Genesis, A Royal Epic. Loren R. Fisher
Jacob is still alive, and he charges his sons to bury him with his ancestors in the cave “that Abraham purchased.” After Jacob died, he was embalmed, and “the Egyptians wept for him seventy days.” Then Joseph was granted permission to take his father’s remains to Canaan. According to this story, Joseph left Egypt with a huge entourage made up of Egyptian officials, his brothers, other relatives, and a military guard. When this group was still east of the Jordan river, they arrived at the threshing floor of the Atad. There they lamented and mourned for seven days. As in the story of Aqhat, the funeral begins at the threshing floor; but in this story instead of moving to the palace (to complete the ritual), they continue their journey, moving to the cave that Abraham had purchased.46 This is the way the story reads.47 We really do not have to assume that Joseph and his brothers were blessed because of their efforts; it is clear that in Gen 50:15–21 Joseph will care for the brothers and their children. Finally, we have in Gen 50:22–26, the death and burial of Joseph with his request that his bones be brought up from Egypt.48
When we look at all of these stories and see the importance of burial, blessing, and birth to both the form and content of these stories, we see from a slightly different angle what we have said before: this material was shaped in part by funeral rituals and was used by the monarchy in the interest of the monarchy.
Proper Burial
The importance of proper burial can be seen in some of the materials that we have concerning David. In 2 Sam 21:10–14, David takes a chance. On the one hand, he can score some political points if he gives Saul and his sons proper burial rites in the tomb of Saul’s father Kish. But on the other hand, by so doing, David could be sending the wrong signal to the house of Saul. After all, to give proper burial is one way of preserving a dynastic line. Up to this point, our discussion of proper burial has concentrated on the royal tomb, but we also know that proper burial was important to all members of society. We now know that the people formed funeral associations (a marzeah) to take care of burial and mourning rites, and they usually had a place to meet (called “the House of the Marzeah” or Bet Marzeah).49 In Jer 16:1–9, there is a gruesome picture of life or rather death in Judah. The word is do not marry, because your children will die and not be buried; “they shall be like dung on the surface of the ground.” In v. 5 Yahweh says, “Do not enter the Bet Marzeah, . . . for I have taken away my Shalom from this people.” In other words, there is no point anymore in proper burial and “the care and feeding of the dead,” because there will be no blessing, i.e., no Shalom to put it into the words of Jeremiah and of the royal tomb liturgy from Ugarit. So, there will be no burial, no blessing, and no children.
One thing that we do not know very much about has to do with when these funeral rituals were used. They must have been used at the time of burial, but also they may have been used in some kind of yearly ritual. Some people have thought that the reference in 1 Sam 20:6 by David to an annual sacrifice by his whole family may have had to do with “the care and feeding of the dead.” It would also renew the blessings for such a family. I think that we really do not know much about this. However, I do think that the Ugaritic funeral ritual which we have been discussing was used in connection with the enthronement of the new king. Did enthronement take place at the tomb? We can say that David became king of both Judah and Israel in Hebron and that the scribes of the monarchy located the tomb of the fathers in Hebron. Here David could become king and receive the blessings of the ancestors. David’s rebel son, Absalom, also became king in Hebron. Solomon became king in Jerusalem before the death of David, but since David was buried there, they both started a new tradition. I think that all of this means that the monarchy had a real need for Genesis.
Characteristics of This Translation
The Hebrew Bible is an amazing collection of ancient documents. These documents were gathered over many years, and they were preserved in several textual traditions. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has opened our eyes to the many textual traditions that were around in pre-Christian Palestine. Most translators of the Hebrew Bible start with a Masoretic text (MT) known as the Leningrad Codex B 19A.50 This was copied in about 1009 CE. When these translators encounter problems, they may find a better reading in some other textual tradition, e.g., the Samaritan text (for the first five books) or perhaps in the Hebrew text that was behind the Septuagint (a Greek translation from the third century BCE). In this translation of Genesis, you will not find this kind of search for the best text; this translation is a translation of the Masoretic textual tradition. Other textual traditions are also important, but the translation of those traditions represents another project.
This translation of Genesis tries to make use of recent discoveries. Throughout this introduction, it is clear that new discoveries have given us new information on burial customs. By the study of AML, we are constantly learning more about literary parallels and the meaning of words. Also, we have learned that the peoples of the ancient Mediterranean world formed a cosmopolitan whole. At least the urban centers were in constant contact with each other and shared their learning and traditions. The Mediterranean World had very few isolated communities. There was just too much shipping by sea and trading by land. Fernand Braudel says that one of the great truths that remains unchallenged in his work on the Mediterranean is “the unity and coherence of the Mediterranean region.”51 So, the key is to bring all new information to bear upon our text. We attempt to let the Hebrew text have its day. This is not a revision of the English tradition of Bible translations.
Another characteristic of this translation is that it is not bound by modern theological concerns. In the past, for example, some theologians have demanded that Gen 1:1 be translated, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” But Genesis does not read that way. It does not deal with ultimate origins. In fact, the first two verses describe the circumstance when God first began to bring order out of chaos. The theological demands were designed to protect the doctrine of God from any kind of dualism or pantheism. It is clear that in Genesis God orders chaos. The Hebrew authors did not address the problem of where the matter came from. In this translation, I do not use the words “create” or “creation.” The emphasis of many that “creation” means “creation out of nothing” is just wrong. I hate to give up on good words, but I have been compelled to use the more basic meanings of Hebrew words, in this case “to sculpt”/“to form.” Thus, my own translation of Gen1:1a is “When Elohim first began to form the heavens and the earth . . .”
Other theological problems are not so well known. You will recall that at the start of the Introduction we discussed the plural “gods” in Gen 5:22 and 24 and 6:9. There is another example of this sort of thing in Gen 35:7. In this passage, Jacob “built there an altar; he called the sanctuary El-Bethel, for there the gods were revealed to him when he was fleeing from his brother.” Here we have not only the definite article with ’elohim, but even the verb (“were revealed”) is plural! Genesis 35:7 refers back to 28:20–22 where Jacob deals with two gods, one designated “Elohim” and the other designated “Yahweh.” This is a strong case for the use of the plural, but most translators avoid the issue.52
This translation places a premium on context. The context has a very important influence on the meaning of a word. In Gen 2:6, we are told that “the entire surface of the ground” was flooded. Given this context it becomes impossible to translate v. 7 in the traditional manner: “Yahweh-Elohim formed the human [from] the dust of the ground.” In this context, there would be no “dust.” The options have to do with either “mud” or “clay.” At this point in the translation, there will be a detailed note concerning these options.
This may be the place for a word concerning inclusive language. I can understand that a translator should not import sexist language into the translation, but if such language is in the text, the translator should not remove