Genesis

VIEW:40 DATA:01-04-2020

beginninT
Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary


GENESIS
1. Name, Contents, and Plan.—The name ‘Genesis,’ as applied to the first book of the Bible, is derived from the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , in one or two MSS of which the book is entitled Genesis kosmou (‘origin of the world’). A more appropriate designation, represented by the heading of one Greek MS, is ‘The Book of Origins’; for Genesis is pre-eminently the Book of Hebrew Origins. It is a collection of the earliest traditions of the Israelites regarding the beginnings of things, and particularly of their national history; these traditions being woven into a continuous narrative, commencing with the creation of the world and ending with the death of Joseph. The story is continued in the book of Exodus, and indeed forms the introduction to a historical work which may be said to terminate either with the conquest of Palestine (Hexateuch) or with the Babylonian captivity (2Kings). The narrative comprised in Genesis falls naturally into two main divisions—(i) The history of primeval mankind (chs. 1–11), including the creation of the world, the origin of evil, the beginnings of civilization, the Flood, and the dispersion of peoples. (ii.) The history of the patriarchs (ch. 12–50), which is again divided into three sections, corresponding to the lives of Abraham (Gen_12:1 to Gen_25:18), Isaac (Gen_25:19-34), and Jacob (37–50); although in the last two periods the story is really occupied with the fortunes of Jacob and Joseph respectively. The transition from one period to another is marked by a series of genealogies, some of which (e.g. chs. 5, Gen_11:10 ff.) serve a chronological purpose and bridge over intervals of time with regard to which tradition was silent, while others (chs. 10, 36, etc.) exhibit the nearer or remoter relation to Israel of the various races and peoples of mankind. These genealogies constitute a sort of framework for the history, and at the same time reveal the plan on which the book is constructed. As the different branches of the human family are successively enumerated and dismissed, and the history converges more and more on the chosen line, we are meant to trace the unfolding of the Divine purpose by which Israel was separated from all the nations of the earth to be the people of the true God.
2. Literary sources.—The unity of plan which characterizes the Book of Genesis does not necessarily exclude the supposition that it is composed of separate documents; and a careful study of the structure of the book proves beyond all doubt that this is actually the case. The clue to the analysis was obtained when (in 1753) attention was directed to the significant alternation of two names for God, Jahweh and Elohim. This at once suggested a compilation from two pre-existing sources; although it is obvious that a preference for one or other Divine name might be common to many independent writers, and does not by itself establish the unity of all the passages in which it appears. It was speedily discovered, however, that this characteristic does not occur alone, but is associated with a number of other features, linguistic, literary, and religious, which were found to correspond in general with the division based on the use of the Divine names. Hence the conviction gradually gained ground that in Genesis we have to do not with an indefinite number of disconnected fragments, but with a few homogeneous compositions, each with a literary character of its own. The attempts to determine the relation of the several components to one another proved more or less abortive, until it was finally established in 1853 that the use of Elohim is a peculiarity common to two quite dissimilar groups of passages; and that one of these has much closer affinities with the sections where Jahweh is used than with the other Elohistic sections. Since then, criticism has rapidly advanced to the positions now held by the great majority of OT scholars, which may be briefly summarized as follows:
(1) Practically the whole of Genesis is resolved into three originally separate documents, each containing a complete and consecutive narrative: (a) the Jahwistic (J [Note: Jahwist.] ), characterized by the use of ‘Jahweh,’ commencing with the Creation (Gen_2:4 b ff.) and continued to the end of the book; (b) the Elohistic (E [Note: Elohist.] ), using ‘Elohim,’ beginning at ch. 20; (c) the Priestly Code (P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ), also using ‘Elohim,’ which opens with the first account of the Creation (Gen_1:1 to Gen_2:4 a). (2) In the compilation from these sources of our present Book of Genesis, two main stages are recognized: first, the fusion of J [Note: Jahwist.] and E [Note: Elohist.] into a single work (JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] ); and second, the amalgamation of the combined work JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] with P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] (an intermediate stage; the combination of JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] with the Book of Deuteronomy, is here passed over because it has no appreciable influence on the composition of Genesis). (3) The oldest documents are J [Note: Jahwist.] and E [Note: Elohist.] , which represent slightly varying recensions of a common body of patriarchal tradition, to which J [Note: Jahwist.] has prefixed traditions from the early history of mankind. Both belong to the best age of Hebrew writing, and must have been composed before the middle of the 8th cent. b.c. The composite work JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] is the basis of the Genesis narrative; to it belong all the graphic, picturesque, and racy stories which give life and charm to the book. Differences of standpoint between the two components are clearly marked; but both bear the stamp of popular literature, full of local colour and human interest, yet deeply pervaded by the religious spirit. Their view of God and His converse with men is primitive and childlike; but the bold anthropomorphic representations which abound in J [Note: Jahwist.] are strikingly absent from E [Note: Elohist.] , where the element of theological reflexion is come-what more pronounced than in J [Note: Jahwist.] . (4) The third source, P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] , reproduces the traditional scheme of history laid down in JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] ; but the writer’s unequal treatment of ‘the material at his disposal reveals a prevailing interest in the history of the sacred institutions which were to be the basis of the Sinaitic legislation. As a rule he enlarges only on those epochs of the history at which some new religious observance was introduced, viz., the Creation, when the Sabbath was instituted; the Flood, followed by the prohibition of eating the blood; and the Abrahamic Covenant, of which circumcision was the perpetual seal. For the rest, the narrative is mostly a meagre and colourless epitome, based on JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] , and scarcely intelligible apart from it. While there is evidence that P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] used other sources than JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] , it is significant that, with the exception of ch. 23, there is no single episode to which a parallel is not found in the older and fuller narrative. To P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] , however, we owe the chronological scheme, and the series of genealogies already referred to as constituting the framework of the book as a whole. The Code belongs to a comparatively late period of Hebrew literature, and is generally assigned by critics to the early post-exilic age.
3. Nature of the material.—That the contents of Genesis are not historical in the technical sense, is implied in the fact that even the oldest of its written documents are far from being contemporary with the events related. They consist for the most part of traditions which for an indefinite period had circulated orally amongst the Israelites, and which (as divergences in the written records testify) had undergone modification in the course of transmission. No one denies that oral tradition may embody authentic recollection of actual occurrences; but the extent to which this is the case is uncertain, and will naturally vary in different parts of the narrative. Thus a broad distinction may be drawn between the primitive traditions of chs. 1–11 on the one hand, and those relating to the patriarchs on the other. The accounts of the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the Dispersion, all exhibit more or less clearly the influence of Babylonian mythology; and with regard to these the question is one not of trustworthy historical memory, but of the avenue through which certain mythical representations came to the knowledge of Israel. For the patriarchal period the conditions are different: here the tradition is ostensibly national; the presumed interval of oral transmission is perhaps not beyond the compass of the retentive Oriental memory; and it would be surprising if some real knowledge of its own antecedents had not persisted in the national recollection of Israel. These considerations may be held to justify the belief that a substratum of historic fact underlies the patriarchal narratives of Genesis; but it must be added that to distinguish that substratum from legendary accretions is hardly possible in the present state of our knowledge. The process by which the two elements came to be blended can, however, partly be explained. The patriarchs, for instance, are conceived as ancestors of tribes and nations; and it is certain that in some narratives the characteristics, the mutual relations, and even the history, of tribes are reflected in what is told as the personal biography of the ancestors. Again, the patriarchs are founders of sanctuaries; and it is natural to suppose that legends explanatory of customs observed at these sanctuaries are attached to the names of their reputed founders and go to enrich the traditional narrative. Once more, they are types of character; and in the inevitable simplification which accompanies popular narration the features of the type tended to be emphasized, and the figures of the patriarchs were gradually idealized as patterns of Hebrew piety and virtue. No greater mistake could be made than to think that these non-historical, legendary or imaginative, parts of the tradition are valueless for the ends of revelation. They are inseparably woven into that ideal background of history which bounded the horizon of ancient Israel, and was perhaps more influential in the moulding of national character than a knowledge of the naked reality would have been. The inspiration of the Biblical narrators is seen in the fashioning of the floating mass of legend and folklore and historical reminiscences into an expression of their Divinely given apprehension of religious truth, and so transforming what would otherwise have been a constant source of religious error and moral corruption as to make it a vehicle of instruction in the knowledge and fear of God. Once the principle is admitted that every genuine and worthy mode of literary expression is a suitable medium of God’s word to men, it is impossible to suppose that the mythic faculty, which plays so important a part in the thinking of all early peoples, was alone ignored in the Divine education of Israel.
J. Skinner.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

a canonical book of the Old Testament, so called from the Greek γενεσις, genesis, or generation, because it contains an account of the origin of all visible things, and of the genealogy of the first patriarchs. In the Hebrew it is called בראשית , which signifies, in the beginning, because it begins with that word. See PENTATEUCH.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

Originally the first five books of the Bible were one. They were divided into their present form for convenience, and collectively are known as the Pentateuch (meaning ‘five volumes’). The books are also commonly referred to as the books of Moses, because Moses has traditionally been regarded as the author (see PENTATEUCH).
Purpose of the book
The name Genesis means ‘origin’ or ‘beginning’, and comes from the title given to the book by those who first translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek. The book speaks of the origins of the universe, of the human race, of human sin and of God’s way of salvation.
Although the Bible mentions matters relating to the beginnings of the universe and the early days of the human race, its main concern is not with the scientific aspect of these matters (see CREATION). The Bible is concerned rather with the relationship between God and the people he placed in the world he had made. It shows in the opening chapters of Genesis how human beings, though created sinless, rebelled against God and corrupted human nature. Their sin brought with it God’s judgment, but the judgment contained an element of mercy, as God repeatedly gave them the opportunity to start afresh. Still they rebelled, and still God did not destroy them.
This leads Genesis into its second and major section, which shows how God worked in human affairs to provide a way of salvation. God chose to work through Abraham, one of the few surviving believers. He promised to make from Abraham a nation, to make that nation his people, and to give them Canaan as a national homeland. From that nation God would bring a Saviour, through whom the blessings of God’s salvation would go to all peoples of the world (Gen_12:1-3; Gen_13:14-16). The book goes on to record the birth of this nation and the events that helped prepare it for its occupation of the promised land.
Outline of contents
Genesis begins with the story of creation (1:1-2:3) and the rebellion of Adam and Eve (2:4-4:26). As the human race spread, so did human sin (5:1-6:4), till the rebellion became so widespread and so resistant to reform that God sent a flood that destroyed the entire generation, except for a few believers (6:5-8:19). From these believers, God made a new beginning and repopulated the devastated earth (8:20-10:32), but as people became more secure and independent, so did they become more rebellious against God (11:1-9). Judgment inevitably followed, but in his grace God again preserved the faithful. One of these was a man from Mesopotamia named Abram, later renamed Abraham (11:10-26).
After God announced to Abraham his promise of blessing (11:27-12:3), Abraham and his household moved into Canaan. When a famine hit the land, they went to Egypt, but in due course they returned and settled at Hebron, west of the Dead Sea (12:4-14:24). (For a map and other details relevant to Abraham’s varied experiences see ABRAHAM.)
God made a covenant with Abraham, in which he promised to give him a multitude of descendants (15:1-21); but the birth of Ishmael had no part in the fulfilment of that promise (16:1-16). God then confirmed the covenant with Abraham, giving the rite of circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant (17:1-27). Some time later the promised son Isaac was born (18:1-21:34). God tested the faith and obedience of Abraham, but Abraham proved himself totally committed to God, no matter what the circumstances (22:1-23:20).
Isaac married and produced two sons, Esau and Jacob (24:1-25:26). In accordance with God’s will, the blessing of Abraham passed to Jacob instead of to Esau. That, however, was no excuse for Jacob’s ruthlessness and deceit in obtaining the blessing (25:27-28:9).
Jacob moved from Canaan to Mesopotamia to obtain a wife among his parents’ relatives. He stayed in Mesopotamia for twenty years, during which he built up a large family. He then left to settle again in Canaan (28:10-31:55). But first he had to be reconciled to his brother Esau, who by this time had developed a prosperous settlement in neighbouring territory to the south-east (32:1-36:43).
Troubles arose among Jacob’s twelve sons, with the result that one of them, Joseph, was sold as a slave and taken to Egypt. But God was controlling the affairs of his people, and through a series of remarkable events, Joseph eventually became governor over Egypt. When the entire region was devastated by a famine, his wise administration saved the nation (37:1-41:57). More than twenty years after Joseph’s brothers had sold him as a slave, they met him in Egypt when they went there to buy food. The result was that the whole of Jacob’s household migrated to Egypt and settled in the fertile Nile Delta (42:1-47:26).
In the specially marked-off area that Pharaoh had given them, Jacob’s large family could live together and multiply without being corrupted by Egyptian ideas. Jacob saw that a prosperous future lay ahead for his descendants and announced his blessings on them before he died (47:27-49:33).
Years later Joseph died, but before his death he expressed his unwavering faith in God’s promises. He knew that just as God’s promise to Abraham of a nation had been largely fulfilled, so his promise of a homeland would also be fulfilled. The Israelites’ increasing prosperity in Egypt was rapidly preparing them for the day when they would be strong enough to move north and take possession of the promised land (50:1-26).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.

jen?e-sis:
I. General Data
1. The Name
2. Survey of Contents
3. Connection with Succeeding Books
II. Composition of Genesis in General
1. Unity of the Biblical Text
(1) The Toledhoth
(2) Further Indication of Unity
2. Rejection of the Documentary Theory
(1) In General
(a) Statement of Theory
(b) Reasons Assigned for Divisions
(c) Examination of the Documentary Theory
(i) Style and Peculiarities of Language
(ii) Alleged Connection of Matter
(iii) The Biblico-Theological Data
(iv) Duplicates
(v) Manner in Which the Sources Are Worked Together
(vi) Criticism Carried to Extremes
(2) In View of the Names for God
(a) Error of Hypothesis in Principle
(b) False Basis of Hypothesis
(c) Improbability That Distinction of Divine Names Is without Significance
(d) Real Purpose in Use of Names for God
(i) Decreasing Use of Yahweh
(ii) Reference to Approach of Man to God, and Departure from Him
(iii) Other Reasons
(iv) Systematic Use in History of Abraham
(e) Scantiness of the Materials for Proof
(f) Self-Disintegration of the Critical Position
(g) Different Uses in the Septuagint
III. Structure of the Individual Pericopes
1. The Structure of the Prooemium (Genesis 1 through 2:3)
2. Structure of the 10 Toledhoth
IV. The Historical Character
1. History of the Patriarchs (Genesis 12 through 50)
(1) Unfounded Attacks upon the History
(a) From General Dogmatic Principles
(b) From Distance of Time
(c) From Biblical Data
(d) From Comparison with Religion of Arabia
(2) Unsatisfactory Attempts at Explaining the Patriarchal Age
(a) Explanation Based on High Places
(b) The Dating Back of Later Events to Earlier Times
(c) The Patriarchs as heroes eponymi
(d) Different Explanations Combined
(3) Positive Reasons for the Historical Character of Genesis
2. The Primitive History of Genesis 1 through 11
(1) Prominence of the Religious Element
(2) Carefulness as Regards Divergent Results of Scientific Research
(3) Frequent Confirmation of the Bible by Science
(4) Superiority of the Bible over Pagan Mythologies
Babylonian and Biblical Stories
V. Origin and Authorship of Genesis
1. Connection with Mosaic Times
2. Examination of Counter-Arguments
(1) Possibility of Later Additions
(2) ?Prophecy after the Event? Idea
(3) Special Passages Alleged to Indicate Later Date
VI. Significance
1. Lays Foundation for the Whole of Revelation - Creation, Fall, Man in Image of God, Sin, etc.
2. Preparation for Redemption - Promises and Covenants
Literature

I. General Data
1. The Name
The first book of Moses is named by the Jews from the first word, namely, בּראשׁית, berē'shı̄th, i.e. ?in the beginning? (compare the Βρησιθ, Brēsith of Origen). In the Septuagint it is called Γένεσις, Génesis, because it recounts the beginnings of the world and of mankind. This name has passed over into the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 ad) (Liber Genesis). As a matter of fact the name is based only on the beginning of the book.
2. Survey of Contents
The book reports to us the story of the creation of the world and of the first human beings (Gen 1); of paradise and the fall (Gen 2 f); of mankind down to the Deluge (Gen 4 f; compare Gen 4, Cain and Abel); of the Deluge itself (Gen 6 through 9); of mankind down to the age of the Patriarchs (Gen 10:1 through 11:26; compare Gen_11:1, the building of the tower of Babel); of Abraham and his house (Gen 11:27 through 25:18); of Isaac and his house (Gen 25:19 through 37:2); of Jacob and of Joseph (Gen 37:2-50:26). In other words, the Book of Genesis treats of the history of the kingdom of God on earth from the time of the creation of the world down to the beginning of Israel's sojourn in Egypt and to the death of Joseph; and it treats of these subjects in such a way that it narrates in the 1st part (Gen 1:1 through 11:26) the history of mankind; and in the 2nd part (Gen 11:27 through 50:26) the history of families; and this latter part is at the same time the beginning of the history of the chosen people, which history itself begins with Ex 1. Though the introduction, Gen 1-11, with its universal character, includes all mankind in the promise given at the beginning of the history of Abraham (Gen_12:1-3), it is from the outset distinctly declared that God, even if He did originally set apart one man and his family (Gen 12 through 50), and after that a single nation (Ex 1ff), nevertheless intends that this particularistic development of the plan of salvation is eventually to include all mankind. The manner in which salvation is developed historically is particularistic, but its purposes are universal.
3. Connection with Succeeding Books
By the statements just made it has already been indicated in what close connection Genesis stands with the subsequent books of the sacred Scriptures. The history of the chosen people, which begins with Ex 1ff, at the very outset and with a clear purpose, refers back to the history as found in Genesis (compare Exo_1:1-6, Exo_1:8 with Gen_46:27; Gen_50:24; and see EXODUS, I, 3), although hundreds of years had clasped between these events; which years are ignored, because they were in their details of no importance for the religious history of the people of God. But to Abraham in Gen_12:1-3 the promise had been given, not only that he was to be the father of a mighty nation that would recognize him as their founder, and the earliest history of which is reported in Exodus and the following books of the Pentateuch, but also that the Holy Land had been promised him. In this respect, the Book of Joshua, which gives the story of the capture of this land, is also a continuation of the historical development begun in Genesis. The blessing of God pronounced over Abraham, however, continued to be efficacious also in the later times among the people who had descended from him. In this way Genesis is an introduction to all of the books of the Old Testament that follow it, which in any way have to do with the fate of this people, and originated in its midst as the result of the special relation between God and this people. But in so far as this blessing of God was to extend to all the nations of the earth (Gen_12:3), the promises given can be entirely fulfilled only in Christ, and can expand only in the work and success of Christian missions and in the blessings that are found within Christianity. Accordingly, this book treats first of beginnings and origins, in which, as in a kernel, the entire development of the kingdom of God down to its consummation is contained (compare VI below).

II. Composition of Genesis in General
1. Unity of the Biblical Text
(1) The tōledhōth
The fact that Genesis is characterized by a far-reaching and uniform scheme has, at least in outline, been already indicated (see I, 2 and 3). This impression is confirmed when we examine matters a little more closely and study the plan and structure of the book. After the grand introitus, which reports the creation of the world (1:1-2:3) there follows in the form of 10 pericopes the historical unfolding of that which God has created, which pericopes properly in each case bear the name tōledhōth, or ?generations.? For this word never signifies creation or generation as an act, but always the history of what has already been created or begotten, the history of generations; so that for this reason, Gen_2:4, where mention is made of the tōledhōth of heaven and of earth, cannot possibly be a superscription that has found its way here from Gen_1:1. It is here, as it is in all cases, the superscription to what follows, and it admirably leads over from the history of creation of the heavens and the earth in Gen 1 to the continuation of this subject in the next chapter. The claim of the critics, that the redactor had at this place taken only the superscription from his source P (the priestly narrator, to whom 1 through Gen_2:3 is ascribed), but that the section of P to which this superscription originally belonged had been suppressed, is all the more monstrous a supposition as Gen_2:4 throughout suits what follows.
Only on the ground of this correct explanation of the term tōledhōth can the fact be finally and fully explained, that the tōledhōth of Terah contain also the history of Abraham and of Lot; the tōledhōth of Isaac contain the history of Jacob and Esau; the tōledhōth of Jacob contain the history of Joseph and his brethren. The ten tōledhōth are the following: I, Gen 2:4-4:26, the tōledhōth of the heavens and the earth; II, 5:1 through 6:8, the tōledhōth of Adam; III, 6:9 through 9:29, the tōledhōth of Noah; IV, 10:1 through 11:9, the tōledhōth of the sons of Noah; V, 11:10-26, the tōledhōth of the sons of Shem; VI, 11:27 through 25:11, the tōledhōth of Terah; VII, Gen_25:12-18, the tōledhōth of Ishmael; VIII, 25:19 through 35:29, the tōledhōth of Isaac; IX, 36:1 through 37:1, the tōledhōth of Esau (the fact that Gen_36:9, in addition to the instance in Gen_36:1, contains the word tōledhōth a second time, is of no importance whatever for our discussion at this stage, as the entire chapter under any circumstances treats in some way of the history of the generations of Esau; see III, Gen_2:9); X, 37:2 through 50:26, the tōledhōth of Jacob. In each instance this superscription covers everything that follows down to the next superscription.
The number 10 is here evidently not an accidental matter. In the articles EXODUS, LEVITICUS, DAY OF ATONEMENT, also in EZEKIEL, it has been shown what role the typical numbers 4, 7, 10 and 12 play in the structure of the whole books and of the individual pericopes. (In the New Testament we meet with the same phenomenon, particularly in the Apocalypse of John; but compare also in Matthew's Gospel the 3 X 14 generations in Mat_1:1, the 7 parables in Mat_13:1, the 7 woes in Mat_23:13.) In the same way the entire Book of Lev naturally falls into 10 pericopes (compare LEVITICUS, II, 2, 1), and Lev 19 contains 10 groups, each of 4 (possibly also of 5) commandments; compare possibly also Lev_18:6-18; Lev_20:9-18; see LEVITICUS, II, 2, 21, VI. Further, the number 10, with a greater or less degree of certainty, can be regarded as the basis for the construction of the pericopes: Ex 1:8-7:7; 7:8-13:16 (10 plagues); 13:17-18:27 (see EXODUS, II, 2:1-3); the Decalogue (Exo_20:1); the first Book of the Covenant (21:1 through 23:13; Exo_23:14-19), and the whole pericope 19:1 through 24:18a, as also 32:1 through 35:3 (see EXODUS, II, 2, 4, 6). In the Book of Genesis itself compare further the 10 members from Shem to Abraham (11:11-26), as also the pericopes 25:19 through 35:29; 37:2 through 50:26 (see III, 2, 8, 10 below), and the 10 nations in Gen_15:19. And just as in the cases cited, in almost every instance, there is to be found a further division into 5 X 2 or 2 X 5 (compare, e.g. the two tables of the Decalogue); thus, too, in the Book of Genesis in each case, 5 of the 10 pericopes are more closely combined, since I-V (tōledhōth of Shem inclusive) stand in a more distant, and VI-X (treating of the tōledhōth of Terah, or the history of Abraham) in a closer connection with the kingdom of God; and in so far, too, as the first series of tōledhōth bring into the foreground more facts and events, but the second series more individuals and persons. Possibly in this case, we can further unite 2 tōledhōth; at any rate I and II (the primitive age), III and IV (Noah and his sons), VII and VIII (Ishmael and Isaac), IX and X (Esau and Jacob) can be thus grouped.
(2) Further Indication of Unity
In addition to the systematic scheme so transparent in the entire Biblical text of the Book of Genesis, irrespective of any division into literary sources, it is to be noticed further, that in exactly the same way the history of those generations that were rejected from any connection with the kingdom of God is narrated before the history of those that remained in the kingdom of God and continued its development. Cain's history (Gen_4:17) in Jahwist (Jahwist) stands before the history of Seth (Gen_4:25 f J; Gen_5:3 P); Japheth's and Ham's genealogy (Gen_10:1 P; Gen_10:8 P and J) before that of Shem (Gen_10:21 J and P), although Ham was the youngest of the three sons of Noah (Gen_9:24); the further history of Lot (Gen_19:29 P and J) and of Ishmael's genealogy (Gen_25:12 P and J) before that of Isaac (Gen_25:19 P and J and E); Esau's descendants (Gen_36:1 R and P) before the tōledhōth of Jacob (Gen_37:2 P and J and E).
In favor of the unity of the Biblical text we can also mention the fact that the Book of Genesis as a whole, irrespective of all sources, and in view of the history that begins with Ex 1ff, has a unique character, so that e.g. the intimate communion with God, of the kind which is reported in the beginning of this Book of Genesis (compare, e.g. Gen_3:8; Gen_7:16; Gen_11:5 J; Gen_17:1, Gen_17:22; Gen_35:9, Gen_35:13 P; Gen_18:1; Gen_32:31 J), afterward ceases; and that in Ex, on the other hand, many more miracles are reported than in the Book of Genesis (see EXODUS, III, 2); that Genesis contains rather the history of mankind and of families, while Exodus contains that of the nation (see I, 2 above); that it is only in Exodus that the law is given, while in the history of the period of the patriarchs we find only promises of the Divine grace; that all the different sources ignore the time that elapses between the close of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus; and further, that nowhere else is found anything like the number of references to the names of persons or things as are contained in Genesis (compare, e.g. Gen_2:23; Gen_3:20; Gen_4:1, Gen_4:25, etc., in J; Gen_17:5, Gen_17:15, Gen_17:17-20, etc., in P; Gen_21:9, Gen_21:17, Gen_21:31, etc., in E; Gen_21:6; Gen_27:36, etc., in J and E; Gen_28:19, etc., in R; Gen_49:8, Gen_49:16, Gen_49:19, etc., in the blessing of Jacob); that the changing of the names of Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah from Gen_17:5, Gen_17:15 goes on through all the sources, while before this it is not found in any source. Finally, we would draw attention to the psychologically finely drawn portraits of Biblical persons in Genesis. The fact that the personal pronoun hū' and the noun na‛ar are used of both masculine and feminine genders is characteristic of Genesis in common with all the books of the Pentateuch, without any difference in this regard being found in the different documents, which fact, as all those cited by us in number 1 above, militates against the division of this book into different sources. Let us now examine more closely the reason assigned for the division into different sources.
2. Rejection of the Documentary Theory
(1) In General
(A) Statement of Theory
Old Testament scholars of the most divergent tendencies are almost unanimous in dividing the Biblical text of Genesis into the sources the Priestly Code (P), Jahwist and Elohist, namely Priestly Codex, Jahwist, and Elohist. To P are attributed the following greater and connected parts: 1:1-2:4a; 5; a part of the story of the Deluge in chapters 6-9; Gen_11:10; 17; 23; Gen_25:12; Gen_35:22 ff; the most of 36. As examples of the parts assigned to J we mention 2:4b-4:26; the rest of the story of the Deluge in chapters 6-9; Gen_11:1; 12 f; 16; 18 f, with the exception of a few verses, which are ascribed to P; chapter 24 and others. Connected parts belonging to the Elohist (E) are claimed to begin with chapters 20 and 21 (with the exception of a number of verses which are attributed to P or J or R), and it is thought that, beginning with chapter 22, E is frequently found in the history of Jacob and of Joseph (25:19-50:26), in part, however, interwoven with J (details will be found under III, in each case under 2). This documentary theory has hitherto been antagonized only by a few individuals, such as Klostermann, Lepsius, Eerdmans, Orr, Wiener, and the author of the present article.
(B) Reasons Assigned for Divisions
As is well known, theory of separation of certain books of the Old Testament into different sources began originally with the Book of Genesis. The use made of the two names of God, namely Yahweh (Jehovah) and Elohim, caused Astruc to conclude that two principal sources had been used in the composition of the book, although other data were also used in vindication of theory; and since the days of Ilgen the conviction gained ground that there was a second Elohist (now called E), in contradistinction to the first (now called the Priestly Code (P), to whom, e.g., Gen 1 is ascribed). This second Elohist, it was claimed, also made use of the name Elohim, as did the first, but in other respects he shows greater similarity to the Jahwist. These sources were eventually traced through the entire Pentateuch and into later books, and for this reason are discussed in detail in the article PENTATEUCH. In this article we must confine ourselves to the Book of Genesis, and limit the discussion to some leading points. In addition to the names for God (see under 2), it is claimed that certain contradictions and duplicate accounts of the same matters compel us to accept different sources. Among these duplicates are found, e.g., Gen 1:1 through 2:4a the Priestly Code (P), and Gen_2:4 ff J, containing two stories of creation; Gen_12:9 J; Gen_20:1 E; Gen_26:1 J; with the narrative of how Sarah and Rebekah, the wives of the two patriarchs, were endangered; chapters 15 J and 17 the Priestly Code (P), with a double account of how God concluded His covenant with Abraham; Gen_21:22 E and Gen_26:12 J, the stories of Abimelech; chapters 16 J and 21 E, the Hagar episodes; Gen_28:10 J and E and Gen_35:1 E and the Priestly Code (P), the narratives concerning Bethel, and in the history of Joseph the mention made of the Midianites E, and of the Ishmaelites J, who took Joseph to Egypt (Gen_37:25; Gen_39:1); the intervention of Reuben E, or Judah J, for Joseph, etc. In addition a peculiar style, as also distinct theological views, is claimed for each of these sources. Thus there found in P a great deal of statistical and systematic material, as in Gen_5:1; Gen_11:10; Gen_25:12; Gen_36:6 (the genealogies of Adam, Shem, Ishmael, Esau); P is said to show a certain preference for fixed schemes and for repetitions in his narratives. He rejects all sacrifices earlier than the Mosaic period, because according to this source the Lord did not reveal himself as Yahweh previous to Exo_6:1. Again, it is claimed that the Elohist (E) describes God as speaking to men from heaven, or through a dream, and through an angel, while according to J Yahweh is said to have conversed with mankind personally. In regard to the peculiarities of language used by the different sources, it is impossible in this place to enumerate the different expressions, and we must refer for this subject to the different Introductions to the Old Testament, and to the commentaries and other literature. A few examples are to be found under (c) below, in connection with the discussion of the critical hypothesis. Finally, as another reason for the division of Genesis into different sources, it is claimed that the different parts of the sources, when taken together, can be united into a smooth and connected story. The documents, it is said, have in many cases been taken over word for word and have been united and interwoven in an entirely external manner, so that it is still possible to separate them and often to do this even down to parts of a sentence or to the very words.
(C) Examination of the Documentary Theory
(i) Style and Peculiarities of Language
It is self-evident that certain expressions will be repeated in historical, in legal, and in other sections similar in content; but this is not enough to prove that there have been different sources. Whenever J brings genealogies or accounts that are no less systematic than those of P (compare Gen_4:17; Gen_10:8; Gen_22:20-24); or accounts and repetitions occur in the story of the Deluge (Gen_7:2,Gen_7:7; or Gen_7:4, Gen_7:12, Gen_7:17; Gen_8:6; or Gen_7:4; Gen_8:8, Gen_8:10, Gen_8:12), this is not enough to make the division into sources plausible. In reference to the linguistic peculiarities, it must be noted that the data cited to prove this point seldom agree. Thus, e.g. the verb bārā', ?create,? in Gen_1:1 is used to prove that this was written by the Priestly Code (P), but the word is found also in Gen_6:7 in J. The same is the case with the word rekhūsh, ?possession,? which in Gen_12:5; Gen_13:6; Gen_36:7 is regarded as characteristic of the Priestly Code (P), but in Gen_14:11 f,16, 21 is found in an unknown source, and in Gen_15:14 in J. In Gen_12:5; Gen_13:12; Gen_16:3; Gen_17:8 it is said that 'erec kena‛an, ?land of Canaan,? is a proof that this was written by P; but in chapters 42; 44 f; 47; 50 we find this expression in Jahwist and Elohist, in Num_32:32 in J (R) ; compare also Num_33:40 (PR) where Num_21:1-3 (JE) is quoted; shiphḥāh, ?maid servant,? is claimed as a characteristic word of J in contrast to E (compare Num_16:1); but in Num_16:3; Num_29:24, Num_29:29 we find this word not only in P but in Num_20:14; Num_30:4, Num_30:7, 18; in E Mı̄n, ?kind,? is counted among the marks of P (compare e.g. Num_1:11), but in Deu_14:13, Deu_14:14, Deu_14:18 we find it in Deuteronomy; rather remarkably, too, in the latest find on the Deluge made by Hilprext and by him ascribed to 2100 bc. Compare on this subject my book, Wider den Bann der Quellenscheidung, and Orr, POT, chapter vii, section vi, and chapter x, section i; perhaps, too, the Concordance of Mandelkern under the different words. Even in the cases when the characteristic peculiarities claimed for the sources are correct, if the problem before us consisted only in the discovery of special words and expressions in the different sources, then by an analogous process, we could dissect and sever almost any modern work of literature. Particularly as far as the pieces are concerned, which are assigned to the Priestly Code (P), it must be stated that Gen 1 and 23 are, as far as style and language are concerned, different throughout. Gen 1 is entirely unique in the entire Old Testament. Gen 23 has been copied directly from life, which is pictured with exceptional fidelity, and for this reason cannot be claimed for any special source. The fact that the story of the introduction of circumcision in Gen 17 in many particulars shows similarities to the terminology of the law is entirely natural: The same is true when the chronological accounts refer one date to another and when they show a certain typical character, as is, e.g., the case also in the chronological parts of any modern history of Israel. On the other hand, the method of P in its narratives, both in matter and in form, becomes similar to that of Jahwist and Elohist, just as soon as we have to deal with larger sections; compare Gen_28:1; Gen_35:9; Gen_47:5, and all the more in Exodus and Numbers.
Against the claim that P had an independent existence, we must mention the fact of the unevenness of the narratives, which, by the side of the fuller accounts in Gen 1; 17 and 23, of the genealogies and the story of the Deluge, would, according to the critics, have reported only a few disrupted notices about the patriarchs; compare for this in the story of Abraham, Gen_11:27, Gen_11:31 f; Gen_12:4 f; Gen_13:6 11b, 12a; Gen_16:1, Gen_16:3, Gen_16:15 f; Gen_19:29; Gen_21:1, Gen_21:2-5; Gen_25:7-11; and in its later parts P would become still more incomprehensible on the assumption of the critics (see III below). No author could have written thus; at any rate he would not have been used by anybody, nor would there have been such care evinced in preserving his writings.
(ii) Alleged Connection of Matter
The claim that the different sources, as they have been separated by critics, constitute a compact and connected whole is absolutely the work of imagination, and is in conflict with the facts in almost every instance. This hypothesis cannot be consistently applied, even in the case of the characteristic examples cited to prove the correctness of the documentary theory, such as the story of the Deluge (see III, 2, in each case under (2)).
(iii) the Biblico-Theological Data
The different Biblical and theological data, which are said to be characteristic in proof of the separation into sources, are also misleading. Thus God in J communes with mankind only in the beginning (Gen 2 f; 16ff; Gen_11:5; 18 f), but not afterward. In the beginning He does this also, according to the Priestly Code (P), whose conception of God, it is generally claimed, was entirely transcendental (compare Gen_17:1, Gen_17:22; Gen_35:9, Gen_35:13). The mediatorship of the Angel of Yahweh is found not only in E, (Gen_21:17, 'Ĕlōhı̄m), but also in J (Gen_16:7, Gen_16:9-11). In Gen_22:11 in E, the angel of Yahweh (not of the 'Ĕlōhı̄m) calls from heaven; theophanies in the night or during sleep are found also in J (compare Gen_15:12; Gen_26:24; Gen_28:13-16; Gen_32:27). In the case of the Priestly Code (P), the cult theory, according to which it is claimed that this source does not mention any sacrifices before Exo_6:1, is untenable. If it is a fact that theocracy, as it were, really began only in Ex 6, then it would be impossible that P would contain anything of the cults before Ex 6; but we have in P the introduction of the circumcision in Gen 17; of the Sabbath in Gen_2:1; and the prohibition against eating blood in Gen_9:1; and in addition the drink offerings mentioned in Gen_35:14, which verse stands between Gen_35:13 and Gen_35:15, and, ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), is only in the interests of this theory attributed to the redactor. If then theory here outlined is not tenable as far as P is concerned, it would, on the other hand, be all the more remarkable that in the story of the Deluge the distinction between the clean and the unclean (Gen_7:2.8) is found in J, as also the savor of the sacrifice, with the term rēaḥ ha-nı̄ḥōaḥ, which occurs so often in P (compare Gen_8:21 with Num_15:3, Num_15:7, Num_15:10, Num_15:13 f, 24; Num_18:17); that the sacrifices are mentioned in Gen_8:20, and the number 7 in connection with the animals and days in Gen_7:4; Gen_8:8, Gen_8:10, Gen_8:12 (compare in the Priestly Code (P), e.g. Lev_8:33; Lev_13:5 f, 21, 26 f, 31, 33, 10, 54; Lev_14:8 f, 38 f; Lev_14:7, Lev_14:51; Lev_16:14 f; Num_28:11; Num_29:8, etc.); further, that the emphasis is laid on the 40 days in Gen_7:4, Gen_7:12, Gen_7:17; Gen_8:6 (compare in the Priestly Code (P), Exo_24:1-8; Lev_12:2-4; Num_13:25; Num_14:34), all of which are ascribed, not as we should expect, to the Levitical the Priestly Code (P), but to the prophetical J. The document the Priestly Code (P), which, according to a large number of critics, was written during the Exile (see e.g. LEVITICUS, III, 1, or EZEKIEL II, 2) in a most surprising manner, instead of giving prominence to the person of the high priest, would then have declared that kings were to be the greatest blessings to come to the seed of Abraham (Gen_17:6, Gen_17:16); and while, on the critical assumption, we should have the right to expect the author to favor particularistic tendencies, he, by bringing in the history of all mankind in Gen 1 through 11, and in the extension of circumcision to strangers (Gen_17:12, Gen_17:23), would have displayed a phenomenal universality. The strongest counter-argument against all such minor and incorrect data of a Biblical and a theological character will always be found in the uniform religious and ethical spirit and world of thought that pervade all these sources, as also in the unity in the accounts of the different patriarchs, who are pictured in such a masterly, psychological and consistent manner, and who could never be the result of an accidental working together and interweaving of different and independent sources (see III below).
(iv) Duplicates
In regard to what is to be thought of the different duplicates and contradictions, see below under III, 2, in each case under (2).
(v) Manner in Which the Sources Are Worked Together
But it is also impossible that these sources could have been worked together in the manner in which the critics claim that this was done. The more arbitrarily and carelessly the redactors are thought to have gone to work in many places in removing contradictions, the more incomprehensible it becomes that they at other places report faithfully such contradictions and permit these to stand side by side, or, rather, have placed them thus. And even if they are thought not to have smoothed over the difficulties anywhere, and out of reverence for their sources, not to have omitted or changed any of these reports, we certainly would have a right to think that even if they would have perchance placed side by side narratives with such enormous contradictions as there are claimed to be, e.g. in the story of the Deluge in P and J, they certainly would not have woven these together. If, notwithstanding, they still did this without harmonizing them, why are we asked to believe that at other places they omitted matters of the greatest importance (see III, 2, 3)? Further, J and E would have worked their materials together so closely at different places that a separation between the two would be an impossibility, something that is acknowledged as a fact by many Old Testament students; yet, notwithstanding, the contradictions, e.g. in the history of Joseph, have been allowed to stand side by side in consecutive verses, or have even intentionally been placed thus (compare, e.g. Gen_37:25). Then, too, it is in the nature of things unthinkable that three originally independent sources for the history of Israel should have constituted separate currents down to the period after Moses, and that they could yet be dovetailed, often sentence by sentence, in the manner claimed by the critics. In conclusion, the entire hypothesis suffers shipwreck through those passages which combine the peculiarities of the different sources, as e.g. in Gen_20:18, which on the one hand constitutes the necessary conclusion to the preceding story from E (compare Gen_20:17), and on the other hand contains the name Yahweh; or in Gen_22:14, which contains the real purpose of the story of the sacrificing of Isaac from E, but throughout also shows the characteristic marks of J; or in Gen_39:1, where the so-called private person into whose house Joseph has been brought, according to J, is more exactly described as the chief of the body-guard, as this is done by E, in Gen_40:2, Gen_40:4. And when the critics in this passage appeal to the help of the redactor (editor), this is evidently only an ill-concealed example of a ?begging of the question.? In chapter 34, and especially in chapter 14, we have a considerable number of larger sections that contain the characteristics of two or even all three sources, and which accordingly furnish ample evidence for protesting against the whole documentary theory.
(vi) Criticism Carried to Extremes
All the difficulties that have been mentioned grow into enormous proportions when we take into consideration the following facts: To operate with the three sources J, E and P seems to be rather an easy process; but if we accept the principles that underlie this separation into sources, it is an impossibility to limit ourselves to these three sources, as a goodly number of Old Testament scholars would like to do, as Strack, Kittel, Oettli, Dillmann, Driver. The stories of the danger that attended the wives of the Patriarchs, as these are found in Gen_12:9 and in Gen_26:1, are ascribed to J, and the story as found in Gen_20:1 to E. But evidently two sources are not enough in these cases, seeing that similar stories are always regarded as a proof that there have been different authors. Accordingly, we must claim three authors, unless it should turn out that these three stories have an altogether different signification, in which case they report three actual occurrences and may have been reported by one and the same author. The same use is made of the laughter in connection with the name Isaac in Gen_17:17; Gen_18:12; Gen_21:6, namely, to substantiate the claim for three sources, P and J and E. But since Gen_21:9 E; Gen_26:8 J also contain references to this, and as in Gen_21:6 JE, in addition to the passage cited above, there is also a second reference of this kind, then, in consistency, the critics would be compelled to accept six sources instead of three (Sievers accepts at least 5, Gunkel 4); or all of these references point to one and the same author who took pleasure in repeating such references. As a consequence, in some critical circles scholars have reached the conclusion that there are also such further sources as J1 and Later additions to J, as also E1 and Later additions to E (compare Budde, Baudissin, Cornill, Holzinger, Kautzsch, Ku?nen, Sellin). But Sievers has already discovered five subordinate sources of J, six of the Priestly Code (P), and three of E, making a total of fourteen independent sources that he thinks can yet be separated accurately (not taking into consideration some remnants of J, E and P that can no longer be distinguished from others). Gunkel believes that the narratives in Genesis were originally independent and separate stories, which can to a great extent yet be distinguished in their original form. But if J and E and P from this standpoint are no longer authors but are themselves, in fact, reduced to the rank of collectors and editors, then it is absurd to speak any more of distinct linguistic peculiarities, or of certain theological ideas, or of intentional uses made of certain names of God in J and E and the Priestly Code (P), not to say anything of the connection between these sources, except perhaps in rare cases. Here the foundations of the documentary theory have been undermined by the critics themselves, without Sievers or Gunkel or the other less radical scholars intending to do such a thing. The manner in which these sources are said to have been worked together naturally becomes meaningless in view of such hypotheses. The modern methods of dividing between the sources, if consistently applied, will end in splitting the Biblical text into atoms; and this result, toward which the development of Old Testament criticism is inevitably leading, will some day cause a sane reaction; for through these methods scholars have deprived themselves of the possibility of explaining the blessed influence which these Scriptures, so accidentally compiled according to their view, have achieved through thousands of years. The success of the Bible text, regarded merely from a historical point of view, becomes for the critic a riddle that defies all solutions, even if all dogmatical considerations are ignored.
(2) In View of the Names for God
(A) Error of Hypothesis in Principle
The names of God, Yahweh and Elohim, constituted for Astruc the starting-point for the division of Genesis into different sources (see (1) above). Two chief sources, based on the two names for God, could perhaps as a theory and in themselves be regarded as acceptable. If we add that in Exo_6:1, in the Priestly Code (P), we are told that God had not revealed Himself before the days of Moses by the name of Yahweh, but only as ?God Almighty,? it seems to be the correct thing to separate the text, which reports concerning the times before Moses and which in parts contains the name Yahweh, into two sources, one with Yahweh and the other with Elohim. But just as soon as we conclude that the use made of the two names of God proves that there were three and not two sources, as is done from Gen 20 on, the conclusive ground for the division falls away. The second Elohist (E), whom Ilgen was the first to propose (see (1) above), in principle and a priori discredits the whole hypothesis. This new source from the very outset covers all the passages that cannot be ascribed to the Yahweh or the Elohist portions; whatever portions contain the name Elohim, as P does, and which nevertheless are prophetical in character after the manner of J, and accordingly cannot be made to fit in either the Jahwistic or the Elohistic source, seek a refuge in this third source. Even before we have done as much as look at the text, we can say that according to this method everything can be proved. And when critics go so far as to divide J and E and P into many subparts, it becomes all the more impossible to make the names for God a basis for this division into sources. Consistently we could perhaps in this case separate a Yahweh source, an Elohim source, a ha-'Ĕlōhı̄m source, an 'Ēl Shadday source, an 'Ădhōnāy source, a Mal'akh Yahweh source, a Mal'akh 'Ĕlōhı̄m source, etc., but unfortunately these characteristics of the sources come into conflict in a thousand cases with the others that are claimed to prove that there are different sources in the Book of Genesis.
(B) False Basis of Hypothesis
But the basis of the whole hypothesis itself, namely, Exo_6:1 P; is falsely regarded as such. If Yahweh had really been unknown before the days of Moses, as Exo_6:1 P is claimed to prove, how could J then, in so important and decisive a point in the history of the religious development of Israel, have told such an entirely different story? Or if, on the other hand, Yahweh was already known before the time of Moses, as we must conclude according to J, how was it possible for P all at once to invent a new view? This is all the more incredible since it is this author and none other who already makes use of the word Yahweh in the composition of the name of the mother of Moses, namely Jochebed (compare Exo_6:20 and Num_26:59). In addition, we do not find at all in Exo_6:1 that God had before this revealed Himself as 'Ĕlōhı̄m, but as 'Ēl Shadday, so that this would be a reason for claiming not an 'Ĕlōhı̄m but an 'Ēl Shadday source for P on the basis of this passage (compare Gen_17:1; Gen_28:3; Gen_35:11; Gen_48:3 P - Gen_43:14 E! compare also Gen_49:25 in the blessing of Jacob). Finally, it is not at all possible to separate Exo_6:1 P from that which immediately precedes, which is taken from JE and employs the name Yahweh; for according to the text of P we do not know who Moses and who Aaron really were, and yet these two are in Exo_6:1 regarded as well-known persons. The new revelation of God in Exo_6:1 (P) by the side of Exo_3:1 (JE and E) is also entirely defensible and rests on a good foundation; for Moses after the failure of Ex 5 needed such a renewed encouragement (see EXODUS II, 2, 1). If this is the case, then the revelation of the name of Yahweh in Exo_6:1 cannot mean that that name had before this not been known at all, but means that it had only been relatively unknown, i.e. that in the fullest and most perfect sense God became known only as Yahweh, while before this He had revealed His character only from certain sides, but especially as to His Almighty Power.
(C) Improbability That Distinction of Divine Names Is Without Significance
In view of the importance which among oriental nations is assigned to names, it is absolutely unthinkable that the two names Yahweh and Elohim had originally been used without any reference to their different meanings. The almost total omission of the name Yahweh in later times or the substitution of the name Elohim for it in Psalms 42 through 83 is doubtless based in part on the reluctance which gradually arose in Israel to use the name at all; but this cannot be shown as probable for older times, in which it is claimed that E was written. In the case of P the rule, according to which the name Elohim is said to have been used for the pre-Mosaic period, and the reason for the omission of Yahweh would have been an entirely different one. Then, too, it would be entirely inexplicable why J should have avoided the use of the name Elohim. The word Elohim is connected with a root that signifies ?to fear,? and characterizes God from the side of His power, as this is, e.g., seen at once in Gen 1. Yahweh is splendidly interpreted in Exo_3:14; and the word is connected with the archaic form hāwāh for hāyāh, ?to be,? and the word characterizes God as the being who at all times continues to be the God of the Covenant, and who, according to Gen 2:4-3:24, can manifestly be none other than the Creator of the universe in Gen 1:1 through 2:3, even if from Gen 12 on He, for the time being, enters into a special relation to Abraham, his family and his people, and by the use of the combined names Yahweh-Elohim is declared to be identical with the God who created the world, as e.g. this is also done in the section Ex 7:8 through 13:16, where, in the 10 plagues, Yahweh's omnipotent power is revealed (compare EXODUS, II, 2, 2); and in Exo_9:30 it is charged against-Pharaoh and his courtiers, that they did not yet fear Yahweh-Elohim, i.e. the God of the Covenant, who at the same time is the God of the universe (compare also 1Ki_18:21, 1Ki_18:37, 1Ki_18:39; Jon_4:6).
(D) Real Purpose in Use of Names for God
But now it is further possible to show clearly, in connection with a number of passages, that the different names for God are in Genesis selected with a perfect consciousness of the difference in their meanings, and that accordingly the choice of these names does not justify the division of the book into various sources.
(i) Decreasing Use of Yahweh
The fact that the tōledhōth of Terah, of Isaac, and of Jacob begin with the name Yahweh but end without this name. In the history of Abraham are to be noted the following passages: Gen_12:1, Gen_12:4, Gen_12:7, Gen_12:8, Gen_12:17; Gen_13:4, Gen_13:10, Gen_13:13, Gen_13:14, Gen_13:18; Gen_14:22; Gen_15:1, Gen_15:2, Gen_15:8; Gen_16:2, Gen_16:5-7, Gen_16:9, Gen_16:10, Gen_16:11, Gen_16:13; Gen_17:1; in the history of Isaac: Gen_25:21, Gen_25:22, Gen_25:23; Gen_26:2, Gen_26:12, Gen_26:22, Gen_26:24, Gen_26:25, Gen_26:28, Gen_26:29; and in the tōledhōth of Jacob Gen_38:7, Gen_38:10; Gen_39:2, Gen_39:3, Gen_39:5. In these passages the beginnings are regularly made with the name Yahweh, although with decreasing frequency before the name Elohim is used, and notwithstanding that in all these sections certain selections from P and E must also be considered in addition to J. Beginning with Gen 12, in which the story of the selection of Abraham is narrated, we accordingly find emphasized, at the commencement of the history of each patriarch, this fact that it is Yahweh, the God of the Covenant, who is determining these things. Beginning with Gen 40 and down to about Ex 2 we find the opposite to be the case, although J is strongly represented in this section, and we no longer find the name Yahweh (except in one passage in the blessing of Jacob, which passage has been taken from another source, and hence is of no value for the distinction of the sources J, E and P; this is the remarkable passage Gen_49:18). In the same way the story of Abraham (Gen_25:1-11) closes without mention being made of the name of Yahweh, which name is otherwise found in all of these histories, except in Gen 23 (see below). The tōledhōth of Isaac, too, use the name Yahweh for the last time in Gen_32:10; and from this passage down to Gen_37:2 the name is not found. It is accordingly clear that in the history of the patriarchs there is a gradual decrease in the number of times in which the name Yahweh occurs, and in each case the decrease is more marked; and this is most noticeable and clearest in the history of Joseph, manifestly in order to make all the more prominent the fact that the revelation of God, beginning with Exo_3:1, is that of Yahweh. These facts alone make the division of this text into three sources J, E and P impossible.
(ii) Reference to Approach of Man to God, and Departure from Him
The fact, further, that the approach of an individual to God or his departure from God could find its expression in the different uses made of the names of God is seen in the following. In connection with Ishmael and Lot the name Yahweh can be used only so long as these men stood in connection with the kingdom of God through their relation to Abraham (compare Gen_16:7, Gen_16:9, Gen_16:10, Gen_16:11, Gen_16:13 and Gen_13:10; Gen_19:13 f, 16), but only the name Elohim can be used as soon as they sever this connection (compare Gen_21:12, Gen_21:17, Gen_21:19, Gen_21:20 and Gen_19:29). On the other hand, Elohim is used in the beginning of the history of the Gentile Abimelech (Gen_20:3, Gen_20:6, Gen_20:11, Gen_20:13, Gen_20:17; Gen_21:22 f); while afterward, when he has come into closer relations to the patriarchs, the name Yahweh is substituted (Gen_26:28, Gen_26:29). A similar progress is found in separate narratives of the patriarchs themselves, since in Gen_22:1 and chapter 28 the knowledge of Elohim is changed into that of Yahweh (compare Gen_22:1, Gen_22:3, Gen_22:9 with Gen_22:11, Gen_22:14, Gen_22:15, Gen_22:16, and Gen_28:12 with Gen_28:13, Gen_28:16).
(iii) Other Reasons
Elohim can, further, in many cases be explained on the basis of an implied or expressed contrast, generally over against men (compare Gen_22:8, Gen_22:12; in the second of these two passages the fear of God is placed in contrast to godlessness); Gen_30:2; Gen_31:50; Gen_32:2 f; compare with Gen_32:4 and Gen_32:8; Gen_32:29; Gen_35:5; or on the basis of an accommodation to the standpoint of the person addressed, as in Gen_3:1-5 (serpent); Gen_20:3, Gen_20:6, Gen_20:11, Gen_20:13, Gen_20:17; Gen_23:6; Gen_39:9 (Gentiles); or on the basis of grammar, as in Gen_23:6; Gen_32:3; Gen_28:17, Gen_28:22; because the composition with the proper name Yahweh could never express the indefinite article (a prince of God, a camp of God, a Bethel or house of prayer); or finally in consequence of the connection with earlier passages (compare Gen_5:1 with chapter 1; Gen_21:2, Gen_21:4; Gen_28:3; Gen_35:9 with chapter 17). A comparison of these passages shows that, of course, different reasons may have induced the author to select the name Elohim, e.g. Gen_23:6; Gen_28:12; Gen_32:12.
(iv) Systematic Use in History of Abraham
That the names for God are systematically used is finally attested by the fact that in the history of Abraham, after the extensive use of the name Yahweh in its beginning (see above), this name is afterward found combined with a large number of other and different names; so that in each case it is Yahweh of whom all further accounts speak, and yet the name of Yahweh is explained, supplemented and made clear for the consciousness of believers by the new appellations, while the full revelation of His being indeed begins only in Ex 3 and Exo_6:1, at which place the different rays of His character that appeared in earlier times are combined in one brilliant light. The facts in the case are the following. In the story of Abraham, with which an epoch of fundamental importance in the history of revelation begins, we find Yahweh alone in Gen 12 f. With the exception of chapter 23, where a characteristic appellation of God is not found, and Gen_25:1-11, where we can claim a decadence in the conception of the Divinity (concerning Gen_23:6; Gen_25:11; see above, the name of Yahweh is retained in all of these stories, as these have been marked out (III, 2, 6); but beginning with chapter 14 they do not at all use any longer only one name for God. We here cite only those passages where, in each ease, for the first time a new name for God is added, namely, Gen_14:18, 'Ēl ‛Elyōn; Gen_14:19, Creator of heaven and of earth; Gen_15:2, 'Ădhōnāy; Gen_16:7, the Angel of Yahweh; Gen_16:13, the God that seeth; Gen_17:1, 'Ēl Shadday; Gen_17:3, 'Ĕlōhı̄m; Gen_17:18, ha-'Ĕlōhı̄m; chapters 18 f, special relation to the three men (compare Gen_18:2 and Gen_19:1); Gen_18:25, the Judge of the whole earth; Gen_20:13, 'Ĕlōhı̄m constructed as a plural; Gen_21:17, the Angel of God; Gen_24:3, the God of heaven and the God of the earth; Gen_24:12, the God of Abraham.
(E) Scantiness of the Materials for Proof
If we add, finally, that to prove the hypothesis we are limited to the meager materials found in Gen_1:1 through Exo_6:1 if; that in this comparatively small number of chapters Gen 40 to Ex 2 cannot be utilized in this discussion (see above under (d); that all those passages, in which J and E are inseparably united must be ignored in this discussion; that all other passages in which J and E are often and rapidly interchanged from the very outset are suspiciously akin to begging the question; that Gen_20:18, which with its ?Yahweh? is ascribed to R, is absolutely needed as the conclusion of the preceding Elohim story; that in Gen_21:33 with its ?Yahweh? (Yahweh) in the Jahwist (Jahwist), on the other hand, the opening Elohim story from E, which is necessary for an explanation of the dwelling of Abraham in the south country, precedes; that the angel of Yahweh (Gen_22:11) is found in E; that 2:4 through 3:24 from J has besides Yahweh the name Elohim, and in Gen_3:1-5 only Elohim (see above); that in Gen_17:1; Gen_21:1 P Yahweh is found; that Gen_5:29, which is ascribed to J, is surrounded by portions of the Priestly Code (P), and contains the name Yahweh, and would be a torso, but in connection with chapter 5 the Priestly Code (P), in reality is in its proper place, as is the intervening remark (Gen_5:24 P); that, on the other hand, in Gen_4:25; Gen_6:2, Gen_6:4; Gen_7:9; Gen_9:27; Gen_39:9 Elohim is found - in view of all these facts it is impossible to see how a greater confusion than this could result from the hypothesis of a division of the sources on the basis of the use made of the names of God. And then, too, it is from the very outset an impossibility, that in the Book of Genesis alone such an arbitrary selection of the names for God should have been made and nowhere else.
(F) Self-Disintegration of the Critical Position
The modern critics, leaving out of consideration entirely their further dissection of the text, themselves destroy the foundation upon which this hypothesis was originally constructed, when Sievers demands for Gen 1 (from P) an original Yahweh Elohim in the place of the Elohim now found there; and when others in Gen 18 f J claim an original Elohim; and when in 17:1 through 21:1 the name Yahweh is said to have been intentionally selected by P.
(G) Different Uses in the Septuagint
Naturally it is not possible to discuss all the pertinent passages at this place. Even if, in many cases, it is doubtful what the reasons were for the selection of the names for God, and even if these reasons cannot be determined with our present helps, we must probably, nevertheless, not forget that the Septuagint in its translation of Genesis in 49 passages, according to Eerdman's reckoning, and still more according to Wiener's, departs from the use of the names for God from the Hebrew original. Accordingly, then, a division of Genesis into different sources on the basis of the different names for God cannot be carried out, and the argument from this use, instead of proving the documentary theory, has been utilized against it.

III. The Structure of the Individual Pericopes
In this division of the article, there is always to be found (under 1) a consideration of the unity of the Biblical text and (under 2) the rejection of the customary division into different sources.
The conviction of the unity of the text of Genesis and of the impossibility of dividing it according to different sources is strongly confirmed and strengthened by the examination of the different pericopes. Here, too, we find the division on the basis of the typical numbers 4, 7, 10, 12. It is true that in certain cases we should be able to divide in a different way; but at times the intention of the author to divide according to these numbers practically compels acceptance on our part, so that it would be almost impossible to ignore this matter without detriment, especially since we were compelled to accept the same fact in connection with the articles EXODUS (II); LEVITICUS (II, 2); DAY OF ATONEMENT (I, 2, 1), and also EZEKIEL (I, 2, 2). But more important than these numbers, concerning the importance or unimportance of which there could possibly be some controversy, are the fundamental religious and ethical ideas which run through and control the larger pericopes of the [tōledhōth of Terah, Isaac and Jacob in such a way that it is impossible to regard this as merely the work of a redactor, and we are compelled to consider the book as the product of a single writer.
1. The Structure of the Prooemium (Genesis 1 Through 2:3)
The structure of the proemium (Gen 1:1 through 2:3) is generally ascribed to P. Following the introduction (Gen_1:1, Gen_1:2; creation of chaos), we have the creation of the seven days with the Sabbath as a conclusion. The first and the second three days correspond to each other (1st day, the light; 4th day, the lights; 2nd day, the air and water by the separation of the waters above and the waters below; 5th day, the animals of the air and of the water; 3rd day, the dry land and the vegetation; 6th day, the land animals and man; compare also in this connection that there are two works on each day). We find Exodus also divided according to the number seven (see EXODUS, II, 1; compare also Ex 24:18b through 31:18; see EXODUS, II, 2, 5, where we have also the sevenfold reference to the Sabbath idea in Ex, and that, too, repeatedly at the close of different sections, just as we find this here in Genesis); and in Lev compare chapters 23; 25; 27; see LEVITICUS, II, 2, 2; the VIII, IX, and appendix; and in Gen_4:17 J; 5:1-24 P; 6:9 through 9:29; 36:1 through 37:1 (see under 2, 1, 2, 3, 1).
2. Structure of the Ten Toledhoth
The ten tōledhōth are found in Gen 2:4 through 50:26.
(1) The tōledhōth of the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis 2:4 Through 4:26)
(1) The Biblical Text
(a) Gen 2:4-25, Paradise and the first human beings; (b) 3:1-24, the Fall; (c) 4:1-16, Cain and Abel; (d) Gen_4:17-26, the Cainites, in seven members (see under 1 above) and Seth. The number 4 appears also in 5:1 through 6:8 (see under 2); 10:1 through 11:9 (see under 4); and especially 11:27 through 25:11 (under 6). Evidently (a) and (b), (c) and (d) are still more closely connected.
(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources
(Gen 1:1 through 2:4a P and 2:4b through 4:26 J)
Ch 2 does not contain a new account of creation with a different order in the works of creation. This section speaks of animals and plants, not for their own sakes, but only on account of their connection with man. The creation of the woman is only a further development of Gen 1. While formerly the critics divided this section into 2:4 through 4:26 J, they now cut it up into J1 and J2 (see under II, 2, 1 (c) (because, they say, the tree of life is mentioned only in Gen_2:9 and Gen_3:23, while in Gen_2:17 and Gen_3:3 the Divine command is restricted to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But it is impossible to see why there should be a contradiction here, and just as little can we see why the two trees standing in the midst of the garden should not both have had their significance (compare Gen_2:9; Gen_3:3). It is further asserted that a division of J is demanded by the fact that the one part of J knows of the Fall (Gen_6:9), and the other does not know of such a break in the development of mankind (Gen_4:17). But the civilization attained by the Cainites could certainly have passed over also to the Sethites (see also Gen_6:2); and through Noah and his sons have been continued after the Deluge. Then, too, the fact that Cain built a city (Gen_4:17), and the fact that he became a fugitive and a wanderer (Gen_4:12), are not mutually exclusive; just as the beginnings made with agriculture (Gen_4:12) are perfectly consistent with the second fact.
(2) The tōledhōth of Adam (Gen 5:1 Through 6:8)
(1) The Biblical Text
(a) Gen 5:1-24, seven generations from Adam to Lamech (see under 1, and Jud_1:14); (b) Gen_5:25-32, four generations from the oldest of men, Methuselah, down to the sons of Noah; (c) Gen_6:1-4, intermingling of the sons of God and the sons of men; (d) Gen_6:5-8, corruption of all mankind. Evidently at this place (a) and (b), (c) and (d) correspond with each other.
(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources
(Genesis 5 P with the Exception of Gen_5:29 (see II, 2, 2 (e)); Gen_5:29; Gen_6:1-8 J)
Gen_6:7 J presupposes chapter 1 P; as, on the other hand, the fact that the generations that, according to chapter 5 the Priestly Code (P), had in the meanwhile been born, die, presupposes the advent of sin, concerning which only J had reported in chapter 3. In the case of the Priestly Code (P), however, in Gen_1:31 it is said that everything was very good.
(3) The tōledhōth of Noah (Genesis 6:9 Through 9:29)
(1) The Biblical Text
Seven sections (see 1 above) viz: (a) Gen_6:9-22, the building of the ark; (b) Gen_7:1-9, entering the ark; (c) Gen_7:10-24, the increase of the Flood; (d) Gen_8:1-14, the decrease of the Flood; (e) Gen_8:15-19, leaving the ark; (f) 8:22 through 9:17, declaration of a covenant relation between God and Noah; (g) Gen_9:18-29, transfer of the Divine blessing upon Shem.
(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources
(Gen_7:1-5, Gen_7:7-10, Gen_7:12, Gen_7:16, Gen_7:17, Gen_7:22 f; Gen_8:2, Gen_8:3, Gen_8:6-12, Gen_8:13, Gen_8:20-22; Gen_9:20-27 J, the Rest from P)
In all the sources are found the ideas that the Deluge was the punishment of God for sin; further, the deliverance of the righteous Noah and his wife and three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth and their wives; the deliverance of the different kinds of animals; the announcement of the covenant relations between God and mankind after the Deluge; the designation of the Deluge with the term mabbūl and of the ark with tēbhāh. In the Babylonian account, which without a doubt stands in some connection with the Biblical, are found certain measurements of the ark, which in the Bible are only in the Priestly Code (P), as also the story of the sending out of the birds when the flood was decreasing, and of the sacrifices of those who had been delivered, which in the Bible are said to be found only in J; and these facts are a very powerful argument against the division into sources. Further, the Priestly Code (P), in case the critics were right, would have contained nothing of the thanks of Noah for his deliverance, although he was a pious man; and in the case of J we should not be informed what kind of an ark it was into which Noah was directed to go (Gen_7:1); nor how he can already in Gen_8:20 build an altar, as he has not yet gone out of the ark; and, further, how the determination of Yahweh, that He would not again curse the earth but would bless it, can be a comfort to him, since only P has reported concerning the blessing (Gen_9:1). Even if the distinction is not always clearly made between clean and unclean animals, and different numbers are found in the case of each (Gen_6:19 f; Gen_7:14-16 the Priestly Code (P), over against Gen_7:2 f in J), yet this is to be regarded merely as a lack of exactness or, perhaps better, rather as a summary method of procedure. The difficulties are not even made any easier through the separation into sources, since in Gen_7:8 f in J both numbers and the distinction between the two kinds of animals are used indiscriminately. Here, too, in J we find the name Elohim used. The next contradiction that is claimed, namely that the Deluge according to J lasted only 61 days, and is arranged in 40 days (Gen_7:4, Gen_7:12, Gen_7:17; Gen_8:6) plus 3 X 7 = 21 days (Gen_8:8, Gen_8:10, Gen_8:12), while in P it continues for 1 year and 11 days (Gen_7:11, Gen_7:24; Gen_8:3-5, Gen_8:14), is really a self-inflicted agony of the critics. The report of the Bible on the subject is perfectly clear. The rain descends for 40 days (Gen_7:12 J); but as in addition also the fountains of the deep are broken up (Gen_7:11 P), we find in this fact a reason for believing that they increased still more (Gen_7:24 P and Gen_7:17 J). The 40 days in Gen_8:6 J cannot at all be identified with those mentioned in Gen_7:17; for if this were the case the raven would have been sent out at a time when the waters had reached their highest stage, and even according to J the Deluge covered the entire world. In general see above, II, 2, 1 (c).
(4) The tōledhōth of the Sons of Noah (Genesis 10:1 Through 11:9)
(1) The Biblical Text
(a) Gen_10:2-5, the Japhethites; (b) Gen_10:6-20, the Hamites; (c) Gen_10:21-32, the Shemites; (d) Gen_11:1-9, the Babylonian confusion of tongues. Evidently (a) to (c) is to be regarded as in contrast to (d) (compare also Gen_11:1, Gen_11:9 J in addition to Gen_10:32 P).
(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources
(Gen_10:1-7, Gen_10:20, Gen_10:22 f, 31 f the Priestly Code (P), the Rest Belonging to J)
The distribution of Genesis 10 between P and J is actually ridiculous, since in this case J does not speak of Japheth at all, and the genealogy of the Hamites would connect directly with the Priestly Code (P), a phenomenon which must have been repeated in Gen_10:24. The Jewish Midrash, in addition, and possibly correctly, counts 70 peoples (compare Gen_46:27; Exo_1:5; Num_11:16, Num_11:25; Luk_10:1).
(5) The tōledhōth of Shem (Genesis 11:10-26)
10 generations (see under II, 1).
(6) The tōledhōth of Terah (Gen 11:27 Through 25:11)
(1) The Biblical Text
After the introduction (Gen_11:27-32), theme of the history of Abraham is given in Gen_12:1-4 (Gen_12:1, the promise of the holy land; Gen_12:2, promise of many descendants; Gen_12:3, announcement of the double influence of Abraham on the world; Gen_12:4, the obedience of Abraham's faith in his trust upon the Divine promise). In contrast to the first three thoughts which characterize God's relation to Abraham, the fourth is placed, which emphasizes. Abraham's relation to God (see under (d)). But both thoughts give complete expression to the intimate communion between God and Abraham. On the basis of these representations, which run through the entire story and thus contribute materially to its unification, this section can also be divided, as one of these after the other comes into the foreground. These four parts (12:4b through 14:24; 15:1 through 18:15; 18:16 through 21:34; 22:1 through 25:11) can each be divided again into four subdivisions, a scheme of division that is found also in Ex 35:4 through 40:38; Lev 11-15; 16 (compare EXODUS, II, 2, 7; LEVITICUS, II, 2, 2, III and IV; DAY OF ATONEMENT, I, 2, 1), and is suggested by Dt 12 through 26 (compare also my book, Wider den Bann der Quellenscheidung, the results of the investigation of which work are there reproduced without entering upon the details of the argument).
(a) Gen 12:4b through 14:24, in which the reference to the promised land is placed in the foreground; see Gen_12:1, and the passages and statements in parentheses in the following: (i) Gen_12:4-8, Abraham's journey to Canaan (Gen_12:5 the Priestly Code (P), 6, 7, 8 J); (ii) 12:9 through 13:4, descent to Egypt from Canaan, and return (Gen_12:9, Gen_12:10; Gen_13:1-4 J); Gen_13:5-18, separation from Lot (Gen_13:6 the Priestly Code (P), 7, 9 J, 12a the Priestly Code (P), 14 f, 17, 18 J); chapter 14, expedition against Chedorlaomer, etc. (Abraham is blessed by the priest-king of the country, and receives as homage from the products of the country bread and wine (Gen_14:18 f), while he in return gives tithes (Gen_14:20)). The division of this section (12:4b through 14:24) is to be based on the similarity of the closing verses (Gen_12:8; Gen_13:4; Gen_13:18).
(b) Gen 15:1 through 18:15, unfolding of the promise of descendants for Abraham by this announcement that he is to have a son of his own; compare Gen_12:2 and what is placed in parentheses in the following: chapter 15, Yahweh's covenant with Abraham (Gen_15:2, Gen_15:3 JE, 4 J, 5 E, 13, 14, 16, 18 J). The promise is not fulfilled through Eliezer, but only through an actual son (Gen_15:3, Gen_15:1); 16:1-16, Hagar
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

Gen?esis, the first book of the Pentateuch. This venerable monument, with which the sacred literature of the Hebrews commences, and which forms its real basis, is divided into two main parts; one universal, and one special. The most ancient history of the whole human race is contained in Genesis 1-11, and the history of Israel's ancestors, the patriarchs, in Genesis 12-50. These two parts are, however, so intimately connected with each other, that it would be erroneous to ascribe to the first merely the aim of furnishing a universal history. The chief aim which pervades the whole is to show how the theocratic institution subsequently founded by Moses was rendered possible and necessary. The book, therefore, takes its starting-point from the original unity of the human race, and their original relation to God, and proceeds thence to the interruption of that relation by the appearance of sin, which gradually and progressively wrought an external and internal division in the human race for want of the principles of divine life which originally dwelt in man in general, but which had subsequently been preserved only among a small and separate race?a race which in progress of time became more and more isolated from all the other tribes of the earth, and enjoyed for a series of generations the special care, blessing, and guidance of the Lord. The mosaical theocracy appears, therefore, by the general tenor of Genesis, partly as a restoration of the original relation to God, of the communion of man with God, and partly as an institution which had been preparing by God himself through a long series of manifestations of his power, justice, and love. Genesis thus furnishes us with the primary view and notion of the whole of the theocracy, and may therefore be considered as the historical foundation without which the subsequent history of the covenant people would be incomplete and unintelligible.
The unity and composition of the work, which is a point in dispute among the critics in regard to all the books of the Pentateuch, have been particularly questioned in the case of Genesis. Some suppose that Genesis is founded on two principal original documents, distinguished by the terms Elohim and Jehovah, the names which they respectively give to God. That of Elohim is closely connected in its parts, and forms a whole, while that of Jehovah is a mere complementary document, supplying details at those points where the former is abrupt and deficient, etc. These two documents are said to have been subsequently combined by the hand of an editor, so able as often to render their separation difficult, if not altogether impossible. Others maintain that Genesis is a book closely connected in all its parts, and composed by only one author, while the use of the two different names of God is not owing to two different sources on which Genesis is founded, but solely to the different significations of these two names. The use of each of the two names, Jehovah and Elohim, is everywhere in Genesis adapted to the sense of the passages in which the writer has purposely inserted the one name or the other. This point of view is the more to be considered, as it is the peculiar object of the author to point out in Genesis the gradual and progressive development of the divine revelations. The opponents have in vain attempted to discover in Genesis a few contradictions indicative of different documents in it; their very admission, that a fixed plan and able compilation visibly pervade the whole of the book, is in itself a refutation of such supposed contradictions, since it is hardly to be conceived, that an editor or compiler who has shown so much skill and anxiety to give unity to the book should have cared so little about the removal of those contradictions. The whole of Genesis is pervaded by such a freedom in the selection and treatment of the existing traditions, such an absence of all trace of any previous source or documents which might in some measure have confined the writer within certain limits of views and expressions, as to render it quite impracticable to separate and fix upon them specifically, even if there were portions in Genesis drawn from earlier written documents.
That first question concerning the unity of the book is closely connected with another question, respecting its authenticity, or whether Moses was the author of Genesis. We confine ourselves here to only a few remarks on the authenticity of Genesis in particular, and refer the reader for further information to the article Pentateuch. Some critics have attempted to ascertain the period when Genesis was composed, from a few passages in it, which they say must be anachronisms, if Moses was really the author of the book. Among such passages are, in particular, Gen_12:6; Gen_13:7; 'And the Canaanite was then in the land.' This remark, they say, could only have been made by a writer who lived in Palestine after the extirpation of the Canaanites. But the sense of the passage is not that the Canaanites had not as yet been extirpated, but merely that Abraham, on his arrival in Canaan, had already found there the Canaanites. This notice was necessary, since the author subsequently describes the intercourse between Abraham and the Canaanites, the lords of the country. According to the explanation given to the passage by the opponents, such an observation would be quite a superfluous triviality. Also the name Hebron (Gen_13:18; Gen_23:2), they say, was not introduced till after the time of Moses (Jos_14:15; Jos_15:13). This, however, does not prove anything, since Hebron was the original Hebrew name for the place, which was subsequently changed into Arba (by a man of that name), but was restored by the Israelites on their entrance into Canaan. The opponents also maintain that the name of the place Dan (Gen_14:14) was given only in the post-Mosaical period (Jos_19:47; Jdg_18:29). But the two last passages speak of quite a different place. There were two places called Dan; Dan-Jaan (2Sa_24:6), and Dan-Laish, or Leshem. In Genesis, they further add, frequently occurs the name Bethel (Gen_12:8; Gen_28:19; Gen_35:15); while even in the time of Joshua the place was as yet called Luz (Jos_18:13). But the name Bethel was not first given to the place by the Israelites in the time of Joshua, there being no occasion for it, since Bethel was the old patriarchal name, which the Israelites restored in the place of Luz, a name given by the Canaanites. Another passage in Genesis (Gen_36:31), 'Before there reigned any king over the children of Israel,' is likewise supposed to have been written at a period when the Jews had already a king over them. But the broachers of these objections forget that this passage refers to those promises contained in the Pentateuch in general, and in Genesis in particular (comp. Gen_35:11), that there should hereafter be kings among the Israelites as an independent nation. In comparing Israel with Edom (Genesis 36), the sacred writer cannot refrain from observing that Edom, though left without divine promises of possessing kings, nevertheless possessed them, and obtained the glory of an independent kingdom, long before Israel could think of such an independence; and a little attention to the sense of the passage will show how admirably the observation suits a writer in the Mosaical period. The passage (Gen_15:18) where the land of Israel is described as extending from the river of Egypt (the Nile) to the great river (Euphrates), it is alleged, could only have been penned during the splendid period of the Jews, the times of David and Solomon. Literally taken, however, the remark is inapplicable to any period, since the kingdom of the Jews at no period of their history extended so far. That promise, must, therefore, be taken in a rhetorical sense, describing the central point of the proper country as situated between the two rivers.
With regard to the historical character of the book, Genesis consists of two contrasting parts: the first part introduces us into the greatest problems of the human mind, such as the Creation and the fall of man; and the second, into the quiet solitude of a small defined circle of families. In the former, the most sublime and wonderful events are described with childlike simplicity; while, in the latter, on the contrary, the most simple and common occurrences are interwoven with the sublimest thoughts and reflections, rendering the small family circle a whole world in history, and the principal actors in it prototypes for a whole nation, and for all times. The contents in general are strictly religious. Not the least trace of mythology appears in it. It is true that the narrations are fraught with wonders. But primeval wonders, the marvelous deeds of God, are the very subject of Genesis. None of these wonders, however, bear a fantastical impress, and there is no useless prodigality of them. They are all penetrated and connected by one common leading idea, and are all related to the counsel of God for the salvation of man. This principle sheds its lustrous beams through the whole of Genesis; therefore the wonders therein related are as little to be ascribed to the invention and imagination of man as the whole plan of God for human salvation. The foundation of the divine theocratical institution throws a strong light upon the early patriarchal times; the reality of the one proves the reality of the other, as described in Genesis.
The separate accounts in Genesis also manifest great internal evidence of truth if we closely examine them. They bear on their front the most beautiful impress of truth. The cosmogony in Genesis stands unequalled among all others known in the ancient world. No mythology, no ancient philosophy, has ever come up to the idea of a creation out of nothing. All the ancient systems end in Pantheism, Materialism, emanation-theory, etc. But the Biblical cosmogony occupies a place of its own, and therefore must not be ranked among, or confounded with, any of the ancient systems of mythology or philosophy. The mythological and philosophical cosmogonies may have been derived from the Biblical, as being later depravations and misrepresentations of Biblical truth; but the contents of Genesis cannot, vice versa, have been derived from mythology or philosophy. The historical delineation also of the Creation and of the fall of man does not bear the least national interest or coloring, but is of a truly universal nature, while every mythus bears the stamp of the national features of the nation and country where it originated and found development. All mythi are subject to continual development and variations, but among the Hebrews the accounts in Genesis stand firm and immutable for all times, without the least thing being added or altered in them for the purpose of further development, even by the New Testament. What a solid guarantee must there be in this foundation of all subsequent revelations, since it has been admitted and maintained by all generations with such immovable firmness! The ancient heathen traditions coincide in many points with the Biblical accounts, and serve to illustrate and confirm them. This is especially the case in the ancient traditions concerning the Deluge (Gen_6:9), and in the list of nations in the tenth chapter; for instance (Gen_10:4), Tarshish is called the son of Javan. This indicates that the ancient inhabitants of Tarshish or Tartessus in Spain were erroneously considered to be a Phoenician colony like those of other towns in its neighborhood, and that they sprang from Javan, that is, Greece. That they were of Greek origin is clear from the account of Herodotus. Also (Gen_10:8), Nimrod, the ruler of Babel, is called the son of Cush, which is in remarkable unison with the mythological tales concerning Bel and his Egyptian descent. Sidon alone is mentioned (Gen_10:15), but not Tyrus (comp. Gen_49:13), which arose only in the time of Joshua (Jos_19:29); and that Sidon was an older town than Tyrus, by which it was afterwards eclipsed, is certified by a number of ancient reports.
With the patriarchal history (Genesis 12. sqq.) begins an historical sketch of a peculiar character. The circumstantial details in it allow us to examine more closely the historical character of these accounts. The numerous descriptions of the mode of life in those days furnish us with a very vivid picture. We meet everywhere a sublime simplicity quite worthy of patriarchal life, and never to be found again in later history. One cannot suppose that it would have been possible in a later period, estranged from ancient simplicity, to invent such a picture.
The fidelity of the author everywhere exhibits itself. Neither the blemishes in the history of Abraham, nor the gross sins of the sons of Jacob, among whom even Levi, the progenitor of the sacerdotal race, forms no exception, are concealed.
The same author, whose moral principles are so much blamed by the opponents of Genesis, on account of the description given of the life of Jacob, produces, in the history of Abraham, a picture of moral greatness which could have originated only in facts.
The faithfulness of the author manifests itself also especially in the description of the expedition of the kings from Upper to Western Asia; in his statements concerning the person of Melchizedek (Genesis 14); in the circumstantial details given of the incidents occurring at the purchase of the hereditary burial-place (Genesis 23); in the genealogies of Arabian tribes (Genesis 25); in the genealogy of Edom (Genesis 36); and in many remarkable details which are interwoven with the general accounts. In the history of Joseph the patriarchal history comes into contact with Egypt, and here the accounts given by ancient classical writers, as well as the monuments of Egypt, frequently furnish some splendid confirmations. For instance, the account given (Gen_47:13-26) of the manner in which the Pharaohs became proprietors of all the lands, with the exception of those belonging to the priests, is confirmed by Herodotus, and by Diodorus Siculus. The manner of embalming described in Genesis 50 entirely agrees with the description of Herodotus, ii. 84, etc.
For the important commentaries and writings on Genesis, see the article Pentateuch.
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.

Genesis
(Sept. Γένεσις, generation), the first book of the Law or the Pentateuch, is in Hebrew called כּיֵץשּׁית, Bereshith', from the word with which it be. gins. SEE LAW.
I. General Character. — The book of Genesis has an interest and an importance to which no other document of antiquity can pretend. If not absolutely the oldest book in the world, it is the oldest which lays any claim to being a trustworthy history. There may be some papyrus-rolls in our museums which were written in Egypt about the same time that the genealogies of the Shemitic race were so carefully collected in the tents of the patriarchs. But these rolls at best contain barren registers of little service to the historian. It is said that there are fragments of Chinese literature which, in their present form, date back as far as 2200 years B.C., and even more (Gfrorer, Urgeschichte, 1:215); but they are either calendars containing astronomical calculations, or records of merely local and temporary interest. Genesis, on the contrary, is rich in details respecting other races besides the race to which it more immediately belongs; and the Jewish pedigrees there so studiously preserved are but the scaffolding whereon is reared a temple of universal history.
If the religious books of other nations make any pretensions to vie with it in antiquity, in all other respects they are immeasurably inferior. The Mantras, the oldest portions of the Vedas, are, it would seem, as old as the 14th century B.C. (see Colebroke, Asiat. Res. 7:283, and professor Wilson's preface to his translation of the Rig-Veda). The Zendavesta, in the opinion of competent scholars, is of very much more modern date. Of the Chinese sacred books, the oldest, theYihking, is undoubtedly of a venerable antiquity, but it is not certain that it was a religious book at all; while the writings attributed to Confucius are certainly not earlier than the 6th century B.C. (Gfrörer, 1:270).
But Genesis is neither like the Vedas, a collection of hymns more or less sublime; nor like the Zendavesta, a philosophic speculation on the origin of all things; nor like the Yih-king, an unintelligible jumble whose expositors could twist it from a cosmological essay into a standard treatise on ethical philosophy (Hardwick, Christ and other Masters, III, 1:16). It is a history, and it is a religious history. The earlier portion of the book, as far as the end of the eleventh chapter, may properly be termed a history of the world; the latter is a history of the fathers of the Jewish race. But from first to last it is a religious history: it begins with the creation of the world and of man; it tells of the early happiness of a paradise in which God spake with man; of the first sin and its consequences; of the promise of redemption; of the gigantic growth of sin, and the judgment of the Flood; of a new earth, and a new covenant with man, its unchangeableness typified by the bow in the heavens; of the dispersion of the human race over the world. It then passes to the story of redemption; to the promise given to Abraham, and renewed to Isaac and to Jacob, and to all that chain of circumstances which paved the way for the great symbolic act of Redemption, when with a mighty hand and a stretched out arm Jehovah brought his people out of Egypt.
It is very important to bear in mind this religious aspect of the history if we would put ourselves in a position rightly to understand it. Of course the facts must be treated like any other historical facts, sifted in the same way, and subjected to the same laws of evidence. But if we would judge of the work as a whole we must not forget the evident aim of the writer. It is only in this way we can understand, for instance, why the history of the Fall is given with so much minuteness of detail, whereas of whole generations of men we have nothing but a bare catalogue. Only in this way, too, can we account for the fact that by far the greater portion of the book is occupied, not with the fortunes of nations, but with the biographies of the three patriarchs or it was to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob that God revealed himself. It was to them that the promise was given, which was to be the hope of Israel till "the fulness of the time" should come. Hence to these wandering sheiks attaches a grandeur and an interest greater than that of the Babels and Nimrods of the world. The minutest circumstances of their lives are worthier to be chronicled than the rise and fall of empires. This is not merely from the patriotic feeling of the writer as a Jew, but from his religious feeling as one of the chosen race. He lived in the land given to the fathers; he looked for the seed promised to the fathers, in whom himself and all the families of the earth should be blessed. SEE ABRAHAM.
II. Unity of Design. — This venerable monument, with which the sacred literature of the Hebrews cominences, and which forms its real basis, is divided into two main parts; one universal, and one special. The most ancient history of the whole human race is contained in chapters 1-11, and the history of Israel's ancestors, the patriarchs, in chapters 12-50. These two parts are, however, so intimately connected with each other that it would be erroneous to ascribe to the first merely the aim of furnishing a universal history. That a distinct plan and method characterize the work is now generally admitted. This is acknowledged, in fact, quite as much by those who contend for, as by those who deny the existence of different documents in the book. Ewald and Tuch are no less decided advocates of the unity of Genesis, as far as its plan is concerned, than Ranke or Hengstenberg. Ewald, indeed (in his Composition der Genesis), was the first who established it satisfactorily, and clearly pointed out the principle on which it rests.
What, then, is the plan of the writer? First, we must bear in mind that Genesis is, after all, but a portion of a larger work. The five books of the Pentateuch form a consecutive whole: they are not merely a collection of ancient fragments loosely strung together, but, as we shall prove elsewhere, a well-digested and connected composition. SEE PENTATEUCH.
The great subject of this history is the establishment of the theocracy. Its central point is the giving of the law on Sinai, and the solemn covenant there ratified, whereby the Jewish nation was constituted "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation to Jehovah." With reference to this great central fact all the rest of the narrative is grouped.
Israel is the people of God. God rules in the midst of them, having chosen them to himself. But a nation must have laws, therefore he gives them a law; and, in virtue of their peculiar relationship to God, this body of laws is both religious and political, defining their duty to God as well as their duty to their neighbor. Further, a nation must have a land, and the promise of the land and the preparation for its possession are all along kept in view. The book of Genesis then (with the first chapters of Exodus) describes the steps which led to the establishment of the theocracy. In reading it we must remember that it is but a part of a more extended work; and we must also bear in mind these two prominent ideas, which give a characteristic unity to the whole composition, viz. the people of God, and the promised land.
We shall then observe that the history of Abraham holds the same relation to the other portions of Genesis that the giving of the law does to the entire Pentateuch. Abraham is the father of the Jewish nations to Abraham the land of Canaan is first given in promise. Isaac and Jacob, though also prominent figures in the narrative, yet do but inherit the promise as Abraham's children, and Jacob especially is the chief connecting link in the chain of events which leads finally to the possession of the land of Canaan. In like manner, the former section of the book is written with the same obvious purpose. It is a part of the writer's plan to tell us what the divine preparation of the world was, in order to show, first, the significance of the call of Abraham, and, next, the true nature of the Jewish theocracy. He does not (as Tuch asserts) work backwards from Abraham till he comes, in spite of himself, to the beginning of all things. He does not ask, Who was Abraham? answering, of the posterity of Shemn; and who was Shem? a son of Noah; and who was Noah, etc. But he begins with the creation of the world, because the God who created the world and the God who revealed himself to the fathers is the same God. Jehovah, who commanded his people to keep holy the seventh day, was the same God who, in six days, created the heavens and the earth, and rested on the seventh day from all his work. The God who, when man had fallen, visited him in mercy, and gave him a promise of redemption and victory, is the God who sent Moses to deliver his people out of Egypt. He who made a covenant with Noah, and through him with "all the families of the earth," is the God who also made himself known as the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. In a word, creation and redemption are eternally linked together. This is the idea which, in fact, gives its shape to the history, although its distinct enunciation is reserved for the N.T. There we learn that all things were created by and for Christ, and that in him all things consist (Col_1:16-17); and that by the Church is made known unto principalities and powers the manifest wisdom of God. It would be impossible, therefore, for a book which tells us of the beginning of the Church, not to tell us also of the beginning of the world. The book of Genesis has thus a character at once special and universal. It embraces the world; it speaks of God as the God of the whole human race. But, as the introduction to Jewish history, it makes the universal interest subordinate to the national. Its design is to show how God revealed himself to the first fathers of the Jewish race, in order that he might make to himself a nation who should be his witness in the midst of the earth. This is the inner principle of unity which pervades the book. Its external framework we are now to examine. Five principal persons are the pillars, so to speak, on which the whole superstructure rests, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
(I.) Adam. — The creation of the world, and the earliest history of mankind (Genesis 1-3). As yet, no divergence of the different families of man.
(II.) Noah. — The history of Adam's descendants to the death of Noah (Genesis 4-9). Here we have
(1) the line of Cain branching off while the history follows the fortunes of Seth, whose descendants are
(2) traced in genealogical succession, and in an unbroken line as far as Noah, and
(3) the history of Noah himself (chapter 6-9), continued to his death.
(III.) Abraham. — Noah's posterity till the death of Abraham (Gen_35:18). Here we have
(1) the peopling of the whole earth by the descendants of Noah's three sons (Gen_11:1-9). The history of two of these is then dropped, and
(2) the line of Shem only pursued (Gen_11:10-32) as far as Terah and Abraham, where the genealogical table breaks off.
(3) Abraham is now the prominent figure (Gen_12:1 to Gen_25:18). But as Terah had two other sons, Nahor and Haran (Gen_11:27), some notices respecting their families are added. Lot's migration with Abraham into the land of Canaan is mentioned, as well as the fact that he was the father of Moab and Ammon (Gen_19:37-38), nations whose later history was intimately connected with that of the posterity of Abraham. Nahor remained in Mesopotamia, but his family is briefly enumerated (Gen_22:20-24), chiefly, no doubt, for Rebekah's sake, who was afterwards the wife of Isaac. Of Abraham's own children, there branches off first the line of Ishmael (Gen_21:9, etc.), and next the children by Keturah; and the genealogical notices of these two branches of his posterity are apparently brought together (Gen_25:1-6, and Gen_25:12-18), in order that, being here severally dismissed at the end of Abraham's life, the main stream of the narrative may flow in the channel of Isaac's fortunes.
(IV.) Isaac.-Isaac's life (Gen_25:19 to Gen_35:29), a life in itself retiring and us-eventful. But in his sons the final separation takes place, leaving the field clear for the great story of the chosen seed. Even when Nahor's family comes on the scene, as it does in chapter 29, we hear only so much of it as is necessary to throw light on Jacob's history.
(V.) Jacob. — The history of Jacob and Joseph (Gen_36:1). — Here, after Isaac's death, we have
(1) the genealogy of Esau (chapter 36), who then drops out of the narrative, in order that
(2) the history of the patriarchs may be carried on without interruption to the death of Joseph (chapters 37-50).
Thus it will be seen that a specific plan is preserved throughout. The main purpose is never forgotten. God's relation to Israel holds the first place in the writer's mind. It is this which it is his object to convey. The history of that chosen seed who weae the heirs of the promise, and the guardians of the divine oracles, is the only history which interprets man's relation to God. By its light all others shine, and may be read when the time shall come. Meanwhile, as the different families drop off here and there freom the principal stock, their course is briefly indicated. A hint is given of their parentage and their migrations; and then the narrative returns to its regular channel. Thus the whole book may be compared to one of those vast American rivers which, instead of being fed by tributaries, send off here and there certain lesser streams or bayous, as they are termed, the main current meanwhile flowing on with its great mass of water to the sea.
Beyond all doubt, then, we may trace in the book of Genesis in its present form a systematic plan. It is no hasty compilation, inc mere collection of ancient fragments without order or arrangement. It coheres by aee internal principle of unity. Its whole structure presents a very definite and clearly marked outline. But does it follow from this that the book, as it at present stands, is the work of a single author?
III. Unity of Composition. — This, which is a point in dispute among the critics with regard to all the books of the Pentateuch, has been particularly questioned in the case of Geasesis. The question was raised whether the sources from which the writer of Genesis drew his information were written documents or oral tradition. Writers as early as Vitringa (Obs Joe_1:4), Richard Simon, Clericus, and others, though they were of opinion that Genesis is founded on written sources, did not undertake to describe the nature and quality of those sources. Another opinion, advanced by Otmar in Henke's Magaz. 2, that Egyptian pyramids and other monuments of a similar nature were the sources of Genesis, was but transient in the critical world; while the attempt of some critics not only to renew the previous assumption that Genesis is founded on written sources, but also to determine more closely the character of those sources, has gained more lasting approval among the learned. When different names of God are prevalent in different portions of Genesis is a question much discussed by early theologians and rabbis. Astruc, a Belgian physician, in his Conjectures sur les Memoires originaux, etc. (Bruxelles, 1753-8), was the first to apply the two Hebrew names of God, Jehovah and Elohim, tothe subject at issue. Astruc assuened that there had originally existed a number of isolated documents, some twelve in all, which had subsequently, by the fault of transcribers, been joined and strung together in the present form of Genesis. Eichhorn's critical geaniss procured for this hypothesis a favorable reception almost throughout the whole of Germany. SEE ASTRUC.
Eichhorn pruned away its excrescences, and confined his own view to the assumption of only two different documents, respectively characterized by the two different names of Jehovah and Elohim. Other critics, such as Illgen (Urkunden des Jerusalem Tempel-Archivs, 1798), Gramberg (Adumbratio libri Geneseos secundum fontes, 1828), and others, went still farther, and presupposed three different documents in Genesis. Vater went much beyond Eichborn. He fancied himself able to combat the authenticity of the Pentateuch by producing a new hypothesis. He substituted for Eichhorn's "document-hypothesis" his own "fragment-hypothesis," which obtained great authority, especially on account of its being adapted by De Wette. According to this opinion, Genesis, as well as the greater part of the Pentateuch, consists of a great number of very small detached fragments, internally unconnected with each other, but transcribed seriatim, although originating in very different times and from different authors. This "fragment-hypothesis" has now been almost universally given up. Even its zealous defenders, not excepting De Wette himself, have relinquished it. In its place the former "document-hypothesis" has been resumed by some critics, simplified, however, and supported by new and better arguments. There is at present a great variety of opinion among divines concerning this hypothesis. The leading features of this diversity may be comprised in the following summary. According to the view of Stabelin, De Wette, Ewald, Von Bohlens, Tuch, Knobel, Delitzsch, and others, Genesis is founded on teo principal original documents. That of Elohissi is closelv connected in its parts, and forms a whole, while that of Jehovah is a mere complementary document, supplying details at those points where the former is abrupt and deficient, etc. These two documents are said to have been subsequently combined by the hand of an editor, so ably as often to render their separation difficult, if not altogether impossible. But Ranke, Hengstenberg, Drechsler, Hulmernick, Baumgarten, Keil, and others, maintain that Genesis is a book closely connected in all its parts, and composed by only one author, while the use of the two different names of God is not owing to two different sources on which Genesis is founded, but solely to the different significations of these two names. The great weight of probability lies on the side of those who argue for the existence of different documents, but only ass sources to some extent which, together with original materials, were wrought by the author into one homogeneous whole.
1. It is almost impossible to read the book of Genesis with anything like a critical eye without being struck with the great peculiarities of style and language which certain portions of it present. Thus, for instance, Gen_2:3 to Gen_3:24 is quite different both from chapter 1 and from chapter 4. Again, chapter 14 and (according to Jahn) chapter 23 are evidently separate documents, transplanted in their original form without correction or modification into the existing work. In fact, there is nothing like uniformity of style till we come to the history of Joseph.
2. We are led to the same conclusion by the inscriptions which are prefixed to certain sections, as Gen_2:4; Gen_5:1; Gen_6:9; Gen_10:1; Gen_11:10; Gen_11:27, and seem to indicate so many older documents.
3. The resumptive form of some of the narratives, e.g. the repetition of the account of the creation of man in chap. ii, with additional particulars, is evidence of the same character. We may eveen hazard the conjecture that the pure cosmogony of chapter 1 may have been one of the mysteries of the Egyptian theosophy, while the more distinct accounts of the subsequent chapters may have been derived from the early traditions of the Hebrews and cognate nations. SEE MOSES.
4. Lastly, the distinct use of the divine names, Jehovah in some sections, and Elohim in others, is characteristic of two different writers; and other peculiarities of diction it has been observed fall in with this usage, and go far to establish, the theory. All this is quite in harmony with what we might have expected a priori, viz., that if Moses or any later writer were the author of the book, he would have availed himself of existing traditions, either oral or written. That they might have been written is now established beyond all doubt, the art of writing having been proved to be such earlier than Moses. That they were written we infer from the book itself. Yet these peculiarities are not so absolute as to show that the same writer did not embody them all into one composition, for they are sometimes found blended in the same piece.
The evidence alluded to is strong; and nothing can be more natural than that an honest historian should seek to make his work more valuable by embodying in it the most ancient records of his race; the higher the value which they possessed in his eyes, the more anxious would he be to preserve them in their original form. Those particularly in the earlier portion of the work were perhaps simply transcribed. In one instance we have what looks like an omission (Gen_2:4), where the inscription seems to promise a larger cosmogony. Here and there throughout the book we meet with a later remark, intended to explain or supplement the earlier monument. In some instances there seems to have been so complete a fusion of the two principal documents, the Elohistic and the Jehovistic, that it is no longer possible accurately to distinguish them. The later writer, the Jehovist, instead of transcribing the Elohistic account intact, thought fitto blend and intersperse with it his own remarks. We have an instance of this, according to Hupfeld (Die Quellen der Genesis), in Gen_7:1-10 are usually assigned to the Jehovist; but whilst he admits this, he detects a large admixture of Elohistic phraseology and coloring in the narrative. But this sort of criticism, it must be admitted, is very doubtful. Many other instances might be mentioned where there is the same difficulty in assigning their own to the several authors. Thus in sections generally recognized as Jehovistic, Genesis 12, 13, 19, here and there a sentence or a phrase occurs which seems to betray a different origin, as Gen_12:5; Gen_13:6; Gen_19:29. These anomalies, however, though it may be difficult to account for them, can hardly be considered of sufficient force entirely to overthrow the theory of independent documents which has so much, on other grounds, to recommend it. Certainly when Keil, Hengstenberg, and others, who reject this theory, attempt to account for the use of the divine names on the hypothesis that the writer designedly employed the one or the other name according to the subject of which he was treating, their explanations are often of the most arbitrary kind. As a whole, the documentary character of Genesis is so remarkable when we compare it with the later books of the Pentateuch, and is so exactly what we might expect, supposing a Mosaic authorship of the whole, that, whilst contending against the theory of different documents in the later portions, we feel convinced that this theory is the only tenable one in Genesis.
Of the two principal documents, the Elohistic is the earlier. So far as we can detach its integral portions, they still present the appearance of something like a connected work. This has been very well argued by Tuch (Die Genesis, Allgem. Einl. 51-65), as well as by Hupfeld (Die Quellen der Genesis), Knobel, and Delitzsch. This whole theory of a double origin of the book, however, is powerfully opposed by Tiele in the Stud. u. Krit. 1852, 1.
Hupfeld, however, whose analysis is very careful, thinks that he can discover traces of three original records, an earlier Elohist, a Jehovist, and a later Elohist. These three documents were, according to him, subsequently united and arranged by a fourth person, who acted as editor of the whole. His argument is ingenious and worthy of consideration, though it is at times too elaborate to be convincing.
The following table of the use of the divine names in Genesis will enable the reader to form his own judgment as to the relative probability of the hypotheses above mentioned. Much as commentators differ concerning some portions of the book, one pronouncing passages to be Elohistic which another, with equal confidence, assigns to the Jehovist, the fact is certain that whole sections are characterized by a separate use of the divine names. (See Quarry, Genesis, page 400 sq.)
(1.) Sections in which Elohim is found exclusively, or nearly so: Gen_1:1 to Gen_2:3 (creation of heaven and earth); Genesis 5 (generations of Adam), except verse 29, where Jehovah occurs; Gen_6:9-22 (generations of Noah); Gen_7:9-24 (the entering into the ark), but Jehovah in verse Genesis 16; Gen_8:1-19 (end of the flood); Gen_9:1-17 (covenant with Noah); Genesis 17 (covenant of circumcision) where, however, Jehovah occurs once in verse 1, as compared with Elohim seven times; Gen_19:29-38 (conclusion of Lot's history); Genesis 20 (Abraham's sojourn at Gerar), where again we have Jehovah once and Elohim four times, and Ha- elohim twice; Gen_21:1-21 (Isaac's birth and Ishmael's dismissal), only Gen_21:1, Jehovah; Gen_21:22-34 (Abraham's covenant with Abimelech), where Jehovah is found once; Gen_25:1-18 (sons of Keturah, Abraham's death, and the generations of Ishmael), Elohim once; Gen_27:46 to Gen_28:9 (Jacob goes to Haran, Esau's marriage), Elohim once, and El Shaddai once; Genesis 31 (Jacob's departure from Laban), where Jehovah twice; Genesis 33-37 (Jacob's reconciliation with Esau, Dinah and the Shechemites, Jacob at Bethel, Esau's family, Joseph sold into Egypt). It should be observed, however, that in large portions of this section the divine name does not occur at all. (See below.) Genesis 40-50 (history of Joseph in Egypt): here we have Jehovah once only (Gen_49:18). [Exodus 1-2 (Israel's oppression in Egypt, and birth of Moses as deliverer).]
(2.) Sections in which Jehovah occurs exclusively, or in preference to Elohim: Genesis 4 (Cain and Abel, and Cain's posterity). where Jehovah ten times and Ehlohim only once; Gen_6:1-8 (the sons of God and the daughters of men, etc.); Gen_7:1-9 (the entering into the ark), but Elohim once, Gen_7:9; Gen_8:20-22 (Noah's altar and Jehovah's blessing); Gen_9:18-27 (Noah and his sons); 10 (the families of mankind as descended from Noah); Gen_11:1-9 (the confusion of tongues); Gen_12:1-20 (Abram's journey first from Haran to Canaan, and then into Egypt); Genesis 13 (Abram's separation from Lot); Genesis 15 (Abram's faith, sacrifice, and covenant); Genesis 16 (Hagar and Ishmael), where אל ראי once; Gen_18:1 to Gen_19:28 (visit of the three angels to Abram, Lot, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah); Genesis 24 (betrothal of Rebekah and Isaac's marriage); Gen_25:19 to Gen_26:35 (Isaac's sons, his visit to Abimelech, Esau's wives); Gen_27:1-40 (Jacob obtains the blessing), but in Gen_27:28 Ha-elohim; Gen_30:25-43 (Jacob's bargain with Laban), where, however, Jehovah only once; Genesis 38 (Judah's incest); Genesis 39 (Jehovah with Joseph in Potiphar's house and in the prisaon). [Exo_4:18-31 (Moses's return to Egypt); 5 (Pharaoh's treatment of the messengers of Jehovah).]
(3.) The section Gen_2:4 to Gen_3:24 (the account of Paradise and the Fall) is generally regarded as Jehovistic, but it is clearly quite distinct. The divine name as there found is not Jehovah, but Jehovah Elohim (in which form it only occurs once beside in the Pentateuch, Exo_9:33), and it occurs twenty times; the name Elohim being found three times in the same section, once in the mouth of the woman, and twice in that of the serpent.
(4.) In Genesis 14 the prevailing name is El-Elyon (Auth. Vers. "the most high God"), and only once, in Abranm's mouthe "Jehovah, the most high God," which is quite intelligible.
(5.) Some few sections are found in which the names Jehovah and Elohim seem to be used promiscuously. This is the case in Gen_22:1-19 (the offering up of Isaac); Gen_28:10-22 (Jacob's dream at Bethel); Gen_29:31 to Gen_30:24 (birth and naming of the eleven sons of Jacob); and 32 (Jacob's wrestling with the angel). [Exo_3:1 to Exo_4:17 (the call of Moses).]
(6.) It is worthy of notice that of the other divine names Adonai is always found in connection with Jehovah, except Gen_20:4; whereas El, El- Shaddai, etc., occur most frequently in the Elohistic sections.
(7.) In the following sections neither of the divine names occur: Gen_11:10-32; Gen_22:20-24; Genesis 23; Gen_25:27-34; Gen_27:40-45; Gen_29:1-30; Genesis 34; Genesis 36; Genesis 37; Genesis 40 [Exo_2:1-22].
IV. The historical character of the contents of Genesis forms a more comprehensive subject of theological discussion. It is obvious that the opinions regarding it must be principally influenced by the dogmatical views and principles of the respective critics themselves. Hence the great variety of opinion that still prevails on that subject. Some, as Vatke, Von Bohlen, and others, assert that the whole contents of Genesis are unhistorical. Tuch and others consider Genesis to be interwoven with mythical elements, but think that the rich historical elements, especially in the account of the patriarchs, can be clearly discerned. Some, again, limit the mythological part to the first two chapters only; while others perceive in the whole book a consistent and truly historical impress. The field of controversy is here so extensive, and the arguments on both sides are so numerous, that we must content ourselves in this article with a very few remarks on the subject. Genesis is a book consisting of two contrasting parts: the first introduces us into the greatest problems of the human mind, such as the creation and the fall of man; and the second into the quiet solitude of a small, defined circle of families. In the former, the most sublime and wonderful events are described with childlike simplicity; while in the latter, on the contrary, the most simple and common occurrences are interwoven with the sublimest thoughts and reflections, rendering the small family circle a whole world in history, and the principal actors in it prototypes for a whole nation and for all times. Not the least trace of mythology appears in it. Genesis plainly shows how very far remote the Hebrew mode of thinking was from mythical poetry, which might have found ample opportunity of being brought into play when the writer began to sketch the early times of the Creation. It is true that the primeval wonders, the marvelous deeds of God, are the very subject of Genesis. None of these wonders, however, bear a fantastical impress, and there is no useless prodigality of them. They are all penetrated and connected by one common leading idea, and all are related to the counsel of God for the salvation of man. This principle sheds its lustrous beams through the whole of Genesis; therefore the wonders therein related are as little to be ascribed to the invention and imagination of man as the whole plan of God for human salvation. The foundation of the divine theocratic institution throws a strong light upon the early patriarchal times; the reality of the one proves the reality of the other, as described in Genesis.
Luther used to say, "Nihil pulchrius Genesi, nihil utilius." But hard critics have tried all they can to mar its beauty and to detract from its utility. In fact, the bitterness of the attacks on a document so venerable, so full of undying interest, hallowed by the love of many generations, makes one almost suspect that a secret malevolence must have been the mainspring of hostile criticism. Certain it is that no book has met with more determined and unsparing assailants. To enumerate and to reply to all objections would be impossible. We will only refer to some of the most important.
1. The story of Creation, as given in the first chapter, has been set aside in two ways: first, by placing it on the same level with other cosmogonies which are to be found in the sacred writings of all nations; and next, by asserting that its statements are directly contradicted by the discoveries of modern science. (a.) Now when we compare the Biblical with all other known cosmogonies, we are immediately struck with the great moral superiority of the former. There is no confusion here between the divine Creator and his work. God is before all things, God creates all things; this is the sublime assertion of the Hebrew writer. On the contrary, all the cosmogonies of the heathen world err in one of two directions: either they are dualistic, that is, they regard God and matter as two eternal co-existent principles; or they are pantheistic, i.e., they confound God and matter, making the material universe a kind of emanation from the great Spirit which informs the mass. Both these theories, with their various modifications, whether in the more subtle philosophemes of the Indian races, or in the rougher and grosser systems of the Phoenicians and Babylonians, are alike exclusive of the idea of creation. Without attempting to discuss in anything like detail the points of resemblance and difference between the Biblical record of creation and the myths and legends of other nations, it may suffice to mention certain particulars in which the superiority of the Hebrew account can hardly be called in question. First, the Hebrew story alone clearly acknowledges the personality and unity of God. Secondly, here only do we find recognized a distinct act of creation, by creation being understood the calling of the whole material universe into existence out of nothing. Thirdly, there is here only a clear intimation of that great law of progress which we find everywhere observed. The order of creation, as given in Genesis, is the gradual progress of all things, from the lowest and least perfect to the highest and most completely developed forms. Fourthly, there is the fact of a relation between the personal Creator and the work of his fingers, and that relation is a relation of love; for God looks upon his creation at every stage of its progress, and pronounces it very good. Fifthly, there is throughout a sublime simplicity which of itself is characteristic of a history, not of a myth or of a philosophical speculation. SEE CREATION.
(b.) It would occupy too large a space to discuss at any length the objections which have been urged from the results of modern discovery against the literal truth of this chapter. One or two remarks of a general kind must here suffice. It is argued, for instance, that light could not. have existed before the sun, or, at any rate, not that kind of light which would be necessary for the support of vegetable life; whereas the Mosaic narrative makes light created on the first day, trees arid plants on the third, and the sun on the fourth. To this we may reply, that we must not too hastily build an argument upon our ignorance. We do not know that the existing laws of creation were in operation when the creative fiat was first put forth. The very act of creation must have been the introducing of laws; but when the work was finished, those laws must have suffered some modification. Men are not now created in the full stature of manhood, but are born and groan. Similarly, the lower ranks of being might have been influenced by certain necessary conditions during the first stages of their existence, which conditions were afterwards removed without any disturbance of the natural functions. Again, it is not certain that the language of Genesis can only mean that the sun was created on the fourth day. It may mean that then only did that luminary become visible to our planet.
With regard to the six days, many have thought that they ought to be interpreted as six periods, without defining what the length of those periods is. No one can suppose that the divine rest was literally a rest of twenty-four hours only. On the contrary, the divine Sabbath still continues. There has been no creation since the creation of man. This is what Genesis teaches, and this, geology confirms. But God, after six periods of creative activity, entered into that Sabbath in which his work has been, not a work of creation, but of redemption (Joh_5:17). No attempt, however, which has as yet been made to identify these six periods with corresponding geological epochs can be pronounced satisfactory. SEE GEOLOGY. On the other hand, it seems rash and premature to assert that no reconciliation is possible. What we ought to maintain is, that no reconciliation is necessary. It is certain that the author of the first chapter of Genesis, whether Moses or some one else, knew nothing of geology or astronomy. It is certain that he made use of phraseology concerning physical facts in accordance with the limited range of information which he possessed. It is also certain that the Bible was never intended to reveal to us knowledge of which our own faculties, rightly used, could put us in possession. We have no business, therefore, to expect anything but popular language in the description of physical phenomena. Thus, for instance, when it is said that by means of the firmament God divided the waters which were above from those which were beneath, we admit the fact without admitting the implied explanation. The Hebrew supposed that there existed vast reservoirs above him corresponding to the "waters under the earth." We know that by certain natural processes the rain descends from the clouds. But the fact remains the same that there are waters above as well as below. Further investigation may perhaps throw more light on these interesting questions. Meanwhile it may safely be said that modern discoveries are in no way opposed to the great outlines of the Mosaic cosmogony. That the world was created in six stages, that creation was by a law of gradual advance, beginning with inorganic matter, and then advancing from the lowest organisms to the highest, that since the appearance of man upon the earth no new species have come into being; these are statements not only not disproved, but the two last of them at least amply confirmed by geological research.
2. To the description of Paradise, and the history of the Fall and of the Deluge, very similar remarks apply. All nations have their own version of these facts, colored by local circumstances, and embellished according to the poetic or philosophic spirit of the tribes among whom the tradition has taken root. But if there be any one original source of these traditions, any root from which they diverged, we cannot doubt where to look for it. The earliest record of these momentous facts is that preserved in the Bible. We cannot doubt this, because the simplicity of the narrative is greater than that of any other work with which we are acquainted. This simplicity is an argument at once in favor of the greater antiquity, and also of the greater truthfulness of the story. It is hardly possible to suppose that traditions so widely spread over the surface of the earth as are the traditions of the Creation, the Fall, and the Deluge, should have no foundation whatever in fact. It is quite as impossible to suppose that that version of these facts, which in its moral and religious aspect is the purest, is not also, to take the lowest ground, the most likely to be true.
(1.) Opinions have differed whether we ought to take the story of the Fall in Genesis 3 to be a literal statement of facts, or whether, with many expositors since the time of Philo, we should regard it as an allegory, framed in child-like words as befitted the childhood of the world, but conveying to us a deeper spiritual truth. But in the latter case we ought not to deny that spiritual truth. Neither should we overlook the very important bearing which this narrative has on the whole of the subsequent history of the world and of Israel. Delitzsch well says, "The story of the Fall, like that of the Creation, has wandered over the world. Heathen nations have transplanted and mixed it up with their geography, their history, their mythology, although it has never so completely changed form, and color, and spirit that you cannot recognize it. Here, however, in the Law, it preserves the character of a universal, human, world-wide fact; and the groans of Creation, the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus, and the heart of every man, conspire in their testimony to the most literal truth of the narrative." SEE FALL OF MAN.
(2.) The universality of the Deluge, it may be proved, is quite at variance with the most certain facts of geology. But then we are not bound to contend for a universal deluge. The Biblical writer himself, it is true, supposed it to be universal, but that was only because it covered what was then the known world: there can be no doubt that it did extend to all that part of the world which was then inhabited; and this is enough, on the one hand, to satisfy the terms of the narrative, while, on the other, the geological difficulty, as well as other difficulties concerning the ark, and the number of animals, disappears with this interpretation. SEE DELUGE.
3. When we come down to a later period in the narrative, where we have the opportunity of testing the accuracy of the historian, we find it in many of the most important particulars abundantly corroborated.
(1.) Whatever interpretation we may be disposed to put on the story of the confusion of tongues, and the subsequent dispersion of mankind, there is no good ground for setting it aside. Indeed, if the reading of a cylinder recently discovered at Birs Nimruid may be trusted, there is independent evidence corroborative of the Biblical account. But, at any rate, the other versions of this event are far less probable (see these in Josephus, Ant. 1:4, 3; Euseb. Praep. Ev. 9:14). The later myths concerning the wars of the Titans with the gods are apparently based upon this story, or rather upon perversions of it. But it is quite impossible to suppose, as Kalisch does (Genesis, page 313), that "the Hebrew historian converted that very legend into a medium for solving a great and important problem." There is not the smallest appearance of any such design. The legend is a perversion of the history, not the history a comment upon the legend. The incidental remark concerning the famous giants, the progeny of the "sons of God" and the "sons of men" (Gen_6:4), seems to be the true key to the demigod heroes of ancient mythology.
(2.) As to the fact implied in this dispersion, that all languages had one origin, philological research has not as yet been carried far enough to lead to any very certain result. Many of the greatest philologists (Bopp, Lepsius, Burnouf, etc.; Renan, Histoire des Langues Semitiques, 50:5, 100:2, 3) contend for real affinities between the Indo-European and the Shemitic tongues. On the other hand, languages like the Coptic (not to mention many others) seem at present to stand out in complete isolation. The most that has been effected is a classification of languages into three great families. This classification, however, is in exact accordance with the threefold division of the race in, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, of which Genesis tells us. SEE PHILOLOGY (COMPARATIVE).
(3.) Another fact which rests on the authority of the earlier chapters of Genesis, the derivation of the whole human race from a single pair, has been abundantly confirmed by recent investigations. For the full proof of this, it is sufficient to refer to Prichard's Physical History of Mankind, in which the subject is discussed with great care and ability. SEE ADAM.
(4.) One of the strongest proofs of the bona-fide historical character of the earlier portion of Genesis is to be found in the valuable ethnological catalogue contained in chapter 10. Knobel, who has devoted a volume (Die Völkertafel der Genesis) to the elucidation of this document, has succeeded in establishing its main accuracy beyond doubt, although, in accordance with his theory as to the age of the Pentateuch, he assigns to it no greatqrsantiquity than between 1200 and 1000 B.C. SEE ETHNOLOGY.
Of the minute accuracy of this table ce have abundant proof: for instance (Gen_10:4), Tarshish is called the son of Javan. This indicates that the ancient inhabitants of Tarshish or Tartessus in Spain were erroneously considered to be a Phoenician colony like those of other towns in its neighborhood, and that they sprang from Javan, that is, Greece. That they were of Greek origin is clear from the account of Herodotus (1:163). Also (Gen_10:8), Nimrod, the ruler of Babel, is called the son of Cush, which is in remarkable unison with the mythological tales concerning Bel and his Egyptian descent (comp. Diodor. Sic. 1:28, 81; Pausanias, 4:23, 5). Sidon alone is mentioned (Gen_10:15), but not Tyrus (comp. 49:13), which arose only in the time of Joshua (Jos_19:29); and that Sidon was an older town than Tyrus, by which it was afterwards eclipsed, is certified by, a number of ancient reports (Comp. Hengstentberg, De Rebus Tyrioussi, page 6, 7).
4. With the patriarchal history (12 sq.) begins a historical sketch of a peculiar character. The circumstantials details in it allow us to examine more closely the historical character of these accounts. The numerous descriptions of the mode of life in those days furnish us with a very vivid picture. We meet everywhere a sublime simplicity quite worthy of patriarchal life, and never to be found again in later history. One cannot suppose that it would have been possible in a later period, estranged from ancient simplicity, to invent such a picture.
The authencity of the patriarchal history could be attacked only by analogy, the true historical test of negative criticism; but the patriarchal history has no analogy; while a great historical fact, the Mosaical theocracy itself, might here be adduced in favor of the truth of Genesis. The theocracy stands without analogy in the history of the human race, and is, nevertheless, true above all historical doubt. But this theocracy cannot have entered into history without preparatory events. The facts which led to the introduction of the theocracy are contained in the accounts of Genesis. Moreover, this preparation of the theocracy could not consist in the ordinary providential guidance. The race of patriarchs advances to a marvelous destination: the road also leading, to this destination must be peculiar and extraordinary. The opponents of Genesis forget that the marvelous events of patriarchal history which offend them most, partake of that character of the whole by which alone this history becomes consmensurate and possible.
(1.) There are also many separate vestiges warranting the antiquity of these traditions, and proving that they were neither invented nor adorned; for instance, Jacob, the progenitor of the Israelites, is introduced not as the first-born, which, if an unhistorical and merely external exaltation of that name had been the aim of the author, would have been more for this purpose.
(2.) Neither the blemishes in the history of Abrahams, nor the gross sins of the sons of Jacob, among whom even Levi, the progenitor of the sacerdotal race, forms no exception, are concealed.
(3.) The same author, whose moral principles are so much blamed by the opponents of Genesis, on account of the description given of the life of Jacob, produces, in the history of Abraham, a picture of moral greatness which could have originated only in facts.
(4.) The faithfulness of the author manifests itself also especially in the description of the expedition of the kings from Upper to Western Asia; in his statements concerning the person of Melchizedek (Genesis 14); in the circumstantial details given of the incidents occurring at the purchase of the hereditary burial-place (chapter 23); in the genealogies of Arabian tribes (chapter 25); in the genealogy of Edoac (chapter 36); and in many remarkable details which are interwoven with the general accounts.
(5.) Passing on to a later portion of the book, we find the writer evincing the most accurate knowledge of the state of society in Egypt. The Egyptian jealousy of foreigners, and especially their hatred of shepherds; the use of interpreters in the court (who, we learn from other sources formed a distinct caste); the existence of caste; the importance of the priesthood; the use of wine by the kings (Wilkinson, 2:142-158); the fact that even at that early time a settled trade existed between Egypt and other countries, are all confirmed by the monuments or by later writers. So again Joseph's priestly dress of fine linen, the chain of gold round his neck, the chariot on which be rides, the bodyguard of the king, the rites of burial (though mentioned only incidentally), are spoken of with a slitnue accuracy which can leave no doubt on the mind as to the credibility of the historian. In particular, the account given (Gen_47:13-26) of the manner in which the Pharaohs became proprietors of all the lands, with the exception of those belonging to the priests, is confirmed by Herodotus (2:109), and by Diodorus Siculus (1:73). The manner of embalming described in Genesis 1 entirely agrees with the description of Herodotus, 2:84, etc. For other data of a similar kind, compare Hengstenberg (Die Bucher Mosns und Aegypten, page 21 sq.). SEE EGYPT.
5. It is quite impossible, as has alread had been said, to notice all the objections made by hostile critics at every step as we advance. But it may be well to refer to one more instance in which suspicion has been cast upon the credibility of the narrative. Three stories are found in three distinct portions of the book, which in their main features no doubt present a striking similarity to one another, namely, the deliverances of Sarah and Rebekah from the harems of the Egyptian and Philistine monarchs (Gen_12:10-20; Gen_26:1-11). These, it is said, besides containing certain improbabilities of statement, are clearly only three different versions of the same story.
It is of course possible that these are only different versions of the same story. But is it psychologically so very improbable that the same incident should happen three times in almost the same manner? All men repeat themselves, and even repeat their mistakes; and the repetition of circumstances over which a man has no control is sometimes as astonishing as the repetition of actions which he can control. Was not the state of society in those days such as to render it no way improbable that Pharaoh en one occasion, and Abimelech on another, should have acted in the same selfish and arbitrary manner? Abraham, too, might have been guilty twice of the same sinful cowardice; and Isaac might, in similar circumstances, have copied his father's example, calling it wisdom. To say, as a recent expositor of this book has done, that the object of the Hebrew writer was to represent an idea, such as "the sanctity of matrimony," that "in his hands the facts are subordinated to ideas," etc., is to cut up by the very roots the historical character of the book. The mythical theory is preferable to this, for that leaves a substratum of fact, however it may base been embellished or perhaps disfigured by tradition. If the view of Delitzch is correct, that Gen_12:10-20 is Jehovistic; 20, Elobhistic (with a Jehbomistic addition, Gen_12:18); Gen_26:1-13, Jehovistic, but taken from written documents, this may to some minds explain the repetition of the story.
There is a further difficulty about the age of Sarah, who at the time of one of the occurrences must have been 65 years old, and the freshness of her beauty, therefore, it is said, long since faded. In reply it has been argued that as she lived to the age of 127, she was then only in middle life; that consequently she would have been at 65 what a woman of modern Europe would be at 35 or 40, an age at which personal attractions are not necessarily impaired.
But it is a minute criticism, hardly worth answering, which tries to cast suspicion on the veracity of the writer, because of difficulties such as these. The positive evidence is overwhelming in favor of his credibility. The patriarchal tent beneath the shade of some spreading tree, the wealth of flocks and herds, the free and generous hospitality to strangers, the strife for the well, the purchase of the cave of Machpelah for a burial-place we feel at once that these are no inventions of a later writer in more civilized times. So again, what can be more life-like, more touchingly beautiful, than the picture of Hagar and Ishmael, the meeting of Abraham's servant with Rebekah, or of Jacob with Rachel at the well of Haran ? There is a fidelity in the minutest incidents which convinces us that we are reading history, not fable. Or can anything more completely transport us into patriarchal times than the battle of the kings and the interview between Abraham and Melchizedek? The very opening of the story, "In the days of Amraphel," etc., reads like the work of some old chronicler who lived not far from the time of which he speaks. The archaic forms of names of places, Bela for Zoar; Chatsatson Tamar for Engedi; Emek Shaveh for the King's Vale; the Vale of Siddim, as descriptive of the spot which was afterwards the Dead Sea; the expression "Abram the Hebrew;" are remarkable evidences of the antiquity of the narrative. So also are the names of the different tribes who at that early period inhabited Canaan; the Rephaim, for instance, of whom we find in the time of Joshua but a weak remnant left (Jos_13:12), and the Zuzim, Emim, Chorim, who are only mentioned besides in the Pentateuch (Deu_2:10; Deu_2:12). Quite in keeping with the rest of the picture is Abraham's "arming his trained servants" (14:14) — a phrase which occurs nowhere else — and, above all, the character and position of Melchizedek: "Simple, calm, great, he comes and goes the priest-king of the divine history." The representations of the Greek poets, says Creuzer (Symb. 4:378), fall very far short of this; and, as Havernick justly remarks, such a person could be no theocratic invention, for the union of the kingly and priestly offices in the same person was no part of the theocracy. Lastly, the name by which he knows God, "the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth," occurs also in the Phoenician religions, but not amongst the Jews, and is again one of those slight but accurate touches which at once distinguishes the historian from the fabulist. SEE MELCHIZEDEK.
V. Author and Date of Composition. — It will be seen, from what has been said above, that the book of Genesis, though containing different documents, owes its existing form to the labor of a single author, who has digested and incorporated the materials he found ready to his hand. A modern writer on history, in the same way, might sometimes transcribe passages from ancient chronicles, sometimes place different accounts together, sometimes again give briefly the substance of the older document, neglecting its form.
But it is a distinct inquiry who this author or editor was. This question cannot properly be discussed apart from the general question of the authorship of the entire Pentateuch. Under that head we shall show that this could have been no other than Moses, and that the entire work was finished when he deposited a copy of the law within the "sides" of the sacred Ark (Deu_10:5). SEE PENTATEUCH.
We shall here confine ourselves to a notice of the attempt of some critics to ascertain the period when Genesis was composed, from a few passages in it, which they say must be anachronisms, if Moses was really the author of the book (e.g., Tuch, Commentar uber Genesis, page 85 sq.). A distinction, it is obvious, must be made between anachronisms of a subjective character, originating merely in dogmatic preconceptions, and such as relate to matters of fact. Thus the rejection of prophecy leads critics like Vater, Von Bohlen, and Kalisch to conclude that passages of Scripture declaratory of matters realized in the history of Israel must have been written subsequent to such events. But even as regards matters of fact, the existence of anachronisms requires to be placed beyond doubt, before they can have any weight in such a case, just because of the improbability of a writer who wished his work to pass as that of an earlier age allowing such contradictions. To notice, however, a few examples: Hebron (Gen_13:18; Gen_23:2), it is alleged from Jos_14:15; Jos_15:13, was not so named until the entrance into Canaan, its ancient name being Kirjath-Arba (Gen_23:2). That Hebron was the original name appears from the fact that on its first mention it is so designated. In Abraham's time it was also called Maamre (Gen_23:19), from an Amoritish prince of that name (Gen_13:18; Gen_14:13). Subsequently, but prior to the Mosaic age, the Anakim possessed the place, when it received the name of Kirjath-Arba, or the city of Arba, "a great man among the Anakim" (Jos_14:15). The place Dan (Gen_14:14), it is also alleged, received that name only in the time of the judges from the tribe of Dan, its original name being Laish or Leshem (Jos_19:47; Jdg_18:29). The localities, however, are by many thought to be quite distinct; the former being Dan-Jaan, between Gilead and the country round about Zidon (2Sa_24:16), the adjunct Jaan being intended to distinguish it from Dan-Laish in the same neighborhood. SEE DAN.
In Genesis, these critics further add, frequently occurs the name Bethel (Gen_12:8; Gen_28:19; Gen_35:15); while even in the time of Joshua, the place was as yet called Luz (Jos_18:13). But the name Bethel was not first given to the place by the Israelites in the time of Joshua, there being no occasion for it, since Bethel was the old patriarchal name, which the Israelites restored in the place of Luz, a name given by the Canaanites. The explanatory remarks added to the names of certain places, as "Bela, which is Zoar" (Gen_14:2; Gen_14:8); "En-mishpat, which is Kadesh" (Gen_14:7), and some others, the opponents of the genuineness regard as indications of a later age, not considering that these explanations were required even for the Mosaic age, as the ancient designations were forgotten or rarely used. For proving them to be anachronisms, it must be shown that' the new names were unknown in the time of Moses, though with the exception of "the king's dale" (Gen_14:17), which does not again occur till 2Sa_18:16, all the names are referred to as well known in the books of the period immediately succeeding. The notice that "the Canaanite was then in the land" (Gen_12:6; Gen_13:7), is thought to imply that the Canaanites were still in possession of Palestine, and so could not have been written till after their expulsion. But such is not the import of the passage. The descent of the Canaanites from Ham, and their progress from the south towards Palestine, had been described (Gen_10:15-19), and they are now represented as in possession of the land to which the "sons of Eber" were advancing from an opposite point. Standing in connection with the promise of the land to Abraham, this notice contrasts the present with the promised future. The passage (Gen_15:18) where the land of Israel is described as extending from the river of Egypt (the Nile) to the great river (Euphrates), it is alleged, could only have been penned during the splendid period of the Jews, the times of David and Solomon. Literally taken, however, the remark is inapplicable to any period, since the kingdom of the Jews at no period of their history extended so far. That promise must, therefore, be taken in a rhetorical sense, describing the central point of the proper country as situated between the two rivers. The remark, 'Before there reigned any king over the children of Israel" (Gen_36:31), could not have been made, it is maintained, until the establishment of the Hebrew monarchy-an assumption which overlooks the relation of this statement to the promises of a royal posterity to the patriarchs, and especially "that in an immediately preceding passage (Gen_35:11). It stands in a relation similar to Deu_17:14, where the erection of a kingdom is viewed as a necessary step in Israel's development. This explanation will of course not satisfy those who hold that in a simple historical style, a statement having such prophetical reference "is not only preposterous, but impossible" (Kalisbch, Genesis, page 601); but against rationalistic prepossessions of this kind there is no arguing.
VI. Commentaries. — The following are expressly on the whole of this book, the most important being designated by an asterisk (*) prefixed: Origen, Commentaria (in Opp. 2:1); also Homiliae (ib. 2:52); Chrysostom, Homilie (in Opp. 4:3; also [Spuria] ib. 6:619); and Sermones (ib. 4:746, 796); Jerome, Quaestiones (in Opp. 3:301); Escherius, Commentaria (in Bibl. Max. Patr. 6); Isidore, Commentaria (in Opp. page 283); Damianus, Expositio (in Opp. 3:889); Bede, Expositio (in Opp. 4:19); also Quaestiones (ib. 8:78); Alcuin, Interrogationes (Haguenau, 1529, 8vo; also in Opp. I, 2:303); Angelomus, Commentarius (in Pez, Thesaur. IV, 1:45); Remigius, Commentarius (ib. IV, 1:1); Hugo, Annotationes (in Opp. 1:8); Rupert, Commentarri (in Opp. 1:1); Aquinas, Expositio (Antwerp, 1572, Lugd. 1573, Smo; Paris, 1641, fo.).; OEcolampadius, Adnotationes (Basil. 1523, 1536, 8vo); Zwingle, Adnotatianes (Tigur. 1527; also in Opp. 3:4); Zeigler, Commentarri (Basil. 1540, fol.); Frusius, Adsertiones (Romans 1541, fol.); *Luther, Enarrationes (by different eds., part 1, Vitemb. 1544, fol.; 2-4, Norib. 1550-4; together, Francof. 1545-50, 8vo, and later; also in Op. Exeg. I, 2; in English, London, 18555 8vo); Melanchthon, Commentarius (in Opp. 2:377); Musclus, Commentaria (Basil. 1554, 156l, 1600, fol.); Honcala, Commentarius (Complut. 1555, fol.); Chytraeus, Commentarius (Vitemb. 1557, 1558 1590, 8vo); *Marloratus, Expositio (Par. 1562; Morg. 1568, 1580, 1584, fol.; Genev. 1580, 8vo); *Calvin, In Genesim (in Opp. 1; also tr. Lend. 1578, 4to; also ib. 1847-50, 2 volumes, 8vo); Strigel, Scholia (Lips. 1566, 1574, 8vo); Selnecker, Commentarius (Lips. 1569, fol.); Martyr, Commentarius (Tigur. 1572, 1579, 1595; Heidelb. 1606, fol.); Brentius, Commentarii (in Opp. 1); Brocard, Interpretatio [mystical] (L, B. 1580, 8vo; ib. 1584, 4to; Bremen, 1585, 1593, 4to); Fabricius, Commentarius (Lips. 1584, 1592, 8vo; 1596, Argent. 1584, 4to); *Pererius [Romanist], Commentarius (Romans 1589- 1598, 4 volumes, fol.; Colon. 1601, 1606, Ven. 1607, fol.; Lugd. 1616, 4 volumes, 4to; and later); Museus, Ausleung (Magdeb. 1595, fol.); Martintengus, Glossa (Patav. 1597, 2 volumes, fol.); Daabitz, Predigten (Lpz. 1597, 8vo); Maercer, Commentarius (Genev. 1598, fol.); Kalmankas, סֵפֶר הָאֵשֶׁל(Lublin, s.a. fol.); Hammelmann, Adnotationes (Lips. 1600, fol.); Stella, Commentaria (Romans 1601, fol.); Schmuck, Auslegung (Lpz. 1603-9, in 8 parts. 4to); Gesner, Disputationes (Vitemb. 1604, 1613, 1629, 4to); Lyser, Commentarius (in 6 pts., Lips. 1604 sq., 4to); *Willet, Sixfold Commentary (London, 1605, fol.); Delrio, Commentarii (Lugd. 1608, 4to); Runge, Praelectiones (Vitembi. 1608, 8vo) Pareus, Commentarius (Francof. 1609; i614, 4to); Gedick, Auslegung (Lpz. 1611, 1632, fol.); De Petiglian, Commentaria (Ven. 1616, 4to); Ferdindez, Commentationes (Lugd. 1618-28. 3 volumes, fol.); Babington, Notes (in Works, 1); Mersennus, Quaestiones [polehmical] (Par. 1623, fol.); Garzia, Discussuo (Caesaraug. 1624, fol.); Bohme, Erklarung [Emsytical] (s.1. 1624; also in his other works), Rivetus, Exercitationes (L. B. 1633. 4to); Gerbard, Commentarius (Jen. 1637, 1654, 1693, 4to); De la Haye, Commentarri (Lugd. 1638, Par. 1651, 1663, 2 volumes, fol.); Syilvius, Commentarius (Duaci. 1639, gto); Lightfoot, Observations (Lond. 1642; also in Works, 2:329); and Annotationes (ib. 10:532); Gaudentius, Conatus (Pisis, 1644, 4to); Cartwright, Adnotationes [from Targums] (Lonad. 1648, 8vo; also in Critici Sacri, 1); Rivet, Exercitationnes (in Opp. 1:1); Terser, Adtotationes (Upsal. 1657, fol.); Chemnitz, Disputationes (Jen. 16605, Lips. 1711; Vitemb. 1716, 4to), Calov, Commentarius (Vitemb. 1671, 4to); Hughes, Exposition (Lond. 1.672, fol.); Cocceius, Commentarius (in Opp. 1:1); also Cure (ib. 2:1); Anonymoas, Traduction, etc. [patristic] (Paris, 1682, 12mo); Masson, Quaestiones (Paris, 1685-8, 3 volumes, 12mo); Bomparte, Notae [from profane sources] (Amst. 1689); Akiba-Bar, אִבַּיר יִעֲקֹב[Esabbinical] (Sulzb. 1690, 1700, 4to, and later); *Patrick, Commentary (Lond. 1695, 4to; afterwards embodied in Patrick, Lowth, Arnold, and Whitbly's Commentary on the Bible); Schmid, Adnotatiaones (Argent. 1697, 4mo); Giuetzb
CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores