Genesis

Septuagint Commentary Series

Editors
Stanley E. Porter
Richard S. Hess
John Jarick
Genesis
by
Susan Brayford
LEIDEN BOSTON
2007
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data
Brayford, Susan A.
Genesis / by Susan A. Brayford.
p. cm. (Septuagint commentary series, ISSN 1572-3755)
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and indexes.
ISBN-13: 978-90-04-15552-7
ISBN-10: 90-04-15552-X (alk. paper)
1. Bible. O.T. Genesis. GreekVersionsSeptuagint. 2. Bible. O.T.
GenesisCommentaries. I. Bible. O.T. Genesis. Greek. Septuagint. 2007.
II. Bible. O.T. Genesis. English. Brayford. 2007. III. Title.
BS1234.G7S427 2007
222.11077dc22
2006048846
ISSN 1572-3755
ISBN-13: 978 90 04 15552 7
ISBN-10: 90 04 15552 X
Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijho Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior
written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted
by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to
The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910,
Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS
CONTENTS
Preface ...................................................................................................... vii
Abbreviations .......................................................................................... ix
Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
Genesis
Text and Translation .......................................................................... 31
Commentary ........................................................................................ 203
Bibliography ............................................................................................ 453
Subject Index ........................................................................................... 459
Modern Author Index ............................................................................ 462
Scripture Index ........................................................................................ 464
PREFACE
I rst became aware of the lack of an English language commentary on
the books of the Septuagint during my graduate study. Having been intro-
duced to scholarship on the Septuagint in its own right, I began research-
ing possible dissertation topics that would combine my interests in the
book of Genesis, biblical interpretation, and social world issues. I decided
to examine the dierences between the Hebrew and Greek versions of the
stories of Sarah and Abraham. To my surprise and initial disappointment,
I could nd no one source that oered a compendium of scholarship
on the Greek Genesis, whereas commentaries on the Hebrew text were
plentiful. In retrospect, that situation was both a problem and a benet.
It meant that I had to begin my work by researching the topic without
a convenient starting place. However, by so doing, I likely discovered
scholarship that I might have overlooked during the early stages of my
research had I consulted an English language commentary from the start.
Fortunately, the excellent resources that John Wevers provided for Sep-
tuagintal studies gave me a solid foundation for my own investigations.
When invited by E. J. Brill to contribute the volume on Genesis to its
Septuagint Commentary Series, I had mixed emotions. I knew rsthand
the need for such a resource and was honored by the invitation. However,
I was also learning the time demands associated with teaching in a small
four-year Liberal Arts college that had a heavy teaching load. Neverthe-
less, with the encouragement of my colleague Dr. Donald Scott to accept
the oer, I nally did so.
With the project now nearing completion, I must take a moment to
acknowledge and thank the many others who have helped me over the
years. First are the outstanding faculty under whom I studied in the
Joint Ph.D. program of the Ili School of Theology/University of Denver.
Special thanks are due to Dr. David L. Petersen, who sparked my passion
both for Hebrew Bible studies and my eventual focus on the book of Gen-
esis, and to Dr. Pamela Eisenbaum, who shared my passion for biblical
interpretation and social world issues and advised me in so many ways
throughout my dissertation. Here at Centenary College of Louisiana, I
have beneted from a stellar group of students, colleagues, and admin-
istrators, whose support has been steady and invaluable. Again, I extend
special apprecia tion to particular individuals: Dr. Earl Fleck, then Provost
of Centenary College and Dr. Kenneth Schwab, President of the College,
both of whose encouragement and enthusiasm for the project pushed
me to take advantage of all available resources the College had to oer
as described below; my Religious Studies colleagues Dr. David Otto and
Dr. Peter Hu, whose ungrudging willingness to take on additional work
allowed me to take sabbatical leave and who, along with other colleagues,
including Drs. Michelle Wolkomir, Kim Van Hoosier-Carey, Beth Leuck,
and Lisa Nicoletti gave me unfailing friendship, support, and encourage-
ment to nish the project; and Patty Roberts, whose assistance in writing
a research grant made my sabbatical possible. My appreciation also goes
to several students in particular: Ms. Connie Manning, who worked with
me over several summers to translate the entire Greek Genesis and who is
now pursuing graduate work in Greek and Classical Studies; Ms. Elizabeth
Johnson, who also helped with the translation and was quick to note the
possible reason for Mrs. Potiphars interest in Joseph; and Ms. Stephanie
Beaver and Ms. Elizabeth Coody, who gave me welcome feedback on sev-
eral parts of the Commentary.
A very special thank-you goes to Dr. Richard Hess, Professor of Old Tes-
tament at Denver Seminary, whose outstanding editorial assistance and
crucial guidance throughout the project has been invaluable. It is rare to
nd a person who is very busy with his own scholarship and teaching to
be so quick to respond usually within several hours to my many ques-
tions and concerns.
I express my sincere appreciation to the Louisiana Board of Regents for
funding that provided me the critical nancial resources to pursue and
eventually complete this Commentary. The LBOR matched funds contri-
buted to Centenary College to establish the Endowed Research Profes-
sorship in Humanities, which I occupied for two years, and the Endowed
Student/Faculty Summer Research Professorships, which supported my
work with student colleague Connie Manning over two summers. A Board
of Regents ATLAS grant allowed me to take an extra semester of sabbati-
cal leave and provided funds for travel and other expenses.
Finally, I acknowledge two very special people who are both my family
and my best friends: my mother Mary Brayford and my spouse and part-
ner Jim Whisonant, who read every word. Without their love, support,
and patient understanding, I doubt if I would have had the fortitude to
complete this project. Sadly, my mom did not live quite long enough to
see this book in publication, so I dedicate it to her memory.
viii PREFACE
ABBREVIATIONS
ALEX Codex Alexandrinus
ANE Ancient Near East
ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.
Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton, 1969.
B.C.E./C.E. Before the Common Era/Common Era
IOSCS International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies
LSJ Liddell, Scott, Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Cla-
ren don, 1968
LXX-G Greek translation of Genesis
MT Masoretic Text
JPS Jewish Publication Society
INTRODUCTION
Beginnings
In the beginning, God spoke in Hebrew or at least the biblical writers
recorded what were later declared to be Gods words in Hebrew. And that
was good as long as Gods people could read, write, and speak Hebrew.
However, one of the greatest of all Gods human creatures entered the
scene and changed the world as it was known. In 333 B.C.E. Alexander the
Great conquered the Mediterranean and part of the Ancient Near East
and made his native Greek language the lingua franca of his empire. In
the real world, as in the Garden, actions have consequences. Because he
did this, most Jews living outside the land of Israel lost their ability to
read Gods word in its original language. No one was cursed, but as in the
story world, work needed to be done to restore Gods words to his people
outside the garden land of Israel.
That work began in third century B.C.E. Alexandria, the cultural center
of the Hellenistic world, and continued for several centuries. To add to
the collection of his world famous library, so the second century Letter of
Aristeas reports, King Ptolemy II Philadelphus commissioned the transla-
tion of the Hebrew Pentateuch into Greek. He sent a delegation to Eleazer,
the High Priest in Jerusalem, to request that he appoint six learned men
from each tribe of Israel to undertake the translation. These seventy-two
men traveled to Alexandria with an authorized text of the Hebrew scrip-
tures and completed their translations on the island of Pharos in seventy-
two days. When the royal librarian Demetrius read aloud a copy of the
translation, it was approved by both the court and the Alexandrian Jews
and became their Bible and the Bible of other Greek-speaking Jews.
Over a century later, the Hellenistic Jew Philo of Alexandria enhanced
the story of Septuagint origins by attributing divine guidance to the
enterprise and making the translation even more miraculous. The
translators, although chosen for their knowledge, nevertheless made
themselves ritually pure and became as it were possessed, and under
inspiration, wrote, not each scribe something dierent, but the same
word for word, as though dictated to each by an invisible prompter
(On the Life of Moses 2.37). Philo thus considered these men to be more
than translators. Instead, he characterized them as prophets and priests
who, like Moses, were direct recipients of the divine word.
2 INTRODUCTION
These legendary accounts of Septuagint origins oer little in the way
of historical accuracy. Most scholars agree that the translations were
begun sometime during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus in the third
century B.C.E., and that the initial translation described in these accounts
refer only to the books of the Pentateuch. It is unlikely that the transla-
tors came from Israel or that the High Priest in Jerusalem was involved.
It is also unlikely that the Alexandrian Greeks initiated the translation.
Instead of being valued for their historicity, these accounts are important
for portraying the high regard that many Jews had for their scriptures in
Greek. The details in the accounts of Septuagint origins were intended to
provide the Greek translations the same authority as the Hebrew texts
on which they were based. Even in translation, the words were still the
words of God to his people wherever they were living. These legends also
led to the name of the translation. Although both these accounts report
that seventy-two learned Jewish scribes produced the translation of the
Hebrew Pentateuch into Greek, their number was eventually decreased to
the more important biblical number of seventy. Thus, the title of the col-
lection of the rst ve books of the Greek Old Testament became known
as the Septuagint, with its numeral abbreviation LXX. Later Christian
retellings extended the inspirational nature of the Greek Pentateuch to
all the books that eventually became part of the Greek Old Testament.
Before proceeding, a few comments about terminology of the Septu-
agint are in order. As Karen Jobes and Moiss Silva so accurately state,
the adjective the modifying Septuagint is misleading. There is no such
thing as the Septuagint. Unlike the Latin Vulgate or most modern bibli-
cal translations, no one person or group was responsible for the transla-
tion of all the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. Rather, what became known
as the Septuagint was undertaken by dierent translators, at dierent
times, and in dierent locations. Thus, each biblical book has its own sep-
arate origin and history. It was only later when scribes bundled together
the many separately translated books into codices that the Septuagint
appeared to be a unied work. Even then, as Jobes and Silva caution, the
particular collection of Greek texts that make up the earliest single vol-
ume manuscripts usually came together by happenstance, not intention
(2000, 3031).
Most scholars agree that it is more accurate to use the term Septua-
gint and its standard abbreviation LXX to refer only to the books of
the Pentateuch. The other books are better described as the Old Greek
(OG). Inasmuch as the Greek translation of Genesis can accurately be
termed the LXX, it will be referred to throughout this commentary by the
INTRODUCTION 3
abbreviation LXX-G. Other books outside the Pentateuch will be referred
to by the abbreviation LXX/OG to highlight the complicated origin and
text history of the set of Greek scriptures known as the Septuagint. For
more discussion about terminology, see Leonard Greenspoon 1987, 2129;
Melvin Peters 1992, 1093; and Jobes and Silva 2000, 3033.
The LXX Translation
Although most scholars today would not characterize the LXX transla-
tion as miraculous, they do maintain that it was a remarkable achieve-
ment for several reasons. First, the major dierences between the Hebrew
and Greek languages made the translation more complex than second
millennium B.C.E. translations of Sumerian texts into Akkadian (Brock
1972, 12). Secondly, the LXX represented the rst translation of a non-
western religious text into Greek. As Chaim Rabin notes, the Greek atti-
tude of cultural superiority made the LXX translation, in its Hellenistic
Greek milieu, innovative. Although Greeks had signicant contact with
other nations and were interested in their cultures, they did not go in
for translation, but for independent rewriting of information (1968, 19).
Finally, the Alexandrian Jews had no rules, guidelines, or concepts about
what type of translation they wished to produce. Even the simplistic cat-
egories of literal or free types of translation were not consciously
adopted until later.
Granting that the LXX translation was unique, some scholars neverthe-
less acknowledge that models did exist for its translators. In a thriving
commercial city such as Alexandria, with its diverse population, transla-
tion was a necessary part of doing business. Therefore, Elias Bickerman
and others following him proposed that the LXX translators modeled
their translation on that practiced in the commercial world, namely,
translations produced by professional dragomen who translated com-
mercial documents from one language into another in a very literal and
mechanical fashion (Bickerman 1959, 8). Unlike most translators, the rst
language of the dragomen was not the target language, but the source
language. They learned their craft by ear and had neither the ambition
nor the skill required for literary translation. To avoid mistakes, these
dragomen most often used stereotyped lexical equivalents for their
translations.
Rabin similarly argues that the LXX translators modeled their transla-
tion on translations produced by both court and commercial dragomen.
4 INTRODUCTION
However, he expands on Bickermans analysis by discussing the similar-
ities between the techniques of these dragomen and those of the LXX
translators. Both, he argues, displayed a penchant for mechanical and
stereotypical translation, even when the equivalents made no sense in
context; both substituted plain statements for metaphors; both omitted
parts of the texts that they considered superuous. He goes on to say that
the dragomens training to translate word for word and to use ready-
made renderings for syntactical constructions might explain the inu-
ence of biblical Hebrew on the LXX syntax (1968, 2125).
While this model might account for some of the techniques of the LXX
translators, it falls short in other areas. Sebastian Brock describes the two
primary methods of translation in antiquity in terms that are strikingly
similar to what Eugene Nida refers to today as formal equivalence and
dynamic equivalence (1964, 165176). One method focused on translat-
ing the words of the text and was used mainly for legal and business docu-
ments. These translators, like the dragomen mentioned above, neither
attempted to remove textual diculties nor to explain obscurities and
preferred stereotypical and formal renderings. The other method aimed
at translating the sense of the text and was used primarily for literary
works. These translators attempted to clarify textual diculties and pre-
ferred dynamic renderings. Brock, however, maintains that the LXX did
not t precisely into either category, since its texts were both legal and
literary. Unlike Bickerman and Rabin, he claims that the translators had
no real model for their work. Neither did they have a guiding philosophy
of translation. As a result, their translation style was inconsistent (Brock
1979, 6973).
Other scholars similarly characterize the style of the LXX translators
as eclectic. James Barr, whom many credit with launching the current
research in translation technique, dismisses the two-fold distinction
between literal and free translations as being too simplistic. There
are, he argues, dierent ways of being literal and dierent ways of being
free, so that a translation can be literal and free at the same time but
in dierent modes or on dierent levels (1979, 6). He goes on to say
that ancient biblical translators had no denitive method of translation,
especially those who worked on the earliest books of the LXX. Their style
was ad hoc and their choice of words was often based on context. It was
only later that translators began to dene their translation strategies in
the direction of increasing literalism, a trend that reached its apex with
the very literal Greek translation of Aquila (1979, 69). The reasons for
INTRODUCTION 5
increasing literalism, Barr contends, were both practical and ideological.
Translating word by word was easier and seemed to ll the need for
greater accuracy. Furthermore, the concept of divinely-inspired scrip-
ture made even the most minute aspects of a text more signicant (1979,
50). Thus, although the LXX translators were aware that they were trans-
lating a sacred text and were faithful to its words and meanings, they had
not yet dened literalism as the best way to render Gods words.
Along with the trend for more literal translations came the growing
recognition that LXX/OG translators did not always understand their
Hebrew texts. As a result, they resorted to techniques that actually made
their translations less literal. Emanuel Tov identies six indicators of
this lack of understanding. Some words were left untranslated or merely
transliterated. At times, the translators resorted to contextual guesses.
Evidence for such guessing includes the reliance on parallelism in poetic
texts, reliance on etymology in all types of texts, and the use of a gen-
eral term that could t multiple contexts. At other times, however, they
seemingly manipulated the Hebrew consonants to come up with words
that appeared more contextually appropriate (1984, 5567). Examples of
these types of occurrences appear throughout the Commentary.
Early LXX/OG History
During the next several centuries, the LXX went beyond its Pentateuchal
foundation and expanded to include the Prophets, the Writings, and even
some Jewish literature that would not be designated as sacred scripture.
This Greek Old Testament was the Bible of Greek speaking Jews, some of
whom brought it with them when they became part of an apocalyptic sect
of Judaism that was emerging in Israel and other parts of the Mediterra-
nean. Eventually, the beliefs of this group caused it to be disassociated
with Judaism and become a separate religion known as Christianity. Nev-
ertheless, most of its early adherents retained the Greek Old Testament
as their own scripture, but interpreted many of its texts especially pro-
phetic texts in ways that authenticated its major belief that their leader
Jesus was the promised Jewish messiah. In what C. F. D. Moule describes
as one of the most remarkable take-over bids in history (1964, 106),
Christians claimed their interpretations were correct and began to use
the Greek Old Testament against the ideas of the people who originally
wrote and translated it. As a result, Jews became suspicious of Christian
tampering with the LXX/OG and decided to revise it so that it would be
6 INTRODUCTION
more faithful to the Hebrew version that was current in Judaism (Tov
1992b, 143).
The rst such complete revision occurred in the early second cen-
tury C.E. Aquila, a Gentile who became a Christian and later converted to
Judaism, embarked on an explicitly literal revision as a way of rescuing the
LXX/OG from Christian abuse. As a result, some Christians were harshly
critical of his revision. As Jellicoe notes (1968, 77), Irenaeus thought him
too bold in attempting to displace the LXX/OG among Christians (Against
Heresies 3.21.1), and Epiphanius accused him of deliberate distortion (Of
Measures and Weights 15). Nevertheless, his work was appreciated by the
Jews, who continued to use his version until the fth century C.E. ( Jelli-
coe 1968, 77). Other Church fathers including Jerome and Origin acknowl-
edged Aquilas faithful rendering of the current Hebrew text and thus his
contribution to a type of pre-modern text criticism. His version, along
with those of Symmachus (noted for improving the literary quality of
Aquilas text) and Theodotian (since Barthlemy associated with the so-
called kaige revision) were collated by the Church father Origin for his
six-column Hexapla. In the rst column, Origin transcribed the current
Hebrew text, with its Greek transliteration in the second column. Col-
umns three, four, and six contained the versions of Aquila, Symmachus,
and Theodotian respectively. The fth column was the Septuagint text
currently used by the Church, which Origin edited with text critical signs
to indicate where the LXX/OG diverged from the Hebrew text. His aim
was to reconstruct the original text of the LXX/OG that had been cor-
rupted over time through intentional and unintentional changes. In so
doing, Origin produced not only a signicant text critical resource, but
also one that would help fuel the debate between Christians and Jews
regarding the accuracy of the Christian LXX/OG compared with what Ori-
gin regarded as the superior Hebrew text. Unfortunately, Origin based
his eort on the assumption that the Hebrew text of column one was the
same text that the rst LXX/OG translators used. As a result, instead of
restoring the presumed original Greek text, Origin actually produced an
LXX/OG text that reected an earlier version of the Hebrew Masoretic
text (hereafter MT) compiled by the Jewish Masorete scholars between
the fth and ninth centuries C.E. As a result, he added yet another mixed
text and, in Jellicoes words, extended the very confusion he sought to
remove (1968, 111).
Several other attempts were made to remedy the problematic prolif-
eration of divergent LXX/OG texts. Earlier scholars maintained that a
certain Hesychius, working in fourth century C.E. Alexandria, undertook
INTRODUCTION 7
a revision of the Egyptian form of the LXX/OG. He was said to have based
his revisions on the Hebrew and omitted the longer readings associated
with earlier Greek versions ( Jellicoe 1968, 146156; 345346). Today, how-
ever, the lack of veriable information about the man and his text has
led some scholars to abandon the notion of a Hesychian recension ( Jobes
and Silva 2000, 4748). Another recension is attributed to the late third
century C.E. Antiochian theologian Lucian. However, the presence of pre-
sumed Lucianic readings in documents written prior to the historical
Lucian has led scholars to speak of a Proto-Lucianic text, which Jobes and
Silva describe as an early revision of the LXX/OG that brought it closer
to the Hebrew text. If such were the case, the historical Lucian might
have used the earlier revision as the basis for his own. The existence of
two Lucianic texts one considered Proto-Lucianic and one attributed
to the historical Lucian would help explain why some Lucianic read-
ings appear to be closer to the Hebrew text than those of other LXX/OG
manuscripts, while others seem further removed from the Hebrew text
(2000, 5455).
At the same time, the Old Latin, like its LXX/OG parent, had fallen
into low estate ( Jellicoe 1968, 251). Thus, in the late fourth century
C.E., Pope Damascus commissioned Jerome to make a thorough revision.
However, after beginning this eort, Jerome acknowledged that what
was really needed was a completely new translation from the current
Hebrew text. His translation, known as the Vulgate, eventually replaced
the LXX/OG as the Bible of the Western Christian Church. Hence, one of
the most signicant Bible translations both historically and exegeti-
cally was relegated to near obscurity for all but the Orthodox Church
and a few scholars who used it primarily for text critical purposes. There
it remained for centuries.
Subsequent Text History of the Greek Genesis (LXX-G)
The number and diversity of LXX/OG texts that were in circulation attest
to the importance of the LXX/OG to its very dierent audiences. Of the
thousands of such witnesses, special text critical signicance is given to
certain uncial (all upper case letters) and minuscule (mixed upper and
lower case letters) manuscripts and, for LXX-G, the Chester Beatty papyri
fragments. Three uncials dating from the fourth to tenth centuries C.E. are
considered the primary witnesses for LXX/OG: the fourth century Vatica-
nus (Codex B) and Sinaiticus (Codex ) and the fth century Alexandrinus
8 INTRODUCTION
(Codex A). Vaticanus is relatively free of corruptions that occurred due to
the LXX/OG revisions described above and is the most complete, despite
the fact that it lacks all of Genesis before 46:28b. Sinaiticus agrees with
Vaticanus in most instances when both reect the Old Greek translation,
but shows some signs that it was inuenced by LXX revisions. Alexandri-
nus (hereafter ALEX) is inuenced by the Hexaplaric revisions and shows
signs of harmonizations (Tov 1992b, 138139). Nevertheless, ALEX is the
best manuscript for Genesis.
Copied onto leaves of ne vellum, the text is arranged mostly in quires
of eight with twenty-three to twenty-ve letters per line, forty-nine to
fty-one lines per column, and two columns per page. It is now bound in
four volumes, the rst three of which contain the Old Testament. Large
letters in the margin indicate the beginning of paragraphs or sections
except in the third volume, which also shows a slightly dierent style
of writing than that associated with the rst two volumes. There are no
breathing marks or accents by the rst hand; apostrophes occasionally
separate words; and numerous and lengthy erasures are written over with
the preferred text of one of at least three later correctors. Paragraphs
are marked by a large capital letter and additional spacing. Some of the
superscriptions and colophons show the Egyptian forms of Greek letters
and suggest an Egyptian provenance (Swete 1887, xxiixxiii; Jellicoe 1968,
183184). A note by the Patriarch Cyril implied that tradition associated
the manuscript with Thecla, a noble lady of Egypt, shortly after the
Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), and that her name originally appeared in a
note (since lost by mutilation) at the end of the volume (Kenyon 1937,
84). Although Kenyon comments that 325 is too early a date for the note
to be authentic, he nevertheless accepts Egypt as ALEXs place of origin
(1937, 84).
Others, however, deny ALEXs Egyptian origin. As Theodore Skeat
writes, F. C. Burkitt in 1909 suggested that ALEX was found on Mount
Athos, the Holy Mountain associated with Eastern Christian Orthodoxy,
and perhaps taken to Egypt by Cyril in 1616. Skeat refutes Burkitts rea-
soning but never theless agrees that ALEX likely was transported from
Constantinople to Alexandria between 1308 and 1316 and remained there
until 1621 (1955, 233235). Thomas Pattie similarly argues that Athana-
sius II brought ALEX to Alexandria, but has no idea where it was origi-
nally written (1998, 70). Despite the uncertainty associated with ALEXs
actual origin, its later history is not debated. It was the property of the
Patriarchs of Alexandria from the end of the thirteenth century until
1627. ALEX was then housed in Londons Royal Library of St. James before
INTRODUCTION 9
moving to Londons British Museum in 1757, where it remained until 1973
when the British Library split from the British Museum. Since then, ALEX
has been housed in the British Library (Metzger 1981, 86).
The rst scholar to produce an edition of ALEX was Johannes Ernst
Grabe, who completed two (the Octateuch and the Poetic books) of four
volumes before his death in 1711. The other two volumes (Historical
Books and the Prophets) were completed by Francis Lee and William
Wigan and published at Oxford in 17191720. Grabes edition was repro-
duced in Zurich (173032), Leipzig (17501751), and again in Oxford by
Field. As Jellicoe states, Fields edition of 1859 removed some of the short-
comings of Grabes earlier edition (1968, 184); however, he does not indi-
cate the nature of these shortcomings. Several facsimilies of ALEX were
undertaken by Henry Herver Baber (18161821) and E. Maunde Thomp-
son (18811883), both with the British Museum, and a later one begun by
Sir Frederic Kenyon in 1909 but not completed until 1957 ( Jellicoe 1968,
184185).
While some scholars such as Swete praise ALEX, others nd fault with
its many subsequent corrections and long erasures. Furthermore, it is
often said to betray evidence of theologically motivated glosses, as well
as signicant Hexaplaric inuence. Jellicoe, however, discounts these lat-
ter two criticisms. In his opinion, ALEX has no more theological glosses
than other manuscripts, and its Hexaplaric inuence has been over-
simplied (1968, 186187). Rather than characterizing the problems in
ALEX as indicative of translation independence, Jellicoe asserts that it
shows translation eclecticism. He goes on to posit an early underlying
Alexandrian text that he dates to the time of Hesychius in the fourth cen-
tury C.E. The compiler, however, far from being satised to reproduce
this text, uses it merely as a framework, sometimes rejecting it entirely in
favour of other recensions, in particular those of Lucian and Origen . . . His
object seems to have been to arrive at a continuous text that would com-
bine and integrate the fruits of the critical labours of Palestine and Syria
as well as those of his native Egypt (1968, 188).
The sixteenth century marked the beginning of other editions of the
LXX/OG. In the early part of that century, Christian scholars in Spain
produced the rst printed edition of the entire LXX/OG as part of the
Complutensian Polyglot Bible that included the texts of the Latin Vulgate
surrounded by the Hebrew and Greek versions. The Aldine edition of the
LXX/OG appeared during the same time period, but was based on only a
few late manuscripts. It was the publication of the Sixtine edition in 1587
and its Latin companion the following year that Jellicoe characterizes as
10 INTRODUCTION
the rst tentative steps towards the production of a critical edition of the
LXX/OG (1968, 1). Its lead editor Cardinal Antonio Carafa gathered many
manuscripts for the project and became convinced of the superiority of
Vaticanus, which from that time forward was the uncial used as the base
text by nearly all subsequent editions. The exception was that of Grabe,
who, as mentioned above, published an edition based on Alexandrinus
in the eighteenth century ( Jobes and Silva 2000, 7071). However, the
extensive work undertaken by Robert Holmes and James Parsons in the
late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries to produce an edition that
included evidence from over three hundred manuscripts to supplement
its Sixtine base text is what Jellicoe credits as the beginning of modern
LXX/OG text critical study (1968, 12). Of special signicance for LXX-G is
Holmess 1795 transcription of the Vienna Genesis, followed by his 1798
critical edition of Genesis. Tischendorf published a number of previously
unedited or partially transcribed manuscripts in the 1800s, but none
were truly satisfactory ( Jobes and Silva 2000, 72).
What Jellicoe terms the Modern Era in Septuagint research began
in the late nineteenth century with the work of Paul Legarde. He was
the rst to realize that all extent LXX/OG manuscripts were mixed, not
pure, texts and assumed that all extent witnesses could be traced back to
the three recensions mentioned by Jerome, i.e., the trifaria varietas that
included the Hesychian, the Hexaplaric of Origin, and the Lucian. Once
these three were reconstructed, the original LXX/OG could be ascertained.
Any attempt at reproducing a so-called Urtext (original text) demanded a
knowledge of the translation style of individual translators, and should
reect readings that represented a freer translation style and a non-MT
Hebrew text. Using these principles, Legarde published his Genesis Graece
in 1868. It included material from the Sixtine, Complutensian, and Aldine
editions ( Jellicoe, 1968, 68). This volume was to be followed by a larger
critical edition of Lucians fourth century text of Genesis to Esther. How-
ever, as Jobes and Silva indicate, only the rst volume was published.
It was an uneven work in which he included so many variant readings
for Genesis that the critical apparatus was too large to print (2000, 244).
Never theless, Legardes principles provided the foundations for the work
of his student Alfred Rahlfs, as well as other scholars associated with the
Septuaginta-Unternehmen center at the University of Gttingen.
As one of the worlds foremost institutions for text critical research
on the Septuagint, the Septuaginta-Unternehmen launched a long-term
project to produce a critical edition of each book of the LXX/OG. A critical
edition is based on no one manuscript. Instead, its editor uses all available
INTRODUCTION 11
textual evidence in an attempt to reconstruct the closest approxima-
tion of the original form of each book. The outbreak of the rst World
War delayed work on the fully-critical Larger Gttingen Septuagint. How-
ever, before his death in 1935, Rahlfs published a semi-critical edition
(Handausgabe) that was based primarily on the three major uncial man-
uscripts described above, but that nevertheless included material from
many other manuscripts. Despite its provisional nature, Rahlfss Hand-
book is still considered the standard LXX/OG text ( Jobes and Silva 2000,
7475). Genesis, the rst volume of the Larger Gttingen Septuagint series,
appeared in 1926 and was published by the Wrttemberg Bible Society.
However, as Rahlfs himself acknowledged, it was only a form midway
between that of a pocket edition and that of the larger edition which had
been previously proposed (cited in Jellicoe 1968, 15). Its poor reception
delayed the publication of other books in the series until the Gttingen
Commission took responsibility for the project. All subsequent volumes
have been published by Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. These critical edi-
tions have two sets of apparatus: the rst for LXX/OG textual evidence
proper and the second for Hexaplaric evidence of revisions attributed to
Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus.
Another major LXX/OG project was launched by Cambridge University
Press in Great Britain in the late nineteenth century. Contributors to the
Cambridge Septuagint, like their Gttingen counterparts, collected tex-
tual evidence from many dierent manuscripts. However, the results of
their work were, and continue to be, based on dierent text-critical meth-
ods. The Cambridge LXX/OG texts, which include the so-called minor
editions of Swete (The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint,
18871894) and the major editions of Brooke, McLean, and Thackeray
(the Larger Cambridge Septuagint, 19061940), are known as diplomatic
texts that use a single best manuscript. That Vaticanus is considered the
best manuscript is made explicit in the longer title of the Larger Cam-
bridge volumes: according to the text of Codex Vaticanus, supplemented
from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the
variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint
( Jellicoe 1968, 22). However, because Vaticanus is missing most of Genesis,
both minor and major editions of Cambridge Genesis were based on Alex-
andrinus through 46:28a. Other textual evidence is collated and appears
in the Swete editions in a single apparatus that contains readings from
, A, B, D (Codex Cottonianus Geneseos or Cotton Genesis), E (Codex
Bodleianus Geneseos, or Bodleian Genesis), and F (Codex Ambrosianus).
The apparatus of the Larger Cambridge Septuagint is tripartite. The rst
12 INTRODUCTION
includes the small errors in the principle manuscripts, the second reports
the variant readings of all other textual witnesses except the Hexaplaric
evidence, which appears in the third apparatus. Genesis, the rst volume
of the Larger Cambridge Septuagint, was published in 1906.
Issues in Modern LXX-G Scholarship
LXX-G and Text Criticism
Just as we cannot reclaim the pristine conditions of the primeval garden,
we cannot reclaim the original texts of the LXX. Neither can we know
the exact Vorlage, i.e., the Hebrew text, used by each individual LXX/OG
translator. Even noted text critical scholars such as Tov and John Wevers
acknowledge that reconstruction of the original text of either the Hebrew
or Greek scriptures is impossible. Nevertheless, the work they and many
others have done to achieve the impossible has expanded greatly what
is known, and has provided impetus for all that remains to be accom-
plished. Although hardly a new discipline at the time, text criticism of the
Hebrew Bible burgeoned after the mid twentieth century discoveries at
Qumran. The value of the Dead Sea Scrolls for LXX/OG studies in general,
and for LXX-G in particular, is mixed. As regards the LXX/OG in general,
Tov opines that one of the most signicant contributions of the Qumran
discoveries is the evidence they oer for reconstructing the Hebrew texts
used by the translators of the books of the LXX/OG (1992a, 11). Neverthe-
less, he elsewhere states that of the thousands of dierences between
the MT and the translations, only a fraction of them was created by a
divergence between MT and the Vorlage of the translation. Most of the dif-
ferences were created by other factors that are not related to the Hebrew
Vorlage. These are inner-translational factors, especially in the area of
exegesis (1992b, 123). Thus, any proposed reconstruction of the Hebrew
Vorlage should proceed with caution.
James VanderKam and Peter Flint report that the remains of twenty-
four Genesis manuscripts were unearthed at Qumran, most of them from
Cave 4. The oldest of the scrolls containing Genesis is 4QpaleoGen
m
and
dates to the middle of the second century B.C.E. Despite the large number
of scrolls containing Genesis, most of them are fragmentary and witness
to only thirty-four of the fty chapters of Genesis. Based on the evidence
available, VanderKam and Flint conclude that the Hebrew text of Genesis
was fairly stable by the period of Qumran and seems to be a text that is
close to the traditional MT and the Samaritan Pentateuch. Other than
INTRODUCTION 13
dierences in spelling and other minor deviations, only eleven scrolls
of Genesis contain any signicant variations, with the exception of the
dierences in the chronological system (2002, 104), as discussed in the
Commentary.
Nevertheless, the pre-Qumran relationship between LXX-G and its
Hebrew parent text is hotly debated. Put succinctly, the question is
whether the Hebrew text that the translators used, i.e., its Vorlage, was an
early form of the MT (i.e., proto-MT) text or not. Some scholars includ-
ing Wevers, Albert Pietersma, and Martin Rsel argue that it was; others
including William Brown, Ronald Hendel, and James Davila argue that it
was not. That such well respected LXX/OG scholars should disagree over
this one particular issue is not surprising. Jobes and Silva in fact claim
that the opposing positions about the relationship between any LXX/
OG book and its Hebrew Vorlage is perhaps the weightiest problem in
Septuagint scholarship (2000, 90). It certainly is the most debated ques-
tion for the LXX-G. The answer or answers to the question leads to other
questions. If the dierences between LXX-G and its parent text are not
due to a non-MT Vorlage, when, how, and why did they occur, and what
are the implications of the dierences? If they are due to a non-MT Vor-
lage, when, how, and why did the Hebrew text reect what later became
the MT?
The extensive work that Wevers did to establish the critical text of
Genesis to replace the earlier volume of the Gttingen Septuagint project
convinced him that the parent text being translated was in the main
much like the consonantal text of the MT; in other words, the extant
textual tradition must be taken seriously (1993, xiii). He goes on to
acknowledge, however, that particular passages, described more fully in
the Notes themselves, show either a misreading on the part of the transla-
tor or a dierent text. Nevertheless, he chides those who speculate, based
on fragments found in Qumran, the existence of a non-MT Vorlage. One
must begin, Wevers cautions, with a prejudice towards the text which
we actually have. The occasions when it is clear that a reconstructed text
was the basis for Gen (the Greek translation of Genesis) are only rarely
evident (1993, xiii).
Other conclusions that Wevers reached similarly represent his assess-
ment of the work done by the translator of LXX-G. Wevers maintains that
because the translator was consciously working on a canonical text, he
did not merely substitute Greek words for their Hebrew counterparts.
Rather, he tried to put in Greek dress what [he] believed God intended
to say to his people (1993, xii). As such, the Greek translation is sensible
14 INTRODUCTION
throughout. Confusion on the part of modern readers is due to our
inability to see the text from the point of view of the third century B.C.E.
Greek-speaking Alexandrian Jewish translator. He shared our human-
ity, Wevers opines, but not our culture, our way of thinking, or even
our demand for logical consistency (1993, xiv). Weverss nal conclusion
reects the interpretive signicance of the Greek Genesis as compared
with the Targums and the Mishnah. It is instead the earliest exegetical
source that we have for understanding the Pentateuch (1993, xv). Thus,
Wevers values the Greek Genesis for its own sake, and even as a means of
understanding the Hebrew text, but claims that it should not be treated
as a grabbag for emendations (1993, xv).
To support his argument that the translator of the LXX-G used a proto-
MT Hebrew text, Wevers analyzes the dierences between the two ver-
sions of Genesis 3. The dierences in describing the womans evaluation
of the trees in v. 6 reects the translators stylistic improvement, which
Wevers considers a common feature of the translator. Yet, two verses
later, the translator seems to take a dierent approach. Instead of retain-
ing a picturesque gure of speech (1985, 30), the translator shows his
interest in clarity. This interest in clarity is better reected in his ten-
dency to add either a subject or an addressee to the verb said (e.g.,
v. 9) and to make explicit what is only implicit in the Hebrew (e.g., v. 17).
Wevers also notes the translators strong tendency to harmonize the text,
while at the same time avoiding excessive formulaic renderings. Over-
all, Wevers characterizes the dierences between the Hebrew and Greek
versions of Genesis 3 as evidence of the translators attempt to interpret
his parent text intelligently, rather than to resort to a word-for-word
literalism (1985, 38).
Whereas few doubt the text critical value of the Greek books of Samuel
and Jeremiah, Martin Rsel represents those scholars who see the text
critical value of LXX-G as signicantly less important. He, like Wevers,
maintains that the Hebrew Vorlage used by the LXX-G translator was very
close to the consonantal text of the MT. Therefore, LXX-G contributes
less to text critical issues and more to the history of interpretation and
reception (1998, 69). Like Wevers, he notes that the translation of LXX-G
shows evidence of harmonization, linguistic sensitivity, and exegesis. In
fact, he states that only if one can exclude with a high degree of prob-
ability that the variant in question cannot be explained as a harmoniza-
tion or an exegetically or linguistically motivated deviation can the MT
be corrected with the help of this variant (1998, 70).
INTRODUCTION 15
Johann Cook, another recognized LXX/OG scholar who has written
extensively on LXX-G, acknowledges that LXX-G shows some amount
of theologically motivated exegesis. One of the most notable examples
is found in the LXX-G translation of 2:2. Finding it troubling that the
Hebrew text implied that God did some work on the seventh day, the
translator of LXX-G changed the seventh day to the sixth day. Cook also
contends that the addition of the adverb in addition to () in 2:9 and
the plural reading in 2:18 let us make reect the translators attempt
to avoid apparent anomalies (2004, 4). However, Cook considers these
examples unusual. Instead he concurs with those who argue that Gen-
esis is a relatively literal translation of its Hebrew Vorlage. As a result,
he contends, contra Wevers and Rsel, that most deviations between the
LXX and the MT reect a dierent non-MT parent text (2004, 3). He, in
fact, argues more strongly for this position in his later writings. Whereas
he rst attributed some of the dierences between the two texts to
LXX-Gs harmonizing tendency (1982, 3536), he later recanted that
position and argued instead that most dierences between the Hebrew
and the Greek should be attributed to a non-MT Vorlage (2001, 320). His
change of opinion is most evident in the dierences between the Hebrew
and Greek versions of Genesis 1:9, as is discussed in the Commentary.
William Brown, even more strongly than Cook, argues that the LXX-G
translators were working from a parent text that preceded the MT. He
cites Harry Orlinskys pronouncement that the discoveries at Qumran
make it more dicult to conclude that dierences in the LXX/OG were
the result of the translators dealing promiscuously with their Hebrew
Vorlagen (1993, 113). Instead, it is the relation between the Vorlage and
the MT that needs to be evaluated. Browns detailed examinations of
Genesis 1:12:3 in the MT and LXX-G, especially the role played by the
water in both, leads him to conclude that the Hebrew text preserved by
the Masoretes is essentially a subtle ideological revision of the Hebrew
Vorlage of the Old Greek (1993, back cover). Brown not only argues for a
non-MT Vorlage, he also oers a proposed reconstruction of the Hebrew
text used by the Greek translator of Genesis 1:12:3.
Both Brown and Cook base at least part of their argument that the LXX-
G translator was working with a non-MT Hebrew Vorlage on the work of
James Davila. His work on several fragments of Genesis discovered in
Qumran led him to conclude that some, but not all, of the fragments attest
to a Vorlage more original than the MT (1990, 3). For example, 4QGen
b

that preserves parts of Genesis 1, 2, 4, and 5 reects a text identical to
the MT, whereas 4QGen
g, h, k
have readings that diverge from the MT. Of
16 INTRODUCTION
those, Davila maintains that both 4QGen
h
and 4QGen
k
oer evidence for a
Hebrew text that agrees with the LXX of Gen 1:9 against the MT. Despite
the mixed evidence, Davila nevertheless argues that the LXX of Genesis
must be regarded as a text critical source for a Hebrew text alternate to
the MT (1990, 811). He goes on to state that the translators of Genesis
treated their Vorlage with respect and rendered the Hebrew text before
them into Greek with great care and minimal interpretation (1990, 11).
Ronald Hendel represents those scholars who, while arming some
degree of interpretation in the translation of LXX-G, nevertheless argues
that LXX-G provides evidence for a non-MT Hebrew Vorlage. Like Brown,
Hendel cites Orlinskys post-Qumran caution against assuming promis-
cuous translations on the part of the LXX/OG translators and laments
the fact that Wevers and others have not taken the ndings in Qumran
more seriously (1998, 1617). He maintains that the LXX-G translation
was extremely literalistic in its unit-by-unit conservation of the Hebrew,
producing a dicult text characterized by Greek words and Hebrew
syntax (1999, 32). Hendel criticizes Rsel and Wevers who both por-
tray the translators style in some places as literal and in some places as
free a style that Hendel dubs as wildly inconsistent (1999, 32). He
instead argues that the translator was more consistently literal in ren-
dering a dierent Vorlage.
LXX-G and Translation Technique
Contrary to Weverss assertion that one should posit a dierent par-
ent text only if other reasonable explanations fail (Wevers 1985, 29),
Anneli Aejmeleaus argues the scholar who wishes to attribute deliber-
ate changes, harmonizations, completion of details and new accents to
the translator is under the obligation to prove his thesis with weighty
arguments and also to show why the divergences cannot have originated
with the Vorlage (1987b, 71). Comments like these and those of the above
scholars demonstrate the explicit connection between the question of
the LXX-G Vorlage and the translation technique of the LXX-G transla-
tor. Described by Tov as the special techniques used by translators when
transferring the message of the source language (in this case Hebrew)
to the target language (koine Greek), translation technique includes the
choice of lexical and grammatical equivalents, as well as the amount of
adherence to the Hebrew text (1987, 339). Although often undertaken
along with grammatical studies, studies in translation technique are
fundamentally dierent. Grammatical studies begin with the language
INTRODUCTION 17
of the LXX/OG and focus on the diachronic development of the Greek
language as a whole. Studies of translation technique, on the other hand,
begin with the Hebrew text and oer a synchronic perspective on the
Greek of the LXX/OG. Tov dates the modern study of translation tech-
nique to 1841 and describes its development through the middle of the
twentieth century; however, he rightly credits the so-called Helsinki
School associated with I. Soisalon-Soininen and his students for making
the greatest contribution to the discipline of translation technique (1987,
342349). They have devoted years of study and research to address all
aspects of translation technique, including issues of grammar, lexicogra-
phy, and syntax. The results of these studies, as they relate to LXX-G, are
discussed below.
One prolic scholar associated with the Helsinki school is Aejmeleaus.
As she observes, the growing interest in translation technique has pro-
duced studies that represent three dierent, but at times overlapping,
approaches: 1) the technical statistical approach that attempts to provide
a quantitative measurement of the relationship between the LXX/OG and
its Hebrew Vorlage; 2) the linguistic approach that concerns itself with
the Greek language of the translators; and 3) the exegetical approach
that attempts to assess the non-quantiable elements of the translation
including the attitudes and intentions of the translator. Although most of
her work reects the linguistic approach, she nevertheless comments on
the third approach and concedes that we know little, if anything, about
the intentions of the earliest translators beyond their need to understand
their scriptures in the Greek language of their day and time. Study of
translation technique, therefore, describes the results of the translators
work, rather than his method or intention (1991, 28). She concurs with
Barr that these translators had no explicit method. Instead, their work
is characterized by intuition and spontaneity more than conscious delib-
eration and technique, which she says is evident in how they employ
excellent free renderings and helplessly literal, Hebraistic renderings of
one and the same Hebrew expression almost side by side (1991, 25).
Although acknowledging Barrs critique of the terms literal and
free when assessing translation style, Bndicte Lemmelijn catego-
rizes the rst two type of studies mentioned above on the basis of these
two terms. She characterizes scholars such as Tov and Benjamin Wright,
who advocate the approach that Aejmeleaus calls the technical sta-
tistical approach, as ones who focus on the degree of literalness of the
books of the LXX/OG (2001, 5154). Building on Barrs earlier typology
18 INTRODUCTION
of literalism, Tov has proposed ve criteria to describe the degree of
literalness in a text, four of which can be measured statistically by means
of the CATSS (Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies) database.
Statistical analyses, Tov and Wright maintain, help overcome the use of
mere impression in assessing translation style by providing some ele-
ment of precision (1985, 149153).
The linguistic approach, on the other hand, addresses free renderings.
As Aejmeleaus writes, it is the deviation from literality that points to the
unique style of individual translators. Free renderings, she maintains,
are like ngerprints that the translators have left behind them. By these
ngerprints it is possible to get to know them and to describe their work-
ing habits, their actual relationship with the original, and their talent as
translators (1987a, 361362). She goes on to argue that statistical anal-
yses of literalism do not help determine whether individual deviations
from the MT were already found in the Vorlage, came into being during
the initial translation, or occurred in later revisions. However, taking into
account the amount of freedom characteristic of an individual translator
can help resolve the issue (1987a, 362).
Her examination of parataxis in the LXX/OG demonstrates how a
translators deviation from the norm oers a basis for characterizing
translation technique. As readers of Hebrew narrative know, the Hebrew
conjunction vav () begins over half the clauses in the Hebrew Bible.
Because the most literal meaning of vav is and, it implies only a coor-
dinate or equal relationship between the clauses it connects. As such, it
lacks the sophistication of the Greek language that has many varied ways
to express the relationship between clauses. The LXX/OG most often ren-
ders vav by the coordinate conjunction (and). Thus, a translators use
of other connective particles that are prevalent in non-translation Greek
such as , , , indicates, per Aejmelaeus, a freer rendering
and shows the translators ability to use more natural Greek expressions
(1987a, 370).
The translators of the Pentateuch used to render vav in ordinary
paratactic clauses over seventy-six percent of the time. Although a high
percentage, it also means that they chose to use other conjunctions
nearly twenty-ve percent of the time. Thus, Aejmelaeus maintains these
statistics indicate at that at least some of the translators some of the time
thought there was a better way to connect the clauses. Of all the books of
the Greek Pentateuch, LXX-G shows the lowest percentage. Its translator
used for vav in less than sixty-three percent of the cases, preferring ,
the most common conjunction in original Greek texts, nearly twenty-ve
INTRODUCTION 19
percent of the time. In chapter 31 alone, the LXX-G translator used the
post-positive thirty-four times in fty-four verses (Leiter 1988, 108).
Even more signicant, the translator rendered the Hebrew narrative
transition formula !! (and it came to be) by means of (rather
than by ) in seventy-two percent of the cases, a frequency so
high that it can be considered a stereotypical rendering. These statistics
show that the LXX-G translator possessed a good command of the Greek
idiom and considerable regard for the larger context (Aejmelaeus 1987a,
371). Tov comments that the LXX-Gs frequent use of instead of
the later much more common implies that its translator, likely
the rst, was still searching for a method of translation (1987, 351).
The LXX-G translators relatively frequent use of the post-positive
and resulting deviation from strict word order, his tendency to choose
words based on context and content over mere consistency, and his
regard for narrative coherence are factors that lead Leiter and others to
characterize the LXX-G as a relatively free translation. Frank Polak simi-
larly comments that the Greek translator of Genesis positively endeav-
ors to utilize the rich possibilities which the Greek language oers him
in order to do justice to the particularities of the Hebrew text (2003,
529). In so doing, he shows sensitivity to the narrative context in which
parataxis occurs.
Raija Sollamo examines the ways by which LXX/OG translators render
the common Hebrew paronomastic construction that is made up of an
innitive absolute and a nite verb of the same stem. This construction
most often strengthens the idea of the verb and is thus used for empha-
sis. In rendering these emphatic constructions, the LXX/OG translators
occasionally used a somewhat parallel and thus relatively literal con-
struction of participle plus a nite verb of either the same root or one
that was synonymous. However, the more common Greek rendering of
the paronomastic innitive construction in the Pentateuch is the nite
verb with a cognate noun, most often in the dative, but occasionally in
the accusative or with a preposition. In other places, the Hebrew inni-
tive absolute was not translated at all or was rendered by an adverbial
construction. Sollamos analysis of all such translations in the Pentateuch
shows the problems associated with statistical analyses, as well as the
categories literal and free. LXX-G used the rst and more literal way
of translating the Hebrew paronomastic construction more often than
other Pentateuchal books and would thus be considered a more literal
translation. However, interpreting the data in a dierent way produces
the opposite result. Analyzing the instances where the translators used
20 INTRODUCTION
the freer methods of rendering the Hebrew innitive construction, Sol-
lamo shows that LXX-G more often than the other books used the most
free type of rendering, that of not rendering the innitive at all. In this
case, LXX-G would a more free translation. In her nal analysis, Sollamo
agrees with others that LXX-G is second only to Exodus in its degree of
free renderings (1985, 101113).
Sollamo comes to a similar conclusion after examining the repeti-
tion of possessive pronouns in the LXX/OG. This is another instance of
a grammatical construction that is quite dierent in Hebrew and Greek.
Whereas Greek, like English, indicates possession by a separate posses-
sive adjective (e.g., his book), Hebrew shows possession by attaching a
pronoun sux directly to the noun. Thus, his book is a single word
composed of the word book (40,) to which the third masculine sin-
gular pronoun his () is added, resulting in 40,. When two or more
objects are possessed by the same person, the pronoun sux is added to
each noun. For example, Gen. 38:18 MT reads your ring, your cord, and
your sta (") "%!70 ")7). LXX-G, like nonbiblical koine Greek, does
not duplicate your after every object, so that it reads your ring, the
cord, and the sta ( ).
Despite the fact that the possessive pronouns are repeated in the Greek
Pentateuch in fty to seventy-seven percent of all cases in the dierent
books, Genesis is second only to Exodus in having the lowest percentage
(Sollamo 1981, 4142).
The results of these and other linguistic studies on LXX-G leads Aejme-
laeus and other scholars to conclude that Genesis is one of the freest
translations and represents the most natural Greek. As a result, it is
more dicult to trace its Vorlage (1987b, 6566). That is likely a main rea-
son that scholars disagree about the source of dierences between the
Hebrew and Greek texts of Genesis.
The third type of translation technique study, the exegetical approach,
acknowledges that the translators at times manipulated their Hebrew
text. Despite the legendary accounts that the LXX translators worked
individually on a remote island, the truth is that translators never work in
a contextual vacuum. The LXX translators, like those today, were inevita-
bly inuenced by many dierent types of factors physical, geographical,
social, and psychological. Although psychological factors are both impos-
sible and inappropriate to attempt to discern, the three other factors are
more concrete. In the case of the LXX, these relate to the third century
B.C.E. Alexandrian milieu of the Hellenistic Jewish translators. Most Alex-
andrian Jews, while sharing the religious convictions of their Palestinian
INTRODUCTION 21
counterparts, were living in very dierent conditions in a thriving Hel-
lenistic city characterized by ethnic, social, and religious diversity.
Robert Hanhart represents those scholars who approach the issue of
exegesis in the translation of the LXX/OG cautiously and conservatively.
He maintains that interpretation is only evident in the lexical decisions
made by the translators in choosing between the various possibilities
of understanding the Hebrew text. He goes on to say that the LXX/OG
translations represented actualization of contemporary matters only
when the choice of the Greek equivalent is capable of doing justice both
to the factuality and history of the original Hebrew witness and also to
the contemporary history of the translator (1992, 342343).
Wevers, on the other hand, argues for a much less conservative posi-
tion. In the last portion of his 1996 essay The Interpretative Character
and Signicance of the LXX, he discusses the particular features of the
LXX-G translation that lend themselves to exegetical possibilities. First
is its tendency for harmonization. Should a similar statement recur, the
translator often repeats his translation of the earlier statement, rather
than retranslate it. In other cases, the translators knowledge of his
Hebrew text causes him to anticipate what will come later and add to
the text of an earlier verse (1996, 9697). LXX-G often attempts to cor-
rect seeming inconsistencies in the text for both grammatical and nar-
rative reasons (1996, 97100). Wevers also maintains that the translator
produced a text which would make clear what he believed MT meant
(1996, 100). In some cases, the translator opted for semantic clarity,
rather than lexical consistency (1996, 101). In others when the obscu-
rity of the Hebrew puzzled him, he resorted to what Tov characterized
as contextual guesses (1984, 56). Finally there are instances that show
the translator intentionally changed the narrative in terms of plot and
characterization (Wevers 1996, 103104) or updated geographic or his-
torical details (1996, 104105). As a result, Wevers dubs the Greek Genesis
as the earliest commentary extant for any biblical book and praises it
for the insight it provides on how Jews in third century B.C.E. Alexandria
understood their Bible (1996, 107). Examples of these types of inuences
will be noted throughout the Commentary.
LXX-G Texts, Translations, and Commentaries
LXX/OG study has experienced a renaissance of sorts over the past several
decades. Independent scholars and those aliated with organizations
22 INTRODUCTION
and universities all over the world have produced and continue to work
on many important research, translation, and commentary projects.
Although the Larger Cambridge Septuagint project ceased publication in
1940 with many biblical books not translated, the Larger Gttingen Sep-
tuagint project continues. To date, twenty volumes have been published.
As mentioned above, the Genesis volume of Rahlfs was not a fully critical
edition and not well-received. Therefore, Wevers accepted the oer of the
Septuaginta-Unternehmen to produce the needed fully critical edition of
Genesis. Although acknowledging that the ultimate goal of determining
the original text (of LXX Genesis) as it had been produced by the trans-
lator was impossible, Wevers nevertheless undertook a long, arduous,
and eventually successful investigation into hundreds of manuscripts of
Genesis, as well as papyri and other versions. In addition to producing the
critical text of Genesis, Wevers wrote a number of studies that analyzed
the major textual groups that comprised Genesiss textual history and
later incorporated this research into a separate publication Text History of
the Greek Genesis. He also published a verse-by-verse commentary on his
critical text of Genesis: Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis. The work that he
did to establish the critical edition of Genesis, published in 1974, and the
accompanying resources, provided the general pattern that he would fol-
low for producing critical editions of the remaining Pentateuchal books
for the Gttingen series (1999, 6596).
The International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies
(IOSCS), a nonprot learned society that was formed to promote research
on the LXX/OG and related texts, has undertaken two major projects. The
rst is a New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS), which is based
on the best available editions. Thus LXX-Gs translator Robert Hiebert
used Weverss critical Gttingen text. The two objectives of NETS are to
create a faithful translation of the LXX and to create a tool for synoptic
use with the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) for the study of the
Greek and Hebrew Bible texts, with an overall goal of producing an Eng-
lish version that reects what the translator evidently thought the text
to mean, as inferred from the linguistic information his text provides
(Pietersma 2001, 217, 220).
Commenting on his translation of the Greek Genesis, Robert Hiebert
acknowledges some of the lexical, grammatical, and syntactic challenges
of translating a translation. In particular, he cautions those who read
and translate the LXX/OG to remember that the Greek text is not always
semantically equivalent to the underlying Hebrew. In accordance
INTRODUCTION 23
with NETS objectives, Hieberts translation of the Greek Genesis seeks
to represent the intended meaning of the creator of a text rather than to
reect what the interpretative tradition(s) subsequently made of it (2000,
7879). He goes on to comment on verses where the LXX-G translator was
quite literal (2000, 8083), as well as on other verses that show the trans-
lators tendency for contextualization, harmonization (2000, 8590), and
expansion (2000, 9092). He, in other words, would characterize LXX-G much
like Aejmelaeus, as showing evidence of both literal and free renderings.
In conjunction with the NETS project and in collaboration with the
Society of Biblical Literature, the IOSCS is publishing a commentary
series whose purpose, like that of NETS, is to provide the reader with
the original meaning of the LXX/OG. Each individual commentary in
the SBLCS (Society of Biblical Literature Commentary Series), in other
words, will attempt to present the translators intent, as discerned by
means of the linguistic information embedded in the Greek text. As
such, both the NETS translation and the SBLCS adhere to dierent philo-
sophical principles than those of the other two major commentary series
discussed below.
The rst major commentary series was launched in 1986 by a group
of French LXX/OG scholars led by Marguerite Harl. This nondenomina-
tional commentary series, known as La Bible dAlexandrie (BA), uses
Rahlfs as its base text. Its rst volume La Gense, produced by Harl herself,
was published in 1986. Its overall goal of providing as exact a translation
of the Greek text of the LXX/OG as possible is based on four principal
strategies: translating the LXX/OG according to the Greek, determining
the dierences between the LXX/OG and the Hebrew texts, understand-
ing the reasons for these dierences, and studying the ancient reception
and interpretation of the LXX. A fth step is to revise the initial literal
translation in order to meet the basic demands of the French language
(Harl 2001, 181183).
One important dierence between the BA project and NETS is the
decision that BA translators would work only with the Greek text during
the rst phase of the translation. Reference to the MT, the only avail-
able Hebrew text but not the exact Hebrew Vorlage, would divert the
translators attention from the primary aim of rendering the ancient
Greek text as accurately as possible. Thus, rather than attempting to
determine the meaning of a problematic Greek word or phrase by con-
sulting the Hebrew text, the BA translators look to contemporary Greek
texts for elucidation.
24 INTRODUCTION
Another dierence between BA and NETS is the distinction Hiebert
makes between intended and apprehended meaning (2000, 79).
Whereas NETS attempts to reect the manner in which the Greek trans-
lator intended his text to be understood rather than the manner in which
a Greek audience might understand that text, BA explicitly acknowl-
edges the responses of LXX/OGs ancient audiences as a means of pro-
viding insight into what early Christians, in particular, understood the
Greek scriptures to mean. This approach, Harl states, is based on the
conviction that a writing contains in itself, in its own text, the elements
of its future interpretations (2001, 195). Therefore, she oers many ne
discussions of the ways in which Philo, Paul, and most of the early Church
Fathers likely understood the LXX-G texts. For more detailed analyses of
the goals of both projects and their philosophical dierences, see the
essays by Harl, Pietersma, Arie van der Kooij, and Natalio Fernndez
Marcos in the X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and
Cognate Studies.
E. J. Brill Septuagint Commentary on Genesis
Text
The E. J. Brill Septuagint Commentary series, to which this volume con-
tributes, follows dierent guidelines and philosophies. Unlike the BA that
uses Rahlfs as its base text and the NETS/SBLCS that is based on the best
editions (thus Gttingen when available), the commentaries in this series
are each based on one of the three main uncial codices. The reason for
taking this approach is to produce a text that actually existed in a partic-
ular reading community. For Genesis, as discussed above, the only uncial
that can be used is Alexandrinus. Vaticanus is missing the rst forty-six
chapters of Genesis, and Sinaiticus is defective in much of Genesis. By
contrast, Alexandrinus lacks only 14:1417, 15:15 and 1619, and 16:69.
For its base text, this Commentary relies Swetes 1887 edition of the
Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint, and follows its spelling.
Thus spelling throughout the Commentary is conformed to standard
conventions. Any lacunae are lled by Holmess Cottonianus Geneseos
(Codex D). The source of the electronic Greek text of Genesis is Rahlfs,
from Bibloi (formerly Bible Windows). This text was then modied to
correspond with the 1887 Swete edition. For places in which Swetes edi-
tion is uncertain, Weverss Gttingen edition was also consulted. Other
characteristics of Swetes 1887 edition that are followed in the Commen-
INTRODUCTION 25
tary include verse numbers, chapter divisions, major narrative divisions,
and capitalization (especially Swetes distinctive capitalization of the
Greek word for Lord, ). In several places, the chapter and verse
numbers are dierent from those of the MT and other LXX/OG manu-
scripts. ALEXs Chapter 31 ends with a verse that is the rst verse in
Chapter 32 in other versions. Similarly, Chapter 42 ends with a verse that
is the rst verse in Chapter 43 in other versions. As a result, the verse
numbers in both Chapters 31 and 43 in the Translation and Commentary
sections are one number less than other versions. These deviations are
noted in the Commentary section. Swetes punctuation is also followed as
often as possible, except when it makes the English translation dicult
to understand.
Methodology
The purpose of E. J. Brills commentary series is to provide a commentary
on the Septuagint in its own right. Therefore, reference is to be made
to the Hebrew text only when necessary. Nevertheless, as stated above,
LXX-G does not deviate signicantly from its Hebrew parent text, which,
for the purposes of this Commentary, is assumed to be proto-MT. As a
result, it is necessary to discuss features of the Hebrew narrative that
agree with the Greek version, not only to provide coherence, but also to
better understand the signicance of the occasional dierences. Inas-
much as this Commentary is not meant to provide a thorough review of
scholarship on the Hebrew text, only a few representative commen taries
on the Hebrew text have been used. The two primary ones are Claus Wes-
termanns three-volume commentary and Nahum Sarnas JPS commen-
tary. Important contributions on the Hebrew text by other scholars are
referenced as appropriate throughout.
The two major reference works consulted for the Greek text are
Weverss Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis and Margarite Harls La Gense.
These are supplemented with the ndings of other scholars who have
contributed to LXX-G study. An abbreviated reference to all secondary lit-
erature appears in the Commentary by authors last name, date of publi-
cation, and page number(s). Complete bibliographic information appears
in the Bibliography.
The Commentary itself acknowledges text critical issues, especially
when ALEX has a dierent reading than other witnesses. In some cases,
the text is corrected in accordance with the corrections noted in Swetes
edition. However, no attempt is made to suggest the better or best
26 INTRODUCTION
reading. Instead, the Commentary examines the text as it is and inter-
prets it in its own right from literary, historical, social, and theological
points of view. Inasmuch as most of Genesis is narrative, it is best to read
the book as one part of the larger story of Israel from the beginning to
the time of the sojourn in Egypt. As noted above, it is impossible to ascer-
tain the intention of the author or the translator. However, it is possible
and appropriate to analyze the signicance of the dierences between
the Hebrew MT and ALEXs LXX-G regardless of how and when the dif-
ferences occurred. In other words, the relationship between the Hebrew
Vorlage and LXX-G is not of primary importance. Although the position
reected in the Commentary presumes the Hebrew Vorlage was proto-
MT, rather than a Hebrew text that was later revised and corrected in the
MT, the guiding principle for the comments is that of reecting on the
manner in which the readers of ALEX might have understood and inter-
preted their Greek Genesis.
Conventions
Rendering proper names is particularly challenging. Many such names in
Hebrew not only mean something, but those meanings are often word-
plays that are usually impossible to duplicate in translation. As a result,
most often LXX-G transliterated the Hebrew names, rather than trans-
lated their meaning. The conventions for rendering proper names are as
follows:
When LXX-Gs rendering of a Hebrew proper name is translated, so is
the English rendering of the Greek name. For example, in 33:17 where
the Hebrew place name Succoth (7#,) is translated as , the
Greek is also translated into English as Tents.
When LXX-Gs rendering of a Hebrew proper name is transliterated, so
is the English rendering of the Greek name. For example, /,! (Joseph)
is transliterated in LXX-G as and in the Translation as Isph.
In the Commentary section, the more common English name will be
used. The rst time the common name is used, the name as it appears
in the Translation follows the more common name in parentheses.
For example, the rst time that Isph appears in the Translation
(30:24), the recognizable name Joseph appears beside Isph in the
Commentary.
INTRODUCTION 27
When the LXX-G name replaces the Hebrew name, the more common
English name is used. For example, the Hebrew '!42) (Egypt) appears as
in LXX-G and as Egypt in the Translation and Commentary.
Despite their declension in LXX-G according to function, proper names
are transliterated only in their nominative form.
Gentilics for Greek words ending in , in most cases will end
with the English characters ite. Plurals ending in oi will end with the
English characters ians. Exceptions are noted in the Commentary.
Following A. Graeme Auld in his earlier E. J. Brill Septuagint Commen-
tary Series volume ( Joshua: Jesus Son of Nau in Codex Vaticanus, 2005), the
Greek name for Israels God () is rendered in the Translation as
Lord, not the Lord (xvii).
Other conventions followed in the Commentary include:
Double quotation marks enclose the exact words of other scholars
Single quotation marks enclose translated material from the MT, LXX,
or other primary texts
Transliteration from Greek into English characters follows the guide-
lines that appear in The SBL Handbook of Style as follows:
a
b
g
n (before , , , )
d
e
he
z

th
i
k
l
m
n
x
o
p
r
rh
s
t
y (not in diphthong)
u (in diphthongs: au, eu, u, ou, ui)
ph
ch
ps

(rough breathing = h)
au
eu
heu
u
ou
ui
28 INTRODUCTION
Translation
Much like the LXX-G itself, the English translation herein attempts to
be faithful to the meaning that the translator discerns in the source
text, here ALEX. As such, some renderings are based on context and the
requirements for understandable English. For example, the preposition
between is not repeated when rendering phrases such as that of 3:15:
. The
translation reads and between your ospring and her ospring.
However, the translation as a whole is fairly literal in most places. This
often results in awkward and often inelegant English. Nevertheless, its
awkwardness to contemporary readers in a sense mimics the manner in
which native readers of Greek might have regarded the style of LXX-G.
Some particular aspects of the translations literalism include:
Lexical consistency: is followed as often as possible except where the
literary context makes another translation more sensible. For example,
the Greek verb is most often translated with some form of
the English verb travel, especially when distance is involved. How-
ever, in places where the subject only goes a short distance, some form
of the English go is used instead. The meanings of some Greek words,
however, are especially dependent on context. For example, the Greek
word is translated a variety of ways, including origin (2:4),
descendants (6:9), kindred (31:13), and birth (32:10).
Parataxis: the uncertainty of the precise relationship between clauses
in the LXX-G is duplicated in the translation. The Greek is routinely
translated as and, and the post-positive is variously translated as
now, then, or but/yet. Thus, the English translation avoids the
unintentional interpretation associated with expressing a more pre-
cise relationship between clauses.
Subordination of verbal ideas: the opposite problem of parataxis.
Throughout LXX-G, the translator often subordinated the rst of two
nite Hebrew verbs by rendering it with a participle. For example, the
Hebrew of 3:6b (%#7 !40) 37) has two vav consecutive verbs that
are both translated in the past tense: and she took from its fruit and she
ate. LXX-G renders the rst nite verb took (3%) as the aorist parti-
ciple , thus taking, and the second ate (%#) as the simple
aorist (), thus she ate. In so doing, the second verbal idea seems
to be the stronger. This way of rendering is followed throughout.
INTRODUCTION 29
Emphatic constructions: As discussed above, Hebrew often uses two
forms of the same verb for emphasis. This occurs most frequently in
grammatical constructions involving an innitive plus a nite verb.
Throughout this commentary, such phrases are translated as literally
as possible, most often by repeating the verbal idea. For example, Gods
threat should the human eat from prohibited tree (2:17) in the MT
reads 7)7 7), you will surely die. LXX-G renders it with a cognate
dative noun (death/) of the verb to die (), thus, the
translation you will die in death.
GENESIS
TEXT AND TRANSLATION
1
1
.
2

,
.
3

.
4

.
5

, .
, .
6
,
.
7


,
.
8

. , .
9

, .
,
.
10
,
.
11

,
, ,
.
12
,
, ,
. .
13

, .
14

,


15
,
. .
16

,
, .
17

, ,
1
1
In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.
2
Yet the earth
was invisible and unformed, and darkness was over the bottomless deep;
and the breath of God was oating over the water.
3
And God said, Let
light come into being; and light came into being.
4
And God saw the light,
that it was good; and God separated between the light and the darkness.
5
And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And it
came to be evening and it came to be morning, day one.
6
And God said, Let a rmament come into being in the midst of the water,
and let it be a separation between water and water; and it came to be in
this way.
7
And God made the rmament; and God separated between the
water that was under the rmament and the water that was over the r-
mament.
8
And God called the rmament heaven; and God saw that it was
good. And it came to be evening and it came to be morning, a second day.
9
And God said, Let the water under the heaven be gathered together into
one gathering, and let the dry land appear; and it came to be in this way.
And the water under the heaven was gathered together into their gather-
ings, and the dry land appeared.
10
And God called the dry land earth, and
the collections of the waters he called seas; and God saw that it was good.
11
And God said, Let the earth produce pasture herbage, seed reproducing
according to species and according to likeness, and a fruit bearing tree mak-
ing fruit, whose seed is in it according to species for the purpose of likeness
on the earth; and it came to be in this way.
12
And the earth brought forth
pasture herbage, seed reproducing according to species and according to
likeness, and a fruit bearing tree making fruit, whose seed is in it according
to species on the earth. And God saw that it was good.
13
And it came to be
evening and it came to be morning, a third day.
14
And God said, Let there come into being luminaries in the rmament of
the heaven for lighting of the earth, and to rule the day and the night and
to separate between the day and the night; and let them be for signs and for
seasons and for days and for years;
15
and let them be for lighting in the r-
mament of the heaven, so as to shine on the earth; and it came to be in this
way.
16
And God made the two great luminaries, the greater luminary as rulers
of the day and the lesser luminary as rulers of the night, and the stars.
17
And
God placed them in the rmament of the heaven, so as to shine on the earth,
18
,
.
19

, .
20


.
21

, ,
* .
22

,
, .
23

, .
24
,
, .
25

,

.
26



.
27

,
.
28

, ,


.
29

, ,
,
30

,
. .
31

, .
, .
* Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of ALEXs unique .
34 GENESIS 1:1831
18
and to rule the day and the night, and to separate between the light and
the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
19
And it came to be evening and
it came to be morning, a fourth day.
20
And God said, Let the waters bring forth reptiles among animate beings
and birds ying over the earth under the rmament of the heaven; and
it came to be in this way.
21
And God made the great sea monsters and
every animate being among reptiles, which the waters brought forth
according to their species, and every ying bird according to species; and
God saw that they were good.
22
And God blessed them saying, Increase
and multiply, and ll the waters in the seas, and let the birds multiply
over the earth.
23
And it came to be evening and it came to be morning,
a fth day.
24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth animate beings according to
species, quadrupeds and reptiles and wild animals of the earth according
to species, and it came to be in this way.
25
And God made the wild animals
of the earth according to species, and the domesticated animals accord-
ing to species and all the reptiles of the earth according to their species;
and God saw that they were good.
26
And God said, Let us make human-
kind according to our image and according to likeness; and let them rule
over the sh of the sea and the birds of the heaven and the domesticated
animals and all the earth and all the reptiles crawling on the earth.
27
And
God made the human, according to the image of God he made him; male
and female he made them.
28
And God blessed them saying, Increase and
multiply, and ll the earth and exercise dominion over it, and rule the
sh of the sea and the birds of the heaven and all the domesticated ani-
mals and all the earth and all the reptiles crawling on the earth.
29
And
God said, Look, I have given you every sowable herbage reproducing
seed, which is over all the earth; and every tree, which has in itself fruit
of sowable seed; to you it will be for food,
30
and for all the wild animals of
the earth and all the birds of the heaven and every reptile that crawls on
the earth, which has in itself animate being; and every green herbage for
food. And it came to be in this way.
31
And God saw all the things, whatso-
ever he made, and indeed they were very good. And it came to be evening
and it came to be morning, a sixth day.
GENESIS 1:1831 35
2
1
.
2



.
3

,
.
4
,
,
5

,
. ,

6

.
7

,
.
8
,
.
9


,
.
10

.
11

. ,

12

.
13

.
14

.
, .
15

,
.
16


17

,
, .
18

.
19

,

, .
36 GENESIS 2:119
2
1
And the heaven and the earth and all their order were completed.
2

And God completed on the sixth day his works that he made; and he left
o on the seventh day from all his works that he made.
3
And God blessed
the seventh day and declared it holy, for in it he left o from all his works
that God began to make.
4
This is the book of the origin of heaven and earth, when it came into
being; on the day Lord God made the heaven and the earth,
5
and every
green plant of the eld before coming into being on the earth, and all
herbage of the eld before rising up. For God had not sent rain on the
earth, and there was no human to work the earth;
6
but a spring was going
up from the earth and was watering all the face of the earth.
7
And God
formed the human of dust from the earth; and he breathed into his face
the breath of life, and the human came to be an animate being.
8
And Lord God planted a garden in Edem to the east, and he placed there
the human whom he formed.
9
And God again made spring up from the
earth every tree ripe in appearance and good for food; and the tree of
life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowing what is to be
known of good and evil.
10
Now a river ows out from Edem to water the
garden; from there it separates into four heads.
11
The name for the one is
Pheisn. This one surrounds all the land of Hueilat, where there is gold;
12
but the gold of that land is good; and there is coal there and the light
green stone.
13
And the name for the second river is Gn; this one sur-
rounds all the land of Aithiopia.
14
And the third river is Tigris; this one
goes opposite the Assuris. Now the fourth river, this one is Euphrats.
15

And Lord God took the human whom he formed and he placed him in the
garden, to work and to keep it.
16
And Lord God commanded Adam saying,
From every tree of the garden you will eat for food;
17
but from the tree
of the knowing good and evil, you will not eat from it; so in whatever day
you eat from it, you will die in death.
18
And Lord God said, It is not good that the human be alone; let us
make for him a helper corresponding to him.
19
And God formed again
from the earth all the wild animals of the eld and all the birds of the
heaven, and he brought them to Adam to see what he would call them;
and whatever Adam called every animate being, this was its name.
GENESIS 2:119 37
20

*
.
21

,
.
22

, ,
.
23

,
.
24

,
.
3
1
, ,
.

;
2


3

,
, .
4


5

, ,
, .
6

,
,
, .
7

,
.
8


.
9

, ;
10

,
, , .
11

,
, ;
12
,
, , .
38 GENESIS 2:2024 & 3:112
* Reading with the majority instead of ALEXs unique .
20
And Adam called the names of all the domesticated animals and all the
birds of the heaven and all the wild animals of the eld, but for Adam
no helper like him was found.
21
And God cast a trance on Adam, and he
fell asleep; and he took one of his ribs and lled esh in its place.
22
And
Lord God built the rib, which he took from Adam, into a woman; and he
brought her to Adam.
23
And Adam said, Now this one is bone from my
bones and esh from my esh; this one will be called Woman, for from
her man this one was taken.
24
On account of this, a human will leave
behind his father and his mother, and will be joined to his wife; and the
two will be one esh.
3
1
And the two were naked, both Adam and his wife, and they were not
ashamed. Now the snake was the wisest of all the wild animals on the
earth, which Lord God made; and the snake said to the woman, Why is
it that God said, Do not eat from every tree in the garden?
2
And the
woman said to the snake, From every tree of the garden we may eat,
3
but
from the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God said, Do
not eat from it nor shall you even touch it, so that you not die.
4
And the
snake said to the woman, You will not die a death;
5
for God knew that on
whatever day you would eat from it, your eyes would be opened, and you
would be like gods, knowing good and evil.
6
And the woman saw that the
tree was good for food, and that it was pleasing for the eyes to see and was
ripe for understanding, and taking its fruit, she ate; and she also gave to
her man with her, and they ate.
7
And the eyes of the two were opened,
and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed together leaves of a
g tree and they made themselves aprons.
8
And they heard the sound of Lord God walking around in the garden
toward evening; and they hid, both Adam and his wife, from the face of
Lord God in the middle of the trees of the garden.
9
And Lord God called
to Adam and said to him, Adam, where are you?
10
And he said to him,
Your sound I heard walking around in the garden, and I was afraid, for
I am naked, and I hid.
11
And he said to him, Who told you that you
are naked; unless from the tree of which I commanded you, this one
alone, not to eat, from it did you eat?
12
And Adam said, The woman,
the one you gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.
GENESIS 2:2024 & 3:112 39
13
;
, .
14

,
,
.
15

,
,
.
16

,
, .
17

,
,

18

, .
19


.
20
,
.
21

, .
22
,
.
, .
23

,
.
24

,

.
4
1
,
. .
2

.

.
3


4

40 GENESIS 3:1324 & 4:14
13
And Lord God said to the woman, What is this that you did? And the
woman said, The snake tricked me, and I ate.
14
And Lord God said to the
snake, Because you did this, accursed are you among all the domesti-
cated animals and among all the wild animals of the earth; on your breast
and the belly you will travel, and earth you will eat all the days of your
life.
15
And hostility I will place between you and the woman, and between
your ospring and her ospring; he will watch for your head, and you
will watch for his heel.
16
And to the woman he said, Multiplying I will
multiply your pains and your groaning; in pains you will bear children,
and to your husband will be your turning, and he will be lord over you.
17
Then to Adam he said, Because you listened to the voice of your wife
and ate from the tree of which I commanded you this one alone not to
eat, from it you ate, cursed is the earth in your work; in pains you will eat
from it all the days of your life;
18
thorns and thistles will rise up for you,
and you will eat herbage of the eld.
19
By the sweat of your face you will
eat your bread until you return to the earth from which you were taken;
for earth you are and into the earth you will be taken.
20
And Adam called the name of the woman Life, for she is the mother of
all the living.
21
And Lord God made for Adam and his wife leather tunics,
and he clothed them.
22
And Lord God said, Look, Adam has become like one of us, knowing
good and evil. And now perhaps he might stretch out the hand and take
of the tree of life and eat, and he will live forever.
23
And Lord God sent
him out of the garden of luxury, to work the earth from which he was
taken.
24
And he threw Adam out and he settled him opposite the garden
of luxury, and he stationed the cheroubim and the aming sword that
turns itself to guard the way of the tree of life.
4
1
Now Adam knew Heua his wife, and she conceived and bore Kain.
And she said, I have acquired for myself a human being through God.
2
And she proceeded to bear his brother Habel.
And Habel came to be a shepherd of sheep; but Kain was a worker of
the earth.
3
And it came to be after some days Kain brought from the
fruits of the earth a sacrice to Lord;
4
and Habel he also brought from
GENESIS 3:1324 & 4:14 41
.

5

.
.
6
,
;
7
,
, ; ,
.
8

.
.
9

;
;
10

; .
11

,
.
12
,

.
13

.
14
,
,
.
15

.

.
16

.
17
, .

.
18
,
, ,
.
19

, .
20

.
21

.
22

. .
23


,
,
,

24
,
.
42 GENESIS 4:424
his rstborn sheep and from their fatty parts. And God looked on Habel
and on his gifts;
5
but on Kain and on his sacrices he paid no attention.
And it caused Kain great distress and he collapsed in the face.
6
And Lord
God said to Kain, Why have you become deeply grieved, and why did
your face collapse?
7
If you oer correctly, but if you do not divide cor-
rectly, do you not sin? Be calm; to you will be its turning, and you will
rule over it.
8
And Kain said to Habel his brother, Let us go over into
the open eld. And it came to be while they were in the open eld Kain
rose up against Habel his brother and he killed him.
9
And God said to
Kain, Where is Habel your brother? But he said, I do not know; am I
a keeper of my brother?
10
And God said, What did you do? The sound
of your brothers blood cries out to me from the earth.
11
And now you
are accursed on the earth, which opened its mouth to receive the blood
of your brother from your hand.
12
For you will work the earth, and it
will not continue to provide its power for you; a groaner and trem-
bler you will be on the earth.
13
And Kain said to Lord, My guilt is too
great for me to be forgiven.
14
If you throw me out today from the face
of the earth, and from your face I will be hidden, and I will be groan-
ing and trembling on the earth; and anyone who nds me will kill me.
15
And Lord God said to him, It is not so; anyone who kills Kain will suer
seven vengeances. And Lord God himself placed a sign on Kain that any
who nd him should not destroy him.
16
Then Kain went out from the face
of God and he lived in the land of Naid opposite Edem.
17
And Kain knew his wife, and conceiving she bore Hench. And he was
a city builder; and he named the city after the name of his son Hench.
18
Now to Hench was born Gaidad, and Gaidad fathered Mail, and Mail
fathered Mathousala, and Mathousala fathered Lamech.
19
And Lamech
took for himself two wives; the name of the rst was Ada, and the
name of the second was Sella.
20
And Ada bore Ibel; this one was the
father of those living in tents who are herdsmen.
21
And the name of his
brother was Ioubal; this one was the one who invented the harp and lyre.
22
Then Sella also bore Thobel; and he was a hammerer a smith of copper
and iron. Now Thobels sister was Noema.
23
Then Lamech said to his own
wives,
Ada and Sella, listen to my voice;
Wives of Lamech, pay attention to my words;
Because I killed a man for my wounds,
And a young man for my bruises;
24
Because Kain has been avenged seven times,
But Lamech seventy times seven.
GENESIS 4:424 43
25
,
.
, .
26

, .
.
5
1
.
,
2

, . ,
.
3

,
.
4

,
.
5

, .
6
, .
7

,
.
8

, .
9
, .
10

, .
11

, .
12
,
.
13

, .
14
,
.
15
,
.
16

, .
17

, .
44 GENESIS 4:2526 & 5:117
25
Then Adam knew Heua his wife, and conceiving she bore a son. And she
named his name Sth saying, For God has raised up for me another seed
in place of Habel, whom Kain killed.
26
And to Sth was born a son, now he
called his name Ens. This one hoped to invoke the name of Lord God.
5
1
This is the book of the origin of humans. On the day God made Adam,
according to the image of God he made him;
2
male and female he made
them, and he blessed them. And he named their name Adam, on the day
he made them.
3
Now Adam lived two hundred and thirty years, and he
fathered according to his form and according to his image; and he named
his name Sth.
4
Now the days of Adam after his fathering Sth were seven
hundred years, and he fathered sons and daughters.
5
And all the days of
Adam that he lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.
6
Now Sth lived two hundred and ve years, and he fathered Ens.
7
And
Sth lived after his fathering Ens seven hundred and seven years, and he
fathered sons and daughters.
8
And all the days of Sth were nine hundred
and twelve years, and he died.
9
And Ens lived one hundred and ninety years, and he fathered Kainan.
10
And Ens lived after his fathering Kainen seven hundred and fteen
years, and he fathered sons and daughters.
11
And all the days of Ens
were nine hundred and ve years, and he died.
12
And Kainan lived one hundred and seventy years, and he fathered
Malelel.
13
And Kainan lived after his fathering Malelel seven hundred
and forty years, and he fathered sons and daughters.
14
And all the days of
Kainan were nine hundred and ten years, and he died.
15
And Malelel lived one hundred and sixty-ve years, and he fathered
Iared.
16
And Malelel lived after his fathering Iared seven hundred and
thirty years, and he fathered sons and daughters.
17
And all the days of
Malelel were eight hundred and ninety-ve years, and he died.
GENESIS 4:2526 & 5:117 45
18
* ,
.
19

, .
20

, .
21
,
.
22

, .
23

.
24

,
.
25
,
.
26

,
.
27

, .
28
, .
29


.
30

,
.
31

, .
6
1
, ,
, ,** .
,
2

, .
3


, ***
.
4

46 GENESIS 5:1831 & 6:14
* Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of ALEXs incorrect .
** Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of ALEXs unique .
*** Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of ALEXs unique
.
18
And Iared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and he fathered
Hench.
19
And Iared lived after his fathering Hench eight hundred years,
and he fathered sons and daughters.
20
And all the days of Iared were nine
hundred and sixty-two, and he died.
21
And Hench lived one hundred and sixty-ve years, and he fathered
Mathousala.
22
Now Hench pleased God after his fathering Methousala
two hundred years, and he fathered sons and daughters.
23
And all the
days of Hench were three hundred and sixty-ve years.
24
And Hench
pleased God; and he was not found, because God transferred him.
25
And Mathousala lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and he
fathered Lamech.
26
And Mathousala lived after his fathering Lamech
seven hundred and eighty-two years, and he fathered sons and daugh-
ters.
27
And all the days of Mathousala that he lived were nine hundred
and sixty-nine years, and he died.
28
And Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-eight years, and he fathered a
son.
29
And he named his name Ne saying, This one will give us rest from
our work and from the pain of our hands and from the earth that Lord
God cursed.
30
And Lamech lived after his fathering Ne ve hundred and
sixty-ve years, and he fathered sons and daughters.
31
And all the days of
Lamech were seven hundred and fty-three years, and he died.
6
1
And Ne was ve hundred years, and Ne fathered three sons, Sm,
Cham, Iapheth. And it came to be when humans began to bear many chil-
dren on the earth, and daughters were born to them;
2
then the angels of
God seeing the daughters of humans that they are beautiful, they took
wives for themselves from all that they chose.
3
And Lord God said, My
breath will not remain in these humans forever, because they are esh;
yet their days will be one hundred twenty years.
4
Now the giants were on
GENESIS 5:1831 & 6:14 47
,
,
, .
5

,

6

, .
7

,

.
8
.
9
. ,
.
10

, , ,* .
11

, .
12
,
,
.
13
,

.
14

,
.
15

, ,
.
16
,

.
17
,

.
18

,
.
19


, ,
.
20


,
, .
48 GENESIS 6:420
* Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of ALEXs unique .
the earth in those days, and after that when the sons of God would enter
into the daughters of the humans, and they fathered more of themselves;
those were the giants from the ages, the humans of renown.
5
And Lord
God seeing that the evil deeds of humans were multiplied on the earth
and everyone was pondering in his heart only on evil matters all the days;
6
and God was angry that he made humanity on the earth, and he pon-
dered.
7
And God said, I will wipe o humanity that I made from the face
of the earth, from human to domesticated animals and from reptiles to
birds of the heaven; because I have become angry that I made them.
8
But
Ne found favor before Lord God.
9
Now these are the descendants of Ne. Ne was a righteous human, one
who was perfect in his generation; Ne pleased God.
10
Now Ne fathered
three sons, Sm, Cham, Iapheth.
11
But the earth was corrupt before God,
and the earth was lled with unrighteousness.
12
And Lord God saw the
earth, and it was destroyed, because all esh destroyed his way on the
earth.
13
And God said to Ne, The designated time of all humanity has come
before me, because the earth is lled with unrighteousness from them;
and look, I am about to destroy them and the earth.
14
Therefore make for
yourself an ark from squared wood; nests you will make in the ark and
you will smear it inside and outside with pitch.
15
And in this way you will
make the ark; three hundred cubits the length of the ark, and fty cubits
the width, and thirty cubits its height.
16
And bringing it together you will
make the ark, and into one cubit you will complete it at the top; now the
door of the ark you will make at the side; a bottom level, a second level,
and a third level you will make it.
17
Now look, I am about to bring the ood
water on the earth, to destroy all esh under the heaven in which is in it
the breath of life; and all those who are on the earth will die.
18
And I will
establish my covenant with you; now you will enter into the ark, you and
your sons and your wife and the wives of your sons with you.
19
And from
all the domesticated animals and from all the reptiles and from all the wild
animals and from all esh, two by two from everything you will bring into
the ark, for you to sustain along with yourself; male and female they will
be.
20
From all the winged creatures of the birds according to species and
from all the domesticated animals according to species and from all the
reptiles that crawl on the earth according to their species, two by two from
everything will enter with you to be sustained with you, male and female.
GENESIS 6:420 49
21
,
, .
22

, .
7
1

, .
2

,
3

,
.
4

,
.
5

.
6
.
7

.
8



9
,
, .
10

.
11

, ,
,

12

.
13
, , , , ,

.
14



15
,
.
16

,

.
50 GENESIS 6:2122 & 7:116
21
Now you yourself will take from all the foods that you will eat, and you
will gather to yourself, and it will be for you and for those to eat.
22
And
Ne did everything whatsoever Lord God commanded him, he did in that
way.
7
1
And Lord God said to Ne, Enter you and all your house into the ark,
for I saw that you are righteous before me in this generation.
2
Now from
the clean domesticated animals bring in with you seven by seven, male
and female, but from the domesticated animals that are not clean two
by two, male and female;
3
and from the clean birds of the heaven seven
by seven, male and female, and from the unclean birds two by two, male
and female to continually sustain ospring on all the earth.
4
For in seven
days I am about to bring rain upon the earth for forty days and forty
nights, and I will wipe away everything that rises up that I made from the
face of the earth.
5
And Ne did everything whatsoever Lord God com-
manded him.
6
Now Ne was six hundred years old and the ood was on the earth.
7
But
Ne and his sons and his wife and the wives of his sons with him went
into the ark on account of the water of the ood.
8
And from the birds and
from the clean domesticated animals and from the unclean domesticated
animals and from the birds and from all the reptiles on the earth
9
two by
two they entered with Ne into the ark, male and female, according to
what God commanded him.
10
And it came to be after the seven days the water of the ood was on the
earth.
11
In the six hundredth year of the life of Ne in the second month,
and on the twenty-seventh of the month, on this day all the springs of
the bottomless deep broke open, and the oodgates of the heaven were
opened;
12
and the rain came to be on the earth forty days and forty
nights.
13
On this day Ne, Sm, Cham, Iapheth, Nes sons, and Nes wife and the
three wives of his sons with him entered into the ark.
14
And all the wild
animals according to species and all the domesticated animals according
to species and all reptiles that move on the earth according to species
and all the birds according to species
15
entered with Ne into the ark,
two by two, male and female from all esh in which is the breath of life.
16
And the ones going in male and female from all esh entered, according
to what God commanded Ne; and Lord God closed the ark from outside
him.
GENESIS 6:2122 & 7:116 51
17


, .
18


.
19
,
.
20
,
.
21

,
,
22

.
23

,
.
.
24

.
8
1
,

. ,
.
2

, ,
3

.
4

, ,
.
5

, ,
.
6

,
7


.
8

.
9

,


.
10

.
11
-
,
52 GENESIS 7:1724 & 8:111
17
And the ood came to be on the earth forty days and forty nights on
the earth; and the water multiplied and lifted the ark, and raised it from
the earth.
18
And the water was prevailing and multiplying greatly on the
earth; and the ark was oating above the water.
19
Now the water was pre-
vailing very greatly on the earth, and it covered all the high mountains
that were under the heaven.
20
Fifteen cubits above the water was raised
up, and it covered all the high mountains.
21
And all esh that moves
itself on the earth died, consisting of the birds and the domesticated ani-
mals and the wild animals, and every reptile that moves itself on the
earth, and every human being.
22
And all, everyone who has the breath of
life and all that were on the dry ground, died.
23
And it wiped away every-
thing that rises up that was on the face of all the earth, from human being
to domesticated animals and reptiles and birds of the heaven; and they
were wiped away from the earth. And only Ne and the ones with him in
the ark were left remaining.
24
And the water was raised up on the earth
for one hundred and fty days.
8
1
And God remembered Ne, and all the wild animals and all the
domesticated animals and all the birds and all the reptiles, as many as
were with him in the ark. And God brought a wind on the earth, and the
water abated.
2
And the springs of the bottomless deep and the oodgates
of the heaven were covered over and the rain was held back from the
heaven,
3
and the water traveling over the earth was giving up; the water
was giving up and lessening after one hundred and fty days.
4
And the
ark settled in the seventh month, on the twenty-seventh of the month,
on the Ararat mountains.
5
But the traveling water was lessening until the
tenth month; now in the eleventh month, on the rst of the month, the
tops of the mountains appeared.
6
And it came to be after forty days Ne opened the window of the ark that
he made,
7
and he sent out the raven to see if the water had abated; and
going out, it did not return until the water was dried out from the earth.
8
And he sent the dove after it to see if the water had abated from the
earth.
9
And not nding a resting place for its feet, the dove returned to
him in the ark, because the water was still on all the face of all the earth;
and stretching out his hand, he took it and brought it to himself into the
ark.
10
And waiting for another seven days again he sent out the dove from
the ark.
11
And the dove returned to him at dusk, and it was holding a dry
GENESIS 7:1724 & 8:111 53
.
12

,
.
13
,
, ,
,
.
14
,
, .
15

16
,
,
17
,
,
.
18



19


.
20
,
,
.
21

,
,

.
.
22
,
, .
9
1
,
,
.
2



.
3

.
4


5

,
.
6

54 GENESIS 8:1122 & 9:16
olive leaf in its mouth; and Ne knew that the water had abated from the
earth.
12
And waiting for another seven days again he sent out the dove,
and it did not continue to return to him any longer.
13
And it came to be in the six hundred and rst year of Nes life, in the
rst month, on the rst of the month, the water was disappearing from
the earth; and Ne uncovered the roof of the ark, and he saw that the
water was disappearing from the face of the earth.
14
Then in the second
month, on the twenty-seventh of the month, the land was dried out.
15
And Lord God said to Ne saying,
16
Go out from the ark, you and your
wife and your sons and the wives of your sons with you,
17
and all the wild
animals as many as are with you, and all esh from birds to domesticated
animals, and all reptiles that move on the earth lead out with you; and
increase and multiply on the earth.
18
And Ne went out and his wife and
his sons and the wives of his sons with him;
19
and all the wild animals
and all the domesticated animals and all the birds and all the reptiles that
move on the earth according to their species went out from the ark.
20
And Ne built an altar to God, and he took from all of the clean domes-
ticated animals and from all the clean birds, and he oered a sacrice on
the altar.
21
And Lord God smelled a sweet odor, and Lord God said after
pondering, I will not again proceed to curse the earth on account of the
works of the humans, because the mind of the human involves itself only
on evil matters from youth. Therefore, I will not again proceed to strike
all living esh as I did.
22
All the days of the earth seed and harvest, cold
and heat, summer and spring will not come to an end by day or night.
9
1
And God blessed Ne and his sons, and he said to them, Increase
and multiply, and ll the earth and exercise dominion over it.
2
And your
trembling and fear will be on all the wild animals of the earth and on all
the winged creatures of the heaven and on all that move on the earth and
all the sh of the sea; by hands to you I have given them.
3
And all reptiles
that are living for you will be food; as vegetables of herbage I gave you
everything.
4
Only meat in which is life blood you may not eat.
5
For your
own life blood I shall demand an accounting; from the hand of all the
wild animals I shall demand it, from the hand of a human brother I shall
demand the life of the human.
6
The one who spills blood of a human, for
GENESIS 8:1122 & 9:16 55
,
.
7
,
.
8

9

,
10
, ,

.
11
,
,
.
12



13

,
.
14

,
15
,

,
.
16
,

.
17


.
18
, ,
.
19

.
20
, .
21
,
.
22

, .
23

,

,
.
24
,
.
25

56 GENESIS 9:625
his blood it will be spilled, because in the image of God I made the human.
7
Now as for all of you increase and multiply, and ll the earth and multi-
ply on the earth.
8
And God said to Ne and to his sons with him saying,
9
Look, I myself
am raising up my covenant for all of you and for your ospring after you,
10
and for every animate being with you, from winged creatures and from
domesticated animals and for all the wild animals of the earth as many as
are with you from all the ones that came out of the ark.
11
And I will estab-
lish my covenant with you, and all esh will not die again from the water
of the ood, and there will not be again a ood of water to destroy all the
earth.
12
And Lord God said to Ne, This is the sign of the covenant that
I myself am granting between me and you and between every animate
being that is with you into eternal generations;
13
my bow I am placing in
the cloud, and it will be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.
14
And it will be when I collect clouds over the earth, my bow will be seen
in the cloud,
15
and I will remember my covenant, which is between me
and you and between every animate being in all esh; and the water will
not become again a ood, to wipe away all esh.
16
And my bow will be in
the cloud, and I will see it to remember the eternal covenant between me
and every animate being in all esh that is on the earth.
17
And God said
to Ne, This is the sign of the covenant that I contracted between me and
all esh that is on the earth.
18
Now the sons of Ne who went out from the ark were Sm, Cham,
Iapheth; Cham was the father of Chanaan.
19
These three are the sons of
Ne; from these they were dispersed over all the earth.
20
And Ne was the rst human tiller of the earth, and he planted a vine-
yard.
21
And he drank from the wine and he got drunk, and was left naked
in his house.
22
And Cham the father of Chanaan saw the nakedness of
his father, and he went out to report to his two brothers outside.
23
And
taking the garment, Sm and Iapheth placed it on their two backs, and
they walked looking backwards and they covered the nakedness of their
father; and their face was looking backwards, and the nakedness of their
father they did not see.
24
Then Ne sobered up from the wine, and he
knew all that his younger son did to him.
25
And he said,
GENESIS 9:625 57

.
26

,
.
27
,

.
28
.
29
,
.
10
1
, , ,
.
2

.
3

.
4
, , .
5


.
6
, .
7

.
.
8

.
9

.
10


.
11

,
12

, .
13


14

, , .
15
,
16

17


18

.
.
19

58 GENESIS 9:2529 & 10:119
Cursed be Chanaan;
A household slave he will be to his brothers.
26
He also said,
Blessed is Lord, the God of Sm,
And Chanaan will be his slave.
27
May God expand for Iapheth,
And may he settle in the house of Sm;
And may Chanaan become their slave.
28
Then Ne lived after the ood three hundred and fty years.
29
And all
the days of Ne were nine hundred and fty years, and he died.
10
1
Now these are the descendants of the sons of Ne, Sm, Cham,
Iapheth; and sons were born to them after the ood.
2
Sons of Iapheth; Gamer and Magg and Madai and Iyan and Elisa and
Thobel and Mosoch and Theiras.
3
And sons of Gamer; Aschanaz and
Rhiphath and Thergama.
4
And sons of Iyan; Elisa and Tharsis, Ktians,
Rhodians.
5
From these the islands of the nations were separated in their
land; each according to tongue in their tribes and in their nations.
6
Now sons of Cham; Chous and Mesrain, Phoud and Chanaan.
7
Now sons
of Chous; Saba and Heuila and Sabatha and Regchma and Sabakatha. Now
sons of Regchma; Saba and Dadan.
8
Then Chous fathered Nebrd; this one
was rst to be a giant on the earth.
9
This one was a giant hunter before
Lord God; on account of this they will say, As Nebrd a giant hunter
before Lord.
10
And it came to be that the beginning of his kingdom were
Babyln and Orech and Archad and Chalanne in the land of Sennaar.
11

From that land he went out to Assour; and he built Nineu and Rhobs
city and Chalach,
12
and Dasem, between Nineu and Chalach; this is the
great city.
13
And Mesrian fathered the Loudieim and the Nephthalieim
and the Ainemetieim and the Labieim
14
and the Patrosnieim and the
Chasmnieim, from which came out from there the Phylistieim, and
the Chaphthorieim.
15
Then Chanaan fathered Sidn the rstborn, and
the Chettites
16
and the Iebousites and the Amorrites and the Gergesites
17
and the Huites and the Aroukites and the Asennites
18
and the Aradians
and the Samarites and the Hamathi. And after this the tribes of the Cha-
nanites were dispersed.
19
And the boundaries of the Chananite came to
GENESIS 9:2529 & 10:119 59
, ,
.
20
,
, .
21
, ,
.
22

.*
23
.
24

, ,
.
25

, ,
.
26


27


28

29

. .
30

, .
31

** , ,
.
32
,

.
11
1
, .
2


.
3

.
, .
4

, ,

.
5

.
6

,
.
7

, .
60 GENESIS 10:1932 & 11:17
* Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of ALEXs unique .
** Reading with the corrected Swete text for consistency instead of ALEXs
unique .
be from Sidn until reaching Gerara and Gaza, until reaching Sodoma and
Gomorra, Adama and Sebim and as far as Dasa.
20
These are the sons of
Cham in their tribes, according to their tongues, in their countries and in
their nations.
21
And to Sm also, father of all the sons of Eber, brother of Iapheth who
was older, to him children were born.
22
Sons of Sm; Ailam and Assoup
and Arphaxad and Loud and Aram.
23
And the sons of Aram; s and Houl
and Gather and Mosoch.
24
And Arphaxad fathered Kainam and Kainam
fathered Sala, then Sala fathered Eber.
25
And to Eber were born two sons;
the name of the one Phalek, because in his days the earth was divided,
and the name of his brother Iektan.
26
Then Iektan fathered Elmdad and
Saleph and Asarmth and Iarad
27
and Odorra and Aizl and Dekla
28
and
Abimel and Sabeu
29
and Oupheir and Heueila and Ibab. All these were
sons of Iektan.
30
And it came to be that their dwelling place was from
Masse until reaching Sphera, the mountain area of the east.
31
These
are the sons of Sm in their tribes, according to their tongues, in their
countries and in their nations.
32
These are the tribes of the sons of Ne according to their descendants,
according to their nations; from these the islands of the nations were
dispersed over the earth after the ood.
11
1
And there was in all the earth one lip, and one language for all.
2
And it came to be when they moved from the east, they found an open
eld in the land of Sennaar and they settled there.
3
And people said
to neighbors, Come let us make bricks and let us bake them in re.
And brick became stone for them, and the clay was asphalt for them.
4
And they said, Come let us build for ourselves a city and a tower,
whose head will be as far as the heaven, and we will make for ourselves
a name before being dispersed over the face of all the earth.
5
And
Lord went down to see the city and the tower that the sons of human-
ity built.
6
And Lord said, Look, one family and one lip for all; and this
they began to do, and now nothing will stop them in whatever they set
out to do.
7
Come and going down, let us there confuse their tongue so
that they might not understand each the language of the neighbor.
GENESIS 10:1932 & 11:17 61
8
,
.
9

,
,
.
10
.
, .
11

,
, .
12
,
.
13

, ,
.
, .

, , .
14
, .
15

, , .
16
,
.
17

, ,
.
18
, .
19

, , .
20
,
.
21

, , .
22
, .
23
,
, .
62 GENESIS 11:823
8
And Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and
they were forced to stop building the city and the tower.
9
On account of
this its name was called Confusion, because there Lord confused the lips
of all the earth, and from there Lord God dispersed them over the face of
all the earth.
10
And these are the descendants of Sm. Sm was one hundred years old
when he fathered Arphaxad, two years after the ood.
11
And Sm lived
after his fathering Arphaxad ve hundred years, and he fathered sons
and daughters, and he died.
12
And Arphaxad lived one hundred and thirty-ve years, and he fathered
Kainan.
13
And Arphaxad lived after his fathering Kainen four hundred
and thirty years, and he fathered sons and daughters, and he died.
And Kainen lived one hundred and thirty years, and he fathered Sala. And
Kainen lived after his fathering Sala three hundred and thirty years, and
he fathered sons and daughters, and he died.
14
And Sala lived one hundred and thirty years, and he fathered Eber.
15
And Sala lived after his fathering Eber three hundred and thirty years,
and he fathered sons and daughters, and he died.
16
And Eber lived one hundred and thirty-four years and he fathered
Phalek.
17
And Eber lived after his fathering Phalek three hundred and
seventy years, and he fathered sons and daughters, and he died.
18
And Phalek lived one hundred and thirty years, and he fathered Ragau.
19
And Phalek lived after his fathering Ragau two hundred and nine years,
and he fathered sons and daughters, and he died.
20
And Ragau lived one hundred and thirty-two years, and he fathered
Serouch.
21
And Ragau lived after his fathering Serouch two hundred and
seven years, and he fathered sons and daughters, and he died.
22
And Serouch lived one hundred and thirty years, and he fathered Nachr.
23
And Serouch lived after his fathering Nachr two hundred years, and he
fathered sons and daughters, and he died.
GENESIS 11:823 63
24
, .
25

, , .
26
,
.
27

, .
28

* ** ,
.
29

,
, , .
30

.
31

, ,
, ,

, .
32

.
12
1

,
.
2

,
3

, ,
.
4

,
.
5


,
.
6
,
.
7



.
8
,
* Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of ALEXs unique .
** Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of ALEXs unique .
64 GENESIS 11:2432 & 12:18
24
And Nachr lived seventy-nine years, and he fathered Thara.
25
And
Nachr lived after his fathering Thara one hundred and twenty-nine
years, and he fathered sons and daughters, and he died.
26
And Thara lived seventy years, and he fathered Abram and Nachr and
Harran.
27
Now these are the descendants of Thara; now Thara fathered Abram and
Nachr and Harran, and Harran fathered Lt.
28
And Harran died before
Thara his father in the land where he was born, in the country of the
Chaldeans.
29
And Abram and Nachr took wives for themselves; the name
of the wife of Abram was Sara, and the name of the wife of Nachr was
Melcha, daughter of Harran, also father of Melcha and father of Iescha.
30
And Sara was barren and she was not bearing children.
31
And Thara
took Abram his son and Lt the son of Harran, son of his son, and Sara his
daughter-in-law, wife of his son, and he led them out from the country
of the Chaldeans to travel to the land of Chanaan; and they went as far as
Charran, and they settled there.
32
And the days of Thara in Charran came
to be two hundred and ve years; and Thara died in Charran.
12
1
And Lord said to Abram, Go out from your land and from your kin
and from the house of your father, into the land that I will show you.
2
And I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you and make
your name great, and you will be blessed.
3
And I will bless those who bless
you, and those who curse you I will curse, and all the tribes of the earth
will be blessed in you.
4
And Abram traveled just as Lord told him, and Lt
went along with him; now Abram was seventy-ve years when he went
out from Charran.
5
And Abram took Sara his wife and Lt the son of his
brother and all their possessions that they acquired and all the persons
they acquired from Charran, and they went out to travel into the land of
Chanaan; and they came into the land of Chanaan.
6
And Abram traveled
through its length as far as the place of Suchem, by the high oak tree;
now the Chananites then were settled in the land.
7
Then Lord appeared
to Abram and said to him, To your ospring I will give this land; and
Abram built there an altar to Lord, the one having appeared to him.
8
And
he went away from there into the mountain area to the east of Baithl,
GENESIS 11:2432 & 12:18 65


.
9

.
10

, .
11

,

12

,
, .
13
,
, .
14

,
,
15

.
16
,
, , .
17


.
18

,
;
19
;
. .
20
,
, .
13
1

.
2

.
3

,
, ,
4


.
5

.
6

,
.
7


.
8

,
, .
9

66 GENESIS 12:820 & 13:19
and he set up his tent there with Baithl toward the sea and Haggai toward
the east; and he built an altar there to Lord and he invoked the name of
Lord.
9
Then Abram moved on and traveling he encamped in the desert.
10
And it came to be that a famine was on the land; and Abram went down
into Egypt to sojourn there, because the famine was severe on the land.
11
Now it came to be when Abram drew near to enter Egypt, Abram said
to Sara his wife, I myself know that you are a woman fair of face;
12
thus
it will be whenever the Egyptians see you, they will say that she is his
wife; and they will kill me, but you they will keep for themselves.
13
Say
therefore that his sister am I, so that it might be good for me because
of you, and my life will continue on account of you.
14
Now it came to
be when Abram entered into Egypt, the Egyptians saw his wife that she
was very beautiful,
15
and Pharas rulers saw her and they praised her
to Phara and they brought her to Phara.
16
And they treated Abram
well on account of her, and to him came sheep and calves and donkeys,
menservants and maidservants, mules and camels.
17
And God subjected
Phara and his house with great and painful aictions because of Sara
the wife of Abram.
18
Then calling Abram, Phara said, What is this you
did to me, that you did not tell me that she is your wife?
19
Why did you
say that my sister she is? and I took her to myself for a wife. And, look,
your wife is in front of you. Taking her, leave.
20
And Phara gave men
orders about Abram, to escort out him and his wife and everything what-
soever that was his, and Lot was with him.
13
1
Then Abram went up from Egypt, he and his wife and everything of
his and Lt was with him, into the desert.
2
Now Abram was abundantly
rich in herds and silver and gold.
3
And he traveled from there and came
into the desert as far as Baithl, as far as the place where his tent was
earlier, between Baithl and Haggai,
4
to the place of the altar where there
he made the tent; and Abram there invoked the name of Lord.
5
And to
Lt, the one traveling with Abram, were sheep and cattle and herds.
6
And
the land could not make room for them to settle together, because their
possessions were many; and they were not able to settle together.
7
And it
came to be that a dispute occurred between the shepherds of the herds of
Abram and the shepherds of the herds of Lt; now the Chananites and the
Pherezites were then settled in the land.
8
Then Abram said to Lt, Let
there not be a dispute between me and you, and between your shepherds
and my shepherds, for we are men, brothers.
9
Now look, all the land is
GENESIS 12:820 & 13:19 67
. ,
, .
10

,

, .
11



.
12

.
13

.
14



15

, .
16

, .
17

.
18

,
.
14
1
,
*

2



.
3

.
4
,
.
5

,
** , ,
,
6

, , .
7

, ,

68 GENESIS 13:918 & 14:17
* Reading with the corrected Swete text.
** Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of the nearly unique ALEX
.
before you; separate yourself from me, if you go left, I go right; but if you
go right, I go left.
10
And lifting up his eyes, Lt saw all the area neigh-
boring the Jordan, for before God overturned Sodoma and Gomorra all
of it was watered like the garden of God and like the land of Egypt, until
reaching Zogora.
11
And Lt chose for himself all the area neighboring the
Jordan and Lt moved on eastward; and each separated from his brother.
12
Now Abram settled in the land of Chanaan; but Lt settled in a city of
the neighboring area and pitched a tent in Sodoma.
13
Now the men in
Sodoma were very wicked and sinful before God.
14
Then God said to Abram after Lt separated himself from him, Look-
ing up with the eyes, look from the place where now you are toward the
north and south and east and west;
15
for all the land that you see, to you
I will give it and to your ospring for eternity.
16
And I will make your o-
spring as the sand of the earth; if anyone is able to count completely the
sand of the earth, also they will count your ospring.
17
Getting up, travel
through the land in both its length and breadth, for to you and to your
ospring I will give it for eternity.
18
And folding up his tent and leaving,
Abram settled by the oak of Mambr, the one that was in Chebrn; and he
built there an altar to Lord.
14
1
Now it came to be in the reign of Amarphal king of Sennaar, Arich
king of Ellasar and Chodollogomor king of Ailam and Thalga king of
nations
2
made war with Balla king of Sodoma and with Barsa king of
Gomorra and Sennaar king of Adama and Symobor king of Sebeim and
with the king of Balak; this is Sgr.
3
All these made an agreement in the
valley of salt; this is the sea of salts.
4
Twelve years they were enslaved to
Chodollogomor, but in the thirteenth year they revolted.
5
Then in the
fourteenth year, Chodollogomor and the kings with him came, and they
destroyed the giants in Astarth Karnain, and strong nations together
with them, and the Somites in the city of Sau,
6
and the Chorrites in the
mountains of Seir, as far as the tenebrith of Pharan, which is in the desert.
7
And returning, they came on the spring of the judgment, this is Kads,
and they destroyed all the rulers of Amalk and the Amorrites settled in
GENESIS 13:918 & 14:17 69
.
8


, ,
,
9

* **
, .
10
.
,
.
11

, .
12
***
**** ,
.
13



, .
14

,
, ,
.
15

, , ,
.
16


.
17
,

, .
18

.
19

,

20
,
. .
21

,
.
22

, ,
* Reading instead of for spelling consistency with v. 1.
** Inserting with the corrected Swete text.
*** Reading to reect a plural subject instead of ALEXs nearly unique
.
**** Reading with the corrected Swete text, instead of ALEXs obvious
misspelled .
70 GENESIS 14:722
Asasan Thamar.
8
Now the king of Sodoma and the king of Gomorra and
the king of Adama and the king of Sebeim and the king of Balak, this is
Sgr, went out, and they drew themselves into battle with them in the
valley of salt,
9
against Chodollogomor king of Ailam and Thalga king of
nations and Amarphal king of Sennaar and Arich king of Ellasar, these
four kings against the ve.
10
Now the salt valley was asphalt pits. Then
the king of Sodoma and the king of Gomorra ed, and they fell in there;
and the ones who were left ed into the hill area.
11
Then they took every
horse of Sodoma and Gomorra and all their food, and they departed.
12

Now they also took Lt, the son of the brother of Abram and his chattel,
and they went away; for he was settled in Sodoma.
13
Now appearing, one
of those who escaped told the emigrant Abram; now this one the Amoris,
the brother of Eschl and brother of Aunan, was settled by the oak of
Mambr, they were confederates of Abram.
14
Then Abram hearing that
his brother Lt was taken captive, counted his own homegrown servants,
three hundred and eighteen, and he pursued them as far as Dan.
15
And he
fell on them at night, he and his servants with him, and he struck them,
and he ran after them as far as Chbal, which is left of Damaskos.
16
And he
brought back every horse of Sodoma; and Lt his brother he brought back
and all his possessions and the women and the people.
17
Now the king of Sodoma came out to meet him, after he returned
from the slaughter of Chodollogomor and the kings with him, into the
Saue valley; this was the open eld of the king.
18
And Melchisedek king
of Salm brought out loaves of bread and wine; now he was a priest of
God Most High.
19
And he blessed Abram and said, Blessed is Abram by
God Most High, the one who created the heaven and the earth;
20
and
blessed is God Most High, the one who delivered your enemies into your
hands. And he gave him one tenth of everything.
21
Then the king of
Sodoma said to Abram, Give me the men, but the horse take for your-
self.
22
But Abram said to the king of Sodoma, I will stretch out my
hand to God Most High, the one who created the heaven and the earth;
GENESIS 14:722 71
23

.
24


, ,* , .
15
1

,
.
2
, ;
,
.
3
,
.
4


, .
5

,
. .
6
, .
7
,
.
8
,
;
9


.
10
,
,
.
11
,
.
12

,
13
**
,
.
14


.
15

, .
16


.
17
,
,
.
18


* Reading with the corrected Swete text.
** Reading with the majority instead of ALEXs unique .
*** Reading for consistency the majority instead of ALEXs .
72 GENESIS 14:2324 & 15:118
23
in no way will I take anything from a string to a cord of a sandal from
all that is yours; so that you may not say that I made Abram wealthy.
24
Except for what the young men ate and the portion of the men who
accompanied me Eschl, Aunan, Mambr these will take a portion.
15
1
Then after these things the word of Lord came to Abram in a vision
saying, Do not fear, Abram; I am your protector; your reward will be
abundant.
2
Then Abram speaks, Master Lord, what will you give me?
Now I am left childless; but the son of Masek my homegrown maidser-
vant; this one is Damaskos Eliezer.
3
And Abram said, Since you did not
give me ospring, now my homegrown servant will inherit from me.
4

And immediately the voice of Lord came to him saying, This one will
not inherit from you; but the one who comes out from you, this one will
inherit from you.
5
Then he led him outside and said to him, Now indeed
look up into the heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them
completely. And he said, Thus will be your ospring.
6
And Abram
trusted in God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
7
Then he
said to him, I am God the one who led you out from the country of the
Chaldeans, in order to give you this land to inherit.
8
But he said, Master
Lord, how will I know that I will inherit it?
9
Then he said to him, Get
me a heifer three years old and a goat three years old and a ram three
years old and a turtledove and a pigeon.
10
Then he got all these for him,
and he divided them in the middle, and he placed them facing each other;
but the winged creatures he did not divide.
11
Then the winged creatures
came down on the bodies, their divided pieces; and Abram sat down with
them.
12
Then at the setting of the sun a trance fell on Abram, and look, a
great dark fear falls on him;
13
and it was told to Abram, Knowing you will
know that your ospring will be sojourners in a land not their own, and
they will mistreat them and enslave them and humiliate them for four
hundred years.
14
But the nation for which they worked as slaves I will
judge; then after these things they will come out here with much chattel.
15
But you will go away to your fathers in peace, being buried in a good old
age.
16
Then in a fourth generation they will be returned here; for the sins
of the Amorrites have not yet been completed until now.
17
Now when the
sun already was setting, there was a ame; and look, an oven blackened
with smoke and torches of re, they passed through the middle of these
divided pieces.
18
On that day Lord God contracted a covenant with Abram
GENESIS 14:2324 & 15:118 73
,
,
19


20


21

.
16
1

.
2

,
. .
3

, ,
.
4

,
.
5


, .
.
6

. ,
.
7

,
.
8
,
; ;
.
9

.
10

,
* .
11

, ,
, .
12


, .
13

.
14

.
15
,
, ,
.
16

.
74 GENESIS 15:1821 & 16:116
* Reading the future passive with the majority instead of ALEXs
future middle .
saying, To your ospring I will give this land, from the river of Egypt and
as far as the great river, the river Euphrates;
19
the land of the Keinites and
the Kainaizites and the Kelmnites
20
and the Chettites and the Pherezites
and the Raphain
21
and the Amorrites and the Chananites and the Heu-
aites and the Gergesites and the Jebousites.
16
1
Now Sara the wife of Abram was not bearing children for him; but
she had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar.
2
Now Sara said
to Abram, Look, Lord closed me up to not bear children; therefore, go
into my maidservant, so that you will father children from her. Then
Abram obeyed her voice.
3
And Sara the wife of Abram, taking her own
Egyptian maidservant Hagar, after ten years of Abram living in the land
of Chanaan, gave her to her husband Abram as his wife.
4
And he went
into Hagar, and she conceived; and she saw that she was pregnant and the
mistress was shamed before her.
5
Then Sara said to Abram, I am being
wronged by you; I have given over my maidservant into your bosom;
now seeing that she is pregnant, I was shamed before her. May God judge
between me and you.
6
But Abram said to Sara, Look, your maidservant
is before you; treat her as it might please you. And Sara mistreated her,
and she ed from her face.
7
Now an angel of Lord God found her near the
spring of water in the desert, near the spring on the way to Sour.
8
And the
angel of Lord said to her, Hagar maidservant of Sara, from where are you
coming? and to where are you traveling? And she said, From the face of
Sara my mistress I am eeing.
9
But the angel of Lord said to her, Return
to your mistress and be humiliated under her hands.
10
The angel of Lord
also said to her, Multiplying I will multiply your ospring, and it can-
not be counted because of its multitude.
11
The angel of Lord also said
to her, Look, you are pregnant, and you will bear a son, and you will
call his name Ismal, for Lord gave heed to your humiliation.
12
This one
will be a countryman; his hands against everyone and everyones hands
against him, and opposite the face of all his brothers he will settle.
13
And
Hagar called the name of Lord who was speaking to her, You are the God
who looks upon me; for she said, For even I saw in person the one who
appeared to me.
14
On account of this, she called the well the Well of the
one I saw in person; look, it is between Kads and Barad.
15
And Hagar
bore for Abram a son, and Abram called the name of his son, the one
whom Hagar bore for him, Ismal.
16
Now Abram was eighty-six years old
when Hagar bore Ismal for Abram.
GENESIS 15:1821 & 16:116 75
17
1
,
,

2

, .
3

,
4
,
.
5

,
.
6
,
, .
7


,
.
8

,
.
9

,
.
10

,
.
11

,
.
12


,
,
13
,
.
.
14
,
,

.
15
,
,
16

, . ,
, .
17


, ;
18
.
19

,
, .
76 GENESIS 17:119
17
1
Now it came to be Abram was ninety-nine years old, and Lord
appeared to Abram and said to him, I myself am your God; be pleas-
ing before me, and become blameless.
2
And I will institute my covenant
between me and you, and I will multiply you abundantly.
3
And Abram
fell on his face, and God spoke to him saying,
4
And as for me, look, my
covenant is with you; and you will be a father of a multitude of nations.
5

And your name will no longer be called Abram, but rather Abraam will be
your name; for I have instituted you a father of many nations.
6
And I will
make you increase abundantly, and I will institute you as a nation, and
kings will come out from you.
7
And I will establish my covenant between
me and you and your ospring after you into their generations as an eter-
nal covenant, to be God to you and to your ospring after you.
8
And I
will give to you and to your ospring after you the land where you are
sojourning, all the land of Chanaan as an eternal possession; and I will be
their God.
9
God also said to Abraam, Now you will observe my covenant,
you and your ospring after you into their generations.
10
And this is the
covenant that you will observe between me and you, and between your
ospring after you into their generations; every male among you will be
circumcised.
11
And you will circumcise the esh of your foreskin, and it
will be a sign of the covenant between me and you.
12
And an eight day
old youngster will be circumcised among you every male into your
generations; the homegrown servant born in your house and the one pur-
chased from among every foreign son, who is not from your ospring,
13

they will surely be circumcised, the homegrown servant of your house
and the purchased servant. And my covenant will be on your esh as an
eternal covenant.
14
And an uncircumcised male, who will not be circum-
cised in the esh of his foreskin on the eighth day, that person will be
destroyed from his family; for he rejected my covenant.
15
Then God said to Abraam, Sara your wife, her name will not be called
Sara, but rather Sarra will be her name;
16
and I will bless her, and I
will give you from her a child. And I will bless him, and he will become
nations, and kings of nations will be from him.
17
And Abraam fell on
his face and laughed and said to himself saying, Will a son be born to
a hundred year old, and will Sarra being ninety years old bear a child?
18
Then Abraam said to God, Ismal, may this one live before you.
19
But God said to Abraam, Indeed; look, Sarra your wife will bear for
you a son, and you will call his name Isaak; and I will establish my cov-
enant with him as an eternal covenant, and for his ospring after him.
GENESIS 17:119 77
20
,
,
.
21
,
.
22
, .
23


,
, .
24
,

25
,
.
26


27


, .
18
1
,
.
2

,
.
,
3
,
, .
4

, .
5
,
, .
.
6


.
7

, * ,
, .
8

, ,
.
9

; .
10

, .
* Reading with the majority instead of ALEXs unique and grammatically
incorrect .
78 GENESIS 17:2027 & 18:110
20
But concerning Ismal, look, I gave heed to you; and I blessed him and I
will make him increase and will multiply him abundantly; twelve nations
he will father, and I will make him into a great nation.
21
But my covenant
I will establish with Isaak, whom Sarra will bear for you at this designated
time in the next year.
22
Then he nished speaking to him and God went
up from Abraam.
23
And Abraam took Ismal his son and all his homegrown servants and
all the purchased servants and every male of the men in the house of
Abraam, and he circumcised their foreskins in the designated time of that
day, according to what God spoke to him.
24
Now Abraam was ninety-nine
years old, when he circumcised the esh of his foreskin;
25
but Ismal his
son was thirteen years old, when the esh of his foreskin was circum-
cised.
26
In the designated time of that day Abraam and Ismal his son
were circumcised;
27
and all the men of his house and the homegrown
servants and the servants bought from foreign nations, he circumcised
them.
18
1
Now God appeared to him by the oak of Mambr, as he was sitting
by the entrance of his tent at midday.
2
Then looking up with his eyes he
saw, and look, three men were standing above him. And seeing them he
ran up to meet them from the entrance of his tent, and he bowed down on
the ground;
3
and he said, Oh Lord, if perchance I have found favor before
you, do not go by your servant.
4
Indeed, let water be brought, and let him
wash your feet; and cool o under the tree.
5
And I will bring food and
you eat; and after this, you will go along on your way, inasmuch as you
turned aside to your servant. And he said, So, do just as you have said.
6
And Abraam hurried toward the tent to Sarra and he said to her, Hurry
and knead three measures of ne our and make baked bread cakes.
7

And to the cattle Abraam ran, and he took a young calf tender and good,
and he gave it to the servant, and he was quick to make it.
8
Then he took
butter and milk and the young calf that he made and he served them, and
they ate; then he stood by them under the tree.
9
Then one said to him,
Where is Sarra your wife?; and answering he said, Look, in the tent.
10

Then he said, Returning, I will come to you at this designated time in the
next year, and your wife Sarra will have a son. But Sarra, being behind
GENESIS 17:2027 & 18:110 79
, .
11

.
12

.
13

;
.
14
;
, .
15

. ,
.
16


.
17

;
18

, .
19

,
,
.
20

,
.
21

, .
22

.
23
-
, .
24
, ;
, ;
25

,
, .
, ;
26

, .
27

, .
28
-
, ;
.
29


; .
80 GENESIS 18:1029
him, heard by the entrance of the tent.
11
Now Abraam and Sarra were old,
having advanced in days; and Sarra stopped having the ways of women.
12
Then Sarra laughed to herself saying, Not yet has it happened to me
until now; and now my lord is old.
13
And Lord said to Abraam, Why
did Sarra laugh to herself saying, Shall I truly bear a child?; but I have
grown old.
14
Is the matter impossible for God?; at this designated time I
will return to you in the next year, and a son will be Sarras.
15
But Sarra
denied saying, I did not laugh; for I was afraid. And he said, Indeed, but
you did laugh.
16
Then getting up from there, the men looked down on the face of Sodoma
and Gomorra; now Abraam was journeying with them, escorting them.
17
But the lord said, Should I hide from Abraam my servant what I am
doing?;
18
now Abraam will surely become a nation great and plentiful,
and all the nations of the earth will be blessed through him.
19
For I know
that he will command his sons and his house after himself, and he will
keep the ways of Lord doing righteousness and justice, so that Lord may
bring upon Abraam everything of which he spoke to him.
20
Then Lord
said, The outcry of Sodoma and Gomorra has been multiplied, and their
sins are very great.
21
Therefore, going down I will see if according to the
outcry about them coming to me they are bringing it to an end; and if
not, I will know.
22
And turning back from there, the men went into Sodoma; but Abraam
was standing before Lord.
23
And drawing near Abraam said, You would
not destroy the righteous with the ungodly, so that the righteous will be
like the ungodly.
24
If there are fty righteous in the city, will you destroy
them?; will you not let the place go unpunished on account of the fty
righteous, if they are in it?;
25
by no means will you do this thing, kill-
ing the righteous with the ungodly, so that the righteous will be like the
ungodly; by no means. The judge of all the earth, will you do justice?
26

Then Lord said, If I nd in Sodoma fty righteous in the city, I will let all
the place go unpunished because of them.
27
And answering Abraam said,
Now I began to speak to the lord, I who am but earth and ash.
28
Now if
the fty righteous are lessened by ve, will you destroy on account of the
ve all the city?; and he said, No I will not destroy if I nd there forty-
ve.
29
And he still continued to speak to him and he said, But if forty are
found there?; and he said, No I will not destroy on account of the forty.
GENESIS 18:1029 81
30
, , ;
.
31

, ;
.
32
, ,
;
.
33

, .
19
1

. ,

2
, ,
,
, .
, .
3

, .
,
.
4

,
.
5
,
;
, .
6
,
.
7

, , .
8
,
,

, .
9

, ;
.
, .
10

,

11

,
.
12

, ,
,
13

, ,
.
14


, ,
82 GENESIS 18:3033 & 19:114
30
Then he said, Do not, oh lord . . . if I may speak; now if thirty are found
there?; and he said, No I will not destroy if thirty are found there.
31

And he said, Since I am able to speak to the lord, if twenty are found
there?; and he said, No, I will not destroy on account of the twenty.
32

And he said, Do not, oh lord . . . if I may speak yet once more; now if ten
are found there?; and he said, No, I will not destroy on account of the
ten.
33
Then the lord departed as he stopped speaking to Abraam, and
Abraam returned to his place.
19
1
Then the two angels came into Sodoma at evening; now Lt was sit-
ting by the gate of Sodoma. Then looking Lt stood up to meet them, and
he bowed down with his face on the ground;
2
and he said, Look, oh lords,
turn aside to the house of your servant and take rest; and wash your feet,
and getting up early you will depart on your way. And they said, No,
rather in the open street we will take rest.
3
And he was forcing them,
and they turned aside to him. And they went into his house; and he pre-
pared a drinking party for them and he baked unleavened bread for them,
and they ate before going to sleep.
4
And the men of the city the Sod-
omites surrounded the house from young men to older, all the people at
the same time.
5
And they were calling out to Lt, and they were saying to
him, Where are the men who came to you tonight?; bring them out to us,
so that we may have sexual intercourse with them.
6
Then Lt went out
to them, and the door he shut behind him.
7
Then he said to them, By no
means, oh brothers, do not act wickedly.
8
Now I have two daughters, who
have not known a man; I will bring them out to all of you, and use them
according to what pleases you; only to these men do not do anything
unjust, inasmuch as they came under the shelter of my roof.
9
But they
said, Get away from there; you came to sojourn, surely not also to pass
judgment?; now therefore you we will mistreat more than those. And
they were forcing the man Lt excessively, and they drew near to break
down the door.
10
But stretching out their hands, the men drew Lt in
towards themselves into the house, and the door of the house they shut.
11
But the men who were at the door of the house they struck with blind-
ness, from small to large; and they were disabled, searching for the door.
12
Then the men said to Lt, Is there anyone of yours here, sons-in-law
or sons or daughters, or if there is any one else of yours in the city, bring
out from this place.
13
For we ourselves are destroying this place, for their
outcry has been raised up before Lord, and Lord sent us to rub it out.
14
Then Lt went out and he spoke to his sons-in-law, the ones having
taken his daughters, and he said, Stand up and go away from this place,
GENESIS 18:3033 & 19:114 83
,
.
15
,

, .
16

*
,
.
17


,
.
18
, ,
19


,
,
20
,
; .
21



22

.
.
23

, ,
24

,
25


.
26

, .
27

,
28

,
.
29
,

,
.
30
,

.
31

* Reading with the majority and more logical instead of ALEXs .
84 GENESIS 19:1431
for Lord is rubbing out the city, but he seemed to be joking in the opinion
of his sons-in-law.
15
Then when it became dawn, the angels were hurrying
Lt saying, Standing up take your wife and your two daughters, whom
you have and go away, so that you are not destroyed with the lawlessness
of the city.
16
And they were troubled; and the angels took hold of his
hands and the hands of his wife and the hands of his two daughters, while
Lord spared him.
17
And it came to be when they led them outside they
said, Be certain to save your own life; neither look around to the things
behind you nor stay in any of the neighboring areas; in the mountain area
keep yourself safe, lest you be with those taken away.
18
Then Lt said to
them, I pray, oh lord,
19
since your servant found mercy before you and
you made great your righteousness, which you are doing for me to keep
my soul alive; but I will not be able to keep safe in the mountain area, lest
bad things overtake me and I die;
20
look, this city, which is small, is nearby
for me to ee and take refuge there; there I will be safe, is it not small?;
and my soul will live on account of you.
21
And he said to him, Look, I
admired your face and in reference to this matter to not overturn the
city about which you spoke.
22
Thus hurry to be safe there; for I will not
be able to take action until you go there. Because of this he named that
city Sgr.
23
The sun came out on the land, and Lt came into Sgr,
24
and
Lord rained on Sodoma and Gomorra brimstone and re from Lord out of
the heaven,
25
and he overturned these cities in which Lt was settled and
every neighboring one and all the ones living in the cities and everything
rising up from the earth.
26
And his wife gazed at the things behind, and
she became a pillar of salt.
27
Now Abraam got up early in the morning in
the place where he had stood before Lord,
28
and he gazed upon the face of
Sodoma and Gomorra and on the face of the neighboring area and he saw;
and indeed the ame of the land was going up as steam of a furnace.
29
And it came to be while Lord rubbed out all the cities of the neighboring
area, God remembered Abraam and sent Lt away from the midst of the
catastrophe, when Lord overturned the cities in which Lt was settled.
30
Then Lt went out from Sgr, and he was staying in the mountain area
and his two daughters with him; for he was afraid to settle in Sgr; and
he lived in the cave, he and his two daughters with him.
31
Now the older
GENESIS 19:1431 85
,
,

32

, .
33

,

.
34


,
,
.
35

,
.
36

.
37

,
.
38

, ,
.
20
1
,
.
2


,
.
.
3

,
.
4

, , ;
5
;
.
6

,
.
7

, ,
, .
8

,

.
9

86 GENESIS 19:3138 & 20:19
said to the younger, Our father is old, and there is no one on the earth
who will come into us, as is tting for all the earth;
32
come here therefore
and let us give our father wine to drink and let us lie with him, and let us
raise up from our father ospring.
33
Then they gave their father wine to
drink on that night, and the older going in lay with her father that night;
and he did not know when she laid down or arose.
34
Now it came to be
the next day the older said to the young, Look, yesterday I lay with our
father; let us give him wine to drink again this night, and you going in lie
with him, and let us raise up from our father ospring.
35
Then they gave
their father wine to drink again that night, and the younger going in lay
with her father; and he did not know when she laid down or arose.
36
And
the two daughters of Lt conceived from their father.
37
And the older
bore a son, and she called his name Mab saying, From my father; this
one is the father of the Mabites until this very day.
38
Then the younger
also bore a son, and she called his name Amman, the son of my family;
this one is the father of the Ammonites until this very day.
20
1
And Abraam moved from there into a land toward the southwest,
and he lived between Kads and Sour; and he sojourned in Gerara.
2
Now
Abraam said about Sarra his wife that My sister is she; for he was afraid
to say that My wife is she, lest the men of the city kill him because of
her. Then Abimelech the king of Gerara sent for and took Sarra.
3
And God
went into Abimelech in sleep in the night, and he said to him, Look, you
die because of the woman you took, now she has been living in marriage
with a man.
4
But Abimelech had not touched her, and he said, Oh Lord,
a nation unknowing and righteous will you destroy?;
5
did he not say to
me My sister is she?; and she said to me, My brother is he; with a pure
heart and the righteousness of hands I did this.
6
Then God said to him in
sleep, Yes, I know that with a pure heart you did this, and I myself spared
you from sinning against me; on account of this I did not allow you to
touch her.
7
Now then give back the woman to the man, for he is a prophet
and he will pray for you, and you will live; but if you do not give back,
know that you will die, you and everything of yours.
8
And Abimelech
got up early in the morning and he called all his servants, and he spoke of
all these matters into their ears; then all the men were very frightened.
9
And Abimelech called Abraam and said to him, What is this that you did
GENESIS 19:3138 & 20:19 87
; ,
; ,
, .
10

;
11

,
.
12
,
.
13



.
14
,
, *
.
15

.
16



.
17
,
,

18

.
21
1
,
, .
2

, , .
3
,
, .
4

, .
5

, .
6

.
7

;
.
8

.
9

, ,
,
10


* Reading with all other manuscripts instead of ALEXs misspelled
.
88 GENESIS 20:918 & 21:110
to us?; did we sin against you, that you brought on me and on my king-
dom a great sin? a deed, which no one should do, you have done to me.
10
Then Abimelech said to Abraam, What did you see that you did this?;
11
then Abraam said, For I said, Surely there is no fear of God in this
place, so me they will kill on account of my wife.
12
For because truly
she is my sister from a father, but not from a mother, then she became a
wife to me.
13
Now it came to be when God led me out from the house of
my father and I said to her, This righteous act do for me; in every place
wherever we enter, say of me that my brother is he.
14
Then Abimelech
took a thousand drachma, sheep and calves and menservants and maid-
servants, and he gave them to Abraam; and he gave back to him Sarra
his wife.
15
And Abimelech said to Abraam, Look, my land is before you;
wherever pleases you, settle.
16
And to Sarra he said, Look, I have given
a thousand drachma to your brother; for you this will be for the honor
of your face and for all those with you; and in everything be truthful.
17
Then Abraam prayed to God, and God healed Abimelech and his wife
and his maidservants, and they bore children;
18
for Lord closed up from
the outside all the wombs in the house of Abimelech on account of Sarra
the wife of Abraam.
21
1
And Lord visited Sarra, just as he said; and Lord did for Sarra, just as
he spoke.
2
And conceiving Sarra bore for Abraam a son in old age, in the
designated time, just as Lord spoke to him.
3
And Abraam called the name
of his son born to him, whom Sarra bore for him, Isaak.
4
Then Abraam
circumcised Isaak on the eighth day, just as God commanded him.
5
Now
Abraam was one hundred years old, when Isaak his son was born to him.
6
Then Sarra said, Laughter Lord has made for me; for whoever hears will
rejoice with me.
7
She also said, Who will report to Abraam that Sarra is
nursing a youngster?; for I bore a son in my old age.
8
The youngster grew up and was weaned; and Abraam made a great feast
on the day Isaak his son was weaned.
9
But Sarra, seeing the son of Hagar
the Egyptian, the one who was born to Abraam, playing with Isaak her
own son,
10
and she said to Abraam, Throw out this maidservant and
her son; for the son of the maidservant will not inherit with my son
GENESIS 20:918 & 21:110 89
.
11

.
12


,
.
13

, ,
.
14
,
,
. ,
.
15
,

16

,
.
.
17

,
, ;
.
18

,
.
19
,

.
20
,
.
21

.
22


.
23

,
,
, , .
24

.
25

.
26


, .
27


.
28
.
29
-
;
30

90 GENESIS 21:1030
Isaak.
11
Now the matter concerning his son Ismal seemed very harsh
in Abraams opinion.
12
But God said to Abraam, Do not let the matter
concerning the youngster and the maidservant be harsh in your opin-
ion; everything that Sarra might say to you, listen to her voice; for in
Isaak ospring will be named for you.
13
And even the son of this maid-
servant, into a great nation I will make him, for he is your ospring.
14

Then Abraam arose early in the morning, and he took bread and a skin
of water and he gave them to Hagar; and he placed them on the shoulder
along with the youngster, and he sent her away. Then departing, she was
wandering around the desert, down from the well of the oath.
15
Now the
water from the skin was running out, and she threw the youngster down
underneath one of the r trees;
16
and departing, she was sitting opposite
him farther away, just about the distance of a bows throw; for she said,
May I not see the death of my youngster. And she was sitting opposite
him from afar; then crying out the youngster wept.
17
But God gave heed
to the sound of the youngster from the place where he was, and an angel
of God called Hagar from the heaven and said to her, What is it, Hagar?;
do not be afraid; for God has harkened to the sound of your youngster
from the place where he is.
18
Stand up and take the youngster, and hold
him tightly with your hand; for into a great nation I will make him.
19
And
God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of living water; and she went and
she lled the skin of water and she gave the youngster a drink.
20
And God
was with the youngster, and he grew up and he settled in the desert; now
he came to be an archer.
21
And he settled in the desert in Pharan; and the
mother took for him a wife from the land of Egypt.
22
Now it came to be in that designated time, Abimelech and Ochozath
his groomsman and Phikol the commander-in-chief of his army said to
Abraam saying, God is with you in everything that you ever do.
23
There-
fore now swear to me by God, that you will not treat me or my ospring
or my name unrighteously; rather according to the righteousness with
which I dealt with you, you will deal with me, and the land, where you
sojourned.
24
And Abraam said, I will swear.
25
Then Abraam reproved
Abimelech about the wells of water that the servants of Abimelech took
away for themselves.
26
And Abimelech said to him, I do not know who
did this act; neither did you tell me, nor did I hear but today.
27
Then
Abraam took sheep and calves and gave them to Abimelech; and both
of them contracted a covenant.
28
And Abraam set seven lambs of sheep
alone.
29
And Abimelech said to Abraam, What are the seven lambs of
sheep that you set alone?;
30
and Abraam said that These seven lambs
GENESIS 21:1030 91
,
.
31

, .
32

.
,
.
33

,
, .
34

.
22
1

, . .
2

, ,
,
.
3


, .
.
4


5

,
.
6

,
.
7

, ;
;
8

, .

9
.


.
10

, .
11

, . *
.
12
,
,
.
13

,
,
92 GENESIS 21:3034 & 22:113
* Adding with the corrected Swete text and all other manuscripts.
you will take from me, so that they can be a witness that I myself dug
this well.
31
Because of this the name of that place was named Well of
swearing an oath, because there they both swore an oath.
32
And they con-
tracted a covenant at the well of the oath. Then Abimelech and Ochozath
his groomsman and Phikol the commander-in-chief of his army arose,
and they returned to the land of the Phylistieim.
33
And Abraam planted
a ploughed eld by the well of the oath, and he invoked there the name
of Lord, God eternal.
34
Then Abraam sojourned in the land of the Phy-
listieim many days.
22
1
And it came to be after these things God was testing Abraam; and
he said to him, Abraam, Abraam.
2
Then he said, Here I am. And he
said, Take your son, the beloved one, the one whom you love, Isaak, and
travel into the high land, and oer him there as a sacrice on one of the
mountains that I will tell you.
3
Then rising early in the morning, Abraam
put a load on his donkey; then he took along with himself two servant
boys and Isaak his son, and splitting wood for a sacrice and standing up,
he traveled. And he came on the place of which God told him on the third
day.
4
And looking up with the eyes, Abraam saw the place from afar.
5

And Abraam said to his servant boys, Sit here with the donkey, but I and
the youngster will travel yonder; and after worshipping we will return
to you.
6
Then Abraam took the wood of the sacrice and he placed it on
Isaak his son; then he took both the re and the knife in hand, and the
two of them traveled together.
7
And Isaak said to Abraam his father say-
ing, Father; then the other said, What is it, my child?; saying, Look,
the re and the wood; where is the sheep, the one for the sacrice?
8
Then Abraam said, God himself will see to a sheep for sacrice, my
child. Then both of them traveling together
9
came on the place of which
God told him. And there Abraam built an altar and he placed the wood;
and binding Isaak his son hand and foot he placed him on the altar on top
of the wood.
10
And Abraam stretched out his hand to take the knife, to
slaughter his son.
11
And an angel of Lord called to him from the heaven
and said to him, Abraam, Abraam. Then he said, Here I am.
12
And he
said, Do not cast your hand on the little boy, nor do anything to him; for
now I know that you fear God, and you did not spare your beloved son
because of me.
13
And looking up with his eyes, Abraam saw, and look, a
ram caught in a sabek plant by the horns; and Abraam went and took the
GENESIS 21:3034 & 22:113 93
.
14


.
15


16
,
,
,
17
,

,
.
18

, .
19
,

.
20

,
21

,
,
22


23
.
.
24

,
.
23
1
.
2

, [ ]
. .
3



4

, .
5


6
, .


, .
7

, ,
8


,

9
,

.
10

94 GENESIS 22:1324 & 23:110
ram, and oered it as a sacrice instead of Isaak his son.
14
And Abraam
called the name of that place Lord saw; so that they say today On the
mountain Lord appeared.
15
And an angel of Lord called to Abraam a sec-
ond time from the heaven saying,
16
By myself I swore, says Lord, that
because you did this thing and did not spare your beloved son because
of me,
17
truly blessing I will bless you, and multiplying, I will multiply
your ospring as the stars of the heaven and as the sand by the edge of
the sea, and your ospring will inherit the cities of the enemies.
18
And
all the nations will be blessed in your ospring inasmuch as you obeyed
my voice.
19
Then Abraam returned to his servant boys, and standing up
they traveled together to the well of the oath; and Abraam settled by the
well of the oath.
20
Now it came to be after these things it was told to Abraam saying, Look,
Melcha she also has born sons for Nachr your brother,
21
x the rst-
born and Buax his brother, and Kamoul the father of the Syrians,
22
and
Chaszad and Azau and Phaldas and Ieldaph and Bathoul;
23
and Bethoul
fathered Rebekka. These are the eight sons that Mekcha bore for Nachr
the brother of Abraam.
24
And his concubine whose name was Rhera, she
also bore Tabek and Taam and Toxhos and Mcha.
23
1
Now it came to be that Sarras life was one hundred and twenty-
seven years.
2
And Sarra died in the city Arbok, which is in the lowland;
(this is Chebrn) in the land of Chanaan. Then Abraam went to beat his
breast for Sarra and to mourn.
3
And Abraam arose from his dead one; and
Abraam said to the sons of Chet saying,
4
I myself am a sojourner and
a stranger among you; therefore, give me a burial property among you,
and I will bury my dead one there.
5
But sons of Chet answered Abraam
saying,
6
No, lord; rather hear us. A king from God are you for us; in
our choice tombs, bury your dead one; for no one of us will withhold his
tomb from you, to bury your dead one there.
7
Then standing up Abraam
bowed down to the people of the land, to the sons of Chet,
8
and Abraam
spoke to them saying, If you have it in your soul to bury my dead one
away from my face, hear me and speak about me to Ephrn of the Saar;
9
and let him give me the double cave that is his, the one in part of his
eld; for a tting amount of money, give it to me among you for a tomb
property.
10
Now Ephrn was sitting in the midst of the sons of Chet;
GENESIS 22:1324 & 23:110 95
,
,
11

, , .

.
12

13

,
, .
14


15
,
;
.
16

,
.
17

, , ,
, ,
,
18

.
19


,
.
20

.
24
1
,
.
2

, ,
,
3

,
,
4
,
.
5


;
6

.
7
,
,

,
.
8

,
.
96 GENESIS 23:1020 & 24:18
then Ephrn the Chettite answering Abraam said, in the hearing of the
sons of Chet and all those entering the city, saying,
11
Be beside me, lord,
and hear me. The eld and the cave that is in it I give to you; before my
citizens I have given it to you; bury your dead one.
12
And Abraam bowed
down before the people of the land;
13
and he said to Ephrn in the ears
before all the people of the land, Since you are in my presence, hear
me; the money for the eld, take from me, bury my dead one there.
14

Then Ephrn answered Abraam saying,
15
No, lord; for I have heard; four
hundred drachma of silver; between me and you what could this be?; now
bury your dead one.
16
And Abraam listened to Ephrn; and he handed
over the silver of which he spoke in the ears of the sons of Chet, four hun-
dred drachma of silver approved for trading.
17
And the eld of Ephrn
in which was the double cave which is along the face of Mambr, the
eld and the cave that is in it, and every tree that is in the eld, which
is in its surrounding boundaries was established
18
for Abraam as prop-
erty before the sons of Chet and all those entering the city.
19
After these
things, Abraam buried Sarra his wife in the double cave of the eld, which
is opposite Mambr; this is Chebrn in the land of Chanaan.
20
And the
eld and the cave that was in it was conrmed to Abraam as a burial
property by the sons of Chet.
24
1
And Abraam was old having advanced in days, and Lord blessed
Abraam in everything.
2
And Abraam said to his servant, the elder of his
house, the ruler over all that was his, Place your hand under my thigh,
3
and I will make you swear by Lord the God of the heaven and the earth,
that you not take a wife for my son Isaak from the daughters of the Cha-
nanites, with whom I live among them;
4
but rather to my land where I
was born you shall travel and to my tribe, and you shall take a wife for
my son Isaak from there.
5
Then the servant said to him, Perhaps the
woman may not wish to travel back with me to this land; shall I return
your son to the land from which you came?
6
Then Abraam said to him,
Watch yourself that you do not return my son there.
7
Lord the God of
the heaven and the God of the earth, the one who took me from the house
of my father and from the land where I was born, the one who spoke to
me and swore to me saying, To you I will give this land and to your o-
spring; he will send his angel ahead of you, and you will take a wife for
my son Isaak from there.
8
But if the woman does not want to travel with
you into this land, you will be free from this oath; only my son do not
return there.
GENESIS 23:1020 & 24:18 97
9

, .
10


,
.
11

,
.
12
,

.
13
,

14

,
, ,

.
15

,
,
, .
16

, .
, .
17


.
18
,

.
19

.
20
,
,
.
21
,
.
22

,

.
23

; ;
24
,
.
25
,
.
26


27
,


.
28

.
29

.
98 GENESIS 24:929
9
And the servant placed his hand under the thigh of Abraam his lord, and
he swore to him concerning this matter.
10
The servant took ten camels
from the camels of his lord and from all of the goods of his lord with him-
self, and standing up he traveled into Mesopotamia into the city of Nachr.
11
And he made the camels rest outside the city by the well of water late in
the day, when the women fetching water come out.
12
And he said, Lord
the God of lord Abraam, guide me well today and deal mercifully with
my lord Abraam.
13
Look, I am standing by the spring of water, now the
daughters of the inhabitants of the city are coming out to draw water;
14
and it will be whomever the virgin to whom I say Extend your water
jar so that I may drink, and she will say to me You drink, and to your
camels I will give water until they stop drinking, this one you provided
for your servant Isaak; and by this I will know that you dealt mercifully
with my lord Abraam.
15
And it came to be before he nished speaking
to himself, and look, Rebekka was coming out, the one born to Bathoul
son of Melcha the wife of Nachr, and brother of Abraam, the one hold-
ing the water jar on her shoulders.
16
Now the virgin was very beautiful in
appearance; she was a virgin, no man knew her. Then going down to the
spring, she lled her water jar and she went up.
17
Then the servant ran up
to meet her and said, Give me a little water from your water jar to drink.
18
Then she said, Drink, lord; and she hurried and lowered the water jar
onto her arm and she gave him drink until he stopped drinking.
19
And
she said, And for your camels let me fetch water until all have drunk.
20
And she hurried and emptied the water jar into the water trough, and
she ran to the well to draw water and she fetched water for all the camels.
21
Now the man examined her closely, and was silent to know whether or
not Lord guided his way well.
22
Now it came to be when all the camels
stopped drinking, the man took gold earrings each a single drachm in
weight and two bracelets for her hands; ten gold weights each of them.
23
And he inquired of her and said, Whose daughter are you? Answer me;
is there with your father a place for us to take rest?
24
And she said to
him, A daughter of Bathoul am I of Melcha, who bore him for Nachr.
25
And she said to him, And we have cha and much fodder, and a place
to take rest.
26
And being glad, the man bowed down to Lord and said,
27
Blessed is Lord the God of my lord Abraam, who did not withhold his
righteousness and truth from my lord; Lord has guided me well into the
house of the brother of my lord.
28
And running the girl reported to the
house of her mother about these matters.
29
Now Rebekka had a brother
whose name was Laban; and Laban ran to the man outside by the spring.
GENESIS 24:929 99
30

,
,
,
31
, ;
.
32

, *
,
,
33

.
. .
34
.
35

,
, ,
.
36


.
37

,

38

, .
39

.
40

, ,

.
41


, .
42

,
,
43

,
,
,
44
,
,

.
45

,
, .
.
46

,
* Reading with the majority instead of for sense.
100 GENESIS 24:3046
30
And it came to be when he saw the earrings and the bracelets on the
hands of his sister, and when he heard the matters of Rebekka his sister
saying, Thus the man has spoken to me, and he went to the man, as he
was standing by the camels by the spring;
31
and he said to him, Come
here, blessed be Lord; why are you standing outside?; now I prepared the
house and a place for the camels.
32
Then the man entered the house, and
he took the load o the camels; and he gave cha and fodder to the cam-
els, and water for his feet and for the feet of the men with him,
33
and he
served them food to eat. And he said, I will not eat until I have spoken of
my matters. And they said, Speak.
34
And he said, A servant of Abraam
am I.
35
Now Lord greatly blessed my lord, and he was exalted; and he gave
him sheep and calves and silver and gold, menservants and maidservants,
camels and donkeys.
36
And Sarra the wife of my lord bore one son for my
lord after he was old; and he gave him whatever was his.
37
And my lord
made me swear saying, Do not take a wife for my son from the daughters
of the Chananites, with whom I am sojourning in their land;
38
but rather
to the house of my father you should travel and to my tribe, and take a
wife for my son from there.
39
Then I said to my lord, Perhaps the woman
might not travel with me.
40
And he said to me, Lord God, the one before
whom I was pleasing, he will send out his angel with you and he will guide
your way well; and you will take a wife for my son from my tribe and from
the house of my father.
41
Then you will be free from my curse; indeed
if when you should come to my tribe and they will not give to you, and
you will be free from my oath.
42
And coming today at the spring I said,
Lord the God of my lord Abraam, if you guide well my way in which I am
now traveling;
43
suddenly I am standing by the spring of water, and the
daughters of the men of the city will be coming out to draw water, and
there will be a virgin to whom I will say, Give me a little water from your
water jar to drink,
44
and she will say to me You drink, and for your cam-
els I will fetch water, she is the woman whom Lord prepared for his own
attendant Isaak; and in this I will know that he has dealt mercifully with
my lord Abraam.
45
And it came to be before I nished speaking to myself,
immediately Rebekka was coming out holding the water jar on the shoul-
ders, and she went down to the spring and fetched water for herself. Then
I said to her, Give me a drink.
46
And hurrying she lowered the water jar
onto her own arm and she said to me, You drink, and to your camels I
GENESIS 24:3046 101
, .
47

; .
, .

48

, ,
,
.
49

, ,
.
50


.
51
,
, .
52

,
.
53

,
.
54

, .
.
55

,
.
56
,
.
57
.
58

; .
59

,
.
60

,
.
61

,
.
62

.
63

,
.
64

,
65

;
.
66

.
67

102 GENESIS 24:4667
will give water; and I drank and my camels drank.
47
And I asked her and
said, Whose daughter are you?; answer me. Then she was saying, I am a
daughter of Bathoul son of Nachr, whom Melcha bore for him. And on
her I put the earrings and the bracelets on her hands;
48
and being glad I
bowed down to Lord, and I blessed Lord the God of my lord Abraam, the
one who guided me well on the way of truth, to take the daughter of the
brother of my lord for his son.
49
Therefore if you will deal mercifully and
righteously with my lord, tell me, so that I may turn around to the right
or to the left.
50
Then answering Laban and Bathoul said, From lord
came this ordinance; therefore we will not be able to speak against you
bad for good.
51
Look, Rebekka is in front of you, taking her, run o; and
she will be a wife for the son of your lord, according to what Lord spoke.
52
Now it came to be when the servant of Abraam heard these things, he
bowed down on the ground to Lord.
53
And having brought goods of silver
and gold and clothing, the servant gave them to Rebekka, and gifts he
gave to her brother and to her mother.
54
And they ate and drank, he and
the men who were with him, and they went to sleep. And arising early
in the morning he said, Send me o, so that I may depart to my lord.
55
But her brothers and her mother said, Let the virgin remain with us
for about ten days, and after these she may depart.
56
But he said to them,
Do not restrain me, and Lord guided my way well; send me o so that I
may depart to my lord.
57
But they said, Let us call the girl and let us ask
her mouth.
58
And they called Rebekka and said to her, Will you travel
with this man?; and she said, I will travel.
59
And they sent o Rebekka
their sister and her possessions, and the servant of Abraam and those
with him.
60
And they blessed Rebekka their sister and said to her, You
are our sister; become thousands of myriads, and may your ospring
inherit the cities of the enemies.
61
Then standing up, Rebekka and her personal maids mounted the cam-
els, and they traveled with the man; and taking up Rebekka the servant
departed.
62
Now Isaak was traveling across the desert by the well of the
vision; and he was settled in the land toward the south.
63
And Isaak went
out to meditate in the open eld toward evening, and looking up with
the eyes, he saw camels coming.
64
And looking up with the eyes, Rebekka
saw Isaak and she jumped down from the camel,
65
and she said to the
servant, Who is that man, the one traveling in the open eld to meet
us? And the servant said, This one is my lord; then taking the veil, she
threw it over herself.
66
And the servant described in detail to Isaak all
the things that he did.
67
Then Isaak went into his mothers house and he
GENESIS 24:4667 103
, ,

.
25
1
.
2

.
3



4

.
.
5


6

,
.
7

,
8

, .
9

,
, ,
10
,
.
11


.
12
,
.
13

,

14


15
.
16
,

.
17
,
.
18
,
,
.
19

.
20

,
104 GENESIS 24:67 & 25:120
took Rebekka, and she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaak was
comforted about Sarra his mother.
25
1
Now again Abraam took a wife whose name was Chettoura.
2
Then
she bore for him Zebran and Iexan and Madaim and Madiam and Iesbok
and Sue.
3
Then Iexan fathered Saban and Thaiman and Daidan; now the
sons of Daidan were Ragoul and Nabdel and Asourim and Latousieim
and Lomein;
4
now the sons of Madiam; Gephar and Apher and Hench
and Abira and Thergama. All these were sons of Chettoura.
5
But Abraam
gave all his possessions to Isaak his son;
6
and to the sons of his concu-
bines Abraam gave gifts, and he sent them away from Isaak his son while
he was still living eastward into the land of the east.
7
Now these are the
years of the days of the life of Abraam as long as he lived, one hundred
seventy-ve years;
8
and having come to an end Abraam died in a good old
age, an old man and full of days, and he was gathered to his people.
9
And
Isaak and Ismal his two sons buried him in the double cave, in the eld of
Ephrn of Saar of Chettite, which is opposite Mambr,
10
the eld and the
cave, which Abraam acquired before the sons of Chet; there they buried
Abraam and Sarra his wife.
11
Now it came to be after the death of Abraam
God blessed Isaak his son; and Isaak settled by the well of the vision.
12
Now these are the descendants of Ismal the son of Abraam, whom Hagar
the maidservant of Sarra bore for Abraam.
13
And these are the names
of the sons of Ismal according to the name of his families; rstborn of
Ismal Nabaith, and Kdar and Nabdel and Massam
14
and Masma and
Idouma and Mass
15
and Choddan and Thaiman and Ietour and Naphes
and Kedma.
16
These are the sons of Ismal, and these are their names in
their tents and in their encampments; twelve rulers according to their
nation.
17
And these are the years of the life of Ismal, one hundred thirty-
seven years; and having come to an end he died and was gathered to his
family.
18
Now Ismal settled from Heueilat to Soul, which is down facing
Egypt, until arriving at the Assyrians; down from the face of all his broth-
ers he settled.
19
And these are the descendants of Isaak the son of Abraam; Abraam
fathered Isaak.
20
Now Isaak was forty years old when he took Rebekka
daughter of Bethoul the Syrian from Mesopotamia, sister of Laban the
GENESIS 24:67 & 25:120 105
, .
21

, ,
.
22

, ;
.
23

,

,
.
24

.
25
,
.
26

,
.
.
27

,
, .
28
,
.
29
.
30

, .
31

.
32

,
;
33
.
.
34

,
.
26
1
,

.
2

.
3


,
.
4



106 GENESIS 25:2034 & 26:14
Syrian, for his wife.
21
And Isaak begged Lord about Rebekka his wife, for
she was barren; then God gave heed to him, and Rebekka his wife became
pregnant.
22
Now the little ones were jumping around in her; then she
said, If it is thus going to be with me, why is this to me?; then she went
to inquire of Lord.
23
And Lord said to her,
Two nations are in your belly,
and two people from your womb will be torn apart;
and one people will surpass a people,
and the greater will be a slave to the smaller.
24
And the days of her bearing were complete; and there were twins in her
belly.
25
Then the rstborn son came out red, as if full of thick hairy skin,
now she named his name Esau.
26
And after this his brother came out,
and his hand grasping the heel of Esau; and she called his name Iakb.
Now Isaak was sixty years old when Rebekka brought them forth.
27
Then
the young men grew up; and Esau was a man knowing how to hunt, a
countryman; but Iakb was a simple man, living in a house.
28
Now Isaak
loved Esau, because his game was food for him; but Rebekka always loved
Iakb.
29
Now Iakb boiled a stew; then Esau came from the open eld used up.
30

And Esau said to Iakb, Give me a taste of some of this red stew, for I am
used up; because of this his name was called Edm.
31
Then Iakb said to
Esau, Turn over to me your birthright today.
32
Then Esau said, Look, I
am going to die, and so what is this birthright to me?
33
And Iakb said
to him, Swear to me today. And he swore to him; then Esau turned over
the birthright to Iakb.
34
Then Iakb gave Esau bread and lentil stew; and
he ate and drank, and standing up he departed; and Esau disparaged the
birthright.
26
1
Now there came to be a famine in the land, besides the former fam-
ine that happened in the time of Abraam; then Isaak traveled to Abim-
elech king of the Phylistieim in Gerara.
2
Then Lord appeared to him and
said, Do not go down into Egypt; but settle in the land wherever I tell
you.
3
And sojourn in this land and I will be with you and I will bless you;
for to you and your ospring I will give all this land, and I will execute
my oath that I swore to Abraam your father.
4
And I will multiply your
ospring as the stars of the heaven; and I will give your ospring all this
land; and all the nations of the land will be blessed in your ospring.
GENESIS 25:2034 & 26:14 107
5
,

.
6
.
7

,
,
,
.
8


.
9

;
.
10

;
, .
11

.
12
,
.
13

,
14
.

15

,
.
16

, .
17

,
.
18




.
19
,
.
20

,
.
21

, .
22

,
,
.
23

.
24
,
,
.
108 GENESIS 26:524
5
Because Abraam your father obeyed my voice, and kept my ordinances
and my commandments and my regulations and my laws.
6
And Isaak
settled among the Gerarites.
7
Now the men of the place inquired about
Rebekka his wife, and he said that my sister is she; for he was afraid to
say that my wife is she, lest the men of the place kill him on account of
Rebekka, for she was ripe in appearance.
8
Now it came to be that he was
there a long time; then peeping through the window Abimelech the king
of the Gerarites saw Isaak playing with Rebekka his wife.
9
Then Abim-
elech called to Isaak and said to him, So then she is your wife; why is
it that you said, My sister is she? Then Isaak said to him, For I said
lest I might die because of her.
10
Then Abimelech said to him, What
is this you did to us? One of my family nearly laid with your wife, and
you would have brought ignorance on us.
11
Then Abimelech commanded
all his people saying, All who touch this man or his wife will be subject
to death.
12
Then Isaak sowed in that land, and he found in that year
barley yielding one hundred fold; now Lord blessed him.
13
And the man
was exalted, and advancing he was becoming great until he became very
great;
14
now he came to have herds of sheep and herds of cattle and many
cultivated elds. But the Phylistieim envied him;
15
and all the wells that
the servants of his father dug in the time of his father, the Phylistieim
blocked them up and lled them with earth.
16
Then Abimelech said to
Isaak, Depart from us for you have become more powerful than we.
17
And Isaak departed from there and took rest in the valley of the Ger-
arites and settled there.
18
And Issak again dug the wells of water that the
servants of Abraam his father dug and the Phylistieim blocked them up
after the death of Abraam his father; and he named them names according
to the names that Abraam his father named them.
19
Then the servants of
Isaak dug in the valley of the Gerarites, and they found there a well of liv-
ing water.
20
And the shepherds of the Gerarites quarreled with the shep-
herds of Isaak, claiming the water to be theirs; and he called the name
of that well Injustice; for they treated him unjustly.
21
Then Isaak, mov-
ing on from there, dug another well; but they were in dispute about that
one also, and he named its name Hostility.
22
Then moving o from there,
he dug another well, and they did not quarrel over it; and he named its
name Open Space saying, Because now Lord expanded us and increased
us over the land.
23
Then he went up from there to the well of the oath.
24
And Lord appeared to him in that night, and he said, I am the God of
Abraam your father; do not be afraid; for I am with you, and I will bless
you and I will multiply your ospring because of Abraam you father.
GENESIS 26:524 109
25
,

.
26
,
.
27
;
.
28

,
,
29

, ,*

.
30


31
,
,
.
32

,
.
33

, .
34
,
, ,

35
.
27
1


. .
2

,
3

, ,

4
, ,

.
5



6
**


7
,
.
8
, ,

9

* Reading with the majority instead of ALEXs unique -
.
** Reading with the logically corrected Swete text instead of ALEXs unique
.
110 GENESIS 26:2535 & 27:19
25
And he built there an altar and invoked the name of Lord, and he
pitched there his tent; then there the servants of Isaak dug a well.
26

And Abimelech traveled to him from Gerara, also Ochozath his grooms-
man and Phikol the commander-in-chief of his army.
27
And Isaak said to
them, Why have you come to me? Now you hated me and you sent me
away from you.
28
And they said, Seeing we have seen that Lord is with
you, and we said, Let there be a sworn oath between us and you, and we
will contract a covenant with you
29
not to do us harm, just as we did not
loathe you, and in the same way as we treated you well and sent you away
in peace; and now you are blessed by Lord.
30
And he made them a feast
and they ate and drank;
31
and rising early in the morning, they swore an
oath man to his neighbor; and Isaak sent them away, and they took leave
of him safely.
32
Now it came to be on that day, the servants of Isaak arriv-
ing told him about the well that they dug, and they said, We did not nd
water.
33
And he called its name Oath; because of this the name of the city
is Well of Oath, until the present day.
34
Now Esau was forty years old and he took as wife Ioudin, daughter of
Ber the Chettite, and Masemmath, daughter of Ailn the Heuite;
35
and
they would quarrel with Isaak and with Rebekka.
27
1
Now it came to be after Isaak was old and his eyes became too dull
to see; he called Esau his older son and said to him, My son. And he said
to him, Here I am.
2
And he said, Look, I have become old, and I do not
know the day of my end;
3
now therefore take the equipment, both the
quiver and the bow, and go out into the open eld and hunt game for
me;
4
and make me meat, as I love, and bring it to me in order that I may
eat; so that my soul might bless you before I die.
5
Now Rebekka heard
Isaak speaking to Esau his son; then Esau went into the open eld to hunt
game for his father.
6
Then Rebekka said to Iakb her small son, See I
heard your father speaking to Esau your brother saying,
7
Bring me game,
and make me meat; so that after eating I might bless you before Lord
before I die.
8
Now therefore, son, hear me exactly as I command you;
9
and going to the sheep, take me from there two kids tender and good,
GENESIS 26:2535 & 27:19 111
,
,
10
,
.
11

,
12

, ,
.
13

, ,
.
14
,
, .
15

,
,

16


17

, * .
18

, ;
19

,
,
.
20
,
; .
21

, ,
.
22

,
.
23

.
24

; .
25

, ,
. , ,
.
26

, .
27

,

.
28
,
,
.
112 GENESIS 27:928
* Reading with the logically corrected Swete text instead of ALEXs unique
.
and I will make of them meat for your father just as he loves;
10
and you
will bring it in to your father, and he will eat; so that your father might
bless you before he dies.
11
Then Iakb said to Rebekka his mother, Esau
my brother is a hairy man, but I am a smooth man;
12
perhaps my father
will feel me, and I will be before him as a contemptible person and I will
lay on myself a curse and not a blessing.
13
But the mother said to him,
On me be your curse, child; only obey my voice, and going bring back
to me.
14
Then going he took and he brought back to his mother, and his
mother made meat, just as his father loved.
15
And Rebekka taking the
good robe of Esau her older son, which was by her in the house, and she
clothed Iakb her younger son;
16
and the skins of kids she put around
his arms and on the naked parts of his neck;
17
and she gave the meat and
the bread that she made, into the hands of Iakb her son.
18
And he car-
ried them into his father; and he said, My father; then he said, Here
I am; then he said, Who are you, child?
19
Then Iakb his son said to
his father, I am Esau your rstborn, I did just as you told me; arising sit
down and eat my game, so that your soul might bless me.
20
And Isaak
said to his son, What is this that you found so quickly, oh child? Then
he said, what Lord God handed over before me.
21
Then Isaak said to
Iakb, Draw near to me and let me feel you, child, if you are my son Esau
or not.
22
Then Iakb drew near to Isaak his father; and he felt him and
said, The voice is the voice of Iakb, but the hands are the hands of Esau.
23
And he did not recognize him; for his hands were hairy like the hands
of Esau his brother; and he blessed him.
24
And he said, Are you my son
Esau? Then he said, I am.
25
And he said, Set it before me, and I will eat
from your game, child, so that my soul will bless you. And he set it before
him, and he ate; and he brought him wine, and he drank.
26
And Isaak his
father said to him, Draw near to me and kiss me, child.
27
And draw-
ing near, he kissed him; and he smelled the scent of his clothes, and he
blessed him and said,
Look, the scent of my son
like the scent of an abundant eld that Lord blessed.
28
And may God give you from the dew of the heaven above,
and from the fatness of the earth,
and abundance of grain and wine.
GENESIS 27:928 113
29
,

,
.
,
.
30

,
,
.
31


, .
32

;
.
33

,
, ;
.
34

, ,
, .
35

.
36


, .
, ;
37

,
,
, ;
38

, ; , .
39


,

40
,
.

.
41


,
.
42


114 GENESIS 27:2942
29
And let nations be enslaved to you,
and rulers will bow down to you;
and become lord of your brother,
and the sons of your father will bow down to you.
The one who curses you is accursed,
but the one who blesses you is blessed.
30
And it came to be after Isaak nished blessing Iakb his son, and it came
to be as Iakb went from the face of Isaak his father, Esau his brother
come from his hunt.
31
And he too made meat and oered it to his father;
and he said to his father, Let my father arise and eat the game of his
son, so that your soul might bless me.
32
And Isaak his father said to him,
Who are you? Then he said, I am your rstborn son Esau.
33
Then Isaak
was confused in utter astonishment and he said, Who then was the one
who hunted game for me and carried it to me? And I ate from everything
before you entered, and I blessed him; and let him be blessed.
34
Now it
came to be when Esau heard the matters of Isaak his father, Esau cried
out with a loud and very sharp voice, and he said, Please bless me too,
father.
35
And he said to him, Having come with deceit, your brother
took your blessing.
36
And he said, Rightly his name is called Iakb; for
he heeled me now this second time; he has taken both my birthrights, and
also now he has taken my blessing. Esau also said to his father, Do you
not have a blessing left for me, father?
37
Then answering Isaak said to
Esau, If I made him lord over you, and I made all his brothers his house-
hold servants, with grain and wine I established him; but what can I do
for you, child?
38
And Esau said to Isaak his father, Do you have only one
blessing, father? Please bless me too, father.
39
Then answering Isaak his
father said to him,
Truly away from the fatness of the land will be your dwelling,
And from the dew of the heaven above;
40
and by the sword you will live,
and to your brother you will be enslaved.
But it will be whenever you overcome
then you will release his yoke from your neck.
41
And Esau was indignant with Iakb about the blessing with which
his father blessed him; then Esau said to himself, Let the days of the
mourning of my father draw near, so that I might kill Iakb my brother.
42
Now Rebekka was told about the matters of Esau her older son; and
sending for, she called Iakb her younger son and said to him, Look,
GENESIS 27:2942 115


43
, , ,


44
,
45

,
,
.
46
-

, ?
28
1
,

2

,
.
3

,

4
,
, ,
.
5


, .
6

,


7
,
.
8

,
9

,
, , .
10
,
.
11

,
.
12

, ,
.
13


,
116 GENESIS 27:4246 & 28:113
Esau your brother is threatening to kill you;
43
now therefore, child, hear
my voice, and getting up ee into Mesopotamia to Laban my brother in
Charran;
44
and live with him some days,
45
until the wrath and anger of
your brother turns away from you, and he might forget what you have
done to him; and sending for I will summon you from there, lest I become
childless from the two of you in one day.
46
And Rebekka said to Isaak, I have become provoked about my life
because of the daughters of the sons of Chet; if Iakb should take a wife
from the daughters of this land, what would life be for me?
28
1
Now calling to Iakb Isaak blessed him, and he commanded him
saying, Do not take a wife from the daughters of Chanaan;
2
getting
up, ee to Mesopotamia of Syria to the house of Bathoul the father
of your mother, and take for yourself there a wife from the daughters
of Laban the brother of your mother.
3
Now may my God bless you and
cause you to increase and multiply, and you will be a gathering of nations.
4
And may he give you the blessing of Abraam your father, to you and to
your ospring after you, to inherit the land of your sojourning, which
God has given to Abraam.
5
And Isaak sent Iakb away; and he traveled
to Mesopotamia to Laban the son of Bathoul the Syrian, and brother of
Rebekka the mother of Iakb and Esau.
6
Then Esau saw that Isaak blessed
Iakb and he was going far away to Mesopotamia of Syria to take himself
a wife, and while blessing him he commanded him saying, Do not take
a wife from the daughters of Chanaan.
7
And Iakb listened to his own
father and mother, and he traveled to Mesopotamia.
8
And Esau saw that
the daughters of Chanaan were evil before his father Isaak,
9
and Esau
traveled to Ismal, and he took Maeleth daughter of Ismal the son of
Abraam, sister of Nabaith, for a wife in addition to his wives.
10
And Iakb went out from the well of the oath, and he traveled to Charran.
11
And he came upon a place and he went to sleep there; for the sun set;
and he took from the stones of the place and he set them in place for his
head, and he went to sleep in that place.
12
And he dreamed; and look,
a ladder set rmly in the earth, whose head was reaching into heaven,
and the angels of God were going up and coming down on it.
13
And Lord
leaned on it and said, I am the God of Abraam your father and the God
of Isaak; do not be afraid; the land on which you are sleeping, I will give it
GENESIS 27:4246 & 28:113 117
.
14

,

.
15
,

,
.
16

, .
17


, .
18
,

, .
19


.
20

,
, ,
21

,

22
, ,
, .
29
1

,
.
2
, .

,
.
3
,
, ,
.
4
, ;
.
5
;
.
6
; .


.
7
,
.
8
-
, ,
.
9
,

.
10

118 GENESIS 28:1322 & 29:110
to you and to your ospring.
14
And your ospring will be as the sand of
the sea, and they will spread out westward and southward and northward
and eastward; and all the tribes of the earth will be blessed in you and in
your ospring.
15
And look, I am with you, watching you closely in every
place wherever you travel; and I will return you to this land, for I will
never abandon you until I have done all that I told you.
16
And Iakb was
awakened from his sleep and he said that Lord is in this place, but I did
not know.
17
And he was afraid and he said, How fearful is this place; it
is nothing other than a house of God, and it is the gate of heaven.
18
And
Iakb arose early in the morning, and he took the stone that he placed
there by his head and he set it up as a pillar, and he poured olive oil on its
top.
19
And Iakb called the name of that place House of God; and Oulam-
maus was the name of city earlier.
20
Then Iakb vowed a vow saying, If
Lord God is with me, and watches me closely in this way in which I am
traveling, and gives me bread to eat and clothes to wear,
21
and returns me
safely to the house of my father, then Lord will become for me God;
22
and
this stone, which I set up as a pillar, will be for me the house of God; and
of all that you may give to me, one tenth of it I will tithe to you.
29
1
And lifting the feet Iakb traveled into the land of the east to Laban
the son of Bathoul the Syrian, and brother of Rebekka mother of Iakb
and Esau.
2
And he sees and look a well in the open eld. Now there
were three ocks of sheep resting on it; for from that well they would
water the ocks, but there was a large stone at the mouth of the well.
3
And all the ocks would be gathered there, and they would roll away the
stone from the mouth of the well, and they would water the sheep, and
they would restore the stone over the mouth of the well in its place.
4
And
Iakb said to them, Brothers, where are you from? Then they said, We
are from Charran.
5
Then he said to them, Do you know Laban the son of
Nachr? Then they said, We know.
6
Then he said to them, Is he well?
Then they said, He is well. While he was still speaking look, Rachl
his daughter was coming with the sheep of her father; for she tended the
sheep of her father.
7
And Iakb said, There is still much of the day, it is
not yet the hour for the herds to be gathered; after watering the sheep,
go away and feed them.
8
But they said, We will not be able until all the
shepherds have been gathered, and they can roll away the stone from
the mouth of the well, and we will water the sheep.
9
While he was still
speaking to them, Rachl the daughter of Laban was coming with her
fathers sheep; for she fed the sheep of her father.
10
Now it came to be
GENESIS 28:1322 & 29:110 119
,

,
.
11
,
.
12

,
.
13

,
, ,
.
14

. .
15

,
.
16

,*
17

.
18

,
.
19

.
20

.
21


.
22

.
23

,
.
24

.
25
,
. ;
; ;
26

,
27
,
.
28

,
.
29

.
30

.
* Reading with the majority .
120 GENESIS 29:1030
as Iakb saw Rachl daughter of Laban the brother of his mother, Iakb
went to roll away the stone from the mouth of the well, and he watered
the sheep of Laban the brother of his mother.
11
And Iakb kissed Rachl,
and crying out with his voice, he wept.
12
And he informed Rachl that he
was a brother of her father and that he was a son of Rebekka; and run-
ning, she told her father about these matters.
13
And now it came to be
when Laban heard the name Iakb the son of his sister, he ran to meet
him, and embracing him he kissed, and he brought him into his house;
and he described in detail to Laban all these events.
14
And Laban said to
him, From my bone and from my esh you are. And he was with him a
month of days.
15
Then Laban said to Iakb, Because you are my brother,
you will not be a slave to me for free; tell me what your wages are.
16
Now
Laban had two daughters; the name of the greater Leia, and the name of
the younger Rachl;
17
now the eyes of Leia were weak, but Rachl was
beautiful in form and ripe in appearance.
18
And Iakb loved Rachl, and
he said, I will be your slave seven years for Rachl your younger daugh-
ter.
19
Then Laban said to him, It is better that I give her to you than I
give her to another man; live with me.
20
And Iakb slaved seven years
for Rachl.
21
Then Iakb said to Laban, Turn my wife over to me; for
my days have been completed so that I might go into her.
22
Then Laban
gathered all the men of the place and made a wedding feast.
23
And it came
to be evening; and taking Leia his daughter he brought her to Iakb, and
Iakb went into her.
24
And Laban gave Zelpha his maidservant to Leia his
daughter for her maidservant.
25
Then it came to be morning, and look,
it was Leia. Then Iakb said to Laban, What is this that you did to me?
Was it not for Rachl that I was your slave? Why did you deceive me?
26
And Laban said, It is not this way in our place, to give the younger
before the older.
27
Therefore complete these seven, and I will give you
this one too for the labor that you will perform for me yet another seven
years.
28
Now Iakb did thusly, and he paid these seven in full; and Laban
gave Rachl his daughter to him as a wife.
29
Then Laban gave Rachl his
daughter Balla his maidservant for her maidservant.
30
And he went into
Rachl; now he loved Rachl more than Leia; and he was his slave seven
more years.
GENESIS 29:1030 121
31
,
.
32


.
33

,
,
.
34
,
,
.
35

,
. .
30
1
,
, ,
.
2

, ;
3


, .
4

,
.
5

.
6


.
7

.
8
,
,
.
9
,
.
10

.
11

.
12

.
13
,

.
14

,
.
15
;
;
.
122 GENESIS 29:3135 & 30:115
31
Now Lord God seeing that Leia was hated, opened her womb; but Rachl
was barren.
32
And Leia conceived and bore a son for Iakb; then she called
his name Roubn saying, Because Lord saw my humiliation; now my
husband will love me.
33
And Leia conceived again and bore a second son
for Iakb, and she said that Lord heard that I am hated, and he gave again
to me also this one; and she called his name Sumen.
34
And she yet again
conceived and bore a son, and she said, Now in the designated time my
husband will be by me, for I have born him three sons; because of this his
name was called Leui.
35
And having conceived yet again she bore a son,
and she said, Now yet again for this I will give thanks to Lord; because
of this she called his name Jouda. And she stopped bearing.
30
1
Now Rachl, seeing that she had not born children for Iakb, she
envied her sister and said to Iakb, Give me children; now if not, I will
die.
2
Then Iakb was angry at Rachl and he said to her, Surely I am not
equal to God, who deprived you of a fruitful belly?
3
Then Rachl said to
Iakb, Look, my maidservant Balla; go into her; and she will bear on my
knees, so that even I may produce children from her.
4
And she gave him
Balla her maidservant as a wife for him, and Iakb went into her.
5
And
Balla Rachls maidservant conceived and she bore for Iakb a son.
6
And
Rachl said, God decided for me and gave heed to my voice and gave me
a son; because of this she called his name Dan.
7
And Balla the maidser-
vant of Rachl conceived yet again and she bore a second son for Iakb.
8
And Rachl said, God assisted me, and I competed with my sister and I
was capable; and she called his name Nephthalei.
9
But Leia saw that she
stopped bearing, and she took Zelpha her maidservant and she gave her
to Iakb as a wife.
10
Then Iakb went into her; and Zelpha the maidservant
of Leia conceived and she bore for Iakb a son.
11
And Leia said, In favor;
and she named his name Gad.
12
And Zelpha the maidservant of Leia con-
ceived yet again and she bore again for Iakb a second son.
13
And Leia said,
I am happy, for all the wives consider me happy; and she called his name
Asr.
14
Then Roubn went in the days of the wheat harvest and he found
fruits of mandrake in the eld, and he brought them to Leia his mother;
then Rachl said to Leia, Give me your sons mandrakes.
15
And Leia said,
Is it not enough for you that you took my husband? Surely you will not
also take the mandrakes of my son? Then Rachl said, It is not so; let
him lie with you this night in exchange for the mandrakes of your son.
GENESIS 29:3135 & 30:115 123
16
,


.
17
,
.
18


, .
19

.
20

,
.
21

, .
.
22
,

23
.

24

.
25
,
.
26
, ,
.
27

,
.
28
,
.
29
,

30
,
.
;
31

;
, .
32

,
*
.
33

,
,
.
34
.
35

124 GENESIS 30:1635
* Reading with the majority, and ALEXs later descriptions,
instead of ALEXs that occurs only in this verse.
16
Now Iakb came in from the eld in the evening, and Leia came out to
meet him and said, To me you will come into today; for I have hired you
in exchange for the mandrakes of my son; and Iakb lay with her that
night.
17
And Lord gave heed to her, and conceiving she bore for Iakb a
fth son.
18
And Leia said, Lord has given me my wages in exchange for
which I gave my maidservant to my husband; and she called his name
Issachar, which is Wages.
19
And Leia conceived yet again and bore a sixth
son for Iakb.
20
And Leia said, God has granted me a good gift; now in
the designated time my husband will choose me, for I have born him
six sons; and she called his name Zabouln.
21
And after this she bore
a daughter, and she called her name Deina. And she stopped bearing.
22

Then God remembered Rachl; and God gave heed to her, and he opened
her womb;
23
and conceiving she bore for Iakb a son. Then Rachl said,
God took away my disgrace;
24
and she called his name Isph saying,
Let God add to me another son.
25
Now it came to be as Rachl bore Isph, Iakb said to Laban, Send me
so that I may depart to my place and to my land.
26
Turn over to me the
wives and the youngsters, for whom I have been your slave, so that I may
depart; for you know the enslavement with which I have been your slave.
27
But Laban said to him, If I found favor before you, I would have divined
it; for God blessed me in your coming.
28
Dene your wages to me, and I
will give to you.
29
But Iakb said to him, You know how I have been your
slave, and how numerous your herd has become with me;
30
for all that
was yours before me was little, and it increased in magnitude; and Lord
blessed you under my feet. Now therefore when shall I too make a house-
hold for myself ?
31
And Laban said to him, What will I give you? Then
Iakb said to him, You will give me nothing; if you do this thing for me,
I will again tend your sheep and keep them.
32
Let all your sheep pass by
today, and separate from them all the gray sheep among the lambs and all
the pure white and spotted among the goats; they will be my wages.
33
And
my righteousness will be heard about tomorrow, for my wages are before
you; everything that is not spotted and pure white among the goats and
gray among the lambs, it will be stolen by me.
34
And Laban said to him,
Let it be according to your word.
35
And he determined on that day the
spotted and pure white male goats, and all the spotted and pure white
GENESIS 30:1635 125
, ,
,
.
36


.
37

,
,
.
38

, ,
,
,
39

.
40

,

, .
41

,
,

42
,
, .
43

.
31
1

,
.
2

, .
3


, .
4

* ,
5


.
6

.
7

, ,
.
8

,
,
9

.
126 GENESIS 30:3543 & 31:19
* Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of ALEXs .
female goats, and every one that was white among them and every one
that was gray among the lambs, and he gave them into the hands of his
sons.
36
And he put a distance of three days between them and Iakb; then
Iakb tended Labans remaining sheep.
37
And Iakb took to him a green
wood rod and nutwood and one of plane wood and Iakb stripped them
into white strips, tearing o the green; now it appeared that the white
rods that he stripped were multicolored.
38
And he placed the rods that he
stripped in the tubs of the troughs of water, in order that, whenever the
sheep would come to drink, in front of the rods as they were coming to
drink, the sheep would go into heat by the rods;
39
and the sheep would
bear pure white and multicolored and ash colored spotted.
40
But Iakb
set aside the lambs and he placed before the sheep a pure white ram and
all the multicolored among the lambs; and he separated for himself his
own ocks, and he did not mix them into the sheep of Laban.
41
Now it
came to be in the season when the sheep would go into heat and conceiv-
ing become pregnant, Iakb placed the rods in front of the sheep in the
tubs, to bring them into heat opposite the rods.
42
For when the sheep
would give birth, he would not place them; then the unmarked came to
be Labans, but the marked were Iakbs.
43
And the man became exceed-
ingly rich; and it came to be that he had many herds and cattle and male
servants and maidservants and camel and donkeys.
31
1
Then Iakb heard the words of the sons of Laban who were saying,
Iakb has taken all the things of our father, and from the things of our
father has made all this glory.
2
And Iakb saw the face of Laban, and
look, it was not with him as yesterday and the day before.
3
And Lord
said to Iakb, Return to the land of your father and your family, and I
will be with you.
4
Then sending for, Iakb called Rachl and Leia to the
open eld, where the ocks were,
5
and he said to them, I see the face
of your father that it is not with me as yesterday and the day before; but
the God of my father was with me.
6
Now you yourselves have known
that with all my strength I have slaved for your father.
7
But your father
misled me, and he changed my wages of the ten lambs, and God did not
allow him to harm me.
8
Thus if he would say, The multicolored will be
your wages, then all the sheep would bear multicolored; but if he would
say, The white will be your wages, then all the sheep would bear white.
9
And God took away all the herds of your father and gave them to me.
GENESIS 30:3543 & 31:19 127
10
,
,
.
11
.
;
12
,


.
13


,
.
14

;
15

; ,
.
16

,
.
17


18

, ,
, .
19

.
20
,

21

, , .
22

23


, .
24

.
25

.
26
; ,
,
;
27
,
, .
28

.
128 GENESIS 31:1028
10
And it came to be when the sheep would go into heat, and I saw by the
eyes in sleep, and look, the male goats and the rams were mounting the
sheep and the goats pure white and multicolored and ash colored spot-
ted.
11
And the angel of God said to me during sleep, Iakb Iakb. And I
said, What is it?
12
And he said, Look up with your eyes, and see the male
goats and the rams mounting the sheep and the goats pure white and
multicolored and ash colored spotted, for I have seen whatever Laban
is doing to you.
13
I indeed am the God who was seen by you in the place
where you anointed for me there a pillar and you vowed a vow to me
there; now therefore stand up and go out from this land and depart to the
land of your birth, and I will be with you.
14
And answering Rachl and
Leia said to him, Is there not still for us a portion or an inheritance in
the house of our father?
15
Have we not been considered strangers to him?
For he has sold us, and greedily devoured our money.
16
All the wealth and
the glory that the God of our father took away, it will be for us and for our
children; now therefore whatever your God has said do.
17
After standing up, Iakb took away the wives and his youngsters on the
camels.
18
And he carried o all his possessions and all his chattel, which
he acquired for himself in Mesopotamia, and everything that was his, to
depart to Isaak his father in the land of Chanaan.
19
Now Laban was gone
to shear his sheep; then Rachl stole the idols of her father.
20
Then Iakb
hid from Laban the Syrian, by not informing him that he was eeing.
21
And he ed, he and all that were his, and he crossed over the river, and
he rushed into the hill country of Galaad.
22
But it was made known to Laban the Syrian on the third day that
Iakb ed.
23
And taking all his brothers along with himself he chased
after him a seven days journey, and he overtook him in the hill coun-
try of Galaad.
24
Then God came to Laban the Syrian during sleep of the
night and he said to him, Watch yourself never to speak evil against
Iakb.
25
And Laban overtook Iakb; and Iakb pitched his tent in the
hill country; then Laban set up his brothers in the hill country of Galaad.
26
Then Laban said to Iakb, What did you do? Why did you secretly
ee, and rob me and carry o my daughters like captives by a sword?
27
And if you had informed me, I would have sent you away with mer-
riment and with music, drums and lyres.
28
I was not deemed worthy
to kiss my youngsters and my daughters; but now you acted foolishly.
GENESIS 31:1028 129
29


.
30

;
31


32

,
. .

.
33
,
,
, .
.
34

,
35

, ,
.
, .
36


, ,
37

;
; ,
.
38



39



40

, .
41



, .
42

,

, .
43

, ,
,
;
44

,
.
130 GENESIS 31:2944
29
And now my hand is strong to do harm to you; but the God of your father
yesterday said to me saying, Watch yourself never to speak evil against
Iakb.
30
Now therefore you have gone; for with longing you longed to
depart to the house of your father; and why have you stolen my gods?
31
Then answering Iakb said to Laban, For I said perhaps you would take
away your daughters from me and everything that is mine;
32
Iakb also
said to him, With whomever you nd your gods, that one will not live
before our brothers. Detect what there is of yours with me and take it.
And he did not detect anything with him. But Iakb did not know that
Rachl his wife stole them.
33
Then entering Laban searched in the house
of Leia, and he did not nd; and leaving the house of Leia, he searched
the house of Iakb and the house of the two maidservants, and he did not
nd. Then he also went into the house of Rachl.
34
Now Rachl took the idols and she threw them in the saddlebags of the
camel and she sat down on them,
35
and she said to her father, Do not be
annoyed, lord; I am not able to stand up before you, for the customary
way of women is on me; then Laban searched the whole house, and he
did not nd the idols.
36
Then Iakb grew angry and he quarreled with
Laban; and responding Iakb said to Laban, What is my crime and what
is my error, that you pursued me so eagerly,
37
and that you searched all
the goods of my house? What did you nd among all the goods of your
house? Place here before your brothers and my brothers, and let them
decide between the two of us.
38
For these twenty years of mine I was with
you; your sheep and your goats never lost their young; rams among your
sheep I did not devour;
39
no torn carcasses have I brought back to you; I
would pay damages myself for thefts of the day and thefts of the night;
40
I was consumed with heat of the day and with frost of the night, and
my sleep was always falling away from my eyes.
41
For these twenty years
of mine I was in your house; I slaved for you fourteen years in exchange
for your two daughters and six years for your sheep, and you cheated my
wages ten lambs.
42
If the God of my father Abraam and the fear of Isaak
were not for me, now you would have sent me away empty; my humilia-
tion and the beating of my hands God saw and reproved you yesterday.
43

Then responding Laban said to Iakb, Your daughters are my daughters
and your sons are my sons, and your herds are my herds, and everything
that you see is mine; and for my daughters what can I do for these today
or for their children whom they bore?
44
Now therefore let us contract a
covenant here, I and you, and it will be a witness between me and you.
GENESIS 31:2944 131
.
45

.
46

. ,
.

47

, .
48

,
,
49
, ,
.
50

, , ,

52
,
.
53

.
54

.
, ,
.
55

,
.
32
1

,
.
2
, ,

.
3

,
4



5


, .
6

,
, .
7
,
.
8

,
.
9

,
,
132 GENESIS 31:4455 & 32:19
Then Iakb said to him, Look, there is no one with us, see God is a wit-
ness between me and you.
45
Then after taking a stone Iakb set up a
pillar.
46
Then Iakb said to his bothers, Gather stones. And they gath-
ered stones, and they built a mound; and they ate and drank there on the
mound. And Laban said to him, This mound witnesses between me and
you today.
47
And Laban called it A Mound is Witness; but Iakb called it
A Mound Witnesses.
48
Then Laban said to Iakb, Look, this mound and
this pillar, which I placed between me and you. This mound witnesses,
and this pillar witnesses; because of this, its name was called A Mound
Witnesses,
49
and The Vision, of which he said, May God look on me and
you, that we will separate ourselves one from the other.
50
If you humili-
ate my daughters, if you take wives in addition to my daughters, look, no
one is with us;
52
for if I neither cross over to you, nor you cross over to
me this mound and this pillar for evil purposes.
53
The God of Abraam and
the God of Nachr will judge between us.
54
And Iakb swore by the fear
of his father Isaak. And Iakb sacriced a sacrice in the hill country; and
he called to his brothers, and they ate and they drank, and they went to
sleep in the hill country.
55
Then after getting up early in the morning,
he kissed his sons and his daughters, and he blessed them; and turning
around, Laban departed to his place.
32
1
And Iakb departed on his own way; and looking up with the eyes,
he saw a camp of God having set up camp, and the angels of God encoun-
tered him.
2
Then Iakb said, when he saw them, This is the Camp of
God; and he called the name of that place Camps.
3
Then Iakb sent out messengers to Esau his brother in the land of Seir in
the country of Edm,
4
and he commanded them saying, Thus you will say
to my lord Esau, Thus says your servant Iakb, With Laban I sojourned and
I lingered until now;
5
and there came to me cattle and donkeys and sheep
and male servants and maidservants; and I sent out to inform my lord
Esau, so that your servant might nd favor before you.
6
And the messen-
gers returned to Iakb saying, We went to your brother Esau, and he was
coming to meet you, and four hundred men were with him.
7
Then Iakb
was very frightened and at a loss; and he divided the people with him and
the cattle and the sheep into two camps.
8
And Iakb said, If Esau should
come into one camp and destroy it, the second camp will be safe.
9
Then
Iakb said, Oh God of my father Abraam and God of my father Isaak, Lord
who said to me, Return to the land of your birth, and I will do you good;
GENESIS 31:4455 & 32:19 133
10


, .
11
*
,
.
12
,
,
.
13
.
,
14
,
, , ,
15
-
, ,
, , .
16

, .
, .
17

; ;
;
18

, .
19


,
20

.
,

.
21

.
22

,
.
23
,
.
24
,
.
25
,
,

26

. , .
27
; .
28

,
, .
134 GENESIS 32:1028
* Reading with the correct Swete text, instead of ALEXs obscure
.
10
of all the righteousness and all the truth that you did for your servant
it is enough for me; for by my rod I crossed over this Jordan, but now I
have become two camps.
11
Rescue me from the hand of my brother Esau;
for I am afraid of him, lest he come to strike me and mother with chil-
dren.
12
But you said, Certainly I will do you good and I will establish
your ospring as the sand of the sea, which cannot be counted because
of the magnitude.
13
And he slept there that night. And he took from
the gifts he was bringing and he sent them to Esau his brother,
14
two
hundred female goats, twenty male goats, two hundred sheep, twenty
rams,
15
thirty suckling camels and their young ones, forty cows, ten bulls,
twenty donkeys, ten colts.
16
And he gave them by hand to his servants, a
ock each. Then he said to his servants, Go in advance ahead of me, and
make a distance between ock and ock.
17
And he commanded the rst
saying, If you should meet Esau my brother and he inquires of you say-
ing, Whose are you? and where are you traveling? and whose are these
going ahead of you?
18
and you will say your servant Iakbs; gifts he has
sent to my lord Esau, and look, he is behind us.
19
And he commanded
the rst and the second and the third and all these going on behind these
ocks saying, According to this speech speak to Esau when you nd him,
20
and say, Look, your servant Iakb is coming behind us. For he said, I
will appease his face by the gifts that are coming in advance to him, and
after this I will see his face; for he will possibly accept my face.
21
And
the gifts were going in advance from his face; then he slept that night in
the camp.
22
Then getting up that night he took the two wives and the two maid-
servants and his eleven youngsters, and he crossed over the ford of the
Jabok.
23
And he took them and he crossed over the wadi, and he car-
ried across everything that was his.
24
But Iakb was left alone, and a
man wrestled with him until morning.
25
But he saw that he could not
overpower him, and he touched the wide part of his thigh, and the wide
part of the thigh of Iakb became numb while he wrestled with him.
26
And he said to him, Send me away, for the dawn has come up. But
he said, I will not send you away, unless you bless me.
27
Then he said
to him, What is your name? Then he said, Iakb.
28
And he said to
him, Your name will no longer be called Iakb, rather Isral will be
your name; for you prevailed with God, and with men you are powerful.
GENESIS 32:1028 135
29
.
; .
30


, .
31


.
32

, ,
,
.
33
1
,
,

2

,
, .
3


.
4


.
5

, ;
.
6

,
7

,
, .
8
,
;
, .
9
,
.
10
,

,
11

, .
, .
12
.
13
,

, .
14


,
.
15

. ;
, .
16

.
17

136 GENESIS 32:2932 & 33:117
29
Then Iakb inquired and said, Inform me of your name. And he said,
Why are you asking my name?; and he blessed him there.
30
And Iakb
called the name of that place Visible Form of God; for I saw God face to
face, and my life was saved.
31
Then the sun rose on him when he passed
by The Visible Form of God; now he was limping on his thigh.
32
For on
account of this, the sons of Isral do not eat the tendon that was numbed,
which is on the wide part of the thigh of Iakb, until this day; for he
touched the wide part of the thigh of Iakb, and it was numbed.
33
1
Now looking up Iakb saw, and look, Esau his brother was coming,
he and four hundred men with him; and Iakb divided the youngsters
between Leia and Rachl and the two maidservants;
2
and he put the two
maidservants and their sons in front, and Leia and her youngsters behind,
and Rachl and Isph last.
3
But he went by ahead of them; and he bowed
down to the ground seven times while drawing near to his brother.
4
And
Esau ran up to meet him and embracing, he kissed him and fell on his
neck; and they both wept.
5
And looking up he saw the women and the
youngsters and he said, What are these to you? Then he said, The
youngsters by which God showed mercy on your servant.
6
And the maid-
servants and their youngsters drew near, and they bowed down;
7
and
Leia and her children drew near, and they bowed down; and after these
Rachl and Isph drew near, and they bowed down.
8
And he said, What
are these to you, all these members of your camp I have met? Then he
said, So that your servant might nd favor in your eyes, my lord.
9
But
Esau said, I have much, brother; let what is yours be yours.
10
Then Iakb
said, If I have found favor before you, accept the gifts through my hands;
on this account I saw your face as if one might see the face of God, and you
will be pleased with me.
11
Take my blessings that I brought you, by which
God showed mercy on me and all is mine. And he urged him, and he took.
12
And he said, Moving on, let us travel on a straight way.
13
Then he said
to him, My lord knows that the youngsters are delicate, and the sheep
and the cattle with me are giving birth; therefore if I would push them one
day, all the herds will die.
14
Let my lord go forward ahead of the servant,
but I will regain strength along the way by a leisurely journey before me
and by the pace of the little ones, until I come to my lord in Seir.
15
Then
Esau said, I will leave behind with you from the people with me. But he
said, Why is this? It is enough that I found favor before you, lord.
16
Then
Esau turned back on that day on his way to Seir.
17
And Iakb was taking
GENESIS 32:2932 & 33:117 137
, -
.
18
, ,

.
19
,
,
20

.
34
1
, , -
.
2

,
, .
3

, ,
.
4

.
5



.
6

.
7

, ,
, ,
.
8


.
9

, .
10

,
.
11


, .
12

, ,
.
13

, ,
.
14

,

.
15
,

138 GENESIS 33:1720 & 34:115
o for Tents; and he made for himself there a house, and for his herds he
made tents; because of this he called the name of that place Tents.
18
And Iakb went into Salm a city of Sikimn, which is in the land of Cha-
naan, when he went from Mesopotamia of Syria; and he encamped down
from the face of the city.
19
And he acquired the part of the eld, where he
placed his tent, beside Emmr father of Sychem for one hundred lambs.
20
And he placed there an altar and he invoked the God of Isral.
34
1
Now Deina the daughter of Leia, whom she bore for Iakb, went to
get acquainted with the daughters of the inhabitants.
2
And Sychem the
son of Emmr the Chorrite, the ruler of the land, saw her; and taking her,
he lay with her, and he humiliated her.
3
And he was devoted to the soul
of Deina the daughter of Iakb, and he loved the virgin, and spoke to her
according to the mind of the virgin.
4
Then Sychem said to Emmr his
father saying, Get me this maidservant for a wife.
5
Then Iakb heard
that the son of Emmr deled Deina his daughter; now his sons were with
his herds in the open eld, but Iakb was silent until they came.
6
Then
Emmr the father of Sychem went out to Iakb to speak to him.
7
Then the
sons of Iakb came from the open eld; now when they heard, the men
were extremely distressed, and it was very painful to them, that Sychem
did a shameful deed in Isral, by lying with the daughter of Iakb; and it
will not be like that.
8
And Emmr spoke to them saying, Sychem my son
chose for himself the soul of your daughter. Therefore give her to him as
a wife.
9
Intermarry with us; your daughters give to us, and our daugh-
ters take for your sons.
10
And settle with us, and look, the land is wide
open before you; settle and trade in it and acquire property in it.
11
Then
Sychem said to her father and to her brothers, May I nd favor before
all of you, and whatever you say to us we will give.
12
Multiply the dowry
considerably, and I will give whatever you tell me, and you will give me
this maiden for a wife.
13
Now the sons of Iakb responded to Sychem and
Emmr his father with deceit, when they spoke to them, because they
deled Deina their sister.
14
And Sumen and Leui the brothers of Deina
and sons of Leia said to them, We will not be able to do this, to give
our sister to a man who is not circumcised, for it is a disgrace to us.
15
In
this we will become like you and we would settle with you, if you would
become as us, even you, when every male of yours has been circumcised;
GENESIS 33:1720 & 34:115 139
16
,
* ,
.
17
,
.
18

.
19


.
20

,
21

, .
,
.
22

,
, .
23

;
, .
24


,
.
25

, , ,
,

26

,
, .
27

,

28

, , .
29


.
30

,

, ,
.
31

;
140 GENESIS 34:1631
* Reading with the corrected Swete text, instead of ALEXs logically incorrect
.
16
and we will give our daughters to you, and from your daughters we
will take wives for us; and we would live with you, and we will be as one
family.
17
But if you do not harken to us to be circumcised, taking our
daughters, we will depart.
18
And the words were pleasing before Emmr
and before Sychem the son of Emmr.
19
And the young man did not delay
doing this thing; for he was devoted to the daughter of Iakb; and he was
held in honor by all who were in the house of his father.
20
Then Emmr
and Sychem his son went to the gate of their city, and they spoke to the
men of their city saying,
21
These men are peaceful; with us let them
live on the land and let them trade in it; now look, the land is wide open
before them. Their daughters we will take for ourselves as wives and our
daughters we will give them.
22
Only by this will the men become like us
to settle with us in order to be one people, when all our males are circum-
cised, as they also are circumcised.
23
And will their herds and possessions
and four footed animals not be ours? Only in this let us become like them,
and they will live with us.
24
And all those coming out of the gate of their
city harkened to Emmr and Sychem his son, and they circumcised the
esh of their foreskin, every male.
25
Now it came to be on the third day
when they were in pain, the two sons of Iakb, Sumen and Leui, the
brothers of Deina, each took his sword, and entered the city safely and
killed every male;
26
both Emmr and his son Sychem they killed with
the edge of the sword, and they took Deina from the house of Sychem,
and they went away.
27
Then the sons of Iakb came on the corpses, and
they plundered the city in which Deina their sister was deled;
28
and
their sheep and their cattle and their donkeys, both as many as were in
the city and as many as were in the open elds, they took.
29
And all their
slaves and all their little ones and all their women they took captive; and
they plundered both as much as was in the city and as much as was in the
houses.
30
Then Iakb said to Sumen and Leui, You have made me hate-
ful, so that I am evil to the inhabitants of the land to both the Chananites
and to the Pherezites; but I am few in number, and having been gathered
together against me, they will cut me up, and both I and my house will
be rubbed out.
31
But they said, But should they treat our sister like a
whore?
GENESIS 34:1631 141
35
1
,

.
2


, ,

3
,
,
.
4

,
-
, .
5

, .
6

, ,
.
7
,

.
8

.
9
,
, .
10

, .
11

,
.
12
,
, .
13
.
14
,
,
.
15
,
, .
16

.
, .
17

,
.
18
,
,
.
19
,
142 GENESIS 35:119
35
1
Now God said to Iakb, Standing up go up to the place Baithl,
and live there; and make there an altar to the God who appeared to you
when you ed from the face of Esau your brother.
2
Then Iakb said to
his house and to all who were with him, Remove the foreign gods from
your midst, and purify yourselves, and change your robes;
3
and standing
up, let us go up to Baithl and let us make there an altar to the God who
gave heed to me on the day of distress, the one who was with me and
kept me safe on the road on which I was traveling.
4
And they gave Iakb
the foreign gods that were in their hands, and the earrings that were in
their ears; and Iakb hid them under the terebinth tree which is in Siki-
mos, and he destroyed them until the present day.
5
And Isral moved out
from the Sikimites; and a fear of God came to be on the cities surround-
ing them, and they did not pursue the sons of Isral.
6
Then Iakb went
into Louz which is in the land of Chanaan, which is Baithl, he and all the
people who were with him.
7
And he built there an altar, and he called the
name of the place Baithl; for there God appeared to him when he ed
from the face of Esau his brother.
8
But Debbra the nurse of Rebekka died
down from Beithel under the oak tree; and Iakb called its name Oak of
weeping.
9
Then God appeared to Iakb again in Louz, when he arrived from Meso-
potamia of Syria, and God blessed him.
10
And God said to him, Your
name will no longer be called Iakb, but Isral will be your name.
11
Then
God said to him, I am your God; increase and multiply; and nations and
gatherings of nations will be from you, and kings from your loins will
come out.
12
And the land that I have given to Abraam and Isaak, to you I
have given it, and to your ospring after you I will give this land.
13
Then
God went up from him out of the place where he spoke with him.
14
And
Iakb placed a pillar on the place where he spoke with him, a stone pillar;
and he oered a drink oering on it, and he poured olive oil on it.
15
And
Iakb called the name of the place, there in which God spoke with him,
Baithl.
16
Then moving on from Baithl Iakb pitched his tent beyond the tower
of Gader. Now it came to be when he drew near a chabratha of land away
entering Ephratha, Rachl gave birth; and she had a painful delivery.
17
Now
it came to be when her giving birth was most dicult the midwife said to
her, Have courage, for this one is also a son.
18
Now it came to be when
she was giving up her soul, for she was dying, she called his name Son of
my suering; but his father called him Beniamein.
19
Then Rachl died,
GENESIS 35:119 143
.
20


.
21
,

, .
22
.
23

, , , , ,
24

.
25

.
26

, .
27
,
,
.
28
,

29
,

.
36
1
.
2

,
, ,
,
3
, ,
.
4
, *
,
5

, .
6


, ,


7
,

.
8

.
* Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of ALEXs unique
.
144 GENESIS 35:1929 & 36:18
and she was buried on the way to Ephratha; this is Bthleem.
20
And Iakb
placed a pillar on her tomb; it is the pillar of the tomb of Rachl until the
present day.
21
Now it came to be when Isral settled in that land, Roubn
went and lay with Balla the concubine of his father; and Isral heard, and
it seemed evil before him.
22
Now Iakb had twelve sons.
23
The sons of Leia; rstborn of Iakb was
Roubn, Sumen, Leui, Jouda, Issachar, Zabouln;
24
now the sons of
Rachl Isph and Beniamein.
25
Now the sons of Balla the maidservant
of Rachl Dan and Nephthalei.
26
Now the sons of Zelpha the maidservant
of Leia Gad and Asr; these are the sons of Iakb, who were born to him
in Mesopotamia of Syria.
27
Then Iakb went to Isaak his father in Mambr, in the city of the open
eld; this is Chebrn in the land of Chanaan, where Abraam and Isaak
sojourned.
28
Now the days of Isaak that he lived one hundred and eighty
years;
29
and passing away, he died and he was added to his family old and
full of days; and Esau and Iakb his sons buried him.
36
1
Now these are the descendants of Esau; he is Edm.
2
Now Esau took
wives for himself from the daughters of the Chananites; Ada, daughter of
Elm the Chettite, and Olibema, daughter of Ana the son of Sebegn the
Heuite,
3
and Basemmath, daughter of Ismal, sister of Nabaith.
4
Now
Ada bore for Esau Eliphas, and Basemmath bore Ragoul,
5
and Olibema
bore Ieous and Ieglom and Kore; these are the sons of Esau who were born
to him in the land of Chanaan.
6
Now Esau took his wives and sons and
daughters and all the slaves of his house, and all the possessions and the
herds, and everything whatsoever he acquired and whatsoever he kept
for himself in the land of Chanaan; and he traveled from Chanaan from
the face of Iakb his brother;
7
for they had too many possessions to live
together, and the land where they were sojourning was not able to bear
them because of the magnitude of their possessions.
8
And Esau lived in
the hill country of Seir; Esau he is Edm.
GENESIS 35:1929 & 36:18 145
9
.
10

, ,
, .
11

, *, ,
12

,
.
13
,** ,
*** .
14

**** ,
***** .
15

,
, , ,
16
,
,******
.
17
,
, ,
, *** .
18

,***** ,
.****
19
,
, .
20
,
, ,
21

.
22

.
23

, .
24


, .
25

.
26

.
27

.
28
.
146 GENESIS 36:928
* Reading for consistency with v. 15 and with the majority instead of ALEXs
.
** Reading for consistency with v. 17 and with the majority instead of
ALEXs .
*** Reading for consistency with vv. 3 and 10 and with the majority
instead of ALEXs .
**** Reading for consistency with v. 5 and with the majority instead of
ALEXs .
***** Reading for consistency with v. 5 and with the majority instead of
ALEXs (v. 14), (v. 18).
****** Reading for consistency with v. 11 and with the majority instead of
ALEXs .
9
Now these are the descendants of Esau father of Edm in the hill country
of Seir.
10
And these are the names of the sons of Esau; Eliphas, son of
Ada wife of Esau, and Ragoul, son of Basemmath wife of Esau.
11
Now the
sons born to Eliphas; Thaiman, mar, Sphar, Gothom and Kenez;
12
now
Thamna was the concubine of Eliphas the son of Esau, and she bore for
Eliphas Amalk; these are the sons of Ada wife of Esau.
13
Now these are
the sons of Ragoul; Nachoth, Zare, Some and Moze; these are the sons of
Basemmath wife of Esau.
14
Now these are the sons of Olibema the wife of
Esau, daughter of Ana, son of Sebegn; she bore for Esau Ieous and Ieglom
and Kore.
15
These are the chieftains of the sons of Esau; sons of Eliphas
rstborn of Esau; chieftain Thaiman, chieftain mar, chieftain Sphar,
chieftain Kenez,
16
chieftain Kore, chieftain Gothom, chieftain Amalk;
these are the chieftains of Eliphas in the land of Idoumeia; these are the
sons of Ada.
17
And these are sons of Ragoul son of Esau; chieftain Nach-
oth, chieftain Zare, chieftain Moze, chieftain Some; these are the chief-
tains of Ragoul in the land of Edm, these are sons of Basemmath wife
of Esau.
18
Now these are sons of Olibema wife of Esau; chieftain Ieous,
chieftain Ieglom, chieftain Kore; these are the chieftains of Olibema.
19
Now these are sons of Esau, and these are their chieftains; these are
their chieftains, sons of Edm.
20
And these are sons of Seir the Chorrite the inhabitant of the land; Ltan,
Sbal, Sebegn, Ana,
21
and Desn and Saar and Reisn; these are the chief-
tains of the Chorrite the son of Seir in the land of Edm.
22
Now the sons
born to Ltan Chorrei and Haiman; now the sister of Ltan Thamna.
23

Now these are sons of Sbal; Gln and Mannachath and Gaibl, Sph and
man.
24
And these are sons of Sebegn; Aie and nan; this one is the nas
who found Iamein in the wilderness, when he pastured the donkeys of
Sebegn his father.
25
Now these are sons of Ana; Dsn and Olibema the
daughter of Ana.
26
Now these are sons of Desn; Hamada and Asban and
Iethran and Charran.
27
Now these are sons of Saar; Balaan and Zoukam
and Iykam and Oukan.
28
Now these are sons of Reisn; s and Aram.
GENESIS 36:928 147
29
, , -
, ,
30
, , .
.
31

.
32

, .
33
,
.
34

, .
35

, .
.
36
,
.
37
,
.
38
,
.
39

,
,
.
40

,
, , ,
41

, , ,
42
,
, ,
43
,
.
.
37
1
, ,
.
2
.
, ,


.
3
,
.
4


, ,
.
5

,
6

.
7


.
8

, ;
148 GENESIS 36:2943 & 37:18
29
These are chieftains of Chorrei; chieftain Ltan, chieftain Sbal, chief-
tain Sebegn, chieftain Ana,
30
chieftain Dsn, chieftain Saar, chieftain
Reisn. These are chieftains of Chorrei in their chieftains in the land of
Edm.
31
And these are the kings who reigned in Edm before a king reigned in
Ierousalm.
32
And Balak son of Ber reigned in Edm, and the name of his
city was Dennaba.
33
Then Balak died, and Ibad son of Zara reigned instead
of him from Bosorra.
34
Then Ibab died, and Hasom reigned instead of
him from the land of Themanites.
35
Then Hasom died, and Hadad son
of Barad reigned instead of him. He cut down Madiam in the open eld
of Mab; and the name of his city was Geththaim.
36
Then Hadad died,
and Salama reigned instead of him from Masekka.
37
Then Salama died,
and Saoul reigned instead of him from Robth which is beside a river.
38
Then Saoul died, and Balaennn son of Achobr reigned instead of him.
39
Then Balaennn son of Achobr died, and Harath son of Barath reigned
instead of him; and the name of his city was Phogr; now the name of his
wife was Metebel, daughter of Matraeith son of Meizoob.
40
These are
the names of the chieftains of Esau in his tribes according to their place,
in their countries and in their nations; chieftain Thamna, chieftain Gla,
chieftain Ieber,
41
chieftain Elibemas, chieftain las, chieftain Phines,
42
chieftain Kenez, chieftain Thaiman, chieftain Mazar,
43
chieftain Meto-
dil, chieftain Zaphei; these are chieftains of Edm in their built up
places in the land of their property. This Esau is the father of Edm.
37
1
Now Iakb was settled in the land, where his father sojourned, in the
land of Chanaan.
2
Now these are the descendents of Iakb. Isph seven-
teen years old was tending the sheep with his brothers, from youth, with
the sons of Balla and with the sons of Zelpha the wives of his father; but
they brought back a bad report about Isph to Isral their father.
3
Now
Iakb loved Isph more than all his sons, for he was a son of his old age;
and he made him a multicolored tunic.
4
But his brothers seeing that his
father showed love for him over all his sons, hated him, and they were not
able to speak to him anything peaceable.
5
Then having dreamed a dream,
Isph told it to his brothers,
6
and he said to them, Hear this dream that
I have dreamed.
7
I was imagining us binding sheaves in the middle of the
open eld; then my sheaf stood up and was set upright; then your sheaves
having spun around bowed down to my sheaf.
8
Then the brothers said
to him, You surely as a king will not reign over us, nor as a lord, be our
GENESIS 36:2943 & 37:18 149

.
9
,
,

.
10

;
;
11


.
12

.
13

; .
.
14

, .
.
15


;
16

.
17

.
, *
.
18

.
19


20

, ,

.
21

, .
22


,
.
23

,
,
24

.
25

,
,
.
26


* Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of ALEXs unique .
150 GENESIS 37:826
lord, will you? And they proceeded to hate him still more on account of
his dreams and on account of his words.
9
Then he saw another dream,
and he described it to his father and to his brothers, and said, Look, I
have dreamed another dream; such that the sun and the moon and eleven
stars were bowing down to me.
10
His father rebuked him and said, What
is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall we indeed when we come, I
together with your mother and your brothers, come to bow down to you
on the ground?
11
Now his brothers were jealous of him, but his father
watched the matter closely.
12
Now his brothers traveled to feed the sheep of their father in Sychem.
13
And Isral said to Isph, Are your brothers not tending the sheep in
Sychem? Come here let me send you to them. Then Isph said to him,
Here I am.
14
Then Isral said to him, Traveling see if your brothers and
the sheep are in good health, and inform me. Then he sent him from
the valley of Chebrn; and he came into Sychem.
15
And a man found him
wandering in the open eld; then the man asked him saying, What are
you seeking?
16
Then he said, My brothers I am seeking; Inform me
where they are feeding.
17
Then the man said to him, They have moved
on from here; for I heard them saying, Let us travel into Dthaeim. And
Isph traveled after his brothers and he found his brothers in Dthaeim.
18
Then they observed him from afar before he drew near to them; and
they were driven to kill him.
19
Then each said to his brother, Look, that
dreamer is coming.
20
So now come let us kill him, and let us throw him
into one of the pits, and we will say a wicked wild animal devoured him;
then we will see what his dreams will be.
21
Now hearing, Roubn rescued
him from their hands, and he said, Let us not strike him in person.
22

Then Roubn said to them, Do not spill blood; but throw him into one
of the pits in the desert; but lay no hand on him; thus he would rescue
him from their hands and give him back to his father.
23
Now it came to be
when Isph came to his brothers, they stripped Isph of the multicol-
ored tunic that was around him,
24
and taking him they threw him into the
pit; now that pit had no water.
25
Then they sat down to eat food; and look-
ing up with the eyes they saw, and look, Ismaleit travelers coming from
Galaad, and their camels were laden with incense, pine resin, and myrrh;
now they were traveling to bring them into Egypt.
26
Then Jouda said to
his brothers, What advantage is it if we kill our brother and hide his
GENESIS 37:826 151
;
27


, .
.
28
,


.
29
,
.
30


;
31

, .
32

,
. .
33

. ,
.
34
,
,
.
35
,
,

.
36

* .
38
1

,
.
2

.
3

, .
4

, .
5

,
.
6

, .
7

, .
8


, .
9

, ,
,
.
10

* Reading against ALEXs unique in order to be consistent with the
spelling of this same characters name in 39:1.
152 GENESIS 37:2636 & 38:110
blood?
27
Come let us sell him to these Ismaleits; then let not our hands
be on him, for he is our brother and our esh. Now his brothers heard.
28
And the men the Madinite traders came passing by, and they drew
out and brought Isph up from the pit; and they sold Isph to the
Ismaleits for twenty gold pieces; and they brought Isph down into
Egypt.
29
Then Roubn turned back to the pit, and he did not see Isph in
the pit; and he tore his clothes.
30
And he turned back to his brothers and
said, The little boy is not; now where am I still to travel?
31
Then after
taking Isphs tunic they slaughtered a kid of a goat, and they stained
the tunic with blood.
32
And they sent the multi-colored tunic and brought
it to their father, and they said, This we found. Recognize if it is the tunic
of your son or not.
33
And he recognized it and said, It is the tunic of my
son. A wicked wild animal devoured him, a wild animal snatched Isph.
34
Then Iakb tore his clothes, and placed sackcloth on his loins, and he
was mourning his son for some days.
35
Then all his sons and daughters
were gathered together, and they came to console him; and he did not
want to be consoled, saying that I will go down to my son mourning into
Hades; and his father wept for him.
36
Now the Madinites sold Isph in
Egypt to Petephrs, the eunuch of Phara, a chief butcher.
38
1
Now it came to be in that designated time Jouda went down from his
brothers, and he came as far as a certain Odollamite man whose name was
Heiras.
2
And there Jouda saw the daughter of a Chananite man, her name
was Saua; and he took her and he went into her.
3
And conceiving she bore
a son, and she called his name r.
4
And conceiving again she bore a son,
and she called his name Aunan.
5
And yet again she bore a son, and she
called his name Slm; now she was in Chasbi when she bore them.
6
And
Jouda took a wife for r his rstborn, her name was Thamar.
7
But it hap-
pened that Er the rstborn of Jouda was evil before Lord, and God killed
him.
8
Then Jouda said to Aunan, Go into the wife of your brother and act
as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up ospring for your brother.
9
But
Aunan, knowing that the ospring would not be his, would, whenever he
went into the wife of his brother, spill his semen on the ground in order to
not give ospring to his brother.
10
Now the matter appeared evil before
GENESIS 37:2636 & 38:110 153
, .
11



.
.
12


, , .*
13

.
14

,
** ,
,
.
15

, .
16

*** .
;
17
****
.
.
18
;

. ,
.
19
, *****
, .
20

,
.
21

;
.
22
,
.
23
, .
, .
24


, .
.
25

* Reading the predominant spelling instead of ALEXs one-time spelling
.
** Reading the third singular instead of ALEXs third plural .
*** Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of ALEXs unique .
**** Reading the verb as future, rather than present.
***** Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of ALEXs unique
.
154 GENESIS 38:1025
God that he did this, and he put this one to death also.
11
Then Jouda said
to Thamar his daughter-in-law, Reside as a widow in the house of your
father until Slm my son becomes older; for he said, lest that one also
be put to death like his brothers. Then departing Thamar resided in the
house of her father.
12
Now the days were multiplied and Saua the wife of
Jouda died; and having been comforted Jouda went up to his sheepshear-
ers, he and his shepherd Heiras the Odollamite, in Thamna.
13
And it was
told to Thamar his daughter-in-law saying, Look, your father-in-law is
going up to Thamna to shear his sheep.
14
And removing her garments of
widowhood from herself she threw a veil over herself and she made her-
self beautiful, and she sat near the gates of Ainan, which is along a byway
in Thamna; for she saw that Slm his son had grown, but he did not give
her to him as a wife.
15
And seeing her Jouda thought her to be a prosti-
tute; for she covered her face, and he did not recognize her.
16
Then he
turned aside from the road to her and said to her, Allow me to come into
you, for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. Then she said,
What will you give to me if you come into me?
17
Then he said, I will
send you a kid goat from the sheep. Then she said, If you give a pledge
until you send it.
18
Then he said, What pledge shall I give you? Then
she said, Your ring and the signet cord and the sta that is in your hand.
And he gave to her, and he went into her; and she became pregnant from
him.
19
And standing up she departed and she removed the veil from her-
self, and she put the garments of her widowhood on herself.
20
Then Jouda
sent the kid goat by the hand of his shepherd the Odollamite, to get back
the pledge from the woman; but he did not nd her.
21
Then he inquired
of the men in the place, Where is the prostitute, the one who came to be
in Ainan on the road? And they said, There was no prostitute there.
22

And he returned to Jouda and said, I did not nd her, and the men from
the place say no prostitute was there.
23
Then Jouda said, Let her keep
them, or else we might be ridiculed. I, for my part, have sent this young
kid, but as for you, you have not found her.
24
Now it came to be after
three months it was reported to Jouda saying, Thamar, your daughter-
in-law has fornicated, and look, she is pregnant from fornication. Then
Jouda said, Bring her out and let her be burned.
25
But as she was being
GENESIS 38:1025 155

.
.
26

,
.
27
,
.
28

,
.
29

, .
; .
30

,
.
39
1

, ,
, .
2
,

.
3
,
, .
4

, .
, .
5

,
.
.
6

,
.
.
7

,
.
8
,
,
,
9

, ,

;
10

,
.
11

,
12

. .
156 GENESIS 38:2530 & 39:112
brought out she sent to her father-in-law saying, From the man whose
things these are I am pregnant. She also said, Recognize whose are the
ring, the signet cord, and this sta.
26
Then Jouda recognized and said,
Thamar has been deemed more righteous than I, because I did not give
her to Slm my son; and he himself did not know her again.
27
Now it
came to be when she was giving birth, there were twins in her womb.
28

Now it came to be while she was bearing, the one put out the hand; then
taking it, the midwife tied on his hand a scarlet string saying, This one
will come out earlier.
29
But as he drew back the hand, immediately his
brother came out. Then she said, Why has a barrier been broken through
because of you? And she called his name Phares.
30
And after this his
brother came out, on whose hand was the scarlet string; and she called
his name Zara.
39
1
Now Isph was brought down into Egypt; and Petephrs the
eunuch of Phara and chief butcher, an Egyptian man, acquired him from
the hands of the Ismaeleites, the ones who had brought him down there.
2
And Lord was with Isph, and he was a successful man; and he came to
be in the house beside the Egyptian lord.
3
Now his lord knew that Lord
was with him, and whatever he would do, Lord made prosper in his hands.
4
And Isph found favor before his lord, now he was pleasing to him. And
he appointed him over his house, and everything whatsoever that was his,
he gave into the hand of Isph.
5
Now it came to be after he was appointed
over his house and over everything whatsoever that was his, Lord blessed
the house of the Egyptian because of Isph. And the blessing of Lord
came on all of his possessions in the house and in the eld.
6
And he turned
over everything whatsoever that was his into the hands of Isph, and he
knew nothing of anything of his own except the food that he was eating.
And Isph was beautiful in form and very ripe in appearance.
7
And it
came to be after these things the wife of his lord cast her eyes on Isph
and said, Lie with me.
8
But he was not willing, and he said to the wife of
his lord, If my lord knows nothing in his house because of me, and every-
thing that is his he gave into my hands
9
and that nothing in his house is
above me, neither has he withheld anything from me except you, because
you are his wife; and how could I do this evil thing and sin before God?
10
Now when she would speak to Isph day by day, he would not obey her
to sleep with her in order to have sexual intercourse with her.
11
Now it
came to be one such day; Isph came into the house to do his tasks, and
no one was inside the house;
12
and she dragged him by his clothes saying,
Lie with me. And leaving behind his clothes he ed and went outside.
GENESIS 38:2530 & 39:112 157
13

,
14

,

.
15

,
.
16

.
17

, ,
, .
18

,
.
19

,
, .
20

,
.
21

,
.
22


, .
23

,
,
.
40
1


.
2
,

3

,
.
4
,
.
5

, , ,
,
.
6
,
.
7
,
,
;
8

, .
; .
158 GENESIS 39:1323 & 40:18
13
And it came to be that when she saw that he left behind his clothes
in her hands and ed and went outside,
14
she called to the ones in the
house and said to them saying, Look, he brought us a Hebrew servant
to play with us; he came to me saying, Lie with me; and I cried out in a
loud voice.
15
But when he heard me raise my voice and cry out, leaving
his clothes beside me he ed and went outside.
16
And she left the clothes
beside her until the lord came into his house.
17
And she spoke to him
about these matters saying, He came to me, the Hebrew servant, the
one you brought to us, he played with me, and said to me, Lie with me.
18
But when he heard that I raised my voice and cried out, he left behind
his clothes beside me and ed and went outside.
19
Now it came to be as
the lord heard the matters of his wife, all that of which she spoke to him
saying, Thus your servant did to me, he was inamed with anger.
20
And
the lord took Isph and threw him into the stronghold, into the place in
which the prisoners of the king are detained there in the stronghold.
21

And Lord was with Isph and he continued to shower him with mercy,
and he gave him favor before the chief jailer.
22
And the chief jailer gave the
prison into the hand of Isph and all those who were lead away, as many
as were in the prison, and everything whatsoever that they did there.
23

Now the chief jailer knew of nothing because of him; for everything was
in the hand of Isph, because Lord was with him; and whatever he was
doing, Lord was making prosper in his hands.
40
1
Now it came to be after these things the chief cupbearer of the king
of Egypt and the chief baker sinned against their lord the king of Egypt.
2
And Phara became angry with his two eunuchs, with the chief cup-
bearer and with the chief baker.
3
And he placed them in custody with the
chief jailor in the prison, in the place where Isph had been lead away.
4

And the governor of the prison placed them together with Isph, and he
stood by them; now they were in custody for several days.
5
And both of
them saw a dream, each a dream in one night, seeing his dream, the chief
cupbearer and the chief baker who were the Egyptian kings, they were
the ones in the prison.
6
Then Isph came to them early in the morning,
and he saw them and they were troubled.
7
And he was asking Pharas
eunuchs, those who were with him in custody at his lords, saying, Why
is it that your faces are gloomy today?
8
Then they said to him, We saw
a dream and there is no interpreter for it. Then Isph said to them, Are
their explanations not through God? Therefore, describe them to me.
GENESIS 39:1323 & 40:18 159
9


10

,
.
11

,
.
12

.
13

,
,
, .
14
,
, ,

15
,
, .
16

,
,
17

,
.
18

.

19
,
,
.
20

, *

.
21

,
22

, .
23

, .
41
1
.
,
2
**
,
.
3
,
,

4

160 GENESIS 40:923 & 41:14
* Reading with the majority of Greek manuscripts, instead of ALEXs unique
.
** Reading with the majority instead of ALEXs unique .
9
And the chief cupbearer described his dream to Isph and said, In my
sleep, there was a grapevine before me.
10
Now on the grapevine were
three stalks, and it was blooming, having yielded buds; ripe were the clus-
ters of grapes.
11
And the cup of Phara was in my hand; and I took the
grapes and squeezed them into the cup, and I gave the cup into the hands
of Phara.
12
And Isph said to him, This is its interpretation. The three
stalks are three days;
13
yet three days and Phara will remember your
oce, and he will restore you to your position as chief cupbearer, and
you will put the cup of Phara into his hand according to your earlier
oce, when you were pouring wine.
14
Now you yourself remember me
whenever it goes well with you, and you will show mercy on me and will
remind Phara of me, and you will lead me out of this stronghold;
15
for
by stealth I was stolen from the land of the Hebrews, and here I have done
nothing, but they threw me into this pit.
16
And the chief baker saw that
he interpreted properly, and he said to Isph, I also saw a dream, and
I was imagining three baskets of coarse bread rising up over my head;
17

now in the uppermost basket was some of the produce which the king
Phara eats, a bakers work; and the birds of the heaven were devouring
things from the basket above my head.
18
Then answering Isph said to
him, This is its interpretation. The three baskets are three days;
19
yet
three days Phara will remove your head from you, and he will hang you
on a wood post, and the winged creatures of the heaven will eat your esh
from you.
20
Now it came to be that on the third day was the birthday of
Phara, and he was making a drinking party for all his servants; and he
remembered the oce of the chief cupbearer and the oce of the chief
baker in the midst of his servants.
21
And he restored the chief cupbearer
to his oce, and he put the cup into the hand of Phara.
22
But the chief
baker he hanged, just as Isph interpreted to them.
23
Now the chief cup-
bearer did not remember Isph, but he forgot him.
41
1
Now it came to be after two years of days Phara saw a dream. He
was imagining himself standing by the river,
2
and look, as if coming up
from the river seven cows beautiful in form and choice of esh, and they
were feeding themselves in the reed grass.
3
But another seven cows were
coming up after them from the river, ugly in form and thin of esh, and
the cows were grazing by the edge of the river in the reed grass.
4
And the
GENESIS 40:923 & 41:14 161

. .
5

, .
6


7


. , .
8

,

.
9

.
10

, ,

11
,
* .
12

,
, .
13
,
, ,
.
14
,
.
.
15
,
,
.
16

.
17


18

,
19
,
,

20

,
21

,
. .
22
,

23

162 GENESIS 41:423
* Reading according to a secondary ALEX hand, rather
than the original .
seven cows ugly and thin of esh devoured the seven cows, beautiful in
form and choice. Then Phara awoke.
5
And he dreamed a second time;
and look, seven ears of corn, choice and beautiful, were coming up on one
stalk.
6
But another seven ears of corn, thin and blasted by the wind, were
growing up after them.
7
And the seven thin and wind-blasted ears of corn
swallowed up the seven choice and full ears of corn. Then Phara awoke,
and it was a dream.
8
Now morning came and his soul was troubled; and
sending for he called all the dream interpreters of Egypt and all her wise
men, and Phara described the dream to them; and there was no one to
tell its meaning to Phara.
9
And the chief cupbearer spoke to Phara say-
ing, My sin I recall today.
10
Phara was angry with his servants, and he
placed us in custody in the house of the chief jailer, both I and the chief
baker;
11
and we saw a dream in one night, I and he, we each saw according
to his own dream.
12
But there with us was a young Hebrew servant of the
chief butcher, and we described to him, and he interpreted for us.
13
Now
it came to be just as he interpreted to us, so also it happened, as for me I
was restored to my oce, but that other was hanged.
14
Then sending, Phara called Isph and he led him from the stronghold.
And they shaved him and they changed his robe; and he went to Phara.
15
Now Phara said to Isph, I have seen a dream, and there is no inter-
preter for it; but I have heard them saying about you, hearing dreams,
you interpret them.
16
Then Isph answering Phara said, Without
God, the safety of Phara will not be answered.
17
Then Phara spoke to
Isph saying, In my sleep, I was imagining myself standing by the edge
of the river;
18
and as if coming up from the river seven cows beautiful in
form and choice of esh, and they were grazing in the reed grass;
19
and
look, seven other cows coming up behind them from the river, wretched
and ugly in form and thin of esh, and they were grazing in the reed
grass; such that I have not seen ugliness so great in the whole of Egypt;
20
and the seven ugly and thin cows devoured the rst seven beautiful and
choice cows,
21
and they went into their bellies; and they did not become
distinguishable when they went into their bellies, and their appearances
were ugly just as also at rst. Then awakening, I went to sleep.
22
And
again I saw in my sleep, also as if seven ears of corn full and beautiful were
coming up on one stalk;
23
but another seven ears of corn thin and blasted
GENESIS 41:423 163

24


. , .
25

,
.
26
,
.
27

,
. .
28

.
29


30

,
,
31

,
.
32
,
,
.
33
,

34

,
,
35


,
.
36

,
.
37


38
-
, ;
39

,
.
40
,

.
41

.
42

,
,

43

,
.
44


.
45
.
164 GENESIS 41:2345
by the wind were growing up holding them.
24
And the seven thin and
wind-blasted ears of corn swallowed up the seven beautiful and full ears
of corn. Thus, I said to the dream interpreters, but there was no one to tell
its meaning to me.
25
And Isph said to Phara, The dream of Phara
is one; whatever God is doing, he showed Phara.
26
The seven beautiful
cows are seven years, and the seven beautiful ears of corn are seven years;
the dream of Phara is one.
27
And the seven thin cows coming up behind
them are seven years, also the seven thin and wind-blasted ears of corn.
They will be seven years of famine.
28
Now the matter of which I have spo-
ken to Phara; whatever God is doing, he showed Phara.
29
Look, seven
years are coming of much prosperity in all the land of Egypt;
30
but seven
years of famine will come after these, and they will forget the satiety in
the whole land of Egypt, and famine will consume the land;
31
and the
prosperity in the land will not be acknowledged because of the famine
that is coming after these things, for it will be very severe.
32
Now con-
cerning the dream of Phara being repeated twice, the matter from God
is coming true, and God will hurry to do it.
33
Now therefore look carefully
for a man wise and intelligent, and appoint him over the land of Egypt;
34
and let Phara act and let him appoint regional governors over the land,
and let them take one fth of all the harvests of the land of Egypt in the
seven years of prosperity,
35
and let them gather all the food coming in
these seven good years; and let grain be gathered by the hand of Phara,
food for the cities, let it be gathered.
36
And the food having been kept safe
in the land for the seven years of famine will be in the land of Egypt, and
the land will not be destroyed in the famine.
37
Now the words were pleasing before Phara and before all his servants;
38
and Phara said to all his servants, We will not nd such a man, who
has the spirit of God in him, will we?
39
Then Phara said to Isph,
Since God showed you all these things, there is no man more wise and
intelligent than you.
40
You will be over my house, and what is from your
mouth, all my people will obey; only regarding the throne will I be above
you.
41
Then Phara said to Isph, Look, I am appointing you today
over all the land of Egypt.
42
And taking the ring from his hand Phara
put it on the hand of Isph, and he clothed him in a robe of ne linen,
and he put a gold collar around his neck;
43
and he made him ride on the
second chariot of those of his, and a herald called out in front of him;
and he appointed him over the whole land of Egypt.
44
Then Phara said
to Isph, I am Phara; without you, no one raises his hand over all the
land of Egypt.
45
And Phara called Isphs name Psonthomphanch.
GENESIS 41:2345 165
*
.
46

. ,
.
47


48

** ,

.
49

, .
50

,
* .
51



52
,
.
53
,
54

, .
.
55

,

, .
56

,
.
57

. .
42
1

;
2

, .
3

4
-
.
5

.
* Reading with the corrected Swete text against ALEXs unique spelling in
favor of the majority spelling and contextually appropriate .
** Reading with the corrected Swete text against ALEXs unusual spelling
.
166 GENESIS 41:4557 & 42:15
And he gave him Asenneth the daughter of Petreph the priest of
Hliopolis to him as a wife.
46
Now Isph was thirty years old when he was set in front of Phara the
king of Egypt. Then Isph went out from the face of Phara, and he trav-
eled throughout all the land of Egypt.
47
And the land produced by hand-
fuls in the seven years of prosperity;
48
and he gathered all the food of the
seven years in which there was prosperity in the land of Egypt, and he
placed the food in the cities; food of the open elds surrounding the city
of n he placed in it.
49
And Isph gathered grain in very large amounts,
like the sand of the sea, until it could not be counted; for no number
existed.
50
Then to Isph were born two sons before the seven years of
famine came, sons whom Asenneth the daughter of Petreph the priest
of Hliopolis bore for him.
51
Now Isph called the name of the rst born
Mannass saying, For God made me forget all my toils and everything
of my father.
52
Now the name of the second he called Ephraim, For God
has exalted me in the land of my humiliation.
53
But the seven years of prosperity that were in the land of Egypt passed,
54
and the seven years of famine came to be, just as Isph said. And fam-
ine came to be in all the land; but in all the land of Egypt there was not
bread.
55
And all the land of Egypt hungered, then all the people of Egypt
cried out to Phara for bread; then Phara said to all the Egyptians, Go
to Isph, and whatever he says to you do.
56
And the famine was over
the face of all the land; then Isph opened all the granaries, and he was
selling to all the Egyptians.
57
And all countries came to Egypt to buy from
Isph. For the famine prevailed in all the earth.
42
1
Now seeing that there was selling in Egypt Iakb said to his sons,
Why are you delaying?
2
Look, I have heard that there is grain in Egypt;
go down there and purchase for us a little food, so that we may live and
not die.
3
Then the ten brothers of Isph went down to purchase grain
from Egypt.
4
But Beniamein the brother of Isph, he did not send with
his brothers; for he said Perhaps illness might befall him.
5
Now the sons
of Isral went to buy along with those who were coming; for there was
famine in the land of Chanaan.
GENESIS 41:4557 & 42:15 167
6
,

.
7
,
,
; , .
8
,

9
.
, .
10

,
11

.
.
12
,
.
13

,
.
14
,

15
,
.
16
,
,
, , .
17


18

, .
19

,
,
20

,
, . .
21

,
,

.
22

;
.
23
,

24

.
, .
25

, -
,
. .
26

.
27

, ,
,
168 GENESIS 42:627
6
Now Isph was the ruler of the land, this one was selling to all the
people of the land; now entering the brothers of Isph bowed down to
him with face to the ground.
7
Then seeing his brothers Isph recognized
them, and he played the stranger to them and spoke to them harshly, and
he said to them, From where have you come? Then they said to him,
From the land of Chanaan, to buy food.
8
Now Isph recognized his
brothers, but they did not recognize him;
9
and Isph remembered the
dreams that he saw. And he said to them, You are spies, you have come
to scrutinize the routes of the country.
10
But they said, No, lord; we your
servants came to purchase food;
11
we are all sons of one man. We are peace-
ful men; your servants are not spies.
12
But he said to them, No, rather
the routes of the land you came to see.
13
But they said, Twelve brothers
are we your servants in the land of Chanaan; and look, the younger is
with our father today, and the other does not exist.
14
Then Isph said
to them, This is what I have said to you, saying that you are spies;
15
in
this way, you will bring yourselves to light; by the health of Phara, you
will not go away from here if your younger brother does not come here.
16

Send one of you, and get your brother; but you will be led away until your
words become clear, whether you are speaking the truth or not; but if not,
by the health of Phara, you surely are spies.
17
And he placed them in
custody for three days.
18
Then he said to them on the third day, Do this,
and you will live; for I fear God.
19
If you are peaceful, let your one brother
be detained in the custody; but the rest of you go and carry away your
purchased allotment of grain,
20
and your younger brother, bring down to
me, and your words will be believed; but if not, you all will die. Now they
did accordingly.
21
And each said to his brother, Indeed, we are guilty
with regard to our brother, that we overlooked the suering of his soul
when he pleaded with us and we did not harken to him; because of this
this suering has come upon us.
22
Then answering Roubn said to them,
Did I not speak to you saying, Do not harm the little boy? And you did
not harken to me; and look, his blood is demanding an accounting.
23
But
they did not know that Isph was listening, because a translator was in
their midst;
24
then turning away from them Isph wept. And he again
went to them and spoke to them; and he took Sumen from them, and he
bound him before them.
25
Then Isph gave orders to ll their contain-
ers with grain, and to give the money of each into his sack, and to give
them provisions for the road. And it happened to them in this way.
26
And
placing the grain on their donkeys they departed from there.
27
Now one
of them loosening his bag, to give fodder to his donkeys when they took
rest, saw the bundle of his money, and it was over the opening of the bag.
GENESIS 42:627 169
28
,
. ,
;
29

,

30

,
.
31
,
32
, ,
.
33


,

34

, ,
,
.
35

,
,
.
36
,
, ,
.
37

,
, .
38

, ,

, .
39
.
43
1

,
.
2
-

.
3

,

4
,

.
5

,
;
6

, ; ;
170 GENESIS 42:2839 & 43:16
28
And he said to his brothers, He gave back the money to me, and look,
this is it in my bag. And their heart was confused, and they were trou-
bled saying to each other, What is this that God did to us?
29
Then they
came to Iakb their father in the land of Chanaan, and told him all the
things that had happened to them saying,
30
The man, the lord of the
land has spoken to us harshly, and he placed us in custody as ones spying
out the land.
31
But we said to him, We are peaceful men, we are not spies;
32
twelve brothers are we, sons of our father; one does not exist, but the
smaller is with our father today in the land of Chanaan.
33
Then the man,
the lord of the land said to us, In this way, we will know for ourselves
that you are peaceful men; one brother leave behind here with me, then
taking your purchased allotment of grain, depart.
34
And bring back to me
your younger brother, and I will know that you are not spies, but rather
you are peaceful men; and your brother I will give back to you, and you
conduct business in the land.
35
Now it came to be while they were emp-
tying their sacks, there was for each a bundle of money in their sacks;
and they and their father saw the bundles of their money, and they were
afraid.
36
Then Iakb their father said to them, You have made me child-
less; Isph is not, Sumen is not, and Beniamein you will take away; all
these things are happening against me.
37
Then Roubn said to his father
saying, My two sons kill, if I do not bring him to you; give him into my
hand, and I will bring him up to you.
38
But he said, My son will not go
down with you, for his brother died, and he has been left behind alone;
and he may happen to become sick on the road in which you travel, and
you would bring me down in old age with pain to Hads.
39
Now the famine was severe in the land.
43
1
Now it came to be when they nished devouring the grain that they
brought from Egypt, their father said to them, Travel back to purchase
for us a little food.
2
But Jouda said to him saying, The man explicitly
warned us saying, You will not see my face unless your younger brother
comes down to me.
3
Therefore if you send our brother with us, we our-
selves will go down and we may buy food for you;
4
but if you do not
send our brother with us, we will not travel; for the man said to us say-
ing, You will not see my face unless your younger brother is with you.
5
Then Isral said, Why did you harm me, having informed the man that
you have a brother?
6
But they said, The man explicitly asked about us
and our family saying, Is your father still living? Do you have a brother?
GENESIS 42:2839 & 43:16 171
.
;
7

,
,
.
8
,
,
.
9
,
.
10

,
, , ,
.
11


.
12
,
.
13
,

, .
14

,
, .
15

,


.
16
,
.
17


,
,
.
18


19

, .
20

,
.
,
21


.
22

,

. ,
172 GENESIS 43:622
And we told him in accordance with his asking. We did not know that he
would say to us, Bring your brother, did we?
7
Then Jouda said to Isral
his father, Send the little boy with me, and standing up we will travel, so
that we may live and not die, we and you and our little ones.
8
Now I take
responsibility for him, from my hand seek him; if I do not bring him to
you and place him before you, I will remain guilty before you all the days.
9
For if we had not delayed, we would have already returned twice.
10

Then their father said to them, If it is thus, do this; take from the fruits of
the land in your containers, and bring down to the man gifts, of pine resin
and of honey, incense and myrrh and terebinth and nuts.
11
And take dou-
ble the money in your hands; the money that was returned to your bags
take it back with you; perhaps it was an error.
12
Also take your brother,
and standing up go down to the man.
13
Now may my God give you favor
before the man, and may he release your one brother and Beniamein; for
indeed just as I have been childless, so I have been childless.
14
Then getting these gifts, the men also took double the money in their
hands, and Beniamein; and standing up they went down into Egypt, and
they stood before Isph.
15
Then Isph saw them and Beniamein his
brother born of the same mother, and he commanded the one over his
house to bring the men into his house and slaughter a sacricial victim
and prepare; for with me the men will eat food at midday.
16
Then the man
did according to what Isph said, and he brought the men into the house
of Isph.
17
Then the men, seeing that they were brought into the house
of Isph said, On account of the money that was returned in our bags
the rst time we are brought in, to falsely accuse us and to seize us, to take
us as servants and our donkeys.
18
Then coming toward the man who was
over the house of Isph, they spoke to him in the gateway of the house
19

saying, We beseech you, lord. We came down the rst time to purchase
food;
20
and it came to be when we went to take rest we opened our bags,
and there the money of each one was in his bag. Our money by weight we
now returned in our bags,
21
and the other money we brought with our-
selves to buy food; we do not know who threw the money into our bags.
22
Then the man said to them, Mercy to you, do not be afraid; your God and
the God of your fathers gave you treasures in your bags; now your money
being genuine I am paid in full. And he brought Sumen out to them,
GENESIS 43:622 173
23
,
.
24

.
25

,
, .
26
;
; ;
27

, . .
.
28

,
, ;
, .
29

,
.
30

, .
31

, ,

,
.
32
,

.
33


.
.
44
1


,

2

, .
.
3

, .
4

,
,
;
;
5

;
.
6
.
7
;
174 GENESIS 43:2333 & 44:17
23
and he brought water to wash their feet, and he brought fodder for
their donkeys.
24
Then they prepared the gifts until Isph came at mid-
day; for they heard that he was about to eat his midday meal there.
25

Then Isph came into the house, and in the house they oered him the
gifts that they were holding in their hands, and they bowed down to him
with face on the ground.
26
Then he asked them, How are you? And he
said to them, Is your father, the older one of whom you spoke, in good
health? Is he still living?
27
Then they said, Your servant our father is
in good health, he is still living. And he said, Blessed is that man to
God. And bending forward, they bowed down.
28
Then looking up with
the eyes Isph saw Beniamein his brother born of the same mother, and
he said to them, Is this one your younger brother whom you said you
would bring to me? Also he said, May God have mercy on you, child.
29
Then Isph was troubled; for his intestines were twisted because of
his brother, and he was seeking a place to weep; then entering the inner
chamber he wept there.
30
And washing his face and coming out he took
control of himself, and he said, Serve food.
31
And they served him alone,
and them by themselves, and the Egyptians dining with him by them-
selves; for Egyptians are not able to eat food with the Hebrews, because
every shepherd of sheep is an abomination to the Egyptians.
32
Now they
were seated before him, the rstborn according to his seniority and the
younger according to his youth; now the men were astounded each with
his brother.
33
And they carried a portion of his to them; but the portion of
Beniamein was made ve times greater than the portions of all of theirs.
Then they drank and became drunk with him.
44
1
And Isph commanded the one over his house saying, Fill the
bags of the men with as much food as they are able to carry, and throw the
money of each into the opening of his bag.
2
And my silver cup throw into
the bag of the younger one, and the value of his grain. Now it happened
according to Isphs word just as he said.
3
Early in the morning it became
light and the men were sent away, they and their donkeys.
4
Then leaving
the city they were not far away, and Isph said to the one over his house
saying, Standing up, pursue after the men and you will overtake them,
and say to them, Why did you repay me evil for good? Why did you steal
my silver cup?
5
Is this not that from which my lord drinks? But also by
divination he divines with it; you have brought about evil in what you have
done.
6
Then nding them he spoke to them according to these words.
7
But they said to him, Why does the lord speak according to these words?
GENESIS 43:2333 & 44:17 175
.
8


,
;
9
,
.
10

, ,
, .
11

,
.
12

,
.
13
,
, .
14
,
.
15

;
;
16

;
,
.
17

,
.
18
,
, ,
.
19
,
;
20
,
, ,
, .
21

,
.
22

, .
23

,
.
24

,
.
25
,
.
26

,
,
.
27


176 GENESIS 44:727
By no means did your servants do this thing.
8
If indeed the money we
found in our bags we returned to you from the land of Chanaan, why
would we steal silver or gold from the house of your lord?
9
On whomever
of your servants the cup is found, let him die; and we ourselves will be
servants to our lord.
10
Then he said, And now as you speak, thus it will
be; the man on whom the cup is found, he will be my servant, but you will
be innocent.
11
And they each one hurried and put down his bag on the
ground, and they each one opened his bag.
12
Then he searched starting
from the one of the older until he came to the one of the younger, and he
found the cup in the bag of Beniamein.
13
And they tore their clothes, and
they each one placed his bag on his donkey, and they turned back to the
city.
14
Then Jouda and his brothers came to Isph, who was still there;
and they fell before him on the ground.
15
Then Isph said to them, What
is this deed that you did? Did you not know that a man like me would
divine by divination?
16
Then Jouda said, How will we speak against the
lord or what might we speak, or how might we be proven right? Now God
found the unrighteousness of your servants; look, we are house slaves of
our lord, both us and the one on whom the cup was found.
17
Then Isph
said, By no means would I do this thing; the man on whom the cup was
found, he will be my servant; then you go up safely to your father.
18
Then drawing near to him Jouda said, I beseech you, lord; let your ser-
vant speak a word before you, and may you not show anger to your ser-
vant, for you are after Phara.
19
Lord, you asked your servants saying,
Do you have a father or a brother?
20
And we said to the lord, We have
an older father, and a younger youngster of his old age, and his brother
died, then he alone was left to his father, and the father loved him.
21
Then
you said to your servants, Bring him down to me, and I will take care of
him.
22
And we said to the lord, The youngster will not be able to leave
the father behind; now if he should leave the father behind, he will die.
23
Then you said to your servants, If you do not bring your younger brother
down with you, you will not come in to see my face again.
24
Now it came
to be when we went up to your servant, and our father, we told him the
words of the lord.
25
Then our father said to us, Go again, buy us a little
food.
26
But we said, We will not be able to go down; but if our younger
brother goes down with us, we will go down; for we will not be able to see
the face of the man, unless our younger brother is with us.
27
But your
servant our father said to us, You indeed know that my wife bore two;
GENESIS 44:727 177
28
, ,
.
29

,
.
30

, ,

31

, ,
.
32


,
.
33
,
.
34

, ;
.
45
1

,
.
2
,
.
3

,
;
.
4
,
.
5
,

.
6
,

7

,
, .
8

,
.
9


,
10

, ,

11
,

.
12

.
178 GENESIS 44:2834 & 45:112
28
and the one went out from me, and you said that he had become food
for a wild animal, and I did not see him again.
29
Therefore if you take this
one too from my face and illness comes to him on the road, you would
bring me down in old age with pain to Hads.
30
Now therefore if I would
go to your servant and our father, and the little boy is not with us, then
his very life is left hanging on this persons life;
31
and when he sees the
little boy is not with us, he will come to an end, and your servants will
lead your servant and our father down in old age with suering to Hads.
32
For your servant had taken responsibility for the youngster with the
father saying, If I do not bring him to you and place him before you, I will
be guilty before the father all the days.
33
Now therefore I will remain a
servant to you a house servant of the lord instead of the youngster;
now let the youngster go up with his brothers.
34
For how will I go up to
the father, unless the youngster is with us? Lest I should see the harmful
things that will nd my father.
45
1
And Isph was not able to endure all those standing by him, but
he said, Send everyone away from me. And no one was still standing
by Isph when Isph was revealing himself to his brothers.
2
And he
let go a sound with weeping; now all the Egyptians heard, and it became
audible in Pharas house.
3
Then Isph said to his brothers, I am Isph
your brother, the one you sold into Egypt. Is my father still living? And
the brothers were not able to answer him; for they were troubled.
4
And
Isph said, I am Isph, your brother, the one you sold into Egypt.
5
Now
therefore do not distress yourselves, nor let it seem harsh to you that you
sold me here; for the purpose of life God sent me ahead of you.
6
For this
is the second year of famine on the earth, and still ve years remain in
which there will be neither plowing nor harvesting;
7
thus, God sent me
ahead of you, to leave you behind a remnant on the earth, and to nourish
a great posterity of yours.
8
Now therefore you have not sent me here, but
rather God; and he made me as a father to Phara and a lord of all of his
house and a ruler of all the land of Egypt.
9
Hurrying therefore go up to
my father and say to him, Thus says your son Isph, God made me lord
of all the land of Egypt; come down therefore to me, and do not remain;
10
and you will settle in the land of Gesem of Arabia, and you will be near
me, you and your sons and the sons of your sons, your sheep and your
cattle and everything whatsoever of yours there;
11
and I will nourish you
there, for the famine still has ve years; so that you will not be destroyed,
you and your sons and all your possessions.
12
Look your eyes see, and
the eyes of Beniamein my brother, that it is my mouth speaking to you.
GENESIS 44:2834 & 45:112 179
13

, .
14


, .
15

,
.
16

.
17


,
18

*
, .
19
,
,

20
,
.
21


,
22

,

23

,
,**
.
24

.
25
,
,
26

,
. , .
27
,
,
.
28


.
46
1
, ,
, .
* Reading with Swetes corrected text instead of ALEXs unique .
** Omitting the second that occurs only in ALEX.
180 GENESIS 45:1328 & 46:1
13
Tell therefore my father all about my glory in Egypt and how much you
saw, and quickly bring my father down here.
14
And falling on the neck of
Beniamein his brother he fell on him, and Beniamein wept on his neck.
15

And kissing all his brothers he wept on them, and after these things his
brothers spoke to him.
16
And the utterance was proclaimed in the house of Phara with those
saying, the brothers of Isph have come. Then Phara and his atten-
dants rejoiced.
17
Then Phara said to Isph, Say to your brothers, Do
this; load up your pack animals and depart to the land of Chanaan,
18
and
taking your father and your possessions, come to me; and I will give you
of all the good things of Egypt, and you will eat the marrow of the land.
19
Now you command these things, to take for them wagons from the
land of Egypt, for your youngsters and for the wives, and taking up your
father present yourselves here;
20
and do not spare your eyes of belong-
ings, for all the good things of Egypt will be yours.
21
And the sons of
Isral did so; then Isph gave them wagons according to the sayings of
Phara the king, and he gave them provisions for the road;
22
and to all he
gave double robes, and to Beniamein he gave three hundred gold pieces
and ve exceptional robes;
23
and to his father he sent similar things, and
ten donkeys carrying from all the good things of Egypt, and ten mules
carrying food for his father for the road.
24
Then he sent his brothers away
and they went; and he said to them, Do not become angry on the road.
25

And they went up out of Egypt, and they came into the land of Chanaan to
Iakb their father,
26
and they informed him saying that Your son Isph
is alive, and this one rules all the land of Egypt. And the mind of Iakb
was astounded, for he did not believe them.
27
Then they spoke to him all
the things said by Isph, everything whatsoever he said to them; then
seeing the wagons that Isph sent to fetch him, the spirit of Iakb their
father revived.
28
Then Isral said, This is great for me if Isph my son is
still alive; traveling I will see him before I die.
46
1
Then Isral, removing himself and everything of his, went to the well
of the oath, and he sacriced there a sacrice to the God of his father Isaak.
GENESIS 45:1328 & 46:1 181
2
.
;
3

,
4

,
* .
5

,


6

,
, ,
7
,

.
8
.

9

, .
10


.
11
, .
12


.
13
.
14

.
15
,
,
, , .
16


.
17

. .
18

, ,
, .
19

.
20
,
** ,
. ,
, .
, .
* Per Swetes edited text, omitting ALEXs unique and likely dittographic after
.
** Reading against ALEXs unusual spelling in favor of the majority spelling
and contextually appropriate .
182 GENESIS 46:220
2
Then God said to Isral in a vision of the night saying, Iakb, Iakb.
Then he said, What is it? God saying, I am the God of your fathers; do
not be afraid to go down into Egypt, for I will make you into a great nation
there;
4
and I will go down with you into Egypt, and I will bring you back
up in the end; and Isph will put the hands on your eyes.
5
Then Iakb
stood up from the well of the oath, and the sons of Isral took away their
father and the little ones and their wives on the wagons that Isph sent
to take him;
6
and taking away their possessions and all the property that
they acquired for themselves from the land of Chanaan, Iakb went into
Egypt, and all his ospring with him,
7
sons and the sons of his sons with
him, daughters and the daughters of his sons with him; and all of his o-
spring he brought into Egypt.
8
Now these are the names of the sons of Isral, the ones entering Egypt.
Iakb and his sons; rstborn of Iakb Roubn;
9
now the sons of Roubn;
Hench and Phalloud, Hasrn and Charmi.
10
Now the sons of Sumen;
Hiemoul and Iamein and Ad and Iacheim and Saar and Samoul son of
the Chananite woman.
11
Now the sons of Leui; Grsn, Kaath and Mera-
rei.
12
Now the sons of Jouda; r and Aunan and Slm and Phares and
Zara; but r and Aunan died in the land of Chanaan; now the sons born
of Phares Hasrm and Iemoul.
13
Now the sons of Issachar; Thla and
Phoua and Iasouph and Zambram.
14
Now the sons of Zabouln; Sered
and Hasrn and Halol.
15
These are the sons of Leia, whom she bore for
Iakb in Mesopotamia of Syria, and Deina was his daughter; all the per-
sons, both sons and daughters, were thirty-three.
16
Now the sons of Gad;
Saphn and Haggeis and Saunis and Thasoban and Adis and Arodis
and Aroleis.
17
Now the sons of Asr; Iemna and Iesoai and Ieoul and
Baria and Saar their sister. Now the sons of Baria; Xhobr and Melchil.
18
These are the sons of Zelpha, whom Laben gave to Leia his daugh-
ter, and who bore these for Iakb, sixteen persons.
19
Now the sons of
Rachl wife of Iakb; Isph and Beniamein.
20
Now the sons of Isph
born in the land of Egypt, those whom Asenneth daughter of Petreph
priest of Heliopolis bore for him; Mannass and Ephraim. Now the sons
born of Mannass, whom the Syrian concubine bore for him, Mach-
heir; now Machheir fathered Gallad. Now the sons of Ephraim brother
of Massass; Soutalaam and Taam, now the sons of Soutallam; Edem.
GENESIS 46:220 183
21
.

.
22

.
23
* .
24

.
25
,
,
.
26

, ,
, .
27

.
.
28
-
.
29


,
.
30

, .
31


,
,
32


.
33

;
34

,
. .
47
1


, .
2

.
3

;
,
.
4

,

* Reading with the corrected Swete text and against ALEXs unique .
184 GENESIS 46:2134 & 47:14
21
Now the sons of Beniamein; Bala and Chobr and Asbl. Now the sons
born of Bala were Gra and Noeman and Agcheis and Rhs and Mamphen
and Hophimin; and Gra fathered Arad.
22
These are the sons of Rachl
whom Iakb fathered; all persons were eighteen.
23
Now the son of Dan;
Hasom.
24
And the sons of Nephthali; Hasil and Gouni and Issaar and
Sullm.
25
These are the sons of Balla, whom Laban gave to Rachl his
daughter, and who bore these for Iakb; all the persons were seven.
26

Now all the persons who came into Egypt with Iakb, the ones who came
from his thigh, not including the wives of the sons of Iakb, all persons
were sixty-six.
27
Now the sons of Isph who were born to him in the land
of Egypt were nine. All the persons of the house of Iakb who entered
Egypt were seventy-ve.
28
Then Jouda he sent ahead of them to Isph to meet him down from
Hrnpolis in the land of Ramess.
29
Then Isph getting his chariot
ready went up to meet Isral his father down from Hrnpolis; and
appearing to him he fell on his neck, and he wept with much weeping.
30
And Isral said to Isph, I may die any time now, because I have
seen your face; for you are still alive.
31
Then Isph said to his broth-
ers, Going up I will report to Phara and I will say to him, My brothers
and the house of my father, they were in the land of Chanaan, they have
come to me;
32
now the men are shepherds; for they were men who kept
herds; and herds and cattle and everything of theirs they have brought.
33

If therefore Phara calls you and says to you, What is your work?
34
you
will say, your servants are men who kept herds from childhood until now,
both we and our fathers; so that you may settle in the land of Gesem of
Arabia. For every shepherd of sheep is an abomination to the Egyptians.
47
1
Now coming Isph reported to Phara saying, My father and
my brothers and their herds and cattle and everything of theirs came
from the land of Chanaan, and look, they are now in the land of Gesem.
2
Then from his brothers he took along ve men and he placed them
before Phara.
3
And Phara said to the brothers of Isph, What is your
work? And they said to Phara, Shepherds of sheep are your servants,
both we and our fathers from childhood until now.
4
Then they said to
Phara, We have come to sojourn in the land; for there is no pasture for
the herds of your servants, for the famine is severe in the land of Cha-
naan; now therefore let us your servants settle in the land of Gesem.
GENESIS 46:2134 & 47:14 185
.
5

,
.
.

6

.
7


.
8

;
9



, .
10

.
11

,
, , .
12

.
13
,

14


,
.
15



; .
16

, ,
.*
17
,


.
18
**
,

,
.
* Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of the unique ALEX reading
.
** Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of the unique ALEX reading
.
186 GENESIS 47:518
5
Then Phara said to Isph, Let them settle in the land of Gesem; now
if you know for certain that there are strong men among them, appoint
them as rulers of our herds. Now Iakb and his sons went into Egypt to
Isph; and Phara king of Egypt heard. And Phara said to Isph saying,
Your father and your brothers have come to you;
6
look, the land of Egypt
is before you; in the best land settle your father and your brothers.
7

Then Isph brought in Iakb his father and he placed him before Phara;
and Iakb blessed Phara.
8
Then Phara said to Iakb, How many are
the years of days of your life?
9
And Iakb said to Phara, The days of
the years of my life in which I sojourn are one hundred and thirty years;
few and troublesome have been the days of the years of my life; they have
not reached the days of the years of the life of my fathers, the days they
sojourned.
10
And blessing Phara Iakb went out from him.
11
And Isph
settled his father and his brothers, and he gave them a piece of property
in the land of Egypt in the best of the land, in the land of Ramess, just as
Phara ordered.
12
And Isph was measuring out grain for his father and
for his brothers and for everyone in the house of his father according to
body.
13
Now there was no grain in all the earth, because the famine was very
severe; and the land of Egypt and the land of Chanaan were depleted on
account of the famine.
14
Then Isph gathered all the money that was
to be found in the land of Egypt and in the land of Chanaan for the grain
that they were buying, and he was measuring out grain for them; and
Isph brought all the money into the house of Phara.
15
And the money
was depleted in the land of Egypt and the land of Chanaan; then all the
Egyptians went to Isph saying, Give us bread; and why are we dying
before you? For our money has been depleted.
16
Then Isph said to
them, Bring your herds, and I will give bread in return for your herds,
if your money has been depleted.
17
Then they led the herds to Isph,
and Isph gave them bread in return for the horses and in return for the
sheep and in return for the cows and in return for the donkeys; and he pro-
vided bread for them in return for all their herds in that year.
18
Now that
year came to an end, and they came to him in the second year and they
said to him, Let us not be destroyed because of our lord; for if the money
is depleted and the possessions and the herds are for you the lord, then
nothing is left remaining before our lord but our own body and our land.
GENESIS 47:518 187
19
,
,

, .
20


, ,

21
* ,
,
22
.
,

.
23

,

24
,

.
25

, ,
.
26

,
** .
27

,
.
28


.
29
,
,
,

30

,
. .
31

.
.
48
1

,
, .
2

* Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of ALEXs reading .
** Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of ALEXs reading .
188 GENESIS 47:1931 & 48:12
19
Therefore, so that we may not die before you and the land become deso-
late, acquire us and our land in exchange for bread, and we will become,
both us and our land, servants of Phara; give us seeds so that we might
sow and live and not die, and the land not become desolate.
20
And Isph
acquired all the land of the Egyptians for Phara; for the Egyptians sold
their land to Phara, for the famine prevailed against them, and the land
came to be Pharas;
21
and the people he enslaved for himself as servants,
from the furthest boundaries of Egypt to the furthest,
22
except for the
land of the priests alone. Isph did not acquire; for an allotment he gave
gifts to the priests of Phara, and they ate the allotment that Phara gave
them; because of this they did not sell their land.
23
Then Isph said to all
the Egyptians, Look, I have acquired you and your land today for Phara;
take seeds for yourselves and sow the land;
24
and of its harvests, you shall
give the fth part to Phara; but the four parts of them will be for you
yourselves as seeds for the land and as food for you and for all the ones in
your houses.
25
And they said, You have saved us, we found favor before
our lord, and we will be servants to Phara.
26
And Isph placed in eect
for them an ordinance until this day concerning the land of Egypt with
one fth going to Phara, except the land of the priests alone; it was not
for Phara.
27
Now Isral settled in Egypt on the land of Gesem; and they
inherited it, and they increased and they multiplied greatly.
28
Then Iakb lived on in the land of Egypt seventeen years and the days
of the years of Iakbs life came to be one hundred and forty-seven years.
29
Then the days drew near for Isral to die, and he called his son Isph
and said to him, If I have found favor before you, place your hand under
my thigh, and you will show me compassion and truth by not burying me
in Egypt.
30
But I will lie down to sleep with my fathers, and carry me out
of Egypt and bury me in their grave. Then he said, I will do according
to your word.
31
Then he said, Swear to me. And he swore to him; and
Isral bowed down on the top of his sta.
48
1
Now it came to be after these things it was reported to Isph that
your father is ill; and gathering up his two sons with him, Mannass
and Ephraim, he went to Iakb.
2
Then it was reported to Iakb saying,
GENESIS 47:1931 & 48:12 189

.
3

,
4


,
.
5

,
,
6


, .
7

,
,

.
8

;
9

.
.
10
,
* ,
.
11

,
,
12
,
.
13

, , ,
, ,
.
14

, ,
, .
15


, ,
16
,

,
.
17

,


.
18
,
, .
190 GENESIS 48:218
* Reading with the corrected Swete text and omitting after .
Look, your son Isph comes to you; and exerting himself Isral sat up
on the bed.
3
And Iakb said to Isph, My God appeared to me in the
land of Chanaan in Louza, and he blessed me
4
and he said to me, Look, I
will cause you to increase and multiply and I will make you into gather-
ings of nations, and I will give this land to you and to your ospring after
you as an eternal possession.
5
Now therefore your two sons born to you
in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt are mine, Ephraim
and Mannass, just as Roubn and Sumen they will be mine.
6
But the
ospring that you might father after these things they will be yours, by
the name of their brothers they will be called with regard to those allot-
ments.
7
Now when I was going from Mesopotamia of Syria, Rachl your
mother died in the land of Chanaan, as I was drawing near the hippo-
drome a chabratha of land away from entering Ephratha; and I buried
her on the way to the hippodrome; this is Bthleem.
8
Then seeing the
sons of Isph Isral said, Who are these to you?
9
Then Isph said to
his father, My sons whom God gave to me here. And Iakb said, Bring
them to me so that I might bless them.
10
Now his eyes were dim-sighted
from old age, and he was not able to see; and he brought them near to
him, and he kissed them and embraced them.
11
And Isral said to Isph,
Look, I have not been deprived of your face, and look, God showed it and
your ospring to me,
12
and Isph led them away from his knees; and
they bowed down to him with face to the ground.
13
Then taking his two
sons, both Ephraim on the right but to the left of Isral, then Massass
on the left, but to the right of Isral, Isph brought them near to him.
14
Then extending the right hand Isral laid it on the head of Ephraim, now
this one was the younger, and the left on the head of Massass, crossing
the hands.
15
And he blessed them and he said, The God before whom my
fathers Abraam and Issak were well pleasing, the God who sustains me
from youth until this very day;
16
the angel who delivers me from all harm,
may he bless these youngsters; and my name and the name of my fathers
Abraam and Issak will be invoked in them, and may they multiply in great
multitude on the earth.
17
Then Isph seeing that his father placed his
right hand on the head of Ephraim, it seemed grievous to him; and Isph
took hold of the hand of his father to remove it from the head of Ephraim
onto the head of Mannass.
18
Then Isph said to his father, Not like this,
father; for this one is the rstborn, place your right hand on his head.
GENESIS 48:218 191
19
, ,
,
, .
20



.
21

,

22

,
.
49
1
,
.
2
,
, .
3
,
.
4
,

.
5

* .
6
,
.
,
.
7
,
, .
,
.
8
,
.
.
9
,
, ,

;
* Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of ALEXs unique
.
192 GENESIS 48:1922 & 49:19
19
And he did not consent but said, I know, child, I know; and this one will
be one people, and this one will be exalted; but his younger brother will
be greater than he, and his ospring will become a multitude of nations.
20
And he blessed them on that day saying, In you both Isral will be
blessed saying, May God make you like Ephraim and Mannass; and he
placed Ephraim ahead of Mannass.
21
Then Isral said to Isph, Look, I
am dying, and God will be with you and he will return you from this land
into the land of your fathers.
22
But I am giving you Sikim, which I took
from the lands of the Amorrites by my sword and bow, as something spe-
cial over your brothers.
49
1
Then Iakb called his sons and said, Come together, so that I might
tell you what will happen to you in the later of the days.
2
Assemble and listen, sons of Iakb;
Listen to Isral, your father.
3
Roubn my rstborn, you are my strength and the rst of my children;
being dicult to endure and dicult and stubborn.
4
Overowing violently as water, do not boil over;
for you mounted your fathers marriage bed;
then you deled the bed that you mounted.
5
Sumen and Leui are brothers;
they accomplished unrighteousness by their own choice.
6
Into their council may my soul not enter,
and on their gathering may my liver not be xed.
For in their wrath they killed men,
and in their passion they hamstrung a bull.
7
Cursed is their wrath, for it is stubborn;
and their anger, for it was hardened.
I will divide them in Iakb,
and I will scatter them in Isral.
8
Jouda, may your brothers praise you;
your hands on the backs of your enemies.
The sons of your father will bow down to you.
9
A cub of a lion are you, Jouda;
from a shoot, my son, you went up;
lying down, you slept like a lion and like a cub;
who will awaken him?
GENESIS 48:1922 & 49:19 193
10
,
,
,
.
11
,

,
.
12
,
.
13
,
,
.
14
,
.
15
,
,
,
.
16
,
.
17
* ,

,
,
18
.
19
,
.
20
, ,
.
21
, ,
.
22
,


.
* Reading with the corrected Swete text instead of the awkward
construction .
194 GENESIS 49:1022
10
A ruler will not be lacking from Jouda,
nor a leader from his thighs,
until what has been stored up for him might come,
and he will be the expectation of the nations.
11
Tying his colt to the vine,
and to the tendril the colt of his donkey;
he will wash in wine his robe,
and in the blood of the grape his garment.
12
His eyes are bright from the wine,
and his teeth are whiter than milk.
13
Zabouln will settle by the sea,
and he will be near a haven of ships,
and he will extend as far as Sidn.
14
Issachar longed for the good,
resting in the midst of the allotted land.
15
On seeing that the resting place was good,
and that the land was fertile,
he lowered his shoulder to work hard,
and he became a man who tilled the ground.
16
Dan will judge his people,
just as also one tribe in Isral.
17
Let Dan become a snake on the road,
lying in wait on a well-traveled path;
biting a heel of a horse,
and the rider will fall on what is behind,
18
awaiting the deliverance of Lord.
19
Gad, a band of raiders will raid him;
but he will raid them close at their heels.
20
Asr, his food is abundant,
and he will distribute nourishment to rulers.
21
Nephthaleim, a tree trunk having set itself free,
bestowing beauty in the produce.
22
A son grown up is Isph,
one grown up enviable;
my young son;
to me return.
GENESIS 49:1022 195
23
,

24
,



.
25
,
,

* ,
26

** ,

,
.
27

,
.
28
,
,
.
29
***

,
30

,
.
31


. ,
32

.
33
,

.
196 GENESIS 49:2333
* Reading with the corrected Swete text and inserting the missing only in
ALEX.
** Reading with the corrected Swete text and inserting the missing in
ALEX.
*** Reading the rst person singular verb with the corrected Swete
text instead of ALEXs grammatically incorrect rst person plural .
23
One for whom when deliberating they were reviling,
and the lords of arrows were hostile against him;
24
but their arrows were shattered with force,
and the sinews of the arms of their hands were weakened
by the hand of the mighty one of Iakb;
from there was the one strengthening Iakb;
on the part of the God of your father.
25
And my God helped you,
and he blessed you with a blessing of heaven above,
and a blessing of the earth that holds everything;
on account of a blessing of breasts and womb,
26
a blessing of your father and your mother,
it prevailed over blessings of steadfast mountains,
and over blessings of everlasting hills;
they will be on the head of Isph,
and on the crown of the brothers whom he led.
27
Beniamein is a ravenous wolf;
in the morning he still will be eating,
and in the evening he will distribute nourishment.
28
All the sons of Iakb were twelve, and these things their father spoke
to them; and he blessed them, each according to his blessing he blessed
them.
29
And he said to them, I gather myself to my people; bury me
with my fathers in the cave that is in the eld of Ephrn the Chettite,
30
in the double cave opposite of Mambr in the land of Chanaan, the one
that Abraam acquired for himself, the cave from Ephrn the Chettite as a
tomb property.
31
There they buried Abraam and Sarra his wife; and there
they buried Isaak and Rebekka his wife. And there I buried Leia,
32
in the
property of the eld and of the cave which is in it, the one from the sons
of Chet.
33
And Iakb stopped giving his sons orders, and lifting his feet up on the
bed he perished and he was gathered to his people.
GENESIS 49:2333 197
50
1

.
2


.
3


.
4
,
,

5


. , .
6
,
.
7


, ,
8



.
9
,
.
10
*
, ,

.
11


,
.
12

.
13
,
,

.
14
,
.
15


,
.
16

* Reading the third person plural with the corrected Swete text
instead of ALEXs third person singular.
198 GENESIS 50:116
50
1
And falling on the neck of his father Isph wept on him and kissed
him.
2
And Isph ordered his servants who were undertakers to prepare
his father for burial; and the undertakers prepared Isral for burial.
3
And
they completed it in forty days; for thus the days of burial preparation are
reckoned; and Egypt mourned him seventy days.
4
After the days of mourning were past, Isph spoke to the high o-
cials of Phara saying, If I have found favor before you, speak about me
into the ears of Phara saying,
5
My father made me swear before dying
saying, In the tomb that I dug myself in the land of Chanaan you will
bury me there. Now therefore going up I will bury my father, and I will
return.
6
And Phara said to Isph, Go up, bury your father just as he
made you swear.
7
And Isph went up to bury his father; and all the ser-
vants of Phara and all the elders of his house, and all the elders of Egypt
went up with him,
8
and all the household of Isph and his brothers
and all his paternal household and the kin; and the sheep and the cattle
were left remaining in the land of Gesem.
9
And chariots and horsemen
went up with him, and the camp became very large.
10
And they arrived
at the threshing oor of Atad, which is beyond the Iordan, and they beat
their breasts for him in very great and mighty lamentation; and he made
mourning for his father seven days.
11
And the inhabitants of the land of
Chanaan saw the mourning on the threshing oor of Atad and they said,
This is a great mourning by the Egyptians; because of this one called
the name of that place Mourning of Egypt, which is beyond the Iordan.
12
And thus the sons of Isral did for him just as he commanded them.
13

And his sons took him up into the land of Chanaan, and they buried him
in the double cave, the cave which Abraam acquired for himself as a tomb
property beside Ephrn the Chettite opposite Mambr.
14
And Isph returned to Egypt, he and his brothers and all those who
went up together to bury his father.
15
But the brothers of Isph see-
ing that their father had died said, Perhaps Isph might bear a grudge
against us, and he might requite retribution on us for all the bad things
to which we subjected him.
16
And appearing to Isph they said, Your
GENESIS 50:116 199

17

,
.
.
18

.
19

,
20

, ,
, .
21

.
.
22
,
.
23

.
24


,
.
25


.
26

.
200 GENESIS 50:1626
father made us swear before he died saying,
17
Thus say to Isph, For-
give them their unrighteousness, for they subjected you to evil things;
and now accept the unrighteousness of the attendants of the God of your
father; and Isph wept as they were speaking to him.
18
And coming to
him they said, We here are your household servants.
19
And he said to
them, Do not be afraid, for I myself am of God;
20
all of you devised against
me for evil, but God devised for me good, so that it might be as today so
that many people might be sustained continually.
21
And he said to them,
Do not be afraid; I myself will sustain all of you and your households
continually. And he comforted them and spoke to them in the heart.
22
And Isph settled in Egypt, he and his brothers and all his fathers
household; and Isph lived one hundred and ten years.
23
And Isph saw
the youngsters of Ephraim through the third generation; and the sons of
Macheir the son of Mannass were born on the thighs of Isph.
24
And
Isph said to his brothers, I myself am dying; but God with a visitation
will visit you, and he will lead all of you from this land to the land which
God swore to Abraam and Isaak and Iakb.
25
And Isph made the sons of
Isral swear saying, In the coming visitation in which God will visit you
and you will carry my bones up from here with you.
26
And Isph died
at one hundred and ten years; and they buried him and placed him in the
con in Egypt.
GENESIS 50:1626 201
GENESIS
COMMENTARY
1:15 The opening verse of LXX-G summarizes Gods beginning act
of making the heaven and the earth, and represents, as William Brown
maintains, an initial step of the creative process (1993, 31) that will
be described in detail in vv. 331. Like its MT counterpart, LXX-G does
not articulate the rst noun (nc/). Nevertheless many ancient
and modern interpreters presume the words temporal deniteness and
translate accordingly, i.e., the beginning. Others acknowledge the non-
temporal aspect associated with both the Hebrew and Greek nouns,
but usually consider the instrumental meaning (Gods principle act) as
a semantic nuance that complements the temporal aspect of Gods rst
act. See discussions in Marguerite Harl (1994, 86) and Brown (1993, 47),
among others. Therefore, some notion of temporality appears in both MT
and LXX-G.
Unlike its MT counterpart, however, LXX-G clearly shows the rst noun
to be an object of the preposition . Whether nc is an object of n is
one aspect of unresolved scholarly debates about grammatical, syntacti-
cal, and theological issues in v. 1 of the MT. The grammatical issue, in
brief, is whether this verse should be read as an independent clause (as
argue Claus Westermann, Gerhard von Rad, and others), or if the verse is
a protasis whose apodosis appears in either v. 2 (as claims Hugo Grotius)
or v. 3 (as maintain William Albright, E. A. Speiser, Nahum Sarna, and oth-
ers). For a detailed discussion of the various arguments, see Westermann
(1984, 9497), who concludes that v. 1 is an independent clause that the
Priestly source (hereafter P) prexed to his account of creation. Brown
similarly provides a summary of the main positions (1993, 6372) and
arrives at a dierent conclusion, namely that v.1 and v. 2 are dependent
on v. 3. The grammatical and syntactical debates ultimately underlie a
major theological issue. Does the biblical account of creation represent
creatio ex nihilo? In other words, did God have raw materials with which
to begin or did nothing at all exist before Gods actions? Reading the rst
verse as a protasis implies that God had raw materials; reading it as an
independent clause leaves open the possibility that God created from
nothing. The latter position is maintained by Martin Rsel, who oers
an extended discussion of the inuence of Platonic thought, especially
Platos Timaeus, on the LXX-G translator (1994, 2831). Johann Cook (1998,
177183; 2001, 322328) and Robert Hanhart (1992, 351), however, reject
the arguments of Rsel and others who argue that LXX-Gs translation of
Genesis 1 and 2 shows clear evidence of Greek philosophy.
206 COMMENTARY
LXX-Gs absence of complex grammatical issues in v. 1 does not provide
an unambiguous resolution to the creatio ex nihilo debate. Although some
early Christian exegetes did indeed interpret the verse in terms of creatio
ex nihilo, the larger question is whether church fathers such as Basilides
and Theophilus knew of earlier Greek traditions that might have pro-
vided antecedents for the doctrine. Brown, citing Gerhard May, describes
the possible history of the idea. He concludes that although v. 1 in LXX-G
may not have reected an earlier position supporting creatio ex nihilo,
it likely helped facilitate the development of the doctrine of creatio ex
nihilo when it did emerge (1993, 34). Thus, it is unlikely that the transla-
tor made an intentional theological interpretation; it is more likely that
he made a fairly literal rendering of the simplest reading of the MT.
One unique feature of the MT that LXX-G did not duplicate was the
Hebrew word create (n). Appearing eleven times in MT Genesis, the
verb n designates an action done only by God. In Sarnas words, n
signies that the product is absolutely novel and unexampled, depends
solely on God for its coming into existence, and is beyond the human
capacity to reproduce. The verb always refers to the completed product,
never to the material of which it is made (1989, 5). When describing
Gods actions on the latter type of material, the MT uses the word nc,
as in 1:7, where it refers to the rmament that God previously had spoken
into existence. By contrast, the Greek word corresponding to n ()
occurs more than 160 times in the book and is an act done by all kinds of
subjects. This same word also is used to render nc. Thus in its rendering
of n, LXX-G does not distinguish between objects that God makes and
objects that humans make.
Westermann argues that the Greek word came to have the same
theological signicance as n, i.e., a special creative act of God, only
after LXX-G (1984, 100). Indeed, is the word often used as a render-
ing of n to describe Gods creative act, especially in Isaiah and Psalms,
e.g., Isa. 45:7; 54:16; Ps. 50:12; 103:30 (MT = 51:12 and 104:30 respectively).
However, despite Westermanns claim to the contrary, also appears
in LXX-G where both Abram and Melchizedek describe Abrams God as
the one who created the heaven and the earth (
[14:19, 22]). In these verses, renders the Hebrew n:p, a root
that typically refers to acquiring (e.g., 25:10; 39:1). However, it is also used
in MT 4:1 as a wordplay describing Eves response to her rstborn son
Cain. See below. What is signicant here is that the LXX-G translator did
know and use to describe Gods creative act later in Genesis. Why he
did not use in 1:1 is unclear. In his very literal second century C.E.
translation, Aquila corrected this apparent inconsistency by rendering
the Hebrew n with .
What God made, per the summary statement in v. 1, are the heaven
and the earth. Between this summary statement and its elaboration is a
description of the as yet incomplete character of the earth; it is invisible
() and unformed (). As such, LXX-Gs rendering
is an interpretation of the Hebrew phrase :nn: :nn, translated into Eng-
lish both as a single phrase (e.g., Westermanns desert waste [1984, 76]
and the NRSVs formless void), and as two adjectives (e.g., Robert Alters
welter and waste [1996, 3] and Sarnas unformed and void [1989, 6]).
Although all these translations suggest that Gods raw materials, if any,
were minimal, each has a slightly dierent connotation. LXX-G comes
closer to the latter translations by rendering the two Hebrew words as
two separate Greek words. The rst word is clearly interpre-
tive; invisible or unseen implies something quite dierent than either
the notion of desert or formlessness. The word was the term
used by Plato to represent the invisible preexisting world of ideas, e.g.,
Timaeus 51a. Contra Cook (1998, 2001), Ronald Hendel speculates that
the word , expresses something of Platonic cosmology in bibli-
cal guise, perhaps joining the cosmologies of Plato and Moses, as was a
commonplace in Hellenistic Jewish thought, particularly in Alexandria
(1998, 19).
The second adjective (), on the other hand, conveys
the sense of formlessness inherent in at least part of the Hebrew phrase.
As an antonym of the verb (to construct), the word implies
an unconstructed state and is thus an apt description of the earth before
God speaks its elements into existence. Harl argues, contra Cook, that
both and , which she translates as invisible and
inorganis, evoke Platonic Greek philosophy (1994, 87). Jennifer Dines
similarly maintains Greek philosophical ideas inuenced the translators
choice of words. However, she notes that the words show great sensitiv-
ity to the sound eects of the Hebrew (1995, 444) by replicating its allit-
eration and assonance. Parallel to the two long o sounds of the Hebrew
:nn : :nn are the similar sounds at the beginnings () and ends () of the
Greek words and .
The meager state of the earths condition becomes more ominous
when darkness is introduced. An element common to many cosmogo-
nies (including those of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, and Greece
[Westermann 1984, 104]), darkness precedes creation and usually symbol-
izes something sinister. As such, it contrasts with the light and goodness
GENESIS 1:15 207
208 COMMENTARY
associated with the creator. Water, likewise, plays a role in many cosmog-
onies; like darkness, it can symbolize a hostile force. See below. On the
other hand, it also can be a benevolent and generative force (Brown 1993,
175). This element makes its rst appearance as part of the , i.e.,
the bottomless deep that is under the darkness. In articulating ,
LXX-G makes it a less personied force than Gunkel sees in the unarticu-
lated o:nn of the MT. He and others following him observe a connection
between the Hebrew o:nn and Tiamat, the Babylonian goddess of the
primeval ocean waters, who was brutally conquered by her son Marduk
before he split her carcass and assumed the role of creator (Enuma Elish,
90140). Gunkel discerns a similar motif in the Genesis 1 creation account
and argues that this narrative is merely the Judaic reworking of much
older traditional material that originally must have been considerably
more mythological in nature (1984, 44). Sarna maintains that although
o:nn may once have been the name of a mythical being much like the
Mesopotamian Tiamat, its use in Genesis 1 is thoroughly demytholo-
gized (6). Others, challenging Gunkels argument of linguistic borrow-
ing, see no evidence that the biblical use of o:nn, either in Genesis or
elsewhere, needs to be demythologized (see discussions in Westermann
[1984, 104106], Richard Hess [1995, 143144], and Brown [1993, 103]). The
argument, however, has little bearing on LXX-G. As John Wevers com-
ments, LXX-Gs rendering of the mythological Hebrew term o:nn with
is not inappropriate, though the term () itself had no
mythological overtones as such (1993, 2).
In contrast with the somewhat threatening nature of the darkness
over the water of the , Gods wind or breath ( ) is
said to be oating over water that is separate from that in the .
The meaning of the phrase , like its Hebrew counterpart
on: :, is debated. Both and : can mean wind, breath,
or spirit. Westermann and Brown convincingly argue that the rst two
options are more appropriate. Westermann points to comparative evi-
dence of the role of wind in other cosmogonies (1984, 108), and Brown
examines the use of by the Stoics and shows that Philo is the rst
to ponder its spiritual connotation. It is only much later that the Chris-
tian apologists invest the term with a radically spiritual (i.e.,
incorporeal) meaning (1993, 50). Nevertheless, as Gods wind or breath,
denotes a creative power.
After the summary in v. 1 and the description of the earth prior to Gods
involvement, the storys main character God nally speaks. Because
this character is grammatically masculine, it will be referred to from
here on with masculine singular pronouns. Gods rst words (let light
come into being) and their resulting action (and light came into being)
provide the framework for Gods orderly process of bringing the natu-
ral elements of the cosmos into being. Scholars have discerned formulaic
language and patterns that P used to record Gods work of creation in the
MT. Westermann, for example, attests to a ve-part framework for Gods
actions: an introduction (and God said), a command in the jussive (let x
be), completion (and it was so), judgment (and God saw that it was good),
and a time sequence (and it was evening . . .). Yet, as he acknowledges,
this pattern applies to Gods creation by speech, not to Gods creation
by action. The more active aspect is characterized by ve verbs desig-
nating separation, naming, bringing forth, making, and blessing (1984,
8485). Cook, following Werner Schmidt and Odil Steck, describes a six-
part formula that includes both the passive and active aspects of creation:
Wortbericht (creation by word [and God said]), ending formula for the
Wortbericht (and it was so), Taterbericht (creation by act [and God made]),
name giving, ending formula for Taterbericht (and God saw that it was
good), and the ending formula for a day (and it was evening and it was
morning). Yet, as he rightly notes, the structure does not appear in all six
days or eight acts (Cook 1987, 102). In fact, both he and Brown show that
LXX-G employs the same basic formula, but follows it more consistently
(Brown 1993, 8384).
In addition to formulaic language, Gen. 1:331 follows an ordered pat-
tern in recounting the eight entities God makes or brings into being dur-
ing six days. Brown reviews several dierent patterns proposed by Gunkel,
Umberto Cassuto, and Steck and concludes that the MT lacks a precise the-
matic structure relative to the formal division of labor. LXX-G, on the other
hand, oers such a structure. As Brown argues, all eight creative acts can be
grouped according to three main spatial categories: (1) heaven the space
associated with light and luminaries; (2) water the space associated with
seas and lands, as well as marine and winged creatures; and (3) earth the
space associated with vegetation and animals including humans (1993,
3637). This thematic structure reects LXX-Gs depiction of a more active
role for the water, a role that Brown claims was evident in a Hebrew Vor-
lage, which he refers to as VorLXX, earlier than the MT. The revisionist
activity in the MT, Brown concludes, negated the symmetry and balance
between earth and water that was evident in the VorLXX and LXX-G. These
elements are separate but equally active agents that collaborate with God
GENESIS 1:15 209
210 COMMENTARY
in constructing the cosmos (1993, 208). Whether or not Brown is entirely
correct in his reconstructed Hebrew text, he oers a convincing argument
for the role of water in LXX-G. See below.
Gods rst words bring light into being in order to counter the dark-
ness that was over the earth. In the rst words attributed to God, LXX-G
establishes a formulaic speech pattern that continues throughout the
chapter, namely, a verb in the third person imperative (let x be), followed
by and, and concludes with a verb in the aorist (and x was). The pattern,
similar to that in the MT noticed by Westermann and others, not only
represents God as an orderly creator, but more importantly, as a powerful
creator whose very words accomplish actions.
Not only does God bring light into being by divine at, he also sees
the light and declares what he has accomplished to be good ().
An apt rendering for the Hebrew n:o (as both Harl [1994, 88] and Wevers
[1993, 2] note), expresses a full range of positive qualities from the
aesthetic, to the functional, to the moral. Although light now exists as
a counterpart to darkness and has been declared good, darkness is not
eliminated. Instead, God separates the two opposite elements, thereby
establishing the cycle of day (what God calls/names light) and night
(what God calls/names darkness), and thus the passage of time. As many
commentators have noted, the act of naming shows the power or dom-
inance of the one doing the naming over that being named and often
establishes an objects destiny (e.g., Westermann 1984, 114; Sarna 1989,
7). In this case, there is no doubt of Gods dominance. Later in the story,
however, the relationship between name giver and name recipient will
become more signicant. After light came into being, was separated from
the darkness, and both elements named, day ones cycle of evening and
morning occurs. Like the MT, LXX-G here uses the cardinal number
(one) rather than the ordinal (rst).
1:68 Gods second saying, like the rst, begins with a verb in the third
person imperative. Here, however, the formula is expanded to include
two third person imperatives, which together account both for a new
element (a rmament in the midst of the water), and also a new act of
separation (water divided by the rmament). Unlike the MT that always
refers to water as a plural noun (ob), LXX-G distinguishes between water
in the singular and the plural. At this point, presumably only one body
of water exists. This singular body of water () is now to be sepa-
rated by a rmament (). The Greek word is an apt
rendering of the Hebrew p; both connote the strength and rmness
required to keep the water separate and reect an ancient understand-
ing that a solid material structure kept the water above it in place. When
opened slightly, rain would occur; when ruptured, ooding would occur.
Thus, the rmament was seen both as a containment against the negative
forces of water, and also a regulator of their generative power. Unlike the
MT, LXX-G follows the two third person imperatives with the rst of six
execution formulas that links Gods command with its fulllment (vv. 6,
9, 11, 15, 20, and 30). Browns translation of the phrase
with and it came about as follows ttingly represents the dual purpose
(1993, 30). However, rendering it and it came to be in this way (as above
and elsewhere) more directly translates the verb .
What comes to be is precisely what God declared was to be. Yet, between
the command and the narration of its fulllment, God expands his cre-
ative speech with creative action. Unlike the light that immediately came
to be as a result of Gods command, the rmament presumably requires
further eort on Gods part. God made () the rmament, the
rst specic element that God is said to have made. The following fulll-
ment statement provides additional information that both indicates the
precise locations of the now separated water (part under the rmament
and part over the rmament) and also suggests the real purpose of the
rmament, namely to keep each part of the water in its place. God then
names the rmament heaven and, in an addition to the MT, again declares
it good. Evening and morning mark the end of the second day.
1:913 Gods third saying follows the same pattern as the second with
two imperatives, the execution formula, and the narration of the fulll-
ment of Gods declarations. Similarly, Gods commands result in the sepa-
ration of water. Whereas the earlier separation occurred on the vertical
axis (i.e., water above and below the rmament), the present one occurs
on the horizontal axis. Ironically, the word God uses to aect the horizon-
tal separation is one that seems to mean the opposite, namely,
(to be gathered together). After making the rmament, named heaven, to
divide the water vertically into parts above and below it, God now focuses
on the water under the heaven and orders it to be gathered together into
one collection so that the presuming existing dry land could become vis-
ible. Because the verb , like its Hebrew counterpart ::p, occurs
in the passive voice, it is not clear who or what is to gather the water
together. LXX-Gs narration of the fulllment of Gods directives, absent
GENESIS 1:68 & 1:913 211
212 COMMENTARY
in the MT, oers no further clues; the waters were gathered together
() into one collection.
Despite the fact that the verb appears in the passive voice in
both parts of v. 9, Brown argues that this verse is one example of the
more active role that water plays in the creative process in LXX-G (1993,
45). Cook makes a similar observation and, like Brown, maintains that
LXX-G had a non-MT Vorlage that included the part of v. 9 that describes
the fulllment of Gods directives. Therefore, both Brown and Cook argue
that LXX-G did not add to its Vorlage. Instead, the redactors of the MT
later omitted the theologically problematic implication that, as in other
ancient creation stories, water itself had generative capabilities (Brown
1993, 234235). Cook similarly maintains that the Tatbericht was omitted
by the redactor of the MT in order to avoid the possible deduction that
the water was able to generate parts of creation by itself (Cook 1987, 105).
In a later article, Cook argues more strongly in favor of a non-MT Vorlage.
A fragment of Genesis (4QGen
h
) discovered in Qumran and published by
James Davila contains the Hebrew word gathering (n:pb) in the third
line that corresponds to LXX-Gs , against the MTs place
(o:pb). Inasmuch as this fragment seems to support the LXX-G reading
in the rst part of v. 9, it opens the possibility that a Hebrew text which
included this Tatbericht [in the second part of v. 9] did indeed exist (Cook
2001, 318319). Oddly, Cook does not mention another Qumran fragment
of Genesis (4QGen
k
) that contains the Hebrew [nc]nn n:, i.e., the last
two words corresponding to the LXXs Tatbericht (Hendel 1998, 25).
Neither Brown nor Cook acknowledges that the verb s passive
voice would minimize, if not eliminate, the possibility that God was not
solely responsible for creation. An examination of the verbs other occur-
rences in LXX-G shows that it appears in both active (6:21; 29:3; 29:22;
41:35; 41:48; 41:49; and 47:14) and passive (1:9; 29:7; 29:8; 34:30; 37:35;
41:35; and 49:1) forms. Each time it occurs in the active voice, there is
no doubt that the subject is doing the gathering. However, some of its
occurrences in the passive voice reect an intransitive force and can be
rendered to come together rather than to bring or gather together
(Muraoka 2002, 533). In those instances, the subject still seems to be the
one doing the action (e.g., 29:8; 49:1). Nevertheless, in 41:35, both active
and passive forms occur. Here it is evident that LXX-G dierentiates
between the active let them gather all the food (
) and the passive let the grain be gathered by the hand of Pha-
raoh ( ) senses of the verb. Therefore,
the translator seems intentional in choosing which voice to use. As such,
his choice to render the verb two times as a passive innitive in v. 9 sug-
gests that its passive force is the correct reading. Thus, LXX-G here does
not allow the water an explicitly more active role. However, water will
play an active role during day ve.
Equally dicult is the switch between the singular gathering of a
single body of water ( ) in Gods command and the plural
gatherings of plural waters ( ) in the narration of its
fulllment. Admittedly, the plural gatherings is more plausible in light
of the result of the waters being gathered. When the dry land appears, the
one body of water now seems to be several smaller gatherings. Wevers
maintains that the singular gathering is to be understood as a single occur-
rence of multiple gatherings, rather than as one single gathering place
(1993, 5). Unfortunately, his solution does not address the change from
the singular water to its implied plural, i.e., their () gathering. Hen-
del, however, sees the lack of agreement between the plural possessive
pronoun and its singular referent as another indication of a
non-MT Vorlage. He bases his argument for an earlier Hebrew text not, as
Brown and Cook, on ideological reasons but on text critical grounds. Cit-
ing scholars from Julius Wellhausen to Emanuel Tov, Hendel claims that
the grammatical discord can be explained by a Hebrew parent text that
included the missing Tatbericht in which the word water (ob), which
is grammatically plural, required a plural possessive pronoun. Thus, the
LXX-G translator was merely following the hypothetical non-MT text and
translated the plural ob with the Greek equivalent , which is singu-
lar, but retained the plural possessive pronoun. Although no manuscript
evidence has been found for this part of the disputed verse, Hendel bases
his reconstruction on a fragment of 4QGen
k
(see above) that preserves
the nal words of the Tatbericht (1998, 2526). Thus, like Cook, Hendel is
claiming that Hebrew fragments found in Qumran support both the MT
and LXX-G readings of v. 9.
As before but never again, God names what his sayings accomplished.
The dry land he calls earth and the collections of the waters he calls seas.
Here for the rst time, LXX-G unambiguously refers to water itself as
plural ( ) and will continue to do so for the remainder of the
creation narrative. The appearance of the dry land transforms a single
body of water into separate collections of waters that will later play the
active role that Brown observes in LXX-Gs creation account. God again
positively evaluates the two new parts of creation.
However, Gods third days work is not done. With the named ele-
ments of his created world now existing, God is able to accomplish more
GENESIS 1:913 213
214 COMMENTARY
by delegating some of the jobs remaining to be done. Gods rst active
partner in creation is the earth, to which God gives a series of increas-
ingly complex commands. Gods rst imperative to the earth is to pro-
duce , a phrase whose meaning, like that of the MT, is
debated. At issue is both the grammatical and syntactical relationship
between LXX-G and MT and also the type and purpose of the vegetation
being produced. In his detailed lexical analysis of the words pertaining to
vegetation in Gen. 1:1112 in both the MT and the LXX, Bryan Paradise
maintains that LXX-G chose the least plausible way of understanding
the structural relationship between the types of vegetation described in
the MT (1986, 188). He shows that both and in Greek usage
outside the LXX referred to a place where vegetation is produced (i.e., a
pasture) as well as to the vegetation itself (i.e., fodder, grass, or plants
in general). Within the LXX/OG, often stood for practically and
economically useful plants, including fodder and medicinal herbs (190);
similarly designated an economically useful group of plants, not
including trees, which can be grown by man to provide grains for food
for himself and fodder for his animals (1986, 191). Paradise goes on to
suggest that LXX-G transferred some of the semantic value of the MTs
nc to the Greek word , so that the latter comes to stand for a
new category of edible grain and seed-bearing plants (1986, 192). He con-
cludes that the LXX-G translator combined non-central aspects of each
word into a phrase that makes little sense in this situation (1986, 192),
but does not oer an explicit translation for the phrase .
Whether LXX-Gs translation was the least plausible one of the MT is
debatable. Nevertheless, the dierent translations of the phrase
show the ambiguity of the phrase. Muraoka (2002, 89) denes
as growth on land, plant, herbage and translates the phrase as
plant/herbage of grass. Brown, acknowledging Paradises study, renders
with the general term plants and prefers pasture for ,
given its genitival form. Thus, Brown translates the phrase as plants of
the pasture (1993, 51). Harl (1994, 9091) renders it by pture dherbe
(pasture grass), and Wevers (1993, 6) only oers a translation for
(pasture). The rendering pasture herbage, while not literal, neverthe-
less acknowledges the semantic range of both words and attempts to take
account of the meaning of the phrase in its context.
From a theological perspective, Gods delegating of the creative tasks
could challenge Gods overall creative authority. Sarna acknowledges that
this creative act constitutes an exception to the norm that Gods word
directly eectuates the desired product (1989, 9). Westermann similarly
admits that God seemingly has abdicated his creative power to that which
has been created (1984, 124). Yet both also interpret Gods apparent del-
egation of power to nature as a polemical response to pagan cultures and
their fertility cults. Sarna claims that the productive forces of nature
exist only by the will of one sovereign Creator (1989, 9); Westermann
similarly declares that it is because Gods creative action allows for
origin from that there can be no basic opposition between the two
(1984, 124).
In what follows, God establishes the method whereby the herbage,
with its seed () reproducing () according to its species
and likeness ( ), can continue its existence
without on-going divine intervention. This same method of replication
also applies to the second type of vegetation that the earth is to produce,
namely a fruit-bearing tree making fruit. Both Wevers (1993, 67) and
Brown (1993, 52) acknowledge LXX-Gs unusual rendering of the Hebrew
with , a word that more often refers to the substance of a tree,
i.e., wood, than to the tree itself. Brown posits that this translation
emphasizes the utilitarian quality not only for the fruit production but
also for building material and fuel (1993, 52). An analysis of the terms
use in Genesis supports Browns idea. In the rst three chapters of Gen-
esis, is the only term used to refer to trees. In all cases, the utili-
tarian aspect of the tree(s) is emphasized. Of its ve other occurrences,
it refers four times to wood and only once to a tree (40:17). Yet, even in
this last instance, it is the trees utilitarian purpose, i.e., where Pharaohs
chief baker would be hanged, that is important. The more common Greek
word for tree, , is used only three times (18:4, 8; 23:17), in each
case referring to a specic tree or group of trees.
The utilitarian or fruitful aspect of a is reected in its two
modiers: fruit bearing () and making fruit ( ).
Indeed, this latter modier credits a tree with the same creative power
as God; both are said to make () something that in turn is itself
productive. In this case, the seed of the fruit, by analogy with the seed of
pasture herbage, will reproduce itself according to species and, per ALEX,
for likeness ( ). The venue of both types of vegetation was
the earth itself.
As before, what God commands comes to be in the way that he declares.
God then positively assesses both his work of causing land and separate
bodies of water to appear, as well as the work of the earth in bringing
forth self-reproducing vegetation. Now at the end of day three, many of
the natural elements of the earth are in place.
GENESIS 1:913 215
216 COMMENTARY
1:1419 God now directs his attention back to heaven and speaks celes-
tial lights into being. These luminaries are to provide many functions. As
in the MT, they are to be formal means of establishing measures of time.
In conjunction with Gods earlier work of separating light and darkness
day and night respectively the luminaries are to perpetuate the daily
process and to extend it to both longer and specically scheduled periods
of time. The Greek word , appearing for the rst time in Genesis,
refers to time. Unlike , which typically indicates a period or pass-
ing of time, usually represents particular points in time, such as
seasons or festival occasions, or exceptional or opportune moments in
time, such as giving birth. The latter word is much more common
in Genesis, occurring twenty-ve times, as opposed to only two occur-
rences of . Nevertheless, the luminaries are used to establish and
continue both recurring periods of time and specic points in time. They
also provide for light in the heaven that will shine on the earth.
As signicant as these celestial lights are in the MT, they have addi-
tional functionality in LXX-G. Even before describing Gods dictum to the
lights to regulate the times and seasons, LXX-G reports that Gods rst
task to them is provide light to the earth. God repeats their earth-light-
ing duty at the conclusion of his command, thereby forming an inclusio.
Reecting its harmonizing tendency, ALEX adds yet another requirement
for these lights, namely to rule the day and the night. By preceding Gods
separation decree with and (), instead of in order to (), ALEX
implies that their task of perpetuating Gods initial separation of day and
night is in addition to their rule over day and night. Whether God com-
mands the heavenly lights to serve four, ve, or six tasks, he gives these
lights considerable responsibility. Nevertheless, as many commentators
point out, God is still in control. The lights themselves, considered deities
in many cultures, do what they are told to do by God.
To reinforce the subordination and dependence of these lights on God,
Genesis 1 reports that God actively makes them. Thus, both the earth and
the celestial lights come into being by both word and deed. In executing
his verbal declaration, God renes the plan by making two great lights;
the greater of the two would rule the day and the lesser would rule the
night. As both Wevers and Brown note, LXX-G uses the accusative plural
to render the MTs innitive n:cbb:. The root has two dis-
tinct semantic elds: when referring to time, it means beginning; when
referring to people or places, it means ruling or authority. The latter
makes more sense in this context, but its plural form more often refers
to the former (Wevers 1993, 9). Yet, it can also function as an abstract
plural, a form that refers to single cases or manifestations of the idea
expressed by the abstract noun (Brown 1993, 52, citing Smyth 1000.3).
The use of the accusative plural is even more strange in ALEX. In
its harmonizing addition to v. 14, it uses the innitive form () of
the verb. Why it did not use this same form in v. 16, where it would be a
more comparable rendering of the MT, is not clear, especially since it and
other Greek manuscripts use the innitive form in v. 18. It is also odd that
these two great lights with their important duties are not named by God.
This would have even more strongly implied Gods superiority over them.
Nevertheless, they have more signicance than the stars, whose inclu-
sion among the celestial lights appears almost as an afterthought.
After making the luminaries, God places them in the rmament from
where they will perform their three major tasks, namely shining on the
earth, ruling over day and night, and keeping light (i.e., day) and darkness
(i.e., night) separate. At this point, the story refers to the functions light
and darkness rather than to the names that God gave to the functions
and had used earlier in the day. Nevertheless, God makes a positive eval-
uation of his work and the fourth day concludes.
1:2023 As day four represents a continuation of Gods work on the rst
day with light, day ve reects a continuation Gods work on the second
day with a single body of water that developed into multiple bodies of
water. It is to these waters that God turns his attention. Gods command
that the waters be productive represents LXX-Gs departure from and
interpretation of the MT. As noted earlier, Brown and Cook argue that
the MT departed from an earlier non-MT LXX Vorlage in which the waters
played a more active creative role. Whether or not LXX-G was merely
following its non-MT Vorlage, it denitely shows that the waters, like
the earth, were granted creative tasks by God. The earth is to produce
() vegetation, and the waters are to bring forth ()
two types of creatures. The verb reects Gods expectation of
active involvement compared with the passive role associated with the
MTs swarm (c). Swarming waters imply some internal action, but
such action is not comparable to the kind they are ordered in LXX-G to
perform on the external world around them.
The waters are to bring forth both and
, that is both creeping and ying creatures. The Greek word
(reptile) refers to creeping animals, both to crawling animals like
GENESIS 1:1419 & 1:2023 217
218 COMMENTARY
snakes and to quadruped animals like lizards. These reptiles are further
described as animate beings. Although most agree that and its
Hebrew equivalent n means life, the phrase is dicult
to translate because of the wide semantic range of . Per LSJ (1968,
20262027), the word can mean life itself, a departed spirit, the imma-
terial soul, and the conscious or emotional aspect of self. The word was
often used to represent the counterpart of the material world. Although a
familiar concept in the Greek world, this neat distinction is absent in the
Hebrew counterpart cc:, which most often refers to a breathing being
and thus implies a unity of body and soul/spirit. The dierent transla-
tions attest to the diculty of the phrase: Brown translates the phrase as
living souls, Wevers as animate creatures, and Robert Hiebert as living
creatures. The above translation animate beings is based on two features
associated with these and later creatures: animate takes into account the
living, breathing aspect of the creatures; being refers to the quality or
state of existence, whether material or immaterial. Thus, an animate
being is one whose existence is characterized by living and breathing.
Despite the diculty in translating the phrase, its signicance is clear. As
opposed to everything that God already had called into being, the
were the rst to be designated .
The second creature, per LXX-G, that the waters are to bring forth are
birds. Unlike LXX-G whose single verb has two objects (reptiles and birds),
the MT has two jussive verbs directed to two objects. The MTs let birds
y contrasts signicantly with LXX-Gs let the waters bring forth ying
birds. These birds are to y over the earth and throughout the rmament
of the heaven. LXX-G also describes the execution of Gods command in
more detail. As he did with the rmament and the celestial luminaries,
God supplements his creative word with a creative act of making. This
supplementation also implies that the waters need Gods involvement to
carry out their task of bringing forth. The rst creature that God makes is
the great sea monster, an unexpected creature that God had not included
in his command. Commentators on the MT disagree on the signicance of
Gods creation of sea monsters (o::n). In some poetic texts (e.g., Isa. 51:9;
Job 7:12), they are associated with the mythical monster of Chaos. Gunkel
maintains that the Genesis 1 account reects a gradual receding of the
mythological inasmuch as the primordial chaos monsters have been
transformed into a remarkable sort of sh (1984, 49). Sarna understands
this verse as an unspoken antipagan polemic by which these monsters
are stripped of divinity (1989, 10). Westermann claims that while it is
possible that P demythologized received tradition, the demythologiza-
tion could have occurred earlier than the Genesis 1 account (1984, 139).
Wevers comments on LXX-Gs unique rendering of the Hebrew o::n
with ; it is used to translate both n:: and nn in Job, and was the
word used to translate the big sh that swallowed Jonah. Nevertheless,
he claims that the Greek word had no mythological overtones and merely
referred to a big water creature (1993, 11).
The second and third creatures that God makes are not surprising.
Although the second creature is described somewhat dierently than it
was in Gods command, the equally dicult phrase every animate being
among reptiles ( ) approximates the earlier
and has the same signicance. Flying birds, the third
creature God makes, are like the reptiles in that they also are brought
forth according to species. Not only does God make a favorable assess-
ment of his work, he also blesses the creatures he made. This the rst of
Gods blessings goes to the rst of the animate beings. The blessing itself
is an imperative directly from God to his newly made water creatures to
increase and multiply in their watery abode and to ll it. These animate
beings are the rst creatures addressed directly by God. Although God
assigned creative tasks to the earth and the waters, he spoke to them
indirectly (i.e., via a third person imperative form). The blessing and its
content, on the other hand, is Gods rst direct command to any created
being. The winged creatures, although not directly addressed, are to
multiply in their location above the earth. God earlier built regeneration
in vegetation to allow for its continued existence; here God commands
that the creatures originating from the water continue their existence
through mating. Gods blessing marks the conclusion of the fth day.
1:2431 Day six begins as usual with Gods spoken command and rep-
resents a continuation of his earlier collaborative eort with the earth.
Whereas on day three God ordered the earth to produce self-sustaining
vegetation, on day six he charges it to bring forth additional types of
living beings ( ) according to species. These new types of
living beings include four-legged animals, reptiles, and wild animals. As
Wevers notes, LXX-Gs rendering of the MTs wild animal (nbnn) with
is unusual; more often it is rendered with (1993, 13). On
the one hand, is a more inclusive category that would include
(domesticated animals such as herds and cattle). However, it would
GENESIS 1:2023 & 1:2431 219
220 COMMENTARY
also include the wild animals and thus appears repetitive. Also seemingly
repetitive is the inclusion of reptiles on the sixth day. However, reptiles
can indeed come from land or sea.
As the waters do not bring forth living beings without Gods involve-
ment, neither does the earth. God must make the living beings he orders
the earth to bring forth. Whereas the earth was able to produce vegeta-
tion on its own, it seemingly lacks the power to bring forth living beings.
These living beings include the wild animals and reptiles noted above.
Yet here LXX-G reverts to the more common in place of .
Gods positive assessment of his work this time is in the plural, indicat-
ing that the living beings themselves were good. At this point, one would
expect Gods reproductive blessing on the animals he just had declared
good. However, the blessing is missing. One would also expect the days
work to conclude after the evaluation. However, day six continues the
work of day three; thus parallel to day three, God has more work to do.
Gods eighth and last work of creation is fraught with theological sig-
nicance. For the rst time, God acknowledges some being(s) outside
the natural world other than himself. Let us make () a human
according to our image and according to likeness. Such a surprising reve-
lation at this point in the account makes one ask whos us? Scholars and
theologians, clergy and laity, teacher and student all have attempted to
explain, or to explain away, just whom God is addressing. Westermann
(1984, 144145) oers a convenient summary of four of the main expla-
nations. The rst he discusses is that of the early Church Fathers, who
read us as an expression of the Trinity; however, he and others acknowl-
edge that as a dogmatic interpretation. The second explanation is that
us refers to God and his heavenly council. Not only Babylonian parallels,
but also other parts of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., 1 Kgs. 22:19, and through-
out the book of Job) support this theory. Westermann, however, rejects
this proposition as well: it is impossible that P either knew the idea of a
heavenly court or that he would abandon his insistence on the unique-
ness of Yahweh, besides whom there could be no other heavenly being
(1984, 145). Likewise, Westermann rejects the explanation that the plural
is used to avoid the idea of any immediate resemblance to God. Rather,
he concurs that the cohortative grammatical structure is merely a plural
of self-deliberation. Wevers agrees with Westermanns conclusions and
states that no great theological conclusion can be drawn from its use
(1993, 14). Inasmuch as LXX-G follows the MT, the translator seemingly
had no theological problem with the cohortative. Living in the pagan
cosmopolitan city of Alexandria, the translator had to have known other
cosmogonies that included heavenly councils. Presumably, he also would
insist on the uniqueness of Israels God. These two positions need not
be mutually exclusive. The very fact that God may have had a heavenly
council that did not challenge his power or authority would indeed make
this God unique.
As important as the subject of the cohortative verb, but not as debated,
is its object, namely . Nearly all commentators agree that the
Greek word , like its MT counterpart o, refers to humanity
in general. Both lack articulation, both refer to more than one being, and
both will eventually include both male and female. It is this third aspect
of that has generated signicant debate. See below. Yet, the
nal issue in the rst part of Gods last creative act, namely the man-
ner in which God and his cohort make has provided fodder for
theological reection on humankind and its relationship to God. What
does it mean that humans are made in Gods image and likeness? What
does this say about both humans and God? As Westermann rightly notes,
however, this intense interest does not derive from the Bible itself. With
the exception of Psalm 8, no other part of the Hebrew Bible concerns
itself with the issue. Rather, Westermann claims that the interest has
been conned almost exclusively to the area of church doctrine from Ire-
naeus to Karl Barth (1984, 148). After providing a summary of theologi-
cal opinions about humanity being made in Gods image (1984, 148158),
Westermann maintains that nearly all exegetes have missed the point by
presuming the text is focused on humanity and human nature. Rather, he
argues that the text is about the act itself, the process by which humans
are made. He concludes by stating that the uniqueness of human beings
consists in their being Gods counterparts. The relationship to God is not
something which is added to human existence; humans are created in
such a way that their very existence is intended to be their relationship
to God (1984, 158).
LXX-G has essentially the same text, with only minor dierences
(Wevers 1993, 1415). Ivan Golub examines those minor dierences:
omission of the pronominal sux our on the second noun, the addi-
tion of and () between image and likeness, and the change from
the Hebrew preposition as to the Greek preposition he translates in. He
concludes that these dierences actually represented good Greek usage
at the time and were therefore faithful renderings of the Hebrew text
(1988, 229232). The lack of dierences, therefore, suggests that the trans-
lator showed the same disinterest in the issue as did the Hebrew Bible
itself. However, the translators lack of interpretive tampering does not
GENESIS 1:2431 221
222 COMMENTARY
mean that he actually understood the manner of human creation in the
same way as the MT author(s). As an Alexandrian Jew inuenced by the
Platonic distinction between material and spiritual realities, the transla-
tor likely was aware that being made in Gods image () and like-
ness () (1:26a) could refer to spiritual qualities, such as being
holy, righteous, and wise (e.g., Theaetetus 176b). Several centuries later,
another Alexandrian Jew would further explain the distinction between
spiritual and material creation. According to Philo, it is not the human
body that is in Gods image. Rather the resemblance is spoken of with
reference to the most important part of the soul, namely, the mind: for
the mind which exists in each individual has been created after the like-
ness of that one mind which is in the universe as its primitive model
(Creation 69).
Despite the ambiguity associated with the nature of , its
function is clear. God declares that it is to rule over the animate beings
that God previously had made. As such, LXX-G parallels the ruling role
that humans are to have over the animate beings brought forth from the
waters and the earth with the same role assigned to the greater and lesser
luminaries that came into being from the heaven (vv. 1416). Using the
same word to represent the function of seems more appropriate
than the MTs :, i.e., have dominion. In MT Genesis, the word occurs
only here and in v. 28. However, in other places, n signies a harsh act,
e.g., treading the wine press in Joel 4:13 and subjugation in Num. 24:19.
Scholars concur that the word is associated with coercive royal power and
seems an odd choice in its present context. As a result, many attempt to
soften its severity and implications. See, for example, Sarna 1989, 1314
and Westermann 1984, 158160. Whether to harmonize with the role of
the luminaries or to clarify a dicult text, LXX-G improved on the MT.
LXX-G, however, does follow the MT in referring to those that
is to rule somewhat dierently than earlier in the story. Although the
phrases sh of the sea and birds of the heaven replace more specic
descriptions of some of the animate beings, both MT and LXX-G refer
explicitly to domesticated animals and reptiles. Both also state that
humankind is to rule over all the earth ( /n:on), a
category that seems out of place among the animate beings. Later, how-
ever, God will explicitly include the earth under human authority.
Acting without the help of any others who might have been included
in his earlier cohortative, God made the () in accordance
with one, not both, of the two features he previously had stipulated.
The slight dierences between Gods declarative words and the narra-
tive fulllment of his words are not unusual. Both follow the MT and
neither is especially troubling. Commentators, including Sarna (1989, 12)
and Wevers (1993, 14), agree that the two characteristics, namely being
in Gods image and in Gods likeness, are almost identical in meaning.
LXX-Gs omission in v. 27 of one of MTs two in his image phrases loses
some of the poetic character of the MT, but does not change what is being
narrated. Finally, although both and on refer semantically
to generic humanity, grammatically they are masculine singular. Thus,
the pronominal object of make/create (/n) must be masculine
singular (/:n), despite the unfortunate implication that generic
is equivalent to male.
The narration of Gods nal creative act, however, continues with an
especially curious and grammatically awkward statement that further
denes the human. Both MT and LXX-G acknowledge that the human that
God makes according to his image is male and female ( ).
While this leads to speculation about both human and divine sexuality,
most of the discussion rightly focuses on human sexuality and implica-
tions of sexual equality. For example, Johannes C. de Moor, citing a 1909
article by Friedrich Schwally, argues that the original human was androg-
ynous. He also notes a passage in Genesis Rabbah (8:1) that describes the
original human man and woman essentially as Siamese twins who were
connected to each other along their backs. When God split them apart,
the two individuals then craved to be reunited. Plato, in his Symposium,
presents a similar idea. The original androgynous human shared a back
and had four hands, two faces, and one neck until Zeus split them in two.
As in Genesis Rabbah, the two then longed for each other and sexual desire
was born (1998, 119121).
Many others commentators discount the idea of original androgyny
but agree that having both the male and female human created in Gods
image at the same time attests to sexual equality (e.g., Phyllis Trible
[1978, 18], Sarna [1989, 13]; but cf. Helen Schngel-Strauman who main-
tains that popular Hellenistic philosophers would only consider the male
as [1993, 61]). The sudden change to a plural pronominal object
(), from the masculine singular, adds yet another question to these
verses about human creation. Trible maintains that this shift shows
that the human is not one single creature who is both male and female
but rather two creatures, one male and one female (1978, 18). In other
words, /on is not androgynous. A Platonic reading likely
GENESIS 1:2431 223
224 COMMENTARY
would ignore sexuality and instead consider the human made in 1:2628
to be an archetype whose material forms emerge in chapter 2 (William
Loader 2004, 30).
Gods second blessing, like his rst, relates to fertility. As God com-
manded the animate beings from the water and the heaven, so he now
commands the human beings to increase and multiply and ll the
earth. However, God demands more from human beings. They are also to
exercise dominion over it. Although human authority over the earth was
implied earlier, now God makes this responsibility explicit. LXX-Gs ren-
dering of the MTs subdue (cno) with literally to lord
over seems appropriate for a being made in Gods image. Yet, the image
of the divine that the word connotes is one of controlling authority and
dominion, rather than the more benevolent notion of caretaker. Writ-
ten and translated before any ideas of environmental consciousness, the
concept of human dominion over the earth would likely be understood in
a way parallel to its rule over the animals (see above), an order that God
now demands directly from the human.
God continues to address the human, but not with another command.
For the rst time, God does something other than make something or
make demands of something. God tells the human that he has provided
it with food. LXX-Gs use of the perfect form (I have given) of the verb
is appropriate; Gods gift will have continuing eects. Best char-
acterized as a vegetarian diet, what the human is to eat includes herbage
and fruit from trees, both of which, as characterized above, contain seeds
for continued reproduction. God provides a similar, but not identical, diet
for the other animate beings; they are to have , literally
herbage of green for food, presumably referring to grass. Rather than
eating animals, humans are to share vegetation with animals.
Day six is marked by a considerable amount of signicant activity. Yet,
what is missing is also signicant. God does not include a separate repro-
ductive blessing on the animate beings brought forth from the earth. He
declares them good, but goes no further. Westermann argues that Gods
blessing in v. 28 is eective for all living creatures, for everything that
is (1984, 160). However, it is unlikely that they were included in Gods
blessing of the human being, especially in the MT, where the phrase
and he (God) said to them (on:) implies that God is addressing only the
. LXX-G does not include to them. As such, the only dierence
between Gods address to the water creatures and to the human beings is
the gender of the object pronoun, neuter plural in v. 22 () and mas-
culine/common plural in v. 28 (). Thus, the parallel between water
animals and human beings is more striking in LXX-G. Both receive Gods
fertility blessing and both are ordered to ll their environmental habi-
tat. In fact, it might be that the common habitat is the reason that the
earth animals do not receive Gods blessing. In Sarnas words, whereas
the natural habitat of sh and fowl allows for their proliferation without
encroaching adversely upon mans environment, the proliferation of ani-
mals, especially the wild variety, constitutes a menace, an idea reected
in both Exod. 23:29 and Lev. 26:22 (1989, 11).
The other omission in day six, while not negating human superiority
over other creatures, nevertheless addresses the superiority that some
humans claim over others. All other creatures brought forth from earth
and water, including both plant and animate beings, are made according
to species. Humans are not; instead they are made in Gods image. There
is only one human species, distinguished only by male and female. This,
as Sarna and others suggest, leads to the recognition of the unity of the
human race, notwithstanding the innite diversity of human culture
(1989, 13).
After a busy sixth day, God surveys all the things, whatsoever he made
( ) and declares that it is not just good, but very good.
2:13 The second chapter begins with a statement that declares the
heaven and the earth and all their order () were completed. Lack-
ing both the martial imagery and the heavenly orientation associated
with the MTs host (nv), the Greek word retains the idea of an
ordered array of elements. Because can also mean adornment
and embellishment, its use here could imply the nely tuned magni-
cence of the created universe. To insure that the universe is not credited
with its own completion, God is quickly identied as the one responsible.
Then to insure consistency with the account of creation that concludes
with the end of day six, LXX-G departs from the MT by reporting that God
completed his works on the sixth day and then stopped working on the
seventh day. The wordplay in the MT between Gods resting (nnc) on the
seventh day and the later designation of the seventh day as Sabbath can-
not be duplicated in LXX-G. Nevertheless, the Greek verb
has the same connotation; when used intransitively, it means to leave
o or to cease. As Karen Jobes and Moiss Silva opine, the importance
of this verse for Sabbath-keeping likely caused the LXX-G translator to
avoid any implication that God may have done some work on the seventh
day (2000, 98). Thus the translator sacriced the accuracy of the transla-
tion for the importance of the tradition.
GENESIS 1:2431 & 2:13 225
226 COMMENTARY
The days signicance, however, is attested when God is said to bless
and sanctify the seventh day. Unlike Gods rst two blessings, his words
are not recorded. Neither does this blessing relate to fertility or produc-
tivity because God stops working (but, cf. Westermann [1984, 172] who
maintains that the seventh day can be understood abstractly as fruitful
for human existence). Not only does God bless the seventh day, but he
also declares it holy (). Derived from the earlier Greek verb
(to hallow or make sacred, as in a sacrice [LSJ 1968, 9]), the form found
here and throughout the Greek scriptures () has the same basic
meaning. However, it also signies the notion of being separate, or set
apart, from the ordinary that is the root meaning of the Hebrew cp. As
separation was a key aspect of Gods work during the rst two days, it is
the primary feature associated with the seventh day in which God stops
the work that, per LXX-G, God began to do. By rendering the Hebrew from
all his work that God created to do (n:c: on: nc :no:b:ob)
with , LXX-G claries a Hebrew text fraught with dif-
culty (Sarna 1989, 15) and forms an inclusio with 1:1, where God makes
(using the aorist of the verb ) in the beginning (using the noun
derived from the middle form of the verb ). In so doing, LXX-G
denotes 2:3 as the end of the rst account of creation. What follows, Rsel
argues, is an account of the material aspect of the ideal forms that God
previously had made (1994, 30). The Platonic reading of Genesis 12 that
Rsel discerns results in a closer connection between the creation narra-
tives in the rst two chapters of Genesis. Cook similarly comments that
the unusual rendering of the Hebrew verb create (n) with the Greek
began () could reect the translators attempt to avoid the pos-
sible misunderstanding that God is creating again (1987, 109110).
2:47 Because v. 3 of LXX-G marked the conclusion of the rst account
of creation, the conclusion in the MT version functions as a superscrip-
tion in LXX-G (Wevers 1993, 22). Both here and in 5:1, LXX-G uses the
phrase this is the book of the origin of to introduce what follows. Here it
introduces another account of the origin of heaven and earth. However,
this second version does not duplicate the rst; rather it provides more,
and sometimes diering, details about particular aspects of Gods earlier
work. It also begins on the day when Lord God made the heaven and the
earth. ALEX imitates the MT in its use of , i.e., Lord God. As
is the case with the MTs n:n, LXX-G uses as the proper name for
Israels God. Rarely occurring with the denite article in ALEX, is
best rendered without the, as any proper name. Unlike the MT, ALEX and
other LXX manuscripts do not consistently use the proper name for Isra-
els God throughout the second creation narrative. This makes the MTs
typical distinction between the transcendent God of Genesis 1 and the
personal and relational God of Genesis 2 more dicult. However, it also
implies that the LXX-G translator either did not see the distinction or
preferred not to make the distinction. God is God, whether Gods proper
name is used or not.
The second account goes back to a time before the greening of the elds
of the earth. However, instead of describing the events associated with
that time or with the earths greening, the story continues by noting the
two reasons that the earth had not been greened. Not only had God not
sent the rain that would cause the elds to green, but also no human was
there to take care of the elds. That was about to change. Instead of rain
coming down from the heaven, springs of water were coming up from the
earth. With one condition met, God acts on the second. However, both the
manner in which God brings the human into being and the substance of
the human dier from the earlier account. Instead of making () the
human according to his own image ( ), God forms ()
the human of dust of the earth. As commentators point out, the motif of
a deity forming or molding a human being from earth or clay is found in
origin stories of many other cultures including those of Mesopotamia,
Egypt, and Greece (Westermann 1984, 203205; Sarna 1989, 17).
In its biblical context, the idea that God forms the human oers a con-
trasting portrait of God from that of the rst creation story. There God
creates by word and deed, but appears removed from what he is creating.
This transcendent God of Genesis 1 is powerful and insightful: what he
does is never questioned, is always good, and sets in motion a creative
process that will continue. Here God gets his hands dirty, so to speak. He
is actively involved in the process of human creation and is physically
connected to both the human and the earth. Gone is the ambiguity asso-
ciated with human nature and human substance. Instead of an imagistic
relationship to God, the human is literally related to and part of the earth.
The wordplay of the Hebrew text beautifully represents the integral rela-
tionship of on (human/earth creature) and nbn (humus/earth).
Although LXX-G cannot duplicate the wordplay, it nevertheless makes
the interconnected nature of human and earth clear. God, however, is not
nished. To dierentiate the human from the humus, God breathes into
the humans face the breath of life so that it becomes an animate being
( ). Surprisingly, the human that God made in his image in
the previous chapter never was referred to as an animate being; only
GENESIS 2:47 227
228 COMMENTARY
the water and land animals were so designated. Furthermore, there was
nothing that indicated what made these animals animate beings. Now, an
animate being appears to be one that breathes.
2:817 With a source of water and a human to care for the earth, Lord
God once again involves himself physically with his creation by planting
a garden (). A Persian word brought into the Greek language
by Xenophon, referred to a closed area such as a garden or
park. However, its use in LXX-G 2:8 as Gods garden caused the word to
be associated almost entirely with the Garden of Eden and later referred
to Paradise, a heavenly dwelling place for the righteous. God plants his
in Edem, a place known only by its eastward orientation, and
there he places the human he formed. With water and worker in place
and the garden planted, God makes trees again spring up from the earth.
Two dierences between the MT and LXX show LXX-Gs interpretive air
and its tendency to reconcile this creation narrative with the earlier one.
The addition of again () allows LXX-G to acknowledge that the earth
had already produced a tree (1:12). This addition, per Cook, only reects
LXX-Gs tendency for internal harmonization. He goes on to argue that,
contra Philo and Rsel, the addition does not function as a reference back
to the creation of the ideal world in Chapter 1 (1998, 179180). The sec-
ond dierence is LXX-Gs use of , the compound form of the
verb that earlier described the eld before water and worker
allowed for plant growth. The compound verb suggests that God makes
these trees not just grow, but grow quickly. Because most trees do not
spring up, LXX-G implies the exceptional nature of both the trees and
their gardener.
These exceptional trees are further characterized as ripe in appear-
ance ( ) and good for food. They, in other words, show
Gods concern for beauty, quality, and practicality. Yet LXX-Gs has
a slightly dierent connotation than the MTs b:, i.e., desirable or
pleasurable, here with regard to appearance (nb:). The Greek
means timely, seasonable, or ripe. While both words imply a beauti-
ful appearance, ripe also denotes a quality of readiness or maturity, and
thus is a tting condition for watered trees that are ready to produce good
food. Of all the trees that have these qualities, two particular ones receive
additional comment for their unique and more abstract features. One, the
tree of life, is dened by its location in the middle of the garden. Despite
the seeming priority of this tree and its association with the motif about
the human quest for immortality, the tree of life is mentioned again only
at the end of the garden story. It is the other tree, ironically described
as the tree of knowing but about which little is known, that plays a sig-
nicant role in the narrative. LXX-G expands on the MTs description of
this tree. Rather than merely referring to it as the tree of knowledge,
LXX-G characterizes it rather awkwardly as the tree of knowing what is
to be known of good and evil (
). Yet, it neither claries what is meant by knowing (compre-
hension, recognition, or general knowledge) nor what is included in the
phrase good and evil. Some interpret this knowledge as sexuality; some
understand it as knowledge of morality in general; others consider good
and evil to be a merism that refers to all types of knowledge (Sarna 1989,
19). When examined in connection with the events that unfold in the nar-
rative, the third option is most viable.
Before any events take place, however, the story takes an unexpected
geographic detour and focuses on a river that ows out from Edem. Pre-
sumably an extension of the earths spring, this river provides water to
the garden. Even more signicant, the river divides into four heads or
branches that likely signify the four ends of the earth. However, of the
four named branches, only the Tigris and the Euphrates are well known.
This can be attributed, in part, to LXX-Gs modernizing of geographical
place names; the MTs :p is updated to the Tigris and its nc to the
Euphrates (Olofsson 1996, 206). One river, the Geon, is said to surround
Ethiopia, LXX-Gs updated name for the MTs Cush. Pheison, the rst
river actually named and described, is completely unknown, as is the land
(Eueilat) it is said to surround. Ironically, this unknown land is the only
one that is further described. Per LXX-G, the land has gold, coal, and stone
that is leek-colored or light green. Whether the last two items correspond
with those in the MT is debatable, especially because the meanings of
the Hebrew terms themselves are unclear. The ambiguity associated with
these four rivers and their peculiar interruption of the narrative suggests
that the specic geographic details are not important to the story. In fact,
the confusion could be intentional. People are not meant to return to the
garden, so its precise location is unclear. However, what can be inferred is
its relative location as the presumed base or beginning of the world and
the ultimate source of life-sustaining water that ows from it.
After the brief digression that establishes the centrality of the garden
and its rivers, the story resumes where it left o. Its repetition of Lord
Gods earlier act of placing the human in the garden brings the focus
back to these two characters. It also repeats that the human is to work
the garden and then adds that the human is also to keep ()
GENESIS 2:817 229
230 COMMENTARY
the garden. The Greek verb , like its MT counterpart bc, can
mean to watch, keep, guard, or defend. Although all these meanings
refer to care taking of some sort, the degree of such care diers. Guarding
or defending something implies that it is at risk or in more danger than
something that is watched or kept. Literary context helps determine the
type of care taking involved. Because the garden and its trees are not at
risk, the human is merely to maintain them or keep them doing what God
intended. This is conrmed by the command that Lord God addresses, per
LXX-G, to Adam (). At this point, LXX-G no longer uses the generic
to refer to the human. Rather, moving beyond strict translation
to interpretation, LXX-G disregards the MTs articulation of the human
(on), treats the word as the humans proper name, and continues to
do so in most of the rest of the story. Even in places where appears
with the article (), the capitalization of in ALEX and other editions
of LXX-G indicates its use as a proper name. This contrasts with the MT
where the word o throughout the rst three chapters of Genesis is
never considered a proper name. Although some occurrences of o are
preceded with a lamed preposition in Genesis 2 and 3 and thus could have
denoted a proper name in an unvocalized Hebrew text, it is not until 4:25
that the MT indisputably uses the unarticulated o as the male humans
proper name (Hess 1990, 13). Despite LXX-Gs personalizing (Wevers
1993, 30) the story by referring to the human by name, it does not mean
that Adam is now biologically male. As Trible contends, the human/Adam
remains sexually undierentiated until 2:23 when God performs radical
surgery that results in two creatures (1978, 98).
The rst words Lord God speaks show his concern for and his limita-
tion of Adam. That Adam may eat from every tree in the garden implies
access to food without any restrictions. This highlighting of his ability
to eat freely is evident in the MT, where the Hebrew grammatical form
(i.e., an innitive used with its corresponding cognate verb) emphasizes
the verbal idea. Adam is told that he may really or freely eat (:on :o).
Lacking a corresponding grammatical form, LXX-G attempts to represent
verbal emphasis in several other ways. One of them, as Wevers describes,
is to use a semantically related but non-cognate dative noun (1993, 30);
in this case, the noun food () is related to the verb eat ().
Adams ability to eat freely, however, is never Gods intent. God imme-
diately declares one tree the tree of the knowing of good and evil o
limits. He, however, does not tell Adam how to identify that particular
tree or why that particular tree is restricted. The only thing that God tells
Adam is the consequence of eating from it, namely death. The certainty
of death is again emphasized in the MT by the innitive and cognate con-
struction; God declares to Adam that you will surely die (n:bn n:b).
Here, LXX-G represents verbal emphasis by using a cognate dative noun
death () of the verb die ().
Although LXX-G succeeded in replicating MTs emphatic construc-
tion in Gods command and its consequence, it departed from the MT by
changing the verbs from second person singular to second person plu-
ral in the prohibition and its consequence. This is especially odd because
Gods positive command retains MTs second person singular, i.e., you
will eat (). However, Gods prohibition appears in the second per-
son plural ( ), as it does in the protasis () and apodosis
() of the consequential circumstantial clause. Once again,
LXX-G shows its tendency to interpret the MT in order to address per-
ceived problems, be they grammatical, logical, theological, or ideological.
Here the switch from singular to plural, Wevers speculates, foreshadows
what the translator knows will occur; more than one person will eat what
is prohibited and more than one person will be at risk for the conse-
quential death (1993, 30). Although a plausible explanation, it does not
account for LXX-Gs retention of the second person singular in the previ-
ous verse. Surely more than one person also would be permitted to eat
from the trees of the garden (v. 16b). Thus, it appears that LXX-G noticed
and sought to resolve some conicts, but not others.
2:1824 Getting no response from Adam, Lord God now addresses his
divine council and acknowledges the rst aspect of his created world that
is not good, namely the humans being alone. LXX-G here follows the MT
by reverting to the generic , thus indicating that humans in
general, not Adam in particular, need companionship. Yet LXX-G deviates
from MT in its use of the plural cohortative let us make (),
instead of I will make (nc). As earlier (1:26), Gods summoning of
the divine council does not detract from Gods singular authority; God is
again the only one who acts on his proposal. What God proposes to do to
resolve the problem of the humans solitude is to make for him a helper
according to him ( ). Here LXX-G does
not attempt to interpret the Hebrew phrase a helper corresponding to
him (:::o ), but instead renders it literally. The Greek word ,
meaning helper or assistant, is an apt translation of the Hebrew ,
and the phrase corresponds to its Hebrew counterpart :::o.
GENESIS 2:817 & 2:1824 231
232 COMMENTARY
However, exactly what is meant by helper and according to or corre-
sponding to him has provoked considerable debate, due in part by the
fact that this phrase is how God describes what will become Woman.
The assumption that one who helps or assists is inferior to the one
being helped has caused some to regard the Woman, and thus women in
general, as inferior. To correct this misinterpretation, many scholars have
pointed out that the Hebrew word is used more often in connection
with Gods act of helping (e.g., Exod. 18:4; Deut. 33:7; and Ps. 121:12) than
with inferiors helping superiors. Therefore, instead of translating as
helper in this verse, several prefer other options, including companion
(Trible 1978, 90) and sustainer (Alter 1996, 9), which better reect the
actual usage of . However, as David J. A. Clines points out, the superi-
ority or inferiority of a helper, biblical or not, depends entirely on other
factors, extrinsic to the relationship constituted by the act of helping
(1990, 32). He goes on to acknowledge that the early Church Fathers were
right; the only help Eve oers in the context of this story is the ability
to procreate. Whether men and women oer biologically equal roles in
the procreative process is no longer debated. However, ancient opinions
diered. Therefore, being a helper can be interpreted as positive, nega-
tive, or neutral.
The ambiguity associated with the role of helper also applies to the
phrase :::o that characterizes the helper. When translated as corre-
sponding to him, the phrase implies some degree of equality. However,
the Hebrew preposition :: literally means in front of or opposite of
and therefore can be used in contexts that refer to hostility, as well as
to equality or neutrality. A similar argument can be made for the Greek
preposition used with an accusative. The same preposition was used
earlier with reference to the ability of plants and animals to reproduce
according to species ( ), as well as the similarity in likeness
and image to God ( . . . ) in which the human
being is made. An interpretation of that parallels its use in ref-
erence to the continuation of species gives more credence to the notion
that what God wants to make for Adam is a procreative partner. How-
ever, an interpretation that parallels the relationship between God and
human could imply that the obvious status dierences between human
and divine are likewise built into the relationship between Adam and
the . Such interpretations are not mutually exclusive;
rather they may be mutually supportive. The helper that God proposes to
make for Adam will enable reproduction; this helper will also be seen as
derivative from and thus inferior to Adam.
In his rst attempt to make a for Adam, God goes
back to the earth from which he forms wild animals and birds. Thus,
these creatures come from the same substance and could be thought of
as corresponding to Adam. Acting on this assumption, God then brings
them to Adam for naming. In so doing, God confers on Adam the same
kind of power or dominance that God had over everything that he named.
Adams authority is conrmed when God does not challenge the names
that Adam gives each animate being ( ). Using this phrase
to refer to the animals reinforces the notion that one of them might be
a for Adam. They come from the same material sub-
stance and are breathing creatures like Adam. However, no helper like
him was found for Adam. The use of the passive was found ()
makes it impossible to determine who decided that none of the animals
were suitable. LXX-G compounds the vagueness associated with the func-
tion of the helper by changing its description from to
. Unlike , which has a wide range of meanings, means
simply like or of the same nature. However, the meaning of the phrase
itself is no more clear. Neither corresponding to nor being of the same
nature provides a lucid understanding of the type of companion that will
remedy Adams solitude. Yet, the use of echoes more overtly the
creation of the human in Gods likeness (). What results, per
Loader, is a chain of being in which as the man is in the image of God, so
the woman is in the image of man and her role as helper is now read as
the role of a subordinate (2004, 57).
God, however, has another plan to provide the tting companion.
This time, the method that God uses is quite dierent from the way he
formed Adam and the other animate beings. First, God casts a trance
() on Adam, an action that causes Adam to fall asleep. God then
performs a surgical procedure on Adam to remove one of his ribs. After
lling the empty place with esh, God built () a woman from
the rib he took from Adam. In its other occurrences in Genesis, the word
is used with reference to major building projects such as cit-
ies (4:17; 10:11) and the Tower of Babel (11:4, 5, 8). However, it is used
most often with reference to altars (e.g., 8:20; 12:7; and 26:25). Thus, the
procedure that God uses to produce a helper for Adam appears not only to
be more elaborate but also to be undertaken with reverence for what he
was building. After nishing the woman, God brings her to Adam. Awak-
ing from his trance, Adam speaks his rst words and declares his satis-
faction with Gods latest creation. This one, Adam says, is bone from my
bones and esh from my esh. In so doing, Adam gets it partly right. The
GENESIS 2:1824 233
234 COMMENTARY
woman did come from one of his bones, but there is no indication that
God took any of the esh he used to ll the place of the removed rib. What
is more signicant than Adams understanding of Gods procedure is his
understanding of what God meant by a helper corresponding to or like
him. To Adam, the fact that this new creature had esh and bone like his
made her the appropriate companion. Without any prompting from God,
Adam calls her Woman. To distinguish this act of naming from his earlier
ones of naming the animals, Adam explains the reason for her name. She
will be called Woman, because she was taken from her man. Although
LXX-G cannot duplicate the wordplay in the Hebrew text (woman [nc]
from man [c]), it nevertheless expresses their literal and physical com-
monality. However, without the wordplay, the womans derivative nature
seems more apparent. Furthermore, LXX-Gs addition of the pronominal
adjective her as a modier of the noun man ( ) par-
ticularizes the more universal pronouncement in the MT. Woman was not
just taken from any man, but from her man. As such, LXX-G implies that
the Woman is beholden to a particular man. Nevertheless, LXX-Gs repre-
sentation of woman is better than the characteristics associated with rst
females in Greek mythology. For example, as Jan Bremmer describes (2000,
2022), Hesiod reports that Zeus made an evil for men (Theogony 570)
that Athena adorned with lavish clothing and led to the place of the other
gods and mortals. Like Adam, the deathless gods and the mortal men
were astounded by wonder. Unlike Adam, what they saw was sheer guile,
not to be withstood by men (Theogony 589), rather than a corresponding
helper.
The interconnected nature of man and woman links the preceding
story to what most consider an editorial and etiological interruption of
the narrative. On account of the divine surgery by which Lord God took
woman from man, LXX-G declares a human will leave behind his father
and mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will be one esh
(2:24). As before, the dierences between LXX-G and MT are notable.
The MT, having just distinguished between man and woman in v. 23,
continues with the same language in v. 24. It is the man (c) who will
leave his parents and join with his woman/wife (nc). LXX-G, however,
refers to Adam, not with the newly introduced term man (), but
with the generic term meaning human (). The use of
provides one more indication that LXX-G implies more strongly than
the MT that man represents generic humanity and woman is secondary.
Both MT and LXX-G, however, refer to the (hu)mans partner with a word
(nc/) that can mean either woman or wife. The assumption
that this verse refers to sexual union (i.e., the two, per LXX-G, become
one esh) that is associated with marriage leads nearly everyone to ren-
der nc/ as wife. Thus, LXX-G doubly relegates woman to sec-
ond-class status. Not only is human equivalent to man, but woman has
no role other than that of being a wife. Finally, by referring to the man
and woman as the two ( ) becoming one esh (cf. MTs they [:n]),
LXX-G alludes to the restoration of the original unity of the one human
(). As such, its rendering could support the Platonic idea of orig-
inal androgyny.
Although many assume that the awkward insertion of v. 24 into the nar-
rative anachronistically refers to the institution of marriage, others are
skeptical and maintain that a man would not leave his parents in a soci-
ety, like ancient Israels, characterized by patriarchal and patrilocal mari-
tal patterns. Bernard Batto acknowledges the controversy and comments
on several alternative explanations proposed by prominent scholars. He
cites Gunkels rejection of the texts presumed armation of monoga-
mous marriage and Gunkels counterargument that what the verse
arms is the mutual sexual attraction that drives the man and woman
to become one again. Similarly, von Rad maintains that 2:24 refers to a
strong sexual drive between the sexes, while Westermann goes further by
claiming that the verse refers to the entire relationship between a man
and a women. See the discussion in Batto 2000, 621623. Batto himself,
however, follows Angelo Tosato (1990, 389409) by arguing that the ear-
lier assumption that the verse refers to marriage is indeed correct. Based
on the similarity in structure and themes between the Genesis account
and the comparable section of the myth of Atrahasis, Batto concludes that
the Yahwist followed Atrahasis in portraying the institution of marriage
as part of the design of creation. Unlike Atrahasis that links marriage and
procreation closely as if to suggest the primary function of marriage
is procreation, the Yahwist seems to distance marriage somewhat from
procreation. For the Yahwist, the communitarian, aective function of
marriage takes precedence over the procreative function of marriage
(2000, 631). Tosato arrives at the same conclusion by dierent means.
Combining a detailed literary analysis of the Hebrew text with text criti-
cal evidence from LXX-G, Tosato argues that the dierences in LXX-G
(see above) were glosses added to the original Hebrew text during the
Persian period in order to explain and justify new marriage legislation
that was generically antipolygamous and implicitly antidivorce (Lev.
18:18; cf. Mal. 2:1316), and perhaps also the new restrictive norms in the
area of incestuous and mixed marriages (1990, 409). Wevers suspicion
GENESIS 2:1824 235
236 COMMENTARY
that LXX-Gs use of in v. 24 is to emphasize that this (i.e., leav-
ing of father and mother) is a general rule for mankind (1993, 35) also
lends support for the traditional reading of the verse as institutionalizing
marriage. Regardless of the original authorial intent of the Hebrew text,
LXX-G seems to imply a more subservient role for the woman and rein-
force the (re)union of the two.
3:17 Despite the fact that the rst sentence in 3:1 concludes the sec-
ond chapter in the MT, the oldest Greek sources attach it to the garden
story (Wevers 1993, 36). That both Adam and his woman were naked, but
not ashamed, is a tting prelude to the story that follows in which both
nakedness and shame will signify the couples maturity. At this point,
both are childlike in their innocence; they are unaware of social restric-
tions and the fact that actions have consequences. The childlike woman
and man are not yet wife and husband until later in the story. To get
them on their journey from innocence to maturity, a new character, a
talking snake, is introduced to the story. Per LXX-G, the snake () is
the wisest () of all the wild animals that God made on the
earth. This characterization is more favorable than its MT counterpart
that describes the snake somewhat derogatorily as shrewd or cunning
(o::), a word likely used as much for its wordplay with the depiction
of the couple as naked (ob:) as with its portrayal of the snakes wit.
LXX-G also expands the snakes superiority over not just the wild animals
of the eld (ncn n), but the wild animals of all the earth (
). Whether or not the snake is represented favorably in the
story, its reputation in the world outside the story makes it an intrigu-
ing character. Although some snakes have venomous bites that can cause
death, they were not considered the personication of evil or identied
with the devil until the rst century B.C.E. in the Wisdom of Solomon
(2:24). Its ability to periodically slough o its skin made it a symbol of
youthfulness and life and was often worshipped for its divine or semidi-
vine qualities of regeneration and fertility (Sarna 1989, 24). However, it is
the snakes mysterious nature and its mental agility that are central to its
role in the garden.
The rst clue of the snakes extraordinary nature is its ability to talk.
It asks the woman a trick question, the answer to which the woman does
not and cannot address. In fact, the snake asks an even more dicult
question in LXX-G. It does not question if God said not to eat from every
tree in the garden, but why God said it. The woman begins by telling the
snake what their instructions were, namely that they could eat, per ALEX,
from every (; cf. in other Greek manuscripts) tree of the
garden. But, she goes on to say, God made one exception. They were not
to eat from, nor even touch, the fruit of the tree in the middle of the gar-
den. Grammatically speaking, the subjunctive prohibition against touch-
ing () the tree is even more forceful than the indicative command
not to eat () from it. The woman, of course, was not correct. It
was not the tree described earlier as being in the middle of the garden
(2:9), i.e., the tree of life that earlier God declared o limits, but rather
the tree of the knowing of good and evil. Furthermore, God said nothing
about touching it. This naturally raises the question of the source of the
womans information. Was she even there when God prohibited Adam
from eating of that particular tree? Does LXX-Gs change from second
person singular when God gave permission to eat from every tree in the
garden (2:16) to second person plural when God prohibited eating from
the tree of knowing (2:17) imply the womans not-yet-built presence? If
she was not literally present, did Adam tell her Gods instructions? Did
he get them correct, or did she misunderstand? She comes closer to cor-
rectly reporting the deadly consequence of eating from the prohibited
tree. Although she uses the emphatic form to state what God did not pro-
hibit, she does not emphasize the certainty of death as God did earlier.
Furthermore, she does not even attempt to explain why God made the
limitation he did.
Using one form of the verb and cognate noun construction that God
used earlier, the snake responds by emphatically contradicting Gods
threat of certain death. It then proceeds to answer its own question about
Gods motives by commenting on Gods past knowledge of the couples
future knowledge. LXX-Gs reading of the unvocalized Hebrew as a
perfect verb instead of a participle and rendering it as a pluperfect moves
Gods act of knowing into the past and thus implies that God knew when
he made the prohibition that eating would make the two like gods. There-
fore, the snake is accusing God of making the prohibition to protect the
divine prerogative of knowing good and evil. Reading the MTs verb as a
participle ( c ), however, shifts Gods knowledge of the couples fate to
the present and does not imply as self-centered a motive. Rather, Gods
knowing in the MT represents his omniscience more than his jealous pro-
tectionism. The snake, despite its wise or shrewd nature, does not point
out the womans mistakes. It is more concerned with contradicting God,
than with correcting a human.
GENESIS 3:17 237
238 COMMENTARY
The woman acknowledges Gods creative abilities by seeing, or realiz-
ing, that the tree provides both food and beauty (2:9) and integrates what
the snake told her about its cerebral features. However, what God had
earlier designed for its ripeness was its visual appeal; the woman associ-
ates ripeness () with understanding () and declares
its beauty pleasing (). As discussed above, the notion of ripeness
implies functionality as well as desirability. What the woman perceives
the tree as ripe for, or ready to provide, is understanding. Neither the
MT nor LXX-G describe the tree as providing knowledge per se. Instead
both use verbs that imply understanding, consideration, and reection.
As such, what the woman sees attractive about the tree is not its abil-
ity to make her like gods, but its readiness to give her understanding or
comprehension.
After seeing the trees good qualities, she takes its fruit and eats. Show-
ing no desire to keep it to herself, she gives some to her husband and,
per LXX-G, they both eat (). If there is a question about whether
the woman was privy to Gods prohibition, there is no question about
Adams presence when God spoke. Furthermore, there is no indication
that the woman did anything to tempt Adam or to lure him into doing
something that he should have known was prohibited. He was there with
her when she ate and could have stopped her from disobeying Gods com-
mand. More importantly, he could have refused to eat the fruit she gave
him. However, in Adams defense, he may have been confused about the
location and designation of the two special trees. The narrative indicates
that the tree of life was in the middle of the garden (2:9), yet the tree from
which God prohibited Adam from eating was the tree of knowing (2:17).
Here again, who knew what and when did they know it is important. Did
Adam know which of the two trees was o limits? Did God point out the
dierence between the forbidden tree and the one in the middle of the
garden that he did not mention? Did Adam assume the forbidden tree was
the one in the middle of the garden and relay that to the women? Is this
why she identied the prohibited tree as the one in the middle? Finally,
did she eat from the tree in the middle, as the narrative implies? Or did
she eat from the tree of knowing, as the immediate consequences of the
act indicate?
What can be said with certainty is that the snakes predictions, at least
initially, are correct; they do not die and their eyes are opened. Less cer-
tain is what they know and achieve as a result of their newly opened eyes.
Whereas the snake said they would become like gods, knowing good and
evil, what the two are said to know after eating is their nakedness. What
their nakedness signies is not stated explicitly. However, the way the
two respond to their nakedness by clothing themselves suggests that
they have begun to experience the shame that their nakedness did not
trigger before they ate. They have lost their original innocence and have
begun to realize that actions have consequences. Although they have just
begun the process of human emotional and social development, they have
acquired the basic skills for adjusting to their changed circumstances.
They sew together g leaves and make themselves aprons (),
i.e., girdles around the loins (LSJ 1968, 1374). In so doing, they nd an
additional use for the trees in the garden and become aware that their
loins are what they need to cover to counter their nakedness.
3:821 When the two hear Lord God walking around in the middle of
the trees of the garden, they hide themselves from him. Although more
signicant than a game of hide-and-seek, the couples action is not an
admission of guilt (contra Sarna 1989, 26). Rather, per Loader, the reason
they hid themselves from God was not to escape notice because they were
ashamed of their act, but to withdraw from the divine sight because they
were naked (2004, 44). Westermann, even more pointedly, acknowledges
that the couple are not repentant sinners caught in the act (1984, 253).
In other words, it is not evident that they have made an explicit con-
nection between Gods earlier prohibition against eating from the tree of
knowing and their resultant nakedness.
Lord God the parent gure seems at rst to go along with the game his
children are playing. He calls to Adam (by name in LXX-G) and asks him
where he is. The all-knowing and all-powerful God of Genesis 1 would
have had no need to ask such a question. He would immediately pro-
nounce the couple guilty and declare the consequences. That, however,
is not the method favored by the parent Lord God. In his more relational
role, God seems content to allow the couple to experience more growing
pains and to give them another lesson that will help them mature. Adam
responds to Gods question like a child who knows he has something to
hide. Rather than telling God where he is hiding, Adam tells God why he
was hiding. He is afraid because he is naked, not because he disobeyed.
That lesson was still to come. However, by admitting his nakedness, Adam
also inadvertently alerts parent Lord God to what he did. Again, parent
God does not leap to judgment and sentencing; rather he prolongs the
learning experience by asking several questions. First, rhetorically, God
asks who told you that you are naked? Knowing the answer, or non-
answer, to the question, God does not wait for Adams response. Instead,
GENESIS 3:17 & 3:821 239
240 COMMENTARY
God continues with a question, which unlike the MT, establishes a con-
nection between Adams eating and his nakedness. As Harl notes, LXXs
addition of unless ( ) between the two questions shows cause and
eect (1994, 109). Unless Adam had eaten from the one tree that God had
declared o limits, he would not have known he was naked. LXX-Gs addi-
tion of this one alone ( ) makes Adams disobedience even
more certain. Although Lord God still does not explicitly identify which
tree was restricted, his question leaves no doubt that Adam ate what was
prohibited.
Parent Lord Gods teaching strategy works. Adam realizes that what he
did was wrong. However, he still is not mature enough to accept respon-
sibility for his actions. Instead, he plays the blame game by rst iden-
tifying who is to blame, namely the woman and you (i.e., Lord God),
and then why. Ironically, he blames both of them for giving () him
something that should have been good for him Lord God for giving him
the woman who was the tting helper to overcome his solitude, and the
woman for giving him something to eat. It was only after shifting the
blame that Adam admits that he indeed ate.
Lord God then questions the woman. Like Adam, she shifts the blame;
unlike Adam, she blames only the snake that she claims tricked her. Her
response suggests that she has developed the ability not only to perceive
actions, but also the intentions behind actions. Lord God seems to accept
her explanation and does not bother to question the snake about its
actions or motives. Instead he immediately metes out the snakes punish-
ment, which in reality merely reects the conditions of a snakes envi-
ronment. However, in its mythical context, the snake is demoted from the
wisest of Gods creatures to the one among all the animals, both wild and
domesticated, that is accursed. Its curse, like the other punishments God
will pronounce, is two-fold; it addresses particular aspects of its life and
its relationship to other created beings (Sarna 1989, 27). For the snake, its
mode of locomotion presumably changes from walking upright to crawl-
ing on its breast and belly, a posture of abject humiliation (Sarna 1989,
27). Its diet, as a result of its lowly position, will be earth. Whereas ear-
lier the earth signied the interconnectedness of the natural and animal
worlds, it now reects one aspect of the brokenness of creation. Another
manifestation of the deterioration of the bond between Gods creatures
is the relationship of hostility () that God establishes between the
snake and the woman. Instead of dialogue between these two beings and
their ospring, there will be mutual antagonism and distrust.
Parent Lord God now addresses the woman and declares her future real-
ity. Unlike the snake, the woman is not cursed for what she did. In fact,
God does not even declare that her role in life is a response to any overt
act. Lacking the because you clause that precedes the punishment God
pronounces on the snake and Adam, the womans sentence nevertheless
is understood as the consequence of her reasoned decision to eat from
the tree. Like that of the snake, the rst part of the womans punishment
reects a condition of her life. In yet another way of rendering the MTs
emphatic construction, LXX-G uses a participle (multiplying/)
before the cognate nite verb (will multiply/). In other words,
God will greatly multiply the womans pain. As in the MT, the womans
punishment emphasizes the increase in the pain associated with child-
birth. However, instead of being promised more conceptions ((:n:), a
result whose benets of more children might, in some sense, ameliorate
the added pain, the LXX-G woman is sentenced to even more suering
().
The second or relational aspect of her sentence represents LXX-Gs
continued interpretive rendering. Unlike her MT counterpart who was
granted some compensatory conjugal desire ((np:cn) for her husband,
the LXX-G woman would experience only a turning () for her
husband, an action that could be understood as either a turning to or a
turning away. Although it is unlikely that with the preposition
would be interpreted as a turning away, the womans turning to her
husband does not connote sexual desire.
In his examination of the dierences in the LXX translation of Genesis
3:16, Von Roland Bergmeier rejects the possibility of a dierent Vorlage,
based on a comparison of the MT, LXX, Pseudo-Jonathan, and Jubilees. He
instead proposes that the translator might not have known the mean-
ing of (np:cn (desire) and might have mistaken its Targum equivalent
((nn:n) for a similar Aramaic form ((nn:n) whose Hebrew equiva-
lent was (nn:cn, i.e., return. The womans return to Adam was logical
in light of Genesis 2:2125, which narrated the original unity between
the two. Since the woman was taken from Adam, it was only natural to
assume she would want to return to him and their original unity. Berg-
meier goes on to argue that LXX-G of Genesis 3:16 provides an example
of how the Hellenistic translator, in attempting to determine the mean-
ing of an unknown abstract term (i.e., the womans desire) referred to an
earlier part of the story for a possible explanation, which also reected a
Hellenistic motif of the mythical desire for original unity (1967, 7779).
GENESIS 3:821 241
242 COMMENTARY
Whether she is turning or re-turning to her husband, the LXX-G
womans relationship to her husband is not overtly sexual. Neither is his
relationship to her. As in the MT, the husband in LXX-G will be superior
to her. Yet, by translating the Hebrew rule (:cb) with be lord over
(), LXX-G emphasizes his superior status, i.e., as her lord or
master, in addition to his functional role in the MT, i.e., to rule over her.
Whereas the Hebrew :cb occurs throughout Genesis with reference to
those in leadership positions (e.g., 24:2; 45:8), the Greek occurs
only here and in 37:8 where it parallels Josephs being king over his
brothers. Therefore, the husbands relationship to the woman in LXX-G is
certainly one of dominance in both status and function. Because both MT
and LXX represent the mans role as one of dominance, Gods declaration
of the husbands power over the woman has had signicant inuence in
dening and maintaining gender roles and has thus provoked consider-
able debate.
The traditional interpretation of Gods sentence understands the gen-
der roles imposed on the woman, i.e., the pains of childbirth, her desire
for her husband (per MT), and his domination over her, as the conse-
quences of disobedience. Von Rad, for example, describes these three
conditions as severe aictions and terrible contradictions that grind
down the womans life. He goes on to say that these sorrows and
degradation in the womans life should be understood as a prime-
val oense [that] receives its consequences, which faith recognizes as a
punishment inicted by God (1973, 94). Contra von Rad, Westermann
interprets the womans sentence, not as three separate conditions, but
as a single description of her existence from two points of view, i.e., as a
wife and a mother. Yet, he agrees that this existence is the result of pun-
ishment (1984, 261263). In order to mitigate the circumstances of the
womans subordination and to improve Gods character, some scholars
argue that Gods original plan was for equality between the sexes. Human
actions were responsible for the fall. Sarna, for example, comments that
it is quite clear from the description of the woman in 2:18, 23 that the
ideal situation, which hitherto existed, was the absolute equality of the
sexes. The new state of male dominance is regarded as an aspect of
the deterioration in the human condition that resulted from deance of
the divine will (1989, 28). This kind of apology for Gods presumed sub-
ordination of women also is quite common in theological feminist schol-
arship. In her eloquent explanation of the womans judgment, Trible
comments,
The equality of their union . . . is no more; one esh is split. The man will
not reciprocate the womans desire; instead, he will rule over her. Thus she
loves in unresolved tension. Where once there was mutuality, now there is
a hierarchy of division. The man dominates the woman to pervert sexuality.
Hence the woman is corrupted in becoming a slave, and the man is corrupted
in becoming a master. His supremacy is neither a divine right nor a male
prerogative. Her subordination is neither a divine decree nor the female
destiny. Both positions result from shared disobedience. God describes this
consequence but does not prescribe it as punishment (1978, 128).
Others oer alternative readings in which some aspect of equality still
exists. Mieke Bal, for example, denies that the rst part of the womans
sentence is a curse or punishment and maintains that the use of the word
labor (:nv), repeated in Gods sentence on the man, suggests equity
between the sexes. However, she nds the xing of sex roles with regard
to female pregnancies and male domination problematic. The relations
between the sexes, Bal argues, are xed in terms of the semantic axes of
fertility and domination, and are, as such, arbitrary. Fertility necessitates
labor, and domination presupposes desire as its precondition, according
to Yahwehs statement. It is true that modern medical science still main-
tains the reality of the idea of unavoidable labor, but the relation between
desire and domination hardly seems natural. Power and domination
establish the organization of social life (1987, 127).
Still others, who are less concerned with rehabilitating God, interpret
the text from other perspectives. Using insights from developmental psy-
chology, Lyn Bechtel convincingly argues that Gen. 2:4b3:24 is a myth
that describes the process of maturation, which begins in the world of
the garden with infancy (2:79), and proceeds to childhood (2:1620),
adolescence (2:213:12), early adulthood (3:1321), and nally to mature
adulthood in 3:2224. The text, Bechtel maintains, is about nding
identity, which does not come from within the individual alone (indi-
vidual- orientation), but within the context of the community (group-
orientation), including the earth and the animals (1993, 116). Parent
Lord Gods creatures start as innocent children who mature and dieren-
tiate into gendered beings and whose growing knowledge of binary forces
(e.g., good/evil, potential/limitation, wild/cultivated) require them to
accept responsibility for their actions. The desire that God grants to the
woman in the MT serves to overcome female reluctance to procreate. The
mans control is only intended to regulate the womans sexual desire, not
her entire life. This control was necessary to maintain family and society
boundaries against foreigners or outside groups. The LXX-G translation
GENESIS 3:821 243
244 COMMENTARY
of Genesis represents a similarly motivated attempt to control womens
sexuality.
One of the more nuanced translations and interpretations of Genesis
3:16 (MT) is that of Carol Meyers. She translates, I will greatly increase
your toil and your pregnancies; (along) with travail shall you beget chil-
dren. For to your man is your desire, and he shall predominate over you
(1998, 118). In her interpretation of the text, Meyers argues against the
majority opinion that the womans judgment was the result of disobedi-
ence, and reinterprets Gods sentence as a divine sanction in response
to the conditions of hardship that the early Israelites experienced in the
Palestinian highlands. The primary emphasis is on the womans increased
pregnancies, a situation mandated by the need for human survival. She
translates (::nv as your toil, a translation that suggests physical labor
parallel to the mans sentence in v. 17, rather than the usual implication
of labor pains. Therefore, she argues that the rst part of the womans
sentence, on the one hand, sets forth the womans enlarged role in
the productive, agrarian tasks of society; on the other, it mandates an
increased productive role (1988, 105). The idea of pain, Meyers further
argues, was read into the text when it was translated into Greek (1988,
103). In the second clause, Meyers prefers to translate :cb as to pre-
dominate, rather than to rule because the former preserves the con-
cept of rule (dominion) yet allows for the less than absolute imposition
of male will (1988, 117). She explains the womans desire in the light
of the presumed reluctance of Israelite women to succomb to the risks
associated with pregnancy and birth. Such reluctance could be overcome
by compensatory desire for their husbands, a desire that allows them to
submit to male sexual advances. Therefore, the woman would not experi-
ence the mans rule over her as oppressive (1988, 116117).
In one way or another, many scholars argue that the Hebrew text itself
does not mandate or condone male domination or female inferiority.
Rather, according to Trible, centuries of misogynistic interpretations,
beginning with postbiblical Jewish literature and later Christian litera-
ture, are the cause of these stereotyped assumptions (1978, 73). In this
regard, LXX-G was the rst such interpretation that emphasized pain,
negated desire, and declared the man/husband to be dominant in posi-
tion and function.
Turning his attention to Adam, God begins by making it clear that his
actions produced the resulting consequences. Because Adam listened to
his wife and ate from the only tree that God had declared o limits, he
causes the earth, not Adam himself, to be cursed. Yet, the earths curse
aects him by making his work () something that will be character-
ized by pain (). As such, his punishment in some ways parallels that
of the woman. Both will endure pain as part of their central role in life;
his in production, hers in reproduction. Part of the earths curse is the
growth of thorns and thistles; they will contribute to the pain that Adam
will suer to get the earth to produce the herbage that God gave humans
for food (1:29). God then proceeds to the relational aspect of Adams
punishment. The snakes relationship with the woman suered by being
transformed from one of dialogue to one of distrust and hostility. The
womans relationship with the man suered by being transformed from
one of equality to one of inferiority and dominance. Adams relationship
with the earth is not really broken. He is made from the earth and will
return to it. This, however, implies his eventual destruction, a fate more
severe than those associated with the snake and the woman. Because it
was Adam who listened to his wife instead of God, it is Adam who suers
the worst punishment. Nevertheless, neither he nor the woman show the
type of remorse or guilt that would be expected of humans who have
been punished for their sins.
As Bechtel and others have argued, this story is not one of original sin,
but of original innocence. The two have matured enough to realize that
actions have consequences and thus do not attempt to mitigate or protest
Gods punishments. Instead, Adam gives the woman a name that reects
the importance of her procreative role. The Hebrew Eve (n:) alludes to
living and reects her role of bringing forth life. The narrator claries
the signicance of her name when he expands the gendered signicance
of the wordplay beyond its literal meaning. Because she was the mother
of all life (:o o nnn :n o), the man called the name of the woman
Eve. The idea of motherhood, implicit in the name itself, becomes explicit
in the narrators explanation. The mans act of naming the woman (per
ALEX, not his woman as MT and other Greek manuscripts), along with
the narrators clarication of the meaning of her name, shows both of
them fullling the authoritative male role over the procreative nature
of her sexuality that God instituted in his earlier pronouncement. LXX-G
emphasizes the womans procreative role even more. Its description of the
meaning of the womans name follows the sense of the Hebrews word-
play. Like n: in Hebrew, in Greek characterizes the womans mother-
hood of all living beings. However, LXX-Gs name for the woman is only
temporary; she is later referred to by her transliterated Hebrew name
, i.e., Eve. In the context of the garden story in which God is dening
gender roles, LXX-G retains the signicance of the womans procreative
GENESIS 3:821 245
246 COMMENTARY
role. When she later performs this assigned role, i.e., conceiving and bear-
ing a child (4:1), she no longer needs the name that denes her role. From
that point on, the LXX-G Woman-mother is Eve.
The two, having matured past childhood, now need better covering
than the simple g leaf garments they made for themselves. Lord God,
like any good parent, continues to provide what his children are still not
able to provide for themselves. Thus, he makes them leather tunics. How-
ever, Lord God has another lesson to teach his maturing children.
3:2224 Despite his parental care for his children, Lord God also real-
izes that actions have consequences. He therefore takes additional steps
to protect the only attribute that distinguishes him from his creatures,
i.e., immortality. By so doing, he also teaches his wayward children
another lesson of growing up. What the snake predicted has been real-
ized, and Lord God is the one who acknowledges its fulllment. After get-
ting the attention of his silent council, he announces that Adam indeed
has become like one of them in his new ability to know good and evil.
Yet, there is a subtle dierence between the snakes prediction and Gods
acknowledgement. Whereas the snake said they would become like gods,
God seems to limit Adams comparability to only one ( ) of them.
That one is likely the one God who, while consulting his heavenly sta,
nevertheless is the only one of them who has said or done anything. Lord
God, displaying the rst subtle instance of the jealousy that will become
one of his chief characteristics, needs to prevent Adam from eating the
fruit of the tree of life and living forever. As Wevers points out, LXX-G
only uses the subjunctive mood with the rst three (stretch out, take,
and eat) of the four verbs that are governed by lest (c) in MT. Its switch
to the future indicative for the last verb (to live) implies the certainty of
Adams immortality if he should eat from that tree (1993, 49).
The threat to Gods uniqueness is so great that God must resort to
extreme measures to prevent Adam from acquiring immortality. Merely
prohibiting him from eating of the tree of life is no guarantee. God takes
no chances this time and sends Adam out of the garden of luxury ()
to an existence of hard work. By using two dierent verbs to describe the
mans act of stretching out () his hand and Gods act of sending
out () the man from the garden, LXX-G misses the parallel
that the MT makes by using the same verb (:c). Because the man might
send out his hand, God will send him out of the garden. Nevertheless,
LXX-G highlights the signicance of Adams loss when it switches from
transliterating the MTs Eden () to translating it (luxury/).
That Adam should have to work the earth is no surprise. However, having
to do so outside the garden and without its abundant water will indeed
make him sweat (3:19) as he works. Gods determination to keep Adam
from attaining immortality is highlighted even more when the narrator
repeats Gods act of expulsion but uses a much more forceful verb, i.e.,
throw out (). Like its MT counterpart (c:), this verb occurs
two more times in Genesis; once to describe Cains expulsion (4:14) and
once to describe Sarahs banishment of Hagar and Ishmael (21:10).
Per LXX-G, God takes two more steps to keep Adam from the tree. First
God settles () him opposite the garden. LXX-Gs use of the verb
rather than one based on the verb (sojourn) shows
that God intends Adam to live there permanently, not temporarily. This
distinction appears elsewhere in Genesis to dierentiate those who are
residents aliens such as Isaac from those who are permanent residents
such as Jacob (37:1). Dwelling in an ambiguous place opposite ()
the garden could imply Adams oppositional relationship to the garden
(i.e., against) or his view of the garden (i.e., in front of ). Gods nal step
to prevent Adams return to the garden is to station () the chero-
ubim and the aming self-turning sword to guard the tree. These two
guardians must have been known to the Israelite imagination (Sarna
1989, 30), because they both appear with the denite article. Wester-
mann summarizes the biblical functions of cherubim: they are guardians
of Gods garden (here and Ezek. 18:14, 16), those who carry YHWH in the
winds and clouds (Ps. 18:10), inhabitants of the temple, and bearers of
YHWHs throne (Ezek. 9:3; 10:122; Ps. 80:1). The diverse duties of these
mythical guardians in biblical texts attests to their widespread Mesopota-
mian origins (Westermann 1984, 274). Nevertheless, the idea of mythical
guardians was foreign to the Greek (Wevers 1989, 50), so LXX-G merely
transliterated the Hebrew term. The other object that God puts in place
to guard the tree of life similarly had mythical roots in ancient Sumerian
texts (Westermann 1984, 274). In this case, LXX-G literally translated the
terms describing the sword. Nevertheless, the slight dierences in LXX-G
shows God even more determined to guard the tree. He throws Adam out
of the garden and settles him, not the cherubim and sword, opposite the
garden. The additional act of stationing the two guardians by the tree
provides one extra preventative measure.
Curiously, LXX-G does not attempt to correct the Hebrew text that only
reports the mans (o) expulsion. Neither Sarna nor Westermann com-
ment on the seeming omission in the MT. However, both Harl (1994, 111)
and Wevers (1993, 49) surmise that the name , as 5:2 will report,
GENESIS 3:2224 247
248 COMMENTARY
consists of both the man and the woman. Neither, however, explain why
only the expulsion report understands in this way. Perhaps Lord
God is not concerned that the woman would attempt to eat from the tree
of life. It was the other tree whose fruit the snake predicted would pro-
vide knowledge and thus the one that was attractive to her. Or perhaps
Lord God realized that she would turn or return to Adam and thus fol-
low him out of the garden. In any case, it is evident in what follows that
the two stayed together.
4:116 Although LXX-G acknowledged the womans life-giving role
when Adam called her name Life (), it now merely transliterates her
Hebrew name. Furthermore, its literal rendering of the MTs knew ()
with retains its contextual meaning of sexual relations. Although
the use of the verb to know as a euphemism for sexual intercourse is
regarded as a Semitism, Jobes and Silva point out that it is also used in
nonbiblical Greek, albeit rarely outside Plutarch (2000, 207). Adam knew
his wife Eve (Heua), who immediately fullls her role in life. She con-
ceived () and bore () Cain (Kain). ALEX, departing from
its customary rendering of the rst of two nite Hebrew verbs with a
participle, here renders both Hebrew verbs conceived and bore (nn
:n:) with aorists.
Eve goes on to announce the signicance of what she accomplished.
Her comment in the MT can be interpreted in several ways, based on two
dierent trilateral roots. The root of the name Cain (p) means to form,
fashion, or forge in several Semitic languages, while that associated
with the verb n:p (n:p) can mean to acquire, own, or even produce or
create (Sarna 1989, 32). All of these meanings are contextually appropri-
ate. LXX-G, however, cannot duplicate the multifaceted wordplay of the
Hebrew text. It interpreted the verb n : p as to acquire, and translated it
with . As such, it shows no phonetic connection between her
accomplishment and the name of her rst child.
LXX-Gs interpretive method of translation continues with its ren-
dering of the rest of the womans statement, which in the MT presents
several diculties. First, the word man (c) to describe Cain is an
unusual choice to refer to a newborn child. Sarna speculates that the use
of man here is inuenced by Adams jubilant cry in 2:23 at the creation
of woman, so that Eves statement in eect means that as a woman
(nc), I was produced from man (c), so now I, woman, have in turn
produced a man (1989, 32). Westermann similarly maintains that Eve
sees in her child the future man and thus boasts of the creative ability
that she shares with God (1984, 290). LXX-G seems to have made a similar
assumption in its rendering of c with , i.e., a generic human
being. The last part of the womans comment is the most contentious.
She claims that she acquired, formed, or created a man n:n
-
n, literally
with YHWH. To avoid any connotation of divine/human intercourse,
some commentators interpret the n of the phrase to mean with the
help of. Others, however, reject this meaning by pointing out that n in
this sense appears no other place in the Bible with reference to God (see
discussion in Westermann 1984, 290292). Based on comparative literary
evidence of the Akkadian Atrahasis Epic, Sarna and others argue that the
n means together with. Sarna goes on to say, however, that this refers
to Gods frequent (but passive) assistance in human procreation, rather
than his active participation (1989, 32). LXX-G resolved the theological
problem by rendering the phrase through God ( ). Not only
does the preposition clarify Gods role, but replacing n:n (YHWH)
with God () removes any lingering anthropomorphic connotations
associated with . As Wevers maintains, the womans statement
thus reects the notion that it is through divine intervention that the
human race can reproduce (1993, 51).
Neither the woman nor the narrator comment about how she bore
Cains brother Abel (Habel) nor do either explain the signicance of his
name. Both the seeming lack of interest in the second child and the cus-
tomary historical preference given to the rstborn son imply Cains supe-
riority. His presumed superiority continues when he is said to be a worker
of the earth, thus doing the work that God declared for Adam and his male
descendants. Abel, on the other hand, is or becomes () a shepherd
of sheep; he is the rst to perform a role other than that assigned by God.
Nevertheless, both brothers provide for God from their labors. Cains gift
of the fruits of the earth, described explicitly as sacrices (),
seems a more tting oering to God. In its literary context, Abels gift
of the rstborn of his sheep and of their fatty parts might seem oen-
sive. Humans were to have dominion over Gods other animate beings,
but were never told to slaughter them. God, however, dees expectations
and makes his own rules. In this the rst instance of Gods rejection of
primogeniture, God prefers Abels gifts to Cains sacrice. Even the narra-
tor gives priority to Abel: Cain was the rst to oer his sacrice, but Gods
response to Abels is the rst reported. Unlike the MT that uses the same
word gift (n:b) for the oerings of both Cain and Abel, LXX-G refers to
Cains oering as a sacrice () and to Abels as gifts (). All
the other occurrences of n:b are translated by the Greek word ,
GENESIS 4:116 249
250 COMMENTARY
while the two other occurrences of the word sacrice () in LXX-G
are in contexts where it translates the Hebrew n and likely refers to
burnt oerings (31:54 and 46:1). Thus it is unclear why LXX-G intention-
ally used for Cains grain oering.
In contrast to the MT, LXX-G also uses two dierent words to describe
Gods responses to the dierent oerings. God looked on () Abel
and his gifts, but paid no attention ( ) to Cain and his
sacrice. Both words, like the MTs regarded (nc), refer to matters of
perception. Looking on something is typically a rather neutral and non-
judgmental act. However, when used of the gods, it can have a positive
connotation (Jobes and Silva 2000, 210). Disregarding or paying no atten-
tion to something, on the other hand, implies its unworthiness. Unlike
LXX-Gs puzzling use of two dierent words to describe the brothers
oerings, its use of two dierent words to describe Gods responses is
clearly interpretive.
So, why does God prefer Abels oering? One traditional explanation
sees in the story a reection of the conict between farmer (represented
by Cain) and nomad (represented by Abel). The latter occupation, and thus
character, is favored because of Israels presumed nomadic ideal. Sarna
and Westermann both reject this explanation because neither observe
anything in the narrative that leads to this conclusion. Sarna expresses
well the other traditional explanation that, he argues, can be gleaned
from the descriptions of the oerings. Abels oering, Sarna writes based
on the Hebrew text, is characterized as being the choicest of the rst-
lings of his ock; Cains is simply termed as coming from the fruit of the
soil, without further detail. Abel appears to have demonstrated a quality
of heart and mind that Cain did not possess (1989, 32). In other words,
Abel brought the best of his sheep and their best (fatty) parts. Cain only
oered some of the fruits of his labors; that nothing is said about quality
or quantity implies Cains indierence to what he was sacricing to God.
Westermann, however, argues against this interpretation as well. Neither
the type of oering nor the attitude of the one bringing the oering is
the point of the story. Rather, he maintains that this is a story about inex-
plicable inequality that has its origins not in application, in attitude, or
in any circumstance that one can control. When such inequality arises, it
rests on a decision that is beyond human manipulation (1984, 297). He
goes on to say, however, that the inexplicability of Gods actions is one
of the decisive motifs for conict whenever there are brothers (1984,
297). Why God favors one brother or sister over others will continue
to cause problems within the biblical families.
The manner in which siblings resolve their diculties, however, varies.
This rst story of sibling rivalry results in fratricide, the rst act in the
Bible that is referred to as sin (). When Cain somehow realizes
that God has not paid attention to his sacrice, he experiences great dis-
tress. In yet another instance of interpretive translation, LXX-G renders
the MTs anger (n) with , a word meaning pain, distress,
or grief. Although n appears throughout the Hebrew Genesis,
occurs only here and, ironically, in a later story about the resolution of
sibling rivalry when Joseph attempts to alleviate his brothers distress
(45:5). Thus, LXX-G represents Cains response more as an inward emo-
tion than as one externally directed to God. LXX-Gs emphasis on Cains
inner pain continues in its awkward rendering of the MTs his face fell
(::c ::c) with he collapsed in the face ( ). Lord
God, playing his parent role, responds to Cain by acknowledging, and
essentially challenging, his grief by asking him two rhetorical questions.
God then proceeds to teach Cain a lesson by asking him another rhetori-
cal question.
Although Gods warning in both MT and LXX-G refers to sin using
language that echoes the womans punishment in 3:16, the type of sin
is dierent. The dicult Hebrew text seems to comment on Cains good
or moral living in general, i.e., if you do right/good (nono). In that
case, lifting up (nc), presumably of Cains fallen face, will occur. But if
not, sin is crouching at the door. Although sin (no) is feminine, it is
the only possible subject of the masculine participle (n). Westermann
acknowledges that no satisfactory explanation of these verses has been
oered. He reviews the various interpretations and emendations of these
verses and nds them lacking. In particular, he rejects one traditional
explanation that the verb n is most likely connected with the Assyrian
rabium, a demon. In this reading, sin seems to be a personied force that
lies in wait at the door (1984, 299300). Yet, in what follows, sin contin-
ues to be represented as a malevolent entity that desires (np:cn) him.
Nevertheless, God tells Cain that he can master (:cb) it. In other words,
Cain is responsible for his actions and their consequences.
LXX-G, on the other hand, puts a cultic interpretation on the rst part
of the verse (Wevers 1993, 55) due to the general context of sacrice and
oering. Therefore, Gods warning to Cain refers to proper and improper
sacrice. A proper oering without proper dividing () of the sac-
ricial parts results in sin. Although LXX-Gs rendering ts the overall
literary context, it does not take Cains two-fold response into account.
God then attempts to calm and reassure Cain that despite its turning, he
GENESIS 4:116 251
252 COMMENTARY
will be able to rule over it. In its context, it must refer to sin. As in the
MT, Gods advice to Cain echoes his sentence on the woman (3:16). Yet,
LXX-Gs change of the womans act from one of desire for her husband
to one of turning or returning to her husband makes the verses adapta-
tion here even more awkward. Further complicating the issue is LXX-Gs
rendering of the MTs n, in its more passive meaning of laying down
or being at rest, with the imperative be calm (). In its nal
form, Gods warning seems transformed into a more positive statement
in LXX-G. Gone is the tentativeness of the conditionality implied by the
MTs if/if not statements that continues with the portrayal of lurking
sin and Cains mastery of it. Instead, the conditionality in LXX-G applies
only to the matter of proper sacrice. Gods additional comments then
appear to be a promise of future success, rather than a warning about
Cains actions and their consequences.
As a result, what the LXX-G Cain proceeds to do must at rst seem
promising to God. He gives the impression of reconciling with Abel when
LXX-G reports that Cain invites him to the eld, i.e., his place of work.
This LXX-G addition to an MT text that only reports that Cain said or
spoke is another example of LXX-Gs tendency to improve on its source.
Because the two brothers ended up in the open eld, LXX-G claries
how they got there. Yet, its clarication serves to make what happens in
the eld more surprising to the reader and likely more disappointing to
God. With no warning or additional explanation, Cain gets up and kills
() his brother Abel. An act that appears more like premeditated
murder than justiable homicide is not considered as such by either MT
or LXX-G. In fact, neither text uses the word for murder (/v)
until Gods commandment prohibiting it (Exod. 20:15 [MT v. 13]). As he
did when he confronted Cains father in the garden, God asks Cain a lead-
ing question about someones location. Instead of where are you, God
asks Cain where is Abel your brother? Cain, unlike his father, lies to God.
He knows where Abel is. Moreover, he should be guarding or keeping his
younger brother, rather than questioning his lial responsibility.
God refuses to acknowledge Cains lying sarcasm and instead continues
questioning him. God, however, seems to have learned that his human
creatures tend to avoid responsibility for their actions. Therefore, instead
of merely asking Cain what he did, God also lets Cain know the evidence
against him. Abel, who never speaks in life, cannot speak for himself in
death. However, his blood cries out to God, who immediately pronounces
Cain the rst human to be accursed on (per ALEX) the earth. As a mat-
ter of poetic justice, the earth that was cursed as a result of Adams dis-
obedience and that opened its mouth to receive the blood of one with
no voice now plays an active role in Cains punishment. Like his father,
Cain is sentenced to work the earth. However, the earth that earlier
made Adams work painful will now make Cains work impossible. The
power () by which it had earlier provided Cain with its fruits will
no longer continue. Similarly, whereas Adam experiences pain ()
like his wife, Cain inherits his mothers groaning (). His groaning,
however, will not be productive. God also sentences Cain to trembling.
Both these characteristics focus on the physical aspects of Cains emo-
tional response. By contrast, his fate in the MT as a trembling wanderer
(:: :) refers in part to his emotional response of trembling. Sentencing
him to be a wanderer on the earth describes a very dierent fate. He will
live in fear wherever he may journey.
Cain responds to Lord by acknowledging that his guilt () is too
great to be forgiven. LXX-G shows its penchant for interpretive transla-
tion again in this chapter by rendering the Hebrew : with and c:
with . The sense of the Hebrew text is debated. As Sarna (1989,
34) and Westermann (1984, 309) acknowledge, : can mean both sin and
its punishment. Although context usually helps determine which mean-
ing is more appropriate, here both meanings are reasonable but have
very dierent implications. Sarna oers two translations: my punish-
ment is too great to bear and my sin is too great to be forgiven (1989,
34). In other words, Cain could be lamenting his punishment or admit-
ting his sin. In its other occurrences in Genesis, the Hebrew : refers
to an action and in each place is rendered by a dierent Greek word. In
15:16, LXX-G renders it with , i.e., sins; in 19:15, LXX-G trans-
lates it as , i.e., lawlessness; and in 44:16 LXX-G uses ,
i.e., wrongdoing. Therefore, : in Genesis seems to connote the act of
sin. Also at issue is the result of Cains sin, which he claims is too much
for him to c:. The Hebrew c: has an even wider range of meanings. As
Sarnas alternative translations indicate, it can mean to bear, lift, carry,
be exulted, pardon, take, take away, or forgive.
LXX-G interpreted c: to mean forgive and thus rendered it with
. However, its choice of to translate : is less clear. LSJ
(1968, 44) denes as responsibility, mostly in bad sense, guilt,
blame, or the imputation thereof, i.e., accusation. The word is a hapax
legomenon in LXX-G, but occurs twenty times in the rest of the LXX/OG
(primarily in the apocryphal books of Maccabees) and twenty-one times
in the New Testament (most often in Acts). In none of these later texts
does refer to sin or guilt. Rather, it most often means reason or
GENESIS 4:116 253
254 COMMENTARY
cause. If later LXX/OG translators used LXX-G as a type of lexicon, as
Emanuel Tov argues (1981, 577), they did not understand to mean
sin or guilt. Nevertheless, its use in this context, especially with the verb
, has a moral implication. Because neither responsibility nor
accusation tend to require forgiveness, the word likely refers to
Cains guilt. Thus, Cains lament in LXX-G seems more focused on his
response to his act, than on the act itself.
Cain continues his lament by speculating on the longer term conse-
quences of Gods punishment. LXX-Gs earlier focus on Cains emotional
responses makes his present concern about Gods banishing him from
the earth surprising. Being sentenced to a life of groaning and trembling
without productive work describes a static condition, not a spatial one.
For some reason, Cain now fears that someone will nd him and kill him
as he wanders the earth, trembling and groaning but hidden from God.
Even if his fear makes little sense in LXX-Gs literary context, Lord Gods
response attempts to mitigate his fear. God begins by denying the last
aspect of Cains lament and then promises seven-fold vengeance on any-
one who might kill Cain. God also indirectly acknowledges another of
Cains concerns. If Cain were to doubt Gods ability to save him from harm
should he be hidden from Gods face, God puts a sign () on Cain
to protect him from anyone who would destroy () him. Thus par-
ent Lord God once again demonstrates his caring concern for his human
creatures, even when they misbehave. Cain presumably was consoled by
Gods words because he went out from Gods presence. Unlike his father
(and mother), he was not thrown out (). However, like his father
and mother, he had to live the rest of his life outside his original habitat.
Because it cannot duplicate the MTs wordplay that links his fate as a
wanderer (:) to his eventual home (::), LXX-G merely transliterates
the name of the land where Cain lives as Naid. As such, it appears to be a
geographical place, rather than an existential condition of homelessness
that is implied in the MT. Nevertheless, Cains existence, like that of his
parents is opposite (here, ) of Edem.
4:1724 Cain, although removed from his former life, is the initial sub-
ject of the Bibles rst genealogy. This genealogy, according to Wester-
mann, represents the type of genealogy that presents primeval events
in the form of a succession of generations and that is concerned with
human origins rather than tribal aliations (1984, 323). In this case, the
genealogy relates the beginnings of culture and civilization. The story
itself jumps ahead to a time after Cain has moved and married and sired
a son Enoch (Hench). Like the MT, LXX-G goes on to say that he was a
city builder. Contextually, a third person pronoun most often refers to its
nearest antecedent; in this case, he would be Enoch. Westermann cites
several scholars who support this position based on form and tradition
critical arguments. K. Budde, for example, claims that when the birth of
the son is announced, it is not the practice to say anything more about
the father, but about the son and what he has done (cited in Westermann
1984, 327). Westermann himself maintains that a primeval genealogy
that traces the development of civilization from agriculture to city life
can only be done by a succession of births presented in such a way that
the builder of the city must emerge as one of Cains posterity (1984, 327).
Yet, these arguments are refuted by what follows. Both MT and LXX-G go
on to report that he named the city after his son Enoch. Only by agreeing
to the MT textual emendations proposed by Budde and others (Wester-
mann 1984, 327) can one regard Enoch as the city builder. Form critical
arguments aside, there is no reason that Cain could not have changed
occupations after his relocation. In fact, from a narrative perspective,
this makes more sense. If he were no longer able to work the earth, he
would likely do something dierent. Even historically, the development
of urban areas, per Sarna, followed the development and advancement of
agriculture (1989, 36).
Cains genealogy continues in linear fashion with its narration of six
successive generations from Enoch to Lamech. With Lamech, the gene-
alogy becomes segmented; it reports the names of his two wives (Ada
and Sella) and his four children. Like earlier Mesopotamian myths, the
narrative embedded in the genealogy describes the origins of particular
aspects of human material and cultural endeavors. Adas rstborn Ibel
began the line of tent dwellers, who per LXX-G, were herdsmen. By omit-
ting the and of the MT and placing herdsmen () in appo-
sition to dwellers (), LXX-G equates the two. It also makes a
slight change to the description of the signicance of Adas second son
Ioubal; he is said to be the one who invented () the musical
instruments of harp and lyre, as opposed to MTs was the father of those
who play lyre and pipe. Finally, LXX-G omits the sux on the name of
Lamechs third son and refers to him only as Thobel. It also attempts to
simplify a dicult Hebrew text (see discussions in Sarna [1989, 38] and
Westermann [1984, 332334]) and credits Sellas only son as introduc-
ing metalwork, specically that associated with copper and iron. Despite
these slight dierences, LXX-G basically attributes the development of
animal husbandry, music, and metallurgy to Cains descendants.
GENESIS 4:1724 255
256 COMMENTARY
Cains genealogy concludes in an awkward fashion with the taunt or
braggart song of Lamech, which represents, per Sarna, the rst true
example of biblical Hebrew poetic style (1989, 38). Alter likewise main-
tains that this poem follows the parallelistic pattern of biblical verse
with exemplary rigor (1996, 20). While those precise features do not sur-
vive translation, the pugilistic tone of the song does. Many scholars agree
that this song originally belonged in a dierent narrative context about
Lamechs heroic or warlike exploits, and was attached to Cains geneal-
ogy as a link to the larger Cain and Abel narrative (Westermann 1984,
334336; Sarna 1989, 3839; Alter 1996, 20). Lamech calls to his wives to
listen to what he may have already done or was getting ready to do. If the
former, Lamech seems to be boasting about grossly exaggerated retribu-
tion for injuries which, though not lethal, were nevertheless a violation
of honor (Westermann 1984, 336). As such, it is a commentary on the
human capacity for revenge and the blood lust it ignites. If the latter,
the song could be a threat of retribution to be taken by someone with
an inated sense of power and superiority and who wants to terrorize
his enemies. In either case, the exponential upsurge in revenge (per MT,
seventy-seven fold but exaggerated even more in LXX-G to seventy times
seven) between that associated with Cain and that claimed by Lamech
could reect the increased likelihood of violence that was associated with
the growing complexity of human life and the enhanced technological
capacity to make such violence a reality. That LXX-G could show an even
greater tendency for revenge is not surprising given the historical events
that occurred between the early MT poem and its third century B.C.E.
translation.
4:2526 The chapter concludes as it began with Adam and his wife Eve
having a son. After the violence and the progress associated with Cain
and his descendants, his line, per Sarna, passes into oblivion (1989,
39). First, however, Eve gives the new son a name that acknowledges the
fact that Cain killed Abel. Not only did LXX-G not attempt to duplicate
the wordplay of the MT (the eectiveness of which is disputed [Wester-
mann 1984, 338]), it ignored the wordplay altogether. Instead of Gods
placing or granting (nc) her another seed in place of Abel, God raised
up () for her another seed. More important, therefore, than
his name is the role that Seth plays in the story. As a substitute for both
the murdered Abel and the banished murderer Cain, Seth restarts the
rst couples lineage. For the rst time, no wife is mentioned. LXX-G,
following the MTs passive :, merely states to Seth was born a son.
This son Seth names Enosh (Ens), which in Hebrew (c::) is another
generic term for human. This one, per LXX-G, hoped to invoke the name
of Lord God. As Wevers surmises, LXX-G misread the Hebrew then ()
as this and then vocalized the verb to mean hope instead of was begun.
Whether intentional or not, LXX-G resolved a problem in the MT that has
vexed commentators. The report in the MT that Enosh began to invoke
the name of YHWH seems to contradict the report in Exodus (3:1316,
6:3) that YHWH worship began with Moses. Even if understood as God
worship, rather than YHWH worship (see Westermanns discussion 1984,
339342), the Hebrew text suggests the existence of primeval monothe-
ism. LXX-G only claims that Enosh hoped to invoke the name and thus
worship of Lord God. It thus leaves open the question of whether or not
he would do so.
5:131 Now that Cain and his acknowledged descendants have, as Sarna
writes, passed into oblivion (1989, 39), another lengthier and more
detailed genealogy tells of the origin of humans ( ).
LXX-Gs use of the singular origin () to introduce this geneal-
ogy, as in 2:4, indicates that what follows is more than a list of descen-
dants. Rather, the genealogy narrates the beginning/origin of humanity,
just as 2:4 and following narrated the beginning/origin of the heaven
and earth. The special nature of these two genealogies is clear: in every
other location where the MT uses the plural term generations (n:n)
to introduce a genealogy, LXX-G also uses the plural origins ().
LXX-G also departs from MT by using the plural humans (),
rather than the singular and unarticulated Adam (o). As such, LXX-G
intends to present the origin of humans, rather than the descendants of
Adam. Yet, it follows the MT in the second half of the verse by referring
to the day when God made Adam ( ) according to Gods image.
The use of the term according to the image of God alludes to the rst
report of human creation (1:2627). Whereas the earlier account narrated
that the generic human () was made in Gods image, this retell-
ing reports that it was specically Adam who was made in Gods image.
The origin story here continues by echoing 1:2728a: male and female he
made them and he blessed them. However, whereas the earlier account
continued with Gods instruction to procreate, the present story contin-
ues with God calling their name Adam. This, even more than the earlier
accounts, could support speculation about original androgyny. Sources as
diverse as Platos Symposium (198de) and Genesis Rabbah (GenR 8:1) make
reference to a being who was both male and female.
GENESIS 4:2526 & 5:131 257
258 COMMENTARY
The human origin story continues with a narration of Adams geneal-
ogy that serves as an implicit testimony to the procreative aspect of Gods
blessing. Beginning with Adam and concluding with Noah (Ne) and his
sons, the genealogy covers ten generations. Much has been written about
the parallels between the Genesis 5 genealogy and the list of Sumerian
kings recorded by the third century B.C.E. Babylonian priest Berossus.
Both include ten generations and conclude with the hero of a ood story.
Nevertheless, the dierences between these two accounts make it likely,
per Westermann and others, that any explicit connection between the
two was the result of later stages of tradition history (Westermann 1984,
347354). Thus, the Genesis 5 genealogy must be examined for its own
merits and the message about human procreation that it conveys. Adam,
made in the image of God, now passes that image to his son, who pre-
sumably then passes it on to those who follow. Furthermore, the redun-
dant pattern throughout the genealogy portrays, per Westermann, the
rhythm of ongoing generations (Westermann 1984, 354) that, per Sarna,
represents the unfolding of a divinely ordained, meaningful design, the
corollary being that human activity lies under the perpetual scrutiny of
God (1989, 40).
The genealogy in LXX-G makes the same points as its MT counterpart,
but its details are quite dierent. Whereas the time from creation to the
ood covered 1,656 years in the MT, it covers 2,242 years in LXX-G. The
same period between creation and ood in the Samaritan Pentateuch is
only 1,307 years (Wevers 1993, 68). The rst point at which LXX-G diers
from the MT is Adams age when he fathered Seth: MT reports that he
was 130 years old; LXX-G reports that he was 230 old. Although neither
MT nor LXX-G has an explicit direct object for the verb father (),
it is obvious that it is Seth whom Adam fathered in his form ()
and image. Here LXX-G departs from the earlier likeness (1:26, )
that, along with image (), characterized the similarity between
God and humans. In so doing, it also diers from the MT that repeats the
two features of 1:26 here. The word , as Wevers maintains, was
clearly chosen to indicate that the generation took place in accordance
with the outward appearance or form of Adam (1993, 69). LXX-G again
diers from the MT in the amount of time that Adam lived after fathering
Seth. LXX-G reports that he lived 700 more years, while MT reports that
he lived 800 additional years. Both, however, agree that Adam lived a total
of 930 years before he died.
From this point on, the genealogy follows a standard pattern: the num-
ber of years that the antediluvian patriarch lived before fathering his
rst son, the name of the rstborn son, the number of years he lived after
fathering the rstborn son, the notice that he fathered additional sons
and daughters, and the total number of years that he lived before he died.
Thus for Seth, LXX-G reports that he lived 205 years when he fathered
Enosh, 717 years afterwards, and died at 912 years. As was the case with
Adam and will continue throughout the rest of the genealogy, LXX-G and
MT dier in what age the patriarchs fathered their rst sons (LXX-G =
MT + 100) and how many additional years they lived. As Hendel shows,
LXX-G adds 100 years to the MTs fathering age and deducts 100 years
from their remaining life span (1998, 6465). In all cases but one, how-
ever, the total number of years lived is always the same. The only patri-
arch whose total life span diers is Lamech: per LXX-G he lived a total of
753 years, while MT reports he lived 777 years. The only patriarch whose
three numbers do not dier is Iared, who is said to father Enoch at 162
years. Like all the patriarchs before him, Enoch fathers his rst son 100
years earlier in the MT than in LXX-G and lives 100 years less thereafter.
Unlike the other patriarchs before him, Enoch receives special mention.
Per LXX-G, he pleased () God, which, while expressed dif-
ferently, means the same thing as the MTs he walked with ((:nn) God.
As a result, Enoch does not die. Rather, after living 365 years, he was not
found ( ) because God transferred () him. Again,
LXX-Gs wording diers from the MT. It adds found to the MTs he was
not and describes God as transferring him rather than taking him.
Although both texts portray Enoch as an exceptional individual whose
life span is shorter than his forefathers, LXX-Gs use of implies
a changed state and thus is more descriptive than the MTs take. Draw-
ing on the idea of a changed state, some later writers used
to refer to repentance. Nothing further is said about Enoch in the bibli-
cal texts. However, postbiblical Jewish literature portrays him as a heroic
gure with special knowledge of heavenly secrets (Sarna 1989, 43) and an
exemplar of repentance (Wevers 1993, 72).
Enoch, the shortest lived of the patriarchs, fathers Mathousala who has
the longest life, 969 years. ALEX diers from other Greek manuscripts in
Mathousalas age when he fathered Lamech (187 years, rather than 167
years) and the number of years after fathering Lamech (782 years, rather
than 802). Nevertheless, the total number of years in all LXX-G manu-
scripts is 969. This LXX-G lifespan, however, posed a problem for Josephus
and the early church fathers who calculated that he would have survived
the ood a feat that conicted with later pronouncements (e.g., 6:18
and 7:23) that Noah (Ne) and his family were the only survivors (Hendel
GENESIS 5:131 259
260 COMMENTARY
1998, 6164). He in turn fathers Lamech, who according to this geneal-
ogy, fathers Noah. His special role in the story becomes apparent when
the narrator reports the meaning of his name. This one, per LXX-G, will
give us rest from our work. This would presume that the verb on which
his name and its explanation were based in the MT was the hiphil of the
verb ::. However, this is not the case. As Wevers comments, the explana-
tory etiology and etymology in the MT is incorrect. He goes on to say
that LXX-G either corrected the etymology or had a dierent parent text
with the correct verb (1993, 7374). See also Westermann who similarly
characterizes LXX-Gs text as an improvement over the MT (1984, 360)
and Sarna who maintains that the MTs wordplay is based on a similarity
of sound, not on etymology (1989, 44). Not only will Noah provide rest
from work, he will also provide rest from the pain () of our hands
and from the earth that Lord God cursed (). The words pain
and curse echo the punishments that Lord God inicted on Noahs most
ancient forebears (3:16, 17). Thus, Noahs fate would seem to mitigate the
severity of the mans punishment. That, however, will not prove to be the
case.
6:18 What serves in the MT as the conclusion of Chapter 5s genealogy
introduces Noahs story in LXX-G. Unlike the genealogical notes associ-
ated with Noahs ancestors that included the name of only the rstborn
son, this lists the names of three sons, Shem (Sem), Ham (Cham), Japheth
(Iapheth). Yet, as soon as they are introduced to the story, they and their
father disappear until later. Instead, the narrator provides the necessary
theological background for their family story. Humans are carrying out
Gods instructions to be fruitful and multiply and are bearing beautiful
daughters. Thus, the human world seems in accordance with Gods over-
all blessing. However, adopting a common motif in the ancient world, the
narrator continues by relating that the angels of God (
) breached the separation between the human and divine worlds and
took wives for themselves from among the beautiful earth women. ALEX
and other Greek manuscripts in its family identify the transgressors as
angels of God, rather than the sons of God ( ) in other
Greek manuscript traditions including Wevers reconstructed text and
the MT (on:n:n). As such, ALEX clearly demonstrates an interpretive
rendering of a phrase that has generated signicant controversy.
Westermann surveys four of the major explanations for the origi-
nal Hebrew phrase: that the phrase refers to humans; that the phrase
refers to angels as a type of semi-divine being; that the phrase refers to
a degraded or lesser type of angel; and that the phrase refers to beings
in the divine realm who are associates of God and members of the divine
council addressed by God in Chapter 1 (1984, 371372). In his opinion, the
last explanation is the one most accepted, while the angel explanation
is no longer considered valid. Twentieth century scholarship aside, ALEX
and those following it perhaps knew of the Enochian tradition (Enoch
6:12) that combined the terms the angels ( ) and the sons
( ) to represent the transgressors as hybrid creatures. ALEX then
retained the former term and omitted the latter, resulting in a text that
was the least theologically oensive.
All the above explanations except the rst one, however, make what
follows more dicult to understand. If the angels or the gods were
responsible for transgressing the barriers between the human and the
divine realms, why was humanity punished? Indeed, Lord God declares
that he will not allow his animating breath to remain in these humans
( ) forever and limits their lifespan to a mere
120 years. Following the genealogy in which most of the antediluvian
patriarchs lived to between 700900 years of age, Lord Gods limita-
tion is severe. LXX-Gs inclusion of the demonstrative adjective these
to modify humans represents yet another interpretive rendering. By
implying that Lord God has restricted the life span only of the ospring
of the male angels and female humans, LXX-G at least partially resolved
the above question. Humans themselves were not being punished, only
the ospring produced as a result of the inappropriate unions (see also
Vervenne 1995a, 31).
The focus on these humans continues with the odd comment about
the giants () who were on the earth in those days and who con-
tinued to reproduce. Unlike the MT that refers to the initial inhabitants
as the fallen ones (o:c:n) and to the later ospring as heroes (o:c:n),
LXX-G assumes that these are the same beings, thus referring to both as
giants. ALEX, however, seems to distinguish between the fathers of the
rst giants (i.e., the of v. 1) and the fathers of the later ospring.
The former, as indicated in v. 2, were angels of God, while the latter are
here identied as the sons of God ( ). Nevertheless, the
focus of this mythological note is on the identity and characteristics of
the ospring, not on their paternity. They are described as giants and
renowned humans (). Thus, their human aspect is emphasized
over their divine aspect.
After a brief mythological digression that explains how giants came
to exist on the earth, the story returns to presumably normal humans.
GENESIS 6:18 261
262 COMMENTARY
These humans, however, thought only evil thoughts so that their result-
ing deeds multiplied on the earth. Although humans were fullling Gods
instructions to be fruitful and multiply, they also multiplied what God
presumably prohibited. The universality of evil thoughts and deeds is
emphasized by the use of all who/everyone ( ) and all the days
( ). God responds to the universal human condition
by being angry () that he made humanity. The Greek word
most often refers to a mental state of careful consideration;
however, it can also refer to anger or hurt as a result of that reection (LSJ
1968, 567). Anger, however, is quite a dierent emotional response than
the MTs regretted (o::). Gods disappointment in the MT is reinforced
by the comment that he was grieved in his heart (:n:: nvn:). LXX-G,
on the other hand, emphasizes Gods cerebral activity when it goes on to
say that God pondered () about what to do in response to human
evil pondering (). Although (contra Wevers 1993, 79) LXX-
G does not completely eliminate the anthropopathic metaphors of the
MT, it portrays God as one who, in righteous anger, reects on his course
of action. Then, because of that anger at making humanity, God decides
to wipe o everything that was earlier said to be animate beings,
humans, domesticated animals, reptiles, and birds from the face of the
earth. Human actions therefore have negative ramications on other
creatures. Sadly, rather than having dominion over or responsibility for
these other creatures, humans have caused their destruction. But, the
narrator reports, Noah found favor before Lord God, a comment that
leads to speculation about how and if this man will alter Gods decision.
6:912 After an oddly placed sentence that portends to introduce
Noahs genealogy, the narrator continues with additional comments
about Noahs unique character. In stark contrast to his fellow humans,
Noah was righteous (). Appearing here for the rst time,
becomes the standard translation of the theologically signicant Hebrew
word pv. One who is pv is legally and thus morally right before
God and one, in Sarnas words, whose conduct is found to be beyond
reproach by the divine Judge (1989, 50). Noah is not only righteous, he is
also perfect () in his generation. Although a reasonable render-
ing that describes the moral quality associated with the MTs blameless
(obn), the Greek does not become the standard translation of
obn. As a nal, yet somewhat redundant, remark about Noahs unique
and upstanding character, the narrator reports that he, like his ancestor
Enoch, pleased God.
The quick repetition of Noahs special place before God (i.e., he found
favor [v. 8] and pleased [v. 9] God) is explained by Westermann and others
as an indication of a change in the MTs sources from J (vv. 58) to P (vv.
922). Also repeated in Ps introduction to the Flood Narrative (6:59:17)
are the names of Noahs three sons and Gods displeasure with all esh
who corrupted the earth itself as a result of their unrighteousness. Unlike
Js introduction that relates the negative inuence that human behav-
ior had on the other creatures, Ps introduction focuses on the negative
repercussions of all esh ( ) on the earth. Whereas
could also refer to the animals, LXX-G claries in the following verse that
it is humanity that is at fault. Priestly thought sees human behavior, in a
sense, as contagious, so that the earth catches human corruption; thus,
like humans, it must be punished and puried. Throughout the rest of the
Flood Narrative, material from both J and P is found. Some of the material
is repetitive, some is contradictory, and much is told from a dierent per-
spective. See Westermann (1984, 395398) for an overview of the sources
and their emphases along with charts that show how the material has
been divided between the sources. Signicantly, LXX-G does nothing
to resolve the seeming inconsistencies caused by dierent sources and
shows no more than the usual interpretive renderings. LXX-G, follow-
ing P, contrasts Noahs goodness with the depravity of other humans and
the earth. Like the MT, it describes the earth as corrupt (/nc).
However, unlike the MT that continues to use nc, LXX-G uses the com-
pound throughout the rest of the narrative to emphasize the
eects of the corruption, hence destroy(ed). Its rendering of the MTs
violence (ob) with unrighteousness () emphasizes even more
the contrast between Noah and all other life.
As one of the Bibles foundational stories, the Flood Narrative has
motifs similar to ood stories of other cultures. These stories feature a
hero who is divinely chosen to survive a cosmic catastrophe inicted on
the earth by a deity and who eventually participates with the deity in
restoring humankind. Most signicant for the biblical version are the
Babylonian Gilgamesh and its earlier version Atrahasis. The major dier-
ences between these accounts and the Bibles Flood Narrative show the
theological and ideological adaptations undertaken by the biblical writ-
ers to make Noahs story, per Sarna, an authentic, original expression
of the religious genius of Israel (1989, 49). See Sarna (1989, 4750) for a
discussion of the inuence of Mesopotamian accounts on the biblical ver-
sion and Westermann (1984, 398406) for a more detailed description of
these and other ood accounts. The most signicant dierences between
GENESIS 6:912 263
264 COMMENTARY
the Mesopotamian versions and the biblical version will appear below, as
will the dierences within the biblical account itself.
6:1322 God addresses Noah and explains what is about to happen
and what Noah needs to do in response. He begins by stating that the
designated time () of all humanity has arrived. Although not
the rst occurrence of the Greek word , it is the rst time that
it refers to an event beyond the scope of its basic meaning of time or
season. Rather, here and elsewhere throughout Genesis, the word
denotes a special, critical, or designated time (as translated here) when
something out of the ordinary is about to occur, and which, as Harl com-
ments, often reects divine intervention in human history (1994, 130). As
such, its use here parallels the more extraordinary sense of the Hebrew
word p, which, according to Sarna, typically refers to a set term or
the completion of a particular period of time that often connotes doom.
It later became a key term in the vocabulary of Jewish eschatology, the
doctrine of a violent and radical change in the direction of history that
brings an end to one era and signals the regeneration of humanity (1989,
51). Because this is the only place in Genesis that reects the extraordi-
nary nature associated with both the Hebrew p and the Greek ,
it is the only place in Genesis where LXX-G renders p with . The
four other occurrences of p are in contexts where it means end in a
less radical sense (4:3; 8:6; 16:3; 41:1) and are thus rendered by the Greek
after (). The Greek word occurs twelve other times in Genesis
and translates several dierent Hebrew words including n (time, e.g.,
18:10), :b (appointed time, 1:14), and oc (occurrence, e.g., 30:20).
Despite the parallel between LXX-G and MT regarding the extraordi-
nary nature of Gods plan, LXX-G nevertheless renders what Westermann
characterizes as a dicult Hebrew text (1984, 415416) somewhat dier-
ently. The designated time of which God is speaking, per LXX-G, is his
imminent destruction of humanity and the earth itself. Although the nar-
rator had just reported the unrighteousness and destruction of the earth
because of all esh ( , v. 12), God is now specically indicting
humanity (), rather than the MTs repeated all esh (cn:o).
However, God takes Noahs extraordinary righteousness into account and
directly informs Noah of his intentions. By contrast, the Mesopotamian
Gilgamesh gives no reason why Noahs counterpart Utnapishtim was cho-
sen by Ea, and Ea only makes the plan known to Utnapishtim. However,
the two accounts converge with the deitys instructions to build a boat to
avoid the upcoming destruction, which is said to be a deluge in Gilgamesh
but is not described as a ood until later in the biblical account. What
Noah is told to build is an ark (/nnn). Although both the Hebrew
and Greek words are more literally rendered as box or chest, the more
common translation ark is appropriate in LXX-G. Whereas the same
Hebrew word later refers to the basket in which Moses was placed (Exod.
2:3, 5) the Greek later refers to the so-called ark of the covenant
(Harl 1994, 131). God continues by providing Noah precise building speci-
cations for the ark, which includes its composition materials (squared,
i.e., nished, wood), nishing (pitch on the inside and out), dimensions
(300 cubits long, fty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high), shape (three
levels that narrow on the top), and inclusions (nests and a side door).
By now, Noah must be wondering why God is telling him to make
such a big ark. He nds out when God nally reveals that he will bring
a ood of water on the earth to destroy all esh. Although God in LXX-
G had just complained about the unrighteousness of humanity, now he
expands the destruction to include all esh under heaven that has the
breath of life. God also describes what that destruction entails, i.e., death.
God continues by telling Noah that he plans to establish my covenant
( ) with him. This is the rst occurrence of the
signicant Hebrew Bible term covenant (nn). LXX-G rendered it here
with , which became its standard translation. According to
Wevers, the translator did not choose the usual Greek word for covenant,
i.e., , because the prex with () implied partners setting up
an agreement together. Instead he chose , which meant testa-
ment, will, thus a word in which only the testator determines the terms,
and the relationship ows basically in one direction (1993, 86). What
does change throughout Genesis is the verb used with the covenant. Here
God promises to establish () a covenant, as he does in 9:11; 17:7;
17:19; and 17:21. However, God neither explains what a covenant is nor
the terms of the agreement. Instead, he gives Noah instructions as to
whom and what he will take with him on the ark.
In addition to his immediate family (sons, his wife, and his sons wives),
he is to take two of each (male and female) of the domesticated animals,
of the wild animals, of the reptiles, and of all esh. LXX-G thus elaborates
on the MTs from all that lives, all esh by explaining specically which
land animals are to be included. It also interprets Gods order in the MT to
keep these animals alive with the instruction to sustain () them,
i.e., to provide them food and nourishment. In so doing, God could be
showing Noah a positive image of human rule over the other creatures.
God goes on to add birds to the animals that Noah is to take on the ark with
GENESIS 6:1322 265
266 COMMENTARY
him and expands the list to include a male and female from every animal
species. God concludes his instructions by telling Noah to take from all
the food that was to be eaten, which per 1:29, is essentially a vegetarian
diet of herbage and fruit. Like Adam, Noah says nothing in response to
Gods incredible speech. However, unlike Adam, he does everything the
way that Lord God commanded.
7:19 God now instructs the 600-year old Noah and his house to enter
the ark and nally tells Noah that it is Noahs righteousness that caused
God to select him from all others in his generation. God also gives Noah
more detailed and seemingly dierent instructions about the animals
that he is to take on the ark with him. As God dictated earlier (6:19), Noah
is to take the male and female of the domesticated animals and birds.
However, this number applies only to unclean animals. God now tells him
to take seven males and females from among the clean animals. Also, as
earlier, God tells Noah about the upcoming ood, but now tells him when
it will happen (i.e., in seven days) and for how long (i.e., forty days and
forty nights). God also seems to expand what is to be destroyed to include
not just all esh, but also everything that he made. This presumably
includes land and vegetation as well as animal life.
Noah again is the model of obedience, doing everything that God tells
him. He and his immediate family enter the ark. The animals also come
on board, but precisely which animals diers between the MT and LXX.
Even the LXX manuscripts do not agree. Its awkward syntax aside, ALEX
could be read as including two of the birds and domesticated animals
that are clean and two of the domesticated animals and birds that are not
clean. MT and all other LXX texts agree that Noah is also to take two from
the reptiles of the earth, despite the fact that God did not include them
earlier in his same speech. Even more perplexing is the complete disre-
gard of Gods instruction that seven pairs of clean animals were to be on
the ark. This discrepancy seems to contradict the oft-repeated statement
that Noah did everything just as God had commanded.
7:1016 God was true to his word; seven days later the ood began. At
this point, the narrator retells part of the story in somewhat dierent
language. Source critics such as Westermann attribute the repetition to
a change of sources from J, who was responsible for the material in vv.
110, to P in v. 11 (1984, 431). Accordingly, P oers a rather mythic version
of the beginning of the ood. Water broke out of the bottomless deep, and
the rmament that separated the waters opened. In a sense, the cosmos
was returning to its original condition, and creation was being undone.
On this day, P continues, Noah and his family and the animals entered the
ark. However, Ps description of the passengers is somewhat dierent.
Not only does he include the name of Noahs sons, but he also reverts to
the language he used in the previous chapter to describe the animals.
Thus, the animals are categorized by species, rather than by Js distinc-
tion between clean and unclean. In addition, P again uses the phrases all
esh and breath of life that were among the characteristics that God
used to describe the extent of the destruction (6:17). Despite the seem-
ing dierences and excessive repetition, the conation of material from
the two sources serves to emphasize the disastrous eects of the ood
waters. When all are on board, God closes the ark. This, per Sarna, con-
trasts with the Mesopotamian parallel that reports Utnapishtim shut the
door. Thus, the biblical account is careful to note that the salvation of
Noah is solely due to divine will, not to any independent measures of his
own (1989, 55).
7:1724 The ood rages for forty days and nights, getting progressively
worse. The waters were not only multiplying (), but they were
prevailing (). As Wevers notes, LXX-G narrates the event more
dramatically. Its use of imperfect verbs emphasizes, in Wevers words,
the advance of the ood in intensity (1993, 97). Waters that are multi-
plying have a more active force than that implied in their rather static
description as very great (b :n:) in the MT. However, the MTs other
description of the water as strong (n:) has the same connotation as
LXX-Gs in portraying the waters as winning their battle with
life on the earth. Furthermore, MT continues to use n: to describe the
force of the waters in vv. 20 and 24. LXX-G, on the other hand, describes
the waters more benignly with the passive verb was raised up ().
In so doing, LXX-G could be taking away some of the active power of the
water by implying Gods involvement in their activity.
The ark survives by oating above the water, but the high mountains
become submerged under fteen cubits of water and all esh moving on
the earth dies. The magnitude of the oods destruction continues to be
emphasized by the narrators detailed and repetitive description of the
extent of death. All esh includes birds, domesticated and wild animals,
reptiles, and humans. All esh is then furthered dened as everything
with the breath of life. Yet, the phrase all that were on the dry ground
seems to exclude marine life. This exclusion pertains to the next descrip-
tion of destruction, which repeats nearly verbatim what God told Noah
GENESIS 7:1016 & 7:1724 267
268 COMMENTARY
would happen (v. 4), namely the wiping away of humans, domesticated
animals, reptiles, and birds. By this point in the narrative, there is no
doubt that every living creature on the face of the earth was wiped away.
Only Noah and those with him in the ark are explicitly said to be spared.
Although the rain stopped after forty days and nights, the ooding of the
water over the earth continued for 150 days.
8:15 After the repetitive narration of the severity of the ood and its
devastating impact on all esh, the story takes a positive turn for Noah
and all who were with him on the ark. LXX-G continues its tendency to
be more detailed than the MT by mentioning the birds and reptiles in
addition to the wild and domesticated animals. When God remembers
the arks inhabitants, he makes the water abate by bringing a wind
() upon the earth. His action alludes to the pre-creation environ-
ment in which his breath () oated over the bottomless deep and
immediately preceded the coming into being of light and life. Now Gods
calms the waters of chaos and repairs the breached rmament so
that it would again hold back the destructive waters.
After their prevailing () over creation for 150 days (7:18,
19), the waters now are giving up () so that the ark can settle
() on top of the Ararat mountains. LXX-G again chooses unusual
words to render the MTs portrayal of the waters and the ark. Instead of
the MTs description that the waters were receding (:nc) and eventu-
ally diminished (:o), LXX-G characterizes the waters in both parts of
the verse as giving up. In so doing, it provides a striking contrast between
their earlier prevailing and their eventual giving up. Thus, LXX-G uses
more anthropomorphic language to describe the waters. It also gives the
ark a more human-like quality in its rendering of the MTs came to rest
(::) with settled (), a verb that elsewhere in Genesis has only
human subjects (e.g., Hagar in 21:16 and Josephs brothers in 37:25). All
this happens, per LXX-G, on the twenty-seventh (cf. MTs seventeenth) of
the seventh month. The waters continue to abate until the tenth month,
so that on the rst day of the eleventh month, per LXX-G (cf. MTs tenth
month), the tops of the mountains appear.
8:614 Forty days later, Noah opens the window of the ark to release
the raven. Compared with his Mesopotamian counterpart Utnapishtim
who releases a dove after only seven days, Noah was either more careful
or perhaps waiting for God to open the door that he closed. The ravens
role, assumed in the MT but explicitly stated in LXX-G, was to see if the
water had abated. Unlike its MT counterpart that went back and forth,
the LXX-G raven does not return until it can positively report that the
earth had dried out. Presumably tired of waiting for the ravens return
and report, Noah sends a dove out after it, whose mission also is to see if
the water had abated. Unlike the raven, the dove returns to Noah because
it, like its Mesopotamian counterpart, could not nd a dry resting place.
When Noah sees the dove return, he stretches out his hand and brings it
into the ark with him. In so doing, Noah shows the compassionate way
to rule over the creatures that God had required of humans. Many other
commentators have also noted the charm of the picture, which Wester-
mann further describes as a relationship of trust between animals and
humans, both of which are creatures of God (1984, 448).
Seven days later, Noah again sends out the dove, which, like the third
birds in other ood accounts, nds dry land. Remarkably, the dove knows
enough to return to Noah with a dry () olive leaf in its mouth.
Although fanciful, the doves act again portrays the mutually benecial
relationship between humans and other creatures that was part of Gods
original plan for the world. That the leaf was dry convinced Noah that the
water had abated from the earth. Nevertheless, Noah waits yet another
seven days before again sending out the dove. This time, it does not return
to him, thus signaling that the ood waters had subsided enough to allow
pre-ood life and existence to return.
Not quite a year later, the ood waters are reported to be disappearing.
On the rst day of the rst month of Noahs six hundred and rst year,
Noah uncovers the roof of the ark and can now see the waters disappear-
ing (). ALEXs use of the imperfect was disappearing, rather
than the majority reading disappeared, parallels the continued use of
the imperfect in its narration of the increasing intensity of the ood. See
above. As such, it is both contextually and narratively more appropriate
(contra Wevers 1993, 108). It took nearly a year for the waters to inundate
the earth; they will not disappear all at once. Indeed, it took nearly two
months for the land to be dried out completely.
8:1522 After nearly a year, Lord God again talks to Noah, instructing
him to leave the ark along with his family and the same animals he was
told to bring with him (6:1820). However, LXX-Gs rendering of the list
of animals is rather awkward. There seem to be three categories of ani-
mals: wild animals, all esh (from birds to domesticated animals), and all
reptiles. God then commands Noah to increase and multiply, words that
echo Gods rst imperative (1:28) and thus signal a new beginning. The
GENESIS 8:614 & 8:1522 269
270 COMMENTARY
fact that these are plural imperatives could mean, as Wevers surmises,
that God is commanding all life human and other animate beings to
reproduce (1993, 109). Wevers also provides compelling explanations for
the many dierences between LXX-G and the pre-MT consonantal text.
Remarkably, the MT text of v. 17b shows God only speaking of the other
animals, where by means of three jussive verbs, God is saying let them
swarm (missing in LXX-G completely), be fruitful, and multiply. Only
later in the MT will God issue the same instruction to Noah (9:1). Noah,
as God commands, disembarks from the ark with his family and all the
other animals according to species. Unlike v. 17 where LXX-Gs dier-
ences from the MT are awkward, here LXX-G oers what Westermann
refers to as a smoother text (1984, 452; see also Wevers [1993, 109110]
for his analysis).
Noahs rst act on earth is to build an altar() to God and,
like other heroes who survive the ood, he oers sacrices in response
to being saved from the disaster that killed all other life. Returning to
Js distinction between clean and unclean animals, LXX-G reports that
from the clean domesticated animals and birds, he oered a sacri-
ce () on the altar. Both Greek words and
are used here for the rst time. As Wevers notes, the word
for altar () was not attested earlier in Greek. Yet, it was an
apt rendering of the Hebrew nb, both of which mean a place for sac-
rice. As was the case with LXX-Gs use of to render n:b in 4:3,
the word is an odd choice to represent the Hebrew n:, which refers to a
holocaust or burnt oering. Etymologically, the word would
mean whole () fruit oering (). Yet, here and occasionally
elsewhere, it refers to a whole burnt animal oering (Wevers 1993, 110
111). In the context of the story thus far, it would seem more consistent
with Noahs regard for the animals and Gods demand to sustain the
animals (6:20) for him to oer whole fruit oerings. Nevertheless, the
immediate context makes it clear that the sacrice that Noah oers is
whole burnt animals.
God also appears to approve of the sacrice. After smelling a sweet
odor, Lord God ponders () and makes a far ranging decision to
never again curse the earth because of human action. His earlier ponder-
ing in response to humans evil pondering (6:56) caused him to destroy
all creation; now it causes him to vow to never do it again. Lord Gods
response to the sweet smell of burnt esh has, per Westermann, scandal-
ized interpreters because of the pagan association of the anthropomor-
phic description. He goes on to note that the same image occurs in the
same context in Gilg. XI: The gods smelled the savor, the gods crowded
like ies around the sacricer (1984, 454). As a result, many such as
Sarna (1989, 59) and Westermann himself argue that the reference to
Gods smelling the sweetness of the sacrice had lost its literal mean-
ing and merely served as a formal way of graciously acknowledging the
acceptability of the sacrice. Alter, on the other hand, comments that
the biblical writers had no diculty in conceiving God enjoying the
aroma of burnt oerings. He goes on to concede, however, that what
is excluded from the monotheistic version of the story is any sugges-
tion that God eats the sacrice. As a result, God is not portrayed like the
Mesopotamian gods who are dependent on humans for food (1996, 36).
The reason Lord God gives for not cursing the earth because of humans
is his realization that humans are inclined only to evil matters from their
youth. The word refers generally to the human mind and con-
notes purpose, intention, and inclination. As such, God is acknowl-
edging that the humans very being is rooted in evil. This admission is
a painful reminder of how far humans have devolved from their initial
state of being created in Gods image. Nevertheless, God is once again
portrayed as a loving parent who changes in response to a realistic evalu-
ation of his children. God may not like human inclinations, but he is com-
mitted to their continued existence. Not only will he not curse the earth
because of human behavior, he will not strike all living esh (human and
animal) as he had just done. God concludes his reection with a positive
statement about the regularity of the post-ood world. Seed and harvest,
cold and heat, summer and spring none of these will ever again come to
an end. This decision that God ponders invokes no external signs, only
the seamless cycle of the seasons that will continue as long as the earth
(Alter 1996, 37).
9:17 As evidence of a new beginning, God repeats to Noah and his sons
the imperative blessing to increase and multiply and ll the earth that
he demanded of the humans created in his image at the end of the sixth
day of creation (1:28). This, as Sarna notes, contrasts with the deities
post-ood decree of sterility in Atrahasis so as to avoid the overpopula-
tion problem that resulted in the ood (1989, 60). LXX-G adds the phrase
and exercise dominion over it (i.e., the earth) to Gods instruction and
thus makes the parallel with the rst creation more complete. Unfortu-
nately this new beginning is marked by a reversal of the mutual relation-
ship between humans and other creatures. Whereas Gods original plan
was for humans and other creatures to share a vegetarian diet, his new
GENESIS 8:1522 & 9:17 271
272 COMMENTARY
plan declares that other creatures can, along with vegetables, be food for
humans. Curiously, LXX-G follows the MT and species only living rep-
tiles () as food, despite the fact the previous verse comments on
the trembling and fear of humans that all animals wild, domesticated,
birds, and sh will now have. Furthermore, the following verse refers
to meat in general. As such, it is likely that all animals were now allowed
to be human food. There is, however, one restriction to the human car-
nivorous diet. Meat that still has living blood may not be eaten. In other
words, the blood must be drained completely before the esh is con-
sumed, a restriction that is reected in kosher dietary laws (Westermann
1984, 469; Sarna 1989, 6061). This and the following restrictions would
become the basis of several of seven so-called Noachide Laws that are
thought to be a universal post-ood moral code. These laws prohibit
idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, incest and adultery, robbery, eating esh
before its blood is drained, and a positive command to establish courts of
law (Sarna 1989, 377).
Gods prohibition against bloodshed follows immediately, and like the
dietary restriction, deals with life blood ( ). Having already
put modest limits on killing animals for food, God now (re)establishes the
sanctity of human life by demanding an accounting of human bloodshed
by animals and by other humans. The accounting God demands is a life
for a life. Although the penalty for animals killing humans is not enunci-
ated until the casuistic goring ox legislation (Exod. 21:28), the penalty
for humans who take the life of other humans immediately follows when
God declares, per LXX-G, the one who spills blood of a human, for his
blood it will be spilled. Although based on its MT counterpart, LXX-Gs
rendering has very dierent implications. The MT states: the one who
spills the blood of the human, by the human (on) his blood will be
spilled. This, as Wevers points out, is obvious nonsense (1993, 115)
because it implies that humans are the only ones who can revenge the
blood of their fellow humans. God can also participate in retributive jus-
tice. What Wevers does not go on to say is that the MT seems to endorse
capital punishment and the death penalty. Sarna, in fact, interprets the
Hebrew text as divine sanction of capital punishment. However, he also
describes the ways by which rabbinic sources make it dicult to carry
out capital punishment. He goes on to explain that the Hebrew phrase by
the human refers to the establishment of a judiciary to mete out punish-
ment (1989, 6162).
Johan Lust, however, proposes to read the MTs on, not by the man,
but for the man. Following J. Pedersen and C. Brockelmann, he under-
stands the preposition n to be a n-pretti meaning for or because of. By
so doing, he maintains that 9:6 still reects the principle of talion, but
does not dene the identity of the executioner of the punishment (1991,
95). He goes on to argue that this, in fact, was how LXX-G interpreted
the Hebrew text. The translator, he maintains, identied both the man
and the blood in the second line with their antecedents in the rst line,
and understood the Hebrew to read whoever sheds the blood of man,
for that man (that is for) his blood, it (that is the blood of the murderer)
is to be poured forth (1991, 9899). To avoid repetitive phrasing and to
smooth the grammatical construction, the translator replaced for the
man his blood by for his blood (1991, 99). Lust concludes by showing
that the translator made a similar translation decision in the previous
verse. The LXX-G translation, therefore, not only implies that God also
can avenge human bloodshed, but more importantly does not mandate
human retributive justice by means of the death penalty.
In both MT and LXX-G, the reason God gives for instituting retributive
justice is the fact that he made (LXX-G corrects to I made [])
humans in Gods image. Many commentators read this, like Sarna, as a
reference to the sanctity of human life. In his words, the fact that every
human being bears the stamp of the divine Maker permits the execution
of murderers because their unspeakable act eaces the divine image in
his victim and within himself as well (1989, 62; see also Westermann 1984,
468469). Yet, being made in Gods image could also authorize humans to
act in the place of God.
God concludes his blessing on Noah and his sons by repeating, with
some variation, what he said at the beginning of his speech. Emphasizing
the masculine plural addressees (), God demands that they be fruitful
and multiply and ll the earth. However, instead of the additional LXX-G
requirement in v. 1 to exercise lordship over it, here God reinforces his
order to multiply by repeating the imperative to multiply on the earth
( ). In the biblical post-ood world where Noah and
his family were the only living humans, Gods emphasis on reproducing
and lling the world would be necessary. In todays world already over-
populated, Gods command must be reinterpreted so that human life can
continue to live in harmony with the earth.
9:817 After instituting foundational laws against bloodshed and com-
manding Noah and his sons to begin to repopulate the earth, God contin-
ues his address to Noah and his sons by providing more specic details
about the covenant that he earlier told Noah he was going to establish
GENESIS 9:17 & 9:817 273
274 COMMENTARY
(6:18). Here God declares he is raising up () a covenant, a verb
with a slightly stronger force than its previous simpler form (), i.e.,
establish. In fact, this is the only place where LXX-G renders the MTs
hiphil of o:p with . Harl, citing Chrysostom, suggests that the
prex could indicate a renewal of the earlier covenant (1994, 141).
Furthermore, the covenant is for [all of ] you (). LXX-Gs use of
the dative of advantage without a specic preposition as in 6:18 (where
the preposition means with, as does the MTs n in both verses),
implies that this covenant is for their benet. The language, both here
and in what follows, shows that this covenant would be comparable to
what Moshe Weineld characterizes as a royal grant bestowed by a ruler
on someone on the basis of his previous loyalty (1970, 185). Although God
is addressing Noah and his sons, he is raising up the covenant for their
ospring, and even more signicantly, for every animate being (
) with them. These animate beings include birds as well as
both domesticated animals and wild animals, i.e., all those that came o
the ark with them. Why the reptiles are omitted is unclear.
God goes on to describe the terms of the covenant he is establishing
with all of them. Here the language parallels that of 6:18, but its singular
you () is now extended to include [all of ] you (). Despite the inclu-
sion of the preposition with, it is clear that it is and can only be God who
can keep the terms of the covenant. He makes a two-fold promise: (1) that
all esh ( ), presumably including reptiles, will not die again in
a ood, and (2) that the earth itself will not be destroyed by ood waters.
In other words, God will never again destroy any part of his created world
by means of a ood. This, of course, would allow him to destroy creation
by other means, but this seeming loophole is never challenged.
God continues by informing Noah of the sign () of the covenant,
which he now states he is granting () Noah and every animate
being with him. LXX-Gs use of , like its Hebrew counterpart n:,
reinforces the gift-like unilateral nature of this covenant. Furthermore,
the unnecessary use of the rst person pronoun emphasizes that God
himself is granting the gift of covenant. Signicantly, this is the only place
where LXX-G uses the verb grant, although MT uses n: again at 17:2. Not
only is Gods grant eective for Noah and all living beings with him, it will
also continue into eternal generations ( ), i.e., for ever.
Thus, Gods rst covenant is truly universal and unilateral. Even the sign
of the covenant so attests. God is placing his bow () in the cloud(s),
an act that only God can do. The Greek , like the Hebrew ncp, can
refer to the bow that launches an arrow. As such, it would be considered a
weapon, which as Sarna notes, is found frequently in ANE mythology. For
example, the Enuma Elish hero Marduk puts the bow with which he had
defeated and dismembered his mother Tiamat in the sky as a constella-
tion. Similarly, Babylonian astronomers identied stars in the shape of
a bow with a war goddess. Even the Bible itself most often uses ncp to
refer to a weapon. As a result, Sarna argues that its use here shows that
this symbol of divine bellicosity and hostility has been transformed into
a token of reconciliation between God and man (1993, 63). Westermann,
on the other hand, completely rejects this image of God hanging up his
weapon. With B. Jacob, he maintains that the word means rainbow when
used, as here, with the phrase in the cloud. As such, the word is merely
referring to the natural phenomenon after a rain or thunderstorm (1984,
473). Its literary context makes Westermanns argument more convinc-
ing, especially when God repeats that his bow will be seen in the clouds.
After God identies the bow as the sign of his covenant the rst time,
he describes it as representing the covenant between him and the earth.
Thus he now includes the earth as another part of the created world that
benets from his covenant. Even more signicantly, God declares the
purpose of the bow seen in the clouds. It will remind him of the covenant,
the parties it includes, and the promise it represents. That God needs a
visual reminder of his promise to never wipe away all esh suggests that
human behavior will, in the future, make him want to wipe away all esh
again. In other words, God has come to acknowledge that humans will
continue to disappoint him in ways that will warrant their destruction.
Nevertheless, God is determined to prevent himself from doing so, by
ood, by putting his bow in the cloud. The importance of this, the rst
and most universal of Gods covenants, is highlighted by Gods repetition
of the sign, terms, and parties of his covenant.
In his nal declaration of the covenant, God uses yet another verb to
describe his covenantal action. When he rst mentioned the covenant to
Noah, God announced that he was going to establish () a covenant.
When he rst addressed Noah and his sons to describe the terms of the
covenant, he said he was raising up () the covenant. Now as part
of his nal words on the subject, God refers to what he just did as having
contracted () a covenant. Because the Greek verb is
cognate with the noun for covenant (), it should be rendered in
a way that acknowledges the basic function of a covenant, i.e., a contrac-
tual agreement or settlement between several parties. Thus
is best translated as the covenant that I contracted. This is
the only place in Genesis where the Hebrew hiphil verb o:p is rendered
GENESIS 9:817 275
276 COMMENTARY
with . In its only other occurrence, o:p is rendered with some
form of the verb (6:18; 9:9, 11, 17; 17:7, 19, 21). Most often, the
Greek phrase contract a covenant ( ) translates the
Hebrew phrase cut a covenant (nn no), a translation that misses
the signicance of the cut up animals that is at the heart of the Hebrew
idiom. Signicantly, with the exception of 15:18 and this verse, is
used only in the contexts of human-initiated political treaties (21:27, 32;
26:28, and 31:44), instead of God-initiated moral treaties.
9:1828 After Gods magnanimous declaration, the story continues
with an abbreviated genealogy of the new rst family that is to increase
and multiply on the earth. Of Noahs three sons, only Hams sons name
is reported. Nevertheless, the following comment that from these, i.e.,
Noahs sons, they were scattered over all the earth makes it clear that
Shem and Japheth also obeyed Gods command to multiply. The identity
of the ospring of the other two brothers, as well as those of Ham and
his son Canaan (Chanaan), will be detailed later. However, the narrative
focus on Ham and Canaan sets the stage for their role in what immedi-
ately follows.
Noah, per LXX-G, is said to be the rst tiller () of the earth,
an etiological comment that raises questions. Cain would seem the more
obvious person to rst farm the earth. Even the MT could be read the
same way. Both texts go on to report that he planted a vineyard. Wes-
termann, however, proposes a syntactic reading of the MT that makes
Noah the rst one, not to be a man of the soil, but to plant a vineyard
(1984, 487). As such, he is credited with expanding beyond simple agri-
culture and introducing viticulture. Wevers maintains that LXX-G can be
read the same way (1993, 122). Harl, however, oers a simpler solution
by observing that the word () used to describe Noah as a tiller
of the earth distinguishes his activity from that of Cain who was merely
a worker () of the earth (1994, 142). More important to the
present context is his making of wine from the grapes of his vineyard.
The comment alludes back to 5:29, where the meaning of Noahs name
connotes rest from the pain associated with post-garden agriculture. In
Westermanns words, over and above the toil of the farmer to produce
the necessities of life, it (viticulture) yields a product that brings joy and
relaxation. The rhythm of work and celebration demands that the celebra-
tion be the high point; festivity supercedes daily drudgery (1984, 487).
Noah, unfortunately, celebrates too much and gets drunk from the
wine. In and of itself, drunkenness would not be a problem. However, he
was left naked () in his house. LXX-Gs rendering of the Hebrew
exposed himself, (::n), i.e., became naked, with the passive form,
rather than the middle form, of has a slightly dierent implica-
tion. Rather than undressing himself, LXX-Gs Noah appears to have been
undressed and left naked by someone else. This complicates an already
problematic situation narrated in the MT, as discussed below. On the
other hand, LXX-Gs description of Noahs residence as a house (),
rather than the MTs tent (n:n), could imply a situation where Noah
might have expected a little more privacy. That he was naked and had no
privacy leads to disastrous consequences.
The trouble begins when Cham, the father of Chanaan, saw the naked-
ness (/n:) of his father. LXX-Gs rendering of the Hebrew term
n:, per Wevers, is a literal one. From the root n, the term n: refers
to Noahs pudenda (1993, 123). Both Harl (1994, 142) and Marc Vervenne
(1995b, 46), however, maintain that the more common translation of n:
would have been pudenda (), as employed by both Aquila
and Symmachus and throughout Leviticus. The term has an
explicitly sexual meaning, whereas the term is more neutral. As
such, Vervenne argues that it is quite conceivable that the Greek trans-
lator replaced the erotically charged terminology (pudenda)
with in order to focus on the typical Hellenistic theme of
nakedness, nudity and thereby to express his reservations about the
cult of the body (1995b, 46). Even a toned down literal reading of the
sentence implicates both father and son; Noah for the social disgrace of
nakedness, and Ham for seeing his father naked. Nevertheless, the curse
of enslavement and subjugation to his brothers that Noah declares on
Canaan not only seems out of proportion to the act, but seems to punish
the son for his fathers behavior.
In response to the latter problem, some commentators on the Hebrew
text suggest that two traditions (one about Ham and one about Canaan)
were pieced together. Others propose textual emendations (Westermann
1984, 482485). However, it is the idea that the punishment does not t
the crime that is most debated. As a result, some propose that Ham did
more than just see his father naked. Rabbinic sources in the Babylonian
Talmud dier: Rab claimed that Ham castrated his father, and Samuel
maintained that he sodomized him (Sarna 1989, 66; Vervenne 1995b,
3435). Frederick Bassett argues that to see someones nakedness was
an idiomatic reference to sexual intercourse. Although he acknowledges
that sexual intercourse is more often rendered by the phrase to uncover
the nakedness of someone, the fact that the two phrases were used in
GENESIS 9:1828 277
278 COMMENTARY
parallel in Lev. 17:20 suggests an interchangeable meaning. He goes on to
argue that to see a mans nakedness means to have sexual relations with
his wife. Therefore, what Ham did was have intercourse with his mother,
an incestuous union that produced Canaan, who bears Noahs curse of
slavery, because he is the fruit of Hams incest (1971, 235).
Westermann and others, however, argue for the more literal reading,
based primarily on what follows. After seeing his fathers nakedness, Ham
goes outside (, added by LXX-G) and reports to his two brothers.
That Ham does not immediately cover his fathers nakedness instead of
going out to tell his brothers is the real crime (Westermann 1984, 488;
see also Ross 1980, 230231). Shem and Japheth, on the other hand, do
the right thing. They take the garment, and in a very awkward but hon-
orable way, put it over their backs, walk while looking backwards, and
cover their fathers nakedness without seeing what they should not see.
That they take the garment (articulated in both MT [n:bcn] and LXX-G
[ ]), not just a garment, implies that Ham took his fathers gar-
ment when he went outside (Ross 1980, 231), thus exacerbating his crime
(but cf. Wevers [1993, 123] who maintains that despite the articulation,
means a garment, an outer cloak also used as a bedspread). LXX-
Gs use of , as discussed above, tends to support Rosss claim.
LXX-Gs interpretive translation continues with its assertion that the
two other sons walk, per Wevers (1993, 123), looking backwards (-
), and thus depicts them as even more modest than their MT coun-
terparts. Walking backwards, as MT, would likely prevent them from
seeing their father when they go to cover him. Looking backwards, both as
they walk and when they cover their father, emphasizes the fact that they
are intentionally looking the other way. LXX, imitating the MT, departs
from the typical word order by putting the verb do not see at the end of
the sentence. As such, it prolongs the suspense of whether they will suc-
cessfully not see their fathers nakedness and grammatically contrasts
them with Ham whose rst action is seeing his fathers nakedness.
LXX-G improves on the logic and the narrative description of Noahs
response. It goes beyond the MTs neutral Noah woke up (p) by report-
ing that he sobered up (), or woke up from a drunken stupor,
and he knew not just what (c n), but how much () his younger
son did to him. He then pronounces a curse on Canaan. Many commenta-
tors, as discussed above, struggle to explain why Canaan is punished for
the sin of his father. In contrast to the text critical explanations, Sarna
speculates that in the fuller story Canaan, son of Ham, was a partici-
pant in the oense against Noah, a detail omitted here on grounds of
delicacy and on the assumption that the original story was well known to
the reader (1989, 66). What seems likely, as discussed more fully below,
is that the curse reects the future troubled relationship between the
Canaanites and the Israelites, who descend from Shem. LXX-G does not
attempt to correct the problem, but merely renders the Hebrew liter-
ally with cursed be Canaan. His punishment is to be a household slave
( ) to his brothers. Although is elsewhere translated as
servant or boy, the underlying sense of the poetic punishment pas-
sage makes slave more appropriate (Harl 1994, 145). As a rendering of
the Hebrew lowliest slave (on n), LXX-G makes the same point;
a household slave would be the lowest of all possible ranks of slaves
(Wevers 1993, 124).
Although Canaans curse would be a tting end to the story, it contin-
ues with Noah blessing Lord, the God of Shem. This seeming non sequi-
tur is hard to explain, especially when one might expect a blessing for
Shem, rather than for the future deity YHWH who would be associated
with Shems distant ospring (Westermann 1984, 492493). Noah contin-
ues by repeating his prediction of Canaans servitude before turning his
attention to Japheth. Although not a blessing per se, Noah asks that God
expand Japheth so that he might live in the house (again instead
of the MTs :n) of Shem. Most explain this rather obscure comment
about the future of Noahs son again as a reference to future relationships
between groups of people, with Japheth being related to the Philistines
or the Greeks. See Westermann 1984, 490494 and Harl 1994, 143144 for
extended discussions of the possibilities. Noahs displeasure with Canaan
is even more apparent when he, for the third time, mentions Canaans
enslavement to his brothers.
The complexity and ambiguity of both the Hebrew and its rather literal
LXX-G translation, combined with the Table of Nations in the following
chapter, has resulted in anachronistic justications for the future suprem-
acy of the biblical Israelites descended from Shem over the biblical
Canaanites and the even later subjugation of the presumed black Afri-
can descendents of Ham by much of the western world. The literature on
the topic is vast. Vervenne oers a summary of the conclusions informed
by dierent methodological readings of the text (1995b, 5455). Wester-
mann provides a sweeping review of other explanations of the future-
oriented fates of the ospring of Noahs sons, but disagrees with all of
them except that of B. Jacob, whom he quotes as saying, in the narra-
tive Ham, Canaan, Shem, and Japheth are individuals, sons and grandson
of Noah. They must be the same in the curse and blessing (1984, 491).
GENESIS 9:1828 279
280 COMMENTARY
Gunther Wittenberg, reecting on a conversation between Fidel Castro
and the Catholic priest Frei Betto, shows how some have read the so-
called Curse of Canaan to justify white prejudice by assuming that black-
ness was a punishment of God (1991, 46).
Noahs remarkably complex story ends unremarkably with a comment
that concludes Chapter 5s genealogy. He lived 350 years after the ood,
for a total life span of 950 years, before he died.
10:15 Chapter 10 of Genesis, a genealogy known as the Table of Nations,
purports to describe the dispersion of the descendants of Noahs three
sons over the earth (9:19). It also serves to document human obedience
to Gods command to be fruitful and multiply and ll the earth. Hess
discusses the similarities noted by scholars including John Van Seters
and Martin West between the Table of Nations and the Greek Catalogue of
Women attributed to Hesiod. Both are segmented genealogies; both have
an international scope; both include geographic and ethnic eponyms;
and both have embedded hero stories. Although acknowledging these
formal similarities, Hess argues that these two genealogies have dierent
foci. Whereas the Greek text focuses primarily on the Greek communities
and their relationships with other nations, Genesis 10 focuses primarily
on nations other than that which will be associated with Abraham and
his family (1989, 252253). Earlier analyses like that of Hess led Wester-
mann and others to note that the Table of Nations has no known parallel
either inside or outside the Bible (1984, 501). Alter similarly remarks that
the table of nations is a serious attempt, unprecedented in the ancient
Near East, to sketch a panorama of all known human cultures from
Greece and Crete in the west through Asia Minor and Iran and down
through Mesopotamia and the Arabian Peninsula to northwestern Africa
(1996, 42).
Structured around the ospring of each of Noahs three sons, the gene-
alogy provides a glimpse of geographic, ethnic, and linguistic features
associated with families of seventy peoples (excluding Nimrod). Its formal
features have led some scholars to distinguish contributions from both J
and P, as well as a redactional attempt to bring them together (see, e.g.,
Westermann 1984, 501503). Nevertheless, the nal form of the geneal-
ogy has made the question as to the criteria used to distinguish the three
families nearly impossible to discern. As Bustenay Oded acknowledges,
the author of Genesis 10 seems to use several dierent criteria indiscrim-
inately: ethnopolitical (family and nation), linguistic (language), and geo-
graphic (country). Oded, however, rejects all these criteria and instead
argues that the original nucleus of the table reects a socio-economic
and socio-cultural approach that incorporates political organization,
social hierarchy and stratication, and the economic factors associated
with production. In brief, Oded maintains that Japheths line represents
maritime and gentile nations, Shems line represents nomadic cultures,
and Hams line represents more sedentary groups of people. Over time,
however, the original nucleus used by both J and P was enriched or
diminished with names with the consequence that many changes do not
t into the authors original intention (1986, 30).
Yet, as discussed above, the Table of Nations was constructed with a par-
ticular ethnic and theological bias. Despite its lack of explicit categoriza-
tion based on race or skin color, it has been used to justify the subjugation
of the descendents of Ham and Canaan. The genealogy gives prominence
to the ospring of Shem, one of whom will be Abraham, the ancestral
father of the Jews. As is the case with all the genealogies in Genesis, there
are signicant dierences among the Greek manuscripts, most of them
attributed to spelling or copyists. These dierences, as well as ambiguity
even in the MT about precise geographical locations associated with the
peoples listed, makes it dicult to clearly identify the nations referenced
in LXX-G. See Wevers (1993, 127146) for a detailed description of the
dierences and the likely peoples linked with the transliterated Greek
names.
The genealogy begins where it left o in 9:18 with a list of Noahs three
sons in typical order, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, but then reverses the
order by beginning the list of their ospring with those of Japheth. He,
per LXX-G, had eight sons, as compared with the MT that only includes
seven. As Wevers notes, LXX-G added Elisa as the fth son. The same name
appears as one of Ioyans sons in the next verse (1993, 127). Two genera-
tions of Japheths descendants are included before the summary statement
that associates the ospring of his son Iouan with the coastal nations and
lands, likely the inhabitants of the Greek islands. The masculine plural
ending () on the names and , like the masculine plural o
in the MT, connotes a particular group of people thus the ians Eng-
lish rendering. The Ketians are most likely the people associated with the
island of Cyprus, and the Rodians are most likely the people of Rhodes
(Wevers 1993, 129).
Hebrew Bible commentators assume that the phrase these are the
sons of Japheth was accidentally omitted from the MT and include it
before the nal comment, i.e., each according to tongue in their tribes
and nations (Alter 1996, 43; Sarna 1989, 71; Westermann 1984, 496497).
GENESIS 10:15 281
282 COMMENTARY
Like its MT counterpart :c:, the Greek word literally means
tongue in the sense of ones spoken language. The concluding statement
of the genealogy of each of Noahs sons includes a comment about cer-
tain basic elements common to all that indicate that they share in the
human race the land, which is the peoples living space and provides it
with food; the language, which binds all members of the people together
and makes meaningful existence and community life possible; the fami-
lies (clans) [here tribes], which give continuity to the life of the people
as generation follows generation (Westermann 1984, 509).
10:620 The four families associated with Hams sons are easier to iden-
tify. The rst three are recognized as African nations: Chous is known in
the Hebrew Bible as Ethiopia or Cush, the area south of Egypt; Mesrain
refers to Egypt (based on its Hebrew equivalent ovb), but is referred to
as throughout the rest of the LXX; and Phoud is known as Libya
in later books. Canaan, as discussed earlier, is the eponymous ancestor of
the Canaanites and Phoenicians (Wevers 1993, 131).
Cush, in turn, has ve sons and two grandsons, all of which are ali-
ated with ethnically and geographically diverse areas in Africa, Arabia,
and Mesopotamia. Sarna posits that these are grouped together due to
their similar sounding names and their participation in sea commerce
(1989, 72). The style of the genealogy changes abruptly (per Westermann
[1984, 514] a switch from P to J) as does the geographic area when Cush is
said to have fathered Nimrod (Nebrd), the rst giant on the earth and a
noted giant hunter before Lord God. This is an odd tribute to a legendary
gure associated with the founding of Mesopotamia. Particularly puz-
zling is how the African aliated Cush could be linked to Mesopotamia.
Sarna oers two possibilities. Cush sounds like the city of Kish, where
Mesopotamian lore establishes the resumption of kingship after the
ood. These postdiluvian leaders were associated with the Early Dynastic
Period (28002500 B.C.E.) of lower Mesopotamia. Another conjecture is
that Cush represents the Kassites who ruled Babylonia from 16001200
B.C.E. Scholars have also attempted to identify Nimrod with some his-
torical or legendary gure, including Naram-Sin (grandson of Sargon 1 of
Akkad), Tukulti-Ninurta (Assyrian monarch and reputed hunter who con-
quered Babylon), Marduk (god of Babylon), Nuzi-Maruttash (king of the
Kassite dynasty), and Gilgamesh (the epic gure who also was described
as a giant and a hunter). See Sarna (1989, 73) and Westermann (1984, 514
516) for further possibilities. LXX-G merely substituted a beta for the mem
in Hebrew and did not attempt to clarify the gure of the mighty giant.
Nimrods association with Mesopotamia becomes certain when the
narrative inserted into the genealogy continues. His kingdom began with
Babylon (the city Babylon), Orech (the Sumerian city-state Uruk), Archad
(the kingdom ruled by Sargon [2300 B.C.E.]), and Chalanne (precise ref-
erent unknown) in the land of Sennaar (Shinar, i.e., the entire country
of Babylonia). From here, Nimrod went on to Assoup (Asshur, a major
city on the Tigris), where he built Nineu (Nineveh), Rhobs city (per-
haps a suburb of Nineveh), and Chalach (Calah, a major city on the left
back of the Tigris), and Dasem (said in the text to be located between
Nineveh and Calah, but its precise referent is unknown). The following
comment, i.e., this is the great city, could refer ironically to the unknown
Dasem, or more logically to the rst city that began Nimrods kingdom,
i.e., Babylon. See Wevers (1993, 134135) and Sarna (1989, 7475) for vari-
ant spellings and more details about these cities that Nimrod is credited
with building.
Hams second son Mesrian (Egypt) is said to have fathered seven sons
of his own. By duplicating the plural endings of MT, LXX-G also repre-
sents these sons as inhabitants of a region or members of a tribe. Unfor-
tunately, little is known about most of these peoples. ALEXs second son
(who is the fourth in most manuscripts) Nephthalieim could designate
the Delta region of Lower Egypt in contrast to the fth son Patrosonieim,
likely Pathros of Upper Egypt. The sixth son Chasmonieim, from whom
came Phylistieim (the Philistines), could be an area around the Mediter-
ranean islands. However, the seventh son Chaphthorieim (Crete) would
be a more logical origin for the Philistines (Wevers 1993, 136; Sarna 1989,
75). Despite the fact that LXX-G was translated in the Egyptian city of
Alexandria, it did not correct or provide any additional information on
these peoples and places associated with its biblical ancestor Mesrian.
Canaan, Hams son cursed by his grandfather, fathered eleven sons. His
rstborn Sidon is an obvious reference to the recognized Phoenician port
city and likely refers to the entire Phoenician area. The rest of his o-
spring represent particular peoples; the LXX-Gs nominative ending ,
like MTs n, is a gentilic, and is thus rendered by the English equivalent
ites. Thus, the Chettites are the Hittites of Syria. Canaans other sons are
similarly recognized as eponymous ancestors of the nations associated
with the biblical Canaanites including Iebousites (the Jebusites), Amor-
rites (the Amorites, a distinct West Semitic ethnic group in Babylonia
known as the Amurru), Gergesites (the Girgashites), and Huites (the Hiv-
ites, perhaps living around Shechem). The nal ve sons, i.e., Aroukites,
Asennites, Aradians, Samarites, and Hamathi, are all associated with
GENESIS 10:620 283
284 COMMENTARY
inhabitants of ve Syrian/Phoenician cities (Wevers 1993, 136138; Sarna
1989, 7576).
After this, the tribes of the Canaanites were said to be dispersed. LXX-G,
following MT, no longer refers to Canaan as an individual, but to the so-
called tribes associated with the Canaanites. What follows describes the
cities into which the peoples associated with the descendants of Canaan
moved. These include Sidon, Gerara, Gaza, Sodoma and the three other
cities of the open eld (Gomorra, Adama, and Seboim), and Dasa, whose
precise location is unknown. As Wevers comments, LXX-Gs description
of these geographic areas and boundaries is no clearer than that of the
MT (1993, 138; Sarna 1989, 77). Hams genealogy concludes, like that of his
brother Japheth, with a summary statement that acknowledges the char-
acteristics associated with the peoples whose tongues (i.e., languages),
countries (an added feature not included for Japheth), and nations arose
from his descendents.
10:2132 The genealogy concludes with the catalogue of Shems descen-
dents. Despite the awkward syntax of the opening verse in both MT and
LXX-G, the content underscores the importance of Shems line. Wester-
mann explains the seeming absence of the names of Shems sons after
the verb were born (:/) as a J fragment that suered dam-
aged when edited together with the P material that follows (1984, 524).
What results is the comment that he was the father of all the sons of Eber,
whose names and details appear later in v. 25. Eber, however, is not Shems
son, but his great great grandson. Nevertheless, as Sarna maintains, Eber
receives special mention here because he is the ancestor of both Israel
and of a variety of peoples with whom Israelite history is closely inter-
twined (1989, 78).
Shem, per ALEX and MT, has ve sons: Ailam (Elam), Assoup (Asshur/
Assyria), Arphaxad (a reference that per Sarna is a puzzle [1989, 78]
and per Wevers baes explanation [1993, 140]), Loud (maybe Lydia),
and Aram (the Arameans of Syria, but see Sarna who references a dif-
ferent tradition in Genesis 22:21 where Aram is the grandson of Nahor,
Abrahams brother [1989, 78]). Other Greek manuscripts add a sixth son
. Of these sons, only the descendents of the mysterious Arphaxad
and the well known Aram are mentioned. The latters sons are listed rst
and include Os, Houl, Gather, and Mosoch. None of these has been posi-
tively identied with any people or location with the exception of Os (Uz
in MT) that might be Jobs mythical hometown (Sarna 1989, 78).
The most signicant of Shems sons for the rest of the biblical story
is the puzzling Arphaxad, who, per LXX-G fathered Kainam (ALEX), who
fathered Sala, who fathered Eber. MT does not include Kainam; rather it
reports that Arphaxad fathered Sala. At this point, neither Kainam nor
Sala are important, and nothing is known about them. Eber, as mentioned
above, is the distant ospring of Shem who will be the distant ancestor
of Abraham. Eber has two sons, Phalek and Iektan. The comment about
Phalek in LXX-G is merely a translation of the wordplay based on his
Hebrew name ::c, i.e., in his day the earth was divided (n::c:). Although
the names of his ospring are not recorded here, they will appear in the
genealogy in Chapter 11 that ends with the family of Abraham. Most of
those who are included in the earlier part of the genealogy are those who
are signicant for the larger biblical story. Curiously, it is the twelve (MT
reports thirteen) sons of Phaleks brother Iektan who are listed, although
many of them cannot be identied. According to Sarna, those who can be
identied are associated with the southern Arabian Peninsula. That they
are said to be descended from the same stock as the Israelites, he com-
ments, is remarkable and possibly reects a historical relationship based
on the spice trade between Israel and the Arabian tribes (1989, 7980).
See also Westermann (1984, 526528) for other possible identications of
peoples connected with Iektans ospring.
Shems genealogy concludes with the summary statement, like that of
Hams, that acknowledges the characteristics associated with the peoples
whose languages, countries, and nations arose from his descendents. The
entire genealogical Table of Nations also ends with a summary statement
that traces all these nations back to the tribes associated with Noahs
three sons. LXX-G, drawing from the language in v. 5, departs from the
MT and concludes by saying that from these the islands of the nations
were dispersed over the earth after the ood.
11:19 Having accounted for the dispersion of Noahs ospring over the
earth, the narrator tells an etiological story of how all these people came
to speak dierent languages. It begins by noting that the one common
lip and language made it possible for enterprising settlers from the east
to engage in a building project. The universality of humankind and the
cooperation among those settling in Sennaar (i.e., Babylonia) would seem
to bode well for human achievement. These were not merely temporary
workers; they planned to settle down and live () there. Their
rst cooperative endeavor was to make bricks and bake them in the re.
GENESIS 10:2132 & 11:19 285
286 COMMENTARY
These bricks would be used as stone and the available clay would be used
as asphalt. Creativity combined with cooperation gave them the ability to
build a city and a tower whose head would reach the heaven. Drawing on
motifs from other ancient stories, the biblical narrator shows knowledge
of Mesopotamian conditions and traditions. The Enuma Elish, for exam-
ple, describes a year-long brick making process that culminated with the
head of Esagila, a temple complex, in the sky. In fact, Sarna notes that
the phrase with its top in the sky is a clich in Mesopotamian building
inscriptions, especially those involving ziggurats. Most Mesopotamian
cities had at least one of these lofty multileveled temple towers dedicated
to their gods. Their pyramid-like shape resembled a mountain, at whose
top the gods were imagined to have their abode (Sarna 1989, 8283).
Although such ziggurats were built to please the gods in Mesopotamia,
their biblical counterpart had the opposite eect.
If the human attempt to breach the boundary between heaven and earth
was upsetting to God, their reason for doing so was even worse. ALEXs
use of the future indicative (, i.e., we will make), rather than
the majoritys aorist subjunctive (, i.e., let us make), implies
that the name, or reputation, the people wanted to make for themselves
was the result of the building project, rather than an additional feature.
They wanted the fame associated with the monumental tower, per-LXX-
G, before they were dispersed over the face of the earth. This, as Wevers
notes (1993, 149), suggests that the translator knew that the people would
eventually disperse and changed the MTs lest we disperse, (:c:c) to
before being dispersed ( ). Furthermore, LXX-Gs
passive participle, instead of the MTs future active verb, implies that the
dispersal would be something done to them, rather than something they
want to avoid.
The building project underway, Lord goes down to see the city and the
tower. Unfortunately, he is not favorably impressed with what they were
able to accomplish because of their one language and common race. In
other words, their ability to communicate with each other allowed them
to do more than Lord wanted them to do. Nothing, he declared, could stop
them. Therefore, he summoned his divine council to go down and confuse
their tongue () so that they could no longer understand each
other. LXX-G departs from the MT by rendering the rst occurrence of
the Hebrew ncc with , and the second with language ().
Both Greek words, as well as the more comparable word lip () used
to render ncc in vv. 1 and 6, refer to the common language spoken by
the people. Nevertheless, LXX-Gs use of a variety of words (lip, tongue,
and language) to express a similar idea is perhaps an ironic attempt to
portray a sense of confusion in a story about Gods confusion of speech.
Then, as they feared, Lord disperses them over the face of all the earth.
In so doing, he was making them ll the earth ( ), part
of his post-ood imperative (9:7), leaving the city and tower unnished.
Nevertheless, the unnished city is given the name Confusion. As in
other etiological naming accounts, LXX-G cannot duplicate the wordplay
between the Hebrew :nn and the obvious place name Babel. Neverthe-
less, the name symbolizes the confusion of lips that will be one of many
distinguishing factors among those dispersed over all the earth.
11:1026 Shems importance to biblical genealogy is conrmed when
his descendants are listed for a second time. This time, however, only
the rstborn son of each generation is included. In addition, Shems con-
structed ancestral line to Abraham is made clear. Although Shems gene-
alogy is related in content to the one in Chapter 10, it is related in form to
the genealogy narrated in Chapter 5 that described the ten generations
beginning with Adam and ending with Noah. The forthcoming one also
includes ten generations. However, LXX-Gs addition of the patriarch Kai-
nen results in a ten-generation scheme that is dierent from that of the
MT. The latter includes Shem as the rst generation, whereas LXX-G has
to begin its generation count with his son. Therefore, while these gene-
alogies are constructed to make a narrative point that a signicant g-
ure appears at the end of ten generations the way in which they count
generations diers. As in Chapter 5, LXX-G departs from both MT and
the Samaritan Pentateuch in the ages of the patriarchs. The major dier-
ences between MT and LXX-G will be described below.
The genealogies in Chapters 10 and 11 begin the same way: they
have the standard formula that announces the descendants of Shem;
they agree that he was 100 years old when he fathered Arphaxad; they
both report this happened two years after the ood; they agree that
Shem lived 500 years after fathering Arphaxad; and they both report
that he had sons and daughters. However, LXX-G deviates from MT
by con cluding the narration of each generation, as it did in Chapter 5,
by announcing the death of the patriarch, here Shem. From this point,
LXX-G and MT dier considerably. LXX-G reports that Arphaxad lived
135 years before fathering Kainan, and 430 years afterward, whereas MT
indicates that he was only 35 years old when he fathered Shelah and lived
403 years more. The MT omits Kainan completely, as it did in the previous
chapter.
GENESIS 11:19 & 11:1026 287
288 COMMENTARY
LXX-G credits Kainan with fathering Sala when he is 130 years old and
living 330 additional years. The two agree that Sala fathers Eber, but dis-
agree completely on how old he was and how much longer he lived. LXX-
G indicates he was, like Kainan, 130 years when he fathered his son and
lived 330 years longer, whereas MT reports that he was only 30 years old
when he had Shelah and lived 403 more years. After this and throughout
the rest of the genealogy, each LXX-G ancestor (except Nahor) is reported
to be 100 years older than his MT counterpart when he fathers his rst
son. Eber, like Sala, lives longer than his LXX-G counterpart after having
his rst son, whereas Phalek, Ragau, and Serouch all live the same num-
ber of years after their rst sons. Nahor (Nachor) was the youngest father
in both LXX-G (79 years) and MT (29 years), and lives ten years longer
in LXX-G (129 years compared to 119 years). Both LXX-G and MT agree
that Nahors son Terah (Thera) was 70 years old when he fathered three
sons, Abram, Nahor, and Haran (Harran). Terahs importance, and that
of his sons, is very clear when both MT and LXX-G break the pattern and
list all three of Terahs sons. LXX-Gs inclusion of Kainan and its adding
one hundred years to the age of the patriarchs when they fathered their
rst sons shows how carefully its genealogy was constructed. As Wevers
notes, exactly 1,000 years elapse between the birth of Shems son and that
of Terahs son. For a complete list of the dierences among the MT, LXX-
G, and Samaritan Pentateuch, see Wevers 1993, 153154.
11:2732 What began as a highly formulaic genealogy changes abruptly
when it includes the names of all three of Terahs sons. Another gene-
alogy focusing specically on Terah and his ospring begins where the
earlier one left o, but continues with a very dierent style. This narra-
tive genealogy repeats the names of Terahs three sons before reporting
that one of them, namely Haran, fathered Lot. Haran dies in his native
country of the Chaldeans, i.e., Babylonia. Abram and Nahor, Terahs other
two sons, take wives. Again the genealogy departs from a typical format
and reports the names of their wives: Abrams wife was Sarai (Sara) and
Nahors wife was Milcha (Melcha). Even more surprising is the mention
of Milchas immediate family, including her now dead father Haran and
her sister Ischa. However, the inclusion of Milchas family makes Sarais
lack of family more noticeable. She is the only person in this part of the
genealogy whose paternity is unreported. What follows contrasts even
more with the implied theme of a genealogy, i.e., the continuing family
line. Not only does she have no prior family, she has no potential for bear-
ing ospring. She was barren, and, per LXX-G, was not producing chil-
dren. Like MT, LXX-G has two phrases that parallel each other. Unlike the
MT, however, LXX-Gs use of the imperfect she was not bearing children
( ), instead of the MTs simple nominal phrase she had no
children (:: n: ), connotes the on-going nature of Sarais condition.
Sarai, therefore, would not be considered a good wife and her status as a
woman would be minimal. This unattering and unexpected statement
in the context of a genealogy, however, sets up narrative tension for what
follows. Furthermore, her continued barrenness will drive the plot of sev-
eral stories. Here, however, it disrupts the genealogy.
What follows is a brief itinerary that describes a journey undertaken
by Terah and part of his family. He takes Abram, Lot, and Sarai out of
their native Babylonia and heads toward Canaan. The signicance of this
particular family and their relationship to each other is apparent when
the narrator repeats a main factor of their identity: Abram is identied
for the third time as Terahs son; Lot is described for the second time as
Harans son, who is also for the third time identied as one of Terahs sons;
and Sarai is identied both as Abrams wife and Terahs daughter-in-law.
These four people, however, do not reach their destination. Instead they
get as far as Haran (Charran) and settle there for at least two hundred
and ve years, after which Terah dies. No reason is given either for their
departure from Babylonia or for their extended stay in Haran. Like Sarais
barrenness, these questions eventually will be addressed.
12:19 Having introduced the rst family of Israel at the end of the pre-
vious chapters genealogy, the narrator jumps to a later period in Abrams
life when God speaks to him and orders him to leave his land and family.
God oers no specic designation; he merely tells Abram to go to the
land that I will show you. Perhaps anticipating Abrams unasked ques-
tion, God provides a reason for the journey in the seven-fold promise he
makes to Abram and his family. The global perspective of the rst part of
Gods promise to make of Abram a great nation contrasts with the more
personal nature of the second (Gods blessing on Abram), third (Gods pro-
viding Abram a great name/reputation), and fourth parts of the promise
(Gods designation of Abrams blessed status). The fth and sixth parts
of the promise broaden the perspective again by including other people.
God will bless those who bless Abram and curse those (cf. MTs singular
the one) who curse him. Finally, the seventh part goes back to the global
perspective when God designates Abram as the source of the blessings
of all the tribes of the earth. LXX-G interprets the MTs niphal :on:
as a passive, not as a reexive verb, and renders it with the passive verb
GENESIS 11:2732 & 12:19 289
290 COMMENTARY
will be blessed () (Wevers 1997, 97). In so doing, LXX-G
shows Abrams universal signicance. The tribes do not bless themselves
in Abram, rather they are blessed because of him. In his discussion of the
scholarly debate about the dierence between the passive and reexive
senses of the Hebrew :on:, Westermann maintains that both forms have
essentially the same meaning. LXX-G likely drew the same conclusion; it
rendered both niphal (12:3; 18:18; 28:14) and hitpael (22:18; 26:14) forms of
:on: throughout Genesis with the same passive verb .
Abram neither questions how God can make him into a great nation
when Sarai is barren nor thanks God for such generosity. He says noth-
ing at all. Rather, at seventy-ve years of age, he does what God tells him
to do. He leaves Haran, the place where his family had stopped on their
journey from Ur to Canaan (11:31). Abram, Sarai, and Lot now resume the
journey as God orders. Despite the narrators report that Abram did just
as () God commanded, Abram did not in fact leave all his kin. He,
in fact, took Sarai and Lot with him, along with all their acquired posses-
sions, some of which included servants, i.e., acquired persons (
). The entourage reaches Canaan and travels as far as the high
oak of Shechem (Suchem). Awkwardly interrupting his travelogue, the
narrator reports that Canaanites were settled on the land. However, the
seeming non sequitur becomes relevant when God makes his rst appear-
ance to Abram and explains what his earlier blessing on Abram entails.
God promises to give the already occupied land to Abrams ospring.
Abram does not question how he will produce ospring when Sarai
is barren or if God intends for him to share the land with those already
settled () there, i.e., as permanent residents. Instead, he builds
in Shechem the rst of many altars to God. This rst altar commemorates
Gods appearing to him. He travels further south to Bethel (Baithl) and
builds a second altar, this one to commemorate his rst invoking of Gods
name. For some unknown reason, Abram leaves this area and sets up a
camp in the desert (). The Greek word is another example
of LXX-Gs interpretive translation. Here it renders the MTs Negeb/
south (n::). The Negeb area is in the southern part of Canaan, an area
that is a desert. LXX-G thus chose to describe the area represented by
the Hebrew n::, rather than translate it literally.
12:1020 Abram must be wondering what kind of land God gave him
when the rst of many biblical famines occurs. He decides to sojourn
(), i.e., live as a resident alien, in Egypt and takes Sarai with
him. The rst words he speaks in the entire story show him to be a
shrewd and somewhat manipulative husband who rst atters his wife
and then asks her to lie for him by agreeing to say that she is his sister.
Because she is fair of face (, a hapax legomenon in LXX-G
and an apt translation of the Hebrew nbnc), Abram predicts that the
Egyptians will kill him. In contrast with the MT where Abram claims that
they will let you live (: (n), the LXX Abram states that they will
keep you for themselves. Yet the rst reason Abram gives for Sarais lie
portrays him as somewhat self-serving. He seems concerned that that it
might be good for me. The second half of his statement reiterates his fear
of dying. Abrams willingness to sacrice Sarais virtue for his benet is
troubling. Many commentators agree that Abram was facing a real moral
dilemma characterized, in Sarnas words, by a conict between human
life and human dignity within a hierarchy of values (1989, 95). Never-
theless, most acknowledge that Abrams actions were, at best, morally
ambiguous.
The LXX, however, gives Abram more justication for his behavior.
While still maintaining that the Egyptians will kill him (
), LXX-G Abram predicts that the Egyptians will keep Sarai for them-
selves ( ), as a type of possession. Just what type
of possession, while unstated, can be inferred from the ANE custom of
sexual hospitality, whereby a hospitable host treats his visitor to sexual
favors as a means of establishing some type of alliance. As Julian Pitt-
Rivers notes, what transpires in the Genesis wife-sister stories represents
the reverse of this custom. The patriarchs, rather than receiving sexual
favors, oer their sisters to establish an alliance in the opposite direc-
tion (1977, 179).
The LXX harmonizes Abrams prediction of Sarais fate with Pharaohs
later act of actually taking her as a wife for himself, despite the deceptive
ploy (v. 19). Thus, the potentially dire consequences for Sarais future life
provides Abram a more honorable excuse for the ruse, i.e., he wants to
prevent her from being a sexual possession of the Egyptians. Further-
more, LXX-Gs use of therefore () at the beginning of v. 13 (say, there-
fore) more explicitly connects Abrams order to Sarai with the reasons he
claims this deception is necessary. Finally, by asking Sarai to say directly
in the rst person his sister am I, instead of the MTs indirect second
person you are my sister (n n), the LXX Abram seems to deect
more of the deception o of him and on to Sarai.
Abrams predictions come true; the Egyptians recognize Sarais beauty,
Pharaohs ocials bring her to him, and they do indeed treat Abram well
because of her. In exchange for Sarai, Abram receives livestock and more
GENESIS 12:1020 291
292 COMMENTARY
servants. In contrast with Abram who never asks about Sarais welfare,
God intervenes by subjecting Pharaohs household with unstated aic-
tions. Somehow, the Egyptian Pharaoh connects his problems with his
taking Sarai as his wife and questions Abram about his deception. Again,
Abram says nothing. Although he is ordered to leave Egypt and is escorted
out by Pharaohs men, he certainly did do well for himself. What likely
happened to Sarai is ignored, both by Abram and the narrator. Inasmuch
as she was said to be barren, her being taken as Pharaohs wife is seem-
ingly unimportant. No one will know. In an addition to the story, LXX-G
reports that Lot was with them. Although this does smooth the transition
to the next chapter, it begs the question of when Lot joined Abram in
Egypt.
13:113 Despite their rather ignoble exit from Egypt, the three members
of Israels rst family return to the land even richer. Famine and decep-
tion proved benecial to the family and will continue to do so throughout
their story. Famine will cause protable relocations, and deception will
often be rewarded. Gods aiction of Pharaoh and his house because of
Sarai shows his displeasure with the outcome of Abrams deception. Nev-
ertheless, Abram prospers, and the incident is never mentioned by either
party. Instead, Abram resumes his role of God-invoking patriarch at the
same place where he had built an altar, and per ALEX and a few other
manuscripts, made the tent ( ). Although the major-
ity of manuscripts reect the MTs at the beginning (n:cn/),
ALEXs reading also makes sense in its context. One wonders what Abram
says to God when he invokes Gods name. Never has Abram responded
directly to Gods continued blessing. Thus far, the only words that the
blessed patriarch has spoken portray him as morally ambiguous. That is
about to change.
The possessions that Abram and Lot have acquired now prove prob-
lematic. Abram is said to be rich in herds (), silver, and gold. The
Greek word , until this point, has been translated as domesticated
animals, because it has been contrasted with , i.e., wild animals.
From this point on, however, the word usually appears in contexts that
refer to animals as property and in which other specic types of domes-
ticated animals including sheep () and cows/cattle () are
also mentioned. As such, herd is an appropriate term for non-specic
animal property. Lot, per ALEX, is also said to have herds, as well as sheep
and cattle; MT and most other Greek manuscripts report that he has
sheep, cattle, and tents. Although likely due to what Wevers terms care-
less auditory confusion (1993, 177) of and , ALEXs mis-
taken herds is nevertheless appropriate in its context. The same tract of
land is not able to accommodate all their possessions. As a result, ghting
occurs between their respective shepherds, men who likely are among
the Canaanites (Chananites) or the Perizzites (Pherezites) peoples who
are reported also to be living in the land. Abram and his family, presum-
ably with Gods blessing, cause problems wherever they go.
Acknowledging the problem of too little space, Abram makes his sec-
ond proposition in the story. This time, however, he is not self-serving.
Per ALEX, Abram tells Lot, rather than asks him, to look at all the land in
front of him. He then tells Lot to choose which part of the land he wants;
Abram will take the area that Lot rejects. Lot, seeing the well-watered land
around the Jordan, makes what seems like a good choice at rst. However,
what Lot could not see, God could. The narrators ominous report about
the wickedness of the men in Sodom foreshadows disaster.
13:1418 With Lot out of the scene, God once again promises to give
the land to Abram and to his ospring (cf. 12:7 where God only promises
the land to Abrams ospring). By telling Abram to look in four direc-
tions, God is more precisely dening the extent of his gift. He continues
his promise by vividly indicating just how numerous Abrams ospring
will be. In a logical departure from the MT, God compares the number of
ospring to sand, rather than dust. As Wevers suggests, a person could
conceivably count grains of sand, whereas counting dust would be impos-
sible (1993, 183). As earlier, Abram is speechless and again does not ques-
tion the promise of ospring. Instead of speaking, Abram takes action
and builds yet another altar to God.
14:116 A strange story whose genre, source, and historicity have been
debated (see Westermann 1985, 187190 for a brief history of the chapters
exegesis), Genesis 14 portrays Abram as a seless devoted uncle who res-
cues his nephew Lot from the rst of several misfortunes that occur as a
result of his poor choice of land. It seems as if Abrams many possessions, in
the form of household servants, give him the resources to conquer a group
of warring kings, and presumably their armies with them. The quest for
historicity of the story, or even of the named but often unknown people and
places within the story, is exacerbated in LXX-G in light of the many vari-
ants in the spelling of these names (for details, see Wevers 1993, 185201).
GENESIS 13:113 & 14:116 293
294 COMMENTARY
Setting aside such issues, the narrative tells an engaging hero story that
begins during the reign of Amarphal king of Sennaar. Three other kings
Arioch king of Ellasar, Chodollogomor king of Ailam, and Thalga more
vaguely described as king of nations make war on ve other kings,
including those of Sodom (per ALEX, Balla) and Gomorrah (Barsa), cities
that link this story to the larger patriarchal narrative. The former group
of kings, with Chodollogomor the presumed leader, made vassals of the
latter group for twelve years. Having had enough, the latter group revolts
in the thirteenth year.
Meanwhile, Chodollogomor and his allies destroy giants ()
and other strong nations that they encounter in cities, deserts, and moun-
tains. After destroying the leaders of Amalek and the Amorrites, Chodol-
logomor and his coalition that now includes Amarphal are attacked by
the ve-nation coalition that includes the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Both kings ee and inexplicably fall into the surrounding asphalt pits.
Others ee more sensibly into the hills. To the winners go the spoils that,
per LXX-G, include food and horses. Likely vocalizing the Hebrew conso-
nantal text co as c o (steeds or cavalry), LXX-G rendered it as horse
(; Wevers 1993, 192; see also Fitzmyer 2000, 67). The MT, however,
vocalized co as c o , i.e., property. Whether or not the booty taken by
Chodollogomor and his allies include horses or other types of property,
the spoils denitely include Lot and his property.
Abram, our Hebrew (nn) hero per the MT, enters the story when
one of the escapees tells him what had occurred. This appellation, an
anachronism during the patriarchal period, perhaps was inserted to give
Abram an ethnic identity distinct from those associated with the many
kings (Westermann following Zimmerli and others, 1985, 199). LXX-G,
however, gives Abram a completely dierent designation, i.e., ,
i.e., an emigrant or wanderer. As Harl notes, LXX-G understood the root
n to mean pass by or cross over and created the neologism and hapax
legomenon , based on , which means beyond, further. Thus
the word would mean one who has come from beyond, in this
case probably from beyond the Euphrates (1994, 159; see also Wevers
1993, 193). In fact, is an apt description for Abram; he did emi-
grate from Mesopotamia and then wandered around between Egypt
and Canaan and various places within Canaan. Because the word nn
appears several times later in Genesis (e.g., 39:14, 17; 40:15; 41:12; and
43:32) where LXX-G transliterated it as (i.e., Hebrew), the trans-
lator was likely familiar with the ethnic designation. However, he chose
not to refer to Abram as a Hebrew, but as an emigrant.
Regardless of his title, Abram makes a quick response to the report of
the informant referred to in LXX-G as the Amoris ( ). As Wevers
notes, is a phrase which is anomalously here in the nominative
as a frozen phrase but was corrected by Aquila to a genitive phrase (
) and by Symmachus to the better known , which
corresponds more closely with the MTs nn. Thus the informant
seems to be an Amorrite who, along with his two brothers, survived the
battle with Chodollogomor. These three brothers ally themselves with
Abram, who additionally recruits three hundred and eighteen of his own
homegrown servants (). Like its MT counterpart (: :o:
:nn), the Greek word refers not to purchased servants, but to
servants born and raised in the household. Abram and his small army
chase the Chodollogomor coalition rst to Dan, where he strikes them,
and then to the environs of Damascus. He recaptures the stolen horses
and returns them along with Lot and his possessions. He also brings back
the women, perhaps those captured in war, and the people, perhaps
those others who survived the ghting. Although God does not appear in
the narrative, his silent presence in the margins of the text lets him over-
see the battle and give victory to Abram. This is the rst of many times
that God-in-the-margins exercises his providential power to control the
action and watch over the fate of the characters by playing a silent but
nevertheless decisive role in the story. Abrams defeat of the Chodollogo-
mor coalition sets the stage for his next strange encounter.
14:1724 Somehow the king of Sodoma survives the asphalt pits and
goes out to greet Abram on the patriarchs return from his one and only
successful military victory. In the rst of many biblical underdog wins,
Abram and his friends and servants defeat the Chodollogomer coalition.
The king meets Abram in his royal open eld () that is located in
the named but geographically unknown Saue valley. Why the king would
greet Abram in an open eld rather than in his court is unclear. Perhaps
it was more convenient for Abram on his return from Damascus, or per-
haps Abram did not want to be associated with an area whose men were
described earlier as very wicked and sinful before God (13:13). In any
case, the purpose of the meeting is delayed when another mysterious
character enters the scene. Melchizedek, said to be the king of Salem and
priest of God Most High ( ), is mentioned only one
other time in the Hebrew Bible. According to the messianic interpretation
of Psalm 110:4 (LXX 109:4), the eternal nature of Melchizedeks priestly
order is the main criterion for Gods future leader. The New Testament
GENESIS 14:116 & 14:1724 295
296 COMMENTARY
book of Hebrews later considers Jesus priesthood as the fulllment of
Gods promise. How this shadowy gure, who according to Sarna sud-
denly emerges from the shadows and as suddenly retreats into oblivion,
(1989, 109) stands behind such an important tradition is debated. In the
present context, however, Melchizedek models a priest-king who appro-
priately responds to Abrams victory by bringing the victor food and wine
and by oering blessings.
In a stunning reversal of Abrams divinely ordained role of having oth-
ers being blessed in him, Melchizedek blesses Abram. He does so in the
name of his God, i.e., the God Most High ( ), a title
somewhat more precise than the Hebrew :: :. As Harl comments,
the title God Most High was used for the supreme deity in the Greek
religion since the time of Pindar in the fourth century B.C.E. (1994, 160).
More important than the deitys title, however, is his function. Melchize-
dek credits his God with being the one who created () the heaven
and the earth, and the one who delivered the enemies into Abrams
hands. These attributes are characteristic of supreme deities, includ-
ing the God of Israel. That Abram does not protest his blessing by a for-
eign deity implies that his own God at the time is not jealous. Perhaps
because he is still a wanderer or emigrant in the land, Abram recognizes
the legitimacy of this priest-king and gives him a tenth of everything,
an ambiguous reference that could refer to his booty or all his other pos-
sessions. Despite the ambiguity associated with the two masculine singu-
lar pronouns, most scholars acknowledge that Abram is the subject and
Melchizedek the object of the oering. It is unlikely that Melchizedek
would have limited Abram to a tenth of his proered bread and wine.
As has become common for Abram in a cultic context, he makes no
comment. However, when the king of Sodom reenters the scene, Abram
becomes righteously vocal about his booty. In contrast with Melchize-
dek who blesses Abram and oers him food and wine, the now unnamed
king of Sodom makes a demand of Abram. He orders Abram to give him
the men (which presumably includes the women and people Abram
returned from the battle), but allows Abram to keep the horse. As ear-
lier in the chapter, LXX-G vocalized the Hebrew co as horse (c o ),
rather than property (c o ). As such, the LXX-G king of Sodom appears
to be more specic but less generous than his MT counterpart. Abram,
however, refuses even a horse and makes an oath on Melchizedeks cre-
ator God Most High, who in LXX-G is identied with YHWH, as he is in
the MT (:: : n:n:). The oath itself begins with , which Wevers
maintains represents the Hebrew o. As such, Wevers interprets it as a
strong negative associated with an oath, despite the fact that the formu-
laic imprecation is omitted (1993, 200). Abram thus vows that he will not
take even the smallest amount of booty for himself, so that he is in no way
beholden to the king of Sodom. He does, however, acknowledge that his
servants will keep what they ate during the battle, and his companions
will keep their portion. This story continues the enhancement of Abrams
character that began with allowing Lot the rst choice of land in prepara-
tion for his forthcoming encounter with God.
15:121 After these things, in this case Abrams defeat of the Chodol-
logomor coalition and the return of Lot and others to Sodom, God once
again enters Abrams life. The word of Lord came () to Abram
in a vision, a mode of communication that parallels the ways in which
God will later communicate with many of his prophets. Similar to the
unique portrayal of Abram as a military leader in the previous chapter,
this chapters portrayal of Abram as a prophet is unusual, but does occur
again later in his story. In the vision, God tells Abram not to be afraid, a
surprising directive in light of Abrams recent bravery. God follows up his
imperative by assuring Abram of protection and considerable rewards. If
Gods past actions toward Abram are any indication, Abram will be even
safer and richer. For the rst time in his story, Abram speaks. LXX-Gs
use of the historical present , instead of the usual aorist , high-
lights the occasion. Abram nally acknowledges Gods words by respond-
ing with appropriate deference, addressing God as both Master ()
and Lord (). Yet, his next words lack any sense of gratitude; instead
of thanking God for all God has already done for him and given to him, he
asks God what (more) he will give?
The self-serving image of Abram threatens to re-emerge when he con-
tinues his part of the conversation by complaining about what God has not
done for him. He claims he will be left childless. This is the rst indication
that Abram actually listened to Gods earlier promises of ospring (12:7;
13:1517). He follows up this complaint by referring to Damaskos Eliezer,
a referent as ambiguous in LXX-G as in the MT. LXX-Gs penchant for
interpreting a troublesome Hebrew phase occurs in its rendering of the
notoriously dicult nn pcbn as the proper name () of Abrams
homegrown maidservant (, fs). If so, neither mother nor son
are mentioned again. Despite the dubious identity of Abrams servants,
their function becomes clear in the following verse where Abram blames
God for his lack of ospring. As a result, he complains, my homegrown
(male) servant (), presumably the above referenced Damaskos
GENESIS 14:1724 & 15:121 297
298 COMMENTARY
Eliezer, will be his heir. Why this particular household servant, out of
the many who help Abram defeat the Chodollogomor coalition (14:14), is
unclear. What is clear is Abrams petulance about the situation. God wastes
no time in denying Abrams assumption; he immediately responds. This
time, per ALEX and some other Greek manuscripts, it is the voice of Lord
( ) that came to Abram, rather than the word of Lord (
). Other Greek manuscripts also change from Lord to God.
The MT makes no such distinction; it refers in both verses to the word
of Lord (n:nn). Perhaps as Wevers suggests, the dierences within
LXX-G and between LXX-G and MT merely reect LXX-Gs tendency to
avoid repetitive phrasing (1993, 204). If so, it not only achieved variety,
but it also represented the means and type of the communication dier-
ently. Instead of the more concrete word of Lord coming to Abram as a
declarative prophetic pronouncement, Lords voice delivers a message
more specically directed to the immediate circumstances. He assures
Abram that one who comes out of him, i.e., his own issue, will inherit.
The need to correct Abrams erroneous assumption is so pressing that
Lord does not wait for Abram to respond. Rather, he continues with a
promise that goes beyond Abrams immediate concern about his virility.
To reinforce his earlier proclamations about the magnitude of Abrams
descendants, God once again relies on the expanse of his creation. The
vision blends into reality when God leads Abram outside to look up in
heaven and count the stars. As he earlier compared the extent of Abrams
ospring to the amount of sand on the earth (13:16), he now likens them
to the number of stars in the heaven. Both analogies imply a number
impossible to count. Abram again makes no vocal response. However,
he does something that God interprets as trust, a trust which somehow
proves Abrams righteousness.
God now addresses the other part of his promise to Abram, that of the
land. In the rst of many self-revelations in which God identies himself
as the one who leads someone out from somewhere in order to give them
land, God declares himself the one responsible for leading Abram out of
Chaldea to give him the land in which other nations were presently liv-
ing. As he did earlier when God promised him abundant rewards, Abram
deferentially addresses God as Master Lord. Abram again asks a question;
however, it is less self-serving and is not followed-up with a complaint.
He, in a sense, asks God for a sign that will indicate his inheritance. God
does not give him a direct or immediate answer; rather he orders Abram
to gather a variety of animals including a heifer, a goat, a ram, a turtle-
dove, and a pigeon. Abram seems to know what to do with the animals
without any divine instruction. He cuts the three larger animals in half
and lays the parts facing each other. Because the cut animals are neither
burned nor eaten, they serve a purpose other than sacrice. Sarna dis-
cusses the parallels found in rst and second millennium ANE texts and
writes, the cutting of the animals is thus a form of self-imprecation in
which the potential violator invokes their fate upon himself . . . In the case
of land-grant covenants, the curse would be directed against anyone who
interferes with the realization of the suzerains promise (1989, 114115).
Here God plays the role of the sovereign whose gift of land to Abram rep-
resents a reward for Abrams righteousness. Hess, following Weinfeld
(1970), argues that of the parallels discussed by Sarna, the second mil-
lennium Alalakh Text 456 provides the best and earliest model for the
Genesis 15 ritual. There the ruler Abbael grants Yarimlim eight towns in
return for his military service and loyalty (1994, 5565). Abrams recent
victory over the Chodollogomer coalition thus parallels Yarimlims mili-
tary achievements and qualies him to receive the gift of land from his
master God. Elsewhere Hess distinguishes between suzerain-vassal trea-
ties and land grants. Whereas the former protects the suzerain or maker
of the treaty, the latter protects the rights of the vassal or recipient of the
gift (2002, 494). Because this account parallels land grants that are given
in reward of past loyalty, it can be implied that what God the suzerain is
oering Abram is even more than land. He is guaranteeing Abrams dis-
tant ospring the right to the land.
Despite the absence of any actual sacrice, the animals that Abram
gathers represent the species that are later identied as sacricial ani-
mals. As such, Gordon Wenham suggests that the rite should be inter-
preted using anthropological categories, such as those proposed by Mary
Douglas in Purity and Danger, which are associated with other Hebrew
Bible rituals. By doing so, the sacricial animals would represent Israel
or its priests, while the attacking birds that come down on the bodies of
the cut animals would represent unclean nations. Thus, Wenham argues,
Abrams driving away the birds of prey would signify Israels defending
itself against foreign attack (1987, 331332).
LXX-Gs translation shows it understood the Hebrew dierently. Its use
of the same word winged creature () for the gathered winged crea-
tures and those coming down on the divided animals implies that they
could be the same birds. More problematic is its rendering of Abrams
driving away (n c ) the birds. Presumably reading the Hebrew verb nc:
as n c, LXX-G reports that Abram sat down () with them
(). The referent of them a neuter plural pronoun is unclear;
GENESIS 15:121 299
300 COMMENTARY
both the birds () and the bodies () of the divided animals
are neuter plural nouns. Sitting down with ones enemies, symbolized
by the birds, or sitting down with the victims, symbolized by the bodies,
are both admirable actions that can bring about reconciliation or sym-
pathetic suering. However, both are quite dierent from the symbolic
action of driving away ones enemies.
After Abram carries out the cultic ritual, he enters another alternate
form of consciousness, again paralleling the experiences of some proph-
ets, when a trance () falls on him along with a great dark fear
( ). Ironically, God has enveloped Abram with fear,
the same emotion that he had earlier ordered Abram not to experience
(v. 1). Its eect on Abram is not disclosed. Instead, what follows is an elab-
oration of Gods earlier promises to Abram.
To parallel Abrams passivity, LXX-G uses the passive verbal expres-
sion it was reported () with God as the implied subject. What is
reported combines Gods previous promise of numerous ospring and his
promise of land, with a few new details and caveats. God now discloses the
troubling circumstances that Abrams ospring will experience before
they get to occupy their land. They will sojourn (), i.e., live as
resident aliens, in a land not their own. They, presumably the permanent
residents of that land, will maltreat () them, enslave them
(), and humiliate () them. To fully describe
the horrors of the future four hundred year scenario, LXX-G uses the three
verbs above instead of only two in the MT, i.e., serve (n) and oppress
(n:). God does not explain why this must happen, but he does assure
Abram that he will punish the oppressors of his descendants. Moreover,
they will come to this place, presumably the land where Abram was liv-
ing, with many possessions. Abram might be comparing the future of his
ospring with his own past. He also lived in a land not his own and came
away with many possessions (12:1020). However, it was his wife Sarai,
not Abram himself, who likely suered enslavement and humiliation.
The second renement of Gods earlier promises to Abram is that he and
up to three generations of his descendants will not live long enough to
inherit the land. The fourth generation will be the beneciaries of the
promise at the expense of those already living in the land whose sins will
nally be complete.
God stops talking and takes action in multiple forms of theophanic
re that pass through the middle of the animal parts. By this action, God
is acting as both giver and guarantor of the property transaction. The
narrative concludes with an explanation and elaboration of the rituals
covenantal purpose. On that day, per LXX-G, Lord God contracted a cov-
enant ( ). As discussed above, as a translation of the
Hebrew cut a covenant (nn no), misses the sig-
nicance of the cut up animals that, as here, is the basis of the Hebrew
idiom to cut a covenant. The four other future occurrences of both the
Hebrew nn no and the Greek occur only in the
contexts of human-initiated political treaties.
The chapter ends with the rst of many descriptions of the extent of
the land, here probably the most expansive of the territorial descriptions,
bounded on the west by the Nile and on the east by the Euphrates. Also
included is the rst of many descriptions of those who will eventually be
displaced. The LXX list includes all the usual groups associated with early
inhabitants of the land. However, it also includes one group that is never
referenced in any list in the MT, i.e., the Raphain (), who in the
book of Deuteronomy are associated with giant sized people living in the
Transjordan area (Deut. 2:11, 20), specically the tribe of Bashans King
Og (3:11). LXX-G also included the , a group that did not appear
in the corresponding MT text but that did appear on other such lists (e.g.,
Exod. 3:8).
16:116 In light of Gods ocial establishment of his covenant with
Abram to eventually give his many ospring the land of Canaan, the focus
of the story turns to Sarai. She is still not bearing children for Abram,
a permanent condition implied with LXX-Gs imperfect and
one that would seem to challenge the validity of the covenant. Although
she cannot conceive a child, she can and does conceive a plan based on
the ANE custom of concubinage or polycoity, whereby a woman of lesser
status will serve as a secondary wife in order to provide an heir for a man
whose wife is infertile. Conveniently, Sarai has such a woman, her Egyp-
tian maidservant Hagar. In the rst words that Sarai speaks in the biblical
text (16:1), she blames God for closing her up () and thus
preventing her from bearing children. She then takes control of the situa-
tion by ordering Abram to go into my maidservant (
), for the implicit purpose of sexual intercourse, a purpose
that becomes clear in Sarais announcement of the potential results, i.e.,
so that you will father children from her ( ).
These results, however, are in Wevers words, a radical departure from
the Hebrew (1993, 218) which states, perhaps I will be built up from her
(n:bb n:n ::).
Thus, according to the MT, Hagars surrogacy would serve multiple
GENESIS 15:121 & 16:116 301
302 COMMENTARY
purposes. Not only would she provide an heir to Abram, but she also
would improve Sarais gendered status. Although Sarai was Hagars social,
political, and economic superior, her barrenness lessened her status as a
woman. The wordplay in Sarais comment, perhaps I might be built up
(n:n) through her (16:2), implies a double benet of Hagars service.
The literal meaning of the Hebrew root n:n, i.e., to build, refers to Sarais
improved (built up) status when she is able to provide a child (presum-
ably a son) to Abram. The presumption of a male child is the basis of the
wordplay between the verb to build (n:n) and the noun son (n). Thus,
Sarai hopes that Hagar will be able to build her up by producing a son,
which carries more status than a daughter.
A mere change in the person of the verb from the Hebrews rst person
I may be built up (n:n) to the Greeks second person you will father
children () makes a signicant dierence in the social rep-
resentation of the rst family of Israel. LXX-G removes all traces of Sarais
expression of hope for an upgrade in her gender status and instead
improves that of Abram. He is the subject and beneciary of Hagars
surrogacy. It is no longer Sarai who is to be built up or sonned, but
Abram. The intentions of the LXX-G Sarai are focused on the benets that
will accrue to her husband, not to her. Furthermore, LXX-Gs addition of
the connective particle therefore () more directly connects the prob-
lem of Sarais infertility with her proposed solution. Lord has closed me
up not to bear children: therefore, go into my maidservant. Finally, LXX-G
makes it clear that Sarais plan will succeed. Gone is the tentativeness of
the Hebrews perhaps (::). Instead the LXX Sarai tells her husband
to go into her maidservant in order that () he will father children.
ALEXs use of the future active indicative will bear ()
instead of the majority and grammatically better subjective might bear
() all but guarantees the successful outcome. As a result,
Abrams possible lack of virility is not at stake.
The narrators terse report that Abram obeyed Sarais voice recalls a
similar incident in the primeval garden. Because the Man listened to the
voice of his wife and took something she gave him, he was sentenced by
God to a life of toil (3:17). In this story, however, Abrams silent obedience
brings him good fortune. He goes into Hagar and she conceives (16:4a).
At rst it seems as if Sarais plan has succeeded; Abram would have a
child. Abrams manly status is thus improved, but Sarais status is wors-
ened. Hagar was immediately successful at conception. Moreover, Hagar
and others could see that she was pregnant ( ), an explicit
physical condition evident in LXX-G, but only implicit in the Hebrews
nnn. Her pregnancy resulted in the mistress being shamed (),
a Greek verb used only here as a rendering of the Hebrews less humiliat-
ing belittled (::p). Furthermore, the lack of the MTs third person femi-
nine pronoun her mistress (nnn:) in LXX-G slightly improves Hagars
status vis--vis Sarai. She is no longer dened as Sarais mistress. Never-
theless, Sarai attempts to regain her status by challenging Abram to right
the wrong he is perpetrating on her, presumably for allowing Hagar to
continue to shame her. Abram refuses, even when Sarai turns the mat-
ter over to God. Abram still considers Hagar to be Sarais maidservant
and cavalierly tells her to do whatever she pleases to Hagar. Ironically
foreshadowing Gods prophesied maltreatment (, 15:13)
of Abrams descendants by the Egyptians, Sarai maltreats ()
Hagar her Egyptian maidservant and forces her to run away.
This remarkable story represents one of the earliest and most striking
examples of the Hebrew Gods reputation as a benefactor of the marginal
and oppressed. Earlier, God-in-the-margins helped the underdog Abram
and his allies defeat the stronger forces of Chodollogomor. Here, however,
Lord God, through his angel persona, appears in the text itself. By word
and deed, he comes to the aid of one single individual, Sarais Egyptian
maidservant Hagar. Pregnant with Abrams child, Hagar has been mal-
treated by Sarai, ignored by Abram, and is now homeless by a spring of
water in the desert. She is found by the angel of Lord God who imme-
diately recognizes her and addresses her by name, status, and occupa-
tion. He asks her two questions about her immediate past (from where is
she coming) and her immediate future (to where is she traveling). She
answers the rst by admitting she is running away from her mistress, and
he provides the answer to the second by telling her to return to her and
suer humiliation (). Once again, this poor Egyptian slave
woman experiences what God prophesied her people would later inict
his people, i.e., Abrams ospring. Not allowing Hagar time to protest
such an unpleasant homecoming, the angel quickly follows up by prom-
ising her many ospring in words that both echo and allude to his earlier
pronouncements to Eve (3:16) and Abram (13:16, 15:5).
In the rst of many biblical annunciation scenes, the angel speaks for
God and predicts the birth of a child, dictates the childs appropriate
name, and then announces the childs destiny. Here the angel states the
obvious, namely, that Hagar is pregnant. He then predicts she will have
a son whom she is to name Ishmael. As is necessarily the case, LXX-G
lacks the wordplay of the MT where the name Ishmael means God hears.
Nevertheless, its statement indicates that what Lord hears and will
GENESIS 16:116 303
304 COMMENTARY
give heed to is her humiliation. The childs destiny, however, shows little
indication of divine blessing. The childs uncomplimentary but rather
picturesque destiny in the Hebrew text as a wild ass of a man (o c)
is transformed in LXX-G into a more disdainful countryman (
), a description that implies an uncivilized or boorish character
who would likely be scorned in the translators cosmopolitan Alexandria.
He will constantly be at odds with everyone, and will live opposite ()
his brothers. A double entendre, the word could mean the mundane
in front of as well as the more negative antithetical to their way of life.
In either case, Ishmaels life will be one characterized by bellicosity.
Despite the unfavorable prediction about her future childs fate, Hagar
does not protest. Instead she gives a name to Lord who she knows is behind
the speaking voice, referring to him as the one who looks upon ()
me. The same verb was used earlier to describe Gods action with
regard to Abels oering (4:4) and thus implies a look that is favorable.
Then in a statement Wevers describes as more daring theologically
than one might expect (1993, 226), Hagar claims that she saw in person
the one who appeared () to me. Although the appearance could
merely refer to Gods angel manifestation, its context implies that she is
addressing God. Like Abram, the only other person to whom God appeared
(12:7), Hagar names the well in her place of refuge in Gods honor.
The chapter ends with the narrators summary report, which three
times within two short verses, emphasizes that Hagar bore the son Ish-
mael for Abram (vv. 15a, b, 16b). Unlike the MT in which Sarai hopes to
be built-up/sonned by Hagar, LXX-G from the outset denies Sarai any
agency or any reward. Not only is Sarai out of the picture, so is Hagar.
Abram has taken over the role that the angel assigned Hagar in naming
the boy. Moreover, Abrams virility is highlighted by the comment that he
was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore his son. The goal of Sarais plan
is accomplished; she has helped insure the fulllment of Gods promise
to Abram. God, however, has a dierent plan in which Sarai herself will
play a leading role.
17:114 Thirteen years have passed when God appears for the second
time to Abram. This time instead of promising something to Abram (land
to his ospring), God demands something of Abram. Indeed, the obliga-
tion that God demands on the part of Abram and his family in response
to his covenant is the main theme of this chapter. God identies himself
as Abrams God and tells him to be pleasing to him () as were
Enoch (5:22, 24) and Noah (6:9) and to become blameless ().
This second adjective, a hapax legomenon in Genesis, was not used as
the Greek translation of the same Hebrew word perfect (obn) when
it appeared earlier with regard to Noah (6:9). There was the LXX
rendering. However, will be used by a later translator sixteen
times when he describes Job. Thus, this translator understood
in LXX-G of 17:1 to imply more than an existential condition of complete-
ness or wholeness; rather it suggests a condition that is or will be the
result of ones behavior.
God follows up his command to Abram by reiterating his earlier prom-
ises of abundant descendants in the form of a covenant that he will insti-
tute (). LXX-G uses yet another word, occurring only in this
verse, to describe the agreement between God and Abram. More an inter-
pretation than a translation of the Hebrew word n:, the future middle of
the verb represents an ocial action, not a gift as is implied by
n:. That the translator earlier rendered n: with (9:12) suggests
a conscious decision not only to interpret Gods action in this context dif-
ferently, but also to provide consistency between Gods initial reference
to his promise of abundant progeny (v. 2) with its elaboration that follows
(vv. 36). At this point, however, the lack of a statement between com-
mand and promise shows that God has not yet made Abrams blameless
living an explicit precondition of a large dynasty. Neither did God place
any conditions on Abram when he earlier contracted () a cov-
enant to give Abram and his descendants the land between the Nile and
the Euphrates (15:18). Until now, the two covenants that God made have
been entirely unilateral. God was the only obligated partner. However,
the intentional choice not to describe this covenant in gift language fore-
shadows an imminent change in Abrams part of the agreement.
First, however, God elaborates on his dynastic promises to Abram in a
speech framed by two future forms of . God follows up his promise
to institute a covenant with Abram by reiterating an earlier promise to
multiply () Abram abundantly. The narrator interrupts Gods
speech with a comment about Abrams appropriate prostration in light of
Gods procreative promise. After being sure of Abrams attention (),
God continues by noting the signicance of Abrams many ospring. He
will be the father of a multitude of nations. God then proceeds to symbol-
ize Abrams destiny and to fulll his rst promise to Abram to make his
name great by giving Abram a new expanded name. Both the MT (with
its onn) and LXX-G (with its Abraam) add a syllable to the pronuncia-
tion of his name, thereby literally making his name longer. Once again,
God refers to Abrahams (Abraam) destiny to be a father of many nations,
GENESIS 17:114 305
306 COMMENTARY
but describes this role as another instituting action. The use of , a
perfect form of , implies that this action has ongoing consequences.
God then repeats his promise to make Abraham increase () and
ends his elaboration of this aspect of the covenant by promising to insti-
tute () Abraham into a nation. Thus the description of Gods cov-
enant of many ospring to Abram can be read as a chiasm whose center
is Abrahams new name:
A Institute () a covenant (v. 2a)
B Multiply abundantly (v. 2b)
C Father of a multitude of nations (v. 4)
D Name change (v. 5a)
C Instituted () as a father of many nations (v. 5b)
B Increase abundantly (v. 6a)
A Institute () a nation (v. 6b)
The translators use of a form of to render a form of the Hebrew
in each of the three places referenced above cannot be coinci-
dental. Neither the covenant nor the future nationhood of Abraham is a
gift from God; rather they are ocial entities put into place by God for
eternity. The threefold use in the MT of n: lent itself to the idea of royal
grants, a political scenario reinforced by Gods added declaration that
kings would come from Abraham. LXX-G, however, made the political
aspect of the covenant more explicit by depicting its elements with the
verb institute (). Thus Abrahams many ospring will represent
more than an extended family. They will represent many nations. Like
the rivalries that have already begun to develop within Abrahams fam-
ily, rivalries and bloodshed will occur among the nations that descend
from Abraham. The third century B.C.E. environment in which the LXX-G
translator worked likely inuenced his explicitly political interpretation
of this aspect of Gods covenant.
The second aspect of Gods covenant with Abraham is now highlighted. In
language at this point semantically consistent with the MT, God promises
to establish (/nbpn) a covenant not only with Abraham, but also
with his many ospring. As he prefaced his description of the rst aspect
of the covenant with a pledge to be Abrahams God, God prefaces his
description of the expanded and eternal covenant with a pledge to be his
osprings God. Again semantically consistent with the MT, God promises
to give (/nn) the land where Abraham is living as a sojourner to
his ospring as an eternal possession. This gift of land, however, comes
with certain requirements. Instead of the rst person verbs that charac-
terize the progeny part of the covenant in vv. 26, second person verbs
are prevalent in vv. 914. Abraham and his ospring must observe
() the covenant. Wevers comments on LXX-Gs unusual ren-
dering of the MTs keep (bcn) with , instead of some form
of , by noting that is used in the Pentateuch only
of the externals of the covenant . . . (F)or guarding the rules and keeping
the faith of the covenant as a way of life is used (1993, 233).
In this context, the requirement indeed is external. All males are to be
circumcised on the esh of their foreskin as a sign of the covenant. Of
all Abrahams ospring, only those so marked could claim the land as
an eternal possession. However, historically speaking, most Egyptian and
Semite men (excluding Babylonians and Assyrians) also practiced circum-
cision (Westermann 1985, 265). Thus, it would be dicult to use the mark
of circumcision to prove ones legitimate right to the land. In this con-
text, therefore, the purpose of circumcision would indicate ones willing
obedience more than ones right of occupancy. Such a distinction would
be even more signicant to Jews living outside the land, especially those
living in the diverse environment of third century B.C.E. Alexandria. Per-
haps the external geographic location also inuenced the distinctive
rendering of bcn with . If one were unable or unwilling
to observe an external ordinance, one could still keep () the
essence of the Torah.
Although circumcision was not exclusive to Israel, what made the ordi-
nance as described in this story unusual was Gods command that it occur
when a male infant was only eight days old. Most other cultures consid-
ered circumcision as a rite of passage that transpired either at puberty or
as part of a prenuptial ritual. That Israel made such a signicant change
enabled circumcision to be invested with an entirely new and original
meaning (Sarna 1989, 386) and to be disassociated with other pagan
rites. Just as unusual was Gods requirement that even foreign born ser-
vants who are bought by one of Abrahams ospring must also be circum-
cised. Any male not circumcised on the eighth day was to be destroyed
() from his family. A neologism created by the LXX-G
translator to render the Hebrew cut o from (nno:),
became the standard equivalent for the punishment associated with
many covenantal violations such as eating leavened bread during Pass-
over (Exod. 12:15), eating the blood of any creature (Lev. 17:14), and hav-
ing intercourse during a womans menstrual period (Lev. 20:18). Such
oenses are those of a cultic or sexual nature and whose punishment,
most scholars maintain, is only to be carried out by God (e.g., Sarna 1989,
126). Thus, Wevers maintains that the LXX-G translator clearly under-
GENESIS 17:114 307
308 COMMENTARY
stood that being cut o from the community meant the death penalty
(1993, 236).
17:1522 God now changes Sarahs (Sarra) name, using language paral-
lel with his declaration of Abrahams new name. Unlike the MT in which
God only tells Abraham to stop calling her Sarai (you [ms] will not call,
pn:), LXX-G makes the change more universal (her name will
not be called, ). LXX-G also parallels the
announcement of her new name with that of Abraham by introducing it
with the contrastive but (), unlike the MT that attempts to explain
her new name by means of a because (o) statement. In fact, LXX-G
avoids any attempt to explain the signicance of her name change. As it
does with Abrahams new name, LXX-G merely adds a letter. That it is a
consonant, rather than a vowel, does not actually lengthen the pronun-
ciation of her name.
Here the parallels with the announcement of Abrahams name change
end. Instead of delivering an extended speech about the promises of the
covenant, God more succinctly makes two interrelated declarations. First,
he promises to bless her, a promise that he made much earlier to Abraham
(12:3). Her blessing, however, seems focused on its eect on Abraham. God
will give him from her a child (), a more gender-neutral term than
the MTs son (n). Yet, LXX-G rendered both other occurrences of the
Hebrew word n in this part of the story (vv. 17, 19) with the more stan-
dard . As elsewhere in Genesis, this distinction demonstrates what
Muraoka maintains is the translators commendable sensitivity and skil-
fulness (sic) in dierentiating between , which indicates a human
as the result of reproduction process and , which refers to the legal
relationship of the child to his father or grandfather (2001, 18). Thus, by
rendering n with in v. 16, LXX-G highlights the fact that Sarah will
bear a child, whereas the later translations of n with emphasize the
fact that Isaac will be Abrahams legal and covenantal heir.
In a signicant departure from the MT, God now addresses the fate of
the child. Instead of repeating his blessing on her (nnon), the LXX God
blesses him ( ). The explicit referent of this masculine
singular pronoun is not clear in LXX-G because the grammatical gender
of the assumed referent child () is neuter. However, the biologi-
cal gender would have been known, especially since the MT specically
referred to a son. Although Wevers correctly describes the grammatical
and text critical problems associated with the text of LXX-G, his blanket
dismissal of the accuracy of the majority tradition is too hasty (1993, 237).
The divergence of the major Greek witnesses from the MT does not make
them incorrect. Just as LXX-G shifted the benets of Hagars surrogacy
from Sarai to Abram (16:2), it now transfers Gods second blessing and its
results from Sarai to her future child. The Hellenistic ideology of the Alex-
andrian translator continues to inuence gender related aspects of the
ancestral story. Presumably nations and kings of nations would be more
appropriate destinies for a male child than for its mother. Here LXX-Gs
preference for nation language goes against its tendency for lexical vari-
ety. It follows the MT in the rst part of the childs destiny to be nations
(o:::/), but diers from the MT in its rendering of the second part
of the promise. Instead of the more general kings of peoples (ob o:b)
to come from him, LXX-G reports that kings of nations ( )
will be his descendants. Again, it is likely that the translators cosmopoli-
tan environment, in which peoples were described in ethnic categories,
inuenced his interpretive translation.
In gestures both deferential to Gods position and incredulous of Gods
promise, Abraham falls on his face and laughs at Gods declaration that
Sarah would bear him a child. He dares not question God outwardly; instead
he asks inwardly whether he as a centenarian and Sarah only ten years
younger could really have a child. What he does say to God, nevertheless,
shows his doubts as well as his seeming preference for his rstborn Ish-
mael. God responds to Abrahams plea about Ishmael by placating him.
Indeed, God replies, that may be what you want, but this is the way it is
going to be. God then reiterates that Sarah would bear a child and goes on
to tell Abraham his name Isaac. Those who would hear the Hebrew text
would immediately recognize the wordplay associated with Abrahams
laughing (p v ) response to Gods announcement about Sarahs having
a son with the name of the son that Sarah will bear, i.e., Isaac (p v ). To
prevent any further protest from Abraham, God reverts to his ocial cov-
enant language; he will establish () his covenant with Isaac and
his ospring. Nevertheless, to appease Abraham, God grants Ishmael a
consolation package that begins with a blessing. ALEXs use of the aorist
blessed () implies that God has already blessed Ishmael, while
the perfect has blessed () of other Greek manuscripts connote
that the eects of the blessing will continue into the future. In either
case, the blessing is associated with fertility. As God promised Abraham,
God also promises that Ishmael will multiply and increase abundantly.
He will father twelve nations ( ) and become a great nation
GENESIS 17:1522 309
310 COMMENTARY
( ) in and of himself. Again LXX-Gs preference for nation lan-
guage is highlighted in its report that twelve nations, rather than MTs
twelve princes (co:c oc:), will come from Ishmael.
Despite Ishmaels somewhat parallel destiny, God makes it clear that
Isaac, Abrahams son by Sarah, is the favorite by reiterating the ocial
covenantal language. In contrast to Gods gift of an undened nation to
Ishmael, Isaac and his ospring will be beneciaries of the covenant by
which the gift of a specic land will be theirs forever. God concludes his
speech to Abraham by telling him that Sarah will have the child within
the year. As has become customary, Abrahams response to Gods gener-
osity will come through actions, not words.
17:2327 Compared with Abrahams questionable verbal (and mental)
responses to Gods statements, his actions show complete obedience. He
circumcises Ishmael and all the other males in his household, including
himself, on that very day according to Gods explicit instructions.
18:115 In his third appearance to Abraham, as in the previous two,
God gives Abraham startling information and makes covenantal prom-
ises with regard to his descendants. When God rst appeared, he showed
Abraham the land he would give to his ospring (12:7). Later he made the
terms of his covenantal agreement ocial (17:214). Abrahams ospring
would be abundant, and the land would be the eternal possession of those
who were circumcised. This time God appears in disguise and arrives with
two other men as Abraham is sitting by the entrance of his tent. Unlike
the two previous appearances, God does not speak right away. Neverthe-
less, Abraham seems to sense the importance of these mysterious visi-
tors. From the moment that he sees the three men standing above him,
he rushes around to show them appropriate and in LXX-G even more
pronounced hospitality.
First he runs to meet them and immediately bows down to greet them
with deference and respect, a humble gesture that continues in his ver-
bal greeting. Addressing the presumed leader of the group, he hails him
as Lord (). Little does Abraham know that his greeting is not only
respectful, but also ironically correct. He continues his deferential man-
ner by twice (vv. 3, 5) referring to himself in the third person as the guests
servant (). He begs them to stay and accept his hospitality. Unlike
most other places where LXX-G does not translate the polite Hebrew par-
ticle :, here it does so twice. First, it renders Abrahams prefatory remark
in the MT if perchance I have found favor ( nvb :o) with
; the inclusion of is, according to Wevers, both a delicate
touch and a mark of great deference (1993, 246). Then in the follow-
ing verse, LXX-G renders the Hebrew let, if you please, (a little water)
be brought (:p) with . Continuing in the peculiar third
person style, Abraham delineates what will be done for his guests but not
explicitly who will do it. Presumably, it is Abrahams servant who is to
wash the guests feet. ALEXs third person singular imperative let him
wash (), in contrast with the third person plural let them wash
() imperative of most other Greek manuscripts and the MT, is
contextually accurate. Although Abraham likely has other servants, only
one is mentioned in this story. To emphasize Abrahams generous hos-
pitality, LXX-G departs from the MTs report that Abraham oered his
guests a little water (obob). Instead, it puts no limit on the amount
of water to be provided. Similarly, the LXX Abraham does not restrict his
guests to a bit of food (o:nc). While they cool themselves under the
tree, he will get an as-yet unspecied amount of food for them to eat.
Only after they allow him as their servant () to provide hospitality
may they resume their journey. The visitors agree with his plan.
Abraham quickly goes into action. He hurries () to the tent
and tells Sarah to hurry () her preparation of bread cakes. Then
he runs () to choose a tender young calf that his servant boy
() is quick () to prepare. LXX-Gs use of several dierent
words to describe Abrahams speedy hospitality shows its tendency for
lexical variety. Yet it also shows that Abraham is making sure every pos-
sible action running, hurrying, being quick is being done to expedite
the meal preparation. Not only does LXX-G represent Abraham as an even
better and more generous host, it also characterizes him as more hum-
ble. Both the MT and LXX-G have Abraham describe himself to his guests
as a servant. In the Hebrew text, Abrahams self-designation is n, a
word typically used with reference to one who serves either a human or
a divine master. When referring to Abrahams own servant, on the other
hand, the writer uses : (18:7), a word meaning boy or lad and that is
used to refer to a household servant or slave. Thus, the MT makes a dis-
tinction between the type of servant Abraham calls himself vis--vis his
visitors, and the type of servant who serves Abraham, thereby implying a
hierarchy based on the type of service rendered. LXX-G, however, makes
no such distinction, since it uses the same word, , for both Abrahams
self-designation and that of his servant. Thus, Abraham puts himself on
the same level as his household help and, in so doing, exaggerates the
respect accorded the visitors while they are his guests. Furthermore,
GENESIS 18:115 311
312 COMMENTARY
the LXX Abraham does more than give (n:) the meal to his guests; he
serves () them and stands by while they eat.
Not only does LXX-G improve Abrahams social graces, it also mini-
mizes any threat to his virility in the next part of the story. Finally get-
ting to the real purpose of the unexpected visit, one of the guests asks
Abraham about Sarah. He responds by telling him she is in the tent. The
guest then makes a surprising declaration; when he returns within the
year Sarah will have a son. The precise translation of the Greek phrase
, like its Hebrew counterpart n n, is
debated (see Sarna 1989, 130 for comments about the Hebrew phrase). As
discussed above, denotes time, but not chronological time. Instead,
it can mean something as specic as season (e.g., 1:14) or, as here and
elsewhere, a designated time for something momentous to occur (e.g.,
6:13). The Greek word also has a wide range of meanings, many of
them similar to (e.g., time, season, occasion), especially in
LXX-G (Muraoka 2002, 282283). The diculty in producing a precise lit-
eral translation has led many to resort to a rendering that acknowledges
the momentous signicance of these two words as well as their place in
the narrative context. At some special time or season within the year, the
mysterious visitor would return and Sarah would have a son.
Abraham does not laugh at the prediction of his unknown guest, as he
had earlier when an undisguised God told him the same thing (17:17).
This time it is Sarah who will laugh when she overhears the mans predic-
tion. Before reporting her laughter, however, the narrator interrupts the
male conversation to remind the reader that Sarah and Abraham were
old and that Sarah stopped having the ways of women, i.e., menstrua-
tion. Not only has she been barren her whole life, but it is now humanly
impossible for her to bear children. So, she laughs to herself and denies
the possibility of progeny by stating not yet has it happened to me until
now ( ). Adding to the problem, she adds
and now my lord is old ( ). Her statement
shows both her appropriate spousal deference to her husband (calling
him her lord), as well as her realistic and rather caustic acknowledge-
ment of his old age. Despite the similarity between Sarah and Abrahams
responses to the prediction of progeny, their laughing skepticism diers
in two ways. First, unlike Abraham, who based his doubts on their mutual
old age (17:17), Sarahs laughter focuses only on Abrahams old age. Sec-
ond, Abraham had distanced himself somewhat from the unlikely possi-
bility of paternity by expressing his procreative inability in a hypothetical
future, while Sarahs remark about her husbands old age refers explicitly
to Abrahams present and actual condition, i.e., he is old.
Even more signicant than the dierences between the laughing
thoughts of LXX-Gs ancestors is the stark contrast between Sarahs state-
ment in LXX-G and her question in the MT after my wearing out can I
still have sexual pleasure? (n: :nnn n:n ). In this context,
the remark about her husbands old age (p ::) is not merely an addi-
tional reection. It represents a challenge to Abrahams manly abilities
to provide her pleasure. Wevers provides a convincing philological expla-
nation for LXX-Gs awkward rendering. He maintains that the LXX-G
translator (mis)read n:n, not as my being worn out, but as the negative
particle not, except and translated it as , a translation permitted
by the consonantal text (1993, 252). This removes Sarahs unattering
self-portrayal as a worn out old woman. More problematic is n:, the
word denoting sexual pleasure. Inasmuch as the LXX-G translator might
not have known this hapax legomenon, Wevers maintains that he read it
as two Hebrew words, n:n and , and translated it as , i.e.,
until now (Wevers 1993, 252). Thus, Sarahs laughing thoughts can be
rendered never yet has it happened to me until now. The only possible
referent of the pronoun it could be what was discussed in the previous
verses, i.e., Sarahs inability to have children.
Not only do the above changes point to possible philological problems
on the part of the LXX-G translator, they also reect dierences in the
social and gender attitudes characteristic in the translators Hellenistic
environment. Instead of pondering the possibility of sexual pleasure in
her old age and withered state, the LXX-G Sarah merely comments on her
lifetime problem. Furthermore, by replacing Sarahs thoughts of pleasure
with an allusion to her continued barrenness, the LXX-G Sarah accepts
the blame for the couples lack of progeny. Doing so downplays the sig-
nicance of Abrahams age. His virility is less threatened, especially since
he had earlier fathered a son through Hagar. Like a proper Hellenistic
matron, Sarah thinks not of her own sexual pleasure. Rather she reects
on her spousal duty of producing the required heir for Abraham. Like her
foremother Eve, Sarah is denied her desire and left only with the poten-
tial pains associated with bearing children.
The narrator identies the groups leader and speaker as Lord,
although it is not certain that the characters yet realize who is talking.
The speakers divine abilities are implied by his statement that he knows
Sarahs inward laughing thoughts. However, his report of her laughing
GENESIS 18:115 313
314 COMMENTARY
thoughts is not quite accurate. His paraphrase of the rst part of her
laughing thoughts shall I truly bear a child? ( ;)
captures the sense of her comments, but is nevertheless incorrect. How-
ever, he completely misrepresents the second part of her statement when
he reports that she said but I have grown old ( ). Her
concerns were not about her old age; they were about Abrahams. As
Lord minimized any performance anxiety on Abrahams part by chang-
ing Sarahs comment about Abrahams age, he likewise relieves Sarahs
procreative performance anxiety by announcing that this previously bar-
ren woman will conceive within the year. One would hope Lords divine
abilities regarding the matter of Sarahs conception will be better than
his abilities to hear her inward thoughts. Nevertheless, Lord has the last
word when he overrides Sarahs denial of her laughter.
18:1621 Until this point in the story, the conversation between God
and Abraham has been predominantly one-sided with God doing nearly
all the talking. Only twice has Abraham responded to God. The two
questions he raised when he rst responded to Gods promises showed
him to be concerned about how and when God would fulll his promises
(15:2, 8). In his second response to Gods generosity, Abraham protests
against Gods preference for the son Sarah is to bear (17:17). In neither
case does Abraham demonstrate much more than self-centeredness. That
is about to change. Not only will Abraham have an extended conversation
with God, but he will also show that he is able to care about others as well
as himself.
Their rst mission accomplished, Abrahams three guests survey the
location of their next task. In a double entendre, the narrator reports
that they look down on Sodom and Gomorrah from their elevated geo-
graphical and moral location. Abraham journeys with them and, because
he likely knows the way, escorts () them. However, Abra-
ham and the three men do not get very far when the lord ( )
speaks. For the rst time in Genesis, Swetes edition of ALEX articulates
and does not capitalize when the word refers to Israels God.
Despite the fact that the one speaking is one of the three men who were
guests of Abraham, there is no doubt that this one is indeed Lord God. A
human lord might refer to Abraham as his servant, but he would not
know Abrahams destiny. Perhaps, ALEX is assuming Abrahams limited
point-of-view and feigning ignorance of the lords true identity. In any
case, this speaker raises a very important question to himself about the
nature of the future relationship between him and his servant Abraham.
This epithet my servant ( ), not included in the MT, explicitly
links Abrahams deferential self-description in the preceding narrative
with Gods more elevated representation of the relationship. That same
epithet will be used with reference to all Gods expressly chosen people,
such as Moses, Joshua, and the prophets. The LXX-G translator perhaps
added the epithet as a subtle way of portraying the upcoming conversa-
tion between Abraham and God as an early example of how later proph-
ets would negotiate with God on behalf of the people. Abrahams temerity
will both foreshadow the roles of Gods future servants and demonstrate
Abrahams maturing behavior.
Given this special relationship he has just dened between himself and
Abraham, the lord (God) wonders if he should reveal what he is plan-
ning to do. As he mulls over his decision, he considers Abrahams glori-
ous destiny and what he knows will be righteous and just behavior on
the part of Abraham and his ospring. Finally acknowledging that his
previous commitments to Abraham and his family demand that he take
Abraham into his condence, God makes his plans known. The central
issue in the dialogue between God and his servant deals with righteous-
ness and justice the two criteria that God claims to know Abraham will
demonstrate. Thus the decision to include Abraham in his plans allows
God to see if Abraham will indeed show potential for living according to
the ways of Lord ( ). This is, in essence, Gods rst test of
Abrahams covenantal suitability. The explicit test will come later.
Lord, whom Swetes ALEX now identies in its customary way, pro-
ceeds to tell Abraham about the outcry and sins associated with Sodom
and Gomorrah and then announces his intention to go down there in
order to verify the accuracy of the statement. Ironically, precisely what
Lord intends to verify is ambiguous. It is clear that the outcry of Sodom
and Gomorrah is in reference to their great sins. However, it is not clear if
the genitive of Sodom and Gomorrah is objective or subjective. In other
words, is the outcry from the inhabitants of the cities or about the inhab-
itants of the cities. Harl, like most, opts for the second option, i.e., the
objective genitive (1994, 177). However, there is yet another ambiguous
issue with regard to the investigation. Lord plans to investigate whether
the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are the sins that
are the basis of the outcry. The Greek word , like its Hebrew
counterpart n:o, refers to completion, accomplishment, or fulllment.
Thus, the above translation in which God wonders if they are bringing it
[the sins leading to the outcry] to an end implies that God will not go
down if they stopped, i.e., brought to an end, their behavior. However,
GENESIS 18:1621 315
316 COMMENTARY
most translations assume that God wants to see if they are accomplishing,
rather than bringing to an end, their behavior. In that case, God will go
down. Either way, God will know if they have brought what led to the out-
cry to an end or if they have carried out the behavior to its fulllment.
18:2233 The men go on their way; Abraham remains standing before
Lord and begins his dialogue. Presuming that Gods planned visit to the
sinful cities will lead to their destruction, Abraham also presumes that
God should not act that way. Instead of asking God if he would sweep
away (np) the righteous with the wicked (per MT), ALEX has Abraham
state that God would not destroy () the righteous with the
ungodly. That would imply that God makes no distinction between these
two types of people. This being the case, Abraham now presents a series
of hypothetical scenarios to prove what he thinks he knows about divine
justice. What if there are fty righteous in the city? The God he thinks
he knows would certainly not, he repeats, certainly not allow innocent
people to be destroyed! His questions and the presumed certainty of their
answers imply that he knows what no other human has or will ever know,
namely, how God understands and administers justice. Gods response,
nevertheless, arms Abrahams assumption. He would let the place go
unpunished if he nds fty righteous people within it. Realizing how pre-
sumptuous he must sound, Abraham admits his inferiority to the one to
whom he is speaking. Swetes ALEX again departs from its customary ref-
erence to Israels God by articulating but not capitalizing when
Abraham directly addresses him throughout the rest of the dialogue
about justice and righteousness. After acknowledging that he is but earth
and ash, Abraham proceeds to raise the stakes of his challenge of the lord
higher and higher by making the number of righteous lower and lower.
If that number is lacking by ve would the lord then destroy? Again, the
answer is no.
LXX-Gs surprising repetition of forms of the verb destroy (),
in contrast with the verbal variety in the MT, emphasizes the importance
of the number of righteous people found. Gods actions will be the same
regardless of number. This emphasis can also be discerned in the econ-
omy of Abrahams words as the negotiation proceeds. Numbers become
metonyms for the righteous people they earlier described. What if forty
are found? Both partners understand the terms of the bargaining. Next
Abraham omits other words from his part of the conversation. He begins
several rounds of debate by assuming that God will ll in the blanks of
his elliptical comment Do not, oh lord. Presumably appealing for Gods
continued patience, Abraham nevertheless does not wait for a response
before pushing ahead to see just how few are sucient to hold o Gods
destruction. He nally stops at ten. When God again admits he will not
destroy on account of ten, Abraham perhaps wishes he could speak once
again. However, he said he would not. Just in case Abraham decides to ask
for more or less, God stops speaking to Abraham and departs. Abraham,
no longer having a conversation partner, returns to his place. Inasmuch
as Abraham never again engages in an extended conversation with God,
his place is both literal (where he is living) and gurative (not equal
to God).
19:128 It is now Lots turn to show hospitality to two of Abrahams
earlier guests, who are now identied as angels (), although the
Greek word, like its Hebrew counterpart (oo:b) can also be translated
as messengers. Like Abraham before him, Lot does not realize that he is
hosting divine messengers. However, unlike Abraham, who was sitting by
the entrance to his tent, Lot is sitting by the gate, i.e., the entrance to the
city of Sodom and often the place where legal issues are resolved. More-
over, Lot will take his guests into his house, whereas Abraham served his
guests lunch outside his tent. Also contrasted is the time of the encounter.
The guests arrive at Abrahams at midday, while the angels enter the city
at evening. Night in the city will prove to be more dangerous than mid-
day in the country, especially when Lots neighbors do not adhere to the
same standards of hospitality. He, like Abraham before him, is respect-
ful and deferential; he bows to greet the visitors whom he addresses as
lords, while referring to himself as their servant. He entreats them not
only to rest and wash their feet, but also to spend the night. However, in
contrast to Abrahams third person imperative, i.e., let him wash your
feet, Lots guests are expected to wash their own feet. Then, according to
ALEX, Lots hospitality becomes more heavy handed. Unlike most manu-
scripts that use the slightly less aggressive to describe his
urging his guests to stay with him, ALEX reports that he was forcing
them (), a word that can connote some level of violence (LSJ
1968, 1035). In so doing, ALEX not only prepares the reader for the worst,
it also provides an ominous foreshadowing of what will later happen to
him. They concede and go into his house, where Lot provides food and
drink. In marked contrast with the elaborate meal that Abraham served
his guests, Lot prepares only unleavened bread. In his defense, it was
night and time would not permit him to make an elegant meal. Moreover,
he did not call on his wife or daughters to help. Instead his hospitality
GENESIS 18:2233 & 19:128 317
318 COMMENTARY
centered on drinking (); the food was almost incidental. Whether
the guests accepted the drinks is unknown; the narrator only reports that
they ate and went to bed. Presumably their objective of investigating the
outcry heard by God would have to wait. The wait, however, would not
be long.
The Sodomites, whose deplorable reputations have been noted sev-
eral times previously (13:13; 18:2033), surround the house. To show that
Abrahams negotiations to protect up to ten righteous people were in
vain, the narrator reports that all of the people at the same time (
) participate in the nights events. Inasmuch as all refers to
only to males, i.e., from young men to older men (
both masculine singular adjectives), women presumably
are not included among the ungodly () who are the objects of
the messengers investigation. Their righteousness, or lack thereof, is not
considered in the formula for determining the justness of Gods punish-
ment. The entire male population demands that Lot bring out his male
visitors so that they might have sexual intercourse () with
them. The Greek occurs twice within LXX-G, but only three
other times in the entire LXX (Jdt. 12:16; Sus. 1:11, 39). Here the word
translates the Hebrew to know (), which is a known euphemism for
carnal knowledge, i.e., sexual intercourse. In its other Genesis occurrence
(39:10), the Greek renders another Hebrew word that can
refer to sexual intercourse, namely take to bed (noc). Like its Hebrew
counterparts, the Greek has a variety of mundane and non-
sexual meanings as well, e.g., to communicate or converse with (LSJ
1968, 1660). Nevertheless, its later use in the context of known sexual
relations suggests that it must refer here to intercourse as well.
Lot implores the men not to act wickedly ( ). This
description likely applies equally to their making him violate the rules
of hospitality by which he must oer safe lodging for his guests, as it
does to their violation of the guests themselves. As God should by no
means () punish the righteous along with the ungodly (18:25),
the Sodomites should by no means do what they are proposing. Instead,
Lot oers the men his two daughters, neither of which has known a man
( ). Here the translator renders the Hebrew euphemism
:: more literally. In so doing, LXX-G distinguishes between what
the Sodomites want, i.e., sexual intercourse () and what Lot
oers instead knowing (). As discussed above, both terms refer
in the context of the story to an unsolicited sexual encounter. The former
is used in reference to an act that is characterized as wicked; the latter to
an act that is presumably not so.
The Sodomites reject Lots oer. As a resident alien, Lot should not
presume to force his social values on them. Such hubris, in their eyes,
mandates that they treat Lot even more harshly than what they had pro-
posed to do with his guests. Ironically, they force () Lot to
remain outside as he forced () his guests to come inside.
Yet the addition of excessively () shows that their actions were
more violent. Indeed, the encounter between Lot and the Sodomite men
awoke Lots guests, now identied as men (). These angel/men
intervene by pulling Lot back into the house and shutting the door. Then,
making use of their divine capabilities, they blind the men outside so that
they cannot nd the door. Lot still has no idea of who saved him or what
they did to hinder the Sodomite advances.
Having the necessary evidence to support the outcry heard by Lord and
thus justify his proposed destruction, the angel/men take action. They
ask Lot to identify any relatives listed in the unusual order of sons-in-
law, sons, then daughters he might have in the city. That they are to be
brought out before its destruction suggests that they might be the righ-
teous Lord had earlier agreed to spare. After realizing that his guests are
really angel/men sent by Lord to rub out () the place, Lot goes
out to speak to those at the top of the their list, i.e., his sons-in-law. The
extended description of these men as the ones having taken his daugh-
ters ( ) raises several questions. Inasmuch
as the verb in some contexts implies sexual relations and/or
marriage (e.g., 4:19; 26:34), was Lot deceiving the Sodomites by telling
them his two daughters had not known a man? Or were the sons-in-law
only betrothed to Lots daughters, but not yet married? In either case,
one wonders if they knew or cared about Lots oer to the men. A third
and more likely possibility is that Lot had two other daughters who were
already married and not living with him. This option can be supported
by the comment that Lot take the two daughters that he has (
), presumably at home, when he leaves the city. Of
course, this scenario also places the sons-in-law with the Sodomites who
were demanding to know their father-in-laws guests. That they then
would be destroyed with the others is an outcome supported by the fact
that they thought Lots warning was just a joke. They would not be laugh-
ing later; unfortunately, neither would their wives, Lots other daughters.
They and other women, along with their children, do not fare well in this
GENESIS 19:128 319
320 COMMENTARY
story. Despite their innocence, they will not be among the righteous
who are spared from destruction.
The only potential survivors are Lots wife and two daughters whom
the angel/men want Lot to quickly take out of the city. Lot and this part
of his family do not think the matter is a joke; however, their distress
seems to paralyze them. The angel/men have to take them all by the
hand to get them outside () of the house, but not out of the city
(: :), per MT. The presence of women in the story is belied by their
continued exclusion from the plot when the angel/men press Lot to be
sure to save his own life (the second masculine singular imperative save
[] enhanced by the second masculine singular reexive your own
[]). The angel/men provide Lot additional instructions, with all
corresponding imperative verbs limited to second masculine singular
do not look ( ), do not stay ( ), and keep safe
(). One wonders whether Lots wife or daughters were privy to
these details, especially since his wifes disregard of the rst condition
caused her to become a pillar of salt.
Unfortunately for her, Lot only asks to be exempted from the last
order to go to the mountain area, the one that Lot argues will threaten
his own safety. Indeed, he claims that some unidentied harmful things
( ) might cost him his life, the life that the angel/men are trying
to save. Instead of eeing to the mountains, Lot wants to go instead to a
small city nearby. Because LXX-G cannot duplicate the wordplay in the
MT between the citys small size (vb) and its eventual name (:v),
the choice of the LXX-G Lot is puzzling. Nevertheless, the angel/men
honor his request and agree not to destroy the city to which Lot is refer-
ring. Perhaps they would agree to just about anything to get Lot and his
family out of the city right away. As soon as Lot enters Segor, Lord rains
brimstone and re on Sodom and Gomorrah, which ALEX alone denes as
those cities in which Lot was settled. The divine nature of the destruction
is emphasized by twice attributing it to Lord, as well as referring to its
heavenly origin. The totality of the destruction is clear; both living things
and growing things are overturned. Moreover, the neighboring areas suf-
fer the same fate. Then as a seeming afterthought, the narrator reports
that Lots wife gazed at the things behind. Her disregard for the previous
instructions led to her demise. Inasmuch as only Lot is reported to have
entered the city of Segor and his wife is out of the picture, one wonders
about the fate of his daughters.
Abrahams appearance serves as a reminder of his negotiation with
God about the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. Looking at the ames rising
like steam from a furnace, Abraham must assume that God could not nd
ten righteous people in the cities and that his nephew and family were
destroyed in the re.
19:2938 One wonders why God did not tell Abraham that he had spared
the life of his nephew Lot, especially because God did it for Abraham.
Abraham likely would not know of Lots morally ambiguous destiny to
father sons that would become eponymous ancestors to some of Israels
closest and often hostile neighbors. Lot, himself, did not know at the
time. Having ed to the small city of Segor for fear of the mountain area,
Lot now is afraid to stay there. So he and his daughters end up living in a
cave in that same mountain area. His two daughters, who had no say in
his earlier oer to give them to the Sodomites, have a proposition of their
own. Like that of their father, theirs centers on sexual relations. Unlike
that of their father, theirs is motivated by a more noble cause than hos-
pitality customs. They want to preserve the human race. Knowing that
their father is old and assuming no other men are alive or at least avail-
able the older daughter devises a plan for progeny. She suggests that
they get their father drunk and lay with him (). The Greek word
, like the Greek word and the Hebrew words and
noc discussed above, has both sexual and non-sexual meanings (LSJ 1968,
967). It can mean to sleep or to go to bed as above (19:4) and elsewhere
in LXX-G (24:54; 28:11; 31:54; 32:14, 22; 41:21; 47:30; and 49:9). However, it
can also mean to lie with, i.e., have sexual intercourse with, as here and
elsewhere in LXX-G (26:10; 30:15; 30:16; 34:2, 7; 35:22; 39:7, 12, 14, 17). In
each case, its meaning is evident by its narrative context.
Here, the reason that Lots older daughter proposes to with
their father is to raise up ospring from our father (
). The verb , used in conjunction
with ospring () refers to the male role in fathering children (see
Louw-Nida 23.59). Inasmuch as they are initiating the act, they can be
assumed to be playing the male role. The older daughter goes rst and
succeeds in seducing her father after giving him wine to drink. To mini-
mize Lots gullibility and morally dubious incestuous relations, the nar-
rator reports that he did not know of his elder daughters going to bed or
getting up. Neither will he know what happened the next night when his
younger daughter also goes in, sleeps with him, and gets up. Thus while
Lot is partially exonerated for what happened to him, he is nevertheless
characterized as an easily manipulated man who knows almost nothing.
Ironically, what he did not know ( ) was that he was the rst man
GENESIS 19:128 & 19:2938 321
322 COMMENTARY
to be known ( ) by his daughters who had not known a
man ( ).
Despite his state of unknowing, Lot nevertheless performs well. Both
daughters conceive from their father and both bear a son. The daugh-
ters also take responsibility for naming their respective sons. The elder
daughter names her son Moab, because, she explains in an addition in the
LXX, he was from my father. Similarly the younger daughter names her
son Ammon and supplies the reason missing from the Hebrew text. He is
the son of my people. Likely not included in the Hebrew text because of
the obvious wordplays in the names of the sons (n :b and b respec-
tively), the meaning of their names is necessary in LXX-G to reinforce the
incest surrounding their births. Although the daughters and their actions
are not condemned in the story, the reputations of the nations of which
the sons become eponymous ancestors Moab and Ammon will always
be ambiguous at best in the larger story of Israel. The women of Moab, in
particular, will play dual roles. They not only will be ultimately respon-
sible for some of the most horric deaths (Num. 25), but one will also
be responsible for one of the most important births, namely that of the
ancestor of King David (Ruth 4).
20:118 Like his nephew Lot who twice allowed himself to be seduced by
his daughters, Abraham twice deceives foreign rulers by claiming that his
wife Sarah was really his sister. This time, however, Gods earlier interven-
tion prevents Sarah from even being touched. In a story character ized by
delayed revelation, Abraham gets himself in another presumably danger-
ous situation. He again travels southward and sojourns in another coun-
try. Earlier he journeyed to Egypt to escape the famine in the land; this
time, however, he oers no explicit motive for moving. Perhaps he wants
to get far away from the destruction he witnessed closer to his home
around Mamre. He is reported to be living somewhere between Kadesh
and Shur, areas in the southernmost part of the territory associated with
him. However, he wanders elsewhere and lives as a resident alien in Gerar,
the precise location of which is debated but presumed to be south of Gaza.
Although Abrahams reasons for travel are unknown, his motives for his
second deception of a foreign ruler are clear in LXX-G. He claims Sarah
is his sister, and in an LXX-G addition, declares the negative as well, i.e.,
she is not his wife. As earlier, he is afraid he will be killed. Here he does
not explain at the outset why anyone would kill him on account of Sarah.
However, he does later in the story when pressed by the king.
Sarah again is taken to the foreign ruler, who is immediately visited by
God at night. In a departure from the MT that reports God came to Abim-
elech in dreams (o:n), LXX-G reports that God entered him ()
in sleep ( ). Here, as elsewhere, LXX-G avoids dream language.
Only in narrating the story of Jacobs dream on his way to Haran (28:12)
does LXX-G render the MTs o:: with . All other dream lan-
guage occurs only in the Joseph Narrative (3750). Divine possession, com-
bined with Gods death threat, gets the kings attention. It is not Abraham
who would die on account of Sarah; it is Abimelech. At this point in the
narrative, Abraham and Sarah are not mentioned by name. The he said
and did/she said and did technique implies that the deeds themselves
have more signicance than the actors. Once Abimelech learns that the
woman he took was already married, he defends himself. The narrator
legitimates the kings defense of himself, and by extension that of his
nation, by reporting that he had not touched Sarah ( ). Like
Abraham had done earlier, Abimelech questions whether this God would
really destroy righteous people. Both the man and the woman deceived
him by claiming to be siblings, so Abimelechs deed was done with a pure
heart and righteousness of hands. God acknowledges his pure heart, i.e.,
his innocent intent. However, God takes full credit for preventing Abi-
melech from actually sinning; God himself was responsible for keeping
Abimelech from touching () her. This repetition of what does
not happen to Sarah is likely necessary here in light of what does hap-
pen to her in the following story. God will cause her to have a son. Here
in Gerar, God is also acting on her behalf. He orders Abimelech to return
the woman to the man, now described as a prophet, who will pray that
Abimelechs life and that of everything he owns be spared. Why God
requires Abraham to intercede on Abimelechs behalf is not stated.
Abimelech wastes no time in resolving the situation. He reports every-
thing to his servants who are reported to be very afraid ( . . .
). Fear seems to be a dening motive behind the recent actions of
many men (19:30; 20:2); the explicit irony of the fear of Abimelechs men
becomes clear later. Abimelech summons Abraham and asks him a series
of increasingly pointed questions about Abrahams motives. What did the
Gerarites do that made Abraham do what no one should do. Abraham
nally reveals the reason for his deception. He assumed that there was
no fear of God in the place. In other words, he questioned whether the
people of Gerar could be moral people. Perhaps Abraham thought that,
like the men of Sodom, these men also lacked scruples. His God was not
GENESIS 20:118 323
324 COMMENTARY
their God, so he doubted their moral character. Ironically, the men were
fearful after their king reported what Abrahams God had said. Even more
ironic, Abimelech implicitly declares Abrahams actions immoral. No one
should do what he did. Realizing his faulty reasoning, Abraham goes on to
oer another defense. Actually, he was not really lying about Sarah being
his sister. In fact, they had the same father, but not the same mother. She
was his half-sister who eventually became () his wife. By using
the passive to report his marriage to Sarah, instead of the more
typical active verb took (), Abraham still appears to be shirking
his ultimate responsibility for the deceptive statement. However, he cor-
rects that in his next statement when he acknowledges that it was he who
implored Sarah to claim him as her brother.
Abimelech goes beyond what God demanded of him. Not only does
he return what is rightly Abrahams, i.e., his wife, he also pays Abra-
ham in money, livestock, and people. He even allows Abraham to set-
tle (), i.e., to no longer live as a resident alien, anywhere in his
land where Abraham so desires. Unlike the Pharaoh who never spoke to
Sarah, the king of Gerar does so. The money he gives to the man he still
describes as her brother serves to restore her honor. Yet he continues by
implicitly blaming her for what happened. Unlike his nal absolving dec-
laration in the MT (and with everything be vindicated, no:: :v n:),
the LXX-G Abimelech tells her to be truthful in everything. Abraham
indeed prays for Abimelech who is healed. In a nal delayed revelation,
the narrator reports that Abimelechs wife and servant girls now bore
children. God had not actually taken anyones life; he merely preventing
them from giving life. He had to close all the wombs here and now so that
he could safely open Sarahs elsewhere and later.
21:17 To highlight the reliability of God, the narrator twice reports
that Lord did what he said he would do to and for Sarah (v. 1) and later
reiterates that he did as he promised Abraham (v. 2). As a result of his
visit, Sarah conceives and bears for Abraham a son in old age and at the
designated time. In accordance with Gods directive, Abraham names his
son Isaac and circumcises him on the eighth day. The threefold repetition
of the boys name would remind those hearing the Hebrew text about
Abrahams and Sarahs earlier laughing disbelief. Although the wordplay
connecting Isaacs name with the laughter of both his parents is impos-
sible to duplicate in translation, the laughter and rejoicing that Sarah
reports is nevertheless appropriate to the joyous event. Signicantly,
Abraham has nothing to say. Although his actions demonstrate his obedi-
ence, his silence suggests his indierence. When God had told him about
Isaac, he pleaded for his rstborn Ishmael. Gods favorite son does not
seem to be Abrahams. It will be clear, however, that he is Sarahs favorite.
She concludes this part of the story by reecting on what she is doing in
her old age.
21:821 Throughout the next part of the story, LXX-G adds many pro-
nominal phrases that both clarify the Hebrew text and make what happens
more personal to those involved. Other additions demonstrate LXX-Gs
tendency to clarify, and often interpret, its proto-MT Hebrew text. It will
be evident that both God and the narrator attempt to distance Abraham
from the son whom he seems to favor. Emotional distance can be seen
in the nearly complete refusal to call Ishmael Abrahams son; physical
distance is ensured by Ishmaels complete removal from the story. The
distancing begins when Abraham prepares a feast upon the weaning of
Isaac, here referred to as his son. The other son is said to be Abrahams
son and referred to by his given name Ishmael only once (v. 11). Every
other time he is referenced in the story, he is either identied as his moth-
ers son or by the more general term youngster (). Similarly, his
mother is only referred to by her name three times: rst when the narra-
tor has Sarah identify her as Hagar the Egyptian (v. 9) and the other two
when Gods angel speaks to her (v. 17). She is most often described rather
condescendingly by her role as maidservant (). LXX-G reduces
Hagars status even more when it takes away her active role in bearing
Abrahams son. Instead of the MTs whom she bore for Abraham (c
onn: n:), LXX-Gs use of the masculine singular pronoun makes
the son the passive subject when it describes him as the one who was
born to Abraham ( ). Removing Hagars subjectivity
and minimizing the attention on Ishmaels relationship to Abraham sub-
tly downplays Hagars intimacy with Abraham and dissociates the Jewish
ancestors from the Egyptians. Such distancing could have been inu-
enced by the LXX-G translators third century B.C.E. Egyptian milieu.
Ishmaels erasure from the story begins with the report that Sarah sees
this son playing and demands his banishment. Why this seemingly inno-
cent action on the part of a child should lead to such drastic consequences
has been the subject of considerable speculation. The issue revolves
around the Hebrew participle pvb, which is based on the same root as
Isaacs name (pv). This same word occurs elsewhere in MT Genesis to
describe Isaacs actions with Rebekah (26:8), an action that convinces the
Philistine Abimelech that Rebekah is really his wife, not his sister. Even
GENESIS 21:17 & 21:821 325
326 COMMENTARY
later, Potiphars wife retaliates against Joseph by accusing him of insult-
ing (pv:) her and the Egyptians. Her accusation, while not sexual, is
nevertheless derogatory. However, neither explain just what Ishmael is
doing that leads to Sarahs response. A more literal reading of the text
shows Ishmael Isaac-ing, and thus asserting his right to what God has
promised to Sarahs son. This reading makes the most sense in its con-
text, given Sarahs explicit comment about inheritance.
The inability of the Greek translation to duplicate the wordplay in the
Hebrew text forced the translator to interpret the context. Rendering
pv: with playing () should alleviate Sarahs concern regard-
ing Ishmaels taking over Isaacs role. However, LXX-Gs addition of with
Isaac her son ( ), and ALEXs even more per-
sonal with Isaac her own son ( ), causes other
problems. Whatever type of playing Ishmael is engaged in, he is doing
it with Sarahs own son. The kind of play is hard to dene, especially in
light of its use in the two contexts discussed above. Does Sarah observe
the other son engaging in some sexual or insulting activity with her son?
If so, maternal instinct might demand that she protect her long-awaited
and divinely promised son from any harm. Yet the reason she uses to jus-
tify her demand that Abraham banish the boy and his mother shows that
her real concern is her own sons future posterity, and accordingly hers
as well. Her description of Hagar as this maidservant (
), unlike her earlier description of Hagar as my maidservant (
, 16:2) corresponds with the dismissive tone adopted by
God and the narrator. Hagar is no longer dened in relation to Israels
rst family. Neither will the maidservants son, whom Sarah declares will
not inherit along with her son Isaac.
Even God refuses to refer to mother and child by name. He also refers
to Hagar as this maidservant and to Ishmael as the youngster when he
intervenes to overcome Abrahams concern about Sarahs harsh demand.
In contrast, God does refer to both Sarah and Isaac by name when he
tells Abraham to listen to (i.e., obey) everything Sarah might say because
Isaacs ospring will carry Abrahams name. God then reiterates what he
had promised earlier when Abraham raised similar concerns about his
rstborn (17:1820), namely that he will make him into a great nation. In
his typical manner, Abraham does not reply verbally to Gods directive.
Instead, he takes action. Only after he rst arose (), took ()
bread and water, gave () them to Hagar, and placed ()
them on her shoulder along with the child, does he nally obey Sarah and
God and send her away (). Inasmuch as the youngster must
be in his teens by now, it seems unlikely that Abraham literally put him
on his mothers shoulders. Neither does this fact deter the narrator or
God from continuing to refer to him as the youngster. Both seemingly
prefer this term to using the youngsters given name.
As she did before, Hagar heads south to the desert area, likely trav-
eling toward her native Egypt. By translating the Hebrew place name
Beersheba (nc n) literally as the well of the oath (
), LXX-G has her wandering around by a well. She and the narra-
tor seemingly ignore this source of water when the water that Abraham
had provided was running out. Fearing that her son might die, why
would she not get him water from the well instead of throwing him down
underneath one of the r trees ()? Another oddity in LXX-G is its
rendering of the Hebrew bushes (oc). Obviously the LXX-G translator
was not familiar with the Hebrew word. Earlier (2:5) he had rendered it
as green plant (); here its translation as a r tree makes no sense
in a desert context. The boys location, however, is less important than
his mothers. She goes the distance of a bows throw ( ) from
him and sits opposite of him, i.e., she turns her back to the boy. She justi-
es this seemingly callous action by declaring that she does not want to
see him die. Perhaps she is far enough away that she cannot hear him
when, per LXX-G, he cries. Changing the subject of the verb to cry from
the Hebrews feminine singular (nn to the masculine singular ,
the LXX-G text harmonizes whose sound God hears with its source. From
his place in the heaven that is even farther away, God harkens to the
youngsters crying. His angel again goes to Hagars assistance and, speak-
ing for God, reiterates Gods vow to make him into a great nation. Unlike
any other character in this story, the angel actually addresses Hagar by
name. God then opens Hagars eyes and she sees a well. To take the previ-
ous well into account, LXX-G adds the adjective living () to the
description of the wells water. Whether it was a dierent well, or the
same well whose water was transformed by God, it now provides fresh
owing water for the boy to drink. God continues to be with the child,
who stays in the desert and becomes an archer. His banishment from
the story and from Abrahams covenantal lineage is complete when his
mother marries him to an Egyptian woman.
21:2234 The story abruptly returns to Abimelech, who is accompanied
by Phikol the commander in chief of his army and, per LXX-G, Ochozath
his groomsman (). LXX-G adds Ochozath to Abimelechs reti-
nue (likely to harmonize with 26:26) and describes him here as there as a
GENESIS 21:821 & 21:2234 327
328 COMMENTARY
groomsmen. As both Harl (1994, 191) and Wevers (1993, 410) comment,
the description is odd because neither context refers to a wedding. Thus,
the word must refer to a close, trusted friend. With his friend and military
commander, Abimelech approaches Abraham with a proposal. Evidently
aware of Abrahams good fortune that resulted from Gods presence with
the patriarch, Abimelech wants to take advantage of his previous righ-
teous dealings ( ) with Abraham (20:118). He asks Abra-
ham to reciprocate by swearing not to treat him, his ospring, or his land
unrighteously. Abraham agrees, but with one condition. He wants Abi-
melech to return a well that the kings servants took away. Abimelechs
disavowal of any knowledge of the act presumably convinces Abraham
to proceed with the covenant. He guarantees his part of the agreement
by giving sheep and calves to the king. Then he does something that the
king does not understand. He sets aside seven lambs that he will also give
to the king. These lambs, however, will serve as witnesses to what Abra-
ham wants from the agreement. He dug the well, thus it is his.
The story then proceeds with a naming ceremony that in the MT takes
into account the well, the swearing, and the seven animals, the latter two
of which are both forms of the root nc. Unfortunately, the wordplays
associated with the Hebrew Beersheba (nc n) cannot be dupli-
cated in LXX-G. As earlier, this adds some confusion to the story. Here
Beersheba is rendered literally as the Well of swearing an oath (
) and later, as in v. 14, by its abbreviated name, the Well of the
oath ( ). As a result, the well is given a name that it
already had. Not only is the name of the place awkward, it also lacks any
precise geographic referent. One assumes that the land is not a Philistine
(Phylistieim) possession because Abimelech and his associates are said to
return to the land of the Philistines. Yet, after ploughing the land by the
well and invoking God, Abraham is reported to have sojourned in the land
of the Philistines many days. Lack of clarity and added confusion can be
unfortunate consequences of translation. In these cases, LXX-G did not
clear up the ambiguity, but instead added to it.
22:119 Like the earlier narrative that began after these things (15:1),
this story marks a signicant event in Abrahams relationship with God.
In the previous case, these things referred to Abrahams military victory
over the Chodollogomer coalition and his rescue of Lot from their forces.
At that time, Abraham doubted whether he would ever have ospring
of his own issue to inherit his wealth and the land that God had prom-
ised to him. God, however, overrode Abrahams doubts by promising him
ospring as numerous as the stars in the sky and by ritually establish-
ing himself as the guarantor of the covenant. Many other things have
occurred in the meantime, the most signicant for Abraham was Gods
fulllment of his earlier promise to provide Abraham ospring of his own
issue. Because his wife Sarah was barren, her maidservant Hagar acted as
a surrogate and bore a son for Abraham. Although his rstborn son was
a blessing to Abraham, Ishmael was not to be the heir of the covenantal
promise. That heir, God declared, must be born of Sarah. Again God deliv-
ered on his promise and Sarah bore Abraham his second son. Moreover,
God sided with Sarah when she demanded that Ishmael and his mother
be banished from their house both literally and guratively. Ishmael
was granted a consolation dynasty, but Isaac was the son through whom
Abrahams descendants would inherit the land. Despite Abrahams seem-
ing preference for his rstborn son, he had no choice but to do what God
demanded. Having just negotiated a treaty for even more land, Abraham
must be experiencing the rewards of his trust in God. Everything has hap-
pened that God had promised him. It is now, however, after these things
( ) that God reasserts himself in Abrahams life and
proceeds to test Abraham.
The narrator makes it clear from the beginning of the story that what
was to follow was a test from God. Nevertheless, he does not reveal the
motive behind Gods shocking command until later in the story. LXX-Gs
use of the imperfect testing (), moreover, implies that this test
would continue. Abraham responds appropriately when God speaks his
name, twice per LXX-G, by declaring his presence and presumed readi-
ness to be at Gods disposal. God gets right to the point and issues three
imperatives to the patriarch. Take, travel, and oer a sacrice. Out of con-
text, such demands would seem tting for this man who regularly oered
sacrices to show his appreciation for Gods blessings. Here, however,
what he is to sacrice makes Gods directive anything but mundane. The
object of the rst verb take () is his son, who is further described, in
LXX-G rather redundantly, both as the beloved one ( ) and
the one whom (Abraham) loves ( ). Surprisingly, this is the
rst occurrence of the more common Greek word for love, i.e., in
Genesis and thus in the Bible. Although LXX-Gs substitution of beloved
for the MTs only (() son addresses the seeming problem in the MT
that Isaac was not Abrahams only son, it accentuates the irony associ-
ated with Abrahams love for Isaac. Earlier in the story, Abraham seemed
GENESIS 22:119 329
330 COMMENTARY
to prefer his other son Ishmael. It is perhaps his earlier preference that
causes the narrator to identify Isaac as the referent of these series of
adjectives describing his beloved.
Gods next two imperatives describe what Abraham is to do with his
son Isaac. He is to travel () into the high land (
). LXX-Gs literal rendering of the MTs specic geographic desig-
nation of Mariah (nb) is contextually appropriate since the ultimate
destination is a mountain. Taking and traveling are routine activities for
the patriarch, but Gods nal directive to oer () him there
as a sacrice () is unique. One might expect Abraham to
question this divine order, or at least to respond to it. After all, he did
respond when God rst told him about the son Sarah was to bear him
by begging God to consider his rstborn Ishmael (17:18). Furthermore,
the narrator described his response to Sarahs demand to banish Ishmael
and his mother as Sarahs being harsh (; 21:11). Finally, Abra-
ham dared to negotiate with God when God consults him about his plan
to destroy Sodom, presumably to save the life of his nephew Lot. Here
when he is told to kill his beloved son, Abraham reverts to his typical
method of response to God; he says nothing but goes into action. He gets
up early the next morning and splits the wood for the sacricial re and,
for some unexplained reason, takes two servant boys along with Isaac in
search of the place to which God will direct him. After three days, Abra-
ham sees the place from afar and orders his servants to stay where they
are. He and Isaac will worship at the far o mountain and return. Unlike
the MT that uses the same word to refer to Abrahams servant boys and
to Isaac (:), LXX-G distinguishes between the two by referring to the
former as servant () and to Isaac with its diminutive form little boy
(). ALEX, by contrast, has Abraham refer to Isaac as youngster
(), another diminutive form of . Although both diminutive
forms have the same basic meaning young child, ALEXs is the
same word that was used almost exclusively in the previous chapter to
refer to Ishmael. Having Abraham refer to Isaac in the same way he and
others referred to the banished Ishmael implies a similar fate for this
youngster. This foreboding is also evident in the repeated use of the same
verbs to describe what Abraham does in both stories: he arises ()
early in the morning; he takes things (); and he places things
(). Thus, it would seem that like Ishmael, Isaac is not expected to
return, despite Abrahams statement to the contrary.
Isaac speaks for the rst time in the story by calling to his father. The
rst words father Abraham speaks to his beloved son show paternal con-
cern. However, unlike the MT in which Abraham addresses Isaac as my
son (:n), the LXX-G Abraham uses yet another word for child ().
Although the vocative of can be a term of endearment for ones
own child, it lacks the explicit relational bond signied by my son.
Furthermore, the fact that most often refers to ones biological
ospring highlights the emotional distance between the two. Abraham
acknowledges Isaac to be his biological son, but does not seem to con-
sider him his beloved son. Isaac continues the brief and only father-son
conversation by acknowledging the re and the wood for the sacrice,
but wondering about the sheep. The brevity of their conversation is high-
lighted by even the narrator rushing through it. The explicit speaking
subjects are omitted, leaving only verbs of speaking to mark the change
of speakers. Isaac, at rst perhaps assuming that his father had forgotten
the sacricial oering, will soon realize that this was not an oversight.
In the last words that Abraham will ever speak to his son, he replies with
an accurate but ambiguous answer that God will see to it. Again departing
from the MT, LXX-G has Abraham referring to Isaac as my child, instead
of my son. In silence, Abraham builds the altar and places the wood on it.
He continues in silence to do what God ordered him. LXX-G renders the
poignant Hebrew verb bind (p) with the more graphically descriptive
verb binding hand and foot (). However, by using the parti-
ciple form of the verb, LXX-G is subordinating the binding of Isaac to its
ultimate purpose that is expressed with the main verb and its object. As
Abraham did with the inanimate wood, he placed () his own son
on the altar. Thus, LXX-Gs rendering supports the Christian interpretive
emphasis on the act of sacrice, in contrast with the Jewish emphasis on
the other MT verb p, to bind, which is the basis for the traditional name
of the story, i.e., the Akedah. Nevertheless, as Harl maintains, the fact that
Isaac was bound suggests that he consented to the sacrice. As such,
several early church fathers understood him as preguring the passion of
Christ (1994, 194). Parallel to the three verbs in the beginning of the story
(take, travel, and oer), three more verbs bring the story to its climax.
First Abraham stretched out () his hand to take () the
knife in order to slaughter () his son. Here the narrator omits the
earlier loving adjectives. Here they hardly seem appropriate.
The absolute and likely horrifying silence is broken when an angel of
Lord calls Abrahams name twice. Abraham replies as he did earlier and
awaits Gods instructions. This time, however, he is told not to do things.
He is not to cast out his hand on the little boy (). Here ALEXs
use of , in accordance with all other Greek manuscripts but
GENESIS 22:119 331
332 COMMENTARY
distinct from his earlier divergent rendering , oers an interpre-
tive advantage. When ALEX used the same word to describe both
Ishmael and Isaac, it hinted at their similar fate. Now, as Isaac is being
delivered from death, ALEX can refer to him by a dierent term. This
little boy () will have a better future than the former young-
ster (). The angel continues by telling Abraham euphemistically
not to do anything to him. It is as if neither God nor his angel want to
acknowledge the horror of the earlier explicit order to oer ()
his son as a sacrice. The angel continues in euphemistic words to tell
Abraham why he is not to do anything. The angel does not say that God
was testing () Abraham; he only comments on the signicance
of Abrahams passing the test. At this point, both Abraham and the reader
are nally told the reason for the test. Abraham has proved that he fears
God because he did not spare his son. One can only imagine Abrahams
relief, since he says nothing. Instead he nds what he disingenuously
told Isaac earlier, namely, the animal for the sacrice. No mere sheep, but
rather a ram caught by its horns will be the victim.
As he does after most encounters with God, Abraham names a place
to commemorate the event. As always, LXX-Gs translation reports the
signicance of the name, but lacks the etiological connection with a
specic geographic location. God, speaking through his angel, seem-
ingly feels the need to expand on the signicance of his test. Because of
Abrahams silent obedience to the most heinous of Gods instructions,
God emphatically reiterates four of his earlier covenantal promises:
Abraham will be blessed; his ospring will be as numerous as both the
stars of the heaven and the sand of the sea; they will inherit the cities
of their enemies; and they (not he) will be the source of the blessing of
all the nations. As elsewhere, LXX-G updates the language to reect its
geographic context; here it changes the MTs gate (c) of his enemies
to the cities () of the enemies. Unlike earlier iterations of Gods
unilateral covenant, this one implies that there was a condition after all,
that of Abrahams obedience.
The story that began so badly seems to have a happy ending. Abraham
returns to his servant boys and establishes a permanent residence by the
well of the oath. However, there is no mention of Isaacs fate. Neither is
there any mention of Sarah; she presumably never knew of Gods test or
Abrahams willingness to execute it and his son. Or perhaps she did know,
because she and Abraham never speak again. If Isaac had not reappeared
later in the story, readers would never have known that he also came
down from the mountain. The parental silence extends to the father and
his so-called beloved son. Abraham and Isaac never talk again either. Nor,
in fact, do Abraham and God ever talk again. Like God, Abraham provides
for his family; he will see to it that Sarah gets an appropriate grave and
that Isaac gets an appropriate wife. But the silence among the major
characters testies to the challenging consequences of subordinating
compassion to obedience.
22:2024 Divine silence is imitated by the narrator whose use of the
passive verb was told () masks the identity of the speaker. The
extent of the report is also unclear. Is Abraham informed only about
the eight legitimate sons of his brother, or does he also hear of the sons
born of the concubine? The signicance of Nahors genealogy is its inclu-
sion of Abrahams great niece Rebekah (Rebekka). Her relationship to the
patrilineage of Abrahams father Terah will become important later in
the story when it becomes an explicit requirement for later mothers of
the heirs to the covenantal promise.
23:120 Sarah, absent from the previous story, now disappears com-
pletely from the ancestral story. Having a life that spanned 127 years, she
is the rst ancestor whose death is reported. It is also signicant that she
dies in Canaan, the promised land, and in Hebron, where Abraham built
an altar after God rst told him about the promised land (13:18). However,
the land itself is still in the possession of the Canaanites, and this por-
tion belongs to the Hittites. Thus, after mourning her death, Abraham
begins to negotiate with the sons of Chet, i.e., the Hittites, to procure a
burial property. Using synonymous terms to describe himself as both a
sojourner () and a stranger (), Abraham empha-
sizes his outsider status at the outset of the negotiations. Despite his
seemingly unfavorable bargaining position, Abraham is well-received by
the Hittites, who regard him as a king () from God. As Wevers
notes, LXX-G did not render the Hebrew chief, prince (c:) in its nor-
mal fashion with ruler (). He speculates that could refer to
a ranking ocial in Hittite society and would be an inappropriate term of
deference for a foreigner (1993, 333). Why king would be any more cir-
cumspect is unclear. What is clear is that the Hittites disregard Abrahams
legally appropriate self-description by characterizing him in a politically
inaccurate but culturally appropriate manner. Both sides show exces-
sive politeness that commentators maintain represents the type of oral
contract negotiations of the ANE (e.g., Westermann 1985, 371372; Sarna
1989, 156157).
GENESIS 22:119 & 23:120 333
334 COMMENTARY
The Hittites indicate that they want to provide Abraham a choice
tomb ( ). He, however, refuses what seems to be a gift
from the Hittites and instead asks them to intercede for him with Eph-
ron. Abraham seems to know exactly the property he wants for Sarahs
tomb the double cave ( ) that is located on part
of Ephrons property. In this case, LXX-Gs tendency to translate place
names makes sense. A double cave better describes a suitable burial plot
than the Hebrews the cave of Machpelah (n:cobn nb). Abrahams
request that Ephron give () him the property for a tting amount
of money conrms that he does not want a gift. Rather, he expects to pay
what the property is worth and thereby avoid any connotation that he
took the property. In fact, he makes sure that all the Hittites, not just Eph-
ron, hear his oer. ALEX emphasizes the communal nature of the nego-
tiation when it reports that Abrahams second request to give him the
land is the second person plural imperative form, i.e., you (all) give me
(), instead of the majoritys repeated third person singular impera-
tive ().
Although Abraham addresses his request for Ephrons property to the
Hittites in general, Ephron is present and replies directly to Abraham. He
is not required to speak through intermediaries. When Abraham inquires
about the cost of the property, Ephron responds by claiming he heard
that his property was worth 400 drachma. If, as Wevers (1993, 338) and
others (e.g., Westermann 1985, 375) suggest, Ephron starts the bargaining
process by asking an exorbitant amount, Abraham shows no surprise. He
accepts Ephrons asking price without further negotiation. His willingness
to pay 400 drachma for the burial property could show his loving devo-
tion to his dead wife, who deserves nothing less. Of course, he received
more than twice that amount from Abimelech to restore Sarahs honor
after his second attempt to pass Sarah o as his sister (20:16). Because he
prospered on her account, he had the money to give her a decent burial.
That Abraham handed over (), rather than weighed
(:pc), the amount requested by Ephron reects LXX-Gs tendency to
update the terms in the text to ones more suitable to its third century
B.C.E. Alexandrian milieu. Unlike the shekel whose value was one of
weight, the drachma was a coin worth a particular value. Abraham must
have anticipated a favorable negotiation to have that much money with
him. The Hittites were present to witness the transaction, the details of
which are summarized by the narrator in a way similar to a legal docu-
ment. Abrahams 400 drachma purchase included three main items: Eph-
rons eld, the double cave, and all the trees within its boundaries. Here,
the literal translation in LXX-G double cave ( ) of the
Hebrew place name n:cobn nb is confusing. The rst phrase describ-
ing the eld literally means which was in
the double cave. This is just the opposite of the earlier description that
stated that the double cave was in the eld (v. 9). Wevers speculates that
the phrase probably means is included, along with (1993, 339). Nev-
ertheless, the other legal part of the transaction is clear, i.e., that it was
conducted with the necessary witnesses present.
The story ends with Abraham accomplishing his purpose. He buries
Sarah in the double cave on the property he bought from Ephron. Its loca-
tion in Hebron of Canaan is repeated as is its legal transfer. Thus, a very
small piece of the promised land now belongs to the family to whom God
made the promise.
24:18 Once again, the narrator states that Abraham is old and advanced
in days. The earlier occasion (18:11) preceded his visitors announcement
that Sarah would have a son. Here, it precedes Abrahams nal act for
that son, namely getting him an appropriate wife. As will become cus-
tomary, the appropriate wife cannot be a Canaanite. Instead, she must
come from Abrahams family, thus beginning the tradition of mandatory
endogamy. LXX-G is even more specic than the MT. It adds where I was
born ( ) to further dene my land ( ), and requires
that the woman be from Abrahams tribe (), which is somewhat
more specic than the MTs ancestors (n::b). The LXX-G translator,
living in exile in Alexandria, characterizes Abraham, like himself, as liv-
ing outside the land of his birth.
Since Abraham himself is too old to travel back home, he chooses his
most senior servant to make the trip. The importance of the potential
wifes pedigree is emphasized in the oath that Abraham makes his chief
servant swear before God. The rst criterion is a negative one she must
not be a Canaanite woman; only then does Abraham tell him that he must
travel to his birthplace to accomplish his purpose. Despite the signi-
cance of his task, the servant who is to perform it is never identied by
name, only by his position (i.e., the servant [ ]) or his person (i.e.,
the man [ ]). The narrator most often refers to him by posi-
tion, especially when he is carrying out his master Abrahams request.
However, he is the man when the point of view changes to that of the
other characters before they know his identity.
Before he swears an oath before God, the servant asks about a potential
problem. What happens if the woman does not want to go with him back
GENESIS 23:120 & 24:18 335
336 COMMENTARY
to Abrahams new land. Maybe he should take Isaac with him. Abraham
explicitly rejects this option. In the last words that Abraham speaks, he
acknowledges the role that God has had in his life. God brought Abraham
from his birthplace and gave his new land to his ospring, and per LXX-G,
to him as well. To take Isaac back would be, in a sense, rejecting Gods gift.
By telling his servant that God would send his angel ahead of him, Abra-
ham implies Gods guidance on the journey. LXX-G, in its attempt to make
the MTs text more explicit, has Abraham specify that the wife is to be for
his son Isaac ( ). This will be the only time that Abraham
refers to his son by name, a fact more poignant because these are his last
words. Finally, Abraham specically addresses the servants concern. If
the woman does not want to come back with him, he will be released
from his oath. His nal words emphasize his objection to Isaac returning
to his birthplace. These last words show that Abraham has matured in his
relationship to God. When he rst spoke, he told Sarah to say she was his
sister, so that it would go well for him (12:11). His order to Sarah that she
lie to save him implied he did not trust God to do so. His last words, on the
other hand, show that God is now central to Abrahams thoughts. He has
condence in Gods guidance and is doing all that he can to ensure that
Gods promise will be fullled.
24:960 After having sworn to Abraham that he would nd a wife for
Isaac, the servant sets o, per LXX-G, for Mesopotamia. Here, unlike
other places where the Hebrew Aram (o) occurs, LXX-G essentially
disregards the o and just translates the term rivers (on:) with Mes-
opotamia, i.e., the land between the two rivers. This abbreviated transla-
tion was sucient, per Wevers, because the narrator immediately went
on to more specically identify the servants destination as the city of
Abrahams brother Nachr (2001, 237). He must anticipate a long and
successful journey and additional traveling companions on the trip back
home because he takes ten of Abrahams camels and some of his goods.
As Abraham predicted, Gods angel goes with the servant. Its guidance
reects the presence of God-in-the-margins, who likely causes him to
arrive outside the city just at the time of day when women fetching water
would arrive. After settling his camels, the servant prays to Abrahams
God to allow him to prosper, not for his own sake, but as a way of show-
ing Gods mercy to Abraham. He then devises a sign that would indicate
Gods choice for Isaacs wife. Of all the daughters of the city who come
out to draw water, the virgin () from whom he requests a drink
will be the chosen one if she gives a two-part response. First, she must
implore him to drink; second, she must give his camels water as well. As
Sarna notes, the act of giving water to camels would be a generous one.
Each camel would require twenty-ve gallons of water to replenish itself
after a long journey (1989, 164). The servant has ten of them. Yet, LXX-G
describes the potential wife as even more generous because she is to oer
them water until they stop drinking.
God-in-the-margins wastes no time. The servant barely nishes his
prayer when Rebekah appears. The narrator also wastes no time in
describing her lineage. As a grand niece of Abraham, she meets the two
criteria for Isaacs future wife that Abraham had earlier specied, i.e., she
must be from his birth place and from his tribe. The next two descrip-
tors, that of her beauty and her explicitly described virginity, while not
specically required, were likely assumed to be appropriate characteris-
tics of Isaacs future wife. The only factor that the servant still needs con-
rmed is her generosity. He wastes no time either. He runs up to her and
makes his rst request. Asking for only a little water ( ), the
servant creates a scenario to see if she does as requested or whether she
oers more. Like all the rest of the characters, she wastes no time as she
rushes to provide the man water from the water jug she had just lled.
She exceeds the requirements of the rst test of her hospitality when she
gives the man more than he requested. She lets him drink until he stops
drinking. Although this was to be the sign associated with watering the
camels, her unlimited generosity adds to her portrayal as a hospitable
woman. Only one test remains, namely her oer to provide water for the
camels, until, per LXX-G, they stop drinking. Again, she passes. She makes
a slightly dierent oer (to give water to all the camels) and runs to fetch
more water. The narrator conrms that she did what she said she would.
The servant, now referred to only as the man (), stops to reect
on the phenomena he has just witnessed to be sure that the woman is
indeed the one who fullls all the requirements.
The Hellenistic inuence on LXX-G is evident in this section of the nar-
rative that emphasizes the womans virginity. Unlike the MT in which the
servant describes the prospective wife as a young woman ([n]:n), the
LXX servant describes her as a virgin (). Rebekah, the woman
who appears before the servant nishes his prayer, is the likely candi-
date. After detailing her lineage, the narrator continues the emphasis on
her virginity when he both calls her a virgin (as opposed again to the
MTs n:n) and then, with the MT, declares her to be a virgin (n::nn/
). To further accentuate this feature, the narrator goes on to
dene what is meant by virgin by saying that no man had ever known
GENESIS 24:960 337
338 COMMENTARY
her. According to Sarna, the Hebrew word n::nn, like its Semitic cog-
nates, does not explicitly refer to virginity in its physical sense. Rather it
is used to describe a young woman who is sexually mature and thus mar-
riageable (1989, 165). Thus, the MT needed to clarify its explicit meaning
by including the phrase no man had known her. Although LXX-G also
uses this phrase, it serves less to clarify the womans physical condition
and more to emphasize it.
It likely took awhile for all ten camels to nish drinking, thus giving
the man enough time to determine that the virgin standing before him
was Gods choice for Isaacs wife. He takes expensive jewelry gold ear-
rings and bracelets and, although not explicitly stated, gives them to
Rebekah. The second item of jewelry, namely the bracelets, and their
value, namely ten gold weights, corresponds to the MTs description.
However, as Wevers notes, the gold nose ring (o: nn) was not fashion-
able in third century B.C.E. Alexandria (1993, 353). Thus the translator
changed the rst item of jewelry to golden earrings. He also changed its
unit of value measurement accordingly. Instead of the MTs half shekel,
he describes their worth as a drachm, i.e., one half drachma, each. Two
earrings would then be worth a drachma. It is tting, then, that the LXX-G
Rebekah, who was more generous than her MT counterpart, also received
a more valuable gift.
Now the servant needs to conrm that the girl meets Abrahams main
requirements. Thus, he asks about her family. He also asks for a place to
stay. She tells the servant what the narrator had earlier reported, i.e., that
she was from the right family and tribe. Even better, her family has provi-
sions for him and the camels and a place for them to lodge. To show his
appreciation, the servant blesses his masters God for granting him and
his master what he had requested.
Still on the run, Rebekah tells those in her mothers house what has
happened. One as yet unmentioned family member, i.e., her brother
Laban, is introduced to the story. The narrator reports that Laban runs
outside to the man even before he sees his sisters jewelry or hears her
nish the story. Although chronologically awkward, his dashing outside
corresponds with the haste of all the other characters. Laban orders the
man to come to him and immediately blesses Lord. Someone who had
given his sister such valuable jewelry must be God-sent. Sometime in the
midst of all the confusion, Laban had prepared for the man and the cam-
els. By means of a series of third person masculine singular verbs with
unspecied subjects, the narrator reports that the camels were fed and
the man and his traveling companions, rst mentioned here, were given
water for their feet and food to eat. But the man refuses to eat until he has
explained what was happening. They tell him to speak.
The man begins his lengthy discourse (vv. 3449) by introducing him-
self as Abrahams servant and explaining his reason for being there.
Although most of his narration coincides with the narrators report of
what happened, he changes part of the story. He rst updates the family
on Abrahams well being and the prosperity granted him by Lord. He then
focuses his discussion on the one son that Abrahams wife Sarah bore for
him when, per LXX-G, he was old. Unlike the earlier accounts of Isaacs
divinely ordained miraculous birth in which Abrahams age is downplayed
while Sarahs is highlighted (18:13; 21:2), here LXX-G departs from the MT
and has the servant report that Abraham was old. The previous emphasis
on Sarahs giving birth in her old age stresses Gods role in Isaacs birth;
here LXX-Gs change in person functions to highlight Abrahams virility.
Their uncle Abraham must be quite the man!
That son, who is never referred to by name, is nevertheless the reason
for the servants trip. Abraham wants the servant to nd a wife for his
son. However, the woman cannot be a daughter of the Canaanites, with
whom per LXX-G, Abraham is sojourning (). Abraham himself
claimed that he was living (/nc) among the Canaanites (v. 3), a
claim with which the servants narration in the MT agrees (nc). LXX-Gs
servant, however, reports that Abraham described his status as sojourn-
ing among the Canaanites. This is the only place where LXX-G renders
nc with , a translation elsewhere reserved for the Hebrew ::.
Perhaps LXX-Gs intentional deviation from the norm is an attempt by
the servant to minimize Abrahams resident status. Like LXX-Gs addi-
tion earlier in the story that highlighted his birthplace and tribe, the
change here similarly emphasizes his family relationship. He is not living
permanently among the Canaanites, and thus refuses to allow his son to
intermarry. Instead, he demands that his one son marry endogamously, a
condition that is conrmed when the servant continues with the goal of
his journey, namely nding a wife within the house of Abrahams father
and within his tribe.
The servant continues his narration by acknowledging his concern
that the woman he nds might not accompany him back to Canaan.
This concern, Muraoka maintains, is reected in the two dierent words
that LXX-G uses to render the one Hebrew word oath (n:). The rst
occurrence of n: in v. 41 is rendered with the Greek word , whose
GENESIS 24:960 339
340 COMMENTARY
negative connotations are represented by the word curse. The second
occurrence of n: is rendered with , i.e., the more neutral oath.
The Hebrew n: can mean both. As a result, the translator interpreted its
rst occurrence as referring to the possibly negative outcome that could
occur should the servant not be successful (Muraoka 2001, 1718). The
servant goes on to recount Abrahams assurance of Gods guidance, but
he omits Abrahams vigorous rejection of Isaacs leaving the land prom-
ised to the family by God. Like the narrator, he excludes any information
about the trip itself; instead he resumes his story with a description of
the bargaining prayer he makes with God. Briey interrupting his nar-
ration of the prayer, the servant lets his audience know precisely where
he nds himself standing. He then goes on to describe the scenario that
would show him Gods choice for Isaacs future wife.
At this point, Rebekah enters the story the servant is telling. Even
though she is later described as being in front of the servant (v. 51),
Rebekah has no voice and neither conrms nor denies the servants ver-
sion. She does not correct him when he neglects to tell her family that she
gave him more than his request for a little water. She does not remind
him that he asked her not only about her lineage but also if her family
had a place for him to stay. She does not admit that he gave her the jew-
elry even before he learned that she was from the correct family. Finally,
she does not acknowledge that she told the man that her family had pro-
visions for him and his entourage before he bowed down in prayer.
Despite the servants abridged version of his encounter with Rebekah,
he convinces Rebekahs father and brother that God worked behind the
scenes, listened to all the prayers, and brought the servant directly to
their house and their virgin daughter and sister. Gods providential role
is even more explicit in LXX-G in which Rebekahs male relatives describe
what happened as lords ordinance (), rather than his word
(n). Curiously, Swetes ALEX does not capitalize the word lord (),
as it typically does when referring to the name of Israels God. Perhaps
its omission was a way to avoid Israels God being referred to as Lord by
the presumed pagan men. In any case, these men acknowledge that they
cannot question the mans story or actions. Without asking her opinion,
Laban and Bathouel agree to the servants request to take Rebekah back
to be his masters sons wife. The servant again gives thanks to Lord and
gives more gifts, this time both to Rebekah and to her mother and brother
as well. At this point, her father disappears from the story completely
and other brothers join with Laban to carry out the male family roles.
Having accomplished his mission, the servant and his traveling com-
panions take advantage of the familys hospitality and lodging. Early
the next morning, the servant is anxious to depart for home. However,
Rebekahs family would like the virgin to stay awhile longer before leav-
ing. Nevertheless, the servant insists on leaving right away and reminds
her family of Gods involvement. He might have been worried that Abra-
ham would not live much longer. Uncharacteristically, her mother and
brothers ask the girls opinion, whether about the timing of the trip or
the trip itself is not clear. She does not hesitate, and they agree to let her
leave right away with the servant. First, however, they give her a blessing
appropriate to a prospective bride. They wish her many ospring who
will, per LXX-G, inherit the cities of their enemies. Assuming that a suc-
cessful family would inhabit cities, not just the gate (c) area, the third
century B.C.E. Alexandrian translator updated the familys blessing.
24:6167 With the blessing of her family, her personal maids, and her
possessions, Rebekah leaves with the man. Meanwhile, back home, Isaac
nally makes a brief appearance in the story. Like the other characters,
Isaac is also traveling. But his traveling is more local, going only as far the
well of the vision. Ironically, this is the same place where Lord appeared
to his mothers nemesis Hagar (16:14). It is also signicant that, although
Abraham has taken charge of nding Isaac a wife, Isaac is not living with
him. Their earlier mountain top experience likely ruined their relation-
ship. He is reported to be meditating () in the eld one late
afternoon, an action that represents LXX-Gs interpretation of the MTs
problematic hapax legomenon :c:. See the discussion in Westermann
(1985, 390). He looks up and sees camels coming. At the very same time,
Rebekah looks up and sees Isaac coming. When she asks the servant the
mans identity, she is told that he is his lord, rather than the son of his
lord. At that point, the reader wonders if Abraham had already died with-
out knowing about the servants successful mission. Regardless, Rebekah
understands who the man is and, in typical maidenly fashion, covers
herself with her veil. Only then does Isaac nd out about the servants
journey to nd his wife. Nevertheless, he seems pleased with Rebekah.
He goes into his mothers house () where he takes Rebekah. This
is yet another instance where LXX-G changes the description from the
MTs tent to house. Such a change might result from the third century
B.C.E.s Alexandrian milieu of the translator, for whom houses were more
suitable residences than tents. Nevertheless, this type of actualization is
GENESIS 24:960 & 24:6167 341
342 COMMENTARY
not consistent in LXX-G. In many other places (e.g., 12:8; 18:1, 2, 6; 26:25),
the translation more literally renders the MTs tent (:n) with the cor-
responding Greek word .
Regardless of whether Isaac and Rebekah begin their lives together in
a house or a tent, the present story has a happy and touching ending.
Rebekah becomes his wife, and Isaac is said to love her. As such, he is
both the rst one to be loved (22:2) and the rst one to experience love.
His love for Rebekah is likely much closer to a traditional understanding
of love than is his fathers for him. The love he has for Rebekah is said to
comfort him about Sarah his mother. Like the MT, LXX-G does not explic-
itly refer to what about his mother Isaac needs comfort. Presumably, he
is still grieving his mothers death.
25:111 With Isaac appropriately married, Abraham remarries a woman
named Chettoura who bears him six more sons, one of whom will be the
ancestor of the Midianites. Other than the many variations in orthog-
raphy that are typical in genealogies, the only signicant dierence
between LXX-G and MT occurs with the addition of two sons to Iexans
family. Even with additional ospring, Abraham gives all his possessions
to Isaac, whom LXX-G identies as his son. Although not necessary to the
story, it reects LXX-Gs tendency to reinforce the relationship between
father and son. Abraham does, however, give gifts to the sons of his con-
cubines. However, like Ishmael, he sends these secondary sons to the east
to live apart from Isaac, who continues to live in the south by the well of
the vision.
After a long life of 175 years, Abraham dies and is buried by both Isaac
and Ishmael in the double cave that he bought to bury Sarah. As earlier,
the narrator emphasizes the legitimacy of the purchase.
25:1218 As he promised Abraham, God also blessed Ishmael by making
him the eponymous ancestor of twelve nations (17:20). Here the narrator
reports the names of the twelve sons who would themselves become the
ancestors of twelve families () that eventually grew into nations
(). These twelve families are further characterized by a nomadic
existence, i.e., living in tents () and encampments ()
that extend over a large geographic area from Egypt to Assyria. Although
chronologically in the future, Ishmaels death is also reported. He lived
137 years. The last verse, whose meaning is ambiguous in both MT and
LXX-G, likely refers to the contentious and nomadic existence of his
lineage.
25:1928 Finally, the narrator reports Isaacs genealogy, but gets no fur-
ther than Isaac himself. Nevertheless, this terse genealogy prefaces the
story about the birth of his two sons. First his marriage to Rebekah is
recalled, as is her lineage. In a geographically updated narration, LXX-G
describes her father and brother as Syrians, rather than the MTs Arame-
ans, who are from Mesopotamia, rather than Paddan-Aram. He married
her when he was forty years old, and like her mother-in-law, Rebekah is
also barren. At some point in the next twenty years, Isaac prays to God
about Rebekah. Inasmuch as it is usually the woman who prays for con-
ception (e.g., Rachel in 30:1 and much later Hannah in 1 Sam. 1), that Isaac
did so instead of Rebekah suggests that he was more concerned about
her barrenness than she was. Although it was Abraham, not Sarah, who
talked to God about her barrenness, Sarah was concerned. In fact, she
took it upon herself to provide Abraham with a child by her maidservant
Hagar. Nowhere is it reported that Rebekah cares about her barrenness.
At some point, God hears Isaacs prayer and Rebekah becomes preg-
nant. Unlike the MT which reports that Rebekah conceived (nn),
LXX-G reports only the end result, i.e., she becomes pregnant (
). In fact, she is the only woman in LXX-G, except Tamar, who
does not conceive (). That she earlier was allowed to voice
her opinion about leaving her family (24:58) is unusual. That she is preg-
nant without having been said to conceive is more so. In what follows,
Rebekahs role, as it is reported in LXX-G and especially in ALEX, contin-
ues to be unusual.
Her pregnancy does not go well. The narrator reports that the babies
are jumping around () in her, causing her distress. Yet the word
jump does not connote the same sense of struggle between the babies as
does the Hebrew :vn, crush, oppress, or push around. Thus, LXX-G
highlights her pain, rather than that of her babies. She then expresses
her consternation by questioning her pregnancy and decides to ask God
about her situation. God responds by telling her that the jumping around
that she feels comes from two babies who will become two separate
nations. Ironically, the greater () rather than the more charac-
teristic older will serve the smaller (). She makes no response
to Gods ominous and ambiguous prediction and eventually delivers the
twins.
The rstborn Esau, initially described as red and hairy, is presumably
the greater. He will be a hunter and a countryman, i.e., big, bold, and
somewhat wild. Jacob (Iakb), the second to be born, is given no physi-
cal description. Instead he is said to be doing something, i.e., grasping
GENESIS 25:1928 343
344 COMMENTARY
his brothers heel. Presumably, he is trying to stop his brother, overtake
him, and come out rst. Jacob is later predicted to be a man.
A hapax legomenon in LXX-G, means not molded, natural,
unaected, or simple (LSJ 1968, 190). As Harl notes, the word
in koine Greek is typically used in a moral sense to represent sincerity
(1994, 209). This has a slightly dierent connotation than the MTs com-
plete, wholesome, or innocent (on). Nevertheless, it does suggest that
he is simpler and more rened than his brother and thus must be the
smaller. Again, LXX-G shows the Alexandrian inuence of its translator
when it describes Jacob as living in a house () rather than the MTs
tents (o:n). It also portrays Jacob as even more domesticated than his
MT counterpart. Despite the fact that the wordplays on the boys names
in the MT did not survive the translation process, the contrast between
the two is still obvious.
As his father before him, Isaac prefers his rstborn son. He loves Esau
because of what Esau could do for him, namely provide him food. Rebekah,
on the other hand, always loved Jacob. The dierence between the aorist
and the imperfect form of the verb love () suggests that Jacob
had always been Rebekahs favorite. Although no reason is given for her
preference, the continual nature of her aection was likely due to her
advance knowledge of the boys destiny. She chooses the smaller who
would eventually overcome the greater. This role reversal on the part
of the sons is foreshadowed by the unusual gender roles of their parents.
As noted above, Isaac assumed the more typically female role when he
prayed to God about Rebekahs barrenness. She assumed a more male
role when she went to inquire of God thereafter. Furthermore, she never
complained about being barren; instead she complained only after she
became pregnant.
LXX-G shows her to be even more assertive and masculine than the
MT. She is the one who names both her sons. The MT reports that they
named (:p) Esau and that he named (p) Jacob. LXX-G, on the
other hand, uses a third person singular verb whose only referent can be
Rebekah herself because Isaac is not mentioned until later in the story.
Finally, ALEX goes even further in representing Rebekah in masculine
terms when it states that she brought [them] forth (). The
Greek verb , per LSJ (1968, 344), means to beget, engender and is
most often used to refer to the fathers role in procreation. The mother,
instead, bears () children. This is the only place in LXX-G where
the mother is said to . In all its other occurrences, it is more
naturally translated fathered. The contrast between the ways in which
gender roles are represented could not be greater. Rebekah is denitely
the more assertive parent, a role that she will continue to play.
25:2934 The boys fulll their destinies. Jacob shows his domestic skills
by making food; Esau shows his country ways by returning hungry from
the open eld and demands some of Jacobs red stew. Again, the literal
translation misses the wordplay connecting the color of the stew, Esaus
birth color, and Edom, the nation of which he will be the eponymous
ancestor. Still trying to overtake his brother, Jacob strikes a bargain. He
wants the birthright that he was not able to secure earlier. If Esau will give
it up to him, Jacob will give him food. Again, Esau epitomizes a crude rube
who discounts everything but his appetite. He claims he is close to death
for lack of food, so the birthright has little importance. One wonders
why this strong countryman could not just overpower his domesticated
brother and take the food. In any case, Esau hands over the birthright,
and Jacob allows him to eat and drink. He does so, gets up, and leaves. To
him, the birthright is not important. However, it will be later.
26:133 Once again, a famine in the land prompts an ancestral journey.
This time, it is Isaac who travels as far as Gerara, specically to its king
Abimelech. Although described as the king of the Philistines, it is unlikely
that these are the same people who will become enemies of Israel during
the early monarchy. Sarna speculates that the Philistines referred to in
the two patriarchal narratives were earlier Aegean invaders who lived
in a small city state of Gerar long before the large-scale invasions of the
Levant, which led to the occupation of the Canaanite coast (Sarna 1989,
390). Why Isaac chose to journey to the land of Abimelech is not stated.
Therefore, despite the chronological diculties, this must be the same
Abimelech with whom Abraham made a covenant (21:3132) and thus
would be a family friend.
In the rst of two theophanies to Isaac, God gives him instructions and
reiterates the promises he made to his father Abraham. He tells him not
to go into Egypt, perhaps to avoid a repeat of Abrahams earlier deceitful
adventure with Pharaoh. Instead, Isaac is to settle () wher-
ever God tells him. However, God continues by telling Isaac to sojourn
in this land ( ). The referent of this is somewhat
ambiguous. Is it the land to which he has just traveled, i.e., Gerar? Or is
it the land to which God refers later in the verse as this land, i.e., the
GENESIS 25:1928 & 26:133 345
346 COMMENTARY
land associated with the covenantal promise? Or are they the same land?
Although it is indeed the case that the land to which Isaac has traveled
will be included as part of all this land ( ) that God
promises to Isaac and his descendants, it seems that the land around
Gerar is not the land in which Isaac is to live.
God continues by reiterating the promise that Isaacs ospring will
bring Gods blessings to all the nations of the land and concludes by
explaining that these gifts are a result of Abrahams obedience to every
kind of order God gave, i.e., ordinances, commandments, regulations, and
laws. This emphasis on complete obedience suggests it is an unspoken
condition associated with Gods promises of land and ospring. At no
point in his conversations with either Abraham or Isaac does God express
the covenant in conditional language. Nevertheless, the consequential
implication of the because language (/np) at the beginning of v.
5, combined with all the ways in which Abraham was obedient, certainly
provides some clue that obedience is expected. Ironically, after God just
emphasized the signicance of Abrahams obedience, Isaac seems to
disobey Gods rst order to him. He is to said settle (), not
sojourn (), among the Gerarites. It is then that his problems
begin.
The men of the place ask about Rebekah. Like his father before him,
Isaac claims she is his sister for fear of dying (12:2; 20:2). Like his mother,
his wife Rebekah is good looking. In fact, she is said to be ripe in appear-
ance ( ). Alluding to the fruit in the garden, this description
suggests that Rebekah is tempting to the Gerarite men. Yet, nothing is
said about Rebekahs fate until a long time later when Abimelech sees
Isaac playing () with Rebekah. As earlier, such play causes trou-
ble. When Ishmael was playing with Isaac, Sarah banished him and his
mother (21:9). Exactly what playing entailed in both cases is unclear, and
the wordplay on Isaacs name is lost in translation. Nevertheless, what-
ever game the two are playing leads Abimelech to realize that Rebekah is
Isaacs wife. Since earlier Abimelech had the same experience with Isaacs
mother and father, he might have questioned the relationship sooner.
Isaac has no original excuses; like his father, he fears death. Unlike his
father, he does not claim that the men do not fear God. The only fear is
his. Abimelech, however, goes into much less detail and merely explains
to Isaac what almost happened. Someone nearly () went to bed
with his wife, a deed that would have brought ignorance ()
on them. This time, Abimelech was not concerned about possible sin
(). Neither was he concerned about possible guilt (oc), as
was his MT counterpart. Nevertheless, he makes it clear to his people
that neither Isaac nor Rebekah can be touched. Any future ignorance on
the part of his people would result in their death. Therefore, Isaac and
Rebekah could safely live in the land. However, they are not said to pros-
per, as did Sarah and Abraham, as a result of their deceit.
Although having received nothing from Abimelech, Isaac nevertheless
prospers on his own in the land. As a result of Gods blessing, he increases
his yield of barley one hundred fold and becomes more and more success-
ful. He has considerable livestock and many cultivated elds. However,
his success causes the Philistines to envy him. In an attempt to reduce
his ability to feed his livestock and water his elds, they block up the
wells his father acquired as a result of an agreement he made earlier with
Abimelech (21:30) by lling them with earth. Sensing that problems will
arise as a result of Isaacs becoming more powerful than his neighbors,
Abimelech tells him to leave. Isaac does as he is told and moves to a val-
ley region in another part of Gerar. His father Abraham presumably had
acquired much more land and many additional wells there as well. Isaac,
now in a new location, nds his fathers wells that the Philistines had
blocked earlier and digs them again. He claims them as his by giving them
the same names they had when owned by his father.
Not content with what he already owns, Isaac has his servants dig
for more wells. They discover one with living or fresh running water.
However, the rights to the water are contested. Both Isaacs shepherds
and those of the local people allege ownership of the well. Nevertheless,
Isaac claims the well as his by naming it. Ironically, he names it Injus-
tice because he believes he has been treated unjustly. Why he thinks he,
as a resident alien, should have priority over ownership of the land and
its resources is unclear. As usual, LXX-G cannot duplicate the wordplay
associated with the name and location of the well in the MT. Neverthe-
less, it does not even attempt to capture the sense of the Hebrew name
to quarrel (pc). Isaac moves on and digs another well that is also dis-
puted. This one he names Hostility, a name that is closer to the Hebrews
n:oc; both reect ongoing tension between him and the local people.
The hostile relationship that continues forces him to move on and dig
yet another well. This one, however, is not contested. He names it Open
Space (), which like the MTs n:n refers to a wide open
and enlarged area. However, LXX-G uses the verb expand () in
its explanation of the reason for the name. Although both have similar
GENESIS 26:133 347
348 COMMENTARY
connotations, the verb could also imply that Isaac is expanding
in the land by taking over more and more of it, rather than sharing its
open space with his neighbors.
Having just received Gods blessings for expanding over the land, Isaac
heads north back to the well of the oath. Earlier, his father had made a
sworn covenant with Abimelech about this well, an oath that resulted
in its name (21:3132). After making the covenant, Abraham called on
God who now appears for the second time to Isaac. He again extends the
promise he made earlier with Abraham for blessing and ospring to Isaac.
Curiously, God does not include the promise of land as he did earlier. Fur-
thermore, it is not Isaacs actions that result in Gods blessings, but rather
Abrahams. Nevertheless, like his father was accustomed to doing, Isaac
builds an altar, invokes Gods name, and pitches his tent. Then to estab-
lish himself, Isaac has his servants dig yet another well.
Abimelech reappears in the story along with his groomsman Ochozath
and his military commander Phikol. Earlier they made a covenant with
Abraham in this same place; now they visit his son Isaac, who is surprised
to see them. He must be skeptical about the nature of their visit because
he claims that Abimelech hated him and banished him. While it is true
that Abimelech told him to leave the area, it was not because Abimelech
hated him. Rather, it was because Isaacs success caused problems among
his people. Therefore, Abimelechs actions were motivated by keeping
Isaac safe, a safety reinforced when Abimelech threatened his people
with death if they touched either Isaac or Rebekah. Even more surpris-
ing than their visit and Isaacs response is the reason for their visit. They
acknowledge that God is with him and want to capitalize on that rela-
tionship. They fear that Isaac, with his God on his side, will attempt to do
them harm. Thus, they want to contract a covenant with Isaac that will
guarantee that he will treat them well, as they remind him of their earlier
treatment of him. Taciturn as he is, Isaac makes no verbal response. How-
ever, the fact that he makes them a feast of which they partake implies
that he has agreed to their terms. This is conrmed the next morning
when the narrator reports that both parties swore to the oath. Assured of
their future safety, Abimelech and his advisors depart.
Meanwhile, Isaacs servants return with news about the latest well. In
a striking departure from the MT, the LXX-G servants report that they
did not nd water. Wevers speculates that the LXX-G translator read the
Hebrew :' (to him) with the following word we found (::vb) and
understood the :' to mean not (1993, 414). Isaac makes no response, but
the narrator reports that he names the well anyway. Why a dry well would
need to be named is unclear. This well, like the earlier one his father had
dug, is also called Oath for the same reason. It is again the scene of a cov-
enant agreement between the chosen family and Abimelech. This time,
however, the name also applies to the city around it. Yet, the literal trans-
lation of LXX-G cannot duplicate the wordplay associated with the actual
city name in the MT, i.e., Beersheba (nc n), which literally means
well of the oath.
26:3435 The story makes an abrupt return to Esau, who at forty years
of age, marries two foreign women. Both are given names and identities
and are said to quarrel with Isaac and Rebekah. Slightly dierent than
the MTs description (they made life bitter for Isaac and Rebekah), LXX-
G nevertheless depicts them as troublemakers. This brief report, while
seemingly out of place in its present context, serves as a transition to
what follows. It is because of Esaus inappropriate marriages that Rebekah
has the excuse she needs to remove him from the story.
27:129 Esaus marriages to foreign women and the trouble these
women made in the household have not changed Isaacs preference for
his older son. Now nearly blind, Isaac calls to Esau, who responds to his
father the way Abraham responded to God. Although Isaac does not know
when he will die, he knows hes old and wants to initiate the ritual of his
nal blessing. In this case, the ritual includes both a meal and the blessing
itself. He tells Esau to do what he does best, i.e., hunt some game. This is
not surprising because it is the reason that Isaac prefers Esau (25:2728).
However, he goes on to request that Esau then prepare Isaacs favorite
meal. This is surprising because Jacob is the domesticated son (25:27),
the one who prepared a meal for the famished Esau in exchange for the
birthright (25:34). Esau makes no comment and so presumably does not
nd his fathers request unusual. It is also implied that he knows how to
prepare the meal the way his father loves it. Esau is to do all this so that
() he will receive his fathers blessing.
Rebekah overhears Isaac talking to his son ( ) Esau
and discusses the situation with her son ( ) Jacob, who is
described in LXX-G as the small one ( ). Because also
could mean lesser, Wevers suggests that this addition in LXX-G describes
Jacob unfavorably (1993, 420). However, it is the same term that God used
in his earlier prediction of the boys relationship (25:23). Therefore, the
added adjective functions to remind the reader what Rebekah was told
by God. It makes Rebekahs scheme seem less manipulative; she is merely
GENESIS 26:133 & 27:129 349
350 COMMENTARY
attempting to establish the conditions that will insure Jacobs superior-
ity. Thus, when Esau leaves for the hunt, Rebekah takes the appropriate
action to prevent Isaac from blessing Esau.
After telling Jacob about Isaacs plan, Rebekah tells him her own plan
that he is to follow explicitly. He is to bring her two kids from the ock,
described as tender and good ( ), as was the calf that
Abraham had his servant boy prepare for his mysterious visitors (18:7).
Rebekah will then prepare Isaacs meat the way he loves it, and Jacob
will take it to his father in preparation for receiving the blessing. Jacob
foresees a problem. His father, being nearly blind, might touch him and
realize that it is the smooth-skinned Jacob standing before him rather
than the hairy Esau. He goes on to surmise that in so doing, he would be
laying a curse on himself, instead of a blessing. LXX-Gs rendering of the
common Hebrew word nnn (to bring upon) with the hapax legome-
non lay on ( ) is unusual. Per LSJ (1968, 1346), the phrase is used
elsewhere with reference to solid particles such as ashes (Exod. 9:8,10;
3 Macc. 1:18). Thus, Jacob seems to consider a curse a physical condition.
His mother, however, dismisses his concerns by taking the possible curse
on herself. What neither Rebekah nor Isaac considers is the meal itself. If
Isaac is looking forward to his favorite meat dish, made from wild game,
would he not notice that it was made instead with tender young goats?
Perhaps Rebekah assumes that his other sensory abilities were dimming
as much as his vision.
Despite Jacobs reservations, he obeys his mother. The narrator seems
to rush through the upcoming part of the story by omitting the objects
of the verbs, just as Jacob himself seems to hurry to do what he is told.
His mother is able to prepare his fathers favorite meal, so Jacob must
have brought her what she requested. After she prepares the meal, she
prepares Jacob to deliver it by dressing him in Esaus robe and putting
animal skins on his smooth arms and neck. Jacob follows the last of his
mothers orders and takes what she prepared to his father. Then father
and son carry on a conversation that is marked by considerable kinship
language, particularly in ALEX. At the very beginning of the conversation,
ALEX personalizes Jacobs address by adding my to the vocative father.
Isaac responds and immediately questions the identity of his son. Isaac,
like Rebekah before him, addresses Jacob throughout as child (),
instead of the MTs more personal my son (:n). This change, according
to Wevers, occurs only in scenes with high drama (1993, 424). Jacob
responds to Isaacs question. ALEX, again emphasizing the relationship
between the two, has the narrator add his son ( ) to further
dene the speaker as his son Jacob. He also adds his () to spe-
cically dene the addressee as his father. The deception begins when
Jacob identies himself as Esau, Isaacs rstborn, and continues when he
claims to have done as Isaac requested. Not wanting to waste any time,
Jacob tells Isaac to eat his game so that Isaac will bless him. In Isaacs
one lucid moment, he questions how the child could have done what he
did so quickly. Jacob credits Lord God for providing. Here, by omitting
the pronoun your () after , ALEX has Jacob claiming Lord as God
( ), not just his fathers God. Ironically, Jacobs lie about Gods
intervention is almost the truth. Little does he know that what he had
just done helped to fulll Gods earlier prediction to his mother (25:23).
As Jacob expected, Isaac wants to touch him to see if he really is the
hairy Esau. Unable to distinguish between the hair of an animal and
the hair of his older son, Isaac is deceived. His ears tell him that hes
hearing Jacobs voice, but his hands tell him dierently. Surprisingly,
although Isaac does not recognize him, he nevertheless blesses him.
Still having some doubts, Isaac asks a nal direct question, are you my
son Esau, to which Jacob simply responds I am (). Isaac capitulates
and tells the child to bring him the game that would precede the bless-
ing. Not only does Jacob set the meat before his father, he also gives him
some wine. This addition to the meal might help disguise the taste dif-
ference between the meat of kids and that of wild game. Isaac eats
and drinks and asks Jacob to come near and kiss him. The scent of Esaus
robe that Rebekah put around Jacob convinces Isaac that it is Esau he is
blessing.
This scent then stimulates Isaacs thoughts by reminding him of an
abundant () eld that Lord blessed. The rst part of the bless-
ing continues the agricultural theme. Isaac implores God to grant Jacob
dew from heaven, fatness on earth, and an abundance of grain and wine.
The next part of the blessing involves Jacobs social and political stature.
Nations (), not just peoples (MTs ob), will be enslaved to him,
and rulers (), not just populations (MTs ob), will bow down
to him. Thus, the LXX-G Isaac has even higher political expectations for
his son. Ironically, he tells the boy to be lord over his brother, something
that God had already predicted to Rebekah. He then declares that Jacob
will be worshipped by the sons of your father ( ),
per LXX-G, instead of the MTs sons of your mother ((b :n). Isaac con-
cludes the blessing by reiterating what God had promised his father long
GENESIS 27:129 351
352 COMMENTARY
ago with regard to those who bless and curse him (12:3). Like his grand-
father, Jacob will be Gods human barometer for determining who will be
blessed and who will be accursed.
27:3040 Having accomplished his mothers objective by deceiving his
father into blessing him, Jacob leaves his fathers presence. At the same
time, Esau returns. God-in-the-margins insures that the two do not meet.
As was the case in LXX-Gs narration of Jacobs blessing, here too are
relational pronouns added. Esau did as his father had requested. Now he
oers the meat he captured and prepared to his father and asks him to
proceed with the meal and the blessing. After Isaac asks his identity, Esau
responds by identifying himself as the rstborn son. However, unlike
Jacob, he declares his rstborn status before announcing his name. Isaac
is greatly confused and wonders aloud who the earlier visitor was, the
one whom he blessed. When he realizes what his father did, Esau cries
out and asks his father to bless him too. Isaac responds to his own ear-
lier question, rather than to Esaus plea, by conrming that Jacob deceit-
fully took the blessing Isaac had promised to Esau. Esau sees the bitter
irony associated with Jacobs name, and recalls the earlier time that Jacob
heeled () him. The Greek is a hapax legomenon in
LXX-G. Yet like its Hebrew counterpart np, the word essentially refers
to the heel of the foot and thus can mean to grasp by the heel or to strike
the heel. Because Jacob came out of Rebekahs belly grasping the heel
of his brother Esau, Rebekah named her second son accordingly (25:26).
That act on the part of the infant Jacob, however, became associated with
the more aggressive act of cheating or supplanting. It was Jacobs trick-
ing Esau to give up his birthright, thus cheating or supplanting him, that
Esau now recalls (25:2934). After hearing what Isaac granted to Jacob,
Esau asks if his father has another blessing for him. LXX-Gs addition of
the vocative father () to the end of Esaus question adds a touch of
intimacy to the story (Wevers 1993, 436). Isaac responds to Esaus second
entreaty by essentially claiming that he has already given Jacob the bless-
ing and has nothing of value left over. Esau, however, persists by asking if
Isaac has a dierent blessing and implores him for the blessing.
Departing from both the MT and all other LXX-G manuscripts, ALEX
omits the last part of v. 38. The MT again reports that Esau raised his
voice and wept ((n: ::p :c c), which is preceded by an addition in
other LXX-G manuscripts that describes Isaacs reaction to Esaus plea
as being stabbed to the heart ( ). ALEX omits
both impassioned responses and proceeds directly to the blessing itself.
Although not the blessing he wanted to give to Esau, Isaac does have an
additional blessing. Unfortunately, it is the opposite of what he bestowed
on Jacob. Esau will live away from the fatness of the land and from the
dew of heaven. Rather than making his living by agriculture, Esau will
live by the sword. His bellicose demeanor, however, will help him over-
come his servitude to his brother. As is the MT, LXX-G is also confusing. To
what Esaus overcoming () refers is unclear. The brothers have
become enemies, but they will eventually resolve their dierences. That
resolution, however, will be peaceful, not by the sword (33:417). There-
fore, the blessing more likely refers to the hostile relationship between
their future nations, i.e., Israel and Edom, and the comment about Esaus
eventual overcoming likely refers to Edoms emergence from Israels rule
during the divided monarchy (2 Kgs. 8:20, 22).
27:4146 Esau reacts to his brothers deception by thinking about killing
Jacob after their father dies, which he thinks must be soon. God-in-the-
margins enables Rebekah to learn about Esaus thoughts in order to take
action to protect her younger son. Again, she comes up with a plan that
she orders Jacob to follow. Jacob must be hoping that her new plan will
be better for him than her earlier plan appears to be. He is to get out of
town and go, per LXX-G, to Mesopotamia to live with her brother Laban
until Esaus anger abates. When that happens, she will let him know that
it is safe for him to return. Until then, she does not want to become child-
less () by losing both of them in one day Jacob by Esaus hand,
and Esaus presumably by Gods. As if to demonstrate the mental insta-
bility caused by her anger, Rebekah complains to Isaac about the futility
of her life if Jacob, like his brother, were to marry a local Hittite girl. Has
she forgotten that she just ordered Jacob to Mesopotamia? Far be it from
trickster Rebekah to forget something like this. She is merely planting
the idea in Isaacs head that it is his responsibility to make the appropri-
ate marriage arrangements for his other son.
28:19 Isaac must have concerns similar to those just expressed by
Rebekah about Jacobs future wives; he (again) blesses Jacob and orders
him to marry appropriately. Unlike Esau whose exogamous marriages to
daughters of Canaanites (26:34) have provoked his parents, Jacob is to
marry endogamously as did Isaac himself. Ironically, Jacob has both more
freedom and more restrictions in his marriage partners. Unlike his father
whose wife was chosen by his fathers servant, Jacob is free to choose
for himself. Yet, his choices are limited to the daughters of his mothers
GENESIS 27:3040 & 28:19 353
354 COMMENTARY
brother Laban. Isaac modies Rebekahs earlier order for Jacob to ee
() to Mesopotamia (27:43) by telling him to go to Mesopotamia
of Syria ( ). This, as Wevers explains, will become
the standard translation in LXX-G (but not outside of Genesis) of the MTs
Paddan of Aram (o c). The term c likely refers to the Paddanu
near Haran in present day southern Turkey, an area that would be con-
sidered Mesopotamia. The second term o refers to the geographically
larger area Syria of which Mesopotamia was a part (2001, 237238). In
addition to changing Jacobs geographic destination, Isaac tells him to go
to the house of Rebekahs father Bathouel, the oldest male of the family,
instead of the house of her brother Laban, as Rebekah ordered. Further-
more, whereas Rebekahs order was motivated primarily by her concern
for her sons safety, Isaacs is motivated by his concern for Jacobs proper
marriage.
Isaac continues his address to Jacob by invoking Gods blessings, using
language parallel to that spoken by God himself when he promised land
and progeny to Abraham (e.g., 12:7; 17:26) and Isaac (26:35). Jacob does
as he is told. Meanwhile, Esau sees and hears his father blessing Jacob.
When he realizes just how evil () his mother and father regard
exogamous marriages, he leaves home and marries another foreign
woman, this time the daughter of the banished Ishmael.
28:1022 One night as he is traveling to his uncles house in Mesopota-
mia, Jacob stops for the night. He came upon a place ( )
and fell asleep. The verb suggests the coincidental nature
of where he stopped; LXX-Gs unarticulated noun place (), contra
the MTs articulated the place (o: p b z), implies that Jacob sees noth-
ing special about it. His unawareness of the importance of his stopping
place makes his discovery more signicant and highlights the activity of
God-in-the-margins. He unintentionally builds an altar of sorts when he
places stones near his head, a type of incubation ritual which is followed
by sleep. Jacob then dreams, the only one to do so in LXX-G outside the
Joseph Narrative. He dreams he sees a ladder () that stretches
from the ground into heaven. Like the MTs o:o, the LXX-Gs is
a hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible. Translated as both ladder and
stairway, the structure is analogous to the Mediterranean ziggurat, or
temple tower, that connected heaven and earth, as well as to ladders of
heavenly ascent described in Egyptian and Hittite sources (Sarna 1989,
198). Like the tower of Babel, the purpose of the ladder or stairway is to
link heaven and earth, i.e., gods and humans. Unlike the tower of Babel,
however, this ladder in Jacobs dream is overseen by God who allows his
angels to go up and down freely.
God then addresses Jacob for the rst time and identies himself as the
God of Abraham and Isaac. He continues in LXX-G by telling Jacob not to
be afraid. Then, in fulllment of Isaacs last words to Jacob, God extends
to Jacob the blessings and promises he earlier gave to Abraham for land
and numerous ospring. These ospring, likened in the MT to the dust
of the earth (n co), are described by the majority of LXX-G manu-
scripts as the sand of the earth ( ). ALEX, however,
describes them by a more logical simile, i.e., as the sand of the sea (
). All of these similes imply a number so great that
it cannot be counted. Furthermore, these ospring will spread out in all
directions and will enable all the tribes of the earth to be blessed. As a
sign of his constant protection, God promises not to abandon Jacob until
he delivers on everything that he has promised.
Jacob wakes up and realizes what has happened. He declares that God
has been there without his prior knowledge. Then, despite Gods com-
mand to the contrary, Jacob was afraid. He did not realize that the place
he had chosen to sleep was Gods house and a gate to the heaven. Per-
haps he somehow knew of Gods earlier disapproval of humans who tried
to bridge the gap between heaven and earth (11:19).
To appease God, Jacob formally establishes the place as House of God,
i.e., . Throughout the story, LXX-G translates the name liter-
ally, rather than referring to its actual name Bethel. He ocially makes
the stone a sacred pillar by pouring olive oil on it and continues the ritual
by making a vow to God. The protasis of the vow includes the conditions
that God had declared to Jacob in his dream, i.e., being with him, watch-
ing him closely on his travels, and returning him. Jacob, however, adds
to and claries some of these conditions. He stipulates that Gods being
with him and watching him includes providing him food and clothes; he
species that his return be safe; and he claries the land to which he will
return as that associated with his fathers house. In return, Lord will be
his God, the stone pillar will mark the location of Gods sacred house, and
he will return to God one tenth of everything that God gives him. As his
grandfather before him (12:78), Jacob establishes a sacred place to com-
memorate Gods promise to him. Yet Jacob makes the ritual action even
more signicant with his vow whose fulllment will ensure that Lord is
his God, a declaration that neither Abraham nor Isaac explicitly made.
GENESIS 28:1022 355
356 COMMENTARY
29:130 LXX-G uses the MTs unique expression to describe Jacobs next
act. Lifting the feet ( ), Jacob resumes his journey
east to his uncles house. The constant repetition of Labans relationship
to Rebekah underscores the importance that Jacob marry endogamously
within the family of Terah, Abrahams father. Like Abrahams servant,
Jacob will also encounter the appropriate marriage partner at a well. Yet,
this particular version of the betrothal type-scene diers in three ways
from the earlier one. Jacob is the one at the well, not a surrogate; he, not
the woman, will be the one to draw the water. Finally, the well, typically
an image of fertility, is blocked by a large stone. This, Alter suggests, might
represent Rachels future conception problems (1996, 152). The narrator
goes on to describe the three things that Jacob sees a well, three ocks of
sheep, and a stone over the well. He continues by describing three activi-
ties that typically happen at the well. After the sheep are gathered, they
would roll away () the stone, water () the ocks, and
put back () the stone. The recurring three-fold pattern of
the narration parallels the recurring routine activities done by the men
with whom Jacob will converse. The narrator then makes Jacob conform
to his pattern by having him ask the men three questions. Where are
they from? Haran. Do they know Laban the son of Nachor? They do. Is
Laban well? He is. These shepherds not do seem interested in conversing.
Perhaps they are suspicious of this stranger asking questions, especially
when Labans daughter Rachel is reported to be entering the scene with
her fathers sheep. ALEXs addition of while he was still speaking (
) smoothes the transition from the forced conversation
to Rachels mysterious appearance with her fathers sheep. In another
addition, ALEX explains that she tends these sheep. These additions,
while seemingly helpful, will prove awkward later in the scene when they
are repeated.
Knowing God was on his side, Jacob brashly orders the shepherds to
get back to work. This time, they are less taciturn. They explain to this
impertinent stranger that they cannot remove the stone and water the
sheep until more shepherds arrive to assist in the process. Again, as Jacob
is speaking to them, the narrator repeats his announcement of Rachels
arrival, and in ALEX, her responsibility of tending her fathers sheep.
Jacob now shows o for the woman by removing the stone from the well,
a feat that the shepherds said took several men to accomplish. If Alter
is correct, Jacobs action also foreshadows his ability, with Gods help,
to overcome her barrenness. After watering the sheep, Jacob somehow
knows the identity of the woman because he kisses her and weeps, pre-
sumably for joy at nding that this woman was an appropriate wife. He
informs Rachel what he intuitively knows, i.e., that he is kin to her. Unlike
Rebekah, Rachel says nothing, but runs to tell her father what happened.
When Laban, per LXX-G, hears the name () Jacob, he immediately
recognizes that Jacob is indeed his kin. God-in-the-margins reveals to the
characters what the reader knows, thus avoiding complicated introduc-
tions. Laban greets Jacob by kissing him and then brings him into the
house. After hearing Jacobs explanation of all these things, Laban con-
rms that Jacob is who he reports to be a esh and blood relative. As
Rebekah told him (27:44), Jacob stays with Laban for a period of time.
A month has passed and Laban seemingly continues to honor his famil-
ial ties when he declares that Jacob should not be his slave ()
for free. As in its other occurrences within LXX-G, the word is
used when the master and slave are from dierent countries. In addi-
tion to its ten occurrences describing Jacobs work for Laban (29:15, 18,
20, 25, 30; 30:26 [2x], 29; 31:6, 41), it also is used to describe the enslave-
ment of Abrahams descendents in Egypt (15:14), the servile relationship
of Esau to Jacob (25:23; 27:29, 40), and the enslavement of the kings of
Sodom and Gomorrah and their allies to the Chodollogomor coalition
(14:4). Despite his characterization of Jacobs labor for him as slavery,
Laban nevertheless asks what Jacob thinks Laban should pay him. At this
point, the narrator interrupts the conversation to make Jacobs requested
payment more understandable. Laban, we are told, has two daughters.
In addition to the younger daughter whom Jacob had already met, there
was a greater () daughter named Leah (Leia), who, per LXX-G,
had weak eyes. The literal rendering of the MTs the greater (n::n)
with , rather than the typical the older (), results in
an unusual description of Leah. However, the word echoes Gods
description of Esau when he responded to Rebekahs inquiry about the
two boys jumping around in her belly (25:23). As such, the secondary sta-
tus of Leah herself is assumed. This assumption is then conrmed she is
said to have weak eyes. In stark contrast to Leah with her problem eyes is
Rachel who, like her aunt Rebekah (26:7) is said to be ripe in appearance.
The narrator emphasizes her physical attractiveness by describing her
also as beautiful in form. She must have passed both features on to her
own son Joseph, who later is described the same way (39:6).
The obvious preference for the younger daughter, both on the part of
the narrator and of Jacob himself, continues the motif found throughout
Genesis for reversing primogeniture. That reversal of custom, however,
will itself be reversed. At this point in the story, however, it is Rachel who
GENESIS 29:130 357
358 COMMENTARY
is favored and loved. For that reason, Jacob announces that he is will-
ing to work seven years for her. Laban presumably agrees. However, a
close reading of his reply shows that he does not say yes. He merely
states that Jacob seems a preferable recipient of his younger daughter
over other possible candidates. Jacob, of all people, should know to be
careful when negotiating for something of value.
He fullls his part of the bargain by serving the seven years. Departing
from the MT and other Greek manuscripts, ALEX omits the narrative com-
ment about Jacobs love for Rachel, i.e., that the seven years he worked
for Laban seemed like a few days because of his love for her. Seven years
for ALEXs Jacob is seven years; it does not seem any less. He is ready at
that point for Laban to fulll his part of the bargain when he demands
that Laban turn over () his wife, i.e., give him what he is due,
so that he could go into her () and thus consummate the mar-
riage. Laban goes through the motions by bringing his men together and
preparing, not merely a feast (nncb), but per the LXX, a wedding feast
(). However, when evening comes, Laban does the unexpected. He
takes Leah to Jacob, who, like other men such as Lot (Gen. 19) and Judah
(Gen. 38), does not recognize his sexual partner until later. In Jacobs case,
it takes him until morning when he looks and sees Leah! Awkwardly sand-
wiched between the events of the evening and the following morning is
a description of a marriage custom whereby the bride is given a maidser-
vant. Laban gives Zelpha to Leah and thereby seems to have played by all
the rules, even one of which Jacob is unaware.
He soon learns, however, that Laban plays by dierent rules than
does his family. He confronts Laban and asks him three questions about
Labans trick. His nal question is indeed ironic. Why, he asks, did you
deceive () me? Although missing the wordplay in the MT
between Jacobs deception of Isaac (nbb, 27:35) and Labans deception
of him (:nb), LXX-G nevertheless shows the reversal of fortune. Jacob,
the trickster, is himself tricked. It is then that Laban explains the rules
in his place, i.e., that the younger cannot supersede the older. However,
he is willing to give Jacob Rachel, to whom he callously refers to as this
one () on two conditions. First, he must complete these seven,
i.e., follow the seven-day long wedding custom with Leah. Second, and
more importantly, he must commit to work for Laban another seven
years. LXX-G, unlike the MT, distinguishes between Jacobs enslavement
() for the rst seven years, and his labor () for the next
seven. Jacob, however, does not question the dierence. He completes
his obligation to Leah and agrees to work for Laban another seven years.
This time it is Laban who seems gullible. He gives Rachel to Jacob as a
wife before he completes his next seven year commitment. Despite his
deception of Rachel and her lack of a corresponding wedding feast, Laban
nevertheless gives her a maidservant Balla. Jacob goes into Rachel and is
said to love her more than Leah. Once again, favoritism within the family
will prove problematic.
29:3135 As has been and will continue to be his custom, Lord God
sides with the apparent underdog. His earlier rejections of the rstborn
sons demonstrated his challenge of social customs and expectations. His
appearance to the cast o Hagar similarly showed God to be with the
disadvantaged. Here, however, the narrator explicitly states that God is
responding to Jacobs preferential love for Rachel and presumably his
corresponding hate () for Leah by opening her womb. He does
this not once, but four times. Furthermore, all four times she bears a son.
At this point, Leah does not belittle Rachel for her barrenness, as Hagar
shamed Sarah (16:45). She instead faults Jacob for his hatred. However,
from a human perspective, Jacob could not have completely ignored
Leah. Without some spousal attention from her man, Leah could not have
conceived four sons.
LXX-Gs variety in reporting the four successive births contrasts with
the MTs uniformity. It describes the rst birth by duplicating the MTs
and Leah conceived and bore a son (n :n: n: nn:) as
. However, to underscore Jacobs role in her procre-
ative accomplishment, LXX-G adds that she bore the son for Jacob (
). It again adds a note about Jacobs paternal role in its narration
of her second birth, while also highlighting her tting procreative abili-
ties by adding the unnecessary adjective second () to son. In
its report of her third birth, LXX-G changes the adjective from again
() to yet again (). When naming her third son, Leah acknowl-
edges her husband, but does not refer to him by name. Finally, LXX-G sub-
ordinates the conception to the bearing by using a participle form having
conceived () in describing the fourth birth. In naming her
fourth son, Leah does not mention Jacob at all; instead she acknowledges
and thanks only Lord. All these changes subtly promote traditional gen-
der roles. The reader pays more attention to the dierences in narrative
style and thus more easily sees the emphasis on the procreative abilities
of both Jacob and Leah.
Although the wordplays associated with the names of Leahs sons
cannot be duplicated in LXX-G, the ideas associated with the names are
GENESIS 29:130 & 29:3135 359
360 COMMENTARY
apparent. The names that she gives the sons show her displeasure with
Jacob and her increasing gratitude to Lord. That she does the naming,
while not apparent in form, is obvious in content. In Reuben (Roubn),
Lord saw her humiliation and she hoped her husband would love her.
Simeon represented Lords hearing about her being hated. The presump-
tion that additional sons would make Jacob be with her is made explicit
in the naming of her third son Levi. ALEX, in attempting to represent the
MTs indenite his name was called (:bcp), uses the passive was
called instead of the active called [the name] . Finally,
she openly acknowledges her gratitude to Lord when she names Judah
( Jouda). After Leah has accomplished what no other matriarch has, she
stops bearing.
30:124 Surprisingly, none of the names that Leah creates to express
her gratitude to God and her displeasure with her husband represent any
harsh feelings she might have for her sister Rachel. She wants Jacob to
acknowledge and appreciate her procreative abilities, but does not envy
Rachel because of Jacobs preference for her. Rachel, on the other hand,
does envy her sisters ability to procreate and demands that Jacob give
her children. Contrary to the common assumption that failure to bear
children was the womans problem, Rachel seems to think Jacob is at fault.
Jacob quickly challenges her assumption with a biting rhetorical question
that shifts the responsibility for her barrenness to God. Unlike her ances-
tor Sarah, Rachel does not question Gods abilities. She does, however,
resort to Sarahs method of conception by giving Jacob her maidservant
as a surrogate. Rachel oers more information to her husband and the
reader. By bearing the child on Rachels knees, Balla would literally have
the child in Rachels place. Thus, the desired result, i.e., that Rachel bear
children () from her is especially apt. Although LXX-G
cannot duplicate the MTs wordplay of Rachels being built up/sonned, it
nevertheless presents a rather graphic depiction of the joint accomplish-
ment. It is worth noting that Rachel is not shamed by her maidservant for
her ability to conceive and bear a child, as was her grandmother Sarah.
Balla twice performs what is expected of her by conceiving and bearing
two sons whom Rachel names. As was the case with LXX-Gs translation of
Leahs names for her sons, the translations of Rachels sons names con-
cur with the concept described in the MT, but lack the associated word-
play. Dan represents Gods justice in heeding Rachels voice, and Naphtali
represents her ability to compete with her sister in bearing children. In
its explanation of Naphtalis name, LXX-G interprets a dicult MT text
and devises its own wordplay. The Greek word assisted () is
the same word that in its active form means conceived. Instead of the
MTs wrestling (:nc) with her sister, LXX-G playfully implies that God
assisted her by allowing her to conceive, even if through her maidser-
vant. Nevertheless in both the MT and LXX-G, Rachels envy of her sister
is more obvious at present than her sisters envy of her. However, this
quickly changes when Leah responds to the inherent challenge implied
in the name of Rachels second son by Balla. Since she has stopped bear-
ing, she also takes the surrogate route and gives her maidservant Zelpha
to Jacob. Like Balla, Zelpha bears two sons whom Leah names. Gad and
Asher (Asr) represent good luck and happiness respectively. That her
happiness is apparent to all the wives might be a subtle way of taking
psychological revenge against Rachel.
The competition between the two sisters continues when Leahs rst-
born son Reuben nds mandrake fruits in the eld and takes them to his
mother. Whether he understands their signicance is uncertain. What
is certain is that both she and Rachel do. According to many commenta-
tors, mandrakes were thought to have aphrodisiac powers. Sarna likens
these small fruit to yellow tomatoes that ripen in March or April. He goes
on to say that their emetic, purgative, and narcotic characteristics likely
made them popular medicinal substances, while their sturdy intertwined
roots with torsolike features were associated with fertility (1989, 209;
see also Altar 1996, 160). Inasmuch as Rachel has not yet given birth to
a child of her own, she demands that Leah give her sons mandrakes to
her. Leah replies with two rhetorical questions that indicate her feel-
ings toward Rachel. Rachel already has taken her husband, but Leahs
procreative abilities still give her gender superiority. If Rachel could also
bear children, she would presumably capture even more of Jacobs love.
Rachel denies Leahs implied criticism. To prove that she has not com-
pletely stolen Jacob, she oers to let him sleep with Leah that evening
in exchange for the mandrakes. Like the oer her husband made to his
brother (25:2934), Rachels oer is more a bribe than an attempt to show
sibling love or concern.
Jacob, apparently, has no say in the matter. He seems to sleep with any-
one his wives demand of him. When Leah comes out to meet him as he
is returning from the eld, she tells him about the deal she and Rachel
negotiated. Jacob says nothing but does what she says. Apparently Leah
also has spoken to God because he also heeds her voice by enabling her
to conceive again and again. She bears two more sons for Jacob. The fth
son Issachar is named in connection with the wages she paid Rachel; the
GENESIS 30:124 361
362 COMMENTARY
sixth son Zebulun represents the gift of her husbands esteem that she
so greatly desires. She likely wishes he would choose () her with
no strings attached. Before she stops bearing again, Leah has a daughter
Dinah (Deina), who will later play a role in the family story. Ironically, it
is Leah who benets from the aphrodisiac mandrakes; however, she attri-
butes her success to God.
Finally, God remembers Rachel and opens her womb. She at long last
bears a son for Jacob, an act that removes her disgrace. Yet the name
she gives the child Joseph (Isph) suggests that he is not enough.
Instead, he represents her desire that God add another son. Rachel and
Jacob, at this point, deserve each other. They both are self-centered and
manipulative. Although Jacobs cunning will lead eventually to his suc-
cess, Rachels desire for more sons will result in her death.
30:2543 With twelve sons, one daughter, two wives, and two concu-
bines, Jacob wants to establish his own household. Nevertheless, he is still
subservient to Laban and therefore asks his permission to leave. Laban
refuses and claims Jacobs arrival and presumably his fourteen years
of labor represents Gods blessing of him. Laban is, however, willing to
pay him for his service and ask Jacob what he wants in wages. Instead of
dening his wages, Jacob reminds Laban of the years he worked as Labans
slave. He acknowledges that God has indeed blessed Laban through Jacobs
service, a blessing evidenced by the increase in the size of Labans herd.
Laban ignores Jacobs bragging and again asks what he can give Jacob
to convince him to stay. For some unknown reason, Jacob agrees to stay
and continue to shepherd Labans sheep. However, he refuses to accept
anything that Laban might give him. Instead, he makes what must seem
like a strange request to Laban. In what follows, both the MT and LXX-G
narrate a complex and somewhat dierent story about Jacobs attempt
at genetic engineering that involves specically colored and marked
sheep and goats, one ram, tree rods, stripped bark, and watering troughs.
Despite the diculty in understanding the precise details of Jacobs
plan and despite the dierences between the Hebrew and Greek texts,
Jacobs purpose is to deceive Laban. The time has come to take revenge
for Labans deception of him.
Jacob presents his plan. According to LXX-G, Jacob asks Laban to sepa-
rate his ock according to color and species. This dierence from the MT
in which Jacob does the separation himself makes it appear less likely
that Jacob is manipulating the outcome. As a result, his righteousness
() or trustworthiness will be apparent. In its next deviation
from the MT, the LXX-G plan involves a more simple separation of gray
sheep and pure white and spotted goats from the rest of the ock. These,
Jacob declares, will be his wages. Regardless of their dierent ways of
describing the sheep and goats, both the MT and LXX-G show Jacob ask-
ing for animals that are not as common. Sarna, pointing out other bibli-
cal descriptions of sheep and goats, maintains that sheep were typically
white and goats were typically dark (1989, 212). Asking to keep the more
rare types of sheep is the rst of Jacobs tricks. Laban will be more likely
to agree to the plan if he thinks he is getting the better deal. After all, rare
sheep will likely not produce as many ospring. Furthermore, as Jacob
remarks, it will be easy for Laban to see if Jacob keeps any sheep that
are not gray and any goats that are not white and spotted. Not surpris-
ingly, Laban agrees and divides his ock according to Jacobs criteria and
gives the ones Jacob chose to his own sons to keep. He then moves all the
remaining of his ock three days distance away; these would be the ones
that Jacob would tend.
The next part of Jacobs plan deals with genetic manipulation through
what appears to be a type of sympathetic magic in which like inuences
like. He rst takes an assortment of tree rods and strips them into white
strips. Then, after removing the green bark from them, the rods take on a
multicolored spotted appearance. Placing these rods in the troughs where
the sheep come for water causes the sheep to go into heat. These sheep
then produce white and spotted ospring as a result of the white and
multicolored rods. His plan to manipulate the breeding has succeeded.
He gets the sheep to produce ospring with the characteristics of the
ones he asked for as his wages. He then keeps his marked sheep separate
from Labans unmarked ones. As a result of his eorts, he not only is able
to increase his part of Labans ock, but he also becomes extremely rich.
Like his grandfather Abraham, he acquires considerable livestock and
servants. By now Jacob has come a long way from the domesticated life
of his childhood. He is still not a man of the country like his brother Esau,
but he nevertheless manages, presumably with Gods help, to be remark-
ably successful in husbandry.
31:116 Labans sons express their bitterness against Jacob, whom they
claim became successful at the expense of their father and ultimately
themselves. After all, it was with their inheritance that Laban was bargain-
ing. In addition to hearing what Labans sons are saying, Jacob observes
that Labans face was not with him, i.e., in his favor, as it had been. These
two signs, combined with Lords order for him to return home, convince
GENESIS & 30:2543 & 31:116 363
364 COMMENTARY
Jacob that it was time for him to leave Labans house. Gods promise to be
with him provides the necessary assurance for Jacob to make his move.
To his credit, he consults with Rachel and Leah before announcing his
decision and explains his tenuous situation with their father. He calls
them to the eld where he is tending the ocks, an appropriate setting
for a discussion about his successful husbandry.
He begins his explanation by commenting on two opposing forces
Labans increasing distance and Gods continued presence. Jacob is care-
ful to note that it is not just any God, but the God of his father, who is
with him. Later, this distinction will be important. Jacob goes on, in good
rhetorical form, to elicit his wives agreement on the facts of the case,
i.e., that he served their father well. Instead of responding appropriately
to Jacobs service, Laban continually misled him. Rachel and Leah likely
remember the rst instance of their fathers deception of Jacob, but
Jacob shrewdly ignores this example. He is trying to get the support of
his wives, and recalling what led to their sibling rivalry would not help
his cause. Instead, Jacob focuses strictly on economic matters concern-
ing the wages Laban was to give Jacob for his husbandry. He claims, per
LXX-G, that Laban changed his wages of the ten lambs, instead of the
MTs ten times (o:b nc). Contrary to LXX-Gs tendency to clear up
any problems in the MT, here it created problems. The earlier reported
agreement between the two men was based not on the number of lambs
or goats, but on their color. All the gray lambs and pure white and spot-
ted goats would be Jacobs (29:3132). Jacob then continues protesting
Labans treatment of him by referring again to the color of the lambs,
rather than to their number. Despite his confusing claims, Jacob is clear
on one thing. God is on his side. Divine intervention (31:7), genetic engi-
neering, and sympathetic magic (29:3743) combine to insure that Jacob
gets the better deal.
Instead of narrating his use of dierent types of rods to manipu-
late how the sheep reproduce, Jacob tells Rachel and Leah a somewhat
dierent story. This one features God and his angelic intermediary who
communicate helpful advice in his sleep (), not as MT reports, in
dreams (o::n). During sleep, the angel calls his name twice. Unlike his
grandfather Abraham who responded two times to the angelic summons
by declaring his presence and presumed readiness for instruction with
here I am (22:1, 2, 11), Jacob responds more cautiously by asking its
identity. Furthermore, instead of getting instructions to slaughter, then
not to slaughter, Jacob sees images associated with sheep and goats mat-
ing to produce life. Like the descriptions of most visions, Jacobs is not
very clear. Although there is no doubt that the male animals are doing
the mounting, which animals are pure white and multicolored and ash
colored spotted is vague. However, the colors are less important than
is Gods intervention by means of his angel. Jacob sees the technicolor
mating scene, then Gods angel sees everything that Laban is doing to
Jacob. As is often the case, Gods identity is interchangeable with that of
his angels or messengers (e.g., 18:113). The one speaking to Jacob in his
sleep now denes himself as the God whom Jacob saw earlier (28:1213).
LXX-G claries Gods ambiguous self-description in the MT I am the God
[of ] Bethel (:nn :n o:) with the description who was seen by you
( ; 28:18). Here ALEXs departure from the majority descrip-
tion of the place of God where ( , ) to the place where
( ) results in a smoother translation. However, none of the Greek
manuscripts refer to the place by its previous and better known name,
i.e., the house of God ( ). On the other hand, LXX-Gs addi-
tion of Gods promise to be with Jacob ( ) aptly reects
Gods earlier conversation with Jacob (28:1522).
Despite the dierences between the earlier scientic explanation that
the narrator gave for Jacobs husbandry skills and Jacobs own description
of their source, these stories need not be mutually exclusive. Rachel and
Leah likely would be more interested in and more convinced by a story
about Gods intervention than they would in a scientic explanation.
Indeed, their response proves that Jacob oered a convincing argument.
They not only agree with his decision, they also describe their own dissat-
isfaction with their fathers behavior by means of two rhetorical questions.
Is there anything left for us to which the answer is no; are we considered
strangers to him to which the answer is yes. They then make a tting
theological observation. Everything that their fathers god took away from
him will now, because of Jacobs God, go to them and their children. As a
result, they tell Jacob to do what his God commands.
31:1721 Now that he has his wives agreement, Jacob plans a hasty
departure back home to his father in Canaan. The details of his trip and
Labans interference do not always follow a sequential order and at times
deviate from the MTs similarly awkward narration. This part of the story
begins when Jacob stands up and puts the wives and his children on cam-
els. In what will likely prevent a swift departure and journey, Jacob also
loads the camels with all the possessions he had acquired during his stay
in Mesopotamia. Sometime prior to leaving, Rachel steals her fathers
idols while he was away shearing his sheep. This seeming non sequitur
GENESIS 31:116 & 31:1721 365
366 COMMENTARY
will become important to the storys plot. LXX-Gs rendering the obscure
Hebrew word teraphim (ocnn) with the Greek idols () is
both a translation and an interpretation. Whether or not the translator
knew what teraphim were, he knew enough to refer to them as idols.
This likely is an instance of what Tov calls contextual guesses (1981,
55). Later in the story (31:30), Laban refers to these stolen objects as my
gods (n:), a claim that would imply a material object worshipped by
the members of his family. The Hellenistic Jewish translator would likely
consider such objects to be idolatrous, resulting in the rendering idols.
Although most scholars today similarly consider teraphim as cultic g-
urines, they disagree on their purpose and signicance. In the context of
this story, the teraphim seem to be household gods that were talismans of
sorts kept by families for protection and general well-being. Nutzi docu-
ments associate them with clan leadership (Sarna 1989, 216). Other bib-
lical texts refer to their use as cultic objects (e.g., Judg. 17:5; 18:1420)
and as aids in divination (e.g., Ezek. 21:21). Challenging the dominant
assumption that the teraphim were only household deities, Karel Van
der Toorn analyzes the biblical texts in which reference is made to tera-
phim, as well as other ANE cuneiform evidence, and argues that tera-
phim were more likely to have been cultic gurines associated with the
worship of dead ancestors (1990, 204). Hess acknowledges the association
between the teraphim and ancestors but is not persuaded that they nec-
essarily represented images of ancestors or played a role in ancestor cults
(forthcoming).
Despite the uncertainty with regard to the precise meaning and func-
tion of the teraphim/idols, it is clear that the items were valuable. If they
were not, Rachel would not have taken the time and risked the conse-
quences of stealing them. However, what value they had for her is not
narrated. Commentators, nevertheless, speculate based on their under-
standing of the purpose of the teraphim/idols. Sarna opines that she may
have wanted to prevent her father from divining any details about their
escape (1989, 216). Westermann maintains that her theft was one way to
compensate herself for her loss of inheritance (1985, 493). Alter claims
that Rachel probably did not become a monotheist when she married
Jacob. She stole the gods in order to retain the icons associated with well-
being and prosperity (1996, 169). Whatever her reasons, Rachels ability
to steal these items and keep them hidden from her father shows that she
has mastered the family art of trickery.
31:2233 Despite Jacobs attempt to hide his departure from Laban, he
is not successful. Laban is told about the trip three days later. He gathers
up all his brothers, i.e., his kinsmen, and pursues Jacob and his family.
Because he is not overloaded with baggage, Laban is able to catch up to
Jacob in the hill country of Galaad. Sometime during his pursuit, Laban is
visited by God; that this is Jacobs God Laban later acknowledges. During
sleep, God tells him not to speak evil, not as MT good or evil ( n:ob
), against Jacob. Inasmuch as God would likely not prohibit Laban from
speaking well of Jacob, LXX-Gs omission of the MTs good is another
example of its tendency to improve the sensibility of the story. This trend
will continue. After both groups encamp in the hills of Galaad, Laban con-
fronts Jacob and demands an explanation. Why did Jacob ee without
telling him; why did he rob him; and why take his daughters like cap-
tives? Although not part of the MT text, LXX-Gs additional claim that
Laban makes about Jacobs robbing him () is sensible to
the story and foreshadows his later accusation about his idols. Its omis-
sion of Labans elaboration of what he had just said avoids redundancy
and moves the story forward.
Laban continues by claiming he would have provided a festive farewell
party, if only Jacob had told him in advance. That hardly seems likely
inasmuch as he refused to listen when Jacob earlier told him of his desire
to return home (29:2627). He laments not having the opportunity to kiss
his little boys, i.e., his grandsons, and his daughters goodbye. As Muraoka
notes, this is another instance where LXX-G demonstrates its contextu-
ally-thoughtful translation by using dierent Greek words to render the
one Hebrew word for son (n). Here, when Laban himself is speaking,
LXX-G translates the Hebrew my sons (:n) with the Greek words my
youngsters ( ), a choice that acknowledges the aection or
endearment of a grandfather for his young grandchildren. Later in the
chapter when the narrator is reporting (vv. 43, 55), LXX-G renders the
Hebrew son with the more common , a term that refers to the legal
status of a male child to his father, or as here, grandfather (2001, 18).
After voicing his complaint, Laban threatens Jacob, but, for no appar-
ent reason, does not carry out his threat. Instead, he tells Jacob about the
warning given by Jacobs God and continues his litany of accusations. He
acknowledges that he could understand why Jacob would want to return
home, but, why, he asks, steal my gods ( ). He asks a good
question inasmuch as Jacob is only to worship his one God.
GENESIS 31:2233 367
368 COMMENTARY
It is now Jacobs turn to respond to Labans questions and accusations.
He answers Labans earlier question about why he ran away secretly with
a succinct statement; he was afraid Laban would take his daughters, and
per LXX-G, everything else away from Jacob. Labans previous attempts
to cheat Jacob out of what was rightfully his made Jacob rightfully suspi-
cious. He goes on by making a righteously indignant pronouncement that
whoever stole Labans gods would not live. In so doing, Jacob implicitly
contrasts his honesty in dealing with Laban with Labans dishonesty with
him. Laban may have robbed Jacob, but Jacob would never rob Laban.
In another attempt to make the narrative ow more smoothly, LXX-G
reorders the continuing dialogue and actions of the two men. To prove
his trustworthiness, Jacob tells Laban that he can search for and take
whatever Jacob has that might be his. The LXX-G narrator then inter-
rupts the conversation to support Jacobs claim of honesty by adding that
Laban found nothing. However, the narrator goes on to point out what
Jacob does not know, i.e., that Rachel has stolen her fathers gods. Laban
then conducts a more thorough search in the houses () of Leah,
Jacob, and the maidservants, and again nds nothing. LXX-Gs occasional
updating of the story makes little sense in the current context. It is highly
unlikely that the eeing characters would be living in houses, rather
than the MTs tents (:nn), especially when Jacob himself was said to
have pitched his tent ( ) a few verses earlier
(v. 25). Why all the other members of his entourage would be living in
houses can only be explained if the translator thought the two words
to be interchangeable ways to refer to a place of abode. The concluding
comment that Laban goes into Rachels house leaves the audience with
heightened anticipation of what he might nd.
31:3455 The moment of truth has arrived when Laban goes to Rachels
house. However, while he was searching the other houses, Rachel had
time to remove the gods and cleverly deceive her father. She puts them in
her saddlebags, sits on them, and then stops him from searching the bags
by claiming she was menstruating. Her plan works. Jacob then protests.
His righteous indignation is evident when he demands an explanation
for Labans assumption of Jacobs guilt. Without giving Laban a chance to
respond, Jacob demands a trial of sorts in which their respective kinsmen
would determine which of the two was to be believed. Although this call
for a trial comes earlier in the MT, its placement at this point in the LXX-G
narrative creates an apt setting for both men to present their cases.
Jacob begins. He pleads his case by recounting his twenty years of fruit-
ful and honest service to Laban. During all this time, he claims never to
have caused or perhaps even to have allowed any sheep to abort, never
to have taken a ram for food, and to have replaced any dead sheep with
his own resources. Gods being with him might have given him miracu-
lous powers over the destinies of the sheep, as well as upright moral vir-
tues when dealing with his uncle. As Laban would know, this was more
than Jacob was required to do by ancient law codes regarding shepherd
duties (Code of Hammurabi 263, 266; Exod. 22:11). In all this, he braved
harsh weather and lack of sleep. Despite Jacobs faithful service, Laban
cheats Jacob by continually changing or shortchanging his wages. If the
God of Abraham and the fear of Isaac had not been with him, Jacob claims
he would have been humiliated and empty (), i.e., without wives,
children, and goods. This God, or these Gods, intervened on Jacobs behalf
the previous day by warning Laban not to speak against Jacob.
Just to what the divine designator fear of Isaac ( ) refers
is contested. Does it represent an objective or subjective genitive? In
other words, is this God someone Isaac fears or someone that causes oth-
ers to fear Isaac. The argument rests primarily on the meaning of dread
(c) in the Hebrew phrase pv c. Sarna claims that the phrase has
a double meaning, both The One Whom Isaac Reveres and The One of
Isaac Who Caused Terror to Laban when he appeared to him the previous
night (1989, 220). Westermann presents the meanings argued by several
other scholars including Albright (Kinsman of Isaac) and Kopf (Refuge
of Isaac) and then apologetically settles for Protection of Isaac (1985,
497). In light of Isaacs relationship with the God of his father Abraham on
the mountain (Gen. 22), Isaac likely did both fear God and acknowledge
protection by him. LXX-G did not attempt to oer any interpretation of
the Hebrew phrase, but merely produced a literal rendering.
Laban now takes the stand, but does not even attempt to comment on
Jacobs plea. Nor does he refute the charges. Instead, Laban stubbornly
insists that everything that Jacob claimed belongs instead to him. ALEXs
addition of your () after every disputed item daughters, sons, herds,
and everything else emphasizes this point. Laban is not merely claim-
ing the daughters, sons, herds, and goods, but rather those that Jacob
claims. Despite his assertions of rightful ownership, Laban nevertheless
concedes that he has no inuence over his family. Then in an attempt to
dene their future relationship, Laban proposes that he and Jacob made
a covenant that will serve as a witness. LXX-G then adds an entire phrase
GENESIS 31:3455 369
370 COMMENTARY
missing in the MT in which either Laban or Jacob declares that God alone
is a witness. The confusion stems from the ambiguity of the verb and
object, both of which are third masculine singulars then he said to him
( ) and the ambiguity of the case either nominative or voca-
tive of the proper name (). Thus, the beginning of the verse could
be read either as Then he said to him, Jacob, or Then Jacob said to
him. Although Wevers presumes the subject is still Laban (1993, 521), the
postpositive most often indicates a change of subject (e.g., 4:16; 16:5, 6;
22:7, 8; 43:2). Furthermore, it would be more logical for Jacob to insist on
God being the sole witness, rather than Laban.
Jacob then initiates the ritualistic aspects of the covenant making by
resorting to his earlier cultic actions after experiencing the presence of
God. He makes a pillar of stone. Then he orders his kin to gather more
stones. They do so and use them to build a mound, after which they eat,
and per LXX-G, also drink. This mound, and its function as a witness, then
becomes the focus of attention in the naming ritual that follows. Unfor-
tunately, LXX-G cannot duplicate the signicance of the language dier-
ences between Laban and Jacob that is apparent in the MT. Instead, it
rearranges the details of the story and produces in a rather awkward nar-
rative. The MT reports that Laban calls the mound Yegar-sahadutha (:
n:nc) and Jacob calls it Gal-ed (::), both of which mean mound of
witness in their respective languages, Aramaic and Hebrew. The LXX-G
report of the name dierences is problematic, and in ALEX, even more so.
Its version of the ceremony begins, not with the naming of the mound,
but with Labans statement: This mound witnesses (
) between me and you today. ALEX, unlike other LXX manu-
scripts, then reports that Jacob, not Laban, uses Labans phrasing to name
the mound. Jacob calls it a Mound witnesses ( ). Laban,
on the other hand, calls the mound A Mound is witness ( ).
Thus, neither name in ALEX represents a precise translation of the Ara-
maic and Hebrew mound names in the MT, i.e., mound of witness. Nev-
ertheless, the dierences in ALEX result in the mounds name being what
Jacob calls it, instead of what Laban calls it. Despite the many dierences
within LXX-G manuscripts and between them and the MT, all versions of
the mounds name disregards Gods usual role of witness. They all imply
that the mound serves the witness function.
LXX-Gs narrative becomes even more complicated. After the naming
ceremony, the LXX-G Laban repeats what he said earlier, i.e., that the
mound witnesses. He also refers to the pillar as a witness, but claims that
he, not Jacob, made the pillar. Then another naming ensues, this time
taking the pillar into account. In addition to the earlier name, i.e., A
Mound witnesses (the name that ALEXs Jacob established), the place is
also called The Vision (). Whereas the corresponding MT name,
based on the verb qv, is the known place Mizpah, LXX-G again cannot
duplicate the wordplay. Nevertheless, it does stress the theological sig-
nicance of the name, i.e., Gods oversight of the terms of the covenant,
which are nally stated. The two men are to separate from each other,
neither one having the right to cross over the stated boundary estab-
lished by the mound and pillar. Laban then warns Jacob against taking
more wives and humiliating his daughters. Despite their separate lives,
Laban declares that the God of his father and the God of Abraham will
know and judge. Laban has the nal word. However, the narrator reports
that Jacob acknowledges Labans warning by swearing by yet another
God, the Fear of his father Isaac. With all these Gods, or at least all these
variations of the same God, both men likely feel secure in the negotiated
covenant. Jacob then concludes the ceremony by making a sacrice and
having another ritual communal meal to commemorate the occasion.
Early the next morning, the men separate. Jacob blesses his family, and
Laban returns home.
32:12 Some manuscripts, along with the MT, begin this chapter with
the verse with which ALEX ended the previous chapter. All then resume
the story with a comment that Jacob departed on his own () way.
At some point in his journey, Jacob again sees evidence of Gods presence.
This time, however, it is not during sleep. What he sees is a military camp
of God, whose angels approach him. He immediately names the place
Camps. The interaction with the angels is yet to come. First, however,
Jacob will interact with humans.
32:321 Jacob now sends out his own , here messengers, to
his brother Esau in Edom, the area that will become associated with Esau
and his descendants. His apologetic purpose is clear in the language he
uses, the excuse he makes, and his cataloguing of his material posses-
sions. He refers to Esau as his lord and to himself as Esaus servant. In
so doing, he seems to be nullifying Gods prediction of their relationship
(25:23). Nevertheless, Jacob seems sincere in his attempt to restore or
perhaps create their original sibling relationship. When his messen-
gers return, they give an ominous report that Esau was already coming
to meet Jacob with four hundred men. Jacobs own retinue, comprised of
all his possessions, would likely not be able to resist four hundred men
GENESIS 31:3455 & 32:321 371
372 COMMENTARY
should hostilities occur. As a result, Jacob is frightened and divides his
group into two separate camps. That way, he surmises, at least one will
likely survive an attack.
He also calls on God for help. He begins his prayer by reminding God
that God himself told him to return home, promised to make him pros-
per, and promised him innumerable ospring. In a sense, he is pleading
with God to get him out of the potentially dangerous situation into which
God put him. After praying, he goes to sleep. Jacob next resorts to a more
human form of redemption, i.e., bribery. From all that he had acquired
during his work for Laban, Jacob sends a signicant amount of livestock
to his brother as gifts. However, he does not attempt to deliver these gifts
himself. Instead, he divides all the livestock among his servants and has
them proceed separately, telling them to put some distance between each
of them. Visually, this would likely seem even more impressive than one
large group of men with many animals. Just when Esau thought he had
seen the extent of the livestock, yet another ock would appear. Further-
more, another servant would explain that all these additional animals
were additional gifts from servant Jacob. Jacob hopes that these lavish
gifts will appease Esau enough to prevent Esau from carrying out his ear-
lier threat to kill Jacob. Feeling condent, he again goes to sleep.
32:2232 For some unknown reason, Jacob decides to move his entire
entourage across the ford. He rst moves his immediate family, all of
whom are mentioned except Dinah and the maidservants. Then he moves
his possessions. After doing so, however, he remains on the other side
and has another experience of the netherworld between fantasy and
reality, between the divine and the mundane. In a narrative notorious for
its ambiguity, Jacob wrestles with a man until morning. The rst exam-
ple of ambiguity is evident in the abundance of third person masculine
singular verbs, many of which have no explicit referent. As a result, it
is often unclear who is speaking. Even more mysterious is the unidenti-
ed man () whose features and actions have much in common
with characters found in cross cultural folk stories, such as a danger-
ous river demon, a spirit that guards or protects a body of water, and
a being that must vanish by daybreak. Westermann therefore identies
the being who attacks Jacob as a hostile demon or evil spirit (1985, 516).
Sarna, on the other hand, denies the association. Nothing in the story, he
contends, explicitly portrays the man as a dangerous river spirit that
blocks humans as they attempt to cross the river. Everyone and every-
thing that Jacob carried across was safe on the other side. Furthermore,
most often humans attempt to appease these river spirits to ensure a safe
crossing. Jacob does nothing of the sort. Finally, the mysterious assailant
ends up blessing Jacob, an action that Sarna argues cannot be done by a
demon in a biblical story. As a result, he concurs with midrashic interpre-
tations (e.g., Gen. Rab. 77:2; 78:6) that identify the mysterious being with
the celestial patron of Esau-Edom, the inveterate enemy of the people
of Israel (1989, 404). All these explanations seem to ignore the fact that
Jacob thinks he has encountered God (v. 30). This is most evident when
Jacob later (32:30) names the place the Visible Form of God ( ).
In case there is any doubt about Jacobs identication of his wrestling
partner, he explicitly states in the for () clause that he saw God face
to face and did not die.
The night long wrestling match ends at daybreak in a draw. The man
could not overpower Jacob; however, his touch of Jacobs thigh makes it
numb. When his assailant attempts to leave, Jacob demands a blessing.
What he gets is a change of name. No longer will his name be Jacob; rather
it will be Israel. The signicance of the name, like the identity and func-
tion of Jacobs wrestling partner, is debated. The major problem is that its
grammatical structure has no exact parallel among biblical names, and
its trilateral root nc is only found elsewhere in Hosea 12:4. Its use there
and the meaning that is given in the story itself suggests that its basic
meaning is strive or contend. The theophoric element (el) at the end
of any biblical name is most often the subject, not the object, of the ver-
bal root. Thus, the name in Hebrew should mean God strives, not Jacob
strives with God. All of this, of course, is not an issue in LXX-G, where it
again merely translates, rather than duplicates, the wordplays that are
the basis of the names meaning. Here, the signicance of the name Israel
is Jacobs prevailing () over God and his power () over
humans. Thus, the name itself suggests that the mysterious assailant has
both human and divine features. As curious as the name itself is the fact
that Jacob is not always called by his new name, as was Abraham. In fact,
more often he continues to be referred to as Jacob.
This strange story ends with an etiological note about the origin of a
food prohibition. Jacobs injury to his thigh, or hip, was the reason his
descendants do not eat that part of an animal. However, as Sarna (1989,
228) and Alter (1996, 183) comment, more important than the prohibi-
tion itself is the fact that his ospring are referred to as the sons of Israel
( ) for the rst time.
GENESIS 32:2232 373
374 COMMENTARY
33:117 Having sent gifts ahead of him for his brother and surviving a
superhuman wrestling match, Jacob sees his brother Esau coming with
the four hundred men of which his messengers told him (32:6). He dis-
tributes his children among their mothers and arranges them according
to their status and his preference. The maidservants and their children
are at the front; Leah and her children next; and Rachel and Joseph last.
LXX-G again shows its contextually sensitive translation by using two
dierent terms to render the Hebrew children (o:); the children of
the maidservants are referred to by the legal term sons (), whereas
Leahs children are referred to by the more aection term youngster
(). Rachels son Joseph is referred to even more personally by his
name. Jacobs putting the least valuable women and children in the front
of the line where they will be the rst to encounter Esau at rst seems
like a cowardly act. However, Jacob himself goes ahead of everyone. Still
somewhat frightened of what might happen, Jacob bows to the ground
seven times as he meets his brother. Ironically, his actions again seem to
contrast with Gods prediction to his mother (that the greater will be a
slave to the smaller, 25:23) and Isaacs blessing (that Jacob will be master of
his brother, who will bow down to him, 27:29). At this point, Jacob is more
concerned with his immediate safety than his eventual dominance.
His fears, however, are misplaced. Esau runs up to him, not to attack
him, but to embrace him and kiss him according to cultural custom
(29:13; 48:10). Both brothers weep as a sign of their reconciliation. Esau
immediately asks about all the women and children, referring to them in
LXX-G as objects, i.e., what () are these to you, rather than as subjects
as in MT, i.e., who (b) are these to you. In his response, Jacob neglects to
identify the women, but he does show parental aection for his young-
sters (). These, he says, represent Gods mercy on him. By refer-
ring to himself again as Esaus servant (), Jacob shows deference
to his estranged brother. His family does the same, in the order in which
they traveled. The maidservants and their youngsters (), per
ALEX, are the rst to greet Esau and bow down to him. Here ALEX departs
from the MT and other Greek manuscripts by referring to the ospring of
the maidservants by the more aectionate term youngsters, rather than
children (), as Leahs ospring are called. They also greet and bow
down to Esau. Finally, Rachel and Joseph, again called by his name, meet
and bow to Esau.
Esau again questions everything that Jacob has acquired; this time
he also refers to everything in his camp. Jacob still wants to impress his
brother perhaps also to bribe him with his wealth. Esau responds by
saying that he also has much () and does not need anything that
Jacob is trying to give him. Jacob continues his ingratiating conversation
by pleading with Esau to accept his gifts. Esau eventually concedes and
took (), precisely what he takes is not reported. The one thing
that Esau wants, i.e., to travel with Jacob and his family, is the one thing
that Jacob refuses to do. He makes excuses that his children and his live-
stock will not be able to make the journey Esau is proposing. Instead,
Jacob suggests that Esau go on ahead of them, while he and his entourage
travel at a more leisurely pace. Still being disingenuous, Jacob implies
that he will eventually catch up with Esau. Instead, he goes to a dier-
ent place. Instead of Seir, he ends up in a place where he sets up a house
for his family and tents for his ock. He then names the place Tents
(). He will move again, but he will not see Esau until his fathers
death. He has accomplished what he wanted, i.e., reconciling with Esau
enough that he no longer feared him. By forcing Esau to take his gifts,
Jacob has likely assuaged some guilt he must still have with regard to his
earlier deception of Esau.
33:1820 Jacob is on the road again and now, per LXX-G, arrives in
Salem, which is known as the city of the Sikimites. As Wevers speculates,
the translator likely understood the Hebrew o:c to refer to a place, i.e.,
Salem, rather than to the way he came to the place, i.e., safely (1993,
554555). He, like his grandfather Abraham, traveled from Mesopotamia
to Canaan as commanded by God. Also, like Abraham, he bought property
from a prominent local resident (23:418). Instead of paying with some
unit of weight (nocp), as in the MT, Jacob uses lambs as payment. This
brief addendum to a longer narrative, like many in the Jacob cycle, has
little to do with what has just occurred. Rather, it sets the stage for what
is to follow. Nevertheless, what he does after purchasing property is sig-
nicant. He places an altar and invokes God, who is now for the rst time
referred to as the God of Israel ( ).
34:131 LXX-Gs version of the story often referred to as the rape of
Dinah follows the plot of the MT but changes some of the details. This
story, more than most in Genesis, reects the social and psychobiologi-
cal aspect of the Mediterranean model of honor and shame, namely, that
male honor depends on the degree to which men protect the sexual purity,
i.e., shame, of their women. The story also demonstrates the extent to
which women were considered property, something that could bartered
and used as valuable aspects of negotiations between men. Despite their
GENESIS 33:117 & 34:131 375
376 COMMENTARY
signicance in the storys plot, none of the women speak. Not even Dinah,
whose delement and humiliation are what drives the plot, has a voice.
Neither is Dinah ever considered an individual in her own right. Nearly
every time her name is used, she is referred to only in relation to one of
her family. Once she is called the daughter of her mother Leah (v. 1). Most
often, however, she is dened in relation to her male family members, i.e.,
as the daughter of her father Jacob (vv. 3, 5) or as the sister of her broth-
ers Simeon and Levi (Leui) (vv. 13, 14, 25, 27). The one time her name is
not preceded or followed by a family relationship, Dinah is still an object
taken by her brothers from Shechems house (v. 26). She is a mere pawn in
a male dominated plot of honor taken, and honor reclaimed.
The story starts with a seemingly innocent act. Jacob has recently
acquired land from Hamor (Emmr) for one hundred lambs (33:19), and
his daughter Dinah goes out to get acquainted with the daughters of her
new neighbors. However, instead of encountering the women she goes out
to see, a man sees her. This man Shechem (Sychem) is the son of the man
Hamor, from whom Jacob purchased the property. In addition to being
Jacobs neighbor, Hamor is also the ruler () of the land. As a result,
he and his son are inuential men in the city and likely are accustomed
to getting and taking what they want. Shechem takes () Dinah
and lay with () her, an act that humiliated () her.
LXX-Gs rendering of the Hebrew word n: with accentuates
the psychological result of Shechems act while minimizing its physical-
ity. The piel form of n: can mean to oppress or humiliate, the sense
implied by the Greek . However, it also can mean violate or
rape, a more contextually appropriate meaning. Nevertheless, even the
psychological notion of humiliation, in an environment where notions of
honor and shame were important elements of social control, could result
in violent revenge.
To Shechems credit, he does not then abandon her. Rather, to compen-
sate for his three earlier harmful acts (taking, laying with, and humiliat-
ing), he is said to do three more caring acts: he is devoted to ()
her; he loves () her; and he speaks to () her. As it
changed the sense of Shechems more hostile actions, LXX-G also modies
his more compassionate responses. In the MT, it is Shechems soul that
is devoted to Dinah herself (n:n :cc: pnn). However, LXX-G makes
Shechem himself the subject and Dinahs soul the object (
). In so doing, Shechem is portrayed as a more active sub-
ject, while Dinah is referred to only in the genitive. LXX-G goes on to say
that he loves the virgin (), instead of the MTs girl (:n, cor-
rected in the Qere to reect the typical feminine form n:n). In what
follows, LXX-G similarly approximates, but does not duplicate the MT.
Instead of speaking to the heart of the girl, Shechem speaks according to
the mind of the virgin. LXX-Gs use of the term virgin seems to imply
more than the MTs more neutral girl. However, LXX-G rendered nearly
every occurrence of the Hebrew :n with . Thus the transla-
tor likely considered the terms synonymous. See discussion at 24:1021.
It is likely that Shechems feelings for the virgin are sincere, because he
implores his father to get the maidservant () for him as a wife.
As a translation of the Hebrew girl (n:), ALEX and a few other manu-
scripts dier from the majority that render the term as maiden ().
In so doing, ALEX is more attentive to Shechems elevated social status.
By having him refer to Dinah as a maidservant (like the concubines Hagar
[16:1], Balla [30:3], and Zelpha [30:9]), ALEX implies that Shechem, like
other prominent men, might consider Dinah more of a concubine, than
a primary wife.
Meanwhile, Jacob hears that Shechem has deled () his daugh-
ter, but does nothing because his sons are not with him. Although he
could be faulted for his seeming lack of concern, he might be waiting for
additional manpower before confronting Hamor and Shechem. The boys
and Hamor arrive on the scene at approximately the same time. How-
ever, even after they arrive, Jacob says and does nothing. Unlike their
father, the sons are angry for the shame () that Shechem caused
in Israel. As Wevers notes, the use of the Greek word shame emphasizes
the scandal involved with Shechems act, whereas the MTs n:n: (sense-
lessness, folly, or disgrace) stresses the foolishness of the deed (1993,
560). Precisely to what Israel refers is unclear and is likely anachronistic.
Because the geographic area is still considered Canaan, the term must
relate to the family of Jacob, who is now called Israel. Thus, Shechem has
brought shame on the family by having intercourse with Dinah. Although
they will later attempt to regain the family honor, they now merely listen
to Hamor.
He begins the negotiation for Dinah by telling Jacob that his son has
chosen Jacobs daughter and then orders Jacob to give her to Shechem
as a wife. However, Hamor wants more than one marriage. Instead, he
proposes that the families intermarry, a situation that he claries using
language of give and take. Israel will give its daughters and take the
daughters of Hamors people. That women were considered property is
GENESIS 34:131 377
378 COMMENTARY
clear in this story. They are the rst items in the bargain that Hamor
is attempting to negotiate. He goes on by explaining the benets that
intermarriage would confer. Jacobs family could settle () with
them as permanent citizens, rather than as resident aliens. Thinking this
would be attractive to Jacobs family, Hamor makes the oer for them
to settle twice in one sentence (v. 10). They could also travel around the
area freely and conduct trade (). Finally, they could acquire
property (). All this Hamor is willing to give to get Dinah for
Shechem. At that point, Shechem interrupts his father and makes it
clear that he and his people will do whatever it takes, and pay whatever
amount of dowry () requested, to convince Jacobs family to give
him Dinah as a wife. LXX-Gs rendering of the MTs brideprice (nb)
with is another indication of its tendency to update the terms of
the Hebrew. In Israel, the wifes father was paid a brideprice by the hus-
bands family. Should the marriage break up, the money was returned to the
woman, and the woman to her paternal family. In the Greek world, however,
a dowry was a sum of money that the wifes family paid the husband (see
Wevers 1993, 563564). Here Shechem is oering to pay for what he nor-
mally would himself be paid. Thus, it is evident that Shechem really wants
Jacobs daughter, and Hamor really wants his son to have what he wants.
After having heard the expansive social, economic, and political proposal
oered by Hamor and his son Shechem to Jacob and all Israel, Jacobs sons
respond. The narrator, however, tells the reader what the characters in
the story do not know. Their counterproposal is one of deceit because, per
LXX-G, they deled () their sister Dinah. Thus, the LXX Simeon
and Levi go beyond their MT counterparts by blaming both father and
son for the sons actions. Hamor is just as responsible as Shechem. He not
only seems to approve of what his son did to Dinah, but also goes to great
lengths to get her for his son. Signicantly, Jacob says nothing during the
entire negotiation. Not only was he silent until they came in from the
eld (v. 5), he continues his silence and allows his sons to speak for him.
They begin their deceptive response by claiming they could not accept
the deal that Hamor oered. To give their sister to Shechem, an uncircum-
cised man, would be a disgrace (). What they do not say is that
an even greater disgrace has already occurred. They then oer a coun-
terproposal that would resolve the presumed problem of circumcision
and would allow the entire deal to be acceptable. Speaking to Hamor and
Shechem on behalf of all of Israel, Jacobs sons in LXX-G agree to become
like them () and to settle with them, if Hamor and all his
people become like the people of Israel. These conditions are somewhat
dierent from those proposed by the sons in the MT. The verb become
like () has a dierent connotation than the MTs consent
to (n::). Why and in what regards the sons would want to become like
Hamors people is unclear. Wevers argues that the word
refers to complete cultural assimilation on the part of the Shechemites,
i.e., Hamors people (1993, 565). However, it is Jacobs sons who are the
we and Hamors people who are the you. Thus, Jacobs sons seem to be
proposing that they culturally assimilate, which seems highly unlikely in
light of what follows. Rather, becoming like Hamors people more likely
refers to the ability to travel and conduct business throughout the coun-
try, one of the benets proposed by Hamor. That this could be the case
is further supported by the additional condition mentioned by Jacobs
sons, i.e., settling among them (). This was another of the
benets that Hamor proposed.
Despite the ambiguity of the rst part of the sons counterproposal,
the next part is clear. To become like them, every male of Hamors people
must be circumcised. Only then would Jacobs people agree to intermar-
riage and settling with them. These conditions, of course, serve several
purposes. The obvious one is to make Hamors people acceptable to
Jacobs people, i.e., to make them all as one family ( ). In that
case, the sons go on to say, the give and take of intermarriage could occur
and they could live () with them. The change in resident sta-
tus from the permanent one proposed by Hamor and declared impossible
by Jacobs sons without circumcision is striking. Simeon and Levi realize
that they might live with the Shechemites as one family, but it would
not be permanent. In fact, it might not happen at all. The real purpose
of their counterproposal will only be evident after the fact. At this point,
circumcision is merely a means to an end that Shechem wants for himself
and Hamor wants for his son. Despite the fact that both families begin the
negotiation for personal reasons, they both conclude by including all of
their people. Thus, Jacobs sons conclude their counterproposal by atly
asserting that they will take their daughters and leave if Hamors peo-
ple do not agree to be circumcised. What the sons are counting on is the
inuence that Hamor and Shechem will have on the rest of their people.
They do not have long to wait. Shechem does not delay ( );
he and his father like what they hear and bring the proposal to the men of
their city in the gate of their city. The narrators inclusion of the modier
their () in the two times he refers to their city makes it clear that
Hamor and Shechem own the people and the place. However, they neglect
to tell the men why they began the negotiations with Jacobs people in the
GENESIS 34:131 379
380 COMMENTARY
rst place. Instead, they begin with what would be appealing to the men,
namely the economic and political implications of the agreement. There
is enough room in the land to accommodate a peaceful people who will
live (), buy, and sell in it. At this point, Hamor and Shechem
are giving the impression that the arrangement would not be permanent.
They go on to speak about the social aspects of the agreement, i.e., inter-
marriage. However, when addressing their people, Shechem and Hamor
reverse the order of give and take. They will take Israels daughters, per
LXX-G as wives, and give their daughters. Although subtle, the reversal
is signicant and disingenuous. The rst give and take already occurred
when Shechem took Dinah. So far, there is little in their proposal that would
meet any resistance. Now, however, they get to the bad news. To be one
people and to guarantee that Jacobs family settle () with them,
every male must be circumcised. Hamor and Shechem likely heard the
distinction that Simeon and Levi made in their counterproposal. To live
permanently together requires circumcision; intermarriage is possible
on a short term basis. Like good politicians, Hamor and Shechem do not
dwell on the negative. Instead they again emphasize the benets of the
agreement to be one people ( ), a somewhat dierent
result than Jacobs sons proposal to be as one kin ( ). Rather than
being like a family, they will be a people or nation. Hamor and Shechem
conclude with a tantalizing question. Will not all the herds and possessions
of Jacobs people really belong to Hamors people? One can almost see
the two city leaders winking at their constituency, thinking that Jacobs
sons neglected to see this implication. Jacobs sons, however, do not need
to think that far ahead. Their hopes were realized when the narrator
reports that every male came out of the gate and circumcised the esh of
his foreskin. The LXXs middle indicative verb , rather than
the MTs passive ::b, causes one to wonder if each man cut himself.
The sons plan to disable the men of the city succeeded. Neverthe-
less, Simeon and Levi wait for three days before taking the next step in
avenging their sisters rape and restoring their honor. Allowing some
time to pass makes their attack even more unexpected. They each take
their sword, go into the city, and kill every male. After all the men of the
city are dead and unable to protect their city leaders, Simeon and Levi
proceed to kill Hamor and Shechem, take Dinah from Shechems house,
and go away. Later Jacobs sons plunder the city. Whether this second
part of avenging Dinahs delement is carried out by Simeon and Levi
or whether all Jacobs sons participate is not stated. However, the extent
of their plundering suggests that all must be involved. First they take all
the livestock in both city and eld. Next, they take all the people who
were not killed, which, per LXX-G, includes
. Of this list, only
the last item, i.e., the women ( ), is unambiguous. The rst
item, per the MT, is their wealth (o:). LXX-G, however, represents it
as , literally their bodies. However, taking dead bodies
would be as disgraceful an action as giving their daughters to uncircum-
cised men. Thus, Wevers argues that when the word bodies ()
is the subject of the verb take captive (), it often refers to
slaves (1993, 573). See also Muraoka 2002, 545. That human slaves, like
women, would be considered valuable property makes this a convincing
argument. The next item of booty, i.e., is also dicult. Of its
six occurrences in LXX-G, it renders the Hebrew c:o three times (14:12;
15:14; 31:18) and is translated as chattel. In its other three occurrences
(43:8; 46:5; and here), is the translation for the Hebrew little
ones (qo). Although either meaning would make sense in the present
context, little ones seems more logical in a list that includes people,
rather than property. Thus, the sons would be capturing slaves, children,
and women. They conclude their plundering by taking everything else in
the city and in the houses, a slightly expanded amount from the MT that
only includes everything in the houses (nnn c:o).
Jacob nally speaks. However, instead of supporting his sons revenge
of their sisters delement, he criticizes them for making him a hateful
gure to his neighbors. He fears that they will cut me up (
) and destroy him and all his family. The Greek word is a hapax
legomenon in LXX-G, unlike its MT counterpart smite or strike (no:)
that occurs twelve times. Furthermore, the Greek word more precisely
describes the method of striking. Whether or not this unique rendering
was intentional, the result is ironic. Jacob fears the same fate as the men
of Shechem who had already been cut up and eventually destroyed.
The only response that Simeon and Levi make to their fathers outburst
is a rhetorical question, should they treat our sister like a whore? Both
sides have good points. Jacob, as the patriarch of his family and ultimately
his nation, fears for his own safety. Since the proposal to live permanently
() in the land, rather than as resident aliens never was real-
ized, Jacob is in a tenuous situation. That, combined with the reciprocal
nature of the honor/shame system, makes his fear understandable. On
the other hand, Simeon and Levi have just restored the honor that their
family lost. Since all of the men in Dinahs family neglected their respon-
sibility to protect her by allowing her to walk around unchaperoned in
GENESIS 34:131 381
382 COMMENTARY
a strange land, they did what was necessary to reestablish their honor.
Jacob, perhaps, objects more to the extent to which they reclaimed their
honor. He knows that the cycle of violence would likely continue. Sig-
nicantly, his fears are never realized, or at least, they are not narrated.
Nearly all the future violence will be within the family itself.
35:18 Jacob is on the road again, and again travels at Gods directive.
Perhaps God wants to save Jacob from the revenge he fears in response
to his sons murderous revenge of their sisters delement. This time God
tells him to go up to Bethel (Baithl) and live () there. The neutral
term designates neither a permanent status () nor a resi-
dent alien status (). Yet Gods instruction to built an altar there
suggests the place will serve as a cultic site for Jacob and his descendants.
God also reminds Jacob of his earlier visit to Bethel. At the time, Jacob
was eeing another murderous situation, when God appeared to him for
the rst time and spoke to him in a dream (28:1022). In the dream, God
extended to Jacob the promises of land and progeny he had made earlier
to Abraham and Isaac and he also guaranteed Jacobs safety. When he
awoke, Jacob vowed that God would be his God if God brought him back
safely to his fathers house. Although Jacob has not returned to his fathers
house, God has kept him safe so that he now could live in Gods house,
i.e., Bethel. Unlike the earlier story in which the place name appeared
in translated form ( ), here it is referred to as its actual name.
Jacob sets out to fulll his end of the agreement by declaring God as his
God.
The rst thing Jacob does to honor his agreement is to order all his house-
hold to remove the foreign gods ( ). Inasmuch
as Jacob was never said to have known about Rachels theft of her fathers
household gods, the ones that he assumes his people might possess could
have been part of the booty seized in Shechem. Regardless, Jacob acknowl-
edges but does not condemn the fact that such gods exist. However, those
who have them must give them up. Jacobs demand foreshadows what will
be the central feature of Israels future worship of Lord God and only Lord
God. He also institutes the practice of purication before entering a sacred
space. Finally, he explicitly acknowledges that God heard him, was with
him, and has kept him safe while he was traveling. The use of the imperfect
was traveling () in ALEX and other manuscripts nicely con-
notes Gods continual presence with him on his journey.
His people do as he ordered them and give him their foreign gods. They
also give him their earrings. Jacob takes all of these and hides them under
a terebinth tree that was still in Shechemite territory. The expression
until the present day ( ), added in LXX-G, implies
that they were never unearthed and have always remained buried. Jacob
and his party then leave the area. Jacobs acknowledgment of God, his
foresight in removing the foreign gods, and his peoples obedience likely
pleased God. The fear of God throughout the area enables Jacob and his
household to leave unharmed and without pursuit. Jacobs earlier fears
of being cut up and rubbed out by revengeful Shechemites are now seen
to be unfounded.
Jacob does as God commands; he goes to the place known as Louz, but
which he will name Bethel in honor of Gods earlier appearance to him.
There he builds the altar. However, between building the altar and Gods
theophany, the narrator relates an odd piece of information about the
death of Debbora, his mother Rebekahs nurse. Unlike the MT that men-
tions Rebekahs leaving her home with her nurse (24:59 ,nnp:b), the
LXX-G translator transposed the letters p and : and thus reported that
she left with her possessions (Wevers 1993, 372). Here LXX-G correctly
renders the word as nurse (). LXX-G readers, even more than
MT readers, would have no idea who Debbora is or why her death and
presumed burial are reported in the midst of Jacobs theological activi-
ties. In commenting on Debboras obituary in the MT, Sarna speculates
that the original narrator and readers must have known traditions about
Debbora, one of which must have been associated with the name Jacob
gave the place, i.e., Oak of weeping. However, he also suggests a deeper
purpose. Because she came from Mesopotamia, she might have repre-
sented the idolatry of that region. Much like the foreign gods and the
earrings, she also needed to be removed from the midst of Israel (1989,
241). Although both are plausible explanations for her mention in the MT,
neither would be readily understandable to LXX-G readers.
35:915 God appears again to Jacob, blesses him, conrms his earlier
name change that was declared by an angel, identies himself as God (not
as El Shaddai as MT), and orders him to do what he has told all his cre-
ation since the beginning, i.e., to increase and multiply (1:22; 1:28; 8:17;
9:1; 9:7; 17:20). God goes on to predict, as he had earlier to Abraham (17:6),
that many nations and kings will come from Jacob. He also reiterates the
promise of land that he made both to Abraham and to Isaac. After God
nishes speaking, he departs. Jacob commemorates the theophany by
placing yet another stone pillar to commemorate where God had spoken
to him. Also as he did before (28:18), Jacob anoints the pillar with olive oil.
GENESIS 35:18 & 35:915 383
384 COMMENTARY
In addition, he oers a libation, a cultic act that is only reported here in
Genesis. He then (re)names the place Bethel.
35:1621 Without any command from God, Jacob leaves Bethel and, per
LXX-G, pitches his tent beyond the tower of Gader. Not only is the location
dierent from the MTs tower of Eder (::b), but the timing of his
arrival is also changed from after Rachels death (as in the MT) to after his
departure from Bethel. When he was about a chabratha away from Ephra-
tha, Rachel begins her painful, and ultimately deadly, delivery. Her mid-
wife encourages her by telling her that she is delivering a son. In her dying
breath, Rachel names the boy son of my suering. His father, however,
does not heed her last words; instead he names him Benjamin (Beniamein).
Oddly, LXX-G translates the name she gives the child, i.e., the Hebrew
::n. However, it does not translate Jacobs name for the boy; it merely
transliterates Benjamin (::n) into Greek. Rachel dies and is buried on
the way to Ephratha, which the narrator reports is Bethleem. To mark her
tomb, Jacob places a pillar on it, which, like the location of the hidden gods,
remains until the present day ( ).
Sandwiched between the narration of Rachels death while delivering
Jacobs last son and a report that lists all of Jacobs sons by their respec-
tive mothers is a strange statement about Jacobs rstborn son Reuben.
He is said to have slept with his fathers concubine Balla, an act that Jacob
declares in LXX-G to be evil (). Why this is reported and its sig-
nicance to the overall story is unclear. Sarna oers several possible
explanations (1989, 244245). One is based on a statement in Shabbat 55b
that suggests Reubens incest with the maid of his own mothers sister
and chief rival would have made it impossible for Balla to supplant his
mother as chief wife. Ironically, it was the mandrakes he found earlier that
allowed his mother Leah to cohabit with Jacob and bear additional sons
(30:1416). A second explanation is based on a pre-Islamic Arab custom
that Sarna posits might have existed in Canaanite society, whereby the
rstborn son inherits his fathers wives along with the rest of the estate.
Accordingly, Reuben is laying claim prematurely to what eventually will
be rightfully his. Yet another possibility is that possessing the concubine
of either ones father or ones defeated enemy is a sign of the usurpers
legitimacy and authority. Sarna concludes that Reubens act was more
political than lustful (1989, 245) and could represent Reubens attempt
to take over leadership of Israels tribes. That he was not successful is
implied in his fathers later deathbed blessing in which Jacob castigates
Reuben for his angry and violent nature (49:34). Whatever the reason,
Reuben followed the other rstborn sons Ishmael and Esau in losing their
right of primogeniture as a result of an inappropriate sexual partner.
35:2229 Despite Reubens behavior, he is still part of the family and is
acknowledged as Jacobs rstborn son in the following report that lists
Jacobs twelve sons according to their mothers. Probably because she was
mother of Jacobs rst sons, Leah and her six sons are mentioned rst,
while Rachel and her two sons are next. To represent their lesser status,
the two maidservants and their two sons are mentioned last. These were
born to Jacob, per LXX-G, in Mesopotamia.
The chapter ends with the report of Isaacs death. Despite the fact that
everyone assumed that blind Isaac was dying twenty years earlier when
he bestowed his blessing on Jacob, Isaac had not died. Perhaps with both
quarreling sons out of the house, he led a more peaceful existence. Iron-
ically, Jacob nally ends up where God expected him to go, i.e., to his
fathers house. After having lived 180 years, he is buried by his two sons
Esau and Jacob. Their fathers presumed deathbed blessing led to their
separation; his nal death causes them to come together again.
36:18 After Esau and Jacob reconcile their dierences and come
together to bury their father, Esau leaves the story. In much the same
way the narrator marked the occasion of Ishmaels departure from the
ancestral story after his father Abrahams death by means of a geneal-
ogy (25:1218), he does so again for Esau after his father Isaacs death.
Like all genealogies, there are many spelling dierences among the many
Greek manuscripts. However, there are many other diculties in Esaus
genealogy as noted below. Both Ishmael and Esau were the rstborn sons
in their families, but neither was Gods choice to inherit the covenantal
promise of blessings, land, and progeny. Ishmaels genealogy showed that
God delivered on the consolation prize he promised to Ishmael (17:20).
He became the father of twelve nations. Despite the fact that God did not
make a similar promise to Esau, his prediction to Rebekah that the nation
associated with the elder son would serve that of the younger son implied
parallel legacies for the two boys. Jacob would become the eponymous
ancestor of the nation of Israel; Esau would become the eponymous ances-
tor of the Edomites. His genealogy begins by equating Esau and Edom
(v. 1), concludes with it (v. 43), and mentions it at various points through-
out (vv. 8, 9, 19).
The genealogy begins with the names and origins of Esaus three
Canaanite wives. Yet, as in the MT, the information about his wives in
GENESIS 35:1621 & 36:18 385
386 COMMENTARY
the genealogy is quite dierent than that reported earlier. Here they are
referred to as Ada, the daughter of Elom the Hittite (Chettite), Olibema,
the daughter of Ana who is further described in LXX-G as the son of Sebe-
gon the Hivite (Heuite) (but cf. MT where Ana is said to be the daugh-
ter of Sebegon), and Basemmath, Ishmaels daughter. Of the three, only
Basemmath was reported earlier to be one of his wives (26:34). However,
there ALEX reported her name to be Masemmath, and she was described
as the daughter of Ailon the Hivite. Here she is said to be the daughter
of Ishmael, whereas earlier his daughter whom Esau married was named
Maeleth (28:9). Neither Olibama nor her family is mentioned in any other
place. Finally, Esau was reported to have married Ioudin, daughter of
Beer the Hittite (26:34). She is not mentioned here. Therefore, it is appar-
ent that the nationalities of Esaus wives are more important than their
names. That all of his wives, whatever their names, are foreign emphasize
Esaus deviance from the endogamous standard in Genesis, which is the
reason he is banished from the story.
Their names and nationalities aside, Esaus wives bear him ve sons.
Ada bears Eliphas; Basemmath bears Ragouel; and Olibema bears Ieous,
Ieglom, and Kore. Esaus genealogy continues with a brief itinerary. Esau
leaves Canaan, per LXX-G, for Seeir with his entire family and all his pos-
sessions, both material and human. The reason that the narrator gives
for his departure is the same as that given when Lot and Abraham went
their separate ways (13:6). Jacob and Esau together have so many pos-
sessions that there is not enough room for them in the same land. Now,
as before, the reason seems contrived. Esau was already living in Seeir
before Jacob returned from Mesopotamia (32:3; 33:14, 16). Perhaps, as
Sarna suggests, Esau lived in both Canaan and Seeir from time to time
(1989, 249). However, with Jacob/Israel ocially home, Esau/Edom now
must leave Canaan permanently.
36:919 The next part of the genealogy repeats some of the earlier
information and adds to it. It reports the names of Esaus ten grandsons,
four of which were fathered by Ragouel and six of which were fathered
by Eliphas. Amalek, one of these six, was the son of Eliphass concubine
Thamna. Ironically, she is the only mother of Esaus grandsons who is
identied; none of Esaus sons wives are named. Presumably, none of
Olibemas three sons fathered any children. Instead the genealogy merely
the repeats the names of her sons mentioned above (v. 5).
The genealogy continues by repeating the names of the sons and
grandsons listed above. Now, however, they are identied as chieftains
(), presumably leaders of particular social or political units simi-
lar to clans or tribes. Unlike the twelve tribes or nations associated with
the Nahorites (22:2024), the Ishmaelites (25:1316), and the Israelites,
the Edomites appear to have thirteen tribes. Kore, however, is identi-
ed as a chieftain twice once incorrectly as one of Eliphass sons and
later correctly with his brothers. Amalek is also considered a chieftain,
despite his status as son of a concubine. Another oddity in this part of
the genealogy in LXX-G is the association of Eliphass ospring with Idu-
mea (Idoumeia), rather than Edom. Every other aspect of the genealogy
emphasizes the Esau/Edom connection. Why LXX-G would depart from
the MT in such a critical detail in v. 16 and not do so in v. 17 is hard to
understand. Wevers speculates that the LXX-G translator must have iden-
tied Edom with Idumea, which in the third century B.C.E. referred to
the desert area of the Negeb region, which was south of Judah. Edom was
also a desert area. However, it was located south of Moab (1993, 597). Hess
similarly maintains that it might have been dicult for the translator
to distinguish the two areas. He points to archaeological evidence that
shows Edoms penetration of Judah in the early sixth century B.C.E., after
which Idumea emerged with an eclectic culture that combined Israelite
and Edomite inuence (personal communication).
This part of the genealogy concludes by again identifying Esau with
Edom.
36:2030 The next part of the genealogy describes the sons of Seeir,
who is referred to as the Chorrite and the inhabitant () of
the land before Esaus family arrived. Inasmuch as refers to
a permanent resident, it is likely that Esaus family, as reported in Deuter-
onomy 2:12, invaded the area and gradually absorbed these earlier Chor-
rites into one nation Edom (Sarna 1989, 251; Westermann 1985, 564). The
genealogy includes three generations beginning with Seeir himself. He
had seven sons and twenty grandsons. His genealogy also includes two
women. Thamna is said to be a sister of Lotan, one of Seeirs sons, and
Olibema is said to be a daughter of Ana, another of Seeirs sons. The rea-
son for their inclusion seems obvious. Both women connect the original
inhabitants to the newcomers. Olibema was one of Esaus wives; Thamna
was Eliphass concubine. One peculiarity in this part of the genealogy is
the dierent spelling in v. 24 of one of the sons of Sebegon. He is rst
referred to as Onan. Then, as an added note, ALEX and most other manu-
scripts report that this one is the Onas who founded . The capi-
talization of in Swetes edition of ALEX implies that he associated
GENESIS 36:919 & 36:2030 387
388 COMMENTARY
it with a particular geographic location, instead of what the MT described
as springs. Of all of Seeirs ospring, only his seven sons, not his grand-
children, are said to be chieftains.
36:3143 Esaus genealogy concludes with a king list similar to those of
other ancient cultures including Sumer, Babylon, and Assyria. As Sarna
notes, the lack of uniformity in the details associated with each of the
eight kings indicates that the list was likely gathered from a variety of
Edomite sources and is not inclusive (1989, 409). Nevertheless, this com-
posite nature that includes both royal historical information (i.e., the
names of the kings and where they reigned), as well as a few narrative
comments (e.g., Hadads defeat of Madiam/Midian), is one feature that
makes Esaus genealogy parallel to the Sumerian King List, which com-
bines information from both historical lists and epical texts (Oppen-
heim 1969, 265). Hess notes that another parallel feature of both Esaus
genealogy and the Sumerian King List is the movement from one city to
another. As such, the dierent names here could point to the appear-
ance of dierent Edomite dynasties, as is the case with the Sumerian
King List (personal communication). Westermann also comments on the
political function of this unique biblical royal list. It provides some his-
torical clues about an emerging political organization in which one man
becomes the sole leader of a group of people and reigns until he dies.
Although the fathers of some of the kings are included in the list, they are
not described as prior kings. Thus what is represented is not a dynastic
monarchy. Instead, the organization appears to indicate an early form of
kingship, like that of the biblical Saul, whereby each succeeding king is
elected and serves with his own administration (1985, 565).
The list begins with an historical note. These kings are said to have
reigned in Edom before any reigned, per ALEX, in Jerusalem (
); nearly all other Greek manuscripts read in Israel, which is
closer to the MTs reigned over the Israelites ((:b :c :n:). ALEXs
rendering, as Wevers maintains, represents a local interpretation due
to misreading a possible abbreviation in its parent text (1993, 604). In any
case, the point is that Edom seemed to have developed an early monarchy
before Israel. Nevertheless, biblical history indicates that Esau the elder
eventually served Israel the younger when David made Edom a vassal
state (see e.g., 2 Sam. 8:1314).
The list itself contains the names of eight kings, but has no standard
formula. The information about the last king Harath is most complete in
that it includes the name of his father, where he ruled, the name of his
wife, and her lineage. Here LXX-G adds the fathers name to the informa-
tion reported in the MT. Only one king is credited with anything other
than reigning. Hadad is said to have cut down Madiam (Midian) in Moab.
Two kings have both their fathers name and their capital city reported
(Balak and Iobad); three have only their capital city reported (Hasom, Sal-
ama, and Saoul); and one (Balaennon) has only his fathers name recorded.
In each of these except that of Harath noted above, LXX-G follows the MT
and neither adds to nor omits any information. Nevertheless, the myriad
of variant spellings in the Greek manuscripts, combined with dierent
transcription patterns, makes it dicult to establish historical accuracy.
The genealogy concludes with yet another list of eleven chieftains of
Esaus tribes. It purports to be according to place, region, and nation; how-
ever, none of this information is included. Instead, only their names are
reported. Furthermore, nearly all the names are dierent from those pre-
viously mentioned above. The only names that are the same are Thamna,
the family associated with Eliphass concubine, Thaiman, and Kenez. Like
the king list, this last list of chieftains might not be historically accurate
but it does oer a glimpse of a tribal form of political organization by
geographic area associated with later nations. It concludes as it began,
with the identication of the biblical Esau with the nation of Edom.
37:111 The novella known as the Joseph Narrative (Genesis 3750) con-
cludes the story of the rst family of Israel. Not only does it incorporate
some of the same themes found earlier in LXX-G, it also includes other
motifs characteristic of many well-told stories. There is suspense, irony,
and romance embedded in a plot that features sibling rivalry, unwanted
aection, false charges, a heroic rise to power, a recognition scene, fam-
ily survival, and ultimate redemption. This masterful story begins with
a statement that shows Gods fulllment of his promise of land to his
chosen people. Jacob is now a permanent resident () in the land
of Canaan, where his father Isaac and his father before him had only
sojourned () as resident aliens. The stage is then set for the
story of Jacobs immediate descendants.
As in the other family stories in Genesis, this story focuses not on the
rstborn son, but on a favored younger son, in this case, Joseph. At seven-
teen, Joseph is shepherding with his half-brothers Dan, Naphtali, Gad,
and Asher who were born to Jacobs secondary wives. The bad report
about Joseph that they bring back to their father shows the continuation
of sibling rivalry that is a major motif of this story. It recalls the earlier
rivalry between other siblings as well as the rivalries between Jacobs
GENESIS 36:3143 & 37:111 389
390 COMMENTARY
wives. ALEXs plural verb they brought back (), in marked
contrast with the singular verb in both the Hebrew text and other Greek
manuscripts, makes it impossible for Joseph to be the one who brought
back a bad report. Thus, the brothers are portrayed as the tattletales,
while Joseph avoids what is usually the rst indication of his immaturity.
At this point, he is merely the younger brother who is the object of his
half-brothers mean-spiritedness. Despite the bad report, Joseph is said to
be their fathers favorite.
Given Jacobs preference of Rachel over his other wives, it is odd that
Jacob favors Joseph because of his birth order, i.e., the child of his old age,
rather than his birth mother. Regardless of reason, Jacob demonstrates
his favoritism by giving Joseph a multicolored tunic ( ).
The renowned coat of many colors is based on LXX-Gs description, not
on the Hebrew original that describes the coat as ooc n:no, a phrase
whose precise meaning is debated. The diculty is not with n:no, which
means tunic, but with ooc. The singular oc can mean a palm of the
hand or the sole of a foot (BDB). The only other occurrence of the phrase
ooc n:no in the Hebrew Bible refers to Davids daughter Tamars cloth-
ing, which is described as a garment worn by virgin daughters of a king
(2 Sam. 13:1819). Thus, Josephus rendering of a long-sleeved tunic reach-
ing to the ankle ( Jewish Antiquities VII. 171) seems tting. Royal virgin
daughters likely would be clothed modestly, with little esh showing.
Why would the LXX-G translator have rendered the Hebrew n:no
ooc with the very dierent a many-colored tunic ( )? He
might not have wanted to describe Joseph in an unmanly way by having
him wear a womans garment. Sarna, however, proposes another solu-
tion. He notes that an ancient Egyptian tomb painting dated to approxi-
mately 1900 B.C.E. shows a Semitic clan wearing multicolored tunics that
were draped over one shoulder and extended below the knee. Another
painting depicts Syrian ambassadors dressed even more modestly in long
robes that were wrapped around the body and over the shoulders (1989,
255). Perhaps the Alexandrian translator knew of the traditions behind
these paintings and characterized this less troublesome type of garment
as that worn by the Semite Joseph.
In any case, Josephs colorful garment signies his elevated status and
serves as a visual reminder of Jacobs bias. What follows continues to
highlight Josephs preferential status. Departing from the MT, LXX-G uses
two dierent words to translate the Hebrew word for love (nn). From
Jacobs point of view (v. 3), he loved () Joseph more than his broth-
ers. From the brothers point of view (v. 4), however, Jacob showed love
for () Joseph more than he did for them. LXX-Gs use of two dier-
ent Greek words, both present indicatives, to translate the stative Hebrew
verb nn is curious. Although the translator on many occasions used dif-
ferent Greek words to render the same Hebrew word, the reason for
doing so was assumed to be stylistic. However, in this context, the change
from in v. 3 to in v. 4 appears more semantically deliberate.
Muraoka makes two observations about general LXX translation tenden-
cies: that the more common LXX translation of nn is , and that
, where it takes a human direct object, most often translates the
Hebrew word for kiss (pc:). He goes on to speculate, based on its use
in the LXX of Prov. 8:17, that in v. 4 reects a feeling of preference
(2001, 1617). The distinction, as shown in the above translation, could
also reect the more outward demonstration of love that would be asso-
ciated with the act of kissing. As such, it was not only that Jacob loved
Joseph more than his brothers. They also could see the evidence of their
fathers preferential love for Joseph in the special garment he made for
him. As a result, his brothers hate him so much that they cannot say any-
thing nice to him. Thus, the bad report that his half-brothers bring back
about Joseph seems more understandable.
Josephs dreams suggest that he has internalized his most-favored
status, and his sharing of them makes his brothers hate him even more.
They interpret his rst dream in which their sheaves worship Josephs
as signifying his presumed superiority over them. The verb to be king
() is a literal translation of the Hebrew verb (:b. All other occur-
rences of the Greek in Genesis appear in the previous chapter
where their subjects are actual kings. Furthermore, all occurrences of
the Hebrew (:b are translated as . This consistency is not the
case for the other verb that characterizes the brothers interpretation of
Josephs dream. As a translation for the Hebrew to rule (:cb),
(to be lord or master or to exercise dominion) only appears in con-
texts in which there is a relationship of superiority and dominance. For
example, Eve/Zoes husband is to be her lord (3:16), and humans are to
have dominion over the earth (1:28; 9:1). In every other place in Genesis,
the Hebrew :cb is translated by the more neutral to rule (). Thus,
the brothers interpret the bowing down of their sheaves to Josephs as a
literal act of worship by inferior subjects of their superior king and lord.
His brothers, however, are not the only ones to resent Josephs dreams.
After he relates the second dream, in which the sun, moon, and eleven
stars bow down to him, his father questions whether the dream implies
that all the family father, mother, and brothers will worship him. The
GENESIS 37:111 391
392 COMMENTARY
construction of his question lacks the negative () form, so it need not
have a negative answer. Yet, the very fact that Josephs mother is not alive
makes it impossible for the dream to be fullled as Jacob interpreted it.
Nevertheless, both dreams imply that Joseph sees himself as worthy of
worship in all spheres, earthly and heavenly, and by all his family. The
rhetorical questions of his brothers and father ironically foreshadow the
later events of the story, when all his brothers will indeed bow down to
him. At this point in the story, however, Jacob is beginning to see poten-
tial trouble among his sons.
37:1236 Regardless of Jacobs earlier intent to keep watch over the sib-
ling rivalry among his sons, his command that Joseph check up on his
brothers and the sheep in order to tattletale against them would most
likely escalate the hostility toward Joseph. As above, ALEX uses two dif-
ferent Greek verbs to translate the same Hebrew verb, here the verb to
shepherd (n). Again these dierences oer an added dimension to the
narratives plot. The brothers go to Shechem, approximately 50 miles/
80 kilometers from Hebron, to feed () their fathers sheep. But
Jacob assumes that they are tending () the sheep. Tend-
ing implies more than just feeding the sheep; it also suggests watching
over them and protecting them. Joseph, however, knows his brothers and
asks the man where the brothers are feeding the sheep (v. 16). Jacobs
suspicions seem justied when it is reported that the brothers had left
Shechem and gone to Dothan, 15 miles/22 kilometers north of Shechem.
The brothers might be feeding the sheep, but they were not tending them.
The mysterious man who knows Josephs brothers and their whereabouts
shows Gods providential hand in the story, the rst of several instances
in the Joseph story of God-in-the-margins.
Now, the point of view changes from that of Joseph, who is about to
nd them in Dothan, to that of his brothers, who see him coming before
he sees them. At this point in the story, the brothers have the advantage
of initial visual recognition. The sight of him makes them want to kill him.
Unlike most Greek manuscripts that translate the Hebrews deal knav-
ishly with (::o:n) with act maliciously (), ALEX uses go,
journey (). Although the majority translation seems closer
semantically to the Hebrew, ALEXs captures the sense of the brothers
antipathy towards Joseph. They were not just acting maliciously, they
were actually going to kill Joseph. In seeming unison, the brothers now
voice their intentions to kill the dreamer. By referring to Joseph as the
dreamer, the brothers show their continuing resentment of the implica-
tions of Josephs dreams. Furthermore, by not acknowledging his status
as brother, they distance themselves from him and from the implications
of fratricide. In addition, they come up with a convenient scapegoat for
the cause of Josephs demise, i.e., a wild animal.
At this point in the story, the brothers begin to distinguish themselves
by speaking as individuals. The rst brother to do so is Reuben, Jacobs
rstborn, who metaphorically rescues Joseph from the hands of the
brothers by rejecting the plan to kill Joseph outright. His desire to avoid
spilling Josephs blood alludes to the rst biblical fratricide, i.e., Cains
killing of Abel. Furthermore, it acknowledges Gods prohibition against
spilling blood (9:6). If they were to spill Josephs blood, they would be
liable of having their own blood spilled by someone else. Thus, Reuben
seems to be motivated by the avoidance of punishment. However, his real
intentions are revealed in what he does not tell his brothers. He plans to
physically rescue Joseph from the pit and take him back to Jacob. Reuben
here demonstrates his responsibility as rstborn son.
When Joseph arrives on the scene, the brothers again act in unison.
They strip him of the multicolor tunic, the symbol of his preferential
treatment and thus their hatred of him. Then, taking Reubens advice,
they throw him into a waterless pit, but they do not kill him. However,
they show their callousness by sitting down to a meal after having just
thrown their hated brother into a pit. They look up to see Ishmaelite trav-
elers, their camels loaded with spices, on their way from Gilead to Egypt.
This prompts Judah to propose yet another plan to dispose of Joseph. Like
Reuben, he wants to avoid killing Joseph outright. Even if they were to
cover up their crime and avoid the possible punishment for killing him,
they stand to gain nothing. Selling him to the Ishmaelites would not only
rid them of Joseph, but it would also bring them a prot. Despite Judahs
greedy motive, he is the rst of the brothers to acknowledge Joseph as
their own esh and blood. Perhaps fratricide, whether or not the crime
could be concealed, was too much for him. In any case, the brothers listen
to what he says when the traders, now specically identied as Midian-
ites, come upon them.
At this point in the story, conicting details in the plot become appar-
ent. The brothers see Ishmaelite travelers o in the distance. When they
get closer, they are identied as Midianite traders. As with the story of
Noah, such seeming inconsistencies are thought by some scholars to be
the result of the nal editors splicing together two separate traditions
into one story. One tradition relates the story about Reuben and the Midi-
anites, while the other focuses on Judah and the Ishmaelites. This latter
GENESIS 37:1236 393
394 COMMENTARY
tradition, source critics contend, has been inserted at vv. 25b27, and 28b.
Without these verses, the plot would be less confusing. After throwing
Joseph into the pit, the brothers have a meal. They see Midianite traders
passing by, but pay no attention. Only later (v. 29) do they realize that
Joseph is no longer in the pit. According to this scenario, the Midian-
ites see Joseph in the pit, rescue him, and eventually sell him in Egypt
(v. 36). The Judah tradition, on the other hand, tells the story of Ishmael-
ites who are journeying from Gilead to Egypt with spices to sell. Seeing
them gives Judah the idea of selling Joseph. Skipping over 28a, the Judah
tradition continues by narrating the details of the sale. The brothers take
him out of the pit and sell him to the Ishmaelites, who take Joseph to
Egypt (28b).
This source critical hypothesis, proposed by Westermann (1986, 4142)
and others, is a viable explanation for the Hebrew text. It claries the
ambiguous subjects of the latter four third person plural verbs in v. 28.
The subject of the rst verbal action in 28a (passing by) is clearly the
Midianite traders. With the insertion of the Judah tradition, the third
person plural subjects (they) of the next three verbs (drew up, brought
out, sold) are presumed to be the brothers. The nal third person plural
verb (brought down) then refers to the Ishmaelites. E. J. Revell, how-
ever, takes exception to the source critical solution and instead argues, as
have others, that the terms Midianites and Ishmaelites are merely dier-
ent names for the same group. He goes on to show that the narrator was
neither inconsistent nor inaccurate. Rather, he used the dierent terms
intentionally for specic purposes. Midianites, the more common biblical
designation, was the term used by the narrator when the noun was the
subject of the clause and the members of the group were active agents;
Ishmaelites, a much less common designation, was used by the narrator
when the noun was not the subject and the group was seen from the per-
spective of other characters (2001, 7475).
Revells argument also can be applied to LXX-G, but the source criti-
cal explanation fails. Unlike the MTs unarticulated description of the
Midianites as Midian men traders (oo o:b oc:), the Greek
text's inclusion of the denite article the () before the three nouns
in v. 28a (, , and ) makes it impossible to
distinguish between the Midianites and the Ishmaelites. By specifying
the men and the Midianites and the traders, ALEX and most other
major Greek manuscripts presume that these men already have been
introduced in the story. Thus, the Midianite traders must be the same
as the Ishmaelite travelers, an identication that Wevers also suggests
(1993, 625). Euan Fry similarly opines that Midianite and Ishmaelite were
both considered general terms for the nomadic people who descended
from Abraham (1995, 446). Abrahams son Midiam by his concubine Chet-
toura (25:2) would become the eponymous ancestor of the Midianites,
and Hagars son Ishmael would become the eponymous ancestor of the
Ishmaelites. The Midianites are the obvious subject of the rst verb pass-
ing by (, imperfect third person plural) in the Greek text.
However, the tense of the next verb drew out () changes to
aorist, suggesting that the subject of the verb might also have changed.
In the Greek text, it is the storys plot, not a source critical hypothesis,
that makes it possible that the subject of this and the following two verbs
brought up and sold ( and ) could be the brothers.
The last verb brought down() in v. 28, although still an aorist,
must have yet another subject, i.e., the Ishmaelites. They paid, per LXX-G,
twenty gold pieces, rather than MTs twenty silver pieces. As Hiebert notes,
the translator knew that the average price for a slave in his day and time
was higher than MTs price and thus made the appropriate adjustment
(2000, 88).
Reuben, presumably not with his other brothers when they take Joseph
from the pit and sell him to the Ishmaelites, returns and is distraught
when he discovers that Joseph is missing. He does not know where to go
to nd him. The other brothers ignore his distress and proceed with their
initial plan of claiming that Joseph was devoured by a wicked beast. As in
Chapter 22, God-in-the-margins again provides a substitute victim. They
nd a goat to sacrice so that they can smear its blood on Josephs tunic
and then feign innocence or ignorance when they take the bloody
tunic back to their father for him to identify. The intensity of the broth-
ers jealousy can be seen in their inability to even speak Josephs name.
Nor do they refer to him as their brother. Rather, they ask their father
to determine whether or not the bloody tunic belongs to his son. The
insensitive way in which they make their father aware of Josephs fate
could be a type of revenge for Jacobs favoritism toward Joseph. If so, they
must be pleased by Jacobs response.
Making the assumption that his sons want him to make, Jacob attri-
butes Josephs fate to a wild beast. The improbability of a beast eating
Joseph but leaving his tunic does not occur to either father or sons. Nei-
ther want to acknowledge the more likely probability of fratricide. Like
Reuben earlier, Jacob responds to Josephs disappearance by tearing his
clothes. Then, assuming that Joseph actually died, Jacob proceeds to
mourn him in the typical manner by putting sackcloth on his body. His
GENESIS 37:1236 395
396 COMMENTARY
sons and daughters show concern for their father by attempting to con-
sole him. However, they do not mourn Joseph. The sons do not know, nor
do they likely care, if Joseph is dead or alive. Perhaps sensing their indif-
ference, Jacob takes no comfort in their eorts of consolation. Instead,
he continues to show his favoritism by preferring to be with Joseph in
Hades, the realm of the dead, than with the rest of his sons and daughters
in the land of the living. Ironically, Jacob will indeed follow his son not
to Hades, but to Egypt.
The chapter ends by conrming Josephs fate. The Midianites sell
Joseph to Potiphar (Petephrs), who is introduced to the story as a
eunuch () of Pharaoh (Phara), who is also described as a chief
butcher (). The meaning of both these terms, and their MT
counterparts oo for and onon c for has
been debated. A brief survey of several English translations of the Hebrew
phrase c nc oo onon is representative of the dierences. Sarna
renders the phrase as a courtier of Pharaoh and chief steward (1989,
263), while Westermann translates it as one of Pharaoh's chamberlains,
head of the bodyguard (1986, 37). Alters Pharaohs courtier, the high
chamberlain (1996, 216) combines aspects from both Sarna and Wester-
mann, while Von Rads an ocer of Pharaoh, the captain of the guard
(1972, 349) captures the essence of both the above. None of these schol-
ars, and only one major English translation (NEB), renders the Hebrew
oo as eunuch.
The reasons that most translators avoid the term eunuch when refer-
ring to Potiphar are both philological and functional. As Sarna explains,
the Hebrew oo derives from the Akkadian a-rei, meaning of the head
and refers to a high court ocial. He and others note that the Mesopo-
tamian custom of castrating these types of ocials resulted in the term
oo acquiring the sense of eunuch. However, he goes on to say that
some Akkadian texts show that not all who were called oo were emas-
culated, especially those who had no contact with the kings harem. He
also doubts that Egypt had a similar custom (1989, 263), as do both Don-
ald Redford (1992, 425) and Gerald Kadish, who speculate that Potiphars
characterization as a eunuch might have been inuenced by the motif of
castration in the Egyptian Tale of Two Brothers (1969, 57, 62). Pter-
Contesse notes that castration in the ANE most likely originated as a
punishment inicted on prisoners, but may have been extended to other
people on whom a ruler entrusted particular duties such as overseer of
the harem (1996, 142). Hayim Tadmor addresses a common objection that
Potiphar, a married man and possibly the father of Aseneth, could not be
a eunuch and then dismisses it by oering evidence that eunuchs in later
empires (e.g., Achaemenid Persia and Byzantium) did indeed marry and
adopt children. He goes on to suggest that even if, as Kadish and Redford
maintain, no evidence exists for eunuchs in the Pharonic court, the bibli-
cal story was written by a Hebrew speaker and addressed to an Israelite
audience (1995, 321). Thus, the writer and the audience might neither
know nor care about historical accuracy. Instead, they would read it as a
good story about the morally upright Joseph.
The meaning of the second Hebrew two-word term onon c is
slightly less problematic. There is no doubt that the rst word c means
chief. However, the second word onon could refer to a cook, slaugh-
terer, or executioner. Hiebert notes that the Hebrew onon c and cor-
responding Aramaic term non n derived from roots that referred to
being a butcher or cook, but developed into a title for someone charged
with matters of royal security. Its LXX-G rendering , Hiebert
maintains, literally reproduces the surface meaning of the Hebrew/Ara-
maic terms (2004, 76). But, he asks, did the translator use it in the sense
of cook or executioner. After reviewing the use of the term
in Greek texts contemporaneous with LXX-G, Hiebert sees no evidence
that the term was used to refer to a security ocial. Hence, he prefers the
term chief butcher, which is the translation here.
Hiebert also examines the other term describing Potiphar, i.e.,
, and argues that this word in 37:36 and another word
that later refers to Potiphar (39:1) and other Egyptian ocials (40:2, 7)
both designated a eunuch in literature prior to or contemporaneous with
LXX-G (2004, 7778). LSJ (1968, 1623) and Muraoka (2002, 517) oer no
translation for the Greek word other than eunuch and refer
to this verse as one reference of the terms use. Other texts noted by LSJ
(1968, 1623) in which refers to a castrated male include the
fourth century B.C.E. orator Isaeus (Isaeus 39.7), the second century B.C.E.
Polybius (Fragments 28.21.5), and the late rst and early second century
C.E. Plutarch (Demetrius 25). Furthermore, all other words with the same
root refer or allude to castration (e.g., is a torn o branch and
means to make accid or emasculate). Hiebert also notes that
in some texts the focus is on the physical state of a male who has been
castrated or is impotent; in others (particularly involving ) it is
applied to an individual who may (or may not) be a physical eunuch but
is (also) an ocial in the royal court (2004, 7778). Because both Greek
GENESIS 37:1236 397
398 COMMENTARY
words appear in the Joseph Narrative, Hiebert uses two dierent English
words to translate them in his NETS translation of Genesis, namely geld-
ing for and eunuch for (2004, 7778). However, inas-
much as there seems to be no explicit dierence in meaning, both words
in this volume are rendered eunuch.
This evidence suggests that the LXX-G translator understood Potiphar
to be a castrated male. The reluctance on the part of modern translators
to refer to Potiphar as a eunuch certainly was not an issue in the rst
translation of the Hebrew text. In fact, it makes it easier to understand
and perhaps appreciate why later in the story Potiphars wife lusts after
the handsome young Joseph.
38:130 At this point, the Joseph Narrative digresses with a brief story
about Judah, one of two of Josephs brothers who wanted to avoid fratricide
and the only one who would even acknowledge Joseph as their brother.
For some unknown reason, Judah separates himself from the rest of his
brothers and travels south to Adullam, an area that would later be within
the land assigned to the tribe of Judah. Presumably, he chooses Adullam
because it was the home of Hirah (Heiras), an otherwise unknown Adul-
lamite, who, we learn later in the story, works as a shepherd for Judah
(v. 12). Sometime after arriving at his new location, Judah sees and mar-
ries a Canaanite woman named Saua who, unlike most of Judahs female
kin, has no problem conceiving. ALEX and other Greek texts here depart
from the MT that identied her as the daughter of Saua. Not only does
she have a name, she also does the naming of all her sons, not just the
second and third as in the Hebrew text. Saua, as a character in the story,
has a stronger presence than her Hebrew counterpart.
Judah, on the other hand, is credited only with taking her and going
into her (v. 2). This rash act, in the context of the larger ancestral nar-
rative, could have severe consequences. Not only has Judah separated
himself from the rest of his family, he also seems to be separating him-
self from the covenantal promise. Earlier, God showed his preference for
sons like Isaac and Jacob who were born to and eventually married to
women within the patrilineage of Terah. Judahs marriage to the Canaan-
ite Saua, thus, represents a challenge to the earlier tradition and fore-
shadows a more tolerant attitude toward intermarriage. However, at this
point in the story, Judahs behavior and status are questionable. Never-
theless, Judah does what a good father should do and takes a wife for his
rstborn son Er. We are told that her name is Tamar (Thamar) and can
only assume that she is a Canaanite woman. For some unknown evil act,
God puts Judahs rstborn Er to death. At this point, Judah is more con-
cerned about future ospring than he is about his rst sons death. In his
rst words in the story, Judah orders his second born Aunan to perform
what later becomes known as levirate marriage (Deut. 25:57), a custom
whereby the brother of a deceased man is obligated to provide ospring
to his dead brothers childless widow. Because levirate marriage was a
Semite custom, no Greek word existed for the practice. Therefore, the
translator created a new word act as a brother-in-law (), a
hapax legomenon in the LXX. Aunan would go into Tamar, but would spill
his seed on the ground for selsh reasons. For this evil act, God also put
Aunan to death.
Judah, unaware of Gods role in his sons deaths, blames Tamar and ban-
ishes her to her fathers house until his third son Shelah (Slm) is older.
This second command out of Judahs mouth appears to continue his rep-
resentation as one who observes both the social (returning Tamar to her
fathers house) and legal (promising her his third son when he is older)
mores of his world. Tamar also performs her social role; she quietly does
as she is told. However, a more thorough analysis of Judahs directive to
Tamar suggests that he is now beginning to bend the rules of his paternal
responsibilities relative to Tamars widowhood. Other ANE laws dene a
widow as a woman without a husband, son, or father-in-law to provide
for her. If these Middle Assyrian laws had parallels in Israel, Judah would
be shirking his duties. The narrator seems to reinforce this possibility
with a comment that reects Judahs real concern, namely lest that one
(Shelah) also be put to death like his brothers (v. 11b). This laconic and
unusual bit of motive-attributing narrative signals the start of Judahs
character reversal. Fear for his third sons life causes him to stray from
his former position of unquestioning and unhesitating obedience.
From this point in the story, Judahs actions become increasingly
suspect and the roles of the two main characters begin to change. Like
Tamar, Judahs spouse dies. Fortunately, Tamar could not be blamed
for her death, since she was no longer living with the family. Unlike his
father Jacob who could not be comforted when he assumed that Joseph
had died (37:35), Judah was comforted and resumes his shepherds life. He
and Hirah his shepherd (pointed in the MT to read friend [:n c ] but the
consonantal text could also read shepherd) go up to some unspecied
location to join the rest of the sheepherders. Meanwhile Tamar receives
an anonymous message that reports Judahs activities, as well as his loca-
tion, i.e., Thamna. She then takes action, abandoning her role as a widow
by removing her widows garments. Then, according to LXX-G, she made
GENESIS 38:130 399
400 COMMENTARY
herself beautiful. The Greek verb make beautiful () rep-
resents Tamar as bolder in her actions than does the Hebrew verb cover
herself (q:nn). In fact, making oneself beautiful is almost the opposite
of covering oneself. There would be little reason to make oneself beauti-
ful only to cover up that beauty, unless, as Karel van der Toorn indicates,
the veil covered only part of the face and left the eyes and cheeks exposed
(1995, 328). Here Tamar puts on a disguise rst to attract Judah and then
later to deceive Judah and deprive him of what is rightfully his his ring,
signet, and sta. This is a tting response to his earlier action of having
deprived her of what was rightfully hers his youngest son Shelah.
LXX-Gs representation of Tamar as more aggressive also serves to make
Judahs proposition more understandable. He thought her to be a prosti-
tute because she had covered her face. Yet, as many scholars have noted,
a Middle Assyrian law (A 40) prohibited prostitutes from veiling (Sarna
1989, 268). Rather, as van der Toorn writes, veiling in the ANE was more
often associated with higher class marriageable women whose bride-
price had been paid (1995, 329, 336). As such, Tamar herself is declaring
her imminent encounter with Judah as form of marriage, for which she
herself has already paid a part. From Judahs perspective, it is unlikely
that he would have considered a veiled woman by the side of the road a
good marriage prospect. However, he might have associated the veil with
a woman of relatively high status but without the corresponding moral
sensibility and felt it acceptable to begin negotiations. LXX-G goes fur-
ther to mitigate Judahs actions by adding the comment that he did not
recognize her, a comment that is repeated with even more clarication
in the next verse. Yet even this slight upgrade in Judahs character in no
way negates the reversal of roles that occurs during their negotiations.
At the beginning of their dialogue, Tamar is in a marginal position on
the side of the road, while Judah is in control. The reversal of their roles
is evident both in what they say and how they say it. Judah begins with
a demand from a position of authority (allow me to come into you),
while Tamar responds with a question whereby she seeks to improve her
position (what will you give me . . .?). He answers with a statement (a
kid goat) that represents a balancing in their relationship. Tamar has
learned not to trust Judah and might be wondering, per LXX-G, why and
how he promises a goat from the sheep. Although she responds to his
statement with a statement of her own, its implied demand shows the
balance of power to be shifting to her (if you give me a pledge . . .). Judah
now asks a question (what pledge?), and Tamar answers with another
implicit demand that shows her shrewdness. Her demand for his sig-
net, cord, and sta shows that she intends to take control of his iden-
tity and of the story. Judahs libido overcomes his common sense because
he agrees without hesitation to her demand. Like Shua, Tamar becomes
pregnant ( ) without divine assistance. She is in charge
of the entire event. Having achieved her goal, she is the one to leave and
voluntarily resumes her widowhood.
Likely not wanting to confront the woman again, Judah sends his friend
Hirah with the promised goat. He cannot nd her, and so, per LXX-G, asks
some men living nearby the location of the Ainan prostitute ( ).
Unlike his MT counterpart, Hirah does not refer to his boss partner as
a cult/holy prostitute (ncp). The MTs use of the latter term is often
assumed to be more polite (Westermann 1986, 54), more decorous
(Alter 1996, 221), or used to avoid embarrassment (Sarna 1989, 269).
Perhaps the LXX translator did not concur that being with a cult pros-
titute was more or less accepted (Westermann 1986, 54), especially
because the practice was deemed abhorrent to the God of Israel (Deut.
23:18), and one aspect of Gods indictment of Israel (Hos. 4:14). Regardless
of description, however, no such woman is known to the men questioned.
Hirah delivers the news to Judah, who chooses not to risk ridicule by con-
tinuing to search for the mysterious woman.
Three months pass and Judah now receives an anonymous message
about Tamars fornication and resulting pregnancy. Forgetting his
own indiscretion, he immediately demands that his daughter-in-law be
burned. Her death would relieve Judah of his levirate obligation. However,
he unwittingly has fullled it already. She indirectly informs him that the
owner of the now produced ring, cord, and sta is the one who impreg-
nated her. In an abrupt transformation of character, Judah acknowledges
that her actions were more righteous than his. Tamars deception gives
Judah the opportunity to resume his role of obedient patriarch. That he
does so is conrmed by the narrators pithy declaration that he did not
know her again.
Although the story of Tamar and Judah seems to conclude with Judahs
legal pronouncement and moral rehabilitation, the narrator continues
with a narrative (vv. 2730) that relates the birth and naming of their
ospring. This postscript, which at rst seems only weakly sutured to the
main story, is central to the overall link between Israels Abrahamic past
and Davidic future. As a birth narrative, it is reminiscent of Rebekahs
problematic delivery (25:2226). In both cases, the rstborn son is marked
GENESIS 38:130 401
402 COMMENTARY
with red (25:25; 38:28, 30) and the order of birth is emphasized. The gene-
alogical agenda in this story becomes evident with the narrators manip-
ulation of the birth order. Zerah, who was to be the rstborn, retreats and
comes out in the second place position so that Perez, the son who will
be the Davidic ancestor, is able to achieve rstborn status. The unusual
nature of his birth and birthright is highlighted in the MT with a word-
play on his name, i.e., Perez ( c) was a breach (c). LXX-G, not able to
take advantage of Hebrew wordplays, here deviates somewhat from the
sense of the MT. Instead of declaring the babys remarkable breach, the
midwife questions why an obstruction has been broken.
Whether intentional or not, LXX-G transforms the midwifes comment
from one concerning an actual immediate event (a breached birth) to a
metaphorical one about the distant future (a broken barrier). Prior to
this story, the rstborn son was always excluded from the covenant. Ish-
mael and Esau received land, but played no role in the genealogical line
of Abrahamic inheritance. Thus, it is assumed that the problems of being
the rstborn son would continue, especially when the narrator went
to such lengths to ensure the birth order. Curiously, however, it will be
the rstborn Perez who will later be featured in the genealogical line to
David. The barrier associated with the rstborn status has been broken,
at least for now. This oddly inserted narrative marks a transition between
the characters and customs of the family stories and those that will be
part of the continuing story of Israel. The narrator aects this transition
through the storys two major characters who reverse roles and switch
identities as the plot unfolds. Judahs character functions primarily as a
link to the Abrahamic family of the past, while Tamars character serves
as a radical departure from the patrilineally correct wives of the family
stories and anticipates the foreign women who will be instrumental in
the Davidic future.
39:123 After the interlude dealing with Judah and Tamar, the narra-
tor resumes the story of Jacob's favorite son Joseph by reminding the
reader of Josephs fate. However, the point of view changes from that of
those selling Joseph, i.e., the Midianites/Ishmaelites, to that of the one
who bought Joseph, i.e., Potiphar. Having introduced Potiphar earlier
(37:36) as a eunuch and chief butcher of Pharaoh (
), the narrator again describes him as a eunuch and chief
butcher but uses another Greek word ( ) to translate the Hebrew
oo. As was the case with the previous Greek word (), LSJ (1968,
724) makes it clear that refers to a castrated male, rather than
to merely a high court ocial in the Mesopotamian style.
Nevertheless, Potiphar plays an important role in the Egyptian
court; he is designated the lord () of Egypt. Josephs human
lord acknowledges that Josephs success comes from the presence of his
divine Lord () and rewards Joseph by placing him over his house
and putting everything in Josephs hands. This grandiose gesture intro-
duces the motif, which will surface several times throughout the story,
of what legitimately belongs in Josephs hands. Moreover, it portrays
Potiphar as a theologically astute and perhaps self-serving Egyptian. He
understands the behavior of Josephs God and successfully capitalizes on
Josephs divine favor. Yet, what makes good theological sense does not
always make good practical sense. Giving Joseph everything that was his
and eectively delegating all his responsibilities, Potiphar relinquishes
his authority over his house. With Joseph in charge and Lords blessing
bestowed on everything that is his, Potiphar has no worries other than
the food he eats. ALEX s use of the reexive nothing of his own (
), instead of another popular reading nothing of his (
), emphasizes Potiphars complete disregard for his property
or responsibilities. Little does he know that he should concern himself
with more than just his appetite; rather it will be the appetite of his wife
that will be his real problem.
The following comment about Josephs good looks, at rst glance,
appears to be a non sequitur. Yet, his beauty will prove problematic, a
situation whose signicance is enhanced by the description in LXX-G. Its
beautiful in form ( ) is a literal rendering of the MTs
frst characteristic of Joseph (nnc). However, instead of repeating
the adjective beautiful () as MT repeats nc, LXX-G substitutes ripe
() to describe Josephs appearance and adds very (). Thus,
instead of being beautiful in appearance, the LXX-G Joseph is character-
ized as very ripe in appearance ( ). This second
attribute of Josephs appearance alludes to the ripe () fruit in the
primeval Garden (3:6). Of the nine times this same Hebrew phrase (nc
nb) is translated, only three times is it rendered as
once to describe Rebekah (26:7), once to describe Rachel (29:17), and here
to describe Joseph. In this latter case, the phrase , with its
allusion to Eves reasoning, suggests the ruling role of sensuality in Mrs.
Potiphars decision making. She, like Eve before her, will respond inap-
propriately to physical beauty.
GENESIS 39:123 403
404 COMMENTARY
As the forbidden fruit tempted Eve, so the beautiful Joseph tempts Poti-
phars wife. Just the sight of Joseph prompts the presumably sex-deprived
wife of the eunuch Potiphar to take advantage of her position. She orders
Joseph to lie with her. However, unlike the Joseph in the Hebrew text
who refused (b) her order, the Joseph in the Greek text was not will-
ing ( ) or did not desire to lie with her. Thus, LXX-G oers an
intentional reason for his refusal. His lack of willingness or desire may
have been prompted by his lack of attraction to her, as well as the more
ethical excuses he gives her. These excuses echo what had been stated
earlier in the chapter, i.e., that Potiphar had given everything that was his
into Josephs hands. In his retelling, however, Joseph adds an unexpected
caveat. Only Mrs. Potiphar, of all his possessions, did Potiphar withhold
from Joseph. Whether this limitation was made by Potiphar himself or
resulted from Josephs own moral standards is not clear. What is clear is
Josephs real motive for refusing Mrs. Potiphar. Having intercourse with
another mans wife would be adultery and thus a sin against God.
Mrs. Potiphar, however, is not dissuaded by Josephs excuses. She prop-
ositions him everyday, and everyday he refuses to obey her. In a strik-
ing departure from the MT, nearly all Greek manuscripts translate what
Joseph refuses to do with Mrs. Potiphar with a dierent and more sexu-
ally explicit phrase. The Hebrew version uses the same verb to describe
her order to Joseph to lie with me (b nnoc), as it does to describe
the narrator's report of her continual demand from Joseph's point of
view, i.e., to lie beside her (n:v noc:). LXX-G renders her direct order
with lie with me ( ), but changes the verb in the
narrators report to , which also means to lie down or sleep
with someone. More signicant is the Greek rendering of what Joseph
thinks will occur when they lie down. Whereas the Hebrew text charac-
terizes her demand euphemistically as to lie beside her to be with her
(nb n:n: n:v noc:), LXX-G removes the ambiguity of the Hebrew
text by clarifying that Joseph understands Mrs. Potiphars order as to
lie with her in order to have sexual intercourse with her (
). Thus, the Greek Joseph interprets Mrs.
Potiphars demand in a sexually explicit way.
Presumably frustrated by Josephs daily rejection of her order, Mrs.
Potiphar becomes more aggressive on a particular day when no one else is
inside the house. That day, she takes action. She drags him by his clothes
while demanding that he lie with her. The verb drag () implies
a more forceful action than its Hebrew counterpart to seize (ccn). Not
only is a hapax legomenon in the Greek Genesis, it occurs only
eleven times in the entire LXX and, with the exception of this verse, never
appears as a translation of ccn. Because eight of its eleven occurrences
appear in the apocryphal books of Judith (1), Maccabees (5), and Wisdom
of Solomon (2), the word presumably was more popular in the Hellenistic
period to describe forceful actions, often those that were against the will
of its object. For example, in the books of Maccabees, occurs in
contexts of war (1 Macc. 14:1), tyranny (3 Macc. 3:10), and persecution (4
Macc. 5:2; 9:28; 10:12). It is also the word used to represent Holofernes
seduction of Judith ( Jdt. 12:12). Thus, Mrs. Potiphar was doing more than
merely grabbing or seizing Joseph.
That she dragged on him by his clothes ( ) implies
that she was attempting to undress him, perhaps attempting to rip his
clothes o his body. This assumption is conrmed when Joseph abandons
his clothes and ees outside. The Greek use of the plural his clothes (
) in v. 12, instead of the MTs singular his garment (::n),
suggests that Joseph has little, if any, clothes on his body when he ees.
The point of view changes to that of Mrs. Potiphar who looks down and
sees the incriminating evidence in her hands ( ).
Quickly summoning those whose earlier absence allowed her to concoct
an explanation for having Josephs clothes in her hands, Mrs. Potiphar
tells a story that blames everyone else for her predicament. As Adam ear-
lier implicated God for giving him the woman who caused him to disobey,
Mrs. Potiphar accuses her husband of bringing the Hebrew servant into
the house in order to play with us ( ). She then goes on
to accuse Joseph of demanding that she lie with him, a proposition that
caused her to cry out to her men.
Her statement abounds with biting sarcasm and blatant misrepre-
sentation, which is even more evident in LXX-G. As in the Hebrew, Mrs.
Potiphar distances herself from Joseph by refusing to call him by name.
However, instead of referring to him as a Hebrew man (n c), she
creates an even greater distance between her and Joseph by referring to
him in ALEX and other Greek manuscripts as a Hebrew servant (
). Yet, as K. A. Kitchen points out, ancient Egyptian texts indi-
cate that Semites were often imported to Egypt to work as slaves and
could become servants in wealthy households (2003, 343344). Thus, it
would not be unusual for Mrs. Potiphar to think of him as a servant. It is
almost poetic justice that the MTs Mrs. Potiphar be propositioned by a
Hebrew man, since her husband cannot perform as a man. However, it
GENESIS 39:123 405
406 COMMENTARY
is quite another matter to be propositioned by a Hebrew servant. Thus,
Mrs. Potiphars version of what happened makes Josephs actions look
even more heinous.
Perhaps to garner support from those who respond to her cry by includ-
ing them as fellow victims of her husbands plot, Mrs. Potiphar next mis-
represents Potiphars motives. She claims that he brought Joseph into the
house to play with us ( ). Like its Hebrew counterpart pv,
the Greek root has a range of meanings from childs play to amo-
rous play. Unlike the Hebrew pv that appears eleven times in Genesis,
often as a wordplay on Isaacs name because of the laughter associated
with his conception, the Greek root occurs only two other times out-
side this chapter. Once it refers to Ishmael's suspicious behavior toward
Isaac that results in his permanent banishment from the house of Abra-
ham (21:9). The second time it describes what Abimelech sees Isaac and
Rebekah doing (26:8). Thus, could have sexual overtones. Even
without such innuendo, its use in the context of Mrs. Potiphars accusa-
tion would make her husband suspicious of Josephs way of playing.
One nal misrepresentation in the story she tells those who respond
to her cry is the precise location where Joseph leaves his clothes. Rather
than reporting that he left them where she found them, i.e., in her
hands, Mrs. Potiphar removes the incriminating evidence and declares
that Joseph left them beside me ( ). It would be unlikely that
his clothes would be in her hands if she were not a willing participant.
However, leaving his clothes beside her implies that Joseph undressed
and was about to act on his demand. She leaves them there to reinforce
her portrayal of herself as the righteous victim when she repeats her
story to her husband. However, she makes a few subtle changes in the
version that she tells her husband. Now she accuses him of bringing the
Hebrew slave into the house not to play with us, but specically to play
with me ( , v. 17). This combined with the change in the aspect
of the innitive from the present in the earlier report to the aorist in
the story she tells her husband makes the sexual connotation more overt.
Mrs. Potiphar now is suggesting that Josephs actions were not a con-
tinual state of playing, but rather a one-time act that Joseph committed
specically against her.
To remove any uncertainty about Josephs sexual intention, LXX-G
puts an additional phrase in Mrs. Potiphars mouth at the end of v. 17.
Most Greek manuscripts record her words as and he said to me, I will lie
with you ( ). The change from the
aorist imperative lie with me () of her earlier report (v. 14) to
the future indicative I will lie with you () in the report she
gives to her husband implies that Joseph is condent that he will indeed
lie with her. ALEX, however, retains the aorist imperative that shows him
to be demanding, but not as condent. In either case, the addition clearly
explains the reason why Josephs clothes are beside her. The dierences
between the Hebrew and Greek versions of her accusation, as well as the
dierences between her earlier story and the one she tells her husband,
make Josephs sexual intentions more clear and thus her husbands act
more blameworthy. Accusing him of bringing Joseph in to play with her
sexually essentially portrays him as an impotent pimp.
Despite the blaming and sarcastic tone of his wifes accusation, Poti-
phar believes her version of the story and, because of his anger, has
Joseph thrown into prison. Josephs real Lord, however, knows the truth
and continues to work in the margins to secure a favorable situation for
Joseph. The chief jailer, like Potiphar, puts everything and everyone in
the prison in Josephs hands. LXX-G, even more than the MT, empha-
sizes Josephs divine favor. Rather than just extending (o) compassion
on Joseph, Lord showers () compassion on him. The use of the
imperfect further enhances Lords actions, suggesting that the shower-
ing is on-going, not just a one time act. In addition, LXX-G reports that
the chief jailer also gave the prison itself to Joseph, not just the prison-
ers. Finally, LXX-G emphasizes Josephs level of responsibility with the
addition in v. 23 of the clause for everything was in the hand of Joseph
( ). The chapter ends as it begins, with Lord
making Joseph successful in whatever he did. Wherever Joseph lands, he
prospers, whether in the house of Potiphar or in prison.
40:123 Josephs story continues with another instance of his overcom-
ing an undeserved punishment. As before, the source of Josephs success is
God-in-the-margins, who orchestrates events so that Joseph is in the right
place at the right time. In his new role as overseer of the prison, Joseph is
assigned two new prisoners who just happen to have royal connections.
Pharaoh has imprisoned two of his ocial eunuchs, his chief cupbearer
(, literally chief wine pourer) and his chief baker, for some
sin that they committed against him. He puts them, according to ALEX,
in the custody of the chief jailer (), a translation that
makes logical sense in its narrative context and that is consistent with the
term used at the end of chapter 39 (vv. 21, 22, and 23). Other Greek manu-
scripts follow the MT (onon c) by referring to the custodian, like
Potiphar, as a chief butcher (). These manuscripts, however,
GENESIS 39:123 & 40:123 407
408 COMMENTARY
depart from the Hebrew in the following verse and, like ALEX, report that
yet another ocial, namely the governor of the prison (),
assigns the erring ocials to Josephs care.
Despite some ambiguity about the ocials titles, it is clear that these
two prisoners fall under Josephs purview. It just so happens, with God-in-
the-margins, that both of these ocials have a dream in the same night.
The next morning when Joseph asks them why they look so gloomy, they
report that no one is able to interpret () their dreams. In his
response to their predicament, Joseph asks a rhetorical question whose
armative answer, to him, acknowledges that it through God his God
that such explanations () are made. Had the prisoners been
given a voice, they would most likely have disagreed. Oneiromancy, the
interpretation of dreams, was the most respected divination technique
in ancient Egypt. Written reports of royal dreams date as far back as the
fteenth century B.C.E. (Thutmose IV) and the thirteenth century B.C.E.
(Merenptah). Later reports of Egyptian royal dreams appear in a variety
of Greek sources, e.g., Herodotus mention of a dream of Sethos and Plu-
tarchs mention of one of Ptolemy I (Oppenheim 1956, 252). In addition to
dream reports, ancient Egyptians produced dream interpretation hand-
books, two dierent catalogues of which are extant (Oppenheim 1956,
243). The lack of any human agent to interpret dreams, especially at a
royal residence, would have been unusual. However, in this and other sto-
ries in the Bible, their absence serves a theological purpose. It allows the
biblical writer to express the incomparability of the Hebrew God and his
chosen interpreter. Joseph is the one chosen, in this story, to play the role
of Gods intermediary.
Unlike the Hebrew text that uses the same root (nc) for the one who
interprets ( n c) and Gods action (o : n s), ALEX and most other Greek
manuscripts use the two dierent words referenced above. According
to LSJ, both (1968, 1667) and (1968, 411) can mean
interpretation. However, the main reference it uses to support this par-
ticular meaning for both words is this verse (40:8). Because the primary
meaning of is to make quite clear, its use in v. 8 to refer to
Gods actions as interpretation or explanation is understandable. How-
ever, the use of to refer to one who interprets is quite unusual.
Its primary meanings in most sources are to combine or to compare.
Only one non biblical source (Polybius 14.3) is cited to support the mean-
ing interpret. As Wevers notes, even this reference is questionable.
He therefore suggests that the meaning one who interprets seems to
have originated with the Greek translator of Genesis (1993, 666). This is
perhaps tting because the Hebrew word nc itself is found nowhere in
the Hebrew Bible outside the Joseph narrative.
The chief cupbearer does as Joseph requests and describes his dream
about a ourishing grapevine with three stalks, the fruit of which he
squeezes into Pharaohs cup. Joseph then takes it upon himself, in Gods
place, to interpret the dream. With the exception of the three stalks, most
aspects of the cupbearers dream do not seem to require an exceptional
interpretive skill. Taking ripe grapes and squeezing them into Pharaohs
cup would be something a chief wine pourer would do. Thus, Josephs
primary interpretive contribution deals with correlating the three stalks
to the three days that it will take Pharaoh to restore the cupbearer
to his former oce. The Greek Pharaoh will remember your oce
( ) appears to be an interpretive, rather
than a literal, rendering of the Hebrew original that reads Pharaoh will
lift your head ((cn nc c). In this verse, the meaning of the
Hebrew phrase is ambiguous. However, it serves well as a double enten-
dre when it appears again in Josephs interpretation of the chief bakers
dream where Pharaoh will literally lift his head from his body (v. 19, see
below). Here, however, refers to his position as head or chief of
the cupbearers.
Joseph now attempts to take advantage of the fortuitous interpreta-
tion. He asks the cupbearer to have the same type of restorative memory
that his interpretation predicts Pharaoh will have. Josephs own memory
inuences his description of his present circumstances. By characterizing
the prison as a pit () into which they threw him, Joseph alludes
to the actions of his brothers. Interestingly, his claim to have been stolen
from his homeland implies that he does not know everything that his
brothers did. One wonders whether his denial of wrongdoing here ()
parallels his presumption of innocence in the past or contrasts with it. In
either case, Josephs portrayal of his former and present circumstances
shows that he has had little control over his (mis)fortune. His request to
be mentioned to Pharaoh represents his attempt to control his future.
Having approved of Josephs interpretation of the chief cupbearers
dream, the chief baker tells Joseph his dream. Like that of the chief cup-
bearer, his dream focuses on the products associated with the type of work
that he, as a baker, performed for Pharaoh. It also involves three such
products, which, as before, represent three days. However, the devouring
birds are hardly a positive omen. Their heavenly origin ( ), not
reported in the Hebrew text, suggests the inevitability of their mission.
Josephs interpretation, as earlier, predicts the bakers fate. As mentioned
GENESIS 40:123 409
410 COMMENTARY
above, LXX-G was not able to duplicate the wordplay in the MT regarding
the lifting (c:) of the bakers head. Instead, it resorted to a context-
specic rendering, i.e., removed () his head. More gruesome is
the role of the devouring heaven-sent birds that Joseph in LXX-G refers to
as winged creatures ( ). Unlike the MT that uses the same word
(q:) to refer the birds in the bakers dream and in Josephs interpretation
of it, LXX-G uses two dierent words. Whereas in the dream the birds
( ) eat what the baker prepared for Pharaoh, in its fulllment,
the winged creatures ( ) eat his esh. Joseph is likely envisioning
vultures, while the baker just saw crows. After such an ominous interpre-
tation, Joseph has no favors to ask of the baker.
Josephs interpretations prove to be correct. On the third day, which
happens to be Pharaohs birthday, Pharaoh remembers both of his two
imprisoned ocials. He likely missed their help in preparing the drink-
ing party () for his servants. In its masculine form, the Greek word
means a drinking bout (LSJ 1968, 1456). As such, it reects the root
meaning drink of the Hebrew word nncb, which usually refers to a feast
or banquet that includes drinking. Of the ve occurrences of nncb in the
Hebrew text, only here and in 19:3 did the LXX-G translator use . In
two (21:8; 26:30) of the three other cases, he rendered nncb with feast
(); in the third case (29:22), he chose wedding banquet ().
Therefore, he appears to be highlighting the drinking aspect of Pharaohs
celebration, not the feast itself. This connotation is appropriate since it
is consistent with the restoration of the wine pouring duties of the chief
cupbearer, as Joseph predicted. Perhaps if the party had required the ser-
vices of the chief baker, he would not have been hanged. Curiously, there
is no indication that he was beheaded, nor is there a report that the heav-
enly birds ate his esh. Unfortunately for Joseph, the chief cupbearers
memory was not as good as Pharaohs. He forgot about Joseph.
41:113 Now it is Pharaohs turn to have dreams that will eventually
require Josephs interpretive skills. Pharaohs dreams incorporate a
few aspects of the dreams of his imprisoned eunuchs, thus suggesting
they will have both positive and negative interpretations. The interlude
between the fulllment of the dreams of the two prisoners and Pharaohs
dreaming is two years of days ( ), a literal rendering of the
Hebraism that means two full years. Joseph has been waiting a long time
for the chief cupbearers memory to improve.
Pharaohs rst dream begins when he imagines himself standing by
the river, presumably the Nile. The use of the focalizing clause and look
( ) in the second verse allows the reader to experience the dreams
unfolding along with Pharaoh. Parallel to the chief bakers vision of bas-
kets rising up from his head are the beautiful and choice seven cows that
Pharaoh sees coming up from the river. Their favorable appearance, on
the other hand, parallels the ourishing and ripe grapes seen by the chief
cupbearer. Another motif shared with the chief bakers dream is that of
devouring animals. Even more ominous than heavenly birds devouring
some baked goods is the description of thin and ugly cows devouring the
choice ones of their own species. Pharaoh is spared any further scenes of
bovine consumption when he awakens.
His second dream also features two contrasting sets of seven that are
coming up. Instead of beautiful and choice cows, he sees choice and beau-
tiful ears of corn. Although the order is dierent, the adjectives used to
describe the corn are identical to those used to describe the cows. As in
his earlier dream, Pharaoh then sees the thin counterparts to the choice
ears of corn. However, these thin ears are not described as ugly; rather
they are said to be blasted by the wind (), a tting descrip-
tion of corn and a tting translation of the Hebrew a scorching east wind
(op nc:c). As before, Pharaoh awakens after the inferior ears (char-
acterized as both thin and wind-blasted, contra MTs singular adjective
thin) destroy the good ears (characterized as choice and full, as in the
MT, rather than choice and beautiful, as in v. 5). This time, however, Pha-
raoh realizes that it was a dream.
The parallels between the motifs in the dream account of the ocials
and those of Pharaoh continue. First is the troubled (/
) response of the dreamers. However, unlike the ocials whose
faces were troubled, Pharaohs soul () was troubled. Only here does
LXX-G render the Hebrew spirit, wind, breath (:) with ; all other
occurrences of in Genesis appear as translations of the Hebrew
soul, living being, person (cc:). Therefore, LXX-G shows that it is not
just Pharaohs spirit that was troubled; it was his entire being. Conse-
quently, the inability of his skilled interpreters to interpret his dreams
would be even more debilitating to him.
The narration of this second recurring motif, i.e., the lack of skilled inter-
preters, similarly exhibits unusual vocabulary in both the Hebrew and the
Greek texts. Pharaoh calls for Egypts dream interpreters () and
her wise men (). Unlike the Hebrew term it renders (diviner or
magician/oo), occurs twice in this chapter, but in only one
other place in the Greek Old Testament (Prov. 29:19) where it renders the
Hebrew seer (:). The Hebrew oo, on the other hand, occurs several
GENESIS 41:113 411
412 COMMENTARY
times in the books of Exodus and Daniel, where the respective texts refer
to Egyptians and Babylonians who likewise are unable to perform their
magical arts. The lack of consistency in rendering the Hebrew term oo
suggests each translator had a dierent understanding of these arts and
the people who performed them. The Genesis translator chose the word
that, according to LSJ (1968, 593), was used elsewhere to refer to
dream interpreters (e.g., Herodotus Histories 1.78), particularly those in
ancient Athens who interpreted the riddles of oracles and dreams (Van
der Kooij 1998, 223). The other term , a hapax legomenon in LXX-G,
occurs in many other places and contexts in the Greek Old Testament and
is an apt rendering of the Hebrew wise man (oo). Regardless of specic
title, no native who should have been able to interpret Pharaohs dreams
was able to tell him the meaning of his dreams. Once again, LXX-Gs
one who tells ( ) as a translation of the Hebrew interpret
or explain (n:c) is unusual and diers from the term one who inter-
prets ( ) that the LXX-G translator coined for this purpose
in the previous chapter (40:8). The term appears again in
v. 24, suggesting that the translator preferred consistency within the
same story to consistency between chapters.
Despite the unusual vocabulary used to narrate this second recur-
ring motif, it provides an opportunity for the foreign servant to dem-
onstrate his skills, as well as the skills of his God, and to achieve his
release from imprisonment. This possibility becomes apparent when
the chief cupbearer nally remembers Josephs interpretive ability and
tells Pharaoh about the Hebrew servant. ALEX, consistent with its earlier
minority rendering (40:3), refers to Josephs guardian as the chief jailor
(), whereas most other manuscripts refer to him as the
chief butcher (). In the following verse, all manuscripts use
the term chief butcher () to refer to the person for whom
Joseph served as a servant. Because ALEX used this term only when refer-
ring to Potiphar (37:36; 39:1), it dierentiates Josephs two overseers. In
this context, the chief cupbearer is characterizing Joseph as a servant of
the chief butcher Potiphar, not of the chief jailer. Although subtle, this
variation might cause Pharaoh to think dierently about Joseph. As a ser-
vant of Pharaohs own chief butcher, Joseph would likely have a higher
status in the court than he would as a servant of the chief jailer.
41:1436 Pharaoh decides to send for Joseph to see if this Hebrew ser-
vant could interpret his dreams. According to ALEX and several other
manuscripts, he brought him ( 3MS) from the stronghold.
Most Greek manuscripts translate the MTs they ran him (:nv) as the
third masculine plural they brought him ( ), thus retain-
ing the subjects number but modifying the sense of urgency suggested
in the MT. However, an unpointed Hebrew text could be read as 3MS, as
did ALEX. Thus ALEX implies that Pharaoh himself brings Joseph from
the prison. This reading suggests a dierent form of urgency than that
of the Hebrew text. Pharaoh, rather than his servants (presumed to be
the they), wastes no time and gets Joseph himself. Now they take over
and do what Joseph himself does in the Hebrew text; they shave him and
change his robe. Having been made presentable after two years in prison,
he comes to Pharaoh.
As before (40:8), Joseph acknowledges that God is the only one who can
grant the ability to interpret dreams. Here, however, Joseph implies that
his God, not any Egyptian source whether human or divine, is the only
one who can answer for Pharaohs safety (). Although slightly
dierent than the MTs answer of peace (o:cn n:), Josephs assur-
ance of Pharaohs well-being reects the customary practice that an
interpreter attempt to suggest to the dreamer that the dream might
portend something favorable for him (Oppenheim 1956, 205). Pharaoh
then describes his dreams to Joseph in language nearly identical to the
way he experienced it in his imagination. What is dierent is the way he
embellishes the description of the second set of cows by adding some
evaluative comments. First, he adds the adjective wretched ()
to his description. This seems an unusual word choice for LXX-G because
it most often occurs in Genesis in contexts that have moral implications,
e.g., 2:9; 6:5; 34:30. In the Joseph story, however, its use is somewhat var-
ied. It describes the report that Joseph brings back to his father (37:2)
and is one of two adjectives used to describe the animal that the brothers
claimed and Jacob assumed devoured Joseph (37:20, 33). In the present
story, however, it is unlikely that the translator considered the cows to
be in either a moral (evil) or behavioral (wicked) sense. Neither
does the word capture the idea of scrawniness implied by the n::. What
the word seems to imply in this context is that these cows are both physi-
cally and practically , thus worthless and good for nothing. In
fact, Pharaoh goes on to say that he has never seen such ugliness any-
where in Egypt. ALEXs lack of the word land () that appears in the
phrase in the whole land of Egypt ( ) of most other
manuscripts suggests that Pharaoh is not limiting the ugliness to what
can be seen on land. Unique to ALEX is the additional phrase and they
were grazing in the reed grass ( ), which is most
GENESIS 41:1436 413
414 COMMENTARY
likely an attempt to be consistent with Pharaohs original dream and par-
allel to the description of the rst set of cows.
To make his dream more vivid in its retelling, Pharaoh also elaborates
when he describes the result of the ugly and thin cows devouring the
beautiful and fat cows. He says that even after eating the fat cows, the
thin cows do not look any dierent or better, thus implying that nothing
can improve the condition of the second set of cows. His description of
the second dream includes only one interpretive elaboration. The LXX-G
addition in v. 23 of the participle holding () to the description of
the inferior ears of corn implies that these ears are interfering with, i.e.,
holding back, the growth of the superior ears. In both retellings, Pharaohs
interpretive embellishments of the poorer set of objects suggests that he
might be focusing on the negative implications of the dreams. Hence, his
distress at the lack of anyone to interpret his dreams, which he laments
before and after he describes his dream, becomes even more understand-
able. He is even willing to trust a Hebrew servant and his God.
Joseph boldly continues to stress the authority that God his God has
over events in the foreign and powerful land of Egypt, as well as the inu-
ence of his God both in Pharaohs dream life and in his real life. He begins
his interpretation of Pharaohs two dreams by emphasizing that they are
one and thus must be seen together to understand their singular mean-
ing. Parallel with the symbolism of the eunuchss dreams, numbers in
Pharaohs dream also represent a unit of time. Rather than days, however,
the seven cows and ears of corn represent seven years. Joseph indicates
the favorable signicance of the seven beautiful objects only after he
tells Pharaoh the bad omen of famine associated with their thin counter-
parts. Nevertheless, the order of events will follow the order of Pharaohs
dreams; the seven good years of prosperity will precede the seven lean
years of famine. Josephs interpretation of the dreams focuses on their
overall signicance; he seems to ignore the individual interpretive details
that Pharaoh specically narrated. For example, the thin cows similar
appearance after devouring the fat cows might symbolize the inability
to recognize the look of the land during the prosperous years. Perhaps
Joseph is subtly ignoring Pharaohs attempt at making meaning in favor
of the meaning that God is relaying to him. That Pharaoh had two dreams
with the same meaning, according to Joseph, indicates that God will do
what the dreams signify quickly.
After providing his interpretation of the dreams, Joseph gives Pharaoh
advice on how to avoid the destructive eects of the years of famine. No
one could accuse this Hebrew servant of being awed by or concerned
about oending the Pharaoh of Egypt! Of course, the advice he gives Pha-
raoh will eventually lead to his release. He already has been playing the
role of the wise and intelligent man that he advises Pharaoh to appoint
over the aairs of Egypt. Just in case Pharaoh fails to consider Josephs
administrative abilities, Joseph goes on to tell Pharaoh what else Pharaoh
must do to avoid the consequences of the famine. He should also appoint
regional governors () to oversee the famine avoidance pro-
gram. LXX-Gs term , per Harl, represents the political reality
of its third century B.C.E. Alexandrian milieu, when the nomes of Egypt
were divided into regions over which rulers were appointed (1994, 274).
The role of these governors, Joseph goes on to say, is to gather one-fth
() of the produce during the good and plentiful years
and keep it safe for use during the years of famine. As it frequently did
when no existing Greek word adequately represented the Hebrew text,
LXX-G created the neologism to describe the task of
the governors. Now all Pharaoh needs to do is nd a wise and intelligent
man to take charge of the program and the regional governors. He should
not have to look far for such a man.
41:3745 Pharaoh appreciates Josephs interpretation of his dreams and
his unsolicited advice to avoid the devastation of the predicted famine.
However, the question he poses to his servants suggests that he thinks
it unlikely that he would be able to nd the kind of man that Joseph
described. Rather than using the qualications that Joseph dened, i.e.,
a man who was wise and intelligent, he requires someone with the spirit
of God ( ) in him. Such an unusual requirement coming from
the mouth of the Egyptian Pharaoh implies that he must be convinced
that Gods spirit, in this context presumably the spirit of Josephs God, is a
necessary requirement. After all, Joseph credited his God with his ability
to interpret Pharaohs dreams and with keeping Pharaoh safe. Because
there would be few, if any, men in Egypt with the spirit of God, Pharaoh
chooses Joseph and appoints him as second in command. Only Pharaoh
himself will be above Joseph. Joseph clearly has all the qualications. He
is obviously wise and intelligent, and has been shown by his God the way
to avoid the dire consequences of the predicted famine.
Pharaoh ritualizes his appointment of Joseph over the land of Egypt
by bestowing on Joseph the items that are representative of the objects
used in other ANE royal investiture rites (Westermann 1986, 9495; Sarna
1989, 286287). For example, Ashurbanipal is said to have clad Necho, the
incoming vassal-king of Egypt, in a garment of multicolored trimmings,
GENESIS 41:1436 & 41:3745 415
416 COMMENTARY
placed a golden chain on him (as the) insigne of his kingship, put golden
rings on his hands (ANET 295). Similarly, Pharaoh puts his own ring on
Josephs hand and clothes him in a ne linen robe. Once again, Joseph
is given clothes that dene his favored status. According to LXX-G, Pha-
raoh places a gold collar around his neck. As a translation of the Hebrew
chain (n), the Greek collar () is a larger and heavier neck
piece. A hapax legomenon in Genesis, elsewhere usually renders
the Hebrew yoke (:) and refers to the type of yoke worn by prison-
ers. Most often it refers to a heavy burden placed on people by God (e.g.,
Deut. 28:48; Jer. 35:10) or tyrants (e.g., 1 Kgs. 12:4). LXX-Gs use of
in this context could be a double entendre. Pharaoh is obviously bestow-
ing a sign of royal authority on Joseph, but this authority could also be a
burden and connote a dierent type of imprisonment. He is the second in
command to Pharaoh, but Pharaoh is still his superior.
Nevertheless, serving as the second most important ruler in Egypt is
a more inuential position than anything expected by or for a young
Hebrew servant. With the position also comes considerable recognition
(a herald to call out in front of his chariot) and immunity in oce (no one
will raise a hand against him). To symbolize Josephs new Egyptian status
and identity, Pharaoh gives Joseph a new name and an Egyptian wife. His
new name is associated with his new position, in both Hebrew and Greek.
Nevertheless, the meaning of the translitered Hebrew name Zaphenath-
paneah (:c n:cv) is debated. If based on the Hebrew root hide (cv),
Josephs new name could represent his interpretive abilities as a revealer
of hidden things (Harl 1994, 276; Sarna 1989, 287). Sarna, however, argues
for the names Egyptian origin, the transcription of which means God
speaks; he lives (1989, 287288; see also Westermann [1986, 96]). Kitchen
oers yet another way to understand Josephs name. He points out that
the consonant sequence of Zaphenath (cv), the rst part of the dual
name, was well known in Semitic languages, but not in Egyptian. Yet, by
the routine custom of metathesis, the t and the rst p/f of Zaphenath
could be transcribed into Egyptian to mean who is called. Paneah, the
second half of the name, was universally recognized as containing a p
or f followed by the Egyptian word for life, i.e., ankh (2003, 345346).
Thus, Josephs name could mean one who is called for life.
LXX-G merely transliterated the Hebrew consonants as Psonthom-
phanech, which Sarna maintains represents another Late Egyptian word
psontenpaanh meaning the creator/sustainer of life (Sarna 1989, 288). As
such, Josephs name in any language seems associated with life and likely
reects his elevated and presumably semi-divine status as the second
highest ranking Egyptian ocial. That Joseph does not object to a name
that would seemingly conict with his religious convictions implies that
he is becoming acculturated to his new nation.
His marriage to the native Egyptian woman Asenneth similarly con-
trasts with the endogamous marriages that were the hallmark of the
former Hebrew patriarchs. The statement that she is the daughter of an
Egyptian priest of Heliopolis (literally the city of the sun) implies that
she is a pagan. Departing from the MT where the priests name is Poti-
phara (c o:c), LXX-G reports that this priest has the same name as
Josephs former master, i.e., Potiphar (). Heliopolis, the Greek
name for the Egyptian city Iwnw that is referred to in the Hebrew text as
, derived its name city of the sun from its function as the cultic center
for the worship of the sun god Re, one of the most important of the Egyp-
tian deities. Its priest Potipher/Potiphara would have been among the
most prominent in Egypt. As such, his daughter would be an ideal social
and political mate for Joseph. The name Asenneth, based on its Egyp-
tian origin, reects her prominence as she who belongs to (the goddess)
Neith (Sarna 1989, 288). Despite the political signicance of the mar-
riage, Asenneths association with a pagan goddess presents yet another
religious conict with Josephs former identity. Kitchen, however, sug-
gests that her Egyptian name could also mean she belongs (is) you, with
you, a feminine pronoun that could also refer to her mother (2003, 346).
However, later Jewish writers seemed to have assumed her name referred
to the pagan goddess. Asenneths conversion to Josephs religion was the
subject of the later pseudepigraphic novella Joseph and Aseneth. At this
point in the story, Joseph seems to have abandoned all aspects of his for-
mer life, including his God, the one who made his promotion possible.
That, however, will prove not to be the case.
41:4652 Joseph, at age 30, is quite successful in his new Egyptian life.
He again demonstrates his wisdom and intelligence by traveling through-
out Egypt, presumably getting to know his territory and possibly being
associated with the prosperity he predicted. The term by handfuls
() means, according to LSJ (1968, 447), as many stalks of corn as
the reaper can grasp in his left hand, or plenty. Carrying out the advice
he had earlier given to Pharaoh, Joseph gathered all the food, presumably
all the excess food, that was produced during the seven years of prosper-
ity and put it in the cities. An ALEX plus in v. 48b results in a very curious
reading. The reference to after likely refers to the city of as
noted in the Hebrew text of verses 45 and 50. The capitalization of the
GENESIS 41:3745 & 41:4652 417
418 COMMENTARY
term , in the Swete edition, makes Wevers assertion that ALEX incor-
rectly used the relative pronoun doubtful (1993, 698). It is unclear
why ALEX included the original name of the city in this verse, without
its inclusion in the Hebrew text, but referred to the city as Heliopolis, the
city of the sun, in verses 45 and 50. In so doing, verse 48b. in ALEX refers
to one particular city, that of On, into which Joseph placed food, instead
of the majority reading in which Joseph placed excess food from the sur-
rounding open elds in all the cities.
Using language reminiscent of Gods covenantal promise to both Abra-
ham (22:17) and Jacob (32:13), the narrator reports that the grain Joseph
gathered was like the sand of the sea. Rather than referring to the innu-
merable ospring promised to his forefathers, the limitless quantity here
refers to the amount of grain that Joseph is able to store. However, the
progeny associated with the covenantal language follows in the report
of the birth of Josephs two sons by Asenneth. This Egyptian woman,
like Hagar, does not suer the problem of barrenness that many of the
women in Josephs family experienced. Despite his own acculturation,
Joseph gives his two sons Hebrew names that reect his attempt to dis-
tance himself from his family, but not his God. Of course, the wordplays
of the Hebrew names are missing in the Greek, but the signicance of
their meanings remain. The rstborn Manasseh (Mannass) symbolizes
Josephs forgetfulness about his previous existence, especially every-
thing associated with his father. Ironically, it was his father, of all his
family, who truly loved him. However, it was his fathers special love and
favoritism that led to his problems, and ultimately his prosperity. His
second son Ephraim signies Gods regard for Joseph. ALEX, unlike the
majority of Greek manuscripts, reports that Ephraims name means that
God has exulted () Joseph in the land of his humiliation, a mean-
ing that misses the sense of the Hebrew texts God has made me fruitful
(on: :cn). Nevertheless, exultation seems as appropriate a descrip-
tion of Gods acts on Josephs behalf as does fruitfulness.
41:5357 As Joseph predicted based on his interpretation of Pharaohs
dreams, the seven years of prosperity were followed by seven years of
famine. Because of Josephs insight and foresight, however, all the people
of Egypt could buy the grain that he stored up during the seven years of
prosperity. Although a rather simple story, the manner in which the story
is told, in both Hebrew and Greek, makes it much more complicated.
At issue in both languages is the extent of the famine. Verse 54b. in
Hebrew reads that the famine was in all the lands (n:vn:o). As such,
God-in-the-margins has expanded the famine beyond the land of Egypt,
which was the geographic extent of Pharaoh dreams. The MT goes on to
report that in the whole land of Egypt, there was bread (ovb :on
o: nn). Verses 5556 focus on the eect of Josephs grain storage plan
for the people of Egypt, but v. 57 resumes the discussion of the wide-rang-
ing famine. Despite the grammatically singular subject all the land (:o
n) that contrasts with the plural lands in v. 54, the plural verb and
the directive heh to Egypt (nbvb) in v. 57 implies that the subject of
Hebrew text must be understood as a metonym for peoples from all the
earth. Because the Hebrew word means both land and earth, this
is a valid and logical reading. This broader meaning of then applies
to the last phrase, i.e., the famine was great in all the earth.
The tension between the tendency of LXX-G to be faithful to the
Hebrew text and its tendency to correct problems caused even more con-
fusion in these verses. ALEX variants are noteworthy. Unlike the majority
of Greek manuscripts, ALEX follows the Hebrew text in v. 53 with a plural
verb passed () or were complete (n::on) in the rst clause
and a singular verb came to be (nn /) in the second. Yet, years
(:c /), the subject of both clauses, is plural. Although this inconsis-
tency can be explained by grammatical rules of both languages, the prob-
lem in the second half of the following verse is not so simple. The Greek
use of the singular land (), instead of the dative plural lands ()
that would be a better translation of the plural Hebrew lands (n:vn),
makes the geographic scope of the famine hard to determine. Because
the dative plural is rare in classical Greek and the singular in
Greek, as its Hebrew counterpart , can mean earth, it would be logi-
cal to translate as earth and retain the sense of the Hebrew.
However, the addition of not () prior to was () in v. 54 of
ALEX and many other Greek manuscripts makes this solution more di-
cult and the contrast in the Hebrew impossible. Instead of but in the land
of Egypt there was bread, ALEX and others report there was not bread.
Retaining the singular sense of in the rst half of the clause with in
the second results in a reading in which the second clause merely elabo-
rates on one aspect of the famine. Thus the narrative in ALEX addresses
only the situation in Egypt. In the Hebrew and Greek of v. 56, the famine
is reported to be over the face of all the /. Whether this means
all the earth or all the land is unclear. The latter reading is preferable
because the verse goes on to report that Joseph opens up the granaries to
sell to the Egyptians. However, the next verse shows that Josephs market
has expanded to all the countries ( ) who are coming into
GENESIS 41:5357 419
420 COMMENTARY
Egypt. Therefore, the phrase in the last clause must mean all
the earth. Not only is this the logical reading in its immediate context,
but it is also necessary for what follows. The famine must be over all the
earth in order to set the stage for Josephs brothers to come to Egypt.
42:15 The setting of the story shifts back to Josephs family in Canaan,
where Jacob again seems to be showing favoritism. This time he favors
Benjamin, the second of Rachels sons. The rst words that he speaks
directly to his other sons in the narrative suggest his disdain for their
presumed irresponsibility and/or stupidity. The Greek word delaying
() can mean taking a holiday, but per LSJ is used mostly in a
bad sense (1968, 1564) and implies laziness. Although Jacobs question in
LXX-G is quite dierent from the Hebrews why are you looking around?
(:nn nb:), the implicit critical sarcasm is the same. Jacob is likely
wondering why he has to tell his sons what they should already know, i.e.,
that there is grain for sale in Egypt and that they should get down there
and buy a little of it to save their lives. The ten brothers do as they are
told. Jacob, however, keeps his youngest son Benjamin home because he
might get ill (). One wonders why Jacob is not concerned about
the well-being of his other sons and why it should take ten of them to
buy a little () grain. Perhaps their lives are expendable. Regardless,
the brothers join the others going to Egypt for the same reason. All were
likely suering because of the famine in Canaan.
42:638 The scene shifts back to Egypt, where Joseph is in charge of the
famine relief program. As would be socially and politically appropriate,
the brothers pay respect to the man in charge by bowing down to him.
But their act of obeisance also serves as an ironic fulllment of Josephs
rst dream in which their sheaves bow down to his. Despite their ear-
lier protestations (37:8), their use of deferential language your servants
( ) and their addressing Joseph as lord () shows that
Joseph did indeed become a king and lord over them. Joseph recognizes
them but acts as if he does not. He rst asks them from where they came
and then continually accuses them of being spies who came to Egypt to
scrutinize the countrys routes ( ), literally its footprints. The
Greek represents a rather free translation of the Hebrew texts
nakedness (n:); nevertheless, the underlying idea is the same. A coun-
trys nakedness would be those parts that should be hidden from outsid-
ers; a countrys footprints likely refers to routes that could be used for
invasions, something that also should be hidden from outsiders. During
its intermediate periods, Egypt suered from foreign invasions. There-
fore, Josephs mocking accusation would have been a serious indictment
against such would-be spies.
Joseph succeeds in keeping his identity a secret. Their lack of recogni-
tion gives him considerable license to question them and their motives
and to be in complete control of their destiny, as they had been of his.
Although Joseph has the authority to destroy them and thereby avenge
their earlier treatment of him, he uses this authority for dierent pur-
poses that become apparent as the story develops. He devises a plan that
not only will allow them to prove their truthfulness, but also will allow
him to see his younger brother. He orders one of them to fetch Benja-
min, but decides rst to put them all in custody for three days until he
can determine whether they had been telling him the truth. Joseph likely
knows that they are not spies, so the three day waiting period allows
him to determine whether they are as peaceful as they claim. The Greek
peaceful () is an apt counterclaim, given Josephs accusation
that they were looking for invasion routes. However, it lacks the biting
irony implicit in the Hebrews morally upright (o:o). Joseph would cer-
tainly not consider them to be morally upright.
Joseph devises a new plan by which his brothers can save their lives.
He does this because he claims that he fears God. One gets the impres-
sion that Joseph has not completely acculturated, despite his Egyptian
name, wife, and job. Contrary to his earlier order to send one brother
back to get Benjamin, he now wants one to stay and chooses Simeon. He
likely does not trust them enough to allow them all to go back without
holding at least one of their own hostage. This nal test of what Joseph
already knows to be the truth that they are not spies, but peaceful men
requires that they bring the younger brother back to Egypt. Not only
will this act prove their truthfulness, but also it will save their lives. This
threat, however, lacks credibility. Once the ten of them leave, there is no
guarantee that they will return. It seems as if only one of them, namely
Simeon, would die. The real test, therefore, is not about the truthfulness
of their claim not to be spies. Rather, Joseph is testing their sibling loy-
alty. Will they allow one of their own to die?
Josephs invoking God apparently triggers the brothers consciences
about their earlier treatment of Joseph, which, the narrator reveals for
the rst time, included Josephs pleading for his life. Their disregard for
his suering has resulted in their own. As earlier, Reuben plays the role
of the rstborn son when his voice becomes distinguished from the com-
bined voice of the rest of the brothers. Claiming the moral high ground,
GENESIS 42:638 421
422 COMMENTARY
he accuses his brothers of ignoring his warning not to harm Joseph. He
did not want to spill Josephs blood (37:22). Instead he suggested they
throw him in the pit, knowing that he could later rescue Joseph. Just what
Reuben wanted to avoid is now happening. Josephs blood is demanding
a reckoning.
Their lack of recognition and Josephs use of a translator to speak with
them once again gives Joseph a tactical advantage. He hears and under-
stands what they are saying and, instead of gloating, is driven to tears.
Nevertheless, he goes through with the plan, the additional details of
which are revealed as the brothers journey home. In addition to the grain
that the brothers came to get, Joseph also ordered that the money they
had used to pay for the grain be put in their bags. When the brothers see
the money, they are justiably upset but unjustiably blame God for their
new calamity.
When the brothers return home, they report to their father what hap-
pened to them in Egypt. Their description of Joseph as the lord of the
land again alludes to the ironic fulllment of Josephs dreams of his rise
to power in Egypt. The brothers use nearly identical language in much
of the retelling, with only a few exceptions. They refer to Benjamin as
the smaller () rather than the younger () brother;
they embellish the consequences of bringing Benjamin back to Egypt
with the statement that they will be allowed to trade and travel in the
land; and they omit telling their father about the money they found in
their bags. However, the money will not go away. On its rediscovery, Jacob
also realizes the implications. Perhaps he thinks that his sons either stole
the money or the grain since he blames them for making him childless.
He believes that Joseph is dead, assumes that Simeon will be killed, and
refuses to allow Benjamin to be taken away. The nine standing before him
are still alive, so he is hardly childless! Reuben attempts to persuade his
father that he will bring Benjamin back safely by oering his own sons
lives if he is not successful. Still, Jacob refuses to let his new favorite son
Benjamin go to Egypt to save Simeons life. The chapter ends as it began,
with Jacobs disregard for the lives of any of his sons other than those
born by Rachel.
ALEX, departing from the MT and unlike other Greek manuscripts,
concludes the story about the return of Jacobs sons with a comment that
introduces the following chapter elsewhere. This is especially curious
because ALEX includes the sentence about the famines severity, labeled
as v. 39, as a new paragraph that continues immediately with 43:1. Never-
theless, it is included above, and not part of Chapter 43, due to the verse
number in Swetes edition.
43:113 After he and his family devoured the grain that his sons had
brought back from Egypt, Jacob (referred to as Israel in this story) has a
change of heart. Because the famine is still severe, he tells his sons to go
back for more. This time it is Judah who speaks for the rest of the broth-
ers, reminding his father of the mans warning not to return without
Benjamin. Judahs claim that they would not be able to see the mans face,
however, diers from Josephs actual much more dire threat of death
(42:20). Perhaps Judah realizes that telling his father that they might die
would make it even more dicult for him to persuade Israel to send Ben-
jamin along.
Unlike the majority of LXX-G manuscripts that more accurately reect
the Hebrew text of 43:2 by stating that the younger brother must be with
you ( ), ALEX personalizes Judahs version of Josephs earlier
warning by requiring that the younger brother must come down to me
( ). Thus ALEXs Joseph wants to see Benjamin himself,
not just have him be with the brothers. Judah then issues an ultimatum to
his father. Either send Benjamin with them and they, according to ALEX
and other manuscripts may buy () food, or they will not go.
The use of the aorist subjunctive rather than the indicative implies the
tentativeness of the purchase. Judah repeats his version of the threat that
they would not be able to see the mans face, but this time even ALEX
reports only that the younger brother must be with them. Although see-
ing the face does not reect Josephs actual words, it does foreshadow
what actually will happen. They will indeed see his face when he reveals
his true identity to them.
Jacob/Israel must have forgotten his sons earlier report about their
encounter with the man, because he now scolds them for telling the man
about the younger brother. They, in turn, defend themselves by disin-
genuously claiming that the man explicitly asked ( )
them about their family by inquiring specically about their father and
brother. The only question Joseph posed to them was from where they
came. They voluntarily provided the information about their father and
brother in order to convince Joseph they were family men and not spies.
Their nal statement, however, most likely represents the truth. They
probably did not know that the man would want them to bring their
other brother to him.
GENESIS 42:638 & 43:113 423
424 COMMENTARY
Judah tries once again to convince his father to send Benjamin with
them. This time, however, he echoes the words his father had used when
he rst sent them to Egypt. Regardless of what might await them in
Egypt, they likely will all die of starvation if they do not go. Like his older
brother Reuben, Judah now attempts to persuade his father to send Ben-
jamin with them by giving him a pledge. Judahs pledge, unlike that of
Reubens, rests on him alone and not on the lives of his sons. Perhaps
the lives of his three remaining sons were more important to him after
his encounter with Tamar, who in essence replaced the rst two of his
sons whom God had put to death. Although Judah does not pledge his
actual life, forever bearing the guilt before Jacob in the case of Benjamins
demise might be worse. Sure that this would convince his father of his
sense of responsibility, Judah now shows his impatience by concluding
his plea with a sarcastic comment about the delay.
His father concedes and advises his sons to take some gifts for the
man. LXX-Gs description of the gifts as fruits () of the land clari-
es a somewhat ambiguous and unique Hebrew phrase that refers to the
gifts as n nbb. Both Sarna (1989, 299) and Westermann (1986, 122)
oer two ways of translating the phrase. If the word nbb derives from
the trilateral root -b- to sing, it could refer to something which is
praiseworthy and celebrated in song. The more likely meaning strength
is based on the proto-Semitic d mr; the same word appears in Exod. 15:2
in which Moses and the Israelites praise God for his strength and might.
As such, both maintain that the phrase refers to some of the best pro-
duce. Despite the lack of an explicit reference to their exceptionality in
LXX-G, these gifts would likely be well-received in Egypt. Three of the
gifts (incense, pine resin, and myrrh) were among those carried by the
Ishmaelite traders (37:25). Gifts, however, are not enough. Israel also tells
his sons to take twice the amount of money that they have in their hands,
as well as enough money to compensate for the amount they found in
their sacks, which he optimistically thinks could have been an error.
Just whose error, he does not specify. He nally gives them permission to
take their brother and, hopefully, Gods favor with them. His concluding
remark lamenting his childlessness implies his reluctant acknowledge-
ment of what might come to be. Ironically, he will indeed be childless, at
least for awhile, because all his sons will be gone.
43:1433 Doing what their father told them, the sons return to Egypt
with gifts and Benjamin and appear before Joseph. After seeing Benjamin
with his own eyes, Joseph, according to ALEX, commanded (,
cf. the majority reading said []) the one in charge of his house to
bring them into his house. Then, switching to direct discourse, Joseph
also gives orders to slaughter a sacricial victim ( ) for
a midday meal with the men. Ironically, the brothers do not interpret
their summons to Josephs house in this way. Rather, they assume they
will be prosecuted, and eventually enslaved, as a result of the money they
found in their sacks after their rst visit. Whether Joseph intends them to
feel fear is not obvious in the narrative. What is obvious is their humility
before yet another man who also acknowledges their God. They imme-
diately tell him about nding the money in their bags when they were
returning home from their rst trip. They go on to say that they have
brought back the money. His rst words to them mercy to you (
) have a slightly dierent connotation than the Hebrews peace to
you (oo: o::c). Although does not directly refer to God and is
a hapax legomenon in Genesis, it is used elsewhere in the LXX only in
reference to God (Wevers 1993, 733) and is often translated may God be
with you. Josephs man continues his address to them by crediting their
God for providing the solution to their problem, rather than blaming
their God for causing their problems as they themselves had done earlier
(42:28). Here is yet another Egyptian who appears to know and respect
their God more than they do. This man then releases Simeon from prison
and extends them appropriate hospitality so that they can prepare for
the meal.
Again the brothers do what Josephs dreams predicted. With gifts in
hand, they bow down to him two times during the course of their initial
encounter. Joseph immediately inquires about their fathers health and,
after learning that Jacob is alive and well, acknowledges Gods blessing of
Jacob. He then directs his attention to Benjamin and once again invokes
God this time to ask God to have mercy on Benjamin. He likely remem-
bers his own abuse at the hands of his brothers, and his emotions over-
come him to such an extent that he has to leave the room to cry. However,
he returns in control and orders that the meal be served. The rest of the
chapter reports the details of the meals service and its seating arrange-
ments. However, much remains unclear.
As if to emphasize spatially the social distance between Joseph and
his brothers, the narrator reports that Joseph is served alone. He is said
to be separate both from his brothers and from other Egyptians, whose
presence is noted only here. The reason given for the separation is that
Egyptians consider it an abomination to eat food with the Hebrews. Yet,
as Sarna notes, Egyptians felt contempt for most foreigners, including
GENESIS 43:1433 425
426 COMMENTARY
Greeks (1989, 302). Such contempt and its accompanying assumption
of cultural superiority is likely due, at least in part, to the oppression of
foreign rule over native Egyptians during the intermediate periods. More
relevant to the time period represented in the Joseph Narrative is the
Second Intermediate Period of Hyksos rule.
Third century B.C.E. Egypt was the place when LXX-G was translated
and the Egyptian historian Manetho wrote. In fragment 42 of his Aegyp-
tiaca that survived in the rst century C.E. writing of Josephus, Manetho
comments on the foreign invasion that launched the Second Intermedi-
ate Period.
A blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the region of the East,
invaders of obscure race marched in condence of victory against our land.
By main force they easily overpowered the rulers of our land, they then
burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods,
and treated all the natives with a cruel hostility, massacring some and lead-
ing into slavery the wives and children of others. Finally they appointed as
king one of their number whose name was Salitis.
The precise identity of these invaders, to whom Manetho referred as Hyk-
sos, has been debated. Redford summarizes the major theories proposed
by scholars about the geographic and ethnic origin of these invaders and
concludes that they were from an area equivalent to modern Palestine
and southern Syria and their dialect was West Semitic (1992, 98101).
William Simpson similarly notes the southern Palestinian origin of these
invaders who eventually settled in the eastern Delta area. Several leaders
of this group of Amorites/Hyksos overthrew the weak Egyptian rulers of
the 14th Dynasty and ushered in the 15th Dynasty, which was character-
ized as relatively long and prosperous (Hallo and Simpson 1971, 250251).
The reign of Apophis (16151575 B.C.E.) was the period of greatest Hyksos
power, after which Kamose and Ahmose from the area of Thebes took
over Egyptian leadership (Redford 1992, 125129). Despite the fact that
Kamose returned to Thebes to celebrate his success over a Hyksos resi-
dence in Avaris, Simpson maintains that it is evident that Avaris did not
fall; neither were the Hyksos expelled from Egypt. Rather, Simpson goes
on to say, their expulsion came by the hands of Kamoses brother and
successor Ahmose (Hallo and Simpson 1971, 252), who is credited with
establishing Egypts 18th Dynasty, the New Kingdom, and the beginnings
of empire (Kitchen 2003, 347). As such, the inuence of these Canaanite
settlers continued long after their leadership was overthrown.
Thus, the restriction on eating with Hebrews likely reects longstand-
ing unease. However, in the story itself, the ethnic restriction, along
with Josephs desire to keep his real identity a secret from his brothers,
explains why he is served separately. Why he is served apart from the
other Egyptians is unclear. Do they avoid eating with him because they
know he is really a Hebrew or because of his superior social position?
The letter option is more likely. Then, in a departure from the Hebrew
text, ALEX and several other Greek manuscripts insert a comment from
later in the story (46:34) that every shepherd of sheep is an abomination
to the Egyptians. As a result, it is unclear whether it was the brothers
occupation or their very identity that made them abominable and forced
the separate serving arrangements. This later remark prompted several
commentators on the Hebrew text to suggest that it was Egyptian food
taboos against eating sheep (Exod. 8:22) that is reected in this scenario
(e.g., Sarna 1989, 302 and Alter 1996, 258). However, if lamb were indeed
taboo to Egyptians, Joseph would not have served it at all. It seems more
likely that the serving details are meant to emphasize Josephs new iden-
tity and superior status.
The narrative then reports the seating arrangements according to the
brothers ages. Although it is unclear who is sitting closest to Joseph, it
is certainly clear that Benjamin is favored. All the brothers get part of
Josephs meal, but Benjamin gets ve times more than his brothers. Nev-
ertheless, they all drink and get drunk together. Likely, this comes as a
surprise to the brothers who had not expected this type of hospitality.
However, their trip is not over. Joseph has more surprises for them.
44:117 After the celebratory meal the night before, the brothers likely
think their problems are over. Joseph, however, has other plans that will
cause his brothers further distress. This time he gives the order to put the
incriminating money back in each brothers bag along with some food.
Even worse, he has his house steward put his silver cup and additional
money into Benjamins bag. In the morning, Joseph has further instruc-
tions for his house steward. He even tells him what questions to ask his
brothers when he catches them. Departing slightly from the Hebrew,
ALEX and a few other Greek manuscripts add to me () after the verb
repay () in v. 4. Therefore, the questioning accusation
implies that Joseph is taking their actions as a personal aront, rather
than merely inappropriate behavior. The second question, missing in the
Hebrew, species what they did to oend Joseph, i.e., they took his silver
cup. Now, following the Hebrew text, the next question, a rhetorical one,
changes awkwardly from the point of view of Joseph to that of his house
steward. Presuming a yes answer to the question of whether his lord
GENESIS 43:1433 & 44:117 427
428 COMMENTARY
drinks from the cup, the steward goes on to provide additional informa-
tion that is mentioned for the rst time in the story. The silver cup is
more than merely a drinking vessel; it also is an object that Joseph uses
for divination, presumably the art of lecanomancy by which the diviner
interprets the movements of water in a cup. Joseph apparently has yet
another set of divinatory skills.
In another departure from the Hebrew, the LXX-G steward presumably
must search for the men. Rather than merely overtaking (o:c) them,
he nds () them and asks the questions dictated by Joseph. Obvi-
ously surprised by the stewards questions, the brothers emphatically
deny his accusations. They are so sure of their innocence that they make
a death oath against the perpetrator and oer themselves as servants.
The steward acknowledges the oath, but softens the penalties since he is
the one responsible for what will be found in their bags. Of no surprise
to him, the cup is found in Benjamins bag. The brothers are shocked and
show their horror by tearing their clothes, as Reuben and Jacob had done
earlier in response to Josephs fate. Remarkably, they do not let Benja-
min take the blame by himself. Perhaps they still remember their earlier
guilt over what they did to Joseph. Perhaps they realize what Benjamins
absence would mean for their father, and thus for them. In any case, they
accompany Benjamin back to the city. They are likely very sure they will
not be able to talk their way out of this second instance of theft.
Because he has guaranteed Benjamins safety, Judah serves as spokes-
man for his brothers. His prominence in this part of the narrative is indi-
cated grammatically by the singular verb came to (), despite
the semantically plural subject. Nevertheless, they all fall to the ground
in front of Joseph. As their fortunes worsen, their ingratiating language
and behaviors increase. Not only are they bowing down to him as they
had earlier, they are falling on the ground. It is now Joseph himself who
questions their actions and asks a rhetorical question that implies their
ignorance. Judah responds with rhetorical questions of his own, ques-
tions that imply their helplessness. Again, God is implicated as the source
of their troubles. Nevertheless, Judah acquiesces and declares that they
all will be house servants for Joseph. Joseph feigns righteous indignation;
he would never allow such a thing. Only the one on whom the cup was
found should be enslaved. The rest of them can go back to their father
safely. Is this Josephs way of protecting Benjamin by keeping him away
from his brothers? Or is Joseph testing his brothers to see if they are
really in the right?
44:1834 Judah continues to take overall responsibility for the family as
a whole, but is especially concerned with Benjamins fate and the eect
that will have on his father. Like Joseph himself, Judah shows that he has
learned from his earlier mistakes and has developed leadership skills that
will serve him well as the de facto leader of the family. After Joseph tells
Judah and the other brothers to go home, Judah actually comes closer to
Joseph and begins an impassioned, submissive, and partly fabricated plea
to Joseph in which he relates the recent history of his family. Parts of the
conversation that Judah attributes to Joseph actually occurred during the
conversation between the brothers and their father. Perhaps his memory
was faulty due to the stress of the situation or perhaps he intentionally
embellished the story for emotional impact. Certainly, his tone is ingrati-
ating. Throughout, he refers to Joseph as lord and he and the rest of his
family as servants. Although he acknowledges Josephs position as sec-
ond in command to Pharaoh, he also seems to consider Joseph a compas-
sionate person who can be swayed by appeals to family ties and loyalty.
Unbeknownst to him, this is precisely what Joseph wants to hear.
Judah begins by asking Joseph to hear him out and introduces what he
is about to say by reminding Joseph about the supposed question he asked
the brothers about their father and younger brother on their rst visit.
He goes on by retelling some of their earlier conversation but embellish-
ing many of the details. This time, for example, he states that Benjamins
brother has died (). Not only does this statement reect their
assumptions about Josephs fate, it also adds a more tragic dimension
to the story than the earlier statement he no longer exists. Judah then
relates other additional information that similarly adds pathos to his
plea. Contrary to the Hebrew text, most other Greek manuscripts, and
even the reality of the story world, ALEX has Judah portraying Benjamin
as the only one left to his father ( ), rather than the major-
ity and logical reading of his mother. Nevertheless, ALEXs reading does
reect Jacobs own callous disregard for all his sons except Joseph and
Benjamin when he referred to himself as childless (42:36).
Judah again refers to an earlier comment of Joseph, i.e., his order to
bring Benjamin back with them. Again, he has selective memory. Joseph
indeed ordered them to bring Benjamin back. However, he did so as a way
for them to prove they were not spies, not so that he could take care of
him ( ) as Judah now reports. Ironically, Joseph prob-
ably did want to see Benjamin and take care of him, but that is not the
reason he gave earlier. Furthermore, he threatened death to all of them if
GENESIS 44:1834 429
430 COMMENTARY
they did not comply. The threat of death also appears throughout the rest
of Judahs appeal, but the subjects are dierent. For example, it is unlikely
that, as Judah claims, Joseph would have persisted in his demand to see
Benjamin if the brothers had told him that taking Benjamin from their
father would cause his death. Although the subject of the verb will die
() in v. 22 is unclear, the resulting death of either his beloved
brother Benjamin or his father would not be acceptable to Joseph.
Ironically, Judahs memory improves somewhat when he describes the
conversation between father and sons back home a conversation that
will be important to Joseph but that he would be able neither to con-
rm nor deny. Judah includes remarks that he attributes to his father
that were not part of the conversation, but that he thinks Joseph needs to
know. The most signicant comments are those in which Judah describes
yet another instance of Jacobs favoritism. He reminds his sons that his
wife bore two (sons). Here, Jacobs remark shows that he is denying not
only his other sons, but also his other wives. He goes on to remind them
of what happened to one of these two sons. Unlike the Hebrew text in
which Jacob himself describes Josephs fate as being torn in pieces, LXX-G
manuscripts show a slightly accusatory tone in Jacobs statement you
said . . . (). This subtle dierence continues to underscore Jacobs
disdain for the sons of his other wives. It also suggests that Jacob might
not believe them if they told him the truth.
The rest of Judahs report of the conversation between father and sons
accurately describes what Jacob said about the possible consequences of
their taking Benjamin with them to Egypt, but not when he said it. Judah
would have little reason to embellish his fathers words predicting his
painful descent to Hades in his old age should Benjamin get sick. These
words have enough emotional appeal by themselves. Instead of elaborat-
ing on Jacobs statement, Judah repeats it and implicitly acknowledges
the truth of his fathers lament. He concludes his plea to Joseph with a
remarkably unselsh gesture. He volunteers to take the blame for Benja-
min and to take his place as Josephs house servant. Perhaps he considers
this a better fate than being guilty in front of his father for the rest of his
life. Or perhaps he really does feel responsible for protecting Benjamin
and his father.
45:115 Joseph can no longer keep his identity from his brothers. Nor is
he able to be as vindictive as he has the right to be. Instead, he attempts
to relieve them of the guilt they have experienced and to reconcile his
family that has been separated both physically and emotionally. The
reconciliation scene begins with Joseph dismissing everyone except his
brothers. Nevertheless, he weeps so loudly that everyone in Pharaohs
house heard. Earlier, he hid when he cried on seeing his brother Ben-
jamin (43:30); now he let go a sound of weeping (
), an unusual phrase that emphasizes his real passion. The verb
has a wide range of meanings, but is typically used in the sense
of allow or permit when it translates n: (Wevers 1993, 757). Here,
however, it seems more appropriate to understand it in its more general
sense of letting go. Unlike the Hebrew his voice (::p), the Greek voice
or sound () is indenite. Perhaps the translator just neglected to
include or assumed the third person pronoun. Nevertheless, what is being
highlighted is Josephs heartfelt emotion.
The rst words that Joseph speaks I am Joseph gets right to the
point. ALEX has Joseph clarify that simple phrase by adding your brother,
the one you sold into Egypt. Joseph then asks if his, not our, father is
still alive. He presumably knows the answer to that question inasmuch as
he had received a positive answer to the question earlier (43:2728). Now,
however, he personalizes the question, but seems hesitant to acknowledge
their sibling relationship. The brothers are speechless because they were
troubled (), a word used six times in Genesis, ve of which
occur earlier in the Joseph narrative. What typically follows is a resolu-
tion to the troubling situation. In this case, Joseph attempts to soothe
their troubled feelings by crediting God, rather than blaming them, for
putting him in Egypt. ALEX omits Josephs initial words of rapproche-
ment, in which, according to all other manuscripts, he bids his broth-
ers to draw near to me ( ) and they do. This omission,
combined with the dubious addition and repetition of Josephs clarifying
phrase your brother, the one you sold into Egypt ( ,
) portrays him as slightly more vindictive. He twice
reminds them of their mercenary actions and does not ask them to come
near to him. Nevertheless, the speech itself negates any lingering sense
of hostility.
Joseph, showing his interpretive ability in a more favorable light than
he did earlier in life, explains the unseen actions of God-in-the-margins.
God sent Joseph ahead of them for life ( [v. 5]), that is to sustain
the life of their family during the years of famine. He goes on to more
fully elucidate Gods plan in v. 7 by elaborating on Gods purpose in send-
ing Joseph ahead of them to Egypt. However, his explanation, in both the
Hebrew and Greek texts, is not clear to modern interpreters. What does
it mean that God wanted to leave you behind a remnant on the earth?
GENESIS 45:115 431
432 COMMENTARY
The most notorious problem concerns the identity and location of the
remnant (nc/). Who is to be the remnant those left
behind (the traditional notion) or the one sent ahead? Wevers argues
that because the primary reference in is Egypt, the translator
may well have understood Joseph as the actual , i.e., Joseph is
your remnant in Egypt (1993, 759).
In any case, Gods plan was to put Joseph in a position where his actions
would result in the continuance of the familys posterity, their long-term
life and survival. Such a conclusion is conrmed in the words he tells
his brothers to tell his father. Joseph has the ability to give himself and
his present and future descendants a new life in Goshen (Gesem), which
LXX-G further denes as of Arabia. Arabia was known to be one of the
nomes in the delta region of Egypt close to the border of the Sinai. This
region was known for its abundance of pasture land and was a place where
Semitic nomads were granted permission by the Egyptian government to
graze. Because the J source of the Hebrew text referred to the same area
later as Ramesses (47:11), William Ward maintains that Hebrew tradition
considered these to be identical (1992, 10761077). He goes on to discuss
the archeological evidence interpreted by Manfred Bietak and William
Dever (see, e.g., Dever 1991) that has shown that the city of Ramesses
was built over the older Hyksos capital Avaris (1992, 1077). Therefore, the
area in which Joseph proposes his family settle is that associated with the
earlier Hyksos leadership. It is also suitable for their occupation as shep-
herds, an occupation that will be explained later in the story. After insur-
ing he means what he says, Joseph concludes his reconciliatory speech by
rst embracing Benjamin and then the rest of his brothers. They speak to
him, but what they say is not recorded. Instead, the scene changes to the
response on the part of Pharaoh and his house.
45:1628 Those in Pharaohs house who overhear Josephs reconcilia-
tion with his brothers rejoiced (). A hapax legomenon in Genesis,
describes more specically the joyous reaction of Pharaoh and his
attendants than does the Hebrews it was good in the eyes of (:n no).
Neither text, however, provides any reason for this joyous response.
Presumably, they are happy to know that Joseph is not without a real
family. Pharaoh essentially repeats Josephs earlier orders to his broth-
ers to bring the entire family down to Egypt. Whereas Josephs invitation
to his brothers and father emphasizes the goodness of God who brought
Joseph to power in Egypt, Pharaohs order emphasizes the goodness of the
land of Egypt. Of course, Pharaoh does not speak to the brothers directly.
Rather, he tells Joseph what to tell them. Joseph obeys Pharaohs order
and provides them wagons for their trip. In addition, he gives all of them
several robes. However, Joseph, like his father, plays favorites. Benjamin
gets ve exceptional robes and 300 gold pieces. Perhaps he still does not
trust his brothers enough to give them the money.
Joseph likewise provides similar things ( ) for his father.
Whether these things are similar to what he gave the brothers or whether
they include the additional goods he gave Benjamin is unclear. The text
indicates that the goods carried by the ten donkeys and the food carried
by the ten mules are being sent specically to his father for the road. Per-
haps the narrator here is emphasizing Josephs generosity and does not
intend that what the animals are taking from Egypt is only for his father.
Rather, it is his father who will manage the provisions for the return trip.
As they leave, Joseph tells them not to get angry, advice that diers some-
what from the Hebrews do not be agitated/perturbed (::n:). The
latter implies that they have nothing more to fear. The LXX Joseph, on
the other hand, does not want the brothers antagonism with each other
to prevent them from accomplishing what they set out to do.
The brothers do as they are told. Jacobs initial disbelief is not surpris-
ing, since these same sons earlier had allowed their father to believe that
Joseph was dead. After that, Jacobs entire outlook on life had changed.
He had no hope and even considered himself childless. Nevertheless, his
sons continue to tell their father everything that Joseph had told them.
When he sees the wagons that Joseph sent, he nally acknowledges that
they are telling the truth. Jacob still talks about his death, but being able
to see Joseph again makes the immediate future brighter.
46:17 After he nally believes what his sons tell him about Joseph,
Jacob does the appropriate ritual act. He sacrices to the God of his father
Isaac at the well of the oath, or Beersheba, according to MT. ALEXs addi-
tion of there () as the place of sacrice explicitly connects the well
of the oath with this location that is especially connected to Isaac (26:23
33). As he did for Jacobs father Isaac (26:24), God now appears to Jacob
at that same location during the night. As before, God identies himself
and tells Jacob not to be afraid. This time, however, God identies himself
as the the God of his fathers, which is more appropriate than the earlier
epithet the God of Abraham. When speaking to Isaac, God extended to
him the covenantal blessing of his father Abraham. Here, Gods blessing
is once again assumed in Gods promise to make of Jacob a great nation.
However, the location has changed to there, i.e., in Egypt. In accordance
GENESIS 45:1628 & 46:17 433
434 COMMENTARY
with Gods much earlier declaration to Abraham, Abrahams descendants
would indeed be sojourners in a land not their own (15:13). Then after
four hundred years of enslavement, God would then see that they come
out with much chattel (15:14) and would return them to the land (15:16).
If Jacob had heard of Gods declaration to his grandfather Abraham, he
would realize that the four hundred year sojourn is about to begin. God
goes on to promise Jacob that he would bring Jacob back in the end (
) when Joseph will put hands on your eyes (
) so as to close Jacobs eyes in death.
Jacobs sons did as Joseph told them (45:1720). They put all their pos-
sessions and the entire extended family on the wagons that Joseph pro-
vided for that very purpose. Then Jacob, as the patriarch of the family,
brings them all into Egypt.
46:827 The names and relationships of those whom Jacob brought to
Egypt are listed according to their mother, who is named in a summary
statement that provides a total number of ospring credited to her. Only
Rachel, of the four mothers listed, is described as Jacobs wife (v. 19). Her
most favored status is perhaps also shown in the fact that it is only in
her summary statement that ALEX credits Jacob with the act of father-
ing (v. 22). For details about the dierent ways that the names appear in
the many dierent Greek manuscripts, see Wevers 1993, 775786. He also
explains the many dierences between the LXX and MT.
46:2834 After the genealogy that identies Jacobs extended family,
the story continues by describing the reunion of Jacob and Joseph. The
subject of the verb sent () at the beginning of v. 28 is Jacob,
the subject of the sentence prior to the embedded genealogy and the last
person referenced in the genealogy itself. The unusual word order in
which the accusative Judah precedes the verb points to the signicance
of the accusative. Because Judah is the one whom Jacob sends ahead to
meet Joseph, he is emerging as the de facto leader of his brothers. This is
even more evident in ALEX that reports that Judah went ahead of them
(), i.e., the whole family, instead of the majority reading ahead of
him (). Judah was the one who convinced his father to send Ben-
jamin to Egypt, and he was the one who protected Benjamin in Egypt by
assuming responsibility for the whole family.
Although Jacob is clearly the subject of the verb sent, it is not clear
whether he or Joseph is the masculine singular object of the LXX-G inni-
tive to meet (). Harl maintains that Joseph is the one whom
Judah is to meet (1994, 297), while Wevers argues it is Jacob (1993, 787).
Part of the problem stems from the dicult text in the MT where the
innitive is dierent. Rather than meeting either Jacob or Joseph, Judah
is to lead the way before him (::c: n:n:). As both Wevers (1993, 787)
and Westermann (1986, 162) discuss, the hiphil form of the Hebrew verb
n usually means to teach or instruct and therefore usually is followed
by a direct object. Only here does the verb appear without an object and
likely means to lead the way. If the verb is to be understood as such, the
him of whom Judah is to lead the way before must be Jacob. He then
is the one to whom LXX-Gs somewhat free translation refers (Wevers
1993, 787). Harl, on the other hand, argues that the innitive to meet
with a dative object was used earlier (32:2, 18; ALEX 32:1, 17) in the sense
to meet with (1994, 297). Although Joseph would seem to be the more
likely object because his is the name that immediately precedes the verb
in question, Jacob is the more likely object when read in conjunction with
the following verse (Wevers 1993, 787).
LXX-G also changes the location of the meeting from the MTs Goshen
to Heroonpolis in the land of Ramesse. This change is another instance
of LXX-Gs tendency to update geographic information. According to
Wevers, Heroonpolis in the land of Ramesse is a free invention of the
LXX-G translator who thought Goshen to be the same as Heroonpolis (and
possibly the same as ancient Pithom), all of which were located in the
eastern delta area (1993, 787). Ward, however, maintains that it is Goshen
and Ramesses that refer to the same city and denies the identication of
Pithom with either Goshen or Heroonpolis. Instead he concurs with E. P.
Uphill that Pithom is more likely associated with Heliopolis (1992, 1077).
Despite the dierence of opinions regarding the exact geographic loca-
tion of the meeting, all agree that its general location was in the eastern
delta region.
The story then continues by reporting that Joseph traveled by chariot,
tting of his exalted social and political status, to meet his father Israel
in Heroonpolis. However, his emotional response to seeing his father for
the rst time in years reects Josephs personal situation. As he did when
he saw Benjamin for the rst time, Joseph falls on his [fathers] neck.
Joseph also weeps as he did several times earlier when seeing his broth-
ers. Missing in the description of the father-son reunion is any physical
response on the part of Israel. Such a reserved response from Israel is
hardly what would be expected from a father whose life was not worth
GENESIS 46:2834 435
436 COMMENTARY
living without his favorite son. Nevertheless, the rst words he speaks
echo his previous thought that once he saw Joseph, he could die anytime
thereafter.
Joseph makes no response to his fathers comment, but instead tells
his brothers what he plans to tell Pharaoh about them. He also gives
them explicit instructions on how to respond if Pharaoh should ask them
directly about their work. Joseph likely knows what the narrator later
reports (v. 34) and ALEX earlier mentioned (43:31), that every shepherd of
sheep is an abomination to the Egyptians. Inasmuch as the Hyksos kings
were referred to as Shepherd Kings (Redford 1992, 107), the abomina-
tion of such shepherds could reect both an occupational and political
aversion. Therefore, Josephs carefully crafted words are an attempt to
downplay their profession by describing it in more general terms.
The LXX Joseph goes even farther than his MT counterpart to obscure
his familys occupation. He will begin his report to Pharaoh with an
acknowledgement that they are shepherds (). However, in
LXX-G, Joseph omits the clarication of sheep with regard to the shep-
herds (v ), which appears in the MT. Furthermore, his report of the
animals they brought with them includes herds and cattle (
), rather than the MTs sheep and cattle (opn: o:v).
In fact, of sixty-three occurrences of sheep (v) in the MT of Genesis,
only seven are translated as herds () instead of the usual sheep
(). The words that he tells his brothers to use should Pharaoh
inquire of them would likewise disguise their profession. If they refer to
themselves as men who keep herds ( ), the brothers
will be telling the truth, but not the whole truth. Furthermore, the detail
that they had done this work from childhood until now shows that they
are not just taking advantage of Goshens suitable grazing land and pos-
sibly depriving native Egyptians of land and opportunity. Joseph clearly
has fullled his role of being the most wise and intelligent man in Egypt
( ), the qualities that Pharaoh expected
of Joseph (41:39).
47:112 As he said he would do, Joseph reports to Pharaoh that his fam-
ily has arrived in Egypt from the land of Canaan. However, he omits some
of the information that he said he would report and instead includes other
details. For example, he neglects to tell Pharaoh that they are shepherds,
but he does tell him that they are already in Goshen. Perhaps he assumes
that Pharaoh will associate Goshen with shepherding, thus eliminating
the need to specify their occupation. Although not a part of the plan
he previously proposed to his family, Joseph takes ve of his brothers
with him to Pharaoh. When Pharaoh asks them about their work, their
response diers from what Joseph told them to say. The rst words out
of their mouths are exactly what Joseph wanted them to avoid saying,
namely that they are shepherds of sheep ( ). Origi-
nally, he himself had planned to tell Pharaoh that they were shepherds
without the explicit genitive of sheep. His brothers were to tell Pharaoh
that they were men who kept herds, a description that although true,
was not precise. Because every shepherd of sheep was an abomination
to Egyptians, Joseph carefully chose the words he and his brothers were
to use in order to represent their occupation in more euphemistic and
presumably less abominable terms. ALEX and several other manuscripts
indicate that the brothers follow Josephs advice and describe their work
as a lifelong occupation.
Not only do the brothers tell Pharaoh that they are shepherds of sheep,
they go on to tell Pharaoh why they left Canaan and what they plan to do
in Egypt. To their credit, they do use appropriately deferential language
by referring to themselves as your servants ( ). Further-
more, ALEXs use of the aorist subjunctive let us settle (),
rather than the majority future indicative we will settle (),
more accurately reects the Hebrews let us live, if you please (:nc
:), a form that typically implies a polite request. The subtle uncertainty
associated with the subjunctive form implies that the brothers, while not
explicitly asking Pharaohs permission to settle in Goshen, nevertheless
seem to acknowledge Pharaohs ability to prevent them from so doing.
Thus, their statement appears less presumptuous. Yet, their use of two
dierent terms (v. 4) to describe their residential status implies that they
want to do more than sojourn () and live as resident aliens,
which is how God earlier described the status of Abrahams ospring
(you will be sojourners [ ], 15:13). Rather, their intention
is to settle () and live in Egypt on a permanent basis. These
same distinctions appear at the beginning of the Joseph Narrative where
Jacob is described as living () on a permanent basis in Canaan,
where his father only sojourned (). The family plans to make
the same transition in the land of Egypt.
Pharaoh neither objects to their profession nor their plans to settle in
Egypt. In fact, at this point in the LXX-G version of the story, he orders
them, through Joseph, to settle () in Goshen. He goes even
further and suggests that if they have the right qualications, Joseph
should appoint them as rulers () over our herds. Now they,
GENESIS 47:112 437
438 COMMENTARY
like Joseph, will have positions as rulers in Egypt. Nevertheless, as ruler
of the land (42:6), Joseph is still superior to his brothers who will only
rule over herds. Nevertheless, being rulers over the royal cattle would be
an important and benecial means of employment. As Sarna points out,
they would be ocers of the crown and thus be granted legal protection
not typically given to sojourners (1989, 319).
In an addition to the Hebrew text that interrupts Pharaohs conversa-
tion with Joseph, LXX-G then reports the arrival of Jacob and his sons
presumably the six not already there in Egypt. Pharaoh again orders
Joseph to settle his family in what he now refers to as Egypts best land
( ). The MT narrates the events in a slightly dierent order.
After the ve brothers tell Pharaoh their occupation, the reason they
came to Egypt, and their hope to settle there, Pharaoh at that point
orders Joseph to settle them in the best part of the land, which he imme-
diately declares to be Goshen (MT, v. 6b). Only then does he inquire of
Joseph whether any of them might be appropriate rulers of the herds.
Commentators describe the awkward aspects of both versions (Wevers
1993, 793; Westermann 1986, 168169; Sarna 1989, 319; Harl 1994, 297
298), but none of them note that the MT appears to equate the best of
Egypt with the land of Goshen. LXX-G, on the other hand, has Pharaoh
rst tell Joseph to settle them in Goshen, and later amends his order to
have them settle in the best of Egypt. As a result, it is unclear whether
LXX-G considers Goshen the best land in Egypt.
Regardless of which account is to be preferred, both the MT and LXX-G
continue by reporting that Joseph places his father in front of Pharaoh.
Then in a surprising move, Jacob blesses (/(n) Pharaoh.
Why Jacob would presume to bless Pharaoh has occasioned some apolo-
getic explanations that suggest he was merely greeting him (e.g., Wevers
1993, 793; Sarna 1989, 280). It seems likely that Jacobs blessing is merely
an appropriate response of thankfulness for Pharaohs generosity. As he
did earlier when Josephs brothers stood before him, Pharaoh asks Jacob
a personal, rather than an ocial, question. Jacob responds to Pharaohs
inquiry about his age with his typical pessimism. He has lived one hun-
dred thirty troublesome () years, yet seemingly complains that
he has not been granted a lifespan as long as that of his fathers. Why he
would want to live even longer, given his negative assessment of his life
thus far, is unclear. By this point in the story, Jacob is portrayed as a bit-
ter old man who, based on his comment when he reunited with Joseph,
seems ready to die. Pharaoh has no response and Jacob again blesses him.
Joseph then carries out Pharaohs instructions by settling his family in a
piece of property () described as being in the land of Egypt,
in the best of the land, and in the land of Rameses (v. 11). None of three
descriptions explicitly mentions Goshen. Wherever his family and their
households are living, they are all beneciaries of Josephs generosity
and wisdom. The grain he distributes to them comes from the amount
that he stored during the years of plenty.
47:1327 This part of the narrative demonstrates Josephs exceptional
administrative abilities to manage the devastating eects of the famine
throughout the lands of Egypt and Canaan. Pharaohs decision to appoint
him as ruler of the land is shown to be sound. In contrast with three dif-
ferent verbs used in the Hebrew text to describe the impact of the fam-
ine (languish [nn:], be gone [oc], and be exhausted or consumed
[obn]), LXX-G uses two dierent forms of the verb depleted ()
throughout the rst part of this section of the narrative (vv. 13, 15 [2
times], 16, and 18). The verb itself has a wide range of meanings,
including to abandon, to perish, to become non-existent, and to lose
strength. Thus, this one Greek verb can render many dierent Hebrew
words. Muraoka (2002, 164165) lists nearly fteen Hebrew source words.
Although LXX-G might miss some of the nuances present in the Hebrew
text, its repetition of depleted continually reinforces the desperate situ-
ation in both Egypt and Canaan and makes Josephs solution even more
heroic.
LXX-Gs tendency to portray Joseph in an even more favorable light
is apparent in an addition to v. 14, and he was measuring out (grain) for
them ( ). This phrase makes clear that Joseph is
gathering money to help the people, not merely to add to Pharaohs cof-
fers. His concern for the people seems reciprocal in ALEX. Its omission
of the phrase for us () in reference to what was left remaining in
v. 18 shows the people to be less concerned with what is remaining for
us and more concerned with the lack of resources they are able to pro-
vide to Josephs agrarian policy. They ask Joseph to take them and their
land in exchange for seeds (plural in ALEX) that will allow both them and
the land to be productive.
LXX-G describes Josephs implementation of the peoples request for
seeds in exchange for servitude (v. 19) dierently than that narrated in
the MT. Reading the Hebrew hiphil verb send over, remove (n) in v. 21
as serve (n), LXX-G reports that Joseph enslaved ()
the people, instead of removing them from their land and into cities.
Therefore, MT highlights the taking of the land more than the enslave-
GENESIS 47:112 & 47:1327 439
440 COMMENTARY
ment of the people. Nevertheless, both the MT and LXX-G represent
Josephs actions in a favorable light. Both his servitude of the people
and his acquisition of their land were done at their request (v. 18). Fur-
thermore, the people were grateful for the opportunity to return only
twenty percent to the state (v. 25). This interest rate was not excessive
in the ANE. During Hammarubis reign, Sarna notes, the states share of
the harvest from state-controlled elds was as high as fty percent after
expenses (1989, 322).
The narrative abruptly changes its focus from the political to the per-
sonal. The discussion of Josephs administrative prowess gives way to a
brief comment about Josephs family. The ambiguity of just where Joseph
settled Jacob and the rest of the family is revolved (v. 11). They are settled
in Egypt on the land of Goshen. Furthermore, in contrast with the fate
of the Egyptians, Jacobs family have been granted the rights to inherit
their property. Despite the famine, they are obeying Gods rst command
to increase and multiply. Ironically, their obedience to this command
will eventually result in their own enslavement and oppression (Exod.
1:714).
47:2831 The narrative now focuses on Josephs father, alternatively
referred to as Israel and Jacob. After all his talk of dying, Jacob is nally
near death. Despite inheriting the land given to the family by Pharaoh
and prospering on it, Jacob does not want to be buried in Egypt. Instead
he makes Joseph agree to and then swear to him that he will be bur-
ied with his fathers, i.e., in the land of Canaan. Joseph agrees and swears
to his fathers request, after which Israel bows down on the top of his
staff (). As Jobes and Silva note, the LXX-G translator read his
consonantal Hebrew text nob as the sta, as if vocalized as n o b n (and
presumably adding the third masculine pronoun for a more logical
reading). However, the same Hebrew consonants could be vocalized as
the bed (n o b n). Although the later Masoretes chose the latter option,
the author of the New Testament book of Hebrews used the LXX-G read-
ing in his hero list when he cited this verse in 11:21 (2000, 24). As a result,
the MT and Heb. 11:21 disagree on the object on which Israel bowed, with
the MT reporting it was the bed, and Hebrews reporting with LXX-G it
was his sta.
48:122 LXX-Gs version of Jacob/Israels deathbed blessing of Josephs
sons shows several instances of its tendency to clear up seeming ambigui-
ties in the Hebrew text, along with several instances that actually are less
clear. After hearing of his fathers illness, Joseph takes the appropriate
action. He gathers his sons, and per the clarifying LXX-G addition, goes
with them to his father, who subsequently hears about Josephs arrival.
The impersonal subjects of the passive verb was reported () in
the rst two verses is another indication of God-in-the-margins, who has
been directing the events of the Joseph story. Having to exert himself,
Israel briey describes where and how he lived under the providence of
God and emphasizes Gods eternal gift of the land of Canaan to his many
ospring. He also reminisces about the untimely death of his wife Rachel,
perhaps to justify his subsequent action of claiming her son Josephs sons
as his own direct descendants who are entitled to a share of the promised
land. Why Israel adopts only these two sons, and not others who might be
born to Joseph in Egypt, is unclear.
Similarly hard to decipher is LXX-Gs reference to Rachels place of
burial. Wevers speculates that the translator read the Hebrew place
name Ephratha (nc) as horse (cc, presumably with a prosthetic
). Thus on the road to Ephratha (nc (n) becomes on the way to
the horses and eventually on the way to the hippodrome (
). This, Wevers goes on to say, is a way to avoid the connota-
tion that Jacob just buried his wife along the wayside (1993, 811). Harl also
comments on LXX-Gs departure from the MT. She asks and then answers
the question what is a hippodrome? by rst noting its use in the Iliad
(23:330) where it designates a place for racing chariots. By the Hellenis-
tic period, hippodromes had multiplied and were attested by Josephus as
existing in cities of Palestine (1994, 303). Despite its absence in the MT,
the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs makes mention of the hippodrome
near Rachels tomb. Nevertheless, it is an anachronistic reference for the
time period in which Joseph and his brothers were said to be in Egypt.
Fortunately, for those who might be perplexed by the mention of a hip-
podrome, LXX-G follows the Hebrew text and identies Ephratha with
Bethlehem.
After Jacobs reection on the death and burial of Rachel, he proceeds
with what some commentators describe as an adoption ritual (e.g., Sarna
1989, 326; Alter 1996, 287). He rst has Joseph conrm the identity of
Ephraim and Manasseh and then claims them as his own. He goes so far as
to ascribe to them the same status as his own two rstborn sons Reuben
and Simeon. Like his own father and grandfather, he intends to reverse
primogeniture. His reference to the second son Ephraim before the
rstborn Manasseh foreshadows his later slight of hand. Like his father
before him, Israel is nearly blind and likely vulnerable to manipulation.
GENESIS 48:122 441
442 COMMENTARY
Changing several Hebrew singular words to plural words, LXX-G makes
it clear that it is Josephs sons, not Joseph himself, who are the ones
bowing down (v. 12) and the ones being blessed (v. 16). In an attempt to
honor the rules of primogeniture, Joseph places Ephraim to Israels left
and Manasseh to Israels right. But Israel, perhaps suspecting the trick-
ery associated with Isaacs blessing of him, crosses his arms and blesses
Ephraim before Manasseh.
As stated above, LXX-G changes the beneciaries of Israels blessing
from Joseph to the more logical ones, i.e., his sons. It also changes the
way in which God is portrayed in v. 15. Rather than the God before whom
my fathers walked (::c: nn :o:nnn c on:n), LXX-G describes
God as the God before whom my fathers Abraam and Isaak were well
pleasing. The change to the participle in the next description, however,
is more signicant. The Hebrew describes God as a shepherd (nn), a
common metaphor for the Hebrew God. Of the more than twenty occur-
rences of nn in the Hebrew text, this is the only place where it is ren-
dered the one who sustains ( ). Perhaps LXX-G, reecting the
Egyptian disdain for shepherds, prefers to describe God in a more posi-
tive way as a sustainer of lives.
Josephs attempt to reintroduce the law of primogeniture in his family
is unsuccessful. Despite his blindness, Jacob knows what he is doing and
declares that the younger brother Ephraim will supercede the rstborn
Manasseh. However, unlike the earlier occasions when the rstborn son
became the eponymous ancestor of a separate and often hostile nation,
here Manasseh will remain within the family of Abraham. Indeed both
sons will be worthy enough to have a blessing in their names. After allud-
ing to the familys eventual God-granted return to the land, Jacob makes
an unusual bequest to Joseph himself. Per the MT, Jacob gives Joseph ooc
, an additional blessing variously translated as one portion (Sarna
1989, 330), one ridge of land (Westermann 1986, 180), with single intent
(Alter 1996, 291). Each of these commentators oers a lengthy discussion
of the phrase. LXX-G, however, understood ooc to be the city of Shechem.
Thus, Jacob appears to be giving this contentious city to Joseph. Jacobs
memory must be failing along with his eyesight. It was not he who took
the city by force. Rather, it was his sons Simeon and Levi who did so to
avenge Dinahs rape, an act for which they were and will continue to be
punished. Exactly why this gift is one that is more favorable than any
given to his brothers is unclear. It could be that gift of Shechem antici-
pates the later Israelite settlement in the land. At that time, Shechem will
be the most signicant city that will be just about on the border of the
tribal territories of Josephs two sons Ephraim and Manasseh. In any case,
what is clear is that Jacob continues to favor Joseph over all this brothers,
even on his deathbed.
49:127 Jacob as Israel instructs his twelve sons to gather together in
order for them to hear his deathbed pronouncements, which serve as pre-
dictions about their destinies but are based in part on comments about
their pasts. Although consisting of a collection of diverse tribal aphorisms,
Israels farewell address to his sons has, per Sarna, a carefully designed
literary structure based on the sons birth mothers (1989, 31). Leahs sons
are addressed rst, followed by the sons of the maidservants. Rachels
two sons are last. The sayings are presented as prophetic pronounce-
ments about events, per LXX-G, that will happen in the later/last of the
days ( ). This phrase, more so than its Hebrew
counterpart in the days to come (obn nn), has eschatological
and perhaps messianic overtones. In fact, portions of the Targumim and
the writings of several early Church Fathers (e.g., Eusibius and Origin) do
indeed interpret Israels blessings in a messianic sense (Harl 1994, 306).
However, more important than how they and others following them
have interpreted these blessings is the content of the blessings them-
selves. The notorious diculties of the Hebrew poetry, especially the
hapax legomena, resulted in many dierences in LXX-G. Even skilled com-
mentators have struggled with particular sections of the Hebrew text, so
it is not surprising that a translator with fewer tools at his disposal would
have problems. Harl similarly notes that the wording and syntax of the
MT present some insurmountable diculties. However, she considers the
Greek text as materially impeccable (1994, 305). Wevers oers many
convincing observations of the ways in which the translator might have
understood his Hebrew text (1993, 820838), some of which will be noted
below. The intriguing philological and historical concerns associated
with the tribal territories and later traditions regarding their eponymous
ancestors are beyond the scope of this commentary. For excellent and
thorough discussions of these issues, see Sarna 1989, 332346 and Wes-
termann 1986, 222244.
Although Jacob rejected the cultural traditions of primogeniture, he
nevertheless begins with his rstborn son Reuben. Having little positive
to say, Jacob instead emphasizes Reubens stubbornness, anger, and vio-
lence. There is no textual support for his stubbornness; instead, he backs
down when his father does not accept his oer to kill his own sons if
anything should happen to Benjamin (42:37). Perhaps this is the violence
GENESIS 48:122 & 49:127 443
444 COMMENTARY
to which Jacob refers, because Reuben seemed opposed to violence. It
was Reuben who convinced his brothers not to kill Joseph (37:2122). Yet
Israels other indictment of Reuben is appropriate. Although he had noth-
ing to say earlier when he learned that Reuben had bedded his concubine
(35:22) and thus challenged Jacobs status, Jacob now condemns the act
as one of delement.
Next Israel upbraids Simeon and Levi for their unrighteousness. As
above, there seems no textual support for this charge, perhaps because it
is considerably dierent than the problematic MT text (see e.g., Wester-
mann 1986, 225226). Israel interrupts his third person pronouncement
with a rst person psalm-like comment declaring his refusal to have any
involvement with their plans and advice. Of course, his main accusation
against them comes as no surprise. Even at the time, he condemned them
for their slaughter of Shechemites. To them, this violence was the appro-
priate revengeful response for the Shechemite leaders rape of their sister
Dinah. To Jacob, it signaled potential danger for his small family against
the more numerous Canaanites in whose land they were living (Gen. 34).
To insure that they cannot act in concert again, Jacob will separate their
tribal allotments. His pronouncement assumes that both sons will be
eponymous ancestors to landed tribes. Simeon is eventually subsumed
into Judah, and Levis priestly descendants will have no individual allot-
ment (Westermann 1986, 227). Instead, as v. 7d suggests, Levis descen-
dants will be dispersed throughout the land of Israel. Inasmuch as ALEXs
unique I will scatter (, an unusual rst person form [Smyth
549e]) has a similar meaning to the favored I will disperse (),
there is no reason to doubt its authenticity or to modify the text.
The tone of Jacobs address to his fourth son Judah is very positive.
He uses language that indicates this sons eventual dominance and that
resounds with messianic imagery. Although Jacobs speech lacks the
aection with which he earlier showed for Joseph and his sons, it is not
wanting for words declaring fraternal praise (based on a wordplay on his
name in Hebrew) and glory (v. 8a, c). LXX-G retains the MT metaphor that
refers to Judah as a young lion (v. 9a, c), but softens the metaphor in 9b.
Although the exact meaning of the MTs n: :n qob is much disputed,
most agree that it refers to killing or eating prey. Westermann, for exam-
ple, translates it as from the kill in the valley he comes up (1986, 218),
while Sarna renders it on prey, my son, have you grown (1989, 336). LXX-
G changes the beastly imagery and instead compares Judah to a shoot
() that grows up (similarly Wevers 1993, 825). Such language, as
Harl notes, brings to mind the metaphor root of Jesse in Isaiah 11, which
early Christians read as announcing the messiah (1994, 308).
In what follows, LXX-G compares Judah to a sleeping lion and cub,
rather than to a lion and lioness, as MT. Thus, there is no question of or
threat to Judahs masculinity. Such masculinity is further implied with
the allusion to the perpetual lineage of David (a leader from his thighs,
v. 10b). Unlike the MT that uses the symbols of leadership to character-
ize Judahs eventual dominance, LXX-G uses more concrete language.
A ruler (), not a scepter (onc) will remain in Judah; a leader
(), not a sta (pp) will come from his thighs (a more explicit
sexual term that renders the euphemistic Hebrew his feet [:::]). The
reference in what follows to someone who will be the expectation of the
nations ( ) has seemingly messianic overtones; at least
this appears to be how LXX-G interpreted the obscure Hebrew (Wevers
1993, 826), which refers to obedience (nnp), rather than expectation.
Rsel similarly characterizes LXX-Gs translation of the MT as the well-
known and extremely inuential rst messianic interpretation of the
saying for Judah. He goes on to comment on the explicit exegetical ren-
dering as the translators expression of his text in a way that meshes
with the hermeneutical presuppositions of his time and environment
(1998, 67). Lust, while acknowledging the possibility of a messianic inter-
pretation, nevertheless maintains that LXX-G focuses more on what is
expected and less on for whom it is expected (1997, 4041). The remain-
der of Jacobs blessing sustains his eulogy to Judahs superiority in lan-
guage that connotes both agricultural plenty and physical beauty. The
beauty associated with Judahs eyes and teeth, unlike nearly all the rest
of Judahs blessing, has no obvious past or future referent. However, its
predictions that Judah will tie his colt to a vine and wash his clothes in
wine and blood, combined with similar language in later prophetic books
(Zech. 9:9; Isa. 63:13), are especially ripe in messianic imagery and were
seemingly fullled in the gospel accounts of Jesus passion. See Harl 1994,
309 for a discussion of early Christian interpretations.
At this point in his blessing, Jacob addresses the two other sons whom
Leah bore him. However, he departs from their birth order and addresses
his tenth son Zebulun before his ninth son Issachar. Jacob promises Zebu-
lun a life by the sea, but that prediction would not be realized. Zebuluns
territorial allotment was completely inland and did not stretch as far
as either the historical Sidon along the Phoenician coast or what Sarna
describes as the more generalized term for Phoenicia (1989, 338). Jacobs
GENESIS 49:127 445
446 COMMENTARY
prediction for Issachars territorial allotment as one that rests between the
others is more accurate. He also appears more favorable toward his ninth
son, especially in LXX-G. Instead of describing Issachar as a strong-boned
ass (o: b), LXX-G more benevolently characterizes him as one who
longed for the good. He also upgrades Issachars occupation; in LXX-G, he
is called a man who tills the ground, instead of the more menial inden-
tured servant (nob:). As such, Issachar in LXX-G appears to have out-
grown the wages associated with his name (30:16, 18).
Dans blessing is enigmatic, as perhaps was his status as the rstborn
son of Rachels maidservant Bilhah. His role of a judge within Israel is
based on a wordplay of the meaning of his Hebrew name, to judge or
vindicate. However, the specic referent of his snake-like behavior, and
his potential attacks on horse and rider, is not clear. Sarna speculates that
the image could allude to a type of guerilla warfare that the small tribe
associated with Dan had to use against its Canaanite neighbors (1989, 341;
see also Westermann 1986, 235). Unlike Jacobs two prior declarations,
the one to Dan makes no mention of a tribal allotment. Neither does the
book of Judges dene the boundaries of this tribe (Sarna 1989, 340). The
last verse associated with Dans blessing in the Hebrew text is typically
regarded as a prayer-like interlude. However, the change from the nite
rst person verb I await (n:p) to a masculine singular participle await-
ing () in LXX-G transforms the liturgical prayer of Jacob into a
predictive one that could refer to the hopes of the fallen rider.
Next Jacob addresses Gad, the rstborn of Leahs maidservant Zilpah.
His comments oer little insight into the role played by this tribe other
than the allusion to warfare by and against him by Ammonites, Moabites,
and Arameans (Sarna 1989, 341). Similarly, Jacob is taciturn in his remarks
about Zilpahs second son Aser. However, what little he does say is posi-
tive and refers to the prosperity of the later tribe. Not only will he have
food in abundance, he will, per ALEX distribute nourishment (
), rather than give delicacies ( ) to rulers. Whether
he provides basic sustenance or items of luxury, Aser will benet from its
tribal allotment in a fertile area (Sarna 1989, 341). The second son to be
born to Bilhah is the last one of those born to concubines to be addressed.
Again, Jacobs remarks are brief, yet presumably positive. Jacob in LXX-G
uses agricultural imagery of trees and produce, rather than the MTs
animal imagery of hinds and fawns, to comment on Naphtalis fruitful
bounty and beauty.
As was the case with Judah, Jacob has much more to say to and about
Joseph. Both sons are eponymous ancestors of tribes that will later
become dominant; Judah will be associated with the southern kingdom,
and Joseph with the northern kingdom. His comments about Joseph
show his continued bias toward Rachels rstborn son. The noun bless-
ing () occurs six times in Jacobs remarks to Joseph, while the
word does not occur even once in his comments about any of his other
sons. Furthermore, it is only in these remarks that Jacob refers to Gods
assistance for and blessing of his favorite son. LXX-G derives this overall
sense of favoritism from the MT; however, the details are considerably dif-
ferent. Commentators on the MT dier in their reading of a very dicult
text. According to Sarna, Jacob begins by describing Joseph as a wild ass
(1989, 343), while Westermann renders the Hebrew nc n as a young
and verdant tree (1986, 219). LXX-G understood the text quite dierently.
Rather than using either an animal or agricultural metaphor, it describes
Joseph as a young (per ALEX; other Greek manuscripts refer to him as
younger or youngest) and enviable son who has grown up and returned
to Jacob. The following comments about hostile archers, however, are not
nearly so divergent. Both texts go on to credit the mighty one with help-
ing him overcome their arrows. MT goes on to refer to God as a shepherd
and a rock of Israel, whereas LXX-G very awkwardly describes God as one
who strengthens Jacob (per ALEX, all other manuscripts read Israel) and
who is identied as the God of his father. The blessings that follow have
only minor dierences and abound with positive images associated with
strength, fertility, constancy, and leadership. As is the case with some of
Jacobs other predictions, the specic events to which he is referring are
not always clear. The ambiguity is even more problematic in the case of
Joseph because he will not have his own specic tribal territory. Rather,
his will be divided between his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh.
Considering his protective regard for Rachels second son Benjamin
earlier in the story, Jacob has surprisingly little to say about Benjamin.
He refers to him as a ravenous wolf ( ), an image that seems
appropriate to his later warlike tribe. Nevertheless, his nal words about
his youngest sons distribution of his bountiful spoils diminishes the
somewhat negative tone of his predicted hostile actions.
49:2833 The narrator interrupts Jacobs deathbed address to his sons
by characterizing the things that Jacob spoke to them as a tting bless-
ing () for each. Some of his sons, especially the rst three whom
Leah bore for him, would likely disagree with that characterization. LXX-
G keeps the story on a family level by referring to the twelve as sons of
Jacob ( ), rather than the MTs more nation-oriented tribes
GENESIS 49:127 & 49:2833 447
448 COMMENTARY
of Israel (onc :c). LXX-Gs text seems more appropriate in its con-
text of a fathers testimony to his sons, especially considering Jacobs
emphasis on being buried in the family cave in Canaan, where so many of
his ancestors were buried. To be sure his sons understand his wishes, he
repeatedly describes the location of the cave and highlights the fact that
Abraham bought the cave from the Hittites. The chapter closes with the
narrators report of his death.
50:13 In a gesture that often accompanies an emotional greeting after
a long absence (33:4; 45:14; 46:29), Joseph falls on his departed fathers
neck, per ALEX, and kisses him. Other versions follow the MT and report
that he fell on his fathers face. Sarna writes that falling on the neck is
only appropriate when both parties are in an upright position (1989, 347).
Apparently, ALEX was less concerned with social proprieties and pre-
ferred to narrate a gesture that was more familiar, especially for Joseph.
Although he is not the rstborn son, Joseph is in a position of authority
and thus orders his servants to prepare his father for burial. Such prepara-
tion is said to have been completed in forty days and the period of mourn-
ing seventy days. Whether the two phases overlap or are consecutive is
not clear. Sarna (1989, 347) and Westermann (1986, 199) both refer to the
works of ancient writers for information on burial customs. According
to Herodotus (Histories 2.86), the period required for embalming was sev-
enty days, during which period mourning occurred. No source other than
this chapter attests to a forty-day period of embalming. Diodorus of Sicily
(Histories 1.91), however, describes a thirty-day period of time in which a
royal corpse was dressed with oils and spices, after which a public mourn-
ing period of seventy-two days was observed. The accuracy of the periods
in question is less important than the signicance of these references.
Jacob (or at least his body) was being treated like royalty.
Precisely what happened to Jacobs body is debated. The Greek verb
and its noun counterpart occur in no other
place in the LXX, but the verb occurs twice in the New Testament (Matt.
26:12; John 19:40). In 50:2, the verb renders the Hebrew o:,
a word that can mean to ripen, make spicy, or embalm. In this context,
Jacob and later Joseph (v. 26) were said to be embalmed. Sarna notes that
in the ancient world, embalming the dead was a practice that took place
only in Egypt. It was part of the rite of mummication that was associated
with the cult of Osiris. Because devotees expected an afterlife, the physi-
cal preservation of the body was necessary. The writer of the Hebrew
text, however, dissociated the act from its original religious signicance.
Instead, embalming was performed on Jacob and Joseph because both
would be buried far away and many weeks or years after their deaths.
Sarna goes on to explain the dissociation with its pagan context by the
fact that Joseph had the physicians in his service (ocnn :nn)
perform the procedure, instead of a professional Egyptian mortuary
priest (1989, 347).
Wevers maintains that the Greek similarly means to
embalm. The Alexandrian translator, he argues, would have been familiar
with the well-known Egyptian practice of embalming and thus chose the
technical term embalmers () to describe those employed
by Joseph, instead of a more literal rendering of the Hebrew physicians
(ocn) with the Greek (1993, 839). If this is the case, LXX-G took
a dierent position than the MT on using professional language to refer
to Josephs employees. Perhaps the Alexandrian translator was less con-
cerned about the words association with the cult of Osiris. That seems
unlikely, however, in view of LXX-Gs tendency to distance Jewish prac-
tices and customs from those associated with the Egyptians. Harl allows
the possibility that the verb might mean embalm, but uses the more
general verb to bury (ensevelir) in 50:2 (1994, 314315). As stated above,
the verb occurs twice in the New Testament, both times with
regard to preparing Jesus body for burial. The verse in John oers more
description by saying that Jesus body was wrapped in spices and linen
cloths according to the custom of the Jews. Because embalming was not
considered a Jewish burial custom, it is clear that the New Testament
writers did not understand the term to refer to embalming. Therefore, it
seems preferable to render in a more general sense as pre-
pare a body for burial and the noun as undertakers.
50:413 For some reason not stated in the text, Joseph does not go
directly to Pharaoh with his request to take Jacobs body to Canaan for
burial. Instead he asks some of Pharaohs high ocials to mediate and tell
Pharaoh the instructions to which Jacob made Joseph swear, per ALEX,
before he died. Pharaoh, however, replies directly to Joseph, which ALEX
makes explicit with its addition to Joseph ( ). In his reply, Pha-
raoh orders him to do as he promised his father. Not only do Joseph, his
brothers, and most of the members of his fathers household and, per
ALEX, the kin () take Jacobs body to Canaan for burial, but
accompanying them are all () of Pharaohs servants and elders as
well as chariots and horsemen. Although all is likely an overstatement, it
does denote Josephs importance in Pharaohs administration. ALEX, with
GENESIS 50:13 & 50:413 449
450 COMMENTARY
its semicolon after kin, departs from other Greek manuscripts by includ-
ing them with the others who accompany Joseph. Although other Greek
manuscripts render the MTs their children (oco) with the word kin
(), they follow the MT by excluding the kin from the traveling
entourage. They, along with the livestock, remain behind in Egypt. The
entire entourage travels as far as the threshing oor of Atad, an unknown
location that is said to be beyond the Jordan. Beyond could refer to the
land either east or west of the Jordan, depending on the perspective of the
speaker. In this case, it must mean the land west of the Jordan. This oth-
erwise unknown place is signicant in the narrative because it is where
the Canaanites see the Egyptians mourning so greatly for Josephs father
that one names it Mourning of Egypt, per LXX-G. As such, the name of the
place in LXX-G is a translation of the MTs ovb :n. Its name in the MT,
however, is merely a transliteration, i.e., Abel-mizraim.
After the seven day period of public mourning, Jacobs sons obey their
fathers dying request and bury him in the family grave.
50:1421 After the entourage returns to Egypt, Josephs brothers begin
to worry. Now that their father is no longer alive to protect them, Joseph
might demand retribution. They seem almost vulnerable and act deferen-
tially toward Joseph. This is more true in the MT version than in LXX-G,
where their status is slightly elevated. Instead of going through interme-
diaries, the brothers confront Joseph directly to tell him about Jacobs
directive whether real or contrived is not clear that they should ask
Joseph for forgiveness. Perhaps to capitalize on Josephs special relation-
ship with Jacob, they introduce Jacobs request by referring to Jacob as
your father, not our father. For even more eect, they refer to themselves
as attendants () of the God of your (not our) father. Only
here and in 24:44 does LXX-G render the more general Hebrew servant
(n) with the term attendant (). Wevers notes that this term
refers to one who serves a deity or an important human such as a Pharaoh
or king (1993, 364). As a result, both their position and that of Joseph is
elevated. They also upgrade their status when they oer to be Josephs
household servants (), rather than just servants (on:). Finally,
in LXX-G, they do not fall to his face (::c: ::c) as they make the oer.
Joseph responds by weeping, as he did ve times earlier in the story:
when his brothers acknowledged their misdeeds (42:24), when he saw
that they had not harmed Benjamin (43:30), when he revealed himself to
his brothers (45:2), when he reconciled with his father (46:29), and when
his father died (50:1). He likely considers their admission of guilt more
important than whether Jacob actually made them swear (), per
LXX-G, to tell Joseph Jacobs wishes or commanded them (n:v), per MT,
to do so. This is one instance of the slight dierences between the MT
and LXX-G. A second dierence is that MT characterizes the deeds per-
petrated by the brothers against Joseph as evil (n), both when the
brothers worry about retribution (v. 15) and in their paraphrase of Jacobs
instructions to them (v. 17). LXX-G, on the other hand, uses two dierent
words. The brothers fear retribution because of the bad () things
they did to Joseph, but Jacob wants Joseph to forgive them for their evil
() deeds. Although both words have similar meanings, the former
() is more often used in LXX-G with reference to morally neutral
or harmful acts (e.g., 24:50; 44:34), while the latter () is often
used in morally charged contexts (e.g., 2:9; 35:22 [ALEX 35:21]; 38:10;
39:9). Another indication of the MTs slightly more negative portrayal of
Josephs brothers is that it reports that Jacob tells his sons twice (v. 17a, b)
to ask that Joseph forgive (c:) them, whereas LXX-G again uses two dif-
ferent words, i.e., forgive () in v. 17a, and accept () in v. 17b.
ALEX gives the brothers yet one additional character upgrade by having
Jacob ask that Joseph forgive only their unrighteousness (), not
as MT and other Greek manuscripts report that he should forgive both
their unrighteousness and their sins ().
Despite the subtle dierences, both MT and LXX-G portray Josephs
brothers as acknowledging their bad behavior and indirectly asking
Joseph to forgive and accept them. Joseph seems to have no thought of
revenge or retribution. Instead he credits God for the benecial outcome
of his brothers wicked schemes. Not only will he forgive and accept
them, he will actually continue to provide for them and their households.
Joseph has clearly outgrown his earlier self-absorption and presumably
values highly both his immediate and extended family.
50:2226 The book of Genesis ends with a report of Josephs death at 110
years of age. He lives long enough to see his great grandchildren and to
participate in their births. His family life seems to have overshadowed his
political life, especially since his fathers death. At this point, he is more
the ruler of the family, than a ruler of Egypt. There is no deathbed scene,
nor is there any mention of mourning. Instead, his last words are meant
to comfort his brothers, but really apply more to their eventual descen-
dants. He assures them that God will visit them and will take them away
from Egypt. When that happens, he directs them to take his bones with
them. In the meantime, the brothers do not embalm (o:) Joseph, as
GENESIS 50:1421 & 50:2226 451
452 COMMENTARY
they do in the MT; rather they bury () him and place him in a cof-
n. There he will remain until many generations later when his distant
descendants will take his bones with them back to Canaan. Nevertheless,
Josephs prediction of the familys return to the land allows the book to
end on a promising note.
BIBLIOGRAPHY/WORKS CONSULTED
Aejmelaeus, Anneli. 1982. Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the
Hebrew Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch. Annales Academiae Scientiarum
Fennicae. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
. 1987a. The Signicance of Clause Connectors in the Syntactical and Transla-
tion-Technical Study of the Septuagint. Pages 361380 in VI Congress of the Inter-
national Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Edited by Claude E. Cox.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
. 1987b. What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint?
Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99/1:5889.
. 1991. Translation Technique and the Intention of the Translator. Pages 2336
in VII Congress of the IOSCS. Edited by Claude E. Cox. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Alter, Robert. 1996. Genesis: Translation and Commentary. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Bal, Mieke. 1987. Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories. Indiana
Studies in Biblical Literature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Barr, James. 1979. The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations. Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Bassett, Frederick. 1971. Noahs Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan. A Case of
Incest? Vetus Testamentum 21:232237.
Batto, Bernard F. 2000. The Institution of Marriage in Genesis 2 and in Atrahasis.
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62:621631.
Bechtel, Lyn. 1993. Rethinking the Interpretation of Genesis 2.4b-3.24. Pages 77117
in Feminist Companion to Genesis. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Sheeld: Sheeld Aca-
demic Press.
Bergmeier, Von Roland. 1967. Zur Septuagintabersetzung von Gen 3.16. Zeitschrift
fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 79/1:7779.
Bickerman, Elias. 1959. The Septuagint as a Translation. Proceedings of the American
Academy of Jewish Research 28:139.
Bremmer, Jan N. 2000. Pandora or the Creation of a Greek Eve. Pages 1933 in The
Creation of Man and Woman: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Chris-
tian Traditions. Edited by Gerald Luttikhuizen. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Brock, Sebastian. 1972. The Phenomenon of the Septuagint. Old Testament Studies
17:1136.
. 1979. Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity. Greek, Roman, and Byzan-
tine Studies 20:6787.
Brown, William P. 1993. Structure, Role, and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of
Genesis 1:12:3. Edited by David L. Petersen. Society of Biblical Dissertation Series.
Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Clines, David J. A. 1990. What Does Eve Do to Help? and Other Irredeemably Andro-
centric Orientations in Genesis 13. Pages 2548 in What Does Eve Do to Help? and
Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament. Sheeld: JSOT Press.
Cook, Johann. 1982. Genesis 1 in the Septuagint as example of the problem: text and
tradition. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 10:2536.
. 1987. The Exegesis of the Greek Genesis. Pages 91125 in VI Congress of the
International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Edited by Claude E. Cox.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
. 1998. Greek Philosophy and the Septuagint. Journal of Northwest Semitic Lan-
guages 24/1:177191.
454 BIBLIOGRAPHY
. 2001. The Septuagint of Genesis: text and/or interpretation? Pages 315329
in Studies in the Book of Genesis. Edited by Andr Wnin. Sterling, VA: University
Press.
. 2004. Exegesis in the Septuagint. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 30/
1:119.
Davila, James. 1990. New Qumran Readings for Genesis One. Pages 311 in Of Scribes
and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins.
Edited by Harold Attridge, John Collins, and Thomas Tobin. Lanham: University
Press of America.
De Moor, Johannes. 1998. The Duality in God and Man: Gen. 1:2627 as Ps Interpreta-
tion of the Yahwistic Creation Account. Pages 112125 in Intertextuality in Ugarit
and Israel. Edited by Johannes C. de Moor. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Dever, William G. 1991. Tell el-Daba and Levantine Middle Bronze Age Chronology:
A Rejoinder to Manfred Bietak. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
281:7379.
Dines, Jennifer. 1995. Imaging Creation: The Septuagint Translation of Genesis 1:2.
Heythrop Journal 36/4:439450.
Fitzmyer, Joseph. 2000. Melchizedek in the MT, LXX, and the NT. Biblica 81:6369.
Fry, Euan. 1995. How was Joseph taken to Egypt? (Genesis 37:1236). The Bible Trans-
lator 46/4:445448.
Greenspoon, Leonard. 1987. The Use and Abuse of the Term LXX and Related Termi-
nology in Recent Scholarship. Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint
and Cognate Studies 20:2129.
Golub, Ivan. 1988. Man-image of God (Gen 1:26) A New Approach to an Old Prob-
lem. Pages 223234 in Wnschet Jerusalem Frieden. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Gunkel, Hermann. 1984. Inuence of Babylonian Mythology upon the Biblical
Creation Story. Translated by Charles A. Muenchow. Pages 2552 in Creation in the
Old Testament. Edited by B. W. Anderson. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Hallo, William W. and William K. Simpson. 1971. The Ancient Near East: A History. New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Hanhart, Robert. 1992. The Translation of the Septuagint in Light of Earlier Tradition
and Subsequent Inuences. Pages 339379 in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writ-
ings. Edited by George Brooke and Barnabas Lindars. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Harl, Marguerite. 1994. La Gense. Second Edition. La Bible dAlexandrie I. Paris:
Cerf.
. 2001. La Bible dAlexandrie: The Translation Principles. Pages 181198 in X
Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Edited by
Bernard Taylor. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Hendel, Ronald S. 1998. The Text of Genesis 111: Textual Studies and Critical Edition. New
York: Oxford University Press.
. 1999. On the Text-Critical Value of Septuagint Genesis: A Reply to Rsel. Bul-
letin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 32:3134.
Hess, Richard. 1989. The Genealogies of Genesis 111 and Comparative Literature.
Biblica 70/2:241254.
. 1990. Splitting the Adam: The Usage of DM in Genesis IV. Pages 115 in
Studies in the Pentateuch. Edited by J. A. Emerton. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
. 1994. The Slaughter of the Animals in Genesis 15: Genesis 15:821 and its
Ancient Near Eastern Context. Pages 5565 in He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from
Genesis 1250. Edited by Richard Hess, Gordon Wenham, and Philip Satterthwaite.
Second Edition. Carlisle: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Baker.
. 1995 Genesis 12 and Recent Studies of Ancient Texts. Science and Christian
Belief 7/2:141149.
. 2002. The Book of Joshua as a Land Grant. Biblica 83/4:493506.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 455
Hiebert, Robert J. V. 2000. Translation Technique in the Septuagint of Genesis and
Its Implications for the NETS Version. Bulletin of the International Organization for
Septuagint and Cognate Studies 33:7693.
. 2001. Translating a Translation: The Septuagint of Genesis and the NETS
Project. Pages 263284 in X Congress of the International Organization for Septua -
gint and Cognate Studies. Edited by Bernard Taylor. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature.
. 2004. Lexicography and the Translation of a Translation: The NETS Version
and the Septuagint of Genesis. Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint
and Cognate Studies 37:7386.
Jellicoe, Sidney. 1968. The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Jobes, Karen and Moiss Silva. 2000. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic.
Kadish, Gerald E. 1969. Eunuchs in Ancient Egypt? Pages 5562 in Studies in honor of
John A Wilson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kenyon, Frederic. 1937. The Text of the Greek Bible: A Students Handbook. London:
Duckworth.
Kitchen, K. A. 2003. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Leiter, Nachama. 1988. The Translators Hand in Transpositions?: Notes on the LXX
of Genesis 31. Textus 14:105130.
Lemmelijn, Bndicte. 2001. Two Methodological Trails in Recent Studies on the
Translation Technique of the Septuagint. Pages 4563 in Helsinki Perspectives on the
Translation Technique of the Septuagint. Edited by Raija Sollamo and Seppo Sipil. Gt-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Liddell, H. G., Robert Scott, and Henry S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon, with a Supple-
ment. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.
Loader William. 2004. The Septuagint, Sexuality, and the New Testament: Case Studies
on the Impact of the LXX in Philo and the New Testament. Grand Rapids/Cambridge:
Eerdmans.
Lust, Johan. 1991. For Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: Gen 9:6 in Hebrew and in Greek.
Pages 91102 in Tradition of the Text: Studies oered to Dominique Barthlemy in Celebra-
tion of his 70th Birthday. Edited by Gerald Norton and Stephen Pisano. Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
. 1997. Septuagint and Messianism, with a Special Emphasis on the Pentateuch.
Pages 2645 in Theologische Probleme der Septuaginta und der hellenistischen Hermeneu-
tik. Gtersloh, Germany: C. Kaiser.
Metzger, Bruce. 1981. Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: Introduction to Palaeography. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Meyers, Carol. 1988. Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Moule, C. F. D. 1964. Faith, Fact and Fantasy. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Muraoka, Takamitsu. 2001. Translation Techniques and Beyond. Pages 1322 in Hel-
sinki Perspectives on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint. Edited by Raija Sollamo
and Seppo Sipil. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Chiey of the Pentateuch and the Twelve
Prophets. Louvain: Peters.
Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Towards a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Oded, Bustenay. 1986. The Table of Nations (Genesis 10) A Socio-cultural Approach.
Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 98/1:1431.
Olofsson, Staan. 1996. The Septuagint and Earlier Jewish Interpretative Tradition
Especially As Reected in the Targums. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
10/2:197216.
456 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Oppenheim, A. Leo. 1956. The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East. Philadel-
phia: The American Philosophical Society.
. 1969. Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts. Pages 265317 in ANET.
Edited by James Pritchard. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Paradise, Bryan. 1986. Food for Thought. Pages 177208 in A Word in Season: Essays in
Honor of William McKane. Edited by J. D. Martin and P. R. Davis. Sheeld: University
of Sheeld Press.
Pattie, Thomas. 1998. The Creation of the Great Codices. Pages 6172 in The Bible as
Book: The Manuscript Tradition. Edited by John Sharpe III and Kimberly Van Kampen.
New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press.
Pter-Contesse, Ren. 1996. Was Potiphar a Eunuch? (Genesis 37.36, 39.1). The Bible
Translator 47/1:142146.
Peters, Melvin K. H. 1992. Septuagint. Pages 10931104 in vol. 5 of Anchor Bible Dic-
tionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday.
Pietersma, Albert. 2001. A New English Language Translation of the Septuagint.
Pages 217227 in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies. Edited by Bernard Taylor. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Pitt-Rivers, Julian. 1977. The Fate of Shechem: Essays in the Anthropology of the Mediter-
ranean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Polak, Frank H. 2003. Context Sensitive Biblical Translation and Parataxis in Biblical
Narrative. Pages 525539 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea
Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom Paul, Robert Kraft, Lawrence Schi-
man, and Weston Fields. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Rabin, Chaim. 1968 The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint.
Textus 6:126.
Rad, Gerhard von. 1973. Genesis: A Commentary. Translated by John H. Marks. Philadel-
phia: Westminster.
Redford, Donald B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Revell, E. J. 2001. Midian and Ishmael in Genesis 37: Synonyms in the Joseph Story.
Pages 7091 in The World of the Aramaeans I: Biblical Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugne
Dion. Edited by P. M. Michle Daviau, John W. Wevers, and Michael Weigl. Sheeld:
Sheeld Academic Press.
Rsel, Martin. 1994. bersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung: Studien zur Genesis-
Septuaginta. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 223.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
. 1998. The Text-Critical Value of Septuagint-Genesis. Bulletin of the Inter-
national Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 31:6270.
Ross, Allen P. 1980. Studies in the Book of Genesis Part I: The Curse of Canaan.
Bibliotheca Sacra 137:223240.
Sarna, Nahum M. 1989. Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation.
JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
Schngel-Strauman, Helen. 1993. On the Creation of Man and Woman in Genesis
13: The History and Reception of the Texts Reconsidered. Pages 5376 in A Femi-
nist Companion to Genesis. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Sheeld: Sheeld Academic
Press.
Skeat, Theodore. 1955. The Provenance of the Codex Alexandrinus. Journal of Theo-
logical Studies 6:233235.
Sollamo, Raija. 1981. Repetitions of Possessive Pronouns in the Greek Pentateuch.
Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 14:4142.
. 1985. The LXX Renderings of the Innitive Absolute Used with a Paronymous
Finite Verb in the Pentateuch. Pages 101113 in Septuaginta en la investigacin con-
tempornea. Edited by N. Fernndez Marcos. Madrid: Instituto Arias Montano CSIC.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 457
Swete, Henry Barclay. 1887. The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint: Vol. I.
Genesis-IV Kings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tadmor, Hayim. 1995. Was the Biblical Sars a Eunuch? Pages 317325 in Solving
Riddles and Untying Knots. Edited by Ziony Zevit and Seymour Gitin. Winona Lake,
Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
Toorn, Karel van der. 1995. The Signicance of the Veil in the Ancient Near East.
Pages 327339 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near
Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by David Wright,
David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Tosato, Angelo. 1990. On Genesis 2:24. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52:389409.
Tov, Emanuel. 1981. The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the
Translation of the Other Books. Pages 577592 in Mlanges Dominique Barthlemy.
Edited by P. Casetti, O. Keel, and A. Schenker. Fribourg : Editions Universitaires.
. 1984. Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand Their Hebrew Text.
Pages 5370 in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His 65th Birth-
day. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox. Ontario: Benben Publications.
. 1987. The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique of the LXX in the
Past and Present. Pages 337359 in VI Congress of the International Organization for
Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Edited by Claude E. Cox. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature.
. 1992a. The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Understanding of the
LXX. Pages 1147 in Septuagint, Scrolls, and Cognate Writings. Edited by George
Brooke and Barnabas Lindars. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
. 1992b. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Tov, Emanuel and Benjamin Wright. 1985. Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria
for Assessing the Literalness of Translation Units in the LXX. Textus 12:149187.
Trible, Phyllis. 1978. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress.
VanderKam, James and Peter Flint. 2002. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls. San Fran-
cisco: Harper.
Van der Kooij, Arie. 1998. Perspectives on the Study of the Septuagint: Who are the
Translators? Pages 214229 in Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early
Judaism. Edited by Florentino Garca Martnez and Ed Noort. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Vervenne, Marc. 1995a. All They Need is Love: Once More Genesis 6.14. Pages 19
33 in Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F. A. Sawyer. Edited by
Jon Davies, Graham Harvey, and Wilfred G. E. Watson. Sheeld: Sheeld Academic
Press.
. 1995b. What Shall We Do with the Drunken Sailor? A Critical Re-Examination
of Genesis 9.2027. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 68:3355.
Ward, William A. 1992. Goshen. Pages 10761077 in vol. 2 of The Anchor Bible Diction-
ary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday.
Weinfeld, Moshe. 1970. The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient
Near East. Journal of the American Oriental Society 90:184203.
Wenham, Gordon. 1987. Genesis 115. Waco: Thomas Nelson.
Westermann, Claus. 1984. Genesis 111: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion.
Minneapolis: Augsburg.
. 1985. Genesis 1236: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis:
Augsburg.
. 1986. Genesis 3750: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis:
Augsburg.
Wevers, John W. 1974a. Genesis. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
. 1974b. Text History of the Greek Genesis. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
. 1985. An Apologia for Septuagint Studies. Bulletin of the International Organiza-
tion for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 18:1638.
458 BIBLIOGRAPHY
. 1993. Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
. 1996. The Interpretative Character and Signicance of the Septuagint Ver-
sion. Pages 84107 in From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300). Edited by
Magne Sb. Vol 1 of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Gt-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
. 1999. Apologia pro Vita Mea: Reections on a Career in Septuagint Studies.
Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 32:6596.
. 2001. Aram and Aramaean in the Septuagint. Pages 237251 in The World of
the Aramaeans I: Biblical Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugne Dion. Edited by P. M. Michle
Daviau, John W. Wevers, and Michael Weigl. Sheeld: Sheeld Academic Press.
Wittenberg, Gunther. 1991. . . . Let Canaan be his Slave (Gen 9:26): Is Ham also
Cursed? Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 74:4656.
SUBJECT INDEX
Abel 249250, 252, 256, 304, 393
Abimelech 325, 327328, 334, 345349,
406
Abram/Abraham 206, 280, 281,
284285, 287318, 320343, 345350,
354357, 363364, 369, 371, 373, 375,
382383, 385386, 395, 401402, 406,
418, 433434, 437, 442, 448
ALEX/Alexandrinus/Codex A 711,
2426, 28, 215217, 226, 230, 237, 245,
248, 252, 259261, 266, 269, 283286,
292294, 298, 302, 309, 311, 314317,
320, 326, 330332, 334, 340, 342, 344,
350352, 355356, 358, 360, 365,
369371, 374, 377, 382, 386388, 390,
392, 394, 398, 403, 405, 407408,
412413, 417419, 422424, 427, 429,
431, 433437, 439, 444, 446449, 451
Alexandria/Alexandrian 3, 6, 89, 14,
2021, 207, 220, 222, 283, 304, 307, 309,
334335, 338, 341, 344, 390, 415, 449
Angel(s) 260261, 303304, 317,
319320, 325, 327, 331332, 336, 355,
364365, 371, 383
Aquila 4, 6, 11, 207, 277, 295
Arabia/Arabian 280, 282, 285, 432
Asher 361, 389
Assyria/Assyrian 251, 282, 284, 307,
342, 388, 399400
Atrahasis 235, 249, 263, 271
Babylon/Babylonia/Babylonian 208,
220, 258, 263, 275, 277, 282283, 285,
288289, 307, 388, 412
Balla 294, 359361, 377, 384
Bathouel 340, 354
Beersheba 327, 328, 349, 433
Benjamin 384, 420425, 427435, 443,
447, 450
Bethel 290, 355, 365, 382384
Blessing 209, 219220, 224226, 258,
260, 271, 273, 279, 289290, 292293,
296, 304, 308309, 329, 332, 341,
346355, 362, 373374, 384385, 403,
425, 433, 438, 440, 442443, 445447
Blood 252253, 256, 272273, 306307,
357, 393, 395, 422, 445
Cain 206, 248257, 276
Cambridge 1112, 22
Canaan/Canaanites 276284, 289290,
293294, 301, 333, 335, 339, 345, 353,
365, 375, 377, 384386, 389, 398, 420,
426, 436437, 439441, 444, 446,
448450, 452
Christian 69, 24, 206, 208, 244, 331,
445
Circumcise/Circumcision 307, 310,
324, 378381
Codex a See Sinaiticus/Codex a
Codex A See ALEX/Alexandrinus/
Codex A
Codex B See Vaticanus/Codex B
Codex D See Cottonianus Geneseos/
Codex D
Cottonianus Geneseos/Codex D 24
Covenant 265, 273276, 299, 301,
304310, 315, 327329, 332333,
345346, 348349, 369371, 385, 398,
402, 418, 433
Damascus 295
Dan 295, 360, 389, 446
David/Davidic 232, 322, 388, 390,
401402, 445
Deceive/Deception 291292, 319,
322324, 345, 347, 351353, 358359,
362, 364, 368, 375, 378, 400401
Dinah 362, 372, 375378, 380381, 442,
444
Disobedience 240, 242244
Dream 323, 354355, 364, 382, 391393,
408415, 418420, 422, 425
Edom/Edomites 345, 353, 371, 373,
385389
Egypt/Egyptian 89, 2627, 207, 227,
282283, 290292, 294, 301, 303, 307,
322, 325327, 342, 345, 354, 357, 390,
393394, 396397, 403, 405, 408,
411427, 430434, 436442, 448451
Endogamy/endogamous 335, 339, 353,
356, 386, 417
Enoch 255, 259, 261262, 304
Enuma Elish 208, 275, 286
Ephraim 418, 441443, 447
Esau 343345, 349354, 357, 363,
371375, 385389, 402
Eunuch 396398, 402, 404, 407, 410, 414
Eve 206, 232, 245246, 248, 256, 303,
313, 391, 403404
Gad 361, 384, 389, 446
Genealogy 254262, 276, 280285,
287289, 333, 342343, 385389, 402,
434
Genesis Rabbah 223, 257
Gilgamesh 263, 264, 271, 282
Goshen 432, 435440
Gttingen 1011, 13, 22, 2425
Hagar 247, 268, 301304, 309, 313,
325327, 329, 341, 343, 359, 377, 395,
418
Ham 260, 276279, 281285
Hamor 376380
Hapax legomenon 253, 291, 294, 305,
313, 341, 344, 350, 352, 354, 381, 399,
405, 412, 416, 425, 432, 443
Haran 288290, 323, 354, 356
Hebrew Language 2023, 2529,
205213, 215, 218221, 226227,
229232, 234237, 241242, 244245,
247248, 250251, 253, 255257,
260, 262, 264265, 270, 272277, 279,
281282, 285287, 290291, 294297,
299, 301313, 315, 317318, 321322,
324328, 331, 333336, 338340, 343,
347348, 350, 352, 354, 362, 366367,
369370, 373378, 381, 384, 390392,
396398, 400, 402413, 415421,
423425, 427433, 435, 437450
Hebrew People 294, 397, 405406,
408, 412, 414, 416418, 425427, 432,
442
Hebrews (Book of ) 296, 440
Hellenistic/Hellenism 1, 3, 2021,
207, 223, 241, 277, 309, 313, 337, 366,
405, 441
Hittites 283, 333334, 353354, 386, 448
Honor 256, 278, 291, 304, 320, 324, 334,
357, 375377, 380383, 442
Hyksos 426, 432, 436
Ishmael 247, 303304, 309310,
325326, 329330, 332, 342, 354,
385386, 402, 406
Ishmaelites 387, 393395, 402, 442
Israel 12, 5, 2627, 263, 284285, 289,
296, 299, 302, 307, 322, 345, 353, 373,
375, 377378, 383, 385386, 388389,
399, 401402, 423424, 435, 440444,
446448
Israelites 244, 279, 285, 387, 388, 424
Isaac 247, 308310, 398, 406, 433, 442
Issachar 361, 445446
J Source See Yahwist/J Source
Jacob 247, 275, 279, 323, 343345,
349386, 389393, 395396, 398399,
402, 413, 418, 420, 422425, 428430,
433435, 437438, 440451
Japheth 260, 276, 278279, 281, 284
Jerome 67, 10
Jerusalem 12, 388
Jewish 2, 56, 14, 20, 207, 244, 259, 264,
325, 331, 366, 390, 417, 449
Joseph 26, 242, 251, 268, 323, 326,
354, 357, 362, 374, 389399, 402410,
412444, 446452
Josephus 259, 390, 426, 441
Judah 358, 360, 387, 393394,
398402, 423424, 428430, 434435,
444447
Justice 252, 272273, 315316, 347,
360, 405
Laban 338, 340, 353354, 356359,
362372
Leah 357362, 364365, 368, 374, 376,
384385, 443, 445447
Levi 360, 376, 378381, 442, 444
Lot 288290, 292295, 297, 317322,
328, 330, 358, 386
Lucian 7, 910
Manasseh 418, 441443, 447
Masoretic Text (MT) 6, 10, 1216,
18, 2021, 23, 2527, 29, 205206,
208214, 216218, 220226, 228231,
234, 236238, 240270, 272274,
276278, 281289, 291298, 300301,
303306, 308311, 313, 315316, 320,
323325, 328331, 335, 337339,
342344, 347349, 352353, 355, 358,
360365, 367368, 370371, 374379,
381, 383390, 396, 398399, 401404,
407, 410411, 413, 417, 419, 422,
433436, 438445, 447452
Mediterranean 1, 5, 283, 354, 375
Melchizedek 206, 295296
460 SUBJECT INDEX
Mesopotamia/Mesopotamian 207208,
227, 247, 255, 263264, 267269, 271,
280, 282283, 286, 294, 336, 343,
353354, 365, 375, 383, 385386, 396,
403
Midian/Midianites 342, 388389,
393396, 402
Moses 1, 207, 257, 265, 315, 424
MT See Masoretic Text (MT)
Nahor 284, 288, 333, 387
Naphtali 360, 389, 446
Neologism 294, 307, 415
Noah 258, 260, 262271, 273282, 285,
287, 304305, 393
Obedience 253, 266, 280, 302, 307, 310,
324, 332333, 346, 383, 399, 440, 445
P Source See Priestly/P Source
Pharaoh 212, 215, 291292, 324, 345,
396, 402, 407, 409419, 429, 431433,
436440, 449450
Philistines 279, 283, 325, 328, 345, 347
Philo 1, 24, 208, 222, 228
Phoenicia/Phoenician 207, 282284,
445
Potiphar/Potiphars Wife 326,
396398, 402407, 412, 417
Priestly/P Source 205, 209, 219220,
263, 266267, 280282, 284
Rachel 343, 356362, 364366, 368, 374,
382, 384385, 390, 403, 420, 422, 434,
441, 443, 446447
Rebekah 325, 333, 337338, 340354,
356357, 383, 385, 401, 403, 406
Resident alien 290, 300, 319, 322, 324,
347, 378, 381382, 389, 437
Reuben 360, 361, 384385, 393, 395,
421422, 424, 428, 441, 443444
Righteous/Righteousness 222, 228, 262,
264, 266, 296, 298299, 315316, 318
321, 323, 328, 362, 368, 401, 406, 428
Sacrice/Sacricial 226, 249252,
270271, 299, 329332, 371, 395, 425,
433
Salem 295, 375
Samaritan 12, 258, 283, 287288
Sarai/Sarah 247, 288292, 300304,
308314, 322326, 329330, 332336,
339, 342343, 346347, 359360
Semite/Semitic 248, 283, 307, 338, 390,
399, 405, 416, 424, 426, 432
Sexual/sexuality 223224, 229230,
235, 241245, 248, 277278, 291, 301,
307, 313, 318319, 321, 326, 338, 358,
375, 385, 404, 406407, 445
Shame 236, 239, 303, 359360, 375377,
381
Shechem 283, 290, 376383, 392, 442,
444
Shem 260, 276, 278279, 281, 284285,
287288
Shepherd 249, 293, 347, 356, 362, 369,
389, 392, 398399, 427, 432, 436437,
442, 447
Sibling 251, 323, 361, 364, 371, 389, 392,
421, 431
Simeon 360, 376, 378381, 421422,
425, 441442, 444
Sinaiticus/Codex a 78, 24
Sodom/Sodomite 284, 293297,
314315, 317321, 323, 330, 357
Sojourn 26, 247, 290, 300, 306, 322, 328,
333, 339, 345346, 389, 434, 437438
Symmachus 6, 11, 277, 295
Syria/Syrian 9, 283284, 343, 354, 390,
426
Tamar 343, 390, 398402, 424
Terah 288289, 333, 356, 398
Theodotian 6, 11
Unrighteous/Unrighteousness
263265, 328, 444, 451
Vaticanus/Codex B 78, 1011, 24, 27
Virgin 336338, 340341, 377, 390
Vision 297298, 341342, 350, 364, 371,
411
Vorlage 1218, 20, 23, 26, 209, 212213,
217, 241
Wordplay 26, 206, 225, 227, 234, 236,
245, 248, 254, 256, 260, 285, 287,
302303, 309, 320, 322, 324, 326, 328,
344347, 349, 358361, 371, 373, 402,
406, 410, 418, 444, 446
Yahwist/J Source 235, 263, 266,
280282, 284, 432
Zebulun 262, 445
Zelpha 358, 361, 377
SUBJECT INDEX 461
MODERN AUTHOR INDEX
Aejmelaeus, Anneli 1620, 23
Alter, Robert 207, 232, 256, 271,
280281, 356, 366, 373, 396, 401, 427,
441442
Bal, Mieke 243
Barr, James 45, 17
Bassett, Frederick 277
Batto, Bernard F. 235
Bechtel, Lyn 243, 245
Bergmeier, Von Roland 241
Bickerman, Elias 34
Bremmer, Jan N. 234
Brock, Sebastian 34
Brown, William P. 13, 1516, 205206,
208218
Clines, David J. A. 232
Cook, Johann 15, 205, 207, 209,
212213, 217, 226, 228
Davila, James 13, 1516, 212
De Moor, Johannes 223
Dever, William G. 432
Dines, Jennifer 207
Fitzmyer, Joseph 294
Flint, Peter 12
Fry, Euan 395
Greenspoon, Leonard 3
Golub, Ivan 221
Gunkel, Hermann 208209, 218, 235
Hallo, William W. 426
Hanhart, Robert 21, 205
Harl, Marguerite 2325, 205, 207, 210,
214, 240, 247, 264265, 274, 276277,
279, 294, 296, 315, 328, 331, 344,
415416, 435, 438, 441, 443, 445, 449
Hendel, Ronald S. 13, 16, 207, 212213,
259
Hess, Richard 208, 230, 280, 299, 366,
387388
Hiebert, Robert J. V. 2224, 218, 395,
397398
Jellicoe, Sidney 611
Jobes, Karen 23, 7, 1011, 13, 225,
248, 250, 440
Kadish, Gerald E. 396397
Kenyon, Frederic 89
Kitchen, K. A. 405, 416417, 426
Leiter, Nachama 19
Lemmelijn, Bndicte 17
Loader, William 224, 233, 239
Lust, Johan 272273, 445
Metzger, Bruce 9
Meyers, Carol 244
Moule, C. F. D. 5
Muraoka, Takamitsu 212, 214, 308,
312, 339340, 367, 381, 391, 397,
439
Nida, Eugene A. 4, 321
Oded, Bustenay 280281
Olofsson, Staan 229
Oppenheim, A. Leo 388, 408, 413
Paradise, Bryan 214
Pattie, Thomas 8
Pter-Contesse, Ren 396
Peters, Melvin K. H. 3
Pietersma, Albert 13, 22, 24
Pitt-Rivers, Julian 291
Polak, Frank H. 19
Rabin, Chaim 34
Rad, Gerhard von 205, 235, 242, 296
Redford, Donald B. 396397, 426, 436
Revell, E. J. 394
Rsel, Martin 1316, 205, 226, 228, 445
Ross, Allen P. 278
Sarna, Nahum M. 25, 205208, 210,
214215, 218, 222223, 225227,
229, 236, 239240, 242, 247250, 253,
255261, 263264, 267, 271273, 275,
277278, 281286, 291, 296, 299, 307,
312, 333, 337338, 345, 354, 361, 363,
366, 369, 372373, 383384, 386388,
390, 396, 400401, 415417, 424425,
427, 438, 440449
Schngel-Strauman, Helen 223
Silva, Moiss 23, 7, 1011, 13, 225,
248, 250, 440
Simpson, William K. 426
Skeat, Theodore 8
Sollamo, Raija 1920
Swete, Henry Barclay 89, 11, 2425,
314316, 340, 387, 418, 423
Tadmor, Hayim 396
Toorn, Karel van der 366, 400
Tosato, Angelo 235
Tov, Emanuel 56, 8, 12, 1619, 21, 213,
254, 366
Trible, Phyllis 223, 230, 232, 242, 244
VanderKam, James 12
Van der Kooij, Arie 412
Vervenne, Marc 261, 277, 279
Ward, William A. 432, 435
Weinfeld, Moshe 274, 299
Wenham, Gordon 299
Westermann, Claus 25, 205210,
214215, 218, 220222, 224, 226227,
235, 239, 242, 247251, 253258, 260,
263264, 266, 269273, 275282,
284285, 290, 293294, 307, 333334,
341, 366, 369, 372, 387388, 394, 396,
401, 415416, 424, 435, 438, 442444,
446448
Wevers, John W. 1216, 2122, 25, 208,
210, 213221, 223, 226, 230231,
235236, 246247, 249, 251, 257260,
262, 265, 267, 269, 272, 276279,
281284, 286, 288, 290, 293296, 298,
301, 304, 307308, 311, 313, 328,
333336, 338, 348350, 352, 354, 370,
375, 377379, 381, 383, 387388, 394,
408, 418, 425, 431432, 434435, 438,
441, 443445, 449450
Wittenberg, Gunther 280
Wright, Benjamin 1718
MODERN AUTHOR INDEX 463
SCRIPTURE INDEX
Please Note: Individual citations are included only when they occur outside their
corresponding Chapter of Genesis. The inclusive page numbers for each chapter in
the Commentary are noted.
Genesis
Chapter 1 15, 205225, 227228,
261
1:1 226
1:12:3 15, 226227, 239
1:9 1516
1:12 228
1:14 264, 312
1:22 383
1:26 231, 257258
1:27 257
1:28 254, 269, 271, 383,
391
1:29 245, 266
Chapter 2 15, 205, 224236
2:2 15, 236
2:4 28, 243, 257
2:5 327
2:79 243
2:9 15, 237238, 413, 451
2:16 237, 243
2:1620 243
2:17 29, 237238
2:18 15, 242
2:23 242, 248
2:2125 241
2:213:12 243
2:23 248
Chapter 3 14, 230, 236248
3:6 14, 28, 403
3:9 14
3:15 28
3:16 251252, 260, 303,
391
3:17 14, 302
Chapter 4 15, 248257
4:1 206, 246
4:3 264, 270
4:4 304
4:14 247
4:16 370
4:17 233
4:19 319
4:25 230
Chapter 5 15, 257260, 280, 287
5:1 226
5:2 247
5:22 304
5:24 304
5:29 276
Chapter 6 260266
6:5 270, 413
6:6 270
6:9 28, 304305
6:13 312
6:18 259, 269, 274, 276
6:1820 269
6:19 266
6:20 270
6:21 212
Chapter 7 266268
7:18 268
7:19 268
7:23 259
Chapter 8 268271
8:6 264
8:17 383
8:20 233
Chapter 9 271280
9:1 270, 383, 391
9:6 393
9:7 287, 383
9:11 265
9:12 305
9:17 263
9:18 281
9:19 280
Chapter 10 280285, 287
10:11 233
Chapter 11 285289
11:19 355
11:4 233
11:5 233
11:8 233
11:31 290
Chapter 12 289292
12:2 346
12:3 308, 352
12:7 233, 293, 297, 304,
310, 354355
12:78 355
12:8 342
12:1020 300
Chapter 13 292293
13:6 386
13:13 295, 318
13:1517 297
13:16 298, 303
13:18 333
Chapter 14 293297
14:4 357
14:12 381
14:14 298
14:1417 24
14:19 206
14:22 206
Chapter 15 297301
15:1 328
15:15 24
15:2 314
15:5 303
15:8 314
15:13 303, 434, 437
15:14 357, 381, 434
15:16 253, 434
15:1619 24
15:18 276, 305
Chapter 16 301304
16:1 377
16:2 309, 326
16:3 264
16:45 359
16:5 370
16:6 370
16:69 24
16:14 341
Chapter 17 304310
17:2 274, 310, 354
17:26 354
17:214 310
17:6 383
17:7 265, 276
17:17 312, 314
17:18 326, 330
17:1820 326
17:19 265, 276
17:20 342, 383, 385
17:21 265, 276
Chapter 18 310317
18:1 342
18:113 365
18:2 342
18:4 215
18:6 342
18:7 350
18:8 215
18:10 264
18:11 335
18:13 339
18:18 290
18:2033 318
18:25 318
Chapter 19 317322
19:3 410
19:15 253
19:30 323
Chapter 20 322324
20:118 328
20:2 346
20:16 334
Chapter 21 324328
21:2 339
21:8 410
21:9 346, 406
21:10 247
21:11 330
21:16 268
21:27 276
21:30 347
21:3132 345, 348
21:32 276
Chapter 22 328333, 369, 395
22:1 364
22:2 342, 364
22:7 370
22:8 370
22:11 364
22:17 418
22:18 290
22:2024 387
22:21 284, 387
Chapter 23 333335
23:418 375
23:17 215
Chapter 24 335342
24:2 242
24:1021 377
24:44 450
24:50 451
24:54 321
24:58 343
24:59 383
Chapter 25 342345
25:2 395
25:10 206
25:1218 385
SCRIPTURE INDEX 465
25:1316 387
25:2226 401
25:23 349, 351, 357, 371,
374
25:25 402
25:26 352
25:27 349
25:2728 349
25:2934 352, 361
25:34 349
Chapter 26 345349
26:35 354
26:7 357, 403
26:8 325, 406
26:10 321
26:14 290
26:2333 433
26:24 433
26:25 233, 342
26:28 276
26:30 410
26:34 319, 353, 386
Chapter 27 349353
27:29 357, 374
27:35 358
27:40 357
27:43 354
27:44 357
Chapter 28 353355
28:9 386
28:1022 382
28:11 321
28:12 323
28:1213 365
28:14 290
28:1522 365
28:18 365, 383
Chapter 29 356360
29:3 212
29:7 212
29:8 212
29:13 374
29:17 403
29:22 212, 410
29:2627 367
29:3132 364
29:3743 364
Chapter 30 360363
30:1 343
30:3 377
30:9 377
30:1416 384
30:15 321
30:16 321, 466
30:18 466
30:20 264
30:24 26
30:26 357
30:29 357
Chapter 31 25, 363371
31:6 357
31:13 28
31:18 381
31:41 357
31:44 276
31:54 250, 321
Chapter 32 25, 371373
32:2 (ALEX 32:1) 435
32:4 (ALEX 32:3) 386
32:7 (ALEX 32:6) 374
32:10 (ALEX 32:9) 28
32:13 (ALEX 32:12) 418
32:14 (ALEX 32:13) 321
32:18 (ALEX 32:17) 435
32:22 (ALEX 32:21) 321
Chapter 33 374375
33:4 448
33:417 353
33:14 386
33:16 386
33:17 26
33:19 376
Chapter 34 375382, 444
34:2 321
34:7 321
34:30 212, 413
Chapter 35 382385
35:21 451
35:22 321, 444, 451
Chapter 36 385389
Chapters 3750 323
Chapter 37 389398
37:1 247
37:2 413
37:8 242, 420
37:20 413
37:2122 444
37:22 422
37:25 268, 424
37:33 413
37:35 212, 399
37:36 402, 412
Chapter 38 398402
38:10 451
38:18 20
Chapter 39 402407
39:1 206, 397, 412
39:6 357
466 SCRIPTURE INDEX
39:7 321
39:9 451
39:10 318
39:12 321
39:14 294, 321
39:17 294, 321
39:21 407
39:22 407
39:23 407
Chapter 40 407410
40:2 397
40:3 412
40:7 397
40:8 412413
40:15 294
40:17 215
Chapter 41 410420
41:1 264
41:12 294
41:21 321
41:35 212
41:39 436
41:48 212
41:49 212
Chapter 42 25, 420423
42:6 438
42:20 423
42:24 450
42:28 425
42:36 429
42:37 443
Chapter 43 25, 423427
43:1 (ALEX 42:39) 422
43:2 (ALEX 43:1) 370
43:8 (ALEX 43:7) 381
43:2728 (ALEX 43:2627) 431
43:30 (ALEX 43:29) 431, 450
43:31 (ALEX 43:30) 436
43:32 (ALEX 43:31) 294
Chapter 44 427430
44:16 253
44:34 451
Chapter 45 430433
45:2 450
45:5 251
45:8 242
45:14 448
45:1720 434
Chapter 46 433436
46:1 250
46:5 381
46:28 8, 11
46:29 448, 450
46:34 427
Chapter 47 436440
47:11 432
47:14 212
47:30 321
Chapter 48 440443
48:10 374
Chapter 49 443448
49:1 212
49:34 384
49:9 321
Chapter 50 448452
Exodus 20, 257, 412
1:714 440
2:3 265
2:5 265
3:8 301
3:1316 257
6:3 257
8:22 427
9:8 350
9:10 350
12:15 307
15:2 424
18:4 232
20:15 (MT 20:13) 252
21:28 272
22:11 369
23:29 225
Leviticus 277
17:14 307
17:20 278
18:18 235
20:18 307
26:22 225
Numbers
24:19 222
25 322
Deuteronomy 301
2:11 301
2:12 387
2:20 301
3:11 301
23:18 401
25:57 399
28:48 416
33:7 232
Judges
17:5 366
18:1420 366
SCRIPTURE INDEX 467
Ruth 4 322
1 Samuel 1 14, 343
2 Samuel
8:1314 388
13:1819 390
1 Kings
12:4 416
22:19 220
2 Kings
8:20 353
8:22 353
Job 219220, 284,
305
7:12 218
Psalms 206
8 221
18:10 247
50:12 (MT 51:12) 206
80:1 247
103:30 (MT 104:30) 206
109:4 (MT 110:4) 295
121:12 232
Proverbs
8:17 391
29:19 411
Isaiah 206
11 445
45:7 206
51:9 218
54:16 206
63:13 445
Jeremiah 14
35:10 416
Ezekiel
9:3 247
10:122 247
18:14 247
18:16 247
21:21 366
Daniel 412
Hosea
4:14 401
12:4 373
Joel 4:13 222
Zechariah 9:9 445
Malachi 2:1316 235
Judith 405
12:12 405
12:16 318
Wisdom of Solomon 405
2:24 236
Susanna
1:11 318
1:39 318
1 Maccabees 14:1 405
3 Maccabees
1:18 350
3:10 405
4 Maccabees
5:2 405
9:28 405
10:12 405
Matthew 26:12 448
John 19:40 448
Acts 253
Hebrews 296, 440
11:21 440
468 SCRIPTURE INDEX