Book of Genesis (Introduction)

n3inTrilogy Genesis Study for TMFBSG – Introduction

For TMFBSG by n3inTrilogy
(Create Bible Commentary with Q&A)

Genesis is titled from the Greek tradition as “Origins,” which fits its purpose: it introduces the beginnings of the world, humanity, sin, and the people through whom God’s covenant promises unfold. In Hebrew, its opening identity is “In the Beginning,” echoing the book’s first words and emphasizing a foundational starting point for biblical history.

Across Israel’s life in the Old Testament era, Genesis would have strengthened faith as its accounts were heard in worship settings— at Jerusalem’s festivals and through traveling Levites in towns and villages. In David’s time, the people could see Abraham’s land promise as substantially realized (Genesis 15:18). In exile, they could cling to the permanence of God’s pledge (Genesis 17:8), and in the return, they could recognize God’s hand at work in renewed fulfillment (Nehemiah 9). The repeated telling may have refreshed details, yet not in a way that suggests major reworking of the substance.

The narrative texture of Genesis also coheres with a second-millennium B.C. setting. Flood traditions have notable parallels in ancient Mesopotamian literature (Atrahasis; Gilgamesh), and Genesis genealogies resemble ancient king-list patterns. Patriarchal names and customs fit what is known from early second-millennium contexts, and Joseph’s rise in Egypt is plausible within the Hyksos era. However one dates Moses and the Pentateuch’s composition, a gap of centuries implies preservation through oral transmission and/or early records, with broader parallels supporting the essential reliability of Genesis’ historical claims.

n3inTrilogy Genesis Study for TMFBSG – Introduction
• Search answers only from the embedded “The Author, Title, and Date” text (the three paragraphs you provided).
• MORE opens web searches and formats 3 quotes with footnotes, ending with a bibliography table. Right-column width Unjustified White bold responses

Recall: 3 Questions from this Introduction (Scholar answers + source work)

Q1) What do the English and Hebrew titles of Genesis communicate?
Scholar summary: Modern introductions commonly note that the Greek title highlights “origins,” while the Hebrew opening (“In the beginning” / berē’šît) frames the book as foundational history and theology for Israel’s story.
Suggested modern source work: Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (Word Biblical Commentary), Introduction (title and scope).
Q2) Why would Genesis have encouraged faith across David’s era, exile, and return?
Scholar summary: Many modern commentators emphasize Genesis as covenant memory—rehearsing God’s promises to Abraham and showing that God’s purposes endure through settlement, judgment, exile, and restoration.
Suggested modern source work: John H. Walton, The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis, Introduction (Genesis as covenant and theological foundation).
Q3) How do scholars discuss Genesis alongside Ancient Near Eastern parallels (flood traditions, king lists, customs)?
Scholar summary: A frequent modern approach is that Genesis shares cultural “conversation partners” in the ancient world (shared genres, motifs, and memories), while presenting distinctive theological claims about God, covenant, and human vocation.
Suggested modern source work: John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, chapters on literature/worldview and comparative context.
Note: The “Scholar summary” lines above are intentionally written as paraphrases (not direct quotations). Use the MORE button to capture exact quotes and footnotes.





Study more...



Place in the Pentateuch

The first five books of the Bible are called by the Jews “the Law,” and by Christians “the Pentateuch” or “the Five Books of Moses.” The overall theme of the Pentateuch is God’s covenant with Israel through Moses, which established Israel as a theocracy (a nation where God’s directives rule the civil, social, and religious spheres) for the sake of the whole world. In view of the authorship discussion above, it is reasonable to consider the first audience of the Pentateuch to be Israel in the wilderness (either the generation that left Egypt or their children).


Genesis, as the first volume of this first section of the Bible, orients the reader to the rest of the Pentateuch, and thus to the rest of the Bible. It explains in story form the nature and character of God, and the place of man in God’s creation. It offers an analysis of sin and its consequences and describes God’s reaction to it (and thus shows why the true religion must be redemptive). It records the call of Abraham, through whom all the nations of the world will be blessed, and traces the birth and careers of the forefathers of the nation of Israel, leading to Israel in Egypt. The fact that Yahweh is the universal Creator shows why Israel can have a message for all mankind. At the same time Genesis sets out models of behavior, both in its opening chapters and in the examples of the patriarch’s faithful obedience.

Genesis is therefore a book of instruction, and this is why Jews include it in the Law, for the Hebrew word torah, usually translated “law,” has the broader sense of “instruction.” It can rightly be considered the “First Book of Moses” because of its role as the prelude to the following four books, Exodus to Deuteronomy, which are structured around the life of Moses.


As explained in Introduction to the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible are foundational to the rest, and Genesis is the foundation of the Pentateuch.


Arrangement of the Book

Genesis is divided into two major sections: (1) the primeval history of the world before Abraham (chs. 1-11); (2) the history of the patriarchs (chs. 12-50). The proportions of the two sections are significant: essentially chapters 1-11 are setting the stage for the main drama, namely, God’s dealings with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and his sons–the subject of chapters 12- 50.

Genesis is about beginnings and generations. Starting with the divine ordering of creation, it follows for many generations a family line that takes the reader from Adam to Jacob and his sons (see diagram). This family line forms the backbone of Genesis, links its disparate elements into a cohesive whole, and explains the distinctive literary features that set it apart from other OT narrative books.

One of the hallmarks of Genesis is the heading or title “These are the generations of . . .” (2:4; 5:1 with slight variant; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2; see chart).

Each heading functions like a zoom lens by focusing attention on a smaller part of the total picture that has been shown in the preceding section, and the heading thus serves as an introduction to the following section. As Genesis describes how the earth’s population increases over many generations, the reader’s attention is constantly being directed toward one particular person in each generation and his descendants.


Another important feature of Genesis is its particular interest in genealogies. Although these can be off-putting for modern readers, lacking the dramatic tension of the narrative episodes, they contribute in a special way to the structure of Genesis (as well as to its sense of history; see Genesis and History). Different types of genealogy are used: linear and segmented. Genesis has two linear genealogies that cover 10 generations, naming only one ancestor in each generation. These play an important role in linking major narrative sections.

The period of Adam and Eve is linked to Noah by the genealogy in chapter 5. A similar genealogy in 11:10–26 connects Noah’s son Shem with Abraham. While the linear genealogies are integral to the central family line, Genesis has a number of segmented genealogies that perform a subsidiary function within the book. Giving limited information about characters of secondary interest, the segmented genealogies provide branched family trees that usually cover only a few generations (see 10:1–32; 25:12–18; 36:1–8; 36:9–43).



Theme

The theme of Genesis is creation, sin, and re-creation. It tells how God created the world as very good, but that it was destroyed in the flood as a result of man’s disobedience. The new world after the flood was also spoiled by human sin (ch. 11). The call of Abraham, through whom all the nations would be blessed, gives hope that God’s purpose will eventually be realized through his descendants (ch. 49).



Key Themes

  1. The Lord God, being both transcendent and immanent, having created the earth to be his dwelling place, commissions human beings as his priestly vice-regents or representatives so that they might fill the earth and caringly govern the other creatures (1:1-2:25).
  2. Abandoning their priestly and royal duties, the human couple rebel against God and betray him by acting on the serpent’s suggestions; their willful disobedience radically affects human nature and the harmonious order of creation (3:1–24; 6:5–6).
  3. God graciously announces that the woman’s offspring will redeem humanity from the serpent’s tyranny. Genesis then traces a unique family line, highlighting how its members enjoy a special relationship with God and are a source of blessing to a world that lies under the curse of God (3:15; 4:25; 5:2; 6:8–9; 11:10–26; 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:16–18; 26:3–4, 24; 27:27–29; 28:14; 30:27–30; 39:5; 49:22–26).
  4. As a result of the man’s disobedience, his unique relationship with the ground degenerates, resulting in hard toil and even famine. While Genesis graphically illustrates the effects of this broken relationship, it also portrays the special family line as bringing relief from such hardship (3:17–19; 5:29; 9:20; 26:12–33; 41:1–57; 47:13–26; 50:19–21).
  5. While the woman’s punishment centers on pain in bearing children (3:16), women play an essential role in continuing the unique family line; with God’s help even barrenness is overcome (11:30; 21:1–7; 25:21; 29:31-30:24; 38:1–30).
  6. The corruption of human nature causes families to be torn apart as brotherly affection is replaced by resentment and hatred (4:1–16; 13:5–8; 25:22–23, 29-34; 27:41–45; 37:2–35). Although Genesis highlights the reality of family strife, the members of the family line have the potential to be agents of reconciliation (13:8–11; 33:1–11; 45:1–28; 50:15–21).
  7. Whereas exile from Eden and dispersion throughout the earth are used by God to punish the wicked (3:22–24; 4:12–16; 11:9), the promise of land is a sign of divine favor (12:1–2, 7; 13:14–17; 15:7–21; 26:2–3; 28:13–14; 50:24).
  8. Although God is prepared to destroy almost the whole of humanity because of its corruption (6:7, 11-12; 18:17–33), he still desires that the earth should be populated by persons who are righteous (1:28; 8:17; 9:1, 7; 15:1–5; 17:2; 22:17; 26:4; 28:3; 35:11; 48:4).


History of Salvation Summary

Modern readers are likely to be familiar with selected parts of Genesis. Most, however, struggle to comprehend how the disparate elements of the book combine to form a unified account. Consequently, individual episodes are often read in isolation, with an inadequate appreciation of how the larger literary context shapes the passage in question. Grasping the big picture of Genesis is very important.


Central to this picture is the family line that forms the backbone of the entire book. The importance of this lineage cannot be overstated, for beginning in 3:15 the offspring of the woman becomes the source of hope for the defeat of the serpent and the restoration of the earth and everything in it. In due course the woman’s offspring is traced through Seth to Noah, a “righteous man” (6:9) who found favor with God, so that God saved him and his family from being destroyed in the flood. From Noah the family line moves to Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth will be blessed (12:1–3). When God establishes the covenant of circumcision with Abraham, the divine promise of blessing is linked to a future royal descendant traced through Abraham’s son Isaac.


As Genesis proceeds, the promise of blessing becomes intimately connected with the firstborn son. Yet this coincides with an unusual motif within the book. The status of firstborn does not always go to the son born first. When twins are born to Isaac, a long struggle takes place between Esau and his younger brother Jacob. After Esau sells his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of stew (25:29–34), Jacob deceptively gets from Isaac the firstborn blessing (27:27–29). Expressed in terms that echo God’s promise to Abraham, this blessing affirms Jacob as the one through whom the royal line will continue.


Joseph’s promotion over Reuben to the status of firstborn, along with his dreams, initially indicates that the potential royal line will continue through him. Although he is sold into slavery by his brothers, his subsequent governorship of Egypt confirms that God is with him. Later, when the family is reunited and Jacob pronounces the blessing of the firstborn on Joseph’s younger son, Ephraim, the future royal line is linked to the descendants of Ephraim (48:13–19).


Genesis, however, contains an interesting twist. In spite of Joseph’s importance, his older brother Judah undergoes a remarkable transformation, and kingship is also associated with his descendants (49:8–12).


Beyond Genesis, the line of Ephraim assumes leadership of Israel when Joshua leads the people into the land of Canaan. In the time of Samuel, however, the Ephraimites are rejected when God chooses David to establish the first dynasty in Israel (see Ps. 78:67–72). Eventually, the divine promises linked to the family line in Genesis come to fulfillment in Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God who becomes by adoption “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1; see Acts 3:25–26; Gal. 3:16). By looking forward to a special King who will mediate God’s blessing to humanity, Genesis provides the foundation on which the rest of the Bible stands.


In saying that Genesis points forward to Jesus Christ, one must be careful because Genesis does not provide a full-grown Christology. What begins in Genesis as a divine promise of salvation linked to the woman’s offspring is expanded throughout the rest of the OT. Nevertheless, the ideas that are introduced in Genesis are fully consistent with the final reality.


While the concept of the nations’ being blessed through a future King is at the heart of Genesis, other related themes are also developed. One of the most important of these is the divine promise to Abraham that he will become a great nation (Gen. 12:2). Central to this are the twin concepts of land and descendants, both being essential components of nationhood. This emphasis on a nation has to be understood in the light of God’s purpose for the earth. It is to be his dwelling place, where he will live surrounded by a human population of royal priests. When Adam and Eve betray God, however, they forfeit their special status. Later, when God comes to dwell among the Israelites, they as a nation are given the opportunity to be a royal priesthood (Ex. 19:6). Unfortunately, they never fully realize all that God wants them to be. Yet even through failure, they provide an indication of how the earth should be under God’s rule.


With the coming of Jesus Christ, the national theocracy of Israel is replaced by an international royal priesthood that includes Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles (1 Pet. 2:9). Although the church becomes the dwelling place of God on earth, evil still remains. Only after the return of Christ and the final judgment will all things be restored and a new earth be created. At that time, the new Jerusalem will mark the completion of the divine project that began in Genesis. John’s vision of the new earth in Revelation 21-22 has close affinities with Genesis 1-2.



Genesis and History

Clearly all the events in Genesis long predate the time of Moses–this is so with the patriarchs (chs. 12-50) and much more so with the primeval period (chs. 1-11). Further, there are important parallels between chapters 1-11 and stories of ancient times from Mesopotamia (e.g., creation and flood). Since these stories are generally called “myths,” some suggest that this is the right category for the stories in chapters 1-11. Some even argue that the stories of the patriarchs are legends, with only a loose connection to actual people and events. In order to sort through these issues, the first question is whether Genesis claims to record “history.”


In order to address this issue, it is crucial to have a good, clear, and precise definition of “history.” In ordinary language, the word simply refers to an account of events that the author believes to have happened; in and of itself, the label “history” makes no comment about whether the account is complete, unbiased, free from divine activity, in strict chronological sequence, or with or without figurative and imaginative (sometimes called mythological) elements.


With this definition, it is easy to see that Genesis aims to record actual events rather than mythical events. The book explains to its Jewish audience how their ancestors came to be in Egypt; the genealogies connect Jacob and his children with the ancient generations, going back to Adam and Eve, the original pair of humans. Further, the book is narrative prose, whose main function in the Bible is to recount history. The creation account, 1:1-2:3, is stylistically different from the rest of the book; it is exalted prose, and its historicity is assumed elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., Ps. 136:4–9).


The similarities of Genesis 1-11 to the Mesopotamian stories actually support the conclusion that these chapters intend to record history. The Mesopotamian stories clearly aim to celebrate actual historical events, but they do so in “mythological” terms. The Genesis stories are fundamentally different, however, in that they recount the activities of the one true God. Genesis, like the Mesopotamian stories, provides the opening act of a grand narrative that conveys a particular worldview. In order to provide the necessary grounding for this worldview, the author needed to use real events (albeit theologically interpreted). In this way Genesis aims to provide a true record of these events, in harmony with the biblical worldview. That worldview includes the notions that Yahweh, the deity of Israel, is the universal Creator of heaven and earth, who made mankind to know and love him; that all mankind fell through the disobedience of Adam and Eve; and that God chose Israel to be the vehicle by which all mankind would receive the blessing of knowing the true God. Clearly, that worldview requires the events of Genesis to be historical.


At the same time, it is not possible to answer all questions arising from Genesis. For example, faithful interpreters of the book disagree on just how long Adam lived before Abraham, or even how long the creation period lasted (see Genesis and Science). There is not enough material here for the complete life of Abraham. Even the name of the pharaoh that Joseph served is not mentioned. It is possible through archaeological research to locate some of the Genesis events in ancient Near Eastern history, at least in order to offer a plausible scenario for them. But it remains true that Moses has not sought to provide a comprehensive retelling of ancient days; his purpose lay elsewhere.



Genesis and Science

The relation of Genesis to science is primarily a question of how one reads the accounts of creation and fall (chs. 1-3) and of the flood (chs. 6-9). What kind of “days” does Genesis 1 describe? How long ago is this supposed to have happened? Were all species created as they are now? Were Adam and Eve real people? Are all people descended from them? How much of the earth did Noah’s flood cover? How much impact did it have on geological formations?


Faithful interpreters have offered arguments for taking the creation week of Genesis 1 as a regular week with ordinary days (the “calendar day” reading); or as a sequence of geological ages (the “day-age” reading); or as God’s “workdays,” analogous to a human workweek (the “analogical days” view); or as a literary device to portray the creation week as if it were a workweek, but without concern for temporal sequence (the “literary framework” view). Some have suggested that Genesis 1:2, “the earth was without form and void,” describes a condition that resulted from Satan’s primeval rebellion, which preceded the creation week (the “gap theory”). There have been other readings as well, but these five are the most common.


None of these views requires denying that Genesis 1 is historical, so long as the discussion in the section on Genesis and History is kept in mind. Each of these readings can be squared with other biblical passages that reflect on creation. The most important of these is Exodus 20:11, “in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day”: since this passage echoes Genesis 1:1–2:3, the word “day” here need mean only what it means in Genesis 1. Therefore, it does not require an ordinary-day interpretation, nor does it preclude an ordinary-day interpretation. The arguments for and against these different views involve detailed treatment of the Hebrew (going far beyond the question of the meaning of “day”), and assessing these arguments would go beyond the goal of this discussion.


A further question involves the genealogies: do they describe direct father-to-son descent, or do they allow for gaps? The Hebrew term “father” can be used of a distant ancestor, and “son” can refer to a distant descendant. Likewise, “to father” can mean “to become the ancestor of.” In other words, the conventions for Hebrew genealogies allow for gaps; genealogies are not given to indicate a length of time.


These issues become less pressing when it is recalled that no biblical passage ever actually purports to count up the length of the creation week (outside of Ex. 20:11) and that no biblical author adds up the life spans in the genealogies to compute absolute time.

Should Genesis 1 be called a “scientific account”? Again, it is crucial to have a careful definition. Does Genesis 1 record a true account of the origin of the material universe? To that question, the answer must be yes. On the other hand, does Genesis 1 provide information in a way that corresponds to the purposes of modern science? To this question the answer is no.


Consider some of the challenges. For example, the term “kind” does not correspond to the notion of “species;” it simply means “category,” and could refer to a species, or a family, or an even more general taxonomic group. Indeed, the plants are put into two general categories, small seed-bearing plants, and larger woody plants. The land animals are classified as domesticable stock animals (“livestock”); small things such as mice, lizards, and spiders (“creeping things”); and larger game and predatory animals (“beasts of the earth”). Indeed, no species, other than man, gets its proper Hebrew name. Not even the sun and moon get their ordinary Hebrew names (1:16). The text says nothing about the process by which “the earth brought forth vegetation” (1:12), or by which the various kinds of animals appeared–although the fact that it was in response to God’s command indicates that it was not due to any natural powers inherent in the material universe itself.


This account is well cast for its main purpose, which was to enable a community of nomadic shepherds in the Sinai desert to celebrate the boundless creative goodness of the Creator; it does not say why, e.g., a spider is different from a snake, nor does it comment on what genetic relationship there might be between various creatures. At the same time, when the passage is received according to its purpose, it shapes a worldview in which science is at home (probably the only worldview that really makes science possible). This is a concept of a world that a good and wise God made, perfectly suited for humans to enjoy and to rule. The things in the world have natures that people can know, at least in part. Human senses and intelligence are the right tools for discerning and saying true things about the world. (The effects of sin, of course, can interfere with this process.)


It is clear that Adam and Eve are presented as real people. Their role in the story, as the channel by which sin came into the world, implies that they are seen as the headwaters of the human race. The image of God distinguishes them from all the animals, and is a special bestowal of God (i.e., not a purely “natural” development). It is no wonder that all human beings share capacities for language, moral judgment, rationality, and appreciation for beauty, unlike and beyond the powers observed in the animals; any science that ignores this fact does not faithfully describe reality. The biblical worldview leads one to expect as well that all humans now share a need for God and a bent toward sin, as well as a possibility for faith in the true God.


One must take similar care in reading the flood story. The notes will discuss the extent to which Moses intended to describe the flood’s coverage of the globe. Certainly, the description of the flood implies that it was widespread and catastrophic, but there are difficulties in making confident claims that the account is geared to answering the question of just how widespread. Thus, it would be incautious to attribute to the flood all the geological formations observed today–the strata, the fossils, the deformations, and so on. Geologists agree that catastrophic events, such as volcanic eruptions and large-scale floods, have had great impact on the landscape; it is questionable, though, whether these events can in fact achieve all that might be claimed for them. Again, such matters do not come within the author’s own scope, which is to stress the interest that God has in all mankind.


Thus, even though it is wrong to use Genesis as if it were directly furnishing information in modern scientific form, it is nonetheless crucial to affirm its historical account and its God- centered worldview in order to provide a proper foundation for doing good science.



Reading Genesis in the Twenty-first Century

The book of Genesis originated thousands of years ago–a fact easily forgotten when it is read in a modern English translation. It was composed in an age and culture far removed from the experiences of most modern readers. Due allowance must be made for this distance between text and reader. While modern English translations attempt to bridge this gap, it is not always possible to replicate the nuances and wordplays of the Hebrew original. 


Moreover, Genesis employs literary techniques not commonly used today. Woven into stories set in an ancient Near Eastern culture, these features present obstacles that can be overcome only through patient study of the text.


Interpreting Genesis is further complicated by the fact that it is also the inspired Word of God. This leads some readers to suppose that this infallible text will be omniscient, like its divine author. They then look for answers to questions that Genesis is not trying to answer. Yet like any other part of the Bible, Genesis is limited and selective in the information that it conveys; it does not tell readers everything that they could possibly want to know. 


Frequently, readers may ask questions, legitimate in themselves, that are not answered by the text.


Genesis does not tell, for instance, how the serpent came to be God’s enemy or where Cain found a wife. Such questions could be multiplied many times. Consequently, one’s natural curiosity must be correctly channeled, for the inspired author of Genesis intentionally communicates only certain things. Yet the text does not cease to be the Word of God simply because it is limited in what it tells the reader; it need not be exhaustive in order to be true. These observations regarding the limitations of Genesis as a literary text are especially important when one turns to its opening chapters.


The sections on Genesis and History and Genesis and Science show why it is right to say that these chapters are meant to convey history, and that they present a worldview that gives science its proper home. At the same time, this is not the same as saying that they offer their message in a form that modern readers are accustomed to reading. To read Genesis well, it is helpful to have some understanding of ancient literary forms. Thus, it would be hasty to conclude that Genesis conflicts with a proper understanding of either science or historiography (whose standard conclusions at any given time are also liable to revision). Put simply, the author of Genesis writes to celebrate the fact that God made the world, not to explain the details of how he made it.


This difference in approach means that Genesis 1 does not address the mechanics of creation. Rather, it simply says that God brought the heavens and the earth into being by means of his spoken word (“And God said”); and it explains that God ordered the earth in terms of time and space, revealing that people were originally created by God and appointed by God to be his representatives on earth, to rule it for his glory and the benefit of all creation. To the extent that scientists deny that God is the Creator of all things, a fundamental conflict will exist between the foundation and conclusions of such scientific work and the Bible. At the same time, to the extent that the focus of science is on understanding and describing the world that God created, no conflict between the Bible and scientific work needs to exist. Understood in terms of what the author of Genesis seeks to communicate, science as well as the Bible have a valuable and legitimate place. But as divine revelation, Genesis provides knowledge that cannot be discovered by human investigation. Were it otherwise, there would be no need for Genesis to be a part of the Bible.


The modern reader receives Genesis best, then, when he or she cooperates with Moses’ own purpose in writing the book. It is the front end of the grand narrative of creation, fall, and redemption–a narrative that has reached a glorious point in the resurrection of Jesus, the down payment of its even more glorious consummation. The story is of a good world made by a good God and man’s role in that world, the story of how the stain of sin affects everything, the story of how God intends to reverse those effects. 


Thus, the life that one lives in the body, one’s connection to all mankind, one’s connection to and responsibility for the created world, one’s dependence on God’s grace–all are founded on the story that begins in Genesis. The Christian economy, like the covenant made at Sinai, involves a need for moral purity, lived in the body; physical ordinances by which God communicates his grace; a community to which the faithful are bound–all affirming God’s original creation intent. Further, Genesis offers a paradigm for God’s dealings with his creation, namely, the representative: Adam represented mankind and the world, and the consequences of his fall pass to all those whom he represented. This provides the framework for the Christian understanding of how Jesus does his representative work, which will have consequences both for the people he represents and for the rest of creation.



Literary Features

As already mentioned, Genesis is a history book, with its history packaged in literary forms.

Genesis is an anthology of diverse forms. It is more highly unified than most anthologies, however, because all of the material falls into the overall genre of historical narrative. But in turn, history is not packaged as it is in the history books with which modern readers are familiar. Instead, the book of Genesis is primarily a collection of what may be called hero stories–episodic tales focused on a central character with whom the reader is to sympathize– with interspersed genealogies. The first three chapters belong to a genre known as the story of origins. Genesis also has affinities with the epic genre because the story is one of universal history (chs. 1-11) and the origins of the nation of Israel (chs. 12-50).


A literary approach to the book of Genesis requires that the reader think correctly about the currently recognized concept of a literary “hero.” This approach has three crucial principles:

  1. real life provides the materials for a hero, but the image of the hero is always achieved by a selection and distillation of items drawn from a larger body of information about a person.
  2. cultures celebrate heroes as a way of codifying their own ideals, values, and virtues; and
  3. literary heroes are representative of the culture producing them and, in some ways, of people universally.

The heroes in these stories are not always “heroic”: they are simply the human center of attention in the story; their actions are brave or cowardly or noble or base, or (more often) a complex mixture of all these characteristics. As the narrative proceeds, the reader should be struck with the contingencies–that is, the episodes could have turned out differently, perhaps even should have turned out differently. God’s providential care for his people uses their imperfections to achieve his purposes for them. The original audience would then see their own situations as permeated with God’s purpose and would thus learn to embrace their lives as a gift from God, to be lived as he directs. An example is the servant’s finding Rebekah to be Isaac’s wife (ch. 24). Any of these events could have turned out differently, and then Isaac and Rebekah would never have married–perhaps, in view of 24:3–8, Isaac would not have married at all, and then where would the promises to Abraham be? But God kept his promise (one is not obligated to think that everything the servant did was right), and the first readers could learn to see themselves under God’s care as the result of reflection on what took place. The modern Christian reader is likewise the heir and beneficiary of this story.



Unifying literary motifs include:

  1. The characterization of God and the story of his dealings with people.
  2. The sinfulness of the human race and individuals within it.
  3. The story of the unfolding plan of God to redeem a people for himself despite human waywardness.
  4. The “hero story” as the nearly constant genre.
  5. Characters, characters, characters: as one reads Genesis, one is continually drawn into encounters with unforgettable characters and their stories, and lessons about wisdom and folly that can be learned from them.


Commentaries contained within this document were tailored to the needs and enrichment of thoughtful readers – lay Christians, students, and those in the ministry. The original source commentaries written at a high technical level, have been abridged as needed, simplified stylistically, and unburdened of unfamiliar words. The purpose of this document is never to change any thoughts of the original authors, but to faithfully convey them in an understandable fashion. All original commentaries used are noted in each bibliographical section.


SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
  1. Alexander, T. D. (1997), ‘Further Observations on the Term “Seed” in Genesis’, TynBul 48: 363-367.
  2. Arnold, B. T. (2009), Genesis, NCBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Backon, J. (2008), ‘Jacob and the Spotted Sheep: The Role of Prenatal Nutrition on Epigenetics of Fur Color’, JBQ 36: 263-265.
  3. Bailleul-LeSuer, R. (ed.) (2012), Between Heaven and Earth: Birds in Ancient Egypt, OIMP 35 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago).
  4. Barnard, H. et al. (2010), ‘Chemical Evidence for Wine Production around 4000 BCE in the Late Chalcolithic Near Eastern Highlands’, Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 1-8.
  5. Bechtel, L. M. (1994), ‘What if Dinah Is Not Raped? (Genesis 34)’, JSOT 19: 19-36.
  6. Berlin, A. (1985), The Dynamics of Biblical Poetry (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press). Carmichael, C. M. (1969), ‘Some Sayings in Genesis 49’, JBL 88: 435-444.
  7. Charles, J. D. (ed.) (2013), Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
  8. Chisholm, R. B., Jr. (2007), ‘Anatomy of an Anthropomorphism: Does God Discover Facts?’, BSac 164: 3-20.
  9. Clark, W. M. (1969), ‘Legal Background to the Yahwist’s Use of “Good and Evil” in Genesis 2- 3’, JBL 88: 266-278.
  10. Clifford, R. J. (2004), ‘Genesis 38: Its Contribution to the Jacob Story’, CBQ 66: 519-532. Clines, D. J. A. (1968), ‘Meaning of “Let Us” in Gn 1:26’, TynBul 19: 53-103.
  11. (1997), The Theme of the Pentateuch, 2nd edn, JSOTSupp 10 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
  12. Coats, G. W. (1983), Genesis with an Introduction to Narrative Literature, FOTL 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
  13. Collins, C. J. (1997), ‘A Syntactical Note (Genesis 3:15): Is the Woman’s Seed Singular or Plural?’, TynBul 48: 139-148.
  14. (2003), ‘Galatians 3:16: What Kind of Exegete Was Paul?’, TynBul 54: 75-86.
  15. Collins, S. (2013), ‘Where Is Sodom? The Case for Tall El-Hammam’, BAR 39.2: 32-41, 70-71.

Other Sources

  1. Condren, J. C. (2017), ‘Toward a Purge of the Battle of the Sexes and “Return” for the Original Meaning of Genesis 3:16b’, JETS 60: 227-246.
  2. Cross, F. M. (1973), Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
  3. De Vaux, R. (1978), The Early History of Israel, tr. D. Smith (Philadelphia: Westminster). Diffey, D. S. (2011), ‘The Royal Promise in Genesis: The Often Underestimated Importance of Genesis 17:6, 17:16 and 35:11’, TynBul 62: 313-316.
  4. Driver, G. R., and J. C. Miles (1952), The Babylonian Laws, Volume 1: Legal Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon).
  5. Driver, S. R. (1899), An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 9th edn, International Theological Library (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).
  6. Foh, S. T. (1975), ‘What Is the Woman’s Desire?’, WTJ 37: 376-383.
  7. Frolov, S. (2012), ‘Judah Comes to Shiloh: Genesis 49:10bα, One More Time’, JBL 131: 417- 422.
  8. Frymer-Kensky, T. S. (1981), ‘Patriarchal Family Relationships and Near Eastern Law’, BA 44: 209-214.
  9. Futato, Mark D. (1998), ‘Because It Had Rained: A Study of Gen 2:5-7 with Implications for Gen 2:4-25 and Gen 1:1-2:3’, WTJ 60.1: 1-21.
  10. Geller, S. A. (1982), ‘The Struggle at the Jabbok: The Uses of Enigma in a Biblical Narrative’, JANESCU 14: 37-60.
  11. Gevirtz, S. (1971), ‘The Reprimand of Reuben’, JNES 30: 87-98.
  12. (1975), ‘Of Patriarchs and Puns: Joseph at the Fountain, Jacob at the Ford’, HUCA 46: 33-54. Goldingay, J. (2010), Genesis for Everyone – Part 1: Chapters 1-16, Old Testament for Everyone (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press).
  13. Good, E. M. (1963), ‘“Blessing” on Judah, Gen 49:8-12’, JBL 82: 427-432.
  14. Gordon, C. H. (1977), ‘Where Is Abraham’s Ur?’, BAR 3.2: 20-21, 52.
  15. Greenberg, M. (1962), ‘Another Look at Rachel’s Theft of the Teraphim’, JBL 81: 239-248. Griffiths, J. G. (1965), ‘Celestial Ladder and the Gate of Heaven’, ET 76: 229-230.
  16. Grossman, J. (2016), ‘Different Dreams: Two Models of Interpretation for Three Pairs of Dreams (Genesis 37-50)’, JBL 135: 717-732.
  17. Hamilton, V. P. (1990), The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
  18. (1995), The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18-50, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Hasel, G. F. (1975), ‘Meaning of “Let Us” in Gn 1:26’, AUSS 13: 58-66.
  19. Heck, J. D. (1986), ‘Issachar: Slave or Freeman? (Gen 49:14-15)’, JETS 29: 385-396. Hendel, R. (1987), ‘Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6.1-4’, JBL 106: 13-36.
  20. Hoffmeier, J. K. (1983), ‘Some Thoughts on Genesis 1 and 2 in Light of Egyptian Chronology’, JANESCU 15: 39-49.
  21. (1997), Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Traditions (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
  22. Hoffner, H. A. (1967), ‘Second Millennium Antecedents to the Hebrew “ÔB” ’, JBL 86: 385-401. Holladay, W. L. (2007), ‘Indications of Segmented Sleep in the Bible’, CBQ 69: 215-221.
  23. Houtman, C. (1977), ‘What Did Jacob See in His Dream at Bethel? Some Remarks on Genesis 28:10-22’, VT 27: 337-351.
  24. Hurowitz, V. (2000), ‘Who Lost an Earring? Genesis 35:4 Reconsidered’, CBQ 62: 28-32. Johnston, G. H. (2008), ‘Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths’, BSac 165: 178-194. Kidner, D. (1967), Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 1 (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, repr. 2008).
  25. Kitchen, K. (1966), Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago: InterVarsity Press). (2003), On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
  26. LaBianca, Ø. S. (2003), ‘Subsistence Pastoralism’, in S. Richard (ed.), Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns), 116-123.
  27. Lang, B. (1985), ‘Non-Semitic Deluge Stories and the Book of Genesis: A Bibliographic and Critical Survey’, Anthropos 80: 605-616.
  28. Larsson, G. (1983), ‘The Chronology of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the MT and LXX’, JBL 102: 401-409.
  29. Lee, C.-C. (2012), ‘Once Again: The Niphal and the Hithpael of brk in the Abrahamic Blessing
  30. for the Nations’, JSOT 36: 279−296.
  31. Lessing, R. R. (2007), Jonah, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia).
  32. Lessing, R. R., and A. E. Steinmann (2014), Prepare the Way of the Lord: An Introduction to the Old Testament (St. Louis: Concordia).
  33. Leupold, H. C. (1942), Exposition of Genesis, 2 vols. (Columbus: Wartburg; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982).
  34. McCarter, P. Kyle (1974), ‘The Early Diffusion of the Alphabet’, BA 37.3: 54-68.
  35. MacDonald, N. (2004), ‘Listening to Abraham—Listening to Yhwh: Divine Justice and Mercy in Genesis 18:16-33’, CBQ 66: 25-43.
  36. Malul, M. (1987), ‘Touching the Sexual Organs as an Oath Ceremony in an Akkadian Letter’, VT 37: 491-492.
  37. Martin, T. W. (2003), ‘The Covenant of Circumcision (Genesis 17:9-14) and the Situational Antithesis in Galatians 3:28’, JBL 122: 111-125.
  38. Mathews, K. A. (1996), Genesis 1-11:26, NAC 1A (Nashville: B&H). (2005), Genesis 11:27-50:26, NAC 1B (Nashville: B&H).
  39. Maxwell, D. R. (2007), ‘Justified by Works and Not by Faith Alone: Reconciling Paul and James’, Concordia Journal 33: 375-378.
  40. Mendelsohn, I. (1959), ‘A Ugaritic Parallel to the Adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh’, IEJ 9: 180-183.
  41. Millard, A. R. (1966), ‘Celestial Ladder and the Gate of Heaven’, ET 78: 86-87. Morschauser, S. (2003), ‘“Hospitality”, Hostiles and Hostages: On the Legal Background to Genesis 19.1-9’, JSOT 27: 461-485.
  42. Murphy, B. (2013), ‘The Trinity in Creation’, MSJ 24: 167-177.
  43. Niehaus, J. (1994), ‘In the Wind of the Storm: Another Look at Genesis III 8’, VT 44: 263-267. Oblath, M. D. (2001), ‘ “To Sleep, Perchance to Dream . . . ” What Jacob Saw at Bethel (Genesis 28.10-22)’, JSOT 95: 117-126.
  44. Odhiambo, N. (2013), ‘The Nature of Ham’s Sin’, BSac 170: 154-165.
  45. Ortlund, D. (2010), ‘ “And Their Eyes Were Opened, and They Knew”: An Inter-Canonical Note on Luke 24:31’, JETS 53: 717-728.
  46. Posnanski, A. (1904), Schiloh: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Messiaslehre (Leipzig: Hinrichs). Provan, I. (2016), Discovering Genesis: Content, Interpretation, Reception (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
  47. Rendsburg, G. A. (1987), ‘Gen 10:13-14: An Authentic Hebrew Tradition Concerning the Origin of the Philistines’, JNSL 13: 89-96.
  48. (2002), ‘Some False Leads in the Identification of Late Biblical Hebrew Texts: The Cases of Genesis 24 and 1 Samuel 2:27-36’, JBL 121: 23-46.
  49. Rickett, D. (2011), ‘Rethinking the Place and Purpose of Genesis 13’, JSOT 36: 31-53. Rogland, M. (2010), ‘Interpreting ‘d in Genesis 2.5-6: Neglected Rabbinic and Intertextual Evidence’, JSOT 34: 379-393.
  50. Sailhamer, J. H. (2012), ‘Genesis’, in T. Longman III and D. E. Garland (eds.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
  51. Sarna, N. M. (1989), Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation Commentary, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society).
  52. Sasson, J. M. (1966), ‘Circumcision in the Ancient Near East’, JBL 85: 473-476. (1978), ‘Genealogical “Convention” in Biblical Chronography’, ZAW 90: 171-185.
  53. Seebass, H. (1984), ‘Die Stämmesprüche Gen 49:3-27’, ZAW 96: 333-350.
  54. Shemesh, Y. (2007), ‘Rape Is Rape: The Story of Dinah and Shechem (Genesis 34)’, ZAW 119: 2-21.
  55. Ska, J. L. (1992), ‘Sommaires proleptiques en Gn 27 et dans l’histoire de Joseph’, Biblica 73 Smith, B. (2005), ‘The Central Role of Judah in Genesis 37-50’, BSac 162: 158-174.
  56. Speiser, E. A. (1964), Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
  57. (1967), Oriental and Biblical Studies: Collected Writings of E. A. Speiser, ed. J. J. Finkelstein and M. Greenberg (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press).


More Works

  1. Steiner, R. C. (2010), ‘Poetic Forms in the Masoretic Vocalization and Three Difficult Phrases in Jacob’s Blessing’, JBL 129: 209-235.
  2. Ska, J. L. (1992), ‘Sommaires proleptiques en Gn 27 et dans l’histoire de Joseph’, Biblica 73: 518-527.
  3. Smith, B. (2005), ‘The Central Role of Judah in Genesis 37-50’, BSac 162: 158-174. Speiser, E. A. (1964), Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
  4. (1967), Oriental and Biblical Studies: Collected Writings of E. A. Speiser, ed. J. J. Finkelstein and M. Greenberg (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press).
  5. Steiner, R. C. (2010), ‘Poetic Forms in the Masoretic Vocalization and Three Difficult Phrases in Jacob’s Blessing’, JBL 129: 209-235.
  6. Steinmann, A. E. (2002), ‘’echad as an Ordinal Number and the Meaning of Genesis 1:5’, JETS 45: 577-584.
  7. (2009), Proverbs, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia).
  8. (2011), From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology (St. Louis: Concordia).
  9. (2016-17), ‘A Note on the Refrain in Genesis 1: Evening, Morning, and Day as Chronological Summary’, JESOT 5.2: 125-140.
  10. (2017a), ‘Jesus and Possessing the Enemies’ Gate (Genesis 22:17-18 and Genesis 24:60)’, BSac 174: 13-21.
  11. (2017b), ‘Gaps in the Genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11?’, BSac 174: 141-158.
  12. (2017c), ‘Challenging the Authenticity of Cainan, Son of Arpachshad’, JETS 60: 697-711. (2017d), 2 Samuel, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia).
  13. Stuart, D. K. (2014), ‘ “The Cool of the Day” (Gen 3:8) and “The Way He Should Go” (Prov 22:6)’, BSac 171: 259-273.
  14. Tigay, J. H. (1985), Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania).
  15. Tomasino, A. J. (1992), ‘History Repeats Itself: The “Fall” and Noah’s Drunkenness’, VT 42: 128-130.
  16. Toorn, K. van der (1990), ‘The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in the Light of the Cuneiform Evidence’, CBQ 52: 203-222.
  17. Tucker, Gene M. (1966), ‘Legal Background of Genesis 23’, JBL 85: 77-84.
  18. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, InterVarsity Press, USA, P.O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, IL 60515, USA
  19. Van Seters, J. (1968), ‘Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel’, JBL 87: 401-408.
  20. Vergote, J. (1959), Joseph en Égypte: Genèse Chat. 37-50, à la lumière des études Égyptologiques récentes, Orientalia et biblica lovaniensia 3 (Louvain: Publications Universitaires).
  21. Vogt, E. (1975), ‘Benjamin geboren “eine Meile” von Ephrata’, Biblica 56: 30-36.
  22. Von Rad, G. (1972), Genesis: A Commentary, Old Testament Library, rev. edn, trans. J. H. Marks (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox).
  23. Ward, W. A. (1957), ‘Egyptian Titles in Genesis 39-50’, BSac 114: 40-59. Wenham, G. J. (1972), ‘Betûlāh, a Girl of Marriageable Age’, VT 22: 326-348. (1978a), ‘Coherence of the Flood Narrative’, VT 28: 336-348.
  24. (1978b), ‘Lev 27:2-8 and the Price of Slaves’, ZAW 90: 264-265.
  25. (1987), Genesis 1-15, WBC 1 (Waco: Word)., (1994), Genesis 16-50, WBC 2 (Waco: Word). Westermann, C. (1985), Genesis 12-36, trans. J. J. Scullion, Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress).
  26. (1986), Genesis 37-50, trans. J. J. Scullion, Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress). (1994), Genesis 1-11, trans. J. J. Scullion, Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg). Wieder, A. A. (1965), ‘Ugaritic-Hebrew Lexicographical Notes’, JBL 84: 160-164.
  27. Wilson, R. R. (1977), Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, YNER 7 (New Haven: Yale University).
  28. Winnett, F. V. (1970), ‘The Arabian Genealogies in the Book of Genesis’, in H. T. Frank and W. LaForest Reed (eds.), Translating and Understanding the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon), 171-196.
  29. Wiseman, P. J. (1985), Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis: A Case for Literary Unity, ed. D. J. Wiseman (Nashville: Thomas Nelson).
  30. Wood, B. G. (2011), ‘Hittites and Hethites: A Proposed Solution to an Etymological Conundrum’, JETS 54: 239-250.
  31. Young, D. W. (1990), ‘The Influences of Babylonian Algebra on Longevity among the Antediluvians’, ZAW 102: 321-355.
  32. Zakovitch, Y. (2005), I Will Utter Riddles from Ancient Time: Riddles and Dream-Riddles in Biblical Narrative [Hebrew], Aron sefarim Yehudi (Tel Aviv: Am Oved).


Texts and versions

  1. CSB The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission.
  2. ESV The ESV Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved
  3. GW GOD’S WORD®, © 1995 God’s Word to the Nations. Used by permission of Baker Publishing Group
  4. LXX The Septuagint (pre-Christian Greek version of the Old Testament)
  5. MT Masoretic Text NETThe NET Bible, New English Translation, copyright © 1996 by Biblical Studies Press, LLC.
  6. NET Bible is a registered trademark
  7. NIV The Holy Bible, New International Version (Anglicized edition). Copyright © 1979, 1984, 2011 by Biblica. Used by permission of Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, an Hachette UK company. All rights reserved. ‘NIV’ is a registered trademark of Biblica.
  8. NRSV New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, Anglicized Edition, copyright © 1989, 1995 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches SP Samaritan Pentateuch
  9. TNK The TANAKH


ABBREVIATIONS

  1. AB Anchor Bible ABDD. N. Freedman et al. (eds.), Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992)
  2. ACCS T. C. Oden (ed.), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, 29 vols. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001)
  3. ANET J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd edn (Princeton: Princeton University, 1969)
  4. AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies BABiblical Archaeologist BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BSacBibliotheca Sacra
  5. CBQ The Catholic Biblical Quarterly ET The Expository Times
  6. FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature
  7. HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual IEJIsrael Exploration Journal JANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
  8. JBQ Jewish Bible Quarterly
  9. JESOT Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
  10. JM P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006)
  11. JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
  12. JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
  13. JSOT SuppJournal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series
  14. LW J. Pelikan (ed.), Luther’s Works: The American Edition, 54 vols. (St. Louis: Concordia, 1955-86)
  15. MSJ The Master’s Seminary Journal
  16. NAC New American Commentary
  17. NCBC New Cambridge Bible Commentary
  18. NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament OIMP Oriental Institute Museum Publications
  19. TDOT G. Johannes Botterweck, H. Ringgren and H.-J. Fabry (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 15 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975-2015)
  20. TLOT E. Jenni and K. Westermann (eds.), Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, tr. M. E. Biddle, 3 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997)
  21. TWOT R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. and B. K. Waltke (eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Chicago: Moody, 1981)
  22. TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
  23. VT Vetus Testamentum
  24. WBC Word Biblical Commentary


Comments

Post a Comment