Was Noah Good?: Finding Favour in the Flood Narrative 9780567659026, 9780567027160, 9780567665126, 9780567357816

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

563 Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial Board Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, James Harding, John Jarick, Carol Meyers, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

WAS NOAH GOOD?

Finding Favour in the Flood Narrative

Carol M. Kaminski

Bloosmbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc N E W YOR K • LON DON • N E W DE L H I • SY DN EY

Was.indd 1

4/30/2015 5:01:10 PM

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Inc Imprint previously known as T&T Clark 1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2014 Paperback edition first published 2015 © Carol M. Kaminski, 2014 Carol M. Kaminski has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: 978-0-56702-716-0 PB: 978-0-5676-6512-6 ePDF: 978-0-56735-781-6 Series: The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies

Typeset by Forthcoming Publications Ltd (www.forthpub.com) Printed and bound in the United States of America

Was.indd 2

4/30/2015 5:02:21 PM

CONTENTS Abbreviations Acknowledgments INTRODUCTION 1. Context 2. Outline of the Present Study Chapter 1 INTERPRETATIONS OF FAVOUR AND RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE FLOOD NARRATIVE 1. Interpretations of “Favour” and “Righteousness” from a Source-Critical Perspective 2. Interpreting “Favour” and “Righteousness” According to the Final Form 3. Summary 4. Methodology Chapter 2 ESTABLISHING THE LITERARY CONTEXT OF GENESIS 6:5–8 1. Introduction 2. Rationale for Interpreting Genesis 6:5–8 as the Introduction to the Flood Narrative a. Priority Given to Independent J and P Sources b. Genesis 6:5 Is Understood to Be J’s Introduction to the Flood c. Genesis 6:1–4 Is Seen to Be an Independent Literary Unit d. YHWH’s “Seeing” in Genesis 6:5 Thought to Introduce the Narrative e. Linguistic Connections Between Genesis 6:5–8 and the Flood Narrative f. Genesis 6:5 Is Recalled After the Flood in Genesis 8:21

xi xiii 1 1 3

6 8

13 19 21 24 24 28 28 31 36 37 38 39

vi

Contents

3.

4.

5. 6.

The Rationale for Interpreting Genesis 6:5–8 as Part of the Toledot of Adam (Genesis 5:1–6:8) a. The Priority of the Toledot Formula in Determining Literary Units b. Genesis 6:1–4 Is Connected to the Preceding Genealogy and to the Primaeval History c. Genesis 6:1–4 Is Connected to Motifs in the Primaeval History d. Genesis 6:5 Does Not Begin a New Section But Continues the Main Line of the Narrative e. Genesis 6:1–4 and 6:5–8 Are to Be Read Together Interpreting Genesis 6:5–8 as the Conclusion to the Toledot of Adam (Genesis 5:1–6:8) a. The Meaning of - in the Toledot Heading of Genesis 5:1 b. The Verb !%/ in 6:7 and Its Connection to Genesis 5:1–3 c. Genesis 6:6 Is Connected to the Preceding Genealogy d. Creation Language in Genesis 6:6–7 Recalls the Introduction to the Toledot of Adam Scholars Who Interpret Genesis 6:1–8 as the Conclusion to the Toledot of Adam Conclusion

Chapter 3 GOD’S ASSESSMENT OF HUMANITY AT THE CONCLUSION TO THE TOLEDOT OF ADAM (GENESIS 6:5–8) 1. Introduction 2. Chronological Issues Related to Genesis 6:1 3. How Does Genesis 6:1 Relate Temporally to Genesis 5:1–32? 4. The Signi¿cance of the '!'# Clause in 6:1, “and it came to pass” a. The Signi¿cance of the '!'# Clause in Genesis 6:1 b. Resumptive Repetition as a Literary Device c. The Temporal '!'# Clause in Exodus 6:28 d. The Temporal '!'# Clause in Numbers 7:1 e. The '!'# Clause in Genesis 6:1 Backtracks to an Earlier Period 5. Genesis 6:1–8 Is a Telescoped Narrative 6. Interpreting Human Wickedness in 6:5 in View of 6:1

40 40 43 46 48 50 54 54 58 59 60 61 63

64 64 64 65 66 66 68 70 71 72 74 76

Contents

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

The Meaning of -! in Genesis 6:1–8 a. -! in Genesis 6:1–4 b. -! in Genesis 6:5 Is Noah Exempt from Human Depravity or Only from the Judgment? Genesis 6:5 Is Reiterated After the Flood in Genesis 8:21 Humanity’s Evil Inclination Is “From His Youth” Genesis 8:21 and the Curse Against the Ground (Genesis 3:17) The Meaning of ++9 in Genesis 8:21 Interpreting Genesis 8:21 in View of Genesis 3:17 and Genesis 6:5 The Story of Noah’s Drunkenness in Genesis 9:20–27 Conclusion

Chapter 4 INTERPRETING NOAH’S “FINDING FAVOUR” IN ITS LITERARY CONTEXT (5:1–6:8) 1. Introduction 2. A Survey of the Verb 01% and the Noun 0% in the Book of Genesis 3. General Observations About the Idiom “To Find Favour in the Eyes of” 4. Does Noah Deserve the Favour He Finds? 5. Can Favour Be Merited? a. Texts That Support the View That Favour Can Be Merited b. Favour Can Be Refused—Even When Behaviour Is Commendable (1 Samuel 25) c. Commendable Behaviour Does Not Merit Favour (Ruth) 6. Can “Finding Favour” Mean Finding Unmerited Grace? a. Jacob’s “Finding Favour” in the Eyes of Esau (Genesis 32–33) b. Divine Favour in the Golden Calf Story (Exodus 32–34) c. Parallels Between God’s Grace in Exodus 34:9 and Genesis 8:21 7. The Theme of Grace in the Flood Story 8. Noah and Moses as Recipients of Divine Favour a. Moses’ Finding Favour Entails God’s Election b. Does Noah’s Finding Favour Entail God’s Election of Him? 1

vii

78 78 81 84 87 87 90 92 97 100 103

105 105 106 107 110 112 112 114 114 116 116 121 125 126 128 128 130

viii

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Contents

Von Rad’s “Sin–Judgment–Grace” Schema Westermann’s “Sin–Speech–Judgment” Schema Clines’s “Sin–Speech–Grace–Judgment” Schema Interpreting Genesis 6:8 in View of the Theme of Grace in the Patriarchal Narratives Conclusion

Chapter 5 THE MEANING OF 9'8 IN GENESIS 6:9 AND 7:1 1. Introduction 2. 98 Terminology in Genesis and the Pentateuch 3. The Adjective 9'8 in the Sodom and Gomorrah Story a. Parallel Features in the Flood Narrative and the Story of Sodom and Gomorrah b. The Judicial Context of Genesis 18:16–33 c. The Meaning of ʷʩʣʶ in Genesis 18:16–33 4. The Adjective ʷʩʣʶ in the Story of Abimelech (Genesis 20:1–18) 5. The “Non-Israelite” Context for ʷʩʣʶ in Genesis 18:16–33 and 20:1–18 6. Is the Interpretive Context for ʷʩʣʶ Covenantal? 7. God Is Establishing a Covenant with Noah, Not Renewing a Covenant 8. Does the Judicial Context of Genesis 18:16–33 and 20:1–18 Have Any Bearing on the Meaning of 9'8 in Genesis 6:9 and 7:1? 9. Legal Referents in Genesis Are Not Covenantal But Creational 10. Conclusion Chapter 6 INTERPRETING GENESIS 6:9 AND 7:1 IN THEIR LITERARY CONTEXTS 1. Introduction 2. Does Genesis 7:1 Entail Divine Election? 3. The Judicial Context of Divine “Seeing” and Genesis 7:1 4. Interpreting 9'8 in 7:1 in Its Immediate Literary Context (6:9–22) 5. Interpreting Noah’s Obedience in View of the Garden Narrative 6. The Creational Context for the Divine Verdict in Genesis 7:1

133 134 134 136 137 139 139 140 141 141 142 148 150 153 154 158 161 164 168 169 169 170 174 177 181 182

Contents

7. 8. 9. 10.

The Divine Verdict in 7:1 Occurs After Noah Has Obeyed God’s Commands The Signi¿cance of the Toledot Formula in Genesis 6:9 Without a Coordinating Waw Genesis 6:9 Anticipates the Divine Assessment in Genesis 7:1 The Relationship of Noah’s Righteous to Favour in Genesis 6:8

ix

183 184 188 191

CONCLUSION 1. Implications for Further Research 2. The Priority of Divine Grace

194 198 200

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

201 209 221

1

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABD AOTC ASV AV

BDB BHS BHT BJS BK BKAT BSac BZ CBQ ESV

GKC GNB

HUCA IBC ICC Int JAAR JB JBL JETS Joüon JPS

JSOT JSOTSup JSS KD KJV

LCL LHBOTS LXX MT NAB

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992 Apollos Old Testament Commentary American Standard Version Authorized Version Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Brown Judaic Studies Bibel und Kirche Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Bibliotheca Sacra Biblische Zeitschrift Catholic Biblical Quarterly English Standard Version Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2d ed. Oxford, 1910 Good New Bible Hebrew Union College Annual Interpretation Bible Commentary International Critical Commentary Interpretation Journal of the American Academy of Religion Jerusalem Bible Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Joüon, P. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. 2 vols. Subsidia biblica 14/1–2. Rome, 1991 Jewish Publication Society Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Kerygma und Dogma King James Version Loeb Classical Library Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Septuagint Masoretic Text New American Bible

xii NAC NASB NAU

NCBC NEB

NIBC NICOT NIDOTTE NIV NJB NKJV NLT NRSV

NRT OTM OTS PTR RSV

RTR RV

SBLDS SEAsiaJT SIL SJOT SNTS TC TDNT

TDOT

THAT

ThWAT VT VTSup WBC WTJ YNER ZAW

1

Abbreviations New American Commentary New American Standard Bible The New American Standard Bible (Updated) New Century Bible Commentary New English Bible New International Bible Commentary New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, 1997 New International Version New Jerusalem Bible New King James Version New Living Translation New Revised Standard Version La nouvelle revue théologique Old Testament Message Old Testament Studies Princeton Theological Review Revised Standard Version Reformed Theological Review Revised Version Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series South East Asia Journal of Theology Summer Institute of Linguistics Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Society for New Testament Studies Tyndale Commentary Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964–76 Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 8 vols. Grand Rapids, 1974– Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by E. Jenni, with assistance from C. Westermann. 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1971– 76 Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart, 1970– Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum: Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Theological Journal Yale Near Eastern Researches Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My interest in Noah and the Àood began when I was a doctoral student at Cambridge University under the supervision of Dr. Robert P. Gordon. I was doing research on the curse against the ground in Gen 1–11 at the time, which led me to examine statements about human wickedness in Gen 6:5 and 8:21. While doing this research I was puzzled by the characterization of Noah as a “good man,” which seemed to be at odds with my work on human depravity in Gen 6:5 and 8:21. I presented a paper on the topic of human wickedness prior to the Àood at the Old Testament Seminar, entitled, “Who Caused the Flood? Interpreting Gen. 6.5 in the Context of the Primaeval History.” As is often the case in doctoral studies, my research led me to pursue other topics, which resulted in focused attention on the reissuing of the creation blessing after the Àood. Thus my work on Gen 6:5 was temporarily put on hold in the interest of completing my dissertation. Yet the relationship between human wickedness and the role of Noah in the Àood continued to intrigue me, particularly in light of the glowing portrayal of him as the only “good man.” This book is the result of those initial questions that surfaced while at Cambridge, although the published work has taken a good number of years to come to fruition. As a member of the faculty at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts, I am privileged to be granted regular sabbaticals. I am grateful to the Board of Trustees for the generous sabbatical program which has enabled me to devote signi¿cant time to this research while on-leave from my teaching. My colleagues at the seminary are a great source of encouragement and blessing to me, although I suspect that I may have wearied them from my conversations about Noah. My students at the seminary bring a great deal of enthusiasm to the classroom, and as such, they have been stimulating dialogue partners on these important theological topics. My teaching assistant, Yongle “Martin” Zhange deserves special thanks for his work on the Hebrew text in the ¿nal preparation of this manuscript. He has also meticulously checked all the Bible references, which is no small task indeed. A word of thanks is due to Natalie Crowson for her work in

xiv

Acknowledgments

preparing the bibliography and footnotes during the ¿nal stage of this project. While any faults in this book are my own responsibility, I am grateful to the ¿ne editorial work of Duncan Burns, who prepared the manuscript for ¿nal publication. My church community in Salem, Massachusetts deserves special mention. This is a place where theology is worked out in our daily lives. It is place where the gospel is lived out in the context of a local community. I am so grateful for the friendships and for the authentic community that is experienced as we share life together. This work would not have been possible without the encouragement and support from my family. Our two boys, Robert and Ryan, who seem to be growing into young men sooner than I could have imagined, have brought vitality and life to our home. Their frequent question, “Are you ¿nished yet?,” has encouraged me to press on to complete this project! My husband Matthew is my faithful friend and my greatest supporter. His words of encouragement and his commitment to me and our family over the years are an incredible gift. Words cannot express my thankfulness for his friendship. This book is dedicated to you, Matt. As I complete this project, the journey has been longer than I had anticipated, yet deep within my soul there continues to be an unwavering appreciation for the abiding word of God. I am reminded of the faithful and gracious God who reveals himself throughout its pages. When confronted with the sin and rebellion of humanity, solace is found in the unfathomable grace of God that relentlessly pursues and redeems a people for his glory. He is indeed the LORD God, the God who is gracious and compassionate. This is the grace that Noah found, and this grace has remarkably found even me.

1

INTRODUCTION 1. Context Several years ago while I was working on my doctorate in the UK, I came across a children’s book on Noah and the Àood. The story caught my attention as it began with the heading, “One Good Man.” The characterization of Noah in the story intrigued me in light of statements about human depravity in the primaeval history. The basic plot of the children’s story was that God destroyed all the bad people, but Noah was saved because he was the “only good man.” One word was conspicuously absent, however, from the story—the word favour. Thus what was deemed “essential” was not Noah ¿nding favour, but God ¿nding “one good man.” Emphasis on Noah’s goodness has tragically resulted in the loss of divine favour from the Àood story. As with children’s stories of Noah and the Àood, it is not uncommon for scholars to characterize Noah as a “good man.” The New American Bible (1970) and the New Jerusalem Bible (1985), for example, translate 9'8 f' in Gen 6:9 by “a good man.” The Good News Bible (1976) underscores Noah’s impeccable character in its translation of Gen 6:9a: “Noah had no faults and was the only good man of his time” (Gen 6:9a). Eugene Peterson’s contemporary Bible translation, The Message, renders Gen 6:8–9 in this way: “But Noah was different. God liked what he saw in Noah. This is the story of Noah: Noah was a good man, a man of integrity in his community. Noah walked with God.”1 It is notable that the term “favour” has been omitted from Peterson’s translation of Gen 6:8; thus instead of Noah ¿nding 0%, “favour,” we read that God “liked what he saw in Noah.” The theology being communicated is that Noah is exempt from the judgment because he alone is good. Divine favour, it seems, has been deemed inconsequential. A similar view is espoused by Borgman in his book on Genesis: Noah was born nearly blameless, for all we know… Noah is the prologue’s odd man out—as unnatural in his goodness as the others are normal in their self-destructiveness. We’ll never know about Noah, about 1. Eugene H. Peterson, The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2002), 29.

2

Was Noah Good? how he became so good. God simply ¿nds him that way, noticing him at the eleventh hour as a possibility for starting the human race all over again (6:6–8).2

Other scholars have characterized Noah as a “good man.” K. A. Mathews, for example, notes that Noah is “distinguished from the ‘people of his time’ by us upright character (i.e. ‘the only good man,’ GNB).”3 Mathews’s reference to the Good News Bible suggests that he agrees with its translation of 9'8. E. van Wolde similarly summarizes the Àood story by stating that “the danger of annihilation is prevented through the rescue of one good man, Noah.”4 Wenham observes that the Hebrew adjective #& is not used with reference to Noah, but suggests that the term “good” is the English equivalent of the Hebrew word 9'8, “righteous.” He thus summarizes 9'8 in the following way: In short, it is the most general Hebrew term to describe good people. #&, which is usually translated “good” in the OT, is used rarely of men, much more frequently of things and situations. Someone called “good” in English would be described as “righteous” in Hebrew. So in describing Noah as righteous, he is being pointed to as a good man who lived according to God’s standards of behavior.5

Wenham suggests, therefore, that the description in Gen 6:9 means that Noah “was a good man who did what was lawful and right.”6 According to Wenham, the English term “good” is a suitable translation of 9'8. Given that the Hebrew adjective #&, “good,” does not appear in Gen 6:9, however, the question may well be raised whether Wenham and other scholars are correct in equating “righteousness” with “goodness.” Leaving aside for a moment the question of Noah’s goodness—a subject we shall return to later—the narrator does identify Noah as f' 9'8, “a righteous man” (Gen 6:9; 7:1; cf. Ezek 14:14, 20). Does this mean, therefore, that Noah was exempt from the judgment announced in Gen 6:6–7 because he was righteous? While Noah is clearly identi¿ed as a “righteous man” (Gen 6:9; 7:1), the role of his piety in the Àood narrative is not as straightforward as it appears—for even before Noah is designated as righteous in 6:9, 2. P. Borgman, Genesis: The Story We Haven’t Heard (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2001), 38. As with Peterson, the concept of favour has been omitted. 3. K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26 (NAC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 356. 4. E. van Wolde, Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1–11 (Biblical Interpretation Series 6; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 74. 5. G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (WBC; Waco: Word, 1987), 170. 6. Ibid., 205. 1

Introduction

3

the narrator states in the preceding verse: !#!' '1'3 0% 8/ %1#, “But Noah found favour in the sight of the LORD” (6:8, NRSV). This verse concludes the Toledot of Adam (5:1–6:8). God had announced that he would blot out human beings, whose “wickedness was great” and whose thoughts were “only evil all the day long” (6:5). Yet amidst the context of impending judgment (6:6–7), Noah is set apart as one who ¿nds 0%, “favour,” or ÏÚÉÀË according to the Septuagint (6:8). This statement occurs at a critical juncture in the primaeval history, and indeed, in the history of humanity—it not only marks the conclusion of the Toledot of Adam (5:1–6:8), but provides a bridge between the history of humanity and the story of Noah and his sons (6:9–9:29). The Hebrew term “favour” (0%) may well be a play on the name Noah (%1), since the two Hebrew consonants are employed in reverse order. If this is the case, it would underscore the import of divine favour, which is now identi¿ed with the central ¿gure of the Àood story. The juxtaposition of “favour” (6:8) and “righteousness” (6:9) thus raises a theological question concerning the nature of the favour Noah ¿nds. Bush drew attention to this over a century ago in his commentary on Genesis published in 1870; he makes the following remarks on 6:9: “Whether this character of Noah is introduced here as the reason or the effect of divine favour toward him it is not easy to determine; but however it may be, it is a most honorary testimony to his worth.”7 Even though priority is given to divine favour in the narrative (6:8), in scholarly discussions of Noah and the Àood, it is Noah’s piety in 6:9 that is given the place of pre-eminence. Is it possible, however, that divine favour has more of a role to play in the Àood story than is commonly assumed? Given that human beings remain alive after the Àood only by God’s grace (8:21), the question may be raised whether divine grace—that is, unmerited grace—precedes the Àood story in any way as well. 2. Outline of the Present Study The relationship of Noah’s “¿nding favour” in Gen 6:8 to his righteousness in 6:9 has been the subject of scholarly debate. In Chapter 1 we survey current approaches to this theological issue. Given that sourcecritical scholars resolve the tension in 6:8–9 differently from scholars 7. G. Bush, Notes, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Genesis, vol. 1 (Boston: Henry A. Young, 1870), 122. Bush concludes in his commentary that the favour shown to Noah was not based on his merit (with reference to his righteousness), concluding that “what he was, he was by grace” (p. 132). He views Noah’s righteousness as a “visible demonstration” of God’s favour toward him.

1

4

Was Noah Good?

who interpret the Àood narrative according to its ¿nal form, it is necessary to discuss these two approaches separately. Thus we begin our survey by summarizing how source-critical scholars interpret the juxtaposition of “favour” and “righteousness” in 6:8–9. This will be followed by a survey of approaches taken by scholars who interpret the narrative in its ¿nal form. We hope to demonstrate that current views of 6:8–9 are unsatisfactory and that the relationship between Noah’s “¿nding favour” in 6:8 and his righteousness in 6:9 is in need of closer examination. In Chapter 2 the literary context of Gen 6:5–8 will be explored. A cursory reading of 6:5–8 suggests that these verses conclude the Toledot of Adam (5:1–6:8), yet a number of scholars argue that they introduce the Àood narrative; thus 6:5–8 is seen to belong to the following Àood story (6:5–9:19), not to the preceding Toledot (5:1–6:8). The literary context of 6:5–8 and its location in the Toledot structure will thus be examined in Chapter 2. This will provide the interpretative context for our ensuing discussion of human depravity in Gen 6:5 (Chapter 3) and divine favour in 6:8 (Chapter 4). In Chapter 3 YHWH’s appraisal of humanity before the Àood (Gen 6:5) will be examined. The signi¿cance of the literary context will be explored, particularly as it relates to the origin of sin in the primaeval history and to Noah’s place in the narrative. Scholars commonly assume that YHWH’s appraisal of humanity in 6:5 refers to the Àood generation, but this view needs to be re-examined in light of the literary placement of 6:5–8. An alternative interpretation will be offered that accords with the literary context of 6:5 and with the reiteration of this text after the Àood in 8:21. The question to be considered is whether Noah is exempt from human wickedness or exempt only from the judgment. Conclusions made from our exegetical analysis will provide the background for interpreting divine favour in 6:8. A number of scholars have examined the meaning of 0%, “favour” in the Old Testament, yet inadequate attention has been given to the function of divine favour in the context of Gen 1–11. Chapter 4 will explore the meaning of the idiom “to ¿nd favour in the eyes of,” with particular focus on its employment in the book of Genesis and its signi¿cance for the primaeval history. The question will be also considered how 6:8 contributes to the theme of grace in Gen 1–11 and whether divine favour in 6:8 relates in any way to the hope associated with Noah (5:29) and to the divine decision to withhold judgment after the Àood (8:21). In the following two chapters the meaning of 9'8 in Gen 6:9 and 7:1 will be examined. We begin in Chapter 5 with a survey of the 98-root in Genesis, giving particular attention to the meaning of the adjective 9'8 1

Introduction

5

in Genesis, which occurs in the Sodom narrative and in the story of Abimelech. The question will be raised whether the judicial context of these two texts may shed light on the meaning of the adjective in the Àood narrative. We will explore further whether the context for 9'8 in 6:9 and 7:1 is covenantal, as some suggest, or creational. In Chapter 6 Gen 6:9 and 7:1 will be analysed, with emphasis on interpreting these texts in their literary contexts. The question will be considered whether the location of 6:9 at the introduction to the Toledot of Noah has any bearing on how Noah’s righteousness is to be interpreted. Attention will be given to the meaning of the statement in 7:1, “for I have seen that you alone are righteous before me in this generation” (NRSV), and how it functions in the temporal storyline of the Àood narrative. These two texts will be compared and then interpreted in light of Noah’s ¿nding favour in 6:8. In our conclusion we will summarize the ¿ndings of each chapter and suggest possible implications that our study may have on further research in the book of Genesis. In short, it is envisaged that our interpretation of Gen 6:8–9 will not only provide a coherent theology of “favour” and “righteousness” in the Àood narrative, but also contribute to the theme of grace in the book of Genesis as a whole. Moreover, we hope that the present study will lead to a renewed emphasis, not on any so-called goodness of Noah, but on the divine favour he ¿nds.

1

Chapter 1

INTERPRETATIONS OF FAVOUR AND RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE FLOOD NARRATIVE

Noah is ¿rst introduced in the Sethite genealogy as a key ¿gure who will give relief from the curse against the ground (Gen 5:29). His prominence in the ensuing narrative is anticipated, for he is the important tenth member of the genealogy, which traces the line of descent from Adam to Noah (5:1–32). Immediately after the genealogy we read of the enigmatic story of the sons of God and the daughters of humankind (6:1–4). This story is followed by YHWH’s assessment of humanity, which resounds with ominous overtones as the divine judgment against human wickedness is pronounced (6:5–8). Amidst this context of impending judgment, Noah’s prominence is underscored, for he is set apart from the destruction in the adversative clause, “But Noah found favour in the eyes of the LORD” (!#!' '1'3 0% 8/ %1#). This verse marks the ¿rst and only occurrence of the term 0%, “favour,” in the primaeval history. Yet this is not the only occasion where divine grace is at work. Von Rad has observed that God’s judgments pronounced against human beings in Gen 1–11 are accompanied by repeated acts of divine grace. Thus he identi¿ed what has become known as the “sin–judgment– grace” schema or the “spread-of-sin, spread-of-grace” theme, which may be summarized as follows: We see, therefore (already in the primeval history!), that each time, in and after the judgment, God’s preserving, forgiving will to save is revealed… What is described, therefore, is a story of God with man, the story of a continuously new punishment and at the same time gracious preservation, the story, to be sure, of a way that is distinguished by progressive divine judgment, but that, nevertheless, man could never have traveled without continued divine preservation.1 1. G. von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (trans. J. H. Marks; rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), 153; cf. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology: The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions, vol. 1 (trans. D. M. Stalker; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), 163–65.

1. Interpretations of Favour and Righteousness

7

Von Rad’s “spread-of-grace” theme is evident throughout the primaeval history, for God not only judges human beings, but also shows acts of unmerited grace. Thus Adam and Eve are clothed by God, even though they have eaten from the prohibited tree; God places a protective mark on Cain, even though he has murdered his brother; God preserves the human race through Noah, even though humanity’s thoughts are only evil.2 Von Rad thus noted that, although we “look in vain for terms like ‘salvation,’ ‘grace,’ ‘forgiveness,’ ” God’s grace is nevertheless present throughout the primaeval history.3 Westermann has also observed in his analysis of the “crime and punishment” schema in Gen 1–11 that with each punishment there is some type of pardon or amnesty.4 Clines has further contributed to the “sin–judgment–grace” schema; he not only incorporates Westermann’s “divine speech” element into von Rad’s analysis, but observes that divine grace or “forgiving will to save” is revealed even before the execution of judgment.5 According to this schema, Gen 6:8 may be seen as the “mitigation” element that precedes the punishment. Reference to “favour” in 6:8 may be interpreted, therefore, as yet another example of God’s grace amidst the judgment, and as Clines observes, it is grace before the execution of punishment.6 This 2. Von Rad has argued that divine grace is missing after the Babel judgment, however, and suggests that the “missing” element of grace is found in Gen 12:1–3 with the call of Abraham (Genesis, 152–53). D. J. A. Clines maintains that the patriarchal narratives as a whole may be seen as the “mitigation” element (The Theme of the Pentateuch [JSOTSup 10; Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1979], 78). While not denying the import of God’s grace to the patriarchs, it is also present before and after the Babel judgment in the line of Shem, as God chooses him to continue the line of blessing; see C. M. Kaminski, From Noah to Israel: Realization of the Primaeval Blessing After the Flood [JSOTSup 413; London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 80–91. 3. Von Rad, Genesis, 153. 4. C. Westermann, Promise to the Fathers: Studies on the Patriarchal Narratives (trans. D. E. Green; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 54. 5. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch, 63. Other scholars have also discussed the theme of grace in the book of Genesis; see B. Arnold, Encountering the Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 64; N. A. Bailey, “Some Literary and Grammatical Aspects of Genealogies in Genesis,” in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics (ed. R. D. Bergen; SIL; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 269; D. J. A. Clines, “Noah’s Flood: The Theology of the Flood Narrative,” Faith and Thought 100 (1972–73): 128–42. This theme will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. 6. It has been argued elsewhere that the emergence of Shem’s line as the primary line in the Table of Nations (Gen 10:21–31) prior to the Babel story (11:1–9) is another example of grace that precedes the judgment; see Kaminski, From Noah to Israel, 89. 1

8

Was Noah Good?

interpretation of 6:8 is entirely consistent, therefore, with the primaeval history—6:8 can be identi¿ed as the “element of grace” before the Àood judgment. Yet immediately after the statement in 6:8, that Noah found favour in the eyes of the LORD, a description of his piety is given in v. 9. We are told that Noah was #'=: !'! -'/= 9'8 f', “a righteous man, blameless in his generation” (NRSV). Given that v. 8 emphasizes divine favour, why, then, do we ¿nd a statement about Noah’s piety in the next verse? Does not the concept of “grace” in the primaeval history presuppose that the recipients are sinful or undeserving? Scholars have also observed that God’s grace shown to the patriarchs is not based on their good behaviour or upright character, but grace is given to fallible human beings.7 As one scholar has noted with regard to Jacob, if “election were based on merit and not on grace, Jacob would never have quali¿ed!”8 Given that God’s grace is shown to fallible people in the primaeval history and in the patriarchal narratives, how, then, are we to understand the statement, “But Noah found favour in the eyes of the LORD,” since the one who ¿nds it is righteous? Is it still favour, and if so, in what sense? We may well enquire whether God’s choice and preservation of Noah is based on “unmerited grace,” as intimated in Gen 6:8, or is it due to his righteousness, as suggested in 6:9? One would anticipate that the answer to this question would be congruent with both the immediate context of Gen 1–11 and with the book as a whole. It is important to begin with a survey of approaches taken by source-critical scholars. This will be followed by a survey of scholarship of those who interpret Gen 6:8 and 6:9 according to the ¿nal form of the text. 1. Interpretations of “Favour” and “Righteousness” from a Source-Critical Perspective It is important to bear in mind at the outset that source-critical scholars attribute Gen 6:8 to J, whereas 6:9 is attributed to P. In order to appreciate how source-critical scholars interpret “favour” and “righteousness,” it is necessary, therefore, to summarize how these scholars divide the Àood narrative into literary units.

7. V. P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 43. 8. Ibid., 43; see also G. J. Wenham, Story as Torah: Reading Old Testament Narrative Ethically (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000), 75.

1

1. Interpretations of Favour and Righteousness

9

Scholars who interpret the Àood narrative from a source-critical view maintain that Gen 6:5–9:17 can be divided into two strands: the Yahwist (J) and the priestly writer (P). Skinner, for example, suggests the following division of the Àood narrative: J: P:

6:5–8; 7:1–5, 7 (8, 9), 10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22, 23; 8:2b, 3a, 6–12, 13b, 20–22. 6:9–22; 7:6, 11, 13–16a, 17a, 18–21, 24; 8:1, 2a, 3b–5, 13a, 14–19; 9:1–17.9

Characteristic of this approach, Skinner divides his commentary on the Àood story into two distinct units, treating J’s Àood narrative separately from P’s Àood story.10 This approach to the Àood narrative leads to the conclusion that there are two distinct theologies of the Àood—the older one according to J and the later version according to P. Relevant to our discussion is the way source-critical scholars approach the juxtaposition of “favour” (a J text) and “righteousness” (a P text) in the Àood account. Scholars conclude that the theology of J, which emphasizes divine grace, differs from the theology of P, which gives priority to Noah’s conduct.11 Westermann, for example, highlights the different ways J and P view the election of Noah: The abrupt mention of him in 6:8 is meant to show that, in contrast to P’s presentation, the motive for Noah’s preservation lies with God and not in Noah’s piety. The waw-adversative at the beginning clearly refers this sentence to vv. 6–7… There is an element of contradiction here. The corruption of humankind is portrayed in v. 5 as radical and all-embracing; in v. 8 however one among humankind can ¿nd favor with God. P on the contrary is rationalistic. He begins with Noah’s righteousness in 6:9 so as to set in relief from the very beginning the reason for the exception. This is a typical difference between J and P.12

9. J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (2d ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930), 148. 10. Skinner’s exegetical remarks begin with the Àood according to J (Genesis, 150–58), then the Àood according to P (Genesis, 158–74). Similarly, H. Gunkel in his commentary (Genesis [from the 9th German Impression, 1977 = 3d ed., 1910; trans. M. E. Biddle; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997]) discusses J’s Àood narrative ¿rst (pp. 60–78), whereas P is discussed much later (pp. 138–51) 11. Skinner is an exception to this interpretation, however. He argues that J must have thought Noah was righteous like P; he thus concludes that J’s statement on Noah’s righteousness is now missing (Genesis, 151). 12. C. Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Continental Commentary (trans. J. J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 411–12. 1

10

Was Noah Good?

Westermann maintains, therefore, that J’s preservation of Noah “lies with God and not in Noah’s piety,”13 but according to P, the human race survives “for the sake of the pious man.”14 Von Rad has also commented on J’s version of the Àood, noting that God’s choice of Noah in 6:8 “¿nds its explanation only in God’s gracious will, who even before the frightful judgment has chosen the man in whom someday his work of salvation can be resumed.”15 It is important to bear in mind that scholars acknowledge that J is aware of Noah’s righteousness, since it is mentioned in Gen 7:1—a text which is attributed to J. Von Rad thus notes that it is only after Noah has passed the test of obedience and faith, that he is deemed righteous by God: “the Yahwist did not simply assert Noah’s ‘righteousness’ as P did, but he described it.”16 Gunkel similarly comments on J’s Àood story; he notes that at the outset of the narrative, righteousness is not mentioned: “the narrator certainly did not want to speak of Noah’s righteousness because it will be portrayed subsequently with a characteristic example. The old narrator takes care not to anticipate his own point.”17 He further comments on Noah’s righteousness in 7:1, noting that “God recognizes in Noah’s obedience that he is a truly pious individual.”18 Clark similarly highlights some of the dif¿culties inherent in the J and P stories, and notes that the sequence of events differs in each story: “P speaks ¿rst of the righteousness of Noah, then of the corruption and judgment of the world. J speaks ¿rst of the corruption and judgment, followed by reference to Noah’s ¿nding favor. Only after the building of the ark is the righteousness of Noah mentioned.”19 He notes that since J was aware of the tradition of the prior righteousness of Noah, any difference with J is an indicator of his theology. He concludes that according to J, Noah is not excluded from the corruption of humanity, but simply from the judgment. Thus he maintains that the favour Noah ¿nds is not motivated by the prior righteousness of Noah.20 According to Clark, the differences between J and P remain, for in the “P Àood story, both the relationship and the claim to righteousness are presupposed. In J, the relationship is ¿rst established in vi 8 and Noah has no prior claim.”21 In J’s account of

1

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Ibid. Ibid., 596. Von Rad, Genesis, 118. Ibid., 120. Gunkel, Genesis, 60. Ibid., 62. W. M. Clark, “The Righteousness of Noah,” VT 21 (1971): 262. Ibid., 263. Ibid.

1. Interpretations of Favour and Righteousness

11

the Àood, therefore, Noah’s preservation is initiated by divine favour, whereas in P’s account, it is Noah’s claim to righteousness that sets the narrative in motion. Krašovec similarly notes that the Yahwist does not discuss Noah’s qualities, but simply asserts that Noah found favour, whereas the priestly writing mentions Noah’s integrity at the outset, citing Gen 6:9. He observes, as others have done, that the Yahwist was evidently aware of Noah’s righteousness, as 7:1 indicates, and as such maintains that “this difference cannot imply a difference of opinion on the reasons for Noah’s deliverance.”22 Fretheim has examined the role of Noah in the Àood story. He maintains that according to J, Noah was chosen to be the recipient of divine grace, yet the reason why he was chosen remains a mystery, comparable to God’s choice of Jacob over his brother Esau. Fretheim notes further that J does not say that Noah was better than his contemporaries.23 According to P, however, Noah is saved because he is righteous, thus God’s election of him is justi¿ed. The conclusion is that two different theologies are present in the Àood story. More recently, however, Fretheim has interpreted the Àood story from a literary approach, which requires reading Gen 6:8 and 6:9 together as a uni¿ed narrative.24 He concludes when grappling with vv. 8–9 in their ¿nal form that Noah’s ¿nding favour does not depend on his piety, but rather, Noah’s righteousness is subsequent to God’s election of him.25 Brueggemann, who accepts the documentary hypothesis, has attempted to interpret Genesis on its own terms according to the present shape of the text.26 As with other scholars, he outlines the differences between the presentations of J and P,27 but concludes when interpreting the Àood story as a uni¿ed narrative that the older of the two texts, namely J’s version in Gen 6:8, which places emphasis on divine favour is the governing statement, not 6:9.28 22. Joze Krašovec, Reward, Punishment and Forgiveness: The Thinking and Beliefs of Ancient Israel in the Light of Greek and Modern Views (Boston: Brill, 1999), 37. 23. T. E. Fretheim, Creation, Fall, and Flood: Studies in Genesis 1–11 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1969), 110. 24. T. E. Fretheim, “Genesis,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 1 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 322–23. 25. Ibid., 389–90. 26. W. Brueggemann, Genesis: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (IBC; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 6–7. 27. Ibid., 79. 28. W. Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 544. 1

12

Was Noah Good?

E. Noort also underscores the differences between J and P texts, as others have done. He notes that God’s election of Noah according to J does not depend on any qualities in Noah, nor has it anything to do with his merits.29 He further observes that “J and P have quite different ways of understanding why this one man was chosen to be saved.”30 But when the Yahwistic and priestly texts are combined, Noort acknowledges that the context is signi¿cantly different in that emphasis has been placed on the moral qualities of Noah. Noort observes, however, that according to the ¿nal form of the text, J’s notion of divine regret (Gen 6:5–8) introduces the Àood story, thus the entire narrative is coloured by the remorse of God.31 P. J. Harland has discussed in detail the relationship of “favour” and “righteousness” in the Àood narrative.32 After examining J and P texts separately,33 and drawing many of the aforementioned conclusions, he discusses the Àood narrative according to its ¿nal form, reading J and P together. Unlike Fretheim and Brueggemann, who give priority to divine favour, Harland concludes that Noah’s righteousness is central and that divine favour is to be interpreted in view of it: To some extent Noah deserved the favour which was shown to him. On its own the statement of 6:8 need not mean that Noah necessarily deserves this favour, but when it is read with 7:1 and the story as a whole, Noah does merit this grace because he is righteous.34

Harland suggests that reading Gen 6:8 and 6:9 together ensures that the dynamic between God and human beings is maintained, but in the ¿nal analysis, he concludes that P’s view of the Àood predominates and that Noah “gains God’s favour because he is righteous.”35 This view is 29. E. Noort, “The Stories of the Great Flood: Notes on Gen 6:5–9:17 in Its Context of the Ancient Near East,” in Interpretations of the Flood: Jewish and Christian Traditions (ed. F. García Martínez and G. P. Luttikhuizen; Themes in Biblical Narrative; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 26–30. 30. Ibid., 28. 31. Ibid., 30. 32. P. J. Harland, The Value of Human Life: A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis 6–9) (VTSup 64; Leiden: Brill, 1996); see especially his chapter on “The Righteousness of Noah,” 45–69. 33. Ibid., 49–57 (J), 57–65 (P). 34. Ibid., 54. 35. Ibid., 66. This is the view of Skinner as well, although he suggests that it is the Yahwist’s view of Noah. As has been noted, he maintains that the Yahwistic narrative must have included a statement similar to Gen 6:8, which is now missing; see Skinner, Genesis, 151. 1

1. Interpretations of Favour and Righteousness

13

suggested in the NEB translation of Gen 6:8, “Noah had won the Lord’s favour.”36 Freedman has come to a similar conclusion in his analysis of 01%; he ¿rst discusses J’s view of favour in 6:8,37 but when reading J and P texts together he concurs with Harland that Noah merits favour; thus he concludes that v. 9 “shows again that the OT has no aversion to merited favor.”38 In summary, scholars who interpret the Àood story through the lens of multiple authors maintain that the election of Noah is understood differently by J and P. According to J, Noah is not righteous at the time he is shown divine favour, thus the reason for his election is a mystery based ultimately in God’s sovereign choice. In contrast to J, however, the priestly writer understands Noah’s election to be based on his prior righteousness. While a few source-critical scholars have interpreted J and P texts together in addition to analyzing the Àood according to its sources, there has not been any consensus as to the relationship of divine favour to Noah’s righteousness. Thus some scholars give priority to divine favour whereas others emphasize Noah’s piety. Having surveyed views of source-critical scholars, we now turn our attention to scholars who interpret the Àood narrative according to the ¿nal form of the text. 2. Interpreting “Favour” and “Righteousness” According to the Final Form There has been an increasing interest among scholars to interpret biblical narratives as uni¿ed literary works. It is interesting to note that emphasis on the ¿nal form of the Àood narrative requires that scholars resolve the tension between favour (6:8) and righteousness (6:9), rather than simply attributing this to two different theologies. As scholars grapple with the meaning of Gen 6:8–9, the import of divine favour is commonly highlighted. Keil and Delitzsch, for example, maintain that the preservation of Noah is an “act of mercy” which makes the Àood nothing less than a “Àood of grace.”39 Wenham similarly af¿rms the role of divine grace, noting that the Àood is about a catastrophe that engulfed all humanity 36. Speiser supports this view, suggesting that Gen 6:8 reads, literally, “won favor”; see E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB 1; New York: Doubleday, 1969), 51. For a critique of the NEB translation, see A. N. Barnard, “Was Noah a Righteous Man?,” Theology 74 (1971): 311–14. 37. L. Freedman, “ʯʰʧ,” TDOT 5:31. 38. Ibid. 39. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch (trans. J. Martin; repr.: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d. [1866]), 141. 1

14

Was Noah Good?

“except for one man and his family who were saved by the grace of God.”40 As with Wenham, K. A. Mathews acknowledges the import of divine grace: “Noah and Abraham are the recipients of this gracious favor without regard to human contribution or obligation.”41 Ross also discusses the role of grace in the Àood story, noting that it signi¿es “unmerited favor” and that this means that the recipients of grace are deserving of judgment.42 He concludes, therefore, that “no one escapes divine judgment apart from grace.”43 Yet it is interesting to observe that when the relationship of divine favour to Noah’s righteousness is discussed in more detail, the majority of scholars conclude that in some sense God shows favour to Noah because he is righteous.44 Thus scholars commonly maintain that the juxtaposition of “favour” (6:8) and “righteousness” (6:9) indicates that Noah’s righteousness in v. 9 is being presented as the reason or motivation for divine favour. Keil and Delitzsch, for example, state that Noah “found mercy on account of his blameless walk with God.”45 Wenham also asserts that Noah’s escape from the judgment was “not because of divine favouritism but because he was blameless in his generation and walked with God.”46 K. A. Mathews has made the following comments on the relationship of “favour” (6:8) to “righteousness” (6:9). He suggests that the reason Noah found favour is seen the following Toledot, which mentions his righteous conduct (6:9); he writes further: Any attempt to erect a wall between God’s sovereign mercies (v. 8) and the merit of Noah’s “righteousness” is super¿cial. No such dichotomy is presented in the text, for the contrast in v. 8 is how Noah looked in God’s “eyes” versus how God “saw” his contemporaries (6:5). This infers that 40. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 204. 41. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, 62. 42. A. P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 185. 43. Ibid. 44. Leupold and Ross are exceptions in that they both emphasize divine favour (H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, vol. 1 [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992; repr. from 1942 edition], 262; Ross, Creation and Blessing, 185–86). H. Wallace also underscores the priority of grace (“The Toledot of Adam,” in Studies in the Pentateuch [VTSup 41; Leiden: Brill], 28). 45. Keil and Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, 140; cf. J. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Library of Biblical Interpretation; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 124; N. M. Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary; New York: Schocken, 1970), 47, 50; L. A. Turner, Genesis (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 2000), 45. 46. Wenham, Story as Torah, 34. 1

1. Interpretations of Favour and Righteousness

15

Noah’s conduct is related in some way to God’s bestowal of gracious favour… This does not mean that Noah’s character automatically secures divine favor, for God is under no obligation to bestow his favor.47

While Mathews does not discuss precisely how Noah’s conduct is related to the bestowal of divine favour, he does conclude that Noah’s righteousness is in some sense meritorious. It is not uncommon for scholars to focus on Noah’s conduct, therefore, assuming that favour is shown to him because he is righteous. As a result, Noah’s piety is emphasized to such an extent that favour becomes secondary and inconsequential. For some scholars, this means that God’s election and preservation of Noah is not due to favour at all. Waltke, for example, maintains that Noah ¿nds God’s grace “not in spite of sin but because of his righteousness.”48 Similarly, Hamilton concludes that “Noah is not spared on the basis of caprice or favoritism. On the contrary, he ‘was a righteous man, and blameless… Noah walked with God’ (6:9; also 7:1). Character, either way, does determine destiny!”49 As with Hamilton, Kass concludes that God spares Noah “not out of caprice or favoritism, but on account of Noah’s virtue.”50 Sarna concurs that “the election of Noah by God is not a capricious act but the result of the man’s intrinsic moral worthiness.”51 These statements indicate that, although favour is acknowledged to be important in the Àood story, scholars conclude that Noah’s preservation is not due to divine favour, but to his piety. In the ¿nal analysis, therefore, divine (unmerited) favour is deemed inconsequential to the plot of the Àood story. What becomes important for the preservation of humanity, therefore, is God ¿nding one righteous man. Borgman notes, for example, that in the Àood story God’s decision to destroy humanity has its turning point not in divine favour, as 6:8 suggests, but in Noah’s righteousness: “But wait: God notices that Noah is righteous, and changes direction once again, deciding to start over with another human race and all life itself

47. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, 346. 48. B. K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 119; cf. his “The Phenomenon of Conditionality Within Unconditional Covenants,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison (ed. A. Gileadi; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 126, 131. 49. V. P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 71. 50. L. R. Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis (New York: Free Press, 2003), 164. 51. Sarna, Genesis, 50. 1

16

Was Noah Good?

(6:8–13).”52 Enns similarly notes that in contrast to the wickedness of humanity, Noah alone is found to be worthy to escape the judgment, for he is the only “righteous man” (6:9; 7:1). Thus God makes a fresh start with him.53 Divine favour, it seems, has no role to play. According to Kass, the role of Noah is pivotal in the story; because of Noah, “God must modify His decision for total destruction. More important, because of Noah, God can indeed start a human (and living) world over again without needing to re-create another Adam…”54 V. H. Matthews thus suggests that because Noah is righteous God is obligated to warn him of the impending judgment.55 Emphasis is again on the one righteous man, Noah. The role of divine favour, it seems, has faded into obscurity. As with the aforementioned scholars, Arnold notes: One righteous man stands in the way of creation’s destruction… The whole world had fallen so severely into sin that even the faithful line of Seth had disappeared, except for one righteous man, Noah. Noah was not just a good man in comparison with the bad generation in which he lived. Genesis emphasizes that he was righteous and blameless altogether, a man solely devoted to serving and pleasing God (6:9).56

What is deemed essential in the story, therefore, is God ¿nding one righteous man. We may recall The Message, which translates 6:8–9 in this way: “But Noah was different. God liked what he saw in Noah. This is the story of Noah: Noah was a good man, a man of integrity in his community. Noah walked with God.”57 The term “favour” is conspicuously absent from Peterson’s translation. Wenham anticipates that emphasis on Noah’s conduct could lead to a view of salvation by works; he thus gives the following note of caution: The narrative thus places great emphasis on Noah’s righteousness, at least during the Àood itself. But it would be too crude to say that the story portrays Noah as earning his salvation by good works. Rather the narrative implies that Noah was linked by a pre-existing covenant with God.58

52. Borgman, Genesis, 35. 53. P. Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2012), 87. 54. Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom, 162. 55. V. H. Matthews, Old Testament Turning Points: The Narratives that Shaped a Nation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 57. 56. Arnold, Encountering Genesis, 58–59. 57. Peterson, The Message, 29. 58. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 206. 1

1. Interpretations of Favour and Righteousness

17

Wenham resolves the problem of merit by arguing that, even though Noah is shown favour based on his conduct, he is already in covenant relationship.59 Thus divine favour does not initiate his election, but ensures that Noah “continued to enjoy God’s covenant blessings.”60 This view has been articulated by Dumbrell, who argues that God shows favour to Noah based on an already existing relationship, which he de¿nes as covenantal. He thus summarizes Noah’s righteousness in this way: It is at once said in v. 8 that Noah was the object of divine grace. That the application of such grace was not arbitrary is made clear by the subsequent verses in which Noah is described as a “righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God” (Gen 6:9). Such a description must not be thought, however, to have provided the ground for divine action for the term “righteous” (Heb. ÑDGGLT) in the Old Testament primarily refers to conduct within a relationship. Only secondarily or derivatively is it a forensic or legal word de¿ning status. That is to say, the term “righteous” in the Old Testament generally refers to conduct logically arising from the prior establishment of a relationship.61

Dumbrell argues that a “covenant of creation” is established in Gen 1:1– 2:3, which is then reaf¿rmed in 6:18.62 According to Wenham and Dumbrell, the term 9'8 denotes ¿delity to the covenant relationship. Similarly, Waltke argues that the favour Noah ¿nds is based on his conformity to the requirements of the “prior spiritual relationship.”63 Whether 9'8 is being used to denote covenant faithfulness or not will be discussed later; suf¿ce to note at this point that according to Wenham and Dumbrell, favour is not shown to the “undeserving,” but to one who is faithful. Other scholars have highlighted the import of Noah’s righteousness in relation to divine favour. Sailhamer, for example, maintains that Noah serves as an example of the type of person who receives favour: Noah 59. Wenham suggests that the verb -#9, “establish, con¿rm,” in Gen 6:18 (rather than =:), “to cut”) means that God is con¿rming an already existing covenant (ibid., 175). 60. Ibid., 206. 61. W. J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 13. 62. W. J. Dumbrell, The Faith of Israel: Its Expression in the Books of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 22. As with Dumbrell, Wenham argues that Noah is “not simply a perfectly righteous man; there is a covenant between him and God” (Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 175). 63. Waltke, “The Phenomenon of Conditionality,” 131. This view will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5. 1

18

Was Noah Good?

is a “model of the kind of life that ¿nds grace in the sight of God. It is a picture of simple obedience to God’s commands and trust in his provision.”64 Implicit in Sailhamer’s statement is that God shows grace to the one who obeys his commands; thus grace is not unmerited. Similarly, Sarna maintains that Noah’s being “righteous” and “blameless” are recognizable virtues which are “favored by God.”65 Kass also comments on Gen 6:9, suggesting that we are “put on notice” that these are qualities that are divinely favoured.66 This means that the person who ¿nds favour receives it because he is worthy of it. Yet this is signi¿cantly different from the type of person who receives favour in the primaeval history and in the patriarchal narratives, namely, the undeserving. It seems to be the case, therefore, that while scholars acknowledge that divine favour is shown to Noah, what is meant by favour is decisively different from the concept of “unmerited grace” found in Gen 1–11 and in the patriarchal narratives. We may recall Wenham’s comment on the patriarchs, for instance, that in Genesis and in Judges, “God acts in grace towards his fallible people.”67 Similarly, Mathews note that the patriarchs are restored by God “though meriting no special favor.”68 Hamilton also concludes with regard to the patriarchs, that the “point is frequently made throughout these chapters of Genesis that the selection of these patriarchs is not based on their behavior. They are not chosen because they are good.”69 In the Àood story, however, scholars have assumed that Noah is shown favour because he is righteous, or as some suggest, because he was a “good man”; thus favour is no longer unmerited. This is the conclusion of W. Reed, who has examined the meaning of 0%, “favour,” in the Old Testament. He notes that 0% commonly denotes “kindness, mercy and forbearance.”70 He suggests, however, that God’s favour shown to Noah is not only an act of generosity, but also an act of justice since favour is bestowed on “one who was deserving of justice and generosity.”71 Thus he concludes that God showed goodwill to Noah, who had given “some indication of being worthy of that attitude.”72

64. Sailhamer, Pentateuch as Narrative, 124. 65. Sarna, Genesis, 50. 66. Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom, 163. 67. Wenham, Story as Torah, 75. 68. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, 60 69. Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 43. 70. W. L. Reed, “Some Implications of ÐƜN for Old Testament Religion,” JBL 73 (1954): 37. 71. Ibid. 72. Ibid., 39.

1

1. Interpretations of Favour and Righteousness

19

V. H. Matthews explores the concept of justice under the “remnant” theme, citing Noah as a prime example. He argues that remnant theology is centred on the view that God is a moral and just being. Matthews suggests that “following the pattern of the remnant theme, God acknowledges Noah’s righteousness (Gen 6:8–9) and provides him with a warning of the coming catastrophe.”73 According to Matthews, since Noah is righteous God is obligated to warn him of the impending judgment.74 Noah’s obedience to God’s commands further demonstrates that Noah is “worthy of survival” and that through his actions he “secures the right to be part of the remnant.”75 We have noted, however, that such a view of favour is at odds with both the primaeval history and the patriarchal narratives. Emphasis on Noah’s righteousness as the reason for divine favour has resulted in a rede¿ning of favour, which seems to include the notion of justice and merit. Thus what becomes essential in the Àood narrative is not unmerited favour, but God ¿nding “one good man.” 3. Summary In summary, we have noted that source-critical scholars attribute Gen 6:8 to J and 6:9 to P; thus they resolve the tension between “favour” and “righteousness” by concluding that two different theologies are being juxtaposed: J views Noah’s election as an act of divine grace whereas P understands it to be based on Noah’s righteous conduct. Is it likely, however, that two such divergent theologies would remain in the ¿nal redaction of the text? Why would they be placed next to each other? It is possible, however, that the primaeval history is more theologically coherent than is assumed by this approach. We have observed that scholars who interpret the Àood story according to its ¿nal form commonly conclude that Noah ¿nds favour because he is righteous. According to this view, v. 9 provides the reason or motivation for divine favour. This interpretation is problematic, however, for three reasons. First of all, it does not give adequate attention to the different literary contexts of “favour” (Gen 6:8) and “righteousness” (6:9). Scholars seem to have interpreted these verses as though they belonged to one continuous narrative. A number of scholars argue, indeed, that 6:5–8 introduces the Àood; thus these verses are integral to what follows. Yet

1

73. V. H. Matthews, Old Testament Themes (St. Louis: Chalice, 2000), 42. 74. Ibid., 41. 75. Ibid., 43.

20

Was Noah Good?

according to the Hebrew grammar of 6:8–9, there is no causal link between favour and righteousness. Moreover, Noah’s Toledot in 6:9, which occurs without a coordinating waw (%1 =+#= !+) is grammatically independent. Divine favour occurs at the conclusion of Adam’s Toledot (5:1–6:8), therefore, whereas the statement about Noah being a “righteous man” occurs at the introduction of Noah’s Toledot (6:9–9:29). It is not that scholars have ignored the Toledot structure—quite the contrary, for a number of them argue that it is the governing structure in Genesis76—but rather that insuf¿cient attention has been given to the location of “favour” and “righteousness” within the Toledot framework and how this may affect the meaning of these two verses. A closer examination of the literary context of Gen 6:8–9 may even shed light on how divine favour is to be interpreted in the Àood story. Second, while it is common for scholars to emphasize Noah’s piety, according to the placement of Gen 6:8–9, it is favour that concludes the Toledot of Adam (5:1–6:8) and it is divine favour that provides a bridge between the history of humanity and the Àood story. It is not insigni¿cant that Noah’s ¿nding favour in 6:8 precedes the statement about his righteousness in 6:9. The import of this order has been highlighted by Hamilton, who notes that “had the order of the two verses been switched, there would have been no doubt that Noah’s righteousness and blamelessness were intended to supply a rationale for his election and escape from the Flood.”77 Since the order of the two verses has not been reversed, however, what sets the story in motion is not God ¿nding one good man, or even one righteous man, but Noah ¿nding favour. The signi¿cance of this order, which gives priority to Noah’s ¿nding favour at the conclusion of the Toledot of Adam, has not, however, been given adequate attention. Third, we have noted that God’s grace both in the primaeval history and in the patriarchal narratives is usually shown to the “undeserving”; thus it is characteristically understood as “unmerited grace.” Yet scholars have argued that Noah is shown favour because he is righteous, meaning that it is essentially merited favour. This view is incongruent with the concept of grace in the book of Genesis, however. As has been noted, some scholars maintain that Noah serves as an example or model of the type of person who receives favour. We observed, however, that this means that the type of person who receives favour in the Àood narrative is strikingly different from the person who receives favour elsewhere in 76. E.g. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, 26–41; Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 2–11; Waltke, Genesis, 17–21; Wenham, Story as Torah, 19–20. 77. Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 276.

1

1. Interpretations of Favour and Righteousness

21

Genesis, namely, the “undeserving.” We may well enquire, therefore, whether there is a way of reconciling “favour” and “righteousness” in the Àood narrative that is both theologically coherent and accords with the theme of grace found in Genesis. Is it possible that the favour Noah ¿nds is also unmerited? In short, scholarly interpretations of “favour” and “righteousness” in the Àood narrative not only highlight the exegetical and theological problems inherent in Gen 6:8–9, but also underscore the need for a thorough re-examination of the role of divine favour in the Àood story and its relationship to Noah’s piety. This, then, is the topic of the ensuing discussion—¿nding favour in the Àood narrative. 4. Methodology A survey of scholarly approaches to Noah’s ¿nding favour and his piety has shown that texts critical to the discussion are assigned both to J (Gen 6:5–8; 7:1; 8:20–21) and to P (6:9–22) according to source-critical scholars. Based on the premise that there were originally two separate Àood stories, the task for a source-critical scholar is to interpret J and P texts independently of each other. This has resulted in a separation of J and P Àood stories in the commentaries. This approach to the text (s) leads to two different theologies being discerned, with minimal appreciation given to the possibility of a coherent narrative based on its ¿nal literary and canonical shape. Foundational to this approach is its emphasis on separating texts from their context; thus it fails to appreciate the artistry of the Hebrew narrative according to the ¿nal shape of the text.78 Since the texts that we are discussing encompass both J and P Àood texts, the approach of some scholars is ¿rst to examine the texts separately, and then to consider their meaning as a composite narrative. Fretheim, for example, discusses J and P Àood texts,79 yet in another volume he examines the Àood story based on the ¿nal form, with an 78. On the artistry of the Hebrew text in its ¿nal literary shape, see especially R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981); M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), but also S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (trans. D. Shefer-Vanson; JSOTSup 70; Shef¿eld: Almond, 1989); A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Shef¿eld: Almond, 1983); J. Licht, Storytelling in the Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978); Jean-Louis Ska, Our Fathers Have Told Us: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives (Rome: Ponti¿cal Biblical Institute, 1990). 79. Fretheim, Creation, Fall, and Flood, 109–11. 1

22

Was Noah Good?

emphasis on a literary approach.80 Harland also discusses the theology of the Yahwist separately from the theology of the priestly writer, but he then interprets the Àood story by combining both sources.81 Source-critical method draws attention to the origin of the text according to hypothetical sources; thus the task of the exegete is ¿rst and foremost to reconstruct these sources, while some take this a step further, seeking to interpret the composite narrative. The exegetical work done by the present writer has not led to an af¿rmation of a source-critical approach, however. Nor has it led us to concur with the criteria upon which it is based. This will become evident throughout this study, but one example may suf¿ce to illustrate the impact a source-critical approach has had on interpreting the Àood story. As we shall see shortly, sourcecritical scholars maintain that 6:5–8 is J’s introduction to the Àood story. In the commentaries, therefore, 6:5–8 is not interpreted in relation to its immediate literary context, but in relation to 7:1–5 (and other J texts). This arti¿cial dislocation of 6:5–8 gives primacy to the Yahwistic Àood narrative, but it thereby minimizes any value to the author’s own literary structure, which is evident in the recurring Toledot formula. Based on the ¿nal form of the text there is indeed no separate “Àood narrative,” but rather, the story of the Àood has been embedded into the Toledot of Noah (6:9–9:29); thus it begins with him (6:9) and ends with him (9:29). This suggests a different “text” than the text(s) suggested by a source-critical approach. The question before the exegete of the Àood narrative, therefore, is whether the hypothetical J and P texts are primary in determining literary units, or whether any priority ought to be given to the ¿nal literary shape of the Hebrew narrative. It could be argued, indeed, that the ¿nal literary and canonical shape of the text is primary. This does not preclude a robust dialogue with source-critical scholars who examine J and P texts separately; nor does it minimize the theological insights of scholars who 80. Ibid., 322–23, 384–97. 81. See Harland’s discussion of the historical and literary approaches; he notes that the tendency is to use one method to the exclusion of the other. His approach is to discuss J and P Àood texts separately, and then consider how the two stories form one narrative. He hopes to provide a balanced view by employing both methods; Harland, The Value of Human Life, 13–19. Others are not so hopeful that the two methods can be used together, however; see, for example, R. Buth, “Methodological Collision Between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis: The Problem of ‘Unmarked Temporal Overlay’ and the Pluperfect/Nonsequential wayyiqtol,” in Bergen, ed., Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, 138–54. See Wenham’s comments on literary and source criticism, and potential conÀicts that may arise (Genesis 1–15, xxxiii–xxxvi). 1

1. Interpretations of Favour and Righteousness

23

approach the text in this way. In this study, however, primacy is given to the ¿nal literary and canonical shape of the narrative. This is not simply a matter of preference—it is a deeply held conviction. In the ensuing discussion of “favour” and “righteousness” emphasis will be placed on interpreting the text as a uni¿ed literary work according to its ¿nal form. This need not require a highly schematic interpretation of the Àood account;82 nor does it require harmonizing theological dif¿culties in the text.83 What is being suggested is that a reading sensitive to the artistry of the Hebrew narrative in its ¿nal literary shape and to the genre of the texts in question may provide a solution to the seemingly divergent views of Noah’s ¿nding favour and his piety. Since the Àood story is well-anchored in the primaeval history, it is envisaged that the proposed solution would be consistent with and contribute to the theme of grace in Gen 1–11, and in the book as a whole.

82. G. J. Wenham, for example, argues that the Àood narrative contains a palistrophe that culminates in God’s remembering Noah in Gen 7:1; see his “The Coherence of the Flood Narrative,” VT 28 (1978): 336–48. See also the critique by J. E. Emerton, “An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative in Genesis: Part 1,” VT 37 (1987): 401–20, and “An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative in Genesis: Part 2,” VT 38 (1988): 1–21, and Wenham’s response: “Method in Pentateuchal Criticism,” VT 41 (1991): 84–109. 83. See the helpful discussion by W. L. Moberly on this topic in At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34 (JSOTSup 99; Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1983), 32–33. 1

Chapter 2

ESTABLISHING THE LITERARY CONTEXT OF GENESIS 6:5–8

1. Introduction The statement that Noah found favour in the eyes of YHWH belongs to the literary unit of Gen 6:5–8. YHWH’s assessment of human wickedness in 6:5 marks a decisive moment in the primaeval history. The opening chapters of Genesis begin with the seven-fold af¿rmation that God’s creation is good (1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31), but the story quickly degenerates as the events of Eden unfold. In spite of YHWH’s warning about the dire consequences of eating from the prohibited tree, Eve takes and eats its fruit, and she gives it to Adam, who also eats. This results in YHWH’s judgment being pronounced against human beings (3:16–19), and their banishment from Eden (3:22–24). The human story continues outside the garden, but Cain’s murder of his brother indicates that sin continues to have its effect on Adam’s descendants (4:1–16). The genealogy in ch. 4 moves the narrative forward, but Lamech’s prideful boast about killing a man for wounding him is a poignant reminder that paradisiacal life in Eden is far from a reality (4:23–24). These early chapters of Genesis demonstrate that sin and rebellion are an indelible part of the human story, yet it is not until 6:5 that human wickedness reaches epic proportions encompassing the entire human race. It is at this point that YHWH gives his assessment of his creation: -#'!¡+) 3: 9: #+ =f%/ :8'¡+)# 7: -! =3: !: ') !#!' :'# The LORD saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. (NRSV)

This verse marks the clearest and most profound statement about human depravity in the Old Testament. A number of scholars have concluded that sin escalates in the primaeval history; thus von Rad argued that in

2. Establishing the Literary Context of Genesis 6:5–8

25

Gen 2–11 sin has been growing like an avalanche.1 While not all agree with von Rad’s view, especially in light of the Babel story, there is scholarly consensus that YHWH’s assessment of human beings in 6:5 marks a climactic moment in the story of human sin and rebellion.2 D. J. A. Clines discusses the sin of the Àood generation, drawing attention to the pessimistic nature of 6:5. After analyzing several key texts (6:5, 11–13), he concludes that the sin of the generation of the Àood climaxes the history of human sin.3 Wenham has also explored the concept of sin in Gen 1–11; he underscores the import of 6:5, noting that this verse “must count among the most devastating analyses of the human condition in Scripture.”4 This resonates with Vriezen’s earlier comment on 6:5, that a more “emphatic statement of the wickedness of the human heart is hardly conceivable.”5 Whether or not the Babel story climaxes human sin in Gen 1–11, scholars are in agreement that the divine assessment given in 6:5 marks a decisive moment in the story of sin and rebellion. In view of the statement made in Gen 6:5, some scholars have argued, indeed, that the origin of sin is not to be found in the garden of Eden story but in the period prior to the Àood.6 James Barr, for instance, makes the following comments on 6:5, concluding that it is “here, and nowhere else in the Bible, that we ¿nd a statement close to the idea of ‘total depravity’: ‘the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that the whole formation of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time’ (Genesis 6:5).”7 Thus he reasons that “some part of that 1. Von Rad argued that sin increases in Gen 1–11, culminating in the Babel story; see von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:163. See also Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 62; B. Och, “The Garden of Eden: From Re-Creation to Reconciliation,” Judaism 37 (1988): 340–43; Skinner, Genesis, 2. For a helpful survey of this theme, see G. J. Wenham, “Original Sin in Genesis 1–11,” Churchman 104 (1990): 308–27. Wenham discusses the views of von Rad, Westermann and Drewermann on Gen 1–11, which is followed by his own analysis of the theme. 2. Fretheim, Creation, Fall, and Flood, 20–21, 106; Och, “The Garden of Eden: From Re-Creation to Reconciliation,” 341; Sarna, Genesis, 46–47; L. A. Turner, Announcements of Plot in Genesis (JSOTSup 96; Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1990), 45. 3. Clines, “The Theology of the Flood,” 134. 4. Wenham, “Original Sin in Genesis 1–11,” 324. 5. Th. C. Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1960), 210. 6. J. Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 75–78; cf. P. R. Davies, “Sons of Cain,” in A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of W. McKane (ed. J. D. Martin and P. R. Davies; JSOTSup 42; Shef¿eld: Almond, 1980), 43. 7. Barr, The Garden of Eden, 75. 1

26

Was Noah Good?

load of concepts of sin and depravity which has been attached to the ¿rst human pair belongs more naturally to the generation of the Àood and should be seen to belong there.”8 A similar view is advocated P. R. Davies, who provides the following comments on Gen 6:5: This is the ¿rst mention of human wickedness in the story and suggests, on the contrary, that the wickedness has just come about… [I]t seems that the wickedness was the reason for the Flood. Hence, we may not have to look to Adam for the origin of human wickedness—at least, not the immediate origin.9

According to his view, it is the Àood generation that is seen to be the locus of sin and depravity in the primaeval history.10 Given that the catastrophic Àood judgment immediately ensues, which seems to entail an undoing of the created order,11 there can be no doubt that Gen 6:5 marks a decisive moment in the history of humanity. The divine statement concerning human depravity launches the narrative forward with a foreboding sense that YHWH’s judgment is imminent. Immediately following 6:5 we read of YHWH’s regret over his creation (6:6) and his decision to wipe out human beings (6:7). The ¿gure of Noah, who has already been introduced in the preceding genealogy (5:29–30, 32), stands out amidst the impending judgment as one who ¿nds favour (6:8). Given that YHWH’s judgment is announced in 6:5–7 and that Noah, who will be a key ¿gure in the Àood narrative, is mentioned in 6:8, several scholars have concluded that 6:5–8 marks the introduction to the Àood story.12 This suggests that the literary context of 6:5–8 is the Àood narrative. Yet according to the Toledot structure, =#+#= !+, “these are the generations of,”13 Gen 6:5–8 belongs to the Toledot of Adam, which begins in 5:1 (- =+#= :62 !$), and concludes in 6:8. This suggests 8. Ibid., 79. 9. Davies, “Sons of Cain,” 43. Davies proposes that human wickedness originated either with the murder of Abel by Cain or with the sons of God episode. 10. We will take up this topic in the next chapter. 11. J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 46–47; Clines, “Theology of the Flood,” 136–38. 12. Brueggemann, Genesis, 77; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, vol. 1 (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 301; S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (14th ed.; London: Methuen & Co., 1943 [1904]), 86; Gunkel, Genesis, 62; Fretheim, Genesis, 389; Hamilton, Genesis, 1:272, 276; Harland, The Value of Human Life, 26; von Rad, Genesis, 116; Skinner, Genesis, 150; Speiser, Genesis, 47; 13. Gen 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, etc. 1

2. Establishing the Literary Context of Genesis 6:5–8

27

that a new section does not begin in 6:5, but in 6:9 with the Toledot of Noah (%1 =+#= !+).14 A number of scholars are of the opinion, indeed, that the Toledot headings provide the literary structure for interpreting the book of Genesis. With this structure in view, 6:1–8 would belong to the Toledot of Adam (5:1–6:8), and it would function as its conclusion. In light of the different approaches to 6:5–8, the question needs to be addressed whether the literary context of 6:5–8 is the Àood narrative (6:5–8:22) or the Toledot of Adam (5:1–6:8). Cassuto has highlighted the dif¿culties associated with this task. When considering the literary context of 6:1–8, he makes the following introductory remarks: The commencement of the section is indicated by the heading, This is the book of the history of Adam, but its termination is not marked with equal clarity. As a rule it is assumed that the book of the history of Adam extends only as far as the end of chapter v; the ¿rst four verses of chapter vi are regarded as an independent passage or prologue to the section of the Flood, whilst verses 5–8 are held to be the exordium of that section.15

The dif¿culty in determining where the Toledot of Adam concludes and where the Àood narrative begins has been highlighted more recently by Longacre, in his article on the structure of the Àood narrative.16 He notes in his introductory remarks that the birth of Noah (Gen 5:28–32) is clearly not part of the Àood narrative, but the story of the sons of God in 6:1–4, even though not belonging to the Àood story, seems to provide the inciting incident which leads to the Àood. He observes further that God’s decision to destroy humanity in 6:6–7 also leads to the onset of the Àood, with Noah as the key ¿gure in 6:8—thus it points to what follows. Yet he notes further that a new Toledot begins in 6:9, which he argues is a key section marker in the book of Genesis.17 Longacre’s comments serve as a reminder that the literary context of 6:5–8 is not as straightforward as it might appear. The central question to be addressed in the present chapter, therefore, is not whether human wickedness is the reason for the Àood (for this is undisputed), but whether the statement in Gen 6:5 marks a new section,

14. For a comprehensive history of interpretation of the Toledot formula, see M. A. Thomas, These Are the Generations: Identity, Covenant, and the Toledot Formula (LHBOTS 551; New York: T&T Clark International, 2011), 21–48. 15. Cassuto, Genesis, 1:249. Cassuto provides seven reasons why Gen 6:1–8 belongs to the Toledot of Adam (249–50). 16. R. E. Longacre, “The Discourse Structure of the Flood Narrative,” JAAR 47, Supp. B (March 1979): 91–92. 17. Ibid., 92. 1

28

Was Noah Good?

which ushers in the Àood narrative, or whether it belongs to the conclusion to the Toledot of Adam. The answer to this question will have implications for identifying the literary context of Noah’s ¿nding favour in 6:8 and thus its meaning and relationship to 6:9. The discussion begins by highlighting six reasons why 6:5–8 has been interpreted as the introduction to the Àood narrative. This will be followed by a critique of this view, which includes giving careful consideration to how 6:1–4 and 6:5–8 are connected to their immediate literary context. This will then enable us to draw conclusions about the location and function of 6:1–8 at the conclusion to the Toledot of Adam (5:1–6:8), thereby establishing the interpretative context for “Noah’s ¿nding favour” (6:8), and his “righteousness” (6:9). 2. Rationale for Interpreting Genesis 6:5–8 as the Introduction to the Flood Narrative a. Priority Given to Independent J and P Sources A number of scholars are of the opinion that Gen 6:5–8 belongs to the Àood story; thus von Rad identi¿es 6:5–8 as its prologue.18 Similarly, Sailhamer suggests that 6:5–8 forms “the introduction proper to the Flood story.”19 This view is especially common among source-critical scholars, who interpret 6:5–8 as J’s introduction to the Àood.20 With this in mind, scholars hold to one of the following literary units for the Àood narrative: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Gen 6:5–8:2221 Gen 6:5–9:1722 Gen 6:5–9:1923 Gen 6:5–9:2924

While these scholars differ in where they locate the conclusion to the Àood story, there is agreement that the Àood narrative begins in Gen 6:5. 18. Von Rad, Genesis, 116; cf. Fretheim, Genesis, 389; Sarna, Genesis, 46. 19. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 123. 20. Driver, Genesis, 86; Fretheim, Creation, Fall, and Flood, 106; Gunkel, Genesis, 60; Skinner, Genesis, 150; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 406. 21. Gunkel, Genesis, 60; Krašovec, Reward, Punishment and Forgiveness, 35; Speiser, Genesis, 47; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 384. 22. Brueggemann, Genesis, 73; Driver, Genesis, 85; Noort, “The Stories of the Great Flood,” 26–30; van Wolde, Words Become Worlds, 75. 23. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 122. 24. Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 272; Skinner, Genesis, 147. 1

2. Establishing the Literary Context of Genesis 6:5–8

29

This requires identifying literary units based on J and P sources rather than giving priority to the Toledot structure, which locates Gen 6:5–8 at the conclusion to the Toledot of Adam (5:1–6:8). One observes, indeed, that while a number of the aforementioned scholars discuss the Toledot,25 it is not usually given any priority when de¿ning the literary structure of the Àood narrative. This is not surprising, however, given that the Àood narrative has been the hallmark of source theory. Driver, for example, discusses the Toledot framework in his commentary on Genesis; he highlights its importance for the book as a whole and makes the following statement: The narrative of Genesis is cast into a framework, or scheme, marked by the recurring formula, These are the generations (lit. begettings) of… This phrase is one which belongs properly to a genealogical system: it implies that the person to whose name it is pre¿xed is of suf¿cient importance to mark a break in the genealogical series, and that he and his descendants will form the subject of the section which follows, until another name is reached prominent enough to form the commencement of a new section.26

He comments further on the signi¿cance of the Toledot for interpreting the book as a whole, noting that the entire narrative, as we now possess it, is accommodated to it. The attention of the reader is ¿xed upon Israel, which is gradually disengaged from the nations and tribes related to it…and the narrative is limited more and more to the immediate line of Israel’s ancestors.27

Driver af¿rms the central role of the Toledot structure, noting particularly its function to narrow the focus to Israel; this view is indeed shared by a number of scholars. Yet Driver also discusses how the Toledot structure relates to the sources of Genesis: The unity of plan thus established for the Book of Genesis, and traceable in many other details, has long been recognized by critics. It is not, however, incompatible with the use by the compiler of pre-existing materials in the composition of his work. And as soon as the book is studied with suf¿cient attention, phenomena disclose themselves, which shew that it is composed of distinct documents or sources, which have been welded together by a later compiler (or “redactor”) into a continuous whole.28

1

25. 26. 27. 28.

Driver, Genesis, ii; Skinner, Genesis, lxv–lxvi; von Rad, Genesis, 63, 68. Driver, Genesis, ii. Ibid. Ibid., iii.

30

Was Noah Good?

While Driver af¿rms the central role of the Toledot formula, in the ¿nal analysis, priority is given to the separate J and P documents when interpreting the Àood narrative. Thus his interest does not lie with the later compiler or redactor, who is responsible for the ¿nal text, but with the underlying sources. In his commentary, therefore, Driver is keen to identify J and P texts in the Àood narrative and he concludes that 6:5–8 is J’s introduction to the Àood, whereas 6:9–12 is P’s introduction.29 He suggests that the Toledot formula in 6:9 marks a new section of P’s Àood narrative, but J’s Àood story nevertheless begins in 6:5. Skinner, who also comments on the Toledot structure, is less convinced of its value. He observes that some writers have considered the Toledot as editorial headings marking new sections, noting that Delitzsch has divided his commentary according to this structure; but Skinner then concludes the scheme is “of not practical utility” and that it is “nonsense” to think of Gen 11:10–26 and 25:12–18 as being on equal footing.30 The priority Skinner gives to independent J and P sources is especially seen in the Àood narrative; in his preface to the J Àood story he makes the following comments: This compound narrative is not destitute of interest; but for the understanding of the ideas underlying the literature the primary documents are obviously of ¿rst importance. We shall therefore treat them separately.31

According to Skinner, the J and P sources are of “¿rst importance,” hence minimal value is given to the ¿nal form of the text and the Toledot structure. In his commentary he therefore discusses the J Àood story ¿rst, which is followed by a separate discussion of the P Àood story. Notably, Gen 6:5–8 is dislocated from its immediate literary context, and is interpreted in relation to other J texts.32 Given that the literary context of 6:5–8 directly impacts how one interprets Noah’s “¿nding favour” in 6:8 and the statement about him in 6:9, a careful examination of the text and its literary context is essential. We begin by considering support for the view that Gen 6:5–8 functions as the introduction to the Àood narrative. This will be followed by a critique of this interpretation, with an alternative view being proposed.

1

29. 30. 31. 32.

Ibid., 86. Skinner, Genesis, lxvi. Ibid., 150. Ibid.

2. Establishing the Literary Context of Genesis 6:5–8

31

b. Genesis 6:5 Is Understood to Be J’s Introduction to the Flood Scholars who interpret the Àood narrative according to J and P sources maintain that 6:5–8 is J’s introduction to the Àood, which corresponds to P’s introduction in 6:9–22.33 If a source-critical approach is the primary lens through which Gen 6–9 is interpreted, it is not surprising that 6:5–8 is understood to be J’s introduction to the Àood, since assigning these verses to the Toledot of Adam rather than the Àood narrative would mean that J’s reason for the Àood would be missing. The necessity of some type of Yahwistic introduction to the Àood is underscored by examining how the J and P Àood texts are assigned.34 Since 6:9–22 is attributed to P, J’s Àood narrative resumes in 7:1–5 when YHWH sees that Noah is righteous. Yet notably, no reason for the Àood is given in 7:1–5 since Noah is simply told to enter the ark (nor has he been commanded to build the ark!). The implication is that if 6:5–8 is not identi¿ed as J’s introduction, the reason for the Àood would be entirely missing in J’s Àood story. Even when 6:5–8 is included, several other elements are already missing from J’s Àood narrative; as Westermann notes, “There is missing in J the announcement of the Àood, the commission to build the ark, and the leaving of the ark.”35 If 6:5–8 is assigned to the Toledot of Adam rather than J’s introduction, this would mean an even more truncated J Àood story. Thus, according to a source-critical view of the Àood narrative, 6:5–8 forms a necessary introduction to the J Àood narrative. That a source-critical approach has signi¿cantly impacted the interpretation of Gen 6:5–8 may be seen by brieÀy examining how several Genesis commentaries have been structured, particularly in relation to the Àood narrative. Skinner, for example, separates the Àood account into J and P texts. He discusses the following J Àood texts in his commentary: 6:5–8; 7:1–5, 7–10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22, 23; 8:1b (?), 2b, 3a, (4?), 6–12, 13b, 20–22.36

33. Driver, Genesis, 85; J. W. Rogerson, Genesis 1–11 (Old Testament Guides; Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1991), 70; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 397. 34. See Skinner, Genesis, 147–50; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 395–98. 35. Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 398. A number of other source-critical scholars have also recognized that several key elements that one might expect to ¿nd in J’s Àood story are missing; see Rogerson, Genesis 1–11, 71. 36. Skinner, Genesis, 150–58. 1

32

Was Noah Good?

Following his analysis of the J Àood story, he proceeds to discuss the P Àood story, based on the following texts which he assigns to P: 6:9–12, 13–16; 7:6, 11, 13–17a, 18–21, 24; 8:1, 2a, 3b–5, 13a, 14, 15–19; 9:1–7, 8–17, 28–29.37

We may recall that Skinner gives priority to independent J and P Àood stories, and he thus concludes that the Toledot structure “is of no practical utility”; he then provides the rationale for why he has treated J and P texts separately.38 The division of his commentary into separate J and P Àood narratives underscores the central role of 6:5–8 as J’s introduction to the Àood and the inÀuence a source-critical approach has had on how these verses have been interpreted. As with Skinner, Gunkel gives his exegetical comments on J’s Àood story separately from P’s Àood account. He discusses J’s Àood in the earlier section of his Genesis commentary, but the P Àood story is not mentioned until after an intervening sixty pages of commentary on other sections of Genesis.39 The result is that Gunkel’s comments on the J and P Àood texts are far removed from each other. Thus according to Gunkel, the literary unit of Gen 6:5–8 is to be read in relation to other J Àood texts, not in relation to the immediately literary context. This means that a large section of the commentary stands between Gunkel’s comments on “favour” in 6:8 (J text) and “righteousness” in 6:9 (P text). It is not surprising, therefore, that Gunkel concludes that two different theologies are present in the text. Gunkel thus divides the J Àood narrative into the following sections: Flood Legend in J 6:5–8…7:1, 2, 3b, 4, 5, 10, 7*, 16b, 12, 17b, 23aaa, 22, 23b; 8:6a, 2b, 3a…6b, 7–12, 13b…20–22.40

J’s Àood narrative is reconstructed as follows according to Gunkel: The narrative makes a very uni¿ed impression: Yahweh decides “to wipe out men from the face of the earth” (6:7). He reports the decision verbatim to Noah (7:4) and executes it (7:23). Yahweh announces a fortyday rain, to begin in 7 days (7:4). This occurs (7:10, 12).41

37. Ibid., 158–74. 38. Ibid., 150. 39. Gunkel, Genesis, 60–78 (J’s Àood account), 138–51 (P’s Àood account). 40. Ibid., 60. 41. Ibid. Yet Gunkel concedes that the J text is not quite as straightforward as he suggests earlier. He notes that the verb : is not characteristic of J, thus he suggests that '=:¡:f in v. 7 is a later gloss. He also suggests that the section which reads, 1

2. Establishing the Literary Context of Genesis 6:5–8

33

Gunkel notes further that J’s Àood story begins with divine speech in 6:5–8, which is an “especially lively beginning.”42 Clearly for Gunkel and others, 6:5–8 forms a necessary introduction to the Yahwist’s Àood narrative, which is integral to a uni¿ed J Àood narrative. It underscores the fact that the J and P Àood stories are separated and thus interpreted independently of each other, which inevitably leads to the conclusion that two different theologies are present in 6:8 and 6:9. Von Rad is another example of this approach. He ¿rst discusses Gen 6:5–8 under the heading, “The Prologue to the Flood.”43 The next section in his commentary is entitled “The Flood (J),” with the following chapters and verses being cited: chs. 7:1–5, 7, 16b, 8–10, 12, 17b, 22–23; 8:6a, 2b, 3a, 6b, 8–12, 13b, 20.44 Von Rad cites the texts in full in his commentary when reconstructing them into one J narrative, which requires rearranging several verses to ensure a coherent J Àood story.45 As with Skinner, his comments on J’s Àood are separated from his comments on the P Àood story, which is based on the following verses that are again cited in full: “The Flood (P). 6:9–22; 7:6, 11, 13–16a, 17a, 18–21, 24; 8:1–22, 3b, 4–5, 7, 13a, 15–19.”46 Von Rad’s view of these two literary strands clearly inÀuences his interpretation of 6:5–8 as J’s introduction to the Àood. He thus notes that, while one can seek to understand the narrative as a whole, in order to “penetrate the thought more precisely, one cannot dispense with a separation of the texts.”47 Since the J and P texts are being interpreted as two separate Àood stories, 6:5–8 forms an essential introduction to J’s Àood and is interpreted in light of other J texts. Westermann also analyzes the Àood story according to J and P sources. He proposes that there are six parts, with ¿ve of them common to both J and P.48 In his schema Gen 6:5–8 belongs to Part 1, which corresponds to the divine decision to destroy humanity in 6:9–22 by P. -'/f! 5#3¡3# g/:¡3 !/!¡3 -/, is a later gloss since it is characteristic of P (6:20; 7:14, 21, etc.). He notes further that 7:1 is not the immediate continuation of 6:8 since key elements are missing (Gunkel, Genesis, 61). It seems to be the case that J Àood story is not as uni¿ed as Gunkel supposes. See Rogerson for other problems inherent in a composite J and P Àood text (Genesis 1–11, 71), and von Rad (Genesis, 119). 42. Gunkel, Genesis, 60. 43. Von Rad, Genesis, 116–18. 44. Ibid., 118. 45. Ibid. 46. Von Rad, Genesis, 125. 47. Ibid., 119. 48. Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 395–96 1

34

Was Noah Good?

The priority given to J and P strands is highlighted in Westermann’s comments that “the ¿rst step in the inquiry into the tradition of the Àood narrative must be a comparison of the two accounts contained in Gen 6–9 and an explanation of the way in which they are put together.”49 This evidently informs his view of Gen 6:5–8 as the introduction to the Àood. To summarize thus far, it seems to be the case that a source-critical approach to the Àood narrative has signi¿cantly inÀuenced how scholars assign the literary context of Gen 6:5–8. To be sure, a number of more recent scholars who hold to J and P sources seek to interpret the Àood story in its ¿nal form. P. J. Harland, for example, examines J and P Àood texts separately,50 but he then discusses the Àood narrative according to its ¿nal form, reading J and P together.51 As with other scholars, he views 6:5–8 as J’s introduction to the Àood,”52 and this view is held even when J and P texts are read together. Thus the inÀuence of a source-critical approach remains, even when the J and P texts are read as a compound narrative. Moreover, when priority is given to separate J and P Àood texts, the Toledot structure clearly assumes a secondary and subservient role.53 However, if one begins with an examination of the text in its ¿nal form, and if a source-critical theory is not the primary lens through which the text is interpreted, then the ¿nal author of Genesis is given a pre-eminent place in determining the literary units. We will explore the import of the Toledot structure in the ensuing discussion, but at this point we simply note that a source-critical approach has had a signi¿cant impact on interpreting Gen 6:5–8 as the introduction to the Àood. A survey of early commentaries highlights the fact that the Àood story was not always understood to begin in Gen 6:5. Lange’s commentary on Genesis, for example, which was published in 1868, divides the primaeval history (what he calls the “First Period”) into the following three parts: Part 1: Genesis 1:1–2:25. Part 2: Genesis 3:1–6:8. Part 3: Genesis 6:9–11:32.54 49. Ibid., 396. 50. Harland, The Value of Human Life, 49–57 (J), 57–65 (P). 51. Ibid., 65–69. 52. Ibid., 26–27. 53. See Wenham’s comments on literary and source criticism, and potential conÀicts that may arise (Genesis 1–15, xxxiii–xxxvi). 54. J. Lange, Genesis: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (New York: Charles Scribner & Co., 1868). 1

2. Establishing the Literary Context of Genesis 6:5–8

35

Notably, Gen 6:5 does not begin a new section, but belongs to the history of humanity in Part 2; thus Noah’s ¿nding favour in 6:8 concludes Part 2, whereas Part 3 begins in 6:9. Similarly, Bush’s Genesis commentary, published in 1870, maintains that the section ends in Gen 6:8 following the Jewish tradition of identifying the ¿rst Parashah, ='f:, which ends in 6:8, whereas the second Parashah, %1, begins in Gen 6:9.55 He thus af¿rms this literary division in his own commentary. Greenwood’s commentary on Genesis, which was published in 1899, divides the primaeval history into the following two divisions: Part 1: The Adamic Narrative (1:1–4:41). Part 2: The Noachic Narrative (5:1–9:29).56

According to Greenwood, Gen 6:5 does not begin a new section, but is included in the larger narrative spanning from 5:1–9:29. Delitzsch similarly does not view 6:5 as the introduction to the Àood, but rather, he treats 6:1–8 as a literary unit and locates a new section at 6:9 with the Toledot of Noah (6:9–9:29).57 Dillmann, whose commentary on Genesis was published in 1897, divides volume one of his commentary into the following sections: I. The Primitive History from the Creation to the Flood (I:1–VI:8). II. The History of Noah and Descendants down to Abraham (VI:9–IX:29).58

As with Delitzsch, a major section concludes at Gen 6:8 with Noah’s ¿nding favour and a new section begins in 6:9 with the Toledot of Noah. Westermann refers to this as the “old division,” citing both Delitzsch and Dillmann, whom he notes locate the beginning of the Àood story at 6:9, and thus 6:5–8 is seen to belong to 6:1–4.59 This brief survey is a reminder that a number of early commentaries on Genesis do not hold the view that 6:5–8 introduces the Àood narrative, but rather, a new section is commonly thought to begin in 6:9. To conclude, it seems to be the case that a source-critical approach to the Àood narrative has given rise to the view that 6:5–8 functions as its introduction, since it is seen to be J’s introduction to his Àood story. The preceding pericope in 6:1–4 is thought to further support this view. 55. Bush, Notes, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Genesis, 1:xxx, 122. 56. G. G. Greenwood, The Book of Genesis Treated as an Authentic Record, vol. 1, Part 1 (2d ed.; London: Church Printing Co., 1899). 57. F. Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis (New York: Scribner & Welford, 1889), 222–35. 58. A. Dillmann, Genesis: Critically and Exegetically Expounded, vol. 1 (trans. W. B. Stevenson; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897 [1892]), ix. 59. Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 408.

1

36

Was Noah Good?

c. Genesis 6:1–4 Is Seen to Be an Independent Literary Unit The second reason why Gen 6:5–8 is identi¿ed as the introduction to the Àood is that 6:1–4 is thought to be an independent narrative. It is not uncommon for the aforementioned scholars to view 6:1–4 as an independent and fragmentary story,60 having few connections with the preceding and following chapters.61 Since 6:1–4 is seen as an independent narrative, often mythical in nature,62 and unconnected to its present literary context, this further supports the notion that a new section begins in 6:5. Wellhausen is representative of this approach, as suggested by his comments on Gen 6:1–4: Another strange erratic boulder is the intercourse of the sons of God with the daughters of men (Gen vi. 1–4). The connection between this piece and the story of the Àood which follows it, is of the loosest; and it is in entire disagreement with the preceding part of the of the Jehovist narrative, as it tells of a second fall of man, with a point of view morally and mentally so different from that of the ¿rst, that this story can in no wise be regarded as supplementing or continuing that one.63

This approach to 6:1–4 is further illustrated by Skinner, who describes these verses as an “obscure and obviously fragmentary narrative.”64 He raises the question concerning the relation of 6:1–4 to the Yahwistic traditions, and concludes that any connection to the preceding J texts is dif¿cult to establish; he reasons that the disconnectedness of the narrative is probably due to drastic abridgement either by the original writer or later editors, to whom its crudely mythical character was objectionable, and who were interested in retaining no more than was needful to account for the origin of the giants.”65

60. Brueggemann, Genesis, 71; Gunkel, Genesis, 56–59; Speiser, Genesis, 45. 61. E.g. Brueggemann, Genesis, 70; Driver, Genesis, 82; Gunkel, Genesis, 59–60; Skinner, Genesis, 140–41; von Rad, Genesis, 113. 62. For a helpful overview of mythical interpretations, see D. L. Peterson, “Genesis 6:1–4, Yahweh and the Organization of the Cosmos,” JSOT 13 (1979): 49– 56. Peterson argues that 6:1–4 functions as a “myth of organization” to provide order to the cosmos (p. 56). 63. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (New York: Meridian, 1957), 317. Wellhausen has a similar view of the Àood, when writing that “The fact is simply this, that the whole section of the Àood (Gen vi.–xi.) is an isolated piece without any connection with the rest of the narrative of the Jehovist” (Prolegomena, 317). 64. Skinner, Genesis, 139. 65. Ibid., 141. 1

2. Establishing the Literary Context of Genesis 6:5–8

37

As with Skinner, Driver comments on 6:1–4, describing the narrative as “a strange one. It is introduced abruptly, and it ends abruptly,”66 and Speiser speaks of the “undisguised mythology of this isolated fragment.”67 Von Rad similarly understands 6:1–4 to be an independent story, unconnected to its literary context; he writes the following on 6:1–4: The beginning of a new story is quite general in its chronology and without special connection with what precedes. The reader, therefore, who has learned to pay attention to such artless transitions, detects that he is being introduced into a previously quite independent narrative context, which seems like a “cracked erratic boulder” (Pr). The only thing said is that the event occurred at a time when there were many men.68

The signi¿cance of these views is that Gen 6:1–4 is interpreted in isolation from its literary context, with minimal attention given to how these verses are connected to the preceding genealogy (5:1–32) and to what follows (6:5–8). Brueggemann thus concludes that “6:1–4 has no connection with ch. 5 or any of the preceding material.”69 While various proposals are suggested for its present location, 70 the view that 6:1–4 is disconnected from its current literary context further supports the view that the Àood begins in 6:5, for if 6:1–4 is an independent narrative, then 6:5–8 must, by necessity, mark the beginning of a new section. d. YHWH’s “Seeing” in Genesis 6:5 Thought to Introduce the Narrative The third reason why Gen 6:5 is thought to introduce to the Àood narrative, and hence v. 5 begins a new literary unit, is seen in the opening statement, !#!' :'#, “And YHWH saw.” Genesis 6:5 notably begins as follows: ª-#'!¡+) 3: 9: #+ =f%/ :8'¡+)# 7: -! =3: !: ') !#!' :'# The LORD saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. (NRSV) 66. Driver, Genesis, 82. 67. Speiser, Genesis, 45. 68. Von Rad, Genesis, 113. 69. Brueggemann, Genesis, 70. 70. It has been suggested that 6:1–4 may have been located prior to 6:5–8 to give a reason for the Àood (Speiser, Genesis, 46), while others argue that the passage knows nothing of the Àood. Von Rad contends that the Yahwist wanted to show man’s corrupt nature through the mixing of spiritual beings with man, a kind of “demonic invasion,” as he suggests (von Rad, Genesis, 115). Thus for von Rad and others, the text further contributes to the increase of sin that reaches a crescendo in the Àood story (Driver, Genesis, 82; Skinner, Genesis, 140). 1

38

Was Noah Good?

Westermann has drawn attention to YHWH’s “seeing,” interpreting it in the context of his “crime–punishment” schema; he has made the following comments on 6:5: A narrative often begins by saying that God saw; i.e., that he discovered what the situation really was. The phrase does not mean that God merely noticed something, but serves always to introduce an action of God; this is its function.71

Westermann argues that 6:5 functions as an introductory clause which anticipates the divine action (i.e. the punishment).72 Thus, according to Westermann’s “crime–punishment” schema, 6:5 does not conclude the Toledot of Adam, but introduces the Àood judgment through the divine “seeing.” e. Linguistic Connections Between Genesis 6:5–8 and the Flood Narrative The fourth reason why Gen 6:5–8 is thought to introduce the Àood story is that several terms appearing in these verses are employed in the following Àood narrative. First of all, we note that YHWH’s assessment (“seeing”) of human wickedness in 6:5 (-! =3: !: ') !#!' :'# 7:) corresponds to God’s assessment (“seeing”) in 6:12 (-'!+ :'# !=%f1 !1!# 7:!¡=). Scholars have argued, therefore, that 6:5 gives the Yahwist’s reason for the Àood, whereas P’s reason for the Àood is given in 6:12.73 Accordingly, 6:5 is identi¿ed as the introduction to the Àood narrative since it indicates that human wickedness is the reason for the ensuing Àood judgment. The second lexical connection between 6:5–8 and the Àood narrative is the verb !%/, “to blot out, wipe out” (6:7). The verb !%/ occurs on two occasions in the Àood story to describe God’s destroying of every living creature (7:4, 23); thus the statement that YHWH will “blot out” human beings in 6:7 clearly anticipates the Àood story. Notably, the verb does not appear in Gen 1–5; nor does it occur again in Genesis.74 This 71. Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 410; cf. Brueggemann, Genesis, 79–80; Harland, The Value of Human Life, 26. 72. For an overview of Westermann’s “crime–punishment” schema in Gen 1–11, see Westermann, Promise to the Fathers, 44–56. Westermann has three categories in his crime–punishment schema: the “transgression” (3:6; 4:8b; 6:1–2; 6:5–7; 9:22; 11:4), the “verbal expression” (3:14–19; 4:11–12; 6:3; 6:5–7; 9:24–25; 11:6–7) and the “act of punishment” (3:22–24; 4:16b; 7:6–24; 11:8–9). 73. Driver, Genesis, 85; Rogerson, Genesis 1–11, 70; Westermann, Genesis 1– 11, 397. 74. The verb is not commonly employed in the Pentateuch either (Exod 17:14; 32:32; Num 5:23; Deut 9:14; 25:6, 19; 29:20). 1

2. Establishing the Literary Context of Genesis 6:5–8

39

suggests that the divine decision to wipe out human beings has its locus in the Àood narrative. The third lexical connection between 6:5–8 and the ensuing Àood narrative is the reference to the ground in 6:7: YHWH determines to wipe out human beings !/! '16 +3/, “from on the face of the ground” (6:7). This is the location from which all Àesh is destroyed in the Àood (7:4; cf. 7:23; 8:8); thus 6:7 anticipates the Àood judgment and suggests that 6:5–8 belongs to the Àood story. The most notable lexical connection between 6:5–8 and the Àood narrative is Noah, who is mentioned in 6:8 as one who ¿nds favour. The name %1 occurs over thirty times in the Àood story.75 That Noah is mentioned in 6:8 anticipates his central role in the Àood narrative; it could thus be argued that 6:5–8 takes up the theme of the Àood with Noah as a key character. These lexical connections underscore that 6:5–8 has the Àood narrative in view. A further connection between 6:5–8 and the Àood narrative is seen in Gen 8:21. f. Genesis 6:5 Is Recalled After the Flood in Genesis 8:21 Scholars have noted that YHWH’s assessment of humanity in Gen 6:5 is recalled after the Àood in 8:21. After Noah has offered up a burnt offering to God (8:20), YHWH smells the soothing aroma and says in his heart that he will no longer curse the ground, even though the thoughts of humankind are evil from their youth (8:21). Genesis 8:21 clearly recalls God’s assessment of humanity given in 6:5; thus it has been argued that the Àood narrative begins in 6:5 and concludes in 8:21. The two texts may thus be compared: Gen 6:5b: -#'!¡+) 3: 9: #+ =f%/ :8'¡+)# and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts were only evil continually (NRSV) Gen 8:21c: #':31/ 3: -! + :8' ') for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth (NRSV)

We will explore the meaning and signi¿cance of 8:21 in the next two chapters of the present study, but it is worth noting that some scholars argue that 6:5 and 8:21 frame the Àood narrative, thus providing further

75. Gen 6:8, 9, 10, 13, 22; 7:1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, etc.; Noah also appears in Gen 1–5 (5:29, 30, 32). 1

40

Was Noah Good?

support for the view that 6:5–8 functions as the introduction to the Àood. Von Rad thus gives the following summary of the import of 6:5 and 8:21: The Yahwistic story of the Flood is planned very skillfully. It began with the narrator’s letting us share in the reÀection about God’s grieving heart and letting us learn directly from God’s mouth the resolve of judgment. At the end of the narrative the Yahwist again takes us up into the immediacy of the thoughts in God’s heart. And as in the prologue, so here we are faced with the Yahwist’s very own words.76

Some scholars argue, therefore, that the Àood story concludes in 8:22.77 Given that human sin is mentioned both before the Àood (6:5) and after it (8:21), these verses are seen to form an inclusio.78 Emerton has noted that 8:21 echoes 6:5, and questions Wenham’s analysis of the Àood narrative, which does not include 6:5–8.79 Implicit in Emerton’s objection to Wenham’s analysis is that 6:5 ought to be part of the Àood narrative in view of the fact that it is recalled in 8:21. In sum, we have provided a brief summary of the reasons why scholars conclude that 6:5–8 introduces the Àood narrative, with the primary reason being due to a source-critical view of the Àood. We will respond to each of these arguments, and suggest an alternative approach to 6:5–8, which locates this pericope at the conclusion of the Toledot of Adam (5:1–6:8). 3. The Rationale for Interpreting Genesis 6:5–8 as Part of the Toledot of Adam (Genesis 5:1–6:8) a. The Priority of the Toledot Formula in Determining Literary Units A source-critical approach to Gen 6:5–8 gives priority to J and P sources in the Àood narrative, which results in assigning minimal, if any, value to the Toledot structure. Yet more recent interest in interpreting Genesis according to the ¿nal form, which gives emphasis to the artistry of the biblical text, results in greater attention being given to the Toledot framework. A number of scholars have highlighted the import of the Toledot structure for the book as a whole.80 The formula is seen to function as 76. Von Rad, Genesis, 122. 77. Gunkel, Genesis, 60; Speiser, Genesis, 47; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 384. 78. Gunkel, Genesis, 60; see also Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, 363; Rogerson, Genesis 1–11, 71; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 592. 79. Emerton, “An Examination: Part 2,” 10. 80. B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 145–46; J. DeRouchie, “The Blessing-Commission, the Promised

1

2. Establishing the Literary Context of Genesis 6:5–8

41

a framing device, providing the contours for the meta-narrative of Genesis, which narrows the focus in each generation to one son in particular, concluding with the Toledot of Jacob (Gen 37:2). Prominence is given in the patriarchal narratives to the main line, which is presented last, whereas the secondary or side lines are given ¿rst.81 The recurring Toledot formula thus demonstrates that Genesis has its own literary structure that provides the contours for the book as a whole. It is not surprising therefore that some scholars argue that it is the governing framework for the book.82 Andersen observes, for instance, that the Toledot headings give prominence to key ¿gures in Genesis and concludes that the Toledot headings “constitute one of the most important structural features of Genesis.”83 Given that a new Toledot begins in 6:9, this indicates that 6:5–8 belongs to the Toledot of Adam, and a new section begins with the Toledot of Noah in 6:9. M. A. Thomas has provided a thorough examination of the Toledot formula, including a detailed history of interpretation. He observes that the Toledot formula, which he argues functions as a heading, commonly occurs with the conjunctive waw (Gen 10:1; 11:27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9). Offspring, and the Toledot Structure of Genesis,” JETS 56 (2013): 219–47; J. Fokkelman, “Genesis,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible (ed. R. Alter and F. Kermode; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987), 36–55 (42); S. Tengström, Die Toledotformel und die literarische Struktur der priesterlichen Erweiterungsschicht im Pentateuch (Lund: Gleerup, 1981); Thomas, These Are the Generations; P. Weimar, “Die Toledot-Formel in der priesterschriftlichen Geschichtsdarstellung,” BZ 18 (1974): 65–93; M. H. Woudstra, “The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and Their Redemptive-Historical Signi¿cance,” Calvin Theological Journal 5 (1970): 184–89. 81. T. D. Andersen, “Genealogical Prominence and the Structure of Genesis,” in Bergen, ed., Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, 256, 262–63; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, vol. 2 (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964), 198; R. L. Cohn, “Narrative Structure and Canonical Perspective in Genesis,” JSOT 25 (1983): 4; DeRouchie, “The Blessing-Commission,” 219; Kaminksi, From Noah to Israel, 61–71; R. Longacre, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39–48 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1989), 11, 19–20; Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, 440; Sarna, Genesis, 69; J. Scharbert, “Der Sinn der Toledot-Formel in der Priesterschrift,” in Wort-Gebot-Glaube: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments: W. Eichrodt FS (ed. H. J. Stoebe; Zurich: Zwingli, 1979), 45–56 (45); Weimar, “Die Toledot-Formel,” 65–93 (70); cf. idem, “Aufbau und Struktur der priesterschriftlichen Jakobsgeschichte,” ZAW 86 (1974): 174–203 (201). 82. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament, 71–83; Cohn, “Narrative Structure in Genesis,” 4; Longacre, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence, 11, 19–20. 83. Andersen, “Genealogical Prominence,” 252. 1

42

Was Noah Good?

Yet the heading appears without a coordinating waw on ¿ve occasions (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 11:10; 37:2). Thomas concludes that these ¿ve Toledots function as major headings in Genesis, providing the contours for the macrostructure.84 The macrostructure of the book is thus de¿ned by the following Toledots: the heavens and the earth (2:4), Adam (5:1), Noah (6:9), Shem (11:10), and Jacob/Israel (37:2)—which narrow the focus to Israel.85 More recently, DeRouchie has discussed further the signi¿cance of the asyndetic Toledot formula for the macrostructure of Genesis.86 It is important to note that the Toledot of Noah in 6:9, %1 =+#= !+, is one of the ¿ve major headings that appear without a coordinating waw. This not only underscores the importance of 6:9 for the macrostructure of the book, but it argues against the view that a new section begin in 6:5–8, since the Toledot formula locates a major heading in 6:9. That the Toledot of Noah in 6:9 marks a new literary unit is underscored by the fact that the death notice of Noah, which is noticeably absent in the Sethite genealogy, is located at the conclusion of the Toledot of Noah in 9:29, immediately prior to the new Toledot in 10:1. This is in accordance with other Toledots, which similarly conclude with the death of the main ¿gure.87 Andersen suggests that there are three types of information in a genealogy: birth, offspring and death.88 He argues that in terms of prominence, death is more signi¿cant than birth in Genesis, noting that a new character is commonly introduced by a birth notice, but the exit of the individual through death is far less common, thus it is notable when it occurs.89 That the genealogical statement, “All the days of Noah were nine hundred ¿fty years; and he died” (9:29, NRSV), has been placed at the conclusion of the Toledot serves to highlight that it is an intentional literary structure. It underscores that the entire Àood story in its ¿nal literary shape has been embedded into the Toledot framework. This point has been noted by Westermann, who observes that the Àood narrative now stands under the Toledot heading.

84. Thomas, These Are the Generations, 71–73. 85. Ibid., 73. 86. DeRouchie, “The Blessing-Commission,” 219–47. 87. For example, Ishmael’s Toledot (25:12–18) concludes with his death (25:17); Isaac’s Toledot (25:19–35:29) concludes with his death (35:28–29); and the Toledot of Jacob (37:2–50:26) concludes with his death (50:1–14) and the death of his son, Joseph (50:22–29). 88. Andersen, “Genealogical Prominence,” 247. 89. Ibid., 246. On the importance of “death” in the Pentateuch, see D. T. Olson, The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of Numbers and the Pentateuch (BJS 71; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), 83–125. 1

2. Establishing the Literary Context of Genesis 6:5–8

43

He argues that this constitutes a “shift in emphasis” which “converts the narrative of the Àood into a narrative about Noah. It begins with Noah and it ends with him…”90 Longacre has similarly drawn attention to the priority of the Toledot structure, noting that the Àood story is not the natural division of the book,91 but rather the Àood story has been incorporated into the Toledot structure, which is the governing framing device. This indicates, therefore, that the primary literary structure for interpreting Gen 6–9 is not the Àood narrative, but the Toledot framework. Since the Toledot formula locates a new section at 6:9, this means that 6:5–8 functions as the conclusion to the Toledot of Adam (5:1–6:8), not as the introduction to the Àood narrative. That the Toledot of Noah is introduced without a coordinating waw further separates 6:5–8 from 6:9. Given that the Àood story has been intentionally incorporated into the Toledot of Noah, perhaps we might also expect that 6:1–4 and 6:5–8 in some sense belong to the Toledot of Adam (5:1–6:8). We now turn to consider the relationship of 6:1–4 to its immediate literary context, which will be followed by an examination of 6:5–8 in relation to 6:1–4 and the Toledot of Adam (5:1–6:8). b. Genesis 6:1–4 Is Connected to the Preceding Genealogy and to the Primaeval History We have noted that one of the reasons why Gen 6:5–8 is thought to introduce the Àood narrative is that 6:1–4 is seen to be an independent story, with few connections with its immediate literary context. If 6:1–4 is an independent narrative, then a new section would by necessity begin in 6:5. D. J. A. Clines noted in his article on 6:1–4 in 1979 that scholars have been preoccupied with the exegetical issues in these verses, viewing them as heathen mythology, yet minimal attention has been given to their function in the primaeval history.92 After examining several themes in 6:1–4 that connect the pericope to the surrounding material, he concludes that “it is well anchored in its present position in the ‘Primeval History’ by motif connections with preceding and following material.”93 Other scholars have also seen connections between 6:1–4 and the primaeval history. Wenham, for example, makes the following comments:

90. Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 412. 91. Longacre, “The Structure of the Flood Narrative,” 92. 92. D. J. A. Clines, “The Signi¿cance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode (Genesis 6.1-4) in the Context of the ‘Primeval History’ (Genesis 1–11),” JSOT 13 (1979): 33–46. 93. Ibid., 41. 1

44

Was Noah Good? Though 6:1–8 appears to have little connection with the preceding genealogy, it is in fact closely integrated with it… In content, 6:1–8 takes up the subject matter of chap. 5. 6:1 introduces the story of the “daughters” often mentioned in passing in chap. 5 despite their apparent irrelevance to the genealogical line. Now they become the focus of attention. Indeed, the opening phrase, “When man began to multiply” could refer to the whole process of multiplication recorded in 5:1–32…94

The view of Clines and Wenham raises the question whether Gen 6:1–4 is as disconnected from its immediate literary context as some scholars have assumed. It is worth examining 6:1–4 in further detail, therefore, particularly its relationship to the preceding and following material. We note ¿rst of all that the subject of Gen 6:1a (:+ -! +%!¡') '!'#) is humanity. The term -!, which occurs four times in 6:1–4, connects these verses to chs. 1–5, where - (both with and without the article) is prominently featured.95 The prominence of - in 6:1–4 and 6:5–8 is noteworthy, given that - does not appear in 6:9–22, and the term occurs only a further seven times in Gen 7–50.96 Moreover, since the Toledot framework locates 6:1–4 at the conclusion to the Toledot of Adam (cf. 5:1, - =+#=), this suggests that the focus on humanity in 6:1 is consistent with the Toledot heading. Second, the temporal clause in 6:1a is connected to the preceding genealogy through the repetition of the multiplication motif. While the verb : does not occur in Gen 1–5, the reiteration of the creation blessing in 5:2 recalls the creation blessing, “be fruitful and multiply” (1:28), where the verb !: is employed. This suggests that the commands to “be fruitful and multiply” are being realized in the Sethite genealogy.97 The reiteration of the multiplication motif in 6:1 is thus in accordance with this theme of multiplication and it connects it to 5:1–32.

94. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 137. 95. E.g. Gen 1:26–27; 2:5, 7–8, 15–16, 18, 19–23, 25; 3:8–9, 12, 20, 22, 24. On the meanings of - in Gen 1–5, see R. S. Hess, “The Splitting of Adam: The Usage of ADAM in Genesis I–V,” in Studies in the Pentateuch (ed. J. A. Emerton; Leiden: Brill, 1990), 1–15. 96. Gen 7:21, 23; 8:21; 9:4, 5; 16:12. 97. Fokkelman, “Genesis,” 42; Gunkel, Genesis, 137; Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 255; Kaminski, From Noah to Israel, 75–79; Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, 308; R. B. Robinson, “Literary Functions of the Genealogies of Genesis,” CBQ 48 (1986): 595– 608 (600); Sarna, Genesis, 40; Turner, Announcement of Plot in Genesis, 25–26; Weimar, “Die Toledot-Formel,” 80; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 126; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 160, 528 (= Genesis, 1:221, 705); R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 164. 1

2. Establishing the Literary Context of Genesis 6:5–8

45

Third, the repetition of the verb +' throughout 5:1–32 and again in 6:1 and 6:4 further connects the pericope to the preceding genealogy,98 and it contributes to the multiplication theme in chs. 1–4.99 That 6:1 sets the scene with human multiplication and “begetting” accords with the theme in 5:1–32, which is almost entirely absent in the Àood narrative of 6:9–9:29, and it is not resumed again until the Table of Nations.100 Fourth, the connection between 6:1 and the preceding genealogy is further established by reference to =#1, “daughters,” in 6:1–2 and 6:4, who are prominently featured in 5:1–32 (e.g. 5:4, 7, 10, 13, 16, etc.).101 It is noteworthy that, while =#1 appear throughout the Sethite genealogy, they are not mentioned in the Àood narrative; nor do they appear again until the Shemite genealogy (11:10–26).102 Van Gemeren thus draws the following conclusion with regard to 6:1, noting that the introductory phrase “when man began to multiply” recaptures past events. It relates to both chapters 4 and 5… It is most appropriate to read 6:1 as a summary statement of chapters 4 and 5, and especially of chapter 5 with the repeated emphasis that the men in the genealogy of Adam via Seth begat daughters (5:4, 7, 10, 13, 19, 22, 26, 30).103

We may conclude, therefore, that 6:1–4 takes up the theme of human multiplication and “begetting,” which is prominent in the preceding genealogy, although focus in 6:1–4 is on the daughters of humankind.104 In short, this suggests that 6:1–4 is not as disconnected from the preceding chapter as some scholars have assumed. Genesis 6:1–4 is not only connected to the preceding genealogy, but also to other motifs in the primaeval history. 98. Gen 5:3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, etc. 99. The term +', “to bear, beget,” occurs on several occasions in the preceding chapters (3:16; 4:1, 2, 17, 18, 20, 22, 25, 26); cf. Turner, Announcement of Plot in Genesis, 28. 100. The verb +' only occurs in 6:10, but it does not appear again until the Table of Nations (10:1, 8, 13, 15, 21, etc.). The theme of multiplication is sometimes seen to be present in 9:19, as suggested by the NRSV translation, “From these the whole earth was peopled,” but it is noteworthy that the verb 761 in 9:19 does not mean “people” or “populate,” but “scatter” and that it anticipates the Babel judgment; Kaminski, From Noah to Israel, 10–21. 101. Wallace, “The Toledot of Adam,” 29; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 139. Wenham rightly notes that =#1 precedes the verb, thereby giving prominence to them. See also van Wolde, Words Become Worlds, 72–74. 102. E.g. Gen 11:11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23. 103. W. van Gemeren, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1–4,” WTJ 43 (1981): 330–31. 104. Van Wolde, Words Become Worlds, 73. 1

46

Was Noah Good?

c. Genesis 6:1–4 Is Connected to Motifs in the Primaeval History Genesis 6:1–4 shares several themes that are prominent in the primaeval history. First of all, the “seeing…good” of the sons of God in 6:2 (#:'# !1! =& ') -! =#1¡= -'!+!¡'1) connects this story to the preceding chapters. It has been shown to be the case that the adjective #& in 6:2 does not mean “beautiful” or “fair,” but “good.”105 It is noteworthy that the adjective #& is employed with the verb !:, “to see,” nine times in Gen 1–11,106 especially in the repeated refrain: #&¡') -'!+ :'#, “and God saw that it was good” (1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25). Scholars have suggested that 6:2 is reminiscent of God’s “seeing…good” in Gen 1.107 It seems that the sons of God are acting “like God” when the “see” that the women were “good,” although theirs is a false judgment—for the women are not good (especially in view of 6:5!).108 In short, the repetition of “seeing… good” connects 6:2 with the approval formula in the creation story. Second, Gen 6:2 not only echoes the “judgment” or “approval” formula in Gen 1, but also Eve’s “seeing…good…take” in 3:6. In 6:2 three key terms are used: !:, “see,” #&, “good” and %9+, “take.” While the verb %9+ can also mean “to marry,” and this seems to be its meaning in 6:2,109 the presence of these three terms clearly recalls 3:6, where Eve “sees” (!:) that the tree was “good” (#&) for food…and “takes” (%9+). The literary connection between 3:6 and 6:2 has been noted by several scholars. Mathews, writes, for instance:

105. The adjective #& refers to attractive appearance when appearing with !:/ (e.g. Gen 24:16; 27:7; 2 Sam. 11:2, etc.), or := (e.g. Gen 29:17; 1 Kgs 1:6), but in 6:2 #& appears by itself; thus we have argued that it does not mean “beautiful, fair,” but simply “good.” When the sons of God “see” that the daughters are “good,” this is reminiscent of Eve’s “seeing” that the tree was “good” in Gen 3:6; thus they recapitulate the sin of Eve. See C. M. Kaminski, “Beautiful Women or ‘False Judgment’? Interpreting Genesis 6:2 in the Context of the Primaeval History,” JSOT 32 (2008): 457–73. 106. Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31; 3:6; 6:2. 107. Gunkel, Genesis, 56; Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch, 1:50. Accordingly, the Septuagint renders #& by Á¸ÂĠË both in the creation story (Gen 1:4, 8, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31) and in 6:2. 108. Kaminski, “Beautiful Women or ‘False Judgment’?,” 472–73. 109. Note that the sons of God take -'f1, “women, wives” in Gen 6:2; the designation of the women changes from =#1 in v. 1 (and again in v. 4) to -'f1 in v. 2 with the verb %9+; the term -'f1 denotes women, but more commonly “wives” (cf. 4:19; 11:29; 12:19; 21:21, etc.). 1

2. Establishing the Literary Context of Genesis 6:5–8

47

The actions of the “sons of God” are described in language reminiscent of Eve’s sin (3:6): she “saw” (r’â) that the fruit was “good” (Óôb; here, NIV’s “beautiful”) and “took” (lqa­, NIV’s “married”). While no sin or condemnation is speci¿ed in the text, the allusion to the garden rebellion suggests that the marriages are in some way tainted.110

Wenham also comments on this connection between Gen 6:2 and Eve’s actions in the garden: The sequence of “saw…good…took” parallels most closely the terminology in 3:6 and suggests the sinfulness of the actions of the sons of God. When the woman saw and took, she transgressed a boundary set by the LORD… Here the fault of the daughters of man lies presumably in their consenting to intercourse with “the sons of the gods.”111

As with Mathews and Wenham, Waltke observes that 3:6 and 6:2 have shared vocabulary and suggests that the sin of the sons of God “repeats the pattern (‘saw…good…took’) of the original sin in 3:6.”112 It would appear, therefore, that the sons of God are recapitulating the sin of Eve in 3:6,113 thus underscoring the connection of 6:2 and the garden of Eden story. Third, scholars have observed that the “name” motif in Gen 6:1–4 (cf. 6:2, -f! 'f1) is related thematically to Cain’s ambition of striving to perpetuate his family name (4:17), and to the Babelites’ striving to make a name for themselves (11:4),114 which seems to be in ironic contrast to the Shemite genealogy (11:10–26). Reference to “men of name” in 6:4 underscores that 6:1–4 is connected to the “name” motif in the primaeval history.

110. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, 330; cf. R. Alter, Genesis: Translation and Commentary (New York: W.W. Norton, 1996), 26; Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 265. 111. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 141. In contrast to other scholars, Wenham does not mention the “beauty” of the women. Rather, he notes that the vocabulary used in 6:2 recalls 3:6 and suggests that “one must look behind the speci¿c terms used to discover the reason for the condemnation in this case” (ibid.). 112. Waltke, Genesis, 117. 113. Kaminski, “Beautiful Women or ‘False Judgment?’,” 473. 114. Clines, “The Signi¿cance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode,” 37–38; see also A. K. Jenkins, “A Great Name: Genesis 12:2 and the Editing of the Pentateuch,” JSOT 10 (1978): 41–57, for the connection between the name motif in Gen 6:1–2 and the call of Abraham. G. A. Rendsburg has also demonstrated that 6:1–4 is connected to the Babel story through shared motifs and vocabulary; see his The Redaction of Genesis [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1986], 19–22). 1

48

Was Noah Good?

In sum, while Gen 6:1–4 may have originally been an independent pericope, there are suf¿cient textual links to indicate that the narrative is well anchored in the primaeval history. Thus we may concur with Turner that “Despite the obscurities of 6:1–4, the passage has many details which draw the reader’s attention back to the preceding narratives, and help in assessing the signi¿cance of the passage.”115 Wallace has similarly concluded based on his careful analysis of the Toledot of Adam (which he abbreviates as “TA”) that “Gen vi 1–4 has often been discussed independently in relation to the Àood, by the structure of the TA draws it into the broader picture of the run-up to the destruction to come.”116 He maintains, indeed, that the Toledot of Adam is to be read in view of both the creation story (1:1–2:3) and the Toledot of the heavens and the earth (2:4–4:26).117 Wallace’s conclusion is important, given that his interest lies with J and P sources, and with the redactional history of the text. Similarly E. van Wolde observes that 6:1–4 shows close links with the preceding genealogy, and with 6:5–8.118 Thus while 6:1–4 may have originally been an independent story, in its present form it takes up the themes of the Toledot of Adam, and is well-connected to the primaeval history. If 6:1–4 is connected to the preceding genealogy, this raises the question concerning the relationship between 6:1–4 and 6:5–8, since both are located at the conclusion to the Toledot of Adam (5:1–6:8). We may recall that Westermann argued that the divine “seeing” in 6:5 begins a new section. We will examine the import of divine “seeing” in 6:5, addressing the question whether it introduces a new section or if it is connected to 6:1–4. d. Genesis 6:5 Does Not Begin a New Section But Continues the Main Line of the Narrative Westermann observed that a narrative often begins with the statement that God “saw,” which introduces an action of God.119 According to his “crime–punishment” schema, Gen 6:5 is thought to introduce a new unit, as YHWH “sees” the sin of humanity (6:5), which is followed by divine speech and the announcement of punishment (6:6–7).120 Westermann 115. Turner, Announcement of Plot in Genesis, 44; cf. Sarna, Genesis, 45, who ¿nds three points of connection with the preceding genealogy. 116. Wallace, “The Toledot of Adam,” 31. 117. Ibid., 21. 118. Van Wolde, Words Become Worlds, 63–64. 119. Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 410. 120. Westermann, Promise to the Fathers, 50.

1

2. Establishing the Literary Context of Genesis 6:5–8

49

has rightly pointed out that God’s “seeing the crime” is usually followed by a divine action. In 6:5 YHWH’s seeing evidently ushers in a series of divine actions: “and he was sorry” (-%1'#, v. 6), “and he was grieved (83='#, v. 6), “and he said” (:/'#, v. 7), which culminate in the divine decision to wipe out humanity (6:7). This con¿rms Westermann’s observation that “seeing” is followed by the pronouncement of judgment. Other examples seem to point in this direction. In 6:12, for example, we read: !=%f1 !1!# 7:!¡= -'!+ :'#, “And God saw that the earth was corrupt”; this is immediately followed by divine speech, -'!+ :/'#, “and God said,” which then describes the divine decision to destroy all Àesh (6:13).121 Wallace has discussed this theme, noting that !: is a catchword in the Toledot of Adam and Àood narrative, which links several key passages (6:1–4, 5–8 and 9–13). He observes that in each case the divine action is preceded by a divine observation.122 In view of the import of divine “seeing,” Westermann argues that a new section begins in 6:5, which then leads to the divine action of the Àood judgment. While Westermann has rightly drawn attention to the connection between “seeing” and the action that follows, we may well enquire whether he is correct to assert that a narrative begins with “seeing.” In 6:12, for example, God sees the earth (7:!¡= -'!+ :'#), but the earth that he sees has already been introduced in the preceding verse; 6:11–12 thus reads as follows: 2/% 7:! +/=# -'!+! '16+ 7:! =%f=# ='%f!¡') !=%f1 !1!# 7:!¡= -'!+ :'# Now the earth was corrupt before God and the earth was ¿lled with violence. And God saw that the earth was corrupt.

In this case, God’s “seeing” in v. 12 does not introduce a narrative, but it entails God’s assessment of the earth that has already been identi¿ed. Accordingly, the pericope begins in v. 11, not in v. 12, as reÀected in the English translation of v. 11, “Now the earth…” (e.g. NRSV, NAS, NIV). We note further that the employment of the wayyiqtol form of !: in v. 12 indicates that God’s “seeing” is the continuation of the main storyline.

121. Other examples may be found in Genesis. For example, Eve’s “seeing” that the tree was good for food leads to her “taking” (3:6); the “seeing” of the sons of God results in their “taking” wives (6:2); cf. 7:1; 9:16; 12:12–15. 122. Wallace, “The Toledot of Adam,” 30. 1

50

Was Noah Good?

Genesis 6:1–2 may be cited as another example where the object of “seeing” is introduced in the preceding clause. In 6:2 the sons of God see the “daughters of humankind, who have already been introduced in v. 1. Genesis 6:1–2 reads as follows: ª-!+ #+' =#1# !/! '16¡+3 :+ -! +%!¡') '!'# !1! =& ') -! =#1¡= -'!+!¡'1 #:'# When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw the daughters of humankind, that they were good.

As in Gen 6:11, the “seeing” of the sons of God in 6:2 does not introduce the narrative, but continues the main line of the story through the employment of the wayyiqtol form of !:; thus the new section begins in v. 1, not v. 2. We may similarly conclude that the wayyiqtol form of !: in Gen 6:5 (7: -! =3: !: ') !#!' :'#) does not begin a new section, but it continues the main line of the narrative. Moreover, we have observed that -! occurs four times in 6:1–4; thus when YHWH gives his assessment of the wickedness of humanity (-! =3:), this suggests that he is describing human beings who have already been identi¿ed in 6:1–4. While a number of recent English translations omit the conjunction, translating !#!' :'# simply as, “The LORD saw” (RSV, NRSV, NIV, ESV), it is preferable to represent the conjunction (cf. LXX Ċ»ĽÅ »ò ÁįÉÀÇË ĝ ¿¼ġË), translating !#!' :'# as, “And the LORD saw” (ASV, JPS, KJV, Alter) or “Then the LORD saw” (NASB, NAU). We conclude, therefore, that YHWH’s “seeing” in 6:5 is both prospective (introducing the divine action) and retrospective (entailing YHWH’s assessment of human beings who have already been introduced in vv. 1–4). Thus the divine “seeing” in 6:5 does not introduce the narrative, but continues the temporal storyline that begins in 6:1. If YHWH’s “seeing” in Gen 6:5 continues the narrative, with the wayyiqtol form of !: being employed, this suggests that 6:5–8 belongs to 6:1–4. We now turn to consider what evidence there is to suggest that 6:1–4 and 6:5–8 are intended to be read together. e. Genesis 6:1–4 and 6:5–8 Are to Be Read Together A closer examination of Gen 6:5–8 suggests that several terms employed in these verses connect them thematically to 6:1–4. First of all, we have already noted that YHWH’s “seeing” in 6:5 does not begin a new section, but continues the main line of the narrative, as YHWH gives his assessment of human beings, who have already been introduced in 6:1–4. The connection between 6:1–4 and 6:5–8 is underscored by the repetition of 1

2. Establishing the Literary Context of Genesis 6:5–8

51

-! throughout these verses (6:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8),123 which is noteworthy, given that -! does not appear again until 7:21. Fockner has concluded that on a thematic level “the text shows its coherence through the word -, which occurs eight times in the ¿rst seven verses. Such a massive repetition cannot be ignored in determining the pericope.”124 The repetition of -! in 6:1–4 and 6:5–8 binds the narrative thematically into one literary unit. The second connection between Gen 6:1–4 and 6:5–8 is the multiplication motif that appears in both sections (:, 6:1; :, 6:5). Scholars have noted that the multiplication motif in 6:1, :+ -! +%!¡') '!'#, “When people began to multiply,” is echoed in 6:5, =3: !: ') !#!' :'# 7: -!, “The LORD saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth.” Since multiplication language appears in both texts (:, 6:1; :, 6:5),125 it has been argued that 6:1 and 6:5 are to be read together. Cassuto notes, for instance, that the verbal parallelism indicates a corresponding theme, concluding that there is an antithesis between the actions of human beings and God’s actions; he writes: God blessed mankind that they should be fertile and ¿ll the earth (i 28), and He implemented His promise: men began to multiply on the face of the ground. Man, however, was an ingrate; he, too, increased, but it was evil-doing that he increased; truly, he ¿lled the earth, but he did so with violence (vi 11, 13).126

As with Cassuto, Sarna reads 6:5 in connection with 6:1, understanding that the increase of human wickedness in 6:5 is in proportion to their multiplying (6:1).127 Wallace makes a similar observation: Moreover, the use of lƗrǀb in vi 1 and rabbâ in vi 5, and the repetition of the phrase !alpenê hadmâ in vi 1 and 7, draws a line between the record of the spread of humanity and the spread of wickedness.128

123. We have noted that - (both with and without the article) is prominently featured in Gen 1–5 (e.g. 1:26–27; 2:5, 7–8, 15–16, 18, 19–23, 25; 3:8–9, 12, 20, 22, 24). 124. S. Fockner, “Reopening the Discussion: Another Contextual Look at the Sons of God,” JSOT 32 (2008): 435–56 (444). 125. The stem does not occur in 6:9–22; the adjective :, “much, many, great” appears in 7:1 with reference to the fountains of the deep being great, and the verb !: occurs in 7:17–18 to describe the increase of the Àood waters, but it is not until 9:1 and 7 that the verb is used with reference to human multiplication (cf. 1:28). 126. Cassuto, Genesis, 1:302. 127. Sarna, Genesis, 47. 128. Wallace, “The Toledot of Adam,” 29. 1

52

Was Noah Good?

Mathews thus suggests that the two verses are intentionally linked by “parallel rhetoric.”129 In short, the employment of the same Hebrew stem in 6:1 (:) and 6:5 (:) seems to suggest that v. 5 is to be read in connection with v. 1. Third, several scholars have argued that the divine “seeing” in Gen 6:5 is being contrasted with the “seeing…good” of the sons of God in 6:2. In 6:2 we are told that the sons of God saw that the women were “good” (!1! =& ') -! =#1¡= -'!+!¡'1 #:'#), whereas in 6:5 YHWH sees that the “wickedness of humankind is great” (-! =3: !: ') !#!' :'# 7:), and that their thoughts are “only evil” (3: 9:). Several scholars have suggested that YHWH’s appraisal of humanity in 6:5 is to be read in light of the “seeing” of the sons of God in 6:2.130 Van Wolde writes, for example: Perhaps the two sections should be seen as two poles in a magnet, where opposition and cohesion both play a part: vv. 1–4 show us the point of view of the sons of God, while vv. 5–8 present God’s own opinion.131

As with van Wolde, Cassuto maintains that there is a parallel between v. 2, “the sons of God SAW the daughters of men that they were FAIR [literally, ‘good’],” with v. 5, “which speaks of the WICKEDNESS of man.”132 Mathews also comments on v. 5: Here is an intentional mimicry of the sons of God, who “saw” that the daughters of humankind were “beautiful” (Óôb “good”; 6:2). The wording in vv. 2 and 5 contrasts this deplorable scene with the pristine setting of creation.133

As with Mathews, Wenham remarks on 6:5, “this verse also stands in ironic contrast with the sons of God seeing the good daughters of men who had multiplied : (cf. !: ‘great’) on the earth, 6:1–2.”134 It seems to be the case, therefore, that 6:1–2 is intended to be read in connection with 6:5; this suggests that YHWH’s appraisal of humanity in 6:5 does not begin a new section but is connected to the preceding pericope and is intended to be read in light of it. 129. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, 322. 130. Cassuto, Genesis, 1:302; Kaminski, “Beautiful Women or ‘False Judgment?’, ” 469–70; Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, 340; Turner, Announcement of Plot in Genesis, 45; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 144; van Wolde, Words Become Worlds, 64. 131. Van Wolde, Words Become Worlds, 64. 132. Cassuto, Genesis, 1:302. 133. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, 340; cf. Turner, Announcement of Plot in Genesis, 45. 134. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 144. 1

2. Establishing the Literary Context of Genesis 6:5–8

53

Lastly, we noted earlier that the location in Gen 6:7, !/! '16 +3/, “from on the face of the ground” (6:7), is the same location from which all Àesh is destroyed in the Àood (7:4; cf. 7:23; 8:8); thus 6:7 anticipates the Àood judgment. Yet the expression !/! '16 +3/ is also employed in 6:1 (without the preposition 0/), in the statement: :+ -! +%!¡') '!'# !/! '16¡+3, “And it came to pass when humankind began to multiply on the face of the ground.” That 6:1 begins with humanity’s multiplying on the ground establishes a connection between 6:1 and 6:7.135 Fockner notes indeed that since 7: is employed in 6:5–6, the change in vocabulary in 6:7 must be intentional, signally that 6:1 and 6:7 form an inclusio.136 He maintains therefore that the inclusio not only binds the pericope together, but in its current location immediately prior to the Àood, 6:1–8 provides a bridge between the humanity’s multiplication on the face of the ground and their being destroyed from the face of the ground. Thus he maintains that 6:1–8 gives the reason why human beings, who have been multiplying (5:1–32), will end up with only one family.137 This suggests, therefore, that 6:1 and 6:7 are intended to be read together. In short, it has been shown that 6:1–4 and 6:5–8 are connected thematically through several key terms, and that several scholars conclude that 6:5–8 is to be interpreted in view of 6:1–4. This is not to deny that 6:1–4 may have originally been an independent story; nor is to minimize some of the dif¿culties inherent in 6:1–4,138 but is to suggest that 6:1–4 and 6:5–8 are ¿rmly anchored in the Toledot of Adam (5:1– 6:8), and that 6:1–4 and 6:5–8 form its conclusion. To summarize the discussion thus far, it was noted at the outset that it is common for source-critical scholars to identify Gen 6:5–8 as the introduction to the Àood story. This is based on the premise that J and P sources have priority in determining literary units. Accordingly, 6:5–8 is identi¿ed as J’s introduction to the Àood, even though the Toledot structure suggests otherwise. The view that 6:1–4 is only loosely connected to its literary context further supports the view that a new section begins in 6:5, which is introduced by the divine “seeing.” We noted, however, that the Toledot structure indicates that a new section begins in 6:9 with the

135. Fockner, “Reopening the Discussion,” 444. 136. Ibid., 444. 137. Ibid., 444, 448 138. See a careful analysis by van Wolde, Words Become Worlds, 63–65. Fockner has also analyzed the grammar of Gen 6:1–8; see Fockner, “Reopening the Discussion,” 443–45. 1

54

Was Noah Good?

Toledot of Noah, which notably appears without a coordinating waw (%1 =+#= !+). This means that 6:1–4 and 6:5–8 function as the conclusion to the preceding Toledot. In accordance with this literary placement, several terms and phrases in 6:1–4 and 6:5–8 indicate that they are connected thematically to the preceding genealogy, which underscores their connection to the Toledot of Adam (5:1–6:8). This suggests that 6:1–4 and 6:5–8 are functioning as the conclusion to the Toledot of Adam (5:1–6:8). We now turn to consider key terms in 6:5–8 that may shed light on the function of these verses as the conclusion to the Toledot of Adam. 4. Interpreting Genesis 6:5–8 as the Conclusion to the Toledot of Adam (Genesis 5:1–6:8) a. The Meaning of - in the Toledot Heading of Genesis 5:1 Several features in Gen 6:5–8 indicate that these verses are connected to the Toledot of Adam, particularly its introduction in 5:1–3. First of all, we have noted that -! is prominent in 6:1–8, which is congruent with the title of the Toledot heading in 5:1, - =+#=, and with its focus on human beings whom God has created (5:1–2). It is worth bearing in mind, however, that the heading in 5:1, :62 !$ - =+#=, “This is the book of the Toledot of Adam,” is somewhat ambiguous.139 The anarthrous - in 5:1 could refer to individual male Adam, as in 5:3, where - occurs as the proper noun: -'f+f - '%'# !1f =/#, “When Adam had lived one hundred thirty years” (NRSV). Genesis 5:1–3 would be comparable to 11:10–26, therefore, where Shem’s Toledot is immediately followed by his genealogy in 11:10a: !1f =/¡0 -f -f =+#= !+ These are the descendants of Shem. When Shem was one hundred years old… (NRSV)

In Gen 11:10 the repetition of Shem’s name (-f -f) clearly identi¿es the progenitor in the genealogy with the Toledot heading.140 Yet in 5:1–2 the genealogy of Adam does not begin immediately after the Toledot heading, which would result in the repetition of Adam (- -), but

139. On the various usages of - in Gen 1–5, see Hess, “Splitting of Adam,” 1–15. 140. Similarly, Noah’s Toledot is immediately followed by information about Noah, and thus we ¿nd again the repetition of the name (%1 %1, 6:9), as in 11:10 ( -f -f).

1

2. Establishing the Literary Context of Genesis 6:5–8

55

rather, narrative material has been inserted immediately after the Toledot heading, resulting in the genealogy being taken up in v. 3. To complicate matters further, the anarthrous - in the narrative section in 5:1b–2 refers to humankind, since it recalls God’s creating - in his image and likeness (1:26–28). Thus the seemingly straightforward meaning of - in the Toledot heading, - =+#= :62 !$, is obscured by the fact that the inserted material provides information about humanity (-), recalling - in 1:26–28, rather than male Adam (-), as in 5:3. The corporate identity of - in Gen 5:1b–2 is underscored by the description of - as “male and female” (-= (:'# -: !91# :)$), along with plural pronouns.141 Moreover, v. 2b states that God called their name - on the day he created them (-#' - -/f¡= :9'# -:!, 5:2). This not only provides new information, which is not given in the creation story (even though naming is prominently featured),142 but it also means that the anarthrous - in the Toledot heading - =+#= could refer to individual Adam (5:3) or humanity, whom God has not only created, but named - (5:2). It is dif¿cult to determine which one is intended (or it may be intentionally ambiguous, thus reÀecting the individual/corporate identity of Adam143). Longacre has noted that immediately after the Toledot of Jacob is introduced in 37:2, reference is made to Joseph. This serves to identify Joseph as the main character for the ensuing narrative.144 Analogously, it may well be that the additional information about humanity in 5:1b–2 is intended to show that the Toledot is about humanity rather than Adam. Ramban alludes to the corporate aspect of Adam, when making the following comments on the name Adam in 5:2:

141. We note that both singular and plural pronouns are used in 1:26–28 and 5:1–3, suggesting that both individual and corporate - are in view. Robinson notes that intentional play on the term - in Gen 5:1; thus he leaves it untranslated (“Literary Functions of Genealogies of Genesis,” 599–60). 142. The verb :9 occurs in the Gen 1 creation story (1:5, 8, 10), and it appears with -f in 2:19–20, 23. 143. We will note in the following chapter that a connection is being made in Gen 8:21 between Adam’s actions in the garden, which are recalled in 8:21a, and YHWH’s assessment of human wickedness (6:5), which is recalled in 8:21b. Thus -! is used in 8:21a with reference to Adam (cf. 3:17), and -! is used in 8:21b with reference to humanity (6:5). The employment of -! in both sentences seems to suggest an intrinsic relationship between individual Adam and corporate humanity. 144. Longacre, Joseph, 20–21. 1

56

Was Noah Good? Since the name Adam (man) is a generic name for the whole human species, Scripture mentions that G-d called the ¿rst pair by that name because all generations were potentially in him. It is with reference to them that Scripture says, This is the book of the generations of Adam.145

Ramban’s comment, that the Toledot heading refers to them, indicates that he interprets 5:1a as a reference to humanity. This is how the Septuagint has interpreted - in 5:1a (¸ĩ̾ ÷ ¹ĕ¹ÂÇË º¼ÅñʼÑË ÒÅ¿ÉļÈÑÅ),146 which connects the Toledot heading to the conclusion in 6:1–8, where ÓÅ¿ÉÑÈÇË/ÒÅ¿ÉļÈÑÅ is employed nine times, both in the plural (6:1, 2, 3, 4 [2×], 5) and singular (6:6, 7 [2×]). The Septuagint’s translation of - in 5:1 as generic humanity establishes a thematic connection between the Toledot heading and the narrative of 6:1–8, which concludes the Toledot. That corporate humanity is in view may even be implied by the death notice of Adam in Gen 5:5 (“and he died,” =/'#),147 which occurs rather early in the Toledot. We have noted that it is common for the deathnotice of the person whose name appears in the Toledot to be located at the conclusion of the Toledot.148 The death of the main ¿gure seems to signal the transition to the new Toledot.149 Yet in the case of Terah’s Toledot (11:27), his death notice occurs just a few verses later in 11:32. This seems to signal that the ensuing narrative is not about him, but about his son Abraham.150 Moreover, since Abraham does not have a 145. Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, Ramban (Nachmanides): Commentary on the Torah, Genesis (trans. Rabbi C. B. Chavel; New York: Shilo, 1971), 97. 146. This is in contrast to the Septuagint’s employment of »¸Ä in 5:1b (Ć ÷ÄñÉß ëÈÇĕ¾Ê¼Å ĝ ¿¼ġË ÌġÅ »¸Ä), in 5:2b (Á¸Ė ëÈÑÅĠĸʼŠÌġ ěÅÇĸ ¸ĤÌľÅ »¸Ä), and again at the beginning of Adam’s genealogy in 5:3 (콾ʼŠ»ò »¸Ä). The employment of »¸Ä in these verses further highlights its omission in 5:1a. 147. Andersen has pointed out that “death” is one of the ways that people in Genesis are given genealogical prominence. He maintains that death is more important than birth and notes that death notices are given for about forty characters in Genesis; Andersen, “Genealogical Prominence,” 247–48. 148. The role of death as the conclusion to the Toledot has also been noted by Longacre, “The Structure of the Flood Narrative,” 92. 149. That the death of a key ¿gure signals a new period is suggested elsewhere in the Old Testament by the deaths of people such as Joseph (Gen 50:22–26; Exod 1:6), Moses (Deut 34:1–8; Josh 1:1), and Joshua (Josh 24:29–30; Judg 2:6–10; cf. Judg 2:19). Accordingly, several Old Testament books conclude with the death of a key leader, such as Deut 34 (Moses), Josh 24 (Joshua) and 1 Sam 31 (Saul). 150. The placement of Terah’s death in Gen 11:32 points to its literary function rather than it following a strict chronology. According to the years given in several texts, Terah’s death actually occurs after the birth of Isaac, which would locate it chronologically after Gen 21; see Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, 491; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 274. 1

2. Establishing the Literary Context of Genesis 6:5–8

57

Toledot, the death notice of Terah in 11:32 may well serve to identify Abraham as the key character of the Toledot. Mathews thus suggests that the death notice “closes out the role of Terah,” noting that Terah lives another sixty years. Matthews observes that this is also the case with Noah in 9:29, which again signals the end of an era.151 It is possible, therefore, that the death of Adam in 5:5 signals that the Toledot is not primarily about him, but his descendants, namely, humanity, as the heading intimates. That -! are prominently featured in 6:1–7 at the conclusion to the Toledot of Adam is congruent with the title of the literary unit (5:1–6:8), which seems to have humanity in view. Reference to Noah in 6:8 provides the transition, therefore, to the new Toledot in 6:9 which focuses on Noah as its key ¿gure.152 Lastly, if the Toledot heading in Gen 5:1 refers to humanity rather than individual Adam, this would suggest that both 2:4 and 5:1 have the broader creation story in view,153 and thus the narrowing function of the Toledot would not begin until 6:9 with Noah, who would be the ¿rst individual to be named in the Toledot series. This would give prominence to Noah and his central role as the one through whom the creation story continues.154 Given that the creation story is being taken up in the Toledot of Adam/humanity (5:1–2; cf. 1:26–28), this would anticipate that the creation story will be taken up with Noah in particular.155 If this is the case, it is not surprising to ¿nd that the creation blessing, “Be fruitful and multiply,” is reissued to Noah and his sons after the Àood (9:1, 7). While it is dif¿cult to decide with certainty whether the Toledot heading in 5:1 refers to Adam or humanity (or it may be intentionally ambiguous), we can conclude that the prominence of -! in 6:1–4 and 151. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, 104. 152. Noah is mentioned over thirty times in Gen 6:9–9:29, yet -! is only mentioned on a few occasions (7:21, 23; 8:21 [2×]; 9:4 [2×], 5 [2×]). 153. The repetition of -#', “on the day,” in 5:1–2 not only recalls the “day” structure in Gen 1 (e.g. 1:5, 8, 13, 14, 16, 18, etc.), but it has af¿nities with the Toledot of heaven and earth in 2:4 (-'/f# 7: -'!+ !#!' =#g3 -#' -:!), where “day” language is again featured. 154. Van Wolde has already highlighted the import of Noah, and she suggests that he is perhaps more important than we have realized (Words Become Worlds, 83). 155. It has been argued elsewhere that the creation blessing, “Be fruitful and multiply, and ¿ll the earth,” which is reissued to Noah in Gen 9:1, is not being ful¿lled in the Table of Nations (contra von Rad), but the trajectory after the Àood is from Noah to Shem (5:1–32; 11:10–26), which ultimately leads to Israel. Thus the creation blessing is ¿rst ful¿lled through Israel, but there is the expectation that the nations will be also blessed through them (12:3); see Kaminski, From Noah to Israel, 60–79, 92–138. 1

58

Was Noah Good?

6:5–8 accords well with the literary context of both the preceding genealogy (Gen 5:1–32), and the Toledot heading in 5:1 (whether it refers to Adam or humanity). Thus it indicates that according to the ¿nal form, Gen 6:1–8 has been incorporated into the Toledot of Adam and forms its conclusion. b. The Verb !%/ in 6:7 and Its Connection to Genesis 5:1–3 A further connection is seen in God’s naming of humanity at the outset of the Toledot (Gen 5:2), which may be linked thematically to the verb !%/, “to blot out, wipe out” (6:7; cf. 7:4, 23). After YHWH gives his assessment of humanity, he determines to “blot out” human beings whom he has created. The verb !%/ does not occur in Gen 1–5, but a thematic connection between 6:7 and the introduction to the Toledot of Adam (5:1–2) may be suggested when one considers that !%/ often denotes wiping out of a person’s name and/or memory.156 In other words, the verb !%/ does not simply describe the death of humanity, but it emphasizes that a person’s seed or posterity will be wiped out, thereby resulting in the eradication of their name.157 Ibn Ezra has commented on the verb !%/ at the conclusion of the Àood narrative, saying: “and their names were erased from the earth because they left no descendants.”158 Since the naming of human beings is highlighted at the outset of the Toledot in 5:2 (-:! -#' - -/f¡= :9'#), the divine decision to “blot out” human beings ('=:¡:f -!¡= !%/), may well imply their name will be wiped out, which would then refer back to 5:1–2 and suggest an undoing of the creation story. That 6:5–8 foreshadows the wiping out of humanity (and thus their name) is further suggested in 6:17, when God says that he will destroy all Àesh, -'/f! =%=/, “from under heaven.” This expression =%=/ -'/f! occurs seven times in the Pentateuch.159 Apart from 1:8 (which 156. The verb !%/ is used to describe the wiping out of a person’s memory (Exod 17:14; Deut 9:14; 25:19; Ps 95:5–6) or name from a book/scroll (Exod 32:32– 33; Num 5:23; Deut 29:20; Ps 69:28 [MT v. 29]) or “from under heaven” (Deut 19:14; 29:20 [MT v. 19]; 2 Kgs 14:27). It also refers to a person’s name being wiped out through lack of descendants (e.g. Deut 25:6; Judg 21:17; Ps 109:13). 157. On the meaning of !%/, which includes the eradication of a name, see L. Alonso-Schökel, “!%/,” TDOT 8:227–31. 158. Ibraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra, Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Pentateuch (trans. H. N. Strickland and A. M. Silver; New York: Menorah, 1988), 110. The import of Lamech naming his son Noah in Gen 5:29 becomes even more important if !%/ implies that humanity’s name will be wiped out. It would thus suggest that humanity’s name will continue through the name Noah. 159. Gen 1:8; 6:17; Exod 17:14; Deut 7:24; 9:14; 25:19; 29:20 (MT v. 19); cf. 2 Kgs 14:27. 1

2. Establishing the Literary Context of Genesis 6:5–8

59

speaks of God’s separating the waters “under heaven” to one place) and 6:17, the expression -'/f! =%=/ describes the place from which a person’s name or memory is “wiped out,” being used with the verb !%/ on several occasions (Exod 17:14; Deut 9:14; 25:19; 29:20 [MT v. 19]), and with the verb , “to destroy” (Deut 7:24). When Moses recalls the golden calf story, for example, he notes that God had said he would “wipe out” the name of Israel from under heaven (=%=/ -/f¡= !%/# -'/f!, Deut 9:14), yet Moses had found favour with God (as Noah does in Gen 6:9), and thus Israel’s story continues. In the Àood narrative, God’s decision to wipe out every living creature “from under heaven” (Gen 6:17) underscores that humanity will be completely “blotted out” (6:7), and it seems to imply that their name will also be eradicated— except that Noah ¿nds favour (6:9).160 What is being suggested is that God’s decision to “blot out” human beings in 6:7 stands in antithesis to God’s naming of humankind in Gen 5:2. Thus instead of the name - being prominent in the ensuing chapters,161 the Toledot of Noah shifts emphasis to Noah, whose name is mentioned over thirty times. c. Genesis 6:6 Is Connected to the Preceding Genealogy The connection between Gen 6:5–8 and the preceding genealogy is further indicated by Lamech’s naming of his son Noah in 5:29. The three verbs -%1, !