The Original Primeval History of the Hebrews

For fuller argumentation and earlier scholarship, see David M. Carr, The Formation of Genesis 1–11: Biblical and Other Precursors (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020). The following notes include limited pointers to relevant discussions. The translations were adapted from David M. Carr, Genesis 1–11 (IECOT; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2021).

Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, 4th ed. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963 [orig. 1872, 1876]), 10–14.

B. Zevachim 113b; Nid. 61a; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and, more extensively, Pirqe R. El. 23:8 and Yalqut – Noah 55. My thanks to Malka Strasberg Edinger, a Ph.D. student at Jewish Theological Seminary, for calling these traditions to my attention.

For this fragment, see W. G. Lambert and Alan Millard, Atra-Ḫasīs: The Babylonian story of the Flood (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969), 128–129. See also Gilgamesh XI:86. Editor’s note: On the preservation of pre-flood knowledge, see Nadav Sharon, “Antediluvian Knowledge,” TheTorah (2018).

For the likely redactional origins of language for Noah’s family in Genesis 7:7, see August Dillmann, Die Genesis, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 11 (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1892), 143 (ET 276–277); Karl Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen. 1–12,5) (Giessen: Ricker, 1883), 258; and Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 146.

Building on the work of Samuel Löwenstamm and Arnold Ehrlich, see Zev Farber, “Noah’s Original Identity: The First Winemaker,” TheTorah (2015).

For another discussion of this connection, see Idan Dershowitz, “Noah, Hero of the Great Primeval Famine,” TheTorah (2019).

Carr, Genesis 1–11, 281. Editor’s note: For other solutions of the Ham/Noah problem, see Tzemah Yoreh, “Noah’s Four Sons,” TheTorah (2014); Zev Farber, “Noah’s Nakedness: How the Canaan-Ham Curse Conundrum Came to Be,” TheTorah (2015); David Frankel, “Noah, Ham and the Curse of Canaan: Who Did What to Whom in the Tent?” TheTorah (2017).

Biblical scholars have recognized for over a century the Mesopotamian precursors of the P and non-P strands, though certain newer insights from recent decades have begun to sharpen our picture of what the oldest layer of the non-P primeval history looked like.

This strand consists of Gen 2:4b–4:26 and 5:29 along with a strand of the flood narrative (e.g. Gen 6:5–8; 7:1–4 and fragments up to 8:20–22), and the story of Noah and his sons (Gen 9:18–27). Notably, the Priestly strand of Genesis also includes etiological elements. It starts with a seven-day creation narrative (Gen 1:1–2:3) that connects Sabbath observance to God’s ceasing of creation work on the seventh day (2:2–3), and P’s flood narrative concludes with norms surrounding human eating of meat (9:2–4) and prohibition of homicide (9:5–6).

In contrast, the flood story seems to be integral to the later Priestly text.

Carr, Genesis 1–11, 283–286.

Starting with 4Q252 (4QCommentary on Genesis) 1:1–3 (see also Targum Onqelos and Neophyti, etc.), many interpreters have taken 6:3 to relate not to a limit of an individual lifespan, but to a 120-year grace period between YHWH’s judgment and YHWH’s extinction of humans in the flood if they failed to repent. Nevertheless, as noted by Umberto Cassuto (A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Pt. 1. From Noah to Avraham, trans. Israel Abrahams [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964], p. 297), there is no mention whatsoever of the flood in 6:3 itself, nor does the subsequent flood narrative refer back to Gen 6:1–3 or a lack of repentance. This is an early harmonizing reading that deals with the fact that some age notices following the flood (e.g. for Noah himself in Gen 9:29) have figures living longer than 120 years.

Annette Zgoll, “Einen Namen will ich mir machen,” Saeculum 54 (2003): 1–11; Ellen Radner, Die Macht des Namens: Altorientalische Strategien zur Selbsterhaltung, SANTAG no. 8 (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2005), especially 74–118.

For further discussion of this expression and diverse approaches to it, see Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 208–213.

See Carr, Genesis 1–11, 283–286 for discussion of the focus of the story on father-son relations (rather than a sexual misdeed) and connections to Genesis 2–3 and 4:1–16.

Again, see Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 74–77, 208–209, and 213 for discussion of ethnic associations of these primeval texts.

See Moshe Garsiel, Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns, trans. Phyllis Hackett (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1991 [1987 original]), especially 170 on the latent interpretation of Canaan’s name in 9:25–27 (cf. Judg 4:23).

Editor’s note: See John Day, “The Mesopotamian Origin of the Biblical Flood Story,” TheTorah (2020); and Shalom E. Holtz, “The Flood Story in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context,” TheTorah (2014).

This feature was noted by the Zohar 67b–68a, which contrasted Noah’s complete lack of protest of the divine resolution to destroy (Gen 6:17; 7:4) with Abraham’s and Moses’s counter-arguments to similar resolutions (Gen 18:16–32; Exod 32:7–14).

The Tower of Babel account and Nimrod tradition are distinguished from the other non-P primeval materials by their location in specific, historic places in Mesopotamia and apparent knowledge of aspects of Mesopotamian empires. Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 238–242.

The material about Nimrod likely followed the Tower of Babel materials, with Nimrod only later made an additional one of Ham’s offspring as part of the conflation of P and non-P. For treatment of these and other broader issues about the formation of non-P materials in Genesis 10, see Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 178–222.

See Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 237–238 for further contrasts between these layers and discussion of dating.

See Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 233–236 for summary of some considerations.

Of course, detecting such a redactional supplementation is quite difficult. We know from documented cases of textual growth that layers in supplemented works are difficult to detect (unless you have an earlier version). And that’s one reason why we’ll never achieve the sort of consensus on the existence of an early, non-flood primeval history equivalent to the longstanding consensus on distinguishing P and non-P source strands in the primeval history. That said, if it is even possible to go further in discerning the early history of Genesis, and I would argue that this idea of an early, non-flood primeval history ending with Noah’s grandsons will remain one of the most probable options. See Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 83–114 for discussion of additional evidence from a Genesis Toledot book and p. 251 for reflections on its possible dependence on the earlier non-P primeval history, paralleling its scope but adding a pre- and post-flood motif from its model, (a late version of) the Sumerian King List tradition.

This tendency to retroject general human evil from the Gen 6:5–7 flood prologue into the garden of Eden story is not only evident in numerous Christian traditions of a “fall” and “original sin”, but possibly also in the Qumran paraphrase of Genesis and Exodus (4Q422), that places יוצר רע (“evil inclination”, 1:12) in close proximity to human rebellion in the garden (1:9–11). Torleif Elgvin, “The Genesis Section of 4Q422 (4QParaGenExod),” DSD 1 (1994): 180–196 [at 184–185, 187]; Mark S. Smith, The Genesis of Good and Evil: The Fall(out) and Original Sin in the Bible (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2018), 24–27.

In addition, other themes of this non-P primeval material include its wisdom elements (e.g. Gen 2:17; 4:7) and related focus on proper family, and especially parent-child (e.g. Gen 9:20–24) relations (Carr, Formation of Genesis 1–11, 229–230), and the mortal line separating humans from divine beings. David M. Carr, “Looking at Historical Background, Redaction and Possible Bad Writing in Gen 6,1–4: A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis,” BN 181 (2019): 9–10.

^[28] In this sense, it runs in a similar direction to prophetic texts like Amos 7:1–6 and Hosea 11 (more clearly produced in response to imperial trauma) that depict YHWH relinquishing his right to destroy his beloved people. See Jan Christian Gertz, “Noah und die Propheten: Rezeption und Reformulierung eines altorientalischen Mythos,” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 81 (2007): 503–522 [here 519–522].