v. the pentateuch. in the pentateuch we find both narratives and law. we will talk about the legal...
TRANSCRIPT
V. THE PENTATEUCH
INTRODUCTORY NOTES:
In the Pentateuch we find both narratives and law. We will talk about the legal passages later, and consider the narratives first:
The narratives make up the story of the origins of ancient Israel, well-known to you: about the beginnings of the world, about the patriarchs and matriarchs, and about Moses....
This story has always been at the center of their memory when it was recalled and retold, as well as at the center of their cultic recitations, when it was recited during the different festivals which all celebrated some aspect(s) of this story.
One of the earliest of such recitals is recorded in 1 Samuel 12:8. The ceremony took place at the time of the wheat harvest, and at the occasion of Saul’s being made king by Samuel. Here the full story of Israel is compressed into one verse only.
Another place where this kind of ancient recital can be found is Deuteronomy 26:5-9.
At another harvest festival, the Feast of the Ingathering, each male had to appear before the priest in the Temple with a basket of produce and make a confession as an immigrant in the land promised by God to his fathers. Again here it is the story that legitimizes the celebration. Here we have the story in 5 verses.
A third place to find this ancient recital is Joshua 24, spread over 12 verses, when Joshua recites the story at the heart of the summit conference.
There is something strange in this all. In these 3 ancient recitals, the story icludes the occupation of the promised land. Yet, the Torah or Pentateuch stops before that: it ends with the death of Moses!..... There is no entrance in the promised land in the most important part of the OT which is the Pentateuch!
Remembering that the Pentateuch was shaped in the 6th centure BCE, can you give an explanation why the story towards the promised land was cut short in the Torah or Pentateuch by the final redactors, while everything after Moses appears only in a second collection which is called the Prophets in the Jewish canon?
This is for example what Canonical Criticism studies: the fact that the shaping of the significant traditions, the canonization, was precisely rooted in the events which humanly speaking were seemingly the end of Israel.... in the exile in Babylon. The final form of the Torah and the Prophets comes to us from the postexilic period, at which time, both Joshua and David were completely subordinated to Moses.
V.A. GENESIS
HOW TO KNOW WHERE UNITS START AND END?
I. INTRODUCTION:
CHAPTER BREAKS AND NUMBERS:
First appeared in manuscripts of Jerome’s Latin translation.
Mid-sixteenth century, Jewish editors introduced them also into printed Hebrew Bibles.
Since they appeared relatively recent, they are not integral to the text. They represent one particular understanding about how the Bible may be subdivided.
PARAGRAPHS:
Spaces and paragraphs in the Torah scrolls are from early interpretive traditions but they have never been entirely uniform.
VERSES:
These are the most ancient. Still they are not fully authoritative
since here too we can find differences.
THUS:
We have to discover other textual clues than chapters, verses, etc. to decide where units begin and end.
We have to imagine the Bible as a single, continuous text, and then develop criteria for distinguishing the units embedded in it.
We have to read a text carefully, and look for changes in style and content, as well as look for contradictions between verses.
These are the criteria for separating biblical sources (=source criticism). But....why bother about units and sources?.....
EXAMPLE: GENESIS 1-3:
Is inconsistent: recounts several events twice. Ex. creation of humankind in 1:26-28 and in 2:7-23, but these are very different.
Chapter 1: on day 6, first the land animals are created, and then man and woman simultaneously.
Chapter 2: first man is created, then the animals, and when these are found unsuitable as partners, the woman is created.
A single story written by a single author would not be self-contradictory to that extent.
In Ch. 1, the deity is called ‘God’, and in much of Chs. 2 and 3 the deity is called ‘the Lord God’.
They use different words for ‘creation’: in 1:27 the human is ‘created’, but in 2:7 the human is ‘formed’.
The style of Ch. 1 is very different than the style of Chs. 2 and 3: it is structured into ‘days’, each with a recurring set of formulas (‘God said... It was so’, ‘And God saw that this was good. And there was evening and there was morning...’). Chs. 2 and 3 have a free flowing style without any of these formulas.
In Ch. 1 we have a powerful, majestic God. The God of much of Chs. 2 and 3: moves around in the garden, talks to people and clothes them. These 2 pictures of God are the work of different authors.
The verses 1:1 and 2:4a frame the first story. The word pair ‘heaven...earth’ and the verb ‘to create’ appear together in these 2 places only. This repetition forms a frame or envelope around the story. This is what we call an ‘inclusio’: a phrase or words indicating the limits of a unit.
The 2 stories are telling different stories:
- 1:1-2:4a: creation of the world in which people play a role alongside all else that is created.It is an ancient Israelite story about the creation of the world.
- 2:4b-3:24: has people as its main focus. The creation of parts of the world are only narrated to the extent that they are relevant to people. It is a story about the creation of humankind.
This type of analysis which tries to divide the text into earlier written documents that have been combined by editors or redactors, is called ‘source criticism’ (see above: chapter 2).
Our 1:1-2:4a is from the Priestly (P) tradition, whereas 2:4bff, is from the Yahwist (J). (Although as we have seen, scholars nowadays find it increasingly difficult to agree that an ancient ‘J’ source ever existed as a document. Probably they were just ‘fragments’.)
Why were different sources retained and even intertwined? Probably because the documents had a certain prestige and authority in ancient Israel and could not simply be discarded. A variety of sources and perspectives could thus be preserved.
THE BASIC SELF-UNDERSTANDINGS OF A SOCIETY.... CONVEYING THE THINGS OF COLLECTIVE IMPORTANCE....
II. Universal myths (Genesis 1-11):
MEANING OF THE 2 CREATION STORIES: More difficult than determining that 2
stories have been combined, is the interpretation of these stories.
Interpretation depends on ‘genre’, and to determine their genre, an internal analysis of these text must be done, which takes into account ancient (rather than modern) ways of reading texts.
The fact that the 2 stories contradict each other, suggests that the redactor who opted to combine them, did not understand either as the definitive, scientific account for how the world was created.
The 2 stories should be understood as ‘myths’, not as science. Myths are metaphors at tale level. Metaphors are figurative language, they are literally false. So are myths, but both can be true on a figurative level.
A myth uses metaphorical language to convey ‘something of collective importance’.
Interpretation must analyze what this ‘something’ is, and how the myth develops its ideas about this ‘something’.
Interpretation must not only analyze words and their individual meanings, but also the structure of the text.
The structure of 1:1-2:4a shows that every day of creation starts with a formula (‘God said, let there be...’). There are thus 6 primary days of creation which cover verses 3-31.
Then, 6 times after God creates ‘by the word’, we can read that ‘it was so’, and also that God sees that what God created ‘was good’ (with a modification in v. 31 ‘very good’). We have also 6 times ‘And there was evening and there was morning....’).
1:1-2 and 2:1-4a, do not have this structure and are not part of the actual story. Instead they should be seen as introduction and conclusion.
MEANING OF 1:1-2:4A:
The repetitive structure gives us the message that God is a highly organized, powerful creator. God says: It is so, it is good. No ifs or buts. The world is completely responsive to God’s commands.
The structure can also be divided as follows:
Day 1: Light
Day 2: Sky, water bodies
Day 3: Land, vegetation
Day 4: Luminaries
Day 5: Birds, fish
Day 6: Land animals
The elements of each triad are connected. This symmetry highlights the orderliness of creation. This emphasis on order is not surprising since this story belongs to the Priestly tradition which is concerned with order and ordering (and purity as we have seen).
The opposite of structure and order is chaos, and it is thus appropriate that 1:1-2 describe primeval chaos, a world that is ‘unformed and void’, containing darkenss and a mysterious wind. This story does not describe creation out of nothing. There is already some primeval stuff in 1-2. The text shows no concern for how this primeval stuff originated. Rather, it is a myth about how God alone structured primordial matter into a highly organized world. Only upon completion is this structure ‘very good’. Only then can God ‘rest’.
The Hebrew verb ‘bara’ is used to translate ‘create’. Unlike other words for ‘create’, this one is only used for God. This verb is part of a small class of Hebrew words that are used in reference to God only, thereby suggesting that in certain respects, God is totally other. Use of the verb ‘bara’ here accentuates God’s majesty.
Most myths also make value judgments. Here the story highlights the creation of humankind:
- the creation of humankind is the longest section (26-30)
- only after people are created is the world ‘very’ good
- only people ‘rule’ and ‘master’(28) - only for people is the act of creation
expressed using the plural ‘let us’ (26) - only for people does the text use
poetry (27)
The use of ‘let us’ and ‘our’ has been much debated. Most likely, the text is portraying God in terms of a human king who is talking to his royal counselors or cabinet. We find this also in other biblical texts like Job 1-2, Isaiah 6, 1Kings 22:19. The creation of people is so significant that this alone demands that God consults his cabinet. But then God will create people without their assistance.
Gen 1:27 uses the word ‘ha-adam’ which is generally a gender-neutral term, used to convey the meaning ‘humankind’, and ‘person’. The last part of the verse ‘male and female He created them’ confirms that ha-adam here refers to ‘humankind’ and not to ‘man’.
The word ‘image’, in Hebrew ‘tzelem’, elsewhere always refers to a physical (not abstract) representation. Humans are thus being created in God’s physical image, with male and female equal.
In the conclusion of the myth we see that only one thing surpasses humankind: the Sabbath. Only the Sabbath is ‘declared holy’. Holiness is especially important within the Priestly tradition.
Thus we have seen that the first creation story highlights both the importance of humankind and the Sabbath.
MEANING OF 2:4B-3:24
Notes: - Nowhere in the text is written what the
forbidden fruit was.... - The word ‘curse’ is absent in God’s comment to
the woman (3:16) , while it is present in God’s statements both to the serpent and to the man.
- The doctrines of the Fall of Man or original sin are nowhere to be found in this passage...
A lot has been filled in through Christian tradition....
The Garden story is about immortality lost and sexuality gained.
It starts with people being originally immortal. The huge life spans recorded in the early chapters of Genesis are part of an effort to make a bridge between that original immortality and normal life span.
As immortal beings they were asexual: God does not tell them to ‘be fertile and increase’ as they were told in the first creation story.
Sexuality is discovered only after eating from the tree of knowledge, when ‘they perceived that they were naked’ (3:7).
2:17 should not be translated as ‘for as soon as you eat of it you shall die’, but rather ‘for as soon as you eat of it you shall become mortal’.
The connection between sexuality (and thus procreation) and mortality is simple: if people were to be both sexually procreative and immortal, there would be overpopulation.
In ‘the tree of knowledge of good and bad’, ‘knowledge’ is used in a sense that it often has in the Bible: intimate or sexual knowledge.
‘Good and bad’ is used here as a ‘merism’: 2 opposite terms joined by ‘and’ to mean ‘everything’ or ‘the ultimate’. Here good and bad thus have NO moral connotations.
The ‘tree of life’ is only mentioned at the end of the story. Early in the story the people were immortal, so there was no use for the tree.
Only after eating from the tree of knowledge, becoming sexual and mortal, is this tree of life mentioned. Eating from that tree would make people sexual and immortal and thus create overpopulation. The first couple was expelled not as punishment but so that they might not eat from the tree of life and live forever.
Eating from the tree of knowledge turns the wife of Adam (ha-ishah: the woman) into Eve (progenitress, a potential mother).
3:16 is not a curse, but a description of women’s new state: procreative with all the pains connected to procreation. It does not state that before eating the fruit the women gave birth painlessly, but now they would have labor pains...
‘your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you’: might suggest an overall hierarchy of male over female, or it could mean only that men will determine when couples engage in sexual intercourse.
It is difficult to know the attitude of the author towards this new state. But in general the Bible has a positive attitude towards human sexuality. It might thus even be that Eve is being commended for bringing sexuality into this world.
This second story thus lacks the gender equality of the previous story and is not ‘very good’.
Although other feminist scholars would give a different interpretation (concerning the issue of equality):In the second creation story, ‘adam’ (human being or creature of the earth) is created from the dust. At this point we are talking about an a-sexual adam (human being). Then out of this human being, woman (‘issa’) is created, and only after this creation is ‘adam’ described as man (‘is’). So, again men and women are created together.
The God of this second story is more humanlike, walking and talking, even sewing....
Each story reflects the author’s perspectives. The myths helped to frame the essence of Israelite self-understanding, and the understanding of their relationship to their God, and the the world that they believed God had created.
OTHER THINGS TO BE NOTED:
1. The materials of Gen 1-11 find their origin in older cultures. ‘Founding myths’ (basic self-understanding of a society) portray great founding events in which the gods are the key actors. These were commonly shared from one society to another, and Israel participated in that common cultural heritage and made use of the same narrative materials as were used in other parts of that common culture.
2. Two interpretive strands are used in these narratives: Priestly (P) and Yahwist (J). In the creation narratives they are kept distinct from each other: 1:1-2:4a (P) and 2:4b-3:24 (J). In the flood narrative of 6:5-9:17 they are intertwined.
EASIEST WAY TO DISTINGUISH MATERIAL OF GENESIS 1-11:
1. Genealogies: chptrs; 5,10 and 11. They reflect ‘kinship’: a) family relationships: establish roots and legitimacy; b) metaphorical: reflecting other social, political and religious relationships as networks of power, legitimacy and loyalty.
2. Narratives: most important are: The 2 creation stories The story of Cain and Abel The great flood narrative Tower of Babel They use older materials from ancient Near
Eastern traditions, which are edited and arranged into narratives that understand the world in a Yahwistic way, different from the other original cultures. The text of the first creation story is for example related to the older Mesopotamian account of creation called ‘Enuma Elish’.
EXCERPT ENUMA ELISH:
The holy house, the house of the gods, in a holy place had not yet been made;
No reed had sprung up, no tree had been created;
No brick had been laid, no building had been errected. .....
The Deep had not been made. .... Then there was a movement in the
midst of the sea. .......
At that time Eridu was made. .... And the gods, the spirits of the earth, Marduk made at the same time. ... Marduk laid a reed on the face of the
waters, He formed dust and poured it out
beside the reed; That he might cause the gods to dwell
in the dwelling of their hearts’ desire, He formed mankind. ....
STATEMENTS MADE BY THESE MATERIALS: 1. creation narratives: the world, formed,
willed, and blessed by God belongs to God, and is to be cared for by humans who are thereto empowered but also restrained by God. They are an affirmation of the goodness of the world intended by God.
2. 3:1-24 (eating of tree); 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel) : the contradiction in creation: creation is resistant to God’s good intention for the world. (For next week: Try to find out also what the meaning is of 6:1-4.)
3. Flood narrative: the chaotic waters are an instrument of the creator God. God is sorry for creation and wants to wipe out human beings. But there is one ‘exception’, the righteous Noah. The flood narrative culminates in the divine promise of covenant faithfulness towards creation for all times to come.
4. 11:1-9 (Babel): final statement of human arrogance (narrative of contradiction) that challenges God, and evokes God’s harsh response.
The four ‘narratives of contradiction’ are thus about a continuously intensifying resistance to the will of the creator God, that each time evokes God’s harsh response. But along with this response of anger, God also acts graciously and protectively to limit the destructiveness of the human beings. The myths of origin thus make a theological statement of divine judgment and divine rescue, which are defining the God of Israel.
In the first creation story, as we have seen, God does not create from nothing but puts order in a already present disordered chaos. It is this chaos that continues to work destructively against the will of the Creator. There is thus an ‘intrinsic contradiction to God’s will’ present in the stuff of creation itself. God makes creation possible not in 1 act, but in an endless reassertion of God’s will over the resistant stuff of chaos.
Human beings, made into God’s image are made responsible for the well-being of creation.
As we saw, more important than humans, is the Sabbath: God’s creation is a world not defined by excessive productivity and consumption, but is a good place for life without excessive work on the part of God or of humankind. Those engaged in excessive production-consumption do not know that the world belongs safely to God who called it ‘very good’.
It belongs to the P-tradition and reached its final form in the Babylonian exile of the 6th century. The final form is thus not about the origin of the world (and so there is no point in the debate creationism vs evolutionism)but actually about the claim that the world belongs to the God of Israel and not to the Babylonian gods. During the exile, the Sabbath became a sign of Jewishness among other cultures, this can be noticed in the importance the final form of the text gives to the Sabbath.
In the second creation story, it is the serpent that symbolizes the resistance to God’s will: since the serpent is part of creation called ‘good’ by God, evil is intrinsic to creation, and the good world of God is in potential contradiction to the Creator.
THE STORY OF CAIN AND ABEL:
For next week: Compare with the Koran version Find Jewish midrash that fill(s) up the
gaps What is the story all about? Is there any connection between Cain
and the Kenites?
QURAN 15:27-32 27 And recount to them in truth the story of the two
sons of Adam; when they both offered a sacrifice, and it was accepted from one of the two but was not accepted from the other; he said, “I will kill you”; he said, “God only accepts from the godfearing.
28 And if you stretch out your hand to me to kill me, surely I will not stretch out my hand to kill you; verily, I fear God, the Lord of Creation.
29 Truly, I wish that you bear my sin and your sin; and you become of the companions of the Fire, and such is the recompense of the wrongdoers.”
30 And his soul susbmitted him to the killing of his brother, and he killed him and became of the losers.
31 And God sent a raven which delved in the earth to show him how to hide the shame of his brother; he said, “Woe upon me! Was I incapable to be as this raven and cover up the shame of my brother?” and he became of the repentant.
32For this reason, we ordained upon the sons of Israel that whomsoever kills a person, other than for [manslaughter of] a person or mischief in the land, it is as though he killed all of mankind, and whomsoever saves one, it will be as though he saved all of mankind; and our messengers had come to them with evidence; then indeed many after that committed excesses in the land.
THE FLOOD NARRATIVE (6:5-9:17):
Literary antecedents: in Near East especially the Gilgamesh Epic. The interpreters who took over these ancient materials edited and transformed it in order to voice out Israel’s faith. There is thus no need to look for a historical Noah or a historical ark....
Two literary sources are intertwined: one using the name of YHWH (J) (Lord) and one avoiding that name (P) (God).
8:1 is the pivot point: “But God remembered Noah”: from destructiveness of the flood to restoration and renewed fidelity of God.
The narrative makes following claims of faith: 1. Gen 6:5-7 and 11-13 are YHWH’s speech of
judgement of a failed creation: God wants to anihilate all creation and humankind. The waters are the forces of chaos that here will be used by God to implement his judgment.
2. 6:9: identification of the righteous remnant Noah and his family.
3. God is willing to stop the flood and reestablish wellbeing. This is not because of human repentance: nothing has changed in the evil inclination of humanity. The only thing changed is God’s decision to remain the faithful creator despite the condition of creation.
4. There is also a second conclusion: God’s promise that ‘never again’ the flood will destroy the earth. The rainbow serves as a reminder of the new everlasting covenant between God and creation.
This shift from judgment to assurance, can be found in both J and P:
judgment assurance J: 6:5-7 8:21-22 P: 6: 11-13 9:8-17 God changes God’s mind because of Noah,
and embraces creation anew. God’s faithful commitment to creation and humans has prevailed. The world has a future. The genealogies before and after the flood narrative are an expression of that survival of the world.
This becomes also a reassurance for the 6th century people in exile who faced their own threat of anihilation.
For next meeting: 1. Compare the flood narrative with the
Gilgamesh Epic. 2. Color in your Bibles the J and the P
portions. Read then first the J story and then the P story separately. Note: Usually ascribed to J: 6:5-8; 7:1-5,7-10,12,16b,17b,22-23; 8:2b-3a,6-12,13b,20-22. The rest is ascribed to P.
THE TOWER OF BABEL:
For next class: What does it mean that the story is a
‘myth’? What does it mean that it is an
‘etiological’ story? Is there any connection between 11:8-9
and 1:28 and 9:7?
III. THE ANCESTORS (Genesis 12-50)
A 4-GENERATION ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGINS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT BECAME ISRAEL:
Gen 12-25: Abraham and Sarah Gen 25-27: Isaac and Rebekah Gen 25-36: Jacob and Rachel Gen 37-50: Joseph The beginnings prior to Abraham are to be
found in Gen 11:10-21, all the way back to the son of Noah, Shem. Genealogies are not to be taken historically, but as devices to establish connection and legitimacy.
IN HEBRON: MEMORIAL TOMB OF THE PATRIARCHS AND MATRIARCHS (IN MOSQUE AND SYNAGOGUE): ISAAC
ABRAHAM:
REBECCA
SARAH
THREE FIRST GENERATIONS:
Are collections of small independent narrative stories (probably first oral) woven together into life stories by the editors. They focus on family relations, land, securing a wife and sons who can become heirs.
They consist of ‘type-scenes’ in which the same motif is variously repeated: ex. The betrothal scene in 24:10-61; 29:1-20; The endangered ancestress in 12:10-20: 20:1-18; 26:1-11.
TYPE-SCENES IN GENESIS:
Birth of an ancestor to a barren mother Encounter with the future betrothed at a well The ancestor pretending that his wife is his
sister Rivalry between a barren wife and a fertile
co-wife or concubine Danger in the desert and discovery of a well Treaty between the ancestor and a local king Testament of a dying ancestor For next week: find some examples (except
first 3)
PROMISE FROM GOD
The theological theme: promise from God to the ancestors of Israel (written later into texts that in an earlier form were not related at all to promises):
Promise of land: ex. 12:1-3 Promise of heirs: in each generation a
son is given by God to a barren mother: ex. 21:1-7; 25:21-26; 30:22-24.
Promise of sociopolicital importance: ex. 12:2
It is possible that the motive of ‘promise’ was originally situated in 18:1-15. This initial promise may have been about a son (and so a heir) to be born. That theme of promised son has then come to dominate the entire narrative, so that in each generation a son (and heir) is given by God to a barren mother.
It is also possible that the ‘promise’ motive may have been intrinsic to some early smaller narratives. Then it was handled by tradition to make it more powerful and dominate the whole narrative.
JOSEPH MATERIAL
Extended narrative not made up of collection of small ones.
Joseph is portrayed as an ambigous character: he is deeply Israelite but is also an accommodator to the imperialistic Pharaoh.
He can thus serve as a resource for the later generations in exile who must practice faith in a foreign political environment.
‘PATRIARCHAL HISTORY’?
The first 11 chapters of Genesis may be read as successive failed attempts by God to create an obedient humankind: the Eden generation disobeys, the flood generation disobeys, the generation of the Tower of Babel disobeys.
These failures justify the choosing of Abraham in chapter 12....
Abraham is in fact already introduced in the genealogy of 11:26, and in what follows.
12-50 are not just ‘patriarchal’, since the ‘matriarchs’ play a major role in many of these stories.
It is also no ‘history’: the stories were composed much later than the events they depict, for they reflect the background of that later period. There is no reason to believe that its authors were trying to relate exactly what happened. It is better to see them as products of communal remembering, whatever may have been the actual facts behind the memory. Plus the adaptations to make them meaningful for the exile community.
THE MATRIARCHS:
Each of the mothers is barren, thus each time they are the receptor of God’s gift of a son. In every generation the story can thus not proceed without the mother.
Especially Sarah and Rachel are uttermost important in the tradition. Sarah the mother of faith: Isaiah 51:2; 54:1-3; Galatians 3-4. Rachel: Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:18
HAGAR:
As mother of Ishmael, she is the recepient of the mercy of God. (see Ch. 16)
She embodies the fidelity of God to the family of faith outside the clan of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
She functions in the narrative to keep the horizon of Israel open to ‘the other’, who also has legitimate claims upon the promises of God. (See Gen 25:9, both sons are burying Abraham).
ARE THOSE PATRIARCHS AND MATRIARCHS ROLE MODELS?
There are more than hundred references to Abraham and Jacob outside of Genesis. Yet, never once does the text say that people should follow their actions. This implies that they were not viewed as role models in the biblical period.
Actually all of them were not exactly models of righteous behavior.
ARE THOSE PATRIARCHS AND MATRIARCHS SYMBOLS?
Some of the stories in Genesis are symbolic, where the ancestor represents Israel as a whole, or a group within Israel. Ex. Gen 12:10-20.
This story is repeated in Ch. 20 (Abraham and Sarah) and 26 (Isaac and Rebekah). The differences are significant, and show how variants of the same story might have developed over time. They also show the elements that are unique to each story.
Gen 12 version is a pre-telling of the later story of Israel in Egypt. The connection between Gen 12:10-20 and the Exodus story is sealed by the word ‘plagues’ in Gen 12:17 and Ex 11:1.
Ancient authors often prefigure later events by composing a story with the same elements but setting it at an earlier time. This highlights the importance of that later event.
Gen 12 thus emphasises the centrality of the Exodus by placing it at the very beginning of the ancestral stories.
Gen 12 is thus a symbolic text. Rather than depicting real events, it was meant to booster the importance of the Exodus, and to support a view of providence that suggest a deity who protects his/her people: who goes down with them into exile, but also returns with them from there (46:4).
Other stories may be symbolic but we can no longer recognize what they are patterned after. We can thus not say how many of the ancestral stories in Genesis are symbolic.
THE JOSEPH STORY
Is different from many of the other stories in Genesis.
Small number of inconsistencies (ex. was Joseph sold to Midianites or Ishmaelites?) which are rather inconsequential.
Even ch. 38 (Judah and Tamar) which interupts the flow of the Joseph story is well integrated into the larger story through use of theme and vocabulary.
There is a sense of drama and interest in human psychology throughout the story.
37-50 incorporates a variety of traditions and was not the work of one author.
However, it does not contain the usual sources (J,P,E) found in Genesis. There are fewer contradictions, and so might be a ‘separate novella’.
Several elements are clearly symbolic. Ex. The conflict among brothers (esp. Joseph and Judah) mirrors the conflicts of the divided monarchy. The story describes the relationships among Reuben, Judah and Joseph, which actually represent the later relationships among subgroups of Israel.
The story explains why Judah became the most important tribe among the children of Leah. Reuben, Simeon and Levi are disqualified (why?) and so Judah is left with the right of the firstborn before the story of Joseph starts.
This theme plays also in the Joseph story: Reuben is unsuccessful in saving Joseph, but Judah’s plan succeeds. Later Reuben offers to return to Egypt with Benjamin, but Jacob refuses. Judah makes the same offer, and Jacob accepts. Judah thus plays the role of leader and firstborn rather than Reuben.
This sanctions the position that Judah’s descendent King David will play. The story can thus also be viewed symbolically as a struggle between the house of Judah, representing the Davidic monarchy, and the house of Joseph, representing the northern kingdom. The story reflects the fact that the northern kingdom was much larger in area and more powerful militarily, than Judah to the south.
The story should not only be read as a political allegory. The author shows indeed much interest in the various relationships between a father and sets of children from various wives. He notes details that are usually omitted in other biblical stories.
AN OBSTACLE STORY?
Much of the material in Genesis 12-50 may be read as an obstacle story. It opens with the promise of land and progeny to Abraham and his descendents, and then in great details, time after time, various obstacles prevent this promise to be fulfilled. When Abraham is elderly in Gen 24 he has a single child and has only a burial plot.
But, amid the obstacles, the covenantal promise is repeated time and again. So, the emphasis should not be on the obstacles, but on the constantly renewed promise. This portion of the book thus functions as a myth of encouragement: it seems impossible for the promise to be fulfilled, yet the promise is renewed every time.
RESEARCH: THE WOMEN OF GENESIS: 1. Sarah 2. Rebekah 3. Rachel 4. Potiphar’s
wife 5. Leah 6. Hagar 7. Dinah 8. Tamar In small groups, research on these
women(except Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel which we did already when studying narrative criticism) in commentaries, especially commentaries from female scholars.