Genesis 5 and the Formation of the Primeval History: A Redaction Historical Case Study

Abstract

Zusammenfassung
Der Artikel diskutiert die Komposition von Gen 5, das mögliche literarische Wachstum des Textes und seine Beziehung zu Gen 2–4 innerhalb der größeren Komposition der Urgeschichte. Quellen-Hypothesen, Ergänzungshypothesen und Blums priesterschriftliche Komposition werden als mögliche Erklärungen für die Beziehung zwischen Gen 5 und Gen 2–4 erwogen. Unter Berücksichtigung sowohl synchroner als auch diachroner Aspekte wird dafür votiert, Gen 5 als Entfaltung und Zusatz zu Gen 2–4 zu sehen. Im Lichte von Gen 5 bietet das Modell Blums die beste entstehungsgeschichtliche Erklärung für die Urgeschichte.

Full text

ZAW 2017; 129(2): 177–193
Robin B. ten Hoopen*
Genesis 5 and the Formation
ofthePrimevalHistory:
a Redaction Historical Case Study
DOI 10.1515/zaw-2017-0010
1 Introduction
In recent scholarship there is no consensus about the formation of the Primeval
History. On the one hand, adherents of supplement theories or a so-called Priestly
composition, illuminate parts of Gen1–11 by arguing for alleged connections
between P and Non-P texts, and notice source transcending themes, such as that
of walking with God (Gen3:8; 5:21–24; 6:9). On the other hand, the Flood story
1For P as a supplement to Non-P see Frank M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays
in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973); John Van
Seters, The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary, Trajectories 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic Press, 1999). For Non-P as a supplement or redactional addition to P: Martin Arneth, Durch
Adams Fall ist ganz verderbt …: Studien zur Entstehung der alttestamentlichen Urgeschichte,
FRLANT 217 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007).
2According to Blum, P is built of multiple layers. In the last phase, a Priestly composition (KP)
originated in which the Non-P and P stories were connected. The »editor« is thus seen as the last
layer of P. See Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189 (Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter, 1990), 287. And most recently: idem, »Noch einmal: Das literargeschichtliche Profil
der P-Überlieferung,« in Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte, ed.
Friedhelm Hartenstein und Konrad Schmid, VWGTh 40 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
2015): 32–64.
3For the sake of convenience, I will use »Non-P« in the rest of this article for the texts attributed
in the Primeval History to the Jahwist or Non-P. See also note 7.
4Blum, Studien, 291.
*Kontakt: Robin B. ten Hoopen, Protestant Theological University / The Netherlands,
r.b.ten.hoopen@pthu.nl
Article Note: I would like to thank Marjo Korpel and Paul Sanders for their valuable suggestions
and Wilfred Watson for polishing up my English.
Brought to you by | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 3:15 PM

178 Robin B. ten Hoopen
(Gen6–9) is still seen as the »Fels in der Brandung« for a documentary hypoth-
esis or newer documentary hypothesis, since it is best explained by assuming
a redactor who combined two pre-existing stories. In line with the work of Jan
Christian Gertz, I believe new light can be shed on the discussion about the for-
mation of the Primeval History through the use of redaction historical case stud-
ies. In my opinion, case studies that give attention to style and structure and
thus combine synchronic and diachronic approaches are particularly helpful. In
this article, I present such a study of Gen5. By following six steps, I not only
hope to shed light on this fascinating passage, but also to contribute to the larger
debate about the formation of the Primeval History.
Firstly, the structure of Gen5 and the deviations in that structure will be laid out.
I argue that these deviations should be seen as markers placed by the author to
highlight three characters in this genealogy: Adam, Enoch and Noah. Secondly,
the genealogies of Gen4 and 5 are compared and the implications of this com-
parison for the formation of the Primeval History are laid out. Thirdly, the alleged
presence of an older source, a so-called toledot book within Gen5, is discussed.
Fourthly, the deviations in the structure are taken as possible markers for the
growth of a text and are connected to the different hypotheses presented for the
5Christoph Levin, »Die Redaktion RJP in der Urgeschichte,« in Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt von
Genesis bis II Regum. Festschrift Hans-Christoph Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Martin Beck und
Ulrike Schorn, BZAW 370 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006): 30.
6For this position see for example Ronald S. Hendel, »Is the ›J‹ Primeval Narrative an Inde-
pendent Composition? A Critique of Crüsemann’s ›Die Eigenständigkeit der Urgeschichte‹,« in
The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad
Schmid and Baruch J. Schwarz, FAT 78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011): 181–205; John Day, From
Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1–11 (London/New York: T&T Clark International, 2013).
7This group can be divided in two sub-groups. Firstly, there are those who believe that two
strands or narrative works (P and Non-P/JE/J), continuing in the rest of the Pentateuch, can be
found in the Primeval History. These strands are supposed to have been created by editors who
drew on collected material. See, for example, Levin, »Redaktion«. Secondly, there is a group that
proposes more than two strands, ascribing the texts attributed to Non-P to multiple authors
or editors. For example David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis. Historical and Literary
Approaches (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996); Marcus Witte, Die biblische Ur-
geschichte: Redaktions- und theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Genesis1,1– 11, 26, BZAW
265 (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1998); Jan C. Gertz, »The Formation of the Primeval History,« in
The Book of Genesis. Composition, Reception and Interpretation, ed. Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr
and David L. Petersen, VTSup 152 (Leiden: Brill 2012): 107–136*.
8Recent discussion about the Flood Narrative and its sources can be found in Day, From Crea-
tion, 98–112.
9Gertz, »Formation«: 113.
Brought to you by | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 3:15 PM

Genesis 5 and the Formation of the Primeval History 179
formation of the Primeval History. Fifthly, some thematic connections between
Gen2–4 and 5 are presented. Sixthly, the implications for both the formation of
Gen5 and the Primeval History are made clear.
2 Style and Structure in Genesis 5
Genesis 5 is best known for its genealogy containing the births, deaths and ages
of antediluvians. From 5:3 on, the chapter follows a distinctive structure:
x lived years and begot y
and x lived after he begot y.. years and begot sons and daughters
and all the days of x were.. years, and he died.
Within this generally uniform structure some interesting deviations occur:
1. In the passage about Adam and Seth (5:1–3), there is a reference to Gen 1:26–28
and it is stated that Adam       (called his name Seth). 5:4, starts
with          instead of the standard       . In Gen 5:5    , that he
lived, is added and the decades (      ) are placed after the hundreds
(   ).
2. In the passage about Enoch in 5:21–24, three structural differences can be
noticed. Firstly, Gen 5:22 does not start with the expected       , but with
         . Similarly, verse 24 does not begin with     , but with          .
Thirdly, instead of      , the description ends with            .
Another remarkable element, although not related to style, is Enoch’s
lifespan, which is much shorter than that of the other antediluvians.
10This study is based on the MT as closest to the Vorlage of MT, LXX and Sam. Pent. See for dis-
cussion Emmanuel Tov, »The Genealogical Lists in Genesis 5 and 11 in Three Different Versions,«
in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint. Collected Essays, vol. 3, ed. idem
(Leiden: Brill, 2015): 221–238; Jan C. Gertz, »Genesis5: Priesterliche Redaktion, Komposition
oder Quellenschrift?,« in Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte, ed.
Friedhelm Hartenstein and Konrad Schmid, VWGTh 40 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
2015): 65–93, 84–90*.
11The word    »son« is missing in 5:3. For a possible, but in my opinion unlikely, explanation
see: Jürg Hutzli, »The Procreation of Seth by Adam in Gen 5:3 and the Composition of Gen 5,«
Semitica 54 (2012): 156f.
12Without   as in the rest of Gen 5, but similar to 11:32.
13As with Noah in 9:28–29.
14Cf. Witte, Urgeschichte, 127f.
15See on this for example Helge S. Kvanvig, Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical and Enochic.
An Intertextual Reading (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 254ff.
Brought to you by | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 3:15 PM

180 Robin B. ten Hoopen
3. The passage about Lamech in 5:28–31 does not start by mentioning the name
of Lamech’s son, but only uses   . As in 5:2–3, the phrase        occurs.
4. The passage about Noah in 5:32 begins with       , and adds the word   . Fur-
thermore, 5:32 presents Noah’s three sons instead of only one.
In line with synchronic oriented form-critical studies, the deviations in struc-
ture can be viewed as markers drawing attention to particular aspects in the text.
The presence of these deviations in the verses about Adam, Enoch, Lamech and
Noah (5:1–3,21–24,28–31,32) makes the reader take notice of these protagonists.
Since the verses about Lamech, however, mainly single out Noah, I would argue
that the reader’s attention is primarily drawn to Adam, Enoch and Noah. They
are the main characters of this genealogy. Secondly, and in line with more dia-
chronic versions of biblical (form-) criticism, the deviations in structure can also
be seen as possible markers for the growth of a text (see section five). First, other
diachron ic aspects have to be taken into account.
3 Authorship and Redaction of Gen 4 and 5
For some time, scholars have noticed similarities between the genealogies in
Gen4:17–24,25–26 and Gen 5. While more than half of the names are equal,
the others are almost identical, with only slight orthographic differences. Within
traditional source criticism, Gen5 is attributed to the P strand, with the excep-
tion of 5:28*,29, while Gen4 is ascribed to the Non-P strand. There are, how-
16»A ›son‹ of… years old« also appears in 7:6 and 11:10.
17See for example Matthew A. Thomas, These are the Generations: Identity, Covenant and the
›Toledot‹ Formula, LHBOTS 551 (New York: T&T Clark, 2011). For Gen5 see also: Walter Vogels,
»Enoch walked with God and God took Enoch,« Theoforum 34 (2003): 289.
18See on this Vogels, »Enoch«: 289–291; Thomas Hieke, Die Genealogien der Genesis, HBS 39
(Freiburg: Herder, 2003), 69–76.
19Although many have argued for (parts of) 4:25–26 as a later addition, this is not likely. See
Gertz, »Formation«: 118–124.
20For example Hutzli, »Procreation« and Gertz, »Formation«. See most recently John Day, »The
Enochs of Genesis 4 and 5 and the Emergence of the Apocalyptic Enoch Tradition,« in Sibyls,
Scriptures and Scrolls. John Collins at Seventy. Vol. 1, ed. Joel Baden, Hindy Najman, Eibert Tigche-
laar et al., JSJSup 175/1 (Leiden: Brill 2017), 293–313.
21Based on the use of the introductory formula toledot, the genealogical structure, the use of the
Hiphil of     (compare the Qal in Gen 4) and language familiar from other P texts.
22Traditionally, Gen5:28*,29 was attributed to Non-P, but recently some commentators have
ascribed it to a later redactor. See Carr, Fractures, 70, for the first view and Arneth, Durch Adams
Fall , 40f.; 104–106, for the second.
Brought to you by | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 3:15 PM

Genesis 5 and the Formation of the Primeval History 181
ever, many reasons to assume that the current form of the P genealogy in Gen5
was at least familiar with a version of the Non-P genealogy of Gen4 and forms a
response to it. Some have argued, therefore, that both texts depend on a similar
Vorlage. The similar spelling of the names Lamech and Enoch in both chapters,
but the different spelling of some other names as well as the different position
of some of the antediluvians are then seen as an argument for the use of this
similar Vorlage. However, these aspects are better explained when one text is
seen as an alternative to the other. The author of the alternative version then
presented a very similar genealogy, but also one which relocates and transforms
certain elements of the older genealogy by adjusting them to a new context. An
argument for an actual dependence of one genealogy on the other can be found
in the manner in which Enoch and Lamech in Gen5 act as counterparts to their
equivalents in Gen4. In both genealogies Lamech speaks, but while Lamech’s
speech in Gen4 is about revenge and hate, the Lamech of Gen5 announces rest
and peace. Furthermore, Lamech’s age of 777 years in the MT of Gen5 func-
tions as a nod to the seventy-sevenfold revenge in Gen4:24. Also, while the
Enoch of Gen4 is connected with murder (Cain) and hate (Lamech), the Enoch
of Gen5 walks with God. Although Non-P could also be seen as a response to
P here, the reverse seems more plausible. There are three arguments for this
position.
23So for example Levin, »Redaktion«. The opposite, i.e. Gen4 as a response to Gen5, seems
very unlikely since it assumes that Non-P added a more pessimistic and violent genealogy and
then placed the more positive P genealogy after his own version, especially when one has to
assume that the Non-P author did not include 5:28*,29 in the P genealogy.
24So Carr, Fractures, 68–73, and Gertz, »Formation«. Gertz, »Formation«: 124, further assumes
that in some aspects Gen4 is secondary (Cain and Kenan), but that in other respects Gen5 is
secondary (especially in relation to Enoch).
25See for the different spelling of some names: Day, »Enochs«: 295 n. 8.
26So Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, WBC 1 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 123, who, however,
believes that P is the older source and Non-P the later source, responsible for the editing of
Gen 4–5. Although this is possible, it does not sufficiently explain the placing of Enoch as sev-
enth in line and P’s use of the phrase       .
27However, MT could be secondary here, since LXX and Sam. Pent. read 753 and 653. See Gertz,
»Genesis 5«: 90.
28See Henk Jagersma, Genesis1:1–25:11, Verklaring van de Hebreeuwse Bijbel (Nijkerk: Callen-
bach, 1995), 78–80.
29This fits the assumption of many scholars that within the Primeval History Non-P is the older
source of the two. See Carr, Fractures, and Ronald S. Hendel, »Historical Context,« in The Book of
Genesis. Composition, Reception and Interpretation, ed. Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr and David L.
Petersen, VTSup 152 (Leiden: Brill, 2012): 51–81. For another view and a more complex redaction
history of Non-P, see Levin, »Redaktion« and Gertz, »Formation«.
Brought to you by | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 3:15 PM

182 Robin B. ten Hoopen
Firstly, since ancient Near Eastern texts often present an important person in
the seventh position of the list, I believe it more likely that P emphasized Enoch’s
seventh place when he presented him as intimately connected with God, instead
of Non-P deliberately locating him in a different position. Secondly, the use of
the phrase               in the P text of 5:2,3,29 is typical for Non-P in the Prime-
val History. It is significant that this »giving of a name« occurs three times in the
genealogy of Gen 4:17,25,26 and in both Gen 4 and Gen 5 refers to Seth. I con-
sider it likely that the author/redactor of the P-strand took over this formula in his
genealogy. Thirdly, it could very well be that Gen 5:1–3 is dependent on 2:4b (com-
monly attributed to Non-P or a redactor) since they share a similar style and
vocabulary (both refer to »creation on a day«).
Taking all the evidence into account, I believe the genealogy of Gen5 was intended
as a response to the violent genealogy of Cain in Gen4:17–24. By changing Cain
to Kenan, and deriving Noah from the line of Seth, Gen5 shows that while Cain’s
line spread violence, the line of Adam continuing in Seth did not. In this way the
genealogy of Gen5 functions both as an addition and a response to the version
in Gen4. Therefore, the emphasis of Gen5:1–3 on human creation in the image of
God, not only connects the commandment to procreate with a genealogy, but also
reaffirms humanity’s calling to represent God on earth in a non-violent way.
Consequently, the relationship between Gen4:17–26 and Gen5 requires an expla-
nation in line with either:
30See Kvanvig, Primeval History, 90–99.
31See Jack M. Sasson, »A Genealogical ›Convention‹ in Biblical Chronography?,« ZAW 90 (1978):
174–176. Most recently Day, »Enochs«: 295f.; 312.
32Gen2:19,20; 3:20; 4:17,25,26; 11:9. In the rest of the Pentateuch, the formula mostly occurs in
passages traditionally ascribed to J or JE: Gen26:18,20–22; 30:11,13,20,24; 32:3; 38:3–5; Ex2:22;
17:7; Num11:3. The Deuteronomist uses it once (Deut 25:10). The formula is only found twice in a
text attributed to P (Gen17:5; 35:10), and both examples could be dependent on Non-P traditions.
See Carr, Fractures, 84; 85; 88–90. Num21:3 and 32:38 also use the phrase. The first passage
might be P, but is more likely to be attributed to an older source or Deuteronomistic redaction.
Num32:38 is P according to some scholars, but the passage is strongly disputed.
33So Levin, »Redaktion«: 27–28 who attributes it to RJP.
34See on 2:4b Gertz, »Formation«: 114–118. The similarities could also be an argument for see-
ing 2:4b as a later addition by a redactor. Gertz, »Genesis 5«: 77 n. 43, argues against dependence
of 5:1 on 2:4b. His arguments can, however, be refuted. Firstly, both in Gen 5:1–2 and 2:4b  
could be translated as »when«. Secondly, Gen 5:1 uses both    and    which could even count
as an argument for a connection between 2:4 as a whole and 5:1–2.
35A similar move was made by Non-P in 4:25–26.
36See the discussion in section five.
Brought to you by | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 3:15 PM

Genesis 5 and the Formation of the Primeval History 183
a. a supplement hypothesis, in which one genealogy is a direct response to the
other,
b. a Priestly composition (KP), in which a layer of P was familiar with Non-P and
connected the genealogies intimately.
c. a documentary hypothesis, in which a redactor closely connected both stories
and added elements to Gen5.
To decide which is the most likely option, more insight has to be gained in the
origin and formation of Gen5. Therefore, a closer look will be taken at the pos-
sible incorporation of an older source, a so-called toledot book, and at the final
redaction of Gen5. Both aspects are intensively related to the choice for either a
documentary, a supplementary or a composition hypothesis.
4 Did Gen 5 use a Toledot Book as a Source?
Since Gen5:1 introduces a sefer toledot and uses a distinctive style that occurs
also in Gen7:6; 9:28–29 and 11:10–26, scholars have argued that (some of) these
passages originally came from an older genealogical source, a toledot book (or
scroll). This hypothetical source explains not only the similarities in style among
these passages, but also the repetition between 11:26 and 11:27 and, chiefly, the
discrepancy in 5:1–3 between Adam as a personal name in 5:1a and 5:3a (and the
singular [personal] pronoun in 5:1b), but ādam as a generic name used with
plural pronoun in 5:2. Although objections have been presented against the
37For example Gen5 on Gen4, so Van Seters, The Pentateuch, 118, 166, 168 and recently Hutzli,
»Procreation«.
38Gen9:28–29 leaves out the phrase »and he begot sons and daughters« and refers to the flood
(so also 11:10). These elements should be seen as deviations in the pattern and not as an argu-
ment for the work of a redactor.
39See for example Cross, Canaanite Myth, 301; Carr, Fractures, 71–73. And also Andreas Schüle,
Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel: der literar- und theologiegeschichtliche Diskurs der Urgeschichte
(Gen 1–11), ATANT 86 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2006), 45f. According to Blum, this toledot
book was itself an early Priestly composition. So Blum, Studien, 281ff.
40    in 5:1b could refer both to Adam and to humankind. Humankind seems to be more likely
here, since the verse corresponds to Gen 1 and as in 1:26–28 singular and plural alternate. As
Gertz, »Genesis 5«: 78 n. 44, makes clear, the possible incorporation of a toledot book does not
rule out the ambivalence between 4:25 and 5:1–3. Indeed, Adam as a personal name is already
used in 4:25 and the ambivalence remains. The resumptive repetition of 5:1–3 was, however, not
used to connect Adam and humankind, but to refer to Gen 1:26–28 and to emphasize creation in
the image of God. The notification of Adam’s naming in 5:2 seems superfluous, but note that it
Brought to you by | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 3:15 PM

184 Robin B. ten Hoopen
assumption of such a source, the »toledot book hypothesis« helps to explain
these aspects. Therefore, I assume that the basic structure, names and vocabu-
lary of Gen5 go back to this toledot book. Taking the similarities between Gen4
and 5 into account, there are two options:
1. This toledot book was used by P as a source unknown to Non-P, which only
knew a similar source containing names and traditions or, alternatively,
Non-P used the names from the same toledot book without reproducing its
typical style.
2. The toledot book was an early P composition in the »mehrstufige Produk-
tionsgeschichte von P« as presented by Blum. If so, P based this composi-
tion on Non-P and created both an antediluvian and a postdiluvian version
(Gen5 and 11:10–26). The differences in style and seams between P composi-
tions must then be explained by different layers within P.
5 A Redactor at Work in Genesis5?
Now that it has become clear that the basic structure, names and vocabulary of
Gen5 may go back to a toledot book, it is time for a closer look at the relation
between this work and the transmitted version of Gen5. The use of the toledot
book did not prevent later authors or redactors from changing the text of this
source considerably. Building on the frequently noticed expansion of ancient
Near Eastern texts and the possible presence of literary markers in a text that
could point to possible growth, I propose to see the deviations in the structure,
presented in section two of this article, as possible expansions to the text found
in the toledot book. This becomes more likely as soon as a pattern in these devia-
tions can be discerned.
In section two, I have already stated that all the deviations occur in the verses
about Adam, Enoch and Noah. In this and the next section, I argue further that
the deviations also aim to connect Adam, Enoch and Noah in more than one way
does not occur in Gen 4:25, while the naming of Seth does. It could have been added to the toledot
book by an author/redactor who knew Gen 4:25–26.
41Recent objections can be found in Witte, Urgeschichte, 126f., and Arneth, Durch Adams Fall,
34–39.
42Blum, »Noch einmal«: 51.
43All options are possible. The possible Non-P version of Gen11:10–26 may not have been writ-
ten, or it is present in Gen10, or else it was not included in the final composition. The exact
preservation of a complete source was quite exceptional. See Carr, Fractures, 45.
44See David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible. A New Reconstruction (New York: Ox-
ford University Press, 2011), 40–48, and the references found there.
Brought to you by | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 3:15 PM

Genesis 5 and the Formation of the Primeval History 185
and that the authors/redactors responsible for these additions also intended to
connect Gen5 to other parts of Gen2–4. As a result, it will be possible to establish
which of the hypotheses introduced above offers the most attractive reconstruc-
tion of the composition of Gen5, including its relationship to the genealogy in
Gen4.
1.The »less conspicuous deviations« in Gen 5:1–5 (       ,    , the place-
ment of the decades after the hundreds and the giving of a name), probably all go
back to a single layer. A first group, containing the phrases    ,         
and the placement of the decades after the hundreds, shows language typical for
the P strata, and is thus likely to go back to P or Blum’s KP. A second group,
containing (also) the placement of the decades after the hundreds and the for-
mula of »naming« in 5:1–3, shares the intent to connect Adam with Noah and are
thus also likely to go back to the same layer. Since these two groups partly over-
lap, it is likely that all »less conspicuous deviations« belong to the same strand.
Beside these deviations, there is the well-known reference to Gen 1:26–28 and 9:6
in 5:1–3. This reference can be seen as a resumptive repetition of the creation of
humans in God’s image. The terminology (note the same sequence as in 1:27–28
and both the singular and plural suffix connected to the nota obiecti) is so similar
that the author is likely to be either P or KP. Since the references to Gen 1:26–28 in
5:3 also connect theologically very well to Gen 5 as a whole, these verses are
probably part of the larger revision of the toledot book by a single author or redac-
tor. As stated in section 3, the conscious repetition of Gen 1:26–28 emphasizes,
against Gen 4, that the line of Shem is not made in the image of a violent God and
that humans are called to fill the earth in a non-violent way. In this way Gen 5
corrects and expands on the genealogy of Gen 4.
45See for the first Gen25:7, for the second 11:32 and for the third 9:28–29.
46The placement of decades after hundreds is only used in the Primeval History for Adam and
Noah (5:1–5 and 9:28–29). The »naming« occurs again in the passage about Noah 5:28–29. As
stated in section three, I believe that P, KP or a redactor took this formula from Non-P.
47See Gertz, »Genesis 5«: 78 who argues against a redactional resumptive repetition and, as I
see it, not against the use of this term itself.
48Note, however, the difference in the preposition for    and   between Gen 1; 5 and 9.
49Firstly, this is not a king list but a human genealogy. Therefore, not only is the king the image
of God, but so are all humans. Secondly, Gen5:1–3 attributes the general remarks of Gen1:26–28
to Adam’s son Seth and thus individualizes them. See Gertz, »Genesis 5«, 77. For the expres-
sion »image of God« see: J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1
(Eugene, Or: Wipf and Stock, 2005).
50See Middleton, Image, 213,219, who already connected the image of God with violence in
Gen4 and Gen9:6.
Brought to you by | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 3:15 PM

186 Robin B. ten Hoopen
When all of the deviations in this passage are taken into account, it seems
likely that they all belong to a single group of authors. Since both the style and
language match that of the P strata, either P or KP must be assumed here. See-
ing a later independent redactor at work here seems unlikely since the additions
probably belong to a phase in the textual tradition in which narratives did not
have a formal status, instead of to a phase in which a redactor connected narra-
tives by adding a minimum account of material. Thus, Blum’s Priestly composi-
tion or a supplement hypothesis is the most likely option. While a documentary
hypothesis in which P’s genealogy is perceived as a response to the Non-P list
in Gen4 is possible in the newer documentary hypotheses of Carr and Levin,
it does not explain either the connection observed in section three between the
»giving of a name« in Gen4 and in Gen5, or the emphasis placed on humans as
made in the image of God.
2.The deviations in the Enoch passage (5:21–24) connect very well to the other
structural deviations in Gen 5 and share the singling out of Adam, Noah and
Enoch. The repetition of          (to walk about, hitpael of ) connects Enoch to
Noah as he is presented in Gen 6:9 (P), especially since both walk »with God«
         . The explicit use of the verbs  (to take) and of the hitpael of  in
5:21–24 connects Enoch to Adam. In the Non-P material God walked about in the
garden (3:8) and Adam was taken to this garden (2:15). These connections
between Adam and Enoch have been observed by some scholars as on a syn-
chronic level, but a diachronic connection is also possible if we assume that
these source-transcending connections are part of a larger scheme of connecting
Gen 5 with the preceding Non-P chapters. Both in view of the style of the devia-
51I consider it most likely that the P strand was not written by a single author, but by a group.
52This is how Carr presents his editor Rp; see Carr, Fractures, 314f.
53See Levin, »Redaktion« and Carr, Fractures, 70–73. Carr attributes 5:1–3 to P without noticing
the connections to Gen4 that require a more intense connection between the two chapters.
54See on this expression Vogels, »Enoch«: 296ff. The Lamech of Gen4 acts as a good example
of what it is like not to walk with YHWH.
55The use of  is in line with Utnapishtim’s transfer to the mouth of the rivers in the Gil-
gamesh Epic and should not be seen as a needless repetition of verse 8. See Arie van der Kooij,
»The Story of Paradise in the Light of Mesopotamian Culture and Literature,« in Genesis, Isaiah,
and Psalms: A Festschrift to Honour Professor John Emerton for His Eightieth Birthday, ed. Katha-
rine J. Dell, Graham I. Davies and Yee Von Koh, VTSup 135 (Leiden: Brill, 2010): 11f.
56So Timothy J. Cole, »Enoch, a Man Who Walked with God,« Bibliotheca Sacra148 (1991): 292.
Also Vogels, »Enoch«: 299.
57An important argument against seeing P as a response to Non-P in Gen1–11, instead of as-
suming the reverse, is the phrase: »it is not good for the Man to be alone« in Gen2:18. One could,
Brought to you by | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 3:15 PM

Genesis 5 and the Formation of the Primeval History 187
tions in the Enoch passage and in view of this larger scheme, it is likely that all the
deviations in the structure of Gen 5:21–24 should be attributed to a single group of
authors. Seeing a later redactor at work here, such as Levin’s RJP or Carr’s Rp,
seems even less likely than in 5:1–5. P should thus either be perceived as a supple-
ment or as a layer in a Priestly composition.
3.The deviations in 5:28*,29 help to single out Noah. The language and style of
5:28*,29 are definitely Non-P. As Ron Hendel has argued persuasively, the Leit-
wort style of Non-P (J in his terminology) is present here. Noah’s life and acts
should in some way be perceived as a response to the acts of Adam and Eve, Cain
and Lamech. Since the »naming« in 5:29 can be connected to 5:3 and Noah’s con-
spicuousness fits well with that of Adam and Enoch, it is likely that (the incor-
poration of) 5:28*,29 belong(s) to the same layer as 5:1–3. Therefore, these verses
should not be attributed to a final redactor, but assume a composition or supple-
ment hypothesis.
4.Lastly, there is the deviation in 5:32 that functions to mark out Noah. The
mention of three sons in 5:32 corresponds to the reference to his three sons in the
story of the Flood (6:10; 7:13; 9:18) and forms an inclusion with the genealogy in
Gen 11:26–27, in which three sons of Terah are presented. This reference to three
sons could already have been present in the toledot book, but could also be attrib-
uted to P. The fact of Noah being called a   of …     (a son of … years) matches
the language used in 7:6 and 11:10. Gen 7:6 being P or KP, the same source seems
the most likely option for 5:32 and 11:10. Moreover, 5:32 can be connected to
Gen 9:28–29, which signals the end of the passage about Noah and also goes back
to the reworking of the toledot book.
Seeing the deviations presented above as expansions becomes even more
likely when the other genealogy attributed to the toledot book, Gen11:10–26, is
compared to Gen5. This genealogy shows much less (interesting) deviation in the
however, also see this passage, together with parts of 2:19–20, as a later scribal harmonization.
See on 2:19–20 as possible scribal harmonizations: Carr, Formation, 199.
58Van Seters, The Pentateuch, 118 has also noticed this, but ascribes part of these verses to
Non-P.
59See Hendel, »Historical Context«.
60A similar connection between Noah and Adam is found in the P strand when 9:1–2 adopts the
language used in Gen1:26–28.
61Some scholars attribute 5:32*to the Non-P or a later editor. See for a refutation Witte, Ur-
geschichte, 115–116, 130ff. and Gertz, »Genesis 5«: 78f.
62See however Carr, Fractures, 72 n. 42 who argues that it did not belong to the toledot book.
Brought to you by | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 3:15 PM

188 Robin B. ten Hoopen
structure, and thus expansions. Comparison of Gen5 and 11:10–26 even shows
an extra deviation to the four set out earlier in this article. It concerns the death
notice missing from Gen5 and 9:28–29, but present in 11:10–26: and all the days
of X were Y years, and he died. While David Carr has argued that P left out this
phrase in 11:10–26, I believe it is more likely that P, or KP, added this last sen-
tence explicitly to Gen5 and 9:28–29 and not to Gen11:10–26. Three arguments
can be presented in favor of this view. Firstly, it is more likely that the expanded
version presents the later reading since expansion is more common than shorten-
ing. Secondly, as noted above, Gen5 shows more deviations that emphasize the
connection between Adam, Noah and Enoch. The emphasis on death (and life)
also connects these three figures, as explained in the next section. This would
provide a motive for P or KP’s addition to the toledot book. Thirdly, it is likely that
the toledot book, like many Mesopotamian lists, contained a list of both antedilu-
vians and postdiluvians. Gen11:10–26 should thus be seen as part of this work
and not as an expansion by P.
6 Joining the Dots: Gen 5 as a Response to Gen 2–4?
So far, I have argued that the deviations in the structure of Gen5 are best attrib-
uted to the P strand in the form of P or KP. An important argument for attribut-
ing all these deviations to the same layer was seen in the pattern of singling out
Adam, Enoch and Noah and the interaction between Gen5 and Gen2–4. In this
63The reference to Arpachsad as a »son« of … years in 11:10 and the reference to the flood in
11:10 can be seen as a deviation. Secondly, there is the reference to Terah’s three sons in 11:26.
Thirdly, 11:10–15 use       and   alternately, but vv. 16–26 only use       .
64As far as I know, I am the first to present a diachronic explanation for this deviation.
65Note, however, that Sam. Pent. does have a similar sentence in Gen11 and LXX has »and he
dies«. Either there is an omission in MT or LXX and SP have additions harmonizing Gen11 to
Gen5. The latter option is more likely, because of larger patterns of harmonization and the vari-
ation between LXX and Sam. Pent. See Tov, »Genealogical Lists«: 235–237.
66Carr believes Gen11:10–26 was created by P on the basis of the toledot book. See Carr, Frac-
tures, 72 n. 47. Carr’s view that 11:10–26 does not go back to a toledot book does, however, not
explain the strange transition between 11:26 and 27, which are then both P.
67Wenham, Genesis, 249, hints at this possibility that Gen5 has been expanded, but no more
than that. That this addition to Gen5 does not come from a later scribe can be argued on the basis
of Gen9:28–29 which also has »and he died« and on the basis of Gen11:32 (a traditional P verse)
the language of which shows some familiarity with Gen5.
68See Carr, Fractures, 20–40.
69See Kvanvig, Primeval History, 90–99, 257, who argues that the P strand corresponds to the
larger Mesopotamian schedule of: creation, chronography, flood, chronography.
Brought to you by | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 3:15 PM

Genesis 5 and the Formation of the Primeval History 189
section, I propose two further connections between Gen5 and 2–4 based on the-
ological content.
Firstly, it has not escaped the attention of exegetes that Gen 5 repetitiously states
that the protagonist died (     ). In its current position, the refrain of death in
Genesis 5 could very well be read as echoing Gen 2–4. While it is highly con-
tested whether death entered into the narrative world of Genesis after the first
humans had disobeyed the commandment of YHWH, the emphasis on death in
Gen 2–4 is undeniable: Gen 2:16–17; 3:4,19,22, but also  in 4:8,14,15,23,25 inter-
acts with this theme. When the reader continually reads »and he died« in Gen 5,
he is thus probably reminded of what happened in Gen 2–4. The fact that this
repeated death of the antediluvians does not occur in the verses about Enoch and
Noah is more than remarkable with the deviations in the schedule in mind. While
death is everywhere, Enoch and Noah do not participate in the funeral ceremony.
Noah will eventually die (9:28–29), but will first survive the deathly flood. Enoch
walks with God, and is no more. As noted above, Enoch and Noah may also be
connected to the Garden of Eden through the use of the verbs  and  and
thus interact with the theme of life and death in another way.
I believe that this emphasis on death in Gen5, added to the toledot book as
argued above, as well as the de-emphasis on death for Noah and Enoch, form
part of a larger pattern of connections between Gen5 and Gen2–4 and require a
diachronic explanation. As Erhard Blum has argued, Noah and Enoch take up the
motif of the Gottesnähe started with Adam in Gen2–3. They live in close relation-
ship with God and escape death (firstly, Noah), as also Adam could have done if
he had not disobeyed God. The emphasis of Gen5 on the high ages of the ante-
70See for example Vogels, »Enoch«: 292.
71The term was popularized by Richard Hays for NT studies and taken over by Christopher Hays
for OT studies. See Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1989) and Christopher B. Hays, »Echoes of the Ancient Near East? Inter-
textuality and the Comparative Study of the Old Testament,« in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays
on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays, ed. J Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe and
A.Katherine Grieb (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008): 20–43.
72Compare for example Schmid’s position with LaCocque’s. Konrad Schmid, »Loss of Immortal-
ity? Hermeneutical Aspects of Genesis 2–3 and Its Early Reception,« in Beyond Eden: The Biblical
Story of Paradise (Genesis 2–3) and Its Reception History, ed. Konrad Schmid and Christoph Ried-
weg, FAT II 34 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008): 58–78. André LaCocque, The Trial of Innocence.
Adam, Eve and the Yahwist (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 100f.
73See on this Vogels, »Enoch«: 297f. and Kvanvig, Primeval History, 2 51–253.
74See Vogels, »Enoch«: 299ff. See also Jubilees 4:23.
75Blum, Studien, 289–293.
Brought to you by | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 3:15 PM

190 Robin B. ten Hoopen
diluvians and on their mortality and death should thus be seen as intended to
place them in a world before the Flood, but outside of Eden. In this intermediate
period, humans die and do so after a very long life, but before reaching the sym-
bolic age of 1000, which probably represented very long or even immortal life.
Through this emphasis on death and a great age, and the singling out of Adam,
Enoch and Noah, P or KP connected his genealogy to the preceding chapters.
Secondly, Genesis 5 does not only emphasize death but also focuses on progeny.
This combination of death and progeny is also present in Gen 2–4. Although it is
not clear whether progeny should be seen as a replacement of some sort of immor-
tality, it is only after the curses in which death and progeny are mentioned
(3:16–19) that Adam names his wife Chawa, because she is the mother of all the
living. The story of Cain and Abel in Gen 4:1–16 starts with progeny (4:1), is fol-
lowed by death (4:8) and ends with exile and the fear of death (4:16). However, in
Gen 4:25–26, Seth arrives on stage as          and thus the author again
emphasizes procreation. While the combination of death and progeny is present
throughout the book of Genesis (e.g. 11:27–32 and in the narratives about the
patriarchs), the repetitious combination in Gen 2–4 and 5 gives food for thought.
This could be seen as yet another way in which Gen 5 interacts with the Non-P
narratives preceding it.
These connections, combined with what has been noted above, make it more
than likely that the P strand in Gen5 was not only familiar with the Non-P narra-
tives of Gen2–4, but in one stage or another interacted with it and provided an
elaboration of the material present in Gen2–4. By presenting a genealogy, Gen5
intends to continue the story started in Gen1, but interrupted in Gen2–4. In this
way Eden and the expansion of culture and violence through the line of Cain,
are considered an intermezzo in a continuing story, but one of which the conse-
quences can still be seen: death is the status quo, escape from death an excep-
tion, culture develops, but sin and evil are crouching at the door (Gen4:7). At the
76Compare the ages of the Mesopotamian kings. See Kvanvig, Primeval History, 90–99.
77Barr has argued that an age of 1000 years represents »virtual or practical immortality.« See
James Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality: The Read-Tuckwell Lectures for 1990
(London: SCM Press, 1992), 81.
78According to Korpel and De Moor, the combination of death and progeny is also present in
the Ugaritic myth that formed the Adamic myth. See Marjo C.A. Korpel and Johannes C. De Moor,
Adam, Eve, and the Devil: A New Beginning. Second Enlarged Edition (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix
Press, 2015), 44–53.
79See for example LaCocque, Trial of Innocence, 2 3 7.
Brought to you by | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 3:15 PM

Genesis 5 and the Formation of the Primeval History 191
same time, Gen5 provides an alternative to the violence of Gen4. Creation was
and remains in the non-violent image of God, the line of Adam is also continued
in Seth, and not only in Cain, and goes via Enoch to Noah. In a world in which
violence is present, but considered as humanity’s own choice (see Gen6:5–8),
some still choose to walk in the ways of the Lord. This brings us to the final step
of this article: the implications for the formation of Gen5 and for the formation of
the Primeval History.
7 Genesis5: Supplement to Non-P or Priestly Composition?
Above, I have provided multiple connections between Gen5 and Gen2–4. Hav-
ing concluded that the deviations in the structure of the genealogy in Gen5 are
expansions added to the toledot book, I have argued that a documentary hypoth-
esis is not likely to explain the relationship of Gen5 and Gen2–4. I left it, how-
ever, undecided whether a supplement hypothesis or Blum’s Priestly composition
should be preferred as the best explanation for the relationship between Gen2–4
and Gen5.
If a supplement hypothesis is preferred, one has to assume that the P strand
is a redactional supplement of the Non-P material. The main advantage of such
a hypothesis is its simplicity: all the deviations noted above can be ascribed to
one source. There are, however, two main arguments against this view when the
larger context (Gen1–11 and the whole Pentateuch) is taken into account.
Firstly, although connections between P and Non-P can be made, many seams,
contradictions and doublets between the stories are also present. This makes
it likely that (parts of) the P material once existed separately from the Non-P
material and that originally it was not intended to be a supplement to Non-P.
Therefore, one has to assume a hypothesis in which (parts of) P were written as
an independent document and a response to Non-P material, but later on were
combined with the Non-P material by the same author(s) or by a redaction with
a similar style.
The second objection, from the context of Gen1–11, is the Flood Story, for
which there is no entirely convincing supplement theory.
80In line with Gen5, the genealogy of Gen11 therefore ends with the focus on Abraham and his
progeny, a motif that is developed in Gen12–50.
81See for example Blum, »Noch einmal«: 50.
82So Carr, Fractures, 44; 47; Formation, 294. See also Blum, Studien, and »Noch einmal«.
83See Day, From Creation, 98–112.
Brought to you by | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 3:15 PM

192 Robin B. ten Hoopen
These objections are dealt with when Blum’s hypothesis of a Priestly composition
is followed. He argued that P, knowing Non-P material, first composed different
strata (»Vorarbeiten«) and only in the next phase integrated these materials in a
larger narrative or Priestly composition.
This study, therefore, believes that Blum’s theory for the formation of the
Primeval History does most justice to Gen5 and its relationship to Gen2–4. The
acceptance of Blum’s hypothesis and of an earlier toledot book leads to a three-
stage composition of Genesis5: toledot book, P narrative, KP version. In my view,
it was in the last phase that (most of) the deviations in the structure presented
above were added and that the current version of Gen5 originated. Since, in this
view, the authors of P are similar to the authors of the Priestly composition, it
seems too speculative to decide whether all the deviations go back to this final
layer in P. This could be an aspect of further study. Whether Blum’s hypothesis
can be defended in a similar manner for Gen6–11 will also have to be tested by
further redaction historical case studies. It is hoped that such studies will improve
the method used in this article by working out ways to use both synchronic and
diachronic tools and pay attention to the seams between P and Non-P as well as to
the linguistic, syntactic and theological interaction between these layers.
Abstract: This article discusses the composition of Gen 5, its possible literary
growth and its relationship to Gen2–4 within the larger composition of the Prime-
val History. Several possible explanations for the relationship between Gen5 and
Gen2–4 are considered: documentary hypotheses, supplementary hypotheses
and Blum’s Priestly composition. Taking both synchronic and diachronic aspects
into account, this study argues that Gen5 should be seen as both an elaboration
on and an addition to Gen2–4. It is concluded that, from the perspective of Gen5,
Blum’s hypothesis provides the best explanation for the formation of the Prime-
val History.
Zusammenfassung: Der Artikel diskutiert die Komposition von Gen5, das mög-
liche literarische Wachstum des Textes und seine Beziehung zu Gen2–4 inner-
halb der größeren Komposition der Urgeschichte. Quellen-Hypothesen, Ergän-
zungshypothesen und Blums priesterschriftliche Komposition werden als
84See Carr, Fractures, 76 n. 54 for a critical response to Blum’s view. See Blum, »Noch einmal«,
for the most recent presentation of his view.
85Blum, »Noch einmal«: 52.
86Part of a larger and multilayered P composition or a source used by P.
87Blum, »Noch einmal«: 53.
Brought to you by | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 3:15 PM

Genesis 5 and the Formation of the Primeval History 193
mögliche Erklärungen für die Beziehung zwischen Gen5 und Gen2–4 erwogen.
Unter Berücksichtigung sowohl synchroner als auch diachroner Aspekte wird
dafür votiert, Gen5 als Entfaltung und Zusatz zu Gen2–4 zu sehen. Im Lichte von
Gen5 bietet das Modell Blums die beste entstehungsgeschichtliche Erklärung für
die Urgeschichte.
Résumé: Cet article traite de la composition de Gn 5, de son possible développe-
ment littéraire et de sa relation avec Gn 2–4 dans le cadre plus large de la compo-
sition du récit des origines. Plusieurs explications possibles de la relation entre
Gn 5 et Gn 2–4 sont abordées: l’hypothèse documentaire, l’hypothèse des supplé-
ments et la composition sacerdotale de Blum. En prenant en compte à la fois des
aspects synchroniques et diachroniques, cette étude argumente que Gn 5 doit être
considéré tout à la fois comme une addition et une élaboration à partir de Gn 2–4.
Du point de vue de Gn 5, l’hypothèse de Blum constitue la meilleure explication
pour la composition de l’histoire des origines.
Keywords: Genesis 5, Formation of the Pentateuch, Primeval History, Priestly
Composition, Genesis 2–4, Death, Progeny.
Brought to you by | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 3:15 PM