Chiasmus in the Book of Genesis

Introduction

Since I have published a detailed discussion on the subject announced in the title of this article, the present essay will provide only a summary of my earlier work, with ample key illustrations. My earlier treatment may be found in chapters 2, 3, and 5 of my book The Redaction of Genesis (1st ed., 1986; 2d ed., 2014).¹ As indicated, in what follows, I rehearse that material here, though for the sake of simplicity, I do not footnote each individual discussion.

Put simply, large-scale chiasmus may be seen in the three main cycles of the Ancestral Narratives in the book of Genesis: (1) The Abraham Cycle (Gen 11:27–22:24); (2) The Jacob Cycle (Gen 25:19–35:22); and (3) The Joseph Story (Gen 37–50). Earlier scholars, such as Umberto Cassuto, Nahum Sarna, and Yehuda Radday, had detected hints of the chiasmus in the Abraham cycle, though no one had developed a full study.² Michael Fishbane receives the credit for identifying chiasmus in the Jacob cycle, and my analysis thereof is indebted to him throughout.³ Prior to my observations about the Joseph story, however, no one had recognized the same literary structure operative there as well.⁴

In each of these three main sections of the book of Genesis, a series of episodes unfolds, the narrative reaches a focal point or pivot point,⁵ and then the parallel episodes unfold in reverse order. Moreover, for each of the matching units, one finds a series of lexical items which serve to solidify the connections inherent in the shared themes.

I. The Abraham Cycle (Genesis 12–22)⁶

The outline of the Abraham cycle is presented in figure 1:

Figure 1: The Abraham Cycle (chs. 12–22)

Five units, labeled A through E, comprise the first half of the Abraham cycle. Throughout these episodes, (a) the patriarch is called Abram; (b) God is referred to as YHWH; and (c) the word bərit “covenant” is mentioned only once, in the voice of the narrator (15:18). As we reach the focal point of the narrative in 17:1–5, our attention is drawn to further developments of these three key elements: (a) Abram’s name is changed to Abraham (v. 5), and he will be called such for the remainder of his life; (b) the word Elohim “God” is introduced (v. 3), and the term will appear alongside YHWH for the remainder of the Abraham cycle; and (c) the covenant concept is elucidated in great detail, with the word bərit “covenant” occurring now in the voice of God (2x in the focal point verses, and 13x altogether in ch. 17). Five matching units, labeled E′ through A′, comprise the second half of the Abraham cycle, with the themes and motifs of A and A′, B and B′, etc., aligning. To further solidify the connections between two corresponding units, the text uses the same, similar, or like-sounding lexical items.

To demonstrate this last point, I elect to use the two matching units B and B′, especially since they constitute two well-known episodes within the Abraham cycle. In the first unit, B = 12:1–9, God commands Abram to leave his ancestral home and journey to Canaan. In the second unit, B′ = 22:1–19, God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. The following themes, motifs, and lexical items serve to highlight the correspondence between B and B′:

To my mind, the overarching chiastic structure of the Abraham cycle bespeaks a single authorial hand for Gen 12–22. The series of linkages which yoke the individual scenes to one another, as demonstrated here for units B and B′, only confirms that conclusion. This approach of literary unity stands in contrast to those scholars who divide the Abraham narrative into three separate sources (‘J’, ‘E’, ‘P’).⁸ For the specific case of units B and B′, note that most scholars assign the main portion of Gen 12:1–9 to the ‘J’ source⁹ and all or most of Gen 22:1–19 to the ‘E’ source.¹⁰ And yet, one wishes to know, how is it possible, according to this theory, that two separate authors used the same words, themes, motifs, etc., which coincidentally ended up as the crucial scenes in the book of Genesis bracketing God’s relationship with Abra(ha)m? The approach utilized here, which analyzes sustained narratives as narrative wholes, is much to be preferred.

II. The Jacob Cycle (Genesis 25–35)¹¹

We now turn our attention to the Jacob cycle, for which see figure 2:

Figure 2: The Jacob Cycle (chs. 25–35)

As with the Abraham cycle, so here with the Jacob cycle: we observe a chiastic structure which builds from the beginning of the narrative to the pivot point, and which then “unwinds” (for lack of a better term) from the pivot point to the end of the narrative. Six units, labeled here A through F, recount the first half of the story, including the story of Jacob’s birth, his dealings with Esau, the journey to Aram, his settling there, and his life there. The focal point at 30:22–25 describes Rachel’s giving birth to Joseph (after the period of her extended barrenness) and Jacob’s concomitant decision to return to the land of Canaan. As the narrative recounts the second half of the story, six additional units follow, labeled here A′ through F′, including Jacob’s preparations for the return home, his return journey, his reunion with Esau, and the eventual arrival in Canaan. As we saw above in the Abraham cycle, here as well: to highlight the connections between two corresponding units, the text uses the same, similar, or like-sounding lexical items, alongside the matching themes and motifs.

To illustrate this last point, I elect to use the two matching units C and C′, the two scenes in which Jacob and Esau take center stage.

As we saw above with the Abraham cycle, so here: the overarching chiastic structure of the Jacob cycle bespeaks a single authorial hand for Gen 25–35. The series of linkages which yoke the individual scenes to one another, as demonstrated here for units C and C′, only confirms that conclusion. This approach of literary unity stands in contrast to those scholars who divide the Jacob narrative into three separate sources (‘J’, ‘E’, ‘P’).¹⁵ For the specific case of units C and C′, note that scholars typically assign portions of both pericopes into separate sources. In the former, 27:1–45 is allocated to ‘J’ and Gen 27:46–28:9 is allocated to ‘P’; while for the latter, source critics differ on the allotment of the verses. One scheme identifies three sources, 33:1–17 = ‘J’, 18a = ‘P’, and 18b–20 = ‘E’;¹⁶ while another assigns the entire chapter to ‘E’, save for the middle segment of v. 18, which is assigned to ‘R’ (the final Redactor).¹⁷

If one follows the former arrangement, then most of C and most of C′ are attributed to the ‘J’ source, so my criticism is not as forceful this time, since the same author easily could be responsible for the vast majority of the items listed above—indeed, basically all of them, save no. 13.¹⁸ Let us look, accordingly, at item no. 13, with the remarkable use of the word חֶלְקָה ḥɛlqa with its two meanings of “smoothness” (27:16) and “portion, plot of land” (33:19). And yet the former is ascribed to the ‘J’ source, while the latter is attributed to the ‘E’ source.

If one were to follow the latter approach, with most of C and most of C′ assigned to different sources, then once again an entire litany of corresponding lexical items would need to be explained, per the list above, since most in unit C would appear in ‘J’ and most in unit C′ would appear in ‘E.’

A better approach, to my mind, is to see a single author responsible for the Jacob cycle. Reading the narrative as a narrative whole allows the reader to appreciate the chiastic structure, to focus on the significance of the pivot point (more on this below), and to behold the manner in which linguistic and thematic features serve to unite the matching units.

III. The Joseph Story (Genesis 37–50)¹⁹

Let us now analyze the Joseph story, for which see figure 3:

Figure 3: The Joseph Story (chs. 37–50)

By now, the large-scale chiasmus should be familiar to the reader. The Joseph story has six initial units, A through F, which build to the climax, or focal point, after which six corresponding units, A′ through F′ bring the novella to its conclusion. In the case of the Joseph story, the climactic focal point is rather obvious: 45:1–4, where Joseph reveals himself to his brothers. As we saw above in the Abraham and Jacob cycles, here too: to highlight the connections between two corresponding units, the text uses the same, similar, or like-sounding lexical items, alongside the matching themes and motifs.

To illustrate the technique with parallel units from the Joseph story, I elect to use units C and C′, the two reversal scenes. In so doing, I specifically select two units in which the nexus may not be that obvious. That is to say, the relationship between units B and B′ in the Abraham cycle (analyzed above) was announced to us rather clearly with the two usages of the phrase לֶךְ־לְךָ lɛk ləka “go forth” (12:1 and 22:2). Similarly, the correspondence of units C and C′ in the Jacob cycle (also analyzed above) is rather forthright, since both deal with Jacob and Esau. By contrast, in the Joseph story, there is nothing which at first glance would allow us to see the nexus between units C and C′, as the former deals with Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, while the latter deals with Jacob’s blessing to Ephraim and Manasseh. And yet, as we shall see immediately below, the author of this narrative found numerous ways to produce the necessary connections.

As I noted above (see n. 19), the Joseph story constitutes a more integrated narrative than the Abraham and Jacob cycles—hence, my use of the word “story” as opposed to “cycle.” In the case of the two earlier cycles, with more loosely connected scenes about Abraham and about Jacob, the chiastic structure helps to weave the disparate units into a consistent narrative. Given the greater unity inherent in the Joseph story, accordingly, one might think that a chiastic structure was less necessary for Gen 37–50. And yet, given the manner in which the stage was set with the first two major narratives concerning the ancestors of Israel, the author of the Joseph story felt the need to follow suit. The result is once again a superb narrative with a crucial scene serving as the pivot point—more on this anon.²⁹

In my treatments of the Abraham cycle and the Jacob cycle above, I identified a number of lexical features in matching units which militate against the documentary hypothesis. The same may be demonstrated for the Joseph story. According to the source theory, all of chapter 39, our unit C, is ascribed to ‘J’; while 47:28–48:22, our unit C′ divides into three authors: 47:29–31 = ‘J’, 48:1–2, 8–22 = ‘E’, and 47:28, 48:3–7 = ‘P’.³⁰ And yet once again we observe a host of interconnections between these two sections of the Joseph story, including as specific a phrase as “and he resisted and said” in 39:8 (with Joseph as subject) and “and his father resisted and said” in 48:19 (with Jacob as subject)—see item no. 6 above.

For a second specific example, we may look at item no. 10 above, already discussed in some detail. As indicated, the key word lɛḥɛm “bread” (though figuratively “wife”) in 39:6 is assigned to ‘J’, but its echo embedded within the toponym bet lɛḥɛm “Beth-lehem” (lit. “house of bread”) in 48:7 is ascribed to ‘P’.

One can only repeat the words already expressed above: rather than dividing the Genesis (and other) accounts into dissected parts, the literary approach employed here, which reads sustained storylines as narrative wholes, is much to be preferred.³¹

Conclusion

With one or two minor exceptions, everything that I have expressed above may be found in my aforecited monograph, The Redaction of Genesis. Here towards the article’s end, accordingly, I would like to offer something new. Indeed, what I present in the following occurred to me neither while writing the first edition of the book (1986), nor while preparing the second edition of the book (2014), but rather only while contemplating the material yet again in advance of the chiasmus conference held at Brigham Young University in August 2017.

Let us look more closely at each of the three focal points standing at the center of the three main cycles of the Ancestral Narratives. As we saw, in the Abraham cycle, the focal point at 17:1–5 introduces the crucial concept of covenant, the linkage between God and Abraham, and through his descendants, between God and the people of Israel. In the Jacob cycle, the focal point at 30:22–25 highlights Jacob’s decision to return to the land of Canaan. Finally, in the Joseph story, the focal point at 45:1–4 shines the spotlight on the emotional reunion of Joseph and his brothers.

The three themes expressed in the three pivot points, when read together, constitute the essence of the book of Genesis. Indeed, one could say, they embrace the essence of the Torah, if not, in fact, the entire Bible. The three themes are: (a) the covenant; (b) the land of Canaan; and (c) the people of Israel. When woven together, these three elements—land, people, and covenant—create the essential message of the Bible: God and the people of Israel are forever inextricably linked via the covenant; God is to be the God of the people of Israel, while Israel is to be people of God; and this drama is to unfold in the land of Canaan, a gift from God to the people of Israel. The three items appear together in a number of biblical passages, though two citations will suffice here:

• Gen 17:7–8—“And I will establish my covenant between me and you, and between your seed after you for their generations, as an everlasting covenant, to be for you as God, and to your seed after you. And I will give to you, and to your seed after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”

• Ezek 37:25–26—“And they shall dwell in the land which I gave to my servant Jacob, and in which your ancestors dwelled; they and their children and their children’s children shall dwell there forever; and David my servant shall be their leader forever. And I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will set them and I will multiply them, and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever.”

The Genesis passage anticipates the long relationship of God and the people of Israel resident in the land of Canaan. The Ezekiel passage, spoken in Babylonian Exile after a tortuous history, foresees the restoration of that vision.³²

Nowhere, of course, is any of this spelled out for the reader of the book of Genesis. Nowhere, for example, does the text state: pay attention, dear reader, to these three pivot points, for in them is to be found the essential message. Though this is true, of course, for the entire ancient Hebrew literary tradition. To state the obvious, the Bible does not come with charts of the type that I have produced above, in order to highlight the role of the pivot point in each of the three narrative cycles. Rather, the text reveals little, thereby demanding the reader’s active engagement. Only through such an encounter with the text will the reader garner the fullness of its message.

Appendix: The Primeval History

There is, of course, one additional large chunk of text in the book of Genesis, to wit, the Primeval History, comprising the first eleven chapters of the book. The alert reader already may have asked him- or herself: does chiasm appear in Gen 1–11 as well? The answer is no, it does not. Instead, a different manner of redactional structuring occurs in this narrative, per the following outline in figure 4:

Figure 4: The Primeval History (chs. 1‒11)

As the reader can determine, in the Primeval History, the five units proceed A through E, and then are repeated in the same order, A′ through E′ (and not in chiastic order), with one necessary diversion, since D′ and E′ have switched slots. Credit for this discovery goes to Jack Sasson,³³ and then once again I direct the interested reader to my book for further details.³⁴ Apparently, the overall author/editor/compiler/redactor of the book of Genesis sought to distinguish the Primeval History, with its more universalistic tones (creation, flood, nations of the world, etc.), from the Ancestral Narratives, with their more particularistic concerns, per the above, with their focus on the covenant, the land of Canaan, and the people of Israel. He accomplished this distinction not only through the contents of the different sections but via the different literary patternings inherent in the extended narratives.