Genesis, A Royal Epic. Loren R. Fisher

are saying in their present context. At times it may be possible to push beyond the present context, but we do not always know enough to do this. It is also clear that there are some late additions to this book, i.e., additions from a time after the main sources were put together in their present setting.7 In the notes to this translation, I will inform the reader when I think that we are dealing with a separate source.8 I will also note when such decisions are just too difficult. Everyone has the right to know that in Genesis there is one source that is used in Gen 1:1—2:3 and another in 2:4—3:24; there are then two accounts of the formation of all things. If we do not know such things, we can never ask the question, “Why?” The answer to this question is more important than trying to prove that the first one is P (and therefore late) and that the second one is J (and therefore early). If one compares Israel to the other literate states of the Mediterranean world, Israel is so late on the scene that they have ready at hand all types of ideas and literary forms. In one sense, all that Israel had was late; it was available, and Israel used it very well indeed.

So why is there no movement toward a consensus?9 Perhaps, we continue to ask the wrong questions. Are we asking the impossible? In order to answer our usual questions as to the nature of the sources, we would need to find a complete document which was very much like one of the ones which we have proposed. Plus we would need some evidence as to where and when it was used. I doubt if we find such things in the near future. If we do, I will change my ways. For now, I think it would be interesting for us to ask some different questions, and I hope we can learn something about Genesis in asking them. Also the readers of this translation need to know something about these “different questions” in order to appreciate the notes to this translation.

      Genesis as Royal Epic

What kind of literature do we have in the Book of Genesis? This is an example of a different question. This does not mean it has never been asked, but it is certainly not the primary focus of most students of Genesis.10 Some just assume that everyone knows the answer, but this is not very realistic. Some think this is historical literature. Some think it is myth. Others say it is legend. It is possible that it contains many of these things, but most of these answers are not big enough. I think the book of Genesis was produced during the Davidic monarchy, and it was “published” by the state.11 What we have in Genesis is a good example of royal literature.

      Royal literature is a very broad term. This has its advantages and disadvantages. In talking about Genesis, I sometimes narrow the terminology to “royal epic” (meaning: literature that unites and gives identity to a people and their king). But for many the word epic is a red flag; if you use the word epic, they want you to prove that there is Homeric epic poetry in Genesis. There is a lot of poetry in Genesis, but it is never enough. Others try to show that there was originally an epic poem underlying the Genesis narratives. This may be the case, but it is very difficult to look behind the text that we have. I would maintain that the narratives in Genesis contain many epic features, themes, and structures. After all, these stories are dealing with Israel’s heroic age; they deal with the ancestors of Israel’s kings. In fact, the literature that deals with the ancestors and the periods down through David and Solomon is just different from the later traditions (i.e., in social customs, religion, and laws). In the notes to this translation, I will point out many epic features of these stories.

The presupposition of this introduction and of this translation is that the book of Genesis was a significant part of the royal literature of the Davidic monarchy.12 This book was a political document of the state, and its major function was to exalt David and his monarchy, not only with his own people but also among the other states of that world. The scribes of the monarchy used many sources for this work, and certainly the literary criticism of the past has helped us to isolate many of these sources. However, the view presented here is quite different from the older criticism in that the sources that were used in this work must date from before the exile. This is obvious, if the sources were used by the scribes of the Davidic monarchy.13 None of this can be said with dogmatic zest, but we can at this point discuss some reasons why it seems possible to see Genesis in this way.

One reason Genesis is to be seen as royal literature is that the narratives point to the later kings. In Gen 17:3–8, not only will Elohim establish a covenant with Abraham and his descendants, giving them the land of Canaan as “an everlasting holding” (which is always the case in royal land grants),14 but in v. 6c it also says, “Kings shall come forth from you.” Later in v. 16, Elohim says of Sarah, “Kings of peoples shall issue from her.” Abraham and Sarah will produce kings. Who is it that wants the people to know this? It is the kings; those who trace their lines back to Abraham and Sarah. It is the kings; the ones who want to show that they are the legitimate rulers.15 This is not the only place where such a thing is said. In Gen 35:11 Elohim says to Jacob, “Kings shall come forth from your loins.” The fathers and the mothers in the Genesis narratives were the fathers and mothers of kings.

A second reason for viewing Genesis as royal literature is that the content of Genesis is what we would expect in a political document of the monarchy. Our method in all of this is comparative, and we have centuries of AML before the time of the Hebrews. The Babylonian creation story, Enuma elish, according to Thorkild Jacobsen, celebrates “Babylon’s and Marduk’s rise to rulership over a united Babylon, but projected back to mythical times and made universal. It is also an account of how the universe is ruled; how monarchy evolved and gained acceptance as a unifier of the many divine wills in the universe. It is a story of world origins and world ordering.”16 Gordon and Rendsburg stress the political nature of Enuma elish.17 In this world when a powerful king like David became ruler of both Judah and Israel, the other states of that world would expect a publication from Jerusalem dealing with “world origins” and “world ordering.” Jerusalem was not really interested in dealing with “world origins” (e.g., the birth of the gods), but they were interested in dealing with “world ordering” (i.e., ordering chaos and the formation of this world). In addition, Jerusalem included the stories of the fathers and mothers as mentioned in reason number one (see above). These stories were made to point to David in several ways, with the insertion of Genesis 38 being the most explicit example (see below).

A third reason we look at Genesis as royal literature is that the stories of the ancestors in Genesis probably were formed at the tomb and used by the kings of Israel as a part of the rituals at the royal tombs of those ancestors. We know that such rituals were important for the kings for the purpose of receiving the blessings of their ancestors.18 To receive the blessing of such a father or patriarch meant that the king would produce an heir, and that the dynastic line would continue.

Miriam Lichtheim has an interesting discussion of how in Egypt, “it was in the context of the private tomb that writing took its first steps toward literature.” Here “the autobiography was born,” and it “became a truly literary product.”19 Also in her introduction to “Prose Tales,” she relates that the Story of Sinuhe “is told in the form of the autobiography composed for the tomb . . .”20 I relate these comments for the purpose of pointing out that my suggestions concerning the growth of literature at the tomb are not new in our studies of ancient literature. But it certainly may be new for many to think about the growth of the patriarchal