Genesis 15 : a non-genetic approach

Abstract

Ever since M. Noth's famous note 85 of his Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch wherein he declared that notwithstanding the presence of different strata "gehoren daher beide Szenen literarisch zusammen und konnen nicht voneinander getrennt wenien," the unity of Gen 15 has remained a matter of controversy. On the one hand we encounter scholars who sustain the substantial unity of the two halves of the chapter: vv. 1 - 6. 7 - 21. J. Hoftijzer does not consider as possible "Eine Scheidung des Kapitels in zwer selbsHindige Teile" and passes on to refute the various arguments advanced in favour of such division. L.A. Snijders follows Hoftijzer in reading Gen 15 as a unity; he bases his thesis upon the text's "logical coherence": "This account... has been presented to us as a coherent and connected whole. One can understand why promises about a son, posterity and the land are bound together. The subject shows essential connection". N. Lohfink distinguishes not between the two 'traditional' parts of the periscope, but between "einem einziger literarischen (Oder vorliterarischen) Schopfungsakt entstammender Haupttext" consisting of vv. 1 - 2. 4 - 12. 17 - 21 and "zwei Zusatze, ein den Text erklarender in 15,3, und ein den Inhalt interpretierenden in 15,13-16". J. Van Seters stresses that Gen 15 is organically one unit notwithstanding the multiplicity of genres employed. These literary genres "are drawn from the royal court, the cult, prophetic narrative conventions, and legal spheres. Yet in spite of this variety there is no reason form-critically why any particular verse should be separated from the basic account and considered as secondary or why there should be a general source division into more than one source" .