Reading Genesis

Julie Galambush is the Walter G. Mason Distinguished Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Emerita, at The College of William and Mary. This volume is a component of the Smyth & Helwys Reading the Old Testament [ROT] series; Mark Biddle is the series general editor. A seven-page “Works Cited” section is the only index in the book. Apparently, a publication decision resulted in including neither a subject index nor a reference index; either or both would be an asset. Twenty-two, by my count, “mini-excurses” are scattered throughout the book at strategically located places; these address a range of topics germane to the current discussion. Biddle makes the point that the focus of the ROT is that of the counterpart RNT, which is reading the text in its final form (p. xiii).Following the introduction, which consists of 5 separate essays intended to provide background for reading the commentary, the discussion is arranged into three major movements: “Genesis 1–11: The Primeval History,” “Genesis 12–36: Israel’s Patriarchs and Matriarchs,” and “Genesis 37–50: The Joseph Narrative.” The content of the middle movement (Gen 12–36) is organized as follows: “Abraham and His Family (12:1–25:18),” “The Brief Story of Isaac (25:19–28:9),” “The Long Journey of Jacob (28:10–36:43).”In the third of the introductory essays, “The Formation of the Book of Genesis,” the author states that the “commentary will presume the strength of the documentary hypothesis” (p. 9). In the same essay, Galambush briefly describes a current, more dynamic, understanding of the DH that sees purpose in the final editing with all the “interplay of ancient voices” (p. 8), inasmuch as they contribute to the literary and theological purposes of the text. Indeed, the commentary does presume the DH but without distracting from the discussion. At the same time, the reader is regularly reminded of the prominent role played by the postexilic community in the editing of the text’s final form. Perhaps understandably, treatment of Primeval History includes more DH references than either of the following movements.Although the commentary is not substantively unique, one of the contributions it makes to the many commentaries on Genesis is the author’s willingness to encourage the reader to “think outside the box” of traditional interpretations of various narratives or narrative details. This is encountered early on with the discussion of the relationship between “woman” (ishah) and adam. Galambush proposes that ezer should be translated “rescuer” rather than “helper.” She argues that the latter reading renders ishah subservient to adam in a present-day reading. Furthermore, she proposes that a primary example of the “rescuer” role is found in procreation (“be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth”). Adam, alone, could not fulfill the mandate, so ishah “rescues” him to succeed.The author’s treatment of the “Binding of Isaac” (Gen 22) is noteworthy for its sensitivity to both the narrative’s pathos and the event’s implications for the ongoing theological storyline. Another commendable feature of the commentary is the preparation for and treatment of the Joseph narrative. Galambush’s discussion of “Distinctive Features of the Joseph Narrative” (“The Role of God/Yhwh,” “The Names of God,” “Dreams and Visions in the Joseph Story,” “Interiority,” “Character Growth”) anticipates differences to be encountered between the patriarchal narratives and the Joseph narrative. The ensuing commentary carefully and consistently keeps the reader apprised of the role these distinctions play in reading the Joseph narrative in a way that is somewhat different from the manner in which the patriarchal narratives are to be understood.Another significant contribution Galambush makes to the Genesis discussion is the way she highlights and gives attention to the tribal listings in the Torah. Her point is made in the context of the “Jacob Testament” (Gen 49). Comparison and contrast of these lists in their contexts (15 in the Torah, 1 in Joshua, 1 in Judges) has generally been overlooked in Torah scholarship. Curiously, however, when commenting on the Reuben component of Jacob’s testament, Galambush suggests that Reuben is “absent from the tribal lists of Numbers 1:23; 26:14; and Deuteronomy 33” (p. 163). It is unclear what is intended by this observation in light of Reuben’s inclusion in the Num 1 (vv. 20–21), Num 26 (vv. 5–11), and Deut 33 (v. 6) lists.The subtitle of the volume is A Literary and Theological Commentary. Galambush also makes the point in the third introductory essay that her goal is “to provide an informed reading of Genesis in its final form” (p. 9). In many respects, the commentary does offer the reader both literary and theological insights on the text of Genesis and does so, technically, in its final form. However, it is in this regard that I observe some curious omissions. First, the final form of the composition includes 11 uses of the toledot formula at strategically located positions in the text, but, with one exception (37:2), this is completely ignored throughout the commentary. They represent a repetitious, formulaic expression, and in their locations have both literary and theological implications for understanding the shape and text of Genesis.Another “final form” oddity is the author’s struggle to explain the “insertion” of Gen 38 into the Joseph narrative. Her broad explanation is that “Judah unknowingly replicates the experiences of both his father Jacob and his grandfather Isaac” (p. 134). Later, when discussing the Jacob testament, she rightly observes that Joseph and Judah represent “the two tribes that would later lead the nations of Israel and Judah” (p. 162). The author seems to overlook the explanation that Gen 38 was, most likely, inserted to set up a narrative contrast between Joseph and Judah, the two tribal leaders of Israel and Judah, each when they were separated from their brothers (38:1; 39:1; cf. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative [New York: Basic Books. 1981]).Second, the author’s treatment of several of the larger Genesis narratives (e.g., the flood narrative, the Abraham narrative, the Jacob narrative) avoids discussion of what has broadly come to be accepted as the literary-theological structure of these narratives (cf. Bernhard W. Anderson, “From Analysis to Synthesis: The Interpretation of Genesis 1–11,” JBL 97 [1978]: 23–29; Michael Fishbane, “Composition and Structure in the Jacob Cycle,” JJS 26.1–2 [1975]: 15–38). Furthermore, the first and last of these three narratives share the common repetitious pivotal motif that “God remembered” (Noah, 8:1; Rachel, 30:22). While Galambush notices the use of the expression in each of these three narratives, she makes no reference to its location in the larger literary/theological structure of the narrative. In each case, in my view, she “under-reads” the theological impact of the expression

Art · Linguistics · Literature · Theology · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Philosophy