consequence of eating from it, namely death. The certainty of death is again emphasized in the MT by the innitive and cognate construction; God declares to Adam that ‘you will surely die’ (   ). Here, LXX-G represents verbal emphasis by using a cognate dative noun ‘death’ (#*B) of the verb ‘die’ ( #C ). Although LXX-G succeeded in replicating MT’s emphatic construction in God’s command and its consequence, it departed from the MT by changing the verbs from second person singular to second person plural in the prohibition and its consequence. This is especially odd because God’s positive command retains MT’s second person singular, i.e., ‘you will eat’ (?*A). However, God’s prohibition appears in the second person plural (  ?*#), as it does in the protasis (?*&#) and apodosis ( #-#) of the consequential circumstantial clause. Once again, LXX-G shows its tendency to interpret the MT in order to address perceived problems, be they grammatical, logical, theological, or ideological. Here the switch from singular to plural, Wevers speculates, foreshadows what the translator knows will occur; more than one person will eat what is prohibited and more than one person will be at risk for the consequential death (1993, 30). Although a plausible explanation, it does not account for LXX-G’s retention of the second person singular in the previous verse. Surely more than one person also would be permitted to eat from the trees of the garden (v. 16b). Thus, it appears that LXX-G noticed and sought to resolve some conicts, but not others. 2:18–24 Getting no response from Adam, Lord God now addresses his divine council and acknowledges the rst aspect of his created world that is not good, namely the human’s being alone. LXX-G here follows the MT by reverting to the generic  4#  , thus indicating that humans in general, not Adam in particular, need companionship. Yet LXX-G deviates from MT in its use of the plural cohortative ‘let us make’ ( ) μ), instead of ‘I will make’ ( ). As earlier (1:26), God’s summoning of the divine council does not detract from God’s singular authority; God is again the only one who acts on his proposal. What God proposes to do to resolve the problem of the human’s solitude is to ‘make for him a helper according to him’ ( ) μ D  &# ’ ). Here LXX-G does not attempt to interpret the Hebrew phrase ‘a helper corresponding to him’ (   ), but instead renders it literally. The Greek word  &#, meaning ‘helper’ or ‘assistant,’ is an apt translation of the Hebrew  , and the phrase ’  corresponds to its Hebrew counterpart .

232

COMMENTARY

However, exactly what is meant by ‘helper’ and ‘according to or corresponding to him’ has provoked considerable debate, due in part by the fact that this phrase is how God describes what will become Woman. The assumption that one who helps or assists is inferior to the one being helped has caused some to regard the Woman, and thus women in general, as inferior. To correct this misinterpretation, many scholars have pointed out that the Hebrew word  is used more often in connection with God’s act of helping (e.g., Exod. 18:4; Deut. 33:7; and Ps. 121:1–2) than with inferiors helping superiors. Therefore, instead of translating  as ‘helper’ in this verse, several prefer other options, including ‘companion’ (Trible 1978, 90) and ‘sustainer’ (Alter 1996, 9), which better reect the actual usage of  . However, as David J. A. Clines points out, the superiority or inferiority of a helper, biblical or not, depends “entirely on other factors, extrinsic to the relationship constituted by the act of helping” (1990, 32). He goes on to acknowledge that the early Church Fathers were right; the only help Eve oers in the context of this story is the ability to procreate. Whether men and women oer biologically equal roles in the procreative process is no longer debated. However, ancient opinions diered. Therefore, being a ‘helper’ can be interpreted as positive, negative, or neutral. The ambiguity associated with the role of ‘helper’ also applies to the phrase  that characterizes the helper. When translated as ‘corresponding to him,’ the phrase implies some degree of equality. However, the Hebrew preposition  literally means ‘in front of ’ or ‘opposite of ’ and therefore can be used in contexts that refer to hostility, as well as to equality or neutrality. A similar argument can be made for the Greek preposition  used with an accusative. The same preposition was used earlier with reference to the ability of plants and animals to reproduce according to species ( +  ), as well as the similarity in likeness and image to God ( ’ 3  . . .  #’ ,μ   ) in which the human being is made. An interpretation of ’  that parallels its use in reference to the continuation of species gives more credence to the notion that what God wants to make for Adam is a procreative partner. However, an interpretation that parallels the relationship between God and human could imply that the obvious status dierences between human and divine are likewise built into the relationship between Adam and the  &# ’ . Such interpretations are not mutually exclusive; rather they may be mutually supportive. The helper that God proposes to make for Adam will enable reproduction; this helper will also be seen as derivative from and thus inferior to Adam.

GENESIS 2:18–24

233

In his rst attempt to make a  &# ’  for Adam, God goes back to the earth from which he forms wild animals and birds. Thus, these creatures come from the same substance and could be thought of as ‘corresponding to’ Adam. Acting on this assumption, God then brings them to Adam for naming. In so doing, God confers on Adam the same kind of power or dominance that God had over everything that he named. Adam’s authority is conrmed when God does not challenge the names that Adam gives each animate being (6! 0). Using this phrase to refer to the animals reinforces the notion that one of them might be a  &# ’  for Adam. They come from the same material substance and are breathing creatures like Adam. However, no helper like him was found for Adam. The use of the passive ‘was found’ (.#&) makes it impossible to determine who decided that none of the animals were suitable. LXX-G compounds the vagueness associated with the function of the helper by changing its description from ’  to 9μ  B. Unlike *, which has a wide range of meanings, 9μ  means simply ‘like’ or ‘of the same nature.’ However, the meaning of the phrase itself is no more clear. Neither ‘corresponding to’ nor being ‘of the same nature’ provides a lucid understanding of the type of companion that will remedy Adam’s solitude. Yet, the use of 9μ  echoes more overtly the creation of the human in God’s ‘likeness’ (,μ   ). What results, per Loader, is a “chain of being in which as the man is in the image of God, so the woman is in the image of man and her role as helper is now read as the role of a subordinate” (2004, 57). God, however, has another plan to provide the tting companion. This time, the method that God uses is quite dierent from the way he formed Adam and the other animate beings. First, God casts a ‘trance’ (  ) on Adam, an action that causes Adam to fall asleep. God then performs a surgical procedure on Adam to remove one of his ribs. After lling the empty place with esh, God ‘built’ (E (μ&) a woman from the rib he took from Adam. In its other occurrences in Genesis, the word E (μ& is used with reference to major building projects such as cities (4:17; 10:11) and the Tower of Babel (11:4, 5, 8). However, it is used most often with reference to altars (e.g., 8:20; 12:7; and 26:25). Thus, the procedure that God uses to produce a helper for Adam appears not only to be more elaborate but also to be undertaken with reverence for what he was building. After nishing the woman, God brings her to Adam. Awaking from his trance, Adam speaks his rst words and declares his satisfaction with God’s latest creation. This one, Adam says, is bone from my bones and esh from my esh. In so doing, Adam gets it partly right. The

234

COMMENTARY

woman did come from one of his bones, but there is no indication that God took any of the esh he used to ll the place of the removed rib. What is more signicant than Adam’s understanding of God’s procedure is his understanding of what God meant by a helper ‘corresponding to’ or ‘like’ him. To Adam, the fact that this new creature had esh and bone like his made her the appropriate companion. Without any prompting from God, Adam calls her Woman. To distinguish this act of naming from his earlier ones of naming the animals, Adam explains the reason for her name. She will be called Woman, because she was taken from her man. Although LXX-G cannot duplicate the wordplay in the Hebrew text (woman [] from man []), it nevertheless expresses their literal and physical commonality. However, without the wordplay, the woman’s derivative nature seems more apparent. Furthermore, LXX-G’s addition of the pronominal adjective ‘her’ as a modier of the noun ‘man’ ( " ( ) particularizes the more universal pronouncement in the MT. Woman was not just taken from any man, but from ‘her’ man. As such, LXX-G implies that the Woman is beholden to a particular man. Nevertheless, LXX-G’s representation of woman is better than the characteristics associated with rst females in Greek mythology. For example, as Jan Bremmer describes (2000, 20–22), Hesiod reports that Zeus ‘made an evil for men’ (Theogony 570) that Athena adorned with lavish clothing and led to the place of the other gods and mortals. Like Adam, the deathless gods and the mortal men were astounded by wonder. Unlike Adam, what they saw was ‘sheer guile, not to be withstood by men’ (Theogony 589), rather than a corresponding helper. The interconnected nature of man and woman links the preceding story to what most consider an editorial and etiological interruption of the narrative. On account of the divine surgery by which Lord God took woman from man, LXX-G declares ‘a human will leave behind his father and mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will be one esh’ (2:24). As before, the dierences between LXX-G and MT are notable. The MT, having just distinguished between ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in v. 23, continues with the same language in v. 24. It is the ‘man’ () who will leave his parents and join with his ‘woman/wife’ (). LXX-G, however, refers to Adam, not with the newly introduced term ‘man’ ()), but with the generic term meaning ‘human’ (4#  ). The use of 4#   provides one more indication that LXX-G implies more strongly than the MT that man represents generic humanity and woman is secondary. Both MT and LXX-G, however, refer to the (hu)man’s partner with a word (/!

) that can mean either woman or wife. The assumption

GENESIS 2:18–24

235

that this verse refers to sexual union (i.e., the two, per LXX-G, become one esh) that is associated with marriage leads nearly everyone to render /!

as wife. Thus, LXX-G doubly relegates woman to second-class status. Not only is human equivalent to man, but woman has no role other than that of being a wife. Finally, by referring to the man and woman as ‘the two’ ( F ( ) becoming one esh (cf. MT’s ‘they’ [ ]), LXX-G alludes to the restoration of the original unity of the one human (4#  ). As such, its rendering could support the Platonic idea of original androgyny. Although many assume that the awkward insertion of v. 24 into the narrative anachronistically refers to the institution of marriage, others are skeptical and maintain that a man would not leave his parents in a society, like ancient Israel’s, characterized by patriarchal and patrilocal marital patterns. Bernard Batto acknowledges the controversy and comments on several alternative explanations proposed by prominent scholars. He cites Gunkel’s rejection of the text’s presumed armation of monogamous marriage and Gunkel’s counterargument that what the verse arms is the mutual sexual attraction that drives the man and woman to become one again. Similarly, von Rad maintains that 2:24 refers to a strong sexual drive between the sexes, while Westermann goes further by claiming that the verse refers to the entire relationship between a man and a women. See the discussion in Batto 2000, 621–623. Batto himself, however, follows Angelo Tosato (1990, 389–409) by arguing that the earlier assumption that the verse refers to marriage is indeed correct. Based on the similarity in structure and themes between the Genesis account and the comparable section of the myth of Atrahasis, Batto concludes that the Yahwist followed Atrahasis in portraying the institution of marriage as part of the design of creation. Unlike Atrahasis “that links marriage and procreation closely as if to suggest the primary function of marriage is procreation, the Yahwist seems to distance marriage somewhat from procreation. For the Yahwist, the communitarian, aective function of marriage takes precedence over the procreative function of marriage” (2000, 631). Tosato arrives at the same conclusion by dierent means. Combining a detailed literary analysis of the Hebrew text with text critical evidence from LXX-G, Tosato argues that the dierences in LXX-G (see above) were glosses added to the original Hebrew text during the Persian period in order to explain and justify new marriage legislation that was “generically antipolygamous and implicitly antidivorce (Lev. 18:18; cf. Mal. 2:13–16), and perhaps also the new restrictive norms in the area of incestuous and mixed marriages” (1990, 409). Wevers’ suspicion

236

COMMENTARY

that LXX-G’s use of 4#   in v. 24 is “to emphasize that this (i.e., leaving of father and mother) is a general rule for mankind” (1993, 35) also lends support for the traditional reading of the verse as institutionalizing marriage. Regardless of the original authorial intent of the Hebrew text, LXX-G seems to imply a more subservient role for the woman and reinforce the (re)union of the two. 3:1–7 Despite the fact that the rst sentence in 3:1 concludes the second chapter in the MT, the oldest Greek sources attach it to the garden story (Wevers 1993, 36). That both Adam and his woman were naked, but not ashamed, is a tting prelude to the story that follows in which both nakedness and shame will signify the couple’s maturity. At this point, both are childlike in their innocence; they are unaware of social restrictions and the fact that actions have consequences. The childlike woman and man are not yet wife and husband until later in the story. To get them on their journey from innocence to maturity, a new character, a talking snake, is introduced to the story. Per LXX-G, the ‘snake’ (G? ) is the ‘wisest’ (?  μ% ) of all the wild animals that God made on the earth. This characterization is more favorable than its MT counterpart that describes the snake somewhat derogatorily as ‘shrewd’ or ‘cunning’ (

 ), a word likely used as much for its wordplay with the depiction of the couple as ‘naked’ (  ) as with its portrayal of the snake’s wit. LXX-G also expands the snake’s superiority over not just the ‘wild animals of the eld’ (  ), but the ‘wild animals of all the earth’ (0 #&  0   ). Whether or not the snake is represented favorably in the story, its reputation in the world outside the story makes it an intriguing character. Although some snakes have venomous bites that can cause death, they were not considered the personication of evil or identied with the devil until the rst century B.C.E. in the Wisdom of Solomon (2:24). Its ability to periodically slough o its skin made it a symbol of youthfulness and life and was often worshipped for its divine or semidivine qualities of regeneration and fertility (Sarna 1989, 24). However, it is the snake’s mysterious nature and its mental agility that are central to its role in the garden. The rst clue of the snake’s extraordinary nature is its ability to talk. It asks the woman a trick question, the answer to which the woman does not and cannot address. In fact, the snake asks an even more dicult question in LXX-G. It does not question if God said not to eat from every tree in the garden, but why God said it. The woman begins by telling the

GENESIS 3:1–7

237

snake what their instructions were, namely that they could eat, per ALEX, from ‘every’ (; cf.  " in other Greek manuscripts) tree of the garden. But, she goes on to say, God made one exception. They were not to eat from, nor even touch, the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden. Grammatically speaking, the subjunctive prohibition against ‘touching’ (H6&#) the tree is even more forceful than the indicative command not to ‘eat’ (?*#) from it. The woman, of course, was not correct. It was not the tree described earlier as being in the middle of the garden (2:9), i.e., the tree of life that earlier God declared o limits, but rather the tree of the knowing of good and evil. Furthermore, God said nothing about touching it. This naturally raises the question of the source of the woman’s information. Was she even there when God prohibited Adam from eating of that particular tree? Does LXX-G’s change from second person singular when God gave permission to eat from every tree in the garden (2:16) to second person plural when God prohibited eating from the tree of knowing (2:17) imply the woman’s not-yet-built presence? If she was not literally present, did Adam tell her God’s instructions? Did he get them correct, or did she misunderstand? She comes closer to correctly reporting the deadly consequence of eating from the prohibited tree. Although she uses the emphatic form to state what God did not prohibit, she does not emphasize the certainty of death as God did earlier. Furthermore, she does not even attempt to explain why God made the limitation he did. Using one form of the verb and cognate noun construction that God used earlier, the snake responds by emphatically contradicting God’s threat of certain death. It then proceeds to answer its own question about God’s motives by commenting on God’s past knowledge of the couple’s future knowledge. LXX-G’s reading of the unvocalized Hebrew  as a perfect verb instead of a participle and rendering it as a pluperfect moves God’s act of knowing into the past and thus implies that God knew when he made the prohibition that eating would make the two like gods. Therefore, the snake is accusing God of making the prohibition to protect the divine prerogative of knowing good and evil. Reading the MT’s verb as a participle (! " ), however, shifts God’s knowledge of the couple’s fate to the present and does not imply as self-centered a motive. Rather, God’s knowing in the MT represents his omniscience more than his jealous protectionism. The snake, despite its wise or shrewd nature, does not point out the woman’s mistakes. It is more concerned with contradicting God, than with correcting a human.

238

COMMENTARY

The woman acknowledges God’s creative abilities by seeing, or realizing, that the tree provides both food and beauty (2:9) and integrates what the snake told her about its cerebral features. However, what God had earlier designed for its ‘ripeness’ was its visual appeal; the woman associates ‘ripeness’ (>-) with ‘understanding’ (   ) and declares its beauty ‘pleasing’ (). As discussed above, the notion of ‘ripeness’ implies functionality as well as desirability. What the woman perceives the tree as ripe for, or ready to provide, is understanding. Neither the MT nor LXX-G describe the tree as providing ‘knowledge’ per se. Instead both use verbs that imply understanding, consideration, and reection. As such, what the woman sees attractive about the tree is not its ability to make her like gods, but its readiness to give her understanding or comprehension. After seeing the tree’s good qualities, she takes its fruit and eats. Showing no desire to keep it to herself, she gives some to her husband and, per LXX-G, they both eat (? ). If there is a question about whether the woman was privy to God’s prohibition, there is no question about Adam’s presence when God spoke. Furthermore, there is no indication that the woman did anything to tempt Adam or to lure him into doing something that he should have known was prohibited. He was there with her when she ate and could have stopped her from disobeying God’s command. More importantly, he could have refused to eat the fruit she gave him. However, in Adam’s defense, he may have been confused about the location and designation of the two special trees. The narrative indicates that the tree of life was in the middle of the garden (2:9), yet the tree from which God prohibited Adam from eating was the tree of knowing (2:17). Here again, who knew what and when did they know it is important. Did Adam know which of the two trees was o limits? Did God point out the dierence between the forbidden tree and the one in the middle of the garden that he did not mention? Did Adam assume the forbidden tree was the one in the middle of the garden and relay that to the women? Is this why she identied the prohibited tree as the one in the middle? Finally, did she eat from the tree in the middle, as the narrative implies? Or did she eat from the tree of knowing, as the immediate consequences of the act indicate? What can be said with certainty is that the snake’s predictions, at least initially, are correct; they do not die and their eyes are opened. Less certain is what they know and achieve as a result of their newly opened eyes. Whereas the snake said they would become like gods, knowing good and evil, what the two are said to know after eating is their nakedness. What

GENESIS 3:1–7 & 3:8–21

239

their nakedness signies is not stated explicitly. However, the way the two respond to their nakedness by clothing themselves suggests that they have begun to experience the shame that their nakedness did not trigger before they ate. They have lost their original innocence and have begun to realize that actions have consequences. Although they have just begun the process of human emotional and social development, they have acquired the basic skills for adjusting to their changed circumstances. They sew together g leaves and make themselves ‘aprons’ ( %μ), i.e., ‘girdles around the loins’ (LSJ 1968, 1374). In so doing, they nd an additional use for the trees in the garden and become aware that their loins are what they need to cover to counter their nakedness. 3:8–21 When the two hear Lord God walking around in the middle of the trees of the garden, they hide themselves from him. Although more signicant than a game of “hide-and-seek,” the couple’s action is not an admission of guilt (contra Sarna 1989, 26). Rather, per Loader, “the reason they hid themselves from God was not to escape notice because they were ashamed of their act, but to withdraw from the divine sight because they were naked” (2004, 44). Westermann, even more pointedly, acknowledges that the couple “are not repentant sinners caught in the act” (1984, 253). In other words, it is not evident that they have made an explicit connection between God’s earlier prohibition against eating from the tree of knowing and their resultant nakedness. Lord God the parent gure seems at rst to go along with the game his children are playing. He calls to Adam (by name in LXX-G) and asks him where he is. The all-knowing and all-powerful God of Genesis 1 would have had no need to ask such a question. He would immediately pronounce the couple guilty and declare the consequences. That, however, is not the method favored by the parent Lord God. In his more relational role, God seems content to allow the couple to experience more growing pains and to give them another lesson that will help them mature. Adam responds to God’s question like a child who knows he has something to hide. Rather than telling God where he is hiding, Adam tells God why he was hiding. He is afraid because he is naked, not because he disobeyed. That lesson was still to come. However, by admitting his nakedness, Adam also inadvertently alerts parent Lord God to what he did. Again, parent God does not leap to judgment and sentencing; rather he prolongs the learning experience by asking several questions. First, rhetorically, God asks ‘who told you that you are naked?’ Knowing the answer, or nonanswer, to the question, God does not wait for Adam’s response. Instead,

240

COMMENTARY

God continues with a question, which unlike the MT, establishes a connection between Adam’s eating and his nakedness. As Harl notes, LXX’s addition of ‘unless’ (3 μ) between the two questions shows cause and eect (1994, 109). Unless Adam had eaten from the one tree that God had declared o limits, he would not have known he was naked. LXX-G’s addition of ‘this one alone’ (  ! μ !) makes Adam’s disobedience even more certain. Although Lord God still does not explicitly identify which tree was restricted, his question leaves no doubt that Adam ate what was prohibited. Parent Lord God’s teaching strategy works. Adam realizes that what he did was wrong. However, he still is not mature enough to accept responsibility for his actions. Instead, he plays the blame game by rst identifying who is to blame, namely ‘the woman’ and ‘you’ (i.e., Lord God), and then why. Ironically, he blames both of them for ‘giving’ ((( μ ) him something that should have been good for him – Lord God for giving him the woman who was the tting helper to overcome his solitude, and the woman for giving him something to eat. It was only after shifting the blame that Adam admits that he indeed ate. Lord God then questions the woman. Like Adam, she shifts the blame; unlike Adam, she blames only the snake that she claims tricked her. Her response suggests that she has developed the ability not only to perceive actions, but also the intentions behind actions. Lord God seems to accept her explanation and does not bother to question the snake about its actions or motives. Instead he immediately metes out the snake’s punishment, which in reality merely reects the conditions of a snake’s environment. However, in its mythical context, the snake is demoted from the wisest of God’s creatures to the one among all the animals, both wild and domesticated, that is accursed. Its curse, like the other punishments God will pronounce, is two-fold; it addresses particular aspects of its life and its relationship to other created beings (Sarna 1989, 27). For the snake, its mode of locomotion presumably changes from walking upright to crawling on its breast and belly, a “posture of abject humiliation” (Sarna 1989, 27). Its diet, as a result of its lowly position, will be earth. Whereas earlier the earth signied the interconnectedness of the natural and animal worlds, it now reects one aspect of the brokenness of creation. Another manifestation of the deterioration of the bond between God’s creatures is the relationship of hostility (#) that God establishes between the snake and the woman. Instead of dialogue between these two beings and their ospring, there will be mutual antagonism and distrust.

GENESIS 3:8–21

241

Parent Lord God now addresses the woman and declares her future reality. Unlike the snake, the woman is not cursed for what she did. In fact, God does not even declare that her role in life is a response to any overt act. Lacking the ‘because you’ clause that precedes the punishment God pronounces on the snake and Adam, the woman’s sentence nevertheless is understood as the consequence of her reasoned decision to eat from the tree. Like that of the snake, the rst part of the woman’s punishment reects a condition of her life. In yet another way of rendering the MT’s emphatic construction, LXX-G uses a participle (multiplying/$&# ) before the cognate nite verb (will multiply/$&#!0). In other words, God will greatly multiply the woman’s pain. As in the MT, the woman’s punishment emphasizes the increase in the pain associated with childbirth. However, instead of being promised more ‘conceptions’ (# ), a result whose benets of more children might, in some sense, ameliorate the added pain, the LXX-G woman is sentenced to even more ‘suering’ (μ). The second or relational aspect of her sentence represents LXX-G’s continued interpretive rendering. Unlike her MT counterpart who was granted some compensatory conjugal ‘desire’ (# ) for her husband, the LXX-G woman would experience only a ‘turning’ (  ?)) for her husband, an action that could be understood as either a turning to or a turning away. Although it is unlikely that   ?) with the preposition  would be interpreted as a turning away, the woman’s turning to her husband does not connote sexual desire. In his examination of the dierences in the LXX translation of Genesis 3:16, Von Roland Bergmeier rejects the possibility of a dierent Vorlage, based on a comparison of the MT, LXX, Pseudo-Jonathan, and Jubilees. He instead proposes that the translator might not have known the meaning of #  (desire) and might have mistaken its Targum equivalent (# ) for a similar Aramaic form (# ) whose Hebrew equivalent was # , i.e., return. The woman’s ‘return’ to Adam was logical in light of Genesis 2:21–25, which narrated the original unity between the two. Since the woman was taken from Adam, it was only natural to assume she would want to ‘return’ to him and their original unity. Bergmeier goes on to argue that LXX-G of Genesis 3:16 provides an example of how the Hellenistic translator, in attempting to determine the meaning of an unknown abstract term (i.e., the woman’s desire) referred to an earlier part of the story for a possible explanation, which also reected a Hellenistic motif of the mythical desire for original unity (1967, 77–79).

242

COMMENTARY

Whether she is turning or re-turning to her husband, the LXX-G woman’s relationship to her husband is not overtly sexual. Neither is his relationship to her. As in the MT, the husband in LXX-G will be superior to her. Yet, by translating the Hebrew ‘rule’ () with ‘be lord over’ ( !  ), LXX-G emphasizes his superior status, i.e., as her lord or master, in addition to his functional role in the MT, i.e., to rule over her. Whereas the Hebrew  occurs throughout Genesis with reference to those in leadership positions (e.g., 24:2; 45:8), the Greek !  occurs only here and in 37:8 where it parallels Joseph’s being king over his brothers. Therefore, the husband’s relationship to the woman in LXX-G is certainly one of dominance in both status and function. Because both MT and LXX represent the man’s role as one of dominance, God’s declaration of the husband’s power over the woman has had signicant inuence in dening and maintaining gender roles and has thus provoked considerable debate. The traditional interpretation of God’s sentence understands the gender roles imposed on the woman, i.e., the pains of childbirth, her desire for her husband (per MT), and his domination over her, as the consequences of disobedience. Von Rad, for example, describes these three conditions as “severe aictions and terrible contradictions” that “grind down the woman’s life.” He goes on to say that these “sorrows” and “degradation” in the woman’s life should be understood as a “primeval oense [that] receives its consequences, which faith recognizes as a punishment inicted by God” (1973, 94). Contra von Rad, Westermann interprets the woman’s sentence, not as three separate conditions, but as a single description of her existence from two points of view, i.e., as a wife and a mother. Yet, he agrees that this existence is the result of punishment (1984, 261–263). In order to mitigate the circumstances of the woman’s subordination and to improve God’s character, some scholars argue that God’s original plan was for equality between the sexes. Human actions were responsible for “the fall.” Sarna, for example, comments that “it is quite clear from the description of the woman in 2:18, 23 that the ideal situation, which hitherto existed, was the absolute equality of the sexes. The new state of male dominance is regarded as an aspect of the deterioration in the human condition that resulted from deance of the divine will” (1989, 28). This kind of apology for God’s presumed subordination of women also is quite common in theological feminist scholarship. In her eloquent explanation of the woman’s judgment, Trible comments,

GENESIS 3:8–21

243

The equality of their union . . . is no more; one esh is split. The man will not reciprocate the woman’s desire; instead, he will rule over her. Thus she loves in unresolved tension. Where once there was mutuality, now there is a hierarchy of division. The man dominates the woman to pervert sexuality. Hence the woman is corrupted in becoming a slave, and the man is corrupted in becoming a master. His supremacy is neither a divine right nor a male prerogative. Her subordination is neither a divine decree nor the female destiny. Both positions result from shared disobedience. God describes this consequence but does not prescribe it as punishment (1978, 128).

Others oer alternative readings in which some aspect of equality still exists. Mieke Bal, for example, denies that the rst part of the woman’s sentence is a curse or punishment and maintains that the use of the word ‘labor’ (  ), repeated in God’s sentence on the man, suggests equity between the sexes. However, she nds the xing of sex roles with regard to female pregnancies and male domination problematic. The relations between the sexes, Bal argues, are “xed in terms of the semantic axes of fertility and domination, and are, as such, arbitrary. Fertility necessitates labor, and domination presupposes desire as its precondition, according to Yahweh’s statement. It is true that modern medical science still maintains the reality of the idea of unavoidable labor, but the relation between desire and domination hardly seems ‘natural.’ Power and domination establish the organization of social life” (1987, 127). Still others, who are less concerned with rehabilitating God, interpret the text from other perspectives. Using insights from developmental psychology, Lyn Bechtel convincingly argues that Gen. 2:4b–3:24 is a myth that describes the process of maturation, which begins in the world of the garden with infancy (2:7–9), and proceeds to childhood (2:16–20), adolescence (2:21–3:12), early adulthood (3:13–21), and nally to mature adulthood in 3:22–24. The text, Bechtel maintains, “is about nding identity, which does not come from within the individual alone (individual-orientation), but within the context of the community (grouporientation), including the earth and the animals” (1993, 116). Parent Lord God’s creatures start as innocent children who mature and dierentiate into gendered beings and whose growing knowledge of binary forces (e.g., good/evil, potential/limitation, wild/cultivated) require them to accept responsibility for their actions. The desire that God grants to the woman in the MT serves to overcome female reluctance to procreate. The man’s control is only intended to regulate the woman’s sexual desire, not her entire life. This control was necessary to maintain family and society boundaries against foreigners or outside groups. The LXX-G translation

244

COMMENTARY

of Genesis represents a similarly motivated attempt to control women’s sexuality. One of the more nuanced translations and interpretations of Genesis 3:16 (MT) is that of Carol Meyers. She translates, “I will greatly increase your toil and your pregnancies; (along) with travail shall you beget children. For to your man is your desire, and he shall predominate over you” (1998, 118). In her interpretation of the text, Meyers argues against the majority opinion that the woman’s judgment was the result of disobedience, and reinterprets God’s sentence as a divine sanction in response to the conditions of hardship that the early Israelites experienced in the Palestinian highlands. The primary emphasis is on the woman’s increased pregnancies, a situation mandated by the need for human survival. She translates #  as ‘your toil,’ a translation that suggests physical labor parallel to the man’s sentence in v. 17, rather than the usual implication of labor pains. Therefore, she argues that the rst part of the woman’s sentence, on the one hand, “sets forth the woman’s enlarged role in the productive, agrarian tasks of society; on the other, it mandates an increased productive role” (1988, 105). The idea of pain, Meyers further argues, was read into the text when it was translated into Greek (1988, 103). In the second clause, Meyers prefers to translate  as ‘to predominate,’ rather than ‘to rule’ because the former “preserves the concept of rule (dominion) yet allows for the less than absolute imposition of male will” (1988, 117). She explains the woman’s desire in the light of the presumed reluctance of Israelite women to succomb to the risks associated with pregnancy and birth. Such reluctance could be overcome by compensatory desire for their husbands, a desire that allows them to submit to male sexual advances. Therefore, the woman would not experience the man’s ‘rule’ over her as oppressive (1988, 116–117). In one way or another, many scholars argue that the Hebrew text itself does not mandate or condone male domination or female inferiority. Rather, according to Trible, centuries of misogynistic interpretations, beginning with postbiblical Jewish literature and later Christian literature, are the cause of these stereotyped assumptions (1978, 73). In this regard, LXX-G was the rst such interpretation that emphasized pain, negated desire, and declared the man/husband to be dominant in position and function. Turning his attention to Adam, God begins by making it clear that his actions produced the resulting consequences. Because Adam listened to his wife and ate from the only tree that God had declared o limits, he causes the earth, not Adam himself, to be cursed. Yet, the earth’s curse

GENESIS 3:8–21

245

aects him by making his work ( ) something that will be characterized by pain ($ ). As such, his punishment in some ways parallels that of the woman. Both will endure pain as part of their central role in life; his in production, hers in reproduction. Part of the earth’s curse is the growth of thorns and thistles; they will contribute to the pain that Adam will suer to get the earth to produce the herbage that God gave humans for food (1:29). God then proceeds to the relational aspect of Adam’s punishment. The snake’s relationship with the woman suered by being transformed from one of dialogue to one of distrust and hostility. The woman’s relationship with the man suered by being transformed from one of equality to one of inferiority and dominance. Adam’s relationship with the earth is not really broken. He is made from the earth and will return to it. This, however, implies his eventual destruction, a fate more severe than those associated with the snake and the woman. Because it was Adam who listened to his wife instead of God, it is Adam who suers the worst punishment. Nevertheless, neither he nor the woman show the type of remorse or guilt that would be expected of humans who have been punished for their sins. As Bechtel and others have argued, this story is not one of original sin, but of original innocence. The two have matured enough to realize that actions have consequences and thus do not attempt to mitigate or protest God’s punishments. Instead, Adam gives the woman a name that reects the importance of her procreative role. The Hebrew Eve ( ) alludes to ‘living’ and reects her role of bringing forth life. The narrator claries the signicance of her name when he expands the gendered signicance of the wordplay beyond its literal meaning. ‘Because she was the mother of all life’ (     ), the man called the name of the woman Eve. The idea of motherhood, implicit in the name itself, becomes explicit in the narrator’s explanation. The man’s act of naming the woman (per ALEX, not ‘his’ woman as MT and other Greek manuscripts), along with the narrator’s clarication of the meaning of her name, shows both of them fullling the authoritative male role over the procreative nature of her sexuality that God instituted in his earlier pronouncement. LXX-G emphasizes the woman’s procreative role even more. Its description of the meaning of the woman’s name follows the sense of the Hebrew’s wordplay. Like   in Hebrew, I ) in Greek characterizes the woman’s motherhood of all living beings. However, LXX-G’s name for the woman is only temporary; she is later referred to by her transliterated Hebrew name J', i.e., Eve. In the context of the garden story in which God is dening gender roles, LXX-G retains the signicance of the woman’s procreative

246

COMMENTARY

role. When she later performs this assigned role, i.e., conceiving and bearing a child (4:1), she no longer needs the name that denes her role. From that point on, the LXX-G Woman-mother is Eve. The two, having matured past childhood, now need better covering than the simple g leaf garments they made for themselves. Lord God, like any good parent, continues to provide what his children are still not able to provide for themselves. Thus, he makes them leather tunics. However, Lord God has another lesson to teach his maturing children. 3:22–24 Despite his parental care for his children, Lord God also realizes that actions have consequences. He therefore takes additional steps to protect the only attribute that distinguishes him from his creatures, i.e., immortality. By so doing, he also teaches his wayward children another lesson of growing up. What the snake predicted has been realized, and Lord God is the one who acknowledges its fulllment. After getting the attention of his silent council, he announces that Adam indeed has become like one of them in his new ability to know good and evil. Yet, there is a subtle dierence between the snake’s prediction and God’s acknowledgement. Whereas the snake said they would become like gods, God seems to limit Adam’s comparability to only one (> K 2) of them. That one is likely the one God who, while consulting his heavenly sta, nevertheless is the only one of them who has said or done anything. Lord God, displaying the rst subtle instance of the jealousy that will become one of his chief characteristics, needs to prevent Adam from eating the fruit of the tree of life and living forever. As Wevers points out, LXX-G only uses the subjunctive mood with the rst three (stretch out, take, and eat) of the four verbs that are governed by ‘lest’ () in MT. Its switch to the future indicative for the last verb (to live) implies the certainty of Adam’s immortality if he should eat from that tree (1993, 49). The threat to God’s uniqueness is so great that God must resort to extreme measures to prevent Adam from acquiring immortality. Merely prohibiting him from eating of the tree of life is no guarantee. God takes no chances this time and sends Adam out of the garden of ‘luxury’ (!?) to an existence of hard work. By using two dierent verbs to describe the man’s act of ‘stretching out’ (  ) his hand and God’s act of ‘sending out’ (2 $$ ) the man from the garden, LXX-G misses the parallel that the MT makes by using the same verb (). Because the man might send out his hand, God will send him out of the garden. Nevertheless, LXX-G highlights the signicance of Adam’s loss when it switches from transliterating the MT’s ‘Eden’ ( ) to translating it (luxury/!?).

GENESIS 3:22–24

247

That Adam should have to work the earth is no surprise. However, having to do so outside the garden and without its abundant water will indeed make him sweat (3:19) as he works. God’s determination to keep Adam from attaining immortality is highlighted even more when the narrator repeats God’s act of expulsion but uses a much more forceful verb, i.e., ‘throw out’ (2$). Like its MT counterpart (), this verb occurs two more times in Genesis; once to describe Cain’s expulsion (4:14) and once to describe Sarah’s banishment of Hagar and Ishmael (21:10). Per LXX-G, God takes two more steps to keep Adam from the tree. First God ‘settles’ ( 8 ) him opposite the garden. LXX-G’s use of the verb

8  rather than one based on the verb 

 (‘sojourn’) shows that God intends Adam to live there permanently, not temporarily. This distinction appears elsewhere in Genesis to dierentiate those who are residents aliens such as Isaac from those who are permanent residents such as Jacob (37:1). Dwelling in an ambiguous place ‘opposite’ ( ) the garden could imply Adam’s oppositional relationship to the garden (i.e., against) or his view of the garden (i.e., in front of ). God’s nal step to prevent Adam’s return to the garden is to ‘station’ (2) the cheroubim and the aming self-turning sword to guard the tree. These two guardians must have been “known to the Israelite imagination” (Sarna 1989, 30), because they both appear with the denite article. Westermann summarizes the biblical functions of cherubim: they are guardians of God’s garden (here and Ezek. 18:14, 16), those who carry YHWH in the winds and clouds (Ps. 18:10), inhabitants of the temple, and bearers of YHWH’s throne (Ezek. 9:3; 10:1–22; Ps. 80:1). The diverse duties of these mythical guardians in biblical texts attests to their widespread Mesopotamian origins (Westermann 1984, 274). Nevertheless, the idea of mythical guardians was “foreign to the Greek” (Wevers 1989, 50), so LXX-G merely transliterated the Hebrew term. The other object that God puts in place to guard the tree of life similarly had mythical roots in ancient Sumerian texts (Westermann 1984, 274). In this case, LXX-G literally translated the terms describing the sword. Nevertheless, the slight dierences in LXX-G shows God even more determined to guard the tree. He throws Adam out of the garden and settles him, not the cherubim and sword, opposite the garden. The additional act of stationing the two guardians by the tree provides one extra preventative measure. Curiously, LXX-G does not attempt to correct the Hebrew text that only reports the man’s () expulsion. Neither Sarna nor Westermann comment on the seeming omission in the MT. However, both Harl (1994, 111) and Wevers (1993, 49) surmise that the name @(+μ, as 5:2 will report,

248

COMMENTARY

consists of both the man and the woman. Neither, however, explain why only the expulsion report understands @(+μ in this way. Perhaps Lord God is not concerned that the woman would attempt to eat from the tree of life. It was the other tree whose fruit the snake predicted would provide knowledge and thus the one that was attractive to her. Or perhaps Lord God realized that she would ‘turn’ or ‘return’ to Adam and thus follow him out of the garden. In any case, it is evident in what follows that the two stayed together. 4:1–16 Although LXX-G acknowledged the woman’s life-giving role when Adam called her name Life (I )), it now merely transliterates her Hebrew name. Furthermore, its literal rendering of the MT’s ‘knew’ ( ) with  retains its contextual meaning of sexual relations. Although the use of the verb ‘to know’ as a euphemism for sexual intercourse is regarded as a Semitism, Jobes and Silva point out that it is also used in nonbiblical Greek, albeit rarely outside Plutarch (2000, 207). Adam knew his wife Eve (Heua), who immediately fullls her role in life. She ‘conceived’ (!$) and ‘bore’ ( ) Cain (Kain). ALEX, departing from its customary rendering of the rst of two nite Hebrew verbs with a participle, here renders both Hebrew verbs ‘conceived’ and ‘bore’ (  ) with aorists. Eve goes on to announce the signicance of what she accomplished. Her comment in the MT can be interpreted in several ways, based on two dierent trilateral roots. The root of the name Cain ( ) means to ‘form,’ ‘fashion,’ or ‘forge’ in several Semitic languages, while that associated with the verb  ( ) can mean to ‘acquire,’ ‘own,’ or even ‘produce’ or ‘create’ (Sarna 1989, 32). All of these meanings are contextually appropriate. LXX-G, however, cannot duplicate the multifaceted wordplay of the $ $  as ‘to acquire,’ and translated it Hebrew text. It interpreted the verb  with L &*μ&. As such, it shows no phonetic connection between her accomplishment and the name of her rst child. LXX-G’s interpretive method of translation continues with its rendering of the rest of the woman’s statement, which in the MT presents several diculties. First, the word ‘man’ () to describe Cain is an unusual choice to refer to a newborn child. Sarna speculates that the use of ‘man’ here “is inuenced by Adam’s jubilant cry in 2:23 at the creation of woman,” so that Eve’s statement in eect means that “as a woman (), I was produced from man (), so now I, woman, have in turn produced a man” (1989, 32). Westermann similarly maintains that Eve sees in her child the “future man” and thus boasts of the creative ability

GENESIS 4:1–16

249

that she shares with God (1984, 290). LXX-G seems to have made a similar assumption in its rendering of  with 4#  , i.e., a generic human being. The last part of the woman’s comment is the most contentious. She claims that she acquired, formed, or created a man  -, literally ‘with YHWH.’ To avoid any connotation of divine/human intercourse, some commentators interpret the  of the phrase to mean ‘with the help of.’ Others, however, reject this meaning by pointing out that  in this sense appears no other place in the Bible with reference to God (see discussion in Westermann 1984, 290–292). Based on comparative literary evidence of the Akkadian Atrahasis Epic, Sarna and others argue that the  means ‘together with.’ Sarna goes on to say, however, that this refers to God’s frequent (but passive) assistance in human procreation, rather than his active participation (1989, 32). LXX-G resolved the theological problem by rendering the phrase ‘through God’ (( +  " # "). Not only does the preposition ( + clarify God’s role, but replacing   (YHWH) with God (# ") removes any lingering anthropomorphic connotations associated with = . As Wevers maintains, the woman’s statement thus reects the notion that “it is through divine intervention that the human race can reproduce” (1993, 51). Neither the woman nor the narrator comment about how she bore Cain’s brother Abel (Habel) nor do either explain the signicance of his name. Both the seeming lack of interest in the second child and the customary historical preference given to the rstborn son imply Cain’s superiority. His presumed superiority continues when he is said to be a worker of the earth, thus doing the work that God declared for Adam and his male descendants. Abel, on the other hand, is or becomes ( ) a shepherd of sheep; he is the rst to perform a role other than that assigned by God. Nevertheless, both brothers provide for God from their labors. Cain’s gift of the fruits of the earth, described explicitly as ‘sacrices’ (#! ), seems a more tting oering to God. In its literary context, Abel’s gift of the rstborn of his sheep and of their fatty parts might seem oensive. Humans were to have dominion over God’s other animate beings, but were never told to slaughter them. God, however, dees expectations and makes his own rules. In this the rst instance of God’s rejection of primogeniture, God prefers Abel’s gifts to Cain’s sacrice. Even the narrator gives priority to Abel: Cain was the rst to oer his sacrice, but God’s response to Abel’s is the rst reported. Unlike the MT that uses the same word ‘gift’ () for the oerings of both Cain and Abel, LXX-G refers to Cain’s oering as a ‘sacrice’ (#!) and to Abel’s as ‘gifts’ ((% ). All the other occurrences of  are translated by the Greek word (% ,

250

COMMENTARY

while the two other occurrences of the word sacrice (#!) in LXX-G are in contexts where it translates the Hebrew  and likely refers to burnt oerings (31:54 and 46:1). Thus it is unclear why LXX-G intentionally used #! for Cain’s grain oering. In contrast to the MT, LXX-G also uses two dierent words to describe God’s responses to the dierent oerings. God ‘looked on’ (() Abel and his gifts, but ‘paid no attention’ (   ) to Cain and his sacrice. Both words, like the MT’s ‘regarded’ ( ), refer to matters of perception. ‘Looking on’ something is typically a rather neutral and nonjudgmental act. However, when used of the gods, it can have a positive connotation (Jobes and Silva 2000, 210). Disregarding or paying no attention to something, on the other hand, implies its unworthiness. Unlike LXX-G’s puzzling use of two dierent words to describe the brothers’ oerings, its use of two dierent words to describe God’s responses is clearly interpretive. So, why does God prefer Abel’s oering? One traditional explanation sees in the story a reection of the conict between farmer (represented by Cain) and nomad (represented by Abel). The latter occupation, and thus character, is favored because of Israel’s presumed nomadic ideal. Sarna and Westermann both reject this explanation because neither observe anything in the narrative that leads to this conclusion. Sarna expresses well the other traditional explanation that, he argues, can be gleaned from the descriptions of the oerings. Abel’s oering, Sarna writes based on the Hebrew text, “is characterized as being ‘the choicest of the rstlings of his ock’; Cain’s is simply termed as coming ‘from the fruit of the soil,’ without further detail. Abel appears to have demonstrated a quality of heart and mind that Cain did not possess” (1989, 32). In other words, Abel brought the best of his sheep and their best (fatty) parts. Cain only oered some of the fruits of his labors; that nothing is said about quality or quantity implies Cain’s indierence to what he was sacricing to God. Westermann, however, argues against this interpretation as well. Neither the type of oering nor the attitude of the one bringing the oering is the point of the story. Rather, he maintains that this is a story about inexplicable inequality that has its origins not “in application, in attitude, or in any circumstance that one can control. When such inequality arises, it rests on a decision that is beyond human manipulation” (1984, 297). He goes on to say, however, that the inexplicability of God’s actions is “one of the decisive motifs for conict whenever there are brothers” (1984, 297). Why God favors one brother – or sister – over others will continue to cause problems within the biblical families.

GENESIS 4:1–16

251

The manner in which siblings resolve their diculties, however, varies. This rst story of sibling rivalry results in fratricide, the rst act in the Bible that is referred to as ‘sin’ (Mμ). When Cain somehow realizes that God has not paid attention to his sacrice, he experiences great distress. In yet another instance of interpretive translation, LXX-G renders the MT’s ‘anger’ () with $&, a word meaning ‘pain,’ ‘distress,’ or ‘grief.’ Although  appears throughout the Hebrew Genesis, $! occurs only here and, ironically, in a later story about the resolution of sibling rivalry when Joseph attempts to alleviate his brothers’ distress (45:5). Thus, LXX-G represents Cain’s response more as an inward emotion than as one externally directed to God. LXX-G’s emphasis on Cain’s inner pain continues in its awkward rendering of the MT’s ‘his face fell’ (  ) with ‘he collapsed in the face’ (! D  %B). Lord God, playing his parent role, responds to Cain by acknowledging, and essentially challenging, his grief by asking him two rhetorical questions. God then proceeds to teach Cain a lesson by asking him another rhetorical question. Although God’s warning in both MT and LXX-G refers to sin using language that echoes the woman’s punishment in 3:16, the type of sin is dierent. The dicult Hebrew text seems to comment on Cain’s good or moral living in general, i.e., ‘if you do right/good’ (). In that case, ‘lifting up’ ( ), presumably of Cain’s fallen face, will occur. But if not, ‘sin is crouching at the door.’ Although sin () is feminine, it is the only possible subject of the masculine participle (). Westermann acknowledges that “no satisfactory explanation” of these verses has been oered. He reviews the various interpretations and emendations of these verses and nds them lacking. In particular, he rejects one traditional explanation that the verb  is most likely connected with the Assyrian rabium, a demon. In this reading, sin seems to be a personied force that lies in wait at the door (1984, 299–300). Yet, in what follows, sin continues to be represented as a malevolent entity that desires ( ) him. Nevertheless, God tells Cain that he can ‘master’ () it. In other words, Cain is responsible for his actions and their consequences. LXX-G, on the other hand, “puts a cultic interpretation on the rst part of the verse” (Wevers 1993, 55) due to the general context of sacrice and oering. Therefore, God’s warning to Cain refers to proper and improper sacrice. A proper oering without proper ‘dividing’ (( $A) of the sacricial parts results in sin. Although LXX-G’s rendering ts the overall literary context, it does not take Cain’s two-fold response into account. God then attempts to calm and reassure Cain that despite its turning, he

252

COMMENTARY

will be able to rule over it. In its context, it must refer to sin. As in the MT, God’s advice to Cain echoes his sentence on the woman (3:16). Yet, LXX-G’s change of the woman’s act from one of desire for her husband to one of turning or returning to her husband makes the verse’s adaptation here even more awkward. Further complicating the issue is LXX-G’s rendering of the MT’s , in its more passive meaning of laying down or being at rest, with the imperative ‘be calm’ (: ). In its nal form, God’s warning seems transformed into a more positive statement in LXX-G. Gone is the tentativeness of the conditionality implied by the MT’s ‘if/if not’ statements that continues with the portrayal of lurking sin and Cain’s mastery of it. Instead, the conditionality in LXX-G applies only to the matter of proper sacrice. God’s additional comments then appear to be a promise of future success, rather than a warning about Cain’s actions and their consequences. As a result, what the LXX-G Cain proceeds to do must at rst seem promising to God. He gives the impression of reconciling with Abel when LXX-G reports that Cain invites him to the eld, i.e., his place of work. This LXX-G addition to an MT text that only reports that Cain ‘said’ or ‘spoke’ is another example of LXX-G’s tendency to improve on its source. Because the two brothers ended up in the open eld, LXX-G claries how they got there. Yet, its clarication serves to make what happens in the eld more surprising to the reader and likely more disappointing to God. With no warning or additional explanation, Cain gets up and kills (  ) his brother Abel. An act that appears more like premeditated murder than justiable homicide is not considered as such by either MT or LXX-G. In fact, neither text uses the word for ‘murder’ (?  /) until God’s commandment prohibiting it (Exod. 20:15 [MT v. 13]). As he did when he confronted Cain’s father in the garden, God asks Cain a leading question about someone’s location. Instead of ‘where are you,’ God asks Cain ‘where is Abel your brother?’ Cain, unlike his father, lies to God. He knows where Abel is. Moreover, he should be guarding or keeping his younger brother, rather than questioning his lial responsibility. God refuses to acknowledge Cain’s lying sarcasm and instead continues questioning him. God, however, seems to have learned that his human creatures tend to avoid responsibility for their actions. Therefore, instead of merely asking Cain what he did, God also lets Cain know the evidence against him. Abel, who never speaks in life, cannot speak for himself in death. However, his blood cries out to God, who immediately pronounces Cain the rst human to be accursed on (per ALEX) the earth. As a matter of poetic justice, the earth that was cursed as a result of Adam’s dis-

GENESIS 4:1–16

253

obedience and that ‘opened its mouth’ to receive the blood of one with no voice now plays an active role in Cain’s punishment. Like his father, Cain is sentenced to work the earth. However, the earth that earlier made Adam’s work painful will now make Cain’s work impossible. The ‘power’ (3N) by which it had earlier provided Cain with its fruits will no longer continue. Similarly, whereas Adam experiences ‘pain’ ($ ) like his wife, Cain inherits his mother’s ‘groaning’ ( ). His groaning, however, will not be productive. God also sentences Cain to trembling. Both these characteristics focus on the physical aspects of Cain’s emotional response. By contrast, his fate in the MT as a ‘trembling wanderer’ ( ) refers in part to his emotional response of trembling. Sentencing him to be a wanderer on the earth describes a very dierent fate. He will live in fear wherever he may journey. Cain responds to Lord by acknowledging that his ‘guilt’ (3) is too great to be forgiven. LXX-G shows its penchant for interpretive translation again in this chapter by rendering the Hebrew  with 3 and   with ?#. The sense of the Hebrew text is debated. As Sarna (1989, 34) and Westermann (1984, 309) acknowledge,  can mean both sin and its punishment. Although context usually helps determine which meaning is more appropriate, here both meanings are reasonable but have very dierent implications. Sarna oers two translations: “my punishment is too great to bear” and “my sin is too great to be forgiven” (1989, 34). In other words, Cain could be lamenting his punishment or admitting his sin. In its other occurrences in Genesis, the Hebrew  refers to an action and in each place is rendered by a dierent Greek word. In 15:16, LXX-G renders it with ;μ , i.e., ‘sins;’ in 19:15, LXX-G translates it as  μ , i.e., ‘lawlessness;’ and in 44:16 LXX-G uses (

, i.e., ‘wrongdoing.’ Therefore,  in Genesis seems to connote the act of sin. Also at issue is the result of Cain’s sin, which he claims is too much for him to  . The Hebrew   has an even wider range of meanings. As Sarna’s alternative translations indicate, it can mean to ‘bear,’ ‘lift,’ ‘carry,’ ‘be exulted,’ ‘pardon,’ ‘take,’ ‘take away,’ or ‘forgive.’ LXX-G interpreted   to mean ‘forgive’ and thus rendered it with ?#. However, its choice of 3 to translate  is less clear. LSJ (1968, 44) denes 3 as “responsibility, mostly in bad sense, guilt, blame, or the imputation thereof, i.e., accusation.” The word is a hapax legomenon in LXX-G, but occurs twenty times in the rest of the LXX/OG (primarily in the apocryphal books of Maccabees) and twenty-one times in the New Testament (most often in Acts). In none of these later texts does 3 refer to sin or guilt. Rather, it most often means ‘reason’ or

254

COMMENTARY

‘cause.’ If later LXX/OG translators used LXX-G as a type of lexicon, as Emanuel Tov argues (1981, 577), they did not understand 3 to mean sin or guilt. Nevertheless, its use in this context, especially with the verb ?#, has a moral implication. Because neither ‘responsibility’ nor ‘accusation’ tend to require forgiveness, the word 3 likely refers to Cain’s guilt. Thus, Cain’s lament in LXX-G seems more focused on his response to his act, than on the act itself. Cain continues his lament by speculating on the longer term consequences of God’s punishment. LXX-G’s earlier focus on Cain’s emotional responses makes his present concern about God’s banishing him from the earth surprising. Being sentenced to a life of groaning and trembling without productive work describes a static condition, not a spatial one. For some reason, Cain now fears that someone will nd him and kill him as he wanders the earth, trembling and groaning but hidden from God. Even if his fear makes little sense in LXX-G’s literary context, Lord God’s response attempts to mitigate his fear. God begins by denying the last aspect of Cain’s lament and then promises seven-fold vengeance on anyone who might kill Cain. God also indirectly acknowledges another of Cain’s concerns. If Cain were to doubt God’s ability to save him from harm should he be hidden from God’s face, God puts a ‘sign’ (&μ- ) on Cain to protect him from anyone who would ‘destroy’ ($-) him. Thus parent Lord God once again demonstrates his caring concern for his human creatures, even when they misbehave. Cain presumably was consoled by God’s words because he went out from God’s presence. Unlike his father (and mother), he was not ‘thrown out’ ( *$$ ). However, like his father and mother, he had to live the rest of his life outside his original habitat. Because it cannot duplicate the MT’s wordplay that links his fate as a ‘wanderer’ () to his eventual home ( ), LXX-G merely transliterates the name of the land where Cain lives as Naid. As such, it appears to be a geographical place, rather than an existential condition of homelessness that is implied in the MT. Nevertheless, Cain’s existence, like that of his parents is ‘opposite’ (here,  ) of Edem. 4:17–24 Cain, although removed from his former life, is the initial subject of the Bible’s rst genealogy. This genealogy, according to Westermann, represents the type of genealogy that “presents primeval events in the form of a succession of generations” and that is concerned with human origins rather than tribal aliations (1984, 323). In this case, the genealogy relates the beginnings of culture and civilization. The story itself jumps ahead to a time after Cain has moved and married and sired

GENESIS 4:17–24

255

a son Enoch (Hench). Like the MT, LXX-G goes on to say that ‘he was a city builder.’ Contextually, a third person pronoun most often refers to its nearest antecedent; in this case, ‘he’ would be Enoch. Westermann cites several scholars who support this position based on form and tradition critical arguments. K. Budde, for example, claims that “when the birth of the son is announced, it is not the practice to say anything more about the father, but about the son and what he has done” (cited in Westermann 1984, 327). Westermann himself maintains that a primeval genealogy that traces the development of civilization from agriculture to city life “can only be done by a succession of births presented in such a way that the builder of the city must emerge as one of Cain’s posterity” (1984, 327). Yet, these arguments are refuted by what follows. Both MT and LXX-G go on to report that he named the city after his son Enoch. Only by agreeing to the MT textual emendations proposed by Budde and others (Westermann 1984, 327) can one regard Enoch as the city builder. Form critical arguments aside, there is no reason that Cain could not have changed occupations after his relocation. In fact, from a narrative perspective, this makes more sense. If he were no longer able to work the earth, he would likely do something dierent. Even historically, the development of urban areas, per Sarna, followed the development and advancement of agriculture (1989, 36). Cain’s genealogy continues in linear fashion with its narration of six successive generations from Enoch to Lamech. With Lamech, the genealogy becomes segmented; it reports the names of his two wives (Ada and Sella) and his four children. Like earlier Mesopotamian myths, the narrative embedded in the genealogy describes the origins of particular aspects of human material and cultural endeavors. Ada’s rstborn Ibel began the line of tent dwellers, who per LXX-G, were herdsmen. By omitting the ‘and’ of the MT and placing ‘herdsmen’ ( & ? ) in apposition to ‘dwellers’ ( 3  ), LXX-G equates the two. It also makes a slight change to the description of the signicance of Ada’s second son Ioubal; he is said to be the one who ‘invented’ ( (2) the musical instruments of harp and lyre, as opposed to MT’s ‘was the father of those who play’ lyre and pipe. Finally, LXX-G omits the sux on the name of Lamech’s third son and refers to him only as Thobel. It also attempts to simplify a dicult Hebrew text (see discussions in Sarna [1989, 38] and Westermann [1984, 332–334]) and credits Sella’s only son as introducing metalwork, specically that associated with copper and iron. Despite these slight dierences, LXX-G basically attributes the development of animal husbandry, music, and metallurgy to Cain’s descendants.

256

COMMENTARY

Cain’s genealogy concludes in an awkward fashion with the taunt or braggart song of Lamech, which represents, per Sarna, “the rst true example of biblical Hebrew poetic style” (1989, 38). Alter likewise maintains that “this poem follows the parallelistic pattern of biblical verse with exemplary rigor” (1996, 20). While those precise features do not survive translation, the pugilistic tone of the song does. Many scholars agree that this song originally belonged in a dierent narrative context about Lamech’s heroic or warlike exploits, and was attached to Cain’s genealogy as a link to the larger Cain and Abel narrative (Westermann 1984, 334–336; Sarna 1989, 38–39; Alter 1996, 20). Lamech calls to his wives to listen to what he may have already done or was getting ready to do. If the former, Lamech seems to be boasting about “grossly exaggerated retribution for injuries which, though not lethal, were nevertheless a violation of honor” (Westermann 1984, 336). As such, it is a commentary on the human capacity for revenge and the blood lust it ignites. If the latter, the song could be a threat of retribution to be taken by someone with an inated sense of power and superiority and who wants to terrorize his enemies. In either case, the exponential upsurge in revenge (per MT, seventy-seven fold but exaggerated even more in LXX-G to seventy times seven) between that associated with Cain and that claimed by Lamech could reect the increased likelihood of violence that was associated with the growing complexity of human life and the enhanced technological capacity to make such violence a reality. That LXX-G could show an even greater tendency for revenge is not surprising given the historical events that occurred between the early MT poem and its third century B.C.E. translation. 4:25–26 The chapter concludes as it began with Adam and his wife Eve having a son. After the violence and the progress associated with Cain and his descendants, his line, per Sarna, “passes into oblivion” (1989, 39). First, however, Eve gives the new son a name that acknowledges the fact that Cain killed Abel. Not only did LXX-G not attempt to duplicate the wordplay of the MT (the eectiveness of which is disputed [Westermann 1984, 338]), it ignored the wordplay altogether. Instead of God’s ‘placing or granting’ () her another seed in place of Abel, God ‘raised up’ (2&) for her another seed. More important, therefore, than his name is the role that Seth plays in the story. As a substitute for both the murdered Abel and the banished murderer Cain, Seth restarts the rst couple’s lineage. For the rst time, no wife is mentioned. LXX-G, following the MT’s passive , merely states ‘to Seth was born a son.’

GENESIS 4:25–26 & 5:1–31

257

This son Seth names Enosh (Ens), which in Hebrew ( ) is another generic term for human. This one, per LXX-G, ‘hoped’ to invoke the name of Lord God. As Wevers surmises, LXX-G misread the Hebrew ‘then’ () as ‘this’ and then vocalized the verb to mean ‘hope’ instead of ‘was begun.’ Whether intentional or not, LXX-G resolved a problem in the MT that has vexed commentators. The report in the MT that Enosh began to invoke the name of YHWH seems to contradict the report in Exodus (3:13–16, 6:3) that YHWH worship began with Moses. Even if understood as God worship, rather than YHWH worship (see Westermann’s discussion 1984, 339–342), the Hebrew text suggests the existence of primeval monotheism. LXX-G only claims that Enosh ‘hoped’ to invoke the name and thus worship of Lord God. It thus leaves open the question of whether or not he would do so. 5:1–31 Now that Cain and his acknowledged descendants have, as Sarna writes, “passed into oblivion” (1989, 39), another lengthier and more detailed genealogy tells of the ‘origin of humans’ (  #% ). LXX-G’s use of the singular ‘origin’ ( ) to introduce this genealogy, as in 2:4, indicates that what follows is more than a list of descendants. Rather, the genealogy narrates the beginning/origin of humanity, just as 2:4 and following narrated the beginning/origin of the heaven and earth. The special nature of these two genealogies is clear: in every other location where the MT uses the plural term ‘generations’ () to introduce a genealogy, LXX-G also uses the plural ‘origins’ ( ). LXX-G also departs from MT by using the plural ‘humans’ (#% ), rather than the singular and unarticulated Adam (). As such, LXX-G intends to present the origin of humans, rather than the descendants of Adam. Yet, it follows the MT in the second half of the verse by referring to the day when God made Adam ( @(*μ) according to God’s image. The use of the term ‘according to the image of God’ alludes to the rst report of human creation (1:26–27). Whereas the earlier account narrated that the generic human (#% ) was made in God’s image, this retelling reports that it was specically Adam who was made in God’s image. The origin story here continues by echoing 1:27–28a: ‘male and female he made them and he blessed them.’ However, whereas the earlier account continued with God’s instruction to procreate, the present story continues with God calling their name Adam. This, even more than the earlier accounts, could support speculation about original androgyny. Sources as diverse as Plato’s Symposium (198d–e) and Genesis Rabbah (GenR 8:1) make reference to a being who was both male and female.

258

COMMENTARY

The human origin story continues with a narration of Adam’s genealogy that serves as an implicit testimony to the procreative aspect of God’s blessing. Beginning with Adam and concluding with Noah (Ne) and his sons, the genealogy covers ten generations. Much has been written about the parallels between the Genesis 5 genealogy and the list of Sumerian kings recorded by the third century B.C.E. Babylonian priest Berossus. Both include ten generations and conclude with the hero of a ood story. Nevertheless, the dierences between these two accounts make it likely, per Westermann and others, that any explicit connection between the two was the result of later stages of tradition history (Westermann 1984, 347–354). Thus, the Genesis 5 genealogy must be examined for its own merits and the message about human procreation that it conveys. Adam, made in the image of God, now passes that image to his son, who presumably then passes it on to those who follow. Furthermore, the redundant pattern throughout the genealogy portrays, per Westermann, “the rhythm of ongoing generations” (Westermann 1984, 354) that, per Sarna, represents “the unfolding of a divinely ordained, meaningful design, the corollary being that human activity lies under the perpetual scrutiny of God” (1989, 40). The genealogy in LXX-G makes the same points as its MT counterpart, but its details are quite dierent. Whereas the time from creation to the ood covered 1,656 years in the MT, it covers 2,242 years in LXX-G. The same period between creation and ood in the Samaritan Pentateuch is only 1,307 years (Wevers 1993, 68). The rst point at which LXX-G diers from the MT is Adam’s age when he fathered Seth: MT reports that he was 130 years old; LXX-G reports that he was 230 old. Although neither MT nor LXX-G has an explicit direct object for the verb ‘father’ (* ), it is obvious that it is Seth whom Adam fathered in his ‘form’ (3() and image. Here LXX-G departs from the earlier ‘likeness’ (1:26, ,μ   ) that, along with ‘image’ (3 ), characterized the similarity between God and humans. In so doing, it also diers from the MT that repeats the two features of 1:26 here. The word 3(, as Wevers maintains, “was clearly chosen to indicate that the generation took place in accordance with the ‘outward appearance’ or ‘form’ of Adam” (1993, 69). LXX-G again diers from the MT in the amount of time that Adam lived after fathering Seth. LXX-G reports that he lived 700 more years, while MT reports that he lived 800 additional years. Both, however, agree that Adam lived a total of 930 years before he died. From this point on, the genealogy follows a standard pattern: the number of years that the antediluvian patriarch lived before fathering his

GENESIS 5:1–31

259

rst son, the name of the rstborn son, the number of years he lived after fathering the rstborn son, the notice that he fathered additional sons and daughters, and the total number of years that he lived before he died. Thus for Seth, LXX-G reports that he lived 205 years when he fathered Enosh, 717 years afterwards, and died at 912 years. As was the case with Adam and will continue throughout the rest of the genealogy, LXX-G and MT dier in what age the patriarchs fathered their rst sons (LXX-G = MT + 100) and how many additional years they lived. As Hendel shows, LXX-G adds 100 years to the MT’s fathering age and deducts 100 years from their remaining life span (1998, 64–65). In all cases but one, however, the total number of years lived is always the same. The only patriarch whose total life span diers is Lamech: per LXX-G he lived a total of 753 years, while MT reports he lived 777 years. The only patriarch whose three numbers do not dier is Iared, who is said to father Enoch at 162 years. Like all the patriarchs before him, Enoch fathers his rst son 100 years earlier in the MT than in LXX-G and lives 100 years less thereafter. Unlike the other patriarchs before him, Enoch receives special mention. Per LXX-G, he ‘pleased’ (&&) God, which, while expressed differently, means the same thing as the MT’s he ‘walked with’ (#) God. As a result, Enoch does not die. Rather, after living 365 years, he was ‘not found’ (  &.  ) because God ‘transferred’ (μ#& ) him. Again, LXX-G’s wording diers from the MT. It adds ‘found’ to the MT’s ‘he was not’ and describes God as ‘transferring’ him rather than ‘taking’ him. Although both texts portray Enoch as an exceptional individual whose life span is shorter than his forefathers, LXX-G’s use of μ#&  implies a changed state and thus is more descriptive than the MT’s ‘take.’ Drawing on the idea of a changed state, some later writers used μ#&μ

to refer to repentance. Nothing further is said about Enoch in the biblical texts. However, postbiblical Jewish literature portrays him as a heroic gure with special knowledge of heavenly secrets (Sarna 1989, 43) and an exemplar of repentance (Wevers 1993, 72). Enoch, the shortest lived of the patriarchs, fathers Mathousala who has the longest life, 969 years. ALEX diers from other Greek manuscripts in Mathousala’s age when he fathered Lamech (187 years, rather than 167 years) and the number of years after fathering Lamech (782 years, rather than 802). Nevertheless, the total number of years in all LXX-G manuscripts is 969. This LXX-G lifespan, however, posed a problem for Josephus and the early church fathers who calculated that he would have survived the ood – a feat that conicted with later pronouncements (e.g., 6:18 and 7:23) that Noah (Ne) and his family were the only survivors (Hendel

260

COMMENTARY

1998, 61–64). He in turn fathers Lamech, who according to this genealogy, fathers Noah. His special role in the story becomes apparent when the narrator reports the meaning of his name. This one, per LXX-G, will give us rest from our work. This would presume that the verb on which his name and its explanation were based in the MT was the hiphil of the verb  . However, this is not the case. As Wevers comments, the explanatory etiology and etymology in the MT is incorrect. He goes on to say that LXX-G either corrected the etymology or had a dierent parent text with the correct verb (1993, 73–74). See also Westermann who similarly characterizes LXX-G’s text as an “improvement” over the MT (1984, 360) and Sarna who maintains that the MT’s wordplay is based on a similarity of sound, not on etymology (1989, 44). Not only will Noah provide rest from work, he will also provide rest from the ‘pain’ ($!0) of our hands and from the earth that Lord God ‘cursed’ ( &* ). The words ‘pain’ and ‘curse’ echo the punishments that Lord God inicted on Noah’s most ancient forebears (3:16, 17). Thus, Noah’s fate would seem to mitigate the severity of the man’s punishment. That, however, will not prove to be the case. 6:1–8 What serves in the MT as the conclusion of Chapter 5’s genealogy introduces Noah’s story in LXX-G. Unlike the genealogical notes associated with Noah’s ancestors that included the name of only the rstborn son, this lists the names of three sons, Shem (Sem), Ham (Cham), Japheth (Iapheth). Yet, as soon as they are introduced to the story, they and their father disappear until later. Instead, the narrator provides the necessary theological background for their family story. Humans are carrying out God’s instructions to be fruitful and multiply and are bearing beautiful daughters. Thus, the human world seems in accordance with God’s overall blessing. However, adopting a common motif in the ancient world, the narrator continues by relating that ‘the angels of God’ ( F 4$  " # ") breached the separation between the human and divine worlds and took wives for themselves from among the beautiful earth women. ALEX and other Greek manuscripts in its family identify the transgressors as ‘angels’ of God, rather than ‘the sons of God’ ( F !F   " # ") in other Greek manuscript traditions including Wevers’ reconstructed text and the MT (). As such, ALEX clearly demonstrates an interpretive rendering of a phrase that has generated signicant controversy. Westermann surveys four of the major explanations for the original Hebrew phrase: that the phrase refers to humans; that the phrase refers to angels as a type of semi-divine being; that the phrase refers to

GENESIS 6:1–8

261

a degraded or lesser type of angel; and that the phrase refers to beings in the divine realm who are associates of God and members of the divine council addressed by God in Chapter 1 (1984, 371–372). In his opinion, the last explanation is the one most accepted, while the “angel explanation” is no longer considered valid. Twentieth century scholarship aside, ALEX and those following it perhaps knew of the Enochian tradition (Enoch 6:1–2) that combined the terms ‘the angels’ ( F 4$ ) and ‘the sons’ ( F !F ) to represent the transgressors as hybrid creatures. ALEX then retained the former term and omitted the latter, resulting in a text that was the least theologically oensive. All the above explanations except the rst one, however, make what follows more dicult to understand. If the angels or the gods were responsible for transgressing the barriers between the human and the divine realms, why was humanity punished? Indeed, Lord God declares that he will not allow his animating breath to remain ‘in these humans’ (  - #%    ) forever and limits their lifespan to a mere 120 years. Following the genealogy in which most of the antediluvian patriarchs lived to between 700–900 years of age, Lord God’s limitation is severe. LXX-G’s inclusion of the demonstrative adjective ‘these’ to modify humans represents yet another interpretive rendering. By implying that Lord God has restricted the life span only of the ospring of the male angels and female humans, LXX-G at least partially resolved the above question. Humans themselves were not being punished, only the ospring produced as a result of the inappropriate unions (see also Vervenne 1995a, 31). The focus on ‘these’ humans continues with the odd comment about the ‘giants’ () who were on the earth in those days and who continued to reproduce. Unlike the MT that refers to the initial inhabitants as ‘the fallen ones’ () and to the later ospring as ‘heroes’ (), LXX-G assumes that these are the same beings, thus referring to both as giants. ALEX, however, seems to distinguish between the fathers of the rst giants (i.e., the 4$ of v. 1) and the fathers of the later ospring. The former, as indicated in v. 2, were ‘angels of God,’ while the latter are here identied as ‘the sons of God’ ( F !F   " # "). Nevertheless, the focus of this mythological note is on the identity and characteristics of the ospring, not on their paternity. They are described as giants and renowned ‘humans’ (4#  ). Thus, their human aspect is emphasized over their divine aspect. After a brief mythological digression that explains how giants came to exist on the earth, the story returns to presumably “normal” humans.

262

COMMENTARY

These humans, however, thought only evil thoughts so that their resulting deeds multiplied on the earth. Although humans were fullling God’s instructions to be ‘fruitful and multiply,’ they also multiplied what God presumably prohibited. The universality of evil thoughts and deeds is emphasized by the use of ‘all who/everyone’ (7  ) and ‘all the days’ (* + :μ). God responds to the universal human condition by being ‘angry’ (#!μ)#&) that he made humanity. The Greek word #!μ)#& most often refers to a mental state of careful consideration; however, it can also refer to anger or hurt as a result of that reection (LSJ 1968, 567). Anger, however, is quite a dierent emotional response than the MT’s ‘regretted’ ( ). God’s disappointment in the MT is reinforced by the comment that he was ‘grieved in his heart’ (    ). LXX-G, on the other hand, emphasizes God’s cerebral activity when it goes on to say that God ‘pondered’ ((  )#&) about what to do in response to human evil ‘pondering’ ((  - ). Although (contra Wevers 1993, 79) LXXG does not completely eliminate the anthropopathic metaphors of the MT, it portrays God as one who, in righteous anger, reects on his course of action. Then, because of that anger at making humanity, God decides to wipe o everything that was earlier said to be ‘animate beings,’ – humans, domesticated animals, reptiles, and birds – from the face of the earth. Human actions therefore have negative ramications on other creatures. Sadly, rather than having dominion over or responsibility for these other creatures, humans have caused their destruction. But, the narrator reports, Noah found favor before Lord God, a comment that leads to speculation about how and if this man will alter God’s decision. 6:9–12 After an oddly placed sentence that portends to introduce Noah’s genealogy, the narrator continues with additional comments about Noah’s unique character. In stark contrast to his fellow humans, Noah was ‘righteous’ ((  ). Appearing here for the rst time, (   becomes the standard translation of the theologically signicant Hebrew word . One who is  is legally and thus morally ‘right’ before God and one, in Sarna’s words, “whose conduct is found to be beyond reproach by the divine Judge” (1989, 50). Noah is not only righteous, he is also ‘perfect’ ($ ) in his generation. Although a reasonable rendering that describes the moral quality associated with the MT’s ‘blameless’ (), the Greek $  does not become the standard translation of . As a nal, yet somewhat redundant, remark about Noah’s unique and upstanding character, the narrator reports that he, like his ancestor Enoch, pleased God.

GENESIS 6:9–12

263

The quick repetition of Noah’s special place before God (i.e., he found favor [v. 8] and pleased [v. 9] God) is explained by Westermann and others as an indication of a change in the MT’s sources from J (vv. 5–8) to P (vv. 9–22). Also repeated in P’s introduction to the Flood Narrative (6:5–9:17) are the names of Noah’s three sons and God’s displeasure with all esh who corrupted the earth itself as a result of their unrighteousness. Unlike J’s introduction that relates the negative inuence that human behavior had on the other creatures, P’s introduction focuses on the negative repercussions of ‘all esh’ (7 +2) on the earth. Whereas 7 +2 could also refer to the animals, LXX-G claries in the following verse that it is humanity that is at fault. Priestly thought sees human behavior, in a sense, as contagious, so that the earth catches human corruption; thus, like humans, it must be punished and puried. Throughout the rest of the Flood Narrative, material from both J and P is found. Some of the material is repetitive, some is contradictory, and much is told from a dierent perspective. See Westermann (1984, 395–398) for an overview of the sources and their emphases along with charts that show how the material has been divided between the sources. Signicantly, LXX-G does nothing to resolve the seeming inconsistencies caused by dierent sources and shows no more than the usual interpretive renderings. LXX-G, following P, contrasts Noah’s goodness with the depravity of other humans and the earth. Like the MT, it describes the earth as ‘corrupt’ (?#*&/). However, unlike the MT that continues to use , LXX-G uses the compound ?#  throughout the rest of the narrative to emphasize the eects of the corruption, hence ‘destroy(ed).’ Its rendering of the MT’s ‘violence’ (%) with ‘unrighteousness’ ((

) emphasizes even more the contrast between Noah and all other life. As one of the Bible’s foundational stories, the Flood Narrative has motifs similar to ood stories of other cultures. These stories feature a hero who is divinely chosen to survive a cosmic catastrophe inicted on the earth by a deity and who eventually participates with the deity in restoring humankind. Most signicant for the biblical version are the Babylonian Gilgamesh and its earlier version Atrahasis. The major dierences between these accounts and the Bible’s Flood Narrative show the theological and ideological adaptations undertaken by the biblical writers to make Noah’s story, per Sarna, “an authentic, original expression of the religious genius of Israel” (1989, 49). See Sarna (1989, 47–50) for a discussion of the inuence of Mesopotamian accounts on the biblical version and Westermann (1984, 398–406) for a more detailed description of these and other ood accounts. The most signicant dierences between

264

COMMENTARY

the Mesopotamian versions and the biblical version will appear below, as will the dierences within the biblical account itself. 6:13–22 God addresses Noah and explains what is about to happen and what Noah needs to do in response. He begins by stating that the ‘designated time’ (  ) of all humanity has arrived. Although not the rst occurrence of the Greek word  , it is the rst time that it refers to an event beyond the scope of its basic meaning of ‘time’ or ‘season.’ Rather, here and elsewhere throughout Genesis, the word   denotes a special, critical, or designated time (as translated here) when something out of the ordinary is about to occur, and which, as Harl comments, often reects divine intervention in human history (1994, 130). As such, its use here parallels the more extraordinary sense of the Hebrew word  , which, according to Sarna, typically refers to a “set term” or the completion of a particular period of time that often connotes doom. It later became a “key term in the vocabulary of Jewish eschatology, the doctrine of a violent and radical change in the direction of history that brings an end to one era and signals the regeneration of humanity” (1989, 51). Because this is the only place in Genesis that reects the extraordinary nature associated with both the Hebrew  and the Greek  , it is the only place in Genesis where LXX-G renders  with  . The four other occurrences of  are in contexts where it means ‘end’ in a less radical sense (4:3; 8:6; 16:3; 41:1) and are thus rendered by the Greek ‘after’ (μ*). The Greek word   occurs twelve other times in Genesis and translates several dierent Hebrew words including  (‘time,’ e.g., 18:10), 

 (‘appointed time,’ 1:14), and   (‘occurrence,’ e.g., 30:20). Despite the parallel between LXX-G and MT regarding the extraordinary nature of God’s plan, LXX-G nevertheless renders what Westermann characterizes as a dicult Hebrew text (1984, 415–416) somewhat dierently. The designated time of which God is speaking, per LXX-G, is his imminent destruction of humanity and the earth itself. Although the narrator had just reported the unrighteousness and destruction of the earth because of ‘all esh’ (7 +2, v. 12), God is now specically indicting ‘humanity’ (#% !), rather than the MT’s repeated ‘all esh’ ( ). However, God takes Noah’s extraordinary righteousness into account and directly informs Noah of his intentions. By contrast, the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh gives no reason why Noah’s counterpart Utnapishtim was chosen by Ea, and Ea only makes the plan known to Utnapishtim. However, the two accounts converge with the deity’s instructions to build a boat to avoid the upcoming destruction, which is said to be a deluge in Gilgamesh

GENESIS 6:13–22

265

but is not described as a ood until later in the biblical account. What Noah is told to build is an ‘ark’ (  /). Although both the Hebrew and Greek words are more literally rendered as ‘box’ or ‘chest,’ the more common translation ‘ark’ is appropriate in LXX-G. Whereas the same Hebrew word later refers to the basket in which Moses was placed (Exod. 2:3, 5) the Greek   later refers to the so-called ‘ark of the covenant’ (Harl 1994, 131). God continues by providing Noah precise building specications for the ark, which includes its composition materials (squared, i.e., nished, wood), nishing (pitch on the inside and out), dimensions (300 cubits long, fty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high), shape (three levels that narrow on the top), and inclusions (nests and a side door). By now, Noah must be wondering why God is telling him to make such a big ark. He nds out when God nally reveals that he will bring a ood of water on the earth to destroy ‘all esh.’ Although God in LXXG had just complained about the unrighteousness of humanity, now he expands the destruction to include all esh under heaven that has the breath of life. God also describes what that destruction entails, i.e., death. God continues by telling Noah that he plans to ‘establish my covenant’ ()  ( #) & μ !) with him. This is the rst occurrence of the signicant Hebrew Bible term ‘covenant’ (). LXX-G rendered it here with ( #) &, which became its standard translation. According to Wevers, the translator did not choose the usual Greek word for covenant, i.e., !#) &, because the prex ‘with’ () “implied partners setting up an agreement together.” Instead he chose ( #) &, which “meant ‘testament, will,’ thus a word in which only the testator determines the terms, and the relationship ows basically in one direction” (1993, 86). What does change throughout Genesis is the verb used with the covenant. Here God promises to ‘establish’ () ) a covenant, as he does in 9:11; 17:7; 17:19; and 17:21. However, God neither explains what a covenant is nor the terms of the agreement. Instead, he gives Noah instructions as to whom and what he will take with him on the ark. In addition to his immediate family (sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives), he is to take two of each (male and female) of the domesticated animals, of the wild animals, of the reptiles, and of all esh. LXX-G thus elaborates on the MT’s ‘from all that lives, all esh’ by explaining specically which land animals are to be included. It also interprets God’s order in the MT to keep these animals alive with the instruction to ‘sustain’ (?A) them, i.e., to provide them food and nourishment. In so doing, God could be showing Noah a positive image of human rule over the other creatures. God goes on to add birds to the animals that Noah is to take on the ark with

266

COMMENTARY

him and expands the list to include a male and female from every animal species. God concludes his instructions by telling Noah to take from all the food that was to be eaten, which per 1:29, is essentially a vegetarian diet of herbage and fruit. Like Adam, Noah says nothing in response to God’s incredible speech. However, unlike Adam, he does everything the way that Lord God commanded. 7:1–9 God now instructs the 600-year old Noah and his house to enter the ark and nally tells Noah that it is Noah’s righteousness that caused God to select him from all others in his generation. God also gives Noah more detailed and seemingly dierent instructions about the animals that he is to take on the ark with him. As God dictated earlier (6:19), Noah is to take the male and female of the domesticated animals and birds. However, this number applies only to unclean animals. God now tells him to take seven males and females from among the clean animals. Also, as earlier, God tells Noah about the upcoming ood, but now tells him when it will happen (i.e., in seven days) and for how long (i.e., forty days and forty nights). God also seems to expand what is to be destroyed to include not just ‘all esh,’ but also everything that he made. This presumably includes land and vegetation as well as animal life. Noah again is the model of obedience, doing everything that God tells him. He and his immediate family enter the ark. The animals also come on board, but precisely which animals diers between the MT and LXX. Even the LXX manuscripts do not agree. Its awkward syntax aside, ALEX could be read as including two of the birds and domesticated animals that are clean and two of the domesticated animals and birds that are not clean. MT and all other LXX texts agree that Noah is also to take two from the reptiles of the earth, despite the fact that God did not include them earlier in his same speech. Even more perplexing is the complete disregard of God’s instruction that seven pairs of clean animals were to be on the ark. This discrepancy seems to contradict the oft-repeated statement that Noah did everything just as God had commanded. 7:10–16 God was true to his word; seven days later the ood began. At this point, the narrator retells part of the story in somewhat dierent language. Source critics such as Westermann attribute the repetition to a change of sources from J, who was responsible for the material in vv. 1–10, to P in v. 11 (1984, 431). Accordingly, P oers a rather mythic version of the beginning of the ood. Water broke out of the bottomless deep, and the rmament that separated the waters opened. In a sense, the cosmos

GENESIS 7:10–16 & 7:17–24

267

was returning to its original condition, and creation was being undone. On this day, P continues, Noah and his family and the animals entered the ark. However, P’s description of the passengers is somewhat dierent. Not only does he include the name of Noah’s sons, but he also reverts to the language he used in the previous chapter to describe the animals. Thus, the animals are categorized by species, rather than by J’s distinction between clean and unclean. In addition, P again uses the phrases ‘all esh’ and ‘breath of life’ that were among the characteristics that God used to describe the extent of the destruction (6:17). Despite the seeming dierences and excessive repetition, the conation of material from the two sources serves to emphasize the disastrous eects of the ood waters. When all are on board, God closes the ark. This, per Sarna, contrasts with the Mesopotamian parallel that reports Utnapishtim shut the door. Thus, the biblical account “is careful to note that the salvation of Noah is solely due to divine will, not to any independent measures of his own” (1989, 55). 7:17–24 The ood rages for forty days and nights, getting progressively worse. The waters were not only ‘multiplying’ ($&##&), but they were ‘prevailing’ ( * ). As Wevers notes, LXX-G narrates the event more dramatically. Its use of imperfect verbs emphasizes, in Wevers’ words, “the advance of the ood in intensity” (1993, 97). Waters that are ‘multiplying’ have a more active force than that implied in their rather static description as ‘very great’ (  ) in the MT. However, the MT’s other description of the water as ‘strong’ () has the same connotation as LXX-G’s  * in portraying the waters as winning their battle with life on the earth. Furthermore, MT continues to use  to describe the force of the waters in vv. 20 and 24. LXX-G, on the other hand, describes the waters more benignly with the passive verb ‘was raised up’ (.6%#&). In so doing, LXX-G could be taking away some of the active power of the water by implying God’s involvement in their activity. The ark survives by oating above the water, but the high mountains become submerged under fteen cubits of water and all esh moving on the earth dies. The magnitude of the ood’s destruction continues to be emphasized by the narrator’s detailed and repetitive description of the extent of death. ‘All esh’ includes birds, domesticated and wild animals, reptiles, and humans. All esh is then furthered dened as everything with the breath of life. Yet, the phrase ‘all that were on the dry ground’ seems to exclude marine life. This exclusion pertains to the next description of destruction, which repeats nearly verbatim what God told Noah

268

COMMENTARY

would happen (v. 4), namely the wiping away of humans, domesticated animals, reptiles, and birds. By this point in the narrative, there is no doubt that every living creature on the face of the earth was wiped away. Only Noah and those with him in the ark are explicitly said to be spared. Although the rain stopped after forty days and nights, the ooding of the water over the earth continued for 150 days. 8:1–5 After the repetitive narration of the severity of the ood and its devastating impact on all esh, the story takes a positive turn for Noah and all who were with him on the ark. LXX-G continues its tendency to be more detailed than the MT by mentioning the birds and reptiles in addition to the wild and domesticated animals. When God remembers the ark’s inhabitants, he makes the water abate by bringing a ‘wind’ ("μ) upon the earth. His action alludes to the pre-creation environment in which his ‘breath’ ("μ) oated over the bottomless deep and immediately preceded the coming into being of light and life. Now God’s "μ calms the waters of chaos and repairs the breached rmament so that it would again hold back the destructive waters. After their ‘prevailing’ ( * ) over creation for 150 days (7:18, 19), the waters now are ‘giving up’ ((( !) so that the ark can ‘settle’ ( *# ) on top of the Ararat mountains. LXX-G again chooses unusual words to render the MT’s portrayal of the waters and the ark. Instead of the MT’s description that the waters ‘were receding’ ( ) and eventually ‘diminished’ ( %), LXX-G characterizes the waters in both parts of the verse as ‘giving up.’ In so doing, it provides a striking contrast between their earlier ‘prevailing’ and their eventual ‘giving up.’ Thus, LXX-G uses more anthropomorphic language to describe the waters. It also gives the ark a more human-like quality in its rendering of the MT’s ‘came to rest’ () with ‘settled’ ( *# ), a verb that elsewhere in Genesis has only human subjects (e.g., Hagar in 21:16 and Joseph’s brothers in 37:25). All this happens, per LXX-G, on the twenty-seventh (cf. MT’s seventeenth) of the seventh month. The waters continue to abate until the tenth month, so that on the rst day of the eleventh month, per LXX-G (cf. MT’s tenth month), the tops of the mountains appear. 8:6–14 Forty days later, Noah opens the window of the ark to release the raven. Compared with his Mesopotamian counterpart Utnapishtim who releases a dove after only seven days, Noah was either more careful or perhaps waiting for God to open the door that he closed. The raven’s role, assumed in the MT but explicitly stated in LXX-G, was to see if the

GENESIS 8:6–14 & 8:15–22

269

water had abated. Unlike its MT counterpart that went back and forth, the LXX-G raven does not return until it can positively report that the earth had dried out. Presumably tired of waiting for the raven’s return and report, Noah sends a dove out after it, whose mission also is to see if the water had abated. Unlike the raven, the dove returns to Noah because it, like its Mesopotamian counterpart, could not nd a dry resting place. When Noah sees the dove return, he stretches out his hand and brings it into the ark with him. In so doing, Noah shows the compassionate way to rule over the creatures that God had required of humans. Many other commentators have also noted the “charm of the picture,” which Westermann further describes as “a relationship of trust between animals and humans,” both of which are “creatures of God” (1984, 448). Seven days later, Noah again sends out the dove, which, like the third birds in other ood accounts, nds dry land. Remarkably, the dove knows enough to return to Noah with a ‘dry’ ( *? ) olive leaf in its mouth. Although fanciful, the dove’s act again portrays the mutually benecial relationship between humans and other creatures that was part of God’s original plan for the world. That the leaf was dry convinced Noah that the water had abated from the earth. Nevertheless, Noah waits yet another seven days before again sending out the dove. This time, it does not return to him, thus signaling that the ood waters had subsided enough to allow pre-ood life and existence to return. Not quite a year later, the ood waters are reported to be disappearing. On the rst day of the rst month of Noah’s six hundred and rst year, Noah uncovers the roof of the ark and can now see the waters ‘disappearing’ (2$ ). ALEX’s use of the imperfect ‘was disappearing,’ rather than the majority reading ‘disappeared,’ parallels the continued use of the imperfect in its narration of the increasing intensity of the ood. See above. As such, it is both contextually and narratively more appropriate (contra Wevers 1993, 108). It took nearly a year for the waters to inundate the earth; they will not disappear all at once. Indeed, it took nearly two months for the land to be dried out completely. 8:15–22 After nearly a year, Lord God again talks to Noah, instructing him to leave the ark along with his family and the same animals he was told to bring with him (6:18–20). However, LXX-G’s rendering of the list of animals is rather awkward. There seem to be three categories of animals: wild animals, all esh (from birds to domesticated animals), and all reptiles. God then commands Noah to ‘increase and multiply,’ words that echo God’s rst imperative (1:28) and thus signal a new beginning. The

270

COMMENTARY

fact that these are plural imperatives could mean, as Wevers surmises, that God is commanding all life – human and other animate beings – to reproduce (1993, 109). Wevers also provides compelling explanations for the many dierences between LXX-G and the pre-MT consonantal text. Remarkably, the MT text of v. 17b shows God only speaking of the other animals, where by means of three jussive verbs, God is saying ‘let them swarm (missing in LXX-G completely), be fruitful, and multiply.’ Only later in the MT will God issue the same instruction to Noah (9:1). Noah, as God commands, disembarks from the ark with his family and all the other animals according to species. Unlike v. 17 where LXX-G’s dierences from the MT are awkward, here LXX-G oers what Westermann refers to as a “smoother text” (1984, 452; see also Wevers [1993, 109–110] for his analysis). Noah’s rst act on earth is to build an ‘altar’(#! ) ) to God and, like other heroes who survive the ood, he oers sacrices in response to being saved from the disaster that killed all other life. Returning to J’s distinction between clean and unclean animals, LXX-G reports that from the clean domesticated animals and birds, he oered a ‘sacrice’ (,$ % ) on the altar. Both Greek words #! )  and ,$ %  are used here for the rst time. As Wevers notes, the word for ‘altar’ (#! ) ) was not attested earlier in Greek. Yet, it was an apt rendering of the Hebrew , both of which mean ‘a place for sacrice.’ As was the case with LXX-G’s use of #! to render  in 4:3, the word is an odd choice to represent the Hebrew  , which refers to a holocaust or burnt oering. Etymologically, the word ,$ %  would mean ‘whole’ (,$ ) ‘fruit oering’ ( % ). Yet, here and occasionally elsewhere, it refers to a whole burnt animal oering (Wevers 1993, 110– 111). In the context of the story thus far, it would seem more consistent with Noah’s regard for the animals – and God’s demand to sustain the animals (6:20) – for him to oer whole fruit oerings. Nevertheless, the immediate context makes it clear that the sacrice that Noah oers is whole burnt animals. God also appears to approve of the sacrice. After smelling a sweet odor, Lord God ‘ponders’ ((  &#) and makes a far ranging decision to never again curse the earth because of human action. His earlier pondering in response to humans’ evil pondering (6:5–6) caused him to destroy all creation; now it causes him to vow to never do it again. Lord God’s response to the sweet smell of burnt esh has, per Westermann, scandalized interpreters because of the pagan association of the anthropomorphic description. He goes on to note that “the same image occurs in the

GENESIS 8:15–22 & 9:1–7

271

same context in Gilg. XI: ‘The gods smelled the savor, the gods crowded like ies around the sacricer’ ” (1984, 454). As a result, many such as Sarna (1989, 59) and Westermann himself argue that the reference to God’s smelling the sweetness of the sacrice had lost its literal meaning and merely served as a formal way of graciously acknowledging the acceptability of the sacrice. Alter, on the other hand, comments that the biblical writers had “no diculty in conceiving God enjoying the aroma of burnt oerings.” He goes on to concede, however, that what is “excluded from the monotheistic version of the story is any suggestion that God eats the sacrice.” As a result, God is not portrayed like the Mesopotamian gods who are dependent on humans for food (1996, 36). The reason Lord God gives for not cursing the earth because of humans is his realization that humans are inclined only to evil matters from their youth. The word ( *  refers generally to the human mind and connotes ‘purpose,’ ‘intention,’ and ‘inclination.’ As such, God is acknowledging that the human’s very being is rooted in evil. This admission is a painful reminder of how far humans have devolved from their initial state of being created in God’s image. Nevertheless, God is once again portrayed as a loving parent who changes in response to a realistic evaluation of his children. God may not like human inclinations, but he is committed to their continued existence. Not only will he not curse the earth because of human behavior, he will not strike all living esh (human and animal) as he had just done. God concludes his reection with a positive statement about the regularity of the post-ood world. Seed and harvest, cold and heat, summer and spring – none of these will ever again come to an end. This decision that God ponders “invokes no external signs, only the seamless cycle of the seasons that will continue as long as the earth” (Alter 1996, 37). 9:1–7 As evidence of a new beginning, God repeats to Noah and his sons the imperative blessing to ‘increase and multiply and ll the earth’ that he demanded of the humans created in his image at the end of the sixth day of creation (1:28). This, as Sarna notes, contrasts with the deities’ post-ood decree of sterility in Atrahasis so as to avoid the overpopulation problem that resulted in the ood (1989, 60). LXX-G adds the phrase ‘and exercise dominion over it’ (i.e., the earth) to God’s instruction and thus makes the parallel with the rst creation more complete. Unfortunately this new beginning is marked by a reversal of the mutual relationship between humans and other creatures. Whereas God’s original plan was for humans and other creatures to share a vegetarian diet, his new

272

COMMENTARY

plan declares that other creatures can, along with vegetables, be food for humans. Curiously, LXX-G follows the MT and species only living ‘reptiles’ (5) as food, despite the fact the previous verse comments on the trembling and fear of humans that all animals – wild, domesticated, birds, and sh – will now have. Furthermore, the following verse refers to ‘meat’ in general. As such, it is likely that all animals were now allowed to be human food. There is, however, one restriction to the human carnivorous diet. Meat that still has living blood may not be eaten. In other words, the blood must be drained completely before the esh is consumed, a restriction that is reected in kosher dietary laws (Westermann 1984, 469; Sarna 1989, 60–61). This and the following restrictions would become the basis of several of seven so-called “Noachide Laws” that are thought to be a universal post-ood moral code. These laws prohibit idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, incest and adultery, robbery, eating esh before its blood is drained, and a positive command to establish courts of law (Sarna 1989, 377). God’s prohibition against bloodshed follows immediately, and like the dietary restriction, deals with ‘life blood’ (Oμ 6!). Having already put modest limits on killing animals for food, God now (re)establishes the sanctity of human life by demanding an accounting of human bloodshed by animals and by other humans. The accounting God demands is a life for a life. Although the penalty for animals killing humans is not enunciated until the casuistic “goring ox” legislation (Exod. 21:28), the penalty for humans who take the life of other humans immediately follows when God declares, per LXX-G, ‘the one who spills blood of a human, for his blood it will be spilled.’ Although based on its MT counterpart, LXX-G’s rendering has very dierent implications. The MT states: ‘the one who spills the blood of the human, by the human () his blood will be spilled.’ This, as Wevers points out, “is obvious nonsense” (1993, 115) because it implies that humans are the only ones who can revenge the blood of their fellow humans. God can also participate in retributive justice. What Wevers does not go on to say is that the MT seems to endorse capital punishment and the death penalty. Sarna, in fact, interprets the Hebrew text as divine sanction of capital punishment. However, he also describes the ways by which rabbinic sources make it dicult to carry out capital punishment. He goes on to explain that the Hebrew phrase ‘by the human’ refers to the establishment of a judiciary to mete out punishment (1989, 61–62). Johan Lust, however, proposes to read the MT’s , not ‘by’ the man, but ‘for the man.’ Following J. Pedersen and C. Brockelmann, he under-

GENESIS 9:1–7 & 9:8–17

273

stands the preposition  to be a -pretti meaning ‘for’ or ‘because of.’ By so doing, he maintains that 9:6 still reects the principle of talion, but does not “dene the identity of the executioner of the punishment” (1991, 95). He goes on to argue that this, in fact, was how LXX-G interpreted the Hebrew text. The translator, he maintains, identied both the ‘man’ and the ‘blood’ in the second line with their antecedents in the rst line, and understood the Hebrew to read ‘whoever sheds the blood of man, for that man (that is for) his blood, it (that is the blood of the murderer) is to be poured forth’ (1991, 98–99). To avoid repetitive phrasing and to smooth the grammatical construction, the “translator replaced ‘for the man his blood’ by ‘for his blood’ ” (1991, 99). Lust concludes by showing that the translator made a similar translation decision in the previous verse. The LXX-G translation, therefore, not only implies that God also can avenge human bloodshed, but more importantly does not mandate human retributive justice by means of the death penalty. In both MT and LXX-G, the reason God gives for instituting retributive justice is the fact that he made (LXX-G corrects to ‘I made’ [ &]) humans in God’s image. Many commentators read this, like Sarna, as a reference to the sanctity of human life. In his words, “the fact that every human being bears the stamp of the divine Maker” permits the execution of murderers because their “unspeakable act eaces the divine image in his victim and within himself as well” (1989, 62; see also Westermann 1984, 468–469). Yet, being made in God’s image could also authorize humans to act in the place of God. God concludes his blessing on Noah and his sons by repeating, with some variation, what he said at the beginning of his speech. Emphasizing the masculine plural addressees (.μ-), God demands that they be fruitful and multiply and ll the earth. However, instead of the additional LXX-G requirement in v. 1 to ‘exercise lordship over it,’ here God reinforces his order to multiply by repeating the imperative to ‘multiply on the earth’ ($&##   ). In the biblical post-ood world where Noah and his family were the only living humans, God’s emphasis on reproducing and lling the world would be necessary. In today’s world already overpopulated, God’s command must be reinterpreted so that human life can continue to live in harmony with the earth. 9:8–17 After instituting foundational laws against bloodshed and commanding Noah and his sons to begin to repopulate the earth, God continues his address to Noah and his sons by providing more specic details about the covenant that he earlier told Noah he was going to establish

274

COMMENTARY

(6:18). Here God declares he is ‘raising up’ (&μ ) a covenant, a verb with a slightly stronger force than its previous simpler form () ), i.e., ‘establish.’ In fact, this is the only place where LXX-G renders the MT’s hiphil of  with &μ . Harl, citing Chrysostom, suggests that the prex  could indicate a renewal of the earlier covenant (1994, 141). Furthermore, the covenant is ‘for [all of ] you’ (.μ-). LXX-G’s use of the dative of advantage without a specic preposition as in 6:18 (where the preposition  means ‘with,’ as does the MT’s  in both verses), implies that this covenant is for their benet. The language, both here and in what follows, shows that this covenant would be comparable to what Moshe Weineld characterizes as a royal grant bestowed by a ruler on someone on the basis of his previous loyalty (1970, 185). Although God is addressing Noah and his sons, he is raising up the covenant for their ospring, and even more signicantly, for ‘every animate being’ (*A 6! %A) with them. These animate beings include birds as well as both domesticated animals and wild animals, i.e., all those that came o the ark with them. Why the reptiles are omitted is unclear. God goes on to describe the terms of the covenant he is establishing with all of them. Here the language parallels that of 6:18, but its singular ‘you’ () is now extended to include ‘[all of ] you’ (.μ-). Despite the inclusion of the preposition ‘with,’ it is clear that it is and can only be God who can keep the terms of the covenant. He makes a two-fold promise: (1) that ‘all esh’ (7 +2), presumably including reptiles, will not die again in a ood, and (2) that the earth itself will not be destroyed by ood waters. In other words, God will never again destroy any part of his created world by means of a ood. This, of course, would allow him to destroy creation by other means, but this seeming loophole is never challenged. God continues by informing Noah of the ‘sign’ (&μ- ) of the covenant, which he now states he is ‘granting’ ((( μ ) Noah and every animate being with him. LXX-G’s use of (( μ , like its Hebrew counterpart , reinforces the gift-like unilateral nature of this covenant. Furthermore, the unnecessary use of the rst person pronoun  emphasizes that God himself is granting the gift of covenant. Signicantly, this is the only place where LXX-G uses the verb ‘grant,’ although MT uses  again at 17:2. Not only is God’s grant eective for Noah and all living beings with him, it will also continue into eternal generations (3 + 3  !), i.e., forever. Thus, God’s rst covenant is truly universal and unilateral. Even the sign of the covenant so attests. God is placing his ‘bow’ (2 ) in the cloud(s), an act that only God can do. The Greek 2 , like the Hebrew  , can refer to the bow that launches an arrow. As such, it would be considered a

GENESIS 9:8–17

275

weapon, which as Sarna notes, is found frequently in ANE mythology. For example, the Enuma Elish hero Marduk puts the bow with which he had defeated and dismembered his mother Tiamat in the sky as a constellation. Similarly, Babylonian astronomers identied stars in the shape of a bow with a war goddess. Even the Bible itself most often uses  to refer to a weapon. As a result, Sarna argues that its use here shows that this “symbol of divine bellicosity and hostility has been transformed into a token of reconciliation between God and man” (1993, 63). Westermann, on the other hand, completely rejects this image of God hanging up his weapon. With B. Jacob, he maintains that the word means ‘rainbow’ when used, as here, with the phrase ‘in the cloud.’ As such, the word is merely referring to the natural phenomenon after a rain or thunderstorm (1984, 473). Its literary context makes Westermann’s argument more convincing, especially when God repeats that his bow will be seen in the clouds. After God identies the bow as the sign of his covenant the rst time, he describes it as representing the covenant between him and the earth. Thus he now includes the earth as another part of the created world that benets from his covenant. Even more signicantly, God declares the purpose of the bow seen in the clouds. It will remind him of the covenant, the parties it includes, and the promise it represents. That God needs a visual reminder of his promise to never wipe away all esh suggests that human behavior will, in the future, make him want to wipe away all esh again. In other words, God has come to acknowledge that humans will continue to disappoint him in ways that will warrant their destruction. Nevertheless, God is determined to prevent himself from doing so, by ood, by putting his bow in the cloud. The importance of this, the rst and most universal of God’s covenants, is highlighted by God’s repetition of the sign, terms, and parties of his covenant. In his nal declaration of the covenant, God uses yet another verb to describe his covenantal action. When he rst mentioned the covenant to Noah, God announced that he was going to ‘establish’ () ) a covenant. When he rst addressed Noah and his sons to describe the terms of the covenant, he said he was ‘raising up’ (&μ ) the covenant. Now as part of his nal words on the subject, God refers to what he just did as having ‘contracted’ (( #μ&) a covenant. Because the Greek verb ( #)μ is cognate with the noun for ‘covenant’ (( #) &), it should be rendered in a way that acknowledges the basic function of a covenant, i.e., a contractual agreement or settlement between several parties. Thus  ( #) & P ( #μ& is best translated as ‘the covenant that I contracted.’ This is the only place in Genesis where the Hebrew hiphil verb  is rendered

276

COMMENTARY

with ( #μ&. In its only other occurrence,  is rendered with some form of the verb O&μ (6:18; 9:9, 11, 17; 17:7, 19, 21). Most often, the Greek phrase ‘contract a covenant’ (( # ( #) &) translates the Hebrew phrase ‘cut a covenant’ ( ), a translation that misses the signicance of the “cut up” animals that is at the heart of the Hebrew idiom. Signicantly, with the exception of 15:18 and this verse, ( # is used only in the contexts of human-initiated political treaties (21:27, 32; 26:28, and 31:44), instead of God-initiated moral treaties. 9:18–28 After God’s magnanimous declaration, the story continues with an abbreviated genealogy of the new rst family that is to increase and multiply on the earth. Of Noah’s three sons, only Ham’s son’s name is reported. Nevertheless, the following comment that from these, i.e., Noah’s sons, they were scattered over all the earth makes it clear that Shem and Japheth also obeyed God’s command to multiply. The identity of the ospring of the other two brothers, as well as those of Ham and his son Canaan (Chanaan), will be detailed later. However, the narrative focus on Ham and Canaan sets the stage for their role in what immediately follows. Noah, per LXX-G, is said to be the rst tiller ( ) of the earth, an etiological comment that raises questions. Cain would seem the more obvious person to rst farm the earth. Even the MT could be read the same way. Both texts go on to report that he planted a vineyard. Westermann, however, proposes a syntactic reading of the MT that makes Noah the rst one, not to be a man of the soil, but to plant a vineyard (1984, 487). As such, he is credited with expanding beyond simple agriculture and introducing viticulture. Wevers maintains that LXX-G can be read the same way (1993, 122). Harl, however, oers a simpler solution by observing that the word ( ) used to describe Noah as a ‘tiller’ of the earth distinguishes his activity from that of Cain who was merely a ‘worker’ (μ ) of the earth (1994, 142). More important to the present context is his making of wine from the grapes of his vineyard. The comment alludes back to 5:29, where the meaning of Noah’s name connotes ‘rest’ from the pain associated with post-garden agriculture. In Westermann’s words, “over and above the toil of the farmer to produce the necessities of life, it (viticulture) yields a product that brings joy and relaxation. The rhythm of work and celebration demands that the celebration be the high point; festivity supercedes daily drudgery” (1984, 487). Noah, unfortunately, celebrates too much and gets drunk from the wine. In and of itself, drunkenness would not be a problem. However, he

GENESIS 9:18–28

277

was left naked (!μ%#&) in his house. LXX-G’s rendering of the Hebrew ‘exposed himself,’ (), i.e., became naked, with the passive form, rather than the middle form, of !μ has a slightly dierent implication. Rather than undressing himself, LXX-G’s Noah appears to have been undressed and left naked by someone else. This complicates an already problematic situation narrated in the MT, as discussed below. On the other hand, LXX-G’s description of Noah’s residence as a ‘house’ ( Q B), rather than the MT’s ‘tent’ (), could imply a situation where Noah might have expected a little more privacy. That he was naked and had no privacy leads to disastrous consequences. The trouble begins when ‘Cham, the father of Chanaan, saw the nakedness (μ  /  ) of his father.’ LXX-G’s rendering of the Hebrew term   , per Wevers, is a literal one. From the root  , the term   refers to Noah’s pudenda (1993, 123). Both Harl (1994, 142) and Marc Vervenne (1995b, 46), however, maintain that the more common translation of  

would have been ‘pudenda’ (&μ &), as employed by both Aquila and Symmachus and throughout Leviticus. The term &μ & has an explicitly sexual meaning, whereas the term μ   is more neutral. As such, Vervenne argues that “it is quite conceivable that the Greek translator replaced the erotically charged terminology &μ & (pudenda) with μ   in order to focus on the typical Hellenistic theme of ‘nakedness, nudity’ and thereby to express his reservations about the cult of the body” (1995b, 46). Even a toned down literal reading of the sentence implicates both father and son; Noah for the social disgrace of nakedness, and Ham for seeing his father naked. Nevertheless, the curse of enslavement and subjugation to his brothers that Noah declares on Canaan not only seems out of proportion to the act, but seems to punish the son for his father’s behavior. In response to the latter problem, some commentators on the Hebrew text suggest that two traditions (one about Ham and one about Canaan) were pieced together. Others propose textual emendations (Westermann 1984, 482–485). However, it is the idea that the punishment does not t the crime that is most debated. As a result, some propose that Ham did more than just see his father naked. Rabbinic sources in the Babylonian Talmud dier: Rab claimed that Ham castrated his father, and Samuel maintained that he sodomized him (Sarna 1989, 66; Vervenne 1995b, 34–35). Frederick Bassett argues that ‘to see someone’s nakedness’ was an idiomatic reference to sexual intercourse. Although he acknowledges that sexual intercourse is more often rendered by the phrase ‘to uncover the nakedness’ of someone, the fact that the two phrases were used in

278

COMMENTARY

parallel in Lev. 17:20 suggests an interchangeable meaning. He goes on to argue that ‘to see a man’s nakedness’ means to have sexual relations with his wife. Therefore, what Ham did was have intercourse with his mother, an incestuous union that produced Canaan, who “bears Noah’s curse of slavery, because he is the fruit of Ham’s incest” (1971, 235). Westermann and others, however, argue for the more literal reading, based primarily on what follows. After seeing his father’s nakedness, Ham goes ‘outside’ (2$#R, added by LXX-G) and reports to his two brothers. That Ham does not immediately cover his father’s nakedness instead of going out to tell his brothers is the real crime (Westermann 1984, 488; see also Ross 1980, 230–231). Shem and Japheth, on the other hand, do the right thing. They take the garment, and in a very awkward but honorable way, put it over their backs, walk while looking backwards, and cover their father’s nakedness without seeing what they should not see. That they take the garment (articulated in both MT [ ] and LXX-G [ Fμ* ]), not just a garment, implies that Ham took his father’s garment when he went outside (Ross 1980, 231), thus exacerbating his crime (but cf. Wevers [1993, 123] who maintains that despite the articulation,  Fμ*  means ‘a’ garment, an outer cloak also used as a bedspread). LXXG’s use of !μ%#&, as discussed above, tends to support Ross’s claim. LXX-G’s interpretive translation continues with its assertion that the two other sons walk, per Wevers (1993, 123), ‘looking backwards’ (S # ?), and thus depicts them as even more modest than their MT counterparts. Walking backwards, as MT, would likely prevent them from seeing their father when they go to cover him. Looking backwards, both as they walk and when they cover their father, emphasizes the fact that they are intentionally looking the other way. LXX, imitating the MT, departs from the typical word order by putting the verb ‘do not see’ at the end of the sentence. As such, it prolongs the suspense of whether they will successfully “not see” their father’s nakedness and grammatically contrasts them with Ham whose rst action is seeing his father’s nakedness. LXX-G improves on the logic and the narrative description of Noah’s response. It goes beyond the MT’s neutral Noah ‘woke up’ ( ) by reporting that he ‘sobered up’ (2&6), or woke up from a drunken stupor, and he knew not just ‘what’ ( ), but ‘how much’ (9) his younger son did to him. He then pronounces a curse on Canaan. Many commentators, as discussed above, struggle to explain why Canaan is punished for the sin of his father. In contrast to the text critical explanations, Sarna speculates that “in the fuller story Canaan, son of Ham, was a participant in the oense against Noah, a detail omitted here on grounds of

GENESIS 9:18–28

279

delicacy and on the assumption that the original story was well known to the reader” (1989, 66). What seems likely, as discussed more fully below, is that the curse reects the future troubled relationship between the Canaanites and the Israelites, who descend from Shem. LXX-G does not attempt to correct the problem, but merely renders the Hebrew literally with ‘cursed be Canaan.’ His punishment is to be a ‘household slave’ (- 3 &) to his brothers. Although - is elsewhere translated as ‘servant’ or ‘boy,’ the underlying sense of the poetic punishment passage makes ‘slave’ more appropriate (Harl 1994, 145). As a rendering of the Hebrew ‘lowliest slave’ (  ), LXX-G makes the same point; a household slave would be the “lowest of all possible ranks of slaves” (Wevers 1993, 124). Although Canaan’s curse would be a tting end to the story, it continues with Noah blessing ‘Lord, the God of Shem.’ This seeming non sequitur is hard to explain, especially when one might expect a blessing for Shem, rather than for the future deity YHWH who would be associated with Shem’s distant ospring (Westermann 1984, 492–493). Noah continues by repeating his prediction of Canaan’s servitude before turning his attention to Japheth. Although not a blessing per se, Noah asks that God expand Japheth so that he might live in the ‘house’ (again Q  instead of the MT’s ) of Shem. Most explain this rather obscure comment about the future of Noah’s son again as a reference to future relationships between groups of people, with Japheth being related to the Philistines or the Greeks. See Westermann 1984, 490–494 and Harl 1994, 143–144 for extended discussions of the possibilities. Noah’s displeasure with Canaan is even more apparent when he, for the third time, mentions Canaan’s enslavement to his brothers. The complexity and ambiguity of both the Hebrew and its rather literal LXX-G translation, combined with the Table of Nations in the following chapter, has resulted in anachronistic justications for the future supremacy of the biblical Israelites – descended from Shem – over the biblical Canaanites and the even later subjugation of the presumed black African descendents of Ham by much of the western world. The literature on the topic is vast. Vervenne oers a summary of the conclusions informed by dierent methodological readings of the text (1995b, 54–55). Westermann provides a sweeping review of other explanations of the futureoriented fates of the ospring of Noah’s sons, but disagrees with all of them except that of B. Jacob, whom he quotes as saying, “in the narrative Ham, Canaan, Shem, and Japheth are individuals, sons and grandson of Noah. They must be the same in the curse and blessing” (1984, 491).

280

COMMENTARY

Gunther Wittenberg, reecting on a conversation between Fidel Castro and the Catholic priest Frei Betto, shows how some have read the socalled Curse of Canaan to justify white prejudice by assuming that blackness was a punishment of God (1991, 46). Noah’s remarkably complex story ends unremarkably with a comment that concludes Chapter 5’s genealogy. He lived 350 years after the ood, for a total life span of 950 years, before he died. 10:1–5 Chapter 10 of Genesis, a genealogy known as the Table of Nations, purports to describe the dispersion of the descendants of Noah’s three sons over the earth (9:19). It also serves to document human obedience to God’s command to be fruitful and multiply and ll the earth. Hess discusses the similarities noted by scholars including John Van Seters and Martin West between the Table of Nations and the Greek Catalogue of Women attributed to Hesiod. Both are segmented genealogies; both have an international scope; both include geographic and ethnic eponyms; and both have embedded hero stories. Although acknowledging these formal similarities, Hess argues that these two genealogies have dierent foci. Whereas the Greek text focuses primarily on the Greek communities and their relationships with other nations, Genesis 10 focuses primarily on nations other than that which will be associated with Abraham and his family (1989, 252–253). Earlier analyses like that of Hess led Westermann and others to note that the Table of Nations has no known parallel either inside or outside the Bible (1984, 501). Alter similarly remarks that “the table of nations is a serious attempt, unprecedented in the ancient Near East, to sketch a panorama of all known human cultures – from Greece and Crete in the west through Asia Minor and Iran and down through Mesopotamia and the Arabian Peninsula to northwestern Africa” (1996, 42). Structured around the ospring of each of Noah’s three sons, the genealogy provides a glimpse of geographic, ethnic, and linguistic features associated with families of seventy peoples (excluding Nimrod). Its formal features have led some scholars to distinguish contributions from both J and P, as well as a redactional attempt to bring them together (see, e.g., Westermann 1984, 501–503). Nevertheless, the nal form of the genealogy has made the question as to the criteria used to distinguish the three families nearly impossible to discern. As Bustenay Oded acknowledges, the author of Genesis 10 seems to use several dierent criteria indiscriminately: ethnopolitical (family and nation), linguistic (language), and geographic (country). Oded, however, rejects all these criteria and instead

GENESIS 10:1–5

281

argues that the “original nucleus” of the table reects a socio-economic and socio-cultural approach that incorporates political organization, social hierarchy and stratication, and the economic factors associated with production. In brief, Oded maintains that Japheth’s line represents maritime and gentile nations, Shem’s line represents nomadic cultures, and Ham’s line represents more sedentary groups of people. Over time, however, the original nucleus used by both J and P “was enriched or diminished with names with the consequence that many changes do not t into the author’s original intention” (1986, 30). Yet, as discussed above, the Table of Nations was constructed with a particular ethnic and theological bias. Despite its lack of explicit categorization based on race or skin color, it has been used to justify the subjugation of the descendents of Ham and Canaan. The genealogy gives prominence to the ospring of Shem, one of whom will be Abraham, the ancestral father of the Jews. As is the case with all the genealogies in Genesis, there are signicant dierences among the Greek manuscripts, most of them attributed to spelling or copyists. These dierences, as well as ambiguity even in the MT about precise geographical locations associated with the peoples listed, makes it dicult to clearly identify the nations referenced in LXX-G. See Wevers (1993, 127–146) for a detailed description of the dierences and the likely peoples linked with the transliterated Greek names. The genealogy begins where it left o in 9:18 with a list of Noah’s three sons in typical order, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, but then reverses the order by beginning the list of their ospring with those of Japheth. He, per LXX-G, had eight sons, as compared with the MT that only includes seven. As Wevers notes, LXX-G added Elisa as the fth son. The same name appears as one of Ioyan’s sons in the next verse (1993, 127). Two generations of Japheth’s descendants are included before the summary statement that associates the ospring of his son Iouan with the coastal nations and lands, likely the inhabitants of the Greek islands. The masculine plural ending ( ) on the names =) and U9( , like the masculine plural  in the MT, connotes a particular group of people – thus the “ians” English rendering. The Ketians are most likely the people associated with the island of Cyprus, and the Rodians are most likely the people of Rhodes (Wevers 1993, 129). Hebrew Bible commentators assume that the phrase ‘these are the sons of Japheth’ was accidentally omitted from the MT and include it before the nal comment, i.e., each according to tongue in their tribes and nations (Alter 1996, 43; Sarna 1989, 71; Westermann 1984, 496–497).

282

COMMENTARY

Like its MT counterpart  , the Greek word $0 literally means ‘tongue’ in the sense of one’s spoken language. The concluding statement of the genealogy of each of Noah’s sons includes a comment about “certain basic elements common to all that indicate that they share in the human race – the land, which is the people’s living space and provides it with food; the language, which binds all members of the people together and makes meaningful existence and community life possible; the families (clans) [here ‘tribes’], which give continuity to the life of the people as generation follows generation” (Westermann 1984, 509). 10:6–20 The four families associated with Ham’s sons are easier to identify. The rst three are recognized as African nations: Chous is known in the Hebrew Bible as Ethiopia or Cush, the area south of Egypt; Mesrain refers to Egypt (based on its Hebrew equivalent ), but is referred to as VQ!  throughout the rest of the LXX; and Phoud is known as Libya in later books. Canaan, as discussed earlier, is the eponymous ancestor of the Canaanites and Phoenicians (Wevers 1993, 131). Cush, in turn, has ve sons and two grandsons, all of which are aliated with ethnically and geographically diverse areas in Africa, Arabia, and Mesopotamia. Sarna posits that these are grouped together due to their similar sounding names and their participation in sea commerce (1989, 72). The style of the genealogy changes abruptly (per Westermann [1984, 514] a switch from P to J) as does the geographic area when Cush is said to have fathered Nimrod (Nebrd), the rst giant on the earth and a noted giant hunter before Lord God. This is an odd tribute to a legendary gure associated with the founding of Mesopotamia. Particularly puzzling is how the African aliated Cush could be linked to Mesopotamia. Sarna oers two possibilities. Cush sounds like the city of Kish, where Mesopotamian lore establishes the resumption of kingship after the ood. These postdiluvian leaders were associated with the Early Dynastic Period (2800–2500 B.C.E.) of lower Mesopotamia. Another conjecture is that Cush represents the Kassites who ruled Babylonia from 1600–1200 B.C.E. Scholars have also attempted to identify Nimrod with some historical or legendary gure, including Naram-Sin (grandson of Sargon 1 of Akkad), Tukulti-Ninurta (Assyrian monarch and reputed hunter who conquered Babylon), Marduk (god of Babylon), Nuzi-Maruttash (king of the Kassite dynasty), and Gilgamesh (the epic gure who also was described as a giant and a hunter). See Sarna (1989, 73) and Westermann (1984, 514– 516) for further possibilities. LXX-G merely substituted a beta for the mem in Hebrew and did not attempt to clarify the gure of the mighty giant.

GENESIS 10:6–20

283

Nimrod’s association with Mesopotamia becomes certain when the narrative inserted into the genealogy continues. His kingdom began with Babylon (the city Babylon), Orech (the Sumerian city-state Uruk), Archad (the kingdom ruled by Sargon [2300 B.C.E.]), and Chalanne (precise referent unknown) in the land of Sennaar (Shinar, i.e., the entire country of Babylonia). From here, Nimrod went on to Assoup (Asshur, a major city on the Tigris), where he built Nineu (Nineveh), Rhobs city (perhaps a suburb of Nineveh), and Chalach (Calah, a major city on the left back of the Tigris), and Dasem (said in the text to be located between Nineveh and Calah, but its precise referent is unknown). The following comment, i.e., ‘this is the great city,’ could refer ironically to the unknown Dasem, or more logically to the rst city that began Nimrod’s kingdom, i.e., Babylon. See Wevers (1993, 134–135) and Sarna (1989, 74–75) for variant spellings and more details about these cities that Nimrod is credited with building. Ham’s second son Mesrian (Egypt) is said to have fathered seven sons of his own. By duplicating the plural endings of MT, LXX-G also represents these sons as inhabitants of a region or members of a tribe. Unfortunately, little is known about most of these peoples. ALEX’s second son (who is the fourth in most manuscripts) Nephthalieim could designate the Delta region of Lower Egypt in contrast to the fth son Patrosonieim, likely Pathros of Upper Egypt. The sixth son Chasmonieim, from whom came Phylistieim (the Philistines), could be an area around the Mediterranean islands. However, the seventh son Chaphthorieim (Crete) would be a more logical origin for the Philistines (Wevers 1993, 136; Sarna 1989, 75). Despite the fact that LXX-G was translated in the Egyptian city of Alexandria, it did not correct or provide any additional information on these peoples and places associated with its biblical ancestor Mesrian. Canaan, Ham’s son cursed by his grandfather, fathered eleven sons. His rstborn Sidon is an obvious reference to the recognized Phoenician port city and likely refers to the entire Phoenician area. The rest of his ospring represent particular peoples; the LXX-G’s nominative ending  , like MT’s , is a gentilic, and is thus rendered by the English equivalent “ites.” Thus, the Chettites are the Hittites of Syria. Canaan’s other sons are similarly recognized as eponymous ancestors of the nations associated with the biblical Canaanites including Iebousites (the Jebusites), Amorrites (the Amorites, a distinct West Semitic ethnic group in Babylonia known as the Amurru), Gergesites (the Girgashites), and Huites (the Hivites, perhaps living around Shechem). The nal ve sons, i.e., Aroukites, Asennites, Aradians, Samarites, and Hamathi, are all associated with

284

COMMENTARY

inhabitants of ve Syrian/Phoenician cities (Wevers 1993, 136–138; Sarna 1989, 75–76). After this, the tribes of the Canaanites were said to be dispersed. LXX-G, following MT, no longer refers to Canaan as an individual, but to the socalled tribes associated with the Canaanites. What follows describes the cities into which the peoples associated with the descendants of Canaan moved. These include Sidon, Gerara, Gaza, Sodoma and the three other cities of the open eld (Gomorra, Adama, and Seboim), and Dasa, whose precise location is unknown. As Wevers comments, LXX-G’s description of these geographic areas and boundaries is no clearer than that of the MT (1993, 138; Sarna 1989, 77). Ham’s genealogy concludes, like that of his brother Japheth, with a summary statement that acknowledges the characteristics associated with the peoples whose tongues (i.e., languages), countries (an added feature not included for Japheth), and nations arose from his descendents. 10:21–32 The genealogy concludes with the catalogue of Shem’s descendents. Despite the awkward syntax of the opening verse in both MT and LXX-G, the content underscores the importance of Shem’s line. Westermann explains the seeming absence of the names of Shem’s sons after the verb ‘were born’ (/)#&) as a J fragment that suered damaged when edited together with the P material that follows (1984, 524). What results is the comment that he was the father of all the sons of Eber, whose names and details appear later in v. 25. Eber, however, is not Shem’s son, but his great great grandson. Nevertheless, as Sarna maintains, Eber “receives special mention here because he is the ancestor of both Israel and of a variety of peoples with whom Israelite history is closely intertwined” (1989, 78). Shem, per ALEX and MT, has ve sons: Ailam (Elam), Assoup (Asshur/ Assyria), Arphaxad (a reference that per Sarna is a “puzzle” [1989, 78] and per Wevers “baes explanation” [1993, 140]), Loud (maybe Lydia), and Aram (the Arameans of Syria, but see Sarna who references a different tradition in Genesis 22:21 where Aram is the grandson of Nahor, Abraham’s brother [1989, 78]). Other Greek manuscripts add a sixth son = . Of these sons, only the descendents of the mysterious Arphaxad and the well known Aram are mentioned. The latter’s sons are listed rst and include Os, Houl, Gather, and Mosoch. None of these has been positively identied with any people or location with the exception of Os (Uz in MT) that might be Job’s mythical hometown (Sarna 1989, 78).

GENESIS 10:21–32 & 11:1–9

285

The most signicant of Shem’s sons for the rest of the biblical story is the puzzling Arphaxad, who, per LXX-G fathered Kainam (ALEX), who fathered Sala, who fathered Eber. MT does not include Kainam; rather it reports that Arphaxad fathered Sala. At this point, neither Kainam nor Sala are important, and nothing is known about them. Eber, as mentioned above, is the distant ospring of Shem who will be the distant ancestor of Abraham. Eber has two sons, Phalek and Iektan. The comment about Phalek in LXX-G is merely a translation of the wordplay based on his Hebrew name , i.e., in his day the earth was ‘divided’ (). Although the names of his ospring are not recorded here, they will appear in the genealogy in Chapter 11 that ends with the family of Abraham. Most of those who are included in the earlier part of the genealogy are those who are signicant for the larger biblical story. Curiously, it is the twelve (MT reports thirteen) sons of Phalek’s brother Iektan who are listed, although many of them cannot be identied. According to Sarna, those who can be identied are associated with the southern Arabian Peninsula. That they are said to be descended from the same stock as the Israelites, he comments, is remarkable and possibly reects a historical relationship based on the spice trade between Israel and the Arabian tribes (1989, 79–80). See also Westermann (1984, 526–528) for other possible identications of peoples connected with Iektan’s ospring. Shem’s genealogy concludes with the summary statement, like that of Ham’s, that acknowledges the characteristics associated with the peoples whose languages, countries, and nations arose from his descendents. The entire genealogical Table of Nations also ends with a summary statement that traces all these nations back to the tribes associated with Noah’s three sons. LXX-G, drawing from the language in v. 5, departs from the MT and concludes by saying that from these the ‘islands of the nations’ were dispersed over the earth after the ood. 11:1–9 Having accounted for the dispersion of Noah’s ospring over the earth, the narrator tells an etiological story of how all these people came to speak dierent languages. It begins by noting that the one common lip and language made it possible for enterprising settlers from the east to engage in a building project. The universality of humankind and the cooperation among those settling in Sennaar (i.e., Babylonia) would seem to bode well for human achievement. These were not merely temporary workers; they planned to settle down and live ( 8 &) there. Their rst cooperative endeavor was to make bricks and bake them in the re.

286

COMMENTARY

These bricks would be used as stone and the available clay would be used as asphalt. Creativity combined with cooperation gave them the ability to build a city and a tower whose head would reach the heaven. Drawing on motifs from other ancient stories, the biblical narrator shows knowledge of Mesopotamian conditions and traditions. The Enuma Elish, for example, describes a year-long brick making process that culminated with the head of Esagila, a temple complex, in the sky. In fact, Sarna notes that the phrase ‘with its top in the sky’ is a cliché in Mesopotamian building inscriptions, especially those involving ziggurats. Most Mesopotamian cities had at least one of these lofty multileveled temple towers dedicated to their gods. Their pyramid-like shape resembled a mountain, at whose top “the gods were imagined to have their abode” (Sarna 1989, 82–83). Although such ziggurats were built to please the gods in Mesopotamia, their biblical counterpart had the opposite eect. If the human attempt to breach the boundary between heaven and earth was upsetting to God, their reason for doing so was even worse. ALEX’s use of the future indicative ( ) μ, i.e., ‘we will make’), rather than the majority’s aorist subjunctive ( ) μ, i.e., ‘let us make’), implies that the name, or reputation, the people wanted to make for themselves was the result of the building project, rather than an additional feature. They wanted the fame associated with the monumental tower, per-LXXG, before they were dispersed over the face of the earth. This, as Wevers notes (1993, 149), suggests that the translator knew that the people would eventually disperse and changed the MT’s ‘lest we disperse,’ ( ) to ‘before being dispersed’ (  " (  ). Furthermore, LXX-G’s passive participle, instead of the MT’s future active verb, implies that the dispersal would be something done to them, rather than something they want to avoid. The building project underway, Lord goes down to see the city and the tower. Unfortunately, he is not favorably impressed with what they were able to accomplish because of their one language and common race. In other words, their ability to communicate with each other allowed them to do more than Lord wanted them to do. Nothing, he declared, could stop them. Therefore, he summoned his divine council to go down and confuse their ‘tongue’ ($0) so that they could no longer understand each other. LXX-G departs from the MT by rendering the rst occurrence of the Hebrew  with $0, and the second with ‘language’ (? ). Both Greek words, as well as the more comparable word ‘lip’ (-$ ) used to render  in vv. 1 and 6, refer to the common language spoken by the people. Nevertheless, LXX-G’s use of a variety of words (lip, tongue,

GENESIS 11:1–9 & 11:10–26

287

and language) to express a similar idea is perhaps an ironic attempt to portray a sense of confusion in a story about God’s confusion of speech. Then, as they feared, Lord disperses them over the face of all the earth. In so doing, he was making them ‘ll the earth’ ($&%  ), part of his post-ood imperative (9:7), leaving the city and tower unnished. Nevertheless, the unnished city is given the name Confusion. As in other etiological naming accounts, LXX-G cannot duplicate the wordplay between the Hebrew  and the obvious place name Babel. Nevertheless, the name symbolizes the confusion of lips that will be one of many distinguishing factors among those dispersed over all the earth. 11:10–26 Shem’s importance to biblical genealogy is conrmed when his descendants are listed for a second time. This time, however, only the rstborn son of each generation is included. In addition, Shem’s constructed ancestral line to Abraham is made clear. Although Shem’s genealogy is related in content to the one in Chapter 10, it is related in form to the genealogy narrated in Chapter 5 that described the ten generations beginning with Adam and ending with Noah. The forthcoming one also includes ten generations. However, LXX-G’s addition of the patriarch Kainen results in a ten-generation scheme that is dierent from that of the MT. The latter includes Shem as the rst generation, whereas LXX-G has to begin its generation count with his son. Therefore, while these genealogies are constructed to make a narrative point – that a signicant gure appears at the end of ten generations – the way in which they count generations diers. As in Chapter 5, LXX-G departs from both MT and the Samaritan Pentateuch in the ages of the patriarchs. The major dierences between MT and LXX-G will be described below. The genealogies in Chapters 10 and 11 begin the same way: they have the standard formula that announces the descendants of Shem; they agree that he was 100 years old when he fathered Arphaxad; they both report this happened two years after the ood; they agree that Shem lived 500 years after fathering Arphaxad; and they both report that he had sons and daughters. However, LXX-G deviates from MT by concluding the narration of each generation, as it did in Chapter 5, by announcing the death of the patriarch, here Shem. From this point, LXX-G and MT dier considerably. LXX-G reports that Arphaxad lived 135 years before fathering Kainan, and 430 years afterward, whereas MT indicates that he was only 35 years old when he fathered Shelah and lived 403 years more. The MT omits Kainan completely, as it did in the previous chapter.

288

COMMENTARY

LXX-G credits Kainan with fathering Sala when he is 130 years old and living 330 additional years. The two agree that Sala fathers Eber, but disagree completely on how old he was and how much longer he lived. LXXG indicates he was, like Kainan, 130 years when he fathered his son and lived 330 years longer, whereas MT reports that he was only 30 years old when he had Shelah and lived 403 more years. After this and throughout the rest of the genealogy, each LXX-G ancestor (except Nahor) is reported to be 100 years older than his MT counterpart when he fathers his rst son. Eber, like Sala, lives longer than his LXX-G counterpart after having his rst son, whereas Phalek, Ragau, and Serouch all live the same number of years after their rst sons. Nahor (Nachor) was the youngest father in both LXX-G (79 years) and MT (29 years), and lives ten years longer in LXX-G (129 years compared to 119 years). Both LXX-G and MT agree that Nahor’s son Terah (Thera) was 70 years old when he fathered three sons, Abram, Nahor, and Haran (Harran). Terah’s importance, and that of his sons, is very clear when both MT and LXX-G break the pattern and list all three of Terah’s sons. LXX-G’s inclusion of Kainan and its adding one hundred years to the age of the patriarchs when they fathered their rst sons shows how carefully its genealogy was constructed. As Wevers notes, exactly 1,000 years elapse between the birth of Shem’s son and that of Terah’s son. For a complete list of the dierences among the MT, LXXG, and Samaritan Pentateuch, see Wevers 1993, 153–154. 11:27–32 What began as a highly formulaic genealogy changes abruptly when it includes the names of all three of Terah’s sons. Another genealogy focusing specically on Terah and his ospring begins where the earlier one left o, but continues with a very dierent style. This narrative genealogy repeats the names of Terah’s three sons before reporting that one of them, namely Haran, fathered Lot. Haran dies in his native country of the Chaldeans, i.e., Babylonia. Abram and Nahor, Terah’s other two sons, take wives. Again the genealogy departs from a typical format and reports the names of their wives: Abram’s wife was Sarai (Sara) and Nahor’s wife was Milcha (Melcha). Even more surprising is the mention of Milcha’s immediate family, including her now dead father Haran and her sister Ischa. However, the inclusion of Milcha’s family makes Sarai’s lack of family more noticeable. She is the only person in this part of the genealogy whose paternity is unreported. What follows contrasts even more with the implied theme of a genealogy, i.e., the continuing family line. Not only does she have no prior family, she has no potential for bearing ospring. She was barren, and, per LXX-G, was not producing chil-

GENESIS 11:27–32 & 12:1–9

289

dren. Like MT, LXX-G has two phrases that parallel each other. Unlike the MT, however, LXX-G’s use of the imperfect ‘she was not bearing children’ (      ), instead of the MT’s simple nominal phrase ‘she had no children’ (  ), connotes the on-going nature of Sarai’s condition. Sarai, therefore, would not be considered a good wife and her status as a woman would be minimal. This unattering and unexpected statement in the context of a genealogy, however, sets up narrative tension for what follows. Furthermore, her continued barrenness will drive the plot of several stories. Here, however, it disrupts the genealogy. What follows is a brief itinerary that describes a journey undertaken by Terah and part of his family. He takes Abram, Lot, and Sarai out of their native Babylonia and heads toward Canaan. The signicance of this particular family and their relationship to each other is apparent when the narrator repeats a main factor of their identity: Abram is identied for the third time as Terah’s son; Lot is described for the second time as Haran’s son, who is also for the third time identied as one of Terah’s sons; and Sarai is identied both as Abram’s wife and Terah’s daughter-in-law. These four people, however, do not reach their destination. Instead they get as far as Haran (Charran) and settle there for at least two hundred and ve years, after which Terah dies. No reason is given either for their departure from Babylonia or for their extended stay in Haran. Like Sarai’s barrenness, these questions eventually will be addressed. 12:1–9 Having introduced the rst family of Israel at the end of the previous chapter’s genealogy, the narrator jumps to a later period in Abram’s life when God speaks to him and orders him to leave his land and family. God oers no specic designation; he merely tells Abram to go to ‘the land that I will show you.’ Perhaps anticipating Abram’s unasked question, God provides a reason for the journey in the seven-fold promise he makes to Abram and his family. The global perspective of the rst part of God’s promise to make of Abram a great nation contrasts with the more personal nature of the second (God’s blessing on Abram), third (God’s providing Abram a great name/reputation), and fourth parts of the promise (God’s designation of Abram’s blessed status). The fth and sixth parts of the promise broaden the perspective again by including other people. God will bless those who bless Abram and curse those (cf. MT’s singular ‘the one’) who curse him. Finally, the seventh part goes back to the global perspective when God designates Abram as the source of the blessings of ‘all the tribes of the earth.’ LXX-G interprets the MT’s niphal  as a passive, not as a reexive verb, and renders it with the passive verb

290

COMMENTARY

‘will be blessed’ ($ &#)  ) (Wevers 1997, 97). In so doing, LXX-G shows Abram’s universal signicance. The tribes do not bless themselves in Abram, rather they are blessed because of him. In his discussion of the scholarly debate about the dierence between the passive and reexive senses of the Hebrew , Westermann maintains that both forms have essentially the same meaning. LXX-G likely drew the same conclusion; it rendered both niphal (12:3; 18:18; 28:14) and hitpael (22:18; 26:14) forms of

 throughout Genesis with the same passive verb $ &#)  . Abram neither questions how God can make him into a great nation when Sarai is barren nor thanks God for such generosity. He says nothing at all. Rather, at seventy-ve years of age, he does what God tells him to do. He leaves Haran, the place where his family had stopped on their journey from Ur to Canaan (11:31). Abram, Sarai, and Lot now resume the journey as God orders. Despite the narrator’s report that Abram did ‘just as’ ( #*) God commanded, Abram did not in fact leave all his kin. He, in fact, took Sarai and Lot with him, along with all their acquired possessions, some of which included servants, i.e., ‘acquired persons’ (6!) W  ) ). The entourage reaches Canaan and travels as far as the ‘high oak’ of Shechem (Suchem). Awkwardly interrupting his travelogue, the narrator reports that Canaanites were settled on the land. However, the seeming non sequitur becomes relevant when God makes his rst appearance to Abram and explains what his earlier blessing on Abram entails. God promises to give the already occupied land to Abram’s ospring. Abram does not question how he will produce ospring when Sarai is barren or if God intends for him to share the land with those already ‘settled’ ( 8 !) there, i.e., as permanent residents. Instead, he builds in Shechem the rst of many altars to God. This rst altar commemorates God’s appearing to him. He travels further south to Bethel (Baithl) and builds a second altar, this one to commemorate his rst invoking of God’s name. For some unknown reason, Abram leaves this area and sets up a camp in the ‘desert’ ()μB). The Greek word )μ  is another example of LXX-G’s interpretive translation. Here it renders the MT’s ‘Negeb/ south’ (). The Negeb area is in the southern part of Canaan, an area that is a ‘desert.’ LXX-G thus chose to describe the area represented by the Hebrew , rather than translate it literally. 12:10–20 Abram must be wondering what kind of land God gave him when the rst of many biblical famines occurs. He decides to ‘sojourn’ (

 ), i.e., live as a resident alien, in Egypt and takes Sarai with him. The rst words he speaks in the entire story show him to be a

GENESIS 12:10–20

291

shrewd and somewhat manipulative husband who rst atters his wife and then asks her to lie for him by agreeing to say that she is his sister. Because she is ‘fair of face’ (  , a hapax legomenon in LXX-G and an apt translation of the Hebrew ), Abram predicts that the Egyptians will kill him. In contrast with the MT where Abram claims that they will ‘let you live’ (  #), the LXX Abram states that ‘they will keep you for themselves.’ Yet the rst reason Abram gives for Sarai’s lie portrays him as somewhat self-serving. He seems concerned that ‘that it might be good for me.’ The second half of his statement reiterates his fear of dying. Abram’s willingness to sacrice Sarai’s virtue for his benet is troubling. Many commentators agree that Abram was facing a real moral dilemma characterized, in Sarna’s words, by a “conict between human life and human dignity within a hierarchy of values” (1989, 95). Nevertheless, most acknowledge that Abram’s actions were, at best, morally ambiguous. The LXX, however, gives Abram more justication for his behavior. While still maintaining that the Egyptians will kill him (    " μ), LXX-G Abram predicts that the Egyptians will keep Sarai for themselves (Y (Y   )  ), as a type of possession. Just what type of possession, while unstated, can be inferred from the ANE custom of sexual hospitality, whereby a hospitable host treats his visitor to sexual favors as a means of establishing some type of alliance. As Julian PittRivers notes, what transpires in the Genesis wife-sister stories represents the reverse of this custom. The patriarchs, rather than receiving sexual favors, oer their “sisters” to establish an alliance in the opposite direction (1977, 179). The LXX harmonizes Abram’s prediction of Sarai’s fate with Pharaoh’s later act of actually taking her as a wife for himself, despite the deceptive ploy (v. 19). Thus, the potentially dire consequences for Sarai’s future life provides Abram a more honorable excuse for the ruse, i.e., he wants to prevent her from being a sexual possession of the Egyptians. Furthermore, LXX-G’s use of ‘therefore’ ( Z) at the beginning of v. 13 (‘say, therefore’) more explicitly connects Abram’s order to Sarai with the reasons he claims this deception is necessary. Finally, by asking Sarai to say directly in the rst person ‘his sister am I,’ instead of the MT’s indirect second person ‘you are my sister’ ( ), the LXX Abram seems to deect more of the deception o of him and on to Sarai. Abram’s predictions come true; the Egyptians recognize Sarai’s beauty, Pharaoh’s ocials bring her to him, and they do indeed treat Abram well because of her. In exchange for Sarai, Abram receives livestock and more

292

COMMENTARY

servants. In contrast with Abram who never asks about Sarai’s welfare, God intervenes by subjecting Pharaoh’s household with unstated aictions. Somehow, the Egyptian Pharaoh connects his problems with his taking Sarai as his wife and questions Abram about his deception. Again, Abram says nothing. Although he is ordered to leave Egypt and is escorted out by Pharaoh’s men, he certainly did do well for himself. What likely happened to Sarai is ignored, both by Abram and the narrator. Inasmuch as she was said to be barren, her being taken as Pharaoh’s wife is seemingly unimportant. No one will know. In an addition to the story, LXX-G reports that Lot was with them. Although this does smooth the transition to the next chapter, it begs the question of when Lot joined Abram in Egypt. 13:1–13 Despite their rather ignoble exit from Egypt, the three members of Israel’s rst family return to the land even richer. Famine and deception proved benecial to the family and will continue to do so throughout their story. Famine will cause protable relocations, and deception will often be rewarded. God’s aiction of Pharaoh and his house because of Sarai shows his displeasure with the outcome of Abram’s deception. Nevertheless, Abram prospers, and the incident is never mentioned by either party. Instead, Abram resumes his role of God-invoking patriarch at the same place where he had built an altar, and per ALEX and a few other manuscripts, ‘made the tent’ ( &   &)). Although the majority of manuscripts reect the MT’s ‘at the beginning’ (/)), ALEX’s reading also makes sense in its context. One wonders what Abram says to God when he invokes God’s name. Never has Abram responded directly to God’s continued blessing. Thus far, the only words that the blessed patriarch has spoken portray him as morally ambiguous. That is about to change. The possessions that Abram and Lot have acquired now prove problematic. Abram is said to be rich in ‘herds’ ( ) ), silver, and gold. The Greek word ) , until this point, has been translated as ‘domesticated animals,’ because it has been contrasted with #&, i.e., ‘wild animals.’ From this point on, however, the word usually appears in contexts that refer to animals as property and in which other specic types of domesticated animals including ‘sheep’ () and ‘cows/cattle’ () are also mentioned. As such, ‘herd’ is an appropriate term for non-specic animal property. Lot, per ALEX, is also said to have herds, as well as sheep and cattle; MT and most other Greek manuscripts report that he has

GENESIS 13:1–13 & 14:1–16

293

sheep, cattle, and tents. Although likely due to what Wevers terms “careless auditory confusion” (1993, 177) of  &) and )&, ALEX’s mistaken ‘herds’ is nevertheless appropriate in its context. The same tract of land is not able to accommodate all their possessions. As a result, ghting occurs between their respective shepherds, men who likely are among the Canaanites (Chananites) or the Perizzites (Pherezites) peoples who are reported also to be living in the land. Abram and his family, presumably with God’s blessing, cause problems wherever they go. Acknowledging the problem of too little space, Abram makes his second proposition in the story. This time, however, he is not self-serving. Per ALEX, Abram tells Lot, rather than asks him, to look at all the land in front of him. He then tells Lot to choose which part of the land he wants; Abram will take the area that Lot rejects. Lot, seeing the well-watered land around the Jordan, makes what seems like a good choice at rst. However, what Lot could not see, God could. The narrator’s ominous report about the wickedness of the men in Sodom foreshadows disaster. 13:14–18 With Lot out of the scene, God once again promises to give the land to Abram and to his ospring (cf. 12:7 where God only promises the land to Abram’s ospring). By telling Abram to look in four directions, God is more precisely dening the extent of his gift. He continues his promise by vividly indicating just how numerous Abram’s ospring will be. In a logical departure from the MT, God compares the number of ospring to sand, rather than dust. As Wevers suggests, a person could conceivably count grains of sand, whereas counting dust would be impossible (1993, 183). As earlier, Abram is speechless and again does not question the promise of ospring. Instead of speaking, Abram takes action and builds yet another altar to God. 14:1–16 A strange story whose genre, source, and historicity have been debated (see Westermann 1985, 187–190 for a brief history of the chapter’s exegesis), Genesis 14 portrays Abram as a seless devoted uncle who rescues his nephew Lot from the rst of several misfortunes that occur as a result of his poor choice of land. It seems as if Abram’s many possessions, in the form of household servants, give him the resources to conquer a group of warring kings, and presumably their armies with them. The quest for historicity of the story, or even of the named but often unknown people and places within the story, is exacerbated in LXX-G in light of the many variants in the spelling of these names (for details, see Wevers 1993, 185–201).

294

COMMENTARY

Setting aside such issues, the narrative tells an engaging hero story that begins during the reign of Amarphal king of Sennaar. Three other kings – Arioch king of Ellasar, Chodollogomor king of Ailam, and Thalga more vaguely described as king of ‘nations’ – make war on ve other kings, including those of Sodom (per ALEX, Balla) and Gomorrah (Barsa), cities that link this story to the larger patriarchal narrative. The former group of kings, with Chodollogomor the presumed leader, made vassals of the latter group for twelve years. Having had enough, the latter group revolts in the thirteenth year. Meanwhile, Chodollogomor and his allies destroy ‘giants’ () and other strong nations that they encounter in cities, deserts, and mountains. After destroying the leaders of Amalek and the Amorrites, Chodollogomor and his coalition that now includes Amarphal are attacked by the ve-nation coalition that includes the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah. Both kings ee and inexplicably fall into the surrounding asphalt pits. Others ee more sensibly into the hills. To the winners go the spoils that, per LXX-G, include food and horses. Likely vocalizing the Hebrew consonantal text  as & & (‘steeds or cavalry’), LXX-G rendered it as ‘horse’ (O ; Wevers 1993, 192; see also Fitzmyer 2000, 67). The MT, however, vocalized  as ' ( , i.e., ‘property.’ Whether or not the booty taken by Chodollogomor and his allies include horses or other types of property, the spoils denitely include Lot and his property. Abram, our ‘Hebrew’ ( ) hero per the MT, enters the story when one of the escapees tells him what had occurred. This appellation, an anachronism during the patriarchal period, perhaps was inserted to give Abram an ethnic identity distinct from those associated with the many kings (Westermann following Zimmerli and others, 1985, 199). LXX-G, however, gives Abram a completely dierent designation, i.e., *&, i.e., an ‘emigrant’ or wanderer. As Harl notes, LXX-G understood the root  to mean ‘pass by or cross over’ and created the neologism and hapax legomenon *&, based on , which means ‘beyond, further.’ Thus the word *& would mean ‘one who has come from beyond,’ in this case probably from beyond the Euphrates (1994, 159; see also Wevers 1993, 193). In fact, *& is an apt description for Abram; he did emigrate from Mesopotamia and then wandered around between Egypt and Canaan and various places within Canaan. Because the word   appears several times later in Genesis (e.g., 39:14, 17; 40:15; 41:12; and 43:32) where LXX-G transliterated it as J-  (i.e., ‘Hebrew’), the translator was likely familiar with the ethnic designation. However, he chose not to refer to Abram as a ‘Hebrew,’ but as an emigrant.

GENESIS 14:1–16 & 14:17–24

295

Regardless of his title, Abram makes a quick response to the report of the informant referred to in LXX-G as the Amoris (, [μ  ). As Wevers notes, , [μ   is a “phrase which is anomalously here in the nominative as a frozen phrase” but was corrected by Aquila to a genitive phrase ( " [μ ) and by Symmachus to the better known  " [μ  !, which corresponds more closely with the MT’s  . Thus the informant seems to be an Amorrite who, along with his two brothers, survived the battle with Chodollogomor. These three brothers ally themselves with Abram, who additionally recruits three hundred and eighteen of his own ‘homegrown servants’ ( 3 -). Like its MT counterpart ( 

), the Greek word 3 & refers not to purchased servants, but to servants born and raised in the household. Abram and his small army chase the Chodollogomor coalition rst to Dan, where he strikes them, and then to the environs of Damascus. He recaptures the stolen horses and returns them along with Lot and his possessions. He also brings back ‘the women,’ perhaps those captured in war, and ‘the people,’ perhaps those others who survived the ghting. Although God does not appear in the narrative, his silent presence in the margins of the text lets him oversee the battle and give victory to Abram. This is the rst of many times that God-in-the-margins exercises his providential power to control the action and watch over the fate of the characters by playing a silent but nevertheless decisive role in the story. Abram’s defeat of the Chodollogomor coalition sets the stage for his next strange encounter. 14:17–24 Somehow the king of Sodoma survives the asphalt pits and goes out to greet Abram on the patriarch’s return from his one and only successful military victory. In the rst of many biblical underdog wins, Abram and his friends and servants defeat the Chodollogomer coalition. The king meets Abram in his royal open eld (( ) that is located in the named but geographically unknown Saue valley. Why the king would greet Abram in an open eld rather than in his court is unclear. Perhaps it was more convenient for Abram on his return from Damascus, or perhaps Abram did not want to be associated with an area whose men were described earlier as ‘very wicked and sinful before God’ (13:13). In any case, the purpose of the meeting is delayed when another mysterious character enters the scene. Melchizedek, said to be the king of Salem and priest of God Most High ( " # "  " .6 !), is mentioned only one other time in the Hebrew Bible. According to the messianic interpretation of Psalm 110:4 (LXX 109:4), the eternal nature of Melchizedek’s priestly order is the main criterion for God’s future leader. The New Testament

296

COMMENTARY

book of Hebrews later considers Jesus’ priesthood as the fulllment of God’s promise. How this shadowy gure, who according to Sarna “suddenly emerges from the shadows and as suddenly retreats into oblivion,” (1989, 109) stands behind such an important tradition is debated. In the present context, however, Melchizedek models a priest-king who appropriately responds to Abram’s victory by bringing the victor food and wine and by oering blessings. In a stunning reversal of Abram’s divinely ordained role of having others being blessed in him, Melchizedek blesses Abram. He does so in the name of his God, i.e., the God Most High ( " # "  " .6 !), a title somewhat more precise than the Hebrew   . As Harl comments, the title “God Most High” was used for the supreme deity in the Greek religion since the time of Pindar in the fourth century B.C.E. (1994, 160). More important than the deity’s title, however, is his function. Melchizedek credits his God with being the one who ‘created’ (  ) the heaven and the earth, and the one who delivered the enemies into Abram’s hands. These attributes are characteristic of supreme deities, including the God of Israel. That Abram does not protest his blessing by a foreign deity implies that his own God at the time is not “jealous.” Perhaps because he is still a wanderer or emigrant in the land, Abram recognizes the legitimacy of this priest-king and gives him a tenth of ‘everything,’ an ambiguous reference that could refer to his booty or all his other possessions. Despite the ambiguity associated with the two masculine singular pronouns, most scholars acknowledge that Abram is the subject and Melchizedek the object of the oering. It is unlikely that Melchizedek would have limited Abram to a tenth of his proered bread and wine. As has become common for Abram in a cultic context, he makes no comment. However, when the king of Sodom reenters the scene, Abram becomes righteously vocal about his booty. In contrast with Melchizedek who blesses Abram and oers him food and wine, the now unnamed king of Sodom makes a demand of Abram. He orders Abram to give him the ‘men’ (which presumably includes the ‘women’ and ‘people’ Abram returned from the battle), but allows Abram to keep the horse. As earlier in the chapter, LXX-G vocalized the Hebrew  as ‘horse’ (& & ), rather than ‘property’ (' ( ). As such, the LXX-G king of Sodom appears to be more specic but less generous than his MT counterpart. Abram, however, refuses even a horse and makes an oath on Melchizedek’s creator God Most High, who in LXX-G is identied with YHWH, as he is in the MT (    ). The oath itself begins with  , which Wevers maintains represents the Hebrew . As such, Wevers interprets it as a

GENESIS 14:17–24 & 15:1–21

297

strong negative associated with an oath, despite the fact that the formulaic imprecation is omitted (1993, 200). Abram thus vows that he will not take even the smallest amount of booty for himself, so that he is in no way beholden to the king of Sodom. He does, however, acknowledge that his servants will keep what they ate during the battle, and his companions will keep their portion. This story continues the enhancement of Abram’s character that began with allowing Lot the rst choice of land in preparation for his forthcoming encounter with God. 15:1–21 After ‘these things,’ in this case Abram’s defeat of the Chodollogomor coalition and the return of Lot and others to Sodom, God once again enters Abram’s life. The word of Lord ‘came’ ()#&) to Abram in a vision, a mode of communication that parallels the ways in which God will later communicate with many of his prophets. Similar to the unique portrayal of Abram as a military leader in the previous chapter, this chapter’s portrayal of Abram as a prophet is unusual, but does occur again later in his story. In the vision, God tells Abram not to be afraid, a surprising directive in light of Abram’s recent bravery. God follows up his imperative by assuring Abram of protection and considerable rewards. If God’s past actions toward Abram are any indication, Abram will be even safer and richer. For the rst time in his story, Abram ‘speaks.’ LXX-G’s use of the historical present $ , instead of the usual aorist \, highlights the occasion. Abram nally acknowledges God’s words by responding with appropriate deference, addressing God as both Master (] ) and Lord (= ). Yet, his next words lack any sense of gratitude; instead of thanking God for all God has already done for him and given to him, he asks God what (more) he will give? The self-serving image of Abram threatens to re-emerge when he continues his part of the conversation by complaining about what God has not done for him. He claims he will be left childless. This is the rst indication that Abram actually listened to God’s earlier promises of ospring (12:7; 13:15–17). He follows up this complaint by referring to Damaskos Eliezer, a referent as ambiguous in LXX-G as in the MT. LXX-G’s penchant for interpreting a troublesome Hebrew phase occurs in its rendering of the notoriously dicult   as the proper name (^* ) of Abram’s ‘homegrown maidservant’ ( 3  ", fs). If so, neither mother nor son are mentioned again. Despite the dubious identity of Abram’s servants, their function becomes clear in the following verse where Abram blames God for his lack of ospring. As a result, he complains, my ‘homegrown (male) servant’ ( 3 )), presumably the above referenced Damaskos

298

COMMENTARY

Eliezer, will be his heir. Why this particular household servant, out of the many who help Abram defeat the Chodollogomor coalition (14:14), is unclear. What is clear is Abram’s petulance about the situation. God wastes no time in denying Abram’s assumption; he immediately responds. This time, per ALEX and some other Greek manuscripts, it is the ‘voice of Lord’ (?  =! !) that came to Abram, rather than the ‘word of Lord’ (_μ =! !). Other Greek manuscripts also change from “Lord” to “God.” The MT makes no such distinction; it refers in both verses to the ‘word of Lord’ ( ). Perhaps as Wevers suggests, the dierences within LXX-G and between LXX-G and MT merely reect LXX-G’s tendency to avoid repetitive phrasing (1993, 204). If so, it not only achieved variety, but it also represented the means and type of the communication dierently. Instead of the more concrete ‘word’ of Lord coming to Abram as a declarative prophetic pronouncement, Lord’s ‘voice’ delivers a message more specically directed to the immediate circumstances. He assures Abram that one who comes out of him, i.e., his own issue, will inherit. The need to correct Abram’s erroneous assumption is so pressing that Lord does not wait for Abram to respond. Rather, he continues with a promise that goes beyond Abram’s immediate concern about his virility. To reinforce his earlier proclamations about the magnitude of Abram’s descendants, God once again relies on the expanse of his creation. The vision blends into reality when God leads Abram outside to look up in heaven and count the stars. As he earlier compared the extent of Abram’s ospring to the amount of sand on the earth (13:16), he now likens them to the number of stars in the heaven. Both analogies imply a number impossible to count. Abram again makes no vocal response. However, he does something that God interprets as trust, a trust which somehow proves Abram’s righteousness. God now addresses the other part of his promise to Abram, that of the land. In the rst of many self-revelations in which God identies himself as the one who leads someone out from somewhere in order to give them land, God declares himself the one responsible for leading Abram out of Chaldea to give him the land in which other nations were presently living. As he did earlier when God promised him abundant rewards, Abram deferentially addresses God as ‘Master Lord.’ Abram again asks a question; however, it is less self-serving and is not followed-up with a complaint. He, in a sense, asks God for a sign that will indicate his inheritance. God does not give him a direct or immediate answer; rather he orders Abram to gather a variety of animals including a heifer, a goat, a ram, a turtledove, and a pigeon. Abram seems to know what to do with the animals

GENESIS 15:1–21

299

without any divine instruction. He cuts the three larger animals in half and lays the parts facing each other. Because the cut animals are neither burned nor eaten, they serve a purpose other than sacrice. Sarna discusses the parallels found in rst and second millennium ANE texts and writes, “the cutting of the animals is thus a form of self-imprecation in which the potential violator invokes their fate upon himself . . . In the case of land-grant covenants, the curse would be directed against anyone who interferes with the realization of the suzerain’s promise” (1989, 114–115). Here God plays the role of the sovereign whose gift of land to Abram represents a reward for Abram’s righteousness. Hess, following Weinfeld (1970), argues that of the parallels discussed by Sarna, the second millennium Alalakh Text 456 provides the best and earliest model for the Genesis 15 ritual. There the ruler Abbael grants Yarimlim eight towns in return for his military service and loyalty (1994, 55–65). Abram’s recent victory over the Chodollogomer coalition thus parallels Yarimlim’s military achievements and qualies him to receive the gift of land from his master God. Elsewhere Hess distinguishes between suzerain-vassal treaties and land grants. Whereas the former protects the suzerain or maker of the treaty, the latter protects the rights of the vassal or recipient of the gift (2002, 494). Because this account parallels land grants that are given in reward of past loyalty, it can be implied that what God the suzerain is oering Abram is even more than land. He is guaranteeing Abram’s distant ospring the right to the land. Despite the absence of any actual sacrice, the animals that Abram gathers represent the species that are later identied as sacricial animals. As such, Gordon Wenham suggests that the rite should be interpreted using anthropological categories, such as those proposed by Mary Douglas in Purity and Danger, which are associated with other Hebrew Bible rituals. By doing so, the sacricial animals would represent Israel or its priests, while the attacking birds that come down on the bodies of the cut animals would represent unclean nations. Thus, Wenham argues, Abram’s driving away the birds of prey would signify Israel’s defending itself against foreign attack (1987, 331–332). LXX-G’s translation shows it understood the Hebrew dierently. Its use of the same word ‘winged creature’ (G) for the gathered winged creatures and those coming down on the divided animals implies that they could be the same birds. More problematic is its rendering of Abram’s ‘driving away’ ()" *) the birds. Presumably reading the Hebrew verb  + , LXX-G reports that Abram ‘sat down’ (! *# ) with ‘them’ as )* ( -). The referent of ‘them’ – a neuter plural pronoun – is unclear;

300

COMMENTARY

both the birds (G) and the bodies (%μ) of the divided animals are neuter plural nouns. Sitting down with one’s enemies, symbolized by the birds, or sitting down with the victims, symbolized by the bodies, are both admirable actions that can bring about reconciliation or sympathetic suering. However, both are quite dierent from the symbolic action of driving away one’s enemies. After Abram carries out the cultic ritual, he enters another alternate form of consciousness, again paralleling the experiences of some prophets, when a ‘trance’ (  ) falls on him along with a ‘great dark fear’ (?     μ). Ironically, God has enveloped Abram with ‘fear,’ the same emotion that he had earlier ordered Abram not to experience (v. 1). Its eect on Abram is not disclosed. Instead, what follows is an elaboration of God’s earlier promises to Abram. To parallel Abram’s passivity, LXX-G uses the passive verbal expression ‘it was reported’ (#&) with God as the implied subject. What is reported combines God’s previous promise of numerous ospring and his promise of land, with a few new details and caveats. God now discloses the troubling circumstances that Abram’s ospring will experience before they get to occupy their land. They will ‘sojourn’ (*

), i.e., live as resident aliens, in a land not their own. They, presumably the permanent residents of that land, will ‘maltreat’ (  % ! ) them, ‘enslave’ them (( !$% ! ), and ‘humiliate’ ( % ! ) them. To fully describe the horrors of the future four hundred year scenario, LXX-G uses the three verbs above instead of only two in the MT, i.e., ‘serve’ ( ) and ‘oppress’ ( ). God does not explain why this must happen, but he does assure Abram that he will punish the oppressors of his descendants. Moreover, they will come to ‘this place,’ presumably the land where Abram was living, with many possessions. Abram might be comparing the future of his ospring with his own past. He also lived in a land not his own and came away with many possessions (12:10–20). However, it was his wife Sarai, not Abram himself, who likely suered enslavement and humiliation. The second renement of God’s earlier promises to Abram is that he and up to three generations of his descendants will not live long enough to inherit the land. The fourth generation will be the beneciaries of the promise at the expense of those already living in the land whose sins will nally be complete. God stops talking and takes action in multiple forms of theophanic re that pass through the middle of the animal parts. By this action, God is acting as both giver and guarantor of the property transaction. The narrative concludes with an explanation and elaboration of the ritual’s

GENESIS 15:1–21 & 16:1–16

301

covenantal purpose. On that day, per LXX-G, Lord God ‘contracted a covenant’ (( # ( #) &). As discussed above, as a translation of the Hebrew ‘cut a covenant’ ( ), ( # ( #) & misses the signicance of the “cut up” animals that, as here, is the basis of the Hebrew idiom to ‘cut’ a covenant. The four other future occurrences of both the Hebrew   and the Greek ( # ( #) & occur only in the contexts of human-initiated political treaties. The chapter ends with the rst of many descriptions of the extent of the land, here probably the most expansive of the territorial descriptions, bounded on the west by the Nile and on the east by the Euphrates. Also included is the rst of many descriptions of those who will eventually be displaced. The LXX list includes all the usual groups associated with early inhabitants of the land. However, it also includes one group that is never referenced in any list in the MT, i.e., the Raphain (U?), who in the book of Deuteronomy are associated with giant sized people living in the Transjordan area (Deut. 2:11, 20), specically the tribe of Bashan’s King Og (3:11). LXX-G also included the J. !, a group that did not appear in the corresponding MT text but that did appear on other such lists (e.g., Exod. 3:8). 16:1–16 In light of God’s ocial establishment of his covenant with Abram to eventually give his many ospring the land of Canaan, the focus of the story turns to Sarai. She is still not bearing children for Abram, a permanent condition implied with LXX-G’s imperfect  

 and one that would seem to challenge the validity of the covenant. Although she cannot conceive a child, she can and does conceive a plan based on the ANE custom of concubinage or polycoity, whereby a woman of lesser status will serve as a secondary wife in order to provide an heir for a man whose wife is infertile. Conveniently, Sarai has such a woman, her Egyptian maidservant Hagar. In the rst words that Sarai speaks in the biblical text (16:1), she blames God for ‘closing her up’ (! $ ) and thus preventing her from bearing children. She then takes control of the situation by ordering Abram to ‘go into my maidservant’ (Q$# Z    ( & μ !), for the implicit purpose of sexual intercourse, a purpose that becomes clear in Sarai’s announcement of the potential results, i.e., ‘so that you will father children from her’ (O    )  2 ). These results, however, are in Wevers’ words, “a radical departure from the Hebrew” (1993, 218) which states, ‘perhaps I will be built up from her’ (   ). Thus, according to the MT, Hagar’s surrogacy would serve multiple

302

COMMENTARY

purposes. Not only would she provide an heir to Abram, but she also would improve Sarai’s gendered status. Although Sarai was Hagar’s social, political, and economic superior, her barrenness lessened her status as a woman. The wordplay in Sarai’s comment, ‘perhaps I might be built up () through her’ (16:2), implies a double benet of Hagar’s service. The literal meaning of the Hebrew root , i.e., ‘to build,’ refers to Sarai’s improved (‘built up’) status when she is able to provide a child (presumably a son) to Abram. The presumption of a male child is the basis of the wordplay between the verb ‘to build’ () and the noun ‘son’ (). Thus, Sarai hopes that Hagar will be able to build her up by producing a son, which carries more status than a daughter. A mere change in the person of the verb from the Hebrew’s rst person ‘I may be built up’ () to the Greek’s second person ‘you will father children’ (   ) ) makes a signicant dierence in the social representation of the rst family of Israel. LXX-G removes all traces of Sarai’s expression of hope for an upgrade in her gender status and instead improves that of Abram. He is the subject and beneciary of Hagar’s surrogacy. It is no longer Sarai who is to be ‘built up’ or ‘sonned,’ but Abram. The intentions of the LXX-G Sarai are focused on the benets that will accrue to her husband, not to her. Furthermore, LXX-G’s addition of the connective particle ‘therefore’ ( Z) more directly connects the problem of Sarai’s infertility with her proposed solution. Lord has ‘closed me up not to bear children: therefore, go into my maidservant.’ Finally, LXX-G makes it clear that Sarai’s plan will succeed. Gone is the tentativeness of the Hebrew’s ‘perhaps’ ( ). Instead the LXX Sarai tells her husband to go into her maidservant ‘in order that’ (O) he will father children. ALEX’s use of the future active indicative ‘will bear’ (   ) ) instead of the majority and grammatically better subjective ‘might bear’ (   )A) all but guarantees the successful outcome. As a result, Abram’s possible lack of virility is not at stake. The narrator’s terse report that Abram obeyed Sarai’s voice recalls a similar incident in the primeval garden. Because the Man listened to the voice of his wife and took something she gave him, he was sentenced by God to a life of toil (3:17). In this story, however, Abram’s silent obedience brings him good fortune. He goes into Hagar and she conceives (16:4a). At rst it seems as if Sarai’s plan has succeeded; Abram would have a child. Abram’s manly status is thus improved, but Sarai’s status is worsened. Hagar was immediately successful at conception. Moreover, Hagar and others could see that she ‘was pregnant’ (   ), an explicit physical condition evident in LXX-G, but only implicit in the Hebrew’s

GENESIS 16:1–16

303

. Her pregnancy resulted in the mistress ‘being shamed’ (` μ*#&), a Greek verb used only here as a rendering of the Hebrew’s less humiliating ‘belittled’ ( ). Furthermore, the lack of the MT’s third person feminine pronoun ‘her mistress’ () in LXX-G slightly improves Hagar’s status vis-à-vis Sarai. She is no longer dened as Sarai’s mistress. Nevertheless, Sarai attempts to regain her status by challenging Abram to right the wrong he is perpetrating on her, presumably for allowing Hagar to continue to shame her. Abram refuses, even when Sarai turns the matter over to God. Abram still considers Hagar to be Sarai’s maidservant and cavalierly tells her to do whatever she pleases to Hagar. Ironically foreshadowing God’s prophesied ‘maltreatment’ (  % ! , 15:13) of Abram’s descendants by the Egyptians, Sarai ‘maltreats’ ( * ) Hagar her Egyptian maidservant and forces her to run away. This remarkable story represents one of the earliest and most striking examples of the Hebrew God’s reputation as a benefactor of the marginal and oppressed. Earlier, God-in-the-margins helped the underdog Abram and his allies defeat the stronger forces of Chodollogomor. Here, however, Lord God, through his angel persona, appears in the text itself. By word and deed, he comes to the aid of one single individual, Sarai’s Egyptian maidservant Hagar. Pregnant with Abram’s child, Hagar has been maltreated by Sarai, ignored by Abram, and is now homeless by a spring of water in the desert. She is found by the angel of Lord God who immediately recognizes her and addresses her by name, status, and occupation. He asks her two questions about her immediate past (‘from where is she coming’) and her immediate future (‘to where is she traveling’). She answers the rst by admitting she is running away from her mistress, and he provides the answer to the second by telling her to return to her and suer ‘humiliation’ ( %#& ). Once again, this poor Egyptian slave woman experiences what God prophesied her people would later inict his people, i.e., Abram’s ospring. Not allowing Hagar time to protest such an unpleasant homecoming, the angel quickly follows up by promising her many ospring in words that both echo and allude to his earlier pronouncements to Eve (3:16) and Abram (13:16, 15:5). In the rst of many biblical annunciation scenes, the angel speaks for God and predicts the birth of a child, dictates the child’s appropriate name, and then announces the child’s destiny. Here the angel states the obvious, namely, that Hagar is pregnant. He then predicts she will have a son whom she is to name Ishmael. As is necessarily the case, LXX-G lacks the wordplay of the MT where the name Ishmael means ‘God hears.’ Nevertheless, its 9 statement indicates that what Lord hears and will

304

COMMENTARY

give heed to is her humiliation. The child’s destiny, however, shows little indication of divine blessing. The child’s uncomplimentary but rather picturesque destiny in the Hebrew text as a ‘wild ass of a man’ ( ) is transformed in LXX-G into a more disdainful ‘countryman’ (4

 4#  ), a description that implies an uncivilized or boorish character who would likely be scorned in the translator’s cosmopolitan Alexandria. He will constantly be at odds with everyone, and will live ‘opposite’ ( *) his brothers. A double entendre, the word * could mean the mundane ‘in front of ’ as well as the more negative ‘antithetical to’ their way of life. In either case, Ishmael’s life will be one characterized by bellicosity. Despite the unfavorable prediction about her future child’s fate, Hagar does not protest. Instead she gives a name to Lord who she knows is behind the speaking voice, referring to him as the ‘one who looks upon (? (%) me.’ The same verb ? (% was used earlier to describe God’s action with regard to Abel’s oering (4:4) and thus implies a look that is favorable. Then in a statement Wevers describes as “more daring theologically than one might expect” (1993, 226), Hagar claims that she ‘saw in person the one who appeared (S?#) to me.’ Although the appearance could merely refer to God’s angel manifestation, its context implies that she is addressing God. Like Abram, the only other person to whom God appeared (12:7), Hagar names the well in her place of refuge in God’s honor. The chapter ends with the narrator’s summary report, which three times within two short verses, emphasizes that Hagar bore the son Ishmael for Abram (vv. 15a, b, 16b). Unlike the MT in which Sarai hopes to be built-up/sonned by Hagar, LXX-G from the outset denies Sarai any agency or any reward. Not only is Sarai out of the picture, so is Hagar. Abram has taken over the role that the angel assigned Hagar in naming the boy. Moreover, Abram’s virility is highlighted by the comment that he was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore his son. The goal of Sarai’s plan is accomplished; she has helped insure the fulllment of God’s promise to Abram. God, however, has a dierent plan in which Sarai herself will play a leading role. 17:1–14 Thirteen years have passed when God appears for the second time to Abram. This time instead of promising something to Abram (land to his ospring), God demands something of Abram. Indeed, the obligation that God demands on the part of Abram and his family in response to his covenant is the main theme of this chapter. God identies himself as Abram’s God and tells him to be ‘pleasing’ to him ( ) as were Enoch (5:22, 24) and Noah (6:9) and to become ‘blameless’ (4μμ ).

GENESIS 17:1–14

305

This second adjective, a hapax legomenon in Genesis, was not used as the Greek translation of the same Hebrew word ‘perfect’ () when it appeared earlier with regard to Noah (6:9). There $  was the LXX rendering. However, 4μμ  will be used by a later translator sixteen times when he describes Job. Thus, this translator understood 4μμ  in LXX-G of 17:1 to imply more than an existential condition of completeness or wholeness; rather it suggests a condition that is or will be the result of one’s behavior. God follows up his command to Abram by reiterating his earlier promises of abundant descendants in the form of a covenant that he will ‘institute’ (#) μ ). LXX-G uses yet another word, occurring only in this verse, to describe the agreement between God and Abram. More an interpretation than a translation of the Hebrew word , the future middle of the verb  #&μ represents an ocial action, not a ‘gift’ as is implied by . That the translator earlier rendered  with (( μ (9:12) suggests a conscious decision not only to interpret God’s action in this context differently, but also to provide consistency between God’s initial reference to his promise of abundant progeny (v. 2) with its elaboration that follows (vv. 3–6). At this point, however, the lack of a 9 statement between command and promise shows that God has not yet made Abram’s blameless living an explicit precondition of a large dynasty. Neither did God place any conditions on Abram when he earlier ‘contracted’ (( # ) a covenant to give Abram and his descendants the land between the Nile and the Euphrates (15:18). Until now, the two covenants that God made have been entirely unilateral. God was the only obligated partner. However, the intentional choice not to describe this covenant in gift language foreshadows an imminent change in Abram’s part of the agreement. First, however, God elaborates on his dynastic promises to Abram in a speech framed by two future forms of #&μ . God follows up his promise to institute a covenant with Abram by reiterating an earlier promise to ‘multiply’ ($&#!0) Abram abundantly. The narrator interrupts God’s speech with a comment about Abram’s appropriate prostration in light of God’s procreative promise. After being sure of Abram’s attention (3( N), God continues by noting the signicance of Abram’s many ospring. He will be the father of a multitude of nations. God then proceeds to symbolize Abram’s destiny and to fulll his rst promise to Abram to ‘make his name great’ by giving Abram a new expanded name. Both the MT (with its ) and LXX-G (with its Abraam) add a syllable to the pronunciation of his name, thereby literally making his name longer. Once again, God refers to Abraham’s (Abraam) destiny to be a father of many nations,

306

COMMENTARY

but describes this role as another ‘instituting’ action. The use of #

, a perfect form of #&μ , implies that this action has ongoing consequences. God then repeats his promise to make Abraham ‘increase’ (20) and ends his elaboration of this aspect of the covenant by promising to ‘institute’ (#) ) Abraham into a nation. Thus the description of God’s covenant of many ospring to Abram can be read as a chiasm whose center is Abraham’s new name: A B C D C’ B’ A’

Institute (#) μ ) a covenant (v. 2a) Multiply abundantly (v. 2b) Father of a multitude of nations (v. 4) Name change (v. 5a) Instituted (#

) as a father of many nations (v. 5b) Increase abundantly (v. 6a) Institute (#) ) a nation (v. 6b)

The translator’s use of a form of #&μ to render a form of the Hebrew (( μ in each of the three places referenced above cannot be coincidental. Neither the covenant nor the future nationhood of Abraham is a ‘gift’ from God; rather they are ocial entities put into place by God for eternity. The threefold use in the MT of  lent itself to the idea of royal grants, a political scenario reinforced by God’s added declaration that kings would come from Abraham. LXX-G, however, made the political aspect of the covenant more explicit by depicting its elements with the verb ‘institute’ (#&μ ). Thus Abraham’s many ospring will represent more than an extended family. They will represent many nations. Like the rivalries that have already begun to develop within Abraham’s family, rivalries and bloodshed will occur among the nations that descend from Abraham. The third century B.C.E. environment in which the LXX-G translator worked likely inuenced his explicitly political interpretation of this aspect of God’s covenant. The second aspect of God’s covenant with Abraham is now highlighted. In language at this point semantically consistent with the MT, God promises to ‘establish’ () / ) a covenant not only with Abraham, but also with his many ospring. As he prefaced his description of the rst aspect of the covenant with a pledge to be Abraham’s God, God prefaces his description of the expanded and eternal covenant with a pledge to be his ospring’s God. Again semantically consistent with the MT, God promises to ‘give’ ((% /) the land where Abraham is living as a sojourner to his ospring as an eternal possession. This gift of land, however, comes with certain requirements. Instead of the rst person verbs that characterize the progeny part of the covenant in vv. 2–6, second person verbs

GENESIS 17:1–14

307

are prevalent in vv. 9–14. Abraham and his ospring must ‘observe’ (( &) ) the covenant. Wevers comments on LXX-G’s unusual rendering of the MT’s ‘keep’ () with ( &) , instead of some form of ?!$* , by noting that ( &)  “is used in the Pentateuch only of the externals of the covenant . . . (F)or guarding the rules and keeping the faith of the covenant as a way of life ?!$* is used” (1993, 233). In this context, the requirement indeed is external. All males are to be circumcised on the esh of their foreskin as a sign of the covenant. Of all Abraham’s ospring, only those so marked could claim the land as an eternal possession. However, historically speaking, most Egyptian and Semite men (excluding Babylonians and Assyrians) also practiced circumcision (Westermann 1985, 265). Thus, it would be dicult to use the mark of circumcision to prove one’s legitimate right to the land. In this context, therefore, the purpose of circumcision would indicate one’s willing obedience more than one’s right of occupancy. Such a distinction would be even more signicant to Jews living outside the land, especially those living in the diverse environment of third century B.C.E. Alexandria. Perhaps the “external” geographic location also inuenced the distinctive rendering of  with ( &) . If one were unable or unwilling to ‘observe’ an external ordinance, one could still ‘keep’ (#!$* ) the essence of the Torah. Although circumcision was not exclusive to Israel, what made the ordinance as described in this story unusual was God’s command that it occur when a male infant was only eight days old. Most other cultures considered circumcision as a rite of passage that transpired either at puberty or as part of a prenuptial ritual. That Israel made such a signicant change enabled “circumcision to be invested with an entirely new and original meaning” (Sarna 1989, 386) and to be disassociated with other pagan rites. Just as unusual was God’s requirement that even foreign born servants who are bought by one of Abraham’s ospring must also be circumcised. Any male not circumcised on the eighth day was to be ‘destroyed’ (2 $#!#) ) from his family. A neologism created by the LXX-G translator to render the Hebrew ‘cut o from’ (), 2 $#!#)

became the standard equivalent for the punishment associated with many covenantal violations such as eating leavened bread during Passover (Exod. 12:15), eating the blood of any creature (Lev. 17:14), and having intercourse during a woman’s menstrual period (Lev. 20:18). Such oenses are those of a cultic or sexual nature and whose punishment, most scholars maintain, is only to be carried out by God (e.g., Sarna 1989, 126). Thus, Wevers maintains that the LXX-G translator clearly under-

308

COMMENTARY

stood that being cut o from the community meant the death penalty (1993, 236). 17:15–22 God now changes Sarah’s (Sarra) name, using language parallel with his declaration of Abraham’s new name. Unlike the MT in which God only tells Abraham to stop calling her Sarai (‘you [ms] will not call,’  ), LXX-G makes the change more universal (‘her name will not be called,’  $&#)  G μ ). LXX-G also parallels the announcement of her new name with that of Abraham by introducing it with the contrastive ‘but’ ($$+), unlike the MT that attempts to explain her new name by means of a ‘because’ () statement. In fact, LXX-G avoids any attempt to explain the signicance of her name change. As it does with Abraham’s new name, LXX-G merely adds a letter. That it is a consonant, rather than a vowel, does not actually lengthen the pronunciation of her name. Here the parallels with the announcement of Abraham’s name change end. Instead of delivering an extended speech about the promises of the covenant, God more succinctly makes two interrelated declarations. First, he promises to bless her, a promise that he made much earlier to Abraham (12:3). Her blessing, however, seems focused on its eect on Abraham. God will give him from her a ‘child’ (  ), a more gender-neutral term than the MT’s ‘son’ (). Yet, LXX-G rendered both other occurrences of the Hebrew word  in this part of the story (vv. 17, 19) with the more standard !F. As elsewhere in Genesis, this distinction demonstrates what Muraoka maintains is the translator’s “commendable sensitivity and skilfulness” (sic) in dierentiating between   , which indicates a “human as the result of reproduction process” and !F, which refers to the legal relationship of the child to his father or grandfather (2001, 18). Thus, by rendering  with    in v. 16, LXX-G highlights the fact that Sarah will bear a child, whereas the later translations of  with !F emphasize the fact that Isaac will be Abraham’s legal and covenantal heir. In a signicant departure from the MT, God now addresses the fate of the child. Instead of repeating his blessing on ‘her’ (), the LXX God blesses ‘him’ ($ ) ). The explicit referent of this masculine singular pronoun is not clear in LXX-G because the grammatical gender of the assumed referent ‘child’ (  ) is neuter. However, the biological gender would have been known, especially since the MT specically referred to a ‘son.’ Although Wevers correctly describes the grammatical and text critical problems associated with the text of LXX-G, his blanket

GENESIS 17:15–22

309

dismissal of the accuracy of the majority tradition is too hasty (1993, 237). The divergence of the major Greek witnesses from the MT does not make them incorrect. Just as LXX-G shifted the benets of Hagar’s surrogacy from Sarai to Abram (16:2), it now transfers God’s second blessing and its results from Sarai to her future child. The Hellenistic ideology of the Alexandrian translator continues to inuence gender related aspects of the ancestral story. Presumably nations and kings of nations would be more appropriate destinies for a male child than for its mother. Here LXX-G’s preference for ‘nation’ language goes against its tendency for lexical variety. It follows the MT in the rst part of the child’s destiny to be ‘nations’ ( /#&), but diers from the MT in its rendering of the second part of the promise. Instead of the more general ‘kings of peoples’ ( ) to come from him, LXX-G reports that ‘kings of nations’ ( $- #0) will be his descendants. Again, it is likely that the translator’s cosmopolitan environment, in which ‘peoples’ were described in ethnic categories, inuenced his interpretive translation. In gestures both deferential to God’s position and incredulous of God’s promise, Abraham falls on his face and laughs at God’s declaration that Sarah would bear him a child. He dares not question God outwardly; instead he asks inwardly whether he as a centenarian and Sarah only ten years younger could really have a child. What he does say to God, nevertheless, shows his doubts as well as his seeming preference for his rstborn Ishmael. God responds to Abraham’s plea about Ishmael by placating him. Indeed, God replies, that may be what you want, but this is the way it is going to be. God then reiterates that Sarah would bear a child and goes on to tell Abraham his name – Isaac. Those who would hear the Hebrew text would immediately recognize the wordplay associated with Abraham’s ‘laughing’ (  ( $*) response to God’s announcement about Sarah’s having a son with the name of the son that Sarah will bear, i.e., ‘Isaac’ (  ( $). To prevent any further protest from Abraham, God reverts to his ocial covenant language; he will ‘establish’ () ) his covenant with Isaac and his ospring. Nevertheless, to appease Abraham, God grants Ishmael a consolation package that begins with a blessing. ALEX’s use of the aorist ‘blessed’ ($&) implies that God has already blessed Ishmael, while the perfect ‘has blessed’ ($& ) of other Greek manuscripts connote that the eects of the blessing will continue into the future. In either case, the blessing is associated with fertility. As God promised Abraham, God also promises that Ishmael will multiply and increase abundantly. He will father ‘twelve nations’ ((%(  #&) and become a ‘great nation’

310

COMMENTARY

(#  μ) in and of himself. Again LXX-G’s preference for ‘nation’ language is highlighted in its report that twelve ‘nations,’ rather than MT’s twelve ‘princes’ (   ), will come from Ishmael. Despite Ishmael’s somewhat parallel destiny, God makes it clear that Isaac, Abraham’s son by Sarah, is the favorite by reiterating the ocial covenantal language. In contrast to God’s gift of an undened nation to Ishmael, Isaac and his ospring will be beneciaries of the covenant by which the gift of a specic land will be theirs forever. God concludes his speech to Abraham by telling him that Sarah will have the child within the year. As has become customary, Abraham’s response to God’s generosity will come through actions, not words. 17:23–27 Compared with Abraham’s questionable verbal (and mental) responses to God’s statements, his actions show complete obedience. He circumcises Ishmael and all the other males in his household, including himself, on that very day according to God’s explicit instructions. 18:1–15 In his third appearance to Abraham, as in the previous two, God gives Abraham startling information and makes covenantal promises with regard to his descendants. When God rst appeared, he showed Abraham the land he would give to his ospring (12:7). Later he made the terms of his covenantal agreement ocial (17:2–14). Abraham’s ospring would be abundant, and the land would be the eternal possession of those who were circumcised. This time God appears in disguise and arrives with two other men as Abraham is sitting by the entrance of his tent. Unlike the two previous appearances, God does not speak right away. Nevertheless, Abraham seems to sense the importance of these mysterious visitors. From the moment that he sees the three men standing above him, he rushes around to show them appropriate – and in LXX-G even more pronounced – hospitality. First he runs to meet them and immediately bows down to greet them with deference and respect, a humble gesture that continues in his verbal greeting. Addressing the presumed leader of the group, he hails him as ‘Lord’ (= ). Little does Abraham know that his greeting is not only respectful, but also ironically correct. He continues his deferential manner by twice (vv. 3, 5) referring to himself in the third person as the guest’s ‘servant’ (-(*). He begs them to stay and accept his hospitality. Unlike most other places where LXX-G does not translate the polite Hebrew particle , here it does so twice. First, it renders Abraham’s prefatory remark in the MT ‘if perchance I have found favor’ (  ) with 3 4

GENESIS 18:1–15

311

a  * ; the inclusion of 4 is, according to Wevers, both “a delicate touch” and “a mark of great deference” (1993, 246). Then in the following verse, LXX-G renders the Hebrew ‘let, if you please, (a little water) be brought’ ( ) with $&μ?#) (. Continuing in the peculiar third person style, Abraham delineates what will be done for his guests but not explicitly who will do it. Presumably, it is Abraham’s servant who is to wash the guests’ feet. ALEX’s third person singular imperative ‘let him wash’ ( 6* ), in contrast with the third person plural ‘let them wash’ ( 6* ) imperative of most other Greek manuscripts and the MT, is contextually accurate. Although Abraham likely has other servants, only one is mentioned in this story. To emphasize Abraham’s generous hospitality, LXX-G departs from the MT’s report that Abraham oered his guests a ‘little water’ ( ). Instead, it puts no limit on the amount of water to be provided. Similarly, the LXX Abraham does not restrict his guests to a ‘bit of food’ (). While they cool themselves under the tree, he will get an as-yet unspecied amount of food for them to eat. Only after they allow him as their ‘servant’ (-) to provide hospitality may they resume their journey. The visitors agree with his plan. Abraham quickly goes into action. He ‘hurries’ (!) to the tent and tells Sarah to ‘hurry’ (" ) her preparation of bread cakes. Then he ‘runs’ ((μ) to choose a tender young calf that his ‘servant boy’ (-) is ‘quick’ (*!) to prepare. LXX-G’s use of several dierent words to describe Abraham’s speedy hospitality shows its tendency for lexical variety. Yet it also shows that Abraham is making sure every possible action – running, hurrying, being quick – is being done to expedite the meal preparation. Not only does LXX-G represent Abraham as an even better and more generous host, it also characterizes him as more humble. Both the MT and LXX-G have Abraham describe himself to his guests as a ‘servant.’ In the Hebrew text, Abraham’s self-designation is  , a word typically used with reference to one who serves either a human or a divine master. When referring to Abraham’s own servant, on the other hand, the writer uses   (18:7), a word meaning ‘boy’ or ‘lad’ and that is used to refer to a household servant or slave. Thus, the MT makes a distinction between the type of servant Abraham calls himself vis-à-vis his visitors, and the type of servant who serves Abraham, thereby implying a hierarchy based on the type of service rendered. LXX-G, however, makes no such distinction, since it uses the same word, -, for both Abraham’s self-designation and that of his servant. Thus, Abraham puts himself on the same level as his household help and, in so doing, exaggerates the respect accorded the visitors while they are his guests. Furthermore,

312

COMMENTARY

the LXX Abraham does more than ‘give’ () the meal to his guests; he ‘serves’ (#& ) them and stands by while they eat. Not only does LXX-G improve Abraham’s social graces, it also minimizes any threat to his virility in the next part of the story. Finally getting to the real purpose of the unexpected visit, one of the guests asks Abraham about Sarah. He responds by telling him she is in the tent. The guest then makes a surprising declaration; when he returns within the year Sarah will have a son. The precise translation of the Greek phrase

+     "  3 b, like its Hebrew counterpart   , is debated (see Sarna 1989, 130 for comments about the Hebrew phrase). As discussed above,   denotes time, but not chronological time. Instead, it can mean something as specic as ‘season’ (e.g., 1:14) or, as here and elsewhere, a ‘designated time’ for something momentous to occur (e.g., 6:13). The Greek word b also has a wide range of meanings, many of them similar to   (e.g., ‘time,’ ‘season’, ‘occasion’), especially in LXX-G (Muraoka 2002, 282–283). The diculty in producing a precise literal translation has led many to resort to a rendering that acknowledges the momentous signicance of these two words as well as their place in the narrative context. At some special time or season within the year, the mysterious visitor would return and Sarah would have a son. Abraham does not laugh at the prediction of his unknown guest, as he had earlier when an undisguised God told him the same thing (17:17). This time it is Sarah who will laugh when she overhears the man’s prediction. Before reporting her laughter, however, the narrator interrupts the male conversation to remind the reader that Sarah and Abraham were old and that Sarah ‘stopped having the ways of women,’ i.e., menstruation. Not only has she been barren her whole life, but it is now humanly impossible for her to bear children. So, she laughs to herself and denies the possibility of progeny by stating ‘not yet has it happened to me until now’ (cd μ μ   e   " "). Adding to the problem, she adds ‘and now my lord is old’ (, (Y   μ !  ). Her statement shows both her appropriate spousal deference to her husband (calling him her ‘lord’), as well as her realistic and rather caustic acknowledgement of his old age. Despite the similarity between Sarah and Abraham’s responses to the prediction of progeny, their laughing skepticism diers in two ways. First, unlike Abraham, who based his doubts on their mutual old age (17:17), Sarah’s laughter focuses only on Abraham’s old age. Second, Abraham had distanced himself somewhat from the unlikely possibility of paternity by expressing his procreative inability in a hypothetical

GENESIS 18:1–15

313

future, while Sarah’s remark about her husband’s old age refers explicitly to Abraham’s present and actual condition, i.e., he is old. Even more signicant than the dierences between the laughing thoughts of LXX-G’s ancestors is the stark contrast between Sarah’s statement in LXX-G and her question in the MT ‘after my wearing out can I still have sexual pleasure’? (   ). In this context, the remark about her husband’s old age (   ) is not merely an additional reection. It represents a challenge to Abraham’s manly abilities to provide her pleasure. Wevers provides a convincing philological explanation for LXX-G’s awkward rendering. He maintains that the LXX-G translator (mis)read , not as ‘my being worn out,’ but as the negative particle ‘not, except’ and translated it as d , a translation permitted by the consonantal text (1993, 252). This removes Sarah’s unattering self-portrayal as a worn out old woman. More problematic is  , the word denoting sexual pleasure. Inasmuch as the LXX-G translator might not have known this hapax legomenon, Wevers maintains that he read it as two Hebrew words,  and  , and translated it as e   " ", i.e., ‘until now’ (Wevers 1993, 252). Thus, Sarah’s laughing thoughts can be rendered ‘never yet has it happened to me until now.’ The only possible referent of the pronoun ‘it’ could be what was discussed in the previous verses, i.e., Sarah’s inability to have children. Not only do the above changes point to possible philological problems on the part of the LXX-G translator, they also reect dierences in the social and gender attitudes characteristic in the translator’s Hellenistic environment. Instead of pondering the possibility of sexual pleasure in her old age and withered state, the LXX-G Sarah merely comments on her lifetime problem. Furthermore, by replacing Sarah’s thoughts of pleasure with an allusion to her continued barrenness, the LXX-G Sarah accepts the blame for the couple’s lack of progeny. Doing so downplays the signicance of Abraham’s age. His virility is less threatened, especially since he had earlier fathered a son through Hagar. Like a proper Hellenistic matron, Sarah thinks not of her own sexual pleasure. Rather she reects on her spousal duty of producing the required heir for Abraham. Like her foremother Eve, Sarah is denied her desire and left only with the potential pains associated with bearing children. The narrator identies the group’s leader and speaker as Lord, although it is not certain that the characters yet realize who is talking. The speaker’s divine abilities are implied by his statement that he knows Sarah’s inward laughing thoughts. However, his report of her laughing

314

COMMENTARY

thoughts is not quite accurate. His paraphrase of the rst part of her laughing thoughts ‘shall I truly bear a child?’ (f*  $� 2 μ ;) captures the sense of her comments, but is nevertheless incorrect. However, he completely misrepresents the second part of her statement when he reports that she said ‘but I have grown old’ (g (Y ) ). Her concerns were not about her old age; they were about Abraham’s. As Lord minimized any performance anxiety on Abraham’s part by changing Sarah’s comment about Abraham’s age, he likewise relieves Sarah’s procreative performance anxiety by announcing that this previously barren woman will conceive within the year. One would hope Lord’s divine abilities regarding ‘the matter’ of Sarah’s conception will be better than his abilities to hear her inward thoughts. Nevertheless, Lord has the last word when he overrides Sarah’s denial of her laughter. 18:16–21 Until this point in the story, the conversation between God and Abraham has been predominantly one-sided with God doing nearly all the talking. Only twice has Abraham responded to God. The two questions he raised when he rst responded to God’s promises showed him to be concerned about how and when God would fulll his promises (15:2, 8). In his second response to God’s generosity, Abraham protests against God’s preference for the son Sarah is to bear (17:17). In neither case does Abraham demonstrate much more than self-centeredness. That is about to change. Not only will Abraham have an extended conversation with God, but he will also show that he is able to care about others as well as himself. Their rst mission accomplished, Abraham’s three guests survey the location of their next task. In a double entendre, the narrator reports that they ‘look down’ on Sodom and Gomorrah from their elevated geographical and moral location. Abraham journeys with them and, because he likely knows the way, ‘escorts’ (! μ ) them. However, Abraham and the three men do not get very far when ‘the lord’ (,  ) speaks. For the rst time in Genesis, Swete’s edition of ALEX articulates and does not capitalize   when the word refers to Israel’s God. Despite the fact that the one speaking is one of the three ‘men’ who were guests of Abraham, there is no doubt that this one is indeed Lord God. A human ‘lord’ might refer to Abraham as his ‘servant,’ but he would not know Abraham’s destiny. Perhaps, ALEX is assuming Abraham’s limited point-of-view and feigning ignorance of ‘the lord’s’ true identity. In any case, this speaker raises a very important question to himself about the nature of the future relationship between him and his servant Abraham.

GENESIS 18:16–21

315

This epithet ‘my servant’ ( ( μ !), not included in the MT, explicitly links Abraham’s deferential self-description in the preceding narrative with God’s more elevated representation of the relationship. That same epithet will be used with reference to all God’s expressly chosen people, such as Moses, Joshua, and the prophets. The LXX-G translator perhaps added the epithet as a subtle way of portraying the upcoming conversation between Abraham and God as an early example of how later prophets would negotiate with God on behalf of the people. Abraham’s temerity will both foreshadow the roles of God’s future servants and demonstrate Abraham’s maturing behavior. Given this special relationship he has just dened between himself and Abraham, the lord (God) wonders if he should reveal what he is planning to do. As he mulls over his decision, he considers Abraham’s glorious destiny and what he knows will be righteous and just behavior on the part of Abraham and his ospring. Finally acknowledging that his previous commitments to Abraham and his family demand that he take Abraham into his condence, God makes his plans known. The central issue in the dialogue between God and his servant deals with righteousness and justice – the two criteria that God claims to know Abraham will demonstrate. Thus the decision to include Abraham in his plans allows God to see if Abraham will indeed show potential for living according to ‘the ways of Lord’ (+ ,( N =! !). This is, in essence, God’s rst test of Abraham’s covenantal suitability. The explicit test will come later. Lord, whom Swete’s ALEX now identies in its customary way, proceeds to tell Abraham about the outcry and sins associated with Sodom and Gomorrah and then announces his intention to go down there in order to verify the accuracy of the statement. Ironically, precisely what Lord intends to verify is ambiguous. It is clear that the outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is in reference to their great sins. However, it is not clear if the genitive ‘of Sodom and Gomorrah’ is objective or subjective. In other words, is the outcry from the inhabitants of the cities or about the inhabitants of the cities. Harl, like most, opts for the second option, i.e., the objective genitive (1994, 177). However, there is yet another ambiguous issue with regard to the investigation. Lord plans to investigate whether the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are !$ " the sins that are the basis of the outcry. The Greek word !$ " , like its Hebrew counterpart , refers to ‘completion,’ ‘accomplishment,’ or ‘fulllment.’ Thus, the above translation in which God wonders if ‘they are bringing it [the sins leading to the outcry] to an end’ implies that God will not go down if they stopped, i.e., brought to an end, their behavior. However,

316

COMMENTARY

most translations assume that God wants to see if they are accomplishing, rather than bringing to an end, their behavior. In that case, God will go down. Either way, God will know if they have brought what led to the outcry to an end or if they have carried out the behavior to its fulllment. 18:22–33 The men go on their way; Abraham remains standing before Lord and begins his dialogue. Presuming that God’s planned visit to the sinful cities will lead to their destruction, Abraham also presumes that God should not act that way. Instead of asking God if he would ‘sweep away’ ( ) the righteous with the wicked (per MT), ALEX has Abraham state that God would not ‘destroy’ (! $A) the righteous with the ungodly. That would imply that God makes no distinction between these two types of people. This being the case, Abraham now presents a series of hypothetical scenarios to prove what he thinks he knows about divine justice. What if there are fty righteous in the city? The God he thinks he knows would certainly not, he repeats, certainly not allow innocent people to be destroyed! His questions and the presumed certainty of their answers imply that he knows what no other human has or will ever know, namely, how God understands and administers justice. God’s response, nevertheless, arms Abraham’s assumption. He would let the place go unpunished if he nds fty righteous people within it. Realizing how presumptuous he must sound, Abraham admits his inferiority to the one to whom he is speaking. Swete’s ALEX again departs from its customary reference to Israel’s God by articulating but not capitalizing   – when Abraham directly addresses him – throughout the rest of the dialogue about justice and righteousness. After acknowledging that he is but earth and ash, Abraham proceeds to raise the stakes of his challenge of the lord higher and higher by making the number of righteous lower and lower. If that number is lacking by ve would the lord then destroy? Again, the answer is no. LXX-G’s surprising repetition of forms of the verb ‘destroy’ ($$!μ ), in contrast with the verbal variety in the MT, emphasizes the importance of the number of righteous people found. God’s actions will be the same regardless of number. This emphasis can also be discerned in the economy of Abraham’s words as the negotiation proceeds. Numbers become metonyms for the righteous people they earlier described. What if forty are found? Both partners understand the terms of the bargaining. Next Abraham omits other words from his part of the conversation. He begins several rounds of debate by assuming that God will ll in the blanks of his elliptical comment ‘Do not, oh lord.’ Presumably appealing for God’s

GENESIS 18:22–33 & 19:1–28

317

continued patience, Abraham nevertheless does not wait for a response before pushing ahead to see just how few are sucient to hold o God’s destruction. He nally stops at ten. When God again admits he will not destroy on account of ten, Abraham perhaps wishes he could speak once again. However, he said he would not. Just in case Abraham decides to ask for more – or less, God stops speaking to Abraham and departs. Abraham, no longer having a conversation partner, returns to his place. Inasmuch as Abraham never again engages in an extended conversation with God, his ‘place’ is both literal (where he is living) and gurative (not equal to God). 19:1–28 It is now Lot’s turn to show hospitality to two of Abraham’s earlier guests, who are now identied as ‘angels’ (4$ ), although the Greek word, like its Hebrew counterpart () can also be translated as ‘messengers.’ Like Abraham before him, Lot does not realize that he is hosting divine messengers. However, unlike Abraham, who was sitting by the entrance to his tent, Lot is sitting by the gate, i.e., the entrance to the city of Sodom and often the place where legal issues are resolved. Moreover, Lot will take his guests into his house, whereas Abraham served his guests lunch outside his tent. Also contrasted is the time of the encounter. The guests arrive at Abraham’s at midday, while the angels enter the city at evening. Night in the city will prove to be more dangerous than midday in the country, especially when Lot’s neighbors do not adhere to the same standards of hospitality. He, like Abraham before him, is respectful and deferential; he bows to greet the visitors whom he addresses as ‘lords,’ while referring to himself as their servant. He entreats them not only to rest and wash their feet, but also to spend the night. However, in contrast to Abraham’s third person imperative, i.e., let him wash your feet, Lot’s guests are expected to wash their own feet. Then, according to ALEX, Lot’s hospitality becomes more heavy handed. Unlike most manuscripts that use the slightly less aggressive  * to describe his ‘urging’ his guests to stay with him, ALEX reports that he was ‘forcing’ them ( * ), a word that can connote some level of violence (LSJ 1968, 1035). In so doing, ALEX not only prepares the reader for the worst, it also provides an ominous foreshadowing of what will later happen to him. They concede and go into his house, where Lot provides food and drink. In marked contrast with the elaborate meal that Abraham served his guests, Lot prepares only unleavened bread. In his defense, it was night and time would not permit him to make an elegant meal. Moreover, he did not call on his wife or daughters to help. Instead his hospitality

318

COMMENTARY

centered on ‘drinking’ ( ); the food was almost incidental. Whether the guests accepted the drinks is unknown; the narrator only reports that they ate and went to bed. Presumably their objective of investigating the outcry heard by God would have to wait. The wait, however, would not be long. The Sodomites, whose deplorable reputations have been noted several times previously (13:13; 18:20–33), surround the house. To show that Abraham’s negotiations to protect up to ten righteous people were in vain, the narrator reports that ‘all of the people at the same time’ (H , $ Hμ) participate in the night’s events. Inasmuch as ‘all’ refers to only to males, i.e., ‘from young men to older men’ (  ! e  ! ! – both masculine singular adjectives), women presumably are not included among the ‘ungodly’ ()) who are the objects of the messengers’ investigation. Their righteousness, or lack thereof, is not considered in the formula for determining the justness of God’s punishment. The entire male population demands that Lot bring out his male visitors so that they might ‘have sexual intercourse’ (!%μ#) with them. The Greek ! μ occurs twice within LXX-G, but only three other times in the entire LXX (Jdt. 12:16; Sus. 1:11, 39). Here the word translates the Hebrew ‘to know’ ( ), which is a known euphemism for carnal knowledge, i.e., sexual intercourse. In its other Genesis occurrence (39:10), the Greek ! μ renders another Hebrew word that can refer to sexual intercourse, namely ‘take to bed’ (). Like its Hebrew counterparts, the Greek ! μ has a variety of mundane and nonsexual meanings as well, e.g., ‘to communicate or converse with’ (LSJ 1968, 1660). Nevertheless, its later use in the context of known sexual relations suggests that it must refer here to intercourse as well. Lot implores the men ‘not to act wickedly’ (μ  &&#). This description likely applies equally to their making him violate the rules of hospitality by which he must oer safe lodging for his guests, as it does to their violation of the guests themselves. As God should ‘by no means’ (μ&(μ0) punish the righteous along with the ungodly (18:25), the Sodomites should ‘by no means’ do what they are proposing. Instead, Lot oers the men his two daughters, neither of which ‘has known a man’ (    4(). Here the translator renders the Hebrew euphemism

 more literally. In so doing, LXX-G distinguishes between what the Sodomites want, i.e., ‘sexual intercourse’ (! μ ) and what Lot oers instead ‘knowing’ ( % ). As discussed above, both terms refer in the context of the story to an unsolicited sexual encounter. The former

GENESIS 19:1–28

319

is used in reference to an act that is characterized as wicked; the latter to an act that is presumably not so. The Sodomites reject Lot’s oer. As a resident alien, Lot should not presume to force his social values on them. Such hubris, in their eyes, mandates that they treat Lot even more harshly than what they had proposed to do with his guests. Ironically, they ‘force’ ( *  ) Lot to remain outside as he ‘forced’ ( * ) his guests to come inside. Yet the addition of ‘excessively’ (?() shows that their actions were more violent. Indeed, the encounter between Lot and the Sodomite men awoke Lot’s guests, now identied as ‘men’ (4(). These angel/men intervene by pulling Lot back into the house and shutting the door. Then, making use of their divine capabilities, they blind the men outside so that they cannot nd the door. Lot still has no idea of who saved him or what they did to hinder the Sodomite advances. Having the necessary evidence to support the outcry heard by Lord and thus justify his proposed destruction, the angel/men take action. They ask Lot to identify any relatives – listed in the unusual order of sons-inlaw, sons, then daughters – he might have in the city. That they are to be brought out before its destruction suggests that they might be the righteous Lord had earlier agreed to spare. After realizing that his guests are really angel/men sent by Lord to ‘rub out’ ( -6 ) the place, Lot goes out to speak to those at the top of the their list, i.e., his sons-in-law. The extended description of these men as ‘the ones having taken his daughters’ (3$&? + #!  ") raises several questions. Inasmuch as the verb $μ* in some contexts implies sexual relations and/or marriage (e.g., 4:19; 26:34), was Lot deceiving the Sodomites by telling them his two daughters had not known a man? Or were the sons-in-law only betrothed to Lot’s daughters, but not yet married? In either case, one wonders if they knew or cared about Lot’s oer to the men. A third and more likely possibility is that Lot had two other daughters who were already married and not living with him. This option can be supported by the comment that Lot take the two daughters that he has (+ ( #!  ! h  ), presumably at home, when he leaves the city. Of course, this scenario also places the sons-in-law with the Sodomites who were demanding to ‘know’ their father-in-law’s guests. That they then would be destroyed with the others is an outcome supported by the fact that they thought Lot’s warning was just a joke. They would not be laughing later; unfortunately, neither would their wives, Lot’s other daughters. They and other women, along with their children, do not fare well in this

320

COMMENTARY

story. Despite their innocence, they will not be among the ‘righteous’ who are spared from destruction. The only potential survivors are Lot’s wife and two daughters whom the angel/men want Lot to quickly take out of the city. Lot and this part of his family do not think the matter is a joke; however, their distress seems to paralyze them. The angel/men have to take them all by the hand to get them ‘outside’ (2 ) of the house, but not ‘out of the city’ (   ), per MT. The presence of women in the story is belied by their continued exclusion from the plot when the angel/men press Lot to be sure to save his own life (the second masculine singular imperative ‘save’ [D] enhanced by the second masculine singular reexive ‘your own’ [! "]). The angel/men provide Lot additional instructions, with all corresponding imperative verbs limited to second masculine singular – ‘do not look’ (μ  $6A), ‘do not stay’ (μ&(Y ), and ‘keep safe’ (8 !). One wonders whether Lot’s wife or daughters were privy to these details, especially since his wife’s disregard of the rst condition caused her to become a pillar of salt. Unfortunately for her, Lot only asks to be exempted from the last order to go to the mountain area, the one that Lot argues will threaten his own safety. Indeed, he claims that some unidentied ‘harmful things’ (+  +) might cost him his life, the life that the angel/men are trying to save. Instead of eeing to the mountains, Lot wants to go instead to a ‘small city’ nearby. Because LXX-G cannot duplicate the wordplay in the MT between the city’s small size ( ) and its eventual name (

), the choice of the LXX-G Lot is puzzling. Nevertheless, the angel/men honor his request and agree not to destroy the city to which Lot is referring. Perhaps they would agree to just about anything to get Lot and his family out of the city right away. As soon as Lot enters Segor, Lord rains brimstone and re on Sodom and Gomorrah, which ALEX alone denes as those cities in which Lot was settled. The divine nature of the destruction is emphasized by twice attributing it to Lord, as well as referring to its heavenly origin. The totality of the destruction is clear; both living things and growing things are overturned. Moreover, the neighboring areas suffer the same fate. Then as a seeming afterthought, the narrator reports that Lot’s wife gazed at the things behind. Her disregard for the previous instructions led to her demise. Inasmuch as only Lot is reported to have entered the city of Segor and his wife is out of the picture, one wonders about the fate of his daughters. Abraham’s appearance serves as a reminder of his negotiation with God about the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. Looking at the ames rising

GENESIS 19:1–28 & 19:29–38

321

like steam from a furnace, Abraham must assume that God could not nd ten righteous people in the cities and that his nephew and family were destroyed in the re. 19:29–38 One wonders why God did not tell Abraham that he had spared the life of his nephew Lot, especially because God did it for Abraham. Abraham likely would not know of Lot’s morally ambiguous destiny to father sons that would become eponymous ancestors to some of Israel’s closest and often hostile neighbors. Lot, himself, did not know at the time. Having ed to the small city of Segor for fear of the mountain area, Lot now is afraid to stay there. So he and his daughters end up living in a cave in that same mountain area. His two daughters, who had no say in his earlier oer to give them to the Sodomites, have a proposition of their own. Like that of their father, theirs centers on sexual relations. Unlike that of their father, theirs is motivated by a more noble cause than hospitality customs. They want to preserve the human race. Knowing that their father is old and assuming no other men are alive – or at least available – the older daughter devises a plan for progeny. She suggests that they get their father drunk and ‘lay with him’ ( μ* ). The Greek word

μ* , like the Greek word ! μ and the Hebrew words  and  discussed above, has both sexual and non-sexual meanings (LSJ 1968, 967). It can mean ‘to sleep’ or ‘to go to bed’ as above (19:4) and elsewhere in LXX-G (24:54; 28:11; 31:54; 32:14, 22; 41:21; 47:30; and 49:9). However, it can also mean ‘to lie with,’ i.e., have sexual intercourse with, as here and elsewhere in LXX-G (26:10; 30:15; 30:16; 34:2, 7; 35:22; 39:7, 12, 14, 17). In each case, its meaning is evident by its narrative context. Here, the reason that Lot’s older daughter proposes to μ with their father is to ‘raise up ospring from our father’ (2) μ   "  :μ0 μ). The verb 2 &μ , used in conjunction with ‘ospring’ (μ) refers to the male role in fathering children (see Louw-Nida 23.59). Inasmuch as they are initiating the act, they can be assumed to be playing the male role. The older daughter goes rst and succeeds in seducing her father after giving him wine to drink. To minimize Lot’s gullibility and morally dubious incestuous relations, the narrator reports that he did not know of his elder daughter’s going to bed or getting up. Neither will he know what happened the next night when his younger daughter also goes in, sleeps with him, and gets up. Thus while Lot is partially exonerated for what happened to him, he is nevertheless characterized as an easily manipulated man who knows almost nothing. Ironically, what he did not know (  i( ) was that he was the rst man

322

COMMENTARY

to be known (    4() by his daughters who had not known a man (j    4(). Despite his state of unknowing, Lot nevertheless performs well. Both daughters conceive from their father and both bear a son. The daughters also take responsibility for naming their respective sons. The elder daughter names her son Moab, because, she explains in an addition in the LXX, he was ‘from my father.’ Similarly the younger daughter names her son Ammon and supplies the reason missing from the Hebrew text. He is the son of ‘my people.’ Likely not included in the Hebrew text because of the obvious wordplays in the names of the sons (  and  respectively), the meaning of their names is necessary in LXX-G to reinforce the incest surrounding their births. Although the daughters and their actions are not condemned in the story, the reputations of the nations of which the sons become eponymous ancestors – Moab and Ammon – will always be ambiguous at best in the larger story of Israel. The women of Moab, in particular, will play dual roles. They not only will be ultimately responsible for some of the most horric deaths (Num. 25), but one will also be responsible for one of the most important births, namely that of the ancestor of King David (Ruth 4). 20:1–18 Like his nephew Lot who twice allowed himself to be seduced by his daughters, Abraham twice deceives foreign rulers by claiming that his wife Sarah was really his sister. This time, however, God’s earlier intervention prevents Sarah from even being ‘touched.’ In a story characterized by delayed revelation, Abraham gets himself in another presumably dangerous situation. He again travels southward and sojourns in another country. Earlier he journeyed to Egypt to escape the famine in the land; this time, however, he oers no explicit motive for moving. Perhaps he wants to get far away from the destruction he witnessed closer to his home around Mamre. He is reported to be living somewhere between Kadesh and Shur, areas in the southernmost part of the territory associated with him. However, he wanders elsewhere and lives as a resident alien in Gerar, the precise location of which is debated but presumed to be south of Gaza. Although Abraham’s reasons for travel are unknown, his motives for his second deception of a foreign ruler are clear in LXX-G. He claims Sarah is his sister, and in an LXX-G addition, declares the negative as well, i.e., ‘she is not his wife.’ As earlier, he is afraid he will be killed. Here he does not explain at the outset why anyone would kill him on account of Sarah. However, he does later in the story when pressed by the king.

GENESIS 20:1–18

323

Sarah again is taken to the foreign ruler, who is immediately visited by God at night. In a departure from the MT that reports God came to Abimelech in ‘dreams’ (), LXX-G reports that God ‘entered him’ (3$#) ‘in sleep’ ( 'B). Here, as elsewhere, LXX-G avoids dream language. Only in narrating the story of Jacob’s dream on his way to Haran (28:12) does LXX-G render the MT’s   with ! *#&. All other dream language occurs only in the Joseph Narrative (37–50). Divine possession, combined with God’s death threat, gets the king’s attention. It is not Abraham who would die on account of Sarah; it is Abimelech. At this point in the narrative, Abraham and Sarah are not mentioned by name. The ‘he said and did/she said and did’ technique implies that the deeds themselves have more signicance than the actors. Once Abimelech learns that the ‘woman’ he took was already married, he defends himself. The narrator legitimates the king’s defense of himself, and by extension that of his nation, by reporting that he had ‘not touched’ Sarah (  M6 ). Like Abraham had done earlier, Abimelech questions whether this God would really destroy righteous people. Both the man and the woman deceived him by claiming to be siblings, so Abimelech’s deed was done with a ‘pure heart’ and ‘righteousness of hands.’ God acknowledges his pure heart, i.e., his innocent intent. However, God takes full credit for preventing Abimelech from actually sinning; God himself was responsible for keeping Abimelech from ‘touching’ (H6# ) her. This repetition of what does not happen to Sarah is likely necessary here in light of what does happen to her in the following story. God will cause her to have a son. Here in Gerar, God is also acting on her behalf. He orders Abimelech to return the woman to the man, now described as a prophet, who will pray that Abimelech’s life – and that of everything he owns – be spared. Why God requires Abraham to intercede on Abimelech’s behalf is not stated. Abimelech wastes no time in resolving the situation. He reports everything to his servants who are reported to be ‘very afraid’ (? )#& . . . ?(). Fear seems to be a dening motive behind the recent actions of many men (19:30; 20:2); the explicit irony of the fear of Abimelech’s men becomes clear later. Abimelech summons Abraham and asks him a series of increasingly pointed questions about Abraham’s motives. What did the Gerarites do that made Abraham do what ‘no one should do.’ Abraham nally reveals the reason for his deception. He assumed that ‘there was no fear of God’ in the place. In other words, he questioned whether the people of Gerar could be moral people. Perhaps Abraham thought that, like the men of Sodom, these men also lacked scruples. His God was not

324

COMMENTARY

their God, so he doubted their moral character. Ironically, the men were fearful after their king reported what Abraham’s God had said. Even more ironic, Abimelech implicitly declares Abraham’s actions immoral. No one should do what he did. Realizing his faulty reasoning, Abraham goes on to oer another defense. Actually, he was not really lying about Sarah being his sister. In fact, they had the same father, but not the same mother. She was his half-sister who eventually ‘became’ ()#&) his wife. By using the passive )#& to report his marriage to Sarah, instead of the more typical active verb ‘took’ ($), Abraham still appears to be shirking his ultimate responsibility for the deceptive statement. However, he corrects that in his next statement when he acknowledges that it was he who implored Sarah to claim him as her brother. Abimelech goes beyond what God demanded of him. Not only does he return what is rightly Abraham’s, i.e., his wife, he also pays Abraham in money, livestock, and people. He even allows Abraham to ‘settle’ (    ), i.e., to no longer live as a resident alien, anywhere in his land where Abraham so desires. Unlike the Pharaoh who never spoke to Sarah, the king of Gerar does so. The money he gives to the man he still describes as her ‘brother’ serves to restore her honor. Yet he continues by implicitly blaming her for what happened. Unlike his nal absolving declaration in the MT (‘and with everything be vindicated,’    ), the LXX-G Abimelech tells her to be ‘truthful’ in everything. Abraham indeed prays for Abimelech who is healed. In a nal delayed revelation, the narrator reports that Abimelech’s wife and servant girls now bore children. God had not actually taken anyone’s life; he merely preventing them from giving life. He had to close all the wombs here and now so that he could safely open Sarah’s elsewhere and later. 21:1–7 To highlight the reliability of God, the narrator twice reports that Lord did what he said he would do to and for Sarah (v. 1) and later reiterates that he did as he promised Abraham (v. 2). As a result of his ‘visit,’ Sarah conceives and bears for Abraham a son in old age and at the designated time. In accordance with God’s directive, Abraham names his son Isaac and circumcises him on the eighth day. The threefold repetition of the boy’s name would remind those hearing the Hebrew text about Abraham’s and Sarah’s earlier laughing disbelief. Although the wordplay connecting Isaac’s name with the laughter of both his parents is impossible to duplicate in translation, the laughter and rejoicing that Sarah reports is nevertheless appropriate to the joyous event. Signicantly, Abraham has nothing to say. Although his actions demonstrate his obedi-

GENESIS 21:1–7 & 21:8–21

325

ence, his silence suggests his indierence. When God had told him about Isaac, he pleaded for his rstborn Ishmael. God’s favorite son does not seem to be Abraham’s. It will be clear, however, that he is Sarah’s favorite. She concludes this part of the story by reecting on what she is doing in her old age. 21:8–21 Throughout the next part of the story, LXX-G adds many pronominal phrases that both clarify the Hebrew text and make what happens more personal to those involved. Other additions demonstrate LXX-G’s tendency to clarify, and often interpret, its proto-MT Hebrew text. It will be evident that both God and the narrator attempt to distance Abraham from the son whom he seems to favor. Emotional distance can be seen in the nearly complete refusal to call Ishmael Abraham’s son; physical distance is ensured by Ishmael’s complete removal from the story. The distancing begins when Abraham prepares a feast upon the weaning of Isaac, here referred to as ‘his son.’ The other son is said to be Abraham’s son and referred to by his given name Ishmael only once (v. 11). Every other time he is referenced in the story, he is either identied as his mother’s son or by the more general term ‘youngster’ ( ( ). Similarly, his mother is only referred to by her name three times: rst when the narrator has Sarah identify her as ‘Hagar the Egyptian’ (v. 9) and the other two when God’s angel speaks to her (v. 17). She is most often described rather condescendingly by her role as ‘maidservant’ ( ( &). LXX-G reduces Hagar’s status even more when it takes away her active role in bearing Abraham’s son. Instead of the MT’s ‘whom she bore for Abraham’ (  ), LXX-G’s use of the masculine singular pronoun  makes the son the passive subject when it describes him as ‘the one who was born to Abraham’ (  D @*μ). Removing Hagar’s subjectivity and minimizing the attention on Ishmael’s relationship to Abraham subtly downplays Hagar’s intimacy with Abraham and dissociates the Jewish ancestors from the Egyptians. Such distancing could have been inuenced by the LXX-G translator’s third century B.C.E. Egyptian milieu. Ishmael’s erasure from the story begins with the report that Sarah sees this son ‘playing’ and demands his banishment. Why this seemingly innocent action on the part of a child should lead to such drastic consequences has been the subject of considerable speculation. The issue revolves around the Hebrew participle , which is based on the same root as Isaac’s name ( ). This same word occurs elsewhere in MT Genesis to describe Isaac’s actions with Rebekah (26:8), an action that convinces the Philistine Abimelech that Rebekah is really his wife, not his sister. Even

326

COMMENTARY

later, Potiphar’s wife retaliates against Joseph by accusing him of ‘insulting’ ( ) her and the Egyptians. Her accusation, while not sexual, is nevertheless derogatory. However, neither explain just what Ishmael is doing that leads to Sarah’s response. A more literal reading of the text shows Ishmael ‘Isaac-ing,’ and thus asserting his right to what God has promised to Sarah’s son. This reading makes the most sense in its context, given Sarah’s explicit comment about inheritance. The inability of the Greek translation to duplicate the wordplay in the Hebrew text forced the translator to interpret the context. Rendering  with ‘playing’ ( ) should alleviate Sarah’s concern regarding Ishmael’s taking over Isaac’s role. However, LXX-G’s addition of ‘with Isaac her son’ (μ+ k+  " !F " ), and ALEX’s even more personal ‘with Isaac her own son’ (μ+ k+  " !F " 5), causes other problems. Whatever type of ‘playing’ Ishmael is engaged in, he is doing it with Sarah’s own son. The kind of play is hard to dene, especially in light of its use in the two contexts discussed above. Does Sarah observe the other son engaging in some sexual or insulting activity with her son? If so, maternal instinct might demand that she protect her long-awaited and divinely promised son from any harm. Yet the reason she uses to justify her demand that Abraham banish the boy and his mother shows that her real concern is her own son’s future posterity, and accordingly hers as well. Her description of Hagar as ‘this maidservant’ (  ( & &), unlike her earlier description of Hagar as ‘my maidservant’ (  ( & μ !, 16:2) corresponds with the dismissive tone adopted by God and the narrator. Hagar is no longer dened in relation to Israel’s rst family. Neither will the maidservant’s son, whom Sarah declares will not inherit along with her son Isaac. Even God refuses to refer to mother and child by name. He also refers to Hagar as ‘this’ maidservant and to Ishmael as ‘the youngster’ when he intervenes to overcome Abraham’s concern about Sarah’s harsh demand. In contrast, God does refer to both Sarah and Isaac by name when he tells Abraham to listen to (i.e., obey) everything Sarah might say because Isaac’s ospring will carry Abraham’s name. God then reiterates what he had promised earlier when Abraham raised similar concerns about his rstborn (17:18–20), namely that he will make him into a great nation. In his typical manner, Abraham does not reply verbally to God’s directive. Instead, he takes action. Only after he rst ‘arose’ (&), ‘took’ ($) bread and water, ‘gave’ (( ) them to Hagar, and ‘placed’ (#& ) them on her shoulder along with the child, does he nally obey Sarah and God and ‘send her away’ ( $). Inasmuch as ‘the youngster’ must

GENESIS 21:8–21 & 21:22–34

327

be in his teens by now, it seems unlikely that Abraham literally put him on his mother’s shoulders. Neither does this fact deter the narrator – or God – from continuing to refer to him as ‘the youngster.’ Both seemingly prefer this term to using the youngster’s given name. As she did before, Hagar heads south to the desert area, likely traveling toward her native Egypt. By translating the Hebrew place name ‘Beersheba’ (  ) literally as ‘the well of the oath’ ( ?  " 9 !), LXX-G has her wandering around by a well. She and the narrator seemingly ignore this source of water when the water that Abraham had provided was running out. Fearing that her son might die, why would she not get him water from the well instead of throwing him down underneath one of the ‘r trees’ ($*&)? Another oddity in LXX-G is its rendering of the Hebrew ‘bushes’ ( ). Obviously the LXX-G translator was not familiar with the Hebrew word. Earlier (2:5) he had rendered it as ‘green plant’ ($ ); here its translation as a r tree makes no sense in a desert context. The boy’s location, however, is less important than his mother’s. She goes the distance of a ‘bow’s throw’ (2 !  $)) from him and sits opposite of him, i.e., she turns her back to the boy. She justies this seemingly callous action by declaring that she does not want to see him die. Perhaps she is far enough away that she cannot hear him when, per LXX-G, he cries. Changing the subject of the verb ‘to cry’ from the Hebrew’s feminine singular # to the masculine singular   ( , the LXX-G text harmonizes whose sound God hears with its source. From his place in the heaven that is even farther away, God harkens to the youngster’s crying. His angel again goes to Hagar’s assistance and, speaking for God, reiterates God’s vow to make him into a great nation. Unlike any other character in this story, the angel actually addresses Hagar by name. God then opens Hagar’s eyes and she sees a well. To take the previous well into account, LXX-G adds the adjective ‘living’ (0 ) to the description of the well’s water. Whether it was a dierent well, or the same well whose water was transformed by God, it now provides fresh owing water for the boy to drink. God continues to be with the child, who stays in the desert and becomes an archer. His banishment from the story and from Abraham’s covenantal lineage is complete when his mother marries him to an Egyptian woman. 21:22–34 The story abruptly returns to Abimelech, who is accompanied by Phikol the commander in chief of his army and, per LXX-G, Ochozath his ‘groomsman’ (!μ? ). LXX-G adds Ochozath to Abimelech’s retinue (likely to harmonize with 26:26) and describes him here as there as a

328

COMMENTARY

‘groomsmen.’ As both Harl (1994, 191) and Wevers (1993, 410) comment, the description is odd because neither context refers to a wedding. Thus, the word must refer to a close, trusted friend. With his friend and military commander, Abimelech approaches Abraham with a proposal. Evidently aware of Abraham’s good fortune that resulted from God’s presence with the patriarch, Abimelech wants to take advantage of his previous ‘righteous dealings’ ( (

 &) with Abraham (20:1–18). He asks Abraham to reciprocate by swearing not to treat him, his ospring, or his land unrighteously. Abraham agrees, but with one condition. He wants Abimelech to return a well that the king’s servants took away. Abimelech’s disavowal of any knowledge of the act presumably convinces Abraham to proceed with the covenant. He guarantees his part of the agreement by giving sheep and calves to the king. Then he does something that the king does not understand. He sets aside seven lambs that he will also give to the king. These lambs, however, will serve as witnesses to what Abraham wants from the agreement. He dug the well, thus it is his. The story then proceeds with a naming ceremony that in the MT takes into account the well, the swearing, and the seven animals, the latter two of which are both forms of the root . Unfortunately, the wordplays associated with the Hebrew ‘Beersheba’ (  ) cannot be duplicated in LXX-G. As earlier, this adds some confusion to the story. Here Beersheba is rendered literally as the ‘Well of swearing an oath’ (/ , μ !) and later, as in v. 14, by its abbreviated name, the ‘Well of the oath’ (?  " 9 !). As a result, the well is given a name that it already had. Not only is the name of the place awkward, it also lacks any precise geographic referent. One assumes that the land is not a Philistine (Phylistieim) possession because Abimelech and his associates are said to return to the land of the Philistines. Yet, after ploughing the land by the well and invoking God, Abraham is reported to have sojourned in the land of the Philistines many days. Lack of clarity and added confusion can be unfortunate consequences of translation. In these cases, LXX-G did not clear up the ambiguity, but instead added to it. 22:1–19 Like the earlier narrative that began ‘after these things’ (15:1), this story marks a signicant event in Abraham’s relationship with God. In the previous case, ‘these things’ referred to Abraham’s military victory over the Chodollogomer coalition and his rescue of Lot from their forces. At that time, Abraham doubted whether he would ever have ospring of his own issue to inherit his wealth and the land that God had prom-

GENESIS 22:1–19

329

ised to him. God, however, overrode Abraham’s doubts by promising him ospring as numerous as the stars in the sky and by ritually establishing himself as the guarantor of the covenant. Many other ‘things’ have occurred in the meantime, the most signicant for Abraham was God’s fulllment of his earlier promise to provide Abraham ospring of his own issue. Because his wife Sarah was barren, her maidservant Hagar acted as a surrogate and bore a son for Abraham. Although his rstborn son was a blessing to Abraham, Ishmael was not to be the heir of the covenantal promise. That heir, God declared, must be born of Sarah. Again God delivered on his promise and Sarah bore Abraham his second son. Moreover, God sided with Sarah when she demanded that Ishmael and his mother be banished from their house – both literally and guratively. Ishmael was granted a consolation dynasty, but Isaac was the son through whom Abraham’s descendants would inherit the land. Despite Abraham’s seeming preference for his rstborn son, he had no choice but to do what God demanded. Having just negotiated a treaty for even more land, Abraham must be experiencing the rewards of his trust in God. Everything has happened that God had promised him. It is now, however, ‘after these things’ (μ+ + _)μ ") that God reasserts himself in Abraham’s life and proceeds to test Abraham. The narrator makes it clear from the beginning of the story that what was to follow was a test from God. Nevertheless, he does not reveal the motive behind God’s shocking command until later in the story. LXX-G’s use of the imperfect ‘testing’ (), moreover, implies that this test would continue. Abraham responds appropriately when God speaks his name, twice per LXX-G, by declaring his presence and presumed readiness to be at God’s disposal. God gets right to the point and issues three imperatives to the patriarch. Take, travel, and oer a sacrice. Out of context, such demands would seem tting for this man who regularly oered sacrices to show his appreciation for God’s blessings. Here, however, what he is to sacrice makes God’s directive anything but mundane. The object of the rst verb ‘take’ (l*) is his son, who is further described, in LXX-G rather redundantly, both as ‘the beloved one’ ( &) and the one ‘whom (Abraham) loves’ ( `*&). Surprisingly, this is the rst occurrence of the more common Greek word for love, i.e.,  in Genesis and thus in the Bible. Although LXX-G’s substitution of ‘beloved’ for the MT’s ‘only’ (#) son addresses the seeming problem in the MT that Isaac was not Abraham’s only son, it accentuates the irony associated with Abraham’s ‘love’ for Isaac. Earlier in the story, Abraham seemed

330

COMMENTARY

to prefer his other son Ishmael. It is perhaps his earlier preference that causes the narrator to identify Isaac as the referent of these series of adjectives describing his beloved. God’s next two imperatives describe what Abraham is to do with his son Isaac. He is to ‘travel’ ( #& ) into ‘the high land’ (   .6&$)). LXX-G’s literal rendering of the MT’s specic geographic designation of ‘Mariah’ () is contextually appropriate since the ultimate destination is a mountain. Taking and traveling are routine activities for the patriarch, but God’s nal directive to ‘oer’ ( ) him there as a ‘sacrice’ (,$ *  ) is unique. One might expect Abraham to question this divine order, or at least to respond to it. After all, he did respond when God rst told him about the son Sarah was to bear him by begging God to consider his rstborn Ishmael (17:18). Furthermore, the narrator described his response to Sarah’s demand to banish Ishmael and his mother as Sarah’s being ‘harsh’ ( $&; 21:11). Finally, Abraham dared to negotiate with God when God consults him about his plan to destroy Sodom, presumably to save the life of his nephew Lot. Here when he is told to kill his ‘beloved’ son, Abraham reverts to his typical method of response to God; he says nothing but goes into action. He gets up early the next morning and splits the wood for the sacricial re and, for some unexplained reason, takes two servant boys along with Isaac in search of the place to which God will direct him. After three days, Abraham sees the place from afar and orders his servants to stay where they are. He and Isaac will worship at the far o mountain and return. Unlike the MT that uses the same word to refer to Abraham’s servant boys and to Isaac ( ), LXX-G distinguishes between the two by referring to the former as ‘servant’ (-) and to Isaac with its diminutive form ‘little boy’ ( (* ). ALEX, by contrast, has Abraham refer to Isaac as ‘youngster’ ( ( ), another diminutive form of -. Although both diminutive forms have the same basic meaning ‘young child,’ ALEX’s  (  is the same word that was used almost exclusively in the previous chapter to refer to Ishmael. Having Abraham refer to Isaac in the same way he and others referred to the banished Ishmael implies a similar fate for this ‘youngster.’ This foreboding is also evident in the repeated use of the same verbs to describe what Abraham does in both stories: he ‘arises’ (+) early in the morning; he ‘takes’ things ($μ* ); and he ‘places’ things ( #&μ ). Thus, it would seem that like Ishmael, Isaac is not expected to return, despite Abraham’s statement to the contrary. Isaac speaks for the rst time in the story by calling to his father. The rst words father Abraham speaks to his beloved son show paternal con-

GENESIS 22:1–19

331

cern. However, unlike the MT in which Abraham addresses Isaac as ‘my son’ (), the LXX-G Abraham uses yet another word for ‘child’ (  ). Although the vocative of    can be a term of endearment for one’s own child, it lacks the explicit relational bond signied by ‘my son.’ Furthermore, the fact that    most often refers to one’s biological ospring highlights the emotional distance between the two. Abraham acknowledges Isaac to be his biological son, but does not seem to consider him his ‘beloved son.’ Isaac continues the brief and only father-son conversation by acknowledging the re and the wood for the sacrice, but wondering about the sheep. The brevity of their conversation is highlighted by even the narrator rushing through it. The explicit speaking subjects are omitted, leaving only verbs of speaking to mark the change of speakers. Isaac, at rst perhaps assuming that his father had forgotten the sacricial oering, will soon realize that this was not an oversight. In the last words that Abraham will ever speak to his son, he replies with an accurate but ambiguous answer that God will see to it. Again departing from the MT, LXX-G has Abraham referring to Isaac as ‘my child,’ instead of ‘my son.’ In silence, Abraham builds the altar and places the wood on it. He continues in silence to do what God ordered him. LXX-G renders the poignant Hebrew verb ‘bind’ ( ) with the more graphically descriptive verb ‘binding hand and foot’ (!μ (). However, by using the participle form of the verb, LXX-G is subordinating the ‘binding’ of Isaac to its ultimate purpose that is expressed with the main verb and its object. As Abraham did with the inanimate wood, he ‘placed’ (#& ) his own son on the altar. Thus, LXX-G’s rendering supports the Christian interpretive emphasis on the act of sacrice, in contrast with the Jewish emphasis on the other MT verb  , to bind, which is the basis for the traditional name of the story, i.e., the Akedah. Nevertheless, as Harl maintains, the fact that Isaac was ‘bound’ suggests that he consented to the sacrice. As such, several early church fathers understood him as preguring the passion of Christ (1994, 194). Parallel to the three verbs in the beginning of the story (take, travel, and oer), three more verbs bring the story to its climax. First Abraham ‘stretched out’ (2 ) his hand to ‘take’ ($-) the knife in order to ‘slaughter’ (?*2 ) his son. Here the narrator omits the earlier ‘loving’ adjectives. Here they hardly seem appropriate. The absolute and likely horrifying silence is broken when an angel of Lord calls Abraham’s name twice. Abraham replies as he did earlier and awaits God’s instructions. This time, however, he is told not to do things. He is not to cast out his hand on the ‘little boy’ ( (* ). Here ALEX’s use of  (* , in accordance with all other Greek manuscripts but

332

COMMENTARY

distinct from his earlier divergent rendering  ( , oers an interpretive advantage. When ALEX used the same word  (  to describe both Ishmael and Isaac, it hinted at their similar fate. Now, as Isaac is being delivered from death, ALEX can refer to him by a dierent term. This ‘little boy’ ( (* ) will have a better future than the former ‘youngster’ ( ( ). The angel continues by telling Abraham euphemistically not to ‘do anything’ to him. It is as if neither God nor his angel want to acknowledge the horror of the earlier explicit order to ‘oer’ ( ) his son as a sacrice. The angel continues in euphemistic words to tell Abraham why he is not to do anything. The angel does not say that God was ‘testing’ () Abraham; he only comments on the signicance of Abraham’s passing the test. At this point, both Abraham and the reader are nally told the reason for the test. Abraham has proved that he fears God because he did not spare his son. One can only imagine Abraham’s relief, since he says nothing. Instead he nds what he disingenuously told Isaac earlier, namely, the animal for the sacrice. No mere sheep, but rather a ram caught by its horns will be the victim. As he does after most encounters with God, Abraham names a place to commemorate the event. As always, LXX-G’s translation reports the signicance of the name, but lacks the etiological connection with a specic geographic location. God, speaking through his angel, seemingly feels the need to expand on the signicance of his test. Because of Abraham’s silent obedience to the most heinous of God’s instructions, God emphatically reiterates four of his earlier covenantal promises: Abraham will be blessed; his ospring will be as numerous as both the stars of the heaven and the sand of the sea; they will inherit the cities of their enemies; and they (not he) will be the source of the blessing of all the nations. As elsewhere, LXX-G updates the language to reect its geographic context; here it changes the MT’s ‘gate’ ( ) of his enemies to the ‘cities’ ($ ) of the enemies. Unlike earlier iterations of God’s unilateral covenant, this one implies that there was a condition after all, that of Abraham’s obedience. The story that began so badly seems to have a happy ending. Abraham returns to his servant boys and establishes a permanent residence by the well of the oath. However, there is no mention of Isaac’s fate. Neither is there any mention of Sarah; she presumably never knew of God’s test or Abraham’s willingness to execute it and his son. Or perhaps she did know, because she and Abraham never speak again. If Isaac had not reappeared later in the story, readers would never have known that he also came down from the mountain. The parental silence extends to the father and

GENESIS 22:1–19 & 23:1–20

333

his so-called beloved son. Abraham and Isaac never talk again either. Nor, in fact, do Abraham and God ever talk again. Like God, Abraham provides for his family; he will see to it that Sarah gets an appropriate grave and that Isaac gets an appropriate wife. But the silence among the major characters testies to the challenging consequences of subordinating compassion to obedience. 22:20–24 Divine silence is imitated by the narrator whose use of the passive verb ‘was told’ (&$&) masks the identity of the speaker. The extent of the report is also unclear. Is Abraham informed only about the eight legitimate sons of his brother, or does he also hear of the sons born of the concubine? The signicance of Nahor’s genealogy is its inclusion of Abraham’s great niece Rebekah (Rebekka). Her relationship to the patrilineage of Abraham’s father Terah will become important later in the story when it becomes an explicit requirement for later mothers of the heirs to the covenantal promise. 23:1–20 Sarah, absent from the previous story, now disappears completely from the ancestral story. Having a life that spanned 127 years, she is the rst ancestor whose death is reported. It is also signicant that she dies in Canaan, the promised land, and in Hebron, where Abraham built an altar after God rst told him about the promised land (13:18). However, the land itself is still in the possession of the Canaanites, and this portion belongs to the Hittites. Thus, after mourning her death, Abraham begins to negotiate with the sons of Chet, i.e., the Hittites, to procure a burial property. Using synonymous terms to describe himself as both a ‘sojourner’ (*

) and a ‘stranger’ ((&μ ), Abraham emphasizes his outsider status at the outset of the negotiations. Despite his seemingly unfavorable bargaining position, Abraham is well-received by the Hittites, who regard him as a ‘king’ ( $N) from God. As Wevers notes, LXX-G did not render the Hebrew ‘chief, prince’ ( ) in its normal fashion with ‘ruler’ (4 ). He speculates that 4  could refer to a ranking ocial in Hittite society and would be an inappropriate term of deference for a foreigner (1993, 333). Why ‘king’ would be any more circumspect is unclear. What is clear is that the Hittites disregard Abraham’s legally appropriate self-description by characterizing him in a politically inaccurate but culturally appropriate manner. Both sides show excessive politeness that commentators maintain represents the type of oral contract negotiations of the ANE (e.g., Westermann 1985, 371–372; Sarna 1989, 156–157).

334

COMMENTARY

The Hittites indicate that they want to provide Abraham a ‘choice tomb’ ( $  - μ&μ ). He, however, refuses what seems to be a gift from the Hittites and instead asks them to intercede for him with Ephron. Abraham seems to know exactly the property he wants for Sarah’s tomb – ‘the double cave’ ( )$   ( $ ") that is located on part of Ephron’s property. In this case, LXX-G’s tendency to translate place names makes sense. A ‘double cave’ better describes a suitable burial plot than the Hebrew’s ‘the cave of Machpelah’ (  ). Abraham’s request that Ephron ‘give’ (( ) him the property for a ‘tting amount of money’ conrms that he does not want a gift. Rather, he expects to pay what the property is worth and thereby avoid any connotation that he took the property. In fact, he makes sure that all the Hittites, not just Ephron, hear his oer. ALEX emphasizes the communal nature of the negotiation when it reports that Abraham’s second request to ‘give’ him the land is the second person plural imperative form, i.e., you (all) give me ((), instead of the majority’s repeated third person singular imperative (( ). Although Abraham addresses his request for Ephron’s property to the Hittites in general, Ephron is present and replies directly to Abraham. He is not required to speak through intermediaries. When Abraham inquires about the cost of the property, Ephron responds by claiming he heard that his property was worth 400 drachma. If, as Wevers (1993, 338) and others (e.g., Westermann 1985, 375) suggest, Ephron starts the bargaining process by asking an exorbitant amount, Abraham shows no surprise. He accepts Ephron’s asking price without further negotiation. His willingness to pay 400 drachma for the burial property could show his loving devotion to his dead wife, who deserves nothing less. Of course, he received more than twice that amount from Abimelech to restore Sarah’s honor after his second attempt to pass Sarah o as his sister (20:16). Because he prospered on her account, he had the money to give her a decent burial. That Abraham ‘handed over’ ( &), rather than ‘weighed’ ( ), the amount requested by Ephron reects LXX-G’s tendency to update the terms in the text to ones more suitable to its third century B.C.E. Alexandrian milieu. Unlike the shekel whose value was one of weight, the drachma was a coin worth a particular value. Abraham must have anticipated a favorable negotiation to have that much money with him. The Hittites were present to witness the transaction, the details of which are summarized by the narrator in a way similar to a legal document. Abraham’s 400 drachma purchase included three main items: Ephron’s eld, the double cave, and all the trees within its boundaries. Here,

GENESIS 23:1–20 & 24:1–8

335

the literal translation in LXX-G ‘double cave’ (( $D &$B) of the Hebrew place name    is confusing. The rst phrase describing the eld –  m  D ( $D &$B – literally means ‘which was in the double cave.’ This is just the opposite of the earlier description that stated that the double cave was in the eld (v. 9). Wevers speculates that the “ phrase probably means is ‘included, along with’” (1993, 339). Nevertheless, the other legal part of the transaction is clear, i.e., that it was conducted with the necessary witnesses present. The story ends with Abraham accomplishing his purpose. He buries Sarah in the double cave on the property he bought from Ephron. Its location in Hebron of Canaan is repeated as is its legal transfer. Thus, a very small piece of the promised land now belongs to the family to whom God made the promise. 24:1–8 Once again, the narrator states that Abraham is old and advanced in days. The earlier occasion (18:11) preceded his visitor’s announcement that Sarah would have a son. Here, it precedes Abraham’s nal act for that son, namely getting him an appropriate wife. As will become customary, the appropriate wife cannot be a Canaanite. Instead, she must come from Abraham’s family, thus beginning the tradition of mandatory endogamy. LXX-G is even more specic than the MT. It adds ‘where I was born’ ( a μ&) to further dene ‘my land’ (  μ !), and requires that the woman be from Abraham’s ‘tribe’ (?!$)), which is somewhat more specic than the MT’s ‘ancestors’ ( ). The LXX-G translator, living in exile in Alexandria, characterizes Abraham, like himself, as living outside the land of his birth. Since Abraham himself is too old to travel back home, he chooses his most senior servant to make the trip. The importance of the potential wife’s pedigree is emphasized in the oath that Abraham makes his chief servant swear before God. The rst criterion is a negative one – she must not be a Canaanite woman; only then does Abraham tell him that he must travel to his birthplace to accomplish his purpose. Despite the signicance of his task, the servant who is to perform it is never identied by name, only by his position (i.e., ‘the servant’ [, -]) or his person (i.e., ‘the man’ [, 4#  ]). The narrator most often refers to him by position, especially when he is carrying out his master Abraham’s request. However, he is ‘the man’ when the point of view changes to that of the other characters before they know his identity. Before he swears an oath before God, the servant asks about a potential problem. What happens if the woman does not want to go with him back

336

COMMENTARY

to Abraham’s new land. Maybe he should take Isaac with him. Abraham explicitly rejects this option. In the last words that Abraham speaks, he acknowledges the role that God has had in his life. God brought Abraham from his birthplace and gave his new land to his ospring, and per LXX-G, to him as well. To take Isaac back would be, in a sense, rejecting God’s gift. By telling his servant that God would send his angel ahead of him, Abraham implies God’s guidance on the journey. LXX-G, in its attempt to make the MT’s text more explicit, has Abraham specify that the wife is to be ‘for his son Isaac’ (D !FD μ ! k+ ). This will be the only time that Abraham refers to his son by name, a fact more poignant because these are his last words. Finally, Abraham specically addresses the servant’s concern. If the woman does not want to come back with him, he will be released from his oath. His nal words emphasize his objection to Isaac returning to his birthplace. These last words show that Abraham has matured in his relationship to God. When he rst spoke, he told Sarah to say she was his sister, so that it would go well for him (12:11). His order to Sarah that she lie to save him implied he did not trust God to do so. His last words, on the other hand, show that God is now central to Abraham’s thoughts. He has condence in God’s guidance and is doing all that he can to ensure that God’s promise will be fullled. 24:9–60 After having sworn to Abraham that he would nd a wife for Isaac, the servant sets o, per LXX-G, for Mesopotamia. Here, unlike other places where the Hebrew ‘Aram’ () occurs, LXX-G essentially disregards the  and just translates the term ‘rivers’ () with Mesopotamia, i.e., the land between the two rivers. This abbreviated translation was sucient, per Wevers, because the narrator immediately went on to more specically identify the servant’s destination as the city of Abraham’s brother Nachr (2001, 237). He must anticipate a long and successful journey and additional traveling companions on the trip back home because he takes ten of Abraham’s camels and some of his goods. As Abraham predicted, God’s angel goes with the servant. Its guidance reects the presence of God-in-the-margins, who likely causes him to arrive outside the city just at the time of day when women fetching water would arrive. After settling his camels, the servant prays to Abraham’s God to allow him to prosper, not for his own sake, but as a way of showing God’s mercy to Abraham. He then devises a sign that would indicate God’s choice for Isaac’s wife. Of all the daughters of the city who come out to draw water, the ‘virgin’ (# ) from whom he requests a drink will be the chosen one – if she gives a two-part response. First, she must

GENESIS 24:9–60

337

implore him to drink; second, she must give his camels water as well. As Sarna notes, the act of giving water to camels would be a generous one. Each camel would require twenty-ve gallons of water to replenish itself after a long journey (1989, 164). The servant has ten of them. Yet, LXX-G describes the potential wife as even more generous because she is to oer them water ‘until they stop drinking.’ God-in-the-margins wastes no time. The servant barely nishes his prayer when Rebekah appears. The narrator also wastes no time in describing her lineage. As a grand niece of Abraham, she meets the two criteria for Isaac’s future wife that Abraham had earlier specied, i.e., she must be from his birth place and from his tribe. The next two descriptors, that of her beauty and her explicitly described virginity, while not specically required, were likely assumed to be appropriate characteristics of Isaac’s future wife. The only factor that the servant still needs conrmed is her generosity. He wastes no time either. He runs up to her and makes his rst request. Asking for only a ‘little water’ (μ

 '( ), the servant creates a scenario to see if she does as requested or whether she oers more. Like all the rest of the characters, she wastes no time as she rushes to provide the man water from the water jug she had just lled. She exceeds the requirements of the rst test of her hospitality when she gives the man more than he requested. She lets him drink until he stops drinking. Although this was to be the sign associated with watering the camels, her unlimited generosity adds to her portrayal as a hospitable woman. Only one test remains, namely her oer to provide water for the camels, until, per LXX-G, they stop drinking. Again, she passes. She makes a slightly dierent oer (to give water to all the camels) and runs to fetch more water. The narrator conrms that she did what she said she would. The servant, now referred to only as the ‘man’ (4#  ), stops to reect on the phenomena he has just witnessed to be sure that the woman is indeed the one who fullls all the requirements. The Hellenistic inuence on LXX-G is evident in this section of the narrative that emphasizes the woman’s virginity. Unlike the MT in which the servant describes the prospective wife as a ‘young woman’ ([] ), the LXX servant describes her as a ‘virgin’ (# ). Rebekah, the woman who appears before the servant nishes his prayer, is the likely candidate. After detailing her lineage, the narrator continues the emphasis on her virginity when he both calls her a virgin (as opposed again to the MT’s  ) and then, with the MT, declares her to be a ‘virgin’ ( / # ). To further accentuate this feature, the narrator goes on to dene what is meant by ‘virgin’ by saying that no man had ever known

338

COMMENTARY

her. According to Sarna, the Hebrew word  , like its Semitic cognates, does not explicitly refer to virginity in its physical sense. Rather it is used to describe a young woman who is sexually mature and thus marriageable (1989, 165). Thus, the MT needed to clarify its explicit meaning by including the phrase ‘no man had known her.’ Although LXX-G also uses this phrase, it serves less to clarify the woman’s physical condition and more to emphasize it. It likely took awhile for all ten camels to nish drinking, thus giving the man enough time to determine that the virgin standing before him was God’s choice for Isaac’s wife. He takes expensive jewelry – gold earrings and bracelets – and, although not explicitly stated, gives them to Rebekah. The second item of jewelry, namely the bracelets, and their value, namely ten gold weights, corresponds to the MT’s description. However, as Wevers notes, the gold nose ring ( ) was not fashionable in third century B.C.E. Alexandria (1993, 353). Thus the translator changed the rst item of jewelry to golden earrings. He also changed its unit of value measurement accordingly. Instead of the MT’s ‘half shekel,’ he describes their worth as a drachm, i.e., one half drachma, each. Two earrings would then be worth a drachma. It is tting, then, that the LXX-G Rebekah, who was more generous than her MT counterpart, also received a more valuable gift. Now the servant needs to conrm that the girl meets Abraham’s main requirements. Thus, he asks about her family. He also asks for a place to stay. She tells the servant what the narrator had earlier reported, i.e., that she was from the right family and tribe. Even better, her family has provisions for him and the camels and a place for them to lodge. To show his appreciation, the servant blesses his master’s God for granting him – and his master – what he had requested. Still on the run, Rebekah tells those in her mother’s house what has happened. One as yet unmentioned family member, i.e., her brother Laban, is introduced to the story. The narrator reports that Laban runs outside to the man even before he sees his sister’s jewelry or hears her nish the story. Although chronologically awkward, his dashing outside corresponds with the haste of all the other characters. Laban orders the man to come to him and immediately blesses Lord. Someone who had given his sister such valuable jewelry must be God-sent. Sometime in the midst of all the confusion, Laban had prepared for the man and the camels. By means of a series of third person masculine singular verbs with unspecied subjects, the narrator reports that the camels were fed and

GENESIS 24:9–60

339

the man and his traveling companions, rst mentioned here, were given water for their feet and food to eat. But the man refuses to eat until he has explained what was happening. They tell him to speak. The man begins his lengthy discourse (vv. 34–49) by introducing himself as Abraham’s servant and explaining his reason for being there. Although most of his narration coincides with the narrator’s report of what happened, he changes part of the story. He rst updates the family on Abraham’s well being and the prosperity granted him by Lord. He then focuses his discussion on the one son that Abraham’s wife Sarah bore for him when, per LXX-G, he was old. Unlike the earlier accounts of Isaac’s divinely ordained miraculous birth in which Abraham’s age is downplayed while Sarah’s is highlighted (18:13; 21:2), here LXX-G departs from the MT and has the servant report that Abraham was old. The previous emphasis on Sarah’s giving birth in her old age stresses God’s role in Isaac’s birth; here LXX-G’s change in person functions to highlight Abraham’s virility. Their uncle Abraham must be quite the man! That son, who is never referred to by name, is nevertheless the reason for the servant’s trip. Abraham wants the servant to nd a wife for his son. However, the woman cannot be a daughter of the Canaanites, with whom per LXX-G, Abraham is ‘sojourning’ (

0). Abraham himself claimed that he was ‘living’ ( 3 0/) among the Canaanites (v. 3), a claim with which the servant’s narration in the MT agrees (). LXX-G’s servant, however, reports that Abraham described his status as ‘sojourning’ among the Canaanites. This is the only place where LXX-G renders  with 

0, a translation elsewhere reserved for the Hebrew  . Perhaps LXX-G’s intentional deviation from the norm is an attempt by the servant to minimize Abraham’s resident status. Like LXX-G’s addition earlier in the story that highlighted his birthplace and tribe, the change here similarly emphasizes his family relationship. He is not living permanently among the Canaanites, and thus refuses to allow his son to intermarry. Instead, he demands that his one son marry endogamously, a condition that is conrmed when the servant continues with the goal of his journey, namely nding a wife within the house of Abraham’s father and within his tribe. The servant continues his narration by acknowledging his concern that the woman he nds might not accompany him back to Canaan. This concern, Muraoka maintains, is reected in the two dierent words that LXX-G uses to render the one Hebrew word ‘oath’ (). The rst occurrence of  in v. 41 is rendered with the Greek word 7, whose

340

COMMENTARY

negative connotations are represented by the word ‘curse.’ The second occurrence of  is rendered with , μ ", i.e., the more neutral ‘oath.’ The Hebrew  can mean both. As a result, the translator interpreted its rst occurrence as referring to the possibly negative outcome that could occur should the servant not be successful (Muraoka 2001, 17–18). The servant goes on to recount Abraham’s assurance of God’s guidance, but he omits Abraham’s vigorous rejection of Isaac’s leaving the land promised to the family by God. Like the narrator, he excludes any information about the trip itself; instead he resumes his story with a description of the bargaining prayer he makes with God. Briey interrupting his narration of the prayer, the servant lets his audience know precisely where he nds himself standing. He then goes on to describe the scenario that would show him God’s choice for Isaac’s future wife. At this point, Rebekah enters the story the servant is telling. Even though she is later described as being in front of the servant (v. 51), Rebekah has no voice and neither conrms nor denies the servant’s version. She does not correct him when he neglects to tell her family that she gave him more than his request for a ‘little water.’ She does not remind him that he asked her not only about her lineage but also if her family had a place for him to stay. She does not admit that he gave her the jewelry even before he learned that she was from the correct family. Finally, she does not acknowledge that she told the man that her family had provisions for him and his entourage before he bowed down in prayer. Despite the servant’s abridged version of his encounter with Rebekah, he convinces Rebekah’s father and brother that God worked behind the scenes, listened to all the prayers, and brought the servant directly to their house and their virgin daughter and sister. God’s providential role is even more explicit in LXX-G in which Rebekah’s male relatives describe what happened as lord’s ‘ordinance’ (μ), rather than his ‘word’ (). Curiously, Swete’s ALEX does not capitalize the word ‘lord’ (  ), as it typically does when referring to the name of Israel’s God. Perhaps its omission was a way to avoid Israel’s God being referred to as Lord by the presumed pagan men. In any case, these men acknowledge that they cannot question the man’s story or actions. Without asking her opinion, Laban and Bathouel agree to the servant’s request to take Rebekah back to be his master’s son’s wife. The servant again gives thanks to Lord and gives more gifts, this time both to Rebekah and to her mother and brother as well. At this point, her father disappears from the story completely and other brothers join with Laban to carry out the male family roles.

GENESIS 24:9–60 & 24:61–67

341

Having accomplished his mission, the servant and his traveling companions take advantage of the family’s hospitality and lodging. Early the next morning, the servant is anxious to depart for home. However, Rebekah’s family would like ‘the virgin’ to stay awhile longer before leaving. Nevertheless, the servant insists on leaving right away and reminds her family of God’s involvement. He might have been worried that Abraham would not live much longer. Uncharacteristically, her mother and brothers ask ‘the girl’s’ opinion, whether about the timing of the trip or the trip itself is not clear. She does not hesitate, and they agree to let her leave right away with the servant. First, however, they give her a blessing appropriate to a prospective bride. They wish her many ospring who will, per LXX-G, ‘inherit the cities of their enemies.’ Assuming that a successful family would inhabit cities, not just the ‘gate’ ( ) area, the third century B.C.E. Alexandrian translator updated the family’s blessing. 24:61–67 With the blessing of her family, her personal maids, and her possessions, Rebekah leaves with the man. Meanwhile, back home, Isaac nally makes a brief appearance in the story. Like the other characters, Isaac is also traveling. But his traveling is more local, going only as far the ‘well of the vision.’ Ironically, this is the same place where Lord appeared to his mother’s nemesis Hagar (16:14). It is also signicant that, although Abraham has taken charge of nding Isaac a wife, Isaac is not living with him. Their earlier mountain top experience likely ruined their relationship. He is reported to be ‘meditating’ (( $ ) in the eld one late afternoon, an action that represents LXX-G’s interpretation of the MT’s problematic hapax legomenon  . See the discussion in Westermann (1985, 390). He looks up and sees camels coming. At the very same time, Rebekah looks up and sees Isaac coming. When she asks the servant the man’s identity, she is told that he is his ‘lord,’ rather than the son of his lord. At that point, the reader wonders if Abraham had already died without knowing about the servant’s successful mission. Regardless, Rebekah understands who the man is and, in typical maidenly fashion, covers herself with her veil. Only then does Isaac nd out about the servant’s journey to nd his wife. Nevertheless, he seems pleased with Rebekah. He goes into his mother’s ‘house’ ( \ ) where he takes Rebekah. This is yet another instance where LXX-G changes the description from the MT’s ‘tent’ to ‘house.’ Such a change might result from the third century B.C.E.’s Alexandrian milieu of the translator, for whom houses were more suitable residences than tents. Nevertheless, this type of actualization is

342

COMMENTARY

not consistent in LXX-G. In many other places (e.g., 12:8; 18:1, 2, 6; 26:25), the translation more literally renders the MT’s ‘tent’ () with the corresponding Greek word  &). Regardless of whether Isaac and Rebekah begin their lives together in a house or a tent, the present story has a happy and touching ending. Rebekah becomes his wife, and Isaac is said to love her. As such, he is both the rst one to be loved (22:2) and the rst one to experience love. His love for Rebekah is likely much closer to a traditional understanding of love than is his father’s for him. The love he has for Rebekah is said to comfort him about Sarah his mother. Like the MT, LXX-G does not explicitly refer to what about his mother Isaac needs comfort. Presumably, he is still grieving his mother’s death. 25:1–11 With Isaac appropriately married, Abraham remarries a woman named Chettoura who bears him six more sons, one of whom will be the ancestor of the Midianites. Other than the many variations in orthography that are typical in genealogies, the only signicant dierence between LXX-G and MT occurs with the addition of two sons to Iexan’s family. Even with additional ospring, Abraham gives all his possessions to Isaac, whom LXX-G identies as ‘his son.’ Although not necessary to the story, it reects LXX-G’s tendency to reinforce the relationship between father and son. Abraham does, however, give gifts to the sons of his concubines. However, like Ishmael, he sends these secondary sons to the east to live apart from Isaac, who continues to live in the south by the well of the vision. After a long life of 175 years, Abraham dies and is buried by both Isaac and Ishmael in the double cave that he bought to bury Sarah. As earlier, the narrator emphasizes the legitimacy of the purchase. 25:12–18 As he promised Abraham, God also blessed Ishmael by making him the eponymous ancestor of twelve nations (17:20). Here the narrator reports the names of the twelve sons who would themselves become the ancestors of twelve ‘families’ (0) that eventually grew into ‘nations’ (# ). These twelve families are further characterized by a nomadic existence, i.e., living in ‘tents’ ( &-) and ‘encampments’ ($ ) that extend over a large geographic area from Egypt to Assyria. Although chronologically in the future, Ishmael’s death is also reported. He lived 137 years. The last verse, whose meaning is ambiguous in both MT and LXX-G, likely refers to the contentious and nomadic existence of his lineage.

GENESIS 25:19–28

343

25:19–28 Finally, the narrator reports Isaac’s genealogy, but gets no further than Isaac himself. Nevertheless, this terse genealogy prefaces the story about the birth of his two sons. First his marriage to Rebekah is recalled, as is her lineage. In a geographically updated narration, LXX-G describes her father and brother as ‘Syrians,’ rather than the MT’s ‘Arameans,’ who are from ‘Mesopotamia,’ rather than ‘Paddan-Aram.’ He married her when he was forty years old, and like her mother-in-law, Rebekah is also barren. At some point in the next twenty years, Isaac prays to God about Rebekah. Inasmuch as it is usually the woman who prays for conception (e.g., Rachel in 30:1 and much later Hannah in 1 Sam. 1), that Isaac did so instead of Rebekah suggests that he was more concerned about her barrenness than she was. Although it was Abraham, not Sarah, who talked to God about her barrenness, Sarah was concerned. In fact, she took it upon herself to provide Abraham with a child by her maidservant Hagar. Nowhere is it reported that Rebekah cares about her barrenness. At some point, God hears Isaac’s prayer and Rebekah becomes pregnant. Unlike the MT which reports that Rebekah ‘conceived’ (), LXX-G reports only the end result, i.e., she becomes ‘pregnant’ ($  ). In fact, she is the only woman in LXX-G, except Tamar, who does not ‘conceive’ (!$$μ* ). That she earlier was allowed to voice her opinion about leaving her family (24:58) is unusual. That she is pregnant without having been said to conceive is more so. In what follows, Rebekah’s role, as it is reported in LXX-G and especially in ALEX, continues to be unusual. Her pregnancy does not go well. The narrator reports that the babies are ‘jumping around’ (  ) in her, causing her distress. Yet the word ‘jump’ does not connote the same sense of struggle between the babies as does the Hebrew , ‘crush,’ ‘oppress,’ or ‘push around.’ Thus, LXX-G highlights her pain, rather than that of her babies. She then expresses her consternation by questioning her pregnancy and decides to ask God about her situation. God responds by telling her that the jumping around that she feels comes from two babies who will become two separate nations. Ironically, the ‘greater’ (μ ) – rather than the more characteristic ‘older’ – will serve the ‘smaller’ ($*  ). She makes no response to God’s ominous and ambiguous prediction and eventually delivers the twins. The rstborn Esau, initially described as red and hairy, is presumably the greater. He will be a hunter and a countryman, i.e., big, bold, and somewhat wild. Jacob (Iakb), the second to be born, is given no physical description. Instead he is said to be doing something, i.e., grasping

344

COMMENTARY

his brother’s heel. Presumably, he is trying to stop his brother, overtake him, and come out rst. Jacob is later predicted to be a 4$  man. A hapax legomenon in LXX-G, 4$  means ‘not molded,’ ‘natural,’ ‘unaected, or ‘simple’ (LSJ 1968, 190). As Harl notes, the word 4$  in koine Greek is typically used in a moral sense to represent sincerity (1994, 209). This has a slightly dierent connotation than the MT’s ‘complete,’ ‘wholesome,’ or ‘innocent’ (). Nevertheless, it does suggest that he is simpler and more rened than his brother and thus must be the ‘smaller.’ Again, LXX-G shows the Alexandrian inuence of its translator when it describes Jacob as living in a ‘house’ ( 3 ) rather than the MT’s ‘tents’ (). It also portrays Jacob as even more domesticated than his MT counterpart. Despite the fact that the wordplays on the boys’ names in the MT did not survive the translation process, the contrast between the two is still obvious. As his father before him, Isaac prefers his rstborn son. He loves Esau because of what Esau could do for him, namely provide him food. Rebekah, on the other hand, always loved Jacob. The dierence between the aorist and the imperfect form of the verb ‘love’ (* ) suggests that Jacob had always been Rebekah’s favorite. Although no reason is given for her preference, the continual nature of her aection was likely due to her advance knowledge of the boys’ destiny. She chooses the ‘smaller’ who would eventually overcome the ‘greater.’ This role reversal on the part of the sons is foreshadowed by the unusual gender roles of their parents. As noted above, Isaac assumed the more typically female role when he prayed to God about Rebekah’s barrenness. She assumed a more male role when she went to inquire of God thereafter. Furthermore, she never complained about being barren; instead she complained only after she became pregnant. LXX-G shows her to be even more assertive and masculine than the MT. She is the one who names both her sons. The MT reports that ‘they named’ (  ) Esau and that ‘he named’ ( ) Jacob. LXX-G, on the other hand, uses a third person singular verb whose only referent can be Rebekah herself because Isaac is not mentioned until later in the story. Finally, ALEX goes even further in representing Rebekah in masculine terms when it states that she ‘brought [them] forth’ (&). The Greek verb * , per LSJ (1968, 344), means ‘to beget,’ ‘engender’ and is most often used to refer to the father’s role in procreation. The mother, instead, ‘bears’ (  ) children. This is the only place in LXX-G where the mother is said to &. In all its other occurrences, it is more

GENESIS 25:19–28 & 26:1–33

345

naturally translated ‘fathered.’ The contrast between the ways in which gender roles are represented could not be greater. Rebekah is denitely the more assertive parent, a role that she will continue to play. 25:29–34 The boys fulll their destinies. Jacob shows his domestic skills by making food; Esau shows his country ways by returning hungry from the open eld and demands some of Jacob’s red stew. Again, the literal translation misses the wordplay connecting the color of the stew, Esau’s birth color, and Edom, the nation of which he will be the eponymous ancestor. Still trying to overtake his brother, Jacob strikes a bargain. He wants the birthright that he was not able to secure earlier. If Esau will give it up to him, Jacob will give him food. Again, Esau epitomizes a crude rube who discounts everything but his appetite. He claims he is close to death for lack of food, so the birthright has little importance. One wonders why this strong countryman could not just overpower his domesticated brother and take the food. In any case, Esau hands over the birthright, and Jacob allows him to eat and drink. He does so, gets up, and leaves. To him, the birthright is not important. However, it will be later. 26:1–33 Once again, a famine in the land prompts an ancestral journey. This time, it is Isaac who travels as far as Gerara, specically to its king Abimelech. Although described as the king of the Philistines, it is unlikely that these are the same people who will become enemies of Israel during the early monarchy. Sarna speculates that the Philistines referred to in the two patriarchal narratives were earlier Aegean invaders who lived in a small city state of Gerar “long before the large-scale invasions of the Levant, which led to the occupation of the Canaanite coast” (Sarna 1989, 390). Why Isaac chose to journey to the land of Abimelech is not stated. Therefore, despite the chronological diculties, this must be the same Abimelech with whom Abraham made a covenant (21:31–32) and thus would be a family friend. In the rst of two theophanies to Isaac, God gives him instructions and reiterates the promises he made to his father Abraham. He tells him not to go into Egypt, perhaps to avoid a repeat of Abraham’s earlier deceitful adventure with Pharaoh. Instead, Isaac is to ‘settle’ (   & ) wherever God tells him. However, God continues by telling Isaac to ‘sojourn in this land’ (      A). The referent of ‘this’ is somewhat ambiguous. Is it the land to which he has just traveled, i.e., Gerar? Or is it the land to which God refers later in the verse as ‘this’ land, i.e., the

346

COMMENTARY

land associated with the covenantal promise? Or are they the same land? Although it is indeed the case that the land to which Isaac has traveled will be included as part of ‘all this land’ (7   &) that God promises to Isaac and his descendants, it seems that the land around Gerar is not the land in which Isaac is to live. God continues by reiterating the promise that Isaac’s ospring will bring God’s blessings to all the nations of the land and concludes by explaining that these gifts are a result of Abraham’s obedience to every kind of order God gave, i.e., ordinances, commandments, regulations, and laws. This emphasis on complete obedience suggests it is an unspoken condition associated with God’s promises of land and ospring. At no point in his conversations with either Abraham or Isaac does God express the covenant in conditional language. Nevertheless, the consequential implication of the ‘because’ language (#’/ ) at the beginning of v. 5, combined with all the ways in which Abraham was obedient, certainly provides some clue that obedience is expected. Ironically, after God just emphasized the signicance of Abraham’s obedience, Isaac seems to disobey God’s rst order to him. He is to said ‘settle’ ( 8 &), not ‘sojourn’ (   ), among the Gerarites. It is then that his problems begin. The men of the place ask about Rebekah. Like his father before him, Isaac claims she is his sister for fear of dying (12:2; 20:2). Like his mother, his wife Rebekah is good looking. In fact, she is said to be ‘ripe in appearance’ (>  G6 ). Alluding to the fruit in the garden, this description suggests that Rebekah is tempting to the Gerarite men. Yet, nothing is said about Rebekah’s fate until a long time later when Abimelech sees Isaac ‘playing’ ( ) with Rebekah. As earlier, such play causes trouble. When Ishmael was playing with Isaac, Sarah banished him and his mother (21:9). Exactly what playing entailed in both cases is unclear, and the wordplay on Isaac’s name is lost in translation. Nevertheless, whatever game the two are playing leads Abimelech to realize that Rebekah is Isaac’s wife. Since earlier Abimelech had the same experience with Isaac’s mother and father, he might have questioned the relationship sooner. Isaac has no original excuses; like his father, he fears death. Unlike his father, he does not claim that the men do not fear God. The only fear is his. Abimelech, however, goes into much less detail and merely explains to Isaac what almost happened. Someone ‘nearly’ (μ

 ") went to bed with his wife, a deed that would have brought ‘ignorance’ (4 ) on them. This time, Abimelech was not concerned about possible ‘sin’

GENESIS 26:1–33

347

(;μ). Neither was he concerned about possible ‘guilt’ (), as was his MT counterpart. Nevertheless, he makes it clear to his people that neither Isaac nor Rebekah can be touched. Any future ignorance on the part of his people would result in their death. Therefore, Isaac and Rebekah could safely live in the land. However, they are not said to prosper, as did Sarah and Abraham, as a result of their deceit. Although having received nothing from Abimelech, Isaac nevertheless prospers on his own in the land. As a result of God’s blessing, he increases his yield of barley one hundred fold and becomes more and more successful. He has considerable livestock and many cultivated elds. However, his success causes the Philistines to envy him. In an attempt to reduce his ability to feed his livestock and water his elds, they block up the wells his father acquired as a result of an agreement he made earlier with Abimelech (21:30) by lling them with earth. Sensing that problems will arise as a result of Isaac’s becoming more powerful than his neighbors, Abimelech tells him to leave. Isaac does as he is told and moves to a valley region in another part of Gerar. His father Abraham presumably had acquired much more land and many additional wells there as well. Isaac, now in a new location, nds his father’s wells that the Philistines had blocked earlier and digs them again. He claims them as his by giving them the same names they had when owned by his father. Not content with what he already owns, Isaac has his servants dig for more wells. They discover one with ‘living’ or fresh running water. However, the rights to the water are contested. Both Isaac’s shepherds and those of the local people allege ownership of the well. Nevertheless, Isaac claims the well as his by naming it. Ironically, he names it ‘Injustice’ because he believes he has been treated unjustly. Why he thinks he, as a resident alien, should have priority over ownership of the land and its resources is unclear. As usual, LXX-G cannot duplicate the wordplay associated with the name and location of the well in the MT. Nevertheless, it does not even attempt to capture the sense of the Hebrew name ‘to quarrel’ ( ). Isaac moves on and digs another well that is also disputed. This one he names ‘Hostility,’ a name that is closer to the Hebrew’s  ; both reect ongoing tension between him and the local people. The hostile relationship that continues forces him to move on and dig yet another well. This one, however, is not contested. He names it ‘Open Space’ (J! ), which like the MT’s   refers to a wide open and enlarged area. However, LXX-G uses the verb ‘expand’ ($*! ) in its explanation of the reason for the name. Although both have similar

348

COMMENTARY

connotations, the verb $*! could also imply that Isaac is ‘expanding’ in the land by taking over more and more of it, rather than sharing its open space with his neighbors. Having just received God’s blessings for expanding over the land, Isaac heads north back to the well of the oath. Earlier, his father had made a sworn covenant with Abimelech about this well, an oath that resulted in its name (21:31–32). After making the covenant, Abraham called on God who now appears for the second time to Isaac. He again extends the promise he made earlier with Abraham for blessing and ospring to Isaac. Curiously, God does not include the promise of land as he did earlier. Furthermore, it is not Isaac’s actions that result in God’s blessings, but rather Abraham’s. Nevertheless, like his father was accustomed to doing, Isaac builds an altar, invokes God’s name, and pitches his tent. Then to establish himself, Isaac has his servants dig yet another well. Abimelech reappears in the story along with his groomsman Ochozath and his military commander Phikol. Earlier they made a covenant with Abraham in this same place; now they visit his son Isaac, who is surprised to see them. He must be skeptical about the nature of their visit because he claims that Abimelech hated him and banished him. While it is true that Abimelech told him to leave the area, it was not because Abimelech hated him. Rather, it was because Isaac’s success caused problems among his people. Therefore, Abimelech’s actions were motivated by keeping Isaac safe, a safety reinforced when Abimelech threatened his people with death if they touched either Isaac or Rebekah. Even more surprising than their visit and Isaac’s response is the reason for their visit. They acknowledge that God is with him and want to capitalize on that relationship. They fear that Isaac, with his God on his side, will attempt to do them harm. Thus, they want to contract a covenant with Isaac that will guarantee that he will treat them well, as they remind him of their earlier treatment of him. Taciturn as he is, Isaac makes no verbal response. However, the fact that he makes them a feast of which they partake implies that he has agreed to their terms. This is conrmed the next morning when the narrator reports that both parties swore to the oath. Assured of their future safety, Abimelech and his advisors depart. Meanwhile, Isaac’s servants return with news about the latest well. In a striking departure from the MT, the LXX-G servants report that they did not nd water. Wevers speculates that the LXX-G translator read the Hebrew , (‘to him’) with the following word ‘we found’ ( ) and understood the , to mean ‘not’ (1993, 414). Isaac makes no response, but the narrator reports that he names the well anyway. Why a dry well would

GENESIS 26:1–33 & 27:1–29

349

need to be named is unclear. This well, like the earlier one his father had dug, is also called Oath for the same reason. It is again the scene of a covenant agreement between the chosen family and Abimelech. This time, however, the name also applies to the city around it. Yet, the literal translation of LXX-G cannot duplicate the wordplay associated with the actual city name in the MT, i.e., Beersheba (  ), which literally means ‘well of the oath.’ 26:34–35 The story makes an abrupt return to Esau, who at forty years of age, marries two foreign women. Both are given names and identities and are said to quarrel with Isaac and Rebekah. Slightly dierent than the MT’s description (‘they made life bitter for Isaac and Rebekah’), LXXG nevertheless depicts them as troublemakers. This brief report, while seemingly out of place in its present context, serves as a transition to what follows. It is because of Esau’s inappropriate marriages that Rebekah has the excuse she needs to remove him from the story. 27:1–29 Esau’s marriages to foreign women and the trouble these women made in the household have not changed Isaac’s preference for his older son. Now nearly blind, Isaac calls to Esau, who responds to his father the way Abraham responded to God. Although Isaac does not know when he will die, he knows he’s old and wants to initiate the ritual of his nal blessing. In this case, the ritual includes both a meal and the blessing itself. He tells Esau to do what he does best, i.e., hunt some game. This is not surprising because it is the reason that Isaac prefers Esau (25:27–28). However, he goes on to request that Esau then prepare Isaac’s favorite meal. This is surprising because Jacob is the domesticated son (25:27), the one who prepared a meal for the famished Esau in exchange for the birthright (25:34). Esau makes no comment and so presumably does not nd his father’s request unusual. It is also implied that he knows how to prepare the meal the way his father loves it. Esau is to do all this ‘so that’ (9 ) he will receive his father’s blessing. Rebekah overhears Isaac talking to his son ( !F  !) Esau and discusses the situation with her son ( !F ) Jacob, who is described in LXX-G as the ‘small one’ ( $* ). Because $* also could mean ‘lesser,’ Wevers suggests that this addition in LXX-G describes Jacob unfavorably (1993, 420). However, it is the same term that God used in his earlier prediction of the boys’ relationship (25:23). Therefore, the added adjective functions to remind the reader what Rebekah was told by God. It makes Rebekah’s scheme seem less manipulative; she is merely

350

COMMENTARY

attempting to establish the conditions that will insure Jacob’s superiority. Thus, when Esau leaves for the hunt, Rebekah takes the appropriate action to prevent Isaac from blessing Esau. After telling Jacob about Isaac’s plan, Rebekah tells him her own plan that he is to follow explicitly. He is to bring her two kids from the ock, described as ‘tender and good’ (;$ N  $ ), as was the calf that Abraham had his servant boy prepare for his mysterious visitors (18:7). Rebekah will then prepare Isaac’s meat the way he loves it, and Jacob will take it to his father in preparation for receiving the blessing. Jacob foresees a problem. His father, being nearly blind, might touch him and realize that it is the smooth-skinned Jacob standing before him rather than the hairy Esau. He goes on to surmise that in so doing, he would be laying a curse on himself, instead of a blessing. LXX-G’s rendering of the common Hebrew word  (‘to bring upon’) with the hapax legomenon ‘lay on’ (*2 ’) is unusual. Per LSJ (1968, 1346), the phrase is used elsewhere with reference to solid particles such as ashes (Exod. 9:8,10; 3 Macc. 1:18). Thus, Jacob seems to consider a curse a physical condition. His mother, however, dismisses his concerns by taking the possible curse on herself. What neither Rebekah nor Isaac considers is the meal itself. If Isaac is looking forward to his favorite meat dish, made from wild game, would he not notice that it was made instead with tender young goats? Perhaps Rebekah assumes that his other sensory abilities were dimming as much as his vision. Despite Jacob’s reservations, he obeys his mother. The narrator seems to rush through the upcoming part of the story by omitting the objects of the verbs, just as Jacob himself seems to hurry to do what he is told. His mother is able to prepare his father’s favorite meal, so Jacob must have brought her what she requested. After she prepares the meal, she prepares Jacob to deliver it by dressing him in Esau’s robe and putting animal skins on his smooth arms and neck. Jacob follows the last of his mother’s orders and takes what she prepared to his father. Then father and son carry on a conversation that is marked by considerable kinship language, particularly in ALEX. At the very beginning of the conversation, ALEX personalizes Jacob’s address by adding ‘my’ to the vocative ‘father.’ Isaac responds and immediately questions the identity of his son. Isaac, like Rebekah before him, addresses Jacob throughout as ‘child’ (  ), instead of the MT’s more personal ‘my son’ (). This change, according to Wevers, occurs only in scenes with “high drama” (1993, 424). Jacob responds to Isaac’s question. ALEX, again emphasizing the relationship

GENESIS 27:1–29

351

between the two, has the narrator add ‘his son’ (, !F  ") to further dene the speaker as ‘his son Jacob.’ He also adds ‘his’ ( ") to specically dene the addressee as ‘his father.’ The deception begins when Jacob identies himself as Esau, Isaac’s rstborn, and continues when he claims to have done as Isaac requested. Not wanting to waste any time, Jacob tells Isaac to eat his game so that Isaac will bless him. In Isaac’s one lucid moment, he questions how the child could have done what he did so quickly. Jacob credits Lord God for providing. Here, by omitting the pronoun ‘your’ ( !) after #, ALEX has Jacob claiming Lord as God (=  , #), not just his father’s God. Ironically, Jacob’s lie about God’s intervention is almost the truth. Little does he know that what he had just done helped to fulll God’s earlier prediction to his mother (25:23). As Jacob expected, Isaac wants to touch him to see if he really is the hairy Esau. Unable to distinguish between the hair of an animal and the hair of his older son, Isaac is deceived. His ears tell him that he’s hearing Jacob’s voice, but his hands tell him dierently. Surprisingly, although Isaac does not recognize him, he nevertheless blesses him. Still having some doubts, Isaac asks a nal direct question, ‘are you my son Esau,’ to which Jacob simply responds ‘I am’ (L ). Isaac capitulates and tells the child to bring him the game that would precede the blessing. Not only does Jacob set the meat before his father, he also gives him some wine. This addition to the meal might help disguise the taste difference between the meat of kids and that of wild game. Isaac eats and drinks and asks Jacob to come near and kiss him. The scent of Esau’s robe that Rebekah put around Jacob convinces Isaac that it is Esau he is blessing. This scent then stimulates Isaac’s thoughts by reminding him of an ‘abundant’ ($) !) eld that Lord blessed. The rst part of the blessing continues the agricultural theme. Isaac implores God to grant Jacob dew from heaven, fatness on earth, and an abundance of grain and wine. The next part of the blessing involves Jacob’s social and political stature. ‘Nations’ (#&), not just ‘peoples’ (MT’s  ), will be enslaved to him, and ‘rulers’ (4 ), not just ‘populations’ (MT’s ), will bow down to him. Thus, the LXX-G Isaac has even higher political expectations for his son. Ironically, he tells the boy to be lord over his brother, something that God had already predicted to Rebekah. He then declares that Jacob will be worshipped by ‘the sons of your father’ ( F !F   "   !), per LXX-G, instead of the MT’s ‘sons of your mother’ (# ). Isaac concludes the blessing by reiterating what God had promised his father long

352

COMMENTARY

ago with regard to those who bless and curse him (12:3). Like his grandfather, Jacob will be God’s human barometer for determining who will be blessed and who will be accursed. 27:30–40 Having accomplished his mother’s objective by deceiving his father into blessing him, Jacob leaves his father’s presence. At the same time, Esau returns. God-in-the-margins insures that the two do not meet. As was the case in LXX-G’s narration of Jacob’s blessing, here too are relational pronouns added. Esau did as his father had requested. Now he oers the meat he captured and prepared to his father and asks him to proceed with the meal and the blessing. After Isaac asks his identity, Esau responds by identifying himself as the rstborn son. However, unlike Jacob, he declares his rstborn status before announcing his name. Isaac is greatly confused and wonders aloud who the earlier visitor was, the one whom he blessed. When he realizes what his father did, Esau cries out and asks his father to bless him too. Isaac responds to his own earlier question, rather than to Esau’s plea, by conrming that Jacob deceitfully took the blessing Isaac had promised to Esau. Esau sees the bitter irony associated with Jacob’s name, and recalls the earlier time that Jacob ‘heeled’ (

) him. The Greek 

 is a hapax legomenon in LXX-G. Yet like its Hebrew counterpart  , the word essentially refers to the heel of the foot and thus can mean to ‘grasp by the heel or to strike the heel.’ Because Jacob came out of Rebekah’s belly grasping the heel of his brother Esau, Rebekah named her second son accordingly (25:26). That act on the part of the infant Jacob, however, became associated with the more aggressive act of cheating or supplanting. It was Jacob’s tricking Esau to give up his birthright, thus cheating or supplanting him, that Esau now recalls (25:29–34). After hearing what Isaac granted to Jacob, Esau asks if his father has another blessing for him. LXX-G’s addition of the vocative ‘father’ (*) to the end of Esau’s question adds “a touch of intimacy to the story” (Wevers 1993, 436). Isaac responds to Esau’s second entreaty by essentially claiming that he has already given Jacob the blessing and has nothing of value left over. Esau, however, persists by asking if Isaac has a dierent blessing and implores him for the blessing. Departing from both the MT and all other LXX-G manuscripts, ALEX omits the last part of v. 38. The MT again reports that ‘Esau raised his voice and wept’ (#   ), which is preceded by an addition in other LXX-G manuscripts that describes Isaac’s reaction to Esau’s plea as being ‘stabbed to the heart’ ( !#  (Y n ). ALEX omits both impassioned responses and proceeds directly to the ‘blessing’ itself.

GENESIS 27:30–40 & 28:1–9

353

Although not the blessing he wanted to give to Esau, Isaac does have an additional blessing. Unfortunately, it is the opposite of what he bestowed on Jacob. Esau will live away from the fatness of the land and from the dew of heaven. Rather than making his living by agriculture, Esau will live by the sword. His bellicose demeanor, however, will help him overcome his servitude to his brother. As is the MT, LXX-G is also confusing. To what Esau’s ‘overcoming’ ( $A) refers is unclear. The brothers have become enemies, but they will eventually resolve their dierences. That resolution, however, will be peaceful, not by the sword (33:4–17). Therefore, the blessing more likely refers to the hostile relationship between their future nations, i.e., Israel and Edom, and the comment about Esau’s eventual overcoming likely refers to Edom’s emergence from Israel’s rule during the divided monarchy (2 Kgs. 8:20, 22). 27:41–46 Esau reacts to his brother’s deception by thinking about killing Jacob after their father dies, which he thinks must be soon. God-in-themargins enables Rebekah to learn about Esau’s thoughts in order to take action to protect her younger son. Again, she comes up with a plan that she orders Jacob to follow. Jacob must be hoping that her new plan will be better for him than her earlier plan appears to be. He is to get out of town and go, per LXX-G, to Mesopotamia to live with her brother Laban until Esau’s anger abates. When that happens, she will let him know that it is safe for him to return. Until then, she does not want to become ‘childless’ (  #0) by losing both of them in one day – Jacob by Esau’s hand, and Esau’s presumably by God’s. As if to demonstrate the mental instability caused by her anger, Rebekah complains to Isaac about the futility of her life if Jacob, like his brother, were to marry a local Hittite girl. Has she forgotten that she just ordered Jacob to Mesopotamia? Far be it from trickster Rebekah to forget something like this. She is merely planting the idea in Isaac’s head that it is his responsibility to make the appropriate marriage arrangements for his other son. 28:1–9 Isaac must have concerns similar to those just expressed by Rebekah about Jacob’s future wives; he (again) blesses Jacob and orders him to marry appropriately. Unlike Esau whose exogamous marriages to daughters of Canaanites (26:34) have provoked his parents, Jacob is to marry endogamously as did Isaac himself. Ironically, Jacob has both more freedom and more restrictions in his marriage partners. Unlike his father whose wife was chosen by his father’s servant, Jacob is free to choose for himself. Yet, his choices are limited to the daughters of his mother’s

354

COMMENTARY

brother Laban. Isaac modies Rebekah’s earlier order for Jacob to ‘ee’ (  ) to Mesopotamia (27:43) by telling him to go to ‘Mesopotamia of Syria’ (   ). This, as Wevers explains, will become the standard translation in LXX-G (but not outside of Genesis) of the MT’s ‘Paddan of Aram’ ( ). The term  likely refers to the Paddanu near Haran in present day southern Turkey, an area that would be considered Mesopotamia. The second term  refers to the geographically larger area ‘Syria’ of which Mesopotamia was a part (2001, 237–238). In addition to changing Jacob’s geographic destination, Isaac tells him to go to the house of Rebekah’s father Bathouel, the oldest male of the family, instead of the house of her brother Laban, as Rebekah ordered. Furthermore, whereas Rebekah’s order was motivated primarily by her concern for her son’s safety, Isaac’s is motivated by his concern for Jacob’s proper marriage. Isaac continues his address to Jacob by invoking God’s blessings, using language parallel to that spoken by God himself when he promised land and progeny to Abraham (e.g., 12:7; 17:2–6) and Isaac (26:3–5). Jacob does as he is told. Meanwhile, Esau sees and hears his father blessing Jacob. When he realizes just how ‘evil’ ( &) his mother and father regard exogamous marriages, he leaves home and marries another foreign woman, this time the daughter of the banished Ishmael. 28:10–22 One night as he is traveling to his uncle’s house in Mesopotamia, Jacob stops for the night. He ‘came upon a place’ ()& B) and fell asleep. The verb )& suggests the coincidental nature of where he stopped; LXX-G’s unarticulated noun ‘place’ (B), contra the MT’s articulated ‘the place’ ( . / 0 ), implies that Jacob sees nothing special about it. His unawareness of the importance of his stopping place makes his discovery more signicant and highlights the activity of God-in-the-margins. He unintentionally builds an altar of sorts when he places stones near his head, a type of incubation ritual which is followed by sleep. Jacob then dreams, the only one to do so in LXX-G outside the Joseph Narrative. He dreams he sees a ‘ladder’ ( $μ2) that stretches from the ground into heaven. Like the MT’s %, the LXX-G’s $μ2 is a hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible. Translated as both ‘ladder’ and ‘stairway,’ the structure is analogous to the Mediterranean ziggurat, or temple tower, that connected heaven and earth, as well as to ladders of heavenly ascent described in Egyptian and Hittite sources (Sarna 1989, 198). Like the “tower of Babel,” the purpose of the ladder or stairway is to

GENESIS 28:10–22

355

link heaven and earth, i.e., gods and humans. Unlike the tower of Babel, however, this ladder in Jacob’s dream is overseen by God who allows his angels to go up and down freely. God then addresses Jacob for the rst time and identies himself as the God of Abraham and Isaac. He continues in LXX-G by telling Jacob not to be afraid. Then, in fulllment of Isaac’s last words to Jacob, God extends to Jacob the blessings and promises he earlier gave to Abraham for land and numerous ospring. These ospring, likened in the MT to the ‘dust of the earth’ (  ), are described by the majority of LXX-G manuscripts as the ‘sand of the earth’ (> : 4μμ   ). ALEX, however, describes them by a more logical simile, i.e., as the ‘sand of the sea’ (> : 4μμ   #$*&). All of these similes imply a number so great that it cannot be counted. Furthermore, these ospring will spread out in all directions and will enable all the tribes of the earth to be blessed. As a sign of his constant protection, God promises not to abandon Jacob until he delivers on everything that he has promised. Jacob wakes up and realizes what has happened. He declares that God has been there without his prior knowledge. Then, despite God’s command to the contrary, Jacob was afraid. He did not realize that the place he had chosen to sleep was ‘God’s house’ and a ‘gate to the heaven.’ Perhaps he somehow knew of God’s earlier disapproval of humans who tried to bridge the gap between heaven and earth (11:1–9). To appease God, Jacob formally establishes the place as ‘House of God,’ i.e., c\  # ". Throughout the story, LXX-G translates the name literally, rather than referring to its actual name Bethel. He ocially makes the stone a sacred pillar by pouring olive oil on it and continues the ritual by making a vow to God. The protasis of the vow includes the conditions that God had declared to Jacob in his dream, i.e., being with him, watching him closely on his travels, and returning him. Jacob, however, adds to and claries some of these conditions. He stipulates that God’s being with him and watching him includes providing him food and clothes; he species that his return be safe; and he claries the land to which he will return as that associated with his father’s house. In return, Lord will be his God, the stone pillar will mark the location of God’s sacred house, and he will return to God one tenth of everything that God gives him. As his grandfather before him (12:7–8), Jacob establishes a sacred place to commemorate God’s promise to him. Yet Jacob makes the ritual action even more signicant with his vow whose fulllment will ensure that Lord is his God, a declaration that neither Abraham nor Isaac explicitly made.

356

COMMENTARY

29:1–30 LXX-G uses the MT’s unique expression to describe Jacob’s next act. ‘Lifting the feet’ (2* k R  N (), Jacob resumes his journey east to his uncle’s house. The constant repetition of Laban’s relationship to Rebekah underscores the importance that Jacob marry endogamously within the family of Terah, Abraham’s father. Like Abraham’s servant, Jacob will also encounter the appropriate marriage partner at a well. Yet, this particular version of the betrothal type-scene diers in three ways from the earlier one. Jacob is the one at the well, not a surrogate; he, not the woman, will be the one to draw the water. Finally, the well, typically an image of fertility, is blocked by a large stone. This, Alter suggests, might represent Rachel’s future conception problems (1996, 152). The narrator goes on to describe the three things that Jacob sees – a well, three ocks of sheep, and a stone over the well. He continues by describing three activities that typically happen at the well. After the sheep are gathered, ‘they’ would ‘roll away’ ( $ ) the stone, ‘water’ (  ) the ocks, and ‘put back’ ( # ) the stone. The recurring three-fold pattern of the narration parallels the recurring routine activities done by the men with whom Jacob will converse. The narrator then makes Jacob conform to his pattern by having him ask the men three questions. Where are they from? Haran. Do they know Laban the son of Nachor? They do. Is Laban well? He is. These shepherds not do seem interested in conversing. Perhaps they are suspicious of this stranger asking questions, especially when Laban’s daughter Rachel is reported to be entering the scene with her father’s sheep. ALEX’s addition of ‘while he was still speaking’ (

 " $$ " ) smoothes the transition from the forced conversation to Rachel’s mysterious appearance with her father’s sheep. In another addition, ALEX explains that she tends these sheep. These additions, while seemingly helpful, will prove awkward later in the scene when they are repeated. Knowing God was on his side, Jacob brashly orders the shepherds to get back to work. This time, they are less taciturn. They explain to this impertinent stranger that they cannot remove the stone and water the sheep until more shepherds arrive to assist in the process. Again, as Jacob is speaking to them, the narrator repeats his announcement of Rachel’s arrival, and in ALEX, her responsibility of tending her father’s sheep. Jacob now shows o for the woman by removing the stone from the well, a feat that the shepherds said took several men to accomplish. If Alter is correct, Jacob’s action also foreshadows his ability, with God’s help, to overcome her barrenness. After watering the sheep, Jacob somehow knows the identity of the woman because he kisses her and weeps, pre-

GENESIS 29:1–30

357

sumably for joy at nding that this woman was an appropriate wife. He informs Rachel what he intuitively knows, i.e., that he is kin to her. Unlike Rebekah, Rachel says nothing, but runs to tell her father what happened. When Laban, per LXX-G, hears the ‘name’ (G μ) Jacob, he immediately recognizes that Jacob is indeed his kin. God-in-the-margins reveals to the characters what the reader knows, thus avoiding complicated introductions. Laban greets Jacob by kissing him and then brings him into the house. After hearing Jacob’s explanation of ‘all these things,’ Laban conrms that Jacob is who he reports to be – a esh and blood relative. As Rebekah told him (27:44), Jacob stays with Laban for a period of time. A month has passed and Laban seemingly continues to honor his familial ties when he declares that Jacob should not be his ‘slave’ (( !$ ) for free. As in its other occurrences within LXX-G, the word ( !$ is used when the master and slave are from dierent countries. In addition to its ten occurrences describing Jacob’s work for Laban (29:15, 18, 20, 25, 30; 30:26 [2x], 29; 31:6, 41), it also is used to describe the enslavement of Abraham’s descendents in Egypt (15:14), the servile relationship of Esau to Jacob (25:23; 27:29, 40), and the enslavement of the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and their allies to the Chodollogomor coalition (14:4). Despite his characterization of Jacob’s labor for him as slavery, Laban nevertheless asks what Jacob thinks Laban should pay him. At this point, the narrator interrupts the conversation to make Jacob’s requested payment more understandable. Laban, we are told, has two daughters. In addition to the younger daughter whom Jacob had already met, there was a ‘greater’ (μ  ) daughter named Leah (Leia), who, per LXX-G, had ‘weak’ eyes. The literal rendering of the MT’s ‘the greater’ () with μ  , rather than the typical ‘the older’ (!), results in an unusual description of Leah. However, the word μ  echoes God’s description of Esau when he responded to Rebekah’s inquiry about the two boys jumping around in her belly (25:23). As such, the secondary status of Leah herself is assumed. This assumption is then conrmed she is said to have ‘weak eyes.’ In stark contrast to Leah with her problem eyes is Rachel who, like her aunt Rebekah (26:7) is said to be ‘ripe in appearance.’ The narrator emphasizes her physical attractiveness by describing her also as ‘beautiful in form.’ She must have passed both features on to her own son Joseph, who later is described the same way (39:6). The obvious preference for the younger daughter, both on the part of the narrator and of Jacob himself, continues the motif found throughout Genesis for reversing primogeniture. That reversal of custom, however, will itself be reversed. At this point in the story, however, it is Rachel who

358

COMMENTARY

is favored – and loved. For that reason, Jacob announces that he is willing to work seven years for her. Laban presumably agrees. However, a close reading of his reply shows that he does not say “yes.” He merely states that Jacob seems a preferable recipient of his younger daughter over other possible candidates. Jacob, of all people, should know to be careful when negotiating for something of value. He fullls his part of the bargain by serving the seven years. Departing from the MT and other Greek manuscripts, ALEX omits the narrative comment about Jacob’s love for Rachel, i.e., that the seven years he worked for Laban seemed like a few days because of his love for her. Seven years for ALEX’s Jacob is seven years; it does not seem any less. He is ready at that point for Laban to fulll his part of the bargain when he demands that Laban ‘turn over’ (@( ) his wife, i.e., give him what he is due, so that he could ‘go into her’ (3$# ) and thus consummate the marriage. Laban goes through the motions by bringing his men together and preparing, not merely a ‘feast’ (), but per the LXX, a wedding feast (*μ ). However, when evening comes, Laban does the unexpected. He takes Leah to Jacob, who, like other men such as Lot (Gen. 19) and Judah (Gen. 38), does not recognize his sexual partner until later. In Jacob’s case, it takes him until morning when he looks and sees Leah! Awkwardly sandwiched between the events of the evening and the following morning is a description of a marriage custom whereby the bride is given a maidservant. Laban gives Zelpha to Leah and thereby seems to have played by all the rules, even one of which Jacob is unaware. He soon learns, however, that Laban plays by dierent rules than does his family. He confronts Laban and asks him three questions about Laban’s trick. His nal question is indeed ironic. Why, he asks, did you ‘deceive’ ($  ) me? Although missing the wordplay in the MT between Jacob’s deception of Isaac (, 27:35) and Laban’s deception of him (), LXX-G nevertheless shows the reversal of fortune. Jacob, the trickster, is himself tricked. It is then that Laban explains the rules in his place, i.e., that the younger cannot supersede the older. However, he is willing to give Jacob Rachel, to whom he callously refers to as ‘this one’ (&) on two conditions. First, he must complete ‘these seven,’ i.e., follow the seven-day long wedding custom with Leah. Second, and more importantly, he must commit to work for Laban another seven years. LXX-G, unlike the MT, distinguishes between Jacob’s ‘enslavement’ (( " ) for the rst seven years, and his ‘labor’ () for the next seven. Jacob, however, does not question the dierence. He completes his obligation to Leah and agrees to work for Laban another seven years.

GENESIS 29:1–30 & 29:31–35

359

This time it is Laban who seems gullible. He gives Rachel to Jacob as a wife before he completes his next seven year commitment. Despite his deception of Rachel and her lack of a corresponding wedding feast, Laban nevertheless gives her a maidservant Balla. Jacob goes into Rachel and is said to love her more than Leah. Once again, favoritism within the family will prove problematic. 29:31–35 As has been and will continue to be his custom, Lord God sides with the apparent underdog. His earlier rejections of the rstborn sons demonstrated his challenge of social customs and expectations. His appearance to the cast o Hagar similarly showed God to be with the disadvantaged. Here, however, the narrator explicitly states that God is responding to Jacob’s preferential love for Rachel – and presumably his corresponding ‘hate’ (μ - ) for Leah – by opening her womb. He does this not once, but four times. Furthermore, all four times she bears a son. At this point, Leah does not belittle Rachel for her barrenness, as Hagar shamed Sarah (16:4–5). She instead faults Jacob for his hatred. However, from a human perspective, Jacob could not have completely ignored Leah. Without some spousal attention from her man, Leah could not have conceived four sons. LXX-G’s variety in reporting the four successive births contrasts with the MT’s uniformity. It describes the rst birth by duplicating the MT’s ‘and Leah conceived and bore a son’ (    ) as !$ l    !F. However, to underscore Jacob’s role in her procreative accomplishment, LXX-G adds that she bore the son ‘for Jacob’ (D k %). It again adds a note about Jacob’s paternal role in its narration of her second birth, while also highlighting her tting procreative abilities by adding the unnecessary adjective ‘second’ (( ) to son. In its report of her third birth, LXX-G changes the adjective from ‘again’ (*$ ) to ‘yet again’ ( ). When naming her third son, Leah acknowledges her husband, but does not refer to him by name. Finally, LXX-G subordinates the conception to the bearing by using a participle form ‘having conceived’ (!$$ ") in describing the fourth birth. In naming her fourth son, Leah does not mention Jacob at all; instead she acknowledges and thanks only Lord. All these changes subtly promote traditional gender roles. The reader pays more attention to the dierences in narrative style and thus more easily sees the emphasis on the procreative abilities of both Jacob and Leah. Although the wordplays associated with the names of Leah’s sons cannot be duplicated in LXX-G, the ideas associated with the names are

360

COMMENTARY

apparent. The names that she gives the sons show her displeasure with Jacob and her increasing gratitude to Lord. That she does the naming, while not apparent in form, is obvious in content. In Reuben (Roubn), Lord saw her humiliation and she hoped her husband would love her. Simeon represented Lord’s hearing about her being hated. The presumption that additional sons would make Jacob be with her is made explicit in the naming of her third son Levi. ALEX, in attempting to represent the MT’s indenite ‘his name was called’ (  ), uses the passive ‘was called’  $)#& instead of the active ‘called’ [the name]  *$. Finally, she openly acknowledges her gratitude to Lord when she names Judah ( Jouda). After Leah has accomplished what no other matriarch has, she stops bearing. 30:1–24 Surprisingly, none of the names that Leah creates to express her gratitude to God and her displeasure with her husband represent any harsh feelings she might have for her sister Rachel. She wants Jacob to acknowledge and appreciate her procreative abilities, but does not envy Rachel because of Jacob’s preference for her. Rachel, on the other hand, does envy her sister’s ability to procreate and demands that Jacob give her children. Contrary to the common assumption that failure to bear children was the woman’s problem, Rachel seems to think Jacob is at fault. Jacob quickly challenges her assumption with a biting rhetorical question that shifts the responsibility for her barrenness to God. Unlike her ancestor Sarah, Rachel does not question God’s abilities. She does, however, resort to Sarah’s method of conception by giving Jacob her maidservant as a surrogate. Rachel oers more information to her husband and the reader. By bearing the child on Rachel’s knees, Balla would literally have the child in Rachel’s place. Thus, the desired result, i.e., that Rachel ‘bear children’ (   ) μ ) from her is especially apt. Although LXX-G cannot duplicate the MT’s wordplay of Rachel’s being ‘built up/sonned,’ it nevertheless presents a rather graphic depiction of the joint accomplishment. It is worth noting that Rachel is not shamed by her maidservant for her ability to conceive and bear a child, as was her grandmother Sarah. Balla twice performs what is expected of her by conceiving and bearing two sons whom Rachel names. As was the case with LXX-G’s translation of Leah’s names for her sons, the translations of Rachel’s son’s names concur with the concept described in the MT, but lack the associated wordplay. Dan represents God’s justice in heeding Rachel’s voice, and Naphtali represents her ability to compete with her sister in bearing children. In its explanation of Naphtali’s name, LXX-G interprets a dicult MT text

GENESIS 30:1–24

361

and devises its own wordplay. The Greek word ‘assisted’ (!*$ ) is the same word that in its active form means ‘conceived.’ Instead of the MT’s ‘wrestling’ () with her sister, LXX-G playfully implies that God assisted her by allowing her to conceive, even if through her maidservant. Nevertheless in both the MT and LXX-G, Rachel’s envy of her sister is more obvious at present than her sister’s envy of her. However, this quickly changes when Leah responds to the inherent challenge implied in the name of Rachel’s second son by Balla. Since she has stopped bearing, she also takes the surrogate route and gives her maidservant Zelpha to Jacob. Like Balla, Zelpha bears two sons whom Leah names. Gad and Asher (Asr) represent good luck and happiness respectively. That her happiness is apparent to all the wives might be a subtle way of taking psychological revenge against Rachel. The competition between the two sisters continues when Leah’s rstborn son Reuben nds mandrake fruits in the eld and takes them to his mother. Whether he understands their signicance is uncertain. What is certain is that both she and Rachel do. According to many commentators, mandrakes were thought to have aphrodisiac powers. Sarna likens these small fruit to yellow tomatoes that ripen in March or April. He goes on to say that their emetic, purgative, and narcotic characteristics likely made them popular medicinal substances, while their sturdy intertwined roots with ‘torsolike’ features were associated with fertility (1989, 209; see also Altar 1996, 160). Inasmuch as Rachel has not yet given birth to a child of her own, she demands that Leah give her son’s mandrakes to her. Leah replies with two rhetorical questions that indicate her feelings toward Rachel. Rachel already has taken her husband, but Leah’s procreative abilities still give her gender superiority. If Rachel could also bear children, she would presumably capture even more of Jacob’s love. Rachel denies Leah’s implied criticism. To prove that she has not completely stolen Jacob, she oers to let him sleep with Leah that evening in exchange for the mandrakes. Like the oer her husband made to his brother (25:29–34), Rachel’s oer is more a bribe than an attempt to show sibling love or concern. Jacob, apparently, has no say in the matter. He seems to sleep with anyone his wives demand of him. When Leah comes out to meet him as he is returning from the eld, she tells him about the deal she and Rachel negotiated. Jacob says nothing but does what she says. Apparently Leah also has spoken to God because he also heeds her voice by enabling her to conceive again and again. She bears two more sons for Jacob. The fth son Issachar is named in connection with the ‘wages’ she paid Rachel; the

362

COMMENTARY

sixth son Zebulun represents the gift of her husband’s esteem that she so greatly desires. She likely wishes he would ‘choose’ (F -) her with no strings attached. Before she stops bearing again, Leah has a daughter Dinah (Deina), who will later play a role in the family story. Ironically, it is Leah who benets from the aphrodisiac mandrakes; however, she attributes her success to God. Finally, God remembers Rachel and opens her womb. She at long last bears a son for Jacob, an act that removes her disgrace. Yet the name she gives the child – Joseph (Isph) – suggests that he is not enough. Instead, he represents her desire that God add another son. Rachel and Jacob, at this point, deserve each other. They both are self-centered and manipulative. Although Jacob’s cunning will lead eventually to his success, Rachel’s desire for more sons will result in her death. 30:25–43 With twelve sons, one daughter, two wives, and two concubines, Jacob wants to establish his own household. Nevertheless, he is still subservient to Laban and therefore asks his permission to leave. Laban refuses and claims Jacob’s arrival – and presumably his fourteen years of labor – represents God’s blessing of him. Laban is, however, willing to pay him for his service and ask Jacob what he wants in wages. Instead of dening his wages, Jacob reminds Laban of the years he worked as Laban’s slave. He acknowledges that God has indeed blessed Laban through Jacob’s service, a blessing evidenced by the increase in the size of Laban’s herd. Laban ignores Jacob’s bragging and again asks what he can give Jacob to convince him to stay. For some unknown reason, Jacob agrees to stay and continue to shepherd Laban’s sheep. However, he refuses to accept anything that Laban might give him. Instead, he makes what must seem like a strange request to Laban. In what follows, both the MT and LXX-G narrate a complex and somewhat dierent story about Jacob’s attempt at genetic engineering that involves specically colored and marked sheep and goats, one ram, tree rods, stripped bark, and watering troughs. Despite the diculty in understanding the precise details of Jacob’s plan and despite the dierences between the Hebrew and Greek texts, Jacob’s purpose is to deceive Laban. The time has come to take revenge for Laban’s deception of him. Jacob presents his plan. According to LXX-G, Jacob asks Laban to separate his ock according to color and species. This dierence from the MT in which Jacob does the separation himself makes it appear less likely that Jacob is manipulating the outcome. As a result, his ‘righteousness’ ((

 &) or trustworthiness will be apparent. In its next deviation

GENESIS & 30:25–43 & 31:1–16

363

from the MT, the LXX-G plan involves a more simple separation of gray sheep and pure white and spotted goats from the rest of the ock. These, Jacob declares, will be his wages. Regardless of their dierent ways of describing the sheep and goats, both the MT and LXX-G show Jacob asking for animals that are not as common. Sarna, pointing out other biblical descriptions of sheep and goats, maintains that sheep were typically white and goats were typically dark (1989, 212). Asking to keep the more rare types of sheep is the rst of Jacob’s tricks. Laban will be more likely to agree to the plan if he thinks he is getting the better deal. After all, rare sheep will likely not produce as many ospring. Furthermore, as Jacob remarks, it will be easy for Laban to see if Jacob keeps any sheep that are not gray and any goats that are not white and spotted. Not surprisingly, Laban agrees and divides his ock according to Jacob’s criteria and gives the ones Jacob chose to his own sons to keep. He then moves all the remaining of his ock three days distance away; these would be the ones that Jacob would tend. The next part of Jacob’s plan deals with genetic manipulation through what appears to be a type of sympathetic magic in which like inuences like. He rst takes an assortment of tree rods and strips them into white strips. Then, after removing the green bark from them, the rods take on a multicolored spotted appearance. Placing these rods in the troughs where the sheep come for water causes the sheep to go into heat. These sheep then produce white and spotted ospring as a result of the white and multicolored rods. His plan to manipulate the breeding has succeeded. He gets the sheep to produce ospring with the characteristics of the ones he asked for as his wages. He then keeps his marked sheep separate from Laban’s unmarked ones. As a result of his eorts, he not only is able to increase his part of Laban’s ock, but he also becomes extremely rich. Like his grandfather Abraham, he acquires considerable livestock and servants. By now Jacob has come a long way from the domesticated life of his childhood. He is still not a man of the country like his brother Esau, but he nevertheless manages, presumably with God’s help, to be remarkably successful in husbandry. 31:1–16 Laban’s sons express their bitterness against Jacob, whom they claim became successful at the expense of their father and ultimately themselves. After all, it was with their inheritance that Laban was bargaining. In addition to hearing what Laban’s sons are saying, Jacob observes that Laban’s face was not with him, i.e., in his favor, as it had been. These two signs, combined with Lord’s order for him to return home, convince

364

COMMENTARY

Jacob that it was time for him to leave Laban’s house. God’s promise to be with him provides the necessary assurance for Jacob to make his move. To his credit, he consults with Rachel and Leah before announcing his decision and explains his tenuous situation with their father. He calls them to the eld where he is tending the ocks, an appropriate setting for a discussion about his successful husbandry. He begins his explanation by commenting on two opposing forces – Laban’s increasing distance and God’s continued presence. Jacob is careful to note that it is not just any God, but the God of his father, who is with him. Later, this distinction will be important. Jacob goes on, in good rhetorical form, to elicit his wives’ agreement on the facts of the case, i.e., that he served their father well. Instead of responding appropriately to Jacob’s service, Laban continually misled him. Rachel and Leah likely remember the rst instance of their father’s deception of Jacob, but Jacob shrewdly ignores this example. He is trying to get the support of his wives, and recalling what led to their sibling rivalry would not help his cause. Instead, Jacob focuses strictly on economic matters concerning the wages Laban was to give Jacob for his husbandry. He claims, per LXX-G, that Laban changed his wages of the ‘ten lambs,’ instead of the MT’s ‘ten times’ (  ). Contrary to LXX-G’s tendency to clear up any problems in the MT, here it created problems. The earlier reported agreement between the two men was based not on the number of lambs or goats, but on their color. All the gray lambs and pure white and spotted goats would be Jacob’s (29:31–32). Jacob then continues protesting Laban’s treatment of him by referring again to the color of the lambs, rather than to their number. Despite his confusing claims, Jacob is clear on one thing. God is on his side. Divine intervention (31:7), genetic engineering, and sympathetic magic (29:37–43) combine to insure that Jacob gets the better deal. Instead of narrating his use of dierent types of rods to manipulate how the sheep reproduce, Jacob tells Rachel and Leah a somewhat dierent story. This one features God and his angelic intermediary who communicate helpful advice in his ‘sleep’ (' ), not as MT reports, ‘in dreams’ ( ). During sleep, the angel calls his name twice. Unlike his grandfather Abraham who responded two times to the angelic summons by declaring his presence and presumed readiness for instruction with ‘here I am’ (22:1, 2, 11), Jacob responds more cautiously by asking its identity. Furthermore, instead of getting instructions to slaughter, then not to slaughter, Jacob sees images associated with sheep and goats mating to produce life. Like the descriptions of most visions, Jacob’s is not

GENESIS 31:1–16 & 31:17–21

365

very clear. Although there is no doubt that the male animals are doing the mounting, which animals are ‘pure white and multicolored and ash colored spotted’ is vague. However, the colors are less important than is God’s intervention by means of his angel. Jacob sees the technicolor mating scene, then God’s angel sees everything that Laban is doing to Jacob. As is often the case, God’s identity is interchangeable with that of his angels or messengers (e.g., 18:1–13). The one speaking to Jacob in his sleep now denes himself as the God whom Jacob saw earlier (28:12–13). LXX-G claries God’s ambiguous self-description in the MT ‘I am the God [of ] Bethel’ (  ) with the description ‘who was seen by you’ (, S?#  ; 28:18). Here ALEX’s departure from the majority description of ‘the place of God where’ ( B # ", a) to ‘the place where’ (D B o) results in a smoother translation. However, none of the Greek manuscripts refer to the place by its previous and better known name, i.e., ‘the house of God’ (p \  # !). On the other hand, LXX-G’s addition of God’s promise to be with Jacob (   μ μ+  ") aptly reects God’s earlier conversation with Jacob (28:15–22). Despite the dierences between the earlier “scientic” explanation that the narrator gave for Jacob’s husbandry skills and Jacob’s own description of their source, these stories need not be mutually exclusive. Rachel and Leah likely would be more interested in and more convinced by a story about God’s intervention than they would in a “scientic” explanation. Indeed, their response proves that Jacob oered a convincing argument. They not only agree with his decision, they also describe their own dissatisfaction with their father’s behavior by means of two rhetorical questions. Is there anything left for us – to which the answer is no; are we considered strangers to him – to which the answer is yes. They then make a tting theological observation. Everything that their father’s god took away from him will now, because of Jacob’s God, go to them and their children. As a result, they tell Jacob to do what his God commands. 31:17–21 Now that he has his wives’ agreement, Jacob plans a hasty departure back home to his father in Canaan. The details of his trip and Laban’s interference do not always follow a sequential order and at times deviate from the MT’s similarly awkward narration. This part of the story begins when Jacob stands up and puts the wives and his children on camels. In what will likely prevent a swift departure and journey, Jacob also loads the camels with all the possessions he had acquired during his stay in Mesopotamia. Sometime prior to leaving, Rachel steals her father’s idols while he was away shearing his sheep. This seeming non sequitur

366

COMMENTARY

will become important to the story’s plot. LXX-G’s rendering the obscure Hebrew word ‘teraphim’ () with the Greek ‘idols’ (Q( $) is both a translation and an interpretation. Whether or not the translator knew what ‘teraphim’ were, he knew enough to refer to them as ‘idols.’ This likely is an instance of what Tov calls “contextual guesses” (1981, 55). Later in the story (31:30), Laban refers to these stolen objects as ‘my gods’ (), a claim that would imply a material object worshipped by the members of his family. The Hellenistic Jewish translator would likely consider such objects to be idolatrous, resulting in the rendering ‘idols.’ Although most scholars today similarly consider teraphim as cultic gurines, they disagree on their purpose and signicance. In the context of this story, the teraphim seem to be household gods that were talismans of sorts kept by families for protection and general well-being. Nutzi documents associate them with clan leadership (Sarna 1989, 216). Other biblical texts refer to their use as cultic objects (e.g., Judg. 17:5; 18:14–20) and as aids in divination (e.g., Ezek. 21:21). Challenging the dominant assumption that the teraphim were only household deities, Karel Van der Toorn analyzes the biblical texts in which reference is made to teraphim, as well as other ANE cuneiform evidence, and argues that teraphim were more likely to have been cultic gurines associated with the worship of dead ancestors (1990, 204). Hess acknowledges the association between the teraphim and ancestors but is not persuaded that they necessarily represented images of ancestors or played a role in ancestor cults (forthcoming). Despite the uncertainty with regard to the precise meaning and function of the teraphim/idols, it is clear that the items were valuable. If they were not, Rachel would not have taken the time and risked the consequences of stealing them. However, what value they had for her is not narrated. Commentators, nevertheless, speculate based on their understanding of the purpose of the teraphim/idols. Sarna opines that she may have wanted to prevent her father from divining any details about their escape (1989, 216). Westermann maintains that her theft was one way to compensate herself for her loss of inheritance (1985, 493). Alter claims that Rachel probably did not become a monotheist when she married Jacob. She stole the gods in order to retain the icons associated with wellbeing and prosperity (1996, 169). Whatever her reasons, Rachel’s ability to steal these items and keep them hidden from her father shows that she has mastered the family art of trickery.

GENESIS 31:22–33

367

31:22–33 Despite Jacob’s attempt to hide his departure from Laban, he is not successful. Laban is told about the trip three days later. He gathers up all his ‘brothers,’ i.e., his kinsmen, and pursues Jacob and his family. Because he is not overloaded with baggage, Laban is able to catch up to Jacob in the hill country of Galaad. Sometime during his pursuit, Laban is visited by God; that this is Jacob’s God Laban later acknowledges. During sleep, God tells him not to speak evil, not as MT ‘good or evil’ (  

), against Jacob. Inasmuch as God would likely not prohibit Laban from speaking well of Jacob, LXX-G’s omission of the MT’s ‘good’ is another example of its tendency to improve the sensibility of the story. This trend will continue. After both groups encamp in the hills of Galaad, Laban confronts Jacob and demands an explanation. Why did Jacob ee without telling him; why did he rob him; and why take his daughters like captives? Although not part of the MT text, LXX-G’s additional claim that Laban makes about Jacob’s ‘robbing’ him ( $  ?&*) is sensible to the story and foreshadows his later accusation about his idols. Its omission of Laban’s elaboration of what he had just said avoids redundancy and moves the story forward. Laban continues by claiming he would have provided a festive farewell party, if only Jacob had told him in advance. That hardly seems likely inasmuch as he refused to listen when Jacob earlier told him of his desire to return home (29:26–27). He laments not having the opportunity to kiss his little boys, i.e., his grandsons, and his daughters goodbye. As Muraoka notes, this is another instance where LXX-G demonstrates its contextually-thoughtful translation by using dierent Greek words to render the one Hebrew word for ‘son’ (). Here, when Laban himself is speaking, LXX-G translates the Hebrew ‘my sons’ () with the Greek words ‘my youngsters’ (+  ( μ !), a choice that acknowledges the aection or endearment of a grandfather for his young grandchildren. Later in the chapter when the narrator is reporting (vv. 43, 55), LXX-G renders the Hebrew ‘son’ with the more common !F, a term that refers to the legal status of a male child to his father, or as here, grandfather (2001, 18). After voicing his complaint, Laban threatens Jacob, but, for no apparent reason, does not carry out his threat. Instead, he tells Jacob about the warning given by Jacob’s God and continues his litany of accusations. He acknowledges that he could understand why Jacob would want to return home, but, why, he asks, steal ‘my gods’ ( N #  μ !). He asks a good question inasmuch as Jacob is only to worship his one God.

368

COMMENTARY

It is now Jacob’s turn to respond to Laban’s questions and accusations. He answers Laban’s earlier question about why he ran away secretly with a succinct statement; he was afraid Laban would take his daughters, and per LXX-G, everything else away from Jacob. Laban’s previous attempts to cheat Jacob out of what was rightfully his made Jacob rightfully suspicious. He goes on by making a righteously indignant pronouncement that whoever stole Laban’s gods would not live. In so doing, Jacob implicitly contrasts his honesty in dealing with Laban with Laban’s dishonesty with him. Laban may have robbed Jacob, but Jacob would never rob Laban. In another attempt to make the narrative ow more smoothly, LXX-G reorders the continuing dialogue and actions of the two men. To prove his trustworthiness, Jacob tells Laban that he can search for and take whatever Jacob has that might be his. The LXX-G narrator then interrupts the conversation to support Jacob’s claim of honesty by adding that Laban found nothing. However, the narrator goes on to point out what Jacob does not know, i.e., that Rachel has stolen her father’s gods. Laban then conducts a more thorough search in the ‘houses’ ( \ ) of Leah, Jacob, and the maidservants, and again nds nothing. LXX-G’s occasional updating of the story makes little sense in the current context. It is highly unlikely that the eeing characters would be living in ‘houses,’ rather than the MT’s ‘tents’ (), especially when Jacob himself was said to have ‘pitched his tent’ (&2   &  ") a few verses earlier (v. 25). Why all the other members of his entourage would be living in ‘houses’ can only be explained if the translator thought the two words to be interchangeable ways to refer to a place of abode. The concluding comment that Laban goes into Rachel’s ‘house’ leaves the audience with heightened anticipation of what he might nd. 31:34–55 The moment of truth has arrived when Laban goes to Rachel’s house. However, while he was searching the other houses, Rachel had time to remove the gods and cleverly deceive her father. She puts them in her saddlebags, sits on them, and then stops him from searching the bags by claiming she was menstruating. Her plan works. Jacob then protests. His righteous indignation is evident when he demands an explanation for Laban’s assumption of Jacob’s guilt. Without giving Laban a chance to respond, Jacob demands a trial of sorts in which their respective kinsmen would determine which of the two was to be believed. Although this call for a trial comes earlier in the MT, its placement at this point in the LXX-G narrative creates an apt setting for both men to present their cases.

GENESIS 31:34–55

369

Jacob begins. He pleads his case by recounting his twenty years of fruitful and honest service to Laban. During all this time, he claims never to have caused – or perhaps even to have allowed – any sheep to abort, never to have taken a ram for food, and to have replaced any dead sheep with his own resources. God’s being with him might have given him miraculous powers over the destinies of the sheep, as well as upright moral virtues when dealing with his uncle. As Laban would know, this was more than Jacob was required to do by ancient law codes regarding shepherd duties (Code of Hammurabi 263, 266; Exod. 22:11). In all this, he braved harsh weather and lack of sleep. Despite Jacob’s faithful service, Laban cheats Jacob by continually changing or shortchanging his wages. If the God of Abraham and the fear of Isaac had not been with him, Jacob claims he would have been humiliated and ‘empty’ (  ), i.e., without wives, children, and goods. This God, or these Gods, intervened on Jacob’s behalf the previous day by warning Laban not to speak against Jacob. Just to what the divine designator ‘fear of Isaac’ (, ?  k+ ) refers is contested. Does it represent an objective or subjective genitive? In other words, is this God someone Isaac fears or someone that causes others to fear Isaac. The argument rests primarily on the meaning of ‘dread’ () in the Hebrew phrase  . Sarna claims that the phrase has a double meaning, both “The One Whom Isaac Reveres” and “The One of Isaac Who Caused Terror” to Laban when he appeared to him the previous night (1989, 220). Westermann presents the meanings argued by several other scholars including Albright (“Kinsman of Isaac”) and Kopf (“Refuge of Isaac”) and then apologetically settles for “Protection of Isaac” (1985, 497). In light of Isaac’s relationship with the God of his father Abraham on the mountain (Gen. 22), Isaac likely did both “fear” God and acknowledge “protection” by him. LXX-G did not attempt to oer any interpretation of the Hebrew phrase, but merely produced a literal rendering. Laban now takes the stand, but does not even attempt to comment on Jacob’s plea. Nor does he refute the charges. Instead, Laban stubbornly insists that everything that Jacob claimed belongs instead to him. ALEX’s addition of ‘your’ ( !) after every disputed item – daughters, sons, herds, and everything else – emphasizes this point. Laban is not merely claiming ‘the’ daughters, sons, herds, and goods, but rather those that Jacob claims. Despite his assertions of rightful ownership, Laban nevertheless concedes that he has no inuence over his family. Then in an attempt to dene their future relationship, Laban proposes that he and Jacob made a covenant that will serve as a witness. LXX-G then adds an entire phrase

370

COMMENTARY

missing in the MT in which either Laban or Jacob declares that God alone is a witness. The confusion stems from the ambiguity of the verb and object, both of which are third masculine singulars ‘then he said to him’ (\ (Y D) and the ambiguity of the case – either nominative or vocative – of the proper name (k %). Thus, the beginning of the verse could be read either as ‘Then he said to him, “Jacob,’” or ‘Then Jacob said to him.’ Although Wevers presumes the subject is still Laban (1993, 521), the postpositive (Y most often indicates a change of subject (e.g., 4:16; 16:5, 6; 22:7, 8; 43:2). Furthermore, it would be more logical for Jacob to insist on God being the sole witness, rather than Laban. Jacob then initiates the ritualistic aspects of the covenant making by resorting to his earlier cultic actions after experiencing the presence of God. He makes a pillar of stone. Then he orders his kin to gather more stones. They do so and use them to build a mound, after which they eat, and per LXX-G, also drink. This mound, and its function as a witness, then becomes the focus of attention in the naming ritual that follows. Unfortunately, LXX-G cannot duplicate the signicance of the language dierences between Laban and Jacob that is apparent in the MT. Instead, it rearranges the details of the story and produces in a rather awkward narrative. The MT reports that Laban calls the mound Yegar-sahadutha (   ) and Jacob calls it Gal-ed ( ), both of which mean ‘mound of witness’ in their respective languages, Aramaic and Hebrew. The LXX-G report of the name dierences is problematic, and in ALEX, even more so. Its version of the ceremony begins, not with the naming of the mound, but with Laban’s statement: ‘This mound witnesses (q  ! a  μ!-) between me and you today.’ ALEX, unlike other LXX manuscripts, then reports that Jacob, not Laban, uses Laban’s phrasing to name the mound. Jacob calls it ‘a Mound witnesses’ (r ! μ! ). Laban, on the other hand, calls the mound ‘A Mound is witness’ (r ! μ*!). Thus, neither name in ALEX represents a precise translation of the Aramaic and Hebrew mound names in the MT, i.e., ‘mound of witness.’ Nevertheless, the dierences in ALEX result in the mound’s name being what Jacob calls it, instead of what Laban calls it. Despite the many dierences within LXX-G manuscripts and between them and the MT, all versions of the mound’s name disregards God’s usual role of witness. They all imply that the mound serves the witness function. LXX-G’s narrative becomes even more complicated. After the naming ceremony, the LXX-G Laban repeats what he said earlier, i.e., that the mound witnesses. He also refers to the pillar as a witness, but claims that he, not Jacob, made the pillar. Then another naming ensues, this time

GENESIS 31:34–55 & 32:3–21

371

taking the pillar into account. In addition to the earlier name, i.e., ‘A Mound witnesses’ (the name that ALEX’s Jacob established), the place is also called ‘The Vision’ (s9 ). Whereas the corresponding MT name, based on the verb 1, is the known place Mizpah, LXX-G again cannot duplicate the wordplay. Nevertheless, it does stress the theological signicance of the name, i.e., God’s oversight of the terms of the covenant, which are nally stated. The two men are to separate from each other, neither one having the right to cross over the stated boundary established by the mound and pillar. Laban then warns Jacob against taking more wives and humiliating his daughters. Despite their separate lives, Laban declares that the God of his father and the God of Abraham will know and judge. Laban has the nal word. However, the narrator reports that Jacob acknowledges Laban’s warning by swearing by yet another God, the Fear of his father Isaac. With all these Gods, or at least all these variations of the same God, both men likely feel secure in the negotiated covenant. Jacob then concludes the ceremony by making a sacrice and having another ritual communal meal to commemorate the occasion. Early the next morning, the men separate. Jacob blesses his family, and Laban returns home. 32:1–2 Some manuscripts, along with the MT, begin this chapter with the verse with which ALEX ended the previous chapter. All then resume the story with a comment that Jacob departed on his ‘own’ (5! !) way. At some point in his journey, Jacob again sees evidence of God’s presence. This time, however, it is not during sleep. What he sees is a military camp of God, whose angels approach him. He immediately names the place ‘Camps.’ The interaction with the angels is yet to come. First, however, Jacob will interact with humans. 32:3–21 Jacob now sends out his own $ !, here ‘messengers,’ to his brother Esau in Edom, the area that will become associated with Esau and his descendants. His apologetic purpose is clear in the language he uses, the excuse he makes, and his cataloguing of his material possessions. He refers to Esau as his ‘lord’ and to himself as Esau’s ‘servant.’ In so doing, he seems to be nullifying God’s prediction of their relationship (25:23). Nevertheless, Jacob seems sincere in his attempt to restore – or perhaps create – their original sibling relationship. When his messengers return, they give an ominous report that Esau was already coming to meet Jacob with four hundred men. Jacob’s own retinue, comprised of all his possessions, would likely not be able to resist four hundred men

372

COMMENTARY

should hostilities occur. As a result, Jacob is frightened and divides his group into two separate camps. That way, he surmises, at least one will likely survive an attack. He also calls on God for help. He begins his prayer by reminding God that God himself told him to return home, promised to make him prosper, and promised him innumerable ospring. In a sense, he is pleading with God to get him out of the potentially dangerous situation into which God put him. After praying, he goes to sleep. Jacob next resorts to a more human form of redemption, i.e., bribery. From all that he had acquired during his work for Laban, Jacob sends a signicant amount of livestock to his brother as gifts. However, he does not attempt to deliver these gifts himself. Instead, he divides all the livestock among his servants and has them proceed separately, telling them to put some distance between each of them. Visually, this would likely seem even more impressive than one large group of men with many animals. Just when Esau thought he had seen the extent of the livestock, yet another ock would appear. Furthermore, another servant would explain that all these additional animals were additional gifts from servant Jacob. Jacob hopes that these lavish gifts will appease Esau enough to prevent Esau from carrying out his earlier threat to kill Jacob. Feeling condent, he again goes to sleep. 32:22–32 For some unknown reason, Jacob decides to move his entire entourage across the ford. He rst moves his immediate family, all of whom are mentioned except Dinah and the maidservants. Then he moves his possessions. After doing so, however, he remains on the other side and has another experience of the netherworld between fantasy and reality, between the divine and the mundane. In a narrative notorious for its ambiguity, Jacob wrestles with a ‘man’ until morning. The rst example of ambiguity is evident in the abundance of third person masculine singular verbs, many of which have no explicit referent. As a result, it is often unclear who is speaking. Even more mysterious is the unidentied ‘man’ (4#  ) whose features and actions have much in common with characters found in cross cultural folk stories, such as a dangerous river demon, a spirit that guards or protects a body of water, and a being that must vanish by daybreak. Westermann therefore identies the being who attacks Jacob as a hostile demon or evil spirit (1985, 516). Sarna, on the other hand, denies the association. Nothing in the story, he contends, explicitly portrays the ‘man’ as a dangerous river spirit that blocks humans as they attempt to cross the river. Everyone and every-

GENESIS 32:22–32

373

thing that Jacob carried across was safe on the other side. Furthermore, most often humans attempt to appease these river spirits to ensure a safe crossing. Jacob does nothing of the sort. Finally, the mysterious assailant ends up blessing Jacob, an action that Sarna argues cannot be done by a demon in a biblical story. As a result, he concurs with midrashic interpretations (e.g., Gen. Rab. 77:2; 78:6) that identify the mysterious being with “the celestial patron of Esau-Edom, the inveterate enemy of the people of Israel” (1989, 404). All these explanations seem to ignore the fact that Jacob thinks he has encountered God (v. 30). This is most evident when Jacob later (32:30) names the place ‘the Visible Form of God’ (J\(  # "). In case there is any doubt about Jacob’s identication of his wrestling partner, he explicitly states in the ‘for’ (+) clause that he saw God ‘face to face’ and did not die. The night long wrestling match ends at daybreak in a draw. The ‘man’ could not overpower Jacob; however, his touch of Jacob’s thigh makes it numb. When his assailant attempts to leave, Jacob demands a blessing. What he gets is a change of name. No longer will his name be Jacob; rather it will be Israel. The signicance of the name, like the identity and function of Jacob’s wrestling partner, is debated. The major problem is that its grammatical structure has no exact parallel among biblical names, and its trilateral root  is only found elsewhere in Hosea 12:4. Its use there and the meaning that is given in the story itself suggests that its basic meaning is ‘strive’ or ‘contend.’ The theophoric element (el) at the end of any biblical name is most often the subject, not the object, of the verbal root. Thus, the name in Hebrew should mean ‘God strives,’ not ‘Jacob strives with God.’ All of this, of course, is not an issue in LXX-G, where it again merely translates, rather than duplicates, the wordplays that are the basis of the name’s meaning. Here, the signicance of the name Israel is Jacob’s ‘prevailing’ (!) over God and his ‘power’ ((!) over humans. Thus, the name itself suggests that the mysterious assailant has both human and divine features. As curious as the name itself is the fact that Jacob is not always called by his new name, as was Abraham. In fact, more often he continues to be referred to as Jacob. This strange story ends with an etiological note about the origin of a food prohibition. Jacob’s injury to his thigh, or hip, was the reason his descendants do not eat that part of an animal. However, as Sarna (1989, 228) and Alter (1996, 183) comment, more important than the prohibition itself is the fact that his ospring are referred to as ‘the sons of Israel’ ( F !F  k$) for the rst time.

374

COMMENTARY

33:1–17 Having sent gifts ahead of him for his brother and surviving a superhuman wrestling match, Jacob sees his brother Esau coming with the four hundred men of which his messengers told him (32:6). He distributes his children among their mothers and arranges them according to their status and his preference. The maidservants and their children are at the front; Leah and her children next; and Rachel and Joseph last. LXX-G again shows its contextually sensitive translation by using two dierent terms to render the Hebrew ‘children’ (); the children of the maidservants are referred to by the legal term ‘sons’ (!F ), whereas Leah’s children are referred to by the more aection term ‘youngster’ ( (). Rachel’s son Joseph is referred to even more personally by his name. Jacob’s putting the least valuable women and children in the front of the line where they will be the rst to encounter Esau at rst seems like a cowardly act. However, Jacob himself goes ahead of everyone. Still somewhat frightened of what might happen, Jacob bows to the ground seven times as he meets his brother. Ironically, his actions again seem to contrast with God’s prediction to his mother (that the greater will be a slave to the smaller, 25:23) and Isaac’s blessing (that Jacob will be master of his brother, who will bow down to him, 27:29). At this point, Jacob is more concerned with his immediate safety than his eventual dominance. His fears, however, are misplaced. Esau runs up to him, not to attack him, but to embrace him and kiss him according to cultural custom (29:13; 48:10). Both brothers weep as a sign of their reconciliation. Esau immediately asks about all the women and children, referring to them in LXX-G as objects, i.e., ‘what’ (t) are these to you, rather than as subjects as in MT, i.e., ‘who’ () are these to you. In his response, Jacob neglects to identify the women, but he does show parental aection for his ‘youngsters’ ( (). These, he says, represent God’s mercy on him. By referring to himself again as Esau’s ‘servant’ (-(), Jacob shows deference to his estranged brother. His family does the same, in the order in which they traveled. The maidservants and their ‘youngsters’ ( (), per ALEX, are the rst to greet Esau and bow down to him. Here ALEX departs from the MT and other Greek manuscripts by referring to the ospring of the maidservants by the more aectionate term ‘youngsters,’ rather than ‘children’ ( ), as Leah’s ospring are called. They also greet and bow down to Esau. Finally, Rachel and Joseph, again called by his name, meet and bow to Esau. Esau again questions everything that Jacob has acquired; this time he also refers to everything in his camp. Jacob still wants to impress his brother – perhaps also to bribe him – with his wealth. Esau responds by

GENESIS 33:1–17 & 34:1–31

375

saying that he also has ‘much’ ( $$*) and does not need anything that Jacob is trying to give him. Jacob continues his ingratiating conversation by pleading with Esau to accept his gifts. Esau eventually concedes and ‘took’ ($), precisely what he takes is not reported. The one thing that Esau wants, i.e., to travel with Jacob and his family, is the one thing that Jacob refuses to do. He makes excuses that his children and his livestock will not be able to make the journey Esau is proposing. Instead, Jacob suggests that Esau go on ahead of them, while he and his entourage travel at a more leisurely pace. Still being disingenuous, Jacob implies that he will eventually catch up with Esau. Instead, he goes to a dierent place. Instead of Seir, he ends up in a place where he sets up a house for his family and tents for his ock. He then names the place ‘Tents’ (u &). He will move again, but he will not see Esau until his father’s death. He has accomplished what he wanted, i.e., reconciling with Esau enough that he no longer feared him. By forcing Esau to take his gifts, Jacob has likely assuaged some guilt he must still have with regard to his earlier deception of Esau. 33:18–20 Jacob is on the road again and now, per LXX-G, arrives in Salem, which is known as the city of the Sikimites. As Wevers speculates, the translator likely understood the Hebrew  to refer to a place, i.e., Salem, rather than to the way he came to the place, i.e., ‘safely’ (1993, 554–555). He, like his grandfather Abraham, traveled from Mesopotamia to Canaan as commanded by God. Also, like Abraham, he bought property from a prominent local resident (23:4–18). Instead of paying with some unit of weight ( ), as in the MT, Jacob uses lambs as payment. This brief addendum to a longer narrative, like many in the Jacob cycle, has little to do with what has just occurred. Rather, it sets the stage for what is to follow. Nevertheless, what he does after purchasing property is signicant. He places an altar and invokes God, who is now for the rst time referred to as the ‘God of Israel’ ( # k)$). 34:1–31 LXX-G’s version of the story often referred to as the “rape of Dinah” follows the plot of the MT but changes some of the details. This story, more than most in Genesis, reects the social and psychobiological aspect of the Mediterranean model of honor and shame, namely, that male honor depends on the degree to which men protect the sexual purity, i.e., shame, of their women. The story also demonstrates the extent to which women were considered property, something that could bartered and used as valuable aspects of negotiations between men. Despite their

376

COMMENTARY

signicance in the story’s plot, none of the women speak. Not even Dinah, whose delement and humiliation are what drives the plot, has a voice. Neither is Dinah ever considered an individual in her own right. Nearly every time her name is used, she is referred to only in relation to one of her family. Once she is called the daughter of her mother Leah (v. 1). Most often, however, she is dened in relation to her male family members, i.e., as the daughter of her father Jacob (vv. 3, 5) or as the sister of her brothers Simeon and Levi (Leui) (vv. 13, 14, 25, 27). The one time her name is not preceded or followed by a family relationship, Dinah is still an object taken by her brothers from Shechem’s house (v. 26). She is a mere pawn in a male dominated plot of honor taken, and honor reclaimed. The story starts with a seemingly innocent act. Jacob has recently acquired land from Hamor (Emmr) for one hundred lambs (33:19), and his daughter Dinah goes out to get acquainted with the daughters of her new neighbors. However, instead of encountering the women she goes out to see, a man sees her. This man Shechem (Sychem) is the son of the man Hamor, from whom Jacob purchased the property. In addition to being Jacob’s neighbor, Hamor is also the ‘ruler’ (4 ) of the land. As a result, he and his son are inuential men in the city and likely are accustomed to getting – and taking – what they want. Shechem ‘takes’ ($%) Dinah and ‘lay with’ ( μ)#&) her, an act that ‘humiliated’ ( ) her. LXX-G’s rendering of the Hebrew word  with   accentuates the psychological result of Shechem’s act while minimizing its physicality. The piel form of  can mean to ‘oppress’ or ‘humiliate,’ the sense implied by the Greek  . However, it also can mean ‘violate or rape,’ a more contextually appropriate meaning. Nevertheless, even the psychological notion of humiliation, in an environment where notions of honor and shame were important elements of social control, could result in violent revenge. To Shechem’s credit, he does not then abandon her. Rather, to compensate for his three earlier harmful acts (taking, laying with, and humiliating), he is said to do three more caring acts: he is ‘devoted to’ ( ) her; he ‘loves’ (`*&) her; and he ‘speaks to’ ($*$&) her. As it changed the sense of Shechem’s more hostile actions, LXX-G also modies his more compassionate responses. In the MT, it is Shechem’s ‘soul’ that is ‘devoted’ to Dinah herself (  ). However, LXX-G makes Shechem himself the subject and Dinah’s ‘soul’ the object (   6! ]). In so doing, Shechem is portrayed as a more active subject, while Dinah is referred to only in the genitive. LXX-G goes on to say

GENESIS 34:1–31

377

that he loves ‘the virgin’ (# ), instead of the MT’s ‘girl’ ( , corrected in the Qere to reect the typical feminine form  ). In what follows, LXX-G similarly approximates, but does not duplicate the MT. Instead of speaking to ‘the heart of the girl,’ Shechem speaks according to the ‘mind of the virgin.’ LXX-G’s use of the term ‘virgin’ seems to imply more than the MT’s more neutral ‘girl’. However, LXX-G rendered nearly every occurrence of the Hebrew   with # . Thus the translator likely considered the terms synonymous. See discussion at 24:10–21. It is likely that Shechem’s feelings for the virgin are sincere, because he implores his father to get the ‘maidservant’ ( ( &) for him as a wife. As a translation of the Hebrew ‘girl’ (), ALEX and a few other manuscripts dier from the majority that render the term as ‘maiden’ (-(). In so doing, ALEX is more attentive to Shechem’s elevated social status. By having him refer to Dinah as a maidservant (like the concubines Hagar [16:1], Balla [30:3], and Zelpha [30:9]), ALEX implies that Shechem, like other prominent men, might consider Dinah more of a concubine, than a primary wife. Meanwhile, Jacob hears that Shechem has ‘deled’ (μ) his daughter, but does nothing because his sons are not with him. Although he could be faulted for his seeming lack of concern, he might be waiting for additional manpower before confronting Hamor and Shechem. The boys and Hamor arrive on the scene at approximately the same time. However, even after they arrive, Jacob says and does nothing. Unlike their father, the sons are angry for the ‘shame’ (4&μ ) that Shechem caused in Israel. As Wevers notes, the use of the Greek word ‘shame’ emphasizes the scandal involved with Shechem’s act, whereas the MT’s  (‘senselessness,’ ‘folly,’ or ‘disgrace’) stresses the foolishness of the deed (1993, 560). Precisely to what ‘Israel’ refers is unclear and is likely anachronistic. Because the geographic area is still considered Canaan, the term must relate to the family of Jacob, who is now called ‘Israel.’ Thus, Shechem has brought shame on the family by having intercourse with Dinah. Although they will later attempt to regain the family honor, they now merely listen to Hamor. He begins the negotiation for Dinah by telling Jacob that his son has chosen Jacob’s daughter and then orders Jacob to give her to Shechem as a wife. However, Hamor wants more than one marriage. Instead, he proposes that the families intermarry, a situation that he claries using language of give and take. Israel will ‘give’ its daughters and ‘take’ the daughters of Hamor’s people. That women were considered property is

378

COMMENTARY

clear in this story. They are the rst items in the bargain that Hamor is attempting to negotiate. He goes on by explaining the benets that intermarriage would confer. Jacob’s family could ‘settle’ ( 

-) with them as permanent citizens, rather than as resident aliens. Thinking this would be attractive to Jacob’s family, Hamor makes the oer for them to settle twice in one sentence (v. 10). They could also travel around the area freely and conduct ‘trade’ (μ #). Finally, they could ‘acquire’ property ( 7#). All this Hamor is willing to give to get Dinah for Shechem. At that point, Shechem interrupts his father and makes it clear that he and his people will do whatever it takes, and pay whatever amount of ‘dowry’ (?) requested, to convince Jacob’s family to give him Dinah as a wife. LXX-G’s rendering of the MT’s ‘brideprice’ () with ? is another indication of its tendency to update the terms of the Hebrew. In Israel, the wife’s father was paid a brideprice by the husband’s family. Should the marriage break up, the money was returned to the woman, and the woman to her paternal family. In the Greek world, however, a dowry was a sum of money that the wife’s family paid the husband (see Wevers 1993, 563–564). Here Shechem is oering to pay for what he normally would himself be paid. Thus, it is evident that Shechem really wants Jacob’s daughter, and Hamor really wants his son to have what he wants. After having heard the expansive social, economic, and political proposal oered by Hamor and his son Shechem to Jacob and all Israel, Jacob’s sons respond. The narrator, however, tells the reader what the characters in the story do not know. Their counterproposal is one of deceit because, per LXX-G, ‘they deled’ (μ) their sister Dinah. Thus, the LXX Simeon and Levi go beyond their MT counterparts by blaming both father and son for the son’s actions. Hamor is just as responsible as Shechem. He not only seems to approve of what his son did to Dinah, but also goes to great lengths to get her for his son. Signicantly, Jacob says nothing during the entire negotiation. Not only was he silent until they came in from the eld (v. 5), he continues his silence and allows his sons to speak for him. They begin their deceptive response by claiming they could not accept the deal that Hamor oered. To give their sister to Shechem, an uncircumcised man, would be a ‘disgrace’ (G ( ). What they do not say is that an even greater disgrace has already occurred. They then oer a counterproposal that would resolve the presumed problem of circumcision and would allow the entire deal to be acceptable. Speaking to Hamor and Shechem on behalf of all of Israel, Jacob’s sons in LXX-G agree to ‘become like’ them (,μ #&μ#) and to settle with them, if Hamor and all his people become like the people of Israel. These conditions are somewhat

GENESIS 34:1–31

379

dierent from those proposed by the sons in the MT. The verb ‘become like’ (,μ #&μ#) has a dierent connotation than the MT’s ‘consent to’ ( ). Why and in what regards the sons would want to ‘become like’ Hamor’s people is unclear. Wevers argues that the word ,μ #&μ# refers to complete cultural assimilation on the part of the Shechemites, i.e., Hamor’s people (1993, 565). However, it is Jacob’s sons who are the ‘we’ and Hamor’s people who are the ‘you.’ Thus, Jacob’s sons seem to be proposing that they culturally assimilate, which seems highly unlikely in light of what follows. Rather, becoming like Hamor’s people more likely refers to the ability to travel and conduct business throughout the country, one of the benets proposed by Hamor. That this could be the case is further supported by the additional condition mentioned by Jacob’s sons, i.e., ‘settling’ among them ( 

) μ). This was another of the benets that Hamor proposed. Despite the ambiguity of the rst part of the sons’ counterproposal, the next part is clear. To become like them, every male of Hamor’s people must be circumcised. Only then would Jacob’s people agree to intermarriage and settling with them. These conditions, of course, serve several purposes. The obvious one is to make Hamor’s people acceptable to Jacob’s people, i.e., to make them all ‘as one family’ (>   e). In that case, the sons go on to say, the give and take of intermarriage could occur and they could ‘live’ ( 3 ) μ) with them. The change in resident status from the permanent one proposed by Hamor and declared impossible by Jacob’s sons without circumcision is striking. Simeon and Levi realize that they might live with the Shechemites as ‘one family,’ but it would not be permanent. In fact, it might not happen at all. The real purpose of their counterproposal will only be evident after the fact. At this point, circumcision is merely a means to an end that Shechem wants for himself and Hamor wants for his son. Despite the fact that both families begin the negotiation for personal reasons, they both conclude by including all of their people. Thus, Jacob’s sons conclude their counterproposal by atly asserting that they will take their daughters and leave if Hamor’s people do not agree to be circumcised. What the sons are counting on is the inuence that Hamor and Shechem will have on the rest of their people. They do not have long to wait. Shechem does ‘not delay’ (   ); he and his father like what they hear and bring the proposal to the men of their city in the gate of their city. The narrator’s inclusion of the modier ‘their’ (0) in the two times he refers to their city makes it clear that Hamor and Shechem own the people and the place. However, they neglect to tell the men why they began the negotiations with Jacob’s people in the

380

COMMENTARY

rst place. Instead, they begin with what would be appealing to the men, namely the economic and political implications of the agreement. There is enough room in the land to accommodate a peaceful people who will ‘live’ ( 3  ), buy, and sell in it. At this point, Hamor and Shechem are giving the impression that the arrangement would not be permanent. They go on to speak about the social aspects of the agreement, i.e., intermarriage. However, when addressing their people, Shechem and Hamor reverse the order of give and take. They will ‘take’ Israel’s daughters, per LXX-G as wives, and ‘give’ their daughters. Although subtle, the reversal is signicant and disingenuous. The rst give and take already occurred when Shechem took Dinah. So far, there is little in their proposal that would meet any resistance. Now, however, they get to the bad news. To be one people and to guarantee that Jacob’s family ‘settle’ ( 

-) with them, every male must be circumcised. Hamor and Shechem likely heard the distinction that Simeon and Levi made in their counterproposal. To live permanently together requires circumcision; intermarriage is possible on a short term basis. Like good politicians, Hamor and Shechem do not dwell on the negative. Instead they again emphasize the benets of the agreement to ‘be one people’ (b \ $ e), a somewhat dierent result than Jacob’s sons’ proposal to be ‘as one kin’ (>   e). Rather than being like a family, they will be a people or nation. Hamor and Shechem conclude with a tantalizing question. Will not all the herds and possessions of Jacob’s people really belong to Hamor’s people? One can almost see the two city leaders winking at their constituency, thinking that Jacob’s sons neglected to see this implication. Jacob’s sons, however, do not need to think that far ahead. Their hopes were realized when the narrator reports that every male came out of the gate and circumcised the esh of his foreskin. The LXX’s middle indicative verb  μ  , rather than the MT’s passive , causes one to wonder if each man cut himself. The sons’ plan to disable the men of the city succeeded. Nevertheless, Simeon and Levi wait for three days before taking the next step in avenging their sister’s rape and restoring their honor. Allowing some time to pass makes their attack even more unexpected. They each take their sword, go into the city, and kill every male. After all the men of the city are dead and unable to protect their city leaders, Simeon and Levi proceed to kill Hamor and Shechem, take Dinah from Shechem’s house, and go away. Later Jacob’s sons plunder the city. Whether this second part of avenging Dinah’s delement is carried out by Simeon and Levi or whether all Jacob’s sons participate is not stated. However, the extent of their plundering suggests that all must be involved. First they take all

GENESIS 34:1–31

381

the livestock in both city and eld. Next, they take all the people who were not killed, which, per LXX-G, includes * + %μ 0  7    ! 0  + !-  0. Of this list, only the last item, i.e., ‘the women’ (+ !- ), is unambiguous. The rst item, per the MT, is their ‘wealth’ (). LXX-G, however, represents it as + %μ 0, literally ‘their bodies.’ However, taking dead bodies would be as disgraceful an action as giving their daughters to uncircumcised men. Thus, Wevers argues that when the word ‘bodies’ (%μ) is the subject of the verb ‘take captive’ (3μ$  ), it often refers to slaves (1993, 573). See also Muraoka 2002, 545. That human slaves, like women, would be considered valuable property makes this a convincing argument. The next item of booty, i.e.,   ! is also dicult. Of its six occurrences in LXX-G, it renders the Hebrew   three times (14:12; 15:14; 31:18) and is translated as ‘chattel.’ In its other three occurrences (43:8; 46:5; and here),   ! is the translation for the Hebrew ‘little ones’ (1). Although either meaning would make sense in the present context, ‘little ones’ seems more logical in a list that includes people, rather than property. Thus, the sons would be capturing slaves, children, and women. They conclude their plundering by taking everything else in the city and in the houses, a slightly expanded amount from the MT that only includes ‘everything in the houses’ ( ). Jacob nally speaks. However, instead of supporting his sons’ revenge of their sister’s delement, he criticizes them for making him a hateful gure to his neighbors. He fears that they will ‘cut me up’ (! 6 ! μ) and destroy him and all his family. The Greek word !  is a hapax legomenon in LXX-G, unlike its MT counterpart ‘smite’ or ‘strike’ () that occurs twelve times. Furthermore, the Greek word more precisely describes the method of striking. Whether or not this unique rendering was intentional, the result is ironic. Jacob fears the same fate as the men of Shechem who had already been ‘cut up’ and eventually destroyed. The only response that Simeon and Levi make to their father’s outburst is a rhetorical question, should they treat our sister like a whore? Both sides have good points. Jacob, as the patriarch of his family and ultimately his nation, fears for his own safety. Since the proposal to live permanently ( 

) μ) in the land, rather than as resident aliens never was realized, Jacob is in a tenuous situation. That, combined with the reciprocal nature of the honor/shame system, makes his fear understandable. On the other hand, Simeon and Levi have just restored the honor that their family lost. Since all of the men in Dinah’s family neglected their responsibility to protect her by allowing her to walk around unchaperoned in

382

COMMENTARY

a strange land, they did what was necessary to reestablish their honor. Jacob, perhaps, objects more to the extent to which they reclaimed their honor. He knows that the cycle of violence would likely continue. Signicantly, his fears are never realized, or at least, they are not narrated. Nearly all the future violence will be within the family itself. 35:1–8 Jacob is on the road again, and again travels at God’s directive. Perhaps God wants to save Jacob from the revenge he fears in response to his sons’ murderous revenge of their sister’s delement. This time God tells him to go up to Bethel (Baithl) and ‘live’ ( Q  ) there. The neutral term Q  designates neither a permanent status ( 

 ) nor a resident alien status (

 ). Yet God’s instruction to built an altar there suggests the place will serve as a cultic site for Jacob and his descendants. God also reminds Jacob of his earlier visit to Bethel. At the time, Jacob was eeing another murderous situation, when God appeared to him for the rst time and spoke to him in a dream (28:10–22). In the dream, God extended to Jacob the promises of land and progeny he had made earlier to Abraham and Isaac and he also guaranteed Jacob’s safety. When he awoke, Jacob vowed that God would be his God if God brought him back safely to his father’s house. Although Jacob has not returned to his father’s house, God has kept him safe so that he now could live in ‘God’s house,’ i.e., Bethel. Unlike the earlier story in which the place name appeared in translated form (c\  # "), here it is referred to as its actual name. Jacob sets out to fulll his end of the agreement by declaring God as his God. The rst thing Jacob does to honor his agreement is to order all his household to remove the ‘foreign gods’ ( N # N  N $$  !). Inasmuch as Jacob was never said to have known about Rachel’s theft of her father’s household gods, the ones that he assumes his people might possess could have been part of the booty seized in Shechem. Regardless, Jacob acknowledges but does not condemn the fact that such gods exist. However, those who have them must give them up. Jacob’s demand foreshadows what will be the central feature of Israel’s future worship of Lord God and only Lord God. He also institutes the practice of purication before entering a sacred space. Finally, he explicitly acknowledges that God heard him, was with him, and has kept him safe while he was traveling. The use of the imperfect ‘was traveling’ ( !μ&) in ALEX and other manuscripts nicely connotes God’s continual presence with him on his journey. His people do as he ordered them and give him their foreign gods. They also give him their earrings. Jacob takes all of these and hides them under

GENESIS 35:1–8 & 35:9–15

383

a terebinth tree that was still in Shechemite territory. The expression ‘until the present day’ (e   )μ  :μ), added in LXX-G, implies that they were never unearthed and have always remained buried. Jacob and his party then leave the area. Jacob’s acknowledgment of God, his foresight in removing the foreign gods, and his people’s obedience likely pleased God. The fear of God throughout the area enables Jacob and his household to leave unharmed and without pursuit. Jacob’s earlier fears of being cut up and rubbed out by revengeful Shechemites are now seen to be unfounded. Jacob does as God commands; he goes to the place known as Louz, but which he will name Bethel in honor of God’s earlier appearance to him. There he builds the altar. However, between building the altar and God’s theophany, the narrator relates an odd piece of information about the death of Debbora, his mother Rebekah’s nurse. Unlike the MT that mentions Rebekah’s leaving her home with her ‘nurse’ (24:59 , ), the LXX-G translator transposed the letters and  and thus reported that she left with her ‘possessions’ (Wevers 1993, 372). Here LXX-G correctly renders the word as ‘nurse’ ( ?). LXX-G readers, even more than MT readers, would have no idea who Debbora is or why her death and presumed burial are reported in the midst of Jacob’s theological activities. In commenting on Debbora’s obituary in the MT, Sarna speculates that the original narrator and readers must have known traditions about Debbora, one of which must have been associated with the name Jacob gave the place, i.e., “Oak of weeping.” However, he also suggests a “deeper purpose.” Because she came from Mesopotamia, she might have represented the idolatry of that region. Much like the foreign gods and the earrings, she also needed to be removed from the midst of Israel (1989, 241). Although both are plausible explanations for her mention in the MT, neither would be readily understandable to LXX-G readers. 35:9–15 God appears again to Jacob, blesses him, conrms his earlier name change that was declared by an angel, identies himself as God (not as El Shaddai as MT), and orders him to do what he has told all his creation since the beginning, i.e., to increase and multiply (1:22; 1:28; 8:17; 9:1; 9:7; 17:20). God goes on to predict, as he had earlier to Abraham (17:6), that many nations and kings will come from Jacob. He also reiterates the promise of land that he made both to Abraham and to Isaac. After God nishes speaking, he departs. Jacob commemorates the theophany by placing yet another stone pillar to commemorate where God had spoken to him. Also as he did before (28:18), Jacob anoints the pillar with olive oil.

384

COMMENTARY

In addition, he oers a libation, a cultic act that is only reported here in Genesis. He then (re)names the place Bethel. 35:16–21 Without any command from God, Jacob leaves Bethel and, per LXX-G, pitches his tent beyond the tower of Gader. Not only is the location dierent from the MT’s tower of Eder ( ), but the timing of his arrival is also changed from after Rachel’s death (as in the MT) to after his departure from Bethel. When he was about a chabratha away from Ephratha, Rachel begins her painful, and ultimately deadly, delivery. Her midwife encourages her by telling her that she is delivering a son. In her dying breath, Rachel names the boy ‘son of my suering.’ His father, however, does not heed her last words; instead he names him Benjamin (Beniamein). Oddly, LXX-G translates the name she gives the child, i.e., the Hebrew  . However, it does not translate Jacob’s name for the boy; it merely transliterates Benjamin ( ) into Greek. Rachel dies and is buried on the way to Ephratha, which the narrator reports is Bethleem. To mark her tomb, Jacob places a pillar on it, which, like the location of the hidden gods, remains ‘until the present day’ (e   )μ  :μ). Sandwiched between the narration of Rachel’s death while delivering Jacob’s last son and a report that lists all of Jacob’s sons by their respective mothers is a strange statement about Jacob’s rstborn son Reuben. He is said to have slept with his father’s concubine Balla, an act that Jacob declares in LXX-G to be ‘evil’ ( &). Why this is reported and its signicance to the overall story is unclear. Sarna oers several possible explanations (1989, 244–245). One is based on a statement in Shabbat 55b that suggests Reuben’s incest with the maid of his own mother’s sister and chief rival would have made it impossible for Balla to supplant his mother as chief wife. Ironically, it was the mandrakes he found earlier that allowed his mother Leah to cohabit with Jacob and bear additional sons (30:14–16). A second explanation is based on a pre-Islamic Arab custom that Sarna posits might have existed in Canaanite society, whereby the rstborn son inherits his father’s wives along with the rest of the estate. Accordingly, Reuben is laying claim prematurely to what eventually will be rightfully his. Yet another possibility is that possessing the concubine of either one’s father or one’s defeated enemy is a sign of the usurper’s legitimacy and authority. Sarna concludes that Reuben’s act was “more political than lustful” (1989, 245) and could represent Reuben’s attempt to take over leadership of Israel’s tribes. That he was not successful is implied in his father’s later deathbed “blessing” in which Jacob castigates Reuben for his angry and violent nature (49:3–4). Whatever the reason,

GENESIS 35:16–21 & 36:1–8

385

Reuben followed the other rstborn sons Ishmael and Esau in losing their right of primogeniture as a result of an inappropriate sexual partner. 35:22–29 Despite Reuben’s behavior, he is still part of the family and is acknowledged as Jacob’s rstborn son in the following report that lists Jacob’s twelve sons according to their mothers. Probably because she was mother of Jacob’s rst sons, Leah and her six sons are mentioned rst, while Rachel and her two sons are next. To represent their lesser status, the two maidservants and their two sons are mentioned last. These were born to Jacob, per LXX-G, in Mesopotamia. The chapter ends with the report of Isaac’s death. Despite the fact that everyone assumed that blind Isaac was dying twenty years earlier when he bestowed his blessing on Jacob, Isaac had not died. Perhaps with both quarreling sons out of the house, he led a more peaceful existence. Ironically, Jacob nally ends up where God expected him to go, i.e., to his father’s house. After having lived 180 years, he is buried by his two sons Esau and Jacob. Their father’s presumed deathbed blessing led to their separation; his nal death causes them to come together again. 36:1–8 After Esau and Jacob reconcile their dierences and come together to bury their father, Esau leaves the story. In much the same way the narrator marked the occasion of Ishmael’s departure from the ancestral story after his father Abraham’s death by means of a genealogy (25:12–18), he does so again for Esau after his father Isaac’s death. Like all genealogies, there are many spelling dierences among the many Greek manuscripts. However, there are many other diculties in Esau’s genealogy as noted below. Both Ishmael and Esau were the rstborn sons in their families, but neither was God’s choice to inherit the covenantal promise of blessings, land, and progeny. Ishmael’s genealogy showed that God delivered on the consolation prize he promised to Ishmael (17:20). He became the father of twelve nations. Despite the fact that God did not make a similar promise to Esau, his prediction to Rebekah that the nation associated with the elder son would serve that of the younger son implied parallel legacies for the two boys. Jacob would become the eponymous ancestor of the nation of Israel; Esau would become the eponymous ancestor of the Edomites. His genealogy begins by equating Esau and Edom (v. 1), concludes with it (v. 43), and mentions it at various points throughout (vv. 8, 9, 19). The genealogy begins with the names and origins of Esau’s three Canaanite wives. Yet, as in the MT, the information about his wives in

386

COMMENTARY

the genealogy is quite dierent than that reported earlier. Here they are referred to as Ada, the daughter of Elom the Hittite (Chettite), Olibema, the daughter of Ana who is further described in LXX-G as the son of Sebegon the Hivite (Heuite) (but cf. MT where Ana is said to be the daughter of Sebegon), and Basemmath, Ishmael’s daughter. Of the three, only Basemmath was reported earlier to be one of his wives (26:34). However, there ALEX reported her name to be Masemmath, and she was described as the daughter of Ailon the Hivite. Here she is said to be the daughter of Ishmael, whereas earlier his daughter whom Esau married was named Maeleth (28:9). Neither Olibama nor her family is mentioned in any other place. Finally, Esau was reported to have married Ioudin, daughter of Beer the Hittite (26:34). She is not mentioned here. Therefore, it is apparent that the nationalities of Esau’s wives are more important than their names. That all of his wives, whatever their names, are foreign emphasize Esau’s deviance from the endogamous standard in Genesis, which is the reason he is banished from the story. Their names and nationalities aside, Esau’s wives bear him ve sons. Ada bears Eliphas; Basemmath bears Ragouel; and Olibema bears Ieous, Ieglom, and Kore. Esau’s genealogy continues with a brief itinerary. Esau leaves Canaan, per LXX-G, for Seeir with his entire family and all his possessions, both material and human. The reason that the narrator gives for his departure is the same as that given when Lot and Abraham went their separate ways (13:6). Jacob and Esau together have so many possessions that there is not enough room for them in the same land. Now, as before, the reason seems contrived. Esau was already living in Seeir before Jacob returned from Mesopotamia (32:3; 33:14, 16). Perhaps, as Sarna suggests, Esau lived in both Canaan and Seeir from time to time (1989, 249). However, with Jacob/Israel ocially home, Esau/Edom now must leave Canaan permanently. 36:9–19 The next part of the genealogy repeats some of the earlier information and adds to it. It reports the names of Esau’s ten grandsons, four of which were fathered by Ragouel and six of which were fathered by Eliphas. Amalek, one of these six, was the son of Eliphas’s concubine Thamna. Ironically, she is the only mother of Esau’s grandsons who is identied; none of Esau’s son’s wives are named. Presumably, none of Olibema’s three sons fathered any children. Instead the genealogy merely the repeats the names of her sons mentioned above (v. 5). The genealogy continues by repeating the names of the sons and grandsons listed above. Now, however, they are identied as ‘chieftains’

GENESIS 36:9–19 & 36:20–30

387

(:μ%), presumably leaders of particular social or political units similar to clans or tribes. Unlike the twelve tribes or nations associated with the Nahorites (22:20–24), the Ishmaelites (25:13–16), and the Israelites, the Edomites appear to have thirteen tribes. Kore, however, is identied as a chieftain twice – once incorrectly as one of Eliphas’s sons and later correctly with his brothers. Amalek is also considered a chieftain, despite his status as son of a concubine. Another oddity in this part of the genealogy in LXX-G is the association of Eliphas’s ospring with Idumea (Idoumeia), rather than Edom. Every other aspect of the genealogy emphasizes the Esau/Edom connection. Why LXX-G would depart from the MT in such a critical detail in v. 16 and not do so in v. 17 is hard to understand. Wevers speculates that the LXX-G translator must have identied Edom with Idumea, which in the third century B.C.E. referred to the desert area of the Negeb region, which was south of Judah. Edom was also a desert area. However, it was located south of Moab (1993, 597). Hess similarly maintains that it might have been dicult for the translator to distinguish the two areas. He points to archaeological evidence that shows Edom’s penetration of Judah in the early sixth century B.C.E., after which Idumea emerged with an eclectic culture that combined Israelite and Edomite inuence (personal communication). This part of the genealogy concludes by again identifying Esau with Edom. 36:20–30 The next part of the genealogy describes the sons of Seeir, who is referred to as the Chorrite and the ‘inhabitant’ ( 

" ) of the land before Esau’s family arrived. Inasmuch as 

"  refers to a permanent resident, it is likely that Esau’s family, as reported in Deuteronomy 2:12, invaded the area and gradually absorbed these earlier Chorrites into one nation Edom (Sarna 1989, 251; Westermann 1985, 564). The genealogy includes three generations beginning with Seeir himself. He had seven sons and twenty grandsons. His genealogy also includes two women. Thamna is said to be a sister of Lotan, one of Seeir’s sons, and Olibema is said to be a daughter of Ana, another of Seeir’s sons. The reason for their inclusion seems obvious. Both women connect the original inhabitants to the newcomers. Olibema was one of Esau’s wives; Thamna was Eliphas’s concubine. One peculiarity in this part of the genealogy is the dierent spelling in v. 24 of one of the sons of Sebegon. He is rst referred to as Onan. Then, as an added note, ALEX and most other manuscripts report that this one is the Onas who founded  kμ. The capitalization of kμ in Swete’s edition of ALEX implies that he associated

388

COMMENTARY

it with a particular geographic location, instead of what the MT described as ‘springs.’ Of all of Seeir’s ospring, only his seven sons, not his grandchildren, are said to be chieftains. 36:31–43 Esau’s genealogy concludes with a king list similar to those of other ancient cultures including Sumer, Babylon, and Assyria. As Sarna notes, the lack of uniformity in the details associated with each of the eight kings indicates that the list was likely gathered from a variety of Edomite sources and is not inclusive (1989, 409). Nevertheless, this composite nature that includes both royal “historical” information (i.e., the names of the kings and where they reigned), as well as a few “narrative” comments (e.g., Hadad’s defeat of Madiam/Midian), is one feature that makes Esau’s genealogy parallel to the Sumerian King List, which combines information from both historical lists and epical texts (Oppenheim 1969, 265). Hess notes that another parallel feature of both Esau’s genealogy and the Sumerian King List is the movement from one city to another. As such, the dierent names here could point to the appearance of dierent Edomite dynasties, as is the case with the Sumerian King List (personal communication). Westermann also comments on the political function of this unique biblical royal list. It provides some historical clues about an emerging political organization in which one man becomes the sole leader of a group of people and reigns until he dies. Although the fathers of some of the kings are included in the list, they are not described as prior kings. Thus what is represented is not a dynastic monarchy. Instead, the organization appears to indicate an early form of kingship, like that of the biblical Saul, whereby each succeeding king is elected and serves with his own administration (1985, 565). The list begins with an historical note. These kings are said to have reigned in Edom before any reigned, per ALEX, ‘in Jerusalem’ ( k !$)μ); nearly all other Greek manuscripts read ‘in Israel,’ which is closer to the MT’s ‘reigned over the Israelites’ (#   ). ALEX’s rendering, as Wevers maintains, represents a “local interpretation” due to misreading a possible abbreviation in its parent text (1993, 604). In any case, the point is that Edom seemed to have developed an early monarchy before Israel. Nevertheless, biblical history indicates that Esau ‘the elder’ eventually served Israel ‘the younger’ when David made Edom a vassal state (see e.g., 2 Sam. 8:13–14). The list itself contains the names of eight kings, but has no standard formula. The information about the last king Harath is most complete in that it includes the name of his father, where he ruled, the name of his

GENESIS 36:31–43 & 37:1–11

389

wife, and her lineage. Here LXX-G adds the father’s name to the information reported in the MT. Only one king is credited with anything other than reigning. Hadad is said to have cut down Madiam (Midian) in Moab. Two kings have both their father’s name and their capital city reported (Balak and Iobad); three have only their capital city reported (Hasom, Salama, and Saoul); and one (Balaennon) has only his father’s name recorded. In each of these except that of Harath noted above, LXX-G follows the MT and neither adds to nor omits any information. Nevertheless, the myriad of variant spellings in the Greek manuscripts, combined with dierent transcription patterns, makes it dicult to establish historical accuracy. The genealogy concludes with yet another list of eleven chieftains of Esau’s tribes. It purports to be according to place, region, and nation; however, none of this information is included. Instead, only their names are reported. Furthermore, nearly all the names are dierent from those previously mentioned above. The only names that are the same are Thamna, the family associated with Eliphas’s concubine, Thaiman, and Kenez. Like the king list, this last list of chieftains might not be historically accurate but it does oer a glimpse of a tribal form of political organization by geographic area associated with later nations. It concludes as it began, with the identication of the biblical Esau with the nation of Edom. 37:1–11 The novella known as the Joseph Narrative (Genesis 37–50) concludes the story of the rst family of Israel. Not only does it incorporate some of the same themes found earlier in LXX-G, it also includes other motifs characteristic of many well-told stories. There is suspense, irony, and romance embedded in a plot that features sibling rivalry, unwanted aection, false charges, a heroic rise to power, a recognition scene, family survival, and ultimate redemption. This masterful story begins with a statement that shows God’s fulllment of his promise of land to his chosen people. Jacob is now a permanent resident ( 8  ) in the land of Canaan, where his father Isaac and his father before him had only sojourned (8 &) as resident aliens. The stage is then set for the story of Jacob’s immediate descendants. As in the other family stories in Genesis, this story focuses not on the rstborn son, but on a favored younger son, in this case, Joseph. At seventeen, Joseph is shepherding with his half-brothers – Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher – who were born to Jacob’s secondary wives. The bad report about Joseph that they bring back to their father shows the continuation of sibling rivalry that is a major motif of this story. It recalls the earlier rivalry between other siblings as well as the rivalries between Jacob’s

390

COMMENTARY

wives. ALEX’s plural verb ‘they brought back’ ( ) ), in marked contrast with the singular verb in both the Hebrew text and other Greek manuscripts, makes it impossible for Joseph to be the one who brought back a bad report. Thus, the brothers are portrayed as the tattletales, while Joseph avoids what is usually the rst indication of his immaturity. At this point, he is merely the younger brother who is the object of his half-brothers’ mean-spiritedness. Despite the bad report, Joseph is said to be their father’s favorite. Given Jacob’s preference of Rachel over his other wives, it is odd that Jacob favors Joseph because of his birth order, i.e., the child of his old age, rather than his birth mother. Regardless of reason, Jacob demonstrates his favoritism by giving Joseph a ‘multicolored tunic’ ( 0 

$ ). The renowned ‘coat of many colors’ is based on LXX-G’s description, not on the Hebrew original that describes the coat as % , a phrase whose precise meaning is debated. The diculty is not with , which means ‘tunic,’ but with %. The singular % can mean ‘a palm of the hand or the sole of a foot’ (BDB). The only other occurrence of the phrase %  in the Hebrew Bible refers to David’s daughter Tamar’s clothing, which is described as a garment worn by virgin daughters of a king (2 Sam. 13:18–19). Thus, Josephus’ rendering of ‘a long-sleeved tunic reaching to the ankle’ ( Jewish Antiquities VII. 171) seems tting. Royal virgin daughters likely would be clothed modestly, with little esh showing. Why would the LXX-G translator have rendered the Hebrew  % with the very dierent ‘a many-colored tunic’ ( 0 

$ )? He might not have wanted to describe Joseph in an unmanly way by having him wear a woman’s garment. Sarna, however, proposes another solution. He notes that an ancient Egyptian tomb painting dated to approximately 1900 B.C.E. shows a Semitic clan wearing multicolored tunics that were draped over one shoulder and extended below the knee. Another painting depicts Syrian ambassadors dressed even more modestly in long robes that were wrapped around the body and over the shoulders (1989, 255). Perhaps the Alexandrian translator knew of the traditions behind these paintings and characterized this less troublesome type of garment as that worn by the Semite Joseph. In any case, Joseph’s colorful garment signies his elevated status and serves as a visual reminder of Jacob’s bias. What follows continues to highlight Joseph’s preferential status. Departing from the MT, LXX-G uses two dierent words to translate the Hebrew word for ‘love’ (). From Jacob’s point of view (v. 3), he ‘loved’ (`*) Joseph more than his brothers. From the brothers’ point of view (v. 4), however, Jacob ‘showed love

GENESIS 37:1–11

391

for’ (?$ ) Joseph more than he did for them. LXX-G’s use of two dierent Greek words, both present indicatives, to translate the stative Hebrew verb  is curious. Although the translator on many occasions used different Greek words to render the same Hebrew word, the reason for doing so was assumed to be stylistic. However, in this context, the change from `* in v. 3 to ?$ in v. 4 appears more semantically deliberate. Muraoka makes two observations about general LXX translation tendencies: that the more common LXX translation of  is * , and that ? $ , where it takes a human direct object, most often translates the Hebrew word for ‘kiss’ ( ). He goes on to speculate, based on its use in the LXX of Prov. 8:17, that ? $ in v. 4 reects a feeling of preference (2001, 16–17). The distinction, as shown in the above translation, could also reect the more outward demonstration of love that would be associated with the act of kissing. As such, it was not only that Jacob loved Joseph more than his brothers. They also could see the evidence of their father’s preferential love for Joseph in the special garment he made for him. As a result, his brothers hate him so much that they cannot say anything nice to him. Thus, the bad report that his half-brothers bring back about Joseph seems more understandable. Joseph’s dreams suggest that he has internalized his most-favored status, and his sharing of them makes his brothers hate him even more. They interpret his rst dream in which their sheaves worship Joseph’s as signifying his presumed superiority over them. The verb ‘to be king’ ( $! ) is a literal translation of the Hebrew verb #. All other occurrences of the Greek  $! in Genesis appear in the previous chapter where their subjects are actual kings. Furthermore, all occurrences of the Hebrew # are translated as  $! . This consistency is not the case for the other verb that characterizes the brothers’ interpretation of Joseph’s dream. As a translation for the Hebrew ‘to rule’ (), !  (‘to be lord or master’ or ‘to exercise dominion’) only appears in contexts in which there is a relationship of superiority and dominance. For example, Eve/Zoe’s husband is to be her ‘lord’ (3:16), and humans are to ‘have dominion over’ the earth (1:28; 9:1). In every other place in Genesis, the Hebrew  is translated by the more neutral ‘to rule’ (4 ). Thus, the brothers interpret the bowing down of their sheaves to Joseph’s as a literal act of worship by inferior subjects of their superior king and lord. His brothers, however, are not the only ones to resent Joseph’s dreams. After he relates the second dream, in which the sun, moon, and eleven stars bow down to him, his father questions whether the dream implies that all the family – father, mother, and brothers – will worship him. The

392

COMMENTARY

construction of his question lacks the negative (μ&) form, so it need not have a negative answer. Yet, the very fact that Joseph’s mother is not alive makes it impossible for the dream to be fullled as Jacob interpreted it. Nevertheless, both dreams imply that Joseph sees himself as worthy of worship in all spheres, earthly and heavenly, and by all his family. The rhetorical questions of his brothers and father ironically foreshadow the later events of the story, when all his brothers will indeed bow down to him. At this point in the story, however, Jacob is beginning to see potential trouble among his sons. 37:12–36 Regardless of Jacob’s earlier intent to keep watch over the sibling rivalry among his sons, his command that Joseph check up on his brothers and the sheep in order to tattletale against them would most likely escalate the hostility toward Joseph. As above, ALEX uses two different Greek verbs to translate the same Hebrew verb, here the verb ‘to shepherd’ ( ). Again these dierences oer an added dimension to the narrative’s plot. The brothers go to Shechem, approximately 50 miles/ 80 kilometers from Hebron, to ‘feed’ (  ) their father’s sheep. But Jacob assumes that they are ‘tending’ ( μ ! ) the sheep. Tending implies more than just feeding the sheep; it also suggests watching over them and protecting them. Joseph, however, knows his brothers and asks the man where the brothers are feeding the sheep (v. 16). Jacob’s suspicions seem justied when it is reported that the brothers had left Shechem and gone to Dothan, 15 miles/22 kilometers north of Shechem. The brothers might be feeding the sheep, but they were not tending them. The mysterious man who knows Joseph’s brothers and their whereabouts shows God’s providential hand in the story, the rst of several instances in the Joseph story of “God-in-the-margins.” Now, the point of view changes from that of Joseph, who is about to nd them in Dothan, to that of his brothers, who see him coming before he sees them. At this point in the story, the brothers have the advantage of initial visual recognition. The sight of him makes them want to kill him. Unlike most Greek manuscripts that translate the Hebrew’s ‘deal knavishly with’ ( ) with ‘act maliciously’ ( &  ), ALEX uses ‘go, journey’ (   ). Although the majority translation seems closer semantically to the Hebrew, ALEX’s captures the sense of the brothers’ antipathy towards Joseph. They were not just ‘acting maliciously,’ they were actually ‘going’ to kill Joseph. In seeming unison, the brothers now voice their intentions to kill ‘the dreamer.’ By referring to Joseph as the ‘dreamer,’ the brothers show their continuing resentment of the implica-

GENESIS 37:12–36

393

tions of Joseph’s dreams. Furthermore, by not acknowledging his status as brother, they distance themselves from him and from the implications of fratricide. In addition, they come up with a convenient scapegoat for the cause of Joseph’s demise, i.e., a wild animal. At this point in the story, the brothers begin to distinguish themselves by speaking as individuals. The rst brother to do so is Reuben, Jacob’s rstborn, who metaphorically rescues Joseph from the ‘hands’ of the brothers by rejecting the plan to kill Joseph outright. His desire to avoid spilling Joseph’s blood alludes to the rst biblical fratricide, i.e., Cain’s killing of Abel. Furthermore, it acknowledges God’s prohibition against spilling blood (9:6). If they were to spill Joseph’s blood, they would be liable of having their own blood spilled by someone else. Thus, Reuben seems to be motivated by the avoidance of punishment. However, his real intentions are revealed in what he does not tell his brothers. He plans to physically rescue Joseph from the pit and take him back to Jacob. Reuben here demonstrates his responsibility as rstborn son. When Joseph arrives on the scene, the brothers again act in unison. They strip him of the multicolor tunic, the symbol of his preferential treatment and thus their hatred of him. Then, taking Reuben’s advice, they throw him into a waterless pit, but they do not kill him. However, they show their callousness by sitting down to a meal after having just thrown their hated brother into a pit. They look up to see Ishmaelite travelers, their camels loaded with spices, on their way from Gilead to Egypt. This prompts Judah to propose yet another plan to dispose of Joseph. Like Reuben, he wants to avoid killing Joseph outright. Even if they were to cover up their crime and avoid the possible punishment for killing him, they stand to gain nothing. Selling him to the Ishmaelites would not only rid them of Joseph, but it would also bring them a prot. Despite Judah’s greedy motive, he is the rst of the brothers to acknowledge Joseph as their own esh and blood. Perhaps fratricide, whether or not the crime could be concealed, was too much for him. In any case, the brothers listen to what he says when the traders, now specically identied as Midianites, come upon them. At this point in the story, conicting details in the plot become apparent. The brothers see Ishmaelite travelers o in the distance. When they get closer, they are identied as Midianite traders. As with the story of Noah, such seeming inconsistencies are thought by some scholars to be the result of the nal editor’s splicing together two separate traditions into one story. One tradition relates the story about Reuben and the Midianites, while the other focuses on Judah and the Ishmaelites. This latter

394

COMMENTARY

tradition, source critics contend, has been inserted at vv. 25b–27, and 28b. Without these verses, the plot would be less confusing. After throwing Joseph into the pit, the brothers have a meal. They see Midianite traders passing by, but pay no attention. Only later (v. 29) do they realize that Joseph is no longer in the pit. According to this scenario, the Midianites see Joseph in the pit, rescue him, and eventually sell him in Egypt (v. 36). The Judah tradition, on the other hand, tells the story of Ishmaelites who are journeying from Gilead to Egypt with spices to sell. Seeing them gives Judah the idea of selling Joseph. Skipping over 28a, the Judah tradition continues by narrating the details of the sale. The brothers take him out of the pit and sell him to the Ishmaelites, who take Joseph to Egypt (28b). This source critical hypothesis, proposed by Westermann (1986, 41–42) and others, is a viable explanation for the Hebrew text. It claries the ambiguous subjects of the latter four third person plural verbs in v. 28. The subject of the rst verbal action in 28a (passing by) is clearly the Midianite traders. With the insertion of the Judah tradition, the third person plural subjects (‘they’) of the next three verbs (‘drew up,’ ‘brought out,’ ‘sold’) are presumed to be the brothers. The nal third person plural verb (‘brought down’) then refers to the Ishmaelites. E. J. Revell, however, takes exception to the source critical solution and instead argues, as have others, that the terms Midianites and Ishmaelites are merely dierent names for the same group. He goes on to show that the narrator was neither inconsistent nor inaccurate. Rather, he used the dierent terms intentionally for specic purposes. Midianites, the more common biblical designation, was the term used by the narrator when the noun was the subject of the clause and the members of the group were active agents; Ishmaelites, a much less common designation, was used by the narrator when the noun was not the subject and the group was seen from the perspective of other characters (2001, 74–75). Revell’s argument also can be applied to LXX-G, but the source critical explanation fails. Unlike the MT’s unarticulated description of the Midianites as ‘Midian men traders’ (%  ), the Greek text's inclusion of the denite article ‘the’ ( ) before the three nouns in v. 28a (4#  , ^( &- , and μ  ) makes it impossible to distinguish between the Midianites and the Ishmaelites. By specifying ‘the’ men and ‘the’ Midianites and ‘the’ traders, ALEX and most other major Greek manuscripts presume that these men already have been introduced in the story. Thus, ‘the Midianite traders’ must be the same as ‘the Ishmaelite travelers,’ an identication that Wevers also suggests

GENESIS 37:12–36

395

(1993, 625). Euan Fry similarly opines that Midianite and Ishmaelite were both considered general terms for the nomadic people who descended from Abraham (1995, 446). Abraham’s son Midiam by his concubine Chettoura (25:2) would become the eponymous ancestor of the Midianites, and Hagar’s son Ishmael would become the eponymous ancestor of the Ishmaelites. The Midianites are the obvious subject of the rst verb ‘passing by’ (   , imperfect third person plural) in the Greek text. However, the tense of the next verb ‘drew out’ (2$ !) changes to aorist, suggesting that the subject of the verb might also have changed. In the Greek text, it is the story’s plot, not a source critical hypothesis, that makes it possible that the subject of this and the following two verbs ‘brought up’ and ‘sold’ ( and (  ) could be the brothers. The last verb ‘brought down’( ) ) in v. 28, although still an aorist, must have yet another subject, i.e., the Ishmaelites. They paid, per LXX-G, twenty gold pieces, rather than MT’s twenty silver pieces. As Hiebert notes, the translator knew that the average price for a slave in his day and time was higher than MT’s price and thus made the appropriate adjustment (2000, 88). Reuben, presumably not with his other brothers when they take Joseph from the pit and sell him to the Ishmaelites, returns and is distraught when he discovers that Joseph is missing. He does not know where to go to nd him. The other brothers ignore his distress and proceed with their initial plan of claiming that Joseph was devoured by a wicked beast. As in Chapter 22, God-in-the-margins again provides a substitute victim. They nd a goat to sacrice so that they can smear its blood on Joseph’s tunic and then feign innocence – or ignorance – when they take the bloody tunic back to their father for him to identify. The intensity of the brothers’ jealousy can be seen in their inability to even speak Joseph’s name. Nor do they refer to him as their brother. Rather, they ask their father to determine whether or not the bloody tunic belongs to ‘his son.’ The insensitive way in which they make their father aware of Joseph’s fate could be a type of revenge for Jacob’s favoritism toward Joseph. If so, they must be pleased by Jacob’s response. Making the assumption that his sons want him to make, Jacob attributes Joseph’s fate to a wild beast. The improbability of a beast eating Joseph but leaving his tunic does not occur to either father or sons. Neither want to acknowledge the more likely probability of fratricide. Like Reuben earlier, Jacob responds to Joseph’s disappearance by tearing his clothes. Then, assuming that Joseph actually died, Jacob proceeds to mourn him in the typical manner by putting sackcloth on his body. His

396

COMMENTARY

sons and daughters show concern for their father by attempting to console him. However, they do not mourn Joseph. The sons do not know, nor do they likely care, if Joseph is dead or alive. Perhaps sensing their indifference, Jacob takes no comfort in their eorts of consolation. Instead, he continues to show his favoritism by preferring to be with Joseph in Hades, the realm of the dead, than with the rest of his sons and daughters in the land of the living. Ironically, Jacob will indeed follow his son – not to Hades, but to Egypt. The chapter ends by conrming Joseph’s fate. The Midianites sell Joseph to Potiphar (Petephrs), who is introduced to the story as a ‘eunuch’ (*( 3) of Pharaoh (Phara), who is also described as a ‘chief butcher’ ( μB). The meaning of both these terms, and their MT counterparts – %% for *( 3 and   for  μB – has been debated. A brief survey of several English translations of the Hebrew phrase    %%  is representative of the dierences. Sarna renders the phrase as “a courtier of Pharaoh and chief steward” (1989, 263), while Westermann translates it as “one of Pharaoh's chamberlains, head of the bodyguard” (1986, 37). Alter’s “Pharaoh’s courtier, the high chamberlain” (1996, 216) combines aspects from both Sarna and Westermann, while Von Rad’s “an ocer of Pharaoh, the captain of the guard” (1972, 349) captures the essence of both the above. None of these scholars, and only one major English translation (NEB), renders the Hebrew %% as ‘eunuch.’ The reasons that most translators avoid the term ‘eunuch’ when referring to Potiphar are both philological and functional. As Sarna explains, the Hebrew %% derives from the Akkadian ša-reši, meaning ‘of the head’ and refers to a high court ocial. He and others note that the Mesopotamian custom of castrating these types of ocials resulted in the term %% acquiring the sense of ‘eunuch.’ However, he goes on to say that some Akkadian texts show that not all who were called %% were emasculated, especially those who had no contact with the king’s harem. He also doubts that Egypt had a similar custom (1989, 263), as do both Donald Redford (1992, 425) and Gerald Kadish, who speculate that Potiphar’s characterization as a eunuch might have been inuenced by the motif of castration in the Egyptian “Tale of Two Brothers” (1969, 57, 62). PéterContesse notes that castration in the ANE most likely originated as a punishment inicted on prisoners, but may have been extended to other people on whom a ruler entrusted particular duties such as overseer of the harem (1996, 142). Hayim Tadmor addresses a common objection that

GENESIS 37:12–36

397

Potiphar, a married man and possibly the father of Aseneth, could not be a eunuch and then dismisses it by oering evidence that eunuchs in later empires (e.g., Achaemenid Persia and Byzantium) did indeed marry and adopt children. He goes on to suggest that even if, as Kadish and Redford maintain, no evidence exists for eunuchs in the Pharonic court, the biblical story was written by a Hebrew speaker and addressed to an Israelite audience (1995, 321). Thus, the writer and the audience might neither know nor care about historical accuracy. Instead, they would read it as a good story about the morally upright Joseph. The meaning of the second Hebrew two-word term   is slightly less problematic. There is no doubt that the rst word  means ‘chief.’ However, the second word  could refer to a cook, slaughterer, or executioner. Hiebert notes that the Hebrew   and corresponding Aramaic term   derived from roots that referred to being a butcher or cook, but developed into a title for someone charged with matters of royal security. Its LXX-G rendering  μB, Hiebert maintains, “literally reproduces the surface meaning of the Hebrew/Aramaic terms” (2004, 76). But, he asks, did the translator use it in the sense of cook or executioner. After reviewing the use of the term  μB in Greek texts contemporaneous with LXX-G, Hiebert sees no evidence that the term was used to refer to a security ocial. Hence, he prefers the term ‘chief butcher,’ which is the translation here. Hiebert also examines the other term describing Potiphar, i.e., *(  , and argues that this word in 37:36 and another word  "  that later refers to Potiphar (39:1) and other Egyptian ocials (40:2, 7) both designated a eunuch in literature prior to or contemporaneous with LXX-G (2004, 77–78). LSJ (1968, 1623) and Muraoka (2002, 517) oer no translation for the Greek word *(  other than ‘eunuch’ and refer to this verse as one reference of the term’s use. Other texts noted by LSJ (1968, 1623) in which *(  refers to a castrated male include the fourth century B.C.E. orator Isaeus (Isaeus 39.7), the second century B.C.E. Polybius (Fragments 28.21.5), and the late rst and early second century C.E. Plutarch (Demetrius 25). Furthermore, all other words with the same root refer or allude to castration (e.g., *( 2 is a torn o branch and *(   means to make accid or emasculate). Hiebert also notes that in some texts the “focus is on the physical state of a male who has been castrated or is impotent; in others (particularly involving  " ) it is applied to an individual who may (or may not) be a physical eunuch but is (also) an ocial in the royal court (2004, 77–78). Because both Greek

398

COMMENTARY

words appear in the Joseph Narrative, Hiebert uses two dierent English words to translate them in his NETS translation of Genesis, namely ‘gelding’ for *(  and ‘eunuch’ for  "  (2004, 77–78). However, inasmuch as there seems to be no explicit dierence in meaning, both words in this volume are rendered ‘eunuch.’ This evidence suggests that the LXX-G translator understood Potiphar to be a castrated male. The reluctance on the part of modern translators to refer to Potiphar as a eunuch certainly was not an issue in the rst translation of the Hebrew text. In fact, it makes it easier to understand and perhaps appreciate why later in the story Potiphar’s wife lusts after the handsome young Joseph. 38:1–30 At this point, the Joseph Narrative digresses with a brief story about Judah, one of two of Joseph’s brothers who wanted to avoid fratricide and the only one who would even acknowledge Joseph as their brother. For some unknown reason, Judah separates himself from the rest of his brothers and travels south to Adullam, an area that would later be within the land assigned to the tribe of Judah. Presumably, he chooses Adullam because it was the home of Hirah (Heiras), an otherwise unknown Adullamite, who, we learn later in the story, works as a shepherd for Judah (v. 12). Sometime after arriving at his new location, Judah sees and marries a Canaanite woman named Saua who, unlike most of Judah’s female kin, has no problem conceiving. ALEX and other Greek texts here depart from the MT that identied her as the daughter of Saua. Not only does she have a name, she also does the naming of all her sons, not just the second and third as in the Hebrew text. Saua, as a character in the story, has a stronger presence than her Hebrew counterpart. Judah, on the other hand, is credited only with ‘taking her and going into her’ (v. 2). This rash act, in the context of the larger ancestral narrative, could have severe consequences. Not only has Judah separated himself from the rest of his family, he also seems to be separating himself from the covenantal promise. Earlier, God showed his preference for sons like Isaac and Jacob who were born to and eventually married to women within the patrilineage of Terah. Judah’s marriage to the Canaanite Saua, thus, represents a challenge to the earlier tradition and foreshadows a more tolerant attitude toward intermarriage. However, at this point in the story, Judah’s behavior and status are questionable. Nevertheless, Judah does what a good father should do and takes a wife for his rstborn son Er. We are told that her name is Tamar (Thamar) and can only assume that she is a Canaanite woman. For some unknown evil act,

GENESIS 38:1–30

399

God puts Judah’s rstborn Er to death. At this point, Judah is more concerned about future ospring than he is about his rst son’s death. In his rst words in the story, Judah orders his second born Aunan to perform what later becomes known as levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5–7), a custom whereby the brother of a deceased man is obligated to provide ospring to his dead brother’s childless widow. Because levirate marriage was a Semite custom, no Greek word existed for the practice. Therefore, the translator created a new word ‘act as a brother-in-law’ (*μ! ), a hapax legomenon in the LXX. Aunan would go into Tamar, but would spill his seed on the ground for selsh reasons. For this evil act, God also put Aunan to death. Judah, unaware of God’s role in his sons’ deaths, blames Tamar and banishes her to her father’s house until his third son Shelah (Slm) is older. This second command out of Judah’s mouth appears to continue his representation as one who observes both the social (returning Tamar to her father’s house) and legal (promising her his third son when he is older) mores of his world. Tamar also performs her social role; she quietly does as she is told. However, a more thorough analysis of Judah’s directive to Tamar suggests that he is now beginning to bend the rules of his paternal responsibilities relative to Tamar’s widowhood. Other ANE laws dene a widow as a woman without a husband, son, or father-in-law to provide for her. If these Middle Assyrian laws had parallels in Israel, Judah would be shirking his duties. The narrator seems to reinforce this possibility with a comment that reects Judah’s real concern, namely ‘lest that one (Shelah) also be put to death like his brothers’ (v. 11b). This laconic and unusual bit of motive-attributing narrative signals the start of Judah’s character reversal. Fear for his third son’s life causes him to stray from his former position of unquestioning and unhesitating obedience. From this point in the story, Judah’s actions become increasingly suspect and the roles of the two main characters begin to change. Like Tamar, Judah’s spouse dies. Fortunately, Tamar could not be blamed for her death, since she was no longer living with the family. Unlike his father Jacob who could not be comforted when he assumed that Joseph had died (37:35), Judah was comforted and resumes his shepherd’s life. He and Hirah his shepherd (pointed in the MT to read ‘friend’ [!" " ] but the consonantal text could also read ‘shepherd’) go up to some unspecied location to join the rest of the sheepherders. Meanwhile Tamar receives an anonymous message that reports Judah’s activities, as well as his location, i.e., Thamna. She then takes action, abandoning her role as a widow by removing her widow’s garments. Then, according to LXX-G, she ‘made

400

COMMENTARY

herself beautiful.’ The Greek verb ‘make beautiful’ ( $$  ) represents Tamar as bolder in her actions than does the Hebrew verb ‘cover herself ’ (1 ). In fact, making oneself beautiful is almost the opposite of covering oneself. There would be little reason to make oneself beautiful only to cover up that beauty, unless, as Karel van der Toorn indicates, the veil covered only part of the face and left the eyes and cheeks exposed (1995, 328). Here Tamar puts on a disguise rst to attract Judah and then later to deceive Judah and deprive him of what is rightfully his – his ring, signet, and sta. This is a tting response to his earlier action of having deprived her of what was rightfully hers – his youngest son Shelah. LXX-G’s representation of Tamar as more aggressive also serves to make Judah’s proposition more understandable. He thought her to be a prostitute because she had covered her face. Yet, as many scholars have noted, a Middle Assyrian law (A 40) prohibited prostitutes from veiling (Sarna 1989, 268). Rather, as van der Toorn writes, veiling in the ANE was more often associated with higher class marriageable women whose brideprice had been paid (1995, 329, 336). As such, Tamar herself is declaring her imminent encounter with Judah as form of marriage, for which she herself has already paid a part. From Judah’s perspective, it is unlikely that he would have considered a veiled woman by the side of the road a good marriage prospect. However, he might have associated the veil with a woman of relatively high status – but without the corresponding moral sensibility – and felt it acceptable to begin negotiations. LXX-G goes further to mitigate Judah’s actions by adding the comment that ‘he did not recognize her,’ a comment that is repeated with even more clarication in the next verse. Yet even this slight upgrade in Judah’s character in no way negates the reversal of roles that occurs during their negotiations. At the beginning of their dialogue, Tamar is in a marginal position on the side of the road, while Judah is in control. The reversal of their roles is evident both in what they say and how they say it. Judah begins with a demand from a position of authority (‘allow me to come into you’), while Tamar responds with a question whereby she seeks to improve her position (‘what will you give me . . .?’). He answers with a statement (‘a kid goat’) that represents a balancing in their relationship. Tamar has learned not to trust Judah and might be wondering, per LXX-G, why and how he promises a goat from the sheep. Although she responds to his statement with a statement of her own, its implied demand shows the balance of power to be shifting to her (‘if you give me a pledge . . .’). Judah now asks a question (‘what pledge?’), and Tamar answers with another

GENESIS 38:1–30

401

implicit demand that shows her shrewdness. Her demand for his signet, cord, and sta shows that she intends to take control of his identity and of the story. Judah’s libido overcomes his common sense because he agrees without hesitation to her demand. Like Shua, Tamar becomes ‘pregnant’ ($  ) without divine assistance. She is in charge of the entire event. Having achieved her goal, she is the one to leave and voluntarily resumes her widowhood. Likely not wanting to confront the woman again, Judah sends his friend Hirah with the promised goat. He cannot nd her, and so, per LXX-G, asks some men living nearby the location of the Ainan ‘prostitute’ (: &). Unlike his MT counterpart, Hirah does not refer to his boss’ partner as a ‘cult/holy prostitute’ ( ). The MT’s use of the latter term is often assumed to be more “polite” (Westermann 1986, 54), more “decorous” (Alter 1996, 221), or used to “avoid embarrassment” (Sarna 1989, 269). Perhaps the LXX translator did not concur that being with a cult prostitute was “more or less accepted” (Westermann 1986, 54), especially because the practice was deemed “abhorrent” to the God of Israel (Deut. 23:18), and one aspect of God’s indictment of Israel (Hos. 4:14). Regardless of description, however, no such woman is known to the men questioned. Hirah delivers the news to Judah, who chooses not to risk ridicule by continuing to search for the mysterious woman. Three months pass and Judah now receives an anonymous message about Tamar’s ‘fornication’ and resulting pregnancy. Forgetting his own indiscretion, he immediately demands that his daughter-in-law be burned. Her death would relieve Judah of his levirate obligation. However, he unwittingly has fullled it already. She indirectly informs him that the owner of the now produced ring, cord, and sta is the one who impregnated her. In an abrupt transformation of character, Judah acknowledges that her actions were more righteous than his. Tamar’s deception gives Judah the opportunity to resume his role of obedient patriarch. That he does so is conrmed by the narrator’s pithy declaration that he did not know her again. Although the story of Tamar and Judah seems to conclude with Judah’s legal pronouncement and moral rehabilitation, the narrator continues with a narrative (vv. 27–30) that relates the birth and naming of their ospring. This postscript, which at rst seems only weakly sutured to the main story, is central to the overall link between Israel’s Abrahamic past and Davidic future. As a birth narrative, it is reminiscent of Rebekah’s problematic delivery (25:22–26). In both cases, the rstborn son is marked

402

COMMENTARY

with red (25:25; 38:28, 30) and the order of birth is emphasized. The genealogical agenda in this story becomes evident with the narrator’s manipulation of the birth order. Zerah, who was to be the rstborn, retreats and comes out in the second place position so that Perez, the son who will be the Davidic ancestor, is able to achieve rstborn status. The unusual nature of his birth and birthright is highlighted in the MT with a wordplay on his name, i.e., Perez (& & ) was a breach (). LXX-G, not able to take advantage of Hebrew wordplays, here deviates somewhat from the sense of the MT. Instead of declaring the baby’s remarkable ‘breach,’ the midwife questions why an obstruction has been broken. Whether intentional or not, LXX-G transforms the midwife’s comment from one concerning an actual immediate event (a breached birth) to a metaphorical one about the distant future (a broken barrier). Prior to this story, the rstborn son was always excluded from the covenant. Ishmael and Esau received land, but played no role in the genealogical line of Abrahamic inheritance. Thus, it is assumed that the problems of being the rstborn son would continue, especially when the narrator went to such lengths to ensure the birth order. Curiously, however, it will be the rstborn Perez who will later be featured in the genealogical line to David. The barrier associated with the rstborn status has been broken, at least for now. This oddly inserted narrative marks a transition between the characters and customs of the family stories and those that will be part of the continuing story of Israel. The narrator aects this transition through the story’s two major characters who reverse roles and switch identities as the plot unfolds. Judah’s character functions primarily as a link to the Abrahamic family of the past, while Tamar’s character serves as a radical departure from the patrilineally correct wives of the family stories and anticipates the foreign women who will be instrumental in the Davidic future. 39:1–23 After the interlude dealing with Judah and Tamar, the narrator resumes the story of Jacob's favorite son Joseph by reminding the reader of Joseph’s fate. However, the point of view changes from that of those selling Joseph, i.e., the Midianites/Ishmaelites, to that of the one who bought Joseph, i.e., Potiphar. Having introduced Potiphar earlier (37:36) as a ‘eunuch and chief butcher of Pharaoh’ (D *(  /R  μE), the narrator again describes him as a eunuch and chief butcher but uses another Greek word (,  " ) to translate the Hebrew %%. As was the case with the previous Greek word (*(  ), LSJ (1968,

GENESIS 39:1–23

403

724) makes it clear that  "  refers to a castrated male, rather than to merely a high court ocial in the Mesopotamian style. Nevertheless, Potiphar plays an important role in the Egyptian court; he is designated the ‘lord’ (= ) of Egypt. Joseph’s human lord acknowledges that Joseph’s success comes from the presence of his divine Lord (= ) and rewards Joseph by placing him over his house and putting everything in Joseph’s hands. This grandiose gesture introduces the motif, which will surface several times throughout the story, of what legitimately belongs in Joseph’s hands. Moreover, it portrays Potiphar as a theologically astute and perhaps self-serving Egyptian. He understands the behavior of Joseph’s God and successfully capitalizes on Joseph’s divine favor. Yet, what makes good theological sense does not always make good practical sense. Giving Joseph everything that was his and eectively delegating all his responsibilities, Potiphar relinquishes his authority over his house. With Joseph in charge and Lord’s blessing bestowed on everything that is his, Potiphar has no worries other than the food he eats. ALEX ‘s use of the reexive ‘nothing of his own’ ( #’ 5! (Y), instead of another popular reading ‘nothing of his’ ( #’ ! (Y), emphasizes Potiphar’s complete disregard for his property or responsibilities. Little does he know that he should concern himself with more than just his appetite; rather it will be the appetite of his wife that will be his real problem. The following comment about Joseph’s good looks, at rst glance, appears to be a non sequitur. Yet, his beauty will prove problematic, a situation whose signicance is enhanced by the description in LXX-G. Its ‘beautiful in form’ ( $ D Q(ει) is a literal rendering of the MT’s first characteristic of Joseph (). However, instead of repeating the adjective ‘beautiful’ ( $) as MT repeats , LXX-G substitutes ‘ripe’ (>- ) to describe Joseph’s appearance and adds ‘very’ (?(). Thus, instead of being ‘beautiful in appearance,’ the LXX-G Joseph is characterized as ‘very ripe in appearance’ (>-   G6 ?(). This second attribute of Joseph’s appearance alludes to the ‘ripe’ (>- ) fruit in the primeval Garden (3:6). Of the nine times this same Hebrew phrase ( ) is translated, only three times is it rendered as >-   G6 – once to describe Rebekah (26:7), once to describe Rachel (29:17), and here to describe Joseph. In this latter case, the phrase >-   G6 , with its allusion to Eve’s reasoning, suggests the ruling role of sensuality in Mrs. Potiphar’s decision making. She, like Eve before her, will respond inappropriately to physical beauty.

404

COMMENTARY

As the forbidden fruit tempted Eve, so the beautiful Joseph tempts Potiphar’s wife. Just the sight of Joseph prompts the presumably sex-deprived wife of the eunuch Potiphar to take advantage of her position. She orders Joseph to lie with her. However, unlike the Joseph in the Hebrew text who ‘refused’ () her order, the Joseph in the Greek text was ‘not willing’ (