Genesis-introduction

An introduction to Genesis

Navigation Home page Contents Forum Maximize Search Comment Mail me Author

Introduction
The Old Testament
The Pentateuch or Torah

Using chapters and verses
Genesis in outline
Index of chapters

Click on the number of the chapter, to go to this section of the commentary:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50

Introduction

This is a simple commentary on the book of Genesis. It is intended for visitors who want to learn more about this book of the Bible.

Please use the hyperlinks in the table above to navigate the guide. If you have any comments or suggestions to make about this guide, please do so by clicking on this link. This opens a comment form.

The Old Testament

The Old Testament, considered as a collection of books regarded as sacred, has a long history; but for much of that history it was not known as the Old Testament, a name that comes from the later development of the Christian Holy Bible. The Bible as we use it in modern English or other vernacular translations is usually presented in two or three divisions - the Old Testament, the New Testament and (in relatively few editions of the Bible) the Apocrypha. We often refer to this as Scripture or the Scriptures (with upper or lower case initial "s"). This is simply an anglicized form of a Latin noun for something written - but in modern English usage it has come specifically to mean the collections of writings that is the Bible.

While much of the Bible's history is known, much has been plausibly conjectured from external and internal (textual) evidence. It is a complex history, because it includes information about each individual book and also about the whole process of recording, copying and compiling the books together into a collection of writings that became regarded as the official collection or canon. ("Canon" comes into English from Latin, which in turn imports it from Greek, but its origin is in a Semitic word for a reed - which was sometimes, in antiquity, used as a measuring rod. It is related to the modern English "cane", too.)

To Jews, who do not accept the authority of the New Testament, as described by Christians, the Old Testament is simply the Bible, or the Hebrew Bible, to distinguish it from what Christians call the Holy Bible. By the time of Christ, this collection of books was more or less established. We now know (from the discovery of many ancient manuscripts and fragments) that there were small variations in the text, which existed in different local versions or recensions. The task of making a standard text (and showing variant readings) has been the work of modern biblical scholarship. Though there are many variant readings of parts of the text of the Old Testament books, there is agreement as to most of the text, and generally the variants do not affect the broad sense of the books in which they appear (which partly explains why they occur - because they do not materially affect the meaning of the text). For example, in 1 Kings 10.8, the Queen of Sheba tells King Solomon: "Happy are your wives" or, in the Greek and Syriac traditions "Happy are your men" - the difference does not change the point of the utterance, which is to show the queen's approval of the king, by suggesting that those in his court and service are fortunate.

In the books that now form our New Testament, the Hebrew Scriptures are mentioned as graphé, meaning "writings", a noun that appears in singular and plural forms. The Writings are in fact only one of the three traditional groups into which the books of the Old Testament, the others being the Law and the Prophets. This three-part arrangement is preserved in modern times, as the Hebrew names for Law, Prophets and Writings (Torah, Nebi'im and Kethubim) form an acronym TaNaK.

Following a tradition found in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Septuagint) Christians divide the Old Testament books into historical, prophetic and poetic groups.

The Old Testament contains thirty-nine books. What we know (or think we know) of the circumstances in which they were written varies enormously.

The Pentateuch or Torah

The Old Testament contains a book, Genesis, which starts with an account of the creation of the world, and ends with an account of how the tribes of Israel came to be in Egypt before their deliverance from servitude there, which is told in the subsequent book of Exodus. Other books relate events in much later times, many of which we can correlate with other historical and archaeological evidence. From this we can begin to work out something of how the books came to be written.

In the case of Genesis, Exodus and the other three books in the division known as the Law, perhaps an individual writer was inspired to write down stories supposed to have occurred in some more distant past. But a more plausible theory (because it explains more of the evidence) is that the stories were known and told as part of an oral tradition, to explain the origins, beliefs and practices of the Jews; and that at a later time, one or, probably more writers recorded these stories and compiled them into collections that form the five books of the Law, the Jewish Torah.

The name Pentateuch is Greek for a work in five volumes or scrolls. In this case, the five volumes are those of what now appear as the first five books in the Bible - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. They are also known as the five books of Moses, since Moses' leading the Israelites from slavery in Egypt to the land of promise forms the central part of the narrative thrust of the five books.

In 621 B.C. workmen repairing Solomon's temple in Jerusalem found a copy of "the book of the law" (this would be written on one or more rolls of papyrus). Scholars today believe this to be what now appears as chapters 5 to 26 of the book of Deuteronomy. Some time later, Ezra, returning from Babylon to Jerusalem brought with him "the book of the law of Moses". Scholars now believe that during the period when the Jews were exiled in Babylon in the 6th century B.C. or some time thereafter, Jewish scribes wrote (in Hebrew) the books more or less as we now know them.

Do we know what sources they used? Were these written documents, now lost to us, or did they write from memory or at the dictation of others who knew the stories by rote? We cannot answer these questions with certainty. There are passages in some books of the Old Testament that actually refer to the writing and reading of documents (in Jeremiah and Ezra, for example). And there are also occasions where we read, of some event or narrative, that it is also told in some other named book, such as the Book of Jashar, mentioned in both Joshua 10.12-13 and 2 Samuel 1.18-27. While we may regret the fact that this book has not come down to posterity, we may also conjecture whether more of its contents have found their way into the Scriptures we have, than the two examples that show it as the source. But the references in Joshua and 2 Samuel help to dispel the notion that the books of the Bible simply appeared at an unspecified time in the past and are now to be held as the explicit words of God, without the presence or influence of human intermediaries.

By looking closely at the text of the books of the Pentateuch, scholars have claimed to be able to distinguish different strands of writing, which may correspond to different traditions in the source material (whatever that was). Believing that the scribes who wrote the books combined the different sources quite skilfully, they seek to untangle or pick out these different threads. In chapter 37 of Genesis is an account of how Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery and told their father, Jacob, that the boy was dead. Or rather, there are two accounts, since most parts of the story are told twice. Even with the English translation, it is possible to separate these out into two shorter, but individually more coherent, narratives. Why might this happen? Supposing that the scribe who wrote the story knew of two sources, and regarded both as Holy Scripture, then he might wish not to leave out any part of either, but to put them together for the sake of inclusiveness.

In addition to various minor sources, scholars have identified in the five books of the Law, four principal sources, known as J, E, P and D (this sequence very loosely corresponds to the dates conjecturally given to when these sources might have arisen.

J and E derive from the name used for God in these sources - Jahveh or Yahweh and 'elohim (this is a plural noun). P relates to the Priestly writers, who are supposed to have edited this source, perhaps during the Babylonian exile, while D, finally, refers to the Deuteronomistic history, found mostly in the books from Joshua through to 2 Kings. The identification of these four sources implies a sense of how, over many years, the different traditions came together to make the Torah more or less as it has come down to modern times. To put that another way, there was a time when different people put the sources together and added material. But for thousands of years since this time, Jewish and Christian writers have been active in trying to transmit the text faithfully from generation to generation, and later to render it into modern languages, such as English. Alan Richardson explains it thus:

"It is no longer open to us to suppose that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, for it has become abundantly clear that the whole of the Five Books, as they now stand in our Bibles, has been put together by an editor (or, more probably, by a number of editors) who made use of several separate sources. These sources themselves were composed by various authors (or collectors of traditional material) at widely diverse times and places, under a wide range of different social and political conditions, and with markedly divergent interests and aims in view." Genesis 1-11; the Creation Stories and the Modern World View, p13: The Pentateuch in the Light of Modern Research (Richardson, A; SCM Press, London, 1953)

The five books of the Pentateuch or Torah begin with the creation of the world and end with the people of Israel on the verge of the land of promise. More specifically they contain a narrative that tells, in Genesis, of the early history of the people who became Israel from before the time of their ancestor, Abraham to their coming to Egypt in a time of famine. The second book, Exodus, relates the birth and early life of Moses, and his leading the people of Israel out of Egypt, in defiance of the hostile ruler or Pharaoh. Exodus also contains the story of the giving of the Law on tables of stone. Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy continue the narrative as far as the land of promise, or Canaan. Much of these three books, however, is taken up with descriptions and explanations of the Law, in points of detail. They also include accounts of ritual, ceremonial and customs, as well, in Numbers, as a census of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Using chapters and verses to study the scriptures

Modern printed Bibles are normally organized by a system of numbers, with larger divisions (usually chapters, but also psalms in the book of this name) and smaller divisions (verses).

These were an invention of comparatively modern times, introduced originally into the Latin Vulgate bible by Stephen Langton, a lecturer at the University of Paris who became Archbishop of Canterbury, and died in 1228. They are more famously associated with Cardinal Hugo of St. Cher (died 1263) who used them, a little later, in his concordance to the Vulgate Bible. The verse divisions used today come from the French printer Robert Stephanus (Estienne) who devised them for a Greek and Latin New Testament in 1551, and for the whole Bible (including the Apocrypha) in 1555.

There are faults in Stephanus's system, and modern editions no longer show all his verses as separate paragraphs. But the system is so nearly universal that it is not amenable to change, yet indispensable for discussion of the text in detail. This commentary, therefore, will identify passages of the scriptural text by referring to chapters and verses.

Genesis in outline

The name we use for the book today comes from the Greek word for "origin". It spans the time from the creation of the world to Israel's coming to live in Egypt. Within that very broad outline, there is this sequence of narratives:

Chapters 1-11 tell stories from primeval history - these include accounts of the creation, of the great flood that was supposed to have happened in ancient times, and of crimes against God and one's own family.

Chapters 12-50 tell stories of the ancestors or patriarchs of Israel: stories about Abraham in chapters 12 to 25, about Jacob and Esau in chapters 26 to 36, and about Joseph in chapters 37 to 50.

1.1 to 2.3

The first creation story

The opening chapters of Genesis contain two accounts of the creation of the world and of mankind. The first of these comes from the source or tradition known as P. This is the Priestly account of creation, in which the natural world appears as a manifestation of the power, divinity and majesty of God.

In this account, God creates everything in a sequence of six days, after which he rests. (The statement that God rested on the seventh day is taken to justify the division of the week into six working days and a Sabbath of rest; but there is no suggestion that God returned to work on the day after the seventh.)

This story begins with a description of things before the creation. None of the things that the first hearers of the story would value are present, but the earth is a formless void, surrounded by darkness, and sunk under water, blown by a wind. There is neither light, nor even any shape. In this primeval chaos, God's first act is to bring light, and having done so, to create an orderly division of night and day. Verse 3 sets the pattern for the whole narrative, in the phrase, "God said, 'Let there be...'." This recurs for each successive day of creation. There is no account of any intermediate agency that enacts the divine imperative: God says that something should be, and it comes into being. Elsewhere in Genesis we shall read of superhuman agents that carry out God's will, such as the angels who come to Lot in Sodom.

The account of the first day contains other details that are repeated: the phrase "And God saw that it was good" and the statement that "there was morning and there was evening" before numbering the day in the sequence. God creates the light, but he also gives the names of Night and Day. In the second creation story, God allows man to name the animals and birds. What does this mean? Perhaps it is a simple logical consequence - that things cannot have a name until they exist; and that as soon as they do exist, they need to be named. Or perhaps it has a stronger significance - the idea that naming a thing shows some kind of power over it, or ownership of it.

For each successive day, the phrase, "And God said" introduces the next act in the sequence. On the second day, God creates the sky as a dome that separates the waters that are above it from those that remain below on the earth. As with the separation of day and night, so, on the third day God separates the waters and the land, calling the dry land Earth and the waters Seas. There is a suggestion here that the storyteller thinks of the organization of the world in terms of distinctions or contrasts - so that things that are initially confused or mixed up are moved and kept apart. (The Law, in later books, contains rules that prohibit certain kinds of mixing, such as sowing a field with two crops or making a fabric of two kinds of material.)

While God's work is here characterized as organizing the creation, it also includes a sense of bringing it to life. The conditions for this (light, land and water) having been created, on the second day, God also decrees that there shall be plants - those that yield seeds directly and the trees that bear fruit that contains the seed. The repeated reference to seeds suggest that the storyteller thinks of plants in terms of what we today call sustainability, that they produce the means to make more of them indefinitely. Here, it the earth that answers God's word, and brings forth these plants.

On the fourth day, God makes the sun, moon and stars. The first two are not so named but described as the greater and the lesser light. In many ancient cultures, these heavenly bodies were conceived as divine - living and powerful, able to determine human destinies. But in the Genesis account they are merely lights, directed to their activity by God. Can we reconcile this part of the narrative with what happens on the first day? It seems odd that light, night and day should be created before the individual sources of the light. Alan Richardson proposes a solution, not offering this as a scientific account of what literally happened, but as an explanation of why the storyteller puts the creation of the light before that of the sun, moon and stars:

"These lights give the earth its necessary physical illumination - perhaps the making of the firmament had cut off the regions beneath it from the source of the divine light - but they are distinct from and inferior to the light which had appeared on the first day, a light which was much more than merely physical." Genesis 1-11; the Creation Stories and the Modern World View, p 52.

Having already created the plants, on the fifth day, God decrees that there should be what we call animal life. This is expressed in a general sense as "swarms of living creatures", but specifically, on this day, we learn that God created sea monsters and birds. As with the first, third and fourth days, God "saw that it was good", but now he blesses the birds and sea creatures with the injunction to "be fruitful and multiply" - for the sea life to fill the seas and the birds to "multiply on the earth". This suggests that while God creates the fish and birds in great numbers at first, this happens locally, but begins a process whereby they reproduce and expand their territory, the result of which would be the situation known to the storyteller and his audience, where the seas and the known world are full of animal life.

God speaks the instruction to be fruitful and multiply. Does this imply a viewpoint in the narrative that attributes understanding of speech to animals? (God does not, after all, speak in this way to the plants in verse 12.) Perhaps it is better interpreted as a way to dramatize what is really seen by the writer as God's will or intention. Where today we might represent this as some kind of internal thought process, the ancient writer lives in a world in which rulers necessarily proclaim - often repeatedly - their decrees and laws. God's utterance here reveals something about the form of the story. The writer is not relating something that happened historically; God speaks for the benefit of the people who are now hearing the creation story, rather than to the animals that have already acted in a way that has realized God's injunction to them.

We can also see another pattern emerging. Perhaps at some point, the hearers of this story would begin to guess where it was leading. We start with physical nature at the cosmic level, move to the earth, then to the creation of life, vegetable first, and then animal. So on the sixth day, God makes the animals that live on land, characterized as cattle, creeping things and wild animals. This part of the account reflects the situation that would be known to the storyteller and audience - animals are distinguished as useful to man (the cattle are part of the means of life) or wild (and so either useless or positively dangerous). The narrative anticipates the activity of man, who has yet to be created. And that is the final part of the creation, to make man. For the audience, the sequence thus leads through the creation of the other (the world, the plants, the animals) to themselves - "us", so to speak.

To make clear that the point of the narrative has been to lead, in this sequence, up to man, the storyteller relates how God says two things: that man shall be made in the likeness or image of God, and that man shall have dominion over the other living things on the earth.

The likeness is not in physical resemblance, but in man's activities and relationship with God. Man, uniquely, has the ability to respond to God. Alan Richardson says:

"To man alone is given the responsibility of conscious choice; man alone of all created things is free to disobey the Creator's will. Thus it is that man alone is conscious of his responsibility before God, is aware that he stands in the presence and under the judgement of God." Genesis 1-11; the Creation Stories and the Modern World View, p 54.

Verse 27 adds: "Male and female he [God] created them" - so that, while mankind is made in the image or likeness of God, the race is also differentiated by sex.

The Priestly writer next shows how man bears God's image in exercising dominion over all animal and vegetable life. In one sense this could be seen as simply relating the facts - that by intelligence and activity humans have learned to dominate, and in some ways regulate or control, animal and vegetable life. But the Priestly narrative also justifies this, showing how it is God's intention that man should rule in this way. The noun used for man or mankind here is "adam" - a collective singular form. The first creation narrative thus does not refer to an individual man and woman, but to humankind generally. So, in verse 28, when God speaks to them, enjoining them to "Be fruitful and multiply" we do not have a clear and literal sense of a conversation. As with the earlier injunction to the animals, this is perhaps directed more at the descendants of these supposed first humans, listening to the Priestly creation story.

In verse 29 God tells the newly created humans one of the terms of their dominion - that they may have "every plant yielding seed" and "every tree with seed in its fruit" for food. To the animals, meanwhile, God gives "every green plant for food". In the original creation both man and the animals (v. 30) are required to be vegetarian. The storyteller and his audience know, of course, that man now eats animal flesh, too - the permission to do this comes later, in the time of Noah.

Having finished the work of creation in six days, God rests on the seventh day. He also makes the day holy or especially favoured ("hallowed") because it is the day when God rests. There is no command here for man also to rest (that appears in Exodus 20.8-12). But the Priestly writer may be aware that the command will appear later in the Pentateuch, and so prepares the ground for the passage in Exodus, which has some similarities of wording. In Genesis 2.3 we read:

"So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation."

And in Exodus 20.11-12 we read:

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it."

2.4a

In his commentary (Genesis 1-11; the Creation Stories and the Modern World View) Alan Richardson includes this half verse with what precedes it, as a summary of the Priestly narrative. The editors of The New Oxford Annotated Bible (New Revised Standard Version) suggest that it introduces the second creation narrative, and is "Not the conclusion of the Priestly creation story, but a separate caption introducing the following material, as elsewhere" in Genesis. Since it is merely a statement that "these are the generations of the heavens and earth", then the verse in itself does not indicate that it refers to either of the narratives. It is possible that an editor has introduced it ambiguously, since the reader can take it to refer either to what precedes or what follows it.

2.4b to 25

Here is a second account of creation. While the opening words of the first story are among the best known in the whole Bible, the details of this narrative are perhaps as well known - and this is the version that informs many later representations of the creation, in art and literature, and even comic cartoons. It provides much of the detail for the poet John Milton in his English epic Paradise Lost. (This has led to confusion so that the popular imagination thinks of the Genesis account as containing some things that are invented or introduced by Milton. An example of this is the association of the talking snake in Chapter 3 with Satan, thought of as the Devil; but there is no mention of the Devil in Genesis.)

The second account is thought by critics to be older than the Priestly version that precedes it in the text as it has come down to us - not so much in the sense that it was written down before it, but that it represents an older spoken tradition, the one referred to as J. The modern reader may think of it as more primitive in the way it represents God and the creation. But where the first account is a poetic summary of events on the cosmic scale, where man appears as the whole species, this second account, while seeming anthropomorphic and naïve, has a more profound understanding of human nature - of what today we call psychology (though seen as a scientific discipline with theories and principles of research, psychology is a very recent arrival).

The J creation story has a different sequence of events - God makes earth and heavens (and that is all the story says about the cosmic aspects of creation), then man, then plants, animals, and finally woman. The story contains a digression, describing geographical details of the ancient world, yet the story is otherwise not to be taken literally.

In this account, the world is seen as already in existence, watered by streams fed by an underground source. But there are no plants because it is without rain, and there is no one to till the ground. God makes man out of the earth, and brings him to life by breathing into his nostrils. Next God makes a garden or a park, called Eden (meaning "delight"), and puts the man in it. In the garden God puts all the trees that are good to look at or good sources of food. And he also puts two other trees there - the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. As we learn from chapter 3, the first of these confers immortal life. Following an interruption which describes four rivers, and the land nearby to one, with its mineral products, we read again that God put the man into the garden, with a commandment to eat any of the fruit save that of the tree of knowledge.

Now God decides that the man needs a helper or partner, so he makes all the animals. God brings each to the man, who gives names to them. None proves suitable as a partner, however, so God sends the man into a deep sleep and, taking a rib from the man, makes this into a woman. The man speaks, hailing her as "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh", which the narrator takes as an explanation of why a man (any man now) leaves his parents "and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh". Both the man and his wife are naked, and are not ashamed.

The Priestly writer imagines God as able to create out of nothing, but the J storyteller imagines that he takes existing materials and transforms them into a new being, rather as a human artisan might do, but with supernaturally superior skill. The stories here, though, illustrate the human insights of the author. In relating how man is made from the dust, then brought to life by God's breath, he thinks of man's mortality which is pronounced later (3.19): "you are dust, and to dust you shall return" - the familiar process of decomposition after death. In this story, the man is an individual, but he is also the archetype of the whole species. The account of the creation of the woman is not depicted as science (probably a meaningless distinction for this author) but as an explanation of the way in which a man will leave his immediate family - the united social group in which his security lies - and make a new family with his wife. (The author does not reflect that in his time the woman does the same, and, if anything, takes a greater step, since she effectively becomes part of her husband's property.) In using a contemporary social relationship to gloss the ancient narrative, the J author gives the reader a sense both of the ancient time when the creation was supposed to have occurred and of the time when he is telling the story.

The last verse of Chapter 2 is also really as much about the author's own time as the time of creation. In adding that the naked pair "were not ashamed", the writer begs the question of why people wear clothes. There are, obviously, highly practical reasons why people living in a variable climate and rugged terrain, wresting a living from agriculture or nomadic pastoralism - why these people need to wear clothes. But ancient Israelite society had a taboo against nakedness, or, rather, against being seen by another while naked. For seeing his father, Noah, lying naked while drunk (9.22-27), Ham (identified with his son Canaan) is cursed. Noah's sons Shem and Japheth carefully cover Noah up without looking at him directly.

This detail prepares us for the couple's experience after eating the forbidden fruit - they now see themselves as naked, becoming self-conscious, as we would say. And they make garments to cover the nakedness.

3.1-24

Chapter 3 tells the story of the temptation and fall of man (though it is told very much as the temptation and fall of the woman and the man, the individual forebears of the human race). From this narrative, later thinkers would develop the idea of original sin, to suggest that the fault of Adam and his fall from his original state are the fault and fall of us all.

The serpent persuades the woman to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. She persuades the man to do likewise. They realize they are naked and make clothes out of leaves, and hide from God. God curses the serpent, and pronounces man's judgement: to be mortal and to live a hard life (pain for the woman in childbearing, and hard labour to eke out an existence from the ground). And finally, to prevent man from eating of the tree of life, God sends the pair out of the garden.

In the Good News Bible we read about a snake. In the King James tradition, continued by the New Revised Standard Version, it is a serpent. "Snake" is a more appropriate word to identify the kind of animal in the story, while "serpent" better conveys a cultural idea of this creature as having special powers of insight and guile. While the storyteller draws his material from the natural world, he does not hesitate to invest it with more than natural powers. The modern English-speaking reader is unlikely to encounter the noun "serpent" in any other context, save perhaps for tales of mythical sea serpents. But we are so familiar with many real species of snake that this noun might omit the connotations of magical and perhaps demonic power that the original author perhaps meant to convey.

Even today, cultures have general attitudes to animals. In the west that means approving of chimpanzees, lions and tigers, say, while disapproving of rats or mosquitoes. (The cultural attitude may arise from perfectly good reasons like aesthetic approval or hygienic disapproval.) So why does the J author choose a snake? Alan Richardson suggests the answer:

"In the lore of the Semitic races the serpent is proverbial for cunning craftiness, and thus J is provided with a convenient symbol for his parable." Genesis 1-11; the Creation Stories and the Modern World View, p. 71

The snake is associated with magic - for example in Exodus 7.8-12, where Aaron and the magicians of Egypt turn their staffs into snakes. Here in Genesis the serpent is depicted as having human or more than human intelligence, and the ability to speak. There are few other examples in the Old Testament of animals having such unusual abilities (in Numbers 22.28 Balaam's ass tells the prophet off, while in 1 Samuel 6.12 the cattle pulling the cart that carries the Ark of the Covenant miraculously find their way home to Beth-shemesh, turning "neither to the right nor the left").

John Milton's version of the story of temptation and fall, in Paradise Lost, is perhaps close to the original in telling it as a story about an intelligent and malign personality embodied in the outward form of a snake. In the J narrative, the serpent receives a curse and there is a strong hint or implication that the creature's intelligence is due to something beyond normal nature. But there is no suggestion whatsoever, as there is in Milton's account, that the snake is an embodiment of a personal Devil or Satan. This idea belongs to a much later time. As the idea emerged among Jews and Christians of Satan as the arch-enemy of God and man, then it was retrospectively applied to the interpretation of the J story of the temptation and fall. And this reading, classically expressed by Milton, is now well-established in western culture.

For Milton, and perhaps for us, therefore, the serpent becomes the opponent of God, and almost more important than the man and the woman. But for J, this is not so: the serpent is the agent of their disobedience, but disappears from the narrative once God has pronounced judgement on it, whereas the man and woman remain at the centre of the story. Allowing the snake to speak enables the storyteller to make the narrative into a drama - with passages of dialogue between the woman and the serpent and the woman and the man, while God speaks with all three of them.

God has told the human pair that they must not eat of the tree of knowledge. He gives no reason other than to state the consequence: they will die. (He does not say whether the fruit will cause their death or whether it will follow for some other reason, such as his determining it.)

The serpent gives a much more detailed counter-argument. He states that the man and the woman, should they eat the fruit, will not die. He supports this with a reason why God has given the prohibition - to prevent the humans from becoming like him. This is one reason why the woman eats, but the narrator also tells us that she sees it to be good for food and a delight to the eyes.

Milton, in Paradise Lost, inserts a long passage in which the man (Adam) blames the woman for her disobedience but ultimately resolves to join her. The Genesis story has none of this. Instead we read that the woman "gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate".

Does this mean that the man is with the woman shortly after her eating of the fruit, or even at the time, while she is speaking to the serpent and when she takes the fruit? The story is often represented as one in which the woman is tempted and falls, on her own; and in which she shortly afterwards becomes to the man what the serpent was to her - the agent of seduction or persuasion. But the J story does not really support this reading. And nor does the sequel. The man's only defence is to say that the woman gave him the fruit (which does not require any interval of time - it could be immediately after she ate, as he "was with her"). God blames the man both for listening to the voice of his wife, and for defying the prohibition. But we need not interpret the "voice of his wife" as the persuasion of an otherwise reluctant man; it could be simply the offering of the fruit. The narrator has not included this detail, which suggests that it is not at the heart of the story.

To put that another way, later theologians have depicted the fall as somehow more the fault of the woman (usually named as Eve) than the man. While God, in the story, has no doubt that the man is responsible for his actions, later commentators have interpreted the narrative as showing woman, rather like the mythical Pandora, as the agent of evil's coming into the world.

The narrative contains several picturesque and vivid details. To hide their nakedness the man and woman make garments of leaves. God is depicted anthropomorphically: he walks in the garden, and discovers the sin of the man and woman, not by direct knowledge, but by inferring it from their hiding and from their answer to his question. The guilty man and woman, meanwhile, have gained knowledge that tells them they are naked, but in admitting to this knowledge they convict themselves of disobedience to God. J does not tell us that the serpent originally had legs, though this may be implied by the curse, in which God decrees that it shall be an enemy of man, and crawl on its belly in the dust.

God's punishment of the man and woman includes some of the perennial conditions of human experience that we may see as pain and hardship.

The woman hears that childbearing will be more painful (though J has so far not told of her having given birth, so the comparison has no reference point yet; this also reflects a sense that the story has no clear sense of time - from creation to fall could happen in one or a few days, as Milton suggests, or over a much longer time.
The man hears from God, that the ground will be unproductive and bring forth thorns and thistles. Man will work hard for food throughout life, at the end of which he will return to the dust from which he came.

When God has passed the judgement, the man gives his wife the name of "Eve" - meaning "life" or "living", which J explains by the remark that she was "the mother of all living".

Though God judges the guilty pair, he also cares for them. He has not said that the leaves are inadequate as clothing, though J may expect this to be obvious to the audience. So God provides the man and woman with garments made of skins.

Now God determines to expel the man and woman from the garden, so that they cannot eat of the fruit of the tree of life, and so live forever. Again the narrative is highly anthropomorphic, as we see in these details:

God's decision to send the man and woman out of the garden appears almost at once after the passing of judgement.
The magical power of the fruit appears as something God cannot overrule - if man eats it he will become immortal, so he must be prevented from eating it.
God cannot prevent this by his own omniscience and omnipotence: rather, he must first drive out the man and the woman, and then he must place a guard of cherubim and a whirling sword of fire as a deterrent. Cherubim is a plural form - these appeared often in the mythology of the land we now call Iraq (Mesopotamia in ancient times); they are winged sphinxes with human heads.

The tree of life appears often as a symbol in ancient Mesopotamian art. Since many trees provide the means to live (fruit to eat or press for oil - used as food or fuel for lamps; wood for building and fuel) then this may explain the idea of a tree of which the fruit would confer eternal life. In the J narrative this tree is effectively removed from man's grasp.

God states that man has "become like one of us, knowing good and evil" and may now eat of the tree of life "and live forever". "Therefore", says J, God sends him out of the garden. J does not explain why it follows that God must prevent man from becoming immortal, but perhaps expects his audience to see why this is obvious. Alan Richardson offers a suggestion of what the reason may be, in explaining the statement that "the man has become like one of us":

"Man has become a responsible being - like the angelic beings who inhabit the heavenly court. But being sinful he must not for ever possess attributes and powers which he would terribly abuse." Genesis 1-11; the Creation Stories and the Modern World View, p. 78

In explaining the cherubim and the flaming sword, Professor Richardson adds,

"The reason is no arbitrary divine decree, but the fact that man is unfit to live in paradise. He has made God's good world a place of strife and rivalry - as the story of Cain and Abel immediately goes on to show." Genesis 1-11; the Creation Stories and the Modern World View, p. 78

If Alan Richardson is right, then J is judging the first man and woman by acts that they have not yet committed, but which the human race will commit, repeatedly, in time to come. For J's audience, as for the modern reader, the record of human sinfulness is obvious. God, in the story, foresees, what now can be seen every day. Where human justice normally deals with the actions we commit, God passes judgement on the unseen inner disposition or character of which particular actions are the outward expression. But J spells none of this out. And the modern reader should perhaps take care to distinguish the explicit narrative in Genesis from the later interpretations with which theologians and other commentators have overlaid it.

4.1-16

In the modern developed world we find that murders are more commonly committed within a family than by a stranger; so in Genesis the first account of a killing of one man by another is within the family, and the first account of two brothers is a story of how one kills the other. The story of Cain and Abel reads like an alternative version of the fall, and does not quite harmonize with the story that precedes it - in bringing different narratives together, J has kept much of the individuality of the original stories.

The story begins and ends as an account of Eve's children. Of her first-born, Cain, she says that she has "produced a man with the help of the Lord". The verb here (ganah, meaning "get") resembles the name of Cain in Hebrew, rather as would be the case in English translation, if the verb were gain. More important, perhaps, is the underlying idea that God helps in the conception, pregnancy and live birth of children. (This often appears in negative form - a woman cannot conceive, miscarries or loses a child at birth or in infancy; even today in the west the process seems precarious and fraught with dangers and difficulties, while for the ancient world, and the developing world in our own time, to have a healthy child who could grow to maturity would seem almost a miracle.)

As with the preceding story of the fall, there is a rather loose sense of time. Eve says: "I have produced a man". She may mean simply a male child, who could grow to manhood; but in the light of the whole narrative, she may share the perspective of J and the audience, for whom Cain grows to manhood in almost no time.

Next she bears a second child, Abel - but J says nothing of the childhood of the two boys, moving straight to their adult occupations. And here, too, he reflects the world his audience knows. In the earlier narratives, man is appointed to till the soil. (The later, Priestly, account seems to endorse this, as it is only plants and fruit that man is to eat.) But while Cain does this, Abel becomes a keeper of sheep. J's audience would be familiar, too, with the practice of bringing offerings to God of the produce of the ground or of the flocks and herds - which both men do. We are not told why Abel's offering is accepted and Cain's is not. In the light of Cain's subsequent action, some commentators, says Alan Richardson (Genesis 1-11; the Creation Stories and the Modern World View, p. 82) "assume that it was the attitude of Cain which was wrong". That may be so, but it is left to the audience to conjecture this. Yet it is only a problem if we start from the (rather modern) assumption that God should want to treat the two brothers equally or fairly - whereas most of Genesis (like the Old Testament generally) shows God's making distinctions between people whom modern readers might wish to see as equals.

Quite how God shows Abel and Cain his approval and disapproval is not made clear - does he tell them, or give some other sign? Is there, perhaps, some result of the process of offering that indicates acceptance or otherwise (such as that devised by Elijah in his contest with the priests of Baal in 1 Kings 18.20-39)?

The storyteller knows the sequel, and this may explain why God warns Cain against allowing sin to overcome him. And here God does so directly, speaking to Cain - giving him the instruction that he will shortly disobey. In the narrative, therefore, this may appear to be not so much God's giving Cain advice that he fails to follow, so much as God's making clear to Cain what is the right thing to do, ensuring that, if he sins further, it is by his own wilful choice.

In eating the prohibited fruit, the woman and man sin, but without any suggestion of planning or forethought. Cain, however, clearly plans the murder of his brother, by arranging a place where he can do it, and where perhaps he can conceal the evidence. The narrative tells us little of the detail (such as the possible use of a weapon or Cain's method of attack), other than the suggestive comment of God about Abel's blood: this implies that it has been shed in the killing, but it need not necessarily mean this. (Abel still has blood whether it is spilt in the attack, or not; and, as the source of his life, his blood might be deemed to call out to God anyway.)

Like the man and the woman who have eaten the fruit, Cain tries to hide the evidence of what he has done. We are not told that he buries Abel's body, but this may be suggested by God's question ("Where is your brother?") and by the remark that Abel's blood "is crying out...from the ground", as well as by the curse that separates Cain from working the land.

While the creation narratives refer to a man and woman, the audience is meant to see them as living in a world where other people are to be found, since Cain takes a wife. From this point on, the genealogies suppose that all the named characters are able to find spouses, and have children. Overwhelmingly these reflect the practice of the culture where they originated, in naming only the males. Genesis does, however, include stories featuring many women, of whom some are named.

Just as the man and woman have been exiled from Eden, so Cain is exiled from the farmland on which he has subsisted, and from the protective presence of God - which may be meant literally, or as a metaphor for the safety of living in a society regulated by the fear of God, and the enforcement of law. This, in turn, may suggest to the ancient audience a sense of the difference between the world they know (bounded by laws that they may sometimes think strict or burdensome - though this may be a backwards projection of a more modern attitude) and a lawless society, where murder is commonplace. By becoming a murderer, Cain is now to be exposed to this danger.

Cain, in this story, makes no attempt to justify his action, or ask for forgiveness. On hearing God's curse, Cain's reaction is to bewail the danger in which it now places him. Surprisingly, God does not rebuke this, but instead tempers the curse by giving Cain a mark of protection, apparently signifying the threat of sevenfold vengeance to anyone who should kill him. (Is "sevenfold" precise, or a loose way of indicating that murdering Cain would lead to the death not only of his killer, but also of other members of the killer's family or clan?) The mark of Cain appears to be some kind of physical sign - whether a naturally-occurring one (a birthmark) or a man-made mark (such as a tattoo or branding). The storyteller and audience may know of people, who bear such marks, as they might carry amulets and charms, to ward off harm by the threat of retributive violence on the perpetrator.

Cain settles in Nod, east of Eden. Neither J nor his audience is expected to know where these places are. The narratives are meant to tell unchanging truths about man's nature; but (unlike Genesis 2.10-14) they are not presented as accounts of the geography of the storyteller's world. The modern reader of the Bible has seen images of the whole world, as viewed from space. We are familiar with representations of it on maps, and may have travelled to many different parts of it. But the original audience of these stories (and, indeed, most people throughout most of history, especially before the 20th century) will have a very different sense of the world - where they know by experience only a few places, and never travel more than a few miles from where they live. On learning of a wonderful garden, full of fruitful trees, of which two have magical properties, they will not doubt this by raising questions about its location. When the narratives in Genesis come closer to accounts of the lives of individual ancestors, they do, in fact, show a close and detailed knowledge of the geography and history of the region, which other records and archaeology can supplement and support.

The story of Cain and Abel at first contrasts two kinds of farmers - those who remain in one place and till the soil, and those who herd livestock (normally nomads, as there is no land suitable for permanent pasture). That these might come into conflict, in competing for scarce resources, will be obvious and familiar to J's audience. The description of the three sons of Cain reflects a further cultural advance, in their occupations: shepherd (like Abel), musician and smith. As well as providing food from pasture animals, the emerging society develops industry - the smiths perhaps making implements to improve the efficiency of farming, and maybe weapons for defence - while the musicians would provide not only what we think of as entertainment, but also education, in the transmission and reinforcement of cultural knowledge, values, history and customs.

In this section also we find an account of a killing by one of Cain's descendants, Lamech. This takes the form of a poem or song, in which Lamech boasts of killing a young man who has wounded him, and attempts to invoke the protection of the mark of Cain, but amplified to an absurd degree. Why should he say this to his wives? Perhaps it is because they have the duty of passing on to the wider family the obligation to avenge Lamech, should anyone kill him, seventy-seven fold - that is, to be the guarantors of his protection from anyone seeking to avenge the young man whom Lamech has murdered. Away from the land, Canaanite society develops as a culture marked by escalating blood feuds, where aggression and murder use the threat of further violence to secure impunity.

The storyteller finally returns to the account of Eve's three sons, within which the story of Cain forms the principal section. The whole of Genesis can be seen, in outline, as a series of narratives about different people from the first man and woman, through to Joseph, whose death in Egypt prepares for the books about Moses. Within that outline there are more expansive narratives, notably the stories of the ancestors of Israel. Eve now has a third son, Seth, whom she sees as a replacement for Abel.

The narrative ends with a comment that this was the time when people began to call on the name of the LORD, to invoke God's help or worship him, under the divine name (Yahweh).

5.1-32

This chapter, from the Priestly source, P, is a genealogy, a series of records of the lives of those from the first man, here called Adam as a personal name, to Noah. There are ten people in the series: Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech and Noah. In verse 2 we note that the word "Adam" is used of the man and woman together, signifying humankind. While man was made in the image of God, we read in verse 3 that he transmits this likeness to his son, Seth - so that, in spite of the fall, the divine image in man is not lost.

The ten ancestors here are credited with fabulous longevity. There is no warrant for the suggestion, sometimes made, that the years here really correspond to months. Rather it reflects a belief common among ancient peoples that there was a time when their forebears had greater powers and lived to fabulous ages. Methuselah, at nine hundred and sixty-nine years, is the longest-lived but Jared (nine hundred and sixty-two), Noah (nine hundred and fifty) and Adam (nine hundred and thirty) are not far behind.

Enoch only managed three hundred and sixty-five years, but did not die in the usual way. He was believed to be unusually righteous, since he "walked with God", and to have been taken up miraculously (translated) into heaven. There is no description of this event, as there is in 2 Kings 2.11 for the prophet Elijah's translation. Enoch, like Noah, stands out as a lone example of goodness in an increasingly corrupt world.

Lamech predicts that his son, Noah, shall bring man relief from toil "out of the ground that the LORD has cursed", as if to reverse or mitigate the effects of the curse pronounced on Adam. The story of Noah, later in Genesis, does not closely fulfil Lamech's prophetic words.

6.1-4

This strange fragment, from the J writer, tells of how divine beings from the heavenly court intermarried with human wives. God determined that this would not be a way for humans to achieve semi-divinity, but that they would remain mortal. Despite the great ages achieved by the first descendants of Adam, God now limits human life to a hundred and twenty years. The writer also tells of the Nephilim who were on the earth in these ancient times - people of gigantic stature with superhuman powers and heroic qualities. The writer connects the offspring of these marriages of divine beings and human wives with the Nephilim and with great heroes of legend.

6.5-22

The genealogy in the previous chapter has introduced Noah, to whom the narrative (which combines traditions from J and P) now returns in the story of the flood. Like the later stories of the Tower of Babel and of Sodom and Gomorrah, it depicts God as in conflict with mankind, seen either as incorrigibly wicked or attempting to usurp God's place.

In this story God sees how mankind has become wicked, apparently beyond any hope of correction, and grieves for having created the race. He determines to blot out all of mankind, but has the idea of saving a righteous remnant, the family of Noah, to make a fresh start.

God commands Noah to make a large vessel or ark; this is not a ship, since it has neither oars nor sails by which to move, but a large floating container. It does not need to go anywhere in particular, but only to keep those on it safe from the water, until the flood subsides. The dimensions are approximately 450 feet by 75 feet by 25 feet, and the ark is to have three decks, a roof and a door. God tells Noah of his purpose in bringing the flood, and orders him to take into the ark a male and female of every species of animal, as well as food for his family and for the animals. The chapter ends with the statement that Noah did all that God commanded, though without going into the detail of how he accomplished these challenging tasks.

7.1-24

In this chapter we read of the coming of the flood. It starts with another version of the command to take in the animals, though here a distinction is made between clean animals (of which Noah is to choose seven pairs, as he also does for birds) and unclean animals. The idea of ritual cleanness in this chapter appears to have been understood in the ancient times from which this story comes. The narrative from P, in Chapter 6, does not make this distinction, perhaps because in the Priestly account it was something that God revealed to Moses at Sinai.

With the arrival of the floodwaters, Noah's family and all the animals, in male and female pairs, go into the ark to escape destruction. There are two accounts of this, both of which give Noah's age as 600. In verse 11 we find that the flood is not caused by ordinary rain, but a cosmic catastrophe in which the windows of the heavens open, while verse 12 states that the rain falls for forty days and nights.

The requirement to Noah to take birds and other winged creatures into the ark shows that the flood is not imagined as local to a given region, but as covering the whole earth, and even drowning high mountains. There is a rather pleasant anthropomorphic detail in the statement that, once Noah is in the ark, with the other people and animals, then "the LORD shut him in".

We see evidence that two traditions have been combined in relating the duration of the flood: in one version it continues for forty days (then takes another three weeks to dry up, making sixty-one days in total). In the other, we read, "the waters swelled" for a hundred and fifty days, and stayed on the earth for a year and eleven days all told.

8.1-22

The opening verse of this chapter suggests that God brings the flood to an end out of concern for Noah, and for the animals, wild and domestic, in the ark. A wind comes to dry the earth, but still the waters recede very slowly, until the ark runs aground on the highest mountain known to the ancient storyteller, Mount Ararat (which stands 16,969 feet high).

Noah sends out a raven, which does not return, but apparently stays on the wing until the earth is dry. Next he sends a dove, which returns to the ark once; he sends it again, and it returns with a freshly plucked olive leaf; he sends it a third time, and it does not come back. The olive leaf is a sign that somewhere else nature is coming back to life, and thus that God's anger is past - for this reason it has become a symbol of the restoration of peace (though often referred to as an olive branch).

When Noah sees that the earth is dry, God commands him to come out of the ark with his family, and all the living creatures that went in with him.

In chapter 4, Abel brings God an offering, but the storyteller does not explain the nature of the ritual here - perhaps expecting the audience to know this. Now Noah also makes an offering, but here we are given far more details. He builds an altar, and sacrifices one of every ritually clean animal and bird. (Since he has seven pairs of each, this will not prevent them from repopulating the earth). Neither in the Cain and Abel story, nor here, is there any account of God's explaining the kind of offerings man should bring - the people in the stories seem to know this. Either it is their own invention or the storyteller draws on what is familiar to him and to his audience, without considering the question of how his remote ancestors could know this.

The argument of this passage is interesting - God smells the "pleasing odour" of the burnt offering, and promises never again to "curse the ground". His reason, however, is not Noah's virtue, made manifest in the offering, but a realization that "the inclination of the human heart is evil from birth." He appears thus to excuse man as being not capable generally of the rare faithfulness that Noah has shown. God promises never again to destroy every living creature, and insists that the seasons and the cycle of day and night will continue as long as the earth endures. Modern science may see that as a tautology, but the ancient storyteller means to say that while the earth exists, so will it support the life of man and beast.

The promise appears to be directed at Noah and his sons (not least because there are no other people alive to receive it). But the narrator tells us that God says these things "in his heart" - to himself. Where God speaks aloud, there can be a sense for J's audience that the ancestors heard those words and later passed on an account of what they heard. But in this case, the narrator assumes special insight into the mind of God, without any direct revelation.

This is not, however, the last narrative in which God reacts to man's wickedness or arrogance. But his judgements in the stories of Babel and of Sodom and Gomorrah are more localized in their effects.

9.1-17

In the original creation, man is permitted to eat of the plants. Abel herds sheep and offers God the "fat portions" of the firstlings - which might suggest the eating of the animals (though the shepherd, even in later times, keeps them principally for milk, and its derivatives, and wool). But now God blesses Noah and his sons. And they are permitted to exercise dominion over the animals by eating them - indeed God, in granting this permission, explicitly compares it with the original giving of green plants. There is a caveat - that the animal shall not be eaten with its blood, a prohibition which leads to the passing of judgement on any man who sheds the blood of another, since this killing of one's fellow is a sin against God in whose image man is made. In verses 1 and 7 God repeats to Noah and his sons the instruction given to the first man (and to other living creatures) to be fruitful and multiply. If, as the story of the flood claims, everyone else has been killed, then Noah's sons have the same problem as Cain and Seth in finding wives. But the genealogy in the next chapter gives no hint of any shortage of spouses.

The previous chapter, drawing on the J narrative, has a relatively short account of God's promise, elicited by smelling the odour of Noah's burnt offering. Here the Priestly writer turns it into a long story of the making of God's first covenant with mankind. A covenant is "a term of relationship between a superior and an inferior party, the former 'making' or 'establishing' the bond" (New Oxford Annotated Bible, Genesis 17.2, note). Many years later, Jesus criticises the elaboration of simple promises ("Let your word be 'Yes, Yes' or 'No, No' "; Matthew 5.37) but the Priestly writer signals the importance of the promise here by showing it as a kind of ritual, where God's intention is expressed as words, but also demonstrated in a sign or token that will remind man permanently of God's promise never again to destroy the earth by a flood. This sign is God's bow, set in the clouds as a rainbow. (In the Hebrew, the word for a war-bow or rainbow is the same - so P shows how the weapon of wrath is made into the token of peace.) Unlike the later covenants made with Israel, this one is universal, applied to Noah " and every living creature...for all future generations".

9.18-28

This is a strange narrative, of how Noah makes wine and, being drunk, lies naked on the ground, where his son Ham sees him, and becomes the object of a curse because of this. Earlier verses have referred to Noah and his three sons, who are named at 5.32. The genealogy is repeated here, with the addition of Ham's son, Canaan. The storyteller and his audience saw the peoples of the world as divided into three groups or families, the supposed descendants of these sons.

Shem (from whose name come the words Semite and Semitic) is the forefather of Israel;
Ham is the ancestor of the people of Egypt, Ethiopia and Abyssinia, and
Japheth is the ancestor of the Gentiles (which effectively means anyone other than the supposed descendants of Shem and Ham).

The storytellers of Genesis, aware that this is an account of the origins of mankind, give details of the beginnings of subsistence farming, of growing crops and herding livestock. For the ancient people, the products of the olive (oil for fuel, light and food) and the grape (wine for drinking) are vital. The discovery of fermentation and the practice of viticulture go back beyond recorded history. In this narrative, Noah (as in his offering sacrifice) acts without any prompting from God. Does the narrator expect the audience to assume that Noah works these things out for himself? Perhaps the storyteller assumes that everyone knows about winemaking without thinking that this would not necessarily be the case for the first person to practice it.

Evidently Noah is successful at once, since he plants a vineyard (which would presumably take years), and in the next verse drinks "some of the wine", so he becomes "drunk". The ancient audience, like the modern reader, will be familiar with the effects of wine in removing inhibitions and self-consciousness, as well as habitual prudence and maybe moral scruples. But the ancient audience may also assume that everyone must drink wine sometimes (the challenge being to moderate it) since most of the time there is no safe supply of water to drink.

Here the narrative may suggest that Noah is careless, in lying naked in his tent. But it is "Ham, the father of Canaan" who transgresses seriously by seeing "the nakedness of his father". Alan Richardson explains the ancient taboo like this:

"To be naked is throughout the Old Testament a sign of disgrace and humiliation; to see (even accidentally) the nakedness of one's father was to bring shame and disgrace upon oneself." Genesis 1-11; the Creation Stories and the Modern World View, p. 114

Since Ham tells his brothers what he has seen, he may not understand the taboo, or it may be that he is aware of an offence and seeking their complicity, or advice. We don't know, and Ham's conscience is not the point of the story. It is not simply about individuals, but about the peoples of the storyteller's and his audience's own world. Shem and Japheth walk backwards into the tent, and cover Noah, without seeing him in his naked state. On waking, Noah is aware of Ham's offence - perhaps by some prescience or perhaps because his other sons have told him. He duly pronounces a curse, but it is on Canaan, Ham's son. The New Oxford Annotated Bible suggests in a footnote to verse 22: "Since the curse was later put on Canaan, rather than on Ham, it is likely that Canaan was the actor originally." And in verse 24 the curse suggests that Canaan, not Ham, shall be a slave to his brothers. But since the narrator here makes clear (verses 18 and 22) that Canaan is Ham's son, then the logic of the story seems to be to blame Canaan, and curse him, for his father's sin. The reason for this is that the narrator wants to explain the origins of the Canaanites specifically. He shares with his audience a belief that they practised immoral fertility rites, and that, for this sin, they were justly reduced to servile status by the Israelites after they entered the land of Canaan.

10.1-32

This chapter appears as a genealogy, but in reality explains the origins of the nations that existed in the storyteller's time. The various names in the genealogy are not of real people, but imagined ancestors who represent the different countries whose names they share. The New Oxford Annotated Bible explains, in a footnote to this chapter, that: "Although the various 'families' were separated by language and land, the present list is arranged primarily on the basis of political rather than ethnic considerations."

So, for example, the sons of Ham include Egypt and Canaan. The peoples of these nations were not closely related, but from about 1500 to 1200 B.C., Canaan was under Egyptian control. While modern scientific ethnology can show where the ancient writers were mistaken, it is nonetheless surprising to see how much they knew of the world.

The chapter contains a very old fragment of tradition about Nimrod, who was renowned for his prowess as a hunter. The Israelites had reason to know of the powerful states of Babylonia and Assyria. Without directly saying that Nimrod built Babylon, J suggests in verse 10 that he was the founder of the city, in the land of Shinar. (Babel is synonymous with Babylon, the city, while Shinar is the state of Babylonia.) From there, J writes, Nimrod went into Assyria and built Nineveh and other cities. For the storyteller, Nimrod is seen as a real person, but he is notable more for what he embodies and originates - the great empires to the east of Israel.

11.1-9

The story of the tower of Babel has much in common with the stories of the fall and the flood. In each case, man's disobedient or arrogant actions prompt God to intervene and enact punishment. This ancient parable attempts to explain two other things - the creation of the huge pyramidal ziggurats in the land we now call Iraq, and the variety of languages spoken in the known world.

In the story of the fall, God is concerned that the man and woman who have eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge shall not be allowed to gain immortality by eating of the tree of life, so he casts them out of Eden.

In this parable, men come together with a shared purpose. First, they develop the art of building with bricks. Then they determine to build a tower "with its top in the heavens", and to make a name for themselves, to avoid what seems an otherwise likely fate of being "scattered abroad upon the face of the earth."

What can all of this mean? Perhaps we should start with the technology. The narrative here refers to the process of "burning" the bricks thoroughly - baking them hard to make them stronger and resistant to weather. This strength also made them able to bear great weight, so it became possible to stack them on top of each other, using "bitumen for mortar", to make structures of great height (though necessarily of a huge area at the base).

How high the heavens are above the earth is not clear - but the storyteller supposes the ancient people to have been capable of building a tower that would reach that height. Maybe there is here a suggestion of great powers, as in the stories of the Nephilim and Nimrod. That this is not a vain boast appears from God's response - he foresees not only that they will achieve this, but much more: "This is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them." (Verse 6)

For the people in the story, building a city and a tower seems to be a way to establish themselves, to give them a reason to stay together, and earn a reputation. They see also that to do this, they must combine their labour and join in a common purpose.

God sees that the people are united and that they have a common language. By confusing their language, therefore, he creates mutual misunderstanding, and they are unable to complete the building of the tower. There is an anthropomorphic touch in the statement that God came down to see the city, and in his injunction, "Let us go down and confuse their language." Here (as in 1.26) the directive in the plural form ("let us") is apparently addressed to the members of God's divine court.

The name of the tower is Babel (meaning "gate of God"). But the Hebrew storyteller explains it by a play on the word balal, which means to mix or confuse.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible suggests that this story was originally one that "explained the origin of languages and the cultural glory of Babylon" though it is now told to "portray divine judgement upon the continuing sin of humanity". The building of the great ziggurats is not something that Israel particularly approves or understands, since it characterises their powerful and idolatrous neighbours.

11.10-32

Chapter 10 contains a general genealogy of all the nations of the known world. This section of chapter 11 contains a specific genealogy that leads from Shem to Abram, the patriarch or ancestor of Israel.

From Shem the succession is Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah and Abram. Eber, who appears also in 10.21, is the supposed ancestor of all the peoples called Hebrews. The genealogy also records the ages attained by these people. Where Noah lived nine hundred and fifty years, Shem manages six hundred, Arpachshad four hundred and thirty-eight, Reu two hundred and thirty-nine and Nahor a hundred and forty-eight: the ages gradually reduce to the kind of figures that would seem normal to the storyteller and his audience (in 47.28 we see that Jacob lives to be a hundred and forty-seven). This may reflect the belief that people in ancient times possessed great powers that have been lost over time, as we see in the story of the Nephilim. It also refutes the suggestion sometimes made that the ancient storyteller simply meant to refer to months, rather than years in these lists.

When we come to the children of Terah, we find stories of individuals, Haran, who has a son, Lot, but dies "before his father" while Abram marries Sarai, and Nahor marries Milcah. Terah lives in the Chaldean city of Ur in what was later called Mesopotamia (the Greek name for "the land between rivers"), and now is Iraq. He takes Abram and his childless wife along with Lot, intending to go to the land of Canaan, but they stop at Haran, still in Mesopotamia, where Terah dies. The name of the city here, notes Alan Richardson, in Genesis 1-11; the Creation Stories and the Modern World View, p. 133, "...is properly Charan (perhaps meaning 'cross-roads') and is not the same word as Haran (soft H)". Both Ur and Haran were known as centres of moon worship in ancient times.

12.1-9

God tells Abram to leave his home city. The instruction appears as a long passage of direct speech, but there is no clear account of how God does this, and whether Abram sees him directly also. The command comes with a promise that Abram, so far childless, will become the father of "a great nation", in whom "all the families of the earth shall be blessed" - so that this great nation will also bring benefits to other peoples.

Abram duly leaves home, taking his family and that of Lot, and all their possessions and "the persons they had acquired in Haran" (bonded labourers, effectively slaves). The storyteller does not say at this point, but perhaps supposes the audience to know what will appear later in the story (for example in verse 16 of this chapter) - that Abram and his entourage are nomads, herding livestock. So they move by stages towards Canaan, arriving eventually near Shechem (in the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim). Here, by the oak of Moreh (meaning "oracle giver"), apparently a sacred tree, Abram sees God, who promises to give this land to Abram's offspring. Abram builds an altar. Then he moves to the hill country east of Bethel, builds another altar, and calls on God's name. The storyteller says that Abram is heading for the Negeb, by stages - perhaps already with the intention of passing on to Egypt.

Later tradition interprets Abram's action as a conspicuous example of faithful obedience. We see this in Hebrews 11.8: "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; and he set out, not knowing where he was going". But was it so risky? Life in the city had some opportunities, yet so did the life of the pastoral nomad - moving gradually from place to place, using the natural resources (water and vegetation) sparingly before moving on to the next, in areas that were not fertile enough to sustain a permanent settlement. The Genesis account, anyway, says simply "So Abram went". This can be seen as obedience, but equally can be seen as Abram's recognizing the good sense of the instruction.

12.10-20

We also do not know how long Abram stayed in the places to which he came, but may suppose there to be a relationship between

the work involved in moving and living on the move, and
the limits of food and water for his people and livestock in any one place. (Eventually his company becomes too large, and he separates from Lot.)

Why would a famine in the land affect a self-sufficient itinerant group such as Abram's? Perhaps because famine is a shorthand for its natural causes (such as drought) or because the group was not wholly self-sufficient but relied on exchanging its own produce for food and drink from the surrounding peoples. Verse 10 suggests that Abram's group might be able to survive in an ordinary famine, but that this one was unusually severe.

Egypt was not so adversely affected by the famine. The storyteller does not explain why, perhaps because he is not interested, perhaps because he expects his audience to know why. In Egypt there was a settled and very productive system of agriculture, sustained by irrigation, using the waters of the Nile. This would flood annually, thanks to melting snow on the mountains where its sources are found. This system became so efficient and reliable over time that Egypt was known to the Roman Empire as the granary of the world.

Abram also has an understanding of the limited rights of an alien in Egypt, and fears that if Sarai is known to be his wife, then the Egyptians will kill him (presumably so that one of them may take her as wife). He passes her off as his sister (according to 20.12 she is his half-sister) and the Pharaoh duly takes her into his harem. This is the first time the title of the Egyptian ruler appears in Genesis. Pharaoh "dealt well with Abram" - apparently giving extensive gifts, perhaps as a kind of bride price. The list of Abram's possessions is interesting for several reasons. We note that "male and female slaves appear", but after "sheep, oxen, male donkeys", and before "female donkeys, and camels" - does this imply any order of value or importance? A.S. Herbert, in Genesis 12-50; Abraham and his heirs, p. 29, remarks of the camels: "Since these animals were not domesticated until a later period, this is an indication of the way in which an ancient story acquired features appropriate to a later age."

When God sends "great plagues" (we do not learn of what kind) on Pharaoh, the ruler understands the cause - that this is to do with Sarai, and that she is really Abram's wife. We may think the plagues to be an unjust punishment; of this, A.S. Herbert says: "They are not penal but a 'sign' to Pharaoh which lead him to discover the truth"; Genesis 12-50; Abraham and his heirs, p. 30.

13.1-18

Abram and Lot leave Egypt and return to the Negeb. Abram's choice of the nomadic life now appears to have been very shrewd, as he has become extremely rich. The livestock evidently produce far more animals than the nomadic group needs (for food, milk, dung as fuel, skins for tents and so on). The surplus is available for exchange, and so Abram also has silver and gold - this is both a status symbol, as when it is worn for display as jewellery, and also a convenient means of exchange, its relative scarcity sustaining the intrinsic value.

Nevertheless the whole group now has become too large for any place to support it comfortably. Abram and Lot have built up their possessions separately, while living closely together, so now Abram proposes that they split into two groups, and go to different places. Abram offers Lot the choice of territory, and Lot chooses the plain of Jordan, in the vicinity of Sodom. The storyteller, perhaps aware that his audience will know of the destruction of Sodom, adds that these events happened before that - though the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah follows in Chapter 19. By the storyteller's day, as in modern times, the lower Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea was infertile. But the narrative appears to reflect an ancient tradition of a time when this area was fertile and capable of sustaining livestock.

God renews his promise to Abram - that he will inherit the land, and will have numberless offspring. And Abram moves to Mamre near to Hebron. The "oaks" may have been ancient trees in a sacred site.

14.1-24

This chapter contains a narrative from outside the main traditions in Genesis. Where these picture Abraham as a relatively peaceful tribal leader, here we see a story in which he leads a military operation to free his nephew, Lot, who has been taken prisoner, following Sodom's defeat in battle with an invading force. Four kings - apparently tribal rulers - from east of Canaan attacked five rulers from Canaan, the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Bela (or Zoar). Their forces met in the Valley of Siddim, where the Canaanite allies were defeated. The victorious invaders took booty from Sodom and Gomorrah, including Lot. On learning of this, Abram led a force of trained men in his service, attacked the eastern forces by night and routed them, while recovering Lot, many other prisoners and their goods.

Returning from the battle, Abram meets the king of Sodom and the priest Melchizedek, king of Salem, to whom he gives a tenth of the recovered booty. The rest of the booty, the King of Sodom urges Abram to keep. But Abram declines the offer, accepting only a share to pass on to his allies, the young men who have helped lead the victorious raid on the eastern forces.

15.1-21

God has twice made promises to Abram. Now he reaffirms them in a solemn covenant. In reply to God's offer to be Abram's "shield" and provide a great "reward", Abram asks a question ("what will you give me?") that challenges the offer, as Abram notes that he is not only still childless, but has designated Eliezer of Damascus, one of his household slaves, to be his legal heir. (If Eliezer was indeed "born in" Abram's "house", then his connection with Damascus must be through his own forebears.) This adoption of the heir may be simply the prudent action of a wealthy man, but it may suggest that Abram does not now expect to have a child of his own. God responds to this pessimistic reply with the assurance that Abram's heir will not be Eliezer, but his own issue (in modern terms he will be the biological, rather than adoptive, father), and that from that son, there will come descendants as numerous as the visible stars in the night sky.

The narrative in this chapter is presented as more or less continuous - God speaks to Abram, shows him the stars, and then proceeds to the ritual covenant, in which Abram falls into a sleep and God speaks to him, enacting the promise in the symbols of the fire pot and the torch. There may, however, be some merging of different traditions here, since verse 5 refers to the visible stars (which require a night time setting), but in verse 12, the sun begins to set, and in verse 17 it sets fully. The sequence as it now appears is most effective in its dramatic effect - leading from the promise, to the enacting of the ritual, coinciding with the sunset and Abram's sleeping. Alternatively, we can suppose the events to happen over two or more days, which the narrator has condensed in the telling, to create the effect of a shorter continuous sequence.

Abram is not satisfied with God's promise to give him the land (verse 7), but asks for some way to know that he will possess it. God commands Abram to bring sacrificial animals, and then sends him into a trance. Now he at first tells Abram something quite different from the earlier promise - that his descendants will be slaves in an alien land, eventually returning, while Abram will die peacefully at a great age. (There is a strange suggestion that God will delay the return from slavery while the Canaanites have time to become complete in their "wickedness".) When the sun sets, God renews the promise that Abram's descendants will inherit the land from Egypt to the Euphrates, listing the peoples whose land this is currently. A smoking fire pot and a flaming torch pass between the pieces of the bodies of the sacrificial animals that Abram has laid out on the ground. The narrator does not say that this is God's action, but perhaps implies either that God or some ministering spirit did this.

16.1-16

Sarai, Abram's wife, makes use of an ancient custom of vicarious parentage, and gives her Egyptian slave, Hagar, to Abram. Ten years after his coming to Canaan, Abram takes Hagar as a second wife. Hagar conceives, and looks "with contempt" on Sarai, who punishes her harshly, so that Hagar runs away into the wilderness. Here she sees the angel of the LORD, who tells her to return and submit to Sarai, adding that her descendants will be beyond counting, and that she is to bear a son. Because God has heard her complaint, she is to name him Ishmael, which means "God hears". Of the prediction that Ishmael will be a "wild ass of a man", A.S. Herbert notes that this may suggest

"...either the...independent life of the nomadic people of whom Ishmael is regarded as the ancestor, or...according to Arabic usage his princely character"; Genesis 12-50; Abraham and his heirs, p. 39.

The storyteller and his audience would know of the wild ass as very different from the tame domesticated ass.

Hagar names the LORD, who has spoken to her, El-roi - the meaning is obscure; it is connected with the idea of God's seeing, yet explained by Hagar's seeing him. The place where the theophany occurs is called Beer-lahai-roi ("Well of the living one who sees me"). It is mentioned later (24.62 and 25.11) in connection with Abram's son Isaac. Hagar returns to Abram (the narrative does not state this explicitly, but in chapter 17, her son is in Abram's household). Here she bears that son, Ishmael, to the 86-year-old Abram.

The narrative identifies the angel that speaks to Hagar with God - at least Hagar makes this identification, claiming to have seen God. Her surprise at remaining alive after doing so perhaps reflects the later belief that to see God was always dangerous and often fatal. Later, too, one of the commandments to Moses will forbid the making of images of God. The narratives indirectly support the commandment by giving no kind of description of God's appearance. In earlier chapters he walks in Eden, and shuts Noah in the ark; in various places he speaks - but we learn no more than this. Much later, the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 6.1) will describe God as sitting on a throne and wearing a robe of which the hem fills the temple.

17.1-27

Modern biblical scholars regard this as an account from the Priestly tradition, P, which corresponds to the older narrative in chapter 15, of God's covenant with Abram. Where the earlier version records the ritual of sacrifice, this one institutes the ritual practice of circumcision.

Some 13 years have passed since the birth of Ishmael, and Abram is ninety-nine. God appears to him and repeats the promise of his being the ancestor of a multitude. Now God confirms this by giving Abram a new name, Abraham - the change is from "exalted ancestor" to "ancestor of a multitude". Sarai is also now to be called Sarah - though both are variants of the same name, meaning "princess". To keep the covenant, Abraham (as he is now called in the narrative, and usually known to modern audiences) and his heirs are to ensure that all males are circumcised at eight days old. Abraham duly carries out the requirement for himself and all in his household, including the 13 year old Ishmael.

God has previously promised Abraham a numerous posterity, but now he pronounces that the 90-year-old Sarah will bear a son. When Abraham laughs at the promise, God repeats it, and declares that the son shall be called Isaac, explained as meaning "he laughs". Abraham asks that Ishmael "might live in [God's] sight": he learns that his first son shall be "fruitful" and "the father of twelve princes", but that the covenant will be established with Isaac, who is to be born the next year.

18.1-15

This passage is the first part of the narrative of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The LORD comes to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre. There are three visitors, and it is not clear whether all three are to be understood as embodying God collectively, or whether one of them is God and the other two are his attendant angels, as 18.22 and 19.1 suggest. Abraham, in any case, sees his visitors in human form, and offers them "a little water" and "bread", before providing them with a feast, which they eat. They ask for Sarah, who is nearby listening, and repeat the promise that she will have a son. The narrator here notes that "it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women" - she has passed the menopause in modern medical parlance. This heightens the apparent impossibility of the promise, and Sarah laughs. When challenged she denies laughing, while the angel speaking to her insists that she did laugh. This episode again explains the meaning of Isaac's name, though this time it is Sarah, not Abraham, who laughs. The comedy of Sarah's laughter and denial, followed by the angel's insistence, suggests the form of a popular oral narrative, where the speaker can perform each character's speeches in turn.

18.16-33

In 13.12, after Lot chooses to move to the area near Sodom, the narrator has noted that the people of this city were notoriously wicked. Now God decides that Abraham shall know his purposes for the wicked city. The account of God's words here may appear to the modern audience as an inward reflection. But it is presented as very much a spoken utterance of those thoughts, so that Abraham hears God's deliberations. Having decided that his actions are not to be concealed from Abraham, God tells him that he has heard an evil report of Sodom and Gomorrah, and has determined to find out whether the complaints about the city are justified. There is no suggestion here that God knows everything men do, but rather that he depends, as man does, on the evidence of his own eyes.

The men (in 19.1 they are two angels) leave for Sodom (the story has this detail twice - in verses 16 and 22) while Abraham disputes with the LORD about the fate of this city. God reassures Abraham that if he finds fifty good people there, he will not destroy it. Abraham asks what will happen if the number of righteous people is less, and in a dramatic series of questions and answers, haggles with God, who agrees that even for the sake of ten good people, he will spare the city, and not "sweep away the righteous with the wicked".

In this account, God determines to tell Abraham his intentions, and explains about the report of the wickedness of the cities of the plain, but at no point directly tells Abraham that he intends to destroy the cities. Yet Abraham, in his disputation, evidently knows this. Either the storyteller assumes that his audience understands that this is the kind of thing God does, or the writer of Genesis has omitted to include this detail because he takes it for granted. It is almost as if Abraham, as depicted in this chapter, already knows, as the storyteller and his audience do, what subsequently happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, which is the subject of the following chapter. Since the two men or angels go to Sodom while the LORD speaks to Abraham, the narrative suggests that the fate of the wicked cities is less important in itself than God's explanation of that fate to Abraham.

19.1-29

This section of Genesis relates the destruction of the wicked cities of the plain, and clearly depicts it as a judgement on the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. The modern reader may find that idea of a vengeful God to be implausible. But beneath it, we can see two strands of the narrative tradition that may be less problematic for us. One is an ancient memory of the terrible force of volcanic activity in the region around the Dead Sea. The other is an attitude to the practices of Israel's neighbours, and a traditional horror at the sexual mores of those other peoples in the region. The narrator connects these two things by the widely held theory that natural catastrophes are judgements and punishments sent by God. In Luke 13.1-4, Jesus suggests that both man-made and natural disasters are not judgements on the especially wicked, so much as a limited enactment of the punishment that everyone deserves.

Hitherto, Genesis has mentioned the wickedness of Sodom, without explaining what forms it took. Perhaps this is meant to imply a general depravity, the particular forms of which are varied and relatively unimportant, compared to the generally wicked condition of the people. Or perhaps the omitting of details is a convenient elision for an audience that already knows. In the narrative, the Sodomites attempt homosexual rape of the angelic visitors, who are Lot's guests. Some later and modern readers of the narrative interpret it selectively, and decide that the great wickedness lies in the homosexuality, rather than the rape or the offence against hospitality. They may assume, further, that the people of Sodom were wicked by being homosexual in the modern sense, rather than planning particular homosexual acts, as a way of dealing with strangers in their city. This is shown in the use in modern English of the city's name as an epithet for those who have homosexual intercourse - sodomites. (Interestingly, while Gomorrah is equally notorious for wickedness, the narrative does not tell whether this took the same form as in Sodom, or something else.)

Like Abraham, Lot extends hospitality to the strangers, whom he meets as he sits in the gateway of the city. This may reflect a tradition, reinforced by verse 9, that while living in Sodom, Lot did not become assimilated into the ways of the city. But he appears to have a house there, rather than live the nomadic life, as Abraham still does at this time. The house, moreover, is strong enough to keep out the men who surround it, prompting them to try to break down the door to force an entry. Their demand to have sexual relations with the men may relate to some kind of custom of admission, though there is no account of Lot's having had to undergo this experience. The statement that all the men of the city ("to the last man") are involved suggests that this is not the action of a few hotheads, but the will of the whole people. Lot goes out of the house, and offers his two virgin daughters as substitutes. When the Sodomites threaten Lot, the two men in the house bring him inside safely, and strike the would-be attackers with blindness, so that they cannot find the door.

The visitors reveal to Lot the purpose of their coming and the urgent need for Lot's family to escape. Lot warns his sons-in-law (betrothed to his daughters but not yet married to them) but they dismiss his advice as a joke. In spite of the imminent danger of destruction, the men stay till morning - perhaps the audience knows that the city gates would be locked, so flight by night would not be possible. But there is also a sense that, while their destructive task is urgent, the two men have the discretion to delay until Lot has reached a safe place of shelter - the city of Zoar. The men tell Lot that he should head for the hills, as no part of the plain is safe - perhaps reflecting an awareness that safety lies in distance from the area of devastation and in the availability of some kind of shelter. Lot's observation that Zoar is very little is meant to indicate that in sparing it, the men will not really be altering their plan to destroy the wicked cities of the plain. Why Lot is afraid of trying to reach the hills is not clear, but it may be that he thinks he will not reach them before the disaster overtakes him - that he will still be out in the open when the destruction begins. The deliberate nature of the catastrophe appears in the statement of one of the two men that he can "do nothing" until Lot is safely in Zoar. When they are outside the city, the angels tell Lot's family not to look back or stop anywhere in the Plain.

"Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire" - The New Oxford Annotated Bible glosses this as "...a memory of a catastrophe in remote times when seismic activity and the explosion of gases changed the face of the area, which was formerly fertile." Though modern archaeologists have found no trace of the cities of the plain, the result of this activity may well be that the remains of some ancient settlements are now beneath the waters of the Dead Sea. Lot's wife looks back, and is turned to a pillar of salt. The story may be intended to explain some of the strange rock formations found in the area. Or it could be a memory of an event like those in Pompeii, where falling lava encased people, preserving their form, at the moment of death, for later generations to witness.

Abraham sees the destruction from afar. The writer explains Lot's escape in terms of God's remembering Abraham - though it is not clear that Abraham knows that his nephew is safe.

19.30-38

Having come to Zoar, Lot becomes afraid of staying there, and moves into a hill cave. His daughters lie with him to have children. The elder daughter gives birth to Moab, the supposed ancestor of the Moabites; the child of the younger is Ben-ammi, supposed to be the ancestor of the Ammonites.

20.1-18

This story parallels the earlier account of Pharaoh's taking Sarah into his harem (12.10-20). Abraham moves to the land of King Abimelech of Gerar, and, fearing for his safety, claims that Sarah is his sister. Abimelech takes her into his house, but is warned by God in a dream that he faces death for taking a married woman. The last verse of the story adds the information that Abimelech's offence has led to temporary barrenness for all the women of his household. Abimelech reproaches Abraham, who here protests that Sarah is his (half) sister, since they have the same father. Abimelech gives Abraham livestock, slaves and a thousand silver pieces by way of compensation. Abraham now intercedes for Abimelech and God restores the womenfolk to fertility.

The storyteller seems to have forgotten that Sarah is at least ninety years old, so not very likely to attract Abimelech's interest. These two rather inconsistent narrative details perhaps come from different strands of tradition.

21.1-21

The earlier promise now comes true, and Sarah bears a son, Isaac. Seeing him, when he is weaned, playing with Ishmael (who ought to be a teenager, according to the chronology of earlier chapters), she insists that Abraham send Hagar and Ishmael away. They come to the wilderness, where Hagar, having run out of water, despairs of survival, until God reassures her that Ishmael will be the ancestor of a great nation. God leads her to a well, where she replenishes her water skin. Ishmael and his mother live in the wilderness, where the boy becomes a skilful archer. Hagar finds him an Egyptian wife.

21.22-34

This passage tells of Abraham's relations with Abimelech, and contains two explanations of the name of Beersheba - in one version Abraham swears an oath of loyalty, in the other he gives Abimelech seven ewe lambs as an act of witness to a covenant, which records Abraham's digging of the well. So Beersheba is explained as either the "well of the oath", or the "well of seven". In Beersheba Abraham plants a tamarisk tree and worships God under the divine name El-olam ("the everlasting God"). The narrator says that he stayed many days in the land of the Philistines - but at this time they had not arrived in this part of Canaan.

22.1-24

Now that Abraham has the promised son, God puts him to a test. He instructs Abraham to take Isaac to the land of Mariah, and offer him as a burnt sacrifice. Abraham obeys the instruction, taking Isaac with him, and making ready to sacrifice, until halted by God at the last moment, and told to sacrifice, instead, a ram that has been caught by its horns in a nearby thicket. Because of Abraham's obedience, God renews the earlier promise, after which Abraham, Isaac and their retinue go back to Beersheba. The chapter ends with an account of the children of Nahor, Abraham's brother. One of these, Bethuel, becomes the father of Rebekah who is to be Isaac's wife.

The main episode in this chapter is celebrated as the demonstration of Abraham's great faith. In the story, God praises him for his readiness to obey the command - but the story is otherwise restrained. Some of the later ideas about it are found in other books of the bible, and in the emerging early Christian tradition, but they are not explicit in the original story. There is no account, for example, of Abraham's thoughts or feelings. Whereas he disputes the fate of Sodom with God, he does not dispute God's instruction here. There is no suggestion here that Abraham has to overcome his feelings. He tells his servants that he and Isaac will come back to them, and he tells Isaac (who has evidently grown older since the account of his weaning and playing with Ishmael) that God will provide "the lamb for a burnt offering" - but there is no reason to suppose that he believes either statement. Comments on the story suggest that, while God could have known that Abraham was obedient, without such a test, Abraham did not himself know this, until required to do it. But there is no suggestion in the narrative of such an idea, which is introduced by later and modern commentators.

The story suggests, anyway, that Abraham does not have any doubts about himself, since he readily obeys, and seems not to value the boy's life greatly. The narrator also suggests that the test has been necessary for God to know Abraham's loyalty, in the phrase: "for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me". Although it is God who sets up the test, the narrative suggests that it is God, too, rather than Abraham, who sees most keenly the extremity of the sacrifice that Abraham is about to make. Strictly speaking, Isaac is not Abraham's only son - he also has Ishmael. But perhaps the narrator suggests that, since Ishmael has been sent away, Abraham no longer knows that he is alive, and so has no sense of him as a living son.

23.1-20

Sarah dies, at the age of a hundred and twenty-seven, and in order to obtain a suitable burial place, Abraham makes his first purchase of land in Canaan, the field of Ephron and the cave of Machpelah. This passage gives a detailed account of the transaction. Abraham asks for a burial site, and the Hittites (who own the property he wishes to secure) offer it to him. Abraham duly names the cave of Machpelah, and offers to pay the full price (so that he can secure legal title to it). Ephron the Hittite insists that the cave should not be split from the field, at the end of which the cave is situated. Abraham accepts this, but also insists that he pay the full price. Ephron suggests a value in passing - four hundred shekels of silver - and Abraham makes the payment. For this, he gets the field, the cave, and all the trees in the field.

24.1-67

Abraham, now very old, charges his servant with finding a son for Isaac, from among his own relations. The servant travels to Aram-naharaim (near Haran), Nahor's home, and there finds Rebekah, Abraham's niece. The servant negotiates a marriage, and brings Rebekah back with him. She takes Sarah's tent, and becomes Isaac's wife.

The story assumes that the servant will arrange Isaac's marriage for him. This is not a universal custom, since Jacob, his son, will later arrange his own marriages. When the servant points out the possibility that the bride of his choice may be unwilling to come to Canaan, Abraham insists that Isaac is not to go to his father's home. (In expressing this as going "back", the story reflects the narrator's and audience's sense of the identity of father and son; Isaac has never been there in his own person, but has been there vicariously through his father, so it makes sense to speak of his not going "back there".) Abraham is confident, anyway, that God will favour the matchmaking.

The servant devises a test that both measures the kindness of the person tested but also is meant to reveal God's intentions - he asks God to show "the one whom you have appointed for your servant Isaac". Immediately Rebekah arrives. She is beautiful and unmarried, and she passes the servant's test (by offering to provide him with water, but also to draw water for his animals - a considerable labour). Although Isaac is the heir of the rich chieftain Abraham, the story reflects a view of the world where women are judged not only by their appearance, but also by their attitude to others and their capacity for work. Rebekah is the ideal bride, as she is related to Isaac, beautiful, of the right age, kind and diligent. The servant is made welcome in the house of Rebekah's brother, Laban, where he declines the proffered hospitality until he has explained the purpose of his journey.

Laban and Bethuel agree to the marriage. (Elsewhere in the chapter Laban alone is mentioned.) The servant distributes the gifts he has brought, and there is a night of feasting. The custom appears to be to wait for ten days, but the servant asks to leave right away. Rebekah agrees to this, and, with her own maidservants, is sent on her way with great blessings. Isaac has apparently moved, and is settled in the Negeb. Rebekah sees him walking in the fields in the evening as she arrives with the servant, and on learning who he is, draws her veil over her face. The servant reports to Isaac what has happened (whereas it was Abraham who charged him with the task of matchmaking), but the storyteller gives no account of Isaac's meeting Rebekah, beyond the statement that he took her, that she became his wife and that he loved her.

25.1-18

This passage explains the ancestry of Arabic tribes, through Abraham and his second wife, Keturah. He also has other children by his concubines (slave women), but sends these away. At the age of 175, Abraham dies and his sons Isaac and Ishmael bury him in the cave of Machpelah, with Sarah. (This narrative seems to come from a different tradition from that which tells of Ishmael's earlier separation from his father's land.)

Isaac settles at Beer-lahai-roi. Ishmael has twelve sons (corresponding, like those of Jacob later, to twelve tribes), and dies at the age of 137.

25.19-34

After Abraham's death, the storyteller's interest moves to Isaac, and much more to his son, Jacob. Like many women in the Bible, Rebekah finds it difficult to conceive at first, but then, following Isaac's prayer, becomes pregnant with twins. This appears to cause her discomfort, so that she seeks guidance from God who tells her that she is the mother of two nations, and that the elder shall serve the younger. When the children are born, they are named Esau and Jacob. The names are partly explained by later events. Esau is both red in colour and hairy. The Hebrew word for red is a pun on the name of Edom, where the descendants of Esau later settled, while the word for hairy resembles the name of Seir, another name for the region where Esau's descendants settled. Jacob's name plays on the word "heel" or the phrase "catch by the heel". The storyteller says that the child did this literally at his birth, but the subsequent narratives will show the adult Jacob doing so metaphorically, while the storyteller and his audience know that later still Israel came to gain ascendancy over Edom. The folk tales about individuals, therefore, represent the general tribal history.

As well as being the ancestors of two nations, the boys embody two ways of life. Esau is a typical nomad and hunter, "a man of the field", living on what he can catch. Jacob is a settled shepherd, "quiet" (on peaceable terms with his neighbours) and "living in tents". To the modern reader, this might suggest that Jacob, too, has a transient existence - but the "tents" are a stable home, whereas Esau is continually on the move, following his quarry. Each of the parents has a favourite. Isaac prefers Esau, but Rebekah, who favours Jacob, is more resourceful in supporting his cause.

A second story about the two sons explains how Jacob obtains Esau's birthright - the right to lead the clan, and a double share of the inheritance. Esau comes in from hunting, to find Jacob preparing a lentil stew. He is hungry and asks for some of the food. Jacob insists that Esau must first sell him his birthright. Esau swears to do so, and Jacob feeds him. The lentil stew is described as "red stuff", which is again associated with the name of Edom.

The modern reader might disapprove of Jacob's trickery. The ancient storyteller does not praise Jacob for this, and the subsequent narratives tell a tale of adversity. But Esau is also at fault for his readiness to part with the birthright.

26.1-35

This is a collection of stories about Isaac. When a famine comes, God tells Isaac not to go to Egypt (as Abraham did in the same circumstances) but to the land that he "shall show" to him. This is Gerar, in the land of the Philistines. Like his father, Isaac passes off his wife as his sister (but cannot claim that this is true, as Abraham did). Abimelech, the king, sees Isaac fondling Rebekah, and rebukes Isaac for the deception, while issuing an edict that protects both Isaac and Rebekah.

Isaac becomes very wealthy, through his success in agriculture. This leads to some tension with his Philistine neighbours, who stop up the wells that Isaac uses. Abimelech tells Isaac he must leave, as he has become too powerful. Later, they dispute ownership of various wells. Isaac resolves the difficulty by relinquishing two wells and digging one more, so that there is enough water to go around.

Isaac goes to Beersheba, where God appears to him and promises to give him numerous descendants. Isaac makes an altar there, and his servants dig a well. (This passage closely resembles the earlier account of Abraham's digging a well in Beersheba, the ownership of which the Philistines dispute.)

Having earlier sent Isaac away, now Abimelech seeks him out, and makes a covenant with him. The same day Isaac's servant tells him about the well they have dug: this account explains the name as "well of the oath", by the oaths that Isaac and Abimelech have exchanged. Isaac is forty (25.20) when he marries; now Esau at the same age takes two wives, Judith and Basemath, both Hittites, who make life "bitter" for his parents.

27.1-45

This passage tells of how Jacob and Rebekah cheated Esau out of Isaac's death bed blessing. Isaac has grown old, and cannot see well. Anticipating his death, Isaac tells Esau to go and hunt, so he can prepare savoury food. This is to sustain Isaac as he gives the blessing. As soon as Esau has gone Rebekah (who has overheard Isaac) conspires with Jacob who is to pretend to be Esau, and so obtain the blessing. Jacob anticipates his father's feeling him, to tell who he is, so Rebekah provides the skins of kids to cover his smooth hands and neck. Rebekah makes savoury food with the same animals, and prepares bread.

Jacob takes this to Isaac and asks for the blessing. The old man, surprised that he should be back so quickly, asks about this, and Jacob blasphemously says that God has granted him success. He invites Jacob to come near so that he can feel him - and though he remarks that "the voice is Jacob's", he believes that the hairy hands must be those of Esau. Jacob gives him the food, along with wine, and kisses his father, who now pronounces the blessing, according to which he is to be prosperous, and the lord over his brothers. As soon as Jacob leaves his father, Esau arrives, bringing savoury food. When he asks for the blessing, Isaac realizes how he has been fooled. Esau asks for a blessing, too, but all that Isaac can now give him appears more as a curse - that he shall have a life of austerity and servitude, though with the suggestion that he will one day break free from that servitude.

Esau hates Jacob for what he has done, and plans to kill him when Isaac dies. Seeing this, Rebekah urges Jacob to go to Haran, and stay with Laban, her brother.

Compared to Abraham and Jacob, Isaac appears more briefly in Genesis. Some commentators see this episode as derived from a popular story. The ruse of Jacob and Rebekah relies on Isaac's not using his son's name in giving the blessing. The narrative reports him as referring to "my son" and "you", as he unwittingly blesses Jacob. There is no attempt to excuse the treachery of Rebekah and Jacob, in frustrating Isaac's wishes for the family. The storyteller and the audience share a belief in the effective power of the blessing: ""It was believed that the blessing, like the curse (v. 12) released a power that effectively determined the character and destiny of the recipient", according to The New Oxford Annotated Bible, which adds, of verse 34, "To appreciate the pathos of the scene it must be remembered that the spoken blessing, like an arrow shot towards its goal was believed to release a power which could not be retracted."

27.46-28.5

Rebekah complains to Isaac about Esau's Hittite wives, suggesting that Jacob should not also marry one of the local women. In accordance with her earlier suggestion to Jacob, Isaac now sends his younger son to Laban in Haran. This story appears to belong to a tradition different from that in the previous chapter: here Isaac freely blesses Jacob, and sees him as the heir to "the true line of succession from Abraham", A.S. Herbert, Genesis 12-50; Abraham and his heirs, p. 82.

28.6-9

Seeing how his parents disapprove of his Canaanite wives, Esau remedies the situation by marrying Isaac's niece, Mahalath, one of the daughters of Ishmael.

28.10-22

On his way to Laban, Jacob has a vision of God, and names the place where this happens as Beth-el ("House of God" - a place that was later to be a cult centre in Israel). In his vision, he sees a great ladder, "the top of it reaching to heaven". This was the aspiration of the builders of the tower of Babel. A.S. Herbert suggests: "It means...a stairway apparently resembling a Babylonian ziggurat or temple tower. The existence of some such structure at the sacred place produced the form of Jacob's dream." (Genesis 12-50; Abraham and his heirs, p. 86.)

God renews the promise made to Abraham and Isaac, to give Jacob's heirs the land where he is now lying, and to multiply those heirs "like the dust of the earth". On waking, Jacob sets up a pillar and pours oil on it. He makes a vow to serve the LORD, to make the place into God's house, and to give back to God a tenth (a tithe) of all that he receives from him. The offering of the oil and the promise of tithing may reflect the practices of a later time, known to the storyteller. The story accounts for the origin of the name of Beth-el, while also recording the older name for the place, Luz, which was still used in later times (Joshua 16.2, Judges 1.23, 26).

29.1-30

This passage tells how Jacob acquired his two wives. Following his father's instruction, Jacob comes to the land of the people of the East - here referring to the Arameans, of whom Laban was supposedly the ancestor. Coming to a well in a desert oasis where three flocks of sheep are gathered, Jacob establishes that the people there originate from Haran, and asks after his kinsman, Laban. They tell him that Laban is well, and that his daughter, Rachel, will soon arrive to water her sheep. When Jacob expresses surprise that the shepherds have not yet watered their animals, they explain that the custom is to wait for all the users of the well to be present before removing the stone that covers it - and to ensure that this happens, they have used a stone too heavy for one man to move. A.S. Herbert explains that this is:

"...a recognized custom with the force of law. Several clans have right of access to the well, so the well was only used when all were present in order that no suspicion of improper use by anyone should arise." Genesis 12-50; Abraham and his heirs, p. 89.

When Rachel arrives, Jacob infringes the custom, and moves the stone alone. (This verse, along with 28.18 and 32.25 appears to reflect a tradition that Jacob was unusually strong.) This might be risky, but perhaps the demonstration of his own strength and the connection to Laban were enough to keep Jacob safe from punishment for breaking the custom. When she finds out who this is, Rachel runs to tell Laban, who in turn runs to meet Jacob, and brings him into his house. At first, Jacob stays as a guest, but evidently is able to work, as Laban offers him payment in return for his labour. Jacob asks for Rachel's hand in marriage, in exchange for seven years' service. (Normally a suitor would make a payment, but Jacob has no means of doing so, without going back to his parents. He has not told Laban under what circumstances he has left home, but Laban is evidently happy with the arrangements - and may have more need, anyway, of skilled labour than of more money. At this point Laban appears to have no sons, so he may intend to acquire an heir through marriage - and thus keep his inheritance within the family. From Jacob's viewpoint the arrangement is also very satisfactory - in building up property for Laban, he may have an expectation that eventually, through marriage to Rachel, he will gain the property for himself. And meanwhile he can live safely away from the threat of retribution from Esau.)

Though Laban seems to appreciate having the service of this skilled shepherd, he also seems to be rather shrewd in dealing with him. In the story, we can contrast the trust or naivety of Isaac, which Esau shares and the guile of Laban and his sister Rebekah, which Jacob also has. Eventually the time comes for Jacob to marry Rachel. The bride is brought veiled to the ceremony, and Jacob discovers, when morning comes, that it is in fact her elder sister, Leah. Laban now explains that the custom requires the marriage of the firstborn before the younger. When the week (of the marriage festivity) is out, Jacob can marry Rachel, though Laban exacts another seven years of service for her, deeming the previous seven to have been the payment for Leah. This may seem disadvantageous to Jacob, but we should note that he can barely refuse Laban's offer. While he works for him, he can build up property that he expects to make his own eventually. And meanwhile he has an important position within the clan, which may become more secure as his wives bear sons. He may also foresee that things will change if Laban has sons and if the clan's flocks and herds grow too large to be managed as the property of a single family - as happened to Abraham and Lot. Both of these things will happen to Jacob in due course.

29.31-30.34

In a world where property can only normally belong to men (though women are often the means of bringing it to them, through bride prices, dowries and adoption of in-laws), the head of a family needs a son to survive him, and inherit. Having more sons can make the clan stronger, though this can also lead to internal strife and vying for position. Jacob is celebrated as the ancestor of Israel through the historic twelve tribes or clans each of which is descended from one of his sons. The Genesis narrative shows these as being the children of Leah (six sons), of Rachel (two) and of their maids Bilhah (Rachel's maid) and Zilpah (Leah's), each of whom bears two sons. The story reflects later history, especially in the accounts of the naming of the boys. We also read of one daughter, but should not suppose that the storyteller and his audience think that Jacob had thirteen children of whom only one was a girl. Rather, he mentions only one (Dinah) because she is the only one about whom there is a story to tell.

The storyteller depicts Leah's fertility as a recompense for Jacob's favour of Rachel. She becomes the mother of four sons, whose names are explained as follows:

Reuben: "see a son" (re-u ben);
Simeon: "has heard" (shama; Leah says, "the LORD has heard that I am hated");
Levi: "has joined" (lawah; "this time my husband will be joined to me"), and
Judah: "gave thanks".

Rachel, envious of her sister, demands children, but Jacob points out that he is not God, who has withheld offspring from her. She gives him her maid, Bilhah, who has two sons, Dan ("he has judged") and Naphtali ("wrestlings of" or "I have wrestled"). Leah, with whom Jacob has evidently ceased to have intercourse (as verses 15 and 16 show), does likewise, and Zilpah, her maid, bears Jacob Gad "good fortune") and Asher ("be happy").

When Reuben brings mandrakes to his mother (a plant believed to have aphrodisiac properties), Rachel asks Leah to give them to her, and recompenses her by promising that Jacob will lie with her. Apparently Jacob does so long enough for Leah to have three more children. Issachar's name is explained by a double word play, one part of which "connects it with Leah's giving the mandrakes to Rachel, the other with her giving her female slave to Jacob"(Genesis 12-50; Abraham and his heirs, p. 94). Zebulun is explained as a word play on "endow", "maintain" or "honour". There is no explanation offered for the name of Leah's daughter, Dinah.

Finally, Rachel's prayers are answered ("God heeded her") and she bears a son, Joseph. This is also explained by two kinds of word play: yasaph (to gather or take away; "God has taken away my reproach") and 'asaph (to add; "May the LORD add to me another son"). Rachel's wish will be granted, later, in the birth of Benjamin.

30.25-43

Jacob determines to move away from Laban, perhaps because his father-in-law now has sons of his own, and because Jacob sees no prospect of securing any independent wealth, or establishing his own clan while he stays with his kinsman. While Laban would wish to look after his own sons' inheritance, he would also feel an obligation to compensate Jacob for his many years of service - and it would be a loss of honour to him not to make a generous settlement. Jacob proposes what should be a fair solution - to divide the flocks according to the colour of the animals, so that he takes any that are striped or spotted, while Laban keeps those of uniform colour. Laban now tries to cheat Jacob, by removing the striped and spotted animals before Jacob can claim them, and hiding them many miles away. Jacob, however, has a ruse for ensuring that the offspring of breeding animals are striped and spotted, by showing them a series of rods (resembling stripes) as they breed. Later, he adapts the ruse, using it only when the strongest animals are breeding. By this means, he creates two flocks - one (presumably larger) of strong striped, speckled and spotted sheep and goats, and another of weaker animals of uniform colour. Although Jacob has not yet left Laban, he now has his own property and has become "exceedingly rich", in sheep, goats, donkeys and slaves of both sexes. At no point has the narrator explained the system of slavery, nor where the slaves came from. Perhaps he assumes that his audience will share a view of the world in which slaves are an everyday reality, but where individually they do not merit consideration, unless (as with Hagar and Abraham) they play a part in the story.

31.1-18

Having prepared to leave Laban, Jacob now does so. Laban's sons resent the way that he has become wealthy, and Laban, too, no longer regards Jacob as favourably as he once did. God tells Jacob that he should go back to the land of his ancestors. Now Jacob explains to his wives how he has struggled with their father, and how God "did not permit [Laban] to harm" him. He claims that it was God's will that the flocks should have borne speckled or striped offspring (this is a different tradition from that in 30.37-40, where it is Jacob's action that determines the way the flocks breed). He explains to Rachel and Leah that he has had a dream where God has shown him that the breeding of the goats is working in his favour, as God counteracts Laban's intention of harming his interests. In the dream, God has told him to return to the land of his birth.

Rachel and Leah agree with Jacob's explanation and his proposal: they recognize that the property their father has lost is now theirs by right. So they leave, and head for Isaac's home. We should note that, while Leah is the elder or senior wife, the name of Rachel appears first in this chapter, reflecting her more honoured position in Jacob's sight. This may be a formal matter of status, as 30.15 suggests, since it appears that Leah has no automatic right to sexual relations with Jacob, but that Rachel can direct him to sleep with Leah.

31.19-55

We learn here that Jacob leaves without telling Laban (who is busy with sheep shearing), while Rachel takes with her the household gods that are meant to confer leadership of the family. Three days later, Laban learns what has happened, and pursues Jacob, catching up with him after seven days in the hill country of Gilead.

In a dream God warns Laban against harming Jacob, or even saying anything to him. Nevertheless Laban reproaches Jacob for leaving secretly, rather than with feasting, and asks why he has stolen the household gods. Not knowing that Rachel has taken them, Jacob says that anyone with whom Laban finds them shall not live. Rachel has hidden them in a camel's saddle on which she sits, saying that she cannot get up, as it is the time of her menstruation. When Laban fails to find the missing gods, Jacob reproaches him for his behaviour during the twenty years that he has served him, suggesting that without God's help, Laban would have sent him away empty-handed. Laban protests that everything Jacob has comes from him, but accepts that he cannot change things, and makes a covenant with him. Together they set up a pillar or make a cairn of stones (two traditions appear to be condensed together here), which Laban calls Jegar-sahadutha while Jacob calls it Galeed. This means "the heap of witness" in their respective languages of Aramaic and Hebrew. This is to be a boundary between their territory, and neither shall pass it to harm the other. Jacob offers a sacrifice. Next morning Laban kisses his grandchildren and his daughters, and returns home.

32.1-32

Jacob comes to the country of Gilead. Here he meets a company of angels. He names the place Mahanaim. Later Ish-bosheth was to be crowned there (2 Samuel 2.8) - suggesting that it became a cult centre.

Heading towards the territory of his brother Esau, Jacob sends a conciliatory message ahead, but is alarmed when his messengers return to tell him that Esau is coming to meet him with four hundred men. Jacob first divides all his possessions, supposing that at least one half may escape any retribution from Esau. Then he prays to God for deliverance, and prepares a series of presents of livestock, to go before him. Of this meeting, A.S. Herbert notes:

"Since Esau is already settled in Edom there would appear to be no necessity for this meeting on geographical grounds. The necessity is presented in terms of personal relationships." Genesis 12-50; Abraham and his heirs, p. 104.

In the night Jacob wrestles with a man, who strikes Jacob's hip, putting it out of joint, yet Jacob has immense strength and refuses to let go of his adversary. As day is about to break the man insists that Jacob should let him go - this reflects an ancient belief that some kinds of being have to vanish before sunrise. Jacob demands that his opponent bless him. The mysterious wrestler asks Jacob's name, then tells him he shall now be known as Israel ("the one who strives with God" or simply "God strives"). Though the stranger does not tell his own name directly, this is a clue to his identity and Jacob decides that he has seen God, and names the place Peniel ("the face of God"), which later became Penuel, a cult centre. It is by the ford of Jabbok, a river crossing, on the threshold of the land of Canaan. The spraining of Jacob's hip is used to explain the later Israelite taboo on eating the thigh muscles of animals.

33.1-20

Jacob prepares to meet Esau, by placing the two maids (Bilhah and Zilpah) in front of his family group, followed by Leah and her children, then Rachel with Joseph. He goes ahead of them all, bowing seven times as he approaches his brother. Esau runs to meet Jacob, and kisses him. Both men weep, as they are reconciled to each other. Jacob presses Esau to accept the gifts that he at first will not take. But when Esau offers to travel in company with him, Jacob declines, suggesting that his flocks and nursing mothers cannot keep up with Esau. Jacob says that they should go at their own pace and join Esau in Seir (Edom). He also declines the further offer Esau makes to leave some of his people with Jacob.

Jacob does not go to Edom, but to Succoth then on to Shechem where he buys some land, and sets up an altar, calling it El-Elohe-Israel ("God, the God of Israel" - here the Canaanite divine name, El, occurs three times).

34.1-31

Shechem (here a person with the same name as the city), a prince of the Hivites, rapes Jacob's daughter, Dinah, but falls in love with her, and asks his father, Hamor, to arrange his marriage to her. Jacob learns of the violation of Dinah, but waits till his sons (now adults) come back from working in the fields. Hamor duly arrives to negotiate marriage terms, offering Jacob the chance of mutual trade, and further intermarriage between the clans. Shechem, in turn, offers to provide any presents for which Jacob asks. His sons deceitfully ask that all the males in Shechem (the city) be circumcised. The Shechemites comply with this request, but three days later Simeon and Levi (full brothers of Dinah) attack the city and kill all the males there. Jacob's other sons then join them in plundering the city. Jacob protests that his sons' actions have made the clan vulnerable to the surrounding peoples (who may now see them as more of a threat than if they had lived in peace with their neighbours). Simeon and Levi justify themselves by referring to Shechem's earlier treatment of Dinah.

This appears to be a narrative in which individuals stand for clans or tribal groups. According to The New Oxford Annotated Bible: "The story portrays, in the guise of individuals, relations between the Canaanite city and early Hebrew tribes". A.S. Herbert (Genesis 12-50; Abraham and his heirs, p. 111) suggests that Dinah was an Israelite tribe, settled in Shechem, where it lost its identity through conquest or intermarriage. The tribes of Simeon and Levi, in a covenant with Shechem, treacherously attacked the city, but this action aroused the hostility of the surrounding Canaanite peoples who defeated Simeon and Levi, so weakening them that they were absorbed into other Israelite tribes, and lost their distinctive identity.

35.1-29

God sends Jacob to Bethel, with instructions to build an altar there (according to 28.18 he has already erected a pillar and anointed it with oil). Before leaving, his household hide their foreign gods and earrings under a tree. As they travel, the surrounding peoples are struck by a "terror from God" - a panic fear that prevents any attack. Coming to Bethel, Jacob builds the altar and names the place El-Bethel ("God of the house of God"). Rebekah's nurse, Deborah, dies here and is buried under an oak, which is named Allon-bacuth ("the oak of weeping").

Verses 9 to 15 contain another account of God's re-naming Jacob as Israel, and of Jacob's setting up of the pillar in Bethel.

As they come near to Ephrath (later Bethlehem) Rachel goes into labour with her second son. She dies, but before doing so, she names him Ben-oni ("son of my sorrow"), which Jacob changes to the more propitious Benjamin ("son of the right hand" or "son of the south"). Reuben sleeps with Bilhah, and Jacob learns of this. (There is no comment at this point, but Jacob refers to it in his deathbed blessing of his sons; see 49.4). After a list of the names of Jacob's sons comes an account of Isaac's death, in Mamre (also known as Kiriath-arba or Hebron) at the age of 180. Apparently both Jacob and Esau bury him.

36.1-43

This chapter is a list of the descendants of Esau. The storyteller may wish to explain the later development of Edom, which became a monarchy some time before Israel. Whereas 26.34 names Esau's first two (Hittite) wives as Judith and Basemath, and 28.9 names his third (Ishmaelite) wife as Mahalath, here they appear as Adah (a Hittite), Oholibamah (a Hivite) and Basemath, who now appears as Ishmael's daughter, in place of Mahalath.

37.1-36

In this chapter the story of Joseph begins. At seventeen he works as a shepherd with his older brothers, helping Dan, Naphtali, Gad and Asher (the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah) of whom he brings a bad report to Jacob. His father, meanwhile, favouring Joseph above all his other children, as "the son of his old age", has made him a special long robe with sleeves. In a note to verse 3, The New Oxford Annotated Bible says: "It would be impossible to undertake any manual labour while wearing it. The garment may also symbolize a royal claim." This explains why the other brothers come to hate Joseph, and cannot "speak peaceably to him".

Jacob has two dreams, which he relates to his brothers. In one, he and they are binding sheaves in the field, when their sheaves come and bow down to his sheaf. In another, the sun, moon and eleven stars are bowing down to him. When he tells this to his father, Jacob rebukes him, interpreting the dream to mean that he and Rachel and the eleven brothers will come and bow down to Joseph.

The sequel appears to combine two similar narratives of how Joseph is sold into slavery. In one tradition he is taken by Midianites, while in the other he is sold to Ishmaelites; in one Judah dissuades his brothers from killing Joseph, while in the other Reuben takes the lead. A.S. Herbert (Genesis 12-50; Abraham and his heirs, p. 124) suggests that the variant traditions are evidence that this was a well-known story, "repeated in different circles with minor variations".

Jacob sends Joseph to join his brothers near Shechem, and report back to him how they are. He finds they have moved on to Dothan. They see him coming from a long way off (perhaps because of the distinctive robe (which would remind them of his special treatment and his not expecting to do any manual work with them). They decide to kill him, but first throw him into a pit (this would probably be a rain water cistern, with a narrow opening - to prevent evaporation - above a broader base; anyone inside could come out only with assistance). The brothers also strip Joseph of his robe. Midianites or Ishmaelites take him from the pit and on to Egypt, where Potiphar, one of Pharaoh's officers, and a captain of the guard, buys him as a slave. The brothers take the robe and dip it into the blood of a goat. They send it to Jacob, who concludes that "a wild animal has devoured" Joseph.

38.1-30

Before continuing the story of Joseph, Genesis has an interlude concerning Judah and Tamar, his daughter-in-law. While staying near Hirah, an Adullamite (he is from Adullam, near Bethlehem), Judah married the daughter of Shua, a Canaanite, who bears him three sons, Er, Onan and Shelah. When Er grew up, Judah married him to Tamar. Er was "wicked in the sight of the Lord" (the narrator does not say how) and God put him to death. Following the custom of Levirate marriage, it was the duty of Onan to raise up an heir for his brother. Onan, knowing "that the offspring would not be his", "spilled his semen on the ground" (apparently practising coitus interruptus) whenever he had intercourse with Tamar. This displeased God, who had him put to death also. Instead of marrying Tamar to his third son, Shelah, Judah, fearing that he, too, would die, insisted that she wait till he grew up. After some time, Judah's wife died. Tamar, seeing that Shelah was now grown up, and had not been given her in marriage, resorted to a ruse: she sat by the roadside, with her face hidden, so that Judah took her for a prostitute, and had intercourse with her, promising payment of a kid. As a pledge of this payment, Judah gave her his signet ring and the cord to which it was attached, along with his staff. Tamar left before the payment could be made, and Judah, fearing ridicule, did not pursue the matter further. After three months, Judah learned that Tamar was pregnant, and decreed that she should be burned to death. But by showing Judah the signet, cord and staff, to prove that she was pregnant by him, she demonstrated her own righteousness in fulfilling the requirement of the Levirate law, and Judah recognized that she was "more in the right" than him in this matter.

Tamar gave birth to the twins, Perez and Zerah. Apparently Zerah put out his hand, and the midwife tied a cord around it, but then he drew back and his brother was born first - his name, Perez, means "a breach".

Many details in the ancient narrative may strike modern audiences as unjust, but the lack of explanation indicates that the original storyteller and his audience shared an understanding of morality and customs, according to which the events of the story were quite normal. They may also have understood, as A.S. Herbert suggests that the individuals in the story stand for tribes, and that:

"It indicates the manner in which the tribe of Judah established itself in the South by making alliance with Canaanite elements, how for a time it was in danger of disappearing but was able through further Canaanite alliance to establish itself and so give rise to the important clans of Perez and Zerah." Genesis 12-50; Abraham and his heirs, p. 125,

39.1-23

This chapter returns to the story of Joseph, repeating the account of how Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, and captain of the guard bought him from the Ishmaelite slave traders. Potiphar, pleased with Joseph's service, appointed him as overseer of his house. When Potiphar's wife asked him to have intercourse with her, Joseph refused. Being thwarted, she accused him of attempted rape, and he was thrown into prison. Here, too, he prospered, as the chief jailer put him in charge of all the other prisoners.

40.1-23

In 37.5-7 and 9 Joseph relates his own dreams. Here he interprets those of others. Pharaoh, being angry with his chief cupbearer and chief baker, had both put in the prison. In one night both had dreams that troubled them. Joseph gave the meaning of the dreams. The cupbearer dreamed of a vine with three branches, which ripened into grapes that he pressed into Pharaoh's cup. Joseph explained that the three branches were three days, at the end of which the cupbearer would be restored to Pharaoh's service - adding the request that the cupbearer should intercede with Pharaoh on his behalf. The baker dreamed of three cake baskets on his head, the uppermost filled with baked food for Pharaoh, which the birds were eating. Joseph said that the three baskets were three days, at the end of which Pharaoh would lift up the baker's head from him, and hang him on a pole while the birds would eat his flesh. Three days later, Pharaoh gives a feast - restoring the cupbearer to his previous office, and having the baker hanged. The cupbearer, however, forgets about Joseph.

In verse 15, Joseph says that he was taken from the land of the Hebrews. This is an anachronism since, at the time of the story, this area was the land of Canaan.

41.1-57

Here Joseph interprets Pharaoh's dreams. For the third time in the narratives about Joseph the dreams come in a pair. First Pharaoh dreams of seven fat cows, followed by seven ugly and thin cows that swallow the first seven. Then he dreams of seven plump ears of corn, followed by seven thin and blighted ears that swallow them up. When Pharaoh relates the dream none of his wise men can interpret its meaning. The cupbearer, however, now recalls how Joseph interpreted his dream and that of the baker. Pharaoh sends for Joseph, who explains that the interpretation does not come from him, but from God. When Pharaoh tells him of the two dreams, Joseph explains how they both mean the same thing - that there will be seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph also advises Pharaoh to find a wise man and set him over Egypt, as well as overseers who will gather a fifth of the produce in each of the years of plenty, and use this as a reserve for the years of famine.

Pharaoh believes the interpretation, and decides to follow this advice - giving Joseph the high office suggested, a new Egyptian name (Zaphenath-paneah) and a wife, Asenath, daughter of the priest of On. (On was a city, the centre of sun worship, north of Cairo.) Before the years of famine come, she bears him two sons Manasseh ("making to forget") and Ephraim (from a word meaning "to be fruitful"). The story has occasional indications of time: Joseph was seventeen when he brought an evil report of his brothers (37.2), two years pass from the restoration of the cupbearer to Pharaoh's dreams (41.1) and in 41.46, we read that Joseph was thirty when he entered Pharaoh's service.

During the seven years of plenty Joseph stores the surplus grain, which becomes too much to measure. When the famine comes, Joseph opens the storehouses and provides grain for Egypt, and also sells it to neighbouring peoples.

42.1-38

The story returns to Jacob and his other sons, now suffering from the famine. Learning that there is grain in Egypt, Jacob sends all but the youngest, Benjamin, to buy some. When the brothers arrive, Joseph recognizes them and questions them. Evidently the ten men have no idea that this is Joseph. This is plausible, since they suppose him to be dead, many years have passed, he is clean-shaven and dressed in the Egyptian manner, and he speaks to them through an interpreter: as a result they speak about him, in his hearing, without realizing that he understands what they say.

Joseph speaks harshly to his brothers, accusing them of being spies. To establish their credentials, they tell him of their father and other two brothers (one supposed dead, the other with Jacob in Canaan). Joseph decides that one of them (he chooses Simeon) shall be kept as hostage, while the others go home, and return with the youngest brother. Joseph arranges for the money his brothers have paid for the grain to be put back in their sacks, and also for them to be given provisions for their journey home. As they leave, one of the brothers (not named) opens his sack and finds the money in it. When they arrive home, and tell Jacob of what has happened, they see that all of them have had their money returned. Jacob reproaches the brothers for what has happened to Joseph and now to Simeon, and despite reassurances from Reuben, refuses to allow his sons to go back with Benjamin.

43.1-34

As the famine continues, Jacob's household uses up the grain from Egypt. When he tells his sons to go back for more, Judah explains that they cannot do so unless they take Benjamin. Jacob now agrees to this, and that Benjamin may go, but insists that they take with them a present for the Egyptian official (Joseph) of "choice fruits of the land". They also take double money - the previous amount that they found in their sacks and payment for the new supply of grain. When they come to Egypt, Joseph (having treated them roughly on their first visit) now invites them to dine with him. He insists that he received their money previously, and that "God...must have placed treasure" in their sacks.

Receiving their gift, Joseph asks his brothers about their father. Seeing "his mother's son" (that is his only full brother), Benjamin, he is "overcome with affection", and goes out to weep in private before washing his face and controlling himself. The brothers are seated according to their age, and are amazed. As they dine, Joseph has choice portions taken to them from his table, and Benjamin's is five times greater than those of the others. As ritual laws of purity required, the brothers eat by themselves, Joseph eats alone, and the Egyptians present also eat by themselves. (There appear to be separate dining areas in a common room. As Joseph would presumably already have this arrangement for himself and his Egyptian household, the situation simply includes another separate area for the Hebrew guests.)

44.1-34

Here Joseph sets a final test for his brothers. He tells his steward to put back their money, as before, and also to put his silver cup (used for divining) into Benjamin's sack. When the brothers leave, Joseph sends the steward after them to accuse them of the theft of the cup. When the steward makes the accusation, the brothers protest their innocence, saying that anyone who has the cup should die, while the rest will be ready to become slaves. The steward mitigates this to the enslavement only of the person who has the cup, while the others will be allowed to go free. The search begins with the eldest, and ends with the youngest, Benjamin, in whose sack the cup is found. All of the brothers go back to the city. (Though the story is set in Egypt, there is no account of where exactly the events happen, and we do not know which city is meant here. In 45.10, however, Joseph indicates that it is near the land of Goshen.)

The brothers come to Joseph's house, where Judah replies to Joseph's accusation with an account of all that has happened to Jacob and his sons. Judah says that all of the brothers will become Joseph's slaves, but Joseph insists that this should happen to Benjamin only. Judah explains how his father's life "is bound up in the boy's life" (that is, in Benjamin's life) and asks that he should be the one to bear the punishment. He implies that this is just, since he has offered himself as surety to Jacob for Benjamin's safety.

45.1-28

Now at last, Joseph sends out his servants, and reveals to his brothers his true identity. Seeing their dismay, he reassures them that what has happened has been ordered by God for the good. He tells them that they must go to Jacob and bring him and all of their families back to Egypt (specifically to the land of Goshen, where they will be near him; this indicates that Joseph's city, which presumably is also Pharaoh's capital, is in the Nile Delta, where Goshen lies). Embracing Benjamin, and then all his other (half) brothers, he weeps, and talks with them.

Learning of what has happened, the Pharaoh encourages the brothers to settle in Egypt, recommending that they take wagons in which to bring their households, but not to worry about possessions, since "the best of all the land of Egypt" will be theirs. Joseph organizes these wagons and loads them with provisions and garments. (He also enjoins them not to quarrel on the way. This might seem unlikely in such happy circumstances, but the narrator and his audience may well see the possibility that on a long journey the brothers might discuss their guilt for their earlier treatment of Joseph, and attempt to apportion blame.)

When the brothers arrive with the news of Joseph's survival and elevated position in Egypt, Jacob is understandably incredulous. He is convinced by the detailed account of what Joseph has said (presumably about his experiences in Egypt) and by the arrival of the wagons.

In verse 11, Joseph says that there are five more years of famine to come, which means that there have already been two such. Since he was thirty (41.46) when he entered Pharaoh's service, and there have been seven years of plenty followed by the first two years of famine, this would make him thirty-nine.

46.1-34

This chapter tells how Jacob comes to Egypt, where he will die. First, he goes to Beersheba, where God speaks to him in a vision, and reassures him that he should indeed go to Egypt. Though Jacob does not leave Egypt alive, God's promise to bring him up again is not invalid, since the ancient storyteller would understand this to be fulfilled in a corporate sense, in his descendants, the nation of Israel. It is worth noting in Genesis that visions differ from dreams: in the former God speaks directly and clearly; the latter are cryptic, and reveal information indirectly, as they are interpreted.

Jacob sets off with his whole family, and comes to Egypt. Verses 8 to 27 list their names (Jacob's sons and grandsons). This appears to be an insertion of a traditional genealogy, since it includes the names of Joseph and his sons, who are already in Egypt. Joseph meets Jacob in Goshen. He also advises his brothers on what to say to Pharaoh. Telling him that they are shepherds - an occupation "abhorrent" to Egyptians, will suggest to him the wisdom of setting them apart in Goshen.

47.1-12

Joseph presents five of his brothers to Pharaoh, to whom they explain their occupation and their wish to settle in Goshen. Pharaoh gives permission to Joseph, and asks that any capable men among the brothers should take charge of his livestock. Next Joseph presents Jacob, who is now a hundred and thirty, but tells Pharaoh that the years of his life have been "few and hard", not to be compared with those of his ancestors. Jacob blesses Pharaoh. The family settles in Goshen, also known as the Land of Rameses, where Joseph supplies them with food.

47.13-26

As the famine continues, the people of Egypt buy grain from Joseph. When their money is gone, they exchange their livestock, and when they have no more animals to barter, they offer themselves and their land. The people become tenants or serfs. They continue to farm the land, using the grain provided by Joseph, but now give a fifth of the harvest to Pharaoh. The priests alone retain their land, as Pharaoh has given them a fixed allowance of grain, on which they are able to live during the famine, and so do not need to use it to pay for food.

47.27-31

The families of Israel settle in Goshen and prosper there. Jacob lives for a further seventeen years in Egypt, reaching the age of a hundred and forty-seven. As he prepares to die, he makes Joseph promise to bury him with his ancestors.

48.1-22

Joseph takes his sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to Jacob, on his deathbed, where Jacob blesses and adopts the sons, giving them a status equal to his own eldest sons, Reuben and Simeon. In blessing his grandsons, Jacob crosses his hands. When Joseph reproaches him, Jacob explains that, while both will prosper, Ephraim "shall be greater" than his brother. In the final verse of this chapter, Jacob bequeaths the city of Shechem to Joseph. Given the circumstances in which he does so, the blessing anticipates a later historical situation as known to the storyteller and his audience. This last verse also suggests that Jacob has taken Shechem by force, in contrast to the narrative in 33.19-20, where Jacob comes to Shechem in peace, and in Chapter 34, where he protests against his sons' attack on the city.

49.1-33

Now Jacob blesses each of his sons individually, in a poem, which, according to The New Oxford Annotated Bible, "portrays the character of the tribes in the person of their ancestors". Sometimes this is more censure than blessing, as with Reuben, the firstborn, who has lost his pre-eminent position through moral weakness. A.S. Herbert notes that:

"Historically...the Reubenites settled early east of the Dead Sea and were a strong tribe. But constant wars with the Moabites reduced them to insignificance by the time of David...Later in the monarchy period its territory became part of Moab." Genesis 12-50; Abraham and his heirs, p. 152

Simeon and Levi are together censured for their warlike nature. Later they lost their distinctive territory. Simeon was absorbed into Judah. Levi, however, became a Priestly class, enjoying high status in Israel - but the tradition here in Genesis gives no account of the connection between the tribe and the later priesthood.

The blessing of Judah is obscure in some details, but generally celebrates the pre-eminence of the tribe.

Zebulun is depicted as engaged in trade on the Phoenician coast. The oracle for Issachar suggests that the tribe has become subservient, and reduced to vassalage.

Dan is celebrated for gaining power while Gad is approved for fighting off marauders.

Asher, settled in western Galilee, is depicted as fortunate. Naphtali is likened to "a doe let loose that bears lovely fawns", suggesting the ideas, The New Oxford Annotated Bible says, "of freedom, agility and vitality".

Joseph is celebrated for prosperity and strength. Whereas the other oracles apparently refer to a later time, this passage seems to look back to the time before Joseph divided into the tribes of his sons, Manasseh and Ephraim.

Finally, the warlike tribe of Benjamin is likened to a ravenous wolf, attacking its prey in the morning and the evening.

Many of the oracles contain word play on the names of the tribes.

Jacob speaks his last words, instructing his sons to bury him with his ancestors in the cave in the field at Machpelah near Mamre, and then dies.

50.1-26

Before taking Jacob for burial, Joseph followed the Egyptian custom of embalming the body for forty days, and mourning for seventy days. After obtaining permission from Pharaoh, Joseph left with a great company. Verses 5, 11 and 12 appear to come from a separate tradition according to which Jacob had made his own tomb east of the Jordan. The narrative here tells how Joseph brought Jacob's body to Machpelah, and buried him there, returning to Egypt.

After Jacob's death, the other brothers fear that Joseph may punish them for the wrongs that they did him previously, and pass on a message, supposedly from Jacob, pleading for clemency. They follow this with their own plea for forgiveness, and offer themselves as Joseph's slaves. Joseph is distressed and reassures them that God has used their bad intention for good, "in order to preserve a numerous people".

Joseph lives to the age of a hundred and ten, to see the third generation of Ephraim's family, and to adopt the children of Machir, his grandson (son of Manasseh).

Before he dies, Joseph tells his brothers how God will bring them out of the land. He also gives instructions for his remains to be taken away when this happens. After he dies, Joseph is embalmed and placed in a coffin in Egypt.

Since Joseph is the second youngest of Jacob's sons, the conclusion to this chapter supposes that some of the other brothers are longer-lived - unless "brothers" here refers to the families of Jacob's other sons.

DfES Standards Site
BBC Education
BBC Education's Bookcase site
BBC revision site
Public Broadcasting Service
Public Broadcasting Service Arts site
European Virtual School
Virtual Library

AcademicInfo
LearnCo
Homework High
Google
Excite
Altavista
Yahoo
MSN

Lycos
Metacrawler
AOL
HotBot
iWon
Netscape
Ask Jeeves
About

Monstercrawler
Looksmart
Dogpile
Raging Search
All the web
Go
GoTo
Go2Net

Tools from www.freefind.com: Site Map · What's New · Search
Site search engine from Freefind at www.freefind.com.
Traffic analysis from Hitbox at www.hitbox.com