Westminster Commentaries Edited by Walter Lock D.D, IKBL.VND PROFESSOR OF THE EXKGESli OF HOLY 80RIPTURB THE BOOK OF GENESIS THE BOOK OF GENESIS WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES BY S. E. DRIVER, D.D. EEOnrS PROFESSOR OP HEBREW AND CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD, HON. D.LITT. DUBLIN, HON. D.D. GLASGOW, EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO THE LATE BISHOP OF SOUTHWELL, FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY. THIRD EDITION NEW YORK EDWIN S. GORHAM LONDON: METHUEN & CO. First Published January 1904 Second Edition March 1904 Third Edition November 1904 PREFATORY NOTE BY THE GENERAL EDITOR. THE primary object of these Commentaries is to be exe- getical, to interpret the meaning of each book of the Bible in the light of modern knowledge to English readers. The Editors will not deal, except subordinately, with questions of textual criticism or philology ; but taking the English text in the Revised Version as their basis, they will aim at com- bining a hearty acceptance of critical principles with loyalty to tlie Catholic Faith. The series will be less elementary than the Cambridge Bible for Schools, less critical than the International Critical Com- mentary, less didactic than the Expositor's Bible ; and it is hoped that it may be of use both to theological students and to the clergy, as well as to the growing number of educated laymen and laywomen Avho wish to read the Bible intelligently and reverently. Each commentary will therefore have (i) An Introduction stating the bearing of modern criticism and research upon the historical character of the book, and drawing out the contribution which the book, as a whole, makes to the body of religious truth. (ii) A careful paraphrase of the text with notes on the more difficult passages and, if need be, excursuses on any points of special importance either for doctrine, or ecclesiastical or- ganization, or spiritual life. But the books of the Bible are so varied in character that considerable latitude is needed, as to the proportion Avhich the VI NOTE various parts should hold to each other. The General Editor will therefore only endeavour to secure a general uniformity in scope and character : but the exact method adopted in each case and the final responsibility for the statements made will rest with the individual contributors. By permission of the Delegates of the Oxford University Press and of the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press the Text used in this Series of Commentaries is the Revised Version of the Holy Scriptures. THIS Commentary will be found to differ in some respects from the previous volumes of the series, but the differences are of a kind which arise necessarily from the subject-matter of the book. Greater attention is paid to matters of archaeology, ancient history, and modern science, especially in estimating the histo- rical and scientific value of the earlier chapters of the book ; and more notice has been taken of literary criticism and of the analysis of the sources out of which the book has been composed- Both of these points have been found necessary; for the Book of Genesis touches science, archaeology, and history at more points than any other book of the Old Testament, and it is essential that in a Commentary for educated readers these points should be freely illustrated and discussed. Much study has also been bestowed during recent years on the literary analysis of the book, and many conclusions have been reached which have commended themselves to a large number of scholars, and these it would be unfair to withhold from the genera' reader. There is too another reason why a fuller treatment of sue! subjects has been found necessary in the present volume than, fo instance, in the Commentary on Job. That book also touche < many points of science, but they are there presented in a forrs obviously poetical ; here the form is apparently that of sobe NOTE vn history, and the book has often been treated as though it were a manual of scientific fact and of exact history. But, as such, it must be submitted to the ordinary tests which apply to scientific and historical knowledge. That must be the first step in the interests of truth and in the reverent attempt to define Inspiration, whatever considerations we may feel have afterwards to be added to supplement it. The scientific student is therefore free to say, or rather bound to say, at times, in the light of modern knowledge, " This is not science, its value must be found elsewhere " ; and the historical student is free to say, or rather is bound to say, "This is pre-historic ; this has not adequate contemporary support ; if I found it in another litera- ture, I should not venture to build upon this as ascertained fact ; the value of the book must be found elsewhere." Such a frank discussion will be found in this Commentary. There will also be found a very strong insistence on the evidence which the moral and spiritual tone of the book offers of its Inspiration. These are the two surest starting-points. There are other points that lie beyond. Thus, while the editor of this Com- mentary has urged various historical arguments (pp. xliii. fi"., IviL) in support of the general trustworthiness of the patriarchal narratives, many readers may feel that one or all of the following considerations strengthen his position. (1) The extra- ordinary truthfulness to human nature and to Oriental life creates an impression in favour of such trustworthiness ; (2) the consistency of this book with the subsequent history and re- ligious thought of later Judaism helps to confirm this impression ; (3) the fact of Inspiration, once admitted on the higher level of moral and spiritual tone, may well carry its influence over into details of fact, and turn the balance, when otherwise uncertain, on the side of trustworthiness. For the truest historian is not the accumulator of the largest number of ascertained facts, but the best interpreter of the spirit of the age which he describes, he who is best able to pick out the thread of purpose in the tangle of details. In other words, the ultimate decision on the value of the book has to be based on its context, and on its connexion with the whole of Holy Scripture. VIII NOTE These, however, are considerations which will appeal differ- ently to different minds : the first steps necessary are a careful test of the book by the ordinary canons of scientific and historical investigation, and a tracing of the clear marks of a higher spirit in its religious tendency. It is because both of these steps are taken so steadily and securely here, that I feel that this Commentary will meet a very real need of the present day. WALTER LOCK. PREFACE. THE present Commentary is an expansion of lectures which I have given for some years past to students reading for the School of Theology at Oxford. Its aim is firstly to explain the text of Genesis, and secondly to acquaint readers with the position which, in accordance with our present knowledge, the Book holds, from both a historical and a religious point of view. The most recent English Commentary upon Genesis, of any considerable size, appeared in 1882; and since then many dis- coveries have been made which have a bearing upon the Book, much fresh light has been thrown upon it, and new points of view have been gained, from which, if its contents and the place taken by it in the history of revelation are to be rightly under- stood, it must be judged. It has been my endeavour, while eschewing theories and speculations, which, however brilliant, seem to rest upon no sufficient foundation, to place the reader, fiS far as was practicable, in possession of such facts as really throw light upon Genesis, and in cases where, from the nature of the question to be solved, certainty was unattainable, to enable him to form an estimate of the probabilities for himself. In the explanation of the text, while I have not been able entirely to avoid the use of Hebrew words, and of technical expressions belonging to Hebrew grammar, I have endeavoured so to express myself that the reader who is unacquainted with Hebrew may nevertheless be able to follow the reasoning, and to understand, for instance, why one rendering or reading is preferable to another. The margins of the Revised Version — X PREFACE where they do not merely repeat the discarded renderings of the Authorized Version — very frequently contain renderings (or readings) superior to those adopted in the text: hence they always deserve careful attention on the part of the reader ; and though the instances in which this is the case are not so numerous in Genesis as in some of the poetical and prophetical books of the Old Testament, I have made a point, where they occur, of indicating them in the notes. Hebraists are, moreover, well aware that, superior as the Revised Version is to the Authorized Version in both clearness and accuracy, it does not always, either in the text or on the margin, express the sense of the original as exactly as is desirable ; and I have naturally, in such cases, given the more correct renderings in the notes. The field of knowledge with which, at one point or another, the Book of Genesis comes in contact is large ; archreology, ancient history and geography, modern travel and exploration, for instance, all in their turn supply something more or less substantial to its elucidation. Naturally, where the subjects are so varied and wide, and the period concerned so remote from that at which we at present live, points of interest or difficulty occur, which I should have been glad to explain or discuss more fully than my limits of space permitted me to do, and on which therefore I have been obliged to content mysel/ with brief statements of fact or probability, as the case might be^ ; I have, however, in such cases nearly always added references to some standard work in which the reader will find further information or discussion. I have found Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, and the Encyclopwdia Bihlica particularly useful for this purpose ; but naturally other works have often been referred to as well. I have in some cases multiplied references in the hope that readers who might not have access to one book that was mentioned might be able, if they desired it, to refer to another. 1 Seo, for instance, many of the notes on ch. x. PREFACE XI The critical and historical view of the Book of Genesis — which extended to Scripture generally, appears to me to be the only basis upon which the progressive revelation contained in the Bible can be properly apprehended ^, and the spiritual authority of the Bible ultimately maintained — ^has been assumed through- out : but a minute discussion of critical questions has not seemed to me to be necessary ; and I have confined myself as a rule to brief statements of the general or principal grounds upon which the more important of the conclusions adopted rest. There are of course some points, on which — the data them- selves being ambiguous, or slight — divergent conclusions may be, and have been, drawn : in such cases I can only say that I have endeavoured to decide as well as my knowledge and judgement permitted me. The Commentaries in the present series are not intended to be homiletic or devotional ; but I have always endeavoured, as occasion offered, to point out the main religious lessons which the Book of Genesis contains, and the position taken by it in the history of revelation. There are parts of the Book in which, judged by the canons of historical method, it must be evident that we are treading upon uncertain ground: but that in no degree detracts from the spiritual value of its contents ; and the presence in the writers of the purifying and illuminating Spirit of God must be manifest throughout. In view of the many problems which, to modern readers, the Book of Genesis suggests, it will be a satisfaction to me if I may have succeeded in making my volume a contribution, however slight, to that adjustment of theology to the new knowledge of the past, which has been called a * crying need ' of the times \ Among the Commentaries upon Genesis which I have con- sulted, I feel bound to record my special indebtedness to that ^ Compare the paper read by the Bishop of Winchester at the Bristol Church Congress, 1903 {Guardian, Oct. 21, 1903, p. 1590). 2 The Guardian, Dec. 19, 1900, p. 1784. XII PREFACE of August Dillmann, an admirable scholar, whose writings were always distinguished by learning, ability, and judgement. It has been translated into English; but it can hardly be said to be well adapted to the ordinary English reader, as it contains much technical matter, which, though interesting and valuable to special students, is superfluous for the general reader, while, on the other hand, it does not always contain the kind of information which an English reader would expect to find in a Commentary. I have only, in conclusion, to acknowledge my obligations to the "Warden of Keble College, the editor of the series, who has taken much trouble in reading all the sheets, and who has on many occasions given me the benefit of his judgement, and offered suggestions to which I have very grate- fully given effect. S. R. D. Christ Church, Oxford, October 6. 1903. CONTENTS. PAGE Addenda -^^ Principal abbreviations employed XVIII Note on the Chronology XXI Chronological Table XXII Introduction § 1. Structure of the Book of Genesis, and Characteristics of its component parts i § 2. The Chronology of Genesis xxv § 3. The Historical Value of the Book of Genesis : a. The prehistoric period (chaps, i. — xi.) . . . xxxi h. The patriarchal period (chaps, xii. — l.) . . xliii § 4. The Religious Value of the Book of Genesis . . . Ixi Text and Commentary 1—401 Additional Notes The Cosmogony of Genesis 19 The Sabbath 34 On the narrative ii. 4^ — in. 24 61 The site of Paradise 57 The Cherubim 60 On chap, iv ... 71 On Enoch 78 On the figures in chap, v 79 On the Names in chaps, iv. and v., and their possible Babylonian origin 80 The Historical Character of the Deluge 99 Noah's judgement on his three sons Ill Nimrod and Babylon 122 The Tower of Babel 136 XIV CONTENTS PAGE Ur and the Hebrews 142 On Melchizedek 167 The Vale of Sidclim and the Dead Sea. The probable site of the Cities of the Kikkar 168 The Historical Character of the narrative contained in Gen. xiv. 171 The Angel of Jehovah 184 Circumcision 189 The destruction of the Cities of the Kikkar .... 202 Lot 205 The Sacrifice of Isaac 221 The Cave of Machpelah 228 The 'Hittites' in Hebron 228 The Ishmaelito Tribes .243 Stone-worship 267 Gilead and Laban .290 Jacob's struggle at Pcnuel 296 On the sites of Mizpah, Mahanaim, Penuel, and Succoth . 300 The narrative of Jacob's dealings at Shechem (chap, xxxrv.) . 306 Famines in Egypt. The date of Joseph 347 Land-tenure in Egypt 374 The Character of Joseph 400 Excursus I. The Names of God in Genesis . . , .402 Excursus II. On Gen. xlix. 10 ('Until Shiloh come') . 4io Index 416 ADDENDA, Pp. xlii. n. 2, 24 n. 2 (second paragraph). I rejoice to see substantially the same criticisms made independently by the Rev. G. S. Streatfeild on pp. 15—17 of his pamphlet cited below (p. Ixviii). P. 3, on i. 1. With a language as largely unknown in England as Hebrew is, it is possible for an amateur or theorist to perform extraordinary feats. Thus Mr Fenton, in a work called The Bible in Modern English, translates the first verse of Genesis in this way, * By Periods God created that which pro- duced the Solar Systems; then that which produced the earth.' To say nothing about the rest of this rendering, what, we may ask, would be thought of a Latin scholar who, having before him the words In principio, gi-avely informed his readers that principium was a plural word, and meant ' periods ' ? Yet this would be an exact parallel to what Mr Fenton has done. Other parts of the Old Testament are translated in the same fashion : thus Dt. xxxiii. 20, 'Let the horseman (!), Gad, be blest !' and Daniel becomes (Daniel iv. 9) 'Chief of the Engineers ' 1 P. 34 n. 2. Cf. R. D. Wilson in the Princeton Theol. Renew, Apr. 1903, p. 246, where statistics will be found supporting this statement. P. 34 n. 3. In a recently discovered lexical tablet, the name is given to the 15th day of the month, i.e. the day of the full moon (Zimmem, ZDMG. 1904, p. 199 ff.). P. 51 ff. See further, on Gen. iii., the very full discussion in Tennant, The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin, 1903 (including the history of these doctrines in later Jewish and Christian hands). P. 52 n. 4. But see R. C. Thompson, as cited in the Exp. Times, Nov. 1903, p. 50 f., who contends that no sacred garden is here referred to at all. P. 72. With the views respecting Cain here referred to, comp. Foakes- Jackson, The Biblical History of the Hebrews (1903), pp. 7, 363 f. P. 131, note on x. 29, 1. 8. This identification, which was originally Lassen's, is suggested by the fact that ' algum,' and the Heb. words for ivory, apes, and peacocks, are apparently Indian : see Max Miiller, Lectures on the Science of Language, first series, ed. 1864, p. 208 ff. (who accepts it). It is objected (Keane, The Gold of Ophir, 46 f ) ih?ii Abhira is not the name of a people, but means simply a region where the Ahhirs, a widespread caste of ' cowherds,' were settled. Still Ptolemy mentions a district Aberia in precisely the same locality : and Josephus {Ant. viii. 6. 4) identified ^dxpeipa [lxx. for ' Ophir ' ha-^ in 1 K. ix. 28 ^axpijpa] with Chrysc (i.e. Malacca), 'which belongs to India.' P. 131 n. 4, on x. 29, Ophir. It should have been stated that Prof. Keane, though he identifies Ophir with Dhofar on the S. coast of Arabia, considers that the 'gold of Ophir' was found in Mashonaland, and only brought to 'Ophir 'as an emporium. Dr Carl Peters discusses the question of Ophir at great length in his Eldorado of the Ancients (1902), pp. '289—309. Peters, however, distinguishes between the Ophir of Gen. x. 29 and the Ophir of Solomon, whence the gold came : for the Ophir of Gen. x. 29 he follows (p. 293) the view adopted by Glaser (below, p. 131 n. 4), upon grounds developed XVI ADDENDA with much learning, but not cogent, that it was on the Arabian coast of the Persian Gulf; the Ophir of Solomon he finds (p. 341 f.) in Mashonaland between the Zambesi and the Sabi. There certainly were anciently very extensive gold-workings in Mashonaland, as Bent {The Ruined Cities of Mashonaland, 1892), and especially Hall and Neal {The Ancient Ruins of Rhodesia, 1902), have abundantly shewn. It is contended by Peters that the ruins of the great Zimbabwe (= 'House of Stone') and other places in Rhodesia are of a character shewing that they were constructed by Phoenicians and Sabaeans (p. 353 flF., 364 ; cf. Keane, The Gold of Ophir, p. 160 flf., where the same view is maintained). Keane places even the Havilah of Gen. ii. 11 in Rhodesia, the Pishon being, seemingly, the Zambesi (p. 194) ; and identifies the Tarshish of 1 K. X. 22 with Sofala (20° S.). The grounds on which all these positions rest require to be carefully tested : but as it is not afiirmed by either of these writers that the Ophir of Genesis was in Llashonaland, a con- sideration of their arguments lies beyond the scope of the present com- mentary. The hypothesis of two Ophirs should clearly be only a last resort. In view of the connexion in which Ophir stands in Gen. x., ' the burden of proof,' as Mr Twisleton said long ago (Ophir, in Smith, DB. ii., 1863, p. 640), 'lies on anyone who denies Ophir to have been in Arabia' : at the same time difficulties undoubtedly arise, partly from the apparently Indian origin of the Heb. words referred to above, partly from the fact that Arabia does not seem to have been a country capable of producing gold in such quantities as Solomon (even allowing for some hyberbole) appears to have obtained from it (1 K. ix. 28; cf. x. 14 fi".). Hence the view that Ophir, though in Arabia, was an emporium for gold brought to it from elsewhere; though even so, as Palestine was a comparatively poor country, it is difficult to think what commodities Solomon would have had to offer in exchange for the gold obtained by him, and the inference has accordingly been drawn that the Israelites must have mined the gold themselves (Keane, p. 57 f ). This inference, if correct, would seem to imply that it was procured from some country other than Arabia. See further EncB. s. V. ; Budge, Hist, of Egypt, ii. 132-4 ; Glaser, Zwei PuUikationen [those of Keane and Peters] uber Ophir (1902). P. 156 n. 5. See also now the full and instructive discussion of this Code in S. A. Cook, The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurahi. P. 157 n. 3. The uncertainty of the reading arises from the ' polyphony ' of the cuneiform script, i.e. from the remarkable, but well-established fact that the same character may denote difi"erent sounds^ In the three inscriptions referred to, the name which has been supposed to correspond to Chedorla'omer is written in characters which, read phonetically, would give (1) KU-KU-KU-MAL (2) KU-KU-KU-MAL (3) KU-KU-KU-KU- The last character in (3) is obliterated. Mr King, having stated these facts, continues, ' The three names are said to be identical, and to be a fanciful way of writing Chedorla'omer. Assuming that (3) is to be restored from (2), which is by no means certain, we get two forms of the name, one 1 See Evetts, T 36 „ Zabum 14 j> 14 )• Apil-Sin 18 »> 18 Sin-muballit 30 » 20 M Hammurabi 55 43 )1 Samsu-iluna 35 " 38 » Abeshu' 25 [?2]S » Ammiditana 25 » 37 » Ammizaduga 22 10 [unfinished] Samsuditana 31 » * The 669 (i.e. 518 + 151) years assigned here to the Hyksoa rule are based upon Erman's reconstruction (Masp. u. 73 n.) of the figures of Manetho as reported by Julius Africanus (Budge, i. 135) : see the paper cited p. 347 n. According to Manetho, as reported by Josephus (c. Ap. i. 14), their rule lasted 511 years, being followed by a ' long and great war ' of ' insurrection.' * From King's Letters and Inscriptiotis of Hammurabi, iii. (1900), p. Lxxf. The first column gives the regnal years of the several kings according to the List of Kings published by Mr Pinches in 1880 (see Records of the Past, second series, vol. I. pp. 3, 13); the second gives their regnal years according to the recently discovered Chronicle of the First Dynasty, which is based upon two contemporary documents dating from the reign of Ammizaduga. The Clironicle itself is trans- lated ia t'Xtenso in King, op. cit. pp. 213 — 253. CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE\ First appearance of man Diffusion of mankind over the earth Gradual growth of racial distinctions Formation of principal families of languages Palaeolithic age Earlier part of Neolithic age, and development of civilization to the level reached when the earliest historical monuments appear in Babylonia and Egypt (cf. p. xli f .) [Not determinable in years b.o.; but must have extended over many [ millennia before b.o. 6—6000 Babylonia Estimated date of foun- dation of Temple of Bel at Nippur (Hilprecht) before ( Many vases, inscriptions, &c. in the British Mu- seum Lugal-zaggisi, king TJruk (p. xxxii) of Sargon of Agadd (pp. xxxii, 173 n.) Many kings of Lagash, Ur, and Uruk 2800 First dynasty of Babylon (Sayce) 2478—2174 (Maspero) 2416—2082 (Hommel) 2231-1911 Hammurabi (6th king of ■ First dynasty) (Sayce) 2376—2333 (Johns) 2285—2242 (Hommel) 2130-2087 The Kasshite dynasty (p. 120) (Sayce) 1786—1211 (Hommel) 1688—1113 Burnaburiash ; Tel el- Amarna correspondence Nazi-murudash (p. 122) Nebuchadrezzar I C. 1400 c, 1350 Egypt Remains of predynastio civili- zation in Egypt B.C. before 5000 Menes, first king of Egypt mentioned by Manetho Fourth dynasty Cheops, builder of the Great Pyramid Twelfth dynasty Rule of the Hyksos Eighteenth dynasty Thothmes m. Amenhotep HI. AmenhotepFV. (Khu- n-aten) Nineteenth dynasty Ramses 11 Merenptah (probably the Pharaon of the Exodus) Twentieth dynasty Ramses HI. Petrle Sayce 4777 3998- 3721 ^I^ 2778- 2565 2098- 2269— 1587 1600 1587— 160O— 1327 1503- 1503— 1449 1449 1414- 1383 13S3- 1365 1327- 1181 1275— 134S- 1208 12S1 1208- 1281— 1187 1181— 1060 1180— 1230— 1148 1750 C. 1700— 1400 '. 1533— 1500 !. 1450— 1430 :. 1430— 1400 :. 1400— 1200 I. 1333— 1300 C. 1300- 1270 Assyria does not come into prominence during the period covered by this Table : the foUowing dates, may, however, be mentioned : — Ishmi-dagan, patesi, or priest-king, of Nineveh c. 1820. Asshur-bel-nisheshu, first king of Assyria at present known , c. 1450. Shalmaneser I., the builder of Calah (Gen. x. 11) c. 1300. » For the authorities upon which this Table is based, see the preceding page. INTRODUCTION. § 1. The Structure of the Booh of Genesis, and characteristics of its component parts. The Book of Genesis is so called from the title given to it in the Lxx. Version, derived from the Greek rendering of ii. 4* avTr] rj (^t(3\o<; yevco-ews ovpavov Koi yrjs. It forms the first book in the Hexateuch, — as the literary whole formed by the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua is now frequently termed ^ — the general object of which is to describe in their origin the fundamental institutions of the Israelitish theocracy (i.e. the civil and the ceremonial law), and to trace from the earliest past the course of events which issued ultimately in the establishment of Israel in Canaan. The Book of Genesis comprises the introductory period of this history, embracing the lives of the ancestors of the Hebrews, and ending with the death of Joseph in Egypt. The aim of the book is, however, more than merely to recount the ancestry of Israel itself : its aim is, at the same time, to describe how the earth itself was originally prepared to become the habitation of man, to give an outline of the early history of mankind upon it, and to shew how Israel was related to other nations, and how it emerged gradually into .separate and distinct existence beside them. Accordingly the narrative opens with an account of the creation of the world ; the hne of Israel's ancestors is traced back beyond Abraham to the first appearance of man upon the earth ; and the relation in which the nations descended from the second father of humanity, Noah, were supposed to stand, both tiiwards one another and towards Israel, is indicated by a genea- logical scheme (ch. x.). The entire book may thus be divided into two pai ts, of which the first, chs. i. — xi., presents a general view of 1 Th(> Book of Joshua is composed of three well-marked distinct strands ; and the lilf.' a-y affinities of each of these are with corresponding strands running throuql; ; art or all of the live preceding books. The literary affinities of Joshua with tLc jooks of Judges, Samuel, and Kings are much less strongly marked. ii INTRODUCTION [§ 1 the Early History of Mankind, as pictured by the Hebrews, including the Creation (oh. i,), the origin of evil (ch. iii.), the beginnings of civilization (ch. iv.), the Flood (chs. vi. — ix.), the rise of separate nations (ch. x.), and the place taken by the Semites, and particularly by the Hebrews, among them (xi. 10 — 26); while the second, chs. xii. — 1., beginning with the migration of the Terahites, comprehends in par- ticular the History of Israel's immediate ancestors, the Patriarchs^ viz. Abraham (xii. 1 — xxv. 18), Isaac (xxv. 19 — xxxvi.), and Jacob (xxxvii. — 1.). The narrative of Genesis is cast into a framework, or scheme, marked by the recurring formula, These are the generations (lit. he- gettings) of^.... This phrase is one which belongs properly to a genealogical system: it implies that the person to whose name it is prefixed is of sufficient importance to mark a break in the genealogical series, and that he and his descendants will form the subject of the section which follows, until another name is reached. prominent enough to form the commencement of a new section. The formula appears ten times in the Book of Genesis : viz. ii. 4* (the generations of heaven and earth), v. 1 (of Adam), vi. 9 (of Noah), x. 1 (of the sons of Noah), xi. 10 (of Shem), xi. 27 (of Terab), xxv. 12 (of Ishmael), xxv. 19 (of Isaac), xxxvi. 1, of 9 (of Esau), xxxvii. 2 (of Jacob). In ii. 4* it is appHed metaphorically; and as it clearly relates to the contents of ch. i., it is very possible that it stood originally before i. 1 (see p. 19). In the other cases, it introduces each time a longer or shorter genealogical account of the person named and of his descendants, and is followed usually by a more detailed narrative about them. With which of the component parts of Genesis the scheme thus indicated was originally connected will appear subsequently. The entire narrative, as we now possess it, is accommodated to it. The attention of the reader is fixed upon Israel, which is gradually dis- engaged from the nations and tribes related to it : at each stage in the history, a brief general account of the collateral branches having been given, they are dismissed, and the narrative is limited more and more to the immediate line of Israel's ancestors. Thus after ch. x. (the ethnogTaphical Table) all the descendants of Noah disappear, except the line of Shem, xi. 10 ff. ; after xxv. 12 — 18 Ishmael disappears, and Isaac alone remains; after ch. xxxvi. Esau and his descendants dis- appear, and only Jacob and his sons are left. The same method is adopted in the intermediate parts : thus in xix. 30 — 38 the relation 1 Once (v. 1), This is the book of the generations of.... § 1] COMPOSITE STRUCTURE OF GENESIS iii to Israel of the cognate peoples of Moab and Ammon is explained ; in xxii. 20 — 24 (sons of Abraham's brother, Nahor), and xxv. 1 — 4 (sons of Abraham's concubine, Keturah) the relation to Israel of certain Aramaean tribes is explained. The unity of plan thus estabhshed for the Book of Genesis, and traceable in many other details, has long been recognized by critics. It is not, however, incompatible with the use by the compiler of pre-existing materials in the composition of his work. And as soon as the book is studied with sufficient attention, phaenomena disclose themselves, which shew that it is composed of distinct documents or sources, which have been welded together by a later compiler (or * redactor ') into a continuous whole. These phaenomena are very num--i;r.us; but they may be reduced in the main to the two following heads : (l) the same event is doubly recorded; (2) the language, and frequently the representation as well, varies in different sections. Thus i. 1 — ii. 4* and ii. 4'' — 25 contain a double narrative of the origin of man upon earth. No doubt, in the abstract, it might be argued that ii. 4^ ff. is intended simply as a more detailed account of what is described summarily in i. 26 — 30; but upon closer examination differe:ices reveal themselves which preclude the supposition that both secticjis are the work of the same hand: the (yrder of creation is different, the phraseology and literary style are different, and the representation, especially the representation of Deity, is different\ In the narrative of the Deluge, vi. 9 — 13 (the wickedness of the earth) is a duplicate of vi. 5—8; vii. 1 — 5 is a duplicate of vi. 18 — 22, — with the difference, however, that whereas in vi. 19 (cf vii. 15) two animals of eveiy kind, without distinction, are to be taken into the ark, in vii. 2 the n:;mber prescribed is two of every unclean animal, but seven of every clean animal: there are also several other duplicates, all being marked by accompanying differences of representation and phraseology, one group of sections being akin to i. 1 — ii. 4% and displaying through- out the same phraseology, the other exhibiting a different phraseology, and being conceived in the spirit of ii. 4^^ — iii. 24 ^ In xvii. 16 — 19 and xviii. 9 — 15 the promise of a son for Sarah is twice described, — the teims used in xviii. 9 — 15 clearly shewing that the writer did not picture any previous promise of the same kind as having been given to Abraham, — with an accompanying double explanation of the origin of the name Isaac. The section xxvii. 46 — xxviii. 9 differs appreciably in st3le from xxvii. 1 — 45, and at the same time represents Rebekah ^ See particulars on p. 35 f. ^ ggg i\^q notes, p. 86 ff. iv INTRODUCTION [§ 1 as influenced by a different motive from that mentioned in xxvii. 42 — 45 in suggesting Jacob's departure from Canaan'. Further, in xxviii. 19 and xxxv. 15 we find two explanations of the origin of the name Bethel; in xxxii. 28 and xxxv. 10, two of Israel; in xxxii. 3 and xxxiii. 16 Esau is described as already resident in Edom, whereas in xxxvi. 6 f. his migration thither is attributed to causes which could not have come into operation until after Jacob's return to Canaan. In short, the Book of Genesis presents two groups of sections, distinguished from each other by differences of phraseology and style, and often also by accompanying differences of representation, so marked, so numerous, and so recurrent, that they can only be accounted for by the supposition that the groups in which they occur are not both the work of the same hand. The sections homogeneous in style and character with i. 1 — ii. 4" recur at intervals, not in Genesis only, but in the following books to Joshua inclusive ; and if read consecutively, apart from the rest of the narrative, will be found to form a nearly complete whole, containing a systematic account of the origines of Israel, treating with particular fulness the various ceremonial institutions of the Hebrews (Sabbath, Circumcision, Passover, Tabernacle, Sacrifices, Feasts, &c.), and dis- playing a consistent regard for chronological and other statistical data, which entitles it to be considered as the framework of our present Hexateuch. The source, or document, thus constituted, has received different names, suggested by one or other of the various characteristics attaching to it. From its preference, till Ex. vi. 3, for the absolute use of the name God ('Elohim') rather than Jehovah ('Yahweh'), it has been termed the Elohlstic narrative, and its author has been called the Elohist; but these names are not now so much used as they were formerly; by more recent writers, on account of the predominance in it of priestly interests, and of the priestly point of view, it is commonly caUed the priestly narrative, and denoted, for brevity, by the letter P (which is also used to denote its author). The following are the parts of Genesis which belong to P : — i. 1 — ii. 4* (creation of heaven and earth, and God's subsequent rest upon the sabbath); v. 1—28, 30—32 (the line of Adam's descendants through Seth to Noah); vi. 9—22, vii. 6, 11, 13—16% 17% 18—21, 24, viii. 1—2% 3^—5, 13% 14-19, ix. 1—17, 28—29 (tlie story of the Flood); x. 1—7, 20, 22—23, 31—32 (Hst of nations descended from Japhet, Ham, and Shem) ; xi. 10 — 26 (line of Shem's descendants to Terah); xi. 27, 31 — 32 (Abraham's family); xii. 4*^—5, I See p. 262. § 1] THE PRIESTLY NARRATIVE (P) v xiii. 6, ll*" — 12» (his migi-ation into Canaan, and separation from Lot); xvi. 1» 3, 15 — 16 (birth of Ishraael); xvii. (institution of circumcision); xix. 29 (destruction of the cities of the Kikkar); xxi. 1^ 2^^— 5 (birth of Isaac); xxiii. (purchase of the family burial-place in Machpelah); xxv. 7—11* (death and burial of Abraham); xxv. 12—17 (list of 12 tribes descended from Ishmael) ; xxv. 19 — 20, 26*> (Isaac's marriage with Rebekah) ; xxvi. 34 — 35 (Esau's Hittite wives) ; xxvii. 46— xxviii. 9 (Jacob's journey to Paddan-aram) ; xxix. 24, 28^ 29, xxx. 22^ (perhaps), xxxi. IS*', xxxiii. 18* (Jacob's marriage with Rachel, and return to Canaan); xxxi v. 1—2% 4, 6, 8—10, 13—18, 20—24, 25 (partly), 27 — 29 (refusal of his sons to sanction intermarriage with the Shechemites) ; xxxv. 9—13, 15 (change of name to Israel at Bethel); xxxv. 22''— 29 (death and burial of Isaac); xxxvi. in the main (Esau's migration into Edom ; the tribes and tribal chiefs of Edom and Seir) ; xxxvii. 1 — 2% xli. 46 (Joseph's elevation in Egypt); xlvi. 6—27, xlvii. 5-6% 7—11, 27^ 28 (migration of Jacob and his family to Egypt, and their settlement in the 'land of Ramc'ses'); xlviii. 3 — 6, 7 (Jacob's adoption of Ephraim and Manasseb); xlix. 1*, 28'' — 33, 1. 12 — 13 (Jacob's final instructions to his sons, and his burial by them in the cave of Machpelah). For convenience of reference, and also in order to enable the reader to judge of the character of tlie source as a whole, a synopsis of the parts of Ex. — Josh, belonging to it is here added : — Exodus i. 1—5, 7, 13—14. ii. 23''— 25. vi. 2— vii. 13. vii. 19—20% 21''— 22. viii. 5—7, 15''— 19. ix. 8—12. xi. 9—10. xii. 1—20, 28, 37% 40—41, 43—51. xiii. 1—2, 20. xiv. 1—4, 8—9, 15—18, 21% 21<=— 23, 26—27% 28% 29. xvi. 1—3, 6—24, 31—36. xvii. 1». xix. 1—2*. xxiv. 15-18*. xxv. 1— xxxi. 18*. xxxiv. 29 — 35. xxxv. — xl. Leviticus i. — xvi. xvii. — xxvi. (these ten chapters embodying considerable excerpts from an older source, now generally called, from its leading principle, the * Law of Hohness')^ xxvii. Numbers i. 1— x, 28. xiii. 1—17% 21, 25—26* (to Paran), 32*. xiv. 1—2^, 5—7, 10, 26—30, 34—382. xv. xvi. 1% 2''— 7% (7''— 11)S (16-17)% 18—24, 27% 32^ 35, (36—40)% 41—50. xvii. xviii. xix. xx. 1* (to month), 2, 3"— 4, 6—13,22—29. xxi. 4* (to iTor), 10— 11. xxii. 1. xxv. 6— 18. xxvi.— xxxi. xxxii. 18—19, 28—32*. xxxiii. xxxiv.— xxxvi. Deuteronomy i. 3. xxxii. 48—52. xxxiv. 1*% 5'', 7—9. Joshua iv. 13, 19. v. 10—12. vii. 1. ix. 15'', 17—21. xiii. 15—32. xiv. 1—6. XV, 1—13, 20—44, (45—47)3, 48—62. xvi. 4—8. xvii. 1% 3—4, 7, 9% 9«— 10*. xviii. 1, 11—28. xix. 1—46, 48, 61. xx. 1—3 (except '[and] unawares'), 6* (toy«o?^emeHO> 7 — 9^ xxi. 1 — 42. (xxii. 9 — 34)% The groundwork of P's narrative iu Genesis is 'a series of inter- 1 See the vrriter's Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, p. 43 ff. (ed. 6 or 7, p. 47 ff.). * In the main. * The parentheses indicate later additions to P (there are probably others as well ; but it is not necessary to indicate them in the present synopsis). ^ With traces in xxxii. 1—17, 20—27. * See LOT. 105 (112). vi INTRODUCTION [§ i connected genealogies— viz. Adam (v. 1 — 28, 30—32), Noah (vi. 9—10), Noah's sons (x. 1—7, 20, 22—23, 31—32), Shem (xi. 10—26), Terah (xi. 27, 31—32), Ishmael (xxv. 12—17), Isaac (xxv. 19—20, 26''), Esau (xxxvi.), Jacob (xxxv. 22^ — 26, xxxvii. 2). These are constructed upon a uniform plan: each bears the title, "This is the genealogy of..."; each often begins with a brief recapitulation connecting it with the preceding table (see on vi. 10) ; the method is the same throughout. The genealogies are made the basis of a systematic chronology; and short historical notices are appended to them, as in the case of Abraham and Lot, xii. 4''— 5, xiii. 6, 11^—12% xvi. 1*, 3, 15—16, xix. 29' (Moore, EncB. II. 1670 f.). The narrative is rarely more detailed, except in the case of important occurrences, as the Creation, the Deluge, the Covenants with Noah (ix. 1 — 17) and Abraham (ch. xvii.), or the purchase of the family sepulchre at Hebron (ch. xxiii.). Nevertheless, meagre as it is, it contains an outhne of the antecedents and patriarchal history of Israel, sufficient as an introduction to the systematic view of the theocratic institutions which is to follow in Ex. — Nu., and which it is the main object of the author of this source to exhibit. In the earlier part of the book the narrative appears to be tolerably complete ; but elsewhere there are evidently omissions (e.g. of the birth of Esau and Jacob, and of the events of Jacob's life in Paddan-aram, pre- supposed by xxxi. 18). But these may be naturally attributed to the compiler who combined P with the other narrative used by him, and who in so doing not unfrequently gave a preference to the fuller and more picturesque descriptions contained in the latter. If the parts assigned to P be read attentively, even in a translation, and compared with the rest of the narrative, the peculiarities of its style will be apparent. Its language is that of a jurist, accustomed to legal particu- larity, rather than that of a historian, writing with variety and freedom ; it is circumstantial, formal, and precise. The narrative, both as a whole and in its several parts, is articulated systematically'; a formal superscription and subscription regularly mark the beginning and close of an enumeration^ Particular words and expressions recur with great frequency. Sentences are also cast with great regularity into the same mould: as Mr Carpenter has remarked, 'when once the proper form of words has been selected, it is unfailingly reproduced on the 1 E.g. i. 5b, Q\ 13, 19, 23, 31"; v. 6—8, 9—11, 12—14 &c.; xi. 10—11, 12—13 &c. 2 'These are the generations of...' (above, p. ii.); i. 5*^, 8^ 13 &c. ; x. 5 [see the note], 20, 31, 32, xxv. 13", 16, xxxvi. 29% Zffi, 40", 43" &c. (see below, p. x., No. 26) : cf. also vi. 22 (see p. ix., No. 12), comp. with Ex. vii. 6 &o. § 1] LITERARY STYLE OF P vii next occasion'.' In descriptions, emphasis'^ and completeness^ are studied; hence a statement, or command, is often developed at some length, and in part even repeated in slightly different words \ There is a tendency to describe an object in full each time that it is mentioned* ; a direction is followed, as a rule, by an account of its execution, usually in nearly the same words ^ It will now, moreover, be apparent that the scheme into which (p. ii.) the Book of Genesis is cast, is the work of the same author, — the formula by which its salient divisions are marked constituting an essential feature in the sections assigned to P. Here is a select list of words and expressions characteristic of P, — most, it will be observed, occurring nowhere else in the entire OT., though a few are met with in Ezekiel, the priestly prophet (who has moreover other affinities with P), and a few occur also in other late OT. writings. Only words and expressions occurring in Genesis are cited; the list would be considerably extended, if those characteristic of the parts of Ex. — Josh, belonging to P were included as well''. The dagger (+J, both here and elsewhere, indicates that all passages of the Old Testament, in wnich the word or phrase quoted occurs, are cited or referred to ; and the asterisk (*) indicates that all passages of the Hexateuch, in which the word or phrase quoted occurs, are cited or referred to. 1. God, not Jehovah, Gen. i. 1, and uniformly, except xvii. 1, xxi. l**, until Ex. vi. 2, 3. It is the theory of P, expressed distinctly in Ex. vi. 3, that the name 'Jehovah' was not in use before the Mosaic age : accordingly until Ex. vi. 2 — 3, he consistently confines himself to God. J, on the other hand, uses Jehovah regularly from the beginning (Gen. ii. 4'', 5, 7 &c.). In the OT. generally, ^ Oxf. Hex. I. 125 (ed. 2, p. 235). Mr Carpenter instances the use of the migration formula, Gen. xii. 5, xxxi. 18, xxxvi. 8, xlvi. 6, and the description of Machpelah, xxiii. 19, xxv. 9, xlix. 30, 1. 13: cf. also xii. 4'', xvi. 16, xvii. 24, 25, xxi. 5, xxv. 26^ xii. 46»; Ex. vii. 7. 2 Comp. Gen. i. 29, vi. 17, ix. 3. ^ Notice the precision of description and definition in Gen. i. 24, 25, 26'', 28'', vi. 18, 20, vii. 18—14, 21, viii. 17, 18—19; x. 5, 20, 31, 32, xxxvi. 40; xxiii. 17; xxxvi. 8, xlvi. 6—7 ; Ex. vii. 19 &c. 4 Gen. ii. 2—3, ix. 9—11, 12—17, xvii. 10—14, 23—27, xxiii. 17—20, xlix. 29— 30, 32 ; Ex. xii. 18 — 20 &c. In this connexion, there may be noticed particularly an otherwise uncommon mode of expression, producing a peculiar rhjiihm, by which a statement is first made in general terms, and then partly repeated, for the purpose of receiving closer limitation or definition: see, for instance, Gen. i. 27 'and God created man in his own image ; in the image of God created he him -. male and female created he them,' vi. 14 (Heb.), ix. 5. xxiii. 11 'the field give I thee &o. ; in the presence of the sons of my people give I it thee,' xlix. 29''— 30; Ex. xii. 4, 8, xvi. 16, 35, xxv. 2, 11, 18, 19, xxvi. 1; Lev. xxv. 22: Nu. ii. 2, xviii. 18, xxxvi. 11— 12 (Heb.), &c. 5 Comp. Gen. i. 7 beside v. 6, v. 12 beside v. 11, viii. 18 f. beside viii. 16 f. « See Gen. i. 6—7; 11-12; 24—25; vi. 18—20 and vii. 13—16; viii. 16—17 and 18—19 ; Ex. viii. 16—17; ix. 8—10 &c. 7 See LOT. pp. 126—8 (ed. 6 or 7, pp. 133—5). viii INTRODUCTION [§ 1 Jehovah is much more common than God; and to this fact is due no doubt its having been accidentally substituted for an original God in the two passages, Gen. xvii. 1, xxi. l^ The statement in Ex, vi. 3 that God appeared to the patriai-chs as El Shaddai is in agreement with the use of this title in xvii. 1, xxviii. 3, xxxv. 11, xlviii. 3. The following words, ' but by my name Jehovah I was not known unto them,' are additional proof, — if such be needed, — that Gen. xv. 7, xxviii. 13, as also the numerous passages in Gen. in which the patriarchs make use of this name, cannot have been written by the same author. 2. Kind (fD): Gen. i. 11, 12 his, 21 bis, 24 bis, 25 ter, vi. 20 ter, 7, 14 quater ; Lev. xi. 14, 15, 16, 19 [hence Deut. xiv. 13, 14, 15, 18], 22 quater, 29; Ez. xlvii. 10 1. 3. To swarm (p^): Gen. i. 20, 21, vii. 21, viii. 17; Ex. vii. 28 [hence Ps. cv, 30] ; Lev. xi. 29, 41, 42, 43, 46 [see p. 12 n.] ; Ez. xlvii. 9. Fig, of men : Gen. ix. 7 ; Ex. i. 7 (EVV. increased abundantly)^. 4. Swarming things (KT!^) : Gen. i. 20, vii. 21 ; Lev. v. 2, xi. 10, 20 [hence Deut. xiv. 19], 21, 23, 29, 31, 41, 42, 43, 44, xxii. 5 [see p. 12 w.]t. 6. To be fruitful and multiply (n3"l1 mc): Gen. i. 22, 28, viii. 17, ix. 1, 7, xvii. 20 (cf. vt). 2, 6), xxviii. 3, xxxv. 11, xlvii. 27, xlviii. 4; Ex. i. 7; Lev. xxvi. 9 : also Jer. xxiii. 3; and (inverted) iii. 16, Ez. xxxvi. llf. 6. To creep (K'on) : Gen. i. 21 (EVV. moveth), 26, 28, 30, vii. 8, 14, 21, viii. 17, 19, ix. 2; Lev. xi. 44, 46 (EVV. moveth), xx. 25. Also Deut. iv. 18*. 7. Creeping things, reptiles (^^'O^): Gen. i. 24, 25, 26, vi. 7, 20, vii. 14, 23, viii. 17, 19, ix. 3 (used here more generally : EVV. moveth)*. 8. For food {rb'^vh): Gen. i. 29, 30, vi. 21, ix. 3; Ex. xvi. 15; Lev. xi. 39, XXV. 6 ; Ez. XV. 4, 6, xxi. 37, xxiii. 37, xxix. 5, xxxiv. 5, 8, 10, 12, xxxix. 4t. (In Jer. xii. 9 n'p^K'? is an infin.) 9. Generations (nn^in, lit. begettings) : {a) in the phrase These are the generations of...: Gen. ii. 4% v. 1 ( This is the book of the generations of..), vi. 9, x. 1, xi. 10, 27, xxv. 12 [hence 1 Ch. i. 29], 19, xxxvi. 1, 9, xxxvii. 2; Nu. iii. 1; Ruth iv. 18t- (b) in the phrase their generations, by their families: Nu. i. 20, 22, 24 &c. (12 times in this chapter) f. (c) in the phrase according to (^) their generations { = their parentage, or their ages): Gen. x. 32, xxv. 13; Ex, vi. 16, 19, xxviii. 10 (a); 1 Ch. v. 7, vii. 2, 4, 9, viii, 28, ix. 9, 34, xxvi. 31. 10. To expire (yiJ): Gen. vi. 17, vii. 21, xxv. 8, 17, xxxv. 29, xlix. 33; Nu. xvii. 12, 13, xx. 3 bis, 29 ; Josh. xxii. 20 f. (Only besides in poetry: Zech. xiii. 8; Ps. Ixxxviii. 16, civ. 29; Lam. i. 19; and 8 times in Job.) 11. With thee {him &c.) appended to an enumeration; Gen. vi. 18, vii. 7, 1.3, viii. 16, 18, ix. 8, xxviii. 4, xlvi. 6, 7; Ex. xxviii. 1, 41, xxix. 21 bis; Lev. viii. 2, 30, X. 9, 14, 15, xxv, 41, 54; Nu. xviii. 1, 2, 7, 11, 19 bis*. Similarly after you {thee &c.) appended to seed: Gen. ix. 9, xvii. 7 bis, 8, 9, 10, 19, xxxv. 12, xlviii. 4 ; Ex. xxviii. 43 ; Nu. xxv. 13. § 1] LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS OF P ix 12. And Noah did {so); according to &c.: Gen. vi, 22: exactly the same form of sentence, Ex. vii. 6, xii. 28, .'50, xxxix. 32^ xl. 16; Nu, i. 54, ii. 34, viii. 20, xvii. 11 (Heb. 26) : of. Ex. xxxix. 43 ; Na v. 4, ix. 5. 13. This selfsame day (nTH nVH DVy): Gen. vii. 13, xvii. 23, 26 ; Ex. xii. 17, 41, 51 ; Lev. xxiii. 14, 21, 28, 29, 30 ; Dt. xxxii. 48 ; Jos. v. 11, x. 27 (not P : probably the compiler) ; Ez. ii. 3, xxiv. 2 lis, xl. 1 f. 14. After their families (dH^-, nninai;>o"?): Gen. viii. 19, x. 5, 20, 31, xxxvi. 40 ; Ex. vi. 17, 25, xii. 21 ; Nu. i. (13 times), ii. 34, iii.— iv. (15 times), xxvi. (16 times), xxix. 12, xxxiii. 54; Jos. xiii. 15, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31 ; xv. 1, 12, 20, xvi. 5, 8, xvii. 2 his, xviii. 11, 20, 21, 28, xix. (12 times), xxi. 7, 33, 40 (Heb. 38) ; 1 Ch. V. 7, vi. 62, 63 (Heb. 47, 48 : from Josh. xxi. 33, 40). Once in J, Nu. xi. 10 ; and once also in one of the earlier historical books, 1 S. x. 21 f. 15. An everlasting covenant: Gen. ix. 16, xvii. 7, 13, 19; Ex. xxxi. 16; Lev. xxiv. 8; of. Nu. xviii. 19, xxv. 13*. 16. Exceedingly (nxo nKD2 [not the usual phrase]) : Gen. xvii. 2, 6, 20 ; Ex. L7; Ez. ix. 9, xvi. 13 1- 17. Substance, goods (tJ'ID-i): Gen. xii. 5, xiii. 6% xxxi. 18^ xxxvi. 7, xlvi. 6; Nu. xvi. 32 end, xxxv. 3. Elsewhere (not P): Gen. xiv. 11, 12, \Qhis, 21, xv. 14; and in Chr. (8 times), Ezr. (4 times), Dan. xi. (3 times) f. 18. To amass, gather (K'ai — cognate with 'substance'): Gen. xii. 5, xxxi. 18 his, xxxvi. 6, xlvi. 6 (Px-V. had gotten)-^. 19. Soul {^^l) in the sense oi person: Gen. xii. 5, xxxvi. 6, xlvi. 15, 18, 22, 25, 26, 27; Ex. i. 5, xii. 4, 16 (RV. man), 19, xvi. 16 {W^ . 2yersons) ; Lev. ii. 1 (RV. any one), iv. 2, 27, v. 1, 2 ; and often in the legal parts of Lev. Num. (as Lev. xvii. 12, xxii. 11, xxvii. 2); Nu. xxxi. 28, 3-5, 40, 46; Josh. xx. 3, 9 (from Nu. xxxv. 11, 15). See also below. No. 24 a. A usage not confined to P, but much more frequent in P than elsewhere. 20. Throughout your {their) generations (DD'»n'"in'?, Dn'lhb): Gen. xv^ii. 7, 9, 12; Ex. xii 14, 17, 42, xvi. 32, 33, xxvii. 21, xxix. 42, xxx. 8, 10, 21, 31, xxxi. 13, 16, xl. 15; Lev. iii. 17, vi. 11, vii. 36, x. 9, xvii. 7, xxi. 17, xxii. 3, xxiii. 14, 21, 31, 41, xxiv. 3, xxv. 30 {his); Nu. ix. 10, x. 8, xv. 14, 15, 21, 23, 38, xviii. 23, xxxv. 29 f. 21. Sojournings (D''"11!ID): with land. Gen. xvii 8, xx^-iii. 4, xxxvi. 7, xxxvii. 1 ; Ex. vi. 4 ; Ez. xx. 38 ; with days, Gen. xlvii. 9 his. Only besides Ps. cxix. 54 : and rather diflFerently, Iv. 15 (sing.) ; Job xviii. 19 f. 22. Possession (HWX): Gen. xvii. 8, xxiii. 4, 9, 20, xxxvi. 43, xlvii. 11, xlviii. 4, xlix. 30, 1. 13 ; Lev. xiv. 34, xxv. 10—46 (13 times), xxvii. 16, 21, 22, 24, 28 ; Nu. xxvii. 4, 7, xxxii. 5, 22, 29, 32, xxxv. 2, 8, 28 ; Dt. xxxii. 49 ; Josh, xxi. 12, 41, xxii. 4 (Deuteronomic), 9, 19 his. Elsewhere only in Ezekiel (xliv. 28 his, xiv. 5, 6, 7 his, 8, xlvi. 16, 18 ter, xlviii. 20, 21, 22 his); Ps. ii. 8 ; 1 Ch. YiL 28, ix. 2 ( = Neh. xi. 3), 2 Ch. xi. 14, xxxi. If. 23. The cognate verb to get possessions (rnx:), rather a peculiar word : Gen. xxxiv. 10, xlvii. 27 ; Nu. xxxii. 30, Josh. xxii. 9, 19t. X INTRODUCTION [§ 1 24. Father's kin (D''Ciy), — a peculiar usage (see on Gen. xvii. 14): {a) that soul (or thMt man) shall he cut off from his father's kin: Gen. xvii. 14; Ex. xxx. 33, 38, xxxi. 14; Lev. vii. 20, 21, 25, 27, xvii. 9, xix. 8, xxiii. 29; Nu. ix. ISf- (&) to be gathered to one's father's kin: Gen. xxv. 8, 17, xxxv. 29, xlix. 33 (cf, on V. 29); Nu. xx. 24, xxvii. 13, xxxi. 2 ; Dt. xxxii. 50 bisf. (c) Lev. xix. 16, xxi, 1, 4, 14, 15; Ez. xviii. 18 : perhaps Jucl. v. 14; Hos, X. 14. 25. Sojourner (BVV.), better settler (nK'in): Gen. xxiii. 4 (hence fig. Ps. xxxix. 13, 1 Ch. xxix. 15); Ex. xii. 45; Lev. xxii. 10, xxv. 6, 23 (fig.), 35, 40, 45, 47 his; Nu. xxxv. 15 ; 1 K. xvii. 1 (but read rather as RVm.)t. 26. The methodical form of subscription and superscription : Gen. x. [5,] 20, 31, 32, xxv. 13% 16, xxxvi. 29% 30^ 40% 43^ xlvi. 8, 15, 18, 22, 25 ; Ex. i. 1, vi. 14, 16, 19, 25, 26; Nu. i. 44, iv. 28, 33, 37, 41, 45, vii. 17, 23, 29 &c., 84, xxxiii. 1 ; Josh. xiii. 23, 28, 32, xiv. 1, xv. 12, 20, xvi. 8, xviii. 20, 28, xix. 8, 16, 23, 31, 39, 48, 51 [cf. Gen. x. 31, 32], xxi. 19, 26, 33, 40, 41—42. (Not a complete enumeration.) ^ 27. As those acquainted with Hebrew will be aware, there are in Heb. two forms of the pron. of the 1st pers. sing, 'dnl and 'dnoki, which are not by all writers used indiscriminately : P now uses 'dnl nearly 130 times {'mioki only once, Gen. xxiii. 4 : comp. in Ezekiel 'dnl 138 times, 'dnoki once, xxxvi. 28). In the rest of the Hcxateuch 'dnokl is preferred to 'dnl, and in the discourses of Deut. it is used almost exclusively. 28. For hundred P uses a peculiar grammatical form {m^'ath in the constr. state, in cases where ordinarily me'dh would be said) : Gen. v. 3, 6, 18, 25, 28, vii. 24, viii. 3, xi. 10, 25, xxi. 5, xxv. 7, 17, xxxv. 28, xlvii. 9, 28; Ex. vi. 16, 18, 20, xxxviii. 25, 27 ter; Nu. ii. 9, 16, 24, 31, xxxiii. 39. So besides only Neh. v. 1 1 (probably corrupt : see Ryle ad loc.), 2 Ch. xxv. 9 Qrd, Est. i. 4. P uses me' ah in such cases only twice. Gen. xvii. 17, xxiii. 1. 29. For to beget P uses regularly l^'pin. Gen. v. 3—32 (28 times), vi. 10, xi. 10 — 27 (27 times), xvii. 20, xxv. 19, xlviii. 6 ; not !"?>, which is used by J, Gen. iv. 18 ter, x. 8, 13, 15, 24 his, 26, xxii. 23, xxv. 3. 30. For the idea of making a covenant, P says always D'^i^ri {establish), Gen. vi. 18, ix. 9, 11, 17, xvii. 7, 19, 21, Ex. vi. 4 (so Ez. xvi. 60, 62) f; not ri^S (lit. cut, EVV. make: see on xv. 18), as in Gen. xv. 18, xxi. 27, 32, xxvi. 28, xxxi. 44, and generally in the OT. 31. To express tlie idea of Jehovah's being in the midst of His people, P says always "|inD (13 times: Ex. xxv. 8 &c.), JE 3"ip2 (13 times: Ex. iii. 20 &c.). 32. Hebron is denoted in P (except Josh. xxi. 13) by ^iriath-arba' (said in Josh. xiv. 15 = Jud. i. 10 [J] to have been its old name): Gen. xxiii. 2, xxxv. 27 ; Josh. xv. 13, 54, xx. 7, xxi. 11. So Neh. xL 25 f. 1 The subscriptions in J are much briefer: ix. 19, x. 29, xxii. 23, xxv. 4. § 1] LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS OF P x\ The following geographical terms are found only in P : 33. Machpelah: Gen. xxiii. 9, 17, 19, xxv, 9, xlix. 30, 1. 13 f. 34. Paddan-aram: Gen. xxv. 20, xxviii. 2, 5, 6, 7, xxxi. 18, xxxiii. \'S>^, XXXV. 9, 26, xlvi. 15 ; cf. xlviii. 7 {Paddan alone). J says Aram-naharaim, Gen. xxiv. 10 : so Dt. xxiii. 4, Jud. iii. 8, Ps. Ix. title\. Some other expressions might be noted; but these are the most distinctive. If the reader will be at the pains of underUning them in all their occurrences, he will see that they do not occur in the Hexateuch indiscriminately, but that they are aggregated in particular passages, to which they impart a character of their o^mi, different from that of the rest of the narrative'. The literary style of P is very strongly marked : in point of fact, it stands apart not only from that of every other part of the Hexateuch, but also from that of every part of Judges, Samuel, and Kings ^ — whether the strictly narrative parts, or those which have been added by the Deuteronomic compiler ; and has sub- stantial resemblances only with that of Ezekiel. The parts of Genesis which remain after the separation of P have next to be considered. These also shew indications of not being homogeneous in structure. Especially from ch. xx. onwards the narrative exhibits marks of compilation; and the component parts, though not differing from one another in diction and style so widely as either differs from P, and being so welded together that the lines of demarcation between them frequently cannot be fixed with certainty, appear nevertheless to be plainly discernible. Thus in xx. 1 — 17 the consistent use of the term God is remarkable, whereas in ch. xviii. — xix. (except xix. 29 P), and in the similar narrative xii. 10 — 20, the term Jehovah is uniformly employed. The term God recurs similarly in xxi. 6 — 31, xxii. 1 — 13, and elsewhere, particularly in chs. xl. — xlii., xlv. For such a variation in similar and consecutive chapters no plausible explanation can be assigned except diversity of authorship ^ At the same time, the fact that Elohim is not here accompanied by the other criteria of P's style, forbids our assigning the sections thus 1 After Ex. vi. 2 Elohim for Jehovah disappears; but a number of even more distinctive expressions appear in its place. It is a serious mistake to suppose, as appears to be sometimes done, that the use of Elohim for Jehovah is tlie only criterion distinctive of P. 2 For points of contact in isolated passages, viz. parts of Jud. xx. — xxi., 1 S. ii. 22^ 1 K. viii. 1, 5, see LOT. p. 136 (ed. 7, p. 143 f.). » It is true that Elohim and Yahiveh represent the Divine Nature under different aspects, viz. as the God of nature and the God of revelation respectively; but it is only in a comparatively small number of instances that this distinction can be applied, except with great artificiality, to explain the variation between the two names in the Pentateuch. xii INTRODUCTION [§ 1 characterized to that source. Other phraseological criteria are slight; there are, however, not unfrequently differences of representation, which point decidedly in the same direction (e.g. the remarkable ones in ch. xxxvii.). It seems thus that the parts of Genesis which remain after the separation of P are formed by the combination of two narratives, originally independent, though covering largely the same ground, which have been united by a subsequent editor, who also contributed inconsiderable additions of his own, into a single, con- tinuous narrative. One of these sources, from its use of the name Jahweh, is now generally denoted by the letter J ; the other, in which the name EloMm is preferred, is denoted similarly by E ; and the work formed by the combination of the two is referred to by the double letters JE. The method of the compiler who combined J and E together, was sometimes, it seems, to extract an entire narrative from one or other of these sources (as xx. 1 — 17, xxi. 6 — 31 from E; ch. xxiv. from J); sometimes, while taking a narrative as a whole from one source, to incorporate with it notices derived from the other (as frequently in chaps, xl. — xlv.); and sometimes to construct his narrative of materials derived from each source in nearly equal pro- portions (as chaps, xxviii., xxix.). The passages assigned to E in the present volume are : xv. 1 — 2, 5, xx., xxi. 6—21, 22—32% xxii. 1—14, 19, xxviii. 11—12, 17—18, 20—22, xxix. 1, 15—23, 25— 28% 30, xxx. 1—3, 6, 17-20*'°, 21—23, xxxi. 2, 4—18% 19—45, 51—55, xxxii. 1, xxxiii. 18''— 20, xxxv. 1—8, xxxvii. 5—11, 19—20, 22—25% 28*'°, 29—30, 36, xl. — xlii. (except a few isolated passages), xlv. (with similar exceptions), xlvi. 1—5, xlviii. 1—2, 8—22, 1. 15—26. It may sufBce to indicate the principal longer passages referred to J : ii. 4*^ — iii., iv. ; the parts of vi. — x. not referred above to P ; xi. 1 — 9 ; and (except here and there a verse or two, — rarely, a few verses more, — belonging to E or P) xii., xiii., xv., xvi., xviii. — xix., xxiv., xxv. 21 — 34, xxvi., xxvii. 1 — 45, xxix. 2 — 14, xxix. 31 — xxx. 24 (the main narrative), xxx. 25 — 43, xxxii., xxxiii., xxxiv. (partly), xxxvii. (partly), xxxviii., xxxix., xliii., xliv., xlvi. 28 — 34, xlvii., xlix., 1. 1—11, 14. The criteria distinguishing J from E are fewer and less clearly marked than those distinguishing P from JE as a whole; and there is consequently sometimes uncertainty in the analysis, and critics, interpreting the evidence differently, sometimes differ accordingly in their conclusions. Nevertheless the indications that the narrative is composite are of a nature which it is not easy to gainsay; and the difficulty which sometimes presents itself of disengaging the two sources is but a natural consequence of the greater similarity of style § 1] CRITERIA DISTINGUISHING J AND E xiii subsisting between them, than between JE, as a whole, and P'. At the same time the present writer is ready to allow that by some critics the separation of J from E is carried further than seems to him to be probable or necessary: no doubt, the criteria which are relied upon exist; the question which seems to him to be doubtful, is whether in the cases which he has in view they are sufficient evidence of different authorship. But the general conclusion that the narrative here called ' JE ' is composite does not appear to him to be disputable : and the longer and more clearly defined passages which may reasonably be referred to J and E respectively, have been indicated by him accord- ingly throughout the present volume. In important cases, also, the grounds upon which the distinction rests have generally been pointed out in the notes. The following are some examples of words or expressions characteristic of E, as distinguished from J, E prefers God (though not exclusively) and angel of God where J prefers JeAomA and migel ofJehomh; E uses Amorite as the general name of the pre-Israelitish inhabitants of Palestine, while J uses Canaanite ; E uses Horeb, J Sinai ; in E the name of Moses' father-in-law is Jethro, in J it is Hohah) for bondwoman E prefers amah, J prefers sMph^dh; B speaks of God's coming in a dream (xx. 3, xxxi. 24; Nu. xxii. 9, 20),— an expression not found at all elsewhere ; E also uses sometimes unusual words, as D'Jb times Gen. xxxi. 7, 41 f, kesitah (a piece of money) xxxiii. 19, Jos. xxiv. 32 (only besides Job xlii. ll)t, mn to rejoice Ex. xviii. 9 (otherwise rare and poet.), ntn to see, v. 21 (very uncommon in prose), r\'^)7n weakness xxxii. 18, Dn')0p3 n^'Dti''? for a whispering among them that rose up against them (poet.) V. 25, n3 in a local sense ('here,' not, as usually, 'thus'); and he has peculiar forms of the inf., Gen. xxxi. 28, xlvi 3, xlviii. 11, 1. 20. Of expressions characteristic of J, we can only notice here Behold, now, Gen. xii. 11, xvi. 2, xviii. 27, 31, xix. 2, 8, 19, xxvii. 2"; to call with the name of Jehovah, iv. 26, xii. 8, xiii. 4, xxi. 33, xxvi. 25-; he (was) the father of..., iv. 20, 21, xix. 37, SS^ (cf. ix. 18, X. 21, xl 29, xxii. 21 2; observe also (Nlil) Jnd Bushmen in Africa, shew no tendency to approximate to each other, even under the influence of the same climate and the same general physical surroundings. It has, now, been much debated among ethnologists whether man appeared originally upon the globe at one centre or at many centres. The former of these alternatives is preferred by modern scientific authorities. Thus Mr Darwin, after reviewing the arguments on both sides, sums up in its favour — upon the ground, stated generally, that the resemblances, physical and mental, between different races are such that it is extremely improbable that they should have been acquired independently by aboriginally distinct species or races ^. But, which- ^ See Sayce, Races of the OT. 14 — 24 ; or, in greater detail, Tylor, Anthropology, chap. III., Keane, Ethnology, chaps, vrii. ('Physical criteria of race'), and ix. (' Mental criteria of race'). There are reasons for thinking that the colour of the skin in primitive man was yellowish (Keane, p. 237). 2 See Keane, p. 163 ff. » Darwin, Descent of Man, vol. i. ch. vii. (pp. 231—233, ed. 1871). The argu- ment of course assumes that Man is the result of an evolutionary process, not of a special creation. The same conclusion is expressed by Lyell, Principles of Geology'^^ (1875), 11. chap. 43; Huxley, Collected Essays, vii. 249 ff.; Tylor, art. Anthropology in the Encycl. Brit.^, and in his volume Anthropology (1895), p. 6; and Keane, ch. VII. (' The specific unity of man'), who however considers the existing races of mankind to have developed not from a single liuman pair, but from a single pair of § 3] THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN xxxvii ever of these alternatives be adopted, it must be evident that differences of race are not accounted for in the Biblical narrative : the case of the several primary races originating independently at different centres, is not contemplated in it at all : if, on the other hand, racial differences were gradually developed by the play of natural selection upon the descendants of a single pair, migrating into new climatic and other physical conditions, then the growth of these differences is neither explained by the Biblical narrative, nor, in fact, reconcileable with it. For, taking account only of the simplest and most obvious division of mankind into the white, the yellow, the reddish-brown, and the black races', even Gen. x., with the single exception of Cush (Jer. xiii. 23), — and, possibly, of Magog (if by this are meant the Scythians), — enumerates only tribes and nations belonging to the white race ; while from the observed persistency of racial types, as noticed above, it seems clear that, if the four mentioned races, with the many sub-races included in each, all differing very materially from each other, have been developed from a single original pair, the process must have occupied a greatly longer period of time than is allowed by the Book of Genesis, even though we adopt the view that the Deluge was a merely local inundation, and place the starting-point of the growth of racial distinctions at the Biblical date for the creation of man, B.C. 4157, or (lxx.) b.c. 5328^ 4. The high antiquity of man is attested also by evidence, which cannot be gainsaid, fi'om another quarter. During the last half-century or so, relics of human workmanship have been found, chiefly in England, Belgium, and France, but also in other parts of the world, including America, shewing that man, in a rude and primitive stage of develop- ment, ranged through the forests and river-valleys of these continents, in company with mammals now extinct, at an age which cannot indeed be measured precisely in years B.C., but wliich, upon the most moderate estimate, cannot be less than 20,000 years from the present anthropoid ancestors, standing much further back in the evolutionary pedigree (pp. 223—5, 229, 239 f.; of. the diagrams, pp. 19, 38, 224). 1 Corresponding in general to the Caucasian, the Mongol, the native American and the Negro races. See in detail Keane, chap. x. (' The main divisions of the Hominidae'), chaps, xi. — xiv. (the survey of each group in particuUir). 3 Comp. Sir W. H. Flower, Encycl. Brit? xv. 445 ( = Flower and Lydekker, Hist, of Mammals, 1891, 741, 742 f.), who speaks of the 'vast antiquity of man,' and of the 'long ante-historic period, during which the Negro, the Mongolian, and the Caucasian races were being gradually fashioned into their respective types ' ; and Sayce, Races of the OT. p. 37, who expresses himself similarly. INTRODUCTION [§3 day*. Here is an enlarged Table of the ' Cainozoic ' age, embracing the periods numbered 11 and 12 on p. 2V: Eocene. Tertiary Post-Tertiary or Quaternary Orders and families of mammals now living (e.g. ancestral forms of the horse, the deer, and the hyaena) represented, but not living genera or species. 2. Meiocene. Genera of mammals now living represented, but not species. 3. Pleiocene. Living species of mammals begin to appear, but are still rare : extinct species abundant. ^4. Pleistocene. Living species more abundant. Man appears. Extinct species rarer. 5. ' Pi'ehistoric' Living species (including Man) abundant. Animals domesticated, arid fruits culti- vated. Only one extinct species of mam- mal (the Irish elk). 6. Historic. No extinct species. Historical records. In the first four of these periods the geography and climate of Europe both underwent many changes. Thus in the Eocene period the British Isles were probably united with the present Continent of Europe on the one side, and with the Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Greenland on the other ; and there was a partially enclosed sea extending from about the coast of Dorsetshire to Denmark. The climate of Britain was then tropical : the sea just spoken of teemed with sharks, rays, sea-snakes, &c., alligators and turtles abounded on the banks of the Thames, and the land was covered with a luxuriant vegetation. In the Pleiocene period the climate becomes colder : the elephant now appears in France, and the first living species of mammal, the common hippopotamus, is found in the same country and in Italy. The Pleistocene period is remarkable on account of the alternations of climate by which it was marked. At first there was severe cold : and thick beds of glaciers covered most of Scotland, Ireland, the NW. parts of England and Wales, as also the greater part of N. and central Europe. Then, as many think, came a submergence, reducing Britain to clusters of glacier-covered islands rising out of the sea, and surrounded by icebergs, till after a while the climate grew warmer and the glaciers disappeared. After this a period ^ The late Sir Joseph Prestwich, a geologist not addicted to rash or extreme opinions, assigned, as a ' rouKh approximate limit,' a period of from 20,000 to 30,000 years from the present time (Geology, 18S8, ii. 534). " The following statements are made on the autbority of Boyd Dawkins, Early Man in Britain (1880), pp. 9 f., 12, 18 f., 81, 115 ff., 150 il., 257, &c.: but statements to the same elTect will be found in any recent manual of geology,- — e.g. Geikie's Class-hook of Geology (1902), pp. 301 &., 40i f£. See also Keaue's Ethnology, ch. iv. § 3] THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN xxxix of cold supervened : the glaciers and icebergs reappeared ; the British Isles again rose above the sea, — this time, however, no longer united to Greenland, though still forming part of a large N. -Westerly ex- tension of France, Holland and Denmark : finally, the climate again became temperate. Thus there were in Britain tivo ' glacial ' periods, and an intervening warmer 'inter-glacial' period. Similar climatal changes took place in what is now the Continent of Europe : in the N. and central parts there are still numerous marks of the former presence of glaciers. Indubitable traces of man first become abundant in the later Pleistocene periods On the slopes of river- valleys such as those of the Ouse or the Somme, 50 or 100 ft. above the present river-banlcs, there are beds of what is called drift-gravel, deposited by the river when it flowed at a much higher level than it does at present; and in this drift-gravel, side by side with the remains of various extinct mammals, have been found numerous rude implements of flint chipped by the hands of men, sometimes into flakes, sometimes into pear- shaped, or pointed, hatchets, or scrapers ^ Geology shews that these drift-gravels were deposited during the middle and later Pleistocene period. The animals with whose remains these implements are found appear to shew that on the Continent of Europe man was pre-glacial and inter-glacial (i.e. that he advanced from the S. northwards in the warmer inter-glacial periods mentioned above), but that in England, at least N. of the Thames, he was only post-glacial (i.e. that he appeared in this country only after the ice had finally left it). And so in this remote o^gQ, palaeolithic man, or the 'river-drift hunter,' as he has been called, lived a rude hunter's life in the lower valley of the Thames, side by side with vast herds of reindeer, bisons, horses, and uri, the woolly rhinoceros and the elephant, the hippopotamus and the lion, and many other creatures, now entirely unknown in this ^ Some authorities (among whom was Sir J. Prestwich) think that traces of a yet earUer race of men have been found in the 'eoliths,' or flints, very rude in sliape, and but slightly chipped, occurring in older gravels and at yet higher levels. Others, however, maintain these to be natural forms, 2 On the question whether these are really implements of human workmanship, see Lord Avebury (Sir J, Lubbock), Prehistoric Times, ed. 6 (1900), p. 328. No geologist doubts that they are. Similar implements are made at the present day by savages such as the native Australians (Tylor, Anthropology, p. 186) and Tasmanians (Keane, p. 293). For further particulars on the subject, see Sir J. Evans, The Ancient Stone Implements, Weapons, and Ornaments of Great Britain- (1897), (on their antiquity, pp. 703—9). In one of the galleries of the British Museum, there is a large collection of these implements, both of the earlier and later Stone age, arranged as far as possible chronologically : see descriptions, with illustrations, in the shilUng Guide to these antiquities (1902). xl INTRODUCTION [§ 3 island*. And there is evidence that he lived under similar conditions in other parts of central and southern England, in France, Belgium, and elsewhere on the Continent. In particular, in a cave in Dordogne, in the valley of the Vezfere, a little E. of Bordeaux, there has been found the drawing of a mammoth — a huge kind of elephant, which has left many remains of itself, but has now been long extinct — incised by human hands upon a piece of its own ivory, which must date from the same period^. Marks of the presence of man in the same age have also been found in Africa, Palestine, and India: the diffusion of the same stage of culture over countries so widely separated from each other is an indication that it must have been of long duration". Whether, however, even palaeolithic man is rightly termed ' primitive ' is doubted by Dr Tylor. ' The life which the men of the mammoth-period must have led at Abbeville or Torquay, shews on the face of it reasons against its being man's primitive life. These old stone-age men are more likely to have been tribes whose ancestors while living under a milder climate gained some rude skill in the arts of procuring food and defending themselves, so that afterwards they were able by a hard struggle to hold their own against the harsh weather and fierce beasts of the Quaternary period' {Anthropology, p. 33). In the later part of the palaeolithic period, a somewhat higher stage of culture appears, represented by the Cave man, belonging, it may be, to another race, perhaps (Dawkins) allied to the Eskimos. Belies of the workmanship of the Cave man are found, for instance, in caves in a valley between Derby and Nottingham, in Kent's Hole, near Torquay, and in different parts of Belgium, France, Germany, &c. Improved flint implements, bone needles and awls, harpoon heads of antler, and especially drawings of horses, reindeer, and other animals, testify to the advance in culture of the Cave man, as compared with the river-drift hunter of the earlier part of the palaeolithic age^. The Pleistocene period, says Mr Dawkins, was of ' vast duration ' ; and the river-drift man ' probably lived for countless generations before the arrival of the Cave-men, and the appearance of the higher culture ' (pp. 231, 233). The 'prehistoric' period is marked by the advent of neolithic man, i.e. of man belonging to the newer stone period, in which his stone implements were often polished, and in other respects also 1 Dawkins, pp. 137, 155 f., 172 f. 2 See Dawkins, p. 105; Tylor, p. 31; Lyell, Antiquity of Man, ed. 4, p. 139. •* Dawkins, pp. 165—7, 172 f. * On Palaeolithic man, see also Keane, ch. v. (with illustrations). § 3] THE ANTIQUITY OF MAK xU display a higher type of workmanship. In the course of this period, culture considerably advanced : the soil was cultivated, animals were domesticated, wood was cut with stone axes fixed in wooden handles, spears, arrows, &c. were manufactured, and clay was moulded into rude cups and other vessels : the dead began also now to be buried in barrows or cairns. It is to this period that at least the earlier of the famous pile-dwellings, constructed in some of the Swiss lakes, belong : the inhabitants of these lake-villages cultivated many seeds and fruits familiar to ourselves. The neolithic men appear to have belonged to a different race from their predecessors, the Cave men, and entered Europe, it is generally agreed, from the East or South. The duration of the neolithic civilization varied in different countries : it main- tained itself, for instance, in northern and central Europe long after it had yielded to a higher culture in Greece and Italy, and also, it may be added, till long after highly organized empires had been established in Egypt and Babylonia \ The neolithic period was followed by the Bronze age, during which iron either was not knowTi, or could not be worked, and when all weapons and cutting instruments were made of bronze, — the only other metal known being gold, which was used for ornaments. Most nations have passed through a Bronze age, though not all at the same time : the Spaniards, for instance, when they conquered Mexico and Peru, found the natives working in bronze with some skill, but knowing nothing of iron. The Bronze age was succeeded by the Iron age, which began with the first introduction of iron for the manufacture of weapons and cutting instruments, and which has continued, — with of course immense developments in every direction, — to the present day. The general conclusion to which the facts mentioned in the pre- ceding pages point can hardly be better summed up than in the words of Dr Tylor: 'It is true that man reaches back comparatively little way into the immense lapse of geological time. Yet his first appear- ance on earth goes back to an age compared with which the ancients, as we call them, are but moderns. The few thousand years of recorded history only take us back to a prehistoric period of untold length, during which took place the primary distribution of mankind over the earth and the development of the great races, the formation of speech and the settlement of the great families of language, and the growth of ^ On Keolithic man, comp. also Keane, ch. vi. xlii INTRODUCTION [§ 3 culture up to the levels of the old world nations of the East, the fore- runners and founders of modern civilized life\' In what light, then, in view of this conclusion, are we to view the representation contained in the early chapters of Genesis ? The facts cannot be denied : yet the narrative of Genesis takes no account of them, and, indeed, leaves no room for them. The great antiquity of man, the stages of culture through which he passed (comp. the note on iv. 17 — 24), and the wide distribution of the human species, with strongly marked racial differences, over the surface of the earth are all alike unexplained, and inexplicable, upon the historical system of Gen. i. — xi. No doubt. Gen. x. and xi. 1 — 9 explain ostensibly the distribution of man ' over the face of the whole eartli ' ; but after what has been said, it will be evident that they do not do so in reality : the dispersion is placed too late to account for the known facts respecting both the distribution of man and the diversity of races. To say that the Biblical writers spoke only of the nations of whom they knew is of course true: but the admission deprives their statements of all historical or scientific value : ' palaeolithic ' and ' neolithic ' man, and the various distinct races inhabiting Central and Eastern Asia, Australia, America, &c., all existed ; and any explanation, purporting to account for the populations of the earth, and the diversity of languages spoken by them, must take cognizance of them. An ex- planation not taking account of the facts to be explained can be no historically true account either of the diffusion of mankind, or of the origin of different races. We are forced therefore to the conclusion that though, as may be safely assumed, the writers to whom we owe the first eleven chapters of Genesis, report faithfully what was currently believed among the Hebrews respecting the early history of mankind, at the same time, as is shewn in the notes, making their narratives the vehicle of many moral and spiritual lessons, yet there was much which they did not knoii; and could not take cog7i!zance of: these chapters, consequently, we are obliged to conclude, incomparable as they are in other respects, contain no account of the real beginnings either of the earth itself, or of man and human civilization upon it^ 1 Anthropology, p. 34. 2 Mr Capron {Govjlict of Truth, 270 — 85) has deyised an extraordinary method (cf. below, p. 24 n.) for ' reconciling' the great antiquity of man with the statements of Genesis: man, he supposes, may have existed long before as a natural being; Genesis describes only his elevation into a spiritual being by the super-adding of spiritual faculties. But it is surely the intention of Genesis to describe both the beginnings of man, arid also his beginnings as a complete being; one can hardly § 3J THE PATRIARCHAL NARRATIVES xliii h. The patriarchal period (clis. ecu, — /.). It remains to consider the historical character of Gen. xii. — 1., the narratives of the patriarchal period. Here it must at the outset be frankly admitted that these narratives do not satisfy the primary condition which every first-class historical authority must satisfy : they are not contemporary (or nearly so) with the events which they purport to relate : even if Moses were their author, he lived many centuries after Abraham — according to Ussher's chronology 400 years, in reality (p. xxix), — if we adopt for Abraham's date the only fixed datum that we possess, the synchronism with Hammurabi (p. 156), — 900 or 1000 years ; and upon the critical view of the date of these narratives, the interval is of course still greater, — in fact, between Abraham and J, something like 1300 years. The supposition that the writer (or writers) of Genesis may have based his (or their) narratives upon written documents, contemporary with the events described, does not alter the case : there is no evidence, direct or indirect, that such documents were actually used as the basis of the narrative ; and upon a mere hypothesis, for the truth of which no positive grounds can be alleged, and which therefore may or may not be true, it must be apparent that no further conclusions of any value can be built. It is not denied that the patriarchs possessed the art of writing ; but the admission of the fact leads practically to no consequences ; for we do not know ivhat they wrote, and there is no evidence that they left any written materials whatever behind them. These facts, it is evident, must seriously diminish the confidence which we might otherwise feel as regards the historical character of the patriarchal narratives. A narrative committed to writing for the first time, so far as we know, 1000 years or more after the events related in it occurred, would be regarded under ordinary circumstances as destitute of historical value ; we could have no guarantee that during such a long period of oral transmission it had not in many details become materially modified, — sometimes accidentally, through failure of memory, sometimes, it may be, intentionally, by the addition, for instance, of embellishing traits. Are there however any considerations which might tend to modify this unfavourable conclusion in the case believe one's eyes when one reads (p. 279) that human nature is to be divided into four parts, and that Gen. ii. describes the beginning of two of these (material form and vitality), and Gen. i. the beginning of the other two (intellectuality and spirituality) ! The explanation of the Fall, proffered on p. 321 f. , is not less out of the question. Reconciliations of the Bible with science which depend upon forced exegesis can never be sound ones. xliv INTRODUCTION [§ 3 of the patriarclial narratives of Genesis ? We can never indeed regard them as historical authorities in the strictest sense of the word : but that, be it observed, is a claim which they never make themselves; they nowhere claim, even indirectly, to be the work of eye-witnesses ; and there may be circumstances connected with them which may at least shew the position to be a tenable one that, though they cannot be placed in the same rank with, for example, the history of Thucydides, their contents are nevertheless substantially authentic. 1. In nations possessing no written records, the memory is more exercised, and more tenacious than it is with us ; and popular stories once enshrined in the memory of a nation may have been transmitted substantially unaltered, from father to son, for many generations. The tenacity of the memory, under such circumstances, is greater than we can readily imagine ; and there are many surprising instances on record of its power \ And the memory might be expected to be exceptionally tenacious, in the case of tiational records, or accounts of ancient worthies whose memories were cherished on the part of a nation, which held itself aloof from its neighbours, and was proud of its ancestry. 2. The critical analysis of Genesis furnishes an argument of some weight in favour of the general trustworthiness of the narrative. Disregarding P (which appears not only to contain in parts artificial elements, but also to be later than the other sources, so that by the side of J and E it can hardly claim to represent an independent tradition), we have two narratives of the patriarchal period, one written, in all probability, in Judah, the other in the Northern Kingdom ; and these, though they exhibit discrepancies in detail, still on the whole agree : though they may contain, for instance, divergent representations of the same events, they do not present two entirely contradictory traditions ; in other words, they shew that on the whole the traditions current in the N. and S. Kingdoms agreed with one another. They thus bear witness to the existence in ancient Israel of a 'firm nucleus of consistent tradition' (Kittel). 'The value of this nucleus is by no means small, for it supplies the fundamental condition 1 'One of the most noted Eawis [reciters], Hammad by name, is said to have been able to recite 3000 long poems, all of the time before Mohammed' (A. B. Davidson, Bibl. and Literary Essays, 1902, p. 268). See also Grote, Hist, of Greece, i. 526 — 30, 532 n. (ed. 1862), — with reference to the oral preservation of the Homeric poems ; and Max Muller, Hibbcrt Lectures (1878), 153, 156 f., on the oral preservation of the Eig-Veda. § 3] THE PATRIARCHAL NARRATIVES xlv of a real history. If the traditions were confusedly intermixed, this would stamp them as arbitrary creations, or the products of popular fancy. Their not being so, though far from proving them positively to be historical, justifies the presumption that we may perhaps succeed in finding a historic core in the patriarchal narratives'.' 3. The patriarchal narratives are marked by great sobriety of statement and representation. There are no incredible marvels, no fantastic extravagances, no surprising miracles : the miraculous hardly extends beyond manifestations and communications of the Deity -to the earlier patriarchs, and in the case of Joseph there are not even these ; the events of his life move on by the orderly sequence of natural cause and effect. There is also great moderation in the claims made on behalf of the patriarchs. Only once, in a narrative taken evidently from a special source (ch. xiv.), is Abraham represented as gaining successes in war ; only once also (ch. xxxiv. ; cf. xlviii. 22) does Jacob come into hostile collision -with the native Canaanites : elsewhere, the patriarchs live peaceful, quiet lives, neither claiming nor exercising any superiority over the native princes ; and sometimes even rebuked by them for their moral weakness. There is also another consideration, of considerable weight, urged by Ewald. 'Ewald reminds us,' says Kittel, 'that whilst all the accounts agree in representing it as the Divine purpose that Abraham and the other patriarchs shall provision- ally take possession of the land of Canaan, they are never represented as actually possessing the whole. They confine themselves to particular small districts in the South (Abraham and Isaac) and centre (Jacob) of Canaan, and these, for the most part, of minor importance. If the patriarchs had never actually lived in Canaan, if their abode there and their very personality had belonged merely to the realm of legend, it might have been confidently expected that the later legend would have provided a firmer and more lasting foundation for the Israelites' claim to the whole land than this mere partial possession by their fathers ^' The moderation of the prophetic outlooks (ch. xii. 2 — 3, &c.) into the future fortunes of Abraham's descendants, at least in J and E, — for only P (see on xvii. 6) speaks of 'kings' to be sprung from him, — might be taken also as an indication that these narrators were keeping themselves within the limits of a tradition which they had received, rather than freely creating ideal pictures of their own. 1 Kittel, Getch. der Hebrder (1888), i. 152 (Eng. tr. i. 168). ' Kittel, I, 154 (Eng. tr. i. 170 f.). See Ewald, Hist. i. 305 f. xlvi INTRODUCTION [§ 3 4. Do the patriarchal narratives contain intrinsic historical im- probabilities ? or, in other words, is there anything intrinsically- improbable in the lives of the several patriarchs, and the vicissitudes through which they personally pass ? In considering this question a distinction must be drawn between the different sources of which these narratives are composed. Though particular details in them may be improbable (e.g. xix. 31 ff.), and though the representation may in parts be coloured by the religious and other associations of the age in which they were written (cf. p. Iviii ff.), it cannot be said that the biographies of the first three patriarchs, as told in J and E, are, speaking generally, historically improbable : the movements, and per- sonal lives, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are, taken on the whole, credible. It is true, the chronology of Genesis cannot, as it stands, be maintained (see p. xxx) ; but the inconsistencies in it arise out of the combination of JE with P; and the critical conclusion that the narrative of P was originally entirely distinct from that of JE, and that its chronology is artificial and late, leaves the narratives of J and E free from difiiculty upon this score. Chapter xiv. belongs to a special source ; so that, whatever verdict be ultimately passed upon it, our estimate of J and E would remain unaffected. It is true, of course, that in parts of J and E we have what seem to be different versions of the same occurrence ; but this is a fact not in- consistent with the general historical character of the narrative as a whole. Only the Joseph-narratives stand in some respects in a position by themselves. On the one hand, it cannot be denied that improba- bilities attach to some of the details of these narratives, especially (p. Ix) to some of those relating to the famine : but these, again, do not affect the substance of the narratives. It also might be felt by some that the Joseph-narratives contain more dramatic situations than are likely to have happened in real Hfe : both Joseph and his brethren pass through a series of crises and adventures, any one of which might easily have closed the drama, though all, in fact, lead on happily to the final denoument. On the other hand, truth is proverbially stranger than fiction ; and Joseph's biography may not have been more remarkable than many other biographies in history. The changes in Joseph's fortunes are of a kind quite natural in Oriental countries : in the general fact of a foreigner, by a happy stroke of cleverness, Avinning the favour of an Eastern despot, and rising in consequence to high power, there is nothing unprecedented ; and in the case of Egypt in particular the monuments supply examples of foreigners attaining to positions of § 3] THE PATRIARCHAL NARRATIVES xlvii political distinction (see p. 344). It is also worthy of notice that the biography is in itself entirely free from anything which would tempt a reader to regard it as legendary : no Dens ex machind appears at any point of it; if the hand of God is an overruling power in the back- ground, human motives and human actions are the only overt agencies by which the web of incident is woven. Of course, in view of the fact that the Joseph-narratives are plainly not the work of a contemporary hand, but were, so far as we know, only committed to writing many hundred years afterwards, these considerations afford no guarantee of their being a literal record of the facts ; particular episodes or details may, for instance, have been added during the centuries of oral transmission : but they do supply reasonable grounds for concluding that the narratives are in substance historical. 5. As Wellhausen has observed, it cannot be doubted that to Moses Jehovah was the God of Israel, and Israel the people of Jehovah ; and also that this truth, though it assumed in Moses' hands a new ?;a/jo«a/ significance, was not promulgated by him for the first time^ 'The religious position of IMoses stands before us unsupported and incomprehensible unless we believe the tradition (Ex. iii. 13 E) that he appealed to the God of their fathers. Moses would hardly have made his way amongst the peoijle, if he had come in the name of a strange and hitherto unknown god. But he might reasonably hope for success, if a fresh revelation had been made to him by the God of Abraham, who was still worshipped in some circles and still lived in the memory of the people.' We may also ask. Why, unless there had been positive historical recollections forbidding it to do so, did not Israelite tradition concentrate all the glory of founding the national Church and State upon Moses? If, in spite of the great deliverance undoubtedly achieved by Moses, Israelitish tradition nevertheless goes back beyond Moses, and finds in the patriarchs the first roots not only of the possession of the land, but also of the people's higher worship of God, this can only be reasonably accounted for by the assumption that memory had retained a hold of the actual course of events ^ 1 Wellhausen, Hist, of Isr. 433. ^ With this paragraph, comp. Kittel, p. 174. The undeveloped character of the patriarchs' religious beliefs — their childlike attitude towards God, for iustauce, the freedom and familiarity with which they are represented as approaching Him, their absence (till xxxix. 9) of a clear sense of sin, or of the need of penitence, and the fact that such truths as the unity of God, the love of God to man and of man to God, and the holiness of God, though throughout implied, are not explicitly taught — has also been pointed to (Watson, The Bouk Genesis a true History, 1802, xlviii INTRODUCTION [§ 3 These are virtually all the considerations of any weight which (apart from theological grounds) can be alleged in favour of the historical character of the patriarchal narratives. Probabilities of greater or less weight may be adduced : but with our present know- ledge, it is impossible to do more'. The case would of course be different, if there existed contemporary monumental corroboration of any of the events mentioned in Genesis. But unfortunately no such corroboration has at present been discovered. With the exception of the statement on the stel6 of Merenptah that ' Israel is desolated,' — which may indeed be the 'Egyptian version' of the Exodus, but certainly does not 'confirm' the Hebrew account of it, — the first event con- nected with Israel or its ancestors which the inscriptions mention or attest is Shishak's invasion of Judah in the reign of Rehoboam, and the first Israelites whom they specify by name are Omri and his son Ahab*. Upon the history and civilization of Babylonia, Egypt, and to a certain extent of other countries, including Palestine, in the centuries before Moses, the monuments have indeed shed an abundant and most welcome light; but nothing has hitherto been discovered sufficiently specific to establish, even indirectly or inferentially, the historicity of the patriarchs themselves. Thus contemporary inscrip- tions, recently discovered, have shewn that there were Amorite settlers in Babylonia, in, or shortly after, the age of Hammurabi, and that persons bearing Semitic names identical, or nearly so, with those of some of the patriarchs were resident there in the same age : but these facts, interesting as they are in themselves, are obviously no corro- boration of the statements that the particular person called Abraham lived in Ur and migrated thence to Haran and afterwards to Canaan, as narrated in Gen. xi. 28, ol. On the 'Amorite quarter' in Sippar (80 ni. NW. of Babylon), in the reign of Ammi-zaduga, the fourth successor of Hammurabi, see the footnote, \). 142; and on the mention of Amorites in Bab. contract-tablets of the same age, Pinches, OT. in the light of the records of Ass. and Bab. (1902), 157, 170. On a contract-tablet of the reign of Abil-Sin, tlie second predecessor of Hammurabi, p. 105 £f.), as temling to establish the historical character of the patriarchal narratives, at least of J and E. Just as Dr Watson's characterizations are, however, it may be doubted whether his argument proves more than that these narratives reached their present form at the time supposed by critics (p. xvi), •which, it will be remembered, was before the age at which the canonical prophets, Amos, Hosea &c,, began to emphasize and develope beliefs and truths such as those referred to. 1 Cf. Kittel's Bab. Excavations and Early Bible History (1903), p. 37. ■'' See Hogarth'g Authority and Archaeology, pp. 87 f., b9, 03. §3] ARCHAEOLOGY AND GENESIS xlix a witness is mentioned bearing a name almost the same as Abram, viz. Abe-ramu, who is described further as the father of Sha-amurri, ' (the man) of the Amorite god^'; and in other contract-tablets of the same period there occur the names Ya'kub ( = Jacob), and Ya'kub-ilu ( = .Jacob-el)2, as -well as others of Heb. or Canaanite form ; according to Sayce, also, the name IsJmiael occurs on a marble slab from Sippar, which is as early as about 40U0 e.g. The persons bearing these names appear to possess all the rights and privileges of Babylonian citizens^. The names are interesting as testifying to the inter- course between Babylonia and the West at this early date, and also as shewing that persons of apparently either Hebrew or Canaanite extraction were settled then in Babylonia, but they obviously prove nothing as to the historical character of Abraham or the other patriarchs. It is remarkable tliat a proper name — if not three i^roper names — com- pounded, apparently, witli the Divine name, Yahweh, has been found recently, dating from the period of Hammurabi. The writer of a letter now in the British Museum bears the name Ya-u-um-ilu, the other names are Ya-a'-ve-ilu and Ya-ve-ilu, — all apparently meaning 'Yah is God' ( = 'Joel,' at least as usually explained). The names are not Babylonian, and must therefore have belonged to foreigners, — whether Canaanites, or ancestors of the Hebrews. See Sayce, Exp. Times, Aug. 1898, p. 522, Relig. of Anc. Eg. and Bab. (1902), 484— 7, Dehtzsch, Bahel unci Bihel (1902), 46 f. (Eng.tr. 71, and esp. 133 — 141). The names are at present, however, too isolated for inferences to be drawn from tliem with any confidence: though they might, for instance, indicate that the Heb. 'Yahweh' was already worshipped, they still would not tell us what character or attributes Avere associated with him. ^^.Ir C. H. W. Johns, of Queens' College, Cambridge, permits me to add, ' The reading of the names has been questioned without sufficient ground. The interpretation is open to question, as Yaii-ilu or Ya'ce-ilu may moan " God is, or does, something"' (see further his art. in the Expositor, Oct. 1903, p. 289 flf.; and of. KA r.3 4GS n.). The monuments, again, as is pointed out on p. 172 f., though they have thrown some h'ght on the kings' names mentioned in Gen. xiv. 1, and have shewn that it would be no impossibility for a Babylonian or Elamite king of the 23rd cent. B.C. to undertake an expedition to the far West, make no mention of the particular expedition recorded in Gen. xiv. : they consequently furnish no independent corroboration of it; nor do they contribute anjrthing to neutralize the improbabilities which, rightly or wrongly, have been supposed to attach to details of it (p. 171 f ). They thus fall far short of demonstrating its historical 1 Ahu-ramu itself { = Ahram), 'the father is exalted' (cf. on xvii. 5), is found as the name of the Ass. official who gave his name to the fifth year of Esarhaddon (B.C. 677) : Pinches, p. 148; KAT."^ p. 479 ; KAT.^ p. 482. * A name of the same form as Ishmael, 'May God heavl' Jerahmeel, 'May God be compassionate!' &c.: cf. pp. 182, 295. 5 Pinches, pp. 148, 157, 183, 243; Sayce, Babylonians and Assyrians, pp. 187 — 190. 1 INTRODUCTION [§ 3 character \ And still less do they demonstrate that the role attributed to Abraham in the same chapter is historical. The evidence for both these facts rests at present solely upon the testimony of the Book of Genesis itself. Upon the same testimony we may believe Melchizedek to have been a historical figure, whose memory was handed down by tradition : but no evidence of the fact is afforded by the inscriptions (see p. 167 f.). The case is similar in the later parts of Genesis. The argument which has been advanced, for instance, to shew that the narrative of the purchase of the cave of Machpelah (ch. xxiii.) is the work of a contemporary hand, breaks down completely : the expressions alleged in proof of the assertion are not confined to the age of Hammurabi ; they one and all (see p. 230) occur, in some cases repeatedly, in the period of the kings, and even later : they consecj[uently furnish no evidence that the narrative was written at any earlier date. There is no antecedent reason why Abraham should not have purchased a plot of ground near Hebron from the native inhabitants of the place : but to suppose that this is proven, or even made probable, by archaeology, is completely to misinterpret the evidence which it furnishes. As regards the Joseph-narratives, it is undeniable that they have an Egyptian colouring : they contain many allusions to Egyptian usages and institutions, which can be illustrated from the Egyptian monu- ments. Moreover, as Kittel has pointed out, this colouring is common to both J and E : as it is improbable that tivo writers would have added it independently, it may be inferred that it was inherent in the common tradition which both represent. This is a circumstance tending to shew that in its origin the Egyptian element was consider- ably anterior to either J or E, and increases the probability that it rests ultimately upon a foundation in fact. On the other hand the extent of the Egyptian colouring of tliese narratives must not be over- estimated, nor must the conclusions drawn from it be exaggerated. The allusions are not of a kind to prove close and personal cognizance of the facts described : institutions, officials, &c. are described in general terms, not by their specific Egyptian names I Egypt, it must be remembered, was not far distant from Canaan ; and, as the prophecies of Isaiah, for instance, shew, there was frequent intercourse ^ Mr Grote long ago pointed out the fallacy of arguing that because a given person was historical, therefore a particular action or exploit attributed to him by tradition was historical likewise {Hist, of Greece, Part i., ch. xvii., ed. 1862, vol. i., p. 391 f., with reference to legendary exploits attributed to Charlemagne). ^ Contrast the long lists of specific titles in Brugsch's Aegyptologie, pp. 20G— 232. § 3] ARCHAEOLOGY AND GENESIS li between the two countries during the monarchy : Isaiah, in the single chapter (xix.) which he devotes to Egypt, shews considerable acquaint- ance with the peculiarities of the country. It is a complete illusion to suppose that the Joseph-narratives can be shewn by archaeology to be contemporary with the events recorded S or (as has been strangely suggested) translated from a hieratic pap}Tus : the statement^ that the Egypt which these narratives bring before us is in particular that of the Hyksos age is destitute of foundation*. Among the names of the places in Palestine conquered by Thothmes III. of the 18th dynasty (Petrie and Sayce, B.C. 1503—1449; Budge, c. 1533—1500), which are inscribed on the pylons of the Great Temple at Karnak, there occur 1 Notice in this connexion the absence of particulars in the narrative, which a contemporary would almost naturally mention, such as the personal name of the Pharaoh, and the place in Egypt at which he held his court. The names Potiphar, Poti-phera', Zapheuath-Pa'neah and Asenath can hardly be genuine ancient names: see the note on xli. 45. The Hebrew of the Joseph-narratives is perfectly idiomatic and pure, and shews no traces whatever of having been translated from a foreign original. It contains (besides proper names) four or five Egyptian words; but they are all words which were naturalized in Hebrew ; they occur in other parts of the Old Testament, and consequently afford no clue as to the date of the narratives in which they are found. They are Pharaoh (see on xii. 15); y^'or, xli. 1, 2, 3, 17, 18, the common Heb. name for the Nile (Is. vii. 18, and frequently); dhu, * reed-grass,' xli. 2, 18 (also Job viii. 11); shesh, 'fine linen,' xli. 42 (also Ex. xxv. 4, and often in Ex. xxvi. — xxviii., XXXV. — xxxix. [all P], Ezek. xvi. 10, 13, xxvii. 7, Prov. xxxi. 22); perhaps also sohar, the name of the prison into which Joseph was cast (see on xxxix. 2U), and hartummim, 'magicians' (see on xli. 8); and possibly rabid, 'chain,' xli. 42 and Ezek. xvi. 11 (see on this word the note * in DB. u. 775'': it is quite uncertain whether it is really Egyptian). 2 Sayce, EHH. p. 90 ; cf. p. 93. ' Egyptian institutions were of great fixity; and there is no allusion in these nan-atives to any institution or custom known to be characteristic of the Hyksos age, and not to occur in any later age. Comp. the judgment of Ebers, as cited in E7icB. II. 2594. Prof. Sayce, it is to be observed, though he comes forward ostensibly as an enemy of criticism, nevertheless makes admissions which shew that he recognizes many of its conclusions to be true. Thus he not only asserts the compilatory character of the Pentateuch {EHH. 129, 134, 203), but in Genesis he finds (p. 132 f.) two groups of narratives, and 'two Abrahams,' the one 'an Abraham born in one of the centres of Babylonian civilization, who is an ally of Amorite chieftains, and whom the Hittites of Hebron address as a "mighty prince"' [the Abraham of Gen. xiv. and of P], the other 'au Abraham of the Bedawin camp-tire, a nomad whose habits are those of the rude independence of the desert, whose wife kneads the bread while he himself kills the calf with which his guests are enter- tained' [the Abraham of J and E]. The former narrative he considers, though upon very questionable grounds, to have been based upon contemporary documents, the latter to have been 'like the tales of their old heroes recounted by the nomad Arabs in the days before Islam as they sat at night round their camp-fires. The details and spirit 'of the story have necessarily caught the coloiu' of the medium through which they have passed' (p. 62). All the prmcipal details of the patriarchs' Uves are contained in J and E : but if these narratives were handed down for generations by 'nomad reciters' round their camp-fires, what better guarantee of their historical truth do we possess than if their memory had been preserved in the manner supposed above? lii INTRODUCTION [§ 3 (Nos. 78 and 102) the names Y-'-k-b-'d-ru and Ysh-p-'d-ru ; as the Egyptian I stands also for r, these names would represent a Canaanitish or Hebrew Yakob-el, and Yoshep-el; and we learn consequently that places bearing these names^ existed in Palestine, apparently in the central part^ in the 16th or 15th cent. B.C. The name Jacob itself is thought by many to be an elliptical form of Jacob-eP; but whether that be correct or not, it is at least remarkable to find a place-name, including the name of the patriarch Jacob, in Palestine at this date. But the information which the name brings us is too scanty to enable us to found further inferences upon it: if Jacob was a historical person, his name may have clung to this place in Palestine; on the other hand, the name may have arisen independently of the patriarch altogether, in which case it would obviously have no bearing on the question whether he was a historical person or not ; there are also other conceivable ways in which the name of the patriarch (whether that of a real person or not) might have been connected with the place. In Yoshep-el, the sibilant does not properly correspond to that in Joseph : so that it is doubtful here whether the names are really the same. However, W. Max MiiUer allows the identification to be 'possible''': if it is correct, it is certainly a singular coincidence to find the names of both patriarchs embodied in place-names in Palestine, though it may be difficult to determine with confidence how the fact is to be explained. In lists of towns in Palestine belonging to the age of Seti I. and his successor, Ramses II. (the Pharaoh of the oppression), mention is made of a 'mountain of User' or 'Aser,' between Tyre and Shechem, and between Kadesh (on the Orontes) and Megiddo, and approximately, therefore, in the position occupied afterwards by the tribe of Asher^. W. Max MiiUer, Sayce, and Hommel, accordingly, do not doubt that the tribe of Asher, — or at least what was reckoned afterwards as the tribe of Asher, — was settled in Palestine before the other tribes of Israel had even left Egypt. The statement hardly has a bearing on the historical character of Jacob's son Asher; though it ought not to surprise us, if it should ultimately prove that the number of the sons of Jacob (some of whom, as individuals, play no part in the patriarchal narratives, and are really nothing more than mere names) was artificially raised to twelve, because there were in historical times twelve tribes of Israel, and also that the immigration of the entire nation into Canaan was accom- plished in reality a good deal more gradually than is represented as having been the case in Nu. xxxii., Dt. i.— iii., and Joshua i. — xii, ^ Cf. for the form (compounded with El, 'God') the place-names Jezre'el, Jahne'el, Jos. xv. 11 ( = Jal»ieh, 2 Ch. xxvi. 6), Jiphtah-el, Jos. xix. 14, 27, 'God sows, builds, opens,' respectively; see also Gray, Hfb. Pr. Naniei^, 21-4 f. 2 W. Max MiiUer, Asien u. Europa nach Altuijypt. BenkmuUrn (1893), pp. 159, 161 f. 2 In which case, 'eZ would be the subject of the verb, and the real meaning of the natne would be May God folloto (or search out)! or May God reward! or May God overreach (sc. our foes)/ — according as the sense of the root in Aramaic, Arabic, or Hebrew be adopted. * Op. cit. pp. 159, 162 f.; and as cited in EncB. ii. 2581—2. " W. Max Miiller, op. cit. 236—9; Sayce, Monnments, 244, Pair. Pal. 219, EHH. 78 f. ; Hommel, AHT. 228, 266. Cf. Authority and Archaeology, p. C9 f. (with the references) ; and Asher in EncB. §3] ARCHAEOLOGY AND GENESIS liii The accuracy of the topography, and the truthfuhiess of the descriptions to Eastern life even in modern times, have also some- times heen appealed to as confirmatory of the historical character of the patriarchal narratives. But the argument, as a little reflection will shew, is inconclusive. The exactness in these respects of the narratives of Genesis is only what would be naturally expected from the circumstances under which they were written. The relative situations of places do not alter from age to age ; and manners and customs in the East remain unchanged from generation to generation. The narratives of Genesis, upon the view taken of them by critics, were written by men, whose own home was Canaan, who were acquainted personally with its inhabitants, and familiar with the customs, for instance, of tent-life and of travel in the desert ; and such men would as a matter of course describe correctly the relative positions and situations of places in Palestine mentioned by them, and represent their characters as adopting the manners and customs which were usual at the time. The narratives of Genesis are wonderful photo- graphs of scenery and life ; but they carry in themselves no proof that the scenery and life are those of the patriarchal age and not those of the age of the narrators'. Prof. G. A. Smith, in his Modern Crif/icism and the Preaching of the Old Testament, expresses conclusions substantially identical with those reached in the preceding pages. Thus, after illustrating the nature of the light thrown by archaeology on the ages before Moses, he continues (p. 101), 'But, just as we have seen that in all this archaeological evidence there is nothing to prove the early date of the documents which contain the story of the patriarchs, but on the contrary even a little which strengthens the critical theory of their date, so now we must admit that while archaeology has richly illustrated the possibility of the main outlines of the Book of Genesis froui Abraham to Joseph, it has not one whit of proof to offer for the personal existence or character of the patriarchs themselves.' Formerly, the world in which the patriarchs moved seemed to be almost empty; now we see it filled with embassies, armies, busy cities, and long lines of traders, passing to and fro between one centre of civilization and another : ' But amidst all that crowded life we peer in vain for any trace of the fathers of the Hebrews : we listen in vain for any mention of their names. This is the whole change archaeology has wrought : it has given us an atmosphere and a background for the stories of Genesis; it is unable to recall or certify their heroes 2.' 1 To the same effect, G. A. Smith, HG. 108 ; Slodern Criticism dx. 67—70. 2 The results proved by archaeology have, in their bearing upon Biblical criticism, been greatly exaggerated, especially by Prof. Sayce. See Hogarth's Authority and Archaeolofiy, 143 ft., 149 f.; G. B. Gray, Expositor, May 1898, p. 337 ff.; and G. A. Smith, op. cit. p. 5G II. liv INTRODUCTION [§ 3 It is remarkable how in Genesis, as also, sometimes, in other parts of the Old Testament, individuals and tribes seem to be placed on the same level, and to be spoken of in the same terms, and how, further, individuals seem frequently to be the impersonation of homonymous tribes. Thus Bethuel is mentioned as an individual (Gen. xxii. 23, xxiv. 15, &c.), but his brothers *Uz and Buz are tribes (see on xxii. 21). Keturah, again, is spoken of as Abraham's second wife (xxv. 1) ; but her sons and grandsons are tribes (xxv. 2 — 4). In Gen. x. nations are quite manifestly represented as individuals : the same chapter also illustrates well the Hebrew custom of representing the tribes dwelling in, or near, a given country, as * sons ' of a corresponding homonymous ancestor (as v. 12 the Ludim, 'Anamim, &c. 'begotten' by Mizraim, i.e. Egypt; v. 16 the Jebusite, Amorite, &c. 'begotten' by Canaan). So Machir, in Gen. 1. 23 an individual, but in Nu. xxxii. 40 a clan, in Nu. xxvi. 29 ' begets ' (the country) Gilead (cf. the note on 1. 23) ; and in Jud. xi. 1 Gilead (the country) ' begets ' Jephthah, Again, Canaan, Japheth, and Shem, in Noah's blessing (Gen. ix. 25 — 27), represent three groups of nations ; Ishmael (xvi. 12) is in character the personi- fication of the desert tribes whose descent is traced to him ; Esau ' is Edom' (xxv. 30, xxxvi. 1, 8, 19), and Edom is the name of a people, as 'Esau' also is in Ob. 6, Jer. xlix. 8. Jacob and Israel, also, both names of the patriarch, are likewise national names, the latter a standing one, the former a poetical synonym (Gen. xlix. 7 ; Nu. xxiii. 21, 23 ; Am. vii. 2, 5, and frequently) : Isaac and Joseph are some- times national names as well, — Isaac in Am. vii. 9, 16, and Joseph in Am. V. 15, vi. 6, Ps. Ixxx. 1, Ixxxi. 5, and elsewhere^ This peculiarity is, at least largely, a consequence of the fact that in the Semitic languages, the names of nations and tribes are very frequently not, as with ourselves, plurals, but singulars, — Asshur (Is. x. 5 RVm.), Israel, Moab, Edom, Midian, Aram (Gen. x. 22 : see the note), Kedar (xxv. 13), Sheba, Cain or Kain (Nu. xxiv. 22, Jud. iv. 11, RVm. : cf. p. 72), Judah, Simeon, Levi, &c. : all these are names of nations or tribes, but they might be, and in some cases actually also are, the names of individuals*. ^ So in 1 Ch. vii. 20 — 24 'Ephraim,' though spoken of as if an individual, must be in reality the tribe ; cf. Bekiah in DB. 2 When it is desired to speak of the individual members of a tribe or nation, 'sons' ('children') is commonly used, as in 'children of Israel.' Some tribes are also designated by gentilic adjectives, as Hiwwi, the 'Hivite,' 'Enwri, the 'Amorite,' Yebusi, the 'Jebusite,' &c. It is in agreement with the usap;e explained in the text that the singular pronoun (generally concealed in EVV.) is used often of a nation: as Ex. xiv. 25, § 3] TRIBES REPRESENTED AS INDIVIDUALS Iv The question arises, How far this principle of tribes and nations being represented as individuals is to be extended ? Can it be applied in explanation of the patriarchal narratives ? and if so, in what sense ? It is the opinion of many modern scholars that it can be so applied. According to many modern scholars, nearly all the names in the patriarchal narratives, though they seem to be personal names, repre- sent in reality tribes and sub-tribes : a woman, for example, representing a smaller or weaker tribe (or clan) than a man ; a marriage representing the amalgamation of two tribes, if the wife be a slave or a concubine, the tribe represented by her being of foreign origin or otherwise inferior, the birth of a child representing the origin of a new family or tribal subdivision, the firstborn being the one which acquires supre- macy over the rest, and an early death, or unfruitful marriage, representing the disappearance of a family : the movements, changes of fortune, and mutual relations, of tribes and sub-tribes being thus expressed in a personal and individual form. This was Ewald's view. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the successive migratory move- ment of Hebrew tribes from the original common home of the Hebrew and Aramaean nationalities in Aram-naharaim across the Euphrates. Jacob's father, Isaac, was already settled in Canaan: his mother was an Aramaean (Gen. xxv. 20) ; he marries two Aramaean wives : after a long contest with his uncle (and father-in-law) Laban, ' the Aramaean ' (xxv. 20, xxviii. 5, xxxi. 20, 24), he ultimately comes to terms with him, returns to Canaan with great wealth, and finally gives his name to the people settled there : this means that a new and energetic branch of the Hebrseo-Aramaic race migrated from its home in Aram- naharaim, pushed forward into Canaan, amalgamated there with the Hebrews ('Isaac') already on the spot (becoming thereby Isaac's 'son'), and, in virtue of the superior practical abilities displayed by it, acquired ultimately supremacy over all its kin ; the contest with Laban ' represents the struggle which continued, probably for centuries, between the crafty Hebrews on the opposite banks of the Euphrates, showing how in the end the southern Hebrews gained the upper hand and the northern were driven off in derision': Edom was a branch (' son ') of the tribe represented by * Isaac ' ; ' Jacob,' becoming fused with this tribe, is Esau's ' brother,'" but at the same time his younger 'And Egypt said, Let me flee,' Nu. xx. 18, 'And Edom said (sing.) to him (Israel), Thou Shalt not pass through me, lest I come forth to meet thee with the sword,' Josh. xvii. 14, Jud. i. 3. So Israel (the nation) and Edom, for instance, are spoken of as each other's ' brother,' Am. i. 11, Nu. xx. 14 al. Ivi INTRODUCTION [§ 3 brother, as arriving later in Canaan, though, as he became afterwards the more powerful nation, he is described as having wrested from him his birthright ; similarly Jacob's wives and sons represent the existence of different elements in the original community, and the growth of tribal distinctions within it'. Ewald, however, held at the same time that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were historical characters, prominent leaders of the nation at successive stages of its history'. In the same way, Joseph (who was likewise a real person) was a leader or dis- tinguished member of a portion of the nation consisting of the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (which afterwards separated) : these tribes migrated into Egypt before the rest ; Joseph there rose to power, and conferred great benefits both upon his own people and upon the country, and in the end also attracted the remaining and stronger part of his people to the Eastern frontier of Egypt. Joseph's personality was a remarkable one : and in after ages it was transfigured in the memory of his people ; under the influence of the religion of Israel it became an ideal of filial and fraternal affection, a high example of good- ness, devotion to duty, sincerity, and love^ The views of Dillmann and Kittel are similar to that of Ewald*. Other recent scholars have however gone further, and denied the presence of any personal element in the patriarchal narratives ; the narratives represent throughout, — even, it is sometimes said, according to the intention of the narrators, — tribal movements and tribal relations : the patriarchs and most of the other figures in Genesis are the eponj-mous ancestors of corresponding tribes, created after Israel had become a united nation and was settled in Canaan ; and the histories about them partly express phases in the early history of Israel and its neighbours, and are partly reflections of the circumstances and relations of the same tribes in the age in which the narratives themselves originated^. 1 Ewald, Hist. i. 273 f., 287, 309—317, 338, 341—344, 346, 348—350, 363, 371—376, 378—381. 2 Pp. 301, 305 f., 340, 342, 345. 3 Ewald, Hist. i. 363, 382, 405, 407—9, 412—20. * Dillmann, Alttest. Theologie, 77 — 81 (the patriarchs were the leaders of large migratory bodies of Semites, pressing forward from Haran into Canaan, where Moab and Amraon, the Ishmaelites, the Keturaean tribes (Gen. xxv. 1 — 4), and the Edomites branched off from them ; the Hebrews in the narrowest sense of the term, i.e. the Israelites (corresponding to 'Jacob'), being the latest arrival among them), Gomm. on Gen. pp. 218, 219, 31(i, 403 (Engl. tr. ii. 2—5, 190, 353); Kittel, Hist, of the Hebrews, i. 153, 157, 168 f. (Engl. tr. i. 170, 174 f., 186—8). Cf. Ottley, Hist, of the Hebrews, 49—52; Wade, OT. Hist. 81 f. 5 See further on this view Reuss, L'Hist. Sainte et la Lot (1879), i. 98 ff. ; Stade, Gesch. 28—30, 127 f., 145 ff.; Wellh. Hist. 318 ff.; Cornill, Hist, of Isr. (1899), p. 29 ff. ; the commentaries of Holzinger and Gunkel ; Guthe, Gesch. des Volkes Israel (1899), pp. 1—6, 25, 41 f., 47—9, 55 f., 101—8; and the articles § 3] HISTORICITY OF THE PATRIARCHS Ivii No doubt Ewald's theory rests upon the observation of real facts, and is also, within limits, true ; but applied upon this very compre- hensive scale, it cannot be deemed probable. An unsubstantial figure, such as Canaan (Gen. ix. 25—7), might be an example of a personified group of peoples ; there are also no doubt other cases, especially those occurring in genealogies, in which what seem to be individuals stand for tribes, and there are besides (cf. p. lixf.) particular cases in which the relations or characteristics of a later age appear to have been reflected back upon the patriarchs: but the abundance of personal incident and detail in the patriarchal narratives as a whole seems to constitute a serious objection to this explanation of their meaning : would the movements of tribes be represented in this veiled manner on such a large scale as would be the case if this explanation were the true one ? Moreover, as the Canaanites actually remained in the land till a much later period than that at which the patriarchs {ex hyp.) lived, it is difficult to understand how large bodies of immigrants, such as Ewald's hypothesis postulates, could have swept across it, or found room to settle in it, without many hostile conflicts with the natives, of which nevertheless the patriarchal narratives, — except in the isolated case of Shechem (ch. xxxiv. ; xlviii. 22), — are silent : individuals, with a relatively small body of retainers, would be more likely than large tribes, to pass unmolested through the land, and find a home in it. It is also much more difficult to think of Joseph as a tribe rising to power in Egypt, than of Joseph as an individual. The explanation may be adopted reasonably in particular instances (pp. liv, Ix) ; but applied universally, it would seem to create greater difficulties and improbabilities than it removes. Although, however, as has been shewn (p. xliii f.), the evidence for the historicity of the patriarchs is not such as will satisfy the ordinary canons of historical criticism, it is still, all things considered, difficult to believe that some foundation of actual personal history does not uuderhe the patriarchal narratives'. And in fact the view which on the whole may be said best to satisfy the circumstances of the case is the view that the patriarchs are historical persons, and that the accounts which we have of them are in outline historically true, but on the names of the Israelitish tribes in EncB. It is criticized by Konig in Neueste Prinzipien der AT. Kritik (1902), pp. 36—69, and in an art. in the Sn7iday School Times (Philadelphia), Dec. 14, 1901 (see a summary in the Exp. Times, Mar. 1902, p. 243 f.). There being no tribe corresponding to Abraham, Cornill (pp. 21, 34), and Guthe (pp. 1G4, 167), regard Abraham as a historical person, with a definitely marked religious character. 1 So also G. A. Smith, Modem Criticism &c., p. 106 f. Iviii INTRODUCTION [§ 3 that their characters are idealized, and their biographies not un- frequently coloured by the feelings and associations of a later age. 'J,' says Mr Ottley', and his remarks are equally true of E, 'describes the age of the patriarchs as in some essential respects so closely similar to later periods, that it can only be regarded as a picture of primitive life and religion drawn in the light of a subsequent age. We have here to do with the earliest form of history — traditional folk-lore about primitive personages and events, worked up according to some pre- conceived design, by a devout literary artist.' The basis of the narratives in Genesis is in fact popular oral tradition : J and E give us pictures of these traditions as they were current in the early centuries of the monarchy ; in P, it can scarcely be doubted, we have a later and more artificial form, by no means so directly and freshly transcribed from the living voice of the people. Popular tradition being, however, what it is, we may naturally expect it to display in Genesis the same characteristics which it does in other cases. It may well include a substantial historical nucleus, even though we may not always be in a position to ascertain precisely how far this extends : for details may readily be due to the involuntary action of popular in- vention or imagination, operating during a long period of time : from a religious point of view the characters and experiences of the patriarchs may have been accommodated to the spirit of a later age ; while in the form, also, something will be due to the narrators who cast the traditions into their present literary shape. How far, in the existing narratives, the original historical nucleus has been modified or added to by the operation of each of these three causes, it is of course impossible to determine exactly : an objective criterion is seldom attainable ; and subjective impressions of what is probable or not are mostly all that we have to guide us. There are however some narratives in which the feeling that we have before us the record not of actual historical fact, but of current popular belief, forces itself strongly upon us. As has already been pointed out (p. xvii ff.), one very conspicuous interest in these narratives is the explanation of existing facts and institutions, — for instance, many names of persons and places, the sanctity of Bethel and its famous monolith, the origin of the great border-cairn in Gilead, a current proverb or custom, the ethnological or political relations subsisting between Israel and its neighbours, or the characteristics of different ^ jBampton Lectures, p. 209. § 3] IDEAL ELEMENT IN GENESIS lix peoples, the Ishmaelites, Edoiu, &c. In some of these cases, — notably in xix. 30 — 38,— it is next to impossible that we can be reading accounts of the actual historical origin of the names or facts referred to, and not ratlier explanations due to popular imagination or suggested by an obvious etymology : other cases it is but consonant with analogy to regard as similar ; in some instances, also, it will be remembered, we find duplicate and inconsistent traditions respecting the same occurrence. Uncertainty on subordinate points of this kind need not however affect our general estimate of the narrative as a whole. Another respect in which the histories of the patriarchs have probably been coloured in the course of oral transmission is by later tribal relations being imported into them : the patriarchs and their descendants, though it is going too far to say that they are mere reflections of the tribes descended, or reputed to have been descended, from them, do nevertheless appear upon occasion invested with the characteristics of these tribes ; and it is even possible that sometimes episodes of tribal life are referred back to them in the form of incidents occurring within the limits of their own families. Ishmael, for instance, in xvi. 22 may be the personal son of Abraham : but if he is this, he is also something more ; he impersonates the Bedawin of the desert. Jacob and Esau, in their struggles for supremacy, are more than the twin sons of Isaac ; they impersonate two nations ; and the later relations subsisting between these two nations colour parts of the representation, — especially, for instance, the terms of the oracle in XXV. 23, and of the blessings in xxvii. 28 f., 39 f. Jacob and Laban, when fixing on the mountains of Gilead the border which neither will pass, seem likewise to be types of the later Israelites and Aramaeans who often in the same region contended with one another for mastery. It is extremely difficult not to think that, as a whole, the narratives about Joseph are based upon a personal history : at the same time, it is quite possible that they have been coloured in some of their details by later events, and even that particular episodes may have originated in the desire to account for the circumstances and relations of a later age. The hostility of the brethren to Joseph, the leadership in one narrative (E) of Reuben, in the other (J) of Judah, the power and pre-eminence of Joseph,— like that of the double tribe (especially Ephraim) descended from him,— as compared with his brothers, the fact that Benjamin, afterwards the smallest tribe, is the youngest brother, the adoption of Joseph's two sons by Jacob (i.e. their elevation to the same rank as his own sons), and the priority so D. / Ix INTRODUCTION [§ 3 pointedly bestowed by hira upon the younger, are, for instance, points at which it is at least possible that popular imagination has been at work, colouring or supplementing the historical elements of the Joseph-tradition by reference to the facts and conditions of later times. The improbabilities which certainly attach to some of the details connected with the fi^mine, and the measures by which it was relieved, may be accounted for in the same way: popular tradition magnifies the achievements of the famous heroes of antiquity, and the Oriental mind loves hyperbole ^ It is also not impossible that episodes or movements of tribal life, sometimes belonging to the patriarchal period itself, sometimes re- flected back into it from the later history, are occasionally narrated in the form of events in the lives of individuals, as in ch. xxxiv. (Shechem and Dinah : see p. 307 f.), xxxviii. (Judah and Tamar : see p. 331 f.), and in different tribal genealogies, as xxii. 20 — 24, xxv. 1 — 4, 12 — 16, ch. xxxvi. (Edom), &c. ; cf. on xi. 29. The biographies of the patriarchs seem, thirdly, to have been idealized from a religious point of view. In the days of the patriarchs, religion must have been in a relatively rudimentary stage-; there are traces of this in the idea, for instance, of the revelations of deity being confined to particular spots, and in the reverence paid to sacred trees and pillars : but at the same time the patriarchs often express themselves in terms suggesting much riper spiritual capacities and experiences, and in some cases indeed borrowed evidently from the phraseology of a much later age. It is difficult here not to trace the hands of the narrators, who were men penetrated by definite moral and religious ideas, and who, while not stripping the patriarchs of the distinctive features by which they were traditionally invested, never- theless unconsciously coloured their pictures of them by the feelings and beliefs of their own age, and represented them as expressing the thoughts, and using the phrases, with which they were themselves familiar*. To the narrators, also, will be due the literary form of the 1 In Gen. xli. 47 — 9, 54, 50, 57, for instance, there must be some exaggeration; and in xlvii. 14 — 26, though the system of land-tenure described undoubtedly existed in the age of the narrator, yet, as Dillm. remarks, the details, such as the connexion with the seven years of famine, the exhaustion of the Egyptians' money, the sale of their cattle &c., v?ill be due to the naivete of the tradition. 2 Cf. Wade, 02'. History, p. 84 ft. 3 It is thus possible that both the ' call,' and the other religious experiences of Abraham may have been less definite and articulate than they are represented as being in the existing narrative ; they may have taken, for example, in his coh- sciousness, the form of religious dissatisfaction with his surroundings, a sense that God was directing his steps elsewhere, and a presentiment borne in upon him that his adopted country would in time become the home of his descendants. Comp. Bruce, Apologetics, p. 11)9; Ottley, Bampt. Lect. p. 111. § 4] IDEAL ELEMENT IN GENESIS Ixi patriarchal narratives— the delicacy of expression and charm of style characteristic of J (especially) and of E, not less than the very differently constructed phrases and periods of P. The narratives of P we shall hardly be wrong in regarding, even in details, as far more the author's own creation than those of J or E. § 4. The Eeliglous Value of the Booh of Genesis. Our survey of the contents and historical character of the Book of Genesis is ended. We have analysed it into the main sources of which it is composed, we have considered the leading characteristics of each of these sources, and we have done our best to estimate the historical value of the narratives contained in them. We have found that in the first eleven chapters there is little or nothing that can be called historical in our sense of the word : there may be here and there dim recollections of historical occurrences ; but the concurrent testimony of geology and astronomy, anthropology, archaeology, and comparative philology, is proof that the account given in these chapters of the creation of heaven and earth, the appearance of living things upon the earth, the origin of man, the beginnings of civilization, the destruction of mankind and of all terrestrial animals (except those preserved in the ark) by a flood, the rise of separate nations, and the formation of different languages, is no historically true record of these events as they actually happened. And with regard to the histories contained in chs. xii. — 1., we have found that, while there is no sufficient reason for doubting the existence, and general historical character of the biographies, of the patriarchs, nevertheless much uncertainty must be allowed to attach to details of the narrative : we have no guarantee that we possess verbally exact reports of the events narrated; and there are reasons for supposing that the figures and characters of the patriarchs are in different respects idealized. And, let it be obsei*ved, not one of the conclusions reached in the preceding pages is arrived at upon arbitrary or a 2>riori grounds : not one of them depends upon any denial, or even doubt, of the supernatural or of the miraculous ; they are, one and all, forced upon us by the facts ; they follow directly from a simple consideration of the facts of physical science and human nature, brought to our Icnowledge by the various sciences concerned, from a comparison of these fiicts with the Biblical statements, and from an application of the ordinary canons of historical criticism. Fifty or /2 Ixii INTRODUCTION [§ 4 sixty years ago, a different judgment, at least on some of the points involved, was no doubt possible : but the immense accessions of know- ledge, in the departments both of the natural sciences and of the early history of man, which have resulted from the researches of recent years, make it impossible now : the irreconcileability of the early narratives of Genesis with the facts of science and history must be recognized and accepted. To be sure, particular points might probably be found, at which, by the adoption of forced interpretations of the words of Genesis, such as are both unnatural in themselves, and also obviously contrary to the intention of the writer, the conclusion in question could, in appearance, be evaded : but this method is at once unsound in principle and ineffectual : a forced exegesis is never legitimate; passages remain to which the method itself cannot be applied; nor, probably, has anything done more to bring the Bible into discredit than the harmonistic expedients adopted by apologists, which by those whom they are intended to satisfy and convince are seen at once to be impossible'. And to turn for a moment to another consideration, it is realized now, more distinctly than it was by a past generation, that a historical document, if it is to lay claim to credibility, must be contemporary, or virtually so, with the events described in it ; this is a primary principle of modern historical science. But the Book of Genesis, whatever view be taken of its authorship, does not satisfy this condition : none of the documents of which it is composed either claims to be, or has as yet been shewn to be, contemporary with the events narrated in it. It follows that the Bible cannot in every part, especially not in its early parts, be read precisely as it was read by our forefathers. We live in a light which they did not possess, but which it has pleased the Providence of God to shed around us ; and if the Bible is to retain its authority and influence among us, it must be read in this light, and our beliefs about it must be adjusted and accommodated accordingly. To utilize, as far as we can, the light in which we live, is, it must be remembered, not a privilege only, but a duty. And to take but a single example of the gain to be derived from so doing : it is certain that an infinitely more adequate conception of the astonishing breadth and scope of creation, and of the marvellously wonderful and compre- hensive plan by which the Creator has willed both to organize and develope life upon the earth, and afterwards gradually to civilize and ^ Comp. the just remarks of Kautzsch in his lecture on Die bleibende Bedeutung des ATs. (1902), p. 9 ff. § 4] RELIGIOUS VALUE OF GENESIS Ixiii educate human beings upon it, can be obtained from a study of the sciences of astronomy, geology, and anthropology than from the early chapters of Genesis : on the other hand, these chapters of Genesis do seize and give vivid and forcible expression to certain vital and funda- mental truths respecting the relation of the world and man to God which the study of those sciences by themselves could never lead to ; the Bible and human science thus supplement one another : but we must go to human science for the material facts of nature and life, and to the Bible for the spiritual realities by which those facts are illuminated, and (in their ultimate origin) explained. The only science and early history known to the Biblical writers were both imperfect : but they made a superb use of them ; they attached to them, and en- shrined in forms of undying freshness and charm, the great spiritual truths which they were inspired to discern. It is impossible, if we compare the early narratives of Genesis with the Babylonian narratives from which in some cases they seem plainly to have been ultimately derived, or with the pictures of prehistoric times to be found in the literatures of many other countries, not to perceive the controlling operation of the Spirit ot God, which has taught these Hebrew writers to make a right use of the materials which came to their hands, to ' take the primitive traditions of the human race, to purify them from their grossness and their polytheism, and to make them at once the foundation and the explanation of the long history that is to follow^' Our duty, then, is to recognize this double aspect of these narratives ; and to read them accordingly in such a way as to seize and retain the spiritual truths of which they are the expression, while discarding, at least as an object of intellectual belief, the material fabric which was once necessary to give them substance and support, but which is now seen to have in itself no value or reality-. The position that the Book of Genesis may contain statements not historically true may appear to some readers surprising and question- able. It must, however, be remembered that the doctrine that tlie Bible contains nothing but what is historically true is one for which there is no foundation either in the Bible itself, or in the formularies of our Church. This doctrine is intimately connected with, if not directly dependent upon, a particular theory of inspiration. As is 1 Kirkpatrick, The Divine Library of the Old Testament, p. 97. ' On the distinction between the external form, and the inner or spiritual substance, of a narrative, see also the Bishop of Bipon's excellent Introduction to the Temple Bible, pp. 17, 18, 42—46. Ixiv INTRODUCTION [§ 4 well-known, the Church of England has formulated no definition of inspiration : nevertheless, a theorj^ has become prevalent, both within and without the pale of our own communion, which conceives of in- spiration as operating mechanically, and maintains accordingly the verbal exactitude of every statement contained in Scripture, — on points, for instance, of science, or history, or psychology, not less than on points of spiritual doctrine and duty. The present is not the place to discuss at length the subject of inspiration' : it must suffice therefore to point out that such a theory is entirely without scriptural authority: we read indeed (2 Tim. iii. 16) that 'every scripture inspired of God' is 'profitable' for certain moral and spiritual ends, but nothing is said, either there or elsewhere, of the other conditions to which an ' inspired ' book must conform ; nor is any claim to immunity from error made on its behalf in any part of Scripture. The doctrine of the verbal inspiration and verbal exactitude of Scripture is in fact an a priori theory, framed not upon the basis of any warrant contained in Scripture itself, but upon an antecedent conception of what an ' inspired ' book must necessarily be. It is however a complete mistake of principle and method to frame first an a priori theory of inspiration, and then to insist that the Bible must conform to it : the Bible is the only * inspired ' book that we know of; and as no independent definition of inspiration exists, the only sound method is to study the facts presented by the Bible, and to formulate our theory of inspiration accordingly. If, then, in the course of our inquiry we should find in the Bible statements, or representations, which, after an impartial survey of the facts, should prove to be unhistorical, our only legitimate conclusion would be that the existence in it of such statements or representations is not in- compatible with its inspiration, and the a priori definition, which would exclude them, must be modified accordingly. A consideration which has no doubt been largely responsible for the reluctance of theologians to admit the presence of unhistorical elements in the Bible is apprehension of the consequences to which the admission may lead, especially with regard to the historical character of the Gospel records. It is 1 The writer has dealt with it more fully in the seventh of his Sermons on the Old Testament (p. 143 ff.) ; comp. also the preceding Sermon (p. 119 ff.) on ' The Voice of God in the Old Testament,' with particular reference to the different kinds of literature represented in the OT. And see besides Sanday's Bampton Lectures for 1893 (on 'Inspiration'), p. 155 ff., and Lect. viii.; Kirkpatrick's Divine Library of the OT. (1891), Lect. iv.; Farrar, The Bible, its meaning and supremacy, passim; Watson, The Book of Genesis, pp. 256—265; and the Bishop of Eipon's Introd. to tlie Temj^le Bible, pp. 83—101. § 4] INSPIRATION Ixv difficult not to think that such appveliensions are groundless. "We must trust, as we do in all other histories, to the application of sound historical methods. It is however certain that the historical character of the Gospel records is far more endangered by their credibility being made to depend upon the axiom of the exact and equal historical truth of every part of Scripture, than by this axiom, as such, being unconditionally abandoned, and the credibility of the Gospel narratives being left to be established by the historical evidence which they tliemselves afford, interpreted in the light of the indirect testimony supplied by other parts of the New Testament, by the early Church, and by the Old Testament, regarded generally (apart from the exact and equal historical value of every part of it) as a pi-eparation for Christ. No competent student of the Old Testament can deny that there are elements in it which, though they may have a high value rehgiously, are not historical; they describe, for instance, not things as they actually happened, but things as they were viewed, in an idealized form, by writers Hving long afterwards ; but to rest the truth of Christianity upon an axiom as baseless as the one referred to above, is the height of unwisdom. Nothing therefore is lost that can be of service to Christianity, nothing is given up which forms a real bulwark of the faith, when that axiom is abandoned. It is a responsibility which, if they realized it, few would surely take upon themselves, to weight Christianity with a view of the Old Testament, which has no authority or support either in the Bible itself or in the formularies of the Church, which will not bear examina- tion, but on the contrary, when confronted with the facts, is at once seen to be refuted by them. The nemesis on doctrines of verbal inspiration is not far to seek. Mr Laing, in chap. viii. of his Modern Science and Modern Thought, lays it down that an inspired book is one ' miraculously dictated by an infallible God, and therefore absolutely and for all time true'; and then proceeds to refer to some of the statements contained in the early chapters of Genesis, which are now known to be not historically true : the conclusion follows, — and from the premises respecting the nature of inspiration follows logically and necessarily, — that the Bible is not inspired, and consequently has no claim to contain a revelation to man. But where is it anywhere said in the Bible that the historical state- ments made in it are 'dictated' by God? The whole conception of inspiration implied in the words quoted is a figment, — a figment, no doubt, devised in the first instance for the purpose of supporting and fortifying a good cause, but not the less, as a result of the progress of knowledge, capable of being employed with disastrous efiect to ruin and destroy it. But, if we modify our conception of inspiration, and by making proper allowance for the human element cooperating with the Divine, bring it into agreement with the phaenomena to be ex- plained, then all those lacts which are fatal to the authority of the Ixvi INTRODUCTION [§ 4 Bible upon the theories refeiTed to above are adequately accounted for, and the Bible becomes a consistent whole, inspired throughout, though not ' dictated,' and with its authority firmly established upon a sound and logical basis. See further, on the same subject, the very pertinent remarks of Prof. G. A, Smith, in his Modern Criticism and Preaching of the Old Testament, where, after commenting (pp 26 — 28) upon the often disastrous effects of the dogmas of a verbal inspiration and of the equal validity of all parts of Scripture, and of the refusal to accept what is legitimately involved in the truth of a ' progressive Pi.evelaticn,' he describes what be learnt from a perusal of the correspondence of the late Henry Drummond, who was often consulted upon religious difficulties : his coiTespondents, he says, ' one and aU tell how the dogma that the entire Bible stands, historically and morally, upon the same level — the faith which finds in it nothing erroneous, nothing defective, and (outside of the sacrifices and Temple) nothing temporary— is what has driven them from religion.' In the Book of Genesis we have to do with scientific and historical, more than with moral difficulties. And certainly it can occasion little surprise that, when a man of scientific culture is told, — for this, though not the Church's teaching, and though many individual teachers have of course abandoned it, is nevertheless still the current theological teaching of the day, — that an acceptance of the literal truth of the early chapters of Genesis is an integral part of the Christian faith, he should turn with repugnance from a creed which seems to him to be thus associated with a series of beliefs which his own studies prove to him to be impossible. But, as was said before, with a better-grounded theory of inspiration, all these difficulties disappear; and the man of science who gives due weight to the rehgious instincts of his nature will be ready to recognize the religious trutlifulness, — as distinct from the scientific truthfulness, — of these narratives of Genesis ^ Nor, upon antecedent grounds, can any valid objection be raised against the view that the Bible may contain elements more or less unhistorical. We are dealing confessedly in Genesis with narratives 1 It ought assuredly to be possible so to teach the historical parts of the OT. to those -who have reached the age of 15 or 16 that, when they enter into manhood, they may have nothing to unlearn on the ground of either science or history. Comp. a paper by the present writer on 'The Old Testament in the Light of To-day' in the Expositor, Jan. 1901, p. 45 ff.; and on the often lamentable conse- quences of failing to do this, Archdeacon Wilson in the Gontemp. Rev., March, 1903, p. 30o f . The danger of teaching as practically de fide things which are directly contradicted by what may be learnt from any Encyclopaedia or other work of secular information has been felt also by thoughtful Roman Catholics in France: see Alb. Houtin, La Question Biblique chez les CathoUques de France, au xix' siecle (1902), pp. 189 f., 266 fE. Cf. also the Guardian, Oct. 14, 1903, p. 1523". §4] SCOPE OF INSPIRATION Ixvii committed to writing long after the events narrated took place, and in some cases relating to periods so remote that it is certain no genuine historical recollections could have been handed down from them. Why should narratives relating to such a more or less distant past not exhibit among the Hebrews characteristics similar to those which narratives written down under similar circumstances among other nations would unquestionably exhibit? The former do indeed, on their spiritual side, exhibit very different characteristics ; but these are accounted for by the inspiration of their authors : why, however, should they be different, on their material side ? We should naturally expect them on their material side to exhibit the work of the imagination, and display an element of legend, filling up a gap in the past with a web of fancy, and presenting the dimly-seen heroes of antiquity as ideal figures. Where nothing is defined as to the nature or limits of the inspiring Spirit's work, have we the right to limit it by arbitrary canons of our own? Many — perhaps all — forms of the national literature of Israel are represented in the Bible, and made channels through which *in many parts, and in many modes' (Heb. i. 1) God manifested Himself to His people : upon what principle, or by what right, is a form of narrative which is common to almost every nation, and which appeals with peculiar force to the comprehension of men in particular stages of national development and intellectual growth, to be excluded ? ^ The imagination, as all must allow, is an instrument of extraordinary efficacy for instruction and edification ; it has exerted in the past, and it exerts still, a powerful influence in education : why, then, should it be deemed incapable of consecration to the service of God ? If the poems of Homer were an educational force in ancient Greece, why should it be deemed incredible that legends of primitive history, and idealized traditions of national heroes, only inspired by a higher and purer religious spirit, and exemplifying not the conflicts and jealousies of gods and goddesses, but the purposes and character of the One God, and His dealings with His children, — especially when moulded as they are into forms of shigularly impressive dignity and grace, — should exert a similar power in Israel, and should be incorporated by the prophets and teachers of the nation as a treasured heirloom in their sacred books? ^ Comp. the late Archbishop Benson, as cited by Kirkpatrick, The Divine Library of the OT. p. 104; and Bishop Westcott, who says (Life, 1903, ii. 69), ' I never could understand how any one reading the first three chapters of Genesis with open eyes could believe that they contained a literal history, yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it ia probably elsewhere.' Cf, WesLcott's Gospel of Life, p. 187 f. Ixviii INTRODUCTION [§ 4 See fui-ther, in this connexion, in the Bihl. Sacra, Jan. 1901, p. 103 ff., an address by Prof. Ives Curtiss, of Chicago, on ' The Book, the Law, and the People ; or Divine Revelations through ancient Israel,' delivered after a visit of some length to the Holy Land, where it is pointed out that while on the one hand observation of Oriental character makes it impossible to believe that the Bible is a merely natural product of the Oriental mind, on the other hand it warns us that we have no right to theorize cli)riori upon the ways in which God could or could not speak through it; a revelation addressed to an Oriental people would naturally be clothed in forms of thought and expression with which they were familiar. ' The Oriental is least of all a scientific historian. He is the prince of story-tellers : narratives, real and imaginative, spring from his lips, which are the truest portraiture of composite rather than individual Oriental life, though narrated under forms of individual experience.' Comp. also a paper by R. Somervell on 'The Historical Character of the OT. narratives' in the Exp. Times, Apr, 1902, p. 298 ff. ; and the many admirable words spoken by the Rev. G. S. Streatfeild in A Parish Gle7'gy man's Thoughts about the Higher Criticism (Midland Educational Co., Birmingham; reprinted, with additions, from the Expositor, Dec. 1902), p. 11 ff., on the interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, and on the value of a critical and historical appreciation of the Old Testament, in illuminating many parts of it, and in removing difSculties. Cf. Westcott, Lessons from Work, pp. 32 f., 178, 179. If, now, upon the basis of the considerations advanced in the preceding pages, we proceed to the question which after all is of the most immediate interest not only to the theologian in the technical sense of the word, but also to the man of general religious sympathies, we shall find that the religious value of the narratives of Genesis, while it must be placed upon a different basis from that on which it has hitherto been commonly considered to rest, remains in itself essen- tially unchanged. It is true, we often cannot get behind the narratives, — in chaps, i. — xi., as we have seen, the narratives cannot be historical, in our sense of the word, at all, and in chaps, xii. — 1., there are at least many points at which we cannot feel assured that the details are historical : we are obliged consequently to take them as we find them, and read them accordingly. And then we shall find that the narratives of Genesis teach us still the same lessons which they taught our fore- fathers. The drama which begins with the tragedy of Eden and ends with the wonderful biography of Joseph is still enacted before our eyes as vividly as ever. Eve and Cain still stand before us, the immortal types of weakness yielding to temptation, and of an unbridled temper leading its victim he knows not whither ; Noah and Abraham are still the heroes of righteousness and faith ; Lot and Laban, Sarah and Rebekah, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, in their characters and experiences, are still in ditierent ways rvVot -qixw, and still in one respect or another § 4] INSPIRATION OF GENESIS Ixix exemplify the ways in which God deals with the individual soul, and the manner in which the individual soul ought, — or ought not, — to respond to His leadings. And what, if some of these figures pass before us as on a stage, rather than in real life ? Do they on that account lose their vividness, their truthfulness, their force? On the contrary, not only do they retain all these characteristics unimpaired, but, if it be true that the figures in Genesis, as we have them, are partly, — or even, in some cases, wholly, — the creations of popular imagination, transfigured in the pure, 'dry' light which the inspired genius of prophet or priest has shed around them, the Book of Genesis is really more surprising than if it were even throughout a literally true record of events actually occurring. For to create such characters would be more wonderful than to describe them. The Book of Genesis is a marvellous gallery of portraits, from whatever originals they may have been derived. There is no other nation which can shew for its early history anything in the least degree resembling it. There is nothing like it in either Babylonia, or Egypt, or India, or Greece. The mythology of Greece, — especially as it stands before us in the two great epics with which Greek literature opens, and as particular episodes of it are made the vehicles of splendid lessons in the great tragedies of a later age, — is indeed a wonderful creation of the human mind, and an abiding monument of the intellectual genius of the nation which produced it : but the Book of Genesis stands on a different plane altogether; and even though it be not throughout what our fathers understood it to be, a verbally exact record of actual fact, this very difterence, which distinguishes it so strikingly from the corresponding literature of any other nation, remains still the strongest proof of the inspiration by its authors : the spirituality of its contents, the spiritual and moral lessons which are continually exemplified by it, and which, though they are often expressed in a simple and even childlike external garb, are nevertheless to aU intents and purposes the same as those taught afterwards by the great prophets, constitute a cogent ground for inferring the operation of a spiritual agency differing specifically from that which was present when the mythology of Egypt or Babylonia, of India or Greece, was in process of formation. St Paul does not point his readers to the Old Testament Scriptures for instruction in science or ancient history, but he says that they are profitable 'for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness' (2 Tim. iii. 16); and the Book of Genesis, even though it be understood in parts as parable Ixx INTRODUCTION [§ 4 rather than as history, is most assuredly 'profitable' for all these purposes. Let us endeavour, then, to sum up in outline the religious value of Genesis. On the first eleven chapters little can be added substantially to what has been said in the notes'. From the beginning the history is penetrated with religious ideas. The narrative of the Creation sets forth, in a series of dignified and impressive pictures, the sovereignty of God; His priority to, and separation from, all finite, material nature ; His purpose to constitute an ordered cosmos, and gradually to adapt the earth to become the habitation of living beings ; and His endoAvment of man with the peculiar, unique possession of self- conscious reason, in virtue of which he becomes capable of intellectual and moral life, and is even able to know and hold communion with his Maker. In chs. ii. 4*^ — iii. we read, — though again not in a historical, but in a pictorial or symbolical form, — how man was once innocent, how he became, — as man must have become, whether in 'Eden' or elsewhere, at some period of his existence, — conscious of a moral law, but how temptation fell upon him, and he broke it. The Fall of man, the great but terrible truth, which history, not less than individual experience, only too vividly teaches each one of us, is thus impressively set before us. Man, however, though punished by God, is not forsaken by Him, nor left, in his long conflict with evil, without hope of victory. In chap, iv., the increasing power of sin, and the fatal consequences to which, if unchecked, it may lead, is vividly portrayed in the tragic figure of Cain. The spirit of vindictiveness, and of brutal triumph in the power of the sword, is personified in Lamech. In the narrative of the Flood, God's just wrath against sin, and the divine prerogative of mercy, are alike exemplified : Noah is a standing illustration of the truth that ' righteousness delivereth from death ' ; and God's dealings with him after the Flood form a striking declaration of the purposes of grace and goodwill, with which He regards mankind. The narrative of the Tower of Babel (xi. 1 — 9) emphasizes Jehovah's supremacy over the world ; and teaches how the self-exaltation of man is checked by God. In passing to chaps, xii. — 1. we may notice first the teaching about God. If in chaps, i. — xi. God appears chiefly as the Creator and Judge of the world, in chaps, xii. — 1. He appears more particularly 1 On these chapters the small but helpful volume by Professor (now Bishop) Ryle, called The Early Narratives of Genesis (which has been several times quoted in the notes), is much recommeuded to the reader. §4] RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF GENESIS Ixxi as One who has a care and love for men. Naturally, He hates and punishes sin (xiii. 13, xv. 16, xviii. 20 f., xix., xxxix. 9, xliv. 16 ; cf. XX. 6, 11, xlii, 21, 28); but these chapters contain principally revelations of His regard for man, not only in the promises disclosing His gracious purposes towards the patriarchs and their seed (see on xii. 2 f.), but also on many other occasions : for instance, in the manner in which righteousness receives His approval and blessing (xxi. 22, xxiv. 1, 27, 35, xxv. 11, xxvi. 28, 29 end, xxxix. 2, 21, 23, and indirectly elsewhere), in the regard shewn by Him to the solitary Hagar in the wilderness (xvi. 9 ft'., xxi. 17 fF.), to Lot in Sodom (xix.), to the heathen, but guileless, Abimelech (xx. 6), to Jacob in his solitude at Bethel (xxviii. 12 ft". : cf. p. 268), or in a foreign land (xxxi. 3, 5, 13, 24, 42, xxxv. 3, xlviii. 15 f.), and to Pharaoh (xli. 25, 32). His mercy is also illustrated by xviii. 23 ft"., xix. 16 ; His providence, overruling the events of life for good, by xxiv., xlv, 5, 7, 1. 20, and other passages ; and His justice is appealed to in xvi. 5, xviii. 25, XX. 4, xxxi. 49, 50, 53. In ch. xxii. the meaning of 'pro- bation,' and the nature of the sacrifice which is pleasing in God's sight, are both strikingly exemplified*. In the sphere of human conduct, the drama of an entire life takes in chaps, xii. — 1. the place of the single, isolated episodes characteristic of chaps, i. — xi. ; and principles and motives find accordingly fuller and more vivid expression. The patriarchs vary considerably in character; there is no monotony in the delineation. Nor are they without their faults, especially Jacob, and the subordinate characters (as Lot and Laban) : the women, in particular, are often jealous, imperious, and designing. All have more or less a typical character. Abraham is not only conspicuous for such virtues as courtesy, hospitality, high-mindedness, generosity ; he is also the primary Old Testament example of obedience, and devotion to God ; spirituality of thought and aim, not austere, but attractive and winning, is the leading motive of his life. He is *an historic personage, but he is also a spiritual type : he is the ideal representative of the life of faith and of separation from the idolatries of an evil world : he prefigures the ideal character and aims of the people of God I' Isaac lives a quiet, uneventful life : he is the ideal son : he * impersonates the peaceful, obedient, submissive qualities of an equable trust in God, distinct alike from the more heroic faith of Abraham, and the lower I See also above, p. xxif. - Ottloy, Bavipton Lectures, p. V15 f. Ixxii INTRODUCTION [§ 4 type which in Jacob was learned through discipline and purged of self-will*.' Jacob is a mixed character : he possesses the good qualities of ambition and perseverance, though he employs them at first, with great unscrupulousness, for selfish and worldly ends : after his great spiritual struggle at Penuel, however, his lower self is left behind, and in his old age his character a^^)pears still further mellowed by the discipline of trial and bereavement. Joseph is an example of a stable, upright character, faithful to his trusts, proof against temptation, led, under God's providence, through many perils and many sorrowful and discouraging experiences, to a situation of exaltation and dignity, in which he employs his talents to promote the welfare of his fellow-men, and in which he displays an even Christian spirit of magnanimity and forgiveness towards those who once had bitterly wronged him. The biographies of the patriarchs present to us spiritual types, — repre- sentative examples of the varied experiences, the hopes and fears, the disappointments and the pleasures, the sorrows and the joys, the domestic trials and successes, which may be the lot of any one of us ; and they exemplify the frame of mind, — the trust, or resignation, or forbearance, or gratitude, — with which, as the case may be, they should be received, and the countless ways in which, under God's hand, the course of events is overruled for good*. There is also another point of view from which we ought not to omit to regard the Book of Genesis. It was a primary function of the Hebrew historians not merely to narrate facts as such, but also to interpret them, and in particular to interpret their religious signi- ficance, and to shew their bearing upon the religious history of Israel as a whole. This aspect of the work of the Hebrew historians is particularly conspicuous in Genesis, Be the details history or legend, or be they, as in some cases it is quite possible that they may be, an intermixture of both, all are subordinated to this point of view. Historically, the narrators may have been on some points imperfectly informed ; but nevertheless what they all aim at shewing is how 'throughout the period of obscure beginnings God was forming a people whose destiny it was to give to the world the true religion.' From Gen. iii. 14 onwards a redemptive purpose irradiates the entire narrative, shining forth at certain definite epochs with particular 1 Ryle, DB. s.v. (ii. 484"). 2 The typical religious value of the patriarchal narratives, even with the admission that they contain ideal elements, is well brought out by Mr Ottley, Bampt. Led. p. 126 f. See also Kautzsoh, Bibelwissenschaft iind ReUgionsunter- richt (1900), p. 41 f., and Die bleibeade Bedeutung des ATs., p. 24 ff. § 4] RELIGIOUS VALUE OF GENESIS Ixxiii brightness, and of course continuing to display itself in subsequent parts of the Old Testament. This is one of the features which gives the narrative its unique character and unique value. The history of the beginnings of the earth and man, and the story of Israel's ancestors, might both have been told very differently. They might have been told from a purely secular point of view. The narratives might have been impregnated with foolish superstitions. The legends respecting the beginnings of other nations are sometimes grotesquely absurd. But in the hands of Israel's inspired teachers the Hebrew legend is from the beginning suffused with pure and ennobling spiritual ideas ; and they trace in it the beginnings of the same Providential purposes which they find also in the Hebrew history into which afterwards it insensibly merges. Nor, finally, in estimating the religious value of the Book of Genesis should we forget the character of the age to which it relates, and the intellectual and spiritual capacities of those to whom in the first instance it was addressed. In the Bible we have the record of a progressive revelation, in each stage of which the measure of truth disclosed is adapted to the mental and spiritual level which has been reached by those who are to be its recipients. The Book of Genesis gives a picture of the infancy and childhood of the world : it was also primarily, at least in its principal and larger part (J and E), addressed to men who, though far from uncivilized, and enjoying the advantages of settled life and organised government, were nevertheless in many respects spiritually immature : the teaching of Amos and Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah, for example, was still unknown to them. In contents and style alike it is accordingly naturally fitted to the comprehension of those for whose use and instruction it was primarily designed. In an artless but attractive dress, and in forms adapted to impress and delight those who read them, the story of Israel's ancestors is told in it. Without any conscious moral purpose pervading the narrative, elementary lessons about right and wrong, and God and man, are taught through the simple experiences and vicissitudes of four generations in an Eastern home. In Genesis, more than in any other part of the Bible, God talks with men, as a father with his child. Need we be surprised, therefore, that there should in this book be some accommodation to the habits and modes of thought with which children are familiar ? From tales a child may learn many a lesson, without stopping to ask either himself or his teacher whether every particular tale is true or not. And the tales of Genesis, whether Ixxiv INTRODUCTION [§ 4 history or parable, are in either case inimitable, and full of lessons. Truths and duties, especially those belonging to the ' daily round and common task,' such as we all need to learn, and continually through our lives have occasion to practise, are illustrated and enforced in it by anecdotes and narratives, which the youngest can understand, from which the oldest can still learn, and which never cease to fascinate and enthral those who have once yielded themselves to their spell. ' The power of the Patriarchal narratives on the heart, the imagination, the faith of men can never die : it is immortal with truthfulness to tlie realities of human nature, and of God's education of mankind'.' » G. A. Smith, Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the OT. p. 109. Prof. Smith's estimate of the historical character of the narratives of Genesis is sub- stantially the same as that adopted in the preceding pages. Comp. also, on the general question of both the historical and the religious value of the narratives of Genesis, the very useful Introduction to Dr Wade's Book of Genesis (1896), pp. 37 fr., 49 ff., 61 i?. THE BOOK OF GENESIS. PART I. THE PREHISTORIC PERIOD. CHAPTERS L— XI. The Book of Genesis begins with an account of the creation of the universe, and of the early history of man upon the earth. It describes, in accordance with the beHefs current among the Hebrews, the process by which the earth assumed its present form, and was adapted to become the habitation of man (ch. i.) ; the situation of man's original dwelling-place, and the entrance of sin and trouble into the world (ch. ii. — iii.); the beginnings of civilization (ch. iv.); the growth of population (ch. v.) ; the increasing prevalence of Avickedness, and destruction of the whole human race, with the exception of a single family, by a flood (ch. vi. — is.); and lastly the re-peopling of the earth, and the rise of separate nations, and of the Hebrews in particular, out of the descendants of this family (ch. x. — xi.). Though in parts of these chapters there may be dim recollections of historical occurrences, the narrative, as a whole, cannot bo regarded as an historical record of actual events. The reasons for this conclusion will appear more fully in the sequel : it must, however, be almost self-evident that trustworthy information respecting periods so remote as those here in question could not have been accessible to the BibHcal writers ; and it is also certain that there are statements in these chapters inconsistent mth what is known independently of the early history of the earth, and of mankind upon it. The narrative of these chapters consists rather of ' a series of infer- ences relating to times which are pre-historic. It represents the explanations, arrived at in ways that it is now impossible to trace, which reflection furnished of the many questions spontaneously occurring to a primitive race respecting themselves and their surroundings \' Similar narratives are found in the early literature of many other peoples. The nearest parallels to the BibHcal records are afforded (as will shortly become apparent) by Babylonia, a country with which the Hebrews were once closely connected ; and recent discoveries have shewn 'that certain common beliefs concerning the beginnings of the earth and of man must have prevailed in the circle of nations to which both Baby- lonians and Hebrews belonged I' The distinguishing characteristics of the B_iblical narrative arc however the IoftyreIigiousl]3^ by Avhicint is donfmated, ^fidJtheliiirjtu^^^Ksson^ though the seemingly historical TuirraBveTlvTthlvI^^ arc associated should prove to be no record of actual events, but to represent merely the course of the past as it was pictured by the Biblical writers. To us, the jjri^pal_valuej)f tlie^narrativ^onsists injhejpintualjea^^ thus implicit injt ; and this it will be an objecToTtEe following comraSataryTo^oiiairout. 1 Wade, Old Test. Hist. (1901), p. 37. 2 ma. n. 1 2 THE BOOK OF GENESIS Chapters I. 1— 11. i\ The Creation of the World. The Book of Genesis opens with a sublime and dignified narrative, describ- ing the creation of heaven and eai-th, and the stages by which, as the narrator pictured it, the latter was gradually fitted to become the habitation of man. Starting with a state of primaeval chaos, in which the earth is represented as enveloped in a huge mass of surrounding waters, shrouded in darkness, yet brooded over by the Spirit of God, the writer describes successively (1) the production of light ; (2) the division of this mass of primaeval waters into two parts, an upper and a lower, by means of a 'firmament'; (3) the emergence of the dry land out of the lower waters ; (4) the clothing of the dry land with gi-ass, herbs, and trees ; (5) the creation of sun, moon, and stars ; (6) the pro- duction of fishes and birds ; (7) the appearance of terrestrial animals ; (8) the creation of man ; (9) God's rest after His work of creation. There are thus eight distinct creative works, which, with God's rest at the close, are adjusted with remarkable symmetry to the week of seven days. The six days of creation fall into two sections of three days each ; and the third and the sixth days have each two works assigned to them. The first three days, moreover, are days of preparation, the next three are days of accompHshment. On the first day light is created, and on the fourth day comes the creation of the luminaries which are for the future to be its receptacles ; on the second day the waters 'below the firmament,' and (as we should say) the air, appear, and on the fifth day fishes and birds are created to people them ; on the third day the dry land appears, and the earth is clothed with vegetation ; on the sixth day terrestrial animals and man are created, who are to inhabit the dry land, and {vv. 29, 30) to live upon food supj)lied by its vegetation. In the order in which the different creative works are arranged there is an evident gradation, each work as a rule occupying the place in which it might be naturally regarded as the condition, or suitable forerunner, of the work next following, and in the case of living things, there being an obvious ascent from lower to higher, the climax of the Avhole being formed by man. The narrative belongs to the Priestly source of the Ilexateuch (see p. iv), the literary characteristics of which it displays in a marked degree. It will be sufficient to notice here the use throughout of the name God (not Jehovah), and the methodical articulation of the narrative into sections, each marked by the recurrence of stereotyped formulae. Thus each creative act is introduced by the words And God mid {vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26); and it was so is found six times («»}^n, 11, 15, 24, 30); the mark of Divine approval, and God saw that it was good, is repeated seven times (in lxx. eight times, once after each work), vv. 4, S (lxx.), 10, 12, IS, 21 , 25, 31 (the last time, with a significant variation); and the close of each day's work is marked by the standing formula, and evening came, and morning came,.. .day {vv. 5, 8, 12, 19, 23, 31). On some general questions arising out of the narrative, see p. 19 fi". 1. 1,.] THE BOOK OF GENESIS 3 I. 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the P earth. 2 And the earth was waste and void ; and darkness was 1. 1. Introduction. The verse (as rendered in EW.) gives a summary of the description which follows, stating the broad general fact of the creation of the universe ; the details of the process then form the subject of the rest of the chapter'. In the beginning. Not absolutely, but relatively : at the hegin- ning of the order of things which we see, and in the midst of which human history unfolds itself (Pero^vne, Expositor, Oct. 1890, p. 248). God. On the Heb. word, see the Excursus at the end of the volume. created. The root signifies to cut (see, in the intensive conjug.. Josh. xvii. 15, 18 ; Ez. xxiii. 47) : so probably the proper meaning of Nin is to fashion by cutting, to shape. In the simple conjugation, however, it is used exclusively of God, to denote viz. the production of something fundamentally new, by the exercise of a sovereign originative power, altogether transcending that possessed by man. Although, however, the term thus unquestionably denotes a super- human, miraculous activity, it is doubtful whether it was felt to express definitely the idea of creatio ex nihilo'^; and certainly, as Pearson {On the Creed, fol. 52) points out, this doctrine cannot be estabhshed from it. The word is very frequent in the Second Isaiah (as xl. 26, 28, xlii. 5, xlv. 7, 12, 18). In Ps. civ. 30 it is used of the ever-recurring renovation of life upon the earth. Its figurative ap- plications are also noticeable : as of the formation of a nation by Jehovah, Is. xliii. 1, 15 ; and of the production of some surprising or striking efi"ect, or of some new condition or circumstances, beyond the power of man to bring about, as Ex. xxxiv. 10 (RVm.); Nu. xvi. 30 (RVm.) ; Jer. xxxi. 22 ; Is. xlv. 8, Lxv. 17. the heaven and the earth. I.e. the universe, as it was known to the Hebrews, in its completed state. 2. The writer now turns at once to the earth, in which, as the future home of man, and the theatre of human activity, he is more particularly interested ; and proceeds to describe what its condition was when God 'spake,' as described in v. 3. the earth. As the sequel shews, the term here denotes the earth, not as we know it now, but in its primitive chaotic, unformed state. was without form and void. Heb. tdhii tva-bdhu—aji alliterative description of a chaos, in which nothing can be distinguished or defined. Tohu is a word which it is difficult to express consistently in English : but it denotes mostly something unsubstantial, or (fig.) 1 Many modern scholars, however (including Dillmann), construe vv. 1 — 3 in this way : 'In the beginning of God's creating the heaven and the earth, — now the earth was without form, &c. [v. 2], — God said, Let there be light,' &c. So already the celebrated Jewish commentator Eashi (a.d. 1040—1105), and similarly Ibn Ezra (1092—1167). = ef ovK ovTw, 2 Mace. vii. 28. Cf. the Shepherd of Hernias, i. i. 6 with the parallels from Ecclesiastical writers collected in the note in Gebhardt and Harnack's edition. On Heb. xi. 3, see Westcott's note. 1—2 4 THE BOOK OF GENESIS [i. a unreal^', cf. Is. xlv. 18 (of the eartli), 'He created it not a tohu, he fashioned it to be inhabited,' -y. 19 ' I said not, Seek ye me as a tohu (i.e. in vain).' Bohu (only twice besides), as Arabic shews, is rightly rendered empty or void. Comp. the same combination of words to suggest the idea of a return to primaeval chaos in Jer. iv. 23, and Is. xxxiv. 11 ('the line of tohu and the plummet of bohic'y. upon the face of the deej). Heb. fhom. Not here what the 'deep' would denote to us, i.e. the sea, but the primitive undivided waters, the huge watery mass which the writer conceived as enveloping the chaotic earth. Milton {P. L. vii. 276 £f.) gives an excellent paraphrase : The earth was formed, but, in the womb as yet Of waters, embryon immature, involved, Appeared not, — over all the face of earth Main ocean flowed. In the Babylonian cosmogony, also, as reported by Berossus (see DB. I. 504''; or KAT.^ (1902), p. 488), all things began in darkness and water; and fhom recalls at once the Bab. Tidmat (see p. 28). the spirit of God &c. In the OT. the 'spirit' of man is the principle of life, viewed especially as the seat of the stronger and more active energies of Hfe; and the 'spirit' of God is analogously the Divine force or agency, to the operation of which are attributed various extraordinary powers and activities of men, as also super- natural spiritual gifts (see e.g. Gen. xli. 38; Ex. xxxi. 3 j Num. xi. 17; 1 S. xi. 6, xvi. 13; Mic. iii. 8; Is. xi. 2, xlii. 1, lix. 21, Ixi. 1; Ez. xxxvi. 27); in the later books of the OT., it appears also as the power which creates and sustains life (cf. Ez. xxxvii. 14; Is. xhv. 3f._; Jobxxxiii. 4; iPs. civ. 30*). It is in the last-named capacity that it is mentioned here. The chaos of v. 2 was not left in hopeless gloom and death ; already, even before God 'spake' {v. 3), the spirit of God, with its life-giving energy, was ' brooding ' over the waters, like a bird upon its nest, and (so it seems to be implied) fitting them in some way to generate and maintain life, when the DvnuQfiat should be pronounced*. 1 The following are its occurrences (besides those noted above) : Is. xxix. 21 'that turn aside the just [from their right] with a thing of nought,' i.e. by baseless allegations, xl. 17 ' are counted by him as made of nothing and tohu (RV. vanity),' 23 (RV. vanity, \\ nothing), xli. 29 (RV. confusion, RVm. nought), xliv. 9 [vanity, m. confusion), xhx. 4 for nought {=in vain), lix. 4 vanity (i.e. moral unreality, falsehood); Job xxvi. 7 (RV. empty space); 1 S. xii. 21, of idols (RV. vain things); Is. xxiv. 10 (RV. confusion). It is also used sometimes poetically of an undefined, untracked, indeterminable expanse, or waste : Dt. xxxii. 10, Job vi. 18 RV., xii. 24 = Ps. cvii. 40. The ancient Versions usually render it by words signifying emptiness, nothingness, vanity (as Kevov, ovd^v, /xdraiov, inane, vacuum, vanum). 2 Lxx. render here doparos Kal dKaTaa-Kevaaroi. Cf. Wisd. ii. 17 (18) i] wavTodivaixbi aov xetp Kal KTlcaaa rov k6ctij.ov i^ dix6p