Genesis and Deuteronomy

In recent scholarship, there is a general consensus that the most plausibly identifiable type of material in the Pentateuch, especially in Genesis, is the Priestly material, source, or layer. Therefore, the problem of the literary relationship between Genesis and Deuteronomy is rather seldom analysed in recent scholarship.

The thesis that various parts of Genesis are literarily dependent on Deuteronomy is not new. In the second half of the twentieth century, it was formulated in terms of the use of Deuteronom(ist)ic ideas, redactional layer, and/or literature by the hypothetical Yahwist. A survey of modern research on the presence of Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic elements in Genesis–Numbers has recently been done by Hans Ausloos. Research into the Deuteronom(ist)ic problem in Genesis–Numbers has reached something of an impasse.’ However, Ausloos’s study is methodologically restricted to the ‘Deuteronom(ist)ic passages’ in Genesis–Numbers, that is, to the passages which exhibit a relatively high level of agreement in its form (vocabulary, style, and/ or compositional features) and/or content (theological themes and concepts) with passages in the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. Ausloos’s key example in this respect is Exod 23:20–33.

The problem is additionally complicated by the fact that numerous modern scholars divide the fragments of Genesis into various layers, redactions, rewritings, etc., which in their opinions may predate or postdate Deuteronomy. Accordingly, in this exegetical approach a given pericope can be regarded as both pre-Deuteronomic and post-Deuteronomic. Michael Carasik has suggested that a Deuteronomic voice can be detected in the Genesis Joseph story (Gen 37–50). In his opinion, this ‘voice’ can be heard in some Deuteronomic vocabulary and the Deuteronomic-style psychological orientation of the Joseph story (M. Carasik, ‘A Deuteronomic Voice in the Joseph Story,’ in N. S. Fox, D. A. GlattGilad, and M. J. Williams (eds.), Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment, Festschrift J. H. Tigay (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2009). Although Carasik’s arguments are not always convincing because he analyses the Pentateuch in isolation from prophetic and sapiential writings, his attempt to find some Deuteronomic influence on Genesis is certainly interesting.

Joel S. Baden notes that some earlier scholars argued for isolated use of Deuteronomic language in various fragments of Genesis. However, he rejects this hypothesis by claiming that, for example, Gen 26:5 does not refer to the Deuteronomic laws because in Gen 26:5 no laws have yet been given.

Konrad Schmid is of the opinion that Moses’ lifespan of 120 years in Deut 34:7 presupposes its limitation to 120 years in Gen 6:3 because the statement concerning Moses’ vigour in Deut 34:7 (diff. 31:1–2) has no other explanation.

Walter Bührer disagrees with Konrad Schmid and argues that the idea of the limiting of the human lifespan to 120 years in Gen 6:3 was most likely borrowed from the text of Deut 31:2 or, less probably, Deut 34:7. In his opinion, the reverse direction of literary dependence is implausible because the calculations of Moses’ lifespan of 120 years can also be found in other parts of the story of Moses (Exod 7:7 etc.) (W. Bührer, ‘Göttersöhne und Menschentöchter: Gen 6,1–4 als innerbiblische Schriftauslegung,’ ZAW 123 (2011) 495–515 (esp. 511).

Megan Warner has recently analysed the Genesis passages Gen 15; 18:17–19; 22:15–18; and 26:3–5. In these four passages, she has ‘encountered numerous instances of language, motifs and themes that are typical and distinctive of Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. The conclusions of the Australian scholar are very insightful. She has rightly argued that the relationship between Genesis and the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature cannot be understood in terms of simple borrowing of certain clearly recognizable Deuteronom(ist)ic words, phrases, motifs, and themes. Stephan Germany, on the other hand, simply assumes that the Deuteronomic rhetorical equation of the Ammonite and the Moabite with a bastard (Deut 23:3– 4) is only understandable against the background of the story Gen 19:30–38, and the exhortation to regard the Edomite as a brother (Deut 23:8) is based on the Genesis story of Jacob and Esau.

Dating of Genesis

1. • The text of Gen 11:5–9 suggests that the great tower in the city of Babylon (so presumably the great ziggurat Etemenanki) was left unfinished. Accordingly, at the time of the composition of Genesis it was most probably partly ruined (Cf. A. Berlejung, ‘Living in the Land of Shinar: Reflections on Exile in Genesis 11:1–9?,’ in P. Dubovský, D. Markl, and J.-P. Sonnet (eds.), The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah (FAT 107; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 89–111 esp. 95, n.26).
2. • This depiction best suits the period between the latest reconstruction of Etemenanki by Nebuchadnezzar II and its partial demolition probably by Xerxes (c.480 bc), as the terminus a quo, and its final levelling started by Alexander the Great (in 323 bc), as the terminus ad quem. Therefore, it can be argued that the book of Genesis was composed in the Persian period, c.480–330 bc.

Moreover, Murray H. Lichtenstein has recently suggested that the enigmatic image of a revolving sword with flashing blade (Gen 3:24b) reflects the image of the fearsome Persian scythed chariot, said to have been introduced by Artaxerxes I between 467 and 458 bc. If this argument is valid, then Genesis was composed not earlier than in mid-fifth-century bc (M. H. Lichtenstein, ‘The Fearsome Sword of Genesis 3:24,’ JBL 134 (2015) 53–57 (esp. 56–57)). What is more important, the book of Genesis presents the mount of Moriah, which should be identified with the ‘place’ of the name of Yahweh at Moreh, so with Mount Gerizim (Deut 11:29–12:27; Gen 12:6), as the location of the only altar in Canaan on which burnt offerings may be offered (Gen 22:1–14; cf. 12:7; 33:20). Since the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim seems to have been founded by Sanballat c.424–407 bc, then late fifth century bc constitutes the plausible terminus a quo for the composition of Genesis (J. Dušek, ‘Mt. Gerizim Sanctuary, Its History and Enigma of Origin,’ HBAI 3 (2014) 111–133 (esp. 114–116). Cf. also Y. Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, A Temple City (Judea & Samaria Publications 8; Israel Antiquities Authority: Jerusalem 2008), 169, 172–174).

In this context, it should also be noted that the Genesis story of the Israelite patriarchs (Gen 12–50) covers four generations. Since the character of the Haranite Abraham (Gen 11:31–32; 12:4–5), who inaugurated the offering of burnt offerings on Moriah, that is, Mount Gerizim (Gen 22:1–14), displays significant features of Sanballat the Horonite/Haranite (Neh 2:10.19; 13:28), the founder of the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim, then the importance of the fourthgeneration Joseph (Gen 37–50) points to the fourth generation after Sanballat, so c.300 bc, as the time of the composition of Genesis. However, if we do not count the patriarchs’ generations in abstract terms, but rather understand them as alluding to the sequence of the governors of the Persian province of Samaria, then all four ‘generations’ of the governors fall within the Persian period.

1. 
   The late dating of Genesis to the Hellenistic period,72 when the Ptolemaic pharaohs ruled in Egypt and governed Judaea,73 is not without problems. The use of the enigmatic noun מכרה in Gen 49:5, which may be a transcription of the Greek noun μάχαιρα (‘sword’),74 could point in this direction. However, the use of Greek military terminology in Israel is also plausible already in the Persian period, when the Israelites most probably had some contact with Greek mercenaries in the Persian army. Moreover, since Samuel–Kings is a Judaean reworking of Deuteronomy,75 and it contains motifs borrowed from Genesis (cf. e.g. 2 Sam 13:1–22 and Gen 38:6–26), then its composition constitutes the terminus ad quem for the writing of Genesis. Therefore, dating Genesis to the Hellenistic period implies dating Samuel–Kings to a later time in the Hellenistic period, and Chronicles yet later. This is rather implausible because Sir 44–49 (written c.195–180 bc)76 alludes to the combined Israelite–Judaean story (Gen–Kings) which is already present in Chronicles. Therefore, dating Genesis to the third century bc is rather implausible. The argument that the character of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18–20) alludes to the Hasmoneans77 is hardly convincing in view of the fact that Melchizedek is presented in Gen 14:18 as both king and priest, and such merging of both functions was invented by the Hasmoneans not earlier than around 100 bc, 78 so evidently too late for the composition of Genesis, which was at that time already witnessed in manuscripts (6QpaleoGen: 250–150 bc), the Old Greek translation (mid-third century bc),79 and other writings (1 Enoch; Jubilees; 4QDibHama ; 4QParaGen-Exod; 1QapGen; 4QRP etc.).

It is difficult to date Genesis on the basis of its linguistic and historical features, especially with the use of argumentum ex silentio as concerns the absence of Late Biblical Hebrew features or loanwords.81 The Hebrew language of Genesis contains some archaic elements, but also some evidently late ones.82 For example, the use of the Hebrew term מגדנת) Gen 24:53), which elsewhere in the Bible only occurs in the post-exilic texts Ezra 1:6; 2 Chr 21:3; 32:23, suggests that Gen 24 is a late composition. Similarly, the noun רכוש, apart from Genesis and Numbers, can only be found in Ezra, Chronicles, and Daniel (K. Schmid, ‘How to Identify,’ 111), which suggests that Genesis and Exodus–Numbers are late Persian texts.

Likewise, the noun שליט) Gen 42:6) elsewhere in the Bible can only be found in Qoh 7:19; 8:8; 10:5, and the corresponding verb שלט, well known in Aramaic, only occurs in the post-exilic texts Neh 5:15; Esth 9:1; Ps 119:133; Qoh 2:19; 5:18; 6:2; 8:9.85 Similarly, the Aramaic loanword מזון) Gen 45:23) elsewhere in the Bible only occurs in the late texts 2 Chr 11:23; Dan 4:9 (Cf. J. Joosten, ‘Linguistic Dating,’ 33). Moreover, Genesis 39 contains many features which are typical of Late Biblical Hebrew (Cf. ibid. 38–40). Therefore, Genesis was most probably written by the end of the Persian period, so c.350–340 bc.

Accordingly, in his literary activity the author of Genesis could use the earlier prophetic works of Amos, Hosea (Cf. L. Lepore, Sulle orme dei patriarchi (BeOSup; Sardini: Bornato in Franciacorta 2018), 188–191), Isaiah (Cf. T. L. Brodie, Genesis, 435–436, 440–441), Micah, Jeremiah (Cf. ibid. 441–444; I.-S. Chung, ‘Jeremiah’s Call and Jacob’s Birth: A Test Case for Investigating Prophetic Influence on the Book of Genesis,’ ExpTim 128 (2017) 325–333), Ezekiel (Cf. T. L. Brodie, Genesis, 82, 436–440; D. Lipton, ‘The Limits of Intercession: Abraham Reads Ezekiel at Sodom and Gomorrah,’ in D. Lipton (ed.), Universalism and Particularism at Sodom and Gomorrah, Festschrift R. Pirson (AIL 11; SBL: Atlanta 2012), 25–41 (esp. 29–30)), Deutero-Isaiah (Cf. T. L. Brodie, Genesis, 82, 444–445), and possibly also Joel. As is consistently argued in this monograph, he used Deuteronomy as his main structure-giving hypotext. Besides, he used the literary sequel to Deuteronomy: the books of Joshua and Judges. Moreover, he also used the book of Job, and maybe also the book of Proverbs.

Cf. G. Hepner, Legal Friction, 8; R. K. Gnuse, ‘Seven Gay Texts: Biblical Passages Used to Condemn Homosexuality,’ BTB 45 (2015) 68–87 (esp. 72). It is quite natural in expansions of a given story (see, for example, the saga of the Star Wars) that the original story (in this case, Deuteronomy) is first supplemented with a sequel (in this case, Joshua and Judges), and only thereafter with a prequel (in this case, Genesis followed by Exodus–Leviticus–Numbers). For an interpretation of the Genesis story of the patriarchs as a prequel to the Deuteronomic story of Moses, see M. Warner, ‘Back to the Future,’ 490–491, 493, 495. For a suggestion that Gen–Num was written by an author who worked together with the author of Deut–Josh, and that Gen is a prequel to Exod–Josh, see P. Pitkänen, ‘Reading,’ 4.

Place of composition

In Genesis, the patriarchs build altars of Yahweh at various places: the first one at Shechem (Gen 12:7; 33:20), and then, going southward, at Bethel (Gen 12:8; 13:4; 35:1.3.7), Hebron (Gen 13:18), and Beersheba (Gen 26:25). However, all these altars are places of merely invoking the name of Yahweh, in agreement with the permission granted in Josh 22:10–3499 (and the Elephantine papyri) to the places of some Yahwistic worship away from the central sanctuary of Yahweh. Only the mount of Mori-Yah (Gen 22:2), which linguistically represents the ‘place’ of the name of Yah(weh) at Moreh, so on Mount Gerizim (Deut 11:29– 12:27;102 Gen 12:6–7), is described in Genesis as the location of the unique altar in Canaan on which burnt offerings were offered in agreement with the will of Yahweh (Gen 22:1–14; cf. 12:7; 33:20). This fact strongly suggests that Genesis was written in (northern) Israel, presumably in the territory of Ephraim, who is presented in Genesis as the ultimate firstborn, particularly blessed son of Jacob/Israel (Gen 48:5.14.20; cf. 49:22–26 etc.).

Besides, the somewhat surprising presentation of (a) Ur of the Chaldeans, a city related in the Neo-Babylonian empire to the worship of the moon god Sin, as the distant origin, and (b) the city of Haran (חרן(, the other Neo-Babylonian main centre of the cult of the moon god Sin, as the proximate origin of Abraham, the first Israelite inhabitant of Canaan (Gen 11:31–12:5), together with the description of Abraham as (c) paying respect to a monotheistic priest from Salem (Gen 14:18–20) and (d) inaugurating the offering of burnt offerings on Moriah, that is, Mount Gerizim (Gen 22:1–14), alludes to (a) the Akkadian, surprisingly non-Yahwistic name of Sanballat (Sîn-uballiṭ), meaning ‘may [the moon god] Sin give him life,’109 and (b) the city of Haran/Horon as the origin of Sanballat the Horonite (חרני(,110 apparently the first Israelite governor of the Persian province of Samaria (Neh 2:10.19; 13:28),111 who was (c) the father-in-law of an important priest from Jerusalem (Neh 13:28) and (d) the founder of the sanctuary of Yahweh on Mount Gerizim.112 Moreover, the close ties of Abraham with the Moabites and the Ammonites (through Lot) as well as the Arabs (through Ishmael) allude to the close ties of the Israelite Sanballat (and not the Judaean leader Nehemiah: Neh 4:1; 13:1–9) with Tobiah the Ammonite official and Geshem the Arab (Neh 2:19; cf. 4:1; 6:1).

These connections also imply that Genesis, like Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges, was written from an Israelite (northern) geographical-theological perspective. For this reason, Genesis contains numerous positive statements and allusions concerning Shechem (esp. Gen 9:23; 12:6–7; 33:18–34:29; 35:4; 48:22), Mount Gerizim (esp. Gen 22:1–14), Joseph (esp. Gen 37; 39–50), and Ephraim (esp. Gen 48:5.13–20). The fact that Joseph, and ultimately Ephraim, but not Levi (cf. Gen 49:5–7), is presented in Genesis as receiving Jacob’s special blessing (Gen 48:14–16.20–22; 49:22–26)119 also implies that the Sitz im Leben of Genesis should be traced in the Israelite secular elite in the entourage of the governors of Samaria, the successors of Sanballat, and not in priestly circles. It is also significant that Jerusalem, together with Samaria and Shiloh, is virtually non-existent in Genesis.120 Genesis contains only a few, mainly negative, allusions to Jerusalem (Gen 14:18; 35:21–22; 36:2). Therefore, Jerusalem seems to be punished in Genesis with damnatio memoriae. 121 The almost complete, evidently conscious absence of Jerusalem in Genesis points to the territory of the historical state of Israel, and more particularly the territory of Ephraim (centred on Shechem and Mount Gerizim), and not Judah, as the place of the composition of Genesis. This idea was already argued by Yitzhak Magen, who stated, ‘The books of Genesis, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges hallow Shechem over all other cities in the land of Israel, and the main rite of the people of Israel was practiced there.

Gen 1-3 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1-2:1

1.1. Gen 1:1–2:3 (cf. Deut 1:1–5)

1. The opening thought that (a) in the beginning (c) God (b) created (d) the heaven and (e) the earth/land, so that the latter was a space of cultically inferior value (Gen 1:1; cf. 1:14–15), conceptually, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) these beginning (cf. Deut 1:5) words, which (c) Moses, and in fact Yahweh through him (cf. Deut 1:3), (b) spoke (d) to all Israel, presumably with the heaven-related (שמים: Deut 33:13; cf. Gen 49:25), sanctuary-related, and consecrated tribe of Joseph (cf. Deut 11:29–12:28; 27:4–8; 33:16), (e) beyond the Jordan, so in the cultically inferior part of the land (הארץ ( given by Yahweh God (אלהים (to the Israelites (Deut 1:1ab; cf. 2:31–3:18; 4:47– 49; Josh 22:10–34). Therefore, the bipartite division of space between the heaven and the earth (Gen 1:1), which is at variance with the tripartite cosmology of the narrative Gen 1:2–31 (cf. Exod 20:11), illustrates the Deuteronomic bipartite division of space between the land of Israel proper (Canaan) and the territory beyond the Jordan (Deut 1:1).
2. The particular motif of God creating the heaven and the earth (הארץ + השמים + אלהים + ברא: Gen 1:1) was borrowed from Isa 45:18. Therefore, probably under the influence of Isa 45:18–19, which connects Yahweh God’s creating activity with Yahweh’s speaking, the verb ברא’) create’) was used in Genesis, apart from the retrospective statement of Gen 6:7, in the places which illustrate the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh speaking to the Israelites through Moses: Gen 1:1 (cf. Deut 1:1ab); Gen 1:21 (cf. Deut 1:3b); Gen 1:27 (cf. Deut 1:3c); Gen 2:3–4b (cf. Deut 1:5–6a); and Gen 5:1–2 (cf. Deut 2:17–18). The subsequent idea of the earth/land being (a) wasteland (תהו: cf. Deut 32:10: תהו *מדבר (and (b) emptiness (Gen 1:2ab) conceptually, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the territory beyond the Jordan being (a) wilderness (מדבר (and (b) desert (Deut 1:1b). The particular motif of the earth/land being wasteland and emptiness, as well as remaining in darkness (ובהו תהו + הארץ: Gen 1:2ab) was borrowed from Jer 4:23.

The subsequent, quite surprising idea of the S/spirit of God hovering like a bird over the surface of the water (Gen 1:2c) in a graphic way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of being in front of Suph, which means ‘water reeds’ (סוף: Deut 1:1; cf. Deut 1:40; Exod 2:3; etc.). It is worth noting that the motif of the Spirit of God (אלהים רוח(, which was borrowed from Ezek 11:24, in Num 24:1–2 appears in the context of the wilderness (מדבר (in Transjordan, and the Deuteronomic Suph was also located in the wilderness in Transjordan (Deut 1:1). The particular motif of God hovering like a bird over something (רחף + על: Gen 1:2c) was borrowed from Deut 32:11 (cf. the earlier use of Deut 32:10 in Gen 1:2a). The subsequent idea of separating (a) between (בין (the good light (b) and (ובין (the presumably bad darkness (Gen 1:3–4) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of being (a) between the presumably good Paran (b) and the presumably bad Tophel (Deut 1:1). The name of Paran (פארן (has positive connotations related to light because it refers in Deuteronomy to the place of Yahweh shining forth (Deut 33:2; cf. Hab 3:3–4: אור + פארן(, whereas the name of Tophel (תפל (has negative connotations related to darkness because it elsewhere refers to smearing sinfully whitewash before the presumably dark hailstorm of Yahweh’s anger (cf. Ezek 13:10–15; 22:28).

The subsequent motifs of (a) day, (b) night, and (c) sunset and sunrise (Gen 1:5a–d)11 graphically,12 in a sequential way illustrate the subsequent Deuteronomic remarks concerning (a) the etymologically ‘white,’ so day-like Laban, (b) the presumably night-time ‘courtyards, settlements’ Hazeroth, and (c) the ‘golden’ Di-zahab (Deut 1:1). The subsequent, quite surprising idea of counting time in terms of one (diff. Gen 1:8 etc.: first) day (אחד + יום: Gen 1:5d),13 an idea which is additionally surprising in view of the fact that the sun, measuring the days, has not yet been created (cf. Gen 1:14),14 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of counting time in terms of one and ten days (אחד + .(1:2 Deut :יום The subsequent idea of the firmament (Gen 1:6–8) with the use of Ezekiel’s motif of a firmament (רקיע (as God’s theophanic place, reaching heaven, outside Israel (cf. Ezek 1:22–26),15 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Horeb as God’s initial theophanic place, reaching heaven, outside Israel (Deut 1:2; cf. 1:6; 4:10–11; etc.).

The somewhat surprising absence of the typical statement that it was good (Gen 1:7–8; diff. 1:4 etc.)16 reflects the Deuteronomic idea of Horeb as the negative background to Israel’s journey to Canaan (Deut 1:2; cf. 1:6). The particular motif of a speaker saying that something should happen, and the narrator confirming that it was so, thus confirming the reliability of God’s word (ויהי־כן + אלהים + ויאמר: Gen 1:6–7 etc.), was borrowed from Judg 6:36–38. The subsequent idea of good dry land as opposed to the waters of the sea gathered, quite surprisingly, in one place somewhere aside (Gen 1:9–10) with the use of the motif also known from the account of going from Egypt to Israel on dry land in the midst of the waters of the sea (ים + יבשה + המים: Exod 14:21–22;17 cf. Josh 4:22–23)18 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a way, presumably from Horeb, through the dry Sinai peninsula sided by the waters of the sea (cf. Exod 23:31), to Canaan (Deut 1:2).

The subsequent idea of good vegetation, consisting of herbs and fruit trees (Gen 1:11–13), but not agricultural plants (diff. Gen 2:5), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh’s Mount Seir (cf. Deut 33:2), whose name probably means ‘hairy,’ that is, ‘covered with plants’ (שעיר: Deut 1:2). The particular motif of herbal vegetation (עשב + דשא: Gen 1:11–12), related to שעיר (seir: cf. Deut 1:2), was borrowed from Deut 32:2.

The motif of vegetation consisting of fruit trees of various kinds (פרי + עץ + דשא: Gen 1:11–12) may have been borrowed from Joel 2:22. The subsequent idea of good ‘lamps’: the sun, the moon, and the stars, functioning as signs for liturgical festivals (מועד(,19 days, and years (שנה(, as well as giving light over the earth continually, including the time from evening to morning (Gen 1:14–19), with the use of the motif of the lamp (מאור (in God’s place of liturgical meeting (מועד(,20 giving light continually,21 from evening (ערב (to morning (בקר(, thus spiritually shining over the whole land of Israel (cf. Exod 27:20–21; Lev 24:2–3), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic ideas of a ‘sanctuary’22 at Kadesh (‘holy place’) Barnea, as well as a particular year, month, and day (Deut 1:2–3a). The particular motif of luminaries in the heaven, giving light upon the earth/land 32:8. Ezek from borrowed was ,)16–1:14 Gen :מאורת + שמים + אור + על + ארץ) The subsequent idea of God blessing the good swarming living creatures by speaking to them, so that they might become fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:20– 25),23 with the use of the motif known from the account of the sons of Israel (ישראל בני (being fruitful, prolific, and multiplying (רבה + שרץ + פרה: Exod 1:7)24 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses speaking to the presumably numerous and blessed (cf. Deut 1:10–11) sons of Israel (Deut 1:3b). The particular motif of waters swarming with all living creatures in their kinds, being ,(22–1:20 Gen :שרץ + המים + כל־נפש חיה + למינה + רבה + ים) sea the in numerous was borrowed from Ezek 47:9–10.2