The genealogy in Genesis 46:8-27, which we concerned ourselves with in contradiction #76, interrupts the narrative, as many close readers have noticed. In fact, if we took this material out, which has been unanimously identified as part of the Priestly source (Gen 46:6-27), what’s left is a narrative that precedes as a coherent and whole unity. Here is Genesis 46:5 + 46:28
5And the children of Israel carried Jacob their father and their infants and their wives in the wagons that Pharaoh had sent to carry him. 28And he [note the direct reference back to Jacob!] sent Judah ahead of him to Joseph to direct him in advance to Goshen.
There is no gap in J’s storyline when we remove the P material (Gen 46:6-27). This is most likely how the Yahwist text stood before it was later redacted together with the Priestly text. As is the case of P’s other genealogies (see #8-9), here too the list was inserted into an already preexisting narrative. Indeed we can readily see why the Priestly writer or redactor placed his genealogy here. It not only closes the Canaan portion of the story, but more importantly the mention in the Yahwist narrative of infants and wives here provided a good opportunity to expand on this. And this is exactly what the Priestly redactor did. But this is not what I had in mind to discuss today.
The discussion is about the discrepancy between Benjamin’s genealogy here in Genesis 46 and the one listed in Numbers 26, which is also from P. Besides minor differences in the spelling of names, the genealogy in Numbers 26 is identical to that of Genesis 46 other than it being more expansive, including the sons of the sons of Jacob. The only place where there is a discrepancy is in the list of Benjamin’s sons.
Genesis 46:21 lists 10 of them: Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim, and Arad.
Numbers 26:38-41 lists only 5 sons to Benjamin: Bela, Ashbel, Ahiram, Shephupham, and Hupham.
Scholars have speculated that Numbers 26 is quite possibly Genesis 46:8-27’s original context, and that a shortened form of it was then spliced into Genesis 46, which inevitably disrupted the narrative of Genesis 46 as outlined above. This still doesn’t explain the discrepancy in the genealogy of Benjamin’s sons however. Two different sources may have been used.
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)1Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)1Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)