Konrad Schmid, “Genesis in the Pentateuch,” in: Craig A. Evans et al. (ed.

), The Book of

Genesis. Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, VTSup 152, Leiden: Brill, 2012, 27–

50.

Genesis in the Pentateuch

Konrad Schmid (Zürich)

I. Introduction

In the heyday of the Documentary Hypothesis it was a common assumption that most texts in

Genesis were to be interpreted as elements of narrative threads that extended beyond the book

of Genesis and at least had a pentateuchal or hexateuchal scope (J, E, and P). To a certain

degree, exegesis of the book of Genesis was therefore tantamount to exegesis of the book of

Genesis in the Pentateuch or Hexateuch. The Theologische Realenzyklopädie, one of the

major lexica in the German-speaking realm, has for example no entry for “Genesis” but only

for the “Pentateuch” and its alleged sources. At the same time, it was also recognized that the

material—oral or written—which was processed and reworked by the authors of the sources

J, E, and P originated within a more modest narrative perspective that was limited to the

single stories or story cycles, a view emphasized especially by Julius Wellhausen, Hermann

Gunkel, Kurt Galling, and Martin Noth: 1 J and E were not authors, but collectors. 2 Gunkel

1
Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (3d

ed.; Berlin: Reimer 1899); Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (6th ed.; HKAT I/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

1964; repr. from the 3d ed., (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910); Kurt Galling, Die

Erwählungstraditionen Israels. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1928; Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions

1
even went a step further: “‘J’ and ‘E’ are not individual writers, but schools of narrators.”3

But with the successful reception of Gerhard von Rad’s 1938 hypothesis of a traditional

matrix now accessible through the “historical creeds” like Deut 26:5–9, which was assumed

to have also been the intellectual background of the older oral material, biblical scholarship

began to lose sight of the view taken by Wellhausen, Gunkel, Galling, and Noth. In addition,

Gerhard von Rad saw J and E as “theologians,” rather than the collectors proposed by

Hermann Gunkel, and von Rad’s view had an enormous impact on subsequent scholarship. 4

His position dominated Pentateuchal research in the mid-twentieth century, and it was also

predominately his view of the Documentary Hypothesis that was received in the English-

speaking world.

The mid-seventies of the last century provided a caesura: scholars like Rolf Rendtorff 5

and Erhard Blum drew attention to the pre-pentateuchal orientations of the texts now

(trans. with an Introduction by B. W. Anderson; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981), 2; trans. of

Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (2d ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948).

2
See also Ron Hendel, “Book of Genesis,” in ABD 2:933–41.
3
Genesis, LXXXV (English translation mine, original text: “‘J’ und ‘E’ sind also nicht Einzelschriftsteller,

sondern Erzählerschulen.”).
4
Gerhard von Rad, “Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuchs,” in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten

Testament (TB 8; Munich: Kaiser, 1958), 9–86; trans. as “The Form Critical Problem of the Hexateuch” in The

Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E. W. Trueman Dickens; London: SCM Press, 1984), 1–78.
5
Rolf Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW 147; Berlin: de Gruyter,

1977). See also idem, “Der ‘Jahwist’ als Theologe? Zum Dilemma der Pentateuchkritik,” in Congress Volume

Edinburgh 1974 (ed G. W. Anderson et al; VTSup 28; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 158–66; trans. as “The ‘Yahwist’ as

Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism,” JSOT 3 (1977): 2–10, which is a direct conversation with

von Rad’s notion of J as “theologian.”

2
contained within the book of Genesis. 6 However, Blum, for example, still holds that the

concept of the pentateuchal history is much older than its first literary formations, thereby

seeming to overcome Gerhard von Rad’s conception on a literary, but not on a tradition-

historical level. 7

Pentateuchal scholarship has changed dramatically in the last three decades, at least

when seen in a global perspective. The confidence with which earlier assumptions about the

formation of the Pentateuch no longer exists, a situation that might be lamented but that also

opens up new—at least in the view of some scholars—apparently more adequate paths to

understand its composition. 8 One of the main results of the new situation is that neither

6
For a more detailed treatment of these processes, see Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s

Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (Siphrut 3; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 7–16, 334–47; idem, “Has

European Pentateuchal Scholarship Abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis? Some Reminders on Its History

and Remarks on Its Current Status,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. T.

Dozeman, K. Schmid, B. Schwartz; FAT, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming).

7
Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984)

360–61; David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville:

Westminster John Knox, 1996), 217–18.

8
See e.g. Georg Fischer, “Zur Lage der Pentateuchforschung,” ZAW 115 (2003), 608–16; Thomas Römer,

“Hauptprobleme der gegenwärtigen Pentateuchforschung,” TZ 60 (2004), 289-307; idem, “La formation du

Pentateuque: histoire de la recherche,” in Introduction à l'Ancien Testament (MdB 49; ed. T. Römer, J.-D.

Macchi, and C. Nihan; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2004), 67–84; Tom Dozeman and Konrad Schmid, eds., A

Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Scholarship (SBLSymS 34,

Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006); Eckart Otto, Das Gesetz des Mose (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche

Buchgesellschaft, 2007); idem, “Kritik der Pentateuchkomposition: Eine Diskussion neuerer Entwürfe,” in Die

Tora: Studien zum Pentateuch: Gesammelte Aufsätze (ed. E. Otto; Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische

und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 9; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009), 143–67; idem, “Die Tora im Alten

Testament: Entstehung und Bedeutung für den Pentateuch,” BK 65 (2010): 19–23; Konrad Schmid,

Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008), 37–41. The

3
traditional nor newer theories can be taken as the accepted starting point of analysis; they are

rather at most possible ends. The following discussion therefore strives to base itself on

textual observations and not on a specific theory of the formation of the Pentateuch.

II. The Book of Genesis as a Prologue to the Moses Story

On the level of the final shape of the Pentateuch, 9 it is fairly obvious that the book of Genesis

serves as a kind of introduction or prologue to what follows in Exodus through

Deuteronomy. 10 It narrates the pre-history in terms of the global beginnings (Gen 1–11) and

the ancestry of Israel (Gen 12–50), whose story under the leadership of Moses until before

the entry in the promised land is then told in the four latter books of the Pentateuch. Exodus

begins and continues where Genesis ends; there is some connecting overlap between the

fringes of the two books.

The narrative from Exodus through Deuteronomy is bound together as a presentation

of the life of Moses, framed by the reports of his birth (Exod 2) and his death (Deut 34),

covering the 120 years of his life. In addition, Exodus through Deuteronomy offer all the law

current situation is evaluated very critically by Joel S. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT

68, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), who defends the basic tenets of the traditional Documentary Hypothesis

while specificly emphasizing the separateness of J and E before D.

9
For a differentiated view on this notion see Erhard Blum, “Gibt es die Endgestalt des Pentateuch?” in Congress

Volume Leuven 1989 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 43, Leiden: Brill, 1991), 46–57.
10
Matthias Millard, Die Genesis als Eröffnung der Tora: Kompositions- und auslegungsgeschichtliche

Annäherungen an das erste Buch Mose (WMANT 90; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001). See also John

Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville: Westminster John Knox,

1992) for his understanding of J.

4
collections of the Torah. The book of Genesis introduces this vita Mosis including the biblical

law corpora by contextualizing it in the framework of global history, world chronology, 11 and

the pre-history of Moses’ people.

Nevertheless, the function of Genesis in the Pentateuch is apparently not exhausted by

describing it as introduction to the Moses story. It is fairly obvious that Genesis introduces

and discusses themes and topics which do not have a counterpart later on in Exodus –

Deuteronomy and which cannot be described as merely introductory elements. This is for

example true for the cosmological and the anthropological arguments of the Primeval

History, although they also relate to some extent to the sanctuary and law texts in Exodus –

Deuteronomy. 12 On the theological level, it needs to be noted that the promises to the

ancestors in Genesis, concerning offspring and land possession, are fulfilled in the context of

11
For the details of the chronology, also regarding the different textual versions, see Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of

the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology (JSOTSup 66; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990).
12
This is for example discernible for the theological design of the sanctuary in Exod 25–40 (see especially the

interconnections between Gen 1:31; 2:1–3 and Exod 39:32, 43; 40:33) as a “creation within creation” (see

Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch [BZAW 189, Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990], 306–11; Peter

Weimar, “Sinai und Schöpfung: Komposition und Theologie der priesterlichen Sinaigeschichte,” RB 95 (1988):

337–85; Bernd Janowski, “Tempel und Schöpfung: Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen

Heiligtumskonzeption,” in Schöpfung und Neuschöpfung [ed. I. Baldermann et al.; Jahrbuch für Biblische

Theologie 5; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990], 37–69; repr. in Gottes Gegenwart in Israel:

Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993], 214–46) or the

logical interconnection between Gen 6:5, 8:21 and Deut 30:6, see Thomas Krüger, “Das menschliche Herz und

die Weisung Gottes: Elemente einer Diskussion über Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Tora-Rezeption im Alten

Testament,” in Das menschliche Herz und die Weisung Gottes: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Anthropologie

und Ethik (ATANT 96, Zürich: TVZ, 2009), 107–36; Konrad Schmid, “Die Unteilbarkeit der Weisheit:

Überlegungen zur sogenannten Paradieserzählung Gen 2f und ihrer theologischen Tendenz,” ZAW 114 (2002):

21–39.

5
Exodus – Deuteronomy only with respect to the offspring (see explicitly Exod 1:7 on the

literary level of P). The land promise remains unfulfilled until the conquest of Canaan

narrated in the book of Joshua (see Josh 21:43–45), and it becomes unfulfilled again after the

loss of the land described at the end of the book of Kings (see 2 Kgs 25:11–12, 21–22, 26). 13

The promise theme is probably the most prominent element in Genesis which has a

significance unto its own. 14 In this respect, Genesis counterbalances the Moses story in

Exodus – Deuteronomy, which completely takes place outside Israel’s land (except for the

tribes settling east of Jordan in Num 32): The narrative scenery of Gen 12–50 is mostly in

Canaan itself, and the promise of the land (Gen 12:7; 13:17; 15:18–21; 17:8; 28:13; 35:12

etc.) is a motif that compensates for Israel’s landless existence in Exodus – Deuteronomy

within the overall context of the Pentateuch. It is therefore no surprise that this Genesis theme

13
See on these texts Christoph Levin, “The Empty Land in Kings,” in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel

and its Historical Contexts, (ed. E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin; BZAW 404, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 61–89.
14
In terms of redaction history, the promises in Genesis have to be seen on very different levels: There are

probably quite ancient promises like the promise of a son in Gen 18:10, which belong to the substance of that

narrative. However, most of the promises obviously are of redactional origins to connect the stories and story

cycles in Gen 12–50 to a larger whole. Examples can be found in Gen 12:1–3; 13:14–17; 28:13–15; Gen 31:3,

13; Gen 46:2–4. Especially Rendtorff pointed to the fact that the promises usually are not integral parts of the

narratives they are found in. Still, they have to be differentiated in terms of their literary genesis. Some of the

earlier redactional promises might have originated after 722 B.C.E., compensating theologically for the fall of the

northern kingdom, meanwhile the bulk of them also presuppose the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah in 587

B.C.E., see Matthias Köckert, Vätergott und Väterverheißungen: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Albrecht Alt und

seinen Erben, (FRLANT 142, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988); idem, “Verheißung,” TRE 34:697–

704. Reinhard G. Kratz, The Composition of the Historical Books of the Old Testament (trans. J. Bowden;

London: T & T Clark, 2005), 262–65 opts decidedly for a still preexilic setting for Gen 12:1–3 and 28:13–15,

but after 722 B.C.E. Gen 12:1–3 and 28:13–15 bind the Abraham and the Jacob cycles together.

6
is taken up subsequently and regularly in the following books (Gen 50:24, Exod 32:12, 33:1,

Num 32:11; Deut 34:4, see on these texts below IV. 2.).

III. Diachronic Perspectives

Although the transition from Genesis to Exodus is quite smooth and narratively plausible, it

is apparent when viewed historically that neither was Genesis originally written in order to be

continued in Exodus nor did Exodus necessarily presuppose Genesis as its introduction. 15

Especially the Joseph story, which in the present shape of the Pentateuch serves as a bridge

between Genesis and Exodus, contains different aims than just telling how Israel came to

Egypt. 16 In Gen 50, after already having moved in toto to Egypt, Israel returns to Canaan

again, by means of only one verse (Gen 50:14), the people is transferred back to Egypt

again. 17 In addition, the image of the cruel and ignorant Pharaoh in Exod 1–15 is not well

prepared for by the Joseph story, which itself offers a completely different image of the

15
For Exod 2 as the original opening of the exodus story, see Eckart Otto, “Mose und das Gesetz: Die Mose-

Figur als Gegenentwurf Politischer Theologie zur neuassyrischen Königsideologie im 7. Jh. v. Chr.,” in Mose:

Ägypten und das Alte Testament (SBS 189; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000), 43–83; David M. Carr,

“Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story,” in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History

(ed. A. Wénin; BETL 155; Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 293–95; Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 122–44.
16
See Kratz, The Composition of the Historical Books of the Old Testament, 274–79; Konrad Schmid, “Die

Josephsgeschichte im Pentateuch,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten

Diskussion (ed. J. C. Gertz, K. Schmid, and M. Witte; BZAW 315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 83–118.
17
See on Gen 50:14 especially Jan Christian Gertz, “The Transition between the Books of Genesis and Exodus,”

in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (ed. T. B.

Dozeman and K. Schmid; SBLSymS 34; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 73–87, who attributes

this verse to P.

7
Egyptian king. Neither is Israel’s plight as forced laborers explained. The Israelites arrived as

peaceful peasants in Egypt, how did they become slaves? Finally, the chronological

adjustment between Genesis and Exodus is also spotty: According to Exod 12:40, Israel is

said to have served for 430 years in Egypt, on the other hand, according to Exod 2:1, Moses

seems to be Levi’s grandson on his maternal side, which allows hardly for more than 100

years between Genesis and Exodus.18 These differences in chronology also provide a hint that

the transition from Genesis to Exodus does not belong to the core narrative of either of those

books.

Despite some important introductory functions for the following books, Genesis also

shows, as we have already seen, clear signs of having existed as a stand-alone literary unit for

some portion of its literary growth. Genesis is a special book within the Pentateuch: it is the

most self-sufficient one. 19 This is also corroborated by a comparison of its closing words to

those of the other pentateuchal books, revealing the special status of Genesis within the

Pentateuch. Exodus – Deuteronomy seem to be construed redactionally as a four-book series

by their last verses, while the book of Genesis is not an integral part of that series (see the

formulations “before the eyes of all [the house of] Israel” in Exod 40:38; Deut 34:12 and

“these are the commandments . . . that YHWH commanded . . .) in Lev 27:34; Num 36:13,

which form an inclusio). 20

Consequently, it is not far fetched to conclude that the origins and the earlier

formative stages of the book of Genesis do not yet show the awareness of neighboring texts

18
See Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 5.
19
See David L. Petersen, “The Genesis of Genesis.” in Congress Volume 2007 (ed. A. Lemaire; VT.S 133.

Leiden: Brill, 2010), 28: “Hence, I maintain that Genesis is not simply one portion of the larger Pentateuch;

Genesis is a book of its own right.”

20
See Ehud Ben Ben Zvi, “The Closing Words of the Pentateuchal Books: A Clue for the Historical Status of

the Book of Genesis within the Pentateuch,” BN 62 (1992): 7–11.

8
and books, hinting at their original literary independence. It is a quite common and well-

established assumption even within the Documentary Hypothesis that e.g., the Abraham-Lot

stories, the Jacob cycle, and the Joseph story were separate literary units before being worked

together into a proto-Genesis book and then incorporated into the “sources.” 21

Therefore, the question arises: At what point in their literary history were the traditions now

contained in the book of Genesis linked to the still growing Pentateuch? Put this way, the

question opens up many possibilities for speculation. When dealing with the literary history

of a biblical book, the danger of leaving the ground of safe assumptions cannot always be

avoided. There are no copies of the book of Genesis of the 6th or 4th century B.C.E. by which

some theories about its composition could be empirically verified or falsified. Only the final

versions of the book—extant in the different textual witnesses of Genesis—are known.

Nevertheless, it is possible to identify and discuss some more or less clear textual elements in

the book of Genesis that establish such links and that allow some conclusions. According to a

quite common methodological consensus in diachronic biblical studies, it makes sense to start

out with the allegedly later texts and then to proceed gradually to earlier texts. 22 This

methodology applies especially for section V. below, meanwhile the Priestly texts (section

IV.) form a well defined literary corpus of their own.

21
See e.g. Werner H. Schmidt, Einführung in das Alte Testament (5th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), 63–75;

John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 86–88.
22
See e.g. Rudolf Smend, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (4th ed.; Theologische Wissenschaft 1;

Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991), 9–12.

9
 IV. The Priestly Layer in Genesis and the following Pentateuchal Books

There is one set of texts in Genesis belonging to a prominent textual layer that runs at least

through Genesis and Exodus, traditionally known as the “Priestly Code” (P), which are very

well connected among each other. 23 Nineteenth-century scholarship believed P to be the

foundational layer of the Pentateuch, which in some sense holds still true: P apparently

established the main thread along which older, formerly independent text materials have also

been arranged. 24

Despite all the uncertainties of pentateuchal research, P still remains a sufficiently

safe assumption. 25 Its texts probably formed a once independent literary entity that might

have been written at the end of the 6th century B.C.E. 26

23
See the standard text assignments by Karl Elliger, “Sinn und Ursprung der priesterlichen

Geschichtserzählung,” ZTK 49 (1952): 121–43; repr. in Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament (ed. H. Gese and

O. Kaiser; TB 32; Munich: Kaiser, 1966), 174–98; Norbert Lohfink, “Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte” in

Congress Volume Göttingen 1977 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 183–225; repr. in Studien

zum Pentateuch (SBAB 4; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988), 213–53; Eckart Otto, “Forschungen zur

Priesterschrift,” TRu 62 (1997): 1–50. P probably originally ended in the Sinai pericope, see Thomas Pola, Die

ursprüngliche Priesterschrift: Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg (WMANT 70;

Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995); Petersen, “Genesis,” 38; the traditional solution (P ends in

Deut 34) is defended by Christian Frevel, Mit dem Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern: Zum Ende der

Priestergrundschrift (Herders Biblische Studien 23; Freiburg: Herder, 2000).

24
Theodor Nöldeke, “Die s.g. Grundschrift des Pentateuch,” in Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments

(Kiel: Schwers, 1886), 1–144.

25
See e.g. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch , 221; Carr, Fractures, 43.
26
P’s political theology presupposes Persian imperial ideology, which sets 539 B.C.E. as a terminus a quo (see

Konrad Schmid, “Gibt es eine ‘abrahamitische Ökumene’ im Alten Testament? Überlegungen zur

10
 In terms of P Genesis is therefore very well linked to the rest of the Pentateuch, 27

which of course also accords with P’s basic theological perspective, which views the

patriarchal period as the theological basis of Israel—not the Sinai events. 28

Nevertheless, the tight coherence between Genesis and Exodus in P still betrays the

binding together of two divergent narrative block, as can be seen especially in Exod 6:3: 29 In

the commissioning of Moses, God introduces himself as YHWH despite the fact that he

appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shadday. This gradual revelation of God has, of

course, some function within P, but it also reflects the different theological profiles of

Genesis and Exodus that result from their particular literary-historical backgrounds.

Furthermore, the Genesis portions of P show some signs of being selfcontained. This

results partly from the history of the material, partly with the theological focus of P on the

covenant with Abraham (Gen 17), but in addition, notice should be take of the incorporation

religionspolitischen Theologie der Priesterschrift in Genesis 17,” in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition [A.

C. Hagedorn and H. Pfeiffer eds., BZAW 400, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009], 67-92). A terminus ad quem might be

seen in the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses in 525 B.C.E., which is probably not reflected in P because Egypt

seems to be excluded from P’s vision of a peaceful world under God’s rule (see Exod 7–11 and 12:12 and

especially Albert de Pury, “Pg as the Absolute Beginning,” in Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de

l'Hexateuque et de l'Ennéateuque [T. Römer and K. Schmid; BETL 203, Leuven: Peeters, 2007], 99–128,

especially 123–28).
27
To my mind, P is also the first author in the Pentateuch to have established a literary link between Gen and

Exod and thereby also to have created the basic narrative outline of the Pentateuch. See in detail my Genesis

and the Moses Story and below n. 72, 76, for opponing views see n. 71.
28
See the still groundbreaking study of Walther Zimmerli, “Sinaibund und Abrahambund. Ein Beitrag zum

Verständnis der Priesterschrift,” TZ 16 (1960), 26880, reprinted in idem, Gottes Offenbarung. Gesammelte

Aufsätze zum Alten Testament (TB 19, Munich, 1963), 205—217; see also Schmid, Genesis and the Moses

Story, 238–48.
29
See W. Randall Garr, “The Grammar and Interpretation of Exodus 6:3,” JBL 111 (1992): 385–408

11
of the “toledot”-book in P, which covers the primeval and the patriarchal period of Genesis in

two series of five “toledot.” Its redactional reception within P can best be observed in Gen

5:1–3: The original superscription of the “toledot”-book is still discernible (5:1a, 3), but it

was adjusted in light of Gen 1:1–2:4a, especially with respect to “Adam” as designation for

the species of human beings and as a proper noun of its first representative, which triggered

the insertion of 5:1b, 2. 30

V. Further Links from Genesis to the Other Books of the Pentateuch

Some of the most strongest links from Genesis to the following books are provided by the

Priestly layer. But it seems that also in the non-P material, especially in the post-P material,

such connections can be discerned. 31 Against the tenets of the Documentary Hypothesis it

needs to be stressed that there is no reason to assume that “non-P” always equals “pre-P.”

The following discussion starts with those texts that have in view the widest literary horizon

and at the same time are allegedly the youngest ones, then proceeding backwards in time to

supposedly older layers that, however, still all probably belong to the post-P history of

Genesis.

30
Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 236–37, see also David M. Carr, “Bίβλος γενέσεως Revistited. A

Synchronic Analysis of Genesis as Part of the Torah,” ZAW 110 (1998): 159–172, 327–347, especially 169–70.

A different explanation is offered by Christoph Levin, “Die Redaktion RP in der Urgeschichte,” in Auf dem Weg

zur Endgestalt von Genesis bis II Regum (ed. M. Beck and U. Schorn, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 27–28. See

also Claus Westermann, Genesis, 1. Teilband: Genesis 1-11 (BKAT I/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener,

1974), 481–82.
31
Eckart Otto, “Forschungen zum nachpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuch,” TRu 67 (2002): 125–55.

12
1. Redactional Portions in Genesis Embedding the Book in the Hexateuch (Gen 50:25)

As is well known, there is one set of texts in the sequence of Genesis through Joshua that

explicitly belongs together. No element makes sense without the others, therefore they must

be part of one and the same literary layer: the transfer of Joseph’s bones from Egypt back to

Canaan in Gen 50:25, Exod 13:19 and Josh 24:26.32 This is sufficient evidence to claim that

at least at the stage of this series of statements, represented in Genesis by (at least 33) Gen

50:25, the book of Genesis was subject to a redaction comprising the Hexateuch (Genesis –

Joshua). In addition, Joshua 24:2–4 looks back to Gen 11–12, introducing, however, a new

idea contrary to the presentation of Abraham in Genesis with the reference to his and his

father’s idolatry in Mesopotamia. The location of Josh 24 in Shechem probably also refers

back to Gen 12:6, 8 where Abraham is said to have erected the first altar in the land of

Canaan. 34 Finally, Joseph and Joshua are paralleled by their ages of 110 years (Gen 50:26;

Josh 24:32). However, neither Gen 12:6, 8 nor Gen 11:27–32 nor Gen 50:26 show any

awareness of Josh 24, therefore it is rather implausible to assign these statements to the same

layer: they are probably earlier texts that were taken up later by Josh 24.

32
See Markus Witte, “Die Gebeine Josefs” in Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt von Genesis bis II Regum (ed. M.

Beck and U. Schorn; BZAW 370; Berlin:de Gruyter, 2006), 139–56,

33
As Erhard Blum, Vätergeschichte, 44–45, convincingly argues, the motif of Jacob’s purchase of the plot (Gen

33:19) also belongs to the same layer of texts.

34
The Septuagint places Josh 24 in Shiloh (Josh 24:1, 25), which is probably the result of an anti-Samaritan

tendency in its Vorlage, see Christophe Nihan, “The Torah between Samaria and Judah: Shechem and Gerizim

in Deuteronomy and Joshua,” in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgence and

its Acceptance (ed. B. M. Levinson and G. N. Knoppers; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 187–223, esp. 197

n. 31

13
 It is disputed whether this redaction aimed at establishing a stand-alone Hexateuch or

whether this is a literary device to constitute only a “literary” Hexateuch 35 within an

Enneateuch (Genesis – Kings). 36 A decision in this question is dependent upon how one

understands Joshua 24, which will not be discussed here. 37

2. Redactional Portions in Genesis Embedding the Book in the Pentateuch (Gen 50:24;

Gen 6:1–4; Gen 22:15–18; 26:3b–5)

Besides the Josh 24 network, there are also texts in Genesis that hint to redactional interests

that strive to bind the five books of the Pentateuch together. Especially David Clines 38 and

35
Erhard Blum,“Der kompositionelle Knoten am Übergang von Josua zu Richter: Ein Entflechtungsvorschlag,”

in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature (ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust; BETL 133; Leuven: Leuven

University Press, 1997), 181–212; Eckart Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und im Hexateuch: Studien

zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens (FAT 30,

Tübingen: Mohr 2000) 175–211; Reinhard Achenbach, “Pentateuch, Hexateuch, und Enneateuch: Eine

Verhältnisbestimmung,” ZABR 11 (2005): 122 – 154; Thomas Römer and Marc Zvi Brettler, “Deuteronomy 34

and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch,” JBL 119 (2000): 401–19; Thomas Römer, “Das doppelte Ende des

Josuabuches: Einige Anmerkungen zur aktuellen Diskussion um ‘deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk’ und

‘Hexateuch.’” ZAW 118 (2006): 523–48.

36
Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 208–13; 342; Reinhard Gregor Kratz,“Der vor- und der

nachpriesterschriftliche Hexateuch,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der

jüngsten Diskussion (ed. J. C. Gertz, K. Schmid, and M. Witte; BZAW 315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 295–323.
37
See the contributions in Thomas Römer and Konrad Schmid, eds., Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque,

de l'Hexateuque et de l'Ennéateuque (BETL 203, Leuven: Peeters, 2007).

38
David J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (rev. ed.; JSOTSup 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,

1997).

14
Thomas Römer 39 have pointed out that the notion of the promise of the land to Abraham,

Isaac and Jacob as oath—without the apposition twb) “fathers”—in Gen 50:24, Exod 32:12,

33:1, Num 32:11, and Deut 34:4 runs through the Pentateuch as a whole. It is especially

noteworthy that this motif cannot be found in the subsequent books of Joshua – 2 Kings. 40

Apparently, the promise of land to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as an oath is indeed a topic

binding the Pentateuch together.

This point can be buttressed in literary-historical terms by the observation that the five

texts putting forward the notion of the land promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as an oath

seem to presuppose P and D. Thus, they probably belong to the latest literary developments

of the Torah. It seems that they have combined the motif of the land promise as oath that is

prominent in the Deuteronomistic parts of Deuteronomy (see Deut 1:8, 35; 6:10, 18, 23; 7:13;

8:1; 9:5; 10:11; 11:9, 21; 19:8; 26:3, 15; 28:11; 30:20; 31:7, 20–21; 34:4) with the Priestly

conviction that God’s acting towards Israel is rooted in the covenant with the ancestors (cf.

Gen 17). The result is the notion of the promise of the land to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as

an oath. 41 Consequently, Gen 50:24 can be interpreted as an element of a redaction

establishing the Pentateuch as a literary unit. 42

39
Thomas Römer, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der

deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99; Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1990), 566.

40
Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 271–79.
41
For detailed analysis, see Römer, Israels Väter.
42
For a discussion of the literary-historical relationship between Gen 50:24 and 50:25 see Erhard Blum, “Die

literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen,” in

Abschied vom Jahwisten, 145–46; Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 99–100, 214–15, 274–78. Vice versa,

Deut 34:4 refers back to the beginning of the Pentateuch, to Gen 12:7 and 13:15 and thus forms an inclusio.

First, Deut 34:4 quotes the promise of the land given in Gen 12:7. Second, there are clear interconnections

between Deut 34:1–4 and Gen 13:10–15. The cross references between Deut 34:1–4 and Gen 12:7; 13:10–15 are

15
 A second element needs to be taken into account when discussing literary elements in

Genesis that might be elements of a Pentateuch redaction. Genesis 6:1–4 tells the somewhat

difficult passage about the intermarriage between the Myhl) ynb and the daughters of

mankind. 43 Within this text the limitation of human age to 120 years is mentioned (Gen 6:3).

It has often been observed, 44 starting even with Josephus, 45 that this motif is recurrent in

Deut 34:7, where Moses is said to have died at the age of 120 years. This life span is not

unique in the ancient world, 46 so there is no need to postulate a specific link between Gen 6:3

and Deut 34:7 merely on the basis of the number. Nevertheless, there is a good argument

within Deut 34 that shows that Deut 34:7 is alluding to Gen 6:3. Moses death’ notice is

followed by the amazing statement that he died in the best of health: “His sight was

especially remarkable, as Gen 12:1–3, 7 and 13:10–17 belong closely together and might be part of one and the

same narrative arc, as Matthias Köckert has suggested in Vätergott und Väterverheißungen: Eine

Auseinandersetzung mit Albrecht Alt und seinen Erben (FRLANT 142; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1988), 250–55; cf. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, 214 n. 35. Deut 34:1–4 seems to take up the

promise network of Gen 12–13 as a whole and stresses the fact that the land promised to Abraham is still

promised to Israel. But unlike the case of Gen 50:24, there is no indication that Deut 34:1–4 belongs to the same

layer as the promise network in Gen 12–13.

43
See Mirjam and Ruben Zimmermann, “‘Heilige Hochzeit’ der Göttersöhne und Menschentöchter,” ZAW 111

(1999): 327–52; Helge Kvanvig, “Gen 6,1-4 as an Antediluvian event,“ SJOT 16 (2002): 79–112; idem, “The

Watcher Story and Genesis: An Intertextual Reading,” SJOT 18 (2004): 163–83; Andreas Schüle, “The Divine-

Human Marriages (Genesis 6:1-4) and the Greek Framing of the Primeval History,” TZ 65 (2009): 116-28.
44
See e.g. Benno Jacob, Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis (New York: Schocken, 1934) 176–77.
45
Cf. already Josephus, Ant. 2.152; 3.95; 4.176–93; see Klaus Haacker and Peter Schäfer, “Nachbiblische

Traditionen vom Tod des Mose,” in Josephus-Studien (ed. O. Betz et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1974), 147–74, esp. 148.

46
See Kvanvig, “Gen 6,1–4 as an Antediluvian Event,” 99. Gunkel, Genesis, 58 points to Herodotus, Hist. 3.23

as a parallel to the life span of “120 years” (in this case of Ethiopians).

16
unimpaired and his vigor had not abated.” 47 This is especially striking because this statement

also creates a contradiction to the text in Deut 31:1–2, where Moses complaints he is no

longer at his prime: he is no longer able to go forth and come home—i.e., most likely, he is

no longer capable of military leadership. The emphasis on Moses’ health in Deut 34:7 tells

the reader that Moses dies for no other reason than that his life span has reached the limit set

by God in Gen 6:3. If Deut 34:7 takes up Gen 6:3, the opposite question may be asked: was

Gen 6:3 was written to prepare Deut 34:7? This seems indeed to be the case because Gen 6:3

and Deut 34:7 share the same theological profile. Deuteronomy 34:7 states that Moses is not

allowed to enter the promised land simply because his life span has run out—not because of

any sort of wrongdoing—, which is a third alternative explanation of why Moses may not

enter the promised land in contrast to the “D” tradition (cf. Deut 1:34–37, 3:25–27) 48 on the

one hand and the P tradition (cf. Num 20:12) on the other. The “Priestly” tradition (probably

not “Pg”, but rather “Ps”) in Num 20:12 assumes that Moses went against God by striking the

rock when God had ordered a verbal miracle (“speak with the rock”, Num 20:8) and possibly

even doubted that striking the rock would bring forth water; 49 thus Moses became guilty of

faithlessness. The “Deuteronomistic” tradition, on the other hand, includes Moses in the

collective guilt of the people: “Even with me YHWH was angry on your account.” 50 Both

“explanations” reckon with Moses’ guilt, be it on a personal level (as in accordance with

Priestly thought), be it on a collective level (following Deuteronomistic thinking). In contrast,

47
Otto, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 226, points to the antithetical composition of Isaac (Gen 27:1) and

Moses (Deut 34:7), both connected by the term , used only here.
48
For a placement within redaction history see Otto, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 22–23; also Christian

Frevel, “Ein vielsagender Abschied. Exegetische Blicke auf den Tod des Mose,” BZ 45 (2001): 220–21, n. 37.
49
The statement—kept vague probably out of respect for Moses—in Num 20:10 would then be interpreted as

follows: “Should we really be able to produce water from this rock?”

50
See Deut 1:36 and 3:26 (“Yhwh got angry with me because of you”).

17
Deut 34:7 agrees with neither positions 51. It instead offers its own interpretation: Moses is

not allowed to enter the promised land because his life span of 120 years has just run out.

Moses death east of the Jordan is not caused by personal or collective debt, but by fate, i.e. by

the divinely ordained limitation of human life.

And interestingly, this theological profile of Deut 34:7—where Moses’ death has nothing to

do with personal guilt, but rather with fate—matches the thematic thrust of Gen 6:3 within

the framework of Gen 6:1–4. 52 In its current literary position, the heavenly interference of

divine sons with human daughters offers a (additional) reason for the flood. 53 The flood is not

only solicited by human guilt (as Gen 6:5–8 states), but also by transcendent fate.

Responsibility for the mixing of the human and divine sphere, caused by the Myhl) ynb, does

not fall on the shoulders of humankind. It just occurred to them. Therefore, the literary

inclusio between Gen 6:3 and Deut 34:7 seems to go back to one and the same hand: Gen 6:3

looks forward to Deut 34:7 and Deut 34:7 refers back to Gen 6:3.

Finally, mention should be made of the passages in Genesis portraying Abraham as a

pious observer of the Torah (Gen 22:18b and 26:5b within their contexts Gen 22:15–18 and

Gen 26:3b–5). 54 It is obvious that they reflect the inclusion of the book of Genesis in the

51
Thomas Römer, “Deuteronomium 34 zwischen Pentateuch, Hexateuch und deuteronomistischem

Geschichtswerk,” ZABR 5 (1999): 167–78; Römer and Brettler, “Deuteronomy 34 and the case for a Persian

Hexateuch,” 408.
52
See especially Manfred Oeming, “Sünde als Verhängnis: Gen 6,1–4 im Rahmen der Urgeschichte des

Jahwisten,” TTZ 102 (1993): 34–50.

53
David J. A. Clines, “The Significance of the ‘Son of God’ Episode (Genesis 6:1–4) in the Context of the

‘Primeval History’ (Genesis 1–11)” JSOT 13 (1979): 33–46; Ronald S. Hendel, “Of Demigods and the Deluge:

Towards an Interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4,” JBL 106 (1987): 13–26; Andreas Schüle, “The Divine-Human

Marriages (Genesis 6:1–4) and the Greek Framing of the Primeval History,” TZ 65 (2009): 116–28.
54
Beate Ego, “Abraham als Urbild der Toratreue Israels: Traditionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zu einem

Aspekt des biblischen Abrahambildes,” in Bund und Tora: Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in

18
Torah and therefore portray the ancestors in the book of Genesis as followers of the Torah. 55

Nevertheless, they are unable to hide the fact that the law was only given later on by Moses,

giving rise to the explanation of the book of Jubilees, which deals with the question how

Israel’s ancestors before Moses could be observant without the law. Its solution was a

metaphysical one: By means of heavenly tablets the ancestors who came before Moses were

already informed of the law. 56 Genesis 22:18b stands within 22:15–18, which is an addition

to Gen 22:1–14, 19, a text probably of post-P origin. 57 Genesis 26:5b is closely

interconnected with Gen 22:15–18 and is to be attributed to the same redactional layer. 58

It cannot be taken for granted that Gen 50:24; 6:1–4; 22:15–18; 26:3b–5 all stem from

one and the same hand. They share the common interest to anchor the book of Genesis within

the Pentateuch, but they might also have been inserted at different times.

3. Redactional Portions in Genesis Linking the Book to the Exodus story (Gen 15)

Genesis 15 involves the most prominent bridge text in Genesis that serves as a literary

connection between Genesis to Exodus: Gen 15:13–16 contains a preview that explicitly

alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (ed. F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger; WUNT

92; Tübingen: Mohr, 1996), 25–40.

55
Blum, Vätergeschichte, 363–65, counted these texts among the D-redaction of Genesis, which he now dates

post-P, see his “Die literarische Verbindungen,” 140–45.

56
On this motif see Florentino García Martínez, “The Heavenly Tablets in the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies in

the Book of Jubilees ( ed. M. Albani, J. Frey, and A. Lange; TSAJ 65; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 243–60.
57
See the discussion in Konrad Schmid ”Die Rückgabe der Verheißungsgabe: Der ‘heilsgeschichtliche’ Sinn

von Genesis 22 im Horizont innerbiblischer Exegese,” in Gott und Mensch im Dialog (vol. 1.; ed M. Witte;

BZAW 345; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 271–300.

58
See the detailed argumentation of Blum, Vätergeschichte, 362–64.

19
speaks of a four hundred year sojourn (rwg) of Israel as slaves (db() and oppressed (hn()

people in Egypt (15:13), of the judgment (Nyd) of Egypt (15:14a), and of the departure ()cy)

of Israel (15:14b, 16) lasting four generations.

It is, however, unclear how this piece fits within the literary history of the book of

Genesis. Within the framework of the Documentary Hypothesis, Gen 15 has never been

classified convincingly. The frequently presented idea that Gen 15 solemnly introduces “E,”

was never fully accepted. Today it has been largely abandoned, even among the advocates of

“E,” especially since Gen 15 only uses the Tetragrammaton, while Myhl) never appears. But

even the segmentation of “J” and “E” that was often attempted did not succeed convincingly.

Thus, it was not possible to classify Gen 15 within the framework of the Documentary

Hypothesis. 59 As an alternative scholars sought to explain Gen 15 “as a Deuteronomistic

corpus separatum.” 60 However, for various reasons, this option proved unsuccessful as well,

especially the notion of covenant in Gen 15 hardly fits Deuteronomistic ideas. Recent

proposals include those of Römer and Ha who theorize that Gen 15 represents a re-reading of

Genesis 17 (P) so that Genesis 15 should therefore be dated after “P.” 61 At least for the

verses 15:13–16, this option has been accepted also among traditional scholarship especially

because v. 14 (#wkr) and v. 15 (h+bw hby#) use language otherwise especially known from

P texts. 62

59
For a full discussion, see Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 158–61.
60
Shemaryahu Talmon, “‘400 Jahre’ oder ‘vier Generationen’ (Gen 15,13–15): Geschichtliche Zeitangaben oder

literarische Motive,” in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte (ed. E. Blum et al.;

Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), 13.

61
See Thomas Römer, “Gen 15 und Gen 17: Beobachtungen und Anfragen zu einem Dogma der ‘neueren’ und

‘neuesten’ Pentateuchkritik,” DBAT 26 (1989/90): 32–47; John Ha, Genesis 15: A Theological Compendium of

Pentateuchal History (BZAW 181; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989).

62
See Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 166–67 and 166 n. 5.

20
 The overall post-Priestly dating of Gen 15 depends on how the literary integrity of the

chapter is seen. This does not need to be decided here, 63 but at any rate, it is more or less

obvious that the explicit links in Gen 15 presuppose P.

Other portions in Genesis have also been discussed as links to the book of Exodus.

Genesis 12:10–20 offers clear associations to the Exodus story. The wording of this passage

shows that these associations seem to be intended. Pharaoh is struck ((gn) with plagues, as in

Exod 11:1. In 12:20, he sends (xl#$) Abraham and his entourage forth thereby echoing the

leading word of Exod 5–11.4 6 Even the commands to let Abraham and Moses go correspond

to one another (Klw xq in Gen 12:17 and wklw wxqin Exod 12:32). “In many respects, the

episode is accordingly shaped as a prefiguration of the later Exodus, as a piece of salvation

history at the beginning of the history of Israel.”47 How one should evaluate this prefiguration

is by no means clear at first glance. One can consider throughout that this anticipation is

suited to a critical note; Abraham does not prefigure Moses, but Moses is an epigone of

Abraham. However one sees it, Gen 12:10–20 is not exactly a literary bridge between

Genesis and Exodus that would connect the flow of events in these two books. The

typological correspondence between Abraham and Moses is also quite conceivable between
63
For recent proposal see Jan Christian Gertz, “Abraham, Mose und der Exodus: Beobachtungen zur

Redaktionsgeschichte von Gen 15,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der

jüngsten Diskussion (ed. J. C. Gertz et al.; BZAW 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 63–81; see also Konrad

Schmid, “ The So-Called Yahwist and the Literary Gap between Genesis and Exodus,” in A Farewell to the

Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (ed. T. Dozeman and K.

Schmid; SBLSymS 34; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 38 n. 34.

46
See Blum, Vätergeschichte, 309; Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 57–58; see also Wolfgang Oswald,

“Die Erzeltern als Schutzbürger: Überlegungen zum Thema von Gen 12,10-20 mit Ausblick auf Gen 20; 21,22-

34 und Gen 26,” BN 106 (2001): 79–89.

47
Blum, Vätergeschichte, 309. See also the references to the predecessors in Blum, Vätergeschichte, 309, n. 14

and Ha, Genesis 15, 199–200.

21
two literarily independent narrative works. The echoes of the exodus do not persuasively

signify a presumed literary connection from Genesis to Exodus. 64

Yet another text often seen as a literary connection between Genesis and Exodus is Gen

46:1–5a. 65 God appears to Jacob and allows him to migrate to Egypt. A promise of fertility

and a promise of a return then follow, along with the affirmation that Joseph will “close his

eyes.” The Joseph story does not otherwise reckon with such direct revelations of God, and

Gen 46:1–5a strongly recalls the language and content of the preceding ancestral narratives.

Blum has worked out the connections from Gen 46:1–5a to the promises in Gen 31:11, 13;

Gen 26:2–3; and Gen 12:1–2. 66. According to him, Gen 46:1–5 thus includes the Joseph story

in the complex of ancestral transmissions and establishes 12–50 as a large “ancestral story.”

Genesis 46:4a (because of the usage of hl() is often specified as a “anticipatory

reference to Exodus.” 67 However, this understanding is neither required by nor suggested by

the text. The explicit horizon of Gen 46:1–5a does not extend beyond Gen 50. The sequence

of events that verses 3–4 delineate is as follows: YHWH will move with Jacob to Egypt (3b,

4a), in order to make him into a great people there (lwdg ywg in 3b), in order to lead him out

again (4a), 68 and Joseph will close his eyes (4b). If one arranges this anticipatory sequence to
64
Carr, “Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story,” 273–95.
65
See Blum, Vätergeschichte, 246.
66
See Blum, Vätergeschichte, 246–49, 297–301.
67
See Blum, Vätergeschichte, 247.
68
That the second person singular suffix should “relate collectively to Israel” (Rainer Kessler, “Die

Querverweise im Pentateuch: überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der expliziten Querverbindungen

innerhalb des vorpriesterlichen Pentateuchs” [Ph.D. diss., University of Heidelberg, 1972], 164, n. 4; 317 in

connection with Gerhard von Rad, Das erste Buch Mose: Genesis [12th ed.; ATD 2/4; Göttingen: Vandenhoek

& Ruprecht, 1987] 352), has little support. Rather, Gunkel correctly noted, “‘I will bring you back’ in the coffin,

an announcement of the narrative of Jacob’s burial in Canaan” (Gunkel, Genesis, 440; Westermann, Genesis

37–50, 156, sees it differently).

22
the subsequent events, then one does not see beyond the Joseph story. Jacob moves to Egypt

in Gen 46:5–7. Genesis 47:27b notes the multiplication of Israel (hrp; hbr), and Gen 50:7–13

specifies the return to Canaan as well as the burial of Jacob by Joseph.

Gen 46:3–4: Themes: Genesis 46–50

v. 3b, 4a trek to Egypt 46:5–7

v. 3b becoming a nation 47:27b

v. 4a return 50:7–10

v. 4b Jacob’s burial 50:13

Genesis 46:1–5a only looks forward to the return of Jacob to Canaan in Gen 50, but not to the

return of Israel in Exodus – Joshua. However, that means that Gen 46:1–5a has been

formulated just for the ancestral story encompassing Gen 12–50. 69

It might be helpful to corroborate this proposal of a late redactional connection

between Genesis and Exodus by looking at the very beginning of the book Exodus. It is

striking that the statement about Israel becoming a great people does not refer back to the

prominent non-Priestly promises of increase at the beginning of the patriarchal narrative (e.g.

Gen 12:2; 13:13). The comparison of the promise of descendants to Abraham in Gen 12:2

and the statement of Pharaoh in Exod 1:9 illustrates the absence of a clear relationship

between the two bodies of literature.

69
This is also assumed in Blum’s conception (see Vätergeschichte, 360). Blum, however, differentiates. He

believes that “the hearer/reader . . . [i.e., for the understanding of Gen 46:1–5a] does not (require) a literary

context, but knowledge of the salvation historical outline to the conquest.” Blum has now modified his opinion,

see idem, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 132–33, n. 63

23
Gen 12:2 Exod 1:9

And I will make you to a great people (lwdg And he [Pharaoh] spoke to his people: Behold, the

ywg). people (M() of the children of Israel are more (br)

and mightier (Mwc(w) than we.

On the other hand it is all the more remarkable that the connections on the P-level are very

tight.

Gen 1:28 Exod 1:7

Be fruitful (wrp), and multiply (wbrw), and And the children of Israel were fruitful (wrp), and

fill (w)lmw) the earth (Cr)h t)) increased abundantly (wcr#$yw), and multiplied

Gen 9:7 (wbryw), and waxed (wmc(yw) exceeding mighty

And you, be fruitful (wrp), and multiply (d)m d)mb); and the land (Cr)hw) was filled

(wbrw); increase abundantly (wcr#$) in the ()lmtw) with them.

earth, and multiply (wbrw) therein.

Gen 17:2

And I will multiply (hbr)w) you

exceedingly (d)m d)mb).

If the non-Priestly substance of the patriarchal and exodus narratives was really written by the

same author, telling parts of one and the same story in Genesis and Exodus, it would be very

difficult to explain why he did not correlate the promise to become a great people with its

fulfillment, as it is done in P. Therefore, it is much more likely that Gen 12:2 and Exod 1:9

belong to different text layers rather than to assume that we have here a J bridge between

Genesis and Exodus.

24
 Beside Exod 1 and the P-links, explicit references back to Genesis found especially in

the report on the commissioning of Moses in Exod 3 (see Exod 3:6, 13–16). Again, recent

discussions have proposed that either the whole chapter 70 or at least these references 71 are

post-P, although others have argued to the contrary. 72 A comparison of Exod 3 with its P

counterpart in Exod 6:2–8 shows some striking features which might support the case for a

post-P setting of Exod 3:1–4:17. Firstly, Exod 6:2–8 plays out in Egypt whereas Exod 3 is

located on the mountain of God, i.e. holy territory. It is improbable that P would have

secondarily profaned the place of Moses’ commissioning. Secondly, Exod 3–4 seems to

secondarily integrate the problems that arise later on with Moses’ mandate into the call of

Moses itself in the context of P. Exodus 6:9 tells about Israel’s unwillingness to listen to

Moses after he has spoken with the people, and then Moses is to perform the signs before

70
Eckart Otto, ”Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus,” in Studies in the Book of

Exodus: Redaction – Reception – Interpretation (ed. M. Vervenne; BETL 126; Leuven: Peeters, 1996), 61–111;

Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 172–93.

71
See Jan Christian Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung (FRLANT 189; Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 233–348; Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung”; Thomas Römer, “Exodus 3–4

und die aktuelle Pentateuchdiskussion,” in The Interpretation of Exodus (ed. R. Roukema; Contributions to

Biblical Exegesis and Theology 44; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 65–79.

72
See Thomas B. Dozeman, “The Commission of Moses and the Book of Genesis,” in A Farewell to the

Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (ed. T. B. Dozeman and K.

Schmid; SBLSymS 34; Atlanta, Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 107–29; John Van Seters, “The Patriarchs

and the Exodus: Bridging the Gap between Two Origin Traditions,” in The Interpretation of Exodus (ed. R.

Roukema; Contributions to biblical exegesis and theology 44; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 1–15; Hans-Christoph

Schmitt, “Erzväter- und Exodusgeschichte als konkurrierende Ursprungslegenden Israels – ein Irrweg der

Pentateuchforschung,” in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition (ed. A. C. Hagedorn and H. Pfeiffer; BZAW

400; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 241–66; Graham I. Davies, “The Transition from Genesis to Exodus,” in

Genesis, Isaiah and Psalms (ed. K. J. Dell, G. I. Davies, and Y. Von Koh; VTSup 135; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 59–

78.

25
Pharao. In Exod 4:1, Moses complains about Israel’s disobedience without ever having talked

to the people. As a result, Moses receives the power to perform signs in front of his people

(4:2–9) already at this point in the narrative, which anticipates the plagues of Egypt. Thirdly,

there are some allusions in the wording in Exod 3:7, 9 (see especially the use of the root q(c)

to P passages, especially Exod 2:24–25, which are difficult to explain in a pre-P setting of

Exod 3–4.

To be cautious, Exod 3–4 does not, therefore, rule out the possibility that the literary

connection between Genesis and the Moses story is a rather late phenomenon in the redaction

history of the Pentateuch. To my mind, this took place in the wake of P, who was the first to

formulate the basic narrative blueprint of the Pentateuch. 73

VI. Conclusions

In current scholarship, it is no longer possible to explain the composition of the book of

Genesis from the outset within the framework of the Documentary Hypothesis. While the

composite character of the book as such is undeniable, it is by no means clear or even

probable that its literary history is to be described by the merger of layers that already

extended in their earliest forms beyond the boundaries of Genesis, as was supposed for J and

E. Rather, the opposite seems to be true. As especially Hermann Gunkel and Martin Noth

noted, the legends in Genesis and also their collections into different cycles did not yet

include a horizon of events reaching into the book of Exodus or even beyond.

73
See on this especially de Pury, “Pg as the Absolute Beginning.”

26
 If P was not the first author to combine Genesis and the Moses story, then such a

connection seems not to have been established much earlier than P. 74 In Exodus 6:2–3, an

undisputed literary cornerstone of P, 75 it is still possible to observe the fact that the sequence

of Genesis and Exodus was not an obvious or self-evident concept. The same seems to be

true for the inclusion of themes of the books of Genesis and Exodus in the prophetic books

(see especially Ezek 33:24) or the Psalms. 76 At least in the older portions of these literary

works, there is little evidence suggesting that a literary link between Genesis and Exodus is

already in place, as Albert de Pury, Thomas Römer, Reinhard G. Kratz, Jan C. Gertz,

Matthias Köckert, Eckart Otto, Jean-Louis Ska, and others have suggested, 77 following some

basic observations made especially by Kurt Galling and Martin Noth. 78

74
Kratz, The Composition of the Historical Books of the Old Testament, 276, 79; Blum, “Die literarische

Verbindung.”
75
Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 241–42.
76
Ibid., 70–80, see, however, differently Schmitt, “Erzväter- und Exodusgeschichte als konkurrierende

Ursprungslegenden Israels,” 242–45. For Hos 12, which is especially important for Albert de Pury,

“Erwägungen zu einem vorexilischen Stämmejahwismus: Hos 12 und die Auseinandersetzung um die Identität

Israels und seines Gottes,” in Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der

israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte (ed. W. Dietrich and M. A. Klopfenstein; OBO 139;

Fribourg: Editions Universitaires and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 413–39, see now the

thorough treatment of Erhard Blum, “Hosea 12 und die Pentateuchüberlieferungen” in Die Erzväter in der

biblischen Tradition (ed. A. C. Hagedorn and H. Pfeiffer; BZAW 400; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 318–319, who

concludes that Hos 12 presupposes a Jacob story and a Moses story that conceptually belong into a sequence,

but of which is not possible to determine whether or not they are connected in terms of a literary unit.
77
See Römer, Israels Väter; Albert de Pury, “Le cycle de Jacob comme légende autonome des origines

d'Israël,” in Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 78–96; Gertz,

Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung, 381–88; Otto “Mose und das Gesetz,” 43–83; idem, Das

Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und im Hexateuch; idem, Mose: Geschichte und Legende (Munich: Beck, 2006);

idem, Das Gesetz des Mose; Kratz, The Composition of the Historical Books of the Old Testament; Jean-Louis-

27
 The redaction-historical separation of Genesis and Exodus and the following books

before P has wide-reaching consequences for the understanding of the history of religion and

theology of the Hebrew Bible that can only be touched in a very preliminary way here.

Firstly, it is obvious that this new perspective abandons the thesis so popular in the 20th

century that the religion of ancient Israel is based on salvation history (Heilsgeschichte). That

such a view can no longer be maintained has become more and more clear by recent results

of literary analyses of the Pentateuch on the one hand and the numerous archaeological finds

published in recent years on the other. 79 The historical religion of Israel looked differently

than the biblical picture suggests. The polemics of the Deuteronomists are probably closer to

the preexilic reality in ancient Israel than the normative-orthodox statements in the Bible that

promulgate a salvation-history based monotheism. Therefore, the paradigm of a clear

discontinuity between ancient Israel, who believed in its God revealing himself in history,

and its neighbors, who venerated the cyclically returning phenomena of nature, can no longer

be maintained. This paradigm of discontinuity was developed in the wake of Karl Barth’s

dialectical theology and can be explained as an extrapolation of its basic tenets into the

history of ancient Israel’s religion. It presupposes that Israel occupies a very special place in

the ancient Near East from its very beginning. But if Genesis and the Moses story were not

interconnected until the late exilic or early Persian period, if there was no early (i.e.

Solomonic) or at least monarchic (Josiah) conception of a salvation history that begins with

the creation and ends with the conquest of the land, Israel must be seen in religion-historical

continuity rather than discontinuity with its neighbors. The paradigm of discontinuity is not a

Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 196–202; see also

Petersen, “Genesis,” 28–30.

78
See n. 1.
79
For an overview see Friedhelm Hartenstein, “Religionsgeschichte Israels—ein Überblick über die Forschung

seit 1990,” VF 48 (2003), 2–28.

28
peculiarity of ancient Israel but rather a characteristic feature of the Judaism of the Persian

period, which projected its ideals back into the Hebrew Bible.

Over against the assumptions of the Documentary Hypothesis, Genesis and the Moses

story in Exodus through Numbers and Deuteronomy stood next to each other as two

competing concepts containing two traditions of the origin of Israel with different theological

profiles. The different conceptions still remain visible behind the carefully crafted final form

of the Pentateuch. Genesis is mainly autochthonous and inclusive, while the Moses story in

the following books is allochthonous and exclusive. Of course such a polar opposition can

only serve as a model, but it points nevertheless to a basic difference between the two blocks

of tradition. To be more precise, the patriarchal narrative constructs a picture of the origin of

Israel in its own land—a fact that is especially prominent in the specific formulations of the

promises of the land, which do not presuppose that there will be several centuries between

promise and fulfillment. At the same time the patriarchal story is both theologically and

politically inclusive: the gods of Canaan can—without any problems—be identified with

YHWH, and the Patriarchs dwell together with the inhabitants of the land and make treaties

with them. In contrast, the story of the exodus stresses Israel’s origin abroad in Egypt and

puts forward an exclusive theological argument: YHWH is a jealous god that does not

tolerate any other gods besides himself (Exod 20:3–5; 34:14; Deut 5:7–9), and the Israelites

shall not make peace with the inhabitants of the land (cf. Exod 23:32–33; 34:12, 15; Deut

12:29–31; 16:21; 20:16–17; 25:19).

The Pentateuch therefore contains both concepts that also serve as arguments in

modern discussions: inclusiveness and exclusiveness. However, this important inner-biblical

difference regarding how Genesis and the Moses story determine both Israel’s origins and its

relation to its land and to other nations only becomes fully apparent by means of historical

reconstruction. Seen from this perspective, it becomes evident that the Pentateuch is a

29
document of agreement between different positions. Although the debate over this issue

continues, its formation seems to be interpreted within the context of Persian imperial

policy. 80 Genesis is mainly a dissenting, but a most prominent voice in the Pentateuch that

has been included in it and now constitutes an integral part of it bearing specific theological

importance.

80
See the discussion in James W. Watts, ed., Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the

Pentateuch (SBLSymS 17; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2001), and Konrad Schmid, “The Persian Imperial

Authorization as Historical Problem and as Biblical Construct: A Plea for Differentiations in the Current

Debate,” in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, (ed. G.

N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 22–38. For the redactional logic of

the formation of the Pentateuch see Ernst Axel Knauf, “Audiatur et altera pars: Zur Logik der Pentateuch-

Redaktion,” BK 53 (1998), 118–26.

30
Select Bibliography

Blum, Erhard. Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum

Alten und Neuen Testament 57. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984.

Blum, Erhard. “Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit

neueren Endredaktionshypothesen.” Pages 199–56 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: die

Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by J. C. Gertz, K.

Schmid and M. Witte. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002.

Carr, David M. Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches.

Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996.

Carr, David M. “Bίβλος γενέσεως Revistited. A Synchronic Analysis of Genesis as Part of

the Torah,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 110 (1998): 159–172,

327–347

Carr, David M. “Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story.” Pages 293–95 in Studies in the

Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History. Edited by A. Wénin. Bibliotheca

ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 155. Leuven: Peeters, 2001.

Clines, David J. A. The Theme of the Pentateuch. Rev. ed. Journal for the Study of the Old

Testament: Supplement Series 10. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

Davies, Graham I. “The Transition from Genesis to Exodus.” Pages 59–78 in Genesis, Isaiah

and Psalms. Edited by K. J. Dell, G. I. Davies, and Y. Von Koh. Supplements to

Vetus Testamentum 135. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Dozeman, Tom B. and Konrad Schmid, eds. A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of

the Pentateuch in Recent European Scholarship. SBL Symposium Series 34. Atlanta:

Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.

31
Gertz, Jan Christian. Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung. Forschungen zur

Religion und Literatur des Alten Testaments 189; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 2000.

Ha, John. Genesis 15: A Theological Compendium of Pentateuchal History. Beihefte zur

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 181; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989.

Kratz, Reinhard G. The Composition of the Historical Books of the Old Testament. Translated

by J. Bowden. London: T & T Clark, 2005. Translation of Die Komposition der

erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik. Göttingen:

Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2000.

Millard, Matthias. Die Genesis als Eröffnung der Tora: Kompositions- und

auslegungsgeschichtliche Annäherungen an das erste Buch Mose. Wissenschaftliche

Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 90. Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchener, 2001.

Noth, Martin. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated with an Introduction by B. W.

Anderson. Chico: Scholars Press, 1981. Translation of Überlieferungsgeschichte des

Pentateuch. 2d ed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948.

Otto, Eckart. “Forschungen zum nachpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuch,” Theologische

Rundschau 67 (2002): 125–55.

Petersen, David L. “The Genesis of Genesis.” Pages 27–40 in Congress Volume 2007. Edited

by A. Lemaire. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 133. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Pury, Albert de. “Le cycle de Jacob comme légende autonome des origines d'Israël.” Pages

78–96 in Congress Volume Leuven 1989. Edited by J. A. Emerton. Supplements to

Vetus Testamentum 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991.

32
Pury, Albert de. “Pg as the Absolute Beginning.” Pages 99–128 in Les dernières rédactions

du Pentateuque, de l'Hexateuque et de l'Ennéateuque. Edited by T. Römer and K.

Schmid. BETL 203. Leuven: Peeters, 2007.

Römer, Thomas. Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in

der deuteronomistischen Tradition. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 99. Fribourg: Editions

Universitaires and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990.

Schmid, Konrad. Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible.

Siphrut 3. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Revised and Updated Translation of

Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge

Israels in den Geschichtsbüchern des Alten Testaments. Wissenschaftliche

Monographien zum Alten und zum Neuen Testament 81. Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchener, 1999.

Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. “Erzväter- und Exodusgeschichte als konkurrierende

Ursprungslegenden Israels – ein Irrweg der Pentateuchforschung.” Pages 241–66 in

Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition. Edited by A. C. Hagedorn and H. Pfeiffer.

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 400. Berlin: de

Gruyter, 2009.

Ska, Jean-Louis. Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,

2006.

Van Seters, John. “The Patriarchs and the Exodus: Bridging the Gap between Two Origin

Traditions.” Pages 1–15 in The Interpretation of Exodus. Edited by R. Roukema.

Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 44. Leuven: Peeters, 2006.

33