Well-known attempts to structure Genesis

Glancing at some standard works on Genesis and how they structure the book as a whole (ex., Gordan Wenham’s commentary, David Dorsey’s work on OT literary structure, Andrew Hill and John Walton’s survey of the OT), I am left unsatisfied [1]. While some of their insights are helpful, their overall structure does not seem to take into full account the rhetorical cues in the text nor ancient literary devices.

Regarding the rhetorical cues in the text, as is well known, Genesis has ten toledoth sections, which many commentators agree function as structural markers [2]. Most commentators are aware of this, but many arbitrarily group the toledoth sections into larger groups of two, three, or even five toledoth, giving the book an unbalanced structure. Regarding ancient literary devices, for those who try to respect the toledoth structure of the book, many do little more than list them out, as if the book were nothing more than a strict, linear progression of ten toledoth from Adam to Joseph. They seem to be unaware of the ancient literary devices of chiasm, parallelism, and other such techniques.

A new proposal

Having voiced my “complaints”, I would like to propose the following structure for Genesis. First, the toledoth sections should be taken seriously, and I will do just that. Second, ancient literary devices should be taken seriously too, and after considering different techniques, I have arrived at the tentative conclusion that parallelism is the best way forward.

What is parallelism? To give just one well-known example, parallelism is what is found in Genesis 1 regarding God’s creating activity: the first six days of creation can be divided into two groups of three, with the first group comprising “forming” and the second group “filling” [3], with the first, second, and third days of each group corresponding to each other (one–four, two–five, three–six). The structure looks something like this (the numbers on the left-hand side refer to the days of creation, and the letters show the parallel structure):

This is just one well-known example of parallel structure, but it illustrates my argument for the book of Genesis as a whole: the ten toledoth repeat (“parallel”) each other, with five toledoth in each part. When this is done, some interesting connections can be seen, as I hope will be seen below. It is important to remember that the person whose name appears in the toledoth is not the focus of the section, but rather his descendant(s). For example, the “Terah toledoth” (Gen 11:27–25:11) focuses on one of his sons, Abraham, rather than on Terah himself. Thus, in order to assist comprehension of the argument of the book, I have replaced the named persons in the toledoth with their descendants. Following the example given above, this is my proposal for the structure of Genesis (again, the numbers on the left-hand side refer to the toledoth, and the letters show the parallel structure):

Observations

Allow me to explain in detail what could only be written briefly in the outline above.

A–A’

First, at a macrostructure level, the most obvious message of the book is that Abraham is a new Adam. Thus, it ought to be no coincidence that God’s calling of Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3 is the major turning point in the book (if not all of Scripture). The parallel structure between Adam and Abraham suggests the idea of recapitulation, such as re-creation and the narrowing focus from God’s dealing with the world to his dealings with one nation, the Israelites. Looking at it from this angle, Israel can be seen to be a microcosm of humanity, the macrocosm. Moreover, this seems to be how Jews have interpreted Abraham’s relationship to Adam. For example, Midrash Genesis Rabbah 14:6 says, “‘[Adam] may sin and there will be none to set it right. Hence I will create Adam first, so that if he sins, Abraham may come and set things right.’” [4] There may be other parallels, such as between Eve and Sarah, or between the fraternal struggles of Cain and Abel on the one hand, and Ishmael and Isaac on the other, but I won’t go into those details here. This is perhaps the strongest argument to structure the ten toledoth in a parallel structure.

B–B’

Both texts are basically genealogies that end with a note of sin: just as mankind was given over to violence before the Flood, so too are the Ishmaelites described as “settling over against all his kinsmen” (Gen 25:18), which evokes the original prophecy that he would be a “wild donkey”, with his hand against everyone and vice versa (Gen 16:12).

C–C’

The fraternal struggles between Ham and Shem (and Japheth) on the one hand, and Esau and Jacob on the other, help to explain the parallels between these two toledoth sections.

D–D’

The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 are formed by three sons, from whom come 70 nations, and which culminates in the Tower of Babel, a place of hubris and oppression. Similarly, Esau marries three wives, from whom approximately 70 descendants are mentioned, and who dwell in Edom/Seir, Israel’s mountainous neighbor-country to the south, a place of hubris and oppression. Thus, Edom would be a new Tower of Babel, at least in some sense.

E–E’

Shem’s lineage mentions twelve descendants (the tenth generation lists the three brothers Abram, Nahor, and Haran), which can be seen to evoke the Twelve Patriarchs. The Shemite genealogy prepares for the main character, godly Abraham, whereas the end of the Jacob toledoth focuses on the main character, godly Joseph. Also, both prepare for an Exodus: Abram and Sarai from Babylon, and the Twelve Patriarchs from Egypt.

Conclusion

I admit that some parallels are not as convincing as others, but further research could yield greater insights that the ones I have pointed out here. The major advantage this structure has over other ones is that it takes seriously the Genesis toledoth sections and ancient literary devices.

Also, the structure itself provides us with invaluable information: Genesis is about God’s creation of mankind and Israel, and of Israel’s exodus from Babylon and Egypt. If my proposal shows to be defective somehow, I at least hope that it will open up new horizons for analyzing the structure of Genesis (and other books of the Bible).

Notes