Z Wenham, The Priority of P PDF

The Priority of P
Author(s): Gordon J. Wenham

Source: Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 49, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 240-258
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1585645
Accessed: 28-08-2014 11:02 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vetus Testamentum.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 192.231.59.35 on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:02:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE PRIORITY OF P
by
GORDON J. WENHAM
Cheltenham
For the last hundred years it has been the received wisdom in Old
Testament scholarship that P is the latest of the pentateuchal sources
or redactional layers. Yet before Wellhausen' established this as the
consensus view, it was generally held that P was one of the oldest
sources, the so-called Grundschrift,
e.g. de Wette, Hupfeld.2 Dillmann3
continued to maintain the priority of P even after Wellhausen had
written. But since Dillmann few scholars4 of stature have maintained
the priority of P. Yet in other areas the Wellhausenian consensus has
been fiercely attacked. The analysis into sources has been challenged,
so that many doubt the existence of an independent E source. The
date ofJ has been questioned: as many now argue for a sixth-century
J as for a tenth-century J. But the relative order ofJ and P has gone
unquestioned: that J was written before P is still generally accepted.5
The modern debate is only about how much earlier J is than P, not
whether J is earlier.
IsraelsI (Berlin, 1878).

J. Wellhausen, Geschichte
in dasAlte Testament
W.M.L. de Wette, Beitrage
zur Einleitung
(Halle, 1806-7); H. Hupfeld,
Die Quellender Genesisund die Art ihrerZusammensetzung
von neuemuntersucht
(Berlin, 1853).
3 A. Dillmann, Die Genesis5
(Leipzig, 1886), pp. xv-xix.
4 Two recent exceptions are J.L. Ska, "El relato del diluvio: un relato sacerdotal y
algunos fragmentos redaccionales posteriores", EstudiosBiblicos 52 (1994), pp. 37-62,
who confines his discussion to the flood story and argues that the J elements are secondary. He does not think this is true elsewhere in Genesis. J. Blenkinsopp, ThePentateuch.
to the First Five Booksof the Bible (London, 1992), pp. 61-97, suggests that
An Introduction
at many points in Genesis material traditionally ascribed to P antedates so-called J
material (e.g. "the Priestly strand (P) is basic... It has been filled out at several points
with narrative expansions-corresponding to the J of the documentary hypothesis"
[p. 93]). However Blenkinsopp relies too much on vocabulary to establish relative dates,
which is a slippery argument.
5 Representative of this school of thought are: J. Van Seters, Abrahamin Historyand
Tradition(New Haven, 1975); E. Blum, Die Komposition
der Vdtergeschichte
(NeukirchenVluyn, 1984); C. Levin, Der Jahwist(Gottingen, 1993).
2
? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 1999
VetusTestamentum
XLIX, 2
THE PRIORITY OF P
241
Here I propose to re-examine this axiom of pentateuchal criticism,

at least as it applies to the book of Genesis. The issues raised by the
cultic laws in P are of quite a different order and have been discussed
at length elsewhere.6 However I do not propose to treat these questions historically, simply from a literary/redactional standpoint. I am
not trying to determine the absolute dates of the J and P material,
just their relative ages. I shall look at the P passages in Genesis and
attempt to discover how they relate to the nearby J passages. It is
obvious that as the texts stand at present P passages comment on and
illuminate J passages and vice versa.But can one say which was written first? Are the P passages a commentary on the J material or are
the J passages expansions of the P material?
The P material in Genesis covers a variety of genres. There are
genealogies (chs. v, xi), a table of nations (ch. x), straight narrative (ch.
xxiii), an extended promise (ch. xvii), a semi-poetic creation account
(i 1-ii 3), sundry chronological notes (e.g. xvi 3, 15-16), and headings
to sections (e.g. vi 9).
Usually the P material appears quite distinct within Genesis: genealogies for example interrupt the ongoing story line. But in two or three
instances P and J are held to be interwoven, in the flood story (chs.
vi-ix), in the table of nations (ch. x) and possibly in ch. xxxiv as well.
These supposedly composite passages are the most difficult to evaluate
source critically, so I shall begin by examining those passages where
the P material is most distinct before looking at the more complex
sections.7
Genealogies
Within Genesis the genealogies stand out as distinctive blocks, particularly v 1-32 and xi 10-26. They are characterised by exact repetition of standard formulae. "When A had lived x years, he became
the father of B. A lived after the birth of B y years, and had other
sons and daughters. Thus all the days of A were x + y years and he
died". This recurs six times in this exact form in vv. 6-8, 9-11, 12-14,
6
Among recent discussions I. Knohl, The Sanctuaryof Silence:The PriestlyTorahand

the HolinessSchool(Minneapolis, 1995) and J. Joosten, Peopleand Land in the HolinessCode
(Leiden, 1996) break new ground in these discussions.
7 Within the
space of an article it is not possible to deal with every passage. For
further discussion see my commentaries Genesis1-15 (Waco, 1987) and Genesis16-50
(Dallas, 1994) usually under the heading "Form, Structure, Setting".
242
GORDON J. WENHAM
15-17, 18-20, 25-27. There is a slight expansion of the first formula

in v 3-5, which adds "a son in his own likeness, after his image and
named him". There is also expansion in the comments about Enoch
in v 22, "walked with God" for "lived", and in v 24 "Enoch walked
with God; and he was not for God took him". However it is not clear
that these differences are to be ascribed to a different hand. But in
v 28-31 the regular formula is expanded by "and he called his name
Noah, saying 'out of the ground which the LORD has cursed this one
shall bring us relief from our work and the toil of our hands"'. The
final formula in v 32 is slightly altered and cut short. The expected
completion of the formula reappears in ix 28-29.
The genealogy in xi 10-26 shows less variation. In translation the
standard formulae appear to be the same as in chapter v with the
third element, "Thus all the days of A were x + y and he died",
omitted. But it should also be noted that the opening part of the formulae differs slightly. In ch. v it begins "A 'nl" (i.e. waw consecutive +
imperfect verb + subject),whereas in xi 10 it begins "When A (= Shem)
was x", and in xi 12 "'n Al" (i.e. waw + subject + perfect verb). But
from verse 16 it follows the verbal pattern of chapter v. In the last
verse of the genealogy only half the formula is present "when A
(= Terah) had lived x years, he became the father of.. ." (xi 26) What
could be the close of the formula, albeit in the style of ch. v, is found
in xi 32 "The days of Terah were 205 years; and Terah died in
Haran".
The similarity in formulation between these two genealogies makes
it likely that they both come from a common source. The introduction to ch. v, "This is the bookof the generations of Adam", instead of
the usual, "These are the generations of Adam/Noah etc.", (cf. vi 9)
seems to imply that v 1-32 is based on a written source, and it is
tempting to suppose that the same source also underlies xi 10-26.8
Certainly the regularity in the formulae allows us to identify editorial changes to the source, on the assumption that it was more regular
than the present text of Genesis. This assumption may not be warranted,
but if the deviations from the regular coincide with the known tendencies of the redactor elsewhere, we are likely to be right in ascribing
the deviations to the redactor rather than his source.
Two of the deviations in chapter v clearly fulfil these criteria and
may confidently be ascribed to the redactor. The first, v 29 "And he
8
G. von Rad, Genesis2(London, 1972), p. 70.
THE PRIORITY OF P
243
called his name Noah, saying 'out of the ground which the LORD
has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the
toil of our hands"', not only uses the divine name Yahweh and alludes
quite clearly to the curse of the ground in iii 17 pronounced by the
LORD, but it also makes a pun on his name just as vi 6-8 does.9 The
opening clause in v 29, "and he called his name A" is also found in
another deviation from the usual formula in v 3, "and he called his
name Seth". Identical phraseology occurs in iv 26; xxv 25, 26; xxxv
8, 10; xxxviii 3, 29, 30; and similar terminology occurs in about twenty
other passages. This makes it likely that the clauses in v 3 and 29
should be ascribed to the editor. That these deviations occur towards
the beginning and the end of the putative P passage also enhances
the case for seeing them as redactional.
It is clear that there has been editorial intervention at the beginning of each genealogy and also at the end of them. Not only is there
a heading "This is the book of (These are) the generations of. .", but
both genealogies seem to have had the last formula dismembered, so
that the expected conclusion of the formula occurs much later at
ix 28 and xi 32. In the first case the flood story vi 1-ix 27 separates
the first and last parts of the formula, and in the second xi 27-31 does
the same.
It is universally agreed that v 29 is a J passage. It makes no sense
on its own, but it does illuminate the genealogy highlighting Noah
who is to be the key figure in the following section and making the first
play on his name, of which there are to be several more in vi 5-8,
another J passage.'0 The nearest parallels to v 3, "he called his name
Seth", occur in iv 26 and v 29 ("he called his name Enosh/Noah").
Both are ascribed to J, so it seems likely that v 3 is J gloss too.
Thus looked at in isolation, v 3-32 appears to be a genealogy with
J glosses (v 3 and v 29). If this genealogy is ascribed to P, then it follows that P is one of the sources used by J rather than vice-versa.
The
close of the genealogy with two major elements v 32 and ix 28 separated by the flood story is also compatible with this conclusion, though
not absolutely required. It looks more likely that the flood story was
inserted into the genealogy than that the genealogy was added later
to the flood story. Only the heading in v 1-2 could suggest the opposite conclusion, and we shall return to this later.
9 A. Strus, Nomen-Omen(Rome, 1978), pp. 66, 158-9.
10 Cf.
GJ. Wenham, Genesis1-15, pp. 128, 144-5.
244
GORDON J. WENHAM
The genealogy of Ishmael in xxv 12-18 consists of a list of Ishmael's

twelve descendants (vv. 12-16), a note about his death and burial (v. 17)
and then a comment on their territory, "They dwelt from Havilah to
Shur... he settled over against his people" (v. 18). Most commentators recognise that this is a fulfilment of the promise in xvi 12b, "He
shall dwell over against all his kinsmen", which is part of a J narrative. It therefore appears that xxv 12-18 is a genealogy with aJ comment tacked on the end. Because it is a genealogy and prefaced by
the toledotformula, xxv 12-17 is traditionally assigned to P. If this is
correct, this suggests that the P material has been supplemented by J,
just as in chapter v.
The genealogy of Esau (xxxvi 1-43) poses problems for every source
theory. Its very length is the first: generally genealogies of the nonelect lines (e.g. Cain, Ishmael) are dealt with briefly in Genesis (cf. xxv
12-18), but this runs to 43 verses. xxxvi 1-8 would have been long
enough for an Esau genealogy. The second oddity is the double toledot
formula in vv. 1 and 9. Elsewhere in Genesis, each new section is
introduced by just one toledotformula. Why should Esau's genealogy
have two? Furthermore the presence of two toledotformulae here brings
the total in the book to eleven, whereas ten would seem a more likely
figure. It is therefore agreed that there is a diversity of sources here,
and that xxxvi 9-43 is a later supplement to xxxvi 1-8. The amount
of detail devoted to Edom is surprising given later animosity between
Israel and Edom, so that Westermann's suggestion" that vv. 9-43 were
perhaps part of the Edomite archives brought to Jerusalem when David
conquered Edom is not impossible. At any rate it is likely that vv. 1-8,
usually assigned to P, represent an earlier part of the tradition than
vv. 9-43.
In xlvi 6-27 we have the genealogy of Jacob's sons which is usually assigned to P. As elsewhere in Genesis this P material is prefaced
by a J introduction, a divine call to Jacob to leave his home and go
to a foreign land, a call that in content and phraseology echoes the
call of Abraham. Then from v. 28 J resumes: so once again we meet
a genealogy topped and tailed byJ material. Furthermore within the
genealogy itself there are signs that an older document has been accommodated to the J tradition. For example Dinah is mentioned in xlvi
15 (cf. ch. xxxiv) and the death of Er and Onan in xlvi 12 ( cf. xxxviii
1 C. Westermann, Genesis.2. Teilband:Genesis12-36 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1981), pp.
683-4.
THE PRIORITY OF P
245
2-11). Thus xlvi 6-27 is a good example of an earlier source incorporated by J, who has added a preface and conclusion and modified
or glossed the content slightly to suit his own scheme.
Chapter x, the table of the nations, is not strictly a genealogy, nor
is it usually regarded as a substantially homogeneous text with just a
few glosses, but as a complex mixture ofJ and P. This makes it more
difficult to determine which is the primary source. Conventionally vv.
la, 2-7, 20, 22-23, 31-32 are assigned to P, the rest vv. lb, 8-19, 21,
24-30 to J. But Savasta'2 has plausibly argued that vv. 4c-5, 20, 31-2
should also be assigned to J. Whether the conventional analysis or
Savasta's modification is accepted, it is clear that in P we have a short
compact genealogy giving roughly equal space to the three branches
of the Noahic family. But the J material is characterised by long digressions about certain of the sons of Ham, especially Babel, Egypt and
Canaan, and then a similar expansiveness about the sons of Shem,
but nothing at all about Japhet.
In other words the P material could stand alone, whereas the J
material looks like long glosses on the P list. This seems to be confirmed
when the Tendenzof these glosses is considered. They show an interest
in the flood, the dispersal of the nations into different language groups,
in the origins of Babel, Egypt, the Canaanites, and the Arabian tribes
descended from Shem. More precisely these J additions to the P table
show the fulfilment of Noah's words in ix 25-27 (J) cursing Ham's
descendants and blessing Japhet and Shem's. In short it is easy to see
the point ofJ's additions to a P genealogy, but difficult to see why an
editor would have wanted to modify J material by adding P.
Burial Notes
Passages dealing with the burial of the patriarchs and their wives
are usually assigned to P (xxiii 1-20; xxv 7-10; xxxv 27-29; xlix 2932). Chapter xxiii, the purchase of the cave at Machpelah, is generally assigned to P and consequently all those passages mentioning the
interment of the patriarchs there are assigned to P as well. But apart
from some rather distinctive vocabulary e.g. "Hittites, prince, holding"
which may be prompted by the topic rather than the source, there is
little that requires this chapter to be assigned to P. It has been described
12 C.
Savasta, "Alcune considerazioni sulla lista dei discendenti dei figli di Noe",
Rivista biblica 17 (1969), pp. 89-102, 337-63.
246
GORDON J. WENHAM
as "untypical of p",'3 as pointing "strongly to J",14 or as "an older

narrative" taken over by p.'5 Rendtorff'6 declared there were "many
reasons against" regarding this chapter as P.
If the assignment of this chapter to P is not proven beyond doubt,
do the obvious allusions to it in subsequent chapters clarify the situation? xxv 1-11 gives a summary account of the last days of Abraham
including his death and burial in the cave of Machpelah (vv. 7-10).
The latter verses are assigned to P because of their links with ch. xxiii.
But the surrounding verses (1-6, 11) have commonly been given to J.
However Westermann'7 noted that vv. 1-6 presuppose the death of
Abraham (in vv. 7-10) and therefore must come from a post-P writer.
This divergence of opinion would be resolved if it were admitted that
P precedes J chronologically.
Burials of the patriarchs occur in xxxv 27-29 and 1 12-13, both in
contexts where source-critical analysis is very difficult. According to
the classical source analysis of S.R. Driver181 12-13 is framed by the
surrounding J material (1 1-11, 14). Westermann's idiosyncratic belief
in a non-J Joseph story comes to a similar conclusion.'9 According to
his view vv. 12-13 are P verses surrounded by the end of the Joseph
story.
Most source critics ascribe xxxv 27-29 to P, but Coats20 argues it
belongs to J. This would mean that the list of Jacob's descendants
(xxxv 22b-26), ascribed by all to P, would again be framed byJ material in xxxv 21-22a and 27-29. Even on the usual analysis J material
introduces the P section. Thus all the short summaries of patriarchal
burials seem to consist of P material framed by J.
However we may go further. The diversity of analysis of these chapters is an index of their lack of coherence as perceived by most readers.
The hodge-podge of topics appears strange after the well-ordered
3 S.E. McEvenue, The NarrativeSyle of the PriestlyWriter(Rome, 1971), p. 22.

4
E.A. Speiser, Genesis(New York, 1964), p. 173.
15 G. von Rad, Genesis2,
p. 249.
16
R. Rendtorff, Das iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche
Problemdes Pentateuch(Berlin, 1976),
p. 130.
17 C. Westermann, Genesis12-36, pp. 482-6. Cf. J. Skinner, A Criticaland Exegetical
on Genesis2(Edinburgh, 1930), p. 349.
Commentary
18 S.R.
Driver, The Book of Genesis3(London, 1904), p. 397.
'9 C. Westermann, Genesis.3. Teilband:Genesis37-50 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1982), pp.
222, 228.
20 G.W. Coats, Genesiswith an Introduction
to NarrativeLiterature(Grand Rapids, 1983),
p. 245.
THE PRIORITY OF P
247
accounts of patriarchal lives in Genesis xxv-xxxiv, and xxxvii-xlvii.

However the parallels between the close of the Abraham cycle, the
Jacob cycle, and the Joseph story suggests there is a method in the
redactor's madness.
xxxv 1
xlvi 2-4
xxii 1-2
:3-14
xlvi 5ff.
:2-8
:15-18
:9-14 xlviii 4
:19
:16
:5
:17-18
:5-6
:20-24
:7
xxiii 1-20
:18-20
xxiv 1-67
:8ff.
:21-22
xlix 3-4
List of Descendants
xxv 1-6
:22-26 xlix 3-28
Death and Burialof Patriarch xxv 7-10
:27-29 xlix 29-114
Call to Journey
Patriarch'sObedience
PromiseReaffirmed
Journey
Birth of Sons
Death and Burialof Wife
Son's Marriage
This repeating pattern at the close of each patriarchal cycle suggests

that the editor is trying to draw attention to the similarities in the
careers of Abraham, Jacob and Joseph. According to traditional source
critics J is the major component and J's narrative frames the whole.
The picture becomes even clearer, if with many recent critics we
abandon E as a separate document and regard it as part ofJ. Then
J frames the account of Abraham's purchase of the cave at Machpelah
as well as subsequent references to it. J also frames the promise section in xlviii 4 f. and the list of Jacob's descendants in xlvi 6-27. As
we have already observed, the latter appears to be an old list modified
to reflect narratives assigned to J.
Promisesin P
In xlviii 3-4 we have a promise passage which echoes xxxv 9-12
which in turn echoes xxviii 3-4 which in its turn looks back to ch.
xvii. Because of the distinctive vocabulary in each passage e.g. El
Shaddai, be fruitful and multiply etc. they are all ascribed to P. It is
not my purpose here to contest this attribution, though it may well
be asked how far the genre of promise as opposed to a different author,
is responsible for the distinctive vocabulary. What should be noted is
that in each case the promise passage seems to be embedded in J
material,21 and indeed in chapter xvii seems to be cast in patterns
21
Cf. GJ. Wenham, Genesis16-50, pp. 203-4, 323, 461.
248
GORDONJ. WENHAM
attested in neighbouring J sections. Furthermore the content of that

chapter is presupposed in succeeding chapters.
Chapter xvii resembles the preceding chapter in the following ways.
First, both close with references to time xvi 16, cf. xvii 24-27. Second,
both chapters are built round a long central scene. In chapter xvii this
consists of five divine speeches (vv. lb-2, 4-8, 9-14, 15-16, 19-21) interrupted by two questions from Abraham. In chapter xvi the central
scene consists of four angelic speeches (vv. 8a, 9, 10, 11-12) with two
comments by Hagar (vv. 8b, 13). In both chapters some of the introductory quotation formulae, "And God/the angel of the LORD said",
strike the modern reader as redundant, serving only to break up the
speeches.22
Chapters xviii-xix resemble the preceding chapter in the following
ways. First, xviii 1 "Then the LORD appeared to him" echoes xvii 1
"Then the LORD appeared (to/Abraham and said) to him".
Secondly, both sections exhibit a double structure,a palistrophesuperimposed on parallel panels. McEvenue23 noted this in chapter xvii.
The palistropheconsistsof
la
Abraham99
1st speech
lb-2
4-8
2nd speech
9-14
3rd speech
15-16 4th speech
19-21 5th speech
24-25 Abraham99
A
B
C
D
C'
B'
A'
The parallel panels arrange themselves as follows:

1-2
3a
4b-6
7
9-14
Oath about progeny

Abrahamfalls on his face
Abrahama father
Eternaloath
Sign of oath
16
Sarah and progeny
17-18 Abrahamfalls on his face
19
Sarah a mother
19b,21a Eternaloath
23-27 Sign of oath
I noted a similar arrangement in chs. xviii-xix. xviii 16-xix 28 may

be read in eleven scenes arranged palistrophically with the first matching the last, the second the penultimate and so on.24But it is also cast
in two parallel panels with the visit with xviii 1-32 paralleled by xix
22
For an explanationof this featuresee EJ. Revell, "The repetitionsof introductions to speech as a featureof BiblicalHebrew", VT 47 (1997),pp. 91-110.
23 S.E. McEvenue,TheNarrative
Styleof thePriestlyWriter(Rome, 1971), pp. 156-59.
24
GJ. Wenham, Genesis16-50, pp. 41-44; idem,VT 41 (1991),pp. 103-5.
THE PRIORITY OF P
249
1-22. This combination of two literary patterns in the same section

has been noted only in chs. xvii and xviii-xix.
These similarities in literary structure between chapter xvii and the
surrounding chapters suggest that the material is much more closely
integrated than is usually recognised. But who is responsible? Has the
priestly writer remodelled chs. xvi, xviii-xix, or has J, the Yahwist,
remoulded ch. xvii? Both hypotheses are possible, but the evidence is
better explained by the latter. First xvii la "The LORD appeared to
him" appears to be J's editorial introduction to the chapter. It is not
merely the mention of Yahweh that marks this out as J, but the verb
"appear" (Niphal of ;7Il) as in xii 7; xviii 1; xxvi 2, 24.
Second, that this introductory remark is secondary to the rest of
the chapter is suggested by the use of "El Shaddai" (God Almighty)
in the latter part of the verse. It is typical of J's method to use an El
name in the direct speech of God and human actors and then to use
Yahweh in narrative comments e.g. xvi 11, 13. It fits in with the theory of Exodus iii 13-15, vi 3 that the patriarchs knew God as El
Shaddai, but that the name Yahweh was first revealed to Moses. The
interpretation of these passages has been much discussed, but it at least
shows that the redactors of Exodus regarded El Shaddai as the older
name and Yahweh as the younger.25 This makes it easy to take xvii
la as the later gloss on the earlier tradition enshrined in xvii lb.
Third, the contents and phraseology of chapter xvii are presupposed
in subsequent chapters which are usually ascribed to J. Most obviously
the names of Abraham and Sarah are used in ch. xviii without comment, whereas in ch. xvi their names were Abram and Sarai: only xvii
5 and 15 explain the change. Further xviii 9-15 appears to be aware
of the etymology of Isaac of xvii 17, 19 and quotes the phrase, 'I1r2_
"at the appointed time" in xviii 14 from xvii 21.26
xxi 1-5 recording the birth and circumcision of Isaac looks back to
chapter xvii as does xxiv 36. The source-critical analysis of xxi 1-7 is
controversial. But Westermann's reading of the situation is at once the
simplest and most exact: "w. 3-5 is an untouched piece of P which
is really the genealogical conclusion of ch. 17, this is set between two
25
R.W.L. Moberly, The Old Testamentof the Old Testament(Minneapolis, 1992), pp.
5-78.
26
McEvenue, pp. 153-5 and Westermann, Genesis12-36, pp. 321-2 note the parallels and suggest xviii 4-15 is the source of xvii 15-22. But it is easier to suppose the
borrowing is in the opposite direction.
250
GORDON J. WENHAM
J passages vv. 1-2 and 6-7".27But whereas he sees this arrangement

as the work of a post-P redactor, I think it is more economically
explained as the work of J himself, who often tops and tails earlier
source material with his own comments.
Finally T.D. Alexander28has argued that xxii 1-19 presupposes chapter xvii. He holds that ch. xvii is the promise of a future covenant not
the ratification of it, which is found in xxii 16-18, the divine oath to
Abraham made after the sacrifice of the ram. He observes a similar
structure in the flood story, which contains a promise of a covenant
(vi 18), the fulfillment of its obligations (vi 22; vii 5), the offering of a
sacrifice (viii 20), and the establishment of a covenant (ix 9-17). The
cited parallels between chapters vi-ix and xvii and xxii are again
more easily explained if chapter xvii (P) is earlier than chapter xxii
(J or J/E).29
Narrativescombining
J and P
There are only two lengthy narratives where according to traditional
source critics P material is interwoven with another source, namely
the flood story in chs. vi-ix and the account of Dinah and Shechem
in ch. xxxiv. In the flood story in vi 9-ix 17 fourteen sections of P are
interspersedwith thirteen snippets ofJ. On the whole the P passages are
longer than the J passages, which may consist of mere half-verses such
as vii 16b, "and the LORD shut him in". If the division of the flood
story into two sources is fundamental,30the obvious conclusion from this
evidence has been drawn by Westermann who states: "At first glance
it is clear that... J has been worked into the basic P document".31
While elaborating at length on this observation Westermann fails to
note that if J is being worked into P, rather than vice-versa,P should
be regarded as the earlier document that is being modified by J.
C. Westermann, Genesis12-36, p. 405.
T.D. Alexander, "Genesis 22 and the Covenant of Circumcision",JSOT 25 (1983),
pp. 17-22.
29
According to conventional source criticism chapter xxii is a blend of J and E,
but here as elsewhere the modem trend is to see it as all J or even a post-J editor.
For a brief synopsis of critical standpoints GJ. Wenham, Genesis16-50, pp. 101-2.
30 Here I do not propose to restate my doubts about the validity of the source division in Gen. vi-ix or in Gen. xxxiv (see VT 28 (1978), pp. 336-48; 41 (1991), pp. 84109). I regard the attempt to distinguish P material in these chapters as much less
secure than say in chs. v, xi, or xvii.
31 Genesis1-11,
p. 533 (cf. ET p. 396).
27
28
THE PRIORITY OF P
251
This point has been well grasped by J.L. Ska in a recent study, in
which he argues the source analysis of Gen. vi-viii should be slightly
modified and the priority of the P material acknowledged. Then it is
clear that most of the flood story comes from P and that it has been
supplemented at a few points by J.32 There is also then no need with
many commentators to invoke an additional redactor to explain the
appearance of P material in J contexts such as vii 7-9. J never contained a full account of the flood: it merely supplemented P at a few
points. On Ska's analysis J contains no mention of the building of the
ark, no entry into the ark nor exit from it, no account of the waters'
rise or fall, no description of the earth drying out. "This proves
sufficiently that aJ account of the flood parallel to P's does not exist".33
"The J source in Genesis vi-ix is a series of late fragments, and not
an independent account, complete and earlier than the P source".34
They are designed to supplement P with details from the Mesopotamian
version of the flood story and demonstrate the importance of the cult.
Even if the older division ofJ and P is retained, two further observations support the priority of P. First, the flood story narrowly defined
in vi 9-ix 17 is prefaced and rounded off by passages universally
ascribed to J, viz. vi 5-8 and ix 20-27. As already noted above, it is
characteristic ofJ to top and tail earlier material with his own comments in this way.
Secondly the flood story finds a very close thematic and structural
parallel in Gen. xviii-xix, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Both narratives tell of a universal destruction in which one family was
saved by divine intervention. Both narratives are arranged as extended
palistrophes.35There are also numerous allusions in Gen. xviii-xix to
the flood story. Many key terms in the flood story are echoed in Gen.
xviii-xix.36Yet while Gen. xviii-xix is ascribed almost in its entirety37
32
J.L. Ska, "El Relato del diluvio: un relato sacerdotal y algunos fragmentos redaccionales posteriores", EstudiosBiblicos52 (1994), pp. 37-62. Ska assigns vi 9-22; vii 6-9,
11, 13-16a, 17-21, 24; viii 1-2a, 3-5, 13-19; ix 1-3, 7-17 to P, vi 5-8; vii 1-5, 10, 12,
16b, 22-23; viii 2b, 6-12, 20-22 toJ and a few phrases in vi 17; vii 6, 17, 22 to the
redactor (p. 51).
33
Ibid.,p. 52.
34 Ibid., p. 60.
See GJ. Wenham, VT41 (1991), pp. 103-5; Genesis16-50, p. 41.

In tr "findfavour" 'rnn"preservelife" irt"producedescendE.g. nnr "destroy"
"rain" Dt "remember".For fullerdiscussionsee Genesis16-50, pp. 42-43;
ants" CtDlL
VT 41 (1991),pp. 108-9.
37
Only xix 29 is conventionallyascribedto P in Gen. xviii-xix.If this assumption
35
36
252
GORDON J. WENHAM
to J, the verbal allusions to the flood story involve both P and J passages. This is difficult to account for if P were composed after J, but
is natural if the J source presupposes P.
Gen. xxxiv as analysed by the traditional source critics presents a
similar picture to Gen. vi-ix, namely a fairly full P version comprising
about 22 verses with a much briefer J version of nearly 10 verses.38
As in the flood story the P material constitutes a complete tale that
can be understood on its own, whereas the J material is not intelligible by itself, but looks like a series of glosses on the P story. Thus it
would be natural to conclude that P is here the earlier source expanded
byJ. However since this runs counter to the normal order of sources,
other critics have come up with quite different suggestions. Some39
have denied that the P material comes from P, but suggested that it
comes from E instead. This is unlikely in that xxxiv 15, 22 quote xvii
10 and xxxiv 24 echoes xxiii 10, 18 (both chapters usually assigned
to P) and other terms (e.g. t'fl "prince", ntR"acquire property") are
typically ascribed to P.
Yet others have argued that much more or even all of the narrative
should be assigned to J, while Westermann,40although he noted the
affinity of the basic narrative with P, denied that either source in Gen.
xxxiv should be identified with P or J. As is the case with the flood
story a unitary reading of Genesis xxxiv is quite possible and may
eliminate the need to assign the narrative to two sources.41This is the
most economical hypothesis of all here, but next to it for simplicity
and clarity is the old source analysis into P and J, where P is seen as
the basic narrative supplemented byJ. The other hypotheses are much
is correct, it is another pointer to P's antiquity, for it is quoted by Amos iv 11. That
Amos is quoting Genesis is shown by its mention of "God", the only passage in Amos
to do so. Westermann's suggestion Genesis12-36, p. 364, that Amos may be quoting
a tradition independent of Genesis is special pleading prompted by his failure to recognise that P is early.
38 According to S.R. Driver, An Introduction
to the OT5 (Edinburgh, 1894), pp. 10, 14.
P = 1-2a, 4, 6, 8-10, 13-18, 20-25, 27-29, while J = the rest.
39
des Hexateuchsund der historischen
Biicherdes ATs2
E.g. J. Wellhausen, Die Composition
(Berlin, 1889), pp. 49, 318. H. Gunkel, Genesis9(Gottingen, 1977), p. 374. J. Skinner,
Genesis2(Edinburgh, 1930), p. 418.
40 C. Westermann, Genesis12-36, pp. 651-4.
41 E.g. M. Sternberg, The Poeticsof BiblicalNarrative(Bloomington, 1984), pp. 445-75;
D.N. Fewell and D.M. Gunn, "Tipping the Balance: Sternberg's Reader and the Rape
of Dinah", JBL 110 (1991), pp. 193-211; P. Noble, "A 'Balanced' Reading of the Rape
4
of Dinah: Some Exegetical and Methodological Observations", Biblical Interpretation
(1996), pp. 173-204.
THE PRIORITY OF P
253
more convoluted, and probably would never have been suggested had
not the late date of P been regarded as axiomatic.
This completes our discussion of the genealogies, promise sections
and narratives in Genesis that traditionally have been assigned to P.
In all cases it has been argued the P material looks as though it has
been subsequently reworked by a redactor like J or incorporated into
J contexts. Thus the genealogy in Genesis v is glossed byJ comments,
and the covenant promises in Genesis xvii are prefaced by a J introduction. Where J and P are interwoven, the P material appears to be
the more basic and the J material supplementary (e.g. Gen. vi-ix, xxxiv).
But there are two elements of P not discussed so far which constitute
the strongest primafacie case for dating P after J: they are the toledot
formulae and the first creation account in Genesis i 1-ii 3. These must
be considered now.
The ToledotFormulae
The toledotformula nlblnl F,-l "This is the family history of.".
occurs eleven times in Genesis (ii 4; v 1; vi 9; x 1; xi 10, 27; xxv 12,
19; xxxvi 1, 9; xxxvii 2). Everywhere in Genesis it serves as a heading to a cycle of narratives (e.g. vi 9) or to a genealogy (e.g. xxv 12).
Attempts to argue that in ii 4 nl5ln fSl introduces a colophon to
i 1-ii 3 are misguided, as Stordalen42has shown. Furthermore -nlrn
comes from the root 1'", "to bear", hence the traditional translation
"generations". However this can mislead for the toledotof x are not
x's ancestors but x's descendants. Hence the toledotof Terah (xi 27)
is the family history of Terah and his descendants, chiefly Abraham,
and the toledotof Isaac (xxv 19) is the history of Isaac's sons, Jacob and
Esau. The same logic applies to ii 4a, where the "toledotof heaven and
earth" is the heading of ii 4-iv 26: these toledottell what emerged from
the heaven and the earth. Furthermore ii 4b "in the day that the
LORD God made" parallels similar expansions of the toledotformula
in v 1 and Num. iii 1, which show the two halves of the verse cohere
and should be ascribed to the same redactor. But whereas the first
half of the verse looks forward to what is going to happen in the following chapter, the second half of the verse looks back to what has
already been achieved in the creative acts described in chapter 1. In
42
T. Stordalen, "Genesis 2, 4: Restudying a locus classicus",ZAW 104 (1992), pp.

163-77.
254
GORDON J. WENHAM
other words the editor responsible for ii 4 was familiar both with Gen.
ii-iii and with Gen. i 1-ii 3. "Gen. ii 4 is a literary unit bridging
Genesis i and ii-iii".43
It may therefore be taken as proved that the toledotformulae are
editorial. But who is the editor responsible? In Gen. ii 4 it is usually
held that P was responsible for the first half of the verse and J for the
second. When the close connection between the two parts is recognised, it seems more likely that only one writer was responsible. In
themselves the formulae tell us nothing about their originator. It is
merely the assumption that P is the last source or editor that has led
them being ascribed to P. There is nothing distinctively P about the
word "toledot".The phrase "by their generations" does occur in x 32
and xxv 13. But while xxv 13 is generally accepted as P, x 32 may
well be part of J's editorial conclusion to the table of nations.44
The prefacing of genealogies ascribed to P by the title "This is the
toledotof" does not prove the title itself originates with P any more
than the nearly as common prefacing of narratives ascribed to J by
the same title proves it originates withJ. However the observation that
elsewhere J tends to top and tail P material with his own glosses or
comments e.g. xvii 1 etc. does make it more likely that these headings come from his hand rather than P's. Furthermore the tightly integrated chiastic structure of ii 4, whereby the toledotformula (ii 4a) is
tied to the opening of the Garden of Eden story (ii 4b-iii 24), which
is always ascribed to J, reinforces the likelihood that J is responsible
for the toledotformula here, and by analogy elsewhere in Genesis.45
Genesisi
Genesis i 1-ii 3 is sui generis.Westermann has aptly characterised it
as a "festive overture".4 Its Hebrew style is distinctive. Its elevated
prose style and its use of repetition with elegant variation set it apart
from what follows and show it is a carefully composed introit to the
rest of the book.47 But from ii 4 the main story line begins with ten
main sections,48each introduced by a toledotformula.
43 Ibid., p. 173.
44 Cf. footnote 12.
45 Cf. Stordalen's
cryptic comment "a 'redactor' closer to 'J' than to 'P"'. Ibid.,
p. 176.
46 C.
Westermann, Genesis1-11, p. 129.
47 P. Beauchamp, Creationet separation(Paris, 1969).
48 On the double formula in xxxvi 1, 9 see discussion above.
THE PRIORITY OF P
255
The opening chapter of Genesis thus stands right outside the main
narrative structure of the book. It therefore should not be unthinkingly assigned to one of the sources used in the main body of the
book. Its elaborate structure and elegant style suggest rather that it
was specially composed as a preface to the book of Genesis if not the
whole Pentateuch.
But can the author of Genesis i be identified? He could of course
be quite different from any of those responsible for editing the rest of
the book. Scholars though have rightly been wary of multiplying entities beyond necessity and have preferred to associate the composition
of Genesis i with one of the sources or editorial layers of the rest of
the book. Because P is the last of these, he is usually credited with
the composition of Gen. i 1-ii 3. Various other subsidiary reasons are
given for attributing Genesis i to P. It speaks of God not Yahweh. It
offers a different account of creation from chapter ii. It is interested
in the Sabbath, a priestly concern. Its vocabulary resembles that of
other P passages.
None of these arguments are conclusive: indeed some point in quite
a different direction. The divine name criterion has now been abandoned by many writers as a means of distinguishingJ and E sources
in the patriarchal narratives.49It is admitted that J could well choose
to speak of God as Elohim in appropriate contexts, e.g. where foreigners speak or are spoken to about the divine.50Indeed J seems to
be aware that Yahweh is the name of God first revealed to Moses, so
whenever possible he avoids using it in the direct speech of God or
human actors.51If historical or theological reasons dictate the choice
of divine epithets in the patriarchal stories, may not this be the case
in Gen. i-xi as well?
In fact some such explanation is required in Gen. ii 4-iii 24, for
though it is universally ascribed to J, it never uses Yahweh by itself
but only Yahweh Elohim or Elohim alone. L'Hour52 has offered a
plausible theological explanation of the variation in divine names in
Gen. ii-iii, which could well be extended to Genesis i. He argues that
J has used the unusual title Yahweh Elohim to express his conviction
49
E.g. J. Van Seters, Abrahamin History and Tradition(New Haven, 1975), p. 156.
R.N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch(Sheffield, 1987), pp. 64-72.
50
E.g. chapters xx, xxxix-xli.
51 See R.W.L. Moberly, The Old Testamentof the Old Testament,
pp. 70-8.
52
J. L'Hour, "Yahweh Elohim", RB 81 (1974), pp. 524-56.
256
GORDON J. WENHAM
that Yahweh is Israel's covenant partner and the God (Elohim) of all
creation. At the moment when God's partnership with mankind is
being doubted in iii 1-5, Yahweh is omitted and Elohim alone is used.
This suggests J could use Elohim by itself in the context of creation.
The contrasts between the accounts of creation in Genesis i and ii
have also been overplayed too. Genesis i gives a broad overall picture
of God creating the world in six days and resting on the seventh, so
relatively little attention is given to the creation of man. However that
is where the focus is in chapter ii: God's perfect provision of all
mankind's needs is the starting point of the story and provides the
backdrop to the centre of the story, the act of disobedience, as a result
of which mankind lost many of the privileges granted to him at creation. Similar transitions between kindred but distinct materials are
also marked by the use of the toledotformula.53
Clearly the final editor
of Genesis whether he be P or J found no irreconcilable clash between
Gen. i and Gen. ii, so modern exegetes should not create problems
where he saw none. If we postulate different sources behind chapters
i and ii, this hardly decides who incorporated them into Genesis.
However it is argued that the emphasis on the Sabbath in Genesis
i 1-ii 3 must point to P. It is certainly correct to see the sabbath as
central to the intention of this chapter. Here God is portrayed as working for six days and then resting on the sabbath. Though it is not
spelled out, the implication is clear that man made in God's image
should imitate his creator and work for six days and rest on the seventh
(cf. Exod. xx 8-11.). But is the sabbath a peculiarly priestly notion? It
is of course mentioned in the decalogue, usually held to be one of the
earlier texts, but it does not figure very prominently in the cultic laws
and calendars of Leviticus and Numbers.
In Genesis itself observation of the sabbath is only implicitly enjoined in ii 1-3, and only implicitly referred to in the flood story,
where both God and Noah work on a weekly cycle. The LORD announces the flood will begin in seven days (vii 4) and accordingly after
seven days it does (vii 10). Similarly at the end of the story, Noah
sends out a raven, waits seven days and sends out a dove, then waits
another seven days and despatches the dove again (viii 7-12). Now it
is not clear on which day of the week God and Noah act, though if
53 See v 1; vi 9; x 1; xi 10 and the discussions of R.S. Hess, "Genesis 1-2 in its
Literary Context", TynB 41 (1990), pp. 143-53 and T. Stordalen, ZAW 104 (1992),
pp. 173-4.
THE PRIORITY OF P
257
the Jubilees calendar is presupposed,54these acts take place on a Sunday

the first working day after the sabbath. But whether or not this calendar is presupposed, the parallels with Genesis i surely suggest that
God is observing a weekly cycle of work and rest and that Noah, the
perfectly righteous man, is doing the same (cf. vi 9; vii 1). However
on the usual source analysis of this chapter all these references to the
week and its implied rest day occur within the J material. If J is interested in the sabbath in the flood story, why should not the same be
true in Gen. i 1-ii 3?
Finally we must consider the question of vocabulary, which is alleged
to demonstrate Genesis i comes from P. As is now recognised, the oldstyle vocabulary lists of P words, J words, and E words are of little
value in determining authorship. The vocabulary of a passage is more
a reflection of its content and genre than authorship, so the affinity
of Genesis i with some P passages proves little. Nevertheless since some
source critics still make crude use of vocabulary counts to determine
sources analysis, it warrants further discussion. Driver55 lists the following terms as characteristic of P in Gen. i 1]' "kind", r"it "swarm",
"swarming thing", WrZ'"creep, creeping thing", l3'1 'fB "be fruitful
and multiply", fil*R "for food". Most of these terms occur in Genesis
only in chapter i and the flood story. This could be expected from
the subject matter: the flood is essentially a story of de-creation and
re-creation. The land emerges from the flood waters just as it emerged
from beneath the primeval ocean in Gen. i 2, 9-13. Noah is a second
Adam figure, who like his predecessor is bidden to be "fruitful and
multiply" This command (albeit in the singular) occurs in only one
other passage outside Gen. i and viii-ix in xxxv 11: this is hardly
enough to demonstrate it is source-specific especially since the roots
FTZ' and flT1 are used in other pentateuchal sources too. These vocabulary items thus fail to prove that Gen. i must have been composed
by P. They show that chapters i and vi-ix are dealing with similar
topics, not necessarily that they are by the same hand.
However if for the sake of simplicity we grant that the common
vocabulary does point to the same authorial hand, it could be either
P or J. As discussed above, conventional source analyses of the flood
54 A. Jaubert, La Date de la cene

(Paris, 1957), p. 33. GJ. Wenham, VT 28 (1978),
pp. 343-5.
55 S.R. Driver, Introduction,
pp. 123-4.
258
GORDON J. WENHAM
story suppose that Gen. vi-ix is composed of a P-base with a J preface, J glosses and aJ conclusion. However some of the J glosses within
the body of the story have shorter P glosses within them e.g. vii 3a,
8-9, 23b. This is curious, so a redactor is invoked to explain these
glosses, though quite what his purpose was in adding these elements
is not clear.
Ska's solution to these glosses is to deny that they are later additions: rather they belong to the original P story of the flood.56 This
makes J's contribution to the flood story much less. But it may be
asked whether it is right to characterise them as P glosses. This is done
simply because they parallel phraseology in Genesis i: vii 3a parallels
i 27, vii 8-9 echoes i 24-28, and vii 23b harks back to i 24-25. However were Genesis i classified as a J composition, this anomaly would
disappear. There would be no grounds to regard vii 3a, 8-9, 23b as
P glosses on J material. vii 1-5, 7-10, 23 would be pure J.57
For the purposes of this discussion it is not necessary to decide
whether Genesis i originated with P or with J. It is sufficient to note
with Stordalen58that the clearly redactional ii 4 knows both Gen. i
and Gen. ii-iii. Whether the editor of Genesis created chapter i himself
or drew it from some other source does not affect our main argument,
that, wherever P material has been identified, it appears to antedate
the J material. This seems clearest in the genealogies in chs. v, xi,
xlvii, where we are dealing with originally independent material conventionally attributed to P. The same may be true of chs. xvii, xxiii,
xxxiv, vi-ix, though here the evidence is not so clear cut. What I have
tried to establish is that the P-material throughout Genesis is not
a late insertion into an essentially J-composition, rather that it is one
of the sources used by J to form our book of Genesis. It is widely admitted thatJ did not create his material from scratch, but that he drew
on earlier oral or written sources including genealogies cf. iv 17-26;
xxii 20-24, and narratives e.g. ii-iii; xviii-xix; xxii to produce the J document. It is the contention of this paper that the so-called P material
in Genesis was another source which J drew on to create his work.
56
See above footnote 32.

Unitary readings of Gen. vi-ix and Gen. xxxiv still seem to me preferable to the
source analyses proposed. My argument here is that there is nothing in Gen. i or
vi-ix to contradict the obvious priority of the P passages elsewhere in Genesis.
58 See above footnotes
42, 45.
57

Z Wenham, The Priority of P PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Z Wenham, The Priority of P PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Priority of P

Author(s): Gordon J. Wenham

IsraelsI (Berlin, 1878).

? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 1999

Here I propose to re-examine this axiom of pentateuchal criticism,

Among recent discussions I. Knohl, The Sanctuaryof Silence:The PriestlyTorahand

15-17, 18-20, 25-27. There is a slight expansion of the first formula

G. von Rad, Genesis2(London, 1972), p. 70.

The genealogy of Ishmael in xxv 12-18 consists of a list of Ishmael's

as "untypical of p",'3 as pointing "strongly to J",14 or as "an older

3 S.E. McEvenue, The NarrativeSyle of the PriestlyWriter(Rome, 1971), p. 22.

accounts of patriarchal lives in Genesis xxv-xxxiv, and xxxvii-xlvii.

This repeating pattern at the close of each patriarchal cycle suggests

Cf. GJ. Wenham, Genesis16-50, pp. 203-4, 323, 461.

attested in neighbouring J sections. Furthermore the content of that

The parallel panels arrange themselves as follows:

Oath about progeny

I noted a similar arrangement in chs. xviii-xix. xviii 16-xix 28 may

1-22. This combination of two literary patterns in the same section

J passages vv. 1-2 and 6-7".27But whereas he sees this arrangement

See GJ. Wenham, VT41 (1991), pp. 103-5; Genesis16-50, p. 41.

T. Stordalen, "Genesis 2, 4: Restudying a locus classicus",ZAW 104 (1992), pp.

the Jubilees calendar is presupposed,54these acts take place on a Sunday

54 A. Jaubert, La Date de la cene

See above footnote 32.

Potrebbero piacerti anche