Andrews University Seminary Studies 38.2 (Autumn 2000) 293-305. Copyright © 2000 by Andrews University Press; Cited with permission.TERMINOLOGICAL PATTERNS AND GENESIS 38 WILFRIED WARNINGSchulzentrum Seminar Marienhohe Darmstadt, GermanyIn recent studies a detailed analysis of the narrative outline of the Judah and Tamar episode has been presented.1 These analyses interpret Gen 38 as a literary whole possessing a distinct structural unity and design, a narrative in which the “analysis of structure or ‘form’ has brought to light the ‘content’”;2 and concerning the position of Gen 38 in the extant text and its linguistic and thematic interrelation with the Joseph story it has been concluded: 1 E. M. Menn proposes that "since the motifs of birth and naming appear earlier in the narrative as well (Gen 38:3-5), Genesis 38 may be viewed as a double tale of procreation, in which initial biological and social discontinuity is twice overcome, first in Gen 38:1-5 and nextin Gen 38:6-30" (Judah and Tamar [Genesis 38] in Ancient Jewish Exegesis: Studies in Literary Form and Hermeneutics, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 51 [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997], 15). The second part of the narrative, vv. 6-30, is subdivided by her as follows: vv. 6-11; 12-19;20-23; 24-26; 27-30 (19-28). A. J. Lambe, considering Gen 38 "one of the best examples of ... the Bible's `smaller literary wholes,"' presents a different and somewhat chiastic outline consisting of "five phases of development" ("Genesis 38: Structure and Literary Design," in The World of Genesis: Persons, Places, Perspectives, JSOTSup 257, ed. P. R. Davies and D. A.J. Clines [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998], 102-120). The proposed five phases of this overarching structure are: (1) equilibrium (vv. 1-6), (2) descent (vv. 7-11), (3) disequilibrium (v. 12a), (4) ascent (vv. 12b-26), and (5) equilibrium (vv. 27-30) (103). Furthermore, he maintains that each of the five sections has been chiastically structured (109-119). It should be noticed, however, that the postulated chiasms are mainly based on conceptual and only partly on terminological considerations. 2 Lambe, 102. Cf. J. A. Emerton, "Some Problems in Genesis 38," VT 25 (1975): 338-361; idem, "An Examination of a Recent Structuralist Interpretation of Genesis 38," VT 26 (1976), 79-98; idem, "Judah and Tamar," VT 29 (1979), 403-415; C. Westermann, Genesis, BKAT 1/3 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 42; Chr. Levin, Der Jahwist, FRLANT 157 (Gottingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1993),271; G. J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50, WBC 2 (Dallas: Word, 1994), 363-365. E. Blum considers Gen 38 to be "eine uberlieferungsgeschichtlich einheitliche Erzahlung, die zudem als ursprunglich selbstandige Einzelerzahlung vom Kontext der Josephgeschichte abzuheben ist"(Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, WMANT 57 [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984],224). Th. Kruger raises anew objections to the literary coherence of this story', claiming that "Gen 38 seine vorliegende Gestalt im Zusammenhang der nachexilischen Diskussion fiber die Moglichkeit eines Konnubiums nut Nicht judaern bzw. Nicht Juden erhalten hat" ("Genesis 38-EM ‘Lehrstuck’ alttestamentlicher Ethik," in Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte. Festschrift furKlaus Baltzerzum 65. Geburtstag, OBO 126, ed., R. Bartelmus, Th. Kruger and H. Utzschneider [Gottingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1993], 205-226).2931008294 SEMINARY STUDIES 38 (AUTUMN 2000)Judah's pivotal role in Gen 37-50 brings into question the appropriateness of the common designation of these chapters as the "Joseph Story."Although Joseph receives primary attention, Genesis 37-50 actually features two of Jacob's sons, Judah and Joseph, by describing the events oftheir lives after they part company with their brothers and by portraying their rise to positions of leadership, within the family and over Egypt,respectively.... Perhaps Genesis 38, with its focus on Judah, appears intrusive at least in part because Gen 37-50 is generally viewed as Joseph'sstory. If one broadens one's understanding of the subject of these chapters to include events important for Israel's history, then Genesis 38 doesn'tappear intrusive, but rather of paramount importance.3While E. M. Menn's results are in clear contrast to many studies scrutinizing the provenience and present position of Gen 38,4 I not only agree with her conclusions, but I would even hypothesize: in the context of the Endgestalt, i.e., the final shape of the text of Genesis, that this narrative has been purposefully placed in its present position by the ancient author, the term "author" being used and understood as referring to the person(s) responsible for the present text, the person(s) who composed the literary unit we call, e.g., "Gen 38" or "Genesis," literary entities which did not exist prior to their being composed in their present compositional context, whatever the prehistory of the respective Vorlagen might have been.In a recent study carefully and consistently following R. Rendtorff's hermeneutic principle that "the understanding of the biblical text in its present 3 Menn, 79, and n. 134; cf. U. Cassuto, "The Story of Tamar and Judah," Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973), 29-40; Wenham, 365. 4 E.g., Westermann, 42, maintains that Gen 38 is "eine in sich abgeschlossene Einzelerzahlung; ... Die Erzahlung von Judah and Tamar ist nicht, wie bisher gesagt wurde, in die Josephgeschichte eingefugt worden, sie hat mit ihr nichts zu tun, sondern in die Jakobgeschichte bzw. den Schlull der Jakobgeschichte (Gn 37 Vorlage and 46-50)" (his emphasis). R. Rendtorff interprets Gen 38 as a Judahite continuation of the Jacob story which has been inserted together with Gen 49 (Das Alte Testament. Eine Einfuhrung [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983] 145). Blum, 224, considers Gen 38 as "ursprunglich selbstandige Einzeluberlieferung [die] vom Kontext der Josephgeschichte abzuheben ist." Because of its theology, Kruger, 205-226, prefers an exilic-postexilic date for Gen 38; H.-Ch. Schmitt maintains: "Somit spricht alles dafur, dass es sich bei dem Verfasser von Gen 38 um einen schriftgelehrten Kenner der theologischen Tradition seiner Zeit handelt. Da er dabei sowohl auf das Deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk als auch auf das Heiligkeitsgesetz Bezug nimmt, kann durchaus damit gerechnet werden, dass es sich auch bei ihm um den in Gen 48-50