f '-c.

,)
DE GRUYTER ZAW 2017; 129 (4): 483-500

Bill T. Arnold*
The Holiness Redaction of the Primeval
History
https: If do i. org/ 10.1515 Izaw·2017·4001

J
In the mid-nineteenth ntury, scholars identified portions of the Pentateuch
as part of an original Priestly source (P), which stands today as a consensus in
a field of study for which consensus is exceedingly rare. The distinctiveness of
these P texts compared to other portions of the Pentateuch cannot be denied,
including certain lexical particulars, religious content, genealogical detail, and
especially rhetorical individuality. The extent of this consensus is striking when
one compares the assessment of Theodor NOldeke in 1869 with that of Jan Chris­
tian Gertz in 2012.1 NOldeke identified the following as P in the Primeval History:
1:1-2:4a; 5:1-28,30-32; 6:9-22; 7:6,11,13-16a,18-22,24; 8:1-2a,3b·5,13a,14-19;
9:1-17,28-29; 10:1-7,13-20,22-32; 11:10-32,2 compared to Gertz's conclusions: 1:1-
2:3; 5:1-27,28* ,30-32; 6:9-9:17,18a,19*; 9:28-29; 10:1-7,20,22-23,31-32; 11:10-26.3

1 Theodor Noldeke, »Die sogenannte Grundschrift des Pentateuchs,« in Untersuchungen zur Kri·
tik des A/ten Testaments (Kiel: Schwers, 1869): 1-144, esp. 143; Jan Christian Gertz, »The Forma·
tion of the Primeval History,« in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation,
ed. Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr and David L. Petersen, VTSup 152 (Leiden: Brill, 2012): 107-135,
esp. 113.
2 Followed largely in Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History ofIsrael (Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1994), 297-318; repr. of Prolegomena to the History ofIsrael, trans. J. Sutherland Black and
Allan Enzies (Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1885), trans. of Prolegomena zur Geschichte Is·
raels (Berlin: G. Reimer, 21883). On the history of the scholarship, see Markus Witte, Die Biblische
Urgeschichte: Redaktions- und theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Genesis 1,1-11,26, BZAW
265 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998), 1-52.
3 Gertz shows the consensus goes further back still, to the eighteenth century (»Primeval His·
tory«: 110-113). Many contemporary examples could be used for comparison: John A. Emerton,
»The Priestly Writer in Genesis,« JTS 39 (1988): 381-400; Joseph Blenkinsopp, »The Structure of
P,« CBQ 38 (1976) : 275-292; William Henry C. Propp, »The Priestly Source Recovered Intact?,« VT
46 (1996): 458-478. For more on P in the Primeval History, with quite different conclusions, see

Article Note: By »Primeval History« I mea n Gen 1:1-11:26, since I take the to/•dot clause at 11:27
to b egi n the ancestral narratives. For the sake of co nve n i e n ce, I will occasiona lly refer to »Gen
1-11« for this unit, an d to »Gen 1« for 1:1-2:3. I am grateful to Mark A. Awabdy and Paavo Tu c ke r
for helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of th i s paper.

*Kontakt: Bill T. Arnold, Asbury Theological Sem inary, USA, bill. arnold@asburyseminary.edu

FRANCISCANl
s1UDIUM BIBLICUM
CllRI lnTHFr.A -
484 - Bill T. Arnold DE GRUYTER
During the years between Noldeke and Gertz, new methodologies appeared and
at times challenged the source-critical endeavor itself. But for scholars committed
to analyzing the contours of the text for greater understanding of the history of its
composition, little has changed in one hundred forty years regarding which texts
should be considered P.
While this longstanding consensus about the content of P is impressive, the
same cannot be said about its nature and extent. Regarding its nature, scholars
cannot agree on whether P was originally a self-contained, separate, and inde­
pendent source, or whether it was instead a series of preliminary layers incor­
porated into what eventually became a priestly redaction.4 Regarding its extent,
we cannot agree on where P comes to an end. Assuming a Priestly Grundschrift
as an independent source, does it conclude at Exod 40, Lev 16, Lev 26, Deut 34,
or Josh 1, to name a few of the proposed endings?5 In addition to the question of
P's conclusion, I will raise here again the possibility that we have been wrong
about P's beginning. While the lack of scholarly consensus about the nature and
extent of P does not call into question the source-critical enterprise, it does raise a
number of questions about our understanding of these texts, including the ways
they relate to each other and to the non-P materials across the contour of the Pen­
tateuch as a whole.6 I have argued elsewhere that a number of texts previously
identified as originating with the Priestly Grundschrift (or at times, identified as
p additions or supplements) are instead products of a later Holiness school of
scribes, who expanded and revised P.7 In this paper, I return to an investigation
Martin Arneth, Durch Adams Fall ist ganz verderbt ... : Studien zur Entstehung der alttestamentli­
chen Urgeschichte, FRLANT 217 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 22-96.
4 For the former view, see for example, David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Histor­
ical and Literary Approaches (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 43-77. On the
ex.istence of an independent priestly thread specifically discerned in the Primeval History, see
Jan Christian Gertz, »Genesis 5: Priesterliche Redaktion, Komposition oder Quellenschrift?,« ni
Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zurn Stand der Pentateuchdebatte, ed. Friedhelm Hartenstein
and Konrad Schmid, VWGTh 40 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2015): 65-93, esp. 68-74
and 90f. For the view of preliminary layers incorporated into a priestly redaction, see Erhard
Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 221-285.
5 For a survey of the options, see Paavo Nataniel Tucker, »You Shall Know that I am YHWH«:
The Holiness Composition in the Book ofExodus (Asbury Theological Seminary: PhD diss., 2016),
11-21.
6 On the validity of source criticism despite our lack of consensus, see Reinhard G. Kratz, »The
Analysis of the Pentateuch: An Attempt to Overcome Barriers of Thinking,« ZAW 128 (2016):
529-561, esp. 532.
7 Bill T. Arnold, Genesis, The New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge/New York: Cam­
bridge University Press, 2009), 12-18 and passim, but developed subsequently elsewhere (see
below for references).
DE GRUYTER The H o liness Reda ctio n of the Primeval History - 485
of the priestly materials of the Primeval History in order to determine whether
they have been correctly identified as original to the Priestly Grundschrift (P), and
to explore whether a different approach to their origins might address the larger
questions related to the nature and extent of P itself. Before taking up the specific
texts of the Primeval History, I will propose using the redactional techniques of
the author(s) of the Temple Scroll as an empirical model for this work.
)
1 Stephen A. Kaufman and the Tem p le Scroll
The Temple Scroll (11Q19), being the longest complete scroll found at Qumran,
has generated intense interest among source and redaction critics because of its
potential parallels with Pentateuchal composition.8 Scholars quickly took up
the question of whether the scroll's composite nature, relying as it does on the
biblical text, might provide empirical controls on the way texts were composed
in antiquity.9 In a definitive study, Stephen A. Kaufman considered whether the
Temple Scroll might serve as a check on today's source-critical analysis of the
Pentateuch, and concluded that »the very complexity and variety of [ ... ] patterns
makes higher criticism a dubious endeavor«, arguing that we must be satisfied
with distinguishing large sections of texts on the basis of linguistic evidence,
which supports the identification of the basic sources, JE, D, and P.10 He concluded
8 The editio princeps was published by Yigael Yadin in 1977 (l!lipr.i;i n7'lD, 3 vols. [Jerusalem
:
Israel Exploration Society, 1977)), followed in 1983 with an English edition containing significant
changes and updates, which is therefore the editio maior (The Temple Scroll, 3 vols. [Jerusalem
:
Israel Exploration Society, 1983)). For further literature, see Florentino Garcia Martinez, Eibert J.
C. Tigchelaar and Adam S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11: II, 11Q2-18, 11Q20-31, DJD 23
(Ox­
ford/New York: Oxford University Press/Clarendon Press, 1998); Hartmut Stegemann, »The
Ori­
gins of the Temple Scroll,« in Congress Volume, Jerusalem 1986, ed. John A. Emerton, VTSup
40
(Leiden: Brill, 1988): 235-256; Sidnie White Crawford, The Temple Scroll and Related Texts,
Com­
panion to the Qumran Scrolls 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); Michael Owen Wise,
The Temple Scroll: Its Composition, Date, Purpose, and Provenance (University of Chicago:
PhD
diss., 1988); Michael Owen Wise, A Critical Study ofthe Temple Scrollfrom Qumran Cave
11, SAOC
49 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990); and Johann Maier, The
Temple
Scroll: An Introduction, Translation & Commentary, trans. Richard T. White, JSOT.S 34
(Sheffield:
JSOT, 1985).
9 Wise, Critical Study, 21; Gershon Brin, »Concerning Some of the Uses of the Bible in the Temple
Scroll,« RevQ 12 (1987): 519-528. »Many biblical quotations appear in a modified, abbreviated or
expanded form and it is not uncommon to find several Biblical passages which deal with similar
subject matter, merged together in both form and content«; Maier, Temple Scroll, 3.
10 Stephen A. Kaufman, »The Temple Scroll and Higher Criticism,« HUCA 53 (1982): 29-43, esp.
42.
\UM 8\BUCIJ� F��NCISCAN
486 - Bill T. Arnold DE GRUYTER
we
further that certain texts in the Pentateuch are conflations of these, but that
cannot be confident of our ability to reconstruct the compositi onal processes of
those conflations. While these conclusions stand as helpful caveats against over­
confidence in our work, the value of Kaufman's investigation is the way he has
illustrated the redaction principles at work in the Temple Scroll. Methodologi­
cally, Kaufman began by asserting that, because we have the original sources
lying behind the composition of the Scroll (i. e., the text of the Pentateuch), it pro­
vides a unique opportunity to examine the principles and techniques of compo­
sition of such documents, which may also illuminate similar compositional pro­
cedures of the Pentateuchal documents themselves. His study yielded relatively
negative results, suggesting essentially that our higher-critical tools are simply
too blunt to reconstruct the original sources behind the Pentateuch in anything
other than the broadest outlines of textual materials known generally as JE, D,
and P. With Kaufman, we must admit that tiny details and distinctions within and
between these are at times irrecoverable. While I agree in general with Profes­
his
sor Kaufman's conclusions, I think he has too quickly dismissed the value of
at
study of the Temple Scroll as a means of illustrating the redactional strategies
work in such a text, and the possibilities of these strategies as applied to Penta­
teuchal criticism.
In particular, Kaufman identified at work in the composition of the Scroll a
continuum of compositional techniques related to the biblical text behind it. Fur­
thermore, he believed the same redactional strategies discemable in the Temple
Scroll can be found in the biblical sources themselves (especially Deuteronomy),
g
that in tum have other biblical texts at their core.11 His work serves a confirmin
activ-
role in analyzin g texts where other indications already point to redactional
ity.
Kaufman's six compositional techniques constitute a continuum »ranging
from lengthy original composition (no direct biblical source) to extended citations
Temple
of a single biblical text.«12 First, original composition is identified in the
of linguisti c features and a lack of textual tensions . In
Scroll by a combination
Hebrew that character -
this category, Kaufman rightly focused on features of Late
� 31. In some ways, this investigation answers a similar call by Bernard Levinson to use
Kaufman's work on the Temple Scroll as »Valuable empirical evidence« in the face of so many
competing models for understanding the composition of the Pentateuch (although I began this
study independently of reading Levinson's thoughts on the subject); Bernard M. Levinson, A
More Perfect Torah: At the Intersection of Philology and Hermeneutics in Deuteronomy and the
Temple Scroll, Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 92.
1 2 Kaufman, »Temple Scroll«: 34, and for what follows, along with specific examples of each
from the Temple Scroll, see 34-42.
DE GRUYTER The Holiness Redaction of the Primeval History - 487
ize and identify an author in the mid-second century BCE, and which distinguish
that author from the older portions of the Pentateuch being adapted elsewhere in
the Temple Scroll.13 As we shall see below, the criteria for identifying such orig­
inal compositions in and between the sources of the Pentateuch are necessarily
different, but the concept is nevertheless a heuristic insight for our work. Second,
paraphrastic conflatffi(t relates to portions of the Temple Scroll dependent upon
Pentateuchal passages, alone or in conflation, for content, themes, and phraseol­
ogy. In such cases, the author's own voice is still evident in Late Hebrew features
and a lack of textual tensions, so that paraphrastic conflation is one step removed
from original composition. Third, similar to the use of paraphrasis, the technique
of fine conflation evident in the Temple Scroll is based on biblical texts, gener­
ally retains the biblical style, and is composed of tiny fragments from its sources.
Kaufman demonstrates that, while present and clearly definable, this redactional
strategy is rare in the Temple Scroll. Fourth, gross conflation is the »straightfor­
ward combination of all of the biblical texts treating the same subject«, between
which the author of the Temple Scroll occasionally added words and phrases of
his own.14 While respecting the biblical sources before him, the author of the
Scroll nevertheless was free to change the sequence of laws and phrases in the
presentation of those laws themselves for a new era and readership. Fifth, the
author of the Temple Scroll at times used a technique Kaufman called modified
torah, or the »quotation of a single Pentateuchal text, free of conflation with other
biblical sources, but heavily modified by the author.«15 The author was free to
13 On the date of the Temple Scroll, see Michael Owen Wise, who theorizes that the text was
composed by a member of the priestly elite connected with the temple in Jerusalem, who was
himself known in the Damascus Document as the Teacher of Righteousness (Wise, Critical Study,
189-194). And on the potential Zadokite or Aaronide origins of the author, see Eckart Otto, »Die
Rechtshermeneutik irn Pentateuch und in der Tempelrolle,« in Tora in der Hebraischen Bibel:
Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte und synchronen logik diachroner Transformationen, ed. Rein­
hard Achenbach, Martin Arneth and Eckart Otto, BZABR 7 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007):
72-121.
14 Kaufman, »Temple Scroll«: 39.
15 Ibid. : 40f. Similar to Kaufman's distinction between torah quotation and conflation, Paul
R. Noble's »quotation-theoretic« and »resource-theoretic« are useful categories for identifying
when an editor has reproduced sources (»quotation-theoretic«) as opposed to times when an
author has drawn on themes or style in the source, making it impossible to reconstruct the trans­
mission history precisely; Paul R. Noble, »Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to Biblical
Interpretation,« /LT 7 (1993): 130-148. Using these categories, if a text is a subtle and well-in­
tegrated whole, one can be confident it did not have a quotation-theoretic prehistory, and it is
nearly impossible to identify specific sources used in its composition. When a resource-theoretic
model of composition has been used, we have only vague notions of the sources before the au­
thor (141f.) .
488 - Bill T. Arnold DE GRUYTER
use slight changes of phraseology in order to avoid repetition or for other stylistic
reasons. And finally, extended torah is the quotation of Pentateuchal texts by the
author of the Temple Scroll »Without substantial modification«, where a text is
quoted at length with only minor additions or slight modifications.16
Kaufman avers that the same redactional strategies used in the composition
of the Temple Scroll (especially the second, third, and fifth in his series above)
were used in the composition of the biblical texts as well.17 He also concluded,
however, that these techniques are not easily discernable in the biblical texts,
and that we must be satisfied with general reconstructions of larger sections of
texts on the basis of language and style, confirmed by other criteria for source
distinction. And yet, the specific redactional strategies at work in the Temple
Scroll may serve an empirical means for analyzing the way priestly materials were
developed in the Pentateuchal traditions, reserving for the sake of this investi­
gation whether these techniques apply to the older (in my view) epic materials
traditionally identified as Yahwistic (JE). Kaufman asserts that Deuteronomy, at
least, evinces four of the six redactional strategies defined along this redactional
continuum in its reuse of the tetrateuchal materials: original composition, para­
phrastic conflation, modified Torah, and extended Torah quotation.18 In general,
I find his definition of »modified torah quotation« as a quotation free of confla­
tion but heavily modified by the author particularly apropos to Deuteronomy's
formulaic phraseology, as for example in its adaptation of the altar law of Exod
20:24.19 Kaufman's categories of redactional strategies have potential as heuristic
models, while his caveat about overconfidence in the results should also guide
our work.
2 H and P in Genesis 1-11
In what follows, I return to the question of the Priestly Grundschrift in the Pri­
meval History in order to inquire whether Kaufman's redactional strategies are
useful in our attempt to explain the text as it now stands. This investigation will
not consider the materials attributed to Israel's national epic, traditionally iden-
16 Kaufman, »Temple Scroll«: 41.
17 Ibid.: 42.
18 Kaufman is of the opinion that both P and D use paraphrasis (type 2) and quotation (types 4
and S) of JE materials, while D uses modified quotations of older P laws but does not conflate P
(Kaufman, »Temple Scroll«: 31 n. 7).
19 Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics ofLegal Innovation (New York: Ox­
ford University Press, 1997), 28-38.
DE GRUYTER The Holiness Redaction of the Primeval H istory - 489
tified by the sigla J or JE, but only to the priestly traditions conflated with them
in the current text of Genesis 1-11. It seems altogether likely that ancient Israel's
scribal practices pertaining specifically to the priests, who eventually produced
the Temple Scroll using the redactional strategies we have summarized above,
were also at work earlier in the First Temple period producing the priestly texts
under review�re.20 Conversely, these redactional features may not be present
in the epic materials, JE, omitted in this investigation. That would be for a future
investigation, although it may also be the case that whatever redactional prac­
tices were used in the composition of those materials are irretrievable.
2.1 The Holiness Preamble (Genesis 1:1-2:3)
On the strength of thematic and lexical connections between Gen 1:1-2:3 and
known Holiness texts elsewhere in the Pentateuch, I have argued elsewhere that
the chapter should not be viewed as the first portion of P but instead as a new
composition of the Holiness school. 21 Three central themes of the chapter - Sab­
bath-observance, animal taxonomy, and sacred festivals - are distinctive con­
cerns of H, and H's phraseology and theology permeate the chapter.
The Bible opens with three separate creation accounts, each beginning with
a temporal clause and each introducing a new thread in the text. The first intro­
duces the creation of the cosmos (Gen 1:1), the second the creation of Paradise
(»Eden«) Garden (Gen 2:4b), and the third the creation of humankind only (Gen
S:lb).22 The Holiness preamble of Gen 1 has the others in view, and is serving as
an anticipatory prologue to them, as well as preparing the way to read later holi­
ness texts related to Sabbath-observance, dietary food laws, and laws related to
ancient Israel's festivals.23 Perhaps another word is in order about this author's
20 On the priestly scribal culture of ancient Israel, see Mark S. Smith, The Priestly Vision of Gen­
esis 1 (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2010), 121-129. Smith has also observed astutely that
the Levitical priests in the post-exilic period were portrayed as those who write, read, and inter­
pret; Mark S. Smith, God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World,
FA T 57 (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 219f.
21 Bill T. Arnold, »Genesis 1 as Holiness Preamble,« in Let us Go up to Zion: Essays in Honour of
H.G.M. Williamson on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Iain Provan and Mark J. Boda,
VTSup 153 (Leiden: Brill, 2012): 331-343.
22 And each begins with a subordinate, temporal clause, as is characteristic of ancient Mesopo­
tamian creation accounts; Arnold, Genesis, 35.
23 With Mark Smith, I see Gen 1 as »a sort of implicit priestly >commentary< on the so-called >sec­
ond< creation account« of Gen 2; Smith, The Priestly Vision, 118, and esp. 127-129, where he ex­
tends this to other portions of the Pentateuch. My investigation suggests the author of Gen 1 was
490 - Bill T. Arnold DE GRUYTER
attitude and stance vis-a-vis his sources. The Holiness preamble views Gen 2-3 as
authoritative to the point of being unassailable. I do not believe the chapter was
written to replace or supplant Gen 2-3, but rather to nuance that text and prepare
the reader to frame it properly.24 H views Gen 2 as inadequate as the only creation
account for ancient Israel, and so he counterbalances it in several important
ways, most especially, as I have tried to show, with regard to Sabbath-observance,
food laws, and sacred festivals. But as I will propose here, this chapter was likely
an »Original composition« (to use Kaufman's category) in order to prepare not
only for Gen 2, but for the rest of the Eden Narrative, the Scroll of Adam's Descen­
dants (Gen 5), the Flood Narrative (Gen 6:9-9:29), and beyond.
2.2 P's originary creation account and record of Adam's descendants
(Genesis 5:1-32)
The »Scroll of Adam's Descendants« (Gen 5:1-32) is P's version of the genealogy
of Cain (Gen 4:1,17-22), which is likely original to Israel's epic literature, other­
wise identified as the Yahwist, or JE.25 Both begin with Adam, both have ten
names, both contain the names of Enoch and Lamech, and both highlight Enoch
for special comment.26 The priestly version here is a linear genealogy through
as much concerned with nuancing and preparing for Gen 5; Exod 31:12-17; 35:2-3; Lev 11; Lev 23,
and many o ther texts as he was with compleme nting Gen 2-3. In Gen 1, the Holiness author has
writte n a constitutive preamble to prepare the re ader for the rest o f his agenda in the Pentateuch.
24 On the possibility that Gen 1 was designed to »replace« the older non-P account, see Carr,
Reading the Fractures, 62-68 and 317.
25 Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 308f. For the interpretive proble ms and a defe nse of the view that
the two independent versions are based on a common Vorlage, see Gertz, »Primeval History«:
118-124; see also Gertz, »Genesis 5«: 81-90.
26 The genealogy of Cain (4:17-22) is a septet, listing a group of seven generations linearly,
segmenting at the seventh generation, Lamech (4:19-24). For literary comparisons with P's ge­
nealogy in Gen 5, see Herbert Chanan Brichto, The Names of God: Poetic Readings in Biblical
Beginnings (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 308-312. For slightly different counting of
the names and assessment o f the genealogies, see Carr, Reading the Fractures, 68-73. Observing
a number of the same features in Gen 5 that 1 will emphasize here, Carr concludes the text was
originally a priestly creation-to -flo od strand that was older than P's Grundschrift, being a preex·
isling document used by P to bridge creation to the flood (Carr, Reading the Fractures, 71-73). He
corre ctly, in my view, observes that Gen 5 diverges fro m P's usual depende nce upon non-P, and
concludes that the priestly Grundschrift incorporated an older text at Gen 5, re lying here on a
preexistent genealogy that was older than the P narrative strand in which it now stands. I argue
instead that Gen 5 is the be ginning o f P proper, and what Carr has observed as P's reliance on
non-P is in re ality H's interaction and re liance on both P and JE. Gen 1 was written to nuance and
DE GRUYTER The Holiness Redaction of the Primeval History -- 491
ten generations from Adam to Noah, in which a single son is named for each
descendant, while only mentioning in passing the »other sons and daughters« of
each. The genealogy then segments at the tenth generation to introduce the three
sons of Noah by n� (5:32).27 The structuring role of genealogies in the book
of Genesis might seem more natural for the ancestral narratives, leading Claus
Westermann to suggest that the use of genealogies in the Primeval History was
continued from their use in Gen 12-50 in order to impose formal literary structure
upon otherwise disparate materials. 28 I suggest instead that the genealogy of Gen
5 is the originary or constitutive genealogy of the book, inspiring the Holiness
redactor to adapt and use the concept metaphorically, or more precisely, liter­
arily, to construct a genealogical outline for the book of Genesis. 29
At Gen 5:1, we arrive at the key to the compositional history of Gen 1-11. Gen 5
itself is devoid of the themes, phraseology, and stylistic characteristics of Gen 1.
The exception to this statement is its introduction, or more precisely, vv. lb 2. It -
seems perfectly obvious that Gen 1 and Gen 5:lb-2 are dependent upon each other
in some way, based on numerous lexical links (Ni:J, »Create«; OiN, »humankind«;
i1iv.V, »make«; mr.i;, »likeness«; i1:Jj?J1 i:JT, »male and female«; li:J, »bless«), and
the use of subordinate, temporal clauses to begin each text (»when God began to
prepare for Gen 5, just as it also nuanced and prepared for Gen 2-4, and moreover, it was written
under the influence of the older Gen 5:1-3.
27 This system of genealogies in Genesis therefore traces a line of descent for all o f humanity
through twenty-five generations from Adam to the children of Jacob, the ancestor of the Israelite
clans and families, providing a template that could be easily broken apart, adapted, and re­
used to create a literary framework or skeleton for the entire book; Frank Criisemann, »Human
Solidarity and Ethnic Identity: Israel's Se lf-De finition in the Genealogical System of Genesis,« in
Ethnicity and the Bible, ed. Mark G. Brett, Biblical interpretation series 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1996):
57-76, esp. 58-60; cf. also Richard S. Hess, »The Genealogies of Genesis 1-11 and Comparative
Literature ,« Bib 70 (1989): 241-254, esp. 242-244; repr. in Richard S. Hess and David T. Tsumura,
ed., I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic
Approaches to Genesis 1-11, SBTS 4 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 58-72, esp. 59-62.
28 Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis: Augs­
burg, 1984), Bf.
29 In addition, the adaptive use o f genealogy to introduce H's creation account, »When God
began to create [ ... ]« (l:la, and perhaps at 2:4a), essentially re placed the role of theogonies in
ancient Near Eastern accounts of creaion, t by announcing God's creation of the universe rather
than announcing divine birthing, parenting, and the successive births of sky-god and earth-god,
fresh-water god and salt-water god, e tc.; Frank Moore Cross, »The >Olden Gods< in Ancient Near
Eastern Creation Myths and in Israe l,« in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient
Israel, ed. Frank Moore Cross (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998): 73-83; and see
Arnold, Genesis, 45-47.
492 - Bill T. Arnold DE GRUYTER
create [ ... ]« and »When God created [ ... ]«).30 In one approach to explain the rela­
tionship between the two texts, Gen 5:1b-2 is taken as formal Wiederaufnahme
(repetitive resumption), written specifically in order to resume the themes of
1:26-28 after the interruption of JE material in Gen 2-4.31 This, however, is not
typically the way repetitive resumption is used, and vv. lb-2 appear to be just as
intimately connected with the rest of Gen 5 as with Gen 1. Another approach the­
orizes that vv. lb-2 were not originally part of Gen 5, but were a later insertion
added when the P Grundschrift enveloped and incorporated an even older »Scroll
of Adam's Descendants« as a way of using the genealogy as a bridge from creation
to the flood story.32 By this interpretation, both Gen 1 and Gen 5:1b-2 are original
P, and the genealogy of Gen 5 is an older text.
These attempts to explain the way Gen 1 and Gen 5:1b-2 relate to each other
have missed the significance, in my view, of 5:la, which I believe offers the key
to the compositional history of Gen 1-11. The opening phrase, 01� m?m i!:JO m,
»This is the written record of the generations of Adam«, is unique in the book of
Genesis. This to/•dot clause is distinct compared to its other ten occurrences as a
structuring device for the book of Genesis due to the addition of the word seper,
»list, document, scroll«.33 Unlike the other occurrences of to/•dot in Genesis,
which appear to be derivative and redactional, I take this use as originally refer­
ring to an actual written text, or list, of the descendants of Adam, and therefore
illustrating the most natural use of to/•dot, as well as the most ancient title for
such genealogies. It would seem natural that to/•dot had a long history of oral use
in early Semitic cultures of the southern Levant, prior to being written for perma­
nent record in a seper, such as we have here. And this primary or originary use
of tol•dot is supported by the birth of Seth in vv. 3-5. The distinctive genealogical
style contains three uses of the verbal root yld in the causative Hiphil (»became
the father of«, or simply »had«; twice as the past narrative wayyoled, and once as
the infinitive h6lfd6), which gave rise to the noun t6/•dot, »line of descendants«.
This is likely the origin of the noun, and illustrates its primary use at the head
of kinship genealogies, all of which suggests Gen 5:1a is the original use of the
30 Jn a purely synchronic analysis, we might call this a »first order« intertextuality, in which sig­
nifiers in the text drive us to read these two texts together; Kirsten Nielsen, »intertextuality and
the Hebrew Bible,« in Congress Volume, Oslo 1998, ed. Andre Lemaire and Magne S<Eb0, VTSup
80 (Leiden: Brill, 2000): 17-31, esp. 18f.
31 Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, 280; Christoph Levin, Der Jahwist, FRLANT
157 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 100.
32 Carr, Reading the Fractures, 71f.
3 3 DCH 6:189-193 and HALOT: 766f. On the use of the structuring device generally, see Arnold,
Genesis, 4-7.
DE GRUYTER The Holiness Redaction of the Primeval H istory - 493
term. I propose here that its originary use in 5:1a became the inspiration for its
metaphorical (even theological) use to introduce creation in 2:4a. The use of the
singular here (»this is the written record [ ... ]«) inspired the plural at 2:4a (»these
are the generation�the heavens and the earth [ ... ]«). And by similar extension
and clever adaptation of the term, the redactor of Genesis has provided struc­
ture for the book as a whole (6:9a; lO:la; ll:lOa; 11:27a; 25:12a; 25:19a; 36:1a; and
37:2a).34 It seems likely that the other occurrences of tol'dot in Genesis are derived
from its use at 5:la, and were used by Holiness authors/redactors to periodize pri­
meval times, first from creation and Eden narratives to the flood, and then from
the flood to Abram.35 In nuce, I accept as the most economical theory, the one
that answers more questions than it raises, the view that Gen 5 was the beginning
of the Priestly Grundschrift, and that it was deemed authoritative and therefore
unassailable by the later Holiness authors and redactors. It served as the inspi­
ration for a new composition in Gen 1, and provided the genealogical framework
for Genesis as a whole.
2.3 The Holiness Redaction of the Flood Narrative (Genesis 6:9-9:29)
The account of the great flood is the clearest and best example of the compos­
ite nature of the book of Genesis.36 The present text of the Flood Narrative con­
tains a certain unity, which nevertheless sits uncomfortably in places because of
the forced nature of that unity. In other words, the diverse origins of the strands
here tied together are clearly discernable while a distinct unity has nevertheless
been imposed upon them. The scholarship has long been divided on which of
the strands was primary and which was dependent upon the other. I have argued
elsewhere for two separate flood accounts, P and non-P, which were developed
independently of each other, and which were both subsequently drawn upon
34 A duplicate for Esau occurs at 36:9a, yielding a total of eleven uses, counting 2:4a and S:la.
A few of these also stand at the head of an actual genealogy, illustrating again the most natural
meaning of the term.
35 A similar conclusion was drawn by Frank Moore Cross, although he did not consider the Holi­
ness redaction I am proposing here; Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays
in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 301f.
3 6 While the beginning of the Flood Narrative is itself in some dispute, I take the t61'd6t clause
of 6:9 as its beginning. Israel's old epical history (Eden narrative, Cain and Abel, the flood, etc.)
included its own introduction to, and explanation of the flood account (6:1-8), which appears to
have been cut away from the flood narrative proper by the final Holiness editor in order to intro·
duce the flood formally by the t61'd6t clause of 6:9. See Arnold, Genesis, 89-91.
494 - Bill T. Arnold DE GRUYTER
and developed thoroughly by a Holiness redactor.37 At times, the redactor wrote
freehand whole stretches of new material, expanding P and non-P, but at other
times correcting and nuancing the older accounts with interpolations. A signif­
icant difference in this approach is that P bears little resemblance to the tradi­
tional source-critical reconstruction, but consisted of scarcely fourteen verses of
the current text. Once the distinctive voice of H is isolated in the Flood Narra­
tive, and the JE strand is also identified, what is left of P is little more than an
expanded genealogical note on Noah, with a few narrative details on the flood
itself.38
Without repeating the details of that reconstruction here, I note simply that
the Holiness redactor was motivated (1) by a desire to preserve the authorita­
tive sources serving as Vorlagen for the Flood Narrative, and (2) by the desire to
prepare the reader for other materials in the Pentateuch central to the Holiness
agenda, especially the themes of holiness and dietary purity. The Holiness redac­
tor's expansions and interpolations were devoted to consolidating the message of
p and non-P, while at times providing new materials creating a trajectory into the
rest of the Pentateuch. In this way, we can easily identify H's redactional strate­
gies in the Flood Narrative as the same techniques used by authors of the Temple
Scroll - that of conflation, of both fine and gross varieties.
2.4 P's Ta ble of Nations (Genesis 10)
Like the flood account, the Table of Nations is an example of conflation of P
and non-P materials, although here with almost no redactional intrusions. The
consensus we have highlighted here regarding the content of the Priestly Grund­
schrift holds true for this text as well, identifying the following as the old priestly
text, with a high degree of systematization: 10:1-7,20,22-23,31-32.39 In a slightly
different fashion from the Flood Narrative, the Table of Nations has adapted the
JE version (vv. 8-19,21,24-30), using P's family history as a kind of template to
create a genuine history of nations. 40 Such an elaborate conflation was done by a
�. Arnold, »The Holiness Redaction of the Flood Narrative (Genesis 6:9-9:29),« in Win-.
Greengus, ed. Bill T.
dows to the Ancient World of the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor ofSamuel
s, 2014): 13-40.
Arnold, Nancy L. Erickson and John H . Walton (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbraun
reconstruc tion are 7:6-7; 7:11; 8:1-2a; 8:3b-5; 8:13-14; 8:18-19;
38 The verses attributed to P in this
9:28-29; for details, see Arnold, »Flood Narrative «: 39f.
39 Gertz, »Primeval History«: 113.
40 Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 498-503.
DE GRUYTER The Holiness Redaction of the Primeval H istory - 495
third party, rather than an original scribe of P or non-P, and once again, a key to
that compositional history of the text presents itself in the opening tol•dot clause
that ties it all together (lO:la).
Elsewhere in Ge�is to this point, the teWdot clause is followed by a tempo­
ral clause (2:4b and S:lb) or a descriptive nominal clause (»Noah was a righteous
man [ ... ]«; 6:9). Here, however, we encounter a past narrative verbal clause intro­
ducing the children born to Noah's three sons: »children were born to them after
the flood« (lO:lb). Instead of a narrative expansion, as in the case of the flood
story, the tol•dot clause here introduces a genealogical expansion. And I believe
the clause was introduced by the redactor to add uniformity to the chapter, as
we have seen elsewhere in the Primeval History. The reason for this assumption
is first, because of the awkward and unexpected way in which the clause intro­
duces a narrative verbal clause, and second, because the order of the names in
the clause - Shem, Ham, and Japheth - is not the one followed in P's sequence
in the chapter, which is Japhet (v. 2), Ham (v. 6), and Shem (v. 21). Presumably,
P's original sequence preferred to conclude with Shem in order to prepare for the
genealogical line with him in the next unit (11:10-26).41
Moreover, the particulars of the to/•dot clause at lO:la have given rise to two
possibilities for emendation to explain how it functions to introduce the con­
flated presentation of P and non-P materials. The first possibility relates to the
past narrative 117��1 (niphal, with »sons« as the subject), supported by the Septu­
agint and the versions, but taken in the Samaritan Pentateuch as 11'?1'1, assuming
instead hiphil and taking Shem, Ham, and Japheth as the subjects: »And they
begat for themselves sons after the flood.«42 This might explain lO:lb as following
immediately after 9:19, but it provides little help interpreting the nuances of v. la.
On the other hand, a suggestion by Karl Budde in 1910 proposes that the words 'JJ.
m, »the sons of Noah«, were originally followed by a second occurrence of those
words that later dropped due to parablepsis.43 If correct, this restores the original
heading to P's table of nations in v. lb: »The sons of Noah were Shem, Ham, and
Japheth: and sons were born to them after the flood.« This explanation also leaves
v. la as a newer inser'tion introducing, in this reconstruction, the newly conflated
P and non-P lists in a Table of Nations, fitted into the book's overall genealog-
41 The birth order - Shem, Ham, and Japheth - appears to have been used elsewhere by all
priestly texts, both original P and H supplements (5:32; 6:10; 7:13; 9:18).
42 Abraham Tai, Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Genesis, BHQ l (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
2015), 102*f.
43 Karl Budde, »Eine i.ibersehene Textherstellung, « ZAW 30 (1910): 277-280, and followed by
Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 497 and 503f.
496 - Bill T. Arnold DE GRUYTER
ical structure by a Holiness redactor: »These are the generations of the sons of
Noah.«
2.5 P's genealogy of Shem (Genesis 11:10-26)44
This genealogy is genetically related to Gen 5. The distinctive genealogical style
introduced there is continued only in Shem's genealogy (vv. 10-26), as follows:
»When A had lived x-years, he became the father of B; and A lived after the birth
of B y-years, and had other sons and daughters.«45 One might easily conclude
that together these two texts were once part of a very ancient genealogical »docu­
ment« (seper, see 5:1). 46 In what I take to be originally P's practice of highlighting
especially noteworthy ancestors by placing them in the tenth position in the list,
Shem's descendants culminated in the tenth generation at the segmented list of
Terah's sons: Abram, Nabor, and Haran. 47 In this way, P's genealogy of Shem has
been used to transition from human history generally to Israel's ancestors in par­
ticular. Taking the genealogies of the old Priestly Grundschrift together, Abram is
44 The old »Tower of Babel« account (Gen 11:1-9), coming from Israel's national epic material,
whether represented by the sigla J or JE, has been placed as the conclusion to the Table of Na­
tions, and therefore given significant canonical prominence. Source critics have assumed that P
used the narrative to explain why Israel was separate from the nations, yet also still part of the
international community. The Tower of Babel showed what P's Table of Nations only described.
See Jack M. Sasson, »The >Tower of Babel< as a Clue to the Redactional Structuring of the Prime­
val History (Genesis 1:1-11:9),« in The Bible World: Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon, ed. Gary
Rendsburg, Ruth Adler, Milton Arfa and Nathan H. Winter (New York: KTAV/Institute of Hebrew
Culture and Education of New York University, 1980): 211-219, esp. 213; repr. in Richard S. Hess
and David T. Tsumura, ed., I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Lit­
erary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11, SBTS 4 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994),
448-457, esp. 450; John T. Strong, »Shattering the Image of God: A Response to Theodore Hie­
bert's Interpretation of the Story of the Tower of Babel,« JBL 127 (2008): 625-634, esp. 627f. How­
ever, I maintain that the adoption and re-use of the epic material here, including certain lexical
markers linking Gen l to Gen 11:1-9, are not due to P's redaction but reveal instead the hand of
the Holiness redactor in the final form of the primeval history.
45 In Gen 5, this is followed by another sentence: »Thus all the days of A were z-years; and he
died.«
46 As we have seen, this priestly »document« (the first part of the Grundschrift, in my view) was
used by Holiness authors and redactors, combined with non-P materials, to periodize primeval
times, first from creation and Eden narratives to the flood, and then from the flood to Abram.
47 So Seth's genealogy highlights Noah in the tenth position (5:1-32), while Cain's genealogy,
coming as it does from the epic traditions of JE, segmented at the seventh generation, Lamech
(4:19-24).
DE GRUYTER The Holiness Redaction of the Primeval History - 497
counted as the tenth generation since Shem, and the twentieth since Adam.48 Or
to put this another way, Noah was the tenth generation of the human family, and
now here, Abram is the tenth from Noah. In P's distinctive style, Seth linked Adam
to Noah (Gen 5), the-father of a new post-flood humanity, and then linked Noah
through Shem to Abram, the father of the people of God. The Holiness redactor
has used the whole list, adding only the heading, »These are the generations of
Shem« (ll:lOa).
3 Conclusions
This survey of the priestly materials in the Primeval History suggests the follow­
ing tentative conclusions regarding its composition history. First, the final form
of Gen 1-11 appears to have been composed using similar redactional strategies
evident in the Temple Scroll, with minor variations. In particular, I find Kaufman's
categories of original composition, gross conflation, and extended quotation (his
categories 1, 4, and 6) to be most helpful in describing the scribal practices at
work in the composition of Gen 1-11, as described in what follows.
Second, the following texts may be attributed to Holiness authors and/or
redactors, drawing largely upon and adapting materials from the P Grundschrift,
and enveloping Israel's epic traditions (JE) with little modification.
(a) The first account of creation (Gen 1:1-2:3) as an original composition. Written
as a Holiness preamble, it was intended to nuance and prepare for both the
epic traditions (J/JE) and priestly materials (P Grundschrift). Anticipating
especially the Holiness themes of Lev 17-26, this chapter incorporates themes
and phraseology from priestly precursors, which it reveres as authoritative,
and yet Gen 1 is more than mere paraphrastic conflation.
(b) The written document of Adam's descendants (Gen 5) serves as P's original
creation account, and has been incorporated entirely by the Holiness redac­
tor(s) as an extended quotation with a single modification. In this case, I have
suggested P's superscription (v. la) and creation accounts (vv. lb-2) served as
H's inspiration for Gen 1 and the structure for the book as a whole (i.e., by
means of H's adaptation of the tol•dot clause elsewhere in the book). We may
also have a single H insertion at v. 29.
(c) The flood account as it now stands (Gen 6:9-9:29) is an example of gross
conflation, in which Holiness scribes have combined older JE and P accounts
48 Jack M. Sasson, »A Genealogical >Convention< in Biblical Chronology?,« ZAW 90 (1978):
171-185, esp. 176f.
 DE GRUYTER
498 - Bill T. Arnold
ction, and
in a relatively straightforward manner, adding the to/•dot introdu
s scribes respecte d both the
several insertions throughout. While the Holines
made certain
JE and p flood accounts as unassailable and authoritative, they
the rest of the
insertions important to them for the sake of properly reading
Lev 17-26. In particu lar, H insertions in
Pentateuch, especially anticipating
7:8-10; 7:13-16 ; 7:17-24; 8:15-
the flood account are as follows: 6:9-10; 6:11-22;
17; 9:1-7; 9:8-17.49
conflation, in
(d) The Table of Nations (Gen 10) is another example of gross
combin ed JE and P accounts, adding only the
which Holiness scribes have
to/•dot clause at lO:la.
(e) The genealogy of Shem (Gen 11:10-26), which again is an extended quotation
from P's account, adapted by H only in the to/•dot clause at ll:lOa.
Our investigation has implications for the larger research questions related to
the nature and extent of P. With regard to its nature, I am of the opinion that
the p Grundschrift was indeed a separate and independent source, but very
much more attenuated than we previously imagined. Progress on this question
has been impaired, I propose, because we have failed to discern the redactional
activity of the Holiness scribes who gave us the final form of the text, perhaps of
the entire Pentateuch. The H contributions just summarized, on the other hand,
were complex layers of compositions, conflations, and quotations in the process
of framing and composing the text we have before us. What then remains of the
originary p in the Primeval History? It consisted of scarcely more than genealogi­
cal lists, with notations here and there, some of which became the inspiration for
later Holiness scribes: (a) the genealogy of Adam (Gen 5 [minus v. 29]), consisting
of a superscription (v. la), a brief introductory creation account (vv. lb-2), and the
genealogy proper (vv. 3-28,30-32); (b) a flood account (Gen 7:6-7,11; 8:1-2a,3b-
5,13-14,18-19; 9:28-29); (c) a Table of Nations (Gen lO:lb-7,20,22-23,31-32), based
on the descendants of Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and (d) an
elaboration of the genealogy of Shem (Gen ll:lOb-26), culminating in the intro­
duction of Abram, Nahor, and Haran. In addition to this conclusion on the nature
of p this investigation addresses the question of the extent of P, since I believe it
ori�inally began with a superscription (S:la) introducing a temporal clause like
�Gen 8:1-5 consists of P (8:1-2a and 3b-5) enveloping a J fragment (8:2b-3a) is an ad­
mittedly contorted theory, for example, but one that seems entirely likely; cf. Carr, Reading the
Fractures, 53. It also supports the idea of a redactor using, in this case, fine conflation to produce
the text. I believe these data are best explained by the theory of an H redactor relying on two
independent Vorlagen - priestly and epical in nature. See Arnold, »Flood Narrative«: 25f.
DE GRUYTER The Holiness Redaction of the Primeval History 499
-
other ancient Near Eastern creation accounts, rather than beginning at Gen 1.50
The question of where P Grundschrift terminated is a topic for further research.51
Abstract: The author(s) of the Temple Scroll used a variety of editorial techniques,
including composition, conflation (of several varieties), and extended citation,
as shown by Stephen A. Kaufman. These compositional techniques represent a
heuristic parallel to the composition of the Pentateuch as envisioned by contem­
porary scholarship. This paper explores the value of these redactional strategies
for our reconstruction of the composition of Genesis 1-11, assuming a Holiness
redactor using P and non-P sources.
Zusammenfassung: Stephen A. Kaufmann hat gezeigt, dass die Autoren der
Tempelrolle eine Vielzahl editorischer Techniken angewendet haben wie Kom­
position, Zusammenfiihrung (unterschiedlicher Varianten) und ausgedehnte
Zitation. Diese Techniken stellen eine heuristische Parallele zu der Komposition
des Pentateuch dar, wie sie die zeitgentissische Forschung annimmt. Der Artikel
50 So, the Atra-hasis epic, Enuma Elish, Gen l:la, and 2:4b all begin with opening temporal
clauses introducing the creation of the cosmos; Arnold, »Genesis l«: esp. 343.
51 Another question for future research in light of these conclusions is the possibility that each
of the three components of the Primeval History (P, non-P, and the H redaction) exhibits dif­
ferent levels of n
i terest in addressing what has been called »the Mesopotamian problem«. In
other words, perhaps JE uses specific strategies for addressing Babylonian thought (appropri·
ation, mimicry, inversion, as suggested by Ronald Hendel, »Genesis 1-11 and Its Mesopotamian
Problem,« in Cultural Borrowings and Ethnic Appropriations in Antiquity, ed. Erich S. Gruen, OeO
8 [Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2005): 23-36), whereas the P Grundschrift as identified here
shows little awareness or interest in such ideological tensions. See also Eckart Frahm, »Coun­
ter-texts, Commentaries, and Adaptations: Politically Motivated Responses to the Babylonian
Epic of Creation in Mesopotamia, the Biblical World, and Elsewhere,« Orient: Report of the So­
ciety for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 45 (2010): 3-33. An examination of the H redaction as
reconstructed here might explore the degree to which H also addresses those tensions. See, for
example, Kent Sparks, »Eniima Elish and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism,«
]BL 126 (2007): 625-648, although much of what Sparks takes as P is here assigned to H. A relat­
ed research question might explore whether perhaps a pre-exilic H school was responsible for
changing the Canaanite-Israelite calendar, which was lunisolar and agricultural with the new
year in the fall, to the Sabbath Calendar based on a 364-day cycle and a septenary Sabbath, with
the new year in the spring. See Ron H. Feldman, »The 364-Day >Qumran< Calendar and the Bib­
lical Seventh-Day Sabbath: A Hypothesis Suggesting Their Simultaneous Institutionalization by
Nehemiah,« Hen 31 (2009): 342-365; and Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary, AB 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 27f. On the calendars them­
selves, see Jeffrey L. Cooley, Poetic Astronomy in the Ancient Near East: The Reflexes of Celestia/
Science in Ancient Mesopotamian, Ugaritic, and Israelite Narrative, HACL 5 (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2013), 263-271 and 277-287.
 DE GRUYTER
500 - Bill T. Arnold
uberprilft diese Annahme am Beispiel der Komposition von G� n 1-11 unter der
Annahme eines Heiligkeits-Redaktors, der Quellen von P und Nicht-P heranzog.
Resume: Tel que l'a montre A. Kaufman, l'auteur ou les a� t� urs du rouleau du
.
.
temple fait/font usage d'une grande variete de techmques ed1tonal�s, t�lles que
la composition, la fusion (de plusieurs variantes), et de l�n�ues citations. Ces
techniques de composition representent un parallele heunstique pour la com­
position du Pentateuque telle qu'elle est envisagee par la reche�che actuelle. Cet
article explore cette these en prenant comme exemple la formation de Gn 1-11, en
presupposant un rectacteur de l'ecole de Saintete utilisant des sources P et non-P.
DE GRUYTER ZAW 2017; 129 (4): 501-521
Erhard Blum a n d Kristin Weingart*
The Joseph Story:
Diaspora Novella or North-Israelite
Narrative?
https://doi. o rg/10 .1515 /zaw-2017·400 3
»Very deep is the well of the past. Should we not call it bottomless?«1 Given the
long-lasting and diverse scholarly debate on the date of the Joseph Story, Thomas
Mann's famous introduction of his Joseph tetralogy seems quite applicable. The
story has been dated to almost every period in the history of ancient Israel - from
the Solomonic up to the Hellenistic or even Roman era. 2 While there seems to
be a growing trend at least within German-speaking scholarship to date it to the
Persian period (a view which will be challenged in this paper), this is far from
being the general consensus. This situation calls for a reevaluation of the issue as
well as the criteria for dating this - in many respects unique - biblical narrative.
1 Thomas Mann, Josef und seine Briider: Der erste Roman: Die Geschichten faakobs (Berlin:
S. Fischer, 1933): »Tief ist der Brunnen der Vergangenheit. Sollte man ihn nicht unergriindlich
nennen?«. The translation follows Thomas Mann, Joseph and his Brothers, trans. John E. Woods
(New York et al.: A. Knopf, 2005).
2 For an overview of the wide range of proposed dates see Jan Alberto Soggin, »Dating the Jo­
seph Story and other Remarks,« in Joseph: Bibel und Literatur, Symposion Helsinki/Lahti 1999,
ed. Friedemann W. Golka and Wolfgang Weill, Oldenburgische Beitrage zu jiidischen Studien 6
(Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und lnformationssystem der Universitat Oldenburg, 2000): 13-24. Ger­
hard von Rad located the historical and intellectual background of the Joseph Story in the early
monarchic period (»Josephsgeschichte und altere Chokmah,« in Congress Volume. Copenhagen
1953, SVT 1 [Leiden: Brill, 1953]: 120-127). An origin in the Roman period was proposed by Bernd
J. Diebner, »Le roman de Joseph, ou Israel en Egypte: Un midrash post-exilique de la Tora,« in
Le livre de traverse: De l'exegese biblique ii l'anthropologie, ed. Olivier Abel and Fran�oise Smyth
(Paris: Ed. du Cerf, 1992): 55-71.
Article Note: This article is based on a paper given by the authors at the research colloquium
»Understanding, Interpreting and Dating the Patriarchal Stories: Diverse Methodological
Approaches«, Tel Aviv University, May 2015.
*Kontakt: Erhard Blum, Eberhard Karls Un iversitat TUbingen, Germany,
erhard.blum@uni-tuebingen.de;
Kristin Weingart, Eberhard Karls U niversitat TUbingen, Germany,
kristin.weingart@uni-tuebingen.de