of Genesis.
This Toledot book, perhaps along with other sources available to P, then was expanded by P into a more complete Priestly primeval history that introduced a more extended Priestly treatment of Israel’s origins.53 The Priestly SourceThe Priestly primeval history included the P creation narrative (Gen 1:1–2:3), Adam-Noah Genealogy (Gen 5*), flood narrative (Gen 6:9–9:17*), and overview of post-flood humanity deriving from Noah’s sons (in parts of Gen 10*) before bridging to Abraham (11:10–26, 27, 31–32) and the following P story of ancestors and exodus-Moses account. It is not crucial for this context to define the original end of this Priestly layer. Nevertheless, the connections of Gen 1 to the Priestly narratives about the wilderness tabernacle suggest that the P-layer beginning in Gen 1 extended at least that far.54
Like the Toledot book that it expanded, it appears that the bulk of this Priestly layer in Gen 1–11 originally stood separate in some form from the non-P material with which it is now connected.55 The originally separate character of these Priestly primeval materials provides the best explanation for why those materials form a relatively readable narrative. Moreover, as will become evident in the following commentary, key elements in the Priestly primeval history seem to have been crafted to function in an exclusively Priestly context and are only secondarily coordinated with the surrounding non-P materials. This suggests that, at least in the primeval history section, the bulk of the Priestly layer initially was composed to stand separate from the non-P materials, even as parts of that layer occasionally interact in fluid ways with those (originally separate) non-P materials.56
Finally, a conflator combined this originally separate P source with its non-P precursor, producing the complex text we now have. Notably, at least in Gen 1–11, this conflator was not neutral, but seems to have combined P and non-P in a P-like way. Priestly cast and structure in Gen 1–11As mentioned above, the conflator used the P source as the superstructure for the present text. Moreover, as will be shown in more detail in the following commentary, the conflator occasionally used secondary expansions with a Priestly cast to coordinate P and non-P materials. In this way, the present form of Gen 1–11 can be seen as resulting from a multi-stage process of Priestly and P-like composition, even as it also preserves significant blocks of originally separate non-P material.57
Dating P and its conflation with non-PAs with the non-P materials, these multiple layers of P-like and Priestly composition provide little information for dating, and conclusions on that issue relate only minimally to their exegesis. Insofar as the above-discussed layers of P presuppose the pre-P primeval history, including its flood narrative, that would suggest a dating of P sometime in the Neo-Assyrian period or later. Meanwhile, the classical Hebrew dialect in which the P Toledot book and broader primeval history is written likely would not have been produced late into the Second Temple period.58 Together, these elements would suggest a tentative dating of the P Toledot book and later P source sometime in between the (very) late monarchal and the early Persian periods.59 The conflation of P and non-P then would post-date the P source, though indicators within Gen 1–11 provide little information for further specification.60
Overview of Priestly and post-Priestly layers in Gen 1–11
Pre-Priestly “Book [scroll] of the descendants of Adam” (Toledot Book)
Gen 5:1a, 3*–28, 30–32; 6:9–10, 7:6; 9:28–29; 11:10a, 11–26, 27a, 32
Priestly expansion of that book into an expanded genealogy of the “sons of Israel”
Gen 1:1–2:3; 5:1b–2; expanded P narrative of flood (e.g., Gen 6:11–22; 9:1–17), addition of genealogical overview of post-flood peoples (e.g., Gen 10:1a, 2–7, 20, 22–23, 31–32) and continuation with materials about Abraham and his descendants (e.g., Gen 12:4b–5; 13:6 … 17:1–24).
Conflation of the Priestly expanded genealogy (= Priestly source) with Pre-P materials along with the addition of some post-P elements
Candidates for such post-P elements include the label in Gen 2:4a, some animal catalogues (e.g., Gen 6:7; 7:23) and dates (e.g., Gen 8:14) in the flood narrative, addition of Joktan and his descendants as a sideline to Peleg (Gen 10:24–30)
Early Textual Transmission of Gen 1–11: The Three Major Traditions
In addition to a few fragmentary Qumran biblical manuscripts for Gen 1–11, there are three major early textual traditions for Genesis, each of which testifies to a different strand of textual transmission of Genesis during the Hellenistic period.61 The Septuagint of Genesis (LXX), probably composed in the mid-third century BCE, witnesses both to an early Hebrew Vorlage and (by way of exegesis implicit in its translation) to some traditions of Jewish exegesis at the time.62 The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) appears to represent a slight Samaritan Recension of a Palestinian text tradition current in the early second century BCE.63 Finally, the Masoretic text (MT) generally reflects a text tradition that probably dates (for the Pentateuch and some other books) to the second or first century BCE, but did not become dominant among Jewish circles until after the destruction of the Second Temple.64
Harmonization within each traditionAs we will see, all three traditions attest to varying levels of scribal harmonization and other forms of scribal coordination. This appears particularly the case as these tradents confronted potential problems in reconciling the chronology of the above-mentioned Toledot book with parts of the narratives that followed it. For example, the Masoretic text for Gen 11:10–26 appears to reflect an early chronology that implied that all of the post-diluvian patriarchs survived into the time of Abraham, with Shem surviving into the time of Jacob. In contrast, the archetype behind the Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint eliminated that implication by lengthening the ages at which most post-flood patriarchs fathered their first son and then reducing the remainder of their life by a corresponding amount. So also, the Masoretic text and Septuagint both witness to an early reading for the total years of Terah’s life in Gen 11:32 that has him surviving another sixty years after Abraham’s departure for Canaan (Gen 12:4; cf. Gen 11:26), while the Samaritan Pentateuch avoids that problem by having Terah die in the year of Abraham’s departure.65 Turning to Gen 5, the Samaritan Pentateuch witnesses to an early chronology for pre-flood patriarchs that has several of them (Jared, Methusaleh, Lamech) die in the midst of the flood, while the Septuagint and Masoretic text avoid this implication by lengthening the years of their lives in different ways.66 In this way, the Masoretic text shows use of a scribal coordination strategy (here lengthening of patriarchs’ life lengths) that is also seen in the Septuagint and Samaritan traditions (SP and LXX for Gen 11:10–26; LXX also for Gen 5), even as these latter traditions, especially the Septuagint, manifest a more marked tendency toward such scribal adaptation in these and other loci across the rest of Gen 1–11.67
Continuing literary developmentThese divergences in the textual traditions for the primeval history show that the process of the formation of Gen 1–11 did not conclude with the above discussed combination of P and non-P. On the contrary, later scribal copyists continued to coordinate the P and non-P strands, dealing with specific problems that they perceived in the text that they had received. This probably began in the Persian period, but extended long after. The various “final redactions” that we now have in the Septuagint, Samaritan, and Proto-Masoretic versions of Genesis represent diverse products of this long-term process of scribal coordination and revision, including revisions that did not relate to the combination of P and non-P.
Though these three traditions represent slightly different literary wholes, they do not constitute the kind of fully separate literary composition that we see, for example, in the differences between Ezra–Nehemiah and Esdras or even the MT and LXX editions of Jeremiah. This commentary focuses on reconstructing, translating and commenting on a text of Gen 1:1–11:26
