we speak of the Wellhausen Hypothesis.
Wellhausen arranged the sources of the Pentateuch in chronological order so that he could give us a history of the development of Israel and of the religion of Israel. Since the time of Wellhausen, however, there have been many new theories. Today the picture is very unclear. Many scholars have divided documents, added new documents, or have maintained that we do not have continuous documents but rather source strata. These strata have in them old and late materials. It is not a neat system today as it was for Wellhausen. In fact, the Uppsala School in Sweden maintains that these materials were oral for so many years that it would be impossible to separate such things as J and E. So it goes. For the past thirty years scholars have been saying that there is no consensus in all of this, but they usually move along in their work as if all is well.5
I have learned a great deal from the research of the past, but it is not going to help much to re-date J or P or invent new sources. Today we have more information than ever before. The archaeological information that we have could have made things a lot easier for the likes of Wellhausen. In fact, we have recovered entire libraries at sites such as Ugarit/Ras Shamra. When Wellhausen discussed the ritual calendars in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Numbers 28 and 29), he said that these belong to P and they are late. Why? Because definite dates and details in ritual calendars can only be late. But at Ugarit (ca. 1400 BCE, certainly before the time of Israel), there are many ritual texts of various kinds. If we thought like nineteenth-century critics, we would take these ritual texts and put them in chronological order, the simple ones early and the more complex ones late. These texts do have dates for some of the rituals and even detailed instructions, but this does not make them late. Rather the different text types functioned in different ways within the cult.6 Wellhausen had no way of knowing such things.
One thing is very clear. Genesis is made up of several sources, and these sources are put together with a plan and with great care. I would add that the sources are not continuous, and it is an important task to find out what these sources are saying in their present context. At times it may be possible to push beyond the present context, but we do not always know enough to do this. It is also clear that there are some late additions to this book, i.e., additions from a time after the main sources were put together in their present setting.7 In the notes to this translation, I will inform the reader when I think that we are dealing with a separate source.8 I will also note when such decisions are just too difficult. Everyone has the right to know that in Genesis there is one source that is used in Gen 1:1—2:3 and another in 2:4—3:24; there are then two accounts of the formation of all things. If we do not know such things, we can never ask the question, “Why?” The answer to this question is more important than trying to prove that the first one is P (and therefore late) and that the second one is J (and therefore early). If one compares Israel to the other literate states of the Mediterranean world, Israel is so late on the scene that they have ready at hand all types of ideas and literary forms. In one sense, all that Israel had was late; it was available, and Israel used it very well indeed.
So why is there no movement toward a consensus?9 Perhaps, we continue to ask the wrong questions. Are we asking the impossible? In order to answer our usual questions as to the nature of the sources, we would need to find a complete document which was very much like one of the ones which we have proposed. Plus we would need some evidence as to where and when it was used. I doubt if we find such things in the near future. If we do, I will change my ways. For now, I think it would be interesting for us to ask some different questions, and I hope we can learn something about Genesis in asking them. Also the readers of this translation need to know something about these “different questions” in order to appreciate the notes to this translation.
Genesis as Royal Epic
What kind of literature do we have in the Book of Genesis? This is an example of a different question. This does not mean it has never been asked, but it is certainly not the primary focus of most students of Genesis.10 Some just assume that everyone knows the answer, but this is not very realistic. Some think this is historical literature. Some think it is myth. Others say it is legend. It is possible that it contains many of these things, but most of these answers are not big enough. I think the book of Genesis was produced during the Davidic monarchy, and it was “published” by the state.11 What we have in Genesis is a good example of royal literature.
Royal literature is a very broad term. This has its advantages and disadvantages. In talking about Genesis, I sometimes narrow the terminology to “royal epic” (meaning: literature that unites and gives identity to a people and their king). But for many the word epic is a red flag; if you use the word epic, they want you to prove that there is Homeric epic poetry in Genesis. There is a lot of poetry in Genesis, but it is never enough. Others try to show that there was originally an epic poem underlying the Genesis narratives. This may be the case, but it is very difficult to look behind the text that we have. I would maintain that the narratives in Genesis contain many epic features, themes, and structures. After all, these stories are dealing with Israel’s heroic age; they deal with the ancestors of Israel’s kings. In fact, the literature that deals with the ancestors and the periods down through David and Solomon is just different from the later traditions (i.e., in social customs, religion, and laws). In the notes to this translation, I will point out many epic features of these stories.
The presupposition of this introduction and of this translation is that the book of Genesis was a significant part of the royal literature of the Davidic monarchy.12 This book was a political document of the state, and its major function was to exalt David and his monarchy, not only with his own people but also among the other states of that world. The scribes of the monarchy used many sources for this work, and certainly the literary criticism of the past has helped us to isolate many of these sources. However, the view presented here is quite different from the older criticism in that the sources that were used in this work must date from before the exile. This is obvious, if the sources were used by the scribes of the Davidic monarchy.13 None of this can be said with dogmatic zest, but we can at this point discuss some reasons why it seems possible to see Genesis in this way.
One reason Genesis is to be seen as royal literature is that the narratives point to the later kings. In Gen 17:3–8, not only will Elohim establish a covenant with Abraham and his descendants, giving them the land of Canaan as “an everlasting holding” (which is always the case in royal land grants),14 but in v. 6c it also says, “Kings shall come forth from you.” Later in v. 16, Elohim says of Sarah, “Kings of peoples shall issue from her.” Abraham and Sarah will produce kings. Who is it that wants the people to know this? It is the kings; those who trace their lines back to Abraham and Sarah. It is the kings; the ones who want to show that they are the legitimate rulers.15 This is not the only place where such a thing is said. In Gen 35:11 Elohim says to Jacob, “Kings shall come forth from your loins.” The fathers and the mothers in the Genesis narratives were the fathers and mothers of kings.
A second reason for viewing Genesis as royal literature is that the content of Genesis is what we would expect in a political document of the monarchy. Our method in all of this is comparative, and we have centuries of AML before the time of the Hebrews. The Babylonian creation story, Enuma elish, according to Thorkild Jacobsen, celebrates “Babylon’s and Marduk’s rise to rulership over a united Babylon, but projected back to mythical times and made universal. It is also an account of how the universe is ruled; how monarchy evolved
