In 1753, Jean Astruc (pictured right) published a work entitled, Conjectures sur les memoires originaux don’t il paraît que Moyse s’est servi pour composer le Livre de la Genèse. Avec Remarques qui appuient ou qui éclaircissent ces Conjectures. The book was first published anonymously. The book would influence scholarship in a major way for generations to come.
Astruc noted that there were repetitions in the Flood narrative in Genesis. He chalked up the duplications to the notion that behind the final form of the Genesis narrative lay two different accounts of the Flood; instead of synthesizing the two accounts, the final editor placed both versions of the Deluge essentially side-by-side.
Following Astruc’s analysis, scholars since have seen repetitions and duplicates in the Biblical text as evidence of literary “seams” in the text.
But is such a conclusion warranted?
Perhaps repetition is not the product at all of the joining together of sources but rather best explained as careful literary artistry. Indeed, as more recent literary and narrative analysis has shown, it seems clear that repetition was the result of literary design.
Consider Genesis 6:8-9. Scholars have detected a careful structure to the passage in which repetition functions in a key structural way. The passage reads:
Gen 6:8-9: 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. 9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.
The passage seems to follow a careful literary design, which reveals ways in which duplication of material plays an essential role to structure. The careful design highlights Noah's righteousness.
A Noah
B found favor
C in the eyes of the LORD
D These are the generations of Noah
E Noah was a righteous man, blameless
D´ in his generation(s)
C´ with God
B´ walked
A´ Noah
Likewise, consider Genesis 7:21-23, part of the Flood Narrative:
Gen 7:21-23: 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, and every man; 22 everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth.
The text here seems to flows according to a carefully designed structure in which repetition is carefully employed.
A And all flesh died that moved upon the earth
B birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth
C and every man
D everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life
E died;
F He
E´ blotted out
D´ every
C´ man
B´ and animals and creeping things and birds of the air
A they were blotted out from the earth
This kind of repetitious structure seems apparent not simply at the micro-level but also on a larger scale. In particular, Wenham has highlighted the apparent concentric design of the entire Flood Narrative in Genesis 6-8.
A Noah (6:10)
B Shem, Ham, Japheth (10b)
C Ark to be built (14-16)
D Flood announced (17)
E Covenant with Noah (18-20)
F Food in the ark (21)
G Command to enter the ark (7:1-3)
H 7 days waiting for flood (4-5)
I 7 days waiting for flood (7-10)
J Entry to ark (11-15)
K Yahweh shuts Noah in (16)
L 40 days flood (17a)
M Waters increase (17b-18)
N Mountains covered (19-20)
O 150 days waters prevail (21-24)
P GOD REMEMBERS NOAH (8:1)
O´ 150 days waters abate (3)
N´ Mountain tops visible (19-20)
M´ Waters abate (5)
L´ 40 days (end of) (6a)
K´ Noah opens window of ark (6b)
J´ Raven and dove leave ark (7-9)
I´ 7 days waiting for waters for subside (10-11)
H´ 7 days waiting for waters to subside (12-13)
G´ Command to leave the ark (15-17 [22])
F´ Food outside ark (9:1-4)
E´ Covenant with all flesh (8-10)
D´ No flood in future (11-17)
C´ Ark (18a)
B´ Shem, Ham, and Japheth (18b)
A´ Noah (19)
The structure clearly highlights the idea of God remembering his covenant.
What’s the take away from all this? It would seem that the early source-critics were mistaken. Duplication is the result of something more than sloppy editing.
Evidence of multiple sources disjointedly combined? Really? Perhaps instead the carefully planned repetition highlights a highly sophisticated literary unity than has been overlooked.