For insights and more about the Jacob/Joseph story and the transition to Exodus see the post at this site titled Genesis 46-47: Transition to Exodus and J-E-P Components
John J. Collins – Regarding Genesis saying that husbands “will rule over you.”
In his interview by Darrel Lambert, Collins said in relation to Genesis 3:1-19 — “…the second issue is the question, you know, are women subordinated in the story of Adam and Eve? And you know, again, that there is a little ambiguity in this because if the story says that woman is taken from man, is that an innocent motif or is it a power play? I mean, one suspects that there is some implication of power involved in it, but at the same time, it isn’t saying that women therefore should be subordinate. The only place where you do get talk about subordination is in the consequences of the disobedience and what you get then that man shall eat his bread by the sweat of his brow and snakes shall crawl on their belly and eat dirt, which I’m told they don’t actually do. But now is what’s going on there? Does this mean that men should always engage in physical labor? Right? Nobody seriously is going to say that. So, should one say that women, therefore, should always be subordinate to their husbands? See, I think what the story is doing is describing the world as they saw it, as people assumed that it was, and trying to provide a rationale for it.“
James Tabor – There is NO FALL of Humankind in the Garden of Eden in Genesis!
The entire tale in the book of Genesis of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil has been portrayed as the FALL OF Humanity from God’s Grace and Favor. It is quite the opposite. In this video I examine the original texts, properly translated and understood in their historical contents. This is history not theology! Extracted.
Christine Hayes from Lecture 4 of her Into to the OT course: Hayes notes God’s preference for Abel’s offering over Cain’s, reflecting a recurring biblical tension between nomadic pastoralism (Abel) and settled agricultural life (Cain). Genesis 4:1–16.
See a Nerd’s conversation at BSA here about the significance of the “ground” in Genesis Chapters 1-4: Adam was made from the ground; when kicked out of Eden he had to till the ground; Cain spilt Abel’s blood onto the ground; Cain’s sin cursed the ground; and more…
Bart Ehrman’s Blog
From a commenter on Bart Ehrman’s Blog — In the Garden of Eden story, God gives Adam and Eve very earthly punishments, says nothing about an afterlife, and in fact, drives them from the garden so they won’t live forever. At what point did the Jews begin to adopt the idea of a judgment after death and an afterlife? Bart responded, “Ah, that’s the topic of my book Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife. I argue that it became a pronounced issue only with the rise of Jewish apocalyptic thought a couple of centuries before Jesus.”
Gen. 36:31, states: “These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites.” This is a verse that presupposes that the author knows of a time when kings were to rule over Israel. But that would not happen for over two centuries after the death of Moses (after the Israelites conquered the land in the book of Joshua, and were then ruled over by tribal leaders for at least two hundred years, as described in the book of Judges). Genesis must, then, have been written at least during the monarchy – or even later. From Bart’s post here.
In addition to the problems just mentioned, other troubling features of the narratives came to the fore. I [Bart] have already mentioned the fact that there are numerous anachronisms in the stories of Genesis: camels were not domesticated in Canaan in Abraham’s time (despite what is said in the stories), for instance – or in the time of Moses. So, too, the Philistines did not exist as a nation yet. Nor did the city of Beersheba. The stories that contain such references could not have been written in Moses’ day in the 13th century BCE; they must have be dated to a time no earlier than the 11th century or so, and possibly much later.
Genesis 4:22; “Cutting Instruments of Iron” before Iron was known
Genesis 4:22 – And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, the forger of every cutting instrument of brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.
Note that in Genesis 4:22, Tubal-cail (7th generation since Adam) he is making cutting instruments of iron. Is this anachronistic?
Archaeological Evidence [From ChatCPT]:
- Iron tools first appeared in the Iron Age (around 1200 BCE), though meteoritic iron was used earlier for ceremonial and luxury items (e.g., daggers from the tomb of Pharaoh Tutankhamun, ca. 14th century BCE).
- The earliest smelted iron tools come from sites in Anatolia (modern Turkey) and Mesopotamia, where small-scale smelting began around 2000 BCE.
- By the 9th century BCE, iron was widely used for tools, weapons, and cutting implements in the Levant and beyond.
My conclusion: The author of Genesis was not familiar with the fact that cutting instruments of iron were not known in the time of Zillah and her son Tubal-Cain. But he knew of iron instruments, and hence this is an anachronism.
On which day did God rest after the creation? (Genesis 2:2)
From Searching for the “Original” Bible. Do the Dead Sea Scrolls help? By Emanuel Tov
The statement in Genesis 2:2 is clear: Upon finishing the creation activity in six days, God rested on the seventh day. Most translations, such as the New Revised Standard Version and English Standard Version, render the Hebrew text literally: “And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done (and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done”). This has been the usual translation in English ever since the King James Version of 1611 (“And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made”).
All these translations pose an exegetical challenge, however: If God finished his work on the seventh day, by implication he must have performed at least a minimal amount of work on that day.
The medieval Jewish commentator Rashi suggested that God performed only “a hair’s breadth” of work. There is no real linguistic problem in this verse, however, if the Hebrew is taken to mean something like “By the seventh day God finished his work.” At the same time, according to some commentators, there is still a theological problem, for if people are not permitted to work on the seventh day, why did God perform even a minimal amount of work on that day?
Well, help may come from an unexpected place. The ancient Hebrew text known as the Samaritan Pentateuch reads “On the sixth day God finished …” This reading is also reflected in the Septuagint and the Peshitta (in Syriac).
Now, which Bible text are we to believe? Modern scholars disagree. Some prefer the reading “On the sixth day” because it is so much easier in the context. Others would say just the opposite: The reading “sixth” should be rejected precisely because it is so easy (“too good to be true”). That is, it must have been created in order to solve the problematic issue. In other words, these scholars would still prefer the slightly problematic received text referring to the “seventh day.”
This verse has not been preserved among the fragmentary Dead Sea Scrolls. In my view, however, even if a reading “seventh” or “sixth” had been preserved in an ancient Dead Sea Scroll, I would still claim that we should be guided by content considerations in deciding upon the “correct” reading. I would still choose “on the seventh day.”
Tov, Emanuel. “Searching for the ‘Original’ Bible,” Biblical Archaeology Review 40.4 (2014): 48–53, 68.
Extracts from my Kindle copy of Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman.
Splitting of David/Solomons Kingdom
The two stories have two different pictures of what happened. Now, the three investigators noticed that the first version of the creation story always refers to the creator as God—thirty-five times. The second version always refers to him by his name, Yahweh God—eleven times. The first version never calls him Yahweh; the second version never calls him God.
The Flood
But it is not only that it is possible to carve out two stories. What makes the case so powerful is that each story consistently uses its own language. The P story (the one in boldface) consistently refers to the deity as God. The J story always uses the name Yahweh. P refers to the sex of the animals with the words “male and female” (Gen 6:19; 7:9,16). J uses the terms “man and his woman” (Gen 7:2) as well as male and female. P says that everything “expired” (Gen 6:17; 7:21). J says that everything “died” (Gen 7:22).
The two versions do not just differ on terminology. They differ on actual details of the story. P has one pair of each kind of animal. J has seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals. (“Clean” means fit for sacrifice. Sheep are clean; lions are unclean.) P pictures the flood as lasting a year (370 days). J says it was forty days and forty nights. P has Noah send out a raven. J says a dove. P obviously has a concern for ages, dates, and measurements in cubits. J does not.
Probably the most remarkable difference of all between the two is their different ways of picturing God. It is not just that they call the deity by different names. J pictures a deity who can regret things that he has done (Gen 6:6,7), which raises interesting theological questions, such as whether an all-powerful, all-knowing being would ever regret past actions. It pictures a deity who can be “grieved to his heart” (6:6), who personally closes the ark (Gen 7:16) and smells Noah’s sacrifice (Gen 8:21). This anthropomorphic quality of J is virtually entirely lacking in P. There God is regarded more as a transcendent controller of the universe. page 59.
Where is Abraham from? Ur of the Chaldees or Ur Kasdim? See Ur Kasdim: Where Is Abraham’s Birthplace? by Gary Rensberg at TheTorah.com.
Genesis and the Moses Story – See copy in Schmid’s directory in Dropbox.
By Konrad Schmid, Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Judaism, University of Zurich, Switzerland, October 2010
Genesis and the Moses story were two competing myths of origin for Israel that were literarily and conceptually independent from each other. They both explained in different ways how Israel came to be. His article discusses the relationship to the neo-documentary hypothesis.
Differences in the Two Creation Stories
[This response is also posted here separately.]
From OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT [Large language model]. https://chatgpt.com, 11/19/2024
The two creation stories in the Hebrew Bible in Genesis reflect differences in style, content, and emphasis. Scholars often attribute these to different sources: J (Yahwist) and P (Priestly). For a compiled side-by-side version of the two stories, go here. If that link does not work then the side-by-side is in the Genesis directory in Dropbox. Here’s a comparison:
First Creation Story: Genesis 1:1–2:3. Source: Priestly (P)
- Order of Creation:
- Light and darkness
- Sky and water separation
- Land, seas, and vegetation
- Sun, moon, and stars
- Birds and sea creatures
- Land animals and humans (male and female together)
- Creation Method: God speaks creation into existence (“Let there be…”).
- God’s Name: Elohim.
- Timeframe: Six days, with the seventh day as a day of rest.
- Style: Formal, structured, poetic repetition (“And God saw that it was good”).
- Theological Focus: God as transcendent and orderly, emphasizing the majesty of creation and the Sabbath.
Second Creation Story: Genesis 2:4–2:25. Source: Yahwist (J)
- Order of Creation:
- Earth and heavens
- Man (Adam) from dust
- Garden of Eden with trees
- Animals as companions for Adam
- Woman (Eve) from Adam’s rib
- Creation Method: God forms and breathes life directly.
- God’s Name: YHWH Elohim (LORD God).
- Timeframe: No specific timeframe; more narrative in tone.
- Style: Story-like and anthropomorphic (God walks, plants a garden, shapes Adam, etc.).
- Theological Focus: God’s intimate relationship with humanity, the importance of human responsibility (tilling the garden), and the creation of gender complementarity.
Key Differences:
| Aspect | Genesis 1:1–2:3 (P) | Genesis 2:4–25 (J) |
|---|---|---|
| Sequence | Humans last | Humans first |
| God’s Nature | Transcendent | Anthropomorphic |
| Focus | Cosmic order | Human-centered |
| Style | Formal, structured | Narrative, personal |
| God’s Name | Elohim | YHWH Elohim |
| Creation Act | Speaking creation | Forming with hands, breathing life |
These differences reflect the distinct theological emphases of the P and J sources.
- The P source highlights God’s sovereignty and order, while
- the J source emphasizes intimacy and relational aspects between God and humanity.
Sources
- Richard Elliott Friedman – Who Wrote the Bible?
- Mark S. Smith – The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1
- Michael Coogan – The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures
- The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV)
See The Patriarch Jacob Cycle – Genesis 25:19 Through 50:26 in DropBox directory \Christianity\Biblical Studies Academy\Ron Gamache\The Patriarch Jacob Cycle.docx”
From Bible Mapper Atlas – Below are extracts from a web page at his site that includes the map below linked to his site. He has a very interesting account of Jacob’s life and locations.
Jacob Travels to Southern Canaan – Genesis 32-36
As with many of the stories of the Bible, the events of Jacob’s life are often misunderstood by readers as disjointed pericopes arranged primarily for theological and cultural purposes. Because of this, readers often fail to see that these stories follow a clear geographical progression of the patriarch throughout the land of Canaan. This realistic and coherent geographical framework behind the stories gives strong support to the belief that these stories are authentic, historical accounts of the experiences of Jacob and his ancestors.
For a Geneology Chart based on Genesis go here.
Jacob’s Family Tree
The Animals Went in Two by Two, According to Babylonian Ark Tablet
Old Babylonian flood tablet describes how to build a circular ark
By Noah Wiener, February 16, 2025.
The so-called Ark Tablet, recently translated by Irving Finkel, is an Old Babylonian (1900-1700 B.C.E.) account of the flood in which the god Enki instructs Atrahasis—the Babylonian Noah—on how to build an ark. The twist? This Babylonian ark would have been circular.
This is an interesting article about the similarities and differences between the Biblical ark and flood and the Old Babylonian story centuries earlier.
There were people around who could kill Cain for killing Abel. How could that be?
Genesis 4:13-15 (NRSV) – v.13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear! 14 Today you have driven me away from the soil, and I shall be hidden from your face; I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me.” 15 Then the Lord said to him, “Not so! Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.” And the Lord put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him.
Genesis 4:13-14 (ASV) – v.13 And Cain said unto Jehovah, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the ground; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth; and it will come to pass, that whosoever findeth me will slay me. 15 And Jehovah said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And Jehovah appointed a sign for Cain, lest any finding him should smite him.
