AN ANALYSIS OF THE ONGOING VALIDITY OF THE DOCUMENTARY

HYPOTHESIS FOR FINAL FORM INTERPRETATION: THE PORTRAYAL OF

OUTSIDERS IN THE ABRAHAMIC NARRATIVES AS A CASE STUDY

by

DANIEL E. HAWKINS

Bachelor of Arts in Biblical Studies, Trinity Western University, 2016

Thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS IN BIBLICAL STUDIES

in the

FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY

Dr. Craig Broyles, Ph.D.; Thesis Supervisor

Dr. Andrew Perrin, Ph.D.; Second Reader

February, 2020

© Daniel Hawkins, 2020

 CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………….. v

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………….. vii

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….... 1

A Survey of the Documentary Landscape 3

The Questions Asked and Methodology 6

THE PORTRAYAL OF OUTSIDERS IN THE J SOURCE…………………………….... 11

Introduction 11

Characteristics of the J Source 11

If there is a J Source, Is it a Contiguous Narrative or Fragmentary? 13

Historical Context of the J Source 14

Textual Context of the J Source 20

Occurrences of Outsiders in the J Source 21

Genesis 12:1–4a: Abraham’s Calling 21

An Excursus on the Niphal Verbal Stem 30

Genesis 12:10–20: Abraham’s Descent to Egypt 38

Genesis 13: A Preamble to Sodom 41

Genesis 16:1b–2, 4–14: Hagar’s Expulsion 42

Genesis 18–19: Entertaining Angels 44

Genesis 24: A Wife for Isaac 48

ii
 iii

Genesis 25: Nations Descending From Abraham 50

Conclusion 51

THE PORTRAYAL OF OUTSIDERS IN THE E SOURCE............................................... 53

Introduction 53

Characteristics of the E Source 53

If there is an E Source, Is it a Contiguous Narrative or Fragmentary? 55

Historical Context of the E Source 58

Textual Context of the E Source 61

Occurrences of Outsiders in the E Source 62

Genesis 15: Covenant Ceremony 62

Genesis 20: Abimelech and ‫יהוה‬ 66

Genesis 21: Hagar and Ishmael 74

Genesis 21: Covenant with Abimelech 79

Genesis 22: The Binding of Isaac 85

Conclusion 91

THE PORTRAYAL OF OUTSIDERS IN THE P SOURCE………………....………...… 92

Introduction 92

Characteristics of the P Source 92

If there is a P Source, Is it a Contiguous Narrative or Fragmentary? 95

Historical Context of the P Source 100

Textual Context of the P Source 107

Occurrences of Outsiders in the P Source 107

Genesis 16: Marriage to Hagar 107

 iv

Genesis 17: Covenant Ceremony 110

An Excursus on Circumcision 112

An Excursus on the Relationship Between Genesis 15 and 17 120

Genesis 23: The Purchase of a Burial Plot 124

Conclusion 128

THE PORTRAYAL OF OUTSIDERS IN GENESIS 14………………………………….. 130

Introduction 130

Characteristics of the Source 130

Is it a Contiguous Narrative or Fragmentary? 131

Historical Context 132

Textual Context 136

Occurrences of Outsiders 137

Genesis 14: War and Peace 137

Conclusion 141

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………. 143

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………. 148
 v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis has been a journey through the unexpected. It always felt that its completion

was too distant to imagine and that the topic was too complex to navigate. The process of

crafting this thesis has been lengthy, but the lessons I have learned about myself and scholarship

along the way have been invaluable. It would have never been possible for me reach this point in

my academic career without the support of others or the grace of God. Therefore, I would like to

immensely thank the following:

To the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, thank you for your

generous support and removing one of the biggest hurdles to post-secondary education, thereby

enabling me to focus on my studies.

To my home church and the churches in Langley, thank you for your encouragement,

support, and for helping me to bridge the church-academy divide.

To the Department of Religious studies at Trinity Western University. Thank you for

your kind words, rigorous scholarship, and showing me what it means to be a thoughtful

Christian and a biblical scholar. I want to specifically thank Jocelyn Chapman for always being

willing to help and answer my questions, even if I was asking the same question many different

times. Dr. Jim Scott, thank you for allowing me to have the opportunity to work on your projects

and gain invaluable experience and connections. Dr. Dirk Büchner, thank you for your

encouragement, demonstration of excellent scholarship, and the many conversations about

mechanical devices. Dr. Craig Allert, thank you for your guidance and encouraging words. To all

the others in Seal Cap, again, thank you for helping train the next generation of biblical scholars

with integrity and thoroughness.

 vi

To Dr. Andrew Perrin. Thank you for your helpful insights and tips regarding academic

life. I chose you as a second reader because I knew that you had an expectation of academic

integrity and excellence and because I knew you would challenge me and make the end product

better as a result. Thank you for bringing out the best.

To Dr. Craig Broyles. Thank you for convincing me to undertake a Master of Arts degree

and for the patience, encouragement, and kindness you have shown along the way. You have

helped shape my ideas, and guided this thesis to become what it is now. I am honoured to have

been your student.

To my friends and family. Thank you for your encouragement on this journey, and for

constantly asking if I was done that “paper” yet. A special thanks to my mother and father for

their willingness to support me from a distance and come to the coast at seemingly the drop of a

hat. I would not be here without the can-do attitude and work ethic which you instilled from a

very young age. You taught me that if I was going to do something, then I better do it right, and I

hope this thesis lives up to that expectation. To God be the glory.

 vii

ABSTRACT

There are few discussions in biblical studies that contain as much promise and

controversy for understanding the biblical text as does a conversation on the proposed sources of

the Pentateuch. The following work on the portrayal of outsiders in the Abrahamic narratives,

specifically how they are portrayed in the traditional sources of Genesis, necessarily enters into

this controversial world. This thesis will investigate three inter-connected questions. First, how

are outsiders portrayed in the Abrahamic narratives? Secondly, is the portrayal of outsiders

different between the different sources of Genesis, and, if so, what does the possible historical

context of each source contribute to an understanding of why these differences exist? This in turn

will contribute to the larger and third question: does the Documentary Hypothesis specifically,

and diachronic analysis in general, have sufficient value for understanding the text as it now

stands? It will be shown that while the Documentary Hypothesis involves some speculation, it

offers a more coherent framework through which one can interpret and understand many of the

complexities that arise in a reading of the Pentateuch. As such, diachronic analysis proves to be

an invaluable tool for interpreting the final form of Genesis, if one is aware of its limitations.
 INTRODUCTION

There are few discussions in biblical studies that contain as much promise and

controversy for understanding the biblical text as does a conversation on the proposed sources of

the Pentateuch.1 The following work on the portrayal of outsiders in the Abrahamic narratives,

specifically how they are portrayed in the traditional sources of Genesis, necessarily enters into

this controversial world.

It must be stated, that much of any source-critical work on Genesis rests on some amount

of hypothetical assumptions. This can make it quite dizzying and frustrating for even the avid

scholar who attempts to embark on a journey cataloging and interacting with the sources of

Genesis. Indeed, throughout my own research there were moments where I was sorely tempted to

throw up my hands in frustration and pursue a more clear-cut method of studying the text, such

as narrative or literary criticism. However, as helpful and enlightening as these methods are, they

do not answer the question which, for me, stands at the base of the text: how was the text formed

to be what we have now? To some this is an unanswerable question, a mystery best left

unsolved; to get behind the text is an impossible task that will only serve to make a mess. Indeed,

to some extent this is true. The traditional Documentary Hypothesis becomes more convoluted

and less defined the closer one looks at the text as a more nuanced and fragmented picture

emerges. When entering the scholarly discussion, one encounters a diverse range of opinions on

the classification and social settings that surround each passage. Each of these opinions are put

forward by scholars who believe they offer the most cogent and defensible understanding of a

1
For excellent introductions to the discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis, see Richard Elliott
Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 1st ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1989), 15–32; Gordon J. Wenham,
“Composition of the Pentateuch,” in Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Pentateuch, vol. 1 of Exploring
the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 159–85.

1
 2

passage, and quite often the opinions of different scholars regarding the same passage are

mutually exclusive. This can lead readers to feel more like they are witnessing an argument

between schoolchildren bickering about seemingly insignificant points than a serious scholarly

discussion. Yet, despite this ambiguity, the Documentary Hypothesis, in some form, continues to

hold sway in Pentateuchal studies because in a broad context it sufficiently answers many

questions that emerge in the study of the text. Nicholson notes, “That the [Documentary

Hypothesis] won [scholars’] support was not therefore because one could write ‘Q.E.D.’ below

it, but because it offered a more cogent and comprehensive explanation than its rivals of the

problems that an analysis of the text yields, even though it made no claim to solve all of them.”2

Indeed, in a more recent work, Baden similarly notes the following regarding the overall

sufficiency of the Documentary Hypothesis despite its explanatory shortcomings: “[The areas of

the text which remain difficult to explain] are reminders that we are dealing with what must have

been a historically messy literary project and that perfection of explanation, like perfection of

transmission, is probably too much to ask.”3

What we have in the Abrahamic narratives, and in Genesis more generally, is akin to a

mosaic. From a distance we can see that a relatively coherent and beautiful picture emerges. We

can see an intelligible progression and cohesion. And yet, it becomes clear that as we get closer

to the mosaic it is made up of different constituent parts with a blend of different theologies, and

that however skillfully they have been arranged together each has a different past. Looking even

2
Ernest Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1998), 27. For a more recent discussion on the “unreadability” of the Pentateuch in its present form, and
the necessity of source-critical answers to this problem, see Joel S. Baden, “Why Is the Pentateuch Unreadable? –
Or, Why Are We Doing This Anyway?,” in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of
Europe, Israel, and North America, ed. Jan C. Gertz et al., FAT 111 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 243–51.
3
Joel S. Baden, “Continuity between the Gaps – The Pentateuch and the Kirta Epic,” in The Formation of
the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, ed. Jan C. Gertz et al., FAT
111 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 283.
 3

closer, even in a “traditional” form of the Documentary Hypothesis, one must understand that the

individual sources are themselves composed of varying elements of tradition, but that the

authors, editors, redactors, and scribes behind these sources have combined them in their own

coherent styles.4 This multilayered dimension, in combination with the span of time involved, is

what makes source criticism in the Pentateuch so difficult.

A Survey of the Documentary Landscape

First, a brief foray deeper into the concerns surrounding the Documentary Hypothesis in

general is warranted.5 As was also discussed above, one of the inherent downsides of this theory

has been the uncertainty and ambiguity which plagues documentary theory and source criticism

in general.6 Nevertheless, despite this inherent uncertainty, scholars such as Zevit have

contended that the underlying theory of “Pentateuchal documents and their editing retains its

essential validity, and in light of the Samaritan Pentateuch and of some cuneiform historical and

literary compositions, may almost be considered empirically substantiated.”7 As a result, the

Documentary Hypothesis seems to dwell in a never-ending tension. On the surface it is

ostensibly the best theory to explain the state of the Pentateuch as it exists now: an amalgamation

of various sources. However, this security is countered by the diverse range of opinions and

theories as to exactly how this division plays out and how one might identify the various sources.

4
Terence E. Fretheim, “Theology of the Major Traditions in Genesis–Numbers,” RevExp 74.3 (1977): 302.
5
For a more up-to-date and thorough discussion of the current state of source criticism on the Pentateuch,
see Jan C. Gertz et al., eds., The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel,
and North America, FAT 111 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016).
6
For an article that discusses the possible empirical validity of the Documentary Hypothesis, see Jeffrey H.
Tigay, “An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis,” JBL 94.3 (1975): 329–342.
7
Ziony Zevit, “Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P,” ZAW 94.4 (1982): 483.
 4

For example, one of the cornerstones of the Documentary Hypothesis and all its

derivatives has been the existence of doublets, sections of the text where the same story or

elements of a story seem to be repeated. Some prominent examples of this in the early chapters

of Genesis include: the creation narratives, repetition within the flood narrative, the sister-wife

episodes, and Abraham’s seeming double covenants with God in Genesis 15 and 17.8 While

some scholars see these doublets as clear indications of multiple sources, others are not so sure.

For a brief rehashing of the discussion, we will turn to Propp who discusses the issue of doublets

in light of a unified P narrative. Propp contends that a single author is far less likely to allow

repeating passages, even if they are not contradictory, than an editor or redactor would be.9

However, as will be seen below in a comparison of Genesis 15 and 17, others, such as

Williamson, argue that some doublets, such as the dual covenants between God and Abraham,

can be adequately explained on a synchronic level without the need to appeal to different

sources. Nevertheless, even if Williamson is granted his explanation for this particular episode in

Genesis, other instances both within Genesis and in the rest of the Pentateuch are not so easily

understandable from a synchronic perspective. Detractors of the Documentary Hypothesis might

argue that this can be better explained by appealing rather to an oral history behind a single

crafted text. Besides the fact that this is merely advocating for another form of a “Documentary

Hypothesis,” albeit in oral form, Propp aptly comments why this is unlikely:

Of course, much biblical tradition has an oral pre-history. But a story-teller dependent on
diverse and diverging oral sources—e.g., a parent recounting a fairy tale—will inevitably
homogenize in the new rendition, making reconstruction of sources nigh impossible. I
fully agree with Gunkel, Noth and von Rad: the Torah’s internal inconsistencies must
first be approached by literary analysis, before one speculates about oral antecedents. 10

8
For a larger list of doublets, see Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 22.
9
William Henry Propp, “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact,” VT 46.4 (1996): 460.
10
Propp, “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact,” 461 n.13.
 5

As a result, while there are certainly still detractors, the very nature of the text with its

internal inconsistences continues to invite arguments in favour of some form of the Documentary

Hypothesis. This leads scholars such as Friedman to continue to argue that it is not an answer to

these inconsistencies, it is the best answer.11 Yet, it is also important that the reader keep in mind

that, as a theory, the Documentary Hypothesis is not without its limitations. This will become

apparent as the investigation below continues.

In addition, modern proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis would do well to include

in their theories and discussions an investigation of the role scribes have played in the

development of tradition.12 The text being analyzed was not simply written by an “author” and

sealed in a vacuum until it was passed on to a reader. Throughout the history of the text it has

been copied and in many cases adapted to new contexts by scribes who played a vital role in the

passing on of tradition. Integrating this reality into the critical process would lead to an enriched

understanding of the development the text may have endured prior to what it is now. Moreover,

this would address some of the shortcomings in the Documentary Hypothesis that an imposition

of the modern notions of authorship has created. One interesting example which could aid future

study would be to study the Danielic tradition and its formation. An analysis of this tradition

aided by the discoveries in the Dead Sea Scrolls could form a concrete example of the scribal

practices of amalgamating similar pieces of tradition that later become forged into a single

document.

11
Richard Elliott Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses,
1st ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003), 27–31.
12
This is an avenue that is indeed starting to be explored. For examples, see David M. Carr, “Data to
Inform Ongoing Debates about the Formation of the Pentateuch – From Documented Cases of Transmission History
to a Survey of Rabbinic Exegesis,” in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe,
Israel, and North America, ed. Jan C. Gertz et al., FAT 111 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 89–106; Molly M.
Zahn, “Scribal Revision and the Composition of the Pentateuch – Methodological Issues,” in The Formation of the
Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, ed. Jan C. Gertz et al., FAT 111
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 491–500.
 6

The Questions Asked and Methodology

The following work is the result of my own journey through this discussion. As the

journey continued the question I sought to answer was transformed and expanded by the

inherently uncertain nature of source-critical work on the Pentateuch. What began as a question

of how the different sources of the Pentateuch portrayed outsiders has expanded into a larger

discussion on the value of diachronic analysis in reading the final form of Genesis, in light of its

inherent complexity and ambiguity. As a result, what follows will attempt to address this larger

question through a case study of the portrayal of outsiders in the Abrahamic narratives in each of

the traditional sources.

First, a clarification of certain terms is necessary. Some of the most relevant for this

thesis are: outsiders, diachronic analysis, synchronic analysis, and the Documentary Hypothesis.

When referring to outsiders, I am including any persons who are not part of Abraham’s direct

family and lineage (with lineage referring specifically to the historical people/nation of Israel). It

should be noted that such a classification is in some sense an external literary categorization,

owing more to a later period of when the narratives are told than when they are set. Indeed a

curious feature of the Abrahamic narratives is that, due to his nomadic lifestyle, Abraham and his

family are the real outsiders in many of the stories. Nevertheless, I believe that this

categorization offers a unique opportunity to explore the life of the text as it is transmitted from

generation to generation within the Israelite community. Next, diachronic analysis is a method

which takes into account the entire lifespan of the text, including any background discussions on

the origins of individual components or sources. This is contrasted with synchronic analysis

which focuses on interpreting the text at one particular moment in time, commonly in its final

form, without regard to the history of the text’s development. Finally, when referring to the
 7

Documentary Hypothesis I am not referring exclusively to the theories put forward by

Wellhausen, Noth, or others, concerning four sources with a common basis. While these theories

are certainly included, the reference is not limited to them, but also encompasses other elements

such as the supplementary or fragmentary hypotheses. I do this both for convenience and

because the Documentary Hypothesis is the most well-known among these theories. Where

needed, I will refer specifically to other sub-theories.

Secondly, as a starting point I shall be using the MT, as reconstructed in BHS, based on

the Leningrad codex, and shall refer to it as the “text”.13 While historically speaking, the

Leningrad codex is rather late (11th century CE), recent discoveries of manuscripts, such as the

Dead Sea Scrolls, have demonstrated its overall reliability.14 This is not to say that the scrolls

found at Qumran are identical to the MT, nor that the MT should be assumed to be the “best”

version of the Hebrew text. On the contrary, the discoveries at Qumran have solidified the

understanding that the MT is merely one representative of ancient textual tradition, with others,

such as the Hebrew behind the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch, also holding an important

place for understanding the life of the text in a community.15 The MT is a text type that “won the

day” and is as a result far more prolific.16 In many cases, the textual reconstruction of the

13
For more on the textual traditions behind the Hebrew Bible, see Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea Scrolls
(Nashville: Abingdon, 2013), 77–81; Armin Lange, “From Many to One – Some Thoughts on the Hebrew Textual
History of the Torah,” in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and
North America, ed. Jan C. Gertz et al., FAT 111 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 121–95.
14
Flint, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 53.
15
Emanuel Tov makes the following poignant note concerning the further eclectic nature of the MT:
“Moreover, even were we to surmise that 𝕸 reflects the ‘original’ form of the Bible, we would still have to decide
which Masoretic Text reflects this ‘original text,’ since the Masoretic Text is not a uniform textual unit, but is itself
represented by many witnesses (cf. pp. 21–25).” Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Second
Revised Edition. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 11. See also Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 164–80.
16
For example, Tov notes that roughly 35 percent of the biblical texts found at Qumran were proto-
Masoretic texts, which “…probably reflects their authoritative status (cf. p. 191).” See Tov, Textual Criticism of the
Hebrew Bible, 117.
 8

“original text” found in BHS does reflect this understanding.17 As a result, for accessibility and

simplicity, the MT in BHS shall be used as a starting point, with the above caveats kept in mind.

However, there are also instances where other ancient textual traditions differ from the MT in the

passages covered below. Where other ancient versions substantially differ from the MT, they

will be noted. The necessity of using the MT as a basis for serious scholarly investigation,

bearing in mind the above points regarding ancient textual traditions, should also make certain

methodological limitations clear: because the MT is only one of several ancient text types, any

source reconstruction based solely on it will always be necessarily incomplete.18

This study will employ the tools of source criticism and will conduct a passage by

passage exposition on the occurrences of outsiders in the Abrahamic narratives. For the sake of

convenience and clear structure I will use Noth’s classification of passages as a starting point.19

First, a general introduction to each of the classical sources will occur, containing discussions on

the historical, literary, and textual contexts put forward by various scholars. This section, and the

subsequent discussions surrounding the classification of each individual passage, will serve as an

ongoing reminder of the complexity and ambiguity found in such a discussion as the differing

theories and opinions of various scholars will be noted. Subsequently, each occurrence of

outsiders will be mined for its contribution to each source’s overall portrayal of outsiders before

a source-critical discussion of the passage in question exploring the ongoing validity of each

17
For more on BHS, and text critical editions in general, see also Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew
Bible, 289–90, 371–77.
18
A similar point is made by Zahn. See Zahn, “Scribal Revision and the Composition of the Pentateuch –
Methodological Issues,” 499–500.
19
It is worth noting that although Noth’s classification shall be used as a starting point in the forthcoming
study, he was neither the first nor the only scholar to produce a classification of each passage. His classification is
being used simply for the reason that when entering the dizzying field of source criticism surrounding Genesis, it is
somewhere to start.
 9

passage’s classification. This will be followed by what, if any, contribution diachronic analysis

makes to an understanding of the passage’s various contexts and its viewpoint.

As a result my thesis will investigate three inter-connected questions. First, how are

outsiders portrayed in the Abrahamic narratives? Secondly, is the portrayal of outsiders different

between the different sources of Genesis, and, if so, what does the possible historical context of

each source contribute to an understanding of why these differences exist? This in turn will

contribute to the larger and third question: does the Documentary Hypothesis specifically, and

diachronic analysis in general, have sufficient value for understanding the text as it now stands?

To put it another way, this seeks to evaluate the value of the Documentary Hypothesis for final

form interpretation.

For me these three questions are integrated and yet come from different spheres. The

question of outsiders in general for me bears immediate ramifications and relevance for

contemporary Christianity and the church, whereas the sub-question of how the different sources

portray this on an individual and compared basis has value for the larger scholarly discussion.

The third question, while rooted in scholarly concerns, ultimately also seeks an answer for both

the scholar and the lay reader of Genesis.

While seeking to answer this third question it is imperative to keep in tension two ideas:

the first is that the text has been shaped by a plurality of authors, redactors, and scribes each in

their own particular context. This is an idea that is relatively easy for a modern interpreter to

keep in view. The second comes from a time and mindset that is quite foreign to modern readers:

the passing on of tradition simply because it is valuable in its own right. This latter point is well

expressed by Westermann:

It is further certain that the meaning of the written works cannot be read simply from the
message addressed by the writers to their contemporary listeners or readers with their
 10

particular biases. Besides the intention of giving their contemporaries some appropriate
advice, exhortations, and admonitions by means of the old stories, there is another
intention of equal importance. They intend to pass on to their contemporaries what they
themselves have received, something that has no concern with the contemporary situation
but which is to be heard and passed on yet again so that it may have a voice in a quite
different situation known neither to the listeners nor to the bearer of the tradition.20

He continues this train of thought in helpful ways:

One must guard the character of narrative against a further misunderstanding. Modern
exegesis takes the greatest pains to reduce the patriarchal narratives to an intellectually
comprehensible message. One tries to derive this from what the author of the narratives
wanted to say to the readers and listeners of his own time. Behind this attitude is the
conviction, so deeply embedded in western thought, that every text, and this includes
narrative, must have an author. And this author must have something to say to his own
contemporaries, even when he is addressing people of times long passed; it is the task of
exegesis to extract this message.21

By this Westermann is stating that a narrative is not able to, or even meant to, speak only to one

particular time, but that it is constantly able to speak to a new era. The vitality of storytelling is

not that we can simply distill from it a lesson, but that in the telling and retelling we can enter

into the narrative and ourselves experience the lesson along with those in the story. Moreover, in

some cases the story is passed along and recited simply as a way to remember and keep alive the

past, without regard to any lesson. As a result, to answer the third question we must not reject the

historical circumstance surrounding a text or necessarily overemphasize it, but instead seek to

evaluate whether diachronic analysis offers helpful addition to understanding this circumstance.

20
Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36: A Commentary, trans. J. J. Scullion, vol. 2 of CC (Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1985), 33. Emphasis added.
21
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 46.
 THE PORTRAYAL OF OUTSIDERS IN THE J SOURCE

Introduction

To better understand the significance of how the traditional J source depicts outsiders in

the Abrahamic narratives, one must first seek to understand the possible contexts of the J source.

I say possible because the context of any source is fraught with complexity and nuance and

cannot be known for certain. However, it is possible to make certain educated guesses. First, we

will explore the characteristics and possible historical contexts surrounding the formation of the J

narratives followed briefly by the textual context in the larger Genesis narrative. Subsequently,

this chapter will then examine all the occurrences of outsiders within the J narratives of

Abraham’s life.1 Together, these explorations will demonstrate that although Abraham is given

preferential treatment, being the de facto “insider,” the J sources demonstrate a remarkable

tolerance and even care for outsiders. Next each of the texts will be evaluated in a source-critical

discussion to foster a further understanding of the J source and to explore the ongoing validity of

Noth’s classifications, as well as a brief reflection on the ongoing value of diachronic analysis

for final form interpretation.

Characteristics of the J Source

One of the most common and known identifying factors of the J source has often been the

use of the divine name ‫יהוה‬, among other distinct vocabulary.2 However, as of late this approach

has been increasingly challenged, especially by scholars such as Van Seters, Whybray, and

1
For simplicity I will use Abraham instead of Abram throughout this paper, even when discussing passages
prior to Genesis 15 where the name changes, unless Abram appears in a direct quotation from a passage or a source.
2
For an excellent presentation of the various features that distinguish each source, see Friedman, The Bible
with Sources Revealed, 7–31.

11
 12

Baden,3 although Baden also counters some of the arguments levelled against divine name

usage.4 In terms of other identifying markers put forward by other scholars, McEvenue also notes

that the Yahwist often makes use of ellipses, where information critical to the story is assumed or

left out of the narrative, and that the Yahwist’s “work is marked by theological depth and literary

genius.”5 The J source is often distinguished from the P source by a marked difference in style,

though the same cannot be said for the E source with which it shares many similarities.6

Nevertheless, Friedman makes a case that when separated, the J source and the E source display

marked concern for the southern and northern kingdoms respectively.7 However, Baden

highlights that one can only identify themes and motifs after a source has been isolated and,

therefore, these themes and motifs cannot be used to isolate sources from one another, especially

given that there can be overlap in themes between sources.8 Instead, Baden proposes that one

should seek to identify the J source based on consistency and continuity within the narrative,

which he argues demonstrates that it is its own unified source.9

While Baden’s argument certainly has merit, the question of what to do with elements

(not necessarily themes) of a certain text that would likely indicate a certain time period remains.

For example, if Genesis 3 is found to have details that correlate to the exile, could not that

3
John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), 156; R.
N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study, JSOTSup (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 63–
68; Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch : Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis, The Anchor Yale
Bible Reference Library (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 106, 111.
4
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 112. See also Zeev Weisman, “The Interrelationship between
J and E in Jacob’s Narrative: Theological Criteria,” ZAW 104.2 (1992): 177–78.
5
McEvenue gives for example the building of the Ark in J, and how Pharaoh knew that Sarah was
Abraham’s wife in Gen 12:18. See Sean E. McEvenue, “Comparison of Narrative Styles in the Hagar Stories,”
Semeia 3 (1975): 65, 71. The quotation is taken from p. 65.
6
Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, vol. 1 of WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), xxx; Friedman, Who Wrote
the Bible?, 83–85; Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 59–62.
7
Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 61–83.
8
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 106–7.
9
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 67–81.
 13

correlation then be used to explore other possible similarities within the J narrative that would

not have been possible had the connection not had been made?10 Granted the correlation would

only be valid in other texts if internal textual grounds have already linked them in some way.

Therefore, as Baden argues, in order to make the most use of historical connections and

possibilities, sources must first be broadly defined according to literary characteristics in the text.

Then, a historical investigation and the context of an individual text’s creation may be explored

to help further nuance the findings of the original literary analysis.

If there is a J Source, Is it a Contiguous Narrative or Fragmentary?

If we follow the lead of Westermann, which I believe is prudent and was alluded to

above, then to a certain degree each source is by nature fragmentary, containing various layers of

tradition that are stitched together with varying levels of overarching narrative skill. As a result,

while J is in general a “contiguous” narrative, it is also necessarily in part fragmented as it

contains layers of tradition woven within it.11 Nevertheless, some scholars, such as Rendtorff,

have sought to discount the unity of a J source that stretches throughout the Pentateuch, citing

the lack of reference to prominent promise themes outside of the patriarchal narratives.12 This in

turn has been countered by other scholars such as Whybray who hold that though the promises

are not explicitly mentioned, the very narratives serve as the fulfillment and answer to the

10
The connections between Genesis 3 and the exile will be further explored below in the discussion on the
historical context of the J source.
11
See also for example John A. Emerton, “The Date of the Yahwist,” in In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel:
Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, T & T Clark. (London, 2004), 107–8.
12
Rolf Rendtorff, “The ‘Yahwist’ as Theologian: Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism,” JSOT 1.3 (1976):
9–10.
 14

promises.13 Baden also staunchly defends the overall unity and continuity of the J source, as was

touched on briefly above.14

Historical Context of the J Source

The dating of J has undergone a tremendous amount of revision throughout the history of

the Documentary Hypothesis. Prior to Wellhausen, it was largely held that E was antecedent to J,

and subsequent to his arguments J became the earlier of the two sources, with both being dated to

the monarchical period.15 This turn came about as a result of Wellhausen’s assumptions

regarding the evolution of religion and his determination that J contained an earlier phase in this

development.16 However, this assumption is also being brought under increasing scrutiny, with

some, such as Weisman, arguing once again that the E text represents the earliest stratum, and

that it was J who combined the stories of the three patriarchs and is also the dominant layer of

the Abrahamic narratives.17

Many scholars since have agreed that the J source took shape in the time of the united

monarchy, likely in the Solomonic era.18 More specifically, von Rad suggests that the J

13
R. N. Whybray, “Response to Professor Rendtorff,” JSOT 1.3 (1976): 13. So also Wagner, though he
views this linking as the work of a post-exilic Yahwistic compiler. See Norman E. Wagner, “A Response to
Professor Rolf Rendtorff,” JSOT 1.3 (1976): 24–26.
14
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 67–81.
15
Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, 13–14. For more
on this shift, see the comments and notes in the next chapter on the dating of E. Knohl still defends the priority of E
over J. See Israel Knohl, The Divine Symphony: The Bible’s Many Voices (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society
of America, 2003), 155.
16
Weisman, “The Interrelationship between J and E in Jacob’s Narrative,” 179.
17
Weisman, “The Interrelationship between J and E in Jacob’s Narrative,” 193. See also Knohl who argues
against the school of thought that Israelite religion was an “incremental evolution.” Knohl, The Divine Symphony, 9.
18
Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John H. Marks, Rev. ed., OTL (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1972), 16; Hans Walter Wolff, “Kerygma of the Yahwist,” Int 20.2 (1966): 135–36; Wenham, Genesis
1–15, xlii–xlv; Fretheim, “Theology of the Major Traditions in Genesis–Numbers,” 305; Robert North, “Can
Geography Save J from Rendtorff?,” Bib 63.1 (1982): 53–54. For a more thorough analysis of J’s possible southern
provenance, as opposed to the northern E, see North, “Can Geography Save J from Rendtorff?”
 15

narratives were formed in the period of the united monarchy when questions regarding the

immanence of God began to emerge in the face of the emerging state.19 Indeed, the declarations

in Genesis 12 that Abraham shall be a great nation and not just a people and that God will make

his name great, 20 in connection with God similarly telling David in 2 Samuel 7:9 that he will

make David’s name great, points towards this time period.21 In addition, this is the first period in

Israel’s history where any sort of organizational government is formed that would allow for the

scribal culture needed to likely produce such a document. Asen also finds similarities between

the theological views of Amos and J which if valid would indeed point to the eighth century or

earlier.22

Contrary to the view of a monarchic J, lately there have been a growing number of

scholars who have opted for a later date of compilation for the J narratives, though with the

admission that they also contain material from earlier times. Van Seters in particular dates the J

source to the exilic times, or the neo-Babylonian period, finding the close relationship between

the primeval histories of Genesis and Babylonian myths distinctly telling.23 This exilic text, he

postulates, was written as a “prologue and extension of D in the Dtr History.”24 Van Seters views

19
Rad, Genesis, 30.
20
James Muilenburg, “Abraham and the Nations: Blessing and World History,” Int 19.4 (1965): 391–92.
21
Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis. Chapters 1–17, vol. 1 of NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1990), 372; Fretheim, “Theology of the Major Traditions in Genesis–Numbers,” 306. For some examples of possible
implication that this socio-historic time period would have on the reception of J’s text see Fretheim, “Theology of
the Major Traditions in Genesis–Numbers,” 309.
22
Bernhard A. Asen, “No, Yes and Perhaps in Amos and the Yahwist,” VT 43.4 (1993): 433–441.
23
John Van Seters, The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 122; Van
Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 310. For another presentation of Van Seters exilic date for the Yahwist,
based on an analysis of “'êl” epithets in Genesis, see John Van Seters, “The Religion of the Patriarchs in Genesis,”
Bib 61.2 (1980): 220–233.
24
John Van Seters, “Dating the Yahwist’s History: Principles and Perspectives,” Bib 96.1 (2015): 2. Cryer
also finds evidence of Yahwistic redaction of some Deuteronomic texts that would lend weight to Van Seter’s
claims. See Frederick H. Cryer, “On the Relationship Between the Yahwistic and the Deuteronomistic Histories,”
BN 29 (1985): 58–74.
 16

the J source as written by an author/editor/scribe who “made quite creative use of older traditions

in order to construct a history from the creation of humanity and the patriarchs to their sojourn in

Egypt, and from the exodus of the Israelite descendants to their entrance into the Promised

Land.”25 Levin and Hunter draw a similar conclusion as Van Seters and posit that although there

are elements of earlier times, such as connections to the monarchy, the Yahwist conducted his

work (editing) in the exile, seeking an answer to the abrupt change in the fate of the nation, and

looking forward to a time when ‫ יהוה‬will once again restore his people.26

This reframing of the J source within exilic times has been simultaneously met with

pushback. Westermann cautions against Van Seters’ exilic conclusions, especially those that

seek to find the meaning of the Yahwist’s work solely in its meaning to its contemporaries, and

those that argue based off of limited features in the text:

One must say here that the view of Van Seters, setting the Yahwist in the exile, is
extremely improbable; and for all that, the contemporary message is uncertain because it
can rely only on elements in the narratives, not the narratives as wholes. A narrative is
not a text, however it may confront us as a text in its present form. It is something that
was narrated and the narration was listened to.27

Emerton also notes a word of caution against using the similarities between Babylonian myths

and the primeval narratives of Genesis to date J to exilic times by arguing that such an adaptation

of the literature of Israel’s conquerors is less likely than the scenario of earlier Mesopotamian

influence on Canaanite scribes which then emerged in later Israelite texts.28 In addition, Emerton

identifies several elements of the J narrative, such as the relatively positive portrayal of Esau, as

25
Van Seters, “Dating the Yahwist’s History,” 2. For a response and evaluation of some of Van Seters’
conclusions, see Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 225–33.
26
Christoph Levin, “The Yahwist: The Earliest Editor in the Pentateuch,” JBL 126.2 (2007): 230; Alastair
G. Hunter, “Father Abraham: A Structural and Theological Study of the Yahwist’s Presentation of the Abraham
Material,” JSOT 11.35 (1986): 3–27. Hunter also reverses the arguments used by Asen and argues a dependency on
prophetic passages such as Amos by the J editor and not vice versa. See Hunter, “Father Abraham,” 17.
27
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 46.
28
Emerton, “The Date of the Yahwist,” 123–24.
 17

ancestor of the Edomites, and Laban the Aramaean that militate against an exilic date.29

Whybray similarly cautions against Van Seters’ view, that the Pentateuch is the result of a single

exilic “J” author, by highlighting that the arguments put forward by him are highly subjective

and not carried to their logical conclusions.30 It is however worth noting that Whybray’s own

conclusion to the authorship of the Pentateuch, in its attribution to a single author/editor, bears

remarkable similarity to Van Seters’ overall paradigm and lies open to a similar charge.31

Contrarily, Nicholson firmly rejects the notion of an exilic date for the authorship of J,

citing a lack of uncertainty about the future of Israel and the apparent missing dimension of

trauma in the narratives.32 Moreover, he argues that other features of the text, such as the

legitimization of holy places in Israel by the patriarchs, fit far better in a pre-exilic context.33

Nevertheless, there are aspects of J’s theology that do seem to involve a deep wrestling with this

trauma, the Genesis 3 expulsion from the garden not the least of them. This can be demonstrated

from the following comparison: If one were to simply trace the historical pattern of Israel

through the lens of the Deuteronomic historian (Joshua through 2 Kings) where the overall

question being asked is, “how did the exile happen?” one sees that the answer given is:

“disobedience to ‫’יהוה‬s commands.” From the perspective of this exilic writer/editor, Israel was

given the land and a law to follow, but Israel violated the law and was expelled from the land to

Babylon in the “east.” This pattern is remarkably similar to the overall narrative of Genesis 2–3

where the man and his wife are given the garden and a command, but after violating the

29
Emerton, “The Date of the Yahwist,” 127. It is worth noting, however, that such portrayals could also
have been pre-J narratives that the J writer was simply passing on.
30
Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 232.
31
Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 242.
32
Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, 171. See also
Emerton, “The Date of the Yahwist,” 127.
33
Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, 239–40.
 18

command find themselves expelled from the garden, ostensibly to the “east.”34 Consequently, it

is also worth stating that if Baden’s arguments for the consistency of the J narrative are to be

taken seriously, then more thought needs to be put into the legitimate possibility of an exilic

context for its composition given the powerful explanatory power of the exile for certain features

of the text. This would include the expulsion from the garden in Genesis 3, as well as the

parallels between the flood accounts in Genesis and similar Babylonian myths; though the latter

could be explained via Canaanite intermediaries as Emerton suggests.35 Moreover, although

Nicholson raises a valid point regarding how the majority of exilic texts come at the trauma from

a direction of uncertainty for the future, which is arguably a view that one could get from reading

just Genesis 2–3, is it necessary that all texts held the same view? Or is it not possible that some

chose to encourage their contemporaries by way of a cultural retelling of ancient memories in

order to point to a brighter future? This latter aspect is a view that one gets when Genesis 2–3 is

put in the context of the rest of the narrative, where something terrible has happened, but the

story is still going on. These connections and similarities are not, however, without other

possible answers, though some sort of exilic context for the composition of Genesis 2–3, be it

34
Genesis 3 portrays the sword and cherubim which guard re-entry back into the garden as being placed on
the east side of the garden, which would indicate that this is the direction they were expelled. It should be noted that
I have not found ‫גרׁש‬, the verb used when Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden, used in reference to the
exile. However, it is used in several passages throughout Exodus, Joshua, and Judges to describe what God does to
the native inhabitants of the land, including Exodus 33:2; 34:11 which Noth classifies as J. While not a direct
reference to the exile, this connection could be relevant when taken within the mindset of Deuteronomy that if Israel
does not follow all of ‫’יהוה‬s decrees, he will do to them as he did to the nations in the land before them. This in turn
could strengthen Van Seters’ contention that J was written as a pre-lude to Deuteronomy.
35
It is also possible that the overall structure of the Genesis 2–3 narratives owes its origin not to the exile,
but to a pre-exilic time as almost a warning of what will occur if the commands are not obeyed, although this is
admittedly a weaker argument. Perhaps it is possible to envision a hybrid thesis where Genesis 2 owes its origin as a
pre-exilic origins myth (Hiebert points out that many elements of Genesis 2 match what would have been common
way of thinking about agricultural life in biblical Israel) to which the expulsion of Genesis 3 was later added after
the trauma of the exile. See Theodore Hiebert, “Israel’s Ancestors Were Not Nomads,” in Exploring the Longue
Durée : Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, ed. J. David Schloen (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 200.
Another possibility is explored by Wifall in his comparison of various elements of the primeval narratives to the life
of David. See Walter R. Wifall, “Bone of My Bones and Flesh of My Flesh: The Politics of the Yahwist,” CurTM
10.3 (1983): 176–183.
 19

northern or southern exile, would offer a cogent explanation for these features of the text. Suffice

it to say they cannot simply be ignored.

Baden cogently expresses one final note of review on J’s historical context, which was

also touched on in the above section: “The J document—like all the documents of the

Pentateuch—is founded on a variety of traditions, some, if not all, of which were originally

independent oral traditions.”36 This is important to keep in mind as it can often be simple in a

discussion of a literary work’s origin to forget that one is necessarily accessing a history of

tradition through said literary work, even if that literary work may be the last link in a very long

chain.37 Indeed, Westermann holds that the written composition of the J narrative belongs to the

latest stage in the development process of the Abrahamic narratives.38 By this he does not mean

that it is the latest source, but rather that it is in J that the narrative as it is now formed took shape

from the pools of oral history behind it. In his view, P is then seen as evidence of later

development of the tradition in the exile, although he also admits to probable later exilic editing

of J (and E) material as well.39 This is all to simply restate what has been said above: the J

source, though a contiguous narrative, also bears elements from previous times as well as the

36
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 81. See also Fretheim, “Theology of the Major Traditions in
Genesis–Numbers,” 302; Rad, Genesis, 25; Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Chico, CA: Scholars
Press, 1981), xvii; Wolfgang M. W. Roth, “Wooing of Rebekah: A Tradition-Critical Study of Genesis 24,” CBQ
34.2 (1972): 179–80. Weisman also argues that J, “…has operated not only as an author but also as a redactor,
revising and adapting the work of others.” See Zeev Weisman, “National Consciousness in the Patriarchal
Promises,” JSOT 10.31 (1985): 61. For more on the oral backdrop of the narratives, see also Westermann, Genesis
12–36, 35–58.
37
One such example, although outside the purview of the current study, is much of the Jacob material,
which Weisman argues is possibly one of the clearest examples of a pre-Yahwistic stratum that has been adapted
and taken up by other sources such as J. See Weisman, “National Consciousness in the Patriarchal Promises,” 63–
64. Weisman bases his argumentation on the fact that only one of the promises made to Jacob in the narrative are
attributed to ‫יהוה‬, with the rest being attributed to other lesser used divine titles (such as El Bethel in Genesis 31:13
and 35:7).
38
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 38.
39
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 38–39. See also Emerton, “The Date of the Yahwist,” 108.
 20

marks of later editors. This reality makes it quite difficult to pin down a date with any relative

certainty.

Textual Context of the J Source

In the Pentateuch, the J source begins with a creation account in Genesis 2. In the

Abrahamic narratives, the J account begins with a brief introduction to Abraham in 11:28–30,

immediately after the Tower of Babel incident in Genesis 11:1–9. In his commentary on Genesis,

Westermann views the introductory Abrahamic call and blessing of Genesis 12:1–4a as shaped

by the J editor in order to link it to the primeval narrative and the dispersion of the nations in

Genesis 11:1–9 at the Tower of Babel.40 Although there is a difference of terminology in some

regards between the primeval and ancestral narratives (for example: ‫הארץ‬-‫ כל‬and ‫ בני האדם‬in the

Babel narrative, and ‫ כל מׁשפחת אדמה‬in Gen 12:3) this does not necessarily preclude this

connection because, as noted above, J may be more of an editor combining pre-existing sources

rather than an outright author.41 Hamilton similarly links the “making great of Abram’s name” as

a direct antithesis to the Babel narrative in the preceding chapter in which the people of the earth

sought to make famous their own name apart from God.42 Baden takes this link a step further

with his view that the entirety of J’s primeval narrative was written to explain God’s choice of

40
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 146.
41
In regards to this specific instance of different terminology it could be that in using ‫ כל מׁשפחת אדמה‬the J
editor is intentionally desiring to echo that ‫ אדם‬was taken from the ‫אדמה‬, and as such the call of Abraham is the
beginning of the reversal of the curse in Genesis 3:17. I am indebted to my thesis advisor Dr. Craig Broyles for
pointing this out.
42
Hamilton, The Book of Genesis. Chapters 1–17, 372.
 21

Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3.43 The J source then continues throughout the rest of the Pentateuch,

with the exception of course of Deuteronomy.44

Occurrences of Outsiders in the J Source

The accounts of outsiders’ depiction and interaction with Abraham and ‫ יהוה‬in the

ancestral narratives are surprisingly positive. Though there is definite preferential treatment of

Abraham by ‫יהוה‬, this treatment does not prevent him from also showing concern for outsiders, a

concern that is also occasionally demonstrated by Abraham.

Genesis 12:1–4a: Abraham’s Calling

Portrayal of Outsiders

First, I shall attempt to treat with the most prominent instance in the Abrahamic

narratives to deal with outsiders: the Abrahamic promises occurring in Genesis 12:1–4a, and by

association Genesis 18:18.45 This passage is often viewed as the foundation of Israel’s election,

and its importance and indeed controversy cannot be understated. It is important because of the

linkage drawn between the patriarchs, Israel, and the nations and controversial due to the

translation of one word in Genesis 12:3: ‫וְ נִ בְ ְרכּו‬.

43
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 69.
44
Noth does classify some verses at the end of Deuteronomy as being of J/E providence, but on the whole
Deuteronomy is seen as its own source.
45
Genesis 18:18 will not be dealt with directly, but in tandem with Genesis 12:3b as the message behind
them is the same, and the textual issues which follow (mainly the discussion on the meaning of the niphal) similarly
apply, though a discussion on Genesis 18 at large will occur below.
 22

Text:

The Lord said to Abram, “Get up and go from your land and from your relations and
from the house of your father to the land which I will show you. For I will make you to
[become] a great nation and I shall bless you and I shall make your name great and it
[shall] be a blessing.46 And I shall bless the ones blessing you and the one slandering you
I will curse; and all the families of the ground shall bless themselves in you[r name]. So
Abram went just as the Lord had spoken to him. And Lot went with him.47

‫ּומבֵ ית אָ בִ יָך אֶ ל־הָ אָ ֶרץ אֲׁשֶ ר אַ ְראֶ ָך׃‬

ִ ‫ּוממֹּ ול ְַד ְתָך‬
ִ ‫ַוי ֹּאמֶ ר יְ הוָה אֶ ל־אַ בְ ָָ֔רם לְֶך־לְ ָך מֵ אַ ְרצְ ָך‬
‫עֶשָך לְ גֹּ וי גָדֹּ ול ַו ֲאבָ ֶרכְ ָָ֔ך ַו ֲאגַדְ לָה ְׁשמֶ ָך וֶהְ יֵה בְ ָר ָכה׃‬
ְ ֶ‫וְ א‬
‫ּומקַ לֶלְ ָך אָ אֹּ ר וְ נִ בְ ְרכּו בְ ָָ֔ך כֹּ ל ִמ ְׁשפְ חֹּ ת הָ אֲדָ מָ ה׃‬
ְ ‫וַאֲ בָ רֲ כָה ְמבָ ְר ֶָ֔כיָך‬
‫ַו ֵילְֶך אַ בְ ָרם ַכאֲׁשֶ ר ִדבֶ ר אֵ לָיו יְה ָ֔ ָוה ַו ֵילְֶך ִאתֹּ ו ֹלוט‬

(Genesis 12:1–4a)

As stated, the first mention of “outsiders” in the Abrahamic narratives of Genesis 12–25

is in this Abrahamic blessing, in Genesis 12:3a, where ‫ יהוה‬declares that others can receive his

favour, or displeasure, dependent upon their treatment of Abraham: “And I shall bless the ones

blessing you and the one slandering you I will curse.” This verse continues a blessing of

Abraham that starts with him and expands in concentric circles to those around him. It is

interesting that the first depiction in the Abrahamic narratives of outsiders is defined by how they

place themselves in relationship to Abraham, upon whom God’s favour resides. If they choose to

bless him, then just as ‫ יהוה‬blessed Abraham, so too he will bless them.

46
See below for discussion on this text critical issue.
47
All translations are the Author’s unless otherwise indicated. Since all translation is interpretation, it must
be noted that my translation already betrays which direction I am leaning as to the interpretation of this passage.
Although the translation may sound wooden and awkward to the English ear, it accurately reflects the word order of
the Hebrew.
 23

“And I shall bless the ones blessing you and the one slandering you I will curse;”

‫ּומקַ לֶלְ ָך אָ אֹּ ר‬

ְ ‫ַו ֲאבָ רֲ כָה ְמבָ ְר ֶָ֔כיָך‬

(Genesis 12:3a)

This statement of blessing is also the first part of a Hebrew chiastic statement

(‫ּומקַ לֶלְ ָך אָ אֹֹּ֑ ר‬

ְ ‫ ) ַו ֲא ָ ָֽברֲ ָכה ְמ ָב ְָ֣ר ֶָ֔כיָך‬that also appears, though in slightly different form and order, in

Genesis 27:29 and Numbers 24:9.48 It follows a verbal pattern of imperfect to participle, which is

mirrored in the subsequent section. Here the blessing is shared with others only as they

themselves participate in and recognize Abraham’s blessing. The blessing for them is a

consequence of their antecedent blessing of Abraham. However, just as ‫ יהוה‬becomes the direct

agent of Abraham’s blessing, so is he also the direct agent of blessing those that bless Abraham,

as opposed the more general statements later in Genesis and Numbers.

‫אָ אֹֹּ֑ ר‬ ‫ַו ֲא ָ ָֽברֲ ָכה‬

‫ּומקַ לֶלְ ָך‬

ְ  ‫ְמבָ ְר ֶָ֔כיָך‬

However, in the second half of the chiasm, a promise is stated that is possibly much

darker than the first half. While blessing was offered to those blessing Abraham in what appears

as almost some sort of equivalency principle, the consequences of cursing him do not follow the

same logic. Whereas the first half of the chiasm used the same verb in the imperfect as it did in

the participle, the second half diverges from that pattern and uses a different verb to describe the

response of ‫ יהוה‬to those slandering Abraham. Wenham argues that this occurs in order to

heighten the cursing aspect. He contends that ‫קלל‬, the verb of which Abraham is the object, is

more of a slanderous lessening of stature through verbal disdain. In contrast, ‫ארר‬, of which those

48
Both of which are traditionally attributed to the J or Yahwist source.
 24

slandering Abraham are the object, is more a judicial curse on evildoers.49 Both convey a sense

of “to curse” in English, but with a distinct nuance and emphasis in each case.

In this way ‫ יהוה‬not only implies a state of protection over Abraham, but he also

seemingly passes judgement on all who slander Abraham. It is curious that this proclamation

only takes into account the actions of the outsider with no bearing on how Abraham conducts

himself towards them, whether to merit blessing or cursing, something that becomes particularly

relevant in the story of Abraham’s interactions in Egypt.50 As a result, this portion of the text is

relatively neutral towards outsiders and allows their treatment to be determined by how they treat

Abraham.

Of note is also the switch from the plural to the singular in ‫ּומקַ לֶלְ ָך אָ אֹּ ר‬
ְ . While several

other ancient versions such as the Vulgate, Syriac, Targum, several Hebrew manuscripts, the

Samaritan Pentateuch, and the LXX render the verb in the plural, the Leningrad codex contains

the singular. Wolff comments that the singular should be given preference over the plural as the

49
See Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 276–77. For more on this verse, see Patrick D. Miller, “Syntax and
Theology in Genesis 12:3a,” VT 34.4 (1984): 472–476; Wolff, “Kerygma of the Yahwist,” 143–44. It is of note that
Wenham and the ESV make this distinction, given other translations’ (NRSV, NIV, NASB, etc.) decision to simply
render ‫ קלל‬as “curse” (although the NASB does include a note that it may also be translated “revile”). Westermann,
though he does not comment on the translation directly, does indicate a different nuance between the two verbs. He
appears to translate ‫ קלל‬as “curse” but chooses to translate ‫ ארר‬as “execrate (bring low).” See Westermann, Genesis
12–36, 144, 148–49. See also Lohr who argues there is a difference between the two verbs here, Joel N. Lohr,
Chosen and Unchosen: Conceptions of Election in the Pentateuch and Jewish-Christian Interpretation (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 111–13. Wenham backs his translation with reference to the usage of ‫ קלל‬in Exodus
21:17, Leviticus 24:11, 2 Samuel 16:5–13, among other numerous passages, where he argues it covers “illegitimate
verbal assaults on God or one’s superiors.” See Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 276. Of note is that there are six instances
in the LXX where ‫ קלל‬in the piel is translated by κακολογεω, “to speak ill of/revile,” which would lend support to
Wenham’s case. However, the vast majority of the usages of ‫ קלל‬in the piel are translated by καταράομαι, “curse,”
including this instance in Genesis 12:3. Interestingly the LXX uses the same word to translate ‫ ארר‬in this verse,
seemingly finding no difference between the two in this context, which supports modern translations that also do so.
Nevertheless, I believe that Wenham’s argument does have merit given that the majority of usages of ‫ קלל‬in the piel
do indeed occur in a context that better fits slander or “disdain” (possibly as a subset of cursing) as opposed to a
more general “curse”. This is in addition to the reality that rather than simply using ‫( ארר‬or even ‫ )קלל‬twice as is the
case in other similar statements in Genesis 27:29 and Numbers 24:9, the author/editor/scribe chose to use two
different verbs, a choice which also makes the chiasm less “complete.” This could indicate that there was a
deliberate desire to draw out some nuance between the two verbs.
50
A similar point is made by Lohr in reference to the Abimelech episode in Genesis 20. See Lohr, Chosen
and Unchosen, 112–13.
 25

plural can be explained as a textual assimilation to the first part of the chiasm which is in the

plural.51 If the singular is the original, ‫ יהוה‬could be making an implicit contrast similar to the one

in the Ten Words in Exodus 34:6–7 (NRSV): 52

The Lord passed before him, and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and
gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping
steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,
yet by no means clearing the guilty, but visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the
children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

Consequently, the change to the singular may be to show a preference to bless many contrasted

to a desire to curse one.53 Wenham also notes that it may also be an indication that those who

bless Abraham will be far greater in number than those who curse him, thereby demonstrating

the extent of his promised blessing.54

The second half of Genesis 12:3, in large part on account of the meaning of the niphal

form of ‫ברך‬, is a portion of text that has puzzled and divided scholars like few others. To some, it

is merely an issue of syntax; to others it is an issue that puts our understanding of the purpose for

God’s people in jeopardy. Will all the nations be blessed through Abraham, or will he simply

become famous?

“And all the families of the ground shall bless themselves in [or by] you[r name].”

‫וְ נִ בְ ְרכּו בְ ָָ֔ך כֹּ ל ִמ ְׁשפְ חֹּ ת הָ אֲדָ מָ ה׃‬

(Genesis 12:3b)

51
Wolff, “Kerygma of the Yahwist,” 139 n. 34.
52
Also classified as J by Noth.
53
I am indebted to my thesis advisor Dr. Craig Broyles for pointing this out.
54
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 277. See also Wolff, “Kerygma of the Yahwist,” 144.
 26

At issue is the translation of the niphal ‫וְ נִ בְ ְרכָ֣ ּו‬, often translated either “be blessed,” or

“bless themselves.”55 The subject of the verb is ‫( כֹּ ל ִמ ְׁשפְ חֹּ ת הָ אֲדָ מָ ה‬all the families of the earth)

with resulting translations of either a passive nature: “all the families of the earth will be blessed

in you;” or of a reflexive nature: “all the families of the earth will bless themselves in you.” At

issue is not only an understanding of the niphal, but also of the hithpael, for this passage is made

more difficult by a similar declaration made in Genesis 22:18,56 and 26:4,57 but using the

hithpael instead of the niphal.

There have been three past roads of interpretation as laid out by Wenham in his

commentary. The first is that it is to be taken in a passive sense: “be blessed”, which is found in

the LXX, Tg. Ong., Vg, Sirach 44:21, Acts 3:25, Galatians 3:8, KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, and

among scholars such as Waltke, Konig, Jacob, Cassuto, and Gispen. The second is that it is to be

taken in the middle sense: “find blessing for themselves”, which is found in the NAB, and among

scholars such as Procksch, Keller, Schreiner, Wolff, and Schmidt. Finally, it can be taken in the

reflexive sense: “bless themselves”, which is found in the RSV, NEB, a textual note in the

NRSV, and among scholars such as Speiser, Delitzsch, Skinner, Gunkel, and Westermann.58 All

55
It is possible that an accurate translation of the hithpael could also be: “all the nations of the earth make
themselves blessed in you.” This would equate to the middle sense as will be seen below. For a description of how
the relation between the different stems plays out, see Bruce K. Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax,
3rd, corr. print ed. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 354–58. Waltke contrasts the hithpael with the niphal by
the following means: “the reflexive sense in [the niphal] involves a happening but in [the hithpael] it denotes an
achieved state.” See Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 357. He contends, with Bean, that the
hithpael developed from its original meaning as a reflexive into more of a passive stem as time passed. See Waltke,
An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 429.
56
Traditionally attributed to the E or Elohist source.
57
Traditionally attributed to the J or Yahwist source, although von Rad hints that the older J material was
expanded on by a later hand. See Rad, Genesis, 30.
58
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 277. In regards to interpreting it in the reflexive sense versus the middle see
Muilenburg, “Abraham and the Nations,” 392–93. Muilenberg states that, “[w]hile an absolute decision is difficult,
it is wise to follow the majority of scholars and interpret the verb reflexively.” Nevertheless, he then interprets it as a
middle, attempting to preserve both the passive implication of a conduit of blessing as well as the reflexive sense.
 27

three of these stances present a wide variety of evidences to back up their position, and suffice it

to say there is much good scholarship behind the three options.

I submit that a possible solution to this diverse range of opinions can be found by seeing

this passage through a source-critical lens. When Genesis 12:1–4a is taken as its own kernel of

tradition (as in a kernel that was later taken up into the J narrative), it seems to indicate a

reflexive meaning of the niphal in this passage that subsequently shifted to the passive, possibly

around the time of the compilation of Genesis, when the Abrahamic narratives are paired with

the primeval histories.

The difference between the two theologically is that in the case of the passive, Abraham

is seen as the conduit of blessing for “all the families of the ground,” versus the reflexive

whereas Abraham is a byword of blessing, to the effect of others invoking his name as a

blessing.59 While in my contention the passive fits well as a bridge with the primeval narratives,

Lohr contrarily argues that the nifal must be read in the larger context of the Genesis where the

reflexive meaning bears more weight in his view. For example, in Abraham’s interaction with

Abimelech in Genesis 20 (it should be noted that Lohr is seeking to define the usage of a verb in

what is traditionally a J passage based on what is traditionally an E text) he argues that

Abimelech is clearly not a passive participant in the process, but only finds blessing based on his

treatment of Abraham.60 Williamson, quoting Wehmeier, however, argues that it is the passive

interpretation which fits more with the grand narrative of the text, where the focus is not solely

59
It is worth mentioning that it is possible to still see Abraham as a conduit of blessing in the reflexive in
the sense that he becomes the one in which people make blessings. This is demonstrated by Rotenberry, although it
is important to note that he is dealing with issues of inspiration and trying to find an “authentic” or “pure” reading.
In this present study, this is an issue that I am distinctly trying to avoid by instead focusing more on the process of
reinterpretation rather than trying to isolate an “original” kernel. See Paul Rotenberry, “Blessing in the Old
Testament: A Study of Genesis 12:3,” ResQ 2.1 (1958): 32–33.
60
Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen, 112–13.
 28

on Abraham’s blessing, but is expanding to also encompass the blessing of others.61 This also fits

with the overall direction of J’s portrayal of outsiders in which they are still favoured despite the

clear preference for the chosen. The difference in the larger argument of this thesis is that

outsiders are either a passive participant in a blessing that will flow through Abraham to them, or

they are an active participant in the process, which fits with my previously stated interpretation

of the first half of the verse which will be further discussed below.

Perhaps here there needs to be inserted into the discussion an analysis of the second

imperative of Genesis 12:1–3, ‫והיה‬, in v. 2d.62 As it stands in the MT the text is pointed as ‫וֶהְ יֵה‬,

an imperative commanding Abraham to be a blessing. However, BHS proposes that instead this

should be read as ‫וְ הָ יָה‬, which could make Abraham’s name from the previous clause the subject

of the verb, stating that an emphatic consequence of ‫’יהוה‬s making great the name will be its

usage as a blessing.63 In my translation above, I am following an interpretation that recognizes

this proposed pointing by BHS. It is, however, worth noting that a similar force can be achieved

with the text as it is pointed in the MT by recognizing the imperative as an “emphatic

consequence clause” rather than a simple imperative. Gesenius notes that an imperative

following a cohortative “frequently expresses also a consequence which is to be expected with

certainty,” and cites as an example this verse.64 This option is also pointed out by Williamson,

61
Paul R. Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise and Its Covenantal
Development in Genesis, JSOTSup 315 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 225–26.
62
For a discussion on this see also Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 221–23.
63
As noted by Wenham, this is also supported by Skinner, Gunkel, and Speiser. See Wenham, Genesis 1–
15, 266.
64
Friedrich Heinrich Wilhelm Gesenius, Sir Arthur Ernest Cowley, and Emil Friedrich Kautzsch,
Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar as Edited and Enlarged by the Late E. Kautzsch... Second English Edition, Revised in
Accordance with the Twenty-Eighth German Edition (1909) by A. E. Cowley. With a Facsimile of the Siloam
Inscription by J. Euting, and a Table of Alphabets by M. Lidzbarski (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910), 325.
 29

though he disagrees, and supported by Wenham, on the basis of Joüon and Gesenius.65

Williamson strongly contends that the text should be read as pointed by the MT, which is as an

imperative, though this does not address the above raised points regarding its interpretation

following a cohortative.66 He supports this by also arguing that if read as an imperative, both

imperatives in Gen 12:1–4a are followed by cohortatives, which would provide a sort of literary

symmetry.67 An emphatic consequence clause stresses that Abraham, or his name, will be a

blessing, which lends weight to the reflexive translation of Gen 12:3b, while a simple imperative

commands Abraham to himself be a blessing, which more directly supports the passive/middle

options in interpreting Gen 12:3b. A similar example of one’s name becoming a blessing occurs

in Genesis 48:20, where Jacob blesses Ephraim and Manasseh saying, “By you Israel will invoke

blessings, saying, ‘God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh.’” (NRSV)68

If this statement of blessing simply occurred multiple times in the niphal, then it would be

less of an issue; however, similar statements also appear in the hithpael in Genesis 22:18,69 and

26:4,70 where it would be natural to interpret the hithpael as reflexive, giving some credence to

the notion that the niphal here is also reflexive.71 Indeed, Westermann states that, “the parallels

in Genesis are so alike … that once again one must agree with F. Delitzsch that the niph. and the

65
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 221–23; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 266. Wenham cites
Joüon, section 116h, and Gesenius 110i. The LXX also translates the verb as a 2nd person singular future indicative
(ἔσῃ), thus supporting the emphatic consequence translation of the verb, though it translates ‫ בְ ָר ָ ָֽכה‬as an adjective
rather than a noun, thus referring to Abraham’s status as “being blessed” rather than being a “blessing.”
66
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 222.
67
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 222.
68
Genesis 48:20 is classified as the E source according to Noth. See also Numbers 6:27, and Isaiah 65:16
where the divine name is used as a blessing, and a similar situation of blessing expressed in Psalm 72:17.
69
Traditionally attributed to the E or Elohist source.
70
Traditionally attributed to the J or Yahwist source.
71
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 277.
 30

hitp. have the same meaning in this group of passages.”72 However, it is also possible that each

source (E, and J) varied the stem in order to provide a different nuance which they wished to

convey.

An Excursus on the Niphal Verbal Stem with Reflection on Its Usage in Genesis Blessings

The issue is further complicated because there is as much division in scholars’ view of

the niphal in general as there is on the meaning of the niphal in this passage. For instance,

Hamilton states that the niphal is primarily reflexive, as do Joüon and Muraoka, and Gesenius,

although both note it is also often passive. Wenham views it in its most basic sense as medio-

passive, and Lee, on the basis of Grüneberg, holds that the niphal is mainly middle or passive

and rarely reflexive, as does Waltke.73 Gesenius attributes the passive usage of the niphal to a

“looseness of thought at an early period of the language,” although the passive use is

“…nevertheless quite secondary to the reflexive use.”74 Moreover, the hithpael, which as noted is

used in subsequent examples of this blessing, is only rarely passive.75

It is possible that the niphal in this passage is in the category of “niphal tolerativum”

outlined by Joüon and Muraoka,76 as this would accommodate both a participatory action by the

subject and the effective action of being blessed. However, this does not seem to be overly

satisfactory in the immediate context of the passage as it does not fit well with the usage of the

72
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 151.
73
Hamilton, The Book of Genesis. Chapters 1–17, 374; Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of
Biblical Hebrew, SubBi 27 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006), 138; Gesenius, Cowley, and Kautzsch,
Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 137; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 277; Chee-Chiew Lee, “Once Again: The Niphal and
the Hithpael of ‫ ברך‬in the Abrahamic Blessing for the Nations,” JSOT 36.3 (2012): 284; Waltke, An Introduction to
Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 382.
74
Gesenius, Cowley, and Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 138.
75
Gesenius, Cowley, and Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 150.
76
Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 139.
 31

verb, nor does it make the participation by the subject anything more than mere permission,

something that does not fit with the notion of using Abraham’s name as a blessing.

Baden argues that this phrase occurs in both the niphal and the hithpael because they

share a semantic overlap in the reflexive sense with some verbs.77 Consequently, the author,

redactor, or scribes responsible for passing on the tradition did not see a conflict between the two

stems because they were seen at the time to share the same meaning. A shared meaning which, in

this case, emerged as a result of an increasing regularity of the reflexive “…within the semantic

field of the niphal, such that it became possible for the niphal to become a productive reflexive

stem in some cases.”78 However, the issue is further complicated by the trend in later history to

identify the meanings in these passages as passive, as is seen for example in the LXX. This in

turn would indicate another swing in the perception of the niphal as a passive stem, at least

specifically in this instance.

It seems that scholars are coming at this from various angles and, at least to me, the

problem with understanding the niphal could be similar to the problem with understanding this

passage: it is possible that the meaning of the niphal shifted as time went on and the language

developed. Indeed, Rotenberry held that the earliest force of the niphal was reflexive, which

would make sense in this passage of one way in which the meaning has shifted regarding the

blessing of Abraham.79 Waltke and O’Connor also cite an interesting example in parallel

passages of 2 Samuel 10:6 and 1 Chronicles 19:6 where a niphal was used in the earlier text and

then replaced by a hithpael in the latter:80

77
Joel S. Baden, “Hithpael and Niphal in Biblical Hebrew: Semantic and Morphological Overlap,” VT 60.1
(2010): 36–37.
78
Baden, “Hithpael and Niphal in Biblical Hebrew,” 43–44.
79
Rotenberry, “Blessing in the Old Testament,” 34.
80
Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 391.
 32

‫ַויִ ְראּו ְבנֵי עַ מֹּ ון כִ י נִ ְבאֲׁשּו ְבדָ וִ ד‬ ‫ַויִ ְראּו בְ נֵי ַעמֹּ ון כִ י הִ ְתבָ אֲׁשּו עִ ם־דָ וִ יד‬

2 Samuel 10:6 1 Chronicles 19:6

This is of particular interest because it could demonstrate an evolution in the language where the

hithpael came to be seen as the defacto reflexive stem. A similar development is also attested by

Westermann, who holds that the promise of a blessing (in terms of being blessed in the future

rather than the immediate present) contained in Genesis 12:1–3 is an original contribution by the

Yahwist, but contains within it a blessing which is linked to the patriarchal period.81

However, if this is the case, then larger questions of the dating of these passages still

loom. If, as I am suggesting here, the niphal in Genesis 12:3, as contained in the J source and in

contrast to the hithpael of Genesis 22:18 in the E source and 26:4 in the J source,82 was originally

reflexive and is the older of the examples, this would indicate that the J source is earlier than the

E source, or at the very least the E source’s language was updated at some point. Yet, if Van

Seters’ arguments regarding the dating of J, and Genesis 22:18 being J rather than E, are to be

given credence, then the question remains as to why J would use the niphal one place and the

hithpael in another.

I would argue that whatever the “original” meaning of the niphal was, as will still be

discussed below, that from at least when Genesis 12:1–3 was attached to the primeval narratives

and onwards it is very clearly interpreted in a way that emphasizes the passive sense (LXX,

Jer 4:2, Tg. Ong., Vg, Sirach 44:21, Acts 3:25, Galatians 3:8), as this passage is framed as the

answer to the dispersion of the nations in the primeval narratives.

81
Westermann cites as an example the blessing in Genesis 27 which has an immediate sense rather than the
way the blessing has been transformed in Genesis 12:1–3. See Claus Westermann, The Promises to the Fathers:
Studies on the Patriarchal Narratives (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 113–14.
82
Noth marks 26:4 as J, but Eissfeldt marks it as E. Wenham also notes that though 26:4 is often attributed
to J, it is also argued that it is a later addition, which would fit well with the shift to the hithpael in later passages.
See Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, vol. 2 of WBC (Nashville: Nelson, 1994), 188.
 33

Nevertheless, based on the first half of verse three, it would seem that the reflexive

meaning is the more natural rendering when this passage is interpreted as a stand-alone kernel

because although Abraham is indeed a sort of conduit, those who wish to receive blessing

through him must in some sense participate in the process. As was seen above, this raises

linguistic questions regarding why the niphal is used. If the desire was to indeed communicate

the reflexive idea, then why is the hithpael not used as it is in similar passages? It is possible that

the two were interchangeable in meaning, as pointed out by Joüon and Muraoka (and also argued

by Baden): “The majority of the meanings of the Nifal are naturally shared by the hithpael,

which is the reflexive conjugation of the piel.”83 However, as was noted above, the niphal does at

times have a passive function.84 Similarly, if the intent was to clearly portray a passive meaning,

then why the switch to the hithpael in other comparative passages? Unfortunately, it seems that

these questions are not likely to be answered beyond any doubt any time soon, as the evidence is

too sparse, although certain conjectures are possible.

An added issue is the subsequent vocabulary of the blessing statements. While the three

occurrences in the niphal have either ‫ כֹּ ל ִמ ְׁשפְ חֹּ ת הָ אֲדָ מָ ה‬or ‫ כֹּ ל גֹו ֵיי הָ אָ ֶרץ‬as the subject and the two

hithpael have ‫כֹּ ל גֹו ֵיי הָ אָ ֶרץ‬, it is only Genesis 28:14, the last of the niphal occurrences in the J

account, that contains ‫ּובז ְַר ֶעָך‬

ְ as an added object to the other niphal occurrences that contain

solely Abraham as an indirect object of the blessing. That Abraham’s seed is contained at the end

of the clause is in contrast to the hithpael accounts where it is Abraham’s seed and not him that is

the sole indirect object of the blessing. This has led some scholars, such as Rendtorff, to posit

that this was a later insertion meant to harmonize at least one of the niphal occurrences with the

83
Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 140.
84
Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 138.
 34

hithpael ones, which he holds are later examples of the blessing formula.85 While Emerton

admits that ‫ּובז ְַר ֶעָך‬

ְ was likely an addition, he does not grant Rendtorff’s reasoning for its addition,

citing other occurrences of Abraham’s seed in the chapter as more probable.86 However,

Rendtorff’s thesis has some measure of explanatory power if one posits that the niphal

occurrences in J are earlier than the hithpael occurrences in E, and that when J and E were

combined, ‫ּובז ְַר ֶעָך‬

ְ was added to link the two similar Abrahamic promises of the two narratives.

Overall, how outsiders are portrayed in this passage varies slightly depending on one’s

interpretation of the niphal in Genesis 12:3b. On the one hand, this verse is the beacon of hope

that it is made out to be in later translations and traditions, with Abraham being the defacto

gateway through which ‫’יהוה‬s eventual blessing of all nations flows, regardless of how they

position themselves in relationship to Abraham. Or, on the other hand, Abraham becomes at least

a byword of blessing used to wish one’s own good fortune and at most someone who blessing

will flow through dependent upon how one positions themselves in relationship with him. In

reference to the first instance, Abraham, and subsequently Israel, becomes the mediator of

blessing to the nations. In support of this Fretheim notes the following:

For the Yahwist this concern [of how Israel might mediate the blessing] comes into play
whenever the patriarchs come into contact with foreigners. It is especially striking that
these foreigners are usually ancestors of peoples now subject to the Davidic crown, or
peoples with whom the crown has close dealings (Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites,
Aramaeans, Philistines, Egyptians). While occasionally the patriarchs conduct themselves
in such a way as to mediate a curse upon these peoples (e.g., 12:10–20), normally their
actions (seek to) mediate blessing (in which contexts Gen. 12:3 is sometimes repeated,
e.g., 18:16–33). In each of these instances the Yahwist seems to be suggesting how (or
how not!) his contemporaries might take up their mediatorial responsibilities.87

85
Rendtorff, “The ‘Yahwist’ as Theologian,” 7–8.
86
Graham Davies and Robert Gordon, eds., Studies on the Language and Literature of the Bible: Selected
Works of J.A. Emerton, vol. 165 of VTSup (Boston: Brill, 2014), 483.
87
Fretheim, “Theology of the Major Traditions in Genesis–Numbers,” 310.
 35

Moreover, Benz also sees a “missional” component in Abraham’s (and later Israel’s) blessing:

what is given for Abraham is not meant simply as a reward, but is also meant for the benefit of

other nations.88 It may also be possible that the author/editor/scribe used or left the niphal to

intentionally leave a tension in the text. In this view, God is clearly the ultimate source of

blessing, and the ultimate result of the blessing is intended to be for the benefit of the “families

of the earth”; yet at the same time the reception of this blessing is clearly in some manner based

on how “the families of the earth” position themselves in relationship to Abraham.89 As was

noted above, in whatever manner the issue of translation of the niphal is resolved and what its

“original” meaning is construed as, all indications point towards the blessing being used by the J

editor in the middle sense at the least, if not assuredly in the passive sense, a view which

persisted in later versions and quotations of this verse.

Source-Critical Discussion

The classification of this passage as J is almost universally agreed upon by scholars.

However, what is not agreed upon is the relative dating of J, whether it is pre or post-exilic.

While this dating does not change the message of this passage to outsiders within the J narrative,

it does influence the linguistic elements of the passage.

An interesting aspect of this blessing is its connection to the monarchy. Not only are the

terms of the blessing also applied to the Davidic king, but the blessing of Genesis 12:3b is an

88
Frank L. Benz, “Was David’s Theologian Concerned About Mission,” CurTM 18.5 (1991): 365.
89
I am indebted to my thesis advisor Dr. Craig Broyles for this possibility. He noted that the sentence
structure makes clear ‫’יהוה‬s agency in the blessing (cf. Isaiah 65:16 where the reflexive hithpael is used but God is
clearly the source of the blessing) as v.3b is a subordinate/dependent clause to v.3a and forms the ultimate result of
‫’יהוה‬s blessing on Abraham.
 36

echo of Psalm 72, itself a royal psalm.90 Whether this usage of royal language is an indication of

the time period within which this text is written is still open for debate. Some, such as Wolff,

Westermann and Fretheim, hold that it points to the Davidic-Solomonic era, whereas Van Seters,

and Williamson to an extent, holds that this is not necessarily the case, but agree that “the

language used in this promise is drawn from royal ideology.91 Indeed while both sides see

Davidic/royal language being applied to Abraham, the main difference lies in when and why this

language was applied. For example, Fretheim argues that the purpose of the association of royal

themes with Abraham during the United Monarchy was to proclaim that God has been faithful to

his promises to Israel and has been actively working on them throughout history in a way that is

now fulfilled in the Davidic dynasty.92 Van Seters on the other hand takes these connections,

within his model of an exilic authorship of these verses, to be a democratization of the royal

forms of speaking.93 This transference of royal blessing language to Abraham then allows it to be

applied more generally to the entire people of Israel. However, this argument is admittedly

weaker than seeing these phrases originating from the time period of the monarchy when they

would be much more applicable and relevant than when the “great nation” and “great name” has

been nearly eradicated. At the very least, it is important to recognize that the text may be

90
For more on Psalm 72 and the connections between the monarchy and the Abrahamic promises, see
Craig C. Broyles, Psalms, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2012), 293–
98. It is also worth noting that while “echo” implies that Genesis 12:3b is a derivation of sorts from Psalm72, it is
possible to view the connection in the other direction.
91
Wolff, “Kerygma of the Yahwist,” 141–43; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 149–50; Van Seters, Abraham
in History and Tradition, 253, 271–72; Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 231–32; Fretheim, “Theology
of the Major Traditions in Genesis–Numbers,” 306. The quote is taken from Van Seters, Abraham in History and
Tradition, 253.
92
Fretheim, “Theology of the Major Traditions in Genesis–Numbers,” 306. For additional arguments
regarding the association and its importance for J’s audience in Fretheim’s view, see Fretheim, “Theology of the
Major Traditions in Genesis–Numbers,” 307.
93
Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 275. Römer also holds to a similar opinion that the royal
language used is part of a democratization of royal ideology. See Thomas Römer, “Abraham’s Righteousness and
Sacrifice: How to Understand (and Translate) Genesis 15 and 22,” CV 54.1 (2012): 11–12.
 37

operating on two interpretive levels. There is the level of its usage as an ancestral story where

Abraham is portrayed as only a semi-nomadic chieftain and the aspect of him becoming famous

enough for “all the families of the earth” to bless themselves in his name is suspect. However, on

the second level, when the story is read in reference to the Davidic monarchy, the contentions

that ‫ יהוה‬will give Abraham a “great name” and make him into a “great nation” begin to be

illuminated as either a declaration of hope for those in exile, or as a legitimation of the existent

regime. It is also possible that such multivalence extends beyond the intended meaning by the

author/editor(s) to the reception of these texts in different time periods. In this way, while the

text may have been initially “relevant” to the “intended” audience (in the above example those in

the monarchial period), it remains relevant to those who receive it later and adapt it to fit their

own social context. In this case, this would extend to those in the exilic period who democratize

royal forms in the absence of the monarchy. This dynamic not only enlivens the text for

successive generations, but provides a cogent explanation as to why seemingly irrelevant

elements of stories continue to be passed on in successive retellings and redactions. What

remains to be determined is whether this second interpretive level is seen to be operative within

the whole of the Patriarchal narratives, or just in this particular passage.

A Reflection on the Value of Diachronic Analysis in this Instance

Whether this passage is dated to the exile or pre-exilic times, it demonstrates a

remarkable outlook in which one of the fundamental aspects of Hebrew self-identity is that they

are in some way to be a blessing to the nations, whether as a conduit or a byword. Such an

outlook would be lost if this passage was merely seen as applying to Abraham and only

tangentially to his later offspring.

 38

Perhaps a more cohesive example of the value and possibility of diachronic analysis

(though somewhat unrelated in that the two passages in question are not “sources” per se but

rather examples of different narrative streams concerning roughly the same events) comes from

our above comparison between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles to show the development of language

over time.

Finally, though it cannot definitively answer the question regarding the “original”

meaning of the niphal in Genesis 12:3b, looking at the passage in the context of the rest of the J

source does allow us to make an important point. Whatever the original meaning was, it is very

clearly being used by the J author/editor to link the ancestral and the primeval narratives by

setting up the election of Abraham as the answer to the curse of the ground and the dispersion of

the nations. Moreover, viewing the passage through the framework of the Documentary

Hypothesis allows the reader to explain how, although internal evidence within Genesis 12:1–3

points towards a reflexive interpretation, its usage in the larger narrative points towards the

passive and/or middle sense. Such a realization would be lost were the text simply viewed from

the synchronic level.

Genesis 12:10–20: Abraham’s Descent to Egypt

Portrayal of Outsiders

The next occurrence of outsiders in the J narrative comes in Genesis 12:10–20 with

Abraham’s descent into Egypt because of a famine, an episode that in many regards contains

echoes of the exodus. This story is one of three “matriarch in trouble” episodes within the

ancestral stories of Genesis, and the first of two traditionally associated with the J source (the
 39

second being between Isaac and Abimelech in Genesis 26). In this episode Abraham is depicted

as very skeptical towards how the foreigners in Egypt will treat him because of Sarah’s beauty,

although in the end, Abraham is rewarded by the foreigners despite his deceit when he claims

Sarah as his sister rather than wife.

Of interest to the topic at hand is despite Abraham’s scheming and dishonesty for fear of

his own life, ‫ יהוה‬brings to bear the protection promised to Abraham against the Egyptians.

Pharaoh and his household are afflicted with plagues even though they possessed no knowledge

of Sarah’s true status as the wife of Abraham. The tone set by this episode is that the nature of

the relationship between Abraham and outsiders is seemingly solely dependent upon their

treatment of Abraham (which is in line with the blessing in Genesis 12:3a), even though

sometimes that treatment is not evidently unjust in their eyes because of their ignorance

regarding Abraham’s actions. Indeed, from their perspective, they had dealt fairly with Abraham

and provided him with gifts in compensation for taking Sarah to Pharaoh as seen in Genesis

12:16.

Interestingly, the LXX casts a slightly different light on the story than the MT.94 Whereas

in Genesis 12:17 the MT uses ‫וַיְ ַנ ַגע יְ ה ָוה‬, “‫ יהוה‬struck or touched,” the LXX instead uses καὶ

ἤτασεν ὁ θεὸς, “God examined or tested.” This strikes a different tone than that of the MT and

points towards God’s intervention to prevent Pharaoh from crossing a line that he could not

come back from and thereby forcing God’s hand in protection of Abraham’s interests. While the

MT seems to portray simple punishment that causes Pharaoh to change his mind and discover

Abraham’s ruse, the LXX demonstrates God’s concern for the wellbeing of outsiders despite

Abraham’s deception of them, a similar occurrence to what happened between Isaac and

94
For a discussion on the validity of contrasting the LXX with the MT, see Tov, Textual Criticism of the
Hebrew Bible, 121–48; Matthew Thiessen, “The Text of Genesis 17:14,” JBL 128.4 (2009): 627–28.
 40

Abimelech in the other J episode of a matriarch in trouble, as well as between Abraham and

Abimelech in Genesis 20.95 Therefore, although the story does show God’s primary concern is

that of Abraham, this concern does not inhibit him from concern for outsiders.96

Source-Critical Discussion

While many scholars agree with Noth’s classification of this passage as J, Van Seters

views it as one of a few pre-J texts that are taken up by the exilic J author and inserted into his

narrative.97 Westermann similarly notes that this text is the earliest of the three sister-wife

episodes, and that the second instance in J, Genesis 26, clearly presupposes this episode, which

may lend weight to Van Seter’s contention, although if they are both J stories this could also

easily explain the connection.98

A Reflection on the Value of Diachronic Analysis in this Instance

If this text is a pre-J tradition as Van Seters argues then perhaps it demonstrates that the

depictions of God’s care for outsiders emerged as a secondary characteristic for his care for his

chosen people, although this is called into question by the LXX version of this narrative. At the

very least, if this is an earlier tradition, it demonstrates that though outsiders were not disparaged,

95
It is possible then that the LXX translation is reflective of these later narratives and the translator’s
attempt to provide an explanation for the situation here in light of them.
96
Of interest is also the depiction of this event in the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen). Here the focus is
much more on filling in the gaps left in the biblical text and establishing a clear case that Sarah’s virtue is left intact.
As a result, the depiction of Pharaoh and other outsiders is markedly darker (Pharaoh is referred to as a
“blasphemer”) than the depiction in the MT and LXX. Abraham is also cast in a much more positive light, as his
deception of Pharaoh is portrayed as being in response to a dream that Pharaoh would kill Abraham and take Sarah.
For an English translation and brief commentary see Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg Jr., and Edward M. Cook,
The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, Revised Edition. (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), 99–102. See also
Daniel A. Machiela and Andrew B. Perrin, “Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon: Toward a Family Portrait,” JBL
133.1 (2014): 127–31.
97
Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 183; Van Seters, The Pentateuch, 127.
98
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 161–62.
 41

God is clearly portrayed as showing preference for his chosen people. This attitude could then

have developed into the greater care shown in other J texts. Though that is a message that could

be gleaned from the text simply through synchronic analysis, what could not be appreciated is

the possibility that this attitude towards outsiders shifts into a more caring dynamic, despite

preference still for the chosen.

Genesis 13: A Preamble to Sodom

Portrayal of Outsiders

The next area where the J narrative engages with outsiders is in Genesis 13:13 which

serves as a preamble to the larger Sodom episode in chapters 18–19. This verse sets the stage by

declaring to the reader that the people in these cities (the cities of the plain) were “…wicked,

great sinners against the LORD.”99 Although this sets a negative tone towards these outsiders, the

narrative does not elaborate any more at this time on their wickedness. It is not stated that they

are wicked simply because they are outsiders, something that will be relevant upon examination

of the Sodom episode below.

Source-Critical Discussion

This verse appears awkwardly in the chapter, with Westermann highlighting that it is not

a continuation to the J narrative found here, but rather an introduction to a later narrative in

chapters 18–19.100

99
Genesis 13:13 NRSV
100
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 178.
 42

A Reflection on the Value of Diachronic Analysis in this Instance

The value in diachronic analysis in this instance is to provide an answer to the awkward

transition between vv. 13 and 14. Though it does seem like v. 13 could be a fitting connection

between the separation of Lot and Abraham, it does not connect or flow well with the next verse

where Abraham once again finds himself in dialogue with God. As a result, it is possible that it is

a later gloss inserted into the narrative.

Genesis 16:1b–2, 4–14: Hagar’s Expulsion

Portrayal of Outsiders

The next noteworthy account in the J narrative that deals with outsiders is the Hagar

episode in Genesis 16:1b–2, 4–14. In this episode, although Hagar, an Egyptian slave, is

mistreated by Sarah, she is shown a surprising amount of favor by ‫יהוה‬. Unlike Sarah, who at

this point in the narrative has not been addressed directly by ‫ יהוה‬or an angel, Hagar is spoken to

directly in such an encounter that she is prompted to declare ‫ יהוה‬as the “God who sees,” and that

“she has seen the one who sees her,” implying that she has seen ‫יהוה‬. Westermann makes an

interesting note that testifies to the personal nature of this naming (which is astounding given

Hagar’s virtual outsider status) when he comments, “That is not to say that Hagar gives to a

hitherto nameless divine being a name that sticks to him everywhere and always; this is never so

with a human being in the O.T., but Hagar says: ‘For me he is, whatever else he may be called,

the God who sees me…’”101 The angel also declares over Hagar a promise of abundant offspring

similar to that declared over Abraham. Although it is possible that the promise to Hagar comes

101
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 247.
 43

through her association with Abraham and bearing his child, therefore sharing in his promise of

descendants, the story instead chooses to highlight that the reason for God’s blessing of Hagar is

that he has heard her suffering and is responding. Indeed, McEvenue notes that the usage of the

verb ‫( מצא‬to find), used here in verse 7, “when predicated of God, carries a technical meaning

going well beyond connotations of the English verb: it includes elements of encounter and of

divine election (cf. Deut 32:10; Ps 89:21; Hosea 12:5).”102 This is reinforced in that the

encounter is put forward as the reasoning for Ishmael’s name (God hears). Again, that such care

is shown by ‫ יהוה‬to an outsider is significant.

Source-Critical Discussion

McEvenue, while agreeing that the majority of the passage in question is J, does view vv.

9–10, which deal with the promise of abundant offspring, to come from a later hand in order to

facilitate the inclusion of Genesis 21 in the overall narrative.103 Westermann, while affirming

that the passage is at its core part of J (which draws the story from oral tradition), holds that a

redactor has joined it with vv. 1a, 3, 15–16 from P.104 However, Wenham, following Van Seters

among others, holds that assigning verses in this passage to P is not so sure as it once was and

that the entire passage may be J based on the tight structural nature of the passage and the

importance verses assigned to P actually play in the overall narrative.105

102
McEvenue, “Comparison of Narrative Styles in the Hagar Stories,” 69.
103
McEvenue, “Comparison of Narrative Styles in the Hagar Stories,” 67–68.
104
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 237.
105
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 4–5.
 44

A Reflection on the Value of Diachronic Analysis in this Instance

Due to the large agreement of this passage being J (minus some minor detractors) the

value of source analysis in this instance would only come when incorporating this passage into

the larger picture of the J narrative and its historical context. The possibility that this passage was

an early oral tradition that was then taken up into the J narrative does raise the intriguing notion

that care for outsiders and otherwise less important “characters” was a prominent feature even

among early, pre-textual, traditions.

Genesis 18–19: Entertaining Angels

Portrayal of Outsiders

The narratives of chapters 18–19 bear particular relevance for the topic at hand as they

demonstrate a similar care shown by ‫ יהוה‬for Pharaoh in Genesis 12 (at least in the LXX

translation), except this time through the character of Abraham towards those living in Sodom.

The story begins in chapter 18 with Abraham demonstrating extreme hospitality towards three

travelers. This hospitality is repeated later in the story by Lot and contains insight into insider-

outsider relationships and how outsiders should be treated, seemingly no matter the cost, as

demonstrated by Abraham’s extravagant meal offering and Lot’s seemingly abhorrent, to modern

readers, offering of his daughters in exchange for the strangers’ safety.106

106
One could argue that the reason for the exceptional treatment of these particular outsiders is that they are
recognized in the story as angels and therefore showed a much higher level of honour than would have been
expected to ordinary strangers. However, this does not discount the role hospitality played in ancient cultures. For a
brief overview of said hospitality see Stuart A. Irvine, “‘Is Anything Too Hard for Yahweh?’: Fulfillment of
Promise and Threat in Genesis 18–19,” JSOT 42.3 (2018): 295. For a treatment on biblical and ANE angelic
appearances see Michael B. Hundley, “Of God and Angels: Divine Messengers in Genesis and Exodus in Their
Ancient Near Eastern Contexts,” JTS 67.1 (2016): 1–22.
 45

The story continues with the strangers leaving and looking down upon Sodom, where the

declaration of Abraham’s role in the blessing of outsiders is repeated, albeit with a subtle

difference: instead of “families of the earth,” Genesis 18:18 uses “nations of the earth,” a phrase

with more political overtones.

In the story of Sodom, Abraham shows a surprising amount of concern for outsiders in

his pleading with ‫ יהוה‬to save them if there is a remnant of righteous ones among them. Although

Abraham does not deny that there are a majority of unrighteous people in the city, he does not

believe they are unrighteous simply because they are outsiders. Rather, by his pleas that the

righteous not be swept away with the unrighteous, as this would be unjust, Abraham implies that

their status as outsiders is not what makes them righteous or unrighteous. Moreover, whether

they are righteous or not, the story boldly displays Abraham bargaining for the lives of outsiders

with ‫יהוה‬, something that should not be overlooked.107 It could be argued that Abraham is simply

interceding out of a desire to save Lot, however, this is not what the story portrays as Abraham’s

reasoning; he is seeking that ‫ יהוה‬act justly according to his character.

Irvine presents an interesting comparison between these two chapters in that they are

depicting proper and improper examples of hospitality. Abraham and Lot are presented as ideal

hosts and are contrasted with the residents of Sodom, and in both episodes, God responds to the

hospitality with an “appropriate” response: Abraham is rewarded with the promise of a son, Lot

is spared from destruction, and the residents of Sodom are destroyed for their inhospitable

actions.108

107
Mafico however argues that the nature of the story is not Abraham arguing for the lives of anyone, but
rather probing the limits and extent of divine justice. See Temba L. Mafico, “The Crucial Question Concerning the
Justice of God (Gen 18:23–26),” JTSA 42 (1983): 11–16. For more on Abraham’s bartering and relationship with
‫ יהוה‬in the passage, see Troy Miller, “Relationships, Haggling, and Injustice in Genesis 18,” JTAK 36.2 (2012): 29–
38.
108
Irvine, “’Is Anything Too Hard for Yahweh?,” 298–99.
 46

Source-Critical Discussion

Genesis 18:1–19:28 has quite widespread support in its general association with the

Yahwist, although some, such as Irvine, view portions of the text as later accretions. 109 One such

portion that Irvine suspects is a later addition is 18:17–19 where ‫ יהוה‬justifies telling Abraham

his plan because of his blessing and role in the nations.110 In addition, Irvine argues for the

secondary nature of 18:22b–33a, where Abraham bargains with ‫ יהוה‬for the fate of Sodom.111

However, in regards to this later passage, which Irvine argues is a superfluous portion of the

overall narrative in chapters 18–19 and contributes little to the broader story, it actually fits the

overall narrative quite well as Genesis 19 makes great pains to note that every man in Sodom

was at Lot’s door seeking the strangers. Without Abraham’s bargaining, the narrative takes on a

rather flat dimension. Scholars that attribute Genesis 18:22b–33a to J include, for example,

Speiser, Van Seters, and Wenham, the latter of which presents the structure of chapters 18 and

19 as evidence of their narrative cohesion.112

It is interesting to note that behind the depiction of Sodom’s destruction perhaps exists an

older ANE themed story of a “world calamity.”113 Marilyn M. Schaub notes that elements of the

story point towards other ANE destruction narratives. These elements include Lot’s daughter’s

belief that there are no more men left to mate with, and the reason that the strangers give to Lot

for Sodom’s impending destruction in Genesis 19:13: that the “their cries” have gone before ‫יהוה‬.

While in the overall context of the narrative most translators render this verse in the form of
109
Irvine, “’Is Anything Too Hard for Yahweh?,” 286–88.
110
Irvine, “’Is Anything Too Hard for Yahweh?,” 288–91.
111
Irvine, “’Is Anything Too Hard for Yahweh?,” 291–93. Westermann also holds these verses to be a later
addition. See Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 286–87.
112
E. A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, 2nd ed., vol. 1 of AB (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1964), 135; Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 213–16; Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 44.
113
Marilyn M. Schaub, “Lot and the Cities of the Plain: A Little About a Lot,” Proceedings from the
EGLBS Annual Conference (1982): 5–6.
 47

outcry against Sodom’s evil action, it is interesting to note that the Hebrew

(‫פְ ֵני יְ ה ָ֔ ָוה‬-‫ ָג ְד ָלה צַ עֲקָ תָ ם אֶ ת‬-‫ )כִ י‬presents another possibility, as noted by Schaub: “because their noise

is loud before Yahweh.”114 Such a translation, in the context of calamitous destruction, bears

striking similarities to other ANE destruction myths where humanity is wiped out or threatened

with destruction because of their “noise.” Nevertheless, it is evident that the editor of this

passage has taken this story and woven it into his own larger narrative concerning hospitality and

sin, as can be demonstrated by Genesis 18:20–21 (NRSV): “Then the Lord said, ‘How great is

the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin! I must go down and see

whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me; and if not, I will

know.’”

A Reflection on the Value of Diachronic Analysis in this Instance

If one were to merely interpret this passage synchronically, the nuanced possibility that

this story has been transformed from an ancient calamity episode that emphasized an “annoyed”

deity into a story about hospitality and sin would be lost. As a result, a diachronic analysis of this

passage has helped to illuminate a rich possibility where an editor has taken a common cultural

milieu and used it to demonstrate instead aspects of hospitality and care for outsiders, thus giving

new and relevant meaning to the story.

114
Schaub, “Lot and the Cities of the Plain,” 5.
 48

Genesis 24: A Wife for Isaac

Portrayal of Outsiders

One of the final incidents involving outsiders and Abraham is his declaration that he does

not desire his son Isaac to have a Canaanite wife, nor to leave the land that is promised to him in

Genesis 24:1–7. As a result the view of outsiders in this passage is arguably bleak, at least in

regards to its opinions on intermarriage, though this may simply be the result of a strong kinship

mentality rather than disdain for outsiders.

Source-Critical Discussion

This passage is almost universally ascribed to J by many of the prominent source critics

(Noth, von Rad, etc.), though others such as Westermann seem to point towards a likelihood that

this story is from a later hand given the connection with Deuteronomy’s ordinance that the

Israelites shall not take Canaanite women as wives for their sons.115 This could also be derived

from Sarna’s commentary regarding the Torah’s description of the native Canaanites as

“unregenerately corrupt.”116 While this depiction is certainly true of the view in later

Pentateuchal books, such a depiction has not been thus far been extensively demonstrated within

the J narrative, an exception perhaps being the Sodom episode. Van Seters believes that this

narrative is modelled by his exilic J author after an older version in the Jacob story of Genesis

29.117 If this is the case, then the negative depictions of the Canaanites could also be a holdover

115
Roth, “Wooing of Rebekah,” 177; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 384–85.
116
Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis = Be-Reshit: The Traditional Hebrew Text With New JPS Translation, 1st
ed., JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1989), 161.
117
Van Seters, The Pentateuch, 129–30.
 49

from an older time, or the result of later editing.118 This would in part agree with Wenham’s

assessment of this passage in which an early narrative regarding marriage and the continuation of

promise has been edited and the language updated by later redactors/scribes multiple times to be

similar to Deuteronomistic terminology.119 Indeed, Westermann views this passage as a multi-

layered composition with elements of it, such as the theme of a “guidance narrative,” being

added by a later hand, as was noted above.120 As a result, there is the question of whether the

seemingly negative, in terms of its views of the outsider, command not to take a wife for Isaac

from the Canaanites is from the “original” J narrative or from a later hand. This is especially the

case given Abraham’s own relationship with a foreign slave woman to produce an heir, and the

blessing of that foreign woman within the J narrative. If it is indeed from the J narrative, then one

wonders why Abraham would make such a command, given the relatively positive outlook

towards outsiders in the surrounding J passages. However, as was noted above, it is possible that

such a command simply comes from a “strong kinship” mentality, rather than a disdain from

outsiders, though it is still puzzling given Abraham’s own activities. If, however, this passage

has been redacted and the language used represents later concerns about endogamy, then the

passage fits much better in the overall J presentation of outsiders.

A Reflection on the Value of Diachronic Analysis in this Instance

Given the above argued interpolation of these verses by a later hand, diachronic analysis

allows the reader to understand the sudden shift regarding outsiders in the text where the

118
If this is the case then there is an interesting possibility that this text stands at a proverbial crossroads in
the way Canaanites were depicted in Israelite history, being between negative earlier depictions and later
Deuteronomistic depictions. This would also address Wenham’s concerns regarding van Seter’s argument that this
passage derives from the exilic period. See Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 139.
119
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 139.
120
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 383–84.
 50

seeming preference of endogamy in these verses appears out of touch with the larger narrative of

Abraham’s life. Had this text merely been interpreted synchronically, these verses would be

quite vexing in comparison to earlier interactions and choices made by Abraham and indeed

God. As a result source criticism here offers the reader an interpretive framework for

understanding certain peculiarities within the text.

Genesis 25: Nations Descending From Abraham

Portrayal of Outsiders

Finally, when Abraham is putting his affairs in order toward the end of his life in Genesis

25:1–6, various nations surrounding Israel are described as his children, but are given gifts and

sent away from Isaac and the land that is promised to Abraham.121 It is interesting that from the

perspective of the narrator, these nations are not simply sent away, but are given gifts. While

Abraham understood that in order for his son to receive the promises from God these people

needed to be sent away, he also makes it clear that they are his children and receive a gift on

their departure. Again we are given a picture of clear preferential treatment of the chosen one,

but also concern for those outside that circle.

Source-Critical Discussion

Although Westermann quotes Noth as saying that 25:1–6 is “an addition from an

unknown period,” Noth only stated this regarding 25:1–4, with 25:5–6 being ascribed to J, while

121
For possible explanation of all the names and connections of Abraham’s children see Wenham, Genesis
16–50, 158–60.
 51

von Rad attributes all of 25:1–6 to J.122 Wenham, though not offering his own thoughts on the

matter, notes various scholars who view these verses as coming from a late stage of the editing of

the Pentateuch given the difference between these verses and chapter 24 where Abraham’s death

is “near and presumed.”123 This apparent sorting of affairs at the end of Abraham’s life seems to

fulfill the promise given by God to Abraham in Genesis 21:12, a passage attributed to the E

source by Noth, which could also lend weight to its status as a later redaction, if E postdates J.124

A Reflection on the Value of Diachronic Analysis in this Instance

If these verses are from a later hand, this would explain the sudden concern of the

narrative with preserving the so-called “purity” of Abraham’s legacy by sending away all but the

chosen son. Again, were this passage simply viewed synchronically, then the reader would be

left quite confused at how Abraham was on relatively friendly terms with most outsiders, but

now they must all be sent away to give Isaac clear preferential treatment.125

Conclusion

As a result, the overarching picture that the J source paints of the portrayal of outsiders is

one marked with preferential treatment for Abraham as well as care for the outsiders that is often

dependent on their treatment of Abraham, and yet is also quite favorable for them despite their

outsider status.

122
Westermann, Genesis 12-36, 395; Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Chico, CA:
Scholars Press, 1981), 193, note 532; Rad, Genesis, 262.
123
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 157.
124
Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 264.
125
It is also possible, however, to see this as simply another example of clear preference being shown for
the chosen, with the “unchosen” still being treated in a favorable manner.
 52

The value of diachronic analysis in this instance is clear. Though it does come in some

instances at the cost of ambiguity and uncertainty, it has the potential to greatly illuminate the

narrative.126 Overall, it has been shown that as an analytical tool and even as a framework for

interpretation, there are specific instances where it can help to explain curious features of the text

as well as demonstrate that the care shown for outsiders may have existed in some of the earliest

traditions taken up into the J narrative.

126
For an example of another scholar wrestling with the question of what diachronic analysis adds to
interpretation, see Ralph W. Klein, “Yahwist Looks at Abraham,” CTM 45.1 (1974): 43–49.
 THE PORTRAYAL OF OUTSIDERS IN THE E SOURCE

Introduction

As was the case in the previous one, this chapter will first lay out a foundational

understanding of the E source by describing the perspectives of various scholars. Subsequently,

all the texts which deal with outsiders and are classified as the E source according to Noth will

be analyzed for their contribution to the overall discussion regarding the nature of outsiders in

the Abrahamic narratives. Following that, each text will undergo a source-critical analysis in

which various scholarly opinions are discussed regarding the origins of the text in order to build

a further understanding of the E source and to determine the continuing relevance of source-

critical study for the purposes of final form interpretation, or the understanding of the text as it

stands.

Characteristics of the E Source

As was pointed out in the previous chapter, the E source has often been differentiated

from other Pentateuchal sources, particularly J, by vocabulary such as the usage, or lack thereof,

of the divine name.1 Generally, the E text is seen to use Elohim until ‫ יהוה‬is revealed to Moses in

Exodus 3.2 This identification and differentiation then usually continues in key “foothold”

passages in the ancestral narratives of Genesis and spreads from there.3 However, it should also

be noted that by some scholars who hold to the Documentary Hypothesis there is in some regards

1
Fretheim takes this a step further in his assertion that God is more obviously present in J than in E. See
Fretheim, “Theology of the Major Traditions in Genesis–Numbers,” 308. For more on the distinguishing elements of
the various sources, see Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed, 7–31.
2
Weisman, “The Interrelationship between J and E in Jacob’s Narrative,” 178.
3
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 116–17.

53
 54

no differentiation to be found between J and E.4 For example, Weisman makes an argument

regarding the lack of differentiation, specifically concerning a “national consciousness”, between

J and E texts. He goes as far as to state, “…as far as the national transformation in the Abrahamic

narratives is concerned, one would be hard put to prove that E was instituted upon J or that it

represented a later national-historical conception.”5 Nevertheless, Weisman uses other

identifying characteristics, such as a different conception of ‫“( גוי גקול‬great nation”), to articulate

that there was a separate E tradition.6 He also notes that often this E tradition, especially in the

Jacob narratives, contains much closer ties and holdovers from the cultural and religious views

of the ancient Canaanites than do the narrative cycles concerning Abraham and Isaac.7

Moreover, the E narrative in general possesses a more tolerant attitude to these leftovers than do

the other sources.8

In terms of characteristic styling, McEvenue notes that “…E is ample in treatment, loose

and almost wordy, whereas J is spare and elliptical and tends to write speeches in tense

couplets.”9 Moreover, McEvenue notes that the Elohist tends to use a narrative style which

fosters the reader’s interaction with the text.10 One of the major themes of the Elohist narrative is

that individuals should possess true “fear of God.”11

4
See Römer, “Abraham’s Righteousness and Sacrifice,” 7. Such was also the case from an early foray into
the use of computer analysis in biblical studies, although the authors do not hold to the Documentary Hypothesis at
all. It should be noted however that the conclusions drawn by this analysis were solely grammatical in nature and
not based on the content or repetition of portions therein. See Yehuda T. Radday, et al., “Genesis, Wellhausen and
the Computer,” ZAW 94.4 (1982): 467–481.
5
Weisman, “National Consciousness in the Patriarchal Promises,” 61.
6
Weisman, “National Consciousness in the Patriarchal Promises,” 65–66.
7
Weisman, “The Interrelationship between J and E in Jacob’s Narrative,” 196.
8
Weisman, “The Interrelationship between J and E in Jacob’s Narrative,” 196.
9
McEvenue, “Comparison of Narrative Styles in the Hagar Stories,” 77.
10
Sean E. McEvenue, “The Elohist at Work,” ZAW 96.3 (1984): 323–30.
11
Hans Walter Wolff, “Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch,” Int 26.2 (1972): 164–67.
 55

If there is an E Source, Is it a Contiguous Narrative or Fragmentary?

Scholars are similarly divided on the unity of the E source. Noth, while pointing out the E

material is certainly fragmentary in nature, believed that it was possible to perceive it once

existing as an independent narrative.12 Wolff similarly holds to a view of E in which it was an

independent narrative with the caveat that only fragments of this once independent narrative now

exist in the Pentateuch This then gives rise to the view that E was only a fragmentary narrative to

begin with.13 Speiser is among many who also hold this traditional view that E is an independent

source that has its own specific characteristics such as the use of the divine name Elohim in

connection with dreams and angels.14 Propp, while admitting that E is fragmentary, and hardly

distinguishable from J in Genesis, looks to Exodus as clear evidence that it is indeed an

independent source, a similar contention that Baden makes, as will be discussed below.15

Contrarily, Whybray takes a much harsher stance when he states that:

The extant ‘E’ material, then, is, by universal agreement, not a complete document. At
best, it is a torso. ‘E’ as a document has no actual existence, but is merely an hypothesis
constructed on the basis of a series of narratives and smaller fragments, which cannot be
fitted together to form a whole. In these circumstances the criteria of language and style,
even if admissible in this case, cannot prove that it was ever a continuous whole, nor can
the existence of doublets in the Pentateuchal text.16

12
Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 37. See also Fretheim, “Theology of the Major Traditions in
Genesis–Numbers,” 311.
13
Wolff, “Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch,” 159–61, 169–70, 172–73. Wolff supports this claim by
pointing out the consistent theme of the fear of God contained within the Elohistic fragments, a theme which should
not exist common to all the narratives if they truly are independent fragments as some argue. For Wolff’s discussion
on the fear of God in the E texts, see Wolff, “Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch,” 164–67. Moreover, Wolff
argues that even the fragmentary E texts demonstrate a high level of compositional skill by the author in which the
episodes are linked together through dialogue and portray how, “over a long period of time God led his people
through a series of tests of their obedience.” Wolff, “Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch,” 172. For a full
discussion of this narrative structure, see Wolff, “Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch,” 167–72. For a critique of
Wolff’s arguments, see Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 114–16.
14
Speiser, Genesis, xxx.
15
William Henry Propp, Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 1st ed.,
vol. 2A of AB (New York: Doubleday, 2006), 728–29.
16
Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 112.
 56

Similarly, there are also other scholars, such as Van Seters, Westermann, and Gnuse,

who, at least among the Abrahamic narratives, do not see E as an independent source in the

traditional sense, but rather as a fragmentary group of texts building off of previous ones which

were then integrated into later works.17 In Van Seters’ case, he sees these texts, which are

traditionally seen as belonging to the Elohist, along with others being taken up into his redefined

version of the J source, which is an exilic composition using previous traditions and materials. In

his view, this theory does away with the need for a set of redactors who combined what was seen

as otherwise independent narratives.18 Westermann similarly holds that while J was an

independent text, the traditional E texts are supplementary texts that are attached to the J

narrative.19 One of the differences between Van Seters and Westermann is that Van Seters dates

J to the exile and the passages such as Genesis 12:10–20, which later E texts like Genesis 20 are

seen to supplement, are viewed not as part of J but as pre-J traditions that were later integrated

with the supplementary E texts into J’s narrative. Gnuse, while still holding to a more cohesive

view of E than that of Van Seters, nonetheless views the Elohistic source as a fragmentary set of

traditions that were later absorbed and redacted by Southern theologians (such as J).20 Weisman

takes a similar stance as this when he argues, on the basis of the naming of cultic sites and their

association with various deities in the different patriarchal narratives, that E contains an older,

and northern, set of traditions that were subsequently taken up and adapted by J into the larger

17
Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 311; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 347; Robert Karl
Gnuse, “The Elohist: A 7th-Century BCE Theological Tradition,” BTB 42.2 (2012): 59; Robert Karl Gnuse,
“Northern Prophetic Traditions in the Books of Samuel and Kings as Precursor to the Elohist,” ZAW 122.3 (2010):
374.
18
Van Seters, The Pentateuch, 60–61.
19
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 347.
20
Robert Karl Gnuse, “Redefining the Elohist,” JBL 119.2 (2000): 215; Gnuse, “Northern Prophetic
Traditions in the Books of Samuel and Kings as Precursor to the Elohist,” 374.
 57

narrative.21 These fragmentary E traditions, which Gnuse sees as occurring as a result of the fall

of Samaria, coalesce shortly prior to the southern exile and help lay the foundation for the shift

from polytheism to monotheism.22

It is relevant to note for the present study that Noth’s own writings stand adamantly

against the above hypotheses, as he thoroughly denied the possibility of a dependence of one

source on the other but instead put forward a common basis, or source that was used in the

composition of both.23 As a result, some of the above scholars have departed from the traditional

Documentary Hypothesis as viewed by Noth and adopted either a fragmentary hypothesis, a

supplementary hypothesis, or some combination of both.

Baden, on the other hand, contends that rather than beginning in Genesis where the E text

is more fragmented, one should instead begin in the more unified sections of the Exodus and

Numbers narratives and build a framework of narrative identity from these sections based solely

on self-contained historical claims.24 This narrative identity can then be used to classify earlier

passages in Genesis. It is worth noting that what Baden means by historical claims, refers not

specifically to claims in a passage such as “x event happened at y time in history,” but rather of

the type “x person did y” and often compared to where another passage says “x person did z,”

where z and y are mutually exclusive. In other words, Baden is referring to the content of the

21
Weisman, “The Interrelationship between J and E in Jacob’s Narrative,” 193–95.
22
Gnuse, “Redefining the Elohist,” 208–9.
23
Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 38–39.
24
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 119. A similar approach was taken in Axel Graupner, Der
Elohist: Gegenwart Und Wirksamkeit Des Transzendenten Gottes in Der Geschichte, vol. 97 (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 2002) as pointed out by Carr. See David M. Carr, “No Return to Wellhausen,” Bib 86.1
(2005): 107–8.
 58

stories themselves, rather than externally verifiable historical contentions.25 As a result of his

study, Baden staunchly argues that the E texts do represent a unified narrative.

Historical Context of the E Source

Traditionally, the E source has been dated between 850–750 BCE in the divided

monarchy and placed second to J in its antiquity, with J being dated often a century earlier than

E.26 Contrary to the view that J antedates E, Weisman makes an argument from the perspective

of a developing national consciousness that E is older than J because in, “…the patriarchal

promises, at any rate, it represents the collective consciousness of tribes of settlers rather than

that of a nation or a kingdom.”27

Geographic locale will also factor heavily into the subsequent discussion. Indeed, E

material is typically thought to be northern in origin, a point which will be further discussed in

the below arguments for dating the source.28 However, the assumption that all the Elohistic texts

are northern in origin has also been challenged by scholars such as Hong.29 Hong has argued that

the Abrahamic traditions are in their entirety southern, and it is the Jacob-Joseph-Moses

traditions that are northern and were subsequently taken up and expanded in the south after the

25
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 125.
26
Speiser, Genesis, xxx. See also above regarding the antiquity of E relative to J. Knohl upholds a mid-
eighth century date for E, although he dates P as the earliest source followed by E and then J. See Knohl, The Divine
Symphony, 155.
27
Weisman, “National Consciousness in the Patriarchal Promises,” 68. One could possibly argue, however,
that this reflection could also come from a time, such as the exile, when the nation has been “dissolved” and its
people are once more broken into groups similar to “tribes of settlers.”
28
Carr, “No Return to Wellhausen,” 111–12; Fretheim, “Theology of the Major Traditions in Genesis–
Numbers,” 311; Wolff, “Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch,” 172; Royden Keith Yerkes, “The Location and
Etymology of YHWH YRʼAH, Gn. 22:14,” JBL 31.3 (1912): 138; Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 61–88.
29
Koog-Pyoung Hong, “Abraham, Genesis 20–22, and the Northern Elohist,” Biblica 94.3 (2013): 321–
339.
 59

fall of Samaria, which sees the Judean rewriting of the history of Israel and the assumption of

that identity.30

In terms of specific dating of the source, scholars have pursued many different creative

avenues which they believe point to distinct periods of history. Some, such as Gnuse, place the

Elohist in the 7th century BCE,31 a date that he corresponds to just after the fall of Samaria in

722, which he sees as a reason for the composition of the source.32 Gnuse also uses his 7th

century date, which he supports by comparing the texts to Neo-Assyrian and Chaldean

Babylonian dream accounts and the Deir ‘Alla inscription, to argue that the Elohist “fragments”

were inspired by northern prophetic texts.33 Specifically, Gnuse compares the fragments to

prophetic sections of 1 Samuel and 1–2 Kings and notes several curious features in common with

Elohist texts such as the imagery of fire, angelic intermediaries, prominent mountains, dreams,

themes of prophetic identity, divine retribution, animals as divine agents, and a marked

prominence of the fear of God.34 However, were one to reject Gnuse’s arguments for a 7th

century date, these features could just as easily be explained in the reverse with E texts

influencing the prophetic tradition.

Fretheim goes so far as to suggest that the material has its origins in the time of Elijah,

“near the mid-point in the history of the northern kingdom.”35 Wolff similarly argues for dating

the E source to the century between Elijah and Hosea as this was a time in his view where details
30
Hong, “Abraham, Genesis 20–22, and the Northern Elohist,” 335–36.
31
Gnuse, “Redefining the Elohist,” 204; Gnuse, “The Elohist,” 59.
32
Gnuse, “Redefining the Elohist,” 209.
33
Gnuse, “The Elohist,” 59–60; Gnuse, “Redefining the Elohist,” 201–20. For more on this argument see
Robert Karl Gnuse, “Dreams in the Night—Scholarly Mirage or Theophanic Formula? The Dream Report as a Motif
of the So-Called Elohist Tradition,” BZ 39.1 (1995): 28–53.
34
Gnuse, “Northern Prophetic Traditions in the Books of Samuel and Kings as Precursor to the Elohist,”
377–85. For a comprehensive view of all of Gnuse’s arguments and evidence see Robert Karl Gnuse, The Elohist : A
Seventh-Century Theological Tradition (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017).
35
Fretheim, “Theology of the Major Traditions in Genesis–Numbers,” 311.
 60

and major themes of the narratives seem to fit with the historical context that existed.36 He states

succinctly, “The new interpretation which the Elohist gave to the old traditional materials of

Israel can be best explained against the background of the syncretism following the time of

Elijah. It was then that Israel was exposed to great cultic, political, and social temptations.”37

Friedman supports the northern theory of E texts and points to various features, such as

the prominence of Ephraim in the E version of Jacob’s deathbed blessing, to demonstrate this

claim.38 He even goes as far to identify the E writer with a Levite from Shiloh that, after the

ascendancy of Jeroboam, was dispossessed from long held religious authority through the

establishment of cultic centres at Dan and Bethel where different priests served.39 For Friedman,

this places the composition of E between 922–722 BCE.40 While many of Friedman’s arguments

and theories answer questions raised by various features of the text, it is worth repeating here the

caution of Westermann that texts functioned solely as vehicles for a contemporary author’s

message in his own time:41

It is further certain that the meaning of the written works cannot be read simply from the
message addressed by the writers to their contemporary listeners or readers with their
particular biases. Besides the intention of giving their contemporaries some appropriate
advice, exhortations, and admonitions by means of the old stories, there is another
intention of equal importance. They intend to pass on to their contemporaries what they
themselves have received, something that has no concern with the contemporary situation
but which is to be heard and passed on yet again so that it may have a voice in a quite
different situation known neither to the listeners nor to the bearer of the tradition.

36
Wolff, “Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch,” 172–73.
37
Wolff, “Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch,” 173.
38
Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 65. For more features from the narratives themselves that Friedman
points to which support this theory, see Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 62–69.
39
Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 72. For more on Friedman’s argument and identification of the author
of the E texts, see Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 70–88.
40
Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 87. Friedman also argues that the Hebrew of J and E comes from the
earliest stage of linguistic development. See Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed, 7–8.
41
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 33.
 61

Nevertheless, in regards to purpose, Fretheim argues that the Elohist text is “intended to

bring [the people] to a renewed commitment to the covenant.”42 Specifically in relation to the

ancestral narratives, this purpose is achieved by presenting the Elohist’s contemporaries with

examples to emulate that are “presented as real people and not as impossible-to-emulate

ideals.”43 This purpose fits into Fretheim’s overall view that the Elohist texts place a much

higher emphasis on human activity and purpose within the overall divine economy.44 God is seen

to act, but it is often through human mediators and in an indirect fashion.45 Similarly, McEvenue

highlights that in the Elohist passages God is portrayed as reacting to the events that unfold in

the human drama rather than in a more transcendent fashion as in the Priestly narratives.46 Such a

view of purpose behind the text is not entirely at odds with Westermann’s cautionary note, as it

is possible that the text can function in more than one dimension: it can be the legitimate passing

on of tradition for tradition’s sake and framed in a manner that will also highlight the editor’s

point of view.47

Textual Context of the E Source

While the J and P sources are usually traced back to the beginning chapters of Genesis,

what has been traditionally seen as the E source occurs for the first time in the Abrahamic

42
Fretheim, “Theology of the Major Traditions in Genesis–Numbers,” 313.
43
Fretheim, “Theology of the Major Traditions in Genesis–Numbers,” 314.
44
Fretheim, “Theology of the Major Traditions in Genesis–Numbers,” 314.
45
See also Gnuse, “Northern Prophetic Traditions in the Books of Samuel and Kings as Precursor to the
Elohist,” 380.
46
McEvenue, “The Elohist at Work,” 319.
47
For a similar approach to other texts see Chris Keith, “Social Memory Theory and Gospels Research:
The First Decade (Part One),” EC 6.3 (2015): 354–376; Chris Keith, “Social Memory Theory and Gospels Research:
The First Decade (Part Two),” EC 6.4 (2015): 517–542; Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher, eds., Memory, Tradition, and
Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2005).
 62

narratives, and according to Noth, this happens first in Genesis 15.48 The source is seen by some,

such as Fretheim, to extend to the covenant at Shechem in Joshua 24.49

Occurrences of Outsiders in the E Source

Genesis 15: Covenant Ceremony

Portrayal of Outsiders

As was just mentioned, the first such occurrence of outsiders in the E source is Genesis

15:13–16, following a covenantal ceremony between ‫ יהוה‬and Abraham.50 The text deals with

what is evidently a sort of prophecy of the exodus and describes how Abraham’s offspring will

eventually be slaves in another nation. However, God will intervene and bring them to the land

he promised to them, after the “iniquity of the Amorites” is “completed.” The passage presents a

view of outsiders where one particular nation will oppress Abraham’s descendants and in turn

will be judged by God. In addition, God’s judgment on a group of people referred to as the

“Amorites” is portrayed as patiently waiting for them to proverbially dig their own grave. This

view, although missing the previously found overt care for the outsider in the J texts, nonetheless

similarly shows definite preference for the chosen as well as the promised judgement on those

who curse or harm Abraham, possibly in addition to those who sin, even if they are outside of

48
Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 263.
49
Fretheim, “Theology of the Major Traditions in Genesis–Numbers,” 311.
50
It is worth noting that Genesis 15 according to Noth is a blend between J and E, and that the usage of ‫יהוה‬
does not occur in E verses as classified by Noth.
 63

God’s covenant people.51 As a result, this passage thoroughly upholds the blessings spoken over

Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3, and may indicate some awareness of them. It is again of note that

the pending judgement is not on outsiders in general, but on one specific group, and moreover

only on a specific group that is inhabiting land promised to Abraham.

Source-Critical Discussion

The question of how this passage deals with outsiders being relatively easy to answer, we

must now move to one decidedly more difficult: whether or not this passage should indeed be

classified as E as Noth thought. According to Noth the E source in Genesis 15 consists of vv. 3a,

5, and 13–16. However, there is much contention within scholarship as to the makeup of this

chapter. Westermann, like Noth, points out that Genesis 15 is broken into two (or more) texts,

although he differs on the classification of many of the verses from Noth, and follows L. Perlitt,

believing that vv. 7–21 contains no elements of Yahwistic origin.52 While this partially agrees

with Noth’s classification of vv. 13–16 as E, it stands against his classification of vv. 6–12 and

17–21 as J.53 Contrarily, Wenham in his commentary makes a case that Gen 15:13–16 are not

from E, but either later additions and/or part of the unified narrative that was pre–J.54 This

position is also held in part by Van Seters who views this passage as ex eventu prophecy

composed in the exile.55 Nicholson similarly admits that much of Genesis 15, in particular

51
For a related discussion on whether God’s punishment, and the related ‫ חרם‬command, of those inhabiting
the “promised land” is more a result of their sin, or simply the fact that they are proverbially in the wrong place at
the wrong time due to their habitation of the land promised to Abraham, see Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen, 148–93,
208–25.
52
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 214–17.
53
Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 263.
54
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 326.
55
Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 259, 267.
 64

Genesis 15:9–12, and 17–21, which Noth identifies with J, probably emerged between the late-

pre-exilic period after the fall of Samaria and the exilic period.56 If this is the case, while not

affecting the status of Genesis 15:14 as E, this argument does call into question Noth’s

chronology and lends support to Van Seter’s view of an exilic J. However, Nicholson does

immediately point out that these verses seem to be inserted into a pre-existent text, which

conversely calls into question Van Seters unified view of this passage.57 It is also worth noting,

in support of multiple sources being contained within this chapter, that in v. 16 the Amorites

alone are mentioned as opposed to vv. 19–21 where they are listed as part of a larger group of

“-ites.” While this demarcation based on the identification of these people groups does not

specifically point to the above verses in question’s association with any particular source, it does

support the view that vv. 13–16 are from a separate source than vv. 19–21.

If this passage is not E as Noth perceived, but rather somehow associated with J, this

would explain the harmony between God’s judgment on those who harm Abraham’s

descendants, and the blessings found in Genesis 12:1–3, a text that is nearly universally ascribed

to J. Moreover, an association with J, or even granting that this text was taken up by the J editor

into his narrative, would also explain the divine name usage in the chapter. However, Baden,

using his narrative method of identification,58 makes the argument that this passage, though out

of place in the immediate narrative, does indeed fit within the larger E narrative, specifically

within the E depiction of the Exodus in Exodus 3:21–22.59 Overall, with the exception of a few

56
Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, 142. Similarly,
Römer highlights that Genesis 15 is one of, if not the latest, the later texts of the Abrahamic narratives. See Römer,
“Abraham’s Righteousness and Sacrifice,” 14–15.
57
Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, 143. Friedman
similarly classifies these verses as the work of a final redactor. See Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed, 54.
58
See the above section “Characteristics of the E source” for a description of Baden’s method.
59
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 125.
 65

scholars, this passage is viewed as the combination of two or more sources, though agreement on

how the verses should be divided is clearly contentious.

A Reflection on the Value of Diachronic Analysis in this Instance

For such a short verse that only tersely deals with outsiders, the value brought by source-

critical analysis in our present case study is minimized further by uncertainty regarding the

identification of sources, and limited mostly to v. 16. Nevertheless, there are certain gleanings to

be found. Given that the passage is more or less a prophecy, ex eventu or not, it is simply

describing what will be, or was, a historical “reality” and as such does not contain much detail

that would be affected by knowing when it was edited or composed. However, if one could date

this text, then it is possible that some light would be shed on v. 16 and a possible identity of who

the Amorites could symbolize would emerge. If the Amorites in the text are not merely a bygone

or future group of people but rather a stand-in for a particular group that the author or the scribes

recording the tradition have in mind, then it may be possible to gain some insight into the

historical circumstances which surround the text and the opinion of the surrounding people

groups in that time period. As an example of this, Westermann points out that v. 16 could be a

note of comfort to those in the exilic time that the reason why God has not intervened against

Israel’s enemies is “…because their guilt has not yet run its course…”60 Moreover, it could also

be possible to identify the different sources within this chapter based on the usage of Amorites as

a solitary group in v. 16 as opposed to being part of a larger group of tribes identified in vv. 19–

21, in light of the usage of “Amorite” elsewhere in the Pentateuch and Hebrew Bible.61 Again we

60
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 228.
61
For example one could make a comparison between Amos’ usage of “land of the Amorite” compared to
other prophetic texts from the north and south.
 66

see here demonstrated cogent examples of how source-critical analysis forms a valuable

framework for understanding various peculiar features in the text, but does include many

ambiguous, and possibly even confusing, aspects.

Genesis 20: Abimelech and ‫יהוה‬

Portrayal of Outsiders

The next passage where outsiders occur is in Genesis 20 when Abraham interacts with

Abimelech after passing off Sarah as his sister.62 Unwittingly and unintentionally taking another

man’s wife, Abimelech takes Sarah.63 God then comes in a dream to Abimelech, a foreigner,

who interestingly calls God “my Lord” (‫)אֲדֹּ נָי‬, a similar epithet to that used by Abraham when he

addresses ‫יהוה‬, as demonstrated by Genesis 15:2, 18:3, and 18:27, 30–32.64

In the continuing narrative, God informs Abimelech of what he has done, and Abimelech

claims ignorance regarding Sarah’s marital status. Therefore, Abimelech asks God if he will

“even/also” kill a righteous people, possibly showing knowledge of the destruction of Sodom in

Genesis 19 and its background (traditionally a J story) a point that will be touched on below.65

God responds by acknowledging that Abimelech, though a foreigner, is indeed righteous before

him; or at the very least God demonstrates that he cares enough to prevent him from sinning

62
Interestingly, the LXX includes a tangential note from Abraham that he passed of Sarah as his sister
because he was afraid someone would kill him because of her, seemingly echoing Genesis 12:10-20.
63
Wolff points out that objectively Abimelech is guilty, as he took another man’s wife, but subjectively he
is innocent as he did it out of ignorance and also had not touched her yet, whereas for Abraham it is the opposite, as
he is objectively innocent, as Sarah is indeed his sister, but subjectively he has led Abimelech into danger of
committing sin. See Wolff, “Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch,” 161–62.
64
All of which are classified by Noth as J texts. Westermann, however, disagrees and argues that this does
not necessarily signify Abimelech’s recognition of ‫ יהוה‬as his lord, but simply that he recognizes the voice as divine.
See Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 322.
65
The LXX adds “ignorant” in Abimelech’s declaration of his righteousness.
 67

because he was doing nothing wrong intentionally. However, despite this admission, Abimelech

is still in effect sentenced to death for his actions towards Sarah, a sentence that God gives

Abimelech the possibility of changing once he is made aware of his predicament, though if he

now were to willfully continue on the path that he is on, death will indeed be the result for

Abimelech and his people. McEvenue makes the interesting observation that simply returning

Sarah to Abraham is not enough to heal the “guilt” that has been brought about by taking Sarah,

instead Abraham needs to pray for him.66

Nevertheless, Abimelech not only promptly returns Sarah to Abraham, but provides both

Abraham and Sarah with compensation for the whole debacle. Abraham then acts as a mediator

between God and Abimelech by praying that God would heal Abimelech and his family.67 In this

regard Abraham’s role as a mediator is introduced in what Noth classifies as E texts, a role which

will feature more prominently below in the repetition of Abraham’s role in blessing the nations.

Again, in this story clear preference and protection is demonstrated for God’s chosen, and

yet great care for the outsider. This is something echoed by Westermann in his commentary

where he points out that the narrator/author is telling his contemporary generation that they

should avoid a narrow-minded insider/outsider dichotomy while at the same time declaring that

God’s action towards his chosen is not dependent upon their behaviour.68 Hamilton similarly

points to how this passage expands the sphere of God’s revelation beyond his own people.69

Nevertheless, despite Abraham’s dubiously justifiable deception of Abimelech, he still has God’s

protection over him and Sarah, who is to be the mother of his progeny, which clearly

66
McEvenue, “The Elohist at Work,” 326.
67
Fretheim, “Theology of the Major Traditions in Genesis–Numbers,” 313. It is worth noting that Abraham
is also referred to by ‫ יהוה‬as a prophet earlier in the passage (Gen 20:7).
68
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 329.
69
Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis. Chapters 18–50, vol. 2 of NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1995), 60.
 68

demonstrates God’s preferential treatment of his chosen.70 Moreover, even in his deception of

Abimelech, Abraham is still called on by God to be the mediator of the healing that was required

because of his deception, which, at least to modern sensibilities, seems unfair; and yet, this is

God’s preference for his chosen. This preference is then substantiated by Abraham being

materially “blessed” by Abimelech as reparation for a fault caused, intentionally or not, directly

by Abraham’s decision to conceal his relationship with Sarah.71

Furthermore, Abraham’s answer to the charges of Abimelech possibly presents another

facet to the view of outsiders: when he states that he thought there was no “fear of God in this

place,” he is implying that a fear of God would represent an understanding of how people are to

be “properly” treated. Indeed, Westermann goes as far as to say, “…the fear of God then means

conduct which regards the basic standards of the human community with respect to aliens.”72

This is framed similarly by Wolff: “Fear of God is understood here as respect for the freedom

and responsibility of the outsider. Wherever God is feared, that is, wherever men are obedient to

God’s protective will, we can expect to find respect for the rights of outsiders.”73 However, even

if such a view was held by Abraham, the narrative ups the ante so to speak. Whereas Abraham

merely assumed that these foreigners would not share his version of morality, Abimelech is

demonstrated as not only being appalled that he was going to unintentionally take another man’s

wife, but also that he fears and indeed listens to God when he speaks to him, returns Sarah, and

even gives Abraham gifts and access to the land. As Wolff points out, Abimelech honours God’s

70
Fretheim seems to hold that Abraham’s deception is justifiable, though not “unambiguously exemplary,
given the danger into which he led Abimelech.” See Fretheim, “Theology of the Major Traditions in Genesis–
Numbers,” 313. Another perspective on the deception is the motif of tricksterism which is pointed out by Lohr. See
Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen, 106–14.
71
McEvenue, “The Elohist at Work,” 328.
72
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 325.
73
Wolff, “Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch,” 162–63.
 69

commands.74 If this is the case, then by the text demonstrating that Abimelech did indeed fear

God, it is making a powerful statement regarding the relationship of outsiders to Abraham’s

God.75 Whereas the insiders may think that those outside their community have no place or

interaction with God, this story demonstrates that such a belief may not always be the case.

Rather, from the perspective of the narrative, it is the outsider who is portrayed as the one who

understands how “outsiders” should be treated and not Abraham. Moreover, this is one of the

few places in the Hebrew Bible where ‫ יהוה‬appears to a non-Israelite in a dream, and an even

rarer occurrence where the non-Israelite does not need an “insider” to unravel the message in the

dream.76 This, in conjunction with Abraham’s favour with God despite his deception,

demonstrates a remarkable level of awareness and concern for outsiders by the narrator while at

the same time grappling with deep rooted theological promises towards God’s chosen. At bare

minimum, both Westermann and Wenham highlight that “Canaanites” are portrayed in a positive

light by this text.77 Moreover, even if the narrative is not intending to cast Abimelech as being in

relationship with ‫יהוה‬, the fact that God intervenes in the whole situation is a powerful statement

regarding the sovereignty of God even among outsiders.78

74
Wolff, “Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch,” 162.
75
However, McEvenue argues that the narrative does not present Abimelech as having “fear of God” prior
to his interaction with God, and therefore Abraham is justified in what he said. Contrarily, I would argue that ‫’יהוה‬s
own admission of Abimelech’s righteousness, along with Westermann’s view that “fear of the Lord” meant for
Abraham some kind of expectation involving right moral action militates against McEvenue’s interpretation. It is
worth noting, however, that McEvenue later notes that Gen 20 deals with “recognizing the fear of God among non-
Hebrews.” See McEvenue, “The Elohist at Work,” 321 nn. 12, 322. See also Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen, 99–100.
76
I am indebted to my second reader, Dr. Andrew Perrin, for pointing this key fact out.
77
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 321; Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 72.
78
McEvenue, “The Elohist at Work,” 328.
 70

Source-Critical Discussion

This passage was held to be E by earlier source critics such as Noth, a position continued

by Speiser,79 especially given its use of dream revelation which is seen as one of the hallmarks of

the E source, even though the revelation is in this case to a foreigner. This is also seen in Genesis

31:24 and Numbers 22:9, 20, both of which Noth categorizes as E. However, it should be noted

that the categorization of these later passages likely occurs because revelation by dream is one of

the widely used criterions for identifying the E source, and not necessarily because these

passages share other similarities.80

That this passage is peculiar in the surrounding narrative should also give a clue to the

reader that if this were simply another chapter in a developing Abrahamic narrative there are

some questions that need to be answered. One of which, as highlighted by Lohr, is that at this

point in the narrative, as it stands in the MT, Sarah is quite advanced in age and the assumption

that Abimelech finds her physically attractive enough to take her from Abraham is problematic.81

Nevertheless, writers throughout history have remained adamant that Sarah was indeed beautiful

in her advanced age. Lohr notes both an example of this contention found in 1Qap Genar XX 2–9

as well as several explanations that have been offered throughout history for how Sarah could

remain beautiful, including that her continued beauty was a divine miracle much like her

pregnancy at her age.82 However, that this is part of a different source than other passages

79
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 68; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 319; Speiser, Genesis, 151.
80
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 321–22.
81
Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen, 98.
82
Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen, 98.
 71

depicting her age offers a more convincing argument.83 This point will be further addressed

below when evaluating the value of diachronic analysis.

In addition, there are many scholars that argue for a relationship between this passage and

other sister-wife passages in Genesis. Typically this passage is one of the hallmark “doublet”

passages, in this case in conjunction with Genesis 12:10–20, that gave rise to the Documentary

Hypothesis in the first place. Conversely there have been a growing number of scholars who see

instead a dependency between these texts rather than them existing as independent versions of

the same story. However, it is worth emphasizing that in the following discussion on

dependencies, each argument is hypothetical as it is impossible to demonstrate with certainty that

one passage’s dependency is not actually reversed in these cases. Nevertheless, Westermann,

following Van Seters, argues that Genesis 20 is dependent upon Genesis 12:10–20 and,

therefore, not a parallel version, a position also taken by Wenham and McEvenue.84 However,

Wenham, while supporting the dependency of this text on Genesis 12:10–20, sides with Van

Seters that this episode was not merely a supplement to J by a later writer, but was also redacted

by J and is one of his sources.85 Wenham bases his stance on Van Seters’ analysis, the reference

to ‫ יהוה‬in v. 18, and the similarities in theology between this passage and other J passages.86 This

theory, at least of the text bearing connections to some previous J material, is supported by

Abimelech’s seeming awareness of the Sodom episode.87 It is even possible that the J

83
It should also be noted that Wenham cautions that ancient notions of beauty may be different than what
today’s society would perceive and that as a result age may not be as much of a factor. This is certainly possible, but
to me the source-critical viewpoint seems more convincing. See Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 288.
84
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 318; Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 171–75; Wenham,
Genesis 16–50, 68; McEvenue, “The Elohist at Work,” 329.
85
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 68.
86
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 68.
87
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 69; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 322; Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen, 101;
Hamilton, The Book of Genesis. Chapters 18–50, 58–59.
 72

author/editor is deliberately contrasting the “righteous” nation of Gerar with the “unrighteous”

nation of Sodom.88

If Van Seters’ argument is to be accepted for the origin of J and its use of earlier sources,

then this text would be one of the pre-J blocks of material composed subsequent to the fall of

Samaria, but prior to the Judean exile. The text was then taken up by the exilic J author and

woven into his narrative. If this is the case, then this block of text, along with Genesis 12:10–20,

is one of the earliest depictions of outsiders found in the ancestral narratives and is also one of

the most positive in its portrayal. Moreover, it is worth noting that under Van Seters’ model these

texts are not only the earliest texts to display interaction with outsiders but also some of the

earliest texts in general in the Abrahamic narrative. This is significant because it would

demonstrate an early interest in how the community of Israel was to relate to those outside their

community.

Baden, on the other hand, argues that the E texts being supplementary to the J texts is

untenable based on his analysis of various E and J doublet episodes.89 He concludes that in most

cases it makes little sense, if indeed the E author was acting in a supplementary manner, that the

supposed supplements add little if any theological value and are also rendered redundant by their

parallel episodes that still remain in the narrative.90 Instead, he stands with Noth that these texts

make the most sense as independent traditions emerging from a common background.

Regardless of whether the episodes are dependent on each other or not, they are in some

way related and all of them display remarkable concern for outsiders. Nevertheless, we find here

88
Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen, 101.
89
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 126.
90
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 126. However, it is possible that the supplements were
written with the intent to replace their counterparts but they were re-added to the narrative by a later editor, or that
the three episodes are left in the narrative as a literary device in order to form a contrast. See a thorough discussion
in Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen, 95–114.
 73

one of the drawbacks to source-critical study: any number of explanations can be put forward,

many of which each have merit in their own right but are in some regard mutually exclusive.

A Reflection on the Value of Diachronic Analysis in this Instance

One of the key values of diachronic analysis was demonstrated in the source-critical

discussion on this passage. In answer to a peculiarity concerning the text, that Abimelech would

consider Sarah’s beauty so great in her advanced age that he would take her as a wife, a view of

different sources provides a coherent framework with which to interpret this peculiarity.

Moreover, if one takes as a starting point that this text is dependent upon Genesis 12:10–

20 (a J-classified text), then it is worth noting that in this version of the story God’s interaction

with outsiders is far more substantial and positive than the antecedent text despite his enduring

clear preference for his chosen. Although one would need to consider the overall trajectory of

how outsiders are treated in the rest of the J Abrahamic narrative and beyond, such a comparison,

given certain contextual assumptions (or solid arguments), would indeed yield valuable insights

into how the view of outsiders and how they relate to the people of Israel and their God changed

over time, whether positively or negatively. Once again the issue with this is one of certainty and

whether or not this added value is enough of a payoff to offset the confusion and ambiguity that

source-critical study entails and leaves the text in.

If this text is viewed as one of the earliest examples of Abraham interacting with

outsiders, as noted above, then source analysis in this case would yield an understanding of how

Israel viewed outsiders at a very early point in their history. This would be lost in a merely

synchronic interpretation. Granted, a synchronic interpretation would still provide the nuances

that the outsider/insider relationship should not be presumed to be one of being

 74

shunned/favoured respectively. The richness that diachronic analysis would add is an

understanding that though our views might start out positive, such as demonstrated by this text,

they may develop into something more sinister and negative given the right circumstances (see

for example the views of outsiders in Ezra and Nehemiah). Such a trajectory would offer a

cautionary tale that exhorts us to perhaps examine more closely how our present presuppositions

might be more the result of present circumstances than what is actually right.

However as was noted above, an analysis of this passage also demonstrates a drawback

of diachronic analysis. While it does have the power to offer a cohesive framework for

understanding the text and peculiarities therein, it at the same time opens the door to uncertainty.

Genesis 21: Hagar and Ishmael

Portrayal of Outsiders

The subsequent E passage displaying interaction with outsiders occurs in Genesis 21:8–

21. This passage is the second of the Hagar doublets, where Hagar and Ishmael are again found

in dire circumstances in the wilderness. Contrary to the first doublet (16:1–14, J), Hagar does not

run away but is this time sent away by Abraham at the request of Sarah, who seems to be acting

less out of jealousy and more out of a desire to protect the inheritance of her son.91 This is also

done with the approval of God who comforts Abraham that this will not be the end for Ishmael

his son. Indeed, although God ultimately supports Sarah’s seemingly heartless desire to send the

91
For McEvenue, this passage deals with mixed marriages and is a forerunner to the endogamous views
found in Ezra 9 and 10. See McEvenue, “The Elohist at Work,” 322. See also comments below in the P chapter on
Genesis 16 and Hagar’s marriage to Abraham. It is also interesting that though Hagar is a foreigner, she does not
have foreign God’s but is clearly portrayed by the narrative to have some sort of connection or relationship with
‫יהוה‬. This is perhaps one reason why later audiences do not see this marriage as problematic. See Matthew Thiessen,
“Aseneth’s Eight-Day Transformation as Scriptural Justification for Conversion,” JSJ 45.2 (2014): 232–35.
 75

child away, citing that it is through Isaac that Abraham’s line and blessing shall continue, he still

blesses Ishmael with the promise to make him into a nation, part of the overarching promise

given to Abraham. Van Seters states that, “God’s blessing and providence extends beyond Israel

to also include those who are expelled.”92 This promise serves as almost a foreshadowing that the

dire circumstances will not be the end for Hagar and Ishmael as God has declared that he will

become a nation before the reader encounters the trouble in the wilderness. Once again

preference is demonstrated for the chosen, but great concern for the outsider is simultaneously

displayed, a tension that has been repeated throughout the preceding analysis.

Westermann highlights that this story is a testament to God’s care for the outcast,

something Israel will experience first-hand in the exodus.93 In this light, perhaps it is telling that

the outcast helped by God is an Egyptian cast out by an Israelite, a reversal of the Exodus story,

which perhaps demonstrates God’s care for all outcasts regardless of their insider or outsider

status. A curious feature of this text is that Ishmael is nowhere mentioned by name, but always as

“the son of the slave woman,” “the son of Hagar,” or “the boy,” even by ‫ יהוה‬when he is

addressing Abraham and the angel when addressing Hagar.94 However, the beginning of v. 17 in

Hebrew contains what is perhaps a double-entendre meant to let the reader know that this is how

ִ ‫“( וַיִ ְׁשמַ ע א‬Vayishma Elohim”): “and God heard.”95 This is

Ishmael got his name when it says ‫ֱֹלהים‬

a curious feature given that this event, to which Ishmael seemingly owes his name, occurs much

92
Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 201.
93
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 344.
94
McEvenue notes that this is so God “can distinguish in this way the social relationship to Hagar from the
theological relationship to Abraham.” See McEvenue, “Comparison of Narrative Styles in the Hagar Stories,” 75.
95
Indeed, McEvenue highlights that this is a subtle writing style used by the Elohist writer in which the
audience is left to discover the meaning of the name. See McEvenue, “Comparison of Narrative Styles in the Hagar
Stories,” 74, 76.
 76

after Ishmael’s birth.96 This could lead to several different conclusions. The first is that this

chapter, though occurring later in the overall chronology of the narrative, is a leftover story from

much earlier in Ishmael’s life (although the current construction of this narrative unit in which

Ishmael is playing with Isaac militates against this). Secondly, it is possible that Ishmael

originally had another name that is here “changed” in a similar manner that Jacob’s name was,

i.e. due to God’s intervention.97 Thirdly, the implicit mention of Ishmael’s name is meant to be a

confirmation of the explicit naming that occurred in Genesis 16:11 (J) when God heard Hagar’s

affliction. Or, similarly, the story is a way for the narrative to explain Ishmael’s name in an after

the fact manner, similar to how Moses’ name is explained from a narrative perspective despite it

likely being Egyptian in origin.

Source-Critical Discussion

Noth classified this passage as E, something agreed to by Speiser who bases his

conclusion on a comparative study of each source’s preoccupation with etymologies.98 For

example, according to Noth’s classification, the name of Isaac is explained by J in Genesis

18:10–14, by E in Genesis 21:6, and by P in Genesis 17:17, while the name of Ishmael is

explained by J in Genesis 16:11 and by E in Genesis 21:17. However, many scholars have since

disputed Noth’s, and consequently Speiser’s, position of associating this passage with E.

Westermann, while stating this passage is not J, does not think that it is E based on differences he

96
It should be noted that a similar, and more explicit naming occurs in Genesis 16:11, though this is
classified as the J source. Nevertheless, even if were these both part of a unified narrative, this prior naming makes
the absence of Ishmael’s proper name from the narrative here even more conspicuous.
97
In support of this it is interesting that the name is directly related to the action or interaction of/with God,
similar to the name Israel in Genesis 32, and that a name isn’t directly mentioned (at least not initially), but meant to
be inferred from the narrative. However, it is worth noting that unlike the Jacob/Israel example he isn’t explicitly
given the name Ishmael either.
98
Speiser, Genesis, 157.
 77

finds between this passage and Genesis 20.99 However, McEvenue argues that these differences

are not substantial enough and instead counters that the passages are largely similar in their

overall narrative structure and the role of God in each, among other characteristics.100 Wenham

also views this material as E, although it has been redacted by J, a similar position he takes to

Genesis 20.101 Van Seters rejects that it is E because he sees this as determined solely on the

basis of divine name usage and vocabulary which he rejects as useful factors in alone

determining a passage’s origin. Instead he posits that this passage is largely J in its theology and

is also familiar with its parallel episode in Genesis 16 and indeed draws from it.102 Van Seters

also questions the foundation of Speiser’s etiological arguments by noting that the etiological

questions are secondary at best to the stories’ concerns and at worst likely inserted later.103

Consequently, Van Seters assigns this text to his exilic J author.104 However, at least in this case,

I would disagree with Van Seters’ reasoning, in that the name Ishmael, and its associated

meaning that God hears, is in fact the direct point of this narrative unit. A similar argument could

be made for this passage’s “doublet” in Genesis 16. That the passages are dependent upon one

another need not preclude that they come from separate sources.

Contrarily, Nicholson challenges Van Seters’ assertion that Genesis 21 is not an

independent version of the Hagar saga by pointing out that if the author of Genesis 21 was aware

of Genesis 16, the question becomes why not simply edit that chapter instead of writing a second

99
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 338.
100
McEvenue, “The Elohist at Work,” 317–23.
101
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 79.
102
Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 197–202.
103
Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 199.
104
Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 202.
 78

version of it.105 While this is certainly a valid criticism, it does not consider the possibility of

literary emphasis. Perhaps the author/editor/scribes of Genesis 21, if they were indeed aware of

Genesis 16, desired to preserve a doublet while simultaneously shifting the focus of the story to

Ishmael to emphasize that the promises given to Abraham were also being transferred to

Ishmael.106 That the meaning of Ishmael’s name shifts from God hearing Hagar’s affliction in

Genesis 16 to Ishmael’s in this chapter would support this contention. Moreover, McEvenue

notes that the role of God in the narrative is different in this instance than in Genesis 16.107

Whereas the Yahwist presents the deity as only intervening at the end of a story when the human

dynamics have played out, the Elohist pictures God as part of the story from the beginning. 108

The concrete identities of the sources which the two chapters belong to notwithstanding, the

evidence presented above again emphasizes the distinct aspects of different passages in the

Abrahamic narratives thus strengthening the overarching explanatory power of source criticism,

even when questions of dependency still loom.

A Reflection on the Value of Diachronic Analysis in this Instance

The extent of the value of source criticism in this instance would again in part depend on

when the text is dated and subsequently what historical context it is emerging from and in

response to. For example, while the base meaning and importance of the text regarding our

question of how insiders are to relate to outsiders is little changed by historical circumstance, this

meaning would gain power and significance if it emerged in the exile as Van Seters argues. For

105
Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, 236–37.
106
It should be noted that this argument is subjective and based on entirely literary concerns. It is possible
that the author could have instead simply edited chapter to make the emphasis he desired.
107
McEvenue, “Comparison of Narrative Styles in the Hagar Stories,” 75.
108
McEvenue, “Comparison of Narrative Styles in the Hagar Stories,” 75.
 79

if the ideas contained herein are rising from a cast-out people in their own right, then the

message of this passage becomes resounding: just as God cared for and heard the cries of

Ishmael, though he was an outsider, so too shall he also hear the cries of his people in exile who

feel like they are outside of God’s purview. Nevertheless, as was noted, even the overall

discussion of the passage’s distinct characteristics, despite not offering any resounding

conclusions, contributes to the value of diachronic analysis.

Genesis 21: Covenant with Abimelech

Portrayal of Outsiders

In the subsequent occurrence in Genesis 21:22–34, Abimelech, who in this passage is

described as a Philistine, makes a covenant with Abraham. This is the first of another set of

doublets, the second of which occurs in Genesis 26, which is classified as J by Noth, where

Abimelech makes another covenant with Isaac following the third of the sister-wife episodes in

the ancestral narratives.109 In this “version” Abimelech is confident in the existence and

continuation of Abraham’s descendants and is aware of his blessing by God.110 In this way

Abimelech becomes a source of external validation for Abraham’s blessed status. Indeed,

Wenham comments that it is often outsiders that seem to make concrete and confirm promises

made to Abraham by God.111 It is outsiders who sell him land for a burial place, giving him a

physical claim on the land, and here it is Abimelech who acknowledges his blessing and

109
Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 264.
110
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 95.
111
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 95. It is interesting that the trend in the Patriarchal narratives is one where it is
Abraham and other insiders who constantly are putting God’s promises in jeopardy and outsiders who are
confirming them, whereas in the Exodus materials it is partially the opposite with the outsiders threatening the
promises. See Fretheim, “Theology of the Major Traditions in Genesis–Numbers,” 307–8.
 80

confirms his right to the well, giving him a source of vitality in the land. Westermann highlights

that the purpose for this narrative lies both in the veneration of Abraham and its applicability for

later audiences as a description of how their dealings with other nations will transpire.112 A

possible interpretation is that other nations will recognize the blessed status of Israel and seek to

make covenants with them so that in some manner they participate in the blessing of Abraham.

Consequently, outsiders come to play a prominent, though perhaps unintentional, role in

manifesting the blessings of God in Abraham’s life.

Source-Critical Discussion

Noth holds this whole section of text to be E.113 The episode seems to show knowledge of

another interaction between Abraham and Abimelech in Abimelech’s request to Abraham that,

“…as [he has] dealt loyally with [Abraham], [Abraham] will deal with [him] and with the land

where [Abraham has] resided as an alien.” (Genesis 21:23b NRSV) Were this a stand-alone

episode, this statement would make little sense as there is nowhere in this episode where

Abimelech shows kindness to Abraham. The logical reference passage would be Genesis 20,

which as seen above Noth classifies as E and would lend support to this passage’s similar

classification as E. Indeed, McEvenue argues that this passage appears to belong originally

immediately after the Abraham-Abimelech episode of Genesis 20, but it is possible that it is in

the order it is now because the Elohist meant it as a conclusion to a section that dealt with the

relations between Hebrews and non-Hebrews.114

112
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 350.
113
Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 264.
114
McEvenue, “The Elohist at Work,” 322–23.
 81

However, it is also possible that parts of this passage have been added by a later editor,

who was aware of both this passage and Genesis 20, in an attempt to link it with the subsequent

etiology of Beersheba in Genesis 26 as well as the previous interaction between Abraham and

Abimelech. Such an editing would explain the connections between these chapters without the

need to see them as coming from the same source. This will be further explored below in Van

Seters’ argument regarding Genesis 21:23. Similarly, many other scholars have debated the

passage’s general unity. Some scholars, such as Westermann and Wenham, avoid making

definitive statements regarding the text while at the same time acknowledging the division

among scholarship largely due to the perceived double etiology of Beersheba in it.115

Westermann highlights that the portions of the text relevant to the covenant and Abimelech’s

recognition of Abraham’s blessing are still attributed to E by many scholars, which lends support

to Noth’s classification especially given the view that this text shows knowledge of a previous E

text as seen above.116 Wenham, while pointing out the various opinions, instead prefers to deal

with the text ultimately on practical terms as it now stands without “unnecessarily” fragmenting

it into different sections.117 Similarly, Speiser views the text as a nearly unified E passage, except

for v. 33, and perhaps vv. 32 and 34, and finds no tension between the dual etiology seeing it as

“characteristic of the times and certainly not inconsistent with the character of the E

document.”118

As indicated above, Van Seters on the other hand rejects the unity of this passage and

argues that Genesis 21:25–26, 28–31a is separate from vv. 22–24, 27, 31b–34, with the former

115
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 346; Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 91.
116
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 346.
117
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 91.
118
Speiser, Genesis, 160.
 82

group originally following immediately after Genesis 20:17 as a continuation to the Abimelech

episode found there, and the latter belonging with Genesis 26 as part of what he calls the J

source.119 This would fit with the depiction of Abimelech’s speech being dependent upon a

previous interaction. Put simply, he sees the hand of a later editor who is responsible for

haphazardly stitching together what were previous sources and etiologies and he separates these

sources based on the defining characteristics of each etiology in Genesis 21. Van Seters implies

that an earlier explanation of the meaning of Beersheba, belonging with the covenant material of

this chapter, was that it meant “well of seven” to correspond to the seven animals given by

Abraham to Abimelech in order to settle the dispute regarding the well. This would then indicate

that the elements which correspond to the second etiology then belong to the later hand of the J

author because of the Van Seters’ association of Genesis 26 with J. In addition, in Genesis 26 the

J author fleshes out the second etiology more clearly but has also woven aspects of it back into

the received text of Genesis 21 to provide a link between the two narratives and covenants

between Abimelech, Abraham, and Isaac.120 Consequently, not only is the later J writer

seemingly duplicating Abrahamic elements onto the story of Isaac, but is also retroactively

inserting Isaaic elements into the Abrahamic narratives. Though Van Seters’ argument is

understandably complicated to grasp, it does seem to offer a possible, although still problematic,

explanation for the linkage between this chapter and Genesis 20 and the seemingly confusing

elements of Genesis 21’s etiology for Beersheba. For example, the narrative describes

119
Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 184–86.
120
Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 185–86.
 83

Abimelech and his commander leaving Abraham and returning to the “land of the Philistines” in

v. 32 despite also implying that Abraham was already in “land of the Philistines” in v.34.121

However the argument’s complication may also be used against it: why would an editor

go to such lengths to link the two stories? For example, if, as Van Seters argues, Genesis 21:23

belongs to the later J hand, then its insertion would be an example of another attempt to link this

episode not only to later ones but to earlier ones as well. If one were to accept that Genesis 21:23

came from the later J hand, this would also militate against Van Seters contention that the

Ishmael episode in Genesis 21 also comes from this later J hand because Genesis 21:23 is only

necessary to link this passage to Genesis 20 if it is already separated by the Isaac-Hagar-Ishmael

narrative of Genesis 21. In other words, the problem with Van Seters’ argumentation is why

would an editor put the linking passage here in the first place if he is the one arranging these

stories? Why pull vv. 25–26, and 28–31a out of their supposed context immediately following

20:17 and move them after other narrative episodes? If the goal was to link Isaac, the Isaaic, and

Abrahamic narratives together on the basis of the double etiology, why not just simply insert

those elements after the covenant episode that supposedly occurred following Genesis 20:17? To

me, a simpler explanation is the overall association of both Genesis 20 and 21 with E which

would explain the connection between them in a far less convoluted manner. The difficulties

with the double etiology could then be seen as some sort of editing debacle, possibly even along

the lines of what Van Seters is suggesting in some regard, but without the need to totally rip

these passages out of their immediate context and ascribe them to a late, exilic writer. Indeed,

Abraham’s apparent flagrant disregard for making a covenant with Canaanites, or in this case

121
It is, however, worth noting that even if these verses are moved to the hand of the later J writer and
associated with Genesis 26 the issue still remains. In order to resolve this, one of these verses would have to belong
with the earlier hand in Van Seters’ classification.
 84

Philistines in particular, seems to be a testament to the passage’s antiquity, possibly to a time

prior to the ethnic concerns of Deuteronomy.122

Consequently, if this episode is indeed E, it demonstrates a prominent role of outsiders in

the E text to establish and manifest the blessing of Abraham by God. Moreover, the covenant

between Abraham and Abimelech provides him with a source of vitality in and connection to the

land which was promised to him in a similar way that the purchase of a burial plot for Sarah does

in the P source. Of interest for the dating of the E source prior to the J source is that in this

passage outsiders recognize and arguably seek to participate in the blessing of Abraham.

Assuming a multi-source view, this is either demonstrating a foreshadowing of the blessing over

Abraham in Genesis 22:18 (E), or possibly knowledge of the Abrahamic blessing given earlier in

Genesis 12:3 in the J source. As a result, three conclusions for the dating of E are possible based

on these two options: the J source predates the E source and this passage demonstrates a link to

Genesis 12:3 because of a dependency by the E author on J texts; no light is shed on the date

because it is simply a reflection of a commonly held tradition as demonstrated by Genesis 22:18;

or the E texts predate the J texts and this E passage has been edited to link it back to the

overarching J narrative.

A Reflection on the Value of Diachronic Analysis in this Instance

McEvenue notes that the narratives dealing with Hagar and Ishmael’s expulsion,

Abraham’s interactions with Abimelech, and the Binding of Isaac “…sensitively define how

Israel should deal religiously with non-Jews.”123 While McEvenue does not make explicit the

historical setting that may have caused such a concern to arise, knowing that it is a prominent

122
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 93.
123
McEvenue, “The Elohist at Work,” 322.
 85

feature in the text can help more adequately reconstruct the possible historical context of the text.

Moreover, looking at this text from a source-critical lens, whether certain of the exact details or

not, allows the reader and interpreter to enter a frame of mind that understands that such texts did

not form in a vacuum but were shaped in some regard by the times that the author/editor was in.

In this case, it allows the reader to understand why Abimelech, an apparent king, is making a

covenant with a wandering nomad: it is because Abraham represents the Israel that is to come

and as such is an example of how the dynamics of international relations could, and perhaps

should, play out in the author/editor’s time. Finally, diachronic analysis once again offers a

framework with which to explore, if not necessarily satisfactorily explain, discrepancies within

the text such as the references to earlier episodes and the perceived double etiology.

Genesis 22: The Binding of Isaac

Portrayal of Outsiders

The final E episode in the Abrahamic narrative dealing with outsiders is the conclusion to

the binding of Isaac story in Genesis 22:15–18. This episode is significant in that its connection

with outsiders occurs within a repetition, with some variation, of God’s promised blessing to

Abraham involving “all the nations of the earth.” This promise was previously described in the

chapter on J occurrences. The significance of this particular blessing compared to earlier

examples is that the object of the blessing shifts from Abraham to “his seed,” or “his

descendants.” What was established for the reader previously throughout Abraham’s life, that he

is blessed and others can receive blessing depending on how they position themselves in

relationship with him, is now extended to his offspring, a point which connects to the treatment
 86

of Abraham by Abimelech in the previous chapter as seen through the lens of the author’s

contemporaries.124

Interestingly, Williamson, following Anderson, Blaising, and Alexander, makes a

connection between the “seed” of Abraham that will be the source or mediator of blessing and

the Davidic king, via Psalm 72:17.125 This connection provides a retrograde legitimacy for the

Davidic king as he is linked to the great patriarch and becomes in some manner the fulfillment of

the words here in Genesis. This connection will be important when discussing the source-critical

context of this passage below.

Source-Critical Discussion

While Noth attributes the entire binding story to the E collection, many scholars find the

passage to contain at least two different elements or to belong to an author other than E.126 This

is often due in part to the usage of the divine name ‫ יהוה‬in what is otherwise viewed as an E

passage. Wolff, however, comments that this usage of ‫ יהוה‬in an Elohist passage could simply be

the Elohist allowing “the tradition find expression here.”127 Contrarily, Yerkes views the usage

of ‫ יהוה‬in v. 14 as a later interpolation, with the original reading being ‫ אל יראה‬instead of

‫יהוה יראה‬.128 In support of a redactor editing texts, we can cite as an example the name change

124
For more on the linguistic elements of the blessing, such as the possible meaning of the hitpael, see the
section in the above J chapter on Genesis 12:1-4a.
125
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 169–70; Arnold A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms:
Introduction and Psalms 1–72, vol. 1 of NCBC (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 526; Craig A. Blaising
and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993), 168; T. Desmond Alexander,
“Further Observations on the Term ‘Seed’ in Genesis,” TynBul 48 (1997): 365–66. See also Craig C. Broyles,
Pslams, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (BakerBooks, 2012), 298 for the connection of the Monarchy
to the Abrahamic covenant.
126
Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 264; McEvenue, “The Elohist at Work,” 330.
127
Wolff, “Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch,” 163.
128
Yerkes, “The Location and Etymology of YHWH YRʼAH, Gn. 22:14,” 137.
 87

from Abram to Abraham. This name change is recorded only in the P source but the rest of the

sources have clearly been edited around it. However, this then begs the question of why an editor

would only add the divine name to a handful of passages rather than placing it everywhere, or,

like with Abraham, only including it after it is revealed to Moses in Exodus.

More generally, Westermann posits that the binding narrative emerged later in the

monarchy (Westermann holds to the traditional dating of the E source to monarchic times) when

“fear of God” acquired a greater amount of significance for individuals. He also notes that

vv. 15–18, which contains the variant of the Abrahamic blessing in question, emerged even later

than the rest of the passage.129 The view of this passage originating from the time of the Davidic

monarchy is also supported by the above noted connection between the blessing of the “seed” of

Abraham and the monarchy via Psalm 72:17. Friedman holds that while earlier verses in the

chapter are indeed from E, vv. 11–15 have been inserted by a later redactor responsible for

combining the J and E texts.130 Such delineation, while presenting problems of its own, does

solve the abrupt entry of a second speech by the angel which is pointed to as evidence by other

commentators of vv. 15–18’s secondary nature. Speiser is indecisive in crediting this section to E

or J, although he does seem to hint towards J or a blend of the two.131 Van Seters holds the entire

episode to be from J (albeit his exilic J) and vv. 15–18 to be a unified part of the narrative.132

Van Seters bases his conclusion on a recognition of J themes as well as his previous

classification of the Genesis 21 Hagar-Ishmael story as J, a passage often used to support this

129
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 355, 363. A similar position is held by McEvenue, who views vv. 15–18
to be a later addition at a point in time in which, “…Israel feels totally united by defeat and radical exile, and when
the time of Abraham is as distant and fabulous to them as is the period of King John, the Magna Charta, and Robin
Hood to us.” See McEvenue, “The Elohist at Work,” 330.
130
Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed, 65.
131
Speiser, Genesis, 166.
132
Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 230–40.
 88

passage’s E status.133 However, as was seen above, Van Seters’ contention that the Genesis 21

Hagar-Ishmael story is from J is not without problems. Wenham shares Van Seters’ conclusion

that vv. 15–18 are not simply later additions to the earlier narrative, although Wenham avoids

formally identifying the passage with any particular source.134 He bases his agreement with Van

Seters on the contentions that without vv. 15–18 the test of Abraham is effectively purposeless,

and that the chapter in its unified form also parallels both Genesis 21:8–21 and Genesis 12.135

While it is possible to counter both Wenham and Van Seters’ arguments on stylistic grounds that

the convenient introduction of a second angelic speech seems to indicate a later gloss, Wenham

notes, compellingly, that such an argument ignores passages such as Genesis 16:8–12 and

Genesis 17 which each include multiple distinct angelic/divine speeches.136 Emerton however

rejects Van Seters’, and thus also in part Wenham’s, argumentation and although he does not

affirm the secondary nature of vv. 15–18, does admit their secondary nature is probable.137

Römer, on the other hand, goes further and affirms that vv. 15–18 come from a later hand.138

Moreover, while Römer admits that the majority of the chapter could have been from a source

that originally used the “Elohist” moniker (based off of other early textual attestation to the

presence of Elohim instead of ‫ יהוה‬in the text, see also Yerkes above), this does not include the

133
Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 238. If Van Seters reclassification is accurate, then it
shifts nearly all of the variants of the Abrahamic blessing to the J texts. This removes any possibility regarding the
usage of the hitpael vs nifal in the Abrahamic blessings changing due to evolving linguistic properties, as they would
all come from the same author. In this regard, the difference between the usages becomes solely one of the desired
emphasis in each circumstance. This is the case unless the Abrahamic promise is itself an ancient tradition merely
adopted by the J author, although one must ask why, if that is the case, the author did not standardize the language.
134
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 102–3.
135
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 102–3.
136
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 102–3.
137
Davies and Gordon, Studies on the Language and Literature of the Bible: Selected Works of J.A.
Emerton, 476.
138
Römer, “Abraham’s Righteousness and Sacrifice,” 7, 10.
 89

portion of the text that here concerns us, which Römer resolutely argues is from a later hand,

despite also arguing for the late date of Genesis 20–22 in general.139

Some interesting points are also raised by Römer regarding the dating of this text which

merit mention here. If one views the overall story of the binding and the implication that it is in

some sense a reaction to or a prohibition of human sacrifice in conjunction with other texts

involving human sacrifice such as Ezekiel 20:25–26, then it is possible to obtain a clearer notion

perhaps of when the text, and consequently the E source in general, may have been written. For

example, both the story here and the passage in Ezekiel involve human sacrifice in a sort of

test/punishment scenario that is not meant to actually reflect how things ought to be.140 In this

case, if the argument that Römer makes regarding the association of this story and the stark

statement in Ezekiel regarding ‫ יהוה‬causing his people to be defiled through human sacrifice are

to be accepted, then it is possible that this text is also an exilic text that came from the late

Babylonian or early Persian period.141

Using a similar argument to Römer, Knohl argues that the point of the binding narrative

is as a prohibition of human sacrifice.142 The reason for the different usages of the divine name,

he contends, is a deliberate attempt by the author/editor/scribe to juxtapose an earlier phase in

Israelite religion where human sacrifice was deemed acceptable with the author’s conviction,

echoed by several prophets, that such a sacrifice was not acceptable.143

139
Römer, “Abraham’s Righteousness and Sacrifice,” 8–10. Römer here argues for a late date for Genesis
22.
140
Römer, “Abraham’s Righteousness and Sacrifice,” 5.
141
Römer, “Abraham’s Righteousness and Sacrifice,” 5–6.
142
Knohl, The Divine Symphony, 108.
143
Knohl, The Divine Symphony, 107–8.
 90

Nevertheless, both Römer and Knohl’s arguments, while interesting, fail to address the

reality that human sacrifice may have been prohibited at multiple points throughout Israel’s

history, and not just in the exilic period. Further examination into when such a practice existed

would be illuminating.

A Reflection on the Value of Diachronic Analysis in this Instance

Diachronic analysis can be illuminating in more ways than simply setting the context of a

narrative. For example, McEvenue, in a comparison seeking to demonstrate the Elohistic nature

of Genesis 20–22, makes some keen observations regarding the intense human turmoil that each

major episode in these chapters begin in.144 While, granted, such a detail could be observed at a

merely synchronic level without the need to appeal to a common author/editor, a source-critical

analysis of these passages creates a ready environment where details like this can be noticed that

might otherwise be ignored. As was noted above, perhaps this is a salient point to make

regarding diachronic analysis: though it can be overwhelming and confusing in its own right,

when used as a tool it can facilitate the reader to notice details that might have been otherwise

missed when simply viewing the text from a synchronic perspective. In this regard, conducting

some sort of source analysis is perhaps akin to reading the text in its original language. Though it

can be at times confusing and disheartening, it forces the reader outside of their usual context

and puts the text in a different light.

144
McEvenue, “The Elohist at Work,” 319–20.
 91

Conclusion

Even if the arguments presented by Van Seters hold merit, and the only passages

involving outsiders that remain with an “E type text” are Genesis 20, with the additions from

Genesis 21, it is in my opinion significant that some of the most prominent and rich interactions,

for example the Pharaoh and Abimelech stories from Genesis 12:10–20 and Genesis 20, would

still be from an earlier time. This demonstrates, if nothing else, a very early growing

consciousness among the Israelite people of the outsider and how they are to be conceptualized

and approached. While the status of many of the texts observed above as E texts has been called

into question, what has become clear is that whatever their classification, be they independent E

texts, pre-J supplementary texts, or J texts, these writings present a clear message on how

outsiders interacted with Abraham and his God. Where ignorance of God was assumed by

Abraham, the foreign characters demonstrated a level of piety seemingly higher than Abraham

himself, and although God shows clear preference for his chosen, often despite their behaviour,

this preference does not exclude the possibility of great care and compassion for those outside

the bounds of his chosen people.

What has also been demonstrated in the above analysis is that source criticism of the

Abrahamic narratives opens many avenues for greater understanding of the text, both in

interpretation and in understanding its development and final form. Specifically, diachronic

analysis forces the reader to view the text as a dynamic element that has undergone tremendous

development to come to its present form. This in turn frees the reader to explore connections and

possibilities that would otherwise have gone unnoticed. However, as has been noted multiple

times, this insight comes with many uncertain elements as well.

 THE PORTRAYAL OF OUTSIDERS IN THE P SOURCE

Introduction

The following chapter will continue the case study by examining the instances in the P

source, according to Noth’s classifications, where outsiders are depicted. Once again, a general

introduction to the P source will be followed by the detailed examination of each occurrence and

a survey of the ongoing source-critical discussion related to the passage. Subsequently, a brief

examination of the value of the Documentary Hypothesis for final form interpretation, or

understanding the text as it stands, in each specific instance will occur.

Characteristics of the P Source

The most fundamental aspect of the Documentary Hypothesis is being able to

differentiate between different sources through an analysis of their various themes, vocabulary,

or historical connections.1 Originally, due to its lack of usage of the divine name, the P source

was seen to be part of the E source until scholars started noticing some curious features of

different groups of texts within this source that caused them to stand out. So the question for P is:

what makes it distinct? Baden notes that despite “widespread agreement on which texts are to be

designated as priestly, the nature of P, as broadly defined, has remained an ongoing point of

dispute.”2 As a result scholars often differ widely in what they describe as the characteristics of

the priestly source. In terms of style and content, Brueggemann summarizes some aspects, in his

view, of the priestly source: it contains “laws and regulations related to the proper ordering of the

1
For an excellent presentation of the various features that distinguish each source, see Friedman, The Bible
with Sources Revealed, 7–31. For a presentation of the priestly source in particular, see Jacob Milgrom, “Priestly
(‘P’) Source,” in ABD, ed. David Noel Freedman et al., vol. 5 of ABD (New York: Doubleday, 1992).
2
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 169.

92
 93

cultic apparatus,” its narrative sections generally contain little dynamic elements but contain a

clear message, and “[t]he genealogies in the P tradition contribute to the concern of the

traditionists for purity, symmetry, legitimacy and order.”3 Alternatively, Brett holds that the P

source is “structured fundamentally around creation, Abraham and the cult.”4 Knohl states that,

“Only in the Priestly Torah do we find a systematic avoidance of the attribution of any physical

dimensions to God and of almost any action of God, save the act of commanding. The priestly

thinkers attained an astounding level of abstraction and sublimity.”5 Friedman notes that, “P

characterizes God as acting according to justice more than as acting according to mercy.”6

Moreover, P places a heavy emphasis on the centralization of worship.7 Finally, Baden argues

that to appreciate “the priestly document as it is, rather than judging it in the light of other

sources, allows for a clearer understanding of P’s artistry and intention.”8

Regarding vocabulary and thematic statements, some variation of the phrase “be fruitful

and multiply” (‫ )פְ רּו ְּורבּו‬occurs fourteen times in the Pentateuch, ten of which are in the P source

according to Noth’s classification, with the other four examples, except for Leviticus 26:9 in the

E source, not containing the dual aspect of fruitfulness and multiplication.9 This phrase seems to

almost be a desire to conquer or subdue the world through population expansion, which is

3
Walter Brueggemann, “Kerygma of the Priestly Writers,” ZAW 84.4 (1972): 398–99.
4
Mark G. Brett, “Permutations of Sovereignty in the Priestly Tradition,” VT 63.3 (2013): 385.
5
Knohl, The Divine Symphony, 9. See also Knohl, The Divine Symphony, 20–21.
6
Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed, 12.
7
Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed, 22–24.
8
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 170.
9
The ten examples in the P source include: Genesis 1:28; 8:17; 9:1,7; 17:6; 17:20; 28:3; 35:11; 47:27; 48:4;
Exodus 1:7. Of the remaining four examples, three are in the E source (Genesis 41:52; Exodus 23:30; Leviticus
26:9) and one is in the J source (Genesis 26:22). Besides Leviticus 26:9, the examples not found in the P source only
contain the first half of the expression regarding being “fruitful” and not a pairing of being “fruitful” and some kind
of increase or multiplication. It is also worth mentioning that the usage of this word pairing and the correlating
promise of progeny drops off sharply after the beginning of Exodus, which Baden points out is due to the fulfillment
of the promise of progeny at the beginning of Exodus. See Joel S. Baden, “The Continuity of the Non-Priestly
Narrative from Genesis to Exodus,” Bib 93.2 (2012): 173.
 94

overtly stated in the P creation narrative, and also what gets the Israelites into trouble with the

Egyptians in Exodus. Indeed, Brueggemann views this phrase, with the five verbs that operate

interconnected with it (be fruitful, multiply, fill, subdue, and have dominion), in conjunction with

subduing creation as the center of the Priestly theology.10 Westermann connects this idea of

multiplication as the explication of blessing, in that blessing in the original sense had to do with

fertility.11 Further aspects of P’s vocabulary are that it tends to use Elohim or El-Shaddai until

Exodus 6:2–3 when the divine name is introduced to Moses.12 In connection with the previous

theme of physical increase and fertility, the usage of El-Shaddai in the patriarchal narratives

always occurs in the context of the promise of blessing and fertility.13 One final example is the

usage of objects associated with cultic practice, such as the tabernacle and the “Urim and

Tummim.”14 The tabernacle is mentioned almost exclusively in P passages, with only a few

mentions in E passages and none in J (or D).15 “Urim and Tummim” are also mentioned nearly

exclusively in P.16 These are just a limited selection of the available examples regarding P’s

vocabulary.17

All of these above contentions are not necessarily mutually exclusive, rather they

represent what each scholar holds the emphasis and most distinctive elements of the Priestly

10
Brueggemann, “Kerygma of the Priestly Writers,” 400.
11
Westermann, The Promises to the Fathers, 19. This point of view emerges given Westermann’s view that
the concerns of a nomadic group (as Abraham is portrayed) would have been the establishment of an heir to
continue the family progeny.
12
Van Seters, The Pentateuch, 25–26.
13
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 153–54.
14
Friedman uses these references to help demonstrate the P is pre-exilic as these cultic elements were
associated with the first temple, not the second. See Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed, 22–24; Friedman,
Who Wrote the Bible?, 174–87.
15
The Bible with Sources Revealed, 11.
16
Friedman notes that Deuteronomy 33:8 is the sole example outside of P in the Torah. See Friedman, The
Bible with Sources Revealed, 11.
17
For a more complete list see Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed, 8–10.
 95

source to be. Nevertheless, the wide array of opinions cogently demonstrates that in some cases

the characteristics of a source are often in the eye of the beholder.

If there is a P Source, Is it a Contiguous Narrative or Fragmentary?

If one were to take the stance that a P source exists, there still remains the question of its

composition. Is it a unified narrative that has been melded together with other sources, or is it a

fragmentary collection of texts and stories, some of which are more coherent together than

others, that have been inserted to supplement previous sources? These questions have emerged

largely due to perceived “gaps” in the Priestly source as well as in discussions on the P source’s

relationship to the other classic sources.

The P source’s interaction and dependence on other sources is a widely debated issue and

largely depends on when one dates said sources. For example, Emerton argues that the P source

was a separate source written by someone who knew JE, but rejected parts of it.18 He also leaves

open the possibility that the person who combined JE with P had a priestly outlook.19 Baden

notes that ultimately the answer to P’s dependence on other sources is whether or not P can be

read on its own or whether it requires the non-P texts to be comprehensible.20 As a result, while

admitting that when compared to the other sources P might be seen to contain gaps, he

thoroughly argues that taken on its own terms it represents a complete, independent narrative.21

Moreover, in regards to the Priestly source being constructed as a response to other sources, he

also contends that any similarities between the priestly source and the other sources is not to be

18
John A. Emerton, “The Priestly Writer in Genesis,” JTS 39.2 (1988): 397.
19
Emerton, “The Priestly Writer in Genesis,” 398.
20
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 179.
21
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 179–88.
 96

construed as some type of relationship between them but rather the drawing on of “national

memory and tradition.”22 In this regard Baden stands firmly in the same tradition as Noth and

other scholars who hold to the classic Documentary Hypothesis. Similar to Baden’s arguments

above, while Propp admits that there are admittedly holes in the P narrative when it is separated

out from, and compared to, the rest of the Pentateuch,23 he argues for its continuity: “Overall, I

find it easier to believe that we simply lack a portion of the Priestly stratum, than that an editor

voluntarily introduced repetition and self-contradiction.”24 Again, Baden, though he disagrees

that there are gaps in P’s narrative, agrees with Schmid and makes a similar argument for P’s

continuity, offering some cogent points regarding what can be defined as continuity.25 Baden

also notes that though the P source lacks material in comparison with other sources in the

patriarchal narratives, it contains episodes that establish the main elements of importance for P:

the blessing of progeny and land.26 Indeed, Nicholson echoes this contention when he notes that

the “main reason…for the literary structure of P arises from its author’s distinctive theology. His

main emphasis is upon the foundation of the theocratic community of Israel at Sinai;

this…dwarfs all that precedes.”27 Put simply, the Priestly narrative has “gaps” when compared to

the other sources because it has a different emphasis than the other sources.

Another dynamic that comes into play is whether the P source is itself a redacted text

composed of other sources. Emerton argues this would make what is an otherwise contiguous

22
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 188–92.
23
Propp, “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact,” 464–66.
24
Propp, “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact,” 466.
25
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 176; Baden, “The Continuity of the Non-Priestly Narrative
from Genesis to Exodus,” 162–65.
26
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 172.
27
Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, 208.
 97

source appear fragmentary in nature, especially when analyzed closely.28 This is a powerful

possibility, although it does possess the danger of making it impossible to identify a set of

distinct sources if taken too far. As has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout the preceding

discussion, under a very rigid understanding of the Documentary Hypothesis, in which the

Pentateuch is made up of several independent original sources, the discussion becomes very

murky when passages are analyzed at the verse level. This in turn causes the overall validity of

the theory to be questioned. However, if each, or some, of the broader sources are in turn made

up of fragmentary elements that were collected and redacted under a broad umbrella of said

source, this would explain why lines get blurred when one zooms in to any detail as the

fragments contained in each source begin to show through more clearly. Whybray points to this

supposed usage of sources by the P source, as attested by other scholars, and even its apparent

lack of theological unity as indications that the P source is much more fragmentary than those

who support the Documentary Hypothesis profess.29 Nevertheless, as was seen above, other

scholars would seriously challenge Whybray’s contentions and argue for the overall unified

nature of the source. However, in order to determine whether the P source is contiguous or

fragmentary, it must be investigated whether there is any narrative cohesion in the P source

itself, regardless of what its own history of composition is.

It is important to note in light of the forthcoming discussion that the passages we are

examining below do not offer the best examples of narrative cohesion available to argue in favor

of a unified P source.30 On the contrary, within the Abrahamic narratives, there are portions of

the P narrative which appear incomplete. Propp gives the examples of “the birth of Isaac (Gen.

28
Emerton, “The Priestly Writer in Genesis,” 385.
29
Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 55–72, 108–11. Whybray himself does not make the overt
claim that the P source is non-existent, but his presentation of other scholars’ opinions points towards this.
30
Propp, “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact,” 461–62.
 98

[21]:lb, 2b–5), followed by the death and burial of Sarah (Gen. [23]), followed by the death of

Abraham himself and the succession of Isaac (Gen. [24]:7–1 la), followed by a list of Ishmael’s

descendants (Gen. [25]:13–18), followed by the marriage of Isaac (Gen[25]:20),” as

demonstrating the abrupt transitions between P passages.31 However, Propp also makes the

following persuasive point:

While these transitions strike us as slightly abrupt, they may not have been so for the
author. After all, a continuous Ρ passage, Gen. [35]:23–9, brusquely reports the birth of
Jacob’s sons (vv. 23–6), their return to Canaan (v. 27) and Isaac’s death (vv. 28–9). Had
these notices appeared separately in the composite text, we would have hesitated to claim
that they had ever flowed together. This is important evidence that the Priestly Writer's
sensibilities were not our own.32

For Propp, the most definitive passages demonstrating the narrative cohesion of the P source lie

mainly outside the Abrahamic narratives, and almost exclusively outside the bounds of our

present case study: “The parade examples are the Priestly sections of the Flood Account, the

Table of Nations, the Plagues, the Crossing of the Sea, Manna, the Dispatching of the Spies and

the Korah Rebellion.”33

Nevertheless, there is one such example from the Abrahamic narratives which could

demonstrate the narrative cohesion of P that is worth mentioning: the story of Terah’s family

from Gen 11:27b–31, 12:4b–5, 13:6,11b–12a.34 These passages present a version of Terah

moving from Ur with Abraham and Lot on the way to Canaan, but only making it as far as

Haran. It continues with Abraham, at 75 years old, resuming the journey with Lot to Canaan,

where they arrive and realize that the land cannot support them both together, so they separate.

As part of the forthcoming discussion, reading this part of the Abrahamic narrative from the

31
Propp, “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact,” 464.
32
Propp, “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact,” 464.
33
Propp, “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact,” 461–62.
34
Propp, “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact,” 462.
 99

perspective of a coherent P source is relevant not for what it includes involving outsiders, but

what is absent: In the received text Abraham’s departure from Haran to Canaan is interwoven

with the promise of blessing to outsiders flowing somehow through Abraham (12:1–3),35 which

sets the tone and stage of the narrative that follows. Whereas in this assumed P account,

Abraham leaves with little fanfare or purpose which gives any interactions, positive or negative,

he may have with outsiders a different frame of reference than the blessing theme that frames his

departure in the text as it stands in the MT.

In addition, it is helpful to remember the above points regarding the author/editor’s intent

and focus behind the narratives and how it may dictate what merits inclusion in the narrative.

This line of investigation would bear more relevance if our overall goal was to determine the

validity of the narrative cohesion of any particular source. However, since our ultimate question

lies elsewhere, it is sufficient to simply be aware of this limitation in the present study, while at

the same time noting some implications which will be discussed below.

While it is not central, the foregoing discussion of P’s narrative unity does bear some

relevance to one of the larger questions this paper is trying to answer: the overall validity of the

Documentary Hypothesis for final form interpretation. In the case of the P passages, what value

is added to our interpretation of the portrayal of outsiders in the Abrahamic narratives when the

scope and continuity of a tradition are not clearly defined within the passages we are interacting

with? For if we cannot establish when a particular passage was written (which becomes easier if

it can be successfully identified with an overarching source) then we are missing key pieces of

the historical picture necessary to have a greater interpretive understanding of the possible

authorial/editorial intent and how the text may have been understood by its ancient audience.

35
See the discussion on Gen 12:1–4a above.
 100

However, an important realization is that just because the answers are not clear in these

particular passages does not mean that they will be unclear everywhere else. The Documentary

Hypothesis and source criticism in general are not an end in and of themselves, but rather tools

within an interpreter’s toolbox that are used to better understand the text at hand. Moreover, as

far as the present study is concerned, our scope may be too narrow to fully provide answers to all

the mysteries of the Documentary Hypothesis. As a result, an area for further study would

perhaps be to conduct a similar case study elsewhere in the Pentateuch and compare the results.

Historical Context of the P Source

If we assume the existence of the Priestly writer, when was the document formed, and

how might that influence our overall discussion?36 Of all the diachronic questions that would

bear relevance to the discussion at hand, when the sources are written is by far the most

influential and enlightening. It illumines not necessarily how the text portrays outsiders but why

they are portrayed in the manner we see; it is from this that we can gain a glimpse into the

historical circumstances that shaped the way the text is written.37 Walter Brueggemann cogently

offers both a note of caution when approaching the dating of texts as well as incentive to do so:

“Clearly dating these traditions is not an academic exercise but is essential to the interaction

between word and history.”38 By this he is stating that being able to place traditions into a

36
For a more thorough discussion on the Priestly writer see Sean E. McEvenue, Interpreting the Pentateuch
(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990), 116–27.
37
This is true regardless of the existence of a historical core within the story. This is an important
distinction to be gleaned from present studies on social memory theory and historical memory. See Keith, “Social
Memory Theory and Gospels Research”; Keith, “Social Memory Theory and Gospels Research”; Kirk and Thatcher,
Memory, Tradition, and Text. In his two articles Keith lays out clear expectations regarding the legitimacy of
separating a historical kernel from memory.
38
Brueggemann, “Kerygma of the Priestly Writers,” 409 n.38.
 101

corresponding historical context is an important part of understanding both the development and

meaning of a text.

As was seen in the preceding chapters, any discussion of date will necessarily revolve

around significant events in the history of the Jewish people as such events are often considered

the seedbeds of prominent writings. The event most relevant for the present discussion is the

exile, specifically in this case the Babylonian exile, for it is in this exile that the Jewish people

and writers not only endure a traumatic event, but in the process they come into shocking contact

with a diverse culture. This is not to say that the exiles would have had no prior contact with this

culture, but rather that it was suddenly the dominant culture. Such an event and contact would

often have subtle and sometimes overt influences on elements of Israelite history and literature.39

As a result the P source is often classified as pre-exilic, exilic, or post-exilic. The P source has

traditionally been seen as the youngest source among J, E, and P, although as has been made

clear in previous chapters, the traditional views have been challenged as of late. For example,

based on comparisons between Genesis 17, the first significant P passage in the ancestral

narratives, and other J passages, such as Genesis 12, some scholars would argue that P would

appear to pre-date the J source.40

Some scholars who argue for, or assume, a pre-exilic dating of the Priestly source include

Propp, Zevit, Kulling, Haran, Knohl, and Friedman.41 Propp connects the Priestly source with

Ezekiel, arguing that Ezekiel was aware of and used P, which, if Ezekiel is dated as pre-exilic,

39
See for example a comparison of the Chronicler’s work versus the Samuel-Kings account in Kenton L.
Sparks, God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 101–4.
40
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 19.
41
Propp, “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact,” 474; Zevit, “Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on
the Date of P,” 510; S. R. Külling, “The Dating of the So-Called ‘P-Sections’ in Genesis,” JETS 15.2 (1972): 67–76;
Menahem Haran, “Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Source,” JBL 100.3 (1981):
329; Knohl, The Divine Symphony, xiii; Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 188–89.
 102

would also make the P source in some regard pre-exilic and necessarily prior to Ezekiel.42

Furthermore, Propp holds that P is a “protest against the Temple hierocracy,” is “implicitly

antimonarchical” and that it likely originated in the late monarchic era, but achieved final form

later in the exilic or post-exilic periods.43 Zevit argues for P’s existence, as a redaction, prior to D

and therefore being pre-exilic. He gives a terminus ad quem of 586 BCE for P.44 However it

should be noted that Zevit assumes a pre-exilic date for JE and a 7th century date for D.45 Haran

similarly argues for a pre-exilic date, post-dating JE, but predating D, with the caveat that while

the composition was prior to the destruction of the first temple it remained accessible only to a

limited number of priests.46 He substantiates this by pointing to the dichotomy in P between

priests and Levites as representative of the time when priests from the north not belonging to

Aaronic descent arrived in Jerusalem after the destruction of the northern kingdom.47 Contrary to

Zevit and Haran’s contention of the priority of J over P, Wenham argues that J has been added to

P in the received text.48 Knohl dates the text between the building of Solomon’s temple and the

reign of King Hezekiah, based on the status of the priests at this time and correlations between

the themes of the Priestly source and what he describes as “the great social and religious crisis of

42
Propp, “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact,” 472. It is however, important to note that Propp makes no
direct claim on the dating of P in this article. See Propp, “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact,” 474 n. 60. For
another description of the parallels between Ezekiel and P, see Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed, 15–16.
Friedman also notes that the Hebrew of P precedes that of Ezekiel. See Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed,
22. Milgrom also argues for a dependence on P by Ezekiel and a pre-exilic dating for P. See Milgrom, “ABD,” 458–
59.
43
Propp, Exodus 19–40, 732. (Emphasis original)
44
Zevit, “Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P,” 510. See also Brett, “Permutations of
Sovereignty in the Priestly Tradition,” 384.
45
Zevit, “Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P,” 485.
46
Haran, “Behind the Scenes of History,” 329–30.
47
Haran, “Behind the Scenes of History,” 331. Friedman also highlights the important distinction in P
between Aaronid and Levitical priests. See Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed, 21–24; Friedman, Who
Wrote the Bible?, 188–206.
48
Gordon J. Wenham, “The Priority of P,” VT 49.2 (1999): 245, 250–51. Wenham, like Propp, does not try
in this article to offer an absolute date of either J or P, but merely their relative dating in relation one to another.
 103

the eighth century B.C.E.” which was documented in the prophetic writings of Amos, Isaiah, and

Micah.49 He also points to a connection between the cult of the Hittites and Priestly theology as

important evidence for the antiquity of the Priestly source.50 Friedman makes a similar argument

as Haran and Knohl, pointing to features in the text such as associations between the tabernacle

and the first temple, in combination with P’s emphasis on the tabernacle, as evidence that P was

a pre-exilic writer in the time of the first temple.51 Moreover, Friedman argues that P was not

only aware of the combined text of JE, but was written by an Aaronide priest in response to that

text.52 Similar to Knohl, he even goes as far to narrow the date of its composition to the reign of

King Hezekiah.53

In the exilic camp we find McEvenue, Westermann, Brueggemann, Blenkinsopp,

Fretheim and Meyer.54 Westermann posits that the P writer has structured his work with a

Noachian and Abrahamic covenant, but no Sinaitic covenant, as the covenant between God and

Israel takes place with Abraham.55 McEvenue and Brueggemann argue that P was written as a

49
Knohl, The Divine Symphony, xii–xiv, 10–11.
50
Knohl, The Divine Symphony, 11. He describes a connection between the two that came via the likely
Hittite origin of the Jebusite inhabitants of Jerusalem, who the priests in the Solomonic temple could have inherited
traditions from.
51
Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 150–206. It should be noted that other scholars, such as Wenham,
argue that the emphasis on the Tabernacle demonstrates a post-exilic setting, not a pre-exilic one. See Wenham,
“Composition of the Pentateuch,” 169.
52
Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 188–206.
53
Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 210. Friedman also argues this dating based on linguistic elements of
the Hebrew language used in comparison to other texts. See Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed, 7–8.
54
McEvenue, Interpreting the Pentateuch, 127; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 38–39; Brueggemann,
“Kerygma of the Priestly Writers,” 401; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Abraham as Paradigm in the Priestly History in
Genesis,” JBL 128.2 (2009): 225; Terence E. Fretheim, “Priestly Document: Anti-Temple?,” VT 18.3 (1968): 316;
Esias E. Meyer, “Divide and Be Different: Priestly Identity in the Persian Period,” HvTSt 68.1 (2012): 1–6. It is also
worth noting that in his recent review of The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of
Europe, Israel, and North America, Mark Smith notes a “consensus or near-consensus” for a sixth century date for
the P source. See Mark Smith, “Review of The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of
Europe, Israel, and North America,” ed. Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, and Dalit Rom-Shiloni, Review of
Biblical Literature (2019): 2, https://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/12759_14229.pdf.
55
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 113.
 104

document of hope for those in exile.56 In favor of his proposal for an exilic date, Blenkinsopp

notes the following points: firstly, the narrative structure of P pivots on the place of worship,

suggesting the existence of a temple (Blenkinsopp argues for the rebuilt temple of approximately

515/516 BCE, which would mean that a portion of the people had returned). Secondly, the land

promise would have been relevant to those seeking to return from exile. Thirdly, there are

similarities between Isaiah 40–55 and Genesis creation texts. Fourthly, the title ‫ אלהי השמים‬is

used only in the Abraham cycle (Gen 24:3, 7) and Persian period texts (Ezra 1:2; 5:12; Jonah

1:9) and “corresponds to the title of the supreme Zoroastrian deity Ahura Mazda.” Fifthly, the

Aaronide priests are prominent in the P texts but do not appear in other biblical texts until

Chronicles. In addition, Abraham himself is not mentioned in any texts “clearly dateable prior to

the Babylonian exile,” and Abraham’s journey begins in southern Mesopotamia where Judean

deportees were settled. Finally, there is a lack of Egyptian control or presence in Canaan which

“militates against a background in the Middle or Late Bronze period.”57 Fretheim, while

similarly arguing that P pivots around a place of worship, sees it instead as an exilic text written

in part against the establishment of a permanent temple and alternatively advocating for a

portable sanctuary.58 Meyer is a bit more fluid than others on his dating as he dates the P source,

and also the final redaction and production of the Pentateuch as a whole, more generally to the

Persian period, extending from the exilic to the post-exilic time period. During this time period,

he notes, “It should also be apparent that there were power struggles in Yehud between priests

56
McEvenue, Interpreting the Pentateuch; Brueggemann, “Kerygma of the Priestly Writers,” 401.
57
Blenkinsopp, “Abraham as Paradigm in the Priestly History in Genesis,” 230–34.
58
Fretheim, “Priestly Document,” 316.
 105

and Levites, and between Aaronide and Zadokite priests. The winners of this power struggle

produced the Pentateuch and the texts which we call P and post-P.”59

In terms of post-exilic, Kenton Sparks uses elite emulation, where texts are written in

order to provide legitimacy for a subjugated culture within a dominant one, among other

arguments, to defend his view of P’s late dating.60 This is relevant to the dating of P sections as it

is far more likely that such elite emulation would occur in a period of total cultural domination

such as the exilic or the post-exilic periods, rather than simply an awareness of another culture

while one’s own culture is still relatively regionally dominant as would have been the case prior

to the exile. Indeed, while it is true that Mesopotamian culture enjoyed a long tenure as elite,

emulation in Israelite literature only begins in earnest during the exilic and post-exilic periods.61

However, Sparks is careful to note that this explosion in emulation alone is not enough to

support his position of a post-exilic date. Rather, he uses other more securely dated literature to

argue for a post-exilic date: “Regarding Israel’s temple, sacrifices, and priesthood, and regarding

other matters, including linguistic developments, the evidence strongly suggests that the Priestly

Pentateuch dates after Deuteronomy, DtrH [Deuteronomistic History], and Ezekiel, so that P’s

theology fits precisely into that period where we find the text that is most like it: the postexilic

Chronicler.”62 Against those who would argue an earlier pre-exilic date for P, Sparks notes that

the early elements in P do not indicate that the entirety of P is early, but rather that it “…did not
59
Meyer, “Divide and Be Different,” 6.
60
Kenton L. Sparks, “Enūma Elish and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism,” JBL 126.4
(2007): 625–26.
61
Sparks, “Enūma Elish and Priestly Mimesis,” 643–44.
62
Sparks, “Enūma Elish and Priestly Mimesis,” 645. Lest he be charged that he is simply following the old
evolution of religion school in using such an argument, Sparks makes the following salient point: “Though it is true
that the late date assigned to Ρ by nineteenth-century scholars stemmed in part from a now defunct Hegelian (and
sometimes anti-Semitic) view of history, their scholarly instincts were not wholly mistaken. If we collate the
evidence from Deuteronomy, the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH), Ezekiel, and Chronicles, it is not at all difficult to
recognize certain historical developments in the religious ideas and institutions of ancient Israel, nor is it difficult to
see how Ρ fits into that history.” Sparks, “Enūma Elish and Priestly Mimesis,” 644–45.
 106

appear de nouveau but was itself a development of older traditions and texts, of the sort that

stood behind the prophecies of Ezekiel and the laws of the Holiness Code.”63 Finally, Sparks

looks to the differences between P and non-P depictions of Israel’s deliverance from Pharaoh’s

army in the Exodus narrative. In non-P versions, Sparks argues that there is a less stark motif of

split waters than in the P version which was possibly the result of an emulation of Enuma Elish.64

What should be evident from the preceding discussion on the dating of the P source is

that there are many scholars who hold vastly different views, with supporting arguments, for

when the source was written, or edited. Nicholson offers a helpful reminder, similar to Sparks,

that regardless of whenever one dates the P source, it is important to remember that it “was not

spun out of thin air in the exilic or post-exilic period, but embodies more ancient tradition,

especially laws.”65 Nevertheless, each of these different views above will have a slightly

different nuance as to how we interpret P’s depictions of outsiders. In a pre-exilic setting,

Abraham’s depiction as the “father of a multitude of nations” becomes a forward thinking

statement of the Israelites centrality in the divine narrative of the world and demonstrates a

remarkable level of concern and sense of connection with the nations around them. However, in

a post-exilic setting, such a depiction becomes rather an urgent cry for relevance and hope to a

culture that is rebuilding after being on the verge of collapse. Suffice it to say for now that while

clearly understanding a date for P is important to understanding the text as we have received it,

such an understanding may not be ultimately possible and the search for it may serve to bewilder

many interpreters.

63
Sparks, “Enūma Elish and Priestly Mimesis,” 645. Zevit makes a similar point. See Zevit, “Converging
Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P,” 484.
64
Sparks, “Enūma Elish and Priestly Mimesis,” 637.
65
Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, 220.
 107

Textual Context of the P Source

According to Noth’s classification, the P source begins in Genesis 1 with a creation

narrative, and occurs for the first time in the Abrahamic narratives in Genesis 16 with a few

verses on Hagar’s marriage to Abraham. The first major occurrence is the covenant of

circumcision in Genesis 17 and is one of two major P episodes in the Abrahamic narratives.66

More major blocks of P text occur as one moves into the cultic law sections of Exodus and

Numbers.

Occurrences of Outsiders in the P Source

The discussion now moves to the heart of our present study: evaluating the portrayal of

outsiders in the Abrahamic narratives in the P source for the purpose of determining the value of

the Documentary Hypothesis for final form interpretation. We will begin briefly with Genesis 16

before moving on to the two main occurrences in P, Genesis 17 and 23.

Genesis 16: Marriage to Hagar

Portrayal of Outsiders

The number of passages involving outsiders that Noth classified as P are few, but

significant, in the Abrahamic narrative. The first two minor ones occur in Genesis 16:1a, 3, 15–

16 and reference the marriage of Abraham and Hagar and the subsequent birth of Ishmael. The

only salient point which perhaps can be made comes by way of what the text doesn’t say: the

narrative has no qualms regarding the marriage of Abraham to a foreign slave girl in order to

66
For more on the “incomplete” nature of the P narratives in Genesis, see the section “If there is a P
Source, Is it a Contiguous Narrative or Fragmentary?” above.
 108

produce an heir. Possibly this is because the focus is not on ethnicity, but rather the continuance

of Abraham’s lineage.67

Moreover, it is possible to surmise that this passage, along with the J material dealing

with Hagar, comes from a very different perspective than the writers of Ezra-Nehemiah and their

focus on endogamy.68 A comparison between these two perspectives would offer a window into

how the Israelites saw their relationships with outsiders vary over time and space. If this passage,

and P in general, is dated as post-exilic as Sparks argues, then it would provide an interesting

context within which to interpret the similarly post-exilic and contrary endogamous views of

Ezra-Nehemiah, thereby providing a nuanced view of post-exilic religious and cultural views.

Similarly, if the P material is dated to the exilic or pre-exilic time, then a similar comparison

could demonstrate how the return to the “land” after exile and the threat of cultural erosion had a

possible dramatic effect on how the Israelites saw themselves in comparison to the “other.”69

Source-Critical Discussion

The majority of the material in chapter sixteen dealing with Hagar is attributed to J by

Noth, with P offering only a cursory historical notification that Abram received Hagar as a wife

and then the subsequent birth of Ishmael. Despite the classification of these cursory notes as

67
It is also possible that the narrative does not comment on the matter because of the nuances and status of
women in a largely patriarchal society.
68
For another interesting comparison and defense of Joseph’s marriage to a foreign woman, see Thiessen,
“Aseneth’s Eight-Day Transformation as Scriptural Justification for Conversion.”
69
As can be seen in many of the documents found at Qumran, these endogamous views continue
throughout the second temple period, especially in Aramaic texts, possibly providing a window of insight into the
effects of a dominant culture and the fear of lost Jewish identity. C.f. Aramaic Levi Document (ALD); 4Q213a 3–4,
6–7; 4Q542 1 i 8–9; 4Q549; 4Q545 1a i 5–6; 4Q202 1 iii 6–10; 1QapGen; Tobit 7.10. See also Joseph L Angel,
“Reading the Book of Giants in Literary and Historical Context,” DSD 21.3 (2014): 326; Machiela and Perrin,
“Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon,” 121–26; Hanna Tervanotko, “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages
in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees,” RevQ 27.2 (2015): 155–76. I am grateful to Shelby
Bennett for pointing me to these texts.
 109

being P, recent scholars have downplayed their origins as P fragments, with some, Van Seters for

example, arguing that they are critical parts of the overall narrative and thus not simply later

glosses.70 If this were the case, then the points above would still stand, although which timeframe

they provide insight into would depend on the dating of the other material in the chapter.

A Reflection on the Value of Diachronic Analysis in this Instance

However, in terms of the value of diachronic analysis for the interpretation of these

specific passages, it must be said that when the text was written or which source it may or may

not come from does not change the understanding that Abraham marries a foreign slave girl,

produces a potential heir, and that the text says nothing overtly, good or bad, about this event in

this passage.71 At its core it is treated as a non-issue. The Documentary Hypothesis in this case

would merely add additional insight into the cultural practices of the specific time it is dated to,

and an understanding of why the marriage is treated in such a non-controversial nature, given the

increasing focus on endogamy in later texts.

70
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 5.
71
It may be possible to read the subsequent chapters and the birth of Isaac as a rebuke of Abraham’s, and
Sarah’s, attempt to provide their own answer to the problem of childlessness, however, even such a reading makes
no comment specifically on the ethnicity of Hagar being an issue, but rather that it was through a son given to Sarah
that God had chosen to establish his ongoing covenant. Indeed, in the J account, see the discussion on Genesis 16 in
the J chapter above, where God deals more directly and kindly with Hagar than he does with Sarah, at least up until
this point in the narrative. Contrarily, one could also posit that the reason that Isaac is favoured over Ishmael is
specifically because he is born of a woman that is not from Abraham’s family, though this is not made explicit by
the text.
 110

Genesis 17: Covenant Ceremony

Portrayal of Outsiders

The first major occurrence of Abraham’s interaction with outsiders comes in Genesis 17

as part of the covenant of circumcision. In Genesis 17:4 Abraham is promised to be the ancestor

of nations. The specific Hebrew word is ‫ גֹויִ ם‬which is most often used to reference different

nations which have territory and monarchic sovereignty.72 In its most basic sense, this promise

gives not only the nations a claim on Abraham, by way of lineage, but also Abraham on the

nations: Abraham will be the head of a great family. In the context of a nomadic clan, this

promise provides an abundant assurance of security that the family will endure. “The promise of

a son, to which the other promises are attached, is the guarantee to Abraham of the life of his

family.”73 Moreover, in connection with one of the major P themes discussed above, in this

promise Abraham will be enabled by God to fulfill the creation mandate of Gen 1:28 and 9:1,

“be fruitful and multiply.”74 In his fatherhood of many nations, the nations are provided with a

connection to the spiritual father of the Israelite faith. Williamson points out that this connection

and role of “spiritual father” does not necessarily mean physical descent, as only Edom and

Israel can trace their lineage back to Abraham and Sarah (since the promise to bear kings was

given also to her), but could also refer to Abraham being the mediator of divine blessing, such as

72
Brett, “Permutations of Sovereignty in the Priestly Tradition,” 386. For a more expansive survey of the
usage of this term in Israelite theology, see the rest of the article. The conclusion is worth quoting at length: “In the
case of the priestly tradition, it is evident that the imagination of sovereignty has adapted the older political terms
like ‫ גוי‬and ‫ברית‬, and perhaps even ‫קהל‬, and invested them with a more expansive covenant theology that served
Israel's identity, both within the narrow borders of the land and further afield. The threats to Israel's political
sovereignty in history did not imply the loss of sovereignty as a concept, or perhaps its recovery only in the
eschatological visions of the prophets, but rather, a transformation of political terminology that contested the rule of
empires.”
73
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 29.
74
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 163.
 111

Joseph was to Pharaoh.75 It is worth noting that this dynamic of “spiritual fatherhood” is not

implied directly in Genesis 17 but is a reading in light of the rest of the ancestral narratives.

Matthews highlights how the promise to be an ancestor of nations is fulfilled in the narrative

through the lineage of Ishmael (Gen 17:16; 25:12–17), and the kings of Edom (Gen 36:9–13).76

However, Diffey argues that each time the promise of kingly descendants occurs there is in view

a “royal and rejected seed” which would seem to weigh against Matthew’s inclusion of Ishmael

and his descendants as evidence of this promise.77

Similar to the promise of Genesis 17:4 is the statement in Genesis 17:6 that nations and

kings shall come from Abraham. Here, in the context of the subsequent verses describing

Abraham’s descendants inheriting the land, the promise may be pointing forward to the

monarchy of Israel given the above noted monarchic dimension to the word ‫גֹויִ ם‬, besides the

obvious implication that with the fathering of nations would come the fathering of kings.

Specifically, it may be insinuating that the descendants of Abraham who inherit the land will be

defined by the idea of kingship, something possessed by the other great nations.78 This possibly

is pointing forward to a time of pride in Israel’s history, when God took them from a single

wandering nomad to having a king recognized by nations around them. Perhaps this is also part

of a nascent longing to return to this time by looking back at the promise of God to make it so, as

argued by Blenkinsopp.79

75
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 157–58.
76
K. A. Mathews, Genesis, vol. 1A–1B of NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 202.
77
Daniel S. Diffey, “The Royal Promise in Genesis: The Often Underestimated Importance of Genesis
17:6, 17:16 and 35:11,” TynBul 62.2 (2011): 313–16.
78
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 22.
79
Blenkinsopp, “Abraham as Paradigm in the Priestly History in Genesis,” 508.
 112

In Genesis 17:16, the promise of nations and kings is similarly applied to Sarah, and it is

made evident that the promise of nations and kings shall come through the line of her promised

future child. According to Westermann, who focuses heavily on the nomadic needs of Abraham

and his family, the blessing is centered on giving Sarah a child in order to continue the family

line.80 However, despite this focus on Sarah’s future child Isaac, Blenkinsopp notes that Ishmael

is not entirely forgotten: “Ishmael remains, nevertheless, a pivotal figure, intimating a broader

and more inclusive idea of the Abrahamic covenant, one entirely in keeping with the

universalism of the Priestly History.”81

An Excursus on Circumcision

Circumcision was a very widespread practice in the ancient world,82 and as such it may

be useful to conduct a brief foray into how the Israelite practice of circumcision differed from its

common practice and what its intended purpose may have been. In other words, can Abraham’s

relationship to the nations and outsiders be discussed in terms of customs common to those

around him that are reinterpreted in a different covenantal context? For instance, is there

anything to be gleaned from a comparison between when circumcision was prescribed to be

performed in Genesis 17 as opposed to contemporary ancient practices where it was performed

as a rite of passage at puberty or before marriage?83 Would those reading the text of Genesis 17

80
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 266.
81
Blenkinsopp, “Abraham as Paradigm in the Priestly History in Genesis,” 238. It could be argued
however, that Ishmael is only blessed because of his connection to Abraham and that the main focus of blessing
remains the “chosen” descendent Isaac.
82
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 265; Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 23; Mathews, Genesis, 198–99. For a
presentation of the antiquity of circumcision demonstrated by archaeological discoveries, see Jack M. Sasson,
“Circumcision in the Ancient Near East,” JBL 85.4 (1966): 475–76. For a discussion of the text critical issues in
Genesis 17, see Thiessen, “The Text of Genesis 17:14,” 625–42.
83
Sasson, “Circumcision in the Ancient Near East,” 474.
 113

and the covenant of circumcision contained therein be aware of some significance that is lost on

modern readers, especially in regards to how the covenant makes Abraham relate to others?

According to Westermann, the most common reason for circumcision in the ancient

world was as an initiation rite at puberty.84 However Genesis 17 makes it explicit that the

circumcision of newborn boys is to happen when the child is eight days old. As to why

specifically eight days, Westermann notes that it is simply a “lucky number” whereas others,

such as Matthews and Thiessen, note that the new mother (and presumably the newborn infant as

well) is unclean for seven days and it is therefore on the eighth day when the child is pronounced

clean and able to be then dedicated to the Lord through circumcision.85 This view that the child

shares in the mother’s uncleanliness of seven days may offer a hint as to when this composition

emerged. Matthew Thiessen points out that such a view only appears overtly in the second-

temple period.86 It is also interesting and perhaps significant that Isaac, as the chosen

continuance of God’s covenant here in chapter 17, is circumcised on the eighth day whereas

Ishmael is circumcised likely around puberty (13 years old) which would match the general

societal trend of the time of entry into the tribe. In this way Isaac prefigures future Israelites by

descent who enter into the covenant at birth and Ishmael prefigures those outsiders who enter in

at a later time by choice.87

84
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 265. See also Sasson, “Circumcision in the Ancient Near East,” 474.
85
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 266; Mathews, Genesis, 204; Thiessen, “Aseneth’s Eight-Day
Transformation as Scriptural Justification for Conversion,” 237–38; Hector Avalos, “Circumcision as a Slave
Mark,” PRSt 42.3 (2015): 273. For more on the impurity of the mother and child in an ANE context, see Matthew
Thiessen, “Luke 2:22, Leviticus 12, and Parturient Impurity,” NovT 54.1 (2012): 19–27.
86
Thiessen, “Luke 2,” 24–25. If Thiessen’s argument is given merit, then it is worth noting that Leviticus
12 would also share the conclusion that the child was unclean for seven days, thus providing an earlier example of
the practice.
87
See further the discussion below on the function of circumcision as a marker of the community.
 114

In terms of its possible function as an identity marker, Williamson points out that

circumcision was not a particularly useful identification sign to distinguish insiders from

outsiders in the patriarchal period and later as it was also practiced by those outside Israel,

besides the fact that it is not readily evident from a social perspective.88 Indeed, it is not what one

would exactly call an overt symbol. Instead, Williamson argues that it was meant as a reminder

for the person on whom it is performed of the “…promissory and obligatory aspects of [the]

covenant between God and Abraham.”89 For Israel, the circumcision advocated for by Genesis

17 was to function as a mnemonic device. Because many nations outside Israel practiced

circumcision and the females were not circumcised it is “difficult to interpret circumcision in

Genesis 17 either as a badge of identification or an initiation or ratification rite. The first makes

the covenant too broad; the latter makes it too narrow.”90 Similarly, circumcision may serve a

similar mnemonic function for God, vis à vis the rainbow, of his promises to Abraham regarding

progeny, though this is less prominent than its function as a reminder for humanity.91 As a result

of this mnemonic function both for humanity and to a lesser extent for God, for Williamson “the

rite of circumcision did not establish the covenant; rather, through this rite the substance of the

88
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 178. Contra Avalos who sees circumcision as an
identifying marker of slaves. See Avalos, “Circumcision as a Slave Mark.”
89
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 178.
90
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 185. See also Mathews, Genesis, 198. This would be a
useful area for further study in light of recent Pauline studies and perspectives that paint circumcision as precisely
what Williamson here declares that it would not be useful as. Ironically, one of the main reasons that Williamson
notes for circumcision’s relative ineffectual nature as an identity marker, that it was also relatively common in
surrounding nations albeit in different forms, could have become far less relevant as surrounding cultures abandoned
the practice, especially in light of the region’s subsequent Hellenization. Over time, this would have enabled
circumcision to become exactly what Williamson argues it was not: an identity marker of the Israelite community,
albeit only for male members. See Martin Abegg, “4QMMT, Paul, and ‘Works of the Law.,’” in The Bible at
Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation, ed. Peter W. Flint (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 203–216; James D.
G. Dunn, ed., The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays, WUNT (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); N. T.
Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 1st Fortress Press ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005).
91
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 178–81; Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 24.
 115

covenant was maintained from one generation to the next.”92 Williamson is arguing that

circumcision is not the covenant itself, but “the most basic obligatory element of this particular

covenant.”93

Somewhat contrarily to Williamson, McEvenue argues that circumcision does serve as an

identity marker of who is “Jewish” and who is not, but it does so in a way that circumcision in

Genesis 17 “extends the definition of Jewishness, the sphere of special divine providence, to

include all those who are duly circumcised. Judaism becomes, not a racial or political society,

but a liturgically determined religious society.”94 In regards to our overall case study on how

Abraham’s relationship with outsiders is portrayed in this instance, this aspect of circumcision

would render nearly moot the category discussion of insider and outsider, as the outsider is

enabled to become an insider. Westermann similarly agrees that circumcision of the whole

household including foreigners and slaves has an openness about it in which others are allowed

to participate in the worship of Yahweh, through the religious rite of circumcision.95 This point

of inclusion is similarly echoed by Williamson:

It is not just the physical descendants of Abraham who will be incorporated within this
covenant, but all to whom the sign of the covenant is applied. Thus the multitudinous
numbers envisaged in Gen. 17.2 will include more than Abraham’s physical descendants;
the numerical increase will apparently come about through all who will align themselves
with Abraham by submitting to the conditions of covenant, primarily expressed through
circumcision.96

92
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 185.
93
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 185.
94
McEvenue, Interpreting the Pentateuch, 124. It is worth noting that others would argue that this type of
inclusive view did not emerge until the second century B.C.E. See Thiessen, “Aseneth’s Eight-Day Transformation
as Scriptural Justification for Conversion,” 247.
95
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 266. It is perhaps worth considering the implications of this acceptance of
outsiders as insiders which on the one hand displays incredible tolerance, and on the other hand is not the same as
simply accepting outsiders without forcing them to first become insiders, even if the path to become an insider is
open to all.
96
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 182–83. See also Walter Brueggemann, “Genesis 17:1–
22,” Int 45.1 (1991): 57–58.
 116

These conditions which those entering into the covenant accept also include, according to

Williamson, an obligation to also conduct themselves in a way akin to what is demanded of

Abraham in Genesis 17:1b: “‘I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless.’”

(NRSV)97 However, it is important to realize that conceiving of circumcision in this way, as an

entrance right into a community, presupposes the existence of a community, which could betray

that this covenant is either a retroactive element from a later time or a forth-telling of what will

be.

There are then two ways to read and interpret the covenant of circumcision in this

passage: prophetically, i.e. predicting the formation of a community or “people” to whom God

promises possession of the land and to be their God, or as a text that comes after the formation of

the community and is used to tie a covenant practice back to a prominent ancestor and possibly

allow an entrance rite for outsiders.98 As is likely evident, the majority of scholars advocating for

some version of the Documentary Hypothesis would advocate for the second option. Indeed

Westermann highlights that the “covenant” in Genesis 17 is a mutual covenant, rather than a

97
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 182–83. See also Knohl who claims this as a condition of
the covenant. Knohl, The Divine Symphony, 166 n. 52. For the translation of ‫ תמים‬as “blameless” instead of its more
basic translation of “whole” or “intact” that is often used in the P source, compare Genesis 6:9 (P) where Noah is
described as righteous and “blameless.” See also Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 170; Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 20;
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 174–76; Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen, 181–82. Alternatively,
Westermann argues that the meaning is neither moral nor religious, but entirely secular and “whole” would be a
more accurate translation. See Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 259.
98
In his article on this passage, Matthew Thiessen makes an interesting point that the original text of
Genesis 17:14, as evidenced by the LXX and SP, was far less open to this possibility of outsiders entering the
community through circumcision as it only allowed circumcision within the eight day window after birth. Thiessen
argues that the absence of the eight day stipulation in the MT of Genesis 17:14 is possibly the result of a scribal
omission in order to make the text more theologically palatable. See Thiessen, “The Text of Genesis 17:14,” 636–
40. For another related example of Gentile entrance into the Israelite community, in connection with the rite of
circumcision, see Thiessen, “Aseneth’s Eight-Day Transformation as Scriptural Justification for Conversion,” 238–
39.
 117

mere promise to Abraham, and is therefore meant, in his view, as for the Israelite people, which

is especially demonstrated by the phrase “I will be your God.”99

Source-Critical Discussion

The opinions on Genesis 17’s identification with the P source, in whole or in part, are

divided in scholarly circles. Some are ambivalent, noting a lack of clear evidence one way or

another, some argue for its identification with P, and some are against its identification with P. In

terms of the rational to identify this chapter with P: it bears similar vocabulary to numerous other

passages ascribed to P.100 For example, some variation of the phrase “be fruitful and multiply”

occurs eleven times in Genesis, nine of which occurrences are commonly held to be P (the other

two occurrences are J from and E, with both these leaving out the multiplication aspect of the

command/blessing).101 Moreover, P tends to use “Elohim” or “El-Shaddai” until Exodus 6:2–3

where ‫ יהוה‬introduces his name to Moses, and “El-Shaddai” is how the deity introduces himself

to Abraham at the beginning of this chapter.102

In the ambivalent camp, Wenham will serve as a salient example of one who argues that

the case for Genesis 17’s identification with P is not “clear cut.”103 Wenham’s objection revolves

around the chapter’s apparent connection with the J material around it, so much so that he

concludes that if Genesis 17 was once independent it has been reworked by J as will be further

99
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 113.
100
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 18.
101
Genesis 1:28 (P); 8:17 (P); 9:1 (P); 17:6 (P); 17:20 (P); 26:22 (J); 28:3 (P); 35:11 (P); 41:52 (E); 47:27
(P); 48:4 (P).
102
Van Seters, The Pentateuch, 25–26.
103
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 18.
 118

explored below.104 It is worth observing that this objection to its identification with P has more to

do with the prevailing view that P is later than J than it does with a rejection of arguments

detailing the passage’s P like features.105 Wenham’s ambivalence is summed up in that he views

the promise material in Genesis 17 (which may or may not be P) is “cast in patterns attested in

neighbouring J sections.”106 As a result, Wenham’s picture of Genesis 17 is one where it is

possible that it belongs to the P source, but if it does belong to the P source, then it may influence

how scholars date the sources relative to each other, with J being later than P.

Those who argue for Genesis 17’s identification with P include, among others,

Westermann and Brueggemann. Westermann sees Genesis 17 as the center of P’s patriarchal

narrative in its theology and themes.107 By seeing Genesis 17 as part of an exilic P source,

Brueggemann views it as a response to the crisis of the exile by establishing “stability and

continuity through socio-cultic institutions.”108 As a result, the establishment of circumcision is

read through the eyes of an exilic community who is not only struggling for their own source of

identity, but also looking for examples of how to relate to those around them.109 Such a view

does have the benefit of fitting with what would have been a likely more cosmopolitan

worldview as the result of exposure to a dominant culture in the exile.

104
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 19.
105
Indeed, Wenham comments the following on the relationship of this chapter and the dating of P as a
source: “Thus the centrality of chap. 17 within the overall patriarchal narratives and the evidence of J-like redaction
suggest, contrary to dominant critical opinion, that the material is early and that if it comes from P, P antedates J.”
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 19. However, in terms of the vocabulary used in the passage, Wenham, similar to
Williamson (see below), notes that it may be the result of the genre of the passage rather than its identification with
a particular source. See Wenham, “The Priority of P,” 247.
106
Wenham, “The Priority of P,” 247–49.
107
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 256.
108
Brueggemann, “Genesis 17,” 55.
109
Brueggemann, “Genesis 17,” 57–58.
 119

Those who argue against Genesis 17’s identification with the P source include Matthews,

who rejects the view that Genesis is composed of sources in the traditional sense and holds that

Genesis 17 is an original part of the Abrahamic narratives all written by the same author. In

addition, Williamson prefers a more synchronic reading of the text where the vocabulary and

themes that would normally be used to identify this passage with P are merely the result of the

genre of the passage and its covenantal context.110 Essentially, Williamson, citing Alexander,

points out that the language and grammar used might have less to do with a P source background

and more to do with the covenant context that the passage is in, especially when compared to

Noahic covenant language.111 Williamson also rejects the notion that the covenant accounts of

Genesis 15 and 17 are a doublet of the same covenant. Moreover, he argues that because of the

difference among the obligations between the two covenants in Genesis 15 and 17 (Genesis 15

seemingly will be fulfilled unconditionally by God, at least when only surveying the immediate

context of Genesis 15, whereas Genesis 17 requires Abrahams’ participation), and the fourteen

year gap between them, source critics need to answer the question as to why a redactor/scribe

would simply not conflate the two covenants, as was allegedly done in the case of the flood

narratives, in order to remove a discrepancy in which only one party participates in the covenant

for fourteen years.112 However, Williamson does admit the possibility that the discrepancy was

inserted by a redactor/scribe in order to emphasize the relationship between the two covenants,

110
Mathews, Genesis, 104; Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 86–89. Kulling, while not
rejecting Genesis 17’s identification with P per se, does however place Genesis 17 in the 2nd millennium BCE which
would make it antedate most scholarly options for the dating of P. See Külling, “The Dating of the So-Called ‘P-
Sections’ in Genesis,” 68.
111
Matthews also challenges the criterion of P vocabulary as a distinguishing element of this passage. See
Mathews, Genesis, 194.
112
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 105 n.92. However, contrary to Williamson’s contention,
if these two covenants belong to two different sources, then the contrast isn’t as sharp as he might hope. Moreover,
the unconditional aspect is reduced by reading Genesis 15 (largely J) in its immediate context of the next J passage
which is Genesis 18. In this passage, Specifically Genesis 18:19, Abraham is given conditions which he must fulfill
as his side of the covenant.
 120

but he makes it clear that the main focus of study should then be to understand the theological

relationship between the two chapters rather than trying to splice them apart.113

From a redactional standpoint, Genesis, at the very least in its current form, has been

edited to reflect the name change that occurs in this chapter, as the name Abram is used prior to

and Abraham subsequent to this chapter. Moreover, the promise of progeny and kingly

descendants is built on top of previous covenantal promises made by ‫ יהוה‬and is sealed through

the changing of Abraham and Sarah's names.114 Not only is the name usage of Abraham and

Sarah evidence of this redaction of Genesis, but this chapter shows connections to other chapters,

both prior and subsequent in terms of its content which also seem to suggest its edited nature.115

Wenham points to the usage of the divine name, ‫אַ בְ ָרם‬-‫ ַוי ֵָרא יְ ה ָוה אֶ ל‬, in the opening verse of

chapter 17, other vocabulary and thematic elements similar to J texts, and the presence of

circumcision in other sources all as indications that the editor was the author/editor of J.116

An Excursus on the Relationship Between Genesis 15 and 17

While Genesis 15 is not classified as P according to Noth, a short excursus comparing

Genesis 15 and 17 is warranted given the influence of the two covenant chapters on the overall

Abrahamic narrative. Often, these two chapters are seen in source-critical work on Genesis as

different, and possibly independent, versions of a similar covenant ceremony. They are one of

the “doublets” that are often paraded as evidence of the different versions of the Documentary

113
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 105 n.92. This is a salient point that will be relevant in
our discussion regarding the value of diachronic analysis for final form interpretation. Williamson makes it
abundantly clear that a focus on how chapters 15 and 17 come from different sources can easily take away from
understanding why they are placed the way they are in the received text as we now have it.
114
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 21.
115
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 18.
116
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 18.
 121

Hypothesis. The problem, for some scholars, is not only is Genesis 17 possibly dependent on

Genesis 15, a position held by Wenham, Skinner, von Rad, McEvenue, Westermann, and

Coats,117 which would undermine the argument that these two covenant ceremonies represent

independent versions of the same or similar event, but, if Williamson’s arguments are to be given

any merit, these two chapters represent two distinct covenants that are literarily and thematically

connected. It is important to recognize, however, that this does not preclude that these covenants

may still belong to two different sources with one dependent on the other, or, that if originally

independent, have been edited to flow together. For example, while Genesis 17 likely builds

upon the covenant in Genesis 15, the latter covenant does not necessarily anticipate the national

developments found in the former. Williamson himself concedes this point, though he does also

argue that both of these chapters pick up separate strands of Genesis 12:1–3, a point which when

viewed from his larger argument implies they are complimentary passages from the same

hand.118

In regards to the relationship between these two chapters, one of Williamson’s main

arguments against JEDP is that the covenant of Genesis 15, which according to Noth is J, makes

no reference to Ishmael (although he is born in Genesis 16, a chapter largely comprised of J

material), whereas Genesis 17 clearly presupposes his birth.119 In terms of their literary

connection, Williamson is quick to point out that both Sarah and Abraham’s names are changed

in Genesis 17, a change absent in Genesis 15 but a change that is represented both before and

after the change in the narrative, though, as has been seen above, this could also be the activity of

117
As cited by Wenham, Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 19.
118
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 260–62.
119
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 108–9, 187, 259.
 122

a later redactor.120 He also argues on this basis that each covenant served a distinct purpose:

“Genesis 15 stresses Abraham’s role as the progenitor of a single nation who would inherit the

Promised Land, whereas Genesis 17 stresses Abraham’s role as the ‘father’ of a multitude of

nations who would inherit the promised blessing.”121 Williamson’s conclusion is worth quoting

at length:

It has been established, therefore, that the covenant spoken of in Genesis 17 differs from
that depicted in Genesis 15 in at least three important respects: (1) it incorporates
different foci; viz. promises of international significance, royal descendants, and a divine-
human relationship; (2) it involves human as well as divine obligations; viz. the ethical
obligation of moral blamelessness and the ritual obligation of circumcision; (3) it is of a
more permanent character; viz. it is described as ‘everlasting’. For these reasons alone
one should be most reluctant to equate the two covenants of which the chapters speak. In
terms of promissory focus, the author and/or final editor of Genesis clearly distinguishes
them.122

Although Williamson makes salient arguments regarding the differences between the two

covenants, he also stresses that they are linked to one another. They have different promissory

foci, but they have similar promissory threads surrounding Abraham’s numerical proliferation

and territorial inheritance.123 For Williamson, the covenant of Genesis 17 is, therefore, a

continuation, although in a transcendent fashion, of the covenant in Genesis 15, which both serve

to reinforce the divine promises of Genesis 12:1–3.124 However, for Williamson, this is the result

120
On the subject of name changes it is of interesting note that according to classic source classification
both J and P contain an episode where Jacob is renamed to Israel (Genesis 32 = J, Genesis 35 = P), although only the
J version contains the etymological reason for the change. Moreover though the name is changed in a similar fashion
to Abraham and Sarah’s, this change is not reflected in the subsequent narrative.
121
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 106.
122
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 187.
123
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 212. It is worth noting perhaps that the differences
between the promissory foci could be the result of the very documentary sources that Williamson is arguing against.
If the texts are from different sources that are independent temporally or geographically but had access to other
traditions, this could explain the common threads between them and yet the different emphasis that comes out in the
overall product. Moreover, Williamson’s synchronic reading still does not address the overarching question of
whether his final author/editor melded together different sources in his own coherent narrative arc, which perhaps is
to be expected as this is not the focus of synchronic interpretation.
124
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 217.
 123

of a synchronic reading of the text in which the above narrative arc is the production of a single

author or editor and not the slow melding of various sources over time, which, as has been

demonstrated, is also a possible explanation.

While Williamson makes great pains to demonstrate that the connection between these

two chapters undermines a classic view of the Documentary Hypothesis, at least in this case, his

reach falls short as a difference in emphasis could also be an indication of different sources with

different larger narrative goals. Moreover, even if one were to grant his contention that both

passages build off of separate strands of the promises found in Genesis 12:1–3 (J) and that

Genesis 17 is also connected with the binding episode in Genesis 22 (E), this does not rule out

the role of sources in the formation of the overall narrative but could point towards P’s tight

integration and interaction with both J and E.

A Reflection on the Value of Diachronic Analysis in this Instance

The value of diachronic analysis in this chapter is somewhat inconclusive, but

enlightening. At best, if we could assign a sure association of this chapter with P, and if we were

able to obtain a sure identification of the time period in which P was written or redacted, then

perhaps we would gain insight into why Abraham is portrayed as the father, physical or spiritual,

of many nations. However, as it is, the emphasis of the chapter is not on why Abraham is

connected to outsiders, but that he is connected with outsiders. If we take Williamson’s

contentions seriously regarding the spiritual fatherhood of Abraham as a mediator of blessing to

the nations, then despite not knowing why the nations are privileged we can still see that they are

allowed to participate in, and indeed may be the result of, Abraham’s blessing. Moreover,

Williamson’s reading of Genesis 17 on a synchronic level demonstrates that sometimes spending

 124

too much time on the diachronic elements of a text, while helpful in many situations, can also

cause us to miss connections and interpretations that present themselves in the text as received.

One can miss the proverbial forest for the trees. Nevertheless, comparing Williamson’s

synchronic arguments for explaining the state of the text with diachronic counterparts has been a

helpful exercise to demonstrate the flexibility within source criticism to adapt to and explain the

relationship between passages.

Genesis 23: The Purchase of a Burial Plot

Portrayal of Outsiders

In this chapter, Abraham attempts to purchase a burial plot of land for Sarah his wife

from the “Hittites,”125 and after some intricate negotiation, succeeds. The Hittites in turn

recognize Abraham as a “mighty prince” (v. 6) and offer him the choicest of burial plots as a gift

in which to bury Sarah. While some scholars portray this “gift” as a reluctance to allow him to

own land, Westermann argues it is a “far-reaching accommodation with regard to a stranger.”126

This portrayal of the Hittites behaviour is perhaps serving to demonstrate the Hittites superior

moral character, although more on this below. Matthews similarly argues that this treatment of

Abraham as a stranger is different from the treatment portrayed to travelling strangers elsewhere

in the narrative (c.f. Genesis 12:15, 19:9, and 20:2), which makes a relevant point that perhaps it

125
Many scholars view the “Hittites” as a term simply to designate the indigenous people of the land,
similar to “Canaanites” and having no relation to the later Hittites of the north. See Stephen C. Russell, “Abraham’s
Purchase of Ephron’s Land in Anthropological Perspective,” BibInt 21.2 (2013): 165; Speiser, Genesis, 172–73;
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 373; Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 126; Mathews, Genesis, 316–17.
126
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 373.
 125

is Abraham’s standing and blessing which dictates his treatment, rather than simply the character

of the Hittites.127

Instead of accepting the gift, Abraham purchases a burial plot from the Hittites for 400

shekels of silver, the appropriateness of which is debated among scholars. Some argue it is an

exorbitant price, and others, such as Wenham and Matthews, are uncertain concerning its validity

citing a lack of historical understanding of land prices.128 Ephron may have been overcharging,

or it may have been a substantial piece of property. However, whether the price is exorbitant or

not, the important thing is that Abraham does not argue the price so as to ensure that he has an

unchallengeable claim on the land.129 Indeed, Baden highlights that the purchase of the cave

gives Abraham “a permanent holding in Canaan.”130 Similar to the covenant between Abimelech

and Abraham in Genesis 21, this transaction demonstrates the role of outsiders in legitimating

and manifesting the blessings promised to Abraham by God.

Source-Critical Discussion

Although this chapter is classified as P by Noth and other scholars, it is also widely seen

to be unlike P in both style and content.131 Westermann argues that vv. 1–2 and 19 clearly

127
Mathews, Genesis, 319. See also Russell, “Abraham’s Purchase of Ephron’s Land in Anthropological
Perspective,” 170. This would point to an increased value of Abraham in the readers eyes at the possible expense of
the outsiders in that the outsiders are not doing this because they are outstanding individuals, but merely because
they have no choice: Abraham is blessed.
128
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 375; Blenkinsopp, “Abraham as Paradigm in the Priestly History in
Genesis,” 239; Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 129; Mathews, Genesis, 320.
129
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 129; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 375. Indeed, Russell analyzes the narrative
based on ancient property transfers and affirms that Abraham was seeking to establish a right to use the land
specifically as a burial site for both himself and his heirs to come. See Russell, “Abraham’s Purchase of Ephron’s
Land in Anthropological Perspective,” 126.
130
Baden, “The Continuity of the Non-Priestly Narrative from Genesis to Exodus,” 171.
131
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 124; Mathews, Genesis, 311; Sean E. McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the
Priestly Writer, vol. 50 of AnBib (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971), 22.
 126

distinguish this as part of the priestly work, but does not clearly elaborate on why, except to say

that the true point of the story is the acquisition of property for burial which he points to as a

development from the exilic period which is also when he argues P emerges.132 Moreover, citing

H. Petschow, he points out that this sale matches details of contracts found in the neo-

Babylonian period.133 Consequently, Westermann’s arguments for associating this passage with

P seem to depend solely on his assumption of P’s composition in the exilic period. In a similar

vein, Blenkinsopp writes:

A date for the Ρ History in the later Neo-Babylonian or early Persian period, as proposed
earlier, would permit the suggestion that in this incident Abraham is being proposed as a
model for immigrants from the Babylonian Diaspora in their relations with the
indigenous peoples, and this with special reference to the crucial issue of the acquisition
or recovery of land. The suggestion is given substance by parallels that have been noted
between the legal proceedings in Genesis 23 and land contracts from Mesopotamia of the
Neo-Babylonian and early Achaemenid periods.134

Matthews on the other hand rejects that it is P, as he rejects the Documentary Hypothesis

in general, and also holds that it flows with the rest of the narrative and is not an interruption

between the birth, sacrifice, and marriage of Isaac.135 Similarly, Wenham does not think there is

anything specifically identifying the passage as P.136 Likewise, Emerton states: “The chapter is

certainly different from other P material and if it belongs to P, must probably be regarded as an

adaptation of earlier material.”137

132
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 371, 376.
133
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 83. See also Gene M. Tucker, “Legal Background of Genesis 23,” JBL
85.1 (1966): 77, 81–84.
134
Blenkinsopp, “Abraham as Paradigm in the Priestly History in Genesis,” 240. See also Brett,
“Permutations of Sovereignty in the Priestly Tradition,” 390–91. It is also worth noting however, that Bray for one
deems the links between this passage and the exile as “tenuous.” See Jason S. Bray, “Genesis 23—A Priestly
Paradigm for Burial,” JSOT 18.60 (1993): 70.
135
Mathews, Genesis, 311.
136
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 125.
137
Emerton, “The Priestly Writer in Genesis,” 388.
 127

The question remains then as to why this passage is often classified as P. Despite his

previously stated contention, Emerton nevertheless puts forward the following evidences in

support of its P status: the reference to Sarah’s age when she died is similar to other P passages,

it is at least different in style from JE passages, and the existence of P vocabulary in the passage

(for example, the usage of ‫ בני־חת‬rather than ‫)החתי‬.138 Emerton concludes that though the

arguments for P are not as strong as other passages, they are “not negligible.”139 Added to these

arguments could also be Friedman’s contention that the burial site is located in Hebron, a priestly

Aaronid city, and that P was an Aaronid document.140 This supports the theory that this passage

is at least priestly in scope if not part of the original P source.

A Reflection on the Value of Diachronic Analysis in this Instance

It is possible that an understanding of when the text originates from could determine if

the price was fair or whether Abraham was being taken advantage of as well as help to

understand whether the language used by the Hittites regarding Abraham was merely a social

custom, or an honourific attitude towards him. The problem, however, is that these concerns

could also be taken up under traditional historical criticism from a synchronic perspective,

although that would have diachronic implications underlying it. Nevertheless, if it could be

proven beyond reasonable doubt that this passage, and perhaps more generally the P material it is

identified with, originates from the exile, as argued by Blenkinsopp, it would provide an

insightful window into the cultural context of exilic Jews and their interactions with outsiders.

138
Emerton, “The Priestly Writer in Genesis,” 388–89.
139
Emerton, “The Priestly Writer in Genesis,” 389.
140
Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed, 27.
 128

Yet, as has been the case throughout this study, the demonstration of such a point beyond

reasonable doubt is dubious at best.

Conclusion

If one were simply to accept Noth’s classifications of the priestly narrative and not

become bogged down in the myriad of discussions and debate surrounding each individual

passage, then perhaps diachronic analysis would be a worthy tool for final form interpretation in

every case. However, there are many instances in the above P passages that deal with Abraham’s

interaction with outsiders where a source-critical discussion may only serve to distract from

other elements and themes within the text. Indeed, in this specific dimension of our case study,

the insights gleaned from examining how Abraham interacted with outsiders are not directly or

obviously enriched by understanding the individual passage’s origins from any particular source.

When taken individually, how Abraham interacted with outsiders remains largely the same,

regardless if one views these passages as written even by Moses himself or composed through

various redactional processes. A factor that could contribute to the shortcoming of diachronic

analysis in this chapter is the limited number of examples within the Abrahamic narratives of the

P source. An avenue for further study would be to conduct a similar case study in a section of the

Pentateuch where all of the classic sources are relatively equally represented. It is also worth

noting that certain elements may have had a particular relevance for their intended audience that

is lost on modern scholars because we are unable to correctly place the texts in a particular

moment in time. Thus we are once again brought to the tension of the inability to know for

certain whether the outcomes of diachronic analysis hold true, and yet the necessity of diachronic

analysis for a “fuller” understanding of any text. What can be enhanced by diachronic analysis in
 129

general, and in this case source-critical study in particular, is why Abraham’s interaction with

outsiders may be portrayed as it is; however, it must also be understood that this answer may

only ever be a “best guess” scenario.

Nevertheless, where diachronic analysis really shines is in the big picture comparisons

between different sources. It is here that the P source’s depiction of outsiders can be fittingly

compared to other views within the Hebrew bible, such as the negative views found in

Deuteronomy and Ezra/Nehemiah, as was shown above.

 THE PORTRAYAL OF OUTSIDERS IN GENESIS 14

Introduction

Genesis 14 constitutes a passage that is almost unanimously not attributed to one of the

main sources of the Pentateuch by classic source critics, Noth included. Inasmuch, it will here be

treated briefly as a special source, much in the same manner as the previous chapters, although,

due to its independent nature, any source-critical discussion will largely occur at the outset in the

discussion on historical context, rather than following the section on outsiders. Subsequent to

that, we will again address the value of diachronic analysis.

Characteristics of the Source

The passage is clearly differentiated from the other sources of Genesis because of its

idiosyncratic and annalistic style and content.1 Wenham notes that this passage is the only place

in Genesis where an account of a military campaign occurs with the names of various kings

appearing.2 Margalith, among other scholars, identifies the whole chapter as a type of “hero

story,” where several traditions have been cobbled together to serve as the background for the

exploits of an ancestral hero.3 Wenham also notes that the passage is, “marked by a large number

of explanatory glosses, verbless clauses explaining old place names,” etc.4 The text utilizes a

number of stylistic devices including chiasms in its listing of the kings names who participated in

1
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 304–6.
2
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 304.
3
Othniel Margalith, “The Riddle of Genesis 14 and Melchizedek,” ZAW 112.4 (2000): 504–5; John A.
Emerton, “Riddle of Genesis 14,” VT 21.4 (1971): 431–32; Scott Morschauser, “Campaigning on Less than a Shoe-
String: An Ancient Egyptian Parallel to Abram’s ‘Oath’ in Genesis 14.22–13,” JSOT 38.2 (2013): 131.
4
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 304.

130
 131

the battles.5 Emerton notes that the blessing of Melchizedek may have its origin as poetry.6

Wenham also alludes to a number of possible paranomastic instances in the Hebrew which

would indicate a high level of literary skill.7

Is it a Contiguous Narrative or Fragmentary?

While many scholars note the passage’s unity, there are also some who argue it consists

of several sources tacked together.8 Wenham rejects the view that the passage is made up of

several sources as he sees it as “a substantial unity, part of the larger Abram-Lot cycle, with a

number of glosses that may be ascribed to a J-editor.”9 Tatu similarly argues for the literary unity

of the chapter.10 Westermann, among other scholars, on the other hand holds that it is made up of

at least two main constituent parts: vv. 1–11, and vv. 12–24 (with vv. 18–20 as a later

insertion).11 Westermann argues that the insertion of vv. 18–20 came from a later period with the

intention to legitimate the cultic exchange (blessing and tribute) found therein.12 It is worth

noting that these opposing views may be remedied by an understanding that although Genesis 14

is crafted from several sources, it is nonetheless crafted and, therefore, contains a unity of its

own.

5
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 305.
6
John A. Emerton, “Some False Clues in the Study of Genesis 14,” VT 21.1 (1971): 27–29.
7
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 305.
8
For a summary of the arguments see Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 189–90.
9
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 307.
10
Silviu Tatu, “Making Sense of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18–20),” JESOT 3.1 (2014): 56–62.
11
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 189–92. Emerton, Gammie, and Smith also hold vv. 18–20 to be a later
insertion. See Emerton, “Riddle of Genesis 14,” 408–12; John G. Gammie, “Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition of
Genesis 14:18–20,” JBL 90.4 (1971): 485; Robert Houston Smith, “Abram and Melchizedek (Gen 14:18–20),” ZAW
77.2 (1965): 129–30.
12
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 192.
 132

Historical Context

As was noted above, this passage is generally not attributed to any of the traditional

Pentateuchal sources and is largely regarded as an independent source.13 There have been some

scholars throughout the modern era who have argued for its inclusion among the J source, such

as Hupfield, Delitzsch, Lubsczyk, Vawter, Alexander, and Coats.14 Wenham himself notes that

this is indeed plausible as there are a number of elements that connect it to surrounding

passages.15 Emerton argues that while it may not be part of any of the traditional sources, it may

be dependent on one or more of them.16 Given the passage’s integration with earlier and later Lot

episodes, Emerton argues that it may be dependent upon J, though it is also possible that the J

editor has simply integrated it into his overall narrative by adding the Lot elements to this

passage.17

What scholars aren’t so agreed upon is the dating of this source, with some regarding it as

one of the earliest sources and with others seeing it as one of the latest.18 Wenham argues that it

represents an old tradition, contending that it is a pre-J tradition that has been edited by

subsequent redactors/scribes to better connect it to surrounding passages.19 Wenham

demonstrates this by pointing to some indications from the names of the kings that the passage

13
Emerton, “Riddle of Genesis 14,” 404; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 306; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 188;
Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 316 n.16; Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed, 52. It should be
noted that Emerton does not argue for its independence as will be seen below.
14
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 306–7.
15
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 306–7.
16
Emerton, “Riddle of Genesis 14,” 404.
17
Emerton, “Riddle of Genesis 14,” 406–7. In support of this see the below note on Mamre as a personal
name in this chapter versus a place name in other Genesis texts.
18
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 306. See also Emerton’s summary of the history of Genesis 14: Emerton,
“Riddle of Genesis 14,” 437–38.
19
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 307.
 133

may be from the eighteenth century BCE.20 However, Westermann cautions against dating the

entire passage from vv. 1–11, stating that the date of the overall passage, and indeed the period

of Abraham in general, cannot be demonstrated from them as he holds these verses to be an

independent tradition within the passage.21 Moreover, Westermann argues that the overall

composition and combination of the constituent elements of Genesis 14 could only have taken

place in the postexilic period, with portions, such as vv. 12–24 (minus vv. 18–20) coming from

the period of the judges.22 As a result, Westermann argues that the passage as a whole is a very

late addition to the Abraham cycle.23

Nevertheless, that Abraham is referenced as a “Hebrew,” a term that the Israelites did not

use to describe themselves, and may be related to the well documented term “Habiru/Apiru”

from the ANE, may indicate that the entire account is based upon an ancient, non-Israelite

source.24 Wenham notes that the “Apiru” were “usually on the periphery of society—foreign

slaves, mercenaries, or even marauders. Here Abram fits this description well: he is an outsider

vis à vis Canaanite society, and he is about to set off on a military campaign on behalf of the

king of Sodom as well as Lot. He is ‘a typical hapiru of the Amarna type’ (H. Cazelles, POTT,

20
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 308, 318–19. For more on the names of the kings and possible ancient
counterparts, see Emerton, “Some False Clues in the Study of Genesis 14,” 30–47; David S. Farkas, “In Search of
the Biblical Hammurabi,” JBQ 39.3 (2011): 159–164; Margalith, “The Riddle of Genesis 14 and Melchizedek,”
501–3.
21
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 190. Emerton also holds that vv. 1–11 are part of a pre-existent source of
Mesopotamian origin. See Emerton, “Riddle of Genesis 14,” 435–36.
22
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 192, 203. It should be noted that many of Westermann’s justifications for
the postexilic composition are highly subjective in their nature. For the tying of vv. 12–24 to the period of the judges
see Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 203. For another post-exilic or “diaspora” reading, see Volker Glissmann,
“Genesis 14: A Diaspora Novella?,” JSOT 34.1 (2009): 33–45.
23
Westermann, The Promises to the Fathers, 74.
24
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 313; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 188. Westermann however views the usage
of “Hebrew” as an anachronism from a later time. See Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 199–200. Emerton views its
usage as a possible indication that vv. 12–24 (minus vv. 18–20) stemmed from shortly prior to the Davidic time
when usage of the word is attested. See Emerton, “Riddle of Genesis 14,” 434–35.
 134

22).”25 Because “Habiru/Apiru” is not an ethnic term, but more of a class of people, it is

possible that the “Hebrews” were a substrate of this larger group.26 Moreover, as was noted,

“Hebrew” is not a term the Israelites generally applied to themselves, unless in reference to

foreigners, and it appears only in early literature, with the exception of references to the law of

Exodus 21:2 (Deuteronomy 15:12; Jeremiah 34:9, 14) and Jonah 1:9.27 Wenham also describes

many aspects of the passage’s vocabulary and phrases, such as “trained men,” and “not a thread

or a shoelace” that demonstrate its antiquity.28 Another possible supporting aspect of the

passage’s antiquity is that Melchizedek portrays “El-ʿElyôn” as “the maker of heaven and earth”

(‫)קֹּ נֵה ׁשָ מַ יִ ם וָאָ ֶרץ‬. This epithet is similar to ‫ אל קן ארץ‬which appears on a ca. 8th century BCE

Hebrew ostracon found in Jerusalem (see COS 2.49) and in a Phoenician inscription from the 7th

century BCE (Karatepe A 3:18–19; see COS 2:31).29 Wenham notes that the same epithet (“the

maker of heaven and earth”) was applied to the God of Israel by later Hebrew poets (Psalms

115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3) though in each of these later instances the Hebrew was changed to

‫עֹּ שֵ ה ׁשָ מַ יִ ם וָאָ ֶרץ‬, possibly to avoid the sexual connotation of ‫( קנה‬cf. Genesis 4:1), a point which is

also supported by Gammie, and Tatu.30 In regards to this epithet, Westermann also notes that it

25
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 313. My thesis supervisor, Dr. Craig Broyles, also pointed out that “Hapiru” in
the ANE appears in roughly the same time period as “Hebrew” in the OT (S Mesopotamia [Ur III, I Babylon], N
Mesopotamia: Nuzi [15th century BCE], Mari [18th century BCE], Alalakh [17th and 15th centuries BCE], Anatolia:
Cappadocian Texts [19th century BCE], Hittite [14th century BCE], Ugarit [14th century BCE], Egyptian Empire
[15th-12th centuries BCE] → enemies/rebels in Asia, slaves in Egypt [so under Ramesses II], and the Amarna letters
[14th century BCE] → hostile parties in Canaan). Moreover, he noted that similar to the epithet “God of the
Hebrews” (Exodus 3:18; 5:3; 7:16) the Hapiru would swear by “the gods of the Hapiru”, especially in Hittite texts.
26
Wenham affirms the non-ethnic nature of the term, though the possibility of the “Hebrews” belonging to
this larger class was suggested by my thesis supervisor, Dr. Craig Broyles. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 313.
27
I am indebted to my thesis supervisor Dr. Craig Broyles for noting this point and the references of
“Hebrew” in the rest of the Hebrew Bible.
28
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 319. Wenham notes that ‫ חניכים‬is found in “a nineteenth-century Egyptian text
and in a fifteenth-century Taanak letter.” See also Morschauser, “Campaigning on Less than a Shoe-String.”
29
I am indebted to my thesis supervisor Dr. Craig Broyles for providing this point and the references.
30
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 317; Gammie, “Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition,” 386; Tatu, “Making Sense
of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18–20),” 71. For more on the Psalms and their possible historical contexts, see Broyles,
 135

was a common Canaanite cultic formula, but that it could have only found its way into Israelite

usage after the formation of the Israelite monarchy and not the period of the patriarchs.31 It

should be noted that the latter points demonstrating the passage’s overall antiquity do not

necessarily contradict Westermann’s argument that the passage found its current form in the

post-exilic period, they do however demonstrate that even some of the supposed “later” elements

of the passage could, and likely do, still originate in antiquity.

Emerton also makes a case that vv. 18–20 originated during the time of the Davidic

kingship, which, given other connections to this time, seems plausible.32 To me, it is more

probable that the text was put into its present form in the pre-exilic period from a few sources,

than Westermann’s contention that the passage was crafted in the post-exilic period by

combining vv. 12–24 with vv. 1–11.33 While I think some of his arguments have merit, to me

they do not sufficiently answer the question as to why vv. 12–24 could stand as their own

independent episode. Certainly vv. 1–11 could have been an ancient tradition, but to argue that

this was only added to vv. 12–24 in the post-exilic period, after vv. 12–24 were already an

independent tradition, robs the story of its overall force.34 Nevertheless, whenever the text came

to its present form, it has been demonstrated above that it certainly contains many elements and

features from antiquity.

Psalms, 429–31, 448–49, 453–54, 466, 475. Note however that Della Vida contends “‫ ”קנה‬does not mean “to create”
but rather “Lord.” The epithet would then be translated, “lord of heaven and earth.” See Giorgio Levi Della Vida,
“El ’Elyon in Genesis 14:18–20,” JBL 63.1 (1944): 1 n. 1.
31
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 206.
32
Emerton, “Riddle of Genesis 14,” 421–25. Smith however argues that vv. 18–20 are from an old
tradition, dating possibly to the second millennium BCE. So too Tatu, who states, “This story could not have been
written during the time of the monarchy.” See Smith, “Abram and Melchizedek,” 130–31; Tatu, “Making Sense of
Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18–20),” 75–76.
33
For Westermann’s reasoning, see Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 207–8.
34
See also Emerton, “Riddle of Genesis 14,” 436–37; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 307.
 136

Textual Context

Genesis 14 is clearly demarcated from the surrounding passages with the first verse using

the Hebrew phrase ‫ ויהי‬and the chapter ending with a note of participants in the battle taking their

share. This is then buttressed in the next chapter by a clear narrative break. In terms of

connections and allusions to the rest of the Abrahamic narratives, Williamson notes that

Abraham’s acting in the sphere of kings, conducting and winning battles against them, is a

possible foreshadowing and echo of the promises of Genesis 12 where God promises to make

Abraham’s name great and make him into a great nation.35 Moreover, Wenham notes that the

blessing of Melchizedek over Abraham is an allusion to the blessing of Abraham in Genesis

12:1–3, as will also be seen below of Abraham’s juxtaposed interaction between Melchizedek

and the king of Sodom.36 In terms of story arc, this passage connects well literarily with the rest

of the Lot cycle.37 In the previous chapter Lot moves near Sodom, where he is captured in this

chapter, and in Genesis 19 Sodom is destroyed, arguably from the perspective of the narrative in

some part, though not explicitly, because of the king of Sodom’s treatment of Abraham in this

passage; because he disdained Abraham, he is cursed.38 Abraham’s association with Mamre in

this chapter also fits, albeit somewhat awkwardly given that one is a personal name and the other

a location, with his departure from Lot and settling near the “oaks of Mamre” in Genesis 13:18.

Finally, God’s declaration in Genesis 15:1 that he is Abraham’s “shield” could be seen as a

35
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 254.
36
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 317. Williamson notes, “Given the royal associations found in that chapter
[Genesis 14], such allusions [of the international aspect of divine blessing] are perhaps unsurprising.” See
Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations, 255 n. 131.
37
For more on how this passage fits within the overall Abrahamic narrative, and possible within the J
source, see Morschauser, “Campaigning on Less than a Shoe-String,” 141, 143–44; Baden, The Composition of the
Pentateuch, 274 n.113.
38
It should be emphasized that the narrative does not present this explicitly as the reason for the destruction
of Sodom, but it is at the very least an interesting coincidence.
 137

reference to Abraham’s miraculous victory over the foreign kings in this chapter, though the

portrayal of the Amorites in Genesis 14 stands in stark contrast to their portrayal in Genesis

15:16.

Occurrences of Outsiders

Genesis 14: War and Peace

Portrayal of Outsiders

The passage first involves three battles, the first two between a coalition of eastern kings,

led by Chedorlaomer, and their former vassals in which the eastern kings soundly claim victory

and in the process capture Lot and his family. The third battle is then between Abraham and

these victorious kings in order to rescue Lot. A point of interest is that when the messenger

comes to inform Abraham of Lot’s capture in v. 13, it is noted that Abraham is an ally with

Mamre, an Amorite, which given the disdain for the Amorites in other passages in the Hebrew

Bible is quite significant.39 Abraham is portrayed as defeating the kings, seemingly defying the

insurmountable odds that were against such a victory given his paltry number of fighting men,

and as he is returning he meets with the king of Sodom and Melchizedek who occupy center

stage in the remaining narrative.

39
See also below regarding Melchizedek’s possible Amorite background. For examples of later disdain for
Amorites in the Hebrew Bible see Genesis 15:16 (see E chapter above), 1 Kings 21:26, and 2 Kings 21:11. Emerton
notes that the inclusion of these characters both here and in v. 24 is likely a later gloss. See Emerton, “Riddle of
Genesis 14,” 404. It is also curious that Mamre here is referenced as a person, whereas elsewhere in Genesis (23:17,
19; 25:9; 49:30; 50:13) it is a reference to a place. See Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 299; Westermann, Genesis 12–36,
181. This is possibly a further indication that Genesis 14 is an ancient source, as it is logical that the dwelling of an
individual named Mamre at a location could give rise to that place being identified with him in later literature.
 138

Melchizedek, referenced as the king of Salem and a priest of “El-ʿElyôn,” is introduced

as bringing out bread and wine for Abraham and speaking a blessing over him in the name of

“El-ʿElyôn,” seemingly confirming the blessing given to Abraham by ‫ יהוה‬in Genesis 12.40

Abraham then gives a tenth of the spoils as a tithe to Melchizedek.41 Melchizedek is thought to

be king of Jerusalem, based on early biblical associations as well as a similar name given to

another king of Jerusalem, “Adonizedek,” in Joshua 10:1, though it may be possible that this

association was imposed later.42 Interestingly, in Joshua 10:5 Adonizedek is specifically referred

40
Della Vida argues that “El-ʿElyôn” is the conflation of two separate Canaanite deities, merged here by
the author/editor of the passage in order to associate the recognizable God of Melchizedek (“El”) with the universal
God of Abraham (“ʿElyôn”). See Levi Della Vida, “El ’Elyon in Genesis 14,” 9. See also the note on El-ʿElyôn
below. It is also interesting given the connections argued above and below regarding Jerusalem, Melchizedek, and
Amorites, that DDD notes that “Many scholars believe that the pre-Israelite cult at Jerusalem worshipped the God
El-ʿElyôn. There is also evidence to suggest that Yahweh was originally worshipped as El-ʿElyôn at Shiloh before
David’s capture of Jerusalem…” See E. E. Elnes and Patrick D. Miller, “Elyon,” in DDD, ed. Karel Van der Toorn,
Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem van Der Horst (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 295. Smith argues that Abraham
and Melchizedek are participating in a suzerainty type treaty, with Abraham being the superior party. Smith
maintains this based on his view that it is not Abraham who gives Melchizedek the tithe, but Melchizedek who gives
it to Abraham. This has merit from a grammatical perspective, as is seen in the below note, but from the overall
perspective of the verses does not hold up under scrutiny. See Smith, “Abram and Melchizedek,” 131–36.
41
It is interesting that the text does not specify who is giving the tithe as there is no explicit subject, nor
indirect object, to the verb. Although Abraham makes logical sense as the subject in the larger context given his
newly acquired loot and the sacral nature of the tithe, the obvious grammatical antecedent subject in the immediate
context is Melchizedek who has been the primary subject of the preceding verses, with Abraham being the indirect
object receiving the tithe. See also Emerton, “Riddle of Genesis 14,” 407–8; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 187, 203,
206.
42
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 316. Some of these associations also include David’s high priest in Jerusalem
“Zadok,” Psalm 110 associates the king in Zion with Melchizedek, Psalm 76:3 parallels Zion and Salem, both
Josephus (Ant. 1.10.2 [1:180]) and the Genesis Apocryphon (22.13) associate Salem with Jerusalem, and this text
views Melchizedek as a southern figure, associated with the king of Sodom. For more on the connections between
Salem, Jerusalem, Melchizedek, Zadok, and Psalms 110 and 76:3 see Broyles, Psalms, 312, 415; Knohl, The Divine
Symphony, 91, 94; Elnes and Miller, “DDD,” 297–98. Westermann also argues that vv. 18–20 were likely inserted
during the time of David. See Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 192, 203. Interestingly, this could bear some credence,
given the above argued association between Melchizedek, Jerusalem, and David, in light of 2 Samuel 21’s similarly
favourable views of the Amorites. For more on the meaning of Melchizedek’s name and other possible associations,
see Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 204; Emerton, “Riddle of Genesis 14,” 412–13; Tatu, “Making Sense of
Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18–20),” 62–65. However, Gammie notes that Noth established that Adonizedek in Joshua
10 was not original. See Gammie, “Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition,” 390. Nevertheless, he does conclude that
though the Melchizedek tradition did not originate with Jerusalem originally, it did make its way there from
Shechem. See Gammie, “Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition,” 389–96. Margalith also argues against identification
with Jerusalem, noting that though Jerusalem is known by several ancient names, Salem is not one of them. See
Margalith, “The Riddle of Genesis 14 and Melchizedek,” 506–8. Therefore, Gammie’s argument that it was not
originally Jerusalem that was referenced may bear weight. See also Smith, “Abram and Melchizedek,” 139–52;
Tatu, “Making Sense of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18–20),” 65–69. For more on later traditions and associations of
 139

to as a king of the “Amorites,” which bears fascinating significance given Abraham’s association

with Mamre, cited as an Amorite in this passage, as well as his preferential treatment of

Melchizedek. It is possible, if other evidence associating Salem with Jerusalem is accepted, that

Melchizedek is also an Amorite king which would further demonstrate a curious favour of the

Amorites in this passage.43

Contrary to Melchizedek, the king of Sodom has quite a different reaction. Rather than

blessing Abraham who just defeated the coalition of kings that he and his allies could not, he

demands a portion of the tribute recovered from the victory.44 Abraham, instead of being insulted

by this not only acquiesces to the king of Sodom’s request, but exceeds it and surrenders his

rights to the spoils, asking only for sustenance and that his allies get their share.45

It is of note that in Abraham’s response to the king of Sodom in the MT he connects “El-

ʿElyôn” with ‫יהוה‬.46 However, the divine name is omitted in other ancient textual witnesses

including the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, and 1Q Genesis Apocryphon. Wenham points to its

inclusion here as a likely Yahwistic gloss.47 Westermann on the other hand, against the existing

textual witnesses, argues that ‫ יהוה‬alone was in the original and that “El-ʿElyôn” is a later

Melchizedek, see Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Melchizedek in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” JSNT 41.1 (2018): 124–
138.
43
See also Ezekiel 16:3, 45 which declares that the father of Jerusalem was an Amorite.
44
Morschauser however sees the statement of the king of Sodom in quite a different light, seeing it instead
as an offer of generosity. Emerton also seems to hint at this. See Morschauser, “Campaigning on Less than a Shoe-
String,” 131; Emerton, “Riddle of Genesis 14,” 423.
45
There are many theories as to the exact reasoning behind Abraham’s refusal to take the loot, but they are
beyond the scope of the present chapter. For examples, see Emerton, “Riddle of Genesis 14,” 423–25; Morschauser,
“Campaigning on Less than a Shoe-String,” 129–35; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 202–3. Morschauser also argues
that the traditional depiction of the king of Sodom being “rude” toward Abraham may not actually be valid and is
instead influenced by the fate of Sodom later in the Abrahamic narratives. See Morschauser, “Campaigning on Less
than a Shoe-String,” 141–43.
46
For more on the possible identification and origins of “El-ʿElyôn” see Levi Della Vida, “El ’Elyon in
Genesis 14”; Tatu, “Making Sense of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18–20),” 69–71. For other Israelite associations
between El-ʿElyôn and ‫ יהוה‬see Elnes and Miller, “DDD,” 296–97.
47
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 318.
 140

addition meant to harmonize this passage with vv. 18–20 which he argues was a later insertion.48

The validity of the insertion of vv. 18–20 notwithstanding, Westermann’s argument here is not

convincing, and seems to stem solely from his assumption that vv. 18–20 must be a later

insertion.

There is an interesting portrayal of outsiders in regards to the names of the kings of

Sodom and Gomorrah that could also play into the later Sodom episodes. Wenham notes that the

names for the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah are compounded with the Hebrew words for evil

(‫ )רע‬and wicked (‫ )רׁשע‬respectively.49

The portrayal of Melchizedek and his prominent status in later Israelite texts is a

testament to how the portrayal of outsiders in this chapter mirrors that in the rest of the

Abrahamic narratives: outsiders are not disdained or preferentially treated simply based on their

status as outsiders, but are treated based upon how they situate themselves in relationship with

Abraham and his God.

A Reflection on the Value of Diachronic Analysis in this Instance

This passage bears particular relevance for our present overall study. Whereas previous

explorations have been admittedly less fruitful given the difficulty in dating specific sections of

text, this passage, at least those sections that prominently deal with outsiders, is somewhat more

sure in its dating as demonstrated at several points above. While no such argument for dating can

claim absolute certainty, there is substantial evidence and connections to conclude that the

section dealing with Melchizedek (vv. 18–20) originated in the time of the united monarchy,

indeed probably from the time of David, given the connection with 2 Samuel 21’s favourable

48
Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 202.
49
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 309.
 141

views of Amorites. This conclusion, achieved through diachronic analysis, can help to

demonstrate the curious prominence, and even favour, given to an outsider by the text. At the

very least this passage can be seen as an attempt to legitimate the Davidic capital in the eyes of

both the Israelites and the still existing Canaanite elements in the land.50 Beyond this, if

Melchizedek’s status as an Amorite is to be granted, this helps provide further evidence that this

passage originated in the time of David when there is documented concern for the remnants of

the Amorites (2 Samuel 21) as well as explaining this further curious feature of the text. In short,

diachronic analysis in this instance has provided an invaluable window into not only when the

text likely originated, but why it was produced, at least for portions of it. Moreover, it can help to

explain the jarring shift in opinion concerning Amorites in this chapter and Genesis 15.

Conclusion

Overall, the portrayal of outsiders in this passage is positive. The warring kings are not

overtly portrayed as evil or disdainful simply because they are outsiders, but rather their actions

are narrated in a matter-of-fact manner. Chedorlaomer’s early military victories are used as a foil

to demonstrate Abraham’s prowess and value. The only outsider who is portrayed in an overtly

negative manner is the king of Sodom, who appears begrudging, if not mildly disdainful, towards

Abraham’s unexpected help in recovering stolen property. This is in turn starkly contrasted with

the portrayal of Melchizedek who not only recognizes Abraham’s victory, but honours and

blesses him. Abraham also takes the unprecedented step of giving a tithe to Melchizedek, thereby

demonstrating a high regard for his office as priest of El-ʿElyôn, if not him personally. Wenham

50
Emerton, “Riddle of Genesis 14,” 437.
 142

notes that this story serves to reinforce what was declared in Genesis 12:1–3: those who bless

Abraham are themselves blessed, and those who disdain him are cursed.51

51
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 321–22.
 CONCLUSION

The preceding analysis sought to answer three main questions: how were outsiders

portrayed in the Abrahamic narratives, are there any differences between how they are portrayed

in the classic sources of the Pentateuch according to the Documentary Hypothesis, and what is

the value of diachronic analysis for final form interpretation. These questions were answered by

way of a case study concerning the first two questions that in turn answered the third.

In the Abrahamic narratives, outsiders are shown surprising care and attention. It has

been demonstrated that throughout the Abrahamic narratives, and arguably therefore throughout

Israelite history, there is an enduring understanding of God’s clear preference for his chosen and

yet also a remarkable consciousness regarding the treatment and status of outsiders.

In regards to the second question, there are slight nuances in how the different sources

portray outsiders. In the J source, apart from the Hagar episode, care for outsiders is largely

presented in terms of hospitality. Extreme care for the outsiders is shown in both the Hagar

episode as well as Abraham and Lot’s treatment of the strangers and Abraham pleading on

behalf of the residents of Sodom. Furthermore, throughout the narrative, outsiders are blessed

largely based on how they position themselves in relationship with Abraham and his God yet

with the clear contention that outsiders will be blessed in some fashion no matter what. Indeed,

Abraham’s deception of Pharaoh in Genesis 12 displays that clear preference is shown for God’s

chosen sometimes despite their actions in the narrative which may seem to the reader as

immoral.

In the E source there is a definite emphasis on personal care for outsiders by the deity.

Similar in some regards to the J source, God shows great care for Abimelech in Genesis 20 to

143
 144

prevent him from “sinning” but simultaneously still shows clear preference for Abraham despite

his dubious behaviour. Moreover, this episode presents outsiders as possibly more righteous than

Abraham, or at least more righteous than Abraham gave them credit for. The Hagar-Ishmael

episode demonstrates God’s clear care for the outcast, something that would be echoed in the

later prophetic writings. Abimelech also serves as an important source of external validation for

Abraham’s blessing, a blessing that is also described in Genesis 22 as no longer just affecting

Abraham, but also his descendants.

Conversely, P is much more neutral towards care for outsiders, although it does connect

them to Abraham and they have a role in confirming his blessing. Abraham marries Hagar with

no comment regarding her status as an outsider, whether positive or negative. While it is true that

the birth of Ishmael causes tension with Sarah, this tension is not framed around Hagar’s outsider

status. In addition, many nations will have some sort of tie and claim on Abraham’s fatherhood,

but the immediate narrative does not elaborate what this will necessarily look like. Finally, the

Hittites, though they may be portrayed in a negative light in Genesis 23, still have a role in

establishing and fulfilling God’s promises for Abraham.

Similar to the J source, Genesis 14 seems to emphasize how outsiders place themselves in

relationship with Abraham. Melchizedek is given prominent status as an outsider who is

ostensibly a priest of Abraham’s God and in his blessing of Abraham is contrasted with the

implied disdain for Abraham shown by the king of Sodom. Within the immediate and larger

context of the Abrahamic narratives this demonstrates that outsiders are treated based on how

they position themselves to Abraham and his God, with Melchizedek receiving a tithe and the

king of Sodom possibly receiving his demise with the destruction of Sodom in the subsequent
 145

narrative. In contrast to the E source, this chapter demonstrates a curious portrayal and

indifference, if not favour, towards the Amorites.

An area for further profitable study would be to apply a similar methodology, though not

necessarily a similar line of investigation, to a portion of the Pentateuch that contains more equal

representation of each of the sources in order to further an understanding of the relationship

between the sources. Moreover, given the noted differences between the sources’ portrayal of

outsiders, it would be profitable to understand the implications of these differences in light of the

possible order and date of composition of the sources and what this may tell us concerning the

trajectory of Israelite religion and their conception of the “other.” A similar study based on pre-

Samaritan Hebrew texts would also provide an interesting insight into divergences among the

textual traditions.

All of these points serve to answer the larger question regarding the value of diachronic

analysis for understanding the text as it stands, as the different portrayal of outsiders in different

sections of the Abrahamic narratives can be in part explained by different sources with their own

contexts. This was also demonstrated as other curious features of the text were encountered. For

example, viewing the passage through with the framework of the Documentary Hypothesis

allows the reader to explain how although internal evidence within Genesis 12:1–3 points

towards a reflexive interpretation, its usage in the larger narrative points towards the passive

and/or middle sense. Such a realization would be lost were the text simply viewed from the

synchronic level. Similarly it allows us to explain other peculiar features of the text such as why

Sarah might be considered so beautiful by Abimelech at her advanced age as the result of the

combination of sources rather than coming up with other theories about rejuvenation, etc.1

1
For more on the theories put forward see the above section on Abimelech’s desire to marry Sarah in the E
chapter.
 146

Though the present case study did not necessarily uncover any stark and surprising

differences in the portrayal of outsiders among the various sources running throughout the

Abrahamic narratives, though as noted above it did demonstrate nuanced approaches, the value

of diachronic interpretation was clearly displayed at various points. Moreover, because my study

did not necessarily seek to make any sweeping conclusions on the validity of any particular form

of the Documentary Hypothesis we were able to avoid being bogged down in some of the

incessant argumentation and uncertainty that accompanies such an endeavor. Instead, I sought to

simply address the validity of any form of the Documentary Hypothesis to explain the text as it

now stands. I think this is a point that cannot be understated. Many who enter the dizzying field

of Pentateuchal criticism and the source-critical work that occurs therein can be dismayed by the

sheer number of competing theories that claim to offer the most compelling answer as to how the

Pentateuch developed to the form as we now have it. As a result of this wide disagreement on the

exact details, it is easy to understand why someone would reject the framework that Genesis is

composed of various sources as a valid and demonstrable lens through which one can understand

the Pentateuch. Nevertheless, they would be missing the proverbial reality of the forest because

of all the people arguing what types of trees constitute it. In the present study, I have

demonstrated that, although it does have certain drawbacks and ambiguities, diachronic analysis,

in the form of source criticism, is a powerful and cogent tool for understanding, if not necessarily

fully explaining, the many peculiar features that exist in the Abrahamic narratives and in part

how the text became what it is. That this similarly applies to the remainder of the Pentateuch is a

logical extrapolation. It is here that we should be reminded, as noted by Nicholson, why Julius

Wellhausen put forward his theories on the origins of the Pentateuch to begin with: they were not
 147

an end in and of themselves, but a means to understand the development of Israelite religion.2 So

too should we remember that these theories merely offer a framework. It is what we do with that

framework that matters.

2
Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, 3.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abegg, Martin. “4QMMT, Paul, and ‘Works of the Law.’” Pages 203–216 in The Bible at
Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation. Edited by Peter W. Flint. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2001.

Alexander, T. Desmond. “Further Observations on the Term ‘Seed’ in Genesis.” TynBul 48

(1997): 363–367.

Anderson, Arnold A. The Book of Psalms: Introduction and Psalms 1–72. Vol. 1 of NCBC.
London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972.

Angel, Joseph L. “Reading the Book of Giants in Literary and Historical Context.” DSD 21.3
(2014): 313–46.

Asen, Bernhard A. “No, Yes and Perhaps in Amos and the Yahwist.” VT 43.4 (1993): 433–441.

Avalos, Hector. “Circumcision as a Slave Mark.” PRSt 42.3 (2015): 259–274.

Baden, Joel S. “Continuity between the Gaps – The Pentateuch and the Kirta Epic.” Pages 283–
92 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe,
Israel, and North America. Edited by Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-
Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

———. “Hithpael and Niphal in Biblical Hebrew: Semantic and Morphological Overlap.” VT
60.1 (2010): 33–44.

———. The Composition of the Pentateuch : Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. The
Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012.

———. “The Continuity of the Non-Priestly Narrative from Genesis to Exodus.” Bib 93.2
(2012): 161–186.

———. “Why Is the Pentateuch Unreadable? – Or, Why Are We Doing This Anyway?” Pages
243–51 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe,
Israel, and North America. Edited by Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-
Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

Benz, Frank L. “Was David’s Theologian Concerned About Mission.” CurTM 18.5 (1991): 363–
367.

Blaising, Craig A., and Darrell L. Bock. Progressive Dispensationalism. Wheaton: Victor Books,
1993.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “Abraham as Paradigm in the Priestly History in Genesis.” JBL 128.2
(2009): 225–241.

Bray, Jason S. “Genesis 23—A Priestly Paradigm for Burial.” JSOT 18.60 (1993): 69–73.

148
 149

Brett, Mark G. “Permutations of Sovereignty in the Priestly Tradition.” VT 63.3 (2013): 383–
392.

Broyles, Craig C. Psalms. Understanding the Bible Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 2012.

Brueggemann, Walter. “Genesis 17:1–22.” Int 45.1 (1991): 55–59.

———. “Kerygma of the Priestly Writers.” ZAW 84.4 (1972): 397–414.

Carr, David M. “Data to Inform Ongoing Debates about the Formation of the Pentateuch – From
Documented Cases of Transmission History to a Survey of Rabbinic Exegesis.” Pages
89–106 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe,
Israel, and North America. Edited by Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-
Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

———. “No Return to Wellhausen.” Bib 86.1 (2005): 107–114.

Cryer, Frederick H. “On the Relationship Between the Yahwistic and the Deuteronomistic
Histories.” BN 29 (1985): 58–74.

Davies, Graham, and Robert Gordon, eds. Studies on the Language and Literature of the Bible:
Selected Works of J.A. Emerton. Vol. 165 of VTSup. Boston: Brill, 2014.

Diffey, Daniel S. “The Royal Promise in Genesis: The Often Underestimated Importance of
Genesis 17:6, 17:16 and 35:11.” TynBul 62.2 (2011): 313–316.

Dunn, James D. G., ed. The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays. WUNT. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

Elnes, E. E., and Patrick D. Miller. “Elyon.” DDD. Edited by Karel Van der Toorn, Bob
Becking, and Pieter Willem van Der Horst. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Emerton, John A. “Riddle of Genesis 14.” VT 21.4 (1971): 403–439.

———. “Some False Clues in the Study of Genesis 14.” VT 21.1 (1971): 24–47.

———. “The Date of the Yahwist.” Pages 107–129 in In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel:
Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. T & T Clark. London, 2004.

———. “The Priestly Writer in Genesis.” JTS 39.2 (1988): 381–400.

Farkas, David S. “In Search of the Biblical Hammurabi.” JBQ 39.3 (2011): 159–164.

Flint, Peter W. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Nashville: Abingdon, 2013.

Fretheim, Terence E. “Priestly Document: Anti-Temple?” VT 18.3 (1968): 313–329.

 150

———. “Theology of the Major Traditions in Genesis–Numbers.” RevExp 74.3 (1977): 301–
320.

Friedman, Richard Elliott. The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of
Moses. 1st ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003.

———. Who Wrote the Bible? 1st ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1989.

Gammie, John G. “Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition of Genesis 14:18–20.” JBL 90.4 (1971):
385–396.

Gertz, Jan C., Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid, eds. The
Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and
North America. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

Gesenius, Friedrich Heinrich Wilhelm, Sir Arthur Ernest Cowley, and Emil Friedrich Kautzsch.
Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar as Edited and Enlarged by the Late E. Kautzsch... Second
English Edition, Revised in Accordance with the Twenty-Eighth German Edition (1909)
by A. E. Cowley. With a Facsimile of the Siloam Inscription by J. Euting, and a Table of
Alphabets by M. Lidzbarski. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910.

Glissmann, Volker. “Genesis 14: A Diaspora Novella?” JSOT 34.1 (2009): 33–45.

Gnuse, Robert Karl. “Dreams in the Night—Scholarly Mirage or Theophanic Formula? The
Dream Report as a Motif of the So-Called Elohist Tradition.” BZ 39.1 (1995): 28–53.

———. “Northern Prophetic Traditions in the Books of Samuel and Kings as Precursor to the
Elohist.” ZAW 122.3 (2010): 374–386.

———. “Redefining the Elohist.” JBL 119.2 (2000): 201–220.

———. “The Elohist: A 7th-Century BCE Theological Tradition.” BTB 42.2 (2012): 59–69.

———. The Elohist : A Seventh-Century Theological Tradition. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017.

Graupner, Axel. Der Elohist: Gegenwart Und Wirksamkeit Des Transzendenten Gottes in Der
Geschichte. Vol. 97. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002.

Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis. Chapters 1–17. Vol. 1 of NICOT. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1990.

———. The Book of Genesis. Chapters 18–50. Vol. 2 of NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1995.

Haran, Menahem. “Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Source.”
JBL 100.3 (1981): 321–333.
 151

Hiebert, Theodore. “Israel’s Ancestors Were Not Nomads.” Pages 199–205 in Exploring the
Longue Durée : Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager. Edited by J. David Schloen.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.

Hong, Koog-Pyoung. “Abraham, Genesis 20–22, and the Northern Elohist.” Biblica 94.3 (2013):
321–339.

Hundley, Michael B. “Of God and Angels: Divine Messengers in Genesis and Exodus in Their
Ancient Near Eastern Contexts.” JTS 67.1 (2016): 1–22.

Hunter, Alastair G. “Father Abraham: A Structural and Theological Study of the Yahwist’s
Presentation of the Abraham Material.” JSOT 11.35 (1986): 3–27.

Irvine, Stuart A. “‘Is Anything Too Hard for Yahweh?’: Fulfillment of Promise and Threat in
Genesis 18–19.” JSOT 42.3 (2018): 285–302.

Joüon, Paul, and Takamitsu Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. SubBi 27. Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006.

Keith, Chris. “Social Memory Theory and Gospels Research: The First Decade (Part One).” EC
6.3 (2015): 354–376.

———. “Social Memory Theory and Gospels Research: The First Decade (Part Two).” EC 6.4
(2015): 517–542.

Kirk, Alan, and Tom Thatcher, eds. Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early
Christianity. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2005.

Klein, Ralph W. “Yahwist Looks at Abraham.” CTM 45.1 (1974): 43–49.

Knohl, Israel. The Divine Symphony: The Bible’s Many Voices. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society of America, 2003.

Külling, S. R. “The Dating of the So-Called ‘P-Sections’ in Genesis.” JETS 15.2 (1972): 67–76.

Lange, Armin. “From Many to One – Some Thoughts on the Hebrew Textual History of the
Torah.” Pages 121–95 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic
Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America. Edited by Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M.
Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2016.

Lee, Chee-Chiew. “Once Again: The Niphal and the Hithpael of ‫ ברך‬in the Abrahamic Blessing
for the Nations.” JSOT 36.3 (2012): 279–296.

Levi Della Vida, Giorgio. “El ’Elyon in Genesis 14:18–20.” JBL 63.1 (1944): 1–9.

Levin, Christoph. “The Yahwist: The Earliest Editor in the Pentateuch.” JBL 126.2 (2007): 209–
230.
 152

Lohr, Joel N. Chosen and Unchosen: Conceptions of Election in the Pentateuch and Jewish-
Christian Interpretation. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.

Machiela, Daniel A., and Andrew B. Perrin. “Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon: Toward a
Family Portrait.” JBL 133.1 (2014): 111–32.

Mafico, Temba L. “The Crucial Question Concerning the Justice of God (Gen 18:23–26).” JTSA
42 (1983): 11–16.

Margalith, Othniel. “The Riddle of Genesis 14 and Melchizedek.” ZAW 112.4 (2000): 501–508.

Mathews, K. A. Genesis. Vol. 1A–1B of NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005.

McEvenue, Sean E. “Comparison of Narrative Styles in the Hagar Stories.” Semeia 3 (1975):
64–80.

———. Interpreting the Pentateuch. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990.

———. “The Elohist at Work.” ZAW 96.3 (1984): 315–332.

———. The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer. Vol. 50 of AnBib. Rome: Biblical Institute
Press, 1971.

Meyer, Esias E. “Divide and Be Different: Priestly Identity in the Persian Period.” HvTSt 68.1
(2012): 1–6.

Milgrom, Jacob. “Priestly (‘P’) Source.” ABD. Edited by David Noel Freedman, Gary A. Herion,
David F. Graf, John David Pleins, and Astrid B. Beck. Vol. 5 of ABD. New York:
Doubleday, 1992.

Miller, Patrick D. “Syntax and Theology in Genesis 12:3a.” VT 34.4 (1984): 472–476.

Miller, Troy. “Relationships, Haggling, and Injustice in Genesis 18.” JTAK 36.2 (2012): 29–38.

Morschauser, Scott. “Campaigning on Less than a Shoe-String: An Ancient Egyptian Parallel to

Abram’s ‘Oath’ in Genesis 14.22–13.” JSOT 38.2 (2013): 127–144.

Muilenburg, James. “Abraham and the Nations: Blessing and World History.” Int 19.4 (1965):
387–398.

Nicholson, Ernest. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1998.

North, Robert. “Can Geography Save J from Rendtorff?” Bib 63.1 (1982): 47–55.

Noth, Martin. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981.

Propp, William Henry. Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
1st ed. Vol. 2A of AB. New York: Doubleday, 2006.
 153

———. “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact.” VT 46.4 (1996): 458–478.

Rad, Gerhard von. Genesis: A Commentary. Translated by John H. Marks. Rev. ed. OTL.
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972.

Radday, Yehuda T., Haim Shore, Moshe A. Pollatschek, and Dieter Wickmann. “Genesis,
Wellhausen and the Computer.” ZAW 94.4 (1982): 467–481.

Rendtorff, Rolf. “The ‘Yahwist’ as Theologian: Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism.” JSOT 1.3
(1976): 2–10.

Römer, Thomas. “Abraham’s Righteousness and Sacrifice: How to Understand (and Translate)
Genesis 15 and 22.” CV 54.1 (2012): 3–15.

Rotenberry, Paul. “Blessing in the Old Testament: A Study of Genesis 12:3.” ResQ 2.1 (1958):
32–36.

Roth, Wolfgang M. W. “Wooing of Rebekah: A Tradition-Critical Study of Genesis 24.” CBQ

34.2 (1972): 177–187.

Russell, Stephen C. “Abraham’s Purchase of Ephron’s Land in Anthropological Perspective.”

BibInt 21.2 (2013): 153–170.

Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis = Be-Reshit: The Traditional Hebrew Text With New JPS
Translation. 1st ed. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of
America, 1989.

Sasson, Jack M. “Circumcision in the Ancient Near East.” JBL 85.4 (1966): 473–476.

Schaub, Marilyn M. “Lot and the Cities of the Plain: A Little About a Lot.” Proceedings from
the EGLBS Annual Conference (1982): 1–21.

Smith, Mark. “Review of The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of
Europe, Israel, and North America.” Edited by Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, and
Dalit Rom-Shiloni. Review of Biblical Literature (2019).
https://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/12759_14229.pdf.

Smith, Robert Houston. “Abram and Melchizedek (Gen 14:18–20).” ZAW 77.2 (1965): 129–153.

Sparks, Kenton L. “Enūma Elish and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism.”
JBL 126.4 (2007): 625–648.

———. God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical

Scholarship. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

Speiser, E. A. Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. 2nd ed. Vol. 1 of AB. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1964.
 154

Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “Melchizedek in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature.” JSNT 41.1 (2018):

124–138.

Tatu, Silviu. “Making Sense of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18–20).” JESOT 3.1 (2014): 49–76.

Tervanotko, Hanna. “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi
Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees.” RevQ 27.2 (2015): 155–76.

Thiessen, Matthew. “Aseneth’s Eight-Day Transformation as Scriptural Justification for

Conversion.” JSJ 45.2 (2014): 229–49.

———. “Luke 2:22, Leviticus 12, and Parturient Impurity.” NovT 54.1 (2012): 16–29.

———. “The Text of Genesis 17:14.” JBL 128.4 (2009): 625–42.

Tigay, Jeffrey H. “An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis.” JBL 94.3 (1975): 329–
342.

Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Second Revised Edition. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2001.

Tucker, Gene M. “Legal Background of Genesis 23.” JBL 85.1 (1966): 77–84.

Van Seters, John. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975.

———. “Dating the Yahwist’s History: Principles and Perspectives.” Bib 96.1 (2015): 1–25.

———. The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary. London: T & T Clark, 2004.

———. “The Religion of the Patriarchs in Genesis.” Bib 61.2 (1980): 220–233.

Wagner, Norman E. “A Response to Professor Rolf Rendtorff.” JSOT 1.3 (1976): 20–27.

Waltke, Bruce K. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. 3rd, corr. print ed. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Weisman, Zeev. “National Consciousness in the Patriarchal Promises.” JSOT 10.31 (1985): 55–
73.

———. “The Interrelationship between J and E in Jacob’s Narrative: Theological Criteria.” ZAW
104.2 (1992): 177–197.

Wenham, Gordon J. “Composition of the Pentateuch.” Pages 159–85 in Exploring the Old
Testament: A Guide to the Pentateuch. Vol. 1 of Exploring the Bible. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2003.

———. Genesis 1–15. Vol. 1 of WBC. Waco, TX: Word, 1987.

———. Genesis 16–50. Vol. 2 of WBC. Nashville: Nelson, 1994.

 155

———. “The Priority of P.” VT 49.2 (1999): 240–258.

Westermann, Claus. Genesis 12–36: A Commentary. Translated by J. J. Scullion. Vol. 2 of CC.

Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985.

———. The Promises to the Fathers: Studies on the Patriarchal Narratives. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1980.

Whybray, R. N. “Response to Professor Rendtorff.” JSOT 1.3 (1976): 11–14.

———. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. JSOTSup. Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1987.

Wifall, Walter R. “Bone of My Bones and Flesh of My Flesh: The Politics of the Yahwist.”
CurTM 10.3 (1983): 176–183.

Williamson, Paul R. Abraham, Israel and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise and Its
Covenantal Development in Genesis. JSOTSup 315. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
2000.

Wise, Michael O., Martin G. Abegg Jr., and Edward M. Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New
Translation. Revised Edition. New York: HarperCollins, 2005.

Wolff, Hans Walter. “Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch.” Int 26.2 (1972): 158–173.

———. “Kerygma of the Yahwist.” Int 20.2 (1966): 131–158.

Wright, N. T. Paul: In Fresh Perspective. 1st Fortress Press ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.

Yerkes, Royden Keith. “The Location and Etymology of YHWH YRʼAH, Gn. 22:14.” JBL 31.3
(1912): 136–139.

Zahn, Molly M. “Scribal Revision and the Composition of the Pentateuch – Methodological
Issues.” Pages 491–500 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic
Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America. Edited by Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M.
Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2016.

Zevit, Ziony. “Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P.” ZAW 94.4 (1982): 481–
511.